SUGAR HOUSE COMMUNITY COUNCIL MEETING
DATE: WEDNESDAY August 1, 2001 PLACE: SPRAGUE LIBRARY – 2131 South 1100 East TIME: 7:00 PM AGENDA Ray Pugsley, Chair. Conducting 7:00 – 7:10 Welcome & Introductions, Minute Approval Chair Report, Treasurers Report 7:10 – 7:20 Public Input 7:20 – 7:25 Rummage Sale Update – Su Armitage 7:25 – 7:30 Mayor’s Office Update – Barry Esham 7:30 – 7:35 Police Update 7:35 – 7:40 Planning Dept. Update – Melissa Anderson 7:40 – 7:50 Proposed Jitterbug Coffee – Bruce Holt 1855 So. 7th East (old Grey Floral) Conditional Use for drive through in CN Zone 7:50 – 8:05 CDBG Grant Proposals (1) Parleys Trail Corridor-13th E. to 5th E. (2) Small Area Plan for SH Business Dist. (3) Historic Survey for SH Business Dist. (4) Creation of a Community Development Corp. for the Business Dist. (5) Westminster Small Area Master Plan -Phase 2 8:05 – 9:30 Master Plan Update – Scott Kisling Trustees be prepared to vote 9:30 Adjourn FUTURE MEETINGS: September Agenda Deadline – August 17, 2001 – Alice Edvalson – 485-1663 SHCC Executive Meeting – August 20, 2001 – 7:00 PM Contact Alice for place Next Community Council Meeting – Sept. 5, 2001 7:00 PM – Sprague Library THE COMMUNITY COUNCIL MEETING IS THE FIRST WEDNESDAY OF EVERY MONTH AT 7:00 PM – Sprague Branch Library Questions: Call Chair Ray Pugsley – 466-1181 Vice Chair Helen Peters – 466-7170 Vice Chair Su Armitage – 467-1708 Secretary Alice Edvalson – 485-1663 Asst. Sec./Correspondence Lynne Olson – 484-8352 Asst. Sec./Parliamentarian Kevan Adams – 484-9153 Treasurer Dolores Donohoo – 485-0180 See us also on: http://www.slcgov.com/citizen/comm_councils/mins&agendas.htm or hhtp://www.ccnc-slc.org *****NOTE: If you are able to read the minutes and agenda on the Internet or are no longer interested in receiving them please call Alice at 485-1663 and let us know so we can remove you from the mailing list. ************
Sugar House Community CouncilMinutes for August 1, 2001 Trustees: Kevan Adams, Su Armitage, Gary Bengtzen, Rich Bennett, Paddington Campos, Fred Conlon, Philip Carlson, Dolores Donohoo, Paul Jackson, Justin Jones, Scott Kisling, Julie Nitzkowski, Sheila O’Driscoll, Claudia O’Grady, Helen Peters, Susan Petheram, Ruth Price, Ray Pugsley, Judi Short, Tiffany Starbuck, Gayen Wharton (21)Trustees Excused: Alice Edvalson, Lynne Olson, Rawlins Young City/State Representatives: Kathy Daly, Sprague Library; Melissa Anderson, Cheri Coffey, SLC Planning Dept.; Brendon Kirkwood, SLC Police Dept.; Barry Esham, Mayor’s Office (5) Others: Jerry Schmidt, Renee Buchanan, Melissa Lichtenstein, Brenda Nelson, Kevin Nelson, Kathy Campbell, Hollie Jones, Charlene Allert, Bruce Holt, Tom Nitzkowski, Mike Holman, Bill Servoss, Dan Zarkou, Sarah Carlson, Matt Clark, Christopher Tucker, Barbara Tucker, Amy Price, Ann Reddington, Steve Graham (20)Total Attending: 46 The meeting was called to order at 7:05 PM by Chair Ray Pugsley. Ray explained that people wishing to speak during the public input portion should fill out the cards available. Those wishing to speak regarding the Sugar House Master Plan should plan to do so during the public input. Minutes were approved with 14 in favor, 0 opposed, and 1 abstaining. Chair Report: Reminder that, this fall, we will be voting for City Council. SHCC is included in at least parts of districts 5,6,7 and we are voting for the odd numbered districts this year. Running in District 5 are incumbent Roger Thompson and Jill Remington. For District 7 Dale Lambert is the only person running – incumbent Keith Christensen is retiring. In October, the Community Council is having elections for the offices of Chair, 3 Vice Chairs, Secretary, and Treasurer. Keep in mind whom you would like to nominate and get involved in this. Two announcements were made by Chair Ray Pugsley. The first regarded seminars to be held at the Sprague Library, entitled “Growing Communities: Making Choices for a Sustainable Future.” Dates and topics are: Aug 16 (Heart, Mind and Growth); September 20 (Bricks and Mortar of Growth); October 18 (Consumption, Population and Quality of Life). If interested, information was available on the back table. These seminars are co-sponsored by the community council. The second announcement regarded meetings to be held on September 27 & 28 in Sandy at the Conference Center, entitled “Creating Active Community Environments”. These meetings are for everyone and will discuss walking and biking and ways to make Sugar House a more walkable community. Treasurer’s Report: There is a balance of $1737.10. The previous balance was $1865.57. Checks written totaled $536.47. Deposits made totaled $408.00. Public Input: Kathy Campbell spoke regarding the Athletic Homestay Program for the Olympics. She is volunteering as the team leader for the Sugar House area. The program is looking for people to volunteer to house families of the athletes during the Olympics. There are 250 families they are trying to house. She brought application cards for those interested in volunteering – registration is available online. This is a fun program and a good way to get involved in the Olympics. For more information, please contact Kathy at 485-6720. Jerry Schmidt spoke regarding the approval process of the Master Plan. He found it disconcerting how the approval process is being pushed so hard. If he had spent as much time as the subcommittee has on this process he would be anxious for it to be over as well. However, he felt that good planning should include a well-informed public as a priority. He stated that it was two years before the first public open house to review the plan and the minutes at the following meeting had no mention or discussion of the master plan process. He felt that the amount of time allotted for review of the draft plan by the trustees and for receiving public input before the July 10 meeting was too short. He stated that the July 26 meeting presented the latest, best draft to date, but the few members of the public that showed up hoping to get involved in the preliminary stages were surprised to learn of the vote taking place on August 1. He did not understand what the rush was, and indicated that it was not CDBG funds as suggested, as those can go forward without master plan approval. He stated that the master plan is one of the most important functions that the council performs and felt that the approval process is one of the sadder chapters in the history of this council. Rummage Sale Update: Su Armitage reported that 3000 fliers were printed advertising the rummage sale on September 8. She had contacted about half of the trustees about helping to distribute the fliers in their neighborhood. Trustees can take the fliers in groups of 100 to pass around. She also had 20 posters made and anyone can take one to put up around the community in area stores and businesses. The rummage sale will be held in the Garden Club building in Sugar House Park. The club is under new management, but will rent the building to us for the same rate as last year. This is $50/day for the large room and $10/day for the kitchen. Su passed around sign-up sheets for the trustees to help with the sale. Shifts are available for taking in stuff on Thursday and Friday from 10am to 7pm; staffing the actual sale from 9-5 pm on Saturday; and cleaning up from 5-7 pm after the sale. Help would be especially appreciated from those with a pick-up truck. Any time that can be given will be appreciated. Su also stated that Ed Glashien felt he could use another 1000 fliers to distribute. The cost for printing would be $40. She asked if the trustees would approve the additional expenditure. Costs to date are $120 for fliers and $40 for the posters. Trustee Justin Jones inquired whether we were advertising the sale in the newspaper. Su replied that yes we were and Lynne Olson was in charge of this. No further discussion was made and Ray approved the additional $40 for the printing of the fliers. Mayor’s Office Update: Barry Esham reported that the Mayor was having another “Saturday Morning with the Mayor” at Pioneer Park from 10am-12pm this Saturday during the Farmers Market. Questions for Barry included an audience member wondering where the plans stood for the skateboard park in Sugar House. They stated that design was important and the park needs to be built so that kids will use it. Trustee Judi Short inquired whether a letter from the community council would be beneficial to help the process along. Another question for Barry was if there was a District 6 resource book available. He replied that there was not one. The last question was in regards to the new swimming pool in Fairmont Park and if there was any update on the construction. Barry replied that he knew of no new news, this is a county project and they are responsible for delays. Police Update: Officer Brendon Kirkwood – District 7 stats were made available. There has been a recent spike in car problems. Also, problems with stolen bikes during the summer. Exact numbers are hard to calculate because people don’t always call to report these thefts. He reminded people to always call whenever they lose anything. They had a couple of neighborhood meetings that were successful. Tues. Aug 7, Night out against Crime. People can coordinate their own block parties. He was not sure if any had been planned in Sugar House. Questions for Officer Kirkwood included wondering if there was any information on an incident at 18th E./ Garfield on Saturday night. A jeep parked on the street was lit on fire. Gas had been poured on it and then it was lit. There was no news from police here tonight on this incident. Officer Kirkwood stated that it sounded like a pretty random incident. Another inquiry was made asking if any stats were available for District 6. Only District 7 is available at this time. Regarding the Olympics – The town will have patrol officers, but numbers will be reduced. Thus, calls may have slower response time. Property crimes may not be dealt with quickly. They encourage the public to get involved on a volunteer basis to help out the Police Department. Interested people can start Mobile Watch now and get the training. Police will rely heavily on them during Olympics. This is a time when we need the community to help by patrolling neighborhoods and deciding what can be dealt with on your own. Allotment of officers during the Olympics: 1/3 of police will be patrol, 1/3 will be downtown, 1/3 will be at the venues. It was asked if Sugar House Park will be used for parking and if so, will it be confined or will there be spillover into streets and the surrounding neighborhood? The response from Officer Kirkwood was that parking will be contained within the park. There is a need to keep the streets clear. Another question was asked regarding the buses to the Olympic venues and if there will be a large fee to ride. Barry did not know and suggested checking with the mayor’s Olympic office and/or UTA. The last he had heard regarding this issue is that the large fee would not be implemented. There was concern expressed about getting to Park City and if people would be required to ride the bus there if they were not a resident. Barry responded that it will be difficult to get to some places. People should plan to use carpools and other routes as things will be crowded. Planning Dept. Update: Melissa Anderson – The Planning Commission has established a sub-committee to look at flag lots. The next step is for staff to finalize comments. These will be distributed to community councils. This will give us a heads up that there are some revisions to the current ordinance for flag lots and PUDs. We should be on look out for those ordinance changes. The ordinance change will go through the Planning Commission and then to City Council. The public is welcome to participate through public hearings if they want to respond to these proposed changes. Fliers have been mailed out to property owners within 300 ft of the Highland Park Ward regarding the expansion of their parking lot. They had originally proposed doing some demolition to accommodate the parking. The new proposal is to expand the parking into part of the current grassy area. The number of stalls will increase from 44 to 88. Fliers regarding the public hearing for the Master Plan on August 16 are available tonight or people can contact Melissa. Proposed Jitterbug Coffee store at 1855 S. 1700 East and a conditional use for a drive through in a CN zone: Bruce Holt, the owner of the property, distributed handouts to the council regarding the plans. The building is the old Gray Floral on 7th East. The store closed due to the failing health of the previous owner. The building is falling into disrepair and the roofing is falling apart on the greenhouses. With the main building in disrepair, it is becoming an eyesore and is vulnerable to crime. Mr. Holt plans to demolish the greenhouses and will replace them with a buffer of landscaping. There will be a 1950’s motif for the store. The indoor seating will hold 20-25 people. The renovation of the building and the removal of the greenhouses will improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood and revitalize the area. Market research has shown that a drive-through window is vital to survive. It will serve morning commuters who don’t have time to stop and get out of their car. It will also serve parents who are driving kids to school. The traffic is a concern. Mr. Holt feels there will be minimal effect on the neighborhood. Traffic will enter and exit using 7th East. It should have no more impact than Dirk’s Cleaners next door. The traffic lights at 17th South and 21st South will stagger the traffic. There is a cross-easement in process with Dirk’s to allow cross traffic through each other’s parking lots. The time spent waiting for an order will be minimal, so cars will idle only for a short time. The owner feels that without the drive-through, the business may not survive. Trustee Su Armitage asked if they feel they will survive with Starbucks nearby. Mr. Holt responded that they will have more parking at their store and it is difficult to get in/out of Starbucks. They may use some of the parking next door at Dirk’s. Trustee Judi Short asked for some clarification on the drawing, and if they will be taking out houses in rear. They are not removing any houses. Trustee Gayen Wharton inquired what the city’s position is on a drive through on a major arterial. We want people off of 9th East and onto 7th East, will this affect traffic? How do drive-throughs affect traffic flow? Melissa Anderson from planning answered that it depends on the street – although 7th is an arterial, it doesn’t need to be I-15, as there are houses on street. The conditional use is on drive through only, and how it will affect the surrounding uses. Trustee Scott Kisling commented on the mix of parking and a drive-through. Making people walk across a drive-through can be intimidating. Trustee Claudia O’Grady inquired if they were using an architect on the redesign process. They are using an architect. Trustee Ray Pugsley expressed concern about the store and its location as he had witnessed a 3 car pile-up at the Starbuck’s. Public Input on the issue was received. Kevin Nelson lives at 1852 Lake Street and is totally against the drive-through. His property abuts the business. The drive-through on 9th South and 11th East is a mess with traffic stuck out in the middle of the street. He believes there will be increased pollution and emissions, especially during peak business hours. He inquired if the city has a traffic plan for when it’s busy. He thinks the business is a good idea, but not the drive-through. He feels it will affect the quality of life for residents on Lake Street. There will be a constant stream of traffic idling and a lot of noise. He is worried about the school nearby. Trustee Paddington Campos inquired if there was any consensus from other neighbors. Melissa Lichtenstein addressed this issue. Melissa conducted a poll of neighbors and presented a petition with 15 opposed to the drive-through and 3 that were okay with the project. She indicated that one of these 3 was a renter, not a property owner. She pointed out that staggered traffic from 17th and 21st South will make it okay, but that is how residents along 7th East get out of their driveway. A drive-through will affect this. Since there is a school zone in the area, traffic backs up and additional traffic from the drive-through will not help the back-up problem. There are concerns with the hours that kids go to school and she doesn’t want them to deal with a drive-through. She feels it will discourage walk-up traffic to other businesses and that it is zoned CN for a reason. She wants walk-up businesses, not drive-throughs. Other public comments were that 7th East is already an arterial. It was also asked if Dirk’s already has a drive-through (yes, they do). The council was asked to be considerate in their decision. The motion was made and seconded to disapprove the conditional use. 10 were in favor, 6 were opposed, 3 abstained. The owner was informed that although it was not approved by SHCC it can still be pursued through the Planning Commission. CDBG Proposals: Melissa Anderson. There are five proposals on the agenda for approval by the council. The first is the Parley’s Trail plan, which has been prepared by Lynne Olson. Melissa indicated it may be best to combine this with the business district plan. She will discuss this with Lynne. The second is for a small area plan for the Sugar House Business District. The plan would address circulation patterns and the development of the large blocks and how they should be appropriately cut-up. The plan will also look at traffic and transit issues. The third proposal is to conduct an historic survey for the area from 17th South to 27th South, and 5/7th East to 13th East. Conducting this survey is addressed in the master plan. Only areas that are CDBG eligible are covered under this proposal. It also does not include the area already covered by this year’s CDBG that awarded funding to conduct a survey of the SHBD. The fourth CDBG proposal is for the creation of a Community Development Corporation for the Business District. Trustee Fred Conlon indicated that the Sugar House Merchants would like to be part of the proposal, but they don’t have a tax ID number yet. He inquired if it could still be done. The last proposal on the agenda for the Westminster Small Area Plan is not being done. This was funded last year and there is not a Phase 2. Melissa asked for letters of support from the council on the applications. The motion was made to approve and send separate letters of support for the CDBG proposals. The motion was seconded. There were 13 in favor, 0 opposed, and 4 abstaining. Master Plan Update: Scott Kisling Chair Ray Pugsley asked that trustees be prepared for a roll call voting process. Each trustee would be able to state reasons for voting why they are. Discussion is limited to 2 minutes for each trustee. A motion was made to do a roll call vote on the master plan in two phases: first trustees would indicate their desire to vote one way or another, the second vote would be taken after any public input and all comments from the trustees had been heard. This would give trustees an opportunity to change their mind. Ray Pugsley inquired as to the need for two votes. Kevan Adams replied that it seemed a more in-depth voting was required than a simple yes or no. The motion was seconded. In discussion by trustees, Justin Jones indicated he would like to see how people feel at this point on the plan and felt it was a wise decision to make the first roll call. Paddington Campos inquired if there had been a decision to actually vote. Ray Pugsley replied that we should all be prepared to vote. It was intended that we have read the plan and are informed. Gayen Wharton indicated that people here tonight may not have been at last Thursdays meeting on July 26th. At this meeting Stephen Goldsmith, the Planning Director, said the schedule will go forward for the Planning Commission to review, regardless of how many meetings the community council holds on the subject. Melissa Anderson stated that by voting now we can express our support, otherwise the council will lose that opportunity. Gayen inquired if any changes can be made after we vote. Melissa replied that it is only a recommendation and not law. She indicated that controversial issues will be highlighted to decision making bodies such as the Planning Commission. They will also receive staff recommendations of changes and the staff response. What comes out of tonight’s vote is our recommendation. The Planning Commission will see the red line text and changes that have been made to the draft. The motion to approve the roll call vote in 2 phases was passed with 13 in favor, 0 opposed, and 3 abstaining. An additional public comment on the master plan was made by Steve Graham. He supports the plan in general. On low-density residential he would restrict entrance of front garages. He would also restrict medium to high density around Sugar House Park to allow for better use. He feels flag lots should be prohibited. However, interior parks in them is appropriate. Regarding parks and open space, he would increase the number of neighborhood parks and prevent further encroachment like Highland High sports facilities. He would encourage funding for planting large shade trees in park strips and would prohibit hardscape of them. He encouraged the omission of an easement for pedestrian access in the Emigration Creek corridor. He inquired if “close proximity” is a defined term in the document. It is used on page 7 of the draft showing suggested changes. Ground rules for the trustees comments were established by Chair Ray Pugsley. He indicated that comments should be directed to the chair, but questions can be directed to individuals.Trustee Scott Kisling gave some background for people who might not know where we are. He compiled comments from the open houses and public input, starting back in 1998. The city did some research reports, with stats, as far back as 1995. In 1998, 3 open houses were held by the previous planner, Bill Allayaud. These were well attended. The first comments come from these. In 1999, a citizen group broke up into sections to look at the chapters of the 1985 plan. From there, each of the 1985 elements were put together as a draft of the new plan including all elements. The advisory committee reviewed these drafts and at this point, a few more changes were made. A new planner, Melissa Anderson, was assigned to Sugar House and at this time the plan went out to the public again. It was reviewed by the advisory committee. Research reports were prepared by city staff. The community council received the plan at the point the city was ready to have it reviewed by us, then the Planning Commission and City Council. If we vote not to approve, it still goes to the Planning Commission as is. Then we would be denied our ability to comment on the plan. Those involved on the subcommittee made comments that were taken into account on the draft he is handing out tonight. The subcommittee looked at the plan line by line, sentence by sentence, to see if the language is tight enough for us to try to approve. Scott put together a consensus view from the July 10th and 14th meetings. These were distributed to trustees. It seemed like we got to the heart of a lot of issues at these meetings and what the consensus wants. The plan is on e-mail if you have e-mail. Scott feels we are getting closer to defining terms and a consensus view. He does not have comments from the July 26 meeting on the computer tonight, but will read comments from the sheets. The plan goes to the Planning Commission on August 16th for a public hearing. They will make recommendations on September 6. On October 2 there will be a City Council briefing at which no public comment will be received. The public hearing is November 6. Scott then read through the comments from the July 26 meeting. The comments are as follows. (1) Private property rights language should be tightened up. (2) Flag lots – someone said they should be no different from other developments on the block. (3) Entertainment – a small artsy theater near monument, similar to Sundance was felt to be too specific. (4) Transportation – take out specific references to light rail in areas where there are other possible transit methods. (5) Highland Park – protect this historic area and don’t chop it up with light rail. (6) Current density – distribution should stay how it is now. (7) Granite block – pay attention to historic preservation. This has been a controversial issue. (8) Area west of Graystone apartments – evaluate as alternate route for a trail. (9) Senior housing – make it so people don’t have to move out of the neighborhood when they get older. (10) Affordable housing – make it so we can live/work in the same area. (11) Higher density housing on 15th East – a minority view in regards to making area walkable. (12) Trails – discussion on words like “would” and “when”. These imply that things will happen and should be replaced with “if” so there is not a feeling of imminent happening. (13) Building near Emigration Creek – what is the basis for conservation overlay? The wording may have come from army corps of engineers. (14) Citations of other plans and references – it is frustrating not to be able to cross reference. (15) Removing homes along 17th East/South – these could be replaced with PUDs. (16) Concern about annexation – Sugar House community is already too large. The master plan covers too large of an area. This comment was amended by a person in the audience who stated the concern is for the Council district. (17) Concern about use of “neighborhood” concern vs. “residents” concern. The idea was to recognize not just residents concern but the larger view of neighborhood concern. Comments from the Trustees: Gayen Wharton: Some of the things from the July 26th meeting are not anywhere near things we’ve discussed thus far. What are we voting on? Will these comments from the 26th be incorporated? Scott replied that no, only comments from 10th & 14th are incorporated into the draft plan. Judi Short: speaks from a Planning Commission point of view. The Planning Commission is going to see the first draft document. However, we are voting on an amended draft. Will the Planning Commission get the first draft or amended draft? Cheri Coffey from city planning responded that comments from the meetings will be incorporated into the staff’s redline version which will then go to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will see a staff report making recommended changes to the document. They will include comments that have been made through the community council. They will try to make it as clean as possible as to what exactly is being recommended. Comments from each of the trustees present regarding the Master Plan. 2 minutes each: Fred Conlon: He understands we represent an area. He represents SH Merchants. They are in favor and he votes for approving the plan by proxy as he has to leave. Ruth Price: She is still confused on what to comment on. She is not happy with the changes, even with all of them that have been added. She is happy with the Canal/McClelland comment that was incorporated and wonders how can we get that in for Emigration? Her neighborhood has been involved for longer and does not feel that their wishes have been incorporated into the document. Ray responded that if they are unhappy with the way it is written they should make recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council during the public hearings. Gary Bengtzen: He has not talked to people in his district, but is prepared to vote. Paul Jackson: People in his area not interested in more change. They like things the way they are. They are concerned with bringing in more people. He doesn’t feel it is necessary for SHBD to go to 6 stories. It can be made viable without going that high. If people want downtown, go downtown. He doesn’t want Sugar House apartments, Sugar House condos with speed bumps. His concerns are on current congestion and the plan to bring more people in. Light Rail compounds these issues. Paddington Campos: He agrees with Paul’s and Ruth’s comments and sees people in the audience that agree by nodding their heads. As Jerry Schmidt said earlier, this is best, latest draft, but he doesn’t see the need to rush. He has concerns with high density and not turning Sugar House into downtown. He feels there are too many points of dissension. He would like to see something regarding Emigration that is similar to the wording for the Canal/McClelland corridor. Residents on Westminster are not in favor of having a trail through there and this should be recognized. Gayen Wharton: She is feeling frustrated because she has had 900 days to look at the plan. She came in with the same kind of attitude as some of the earlier comments, but the plan is all about compromise. There is a great deal of commercial involved in the plan. She feels people don’t respect that compromise has been made along the way. She asks that we please trust that people on the advisory committee may have had the same strong feelings, but had to compromise in order to get a plan that will go through the steps of approval. If we do the plan all for residential it will fail these approval steps and commercial will get what they want in the end. Claudia O’Grady: The document represents a middle ground on many views. She feels strongly on design issues and would like commercial design that discourages abuse of the area by skateboarders. She does not want the plan to say anything that limits design. If skateboarders are a problem, we should address that, not design. On affordable housing, she stated that we can’t say enough about how we welcome it into our community. Sheila O’Driscoll: Has no comments of value because she hasn’t really looked at the plan. Justin Jones: He thinks we need to remember why we make laws, rules, and this is to protect the rights of citizens. The plan is a great idea, but we need to keep in mind we are making plans to protect citizens. We need to come to some sort of compromise on issues in the SHBD like height limit. He has concerns about limiting people’s issues and how to address them in plan, for example, the drive-through on tonight’s agenda. In regards to housing, he feels we try to separate too much. He grew up with diversity and lived with other aspects of the world Judi Short: Those that have known her realize she got on the Planning Commission as a result of the ShopKo development. The previous master plan was not tight enough to prevent this. She is on the current Planning Commission and was on the subcommittee for the Sugar House Commons. The subcommittee worked a lot on this project to get what we have now. It could be better, but is better than ShopKo. She is worried that while we dither, someone could come in and build a 10 story building. She feels this is a much tighter plan. She is glad to see the 23rd East interchange out. She would like to see Ruth add language about Emigration. For open space, the language is deferred to the open space master plan. Transportation can’t be affected. Rich Bennett: He was also involved in the Sugar House Commons, meeting every Tuesday with the subcommittee. They came to compromises and balances. It is the same with the master plan. We have done the bulk of the work, but it still needs to get through city council. We should make changes and give them to the city council. He stressed again that we need balance for the plan. Susan Petheram: She agrees with some of the earlier comments on how we have made some compromises and achieved a balance with the plan. She would be interested in seeing the commercial area preserved, but understands that property owners cannot be forced to preserve their buildings if they do not want to. She feels the historic character of the business district could be threatened with height limits up to 6 stories. Ray Pugsley: He feels this is a wonderful draft master plan. He is appreciative of the work that has been done by Melissa, Scott, and the subcommittee. There are things he doesn’t agree with such as the bike trails. He is concerned with private property issues and thinks we need more community input. The work from past 7 months should not be rushed and could use more work. If we were to ask the Planning Commission to table the plan and allow more review by us he hopes they would listen. Kevan Adams: He is generally concerned and emphasizes earlier comments on the process and how it has been shortened. He feels it is too rushed. The “draft” plan should not be the final plan. We should incorporate the comments into one plan so it is easier for the Planning Commission to read and review. Items that are missing: history of the name of Sugar House; a statement on I-80 reconstruction expressing that residents and the council oppose a 23rd East interchange if it impacts existing residential neighborhoods; the McClelland issue. We should revisit the housing plan. In many places it references other documents and these ask for more support from community. He feels our plan is silent on this issue. Su Armitage: She would like to reiterate Judi’s comments. She has also been involved from the beginning. She feels lots of public notice has gone out about meetings and we have received lots of comments. People in her neighborhood are asking if the plan is final yet? She would like to see the Emigration language. She is not opposed to the I-80 off ramp and also has some other unpopular ideas. She feels a master plan with some imperfections is better than no plan at all. Dolores Donohoo: She would like time to study things in the letter sent out to council members. She grew up in Sugar House and pre-dates the moving of the prison. She has concerns on whether Highland High will be able to take over more of Sugar House Park. She is also concerned with the height of buildings in the business district. She thinks the Commons area is as close as we will get to the earlier feel of Sugar House and its walkability and historic feel. She does not go downtown and loves Sugar House, as it is her area. She loves the library and the stores. She went to Irving when it was a school. What ever needs to be done to preserve the area should be done. She is in favor of taking things slowly. Julie Nitzkowski: She is amazed at the amount of documentation, input, and bringing it all together. She is realizing we should have had this opportunity to speak like now – make it an ongoing thing. The plan is not going to be perfect, and it will never be. 3 years is a long process. She is not clear on the need to push it through. She is the only person for her neighborhood that comes to these meetings. No one else comes or cares. She is the only representative. She doesn’t like when people only come for their issue and feels they should care about the whole picture and looking out for everyone in community. She wants to stay involved and stay positive and do what we can to get others involved. We have to start somewhere and she is for the plan Tiffany Starbuck: She was not here since the beginning. She likes the way the plan is written. It is in clear language and is a living document. It would be a disservice to us as a council and our community if we don’t approve the plan. She worries about what could happen in the meantime. She feels details are missing and that there could be more appendices. She would like a map of Sugar House with the neighborhood community council districts. Scott Kisling: He started the process with the first open house. He will still be here when we’re using the document years from now. He is interested in language and is worried about incorporating references. He is worried about how we are doing for affordable housing and how many units are needed. He wonders if we are making headway. Concerning the 23rd east interchange: why ruin a whole neighborhood for the convenience of a few. He thinks it would be a good idea if we could review the plan annually to address the needs for the next one Helen Peters: We have a natural process in our democracy. We have come to pay attention to special interests. We need to remember we are trustees of a neighborhood as a whole. If we wait for the perfect document with all the special interests we will not have a strong enough plan. She feels that we can take the plan to developers and say what we want our community to look like. Chair Ray Pugsley thanked everyone for their comments and being civil. There was a letter from the citizens of Highland Park and another letter from home owners of the Emigration Creek area regarding the plan. Ray recommended 5 options for phrasing motions: 1. Approve what the city has put together and we will go along with their plan (the bound document) as prepared. 2. Approve the above plan with the additions that have been discussed. The July 23rd draft. 3. We don’t want the city’s plan. We want it to be revised including the July 26th comments. 4. Use the July 23rd draft and comments from the 26th. Request it to be tabled and allow for more public input. 5. We don’t care. Do what you want. We wash our hands of the whole thing. A motion was made that we approve the city’s draft along with our comments in the July 23rd draft. (Option 2). The motion was seconded. A roll call was made with people commenting if they wanted to. If the first roll vote to approve option # 2 passes, we go back through for the final vote. The roll call vote was made from the current list of trustees. Kevan Adams: He is concerned with so many comments being made, and would like staff to prepare a document with all these recommendations for review. (Melissa indicated that this will be done and will be made available by 5 pm on the Friday before the Planning Commission meeting. This will be distilled into a readable document with back up data.) Kevan voted to abstain. Su Armitage: Yes Gary Bengtzen: yes Rich Bennett: yes Jefferson Burgess: not present Paddington Campos: no Phil Carlson: not present Fred Conlon: proxy yes Gene Davis: not present Dolores Donohoo: yes Alice Edvalson: proxy yes Jared Fredrick: has resigned Paul Jackson: no Justin Jones: abstain Scott Kisling: out of the room Ty McCartney: not present, Julie Nitzkowski: yes Sheila O’Driscoll: abstain Claudia O’Grady: yes, Lynne Olson: yes proxy Helen Peters: yes Susan Petheram: yes, Ruth Price: She felt it was a brilliant comment about the City Council seat coming up. If we wait a month we can influence these new people. Votes no, Ray Pugsley: no, Judi Short: yes, Todd Slack: not present, Tiffany Starbuck: yes, Gayen Wharton; yes, Rawlins Young: not present. For: 15 opposed: 4 abstain: 3 not present: 6 Second vote: Kevan: no, Su: yes, Gary: yes, Rich: yes, Jefferson: not present, Paddy: no, Phil: not Present, Fred: Proxy yes, Gene: not Present, Dolores: yes, Alice: Proxy yes, Jared: resigned, Paul: no, Justin: abstain, Scott: yes, Ty: not Present, Julie; yes, Sheila: abstain, Claudia: yes, Lynne: Proxy yes, Helen: yes, Susan: yes, Ruth: no, Ray: no, Judi: yes, Todd: not Present, Tiffany: yes, Gayen: yes, Rawlins: not Present. For: 15, Opposed: 5, Abstain: 2 The motion passes to approve the Master Plan with the comments included in the July 23rd draft. Last item of businesses: There were trustee renewals for Dolores Donohoo and Ray Pugsley: The motion is made to accept the renewals. It is seconded and all are in favor except Rich who abstained from voting. The motion passes, 18 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstaining. Motion to adjourn is made and seconded at 9:25 PM. The vote is unanimous to adjourn.