Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge? Click Here
No Bookmarks Exist.
Right of way for this section of Murray Holiday Rd. | 00:00:00 | |
Umm, so primarily the general plan needs to be amended for that part, that portion, and then also. | 00:00:04 | |
There's some there's some standards in 13 that he'd like to codify. | 00:00:10 | |
And that's the proposal that we're considering tonight, right? You're making a recommendation on? | 00:00:15 | |
Is it the appropriateness of having an amendment to Title 13 for standardizing widths for this section of Murray Holiday Rd. | 00:00:22 | |
And a general plan amendment on. | 00:00:29 | |
For seeing the width and perpetuity of this section of Murray Holiday Rd. | 00:00:32 | |
And just to be clear, this Murray Holiday Rd. As it passes where this particular utility pole is, does it not widen back up again? | 00:00:37 | |
From where it's narrowed out or does it get narrow and stay at that time you get the general plan says by the time you get past | 00:00:46 | |
Clearview or one of those streets, it goes down to a 50 foot wide. | 00:00:51 | |
Right away, that's just bringing that 50 foot wideway closer to the village. | 00:00:56 | |
I think we mentioned in the staff report that when we look at specific cross sections of roads, usually that's in a situation of a | 00:01:02 | |
small area master plan scenario. | 00:01:07 | |
So that's why we have those different cross sections for. | 00:01:13 | |
Holiday Village for in particular. | 00:01:17 | |
We use those to determine the widths of the standard dimensions of what the sidewalk and the gutter and those type of things | 00:01:20 | |
should be. | 00:01:23 | |
And the. | 00:01:28 | |
Village extends up to or. How far short of this does the village master plan so it stops just a lot 1 lot away? OK. | 00:01:30 | |
Is it appropriate? | 00:01:45 | |
In light of the fact that we're just embarking on. | 00:01:51 | |
That's a good point to bring up. Maybe request the applicant the timeliness of the request? | 00:01:56 | |
Good Commission. Can I ask a question? I just curious east of Holiday Blvd. does Murray holiday change to a collector or? | 00:02:05 | |
It maintains a collector status up until about this location, about Clearview, the next intersection east. OK, yeah, so all right, | 00:02:17 | |
I was trying to find out where that was, but interesting. Yeah, the roadway map that's in the general plan isn't the greatest. | 00:02:24 | |
Okay. Hopefully that's the type of thing we will be changing in our general plan update. | 00:02:31 | |
Thank you. | 00:02:38 | |
Paul, is there any other area? Umm. | 00:02:40 | |
Where the change the proposed change in the general plan? | 00:02:45 | |
Would create similar situations. | 00:02:50 | |
Because it's so focused on this section, no, but that would be the idea of a general plan to have it applied. | 00:02:54 | |
In various locations so that the staff could use it or the City Council could use that standard. | 00:03:00 | |
To address similar issues citywide. But because it's written in such a specific location, So what would what's the argument for | 00:03:07 | |
amending the general plan? If this is really to just deal with one location, that would be a good question to ask the applicant. | 00:03:15 | |
Can the city engineer just designate this right of way, this width? Because the general plan is basically looking at volumes and | 00:03:25 | |
impacts to residential areas, isn't it? | 00:03:30 | |
Yeah, it addresses the characteristic of the road and what it actually carries for the community. Because I appreciate your | 00:03:36 | |
question that I hate to start taking pieces that are fairly minor or small, not minor to people who live around there, but and | 00:03:43 | |
start to mess around with that. You change the dynamic of the surrounding area and then all of a sudden you've got a lot of | 00:03:49 | |
unintended consequences that. | 00:03:56 | |
Then you start to have to make changes that you didn't expect to. I think those are the conversations that will come about in this | 00:04:03 | |
meeting. Yeah. Thank you. | 00:04:07 | |
Any other questions on item 3? | 00:04:13 | |
All right, then we will have a brief pause and be back in 5 minutes for our meeting to start. | 00:04:17 | |
Carrie and I do have the list plan to pardon me. I have the landscape plan. Oh, OK, You do have the landscape plan. Dennis, do you | 00:04:28 | |
want to see the landscape plan? | 00:04:33 | |
Before sorry pauses paused, we're going to pause the pause to see the landscape plan. | 00:04:38 | |
OK, so they do have trees going in. | 00:04:46 | |
Or are those? | 00:04:49 | |
I I don't know if they designate on here what is existing. Yeah. So they have. | 00:04:53 | |
Columnar St. Spire Oaks. | 00:05:00 | |
It looks like, OK. I just wanted to see if they were actually going to be putting trees up against these units or again, if it was | 00:05:03 | |
like you like trees go to the river, so. | 00:05:08 | |
We had the discussion at that meeting though that the width of those areas where those smaller trees are shown. | 00:05:15 | |
Won't support those kind of. There'll be bushes. | 00:05:23 | |
Rather than treason. | 00:05:26 | |
I think that was on the Holiday Hills project. Yeah, they were really tight. Yeah, I think they they, I'm pretty sure we had a | 00:05:28 | |
measurement. I just don't remember what it was. It was 3 feet or 4 feet or. | 00:05:34 | |
I can't remember, was this PUD? Yeah, we. | 00:05:43 | |
We went past that point. We weren't happy with it, but nothing we can do given this acreage. | 00:05:46 | |
Or the square footage in the floodplain counts on the size of the lot. | 00:05:53 | |
Right. It's yeah. | 00:05:59 | |
Yeah. I'm just curious all of that, is this a PUD on this project or is it not? OK, So then they have a little more carb launch on | 00:06:01 | |
where they can do their landscape. OK. All right, All right, Appreciate it. Pauses unpaused. | 00:06:07 | |
5 minutes. Thank you. | 00:06:13 | |
City Planning Commission meeting tonight is January Tuesday, January 7th. My name is Carrie Ann Prince. I'm the vice chair of the | 00:06:20 | |
Planning Commission and will be conducting this meeting this evening. We'll go ahead and begin with an opening statement read by | 00:06:26 | |
Commissioner Vilczynski. | 00:06:32 | |
The City of Holiday Planning Commission is a volunteer citizen board whose function is to review land use plans and other special | 00:06:43 | |
studies, make recommendations to the City Council on proposed zoning map and ordinance changes, and approve conditional use and | 00:06:51 | |
subdivisions. The Planning Commission does not initiate land use applications, rather acts on applications as they are submitted. | 00:06:59 | |
Commissioners do not meet with applicants except at publicly noticed. | 00:07:08 | |
Meetings Commissioners attempt to visit each property on the agenda. | 00:07:12 | |
Where the location? | 00:07:18 | |
The nature of the neighborhood, existing structures, and use related to the proposed changes are noted. | 00:07:20 | |
Decisions are based on observations, recommendations from the professional planning staff, the City's general plan, zoning | 00:07:27 | |
ordinances and other reports, by all verbal and written comments, and by evidence submitted, all of which are a part of public | 00:07:33 | |
record. | 00:07:39 | |
Meeting procedures can be found on the back of the agenda. Thank you Commissioner Birchinsky, we are glad to have so many members | 00:07:45 | |
of the public here. We're welcoming you this evening and as always, our meetings are always open to the public. But we're we're | 00:07:52 | |
glad to have so many of you here. Tonight. We will begin. We have 3 items for a public hearing and then one action item. We will | 00:07:58 | |
start out with our first item. | 00:08:05 | |
Highwood subdivision preliminary plat, I believe. | 00:08:12 | |
This is Carrie Marsh, City staff will do a presentation for us to begin. | 00:08:16 | |
I'm going to Scroll down to the image here so that that can be referenced while I am presenting this. Sorry. | 00:08:24 | |
OK. | 00:08:46 | |
So this is a proposal for a subdivision at 1919 E Baywood Dr. and 5428 S Highland Drive. The property was formerly 2 properties | 00:08:48 | |
owned by two separate owners. The owner of the Baywood Dr. property with that access from Baywood Dr. | 00:09:00 | |
Purchase the Highland Dr. property years ago and then combined those I believe in 2013. | 00:09:13 | |
So the existing property owner now wants to uncombine those. | 00:09:20 | |
To create the two separate parcels that were there originally. | 00:09:25 | |
To facilitate that separation into two separate parcels, putting things back how they were, they've gone through a rezone process | 00:09:30 | |
so that the Baywood Dr. property maintains the R121 zoning with a half acre minimum lot size, and then the front portion of the | 00:09:38 | |
property on Highland Dr. was rezoned to R210. That was in line with the Highland Dr. master plan. | 00:09:47 | |
And there's not any proposals to redevelop either property. The Baywood Dr. property would be sold, so it would have a separate | 00:09:57 | |
owner. The access for that would only be on Baywood Dr. The access for the front property would only be on Highland Drive. So just | 00:10:06 | |
kind of cleaning up what was previously combined. So their subdivision plot is detailed on there. The zone follows the. | 00:10:15 | |
Parse the line between the two properties and they've got all of their. | 00:10:26 | |
Requirements there to legally record as two separate properties. I'll have the applicant come up and they can. | 00:10:31 | |
Bring up anything else that I may have missed and you can ask them any questions. | 00:10:41 | |
Can we have an applicant come up and? | 00:10:52 | |
If they are here. | 00:10:55 | |
And maybe she is not here. | 00:10:58 | |
OK. | 00:11:00 | |
All right. Well, seeing as how the applicant is not here, we will open this up for any comment by the public. Just as a reminder, | 00:11:01 | |
people who would like to comment may approach the podium. You need to give your name and address and please limit your comments to | 00:11:08 | |
less than 3 minutes. | 00:11:15 | |
And if someone before you has made a comment, please don't make that comment again, but please try and and keep your comments. | 00:11:24 | |
Pertinent to the project and and original. | 00:11:34 | |
Do we have anyone who would like to speak on this particular item? | 00:11:38 | |
We'll go ahead then and close the public hearing on this item and open the discussion for members of the Planning Commission. | 00:11:47 | |
Do we have anyone who would like to comment on this item to begin with? | 00:11:55 | |
Just for disclosure, this is I have a family connection, so I'll recuse myself from this item. OK. Thank you, Commissioner Gong. | 00:11:59 | |
Any comments from Commissioner Barrett or Commissioner Roach? | 00:12:06 | |
Commissioner Font. | 00:12:12 | |
Commissioner Vilczynski. | 00:12:14 | |
And Commissioner Cunningham. | 00:12:16 | |
All right. I will go ahead and comment that we have seen this, this makes sense and that at this point I don't see there being any | 00:12:19 | |
stumbling block or any problem as we go forward. Since there's no development proposed at this time, only entitlements for the | 00:12:27 | |
properties, only a preliminary plat approval is required by the Planning Commission. | 00:12:36 | |
Do we have anyone who's in a position that they would are willing to make a motion on this item? | 00:12:46 | |
This is Commissioner Roche. I'll be happy to make a motion. | 00:12:52 | |
To the preliminary application by Ashley Wooley for Highland Subdivision A2 Lot Subdivision. | 00:12:56 | |
Located at 1919 E Baywood Dr. and 5428 S Highland Drive in the R121 and R210 zones. Based upon the followings. | 00:13:03 | |
In the staff report to. | 00:13:16 | |
Approve or make a motion to approve. Excuse me, to City Council. OK. Do we have a second for that motion, this Commissioner | 00:13:20 | |
Barrett? I second that. Thank you. Commissioner Barrett. Let's go ahead and have a vote. Commissioner Cunningham. Aye. | 00:13:26 | |
Commissioner Volcanski. Aye. Commissioner Font aye. Commissioner Roche. Commissioner Gong. Oh, abstain. Thank you. And | 00:13:33 | |
Commissioner Barrett And chair boats. Aye. So unanimous with the one abstention. | 00:13:40 | |
All right. Thank you. Our second item is. | 00:13:47 | |
A preliminary plat review for holiday college cottages. | 00:13:52 | |
Miss Marsh, would you go ahead and. | 00:14:00 | |
Introduce this item to us. | 00:14:02 | |
Definitely, I will Scroll down to that one so that we've got that up on the screen. | 00:14:04 | |
All right. | 00:14:32 | |
This is an application for a subdivision. | 00:14:35 | |
In the room zone, the property is located at 4821 S, 1740 E. | 00:14:41 | |
This project has previously been had site plan approval for the addition of nine townhome units on the site. Access has all been | 00:14:49 | |
reviewed by the fire official and Public Works in engineering determining. | 00:14:59 | |
We've gone through a couple of iterations on how that access looks. So this is the final as was approved on their site plan | 00:15:09 | |
approval. The subdivision process takes each of those nine townhome units and creates a separate legal property for each unit. So | 00:15:16 | |
it's in line with the existing approval for the site plan review and is just creating a subdivision into legal property for each | 00:15:22 | |
of those units. | 00:15:29 | |
The property owner is here and can review. | 00:15:37 | |
Any additional items on that, but largely just a legal process to create those legal? | 00:15:41 | |
Parcels for the units. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. | 00:15:49 | |
Good evening, 2500 E Haven Lane, Brad Reynolds. | 00:16:01 | |
We've since the last time we met, we've gone back and we've added four additional parking stalls. I know that was a concern. | 00:16:07 | |
And then we've gone through and we've obtained all the necessary permits or Salt Lake County flood control. | 00:16:17 | |
Army Corps of Engineers, State of Utah Engineering and. | 00:16:25 | |
We honestly feel, and that's why we're doing this as individual lots or townhomes, we just feel like there's a real need, | 00:16:33 | |
particularly in Holiday to try and have something that is sellable but perhaps a little more affordable. And we certainly feel | 00:16:42 | |
this will be a great product here in Holiday and we think we'll be highly sought after and in demand. | 00:16:51 | |
We are planning to finish them with granite or quartz countertops, 2 tone paint. We're trying to make them high quality but still | 00:17:02 | |
trying to maintain a little bit more of an affordable. | 00:17:07 | |
Element on them. | 00:17:13 | |
Any questions I could answer? | 00:17:15 | |
This is Commissioner Roach. I just curious, I know it's more towards the final, but in line with trying to make them more | 00:17:20 | |
affordable. If given thought to what the facade on the outside is going to look like as far as how that's going to be designed, | 00:17:27 | |
yeah, there's there's going to be a considerable amount of stone and there will be Hardy plank. There will be absolutely no stucco | 00:17:35 | |
and then we'll have an aluminum softened fascia. So we think with those elements there will be benefits for long. | 00:17:42 | |
Because you won't have. | 00:17:50 | |
Near the repairs and issues and they'll look nice 10-15 years down the road. | 00:17:53 | |
Thank you. | 00:17:58 | |
A question, you mentioned the additional parking. So it used to be that turn around was just straight and now it's sort of like AT | 00:18:00 | |
shape and that's where the additional four, that is where the additional parking is. There's four additional stalls, 2 on each | 00:18:04 | |
side of that little tee. | 00:18:09 | |
That's nice. | 00:18:15 | |
OK. | 00:18:17 | |
Mr. Reynolds, I'm just curious. This is for Commissioner Font. | 00:18:19 | |
When you say you have. | 00:18:23 | |
Done some things to make the units a little more affordable. Can you describe the kinds of things that you've done? Well, I we've | 00:18:26 | |
just tried to do value engineering where we go back through and on the trusses and different things like that. Try to make them. | 00:18:35 | |
A little more cost efficient, but yet still trying to maintain very high quality in the units. So not a whole lot, but they're a | 00:18:44 | |
little bit smaller, they have rooftop decks and. | 00:18:51 | |
We think they'll go very over very well. | 00:18:59 | |
Thank you. | 00:19:03 | |
So when I'm looking at this from the view we have right now, is the rooftop deck going to be on the front or the back of the unit? | 00:19:06 | |
It depends on the front units that are facing north. | 00:19:11 | |
It will be on the front of those and then those on the back will be facing the Creek. OK. | 00:19:17 | |
And then those on the side there should be facing a little bit towards the side so you have a little better view. | 00:19:24 | |
All right. What is the size of the units again? They're roughly on the three floors. You're about approximately in the area about | 00:19:33 | |
1600 square feet. | 00:19:37 | |
Thank you 16 to 17. | 00:19:42 | |
Any other questions for our applicant? | 00:19:46 | |
All right. Thank you. Thank you. | 00:19:49 | |
All right. We will go ahead and open the public hearing on this. Do we have any members of the public that would like to comment | 00:19:53 | |
on this item? | 00:19:58 | |
Well, with that resounding response, we will close the public hearing and continue the discussion for the commissioners. | 00:20:06 | |
Commissioner Prince, do you want to mention the comment that we received? Oh, yes. | 00:20:12 | |
We did have an e-mail comment that was that all of the commissioners have received. | 00:20:20 | |
Um, that. | 00:20:27 | |
There was comment about the roads and some stoplights but nothing that was. | 00:20:32 | |
Pertaining exactly to this item. | 00:20:41 | |
Is that? | 00:20:45 | |
Yeah, that works. Just let me know that we received the comment. But yes, we did receive, we did receive a comment and we're | 00:20:46 | |
always happy to have them. | 00:20:50 | |
And so so there's that. | 00:20:55 | |
Discussion from the Commissioners, anything from this end of the. | 00:20:58 | |
Just one question, yes, as far as staff parking in the floodway is that. | 00:21:03 | |
It seems unusual so. | 00:21:10 | |
Yeah. When you're looking at waterway protection, we do have specific standards and parking areas or roads are something that is | 00:21:13 | |
permitted with a permit, I believe. | 00:21:19 | |
And Jared can answer that question more directly. | 00:21:25 | |
So this is in a FEMA floodplain and I think that's what your your question is related to. Yeah. So I'm looking at the easement | 00:21:29 | |
line or the designation line and it looks like all four spaces. | 00:21:35 | |
Yes. So it would be allowed within the floodway and what we look at when issuing permits in the FEMA floodplain is the. | 00:21:43 | |
Habitable space. Floor elevation. | 00:21:54 | |
So we are concerned about life safety and not as much as like vehicle damage, OK. I would just like to caution staff to make sure | 00:21:58 | |
that we don't drain off the parking areas into the Creek, just we know what kind of mess that creates, so. | 00:22:07 | |
Anyway, thank you for that. | 00:22:16 | |
So no van life in the four spots then, is that what you're saying? | 00:22:19 | |
All right, any any other. | 00:22:25 | |
I like the balconies. I think that's great for a starter townhome. I think a rooftop deck sounds great so. | 00:22:30 | |
OK. All right. | 00:22:36 | |
Well, we've seen Mr. Reynolds before we've discussed this project and as we noted in the work meeting, there are some bushes and | 00:22:38 | |
and landscaping around the units and, and there will be those that are down towards the Creek. So I think there's a lot of | 00:22:44 | |
potential here and. | 00:22:51 | |
Do we have anyone that is willing to make motion on this item this evening? I'll give it a shot. OK. And that this is Commissioner | 00:22:59 | |
Cunningham and I would motion that we approve the preliminary plat application by Brad Reynolds for Holiday Cottages A9 unit | 00:23:08 | |
townhouse, townhouse subdivision located at 4821 S 1740 E in the room zone based on the following findings. | 00:23:18 | |
Development details required for preliminary plat have been submitted and reviewed by the TRC and found to be complete and | 00:23:28 | |
acceptable to the number of units. Is compliant with the RM Zone Regulations. 3 The subdivision is in line with the previously | 00:23:36 | |
approved site plan for the development. Complies with the General Plan. 5 Fire Access. | 00:23:44 | |
Is approved by UFA 6 On site stormwater retention is compliant with requirements 7. Vehicular access, emergency access and utility | 00:23:53 | |
easements are shown on the plat and subject to the following requirements that the CCN Rs for the maintenance of common areas. | 00:24:01 | |
Stormwater retention and access must be submitted prior to final approval. | 00:24:09 | |
And are to be recorded with the final plan. | 00:24:17 | |
And also within one year and in accordance with 13.10 A .070 E to complete administrative review and approval of the final plat by | 00:24:20 | |
the Community and Development Economic Development Director following a positive written recommendation from TRC. | 00:24:30 | |
Commissioner Roach, I'll second the motion. OK, It's a call for a vote, starting with Commissioner Barrett. | 00:24:41 | |
Aye, Commissioner Gong, Aye, Commissioner Roach, Aye, Commissioner Font, Aye Commissioner Lachenski, Aye, Commissioner Cunningham. | 00:24:48 | |
Aye. And Chair votes aye. So that motion will be forwarded to City Council. Thank you very much. | 00:24:55 | |
All right. We will move to the third item on our agenda this evening, which is an ordinance amendment for the General Plan Chapter | 00:25:03 | |
3, Transportation Map 3.1 and Title 13.02, Point 030 planning documents and invite. | 00:25:14 | |
Mr. Tierlink to come up and give us a presentation. | 00:25:25 | |
Thank you, Vice Chair Prince. Application brought for you this evening is a legislative request to amend. | 00:25:32 | |
Couple of sections of holiday ordinance and general the general plan. | 00:25:40 | |
The application is a required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to sending a request of recommendation to City | 00:25:45 | |
Council. | 00:25:49 | |
Who will have the final decision application included in your packet is presented by Ron Hilton. There's a staff report in there | 00:25:53 | |
from various members of the Technical Review Committee. | 00:26:00 | |
On the application itself. | 00:26:07 | |
So specifically, we have a section of Murray Holiday Rd. that has been requested to review some dimensional standards. | 00:26:10 | |
For consideration. | 00:26:18 | |
In the application packet, you'll find what has been proposed. And I think from the Planning Commission's point of view, | 00:26:20 | |
requirement tonight is to moderate a discussion on the merits of both the general plan amendment and how it is involved in this | 00:26:27 | |
request, how Chapter 13 is involved in the dimensions and standards of that request. | 00:26:34 | |
And also. | 00:26:41 | |
Thirdly, which I've neglected to mention in the work session, you'll notice in the applicant's packet is an addendum request. | 00:26:44 | |
To amend secondary residential streets on the Roadway Master plan map from 50 to 40 feet. | 00:26:52 | |
In your packet you'll go through and find a signed addendum with a clip of the roadway map and then the bottom right. It'll have a | 00:27:00 | |
red line that strikes through 50 foot right of way 40 and then change proposed change to 40 feet. | 00:27:07 | |
Specifically in that section of code, as I mentioned previously, when we look at new roadway dedication widths for a new | 00:27:17 | |
subdivision, for example. | 00:27:22 | |
If it falls within a secondary residential roadways, normally we would dedicate 50 feet and everything has to be included in that | 00:27:28 | |
travel with lanes, gutter, park, strip, sidewalk. | 00:27:33 | |
The proposal now is to rather consider 50 feet, but 40 feet for a dedicated right of way with for all new streets within the city. | 00:27:41 | |
So all the new, the development requirements, the standards for roadway creation, travel lane widths, guttering, that type of | 00:27:47 | |
thing would have to fit within 40 rather than 50. | 00:27:53 | |
That would be the that the general. | 00:28:00 | |
Summary of that request so I can take any questions on the staff report. You have a couple of addendums in there from our | 00:28:03 | |
transportation plan or Justice 2 for who happens to be here this evening and our City Engineer, Jerry Bunch. | 00:28:10 | |
If I may, John, I have this. Commissioner Roche, I have a quick question since I failed to look at this during the work meeting. | 00:28:18 | |
By eliminating that 50 down to 40. | 00:28:27 | |
For what this would impact on future go forward, would that not end up reducing primarily out of the park strip in order to still | 00:28:31 | |
facilitate enough roadway and sidewalk access, gutter, et cetera? Yeah, all of the it's unclear as to where that would be stolen | 00:28:36 | |
from, but. | 00:28:41 | |
For the benefit of. | 00:28:48 | |
Pedestrian right away it would probably take me taken out of the park strip, which would then in turn actually hurt holidays | 00:28:50 | |
efforts in being a tree City USA where many trees are required to be planted in those park strips. Is that right? Yeah, St. trees | 00:28:58 | |
are a required tree that is required for every development and especially redevelopment. | 00:29:05 | |
As the types of tree lists that the tree committee is assembling gets smaller and smaller, I'm noticing every year because of the | 00:29:14 | |
hardiness of those species. | 00:29:18 | |
Park strip width is critical. | 00:29:24 | |
The other element would be to be taken from the width of the travel lane, so the traveling will get smaller. Therefore the park | 00:29:27 | |
park strip could remain the same width. | 00:29:32 | |
Something would have to give. | 00:29:38 | |
Some more traffic or less green space essentially. | 00:29:40 | |
Or combination of both? What is the what's the role of parking? | 00:29:45 | |
If this would would parking be prohibited if the the width is reduced going forward? That would have to be looked at. Parking on | 00:29:49 | |
streets is generally allowed type of situation unless there's a specific safety concern. Where parking is eliminated. On street | 00:29:56 | |
parking is eliminated. That's very few places in the city. | 00:30:03 | |
So it would be. | 00:30:11 | |
Recommendation from the staff that on street parking not be something that is eliminated, but that could be something to be looked | 00:30:13 | |
at, but that's a standard I don't have a detail on in this proposal. | 00:30:19 | |
Is this conceptual or do we have actual language for a text change? | 00:30:26 | |
I believe you have actual language for the text in the application. | 00:30:31 | |
For both, it's right above the colored diagrams. | 00:30:36 | |
So the text amendment would be in. | 00:30:45 | |
I guess you can say presented two ways, 1 is a text. | 00:30:51 | |
Similar to what we have here. That would be what's being proposed in chapter 13. | 00:30:55 | |
The other element for the general plan is a change to map 3.1, which is an image. | 00:31:01 | |
In the general plan and it's just a section of roadway that the applicant can highlight in his presentation for you. | 00:31:07 | |
I guess. | 00:31:16 | |
If I can ask our attorney, does this suffice to be a text amendment or? | 00:31:17 | |
Wouldn't need additional. | 00:31:25 | |
Legalese to accomplish. | 00:31:28 | |
Yeah, I have some questions about whether it's sufficient there. | 00:31:30 | |
And then a part of your question you may want to address to the city engineer because it relates to the standards and how the | 00:31:35 | |
drawings for this portion of the road go into the standards. And so I think he he can advise on that. But I do think having a | 00:31:42 | |
little more precise language on the text amendment would be a cleaner approach to do it. But I think there's enough of the | 00:31:50 | |
legislative issue for you to chew on today that, you know, even if you don't get to the text language, you can. | 00:31:57 | |
Ask questions of the applicant about why they think the. | 00:32:05 | |
The changes needed, you know, especially as you consider the history of how it came to this point. | 00:32:08 | |
OK. | 00:32:15 | |
All right. Any other questions for city staff? | 00:32:20 | |
All right. Thank you very much. We'll go ahead and invite the applicant to come forward and make his. | 00:32:24 | |
Presentation. | 00:32:31 | |
I'm Ron Hilton. | 00:32:43 | |
The manager of Holiday Cottages LLC. | 00:32:46 | |
And we are doing a subdivision in this location called Holton Park. | 00:32:50 | |
Umm, so that's kind of how we came to this point. | 00:32:57 | |
Umm. | 00:33:03 | |
We've got. | 00:33:05 | |
Mr. Hilton, can I have you state your address for the record? Sure. 2394 E Murray Holiday Rd. Thank you. | 00:33:14 | |
So anyway. | 00:33:23 | |
Just by way of background. | 00:33:25 | |
Fulton Park is. | 00:33:28 | |
Basically smack dab in the middle of what's called the medium density district and the general plan. So if you look at the drawing | 00:33:30 | |
there on the left, that's the boundary of Holiday Village. | 00:33:35 | |
And then you have some condos and townhomes. Holiday row. | 00:33:41 | |
The terraces, then you have some duplexes, the Hadley Pines, and then you come to Holton Park. | 00:33:45 | |
Which is a single family development, but of a higher density than the low density district. So as you move further to the east. | 00:33:53 | |
On the other side, so Clearview Street is on the right side of that diagram and that becomes your low density district, so. | 00:34:05 | |
We're kind of right in right in the middle of this medium density area. And so the kind of the concept of Halton Park was to be a | 00:34:12 | |
transitional buffer, buffer zone, I guess you could say. So it's single family that has the character of a single family | 00:34:19 | |
neighborhood, but it has somewhat higher density than than the than the further going further E into the neighborhood. So it's | 00:34:27 | |
kind of creates this transition. | 00:34:34 | |
Character and density. | 00:34:42 | |
And there's a similar transition going on with the the road. | 00:34:44 | |
So. | 00:34:50 | |
And we, we, we were under a bond. We've, we've paid for a bond to do right away improvements as part of our project. Holton Park | 00:34:52 | |
is divided into a North and South phase. | 00:34:58 | |
So we have the unique position of basically straddling Bernie Murray Holiday Road and we've required to make improvements. | 00:35:05 | |
On both sides of the road so. | 00:35:14 | |
Based on input from the neighborhood. So when we first started the project, there was a lot of input from the neighborhood about, | 00:35:20 | |
you know. | 00:35:24 | |
Keeping the density down and. | 00:35:29 | |
And. | 00:35:31 | |
In fact, there was a petition to. | 00:35:33 | |
Umm, basically. | 00:35:38 | |
Reduce the size of the medium density district, you know, to have them be more of it, be low density. And that was done. So it | 00:35:41 | |
seemed quite clear that the neighborhood sentiment was, you know, to have this transition to a lower density, lower intensity you | 00:35:47 | |
could say. | 00:35:52 | |
And so. | 00:35:58 | |
We in talking with the neighbors. | 00:36:01 | |
We became aware that they're also concerned about the traffic, the speed, the safety involved. And since we're basically on the | 00:36:05 | |
hook to make some right away improvements as part of our project and we're right there at Ground Zero, so to speak of this, of | 00:36:13 | |
this critical transitional area, we we agreed to propose some changes to the right of way. | 00:36:21 | |
The neighbors mounted a petition. This was. | 00:36:30 | |
18 months ago and really nothing has been done on it. So this application is actually an effort to give the community an | 00:36:35 | |
opportunity to get in front of of you in front in front of their elected representatives to be heard on on their concerns. So that | 00:36:42 | |
that's really one major motivation behind this but. | 00:36:49 | |
Basically, I'm going to turn most of my time over to. | 00:36:58 | |
My traffic engineer Brian Haran with Galloway and company and he's here tonight so I'd like to give most of the time to him. But | 00:37:03 | |
just wanted to say that the main focus here is is safety and, and this has been a concern in this neighborhood. A lot of cut | 00:37:11 | |
through traffic going from 45th South over to Murray Holiday Rd. on like Russell and Wander. | 00:37:19 | |
That's been a concern the City Council at one point. | 00:37:28 | |
Proposed making those one way streets to try and curb the problem and the residents while they appreciated the intent didn't like | 00:37:33 | |
that solution. So maybe what we're proposing could be that long sought solution because. | 00:37:41 | |
One thing that the city pointed out to me, they said I should have a look at the general plan map. | 00:37:50 | |
And this section of Mary Holiday Rd. is very unique. It's the only one where you have an arterial that becomes a collector that | 00:37:56 | |
becomes a secondary residential St. It actually narrows that's the only St. in Holiday that shows that on the general plan. So | 00:38:03 | |
it's a very unique situation and I'll let Brian speak to that a little more. | 00:38:10 | |
But. | 00:38:18 | |
Anyway. | 00:38:20 | |
Based on the neighborhood input, we've. | 00:38:22 | |
Essentially agreed to. | 00:38:24 | |
You know, take this issue up and make it part of our project so. | 00:38:26 | |
I'll turn the time over to to Brian. | 00:38:30 | |
Thank you. | 00:38:34 | |
Hello, Brian Horan. | 00:38:40 | |
Address that 511 S 200 E Salt Lake City. | 00:38:43 | |
I'm a licensed traffic engineer in this state and about a dozen others. I'm also a professional traffic operations engineer. I was | 00:38:48 | |
asked to do. | 00:38:54 | |
Opine on this proposal from a safety and traffic standpoint. | 00:39:00 | |
So I've only recently been involved with Ron and this project, so the history of how we got here, I don't have a lot of context | 00:39:08 | |
for. What I understand is that the neighbors and Ron are looking to. | 00:39:14 | |
Create an improvement here that's focused on safety. | 00:39:22 | |
Umm, I know that there's a plan amendment currently in process. So my hope today and moving forward is to be a resource for this | 00:39:29 | |
Commission, for the city, for council to ask any, you know, specific traffic questions or safety questions that are related to a | 00:39:37 | |
proposal such as this. I know you have a lot of information in the packet already. | 00:39:46 | |
And I'm sure there's been some discussions on this. | 00:39:55 | |
But if I may, you know kind of go through. | 00:39:59 | |
What I see from this proposal and then just, you know, give the opportunity for for you all to ask me any questions or further | 00:40:03 | |
opine on some of these things. | 00:40:08 | |
So as I understand it, the method or mechanism to. | 00:40:16 | |
Provide these safety improvements is an amendment to the general plan. As I understand it, they worked with city staff to figure | 00:40:22 | |
out what the best mechanism is to provide this specific improvement and there can probably be some conversation on if there is a | 00:40:30 | |
better mechanism, but I would say the directly from the general plan, the primary goals are. | 00:40:38 | |
To and this is directly from Chapter 3 to ensure the safety of all users. | 00:40:47 | |
Continue to build upon and maintain existing infrastructure. | 00:40:52 | |
Mitigate and absorb traffic impact of new development and reduce impediments to convenient use of main traffic corridors and | 00:40:56 | |
discourage cut through use of local residential streets. The reason I bring this up and this is typical of the city's general plan | 00:41:04 | |
and most general plans is it speaks to safety reducing cut through it doesn't speak to. | 00:41:12 | |
Increasing traffic volumes, increasing throughput. That's kind of a older idea. | 00:41:21 | |
For traffic engineers, as you're probably aware of a very car centric planning and design culture, most cities, this one included, | 00:41:27 | |
are moving towards safer, more pedestrian friendly, more bicycle friendly I. | 00:41:35 | |
And it's represented well in the general plan. | 00:41:44 | |
As I read. | 00:41:48 | |
The citizen comments and the proposal here. The idea is to narrow this section. It was mentioned several times in the packet as a | 00:41:51 | |
chicane. It's probably more accurately defined as a choker or Rd. diet, so probably terms you've heard before. But narrowing | 00:41:59 | |
streets has a proven effect on increasing safety. | 00:42:08 | |
And lowering speeds. | 00:42:17 | |
So from a vehicular perspective. | 00:42:20 | |
There's many references, you can pick any of them, they all say the same thing. Institute of Transportation Engineers ashtow I saw | 00:42:23 | |
a reference in the packet a bunch of times nachto happy to use that resource as well. | 00:42:29 | |
NACTO specifically says lean widths of 10 feet are appropriate in urban areas and have a positive impact on the streets safety | 00:42:38 | |
without impacting traffic operations. Lanes greater than 11 feet should not be used because they may cause unintended speeding and | 00:42:44 | |
assume valuable right of way at the expense of other modes. | 00:42:50 | |
Two way streets with low or medium volumes of traffic may benefit from the use of a dash, center line with a narrow lane with or | 00:42:56 | |
no center line at all, which is what this proposal is getting to. If you do a quick search of lane with versus speed, the very | 00:43:03 | |
first thing that comes up is the Nachto study saying that. | 00:43:10 | |
Narrower lanes are decreased speed. | 00:43:19 | |
I probably don't need to make the case for lower speeds are safer, but I will just to kind of drive the point home locations where | 00:43:24 | |
speeds have been. | 00:43:30 | |
Statewide, if a speed limit is increased by 5 miles an hour, you see 8%. | 00:43:37 | |
Increase in fatalities on interstates and a 4% increase in fatalities on all local roads. | 00:43:44 | |
To further this point, it's much worse for pedestrians. Don't need to get too deep into it, but you get about a 15% increase in | 00:43:51 | |
mortality every 5-5 miles an hour. | 00:43:58 | |
The speed is increased and this is at the 23 to 30 mile an hour speed limits, which is what we're talking about. | 00:44:05 | |
There was a. | 00:44:13 | |
UPD. I believe it's from the Police Department, the speed study that's provided in the application. | 00:44:16 | |
That shows. Oh Yep, it's right there, that one. | 00:44:22 | |
This shows the 85th percentile speed is 31 mph. So in traffic engineering we use the 85th percentile speed as our measure for | 00:44:26 | |
speeding. So if the 85th percentile is more than 5 miles an hour over the speed limit, we consider that an issue. We consider that | 00:44:35 | |
something to be mitigated. So you can see here it's 31 miles an hour. The speed limit for that area is 25. | 00:44:43 | |
Reasonably you would want to pursue some sort of traffic calming measure to reduce that to back, to be back within that five mile | 00:44:53 | |
or five mile an hour range. As I mentioned before, it's a that 5 miles an hour is a pretty big increase in pedestrian fatality and | 00:45:02 | |
accidents. And so each of these little increments does matter and it's the threshold that we use. | 00:45:10 | |
Additionally, wider. | 00:45:20 | |
Streets attract cut through, which again in your general plan is something to avoid. | 00:45:22 | |
If you're familiar with the context of sort of the area which should be, it's right down the street. | 00:45:29 | |
There are some opportunities for cut through like up Russell. I know there's a larger larger map. | 00:45:34 | |
But any opportunity in this area that you could use to? | 00:45:43 | |
Discourage vehicular traffic in this area, which would be a Rhode Island or lane narrowing would help to discourage some of that | 00:45:48 | |
cut through through the neighborhood. | 00:45:54 | |
A couple of other things that I wanted to mention related to which are related to bicycle and PEDs. | 00:46:02 | |
So this road here is a class 3. | 00:46:09 | |
Bike. | 00:46:14 | |
Umm facility for the city which class 3 is on street? | 00:46:16 | |
Bicycles should take up the travel lane. This helps to reduce speed so going back to reducing speeds in the area. | 00:46:23 | |
Umm, providing too much width in an area like this will encourage bicycles to use the shoulder. | 00:46:32 | |
And it kind of encourages vehicles and bikes to use the same area. | 00:46:40 | |
Reducing that puts the bicycle in the lane it requires, and you can, if you travel the bike, route through that area. There's | 00:46:45 | |
signage that says. | 00:46:49 | |
You know, bicycle, we got the bike route sign, but there's also signage to that says bike lanes will be using the full the full | 00:46:54 | |
lane. So to continue to encourage that through this area makes sense for the context that this proposal is not out of out of line | 00:47:01 | |
with what this bike route already represents in this area. | 00:47:08 | |
And finally, as you're probably aware, this roadway is a neighborhood pedestrian corridor. The intent of these corridors for the | 00:47:17 | |
for the general plan is to connect the neighbors to the sort of historic commercial. | 00:47:24 | |
Center keeping the sections narrow and then the crosswalk that's provided you know, location to be determined. These are all good | 00:47:32 | |
elements that help connect the neighborhood to the commercial center. Shorter roadway or smaller roadway with also reduce the | 00:47:41 | |
crossing time. It also creates more roadway friction which reduces speeds and in areas like this where there's a crosswalk. | 00:47:51 | |
Not that far from the proposed location. Eliminating on street parking also helps in an area specific to this. | 00:48:01 | |
So that pedestrians and traveling vehicles can see each other better. So eliminating on street parking in this area would also. | 00:48:10 | |
Be appropriate. | 00:48:20 | |
So those are the kind of vehicular bicycle PEDs things that I wanted to hit on related to just generally this proposal and knowing | 00:48:23 | |
that you are working on a plan update, keeping these things in mind for that plan update. And I will echo what Ron mentioned about | 00:48:32 | |
this being if you look at the full map 3.1, it's the only collector in the city that doesn't connect to arterials. | 00:48:41 | |
My. | 00:48:51 | |
And I've talked to some neighbors who bought their house in the 60s and, you know, went to the school there and their doctor was. | 00:48:53 | |
In that commercial center, my guess is that, yeah, this little snip was to accommodate the existing commercial back. You know, | 00:49:02 | |
that already exists, but it is the only collector in the city that doesn't connect to arterials and. | 00:49:10 | |
Really only forced would only. Yeah, that's the thank you. | 00:49:21 | |
So this happens all the time with with plan updates that you need to kind of dig in specifically to certain areas. This seems like | 00:49:26 | |
a area that would warrant some extra scrutiny. | 00:49:32 | |
So I'm also available. | 00:49:40 | |
For any traffic related questions. | 00:49:43 | |
Thank you. We have any commissioners that have a question? Yes, please. So if we put this on a diet. | 00:49:45 | |
And start to restrict the amount of traffic, how much volume of the traffic will move to the residential streets adjacent to it? | 00:49:53 | |
Have you done a calculation just to see how much that pushes? | 00:50:02 | |
The additional traffic because this is really, and I'm not trying to say it's a major Rd. but there people use this to get up into | 00:50:06 | |
this area. | 00:50:10 | |
Primarily and then get on to wander which is the basic north-south. | 00:50:14 | |
It's almost a collector, but it so. | 00:50:21 | |
I'm just curious as you've looked at the analysis of reducing the size of this. | 00:50:25 | |
What does it do to the impact of the neighbors neighboring streets? Because to me, I don't want to just try and solve one problem | 00:50:31 | |
and create another 1-2 streets down or something like that. So yeah, that's a great point. | 00:50:38 | |
Typically how these go, and I've done many of them, you do a data collection. | 00:50:46 | |
You make the improvement and then you test it again. And I don't think an extensive what we would call an origin destination study | 00:50:54 | |
has been done. OK. So we don't have we don't have the data. OK, that's fine. Did you design the what what we're seeing or did the | 00:51:00 | |
staff do that? | 00:51:06 | |
No, the road narrows and no. So the applicant put together the proposal. I was brought on just to sort of. | 00:51:13 | |
Opine on what impacts this might have and so I'm just here to to talk traffic engineering specifically. Generally the reason I ask | 00:51:25 | |
is you've probably done a lot of pinch points or transitions from major to minor. | 00:51:32 | |
You see, this is the most effective way to do this. | 00:51:41 | |
Because I appreciated the questions earlier about the park strip. | 00:51:44 | |
Landscaping, the pedestrian being right next to the street. | 00:51:48 | |
It won't quite be as obvious. I think everybody thinks that the traffic is going to immediately slow down until they're kind of | 00:51:54 | |
into the area. So I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to design this so. | 00:52:00 | |
It seems a little. | 00:52:07 | |
I don't know. | 00:52:09 | |
Seamless or helpful to everybody using the corridor. You know, I'm going with what you're saying. Pedestrians, bikers, cars. | 00:52:10 | |
If we take and reduce this down and traffic doesn't slow down, you've got a problem, you know, So I'm just curious, you've | 00:52:18 | |
probably had a lot of opportunities where you've seen how to maybe do this and is this the best way to do it or so? And I don't | 00:52:24 | |
want to put you on the spot. If you don't have an answer, don't, don't answer if you don't. | 00:52:30 | |
What I'm here to to help with and and help Commission and something to take forward is there's as you as you're alluding to, | 00:52:39 | |
there's a lot of ways that you can. | 00:52:44 | |
What I would call increased the friction out here. This is one way to do it and it seems to fit within the existing conditions | 00:52:51 | |
that are out there. So I would say this is from a cost and you know, available infrastructure. This is a good, you know, attempt | 00:53:00 | |
again from the speed data. It would be great if we could reduce it like 2 miles an hour. | 00:53:09 | |
And so incremental changes. | 00:53:19 | |
That are cost effective is usually the approach that you want to take. So can I ask you a question about the design that you've | 00:53:23 | |
got four cars shown here and I don't there's only two lanes, right? Brian, I'm going to just pause your, your, your question | 00:53:30 | |
simply because he didn't design it. So I think to ask him about it moves outside the purview. Thank you for your presentation. | 00:53:36 | |
We'll go ahead and have you sit back down. | 00:53:42 | |
The applicant. | 00:53:49 | |
Could come back up so that if any Commissioner members, Commission members have questions for the applicant, we can address it to | 00:53:52 | |
him. We appreciate your presentation about the traffic. Thank you. Commissioners, do we have any questions specifically? | 00:53:59 | |
First off, if I understand the history of this. | 00:54:07 | |
There was a previous or a series of previous requests to narrow the road and between staff and the city using its legislative | 00:54:13 | |
authority, they made a decision and now this is an attempt to change that decision, that kind of a short summary of what happened | 00:54:20 | |
in the past. | 00:54:27 | |
I mean the city. The city did something through staff and the City Council. | 00:54:34 | |
And an appeal to the mayor and now we're being asked to do a text amendment to. | 00:54:41 | |
So they essentially get a second bite at the apple. Is that well, the the problem was like I said. | 00:54:49 | |
I'm basically doing this. | 00:54:56 | |
You know, to try and get the. | 00:54:59 | |
Neighborhood the opportunity to be heard on this issue. | 00:55:02 | |
And to get the petition, you know, before their elected officials and be able to be decided upon a. | 00:55:06 | |
And So what staff recommended was that we file an appeal. | 00:55:16 | |
You know, that that wasn't really, I didn't feel it was necessary, but they said that was the avenue to do it. So we, we filed an | 00:55:21 | |
appeal, which got it in front of the mayor. But then the city attorney said, well. | 00:55:29 | |
And so and I invited. | 00:55:37 | |
One of the neighbors who had spearheaded the petition to come and I gave him a, you know, a big chunk of of the limited time that | 00:55:40 | |
I had in that appeal. | 00:55:44 | |
But then, you know, the city attorney says, well, this is inadmissible in this forum. | 00:55:50 | |
We can't decide on this and the merit says I have to send this back to staff. | 00:55:55 | |
So the peel was kind of a OK, you know, didn't do anything. | 00:56:00 | |
Back to the original premise, there was a request to do Rd. narrowing. The city took some actions to do Rd. narrowing based on | 00:56:05 | |
probably staff recommendations which were adopted during a legislative process by the council. Part of that legislative process is | 00:56:10 | |
budget. | 00:56:16 | |
Is do you have a cost for what this all costs? | 00:56:23 | |
If we were to do this thing. | 00:56:27 | |
I think I saw eight or nine polls that have to be replaced. Curbs, gutter and all that. Does anyone what is it? | 00:56:29 | |
Someone costed that out for us. | 00:56:37 | |
Well. | 00:56:40 | |
And the city would have to speak to that. I mean the cost. Well, that's us. So do you mean cost of our proposal or the cost of not | 00:56:42 | |
doing our proposal? | 00:56:47 | |
Well, I'm asking you, have you? | 00:56:53 | |
Figure it out, even a ballpark cost of doing the proposal. So one thing that came out of that, the one constructive I think thing | 00:56:55 | |
that came out of the appeal process was Mayor Dali said that. | 00:57:02 | |
He would be open to the idea of restriping the road to narrow the. | 00:57:10 | |
Narrow the right of way. | 00:57:15 | |
You know that he had seen that done on Spring Lane here where he lives, and it had been effective. | 00:57:18 | |
And so that was another motivation for filing this proposal where we would narrow, we would restripe the road to narrow the lanes. | 00:57:24 | |
I mean, the reason I'm asking that question is. | 00:57:34 | |
You know, that's competition for budget dollars. OK. And somehow this is the first time I've been on the Commission, that somehow | 00:57:38 | |
we're in the middle of an issue that's really a budget issue and that I. | 00:57:45 | |
I assume the developer would have to move the polling question. | 00:57:52 | |
And that well, if our this appears to shift the cost to the city, to the other residents of the city to solve a problem for a | 00:57:56 | |
development of a pole that needs to be moved. OK, so the. | 00:58:03 | |
The moving of the pole and the cost of the moving of the pole is not really the issue. | 00:58:11 | |
It it's, it's safety and that's what we're trying to achieve at the. | 00:58:18 | |
At that aforementioned appeal and I also did made the same offer in writing to staff because this is you know part of our, you | 00:58:25 | |
know, it falls right in the middle of our project. We have offered to pay the cost of doing a phase one and phase two of this | 00:58:34 | |
proposal. So the restriping of the road and the we did get a bid for that and it's $25,000. | 00:58:44 | |
But it's something that we're willing to add to the cost of our project at no cost to the city. | 00:58:54 | |
No, the phase three is continuing the sidewalk further up the South side of the road. | 00:59:02 | |
But aren't those all typically developer costs? | 00:59:09 | |
We will do the second. We are already on the hook to do the section of sidewalk that's right by our development. But phase three | 00:59:13 | |
would be. So phase two puts a crosswalk from the end of that sidewalk. | 00:59:19 | |
To the existing sidewalk, you know that goes all the way. Phase three, if you choose to adopt it, would extend the sidewalk on the | 00:59:26 | |
South side of the road the rest of the way as well. We're not volunteering to pay for that that's you know beyond the scope of our | 00:59:32 | |
project that isn't but the part that's right in front. But as far as the restriping, the repainting of the road, we're willing to | 00:59:38 | |
do the whole thing and it came to about 25,000 that. | 00:59:44 | |
That would be Phase 1 and 2. | 00:59:50 | |
And when you say the whole thing, you mean all the way up to that, all the way up to the church on the corner? | 00:59:52 | |
Murray Holiday Rd. | 00:59:57 | |
Yeah. | 00:59:59 | |
It's about. | 01:00:00 | |
2000 feet. | 01:00:02 | |
I just wonder if the merits of. | 01:00:04 | |
The safety issue, there are lots of other areas in the city that probably have similar needs and stuff like that. And that's | 01:00:09 | |
usually a budget process and the competition for budget dollars or prioritization over years and those kinds of things. And it | 01:00:15 | |
kind of feels like we're using a text amendment to prioritize this safety issue over all others. And in effect, if we support this | 01:00:22 | |
text amendment. | 01:00:29 | |
We're putting. | 01:00:37 | |
The city, if they adopted course, the City Council makes the final decision, but we would essentially be recommending a priority | 01:00:37 | |
for this project in the budget process. | 01:00:42 | |
And I recognize that, and that's why. | 01:00:47 | |
If you if you read the language of the amendment, it says that phase three would be subject to the normal budgetary process and | 01:00:51 | |
conditioned upon that. So phase 3 is a little bit more optional and would be whereas I'm willing to pay for Phase 1 and 2. So | 01:00:58 | |
yeah, but I thought, I thought about that and that's I. | 01:01:04 | |
That's why I made that offer. | 01:01:11 | |
Other commissioners that have questions for. | 01:01:14 | |
Mr. Hilton. | 01:01:17 | |
Chair Prince just before the the thought is lost. I don't want to take away from the applicants time, but I can fill Commissioner | 01:01:19 | |
Cunningham in on some of the legal details at the appropriate moment. | 01:01:25 | |
If you'd prefer that be now, let's just do it right now while it's on our train of thought. Do you mind standing Mr. Hilton for a | 01:01:33 | |
little bit longer? OK, thanks. So the the basic context of the. | 01:01:38 | |
The prior request of Mr. Hilton and how it was handled is separate from this request legally, but the background might be relevant | 01:01:45 | |
in some ways. You're being asked right now to make a legislative decision. So he he's applied for a land use change. The land use | 01:01:52 | |
change takes place in two locations. You have a text amendment to the code and then you have a general plan amendment that you're | 01:01:59 | |
being asked to consider. They fit together hand and glove a little bit. | 01:02:06 | |
You you need both to be able to effectuate what's being requested. | 01:02:14 | |
I don't want to speak to Mr. Hilton's intentions, I don't know that, but I know what the prior request was and the circumstances | 01:02:19 | |
of it. So when the development came forward and the bond was posted for the public improvements that are required with the | 01:02:27 | |
development, there was a question about Rd. widths and the city agreed to a reduction of the road width to 32 feet. | 01:02:35 | |
That's the paved Rd. width. And then there was the question. There was a question about a utility pole in its location. | 01:02:44 | |
I think the utility pole was initially understood by some of the parties involved to be located on a neighboring property that had | 01:02:51 | |
been redeveloped prior to the to this development. | 01:02:57 | |
But it was then learned that the utility pole was in fact on the Hilton property and was therefore the responsibility of this | 01:03:04 | |
development. | 01:03:08 | |
The utility pulls in a location where if you look at the roadway width, it interferes with not the travel lanes, but the | 01:03:13 | |
pedestrian, the shoulder, and then the pedestrian and park strip infrastructure that would be along that side. And so there was | 01:03:20 | |
discussion with the city about who would be responsible for relocating that utility pole and whether the road widths could be | 01:03:26 | |
changed in a way that would not require. | 01:03:33 | |
That pole to be moved, that was the Did you have a question? | 01:03:41 | |
Include drainage as well as the drainage impacted by the location of this power pole. I think storm water and things. I don't know | 01:03:44 | |
the answer to that. The city engineer may I, I don't offhand know that, sorry. The the appeal then that went to the mayor was | 01:03:50 | |
styled as quote, a variation. | 01:03:57 | |
It wasn't a variance per SE, but it was a request to adjust the city standards for Rd. widths at that location. And so the Mayor | 01:04:04 | |
considered statements from the City of Engineer, the city planner and myself and Mr. Hilton and his representative were present at | 01:04:14 | |
the hearing, and the decision of the mayor was to deny the request for the variation, which essentially required the. | 01:04:24 | |
32 foot width of the roadway, the relocation of that pole and then the pedestrian improvements that would occur essentially on a | 01:04:34 | |
straight line parallel with. | 01:04:39 | |
The road striping in Rd. Wits as I understand what's being put. | 01:04:45 | |
What's being proposed and applied for now, it's related in that it affects the same location and that it's asking for similar | 01:04:52 | |
things. But legally it's not part of the same process. And you have the flexibility of considering it as a legislative decision | 01:05:00 | |
where you can weigh policy preferences, policy choices, and is a different choice than than what? | 01:05:08 | |
Than the decision that was put to the mayor, but I hope that's a little bit of helpful context as. | 01:05:16 | |
How it relates and what the decisions are? | 01:05:22 | |
Thank you. All right. I did have, yeah, this Commissioner Roche, I did have just a couple questions for you, Mr. Hilton, and I | 01:05:25 | |
think it falls kind of within that purpose. I appreciate the clarification there. | 01:05:31 | |
So if this were your text amendment were approved, city general plan was changed and amended to accommodate. | 01:05:38 | |
With the power pole have to be moved. | 01:05:46 | |
No, I wouldn't. | 01:05:50 | |
You can see on the. | 01:05:53 | |
Drawing it shows several power poles in fact, just to give you a little bit of background. | 01:05:55 | |
When it came to my attention that the power pole might need to be moved, I just decided, well, I'm going to go down the street and | 01:06:02 | |
see if there's any other power poles that have this problem, right. There's about a dozen power poles along that side of the | 01:06:09 | |
street and, and eight of them would have to be moved if the original plan, you know, was, was used in the new road, not narrowed. | 01:06:16 | |
So anyway, I'm walking down the street and one of the neighbors says, what are you doing? | 01:06:22 | |
And so we had a conversation and. | 01:06:30 | |
That's kind of what sparked him to do the petition. | 01:06:35 | |
So he says, oh, no, we don't want to move all these poles. And yeah, you know, they should, they should narrow this road. You | 01:06:40 | |
know, he had just requested a electronic speed sign and that had gone right next to his property to try and, you know, so anyway, | 01:06:45 | |
and. | 01:06:51 | |
You know, he and the other neighbors did the petition. Like I said, this is about 18 months ago, and they submitted it, but it | 01:06:58 | |
basically went nowhere. And so I was working with staff. So how can we get this petition in front of the city? That's when the | 01:07:03 | |
appeal process was suggested. | 01:07:09 | |
But like I said, you know, it was deemed not the appropriate forum. And so, yeah, I guess you could say this is another bite at | 01:07:16 | |
the apple, but it's it's another attempt hopefully to get closure and to get. | 01:07:22 | |
Get this issue in front of the decision makers and get a decision. Absolutely. Let me be clear, I absolutely love and applaud | 01:07:28 | |
citizen efforts to improve safety in the community. That's no question. I love the altruistic nature of that. I was just curious | 01:07:35 | |
how it individually affected you as a developer in this poll project. And with that, I was just curious if you have a rough | 01:07:41 | |
guesstimate, and I don't know if you can. | 01:07:47 | |
Disclosed. But I was curious what it costs to have that poll moved on your property. Well, the poll. | 01:07:53 | |
Really. | 01:08:00 | |
That's not really the issue here, but just to answer your question, I. | 01:08:03 | |
The. | 01:08:08 | |
Rocky Mountain Power's first statement to us was that the poll could not be moved. | 01:08:10 | |
To be that, you'd have to bury the power for the entire block and that was very expensive. The city went back and talked to them, | 01:08:16 | |
apparently, and came back with an estimate of $16,000 to move the one pole. | 01:08:23 | |
The problem with that was because the city had already allowed the other development to take place without moving the pole. | 01:08:32 | |
You know, and it was clearly spelled out in their plans. There's this poll that's a problem, but we're not moving it. | 01:08:40 | |
A lot more got added, you know, they put new curb and gutter, they put risers with underground power and all kinds of stuff. So | 01:08:46 | |
moving, you know, ripping out and moving all that stuff. I'm sure it would be more than 16,000. But like I said, from a financial | 01:08:52 | |
standpoint, I'm I'm offering to pay 25,000 to do what the neighbors want instead of the city wasting a similar amount of money to | 01:08:58 | |
do something that nobody wants. I understand. I just, I was curious on the cost comparison there. It's not, it's not a money | 01:09:04 | |
issue. | 01:09:10 | |
I'm willing to spend the money on something that. | 01:09:16 | |
Actually, you know, does what? | 01:09:19 | |
You know, it would make sense. | 01:09:22 | |
OK. Thank you, commissioners with questions. | 01:09:25 | |
Are there not ways to slow the traffic down without such a dramatic change to city code to making legislative changes to changing | 01:09:30 | |
the roadway? Aren't there other things that can be done? | 01:09:38 | |
What's on that poster? That's our proposal, yes. Everything else. | 01:09:48 | |
And all the verbiage general plan code, you know that's. | 01:09:54 | |
That's up to you and up to the City Council as to what's the best way to do it. Yes, I mean, I think. | 01:10:01 | |
The city could just decide to do and not have to. | 01:10:07 | |
Do any of this but it's. | 01:10:10 | |
1st the appeal which didn't serve the purpose and now this is just a way to get the issue in front so a decision can be made. | 01:10:13 | |
There could be very well be a much better way to do it, but this was the only Ave. | 01:10:19 | |
Apparently that existed to bring the issue forward. So that's that's why we're pursuing this, but. | 01:10:26 | |
For example, the the general plan amendment, to me, I didn't see the need for it personally. You know, the original general plan | 01:10:33 | |
already showed the road being narrowed. And you know, and in the general plan, you know, I've learned from my own experience with | 01:10:40 | |
this project is just a guideline. It's not exact. And you know, so it already more or less said, yeah, this is the plan. | 01:10:47 | |
We just want the city to do what the general plan essentially already says. But staff said, well, we ought to amend it to make it | 01:10:55 | |
even more focused. So that's what we did. We at their request. So the text amendment was actually 1st and then they said we better | 01:11:01 | |
amend the general plan too. So we did. But. | 01:11:07 | |
Far as I'm concerned, if we can do it without any of this, I'd be great. | 01:11:16 | |
Thank you. Mr. Hilton. At this point, I think we'll go ahead and invite you to sit back down and we will open up the public | 01:11:21 | |
comment session for any members of the audience that would care to comment. When you come to the microphone, please state your | 01:11:29 | |
name and your address so that it is available for the record and. | 01:11:36 | |
Again, keep your comments to under 3 minutes and and please be careful not to repeat each other's talking points. | 01:11:45 | |
Please. | 01:11:53 | |
Oh I'm very uncomfortable speaking in public, but. | 01:11:56 | |
My name is Philip Cohn. I live at 2636 Murray Holiday Rd. I've lived there for 13 years. | 01:11:59 | |
I own a home on Murray Holiday. It would be directly affected by this this plan here. | 01:12:06 | |
So I look at this and I look at that traffic study median. | 01:12:14 | |
MPH was 2526. I was pleased with that. I don't understand the 85th percentile, percentile. Try and drop it two mph. I thought | 01:12:20 | |
we're doing pretty good. | 01:12:26 | |
I've lived there for 13 years. Right on the road, there's traffic. | 01:12:32 | |
Some increased traffic over 13 years, not terribly. | 01:12:38 | |
We have a pretty stable population above that is being fed by this road. This road is critical to feed that area. | 01:12:42 | |
Even the cross streets wander Russell. I don't see a real big problem there. | 01:12:52 | |
I think people mostly go slowly, they work around each other. Seems fine. | 01:12:57 | |
I don't see the problem that needs to be solved here. | 01:13:02 | |
So the narrowing of the road. I live in a town home across from Holiday Church of Christ. There, you know. | 01:13:06 | |
That means that our guests that come visit and park on the road there, all that parking would be eliminated by this as far as I | 01:13:13 | |
can tell. | 01:13:17 | |
So any kind of overflow, people visiting 20 homeowners there would not be able to park on the road. | 01:13:22 | |
Now we can't park in the road when it's snowing, but otherwise it's utilized pretty heavily. | 01:13:30 | |
When I hear the words traffic calming, I think that's an Orwellian term to a certain extent. | 01:13:37 | |
What they mean? They mean make it miserable to drive, make it miserable to get anywhere. | 01:13:44 | |
And push it to what? To bicycles and public transportation? How effective is that then? | 01:13:51 | |
People aren't going to give up their cars. | 01:13:56 | |
So you can put up barriers. I mean, look what's happened in Salt Lake City. | 01:14:00 | |
Take 90's from 4 lanes to two. | 01:14:05 | |
Take 11 days. Put all kinds of barriers up there. | 01:14:08 | |
What's happened to 13th East? | 01:14:12 | |
What's happened to 70's The big arteries? | 01:14:14 | |
13th E is backed up from 21st South Claire Pass, Westminster all the time. | 01:14:17 | |
So you play whack a mole is what's going on. We have a major artery here. It goes by my house. Parking would be eliminated. My | 01:14:23 | |
economics would be affected by that if I sold my home. | 01:14:30 | |
And these are three bedroom places. | 01:14:37 | |
Where's where's the guy going to park? Where's the extra cars going to go? | 01:14:41 | |
So. | 01:14:45 | |
It would affect me economically. | 01:14:47 | |
It irritates me. | 01:14:51 | |
I don't see what the problem is that needs to be solved here. I walk in the neighbor. I've been retired for eight years. I walk | 01:14:53 | |
the neighborhood all the time. | 01:14:57 | |
It's stable. I don't see any major problems. If there's a major problem in the neighborhood, it's people running stop signs all | 01:15:01 | |
the time at 20 mph That's it. | 01:15:06 | |
I don't see big arterial problems. Wonder Lane has more traffic. | 01:15:11 | |
During the day, it's mostly workmen. | 01:15:16 | |
But I don't see what the issue is. The population is stable. | 01:15:20 | |
These roots seem stable. | 01:15:25 | |
Let's address other issues. Thank you. | 01:15:27 | |
Thank you very much. | 01:15:30 | |
Do we have anyone else who would like to speak, please? | 01:15:33 | |
My name is Brian Jack and I live on 4644 S Chapel, about 2 1/2 blocks from where this is going on. | 01:15:41 | |
Been here for 34 years so I have seen some traffic. | 01:15:52 | |
Increases most of my opinion. | 01:15:56 | |
And I got a question to ask, you know, too. But in my opinion is most of this traffic is residential traffic. That road goes all | 01:16:00 | |
the way up to Wallace. | 01:16:04 | |
Goes both ways. | 01:16:10 | |
But the petition this gentleman is talking about, and I've seen it. | 01:16:12 | |
How many people signed that and where do they live? Does anybody have those numbers? You don't have to where they live, but how | 01:16:17 | |
many people sign that? Where is this petition? Because he's talked to me and I've told him I wasn't interested, that I thought it | 01:16:22 | |
was. I'm like that gentleman. | 01:16:26 | |
Not thought out and really only benefits one person that I can see. | 01:16:31 | |
And we all know who that person is. | 01:16:37 | |
Does anybody have the answer of how many people sign this petition for me? | 01:16:40 | |
They're on John. We got 8. | 01:16:46 | |
It I I'm I'm I'm not sure that that. | 01:16:51 | |
We can have questions from the person presenting to the audience council. Do you have any recommendations? Oh, oh, I, I appreciate | 01:16:55 | |
that. And I'm interested in getting you the answer. I just wanna make sure we run the meeting appropriately that that's a, that's | 01:17:02 | |
a fair question and you're asking a fair question. So I think the right way, the right procedure here is. | 01:17:08 | |
The petition was not put together by the city, it was put together by the applicant. So state your question as part of your | 01:17:15 | |
comment and then the city has an obligation to allow the applicant to come and respond to what you've said so he can then answer | 01:17:22 | |
that and indicate who signed it and how many. | 01:17:28 | |
And that, but the point you're trying to make, I think is understood. | 01:17:36 | |
And thanks for that. But what I'm asking and I'm not asking for names, I'm just because I'm just asking how many people because I | 01:17:41 | |
have talked to people. | 01:17:45 | |
And my consensus is nothing like what he's trying to say about everybody's on board with this. He's gone up and down the road with | 01:17:49 | |
his little measuring will and his survey. | 01:17:54 | |
Flags trying to tell people the city is going to come and put a sidewalk in here. Understood. And I would encourage you make that | 01:18:00 | |
comment and then when Mr. Hilton comes back to. | 01:18:05 | |
Readdress the Planning Commission. He can answer your question as to how many people signed the petition and where the signers of | 01:18:12 | |
the petition reside. | 01:18:17 | |
Great. Thank you. | 01:18:22 | |
Talking about how to slow people down. | 01:18:25 | |
To me. | 01:18:29 | |
And I live in this neighborhood. | 01:18:31 | |
A stop sign? How expensive is it? Would it be put a stop sign either Chapel. | 01:18:33 | |
Or Clearview. Or Russell. | 01:18:38 | |
They do it on Clearview. There's, I don't know where everybody lives, but Clearview isn't a very long street. And they have two of | 01:18:41 | |
them on Clearview. And like this previous gentleman, I see people go through them. They don't even slow down. So enforcement. | 01:18:48 | |
And a stop sign a lot cheaper than all these other things we're talking about. | 01:18:55 | |
You know I walk. | 01:19:05 | |
Daily. On these roads daily. | 01:19:07 | |
And I love an area where there's a sidewalk. | 01:19:10 | |
They're all talking about safety, the safety. | 01:19:16 | |
Of the person that's walking. | 01:19:20 | |
It's not to walk in the road, it's to remove them from the road. Well, we're going to tighten this road up. They think people are | 01:19:22 | |
going to slow down. | 01:19:26 | |
I don't know how many people drive on Wander. They don't slow down. They're not supposed to park, though they do. | 01:19:30 | |
I avoid that road because, quite frankly, I'm afraid. | 01:19:37 | |
The crosswalks. | 01:19:43 | |
They're a nice idea. | 01:19:45 | |
I would say if I'm standing there getting ready to cross, maybe. Depends on which crosswalk and what time of day is maybe 50% of | 01:19:47 | |
the people might stop. | 01:19:50 | |
Even the flashing crosswalk down at the bottom of Kentucky, they don't stop. | 01:19:56 | |
So maybe have somebody enforce it and then the work gets out. Hey, these people don't want to speeding in their neighborhood. | 01:20:02 | |
The speed limit is already supposed to be 25 S, dropping at 2 miles an hour or whatever this other gentleman said. I don't know. | 01:20:10 | |
But I live in the neighborhood. I don't live in Salt Lake City. | 01:20:18 | |
And I've seen what's happened. | 01:20:22 | |
And I've seen the development going in, you know. | 01:20:24 | |
Umm, the sidewalk as far as right now, it's just going to go in front of his property. Is that correct? Can anybody answer that or | 01:20:30 | |
is that not a fair question again? | 01:20:34 | |
You ask it and the applicant has the will have the opportunity to address it after after your comments are wrapped up. OK. | 01:20:43 | |
Bikes. | 01:20:55 | |
You can't tell now, but I rode a bike for 20 years so I know what it's like to ride a bike, not an E bike. | 01:20:58 | |
When you get a bike trying to go east on that. | 01:21:04 | |
You've done this to the road and he has nowhere to ride and he's going about 5 or 8 miles an hour. | 01:21:06 | |
You want to know frustration Flynn drivers? | 01:21:12 | |
Umm, and from this I really can't figure this out, but maybe again, this is something he's going to have to explain. So phase | 01:21:16 | |
three and Phase 2, are we making this arcing on both sides of the road? | 01:21:22 | |
I appreciate your comments. I'm going to invite you to just wrap them up here. We've we've exceeded your 3 minute comment time, | 01:21:29 | |
but we appreciate. I'm, I'm sorry, I had some, some some of my comments I can't get to because I was asking questions that anyway, | 01:21:34 | |
I think it's going to make it less safe. The school kids, they go that way to the junior high, they go that way to the grade | 01:21:40 | |
school. | 01:21:45 | |
I see him try to cross the sidewalk. Cars don't stop. Thank you Sir, we appreciate your comments. | 01:21:51 | |
Do we have another person that would like to comment? | 01:21:58 | |
Please. | 01:22:02 | |
Hank, I live at 2500 Murray Holiday Rd. I've lived there for 15 years. | 01:22:08 | |
I don't see a problem with the way everything is right now. Some of these things, these changes, I don't know why we need them. | 01:22:17 | |
And I'm going to what Brian was saying about a sidewalk on the South side. You look at all those power poles. Those power poles | 01:22:24 | |
are going to have to be moved and everybody's mailboxes are going to have to be removed. | 01:22:31 | |
I mean, it's going to widen everything and then nobody's going to be able to park on that side of the street because everything's | 01:22:40 | |
going to be narrowed down. So the people that actually live on Murray Holiday Rd. they wouldn't be able to park in front of their | 01:22:45 | |
homes like they do now on the street, like when they have company come over and guess. | 01:22:51 | |
And there's really I see the kids all the damn outside my yard all the time. | 01:22:57 | |
The kids always use the sidewalk on the other side of the street and I never seen any problem. I mean there's the only time you | 01:23:04 | |
see them crossing the street is where the cross walk is up by the LDS church there on Chapel. | 01:23:11 | |
And there's a striped crosswalk there. | 01:23:19 | |
As far as the speeding. | 01:23:23 | |
Last maybe 18 months ago, talk to the police a little bit and they put up one of those blinking 25 mile an hour speed limits signs | 01:23:27 | |
and that's actually right Russell Street, that's right in front of my house, which is about midpoint between Water Lane and | 01:23:34 | |
Holiday Blvd. And. | 01:23:41 | |
I've noticed quite a difference. You still get speeders you do but but it's reduced it a lot having that blinking sign. But as far | 01:23:48 | |
as. | 01:23:53 | |
Crosswalks. I mean, there's one on Clearview. | 01:24:00 | |
Going cross Murray Holiday and there's one. | 01:24:03 | |
Up on Chapel going also to the Northside so and they work and I don't see kids crossing the street. | 01:24:08 | |
Just the crossworks. Most of them are just going down the north side of the street. And the cyclists, yeah, they're cyclists. I | 01:24:17 | |
see them going both ways, but there's not a ton of cyclists. | 01:24:23 | |
And most people around here, they're just walking down to harmless or something. They're going down the north side of the street. | 01:24:30 | |
So I personally I don't see why there's a problem anyway. | 01:24:37 | |
If it's not broke, why fix it? | 01:24:42 | |
It's working for all these years and it's never been a problem and. | 01:24:46 | |
The traffic is most people go the speed limit now. | 01:24:51 | |
You do get some speeders, actually, the high school kids. | 01:24:57 | |
Anyway, that's my opinion. Thank you. We appreciate your comments this evening. Talking to neighbors today. This mostly effects | 01:25:01 | |
the people on Murray Holiday Rd. | 01:25:05 | |
They're the ones that really see it, you know, And everybody's opinion matters. The people I can't remember. | 01:25:10 | |
Spoke, you know, he, he sees the way it is too. We live right there we're seeing it right out our kitchen window and everything | 01:25:19 | |
we, we see what's going on and. | 01:25:24 | |
It seems like everything's fine. What's the problem? | 01:25:30 | |
Thank you for coming this evening. | 01:25:34 | |
I've been looking at the petitions and Mr. Volcker, did you sign this petition? | 01:25:38 | |
Yes. | 01:25:44 | |
So you did sign this petition? I'm looking at the. | 01:25:46 | |
18 months ago. OK, so not a current petition. | 01:25:52 | |
Well, I signed the one out front today. | 01:25:57 | |
Go out on desk out there. That's just to speak at the meeting. That's not a petition. I'm just I'm looking at the three petitions | 01:25:59 | |
in the packet and your name appears here with your address at 2500 Murray Rd. as a signature or in favor of the changes. And now | 01:26:05 | |
you're speaking in opposition to the changes. | 01:26:12 | |
Down below in Clearview, I know that some of that has to that has to be fixed from for Holiday Blvd. up to Clearview. | 01:26:20 | |
Umm. | 01:26:30 | |
Because they already have a sidewalk below the power pole, which I was talking about and. | 01:26:32 | |
It'll ask me. They were talking about what they call a pop out or the sidewalk just goes around the the telephone pole and the | 01:26:38 | |
sidewalk goes on up to Clearview. | 01:26:43 | |
OK. I was just curious. Thank you. Thank you very much. | 01:26:49 | |
Others for public comment. | 01:26:54 | |
Melissa Hilton, 2394 E Murray Holiday Rd. So I see the traffic issues and all of that, but I don't really want to address that. | 01:27:09 | |
What I want to address is the idea of park strips. We live in a drought problem, we have water issues, trees are important, grass | 01:27:19 | |
is important, flowers, plants. But in that park strip, most of the recommendations are. | 01:27:29 | |
Go away from a park strip and to boot for the sidewalk on the street, which is what we have on the Northside of Murray Holiday Rd. | 01:27:39 | |
Is that sidewalk right on the street? | 01:27:44 | |
And that's what I would see is a more beneficial type of sidewalk. So when I heard let's put trees in that park strip, I'd rather | 01:27:51 | |
see the trees behind the sidewalk so that we can shade but get more moisture than you would have in a park strip. And you don't | 01:27:58 | |
have the lifting of the sidewalks like you would if you're doing the park strip. And I've seen that because I've had houses with | 01:28:05 | |
park strips in the past. | 01:28:13 | |
And have had to take out trees because of the lifting of the part of the sidewalk. So that's where I see an issue part. I think | 01:28:21 | |
part of the reason you're getting this from the neighbors is we were told that the sidewalk would eventually go all the way up | 01:28:27 | |
Murray Holiday Road. And that's why many of the people on Murray Holiday Rd. | 01:28:34 | |
Were against. | 01:28:41 | |
Having sidewalks, they want to be able to park. They don't want sidewalks and park strips and. | 01:28:43 | |
Down. | 01:28:51 | |
West of Clearfield Clearview, we don't have parking on the street. | 01:28:52 | |
Except for the house right on the corner. | 01:28:58 | |
That because they've put back their property a bit, so just address that with the moisture and the. | 01:29:02 | |
We still will plant trees. | 01:29:12 | |
Thank you. | 01:29:14 | |
Other people for public comment. | 01:29:16 | |
All right. At this point we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and have a discussion with the commissioners. We reserve the | 01:29:23 | |
opportunity to ask questions of of the applicant as as necessary. Council, do you have any guidelines for us at this point? We | 01:29:30 | |
should be aware you should before you have your discussion, you will want to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to | 01:29:37 | |
what's been stated and This is why we have council and we're glad for that. | 01:29:45 | |
Reminder to invite our applicant back up to address any points that he would like to from the public comment. | 01:29:52 | |
So I. | 01:30:06 | |
I'm kind of wearing 2 hats here. | 01:30:09 | |
I'm a the developer that's developing Holton Park. | 01:30:11 | |
But I also live at Holton Park and I will continue to live there. So I'm also a resident. So I kind of, you know, have two | 01:30:15 | |
perspectives here, but. | 01:30:21 | |
Yeah, So Mr. Volcker, Hank, who just spoke, I, I. | 01:30:29 | |
You refer to the same occurrence that I did when I was going up the street measuring power poles. And he said what are you doing? | 01:30:37 | |
And so that was actually the genesis of the. | 01:30:42 | |
Petition. | 01:30:49 | |
And the main thrust of the petition was um. | 01:30:51 | |
If you look at the original plan, you see that that sidewalk would. | 01:30:57 | |
Would continue straight with the park strip. I have. I have a question, whose original plan if you could. So this is the plan that | 01:31:01 | |
the city staff told me was this was the plan for the future of Murray Holiday Road and that was reconfirmed on the record at the | 01:31:08 | |
appeal hearing as well. That was the original plan. | 01:31:15 | |
And so it would require the power poles to be moved. It would require. | 01:31:24 | |
You know. | 01:31:31 | |
Private property to be either through eminent domain, which I believe is how the sidewalk was done on the other side of the road, | 01:31:32 | |
eminent domain or what's called exaction. When you do a development like I'm doing, then they can require things I. | 01:31:40 | |
And so that was the concern, you know, of the property owners they didn't want, you know, like Hank didn't want their property | 01:31:49 | |
taken and, you know, where they parked their cars and have a sidewalk put there that. | 01:31:56 | |
To them seem to serve no purpose. So that's that petition that was based on that. | 01:32:03 | |
After the petition, there was some. | 01:32:09 | |
Further feedback, for example, Brian Jackman who spoke. | 01:32:12 | |
And others, not just him, I would say. | 01:32:18 | |
Probably a minority, but still a significant minority of neighbors. Felt like no, actually it would be good to have a sidewalk | 01:32:23 | |
there. We just don't want to. | 01:32:27 | |
To take away from our yards, right and and. | 01:32:32 | |
And you know, if it's done only when development happens, then you only you get pieces of sidewalk, you don't get the whole thing | 01:32:37 | |
all at once, right? | 01:32:41 | |
I had an experience where when we lived in California, we put in a sidewalk and it was just a piece, you know, because it was just | 01:32:47 | |
our property and one of our neighbors tripped on it and broke their jaw, you know, So it's a little bit of a, it is better to | 01:32:53 | |
just, if you're going to have a sidewalk to do it. So that's. | 01:32:59 | |
Where this proposal came is. | 01:33:06 | |
To address the safety issue with speeding by narrowing the travel lanes. | 01:33:10 | |
But then use that extra asphalt now. | 01:33:15 | |
That would be freed up by narrowing the travel lanes and put the sidewalk there. So you could put the entire sidewalk in it | 01:33:19 | |
wouldn't, you know, affect power poles. It wouldn't affect people's yards. They can still park on their own property, you know, so | 01:33:25 | |
it doesn't take away that. So that's how this evolved. | 01:33:31 | |
Do you have any other things you'd like to address or does that do you feel like you've been able to say what you needed to say? | 01:33:42 | |
Well, Brian? | 01:33:48 | |
This Brian. | 01:33:51 | |
I'll let him make. | 01:33:55 | |
Comments. | 01:33:57 | |
Now I. | 01:34:01 | |
This might be a question to relate to city staff, but Commissioner Cunningham. | 01:34:04 | |
As I was reviewing the proposal, it feels like and maybe the city can confirm the. | 01:34:10 | |
Current proposal I. | 01:34:17 | |
Maybe less expensive to the city because it requires less pulls that the city would have to move it. | 01:34:20 | |
So you may want to ask that question because I was reviewing this. This modification seems like it would be less cost to the city. | 01:34:28 | |
Tend to go out there all right. | 01:34:38 | |
What the plan is for? | 01:34:40 | |
Thank you. | 01:34:42 | |
Council, are we good to OK, We'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Again, we appreciate all of you that have come to | 01:34:45 | |
participate in the public process and to be involved and to offer your thoughts on the community in which you live in. And we're | 01:34:51 | |
we're happy to have you here and, and always welcome you to attend any and all of our meetings. We'll go ahead now and have a | 01:34:57 | |
discussion with the commissioners. | 01:35:04 | |
Just Chair, if I could. I just have a quick question I'd like to clarify with city staff if it'd be OK. | 01:35:11 | |
Poles and sidewalk relocation came up multiple times in the public comment and I just want to clarify and make sure I understand | 01:35:18 | |
the requirements correctly. Things that are as they are today continue to remain in that state until there is a permit for | 01:35:26 | |
development and changes to the site, then it's brought into the new plan conformance. Is that right? | 01:35:34 | |
Correct. You have a section of off site improvements within your code. They're enacted when new development occurs on on the | 01:35:44 | |
property. | 01:35:48 | |
So if a neighbor up the street with a telephone pole and no sidewalk does nothing, there's no requirement for them to add | 01:35:52 | |
sidewalks or remove telephone poles. Is that a fair statement? OK, I just wanted to clarify that there's a very rare situation | 01:35:58 | |
where the city will actually go out and get a grant. | 01:36:03 | |
For example, like right now you're seeing sidewalks installed on 27th and 27th on the east side. That's. | 01:36:10 | |
That's a city project. | 01:36:17 | |
That would be the outside of that scenario. Perfect. I appreciate that clarification. I just wanted to make sure I understood that | 01:36:19 | |
right. So I appreciate it. Thank you. | 01:36:23 | |
Thank you, Commissioner Roach. Let's just look to this end of the. | 01:36:28 | |
Dyess Commissioner Barring or Commissioner Gong, have you got any comments that you'd like to share at this point? So this this | 01:36:33 | |
affects all secondary residential roads, is that correct? | 01:36:38 | |
Ah. | 01:36:44 | |
It's not just this little section. It affects all of the secondary residential. | 01:36:46 | |
I'm surmising, yeah, the staff report said that it does have a greater impact than just this little section that would have been | 01:36:55 | |
the second-half of the applicants addendum request. It could be a question posed to the applicant, but it yeah, it would be | 01:37:02 | |
extended to second issues. But Commissioner Barrett, I read it the same way you do that it would have broad. | 01:37:09 | |
Applicability, the way it's written and proposed and I don't know how we measure that impact or. | 01:37:17 | |
The mitigation of some of that I get worried and I think what other the other commissioners were saying is kind of leading up to | 01:37:23 | |
some of these things that are not specific to this little section, but to the city overall. | 01:37:29 | |
So I think that's a big concern for me. Thank you. I had a similar thought, which is I, I, I appreciate the. | 01:37:36 | |
The research on on traffic calming and I've seen, you know, corroborating research and other things that I've read it, it does | 01:37:45 | |
seem like residents along the road may not be seen as as strong. You know, there's, there are mixed opinions, but for right here, | 01:37:53 | |
are there other places that that need the, the funding and is, is that a prioritization question? And then also, I don't, I also | 01:38:00 | |
don't understand the broader implications of if this lies to all secondary roads, what it, what does that mean? I I. | 01:38:07 | |
Don't feel like I have a clear understanding of that at all. | 01:38:15 | |
Thank you. | 01:38:19 | |
Oh, you know, I have thoughts and opinions, that's why we that's why we looked at you. But I'll keep them as as brief and concise | 01:38:21 | |
as I can. | 01:38:25 | |
I think for me, there's a couple high concerns that I have. And one is, I mean, when we look at just this specific area, I mean | 01:38:32 | |
the village is a high traffic zone and the development around the that zone is pretty intense. And as a resident and consumer | 01:38:39 | |
who's shop there, I know that I'm travelling on that road and going where the crap I missed the turn off and now I'm on Clearview | 01:38:46 | |
and now I'm going back down to try and get into a grocery store that has not enough parking as it is. | 01:38:54 | |
So I think if we just say, oh, we're going to eliminate some of this, we are, to someone else's point, playing the whack a mole | 01:39:02 | |
and just pushing it somewhere else and creating more congestion and problems and, you know, adding to traffic. And I wouldn't call | 01:39:08 | |
it calming as much as I would congestion. So that's just my perspective on that, but I'm no traffic engineer. | 01:39:15 | |
Then when we talked about the impact throughout the city on secondary streets where it sounds like it would be applicable to all, | 01:39:23 | |
I go back to my earlier question to city staff on that is OK, well if we have to. | 01:39:29 | |
That might be coming in the future. So for those reasons, I don't feel like this is a situation where the text amendment makes a | 01:40:06 | |
lot of sense for me. | 01:40:11 | |
Thank you. | 01:40:16 | |
Commissioner Cunningham, Yeah. Could you throw up the proposed text language section, A&B that appears above the diagram that | 01:40:18 | |
we've been looking at? | 01:40:25 | |
OK, that's the language that we're being asked to look at. | 01:40:57 | |
OK. And I've just been comparing that to the. | 01:41:01 | |
Surveys that I think there were 27 people that responded on three different sheets, including the gentleman that appeared here and | 01:41:06 | |
then spoke against what he signed in favour of these. These two don't even look alike. OK, the petitions. | 01:41:14 | |
Were very specific about a sign here, you know. | 01:41:23 | |
Speed limit, Rd. narrows, you know, electronic signs and stuff like that, and that's morphed into a text amendment. | 01:41:29 | |
With a deadline date for the city in April 11, 2025 to do Phase 1 and 2. So that's a budget issue in a current year that's already | 01:41:37 | |
been established in that. And then it specifies the the phase one with the center striping and the phase two continuation, none of | 01:41:47 | |
which appear in the original petitions. And then of course Phase 3 is. | 01:41:56 | |
Problematic is because it. | 01:42:08 | |
Doesn't really if I think it purports to bind the council to prioritize this project, I think that's what it does and that so I | 01:42:09 | |
have problems with this because one I think this is the whole wrong mechanism to fix those kinds of problems. I think you talked | 01:42:16 | |
to the professional staff about trafficking problems and see what the city is willing to do and then you take it political with | 01:42:23 | |
your City Council member and. | 01:42:30 | |
Fight the budget battle. | 01:42:37 | |
Get support from other council members, get it weighed in the competition for budget and that and get it evaluated and that | 01:42:39 | |
somehow we're going to bypass all that by using a text amendment. I think probably you can legally force us to put it on an agenda | 01:42:46 | |
by doing this. I think it's a terrible idea. I don't think it accomplished what the petitions were designed to do. Not sure. I | 01:42:53 | |
heard a lot of support for it. | 01:43:00 | |
And that I think there's lots of other problems with doing it by text amendment, this kind of process. | 01:43:08 | |
So yeah, I'm not going to be voting for it for that reason. | 01:43:15 | |
Thank you, Commissioner Cunningham. Commissioner Wilcinski. | 01:43:19 | |
I agree with everything that the commissioners have all previous said. I think my perspective from a former business owner that | 01:43:23 | |
owned a business on Murray Holiday Rd. a little further West. | 01:43:30 | |
Than this property, it is a feeder Rd. I drove that street coming to and from work all the time. It is important that people have | 01:43:39 | |
the ability to access their neighborhoods and communities. | 01:43:46 | |
And if it's not on this street that's already been used, it's going to be on another St. There has to be a way for people to get | 01:43:55 | |
to and from the village center and to and from schools. | 01:44:00 | |
And are we just going to be creating other traffic problems, other areas? | 01:44:07 | |
Like we've heard so many times, whack a mole. Are we saving or solving one problem by creating another one and just pushing it to | 01:44:15 | |
another St. to another neighborhood? And we have the general plan. | 01:44:21 | |
Being revised right now, they're welcoming lots of input from the community. They want to hear what people want, what people are | 01:44:30 | |
looking for. I would really encourage the citizens that are here that have a strong opinion on that. | 01:44:37 | |
To be involved in that process, let's look at it as we look at the general plan. | 01:44:45 | |
Instead of reviving what we have right now and making changes for this one street and potentially causing problems elsewhere. | 01:44:51 | |
Thank you, Commissioner Font. | 01:45:00 | |
So I really feel a bit. | 01:45:03 | |
Burden of responsibility in serving on this Commission and when we receive an agenda and there's an agenda item that states | 01:45:06 | |
there's a a legislative change proposed. | 01:45:13 | |
Red lights flash for me and I feel a greater burden of responsibility so. | 01:45:22 | |
With that said, I. | 01:45:28 | |
I take it very seriously, and in this particular case, I. | 01:45:32 | |
I studied it very carefully. I went to that site. I listened carefully. Tonight, I will not be voting in favor of this change. | 01:45:40 | |
I think it it, it would be irresponsible of us to do so because I think just to look at this one little piece of of the city. | 01:45:52 | |
And and not to take it in context of the entire city. | 01:46:05 | |
I just don't think it makes sense if if the issue is safety. We haven't really seen any evidence that there's a safety issue on | 01:46:10 | |
that little piece of Rd. I believe that there probably are other opportunities to calm the traffic if if the traffic needs to be | 01:46:18 | |
calm there without narrowing the road or doing things that are that drastic. So. | 01:46:27 | |
That's that part of it. The other part of my thought is just to dovetail with what Commissioner Vilchinsky said. We are working on | 01:46:36 | |
a a new general plan and I spent 45 minutes or an hour yesterday on the phone just. | 01:46:46 | |
Sharing some thoughts about things that I really like about this city. And I think that we now we as a Planning Commission need to | 01:46:56 | |
be considering our decisions in context of of the new general plan that the city is working on and and that includes all of our | 01:47:03 | |
decisions. | 01:47:09 | |
I. | 01:47:18 | |
I think that. | 01:47:20 | |
You know, everything has to be considered in context in terms of what we want to see moving forward. And that includes our tree | 01:47:23 | |
canopy as an example. And I don't think we can, we can look at, well, let's, let's just narrow the street and put in a sidewalk | 01:47:29 | |
and, and without considering, well, are there going to be trees along that street? I, I think everything has to be considered in | 01:47:36 | |
terms of what we want to see. | 01:47:43 | |
5 and 10 years down the road. | 01:47:50 | |
So this just feels to me like it's a very specific little tiny piece of. | 01:47:52 | |
Of a change that could have broad reaching implications, I would not recommend that we forward this to City Council. | 01:48:02 | |
Thank you. | 01:48:12 | |
I I appreciate the comments that have been shared by the other commissioners and I think we're ready at this point to see if | 01:48:14 | |
anyone is ready to make a motion this evening. | 01:48:19 | |
Do we have? | 01:48:26 | |
Brave, hearty soul. | 01:48:28 | |
This is Commissioner Roach. I'll go ahead and make a motion to forward a recommendation to the City Council to deny an application | 01:48:32 | |
by Ron Hilton to amend the Land Use Ordinance 1302030 and map 3.1 of Chapter 3 of the General Plan based upon the findings of how | 01:48:40 | |
can I legally say, copy and paste everything the commissioners just said in the last five or six minutes here? | 01:48:49 | |
But I'll, I'll, I'll make an attempt to summarize that. | 01:48:59 | |
It doesn't seem to fit with the intent to which the applications or applicants submitted it and. | 01:49:02 | |
And in light of the upcoming general plan, it feels like it would be better vetted and worked through in that process rather than | 01:49:11 | |
trying to amend it at this time. | 01:49:17 | |
Do we have a second? | 01:49:24 | |
We've got Commissioner Font and Commissioner Barrett both willing to make a second. We'll call for a vote. Commissioner Barrett? | 01:49:28 | |
Aye. | 01:49:31 | |
Commissioner Gong, Commissioner Roach Aye, Commissioner Font Aye, Commissioner Vilcinski, Commissioner Cunningham Aye and Vice | 01:49:35 | |
Chair also votes aye. We will forward a negative recommendation towards the City Council on item number 3. | 01:49:42 | |
We'll go ahead and move now to our 4th item, which is an action item review of minutes for. | 01:49:51 | |
October 29th. October 29th. Commissioners. Did anyone see anything that needed to be changed in the minutes? | 01:49:59 | |
I was not at that meeting so I won't vote. Thank you. | 01:50:07 | |
Anyone who was at the meeting see any changes that need to be made? | 01:50:11 | |
All right, then we'll just go ahead and vote on accepting the minutes by voice. All in favor. We need to do motion second, | 01:50:15 | |
otherwise we'll have to redo it at the end of the year. Well, all right, I was just going to, we learned a lesson last year. I was | 01:50:23 | |
going to shortcut us, but that is just not going to float. Do we have a motion to accept the motion that we approve the minutes of | 01:50:30 | |
October 29th, Chair Roach seconds, Thank you. And voice vote all in favor, Aye. | 01:50:37 | |
Any against? OK, All right, City staff, I think we're finished. Is this correct or were we supposed to review that calendar that | 01:50:45 | |
you sent us? | 01:50:49 | |
That's just for our personal enjoyment. | 01:50:55 | |
OK. All right. | 01:51:00 | |
Are you interested in an? | 01:51:03 | |
Outlook calendar invite that you can add into your calendars for these meetings. Oh, yes, please. That would be great. OK, OK. | 01:51:05 | |
Thank you. All right. Well, then we'll consider our meeting adjourned. Thank you. And we appreciate having all of you come and | 01:51:11 | |
participate in our process. | 01:51:17 |
* you need to log in to manage your favorites
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
Right of way for this section of Murray Holiday Rd. | 00:00:00 | |
Umm, so primarily the general plan needs to be amended for that part, that portion, and then also. | 00:00:04 | |
There's some there's some standards in 13 that he'd like to codify. | 00:00:10 | |
And that's the proposal that we're considering tonight, right? You're making a recommendation on? | 00:00:15 | |
Is it the appropriateness of having an amendment to Title 13 for standardizing widths for this section of Murray Holiday Rd. | 00:00:22 | |
And a general plan amendment on. | 00:00:29 | |
For seeing the width and perpetuity of this section of Murray Holiday Rd. | 00:00:32 | |
And just to be clear, this Murray Holiday Rd. As it passes where this particular utility pole is, does it not widen back up again? | 00:00:37 | |
From where it's narrowed out or does it get narrow and stay at that time you get the general plan says by the time you get past | 00:00:46 | |
Clearview or one of those streets, it goes down to a 50 foot wide. | 00:00:51 | |
Right away, that's just bringing that 50 foot wideway closer to the village. | 00:00:56 | |
I think we mentioned in the staff report that when we look at specific cross sections of roads, usually that's in a situation of a | 00:01:02 | |
small area master plan scenario. | 00:01:07 | |
So that's why we have those different cross sections for. | 00:01:13 | |
Holiday Village for in particular. | 00:01:17 | |
We use those to determine the widths of the standard dimensions of what the sidewalk and the gutter and those type of things | 00:01:20 | |
should be. | 00:01:23 | |
And the. | 00:01:28 | |
Village extends up to or. How far short of this does the village master plan so it stops just a lot 1 lot away? OK. | 00:01:30 | |
Is it appropriate? | 00:01:45 | |
In light of the fact that we're just embarking on. | 00:01:51 | |
That's a good point to bring up. Maybe request the applicant the timeliness of the request? | 00:01:56 | |
Good Commission. Can I ask a question? I just curious east of Holiday Blvd. does Murray holiday change to a collector or? | 00:02:05 | |
It maintains a collector status up until about this location, about Clearview, the next intersection east. OK, yeah, so all right, | 00:02:17 | |
I was trying to find out where that was, but interesting. Yeah, the roadway map that's in the general plan isn't the greatest. | 00:02:24 | |
Okay. Hopefully that's the type of thing we will be changing in our general plan update. | 00:02:31 | |
Thank you. | 00:02:38 | |
Paul, is there any other area? Umm. | 00:02:40 | |
Where the change the proposed change in the general plan? | 00:02:45 | |
Would create similar situations. | 00:02:50 | |
Because it's so focused on this section, no, but that would be the idea of a general plan to have it applied. | 00:02:54 | |
In various locations so that the staff could use it or the City Council could use that standard. | 00:03:00 | |
To address similar issues citywide. But because it's written in such a specific location, So what would what's the argument for | 00:03:07 | |
amending the general plan? If this is really to just deal with one location, that would be a good question to ask the applicant. | 00:03:15 | |
Can the city engineer just designate this right of way, this width? Because the general plan is basically looking at volumes and | 00:03:25 | |
impacts to residential areas, isn't it? | 00:03:30 | |
Yeah, it addresses the characteristic of the road and what it actually carries for the community. Because I appreciate your | 00:03:36 | |
question that I hate to start taking pieces that are fairly minor or small, not minor to people who live around there, but and | 00:03:43 | |
start to mess around with that. You change the dynamic of the surrounding area and then all of a sudden you've got a lot of | 00:03:49 | |
unintended consequences that. | 00:03:56 | |
Then you start to have to make changes that you didn't expect to. I think those are the conversations that will come about in this | 00:04:03 | |
meeting. Yeah. Thank you. | 00:04:07 | |
Any other questions on item 3? | 00:04:13 | |
All right, then we will have a brief pause and be back in 5 minutes for our meeting to start. | 00:04:17 | |
Carrie and I do have the list plan to pardon me. I have the landscape plan. Oh, OK, You do have the landscape plan. Dennis, do you | 00:04:28 | |
want to see the landscape plan? | 00:04:33 | |
Before sorry pauses paused, we're going to pause the pause to see the landscape plan. | 00:04:38 | |
OK, so they do have trees going in. | 00:04:46 | |
Or are those? | 00:04:49 | |
I I don't know if they designate on here what is existing. Yeah. So they have. | 00:04:53 | |
Columnar St. Spire Oaks. | 00:05:00 | |
It looks like, OK. I just wanted to see if they were actually going to be putting trees up against these units or again, if it was | 00:05:03 | |
like you like trees go to the river, so. | 00:05:08 | |
We had the discussion at that meeting though that the width of those areas where those smaller trees are shown. | 00:05:15 | |
Won't support those kind of. There'll be bushes. | 00:05:23 | |
Rather than treason. | 00:05:26 | |
I think that was on the Holiday Hills project. Yeah, they were really tight. Yeah, I think they they, I'm pretty sure we had a | 00:05:28 | |
measurement. I just don't remember what it was. It was 3 feet or 4 feet or. | 00:05:34 | |
I can't remember, was this PUD? Yeah, we. | 00:05:43 | |
We went past that point. We weren't happy with it, but nothing we can do given this acreage. | 00:05:46 | |
Or the square footage in the floodplain counts on the size of the lot. | 00:05:53 | |
Right. It's yeah. | 00:05:59 | |
Yeah. I'm just curious all of that, is this a PUD on this project or is it not? OK, So then they have a little more carb launch on | 00:06:01 | |
where they can do their landscape. OK. All right, All right, Appreciate it. Pauses unpaused. | 00:06:07 | |
5 minutes. Thank you. | 00:06:13 | |
City Planning Commission meeting tonight is January Tuesday, January 7th. My name is Carrie Ann Prince. I'm the vice chair of the | 00:06:20 | |
Planning Commission and will be conducting this meeting this evening. We'll go ahead and begin with an opening statement read by | 00:06:26 | |
Commissioner Vilczynski. | 00:06:32 | |
The City of Holiday Planning Commission is a volunteer citizen board whose function is to review land use plans and other special | 00:06:43 | |
studies, make recommendations to the City Council on proposed zoning map and ordinance changes, and approve conditional use and | 00:06:51 | |
subdivisions. The Planning Commission does not initiate land use applications, rather acts on applications as they are submitted. | 00:06:59 | |
Commissioners do not meet with applicants except at publicly noticed. | 00:07:08 | |
Meetings Commissioners attempt to visit each property on the agenda. | 00:07:12 | |
Where the location? | 00:07:18 | |
The nature of the neighborhood, existing structures, and use related to the proposed changes are noted. | 00:07:20 | |
Decisions are based on observations, recommendations from the professional planning staff, the City's general plan, zoning | 00:07:27 | |
ordinances and other reports, by all verbal and written comments, and by evidence submitted, all of which are a part of public | 00:07:33 | |
record. | 00:07:39 | |
Meeting procedures can be found on the back of the agenda. Thank you Commissioner Birchinsky, we are glad to have so many members | 00:07:45 | |
of the public here. We're welcoming you this evening and as always, our meetings are always open to the public. But we're we're | 00:07:52 | |
glad to have so many of you here. Tonight. We will begin. We have 3 items for a public hearing and then one action item. We will | 00:07:58 | |
start out with our first item. | 00:08:05 | |
Highwood subdivision preliminary plat, I believe. | 00:08:12 | |
This is Carrie Marsh, City staff will do a presentation for us to begin. | 00:08:16 | |
I'm going to Scroll down to the image here so that that can be referenced while I am presenting this. Sorry. | 00:08:24 | |
OK. | 00:08:46 | |
So this is a proposal for a subdivision at 1919 E Baywood Dr. and 5428 S Highland Drive. The property was formerly 2 properties | 00:08:48 | |
owned by two separate owners. The owner of the Baywood Dr. property with that access from Baywood Dr. | 00:09:00 | |
Purchase the Highland Dr. property years ago and then combined those I believe in 2013. | 00:09:13 | |
So the existing property owner now wants to uncombine those. | 00:09:20 | |
To create the two separate parcels that were there originally. | 00:09:25 | |
To facilitate that separation into two separate parcels, putting things back how they were, they've gone through a rezone process | 00:09:30 | |
so that the Baywood Dr. property maintains the R121 zoning with a half acre minimum lot size, and then the front portion of the | 00:09:38 | |
property on Highland Dr. was rezoned to R210. That was in line with the Highland Dr. master plan. | 00:09:47 | |
And there's not any proposals to redevelop either property. The Baywood Dr. property would be sold, so it would have a separate | 00:09:57 | |
owner. The access for that would only be on Baywood Dr. The access for the front property would only be on Highland Drive. So just | 00:10:06 | |
kind of cleaning up what was previously combined. So their subdivision plot is detailed on there. The zone follows the. | 00:10:15 | |
Parse the line between the two properties and they've got all of their. | 00:10:26 | |
Requirements there to legally record as two separate properties. I'll have the applicant come up and they can. | 00:10:31 | |
Bring up anything else that I may have missed and you can ask them any questions. | 00:10:41 | |
Can we have an applicant come up and? | 00:10:52 | |
If they are here. | 00:10:55 | |
And maybe she is not here. | 00:10:58 | |
OK. | 00:11:00 | |
All right. Well, seeing as how the applicant is not here, we will open this up for any comment by the public. Just as a reminder, | 00:11:01 | |
people who would like to comment may approach the podium. You need to give your name and address and please limit your comments to | 00:11:08 | |
less than 3 minutes. | 00:11:15 | |
And if someone before you has made a comment, please don't make that comment again, but please try and and keep your comments. | 00:11:24 | |
Pertinent to the project and and original. | 00:11:34 | |
Do we have anyone who would like to speak on this particular item? | 00:11:38 | |
We'll go ahead then and close the public hearing on this item and open the discussion for members of the Planning Commission. | 00:11:47 | |
Do we have anyone who would like to comment on this item to begin with? | 00:11:55 | |
Just for disclosure, this is I have a family connection, so I'll recuse myself from this item. OK. Thank you, Commissioner Gong. | 00:11:59 | |
Any comments from Commissioner Barrett or Commissioner Roach? | 00:12:06 | |
Commissioner Font. | 00:12:12 | |
Commissioner Vilczynski. | 00:12:14 | |
And Commissioner Cunningham. | 00:12:16 | |
All right. I will go ahead and comment that we have seen this, this makes sense and that at this point I don't see there being any | 00:12:19 | |
stumbling block or any problem as we go forward. Since there's no development proposed at this time, only entitlements for the | 00:12:27 | |
properties, only a preliminary plat approval is required by the Planning Commission. | 00:12:36 | |
Do we have anyone who's in a position that they would are willing to make a motion on this item? | 00:12:46 | |
This is Commissioner Roche. I'll be happy to make a motion. | 00:12:52 | |
To the preliminary application by Ashley Wooley for Highland Subdivision A2 Lot Subdivision. | 00:12:56 | |
Located at 1919 E Baywood Dr. and 5428 S Highland Drive in the R121 and R210 zones. Based upon the followings. | 00:13:03 | |
In the staff report to. | 00:13:16 | |
Approve or make a motion to approve. Excuse me, to City Council. OK. Do we have a second for that motion, this Commissioner | 00:13:20 | |
Barrett? I second that. Thank you. Commissioner Barrett. Let's go ahead and have a vote. Commissioner Cunningham. Aye. | 00:13:26 | |
Commissioner Volcanski. Aye. Commissioner Font aye. Commissioner Roche. Commissioner Gong. Oh, abstain. Thank you. And | 00:13:33 | |
Commissioner Barrett And chair boats. Aye. So unanimous with the one abstention. | 00:13:40 | |
All right. Thank you. Our second item is. | 00:13:47 | |
A preliminary plat review for holiday college cottages. | 00:13:52 | |
Miss Marsh, would you go ahead and. | 00:14:00 | |
Introduce this item to us. | 00:14:02 | |
Definitely, I will Scroll down to that one so that we've got that up on the screen. | 00:14:04 | |
All right. | 00:14:32 | |
This is an application for a subdivision. | 00:14:35 | |
In the room zone, the property is located at 4821 S, 1740 E. | 00:14:41 | |
This project has previously been had site plan approval for the addition of nine townhome units on the site. Access has all been | 00:14:49 | |
reviewed by the fire official and Public Works in engineering determining. | 00:14:59 | |
We've gone through a couple of iterations on how that access looks. So this is the final as was approved on their site plan | 00:15:09 | |
approval. The subdivision process takes each of those nine townhome units and creates a separate legal property for each unit. So | 00:15:16 | |
it's in line with the existing approval for the site plan review and is just creating a subdivision into legal property for each | 00:15:22 | |
of those units. | 00:15:29 | |
The property owner is here and can review. | 00:15:37 | |
Any additional items on that, but largely just a legal process to create those legal? | 00:15:41 | |
Parcels for the units. Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. | 00:15:49 | |
Good evening, 2500 E Haven Lane, Brad Reynolds. | 00:16:01 | |
We've since the last time we met, we've gone back and we've added four additional parking stalls. I know that was a concern. | 00:16:07 | |
And then we've gone through and we've obtained all the necessary permits or Salt Lake County flood control. | 00:16:17 | |
Army Corps of Engineers, State of Utah Engineering and. | 00:16:25 | |
We honestly feel, and that's why we're doing this as individual lots or townhomes, we just feel like there's a real need, | 00:16:33 | |
particularly in Holiday to try and have something that is sellable but perhaps a little more affordable. And we certainly feel | 00:16:42 | |
this will be a great product here in Holiday and we think we'll be highly sought after and in demand. | 00:16:51 | |
We are planning to finish them with granite or quartz countertops, 2 tone paint. We're trying to make them high quality but still | 00:17:02 | |
trying to maintain a little bit more of an affordable. | 00:17:07 | |
Element on them. | 00:17:13 | |
Any questions I could answer? | 00:17:15 | |
This is Commissioner Roach. I just curious, I know it's more towards the final, but in line with trying to make them more | 00:17:20 | |
affordable. If given thought to what the facade on the outside is going to look like as far as how that's going to be designed, | 00:17:27 | |
yeah, there's there's going to be a considerable amount of stone and there will be Hardy plank. There will be absolutely no stucco | 00:17:35 | |
and then we'll have an aluminum softened fascia. So we think with those elements there will be benefits for long. | 00:17:42 | |
Because you won't have. | 00:17:50 | |
Near the repairs and issues and they'll look nice 10-15 years down the road. | 00:17:53 | |
Thank you. | 00:17:58 | |
A question, you mentioned the additional parking. So it used to be that turn around was just straight and now it's sort of like AT | 00:18:00 | |
shape and that's where the additional four, that is where the additional parking is. There's four additional stalls, 2 on each | 00:18:04 | |
side of that little tee. | 00:18:09 | |
That's nice. | 00:18:15 | |
OK. | 00:18:17 | |
Mr. Reynolds, I'm just curious. This is for Commissioner Font. | 00:18:19 | |
When you say you have. | 00:18:23 | |
Done some things to make the units a little more affordable. Can you describe the kinds of things that you've done? Well, I we've | 00:18:26 | |
just tried to do value engineering where we go back through and on the trusses and different things like that. Try to make them. | 00:18:35 | |
A little more cost efficient, but yet still trying to maintain very high quality in the units. So not a whole lot, but they're a | 00:18:44 | |
little bit smaller, they have rooftop decks and. | 00:18:51 | |
We think they'll go very over very well. | 00:18:59 | |
Thank you. | 00:19:03 | |
So when I'm looking at this from the view we have right now, is the rooftop deck going to be on the front or the back of the unit? | 00:19:06 | |
It depends on the front units that are facing north. | 00:19:11 | |
It will be on the front of those and then those on the back will be facing the Creek. OK. | 00:19:17 | |
And then those on the side there should be facing a little bit towards the side so you have a little better view. | 00:19:24 | |
All right. What is the size of the units again? They're roughly on the three floors. You're about approximately in the area about | 00:19:33 | |
1600 square feet. | 00:19:37 | |
Thank you 16 to 17. | 00:19:42 | |
Any other questions for our applicant? | 00:19:46 | |
All right. Thank you. Thank you. | 00:19:49 | |
All right. We will go ahead and open the public hearing on this. Do we have any members of the public that would like to comment | 00:19:53 | |
on this item? | 00:19:58 | |
Well, with that resounding response, we will close the public hearing and continue the discussion for the commissioners. | 00:20:06 | |
Commissioner Prince, do you want to mention the comment that we received? Oh, yes. | 00:20:12 | |
We did have an e-mail comment that was that all of the commissioners have received. | 00:20:20 | |
Um, that. | 00:20:27 | |
There was comment about the roads and some stoplights but nothing that was. | 00:20:32 | |
Pertaining exactly to this item. | 00:20:41 | |
Is that? | 00:20:45 | |
Yeah, that works. Just let me know that we received the comment. But yes, we did receive, we did receive a comment and we're | 00:20:46 | |
always happy to have them. | 00:20:50 | |
And so so there's that. | 00:20:55 | |
Discussion from the Commissioners, anything from this end of the. | 00:20:58 | |
Just one question, yes, as far as staff parking in the floodway is that. | 00:21:03 | |
It seems unusual so. | 00:21:10 | |
Yeah. When you're looking at waterway protection, we do have specific standards and parking areas or roads are something that is | 00:21:13 | |
permitted with a permit, I believe. | 00:21:19 | |
And Jared can answer that question more directly. | 00:21:25 | |
So this is in a FEMA floodplain and I think that's what your your question is related to. Yeah. So I'm looking at the easement | 00:21:29 | |
line or the designation line and it looks like all four spaces. | 00:21:35 | |
Yes. So it would be allowed within the floodway and what we look at when issuing permits in the FEMA floodplain is the. | 00:21:43 | |
Habitable space. Floor elevation. | 00:21:54 | |
So we are concerned about life safety and not as much as like vehicle damage, OK. I would just like to caution staff to make sure | 00:21:58 | |
that we don't drain off the parking areas into the Creek, just we know what kind of mess that creates, so. | 00:22:07 | |
Anyway, thank you for that. | 00:22:16 | |
So no van life in the four spots then, is that what you're saying? | 00:22:19 | |
All right, any any other. | 00:22:25 | |
I like the balconies. I think that's great for a starter townhome. I think a rooftop deck sounds great so. | 00:22:30 | |
OK. All right. | 00:22:36 | |
Well, we've seen Mr. Reynolds before we've discussed this project and as we noted in the work meeting, there are some bushes and | 00:22:38 | |
and landscaping around the units and, and there will be those that are down towards the Creek. So I think there's a lot of | 00:22:44 | |
potential here and. | 00:22:51 | |
Do we have anyone that is willing to make motion on this item this evening? I'll give it a shot. OK. And that this is Commissioner | 00:22:59 | |
Cunningham and I would motion that we approve the preliminary plat application by Brad Reynolds for Holiday Cottages A9 unit | 00:23:08 | |
townhouse, townhouse subdivision located at 4821 S 1740 E in the room zone based on the following findings. | 00:23:18 | |
Development details required for preliminary plat have been submitted and reviewed by the TRC and found to be complete and | 00:23:28 | |
acceptable to the number of units. Is compliant with the RM Zone Regulations. 3 The subdivision is in line with the previously | 00:23:36 | |
approved site plan for the development. Complies with the General Plan. 5 Fire Access. | 00:23:44 | |
Is approved by UFA 6 On site stormwater retention is compliant with requirements 7. Vehicular access, emergency access and utility | 00:23:53 | |
easements are shown on the plat and subject to the following requirements that the CCN Rs for the maintenance of common areas. | 00:24:01 | |
Stormwater retention and access must be submitted prior to final approval. | 00:24:09 | |
And are to be recorded with the final plan. | 00:24:17 | |
And also within one year and in accordance with 13.10 A .070 E to complete administrative review and approval of the final plat by | 00:24:20 | |
the Community and Development Economic Development Director following a positive written recommendation from TRC. | 00:24:30 | |
Commissioner Roach, I'll second the motion. OK, It's a call for a vote, starting with Commissioner Barrett. | 00:24:41 | |
Aye, Commissioner Gong, Aye, Commissioner Roach, Aye, Commissioner Font, Aye Commissioner Lachenski, Aye, Commissioner Cunningham. | 00:24:48 | |
Aye. And Chair votes aye. So that motion will be forwarded to City Council. Thank you very much. | 00:24:55 | |
All right. We will move to the third item on our agenda this evening, which is an ordinance amendment for the General Plan Chapter | 00:25:03 | |
3, Transportation Map 3.1 and Title 13.02, Point 030 planning documents and invite. | 00:25:14 | |
Mr. Tierlink to come up and give us a presentation. | 00:25:25 | |
Thank you, Vice Chair Prince. Application brought for you this evening is a legislative request to amend. | 00:25:32 | |
Couple of sections of holiday ordinance and general the general plan. | 00:25:40 | |
The application is a required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to sending a request of recommendation to City | 00:25:45 | |
Council. | 00:25:49 | |
Who will have the final decision application included in your packet is presented by Ron Hilton. There's a staff report in there | 00:25:53 | |
from various members of the Technical Review Committee. | 00:26:00 | |
On the application itself. | 00:26:07 | |
So specifically, we have a section of Murray Holiday Rd. that has been requested to review some dimensional standards. | 00:26:10 | |
For consideration. | 00:26:18 | |
In the application packet, you'll find what has been proposed. And I think from the Planning Commission's point of view, | 00:26:20 | |
requirement tonight is to moderate a discussion on the merits of both the general plan amendment and how it is involved in this | 00:26:27 | |
request, how Chapter 13 is involved in the dimensions and standards of that request. | 00:26:34 | |
And also. | 00:26:41 | |
Thirdly, which I've neglected to mention in the work session, you'll notice in the applicant's packet is an addendum request. | 00:26:44 | |
To amend secondary residential streets on the Roadway Master plan map from 50 to 40 feet. | 00:26:52 | |
In your packet you'll go through and find a signed addendum with a clip of the roadway map and then the bottom right. It'll have a | 00:27:00 | |
red line that strikes through 50 foot right of way 40 and then change proposed change to 40 feet. | 00:27:07 | |
Specifically in that section of code, as I mentioned previously, when we look at new roadway dedication widths for a new | 00:27:17 | |
subdivision, for example. | 00:27:22 | |
If it falls within a secondary residential roadways, normally we would dedicate 50 feet and everything has to be included in that | 00:27:28 | |
travel with lanes, gutter, park, strip, sidewalk. | 00:27:33 | |
The proposal now is to rather consider 50 feet, but 40 feet for a dedicated right of way with for all new streets within the city. | 00:27:41 | |
So all the new, the development requirements, the standards for roadway creation, travel lane widths, guttering, that type of | 00:27:47 | |
thing would have to fit within 40 rather than 50. | 00:27:53 | |
That would be the that the general. | 00:28:00 | |
Summary of that request so I can take any questions on the staff report. You have a couple of addendums in there from our | 00:28:03 | |
transportation plan or Justice 2 for who happens to be here this evening and our City Engineer, Jerry Bunch. | 00:28:10 | |
If I may, John, I have this. Commissioner Roche, I have a quick question since I failed to look at this during the work meeting. | 00:28:18 | |
By eliminating that 50 down to 40. | 00:28:27 | |
For what this would impact on future go forward, would that not end up reducing primarily out of the park strip in order to still | 00:28:31 | |
facilitate enough roadway and sidewalk access, gutter, et cetera? Yeah, all of the it's unclear as to where that would be stolen | 00:28:36 | |
from, but. | 00:28:41 | |
For the benefit of. | 00:28:48 | |
Pedestrian right away it would probably take me taken out of the park strip, which would then in turn actually hurt holidays | 00:28:50 | |
efforts in being a tree City USA where many trees are required to be planted in those park strips. Is that right? Yeah, St. trees | 00:28:58 | |
are a required tree that is required for every development and especially redevelopment. | 00:29:05 | |
As the types of tree lists that the tree committee is assembling gets smaller and smaller, I'm noticing every year because of the | 00:29:14 | |
hardiness of those species. | 00:29:18 | |
Park strip width is critical. | 00:29:24 | |
The other element would be to be taken from the width of the travel lane, so the traveling will get smaller. Therefore the park | 00:29:27 | |
park strip could remain the same width. | 00:29:32 | |
Something would have to give. | 00:29:38 | |
Some more traffic or less green space essentially. | 00:29:40 | |
Or combination of both? What is the what's the role of parking? | 00:29:45 | |
If this would would parking be prohibited if the the width is reduced going forward? That would have to be looked at. Parking on | 00:29:49 | |
streets is generally allowed type of situation unless there's a specific safety concern. Where parking is eliminated. On street | 00:29:56 | |
parking is eliminated. That's very few places in the city. | 00:30:03 | |
So it would be. | 00:30:11 | |
Recommendation from the staff that on street parking not be something that is eliminated, but that could be something to be looked | 00:30:13 | |
at, but that's a standard I don't have a detail on in this proposal. | 00:30:19 | |
Is this conceptual or do we have actual language for a text change? | 00:30:26 | |
I believe you have actual language for the text in the application. | 00:30:31 | |
For both, it's right above the colored diagrams. | 00:30:36 | |
So the text amendment would be in. | 00:30:45 | |
I guess you can say presented two ways, 1 is a text. | 00:30:51 | |
Similar to what we have here. That would be what's being proposed in chapter 13. | 00:30:55 | |
The other element for the general plan is a change to map 3.1, which is an image. | 00:31:01 | |
In the general plan and it's just a section of roadway that the applicant can highlight in his presentation for you. | 00:31:07 | |
I guess. | 00:31:16 | |
If I can ask our attorney, does this suffice to be a text amendment or? | 00:31:17 | |
Wouldn't need additional. | 00:31:25 | |
Legalese to accomplish. | 00:31:28 | |
Yeah, I have some questions about whether it's sufficient there. | 00:31:30 | |
And then a part of your question you may want to address to the city engineer because it relates to the standards and how the | 00:31:35 | |
drawings for this portion of the road go into the standards. And so I think he he can advise on that. But I do think having a | 00:31:42 | |
little more precise language on the text amendment would be a cleaner approach to do it. But I think there's enough of the | 00:31:50 | |
legislative issue for you to chew on today that, you know, even if you don't get to the text language, you can. | 00:31:57 | |
Ask questions of the applicant about why they think the. | 00:32:05 | |
The changes needed, you know, especially as you consider the history of how it came to this point. | 00:32:08 | |
OK. | 00:32:15 | |
All right. Any other questions for city staff? | 00:32:20 | |
All right. Thank you very much. We'll go ahead and invite the applicant to come forward and make his. | 00:32:24 | |
Presentation. | 00:32:31 | |
I'm Ron Hilton. | 00:32:43 | |
The manager of Holiday Cottages LLC. | 00:32:46 | |
And we are doing a subdivision in this location called Holton Park. | 00:32:50 | |
Umm, so that's kind of how we came to this point. | 00:32:57 | |
Umm. | 00:33:03 | |
We've got. | 00:33:05 | |
Mr. Hilton, can I have you state your address for the record? Sure. 2394 E Murray Holiday Rd. Thank you. | 00:33:14 | |
So anyway. | 00:33:23 | |
Just by way of background. | 00:33:25 | |
Fulton Park is. | 00:33:28 | |
Basically smack dab in the middle of what's called the medium density district and the general plan. So if you look at the drawing | 00:33:30 | |
there on the left, that's the boundary of Holiday Village. | 00:33:35 | |
And then you have some condos and townhomes. Holiday row. | 00:33:41 | |
The terraces, then you have some duplexes, the Hadley Pines, and then you come to Holton Park. | 00:33:45 | |
Which is a single family development, but of a higher density than the low density district. So as you move further to the east. | 00:33:53 | |
On the other side, so Clearview Street is on the right side of that diagram and that becomes your low density district, so. | 00:34:05 | |
We're kind of right in right in the middle of this medium density area. And so the kind of the concept of Halton Park was to be a | 00:34:12 | |
transitional buffer, buffer zone, I guess you could say. So it's single family that has the character of a single family | 00:34:19 | |
neighborhood, but it has somewhat higher density than than the than the further going further E into the neighborhood. So it's | 00:34:27 | |
kind of creates this transition. | 00:34:34 | |
Character and density. | 00:34:42 | |
And there's a similar transition going on with the the road. | 00:34:44 | |
So. | 00:34:50 | |
And we, we, we were under a bond. We've, we've paid for a bond to do right away improvements as part of our project. Holton Park | 00:34:52 | |
is divided into a North and South phase. | 00:34:58 | |
So we have the unique position of basically straddling Bernie Murray Holiday Road and we've required to make improvements. | 00:35:05 | |
On both sides of the road so. | 00:35:14 | |
Based on input from the neighborhood. So when we first started the project, there was a lot of input from the neighborhood about, | 00:35:20 | |
you know. | 00:35:24 | |
Keeping the density down and. | 00:35:29 | |
And. | 00:35:31 | |
In fact, there was a petition to. | 00:35:33 | |
Umm, basically. | 00:35:38 | |
Reduce the size of the medium density district, you know, to have them be more of it, be low density. And that was done. So it | 00:35:41 | |
seemed quite clear that the neighborhood sentiment was, you know, to have this transition to a lower density, lower intensity you | 00:35:47 | |
could say. | 00:35:52 | |
And so. | 00:35:58 | |
We in talking with the neighbors. | 00:36:01 | |
We became aware that they're also concerned about the traffic, the speed, the safety involved. And since we're basically on the | 00:36:05 | |
hook to make some right away improvements as part of our project and we're right there at Ground Zero, so to speak of this, of | 00:36:13 | |
this critical transitional area, we we agreed to propose some changes to the right of way. | 00:36:21 | |
The neighbors mounted a petition. This was. | 00:36:30 | |
18 months ago and really nothing has been done on it. So this application is actually an effort to give the community an | 00:36:35 | |
opportunity to get in front of of you in front in front of their elected representatives to be heard on on their concerns. So that | 00:36:42 | |
that's really one major motivation behind this but. | 00:36:49 | |
Basically, I'm going to turn most of my time over to. | 00:36:58 | |
My traffic engineer Brian Haran with Galloway and company and he's here tonight so I'd like to give most of the time to him. But | 00:37:03 | |
just wanted to say that the main focus here is is safety and, and this has been a concern in this neighborhood. A lot of cut | 00:37:11 | |
through traffic going from 45th South over to Murray Holiday Rd. on like Russell and Wander. | 00:37:19 | |
That's been a concern the City Council at one point. | 00:37:28 | |
Proposed making those one way streets to try and curb the problem and the residents while they appreciated the intent didn't like | 00:37:33 | |
that solution. So maybe what we're proposing could be that long sought solution because. | 00:37:41 | |
One thing that the city pointed out to me, they said I should have a look at the general plan map. | 00:37:50 | |
And this section of Mary Holiday Rd. is very unique. It's the only one where you have an arterial that becomes a collector that | 00:37:56 | |
becomes a secondary residential St. It actually narrows that's the only St. in Holiday that shows that on the general plan. So | 00:38:03 | |
it's a very unique situation and I'll let Brian speak to that a little more. | 00:38:10 | |
But. | 00:38:18 | |
Anyway. | 00:38:20 | |
Based on the neighborhood input, we've. | 00:38:22 | |
Essentially agreed to. | 00:38:24 | |
You know, take this issue up and make it part of our project so. | 00:38:26 | |
I'll turn the time over to to Brian. | 00:38:30 | |
Thank you. | 00:38:34 | |
Hello, Brian Horan. | 00:38:40 | |
Address that 511 S 200 E Salt Lake City. | 00:38:43 | |
I'm a licensed traffic engineer in this state and about a dozen others. I'm also a professional traffic operations engineer. I was | 00:38:48 | |
asked to do. | 00:38:54 | |
Opine on this proposal from a safety and traffic standpoint. | 00:39:00 | |
So I've only recently been involved with Ron and this project, so the history of how we got here, I don't have a lot of context | 00:39:08 | |
for. What I understand is that the neighbors and Ron are looking to. | 00:39:14 | |
Create an improvement here that's focused on safety. | 00:39:22 | |
Umm, I know that there's a plan amendment currently in process. So my hope today and moving forward is to be a resource for this | 00:39:29 | |
Commission, for the city, for council to ask any, you know, specific traffic questions or safety questions that are related to a | 00:39:37 | |
proposal such as this. I know you have a lot of information in the packet already. | 00:39:46 | |
And I'm sure there's been some discussions on this. | 00:39:55 | |
But if I may, you know kind of go through. | 00:39:59 | |
What I see from this proposal and then just, you know, give the opportunity for for you all to ask me any questions or further | 00:40:03 | |
opine on some of these things. | 00:40:08 | |
So as I understand it, the method or mechanism to. | 00:40:16 | |
Provide these safety improvements is an amendment to the general plan. As I understand it, they worked with city staff to figure | 00:40:22 | |
out what the best mechanism is to provide this specific improvement and there can probably be some conversation on if there is a | 00:40:30 | |
better mechanism, but I would say the directly from the general plan, the primary goals are. | 00:40:38 | |
To and this is directly from Chapter 3 to ensure the safety of all users. | 00:40:47 | |
Continue to build upon and maintain existing infrastructure. | 00:40:52 | |
Mitigate and absorb traffic impact of new development and reduce impediments to convenient use of main traffic corridors and | 00:40:56 | |
discourage cut through use of local residential streets. The reason I bring this up and this is typical of the city's general plan | 00:41:04 | |
and most general plans is it speaks to safety reducing cut through it doesn't speak to. | 00:41:12 | |
Increasing traffic volumes, increasing throughput. That's kind of a older idea. | 00:41:21 | |
For traffic engineers, as you're probably aware of a very car centric planning and design culture, most cities, this one included, | 00:41:27 | |
are moving towards safer, more pedestrian friendly, more bicycle friendly I. | 00:41:35 | |
And it's represented well in the general plan. | 00:41:44 | |
As I read. | 00:41:48 | |
The citizen comments and the proposal here. The idea is to narrow this section. It was mentioned several times in the packet as a | 00:41:51 | |
chicane. It's probably more accurately defined as a choker or Rd. diet, so probably terms you've heard before. But narrowing | 00:41:59 | |
streets has a proven effect on increasing safety. | 00:42:08 | |
And lowering speeds. | 00:42:17 | |
So from a vehicular perspective. | 00:42:20 | |
There's many references, you can pick any of them, they all say the same thing. Institute of Transportation Engineers ashtow I saw | 00:42:23 | |
a reference in the packet a bunch of times nachto happy to use that resource as well. | 00:42:29 | |
NACTO specifically says lean widths of 10 feet are appropriate in urban areas and have a positive impact on the streets safety | 00:42:38 | |
without impacting traffic operations. Lanes greater than 11 feet should not be used because they may cause unintended speeding and | 00:42:44 | |
assume valuable right of way at the expense of other modes. | 00:42:50 | |
Two way streets with low or medium volumes of traffic may benefit from the use of a dash, center line with a narrow lane with or | 00:42:56 | |
no center line at all, which is what this proposal is getting to. If you do a quick search of lane with versus speed, the very | 00:43:03 | |
first thing that comes up is the Nachto study saying that. | 00:43:10 | |
Narrower lanes are decreased speed. | 00:43:19 | |
I probably don't need to make the case for lower speeds are safer, but I will just to kind of drive the point home locations where | 00:43:24 | |
speeds have been. | 00:43:30 | |
Statewide, if a speed limit is increased by 5 miles an hour, you see 8%. | 00:43:37 | |
Increase in fatalities on interstates and a 4% increase in fatalities on all local roads. | 00:43:44 | |
To further this point, it's much worse for pedestrians. Don't need to get too deep into it, but you get about a 15% increase in | 00:43:51 | |
mortality every 5-5 miles an hour. | 00:43:58 | |
The speed is increased and this is at the 23 to 30 mile an hour speed limits, which is what we're talking about. | 00:44:05 | |
There was a. | 00:44:13 | |
UPD. I believe it's from the Police Department, the speed study that's provided in the application. | 00:44:16 | |
That shows. Oh Yep, it's right there, that one. | 00:44:22 | |
This shows the 85th percentile speed is 31 mph. So in traffic engineering we use the 85th percentile speed as our measure for | 00:44:26 | |
speeding. So if the 85th percentile is more than 5 miles an hour over the speed limit, we consider that an issue. We consider that | 00:44:35 | |
something to be mitigated. So you can see here it's 31 miles an hour. The speed limit for that area is 25. | 00:44:43 | |
Reasonably you would want to pursue some sort of traffic calming measure to reduce that to back, to be back within that five mile | 00:44:53 | |
or five mile an hour range. As I mentioned before, it's a that 5 miles an hour is a pretty big increase in pedestrian fatality and | 00:45:02 | |
accidents. And so each of these little increments does matter and it's the threshold that we use. | 00:45:10 | |
Additionally, wider. | 00:45:20 | |
Streets attract cut through, which again in your general plan is something to avoid. | 00:45:22 | |
If you're familiar with the context of sort of the area which should be, it's right down the street. | 00:45:29 | |
There are some opportunities for cut through like up Russell. I know there's a larger larger map. | 00:45:34 | |
But any opportunity in this area that you could use to? | 00:45:43 | |
Discourage vehicular traffic in this area, which would be a Rhode Island or lane narrowing would help to discourage some of that | 00:45:48 | |
cut through through the neighborhood. | 00:45:54 | |
A couple of other things that I wanted to mention related to which are related to bicycle and PEDs. | 00:46:02 | |
So this road here is a class 3. | 00:46:09 | |
Bike. | 00:46:14 | |
Umm facility for the city which class 3 is on street? | 00:46:16 | |
Bicycles should take up the travel lane. This helps to reduce speed so going back to reducing speeds in the area. | 00:46:23 | |
Umm, providing too much width in an area like this will encourage bicycles to use the shoulder. | 00:46:32 | |
And it kind of encourages vehicles and bikes to use the same area. | 00:46:40 | |
Reducing that puts the bicycle in the lane it requires, and you can, if you travel the bike, route through that area. There's | 00:46:45 |