Loading...
07/19/2011 - Work Session - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2011 CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 78B-1-137, AND f) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS DEPLOYMENT OF SECURITY PERSONNEL, DEVICES OR SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE SECTION 52-4-205 (1) (f) . This item was not held. #2 . 6: 09 : 02 PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. See File M 11-5 for Announcements. #3 . 3 : 08 :42 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2705 EAST PARLEYS WAY FROM COMMUNITY BUSINESS (CB) TO COMMUNITY SHOPPING (CS) AND CHANGE THE EAST BENCH COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED REZONING. THIS ACTION WOULD FACILITATE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY (A FORMER KMART STORE) AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW WALMART SUPERCENTER. ) PETITIONER - BALLARD SPAHR LLP REPRESENTING WALMART STORES, INC. (PETITIONS PLNPCM2010-00556 AND PLNPCM2010-00557) . View Attachments Wilford Sommerkorn, Wayne Mills, Janice Jardine, Delia Garcia, Christina Corondo, Troy Herold, Joe Perrin and Shad Vermeesch briefed the Council from the attached handouts and a power point presentation. Councilmember Martin said Walmart had passed out cards to residents . He asked what the purpose of the cards was . Ms . Garcia said the cards were to demonstrate whether there was support and how broad that support was for rezoning the property. Councilmember Martin said there was certain information required and needed for a petition. He said the Council needed to review that information to make sure the information was at least at State standard for a petition. Councilmember Love said the Council could set the date of August 23, 2011 for a public hearing. All Council Members were in favor of holding a public hearing. #4. 5: 00 : 38 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A LOAN FROM SALT LAKE CITY TO THE LIBRARY SQUARE FOUNDATION FOR ART, CULTURE AND SCIENCE (THE LEONARDO) FOR ITS OPERATIONS. SALT LAKE CITY HAS FUNDS AVAILABLE IN A REVOLVING LOAN FUND (RLF) TO STIMULATE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT; THE LEONARDO IS APPLYING FOR A LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF $600, 000. View Attachments Jennifer Bruno, Dan Velazquez, Rick Graham and Bianca Shreeve briefed the Council from the attached handouts. Council Members were in favor of moving forward with the approval of the loan. 11 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, JULY 19, 2011 #5. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW FOR THE NORTH TEMPLE VIADUCT, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AREA NO. 109014; SETTING THE DATES FOR THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION TO HEAR AND CONSIDER OBJECTIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO ANY PROPOSED ASSESSMENT; AUTHORIZING THE CITY RECORDER TO PUBLISH AND MAIL A NOTICE OF MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW; AND RELATED MATTERS. (THE BOE HEARING PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO DISCUSS WITH THE BOARD ANY ACTUAL COSTS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED. THE BOARD WILL HEAR AND CONSIDER ANY OBJECTIONS AND MAKE CORRECTIONS OF ANY PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS WHICH THE BOARD MAY DEEM UNEQUAL OR UNJUST. ) View Attachments This item was not held. #6. 5:40 :32 PM RECEIVE AN UPDATE REGARDING THE CREATION OF A STREET LIGHTING ENTERPRISE FUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAINING STREET LIGHTS CITY-WIDE. View Attachments Jeff Niermeyer, Tim Harpst, Russell Weeks, Mike Barry and Jim Lewis briefed the Council from the attached handouts . The meeting adjourned at 6 : 23 p.m. \1/4, Aa COUNCIL CHAIR /'.•' • .r ER This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held July 19, 2011. bj 11 - 3 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: July 14,2011 SUBJECT: Petitions PLNPCM2010-00556&PLNPCM2010-00557 • Ballard Spar representing Walmart Stores,Inc. • Request to change the East Bench Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map and rezone property located at 2705 E. Parleys Way from the Community Business CB to the Community Shopping CS zoning district. AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinance is adopted the master plan and rezoning changes would affect Council District 7 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Department,Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Wayne Mills,Senior Planner COUNCIL PROCESS: The Council is scheduled so receive a briefing on July 19. The Administration has provided a comprehensive staff report. This document summarizes sections of that and identifies potential matters at issue.The following items have been brought forward from the Administration's transmittal for ease of reference and additional background purposes. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity map B. February 9,2011 Planning staff report C. Retail Sales Capture/Leakage Analysis(prepared by Planning staff) D. February 9,2011 Planning Commission minutes E. Community Business CB and Community Shopping CS zoning regulations,use comparison and map F. Public Comment • Comments received in the Council office • Council sponsored Open City Hall item 1 KEY ELEMENTS: This section of the Council staff report is divided into 3 subsections: I. General Process information II. Master Plan Amendment information III. Zoning Information (Please note that the Matters at Issue and Policy Considerations begin on pg.8) I. General Process information A. Previous Petitions and new 2010/2011 Proposal-What changed?(Please see the Planning staff report for details.pgs.4-5) 1. In June 2007,Walmart submitted the same two types of petitions as those reviewed at the February 9,2011 Planning Commission meeting.At that time,the preliminary development plan included an 115,060 sq.ft.retail building with a 5,057 sq.ft.garden center.In September 2008,the Planning Commission reviewed the petitions in a public hearing and voted to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council.Walmart withdrew their petitions before the City Council considered the requests. 2. According to the Planning staff report,the preliminary development plan submitted with these new petitions reduces the size of the retail building to 91,750 sq.ft.and eliminates the garden center.The height of the building would average 26 feet with a maximum height of 33 feet.The new plan includes designated walkways between Foothill Drive and Parleys Way.In addition,the new plan provides a 1.15 acre parcel for additional development.Walmart representatives have indicated that they have no specific plans for the site,but would like to work with the community to determine the best use.They noted that if the community does not want another use on the property,the area would be used for additional parking. B. Due to a negative recommendation from the Planning Commission,an ordinance has not been prepared for Council consideration.An ordinance will be prepared by the City Attomey's office prior to or after the public hearing,upon request of the Council C. The proposed master plan change and rezoning would be the first step to allow demolition of the existing building(former Kmart store)and redevelopment of property located at 2705 E.Parleys Way for a new big box/superstore retail business(Walmart Supercenter).The property is approximately 10.56 acres in size.(Please see the attached vicinity map for location details.ATTACHMENT A) D. The City is not reviewing Walmart's preliminary development plans. (That will happen later if the rezone and master plan requests are approved.)Walmart has submitted a preliminary site plan;however, site plan and design approval has not been requested at this time. E. If the property is rezoned and the master plan changed,Walmart would be required to obtain Planned Development approval from the Planning Commission based on a specific set of design criteria provided in the zoning regulations.This allows the Planning Commission to require certain site design elements to mitigate impacts specific to the site and surrounding area. F. If the property is not rezoned,Walmart would still be able to open a new store in the existing building but would be limited in expanding or making improvements to the building. 2 G. Walmart has obtained a permit to remodel the existing building. They have the right to remodel and open a store whether or not the City approves the rezone and master plan change. H. Surrounding land uses include commercial/office uses to the east,multi-family residential uses to the north(Foothill Place Apartments),single-family residential uses to the south across Parleys Way and commercial/office used directly west with single-family residential uses to the northwest on Stringham Avenue and to the southwest across Parleys Way. I. A development and zoning history of the property is provided in the Planning staff report. (Please see the Planning staff report,"Purpose of Request",for details.pgs.3-4.) J. According to the Planning staff report,the Planning Division has not received comments from applicable City Department/Divisions that cannot reasonably be fulfilled or that warrant denial of the petitions.Any development proposal will be required to comply with City standards and regulations and demonstrate that there are adequate services to meet the needs of the project. K. The public process included presentations to the East Bench,Sugar House,and Sunnyside East Community Councils,Open City Hall online public comment forum(sponsored by the City Council- June 29,2011 and the Planning Division-October 2010),written notification of the Planning Commission hearing to property owners in the surrounding area,Community Council Chairs and the Planning Division electronic list serve. Notice was also posted on the City's website.Walmart also conducted their own public support campaign at some of their local Walmart stores. (Detailed summaries of public comments can be found in the Planning staff report,pgs.5-7 and in the Planning staff report Attachments C,D,and F.) L. On February 9,2011,the Planning Commission held a public hearing and,based on the information presented in the staff report and at the public hearing,voted six to one to recommend that the City Council deny Walmart's proposal to rezone the property and change the Future Land Use Map in the East Bench Community Master Plan.The Planning staff report provided options and an analysis of the CB versus CS zones.(Please see the Planning staff report and the Planning Commission minutes for details ATTACHMENTS B&D). The Planning staff report notes: 1. There were 91 public comment cards submitted in the hearing with 48 people in support and 43 opposed.The Planning Commission minutes provide of summary of comments made in support and opposition of the petitions. 2. Comments made both in support and in opposition closely reflected the comments sent to the Planning staff prior to the public hearing. 1. The one Commissioner in support of the proposed changes noted: a. A big box retailer was once allowed on the site and can continue. b. The only way that the City can ensure that the future Walmart store is developed properly is to rezone the property. c. The property is more in common with the Community Shopping CS zone than the Community Business CB zone. d. Changing the zoning would not significantly alter the East Bench Master Plan. 2. Individual Commissioners who did not support the proposed amendments made the following points: a. The City needs to consider the long term vision for the property and what zoning is appropriate. The issue is not the development of a new Walmart store. b. The existing zoning needs to remain in place long enough to achieve the community vision. c. The community does not want a big box store. 3 d. The City does not need to rush into amending the master plan.Sufficient time is needed to achieve the master plan goals. e. Developers make a mistake in thinking that they can do whatever they want with the land.The land really belongs to the people and it is the City's responsibility to ensure that the community's goals are achieved. f. Development should not drive the master plan.The master plan should drive development. B. Master Plan information 1. State law does not provide criteria for master plan review. In the recent past,Planning staff has provided the following information regarding master plan changes. a. The Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance does not specifically address nor provide criteria for the evaluation of proposed master plan changes. b. Utah State Law provides a specific noticing requirement regarding master plan amendment requests. c. The Zoning Ordinance specifies that all master plans or general plans adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council for the city or an area of the city,shall serve as an advisory guide for land use decisions. d. Analysis of relevant City adopted master plans and polices are used to evaluate proposed master plan changes. 011 e. Essentially,it is incumbent upon Planning staff to provide a recommendation based on policies in any related adopted plans regarding whether a proposed land use change is appropriate or not. 2. The Planning staff report provides a detailed discussion,analysis and findings relating to the proposed master plan amendment.Analysis and findings were evaluated in the Planning staff report and considered by the Planning Commission. (Please see the Planning staff report for details. pgs. 7-8 and 11-14. ) 3. The following Master Plans/Policy documents were used in Planning staffs analysis: • East Bench Master Plan(1987/1996) • Transportation Master Plan(1993) • City Vision and Strategic Plan(1993) 4. The Planning staff report notes that the proposed master plan amendment does not substantially contradict any of the other policies,goals or strategies of the East Bench Master Plan and that modifying the master plan would not substantially impact the integrity of either the community or the master plan.Key points are summarized below. a. The East Bench Master Plan was adopted in 1987 and is one of the oldest master plan documents in the City and may not reflect current community goals. b. When the Plan was adopted,the Kmart store was operational,was a permitted use,and complied with the"Neighborhood Business"Future Land Use Map designation in the Plan. c. In 1995,the future land use designations in all adopted master plans were changed as part of the citywide zoning rewrite project to be consistent with the new zoning classifications. d. The Plan itself was not changed to indicate whether a big box retail use,such as Kmart,would no longer be appropriate at this site. e. Goals and policies from the Plan that maybe applicable when analyzing the proposed master plan amendment are listed below. (Please see the Planning staff report for a detailed discussion of each item. pgs.12-14) • Wholesale,warehouse and other general commercial uses are not permitted. • Many residents desire additional services in their community. 4 • Redevelopment or at least renovation of some business properties...is quite likely and is considered the most desirable approach to meeting future business needs... • Major zoning changes...are neither anticipated nor encouraged.Changes involving expansion of existing business sites in response to documented needs should be reviewed cautiously and approved sparingly. • The city should not approve any zoning change that will result in the removal of homes.The community is so completely developed that a change of zoning in most areas would negatively impact surrounding residential properties. • More efficient use of existing business properties is the preferred approach to meet future business needs. • A gateway center should be located near the entrance to the city...the Parleys Way site should be considered only if the other sites prove unworkable. 5. Retail Sales Capture/Leakage Analysis (Please see the Planning staff report for details. pgs.12-13 and ATTACHMENT C—Retail Sales Capture/Leakage Analysis at the end of this staff report.) a. Planning staff conducted a limited study to determine if there is sufficient retail to support the East Bench residents and found that there is a need for additional retail businesses.They note that this is not a surprise considering the East Bench Master Plan states that less than 2%of the land acreage in the community is occupied by business uses. b. This study was done only for the purpose of this request and did not address other community needs,such as the potential need for additional residential land uses. c. A comprehensive review and update(if needed)of the East Bench Master Plan would be required in order to address community needs across-the-board. d. Additional retail services can be provided on the subject property in both the existing CB district and proposed CS district. e. Potential sales are calculated by determining the per capita sales in a larger comparison area, multiplying that by the population of the subject target area to determine the potential sales,and then adjusting the potential sales for a difference in the trade area and larger area income.The final result of the analysis attempts to determine if money is being spent within the target area (capture)or if money is being spent outside of the target area(leakage). f. The analysis included three target areas defined by zip code: • 84108 • 84108,84112,84113,84102,84105,84106 • 84108,84112,84113,84102,84105,84106,84109 g. Analysis shows that in the 84108 zip code area,potential sales greatly exceed the actual sales, with the exception of the food store sector. h. As the study area expands in size,the analysis still shows that additional retail services could be needed in the area,with the exception of food stores. HI. Zoning information 1. Nonconforming use and noncomplying structure. (Please see the Planning staff report for details.pgs 3-4) a. The property was rezoned in 1995 to Community Business CB as part of the citywide rezoning project.At that time,Kmart was still considered a permitted use as a retail goods establishment. As a result of the rezoning,the structure on the property became non-complying with the zoning area regulations in the CB zoning district. 5 b. In January 2004 and November 2005,the City changed the zoning regulations to identify different types of retail uses(Conventional Department Stores,Mass Merchandising Store, Specialty Store,Superstore and Hypermarket Store,and Warehouse Club Store)and identified zoning districts in which the uses would be allowed.The CB zoning district was changed to allow only"Retail goods establishments"and"Retail services establishments"as permitted uses. Under the new definitions,Kmart was considered a"Superstore and Hypermarket Store",which is not allowed in the CB zone;therefore,Kmart became a nonconforming use. c. The zoning regulations allow continuation of a noncomplying structure with a nonconforming use even if property ownership changes.Expansion of noncomplying buildings is permitted to a limited extent.This would impact improvements of the building's overall design. d. Walmart has obtained a permit to remodel the existing building and open a store if the City does not approve the rezone and master plan changes. 2. Commercial Business CB and Commercial Shopping CS zoning information a. The Planning staff report provides a detailed discussion,analysis and findings for the proposed rezoning request.Key points are summarized below.Analysis and findings were evaluated in the Planning staff report and considered by the Planning Commission. (For details,please see the Planning staff report for discussion,analysis and findings.pgs.7-8 and 11-14 and Attachment E —CB and CS zoning regulations,use comparison and current zoning map at the end of this staff report.) b. The CB and CS districts are both commercial zoning districts and allow similar uses.The main difference is that the CS district allows uses that require larger land area,such as commercial recreation centers,amusement parks,motion picture studios and big box retail uses. c. It is essentially the scale or size of buildings that are different between the two zoning districts. d. The CS district is generally characterized by larger parcels,or a combination of smaller parcels that function as a larger parcel,with controlled driveway access that serves one large business or a combination of businesses.Properties are generally located along arterial streets that serve as major thoroughfares. • Examples of CS zoned areas include Trolley Square,Plaza 700 Shopping Center(1740 West 700 North),Brickyard Plaza,and Foothill Village. e. The CB zoning district is generally characterized by smaller parcels that are owned and operated independently with driveway access serving one parcel or use.Buildings can be placed closer to the street frontage.Parcels located in the CB zoning district are more closely integrated with surrounding residential land uses and have direct pedestrian access by way of existing public sidewalks.Properties are generally located along arterial and collector streets. • Examples of the CB zoning district include the 2100 South/700 East commercial strip,9th and 9 ,the Highland Drive commercial strip,and most of the commercial properties along the east end of 2100 South and Parleys Way(see attached map,Attachment F). f. The purpose and intent of the City zoning regulations is to promote the health,safety,morals, convenience,order,prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City,to implement the adopted plans of the city,and to carry out the purposes of the municipal land use development and management act,title 10,chapter 9,of the Utah Code Annotated or its successor,and other relevant statutes.This title is,in addition,intended to: o Lessen congestion in the streets or roads; o Secure safety from fire and other dangers; o Provide adequate light and air; o Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilization; o Protect the tax base; 6 o Secure economy in governmental expenditures; o Foster the city's industrial,business and residential development;and o Protect the environment. • The Planning staff report notes: o Rezoning the property to CS could enhance the City's tax base by allowing land uses that draw people from not only the immediate neighborhood,but the surrounding communities as well. o Rezoning the property to CS could help foster commercial development because the CS zone is less restrictive in allowable land uses;however,some believe that the competition may hurt existing smaller local businesses. g. The purpose of the CB community business district is intended to provide for the close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods.The design guidelines are intended to facilitate retail that is pedestrian in its orientation and scale, while also acknowledging the importance of transit and automobile access to the site. h. The purpose of the CS community shopping district is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive shopping center development at a community level scale. • The Planning staff report notes that when comparing the subject property to existing properties in both the CB and CS zoning districts,the subject property has characteristics more associated with the CS zone. o At approximately 10 acres,the property is comparable in size to other properties zoned CS,but much bigger than properties zoned CB. o The property is located along two arterial streets that serve as major thoroughfares into and out of the City. o The property has limited controlled access points that could serve multiple uses on a single parcel. o The property is isolated from the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods, with the exception of the Foothill Place apartments located to the north.The residential neighborhoods to the east and to the south are separated by arterial streets.Classifying the site as a future pedestrian accessed development is questionable due to these street barriers and the distance between the property and a dense population base. o In reality,even if the property were developed in a walkable village configuration,it would still be predominantly accessed by the automobile until a major public transportation investment is made in the area. i. The East Bench Master Plan provides the following criteria for considering zoning changes.The applicant's request was evaluated by Planning staff using these criteria in addition to the criteria for zoning map changes in the zoning regulations.(Please see the Planning staff report for details.pgs.14-19.) • Proponents must demonstrate that any zoning change is clearly justified by the substantive provisions of this master plan. • There must be a demonstrated need for the new business proposal and documented community support.Property owners must address the issue of business need in the whole city perspective and why the proposed site is the best location with regard to the best interest of the community and city. • Property must be on a street that can handle the additional traffic. • The site must be large enough for adequate open space and parking without overcrowding the lot. • Business projects must be of a density,scale and design that will not negatively impact neighboring residential properties. • Multiple family units should not develop in areas with strong low density character... Zoning should not be changed to accommodate new business unless it is adjacent to an existing business. 7 111 • "Spot or strip"zoning to accommodate new businesses is strongly discouraged. • New businesses should be designed to be a logical extension of adjacent businesses, maintaining complimentary building design and landscaping motifs. j. The Planning staff report notes that the requested zoning amendment generally meets the criteria for zoning amendments as stated in the East Bench Master Plan;however,the following are areas of concern: • Demonstrated need:There is a need for more retail within the East Bench community; however,this could be accommodated in either the CB or CS zone.Also,Walmart can operate a general merchandise use on the property without a rezoning subject to the nonconforming and noncomplying regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. • Documented Community Support:Staff has received documented community support; however,it is not an overwhelming majority. (Council staff note: Extreme caution is always exercised by elected official when considering zoning issues to avoid assertions that action is taken based on "public clamor"rather than policy.) • Traffic:The submitted traffic impact study shows that Parleys Way can carry the anticipated increase in vehicles;however,Foothill is already at capacity during peak hours.It is important to note that this issue could be relevant to any successful development on the site, regardless of the zoning. • Negative impacts on neighboring residential:As stated above,there are potential negative impacts;however,these can be mitigated through proper site design. k. The Planning staff notes that the East Bench Master Plan needs to be reviewed and,if necessary, updated.Although the requested amendment generally meets the policies of the adopted Master Plan,this may or may not reflect the current goals and needs of the community. • Planning staff is of the opinion that a Development Agreement should be signed by the City and the applicant that restricts development on the site to what is currently proposed until the Master Plan is updated. • Through the Master Plan update process,the City may find that the subject property should continue to be zoned CS.At that time,the City should re-evaluate the Development Agreement.If the City finds that the property should be zoned differently,the City should rezone the property to the appropriate zoning district.In that case,Walmart may become a I nonconforming use.This is the same situation that applies today;however,the site would be developed according the requirements of a planned development approval. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION: A. Issues relating to this request have been raised in many different ways and in many different forums throughout the process. Typically in land use decisions consideration is given to the use and its impacts in general rather than to the needs of a specific business or entity.Land use changes should be considered from the standpoint of the community and the City as a whole,and not with the special interests of a few property owners or entities in mind. The core issue that the Council must weigh is the potential benefits and impacts on the area and the City rather than whether a specific business should be allowed on the property.There is sometimes confusion that the Council could allow or decline zoning based upon the brand name of a business. 8 B. The following options were provided by Planning staff for Planning Commission consideration in making a recommendation to the City Council. (Please see the Planning staff report for a detailed discussion of each option.pgs.9-11) Since the Council has the responsibility to make the final decision regarding rezoning requests,the Council could consider these options and other alternatives identified through the Council's deliberations. 1. Deny the petitions • The petitions could be denied based on a decision that the petitions are not in the best interest of the City. • (Council staff note:If the Council were to choose this option,it would be helpful for the Council to identify specific reasons for denial in cooperation with legal counsel.) 2. Deny the petitions until the East Bench Master Plan is updated a. The petitions could denied until the City conducts a review of the Plan to determine if the plan is still meeting the goals of the community and how the subject property fits in with those goals. b. The City might determine that a zoning district such as the CS zone is an appropriate zoning designation.At that time,the property owner or the City would initiate a petition to rezone the property. (Council staff note:As previously noted,if the property is not rezoned,Walmart would still be able to open a new store in the existing building but would be limited in expanding or making improvements to the building.) 3. Approve the petitions with no conditions • If the property is rezoned to CS,Walmart will need to submit a Planned Development application to the City for the construction of a new store. 4. Approve the petitions with the condition that Walmart and the City sign a Development Agreement • The Planning staff report notes the following regarding development agreements. a. Development agreements associated with zoning amendments should only be required if there are impacts associated with the particular property that are not generally associated with other properties in the same zoning district. b. Planning staff does not fmd that there are peculiar circumstances associated with the property itself.The site shares the same characteristics as other properties zoned CS. c. The property is located within the East Bench Master Plan community and the master plan needs to be reviewed and updated.For this reason,Planning staff promotes the use of a development agreement to restrict the development activity on the site until the City has the resources to update the master plan. d. Through the Master Plan update process,the City may fmd that the CS zoning district is appropriate.At that time,the City should re-evaluate the development agreement.If the City finds that the property should be zoned differently,the City could rezone the property to the appropriate zoning district.In that case,Walmart may become a nonconforming use,which is the same situation that applies today. e. Some members of the community have expressed concern that development agreements are difficult to track and the City has not adequately enforced previous agreements. f. The City now has a permit tracking program(Accela)where documents,such as development agreements,can be tracked by property address.When an applicant applies for a building permit or planning review application,these documents are immediately uploaded showing the specific conditions related to the property. 9 g. The Planning staff report includes specific conditions that would be included in a development agreement based on the preliminary development plan submitted with these petitions. (Please see the Planning staff report for details. pg.11) (Council staff note: Conditions could be included in the development agreement to provide assurance to the community that the proposed development would occur as presented at the time of the rezoning request and provide an additional level of control on the property.) C. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration and the applicant if it would be acceptable/appropriate to delay action on the petitions until completion of the Foothill Corridor/Parley's Wayl"Gateway to the City"Plan and the East Bench Master Plan update. 1. The petitions were processed prior to the Council's 2011/2012 budget deliberations. 2. As part of this year's budget,the Council funded a Foothill Corridor/Parley's Way plan and a long- range planning position dedicated to long-range land use planning and to help update all community land use plans. 3. Delaying action on these petitions would allow the City,the applicant and the community to comprehensively address major land use issues in this area and the East Bench community. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. As previously noted,the following Master Plans were used in the Planning staffs analysis. • East Bench Master Plan(1987/1996) (For details,please see this staff report Key Elements items II.4—pg.4,III.I—pg.7/8 and Matters at Issue items B&C and the Planning staff report for additional details.) • Transportation Master Plan(1993) o Defines arterial routes as streets provided"for through traffic movement over long . distances...with some access to abutting property."Furthermore,"these streets are typically the widest and have the highest speed limits of all the streets within the city."Foothill Drive is listed as an example in the master plan.Parleys Way is an arterial as well.One of the directions listed in the plan for arterials is"to encourage commuter traffic to use arterial streets rather than local and collector streets"by maintaining the arterials'carrying capacity. • City Vision and Strategic Plan(1993) o States a goal of facilitating"development of complimentary retail shopping opportunities in city neighborhoods and commercial areas of the city."This goal's action step is to"work with developers to ensure additional retail shopping opportunities within the City,"and the progress indicators are the"amount of new retail space annually"and the"new tax dollars generated annually." Additional citywide Master Plan and Policy considerations are provided below: B. The Council's growth policy notes that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served;and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. C. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city,ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly,convenient,and inviting,but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The Plans emphasize placing a high priority on maintaining and • developing new affordable residential housing in attractive,friendly,safe environments and creating 10 attractive conditions for business expansion including retention and attraction of large and small businesses. D. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image, neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. Policy concepts include: 1. Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall urban design scheme for the city. 2. Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvement and stability. 3. Ensure that building restoration and new construction enhance district character. 4. Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the city regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided. 5. Treat building height,scale and character as significant features of a district's image. 6. Ensure that features of building design such as color,detail,materials and scale are responsive to district character,neighboring buildings,and the pedestrian. E. The Transportation Master Plan contains policy statements that include support of alternative forms of transportation,considering impacts on neighborhoods on at least an equal basis with impacts on transportation systems and giving all neighborhoods equal consideration in transportation decisions. The Plan recognizes the benefits of locating high density housing along major transit systems and reducing dependency on the automobile as a primary mode of transportation. F. The City's Comprehensive Housing Plan policy statements address a variety of housing issues including quality design,architectural designs compatible with neighborhoods,public and neighborhood participation and interaction,accommodating different types and intensities of residential developments, transit-oriented development,encouraging mixed-income and mixed-use developments,housing preservation,rehabilitation and replacement,zoning policies and programs that preserve housing opportunities as well as business opportunities. PROCESS CHRONOLOGY: The Administration's transmittal provides a chronology of events relating to the proposed rezoning and master plan change. Key dates are listed below. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for details. • August 27,2010 Applications submitted to Planning Division • September 1,2010 Petition assigned to planner(Wayne Mills) • October 20,2010 Item posted on Open City Hall for comment • Community Council meetings: o Sept.20&Nov.3,2010 Sugar House Community Council o Oct.20&Nov.17,2010 East Bench Community Council o Nov.30,2010 Sunnyside East Community Council o Jan.26,2011 Wasatch Hollow Community Council • February 9,2011 Planning Commission hearing • March 21,2011 Transmittal paperwork received in Council office cc: David Everitt,Bianca Shreeve,Karen Hale,Holly Hilton,Art Raymond,Poonam Kumar,Ed Rutan,Lynn Pace,Paul Nielson,Jeff Niermeyer,Tom Ward,Rick Graham,Vicki Bennett,Frank Gray,Mary De La Mare- Schafer,Tim Harpst,Kevin Young,Orion Goff,Les Koch,Larry Butcher,W ilf Sommerkom,Cheri Coffey, Joel Paterson,Nick Norris,Wayne Mills,City Council Liaisons,Mayors Liaisons File Location: Community and Economic Development Dept.,Planning Division,East Bench Master Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment&rezoning,Ballard Spahr representing Walmart Stores,Inc.,2705 E.Parleys Way 11 ATTACHMENT A o Walmart Vicinity Map -• .� ♦ i v • r O i ,mat` ./�+•1- ' - 10- -•0 iti.-irf,... , '..:- \--.....„4,6 -,,r,,„ ,;r4 , , ',a D ,' 4.6�` pie;,'. o \� `' - _ ,� ems' 4, -"'•"'"h': "- ,.. , 1,..\\.; ostelto - 4.''' -14,•silip-1.4.'1-ff.- .r 1 '' AI- e,r a .114' y ,l....e• 1t4-,?•-.. g_ " 1W• 1 ✓' t as ' II fnr1.0, ,1 /lam /s• �A- . _' .. . • r ,k 4. • �- ,W 4.t r ,• ,4 ..k.JI i - t. y� i t �, ,' i:•et'': ;c,iik _T�-r °I r_+ * \ { • IL ATTACHMENT B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ,�,,, _ '44 2705 E. PARLEYS WAY — MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT /'U,; / " AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT =‘t1 i RV PLNPCM2010-00556 — Master Plan Amendment `' L. „ � _ PLNPCM2010-00557— Zoning Map Amendment •�•�,,�,I �,, .,•�` 1� 2705 E. Parleys Way Planning and Zoning Division • February 9, 2011 Department of Community and Economic Development Applicant: Ballard Spahr LLP Request representing Walmart Stores,Inc Ballard Spahr LLP representing Walmart Stores, Inc is requesting an Staff: Wayne Mills amendment to the East Bench Master Plan Future Land Use Map to change the 801-535-7282 land use classification of the property located at 2705 E. Parleys Way from wayne.mills@slcgov.com Community Business to Community Shopping. The applicant is also requesting Tax ID: 16-23-152-004 a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. Current Zone: CB Community Business 'Master Plan Desianation: Staff Recommendation ...East Bench Community Master Plan—Community Business PLNPCM2010-00556—Master plan Amendment Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the Staff Council District: District 7— Report and accept public comments. Planning Staff recommends that the Council Member Simonsen Planning Commission forward a recommendation on the proposal to the City Community Council: Sugar Council at the next scheduled Planning Commission hearing. House—Cabot Nelson,Chair PLNPCM2010-00557—Zoning Map Amendment Lot Size: Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the Staff Approximately 10.5 acres Report and accept public comments. Planning Staff recommends that the Current Use: Superstore and Planning Commission forward a recommendation on the proposal to the City Hypermarket Store Council at the next scheduled Planning Commission hearing. Applicable Land Use Reaulations: • 21 A.50—Amendments • Section 10-9a-204—Utah State Code—Plan Amendment Notification Notification • Notice mailed on 1/28/11 • Newspaper ad on 1/29/11 • Sign posted on 1/27/11 Agenda posted on the Planning Division and Utah Public Meeting Notice PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 1 websites 1/28/11 Lok, Attachments: A. Application Submittals B. CB and CS Zoning District Regulations and Allowed Uses C. City Department/Division Comments D. Community Council Minutes and Planning Staff Notes E. Public Comments F. Map of CB and CS Zoning Districts G. Capture/Leakage Analysis H. Site Photos VICINITY MAP ' : i �_ - 4 . �t Alin u III. }r .� �ii ^7'rt �g ice l as Li ACM ok. 14. OPP E 0 . \ F ` i it, , t 9 41.i. r. PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 2 Background Request The applicant is requesting that Salt Lake City amend the East Bench Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Neighborhood Shopping to Community Shopping for the property located at 2705 E. Parleys Way. This proposed change would facilitate a zoning map amendment, also requested by the applicant, which would change the zoning on the subject property from CB Community Business (CB) to CS Community Shopping (CS). The amendments are requested to allow the applicant to demolish the existing structure on the property (a former Kmart) and construct a new Walmart Supercenter. The applicant has submitted a preliminary site plan with.the application; however, site design approval is not requested at this time. If the subject property is rezoned to CS Walmart will be required to obtain Planned Development approval for development of the site. In the CS zoning district all new construction of principal buildings, uses, or additions that increase the floor area and/or parking requirement by 25% requires Planned Development approval. Planned Developments are reviewed by the Planning Commission in a public hearing according to a set of design criteria. Purpose of Request The overall purpose of the applicant's request is to allow Walmart to demolish the existing building on the site and construct a new Walmart Supercenter. In order to understand the purpose further, Staff provides the following history of development and zoning of the property: • In 1968 Salt Lake City issued a permit for the construction of a Kmart on the property. The building constructed was approximately 113,227 square feet in size and was portioned off into two sections; one section for Kmart(93,027 square feet), and the other section for Kmart Food (20,200 square feet). • The property was zoned Business B-3 when the building permit was issued. The B-3 zoning district allowed"shops for retail business" as a permitted use. • In 1973 the Board of Adjustment approved an addition to the side of the building for use as a garden and patio shop that would not be completely enclosed. The garden area was approximately 6,940 square feet in size. • The property was rezoned in 1995 to CB as part of a city-wide rezoning project. Kmart was still considered a permitted use as a retail goods establishment; however, the structure on the property became non-complying due to the maximum front yard setback,maximum building size, and design requirements in the CB zoning district. • The City Council adopted an ordinance in January 2004 defining different types of retail uses (Conventional Department Stores, Mass Merchandising Store, Specialty Store, Superstore and Hypermarket Store, and Warehouse Club Store). The only zoning districts affected by the ordinance were the Gateway Mixed-Use(G-MU) and Downtown districts. • Walmart purchased the Kmart property in February of 2005. PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 3 • The City Council adopted an ordinance in November 2005 that amended the Commercial Districts Use Chart to include the new retail land use classifications that were adopted in 2004. The use chart was amended to allow only"Retail goods establishments" and "Retail services establishments" as permitted uses in the CB zoning district. Kmart was considered a"Superstore and Hypermarket Store", which waste'"' not allowed in the CB zone; therefore, Kmart became a nonconforming use. • In November 2008 Kmart closed its doors for business. When Kmart closed in 2008 the use on the property ("Superstore and Hypermarket Store") was nonconforming because the use was not a permitted use in the zoning district. In addition, the structure was noncomplying because it exceeded the maximum allowable building size, maximum allowable front yard setback and did not meet some of the CB district design criteria. Therefore, for zoning regulation purposes, the existing building on the property is considered a noncomplying structure with a nonconforming use. The Zoning Ordinance allows for the continuation of a noncomplying structure with a nonconforming use even if the property ownership changes. In this case, the proposed Walmart is the same type of use as the previous Kmart; therefore, Walmart can operate within the existing building on the property through the standard business licensing and building code review processes. However, there are limitations on what Walmart can do with the existing building considering its status as a noncomplying structure with a nonconforming use. The Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance allows for the voluntary demolition and reconstruction of a noncomplying structure with a nonconforming use up to 50% without obtaining any permitting approval other than standard business licensing and building code review. The 50% threshold pertains only to the structural elements of the building but is not calculated as 50% of the physical structure. The calculation is based on the ratio of the cost to construct the building according to current building standards and the cost of replacing the""`"` portion of the building to be demolished and replaced. If the replacement cost is less than 50% of the total"''''" construction cost, it is permitted. If it exceeds 50%, it is considered a demolition and all new construction, as well as the use, would have to comply with the current zoning regulations. In summary, Walmart can open a new store in the existing building but can only make improvements on the building up to 50% of the total construction valuation. Walmart has obtained a permit to remodel the existing building and open a store if the City does not approve the rezone. Walmart is requesting a zoning amendment to change the zoning to CS. In the CS zoning district, a"Superstore and Hypermarket Store" land use is permitted; therefore, Walmart would be allowed to demolish the existing structure and build a new building. Previous Petition and Current Proposal (What has changed?) In June 2007, Walmart submitted the same two types of petitions as what is currently being reviewed. At that time, the preliminary development plan included an 115,060 square foot retail building with a 5,057 square foot garden center. In September 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed the petitions in a public hearing and voted to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council. Walmart withdrew their petitions prior to the City Council taking final action. The current preliminary development plan reduces the size of the retail building to 91,750 square feet and eliminates the garden center. The height of the building would average 26 feet with a maximum height of 33 feet. The new plan shows designated walkways between Foothill Blvd. and Parleys Way. In addition, the new plan shows an area of land 1.15 acres in size for additional development. Walmart representatives have stated'"` that they have no specific plans for the 1.15 acre site, but would like to work with the community to determine PLNPCM20I0-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 4 the best use. They have stated that if the community does not want another use on the property, they would use the area for additional parking. Comments City Department Comments The comments received from pertinent City Departments / Divisions are attached to this staff report in Attachment C. The Planning Division has not received comments from the applicable City Departments / Divisions that cannot reasonably be fulfilled or that warrant denial of the petition. Community Council Comments The subject property is in the East Bench Community Council area but within 600 feet of the Sugar House Community Council boundary; therefore, the petition was presented to both community councils. In addition, the petition was presented to the Sunnyside East Community Council. The following provides a summary of the community council meetings. The community council meeting minutes that are available are attached, as well as meeting notes that were taken by Staff that attended the meetings (see Attachment D). Sugar House Community Council The petitions were presented to the Sugar House Land Use and Zoning Committee on September 20, 2010 and the Sugar House Community Council on November 3, 2010. Approximately 200 people attended the community council meeting. The Sugar House Community Council is represented by a group of trustees that vote on issues. During the meeting the general public was given the opportunity to speak. Some members of the public were in favor of the rezone and others were opposed. The Sugar House Community Council Trustees 'en discussed the petitions and voted to recommend that the Planning Commission and City Council deny the letitions. A report submitted by the Sugar House Community Council and notes taken by Planning Staff that attended the meeting are attached in Attachment D. East Bench Community Council The petitions were presented to the East Bench Community Council on October 20, 2010 and again on November 17, 2010. The purpose of holding two meetings was to brief the community during the first meeting and then obtain a vote from the community council members at the second meeting. Approximately 90 people attended both community council meetings. On November 17 the Community Council voted to support the petitions in a 46 to 44 vote. Notes taken by Planning Staff that attended both meetings are attached in Attachment D. Sunnyside East Community Council The petitions were presented to the Sunnyside East Community Council Executive Board on November 30, 2011 with approximately 10 people in attendance. The members of the community council did not vote on whether or not they support the petitions. Many of their concerns were related to traffic impacts on Foothill Drive. They also expressed concern that the East Bench Master Plan is old and needs to be updated, and that this should occur before the City approves any zoning amendments. PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 5 Public Comments Planning Staff established an Open City Hall webpage for the petitions in October 2010. The webpage included a background fact sheet, information on the existing and proposed zoning, and maps. The Open City Hall sit allowed the public to submit comments regarding the petitions. Staff received 97 comments with 58 supporting the petitions, 31 opposed, and 8 that were not specific enough to determine if they support or oppose the petitions. Those that were not specific stated that they did not care one way or the other but traffic would be a problem and pedestrians should be prioritized over vehicles, they support the rezone to allow big box retail but do not support Walmart, and would rather have residential developed on the site but think that a new Walmart will be better than a vacant site. The comments received through Open City Hall are attached (see Attachment E). In addition to the comments received on Open City Hall, Staff received 11 phone calls with four in support and five opposed. Staff also received 85 letters/emails with 20 in support, 64 opposed, and one who stated that they are not opposed to the rezoning to allow Walmart but is concerned that they would have the ability to increase the building height and size, could temporary warehouse stock outside of the building, and could place a deed restriction on the property to prevent lease or sale to a competitor. A phone log and copies of the letters/emails received are attached (see Attachment E). Walmart conducted their own public support campaign at some of their local Walmart stores. Cards were handed out asking if individuals "support a brand new, smaller, more energy efficient Walmart on Parleys." Walmart received support cards from 3,882 individuals with Salt Lake City addresses. An example of the submitted cards and a spreadsheet with the names and addresses of those that signed the cards are attached. (see Attachment E). oinik Public/Community Council Comments Summary The following is a summary of the reasons why people support the subject petitions and the reasons for opposition. Those that support the petitions stated: > They would like a new more efficient building than the re-use of the older existing building. > Big box retail is the historic use of the property and it worked in the past so why change the use. > They prefer additional shopping choices in their neighborhood. > They see environmental impacts from having to drive to 300 West or other places in the valley to shop at Walmart, Target, etc. > The existing site is an eyesore and they would like to see it improved. > The City needs the tax revenue from a larger shopping center. > They would like Walmart to build a larger store than what is proposed that includes all services offered by Walmart, such as tire/lube service and an outdoor garden center. Those that oppose the petitions provided the following reasons: > Traffic Impacts; o Foothill Drive is already at maximum capacity. Traffic generated from Walmart (or other big box retail stores) will make it worse. o Delivery trucks exiting the site onto Foothill will create traffic impacts. o The intersection of Stringham and Foothill is not sig nalized.gnalized. Left turns onto Stringham from Foothill and onto Foothill from Stringham are dangerous. PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 6 o Walmart (or other big box retail stores)will create traffic impacts on nearby residential streets. > There is no reason to change the°zoning. Walmart can remodel the existing building and operate. ➢ Opposition to Walmart in general, such as their business practices and sale of imported goods. ➢ The East Bench Master Plan and CB zone were established to prevent the area from turning into a big box retail center. ➢ The property should be developed as housing. > The property should be developed as a walkable, bike friendly development. Rezoning to CS will eliminate the possibility of that ever happening. > Lighting and noise from a big box store will impact adjacent residential properties. > Rezoning the property will set a precedent and allow other properties in the east bench area to be rezoned to more intense zoning classifications. > The East Bench neighborhood is adequately served by existing businesses. Walmart (or any big box • store) would take business from the existing retail businesses, which would leave vacant commercial properties in the area. ➢ People that shop at big box retail stores can do so on 300 West and elsewhere in the valley. > Concerns regarding the environmental impact of big box retail stores, such as energy consumption. > The East Bench Master Plan needs to be updated. The City should not rezone property until the master plan is updated. > The CS district will allow bigger and taller buildings. > Walmart is showing a 92,000 square foot building with trail connection, and landscaping on their preliminary development plan. If the zoning changes, Walmart will be able to build whatever they want regardless of what they are currently showing. > Opposed to development agreements related to zoning amendments because the City has difficulty tracking the agreements, which requires the neighbors to track the business activities. ➢ Walmart is the property owner. If Walmart closes, they can hold onto the property and leave it vacant in order to ensure that a competitor does not open on the site. They could also lease the property to use as a flea market. > Keeping the existing zoning (CB) will require smaller buildings on the site, which are easier to lease if Walmart closes. > The preliminary development plan shows an additional development site. This site could turn into gas station or other use that the neighborhood does not want. Project Review Master Plan Amendment Discussion The East Bench Master Plan was adopted in 1987. At that time, the future land use of the subject property was classified as "Neighborhood Business". In 1995, the City undertook a complete revision to the Zoning Ordinance and created new zoning districts. The entire City was rezoned to reflect the new zoning classifications and the subject property was rezoned from B-3 Neighborhood Business to CB Community Business. The ordinance that rezoned the City stated that, "all existing master plans should be construed and interpreted to conform to the new Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Maps." What this means is that in 1995, the Kmart property was rezoned to Community Business and the future land use designation, as designated in the East Bench Master Plan, also became"Community Business". The East Bench Master Plan was adopted in 1987 and is one of the oldest master plan documents in the City. When the master plan was adopted, Kmart was operational, was a permitted use, and complied with the leighborhood Business" future land use classification. In 1995, the future land use designation was changed PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 7 due to the city-wide zoning amendment; however, there was no other amendment to the master plan that states that a big box retail use, such as Kmart; is no longer appropriate at this site. One opinion is that the zoning and future land use map amendment shows that a big box retailer is no longer desired at this location because th CB zoning regulations limit building footprint sizes to 15,000 square feet. Another opinion is that the amendment to the future land use map did not forbid big box retail stores at this site because in the CB district, larger buildings are allowed as a conditional use as long as impacts of the use are mitigated. It is difficult to pull statements from the East Bench Master Plan either in favor of, or against the proposed rezone due to the points made above. A community master plan should be reviewed to ensure that the plan reflects the goals and needs of the community. This master plan is approximately 23 years old and may not reflect current community goals. Staff has conducted a high level study to determine if there is sufficient retail to support the East Bench residents and found that there is a need for additional retail businesses (see summary of capture/leakage analysis in the Findings section of this report). This study was done at a high level only for the purpose of this amendment proposal and did not address other community needs, such as the potential need for additional residential land uses. In order to further address these needs, the City would need to conduct a holistic review and update(if needed) of the East Bench Master Plan. Zoning Amendment Discussion The subject property is currently zoned CB Community Business. The following is the purpose statement of the CB zoning district: The CB Community Business district is intended to provide for the close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods. The design guidelines are intended to facilitate retail that is pedestrian in its orientation and scale, while also acknowledging the importancc" of transit and automobile access to the site. The applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment to change the zoning of the property from CB to CS Community Shopping. The following is the purpose statement of the CS zoning district: The purpose of the CS Community Shopping district is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive shopping center development at a community level scale. The CB and CS zoning districts allow many of the same land uses; however, it is essentially the scale, or size of the buildings that house the uses, that are different between the zones. For example, both zoning districts allow mixed-use developments, multi-family dwellings, retail, and restaurants with or without drive-through facilities. The CS zoning district, however, allows additional land uses that require larger land area and larger buildings, such as commercial recreation centers, amusement parks, motion picture studios and big box retail centers. A comparison table showing the uses allowed in both zoning districts is attached (see Attachment B). The issue of scale can also be seen when comparing the lot and building size regulations between the two zoning districts. In the CB zone there is no minimum lot area and any new proposed lot that exceeds four acres is allowed only as a conditional use. In the CS zone, all new lots must be at least 60,000 square feet (approximately 1.4 acres), excluding shopping center pad sites, and there is no maximum lot size. The CB zoning district limits building sizes to 15,000 square feet for the first floor and 20,000 square feet total floor area, but does allow larger buildings through the Conditional Use process. In the CS zoning district, there is no maximum building size limitation. PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 8 The two zoning districts also differ in their approach on requiring certain design elements. In the CB zone, there are specific regulations related to maximum front yard setback (requiring buildings to be located close to the idewalk/street), minimum first floor glass and other façade treatments, and parking lot lighting. In the CS zone, ,here are no specific standards stated in the regulations; however, all new development and additions to existing buildings that increase the floor area or parking requirement by 25%require design review through the Planned Development process. The CB and CS zoning district standards are included with this report at Attachment B. Staff identified all of the existing properties in the City that are zoned CB and CS to determine how the subject property relates to each zoning district. A map showing the location of these zoning districts is attached (Attachment F). The CS district is generally characterized by larger parcels, or a combination of smaller parcels that function as a larger parcel, with controlled driveway access that serves one large business or a combination of businesses. Properties zoned CS are generally located along arterial streets that serve as major thoroughfares. Examples of CS zoned areas include Trolley Square, Plaza 700 Shopping Center (1740 West 700 North), Brickyard Plaza, and Foothill Village. The CB zoning district is generally characterized by smaller parcels that are owned and operated independently with driveway access serving one parcel or use. The parcels are situated in a way that provides prominent street frontage and provide the opportunity to place buildings close to the front property line. Parcels located in the CB zoning district are more closely integrated with surrounding residential land uses and have direct pedestrian access by way of existing public sidewalks. CB district parcels are located along arterial and collector streets. Examples of the CB zoning district include the 2100 South/700 East commercial strip, 9th and 9th, the Highland Drive commercial strip, and most of the commercial properties along the east end of 2100 South and Parleys Way(see attached map, Attachment F). When comparing the subject property to existing properties in both the CB and CS zoning districts, the subject -operty has characteristics more associated with the CS zone. At approximately 10 acres, the property is .,mparable in size to other properties zoned CS, but much bigger than properties zoned CB. The property is located along two arterial streets that serve as major thoroughfares into and out of the City. The subject property also has limited controlled access points that could serve multiple uses on a single parcel. In addition, the property is isolated from the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods, with the exception of the Foothill Place apartments located to the north. When looking at a map of the area, the residential neighborhoods to the east and to the south are separated by arterial streets. Classifying the site as a future pedestrian accessed development is questionable due to these street barriers and the distance between the property and a dense population base. In reality, even if the property were developed in a walkable village configuration, it would still be predominantly accessed by the automobile until a major public transportation investment is made in the area. Alternatives, Analysis, and Findings Alternatives The following are options for the Planning Commission to consider when making a recommendation to the City Council: ➢ Deny the petition o The Planning Commission can recommend denial based on a decision that the petitions are not in the best interest of the City. o If the petition is denied Walmart will be allowed to operate within the existing building on the site according to the ordinances regulating nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures and PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 9 without further site review by the City. In fact, Walmart has obtained a building permit to remodel the existing building. This building permit is still active. o If Walmart were to close in the future, a similar type of use could occupy the structure according to the nonconforming and noncomplying structure zoning regulations. If the existing building were demolished in the future, any new development would have to comply with the CB zoning district regulations. > Deny the petitions until the East Bench Master Plan is updated o As stated in the Zoning Amendment Discussion of this report (pg. 7) the East Bench Community Master Plan is one of the oldest community master plans in the City. The Planning Commission could deny or table the petition until the City conducts a holistic review of the plan to determine if the plan is still meeting the goals of the community and to determine how the subject property fits in with those goals. o If the petition is denied, Walmart will be allowed to operate within the existing building on the site according to-the ordinances regulating nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures and without further site review by the City. In fact, Walmart has obtained a building permit to remodel the existing building. This building permit is still active. o Through the master plan update process,the City might determine that a zoning district such as the CS zone is an appropriate zoning designation. At that time,the property owner or the City would initiate a petition to rezone the property. ➢ Approve the petitions with no conditions o The Planning Commission could recommend approval according to the standards for zoning maps amendments. '44100-- o If the property is zoned CS Community Shopping, all future development would be required to comply with the CS zoning district regulations (see Attachment B). In the CS district, all new construction of a principal building, uses, or additions to existing buildings that increases the floor area and/or parking requirement by 25%requires planned development approval. The Planned Development review allows the Planning Commission to oversee and require certain site design elements, but does not allow the Planning Commission to prohibit uses that are allowed in the CS zone. o If the property is rezoned to CS, Walmart will need to submit a Planned Development application to the City for the construction of a new store. > Approve the petitions with the condition that Walmart and the City sign a Development Agreement o The Planning Commission could recommend approval according to the standards for zoning map amendments with a condition that Walmart and the City sign a Development Agreement describing certain development restrictions on the property. o It is the opinion of Staff that Development Agreements associated with zoning amendments should only be required if there are impacts associated with the particular rezone area that are not generally associated with other properties in the same zoning district. o In the case of the proposed zoning amendment, Staff does not find that there are peculiar circumstances associated with the property itself. The site shares the same characteristics with Amok other properties zoned CS as discussed in the Zoning Amendment Discussion section of this PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 10 report(see pages 8-9). However,the property is located within the East Bench Master Plan community and, as stated'above,the master plan needs to be reviewed and updated. For this reason, Staff promotes the use of a Development Agreement to restrict the development activity on the site until the City has the resources to update the master plan. Through the Master Plan update process, the City may find that the CS zoning district is appropriate. At that time, the City should re-evaluate the Development Agreement. If the City finds that the property should be zoned differently, the City should rezone the property to the appropriate zoning district. In that case,Walmart may become a nonconforming use, which is the same situation that applies today. o The following are stipulations that the Planning Commission might consider including in the Development Agreement: • Building development on the site is limited to one structure no greater than 95,000 square feet. No other development on the site, including accessory structures, is permitted with the exception of structures used to screen refuse containers or structures related to any future transit facilities. • No outdoor storage is allowed. All merchandise must be stored within the principal structure: • Development of the site must include a public pedestrian pathway that connects Foothill Drive to Parleys Way. Except in areas where the pathway crosses vehicular driveways, the pedestrian pathway must be located within its own corridor. In other words, the pathway must be physically separated from the parking lot through the use of curbing, landscaping, or other means. Where the pathway crosses a vehicular driveway, the pathway must be delineated through the use of surface materials that differ from the driveway surface materials. The pedestrian pathway must be maintained for public use. • Parking lot lighting is limited to 16 feet in height. Parking lot and building lighting must be shielded to minimize light encroachment beyond the property line. o Some members of the community have expressed concern that Development Agreements are difficult to track and the City has not adequately enforced previous agreements. It was difficult for the City to track older Development Agreements because they were not easily accessible for plan reviewers. The City now has a permit tracking program (Accela) where documents, such as Development Agreements, can be posted by property address. When an applicant applies for a building permit or planning review application,these documents are immediately uploaded showing the specific conditions related to the property. Findings Master Plan Amendment There are no specific standards in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance for Master Plan Amendments. State Law, Section 10-9a-204, Notice of Public Hearings and Public Meetings to Consider General Plan or Modifications, outlines the criteria for amending a master plan relating to noticing requirements. A notice for the Master Plan amendment was published in the Salt Lake Tribune on January 29, 2011. As stated in the Master Plan Discussion section of this report (pg. 7), the East Bench Master plan is one of the oldest master plans in the City and needs to be updated. It is difficult to extract policies from the plan that directly pertain to the subject property because the City underwent a complete change in land use ordinances in 1995,but the master plan has not been updated to reflect the changes in zoning designations. With that said, following are goals and policies taken from the adopted East Bench Master Plan that may be applicable Len analyzing the proposed Future Land Use Map amendment. PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 11 > "Wholesale, warehouse and other general commercial uses are not permitted. " The only commercial uses the plan specifies as not permitted at the time the plan was adopted are "wholesale, warehouse ant general commercial uses." These are uses that generally do not provide goods directly to the consumer.' These uses are not permitted in the requested CS zoning district and they are only found in higher intensity zoning districts such as General Commercial (CG) and Corridor Commercial (CC). There is nothing in the East Bench Master Plan that indicates that large retail uses are incompatible with the community. > "Many residents desire additional services in their community. " The proposed Walmart would be the same use as the existing Kmart and generally provide the same retail goods and services. The nearest general merchandise type of store is the Smith's Marketplace at 3300 South and I-215. That store is within two miles of the subject property but is outside of Salt Lake City. There is a Walmart Supercenter at 300 West and 1300 South and a Super Target in the same area. The two closest grocery stores in Salt Lake City are Dan's at Foothill Village (approximately two miles away) and Albertson's at 2300 East and Parleys Way (approximately one mile way). Many of the public comments in support of the petitions state that retail shopping choices are limited in the East Bench neighborhood and that East Bench residents have to travel to the other side of the City, or outside of the City, to shop. Some of the comments from those that are opposed to the petitions state that their needs are already met by the existing businesses in the community, and those that would like to shop at a big box retailer can travel to 300 West. One way to attempt to measure whether or not retail services are being met within the community is to conduct a capture/leakage analysis. This type of analysis compares the sales in a particular target area to potential sales in that area. The potential sales are calculated by determining the per capita sales in r'l"k larger comparison area, multiplying that by the population of the subject target area to determine the-- potential sales, and then adjusting the potential sales for a difference in the trade area and larger area income. The final result of the analysis attempts to determine if money is being spent within the target area (capture) or if money is being spent outside of the target area (leakage). There are many assumptions that need to be made in conducting the analysis and it is not an exact science, but it is one tool that can be used to determine if residents might be traveling outside of their community to obtain desired goods. In conducting the study, Staff obtained the sales numbers for Salt Lake County and three separate target areas for the following retail sectors: building and garden; general merchandise; food stores; apparel and accessories; furniture; and miscellaneous (single item type retailers). The sales numbers were obtained from the Utah State Tax Commission and are available by zip code. In order to conduct the analysis, Staff had to use population and income data also at the zip code level. This created somewhat of a problem since the master plan area boundaries do not follow zip code boundaries (see map, Attachment G). Most of the East Bench Master Plan area is located in the 84108 zip code area; however, much of Parleys Way (including the subject property) is not. In order to evaluate the East Bench Master Plan area, as well as the surrounding east neighborhoods, Staff conducted the analysis on three target areas. These areas are defined by the following zip codes: • 84108 • 84108, 84112, 84113, 84102, 84105, 84106 • 84108, 84112, 84113, 84102, 84105, 84106, 84109 AM* PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 12 The results of the analysis are shown in the spreadsheet attached in Attachment G. The analysis shows that in the 84108 zip code area, potential sales greatly exceed the actual sales, with the exception of the food store sector. This is not a surprise considering the East Bench Master Plan states that less than 2% of the land acreage in the community is occupied by business uses. As the study area expands in size, the analysis still shows that additional retail services could be needed in the area, with the exception of food stores. It is important to note that additional retail services can be provided on the subject property in both the existing CB district and proposed CS district. Both zoning districts allow retail uses. ➢ "Redevelopment or at least renovation of some business properties... is quite likely and is considered the most desirable approach to meeting future business needs... " Walmart's request is to redevelop the existing commercial property and no housing will be demolished for commercial use. They do have the option of renovating the property without a zoning change. ➢ "Major zoning changes... are neither anticipated nor encouraged. Changes involving expansion of existing business sites in response to documented needs should be reviewed cautiously and approved sparingly. " The context for the term "major" appears to reference the physical expansion of an existing commercial property that would require the acquisition and rezoning of another parcel, or the conversion of residential uses to non-residential uses. Although the subject property size is not increasing, the proposed amendment could be considered an expansion because the proposed land use classification allows more intense uses. However, when the master plan was adopted in 1987, the existing use and the proposed use were allowed, so it is difficult to determine whether or not the proposed amendment would be considered a major zoning change as described in the master plan. > "The city should not approve any zoning change that will result in the removal of homes. The community is so completely developed that a change of zoning in most areas would negatively impact surrounding residential properties. " No homes would be removed as a result of this master plan amendment or zoning map amendment. Citizens have raised concerns about the impact of the new development on the surrounding neighborhoods. Although the zoning change could allow a new use on the site, the applicant's proposal is to have the current use continue in a new building. Therefore, the use is still the same. Over the years, the patronage of the Kmart at this site has declined and it is anticipated that the Wal-Mart will attract more customers. The change in the future land use designation would not change the character or use of the site, but it may increase traffic to the site; however, this could be the case for any successful development regardless of the future land use designation. ➢ "More efficient use of existing business properties is the preferred approach to meet future business needs. " A mixed use development on this site would be a more efficient use of the land than a single- building, single-tenant retailer. However, changing the future land use map land use designation for the subject property does not prevent this site from being developed more efficiently. In fact, the CS zoning district allows mixed-use developments and provides more flexibility because new construction requires planned development approval. This gives the Planning Commission flexibility in applying city goals and conditioning project approvals. The CB zoning district limits buildings to 15,000 square feet on one floor and 20,000 feet total. On a 10.56 acre site with one street frontage that is more or less oriented to a freeway off-ramp, it would be difficult to comply with the CB zoning district purpose statement and regulations. More than likely, a developer would need to request relief from the CB regulations or a change in zoning to develop a mixed-use development on the site. > "A gateway center should be located near the entrance to the city... " An information center and rest stop for visitors to Salt Lake City would be a valuable service and an asset to the city. However, as the PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 13 master plan indicates, the views of the valley from this location are not as good as the other two potential sites for gateway centers and there are some concerns with access. The master plan notes that this is the least attractive option of the three provided and that it would require some land acquisition o; the part of the city. Specifically, it stated that "the Parleys Way site should be considered only if the other sites prove unworkable." It is staffs opinion that the proposed master plan amendment does not substantially contradict any of the other policies, goals or strategies of the East Bench Master Plan and that modifying the master plan would not substantially impact the integrity of either the community or the master plan. Zoning Map Amendment Section 21A.50.050 - A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the city council should consider the following factors: 1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Discussion: The following policy documents were considered in evaluating this request: the Salt Lake City Vision and Strategic Plan (1993), the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan (1996), and the East Bench Master Plan (1987). Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan 0" The Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan, adopted in 1996, defines arterial routes as streets provided'— "for through traffic movement over long distances... with some access to abutting property." Furthermore, "these streets are typically the widest and have the highest speed limits of all the streets within the city." Foothill Drive is listed as an example in the master plan. Parleys Way is an arterial as well. One of the directions listed in the plan for arterials is "to encourage commuter traffic to use arterial streets rather than local and collector streets"by maintaining the arterials' carrying capacity. Salt Lake City Vision and Strategic Plan The Salt Lake City Vision and Strategic Plan, adopted in 1993, states a goal of facilitating "development of complimentary retail shopping opportunities in city neighborhoods and commercial areas of the city." This goal's action step is to "work with developers to ensure additional retail shopping opportunities within the City," and the progress indicators are the "amount of new retail space annually" and the "new tax dollars generated annually." East Bench Master Plan The requested zoning map amendment is not consistent with the Future Land Use Map of the East Bench Master Plan, which is the applicable master plan document for the subject property. However, the applicant has requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Map in addition to the zoning map amendment. Planning staff has recommended approval of the master plan amendment because there is no substantial evidence that the modification would contradict with any of the other policies, goals or strategies found in its "Non-residential Land Use" section. The East Bench Master Plan, however, has specific criteria in Appendix I for zoning changes. The applicant's request should be evaluated against these guidelines: PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 14 > Proponents must demonstrate that any zoning change is clearly justified by the substantive provisions of this master plan. The zoning change requested does not introduce a new use to the neighborhood, as Kmart has been there for 40 years. Further, the subject property, as a single parcel of land, can be redeveloped into a more efficient use more easily under the CS zoning designation because of the property's size and location. Staff has found that the zoning change meets the general goals of the "Business/Commercial Uses" subsection of the master plan (see Master Plan Amendment Discussion above). > There must be a demonstrated need for the new business proposal and documented community support. Property owners must address the issue of business need in the whole city perspective and why the proposed site is the best location with regard to the best interest of the community and city. There has been a difference of opinion regarding the need of a supercenter in this location. On one hand, some residents believe that all of their shopping needs can be handled by the existing shops in the East Bench neighborhood and some believe that there are enough Wal-Mart stores (and other similar uses)within a convenient distance. On the other hand, many of the public comments received in support of having a big box retailer in the East Bench Community said so because it would provide more choices for retail in the neighborhood. The nearest single tenant general merchandise stores are Shopko located on 1300 East (approximately 2.5 miles from the subject property) and Smith's Marketplace on 3300 South (approximately 1.75 miles from the subject property). It should be noted that Smith's Marketplace is located outside of the City, so the City does not receive the same tax benefit from that store than it would if the store was located in the City. One additional note regarding the demonstrated need is that both the existing zoning (CB) and the proposed zoning (CS) allow retail uses, so the retail needs of the community could potentially be met under both zoning designations. The applicant has indicated that this site was chosen because of the size of the parcel and the fact that they believe the East Bench is underserved by larger commercial retailers. The application states that rezoning the property to CS will allow the construction of a new, smaller, and energy-efficient building. Community support for this proposal is mixed. As shown in the Public Comment section of this report, there is a lot of support to allow Walmart to build a new store, but most of these comments are not directed towards the zoning amendment specifically. What this may show, however, is that those that support a Walmart at this location support the CS zoning district because of the types of uses it allows. These individuals would prefer to have a big box retail option close to their homes and the CS district allows such uses. Some individuals who are opposed to the project claim that the supporters have been misled by Walmart representatives who have told them that the only way that Walmart can build an efficient structure is to rezone the property. It is not clear what constitutes "documented community support" as stated in the master plan and whether or not it needs to be a majority of the members of the community. In the case of the current proposal and the comments received, those in support and those opposed are near equal in numbers. > Property must be on a street that can handle the additional traffic. The subject property can be accessed by both Parleys Way and Foothill Drive, both classified as arterial streets. Wal-Mart submitted two traffic impact reports prepared by A-Trans Engineering. One study was submitted with the first petition to rezone the property and analyzed the traffic anticipated with a store approximately 120,000 square feet in size. A separate study was submitted as part of the current petition and addresses the traffic impact anticipated for a 92,000 square foot store. Both reports were reviewed by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division. PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 15 • The consultant used Level of Service (LOS) to measure the congestion at analyzed intersections. Ratings are on a scale from LOS A to LOS F. An LOS A indicates free flowing traffic at or abov the posted speed while an LOS F indicates a "forced or breakdown flow." The consultant used only" the signalized access point on Parleys Way at Wilshire Drive as an ingress/egress point because they anticipate that, due to the current high level of traffic on Foothill Drive, most of the site generated traffic will use this access point. In the initial traffic study, Parleys/Wilshire intersection was projected to operate at LOS B in the a.m. peak and LOS C in the p.m. peak in the year 2030. The conclusion was that Parleys Way has sufficient capacity to accommodate the projected increase in traffic and that the development would have "virtually no impact on the access and signal along Foothill as current congestion allows little capacity for traffic to utilize Foothill." The supplemental report submitted with the current petition essentially states that the proposed building is smaller than what was originally proposed; therefore, the traffic impacts will be less. It should also be noted that Staff has received comments in opposition to the proposed rezone and have cited traffic concerns as a major issue. Specifically, that Foothill Drive is at maximum capacity and traffic generated from Walmart will make it worse. Also, Walmart's circulation plan shows delivery trucks entering the site from Parleys Way and existing onto Foothill from Stringham (located at the northeast corner of the site). This intersection is not signalized and some believe that this will create a dangerous situation due to the high volume of traffic on Foothill. ➢ The site must be large enough for adequate open space and parking without overcrowding the lot. The subject property is 10.56 acres and is large enough to accommodate more green space and parking than what is required for a retail store of 92,000 square feet. The existing site has virtually no green space and the parking lot is in poor shape. If the property is rezoned as requested, theme"' parking lot landscaping requirements must be met for new development and the Planning- Commission will have the opportunity to require additional green space as part of the planned development process if they so choose. ➢ Business projects must be of a density, scale and design that will not negatively impact neighboring residential properties. The closest residential property to the subject property is the Foothill Place apartments located to the north. A single-family residential neighborhood begins approximately 550 feet to the northwest and the Country Club single-family residential neighborhood is located directly across Parleys Way to the south and southwest. There is also a residential condominium development located to the west of the site. The residential area that would be most affected by the proposed development would be the southernmost units of the Foothill Place Apartments. Due to the proximity of the apartment units to the proposed structure, the residents could be impacted by noise from delivery trucks, noise from mechanical equipment and/or lighting in the parking lot or on the building. The lighting impacts could be mitigated by requiring that lights are shielded to contain and direct light and glare to the property only. Mature landscaping, such as large trees and shrubs, would also aid in shielding the lights and would also provide a sound buffer to help mitigate noise impacts from truck delivery and mechanical equipment. If the property is zoned to CS, future development would have to include a 15 foot landscape buffer along the property line that abuts any residential zoning district. In this case, the 15 foot landscape buffer would have to be provided along the property line abutting the Foothill Place apartments. Within the landscape buffer, shade trees must be planted every 25 feet, asp*• well as shrubs at least 2 rows deep. PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 16 The residential condominium project to the ■ 1°‘ ' r low . west could also be impacted by the �,o,,,�,,,«� ..b development. The applicant's preliminary ` .. development plan shows delivery trucks _ ` - - �. accessingthe site from the private roadway :"'�"`;"`"'des 'I - �\ directly east of the condominiums. The J ' f ',' ��� $ , increase in truck traffic on this roadway ,' - could create a noise impact for the residents ! 1 s"'�'°"^'�"'' of the condos; however, staff does not _, believe that this issue is isolated to the " " 5 proposed project. Staff believes that any �, —� • successful retail project on the site could k4 (`„ create this impact regardless of the zoning. There may be an additional impact to these " .:::,, {' residents that is related to the truck loading dock located at the northwest corner of the proposed building as shown on the preliminary development plan. The truck dock is oriented in such a way that the headlights from the trucks parked at the loading dock would shine directly into the residential units located on the east side of the condo building. This issue could be remedied by relocating the loading dock. The Country Club residential area to the south and southwest could potentially be affected by an increase in traffic along Parleys Way and parking lot lighting. Although, there would be an increase in traffic on Parleys, the submitted traffic impact study shows that the street can carry the additional traffic. The parking lot lighting issue can be mitigated by limiting the allowable height of light fixtures and requiring the fixtures to be shielded in a manner that directs the light downward. It is important to note that if the zoning amendment is approved by the City Council, the applicants will be required to submit an application for planned development approval. This would allow the Planning Commission to oversee the final design of the project and require additional measures to reduce impacts on adjacent properties. ➢ Multiple family units should not develop in areas with strong low density character... There is no residential component to this request. This standard does not apply. > Zoning should not be changed to accommodate new business unless it is adjacent to an existing business. The property in question is already commercial and is bordered by other commercial properties and businesses to the east and northwest. > "Spot or strip" zoning to accommodate new businesses is strongly discouraged. Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance defines spot zoning as "the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification materially different and inconsistent with the surrounding area and the adopted city master plan, for the sole benefit of the owner of that property and to the detriment of the rights of other property owners." In this case, the subject property at 10 acres in size is not a "small parcel of land". The property already has a commercial designation and is bordered by commercial and office properties to the east and northwest. The CB and CS districts are both commercial districts. The CB zoning district's purpose is to integrate moderately-sized retail uses with neighboring residential while the CS zoning district is intended to service community commercial needs. Staff is of the PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 17 opinion that the CB and CS zoning districts, while having different purposes and regulations, are not materially different in that they are not designed to serve materially different uses. Both allow retail uses and both prohibit general commercial uses or manufacturing uses. Furthermore, there is no clea zoning pattern on a larger scale with which the CS designation would be inconsistent. Within a"` quarter-mile of the subject property, there are properties zoned for commercial, institutional, multi- family residential, single family residential,residential office, and open space uses. Accordingly, one mile north on Foothill Drive, there is a similarly-sized property zoned CS (Foothill Village) surrounded by the same pattern of zoning designations. > New businesses should be designed to be a logical extension of adjacent businesses, maintaining complimentary building design and landscaping motifs. The property as it is currently developed is not a logical extension of any of the surrounding properties. The building is a typical 1960s commercial structure and there is no landscaping. It is important to note that these problems can be remedied without a zoning map amendment, as there is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance prohibiting Wal-Mart from improving the site upon occupation. That being said, there is nothing that requires or encourages them to do so either. There are limits to how much of the existing building they can tear down based on regulations for nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures and that may impact what they can do to improve the building's overall design. The proposal Wal-Mart has submitted includes, along with a new building, landscaping and architecture that would reduce the visual impact of the structure and will be compatible with the neighboring office buildings. In summary, it is the opinion of Staff that the requested zoning amendment generally meets the criteria for zoning amendments as stated in the East Bench Master Plan; however, the following are areas of concern: > Demonstrated need: There is a need for more retail within the East Bench community; however, thin''""' could be accommodated in either the CB or CS zone. Also, Walmart can operate a general' merchandise use on the property without a rezoning according the nonconforming and noncomplying regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. > Documented Community Support: Staff has received documented community support; however, it is not an overwhelming majority. > Traffic: The submitted traffic impact study shows that Parleys Way can carry the anticipated increase in vehicles; however, Foothill is already at capacity during peak hours. It is important to note that this issue could be relevant to any successful development on the site, regardless of the zoning. > Negative impacts on neighboring residential: As stated above, there are potential negative impacts; however, these can be mitigated through proper site design. The East Bench Master Plan does not indicate that every provision must be met, but that they must be considered. Staff believes it can recommend approval based on the fact that it generally meets the criteria in the master plan and impacts can be mitigated through proper site design. It should also be noted that, as stated previously in this report, the East Bench Master Plan needs to be reviewed and, if necessary, updated. Although the requested amendment generally meets the policies of the adopted Master Plan, this may or may not reflect the current goals and needs of the community. Staff is of the opinion that a Development Agreement should be signed by the City and the applicant that restricts development on the site to what is currently proposed until the Master Plan is updated. Through the Master Plan update process, the City may find that the subject property should continue to be zoned CS. At that., time, the City should re-evaluate the Development Agreement. If the City finds that the property should bf. PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 18 zoned differently, the City should rezone the property to the appropriate zoning district. In that case, Walmart may become a nonconforming use. This is the same situation that applies today; however, the site would be developed according the requirements of a planned development approval. Finding: Staff finds that the request to rezone 2705 E. Parleys Way from CB to CS is consistent with the purposes, goals, objective, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City, with certain exceptions as noted above. 2. Whether the proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the Zoning Ordinance; Discussion: There are three purpose statements that are applicable to this zoning amendment petition; the Purpose and Intent of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 21A.02.030, SLC Zoning Ordinance), the purpose statement of the existing CB zoning district (Section 21A.26.030A, SLC Zoning Ordinance), and the purpose statement of the proposed CS zoning district(Section 21A.26.040A,SLC Zoning Ordinance). The following is the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance: The purpose of this title is to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the city, and to carry out the purposes of the municipal land use development and management act, title 10, chapter 9, of the Utah Code Annotated or its successor, and other relevant statutes. This title is, in addition, intended to: A. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads; B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers; C. Provide adequate light and air; D. Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilization; E. Protect the tax base; F. Secure economy in governmental expenditures; G. Foster the city's industrial, business and residential development; and H. Protect the environment. When reviewing the proposed amendment in relation to the above listed items, it is important to note that the Planning Commission is reviewing a change in zoning from CB to CS, not the specific development proposal. The CB and CS districts are both commercial zoning districts and allow similar uses. The main difference is that the CS district allows uses that require larger land area, such as big box retail uses. Both zoning districts could create additional traffic on the adjacent streets depending on the success of the development; however, the CS district does allow land uses that have more of a regional draw. Staff does not find this an issue at this particular site due to the property's proximity to two arterial streets and the freeway system. Rezoning the property to CS could enhance the City's tax base by allowing land uses that draw people from not only the immediate neighborhood, but the surrounding communities as well. Rezoning the property to CS could help foster commercial development because the CS zone is less restrictive in allowable land uses; however, some believe that the competition may hurt existing smaller local businesses. Environmental protection is generally handled through laws and regulations that pertain to all development regardless of the zoning district. The following two purpose statements pertain to the existing and proposed zoning districts: PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 19 The CB community business district is intended to provide for the close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods. The design guidelines are intended t facilitate retail that is pedestrian in its orientation and scale, while also acknowledging the importance' of transit and automobile access to the site. The purpose of the CS community shopping district is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive shopping center development at a community level scale. It is Staffs opinion that the location and site characteristics of the subject property make it more closely aligned with the purpose of the CS zoning district. The location of the property (adjacent to two arterial streets and the freeway system) provides an environment for shopping center development. The property is riot closely integrated with the adjacent residential neighborhoods. It is bordered on two sides by arterial streets that isolate it from the single-family neighborhoods to the east and south. The property is also separated from the single-family neighborhood to the northwest by other properties. These points are further discussed in the Zoning Amendment Discussion section of this report (pages 8-9). Finding: Staff finds that the proposed amendment does not conflict with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the characteristics of the property are consistent with the purpose of the proposed zoning district. 3. The extent to which the proposed amendment will affect adjacent properties; Discussion: The proposed amendment is to change the zoning on the property from CB to CS. The.*** following are the differences between the two properties that may affect adjacent properties: ➢ Allowed Uses: The CB zoning district generally is characterized by uses that serve the neighborhood where the CB zoned property is located. While the CS zone allows those same uses, it also allows uses that could draw people from outside of the local community, such as retail shopping centers and commercial recreation centers (see table showing comparison of allowable uses, Attachment B). This draw could increase the amount of traffic into the area. It is the opinion of Staff that because the subject property is located along two arterial streets that already serve as major thoroughfares into and out of the City, and the property is located at the on/off ramp of two converging freeways, CS zoning is appropriate and adjacent properties would not be greatly affected. ➢ Setbacks and Landscape Buffers: Setbacks refer to the required distance that a building must be located from a property line. In some zoning districts, landscaping must be included in the setback area if the property abuts property in a residential district. This is called the required landscape buffer. The CB zoning district regulations (existing zone) were generally developed for smaller parcels and the building setbacks reflect that. The building setbacks associated with the subject property that would directly affect adjacent properties are the side yard setbacks, rear yard setback, and required landscape buffer. The CB zoning district requires no interior side yard setback, a ten foot rear yard setback, and a seven foot landscape buffer when abutting a residentially zoned property. The zoning district requires a 15 foot interior side yard setback, 30 foot rear yard setback, and a 15 foo, PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 20 landscape buffer when abutting a residentially zoned property. A positive affect from rezoning the property from CB to CS is the required increase of the rear yard setback and landscape buffer. The rear yard of this property is located adjacent to the Foothill Place Apartments, which are residentially zoned. Rezoning the property to CS will require any building to be setback further from the Foothill Place apartments and will require a greater landscape buffer. ➢ Building Height: The maximum allowed building height in the CB district is 30 feet. The maximum allowed building height in the CS is 45 feet, a 15 foot increase in allowable height. This increase in allowable height could affect the view corridors as seen from adjacent properties; however, Staff used pictometry and GIS software to estimate the height of the existing office buildings to the east of the subject property. The height of the west elevations of both of these building is approximately 39 feet. In addition, the ground elevation of these buildings is higher than the subject property. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that the increase in allowable height would not greatly affect the east view corridor. The additional height could, however, still impact the north and south view corridors. ➢ Site Design Regulations: The current CB zoning district has a number of site design standards that are specifically written into the base regulations. These include maximum front yard setbacks, parking lot setbacks, front facade treatments, and parking lot light height limits. Any use that is permitted in the CB district and that meets the base standards is allowed without further design review. The CS zone does not have these standards written in the base regulations; however, in the CS district all new construction, any new proposed use, or any construction that increases the floor area or parking requirement by 25% must obtain Planned Development approval from the Planning Commission. This allows the Planning Commission to require certain site design elements to mitigate impacts specific to the site. Finding: The proposed zoning map amendment could impact neighboring residential properties; specifically, the additional traffic generated and the obstruction of view corridors. Staff finds that there will be an impact from additional traffic generated by this proposal, but finds that the adjacent streets can carry the additional volume. Staff also finds that the east view corridor would not be impacted but the north and south view corridors could be affected. 4. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and Discussion: The subject property is in the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District. There are no additional standards imposed by this district related to the request. Finding: Future development on the site will be required to meet the provisions of the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District. 5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems,water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Discussion: Applicable City departments and divisions were given the chance to review and comment on the proposed rezoning and preliminary site plans. The Public Utilities Department requested plans in the future if the request was ultimately granted, and had some site requirements for new development. No PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 21 immediate deficiencies were noted as part of the review process. Other than roadways, there has been no concern for the adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property. As, ,, previously discussed, there is concern that this proposal would increase the volume of traffic on Parley Way and Foothill Drive. The Transportation Division has reviewed the submitted traffic impact study and' found that the study followed industry standards and general transportation engineering principles. The consultant stated in the study that Parleys Way will be used as primary access to the site and Parleys can carry the additional traffic and still operate at Level of Service A. Foothill Drive provides additional access to the site, but is already operating above capacity at peak times. The study states that, due to the current traffic levels on Foothill Drive, motorists will use the Parleys Way access point. The Foothill Drive Corridor Study Final Report includes recommendations for improvements, including commuter bus service, peak bus or bus/HOV lanes with transit signal priority, and replacement of the turn lane with a median in some areas. These near- and mid-term improvements address the "bigger picture" problem with congestion on Foothill Drive and are projected to improve the levels of service on Foothill Drive. Finding: Staff finds that the current public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property are adequate, and any necessary modifications and changes to facilities will be identified upon application for building permits. Aimik PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 22 01111 Capture/Leakage Study t. x •. 1 .! s.,tab ''' ';'ff.-9—` g^ E^' r � ' E ti t, p CE fly-Ld-7,-::',-.-. it k!N,.5y�` ._, t :f ._., • Mt wa 4 ' 41.1 a • S. i.C. C'] l C�7�4J 4 .. i .•' ' . : •':.1,•-,' ' , + - ' - • ut T - ;.,. r .al rdb ,a :d. ,•' + w- e L M' ..._-.—_. .-.-a M• 6 �:: i '. GAR,HOUSE �T� �yyy-yy Cii.AJIJCJ i - - ' t ' �T,8 y� t h F fi rt ,' � '!R .�,—> ", Legend �o 4. • r. • Codes Areas • , , " ,.. -. • j;r zip r ; ,1 ' - Q Planning Communities I• ` 'as, Salt Lake City Boundary .. _ o. r a ., • t,� a _ • 84108-County Comparison FACTOR VALUE SOURCE County Population 898,387 2000 Census _County Per Capita Income 20,190 2000 Census County Sales(Retail Categories) Utah State Tax Commission-2009 Salt Lake County Taxable Sales Bldg&Garden 763,660,042 Gen Merchandise 2,099,367,050 Food Stores 1,681,854,431 Apparel&Access! 640,346,951 Furniture 767,322,917 Misc. 1,516,248,789 Trade Area Population 21,239 2000 Census-Zip Code 84108 Trade Area Per Cap Income 32,585 2000 Census-Zip Code 84108 Trade Area Sales Utah State Tax Commission-2009 Zip Code Level Sales(84108) Bldg&Garden' 2,000 Gen Merchandise 0 Food Stores 46,570,603 Apparel&Access 7,962,080 Furniture 1,250,000 Misc. 18,280,628 Potential Sales Formula (Trade Area Population)X(County Sales/County Pop)X(Trade Area per Capita Income/County per Capita Income) • $B$12*(X/$B$2)*($B$13/$B$3) --- ----- X=County sales by retail category Bldg&Garden — Potential Sales Actual Sales Capture(Leakage) 29,137,486 2000 (29,135,486) 99.9%leakage Gen Merchandise Potential Sales Actual Sales Capture(Leakage) 80,101,452 i0 (80,101,452) 100%leakage Food Stores Potential Sales Actual Sales Capture(Leakage) 64,171,238 '46,570,603 (17,600,635) 27%leakage Apparel&Access Potential Sales Actual Sales Capture(Leakage) 24,432,469 r 7,962,080 (16,470,389) 67%leakage Furniture Potential Sales :Actual Sales Capture(Leakage) 29,277,243 '1,250,000 (28,027,243) 96%leakage Misc. Potential Sales 'Actual Sales Capture(Leakage) 57,852,546 18,280,628 (39,571,918) 68%leakage 84108,84112,84113,84102,84105,84106-County Comparison FACTOR VALUE SOURCE County Population � 898,387 2000 CensusCounty Per Capita Income 20,190 2000 Census County Sales(Retail Categories) 'I Utah State Tax Commission-2009 Salt Lake County Taxable Sales Bldg&Garden 763,660,042 Gen Merchandise 2,099,367,050 Food Stores 1,681,854,431 Apparel&Access 640,346,951 Furniture 767,322,917 Misc. 1,516,248,789 Trade Area Population 95,619 2000 Census-Zip Code 84108,84112,84113,84102,84105,84106 Trade Area Per Cap Income 24,768 2000 Census-Zip Code 84108,84112,84113,84102,84105,84106 Trade Area Sales Utah State Tax Commission-2009 Zip Code Level Sales 84108,84112,84113,84102,84105,84106 Bldg&Garden 9,815,764 Gen Merchandise' 41,500,000 Food Stores' 239,015,506 • Apparel&Access! 73,925,499 Furniture 53,863,705 Misc. 139,576,493 Potential Sales Formula (Trade Area Population)X(County Sales/County Pop)X(Trade Area per Capita Income/County per Capita Income) $B$12"(X/$B$2)*($B$13/$B$3) X=County sales by retail category Bldg&Garden Potential Sales !Actual Sales Capture(Leakage) 99,709,245 9,815,764 (89,893,481) 90%leakage Gen Merchandise Potential Sales Actual Sales Capture(Leakage) 274,109,278 41,500,000 (232,609,278) 85%leakage Food Stores Potential Sales Actual Sales Capture(Leakage) 219,595,665 239,015,506 19,419,841 Actual sales exceed potential sales Apparel&Access Potential Sales Actual Sales Capture(Leakage) 83,608,552 73,925,499 (9,683,053) 12%leakage Furniture Potential Sales Actual Sales Capture(Leakage) 100,187,497 53,863,705 (46,323,792) 46%leakageMisc. -- - -- —�— Potential Sales Actual Sales Capture(Leakage) 197,972,937 139,576,493 (58,396,444) 29%leakage 84108,84112,84113,84102,84105,84106,84109-County Comparison FACTOR VALUE SOURCE County Population 898,387 2000 Census County Per Capita Income 20,190 2000 Census County Sales(Retail Categories) I Utah State Tax Commission-2009 Salt Lake County Taxable Sales Bldg&Gardenj 763,660,042 Gen Merchandise' 2,099,367,050 Food Stores 1,681,854,431 Apparel&Access! 640,346,951 Furniture] 767,322,917 Misc. 1,516,248,789 Trade Area Population 119,648 2000 Census-Zip Code 84108,84112,84113,84102,84105,84106,84109 Trade Area Per Cap Income 25,066 2000 Census-Zip Code 84108,84112,84113,84102,84105,84106,84109 Trade Area Sales Utah State Tax Commission-2009 Zip Code Level Sales 84108,84112,84113,84102,84105,84106,84109 Bldg&Garden 10,615,764 Gen Merchandise) 41,520,000 Food Stores'' 315,966,401 Apparel&Access! 76,141,637 Furniture; 55,599,228 Misc.' 203,797,106 'Potential Sales Formula (Trade Area Population)X(County Sales/County Pop)X(Trade Area per Capita Income/County per Capita Income) j $B$12`(X/$B$2)*($B$13/$B$3) X=County sales by retail category Bldg&Garden Potential Sales 'Actual Sales Capture(Leakage) 126,267,263 110,615,764 (115,651,499) 92%leakage Gen Merchandise Potential Sales Actual Sales Capture(Leakage) 347,119,553 j41,520,000 (305,599,553) 88%leakage Food Stores Potential Sales 'Actual Sales Capture(Leakage) 278,085,987 1315,966,401 37,880,414 Actual sales exceed potential sales Apparel&Access Potential Sales Actual Sales Capture(Leakage) 105,878,078 76,141,637 (29,736,441) 28%leakage Furniture Potential Sales !Actual Sales Capture(Leakage) 126,872,901 •55,599,228 (71,273,673) 56%leakage —_ Misc. Potential Sales :Actual Sales Capture(Leakage) 250,703,945 :203,797,106 (46,906,839) 19%leakage ATTACHMENT D SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday,February 9, 2011 Present for the Planning Commission meeting were Chair Michael Fife, Vice Chair Angela Dean, Commissioners Emily Drown, Bobs De Lay, Kathleen Hill, Charlie Luke, Susie McHugh, Matthew Wirthlin and Mary Woodhead. Commissioner Michael Gallegos was excused. A field trip was held prior to the meeting Planning Commissioners present were: Michael Fife, Emily Drown, Charlie Luke, Matthew Wirthlin, and Mary Woodhead. Staff members in attendance were Nick Norris,Wayne Mills, and Thomas Irvin A roll is being kept of all Who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:45 p.m. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. Planning staff members present at the meeting were: Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Doug Dansie, Senior Planner; Wayne Mills, Senior Planner; Thomas Irvin, Principal Planner; Ana Valdemoros, Associate Planner; Paul Nielson, Land Use Attorney; and Angela Hasenberg,Senior Secretary. Field Trip Notes: Planning Commissioners visited the following locations: PLNPCM2010-00800-Alpine Auto Brokers, 749 South State Street. Staff gave an overview of the proposal including the issue of future expansion to include outside sales and display. Questions were asked regarding the Conditional Use in the future if needed for outdoor space PLNPCM2010-00556 and PLNPCM2010-00557, 2705 E Parley's Way Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment. Staff gave an overview of the proposal. Questions were asked regarding: m Process, particularly the Non Conforming issue and re-using existing building versus rezoning. o Responsibility of drainage issues. Draining issues were explained by staff. o What Commissioners can comment about at the Public Hearing. Staff answered that Notice was given so Planning Commissioners can make a recommendation if they chose to. d Parking and site plan. Staff explained those issues would be addressed if the zoning change was approved or through the site plan review process. © Other uses allowed in the CS zoning. Staff defined others uses allowed in CS zones versus CB zones. Planning Commission Minutes February 9, 2011 Page 1 The proposal includes 92,o0o sq feet,the height the maximum would be 33 feet in the front to screen a/c,but the average height of the building would be 26 feet. The landscaping would be increased. Ms.Garcia described other benefits that would relate to rebuilding. • Park and Ride • Lighting and energy savings Commissioner Hill asked if Wal-Mart wag w lhno t • • He believed that if the desire was to push Wal-Mart out of that property hoping the City could wai it out,that Wal-Mart would tire of their old energy deficient building,it would still be their building to sell. As long as the structure is there,it would always be a non-conforming use. Regardless of the zoning,the only way to have a say as to what goes onto the property would be through a rezoning. Mr.Luke noted that if the parcel was rezoned,Wal-Mart would have to come back to planned development where the Commission could place conditions on the property. Without that,Wal- Mart was not obligated to do anything. The remodel would then be on Wal-Mart's terms. Mr.Luke said waiting it out would not be planning,but would be patience. The right and responsible thing to do would be to rezone and therefore enable the Planning Commission to ensure the changes. Commissioner Drown thanked the audience for participating in the public process.Commissioner Drown discussed the exiting movement toward green building,green energy and growth and the future. Commissioner Drown stated that she felt that the decision would have to be what would be what it best for her,her children-her family any o «L- -- Commissioner Wirthlin added that the last time this issue was placed before the Planning Commission,there was a unanimous denial. Nothing had changed.The Master Plan was still in place,the community had not changed their minds as to whether it was an appropriate zone for the site. Mr.Wirthlin stated that the Master Plan might be outdated,but the particulars regarding this site were not. The community closest to the site say they feel the same way. Commissioner Dean stated that she completely agreed with Commissioner Wirthlin. She stated that there should not be a rush to modify. She felt that 25 years was not too long for a Master Plan and was comfortable with the CZ zone as is. Commissioner McHugh chose not to speak. Commissioner Woodhead stated that she agreed Commissioner Wirthlin, and wanted to express her appreciation of the people from Wal-Mart and their openness to discussion with the community. Commissioner Woodhead felt the zoning was appropriate. Commissioner Hill agreed with Commissioners Wirthlin and Woodhead. Commissioner Hill discussed the importance of vision and the Master Plan. Commissioner Hill stated that Wal-Mart needed to take into consideration the desires of Salt Lake City's residents for a sense of community that had been undermined by the suburban model. Salt Lake wanted a neighborhood feeling,commercial districts, that encourage small business and walkability. Commissioner Hill stated that if you want success,first you must define the outcome. That is the idea behind the Master Plan. She added that the land belongs to the people and it's the stewardship of the developers, citizens and Planning Commissioners to make sure they do the right things with the land. Commissioner Fife stated his appreciation of the comments from the community and the Planning Commissioners. He agreed with Commissioner Wirthlin and found the current zoning appropriate. 0:44:48 Motion Commissioner Wirthlin made the motion that based on the robust discussion, the community input and the reasoning set forth in the materials presented in the staff report and the evidence received this evening in respect to PLNPCM2o10-00556 Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, February 9, 2011 Page 18 • Master Plan amendment and PLNPCM2oio-oo557 Zoning Map amendment,he moved that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of denial of both petitions. Commissioner McHugh seconded the motion. Comment: Planning Director Sommerkorn noted that there was discussion regarding the Master Plan,he stated that the Master Plan was 25 years old,and did not use the same terms that we use today.The East Bench Plan from 25 years ago only refered to one commercial area and it called it neighborhood business. It designated this area as neighborhood business,but also designated Foothill Village as neighborhood business. Planning Director Sommerkorn added that currently the zoning for Foothill Village was CS,but this parcel was CB. The zone is not the same as it was in 1995. Mr. Sommerkorn said that the plans really need to be rewritten so that the Commission could be apples to apples. Vote:Commissioners Drown,Dean,Hill,McHugh,Wirthlin and Woodhead all voted "aye". Commissioner Luke voted"nay"The motion passed. 9:48:20 PM Meeting adjourned This document, along with the digital recording, constitute the official minutes of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held on February 9,2011. Angela Hasenberg Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes,February 9,2011 Page 19 ATTACHMENT E 21A.26.030: CB COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The CB community business district is intended to provide for the close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods. The design guidelines are intended to facilitate retail that is pedestrian in its orientation and scale, while also acknowledging the importance of transit and automobile access to the site. B. Uses: Uses in the CB community business district as specified in section 21A.26.080, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Commercial Districts", of this chapter are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.26.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Planned Development Review: Planned developments, which meet the intent of the ordinance, but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections, may be approved by the planning commission pursuant to the provisions of chapter 21A.55 of this title. D. Lot Size Requirements: No minimum lot area or lot width is required, however any lot exceeding four (4) acres in size shall be allowed only as a conditional use. E. Maximum Building Size: Any building having a fifteen thousand (15,000) gross square foot floor area of the first floor or a total floor area of twenty thousand (20,000) gross square feet or more, shall be allowed only as a conditional use. An unfinished basement used only for storage or parking shall be allowed in addition to the total square footage. F. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Or Corner Side Yard: No minimum yard is required. If a front yard is provided, it shall comply with all provisions of this title applicable to front or corner side yards, including landscaping, fencing, and obstructions. 2. Interior Side Yard: None required. 3. Rear Yard: Ten feet (10'). 4. Buffer Yards: Any lot abutting a lot in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yard requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title. 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to table 21A.36.020B of this title. 6. Maximum Setback: A maximum setback is required for at least seventy five percent (75%) of the building facade. The maximum setback is fifteen feet (15'). s , Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional building and site design review, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the planning commission. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may modify this requirement if the adjacent public sidewalk is substandard and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The planning director may waive this requirement for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than fifty percent (50%) if the planning director finds the following: • a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure or the surrounding architecture. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. Appeal of administrative decision is to the planning commission. 7. Parking Setback: Surface parking is prohibited in a front or corner side yard. Surface parking lots within an interior side yard shall maintain a twenty foot (20') landscape setback from the front property line or be located behind the primary structure. Parking structures shall maintain a thirty five foot (35') minimum setback from a front or corner side yard property line or be located behind the primary or.% structure. There are no minimum or maximum setback restrictions on underground parking. The planning director may modify or waive this requirement if the planning director finds the following: a. The parking is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure or the surrounding architecture. b. The parking is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. c. The horizontal landscaping is replaced with vertical screening in the form of berms, plant materials, architectural features, fencing and/or other forms of screening. d. The landscaped setback is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood character. e. The overall project is consistent with section 21A.59.060 of this title. Appeal of administrative decision is to the planning commission. G. Landscape Yard Requirements: If a front or corner side yard is provided, such yard shall be maintained as a landscape yard. The landscape yard can take the form of a patio or plaza, subject to site plan review approval. H. Maximum Height: Thirty feet (30'). I. Entrance And Visual Access: 1. Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor elevation facing a street of all new buildings or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows • on the front facade, shall not have less than forty percent (40%) glass surfaces. All first floor glass shall be nonreflective. Display windows that are three-dimensional and are at least two feet (2') deep are permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent (40%) glass requirement. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional building and site design review, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the planning commission. The planning director may approve a modification to this requirement if the planning director finds: a. The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, b. The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building, or c. The ground level of the building is occupied by residential uses, in which case the forty percent (40%) glass requirement may be reduced to twenty five percent (25%). Appeal of administrative decision is to the planning commission. 2. Facades: Provide at least one operable building entrance per elevation that faces a public street. Buildings that face multiple streets are only required to have one door on any street, if the facades for all streets meet the forty percent (40%) glass requirement as outlined in subsection 11 of this section. 3. Maximum Length: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet (15'). 4. Screening: All building equipment and service areas, including on grade and roof mechanical equipment and transformers that are readily visible from the public right of way, shall be screened from public view. These elements shall be sited to minimize their visibility and impact, or enclosed as to appear to be an integral part of the architectural design of the building. J. Parking Lot/Structure Lighting: If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use, the poles for the parking lot/structure security lighting are limited to sixteen feet (16') in height and the globe must be shielded to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. 21A.26.040: CS COMMUNITY SHOPPING DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the CS community shopping district is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive shopping center development at a community level scale. B. Uses: Uses in the CS community shopping district as specified in section 21A.26.080, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Commercial Districts", of this chapter are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.26.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Planned Development Review: All new construction of principal buildings, uses, or additions that increases the floor area and/or parking requirement by twenty five percent (25%) in the CS community shopping district may be approved only as a planned development in conformance with the provisions of chapter 21A.55 of this title. D. Minimum Lot Size: 1. Minimum lot area: Sixty thousand (60,000) square feet, excluding shopping center pad sites. 2. Minimum lot width: One hundred fifty feet (150'). E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front And Corner Side Yard: Thirty feet (30'). 2. Interior Side Yard: Fifteen feet (15'). 3. Rear Yard: Thirty feet (30'). 4. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting property in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yard requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title. 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to table 21A.36.020B of this title. F. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of fifteen feet (15') shall be required on all front and corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of section 21A.48.090 of this title. G. Maximum Height: No building shall exceed forty five feet (45'). H. Access Restrictions: To maintain safe traffic conditions, lots in the CS community shopping district shall not exceed one driveway per one hundred fifty feet (150') of frontage on arterial or major collector streets. The location of driveways shall be subject to review by the development review team through the site plan review process. I. Effect Of Planned Development On Minimum Standards: Pursuant to chapter 21A.55 of this title, the planning commission may modify the standards set forth in subsections D through H of this section in the approval of planned developments within this district. Community Business (CB) and Community Shopping (CS) Districts - - Comparison of Allowed Uses Wal-Mart is requesting an amendment to the Salt Lake City zoning map to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from Community Business (CB) to Community Shopping (CS). The following table provides a comparison of uses that are allowed in the (CB) and (CS) Districts. Each use is classified as a Permitted (P) or a Conditional (C) Use, and are defined as follows: "Permitted Use" (P): Uses that are permitted "by-right", provided that they comply . with all stated requirements of the zoning ordinance, and their applicable city, state, and federal regulations. "Conditional Use" (C): A land use that because of its unique characteristics or potential impact on the municipality, surrounding neighbors or adjacent land uses may not be compatible in some area or may be compatible only if certain conditions are required that mitigate or eliminate the detrimental impacts. (-): Use not allowed in the zoning district. Permitted and Conditional Uses By District EXISTING ZONE: PROPOSED ZONE: USE Community Business Community Shopping (CB) (CS) RESIDENTIAL: Assisted living center, large P - Assisted living center, small P - Group home, small P P Living quarters for caretaker or P P security guard Mixed use developments P P Multiple-family dwellings P P Nursing home P - Rooming (boarding) house C C OFFICE AND RELATED USES: Financial institutions with drive- through facilities P P Financial institutions without drive- P P through facilities EXISTING ZONE: PROPOSED ZONE: USE Community Business Community Shopping (CB) (CS) Medical and dental clinics and offices P P Offices P P Veterinary offices, operating entirely within an enclosed building and keeping animals overnight only for P P treatment purposes RETAIL SALES AND SERVICES: Automobile repair, major - C Automobile repair, minor P P Car wash as accessory use to gas station or convenience store that sells P P gas Car wash, with or without gasoline sales - P Conventional department store - P Furniture repair shop P P "Gas station" C P Health and fitness facility P P Liquor store C C Mass merchandising store - P Restaurants with drive-through facilities P P Restaurants without drive-through facilities P P Retail goods establishments with drive- through facilities P P Retail goods establishments without drive-through facilities P P Retail services establishments with drive-through facilities P P Retail services establishments without drive-through facilities P P Speciality store .40000, - P Superstore and hypermarket store - P EXISTING ZONE: PROPOSED ZONE: USE Community Business Community Shopping (CB) (CS) Upholstery shop P P INSTITUTIONAL (SITES <2 ACRES): Adult daycare center P P Child daycare center P P Community recreation centers on lots• P P less than 4 acres in size Government facilities (excluding those P P of an industrial nature and prisons) Libraries C C Museum P P Music conservatory P P Places of worship on lots less than 4 P P acres in size Schools, professional and vocational P P Seminaries and religious institutes P P COMMERCIAL AND MANUFACTURING: Laboratory, medical, dental, optical P P Laboratory, testing - C Motion picture studio - P Photo finishing lab - P Plant and garden shop, with outdoor C C retail sales area RECREATION, CULTURAL AND ENTERTAINMENT: Amusement park - P Art gallery P P Art studio P P Commercial indoor recreation - P Commercial outdoor recreation - C EXISTING ZONE: PROPOSED ZONE: USE Community Business Community Shopping (CB) (CS) Community gardens p p Dance studio p p Live performance theaters c p Miniature golf _ P • Movie theaters C p Natural open space and conservation C c areas Parks and playgrounds, public and P P private, on lots less than 4 acres in Pedestrian pathways, trails, and greenways P P Private club C P Squares and plazas on lots less than 4 P P acres in size Tavern/lounge/brewpub, 2,500 square _ feet or less in floor area Tavern/lounge/brewpub, more than _ , ,,, 2,500 square feet in floor area C MISCELLANEOUS: Accessory uses, except those that are specifically regulate in this chapter, or P p elsewhere in this title Ambulance services, dispatching, stagin and maintenance conducted P p entirely within an enclosed building Ambulance service, dispatching, staging and maintenance utilizing P p outdoor operations Auditorium _ P Bed and breakfast p P Bed and breakfast inn p p Bed and breakfast manor (in a C landmark site) Check cashing/payday loan business P _ Communication towers p P Communication towers, exceeding the C maximum building height EXISTING ZONE: PROPOSED ZONE: USE Community Business Community Shopping (CB) (CS) Crematorium - C Farmers' market - C Flea market (indoor) - P Funeral home - P Hotel or motel C - House museum in landmark sites C C Limousine service utilizing not more C - than 3 limousines Off site parking P P Offices and reception centers in P P landmark sites Outdoor sales and display C C Park and ride lots C C Park and ride, parking shared with P P existing use Public/private utility buildings and P P structures Public/private utility transmission P P wires, lines, pipes and poles Radio, television station - C Recycling collection station P P Reverse vending machines P P t . Salt Lake City CB and CS Zoning l it iln � Illt! u�o 1 i IC IF Arid' '%.JI 1\_\_ ate � --1(llf� .� 0eI \� Legend LIIS �� �II�ll1el�, t CAPI7GL�M IL i . IUI'. 1TT AVEnUES_ w pp J» LI� II nI ••r.-I 1l It Zoning NORTHWEST7:1 raj 1IIIII�N t ir,wx_ �` III IIIII r 4.J. �) tli1 �e-,fn1 �? I I q I �j-III L 91Ir 1. l[n ID �0000e1 L I ooin IZL�„ �J1\\% ❑r t ❑ ' Street CleeeIScellon yi L'§. . J iii _ ;JIL��l3.'r.'[°�oL°i ' C 1� ✓.1 State Ig { J A._ I ^J❑ .— 'y. Oof] ..0 Op,r —nnenel Cdtettor 1! _gym�..1,� I�i ■ L U I ■ ::T Ili [ H �1 freeways / 9 1- 1011 IglOall 'IH NM—MN ■ QtU1❑[IDW(�! ( IIIIIII I III -_[T7 I inn❑il[R / i. N IL 1) \ �[ ,�nrll1 4._ JINN L LID a❑� ti I{' ,IIII I 1:JnL.I A E111"1.ill,. il„11111�in. CEIALII r OS Ii/ I g���r -- °"' I `tinnhi u,' ^t :•IIIH1tlIII�mfain II{7 `gnllmetz. _ I�d�.-_--:. WEST SALT LAKE IIIN. _i�t' M414 �, , ����e�ilf' 1 [� 3..�Iwi. 1iInfIIIF�I����^�.. r��\� 1 "'"'M,i 7,ir Iif, jI 1 �'u II a„'inn. ll_fl �: 171iRR `m (3 I Ii G tunnqulll 11u Tom."' ■IIII 1 - NI 1 III1 1jpe^tall r IIIri Yi. 1d11g r ' i 1�1i1 I l mmos.1:ii a mm� a s. tcri elu Ili-::.�r� �l■ I N�Ina' \ �� { Ill_ 0 AI�uRAI��_i_.—y 3 .u• �� L dP!*SUGARHOUS III Ilik lllII`lr.-- stir 11� III Ill■!_ ��'' I I I III _.- 1,�, J1o= R/� cai+,+mlty ® a ' 'Dili _s II IIlillIJ.i.... `" III `I nven�: I111I . I I JI IIIIItII!Nennlrywe But ea�d, Itemse, .et panels Arran 4 52 0 0 Cap.Hil 14 z.87 9 2sz -1111,,I III`; CentralCry 429 398e 113 4362 East Bench n .07 7 us GGF1 u aa1 SF ...est 50 211 . 35.6 PI ..,-,owe 338 .9 B 31 i� Nest Salt lake 101 21 7 0 0 L. a.rnal 1013 19712 201 12734. ATTACHMENT F Public Comments • Comments received in the Council office • Council sponsored Open City Hall item (Disclaimer: This is not an all inclusive list of public comments regarding this issue) Walmart Rezoning/ Master Plan Amendment Public Comments as of July 14, 2011 Date Submitted Comments 7/7/2011 8:20 I am disappointed that we have to spend,time and energy on the 3rd attempt,or more,by Walmart regarding the Kmart property.Enough!I worry they will buy off the council!Like a parent who finally gives in to a whining child.I will go to the peak democracy site but it is a waste of everyonea€ 's time.The traffic problem alone should prohibit expansion.Wouldna€"t it be wonderful if 1/2 of the land could be a park and ride for mass transit along the foothill corridor or down Parleya€'"s canyon to sugar house.And the other half a park.Dream on.Happy 4th of July.Thanks for serving. • 7/11/2011 8:15 I think this is ridiculous.Why do we keep giving Walmart the runaround if they are going to have a store there anyway?If they are requesting permission from the City to make a new location nicer why are we telling them no? Walmart IS coming to that location.I think that the majority of uninformed residents of that area believe that by not supporting Walmart remodeling that location that they are really turning away Walmart all together.Please help me understand why we are demanding a good company come in to a very outdated location.Thank you very much,Michael Oakford 7/1/2011 7:45 Wal-Mart can build it big or little,new or old,it doesn't matter to me.I won't shop there no matter what.I am not alone on this.East benchers like to buy local.That retail space would be better served by multiple small businesses owned by locals.It is saddening that the council is selling out to big-box blowhards.My wish is for Wal-Mart to just go away. 7/5/2011 7:52 I am in favor of wallmart coming to Parleys Way.By having a new store in our area it will provide competition to Dans,Smiths and Fresh market and this is good for residents in this area.I also think they should be allowed to rebuild rather then remodel the existing building. 7/7/2011 8:20 I am disappointed that we have to spend,time and energy on the 3rd attempt,or more,by Walmart regarding the Kmart property.Enough!I worry they will buy off the council!Like a parent who finally gives in to a whining child.I will go to the peak democracy site but it is a waste of everyonea€'"s time.The traffic problem alone should prohibit expansion.Wouldna€'"t it be wonderful if 1/2 of the land could be a park and ride for mass transit along the foothill corridor or down Parleys€' s canyon to sugar house.And the other half a park.Dream on.Happy 4th of July.Thanks for serving. 6/3/2011 9:28 I attended the City Council meeting when St Joseph's Villa asked for a rezone to update its facilities,particularly the Amok Alzheimer's ward.I listened as the 4'8'tall Sister Mary Catherine desperately pleaded in a soft Irish accent,to allow the rezone in order to better care for the elderly in our community whose only choice is the Villa because it accepts Medicaid.But the city council voted the rezone down because the neighborhood resisted.Now,we have WalMart wanting a rezone on Parley's Way in a neighborhood which is also resisting.I can't help but compare City Council denying the needs of a compassionate,elderly-care facility to considering the request of a multi-national,multi- billion dollar,for-profit,retail corporation.If the City Council votes in favor of a huge corporation while denying our elderly in the exact same circumstance,it will be very telling of City Council's priorities.And it is a story I will be more than happy to report to any news media who will listen. 11/16/2010 12:01 Dear Mr.Weeks,please see our response to the questions you have indicated in your note.1.If a guest at your hotel wants to go to places such as Provo,Park City or a ski resort,and you use a car service(a company under contract with your hotel to provide transportation to hotel guests for a fare),do you or the guest reserve the ride 30 minutes in advance,or does the concierge or bell person call up a car immediately?We are able to provide car service 30-minutes in advance using a private transportation company for planned group outings and for some pre- planned individual excursions.However,the majority of guests who venture out to visit local attractions do so because of spur-of-the-moment openings in their business or personal agendas.These circumstances in particular, require a€aeon demands"€lI car service to adequately fulfill their needs.It should be noted that the transportation options(cab or private car)used in these circumstances reflect either the guest's specific preference or are selected at random from a transportation staging area on a first come,first service basis,as is done at the Salt Lake City International Airport.2.If city ordinances require either your hotel or your guests to reserve a car service ride 30 minutes in advance if those guests want to go to Provo,Park City or ski resorts,what effect,if any,would that have 11/17/2010 9:40 Called into the Council Office requesting that JT Vote no on the Wal-Mart Re-Zone issue. 11/17/2010 9:41 Called the Council Office voicing her opposition to the Wal-Mart Re-Zone. 11/17/2010 9:42 Called the Council Office requesting 1T to vot no on the Wal-Mart Re-Zone issue.States that Wal-Mart is not our Amok friend. 11/17/2010 9:43 Called the Council Office requesting JT and Soren vote no on the Wal-Mart Re-Zoning Request.She is very much opposed. 11/17/2010 11:02 Dear Mr.Mills,Thank you for your through and detailed response.It is very helpful and clears up my questions/concerns.I certainly would not want to see a significant amount of a€cestorage containersael on the property,but that sounds like something that could occur with the existing zoning.Thank you again for your time on this and the through response.I am confident that the planning commission is doing its best for the long term use and re-development of the property.I am still in favor of a rezone of the property as long as it complies to the recommendations and guidelines of the planning commission.Best regards,Rick 11/17/2010 11:07 If the new zone is limited to the existing Kmart property,I see no harm in bringing Wal-Mart into the area.We need to be more business friendly to get the economy moving again. 11/17/2010 11:21 We are in favor of the Walmart Rezoning.We have lived in this area for 35 years and believe it will benefit the community. 11/18/2010 11:13 I live east of Foothill on Comanche and drive to the 300 West Wal-Mart every week or so.I would love to save the gas and help lower pollution in the valley by shopping at as large as possible a Wal-Mart on Parleys.I think all these protests are elitist and propelled by those who can pay higher prices for everything.Please do not be overwhelmed by their organized voices.Many of us want the convenience of a closer Wal-Mart.I do not feel comfortable going to the East Bench Council meeting and standing up against the"in"crowd that somehow relishes in bashing Wal-Mart. 11/19/2010 10:55 As a neighbor of the long-time vacant KMart store at Parleys Way and Foothill Drive,I support the construction of a new WalMart Store on the site and urge the City to approve the requests of WalMart to do so.As experienced real estate developer in Salt Lake City I am well aware of the options the City has to require many things of a developer as projects are proposed.I suggest that you insure appropriate landscaping accompany the construction of a new building so that the"sea of asphalt"which is now so enjoyed by some of the outspoken neighbors,turns into a lively communitdy center with greenery as well as parking.Perhaps a development agreement could be entered into between the City and WalMart which would govern the size,design,site plan,landscape plan and elevations which would better define the end product.I have entered into a number of development agreements over the years with many cities in the valley.They are not unusual and WalMart might find such an approach attractive to resolving some of the issues complained about by some of the neighbors.Frankly,the silent majority of neighbors to this property would like to see it developed in order to add to the City's tax base,add sales tax revenues to City coffers and clean up what is now a blighted property.In fact the blight there may be enough for the Redevelopment Agency to consider it as a target area.I hope it doesn't come to that.This project has become controversial largely • because some citizens in the area would like to see nothing happen.The problem with this approach is that the property only becomes more blighted which in the real world does lead to the property becoming a center for criminal activity.When no one visits the property daily it is an ideal place for drug trafficking or whatever other 11/22/2010 13:21 I live across from the Parleys€TMs Way Kmart/WalMart site.The November 19 editorial in the Tribune says that a big box store will be built there,and that the only question is the size of that store.I am not convinced.Is WalMart legally required to develop the property in a particular way?Is there anything preventing WalMart from getting the zoning changed and then selling the property?My understanding(based on some research)is that its€TMs possible the rezoned property could be developed and used,for example,as a pit stop for truckers travelling 1-80,with dozens of diesel and other fuel pumps,a store,a restaurant,sleeping accommodations,and overnight parking for 18-wheelers and other commercial trucks.Even if WalMart has some legal obligation to develop the property as a store in line with the presentations made,if there is enough profit to be made by violating the obligation, whata€'s to stop that from happening?There is too much uncertainty here for me to be convinced that the Tribunes€TMs editorial is accurate. 11/22/2010 13:27 I live off Foothill on the East Bench.01 think it is insane that you all are insisting on a aCcecute little shopping areas€®instead of letting Walmart come in a replace that UGLY empty building.I would love to have a Walmart closer than 1300 S.and 300 W.But more importantly,it would not be taking the place of green space or a lovely park.I do not see anyone converting that UGLY Kmart into a parka€I a€;I would rather it would be functional building that would serve the neighborhoods€;s€;and let it be big enough to house a grocery department as well. It would be a different story if they wanted to build on green space,but for heavens sakes€;s€;..nothing has been allowed to be done to that property long enough.A brand new Walmart would be 1000X better than what is there now! 11/23/2010 17:56 I'm confused about the rezoning issue.If Walmart can occupy the current building,why is rezoning necessary to build something which would be an improvement over the old K Mart building and parking lot?I am absolutely against anything like Sugar House Commons.Driving in,out,or around there is a nightmare.I am a senior citizen and my husband is disabled.We don't have the option of walking long distances to shop.I think Walmart should be allowed to build the smaller store and put in the landscaping improvements.It would certainly be short sighted to force Walmart to give up altogether.Downtown Sugar House is a fine example of what can happen.It could be decades before anyone else decides to build on the K Mart site. 11/23/2010 18:17 I see no reason why this property should continue to go unimproved and the revinue being lost.We lost K Mart and now we have a chance to fill that void with a strong retailer that will be much closer to do business with.We need a WalMart in this part of the city,so do what it takes to get the project started. 11/24/2010 11:24 I am very much in favor of rezoning for the Wal-Mart on Parley's.I attended the Foothill Council meeting in which Wal-Mart representatives presented their proposal and listened to the questions and comments from the attendees to gain some persepective.I believe the current building and landscaping do need some dramatic improvements.However,doing a facelift on old buildings and landscaping can just be a temporary fix.Other parts of the valley(ie.City Creek project,Gateway project,growth in Sandy/Draper,the west side)all feature for the most part new construction.The Sugarhouse area has had new commercial buildings in recent years(Whole Foods) with more in the works.With a general understanding of the issues,it seems the city would miss out on a great opportunity to improve storm drain issues,traffice flow,and overall enhancement of an area that desperately needs it by not approving the rezoning request.I am strongly in favor of the city council approving the rezoning request of the Wal-Mart Parleys area for am improvement to the area.Larry Hardie 1793 S.2600 E. 11/24/2010 12:36 In favor of new Walmart proposal.Something needs to be done with the building,it has been empty too long. 12/2/2010 5:10 Dear Council Members,I hope you will take a moment to read this story below through to the end,where there is a message for you.Al Norman sprawl-busters.com-- ---------------2010-12-01 Salt Lake City,UT.Wal-Mart Accused of Trying to Bribe Local Residents In October of 2009,Eduardo Castro-Wright,then Wal- Marta€'"s vice chairman of U.S,stores,told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette,a€oeThe writing is on the wall,we are going to smaller stores.a€0 Residents in Salt Lake City are learning first-hand how that statement plays out. Residents charged this week that Wal-Mart is trying to bribe some of them with cash payments.On August 31, ,r- 2010,Sprawl-Busters reported that after more than two years of battles,Wal-Mart unveiled a new a€cecondenseda€e superstore plan for a neighborhood in Salt Lake City that doesna€"t want superstores.This story began on July 29,2008,when Sprawl-Busters indicated that Wal-Mart wanted to build a 122,320 s.f. supercenter in the heart of the Sugar House neighborhood,but first it planned to tear down an empty 113,000 s.f. Kmart it bought several years ago.The citya€•"s zoning ordinance says the existing building can be remodeleda€"but not torn down.In 2005,Salt Lake City passed a zoning amendment that prohibits supercenters from SC-community businessa€ 'areas,which now requires Wal-Mart to change the zoning on the Kmart property- -a parcel that Wal-Mart bought five years ago.Wal-Mart asked for a rezoning of the property---and tried to sweeten the deal by offering a landscaping package,"green"features on the building,new sidewalks and other site 12/2/2010 14:21 I am Tom Grisley,and I am a homeowner residing at 2348 Scenic Drive with my wife,Marnie and my two sons,Tim (17)and Robbie(20).My daughter is also a resident at our house,although she currently attends Gonzaga University in Spokane,WA.We intended to attend the East Bench Community Council Meeting held a couple of weeks ago at the Anderson-Foothill Library.However,we had time constraints,so that we could not attend the entire meeting.I had planned attend with my wife and son,Robbie in order to vote no against the rezoning.I called Gene Moffitt of the East Bench CC shortly before the meeting and asked if it would be possible for us to show up and vote and not stay for the entire meeting.He indicated that this was not going to be possible,and that voting would occur towards the end of the meeting.I then asked what time he anticipated the meeting would end,and was told that it would probably run until 9 or 9:15.In reliance on Mr.Moffitta€'"s representations,and due to our prior time constraints,we did not attend the meeting.The next day we learned that it was possible to show up and vote without staying the entire meeting,and that many people did just that.I read that the outcome of the voting was 46-44 in favor of the rezone.We have actively discussed the rezoning issues between ourselves in the household,and with our neighbors.We are firmly set against the rezoning,as we believe that it will set a bad precedent,and ultimately impair desired development in the immediate neighborhood,i.e.smaller stores,more regulated disbursement of traffic,etc.la€"'ve seen zoning issues addressed in similar circumstances as a result of my dealings with land-use issues as an attorney,and quite frankly,I see this instance as Wal-Mart gaining a foothold 12/7/2010 15:38 I've lived in District 6 my whole life.I've seen the East Bench mountainside cut into in order to allow for more housing.I used to hike in those mountains where houses now stand.There are developments that should have never happened,and because of this the East Bench Master Plan was created in 1982.It allows us to preserve our community.I also remember when K-Mart was built around 40 years ago.It has now wasted to an old ugly unused building with environmental issues.If it were historic,we would upgrade and preserve it,but it's not historic.I don't understand why people in the community won't allow for a nicer more environmentally friendly building.This is one decision that I feel we should make adjustments to the Master Plan in order to allow for a better building and area to be created. 12/13/2010 11:15 I want to thank you for setting aside the land in Parley's HistOlic Nature Park as an offleash area for dogs.I walk my dog in the park and we both enjoy the exercise,the fresh air and the socializing in this great natural environment. This is a real gift for myself and my dog.This park is different from most dog parks in that we can walk,run or bike with our dogs.We both get exercise.When this comes to a vote,I ask that you choose to keep the park as it is.Do not vote to limit oW'off-leash area.Please vote for retaining our ability to walk and explore this beautiful park with our dogs. 12/13/2010 11:16 I want to thank you for setting aside the land in Parley's HistOlic Nature Park as an offleash area for dogs.I walk my dog in the park and we both enjoy the exercise,the fresh air and the socializing in this great natural environment. This is a real gift for myself and my dog.This park is different from most dog parks in that we can walk,run or bike with our dogs.We both get exercise.When this comes to a vote,I ask that you choose to keep the park as it is.Do not vote to limit oW'off-leash area.Please vote for retaining our ability to walk and explore this beautiful park with our dogs. 12/13/2010 11:29 I want to thank you for setting aside the land in Parley's Historic Nature Park as an offleash area for dogs.I walk my dog in the park and we both enjoy the exercise,the fresh air and the socializing in tlus great natural environment. This is a real gift for myself and my dog.This park is different from most dog pares in that we can walk,run or bike with our dogs.We both get exercise.When this comes to a vote,I ask that you choose to keep the park as it is.Do not vote to limit our off-leash area.Please vote for retaining our ability to walk and explore this beautiful park with our dogs. 12/13/2010 11:42 I urge the Council to adopt a resolution to make:A-Hill into park off-leash safety,B-Stream access to 3(health of people and dogs)C-Southside off-leash(increase size for dogs and families)OR Resolve to maintain status quo. 12/13/2010 12:12 Signed petition supporting the proposed PHNP Management Plan.(Name not legible) 12/13/2010 12:37 Parley's Canyon should be used for off-leash.It encourages healthy walking,good friendships.I have used the area for 20 years.We should keep it for our dogs&children to enjoy.South Side off-leash.Off Leash from the(Illegible) on.I believes that the parking lot should be on leash. 12/13/2010 14:46 I have lived near the Parleys Nature Park(or Gully as my children have always called it)for more than 30 years.We have enjoyed walking through this special area as an escape from the hustle and bustle of the city,a place to reconnect with nature and a place just to have fun!As a history enthusiast,I also enjoyed looking at the historial markers and imagining what it might have been like when the pioneers came through and the Native Americans before them.I feel the plan as proposed with specified areas for dogs to enjoy being off-leash while protecting the natural environment,water quality and historical sites as well as providing trails for walkers and bikers is a marvelous way to meet the needs of diverse users.I encourage a vote to accept the plan. 12/19/2010 0:23 I know I am not in your districts,but I wish to commend you on your integrity and your commitment to the people you represent.I recently learned of Wal-Mart's request to rezone to allow them to tear down the old K-Mart and build another Wal-Mart in its place.This is not in the community's best interest and the fact that you denied them their request is laudable.I understand they intend to continue to pester the council with similar requests.This behavior is not dissimilar to a small child.I would admonish you to continue to play the part of a responsible parent and be consistent in your answer,"No".If you let Wal-Mart do as they please,they will continue to pursue their own selfish interests to the detriment of your community.Thank you for watching out for those you represent. 1/15/2011 11:38 I strongly object to this rezone.Traffic is an enormous concern of mine,and the worst congestion is EXACTLY where the proposed WalMart would be.I will be personally affected every single day of my life by this traffic(unlike the East Bench Community Council members who are in favor of the rezone who live closer to Foothill Village).I wait endlessly for a dangerous opening between a constant stream of cars onto Foothill from Thunderbird--and forget about turning south since the traffic light often turns green for less than a few seconds.The random studies may suggest that Parley's could handle more traffic,but the reality is that the poorly constructed 215/80 East off-ramp for the Foothill/Parley's exit is already road-rage hell.There are constant accidents there and that is exactly where the traffic from around the valley will be coming from!And guess who gets to pay for any traffic"improvements"-- not WalMart!I only hope that the City Council will better represent my voice as a citizen than the East Bench Community Council.Also,a Big Box,and I mean ANY big box,is not a logical extension of the current office buildings and other small businesses in the area.A"Trader Joe's"or something small and neighbor friendly might be a better use of the property. 1/22/2011 7:37 I am against the East Bench rezone--just experienced another wicked traffic morning on Foothill. 1/23/2011 9:48 To whom it may concern,I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Wal-mart petition to rezone the property on Parleys Way.As a resident of the area,I am concerned about the overall impact of up-zoning this property.The foothill area has traffic congestion issues that have been documented by various studies within the last few years.Other concerns include noise,air quality,light pollution and general impacts on the residential area. My personal opinion is that this property would be better suited as a mixed use,multiple business and retail area that encourage pedestrian access.Approximately two years ago,I attended a Planning Commission meeting where an overwhelming majority of the public speakers were against the re-zone.The Planning Commission unanimously recommended against the re-zone.Wal-marts€"s tactic of retracting and re-submitting the petition should be scrutinized with the appropriate discretion.Sincerely,Thomas E Lindgren 2701 E Wilshire Drive • 1/23/2011 18:53 23 January 2011 To whom it May concern:I am writing to express my objection over Walmarta€TMs request to re- zone the property at 2705 Parleys€'"s Way from Community Business to Community Shopping.The current zoning for this property already allows Walmart to remodel their property;they simply do not require a re-zone to accomplish this.Just down the street Architectural Nexus has done a beautiful job of remodeling the former Ballya€ 's Gym into an attractive office building with no re-zone required.If a small company such as Architectural Nexus can accomplish this task,then certainly a large corporation such as Walmart can.Furthermore,the old Smiths building on 3300 South is currently being remodeled into two discount stores.la€TMm confident that shoppers will embrace a refreshed property such as this,and not give a second thought that the structure in which theya€"re shopping was remodeled.la€""m equally confident that Walmart can skillfully remodel their property to create a shopping experience that meets their customers€TMs expectations.Walmart has argued that shoppers deserve a newly constructed building vs.and old one.They maintain that it is too expensive to remodel vs.rebuild which to me seems unsubstantiated considering their vast resources.Salt Lake has many charming walk-able neighborhoods.When considering our approach on how to best develop the Parleys€TMs Way neighborhood,we • should also to strive to achieve this characteristic of a walk-able community.Many people I know have chosen to live in Salt Lake City as opposed to the suburbs,simply for the ability to walk to a desirable destination.This is something which should be recognized and protected.Dona€TM't let bad development tear apart the cohesiveness 1/25/2011 21:12 I am against the rezone of the Parley's Way Kmart site!I believe in the Master Plan process and agree that the property in this neighborhood should not be Community Shopping.Walmart's proposed planning agreement to molify the neighborhood is both bad practice and incredibly difficult if not impossible to enforce.If the zoning is changed we will forever have exactly opposite of what the East Bench Master Plan designs.I understand that Walmart owns the property.Let them build their store under the current zone and conduct business as best they know how.I hope to still be living across the street long enough that when they move on(as Kmart has and Walmarts often do)we as a neighborhood finally have something to be proud of that enhances our community as the East Bench Master Plan intends.Thank you,Heather Barth 1/26/2011 19:53 I have lived between the former K-Mart on Parley's Way(now owned by WalMart)and the Sugar House Commons shopping area for 25 years.I remember the residential community that existed before ShopKo,Nordstrom's Rack, and etc.Mostly I remember the ease of getting on the freeway to commute to my job or going over to Brickyard Village before thousands of vehicles were trying to get in and out of Sugar House Commons.Now I have the same transformation to look forward to on Parley's Way if WalMart is successful in getting rezoned from CB to CS.Just on the traffic issue alone this rezone should be denied,though there are other issues such as the WalMart-City agreement that leaves out community input now and in the future and makes the rezone application questionable. New CS zoning for WalMart opens the door to a much bigger enterprise than a single WalMart on the Parley's Way property.I see things getting worse,much worse,from the standpoint of a long-time neighborhood resident.Please recommend no rezone.Thank you. 1/27/2011 13:45 I am really dead-set against changing the zoning status of the land here.I think it will open up a can of worms.If Wal-mart cannot do their project under the current zoning,they can always sell the property.Bill Wegesser 1/28/2011 9:00 Dear Salt Lake City Council,I am writing concerning the Walmart Zoning on Parleys Way.I am against allowing Wal *""* Marta€TMs request that the current zoning be changed from Community Business(CB)to Community Shopping(CS). This property and the surrounding areas would become more congested with traffic and be inadequate for the use of public facilities that the property was intended to serve.The community as a whole is not opposed to business in this area,however,a community shopping center like Wal Mart is not ideal for this location.From the Foothill Land Use Study by Urban Planning Students at the U of U,Spring 2007,a€ce...the objective of this study is to help alleviate traffic and congestion along the neighborhood roads of the area.The continued use of the site for a large retailer such as Kmart,Wal-Mart or Target would become a regional attraction,therefore increasing the areas€TMs traffic volume and congestion.A mixed-use development could contribute to the needed employment in the area while staying consistent with the current usage along the corridor.S0 a€celt is envisioned that the[Kmart]site be redeveloped as a mixed-use,transit-oriented village.The village should be designed as a walkable community with pedestrian-oriented design elements,connecting to Foothill Drive and the surrounding community.The uses of the site should include housing,office and retail.The housing should be a mix of apartments,condominiums,and townhomes,helping meet the needs of future growth and allowing for a diversity of housing options in the area. Retail should be oriented towards smaller,locally-owned and operated businesses,keeping with the unique character of the Foothill Drive corridor.a€®Because Foothill Drive is already at maximum traffic capacity,the idea is 1/31/2011 9:25 Patricia Allred called and left a message on the Council Comment line regarding the Wal-Mart Re-zone.She believes that if the request is defeated it would be a shame,the area needs this type of store,and she feels its€TMs much nicer and more energy efficient.She realizes that some of the merchants in the area are against this re-zone because they will lose business,but she feels they will lose business because they are not doing a very good job. 1/31/2011 10:01 Attention Planning Commission and City Council Re:I oppose Rezone of 2705 Parleya€TMs Way from Community Business to Community Shopping.I have lived one block from Parleya€TMs Way since 1968.When KMart opened it was an eyesore and it still is,but adding 6%more vegetation is not going to change it.I dons€TMt understand why the issue is again coming up when the citizens and planners have clearly indicated it is not in the neighborhooda€'"s interest or master plan.One can only think that it is economic and political pressure from , Walmart.Never,never do you discuss what it is going to cost,if rezoned,to handle the additional traffic,the cost of traffic lights,the additional delays on already congested Foothill,the lack of an east bench plan for Foothill Drive. The lack of adequate rapid transit along this corridor,the lack of bike paths or the additional traffic on Stringham Avenue and Parleya€TMs Way.These are costs to the taxpayers who so resent paying taxes.If we pay more taxes let it be for education and open space.We cannot stop Walmart having a store with a similar footprint,but we can support enforcing the master plan,which is good and needed.Many other acceptable uses can be made of this property and I am sure Walmart could sell this property if the rezone is not approved and they are unwilling to downsize their plans.We have shopping services at Olympus Hills,Sugar House,and 3300 South,Foothill Village and along Foothill Blvd.Another Walmart is only about 5 miles away long with other big box stores:Target,Costco, and Lowes etc.on 3rd West.Lets keep our small stores and merchants in business.We have all the convenience we 1/31/2011 10:06 My objections to Wal-Marta€TMs petition for rezoning focus on traffic and site accessibility,which are closely linked. Our Wilshire Drive/Wilshire Circle neighborhood,with one way in and one way out,is directly across from the main driveway into the subject property and would certainly be impacted by the increase in traffic volume linked to a Wal-Mart super store.The driveway from Parley's Way is very awkward already and would not handle such a traffic increase.Because of the traffic light,traffic seems to flow fairly well now,but with the kind of volume typically experienced by Wal-Mart super stores the intersection would become congested with very limited space for backed up traffic.We shop regularly at the Sama€TMs Club and Costco stores on 300 West and notice that even with the comparatively easy access to those stores from 300 West,getting around and parking can be difficult.Access to a super store from Parleya€T"s Way--and back out again--would NOT be easy.Regardless of what occupies the property,there will always be people who drive into our neighborhood seeking a shortcut across the gully;when they realize there is no a€oeback door,a€0 they make a U-turn and speed back out.More shoppers will mean that many more drive-through speeders.Finally,Foothill Boulevard is already full and Parleya€ch's Way would become a nightmare if the rezone is permitted.This neighborhood is not suitable for a 24-hour super store.Thank you. 1/31/2011 11:59 Wayne Mills Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S.State St.Room 406 PO Box 145480 SLC 84111-5480 Dear Mr. Mills,I am writing to oppose the proposed rezoning for the Walmart location on Parleys€"s way.My primary, though not my only objection,is that the proposed amendment is not consistent with the purposes,goals, objectives of the East Bench Master Plan.As a neighborhood community,we are not ignorant to what Walmart is proposing.We understand clearly and we are intentionally opposed.East Bench Master Plan,April,1987 1.Page 6: a€ceMajor zoning changes in the East Bench Community are neither anticipated nor encouraged.Changes involving expansion of existing business sites in response to documented needs should be reviewed cautiously and approved sparingly.a€®2.Appendix I:Zoning Change Compatibility Considerations a.Property must be on a street that can handle additional traffic.b.a€ceSpot or strips€©zoning to accommodate new businesses is strongly discouraged.[my emphasis]c.New businesses should be designed to be a logical extension of adjacent businesses, maintaining complimentary building design and landscaping motifs.o The only Community Shopping zones east of State Street are Brickyard,Foothill Village,and the area around Trolley Square.This is not the type of development we want to see in our neighborhood.At my particular address,I would essentially be bookended by two large • community shopping centers each just blocks away.It simply is not necessary.1.Community Shopping is intended to be a shopping center development on a regional scale.This is not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. 2.Rezoning this property would be spot zoning at its worst;solely to accommodate a single business with no regard 1/31/2011 16:54 I am writing to express my opposition to the rezone petition of Walmart for the old Kmart property on Parleys Way. I live at 2516 Wilshire Circle,directly south of the Walmart property.As you know,Walmart petitioned to have the zone changed a year or two ago and the neighborhood immediately surrounding the property was very much opposed to the change.The planning commission at that time made a determination that the rezone was not appropriate and voted to deny their request.Walmart is now back again with a new petition,that although slightly different,is substantially the same request to change the zoning to permit a brand new facility be built several times larger than what the present zoning would allow.I am against their request because I believe what they are proposing is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood or in compliance with either the spirit or the letter of the master plan for the area.As you know,our neighborhood was never given the opportunity to comment when the Kmart was built decades ago,and in my opinion,their use of the property was never appropriate with the interests of the neighborhood.I am not against a commercial development,but I believe the uses permitted for this site should be those compatible with a neighborhood,not something expressly designed as a regional shopping destination intending to pull customers from distances far outside the neighborhood.I understand that Walmart has stated that if the rezone is not approved they will operate their business in the current structure as a grandfathered non-conforming use.That is their right and I have no problem with that.But I am strongly opposed to changing the zone that will forever determine the use of the future use of the property in a manner which I 1/31/2011 17:00 I would like to add my vote to deny the requests to amend the East Bench Master Plan and change the zoning to allow Wal-Mart to build a new building on the former Kmart property.My objections are these:ACC These proposed actions revert to a plan that the residents have already addressed and created the status that we want now.a€C The zoning for larger development does not fit with the residential nature and traffic capabilities of the area.a€C The zoning for larger development leaves the area open to much less input from the neighborhoods for future and continued development on the site RC This proposal has come before community groups several times before and been rejected soundly.Each continued resubmission contains minimal adjustment to respond to local concerns,which indicates that Wal-Mart really doesna€T"t want to work with the neighborhood.Again,I heartily request that these proposals for amendment to the Master Plan and zoning be denied! • 2/5/2011 21:59 Dear City Council,I live in the neighborhood of the proposed WalMart on Parleys Way/Foothill Boulevard and am , writing to you to express my concerns.I do not support any rezoning of the area.WalMart would have the area rezoned so that legally they could affect changes in the future that may not be in the interest of our community. While I can see the benefits to WalMart,and even to the community,of razing and then building a smaller,more eco friendly store,I can see even more difficulties in trying to stay current on what a rezone will and will not allow. Reviewing and monitoring the new criteria would become a major problem if not an impossibility for the community.Secondly,the area is already facing substantial traffic and opening a WalMart will increase it.Foothill Boulevard is already congested and if and when this new store opens,that congestion will increase.It will also force substantially more traffic along 2100 South thereby affecting a much larger area than just the WalMart location.If the area were to be rezoned,there is no telling what additional traffic deadlock would occur.I appreciate your time and attention to my concerns and respectfully request that you do not support WalMart's rezoning request.Thank you,Linda Frost 2/8/2011 11:06 I am writing to express my support for the rezoning of the Wal-Mart property on 2705 E.Parleys Way to a CS zone. As an owner of the Eastland Regency office complex where Woodbury Corporation is headquartered,which is contiguous to the Wal-Mart property,I believe it would be in the best interest of Salt Lake City and its residents to rezone this property.Our development sets a certain construction standard for the area and I thAink it Als important to continue the design standard our property has set.I believe that Wal-Mart will only be able to uphold the construction standards if Wal-Mart is granted the rezone and master plan amendment.The rezoning of the property will allow Wal-Mart to build a better store that will best serve our community.The rezone will allow Wal- Mart to improve traffic flow,flood mitigation,and site and building aesthetics,amongst various other aspects. While I have heard a few residents express concern about the operation of a Wal-Mart store on this property,this case is not about Wal-Mart,but rather about the land use.The rezoning of this property is appropriate because of its location and the surrounding uses.Foothill and Parleys is a gateway to East Salt Lake.Furthermore my understanding is that failing to rezone the property will not deter Wal-Mart from opening a somewhat operationally inefficient store in the existing building;however,the existing building is timeworn and unsightly,and ,,, , even with the remodel improvements Wal-Mart will be allowed to make under City code,the building will still not look as good as Wal-Mart's proposed new building.While I m excited to see the property in operatAion,regardless 2/8/2011 21:39 Our family lives on Maywood Drive.I am very concerned about the Walmart rezone and the impact that it may have on our neighborhood.I would be greatly displeased if Maywood Drive became an access street for semi trucks to the proposed unloading docks of Walmart on the west side of the building(if the land was rezoned).I would prefer that the docks remain in their current location,on the NE corner of the building.Rezoning this property puts in jeopardy our safety(due to increased traffic from vehicles and delivery trucks on a street where our kids play), and our privacy.I say NO to a rezone. 2/9/2011 14:28 To whom it may concern,Please do not allow the proposed walmart expansion!!I do not even want a walmart in my neighborhood!thats why I bought a house in this area at an increased price.If a walmart is built than I will plan to move out of state. 2/10/2011 10:55 The comments were about half and half-for and against.The time slot was moved up by almost an hour from proposed time slot.The council voted 7 to one against and with most you could tell they had their minds made up before a word was said.They accused Walmart of being arrogant.These people with one exception were on a power trip.The against speaking people were either from Sugarhouse-did not want competition,and/or did not want traffic,lights or anything else to do with Walmart.One compared the K-Mart building to the City and County bldg and how old buildings could be saved.There is a very large difference between the City and County bldg and the dump that has been a blight on the neighborhood for years.The people that were for,wanted the best place for the community,the most energy efficient,one that will increase our tax base,bring jobs to the neighborhood. There were electrical engineers,building engineers,people who said that the store would be vastly inferior if forced to remodel a 50 year old store,explaining the costs associated with a remodel that would force them to build a store that would not be best for the neighborhood.The council did not care as much about the people in the area as the people of Sugarhouse.When presented with the fact that the East Bench Community council was in favor, they jumped on the fact that is was only by a few votes.This was not a democratic process,it was one where the council members said we are superior and you don't count.Leave us alone!Reminded me a lot of DC,If you disagree with us you are stupid,just sit down and shut up..It is time for politicians and those appointed to start 2/14/2011 9:08 Dear Members of the SLC City Council,I hope you will take the time to read the story below about E.Parleys Way. There is a mesage for the Council at the end.This story has been posted on the Newsflash page at sprawl- busters.com.Best,Al Norman Sprawl-Busters Lake City,UT.Smaller Wal-Mart Superstore Still Gets Rejected Even a smaller Wal-Mart superstore cans€'"t find support in Salt Lake City,Utah.The Planning Commission on February 9th voted 6-1 not to rezone land for the giant retailer,leaving plans for a 92,000 s.f.superstore up in the air.Wal-Mart thought that by reducing their store from 122,320 s.f.that it might be more palatable.They found out this past week that they were wrong.This proposed superstore,located in the historic Sugar House section of east bench Salt Lake City,drew a bitter response from neighbors as soon as it became public.This story began on July 29,2008,when Sprawl-Busters indicated that Wal- Mart wanted to build a supercenter in the heart of the Sugar House neighborhood,but first it planned to tear down an empty 113,000 s.f.Kmart it bought several years ago.The citya€"s zoning ordinance says the existing building can be remodeledaa€"but not torn down.In 2005,Salt Lake City passed a zoning amendment that prohibits supercenters from a€"community businessa€"areas,which now requires Wal-Mart to change the zoning on the Kmart property—a parcel that Wal-Mart bought in 2005.Wal-Mart asked for a rezoning of the property---and tried to sweeten the deal by offering a landscaping package,"green"features on the building,new sidewalks and other 2/23/2011 8:17 Indeed,we were relieved to a degree with Mr.Wilford Sommerkorn's note explaining that the SLC Planning Commission recent vote did not memorialize a refusal to allow the Wal-Mart corporation to develop the vacant K- Mart lot on Parley's Way.In the period since we wrote Mr.Sommerkorn last week,we took time to read in depth the Planning Commission Staff Report on 2705 E.Parleys Way-Master Plan Amendment&Rezoning Map Ammendment published on February 4th,2011.We fully agree with the request presented by Ballard Spahr LLP who are representing Walmart Stores,Inc.in the case to redevelop-reuse the currently vacant building once occupied by K-Mart.A number of significant benefits will accure if the City Council allows Walmart's development plan to commence as they propose.These include:i)a favorable economic impact for the city and neigboring area, including where we live through incremental contribution to the tax base,ii)new job opportunities creation,iii) improved convenience for shopping,and iv)with the reduced distance to travel,savings in fuel consumption and lowered contribution to pollution for the Valley will be realized.The site is already set up for commercial use as a new Walmart store embodies,has ample parking as stated in the Planning Commission report,perhaps needing some minor modifications to the entry-exit access onto Parleys Way.Arguements by the Planning Commission to restrict Walmart from tearing down the existing,1968'ish K-Mart structure do not wash as the old building certainly does not have any congruity to surrounding businesses now(one objection of the Commission)and one can only imagine that the layout,utility infrastructure and other design aspects of a building that old cannot represent the 3/9/2011 8:43 Even after a clear and decisive vote by the Planning Commission against rezoning the Parley's property,WalMart continues to push its agenda to bring the rezone to the City Council.But before you consider hearing their redundant presentation,I encourage you to watch the video of the February 9th Planning Commission meeting.The arguments presented at that meeting will save you hours of time.To give you a flavor of WalMart's arrogance/ignorance,it brought in WalMart teenage employees to wear Say Yes To Rezone t-shirts,and since these kids had no interest in this fight,they got bored and texted throughout the meeting.Several of the pro-rezone speakers didn't even live in District seven but felt compelled to express inchoate opinions about being Americas and land ownership.Other pro-rezone speakers expressed such highly compelling arguments as a desire to be WalMart greeters,or a burning need to get cheap tube socks ten minutes quicker than if they drove to the 3rd West store.Which brings me to my opinion against the rezone.If master plans have no teeth,why do we have them?If any multi-national corporation can come in and change it simply because they have professional marketing teams that can outlast the working people who live in the area,why bother having a plan at all?It is ironic that as I drove to the planning commission meeting,I passed another WalMart.We as a community agree that 3rd West is zoned for WalMart,Costco,Sam's,Home Depot..We don't object to this because we agree that this is an appropriate place for these businesses to exist.So why should WalMart change what we as a community have agreed upon?I suggest that a small Harmon's be put in that space—a locally owned company that knows and 3/17/2011 13:43 Please let the Wal-mart be built I live in Emigration canyon and I would love it. 11/5/2010 14:31 I write to you to ask you oppose the re-zone of the Parleys Way Parcel,as petitioned by Wallmart.I am an architect, and a neighbor to the North of the parcel,and a new citizen in this amazing country.Re-zoning the parcel as Community shopping goes against the vision of the master plan,the vision of Mayor Becker and the idea that whenever possible,we should all aim to reduce our carbon footprint,be more sustainable,waste less and improve our local resources.You are a leader in our community who understands the importance of locally owned,small- medium scale businesses.You understand what excessive transportation can do to a neighborhood and what unlimited size building and unlimited lighting can do to the night sky.Please be a leader and say NO to the re-zone of Parleys way and don't be convinced by a"green-washed"idea of what sustainable building really is. 11/8/2010 8:06 I wanted to add my comment that I am in full support of the Parley's Way Wal-Mart zoning change and the mitigations to the drainage problems and lighting that will be required.I am quite suprised that the process will take over a year to complete.The City needs the sales tax revenue and the jobs that come with the new store. 11/8/2010 8:49 Regarding Walmart's efforts to persuade the Salt Lake City council to rezone their Parley's Way property,please stand firm with them and don't approve the rezoning requests.I have no problem with Walmart having a store at that site,but I do have a problem with them attempting to wear down the council to get exactly what they want-- the ability to build BIG.The surrounding community has spoken,and we don't want or need a mega store at that site. 11/10/2010 11:08 Thanks for your efforts on behalf of our city.I live on Wilshire Circle,across from the old K-Mart(and,more happily, near the Bombay House restaurant).I am writing to express my concern about possible rezoning;you can tell me if this could actually happen through rezoning:The Parley's Way area could be developed as a truck stop,with easy access to 1-80,resulting in dozens or hundreds of semis moving through and the resulting noise,air pollution,etc.I have family who drove semis professionally,and many truckers are good people,but not all of them,and people naturally feel less respect for places where they pass through than places where they live,so that's a concern as well.Thank you for your attention to this concern. .ten,, 11/10/2010 11:21 I am writing this letter in support of Walmart's request to re-zone their property to allow for their redevelopment plans.I am within walking distance of the store and can see it from my home and I strongly urge the Planning Commission to work with Walmart to assist them in their redevelopment efforts.The local community will greatly benefit from a vibrant retail outlet. 11/10/2010 11:22 Don and I will be out of town on November 17 and unable to attend the East Bench Community Council meeting. We are admantly opposed to the"Walmart Rezoning"effort.No more ugly,new big-box stores gobbling up our city! 11/10/2010 11:23 Gentlemen,I am the former chair of the East Bench Community Council,and the first chair to address the issue of an expanded facility on the former K Mart property located on Parleys Way.My home looks down on the subject property and no matter what is done the site will be an eye sore,but I knew that when I moved in to my present home.Just as Wal Mart knew the zoning limitations when it acquired the property from K Mart.That said I think we must look at the issue with a little dispassion and some common sense.1st.The property is not generating the much needed tax revenue it could if(a)a new operation was functioning on the property.(b)both sales tax and property tax revenues would be enhanced.2nd.The City can certainly use the added tax revenue.3rd.A new facility would result in new jobs initially for the construction crews,and later for the new employees hired by Wal Mart to operate the store.Such hiring would result in more income tax revenue for our schools and governmental operations.4th Wal Mart is on balance a good corporate citizen no matter what the vocal minority says.5th at the meeting on the 17th only those opposed to Wal Mart will show up,as Wal Mart is not lobbying for a turn out. Remember the voice of the silent majority.Wal Mart owns the property and can wait to see it developed.They can if they so elect simply warehouse the property for future use is 5 to 10 years.In the event they elect to do so,how much lost tax revenue does the City,County and State loose?We are in tough economic times,people need jobs, and the City can use the tax revenues lost by not having the property productive.Wal Mart's cost of ownership is 11/10/2010 11:38 I am writing this letter in support of Walmart's request to re-zone their property to allow for their redevelopment plans.I am within walking distance of the store and can see it from my home and I strongly urge the Planning Commission to work with Walmart to assist them in their redevelopment efforts.The local community will greatly benefit from a vibrant retail outlet. 11/10/2010 11:40 We received a call today from District Six resident Joseph Richards who is opposed to the rezoning of the K-mart property.He does not want higher buildings in his neighborhood and is hoping the Council will turn down the petition to rezone this property. 11/10/2010 13:14 called the Council Office this afternoon wanting to express her support for a Wal-Mart on Parleys€'"s Way.She is tired of no store being there and having to travel to Shopko or another Wal-Mart a ways away to get clothes and things. 11/15/2010 8:59 I recently had a flyer placed on my front door regarding Walmart and their second request to rezone the property they own at 2705 Parleys Way.The flyer was incredibly biased and must have assumed that since I live in the area (2144 Wellington Street)that I therefore am immediately opposed to the rezoning.The flyer was helpful in that my district representatives contact information was provided.I decided it is important for me to contact you and let you know of my support for the Walmart and I would welcome the development in my neighborhood.I have lived at my current residence for 9 years so I am not new to the neighborhood.I am certain you are hearing from many who adamantly oppose the Walmart.I however,would be very happy to have a big box that close to my home.I would be able to get their by bus,bicycle,or by walking.Right now,to go to a big box I have to drive to Fort Union to visit the Target and now newly remodeled Walmart,or I can sit through 25 minutes of city traffic to go to the Walmart and new Target on 300 W,though most often I opt to drive all the way up to Centerville to visit the Target or Walmart located just off the highway in Davis county.What this does,is it makes me want to relocate to the suburbs!I like living in the city for all the independent local shops I patronize frequently and lack of commute for my husband and I.The reality is that a big box such as Walmart is tremendously convenient and I shop there often. As a mother of a 4 year old and another baby due in January,Walmart is wonderful for our family budget.I can shop for clothes for the entire family all in one place.We are also avid fishers,and Walmart as a great selection of 11/15/2010 9:00 I urge you in the strongest possible terms to deny the Walmart request to rezone its property on Parleys€TMs Way. This is a neighborhood that does not need a a€teSuper Storea€©now nor anytime in the future.DO NOT CHANGE the existing zoning nor the Master Plan.A store built in compliance with current zoning guidelines will be fine. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 11/15/2010 9:09 I wanted to write to express my opposition to any zoning changes proposed for the property mentioned above.I am in favor of Walmart remodeling the existing building,as long as the zoning remains unchanged.la€TMm writing on behalf of myself and my wife,Julie.We reside at 2188 South Wasatch Drive,Salt lake city,Utah,84109 and plan on attending the meeting scheduled for Wednesday,November 17th,2010.If for some reason we are unable to attend,then we wanted to voice our opposition to any zoning change at this time and by this means. 11/15/2010 9:14 I received the attached flyer at my home this past week regarding a rezone of the Parleys Wal Mart property.Can you please clarify a couple of items for me regarding the statements made on the flyer and some of my questions in general.I am a homeowner in the area residing at 2293 Benchmark Circle.1.With a maximum height of 45a€'"in the new zone,is Wal Mart asking for a 45a€" height,or what height is their proposed building,and what height is the existing building?2.When point number 2 states there is not building size restriction,is it correct that any building would still have to go through the planning commission for approval?What is Wal Mart proposing size wise in relation to the existing building.3.There is an existing a€togas stationae on Foothill Dr.,is that a grandfathered use that is no longer permitted in the current zone?Is Wal Mart planning on a gas island at this location?4.Can part of the development agreement restrict the number of a€testoragea€l containers that could be kept at the property.5.No comment,I do not have any problem with the residents and city aCcepartneringa€121 to see that the development agreement is followed.6.Does this have anything to do with a rezone?Dona€'"t they already have the right to a€cedeed restrictaCE by virtue of their ownership?Generally speaking,I am in favor of Wal Mart being granted a rezone of the property as long as their development agreement is in compliance with what , mok the planning commission suggests as far as re-development of the site.Could the development agreement prohibit Wal Mart from operating a a€teflee markets€©at the site?I do believe that a€ceforcinga€1:1 Wal Mart to use the old existing building is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.I would much rather see a brand new state of the art building following the guidelines of the planning commission than a band-aid to the existing structure.You will see from my e-mail signature below that I am a commercial real estate agent with Commerce Real estate.Even though I am in the commercial real estate industry,I have no affiliation with Wal Mart in any shape or form.I send these comments as a 20 year plus resident of the area and would like to see the property re-developed in a manner consistent with what is a€cebesta€e for the area and not a€teinfluenceda€©by the wishes of an entity opposed to a a€cerezonea€®that seems to not be considering the merits of the project specific to the rezone request.If you could please provide any answers or comments to the above at your convenience it would be greatly appreciated. Best regards,Rick 11/15/2010 9:31 As a resident of the neighborhood which will be seriously impacted by a zoning change,I would like to voice some of my concerns about what will happen if the request is granted.If the zoning changes for WalMart or any other big store,it is likely that other neighborhood stores that are now just barely hanging on will close their doors and we'll be stuck with those empty buildings--buildings such as Rite Aid and probably a grocery store or two.We've been lucky that the building on 2300 East 2100 South with Fresh Market in it has always had a store in it,even though it's changed hands/names at least 4 times in recent years,but that could change with a supercenter up the street.Then down the line,if/when WalMart closes down and leaves an empty building,we'll have lots of empty buildings in the general neighborhood.If the zoning stays the same,we won't have to deal with big empty buildings.Businesses come and go and there will always be empty buildings from time to time,but smaller buildings are more likely to be bought up and reoccupied.Cases in point:Fisher Dairy on Parleys Way became a cleaners which became Flowers for You.However,the Dan's store on 2300 East and Parleys Way was empty for many years,and then only partially filled by Rite Aid until recently when Anytime Fitness moved in.Some people are complaining about the eyesore the K-Mart building is now,but it's an empty eyesore because WalMart owns it and nothing can be done with it • until they develop or sell the property.I don't think another building of the same size or larger will be any less of an eyesore.What will look best and fit the community is to keep the zoning as is and develop the land accordingly.No, I'm not trying to tell WalMart what to do with their property as someone has accused,but merely expecting WalMart to do what the community they want to be a part of requires of property owners,using the same zoning that was in place when the property was purchased.Another concern I have is the increase in traffic because Foothill can't handle the additional traffic a large retail business would bring.WalMart can say that Parleys Way can handle it,but they aren't going to convince customers to use Parleys Way over Foothill unless they shut off the Foothill access.Even then,many people would drive along Foothill,take the Parleys exit and then use that entrance,still adding to the already heavy traffic on Foothill.WalMart won't shut off that spur anyway because they're planning to use it as an exit for their trucks.Several semis a day exiting on to Foothill will add to the problem,probably necessitating another light on Foothill so the trucks can get out.I don't know how they think semis will be able to make it up that narrow,steep road in the winter.My guess is that people in Alabama don't have any idea of what a heavy snow does to that type of an egress.WalMart has said that they can put a store in under the current zoning but prefer to be able to build bigger and better.Bigger isn't always better.Please leave 11/15/2010 10:43 I served for eight years on H-Rock Community Council and helped form the current East Bench CC.I worked on local and city-wide concerns including Master Plan revisions,hillside preservation and traffic calming.Therefore,I have particular issue with the proposed attempt by Walmart to change zoning at the old K-Mart site at the mouth of Parley's Canyon,2705 Parleys Way.Existing zoning protects community scale of enterprise and businesses by ensuring building size restrictions.Proposed alterations do not adequately safeguard against additions, development agreements,or deed restrictions.There is no legally binding guarantee that Walmart would have to follow through on its stated offer to make a"green"project setting.Neither is there any guarantee about commuter parking to support eventual surface transit expansion to include Sugarhouse and East Bench flow from highway traffic to University and Downtown destinations.We need any alterations to be written and enforced beyond the current level of assurance.Thus,I urge you to prevent a zoning change to accommodate Walmart's co- opting of community priorities. • 11/15/2010 11:10 Please stop the request by Walmart to rezone their property at 2705 Parleys Way(formerly owned by KMart).The new zoning would go against the Master Plan.Walmart has presented their plans for the rezoning,but refuse to sign a Letter of Agreement to implement their pretty plan.There seems to be no way we can make them do what they propose without the Letter of Agreement.Also they could build as proposed,and then a few years later do something else much less community-friendly.For example,they could install a gas station in the area they said could be used for restaurant use,etc.They could plant 1,000 trees and shrubs,and change trucking routes with the zoning as is,but only propose these desireable actions if they get the Master Plan changed and the rezoning they want.They can retrofit the existing building to be"greener".We need to look to the future and see what harm can be wrought by altering the Master Plan and rezoning this parcel.The hundreds of empty big box stores left behind by Walmart(they write exclusions that prevent others from using the buildings for retailing)are just one aspect of their disregard for communities.I realize a living wage is not in your control,but I waited on many Walmart employees at Hildegard's Food Pantry at St.Mark's Cathedral.The Forbe's list of the 10 wealthiest Americans contains 4 Waltons,the family that started Walmart(Christy,Jim,S.Robson and Alice Walton),with over 80 billion in assets between the 4 Waltons.I think some of this money could be put to better use providing a living wage and affordable health insurance for their employees.Maybe some of it could be used to recycle their building here in Salt Lake,install lower parking lot lights,seriously upgrade the landscaping,etc.WITH the present zoning.Let's keep the Master Plan and the zoning as is.For my neighborhood,smaller is better.Harmon's found a way to work with Emigration Market's small footprint,Walmart can find a way to work with KMarts. 11/15/2010 11:20 Dana Norris called the Council Office to express that she is for the Wal-Mart on Parleys€TMs and that she feels rail- Allkok roaded by the people who do not want the Wal-Mart.She does not want to even waste her time going to the Community Council meetings because she feels intimidated by the individuals that dons€TMt want the Wal-Mart. She indicates that this is the case for many people so they do not go to the meetings. 11/16/2010 9:45 I am a longtime resident of the East Bench community Indian Hills,located east of Foothill Blvd.I am writing to encourage the City Council and Planning Commission to give due consideration to our community and both itâ€TMs living,aesthetic and property values in their decision on whether or not to accede to Wal-Mart$€""s request for new,unprecedented zoning changes for its€TMs planned Parleys€'"s Way store.The value in any neighborhood lies not merely in its€TMs potential tax base,but in its€TM's livability and continuity.Granting re-zoning to Wal-Mart would adversely effect both of those assets.That does not stop the Wal-Mart corporation from routinely challenging zoning laws in almost every new box-store it builds,despite residents€'"s objections.It often reveals nothing less than corporate contempt for both the Council members and residents in those communities.The only sensible Planning Commission and City Council ruling would be a compromise between Wal-Marta€TMs standard tactic of challenging neighborhood and community zoning laws,and the citizens of those communities effected,in this case,the East Bench community.That compromise would take the form of denying Wal-Marta€Th's request for re-zoning,thus allowing them to build their store within the sensible confines of our existing zoning laws and without causing unnecessary damage to the livability or continuity of our East Bench community. Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? Public comments as of July 14, 2011 , 9:39 AM All Participants around Salt Lake City .4t 0000 • Sit - 't1 .111 I 1 [ l i IP 40‘: rtal' 114 4 • 1 Sid#t ‘ t As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? Introduction The Salt Lake City Council is reviewing two related petitions submitted by Walmart to rezone property located at 2705 E. Parleys Way from the existing Community Business (CB) district to Community Shopping (CS) and to amend the East Bench Community Master Plan to reflect the proposed zone. In February, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission recommended the Council deny both requests. If the Council supports the Walmart proposal, a new, larger building could be built. If the petitions are denied by the Council, Walmart could still remodel the existing building on the site, a former Kmart store. oak Proposed changes: The City is analyzing whether it is appropriate to change the zoning on the Walmart property from CB to CS and if it is appropriate to change the future land use map in the community master plan.The City is not reviewing Walmart's preliminary development plans. (That will happen later, if the rezone and master plan requests are approved.) State law and City zoning regulations provide guidance for the City Council and Planning Commission in considering zoning changes and master plan amendments. In simple terms, State law provides decision-making and process requirements. The City Zoning regulations provide general criteria to be considered for zoning changes. For specific wording of State requirements see State Code, Title 10 Utah Municipal Code, Chapter 9a. Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act. For specific wording of City Zoning requirements see Salt Lake City Code, Title 21A Zoning, Chapter 21A.50 Amendments The Council may approve these requests with or without conditions or deny the proposals. If the City Council approves the petition to rezone the property to CS, the Walmart development plan would have to be approved by the Planning Commission as a Planned Development.This is a requirement for all new developments in the CS zoning district.The petitioner has submitted a preliminary site plan with the application; however, site plan and design approval is being not requested at this time. The property is located in the East Bench planning community.The community planning goals are identified in the East Bench Master Plan.The Master Plan can be downloaded at Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/741 Page 1 of 33 http://www.slcgov.com/CED/planning/pages/masterplans.htm. For more details about the proposal, please see the following documents submitted by Walmart. Master Plan Amendment Application Zoning Amendment Application Decision Making Process: Salt Lake City Council Members will be publically briefed on the topic at their July 19th meeting. A hearing on the proposal by Walmart could be scheduled in August, and a date to vote on the proposal could be set for early fall. The City Council will take into consideration the recommendation from the Planning Commission, as well as comments received from the public. Public Hearings and Council meetings are held at the City & County Building Council Chambers, 451 S. State Street, Room 315 (Council briefings are held in room 326). Click here to see the Council agendas Walmart's petitions for rezoning and master plan change were presented to the Planning Commission in a public hearing on February 9, 2011.There were 91 public comment cards submitted in the hearing with 48 people in support and 43 opposed.The comments made both in support and in opposition closely reflected the comments sent to the Planning staff prior to the public hearing. Based on the information presented in the staff report and at the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted six to one to transmit to the City Council a recommendation to deny the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments. To view a more in depth history go to this background link and the February 9, 2011 Planning Commission minutes. If the Council says no, why can the Walmart still open? The property was rezoned in 1995 to CB as part of a city-wide rezoning project.At that time, Kmart was still considered a permitted use as a retail goods establishment. However, as a result of the rezoning project, the structure on the property became non-complying with the zoning area regulations in the CB zoning district. The zoning regulations allow continuation of a noncomplying structure with a nonconforming use even if property ownership changes. In this case, the proposed Walmart is the same type of use as the previous Kmart; therefore, Walmart can operate within the existing building on the property subject to the standard business licensing and building code review processes. There are limitations on what Walmart can do with the existing building considering its status as a noncomplying structure with a nonconforming use. Walmart can open a new store in the existing building but can only make improvements on the building up to 50% of the total construction valuation.Walmart has obtained a permit to remodel the existing building and open a store if the City does not approve the rezone and master plan change. If the zone change is approved, Walmart would be allowed to demolish the existing structure and build a new building. For specific wording of City Zoning requirements see Salt Lake City Code, Title 21A Zoning, Chapter Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/741 Page 2 of 33 21A.38 Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures. What Changed? Previous Petition and February Proposal In June 2007, Walmart submitted the same two types of petitions as those reviewed at the February 9, 2011 Planning Commission meeting.At that time, the preliminary development plan included an 115,060 square foot retail building with a 5,057 square foot garden center. In September 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed the petitions in a public hearing and voted to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council.Walmart withdrew their petitions before the City Council considered the requests and took final action. According to the February 2011 Planning documents, the preliminary development plan for a Walmart Supercenter reduced the size of the retail building to 91,750 square feet and eliminated the garden center.The height of the building would average 26 feet with a maximum height of 33 feet.The new plan included designated walkways between Foothill Blvd. and Parleys Way. In addition, the new plan provided an area of land 1.15 acres in size for additional development.Walmart representatives stated that they had no specific plans for the 1.15 acre site, but would like to work with the community to determine the best use.They stated that if the community does not want another use on the property, the area would be used for additional parking. For more complete information, please see: City Council Transmittal from the Community and Economic Development Director Previous Open City Hall topic on this Walmart proposal Salt Lake City Planning Division Report Other Links: Salt Lake Tribune article How Do I Voice My Opinion? We want to hear from you! Your comments on the proposal are very important. There are three ways that you can participate in the decision process: Provide your comments in this "Open City Hall"discussion forum. Email or send a letter to the City Council. Attend the public hearings. All comments provided in the "Open City Hall"discussion forum, as well as those sent directly to Council, will be sent to City leaders for their consideration. Contacts: Here are other ways to provide comments to the City Council: 40404, Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracycom/741 Page 3 of 33 Email: council.comments@slcgov.com Write: Salt Lake City Council 451 S. State Street, Room 304 P.O. Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5476 Phone: (801) 535-7600 Fax: (801) 535-7651 24- Hr Comment Line: (801) 535-7654 If you are unable to attend a City Council meeting, here are some other options: Watch SLCTV live from a computer by visiting:www.slctv.com and click on "watch SLCTV live" View a rebroadcast of a City Council meeting on SLCTV cable channel 17 by visiting: www.slctv.com/schedule.htm to obtain an SLCTV schedule. Visit: www.slctv.com/vid_demand.htm to listen to a previous Council meeting or download a podcast Contact the City Recorder's Office at (801) 535-7671 and request a CD copy of a Council meeting or a particular agenda item Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9'39 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/741 Page 4 of 33 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? As of July 14, 2011 , 9:39 AM, this forum had: Attendees: 285 Participants around Salt Lake City: 105 Hours of Public Comment: 5.3 gasMats Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/741 Page 5 of 33 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City Name not shown in District 6 July 14, 2011, 7:34 AM As a resident of the East Bench community, I write to share my informed view that the Council SHOULD NOT rezone the property at 2705 E Parley's Way. Rezoning to build a Wal-Mart will create neighborhood traffic and use patterns inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood communities, and this location is not adequate or appropriate for the size and volume of the business proposed. I respectfully urge the Council to carefully consider the long term negative impact to the neighborhood community at this already highly congested and high use highway intersection. Thank you Name not shown in District 7 July 13, 2011, 1:38 PM Walmart is going to be located on Parley's Way. That is a done deal. Please allow the rezoning so there is a smaller new store enhancing our community rather than the dilapidated K-Mart store. The area can handle the traffic and the new store will be better looking than the existing structure. Most of our community cannot afford to shop the boutique stores and will welcome the addition of Walmart for closer shopping. They will not take business away from the local shop owners since most of us don't shop those stores anyway.The people that do shop the small stores can continue to do so. The majority of our community will welcome the Walmart! L Tavey Sugarhouse Name not shown in District 7 July 13, 2011, 1:26 PM Yes. The property is now blighted. WalMart plans to construct a modern shopping facility similar to that of its property in Centerville. It will provide jobs for our children and shopping for the neighborhood. It is my opinion that the Planning Staff has it right and the Planning Commission has it wrong. The Planning Commission bowed to the hysteria of a well organized neighborhood group which always opposes developmnet in the area. They opposed the offices built by Woodbury which have provided tax revenues, jobs and an excellent use of the property. Name not shown in District 6 July 13, 2011, 1:22 PM You should allow for the rezoning of the future Walmart location.Whether we like it or not, there will be a Walmart there.This is a point that most objectors seem to misunderstand. I for one would prefer to have a new, well planned, energy efficient and earthquake safe Walmart. I hope that Walmart will stick to their existing plan of building a slightly smaller building than the one currently there. Perhaps a provision could be added to the approval stating that any new development must be consistent with the former business in terms of size and use.The old Kmart was basically the same as a small Walmart, so I believe most of the objections are simply anti-Walmart objections.Again, there will eventually be a Walmart at this location. Let's make the best if it. Michael Broadbent in District 5 July 13, 2011, 12:45 PM Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM httpJ/www.peakdemocracy.com/741 Page 6 of 33 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City I fully support the rezoning of the former Kmart property on Parley's Way. I remember when I was a kid walking through the store and there being buckets catching water from the leaking roof. The building is unattractive and worn out. It is also too big. A new smaller and more functional building seems like a logical solution. As an added bonus the huge ugly parking lot would be replaced with a new one that has trees! In economic times like these the construction jobs would also be a welcome change. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City July 13, 2011, 12:37 PM Salt Lake City Council Please Vote Yes for Walmarts proposal to rezone the property at 2705E. Parley's Way. I believe this would benefit the community with a brand new store, which would be more energy effiecent. It would also be create jobs with the construction of the building and offering jobs in the store.Thank You! Name not shown in District 6 July 13, 2011, 12:10 PM Yes! John Ward in District 7 July 12, 2011, 3:31 PM No - Please do not allow the rezone of the property. I have no problem with understanding property rights and that Wal-Mart regardless of how this turns out is going to do a Store at the Parleys Way location. HOWEVER, Wal-Mart also clearly understood the zoning restrictions on this property when they purchased it and we as a community should hold Wal-Mart accountable to live within the zoning standards. Absolutely-Wal-Mart was surprised that the Planning Commission didn't just rubber stamp their flawed plan (twice now) and I applaud the Planning Commissions courage in forcing corporate citizenship to respect community standards and abide by a sense of fair play. I think there is a universal understanding that having to remodel a Store may not be as "cost efficient" as knocking it down and rebuilding a new big box but those were terms they purchased the building under. Foothill Drive traffic is in failure now with the juncture of 1-80 / Parleys Way and 1-215 all coming together and clearly it will be worse when Wal-Mart eventually opens a Store but in fairness you have to concede it is Wal-Marts right to open a Store and operate the Store on the property they purchased.... Just don't forget they also have to follow the rules we as a community have in place. In reading some of the posts - I'm embarassed at the kind of vitrol thats been written; "Germany killed Wal-Mart so that equals socialism ?". "Property rights come from God ?". "Its rich yuppies who live in the neighborhood who are opposing Wal-Mart?" Lets keep the arguments on track and Wow - What were you people raised by wolves ? David Mulder in District 7 July 12, 2011, 1:42 PM I oppose the rezoning Walmart is proposing.The Planning Commission has rejected Walmart's Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracycom/741 Page 7 of 33 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City proposals twice. The Community Councils in the surrounding areas have rejected the proposal several times. This has been discussed for several years and it is time for you, as the City Council, to provide the final answer- NO. Name not shown in District 6 July 11, 2011, 3:28 PM YES! There have been many rezonings, its not like it's a sin! This one is for the better of the community. They will give us a nicer building to look at, landscaping, and a new parking lot. All of those things are 40 years old, and need updating. Some people like to shop at Walmart, and have to travel to 300 West, Park City, or Taylorsville to get the prices and deals they like. Lets save that gas and the environment, and have one in our neighborhood. Please allow them to update and beautify their OWN property, and allow those of us to shop there, who enjoy their store. Thank you! Name not shown in District 3 July 11, 2011, 11:33 AM I think that Walmart should be allowed to build a new building on its own property. I don't go to Walmart for all of my shopping needs, but I do occasionally.When I do visit a Walmart, I like that I can find good deals.What bothers me about comments I have heard from Walmart's opposition is that no one seems to consider the large number of jobs that this new Walmart store will bring along with it. I have a friend who has been looking for work for months and I don't think that he would be opposed to Walmart bringing more jobs into our community. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City July 11, 2011, 11:14 AM YES! We should support the proposal to rezone for several reasons. The first being that given their ownership of the property, they have the right to do with it what they may.As Americans, property rights is indeed a pillar of our freedom, and encroaching on the rights of a business to use their private property is a gross violation of our Constitutional rights. Furthermore, Wal-Mart employs approximately 2 million people; how can we turn down a company that is willing, trying, and able to provide jobs to our community. Lastly, Wal-Mart stores do not use a "one-size-fits-all" blueprint anymore. In fact, many stores are being constructed and styled to match other buildings in surrounding areas. By allowing Wal-Mart's proposal, we will reiterate and reinforce the founding principles of our country! YES YES YES! Name not shown in District 6 July 11, 2011, 10:41 AM I have lived in the Sugarhouse a few blocks off Parley's Way for 13 years. I appreciate all the local small businesses in Sugarhouse and use them. I also use Walmart for some things, as I did KMart when it was there. I have seen an extremely attractive adobe-looking Walmart near San Clemente, Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/741 Page 8 of 33 Council:Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E.Parley's ,.1,, Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City California,with a handsome entrance facade--NO BLUE OR GRAY ANYWHERE. It also has a number of full-size palm trees which further soften the effect. I think we should approve a development plan for Walmart to build a pedestrian-friendly,attractive and energy-efficient building with trees for shade and xeriscaping throughout the site.And using building materials appropriate to our desert environment,something like the rebuilt Post Office at Sunnyside and Arapeen...And attention must be paid to the traffic impact,stoplights,etc. The Kmart building is hideous and the site is UGLY as it is.Let's get on with an improvement! Name not shown in District 5 July 11,2011, 8:57 AM I think this is ridiculous.Why do we keep giving Walmart the runaround if they are going to have a store there anyway?If they are requesting permission from the City to make a new location nicer why are we telling them no?Walmart IS coming to that location.I think that the majority of uninformed residents of that area believe that by not supporting Walmart being rezoned that they are really turning away Walmart all together. Walmart IS coming,can we please allow them to make it a nice store?! Please help me understand why we are demanding a good company come in to a very outdated location.It doesn't make sense to me. „♦ David Reece outside Salt Lake City July 11,2011, 12:22 AM "-- Yes! Let Walmart do what it wants to do with the property it OWNS!It is in the interest of the consumer too. The larger the store the more efficient the store.The more efficient the store the lower the prices. Someone mentioned that Walmart has small stores in Europe and then said that Walmart should use that model here. Did you know that Walmart closed its German stores because the stores were too small and were not worth the investment of keeping them up as a result? Walmart closed all of its German stores!Germany killed Walmart in Germany with the small store requirement. If you believe in capitalism,if you believe in freedom,if you believe in private property,then you should support this vote for Walmart.Property rights come from God.The commandment to not steal is the commandment to respect the private property of others. Name not shown in District 6 July 10,2011, 3:23 PM Look...Walmart is going-in either way. Let's let them build a decent structure and do this right. Name not shown in District 5 July 10,2011, 3:18 PM Pudic comments as of July 14,2011,9'.39 AM htlp:lAccw peakdemocracycoM741 Page 9 of 33 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City People need to calm down with the anti-Walmart hysteria. When walmart moves in there are so few problems it borders on the insane. I have seen new walmarts get built in other areas that I have lived.Walmart is a great corporate citizen. They clean their parking lots every night and they provide 24/7 security. The provide great prices on virtually everything. More importantly they introduce competition into the local marketplace and force other retailers to compete with their prices. Winner? The consumer. I never shopped at walmart for my groceries but my grocery store had lower prices BECAUSE of Walmart's presence. There are multiple studies that demonstrate this effect, if logic isn't enough for you. Walmart's presence is a winner for any consumer of walmart or of any competitive businesses. Name not shown in District 6 July 10, 2011, 9:36 AM I am appalled by the nature of the comments on this site in opposition to Walmart. Never have I seen such an outrageous collection of misconceptions and downright falsehoods coupled with anti-Walmart fanaticism. Specifically: 1. Walmart owns the property, not the neighbors or the community. Not to be repetitious, but as another contributor stated, 'Get over it!' 2. Walmart is under no obligation to 'mitigate' any impact that it may have on 'local' businesses, including prices. Our economy is a capitalistic, not a communistic one. Capitalism means competition, and if one retailer such as Walmart offers lower prices, then the more expensive one(s) may be forced to do the same or fail. In other words, if the current monopoly of Associated Foods supplied grocery stores in the Sugar House area--Fresh Market, Dan's and Harmons is faced with lower prices, perhaps they too will decide to become competitive. 3. Walmart's proposed plans for a new store are 'smaller' not 'larger' than the current building; most in opposition have stated otherwise. 4. The nature of comments on Walmart's labor and employment practices border on libel. Specifically: a.The implication that Walmart is underpaying its employees is incorrect. Walmart entry level wages are consistent with other area retailers including TJ Maxx and Office Max. The average Walmart wage is $11.73. Additionally, Walmart offer benefits, which many other comparable employers do not. And by the way, no one is forced to work at Walmart. b. Regarding the insinuation that Walmart somehow'paid off'or otherwise influenced the court system to dismiss the female discrimination class action suit is an insult to both the court system and Walmart. The court did not preclude former Walmart female employees from suing; it simply determined that the group (class) action was not merited. No responsible company, including Walmart establishes any sort of policy that promotes or encourages discrimination or any other type of illegal labor practices. However, the larger the company (and often even smaller ones), the more difficult it is to control individual manager actions, that, once effected, are equally difficult to resolve. Let's just say it is far easier for a small business owner to stay on top of both the issues and the actions of individual managers. 5. Regarding the remodeling versus rezoning/master plan amendments in order to build a new Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.comf741 Page 10 of 33 Council:Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E.Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City energy efficient store,it is true that others have remodeled and done a great job but: a. They were not limited by a 50%(of the current value)cap as Walmart is,which was a 75%cap at the time of purchase,but amended to the lower rate within six months. Walmart was constrained from taking advantage of the higher value cap rate by both time and a lease agreement with the occupying tenant and former owner,K-Mart. b. Most businesses that remodel do so to preserve historic or unique architectural features,which do not exist with the 2705 East Parley's Way property,and they do so without cost limitations. Moreover, there are critical elevation and drainage problems at that site that can best be modified by starting over. The ignorance of the contributor who applauds Harmons for'building'a smaller store where the previous Emigration Market stood on the corner of 1700 East 1300 South,is astounding. Harmons did not'choose'to build a small store;they purchased a small structure on an equally small lot. Having gutted the original structure,including the roof,and demolished a previous addition to the front,they have now rebuilt it,none of which has any relevance to the Walmart Parley's Way situation. Finally,I resent being told that if I want to shop at Walmart or any other'big box'retailer,I can drive to 300 West to do so. I live on the east side for a reason and have every right to shop at the type of store of my choice including a big box,in my own neighborhood. Moreover,should I be forced to travel to 300 West,after wasting my gasoline,not to mention my time,any savings are lost. And so much for sustainability measures such as driving less and reducing carbon emissions. How hypocritical of those who would suggest that I do so. I can only hope that the City Council is wise enough to Approve conditional rezoning and master plan amendments for a new energy efficient store at the Parley's Way site for the'good'of the entire community or Allow Walmart to exceed the 50%cap value to remodel the store appropriately. Name not shown in District 7 July 9,2011,11:03 AM No,the Council should not support Walmart's proposal.The Community Master Plan is a statement of the community's image of itself and vision for its future.The City Council should respect that statement,and uphold the policies it contains.No rezone,no amendment. Name not shown in District 6 July 8,2011, 6:21 PM When I read other people's comments that state"the majority of people are in favor of rezoning and building a Wal-Mart on Parley's Way",I wonder who they could possibly be speaking to. I have lived in the SugarHouse neighborhood for over 18 years and the last thing I or my community wants is a Wal-Mart. If the city council gives in and re-zones,it will simply be horrific. Wal-Mart can take their business elsewhere,we don't want you here! I urge the City Council to hold strong and don't give into their bullying. oak Public comments as of July 14,2011.9'.39 AM http'//w ocpeakclemocrecycoml/41 Page 11 o133 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City YES! WHY- I'll tell you why. The Sugar House Journal reported that the reason the first proposal was rejected was because 47 people were opposed to it. FORTY SEVEN! And where do those 47 live? Right across the street from the existing building. Drive through that neighborhood sometime. Look at all the expensive cars and recreational vehicles. Yes, the $150,000+ yuppies across the street are very much against the rezoning. What about the 2500+ senior citizens in that neighborhood who live on fixed retirement incomes? Some have pointed out that there is already a Walmart on the west side of town. Yes there is, and smart people do not go anywhere into that part of town after dark. Everybody keeps saying to cut down on driving. OK, give us a Walmart where the old K-Mart building is located and we will save LOTS of money on gas. Some of us can even walk to the new Walmart. As for keeping the old building, that would be a tragic mistake. The building is not stable, it is not energy efficient, it is not secure, it is not updated for earthquake standards, and the roof upkeep alone would be VERY expensive. The younger crowd keeps harping about "green living", well then stop trying to preserve the old Non-Green building and let Walmart put in a modern energy efficient building. This is not really an issue of Walmart Yes or No, it is an issue of a few young affluent people who live across the street from the proposed site versus thousands of retired folks on fixed incomes who would be greatly served by having a new, modern Walmart store in the neighborhood. This would help increase property values in the neighborhood by enhancing the shopping opportunities in the area. I ask that you do what is best for ALL the citizens of this area, not just what the people across the street want. Do you represent only the ones who live within 200 yards of the proposed site or ALL the residents of the Sugarhouse neighborhood. If it is ALL of us, then you must approve this zone change. Either be the community council and help out the ENTIRE community or change your name to the Yuppie Support Council and move your headquarters across the street from the building site where your 47 constituents all live. charlene durham in District 6 July 8, 2011, 4:48 PM I urge the City Council to reject Walmart's proposal to rezone the Parley's Way property and change the community master plan.The master plan and zoning were established with a big picture view to the goal of what the community wanted to be.A spot change to zoning, to expand the potential even more than the current non-conforming use, undermines that effort and the makes the goal that was laid out impossible to achieve. Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/741 Page 12 of 33 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Amok Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City No matter what the new store would look like now, rezoning would open development of the property to a massive expansion at whatever time the owner chooses to do so. I encourage the owner (Walmart) to develop this property within the restrictions currently established by the community. I've attended public meetings for several years where this issue has been discussed.There was vigorous community opposition from the very beginning, and I've seen very little compromise in the repeated Walmart proposals that address the community concerns. If their latest development proposal downsizes the building even more, then they can do this within the current zoning conditions. Thank you for this opportunity for community input. Esther Stokes in District 7 July 7, 2011, 5:24 AM I'm against rezoning for a larger store. If wal-mart wants go in at this location they can re-model the existing building. Rasmussen in District 6 July 6, 2011, 12:58 PM We definitely need to allow Walmart to rezone.They do a terrific job at making the property beautiful and it has been an eye sore for years.Walmart will be a great addition to our neighborhood Name not shown in District 6 July 5, 2011, 9:03 PM " "'` NO I do not support rezoning for Walmart.The building may be old and crumbling but it can be remodeled to fit in with what sugarhouse stands for.Why do city's always feel they need to give in to Walmart. Have we become to beholden to big box stores because we want the tax money.Why not say no. Make the building work the way it is. Make Walmart meet our standards instead of us giving in to Walmart. Lynn Kennard Pershing in District 6 July 5, 2011, 1:56 PM 1. Bigger is not always better. I have recently visited the "improved, larger" Super Walmart at Kimball Junction and was dismayed to find that while the store is significantly increased in size, the variety and types of merchandise offered has actually DECREASED. Products I previously bought in that store are no longer offered. A store employee lamented, "Yes, we got bigger to offer less". Despite the use of the Walmart inspired "instant inventory" with SKU numbers, I find all Wlamart stores to be woefully understocked with goods. Grocery offerings have displaced otherwise necessary household goods (cleaning supplies, hardware, outdoor, office) that I have purchased historically. This is NOT a step forward. Please use the existing bldg size, DO NOT make this store useless. 2. I am VERY concerned about the plans for Walmart at Parleys's Way to use the existing small STEEP road on the Northside of the building as their delivery Semi-trucks exit from their new Northside docks.This steep road empties onto Foothill Blvd just before the existing Chevron station at the entry to 1-215 and 180 interchange. This is a MASSIVE, COMPLEX, HIGH DENSITY traffic corridor with allowable speeds increasing from 40 mph on Foothill at Stringham Ave to 50 and 55 mph at 1-215, 1-80 interchange. A multitude of car/truck and car/car accidents will surely be guaranteed 1014, with this traffic flow. Instead, I suggest entering and exiting of all delivery semi-trucks onto Parley's Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracycomf741 Page 13 of 33 Council:Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E.Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City Ways with access to 1-80 in both East and West directions! I brought this issue up at our YaleCrest Neighborhood Meeting in June with Walmart representatives and they stated they would discuss the issues with the SLC Traffic engineer. Please stop this proposed semi-truck exist route! Lynn Kennard Pershing YaleCrest Name not shown in District 3 July 5,2011,11:43 AM I'd say no to the rezoning request.Big box stores do not increase community or neighbohood quality. They may provide jobs but the jobs are low quality and low paying.Big box stores like walmart have a huge negative impact on local retailers and very little of the money made in by the Walmart stays in the community.This is not a good way to build strong,vibrant neighborhoods or communities.Please support local business over large national retailers with a bad track record. Name not shown in District 6 July 4,2011,10:47 PM I say no to rezoning for Walmart. The company knew the zoning for the area when they purchased the site and now they want to change the community's land use master plan. This will set a very bad president for not just the Sugarhouse/East Bench community but,for the entire City. The master plan was developed with a view to the future of the entire city as well as the communities which make up the City. This will open the door to more and more requests for rezoning areas of Salt Lake City by large corporations who think they can do anything they want by pushing and pushing the local communities. Salt Lake City made a mistake in allowing the demolition of buildings in the heart of Sugarhouse and we are still living with the results of that decision with the large empty plot of land with very little to beautify the area. A plot of dirt is not helping the community or the city in any way. Keep the master plan for the city and the community. If the City Council votes yes on this change be ready for many more requests since you will have just thrown out the master plan. Why even bother with the time and expense of a master plan when you are going to disregard the plan any time a large company decides they don't like the zoning where they purchased property. Chaos will be the result if a president like this is set and that will make the city a hodge-podge of development and the neighborhood and community feel we enjoy today will be lost. No to rezoning and changing the master plan. Glenn Fassmann in District 6 July 4,2011, 8:59 AM Yes,allow Walmart to build a new store on Parley's Way. This zoning change is not terrible. I have read the statements for not allowing the new store and I am having a difficult time understanding the drawbacks if any. 1.Traffic-No matter what is placed on that property it will increase traffic. The traffic from a Walmart Public comments as of July 14,2011,9:39 AM btlpl/www.peakdemocracy.coms/41 Page 14 of 33 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? Ifikk All Participants around Salt Lake City will not be worst than traffic from condminiums, other stores, theaters or even a park. The word mixed use seems to be magic, but it also creates lots of traffic. This is a wide road built for many cars. I have never seen a slow down on Parley's way because of heavy traffic. In fact,l use Parley's Way because it is mostly deserted even during rush hours. 2. Local specialty stores in the area will not be harmed. We all already drive to Walmart, Shopko, WinCo, Harmons and every other store when we need something. Non of these stores are in our area and the other businesses in our area still survive selling their specialty items. I frequent the local specialty stores when I am in need of their product and services. I visit Walmart when I need a good variety of household items in one location. 3.The new building and landscaping which is proposed will be an improvement over the existing situation. 4. If a developer thought he could make money with boutique store on the property it would have already happened. The truth is that the boutique store in our area already have a tough time existing and more space for such stores will not fill and be profitable. 5. I am not being paid by Walmart. I only have the savings of time and money to gain for the gas and time I will not use driving to 300 West. ,.•, 6. Walmart will have a tough go at it as any business in our free enterprise system. They have competition, they have beat many competitors and many competitors are on their tail. We can't stop progress because we are afraid it may not survive. Thank you for your time. Carole Straughn in District 7 July 2, 2011, 7:47 PM No! Do not change the master plan. I agree with the points made by others opposing Walmart's building one of their soulless big boxes on that site. I would add one more argument. With the escalation of fossil fuel prices, Walmart's business model will soon collapse. A bigger store will just be a bigger empty store in 5 or 10 years.We need to become more locally self-sufficient, so let's nurture our local enterprising entrepreneurs and craftspeople. I would prefer that Walmart would give up on the site and that it be developed for small local businesses, but since they own the building, let them follow the existing master plan. Ross Chambless in District 3 July 2, 2011, 2:17 PM I do not support rezoning the property to accommodate Walmart. Walmart should abide the existing ' Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/741 Page 15 of 33 Council:Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E.Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City community Master Plan. I believe there are already too many large-scale superstores like Walmart in our community as it is. As a local resident I would not shop at Walmart anyway because I don't support its philosophy of one-supersize-fits-all approach that celebrates consumerism and the out- sourcing of jobs at the loss of locally-made craftsmanship. Walmart is anything but local.And it is our local businesses that enrich our communities and retain the distinct flavors and unique cultures of our neighborhoods. If Walmart wants to squeeze into the existing K-mart shell,they can go ahead and try. I still think that space would ultimately better serve the neighborhood as a remodeled project for small local stores and mixed-use development,and with much less sun-radiating asphalt.Plus,the box building remains as unimaginative now as when it was built. Please,Walmart,give it up. We refuse to be corporatized! Name not shown outside Salt Lake City July 2,2011, 12:50 PM No thank you Walmart. Buy local,no more outsourcing and"take it or leave it"pricing that killed buy local and mom and pop stores. NO to Walmart Name not shown in District 4 July 2,2011, 8:20 AM A few thoughts: 1.I am sure staff and others have Googled Walmart.What you find is that all over this country, community by community,there has been a massive fight.There may be some,but I could not find one instance where it was reported that Walmart and the local community came together to work out their differences in a positive manner.There are countless sites that have enormous community effort to try to get Walmart to"play well/fair as a corporate neighbor. When you compare this with other retailers,while there are compromises made,a great many are courted and welcomed by the local community(e.g.Harmons).The standard MO seems to be that Walmart hires local attorneys,brings experienced attorneys and consultants who are warriers to begin the fight. To me this says that the it is imperative that the City Council do all it can to not fold on what is truely needed in behalf of the community.That community voice,knowing what is needed,is the thoughtful long range thinking in the master plan where countless community members,City planners,staff and the City Council created a plan. If the argument is that the needs of the community have changed,this should be supported with a new master plan effort. 2.I found smaller interesting Walmart installations in Europe.I also found Walmart Express.These are two of several examples of a modifed Walmart plan that is still profitable for the corporation,yet could fit into this area of town thereby acting as an anchor tenant supporting local business and the community.I can think of other community shopping centers that enhance the community feel such as Dans on Foothill.Neighborly conversations take place in a more welcoming environment in every aisle.There is a way for Walmart to maximize their investment in this site yet enhance the community. Public comments as of July 10,2011,9:39 AM htlp://www.peakdemouacy.com//01 Page 16 of 33 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Am,% Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City 3. How many Walmart employees or people that have been asked/or are paid, are posting on this site? This is not useful.This does not bring the community together. People are not rising up and spending their free time for no reason.The key question is given Walmart owns the property, what CAN Walmart do at this location that the community would indeed support. For instance, if Del Taco found a way to take down an entire buildng except two pieces of sheathing held up by a few 2 x 4's and call this a remodel, there must be a way for Walmart to develop a nice store on this site without claiming the code restricts a good quality development. Walmart owns this property, can bring jobs and improvements to this location but they also can do so in a manner that does not harm everyone else. The bottom line is that Walmart IS seeking a profit from our spending.They did not simply buy this property to bring us good will and enhance our community.There is a way to bring about a better project for everyone. Name not shown in District 1 July 1, 2011, 10:28 PM I vote no. There is already one too many Walmarts in Salt Lake City. "' Name not shown in District 7 July 1, 2011, 8:14 PM The Walmart proposal is an intelligent method to deal with a piece of property that is unattractive and ill-suited for the building Walmart will occupy if the proposal is denied. People need to get over the fact that Walmart is coming (and welcomed by a number of us) and focus on the way the property can best be developed for them. Arden Weintraub in District 6 July 1, 2011, 7:06 PM I am adamantly opposed to changing the master plan in order to accommodate WalMart, or any other big box store. The negative impact of such rezoning will far outweigh any benefit that might accrue. Here are just a few, of the too many to list reasons I base my decision upon: 1. There is already too much traffic and congestion on the Foothill Drive corridor. 2. We certainly don't need more traffic on Parley's Way. 3. Big box stores have a significantly deleterious effect on small, locally owned businesses, which are the heart and soul of a community. 4. This particular area has the potential to be attractive, inviting, and pedestrian/bicycle friendly, similar to 9th & 9th or 15th & 15th. 5. A big box store, will do the opposite, making this area permanently unattractive, uninviting, and not pedestrian or bicycle friendly.The 300 West Walmart is a prime example of the endpoint. Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/741 Page 17 of 33 Council:Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E.Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City I am totally in favor of a rezone of the old K-Mart at 2705E Parley's way,To me,it makes sense to remove the old crummy bldg and replace it with a more modern structure being as Walmart will open any way so why not alow a new bldg. Gary Bates Marvis Collett in District 6 July 1,2011, 3:40 PM Vote YES on Walmart Proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E.Parley's Way. And why are so many of these postings nameless? 1. Changing zoning from Community Business to Community Shopping will not change the neighborhood. There is already a small shopping center just west of the property.There is a used clothing outlet next to the fire station. There is an auto repair,tire center next to the firestation across from the property. There are eating establishingments within walking distance from the property: McDonalds,Rinos,Papa Murphy's,Cowboy Grub,another pizza place in back of the property. And, of course,there are many businesses surrounding the property. Seems to me it is already acting as a Community Shopping zoning area. 2. When I talk to my neighbors I hear positive comments about how nice it would be to have an attractive store,since there is going to be a Walmart of some kind on the property. Why would we want a slightly remodeled old K-mart when we could have a beautiful building with appropriate landscaping? 3. I have lived in this neighborhood for 45 years. I loved the movie theater and it was missed when it left. I loved the K-mart and shopped there often. The absence of the store has affected the neighborhood. Now I have to drive miles to get to a K-mart. As younger people are moving into this area with their children they deserve to be able to make the option of shopping at a store of their choice without having to go across town,especially when the option could be made available,and when Walmart is offering to enhance the shopping for these young families who need all the help they can get in these economic down times. 4. I believe that the people against Walmart are not the majority. There are more people who don't live in the County Club area than those who do. And there are more people who are not organized to fight for a cause that would help them because they are already too busy trying to live day to day. 5. More jobs will be available for our high school and University students who have to supplement their tuition funds Robin Collett outside Salt Lake City July 1,2011, 1:59 PM Please SUPPORT Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E.Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan. The bottom-line is Walmart owns the property and a store will be at that location regardless of rezoning. That said,I definitely prefer a nice new up-dated Walmart to a Walmart that is simply Public comments as of July 14,2011,9:39 AM Nip:/lwwrv.peakdemocracycom/141 Page 18 o133 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Amik Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City moved into an old, tired, non-energy efficient 40 year old building. And, yes I will shop at a Walmart located on Parley's Way - it will save me the drive to the Park City Walmart from East Mill Creek! Thanks for listening. Name not shown in District 6 July 1, 2011, 11:01 AM Please vote NO on the proposed re-zoning and Walmart expansion. There are currently two Walmart Super Centers within 7 miles of this proposed location and they are relatively easy to access from the interstate. Of course, they aren't in the quaint, "safe" areas of Sugarhouse. Obviously, Walmart prices are unbeatable, but the environmental, social and economic repercussions are not worth it.A Walmart Super Center will most certainly damage the Fresh Market down the street, possibly leaving another empty building. The Sugarhouse area can hardly support the current traffic loads (1300 E, 2100S and Foothill drive are all consistently backed up). Factor in delivery trucks, customers and employees and this seems like a great way to add more pollution to the Sugarhouse area. Amok Plus, is there really such thing as a "green"Walmart? Aaron Phillips in District 7 July 1, 2011, 10:04 AM No. Do not let this retail juggernaut strongarm the Council into shifting zoning regulations.The proposed zoning change does not reflect the will of the majority of residents in the area. Name not shown in District 7 July 1, 2011, 4:14 AM No. I do not support changing the master plan. I am against a Walmart in this location at all. I do not want walmart to take away from local business, and if they are insistent in opening in this location I hope they have a smaller space to sell their imported garbage from China.Also, I must say I'm proud of all the Salt Lakers standing up to this monstrosity! Perrine Anderson in District 5 June 30, 2011, 11:06 PM NO! Please listen to the majority of these voices and vote no on rezoning.Walmart is notorious for driving out local business. Over the last number of years, we have seen Big Boxes come in and ruin our neighborhoods.The Home Depot on Highland Drive, and more remotely, the Shopko mess on 1300 East are classic examples. Neither are "walkable" and neither attracts shoppers or tourists like a truly interesting shopping district does.The 15th and 15th, 9th and 9th, and 3rd South areas bring people in.The corner of shops on Highland drive and 21st South where the "pit" now lies had the same attraction. Cookie cutter developments like the Gateway have no individuality or appeal, with their chain stores and restaurants.Walmart bought the Parley's site knowing what the restrictions were, so Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/741 Page 19 of 33 Council:Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E.Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City let them remodel the existing building,but don't let them expand it.Those of us who vote with our feet and wallets won't darken their doors,and perhaps they'll leave eventually! Name not shown in District 6 June 30,2011, 8:53 PM An emphatic NO on rezoning. The idea of a"community wal-mart"is preposterous.It we truly want to invest in our communities, local businesses should be supported,rather than changing the rules for a large multi-million dollar corporation that doesn't have the interests of our neighborhoods and residents at heart. Last I checked,there was a wal-mart,target,and costco on 300 West-all in relatively easy driving distance from Parley's and accessible via the interstate.There is no reason to build another so these corporations can continue to profit to the detriment of our communities. Name not shown in District 7 June 30,2011, 8:52 PM I don't shop at Walmart.So even if there is one there,I will vote with my dollar and spend it somewhere else.I don't like the idea of having a Walmart on Parley's Way.However,if they are going to build a store there whether I like it or not,at least it should be an updated,green,earthquake-safe one. Stephen Hertz in District 6 June 30,2011, 8:35 PM I support a Walmart in this neighborhood. The rezone changes would not affect surrounding businesses. This store would help the middle class shoppers shop for things closer to home. This would bring a greater wealth of tax income in the pocket of city. Foothill Village is to expensive for everyday items the more wealthy that live in these neighborhoods can purchase things at both places along with common middle class.From being in the area many years I do not see any negative thought of this store coming to the area. Fresh Market has been struggling already due to high prices that is why I do not shop that store that often. Seeing how Kmart worked at this location this location is just to bring an added enjoyment to peoples shopping experience that enjoy Walmart.A larger building will not damage this area there is already office buildings in that area. Any business in this area sees that it is already not a high demand for a business.This is why I think Walmart will not bring tremendous traffic to area,will work for the community.VOTE YES WALMART! Name not shown in District 7 June 30,2011, 8:10 PM As a Sugar House resident I hope the city council sticks to the zoning of the master plan and denies Walmart's request. It takes a lot of effort to put together a master plan and it doesn't happen over night and it doesn't happen in a vacuum. Master plans are the best reflection of what the overall community vision is for their neighborhood. If we continue to change and amend master plans to allow for different zoning we erode the fabric of community involvement in the master plan process. By changing the zoning and amending the master plan you would effectively kill any other vision for that parcel. Of course,Walmart has every right to develop their property,but they should be required to do it within the zoning ordinance. Public comments as of July 14,2011,9:39 AM WI/wive peaktlemocracy.comR41 Page 20 of 33 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City We have far too much traffic on this corridor of Foothill Drive and still have no light rail along Foothill to support more expansion. The existing expansion in Research Park means it takes a full 5 minutes to travel from the light at 13th south on Foothill to Sunnyside in the morning. Added traffic congestion and concurrent pollution from WalMart are not supported by road structure that can't handle the Research Park expansion. Brad Duncan in District 6 June 30, 2011, 4:25 PM The council should vote no for rezoning.Wal-mart knew what they were getting when they purchased the property and the master plan's vision is still applicable today and is a good plan. Leave it zoned as-is and Wal-mart will be more likely to do something that will improve the neighborhood AND their pocketbooks rather than just their pocketbooks. Ben Mates in District 7 June 30, 2011, 4:20 PM I am against a Walmart Superstore on this site.Actually, I'm against any Walmart store on any site, due to their externalizing costs to the rest of us.Watch "The High Cost of Low Price" to learn of the impacts of Walmart on local communities. Jack Matheson in District 3 June 30, 2011, 4:10 PM I vote NO on Wal-Mart. Name not shown in District 6 June 30, 2011, 4:04 PM I vote yes. I live in the area and don't think having a Walmart will damage the look of the area. We can use a good store like that to get things at reasonable prices at a convenient location. The fears of the neighbors are unfounded. I like Walmart's proposal and think it makes sense. Name not shown in District 6 June 30, 2011, 3:16 PM No, I would not like to see a zone change in the area. The old K-mart is large enough and is very close to the Fresh Market. Gigantic Wal-Mart stores have proven destructive to local business and the store will be harmful to Sugar House's redevelopment efforts. I do not believe a master plan should be changed so drastically for one business, especially when the rezone will be harmful to the community. The old K-mart store should suffice and remodeling it would be much more environmentally friendly. bruce beck in District 3 June 30, 2011, 2:57 PM Yes,support Walmart's proposal so we can have a first class store to shop at. Name not shown in District 6 June 30, 2011, 2:29 PM Obviously, no to rezone. I'm surprised in fact that this was not rezoned to residential and eliminate omit the desires to build more commercial business on an already congested 21st South area. Wal Mart's Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracycom/741 Page 21 of 33 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City proposal for rezone seems to be along the same lines of a proposal to create a new primary election to help out Mitt Romney which will create a new $2.5M tax burden on the state. A budget hit that is (better be) an unplanned item, and a budget that already cut out important things to our State including jobs lost. Oops? Did I just use this platform to express thoughts other than Wal Mart? My bad...l guess I had bigger issues on my mind...(walmart who?) Name not shown in District 3 June 30, 2011, 12:50 PM Of course the Walmart proposal should be granted. There appears to be sufficient infrastructure to support the traffic and parking, and the location would be a strategic accomplishment for both Walmart and for the east-side community. Why are people so afraid? I would not like to see the people of SLC deprived of an important and useful retail operation in a community fringe location that is attractive and ready for another such store. Arlington Hills Resident Name not shown in District 6 June 30, 2011, 12:44 PM The worst thing that could happen in this area is a zoning change that allows for a bigger and busier superstore. In past years the K-Mart of old never caused much of a congestion problem because it was poorly serviced and mismanaged. Walmart, however, is much more savvy. They can and will run as massive a superstore in that location as they can get away with. I have no love or hate of Walmart. It is a self-interested business the way all businesses are and it does not care about the surrounding community. It is only interested in maximum traffic and sales. Good for them and their customers, bad for people living near it. Do not believe anything Walmart says about their intentions in a CS zone. They want as much traffic and people pouring through that spot as they can get. Look at what happened to the area around 1300 East and Sugarhouse park years ago. What was once a quiet residential street was completely razed, a massive parking lot, Shopko, and other store packed in as tightly as they could go. Now look at the mess it is; massively congested, noisy, and ugly. Such can be the future of Parley's Way if we allow it. Lets not allow it. Leave the zoning as-is. Name not shown in District 6 June 30, 2011, 11:59 AM Yes, absolutely! Walmart should be allowed to tear down the 45 year old KMart building and build a brand new building including ALL CURRENT EARTHQUAKE CODES! Nothing is more important to this area than COMPLETE ONE STOP SHOPPING and a store that can be used as an earthquake shelter in the event of the potential disaster. The Intermountain Seismic Belt runs right through this area, with thousands of BRICK homes that will be RUBBLE! To prevent looting, Walmart could shelter hundreds of people with food, water, sanitation supplies, and bedding, all of which could be paid for by those who have lived to get there. I have sustained damage to my BRICK house during Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9 39 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/741 Page 22 of 33 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's lob Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City the earthquake which occurred many years ago on the Utah-Idaho border. It doesn't take much shaking to damage a brick house! The city tells us to keep a 72 hour supply of necessities in the event of an earthquake, but doesn't give us any indication of what we are to do if our house is GONE! Emma Ryder in District 6 June 30, 2011, 10:50 AM Please vote no! A Walmart in the area will only hurt the local businesses surrounding it.We need to support local business, which has been proven to bring in more revenue to the community than giant corporations. A giant Walmart with "better selection" as some people have been praising will only take more money out of the local business owners' pockets. If they must open a Walmart on the property, I say use what you've got. If they don't have the massive selection to provide true "one stop shopping" then good! Maybe people will have to venture out into their community to find what they need. And don't try to convince me that tearing down the existing building to build a more energy efficient one is green. Putting the tons upon tons of waste a tear down will create into the landfill, not to mention creating new materials, is anything but.They are just hiding behind the idea of green building because it is easier and cheaper for them to start from scratch than take the time to renovate the existing structure. - Phil Sarnoff in District 7 June 30, 2011, 10:25 AM I am wholeheartedly against Wal-Mart. Economically, socially and environmentally Wal-Mart is destructive to the communities it enters and to a good portion of the world. I would discourage a re-zoning of this area and make no concessions for Wal-Mart to muscle its way into the community. If they absolutely must move in then they should be required to use the existing structure, use trees to minimize visibility from Parley's Way and have major limitations on street signage. From an economic revitalization standpoint: In a city that prides itself on being able to weather economic fluctuations, another Wal-Mart will not help to keep money within the local community. Bringing in large stores will not serve to "bring new shoppers to the area". Since you are able to get almost everything at Wal-Mart, they will do their shopping there, emit some pollutants into the neighborhood and be on their way. If there is a way for the city to encourage local development, that would be ideal. From an aestetics standpoint: Have you ever said "that's a really attractive Wal-Mart?" Not likely. It's typically a monstrosity. Just because it used to be a K-mart doesn't automatically make it a good idea to replace it with another big box store. Clearly putting K-mart in that location was a bad idea.We should take this opportunity to learn from past mistakes. Please consider the long-term ramifications of this decision on a currently vibrant Sugar House Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/741 Page 23 of 33 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City community. Please vote no on the re-zoning, no on the modifications to the master plan, and no to Wal-Mart. Name not shown in District 4 June 30, 2011, 10:10 AM NO.They have the property and can remodel it and have a store.Why on earth do they need a larger one?Walmart is already winning by muscling into a community that primarily doesn't want them. I don't think the community would be better served if they had an even larger building.We should be focusing on supporting local businesses and give our community members more options to open their own places instead of helping this enormous corporate entity. Not to mention they are being sued (and somehow winning?) because they havent been paying women as much as men.Women have been forced out of millions of dollars, cumulatively, and Walmart has seen no repercussions so far. Is this something we should be supporting? Monopolized corporate cruelty? Dramatic, maybe, but that company doesn't truly help the community. Scott Morham in District 5 June 30, 2011, 10:08 AM I support letting Walmart build a new store at this site. I ask the council to support the rezoning. Contrary to alot of what has been posted, Sugarhouse at 1300 east is the best place for the boutique shops that people have mentioned.A place right near the highway, in a giant commercial zone, that is already the site of a now blighted bankrupt Kmart, wouldn't you think this is the perfect place for a Walmart? It is! I tried to shop the kmart but their selection was so pathetic that it was impossible. However, a large Walmart has the range of merchandise that I would like to see. In general, I shop the local merchants but what do you do when you need christmas lights or an inflatable pool? I go to Walmart and this would be a convenient place for one. Not to mention the benefits to the tax coffers of the city. It's their property and it is zoned commercial, let them build what they need there. William Stadwiser in District 6 June 30, 2011, 10:04 AM I and the vast majority of my friends who live in the Sugar House neighborhood have somehow managed to live our lives without needing to shop at giant box stores like Wall Mart.Wall Mart stores underpay employees, bully their vendors into making extreme concessions on their price points (which reduces quality and forces vendors to take shortcuts and externalize costs), and ultimately undermine the vibrancy, resiliency, and diversity of local markets. If we truly want to continue fostering a unique community on the east side of town, then we MUST make investments in local businesses and local entrepreneurs ... not giant corporate chains. There are many reasons why investing in local small business is beneficial, but among the best arguments for is the fact (researched, established, peer reviewed) that for every $100 spent at a locally-owned business, $68 stays in the local economy compared to only $43 or less if spent at a national chain. Over the long haul, this keeps better paying and higher quality jobs here where we live, keeps decision-making firmly within citizens' grasp, and increases the quality of the goods and services that we exchange with each other. In short, investing locally increases the quality of our lives and leaves a better, more vibrant community behind for our children.What we need is not more box stores like Wall Mart (or Target, or Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/741 Page 24 of 33 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? ,' All Participants around Salt Lake City K-Mart, or Shopko, or Pep Boys, or Barns and Noble, or Red Lobster). Instead, what we need more of are stores and restaurants like Old Fashion Service Auto Repair on 33rd South, Silver Star Hardware on 33rd South, The King's English on 15th East, Traces Garden Store on 11th East, Mazza on 15th or 9th, Sugar House Coffee on 21st. Instead of exchanging money with strangers who do not necessarily have our best long-term interests at heart, let's do business with our friends, neighbors, and fellow community members first.And where a good or service does not yet exist locally, let's make investments in helping our fellow citizens create those opportunities themselves. Vote NO on Wall Mart! Diane Barlow in District 6 June 30, 2011, 9:43 AM A very strong NO! Is this what we want people to see as they enter the Salt Lake City valley from the east? A small Walmart is bad enough let alone a super mart. Walmart is famous for trying to wear down city governments and citizens. Please show them that Salt Lake City will not change the zoning or the master plan, no matter how many times it is requested. They knew full well what the situation was when they purchased the property. I too would love to see a village of smaller stores. The third west Walmart is one example of how they keep their properties. Fortunately, it is located in a business enviornment. Parley's Way is surrounded by residential neighborhoods.Walmart stores definately change the feel and esthetics of neighbohoods. Please vote NO! Thank you for giving us this opportunity to respond on the web. Diane Barlow Name not shown in District 7 June 30, 2011, 9:30 AM Vote No. Do not support the re-zoning for Wal-Mart to put a store in. I don't believe that we should bend or change the rules to allow a big business such as Wal-Mart with a record of treating employees poorly to develop in our neighborhood. I also believe that putting a Wal-Mart in would do to detract from the Heart of Sugarhouse which at the present moment is missing due to a poor decision made by members of our community in attempting to develop it into something bigger. Please allow Sugar House to maintain it's character. Say no to Box Stores. steve wyatt in District 7 June 30, 2011, 9:23 AM No and again No --- the Salt Lake City Planning Commission wisely recommended the Council deny Walmart's requests. Spot zoning variations to accommodate large corporate interests are just bad policy that will detract from the neighborhood. I am unaware of a shortage of Walmart's that might justify this action. How badly do we need another large, minimum wage paying, corporation undercutting the local stores out? Kathy Adams in District 7 June 30, 2011, 9:18 AM NO TO REZONE!The city council turned down St Joesph's Villa's rezone to improve the living — conditions of Alzheimer's patients because the neighborhood didn't want it. Let's see if city council Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/741 Page 25 of 33 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City cares more about the needs of a multi-national retailer than our elderly. Mark Terran in District 4 June 30, 2011, 9:15 AM YES on Walmart's requests. Don't let the outcries of a selfish few on the overlooking benches or those of jealous competitors ruin it for the community at large, which wants a store nearby that is able to supply the merchandise and services that it needs and at lower prices. The moans regarding automotive traffic are baseless. First, the implication that this Walmart would be a multi-state, hundred-mile-radius, automotive magnet is not supported by the facts. There are multiple Walmarts all around the Salt Lake Valley alone which serve the needs of their respective communities; the Parley's Walmart would serve the needs of its community. Second,Walmart is not like a football game or soccer game or rock concert--where everyone is arriving or leaving simultaneously. Though Walmart parking lots do contain many parked cars, the actual traffic moving in and out of these lots, and to and from the streets, actually consists of a very, very slight trickle, at any given time. I personally find this to be the case whenever I shop at Walmart, regardless of the store location. Check it out and see for yourself. To Walmart itself I would say: don't build a smaller store. These don't have as good a selection, and tend to disappoint. Build a store at least as big as the existing building -- preferably bigger. I understand a new building would be built at a lower elevation than the existing building and that the overall visual effect of the entire property would be more pleasing than it is now. And enough of the doomsday scenarios: "What if Walmart were to leave fifty years from now -- then we'd be stuck with an empty building!" Look: we've got the doomsday scenario NOW -- an empty building that does no one any good and brings no tax revenue nor jobs into the area. And like it or not, scuttling the Walmart, getting rid of the Kmart building, and putting in a park, a field of clovers, or an enclave of overpriced boutique shops, isn't actually on the table (Walmart does own the property, after all). So let's not get confused by such notions. Let Walmart have its nice, new, earthquake-safe, visually-improved, energy-efficient building with one of its newer, sleeker, more stylish exterior designs (they're not the basic blue anymore) and its pleasant re-grading and landscaping of the entire property, so that we can save money, live better, and decide for ourselves how we want to invest in the local economy with the money thus saved. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 30, 2011, 8:56 AM walmart owns the property. it seems a waste of time for people to keep saying they want to keep walmart out or asking about other poeple who are interested in the property.walmart has owned the property for many years the question is can they rebuild a more efficient building or do they have to keep the old run down building and try to work with it.they could build a new energy efficient and earthquake ready building that would look nice. . they wanted to reduce the size of the building not increase it. . why keep voting against it just so the old run down building can stay and the neighborhood can look like a dump. It would only improve the neighborhood to have a nice new building rather than an empty building that is in poor condition and just sits vacant. i work at the Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/741 Page 26 of 33 • Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City university and would enjoy having a store on my way home that i could stop at and grab a few things when needed cecilia uriburu in District 7 June 30, 2011, 8:37 AM Vote No. It is not necessary to demolish a building, haul the debries to the dumpster, change the zonning and now also change the Master Plan to build a green building... you can re-model and Re- use and trust the vision of the existing Master Plan that makes our neighborhood a great place to live.We are a hard working neighborhood, and in this economy we work even harder and we have families, so stop wasting my time, my money for nannies, parking and late dinners during hearings and energy for such a bad idea.lt has been about 3 years now...or more? New business in the are that DID NOT ask for a re-zone and are doing great: Harvest Bread company, Rare Coins, Anytime Business, Architectural Nexus, Precaucios... you name it! I am getting tired of this issue coming back again and again... I guess when you have the deep pockets you can keep asking again and again for a re-zone... get it through your head guys NO means NO... and you heard this many time by now. Let's do prublic hearings to talk about good projects, parks, community centers, farmers markets... not a big box that by the way we already have Fresh Market, Smiths, Dan's, a tire center across the street from the site. Let it go already, and let's talk about better projects!! Thank you, Cecilia. Name not shown in District 6 June 30, 2011, 8:31 AM If Walmart wants to use the existing space, that is fine. I would love to see a shopping area like 15th and 15th or 9th and 9th, but what entity will be putting forth the planning, money and effort to achieve that?Who else has shown an interest in that property besides Walmart? No to rezoning, but if Walmart is the only one who will develop the property, let them. It has been rundown for at least 12 years, even when the K-mart was operational. Name not shown in District 3 June 30, 2011, 8:26 AM Although the location is just off a freeway exit, the usual place one would see Walmart, I vote no on the rezone.These large commercial enterprises take away from our quality of life and our neighborhoods and promote more driving (dirty air) rather than less.Also, this entry into the city from 1-80 is one of the most beautiful we have. It would be a shame to include a view of Walmart as the first thing people see as they enter the valley off the Foothill Drive exit.As for services, there are other opportunities for that close by. Just stay on 1-80 until the next exit at 1300 East and you're in the heart of the Sugarhouse shopping district. Name not shown in District 4 June 30, 2011, 8:26 AM I would urge the Council to support Walmart's proposal. It is incoherent and unduly officious to Amok recognize that Walmart can remodel the existing store but not allow it to start over and create a more R.- Public comments as of July 14.2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/741 Page 27 of 33 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City integrated structure on the same property. That kind of protectionist micromanagement by the city will only discourage future initiative and diverse development. Thank you for considering this proposal objectively. Name not shown in District 6 June 30, 2011, 8:13 AM No, absolutely not. Spot zoning is illegal no matter how big the corporate pocketbook. Kelly Stevens in District 3 June 30, 2011, 8:10 AM Absolutely not! for all the obvious reasons. Name not shown in District 6 June 30, 2011, 8:10 AM Vote no! Walmart should upgrade the property and remodel the current structure or find another location. Name not shown in District 6 June 30, 2011, 8:05 AM A larger walmart is not suited for the size and flow of that neighborhood. It will also gut small businesses in the area, especially stores like Tutoring Toy, Scentsations in the Foothill Village. Please reject Walmart's revised proposals. Name not shown in District 3 June 30, 2011, 7:42 AM The Council should not approve the change.We invested much time and energy to develop the masterplan for the area and thoroughly addressed many concerns about the area's commercial development.We need to honor the process of plan development or risk even more cynicism in the community.Walmart can build a smallmart on the site and it will still meet everyone's needs. A bigger box is not needed. Terry Marasco in District 3 June 30, 2011, 7:41 AM No, the city should be supporting small business development in every way, not enlarging the reach of businesses particularly those located out of Utah.. Remodeling the current facility is fine as an improvement. The city's campaign to buy local is hypocritical when it considers these kind of expansions. Name not shown in District 6 June 30, 2011, 7:29 AM No to rezoning and Walmart. If they want it they can buy as is or put up a new building according to size/rules already in zoning restrictions. We have done fine without a big superstar store since K- Marts closing. My choices would be to use the space for walking friendly independent stores similar to the 9th/9th or 15th/15th blocks; or a park for kids, people to enjoy with walking trails, etc; or a rec center similar to Steiner in order to promote exercise and health rather than the opposite w/ a Walmart Julia Reid in District 4 June 30, 2011, 7:05 AM Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/741 Page 28 of 33 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's , ommlik Way and change the community's land use master plan? ter, , All Participants around Salt Lake City I oppose a change in zoning, which as far as I can see, would benefit Walmart and no one else.The zoning was imposed for a reason. It should not be changed just because we think the old K-mart store is ugly.The best solution would be to tear it down and put the land to some other use, not Walmart. It is a beautiful site with a nice view. Name not shown in District 5 June 30, 2011, 12:13 AM I would recommend the Council go along with the proposal to rezone this property for Walmart.As the property sits now it is a blight and the existing building was built in an odd place on the lot originally. I would like to see the Walmart and hopefully a little complex similar to Surgarhouse Shopping or Foothill Village. I understand that this will have an affect on the local/small business in the area, but it may also present new opportunities with increased shopper's to the area. I don't understand the opposition this site was already a big box store (K-Mart) and this development would atleast improve the site. I say change the zoning and let Walmart put in a new store ! Name not shown in District 5 June 29, 2011, 11:32 PM I think the master plan and zoning should stand. It was zoned that way because we don't WANT a big box store in that area and we zoned out the use so we wouldn't have to put up with that Big Box store in the future. And I think it would be better for the neighborhood and everyone else if they just bulldozed the existing building and built conforming structures to the current zoning. ,,.,! Walmart knew it was a non-conforming use when they bought it, and they should be forced to remodel the current building or build a new building consistent with the current zoning. MATTHEW STOUT in District 4 June 29, 2011, 11:09 PM As a small business owner I know too well what this will do. Odds are Wall Mart will close this store someday leaving the property blighted and the area stripped of neighborhood shopping. Even if you don't understand how Wall Mart operates, or care,just think about what people are starting to want in their communities. More often when asked, consumers want small comercial areas that promote walking communities, less trafic, and less sprawl. I would rather see an plan that promotes a community marketplace like the farmers market in pioneer park. Glen Elkins in District 5 June 29, 2011, 10:38 PM What is there now is flat ugly. If Walmart is willing to replace some of the asphalt with eco friendly landscaping, and create an attractive facility, then go for it. If 1300 south and 300 west is the model then no way. Name not shown in District 7 June 29, 2011, 10:14 PM No to the rezone. This neighborhood has already been taken over by enough chain stores and monster developments. We do not need a Walmart to come in and lower the appeal of the neighborhood. No to Walmart. Richard Kanner in District 7 June 29, 2011, 10:05 PM Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracycom/741 Page 29 of 33 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City If Walmart plans on modernizing the current old K-Mart building then fine. However, an enlarged store at that site is inconsistent with the neighborhood.There are plenty of big box stores on 3rd West and that is where they belong. Parleys Way is already getting close to as much traffic than it can handle and Foothill Drive during rush hours is almost a parking lot.The added traffic from a big box such as Walmart as exists on 13th south and 3rd west would be a disaster.The stop and start driving will add considerably to both particulate and ozone air pollution - and we currently cannot meet EPA standards.These standards are designed to protect our health and to violate them is more than a felony or misdemeanor, it is a health hazard. In addition, a Walmart would spell the end to several local businesses in the area. The Fresh market on 23rd East & Parleys, the Rite Aid on Parleys, the tire dealer on Parleys, etc. would probably be forced out of business by a big box Walmart. Also, Foothill Village and the stores there would be threatened. I would much prefer to have local businesses with the profits staying here than to support Bentonville, Arkansas.The City Council was wise to stick to their original plan in February and they should continue to stay the course. I realize that walmart with all their resources will keep coming back trying to have their way.We should continue to stand up to them.Thank you. C. Michael Foster in District 4 June 29, 2011, 10:01 PM I miss having a "big box" store at the top of Parleys Way. Can't say I was a regular, but when I needed something, often a jumbo-sized retailer was the only place to get it, and K-Mart was the only one within a 10-mile radius. Smiths Marketplace isn't too far away, but doesn't have nearly the selection. The KMart that was there was sorely out-of-date.And ugly. In comparison to Target and Walmart, it was also a bit undersized. Judging by the size of the parking lot, the property could easily accommodate a larger store. I do agree, however, that there must be a way to make the store more visually appealing, less obtrusive, and more in harmony with the neighborhood. Size doesn't concern me as much as aesthetics. Make it beautiful. Landscape the heck out of it. Class it up with nicer architecture and facades. Drastically reduce the size of the signs/logo. Make it feel less like a warehouse. Give it some character and personality. Do that, and I have no problem with rezoning. Of course, if I had my druthers, I'd rather see a Super Target there. Name not shown outside Salt Lake City June 29, 2011, 9:55 PM Walmart should just rebrand the building with their sign and go into operation without any exterior changes. They might do some things on the inside such as extra insulation, etc. I used to shop in that building when it was Kmart, seems like it worked, so it ought to work out for Walmart too. Name not shown in District 5 June 29, 2011, 9:54 PM The current building is terrible looking. I would support a remodel or tear down of the current building as long as the new building did not have a larger footprint. This is a fairly congested area as well as being too close to residential neighborhoods to be anything bigger than it already is. Let me just make clear---I hate Wal-Mart. I never shop at Wal-Mart and think they have terrible Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http:/Avww.peakdemocracy.com/741 Page 30 of 33 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's ,,,,,,s Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City hiring/pay/employee benefits.With that said I also don't want the building to sit empty and deteriorate before our eyes. Name not shown in District 5 June 29, 2011, 9:53 PM WalMarts are closing, big boxes in general are not a viable shopping option. Why should we allow something that has a history of being unpopular and destroys huge properties. Consider a user friendly, popular, neighborhood atmosphere like 9th and 9th and 15th and 15th? Thank you James Guilkey in District 6 June 29, 2011, 9:50 PM I support accommodating WalMart's aspirations for this site. It has been a big box store for decades, and it isn't going to turn into an organic daisy farm if their plans are scuttled by the City Council. The sales tax revenue generated by this store would be substantial, and I suspect that many of the prospective WalMart shoppers are currently spending their money at the Smith's Marketplace on 33rd South, outside of Salt Lake City. It is easy to express righteous indignation over big box stores, it is a lot harder to come up with the ,,,., kind of sales tax revenue that this business could generate. �µ Gary Harding in District 6 June 29, 2011, 9:46 PM No, the city should not grant any zoning change or alter the master plan. This is not a business that is designed to serve the local neighborhood.Without local benefit there is no justification for adulterating the existing community plan. If the main purpose was to serve any commercial needs in those neighborhoods it could easily be accommodated within the current zoning.The zoning changes are requested to make the location a magnet for far flung automotive based customers. This community should not be changed to serve that purpose. The traffic flow off of Foothill into that shopping area is already dangerous and a source of congestion. This should not be agrevated. Over time it would, inevitably, generate large transportation expenditures for studies and major road modifications. Daniel Lower in District 1 June 29, 2011, 9:45 PM What do people want done with this property otherwise? It's not going to become 'open space' or a nature park, so commercial is likely regardless. I would like to see something on a smaller scale, like a Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market, rather than a Supercenter or something of that nature. It would be more in line with the surrounding area and not stand out quite as much. Several of these exist in Utah - Layton, South Ogden are good examples. They are much smaller and have mostly groceries and not much other items. 4044 Thanks, Daniel Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.comf741 Page 31 of 33 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City I strongly support the City's original decision to keep the zoning designations as they are and not allow Wal-Mart to re-zone the property to suit their business objectives.A tremendous amount of work and community input went into the zoning Master Plan and it seems senseless to abandon the Plan's concepts and intentions in order to accommodate one of this nation's worst and most exploitive corporations.To allow a re-zoning in the service of Wal-Mart's objectives is to insult to those who devoted countless hours to the formulation of an agreeable, workable community zoning Master Plan and a capitulation to an uncaring, predatory, and self-serving corporation that is an embarrassment to America's business community. Please do not allow this re-zoning to take place. Beverly Hanson in District 5 June 29, 2011, 9:18 PM I support the current zoning, since we do not need more "big box" stores. I applaud Harmons for the smaller, neighborhood-oriented store they are building, and belive that Walmart should follow their lead. Name not shown in District 6 June 29, 2011, 9:16 PM If I understand the intentions of Walmart I would like to see the council support their proposal to rezone or at least allow them to rebuild. Everything that I've heard is that Walmart was actually wanting to build a more efficient, better looking and smaller store than is there presently.That would add some beauty to a eyesore of a parking lot and existing building. I've heard they want to lower the elevation to meet Parleys Way, add trees in the strips of the parking lot, build a better looking smaller store. If it is the intention of Walmart to rezone the property and if size is a concern, why can't the planning commission write some limitations on square footage that would be allowable for the size of the lot.The commission can also make sure the new land use master plan is an appropriate one without worrying that Walmart or anyone else can abuse it by overbuilding. I think that the word "teardown" has become a 4 letter word that we all needs to get over. It seems like most are concerned about a big box store but isn't that what's there now. No one ever complained when it was a K-Mart store, what's the difference if Walmart wants build new and improved.That area needs some type of stimulus. Name not shown in District 3 June 29, 2011, 9:16 PM It is my hope that the Council will deny changing the community's master plan and thereby deny Walmart their marring the community with another big box store. Please do not allow this area to become any less neighbor friendly. Rob MacLeod outside Salt Lake City June 29, 2011, 9:06 PM I oppose such rezoning for the impact a big box store like WallMart would have on the area and the surrounding neighborhood. Traffic in 2100 South is already substantial and the additional requirements of a large shopping area would impact both local traffic and even the access from the near 1-215 interchange. The Sugarhouse area has progressed to a community friendly structure of mostly small retailers and accessible pedestrian and bicycle friendly destinations. The commercial activity is distributed rather than heavily concentrated in a small number of large structures; this not only adds charm but keeps Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/741 Page 32 of 33 Council: Walmart rezoning proposal on East Parley's Way Should the Council support Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way and change the community's land use master plan? All Participants around Salt Lake City the traffic and the resulting buildingscape on a personal scale.We have seen the blight of the mega store in our suburbs and do not need the same to occur in one of the few preserved mixed use neighborhoods. I fully support the Mayor and the City Council for their resistance to this rezoning and applaud your sensitivity to what makes such neighborhoods livable and popular. Name not shown in District 4 June 29, 2011, 9:01 PM The council should stay the course, keep the current master plan and not support the rezoning. Kelly White in District 6 June 29, 2011, 8:57 PM The City Council should deny this request to rezone and to amend the master plan. The City should focus on small local and small neighborhood businesses and keep the large big box stores out of residential areas. Walmart bought the property as is and should remodel the existing building on the blueprint as it is. Name not shown in District 6 June 29, 2011, 8:56 PM Please allow Walmart to rezone for the store on Parley's way. It will reduce traffic and air pollution to have east-side residents shop at this store. The better the store, the more likely that residents will ,,_ shop on Parley's way rather than drive to stores farther away. Travis Jensen in District 4 June 29, 2011, 8:56 PM I'd prefer the city stick with the current zoning. Let WalMart redo the existing site. If that doesn't work for them, they can sell the property and let someone else do something with the site. M Ray Kingston FAIA in District 4 June 29, 2011, 8:51 PM The City Council should deny Walmart's request for rezoning. Name not shown in District 4 June 29, 2011, 8:05 PM The East Central District is in strong support of the City Council supporting the existing master plan by denying these two petitions and asking that Walmart not only build in the existing building space but also that they do all they can to enhance the building and site in a collaborative effort with the neighbors.This effort needs to focus on the mitigations of negative impacts, support of small and local businesses in the surrounding area, building and site design, landscaping, parking and traffic impacts, etc.This can be done by supporting the design and visioning statements of the master plan and a willingness to be a good corporate neighbor. If Rocky Mountain Power can honor this type of request; if IHC can do this, then certainly Walmart can make a stronger effort to partner in this community as they have in Europe. Public comments as of July 14,2011, 9:39 AM http://www.peakdemocracycom/741 Page 33 of 33 T :.cam`mint wit�,,�„ tomu . j SCANNED BY: RECEIVEDDEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DATE■ OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR � � SLC COUNCIL OFFICE CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL M M Q MAR 15 2011 Date Received: Davi veritt, Chi f Staff By Date Sent to City Council: 03 I 'Zv6 I TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 10, 2011 Jill Remington Love, lrair- FROM: Frank Gray, Commum & Economic Development Departmen 'rector SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2010-00556: East Bench Community Master Plan Amendment. A request by Ballard Spar LLP representing Walmart Stores Inc. to amend the East Bench Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The amendment would change the future land use classification of the property located at 2705 E. Parleys Way from Community Business to Community Shopping. Petition PLNPCM2010-00557: Zoning Map Amendment. A request by Ballard Spar, LLP representing Walmart Stores Inc. to re-zone the property located at 2705 E. Parleys Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. STAFF CONTACT: Wayne Mills, Senior Planner, 801-535-7282, wayne.mills@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance. A draft ordinance is not included with this transmittal due to the Planning Commission's negative recommendation on the proposed amendments. FINDINGS AND MOTION: The petitions were presented to the Planning Commission in a public hearing on February 9, 2011. Based on the information presented in the staff report and at the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted six to one to transmit to the City Council a recommendation to deny the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 14-5486 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-71 05 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCCED.COM == wccrccc r�rcn RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a public hearing 00000* BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Issue Origin The petitioner is requesting that Salt Lake City amend the East Bench Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Community Business to Community Shopping for the property located at 2705 E. Parleys Way. This proposed change would facilitate a zoning map amendment, also requested by the applicant, which would change the zoning on the subject property from CB Community Business (CB) to CS Community Shopping(CS). The amendments are requested to allow the petitioner to demolish the existing structure on the property (a former Kmart) and construct a new Walmart Supercenter. The petitioner has submitted a preliminary site plan with the application; however, site design approval is not requested at this time. If the subject property is rezoned to CS, Walmart will be required to obtain Planned Development approval for development of the site. In the CS zoning district all new construction of principal buildings, uses, or additions that increase the floor area and/or parking requirement by 25% requires Planned Development approval. Planned Developments are reviewed by the Planning Commission in a public hearing according to a set of design criteria. Details of the petitioner's request, as well as background information, information regarding the public process, and an analysis of the proposed amendments, are included in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report (see Exhibit 1). PUBLIC PROCESS: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendments on February 9, 2011. There were approximately 91 public comment cards submitted in the hearing with 48 people in support and 43 opposed. The comments made both in support and in opposition closely reflected the comments sent to the Planning Staff prior to the public hearing. These comments are summarized starting on page 6 of the Planning Commission Staff Report (see Exhibit 1). After accepting public comment, the Planning Commission discussed the petitions at length. The one commissioner in support of the proposed amendments stated that a big box retailer was once allowed on the site and can continue. He stated that the only way that the City can ensure that the future Walmart store is developed properly is to rezone the property. He further stated that the property is more in common with the CS zone than the CB zone and changing the zoning would not significantly alter the East Bench Master Plan. The commissioners who did not support the proposed amendments made the following points: ➢ The City needs to consider the long term vision for the property and what zoning is appropriate. The issue is not the development of a new Walmart store. ➢ The existing zoning needs to remain in place long enough to achieve the community vision. ➢ The community does not want a big box store. 2 • The City does not need to rush into amending the master plan. Sufficient time is needed to achieve the master plan goals. Developers make a mistake in thinking that they can do whatever they want with the land. The land really belongs to the people and it the City's responsibility to ensure that the community's goals are achieved. ▪ Development should not drive the master plan. The master plan should drive development. The final decision of the Planning Commission was to transmit a negative recommendation to the City Council with a six to one vote. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are attached as Exhibit 5. Planning Staff has received additional public comments via email after the Planning Commission meeting. These comments are included as Exhibit 6. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Sections 10-9a-204 and 205 of the Utah Code Title 10, Chapter 9a, Municipal Land Use, Development and Management Act regulate the requirements for noticing a general plan amendment and land use ordinance amendment. The petitions for the zoning and Master Plan amendments were published in the newspaper on January 29, 2011, meeting State Code noticing requirements. Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and zoning map are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 21A.50.050: "A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." It does, however, list five factors, which should be analyzed prior to rezoning property (Section 21A.50.050B). The five factors are discussed in detail starting on page 14 of the Planning Commission Staff Report (see Exhibit 1). 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 2. CHRONOLOGY 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISION a. Agenda/Notice Mailing Newspaper Notice b. Minutes 6. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS (Post Planning Commission Meeting) 7. ORIGINAL PETITION PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ..... , .^. C S 1 2705 E. PARLEYS WAY—MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT Sv A /.,T et AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT PLNPCM2010-00556—Master Plan Amendment tn ;'01` PLNPCM2010-00557—Zoning Map Amendment "••.cI'T ••- 2705 E. Parleys Way Planning and Zoning Division February 9,2011 Department of Community and Economic Development Applicant: Ballard Spahr LLP Request representing Walmart Stores,Inc Ballard Spahr LLP representing Walmart Stores, Inc is requesting an Staff: Wayne Mills amendment to the East Bench Master Plan Future Land Use Map to change the 801-535-7282 land use classification of the property located at 2705 E. Parleys Way from wayne.mills@slcgov.com Community Business to Community Shopping.The applicant is also requesting Tax ID: 16-23-152-004 a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the property from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. Current Zone: CB Community Business Master Plan Designation: Staff Recommendation OEast Bench Community Master Plan—Community Business PLNPCM2010-00556—Master plan Amendment Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the Staff Council District:District 7— Report and accept public comments. Planning Staff recommends that the Council Member Simonsen Planning Commission forward a recommendation on the proposal to the City Community Council:Sugar Council at the next scheduled Planning Commission hearing. House—Cabot Nelson,Chair PLNPCM2010-00557—Zoning Map Amendment Lot Size: Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the Staff Approximately 10.5 acres Report and accept public comments. Planning Staff recommends that the Current Use:Superstore and Planning Commission forward a recommendation on the proposal to the City Hypermarket Store Council at the next scheduled Planning Commission hearing. Applicable Land Use Regulations: •21A.50—Amendments • Section 10-9a-204—Utah State Code—Plan Amendment Notification Notification •Notice mailed on 1/28/11 •Newspaper ad on 1/29/11 O • Sign posted on 1/27/11 • Agenda posted on the Planning Division and Utah Public Meeting Notice PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date:February 4,2011 1 websites 1/28/11 Attachments: 0 A.Application Submittals B.CB and CS Zoning District Regulations and Allowed" Uses C.City Department/Division Comments D.Community Council Minutes and Planning Staff Notes E.Public Comments F. Map of CB and CS Zoning Districts G.Capture/Leakage Analysis H.Site Photos VICINITY MAP et �" ` XI i:. r it \,-* i - .."' ;k,,,..- - -- ., -I , *-. i ,�w� .� • -r P.SS ,,. ' Subject r a "� - c `v,• .Property `` -ir.-1 ' tez ax t ,+= wi ,'� i= . - '. 3 f -, - + t _ ••.i-iTtic ' k ` 2'.. _•a l 4 ma y<.; ",„ r ` a\ . \ F,I `. zo 7�p 1� M / . , ...,,m. ,` _ -..,c am' O PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date:February 4,2011 2 Background Request The applicant is requesting that Salt Lake City amend the East Bench Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Neighborhood Shopping to Community Shopping for the property located at 2705 E. Parleys Way. This proposed change would facilitate a zoning map amendment, also requested by the applicant, which would change the zoning on the subject property from CB Community Business (CB) to CS Community Shopping (CS). The amendments are requested to allow the applicant to demolish the existing structure on the property (a former Kmart) and construct a new Walmart Supercenter. The applicant has submitted a preliminary site plan with the application; however, site design approval is not requested at this time. If the subject property is rezoned to CS Walmart will be required to obtain Planned Development approval for development of the site. In the CS zoning district all new construction of principal buildings, uses, or additions that increase the floor area and/or parking requirement by 25% requires Planned Development approval. Planned Developments are reviewed by the Planning Commission in a public hearing according to a set of design criteria. Purpose of Request The overall purpose of the applicant's request is to allow Walmart to demolish the existing building on the site and construct a new Walmart Supercenter. In order to understand the purpose further, Staff provides the following history of development and zoning of the property: o In 1968 Salt Lake City issued a permit for the construction of a Kmart on the property. The building constructed was approximately 113,227 square feet in size and was portioned off into two sections; one section for Kmart (93,027 square feet), and the other section for Kmart Food (20,200 square feet). o The property was zoned Business B-3 when the building permit was issued. The B-3 zoning district allowed "shops for retail business" as a permitted use. o In 1973 the Board of Adjustment approved an addition to the side of the building for use as a garden and patio shop that would not be completely enclosed. The garden area was approximately 6,940 square feet in size. O The property was rezoned in 1995 to CB as part of a city-wide rezoning project. Kmart was still considered a permitted use as a retail goods establishment; however, the structure on the property became non-complying due to the maximum front yard setback, maximum building size, and design requirements in the CB zoning district. ® The City Council adopted an ordinance in January 2004 defining different types of retail uses (Conventional Department Stores, Mass Merchandising Store, Specialty Store, Superstore and Hypermarket Store, and Warehouse Club Store). The only zoning districts affected by the ordinance were the Gateway Mixed-Use (G-MU) and Downtown districts. • Walmart purchased the Kmart property in February of 2005. PLNPCM2010-005%6.PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 n 3 • The City Council adopted an ordinance in November 2005 that amended the Commercial Districts Use Chart to include the new retail land use classifications that were adopted in 2004. The use chart w amended to allow only"Retail goods establishments" and"Retail services establishments" as purr/teed uses in the CB zoning district. Kmart was considered a"Superstore and Hypermarket Store", which was not allowed in the CB zone; therefore, Kmart became a nonconforming use. • In November 2008 Kmart closed its doors for business. When Kmart closed in 2008 the use on the property ("Superstore and Hypermarket Store") was nonconforming because the use was not a permitted use in the zoning district. In addition, the structure was noncomplying because it exceeded the maximum allowable building size, maximum allowable front yard setback and did not meet some of the CB district design criteria. Therefore, for zoning regulation purposes, the existing building on the property is considered a noncomplying structure with a nonconforming use. The Zoning Ordinance allows for the continuation of a noncomplying structure with a nonconforming use even if the property ownership changes. In this case, the proposed Walmart is the same type of use as the previous Kmart; therefore, Walmart can operate within the existing building on the property through the standard business licensing and building code review processes. However, there are limitations on what Walmart can do with the existing building considering its status as a noncomplying structure with a nonconforming use. The Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance allows for the voluntary demolition and reconstruction of a noncomplying structure with a nonconforming use up to 50% without obtaining any permitting approval other than standard business licensing and building code review. The 50% threshold pertains only to the structural elements of the building but is not calculated as 50% of the physical structure. The calculation is based' he ratio of the cost to construct the building according to current building standards and the cost of replacithe portion of the building to be demolished and replaced. If the replacement cost is less than 50% of the total construction cost, it is permitted. If it exceeds 50%, it is considered a demolition and all new construction, as well as the use, would have to comply with the current zoning regulations. In summary, Walmart can open a new store in the existing building but can only make improvements on the building up to 50% of the total construction valuation. Walmart has obtained a permit to remodel the existing building and open a store if the City does not approve the rezone. Walmart is requesting a zoning amendment to change the zoning to CS. In the CS zoning district, a "Superstore and Hypermarket Store" land use is permitted; therefore, Walmart would be allowed to demolish the existing structure and build a new building. Previous Petition and Current Proposal (What has changed?) In June 2007, Walmart submitted the same two types of petitions as what is currently being reviewed. At that time, the preliminary development plan included an 115,060 square foot retail building with a 5,057 square foot garden center. In September 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed the petitions in a public hearing and voted to forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council. Walmart withdrew their petitions prior to the City Council taking final action. The current preliminary development plan reduces the size of the retail building to 91,750 square feet and eliminates the garden center. The height of the building would average 26 feet with a maximum height33 feet. The new plan shows designated walkways between Foothill Blvd. and Parleys Way. In addition, tl :w plan shows an area of land 1.15 acres in size for additional development. Walmart representatives have sated that they have no specific plans for the 1.15 acre site, but would like to work with the community to determine PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 4 the best use. They have stated that if the community does not want another use on the property, they would use the area for additional parking. Comments City Department Comments The comments received from pertinent City Departments / Divisions are attached to this staff report in Attachment C. The Planning Division has not received comments from the applicable City Departments / Divisions that cannot reasonably be fulfilled or that warrant denial of the petition. Community Council Comments The subject property is in the East Bench Community Council area but within 600 feet of the Sugar House Community Council boundary; therefore, the petition was presented to both community councils. In addition, the petition was presented to the Sunnyside East Community Council. The following provides a summary of the community council meetings. The community council meeting minutes that are available are attached, as well as meeting notes that were taken by Staff that attended the meetings (see Attachment D). Sugar House Conznncuzity Council The petitions were presented to the Sugar House Land Use and Zoning Committee on September 20, 2010 and the Sugar House Community Council on November 3, 2010. Approximately 200 people attended the community council meeting. The Sugar House Community Council is represented by a group of trustees that vote on issues. During the meeting the general public was given the opportunity to speak. Some members of the public were in favor of the rezone and others were opposed. The Sugar House Community Council Trustees then discussed the petitions and voted to recommend that the Planning Commission and City Council deny the petitions. A report submitted by the Sugar House Community Council and notes taken by Planning Staff that attended the meeting are attached in Attachment D. East Bench Community Council The petitions were presented to the East Bench Community Council on October 20, 2010 and again on November 17, 2010. The purpose of holding two meetings was to brief the community during the first meeting and then obtain a vote from the community council members at the second meeting. Approximately 90 people attended both community council meetings. On November 17 the Community Council voted to support the petitions in a 46 to 44 vote. Notes taken by Planning Staff that attended both meetings are attached in Attachment D. Sunnyside East Community Council The petitions were presented to the Sunnyside East Community Council Executive Board on November 30, 2011 with approximately 10 people in attendance. The members of the community council did not vote on whether or not they support the petitions. Many of their concerns were related to traffic impacts on Foothill Drive. They also expressed concern that the East Bench Master Plan is old and needs to be updated, and that this should occur before the City approves any zoning amendments. PLNPCM2010-00556.PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 Public Comments Amok Planning Staff established an Open City Hall webpage for the petitions in October 2010. The webpage included a background fact sheet, information on the existing and proposed zoning, and maps. The Open City Hall site allowed the public to submit comments regarding the petitions. Staff received 97 comments with 58 supporting the petitions, 31 opposed, and 8 that were not specific enough to determine if they support or oppose the petitions. Those that were not specific stated that they did not care one way or the other but traffic would be a problem and pedestrians should be prioritized over vehicles, they support the rezone to allow big box retail but do not support Walmart, and would rather have residential developed on the site but think that a new Walmart will be better than a vacant site. The comments received through Open City Hall are attached (see Attachment E). In addition to the comments received on Open City Hall, Staff received 11 phone calls with four in support and five opposed. Staff also received 85 letters/emails with 20 in support, 64 opposed, and one who stated that they are not opposed to the rezoning to allow Walmart but is concerned that they would have the ability to increase the building height and size, could temporary warehouse stock outside of the building, and could place a deed restriction on the property to prevent lease or sale to a competitor. A phone log and copies of the letters/emails received are attached (see Attachment E). Walmart conducted their own public support campaign at some of their local Walmart stores. Cards were handed out asking if individuals "support a brand new, smaller, more energy efficient Walmart on Parleys." Walmart received support cards from 3,882 individuals with Salt Lake City addresses. An example of the submitted cards and a spreadsheet with the names and addresses of those that signed the cards are attached (see Attachment E). Public/Community Council Comments Summary The following is a summary of the reasons why people support the subject petitions and the reasons for opposition. Those that support the petitions stated: ➢ They would like a new more efficient building than the re-use of the older existing building. ➢ Big box retail is the historic use of the property and it worked in the past so why change the use. ➢ They prefer additional shopping choices in their neighborhood. ➢ They see environmental impacts from having to drive to 300 West or other places in the valley to shop at Walmart, Target, etc. ➢ The existing, site is an eyesore and they would like to see it improved. ➢ The City needs the tax revenue from a larger shopping center. ➢ They would like Walmart to build a larger store than what is proposed that includes all services offered by Walmart, such as tire/lube service and an outdoor garden center. Those that oppose the petitions provided the following reasons: ➢ Traffic Impacts; o Foothill Drive is already at maximum capacity. Traffic generated from Walmart(or other b box retail stores) will make it worse. o Delivery trucks exiting,the site onto Foothill will create traffic impacts. o The intersection of Stringham and Foothill is not signalized. Left turns onto Stringham from Foothill and onto Foothill from Stringham are dangerous. PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 6 o Walmart(or other big box retail stores)will create traffic impacts on nearby residential streets. ➢ There is no reason to change the zoning. Walmart can remodel the existing building and operate. ➢ Opposition to Walmart in general, such as their business practices and sale of imported goods. ➢ The East Bench Master Plan and CB zone were established to prevent the area from turning into a big box retail center. ➢ The property should be developed as housing. ➢ The property should be developed as a walkable, bike friendly development. Rezoning to CS will eliminate the possibility of that ever happening. ➢ Lighting and noise from a big box store will impact adjacent residential properties. ➢ Rezoning the property will set a precedent and allow other properties in the east bench area to be rezoned to more intense zoning classifications. ➢ The East Bench neighborhood is adequately served by existing businesses. Walmart (or any big box store) would take business from the existing retail businesses, which would leave vacant commercial properties in the area. ➢ People that shop at big box retail stores can do so on 300 West and elsewhere in the valley. ➢ Concerns regarding the environmental impact of big box retail stores, such as energy consumption. ➢ The East Bench Master Plan needs to be updated. The City should not rezone property until the master plan is updated. ➢ The CS district will allow bigger and taller buildings. ➢ Walmart is showing a 92,000 square foot building with trail connection, and landscaping on their preliminary development plan. If the zoning changes, Walmart will be able to build whatever they want regardless of what they are currently showing. ➢ Opposed to development agreements related to zoning amendments because the City has difficulty tracking the agreements, which requires the neighbors to track the business activities. ➢ Walmart is the property owner. If Walmart closes, they can hold onto the property and leave it vacant in order to ensure that a competitor does not open on the site. They could also lease the property to use as a flea market. ➢ Keeping the existing zoning (CB) will require smaller buildings on the site, which are easier to lease if Walmart closes. ➢ The preliminary development plan shows an additional development site. This site could turn into gas station or other use that the neighborhood does not want. Project Review Master Plan Amendment Discussion The East Bench Master Plan was adopted in 1987. At that time, the future land use of the subject property was classified as `Neighborhood Business". In 1995, the City undertook a complete revision to the Zoning Ordinance and created new zoning districts. The entire City was rezoned to reflect the new zoning classifications and the subject property was rezoned from B-3 Neighborhood Business to CB Community Business. The ordinance that rezoned the City stated that, "all existing master plans should be construed and interpreted to conform to the new Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Maps." What this means is that in 1995, the Kmart property was rezoned to Community Business and the future land use designation, as designated in the East Bench Master Plan, also became "Community Business". The East Bench Master Plan was adopted in 1987 and is one of the oldest master plan documents in the City. When the master plan was adopted, Kmart was operational, was a permitted use, and complied with the "Neighborhood Business" future land use classification. In 1995, the future land use designation was changed PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 due to the city-wide zoning amendment; however, there was no other amendment to the master plan tha"""""'tes that a big box retail use, such as Kmart, is no longer appropriate at this site. One opinion is that the zonitztrand future land use map amendment shows that a big box retailer is no longer desired at this location because the CB zoning regulations limit building footprint sizes to 15,000 square feet. Another opinion is that the amendment to the future land use map did not forbid big box retail stores at this site because in the CB district, larger buildings are allowed as a conditional use as long as impacts of the use are mitigated. It is difficult to pull statements from the East Bench Master Plan either in favor of, or against the proposed rezone due to the points made above. A community master plan should be reviewed to ensure that the plan reflects the goals and needs of the community. This master plan is approximately 23 years old and may not reflect current community goals. Staff has conducted a high level study to determine if there is sufficient retail to support the East Bench residents and found that there is a need for additional retail businesses (see summary of capture/leakage analysis in the Findings section of this report). This study was done at a high level only for the purpose of this amendment proposal and did not address other community needs, such as the potential need for additional residential land uses. In order to further address these needs, the City would need to conduct a holistic review and update (if needed) of the East Bench Master Plan. Zoning Amendment Discussion The subject property is currently zoned CB Community Business. The following is the purpose statement of the CB zoning district: The CB Community Business district is intended to provide for the close integration of moderateed commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods. The design guidelines are intenete to facilitate retail that is pedestrian in its orientation and scale, while also acknowledging the importance of transit and automobile access to the site. The applicant is requesting a zoning map amendment to change the zoning of the property from CB to CS Community Shopping. The following is the purpose statement of the CS zoning district: The purpose of the CS Community Shopping district is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive shopping center development at a community level scale. The CB and CS zoning districts allow many of the same land uses; however, it is essentially the scale, or size of the buildings that house the uses, that are different between the zones. For example, both zoning districts allow mixed-use developments, multi-family dwellings, retail, and restaurants with or without drive-through facilities. The CS zoning district; however, allows additional land uses that require larger land area and larger buildings, such as commercial recreation centers, amusement parks, motion picture studios and big box retail centers. A comparison table showing the uses allowed in both zoning districts is attached (see Attachment B). The issue of scale can also be seen when comparing the lot and building size regulations between the two zoning districts. In the CB zone there is no minimum lot area and any new proposed lot that exceeds four acres is allowed only as a conditional use. In the CS zone, all new lots must be at least 60,000 square feet (approximately 1.4 acres), excluding shopping center pad sites, and there is no maximum lot size. The CB zoning district limits building sizes to 15,000 square feet for the first floor and 20,000 square feet totor area, but does allow larger buildings through the Conditional Use process. In the CS zoning district, there rg'no maximum building size limitation. PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 8 The two zoning districts also differ in their approach on requiring certain design elements. In the CB zone, there are specific regulations related to maximum front yard setback (requiring buildings to be located close to the sidewalk/street), minimum first floor glass and other facade treatments, and parking lot lighting. In the CS zone, there are no specific standards stated in the regulations; however, all new development and additions to existing buildings that increase the floor area or parking requirement by 25% require design review through the Planned Development process. The CB and CS zoning district standards are included with this report at Attachment B. Staff identified all of the existing properties in the City that are zoned CB and CS to determine how the subject property relates to each zoning district. A map showing the location of these zoning districts is attached (Attachment F). The CS district is generally characterized by larger parcels, or a combination of smaller parcels that function as a larger parcel, with controlled driveway access that serves one large business or a combination of businesses. Properties zoned CS are generally located along arterial streets that serve as major thoroughfares. Examples of CS zoned areas include Trolley Square, Plaza 700 Shopping Center (1740 West 700 North), Brickyard Plaza, and Foothill Village. The CB zoning district is generally characterized by smaller parcels that are owned and operated independently with driveway access serving one parcel or use. The parcels are situated in a way that provides prominent street frontage and provide the opportunity to place buildings close to the front property line. Parcels located in the CB zoning district are more closely integrated with surrounding residential land uses and have direct pedestrian access by way of existing public sidewalks. CB district parcels are located along arterial and collector streets. Examples of the CB zoning district include the 2100 South/700 East commercial strip, 9th and 9th, the Highland Drive commercial strip, and most of the commercial properties along the east end of 2100 South and Parleys Way (see attached map, Attachment F). When comparing the subject property to existing properties in both the CB and CS zoning districts, the subject property has characteristics more associated with the CS zone. At approximately 10 acres, the property is comparable in size to other properties zoned CS, but much bigger than properties zoned CB. The property is located along two arterial streets that serve as major thoroughfares into and out of the City. The subject property also has limited controlled access points that could serve multiple uses on a single parcel. In addition, the property is isolated from the surrounding single-family residential neighborhoods, with the exception of the Foothill Place apartments located to the north. When looking at a map of the area, the residential neighborhoods to the east and to the south are separated by arterial streets. Classifying the site as a future pedestrian accessed development is questionable due to these street barriers and the distance between the property and a dense population base. In reality, even if the property were developed in a walkable village configuration, it would still be predominantly accessed by the automobile until a major public transportation investment is made in the area. Alternatives, Analysis, and Findings Alternatives The following are options for the Planning Commission to consider when making a recommendation to the City Council: ➢ Deny the petition o The Planning Commission can recommend denial based on a decision that the petitions are not in the best interest of the City. o If the petition is denied Walmart will be allowed to operate within the existing building on the site according to the ordinances regulating nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures and PLNPCM20I0-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date February 4,2011 without further site review by the City. In fact, Walmart has obtained a building peiONto remodel the existing building. This building permit is still active. o If Walmart were to close in the future, a similar type of use could occupy the structure according to the nonconforming and noncomplying structure zoning regulations. If the existing building were demolished in the future, any new development would have to comply with the CB zoning district regulations. ➢ Deny the petitions until the East Bench Master Plan is updated o As stated in the Zoning Amendment Discussion of this report (pg. 7) the East Bench Community Master Plan is one of the oldest community master plans in the City. The Planning Commission could deny or table the petition until the City conducts a holistic review of the plan to determine if the plan is still meeting the goals of the community and to determine how the subject property fits in with those goals. o If the petition is denied, Walmart will be allowed to operate within the existing building on the site according to the ordinances regulating nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures and without further site review by the City. In fact, Walmart has obtained a building permit to remodel the existing building. This building permit is still active. o Through the master plan update process, the City might determine that a zoning district such as the CS zone is an appropriate zoning designation. At that time, the property owner or the City would initiate a petition to rezone the property. ➢ Approve the petitions with no conditions o The Planning Commission could recommend approval according to the standards for zoning map amendments. o If the property is zoned CS Community Shopping, all future development would be required to comply with the CS zoning district regulations (see Attachment B). In the CS district, all new construction of a principal building, uses, or additions to existing buildings that increases the floor area and/or parking requirement by 25% requires planned development approval. The Planned Development review allows the Planning Commission to oversee and require certain site design elements, but does not allow the Planning Commission to prohibit uses that are allowed in the CS zone. o If the property is rezoned to CS, Walmart will need to submit a Planned Development application to the City for the construction of a new store. ➢ Approve the petitions with the condition that Walmart and the City sign a Development Agreement o The Planning, Commission could recommend approval according to the standards for zoning map amendments with a condition that Walmart and the City sign a Development Agreement describing certain development restrictions on the property. o It is the opinion of Staff that Development Agreements associated with zoning amendments should only be required if there are impacts associated with the particular rezone area that are not generally associated with other properties in the same zoning district. o In the case of the proposed zoning amendment, Staff does not find that there are peculiar circumstances associated with the property itself The site shares the same characteristics with other properties zoned CS as discussed in the Zoning Amendment Discussion section of this PLNPCM20I0-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 1n report(see pages 8-9). However, the property is located within the East Bench Master Plan community and, as stated above, the master plan needs to be reviewed and updated. For this reason, Staff promotes the use of a Development Agreement to restrict the development activity on the site until the City has the resources to update the master plan. Through the Master Plan update process, the City may find that the CS zoning district is appropriate. At that time, the City should re-evaluate the Development Agreement. If the City finds that the property should be zoned differently, the City should rezone the property to the appropriate zoning district. In that case, Walmart may become a nonconforming use, which is the same situation that applies today. o The following are stipulations that the Planning Commission might consider including in the Development Agreement: • Building development on the site is limited to one structure no greater than 95,000 square feet. No other development on the site, including accessory structures, is permitted with the exception of structures used to screen refuse containers or structures related to any future transit facilities. • No outdoor storage is allowed. All merchandise must be stored within the principal structure. ■ Development of the site must include a public pedestrian pathway that connects Foothill Drive to Parleys Way. Except in areas where the pathway crosses vehicular driveways, the pedestrian pathway must be located within its own corridor. In other words, the pathway must be physically separated from the parking lot through the use of curbing, landscaping, or other means. Where the pathway crosses a vehicular driveway, the pathway must be delineated through the use of surface materials that differ from the driveway surface materials. The pedestrian pathway must be maintained for public use. • Parking lot lighting is limited to 16 feet in height. Parking lot and building lighting must be shielded to minimize light encroachment beyond the property line. o Some members of the community have expressed concern that Development Agreements are difficult to track and the City has not adequately enforced previous agreements. It was difficult for the City to track older Development Agreements because they were not easily accessible for plan reviewers. The City now has a permit tracking program (Accela) where documents, such as Development Agreements, can be posted by property address. When an applicant applies for a building permit or planning review application, these documents are immediately uploaded showing the specific conditions related to the property. Findings Master Plan Amendment There are no specific standards in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance for Master Plan Amendments. State Law, Section 10-9a-204, Notice of Public Hearings and Public Meetings to Consider General Plan or Modifications, outlines the criteria for amending a master plan relating to noticing requirements. A notice for the Master Plan amendment was published in the Salt Lake Tribune on January 29, 2011. As stated in the Master Plan Discussion section of this report (pg. 7), the East Bench Master plan is one of the oldest master plans in the City and needs to be updated. It is difficult to extract policies from the plan that directly pertain to the subject property because the City underwent a complete change in land use ordinances in 1995, but the master plan has not been updated to reflect the changes in zoning designations. With that said, the following are goals and policies taken from the adopted East Bench Master Plan that may be applicable when analyzing the proposed Future Land Use Map amendment. PLNPCM2010-005 6,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 2011 ANN ➢ "Wholesale, warehouse and other general commercial uses are not permitted " The only comurevelal uses the plan specifies as not permitted at the time the plan was adopted are "wholesale, warehouse and general commercial uses." These are uses that generally do not provide goods directly to the consumer. These uses are not permitted in the requested CS zoning district and they are only found in higher intensity zoning districts such as General Commercial (CG) and Corridor Commercial (CC). There is nothing in the East Bench Master Plan that indicates that large retail uses are incompatible with the community. ➢ "Many residents desire additional services in their community. " The proposed Walmart would be the same use as the existing Kmart and generally provide the same retail goods and services. The nearest general merchandise type of store is the Smith's Marketplace at 3300 South and I-215. That store is within two miles of the subject property but is outside of Salt Lake City. There is a Walmart Supercenter at 300 West and 1300 South and a Super Target in the same area. The two closest grocery stores in Salt Lake City are Dan's at Foothill Village (approximately two miles away) and Albertson's at 2300 East and Parleys Way (approximately one mile way). Many of the public comments in support of the petitions state that retail shopping choices are limited in the East Bench neighborhood and that East Bench residents have to travel to the other side of the City, or outside of the City, to shop. Some of the comments from those that are opposed to the petitions state that their needs are already met by the existing businesses in the community, and those that would like to shop at a big box retailer can travel to 300 West. One way to attempt to measure whether or not retail services are being met within the communit"mo1,to conduct a capture/leakage analysis. This type of analysis compares the sales in a particular target atitiok to potential sales in that area. The potential sales are calculated by determining the per capita sales in a larger comparison area, multiplying that by the population of the subject target area to determine the potential sales, and then adjusting the potential sales for a difference in the trade area and larger area income. The final result of the analysis attempts to determine if money is being spent within the target area (capture) or if money is being spent outside of the target area (leakage). There are many assumptions that need to be made in conducting the analysis and it is not an exact science, but it is one tool that can be used to determine if residents might be traveling outside of their community to obtain desired goods. In conducting the study, Staff obtained the sales numbers for Salt Lake County and three separate target areas for the following retail sectors: building and garden; general merchandise; food stores; apparel and accessories; furniture; and miscellaneous (single item type retailers). The sales numbers were obtained from the Utah State Tax Commission and are available by zip code. In order to conduct the analysis, Staff had to use population and income data also at the zip code level. This created somewhat of a problem since the master plan area boundaries do not follow zip code boundaries (see map, Attachment G). Most of the East Bench Master Plan area is located in the 84108 zip code area; however, much of Parleys Way (including the subject property) is not. In order to evaluate the East Bench Master Plan area, as well as the surrounding east neighborhoods, Staff conducted the analysis on three target areas. These areas are defined by the following zip codes: G 84108 ommak • 84108, 84112, 84113, 84102, 84105, 84106 ' 84108, 84112, 84113, 84102, 84105, 84106, 84109 PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 1') The results of the analysis are shown in the spreadsheet attached in Attachment G. The analysis shows that in the 84108 zip code area, potential sales greatly exceed the actual sales, with the exception of the food store sector. This is not a surprise considering the East Bench Master Plan states that less than 2% of the land acreage in the community is occupied by business uses. As the study area expands in size, the analysis still shows that additional retail services could be needed in the area, with the exception of food stores. It is important to note that additional retail services can be provided on the subject property in both the existing CB district and proposed CS district. Both zoning districts allow retail uses. ➢ "Redevelopment or at least renovation of some business properties... is quite likely and is considered the most desirable approach to meetingfuture business needs... " Walmart's request is to redevelop the existing commercial property and no housing will be demolished for commercial use. They do have the option of renovating the property without a zoning change. ➢ "Major zoning changes... are neither anticipated nor encouraged. Changes involving expansion of existing business sites in response to documented needs should be reviewed cautiously and approved sparingly. " The context for the term "major" appears to reference the physical expansion of an existing commercial property that would require the acquisition and rezoning of another parcel, or the conversion of residential uses to non-residential uses. Although the subject property size is not increasing, the proposed amendment could be considered an expansion because the proposed land use classification allows more intense uses. However, when the master plan was adopted in 1987, the existing use and the proposed use were allowed, so it is difficult to determine whether or not the proposed amendment would be considered a major zoning change as described in the master plan. ➢ "The city should not approve any zoning change that will result in the removal of homes. The community is so completely developed that a change of zoning in most areas would negatively impact surrounding residential properties. " No homes would be removed as a result of this master plan amendment or zoning map amendment. Citizens have raised concerns about the impact of the new development on the surrounding neighborhoods. Although the zoning change could allow a new use on the site, the applicant's proposal is to have the current use continue in a new building. Therefore, the use is still the same. Over the years, the patronage of the Kmart at this site has declined and it is anticipated that the Wal-Mart will attract more customers. The change in the future land use designation would not change the character or use of the site, but it may increase traffic to the site; however, this could be the case for any successful development regardless of the future land use designation. • "More efficient use of existing business properties is the preferred approach to meet future business needs. " A mixed use development on this site would be a more efficient use of the land than a single- building, single-tenant retailer. However, changing the future land use map land use designation for the subject property does not prevent this site from being developed more efficiently. In fact, the CS zoning district allows mixed-use developments and provides more flexibility because new construction requires planned development approval. This gives the Planning Commission flexibility in applying city goals and conditioning project approYals. The CB zoning district limits buildings to 15,000 square feet on one floor and 20,000 feet total. On a 10.56 acre site with one street frontage that is more or less oriented to a freeway off-ramp, it would be difficult to comply with the CB zoning district purpose statement and regulations. More than likely, a developer would need to request relief from the CB regulations or a change in zoning to develop a mixed-use development on the site. ➢ "A gateway center should be located near the entrance to the city... " An information center and rest stop for visitors to Salt Lake City would be a valuable service and an asset to the city. However, as the PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-0055 i Puh' l,P,i n-,,p /ni i master plan indicates, the views of the valley from this location are not as good as the oth'' vo potential sites for gateway centers and there are some concerns with access. The master plan noteiat this is the least attractive option of the three provided and that it would require some land acquisition on the part of the city. Specifically, it stated that "the Parleys Way site should be considered only if the other sites prove unworkable." It is staffs opinion that the proposed master plan amendment does not substantially contradict any of the other policies, goals or strategies of the East Bench Master Plan and that modifying the master plan would not substantially impact the integrity of either the community or the master plan. Zoning Map Amendment Section 21A.50.050 - A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment, the city council should consider the following factors: 1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; • Discussion: The following policy documents were considered in evaluating this request: the Salt Lake City Vision and Strategic Plan (1993), the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan (1996), and the East Bench Master Plan (1987). ' mok Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan The Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan, adopted in 1996, defines arterial routes as streets provided "for through traffic movement over,long distances... with some access to abutting property." Furthermore, "these streets are typically the widest and have the highest speed limits of all the streets within the city." Foothill Drive is listed as an example in the master plan. Parleys Way is an arterial as well. One of the directions listed in the plan for arterials is "to encourage commuter traffic to use arterial streets rather than local and collector streets" by maintaining the arterials' carrying capacity. Salt Lake City Vision and Strategic Plan The Salt Lake City Vision and Strategic Plan, adopted in 1993, states a goal of facilitating "development of complimentary retail shopping opportunities in city neighborhoods and commercial areas of the city." This goal's action step is to "work with developers to ensure additional retail shopping opportunities within the City," and the progress indicators are the "amount of new retail space annually" and the "new tax dollars generated annually." East Bench Master Plan The requested zoning map amendment is not consistent with the Future Land Use Map of the East Bench Master Plan, which is the applicable master plan document for the subject property. However, the applicant has requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Map in addition to the zoning map amendment. Planning staff has recommended approval of the master plan amendment because there is no substantial evidence that the modification would contradict with any of the other policies, goals or strategies ft."'041 in its "Non-residential Land Use" section. The East Bench Master Plan, however, has specific crit e t in Appendix I for zoning changes. The applicant's request should be evaluated against these guidelines: PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 1/ > Proponents must demonstrate that any zoning change is clearly justified by the substantive provisions of this master plan. The zoning change requested does not introduce a new use to the neighborhood, as Krnart has been there for 40 years. Further, the subject property, as a single parcel of land, can be redeveloped into a more efficient use more easily under the CS zoning designation because of the property's size and location. Staff has found that the zoning change meets the general goals of the "Business/Commercial Uses" subsection of the master plan (see Master Plan Amendment Discussion above). > There must be a demonstrated need for the new business proposal and documented community support. Property owners must address the issue of business need in the whole city perspective and why the proposed site is the best location with regard to the best interest of the community and city. There has been a difference of opinion regarding the need of a supercenter in this location. On one hand, some residents believe that all of their shopping needs can be handled by the existing shops in the East Bench neighborhood and some believe that there are enough Wal-Mart stores (and other similar uses) within a convenient distance. On the other hand, many of the public comments received in support of haying a big box retailer in the East Bench Community said so because it would provide more choices for retail in the neighborhood. The nearest single tenant general merchandise stores are Shopko located on 1300 East (approximately 2.5 miles from the subject property) and Smith's Marketplace on 3300 South (approximately 1.75 miles from the subject property). It should be noted that Smith's Marketplace is located outside of the City, so the City does not receive the same tax benefit from that store than it would if the store was located in the City. One additional note regarding the demonstrated need is that both the existing zoning (CB) and the proposed zoning (CS) allow retail uses, so the retail needs of the community could potentially be met under both zoning designations. The applicant has indicated that this site was chosen because of the size of the parcel and the fact that they believe the East Bench is underserved by larger commercial retailers. The application states that rezoning the property to CS will allow the construction of a new, smaller, and energy-efficient building. Community support for this proposal is mixed. As shown in the Public Comment section of this report, there is a lot of support to allow Walmart to build a new store, but most of these comments are not directed towards the zoning amendment specifically. What this may show, however, is that those that support a Walmart at this location support the CS zoning district because of the types of uses it allows. These individuals would prefer to have a big box retail option close to their homes and the CS district allows such uses. Some individuals who are opposed to the project claim that the supporters have been misled by Walmart representatives who have told them that the only way that Walmart can build an efficient structure is to rezone the property. It is not clear what constitutes "documented community support" as stated in the master plan and whether or not it needs to be a majority of the members of the community. In the case of the current proposal and the comments received, those in support and those opposed are near equal in numbers. > Property must be on a street that can handle the additional traffic. The subject property can be accessed by both Parleys Way and Foothill Drive, both classified as arterial streets. Wal-Mart submitted two traffic impact reports prepared by A-Trans Engineering. One study was submitted with the first petition to rezone the property and analyzed the traffic anticipated with a store approximately 120,000 square feet in size. A separate study was submitted as part of the current petition and addresses the traffic impact anticipated for a 92,000 square foot store. Both reports were reviewed by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division. PLNPCM2010-00556.PLNPCM2010-00557 rn,i,ii,i,..,a n.,,P coti.,,....,A ^,n, The consultant used Level of Service (LOS) to measure the congestion at analyzed interseevens. Ratings are on a scale from LOS A to LOS F. An LOS A indicates free flowing traffic at or above the posted speed while an LOS F indicates a "forced or breakdown flow." The consultant used only the signalized access point on Parleys Way at Wilshire Drive as an ingress/egress point because they anticipate that, due to the current high level of traffic on Foothill Drive, most of the site generated traffic will use this access point. In the initial traffic study, Parleys/Wilshire intersection was projected to operate at LOS B in the a.m. peak and LOS C in the p.m. peak in the year 2030. The conclusion was that Parleys Way has sufficient capacity to accommodate the projected increase in traffic and that the development would have "virtually no impact on the access and signal along Foothill as current congestion allows little capacity for traffic to utilize Foothill." The supplemental report submitted with the current petition essentially states that the proposed building is smaller than what was originally proposed; therefore, the traffic impacts will be less. It should also be noted that Staff has received comments in opposition to the proposed rezone and have cited traffic concerns as a major issue. Specifically, that Foothill Drive is at maximum capacity and traffic generated from Walmart will make it worse. Also, Walmart's circulation plan shows delivery trucks entering the site from Parleys Way and existing onto Foothill from Stringhaln (located at the northeast corner of the site). This intersection is not signalized and some believe that this will create a dangerous situation due to the high volume of traffic on Foothill. > The site must be large enoug i for adequ ate open space and parkin without overcrowding the lot. The subject property is 10.56 acres and is large enough to accommodate more green spand parking than what is required for a retail store of 92,000 square feet. The existing site has vihwielly no green space and the parking lot is in poor shape. If the property is rezoned as requested, the parking lot landscaping requirements must be met for new development and the Planning Commission will have the opportunity to require additional green space as part of the planned development process if they so choose. > Business projects must be of a density, scale and design that will not negatively impact neighboring residential properties. The closest residential property to the subject property is the Foothill Place apartments located to the north. A single-family residential neighborhood begins approximately 550 feet to the northwest and the Country Club single-family residential neighborhood is located directly across Parleys Way to the south and southwest. There is also a residential condominium development located to the west of the site. The residential area that would be most affected by the proposed development would be the southernmost units of the Foothill Place Apartments. Due to the proximity of the apartment units to the proposed structure, the residents could be impacted by noise from delivery trucks, noise from mechanical equipment and/or lighting in the parking lot or on the building. The lighting impacts could be mitigated by requiring that lights are shielded to contain and direct light and glare to the property only. Mature landscaping, such as large trees and shrubs, would also aid in shielding the lights and would also provide a sound buffer to help mitigate noise impacts from truck delivery and mechanical equipment. If the property is zoned to CS, future development would have to include a 15 foot landscape buffer along the property line that abuts any residential zoning district.41"44his case, the 15 foot landscape buffer would have to be provided along the property line abutti-. the Foothill Place apartments. Within the landscape buffer, shade trees must be planted every 25 feet, as well as shrubs at least 2 rows deep. PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 The residential condominium project to the {; r . T ;; west could also be impacted by the �� - %' Z ' development. The applicant's preliminary .�.� �;; �� � �„�� ,�-� development plan shows delivery trucks ,'` ,v-.. •1, 3: _ . . '""" A F --4,, •fi Residential Condor �"- accessing the site from the private roadway ,rr s directly east of the condominiums. The i 4 1Z 1 4 t ;• increase in truck traffic on this roadway - tt.;�". '` '- ' - could create a noise impact for the residents - ^y, ` " '" 1.'4'R., i ,Sobject Vrop.rty , • of the condos; however, staff does not .- -'' , - rl _: believe that this issue is isolated to they '.ti'"�`•s, .Y ', ' ,�t"< proposed project. Staff believes that any �Z_ '. - -„, - . ',,.,� ill -- _- ' successful retail project on the site could •" "`r'4� , , i 4� % :. create this impact regardless of the zoning. _ .,t ,v�, 4� , . There may be an additional impact to these `' !!! F • 1i . `Y, : . "- .�-1 residents that is related to the truck loading dock located at the northwest corner of the proposed building, as shown on the preliminary development plan. The truck dock is oriented in such a way that the headlights from the trucks parked at the loading dock would shine directly into the residential units located on the east side of the condo building. This issue could be remedied by relocating the loading dock. The Country Club residential area to the south and southwest could potentially be affected by an increase in traffic along Parleys Way and parking lot lighting. Although, there would be an increase in traffic on Parleys, the submitted traffic impact study shows that the street can carry the additional traffic. The parking lot lighting issue can be mitigated by limiting the allowable height of light fixtures and requiring the fixtures to be shielded in a manner that directs the light downward. It is important to note that if the zoning amendment is approved by the City Council, the applicants will be required to submit an application for planned development approval. This would allow the Planning Commission to oversee the final design of the project and require additional measures to reduce impacts on adjacent properties. > Multiple family units should not develop in areas with strong low density character... There is no residential component to this request. This standard does not apply. > Zoning should not be changed to accommodate new business unless it is adjacent to an existing business. The property in question is already commercial and is bordered by other commercial properties and businesses to the east and northwest. • "Spot or strip" zoninR- to accommodate new businesses is strongly discouraged. Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance defines spot zoning as "the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification materially different and inconsistent with the surrounding area and the adopted city master plan, for the sole benefit of the owner of that property and to the detriment of the rights of other property owners." In this case, the subject property at 10 acres in size is not a "small parcel of land". The property already has a commercial designation and is bordered by commercial and office properties to the east and northwest. The CB and CS districts are both commercial districts. The CB zoning district's purpose is to integrate moderately-sized retail uses with neighboring residential while the CS zoning district is intended to service community commercial needs. Staff is of the PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 4.1"1 opinion that the CB and CS zoning districts, while having different purposes and regulations, of materially different in that they are not designed to serve materially different uses. Both allow1 'tail uses and both prohibit general commercial uses or manufacturing uses. Furthermore, there is no clear zoning pattern on a. larger scale with which the CS designation would be inconsistent. Within a quarter-mile of the subject property, there are properties zoned for commercial, institutional, multi- family residential, single family residential, residential office, and open space uses. Accordingly, one mile north on Foothill Drive, there is a similarly-sized property zoned CS (Foothill Village) surrounded by the same pattern of zoning designations. ➢ New businesses should be designed to be a logical extension of adjacent businesses, maintaining complimentary building design and landscaping motifs. The property as it is currently developed is not a logical extension of any of the surrounding properties. The building is a typical 1960s commercial structure and there is no landscaping. It is important to note that these problems can be remedied without a zoning map amendment, as there is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance prohibiting Wal-Mart from improving the site upon occupation. That being said, there is nothing that requires or encourages them to do so either. There are limits to how much of the existing building they can tear down based on regulations for nonconforming uses and noncomplying structures and that may impact what they can do to improve the building's overall design. The proposal Wal-Mart has submitted includes, along with a new building, landscaping and architecture that would reduce the visual impact of the structure and will be compatible with the neighboring office buildings. In summary, it is the opinion of Staff that the requested zoning amendment generally meets the criteria for zoning amendments as stated in the East Bench Master Plan; however, the following are areas of conch ➢ Demonstrated need: There is a need for more retail within the East Bench community; however, this could be accommodated in either the CB or CS zone. Also, Walmart can operate a general merchandise use on the property without a rezoning according the nonconforming and noncomplying regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. • Documented Community Support: Staff has received documented community support; however, it is not an overwhelming majority. ➢ Traffic: The submitted traffic impact study shows that Parleys Way can carry the anticipated increase in vehicles; however, Foothill is already at capacity during peak hours. It is important to note that this issue could be relevant to any successful development on the site, regardless of the zoning. ➢ Negative impacts on neighboring residential: As stated above, there are potential negative impacts; however, these can be mitigated through proper site design. The East Bench Master Plan does not indicate that every provision must be met, but that they must be considered. Staff believes it can recommend approval based on the fact that it generally meets the criteria in the master plan and impacts can be mitigated through proper site design. It should also be noted that, as stated previously in this report, the East Bench Master Plan needs to be reviewed and, if necessary, updated. Although the requested amendment generally meets the policies of the adopted Master Plan, this may or may not reflect the current goals and needs of the community. Staff is of the opinion that a Development Agreement should be signed by the City and the applicant that r' ,cts development on the site to what is currently proposed until the Master Plan is updated. Through the MMdster Plan update process, the City may find that the subject property should continue to be zoned CS. At that time, the City should re-evaluate the Development Agreement. If the City finds that the property should be PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 zoned differently, the City should rezone the property to the appropriate zoning district. In that case, Walmart may become a nonconforming use. This is the same situation that applies today; however, the site would be developed according the requirements of a planned development approval. Finding: Staff finds that the request to rezone 2705 E. Parleys Way from CB to CS is consistent with the purposes, goals, objective, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City, with certain exceptions as noted above. 2. Whether the proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the Zoning Ordinance; Discussion: There are three purpose statements that are applicable to this zoning amendment petition; the Purpose and Intent of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 21A.02.030, SLC Zoning Ordinance), the purpose statement of the existing CB zoning district (Section 21A.26.030A, SLC Zoning Ordinance), and the purpose statement of the proposed CS zoning district (Section 21A.26.040A, SLC Zoning Ordinance). The following is the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance: The purpose of this title is to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the city, and to carry out the purposes of the municipal land use development and management act, title 10, chapter 9, of the Utah Code Annotated or its successor, and other relevant statutes. This title is, in addition, intended to: A. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads; B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers; C. Provide adequate light and air; D. Classy land uses and distribute land development and utilization; E. Protect the tax base; F. Secure economy in governmental expenditures; G. Foster the city's industrial, business and residential development; and H. Protect the environment. When reviewing the proposed amendment in relation to the above listed items, it is important to note that the Planning Commission is reviewing a change in zoning from CB to CS, not the specific development proposal. The CB and CS districts are both commercial zoning, districts and allow similar uses. The main difference is that the CS district allows uses that require larger land area, such as big box retail uses. Both zoning districts could create additional traffic on the adjacent streets depending on the success of the development; however, the CS district does allow land uses that have more of a regional draw. Staff does not find this an issue at this particular site due to the property's proximity to two arterial streets and the freeway system. Rezoning the property to CS could enhance the City's tax base by allowing land uses that draw people from not only the immediate neighborhood, but the surrounding communities as well. Rezoning the property to CS could help foster commercial development because the CS zone is less restrictive in allowable land uses; however, some believe that the competition may hurt existing smaller local businesses. Environmental protection is generally handled through laws and regulations that pertain to all development regardless of the zoning district. The following two purpose statements pertain to the existing and proposed zoning, districts: PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Pnhlished natp PPhrun.y A ')ni i The CB community business district is intended to provide for the close integration of moderatel `zed commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods. The design guidelines are intended to facilitate retail that is pedestrian in its orientation and scale, while also acknowledging the importance of transit and automobile access to the site. The purpose of the CS community shopping district is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive shopping center development at a community level scale. It is Staff's opinion that the location and site characteristics of the subject property make it more closely aligned with the purpose of the CS zoning district. The location of the property (adjacent to two arterial streets and the freeway system) provides an environment for shopping center development. The property is not closely integrated with the adjacent residential neighborhoods. It is bordered on two sides by arterial streets that isolate it from the single-family neighborhoods to the east and south. The property is also separated from the single-family neighborhood to the northwest by other properties. These points are further discussed in the Zoning Amendment Discussion section of this report (pages 8-9). Finding: Staff finds that the proposed amendment does not conflict with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the characteristics of the property are consistent with the purpose of the proposed zoning district. 3. The extent to which the proposed amendment will affect adjacent properties; "mo Discussion: The proposed amendment is to change the zoning on the property from CB to CS. The following are the differences between the two properties that may affect adjacent properties: ➢ Allowed Uses: The CB zoning district generally is characterized by uses that serve the neighborhood where the CB zoned property is located. While the CS zone allows those same uses, it also allows uses that could draw people from outside of the local community, such as retail shopping centers and commercial recreation centers (see table showing comparison of allowable uses, Attachment B). This draw could increase the amount of traffic into the area. It is the opinion of Staff that because the subject property is located along two arterial streets that already serve as major thoroughfares into and out of the City, and the property is located at the on/off ramp of two converging freeways, CS zoning is appropriate and adjacent properties would not be greatly affected. Setbacks and Landscape Buffers: Setbacks refer to the required distance that a building must be located from a property line. In some zoning districts, landscaping must be included in the setback area if the property abuts property in a residential district. This is called the required landscape buffer. The CB zoning district regulations (existing zone) were generally developed for smaller parcels and the building setbacks reflect that. The building setbacks associated with the subject property that would directly affect adjacent properties are the side yard setbacks, rear yard setback, and re ed landscape buffer. The CB zoning district requires no interior side yard setback, a ten foot reward setback, and a seven foot landscape buffer when abutting a residentially zoned property. The CS zoning district requires a 15 foot interior side yard setback, 30 foot rear yard setback, and a 15 foot PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 landscape buffer when abutting a residentially zoned property. A positive affect from rezoning the property from CB to CS is the required increase of the rear yard setback and landscape buffer. The rear yard of this property is located adjacent to the Foothill Place Apartments, which are residentially zoned. Rezoning the property to CS will require any building to be setback further from the Foothill Place apartments and will require a greater landscape buffer. ➢ Building Height: The maximum allowed building height in the CB district is 30 feet. The maximum allowed building height in the CS is 45 feet, a 15 foot increase in allowable height. This increase in allowable height could affect the view corridors as seen from adjacent properties; however, Staff used pictometry and GIS software to estimate the height of the existing office buildings to the east of the subject property. The height of the west elevations of both of these building is approximately 39 feet. In addition, the ground elevation of these buildings is higher than the subject property. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that the increase in allowable height would not greatly affect the east view corridor. The additional height could, however, still impact the north and south view corridors. ➢ Site Design Regulations: The current CB zoning district has a number of site design standards that are specifically written into the base regulations. These include maximum front yard setbacks, parking lot setbacks, front facade treatments, and parking lot light height limits. Any use that is permitted in the CB district and that meets the base standards is allowed without further design review. The CS zone does not have these standards written in the base regulations; however, in the CS district all new construction, any new proposed use, or any construction that increases the floor area or parking requirement by 25% must obtain Planned Development approval from the Planning Commission. This allows the Planning Commission to require certain site design elements to mitigate impacts specific to the site. Finding: The proposed zoning map amendment could impact neighboring residential properties; specifically, the additional traffic generated and the obstruction of view corridors. Staff finds that there will be an impact from additional traffic generated by this proposal, but finds that the adjacent streets can carry the additional volume. Staff also finds that the east view corridor would not be impacted but the north and south view corridors could be affected. 4. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and Discussion: The subject property is in the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District. There are no additional standards imposed by this district related to the request. Finding: Future development on the site will be required to meet the provisions of the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District. 5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems,water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Discussion: Applicable City departments and divisions were given the chance to review and comment on the proposed rezoning and preliminary site plans. The Public Utilities Department requested plans in the future if the request was ultimately granted, and had some site requirements for new development. No PLNPCM2010-00556,PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 immediate deficiencies were noted as part of the review process. Other than roadways, there has boo concern for the adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject propenAs previously discussed, there is concern that this proposal would increase the volume of traffic on Parleys Way and Foothill Drive. The Transportation Division has reviewed the submitted traffic impact study and found that the study followed industry standards and general transportation engineering principles. The consultant stated in the study that Parleys Way will be used as primary access to the site and Parleys can carry the additional traffic and still operate at Level of Service A. Foothill Drive provides additional access to the site, but is already operating above capacity at peak times. The study states that, due to the current traffic levels on Foothill Drive, motorists will use the Parleys Way access point. The Foothill Drive Corridor Study Final Report includes recommendations for improvements, including commuter bus service, peak bus or bus/HOV lanes with transit signal priority, and replacement of the turn lane with a median in some areas. These near- and mid-term improvements address the "bigger picture" problem with congestion on Foothill Drive and are projected to improve the levels of service on Foothill Drive. Finding: Staff finds that the current public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property are adequate, and any necessary modifications and changes to facilities will be identified upon application for building permits. Amok PLNPCM20I0-00556.PLNPCM2010-00557 Published Date: February 4,2011 ( t h r eC AI 20/0-04 r OFFICE USE ONLY 4 Petition No.: p �7 //,' L O 2O F7 v,A .,.f i'. Date Received: t1174, r a .a 'x` Master Plan Amendment Reviewed By: r Address of Subject Property: 2705 E.Parleys Way, Salt Lake City Project Name: Walmart Parleys Way Name of Applicant: Phone: t Ballard Spahr LLP,Cristina Coronado on behalf of Walmart Stores,Inc. 801-531-3038 L • G £ ' ',_ Address of Applicant: 201 S.Main St.,Ste 800,Salt Lake City,UT 84111 `' ) E-mail Address of Applicant: Fax: ! •' coronadoc@,ballardspahr.com 801-531-3001 �'' Applicant's Interest in Subject Property: ' ' Agent • Name of Property Owner: Phone: Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust i, E-mail Address of Property Owner: CeIVFax: r--- ' Please contact Applicant Please include with the application: -,� . 1. A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment and the exact language. Include proposed „7 boundaries,master plan area,and/or zoning district changes. Please see attached. k -- • ) 2. Declare why the present master plan requires amending. Please see attached. t'' ,---; ', i 3. A copyof the Sidwell Map(s)that cover for the subject area and list of affected properties r ,� �, Pt ) j P P Sidwell Numbers. Please see attached. i - i ,,�; -' 4. If applicable,a signed and notarized statement of consent from property owner authorizing applicant to act gent. Please see attached. E `f ,_ 5. Filing fe f$830.55,plus$110. 7 or each acre over one acre and the cost of offirst class postage ::.l;Y�J for each prop feet is due at time of application. Attached is the check for filing fee €7i`.. � of$1,937.95($830.55+$110.74 x 10)(Subject Property is approximately 10.42 acres). Also attached �,t j,' r is the check for postage. . ( '-' Notice: Additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. - ~:' Anyinformation submitted aspart of the application maybe copied and madepublic includingprofessional z. t�.i'�.`��r PP P ;e=�=. architectural or engineering drawings which will be made available to decision makers,public and any r` interested party. [ County tax parcel("Sidwell")maps and names of File the complete application at: - ..;,.;/ property owners are available at: Salt Lake City Buzz Center Salt Lake County Recorder PO Box 145471 E l 2001 South State Street,Room N1600 451 South State Street,Room 215 '?`; t. �.<z' Salt Lake City,UT 84190-1051 Salt Lake City,UT 84114 • Telephone: (801)468-3391 (801)535-7700 .1,4-, -....'0-:-.3....,:v. - 0,41,tivisk.426 r . et, Spy t.L,t V Signature of Property Owner: '' Or authorized agent z"IAA Attachments to Master Plan Amendment Application: .g 1. Statement with answers to questions 1 and 2. Amok o- ,rt. 4- . �* -- 2. Copy of Sidwell Maps and list of affected properties Sidwell Numbers. �; .. v 3. Signed and acknowledged statement of Property Owner's consent authorizing Applicant to act as agent. 4. Check for Master Plan Amendment filing fee and check for postage. DMWEST#7735058 v3 Answers to Master Plan Amendment Application Questions 1&2(Use an Additional Sheet if Necessary): The Subject Property is shown on the attached Salt Lake County Sidwell Map. The Property Owner proposes to demolish the existing,42-year-old building and garden center on the Subject Property(113,227 square foot building plus 6,940 square foot outdoor sales area for a total sales area of 120,167)and replace it with a new,energy-efficient 91,750 square foot building(which is approximately 28,417 square feet smaller than the existing sales area). In order to do this, the current zoning of the Subject Property must be changed from Community Business (CB)to Community Shopping (CS). The Applicant requests that this Master Plan Amendment be considered in connection with the Zoning Amendment Application,which is being submitted concurrent with this Master Plan Amendment Application. In connection with such a zone change,Salt Lake City requires a corresponding change in the future land use map included in the East Bench Master Plan. The future land use map included in the East Bench Master Plan designates the Subject Property and other retail properties, like Foothill Village (which is zoned Community Shopping (CS)), as "Neighborhood Business." `Neighborhood Business"is the only land use designation for retail uses in the East Bench. This land use designation appears to be consistent with the Property Owner's proposal. However,in 1995,Salt Lake City adopted Ordinance No. 26 that effectively replaces the future land use map in the master plans with the zoning maps adopted by the city from time to time. Therefore, the Property Owner's request to rezone the property to Community Shopping(CS)effectively means that the Property Owner is requesting a change in the future land use map of the East Bench Master Plan to a designation equivalent to the Community Shopping(CS)zone. This request for a Master Plan Amendment does not require any changes to the text of the East Bench Master Plan. Property Owner's proposed zone change and the corresponding Master Plan Amendment are consistent with the text of the East Bench Master Plan as follows: • When the East Bench Master Plan was adopted in 1987,the Subject Property was zoned B-3,which allowed general retail uses, including the former Big Kmart, at the Subject Property. The East Bench Master Plan encourages the redevelopment of existing businesses in these formerly B-3 zoned areas to accommodate the East Bench residents'desire for additional services in the community. Property Owner's proposal to rezone the Subject Property is consistent with this East Bench Master Plan goal because the proposal will allow the redevelopment of a vacant commercial site in what was the B-3 zone,and a new retail store will provide East Bench residents with additional products and services. • The East Bench Master Plan discourages rezoning residential property to commercial and discourages the expansion of existing commercial properties into residential areas. Property Owner's proposal to rezone the Subject Property is consistent with this East Bench Master Plan goal because no residential property will be rezoned nor will any existing commercial areas expand. The Subject Property has been used for commercial development for at least 42 years. • The East Bench Master Plan states that since the East Bench is basically developed, there are not as many opportunities for energy conservation as in areas where there is more significant development potential. The East Bench Master Plan still encourages the city to(i)advertise and support energy conservation techniques such as car-pooling, home insulation, and site design, (ii) help remove barriers to wise energy use by proposing bicycle paths and modifying building regulations that unnecessarily constrain solar energy or earth structures, and (iii) work with residents interested in constructing greenhouses, solar panels, and other energy-efficient systems(particularly when remodeling existing dwellings that are already built to minimum site specifications). Property Owner's proposal to rezone the Subject Property is consistent with these East Bench Master Plan goals because the proposal would allow the redevelopment of the site and building to implement progressive energy-efficient design,construction materials,and technology. • The East Bench Master Plan states that the most important element of a pedestrian circulation system is good sidewalks on each street with controlled crosswalks at busy intersections. Property Owner's proposal to rezone the Subject Property is consistent with this East Bench Master Plan goal because the proposal would allow the redevelopment of the site to add improved pedestrian walkways that will better integrate the Subject Property with the adjoining high-density apartments, retail shops, restaurants, and offices and better connect the Subject Property to public transit and trails. DMWEST#7735058 v3 2 Zoningrs Amendment OFFICE USE ONLY ''�`Z . "y Petition No.: v,�� A`T,, Date Received: 1�27/2,Die - 3,->d rs'i _:11.:'. - ❑Amend the text of the ZoningOrdinance byamendingSection: Reviewed B - , - Y 'Marv, n d1=."T,".''(�'n7? ®Amend the Zoning Map by reclassifying the above property from $ � � �..,C'I- L, a zone to a zone.(attach map or legal description) '...,..,...., , s„a -k Address of Subject Property: 2705 E.Parleys Way,Salt Lake City - Name of Applicant: Phone: -___ _- Ballard Spahr LLP,Cristina Coronado on behalf of Walmart Stores,Inc. 801-531-3038 Address of Applicant: 201 S.Main St.,Ste 800,Salt Lake City,UT 84111 E-mail Address of Applicant: Fax: coronadoc@ballardspahr.com 801-531-3001 Applicant's Interest in Subject Property: 3 - Agent • - Name of Property Owner: Phone: t ,. Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust r71-t" -1E-mail Address of Property Owner: CelUFax: :- Please contact Applicant County Tax("Sidwell#"): Zoning: 1 11 16-23-152-004 Community Business(CB) fr 41 Legal Description(if different than tax parcel number): rr - E3 �Y = See attached .o a Existing Property Use: Proposed Property Use: Superstore/Hypermarket Superstore/Hypermarket ASIIIIIk - Please include with the application: i—z=... - _ 1. A statement of the text amendment or map amendment describing the purpose for the amendment and the r- z =- exact language,boundaries and zoning district. See attached. -'_ _�5 2. A complete description of the proposed use of the property where appropriate. See attached. .1 3. Reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. See attached. - : 4. The cost of first class postage for each address within 450 feet is d e at time of application. Please do not provide postage stamps. (J t) /� = 5. Legal description of the property. See attached. II = 6. Six(6)copies of site plans drawn to scale and one(1)11 x 17 inch reduced copy of each plan and elevation 73 drawing. See attached. ='- =_ a 7. If applicable,a signed,notarized statement of consent from property owner authorizing applicant to act as aE. agent. See attached. s-_ `. _= 8. Filing fee of$885.92,plus$110.74 for each acre over one acre and the cost of first class postage is due at ff 7 41 r- time of application. Attached is the check for the filing fee of$1,993.32($885.92+$110.74 x 10)(Subject r" r_ Property is approximately 10.42 acres). Also attached is the check for the postage. 65 -._}sm- Notice: Additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All -'4 =-° information submitted as part of the application may be copied and made public including professional architectural or -= engineering drawings which will be made available to decision makers,public and any interested party. - itt ;-- -= `,:- File the complete application at Salt e City Buzz ter,PO Box 145471,451 South State Street,Room 215,(801)535-7700 g 3n4 a """"SP �' 8/27//o - - = Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: -..' - Attachments to Zoning Amendment Application: h_. 1. Statement with answers to questions 1,2 and 3. "'-'"-` 2 Aerial photo showing the Subject Property. =▪ ' - 3. Legal description of Subject Property. s,' __l• 4. Signed and acknowledged statement of Property Owner's consent authorizing Applicant to act as agent. " - 5. Check for Zoning Amendment filing fee and check for postage. M -^=• 6. Pictures of existing building. 17. Site plan of existing building. . 8. Restrictions and Declaration of Easements that governs Subject Property and adjoining properties e ' 9. Warranty Deed from Woodbury-Morris Co.to Salt Lake East Property granting easement over private road off Parleys _,� y �i�9c�"n_ Way across from Maywood Drive that will be used by delivery trucks to access the new building. _ - 10.Traffic analysis for new building and possible pad site prepared by A-Trans Engineering. �„> -�-�,�-;�,,, 11.Six copies of full-sized site plan for new building and site improvements along with six ]1 x 17 copies;six copies of ".-EV'911.e-„ca�•frg7v =�= = 11x17 color site plan. DMWEST#7735057 v3 Answers to Zoning Amendment Application Questions 1,2&3(Use an Additional Sheet if Necessary): The Subject Property is shown on the attached Salt Lake County Sidwell Map. Pictures and a site plan showing the existing building on the Subject Property are attached to this Zoning Amendment Application. The Property Owner proposes to demolish the existing, 42-year-old building and garden center on the Subject Property(113,227 square foot building plus 6,940 square foot outdoor sales area for a total sales area of 120,167)and replace it with a new, energy- efficient 91,750 square foot building(which is approximately 28,417 square feet smaller than the existing sales area). In order to do this, the current zoning of the Subject Property must be changed from Community Business (CB) to Community Shopping(CS). In connection with such a zone change Salt Lake City requires a corresponding change in the future land use map included in the East Bench Master Plan. The Master Plan Amendment is being submitted concurrent with this Zoning Amendment Application,and the Applicant requests that they be considered together. The existing building and site improvements on the Subject Property were built in 1968. Until recently, the building and garden center were operated as a Big Kmart(except the eastern portion of the building,which was operated as many things, most recently as a gym until it was vacated), all under a long-term lease. When the building and site improvements were originally constructed,retail stores like the Big Kmart were allowed in the Community Business(CB) zone as"retail goods establishments." In November 2005,new definitions, including the"superstore and hypermarket" definition,were added to the commercial zoning districts,and the"superstore and hypermarket"use was not permitted in the Community Business (CB) zone. As a-result, the use of the existing building is a nonconforming use as a "superstore/hypermarket." The building is also a noncomplying structure because it does not comply with the applicable bulk regulations, including size and setbacks of the building, that were adopted by the city in 1995. Consequently if the Property Owner were to raze the existing building the allowed nonconforming use of the building would terminate. The existing building and site improvements are subject to a Restrictions and Declaration of Easements entered into in 1968(and amended in 1997)with the owners of the office,retail and restaurant properties that are adjacent to both the west side and the southeast side of the Subject Property. The Restrictions and Declaration of Easements contains cross-access easements, site plan specifications,parking and landscaping requirements, and use restrictions so that all of these properties operate as a coordinated mixed-use development. A site plan showing the properties that are subject to the Restrictions and Declaration of Easements is attached to the First Amendment to Restrictions and Declaration of Easements as Exhibit"D." The Subject Property is also bordered on the north by a high-density,multi-family apartment complex. The main entrance to the Subject Property is located on Parleys Way, which is a five lane arterial facility (as defined by UDOT and Salt Lake City)that connects to 1-80 and I-215. This main entrance is also utilized by the offices, retail shops and restaurants adjacent to the Subject Property. The Subject Property has a secondary access over the private road off Parleys Way across from Maywood Drive that will be used by delivery trucks to access the new building. This access was granted by easement in the Warranty Deed from Woodbury-Morris Co.to Salt Lake East Property that is attached to this Zoning Amendment Application. There is also a third access point to the Subject Property through the public road to the northeast of the Subject Property called "Stringham Avenue" that connects to SR 186 (Foothill Boulevard),which is a five lane arterial facility(as defined by UDOT and Salt Lake City)that connects to 1-80 and I-215. The character of the area around the Subject Property is defined by the presence of the interstate highways and the respective on-ramps. Such an area is the ideal location for a superstore/hypermarket that operates as part of a larger mixed-use development with multi-story offices,retail shops,and restaurants. As mentioned above,this has been the use of the Subject Property since the existing building was built and will continue to be the use under Property Owner's proposal. The ideal zoning for this use is the Community Shopping(CS) zone because the purpose of the Community Shopping (CS) zone is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive shopping center development at a community level scale. Other properties that are zoned Community Shopping(CS)is the East Bench area are of a similar size as the Subject Property and arc also located on arterial streets that allow for convenient and efficient automotive access to a shopping center. This is further evidenced by the fact that other shopping center sites in the area,like Foothill Village,are zoned Community Shopping(CS). By rezoning the Subject Property to Community Shopping (CS), Property Owner can redevelop the Subject Property to provide the community with a new, smaller, energy-efficient building, as well as improved pedestrian walkways to better integrate the Subject Property with the adjoining high-density apartments,retail shops,restaurants,and offices. Such a redevelopment is consistent with the goals of the East Bench Master Plan as described in the Master Plan Amendment Application submitted by the Applicant in connection with this Zoning Amendment Application. For reference,attached please find a site plan showing the proposed layout of the new building and improvements as well as a possible commercial pad site along Parleys Way. If the zone change to Community Shopping (CS) is approved, then the proposed new building and site improvements will be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission as part of the city's Planned Development review process. • A traffic analysis of the proposed uses at the Subject Property is attached as well. DMWEST#7735057 v3 2 .4010164 • *X EXHIBIT"A" ' • Parcel 1: (Fee Simple Interest) All that part of the State of Utah, County of Salt Lake,Salt Lake City,being part of the West half of Section 23,Township 1 South, Range.1 East,Salt Lake Base and Meridian,more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point South 00°13'14"West grid(Utah coordinate system NAD 83(1994)Central Zone)along the West Section line of said Section 23;a distance of 1999.94 feet,and South 89°46'46"East 193.08 feet,from the Northwest corner of said Section 23;thence South 89°47'46"East 20.00 feet;thence North 00°13'14"East 39.19 feet to the South line of the land conveyed in the Warranty Deed recorded as Entry No.5129429, in Book 6358,Page 1170, Official Records; thence South 89'47'46"East along said line 526.83 feet;thence North 60°50'45"East 40.45 feet along said line — to the Southwest line of a 60 foot public street named Stringham Avenue;thence South 29°12'06"East 60.00 feet along F- said Southwest line, to the Northwest line of the land conveyed in the Quit Claim Deed recorded as Entry No.8242453,in Book 8601,Page 1984,Official Records;thence South 60°50'45"West 13.37 feet along said line to the West line of said land;thence South 00°15'05"West 257.46 feet along said West line to the South line of said land; thence South 89°44'55" East 45.00 feet along said line to the West line of the Eastland Regency Subdivision recorded as Entry No.7606680,in Book 2000P, Page 82,Official Records;thence South'00°15'05"West 599.67 feet along said line to the Northeasterly line - of Parleys Way;thence along said line of Parleys Way the following four(4)courses: 1)North 59°39'06"West 139.77 feet;2)North 67°16'23"West 242.38 feet;3)South 39°14'47"West 14.60 feet,and 4)North 50°45'13"West 373.69 feet to the East line of the land described in a deed recorded as Entry No.8070333, Book 8530, Page 6983,Official Records; thence North 00°12'14"East along said East line 469.88 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel 1A: (Easement Estate Interest) _ . Together with a"non-exclusive"easement for vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress to and from the aforedescribelmillk property over a 30 foot wide roadway being 15 feet measured at right angles each side of the following described center �' _ . line(said easement having been created by Warranty Deed recorded December 27, 1968 as Entry No.2271797 in Book 2718 at Page 294): • Beginning on the Northeasterly line of Parley's Way at a point South 0°01'West 2311.195 feet and South 51°00' East — 20.78 feet from the Northwest corner of Section 23,Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian and running thence North 39° East 8.00 feet;thence along the arc of a curve to the left(radius 35.00 feet bearing North 51° West)21.38 feet;thence North 4°00'East 216.00 feet;thence along the arc of a curve to the right(radius 55.00 feet _.. bearing South 86° East)76.47 feet;thence North 83°40'East 53.00 feet;thence along the arc of a curve to the left(radius 100.00 feet bearing North 6°20'West)68.94 feet;thence North 44°10'East 10.88 feet to the West line of the tract first above described. • iimpok L FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY AFFIDAVIT OF PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT AUTHORIZATION STATE OF kI Y15AG • COUNTY OF Tit tvr1 I, FrtartAL. P441110A-1 YIL who is the VirLaDE. of WAL-MART REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST,a Delaware statutory trust,being duly sworn,deposes and say that Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust is the owner of the property identified as Sidwell No.16-23-152-004(the"Property")and that Wal-Mart Real Estate Business Trust authorizes BALLARD SPAHR LLP to act as its agent with regard to the 7-O N I N 6l AMENDMENT application to be submitted to Salt Lake City and all related proceedings with respect to the Property. I affum under the penalties of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct. OEffective this.5- day of Q,LLjus f- ,2010. JJ WAL-MART' STATE BUSINESS TRUST, a Delaw.Oory u t By: /�� Its: l 4.4 • . gami r Ths..foregoins instrument w acknowledged before me this, day ofQ ,(J,if, 2010,by fr/]4 II r DG�7�OnP� who is the•D,r/Zj,et. of WAL-MART RE Ag EST BUSINESS TRUST,a Delaware statutory trust. NOTARY PUBLIC p Benton County,Arkansas rJo S /i zz My Commission Expires 1212512015 j f1 OTARY P LIC Residing at I//,O.,19� My Commission Expires: O / o/5 DMWEST#7705254 v1 • . , .,,,i.‘ ., --.. 0 T .y,.. i 7= 7 ^.1/1... -•�, v 1� 1 `. l i ce' r- ooeck _4YYj "•l - f • -` c ,- . ' 4• . - • ,r - a..✓' 4 t t . - f } , may : •{ t - 'x ••• er .'' .M. _.� Ff -- R ,514 f:. y. `� *'' _ •` .-i • ,fir ;�"y �• �' �+ r � � t 1 cam, �:.� �: �ie. A ...t. ----- - .401° ,--1 - 40,1 .4 , , , . h.,„ ,- ,..,,. ,,f .,. „„17; , At ar , _ r $ t • - it -A �..- yr __. . , _ , ,., . z_ .. ... . . --_.- ,k,.. , , ::, , . . -. 1— li _ // P 3. {{ ': _ - , - _ �` ► - • T- _ I /,.- - .• -. • .a, _ • t as •..--.1.► • '_'• 1 3115 SN1.151X3. 11.21 i 1,1.9. 21.141 1.11•111'Allo 3,111-1.0,15 Attf.A sAalwed SOLE , • . 1P,..i:, Ni 1 , Li 4,:i0; II.: 1 ; ooi 1,14, 3357'.15 -11V.1.3d J_NVIN-).1 , :4 ! " ll-I, Ntflcl 3115 ON11.51X3 , I `.' . ..,. ......• ..,..,.. . .. ...,..,.............. ............,.........,..............,.....,...............................................-.., ..,..........,........„..,.., .., ',A1 / Cr. <--ai il'ill§ Z ie u: a" §,i . ,?. r 2 t < 0 I- g <.1 01 * 0 i s 6 6 : I it, 6 all — , g ! [ 7 1 1 ' 11111 - 2!;6 ,, ,— § 1 ;!.11 ,---- /. ,---- ..c• 1 gi1.5.. , .-- ,41, 1 • ," -- ..." .-- - ,q. I ig 12i8 -- „.„.,...\<,...- ,... !I' --_- - /../- i52'Z . ritt - ;4§ 1 -,.--- - , .6' Lik.4 1 gL., . -'..,... --- ..„, , s. .tx . ts s, 4, - 6 ' 11'4;1 I....- ---:. .;;;;,----)... --.:"."1-z-. ct• :. _ _ , - . , •.1,1', -I. —, ---,-' \.. -ii_ I' .=. „ •s' .• . •....-",,;'%''' .ao - ' *--.'"‘ ::, ."...: •„ , '' . ,'i i. ..., „ \ ,„,„ 12.--...'1--j.; • '<:••, . -.., ‘‘..-,... I 1\, ,fg, II= --I- -•- _ -,-- -- •---J ..• -I/N-, \"..-VV, '." ....„. ., ,, \l', ", . t,,,.,,---•• _-,_ •-_ , ...-•"•,, , ' - -•:\ •• \ I"', N!f.,'- !,'7- \'\''•-;',.:')W;\ ;1 L i •• •••• 1*.•••••-•-1-J• 11:-' 7-1, •--77. 'at •• 1, 1 1111'1-1,,I,I j 1!I III'•I 111 11 t„,„...i.s.'n.. ..«.74 1C :,‘ fc-- -.1 S't./ • '17,12.,..•2.‘1. , ii i...--."•--.....-'•.. .. • I ' - --- ,-I-•, -1 , , -,'•,'' •• '• , .>Tz- 03 ,/-1 •1 . • j ,_ ,4 /, I .1.,..,, ii..1.:.,::1 ..'..i_t_-,.."- .1.-1-.....c.at•-•"•-r-;. _*."-1 .*'';' .7'-.i•••- 1 1J,'‘..;••i '1 '.-1,-'• J• -',---=''''---..-z--',----=---.--ir.i..1i. \-i-A.d:ttcrg ,-., .- -, ,,• , ,, ;_,,,`,.,•-,-- 1:3‘ '''V,' . ''' " ' -''"‘• -'-'--.‘ ')' "T'' ' u ' f•,./ ' . • ,-•"1- - -; . i -,' _1- ",-i•,. 11-1F1 1--I-1-1-1 I-- - - • i ..,/ ,--, . K• ..."-.'A..--"--,-,-1;•-•''''''-'7.,'•---Y1-1-.-.'-g."ist r-T-ir-,-,1t1-----•1 ..:,.,•2').'14-,:\::,..'N's \7\-\\.-..‘,-7"-kv\`'.\-,`,.\ .'Aj..,'-,\_ .•,.., 1 A.r— ••,,- ' -.,'.2,A,,....._ .,,,,.:,,.,:•, ,.-,, - ,..,,, \,,,,,,,,,,A:\--,1\0„\,,,,\\\\\\,.\\A„\,;\\,\,.\\\\-r\-\•Af\i,\,..,,,..\\\-:_j..,. 1 .. -. '' ,..-; , • //" y 5- ,,-., 4/.//, ) // '4r. /-/ J.-) . '' ' ''',,S '•' ';'" -..:-.1"---\';\ , --,,•,-1 I .:1,1/-t 4 i3/////7 7%:/// .,(i /• ',:. ', / ,..,,.. .,,,,,,, .. i ,,\x•': ,,..4....\..\\\\,,,,\).s".•\,\\$41.Ni \ \ \\\.1,"1,''''' '' ' '' '' ' '''' • f., _—_3, \-sIbl-------7---- •7.--. ,‘„ , ,,,,,,, • 4.4/ . , 1,'/4'////Y l44117'112//7 4- \_ -. .,*,.',. ,',4 • • / i ..-- , - =-'=-.-7,-- ,' N / 1 q -. • .... , ., ' :.I • . ... , ' I i', ."."' ••=,..=,\,L*',\"'s' '',\' ----?-=-- ,.- '. ',.. / ,' ' i 4',,. ; _f '• .. • - ,,-4 •;,', ' 2,). - y ,1 ... „, , , . . 4,„37. ;r -- ,- •1 / ' • .. . ,,.. i. F.:-,z;:,„ .:• , ..,-,,\-,••••.'::2-',,::.s. .. _ ,, „ , ,' ..) el ' •, i' _ .\,:‘,..;`, .f ' ...‘ ' '' .;/--,,/-4 , `,./c,,,e . , .,,.. . '''• "• l•-•'1.-'/I.. ? •__,_-7-..,--,. . fl.....,;',%. .'' -./..?-;',..%`,/,//i/ r ' ' ' . ..-''W.'''' ' :' ';'t / 1`"..;, 1 .•.'-'•..,/ ':•.,- •• ; ,•-,,,,,,,,,-,-4.,‘. '••,‘ ,`• LI, .;•.',',._,. ' -,•., ..•4' , .,..'-'..',. •I •, , • :, -• . ;, .•:,)',1...„1/y ,/ ' ;-1 ,, ,---,4-- • ,f ,. •,,,,;(,,• ; I ..---., -, -=- 1 I- _r- • j I. ;. ,'",\-•','::::',.••\`.\, ":„.-:.••:',%.: ,' 4 /Xyp..,•••; Th-•, 1 _ s_ •..s_.'s '\'4;•:7''s',‘•• A<g,,,4/ /-fp* -7'.--- -- ,1:::----`;4 / (-/- •• , / - -• .„ •_- - ,,;:"..--';,iy' it Itl'il•.I i ''• 4 ',/ /---//,-/- • ' _ ...- ---",t!A V....S.: • -.. ---F--- ? i,. ;,.,Ink,,.•/. /, //„4../_.,/ 9.g ‘ ,.,/(,,/.. -'71.-'../ .1. .4., , ' 1-.".,'- • _ ./ /iA7;/ ,A,11::;>' t17,•2,p i 1 li'.-11: 1F-:•:' '''- •‘ - "'''-'':--rr' :, '''. ,,x7/1:,/e/. ,/(7.;;"••/ '.:1'.••'7-11'11 '•-11: " -: •''''-- - '-...:'''. ,,Ads " ,1 ,,,,,:!..k.- — . - • ..___ _ • E'• •':---,.- -•--- - -I---,'-' L,, •-,;'?,::::<2-',,,..---•_-7..-,:-L:.:--,..._,,14. ..; - . -'-, ,'5",`,//,.-V.r,/ ) r - -•. . ,,,.....,11L--•-11-•--...:F. •-'-- -j • " .'.---.....,,_'.. ,- 4i IN'',<-‘'*''•/ .. " " ..i :,,-.;',, •,,, A ..;„.--...1;2-'41:f k,. - :-t•:.r ii.1 7- ,, ti , ,''',,,tf.21%- --„'- _ ; ,ik,;,2-:'':,..ail?' + x . - . t s", ...._I ii ,,'-i .:;„ •af.? '4,--r 3 - -,t -,, t.'',..-ifs' 1, '• e 4 '1•-".t, ,'r.li' .4 4:..,,,-1-;" c'%...- . 40- ,.. '.11,.."-Z.':' f„i--.4,,,,,.,1-...--4-,,, •, - • C.,:V-; 'ef` !': i ...V.'"' ',.'4"` ; ,A,.....,. '''',$k.4. .,1/2-1:•£V.,.2.,,',..•.,.1.g.", . .* 'f, , *it ii•-•••-• ' ' • t• . -•:. ,,,'*-1.3,-.,-1, .4..4 ' ..$,!.. ' Or ^ *. 1.. t i Xf,''g,•••-='; -...-": . CA) r". 14-it .• ,‘-i - -,.._ • • . - ; 14,, ,•••-,-Q.-, -.-,• ct - • ‘,- -, ,,-,.. I 'ke,,e,e,...,:,•'-' -.-,••, - • .: , -..•,,i, 1 '. .,s .3 •••'1,.. ..n: ° 1 * dr` . '11/' ' ' ' ' '`-• 0 i--, --4:. •'. '- - "•*„'',,-,--,:i- ' 1 ,--,-, . 4 , • . . ,...., .••••-' .• . •... - --- ,_. -•o•, • , -,'Ik„, , -4-,-- -- -,,— ,....•• .- • .,--,4 I,i, •,... °•••. '• , C--' 1,-• :4.•:ti''‘ 1..11'2,1.. 7- - •, i • ' '' .1.7"..,.......... •-.4 .,.., , •-• • •-.2.,„ . .i.. •-, •• , • -, - ,,.; .t...- . - •„.. i,.. ,,,, lot —,•..- - bi)...,,,...,„ . , 4t•ii,-7_.• 7..i.:, ....• '' ..4 t.,-,1/4._ •r•••{ t . , •1--• 1^—^ r-^, 'f• -.11. .„., •„,,,,. . - , , 1. 4* . 'T.1 f ' •,,1-,,,e)=?` 3 "C•:. 1 1.1 1 - '•-•` - sr,: ,i• ' % 4-..% '''‘r‘i ,....., ' ,,i .... - .• ' .. .",:,...—, -_.. - 4 • •,- .,., ..i., .,,. ...- -. . 1 4' •'.',.,4-, 2- F•;.!.-... - ,4 , - t • 4-- , . ,..., --,t, ,,,• ,•••••- •,,:-.11,,-t••--. . ,i,go.. ,t.„. -,•., '".;^:p. - v' ,^: t •^ '',''' •• - ,^ • tl) 'Plk:ii''.F., '"-r.,''. •''..-.Iii'I, - , l' .r.", . 4i,13;..- •X' i. ./.: t!'1. f 4 i• - t -•,--, ,,-,- 1 i , . ,iitz.; • 1 „ 1,- . , . . . ......, , ik,I ;,„- ', •, `,t7 .,' ''-'1" '=,'i -:,i;,...•,---,-"•• , 0 i WC! ,;,i'"::;•."44. -', 141,4; 4. fa i • '• fl „a ,.."•••• , „--,, ......, ••••• .., •,„•., '''' .1.-- • - I .4'......,:-:•'' A4 • . . t 4.,,,t : 1 '!1';',V2'''''' ,-..73'4'14„.,••,-..1' . ilki, .. 1-4..,.„. .., 11,, -,..' .-„, , ...:-. ', . .... ,,,--- - , .-- • ; •4,1 ..,4' .":' ' " 1 ''... . ''.••• ,-J 1:1 it,x„,1,;,,••-•:•: 1 ,'',_ --1,41`..c".'Itig,*; '''• k's,-•'',,. CCI -1, ,.*---,.,-..., 1 ..,..,, - ..4:1 ..A-,- ',-,.. ,,, g, '‘,..4F','":- .- • . ,t . -"t:;•4x..-_,,i;r.i... •,,,.;,,,, N.4,If,: r. 9 1-' - ' u ,',,:i: 7,..e.,. tlf,^.^t''' Vkftr; •412''''. zt-^^ ,.. .., ,,., . _ ,,.., • 0 .;- ,e ,- . -,,,) • • 1...,•„„ ., •,:.,,.... or- . _ '-'• :•71.t.,1,-,-,:„, '''‘,0,)`fi ;••.) •J.,--fr----i-•;,, ' .7.-`24 '- 4 t:''''s-A"-: ...t.''14.";..:4 '',--',,,fr.%.,!4 i,..,r- ,N.b, •^:-,,''' -.. ' (2) ,010114k i ' ,.1 ...4":-.'.' a . 4 , .. ; .4.r.4 f '11.` *."4:7,74......... '.)vi4,.., r ,.. ..5 4-- 4i .." -,•- . ,........,....-:.! . v._.. ..--.-••*,,tpt ,,,,.. , . . _.... ____. 1 i !2 2 \ » 22 y< r - x< . m% &3 +\ 4 % ; _ ./' > y 2ƒt . :esA t: F . \ . y . e :!� • } \ J <J' % \ . ->w d3 « \ ' \ »y< . \ « '- » • , - <. M � .� ._ / : \ \ ! » _ . } 2 - \A / \;\) , : : »4 2+y } , � %% .� t 4/ : '. - 2 2}§\ / . / _ 2» >ƒ y \ jƒ . } ,- V.! \\ / \ m i \ . » ? /- . < . / - ���\�: . . 7 2\\ \ � - <K\ \{ . - - - _ - .2 \ // ^ ........ .,. - •,',...w•s,•1, • -ir---T4' .6 P.:, 7.':',.:-.,1:::-'2..,--1.'• .-, 8 \ 0 - ',-„•...e,,,,..,:-Ji.-,.„ ---;:,,,-...',.."..---.,,,,..-''44;,4,,.•'.. ''..'.*C75.:,......5- ',:t---..x...047".----.),'•-.,-,...--.:,.::..,,,,..,...;..4.., • ..•r ', ,, . . . . , ::.- - . ...• - -‘7,.• NI,. ""E -. ' ,,,,,-.: -,:-.:- .i.., ,.. _ ,- . 1%,. • , .. . -- ''-'74-:.7=--.f—..-z-.• 'it; , ,._. . . --c :'-::U.,.'"V-4" •. ';`- -••"7-, '•?,--4,-,=,, , 1 f ...,K..42,Tp.-1.A.,-t..,. t •::. • '-,-‘ — c,--_ .• • . • — -- - -... .....0 .... ,...-•,. .1.: , - •-• ;:,-11.:X _ - c: i...,',..1:4.-e• ,...•,"'•i•- -• • ';:.--:- -,,,-.,:••'-4."'..:4'.c.4,A. ., . ,- • , — .•,__. IR",•:';.::'• ,-- ..., ,----— •,:w: -:I. , ). ..,..V;,''.4.1'.'„4,si‘A.;i: ...,:- ,,..•.,•:.• ,,._:-., j:1.71 1".41- ,41,;(11...,IP.:., , 1.'JO.•.•,i'l`•+, ..-- ,"'-s- 6 • ' '.'•-- ^ E '': .;i•,! 'if'.12 .. (-), '.rt• ,..,- it".. r' 1.''A.''' , V.51''''; ', 4:: • ..-- ' '-17.. , — -,-.2:.,•,-.t,- .i•-•• -:-. * _.•--' 4: .,. .., '..,.. .-_., ,.. :Ak:,, i'., 11/4 .i.t-.• , '.:-.,--- u ., ..i- •., „..xii ,r., k.4'..„ (— _____tusisc`.4.. ... tr...., • - :-.,:-...t , , , , ,.-. „:-„::::„ ,--, r . f Et,-::'•'*,----::/:;i:..' — ---.,''' .-,1?,' .f'-'.'4.' ''...:. - .--.. r-.4-*4#4---i-i. •--. .' '.-:1-..V,'-..4e;•,..z. '< . -7%../s!.-:.:-,,,kt.A.A.. ......„ .., . fr_:4 . . ,.- -_,A,%.,:e .-.,.• '' --1441,4*(1.. LI, . ..' .•%',74'7'7...'''''''.,7Z:':47-''''''-'''''';.:;;;;' ,,,:':: ---'- ___..------ _ -1 l I — ^s^ 1 t PARKIN.DATA ..-....,: WALMART etTso sr. _ rCgrao s4CAT aae saAcre II SPAC,S .. 7 1 - TOTAL PARKING nano 410Aaenaao SF 11 I 1 u � I ' �� Q� �1$ ( )p�I pI`k f SITE DATA of II\ —— -A, EL—, - 1 I aE a ,II II (I li= PROPOSED S WALMART 'D 2705 PARLEY'S WAY AREA A N '. � A°°• SALT LAKE CITY, uT • ^ ^ S. O u I�f cLc ASSOCIATES rffl I. , .. . . 001.00011014. 0-0.00., .0.''' .'..'.,... '. 1.r /..%-'---------- --------. ...,_ q'3 ,,-,r rifi:.4,:c 4.,4ti...,?!, 1 ! , „ ,„: 1 leicfi, ,,'' „ ,',t,:,h ,Q2:1,;':',4.4,1i,Zri. '. r1:17,, - ''",i • ,, MITI'MAI• ''iL 4 tci;:.''': ` '40.f4 ,t1'..4.1 . , '. N. 4i'_40+,,'',1.4. ,*-1, ''...Lf.'« .' [A?:4,;', :-"L'...... q,ti:fct-,, ft%. ..',•' ':, 4..i.V.,4:: fli.itP:43",-{4.;:i,:i..:_ ,t,r'''5' , ::‘ ,,BotA‘140..A.R01.0411ct. 10:0‘.001011::: ' .,P.ii...-'0".-t'i '-'.•:;0, 4efik ..--:- ..... wA,..An, PARKING DATA ' •' :' ',',. '1:;',',041, y.i1.., :;; ,,1:41-:.i 7--- - , 101,PAWING t'"*I', . '. S.' ' '''117,14t,,t --'-;:,r'iql',' ,,',...46FF..44.,!Vift ."- '• nm.. 4.0 01.A.E. 4 010.000 RI •FV40.' . '. ' .:: . ..-1'''..'"2.''4.7.'''`t4%.741:4 .47 '''''-' ' . , .• '--- ' .,!--'-.-..'.Y :T.:''...1• ','. —. 11 ,' , ..,,,,,,,,. .,N SITEDATA W.1110,011 illikisist' . "fttaNrin ---75- ,' , ‘.., ''',7;•,%:-.i''.",, AREA A 1.01•AL ArlEA 1.0'.1::'..-..;.: -.. ig., mr-ri ,:... fi. ,-,.t. IF ,..! -, ..). , , .--...,, : _ .. ,..,W'P.2,-- ..47:: .•::'.- aiz ." -!;7• , --• ;,.e4:1•"-; ,,-. 4 N,t;., ._ • : 7; _ "- Ala : ,p,, . es"•• .:'', • . -7t-,q.:1:,,..i•:- Zi. i I TU.CONNECTION 4-0T-.P.: 40), ,i„,:, ri.-•,:- 17..4; , - k`2.''4.:;kr.'„,'.,:4,-, 4, •••• -Is .'i--1-•,!--.- -1.,..1" ‘,, -a < '',1- 4fik ..,'.,: ; ,-) ..,,';',„':',',.::--' PROPOSED • -.. f...ic ,. ,• WA L MART 2705 PARLEY'S WAY 111- • ' )( • ,,/ // . SALT LAKE CITY, UT '7 ."..., / _, / -,, ). -... 1 3. % - ' I i 41/11114 • A S ..... . CLC ASOC,AaES 1..= ) ....1.1.' at,;i9. ) ) • t - ' Pti' -- '' When recorded, return to: bfs4�123• 4 Woodbury Corporation • fJ5lF3I N 11t32 A11 FIANCY W+'1RKMAhI r a 2• 677 East Parley's Way RECORDE ER, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH • Salt Lake City, UT 8 1'3`-'� FIRST AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTIONSREc Byte FkOt T ,; ,DEPUTY - ill AND DECLARATION OF EASEMENTS t • THIS FIRST AMENDMENT OF RESTRICTIONS AND DECLARATION OF EASEMENTS is made thiszutslay of February ,1997 by EASTLAND REGENCY CO.,a Utah general partnership ("Eastland") and SALT LAI{E/NORTH HAVEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,a Connecticut limited partnership("Salt Lake/North Haven")(collectively called r "Declarants"). t. -. t WHEREAS,on December 23,1968,Woodbury-Mons Company,a Utah limited partnership "' as owner of the land and improvements("Property"),more particularly described on Exhibit"A", rip Original Legal Descrjplion comprised of Parcels#I,nand#3 incorporated herein by this reference 1< 'a•, and shown and designated on attached Fxhjbit"a", Origin Site Plan incorporated herein by this 3 � reference,executed a document entitled Restrictions and Declaration of Easements relating to the e Property("Declaration"),which Declaration was duly filed in the office of the Salt Lake.County ;., Recorder on December 27,1968 and which included the Original Legal Description and the Original Site Plan es Exhibits X and Y respectively;and is p WHEREAS,the Declaration established mutual restrictions and reciprocal casements among " said three(3)Parcels which contemplated facilitating the uses to which each Parcel .vas likely to be V put and the improvements which were likely to be constructed thereon respectively;and I. VTHE �iS,in a deed recorded in the Salt Lake County Recorders office on July 31,1986 I' said Parcels 4'2 and#3 plus an additional parcel of real property to the north of the Property were deeded to Eastlaa.l v.ith(i)Parcel#2 being redesignated as Parcels I and 2 and(ii)Parcel#3 being .t redesignated as Parcels 4 and 5 and(iii) said additional property being designated as Parcel 3; and 10.,, l WHEREAS,inn deed recorded on April 6, 1993 at the Salt Lake County Recorder,certain adjustments were made to and between the descriptions of Parcels 4 and 5;and it 10 iv WHEREAS, for purposes of continuing consistent designation herein, the Property isla fli redescribed on Pxhi °�", R yised I,egnl Description, attached hereto and incorporated by $•a reference, and comprised of Parcels 1,2,4 and 5 together with said Parcel#1 designated thereon as Parcel 6;and ." X . WHEREAS,Fnrcal 6 was conveyed to Salt Lake/North Haven by a deed recorded in the Salt A. lake County Record,'i s office on September 5,1984. Parcel 6 has been leased to Kmart Corporation a= IN (formerly known as the S.S. Kresge Company)pursuant to a Lease dated September 22, 1967 ,'• ca (together with all mo•li .ations,the"Kmart Lease");and ;.4, :,. 4i ••••,) •• WHEREAS,since the execution of the Declaration the boundaries of the K-Mart Building lr filIII have been unilaterally expanded beyond lire westerly boundary of the Building Site depicted on cr, ; cats Salt Lake City,UT#427 .y 2/13/97 "' co t' l_ �.. ._ ,. .. 1 _ L i ' • • • Exhibit"B"arid the number of parking spaces on Paicdl 6 has been below the number required by • • the Declaration;and • 61 WHEREAS,the parties wish to amend the Original Site Plan in order to ratify the existing @ Krnart Building Site and to reduce the number of perking spaces and to incorporate the Overall Site • Plan attached hereto as Exhibit"D";and 1 WHEREAS,a building has been built within Building Site#1 on Exhibit"B"and designated - on Exhibit"I)"as the"Regency Building"on Parcel S;and WHEREAS,Parcel 4 contains the"Eastland Building Site"as depleted on Exhibit"D"which ' Building Site is approximately the same size and location of the original Building Site#1 set forth 11 on Exhibit"Ft";and • WHEREAS,planned construction of improvements on the Eastland Building Site requires • A improvements to be built on the Property to meet the approval of Salt Lake City and certain amendments to the Declaration es agreed among the Declarants as set forth below. NOW THEREFORE,for mutual valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,and for the purpose of further evolving restrictions,and casements under the Declaration particularly resulting from said pltumed construction of improvements on the it Eastland Building Site and due to the expansion of the K-Mart Building Site and the less titan required number of parking spaces on Parcel 6,Site Declarants agree to and declare amendments to • the Declaration as follows; i 1. BevisvrLegal Descrintinu.Exhibit X to the Declaration is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced by Exhibit"(2,Revised t;Gaal Description attached hereto end incorporated by reference. • 2. Revised$jte Plan. Exhibit Y to the Declaration is hereby deleted in its 1 entirety and replaced by Exhibit"D",$2yerall Site Plan attached hereto and Incorporated by reference. 3. Article 1 of the Declaration is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following Article is I.(a) Conformity to Overall Site Plyn•All buildings in existence or to be maintained or constructed on the Property shall be constructed in accordance with the Overall Site Plan attached hereto as Exhibit"D".Any changes to the Exhibit"I)" Overall Site Plan may only be made with the prior written consent of Kenart and all owners of the ur t x Property, -.t m g Salt Lake City,UT N42 2 2/13/97 1 `- r~ rn r • • i (b) Kmart 3uilding Sill. The parties hereto ratify the current K-Mart 1.n. Building Site on Parcel 6 as set forth on Exhibit"D". (c) cnonalmatiounnaraeli. Eastland together with a restaurant tenant shall construct certain improvements on the Eastland Building Site comprised of an office building restautLant complex in accordance with the configurations depicted on pxhibWt"D" (the "Eastland Construction"). The staging area for the Eastland Construction and all , it construction activities shall be entirely on Parcel 4. The Eastland Construction shall be done in accordance with plans and specifications previously reviewed and approved by Kmart and 1 as approved by the City of Salt fake and shall be done in a manner that (i)does not disrupt the traffic flow,parking,ingress/egress or business operations of Kmart and(ii)shall not at 1. occur between November 15th through January I st of any year. el 4. Articles 4 and 5 are deleted in their entirety and replaced with the following s ( Articles 4 and 5: l F a.a' 4. C pnstruction of Entrance. Eastland shall construct at its own cost and I expense a new entranceway onto Parcel 6,including a new traffic signal,on the southerly boundary of the Property on Parleys Way ("Entrance Construction") as set forth on 4' Exhibit"f)"pursuant to standards required by Salt Lake City and in accordance with Plans approved by la:mart. As part of the Entrance Construction,the main north/south traffic aisle in front of the Kmart store shall be located one parking bay to the cast. No Entrance S Construction shall occur between November 15th and January 1st of any year. At all limes during construction,Eastland shall maintain the Kmart driveway at the intersection frec and II clear of all debris,construction equipment and all related materials so that pedestrians and a automobiles have continuous access in and out of the Kmart driveway from one hour before ►t the opening of the Kmart store to one hour after the closing of the Kmart store.No Entrance , 1. i Construction shall occur between November 15th and January 1st of any year and Eastland shall provide to Kmart a construction schedule. Eastland shall install at its own cost and expense new landscaping on Parcel 6 and on the frontage of Parley's Way as depicted on v. I ' Exhibit"D". As owner of Parce!4,Eastland and any successor in interest to Eastland on ig Parcel 4 shall have the responsibility to maintain landscaping along certain parts of the ' southerly boarder of Parcel 6 on Parleys Way adjacent to said new intersection as designated Li on Exhibit'D". Otherwise,all current and future owners of parcels comprising the Property shall continuo to be responsible for maintaining landscaping along the exterior boundaries of their own parcels and shall otherwise remain fully responsible for maintenance of ail 1,i ( improvements on their respective parcels. Salt Lake Haven/North Harvey and Kmart hereby 4 grant Eastland a license to eater upon Parcel 6 to undertake the Entrance Construction and 1 N. to install and maintain the landscaping referenced above,. 1 La, 1::1 5. Parking. As a result of the Entrance Construction reducing the �i ' is . potent al number of parking spaces on Parcel 6 and in any event In order to ratify a smaller .v; nil Salt Lake City,UT tn... #427 s 3 7J13/97 v gii-30-- can on y 4, I. • I :t number of parking spaces on Parcel 6 than is required by the Declaration,the minimum number of parking spaces which shall be maintained at all times on Parcel 6 shall be Five Hundred Fifty Five(555),which Is the existing number of parking spaces as shown on • • • Exhibit"D".Correspondingly,the minimum number of pat king spaces to be maintained on • Parcels 4 and 5 collectively shell be Three Hundred Seventy Five(375)although the number of spaces shown on Exhibit'T)"and planned therefor are Four Hundred Sixty One(461). 5, Term of Axreement.Ail of the licenses,tights,privileges and easements set i. forth in the Declaration and the Declaration as amended herein shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the heirs,executers and administrators,for 50 years from the date hereof,irrespective . of the extension and continuance ofsald lease to Kmort Corporation(femserly known as S.S.Kresge Company), i [ 6. Decloation in Full Force and Effect.Except nsspccificelly amended herein the terms of the Declaration remain in full force and effect. i ' "Eastland": l: EASTLAND REGENCY CO., 1 ., n Utah general partnership I+ ,/sk i, �p WALLACE R WOODBURY LNTERVIVOSTRUST [" Its: General Partner "g' y it 101 Wallace R. oodbuey,Trustee f PRACTICAL I3UILDIN 014IPANY Its: Gen Partner ai 0 It By: ..._,:'-liP a Wallace R.Woodbury, is Trustee of the Wallace Woodbury '' t Intervivos Trust,General er xi- tit By,a /Zi'L� e`l`?1(',;esY,-- l Grin R Woodbury, _,_� Trustee of the Orin Richarda Wa 2bury � Intervivos Trust,General Partner cn b is Salt Lake City,UT 04273 cr) Le ( ...,; e3...,.a...............- �:r.,.+.�.-.....n--.... ............ ........._. ..... -....... _. .... it .. \\ �• ( � # , . # THIRD TIE \ Its:ak : 1 �� Woodbury,ar�• / . II 2 {4/ , dot'Woodbury,_erala«: • "Salt Lak ex e \ t. SALT LAKE/NO[2'M HAVEN LIMITED / PARTNERSHIP,n Connecticut e_ % f� 3 2 ®»� ate, 'le: f ® i w % Its:General,_: \ f \ e | \ �� X• • \ . a��ec,wmm / 5 2/13/97 0,, / • cn \ . . a..,41- co 1 b ; . . » .z « r ,�:�w _��—w �#�+��\ .w�Y��»»�������^# § CONSENT 4 4 Kmaet Corporation(formerly known as S.S.Kresge Company)hereby consents to the terms • of this First Amendment to Restrictions and Declaration of Easements("Consent"),This Consent Is note ass consent by Kraut Corporation to any amendments to the Declaration or the Lease that are not apeciticsliy addressed herein, Ii . KMART CORPORATION !' 1 1 V!% •„ 1 : al-OL211- "....,.,:l ., LORRENCE T. KELLAR '+�,._j- %.3 Its: Vice President Roil,Etdato Rep:. , D;ck'nson,Wrldht: • Approved: ACKNOWLEDGMENT Roviowed(000 comments). g STATE OF UTAH ) `.e • )ss, • p1 COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ! The foregoing Instnuncnt was acknowledged before me this day of F srr•tyt 1 199 7, by WALI,ACE R. WOODBURY, Trusted for WALLACE R. WOODDi1RY • INTERVIVOS TRUST,a Ocncral farther of Eastland Regency Co.,a Utah general partnership on ` behalf of the partnership. .• .1-j_. : i ar o N07AR rtjjalC (S.,,ttr,� Atr xvTn� Notary Public �p pmtt�iW�\ 11 ( Vr1 Count}', LrYny s "►rtt Oentd,ayj.tAdI bI100 My commission expires; •—'71 G l4n _ t m , m N Sab Lake City,UT 04273 cn 6 2/13(97 _P 5 rIv I . I 4 • .. 4 i ACKNOWLEDGMENT .. I .. rf- STATE OF UTAt3. ) )ss.. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) . `" The foregcing Ir strument was acknowledged before me this 26chday of Pehnrary , `' „ . I99• .,, by WALLACE R.WOODBURY,Trustee of the Wallace It Woodbury Intcrvivos Trust a general partner of PRACTICAL BUILDING COMPANY,a general partlfcrsbip and General Partner of Eastland Regency Co.,a Utah general partnership on behalf of the partnership. ,,, r.. ---^� NOT:FiYPLIBLIC ] •" sTATEOFWAK Notary Public s s�r6.lxa ;unktico El pas .41� I AP-- County- PAUUKt E.E99t:N My commission expires: /�� j f L . ir I. k ACKNOWLEDGIt ENT : (PARTNERSHIP) 7. I ii M 1 iN STATE OF UTAH ) ra : es. •'c w: COUNTY OF SALT LAKE . ) f.' L The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 7.6th day of February , '-,y 1997, by ORIN R.WOODBURY,Trustee of the Orin Richards Woodbury Irrtervlvos Trust, C general partner of PR}.CTICAL BUILDING COMPANY, a general partnership and General Partner of Eastland Regency Co.,. a Utah partnership behalf of the partnership. i. LA.) o NO7AAYPUt3LIC Notary Public ..� [1..: £iiT60F U'(AHf_r1 ,t ,1�,r pA1.111NEE ESSE1l r11d'1-.'g2--. , County MT/East Putm Ws/ I(,�.(� salt t1co My commission expires: 412 ... III .. 7 r 1 MMMIIMINIIMIENIIMMEMIEnimmminuimmemmumw e. 114 F , 4 4 • I ACKNOWLEDGMENT ..{ ri STATE OF UTAH ) ss. :i [ COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) ie. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 26thday of February , 1997 , by W. RICHARDS WOODBURY, general partner of THIRD TIERRA, n general partnership and Its,General Partner of Eastland Regency Co.,a Utah general partnership on behalf of the partnership. .i. I— 'NUTAFi'YPUt3LIrl ,k=e3:2,,,,;_.____ STATE Oi UTAH ( : ur ++ +Eyr Notary Public l i+vire,.E 41 t iY{'e County,Mieltigatr- 140 l-,f' PAULtNE E E99Eb = P+ +w My commission expires: /AI<te't BidbiaCI%(hh641tO %. . Y P l' ACKNOWLEDGMENT :3 II 7 STATE OF urntt ) ry ss• s COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) t. •I. I The foregoing instrument was acknov.l;dged before me this 26th day of Fobruery , t, 199 7, by O. RANDALL WOODBURY, general partner of THIRD TIERRA, a general i partnership and its General Partner of Eastland Regency Co.,a Utah general partnership on behalf , II of the partnership, is j/j tlOTAavPUG�tib Jet/// { I (Sea ) GTATEOFLU Notary Public ____ . I, • ,w:� �'C &pins �rt-l-(ake, County,Mit igarr tks-t-.h p25T/UV �ysWE1 ry , My commission expires: '7/L /4. • spry like UV,Ways b1100 ..,� a rut Cr) C71 + "t Snit Lake City,UT fi4273 c I8 2/13/97Au) rn 1! irl 00111104, a-; mn..� - ...r...- vssi,...."•....14;..V4 ti4._.•el."76•4.4.i..:i'Lis .wit;i Ps '4 I .vcram._ , _.._ .... ._............. ._ . . .... .. . . — • 4 s !t 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENT • STATE OF fbttt7nesofrk. ) • pp )43. COUNTY OF KEIH+�y ) • (' The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this-Ad day of R-pr;1 , • 1997 ,by Oenttis M+(-moved.;k, the Vigt< efesiae, -- of FL.;e 6 ,s • a M;uae+o}e CO, ,vefu,tho general partner of SALT LAKE/NORTH HAVEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,a CONNECTICUT limited partnership. $ (Seal) M A NoteyPubl ren MARK J.PETEn30N• YDtes7/ County,d+Si,.Mgan Yia rw so- Kornersuoue•aiitreeorn a My commission expires: 1-31-z000 � fj u.r.COMTV A. ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF MICHIGAN ) )ss, COUNTY OF OAHLA1SD ) ' • The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 14+hdsY of Aorjl r 199 7 by Tcrrrnnro T. Jrnitn;- the 'gin,Pre„irtnnt of Ernest • ,Comorotion,a Michigan corporation. 0 oV. .�,t1; r a '•.t �.• v € ttB )y i Notary Public i t,':•P i..-- z ir-./• (>al MD County,Michlg_n ,,''•• Y „� My commission expires: Mnrrh 7A lggq v CAROL L,FLETCHER v McUASFSD➢II tb(sii ALAI 1'47;9d Notery Pebpo,Ooldaa9 County,6tbb t_r, My Commleeicn Explroe h1a,24.1n9n cn Silt Lake City,UT k.1273 v 9 2/13/97 . iJ N/ a CJ � •' , • I , . , AI,�• 4 ! • • q ERIITDiT "A" .. [ ' PARCEL I/1 `;;: Beginning at a point. South 0°01' Went 2000.0 feet along ~;',the section Zips and East 193.084 feet from the North- eee [ : west corner of Sootion 23 Township 1 South, Range 1 •' Eant, Salt Lake 13aee and Meridian and running thence . t. East 20.0 feet; theaice North 0°011 East 40.0 feet; thence East 528.016 feet; thence North 60°35i140" East 110.0 feet; thence .South 29°214120" Refit 60.0 feet; thence South o0°35'440" West 13.305 feet (said point being North 29°24120" Went 735.8 feet and South 60°35' 40" e, Wept 277.97 feet from a Galt Lake City monument); thence % y; L' South 257.146 feat; thence East 145.o feet; thence South :e: 599.337 feet; thence North 59 51'20 West 1110.057 feet; [ i thence North 57°29'30" Went 2r42.38 feet; thence South 3f8°58' West 3.44,6 feet to the northerly line of Parley's .'..•!? '.oe Way; thence North 51°02' West 205.185 feet (said point being North 38°59' East 50.0 That from the Salt Lake le.:'' City monument at the intersection of Parley's Way and Wilshire Drivc ; thence North rj1.° West 170.865 feet; , thence North i 7.624 feet to the point of beginning. . PA1tCls'L #2 • 03 `. ` Beginning at a Point on the Westerly line of Foothill <, '•, Drive, which point is 3115.80 feet North 29'214'20" ao ti,, ,'�4 West and 50.0 _feat South 60'35 i 440" West from a Salt F,A 1 le. Lake City monument said Sall; Lake City monument i.e 20 located :l.261 fee(; South 89°141'10" Eant and 908.18 feet South 26'56r110" East and 191111.143 feet South •' ' 'K 29'214120" East from the Northwest corner of Section +4 23, Township 1 South, 11ange 1 East, Salt Lake Base ,'•t _ 1 and Meridian, and running thence South 60'35i110" ° ••'' ' West 19.62 feet t a pipe monument; thence South 22 58' ee mast 268.06 feet to a point of curve marked by a pipe 0; k' monument' thence Southerly along the are of a curve to '�, i; the r'ght the chord of which bears South 1,1°58'30" es. - t;x Nast 65.10 fast to a pipe monument; thence South 7'05' 20" East 1t65.6 feet to a pipe monument; thence North 'tr 714.32'110" West 11814:15 feet; thence North 59°51120" ie' ee • West 116,5143 feet; thence North 599337 feet; thence w; - ; East 190.68 feet; thence North 60°35140" East 1119.07 `: ,e.; feet to tine Westerly line of Foothill Drive; thence ' • z South 29°2It 20" East 50.0 feet to the point of beginning. •; =' PARCEL 0 • ice. i-!q • • ;.• Ileg nning at a point South 0°01' West 2000.0 feet: along ef el. the Section line from the Northwest corner of Section . •: 23, 'lbwnniti.p 1 South, Rangy 1 L�,aat, Salt Lake Baas and ,�.- Meridian, and running thence Eµet 160.0 feat' thence ..!e "'' North 0°01' EastII0.0 feet; thence East 53.014 feet; ,Zee thence South 0°01: West 40.0 feet; thence West 20.0 feet; 4;' = thence South 1467.6214 feet to the Northerly line of ti: Parley's Way; thence North 51. 00' Went 248.570 feet ,; to the West line of Section 23; thence North 0°011 a, w East 311.195 feet to the point or beginning. PC i r '''`•y t - -- ...........•-, .. •e;r. _ '•rtr7eivi yY;i;nvt•.'..•'%j} :ea ;,-.A'5.. 3 . , 1•111111M. _ 4110,QP ......:.•:' • '4'; •,.. • . .-• • . • . . • • .. . . .,.• "tX1111311• 13" . ..., . . . . ' • ; - • At 1 . . • . ., .1 • .. ._........_ • . .. . . , . . :...,...,-;,...,,,,,:•••-•-•:.,..;.: .:7...-,.........,,f...']..-....,-... ....!:'I:.:r..i...,-7::If.S!.:;,;:.....:•'....'!.:;--.1..',..'.... -,-.,....:,.:°:. .i..."7,'!','. '''.-1..1:671)•',J IV (II•• ***' i•' 1 :"...•: .I ,; '...i'.. .:•-•::.:.,.... .i.•-. ..-:. .i.'•:;.. ,•!•.i'.".f l'•,.....;`......,::.:;:.!....:?;..:-:.h.•.:Y............:; ;;I.:.:741:, 4 ;...,4•:::••• .""•, ' '.1P:.;11 .-• n. ...'''.!•! •••.: ..r• . il. ; ,. :*•.1•.'".'`'...":;'.illiaii4414 •..,;....•' • ...1`..;:' . .., • •t• •• fal .il.? ,Il toll•1 .. .: .. ; •. • ' :: :'' • ,‘,,:•',...,•pj i,:,:3,...<:;(...111,!,•„. . .71.,,.. T , .. 1..ti • . . - .. ..% ..r. - i......3.:v•.. . I 11:0 i • r,11.:, 111.1 .. ... . v ) .)... .:•• . i• , fi,U1J.•!.... ' • • ' • 4 . •• •. .. '':1•• _....-..-.11-'ir-fr!” ••l'it$53:;71 41r:•1:. ailt . 1 _........0i.---trr-•••• ...±.........--• , •••.' II,' ..-0-`17.-:'--1-•••• .- ,, ..i.'F.ST:'.••' 1 .• .': .v ! . 1,,cip, , • ..---1`,....•""' .. . i . , •• • , ....... .. . I_ 1 i:,.,.., ,..1 gill : .,..„.- ...... . ..... ).,_, , ..„... ...2, . 4 . . .. . i. •, ...._p_ 11....1s1_,.. .! ,ii i . 11. • . '1 .. :•,••. • •--illy,-Ty:.*rt-2.:...2..?.; .: i ti Ally,. •••,,.. ! 1 II 1.. • .0.1,1 ' '";?' , .(1-1-1" ., ..,over- • ,., , . • ..• • 1. •, 01. it•littilt‘•!.. ... ., .1.•i 1.i.. •,„ .:, I 411.4 lilig/ • • 0--.. rr.'1%4 •• •• . . ir,•1 •:i• ..• • . - i :,‘,... • . • .. . '' 41 .;:!•4.t.,•4,..'.p .. .... 1 - •., j.di•'' • ,,..v.r.',‘Lea ...-,h , .11,0.c.t1.1.•_•,42.. t•4174-rinyff•• ", -: • / .•;'' 1 g. .... 11,1f ril 1..! .ter, ti:eit-LKUlithILemlo....1.)il .. , t . fe ' ". . • .R2)1 i . Al• fr..., , 1 17- ti, ., 1 . ' )1; • .• ,.y ri.r.,..,, ??,p.;• a • • k•:-! 11 . ,1:it . I ti t ;If '` . . ,...,.....• „" • \ 4. .. ;•; Ii = . Agsm,i,t_r-ar.2_q_. L'-4, i, .. • f '.;:q..„ , i .. ,. ,f) s, .ii---.---, • -. •-,, ....• I , .b. . ,,,„'.., ..• . ,J.:, olril_. f • . " z ......77.-4•-.--..n-„-r---. • •I • . , t • “.1.„), •1.• •••,•-•:?<•::c...:=--1=--••-•-- ' I .r. , ! , -• .oi• 1.,,tilt fro•?, .. il •%7 /NI, - ..-1 • ; :, • ,_, 1 i• . '• f...-i9;•' '.• 44'731 v. • 1'.../ i • 1 , .. . • . • •'. • •• -1--i•--1 • g ? . •1.1, 11. M• i 111 ‘.."1111 11 ' relP.Ct.L I,I ..:. • r„J41.•171 . ' ..-' 1 • /. .. le'A•S. . . 015'2 .1.1. . ,.• .., i i.;•.614/11.:-.. vii.. ; i - 14t1 14 .1 -g )1T1 ' ) ••:' .---... . f 4...I j I. I-V •' • thi P . • .., .„1:47 : • ..••-..., ---4••• t • ".! 1 • ' • " , :. ••• ,• '.. g . ;..,'1. :1 i I•: ( .-1''i i "' 1 ;. '•4 . ...5" •• .' • • .i 1 1 . 1 f .; : ''li '••? 1•,, 11 '• o t . •I ii •-•,:, 1. •, 1- i, . „...... . ,...,,. • ... ' • .. - i: . ••• • ••• cn , : i• •ell : ' Ir.-- • . . . .. . h • : •• ,_(:) , ; ro . ;• . .•14• . Litar,2:.%r••.....L ' • / .46.2 ii4.. • •'.... ••/ V • 1:. • ' i ( g . . ,, :••,• i I • ---t••--...-1k31111:.•:•••V._._ . . ril.•,, I.;:,... *. le i I/.,1' / .' '• '• :f. • ricz.ct.t.4.?., ...r,/• t; i • 11 I., ' .1 11 7::;11.1 i',Y ct.? ••/ '.• .• 1:':,..si••.. ,, '.1 •2%.* • : ' . . . ' ' ' ••' • 'il.0 _" ' 'i• ... 1. i.. . J. ••.% /., -Er,,,,,,„ • ./. ., ..;. .;‘ ...•..,-,•• ,;:! •• .< ,.:. -1 :' :`, ,,:. . i!.....•24-..•_1.._.....-".5-tzp_isc- ..„ illtil-----,---.7.-.!. • I:••,• .•i• • I. '•51 .,,,, k• ., •••il • r! '.C...,:;1',..,..: -r'l r•,. . . .. • '...:.'..1, * . •,) ,• • 1•••••(.; ii,• • ••• • i 5 . t• . : , . :... .. .7 . ,I.I:,:1,(.....,.1,;.:‘? • . •• • Clj°6 I.:PI'''. . '.`.5.iis1);?•T'A.4iily12,,...• • I,'• •:•••f:•)‘' ••:•• '!: • - . . . .• . . . . • i' '• • 4' •'‘' '.1t. fst-i.`1;'• ' ..• 1,1,..;•,,' fl . .••,..II. • ,.;,. , • , , ' •• -,.;.••' '., ' Z.;••":1111. A lilti..1FP f‘ . ‘..,•• l'f: .‘ •11"14).1••••,I.tli•••;:."•1•is.1 1.• . ..,.... • , , 4 ....• • . 4 1 • I ..,. . gil 1 I ••It•iv .? ',. .1 1:i.til%.,•1!••',.• • .•• '' ...1...s • i..4‘:. : ',41'„'l'•,.r. .,5,' :PlkliPPril'icftle'llPIN1,.;. . -z, ...-1,..; li . t,,i.ilitti,1.•,1 ...,-,,..,12-,?.-:-.5i.,..',..i.0.-..,••11:1.::::•.;•-v-...,---..:.P.••••••••••:?-•i...1..-.....,A1,-..,•--•.....4,-.4-.;•%",.....,..7,.-Ji...,..m.,,;•.---t..":::;•••11.1•1.41•&'1;r,.",'-`:::'-,..2.•••‘,...'•,.,.....tz,....'••:•.:':4.:;„:',t,,1 ‘ 'ijd:',..1 ,:.1.:1,:s.r..,••1•r!,-+472.1.,••t•.....:::-:17.,,,,:.•:.•:4•..ii..,c;-•:.:zl...,L'45';VT:v4::::iftz,:::::.',1•.%::1&..:•.71z:t.:4-*.7i3 t:::';'4;.'t,r-"I'...---":':'-`4.1 '.' .-. .-.......,,,... •.;.••......,e, . 1 f ; 11/011,4 ..1• 's '•.: 1 1 ' .. P e y ,...J.,.,,,,,..,.........,,,...:,,,...4./.....-4:-..:oivsN.,,...ipm.•,•;41.4.4.E•cre:.y.le;.•: :,•;,•:„.',.r:r....:ir•:,4:11101...•?....1.4•,:r.4.•••%T..,:::..4.fhtl..1701.1.`..f.../..`!•;r4.?'.i'''''''''''''''''' !. • r_ y� pp hP..�(t I5TT°0" 4Si2r.yy 1.8.iA3(27 nk(� ' Wallace R.Woadbar .,,,,„ 4v'�A71968 nt(p au it end 17a.1!out So Rand _. ft: NAp f Pha(Gra II[Cfrf n411,nN. INIY fU1 IIIY.IIfAI{ )A 1 RESTRICTIONS AND A) DECLARATION OP EASEMENTS I, r It{gyp TNxn DECLARATION OP EASEMENT made thin 238 day of 1 December, 1968, by WOODBURY-MORRIS CO., a.limited partnership, having its principal office at 711 East on South temple, Salt iLake City, Utah, 84102, herein called the DE3LARANT, ' WHEREAS, the DEOLARAN'P ie the owner or land and i.mprovo- imenta shears and designated es PARCEL 1/1, PARCEL 1/2, and PARCEL//3, ' on attached Exhibit 'X,"which exhibit i.e incorporated herein by , reference and which compoeite land hse been designated as Sectl.an,! I Shopping Center; II '.\ AND WHEREAS, the improvements constructed upon Parcel 111 O, have been leaned to S. S. KRRSGI COMPANY for a term or twenty-five • years (25), (expires November 30, 1993), commencing November JA, n.1960, together with three five-year renewal options, ea oet forth cb in that: lease dated September 22, 1967, e memorandum of which lease was recorded in the office o:the Salt•mice County Recorder 6. n k in Book 2713 at Page 245, et, seq., an Entry No, 2269672; Y AND WIIIREAS, the Paid Kresge Menee doe, provide and grant, among other things to the S. S. 1{RESGE COMPANY, its agent:n, ' employees, customers, licensees, and invitnen, full licenses, '0 rightn, privileged, and easements to nee the common area, on Parcel 11.1 and Parcel jt2 (when improved) in common with landlord . `and othor tenants, if any, of land described an Parcel 1/2, and w ','their respective agento, empl.oyeen, euntomera, liconaoes, and U. invitees; AND WHEREAS, Parcel 1/2 an herein described, in the Coln- ' posl.te of P11ASR 1,f2 and PHASE 1/3 as shown on Exhibit op,” attached to the Krangn Lease;. 1 AND WHEREAS, it la deoirable to outline genorell,y the areas within which future I)uildings may be conetncctorl in order E m ! to better define the interrelation of the common areas and likely m q a e building l ationsJ _o•f•ggq AND WHEREAS, Parcel 1/2 requires a reasonable pernetua 6 .,.ow wise: .•0 i ' ,a,yo�mv.a.mw.. .. .. ..• .. .. 7.........._. .....• .. . ,. • .. . ... • • 37a2 fl8 E279. and non-eXclttoive easement for egress and ingress of pedestrians and vehicles to'and from Parley's Way, over Parcel 4/1; • t AND WIiEREAS, Parcel.C3 requires a reasonable perpetual end non-exclusive easement for egress and ingress to Stringhem fivenue over roedweye built upon the North forty (4o) feet of Parcel-ill; .�;. AND NtICP.EAS, it is the intent of DECLARANT in the near `�� future, subject to the Kresge Ieone, to convey Parcel#1 end a f.P. non-exclusive cerement over I-thirty (30) foot wide roadway on • Y parcel 113 to SALT LANE EAST PROPERTY, a New York partnership; AND KIIt.REA2, it is the desire and intent of DV:CLARAPff = , to reserve to WOODB2RY-N_l1iTE CO., end its successors and the respective cirnto, tenants, employees, suetotrers, licenaeec, and '';ti invitees at each, the right to utilise common areas en Parcel Ni ' 1 ti and Parcel #2 in c9mmon with S. L. ERC.SCE COMPANY, SALT LAKE EAST ':4; PROPERTY, WOODBURY-MMMRRIS CO., end their reopen live tenants, j7 '2 successors, agetnts, ee;oloyceo, customers, licenoecs and invitees; ;A' 4. '`,� AND WIIIIREAO, LL to similarly Lhe desire of DECLARANTP '"S TO RPSERVC a reasonable perpetual easement and right-of-way from Parcel #2 to Parley's Way; ,; •,rj h NOW, THEREFORE, the DECLARANT: N' i. rL?:jS; Y. Does hereby declare, certify, and establish for the ,+ benefit of all owners end their respective euecooeore of property v'' 0 within Parcel#1, Parcel #2, and Parcel#3, that buildings nay be a } : : and maintained on Parcel y;tl. and Parcel#2 only within areas 4. ' built ma ne :s., designated on the attached ❑uilding Site Tacetaone Oenomi.nnted no EX.hibi.t "." and incorporated herein by reference, and that no �. ^';`vi buil.dinge shall be located or erected on Parcel.#1 or Parcel #2, l'1 ,FILI except within Cie boundaries outlined. . u j, '1 50, • . • .. I. .. eon $ Faat�" 2. Peat; hereby require and declare that to the extent consistent with said S. S. Kresge Company lease, no fence or pedestrian limitation of access shall be erected upon that portion of the common property line between Parcel #1 and Parcel #3 lying directly West of any portion of the S.S. Kresge building which would prevent reasonable access between Parcel #1 and the easterly portion of Parcel #3. 3. tomes hereby require and declare that no one shall lease, rent, use or occupy Parcel #2 or Parcel #3 or any portion _ 71 of either for the operation of a "cut-rate store" or "discount Ili store" for the duration of said "Kresge" lease and anyexte o n i.on r. or renewal thereof; except•that this limitation may cease if it 11 later be determined that paragraph 18 of the Kresge lease ie no longer operative because of the occurrence of any conditions subsequent, as enumerated in said paragraph la, whirh•make a ' , similar restriction in acid lease 'no longer applicable. • ' ll. Does hereby declare and establish that no less than _ Seven !Hundred 4iirey (730) automobile parking spaces shall at all times be maintained on Parcel #1, (except for temporary carnivals, etc. as permitted by Kresge Lease); and that at such time an Uui7di.ng8 are constructed upon Parcel #2 ouch conoi;rua- = Lion shall afro prov(de a mi.ni�num of Two hundred Seveniy (270) I automobile parking spaces eonni.otent with the requirement° of the existing Kresge Mace. 5. Does hereby declare that Parcel #3 shall include i.tu own separate off-street parking facilities sufficient to meet • i requirements of any ❑tato, county or municipal department having juri.adi.cti.on at the time of construction of any facil.ii;i.e❑ on said Parcel #f3. G. Does hereby declare and reserve over the North - Party (40) febt of Parcel. #1, a thirty (30) foot wide non- , exclusive easement reasonably located from time to time for cm ' vehicular and pedestrian traffic between Parcel #3 and Stringhwn cm ce Avenue, such easement to he perpetual and survive the expirationi cm 1 of other restrictions herein created. el NJ c� r an r MT tlSOFIn® *^GhsO� fAtm4.1EE'7iTDC.716tiRLJ�i e... .....� •.v....... .... .......... ... .......... .. .... • , it 7. iJCoe hereby reserve and establish for the benefit of the owners of Parcel #1 and Parcel #2, their successors end I assigns and their respective agents, tenants, employees, customero, .licensees and invitees, the right to utilize common 11( areas on Parcel i'fl and Parcel •//2 in common with S. S. 1CRP9(11? e. „ COMPANY and i.tn respeet'1ve' agents, tenants, successors, employees, customers, licensees and invitees, subject to the rights of the , respective owners to reasonably regulate the parking consist;enf: with the Kresge lease. 0. Does hereby declare and reserve a perpetual non- exclusive easement and right of way for vehicular and pedestrian { traffic between Parcel #2 and Parlsyla Way over a portion of II 1 Parcel #1. Such easement' eha_11 reasonably be located and desi.g- nated by the owner of Parcel #l. • 9. hoes hereby agree for the benefit of S. S. KRRSCE i; COMPANY, SALT LAKE EAST PROPERTY and I)PCGARAHTS that euecenaora in interest to DROLARANTS shall maintain and repair their respectively owned portions of Parcel. /l and Parcel i72, to the 1 I extent necessary ao that ouch common facilities and areas may be used for the purposes stated in the aforementioned Kresge lease, and 4.n particular as set forth J.n Paragraph 9, thereof, throughout the term of maid lease and any renewal or extension thereof. 10. Does hereby declare, certify and eutab].ieh that said full licenses, rights, privileges and easements eha3l run i with the land and shell be binding upon the heirs, executors, 1 i acbnini.etrators, r•ucceuaore, ase.igne and granteeo of WOODhURY- , MOItRIS CO., for an long ae the term of the Kresge Lease including '� all modifications, renewals and extonsi.one thereof; and mha).l terminate and cease, and be of no further force and effect, upon the tera;.nation data of the Kresge lease without renewals and extensiono, except that the easemento set forth in paragraphs " • 6 and 0 hereof are perpetual and shall survive much termination. m , • Fr-‘ BoO Me rd6[2 4 B _ 11'. Does hereby agree that the obligations herein set forth shall be binding Upon declarant,e heirs, executors, i, adminietratora, secceeeore, aeeigne, grantees and liceneees. WOODf3URY-MORRIS 00. A Limited • Par/tffJnerr h/iipp p/� /) Wh S6 • C Ti. 00 Renersl Partner • -W STATE OCR'UTAH 1 I BS: COUNTY OP SALT rsicn S - . On the 7 3 aa day of December, 1968, personally appeared before • we WALLACE R. WOODBURY, known to me to be the General Partner of WOODBURY-MORRIS CO., a ,Limited partnei•ehSp, the ❑ignerc of the within inei;ruoent, who duly acknowledged to me that he 0 executed the smme for and on behalf of amid partnership, • • Il U11AUomrlilbd,e Pecpirde• i 0 • 1 ti • QN 1 • h. 01 .; RXIt:113T"I)" ' [ )'nrcel1; [11 . Commencing nt a point on alto Northeast side of Parley's Way which point is south 0 degrees 01 minutes west along the Section lino 2311.195 feet from the Northwest corner 1 , of Section 23,Township 1 south,Range I cast,Salt Lake Base and Meridian,and running thence north 0 degrees 01 tninnles cast 311.195 feet;thence cast 160.0 feet;thence north [.. 0 degrees 01!nlmtos cast 40,0 feet;thence east 53,084 feet;thence south 0 degrees 01 •'. • minutes west 40.0 feat;thence wog 20,0 feet;!knee south 297.624 feet;thence north 51. it degrees 00 minutes West 145.0 feet;(hence west 30.0 feet more or less to the easterly line it 1 of a private roadway;thence southerly along said easterly roadway line to the :; Lag • northeasterly line of 1'ardo)'e Way;thence north 51 degrees 00 minutes West 38.57 feet . more or less to the to the place of commencement. The aforementioned private roadway Is 30 feet wide being 15 feet measured at right angels each side of the following described centerline. Beginning on the norihesaterly line of Parley's Way ate point south 51 l L degrees 00 minutes east:0,78 feet from the aforamentloned point of commencement,and •t running thence north 39 degrees cost 8.0 feet;thence along the arc of a curve to the tell .: (radius 35.0 fret bearing north 5 d degrees 00 mhtutu west)21.38 feet;thence north 4 1 M degrees 00 minutes east 216.0 feet;thence along the are ore curve to the right(radius ,y 55.0 feet bearing south 86 degree cast)76,47 feet;thence north 83 degrees,10 minutes cast 53.0 feet;thence along the ere of a curve to the loft(radius 100.0 feet hearing north 6 e +' degrees 20 minutes west)68,94 feet;thence north 44 degrees 10 minutes cost 10,88 feet N ( to the cast bnttrtar:y ofnforcdescribed, .:.• L. Pnrcel 2; ?, • Contnlancing nt a point on the northeast side of Parity's Way which point Is south 0 :• ` degrees 01 minutes west along tie section line 2311.195 feet end south 51 degrees 00 minutes end along tine northeast side of Parley's Way 248,570 feet from the Northwest r, corner of section 23,Township I south,Range 1 cast,Salt Lake Base and Meridian,neat t i running thence north 170 feet;thence north 51 degrees 00 minutes west 145 feet;thence ., west 30 feel more e:less to the easterly line of a private roadway;thence southerly along s , said easterly roadway line to the northeasterly line of Parleys Way;thence south 51 S. degrees 00 minutes east 210 feet more or less to the place of beginning. Together with n .:i right of ingress and egress over,upon and across a eertnin private roadway adjoining the . } nbove described property on the weal described as follows:a 30 foot wide road way being I S feat measured at right angels each side of the following described centerline; ;� beginning on the northeasterly lira el-Parley's Way ton point south 0 degrees 01 minutes west 2311.195 feet and math 51 degrees 00 seconds east 20.78 east 20.78 feet from the Northwest corner of Section 23,Township I south,Range 1 east,Salt Lake Base and Mcridleu and running thence north 39 degrees east 8,00 feet;thence along the me oft; e curve to the left(ratlines 35.00 feet bearing north 51 degrees west)21.36 feet;thence north y 1• 4 degrees 00 minutes east 216,00 ken thence along the arc of n curve to the right(ruches 55.00 feet bearing smith 86 degrees cast)76.47 reef;thence north 83 degrees 40 ttnntes . cast 53.00 feel;thence along lite are of a curve to the left(radius 100.00 feet bearing north • • (i degrees 20 min:it.os west)611,94 feet;thence uortlt 44 degrees 10 minutes cost i0.H8 rt q reel. L t Parcel a: l. Beginning at n paint on the Westerly line of Poothili Drive which point Is 345,80 feet u ' • North 29 degrees 24'20"West and 50,0 feet South 60 degrees 35'40"West from a Sall ( Lake City Monument,sold Snit Lake City Survey Monument being located 31.261 feet m a1 South 89 degrees 41116"Ens!and 908.18 fact South 26 degrees 56'40"East and 1944.A3 ,el Al .. . n6r7roc'.codicpL%41as cd i ,j7 Ol( '-- ' • t.0 .!y CO t i • A EXHIBIT"Tr 1 ;: e feet South 29 degrees 24'20"East from rho Northwest corner of Section 23,Township I South,Range 1 East,Salt Lake Base and Meridian,and running thence South 60 degrees 35'40"West 19.62 feet to a pipe monument;thence South 22 degrees 58'East 268.06 feel to a point of curve marked by a pipe monument;thence Southerly along the arc of e curve to the right the chord which bears South 14 degrees S8'30"East 65,10 feet to n pipe monument;thence South 7 degrees 0520"East 112.0 feet;thence West 396.36 feet; thence South 229.25 feel;thence North 74 degrees 32'40"West 27.64 feel;Thence North 59 degrees 5I'20"Wes?46.543 feel;thence North 599,337 feet'thence East 190,68 feet; thence North 60 degrees 35'40"East i49.07 feet;thence South 29 degrees 24'20"East 50.0 feet to the point of beginning, • q Together with • Beginning a,a paint on the Westerly lien afPoolhiil Drive which point is 345.80 feet • • • i North 29 degrees 24'20"West and 50.0 feet South 60 degrees 35'40"West from a Salt 1.eke City Monument,said Sail Lake City Monument being located 31.261 feet South 89 degrees 41'16"East and 908.18 feet South 26 degrees 56'40"East and 1944,43 feet South • 29 degrees 2470"East from the Northwest corner of Section 23,Township 1 South, Range I East,Salt Lake Base and Meridian,and running thence South 60 degrees 35'40" West 19.62 feet to a pipe monument;thence South 22 degrees 38'East 268,06 feet to a point of curve marked by a pipe monument;thence Southerly along the arc ofa curve to the right,lltc chord.rf will 't bears South 14 degrees 58'30"East 65.10 feet to a pipe montnnent;thence South 7 degrees 05'20"East 112.0 feet true point of beginning,mid running thence South 7 degrees 05'20"East 353.60 feet to a pipe monument;thence North 74 degrees 32'40"West 456,51 feet;thence North 229.25 feet;thence East 396.36 feet to true point of beginning. , i. - I,css and excepting 4 Beginning at n point on the Westerly line of Foothill Drive,which point is 345.80 feet North 29°24'20"West and 50.0 feel South 60°35'40"West from a Sait Lake City Monument,sold Salt Lithe City Monument being located 31.261 feet South 89°41'I6" S Cast and 908,18 feet South 26°56'40"rust and 1944.43 feet South 29°24'20"East from the Northwest Corner of Section 23,To unship I South,Range 1 East,Snit Lake Base ..• and Meridian,and running thence South 60°35'40"West 19.62 feet to a pipe monument; thence South 22°58';east 268.06 feat Ion point of curve marked by a pipe monument; i thence South lee e,tong the are of n curve to the right,rho chord ofwhieh bears South 1 I4°58'30"Nast 65.10 feet to it pipe monument;thence South 7°05'20"East 1 14.01 feet to the True Point of Beginning,and•running along the Westerly lino of Foothill Drive South .1 7°05'20"Hasa 359.80 feet to a pipe monument which 1s the point where the West roothill Drive Right-of-Way line intersects the North Parley's Way Rigid-of-Way line;thence R _ along rho North line of Parley's Way North 74°32'40"West 434.15 feet;thence North 59°51'20"West 46.543 feet;thence North 58.35 feet;thence East 46.26 feet;thenco w North 29.88 feet;thence East 111,76 feet;thence North 59,75 feet;thence Enst 96,48 feet; thence North 56.69 rest;thence East 207.99 feet to True Point of Beginning, Pnrrel5: Beginning al a point on the Westerly line of Foothill Drive,which point is 345.80 feet North 29°24'20"Wes?and 50,0 feet S'nilt 60°35'40"West from a Salt Lake City 7 Monument,said Salt Lake City Monument being located 31.261 feet South 89°4I'16" East and 908,18 fact South 2.6°56'40"East and 1944,43 feat South 29°24'20"East form j • the Northwest Corner of Section 23,Township 1 South,Range I Enst,Salt Lnke 13naeIt Ct and Meridian,and running thence South,`:C"35`40"West 19,62 feet to a pipe monument; t? Y thence South 22°53'Enst 268.06 feet to a point ofnurvo marked by a pipe monument; �1 thence Southerly along the sic of a cure to the right,the chord of which bears South /'\ rn s� reorplm ulrcglectuld2 CJl en 1. II-. EX11IB1T"D" t 14°58'30"East 65.10 feet to a pipe monument;thence South 7°05'20"East 114,01 feel to • .ai ( the True Point of Beginning.and running along the Westerly line of Foothill Drive South t} 7°05'20"East 359.80 feet to a pipe monument which is the paint where the West Foothill t: Drive Right-of-Way line Intersects the North Parley's Way Right-of-Way line;thence along the North lino of Parley's Way North 74°32'40"West 484.15 feet;thence North ' 59°51'20"West 46.543 feet;thence North 58.35 feet;thence East 46.26 feet;thence North Nortf r56.69tfeet;thence East 207.99 feet to True Point of Beginning East 111.76 feet;thence North 59.75 feel;thence . 9G,48 feet; (hence .+� ��• nd Gast �'t Beginning at a point South 0°01'West 2000.0 feet along the section lien a ;;:{ 193.084 feet from the Northwest corner of Section 23,Township t South,Range I East, . lSalt Lake Base and Meridian and running thence East 20.0 feet;thence North 0°01'East is 5:. 40.0 feet;thence East 528.816 i'et;thence North 60°35'40°East 40.0 feet;thence South :;� .. `,�' 29°24'20"East 60.0 feat;thence South 60°3540'West 13.305 feet sold point being North ::! 29°24'20'West 735.8 feet and South 60°35'40°West 277,97 feet from a Solt Lake City �:y monument);thence South 257.46 feet;thence East 45.0 feet;thence South 599.337 feet; . :s, thence North 59°51'20"West 140.057 feet;thence North 6r29'30",West 242.38 feet; • i y: thence South 38°58'West 14.6 feet to the northerly line of Parley's Way;thence North �r: ~. 51°02'West 205.185 feel(said pole:.being North 38°59'East 50.0 feet from the Salt Lokc : ', 11 City monument al the intersection of Parley's Way and Wilshire Drive);thence North ..- i'.' ° t;thence Nortlt 467.624 feet to the point of beginning. ,.yy 51 West 170.86;f, g o It t? :.t:. L4 .; L .43 >' 414 I $':1 Ai ei i;1.: fl el it .�%I fit •mot. :�: v 2 a i.nf1 _i •i'1=.L} :IA: inikv0x.ilocicssmeda uid 3 V : l O T. t pr i.�//�aynrR';�.�r� t v k . <-_-\,, . ,-----‘, . 0., k -: ' / ..::..,)... .- \ . —.ni,uC: "r^1� Vic+.-1T.lci;-fie....•yj`1-r.i' jb r r.. \ \ , �� I2F ;1 c•.' :i':?taw<.;icrrµ p, :`i-1JJ.111J1 :i�:, :,max '� '.::; iI�`id .9...... ` dt. 3' ' ; i f Aft 3 \ lilllllJ � �1 )JJl1l1= {,, . l�\ \ b " 4+ ' ii, —lflTITITTMFITIflTIITITT '{r � , 11 . �, � if , ,.: 1 i . / : :� a a ,,C l I 'I'E % % ( , . : !ii Ili IdriPE1/11/-'1§7/d- 7 (1..='''.--,-; // Il 11 it L.,} � �i 1 . e.,t!IJ11111E r�y7 '•�_-J- t.ijj11J1W_., . / // . /// /- G_ uJlull.l.liu.lu.t.u _s \‘ `"k / k If 91J a { ;I rlt7fflTTfllr I i, 7/7 ¢ lel P.4 It am.. .G:.Rd1u.ul '- ) 1�/ 1 i 0 ' V • di fIff iili; 1H .41 ...-,J 1 • _ ..... . . .. r..i ... .. . ......,.::i(.,a.......)w:lil! =:iwi..Mj\r.i.is,,,,,, •,,,,,' 1 W,I.J. $4 T.:4• (g- 1 'rxltxsiT 1c0 i _ , 1.: Parent 1: i /1. . Conuncneing nt a point on the Northeast shin of Pnr1cy's Way which point Is south 0 degrees 01 minutes west along the Section lino 2311.195 feet from the Northwest corner 1. at-Sedan 23,Tawtisltip I south,Range I east,Salt Lake Base and Meridian,and running thence north 0 degrees 01 minutes east 311,195 Act;!halite oast 160.0 loop thence north [. 0 degrees 01 minutes oast 40.0 feet;thence east 53.084 feel;thence south 0 degrees 01 minutes west 40.0 1*-et;thence wcst20,0 feet;thence sontlt 297,624 feet;thence north 51 t; Jdegrees 00 minutes West 145.0(bet;thence west30,0 feet morn or less to the easterly lint r of n private roadway;thence southerly along said easterly roadway line to the northeasterly line of Parley's Way;thence north 51 degrees 00 minutes west 38.57 feel 1. more or less to the to the place of commencement.Tito aforementioned private rondwny ' is 30 feel wide being 15 feet inemured at right angels each side of iho following described r, centerline. Beginning on the nonhensterly;lue of Parley's Way at n point south 51 k dL. egrees 00 minutes cast''O.78 feet firm the aforementioned point of commencement,and i,' 1 running thence north 39 degrees cast 11.0 feet;thence along the arc of a curve to the left(rt ttiis 35.0 feat bearing north 51 degrees 00 minutes west)21.38 fat;thence north 4 . degrees 00 minutes cosi 2 i 6.0 feet;thence along the arc of a curve to the right(Wins >. _ 55.0 feat hearing south 86 degree etts?)76,47 fact;thence north R3 degrees 40 minittas cast 53.0 feet;Ilteneo niong the arc of n curve to the loft(rntllns 100.0 feet bearing north 6 ( de revs 20 minutes west)68,94 feet;thence north 44 degrees 10 minutes cost 10.88 feet - to the cast boundary ofaforeti scribed, • tPored 2; S Coaunencing al a point on the northenst side of Parley's Way which point Is south 0 1 R.. 's 9 degrees Cl minutes west along the section line 2311,195 feel and seed'S t degrees 00 'E N minutes cast along the northeast sido of 1'etricy's Way 218.570 feet from the Northwest D ( tamer of section 23,Township I south,Range 1 cost,Sall Lake 13aso and Mcridl:tit,unit ? • running thence north 170 feet;thence north 51 degrees 00 minutes went 145 feet;thence west 30 feet more :less to the eastely line of n private roadway;thenco-eonthcrly along r snit(easterly roadway line to the northeasteriy line of Pnrioyn Way;thence south 51 s degrees 00 minutes cast 210 feet more or less to the place of beginning, Together with a t right of Ingroos and ogress over,upon and across a certain private roadway adjoining the j Inhove described property on the west described DR follows:n 30 foot wide roadway being h 1 15 feel measured at right nngols each side ofiho following tiescrlhed coulerlina; beginning on tile iarthcnstcrly lino or 1'arioy'a Way to n point south 0 degrees 01 ruhustcs , west 231 1,195 foot and south 51 degrees 00 seconds oast 20.78 cant 20.78 feet from the J., Northwest corner of Section 23,'Tovrnshlp I south,Rango I east,salt Lake Bele mitt Meridian end running thence north 39 degrees oust 8,00 feet;thence along the me of a curve to the tart(rndIus 35,00 feet!maring north 51 degrees west)21,38 feet;thence north 4 degrees 110 minutes east 216.00 fe;r,thence along the aro art curve to the right(radius 55.00(bet bearing south 116 degrees cast)76.47 feet;thence north 83 degrees 40 minutes e. •i cast 53.00 feet;thence aiotng(Ito era of a curve to the loft(rndhts 100.00 feet hearing north 6 degrees 20 mlttulas west)68,94 feet;thence north 44 degrees 10 mimics east i 0.1t$ I iccl, f L'uNoLlt IBeginning at n point on the Westcriy he of Foothill Drive which pnhtt 1s•345.80 feet ' North 29 degrees 24'20"West and 50,0 feet South 60 degrees 35'40"West from n Soil �' Ube City Monument,sold Snit Lake City Survey Monument being located 31.261 feet :. Lu a 1 South 89 degrees 4 i'IG'host anti 903,18 feet South qG degrees 56'40'East and 1944.43 (It `CD h C7 J I CD N 3 _ :t s .�. it • i ' EXHXaIT "C" feat South 29 degrees 24'2b"13nat font thto Northwest centerof•Section 23,Township 1 South,itange 1!Snot,Salt Lako Base and Meridian,And running thence South 60 degrees 35'40"West 19.62 feet to a pipe monument;Ibaaac South 22 degrees 58'East 268.06 feel to a point of curve mnrkcd by a **monument;theme Southerly along the am afro curve to(Ito right the chord which boors Smith 14 degrees 53'30"Bast 65.10 feet la n pipe monument;fiance South 7 d*grooa 05'20"East I 12.0 feat;(hence Wash 396.36 feel; • thence South 229.25 foot;thence North 74 degrees 32'40"Weal 27.64 feel;thence Noah 59 degrees 51'20"West 46,543 feet;thence North 599.337 feat;thence East 190.68 Act; Ithence North 60 degrees 35'40"East 149.07 feet;thence South 29 degrees 24'20"P.nst 50.0 feel In the paint of beginning. Together with Beginning at n polo?on the Westerly lien of Foothill Drive which point Ia 345,80 foci ' North 29 degrees 24'20"West and 50.0 feet South 60 degrees 35'40"West from a Snit Lake City Monument,said Salt Lake City Monument being located 31.261 feel South 89 degrees 41' t 6"Past and 908.18 feet South 26 degrees 56'40"!last and 1944.43 feet South • 29 degrees 24'20"Lust from the Northwest corner of Section 23,Township 1 South, Range 1 Enst,Salt Labe Bose and Meridian,and running thence South 60 degrees 35'40" 11 West 19.62 feet to a pipe monument;thence South 22 degrees 38'Bast 268.06 feet to ni. point of curve marked by a pipes monument;thence Southerly along the me ern curve to the right,the chord'nf whi.'t hears South 14 degrees 58'30"Last 65.10 feat ton pipe monument;thence South 7 degrees 05'20"East 112.0 feet true point of beginning,and running thence South 7 degrees 05'20"Pnst 353.60 feet to a pipe monument;thence• ., North 74 degrees 32'40"West 456.51 feet;thence North 229.25 feet;thence Bast 396.36 feet In!Mc pain!of beginning. , w..., Less and excepting Q o I c Beginning nt n point on the Westerly line of Foothill Drive,which point is 345.80 feet •o5 North 29°24'20"West nod 50.0 feet South 60'35'40"West from n Snit Lnka City '?'• Mcnuntont,said Snit Lnke City Monument being located 31.261 foot South 89°4I'i 6" ► I East and 908.18 feet South 26°56'40"East and 1944.43 feet South 29°24'20"East troth '�_ the Northwest Corner ofSeotion 23,Township I Smith,Range i Best,Snit Lake llaso R and Meridiem,and mating thence Sonde 60°35'40"West 19.62 feet ton pipe mo,uunCul: thence South 22°58'East 268.06 feet to n point of curve marked by a pipe monument; thence Southerly along the ate of n cttrvo to the right,lho chord of whlth bents South • • !, 14°58'30"East 65..10 feet to a pipe monument;thence South 7°05'20"East 114.01 foot In the True Point of Beginning,and ntnning along Ilto Westerly lino of Foothill Drive Smith ' 7°05'20"Bast 359.80 feet io a pipe monument which la the point whore Cho Weal Foothill Drive Right-of-Way lino inceroeots the North Parley's Way Right-of-Wey line;thence ` along the North line of Pnrtoy's Way North 74°32'40"West 484.15 feet;thence North • 59°51'20"West.46.543 feel;thence North 58,35 feel;thence Beet 46.26 feet;thence • North 29.118 feet;!hence East t 11.76 feet;thence North 59,75 feet;thence Ens(96.48 feet; tr thence Nnrih 56.69 feet;thence Lnst207.99 feet to True Point of Beginning. z l'nreci 5: ,4 Beginning at n point on tine Westerly tine of Foothill Drive,which point Is 345.80 feet `• North 29°24'20"West nail 50,0 feet South 60°35'40"West from a Snit lake City Monument,snit!Snit Lithe City Monument being located 31.261 foot South 89°41'16" East and 908.111 feet South 2056'40"East and 1944.43 feat South 29°24'20"Ens'forth the Northwest Corner ofSectIon 2S,Township 1 Smith,ltnngo I Bast,Salt Lake 13nse • • F rind Mcri inn,and running thence South 60°35'40"West 19,62 feet to n pipe monument; x 1 thence South 22°S8'Past 268.06 feet to n point of-curve marked by a pipe monument; v , • thence Southerly along the arc of n curve to the right,the chord of which bears South 0' fg rn o ' w i i. t;xaiezx "c" l4°58'30"Bast 65.10 feat to a pipe monument;thcnco South 7°05'20"East 114.01 feel to �. the True Point of Beginning,and running along the Westerly lino of Footfall Drive South . 7°05'20"East 359.80 foot to a pipe monument which la the point where the West Foothill 't Drive itlght•of-Way line Intersects the North Patloy's Way Might-of-Way lino;thence ! along the North lino of Parley's Way North 74°32'40"West 484.15 feet;thence North i. 59°51'20"West 46.543 feet;thence North 58,35 feat;thence East 46.26 feet;thence North 29.88 feet;thence East 111,76 feel;thence North 59.75 feel;thence East 96.48 feel; • I thence North 56,69 feet;thence East 207.99 feet to True Point of beginning. Pores'. Beginning at a point South 0°01'West 2900.0 feet along the sectlon lien end Cast 193.084 foot from the Northwest corner of Section 23,Township 1 South,Range 1 East, Sett Lake Base and Meridian end running thence East 20.0 feet;thence North 0°01'Past • 40.0 feet;thence East 528.816 teat;thence North 60°35'40"East 40.0 feet;thence South r. 29°24'20"East 60.0 feet;thence South 60°35'40"West 13.305 feet sold point being North �_ 29°24'20"West 735.8 Ccut and South 60°35141.1"West 277.97 feet from a Sall Lake City monument);thence South257.46 feel;thence Enst45.0 feet;thence South 599.337 feet; ; thence North 59°51'20"West 140,057 feel;thence North 67°29'30"West 242.38 feet; o o thence South 38°58'West 14.6 feet to the northerly line of Parley's Way;thence North t ty 51°02'West 205.185 feet t said Point being North 38°59'East 50.0 feet from the Snit Lake E s: City monument nt the intersection or Parley's Woy and Wilshire Drive);thence North ;l ,• 51°West 170.865 feel;thence North 467.624 feet to the point of beginning. f t .l: 1. •z. it tp r. 1 Py k iii C w, p, 1 1 T. 3 I t x .. (T d Ul V 1. 1 Cn . R 4. il :. , \ ; del 1 ,,, �f Q= 1 all li 111111 I 1 4 .: ' '/1 -(1 .‘....:. - l'..1101441MMI-1111ir. v. il', ' ! ,......_ , 4;11).7/ / 0\-\\\,\M I -:. ,.,..rztrtx 1.‘.. '• ' ii, ' - i . / ii!.t-.;•'1\ I - 1 • :.„ t,„ .• 7, ',,.%.' ) i . - . . , i •. f i_-. . .i 1 1. ... I _ scd, . ..e.....7., ,-: •:. H , ^dye, �{j:'.'S ;� hPip,.1-:/...i;,..• 4 CCCCC�C�CCCC��CCCCC IIli ' r 4 , :09Myr 'to 1 1 i i.:, 4 14, `� . 4011.041 4 4 4-� �1.if+;M,u..: a i Y".:tyyY,s�,e:l;cii: 1_4 Hit A t'.+AT r�\ d ' i ,:ti;*' "sr•={• ..• .,.t!+•'.,t�:,'..4. �� � .. .w tJ M • , f {« t Y ti= it Epp .. ailk.J�. ,'•�/r am •l: -.- /4 ! iill 1 / ,,,//"may / i ;r.•, , ./. M Cll } ; 1111Z/ - tu`°•'°' al e •• tI* ' "''f/ 4 Lam, sa • f . y V F le% • Ui •?. v.w,auxa..Y..u/lnare7YYC...4dt33 I9F..6R.s.,-, >.•. • 14•c.+..YtM.c..•s• :-:.5:--•t.•ii•r•l.i4,,,t. ilk t•Etu:jt•r'i,oi • ;,s:r•.:y 't'i Mk MEP .741 tg 4...ff.4-,wm4.4 r,196A... -- a!-,;•, ferriest of 731.. t•it at S• O 1..t. ikrh, f-::'AtA-V.•TS&•:VI_„.—.. , 0 I At,r liwfve t.i.'Aff • daw • '''! pin- Ati.•rtF4-'1. t4* '• % •• • , ' 1 I. a 1 t I i WAREATIV. MET) i F A. WOODWRY.-MORRIS CO,, a limited paTtnershiAl. of 711 IA • f -.:,:•4 East South Temple,. Salt Lake City, County of Sat Lake, State or Utah, GRANTOR;.hereby conveys atd warrants to SaT PAXE .F.AST 141 :..11,....-4,4 PROPERTY, a New York partnershiT), of 33.-35 :: 81st Street, Jackson iNI Heights, New York, New York, 11372, GRANTZE,- for the Sigii-15f Ten*. 1174, 'Dollars (0.0.00) and other good and valuab.le consi'.deratiOs the following described tract of land in Salt Lae County, State of IN Utah, to-wit fig Beginmias...at a. moli-ht •South 0.0.gt: ::g00-,10000..c41 :.,...:-. feet it:Ig::;611e, •:. ", '&1k$:±i--0:ife'*-464.gtt-':,430;i0•04;..,,-Ao.t, the Naiir&WS'it et5. ne-YE;if-)te.e*fit:45 44-n-Q',0iiitiiibatb..., , . ... .... 1 S°'1*.i.: ikil-&.1.. ' ';P::1;"$70f.4,40A.. 000§4.5,-:.. ....:. ;$'..7i and l'alniWtfigt)4 .4*-dt -14014AUt406006We470 r..,, !.:.,. . East 4iL;:ti It' dt-1:.'".tlfelit6: -V.60.4WIV:tggtp-.4ilred*igTO:On:-.::::: eil 60'35-W" ta`e-407 b.', - - Nvt.. gj.51101.?:WV,,',A7M1.0gE . 60-0 foot; thence: 4e 0056* (6a14 Ofh §Ing!itaii..Ih -251000PirdgtiV604X04'.: atd south G.O'55W'M%tt 22741f4tW 4iii*i.840 • .:,;i-;,.?g, fake .01.0.--Ai6iii2itelit).i thence 4.0:011!,g07ir.44-61.i:*: fif.414:6 .:6::: East 44";'4tii '°IblIn t6DAWM87101t4gli** $14 1VOTtal 59fC510. West0.vo.,(5bI tetle.--6044rtp:14.?fe.gi,f8q -iyi4 wee:t. .i--4, •,•4-38 teas. thence: South g8figt14,Wital6:4:4' if,4 the.'ne3Afrei:',1Sr glill O-P. iT41"-.100:%':4WiagareitiaVanfi'4514.;::•:. ,jp1::- OV Vieet 2t6,18:5 feet (&ad. e;,e,t 500 feet groin:-ale. t'et-I- titfaiMFAriiAlii*O:;4V,V,It itvnrottd;oh of 1010'0$ VOAfirgi.9441WWW. Oate worth 55:a ,Watt 2:qoa .5.ifoOlf.,.?tift' 444,16it',81Tik • : -.'sfite,7;i 476ti.s6..2Ltb& to the point (Or41-00..4:444.Y .,'*. •-''. • ., .'")• .'g . . -:, :•.. .:•,::c., ; •: ..'.1.:?;i'.-V4 SU?JEOT TO kli-D-..TOWMTKEKAT4Tv otasT*.lwoOm.pgsgoot,,/.4.,-4, for v -ri1ci'Oii-r..fail,,:tgat1100Ii-WWWWffegt$S-tti::"....': and 06.1ii*:'Ill'.4...4.6;tsk044:4:4gdIAVW0**:,:i1*.W4-..i.L30 fo0. :: • IV wide -r4i3.:.$0.tt 4.5011.giitifWgtf:iiigOVAila'Agi-V'iii:5*:-6V.0.40erg • - .' .c:'6: i each tide• of the T..-6170-\--/Ug il. 6.i. ti ai t. .eire5'. .di•-•::. M, .InV--:. -,- • ' -,.. ,;! Beginalltg on. the Nor;theatt'eay Ifiel-,0:17ii.,4.W;;S: War at -6;:voint soil* fP'all '1e.-0.:t.rii8Vi.:•i:149.5.3pf.Wliiid-. . .. . ... .,..::.• South 5V.ge East t0.:#.:8;oreet rl,,oiii;-ttrd':41Ktr0,00i,fi* of Section 23, ft/4.681p 1 south,. 11.0-410.30?;AWY. \ , Lake Base and 1401Vlan and tliiit-p4Wtherid*,'Juggti .70.;7. teat 8,00 fet4 thence aiong t#64:#H6**-0.1.1-.70 -.6:p640:,::::•J!!A left (- adIlle. :55AP 1*dt bet6a6.040h. ;,5M10:0' 14 .-ca* feet.; th65. 6 North. L0001 EitAt: 16,-.,C0fee: 0d0-404ki the arc of a curve to the fight loAte. 55,419o*kb... .-,J, bearing South 86 Eat) 7.6.41 001 thence 06.t'sbli'grAt 'Ig East 53:,.06 feet,• thence aIogythe 0,V'C.101'*4:0Ure 10 the .•'H " . " ' - --- left ((radius 100,00 feet bearing North V' .:%201. .14e S',) 68.94 feet; thence North 44'"ci64' East 16A8' fett to the west line of the tract first Abdile dettribed. ,., Subject to restrictive covenants inretriect to the , , . North 50 feet of said tract as set forth in that certain deed recorded March 19) 1968 in the office of the Salt LRke County Recorder as Paltry No. 2237905. 1 • • . . „ A00411. 6600 rill= 4 Subject to a Loase in favor of S. S. KRESGE COMPANY, a memormadum of which is recorded in Edok 2713 at Page 245 as Entry No. 2269672. Subject to utility easements of record. Subject to declaration of easements dated December 23, 1968. WITNESS the hand of said Grantor this /A -- day of • December, 1968. WOODBURY-MORRIS CO., By rt 16w lac-e ob' ury STATE OF UTAH : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAK ) On the 18th day of December, 1968, personally Ne.;;4red before me, WALLACE R. WOODBURY, known to me to be the Genera], Partner of WOODBURY-MORRIS CO., a limited partnership, the signer of the within instrument, who duly acknowledged to me that he executed the same for and on behalf of said partnership. •orrettItZzt: wzr-c2V4.1V.4.' n expires: iev_t-Z4 NOtary Public Residing at: s4 1,44.e. ck • . ........ . , WRW/kt ,ommik August 26,2010 ie/A Mr. Troy Herold • CLC Associates 420 E South Temple, Ste 500 TR Salt Lake City, UT 84111 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING Dear Troy, The following identifies the projected traffic changes from redeveloping the existing building(with outdoor sales area) located at 2705/07 E. Parleys Way in Salt Lake City into a new, smaller building(without outdoor sales area). In addition, I have included an analysis of the capacities of the roadways that are adjacent to the site. Size and Land Use of Existing Building The existing building contains 113,227 square feet and has an outdoor sales area of 6,940 square feet(for a total sales area of 120,167 square feet). Big Kmart occupied 93,027 square feet of the existing building and 6,940 square feet of outdoor garden sales area(for a total sales area of 99,967 square feet). Total Body Fitness occupied 20,200 square feet of the existing building. Size and Land Use of New Building The proposed new 91,750 square foot building would be a Walmart with grocery but without an outdoor sales area. Trip Generation " Big Kmart and Walmart are ITE Land Use 813. Total Body Fitness is ITE Land Use 492. The trip generation rates for the land uses come from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition. Table One shows the trip generation rates based on a per unit basis as provided for the AM, PM and Saturday peak periods and daily traffic rates for a weekday and Saturday. Multiplying the trip rate by the facility sizes provides the trip generation for the site by land use. Based on the ITE Trip generation rates, the proposed new Walmart building is smaller than the existing Big Kmart/gym building and therefore generates less traffic than the existing Big Kmart/gym building. During the PM peak, the site will generate 24% less traffic and 19% less traffic on a daily basis. Capacities of Adjacent Roadways The main entrance to the site is on Parleys Way. There is a secondary access over the private road off Parleys Way across from Maywood Drive. There is a third access point P.O.Box 521651 Salt Lake City,UT 84152 1 (801)949-0348 fax(801)582-6252 atrans@comcast.net through the public road to the northeast of the site called "Stringham Avenue" that connects to SR 186(Foothill Blvd). Both Parleys Way and SR 186 (Foothill Blvd) are five lane arterial facilities as defined by UDOT and Salt Lake City. A five lane facility has a daily capacity(Level of Service, LOS E)of 39,000 Average Doily Traffic (ADT)with a LOS D operating at 30,500 ADT and a LOS C at a 26,500 ADT. In 2008,Parleys Way had a daily ADT of 12,050 and SR 186 (Foothill Blvd) had an ADT of 41,110. SR 186 (Foothill Blvd) is operating above capacity and therefore is experiencing congestion during the peak times. Parleys Way is operating below capacity (it is only using 31% of its capacity) indicating that it is operating at a LOS A. If the new building were assumed to be a new land use and if all 4,515 ADT were placed on Parleys Way, then the utilization of Parleys Way would increase to 42%, still a LOS A. It should be noted that since the new Walmart building is smaller than the original building, the area required to support the building is less than the entire site and approximately 1 acre of excess land is now available. No uses have been identified for this excess land. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, A-Trans Engineering hh Joseph Perrin, PhD,PE, P i OE Principal P.O.Box 521651 Salt Lake City,UT 84152 2 (801)949-0348 fax(801)582-6252 atrans@comcast.net Table One Trip Generation !i Tri t Rate Tiri I s Facility ility Size ITE Land AM PM Saturday Weekday Saturday ' AM PM Saturday I Weekday Saturday (in 1,000 sf) Use Peak Peak Pe::k Peak Peak Peak • Existing Big K(with -11 W r ( f outdoor sales areal 99.967 'j 813 1.84_3.87 5.01 49.21 57.5 184 - 387 501 4,919s 5,748 Body lF I i� Fitness j 20.200 492 1.21 4.06 2.6 32.93 20.87 24 82 53 665 422 Total Mill. 208 469 553 5,585 6,170 New Walmart 91.750 813 1.84 3.87 5.01 49.21 57.5 169 355 460 4,515 5,276 Difference -39 -114 -93 -1070 -894 P.O.Box 521651 Salt Lake City,UT 84152 3 (801)949-0348 fax(801)582-6252 atrans@comcast.net 21A.26.030: CB COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The CB community business district is intended to provide for the close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods. The design guidelines are intended to facilitate retail that is pedestrian in its orientation and scale, while also acknowledging the importance of transit and automobile access to the site. B. Uses: Uses in the CB community business district as specified in section 21A.26.080, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Commercial Districts", of this chapter are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.26.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Planned Development Review: Planned developments, which meet the intent of the ordinance, but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections, may be approved by the planning commission pursuant to the provisions of chapter 21A.55 of this title. D. Lot Size Requirements: No minimum lot area or lot width is required, however any lot exceeding four (4) acres in size shall be allowed only as a conditional use. E. Maximum Building Size: Any building having a fifteen thousand (15,000) gross square foot floor area of the first floor or a total floor area of twenty thousand (20,000) gross square feet or more, shall be allowed only as a conditional use. An unfinished basement used only for storage or parking shall be allowed in addition to the total square footage. F. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Or Corner Side Yard: No minimum yard is required. If a front yard is provided, it shall comply with all provisions of this title applicable to front or corner side yards, including landscaping, fencing, and obstructions. 2. Interior Side Yard: None required. 3. Rear Yard: Ten feet (10'). 4. Buffer Yards: Any lot abutting a lot in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yard requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title. 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to table 21A.36.020B of this title. 6. Maximum Setback: A maximum setback is required for at least seventy five percent (75%) of the building facade. The maximum setback is fifteen feet (15'). Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional building and site design review, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the planning commission. The planning director, in consultation with the transportation director, may modify this requirement if the adjacent public sidewalk is substandard and the resulting modification to the setback results in a more efficient public sidewalk. The planning director may waive this requirementfor any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or parking requirement by less than fifty percent (50%) if the planning director finds the following: a. The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the original structure or the surrounding architecture. b. The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. Appeal of administrative decision is to the planning commission. 7. Parking Setback: Surface parking is prohibited in a front or corner side yard. Surface parking lots within an interior side yard shall maintain a twenty foot (20') landscape setback from the front property line or be located behind the primary Amok, structure. Parking structures shall maintain a thirty five foot (35') minimum setback .a from a front or corner side yard property line or be located behind the primary structure. There are no minimum or maximum setback restrictions on underground parking. The planning director may modify or waive this requirement if the planning director finds the following: a. The parking is compatible with the architecture/design of the original structure or the surrounding architecture. b. The parking is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert the intent of the ordinance. c. The horizontal landscaping is replaced with vertical screening in the form of berms, plant materials, architectural features, fencing and/or other forms of screening. d. The landscaped setback is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood character. e. The overall project is consistent with section 21A.59.060 of this title. Appeal of administrative decision is to the planning commission. ,o,, G. Landscape Yard Requirements: If a front or corner side yard is provided, such yard shall be maintained as a landscape yard. The landscape yard can take the form of a patio or plaza, subject to site plan review approval. H. Maximum Height: Thirty feet (30'). I. Entrance And Visual Access: 1. Minimum First Floor Glass: The first floor elevation facing a street of all new buildings or buildings in which the property owner is modifying the size of windows on the front facade, shall not have less than forty percent (40%) glass surfaces. All first floor glass shall be nonreflective. Display windows that are three-dimensional and are at least two feet (2') deep are permitted and may be counted toward the forty percent (40%) glass requirement. Exceptions to this requirement may be authorized as conditional building and site design review, subject to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of the planning commission. The planning director may approve a modification to this requirement if the planning director finds: a. The requirement would negatively impact the historic character of the building, b. The requirement would negatively impact the structural stability of the building, or c. The ground level of the building is occupied by residential uses, in which case the forty percent (40%) glass requirement may be reduced to twenty five percent (25%). Appeal of administrative decision is to the planning commission. 2. Facades: Provide at least one operable building entrance per elevation that faces a public street. Buildings that face multiple streets are only required to have one door on any street, if the facades for all streets meet the forty percent (40%) glass requirement as outlined in subsection 11 of this section. 3. Maximum Length: The maximum length of any blank wall uninterrupted by windows, doors, art or architectural detailing at the first floor level shall be fifteen feet (15'). 4. Screening: All building equipment and service areas, including on grade and roof mechanical equipment and transformers that are readily visible from the public right of way, shall be screened from public view. These elements shall be sited to minimize their visibility and impact, or enclosed as to appear to be an integral part of the architectural design of the building. J. Parking Lot/Structure Lighting: If a parking lot/structure is adjacent to a residential zoning district or land use, the poles for the parking lot/structure security lighting are limited to sixteen feet (16') in height and the globe must be shielded to minimize light encroachment onto adjacent residential properties. Lightproof fencing is required adjacent to residential properties. 21A.26.040: CS COMMUNITY SHOPPING DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the CS community shopping district is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive shopping center development at a community level scale. B. Uses: Uses in the CS community shopping district as specified in section 21A.26.080, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Commercial Districts", of this chapter are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.26.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Planned Development Review: All new construction of principal buildings, uses, or additions that increases the floor area and/or parking requirement by twenty five percent (25%) in the CS community shopping district may be approved only as a planned development in conformance with the provisions of chapter 21A.55 of this title. D. Minimum Lot Size: • 1. Minimum lot area: Sixty thousand (60,000) square feet, excluding shopping center pad sites. 2. Minimum lot width: One hundred fifty feet (150'). E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front And Corner Side Yard: Thirty feet (30'). 2. Interior Side Yard: Fifteen feet (15'). 3. Rear Yard: Thirty feet (30'). 4. Buffer Yards: All lots abutting property in a residential district shall conform to the buffer yard requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title. 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to table 21A.36.020B of this title. F. Landscape Yard Requirements: A landscape yard of fifteen feet (15') shall be required on all front and corner side yards, conforming to the requirements of section 2 1 A.48.090 of this title. G. Maximum Height: No building shall exceed forty five feet (45'). H. Access Restrictions: To maintain safe traffic conditions, lots in the CS community shopping district shall not exceed one driveway per one hundred fifty feet (150') of frontage on arterial or major collector streets. The location of driveways shall be subject to review by the development review team through the site plan review process. I. Effect Of Planned Development On Minimum Standards: Pursuant to chapter 21A.55 of this title, the planning commission may modify the standards set forth in subsections D through H of this section in the approval of planned developments within this district. Community Business (CB) and Community Shopping (CS) Districts - - Comparison of Allowed Uses Wal-Mart is requesting an amendment to the Salt Lake City zoning map to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from Community Business (CB) to Community Shopping (CS). The following table provides a comparison of uses that are allowed in the (CB) and (CS) Districts. Each use is classified as a Permitted (P) or a Conditional (C) Use, and are defined as follows: "Permitted Use" (P): Uses that are permitted "by-right", provided that they comply with all stated requirements of the zoning ordinance, and their applicable city, state, and federal regulations. "Conditional Use" (C): A land use that because of its unique characteristics or potential impact on the municipality, surrounding neighbors or adjacent land uses may not be compatible in some area or may be compatible only if certain conditions are required that mitigate or eliminate the detrimental impacts. (-): Use not allowed in the zoning district. Permitted and Conditional Uses By District EXISTING ZONE: PROPOSED ZONE: USE Community Business Community Shopping (CB) (CS) RESIDENTIAL: Assisted living center, large P - Assisted living center, small P - Group home, small P P Living quarters for caretaker or P P security guard Mixed use developments P P Multiple-family dwellings P P Nursing home P - Rooming (boarding) house C C OFFICE AND RELATED USES: Financial institutions with drive- P P through facilities Financial institutions without drive- P P through facilities EXISTING ZONE: PROPOSED ZONE: USE Community Business Community Shopping (CB) (CS) 'Medical and dental clinics and offices P P Offices P P Veterinary offices, operating entirely within an enclosed building and keeping animals overnight only for P P treatment purposes RETAIL SALES AND SERVICES: .Automobile repair, major - C -Automobile repair, minor P P 'Car wash as accessory use to gas station or convenience store that sells P P .gas . Car wash, with or without gasoline sales Conventional department store 'Furniture repair shop P P '"Gas station" C P 'Health and fitness facility P P Liquor store C C Mass merchandising store - P ;Restaurants with drive-through P ifacilities 'Restaurants without drive-through P facilities Retail goods establishments with drive- P ;through facilities P !Retail goods establishments without -4 drive-through facilities P P ;Retail services establishments with P drive-through facilities :Retail services establishments withoutAsk P drive-through facilities �.; Speciality store - P Superstore and hypermarket p store - p EXISTING ZONE: PROPOSED ZONE: USE Community Business Community Shopping (CB) (CS) Upholstery shop P P INSTITUTIONAL (SITES <2 ACRES): Adult daycare center P P Child daycare center P P Community recreation centers on lots p p less than 4 acres in size Government facilities (excluding those p p of an industrial nature and prisons) Libraries C C Museum P P Music conservatory P P Places of worship on lots less than 4 p p acres in size Schools, professional and vocational P P Seminaries and religious institutes P P COMMERCIAL AND MANUFACTURING: Laboratory, medical, dental, optical P P Laboratory, testing - C Motion picture studio P Photo finishing lab - P Plant and garden shop, with outdoor C C retail sales area RECREATION, CULTURAL AND ENTERTAINMENT: Amusement park - P Art gallery P P Art studio P P Commercial indoor recreation - P Commercial outdoor recreation - C EXISTING ZONE: PROPOSED ZONE: USE CommunityBusiness Community Y Shopping (CB) (CS) Community gardens P P Dance studio • P P Live performance theaters C P Miniature golf - P Movie theaters C P Natural open space and conservation C C areas Parks and playgrounds, public and P P private, on lots less than 4 acres in Pedestrian pathways, trails, and qreenways P P Private club C P Squares and plazas on lots less than 4 P P acres in size Tavern/lounge/brewpub, 2,500 square , feet or less in floor area -" Tavern/lounge/brewpub, more than - C 2,500 square feet in floor area MISCELLANEOUS: Accessory uses, except those that are specifically regulate in this chapter; or P P elsewhere in this title Ambulance services, dispatching, stagin and maintenance conducted P P entirely within an enclosed building Ambulance service, dispatching, staging and maintenance utilizing P P outdoor operations Auditorium - P Bed and breakfast P p Bed and breakfast inn • P P Bed and breakfast manor (in a C landmark site) Agifitk Check cashing/payday loan business P - Communication towers P P Communication towers, exceeding the C C maximum building height EXISTING ZONE: PROPOSED ZONE: USE Community Business Community Shopping (CB) (CS) Crematorium - C Farmers' market - C Flea market (indoor) - P Funeral home - P Hotel or motel C - House museum in landmark sites C C Limousine service utilizing not more C - than 3 limousines Off site parking P P Offices and reception centers in P P landmark sites Outdoor sales and disp►ay C C Park and ride lots C C Park and ride, parking shared with P P existing use Public/private utility buildings and P P structures Public/private utility transmission P P wires, lines, pipes and poles Radio, television station - C Recycling collection station P P Reverse vending machines P P CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Walmart Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Project Address: 2705 E. Parleys Way Applicant: Ballard Spar LLP representing Walmart Stores Inc. Department/Division: Fire Reviewer: Ed Itchon Phone: 535-6636 Review Comments: No comments received Department/Division: Public Utilities Reviewer: Justin Stoker Phone: 483-6786 Review Comments: No objections. Future development must comply with City regulations. Department/Division: Engineering Reviewer: Randy Drummond, P.E. Phone: 535-6204 Review Comments: Engineering has no concerns regarding this proposal. Department/Division: Transportation Reviewer: Kevin Young Phone: 535-7108 Review Comments: The Transportation Division has reviewed Petition # PLNPCM2010- 00556—A request to amend the East Bench Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Petition #PLNPCM2010-00557 -A request to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. When a similar petition request was made a few years ago to rezone this property, a traffic impact study was done and submitted for city review. At that time no traffic improvements were recommended as part of the propose Walmart development. With the new rezone petition, an update letter regarding the traffic impact report was submitted in August 2010 indicating that the size of the proposed store would be less than indicated at the time of the initial traffic report. 'tyith the decrease in size of the proposed building, the trips generated by the development would be less than the number used in the initial traffic report. Since no traffic improvements were initially recommended, it is still expected that no traffic improvements will be needed. If the rezone petition is approved by the City Council, we look forward to reviewing the development plans that will be required to be submit to the City. Any specific traffic related issues would be addressed at that time according to development review procedures. Since Foothill Drive is a State road under the jurisdiction of UDOT, any traffic issues on this road would have to be addressed by them. Department/Division: Zoning Reviewer: Ken Brown Phone: 535-6179 Review Comments: Regarding rezoning of this property to CS zoning, Building Services has the following comments; 1. 21A.26.040C requires Planned Development Review for all new construction. 2. Where a CS zoned property abuts a residential district, a 15' landscape buffer must be provided. 3. Any development proposal must comply with all development standards of the CS zone and other City/County/State regulations. AMIN ,4060.7 Walmart Master Plan and Zonino Amendment—f)enartment/livisinn Review Sugar House Community Council Recommendations and Analysis for the Request by Walmart to amend the East Bench Master Plan and Zoning Map PLNPCM2010-00556 and PLNPCM2010-00557 2705 East Parleys Way Authority At the November 3, 2010 regular meeting of the Sugar House Community Council the following authority was proclaimed: "(Resolved) that the SHCC Maintain its opposition to the Walmart zone change request and charge the PFDC to advocate its position with the Planning Commission and City Council." Community Council Recommendations PLNPCM2010-00556 East Bench Master Plan Amendment The Sugar House Community Council recommends against amending the future land Ammok use designation of 2705 E. Parleys Way from "community business" intensity to u. "community shopping" intensity. PLNPCM2010-00557 Zoning Map Amendment The Sugar House Community Council recommends against the rezoning of 2705 E. Parleys Way from "community business" intensity to "community shopping" intensity. Executive Summary: Owners of the 39-unit Country Club Ridge condominiums who face the property under discussion will be directly affected by the truck dock and turn-around shown in the site plan on file. Without a zone change the truck dock for a remodeled store will remain in the NE corner, furthest from the condominiums. The property has serious access and circulation deficiencies, especially for large trucks. The smaller trucks that service uses within the current CB zone, being much smaller, can negotiate the challenges much easier. The applicant claims that a smaller store to be built if their request is granted will generate less traffic than a remodeled store but additional traffic generated by permitted uses of the 1.15 acre (50,000 square feet) "Area A" have not been considered. Pole signs, including signs intended to be seen from nearby interstate highways, are oak permitted for shopping centers in the requested CS zone. Though City Planners do not currently consider a Walmart to be a "shopping center" as defined in the signage Sugar House Community Council Recommendations and Analysis—2705 E. Parleys Way ordinance, it is conceivable that the City Attorney may disagree or that a future Community Shopping development of the property may include a shopping center. The East Bench Master Plan recommends closing minor intersections with Foothill Drive to maximize the traffic flow of Foothill Drive. This proposal forever precludes that possibility for the Stringham stub, and instead ensures its continued use for shopping center access. There are many other deficiencies in this property that are detailed in the "Analysis" section below. Development Agreements and the Planned Development process Development Agreements and the Planned Development process have been suggested as mitigating factors allowing for rezoning approval. The Sugar House Community Council strongly recommends against the use of such devices for this petition. To mitigate the concerns arising from truck circulation a development agreement would need to limit truck size, which would be difficult to enforce. The smaller trucks that service uses within the current CB zone, being much smaller, can negotiate the challenges much easier. Alternatively, but less effectively, a development agreement would need to address the access and circulation itself, but would be limited because the mitigation would need to be applied to State or Federal roads over which the City has no jurisdiction. The Planned Development process would need to address the undefined uses of "Area A." This is best addressed by application of the current CB zoning ordinance. Erecting screens to shield truck lights or as a sound barrier between the condominiums at 2665 E. Parleys Way, adjacent to the truck entrance and truck turnaround shown in the site plan on file, would obscure the mountain view that weighed favorably on the purchase decision of many of these owners. Development agreements have been shown within Salt Lake City to complicate the zoning process so that every parcel is effectively zoned somewhat differently, resulting in dozens if not hundreds of zones. The burden of proof that the agreement has breached falls on local residents, who in the past have had to find the agreement among publicly available records and discuss it with the zoning enforcement officer before the officer can approach the business owner. The Planned Development process has been shown in the past to inadequately address the impact of uses on surrounding neighborhoods, and instead to address relatively inconsequential factors such as building materials, colors and the like. January 31, 2011 Page 2 Sugar House Community Council Recommendations and Analysis—2705 E. Parleys Way PROJECT INFORMATION: Supplemental Background Information When the KMart building permit was issued in April, 1968, the company was one month more than six years old. The concepts of superstores and hypermarkets were still in their infancy. Zoning had not yet recognized these very large stores, and still classified them as Business (B-3) —the same as a 7-Eleven. No public input was required for development in a B-3 zone, and for many residents the hypermarket being built in their neighborhood was the first they had ever seen. Residents feel that the time to decide what is suitable for this property ended with its zoning in 1995. Department/Division Comments The Community Council takes issue with comments by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division in the 2008 Staff Report. Because residents' concerns are most associated with Foothill Drive, a State highway, we question the degree to which Kevin Young and his staff—all City employees —can comment on that street. Residents are generally more concerned about traffic circulation and excessive speeds than about traffic volumes. Successful development is desired, and people understand Adft that traffic increases will result. A mixed-use development with building sizes adherent to the current zone and fewer generated automobile trips has long been the community preference for eventual construction. Detailed concerns about the traffic study accuracy, truck and automobile circulation are found in the "Analysis" section below. COMMUNITY COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS BY APPLICANT Sugar House Community Council presentation summary: On November 3, 2010 the Sugar House Community Council voted overwhelmingly (by voice vote) to maintain its 2008 opposition to the rezone, and authorized the Parleys Foothill Development Committee to advocate its position before the Planning Commission and City Council. Attendance exceeded room capacity, with close to 200 people present for the discussion. An informal poll of support for the rezone proposal by show of hands showed that 1/4 to 1/3 of attendees were in support. Walmart's representatives showed a "typical" Walmart site plan (not the site plan on file) during their presentation and repeatedly stressed the following points: 1. "The building size will be reduced from 120,000 sf to 92,000 sf, down 23%, with a '" 1.114 corresponding decrease in traffic, energy and water consumption." No mention was made of the +/- 1.15 acre (50,000 square foot developable space) that they call "Area A," or its impact on traffic. January 31, 2011 Page 3 Sugar House Community Council Recommendations and Analysis—2705 E. Parleys Way 2. "A smaller building size will result in more landscaping." The amount of landscaping was not compared to what current building standards require. 3. "Walmart will add 1900 linear feet of pedestrian walkways." The site plan on file shows these walkways integrated with the curb, primarily around the perimeter, and the continuance of the existing break in the fence behind the store. 4. "There will be a 1.15 acre (50,000 square feet) area in the southeast corner of the parking lot developed according to community priorities." That this could be developed as a gas station —a permitted use under the requested zone —was a concern among trustees. Walmart mentioned their plans to xeriscape the parking lot perimeter for the first time in this meeting. This was also the first time that Walmart stated they would lower the foundation of the building by two feet, compared to the existing building. Additional Sugar House Community Council Trustee concerns included: 1. Recycling of the current KMart building Walmart stated that 90% of the building could be recycled, but would make no commitment that it would be recycled. Past practice by the applicant in other locations indicates that the building would likely not be recycled due to cost. 2. Trustees felt the applicant should not be rewarded for purchasing property not zoned to allow its intended building size. 3. The "domino effect" of adjacent property owners requesting an upzone, and having more standing because one was granted to Walmart. The Foothill Place Apartments, which presented the SHCC with a demolition/redevelopment plan two years ago, was given as an example. Future redevelopment of the Cowboy Grub building complex was also mentioned. 4. Use of Deed Restrictions, in which the owner could discontinue use of the property yet prevent its sale or lease to a competitor, as Smith's has done on 33rd South. Public resources show upwards of 200 empty Walmart stores nationwide. 5. Disapproval of the City's handling of the long-standing problem of water runoff on the north side of the property. While Walmart stated they would correct this at their expense if granted a rezone, trustees felt this City responsibility should not be delayed by a zoning matter. East Bench Community Council presentation summary: The East Bench Community Council voted in support of Walmart's request to rezone by two votes. Attendance was close to room capacity, with approximately 106 people present for the discussion. January 31, 2011 Page 4 Sugar House Community Council Recommendations and Analysis—2705 E. Parleys Way "` Walmart deftly controlled the meeting, presenting the issue at hand as a decision between a new or a remodeled store —one "with a new coat of paint and a Walmart sign." There was no discussion of the opposing view. One EBCC trustee stated prior to voting that he didn't understand any differences between the current CB and requested CS zones. Walmart's land use attorney was introduced as "another zoning expert for you to ask," in addition to the City's Senior Planner. Walmart's land use attorney downplayed the importance of zoning, stating that zoning was "geeky." Again, the site plan shown at the meeting was said to be "typical." It was not the same plan as what Walmart filed with the City. Walmart made the same points as at the Sugar House Community Council, but with more emphasis placed on the East Bench Master Plan. Walmart stated that they are in compliance with the Master Plan because it states a desire "to create business development opportunities," which they consider to be "Area A." Trail and transit system integration was touted by Walmart, yet the site plan still shows only a walkway integrated with the curb, primarily around the perimeter, and a break in the fence behind the store. ANALYSIS 0001 Master Plan Amendment Non-Residential Land Use Planning Goal: "Provide for needed community services while minimizing the impact of non-residential land uses on the residential community." Elements of the "Business/Commercial Uses" subsection on page 6 of the master plan: • "Many residents desire additional services in the community. A hardware store and medical offices are among the uses most commonly mentioned." In 1987, at the time the master plan was adopted, Kmart was a successful hypermarket (groceries and general merchandise), so one would think that when residents desired additional services in 1987 they would be thinking additional to a hypermarket. Recent surveys reconfirm that preference. • "Redevelopment or at least renovation of some business properties is quite likely and is considered the most desirable approach to meeting future business needs. Two-level buildings, structured parking and other provisions provide considerably more development potential than present use levels at many sites." • "Major zoning changes... are neither anticipated nor encouraged. Changes involving expansion of existing business sites in response to documented needs should be reviewed cautiously and approved sparingly." The degree of participation by residents and the media attention it has created are indication that the community considers this a "major" zoning change. • "More efficient use of existing business properties is the preferred approach to meet future business needs." With only 2% of total East Bench community January31, 2011 Page 5 Sugar House Community Council Recommendations and Analysis—2705 E. Parleys Way acreage occupied by business uses, the master plan recognizes the need for efficient use of what is available. Supercenters and hypermarkets are among the least efficient land uses. • "Expansion of nonconforming business is a related concern. The nonconforming use ordinance states that expansion of nonconforming uses is not permitted." If the expansion of nonconforming uses, such as a supercenter or hypermarket, is not permitted, why should the nonconformity be eliminated by rezoning? This is not a historic property or use; it is a use that the Gray study found 82% of residents would not like in their "ideal" neighborhood. Traffic and Circulation Planning Goal:Maintain an efficient circulation system that minimized traffic volumes on local streets. The "Traffic and Circulation" section on page 7 of the master plan document identifies strategies to cope with the problems of increased traffic: Major Arterial Streets • "Close minor intersections" to maximize the traffic flow of Foothill Drive." and "The city and the state should consider closing vehicular access from some local streets to Foothill Drive."As a major arterial, Foothill Drive is intended to move the highest volume of traffic. Minor intersections include the Stringham stub that the applicant intends to use for ingress and egress. Minor Arterial Streets • "The city should contribute by planting street trees, developing a center median and enforcing parking strip landscaping ordinances along Parleys Way." This street, a minor arterial, is the more attractive entrance to our city from the east, especially if visiting the University or Research Park. The next entry opportunity is 2.7 miles further, at 13th East. The Walmart proposal does nothing to further this master plan recommendation. Urban Design Planning Goal: Enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities and create a sense of visual unity with the community. The "Urban Design" section on page 13 of the master plan document should be used to evaluate any proposal against community desires: Gateway View— Information Center • "The Parleys \Nay site should be considered (for a Gateway View— Information Center) only if the other two sites become unavailable." "The Parleys Way site involves acquisition of a portion of the Kmart property." The other two sites have already been developed. The Master Plan cites "access problems" of the Walmart property as a reason that this is the third choice. January 31, 2011 Page 6 Sugar House Community Council Recommendations and Analysis—2705 E. Parleys Way Arnmok Public Facilities and Urban Design: • "Since Parleys Way_and Foothill Drive provide primary access into the city, they should be the most attractive streets in the city." The East Bench Master Plan recognizes that attractive and functional streets in gateway locations raise the desirability and value of all properties in the area. The "Summary" section of the Master Plan alludes to the infancy of urban design concepts at the time it was written: • "New development must be sensitive to neighborhood scale and design. while satisfying needs and expectations of the developer. Compatibility with the immediate neighborhood is essential. New developments should not adversely impact residential neighbors." The Walmart proposal is totally incompatible with the 39-unit condominium complex at 2665 E. Parleys Way, adjacent to the truck entry. These condominiums will be subject to near constant backup alarms of trucks and forklifts near the truck dock and in the turnaround shown on the site plan on file with the City. • "Urban design will play an increasingly important role in neighborhood maintenance and preservation... Emphasis will continue to shift from regulating ,wIlk new development to managing and preserving established neighborhoods.... Tools to effectively manage neighborhood stability are continually being developed and refined. Innovative approaches to implementing urban design concepts and proposals may be the solution to many of the problems that the East Bench Community will continue to face." It is apparent that the Walmart proposal is for a retail design little changed since 1968 when KMart was built and which takes no urban design tools into consideration. It is the opinion of the Sugar House Community Council that the proposed master plan amendment substantially contradict's many of the policies, goals and strategies of the East Bench Master Plan and that modifying the master plan would substantially impact the integrity of the community and the master plan. Zoning Map Amendment A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: The following policy documents were considered in evaluating this request: the East Bench Zoning Map (2008), the Salt Lake City Vision and Strategic Plan (1993), the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan (1996), and the East Bench Master Plan (1987). January 31, 2011 Page 7 Sugar House Community Council Recommendations and Analysis—2705 E. Parleys Way Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan • "The Council discourages through traffic on streets other than arterial streets in residential neighborhoods." Because of the difficulty in turning left from the Stringham stub onto Foothill Drive, customers will exit onto westbound Parleys Way and use use Stringham/ Thunderbird, King or Wyoming Streets to 2100 South, or 2300 East to reach signalized intersections at Foothill Drive. So, while the subject property may be adjacent to state and local arterial routes, customers exiting to the north will use Collector or Local streets. Accessing northbound Foothill Drive is problematic for anyone not already on 1-215; the Country Club can be crossed only at 20th East. Traffic that uses 20th East to cross 1-80 and the Country Club in the 2.7 mile section between 1-215 and 1300 East typically uses Lynwood or Maywood Drives, both local streets, to access the site. Salt Lake City Vision and Strategic Plan • "The Salt Lake City Vision and Streategic Plan, adopted in 1993. states a goal of facilitating "development of complimentary retail shopping opportunities in city neighborhoods and commercial areas of the city." A progress indicator is the "new tax dollars generated annually." The following are three studies of many that conclude that tax revenues by the kinds of uses permitted in a CS zone are less than the cost to taxpayers in additional services, generating a net annual deficit. Understanding the Fiscal Impacts of Land Use in Ohio - by Randall Gross, Development Economics, August 2004 Fiscal Impact Analysis of Residential and Nonresidential Land Use Prototypes - by Tischler &Associates, July 2002. Understanding the Tax Base Consequences of Local Economic Development Programs - by RKG Associates, 1998 East Bench Master Plan Appendix I has specific criteria for zoning changes: • "Proponents must demonstrate that any zoning change is clearly justified by the substantive provisions of this master plan." As shown above, the zoning change clearly does not meet the general goals of the East Bench Master Plan. • There must be a demonstrated need for the new business proposal and documented community support." The Gray and other surveys do not show a demonstrated need, and the majority and degree of community involvement is in direct opposition to this proposal. January 31, 2011 Page 8 Sugar House Community Council Recommendations and Analysis—2705 E. Parleys Way " "' • "Property must be on a street that can handle the additional traffic." Nearby residents recognize that successful development will bring increased traffic. Their concerns are more with traffic circulation and traffic speeds. On Parleys Way excessive speeds, as well as it being considered a gateway to the city, prompted the East Bench and Sugar House Master Plans to recommend the narrowing of street width and installation of a center median and lane narrowing. In terms of mass transit, there is one local bus along Foothill Drive with a stop at the corner of 2300 South and Foothill Drive. It should be noted that to get north by mass transit requires a transfer at 4500 South. There is no mass transit route on Parleys Way. • "Business projects must be of a density, scale and design that will not negatively impact neighboring residential properties." The design and scale of the proposal will negatively impact neighboring residential properties, primarily by relocating the truck docks to the NW corner very near the condominiums at 2665 E. Parleys Way as shown in the site plan on file. In the requested CS zone free-standing buildings within shopping centers are allowed pole signs. Though in 2008 the City stated that this would not be considered a shopping center, it is not outside the realm of possibility that the City Attorney may disagree or that future development of Community Shopping igolik property may include a shopping center. • "Zoning should not be changed to accommodate a new business unless it is adjacent to an existing business." Residents are concerned that this statement may give adjacent property owners more incentive — and legal standing —to request the upzone of their property too. Residents feel that all superstores and hypermarkets should be located near each other, as can be seen along the 300 West corridor, so these companies can compete on price and selection while minimizing the distances traveled between stores and their impact on surrounding properties. • "`Spot or strip' zoning to accommodate new businesses is strongly discouraged." Salt Lake City's Zoning Ordinance defines spot zoning as "the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification materially different and inconsistent with the surrounding area and the adopted city master plan, for the sole benefit of the owner of that property and to the detriment of the rights of other property owners." Residents don't feel that a single property owner should be given preferential treatment, especially after purchasing property that was not zoned to allow their intended building size. • "New businesses should be designed to be a logical extension of adjacent businesses, maintaining complimentary building design and landscaping motifs." This will be the largest building within a two-mile radius and, as the largest commercially zoned property in the East Bench Community it will not be a logical extension of adjacent businesses. January 31, 2011 Page 9 Sugar House Community Council Recommendations and Analysis—2705 E. Parleys Way Finding: The Sugar House Community Council finds that the request to rezone 2705 E. Parleys Way from C13 to CS is inconsistent with the purposes, goals, objective and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. The applicant's zoning map amendment request meets few of the standards of review, with the largest shortcomings from: negative impact on neighboring residential properties, being no logical extension of adjacent businesses, and having inadequate documented public support. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: The 2008 Staff Report was inaccurate in this finding. The property *does not* share the Stringham stub access point with Foothill Place apartments. Stringham was truncated by the construction of covered parking for the Foothill Place apartments and now ends at a fence with no curb or gutter at that property line, contributing to the overwhelmed storm drainage along the north end of the Walmart property. This stub has been used only for minor access to KMart and for daytime parking for people working (and running across) Foothill Drive. The impact on the condominiums at 2665 E. Parleys' Way will be discussed elsewhere in this document. irk E k4. S r y - Fi : { ten'"`+` �` �_ "{f':. � y jtv4 40, ` .. ap r _ .1 `- �'t ., '. , * 1 At ,*_.4-„ , , ,,,,,, . . .....,.. t.. %.--._. , r 4.44. : 1..,;-,:,41-74?' L iag'Di�i 9 Ai"T s ! 1k . 6 .._.di Rojo',s L+•.*.r' January 31, 2011 Page 10 Sugar House Community Council Recommendations and Analysis—2705 E. Parleys Way The three restaurants, coffee shop and convenience store now located to the east of the Walmart property contribute heavily to the walkability score of the Wilshire, Maywood and Lynwood neighborhoods, the Country Club Ridge condominiums and the Foothill Place Apartments. Walkability is a primary element of neighborhood character. Residents have long sought beautification and traffic calming for Parleys Way to slow traffic speeds which often reach 55 to 60 mph as cars pass Wilshire Drive in both directions (45 mph zone) and allow safer and more comfortable pedestrian access to the area from the south. Any development of the Walmart property should seek to improve, rather than degrade, this fragile character element. Most nearby residents want to improve the neighborhood character by shortening the freeway ramps on the southeast end of Parleys Way and making better use of the land there. Widening the adjacent narrow park and extending Wilshire Drive to the north to improve north-south traffic circulation have been suggested. A surprising number of people cross Foothill Drive from their offices on the east side to access the restaurants, coffee shop, convenience store and ATM adjacent to the subject property. Even more surprisingly, there have been no fatalities. The Bonneville Shoreline Trail is located along the east side of Foothill drive. The closest pedestrian crossing is the signalized intersection at Stringham/Thunderbird at approximately 2250 South, 1/4 mile away. Few people will walk an extra mile round trip for a cup of coffee or to visit an ATM. An elevated pedestrian crossing is badly needed. In retrospect, the 4111141 office on the east side of Foothill Drive should not have been built on the property that was listed as the preferred site for the gateway/visitors center in the East Bench Master Plan. Finding: The proposed zoning map amendment will degrade the already fragile walkability in the immediate area with the exception of property across Foothill drive. There it will only exacerbate an already dangerous situation without extensive improvements made to that state highway. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: The windows and balconies of the 39-unit condominiums at 2665 E. Parleys Way are approximately 15 yards from the truck access easement and only a little further from the truck dock the applicant shows in the site plan on file. This access is necessary for the 53-foot trailers the applicant uses for deliveries. Smaller trucks servicing businesses such as those found in CB zones could enter and exit at Wilshire Drive. These residents will have to endure frequent truck engine noise and fumes, and will have the near constant sound of OSHA-required back-up alarms on trucks and fork- lifts. The L-shaped layout of the condominiums and higher elevation of the truck dock area will concentrate the sound from this area. Because Walmart operates their loading docks 24/7 it is probable that lights, including departing truck headlights, will negatively "IN impact these condominium owners. Erecting screens to address the headlights will spoil the mountain view from some of these condominium units. Although Salt Lake January 31, 2011 Page 11 Sugar House Community Council Recommendations and Analysis—2705 E. Parleys Way Valley Health Department noise regulations limit delivery hours, those ordinances are enforced on a complaint basis and so enforcement falls on residents. -; Walmart Site :Plan on File r w irt:ck Cock w a Truck :._ 44' Turnaround 4 Country C lub,Rid a t}:xit[ing Condominiums ` Offices Foothill • , t Animal Clinic ' r. t Residents south of Parleys Way will mainly be affected by an increase in the number of drivers attempting to travel south without accessing the freeway and turning around when they realize there is no outlet. Several cars per day did this when KMart was open, even with the large "No Outlet" sign at the entrance to the neighborhood. It could easily be a dozen cars and trucks per day with a more successful retail operation like Walmart. Residents along Maywood and Lynwood Drives will bear near 100% of the traffic that crosses Interstate 80 on 20th East, the only way to cross the interstate highway in the 2.7 mile stretch between 1300 East and Interstate 215. Traffic studies done at the time that the offices and restaurant (now Bombay House) were planned showed a significant percentage of trips involved those two streets. Traffic mitigation (speed bumps) were placed on Maywood Drive and streets to the west as a result. There are only 19 houses that have a view of the structure, and only a few have a view unobscured by trees. Most of those 19 homeowners have little or no preference between a new or remodeled structure, knowing that an international chain will do its January 31, 2011 Page 12 Sugar House Community Council Recommendations and Analysis—2705 E. Parleys Way ''m best to make the structure attractive in either case. Walmart has claimed repeatedly in their public presentations, focus groups and by people paid to collect signatures that the non-conformance status prevents them from doing much more than repainting the structure and erecting a new sign, but Salt Lake City ordinances explicitly show that to be a misleading statement. Residents east of Foothill Drive will be affected by increased traffic on Foothill Drive and by parking lot lighting. While competition favors the most efficient businesses and improves our way of life, Walmart, specifically, has received $13MM in state subsidies in Utah, tilting the playing field against the two most nearby competitors — Fresh Value and RiteAid. The impact of those two stores closing, which is probable, will have a very adverse affect on nearby residential and non-residential properties, and on tax revenues as a result. Walmart requiring its employees to pay 41% of employee health insurance premiums, versus an average 16% for all U.S. employers, per a February 2006 SL Tribune article, increases the relative costs for Fresh Value and RiteAid. The difference is borne by Utah taxpayers in the form of Medicaid. Finding: The proposed zoning map amendment will have unacceptable adverse impacts on neighboring residential properties: the truck and backup alarm noise in the loading dock and truck turnaround area adjacent to the condominiums at 2665 E. AMMilk Parleys Way (Though Walmart's public presentations have consistently stated that truck egress will be via the Stringham stub to Foothill Drive, parking lot grade and customer / truck interaction make that unworkable. The likely plan is the plan on file with the City.); the lights, including truck headlights, shining into the condominiums at 2665 E. Parleys Way; the increased traffic and vehicles turning around within the Wilshire neighborhood, looking for a way south across 1-80; the increased traffic on Maywood and Lynwood Drives for traffic originating south of 1-80; the increased traffic on Foothill Drive; and the deep secondary affects that will result with the closure of Fresh Value and RiteAid, the most nearby competitors. D. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion:Applicable City departments and divisions were given the chance to review and comment on the proposed rezoning and site plans for the proposed zoning map amendment, but comments from State and Federal transportation departments are likely to be absent. Foothill Drive, a State highway, is most adversely affected, just as it interfaces with Interstate 215, which is under Federal jurisdiction. Traffic circulation and traffic speeds are much greater concerns than traffic volumes;increased traffic volumes are to be expected with any successful development, though the scale of mixed use , development envisioned within the existing CB zone is expected to generate much less traffic than will the proposal under discussion. January 31, 2011 Page 13 Sugar House Community Council Recommendations and Analysis—2705 E. Parleys Way While the traffic surveys may have been conducted according to industry standards, this property presents unusual traffic circulation challenges. It is dangerous to exit to the north on anything but local streets. It is difficult to access the property from eastbound Interstate 80, where during peak hours traffic already backs up into the through lanes. The traffic survey's largest deficiency is that it neglects traffic generated by the +/- 1.15 acre (50,000 square feet) "Area A" in the south end of the parking lot. While the new store in Walmart's proposal may be smaller than the existing KMart structure, when combined with Area A it could be much larger than the existing structure. Other deficiencies in the traffic study include documented traffic underestimates given by the Institute of Transportation Engineers handbook for supercenters and hypermarkets, the failure to use advanced traffic calculation software that is warranted by Foothill Drive intersections not fully clearing during peak periods, the failure to consider the traffic that backs up into the #2 through lane of 1-80 waiting to merge onto Foothill Drive and Parleys Way, and the failure to consider increased traffic and speeds on Maywood and Lynwood Drives for traffic originating on the south side of 1-80. Considering that in two years Foothill Drive has deteriorated from LOS C to LOS E at peak periods, is it surprising that traffic growth rates were not considered. Traffic study accuracy: Daily trip generations are determined by a handbook based on retail business type and square footage. Assumptions are made as to ingress and egress percentages. Here, traffic generation is presumed to be lower than for a remodeled store (because a new store would be smaller) but no trip generations are included for the 50,000 square foot pad Walmart identifies as "Area A" to the south of a new building. • Underestimated trip generation: Actual trip generation rates for large retail stores such as Walmart, Target and Lowes was found to be 42% higher than the Institute of Transportation Engineers handbook, used to predict traffic based on store type and size. (Georgiena M. Vivian, ITE Journal, August 2006) • Underestimated delays on Foothill Drive: When traffic backs up from one signalized intersection to the next, as it does on Foothill Drive during peak hours, the traffic study is measuring the traffic served and not the traffic demand, which is considerably higher. These cases require special software which was not used for the traffic study provided by Walmart. The intersections along Foothill were not even studied. Specifically 2100 South, which frequently backs up to Thunderbird and to 1700 South. • Too few intersections were considered: Because of the difficulty accessing the site from eastbound Interstate 80 (see below) and the large number of drivers missing the immediate Parleys Way exit January 31, 2011 Page 14 Sugar House Community Council Recommendations and Analysis—2705 E. Parleys Way and then turning left into the subject property from northbound Foothill Drive, those intersections should be studied. Widening the bridge at the Parleys Way exit from northbound 1-215 would minimize the stopped traffic at that merge. Under current traffic levels peak traffic occasionally backs up into the eastbound Interstate 80 number 2 through lane as drivers wait to be able to merge with exiting northbound 1-215 traffic onto Foothill Drive and Parleys Way on the bridge. That bridge, which serves as an exit ramp to 1-215, may be under Federal control, complicating improvements. Residents along Maywood and Lynwood Drives will bear near 100% of the traffic that crosses Interstate 80 on 20th East, the only way to cross the interstate highway in the 2.7 mile section between 1300 East and Interstate 215. Traffic mitigation was discussed at length and installed on several streets, including Maywood, when the office building east of the Kmart building was built, but was summarily dismissed when mentioned during Walmart's Sugar House Community Council presentation. • Traffic growth rates were not considered: Traffic increase is being generated by residential growth south and east (Kimball Junction) and by business growth in Research Park. Aware that Foothill Drive peak Level of Service has degraded from C to E in two years, it would be negligent not to consider how future traffic growth would affect traffic circulation to and from this site. The recommendation on Page 6 of the East Bench Master Plan to "Limit institutional growth in the University of Utah / Research Park area to the capacity of 1300 East and Foothill Drive and other major streets serving these institutions" has not been implemented. Truck circulation: A new store would be best served by a truck turnaround in the NW corner, as shown in the site plan submitted to the City. This would send trucks back out to Parleys Way at an uncontrolled intersection. Unfortunately this turnaround, and the route to and from it, would be just outside the windows and balconies of the luxury condominiums at 2665 East Parleys Way. • Truck exits to Foothill Drive are problematic: The steep grade from the site to the Stringham Avenue stub and Foothill Drive is problematic when dry, and could be impossible for an empty truck in inclement weather. Trucks drag their rear bumpers transitioning to and from the steep grade. Truck traffic exiting to Foothill Drive via the Stringham stub would cross incoming customer traffic from Foothill Drive and then block two lanes of that major arterial, already at LOS E during peak hours, each time they exited the site ,,l,, from this stub of a street. January 31, 2011 Page 15 Sugar House Community Council Recommendations and Analysis—2705 E. Parleys Way • Taxpayers would pay for improvements to public roads: Walmart answered this question at East Bench Community Council, repeatedly saying they would recommend changes to the road owners (SLC Corporation for the Stringham stub and Parleys Way, and the State of Utah for Foothill Drive) but that "whether they want to implement our recommendations would be up to them." Automobile circulation: Accessing northbound Foothill Drive is problematic for anyone not already on 1-215; within a 2.7 mile section the Country Club can be crossed only at 20th East. Interstate 80 can be crossed only on 1-215, or at 20th, 17th or 13th East Streets. • Northbound egress is problematic: Local residents avoid left turns from the subject property onto Foothill Drive, preferring instead to exit onto westbound Parleys Way and use Stringham/ Thunderbird, King or Wyoming Streets to 2100 South, or 2300 East, any of which lead to a signalized intersection at Foothill Drive. In winter, Stringham / Thunderbird often has snow plowed up against the parked cars on both sides, narrowing the street considerably. So, while the subject property may be adjacent to state and local arterial routes, customers exiting to the north will use collector and local streets. Residents would like to see Wilshire Drive extended north through this property and through the single Foothill Place Apartment building footprint (when redeveloped) to again connect Wilshire and Maywood with homes and businesses to the north as they were before Kmart was built. • Eastbound 1-80 access is problematic: Access to the subject property from eastbound Interstate 80 must exit onto Foothill Drive via a very tight radius curve onto the 1-215 off-ramp to Foothill Drive then immediately exit onto Parleys Way after traversing a bridge too narrow to accommodate an acceleration lane. Drivers frequently stop and wait for traffic to clear because of the short acceleration land, backing up into the through lanes of eastbound 1-80 during morning peaks. Merging uphill from a stop with northbound Interstate 215 traffic exiting onto Foothill Drive at speeds near 65 mph in an area confined in width is a source of frequent accidents. • Southbound egress is problematic, but less so: Drivers unaccustomed to the area will likely attempt to exit the subject property onto southbound Foothill Drive via the Stringham stup, but will find that drivers who have been delayed in LOS E traffic from 1300 South to Thunderbird will be accelerating to freeway speeds at this point. The Stringham stub joins Foothill Drive at the bottom of a valley; southbound traffic is accelerating due to that, yet traffic exiting the property onto southbound Foothill Drive are often slow to January 31, 2011 Page 16 Sugar House Community Council Recommendations and Analysis—2705 E. Parleys Way '""pot., accelerate up that hill. Lengthening the duration of the red light at Thunderbird to allow more cars (and delivery trucks) to enter Foothill Drive will only worsen the Level Of Service on Foothill Drive. • Local business Circulation around the site is already poor: Local residents wishing to visit Cowboy Grub restaurant or businesses on the east side of that building, the coffee shop or Chevron, typically use the Cowboy Grub entrance onto Walmart property, ignoring the one-way signage placed there because of the narrow paved area. The Stringham stub, which was terminated by construction of covered parking for Foothill Village Apartments in 1973, is lightly used because it is too narrow and has a large hump where the storm drain is located and which causes many vehicles to drag. The Stringham stub typically has cars that belong to workers east of Foothill Drive parked on both sides of the street, further narrowing that access. Pedestrians running across Foothill Drive in the morning and evening hours to and from their cars are a common sight. Finding: The traffic impact study conducted by Walmart's consultant did not consider the full developed square footage of the proposed site plan and had serious deficiencies in methodology and scope. Though Walmart claims they have made congestion mitigation recommendations on Foothill Drive to the appropriate organizations, they are careful to state that "this is a State road and what the state does with it is their decision." — We assume they would make a similar statement for the sharp 1-80 eastbound off-ramp and the narrow bridge that prevents an acceleration lane onto the 1-215 off-ramp as it becomes Foothill Drive and Parleys way. Both would involve Federal input. OPTIONS: Site and Project.Options 1. Approval of master plan amendment and zoning map amendment: This option is discussed and analyzed in the "Analysis" section. 2. Denial of both petitions: Residents recognize that if the master plan amendment and the zoning map amend are both denied, Walmart could still occupy the existing building and operate a supercenter. There is nothing in the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance that would preclude Walmart from upgrading the site or the building, or from providing any on-site amenities such as landscaping, regardless of their public statements. Walmart would encounter the same access challenges that KMart had, exacerbated by the much longer truck size (53' trailers) of Walmart's modern fleet than KMart's fleet (28' trailers) were at the time this store was constructed. There is nothing requiring Walmart to remodel a building that is unsuitable to their needs. Walmart could elect not to remodel the store and instead develop the AlMk property according to existing zoning requirements or sell the property to January 31, 2011 Page 17 Sugar House Community Council Recommendations and Analysis—2705 E. Parleys Way someone who would. Walmart's "Neighborhood Market" brand would fit the current zoning requirements. The 2008 Staff Report contains an extensive discussion of the potential feasibility of mixed use development as found in Envision Utah's Urban Planning Tools for Quality Growth but makes several erroneous assumptions that drive the feasibility score down. The source of some of those errors include no assumption for the redevelopment of the Foothill Place Apartments, although the redevelopment proposals that emerge for that property every few years include much higher density. Other erroneous or incomplete assumptions include the posted speed limit remaining above 35 mph and lack of crosswalks on Parleys Way, even though that street has been under discussion for a "road diet" to lower speeds and increase pedestrian crossing ease. The assumptions that there would be no on-street parking is in error, if Wilshire Drive was extended through the property as discussed. All in all, it appears that in 2008 City staff viewed this property and the surrounding streets as substandard already, and therefore is amenable to making them worse, while the immediate neighbors of the property want to make it better. This attitude is likely what led to a covered parking structure being built to create the Stringham stub after the construction of KMart already degraded traffic circulation. January 31, 2011 Page 18 SHCC Meeting Minutes,November 3, 2010 Page 1 of 2 SHCC Meeting Minutes,November 3, 2010 Meeting Minutes — November 2010 SUGAR HOUSE COMMUNITY COUNCIL BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING November 3, 2010 The Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Sugar House Community Council was called to order at 7:00 pm on November 3, 2010 in the meeting room o fthe Sprague Branch Library by the Chair, Cabot Nelson. Trustees in Attendence: Dolores A. Donohoo, Carlyle Harris, Travis Pearce, Elaine Brown, Jim Brown, Larry Migliaccio, Sheila 0' Driscoll, Judi Short, Laurie Bray,Russell D. Callister, Cabot Nelson, Pattie DeNunzio, Benny Keele, Grace Sperry, Christopher Thomas, Ruth A. Price, Philip Carlson, Sarah Carlson, David Mulder, Jason Bradley, Sandra Walsh, Rawlins Young, Amy Barry, Barbara Green, Michael G. Kavanagh, Derek Payne, Sally Barraclough. Trustees Excused: Robin Bastar, Lynne Olson. Trustees Unexcused: Greg Carter. The minutes were read by Trustees individually and approved, without amendment. Reports were given by Chair Cabot Nelson and Secretary Philip Carlson. The Secretary's report included presentation of Trustee Petitions for Scott Kisling and Annalisa Holcombe, both were approved by the Board. Public Comments: A student representative of Westminster College reported on upcoming events and Melissa Lichtenstein complained about agenda mailing. Committee Reports: Reports were given by Judi Short for Land Use and Zoning (LU&Z), Lynne Olsen for Parks Open Space & Trails (POST), Rawlins Young for Transportation, Amy Barry for the Sustainability, Sarah Carlson for Finance and Cabot Nelson for Internet. During reports David Mulder moved the approval of the LU&Z Charter as presented passed Unanimously, and Philip Carlson's motion to disband the Bylaws Committee also passed. Walmart made a 20 minute presentation lead by Cristina Coronado on their Rezone request from CB to CS for their property at 2705 Parley's Way, followed by 20 minutes of Public Comments then 35 minutes of Trustee Discussion on the topic. During Trustee Discussion the motion by Philip Carlson: "Moves (Resolved) that the SHCC Maintain its opposition to the Walmart zone change request and charge the PFDC to advocate its position with the Planning Commission and City Council." Debate on the motion was posponed temporarily on Russ Callister's passing motion, but was resumed Grace SHCC Meeting Minutes,November 3, 2010 Page 2 of 2 Sperry moved to extend debate 15 minutes passed 20-6. The main motion passed. Scott Workman was recognized and thanked for his work on the Sugar House Park 4th of July Fireworks with a round of applause. Other Reports: Business Spotlight: All About Coins, 1123 E. 2100 South presented by Bob Campbell. SH Merchants Association report by Barbara Green, Police Report by Tyler Boelter, Mayor's Office Report by Shawn McDonough, City Council Report by Soren Simonsen, Michael G. Kavanagh read letter from Santa and moved that the SHCC donate $500 to SHMA for Holiday Decoration followed by a motion to refer to Finance Committee by Sally Barraclough that Passed 12- 8. The meeting Adjourned at 9:12pm Philip Carlson, Secretary Sugar House Community Council Summary November 3, 2010 Approximately 200 people in attendance Questions asked and statements made by community (non-trustees): • Walmarts are not attractive sites • Previous mention of recycling building materials—will you actually do it . o Cannot recycle the hazardous materials o Materials that can be recycled will be re-used on-site or used on other local projects © The building is wire reinforced—recycling can't be done o It has been done and can be done o This will have an impact on the entire area—once Walmart is here, it will not go away— it will impact existing stores • The site shouldn't be commercial—it should be residential o There is no such thing as an efficient supercenter—it will devastate the local economy— the community does not want it o Walmart is going there no matter what—what type of building do you want • Would like Walmart to be there— I want the garden center and tire center to be included • Do not support the zoning change—other properties will want to rezone if this one is rezoned • Walmart should build something that complies with our zoning designation • How many people will be employed at this site? o Approximately 300 o Support the existing zoning—Walmart should just remodel —do not want to legalize the nonconforming use • Is there some other leasing company that would be in the middle of a development agreement—other restrictions? o ? Sugar House Community Council—11-3-10 1 • Opposed to rezoning • Why put a Walmart there when there are already so many so close? o There is a community need • Support the rezone Trustee discussion: • Don't need spot zoning and should not do development agreements • Don't mind Walmart but keep zoning—it is better to keep the building—oppose to development agreement • In favor of rezone • Walmart knew what the zoning was when they purchased the property • Opposed to rezoning, o Don't understand why Walmart would want a smaller store o Community wanted CB in '95 —zoning should be kept • The master plan does not reflect the entire community—only the vocal few o Don't want abandoned store—Are there things in place that would prohibit a competitor from occupying the site o The project does not meet the master plan goals • How tall is the proposed building? o Highest point= 33' average = 26' o Trustee vote—oppose rezone Si nar Hnrica Cnmmnnih,Cnrinril—11_1_1n East Bench Community Council Summary October 20, 2010 Approximately 80 to 90 people in attendance Walmart summarized proposal including previous proposed rezoning request and current remodel permit Questions asked and statements made by community: o Please elaborate on the traffic study o Traffic engineer explained study • Are changes proposed on Parleys Way particularly related to eastbound traffic making a left turn onto the Walmart site? o There are no changes proposed other than possibly re-timing the light o The proposed development plan shows that the site will be re-configured to create a clockwise traffic flow for truck delivery to eliminate trucks having to make a left on Foothill. Can't this happen with a remodel without having to change the zoning? o Yes, it can and would happen with the remodel; however, truck circulation behind ANIIIN the building and onto Stringham will be difficult o Won't trucks exiting onto Foothill create traffic problems? o Trucks will be making right turns only so it would be better than trucks making a left turn from Foothill. Also, the configuration of a new store would allow more room between the truck loading dock and the Stringham exit. o Hours of deliveries? o Don't know the specific hours of deliveries now but Walmart principals are for safe and efficient deliveries. This means that trucks would probably not be delivering during peak traffic hours. o There will be an increase in cars turning left onto the property from Foothill. This will be dangerous. o The traffic consultant has proposed changes to the Stringham/Foothill intersection but Foothill is State owned and controlled. It is the State's decision to whether or not changes should be made. o If the proposed store is smaller than the existing building, will services be reduced? o There will not be tire and lube service. All other services will be there, there just won't be the selection of the same type of product that you would find in bigger stores. ANN o The stop light on Parleys is inefficient. Can direct access from the freeway to the property be constructed? o UDOT owns the off-ramps and generally does not allow direct access to private property. There are also grade issues. • I hear a lot of could do but not will do. Also, what will happen on the 1 acre pad site? Restaurants do not do well. o Walmart is committed to doing what they say they will. They say "could" because it depends on City approval. The future use of the pad site is unknown at this time. Want to work with the community to determine best use. • What uses (services) are planned in the proposed store? o Typical Walmart services and products except for the tire and lube center. • There has not been a lot of growth on the east side. Most of the growth is on the west side of the city. The needs are already met by existing businesses. Is the goal to pull people from outside of the City? o The goal is to serve community needs • The area is over saturated with grocery. Don't want to see vacant sites if they close down. • Can't Walmart get a variance to allow them to build a new store? o Planning responded—would be a use variance which is not permitted by state or city code • Asking for a change in zoning. Need to focus on that. Why is a change in zoning being requested to build a smaller store? o ? EAST BENCH COMMUNITY COUNCIL Wednesday, November 17, 2010 Anderson Library 7:00 p.m. — 8:45 p.m. Welcome Gene Moffitt II. Pledge of Allegiance Kim Peterson III. Business Items a. SLC Police Department Report Don Ouimette — Detective 801-330-0246 Detective Ouimette was ill. Sergeant Hatch gave the report. Vehicles were stolen in the area when people would start their cars to warm up and leave it running while going inside. Also, please make sure garages are kept closed and doors locked. Illuminating your property is suggested as is letting neighbors know when you are out of town. Please be cautious to limit these crimes of opportunity. The community was asked to watch out for "mobile drug deals." Watch for 2 cars meeting up. One person gets in the other car for a few moments and then each car departs. This happens in all neighborhoods. b. SLC Mayor's Report Shawn McDonough Shawn McDonough was ill. The city website is www.opencityhall.com. Or slc.gov To find our community council information, Click: Join in, Community Council, East Bench Community Council. c. Mayor's Breakfast Report Gene Moffitt Glendale Community Council reported on their neighborhood. Mayor Becker reported on the Federal Grant for building a street car line into Sugarhouse. Construction will begin in 2011. Eventually the line will connect with other areas, forming a small loop. This will be different than TRAX but rather a streetcar. d. Emergency Preparedness Cathy Knight Peter Cook is working with the city and neighborhoods to form a response team. A clipboard was passed for signing up for CERT training that will be in our area in January 2011. A signup sheet for Block Captains was also circulated. Block Captains , would be responsible for sharing information with the people on their street. e. Wal-Mart Gene Moffitt addressed an allegation that he has spoken with the Planning and Zoning Commission. He denied all allegations. He has spoken with them approximately 15 years ago on building his own home. Everything handed out here in this meeting is acknowledged by the EBCC. Any other flyers are acknowledged/approved by the council. Wayne Mills, from the City Planning Division, discussed the regulations for zoning issues. He directed people to the opencityhall.com website. Wal-Mart gave an abbreviated presentation. A team representing Wal- Mart attended. Wal-Mart owns the land and has a building permit and could begin building immediately. This team believes that building a smaller building would be better, thus the request for the re-zoning. Additional landscaping would be added. The building will be reduced in size, more energy efficient, and would NOT be 45 feet tall as some flyers have claimed. Projected traffic would be less with a smaller building rather than simply remodeling the current building. Information on common questions/comments: Rezoning will not "allow"Wal-Mart into the area. They already own the space and will be opening a store, hopefully in 2012. Mixed use is allowed in both zoning structures. The existing building is 124,000 square feet. They are willing to commit to building a smaller store (currently just under 92,000 square feet). The current building was built in 1968. A new building would be built using current materials and standards. Rebuilding would produce a building approximately 25% more energy efficient. If demolished, 90% of the material is recyclable. Whether rezoning is approved or not, big box stores will not be kept out of the area. There will be no outdoor garden center and no automotive care. There will be grocery. Questions: Truck traffic: Trucks would make right turns into the parking lot. Restrictions: Wal-Mart is willing to put some restrictions into an agreement to be bound by. Energy Efficiency: With a building reduced by 23.5% in size doesn't that automatically reduce the energy being used? The question was raised if the building really is more energy efficient than the current site? If a new building is built, skylights reduce the energy for lighting. The concerns that people have that have not been addressed can be put on opencityhall.com. Walmartonparleys.com will also take comments. Comments: Dollars spent at this Wal-Mart will be kept in our neighborhood rather than going into other areas. Living at the south end of the area many are pleased with the Master Plan and welcome development within that plan. Having a super-center isn't necessary. Traffic will be too dangerous. I like going to Wal-Mart. It will be nice to have a nicer more efficient store. Some take offense at the comments about the type of people who shop at Wal-Mart. I'm voting for the rezoning because of reality. I believe that a new store would be superior to an old store. It is coming either way so I prefer a new better store. A remodeled store is different than a new store in operations. What is being proposed is superior to a remodeled 40 year old building. I have • developed retail and know the difference. Wal-Mart is coming. I am looking forward to Wal-Mart to give us more options in shopping. I am for the zone change. We need to get to work and put together a list of concerns that we want in the development agreement. Vote to rezone with conditions. A suggestion to have the council form a committee to produce a letter with these requests. I am opposed to the rezoning. Will there be walkways for people to walk to the store? I am not in favor of the rezone. We have never had a zoning change in this neighborhood. I think it is an improved store if you remodel because I have a bigger selection of merchandise —which I won't get in a smaller store. We welcome Wal-Mart to the community but we want the future considered and what will it be like in 20 to 30 years. I have done research and I feel like there is a lot of Wal-Mart hate speech and traffic concerns and speculation on the future. I don't see a serious downside to rezoning. I do see a nicer newer building that appeals to me with the rezoning. The city did a city-wide rezone in 1995 and the zoning was changed because the vision was not to have commercial shopping. Zoning runs with the land. A development agreement runs with the land and is difficult to enforce. It was oversight on Wal-Marts part to not change the building when they could. Amok, We were thrilled when K-Mart was built in the 60's. I am for the rezoning. The City Council will have the final say. Wayne Mills says it will probably be in February 2011. The decision makers need to know the reasons behind the vote taken by the council. The ballots were counted by the East Bench Community Council members 3 times by different people each time. 46 people voted in favor of the rezoning and 44 voted against. IV. Items from the floor None. V. Next Meeting will be Wednesday January 19, 2011 7 pm Anderson Library CONTACT INFO: Gene Moffitt . _s-o`f,t',�ao' c Kim Peterson kaooilot@rn;n 3 _..co-- Cathy Knight ca'hvadela Nho`ma l cor' Rob Bauman rbaumanl4@vahoo co^, Laurie Sumsion s:Mso a '.cem Jerry Bergosh j'bergosh@Ema'Lcom Doug MacLean do:7!as79-=0^co--,cis'net Kevin Jones gkeviniones who'mailco n East Bench Community Council Summary November 17, 2010 Approximately 90 people in attendance Questions asked and statements made by community: • Please provide a summary of the new truck circulation o Trucks will move in a clockwise motion with right turns in and right turns out o Walmart will generate more traffic than the Kmart but streets can handle it o Foothill is at capacity at peak hours • Is Walmart willing to agree to other restrictions that the community wants • What is the dollar value of the 50%threshold related to the nonconforming use? o Do not have the dollar value off hand o Can paint and do aesthetic improvements o Can do site improvements © Explain the energy efficiency numbers—they do not make sense. Also, you don't need a rezone to add landscaping. There is a proposed pad site. This will provide additional space for more traffic generators. o Nothing is currently proposed on the pad site. I can just be parking if this is what the community wants o New building will be more efficient than the existing building o I currently shop on 3300 South. Tax money should stay in the City. I support Walmart. o Proposed amendment is not consistent with the community goals and will generate too much traffic. o Walmart will be there regardless of what happens—I would like a new store • A new store is superior to a remodeled store. Look at the Centerville store. The City needs to require good design. o If we are concerned, we need to put together a list of conditions for a development agreement. I support the rezone. • Opposed to the rezone. Rezones can be denied. Walkways can be constructed without the rezone. AIN o Rezoning to CS. Examples of CS zoning include Brickyard and Trolley Square. This will bring in more traffic. • In favor of rezone. East Bench Community Council—11-17-10 1 Sunnyside East Community Council Summary November 30, 2010 Approximately 10 people in attendance Summary: • Walmart made their standard presentation • Walmart explained proposed building height • I provided zoning history and explained noncomplying structure and nonconforming use issue • Pedestrian access across Foothill is dangerous—something needs to be done • What is the approximate customer count? o 355 pm hour trips—this includes both ingress and egress o What are the hours? o 24 hours 7 days a week ' • Regarding traffic mitigation on Foothill—the traffic study proposes an island on Foothill to restrict egress onto Foothill to right out only - UDOT owns and controls Foothill so a permit would have to be obtained from UDOT—the City would have to apply for the permit because Stringham exits onto Foothill, which is a City street—the City could also put in a pork chop island on Stringham to restrict egress to right turn only o There is a rumor that Walmart's intention is to move into this store in order to put Shopko out of business and then move into that store o Walmart reps—that is not our intention—we are investing a lot of money into the klnart property o Provided summary of Sugar House community council meeting o Concern is that East Bench Master Plan needs to be updated—a lot of properties along Foothill are ready to be redeveloped—the Master Plan should be updated before any rezones take place • The City could be more influential in addressing the traffic and pedestrian issues along, Foothill e Foothill is always looked at as a way to move cars— it needs to be looked at for other modes of transportation also (pedestrian, mass transit, etc.) Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment • Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. Public Comments as of February 1, 2011, 12:27 PM I t" s #lief (\k- , 017 .4" 4 144„ r'Y t; rr lit; li 4 Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parleys Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. Introduction The Salt Lake City Planning Division is reviewing petitions submitted by Walmart to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parleys Way from the existing CB Community Business district to CS Community Shopping and to amend the East Bench Community Master Plan to reflect the proposed zoning. Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. As of February 1, 2011, 12:27 PM, this forum had: Attendees: 546 Participants: 97 Hours of Public Comment: 4.9 As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily a representative sample of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements Eric Lipps in Salt Lake City January 27, 2011, 7:06 AM I am a cdl truck driver. I am in favor of Walmart's proposal to rezone the Parley's Way property. I've lived in Utah since 2003. This rezoning request is a good thing for everyone... I've done alot of demolition projects and they recycle everything... very little will see the landfills. The construction project means local money will be spent here. which means tax revenue which means road repair, schools etc. I'm not the smartest guy but I am in a position to know opportunity for everyone. I'm just glad walmart isn't being cheap and WILLING to spend the money HERE to make UTAH a better experience. Melanie Wolcott-Klein in Salt Lake City January 26, 2011, 4:59 PM I grew up in the neighborhood just North of the current eyesore that was once KMart. I now live close-by in Highland Park. I value my community and the neighborhood where I live. This is why I have chosen to stay close to my roots. I have always thought that a Walmart would be the perfect addition to the area. When I heard that the property was bought by Wal-Mart I was so excited! Finally, a Walmart close-by. I had not shopped at KMart for the last several years it was in business, frankly, because the ANN building and asthetics were very run down. I was afraid to have to take one of my kids to the bathroom there for one of their "potty emergencies" (since we were potty training at that time). I can't imagine that Walmart would be able to upgrade the existing structure to a reasonable useable state. It would make much more sense for them to rebuild, adding much needed aesthetics to the area and the obvious much lower environmental impact. I have heard that one of the arguments for not having a Walmart in the area is the "caliber of people" who would shop there. I would imagine that many of the detractors are the powerful, wealthy folks who live in the Country Club area and the expensive area above Foothill. In my experience with Walmart stores the newer ones are much better taken care of and it feels like the customers take better care as well. The older, more run down stores are less inviting and I find, actually harder to shop at. I guess you could say that I'm an "East side snob" in the sense that I think my community is the greatest and I would not want to live "on the West side." I do not want to have undesirable people in my neighborhood either but I think that a well run, new, efficient Walmart would be much better that the existing concrete jungle that sits there now. It would attract residents from those neighborhoods, as well as University and business people who are entering the freeway at that entrance. As far as the shopping versus business rezoning, it just makes sense to have it listed as shopping. That is what it will be regardless. Right near there are restaurants, a gas station, a coffee shop and some businesses. What a great mixed use opportunity! Amok Please stop "playing the game" of politics and do the right thing. A beautiful new Walmart should be allowed to build in that spot. I am very happy to contribute additional statements and support for this matter. Feel free to contact me any time. Esther Hunter in Salt Lake City Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements January 26, 2011, 3:05 PM fyi.... National Trust for Historic Preservation. Helping people protect, enhance and enjoy the places that matter to them. "Just this morning Wal-Mart announced their decision to withdraw plans for a Supercenter to be built within the boundaries of Wilderness Battlefield. Thank you for taking action in support of saving Wilderness Battlefield from development of a Wal-Mart Supercenter. The National Trust has fought hard, with our partners in the Wilderness Battlefield Coalition and with our dedicated supporters like you, to convince Wal-Mart to relocate their store to another, more appropriate location in Orange County. We commend Wal- Mart's decision to work with the local community to find an alternative site for development." • Carol Kramer in Salt Lake City January 26, 2011, 2:48 PM I am in favor of Walmart's proposal to rezone the Parley's Way property in order to build a new store. This will be a good use of the property and offer close-by shopping to the neighborhood. However, I am very concerned about the traffic patterns in the immediate area. Right now, if you come off the 215 off-ramp onto Foothill Blvd it can be very congested with people trying to turn left into the businesses along there. It is very likely the traffic and left-turning line-ups will be much worse with a Walmart than it was when Kmart was in there. Since there is no traffic light there to facilitate left-turns I think this will be a big problem. When it was Kmart, the access from Foothill Blvd was down a small hill via a narrow driveway to the east side of the building. Will this be the same access to the Walmart? Also, if people try to exit Walmart from that same driveway and want to turn left onto Foothill Blvd without a light, it would be nearly impossible given the heavy traffic on Foothill. If the Foothill access can be figured out and controlled I am in favor of Walmart. William Bleak (rhymes with Steak) in Salt Lake City January 26, 2011, 2:29 PM There really should be no argument on this issue. There WILL be a WalMart on the Parley's Way property regardless. The only question is should our community leaders support a multi-million dollar,jobs creating project to tear down the old structure as well as another multi-million dollar project to build a smaller, more energy efficient and more seismically safe building. Why isn't the answer an overwhelming "YES"? Look at every other store. Look at the labels on your own clothing. Is there a greater share of that merchandise manufactured any differently than what you find at WalMart? That ship has sailed. These anti-WalMart efforts are like people trying to revive the buggy whip industry after the automobile has been invented. This issue is not about WalMart. It is about the competitiveness of American labor(which is the best in the world) AND the quality of the students produced by our schools. That is where the efforts of well intended people should go. Too many American young people believe school is about sports, glee, and socializing. Too many dreams are about American Idol, the NFL or the Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Amok Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements NBA. Too much time is spent on electronic games, Facebook or Twitter. Look at the percentages of students (even in IJtah) who need a year of remedial classes prior to regular university classes. We must face the future and not waste time trying to hold onto a past that is long gone. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City January 26, 2011, 10:10 AM To All Concerned, Please grant Wal Mart the rezoning they are asking for. Since Wal Mart already owns the property and will be opening a store at this location, I would like it to be a new energy efficient building with proper land scaping. Not granting the rezoning is asking for the eyesore that is standing there now to continue being an eyesore. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City January 25, 2011, 2:57 PM I know that Walmart is doing the right thing by wanting to replace the old Kmart building. I have driven past that location for many years and I think that it looks terrible and should be replaced. A Walmart up there is a prime central location for college students and young adults living in that area. From a business standpoint I can see the potential for that location being a ,N new building and having a Walmart there to better service that community. With the shorter light posts and more efficient use of the space is what needs to be done. As a consumer--I har,;e had my doubts about Walmart in the past(becoming a monopoly-- running local stores out of business)but I have studied more into it and quite frankly, Walmart has a business plan that is phenomenal. They have seen that the economy has gone down and they have adapted to that factor. People can hate Walmart all they want, but by the end of the day (if they are in the same financial situation I am in) they will still shop there because of lower prices. Regardless of if they get a rezoning permit, they will be there. Why not embrace having a new building that looks better than a run down, white, cinder-block building? Simply, that building needs to go and having a Walmart there will service many neighborhoods that need to cut costs on everyday needs. Kenneth Hauritz in Salt Lake City January 25, 2011, 11:07 AM Hey, I am not a big Walmart fan, however Kmart let that property got to crap! Walmart should be able to have the store there & as big as the existing Kmart that also had an auto center. I think the Home Depot on Highland Dr. is a good example. I don't see traffic or other issues with that store. Do we need another "big box store" I don't know, but one already existed! Let Walmart have the store, make it blend with the area, or put a park there! Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City January 25, 2011, 10:49 AM i think a new building would be the best choice. why remodel and old out dated building. i dont know what condition the building is in exactly but the age of it would make me think a new one '"""IN would be much safer. if there id going to be a walmart there why not make it look nice and fit into the neighborhood rather than be an eye sore in that old worn out building. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City January 25, 2011, 9:40 AM I feel a new smaller Walmart would be a wise decision rather than reusing the existing building. Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements A smaller more energy efficient Walmart would not only help the enviroment, but it would help the community. In an area where there are a significant number of retired persons that may not be able to get around as well, a smaller Walmart would be easier to shop. I have experienced this first hand as I work at a smaller Walmart and see people every day that are able to maintain their independence when shopping in the smaller store. Walmart is always very willing to offer assistance when needed, but to the elderly and disabled community being independent in all ways possible is most beneficial to all. Semi-anonymous in Murray January 25, 2011, 8:09 AM Please note that I do not live in that area, but I can't understand why a new, reasonably-sized Walmart would not be better than trying to re-use an old building. As I understand it, there WILL be a Walmart there one way or another, so why not a new store? I am not a big Walmart fan. I used to live near the one on Ninth East which is right across the street from a K-Mart, and if I needed something quick and no groceries, I usually went to the K-Mart! It's mostly a crowds thing. Now I live near the Murray Shopko and tend to run there for something quick. If I did live in that neighborhood, since there is no longer a K-Mart, I would certainly go to the Walmart up there. Like it or not, everyone likes at least one nearby store of this type. Like most people, I go to Walmart for certain ad items and other things at least once every month or two. The detractors can't stop Walmart; why not have a new one? David Thackeray in Salt Lake City January 25, 2011, 8:06 AM I am puzzled by this debate. The site is already zoned commercial. Walmart isn't doing anything illegal, immoral, or unethical. Every time I drive by the proposed site I think of a shopping experience of walking up a slippery parking lot, my car getting dinged by runaway shopping carts, and walking around a building with wet floors because the roof leaks. Why would anyone be opposed to having a well run business put in a new store that brings discount shopping,jobs, and high sales tax revenue to the community? Patrick Taylor in Salt Lake City January 24, 2011, 8:29 PM My wife and I are very much in favor of allowing walmart to put a smaller, more energy efficient store at the E Parley's Way location. It is near our home (Sunnyside and Foothill) and will be a much more convenient place to shop than is presently available in our part of Salt lake. We see no downside to this decision for the public. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this important issue. Patrick and Joan Taylor David Shields in Salt Lake City January 24, 2011, 6:00 PM A city that refuses major updates to old buildings and parking sites is asking for the development of an ever increasingly obnoxious eye sore. Tear down the old, up with the new and make the business community more competitive. Our federal government says inflation is only 1 to 2 percent and that is purely a lie. We all see the inflation in our ever flatter wallets. Bring on the competition and the lower prices for the things we need. Every other major department and grocery store could have done what Walmart has done, but they refused to do so. So let those that want to pay higher prices pay them. Let the rest of us get what we need at the best price we can. william chavez in Salt Lake City January 24, 2011, 5:47 PM Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's "" Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements in any community where Wal-mart has established or is attempting to establish a store location,the the benefits and the revenue brought to the community are considerable to say the least!when I go for an avg shopping tripat walmart, Ispend maybe $60.00. if i shop elsewhere, I typically pay close to or MORE than$100.00! with the economy being in it's current state, we CANNOT afford to be emotional about the creation of this Wal-Mart location. The jobs created in the construction and day-today operating aspects of this store will bring relief that SEVERAL people NEED here in Salt Lake City! In addition to the reasons already stated, the former businesses in the area were of a similar nature.RETAIL stores! Imay not know the finer points of re-zoninga property,but it seems to me that changing from one retailer to anotherMORE NOTABLE and successful retailer is not even an issue worth debating. Nationwide people are struggling and looking for jobs and savings wal-mart is known for its willingness to train and hiremen and women fromevery conceivable demographic group. for people like me who are disabled and have a difficult time finding willing employers to take a chance on us,wal-mart is A GODSEND! Approve the project make the change and take the opportunity to bless the lives of the people of salt lake with the things they need most:JOBS and REVENUE for a city that is struggling to keep businesses afloat in some areas.It's not a difficult choice ! FIGURE IT OUT! Sincerely, William D. Chavez *01-485-2633 Randy Wood in Salt Lake City January 24, 2011, 5:30 PM As a life-long resident of the Parley's area of the Foothill/Sugarhouse area of Salt Lake City, Utah, I am very strong support of Wal-Mart's rezoning initiative. Regardless of personal shopping pretences, I am total agreement with their sound strategy to beautify this worn-down, drab looking, eye-sore of a building. As a younger person myself, I know that the majority of time spent in the old K-Mart facility has become a giant skating facility for local kids, an area for all-night loitering, a parking lot for skiers, and a meeting place for carpools. The building is very out-dated and regardless of the zoning, I feel that my neighborhood is very uninformed. Many people perhaps feel that the council's rejection of said zoning initiative will stop Wal- Mart from entering our neighborhood. THE FACT IS.... WAL-MART ALREADY OWNS THIS PROPERTY!! As owners of the property, they have a right to use the property for its highest and best use.... RETAIL. Many neighbors and friends (who claim they will never shop there, which I know will ultimately prove to be false) also cite fears about increased traffic and congestion. If you have ever been behind this old K-Mart building you can see that barely ANY vehicle can fit behind it, let alone the semi-trucks necessary to load this building with goods/produce. If Wal-Mart were to refurbish this old building and keep things similar, I feel that the traffic of constant in-and-out from semis that have to make that large S-curve entrance on top of the embankment to a building that can't fit their truck behind it WILL BE A NIGHTMARE IF THEY ARE NO ALLOWED TO REZONE!!! I beg of you all to get familiar with the situation, educate yourself, and let one of the only owners who has the cash in our down economy make the smart decision to beautify and re-zone this property. I am in frill support of the zoning initiative, regardless of my personal shopping Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements preferences or thoughts on Wal-Mart as a corporate entity. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City January 24, 2011, 5:19 PM In a weird way, I miss KMart.... and I am ready for Walmart to bring its store to Parley's Way! Though I almost never shopped at other KMart stores, I liked having the garden center so close to home. I liked being able to walk to KMart for miscellaneous things that just come up (fingernail polish, school supplies,ink cartridge, baseballs, baby gift). I think I will really like having Walmart there. And since they are coming, I am in favor of having all that Walmart has to offer. I'd like to be able to take advantage of their competitive prices on food, household items, yard care, etc. I am not in the least bit concerned that our neighborhood will be overwhelmed with Walmart patrons, or that the rezone will allow Walmart to erect a 10 story building....in fact some of those arguements seem paranoid to me. I trust our city to oversee the rezone project. My personal preference would be for a Target store,but they don't own it! So bring on the Walmart. Fix up the unsightly KMart and get involved in our community. There is a great deal of pressure in my country club neighborhood to be ANTI-WALMART/ANTI- RELONE. I just don't subscribe to that idea and I encourage the rezone committee to seek out and listen to all the neighbors, not just the loud ones. Jane Riggs in Salt Lake City January 21, 2011, 3:45 PM Just so "No" to almighy Walmart. They are not a force for the greater good of our people, our communities, our land use, our environment. The last thing we need here is more parking for an even bigger store that everyone has to drive to. The existing jobs could come from another or other businesses that are more local or diverse. Walmart has certainly done enough destruction already. Enough: Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City January 21, 2011, 2:57 PM I am grossly against a Walmart coming to this neighborhood. I believe that stores like Walmart inherently take away from smaller local businesses and I don't want a giant chain with bad business practices to come near my home. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City January 17, 2011, 1:13 AM I'm in favor of Walmart being able to put their BEST foot forward with the store they are "going" to build. Those of us that live in the neighborhood know this is a prime location and we should make sure that the construction of a new store takes full advantage of this site. Why are we so afraid? Look what Home Depot has done for the area on Highland Drive. I'm not sure that the compaign being promoted by the local neighbor, who works for Smiths, is a means to keep the competition out, and if you have shopped at Smiths lately, they could use a little competition. Let's make sure this is an informed decision and one that the majority wants, not just the minority that blows a louder horn. Duke Wimbledon in Salt Lake City January 14, 2011, 12:48 PM Let them tear down the K-mart and fix it up, but please, for the love of god, NOBODY SHOP THERE. Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements Money made in Wal-Marts is going to support foreign economies, and very little of the money stays here in the United States. You don't like to pay more for going to Smiths or Harmons, but sometimes it costs a little extra to buy things made closer to home. The money made at Wal- Marts lines the Walton families pockets, greases our city leaders pockets, and then the money is sent out of the country to underpaid people. BUY LOCAL. The reason our country is going down the tubes is because we are sending our money elsewhere. Don't disregard me as a raving lunatic, either. Think about it for yourself, why is our economy doing so poorly? Jenni Floyd in Salt Lake City January 14, 2011, 10:24 AM I am in favor of the rezone so that Walmart can build a smaller new building that is better than a remodel of the old k-mart building. I have read the flyer that they are giving out in their 13th south store. As long as they stick to the things that they have promised (or as long as the city makes them sign a contract with all the provisions) I support the proposed rezone. I think some people misunderstand the purpose of the rezone. There is going to be a Walmart there no matter if the city rezones or not. The only difference is to rezone so that Walmart can build a new building (nicer and up to current codes, they also promise that it will be smaller than practically ,, any other Walmart at only 92,000 square feet.) As opposed to the current zoning that will only . allow them to remodel the old k-mart building that was built in 1968 and is bigger (120,000 square feet) than their proposed new store. Also the current zoning rules only allow them to remodel with money equal to 50% of the current value of the store to be remodeled. That says to me that they are willing to spend more money than the city is allowing with the current zoning nile. They have promised in their plan for the rezone that there will be better landscaping, bike paths, more sidewalks, better parking lot drainage, etc. If they don't get the rezone they can't do these things because of the 50% cap on money that they can spend. As long as they stick to their proposed plan with a smaller building,better landscaping, etc. Then I think that everyone should be happy and have less complaints than if they only remodel. Thank you Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City January 11, 2011, 12:21 PM Walmart is one of the few corporations with enough money to do an excellent job of tearing down the old K Mart building and building a brand new EARTHQUAKE PROOF store. It's very important that the 40 year old plus K Mart building be torn down, as it was falling apart when K Mart moved out. Retrofitting for earthquakes is far more expensive than building a new building to the present earthquake code. If residents are thinking clearly they will realize that this NEW BUILDING may be the only one standing after a 7.0 earthquake, and it may be shelter for those whose brick homes are in rubble! Underground parking or covered parking is a necessity in this climate. Let Walmart build a new Amok building, but be sure to include a proviso that parking must be sheltered. Joseph Doubek in Salt Lake City January 10, 2011, 3:23 PM Walmart is not my favorite store. However, since the closing of Kmart, buying those little items that we need on occasion require that we drive to Smith's on 33rd South. This is inconvenient Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements and adds transportation costs to the cost of the things we buy as well as adding exhaust pollution to the atmosphere. If the added traffic problem can be handled, I urge speeding up the approval process and getting the store (either new or a reworked old one) opened ASAP. Katherine Flood in Salt Lake City January 10, 2011, 9:43 AM For Walmart, but erring on the side of caution. I'm as tree hugging and granola eating as they come. But I also read as much as I can from both sides of every argument. I say that if people really want a Walmart closer to Foothill, then the old KMart location is perfect. Walmart's presence may hurt several small retail shops but it may also bring more business to others. Looking at this in a positive light: The parking lot needs to be updated to current emergency codes which Walmart will comply with. The shopping complex as a whole might seem more appealing as Walmart updates the location. This may improve the surrounding community safety wise and aesthetically. More traffic at the Parley's exit may encourage the city to renovate the old ramps. Walmart will also provide more jobs to the area, even if they are minimum wage, they're jobs non-the-less. Another bonus is that in times of natural disaster, Walmart has time and time again come through for their surrounding communities. With the potential future earthquake along the Wasatch fault, it may be handy to have such a large supply center close by. Amy Carmen in Salt Lake City January 8, 2011, 11:39 AM For anyone who is against big box stores, we've had a K-Mart there since I was a little kid (about 40 years ago). Walmart owns the property. They will build a store. Lets allow them to build their 92,000 foot store, which will be smaller than the current K-Mart. The new building will be more energy efficient. They will put in trees and shrubs, which have not been there before. They've offered to have a park and ride area on their property. These are all great assets for our environment! Some of us enjoy the lower prices Walmart has to offer to help our own wallets. Please allow the rezoning for Walmart to build a nice store for us. Let's beautify our community, and improve and update our buildings,just as schools, businesses, and governments are doing. Kerr Brown in Salt Lake City December 16, 2010, 11:53 AM I think that Walmart should be able to tear down the old Kmart and put up a better walmart. I don't how many of you have been to the walmart off of 300 west and 1300 south but that is a terrifying walmart. It would be nice to have one close and more suitable for bringing my children too. Please let them do that so I can feel more comfortable going to a good Walmart. Thank you for your time! Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City December 14, 2010, 10:36 AM I shop at a lovely new Wa.imart in Tucson AZ everytime I visit my sister - It's fabulous! The store is located in a very HIGH INCOME MULTI MILLION DOLLAR area and fits right in. It is environmentally "green", aesthetically pleasing and offers great products at "competitive" prices to people of all income levels who like to save money. The best part about getting rid of the old KMart building is getting rid of asbestos and putting in garbage containers that can be lowered below the parking lot level and hidden out of sight. I hate having to drive all the way down to 300 West to grab a product that I know will cost three times as much at Dan's or Smiths. But I do it! How's that for saving on the "emissions" problem that the City Council is www.PeakDemocracy.com/546 Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walrnart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements so concerned with? Karen Matthews in Salt Lake City December 2, 2010, 5:33 PM I would like to see Walmart replace the existing building which is currently not in compliance with current zoning. A smaller building, upgraded parking, new landscaping would certainly add to the neighborhood. Karen Matthews P Anderson in Salt Lake City November 29, 2010, 4:03 PM I favor the re-zone option. This is an excellent place for a Walmart to replace K-mart. We need a good big box retailer near our neighborhood with lower prices. Steven Parkin in Salt Lake City November 24, 2010, 12:26 AM I favor rezoning since the redesigned site solves key problems inherent with the old K-Mart site. Namely, we get(1) a level parking lot with less risk of roll-away grocery carts, (2) storm water held on site, solving current drainage problem to city storm line, (3) more green-scape among parking area, (4) new store with modern design and materials, and (5)price competition with other nearby grocery stores. I would love to see a new entrance facade similar to REI on 33rd; something with rough-hewn ,4410 timbers, large iron works, and real stone. In the off chance that Walmart vacates this new building someday, the next tenant will have a better building. I suggest that we approve CS zoning then hold Walmart to our conditions by contract. Thomas Kearl in Salt Lake City November 23, 2010, 11:58 PM I am so tired of my only option being a terrible Shopco in Sugar House. I welcome a new walmart that has city imput to make it neighborhood friendly Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City November 23, 2010, 9:52 PM If their proposed building is smaller than the existing building, why does Wal-Mart still want a rezone? I also disagree with the officials who say our streets can handle an increase in traffic. Our streets can't handle the current level of traffic. Foothill fails every day, so does 1300 East. We do NOT need more traffic on our streets. Ron Borg in Salt Lake City November 23, 2010, 3:36 PM For goodness sakes, people, please stop the resistance to a nice Walmart coming to the Parley's Way location in SLC. People I know and with whom I have discussed this matter simply cannot understand the city's resistance to Walmart's plans. For one thing, the existing building and most of the parking lot were a K-Mart for many, many years, and the property also at one time supported a very large movie theater. Where is the logic in changing the overall use of that property now? There is plenty of parking, good roads service, and very, very few nearby residential buildings and homes. A new Walmart should be a welcome addition to the SLC www..PeakDemocracy.coin/546 Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements shopping scene, especially in that quadrant where there aren't so many similar shopping choices. Lots of parking, room for a few new restaurants and other services and stores, and even a Park and Ride lot through the courtesy of Walmart. Protectionism against so-called Big Box retailers is unfair and stiffling to growth in the city. By the way, I have absolutely no dog in the fight and rarely shop at Walmart. I just don't like what the city is trying to accomplish here--or failing to accomplish, I should say. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City November 22, 2010, 6:10 AM I have read all of the comments made here thus far. The comments in opposition to the re-zoning strike me as notably devoid of logic, reason and fairness and seem to be based instead on one or more of the following: - An embarrassing degree of ignorance: "A re-zoning would allow the store to locate there." Not true; it already is allowed to locate there. "A re-zoning, would result in a larger building than what is there presently." Not true: Walmart has specified a new building that is the same size, or smaller, than the existing building. - Irrationality: "A re-zoning would result in an increase in traffic." How so? Obviously there would be no difference in traffic to speak of between a Walmart with a re-zoning (i.e., in a new building) and a Walmart without a re-zoning (i.e., in the existing building.) And regarding actual traffic: it's not football game-like traffic where everyone is arriving and departing AT THE SAME TIME, or a miles-long stream of cars as in the closing scene of"Field of Dreams." My observation of other Waimarts in the area is that while the parking lots do contain many parked cars indeed, actual traffic leading to and from these lots consists of a steady, low-grade trickle, in reality. Typically, I find myself entering the parking lot off the street and exiting back onto the street in blissful solitude -- rarely is there a car right in front of me, hedging my way. Never have I observed any sort of onslaught or mass exodus of traffic in or out of a Walmart. The groans regarding traffic are unfounded. - Professional jealousy: "We don't need another store in the area. The surrounding, overpriced retail stores are sufficient to meet the needs of the community. And www.PeakDemocracy.com/546 Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements those who insist upon shopping at Walmart anyway are perfectly free to drive to Timbuktu." Translation: "We don't want the competition. We don't want to have to give up our third vacation home, in Ketchum; we don't want to be forced to cut back on the outrageously exorbitant prices that we are accustomed to charging." - Supreme selfishness: "I could care less about the needs or wants of the community at large. All I care about is what I want." - Petty spitefulness: "Though we have no legitimate or truly logical reason for opposing Walmart's re-zoning request, we MUST NOT LET THEM HAVE THEIR WAY! "They're rich; they can afford to adapt to the existing zoning; and, we hate them; therefore, let us stick it to 'em!" "We're going to be forced to lower our prices; we must punish them!" - Contradictory arguments: "The store will be much appreciated by the community, which will result in an increase in traffic!" (vis-a-vis) "Walmart has erred in its market analysis; it will fail at this location." - False propaganda: "All merchandise sold by Walmart is made in China." The Truth: Walmart sells virtually the same, famous-name brand stuff as everyone else --- including a great deal of merchandise made in the USA -- only at markedly lower prices, on the whole.) "Walmart is guilty of human rights violations and crimes against humanity on the order of those committed by Turkish prisons, Third-World dictatorships, 19th-Century slave owners and turn of the century sweat-shop operators; they treat their employees, their customers, and their vendors like garbage." Yeah. That's why those vendors are clamoring for a Walmart account. ''' It's because with Walmart, everyone wins, including the vendor. Regarding the employees, I don't see a bunch of oppressed slaves. 1 see www.PeakDemocracy.com/546 ,.c?n Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on ' almart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements instead a group of cheerful people who seem glad to be there, glad to have a job and glad for the money that they too are able to save. As regards the customer: I, myself, truly, can think of nothing more malicious, more hostile, more downright pernicious, in the world of retail, than a retailer taking advantage of the average customer's ignorance and trust by marking up the price of an item by a factor of two or three or more, temporarily subtracting a tiny sliver of that exorbitant markup, and then telling the customer that he or she is getting some sort of deal, that this is some special "sale" price, that this is an extraordinary value, when in reality, that supposed "sale'' price still is a rip-off and is higher, sometimes far higher, than Walrnart's everyday low price. We see this type of chicanery on a REGULAR basis at the other stores. - Hysterical speculation: "If a re-zone is granted, an Empire State Building or an oil refinery will materialize there by and by which will completely consume the lot and skyline." - Class distinction over thriftiness: "I don't care about saving money. I'd rather shop at expensive boutique stores and have only such stores in my community, since this makes me feel better about myself." - Irrelevant red herrings: "We must not grant Walmart its re-zoning request because the sacred 'MASTER PLAN' saith 'no." The vaunted'Master Plan,' conceived and drawn up by a small, exclusive cadre of community elites in the interest of their wishes only, irrespective of those of the community at large. The fact is, a re-zoning would have NO impact on the so-called "Master Plan," inasmuch as Walmart has every right, as things stand now, with the current zoning, to set up operations in the existing, 120,000 sq. ft. building. Thus, their TRUE motivations lay elsewhere, cloaked as they are by pretenses of concern for "Master plan," "playing by the rules," etc. - Earth worship: "We must revert to natural moonlight only. No electric lighting! No internal combustion engines! No retail stores! Only walking paths and bicycle trails! Back to nature!" - Fantastical pipe dreams: www.PeakDemocracy.com/546 Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements "I would rather have on this property a quaint little pedestrian mall comprising a small bunch of cute, little stores -- as long as I don't have to develop or pay for it!" Let Walmart have its new building. It will be better, safer, more efficient, and more aesthetically pleasing, and will allow drainage and other improvements to be made to the lot. I welcome Walmart, for the money that it will save me that I will then be able to spend or use in other ways. Frankly I only hope that Walmart will go back to its original plan of a new, 120,000 sq. ft. building (virtually the same size as the existing building) rather than a downsized building. Not only would the 120,000 sq. ft. building better serve the shopping needs and wants of the community, it still would be only a fraction of the size of the 9th East and Taylorsville Walmarts, which I understand are in excess of 208,000 sq. ft., each. Bring on wide inventory, outdoor gardening, and tire and lube! Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City November 19, 2010, 4:21 PM Walmart brings a much-needed aspect of retail business to the East Bench. We have so little to choose from close to our neighborhood that we must travel to other areas of the city to shop. I've missed having K-Mart close by to offer hardware, electronics, sporting goods, toys, and home-improvement items. Glad to have the variety and depth available again. Trish Townsend in Salt Lake City November 18, 2010, 4:49 PM I do not want Wal-Mart in our neighborhood. However since that is not an option any longer I think Wal-Mart should have to abide by the existing zoning and building laws. Why do we feel we must cave to corporate America. Wal-Mart will build there regardless of the change or not. Deborah Cartwright in Salt Lake City November 17, 2010, 11:42 AM I support the zoning change to facilitate the re-building of the property. The old K-Mart has been an eyesore for many years and the huge parking lot is a serious lack of green space. I favor a WalMart in our area as we currently have to drive a long way to reach any existing "big box" store. Whether they remodel or rebuild, I can't imagine that it will change the traffic volume. If people want to shop at WalMart, they will come either way. WalMart owns the property, so let's make it possible to make it as attractive, green, and up-to-code as possible. After reading the attached documents on this site, I feel this can only be accomplished through a zoning change. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City November 16, 2010, 3:34 PM If the new zone is limited to the existing Kmart property, I see no harm in bringing Walmart into the area. We need to be more business friendly to get the economy moving again. What is there now is a real eyesore and useless. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City November 16, 2010, 1:15 PM www.PeakDemocracy.com/546 Pnhlir enrnniontc ac of FPhrnary 1 9011 17.77 PM frnn n11 narticinantc 1 S of�tl Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements I support the Masterplan proposed zoning change from CB to CS. I reference the 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report prepared by Nick Britton and its conclusion to send a Positive Recommendation forward to the Council. Chris Orrock in Salt Lake City November 16, 2010, 10:09 AM Dear Sir or Ms., I am a longtime resident of the East Bench community Indian Hills, located east of Foothill Blvd. I am writing to encourage the City Council and Planning Commission to give due consideration to our community and both it's living, aesthetic and property values in their decision on whether or not to accede to Wal-Mart's request for new, unprecedented zoning changes for it's planned Parley's Way store. The value in any neighborhood lies not merely in it's potential tax base, but in it's livability and continuity. Granting re-zoning to Wal-Mart would adversely effect both of those assets. That does not stop the Wal-Mart corporation from routinely challenging zoning laws in almost every new box-store it builds, despite resident's objections. It often reveals nothing less than corporate contempt for both the Council members and residents in those communities. The only sensible Planning Commission and City Council ruling would be a compromise between Wal-Mart's standard tactic of challenging neighborhood and community zoning laws, and the citizens of those communities effected, in this case, the East Bench community. That compromise would take the form of denying Wal-Mart's request for re-zoning, thus allowing them to build their store within the sensible confines of our existing zoning laws and without causing unnecessary damage to the livability or continuity of our East Bench community. Sincerely, Chris Orrock SLC, Utah Kathy Adams in Salt Lake City November 16, 2010, 8:21 AM I continue to be opposed to the rezoning of the Parley's property for the purposes of a larger Walmart. The traffic on the 215/80 exit onto Foothill is treacherous enough and will certainly increase at that poorly designed exit. It is bad enough with cars lined up to get onto Foothill, and with more cars trying to pull into the right lane to exit onto Parleys from 215/80 to get to Walmart it will certainly increase accidents and road rage. Don't make a bad traffic situation worse! I invite anyone to observe or participate in the nightmarish traffic at Foothill and Thunderbird any morning of the week before deciding to add to it. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City November 15, 2010, 3:24 PM I support the Walmart rezoning effort. I'd like to see them get on with whatever store they want to build so I can start shopping there. Right now I have to drive either out to 9th east and 48th south or to 13th south and 3rd west to shop at Walmart, it would save a lot of gas and trouble if it were more convenient. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City November 15, 2010, 10:23 AM I am not a fan of Walmart however they own the property and there will be a Walmart there regardless of how many people object. The only question is remodled old building or new construction. Like it or not we cannot stop it and there will be a Walmart there. I really do not care however it seems that it will create traffic problems.. Ingress and Egress from this property WWW.PeakDemocracy.com/546 Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. A.11 Statements never was good and a Walmart will have many more shoppers than the old Kmart. The traffic congestion around this area will be awful. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City November 14, 2010, 4:04 PM So when will it stop? When all our jobs go to China and India...When all our stores and resturants are identicial across the country. It's truly a crisis when the only thing Americans care about are the dollars in their own pockets...but when we wake up it will probably be too late- Take A Stand Say No to WalMart Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City November 13, 2010, 5:36 AM the city should allow walmart to tear down the old kmart building. this building is unsafe according to today s building codes. to have such a large property abandoned is not only an eye sore to the area, but we need all the revenue and commercial traffic we can get. therefore, i am in favor of this proposal! Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City November 12, 2010, 1:28 PM This discussion has been going on for quite a while now, and all we are doing is delaying the inevitable. Personally, I am looking forward to having a Wal-Mart store closer to home. The existing building is an eyesore, and continues to remain so as long as folks drag this out. I'm ALL for a new, improved building and site. The rezoning will enable improvements to the property that will benefit the community all around. It amazes me that some who are most concerned about the neighborhood would prefer to have the old building than a new, smaller, more energy-efficient one. How does that benefit the neighborhood? Wal-Mart has sought to work with us and accomodate our requests. They are a successful enterprise that gives back into the community. Has anyone forgotten their generous contribution to our SugarHouse fireworks display this past summer? Let's get over the discussion and move forward with this. Mary Adamson in Salt Lake City November 10, 2010, 7:38 PM I am a commercial real estate broker and live in the area above Foothill Drive due east of the Walmart site. I believe the most important part of this battle has already been lost by allowing Walmart to develop the site at all. I do not believe we need a Walmart superstore at every freeway exit in the Salt Lake Valley to meet the needs of their customers. And I do not believe the immediate area is populated with shoppers who will buy the low-quality products that Walmart offers. I think Walmart has missed their market and their store will under-perform at this site,just like the K-Mart that preceded it. The Walmart site would be much more appropriately used as a site for high density residential development. The impact on traffic along Parley's Way and Foothill Drive will be enormous. Foothill, in particular, is extremely overcrowded all day and is critical at peak driving hours. A huge Walmart will greatly burden those arterial roads. Care should be taken by traffic planners to only allow access to the site northbound on Foothill Drive and westbound on Parley's Way. Alisk Attempting to cross oncoming traffic on either of these access streets will result in extremely hazardous driving conditions. www.PeakDemocracy.con-V546 Pnh1i nnmmrntc ac nfFehrnan'1 7(111 12'77 PM frnm all narticinants 17 of i(1 Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements However, inasmuch as the city fathers have already cratered to Big Box Corporate America, it is my opinion that Walmart should use its considerable resources to build according to the terms and conditions of the existing zoning. Walmart real estate executives knew the limitations on the site when they purchased it. They should be bound by those terms and conditions. 'When Walmart leaves this site vacant--and they ultimately will, as they have countless others in communities all across America--the successor users should be bound by the same Community Business zoning, unless the city fathers at that time have the wisdom to revisit this site and allow its' proper use;which will still be residential. Mary Adamson 2315 Scenic Drive David Januzelli in Salt Lake City November 10, 2010, 12:21 PM No, to Wal-Mart=Yes, to better quality of life. The CB zoning was established for a purpose...to prevent the neighborhood from turning into another traffic congested commercial big-box center. If it truly is inevitable that WM will move in whether or not the land gets rezoned I suggest that they remodel the old K-Mart building...and keep it small. Wal-Mart's purpose is to make money, period. They are not in the business to increase the quality of life in neighborhoods. Quality of life means less traffic (less pollution), walkable neighborhoods, small to medium sized businesses, lots of vegetation, low crime, etc. Wal-Mart doesn't bring any of these virtues! As for lower prices and saving a few dollars on your grocery bill...well, you get what you pay for: lower wages for workers, low quality food, low quality products all made in China, etc. No, to Wal-Mart=Yes, to better quality of life. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City November 10, 2010, 8:13 AM Yes to Walmart! We need a store in this area. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City November 9, 2010, 2:20 PM Who has ever seen a pretty Walmart? They all look alike. They can make the building sustainable with a remodel, but they choose not to. Look at the Regency Theater next door, remodeled into a attractive office building, or Architectural Nexus at 2505 Parley's Way remodeled from an ugly gym into a fabulous LEED platinum office, or Circuit City being remodeled into a new DI. What's the matter with Walmart? They say they can't afford LEED, and are only offering to improve the site because city ordinances require them to do so. They aren't spending an eXtra dime that isn't required. They are a lousy neighbor. If the park n ride becomes inconvenient they'll tow cars away. If people camp in their parking lot the city police will have to deal with it. If their store causes traffic problems the city and state will pay to fix them. If the neighbors are kept up at night with deliveries and backup www.PeakDemocracy.com/546 Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements beepers, they can buy earplugs at Walmart. The residential neighborhood preceeded Kmart. There was no public input. The deal was done behind closed doors and no one knew what was coming until they started digging up the vacant lot. Walmart can't even get their trucks in and out of the property without crossing other property. They'll turn left into an unsignalized arterial. This property is not suitable for the Community Shopping zone. Leave the zoning alone and let Walmart do their thing within the current zoning. They could do it well if they wanted to. Lori Tavey in Salt Lake City November 8, 2010, 10:06 AM I support the rezoning of the old K-Mart property so Walmart can build a newer property that is well landscaped and helps with drainage. Not all of us have the income to shop in the boutique stores suggested by some and many small stores in this area already struggle to survive. Walmart will not be competition for them. We need the old K-Mart building demolished and the area renewed. — Lori Tavey .. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City November 7, 2010, 9:02 AM No to Wal-Mart. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City November 6, 2010, 4:08 PM We definately do need Walmart to build a pleasing looking building in place of the old K-Mart building. We need Walmart to come to Parleys area so we don't have to drive out to 45th south and 9th east or downtown to 13th south and 3rd west. It is hard for me to understand how some people are not interested in saving money on their grocery bills. We are definately in favor of rezoning the K-Mart area so that a nice new building can be constructed in it's place. Rasmussen in Salt Lake City November 6, 2010, 4:02 PM I am all for Walmart's proposal to rezone the property on Parley's Way. I love shopping at Walmart and they would do a nice job with that location which has always been an eyesore and bring it new life. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City November 6, 2010, 12:49 PM I am amazed that some think that they can stop the Wal-Mart from being built. They will have a Wal-Mart store there no matter what the oppostion might be. The only question is will it be a new store with better lighting, landscaping and drainage or a partially remodelled old store without the mitigations required by the new zoning Amok Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City November 5, 2010, 2:44 PM " I oppose the rezone and do not support Walmart moving into this location. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City WWW.PeakDemocracy.com/546 Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements November 4, 2010, 10:42 PM If this allows them to build a larger store do not allow this change. There is no safe egress to that facility as is and another traffic light will within a block of an existing traffic signal or exit from the freeway will cause total gridlock on foothill. Marianne Wander in Salt Lake City November 2, 2010, 5:21 PM I am opposed to the re-zoning that will allow a big-box into this fabulous neighborhood. Please follow the master plan which calls for pedestrian and bike friendly neighborhood shopping. The big box that Wal-mart is proposing does not fit the scale and qualities of this neighborhood. It will do harm. Also, beware of greenwashing. Wal-mart may propose LEED design and sustainable features as they try to sell this project. But true sustainability is not created from picking and choosing from a check list in order to sell a product. True sustainability is holistic, and this includes respecting and enhancing the quality of life for the people living in this neighborhood. Tom Condit in Salt Lake City November 2, 2010, 2:04 PM Walmart's design makes the project much more attractive to the community than the project they will build with the existing zoning. I happen to like shopping at Walmart, but whether others here like or dislike Walmart, to me the only issue is the best design and land use we can get, and this clearly is better. cecilia uriburu in Salt Lake City November 2, 2010, 1:27 PM As both a neighbor to the north of the parcel and as an Architect I oppose the re-zone of the parleys lot to CS community shopping. I do my part by xeriscaping, recycling and composting my waste, replacing my windows for better energy use, adding insulation to my walls and roof...On my own money, off course...why would the city re-zone to Community shopping this parcel, which means an energy hog in the neighborhood? BIGGER IS NOT BETTER!...The master plan and Mayor Becker envision a greener, walkable, bike friendly city. We are citizens who vote and elect officials with such vision. We have the right to oppose the increase of traffic, the unlimited size building, 24 hours of artificial light polluting the night sky, but most importantly to deffend what we elected to begin with...do your part and oppose this re-zone. It is what we need to do for a better built future. Be a leader for your community and vote NO to the rezone. Cecilia Uriburu, AIA (Architect) Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City November 1, 2010, 2:32 PM I don't want this to be a WalMart. will not shop there; I shop at neighborhood stores. We don't need any more big stores in this area. I like the idea of this area being condos or something residential. I'm tired of it being an empty cement lot. I realize that WalMart owns this property. If they are going to have a WalMart there, I want them to landscape the area and make it beautiful so it isn't an eyesore. bob moore in Salt Lake City October 31, 2010, 10:56 AM www.PeakDemocracy.com/546 Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements I think Wal-Mart is trying hard to put a development on this property that will be pleasing to the community. They have certainly spent the time to try to find all the needs and concerns of the neighbors and community so they can address them. I think they are motivated to put something on the site that will be good for business and good for the community. I am in favor of them building the new store they want to build vs forcing them to remodel an old building that in the end will not be what the community wants nor what Wal-mart wants Bob Moore Phil Mattingly in Salt Lake City October 30, 2010, 12:36 AM There is something that perhaps the people who comment here do not understand. Walmart owns this property and has the legal right to remodel the current building and put a Walmart in that existing building. Indeed, they applied for and received a building permit to do this and the permit is active. Walmart could start the remodel tomorrow if they chose. What Wahnart wants to do to improve the property is to tear down the existing building and build a newer, smaller (92,000 sq ft instead of the current 123,000 sq ft) more energy efficient, oisik greener, improve the traffic flow, solve the existing storm water runoff problem (instead of the storm water running off the parking area and out onto the street in a river they will create a holding pond to catch the water, which they don't have to do if they remodel the old bldg), modern landscaping with better parking, better lighting in the parking area, etc. In order to build a smaller more modern bldg they need to have the zoning returned back to where it was before it was changed to what it is now. What the public needs to clearly understand is that Walmart is going to put a store in that location with a zoning change or without a zoning change. If the city refuses to change the zoning, it does not mean that Walmart will go somewhere else and the small vocal minority who do like Walmart win. Walmart will simple use the remodel permit it currently holds and remodel the old KMart bldg there as they have a legal right to do. So, do you want a shiny new more modern building that is more green, more valuable which means more taxes for the city, more customer friendly or to remodel what is there now? To me the benefits to the community by making the zoning change and receive a newer more modern building far outweigh any negatives. The tired old talking points based on half truths, ignorance and manipulated propaganda put out Antok by unions unsuccesful in unionizing Walmart that are used to bash Walmart are not the issue - here and will not make Walmart go to some other location. So let's "Rollback" the zoning and let Walmart put up a building that will compliment the www.PeakDemocracy.com/546 Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements neighborhood and provide closer shopping for us that live in area. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City October 29, 2010, 7:33 PM We should all consider whether to support a company that prays on the poor. Do a little Google search on Banco de Wal-Mart, its deceptive activities, and the 60%+interest rates it charges those least able to pay. You'll see that Walmart is not just a big box; it's a big UGLY box. We don't need another Walmart. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City October 29, 2010, 4:25 PM I think the CB Community Business designation will suit this area well instead of CB Community Shopping. The residents of this area already have easy access to Community shopping along 300 W between 1300 S and 2100 S, where they can shop at Walmart, Costco, Sam's Club and Target starting next month. Those shops are conveniently located,just 5 minutes away on the freeway. Please do not approve the proposal Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City October 29, 2010, 1:18 PM We need a Walmart there badly. I will pay 15-20% less on my grocery bill. The development will be a great addition to the community! I hope to see a new Walmart store there next year! Bring it! Amy Oglesby in Salt Lake City October 29, 2010, 12:21 PM I welcome this addition. It will be great to restore some vibrancy to this area. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City October 29, 2010, 11:21 AM For those who don't think a "big box" store should go on that lot - there is already one there. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to replace one big dilapidated box with a slightly smaller pretty box. That being said, some thoughts about Walmart- -Walmart Associates make less than comparable retail employees. -Walmart's entry into an area depresses wages and displaces better-paying retail jobs, forcing small local businesses to close. -Walmart has left vacant, abandoned stores throughout the country. -The largest class action lawsuit in the history of the world alleges that Walmart discriminated against women by systematically denying them promotions and paying them less than men. Is that what we want for our community? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism of Wal-Mart Walmart faces an interesting marketing challenge with this project. www.PeakDemocracy.com/546 Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements If you are one of the largest, and most controversial businesses in the world, how do you get the people of a community to support your plans without making them feel manipulated? Recently I've received two email messages from Cody Bannon thanking me for my support of the re-zoning. These messages are from"walmartonparleys.com". They look like they come from some grass-roots support group - not flashy, a cartoonish font for the signature, definately no Walmart logo. But who owns "walrnartonparleys.com"? The registration for that is private. And who is Cody Bannon? I'm a nobody, but I show up in a Google Search in Salt Lake City. And Cody? Nothing in Google. So I surmise that Cody is not from our community, that he works for Walmart's marketing department, that Walmart owns "walmartonparleys.com" and that Cody's phone number is a local Google Voice account that forwards to his actual phone. Cody, the only thing worse than an email from Walmart headquarters is an email pretending not to be from Walmart headquarters. Glenn Fassmann in Salt Lake City October 28, 2010, 11:33 PM I have lived in this neighborhood for a few decades and I would welcome a store on Parley's Way which actually has useful merchandise. I stopped going to K-mart years ago because I left there empty handed so many times and I had to drive to 3300 South or further to get the goods I needed. A Walmart would be environmentally friendly by reducing the miles we need to drive for general merchandise. A Lowe's would actually be my choice for the location, but who am I to choose. A Walmart would not harm the smaller shops in the area. These shops already compete with Walmart and all the big box stores and the smaller stores have niches which have been tried and proven over time. Everyone in the neighborhood already frequents Costco, Walmart, Sams Club, Win Co Foods and other big box stores regularly. I don't believe people will frequent the smaller local stores less, in fact, I believe the new Harmons on 1300 South and 1700 East will harm the Dan's and Fresh Market grocery stores more than a Walmart on Parley's Way. The Shopko in Sugarhouse and the Right Aide (both also being national chains) may be the most affected, but I am not fond of either store and I would like the alternative. I keep hearing that we need small boutique shops at the Parley's Way location, but many "boutique" stores at Foothill and Sugarhouse already have a hard time surviving in the area. A developer would surely have taken the risk for this kind of development if it were a viable option, but it is not. I like to see those who are crying out for this option to put their money on the line to make this sort of development work there. Free enterprise and open markets regulate what commercial development survives. The other option for the area would be apartments and a smaller commercial area, but that would bring even more dreaded congestion to the area than a store. I am not a resident directly adjacent to the area, but if I were, I'd rather have the big box store than high density housing. www.PeakDemocracy.coin/546 n..0:.........................r r_L_.._.-..i nni i ifl.fll nnn 1n Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements Store patrons go home at night, but residents do not. Many people already drive up Parley's Way to shop at 3300 South and if they stop at a Walmart on Parley's Way instead of continuing to 3300 South to shop, these people won't add congestion. There will be more cars, but any development will bring more cars including green space. Could you imagine all the traffic from families driving to and from soccer games and football practice? Let's allow Walmart to remove a blight in the area and replace it with an aesthetically pleasing useful store location. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City October 28, 2010, 10:08 PM Allow Wal-Mart to re-zone the old K-Mart property. Wal-Mart's newer stores are much nicer than their older prototype. I am ready to pay less for groceries than Dan's and Fresh Market and get rid of the K-Mart box eyesore. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City October 26, 2010, 8:49 PM Walmart will bring a whole new level of competitive pricing to the East Side. Frankly, I'm tired of the lame Dan's and Smiths which dominate the East Side and charge outrageous prices. Letting WM in will clean up the endless parade of high prices, hot deals,join our club and get rebates, we match prices, get a free turkey, blah, blah, blah with sharp pricing, low pharmacy rates and lot's of product availability. bruce beck in Salt Lake City October 24, 2010, 2:18 PM I support their rezoning request and further more I support letting them build the newest most up to date store possible that includes groceries and an auto service area.Why do they have to be crippled by the Walmart haters who want no store or a substandard one?I appreciate Walmart but I know they have their problems just like any other retailer.In a free enterprise system they derseve the same right as anyone else to participate in the marketplace.I shop at many other Walmart competitors who out perform them in their own specialties.For instance the Sunflower Market,Rheams,and Super Saver beats the pants off Walmart with their produce prices.If some other small local business can't compete too bad.Maybe they should find some niche where than can compete.Bruce Beck Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City October 24, 2010, 1:39 PM A few vocal, but self-serving residents continue to oppose Wal-Mart's request to rezone its Parley's Way property. Holding out 'for the next forty years if necessary,' for their vision of a Foothill Village-like, `walkable' development, unsuitable and unrealistic along a major thoroughfare into the City, they are waiting for Wal-Mart to leave no matter how long it takes—comparable to a child's equally ridiculous threat to hold his breath until he gets his way! Meanwhile, the community is deprived of Wal-Mart's ability to fix drainage and water detention problems associated with the property, since, even if the retailer decided to move forward with such repairs, they could discover, after tearing up much of the parking lot, such repairs necessitate getting under the existing building, which they could not do. Thus both the www.PeakDemocracy.com/546 Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements efforts and expenses incurred would be for naught. No savvy business, including Wal-Mart, would make such a decision under those circumstances. Conversely, should Wal-Mart be given approval to rezone the property: • The forty year old existing K-Mart building would be torn down to be replaced by a smaller (92,000 versus 120,000 square feet)more sustainable and more aesthetically pleasing building. • Water detention and drainage systems necessary to prevent flooding into the apartment property to the north and Parley's Way to the south would be implemented. • The current endless expanse of parking would be mitigated with more landscaping and walkways. • A street presence, as requested by the community, would be fulfilled with Wal-Mart's dedication of one acre of the property close to Parley's Way, to be determined by the community, such as a park and ride, restaurant, or other desired use. • More community and City input since a rezoning would result in a development plan necessitating such input. I urge the City to look beyond the selfish desires of a vocal minority who hold up the banner of a Masterplan in which only an elite few participated, resulting in the zoning that now blocks what is in the best interests of the community as a whole, and approve Wal-Mart's rezoning ANN and Masterplan amendment request. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City October 23, 2010, 1:36 PM Say No to Walmart's request for rezoning. Respect the decades of effort that have gone into creating the Master Plan and putting in place the current zoning designation. Do not set a precedent that will lead to others wanting their properties (spot) up-zoned. Reduce the lanes and allow parking, install bicycle lanes and cross-walks with lights, and make Parley's Way a safe and appealing entrance to Salt Lake City, as is being done on 1300 East. Encourage walkable and low traffic generating uses on this parcel, consistent with the neighborhood's needs. Protect all of the City's property owners. Require Walmart to do what is permitted in the property's current zoning designation, as other property owners are in theirs. Do not take value from the other neighbors' properties, please respect the rights of all property owners. We live within walking distance of this property and support the efforts of KeepOurZoning.org Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City October 22, 2010, 7:58 PM As I read the amendment I noted that the current K-mart building was approved and built at 103,227 sq. ft. and the proposed Walmart building is 9.1,750 sq. ft. isn't that a smaller "big box" than what was there or am I missing something. Some of the comments suggest otherwise. Some 4011, have suggested it would put some of the local stores out of business. What put k-mart out of " business or Market Fresh replacing Albertson's for example? If a like business cannot compete isn't that how the free enterprise system works. If people buy from another competitor it is usually because they can get more for their money or a better product. At least that is my www.PeakDemocracy.com/546 IC Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements opinion. Are there any other viable alternative proposals out there? Let's hear about them if there. Alice Marsh in Salt Lake City October 22, 2010, 7:28 PM From what I know about the Walmart Corp. it doesn't stop until it gets what it wants. We know there is little chance of changing the option of building there. I do think, however, that we should not agree to rezoning the property. For those of us who are not in favor of a Walmart store--we can remember not to patronize it when it is built. Burton Brown in Salt Lake City October 22, 2010, 3:37 PM I support a WalMart, and rezoning within reason. Most of the complaints are simply because its WalMart...if it was Target, or Costco, or Kohl's...most of the nay sayers would not be complaining. WalMart will bring jobs, and sales tax revenue. Bring it! Bring it now! Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City October 22, 2010, 2:35 PM I'd like a Walmart there and think the area should be rezoned if that is what is necessary in order to make that happen. Emina Alibegovic in Salt Lake City October 22, 2010, 1:30 PM I oppose rezoning. Foothill Village is only a mile away. There is no reason for another shopping center or a huge store in that area. What we do not have enough of are neighborhood bakeries, gathering places, community centers, places for youth to engage in meaningful activities with each other- art, sports, education. Let's work on knowing each other and communicating instead of driving to big box store buying things we do not need so we can fill landfills with things we discard because we wanted newer and "better". John Wilkes in Salt Lake City October 22, 2010, 1:14 PM "Big Box" stores are putting local businesses into crisis. Take the money you have used to court them, and help local businesses instead. John Millsaps in Salt Lake City October 22, 2010, 1:03 PM While [ dislike the empty store sitting there, I strongly dislike letting Wal-Mart build a larger store on the site. Wal-Mart has been utilizing smaller stores in other cities, such as New York City and in smaller communities that can't support the Mega-stores. That would be more acceptable than the massive box store that they want to put there. I have to agree with other posters that the Big Box store would have a very negative impact on the traffic flows on both Foothill Blvd, because another traffic light would be installs and on Parleys Way. Plus the upgrades necessary to sewer/water lines will mean that the roads are torn up, yet again. If that is necessary, Wal-Mart should bear the cost, along with all other impact costs. My ideal would be for the city to purchase the land and turn it into a transit hub with a Trax line running from the U south along the foothills, into the county but I don't see that happening and www.PeakDemocracy.cor/546 Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements thus by the time it becomes necessary to do something like that, the costs will be much greater. I am a firm believer that when it comes to something like this, it is better to err on the side of caution and on the side of the neighborhood, than to go big. Please don't approve the zoning change or you will destroy the neighborhood. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City October 22, 2010, 11:58 AM I've lived in the area for more than 30 years. The abandoned building is a huge eye-sore. How about selling the property to someone who will build upscale condos with valley views, put in green space, and maintain our lovely neighborhood? If that's not an optioi:i- a little, baby Wal-mart is a much better idea than a big, vacant box. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City October 22, 2010, 11:40 AM There is such a thing in the Walmart arsenal as a neighborhood center, a smaller, more compact store that fits into existing neighborhoods better. They have options that would work for this site, they are just too greedy to accept this. , This application is no more than a ploy by the Walmart brass to get a bigger store and a larger share of the local market. They will make wild statements of their complete inability to comply with existing regulations and blow more smoke than any other big box chain(with the exception of Home Depot). They will tell you that they can't financialy make it if they don't get their way (give me a break they are one of the most financially successful companies because they are able to get nearly everyone to give them better terms than they otherwise would have received). Walmart Brass will threaten to throw a tantrum and stomp their feet and threaten to oust you from their group of"friends" if you don't give them what they want. If this does not work then they will send in their corporate bullies (Attorneys)and file lawsuit after lawsuit to wear you down, until you give in to their demands. End result is that they know that there is a market for their products in that area. They will locate there in the end even if their are denied the zone change, They like money and never pass up a chance to get more, even if it is less that then initially desired. They also know that zoning controls how much of the market share they are allowed. They basically would love it if our elected leaders would give them the keys to the city. I urge our leaders to resist and stand up for the zoning and land use decisions that have already been made for that piece of ground and that location. Aulik If Walmart is unwilling to work within the CURRENTLY EXISTING zoning designation for the property then their request should be denied. We do not win anything if we give into their bullying and change the zoning designation to match their demands in any way. www.PeakDemocracy.com/546 Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements Maggie Shaw in Salt Lake City October 22, 2010, 10:19 AM I am opposed to the zoning change. The residents of that area do not want it. That should be a compelling enough reason to prevent the change. That neighborhood is not appropriate for a mega store. Keep the present zoning. No change. Wilf Lieber in Salt Lake City October 22, 2010, 3:50 AM A new Walmart store would be a great replacement for the existing site. I like to use small local shops, but I do not subscribe to the idea of punishing or denying a big company the right to build just because they are big, or we arrogantly don't want to shop there. Lastly, the tax benefit to SLC would be helpful. Keep shopping in the city. Suzanne Stensaas in Salt Lake City October 21, 2010, 11:05 AM Attention Planning Commission and City Council Re: Rezone of 2705 Parley's Way from Community Business to Community Shopping. I have lived one block from Parley's Way since 1968. When KMart opened it was an eyesore and it still is, but adding 6% more vegetation is not going to change it. I don't understand why the issue is again coining up when the citizens and planners have clearly indicated it is not in the neighborhood's interest or master plan. One can only think that it is economic and political pressure from Walmart. Never, never do you discuss what it is going to cost, if rezoned, to handle the additional traffic, the cost of traffic lights, the additional delays on already congested Foothill, the lack of an east bench plan for Foothill Drive. The lack of adequate rapid transit along this corridor, the lack of bike paths or the additional traffic on Stringham Avenue and Parley's Way. These are costs to the taxpayers who so resent paying taxes. If we pay more taxes let it be for education and open space. We cannot stop Walmart having a store with a similar footprint, but we can support enforcing the master plan, which is good and needed. Many other acceptable uses can be made of this property and I am sure Walmart could sell this property if the rezone is not approved and they are unwilling to downsize their plans. We have shopping services at Olympus Hills, Sugar House, and 3300 South, Foothill Village and along Foothill Blvd. Another Walmart is only about 5 miles away long with other big box stores: Target, Costco, and Lowes etc. on 3rd West. Lets keep our small stores and merchants in business. We have all the convenience we need right now without a Super Store. We want to keep neighborhoods and small businesses intact, they can supply our needs, keep people employed and contribute to the community in many ways. These businesses need our support and are the heart of employment and income in the USA. I think a bigger store would make it even more difficult for them. Please,NO REZONE and please deal with the traffic and transit issue along the East Bench, www.PeakDemocracy.com/546 Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's prop' osal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements instead of revisiting this issue again and again. Richard Kanner in Salt Lake City October 21, 2010, 9:15 AM There are areas in Salt Lake that have been designated for the 'big box' stores such as Walmart, Costco, Home Depot, etc. Third West is an example of this. The old K-Mart property is in a residential neighborhood and a big box store there would be inappropriate. It would increase traffic on Parley's Way, Foothill Blvd. and I-215 and, at certain times these are already beyond their capacity. Smaller locally owned stores in the area would suffer and probably would disappear. The property is better suited to high density housing combined with public transportation along Foothill going to the University and downtown. Also, light rail from this site to Third West would give the neighborhood easy non-driving access to the 'big box' stores. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City October 21, 2010, 8:24 AM NO MORE WALMARTs. Anything but a Wal-Mart that sells the crappiest crap out there. I thought walmart's model was to serve under-served areas? Go urban, Go rural, but stay out my backyard. Please do not approve such a disgrace. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City October 20, 2010, 8:27 PM Walmart? Really. I frequent the Fresh Market west on 21st and would be disgusted if a proposed Walmart sapped this store of its business and jobs. There are other stores and shops north along Foothill that would likely suffer as a result of Walmart's presence. The Walmart argument of convenience for all shopping in one place is tired. The negative impact of Walmart's presence in many communities is well documented and for SLC to ignore this evidence would be frustrating. How about some more greenspace? This block could easily be converted to greenspace and connected with Parleys Way Greenbelt and Parleys Park via the recently completed trail network. This area could use some public sports fields - soccer fields, softball diamonds, and play areas. I'm sure they'd see as much usage as the soccer and sports fields proposed for the former riparian area along the Jordan River in North Salt Lake. Susan Passino in Salt Lake City October 20, 2010, 7:58 PM I'm in agreement with those who see the current condition of that area as not acceptable and I'm tired of going to Taylorsville or the Westside to shop at those Walmarts. But it's not just a matter on convenience, I'm never clear about changing things up when there really wasn't a problem in having a business there to begin with. It's a great location and it could benefit the neighborhood and not be a blight. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City October 20, 2010, 6:50 PM I am in favor of the rezoning. Regardless of how one feels about Walmart, it is inevitable that Walmart is going in at that location and I would rather have it in a nicer, new building than the old, dilapidated one that is there currently. A new building will better accommodate the store and will be more aesthetically pleasing for those that live near it. Semi-anonymous in Salt Lake City www.PeakDemocracy.corn/546 Walmart Proposed Zoning and Masterplan Amendment Please comment on Walmart's proposal to rezone the property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way from CB Community Business to CS Community Shopping. All Statements October 20, 2010, 6:14 PM Having lived in the Parley's way area for a few decades I have always noticed the K-Mart building as an under-serviced, neglected blight on the area. One thing I notice about Walmart stores is that at least they maintain and take care of their grounds. I thoroughly support their zoning petition. I currently frequent other Walmarts in the valley and it will be nice to not have to drive so far away to get to one in the future. Terry Marasco in Salt Lake City October 20, 2010, 5:21 PM The worst effect on small business is Wal Mart. You do not need to open this door which sets a bad precedent. Ross Chambless in Salt Lake City October 20, 2010, 5:09 PM I think the neighborhood is tired of seeing a big abandoned K-Mart store in this proposed space. But I am also reluctant to have Walmart, or any other large mega-corporation, inhabit the space. It would be much better if there was a local, Utah-based service business that could get established there. Still, whoever makes use of the existing space should do everything possible to prioritize pedestrians or bicyclists over vehicles, and maintain lots of native vegetation. The only thing worse than mega-stores are unsightly mega-parking lots. Curtis Haring in Salt Lake City October 20, 2010, 4:48 PM Although the idea of another big box store is not the most appealing, the thought of a giant vacant store is even worse. Perhaps, as a condition of moving in, Wal-Mart has to guarantee that parking lot space not in use more than 75% of the time after three years could be put up for sale and be zoned for smaller retail and/or multi-family dwellings. Pax Rasmussen in Salt Lake City October 20, 2010, 12:18 PM I strongly oppose this proposal. We have enough bloody Walmarts and chain stores. www.PeakDemocracy.com/546 DATE(rcvd) NAME ADDRESS ]I COMMENT IN FAVOR OPPOSED 11/15/10 Mae Vincent 1960 Wasatch IlOpposed to Walmart-create too much traffic on Foothill-Walmart does not Il belong in our neighborhood X 11/15/10 Joe Richards 2831 E.2100 South Opposed to Walmart rezone X 11/15/10 Patricia Allred 2560 Blaine In favor of Walmart rezone-tired of small group of community council people saying that they represent the community-the city needs the tax base-do not • like the local grocery stores X 11/15/10 Keone Holton ! Opposed to the Walmart rezone-the traffic on Foothill is already bad and Walmart will make it worse-Walmart does not sell US goods X 11/16/10 DeAnn McCunne 2210 S.Wasatch Opposed-traffic-Do not want taller/bigger buildings-other properties like the apartments will want to build bigger also x 11/18/10 Kathy Adams Opposed to rezone-do not want big box in neighborhood-would like smaller stores that she can walk to-get a cup of coffee,restaurant,etc. x 1/3/11 Marco Wallenberg(?) I L Support rezone x 1/18/11 Debbie Aldridge Country Club Ridge Condos Concerned about delivery trucks using access road next to her home-also noise impacts from garbage pick-up-does not want to live next to a shopping center x 1/31/11 Mary Lee Christensen 2446 Wilshire Drive Opposed to anydevelopment higher than two stories - _ PP ----- Pme— g 1/31/11 Jacqueline Jones 2510 Commanche Ave In favor of Walmart-would like traffic light installed at intersection of Wyoming and Parleys x 2/1/11 Sharon Thurman I2212 Redondo In favor of Walmart x 1 4 1 5 Page 1 of 2 r From: Scott Kisling [scott.kisling@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 12:21 PM imorioN To: Nelson Cabot; Dolores Donohoo; Robin Bastar; Larry Migliaccio; Laurie Bray; Greg Carter; sperry Grace; Sugar House CC Chair; Jason Bradley; Mighael G. Kavanagh; Sally Barraclough; Carlyle Harris; Elaine Brown; Shiela O'Driscoll; Russell Callister; Pattie DeNunzio; Christopher Thomas; Sarah Carlson; Sandra Walsh; Amy Barry; Lynne & Neal Olson;Travis Pearce; Jim Brown; Judi & Wade Short; Benny Keele; Ruth Price; Dave Mulder; Ray Pugsley; Barbara Green; Derek Payne Cc: Mills, Wayne; Council Comments; Rep. Brian S. King; Senator Ross Romero Subject: Parleys Way rezone concerns of Country Club neighborhood for SH Community Council Attachments: Neighborhood_concern_summary_for_SHCC.pdf; ATT00001.htm Categories: Other Dear Sugar House Trustees, Attached is a summary of the comments and concerns I heard while listening to people in my neighborhood about rezoning 2705 Parley's Way. I tried to understand each specific concern; people may say "traffic" is a concern when it is actually traffic circulation. I'm sure there are more concerns, and I know that many people can articulate them better than I. I have submitted a longer version to www.keepourzoninq.core. Walmart has hired Dan Jones to conduct focus groups and phone campaigns, and hired others to distribute flyers and collect signatures, to show people would prefer a new building over the existing building, but the real issue is whether people prefer the requested zone to the existing zone. Neighborhood concerns are in several general categories: 1. Traffic circulation is very poor, especially in light of traffic volume increases since 1987 when the Master Plan was last revised. 2. The possibility of abandonment in future years is very real, with little likelihood of demolition and redevelopment. Small buildings are reoccupied much more quickly. 3. Concerns of a "domino effect,"whereby other property owners request a rezone to increase their property value just as Walmart is requesting. 4. Concerns about neighbors having to police any Development Agreement, if attached to a rezone approval. 5. Longstanding neighborhood desires for small businesses and a variety of services, as expressed in multiple surveys, open houses, etc. 6. Costs to state and local government for later traffic circulation improvements, loss of tax revenues, decrease in charitable contributions, etc. It dawned on me late that the major difference in these two zones is the difference in anticipated customer draw. This property — hard to reach from the distant west or north, and very difficult to egress to the north at all — is much better suited to drawing customers from my neighborhood, Beacon Heights, and Foothill Place Apartments to the north (if given access without need for Foothill Drive). The use of three long-ago castrated streets for access instead of for north-south traffic movement as they were originally designed caused many of the traffic circulation problems. Those streets are: Stringham, which since 1973 ends in a fence at the south-eastern edge of Foothill Place Apartments; Wilshire, which became the primary access ,"N to Kmart and several other parcels via access easements in 1968; and Maywood, which services only the office buildings to the west of the Kmart building since they were built, and would be used for Walmart truck access. OntvimAnfo\T-+moil CTZiclina 1 1_d_1(1 l,fir 1 ichn1 1 Page 2 of 2 Concern number 5, trampling long-fought-for neighborhood desires at the request of a major multinational corporation would be a shame that would spoil the reputation of Salt Lake City as good government for many— perhaps dozens—of years to come. Thank you for your support, Scott Kisling Trustee (upon confirmation), Sugar House Community Council Country Clop Neighborhooc Comments anc Concerns Regarding Rezoning for Walrnart Crt. anci Oct. 30, 2010 t ,' S�rc.}a; House C:ri �,u \, a nci! TRAFFIC Residents are generally more concerned about traffic circulation than about traffic volumes. Successful development is desired, and people understand that traffic increases will result. TRAFFIC STUDY ACCURACY Residents asked a traffic engineer how traffic studies were done.Daily trip generations are determined by a handbook.Assumptions are made as to ingress and egress percentages. E.`:i-si_5LS I l : 4.`E:D If;;I' (,i_Nt_IL\FION t. NDERF:!-0L MATED I ! AYSONI0(fliilii_ .a)(;) l 1 !Cr', W ECa. CONS R IER ELFp AT ES WERE :� 'O (. E'9NSEE.kt:ltFD F}:A l'...x:T_ARL Y.ri( MOTE r_ FR tFI IC TItAN fK_ I t.R,_6. TRUCK CIRCULATION Residents asked a licensed truck driver's opinion of truck circulation for both new and remodeled stores, and studied other local Walmart stores and those of their competitors. FAITS TO 1-00 HILL DRIVE API PE.MEENTATIC r_4 €'A\'S_:R. t°-;<_,E.."L;) F(JR FMFRt_)\ E• gi.-.N 0 l'i_j5r,IC ROAF AUTOMOBILE CIRCULATION Accessing northbound Foothill Drive is problematic for anyone not already on I-215; the Country Club can be crossed only at 20th East. Interstate 80 can be crossed only on I-215, or at 20th, 17th or 13thFF East Streets. 3 .F,�I�M I.Ez ,r:�'.F_l 1:�..xt,t_:.'"", ( Pi�()i3i.diNI.:c I.._ 3i": L I 1 +" IC 1'1 PJI )II SI .IIA. F i , It:., i..! AI .ilia k d) .;_ There are hundreds of empty "big box" retail stores in the U.S.;Walmart owns or rents more empty stores than any other retailer. Residents are aware of the conditions placed on the former Smith's store at 3100 East 3300 South in 2004, to prevent the use of the structure to Smith's competitors.There are several other examples in the valley. Walmart's U.S. same-store sales— perhaps the best measure of a retailer's success—have been declining for the last five quarters, so abandonment in 5 to 40 years is not. Smaller buildings are more easily reoccupied, e.g. Fisher Dairy became a cleaners which became Flowers for You. TOO MUCH PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED RETAIL DEMOLITION BONDS SHOULD BE REQUIRED \•V .l':'.1;:k,4 DOES t S IT i ! ] G Residents have been involved in multiple Open Houses and other meetings to articulate what it . .. is they want for their neighborhood. They feel they have followed the process defined by the City, and yet when a large multi-national corporation buys property suddenly all that is for naught. THE ISSUE WILL BE DECIDED WHEN CITY COUNCIL TAKES A VOTE. IS THERE ANY HOPE FOR GETTING WHAT WE WANT? To simply choose between a new store and an old one—how Walmart is framing the issue—is short-sighted. With the current zoning,if Walmart were to decide to close this location—in five, ten or thirty years—they likely would sell the property to local developers who would build to the current zoning. If it were rezoned they could leave it empty indefinitely, sell it to another big box retailer, or even lease it to the operator of a regional flea market. The needs of local residents who have spoken out at multiple open houses and other meetings would forever be disregarded. f � On NU T 0 = 1-, };�� ,' Zoning laws are intended to keep similar uses and scale located together, away from conflicting uses and scale. Existing zoning of adjacent properties is taken under consideration for any rezoning request. Even housing could conceivably be rezoned to commercial, as was done for Shopco under a similar argument. Development agreements are made between a company and the City to limit the uses or activities of the business to be more palatable to the neighbors. Development agreements may remain in effect indefinitely,but the City has to file and keep track of each agreement. Usually it is the neighbors who must patrol the businesses' activities,notifying the City of infractions. The requirement of Planned Development approval is being touted as the way for residents to have input into the details of buildings and uses within the new zoning, and it is true that it is required. Unfortunately, important issues such as what uses are allowed and how big the buildings can be are determined by zoning,not by Planned Development approval. Paint colors, building materials, etc. are determined in the Planned Development process. The only way for residents to control uses is through zoning. By law, Master Plans drive land use and zoning, which is why a Master Plan amendment is requested by Walmart as well as a zoning change. BUSINESS/COMMERCIAL USES Planning Goal: "Provide for needed community services while minimizing the impact of non-residential land uses on the residential community." "Many residents desire additional services in the community." "A hardware store and medical offices are among the uses most commonly mentioned." In 1987, at the time the East Bench Master Plan was updated, Kmart was a successful hypermarket(groceries and general merchandise), so one would think that when residents desire additional services they would be wanting services not available in a hypermarket. "Redevelopment or at least renovation of some business properties is quite likely and is considered the most desirable approach to meeting future business needs." "Two-level buildings, structured parking and other provisions provide considerably more development potential than present use levels at many sites." "Major zoning changes in the East Bench Community are neither anticipated nor encouraged." "The community is so completely developed that a change of zoning in most areas would negatively impact surrounding residential properties. More efficient use of existing business properties is the preferred approach to meet future business needs." Again, two-level buildings,structured parking and other provisions—a more efficient use—is encouraged here. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Planning Goal: Maintain an efficient circulation system that minimizes traffic volumes on local streets. "Close minor intersections" to maximize the traffic flow of Foothill Drive. "Plant street trees, develop a center median and enforce parking strip landscaping ordinances" on Parley's Way. "Consider closing vehicular access from some local streets to Foothill Drive." This is to maximize the traffic flow of Foothill Drive. URBAN DESIGN Planning Goal: Enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities and create a sense of visual unity with the community. Only remaining site for a Gateway View—Information Center. Zoning and other code enforcement can ensure proper maintenance and eliminate outdoor storage at all East Bench business properties. This is reason enough not to rezone and rely on a development agreement. "Since Parley's Way and Foothill Drive provide primary access into the city, they should be the most attractive streets in the city." EAST BENCH MASTER PLAN SUMMARY "New development must be sensitive to neighborhood scale and design, while satisfying needs and expectations of the developer. Compatibility with the immediate neighborhood is essential." "Urban design will play an increasingly important role in neighborhood maintenance and preservation..." "Innovative approaches to implementing urban design concepts and proposals may be the solution to many of the problems that the East Bench Community will continue to face." APPENDIX I Zoning Change Compatibility Considerations "There must be a demonstrated need for the new business proposal and documented community support." The issue is zoning. A preference of a new to an old store is irrelevant. "Business projects must be of a density, scale and design that will not negatively impact neighboring residential properties." "Zoning should not be changed to accommodate a new business unless it is adjacent to an existing business." AIN "'Spot or strip' zoning to accommodate new businesses is strongly discouraged." %mow "New businesses should be designed to be a logical extension of adjacent businesses." Walmart has made several statements of the benefits a rezone would bring, and has alluded to the costs our state and city governments would incur. Most benefits fall to Walmart. Most costs fall to the community. BENEFITS IF REZONED AS WALMART REQUESTS Claimed benefits to residents "Nicer looking store for the neighbors to see." "Nice shopping experience" "Trucks will have better circulation." According to Walmart's site plan on file, a new store would have space to turn trucks around in the northwest corner of the property and have them exit on Parley's Way without having to exit across incoming shopper traffic at the Stringham stub onto Foothill Drive. According to Walmart's presentations at community meetings, truck traffic will circulate clockwise and exit at the Stringham stub onto southbound Foothill Drive. Because of the multiple difficulties with trucks exiting via the Stringham stub onto Foothill Drive, their site plan is probably more accurate than their verbal statements. VValmart will repair the frequently-flooding storm drain at their expense. It should be repaired anyway.And soon. Walmart says it is the City's responsibility. "Better parking lot draining." Walmart will be required to conform to current building codes,which require catchment of all runoff on the property. "More trees and shrubs." Walmart will be required to meet minimum City requirements, which requires much more greenery than in 1968 when Kmart was built.. "More energy efficient." Walmart could put in the same insulation value and same HVAC equipment that they do in their new stores. COSTS IF REZONED AS WALMART REQUESTS Costs to improve ingress and egress will fall entirely to the owners of the particular roads, based on statements Walmart made in East Bench Community Council Meeting. Costs to prevent left turns from northbound Foothill Drive fall (state). Costs to improve entry/exit at the Stringham stub onto Foothill Drive (city). Costs to improve Wilshire / Parley's Way signalization (city). Costs to widen the bridge at the northbound Foothill Drive exit (federal). Reduced tax revenues due to shuttering of several competitors. Increased state welfare costs due to 50% reduction in charitable contributions per employee compared to small businesses. See http: 'v '1`.'lv".11t1,.!zoV'/,earch/product.,l,nv?ABBR-PCi`17 fl2i»-,. (i 2 Email_LVanHook_11-17-10_Opp0sed.txt ,* From: Laura van Hook [lkvanhook@gmail .com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:55 AM To: Mills, Wayne; council .commets@slcgov.com; jtmartin@slcgov.com subject: walmart Rezoning Categories: Other Dear Planner and City Councilmen, I am writing to voice my opinion regarding the walmart Rezoning. I feel strongly that no rezoning should not be allowed. we have a responsibility to preserve our neighborhood in it's current state. The options that walmart would have with re-zoning could seriously jeopardize the function and form of our neighborhood, making it a less pleasant place to live. This could also negatively impact our property values. Please do not allow this rezoning. Laura and Michael van Hook 2804 Arcadia Heights Circle SLc, UT 84109 Amok Page 1 Page l of 1 From: john.ogilvie@comcast.net Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 12:31 PM To: Mills, Wayne; Council Comments; Rep. Brian S. King; Senator Ross Romero Cc: keepourzoning@gmail.com; Jan Brittain Subject: Tribune pro-WalMart editorial? Categories: Other (I posted this on the Salt Lake Tribune site today. Thanks for your attention to this matter.) I live across from the Parley's Way Kmart/WalMart site. The November 19 editorial in the Tribune says that a big box store will be built there, and that the only question is the size of that store. I am not convinced. Is WalMart legally required to develop the property in a particular way? Is there anything preventing WalMart from getting the zoning changed and then selling the property? My understanding (based on some research) is that it's possible the rezoned property could be developed and used, for example, as a pit stop for truckers travelling I-80, with dozens of diesel and other fuel pumps, a store, a restaurant, sleeping accommodations, and overnight parking for 18-wheelers and other commercial trucks. Even if WalMart has some legal obligation to develop the property as a store in line with the presentations made, if there is enough profit to be made by violating the obligation, what's to stop that from happening? There is too much uncertainty here for me to be convinced that the Tribune's editorial is accurate. Page 1 of 1 From: Heather Whidden [whidden.h@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 12:23 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Walmart rezoning-SAY NO! Categories: Other Dear Wayne Mills, As a concerned citizen who lives just west of Walmart's Parley's Way property, I want to express my frustration that once again Walmart is pushing for rezoning. I have no problem with Walmart developing a store at that site, but I do have a problem with them attempting to wear down the SLC council to get exactly what they want--the ability to build BIG. The surrounding community doesn't want or need a mega store at that site. Thank you, Heather Whidden flP•//T•\F,,,.,1nuppc\Wavna\Wa1-Mart\Pi ir. r.nmrnent.c\Finail T-TWhidden 11-4-10.htm 1/5/2011 Page l of 2 From: Deb Day Olivier [debdayolivier@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 9:16 AM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Fwd: Walmart Rezoning-No thanks Categories: Other Forwarded message From: Deb Day Olivier<dcbdav olivier a c7mail.com> Date: Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 9:14 AM Subject: Walmart Rezoning-No thanks To: wwavnernills i slccov.com, council.comments`a slcL'ov.com,jt.nlartin a slcem.com Please stop the request by Walmart to rezone their property at 2705 Parleys Way (formerly owned by KMart). The new zoning would go against the Master Plan. Walmart has presented their plans for the rezoning, but refuse to sign a Letter of Agreement to implement their pretty plan. There seems to be no way we can make them do what they propose without the Letter of Agreement. Also they could build as proposed, and then a few years later do something else much less community-friendly. For example, they could install a gas station in the area they said could be used for restaurant use, etc. They could plant 1,000 trees and shrubs, and change trucking routes with the zoning as is, but only propose these desireable actions if they get the Master Plan changed and the rezoning they want. They can retrofit the existing building to be "greener". We need to look to the future and see what harm can be wrought by altering the Master Plan and rezoning this parcel. The hundreds of empty big box stores left behind by Walmart (they write exclusions that prevent others from using the buildings for retailing) are just one aspect of their disregard for communities. I realize a living wage is not in your control, but I waited on many Walmart employees at Hildegard's Food Pantry at St. Mark's Cathedral. The Forbe's list of the 10 wealthiest Americans contains 4 Waltons, the family that started Walmart (Christy,Jim,S.Robson and Alice Walton), with over 80 billion in assets between the 4 Waltons. I think some of this money could be put to better use providing a living wage and affordable health insurance for their employees. Maybe some of it could be used to recycle their building here in Salt Lake, install lower parking lot lights, seriously upgrade the landscaping, etc.WITH the present zoning. Let's keep the Master Plan and the zoning as is. For my neighborhood, smaller is better. Harmon's found a way to work with Emigration Market's small footprint, Walmart can find a way to work with KMarts. Regards, Deb Day Olivier and Marc Olivier Deb Day Olivier 1941 S. Wasatch Drive SLC, UT 84108 Page l of l From: Keep Our Zoning [keepourzoning@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday,January 04, 2011 8:50 PM Asiik To: Mills, Wayne Cc: davidfawson@msn.com Subject: Fwd: Walmart on foothill Categories: Other Mr. Mills, Walmart heard loud and clear that their defeat in 2008 was due to lack of support. They have been soliciting (only positive, apparently) comments at each of their other stores, plus "robo-calling" customers for whom they have contact information to attend Community Council meetings (at least one who could only remember giving contact information to Walmart Pharmacy, a possible HIPAA violation if true) and inviting same to focus groups (dinner and $60 voucher included). Their employees were told to leave the Sprague Library grounds where they were soliciting comments. We suspect the support they are demonstrating is more astroturf than grass roots. Please forward this to the Planning Commission. Thanks. Begin forwarded message: From: David Fawson <davidfawson@msn.com> Date: January 4, 2011 7:45:21 PM MST To: "keepourzoning@gmail.com" <keepourzonina( gmail.com> Subject: Walmart on foothill Reply-To: David Fawson <davidfawson@msn.com> I_want_to help my Yes Telephone: 8016541262 I was at Walmart last week and there were people soliciting information on the foothill Kmart/walmart proposals. I indicated that I did not want to change the zoning and he no longer wanted input. Just want you to know that I do not want to change our zoneing!!! Page 1of1 From: David Dungan [ddungan2@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 1:13 PM To: Mills, Wayne; Council Comments Subject: NO to Walmart Rezoning Categories: Other I urge you in the strongest possible terms to deny the Walmart request to rezone its property on Parley's Way. This is a neighborhood that does not need a "Super Store" now nor anytime in the future. DO NOT CHANGE the existing zoning nor the Master Plan. A store built in compliance with current zoning guidelines will be fine. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. D.A. Dungan 2222 Wasatch Drive 84109 801-467-7907 `'1 " Page lof1 From: Chris Orrock [chrisorrock@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:08 AM •aft* To: Mills, Wayne; Council Comments; Martin,JT Subject: East Bench/Walmart Zoning Categories: Other Dear Sir or Ms., I am a longtime resident of the East Bench community Indian Hills, located east of Foothill Blvd. I am writing to encourage the City Council and Planning Commission to give due consideration to our community and both it's living, aesthetic and property values in their decision on whether or not to accede to Wal-Mart's request for new, unprecedented zoning changes for it's planned Parley's Way store. The value in any neighborhood lies not merely in it's potential tax base,but in it's livability and continuity. Granting re-zoning to Wal-Mart would adversely effect both of those assets. That does not stop the Wal-Mart corporation from routinely challenging zoning laws in almost every new box-store it builds, despite resident's objections. It often reveals nothing less than corporate contempt for both the Council members and residents in those communities. The only sensible Planning Commission and City Council ruling would be a compromise between Wal- Mart's standard tactic of challenging neighborhood and community zoning laws, and the citizens of those communities effected, in this case,the East Bench community. That compromise would take the form of denying Wal-Mart's request for re-zoning, thus allowing them to build their store within the sensible confines of our existing zoning laws and without causing unnecessary damage to the livability or continuity of our East Bench community. Sincerely, Chris Orrock SLC, Utah Page 1 of 2 From: Andrea Wargula [awargula@msn.com] Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 2:46 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: wal-mart Categories: Other to whom it may concern, regarding wal-mart rezone-petition there is no reason wal-mart can't operate within the CB zoning. the property was purchased with knowledge of the zoning designation, and i see no reason why wal- mart needs to change that designation. they can still run thei h�, ne› t' 1 'g g r t �,, r �i � ,n�? � f i 1 ,0� � <:n‘ that is a major point, is it not? the master plan was created by nanny people. includinu professional planners and community members over a long period or time. why should ONI'. business come into our eommunit\ and dictate the shape and events in our community. and SI.C's mater plan? when i think of wal-mart and this issue (Parley's rezone petition) i think of a spoiled child that won't listen to the other kid's on the block, nor their parents... i think of bullies ... i think of wal-mart as a guest in our house (SLC east bench community), and as a guest, wall-mart should respect our plans, (Master Plans) and guardians ( SLC PLANNING and COUNCIL) ( and that the Planning Division and the Council shouldn't just give the kid (wal-mart) what they what just to shut them up) I could see trying to push one's ways on others when one is committed to the good of the community.... but,. Wal-mart is committed to making money (that's what they do) i don't have a problem with that.... i do have a problem, however, with greed) ( they claim to provide us with affordable alternatives....great... we have many affordable alternatives here already... a REZONE is not necessary for them to still provide nsw ith their alternatives) ( i might even suggest that there would be NO infusion of money, into our loc.:I econo:nv. because i see most of the ohs hein� filled by peopie O;• I SIDE; of our local community) as i wrote, ultimately, wal-mart is in the business of making money, NOT building, enriching, or maintaining communities. I have personally met some of the representatives wal-mart has used in thier public involvement efforts... i really did feel like i was dealing with my 4th grader ( she rolls her eyes, exaggerates, whines, speaks to me in a condescending way, and throws tantrums when she doesn't get her way) I find wal-mart's conduct strikingly similar you, ( planning commissioners and staff, and city council members) are the guirgardinasdians of our Page 1 of 1 From: Arline Holbrook [arlinej@q.com] Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 10:54 AM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Proposed Zoning Change on Parleys Way Categories: Other Wayne, As a resident of the neighborhood which will be seriously impacted by a zoning change, I would like to voice some of my concerns about what will happen if the request is granted. If the zoning changes for WalMart or any other big store, it is likely that other neighborhood stores that are now just barely hanging on will close their doors and we'll be stuck with those empty buildings--buildings such as Rite Aid and probably a grocery store or two. We've been lucky that the building on 2300 East 2100 South with Fresh Market in it has always had a store in it, even though it's changed hands/names at least 4 times in recent years, but that could change with a supercenter up the street. Then down the line, if/when WalMart closes down and leaves an empty building, we'll have lots of empty buildings in the general neighborhood. If the zoning stays the same, we won't have to deal with big empty buildings. Businesses come and go and there will always be empty buildings from time to time, but smaller buildings are more likely to be bought up and reoccupied. Cases in point: Fisher Dairy on Parleys Way became a cleaners which became Flowers for You. However, the Dan's store on 2300 East and Parleys Way was empty for many years, and then only partially filled by Rite Aid until recently when Anytime Fitness moved in. Some people are complaining about the eyesore the K-Mart building is now, but it's an empty eyesore because WalMart owns it and nothing can be done with it until they develop or sell the property. I don't think another building of the same size or larger will be any less of an eyesore. What will look best and fit the community is to keep the zoning as is and develop the land accordingly. No, I'm not trying to tell WalMart what to do with their property as someone has accused, but merely expecting WalMart to do what the community they want to be a part of requires of property owners, using the same zoning that was in place when the property was purchased. Another concern I have is the increase in traffic because Foothill can't handle the additional traffic a large retail business would bring. WalMart can say that Parleys Way can handle it, but they aren't going to convince customers to use Parleys Way over Foothill unless they shut off the Foothill access. Even then, many people would drive along Foothill, take the Parleys exit and then use that entrance, still adding to the already heavy traffic on Foothill. WalMart won't shut off that spur anyway because they're planning to use it as an exit for their trucks. Several semis a day exiting on to Foothill will add to the problem, probably necessitating another light on Foothill so the trucks can get out. I don't know how they think semis will be able to make it up that narrow, steep road in the winter. My guess is that people in Alabama don't have any idea of what a heavy snow does to that type of an egress. WalMart has said that they can put a store in under the current zoning but prefer to be able to build bigger and better. Bigger isn't always better. Please leave the zoning the way it is now. Arline Holbrook 2415 Lynwood Drive SLC, UT 84109 Mills, Wayne From: Kathy Adams [kathyslc©gmail.com] '° Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 11:03 AM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Re: IDEA! Categories: Other I'm curious -- would rezoning allow for Parley's to become another 3rd West with Home Depot, Costco, Sam's Club, Ashley's Furniture, micro-breweries -- completely changing the character of our neighborhoods? Also worth noting, the president of the East Bench Community Council who is very much in favor of the rezone, lives nowhere near Parley's. He lives on Chancellor near St Mary's/Bonneville Golf Course area. The two- minute time limit we citizens are allowed to make our point in these council meetings is no match for the 45- minute, power-point presentation by Walmart's professional marketing team. The system seems unfair and I feel under-represented by the East Bench Community Council. I would suggest at the next city council meeting, Walmart is given the same two-minute time limit the rest of us must adhere to. Again,thank you for your reasonable approach -- Kathy On Mon,Nov 22, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Mills, Wayne <\vavne.mills cr slc<_ov.com> wrote: Thank you for your comments Ms. Adams. Wayne \fills Senior Planner Salt Lake Cit\ Plannine Dig ision 451 S. State Street. Room 406 PO BON 145450 Salt Lake City. U1 S41 14-54S0 Phone: 801-5 35-7282 Las,: SO l-535-6171 From: Kathy Adams [mailto:kath slc r Tr,Zail.co�a] Sent: Thursday,November 18,2010 7:51 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: IDEA! I thought about your question of what I would choose to put in the Walmart space that could benefit the most people? If a l5th&15th type, small businesses (book shops, coffee shop, ice cream shop) isn't possible, I would love to see a school there -- with playing fields and a playground. That would be my dream. i cl • 28 January 2011 Wayne Mills Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Mr. Mills, I live in Country Club Ridge Condominiums on Parleys Way. I am writing to ask the Planning Commission to vote NO on Walmart's request for rezoning of the old KMART property. This change is of great concern because of the noise and the disturbance that will result from large trucks going up and down Maywood drive 24 hours a day. This change will affect the value of our property and the quality of our existing community. I do not object to the mixed use zoning that currently exists but the requested zoning change will adversely affect the quality of our life. Please be cognizant of the problem you will be creating for those of us at Country Club Ridge and Foothill Place Apartments. Please vote NO when this zoning change request comes before the Commission. Cordially Yours, Betty Lynn D vis 2665 Parleys Way#213 Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 (801) 583-1599 blyndavis@yahoo.com .'lgG4Tx. To: Wayne Mills, Salt Lake City Planning Division January 26, 2011 The purpose of this letter is to express our strong opposition to a Walmart request to rezone the existing property on Parley's Way. A rezone would allow for one business, Walmart, to benefit greatly with little regard to the East Bench Master Plan and would have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Traffic is a critical issue on Foothill and is already at capacity although Walmart claims it won't effect Foothill. It is just too hard and out of the way for many cars not to travel on Foothill to get to this location. Parley's could handle more traffic, however between 4 pm and 6 pm Parley's would get very congested. We feel zoning that would allow for more businesses of a smaller size, similar to what has already been developed on Parley's, would serve the city better. �aY We also feel that Walmart will have the effect of pulling a lot of shoppers from outside the immediate area increasing traffic and pollution to the neighborhood and city. Another concern with a rezone is it would make this piece of property more valuable to Walmart, which possibly could lead to Walmart selling the property if things don't work out well business wise for them. We just feel Walmart is not a good fit for this piece of property. Their plan is not consistent with the current zoning and we do not think Walmart should be granted a rezone. Sincerely, Charles, Cheryl and Elizabeth Y es 2646 East Maywood Drive SLC, Utah 84109 Mills, Wayne -rom: Wanda Gayle [wgayle@sisna.com] sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 8:22 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Comment on WalMart Parley's Way rezone application Categories: Other I've lived between the -Former K-Mart on Parley's Way (now owned by WalMart) and the Sugar House Commons shopping area for 25 years. I remember the residential community that existed byfore ShopKo, Nordtrom's Rack, and etc. Mostly I remember the ease of getting on the freeway to commute to my job or going over to Brickyard Village before thousands of vehicles were trying to get in and out of Sugar House Commons. Now I have the same trans-Formation to look forward to on Parley's Way if WalMart is successful in getting rezoned -From CB to CS. Just on the traffic issue alone this rezone should be denied, though there are other issues such as the WalMart-City agreement that leaves out community input and in the future and makes the rezone application questionable. New CS zoning for WalMart opens the door to a much bigger enterprise than a single WalMart on the Parley's Way property. I see things getting worse, much worse, from the standpoint of a long- time neighborhood resident. Please recommend no rezone. hank you, .anda Gayle Sugar House 1 Mills, Wayne From: Amy Barry[ALBarry@slco.org] Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:03 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: walmart comments Categories: Other January 27,2011 Wayne Mills Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S State St Room 406 SLC,UT 84111-5480 RE: Walmart/Parley's Way Dear Wayne: Please accept my following comments for the upcoming Planning Commission hearing on the Walmart/Parley's Way rezone. As a member of the Sugar House Community Council and nearby resident I have been involved in this rezone issue for the past year. I respectfully offer my objection to granting Walmart the requested rezone and amendment to the East Bench Master Plan. I believe in community involvement with regards to the neighborhoods we live in and have great respect for community driven master plans. Those who have worked on developing master plans know this is not an easy process and the result is usually a strong representation of what the nearby residents really want to see in their neighborhood. The current zoning is a reflection of this vision and should be honored regardless of who owns any particular building. Unfortunately there is no sunset for a rezone and the result of any fialk zoning change would be a permanent fixture for this area. ' The question of the Walmart rezone has led me to ponder the question of nonconforming buildings that ultimately conflict with the vision set forth in any given master plan. The question raised is if these nonconforming buildings should be grandfathered in perpetuity. Clearly the East Bench Master Plan calls for smaller buildings for this area with the hope that at some point in the future a development will occur that brings to life the vision identified in the document. For those who believe that day may never occur I would point them to look at the Sugar House business district developments to realize that while it may take years to achieve we should not so easily deviate from the development and zoning principles identified in the master plan. I urge the Planning Commission to honor the vision of the East Bench Master Plan and the community vision for zoning of this parcel. While I do believe Walmart can build a nicer looking structure that may be smaller the implications of amending the master plan and granting the rezone will indefinitely cement a big box retailer for this parcel that is in direct opposition to the current zoning regulations. I believe Walmart is fully capable of doing a tasteful and attractive remodel that will be a credit to their name and a good neighbor. I commend them for wanting to "do better"than the current building in terms of serving the community. I just believe more strongly in the honoring the vision of community driven master plans. Cordially, Amy Barry 1178 Ramona Ave SLC,UT 84105 801-699-6924 ANN Amy Barry Elections Coordinator 801-468-3135 albarry a slcO.on 1 .0 Mills, Wayne -rom: burtcassity@aol.com ent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 2:14 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Parleys Way Rezone Categories: Other Dear Mr. Mills, I would appreciate you forwarding this letter to the Salt Lake City, Planning Division regarding my strong feeling regarding the rezone which would permit construction of the proposed Walmart in our area. I am a resident at 2642 Maywood Drive. The added trafic that this construction would cause in our immediate area is really not satisfactory for our quite neighborhood. This would change our area for the purpose that each of us bought in this area for. Our main purpose in buying here was to avoid situations that this proposed action would cause. I am strongly opposed to this proposal. Respectfully, F. Burton Cassity 2642 Maywood Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 1 D C eL2 mac ci Mills, Wayne From: Shannon Bergmann [shannonbergmann@me.com] """ Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 4:18 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Wallmart Categories: Other We live just above Foothill and the thought of a huge store replacing K-mart is just too much for the surrounding neighborhoods. Reasons? 1. The thought of Foothill having anymore traffic just won't work. Foothill is gridlocked during commute times and is extremely busy other times of day. I see accidents weekly at either the merge from Parley's to foothill, or Parley's to I-80 or I-80 exit onto Foothill north, or Thunderbird and Foothill or 2100. Putting a Wallmart as a draw will send even more traffic down Foothill, and the accident areas mentioned earlier. 2. This big box store will have extreme lighting in the parking lot which will light up the neighborhood. Especially extended hours. Additionally, those neighbors above foot hill will see the beaming lights. 3. If zoning changes, what will happen to apartments in a few years. Will this area become a mini business strip mall district like that of 6200 S just off the freeway. What a beautiful sight to see . . . a bunch of high rise buildings, extra traffic, parking garages, etc. Grandfather this in . . . in 10 yrs we'll grandfather in the adjacent properties. . . . houses won't see the hills above the H now open space for not only it'f view, but a place firik people to recreate after work. *00' 1 Mills, Wayne 'rom: Mary Mabey[mugs.mabey@yahoo.com] .ent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 4:14 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Walmart Rezone Categories: Other Dear Mr. Mills, Thank you for letting us give input regarding Walmart's desire to rezone the property on Parley's Way. I live just south of Parley's way on 2500 East. I am not against Walmart, I just strongly support staying with the current zoning. I do not wish to see Parley's Way developed to the level that Walmart is wishing. As a neighborhood, we have already had other businesses wish to change their zoning and we have worked hard and been able to keep it where it is. I really get tired thinking that we will have to keep at this business by business. I am desirous that the zoning on Parley's Way stay consistent with the master plan. I know that Walmart has the ability to make something wonderful within the current zoning. They have very smart and talented people working for them; I know they can make it work for both the community and their business. I am looking at a broad picture for the area and sincerely hope that the current zoning is supported for our community. I am here for the long run. These businesses come and go. Thank you for your consideration, "Mary Mabey .,97 South 2500 East SLC UT 84109 1 27 January 201 1 Wayne Mills Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 South State Street Room 406 Salt Lake City. Utah 84111 Mr.Mills: I am writing to ask the Planning Commission to deny Walmart's request for rezoning of the old KMART properly. I live at County Club Ridge Condominiums. I understand that Walmart is the owner of the KMART property. They have a right to operate a commercial facility on that property. As a residential neighbor, 1,and the other 38 homeowners at Country Club Ridge, arc also property owners with an expectation that we will be able to live in our condominiums without a lot noise from the activities of nearby businesses. The rezone request includes a plan to locate a new building further south on the property to accommodate an expanded loading dock and includes the use of the section of Maywood Drive that proceeds east off of Parleys Way as an access route for semi-trucks and loaded trailers. This road was not built to accommodate heavy truck traffic. If the rezone is granted, what quality of life will the residents of Country Club Ridge and Foothill Place Apartments have with this dock and the noise associated with the loading and unloading of these enormous trucks in our backyard? Can the Planning Commission guarantee that Walmart will observe the requirement to load and unload only during daylight hours? Otherwise, a rezone decision affects the value of our property and the quality of our communities. Without the rezone,at least some of the noise to the residential citizens will be muffled by the existing building. Our condominium association has already had to rebuild a large retaining wall due to the city's failure to correct the drainage system from the vast parking area associated with Walmart's properly. Our association has paid 840,000.00 for these repairs and the wall is not completed yet. We contacted the Walmart area , manager's office and were told that Walmart would not repair the drainage system unless they were granted the rezone. The city is already waiting for Walmart to repair a system that is causing structural failures rather than taking action to prevent damage. The city did put up a sandbag wall to prevent surface water damage but the sandbags have been in place for four years and are deteriorating to the point that they are merely an eyesore. It's also worth noting that in that four year period there have been no surface water issues observed of any kind. We have contacted the city repeatedly but they do not even extend the courtesy of returning our calls at this point. What type of response can we expect if there is further structural damage based on the extensive use of Maywood Drive for heavy truck traffic? Again, please vote NO on the rezone issue when it comes before the Commission. We realize we live in a multi use zone and we want to be good neighbors. We would also like to think that Walmart can be a good neighbor hut so far. we've seen little evidence to support that possibility. Sincerely. . . a), (M/ {(1/7e 1' a'• 'tk MarjoriF 7 . Tucker 2665 Pdfleys Way #307 Salt Lake City. Utah 84109 80 1.673.9818 margetucker@gmail.com Mills, Wayne Kayeterry22 [kayeterry22@yahoo.com] 'ent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:53 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Walmart rezone Categories: Other I am writing to you and the City Council to urge a no vote on the Walmart rezone. My husband and I have lived on Elm Avenue since 1978, about 3 blocks from the Walmart property. We love the neighborhood and have been active in community affairs to preserve all of it's best qualities. Among those qualities are quiet streets and safe, cohesive neighborhoods. Rezoning for Walmart will bring much increased traffic and noise both day and night. Furthermore, Walmart knew what the zoning was when they bought the property and apparently felt they could make a store work under that zoning. Kmart existed for years with that zoning and so can Walmart. Respectfully, Kaye and Rob Terry Sent from my iPhone 1 Mills, Wayne From: Kenner Kingston [kkingston@archnexus.com] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 8:21 AM To: Mills, Wayne Cc: Simonsen, Soren; Martin, JT Subject: Wal-Mart Rezone Categories: Other Mr. Mills, I would like to take a few moments to share my position regarding the upcoming rezone petition that will be made by Wal-Mart for the property formerly owned and occupied by K- Mart. My perspective is unique in that I am a practicing architect and partner in a firm located at 2505 Parleys Way just down the street from the subject property. What's more, I am also a resident of the area living at 1615 Blaine Avenue. Inasmuch, I see this issue from a professional, business and personal perspective. Professional The real question surrounding the rezone issue in my mind as a practicing architect relates to the core values embodied in planning and design. The master plan and subsequent zoning designation exist for a reason, and I am opposed to the rezone in part because I believe we have to allow our plans to exist long enough to be fully realized. If the plan is changed based on a single property owner's needs then I believe the plan's intrinsic value is harmed. While this is not true for every rezone request, the property in question is key to the long term vision of the area. The change in vision suggested by the rezone is not in keeping witl3,,, the current direction of development in the community. "� Business Wal-Mart has argued that they will be able to provide more and better services to the community if their petition is approved. The truth is that this community wants pedestrian oriented mixed use in that location not big-box services under a single roof. There is a reason that K-Mart failed to produce sufficient sales in that location and closed as a result. Wide-reach retail is more suited to the pure suburbs. Good business would be served by infusing people into the neighborhood in the form of housing and office uses, not simply more retail. As proof, it is notable that there is a failing strip mall on Parleys Way between my office and the subject property. Personal I am the Director of Sustainability at Architectural Nexus and have genuine passion for green design, construction and stewardship. My firm has recently demonstrated our commitment to this issue by renovating the old Bally's Fitness facility at the top of Parleys way. Our new Design Center is on track for LEED V3 (2009) Platinum and took advantage of Salt Lake City's expedited plan review for sustainable projects. One fundamental of sustainability is re-use - we didn't throw away a building as Wal-Mart suggests is necessary. Our neighbors are delighted with the result and we have received countless compliments and zero resistance as we repaired a hole in the fabric of the city. That's exactly what's missing in the case of this petition for rezone - a sense of community intimacy and of social responsibility. I have a great deal of appreciation for the complexity of the decision that will be made irk, the coming weeks and would like to offer my support to your organization in any way I can. would be happy to lead a tour of my office and/or provide graphic information about it to you if it could be of some benefit to the Planning Commission, City Council or other portion of 1 Mills, Wayne From: Kamihatch [kamihatch@aol.com] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 9:31 AM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Wal Mart Rezone Request Categories: Other Dear Salt Lake Planning Commission Division, I am writing concerning the Walmart Zoning on Parleys Way. I am against allowing Wal Mart's request that the current zoning be changed from Community Business(CB)to Community Shopping(CS).This property and the surrounding areas would become more congested with traffic and be inadequate for the use of public facilities that the property was intended to serve. The community as a whole is not opposed to business in this area, however, a community shopping center like Wal Mart is not ideal for this location. From the Foothill Land Use Study by Urban Planning Students at the U of U, Spring 2007, ". . . the objective of this study is to help alleviate traffic and congestion along the neighborhood roads of the area. The continued use of the site for a large retailer such as Kmart, Wal-Mart or Target would become a regional attraction, therefore increasing the area's traffic volume and congestion. A mixed-use development could contribute to the needed employment in the area while staying consistent with the current usage along the corridor." "It is envisioned that the [Kmart]site be redeveloped as a mixed-use,transit-oriented village. The village should be designed as a walkable community with pedestrian-oriented design elements, connecting to Foothill Drive and the surrounding community. The uses of the site should include housing, office and retail. The housing should be a mix of apartments, condominiums, and townhomes, helping meet the needs of future growth and allowing for a diversity of housing options in the area. Retail should be oriented towards smaller, locally-owned and operated businesses, keeping with the unique character of the Foothill Drive corridor." Because Foothill Drive is already at maximum traffic capacity,the idea is to create traffic flow to Wal Mart from Parleys Way.Wal-Mart's traffic study projects an additional 400 vehicles per hour in and out of the Parley's-Wilshire intersection between 5 and 7 p.m. It projects no impact on Foothill Drive because shoppers are expected to magically find their way to Parley's Way without the use of Allik Foothill Drive, and figure out how to return to East Bench and University neighborhoods without using Foothill Drive. It also projects impact on Stringham Ave. even though that would be the first choice to get back to Foothill if the driveway is too backed up. I am wholly against this type of violation of our community and neighborhoods. Do not allow Wal Mart this rezone request!! Sincerely, Kami Hatch 2455 Wilshire Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 1 January 30, 2011 Wayne Mills Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 South State Street Room 406 P.O. Box 145480 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111-5480 Dear Mr. Mills, We write this letter as neighbors of the proposed Wal-Mart at 2705 East Parley's Way and architects who practice in Salt Lake City. We support the current zone, CB (Community Business District), the city has given to this parcel. It is consistent with the East Bench Master Plan and the expressed wishes of the community. We do not think a big box super center is appropriate or desirable in a residential area - not just ours but any. We also worry about the volume of traffic, shoppers and delivery, such a super center will bring and the ability of existing infrastructure to handle it. Equal to our concern about scale and traffic is the unfortunate lack of variety that follows the opening of a big box store such as Wal-Mart. It is well-documented that Wal-Mart forces the closure of surrounding local merchants and greatly hampers the growth of locally owned businesses, such as markets, restaurants, and boutique stores, in the area. The variety of experience provided by smaller, multiple vendors helps to enliven a neighborhood and make it vibrant. We see evidence of this around our city in multi-use neighborhoods such as, 11`h East and 21st South, 9`h East & 9`h South, 15th East & 15"r'South, and 13th South & 18t" East - all well-used and very walkable. We urge the Planning Commission to enforce the current zoning in an effort to maintain a reasonable scale for current and future buildings on this property and to help make our neighborhood more livable. We acknowledge that Wal-Mart now owns the property and has the right to use it. However, it does not seem prudent for the city to let Wal-Mart set the rules. Like most of our neighbors, we look forward to the day this site is improved from its current, unmaintained and vacant condition. However, we do not put short term gain ahead of long term planning and best practices for our community. We cannot be swayed by promises of additional landscaping - this is small potatoes in the larger scheme of things. What will the future hold for our neighborhood if this property is changed to Community Shopping? Will we one day be faced with a regional shopping center of which Wal-Mart is but a part? It is entirely possible for Wal-Mart to work within the stipulations of the existing non- conforming use by exercising their creativity and adapting the K-Mart building to meet their needs. This is common practice around the world. In fact, many fine examples can be found right here in Salt Lake City - starting right down the street at Architectural Nexus. With the current cost of construction, raw materials, and transportation, it is unlikely that Wal-Mart can build anew for less than it can remodel. By extending the life cycle of existing building stock, Wal-Mart could conserve resources and reduce the environmental impact of materials manufacturing and transportation. Building reuse also significantly reduces the volume of construction waste. It is a strong sustainable strategy acknowledged by the U.S. Green Building Council in its LEED Rating Systems. Wal-Mart could reuse the existing structure and envelope and upgrade building components that would improve energy and water efficiency such as windows, insulation, mechanical systems, and plumbing fixtures. Some of the money they save on building construction could be used to landscape the parking lot (as they promise), bringing it up to current zoning code and reducing the heat island effect created by the field of asphalt that exists on site now. Don't be fooled by Wal-Mart's claim that they will demolish the building and divert 90% of the construction waste from the landfill, though not registering in the LEED program. Separation of waste during demolition is expensive and far more time- consuming. As architects, we know how difficult it is to work this kind of construction waste management goal into a project's budget and construction schedule. Even when a project is registered in the LEED program and all parties are contracted to produce certification, this is a difficult goal to meet. Salt Lake is a progressive city whose leaders have embraced sustainability and promote a strong local economy. Please support our vision of a sustainable community and the future potential of such prime real estate - which also happens to be a gateway into our city. We urge the Planning Department to limit the impact of Wal- Mart and future big box retailers on our neighborhood. Respectfully, Ink Valerie W. Nagasawa, AIA, LEED AP Ralph T. Nagasawa, AIA Wal-Mart Objection Wal-Mart is asking for a zoning amendment. They are requesting the current zoning to be changed from Community Business (CB) to Community Shopping (CS). 1. I have lived in the area since 1947, with the exception of four years after 1966, after my wife and I were married. We moved back into the area in 1970, due to its' many prestigious amenities, schools, churches and the convienance of the surrounding area and we still live there. My in-laws moved into the area for the same reasons in 1961. 2. A petition was circulated by area property owners regarding a proposal to rezone the Kmart property in the early to mid 2000's and my parents and in-laws signed the petition objecting to the big box store at that time. 3. I have personally watched the traffic increase dramatically with the existing community business expansion and freeway access. 4. My wife and I are presently in the process of negotiations to purchase another home even closer to the area of the proposed Wal-Mart store. If the Wal-Mart rezoning application is approved for a Super Center/Big Box Store in the area we would strongly consider moving to another neighborhood. The area is presently taxed and considered residential Country Club. If the old Kmart (10 acre) parcel is rezoned Community Shopping (CS) the surrounding property values will fall and the property taxes should be reclassified. This would negatively affect the entire tax base for Salt Lake City! 5. There are two strip malls in the area struggling to stay in business with an ever growing vacancy rate. This area does not need even additional Community Business (CB), let alone an additional Community Shopping (CS) Super Center or even a Big Box Store. Wal-Mart has two Super Centers within fifteen minutes away from this location. One is located at Kimball's Junction and the other one is located at approximately 1300 South and 300 West in Salt Lake City. Both reasonable drives for anyone wanting to shop at these locations. Kmart closed the store at this location due to drastic falling profits and failing business. 6. The only Community Shopping (malls) east of State Street are Foothill Village, Brickyard Plaza and the Trolley Square areas. These are community level shopping centers that draw traffic and congestion from all over the city and beyond. 1 .40m% 7. Referring to the Foothill Land Use Study by urban planning students at the U of U, spring 2007 pg. 68: "...The objective of this study is to help alleviate traffic and congestion along neighborhood roads of the area. The continued use of the site for a large retailer such as Kmart, Wal-Mart or Target would become a regional attraction, therefore increasing the area's traffic volume and already congestion..." 8. The proposed amendment is not consistent with the purpose, goals or objectives of the East Bench Master Plan, April 1987 pg 6 stating: (A) "Major Zoning Changes in the East Bench Community are neither Anticipated or encouraged. Changes involving expansion of existing business sites in response to documented needs should be reviewed cautiously and approved sparingly". (B) Appendix I: Zoning Change Compatibility Considerations should carefully review the following; 1. The property must be on a street that can handle additional traffic. 2. "Spot or Strip" zoning to accommodate a new business is strongly discouraged. 3. New businesses should be designed to be a logical extension of the adjacent businesses and residential area, maintaining a AlIN complimentary building design, landscaping and ease of traffic access and egress, - not additional congestion. Rezoning this property would be spot zoning at its worst. 9. When Kmart was built, there was no community input, by the neighborhoods and residents were told this was planned for a residential development in the future; they (Kmart) obtained a building permit over the counter and started digging. Neighbors had no idea that anyone was going to build a big box store with 8 acres of asphalt parking lot on prime real estate, with fantastic views. This development consisting of 10 acres of incredible real estate was not harmonious with the development of existing residential property in the surrounding neighborhoods. My grandmother lived on Parley's Way and my aunt lived on Wilshire Drive and their properties were both affected negatively. 10. According to an article in the Salt Lake Tribune Jan. 29, 2011-A VISION FOR AGING SPRAWLING SUBURBS. "The suburbs boomed after World War II, as housing developments, garden apartments, office parks and strip malls popped up around the nation. Half a century later, many planners say that this sprawl is ripe for redesign and a shift to a more urban walkable type of community, In a new book, Amok "Retrofitting Suburbia," two architecture professors — June Williamson of City 2 College in New York and Ellen Dunham-Jones of Georgia Tech - look at efforts around the nation to change the face of the suburbs. Among other projects, they write about a supermarket that was transformed into a library; old shopping malls remade into pedestrian-friendly, mixed use neighborhoods; and asphalt covered parking lots restored to green space". We are in an extremely tough economy and housing construction is at its lowest point a in decade. The present plans need to be on mixed-use development housing. Not only do we need to keep our construction laborers employed but It very well may be (due to the baby boomers) that when it (economy) does come back housing will be smaller, built more suitably sized for one and two person households and more energy efficient houses as well as more multi- unit housing, which is by definition more energy-efficient because of the shared walls. What will be the incentive for this kind of change? Will it be governments, developers, or urban planners? We believe it should be all of the above. We think we have good leadership at the federal level. The partnership for Sustainable Communities is an initiative from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency. There encouraging communities to think (plan) regionally because they have to provide a regional proposal to obtain grants. It sends a message throughout the country about better coordination and planning as we make these investments. 11. A harmonious development would be a Mixed-Use, LEED silver development that promotes a walkable neighborhood that takes advantage of the 360 degree panoramic views. This is what the neighborhood really needs. This development would provide for the neighbors and adjacent office workers to enjoy the park like atmosphere without dodging or contributing to vehicle traffic. It is envisioned that the old Kmart property site should be re-developed as a mixed-use village (similar to the Old Farm development). The village should be designed as a walkable community with pedestrian oriented design elements connecting Parley's Way to Foothill Drive and the surrounding community. The uses of the site should include housing, a social center, workout center and sports amenities i.e. tennis courts, pool (inside) and a miniature golf course. The housing should be an affordable mix of condominiums, townhouses and single level homes for senior citizens, helping meet the needs of future growth while allowing for a diversity of housing options in the area and also maintaining harmony with the existing neighborhoods and adding a green space helping with pollution. 12. Automobile access in this area is already very poor, especially on Stringham Ave. Stringham Ave. was originally never supposed to go through to Foothill Drive. Foothill Apartments only has one car port per apartment. Anyone with a second vehicle or guests visiting have to park on the street (Stringham Ave.). This situation 3 already causes an extremely congested roadway that is dangerous for pedestrians (children) and only allows for traffic to proceed in one direction at a time. If Wal-Mart were successful in obtaining this area re-zoned the largest majority of vehicular traffic wishing to proceed North on Foothill Drive would go West on Parley's Way to Stringham Ave., then turn right onto Stringham Ave. to proceed East to Foothill Drive. At the semiphore located at Stringham Ave. and Foothill Drive they would turn left or proceed straight through the intersection putting additional traffic on Thunderbird Drive and in that neighborhood. This would worsen an already unsafe traffic congestion hazard, that was never supposed to exist in the first place on Stringham Ave. and would increase traffic that is already at capacity. Wal-Mart's own study projects an additional four hundred (400) vehicles per hour in and out of the Parley's Way-Wilshire intersection between 5 and 7 P.M. It goes on to say it projects no impact on Foothill Drive because shoppers are expected to (mysteriously) find their way to Parley's Way without using Foothill Drive (that would be impossible from the Southeast and East locations of the valley). It also projects no impact on Stringham Ave. even though that would be the first choice for vehicular traffic to get back to Foothill Drive to proceed North. To further congest traffic on Stringham Ave. Wal-Mart has proposed plans to have their trucks access their property from the Maywood intersection and then exit out onto Stringham Ave. (which would require building a new drive in the area on presently privately owned property), due to the fact that current access from Parley's Way is not adequate for semi-trailers. 13. The building of a Super Center/Big Box Store in the area will draw more people into the neighborhoods where streets do not follow the usual Salt Lake grid. This will cause unnecessary confusion with those unfamiliar with the area and they will easily get lost, make illegal U-Turns, or better yet illegal (dangerous) maneuvers while driving through the neighborhoods trying to find their way out and contribute additional unwanted traffic congestion that is not only a safety issue to our children, a noise issue, an increased congestion problem but also a worsening health issue. Currently Foothill Drive has approximately 210.000 square feet of retail space between the 1-80 interchange and 1300 South. Most of this retail space lies within Foothill Village where shoppers have the choice between unique clothing, dinner, lunch, breakfast, grocery shopping, video rentals, haircuts, sports equipment sales/rental, banking and much more. It provides much of the needed amenities residents are looking for within a very short drive or walk. There are numerous other businesses located on the east side of Foothill Drive and conveniently located businesses close to the area along 2100 South and also on 3300 South. 4 14. It is very important to remember the objective of this study vs. the financial gain that it may bring to the Salt Lake east bench area. We have attempted to mention a few reasons why a Super Center/Big Box Store in the area is objectionable. We have discussed the issue with most neighbors and they agree with us. Their predominate objection is to alleviate traffic congestion along neighborhood roads of the immediate and adjoining areas. The continued use of the site for a large Super Center/Big Box Store retailer such as Kmart, Wal-Mart or Target would be a regional attraction therefore increasing the area's traffic flow volume extensively and increasing already extremely hazardous traffic congestion in the entire area. A mixed-use development as described would contribute to the needed housing in the area while staying consistent with current usage along the corridor. Diverse, mixed- use residential units with acceptable off street parking should be built with the future of Salt Lake City and the adjacent neighborhoods in mind. This development would improve the air quality and traffic congestion making it more convenient, desirable and accessible to use. The approval of a Super Center/Big Box Store will decrease property values, should decrease property taxes and increase criminal activity in the area. 5 Mills, Wayne From: kimbriggs@comcast.net A`"' Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 1:15 PM To: Mills, Wayne Cc: sugarhousecouncil@yahoo.com Subject: Proposed Rezoning of Wal-Mart on Parley's Way Categories: Other To Whom It May Concern: My name is Klm Briggs. I am a long time resident of the Sugarhouse area of Salt Lake City. Specifically I live at 2215 Berkeley Street, less than a mile away from the future Wal-Mart. I am also a regular voter in local elections. The purpose of this letter is to express my strong opposition to the rezoning of the tract owned by Wal-Mart. I believe the rezoning, if granted, will unnecessarily add noise pollution to immediate neighbors, including the Country Club Ridge condominiums next door. Therefore, I am asking that you vote against this requested rezoning. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kim Briggs Auk Mills, Wayne 'rom: kvtej@comcast.net .ent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 1:20 PM To: Mills, Wayne Cc: sugarhousecouncil@yahoo.com Subject: WalMart Rezoning Categories: Other Dear Wayne, My name is Vicki Briggs. I live on Berkeley Street near the soon-to-be WalMart and I am an active voter. I am writing as someone who will be affected by the rezoning decision to oppose the rezoning of the WalMart land on Parleys Way. Aside from increasing noise for surrounding areas, this is greatly unwanted by residents of this area. Therefore, I am asking that you vote against this requested rezoning. Thank you, Vicki Briggs 1 Mills, Wayne From: Leda Mareth [ledamareth@hotmail.comj ,, ,, Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 11:53 AM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Walmart rezone issue Categories: Other Dear Mr. Mills - I am writing you as a concerned homeowner in the Foothill/Parley's Way neighborhood. I urge the Salt Lake City Planning Division to NOT approve the requested Wal-Mart rezone. I believe that rezoning to Community Shopping (CS) will have long term detrimental effects to our neighborhood safety, traffic, and home values. Our neighborhood is not equipped nor does it want to have a large big box store. I believe that the current zoning is appropriate for the location. I am very concerned about the increased noise and traffic that a rezoned store will bring. I currently enjoy walking around our neighborhood with my 9 month old daughter. Rezoning the old Kmart may make these walks impossible and dangerous. Please urge Wal-Mart to develop the current property within the regulations of the current zoning. I strongly believe that this will be better for our neighborhood and our local neighborhood stores. Thank you for your time. Leda Mareth 2204 Wyoming Street Salt Lake City, UT 84109 Auk 801-410-4490 1 (;'Z.) Mills, Wayne rom: David Holbrook[dkholbrook@gmail.com] cent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 7:15 AM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Walmart rezone Categories: Other I will be out of town and will not be able to attend the planning meeting on the 9th. I have numerous comments bu my strongest feeling is: We have zoning for a reason. Let the big boys fight it out and not take the little neighborhood businesses down in the fight. Look at 300 west between 2300 south and 1700 south. All the big box stores are there, zoned to be there, competing and thriving. additional stores are opening (Target) and planned (Winco). That is the purpose of zoning. We as neighbors got the zoning changed for our neighborhood - please don't let Walmart or anyone else change the wishes of this neighborhood. They have a right to remodel - we can accept that - but we do not want a development agreement or new zoning. Please make them follow the zoning that was in place when they bought the property. Thanks - Make it a great Day Dave Holbrook '415 Lynwood Drive PLC, UT 84109 801-484-1733 Lived in neighborhood for 56 years i Mills, Wayne From: Andy Pierce [andypierce@fxenergy.com] Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 8:03 AM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Walmart Categories: Other Wayne I live at 2448 Wilshire and I am 100% in favor of a new Walmart as long as is approximately the same size as the old K-Mart. Andy Pierce 1 Mills, Wayne -rom: Leslie Read [leslie_read@msn.com] ,ent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 6:23 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Wal-Mart Rezone Request Categories: Other January 29, 2011 Wayne, As a resident of the community that will be impacted by the Walmart request for a rezone, I feel compelled to share some of thoughts with you. We live on Wilshire Drive and have accomplished a major remodel that turned into an asset to our neighborhood. We are, therefore, fully aware that a remodel is a viable option for Wal-Mart as it was for Nexus and the old Smith's on 3300 South. My concern in giving in to Wal-Mart's request to rezone is the future use of the property. If they are allowed to rezone, they can sell to another big box store, who could then enlarge the store (they wouldn't be restricted by Wal-Mart's agreement with SLC). The future of the property is something that I wonder about and think about what the impact will be for future nerations if we change the zoning. I'm also concerned about the traffic and its impact on our neighborhood. Currently, we have numerous people driving through our neighborhood who are lost or looking for a road to take them south of Parley's Way. These people are speeding though our neighborhood and making U turns at multiple spots. Our neighborhood, Foothill and Parley's Way are not equipped to manage the increase flow of traffic. We must not change the zoning to accommodate Wal-Mart and increase traffic flow in our neighborhoods now or in the future. Thank you for your consideration. Leslie Read Stewart 1 V 7? ice' / %4-4-) Mills, Wane From: Douglas D. Stewart, Jr. [dstewart246@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 6:07 PM To: Mills, Wayne Cc: wilshirejan@comcast.net Subject: Wal-Mart Rezoning Categories: Other Hi Wayne, First, I have absolutely nothing against Wal-Mart. I am a small business owner and I certainly understand business/property rights, but this whole issue is not about Wal-Mart, it is about a company attempting to change zoning when it does not make any sense at all. In my humble view,years ago when K-Mart was allowed to construct their building, it was a mistake. But the building is there now and it is what it is. I see no reason why Wal-Mart cannot remodel the existing building and make a success out of this location without the need to demolish and rebuild a new facility." As you may know, my wife and I recently completed a major remodel of our home, which was built in 1955. Yes, it took some engineering, some serious planning and a great deal of effort, but we were able to remodel our home using the same footprint,foundation, etc. of our original home.Another example of a fantastic remodel project is that of the Nexus Architectural firm. They took an old eyesore and have remodeled it into a beautiful new building and I am now proud to be one of their neighbors. Another recent development is that of the apparent remodel occurring with the old Smith's store on 3300 South at approx. 3200 East. I don't know who the ultimate owner/tenant of the old Smith's store is, but they are in the process of a remodel rather than a tear-down.This will certainly add value to the Canyon Rim area and make excellent use of and existing structure. My poor old memory tells me that the Wal-Mart store and the old Smith's store are roughly the saws, age. I have attended many of the meetings at which Wal-Mart has expressed their many reasons why they cannot/will not remodel their existing property(staying within the same footprint) and none of their proposals are convincing to me. This is particularly true when one can see project after project of successful remodeling rather than demolition around our valley. I am all for Wal-Mart working within the current zoning requirements, remodeling their existing store (using the current footprint) and making an attractive, economically successful project. I am absolutely against changing our current zoning and I hope that you will pass my sincere feelings on to the Planning Commission for me. Thank you --- Douglas D. Stewart,Jr. 2785 Wilshire Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 801-487-2636 00414, Mills, Wayne Crom: Heather Barth [heatherhbarth@gmail.com] lent: Friday, January 28, 2011 11:49 AM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Walmart Rezone Categories: Other I am a resident of the Neighborhood for 18 1/2 years and live just across the street from the Walmart site. Decades ago the Kmart was sprung on the neighborhood without so much as a single word. Finally some actual planning was done with input and the EB Master Plan was created. It made Kmart and anything else of it's size non-complying. Now Walmart has bought the property and the noncompliance goes on. As a neighborhood we feel totally ignored and insignificant despite the taxes that we pay and the time, work and interest that goes into our living here. Our only hope is a well thought out Master Plan and zoning ordinances that keep what's best for everyone in the neighborhood in check. Kmart has moved on and so do many Walmarts. If and when it does, maybe finally we will be able to see that property used for something outlined in the Master Plan that will enhance this area. If the zoning is changed that hope will never be realized. Please don't let someone in Arkansas say what my neighborhood is going to look like in the next decades to come! ! Thank you for your time, Heather Barth 2516 Wilshire Circle Sent from my iPhone 1 Mills, Wayne From: Gentry Gygi [gggygi@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 2:41 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Walmart Rezone- PLEASE SAY NO! Categories: Other Mr. Mills, I am a resident of SLC and live within 2 blocks of the property that Walmart purchased on Parleys Way. I am very concerned about the impact the store would have on the the neighborhood and traffic if Walmart is allowed to rezone the site. They purchased the property knowing the current zoning. Walmart will already bring so much more traffic, rezoning would make it worse. If Walmart leaves, it is very likely that the building will remain empty, like so many other Walmarts in the country. My hope is that someday that site would be the home of small businesses. Please take into consideration the feelings of the residents that will be directly impacted if Walmart is granted the rezone. Please forward this to those who will be making that decision. Many thanks, Gentry Gygi The pros and cons of the rezone have to do with traffic, site accessibility, environmental impact, building size, compatibility with the neighborhood, compatibility with the East Bench Master Plan, and future use of the property after Wal-Mart Amok Mills, Wayne -0m: Suzanne Stensaas [SUZANNE.STENSAAS@hsc.utah.edu] "ent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:01 AM To: Mills, Wayne; wilshirejan@comcast.net; Simonsen, Soren Cc: Judi_Short Subject: Re: Rezone of 2705 Parley's Way from Community Business to Community Shopping Categories: Other Please include this in the official record: Attention Planning Commission and City Council Re: Rezone of 2705 Parley's Way from Community Business to Community Shopping. I have lived one block from Parley's Way since 1968. When KMart opened it was an eyesore and it still is, but adding 6% more vegetation is not going to change it. I don't understand why the issue is again coming up when the citizens and planners have clearly indicated it is not in the neighborhood's interest or master plan. One can only think that it is economic and political pressure from Walmart. Never, never do you discuss what it is going to cost, if rezoned,to handle the additional traffic, the cost of traffic lights,the additional delays on already congested Foothill,the lack of an east bench plan for Foothill Drive. The lack of adequate rapid transit along this corridor, the lack of bike paths or the additional traffic on Stringham Avenue and Parley's Way. These are costs to the taxpayers who so resent paying taxes. If we pay Dre taxes let it be for education and open space. We cannot stop Walmart having a store with a similar tootprint, but we can support enforcing the master plan, which is good and needed. Many other acceptable uses can be made of this property and I am sure Walmart could sell this property if the rezone is not approved and they are unwilling to downsize their plans. We have shopping services at Olympus Hills, Sugar House, and 3300 South, Foothill Village and along Foothill Blvd. Another Walmart is only about 5 miles away long with other big box stores: Target, Costco, and Lowes etc. on 3rd West. Lets keep our small stores and merchants in business. We have all the convenience we need right now without a Super Store. We want to keep neighborhoods and small businesses intact, they can supply our needs, keep people employed and contribute to the community in many ways. These businesses need our support and are the heart of employment and income in the USA. I think a bigger store would make it even more difficult for them. Please, no rezone and please deal with the traffic and transit issue along the East Bench, instead of revisiting this issue again and again. Suzanne Stensaas 2460 Lynwood Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84109, USA Telephone 801 466 9050 nail: Suzanne.Stensaas@hsc.utah.edu 1 z.;f Mills, Wayne From: Richard Kanner[richard.kanner@hsc.utah.edu] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 9:52 AM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Proposed Walmart store on Parleys Way Categories: Other Dear Mr. Mills: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Walmart Store on Parleys Way.The existing but now closed K-Mart should have never been built there and this was accomplished without any community input. Now Walmart wants to establish a store there and, if they can get the permits, enlarge the store.Traffic on Foothill Drive is now beyond what that key artery can manage.Although Parleys Way still can handle more traffic it is gradually filling up as well.This is a residential neighborhood and very different from the"Big Box" neighborhood that exists on 3rd West where we have a Walmart Superstore, Lowes, Costco, Home Depot,Target, etc. People go to 3rd West for what I would call 'major shopping'. In a residential neighborhood we need neighborhood stores.The ones that currently exist such as Fresh Market, Rite Aid, a tire business and even Foothill Village would be jeopardized by a Walmart that could very well drive them out of business. Local stores provide income to local people. Walmart,while employing many low paid workers,will send the profits back to their home office. I support local business. I also do not wish to see the traffic in my neighborhood get any worse than it already is. Please deny any permits to out of town big box stores. Thank you. Richard E. Kanner, MD 2460 Lynwood Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84109-1214 Email: richard.kanner@hsc.utah.edu 1 �w) Mills, Wayne prom: Wendy Huffman [whuffman@kmclaw.com] ent: Monday, January 31, 2011 9:52 AM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Wal-Mart Rezone Petition for 2705 Parley's Way Categories: Other Ladies and Gentlemen: We will limit our many objections to Wal-Mart's petition to just two areas—traffic and site accessibility, which are closely linked. Our neighborhood,with one way in and one way out, is directly across the street from the main driveway into the subject property and would certainly be impacted by the increase in traffic volume that would result from a Wal-Mart super store. That driveway is very awkward already and would not handle such a traffic increase. Because of the traffic light,traffic seems to flow fairly well now, but with the kind of volume typically experienced by Wal-Mart super stores the intersection would become congested with very limited space for backed up traffic. We shop regularly at the Sam's Club and Costco stores on 300 West and notice that even with the comparatively easy access to those stores from 300 West,getting around and parking can be difficult. Access to a super store from Parley's Way--and back out again --would NOT be easy. Regardless of what occupies the property,there will always be people who drive into our neighborhood seeking a shortcut across the gully;when they realize there is no "back door,"they make a U-turn and speed back out. More shoppers will mean that many more drive-through speeders. Finally, Foothill Boulevard is already full and Parley's Way would become a nightmare if the rezone is permitted. This neighborhood is not suitable for a 24- hour super store. Thank you for your consideration. �spectfully, Jendy Huffman 2585 Wilshire Circle Salt Lake City, UT 8410', \\ori: direct: (,Sul) 321-4S1 i Home: (801) 4o6-41R� who flmandkmrl1n.coni Michael Melich 2772 Wilshire Drive Salt Lake City, UT 84109 Home: (SOD 4iif;-16'1 ) 1 Mills, Wayne From: JohnWard@harmonsgrocery.com Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 9:12 AM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Re: Wal-Mart Rezone Parleys Way- Please Vote Against Categories: Other Messrs., I have lived in the area all of my life and my wife and I have owned our home just down from the old K Mart on Parleys Way for the last 16 years. John &Jan Ward 2331 East Country Club Dr. Salt Lake City, UT 84109 I completely understand Wal-Mart is entitled to remodel their property and this is NOT about"IF"Wal-Mart can have a store at this location but rather a consideration to rezone the property. I believe Wal-Mart equally understood the zoning and its restrictions that were in place when they purchased the property. I support Wal-Mart being entitled to improve their and remodel their property but they should ONLY be allowed to improve the property to what is outlined in the current zoning. As a resident in the area, I'm concerned that when zoning codes are able to change just because the owner finds it"inconvenient" or not as"cost effective"we all lose what were the protections and limitations established for that neighborhood. Please DO NOT allow the rezone of Wal-Mart property on Parleys Way. Thank You John W. Ward Jan Ward 2331 E. Country Club Dr. Salt Lake City, UT 84109 801 483 2763 Amok s Mills, Wayne -rom: Cherry Ridges [cmridges@msn.com] sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:39 AM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Parleys Way Zoning Mendment Categories: Other I am writing in opposition to the re-zone request of Ballard Spar to allow its client Wal Mart to tear down and build/occupy the property at 2705 Parley"s Way. I am a resident who lives just west of the existing traffic control light. There is no question that Wal Mart owns the property, but to alter the existing zone to allow for a huge expansion is not in the best interest of the neighborhood. One entrance to the property is from Parley's Way which is not adequate to allow for the increased traffic that a large store would attract. The other entrance from Foothill defies the master traffic plans for the east side connection to I-215. There is already an overload on that road. At one meeting I attended people claiming to be neighbors spoke on behalf of the request. I am a lifelong resident of Salt Lake and Kennedy Way and Michigan Avenue are not "neighbors" of this property. Please do not give credence to their pleas. The neighborhood has been enhanced by the re-modeling of the Bally store by NEXUS and something like that would be an addition because they have landscaped, lighted and created an attractive addition. They, however do not rely on the huge traffic that a Wal-Mart would bring. It is tough for people to fight a huge corporation which evidently will not give up. The longer they appeal decisions the more animosity is created against them. I sincerely request that the Planning Division deny this request. The future of our ighborhood is in your hands. Cherry M. Ridges 2444 Wilshire Drive SLC,UT 84109 801-582-2343. 1 vn,gr, Mills, Wayne From: Marty Shaub [Marty.Shaub©ehs.utah.edu] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 11:01 AM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Rezoning for Walmart Categories: Other Wayne Mills Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S. State St. Room 406 PO Box 145480 SLC 84111-5480 Dear Mr. Mills, I am writing to oppose the proposed rezoning for the Walmart location on Parley's way. My primary, though not my only objection, is that the proposed amendment is not consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives of the East Bench Master Plan. As a neighborhood community, we are not ignorant to what Walmart is proposing. We understand clearly and we are [by design] opposed. East Bench Master Plan,April, 1987 1. Page 6: "Major zoning changes in the East Bench Community are neither anticipated nor encouraged. Changes involving expansion of existing business sites in response to documented needs should be reviewed cautiously and approved sparingly." 2. Appendix I:Zoning Change Compatibility Considerations a. Property must be on a street that can handle additional traffic. b. "Spot or strip"zoning to accommodate new businesses is strongly discouraged.[my emphasis] c. New businesses should be designed to be a logical extension of adjacent businesses, maintaining complimentary building design and landscaping motifs. o The only Community Shopping zones east of State Street are Brickyard, Foothill Village, and the area around Trolley Square. This is not the type of development we want to see in our neighborhood. At my particular address, I would essentially be bookended by two large community shopping centers each just blocks away. It simply is not necessary. 1. Community Shopping is intended to be a shopping center development on a regional scale. This is not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. 2. Rezoning this property would be spot zoning at its worst; solely to accommodate a single business with no regard for intent of the master plan or impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. 3. While Parley's Way can handle more traffic, Foothill Drive is at capacity. Walmart is trying to get around that by saying that all access to the property will be from Parley's Way. If that's the case, how will East Bench and University neighborhoods get to the property without the use of Foothill Drive? And more interesting, once they're there, how will they get home without Foothill? 4. The adjacent businesses are office buildings designed to have multiple small businesses in each building. A shopping center development is not a logical extension of adjacent businesses. 5. Walmart is planning to construct their standard building design with no thought of adjacent building design or landscaping. moo, 6. If they don't get a rezone, Walmart reports that they can't afford to add landscaping. If they get a rezone, Walmart will increase the current 6% landscaping to about 18%. That sounds like extortion to me. 7. Note that this winter they have plowed their parking lot, but not the sidewalks or the park and ride lot. i 61.%_,i) Mills, Wayne From: Martha Farney [marthafarney@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 11:23 AM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Parley's Way rezone Categories: Other Would you please pass this on to the council I am opposed to rezoning the Parley's Way WalMart land for 2 reasons 1. I hate to see this prime spot forever destined to be a 'big box' building site - according to WalMart the existing building is large enough for what they will be building (a remodel can be attractive too, look at Nexus) - I fear that Walmart may decide to move on and leave this area to always be such a large building (with the potential of being bigger) 2. What does this do to the rest of Parley's Way - will we be now faced with everyone wanting to upzone their property to make it more marketable to large scale national businesses? PS the site plan I saw in Oct or Nov had 'pads' for other businesses and I'm concerned what all this might do to the traffic Thank you, Martha Farney 1 Mills, Wayne From: Philip Carlson [philipcarlsonshcc@storycupboard.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 12:05 PM To: Mills, Wayne Cc: philipcarlsonshcc@storycupboard.com; Simonsen, Soren Subject: No re-Zone for 2705 E. Parley's Categories: Other Dear City Planners and Planning Commissioners, This property is in what I consider to be the Eastern Gateway to the City. It would be wonderful if we could showcase an Urban, Mixed-Use, Walkable/Multi-Modal development at this location. Do we want the image of our City to be one of Progress, or that of a Discounted Suburb? When this property was developed with the Big-Box, Discount Format, it was in the outskirts of the City in an era of Suburban ideals. As the City has grown geographically in the past, and as it now needs to grow in density,the use if it's land needs to change. Multi-Use Development, with housing, shopping and office space that is easily accessibly by foot, bicycle, transit and automobile, is what is needed by the City at this location. The ideal Multi-Use Development is allowed under the current zoning. Don't change it. There are many barriers to this type of development, the economy and impatience are two. .00104, Though there is no guarantee that keeping the current zoning but changing it at this time will guarantee that property will continue to be used in a car-centric Suburban manner for a long time. An Ideal Situation With the current economy I doubt there would be any developer able to do a great Multi-Use Development here. We have an ideal situation right now with this property. The current owner is willing to re-model the building that is now in place and open a retail store here. This will remove the current blight and keep the property from being poorly developed right now giving us time for the economy to recover, and for developers to gain more experience with Multi-Use Development, so that when the current building has ended it's usefulness and the owner decides to redevelop (within the current zoning) we will be able to have a really great development in the future. It Takes Time It may be that the re-modeled building may be in use by Wal*Mart for a long time, possibly another 40 years, but it is more likely that in 5 to 10 years the current owner will have found a better model that will allow for increased density, lower dependence on automobiles, and greater diversity of uses and will present a great Multi-Use Project for this Gateway Property. They have offered to act as a Place-Holder. Be patient. Please do not change the zone. Respectfully, Philip Carlson 1917 E. 2700 South SLC, UT 84106 i vw„ Mills, Wayne -rom: ambarrows [ambarrows@comcast.net] ant: Monday, January 31, 2011 1:29 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Letter of opposition: Petitions PLN PCM 2010-00556 and PLNPCM2010-00557 -2705 E Parleys Way, Categories: Other To Wayne Mills and the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, This letter is written in opposition to the petitions for the property at 2705 E Parleys Way, PLNPCM 2010- 00556 Master Plan Amendment and PLNPCM2010-00557 Zoning Map Amendment. A zone change is appropriate if it follows the master plan and is consistent with the adjacent land uses and community standards. This request is neither. The zone on this property is C-B, a zoning designation which"is intended to provide for the close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods". The Planning Commission is well aware of the timeline regarding the zoning of this property. It should be aware that the current property owner purchased the property with a noncomplying structure. In addition, when changes were made to the zoning definitions making this building a nonconforming use, as property owners,they did not object. The city has had several opportunities to amend the zoning on this property, but has not since the C-B zone is appropriate. The existing land use is teclmically legal although perhaps not the most efficient or compatible with the residential community. in 1996 the Eastland Regency Company requested a conditional use for a commercial planned development on the eastern portion of this C-B zone. In order to develop the property they were required to reconfigure the Parleys Way entry and to install a traffic light. These changes made ingress/egress to this entire property possible. However the current petitioner has insufficient circulation for truck traffic. Large retail requires large trucks which are often "doubles". The property owner proposes truck traffic to leave the property via Foothill Boulevard, on the northeast. This is neither practical nor safe. The existing daytime Foothill traffic will not allow this maneuver (even if trucks were required to turn south). If truck traffic were allowed in the evening/night the noise and light required would negatively impact the large number of residents to the north and west. Your denial for master plan amendment and zone change should include insufficient truck circulation. If Salt Lake City were to rezone this property it may have to wait another 45 years for our community vision to be realized. This is the Eastern Gateway to our city. Parleys Way is a beautiful boulevard and vista to our downtown. Although many may feel a master plan rewrite overdue, now is not the time to codify a nonconforming use. Simply put, the zone request is not in keeping with the existing master plan. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Andrea Barrows 2 119 Lakeline Drive iairperson of the Arcadia Heights/Benclunark Neighborhood Council (1993-1997) Salt Lake City Planning Commissioner (1997-2002) Mills, Wayne From: Chuck White [cewhite210@gmail.com] ' Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 2:12 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Walmart rezone request Categories: Other As a resident of the Country Club Ridge condominiums I wish to register my vote against the rezone request by Walmart. The Maywood Drive access that would be used is in no way capable of handling the heavy truck traffic that would be required to keep the store stocked. The site plan, as I understand, indicates that the truck docks would be relocated to the NW corner of the corner of the site. This would create an unacceptable amount of noise and pollution to this residential area. It should be clear that the Foothill access is much better suited for the heavy traffic rather than the inadequate Maywood Drive and Parleys Way access that is being proposed. Thank you for your attention to this response. Charles White 2665 Parleys Way Unit 210 Allak Oak Mills, Wayne rom: dodieh29@comcast.net ent: Monday, January 31, 2011 3:48 PM fo: Wills, Wayne Subject: Walmart Rezone Categories: Other Traffic on Parley's Way at the present time is much too heavy. If another large store is built to replace K-Mart the traffic density would increase markedly. Exposure of children, people and residents will add to an untenable situation. dorothy Harrison 2640 Maywood,S.L. i Mills, Wayne From: Tim Chambless [thambless@poli-sci.utah.edu] 'as' Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 4:56 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Opposition to Wal-Mart petition proposal Categories: Other Wayne, Hi. Thank you for your staff work on this petition. I wish to re-state what I said at the previous public meeting of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission with regard to the proposed development by Wal-Mart. Specifically, in 1966 the members of the Salt Lake City Commission violated the public process and harmed the public good when it approved construction of a big box store -- without a public hearing to allow comment and dissent from impacted residents -- at the Parley's Way location. Two years later, a big box K-Mart was built at the site. In doing so, Salt Lake City's local government officials created a major problem: they allowed construction of a large commercial building next to a residential area on an odd- shaped lot with limited access -- therefore creating a public hazard. Given the large size of the store in contrast to the two small entries and exits, it is apparent to me that the new proposal is inappropriate for this particular location. Each hour of the day, there are near accidents on Foothill Drive and Parleys Way at the entrance, to the old K-Mart building site. Actual accidents occur frequently. A new building design may be a significant improvement over the current vacated structure -- which today appears to be a blight in the area. However, the fact is that the large population increase in the number of residents living nearby combined with the large traffic volume on Foothill Drive -- adjacent to freeways entry and exit points -- makes this big box store and parking lot an interesting revised proposal situated in the wrong place. Public safety is jeopardized. Moreover, as a resident of Salt Lake City for over 39 years, I perceive that the residents of Salt Lake City already have a variety of big box stores located just a few miles away at sites which do not present a danger to public safety. Thank you for your consideration. Tim Chambless Member, Salt Lake City Planning Commission 2001-2010 Member, Salt Lake City Board of Adjustment, 1990-2001 Amok iT � Mills, Wayne -rom: Durham, Charlene J. [Charlene.Durham2@va.gov] ant: Monday, January 31, 2011 5:13 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Against the proposal to amend East Bench Master Plan Categories: Other I would like to add my vote to deny the requests to amend the East Bench Master Plan and change the zoning to allow Wal-Mart to build a new building on the former Kmart property. My objections are these: • These proposed actions revert to a plan that the residents have already addressed and created the status that we want now. • The zoning for larger development does not fit with the residential nature and traffic capabilities of the area. • The zoning for larger development leaves the area open to much less input from the neighborhoods for future and continued development on the site • This proposal has come before community groups several times before and been rejected soundly. Each continued resubmission contains minimal adjustment to respond to local concerns, which indicates that Wal- Mart really doesn't want to work with the neighborhood. Again, I heartily request that these proposals for amendment to the Master Plan and zoning be denied! Thank you, Charlene Durham ication Program Specialist .EAS Center(HSR&D) Veterans Rural Health Resource Center-Western Region VA Salt Lake City Health Care System 801-582-156S(press"4")ext 4361 Charlene.Durham2G va.gov Home: 2185 Westminster Ave. Salt Lake City, UT • i Mills, Wayne From: p.barth@comcast.net Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 5:22 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Walmart rezone on Parleys Way Categories: Other Dear Mr. Mills- 1 am writing to express my opposition to the rezone petition of Walmart for the old Kmart property on Parleys Way. I live at 2516 Wilshire Circle, directly south of the Walmart property. As you know, Walmart petitioned to have the zone changed a year or two ago and the neighborhood immediately surrounding the property was very much opposed to the change. The planning commission at that time made a determination that the rezone was not appropriate and voted to deny their request. Walmart is now back again with a new petition, that although slightly different, is substantially the same request to change the zoning to permit a brand new facility be built several times larger than what the present zoning would allow. I am against their request because I believe what they are proposing is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood or in compliance with either the spirit or the letter of the master plan for the area. As you know, our neighborhood was never given the opportunity to comment when the Kmart was built decades ago, and in my opinion, their use of the property was never appropriate with the interests of the neighborhood. I am not against a commercial development, but I believe the uses permitted for this site should be those 1 compatible with a neighborhood, not something expressly designed as a regional shopping destination intending to pull customers from distances far outside the neighborhood. I understand that Walmart has stated that if the rezone is not approved they will operate their business in the current structure as a grandfathered non-conforming use. That is their right and I have no problem with that. But I am strongly opposed to changing the zone that will forever determine the use of the future use of the property in a manner which I believe is incompatible with our neighborhood interests. Please communicate my opposition to Walmart's request for the zone change to the planning commission and city council. Thank you. Peter Barth 2516 Wilshire Circle Salt Lake City, Utah • • Mills, Wayne _ —rom: lacy Hartman [tahartman@comcast.net] ant: Monday, January 31, 2011 5:07 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: walmart Rezone request Categories: Other Dear Mr. Mills: My wife and I would like to take this opportunity to express our strong opposition to agreeing to the rezone request by Walmart. There are several reasons for our opposition, but I will mention only a few. First, the rezone is not compatible with the master plan or the surrounding businesses. The CB zoning is there to prevent the intrusion of large super-centers here. Even though Walmart says they are going to reduce the size and offerings to the neighborhood's satisfaction, there would nothing to prevent them from changing its mind, or reselling the property for a profit because of the zoning change and a new owner would then be able to build the large super-center store which they could not do under the current zoning. In conjunction with the compatibility issue is the traffic issue. Recent news releases indicate that city managers are planning a future of lessened traffic on Foothill. Clearly, this could not happen under the Walmart plan. Walmart representatives were completely disingenuous the last time around in suggesting that traffic on Foothill would not be 4ncreased if they put a super-center there. This was simply a ridiculous lie. Access is also very bad for this location, and additional traffic would only make it worse. There is simply no way to adequately improve this access problem without significant negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Along with several other issues, the few mentioned herein demonstrate that to allow this zoning change would be contrary to the long-term plan for this area. Sincerely, Eric & Tacy Hartman 2258 Wilshire Circle SLC, UT 84109 1 Mills, Wayne From: Toni Carter[Toni@ToniCarter.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 9:32 PM .. To: Mills, Wayne Subject: WALMART REZONE Categories: Other Hello Wayne, I am a realtor and a resident of the Foothill-St Mary's neighborhood. Both my husband and myself are opposed to Wal- Mart's request for a Conditional Use Permit to build a new building. The Master Plan addressed zoning many years ago.There is no reason to change from Community Business(CB) to Community Shopping(CS). Wal-Mart has all the money and resources to build on the existing site and provide for a green building. Yes, it is easier to tear down and re-build, but their wanting a Superstore will increase the area's traffic volume and congestion. We expect that Wal-Mart when rebuilding and remodeling the exisiting store will consider the unique neighborhood that they bouoght property in and continue to respect the Master Plan and neighbors wishes to keep it from becoming a commercial, over-developed community level shopping center. Thank you. H Craig and Toni Carter 1392 S Wasatch Drive Salt Lake City UT 84108 Toni Carter,REALTOR, GRI,CIA,e-PRO,CHMS PREVIEWS SPECIALIST 2180 South 1300 East I Suite#140 I Salt Lake City UT Office: 801.485.4468 Fax: 801.583.5120 Cell: 801-809-5620 toniPtonicarter.com When You're Ready To Make The Move? 011140, Mills, Wayne "rom: gsislander@aol.com dent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:26 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Walmart Rezone Request Categories: Other Hello Wayne, This is a repeat of my comments from a few years ago regarding the Walmart Rezone Request; keep this Community Business zoned, do not go big by allowing CS. This really shouldn't be a struggle again, you made a decision, please stick to it. Walmart can and should remodel. I feel if you "give-in"to CS, other players in the area will want to as well and we will have way too much traffic congestion and confining structures. Thank You for listening, Glenn Strong 2534 Wilshire Cir 84109 1 v �- 'l i '.h�w-✓l Mills, Wayne From: arturo gamonal [liddlegamonal@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 9:38 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: 2705 E Parleys Way Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Categories: Other Mr. Mills, I am unable to attend the Feb. 9, 2011, hearing due to medical issues but want to express my objection to the rezone for the following reasons: 1. In 1985 when the East Bench Master Plan was done, this property was zoned for mixed use residential and neighborhood commercial. This meant compatible smaller scale commercial next to homes. In 1995 the city changed the definitions of the various uses so that this property became a non-conforming conditional use. It is zoned for a building up to approximately 15,000 sf., about the size of the present building. When Wal-Mart purchased the property, it knew what the zoning and building limitations were for the old Kmart site. 2. The property was not zoned for a big box store. Wal-Mart could build within the guidelines for this property (scale down what they propose) but have not shown a willingness to consider that option. Amok 3. The scale of the store they wish to build will cause considerable traffic issues on Foothill Blvd. and Parleys Way. The neighborhood homes will be negatively impacted with the traffic and noise and possibly lighting from the store. Having a big box store close to homes will devalue their property. If the rezoning is allowed, the Parleys Way corridor will become compromised with other petitions for larger business which will undermine the residential fabric of this neighborhood. 4. I have attended several East Bench Community Council meetings over the last few years where it has been clear that the majority of the participants are not in favor of this rezone for the above reasons and more. Respectfully submitted, La Vone Liddle 1397 Wilton Way Salt Lake City, UT 84108 801-583-5411 i L)-, =- Mills, Wayne • rom: mariah.cook@gmail.com Jent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 12:50 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Wal-Mart zoning Categories: Other Mr. Mills, I am a resident of Sugarhouse, very close to the proposed re-zoning area for the possible new Wal-Mart. As a concerned and involved member of my community, I wanted to take a moment to voice my opinion of the matter with the hope that you will listen. This it is a BAD move to allow Wal-Mart to move forward with their re-zoning plan. Here are my reasons: First, it would create dditional traffic through the neighborhoods because vehicle access to this site is poor, using the Stringham stub to Foothill Drive for access to and from the north and east. Wal-Mart's traffic study shows no additional use of the Stringham stub, concluding that congestion will force shoppers to use Parley's Way, thereby presuming that there will be no shoppers from the University, East Bench, or Emigration Canyon. Second, delivery trucks are expected to use Maywood, which means the Country Club Ridge Condominiums just west of Maywood can expect to listen to diesel trucks and forklift backup beepers. The loading dock will be located at the northwest corner of the property,just a few feet from Foothill Place Apartments. Third. Wal-Mart plans to have their trucks access the property from Maywood and then exit out the Stringham stub because current access from Parley's Way is not adequate for semi-trailers. The driveway is one lane where it drops into the Kmart property. During the day office workers from the east side of Foothill are parked bumper to bumper, making it ever narrower than usual. Finally, Wal-Mart stresses their"neighborhood friendly" operational procedures. They might schedule their major deliveries during the night, but subsequent businesses could schedule them any time. They are showing us drawings of what the property might look like, but they also have an approved remodel on file and have not picked up the permit. Wal-Mart has held their plans very close. We really don't know what we would get with a rezone. They could opt to sell the property to someone else because 10 acres of Community Shopping has more value than 10 acres of Community Business. We're only having this discussion because the property was not already zoned Community Shopping. Once the zoning is changed, the negotiations stop and the property owner is free to develop to the full extent of CS with no community input. Wal-Mart has other options for their business, but the residents of Sugarhouse are limited. Hear our voices! Please don't allow for the re-zoning. Marian Cook "01-876-0752 t Mills, Wayne From: Carol Anderson [carolkanderson@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 7:21 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: please no zoning change Categories: Other The future will shop on-line and gasoline so expensive,people will want to walk especially the growing number that are health concerned. Big, and big not big enough,just has to stop. Keep the small businesses alive and promote community walks. Not anymore stores that have it all but all means what they will carry. Walmart likes to be in control. Enough is enough. Big is not pretty and gets worn-out quick. A i } i. Mills, Wayne -om: Bret Jordan [bret.jordan@utah.edu] ,ent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 8:24 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Rezone of 2705 Parley's Way Categories: Other Dear Planning Commission, I live on Parleys way,just a couple blocks west of the property that is asking for a rezone. To be very clear, I am not against Wal-mart owning the property or doing business on the property that they own. I am however, completely and utterly against a rezone of said property regardless of who owns it. A rezone will give the property owner or any future property owner the ability to build and conduct business in ways that are clearly outside the scope of the surrounding community and neighborhoods. Walmart or any other owner does not need a rezone to remodel the building and surrounding property to make it pretty and usable for conducting business. Let us not follow on the mistakes of the past when the aggressive zoning was granted to K-Mart in the first place. Please say NO to a rezone. Bret Jordan 2175 S Texas SLC, UT 84109 Bret Jordan CISSP I Sr Security Architect "Without cryptography vihv vivc ce •;hrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an ego." 1 r - January 20, 2011 .a . Wayne Mills Salt Lake City Planning Division 415 So. State St. P. O. Box 145480 Salt Lake City, Utah 841 1 1-5480 Subject: Rezoning of 2705 Parley's Way I have reviewed the East Bench Master Plan dated April 1987 and the Zoning Change Compatibility Considerations and I do not believe the Parley's Way and Foothill Blvd. accesses are not suitable for large trucks entering and exiting the vacated area. Amook The area now has only small businesses offices. Changing the zoning to allow a "BIG BOX" business is not compatible with the other adjacent neighbors. The rezoning should not be approved. David Noall 2561 Lynwood Drive Salt Lake City, Utah �y�� i maintain their properties.The city cannot maintain �1 i { neighborhoods unless property owners are committed to ;: maintenance of their properties. Sites for new multiple-family housingand businesses are very hmited New developments must be sensitive to ' neighborhood scale and design,while satisfying needs and `r g y' "''4-.- : I expectations of the developer. Compatibility with the HE East Bench Community offers a l_ all °�; �:_ �,� !:. ;'., � immediate neighborhood is essential. New developments promising future for its residents-At should not adversely impact residential neighbors. reasonable effort by the city and ' \ if Urban design will play an increasingly important role in community residents will maintain and --,_ - j neighborhood maintenance and preservation. As the enhance the quality neighborhoods and i community finishes developing,emphasis will continue life style that residents have enjoyed to shift from regulating new development to managing and through the years.There are many preserving established neighborhoods. Even though challenges for the future.Streets and infrastructure must M - s neighborhood preservation has been an important concern be upgraded in response to increased demands-The city , ' since the last decade,tools to effectively manage must also respond to increasing traffic problems in a E neighborhood stability are continually being developed and mariner that will protect its residential neighborhoods. Irefined. Innovative approaches to implementing urban Housing and neighborhood maintenance will require - . •5 design concepts and proposals may be the solution to many effective regulations,such as increased zoning and building This Is the Place Monument,located near the entrance of the problems that the East Bench Community will code enforcement;also a commitment from owners to to Emigration Canyon. continue to face. Appendix I Appendix II Other Street reeds Correct curb,gutter and sidewalk problems in the St.Mary's area Cost Unknown Ongoing Inventory of local street • conditions and needs Cost Unknown Not Funded Zoning Change Compatibility Capital Improvement Program Sidewalk installation along Considerations Summary Tables all streets that do not ROPOSALS to change zoningfor new have sidewalk Cost Unknown Not Funded $ ROJECIb identified in the following multiple family residential,or business tables area combination of projects being uses should be evaluated with the presently planned by the city,and needs Water Improvement Pro System Im p following considerations. that have been identified through the Y Proposals • Proponents must demonstrate that planning process. Projects that include Cost Year oved funding dates have been a r Project Estimate Funded any zoning change is clearly justified by pp , and the substantive provisions of this master are included in the Capital Improvement Lakeline Drive line plan. Plan, or funded by the Public Utility Enterprise Fund. �200,000 1986-1987 • There must be a demonstrated need for the new Projects that are not scheduled have not been funded. 1700 South feeder line 500,000 1988-1989 multiple-family/businessdocumented proposal and dog ented St.Mary's Reservoir 310,000 1988-1989 community support_Property owners must address the to of housing/business need in the whole city Park Improvement and Development Proposals spective and why the proposed site is the best Cost Year Sanitary Sewer System Improvement Proposals location with regard to the best interest of the community Project Estimate Funded Cost Year and city. New Lines Estimate Funded • Property must be on a street that can handle the Miller Park 8 50,000 1987-1988 --r additional traffic- Bonneville Park 150,000 1989-1990 2396 South,2750 to 2500 East 30,000 1986-1987 • The site must be large enough for adequate open.space Sunnyside Park 250,000 1990-1991 Parley's Way,2400 to 2442 East 30,000 19S6-1937 and parking without overcrowding the lot. 1600 East-1700 South 461,000 1990-1991 Sunnyside Ave.,1975 to 2000 East 30,000 1987-1988 • Multiple-family/business projects must be of a density, Laird Park 2323 South,2620 to 2640 East 30,000 Not Funded i -f• scale and design that will not negatively impact 40,000 1990 2991 ' neighboring residential properties. Washington Park 250,000 1991-1992 2100South,2821 to2S60East 35,000 Not Funded • Multiple-family units should not develop in areas with Sunnyside Recreation Center Two million Not Funded Broadmoor,1955 to 2025 South 50,000 Not Funded strong low density character.Multiple-unit structures a_25to_ 0 South 40,000 Not Funded should be combined with or be adjacent to non-residential Foothill Vies Parks Cost Unknouvn Not Funded 2830 East, �- -27 activities such as retail centers,parks, and schools. Gateway Visitor Center Cost Unknown Not Funded • Zoning should not be changed to accommodate a new Storm Drainage System Improvement Proposals business unless it is adjacent to an existing business. Street Improvement ProposalsCost Year ' • "Spot orstrip'zoningto accommodate new businesses Project Estimate Funded ' is strongly discouraged Street Cost Year. Improvement Projects Estimate Funded Emigration Creek • New businesses should be designed to be a logical Detention Basin i extension of adjacent businesses, maintaining corn- Research Park Street i planentary building design and landscaping motifs. Improvements $ 700,000 1936-1987 1700 South-1600 East 500,000 NotFwnded Sunnyside Avenue Red Butte Creek 1.. _-- r• .,t (Foothill-Wasatch) 1,900,000 1939-1990 Detention Basin 'n '�"—Alt.."'" l WasatchDrive(1300South 1500 East DetenuonBasin 300,000 NotFwnded a z' i • •"s"a'+jr 4 to Sunnyside Avenue Cost Unknown Not Funded Misc.Storm Drainage sac•- � s> L , V; Guardsman Way Cost Unknown Not Funded Construction •2,000,000 Ongoing- i`�19 IN -r�» k Citywide Sidewalk Not . i ReplacernentProgran Cost Unknown Ongoing Specifically 7Av-y , ,,• Funded ' 'b Transportation System Management { s Fire Department Proposals (TSM)Intersection Improvements Cost Year { 1700South-1300East Project Estimate Funded ,�• rr .. S 30,000 1986-1957 ii ems' �� S ? UintahSchoolTurnout* 15,000 1986-1987 Relocate FneStation 4 $ 830,000 1959-1990 '` r > Replace Fire Station#10 850,000 Not Funded ' F it 1300South-Foothill 90,000 1987-1988 P 2100South-2300 East* 25,000 Not Funded r Guardsman-Sumnyside 25,000 Not Funded Miscellaneous Project/Program Proposals a r = Cost Year I �� '4.- 7r N-° ,}; 2300East-Foothill Unknown NatFuuded Project Estimate Funded ..,._..' till p'I ' • Sunnyside-Wasatch 6,000 Not Funded WINE 4 .i• a I' y' Tn rPaco t 7nn no Mills, Wayne From: Alan Bird [4bird@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 6:51 PM To: Mills, Wayne Cc: Wasatch Hollow CC Chair; thatchermp@gmail.com Subject: Wal Mart on Parleys Way Categories: Other Dear Mr. Mills, As a lifelong resident of the Wasatch Hollow area, I ask that the planning commission please consider the impact that a Wal Mart would have on the east bench. I've been in the wholesale food industry for over 35 years so I feel some of my concerns are from front line observation. A few of those concerns are as follows: 1- Traffic disturbance on Foothill and Parleys way. Foothill is already over loaded with departing city traffic accessing 1-215. 2- Crime—Wal Mart reminds me of the"Field of Dreams" movie line, "Build it and they will come". Wal Mart attracts a certain demographic that really does not fit into the area. 3- 24 hour store should not be allowed. The bright parking lot lights and ongoing traffic will be a disturbing nuisance to the solitude of this residential area. 4- Cleanliness- I welcome any member of the planning commission to visit any Wal Mart in the Valley and note the filthy parking lots and litter surrounding the stores. 5- Commercial Truck Traffic-The Foothill Parleys area does not really support the constant pressure of class 8 trucks and 53 foot trailers. 6- The noise impact of refrigerated units on trailers running at all hours. Remember there are high-end Condominiums to the west, expensive homes to the east, and very nice apartments to the north. 7- Child Safety- please keep this in mind. There are multiple schools located within close proximity of the propo: site. Additional traffic could have significant impact on child safety. 8- Impact on local grocers. There is a Dan's at Foothill, Fresh Market on 23rd, and Dan's at Olympus Hills; all Associated stores from Utah do we need Arkansas based competition?. 9- Do we need another Grocer in the area? Smith's on 3300 South, Harmons Brickyard, Harmons Emigration, Dan's on 3300 and 2300, Smiths 9th and 21st and the above listed. 10- Panhandling-, Wal Mart has the amazing ability to draw the Pan Handlers and Tamale vendors neither of which will bring added value to the area. Please excuse some of the sarcasm above. But also know in my heart of hearts, I am vehemently opposed to a Wal Mart in this area and I'm certain I voice the opinion of a majority in the area. Regards, Alan Bird Salt Lake City. r alIN Mills, Wayne -rom: jill.burke0l@comcast.net sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 7:22 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Re-zone of 2705 Parley's Way Categories: Other 23 January 2011 To whom it may concern: I am writing to express my objection over Walmart's request to re-zone the property at 2705 Parley's Way from Community Business to Community Shopping. The current zoning for this property already allows Walmart to remodel their property; they simply do not require a re-zone to accomplish this. Just down the street Architectural Nexus has done a beautiful job of remodeling the former Bally's Gym into an attractive office building with no re-zone required. If a small company such as Architectural Nexus can accomplish this task, then certainly a large corporation such as Walmart can. Furthermore, the old Smiths building on 3300 South is currently being remodeled into two discount stores. I'm confident that shoppers will embrace a refreshed property such as this, and not give a second thought that the structure in which they're shopping was remodeled. I'm equally confident that 'almart can skillfully remodel their property to create a shopping experience that meets their customer's expectations. Walmart has argued that shoppers deserve a newly constructed building vs. and old one. They maintain that it is too expensive to remodel vs. rebuild which to me seems unsubstantiated considering their vast resources. Salt Lake has many charming walk-able neighborhoods. When considering our approach on how to best develop the Parley's Way neighborhood, we should also to strive to achieve this characteristic of a walk-able community. Many people I know have chosen to live in Salt Lake City as opposed to the suburbs, simply for the ability to walk to a desirable destination. This is something which should be recognized and protected. Don't let bad development tear apart the cohesiveness of the city's neighborhoods. Of great concern to me is the affect that a re-zone would have on air quality. Adding more Community Shopping sites will without a doubt create an increase in traffic, which I find to be a very relevant issue for consideration. CS zoning, by its very nature, promotes people to drive to their destination. The consequences of up-zoning will be detrimental to our blue skies. Sadly the air quality in the valley has become unbearable not only in the winter months, but is happening more frequently year-round. Unfortunately Red Air Alerts have become a common occurrence. For those of us with respiratory issues, it is very serious health concern. We need leaders who will protect our community and create a healthy environment in which to live. Walmart and its employees & contractors are extremely capable of creating a beautiful marketplace for this site. The solution is to remodel within the current CB guidelines, not to re-zone. lcerely, Jill Burke 1 Mills, Wayne From: tlindgren61@comcast.net „wow Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2011 10:15 AM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Parleys Way re-zone Categories: Other To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Wal-mart petition to rezone the property on Parleys Way. As a resident of the area, I am concerned about the overall impact of up-zoning this property. The foothill area has traffic congestion issues that have been documented by various studies within the last few years. Other concerns include noise, air quality, light pollution and general impacts on the residential area. My personal opinion is that this property would be better suited as a mixed use, multiple business and retail area that encourage pedestrian access. Approximately two years ago, I attended a Planning Commission meeting where an overwhelming majority of the public speakers were against the re-zone. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended against the re-zomtio Wal-mart's tactic of retracting and re-submitting the petition should be scrutinized with the appropriate .•Roe discretion. Sincerely, Thomas E Lindgren 2701 E Wilshire Drive 1 Mills,Wayne crom: G D EGAN[lucielee@q.comj ant: Saturday,January 22,2011 8:44 AM io: Mills,Wayne Subject: FW:Foothill Development Challenges Attachments: Wal-Mart notes of January 19.docx Categories: Other From:lucielee@q.com To:waynemills@slcgov.com CC:wilshirejan@comcast.net Subject:Foothill Development Challenges Date:Sat,22 Jan 2011 02:59:41+0000 Attached are comments and concerns of long-time residents of Benchmark/Foothill area. Please give these concerns your full attention-they are real everyday! Lucie Egan January 19, 2011 To Whom It May Concern: We have opinion and comments on three aspects of the requested re-zoning on Parley's Way. First involves the addition of traffic on principal and secondary roads. Second involves views vs property values. Third is concern over"development agreement" details and enforcement. 1) As 20 year residents of Benchmark,we have been witness to the development of the property immediately west of Foothill Drive. We have also had need of medical services in the UofU Hospital area and witnessed the development there. Where is the planning??? Does the State or City ever entertain development of a dedicated Parkway to service these areas? There are currently 3-4 NEW buildings underway at the University—bringing more traffic during construction and more upon completion. Over a period of 5 years additions were made to Primary Children's Hospital, The Shriners Hospital, The University Hospital and now Huntsman Cancer Hospital. Buildings on campus are also being enlarged/renovated, i.e. the Neuropsychiatric and others? In addition, the new Historical Museum is nearing completion and an enlargement of Red Butte was recently completed. Commuters and students traveling to the north foothills of the city have always been problematic. Now, however now traffic is backed up from Thunderbird drive back over the over-pass waiting for light after light—twice a day. When waiting to enter Foothill Drive, we have observed that Utahans' do not know the concept of car- pooling—one person per car... Now the Planning Commission is asking us to absorb more traffic for commercial business —NO... We don't need more commercial business in our neighborhood. We enjoy Rite-Aid, Dan's and A Fresh Market and we can see where these businesses would be compromised by the omeik addition of Wal-Mart. On a recent trip to Park City we observed: West bound traffic of 38-18 wheel diesel trucks plus 11 tanker trucks. On our return we counted east bound: 43-18 wheel diesel trucks plus 16 tanker trucks. We have enough diesel emissions clouding our air space. We took the time to explore the rear of two Wal-Mart stores and found 20-30 sea pack containers parked. Wal-Mart uses these containers for off-season storage rather than provide warehouse space in the industrial areas of SLC for their stores—what an eye sore... Stringham Avenue is chocked with traffic/parking most week days and especially on weekends. We've noticed that quite a few of the covered parking spaces are empty—but the tenants prefer to park on the street. Traffic Controllers should consider allowing parking only on one side of the street. When using this street, one has to move to the right and allow trucks, vans, automobiles and motorcycles to pass—passing two vehicles in this space at one time is not safe. The very thought of 18 wheel delivery trucks using this street is insane... Also, many students and employees traveling north to school or work use Wasatch Drive for quicker access —making a trip to the Post Office for a resident is a problem. It's posted but not enforced. The folks on Wilshire and Parleys should not have to accommodate Wal-Mart. Let Wal-Mart sell the property to another developer who will have more of a neighborhood vision. Request: deal with what you have already allowed/created. Don't ask citizens to embrace Wal-Mart and their bully style marketing to encroach on our neighborhood. When Wal-Mart sold only "made in America" goods—they were an acceptable addition to commerce. Now, Amok however, they import so much foreign junk that we're not interested and will not shop in their store(s). 2) We built our home in 1993, our property taxes averaged $1500-1800 a year. The City has imposed $200 to $400 increases each year. This past year, they were $4300. We have tried protests and meetings with the Tax Commission but each time we were given some monetary relief the following year they would add their $200 or$400. We were told property values were high because we are in a 'view area' of the valley. We'd welcome you to see the rusting roof trusses of the (open 24 hours a day 7 days a week) gas station, the white plastic railings on Foothill apartments, the 2 story commercial office buildings and worst of all the many air conditioning units on top of Foothill Clinic—quite a nice view... If the development of Wal-Mart is approved, we will now be subject to parking lot lights 24-7. It was once nice to see the lights of The Country Club and downtown but now that `view' is obstructed by all the additions made since 1993. But... We'll be sure to get our tax notice in November with at least a $200-400 increase— WHY? 3) A development agreement reached between existing and potential commercial businesses should be transparent. Any time a citizen does not agree/has questions; they should have folks they can discuss these agreements with. We're not sure, with all the kissie-face that has transpired between our city officials and Wal-Mart, that this will ever be possible. Free lunches, seminars and trips to help our officials understand Wal-Mart and `their vision'. What a joke. E. R. DUMKE, JR. 2159 SOUTH 700 EAST, SUITE 200 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84106 PHONE 801-467-3600 FAX 801-484-2354 January 18, 2011 Salt Lake City Planning Division Attn: Wayne Mills 451 So. State, Room 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 To the City Council Members: As residents of Country Club Ridge Condominiums, we strongly oppose the re-zoning of the Wal-Mart property on Parleys Way. The constant truck traffic that would ensue with this re- zoning would greatly impact the quality of living in both Country Club Ridge Condominiums and Foothill Place Apartments. We already have heavy traffic on parleys Way, as well as trucks and emergency vehicles using Stringham Ave. to the north of the condominiums and apartments. Please do not approve the re-zoning. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, j_? ) - E. R(_Dumke, Jr. - - Katherine W. Dumke Mills, Wayne 'rom: Laura Goodman [lauramgoodman@yahoo.com] dent: Monday, January 24, 2011 10:46 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: No to re-zone Categories: Other Dear Wayne, I currently live directly south of the Parleys Way Walmart property. I am not in favor of a rezone. Traffic on Parleys way is already too busy. I lived accross the street from the intersection at Wilshire and Parleys Way and repeatedly saw semi trucks unable to make the turn from Kmart (now Walmart property) onto the on-ramp for I-215/I-80. I am particularly worried that they will widen that on-ramp to accomodate the trucks which will affect our wonderful neighborhood park that my kids and I regularly walk to. That will also decrease the value of the homes in our nieghborhood. I am worried about increased traffic in our neighborhood. I would like to see other commercial/business opportunities in the future for that property and a re-zone would make that very difficult. I say keep the zoning as is, Wal-mart will remodel and it will look great. The do not need to rezone to make a decent store. Sincerely, Laura Goodman 1 Mills, Wayne Auk From: Bret Jordan [bret.jordan@utah.edu] , Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2011 8:24 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Rezone of 2705 Parley's Way Categories: Other Dear Planning Commission, I live on Parleys way,just a couple blocks west of the property that is asking for a rezone. To be very clear, I am not against Wal-mart owning the property or doing business on the property that they own. I am however, completely and utterly against a rezone of said property regardless of who owns it. A rezone will give the property owner or any future property owner the ability to build and conduct business in ways that are clearly outside the scope of the surrounding community and neighborhoods. Walmart or any other owner does not need a rezone to remodel the building and surrounding property to make it pretty and usable for conducting business. Let us not follow on the mistakes of the past when the aggressive zoning was granted to K-Mart in the first place. Please say NO to a rezone. Bret Jordan 2175 S Texas SLC, UT 84109 Amok Bret Jordan CISSP I Sr Security Architect "Without cryptography vihv vivc ce xhrnrw, however, the only thing that can not be unscrambled is an egg.' 1 Mills,Wayne From: Greg Smith[ggsmith9@yahoo.com] ,ent: Saturday,January 15,2011 11:05 AM To: Mills,Wayne Subject: Wal-Mart rezoning petition Categories: Other Hello Wayne, My wife and I are opposed to the rezone mostly because of concern what could happen to the property if Wal-Mart were to abandon or sell it.Another owner might not agree to limit building size,or to make the property compatible with the existing neighborhood. Regards, Greg&Barbara Smith 2153 Broadmoor Street Salt Lake City, UT 84109 801-461-0121 ggsml_h9rayahoo.com 2751 East Wilshire Drive Salt Lake City, UT 84109 January 27, 2011 Wayne Mills Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S. State St. Room 406 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-5480 Dear Wayne: Attached are my comments regarding the rezone of 2705 Parley's Way. I have submitted 10 copies for the commissioners because there are a lot of pictures, and I didn't know if you would wish to make color copies or not. I am opposed to rezoning the property to Community Shopping because it doesn't meet the criteria set forth in the East Bench Master Plan, Appendix I, Zoning Change Compatibility Considerations; and therefore doesn't meet the criteria in Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance 21A.50.050. It is not a logical extension of the surrounding businesses or neighborhoods, does not have adequate access either by private vehicle or public transportation, and is located next to a street that already has periods of failure at some intersections. Adding Community Shopping to this mix is beyond comprehension. Thank you for your work on this project. Sincerely, Janice Brittain Mir • Is 2705 Parley's Way really suitable for Community Shopping? Wal-Mart has done a good job of turning the question into a debate of new building vs. remodeled building,and trying to convince people that if Wal-Mart is going to be there anyway,they might as well have a new building. The new building they propose is just a new version of what's already there—a 20`" Century, 1960's model with new furnaces and air-conditioners,and...skylights!;not a 21st Century,net zero model. The YWCA is building green because they plan to be in place for another 100 years;Wal-Mart is here today,gone tomorrow. The property has three accesses,all with issues. One requires an easement across another property;one requires left turns to and from Foothill Drive;and the third,the only signalized intersection,requires left tums to a narrow eastbound lane. The sign marking this lane has been hit and knocked off so many times that UDOT quit replacing it three years ago. Truckers using this access regularly hit and drag road furniture leaving a trail of concrete and road signs in their wake. South of the Stringham/Thunderbird traffic light en Foothill Drive,there are 10 driveways— four on the west side,and six serving four office buildings on the east side. Between the offices on the east,and the gas station,coffee shop,ski rental and restaurants on the west, there is constant in and out of these driveways. It's not unusual to see three vehicles lined Cup in the left turn lane with several more poking out of driveways trying to access Foothill. One of the office buildings on the west side is fully leased and doesn't have enough parking, so employees park on the east side and run across Foothill. They are also back and forth for snacks and lunch. Bus service only runs north-south on Foothill;there is no bus on Parley's Way. How can Community Shopping be integrated into this area that is already overcommitted? ;4170 aftie . • Even from a satellite,this w _ property is an eyesore It. "--.;a. , ,,, •-, that does not inte rate * �_ . into the surrounding i �/ `I neighborhoods. .; `ii — .. For the residents of the j"' , j). ' , . - �*1 east end of Parley's Way, the parking lot functions ~ ` as a street,giving us • 4:' ,. It • '�• , access to Foothill,the •- .'*' ',.-i, k.; _E -, ! Benchmark subdivision, •I. t a� sr "'C` , " j Bonneville Shoreline ,-e. ` . Id Trail,and allowing us to •r . 7 . _ `,'ri walk to the neighbor- i I a ,' " -' 2 4 hoods north of us. 0 On the following pages I have tried to illustrate my points with photographs. Wal-Mart is not the same as Kmart. CS will not be the same as a grand-fathered CB. c... ._.. jig" 7;77 : - - 1 Wal-Mart parking lot on 900 East(about 4700 South)is full with 100's of cars. Across the street,Kmart's parking lot is sparse with 10's of cars,as it was at the Parley's Way site. Behind the Wal-Mart on 900 East are over 20 • -� shipping containers,used for extra storage,plus several semis. Wal-Mart plans to have pedestrian tA a i} f a 3 _ 1- walkways behind the Parley's Way site so that °µ :_' pedestrians can use the access to the apartments 11.4- and the neighborhoods north of Wal-Mart. The access is across from the receiving door behind the Kmart. Dodging around trucks and storage units would be a hazardous walk. • • y t. 4/ t1llfl • _ Behind the Kmart(this one on 900 East,but almost identical to the - Parley's Way store)are no containers, no trucks,no extra y I storage,making it safe for a pedestrian walkway. ® Community Shopping deliveries vs. Community Business deliveries Trucks will be driving up Maywood, past these residences at 2665 Parley's Way, to deliver _ goods to Wal-Mart, who estimates 4-6 trucks per , . • day. People in these condos and the apartments below, who are just a few feet from the property -�-' - line, will be listening to idling diesels and fork-lift beepers all night long if Wal-Mart does deliveries at night as they have said they do. They drop off full trailers, then jockey the empties out of the ,. truck docks and back in the full trailers, then attach the empties and haul them away. Subsequent CS businesses could schedule deliveries at any hour of the day or night. O . KMART RECEIVING , `f HOUR 7AM T � Kmart "truck dock" (above) vs w, - - Wal-Mart truck dock. zwrWALtMART Kmart had one truck per day; i delivery hours were 7 a.m. - 1 114426 6 __< p.m. Their "truck dock" was one 3r. >' door at the back of the building. 4,4 �: • While Kmart is classified as a supercenter, in fact, their level of business activity was closer to a CB zone in volume. Access Wal-Mart plans for their trucks to exit to Foothill Drive using the Stringham Ave.stub which has cars parked on both sides Monday—Friday. Is there really room for semis,parked cars and two traffic lanes? 111 • 411' wit • Vr �16"i_ ° c 'ram`, • Turning left onto Parley's Way at Wilshire • Drive,from the Kmart parking lot. . .and the eastbound lane is. . .where? rr p 'T �.. . February,2008: The demise of the last sign to — mark the east bound freeway on-ramp from the mar west bound left turn lane on Parley's Way at the s=' • Wilshire intersection,. This one lasted about two `' weeks. It is not unusual for cars turning from n Kmart to miss the eastbound lane and turn into the west bound left tum lane. © Foothill Drive Access Southbound van turning left across Foothill,while .-_r, _ d . t;;.� v employee(at right of picture) runs across from his parking place at Kmart,to his office. Notice the cars parked down • t _ .�1K,;,;-.LA the driveway because the o — r ,-'-- ---ice r parking lot is full. The two buildings north of �. - this one have'for lease' signs in front of them. ...np ggiii '. _ _ Wal-Mart's traffic engineer PT - says that accessing their ;,,_ ` property from Foothill is so t= 4 r -- dangerous that people won't ; ,% ''�' 'I do it. Clearly,he's wrong. • • ' , The gas station does a 1 - booming business;during traffic lulls there are vehicles turning in and out of - everywhere. *OA MIL ' The black car on the right actually turned right from the Stringham stub,into the southbound left turn lane,then negotiated a U turn in the northbound lanes and turned right on Thunderbird. I couldn't get photos of vehicles lined up to turn left because a still picture doesn't distinguish between stopped vehicles and moving vehicles. Wal-Mart's commitment to walk-ability Wal-Mart claims that with a rezone they will increase pedestrian walkways from 1459 linear feet to 1900 linear feet. But they don't seem to care about clearing the snow from their walks. All photos taken the same afternoon,January,2011. ,:eg. i. r —( • Walkway from the Parley's entrance City sidewalk on Parley's Way Parking lot totally plowed. There is no bus service on Parley's Way;the nearest east- . • 0"0=- west bus is 2100 East and 2100 South. There is north-south bus service on Foothill Drive. Kmart employees and shoppers used the Parley's Way bus until it was discontinued. Neighborhood residents regularly walk,run,and ride bikes across this property to access Foothill,the Benchmark subdivision,the Bonneville Shoreline trail,Wasatch Blvd (great for runners and cyclists),as well as the neighborhoods to the north. In the 22 years I've lived here,Kmart has never had enough business to make walking across their parking lot a hazard. I used to roller blade around the parking lot during business hours and never O had to worry about traffic. • The Mysterious 1.2 acres. . . i P. 1.-y, • /2 it f •r t y • • Wal-Mart has said that this 1.2 acre plot could be"whatever the community wants." Clearly, the community"voted"with their vehicles,over the last 30 years or so,to make it a park and ride. But,who will pay for it? Will Wal-Mart really commit to a non-revenue producing use? There are still two van pools that carry commuters to Hill AFB,down from four several years ago. With construction down in Summit County,there aren't as many construction bosses picking up their crews here. The recreationists still meet here with skis,golf clubs,back packs,boats,snow mobiles,etc. Two years ago Wal-Mart said they would tow non-shoppers who parked in their lot. If they do,whose neighborhood will inherit this park and ride? What new parking issues will arise if the office workers from the east side of Foothill are booted out(no pun intended)? Businesses in the Cowboy Grub building have posted "customers only"signs in their parking lots. If Wal-Mart turns this property into a revenue generating business,and since they're all about their bottom line who expects them to do anything else,how much additional traffic will be attracted to this site in addition to that projected by their traffic engineer? When will development the length of the Foothill corridor bring the whole arterial to a standstill,and what will be the result? It's not like it can just be widened,or that there is a parallel street to take more traffic. CIt's long past the time to just say no. This triangle is not suitable for Community Shopping. Page 1 of 1 From: Stephen Bradley[skbrad@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday,November 20,2010 4:31 PM O To: Mills,Wayne Subject: WALMART Categories: Other I live off Foothill on the East Bench. 01 think it is insane that you all are insisting on a"cute little shopping area" instead of letting Walmart come in a replace that UGLY empty building. I would love to have a Walmart closer than 1300 S.and 300 W. But more importantly,it would not be taking the place of green space or a lovely park. I do not see anyone converting that UGLY Kmart into a park I would rather it would be functional building that would serve the neighborhood and let it be big enough to house a grocery department as well. It would be a different story if they wanted to build on green space,but for heavens sake nothing has been allowed to be done to that property long enough.A brand new Walmart would be 1000X better than what is there now! Stephen Bradley,MD 1795 Devonshire Drive SLC,UT 84108 O 0 Page 1 of 4 From: Rick Newton [rnewton@comre.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 4:03 PM To: Mills, Wayne Cc: Council Comments; Martin,JT;Jardine,Janice; Norris, Nick; Rushton, Daunte; Sommerkorn, Wilford;Judy Newton Subject: RE: Parleys Wal Mart Rezone Categories: Other Dear Mr. Mills, Thank you for your through and detailed response. It is very helpful and clears up my questions/concerns. I certainly would not want to see a significant amount of"storage containers" on the property, but that sounds like something that could occur with the existing zoning. Thank you again for your time on this and the through response. I am confident that the planning commission is doing its best for the long term use and re- development of the property. I am still in favor of a rezone of the property as long as it complies to the recommendations and guidelines of the planning commission. Best regards, Rick From: Mills, Wayne [mailto:wayne.mills@slcgov.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 2:29 PM To: Rick Newton Cc: Council Comments; Martin, JT; Jardine, Janice; Norris, Nick; Rushton, Daunte; Sommerkorn, Wilford Subject: RE: Parleys Wal Mart Rezone Hello Mr. Newton- My responses to your questions are as follows: 1. The existing Kmart building is approximately 30 feet at the highest point.The proposed Walmart is approximately 33 feet at the highest point with an average of 26 feet. 2. In the proposed CS zoning district, all new construction of a principal buildings and/or uses, or additions that increases the floor area and/or parking requirement by 25i:; requires planned development review by the Planning Commission. The existing Kmart building is approximately 120,000 square feet. Walmart is proposing to demolish the existing building and construct a building approximately 92,000 square feet in size. If the City Council approves the proposed rezone, Walmart would need planned development approval from the Planning Commission to construct the new building. 3. The gas station on Foothill (I believe it is a Chevron) is located in the CB zoning district. The Walmart property is also currently zoned CB. I'm not sure when the Chevron was constructed but a gas station is al,os','ed in the CB zoning district as a conditional use, which requires approval by the Planning Commission. What this means is that a gas station could be constructed on the Walmart property today with conditional use approval. \A'almart has not indicated that they are planning on constructing a gas island at this location. 4. Generally speaking, a development agreement could possibly place restrictions on storage containers; however, there would need to be a specific reason for doing so based on a potential impact. One point that needs to be considered is that containers (used as accessory storage structures) can be placed on the property under the current zoning as long as the container meets building code and zoning ordinance location requirements. This is not an issue isolated to the proposed rezone. 6. That is correct that private deed restrictions are not regulated by zoning. I think the point that the flyer is attempting to make is that if the zoning is changed, a large retail building would then be permitted. If Walmart closes and moves to a nearby location, they can restrict what can be put in the building. Page 2 of 4 Because the building will be relatively large in size, there are a limited number of uses that would want to locate there and they would probably be restricted due to being a Walmart competitor. So, I believe the concern is that if the zoning is changed and Walmart moves, the site could become a vacant eyesore or a flea market. But, if the CB zoning remains any reuse that requires demolishing the building would have to comply with the CB regulations, which limits building footprints to 15,000 square feet. The flyer also mentions that the "existing zoning requires the Kmart building to be remodeled or torn down and replaced by buildings the size between Emigration Market and Whole Foods in Sugar House Commons if vacant for more than a year." This is not entirely correct.The building could remain vacant for longer than a year without the use being abandoned if the property owner demonstrates that: 1) they have been maintaining the land and structure in accordance with the building code and did not intend to discontinue the use; 2) they have been actively and continuously marketing the land or structure for sale or lease, with the use; or 3) they have been engaged in other activities evidencing an intent not to abandon. Please contact me if you have additional questions. Wayne Mills Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S.State Street, Room 406 PO Box 145450 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5480 Phone:Sol-535-7252 Fax:Sol-535-6174 . 41104, From: Rick Newton [mailto:rnewton©comre.com] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 4:52 PM To: Mills, Wayne Cc: Council Comments; Martin, JT Subject: Parleys Wal Mart Rezone Hi Wayne, I received the attached flyer at my home this past week regarding a rezone of the Parleys Wal Mart property. Can you please clarify a couple of items for me regarding the statements made on the flyer and some of my questions in general. I am a homeowner in the area residing at 2293 Benchmark Circle. 1. With a maximum height of 45' in the new zone, is Wal Mart asking for a 45' height, or what height is their proposed building, and what height is the existing building? 2. When point number 2 states there is not building size restriction, is it correct that any building would still have to go through the planning commission for approval?What is Wal Mart proposing size wise in relation to the existing building. 3. There is an existing "gas station" on Foothill Dr., is that a grandfathered use that is no longer permitted in the current zone? Is Wal Mart planning on a gas island at this location? 4. Can part of the development agreement restrict the number of"storage" containers that could be kept at the property. 5. No comment, I do not have any problem with the residents and city "partnering" to see that the development agreement is followed. 6. Does this have anything to do with a rezone? Don't they already have the right to "deed restrict" by virtue of their ownership? Page 3 of 4 Generally speaking, I am in favor of Wal Mart being granted a rezone of the property as long as their development agreement is in compliance with what the planning commission suggests as far as re-development of the site. Could the development agreement prohibit Wal Mart from operating a "flee market" at the site? I do believe that "forcing" Wal Mart to use the old existing building is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. I would much rather see a brand new state of the art building following the guidelines of the planning commission than a band-aid to the existing structure. You will see from my e-mail signature below that I am a commercial real estate agent with Commerce Real estate. Even though I am in the commercial real estate industry, I have no affiliation with Wal Mart in any shape or form. I send these comments as a 20 year plus resident of the area and would like to see the property re- developed in a manner consistent with what is "best"for the area and not"influenced" by the wishes of an entity opposed to a "rezone" that seems to not be considering the merits of the project specific to the rezone request. If you could please provide any answers or comments to the above at your convenience it would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Rick Rick Newton Retail/Land/Investment Commerce Real Estate Solutions Cushman&Wakefield Alliance Member 170 South Main Street,Suite 1600 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 801-303-5485(Direct) 801-322-2000 (Main) 801-322-2040 (Fax) www.comre.com This e-mail and any attachment conta'n confidential information that may be legally privileged If you are not the intended recipient,you must not review, retransmit,print,copy,use or disseminate it.Please immediately notify me by return e-mail and delete it. If this e-mail contains a forwarded e-mail or is a reply to a prior e-mail,the contents may not have been produced by the sender and therefore we are not responsible for its contents.It is the recipient's responsibility to take measures to ensure that this e-mail is virus free,and no responsibility is accepted by the author or Commerce Real Estate Solutions for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use. Rick Newton Retail/Land/Investment Commerce Real Estate Solutions Cushman&Wakefield Alliance Member 170 South Main Street,Suite 1600 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 801-303-5485 (Direct) 801-322-2000(Main) Page 1 of 1 From: Pati Allred-Sorensen [patiallred@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 5:52 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Walmart rezoning Categories: Other Am very much in favor of the rezoning as it will provide a much nicer, greener store. This will be good for the neighborhood in getting rid of a giant eyesore, helping our tax base, and providing convenience and better shopping closer to home. Lets please spend time trying to help them build the best store possible, not making it as difficult as possible. Thank you for your time. Pati Allred Sorensen 2560 Blaine Ave SLC Utah 84108 801 487 0080 Page 1 of 1 From: Sommerkorn, Wilford Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 3:00 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: FW: Support for Wal-Mart Plan @ Parleys Categories: Other tVilf Sornloerkorii Director Salt Lake City Planning Division From: woodsmb@wellsfargo.com [mailto:woodsmb@wellsfargo.com] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 2:47 PM To: Sommerkorn, Wilford Subject: Support for Wal-Mart Plan @ Parleys After reading the article recently in the paper, I would like to comment on why I support the Wal-mart plan for the Sugarhouse store. I support Wal-Mart's revised plan because: 1) They have scaled down the store and are trying to meet the local community standards 2) The empty site is an eyesore and does not serve the community 3) I want the retail goods that the Wal-Mart store is likely to provide to me as a consumer Tnanks ma,yB th a I •„ 1731 S 1E00 E S:'t, Lake Ci;/, Ui. 84108 Home (801) 4E4-8 r 05 Viork. (80 1)246-8268 Tr,$r'"33.i --'r.^a C:..? C�,.__ �.v ._..,'�' •_ '"'u`., I` ,. c a. �..,._ c .,-=�'-. is r ra: y�_ Email_MKeiffer_11-15-10_support.txt From: mkeiffermlk@softhome.net sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 5:17 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: say yes to zoning for Walmart at Parley's Way Categories: Other Please say yes to the zoning changes for building the Walmart at Parley's Way. i live east of Foothill and want a Walmart closer to my home so I do not have to drive across town or to another city. The location on Parley's way is excellent for a Walmart. The store will generate additional taxes to the city and create jobs in our city. It will be readily available to the huge numbers of people who travel along Foothill Blvd going to work and the U of U. why not keep those sales (and taxes) within the city? If a gas station is approved, I will welcome it with the hope that gas prices will be considerable lower than the ones at the gas stations along Foothill Blvd. Again, please vote yes for the zoning changes to allow Walmart to be built at 2705 Parley's Way. Margaret Keiffer SLC, UT 84108 oak Page 1 Page 1 of 1 From: Melissa Ford (m.ford@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:44 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Wal-Mart Categories: Other Wayne, I have read the fact sheet provided on the open forum website. I have looked at the documents regarding community business zoning and community shopping zoning. I have also read the comments on the open forum discussion board. I am in favor of changing the zoning to allow tear down and reconstruction of the building. It seems like it is such a waste to have the empty building sitting there year after year. It would be important to me that the city and neighborhoods surrounding the site be allowed considerable input in the planning process of the new building and design of the site. It would also be important that traffic patterns, particularly with left hand turns off of Foothill Boulevard, be studied to reduce the impact to the surrounding areas. I live in the area—just west of Foothill Village. I would enjoy having a Wal-Mart close by. Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. Melissa Ford Page 1of1 From: Larry Shelton [shelton_larry@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 11:32 AM To: Mills, Wayne Cc: Council Comments Subject: Walmart Rezoning, 2705 E. Parley's Way Categories: Other I am writing this letter in support of Walmart's request to re-zone their property to allow for their redevelopment plans. I am within walking distance of the store and can see it from my home and I strongly urge the Planning Commission to work with Walmart to assist them in their redevelopment efforts. The local community will greatly benefit from a vibrant retail outlet. Thank you for your consideration. Larry Shelton 2531 Scenic Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 801.554.4875 G Y•= Page 1 of 1 From: John Nitkewicz [john.nitkewicz@hsc.utah.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 3:30 PM To: Mills, Wayne; Council Comments;jt.martin@alcgov.com Subject: Regarding Wal-Mart Rezoning Categories: Other If the new zone is limited to the existing Kmart property, I see no harm in bringing Wal-Mart into the area. We need to be more business friendly to get the economy moving again. John Nitkewicz, MT(ASCP) Senior Systems Analyst University Health Care Information Technology Services 585 Komas Drive, Suite 204, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 Office: 801-587-6222 john nikeviiczrdThsc utah edu Home: 2895 Hyland Hills Rd., SLC UT 84109 U Py o'rt. Email_JBarton_11-17-10_support.txt 'm%, From: John Barton [jbarfive@mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 11:04 AM To: Mills, Wayne; Council Comments; Martin, JT Subject: East Bench community Council - walmart Rezone Categories: Other We are in favor of the Walmart Rezoning. We have lived in this area for 35 years and believe it will benefit the community. Sincerely John & Sharon Barton family 1849 Lakeline Dr. SLC, UT 84109 AolalIkk Page 1 2'37=LT 71 Page 1 of 1 From: dayna norris [daynanda@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 10:11 AM To: Mills, Wayne; Council Comments; Martin, iT Subject: I want Wal-Mart!!! Categories: Other Dear Mr Mills, Mr Simonsen, and Mr Martin, I live east of Foothill on Comanche and drive to the 300 West Wal-Mart every week or so. I would love to save the gas and help lower pollution in the valley by shopping at as large as possible a Wal-Mart on Parleys. I think all these protests are elitist and propelled by those who can pay higher prices for everything. Please do not be overwhelmed by their organized voices. Many of us want the convenience of a closer Wal-Mart. I do not feel comfortable going to the East Bench Council meeting and standing up against the "in" crowd that somehow relishes in bashing Wal- Mart. Thank you for listening, bayna Norris S0 Page 1 of 1 From: Douglas MacLean [douglas1960@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 2:49 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Parley's Way Wal-Mart Categories: Other I just wanted to add my comment that I am in full support of the zoning change to allow Wal- Mart to build a smaller building and make improvements to the drainage problems and other mitigations that are needed. I am quite suprised that this process will take over a year to approve since the City needs the tax revenue and the jobs that the store will create 0014 I"1 l f f IT 1 \[[1 \[T l I T A' i\T 1 1' r, \T '1 T.11 ! T 11 A 1 l\ 1 1 l P/r%fl 1 Page 1 of 1 From: Sommerkorn, Wilford Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 10:26 AM To: Mills,Wayne Cc: Gray, Frank Subject: FW: Support for Wal-Mart Plan Categories: Other [Ulf Soroioerl,o;;; Director Salt Lake Ci P:anninct Division From: Darrell Coleman [mailto:darrell.coleman@business.utah.edu] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 3:20 PM To: Sommerkorn, Wilford Cc: Darrell Coleman Subject: Support for Wal-Mart Plan I would like to register my comments regarding the Wal-mart plan for the SugarHouse store. I support Wal-Mart's revised plan because: 1) They have scaled down the store and are trying to meet the local community standards 2) Leaving the empty, ugly eyesore as it is does the community more harm than good 3) I want the retail goods that the Wal-Mart store is likely to provide to me as a consumer Darrell Coleman 1731 S 1800 E Salt Lake City UT 84108 801-541-6099 s ��'`� Page 1 of 1 From: cawdancer@comcast.net Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 10:37 AM To: Mills, Wayne Cc: Martin, JT Subject: Walmart Categories: Other I'm sure you're just overwhelmed with the nay-sayers re Walmart on Parleys Way, as they are always the most vocal. I represent the senior citizens on the East Bench who are in favor of Walmart's property being re-zoned to allow them to tear down the 45 year old building that is there, and rebuild a building to present day earthquake code. It's absolutely ridiculous to expect Walmart, or any other development, to inhabit that broken down old building with the leaking roof. Just before Kmart moved out, they had buckets all over the store catching the rain water! It is very important that all new buildings be brought to earthquake standards, because those buildings are going to have to house all the residents who live in brick houses who will need shelter after an earthquake. Walmart should be allowed to build anything they wish, since money is no problem for them. Financing is a huge problem for other developers which is why Sugarhouse has that enormous dirt pile on 11th East and 21st South, and Cottonwood area in back of Macy's is still dirt. Why is the planning commission giving Walmart such a hard time? Is it because the snobs in the Country Club area came to the City Council to protest? (They are concerned about the quality of people who shop at Walmart???) Give us all a break! Walmart has reduced prices on just about everything which is what we need in these tough economic times. It also provides jobs for senior citizens as greeters, if not checkers. Senior citizens are at a distinct disadvantage because we are not getting cost of living increases on our Social Security, and we are getting NO INTEREST on our Treasury Bills, CD's and other life long investments. Please reconsider your decision on re-zoning this property. Carleen A. Wallace, M. A. 2532 East 1700 South Salt Lake City, UT 84108-2704 Page 1 of 1 From: Charles Akerlow [cakerlow@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 10:51 AM To: Mills, Wayne; Council Comments Cc: keepourzoning@gmail.com Subject: Parley's way Walmart Categories: Other Dear Mr. Mills, As a neighbor of the long-time vacant KMart store at Parleys Way and Foothill Drive, I support the construction of a new WalMart Store on the site and urge the City to approve the requests of WalMart to do so. As experienced real estate developer in Salt Lake City I am well aware of the options the City has to require many things of a developer as projects are proposed. I suggest that you insure appropriate landscaping accompany the construction of a new building so that the "sea of asphalt" which is now so enjoyed by some of the outspoken neighbors, turns into a lively communitdy center with greenery as well as parking. Perhaps a development agreement could be entered into between the City and WalMart which would govern the size, design, site plan, landscape plan and elevations which would better define the end product. I have entered into a number of development agreements over the years with many cities in the valley. They are not unusual and WalMart might find such an approach attractive to resolving some of the issues complained about by some of the neighbors. Frankly, the silent majority of neighbors to this property would like to see it developed in order to add to the City's tax base, add sales tax revenues to City coffers and clean up what is now a blighted property. In fact the blight there may be enough for the Redevelopment Agency to consider it as a target area. I hope it doesn't come to that. This project has become controversial largely because some citizens in the area would like to see nothing happen. The problem with this approach is that the property only becomes more blighted which in the real world does lead to the property becoming a center for criminal activity. When no one visits the property daily it is an ideal place for drug trafficking or whatever other criminal enterprise may be in the works. A vibrant center of commercial activity improves the neighborhood, reduces the crime, adds to the tax base and is a win for everyone. I hope you will recommend approval of this project with appropriate extractions from the developer for landscaping and modern new structures. Thank you. Charles W. Akerlow 2521 Maywood Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 801 209 9490 (mobile) cakerlow@gmail-com Page 1 of 1 From: Bob Richey [rcrich2@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 12:21 PM To: Mills, Wayne Cc: Martin,JT Subject: Yes to Walmart Rezoning Categories: Other Dear Mr. Mills, My wife and I have lived in District 6 for 30 years and we strongly support approval to allow Walmart (or similar'big box' retailer)to develop the dead space formerly occupied by Kmart on Parley's Way. It's time that the east side of Salt Lake has easy access to selection of goods and pricing offered by a Walmart, without having to drive all over the valley. As the local economy continues to tighten, such an option within easy walking or driving distance will provide a real service to our area. Competition could also spur reduction in prices at some of the other grocery stores and gas stations in our area. Unfortunately we will not be able to attend the November 17 meeting. We wanted you to know that some of us feel the issue should be settled by affirmation of the rezoning request. Thank you for your consideration. Bob and Doris Richey Amok Email_BCohne_11-10-10.txt From: BRUCE COHNE [bruce@crslaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:33 AM To: Council Comments; Martin, JT; Mills, Wayne Subject: wal Mart Categories: Other Gentlemen, I am the former chair of the East Bench Community Council , and the first chair to address the issue of an expanded facility on the former K Mart property located on Parleys Way. My home looks down on the subject property and no matter what is done the site will be an eye sore, but I knew that when I moved in to my present home. Just as Wal Mart knew the zoning limitations when it acquired the property from K Mart. That said I think we must look at the issue with a little dispassion and some common sense. 1st. The property is not generating the much needed tax revenue it could if (a) a new operation was functioning on the property. (b) both sales tax and property tax revenues would be enhanced. 2nd. The City can certainly use the added tax revenue. 3rd. A new facility would result in new jobs initially for the construction crews, and later for the new employees hired by wal Mart to operate the store. Such hiring would result in more income tax revenue for our schools and governmental operations. 4th Wal Mart is on balance a good corporate citizen no matter what the vocal minority says. 5th at the meeting on the 17th only those opposed to Wal Mart will show up, as wal Mart is not lobbying for a turn out. Remember the voice of the silent majority. wal Mart owns the property and can wait to see it developed. They can if they so elect simply warehouse the property for future use is 5 to 10 years. In the event they elect to do so, how much lost tax revenue does the City, county and State loose? we are in tough economic times, people need jobs, and the City can use the tax revenues lost by not having the property productive. wal Mart's cost of ownership is the cost of maintaining the vacant building and its property taxes. The cost of the vacant property to the City is substantial . The wal Mart advance team I had to deal with was arrogant and pompous. They played the joint group of Community council chairs that met with them as dullards, and made us all opposed to their plan. But the real facts are the facts and those should not be ignored. Would the hue and cry be the same if we were dealing a Costco, Home Depot, Lowes, R.C. Willey, Target, or other "big box" operation? I am not in the employ of wal Mart nor am I active in the community council at the present time. Bruce Cohne 257 East 200 So. Suite 700 Salt Lake City, Utah 841111 Ph. (801) 532-2666 Page 1 January 31, 2011 James D. and Elaine J. Brown 1781 Blaine Ave. SLC, UT 84108 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street SLC, UT 84111 Attention: Wayne Mills Re: Wal-Mart's Requests for rezoning and amendments to the East Bench Master Plan for property located at 2705 E. Parley's Way Dear Planning Commissions Members: We support Wal-Mart's requests to rezone its property on 2705 East Parley's Way and to amend the East Bench Master Plan. Rezoning We support Wal-Mart's request to rezone the property because it enables Wal-Mart, at their expense, not the City's/taxpayers' to fix the drainage and water retention problems associated with the property that have caused flooding to the apartment complex to the north and Parley's Way to the south. Fixing this problem is long overdue and should be a priority for the property. We also feel that while there is a short term gain to decreasing the environmental impact via remodeling the building, in the long run a smaller(92,000 vs.the existing 120,000 square foot) new building with more sustainable energy efficient materials developed after the 1968 construction of the present building will be even more beneficial. Most of the current building can be recycled except for hazardous materials such as asbestos. Thus while the initial cost of using new materials (though some products will be recycled ones,just not ones from that particular structure), environmentally and fiscally, may be greater, the gain in sustainability over time will be more significant with new construction, possible only via rezoning. Aesthetically,due to the remodeling constraint capped at 50%of the cost of the as is current building, there is very little that can be done to make that structure, outdated and reflective of its 43 year old design, more appealing. Conversely, new construction of a smaller(92,000 vs. 120,000 square feet), building that can include thoughtful community input (possible under a development plan associated with rezoning) can result in a more appealing Wal-Mart similar to others along the Wasatch Front built with similar input. The Centerville and Sandy(approximately 9400 South and 1000 East) stores are prime examples. Parley's Way is a gateway to the City, and it behooves the City to opt for the rezoning that will enable Wal-Mart to build a new store more consistent with the rest of the East Bench area, that ANN includes enhanced lot features like additional pedestrian walkways,trail connections, and 25 foot versus the existing 40 foot parking lot lights. Amending the East Bench Master Plan A master plan is, in essence, a blueprint for the greater community that, while developed over time, is basically reflective of a moment in time, when in fact it should be more like a calendar or`planner' that can and does include changes as events occur to necessitate them. And, Master Plans can and have been amended as necessary to better reflect the current needs of the community as can be done for the East Bench Master Plan, which is over thirty years old, no longer current and no longer reflective of community needs and wants as it currently exists. Numerous changes have taken place since the Master Plan was written, but one important one has not—the ongoing community need and desire for a big-box retail discount store in the east bench area. K-Mart did not lose customers for lack of either. Rather it lost customers due management problems ultimately resulting in poor customer service, lack of selection of merchandise, including restocking problems, and questionable safety and aesthetic features, e.g. a leaking roof that went unrepaired for several years, lack of parking lot maintenance, air conditioner problems, and more. Consumers started shopping elsewhere out of necessity, not choice, and given the opportunity to again have a new, aesthetically pleasing, sustainable and well managed, cost-efficient(unlike Smith's touted as the alternative, but by no means cost-efficient) superstore (drug,variety and grocery similar to that which originally existed via the K-Mart store to the west and Richie's Grocery Store to the east from 1968- 1980, such a store will be welcomed and well-utilized by the majority of the community, despite the protests from an elite minority in the area. Regarding the latter,they are well organized,well-educated, and well-armed via—Save our Zoning-a Website reflective of anti-Wal-Mart blocking tactics from sources like Wal-Mart Watch, organized, ostensibly `to study the impact of large corporations on society,' but, in reality, designed to provide strategies to keep Wal-Mart stores out of communities, in this case, restrict zoning since Wal-Mart already owns the property. While we have no empirical data to support our beliefs, we feel that the emotions elicited in opposing an issue are far stronger than those that support one or are passive about it. In other words, the Parley's Way Wal-Mart opposition has been more vocal, more demonstrative, and more emotional than those who support it, who simply want to know when they can expect a new improved Wal-Mart store to open. Despite that, given more publicity and more overall disenchantment with the state of the Parley's Way property as it currently exists, supporters have been less passive (though still often reluctant to speak out for or on behalf of Wal-Mart)throughout this interim period between Wal-Mart's announcement of its intent to request rezoning and the actual Planning Commission hearing than the previous request in 2008. The results can be demonstrated via: G Open City Hall, Salt Lake City's on-line vehicle for civic engagement on which, especially since those who comment can do so semi-anonymously without peer pressure from neighbors, co- workers, fellow club or church members,from which the results of the 97 who have commented to date show that: 66% of the respondents support it ➢ 21%of the respondents oppose it ➢ 13%of the respondents provided a non-responsive negative opinion about Wal-Mart, irrelevant since the issue is rezoning. • Reponses from the two community councils, East Bench and Sugar House, whose input was sought demonstrating: ➢ Support from the East Bench Community Council, which, unlike 2008, chose to vote independent of the Sugar House Community Council, and, in contrast to the Sugar House Community Council that voting: ■ Was conducted via secret ballot • Allowed residents themselves, rather than representatives, to cast votes ➢ Opposition from the Sugar House Community Council, but not the unanimous opposition of 2008, and not necessarily reflective of the entire Sugar House community. In conclusion, we reiterate our support of Wal-Mart's requests for rezoning its 2705 E. Parley's Way property and the necessary amendment to the East Bench Master Plan that will economically benefit the East Bench area as well the rest of the City via an increased tax base, elimination of the flooding associated with the property at no cost to the City, increased employment opportunities, and an improved and aesthetically pleasing entrance into the City via Parley's Way with the construction of a new Wal-Mart store and enhanced area surrounding it. We appreciate your strong consideration of Wal-Mart's rezoning and Master Plan amendment requests for its 2705 E. Parley's Way Property. Sincerely, JaAneis,D. & Ela,i ej. 3vo-ww James D. and Elaine J. Brown From The Desk Of... PHILIP D. SHEA/ BEACON HEIGHTS 2474 Wilson Ave. /Salt Lake City, UT 84108-3048 (801) 583-1389 C --, 71/17 2,2- 2-65/V/ 77/ j C6' Z - / Ic f'S — -77 7-c ( Jr /si/A/4, 6 -S I- L. / aldit T I g-7// 3"-.7/ / • '7 di-JAIL Mills, Wayne From: Diane Creamer[dianecreamer@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:26 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: No to rezone Categories: Other Dear Planning Commisioners, As a resident of Maywood Drive a block or two away from the WalMaet property. I ask you to say no (again) to WalMart's request for rezoning the property. We do not want the zoning changed for anyone! ! Please respect zoning ordinances. The current zoning represent the wishes of the neighborhood. When we purchased our home 5 years ago, we remodel our it and the result was total transformation! I am confident WalMart can remodel the existing property and turn it into a lovely, thriving business. A rezone is unnecessary. Respectfully, Diane Creamer 1 Mills, Wayne rom: altadave@juno.com dent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 7:55 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Walmart rezone Categories: Other To whom it may concern. My name is David Adam and I am a home owner on Wyoming Street in the neighborhood just west of the proposed Walmart. I am writing to you to voice my opposition to the proposed Walmart rezone. We elect city planners to try to have some vision for our community. Previously, our city planners decided that it is not in the neighborhoods best interest to have a store the size that Walmart is proposing. For the same reason that my neighbors and myself cannot decide to sell our houses so that an airstrip could be put in, there has to be a vision and a plan for our community. I see our community as mainly residential with access to many small local businesses. My wife and I love to stroll the side walks of our neighborhood and I like to bicycle commute to my job as a nurse at Primary Children's Medical Center. I envision my 8 month old daughter someday walking down to Beacon Heights Elementary and Hillside Middle School. As it is now, the traffic in our neighborhood is greatly increased when Foothill gets backed up and people seek alternate pathways thru our neighborhood streets. I simply want to make it as safe as possible for my daughter to grow up in a community that promotes walking, biking and playing without having to worry about dangerous levels of traffic and increasingly poor air quality. Thank you for your time. 'avid Adam L:Id: vc'<i juno.com Refinance Rates at 2.8% $160,000 Mortgage$434/mo. No Hidden Fees- 3.1%APR! Get a Free Quote Mortgage.LendGo.com 1 • Mills, Wayne From: Amy Sibul [sibulfam@xmission.com] "'""" Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 10:10 AM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Walmart rezoning Categories: Other Hello, I wish to submit a comment in favor of the Walmart rezoning request. I am tired of the vacant dilapidated Kmart building, and look forward to having a more vibrant retail area and place to shop. Walmart has been improving its environmental record drastically over the last several years, and I think they will do justice to the area. Thank you for your time. Amy Sibul 1463 Roosevelt Ave SLC UT 84105 .400 Mills, Wayne -rom: Margret Bond [rpmhbond@msn.com] ,ent: Saturday, January 22, 2011 12:20 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Walmart Parleys Way Categories: Other We have lived in our home for over 50 years. Before even Kmart was located on Parleys Way. Our children attended Rosslyn Heights , Highland Park, Hillside and Highland High schools. We have had personal experiences with the people in the Country Club area referring to us as the people on the other side of the gully/freeway now. As if we were from the other side of the tracks and not as good as they are. Our dimes are just as good as their dollars. We are very much in favor of new as opposed to a remodeled Wal-Mart store. It only makes sense as the old Kmart building has had its day. Their new plan and design would service a large area. I am sure people in the area south and west of the University would shop there and keep sales taxes in the city. There is a large population in the southeast area of Salt Lake City that is not in the country club area. We pay city taxes too and should have a choice also. Margaret & Richard Bond 2625 S 1900 East Salt Lake City, UT 84106 801-484-4168 1 Mills, Wayne From: Cecilia Uriburu [curiburu@ffkr.com] '- , Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 1:19 PM To: Scott Kisling; Mills, Wayne Cc: Simonsen, Soren; Norris, Nick; Sommerkorn, Wilford; Gray, Frank Subject: RE: Architect's calculations of energy consumption -Walmart rezone Attachments: Capture 2.JPG Categories: Other Dear Wayne, The question was "Can the existing K-mart materials be recycled?" and the asnwer was yes, the materials can be recycled, however and just to demonstrate that recycling takes much more energy and resources that re-using a building, I entered the square footage an building type in the calculator found at http://www.thegreenestbuilding.org/ you can see the difference of embodied energy already invested in the original building and compare it to the embodied energy will take to demolish the building... I am not counting the embodied energy that would take to build again a very similar structure. That's is the point I was trying to exemplify. Please see the image attached with the numbers. Thank you, Cecilia. Cecilia Uriburu,AIA i'FKR Architects Associate (Direct)801-517-4326 (Main) 801-521-6186 From: Scott Kisling [mailto:scott.kisling@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 9:26 AM To: Wayne Mills Cc: Cecilia Uriburu; Soren Simonsen; Nick Norris; Wilford Sommerkorn; Frank Gray Subject: Re: Architect's calculations of energy consumption - Walmart rezone Wayne, Cecilia has revised the numbers for her calculations of energy consumption for rezoned (new) and existing 120,000 square foot buildings. I may not be able to talk with her before leaving for Asia this afternoon, so I may not be able to fully understand the meaning of the revision. I think she meant to say that to remodel the existing building would consume 67,200,000 MBTU while to demolish the existing structure and replace it would consume 864,000,000. I will clear that up with her prior to the 31 st, if not today. Her previous calculations erroneously used an input of 20,000 square feet rather than 120,000. Thanks, Scott On Jan 11, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Cecilia Uriburu wrote: Scott, Instead of 20,000 square feet, the calcs shoud be for a 120,000 sq ft. Here are the embodied enrgy calculations: To build new: 67,200,000 MBTU 1 To demolish: 864,000,000 MBTI! Thanks, Cecilia ecilia Uriburu,AIA FFKR Architects Associate (Direct) 801-517-4326 (Main) 801-521-6186 • Please note:This email,including attachments,may include confidential and/or proprietary information,and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed.If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent,the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copying of this email is prohibited.If you have received this email in error,please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this email immediately. 2 EMBODIED ENERGY CALCULATOR To use this calculator, begin by choosing your property type from the box on the left. In the box labeled gross floor area enter your building's total square footage. Click calculate to get the amount of energy "embodied" (that's the total energy spent in the production of a building, from the manufacture of materials to their delivery to construction) in your building! Warehouses v .'. X 120,000 sq,ft._ . 67200000 MBTU Embodied Energy investment` Calculate 1 Clear t DEMOLITION ENERGY CALCULATOR When we're looking at teardowns, embodied energy is only part of the equation. To use this calculator, begin by choosing your property type from the box on the left. In the box labeled gross floor area enter your building's total square footage. Click calculate to get the amount of energy "needed to raze, load, and haul away construction materials."* Medium (e.g.. steel frame) - X 120,000 sq. ft. = B64000000 BTU Demolition Energy` {Calculate [ Clear Mills, Wayne -om: Scott Kisling [scot kisling@comcast.net] Jent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 9:26 AM To: Mills, Wayne Cc: Cecilia Uriburu; Simonsen, Soren; Norris, Nick; Sommerkorn, Wilford; Gray, Frank Subject: Re: Architect's calculations of energy consumption -Walmart rezone Categories: Other Wayne, Cecilia has revised the numbers for her calculations of energy consumption for rezoned (new) and existing 120,000 square foot buildings. I may not be able to talk with her before leaving for Asia this afternoon, so I may not be able to fully understand the meaning of the revision. I think she meant to say that to remodel the existing building would consume 67,200,000 MBTU while to demolish the existing structure and replace it would consume 864,000,000. I will clear that up with her prior to the 31 st, if not today. Her previous calculations erroneously used an input of 20,000 square feet rather than 120,000. Thanks, Scott On Jan 11, 2011, at 3:14 PM, Cecilia Uriburu wrote: ott, Instead of 20,000 square feet,the calcs shoud be for a 120,000 sq ft. Here are the embodied enrgy calculations: To build new: 67,200,000 MBTU To demolish: 864,000,000 MBTU Thanks, Cecilia Cecilia Uriburu, AIA FFKR Architects Associate (Direct) 801-517-4326 (Main) 801-521-6186 Please note This email,including attachments,may in,!ude confidential and/or proprietary information,and may he used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed.If the reader of this email is not the Intended recipient or his or her authorized agent,the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copying of this email is prohibited. If you have received this email in error,please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this email immediately. 1 Mills, Wayne From: Scott Kisling [scott.kisling@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 3:44 PM To: Mills, Wayne Cc: Cecilia Uriburu; SugarHouse@yahoogroups.com; Simonsen, Soren; Norris, Nick; Sommerkorn, Wilford; Gray, Frank Subject: REVISED: Recycling the KMart Structure—an architect's report Categories: Other Wayne, et al, This copy shows revised energy expenditures: To build new: 67,200,000 MBTU To demolish: 864,000,000 MBTU Still a factor of 28 times more energy required to build new, but a much larger amount of energy in real terms. The previous copy was calculated based on a mistyped square footage of 20,000 square feet instead of the intended 120,000. Thanks again, Scott Begin forwarded message: From: Scott Kisling <scott.kisiinq@comcast.net> Date: January 11 , 2011 12:10:03 PM MST To: Wayne Mills <wayne.mills@slcgov.com> Cc: SugarHouse@yahooaroups.com Subject: Recycling the KMart Structure — an architect's report Wayne, Please forward this information from a local architect as part of your Staff Report to the Planning Commission. In summary, to reuse the building (which is on record as being in "Fair/Average" condition) would consume 11,200,000 MBTU while to replace it would require 310,000,000 MBTU, nearly 28 times as much energy, plus materials and resources. It is unlikely that this will ever have any payback in reduced energy consumption. Thanks, Scott Begin forwarded message: From: Cecilia Uriburu <curiburuffkr.com> Date: January 11 , 2011 11 :47:48 AM MST To: Scott Kisling <scott.kisling@,comcast.net> Subject: RE: Parley's Kmart recycling efforts 1 Mills, Wayne prom: Mills, Wayne ant: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 12:40 PM To: 'Scott Kisling' Cc: SugarHouse@yahoogroups.com; Simonsen, Soren; Norris, Nick; Sommerkorn, Wilford; Gray, Frank Subject: RE: Recycling the KMart Structure—an architect's report Categories: Program/Policy Thanks Scott. I will forward this with my Staff Report. One quick question. Doesn't the vision you have for this property also require the demolition of the existing structure and the construction of multiple structures.The existing building is approximately 120,000 square feet in size. The existing CB zoning district limits building footprint square footage to 15,000 square feet and requires buildings to be located close to the street. To comply with the CB district, the existing building would need to be demolished and a new (or multiple new) building(s) would have to be constructed closer to the street. Even if someone were to develop a new street on the site to break the site up, the existing building would probably still need to be demolished to make room. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but thought I would throw that out for discussion. Wayne Mills Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 5. State Street, Room 405 Box 145CSo Lake City, UT S411 -54So Phone: 8o1-535-;2S: Fax: So1-535-6174 From: Scott Kisling [mailto:slkisling@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 12:12 PM To: Mills, Wayne Cc: SugarHouse@yahoogroups.com; Simonsen, Soren Subject: Recycling the KMart Structure —an architect's report Wayne, Please forward this information as part of your Staff Report to the Planning Commission. In summary, to reuse the building (which is on record as being in "Fair/Average" condition) would consume 11,200,000 MBTU while to replace it would require 310,000,000 MBTU, nearly 28 times as much energy, plus materials and resources. It is unlikely that this will ever have any payback in reduced energy consumption. Thanks, Scott Begin forwarded message: From: Cecilia Uriburu <curiburuffkr.com> Date: January 11 , 2011 11 :47:48 AM MST 1 To: Scott Kisling <scott.kislina@comcast.net> Subject: RE: Parley's Kmart recycling efforts Please go ahead, no problem. We are committed to educate as many people as we can on building sustainably... even if the answer is long! Cecilia Uriburu, AIA FFKR Architects Associate (Direct) 801-517-4326 (Main) 801-521-6186 From: Scott Kisling [mailto:scott.kisling@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 11:21 AM To: Cecilia Uriburu Subject: Re: Parley's Kmart recycling efforts Thank you so much!!! This is far more effort than I ever dreamed. Do you mind if I share this with the Planning Commission or with the Sugar House Community Council? Scott On Jan 11, 2011, at 11:07 AM, Cecilia Uriburu wrote: Dear Scott, Here is my (long) answer in 3 parts: 1-The feasibility of recycling the existing k-mart materials 2-The Re-use as the main goal of responsible sustainable construction: "The greenest Building is the one already built" 3-The state of the existing building according to the Salt Lake County recorder's website. 1-I looked into the building materials of the K-Mart structure and the materials used (of course from the outside only) and I observed that the building is a metal structure with different materials used for the envelope such as: pre-cast concrete (tilt-up panels), metal panels (most likely insulated) and CMU blocks. All of these materials can be recycled, but the recycling takes an arduous process. It can be done, but it is not the green thing to do. According to the embody energy calculator found on the site http://www.thegreenestbuilding.org/ is a great tool! The embodied energy (How much energy was used to do a building similar to the K-mart, from manufacture, transport, etc.) 11,200,000 MBTU The embodied energy that will take to demolish this 120,000 sq ft building: 310,000,000 MBTU taking into consideration the recycling of discarded elements. As you can see it will take more energy and resources "to do the green thing"...quite a paradox huh?. 2-"The greenest Building is the one already built" 2 The USGBC's LEED Rating System recognizes the importance of building reuse. Reusing a building can contribute to earning points under LEED-NC Materials Resource Credit 1 on Building Reuse. ere is an excerpt from Concrete thinker.com, an article with great depth that we used before on the LEED analysis process One of the three arrows of the now quite familiar logo stands for reuse. As one of the three Rs, reuse is second in the hierarchy of reduce, reuse, and recycle. Reuse can be done on a big scale when saving buildings from the demolition ball. It does take planning, but the result can be significant savings, as well as environmental benefit. Typically building reuse means leaving the main portion of the building structure and shell in place while performing what is known in the trade as a "gut rehab." Repairing a building rather than tearing it down: saves natural resources, including the raw materials, energy, and water resources required to build new; prevents pollution that might take place as a byproduct of extraction, manufacturing, and transportation of virgin materials; and avoids creating solid waste that could end up in landfills. A key factor in building reuse is the durability of the original structure. Because concrete and masonry exteriors are long-lasting, and frequently exhibit superior detail and craftsmanship, concrete and masonry buildings are good candidates for building reuse. Windows, floor coverings, partition walls, mechanical systems, and plumbing can be replaced and insulation can be added while maintaining the original concrete frame and exterior walls. In addition to its long service life concrete offers a low-maintenance surface, another good reason to consider --use. One way to lengthen the building's life and improve the chances of reuse it to inspect the exterior _arly and if necessary, repair. Some states,such as North Carolina, provide grants to renovate vacant buildings in rural counties or in economically distressed urban areas. 3-Also, I would like to point out that the Salt Lake county recorder's website, lists the building in this parcel as in Fair/Average exterior condition, commercial grade and interior condition...nothing indicates that the building is in no shape to be re-used. The "Condition" is a designation to establish a difference in how the structure has been maintained, regardless of its quality or construction type. It should be evaluated taking into consideration the building as a whole. In determining if the condition is superior, average, or inferior, the appraiser should examine the building in relationship to its condition new. Normal usage causes deterioration. Condition should be examined in light of usage and care. In evaluating condition, long-lived portions of the building should be given more weight than those short lived more easily replaceable components. (from the Recorder's website) I hope this clarifies a bit what goes into consideration when we talk about sustainable ways to build. Thank you, and please let me know if you have any other questions. .ecilia Uriburu, AIA FFKR Architects Associate 3 (Direct) 801-517-4326 (Main) 801-521-6186 Original Message From: Scott Kisling [mailto:scott.kisling@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 8:33 PM To: Cecilia Uriburu Subject: Re: Parley's Kmart wall materials Any success yet with finding someone that can comment on the likelihood of recycling the Kmart structure walls? Thanks, Scott On Dec 27, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Scott Kisling wrote: > If a knowledgable person could actually visit the site and identify the material that would be most helpful. It appears to me to be wire reinforced aggregate of some kind, apparently pre-fabbed, but I'm no expert in that field. > Sincere thanks, > Scott > On Dec 27, 2010, at 1:49 PM, Cecilia Uriburu wrote: :110) » Hi Scott, » I will look into the cost and the feasibility of recycling such material and let you know of my findings. » Thank you, » Cecilia Uriburu, AIA » FFKR Architects » Associate » (Direct) 801-517-4326 » (Main) 801-521-6186 » Original Message » From: Scott Kisling [mailto:scott.kisling@comcast.net] » Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 9:22 PM » To: Cecilia Uriburu » Cc: Jan Brittain » Subject: Parley's KMart wall materials » Cecilia, » I am one of the many people working to prevent Walmart from rezoning the property on Parley's Way. - ►, » p, » I want to expose Walmart's misleading statements whenever possible. One of their repeated statements is that "90% of the KMart building can be recycled." They seem to be careful not to state that it *will* be recycled; only that it *can* be. 4 » I understand from FFKR is very knowledgable about recycling building materials, and I was wondering if someone from there would be able to comment on the relative expense of recycling he KMart building's walls. I believe it is a wire reinforced aggregate of some kind. .> » I appreciate any help you can give. » Sincerely, » Scott Kisling » 2409 Lynwood Drive >> 801-209-3936 » Please note: This email, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this email immediately. > Cecilia Uriburu, AIA FFKR Architects Associate (Direct) 801-517-4326 (Main) 801-521-6186 5 Mills, Wayne From: Mills, Wayne ,orok. Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 3:02 PM To: Sugar House CC Chair Subject: RE: Nonconforming vs conforming uses Attachments: 21A.38 - Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures.pdf Categories: Program/Policy Hello Mr. Carlson- The limit is 75%for noncomplying structures with conforming uses. The nonconforming use and noncomplying structure chapter of the zoning ordinance is attached.The section regulating demolition of a noncomplying structure (with a conforming use) is 21A.38.090C1.The section regulating demolition of a noncomplying structure with a nonconforming use is 21A.38.090C2. Wayne Mills Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S. State Street, Room 406 PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-54So Phone:8o1-535-7282 Fax:8ol-535-674 Asmok From: Philip [mailto:PhilipCarlsonSHCC©StoryCupboard.com] Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 10:15 AM „w To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Nonconforming vs conforming uses I'm working \,vih a SHCC committee dealing with the Walmart zone change request. I understand that there is a 50% limit to remodeling noncomplying structures structures with NONCONFORMING uses (though I do not understand what the use has to do with it since the use of a building can change from time to time). What is the limit for remodeling noncomplying structures with CONFORMING uses? Thanks, Philip carlson 801-694-2478 cell Admooks Mills, Wayne om: Mills, Wayne _ant: Monday, October 11, 2010 9:31 AM To: 'Jan Brittain' Subject: RE: Walmart Categories: Program/Policy Hello Ms. Brittain- The 50 cost threshold that applies to noncomplying structures with nonconforming uses does not apply to the parking lot. I am working on a fact sheet that attempts to explain this issue, as well as provide additional background on the proposal.The fact sheet and other materials, such as maps and pertinent sections of the Zoning Ordinance, will be placed on the City's Open City Hall website. I will forward you details on how to access the site when it is up and running. Wayne Mills Senior Planner Salt Lake City Plannr`Divsicn 451 S. State Street, Room ao6 PO Box 1454So Salt Lake City, UT S. nn_-,4So Phone:8oi-535-7 2.82 Fax:Sot-535-617 -om: Jan Brittain [mailto:wilshirejan@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 6:22 PM To: Mills, Wayne Subject: Walmart Hi Wayne— Has any decision been reached on whether a rebuild of the parking lot at the Parley's Way Waimart would be included in the dollar amount that they can spend remodeling the existing building? TIA Jan Britt-air, wilshireian c cori cast net 801-485-C2tc 1 Mills, Wayne From: Mills, Wayne '' Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 11:15 AM To: 'Don Gren' Cc: Simonsen, Soren; Sugar House CC Chair; councilcomments@slcgov.com; Harpst, Tim; Young, Kevin; Mayor; Sommerkorn, Wilford; Norris, Nick; Nielson, Paul; Coffey, Cheri Subject: RE: Questions and concerns related to Walmart(Kmart) property Attachments: Community Business District_CB_.pdf; CB and CS Comparison of Allowed Uses.pdf Categories: Program/Policy A truck stop is defined in the definitions section of the zoning ordinance but is not an allowed use in any zoning district. It would not be permitted in the current CB or proposed CS zoning districts. Please note that a gas station is allowed in the current CB zone as a conditional use and in the proposed CS zone as a permitted use. Any options for future development on the property under the current zoning would be regulated by the CB zoning district standards and use table. The CB district regulations and a table showing the allowed uses in the CB and CS zoning districts are attached. Wayne Mills Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S. State Street, Room 406 PO Box i4548o Salt Lake City, UT S41n4 54Sc Phone:80:-535-7252 401111 Fax:Sol-535-6174 From: Don Gren [mailto:don@gren.us] Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 9:11 PM To: Mills, Wayne Cc: Simonsen, Soren; Sugar House CC Chair; councilcomments@slcgov.com; Harpst, Tim; Young, Kevin; Mayor; Sommerkorn, Wilford; Norris, Nick; Nielson, Paul; Coffey, Cheri Subject: Re: Questions and concerns related to Walmart (Kmart) property Wayne: A resident asked what the requested zoning Walmart is asking for would allow. They specifically asked if a truckstop could be. Is there a specific zone for truckstops. I'm wondering what the options are for this property under the current zoning. A neighbor provided me with the following that was put together under the direction of Soren Simonson, if I understood correctly. Please help us understand what we can do further to assist you and others so that the long-term viability of the neighborhoods are ensured. Thank you for helping us with our questions. 1 Sincerely, T)on Gren 30 Lynwood Drive 801-915-1574 don'-r urcn.0 Creating a Socially, Economic and Environmentally Sustainable Community: A Vision Within the Current Zoning Village Square with a View: The Connecting Place Our vision connects the existing neighborhoods by extending Wilshire Drive to intersect with Stringham Ave. Along the extension will be small businesses, condos, a small hotel, perhaps a police station, a recreation center, grass and trees. The streets would have wide sidewalks and bike lanes to promote walking, biking, outdoor dining. A transportation hub at the Stringham-Foothill intersection with a parking structure built into the hill Auld encourage use of public transit and maintain the unofficial park and ride that has existed for at least 30 years from the Kmart parking lot. Residential units on top of the parking structure would hide the parking structure and provide a pleasant street view. Providing a means for Foothill to be plowed, but not onto the sidewalk, would promote pedestrian and bicycle access in the winter. This winter they plowed into the parking lane, but a transportation hub may need that lane for bus transfers. Mixed use would add value to our inter-generational community and enhance quality of life This community would give our elder citizens a place to age in their neighborhood without worrying about outdoor maintenance. A mix of condos and apartments with walkable amenities and easy access to public transit would allow people to stay in the neighborhood longer or"age in place". The Wilshire neighborhood currently has two 4-generation families, and has had others. Adding to the mix of residential offerings would promote more. Mixed-Use Community Recreation Center Promote the area as an access to the Bonneville Shoreline Trail, Parley's Creek Corridor Trail, Parley's Historic Nature Park, i.e. Greenway and Recreational Connectivity. Enhance that with a community recreation center offering activities not available at Steiner or Fairmont, farmers' market that might attract sellers from Summit County, childcare center, senior center, local retail, residential, restaurants. 2 Connectivity Greenway Connectivity: Gateway to the Bonneville Shoreline Trail, Parley's Creek Corridor Trail, Parley's Historic Nature Park Many ways to get around: walking, biking, rollerblading,jogging, public transit. Neighborhoods are connected by providing access to the Wilshire intersection on Parley's and the Stringham/Thunderbird intersection on Foothill. Major arterials do not divide neighborhoods when there are traffic signals and easy access to those intersections. Transit Connectivity: Bus Rapid Transit north on Foothill to the University, Research Park and TRAX to downtown; transfer station for bus service to Summit County, I-215 south, or west to Sugar House and beyond. Providing a transit hub with neighborhood businesses furthers the connection where neighbors regularly meet to shop, eat, and recreate. Both residential and businesses should thrive if we build an attractive walkable green space. Re-connecting the Natural Terrain With the Neighborhoods ,, ,, The retaining wall for the Kmart parking lot effectively divides that property from the neighborhood and sends a "keep out" message. Removing the land fill and returning the property to its natural terrain opens up the view from the street to the property and from the property to the valley. Change the message from "keep out"to "come in". Terraced structures allow for roof gardens. Most of the residences that overlook the property are above it. Having ugly roofs with mechanical equipment hidden from the street by a facade, does nothing for the view enjoyed by the neighbors to the east. Wal-Mart is rolling out a new concept—grocery stores called Marketside, of roughly 15,000 square feet intended to compete with Tesco's Fresh and Easy stores. Its new logo, filed in planning documents in Arizona and consisting of green lettering with a stylized tomato, egg and grape topped by a Wal-Mart blue star, suggests the format will — like Tesco's Fresh & Easy—have a far stronger stress on fresh foods. This concept would fit well into our vision. Neighbors are looking for a place to pick up a quart of milk and a loaf of bread. It would also provide the type of quick market that often appeals to apartment dwellers who have limited storage space. On Oct 25, 2010, at 12:06 PM, Mills, Wayne wrote: Please see my responses in red. Amok Wayne Mills — Senior Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division 45i S. State Street, Room 406 3 PO Eo;< 145480 Salt Lake City, UT _ Phone:Soi-535-7 So,-535-6174 From: Don Gren [mailto:don@gren.us] Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:42 PM To: Mills, Wayne Cc: Simonsen, Soren; Sugar House CC Chair; steve a sltrib.com;j ge desnews.com; councilcomments'a slcaov.com; Harpst, Tim; Young, Kevin; Mayor Subject: Questions and concerns related to Walmart (Kmart) property Wayne: I became aware of the following website this evening httn:/'\v\vw.nc\'.rule:.or11fretail'rules'preventine-vacant-boxes It raises questions I hope you can answer. For instance How does the City assess the amount of retail space that is desirable to meet the needs of our population and not lead to vacant buildings like the Kmart (Walmart) here in our neighborhood and the Smith's/Skaggs building on 3300 South. Is this done by neighborhood and the City overall. 1 needs through c� t Genera�l`y' speaking, Ci`:11i;1J;iii'y are addressed the community master plan process, � is important to note, that the ' needs" of the community are not just isolated to basic neighborhood services, but also should address the appropriateness of land uses to provide economic benefits to the community without causing detrimental impacts. I do not know why Smith's Skaggs h� been ` sn c but K d -/., `J`J- US J .`a Cant f�,r loner, mart closeu for business in November 200S and V'aimart submitted a petition to rezone the property in December 200S. The petition was submitted to a II;1V: for the construction of a new store with the sameof o _ t�`r_ USe aS r�nl2rt, tJ say tt , the s',. hasbeen vacant due. tc an excess of retail in, the area is not justified r'i this time, Does the City require a demolition bond as described in this website. If not, is it being considered. 1 he City does not require c: deniciitticn bond as described in the website and I am not aware the City y of considerir it this time. Does the City require designs for re-use and require that vacant stores go on the market, as also described in the website. The City CC __ moire this cs dcscrin_d in the v.'ebsite. I sent the following to Tim Harpst and Kevin Young indicated you would address them. There simply is abysmal access to this property compared to access to the Walmart, Sam's Club, Costco, and new Target on 300 west, only minutes from our homes via the freeway. Frankly, I do not understand how anyone approved the construction of the Kmart and sincerely hope that everyone seriously considers the negative impact on the neighbors of perpetuating mass merchandising on this property rather than community businesses as it is zoned and neighboring properties appear to be. Km...t was a permitted use when it was const-uctec in the late CO's. The potent a' imp acts related to toe proposed zenri:di amendment w i be analyzed esc e and presented c !� 4 report to the Planninc Com iSS O;�. This report will be available to the public prior to the Planning Commission p m o hearin Please help us understand why anyone would consider changing the masterplan and zoning on this property, given the traffic and other issues. Assuming that plan is rejected and Walmart decides to remodel, as I've heard they could do, what will be done to mitigate the traffic impacts on the neighborhood. Any property owner has the right to request a zoning amendment and the City is required to analyze the proposal As stated above, the analysis will be presented in a staff report to the Planning Commission I have been reading some of the case law regarding zoning and I'm wondering what the City Attorney's position is with regard to neighbors experiencing a "taking" should the City decide to amend the Master Plan and change the zoning, as Walmart is asking for. Please direct me to those who can respond to this question. Please clarify this question. A "taking" if related to a property owner being denied the use of their property. I do not understand the stated issue of neighbors experiencing a "taking". Thank you for all of your help, Don don't7 eren.us 801-915-1574 On Oct 19, 2010, at 9:57 PM, Don Gren wrote: , Kevin: Thank you for your response to my questions. Please help me with the following I had always thought that the trailers were equipped with a data collection system. How difficult would it be to add that capability (vehicle count and speed, by time of day, seems to me to be information that could be logged and would be very helpful in assessing the use and level of safety). Do you have any trailers that are or some other devices that have that capability. Have our neighbors, who have speed bumps, asked to have them removed. If so, what proportion and on what streets. Given the Walmart proposal being considered, what increase in traffic do you predict on each of the streets in the neighborhood. How do your estimates compare with those of Walmart. What would the process be to approve having Lynwood blocked off between Wyoming and 2300 East, similar to what was done on Amanda and Sunnyside Avenues. Who owns Parley's Way and 2100 South from the westbound and southbound Foothill exits to 1300 East. How wide in the right-of-way for the street south of Stringham that connects to the Walmart property. Is it owned by the City and what changes are being planned for it, if any. Please also respond to my last question in the previous email, "Assuming that plan is rejected and Walmart decides to remodel, as I've heard they could do, what will be done to mitigate the traffic impacts on the neighborhood." I have the same question for the various scenarios that are being considered. 5 Thank you again for your assistance, don a uren.u� 801-915-1574 On Oct 19, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Young, Kevin wrote: Don, I have been asked to respond to your questions below dealing with Transportation and refer you to the appropriate person for the others. I have shown my responses in red below. Kevin J. Young, P.E. Transportation Planning Engineer 801-535-7108 Original Message From: Don Gren [mailto.don w'aren.us] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 9:53 PM To: Harpst, Tim ',h: Simonsen, Soren; Sugar House CC Chair; Young, Kevin; Council mments; Steve^sltrib corn;joace^a,desnews corn oubject: Traffic questions and concerns related to Walmart(Kmart) property Tim: Thank you for working on these issues. Scott and I noticed a traffic monitoring trailer in front of his home this morning. Can we assume it will also be set up in front of our home (2530 Lynwood) and on the other streets likely to bear the brunt of additional traffic attempting to get to and leave the Walmart(Kmart) property. Please provide us with the data you collect and help us understand your study design, analysis, conclusions, and plans for Parley's Way and neighborhood streets that connect to it. The tra`f„ m,nl,orlo: t: is trc, j 1'cJ referred to l':as place.o4 co L`:ny.'ocol as part of "C:7'. on-coihc proicra.; where speed trailer„ are place: various. c.ty' Teets in an effort to remind motorist o: the speed 1,rnit in the area Speed tralfers are place: on a street for about a v.'eek and then moved to other locations Plaoinc another speed trailer on Lynwood Dr. in the near future is not on the current schedule No data is collected v,'hen speed trailer are placed so ther:. Is nC information to . .lCe c'd... the s',ed trailer placed on Lynwood Dr Tnere is not a currentplan fcr any changes to Parleys 'Aa. i r; Tiansoc-tatic7. D , ,.-. \u most likely revi: ., Pahl, `,"Lay conjunction v h a f. .,. c. roa