Summary of the Pros and Cons of the Various Streetcar Alternative Alignments, comments from the combined SHCC Land Use & Zoning, Transportation and POST Committees Meeting, February 13, 2012

2A: This segment achieves the short-term community goal of getting the Streetcar track to Highland Drive.

Pro

There could be a place for bicycle racks, restrooms, and an intermodal hub with shops.

Is it still a possibility for Zions Bank to move south to the DI block? Yes

This gets us to Highland, which was a big goal. Sugarmont is not heavily used. Favor the idea of closing Sugarmont.

This will save money, and get us closer to what we want in a relatively short time.

2A doesn’t preclude going north on Highland and east on Wilmington.

This alternative doesn’t get us any closer to the McClelland/Sugarmont street re-realignment but neither does it negate any future prospects for realigning Sugarmont & Wilmington. It is on public property, so it doesn’t have to be integrated into future private property development plans. This makes sense because it can be done quickly on land that the RDA already controls.

Attending: Sally Barraclough, Chairperson; Rawlins Young, Michael G. Kavanagh, Lynne Olson, Judi Short, Amy Barry, Emil Kmet, Scott Kisling, Derek Payne, Helen Peters, Sheila O’Driscoll, Russ Callister, Susanne Wagner, Grace Sperry, Susie Petheram, and Ed Butterfield.

Ed Butterfield, Sugar House Project Area manager for the RDA of SLC presented the recommendations of Fehr and Peers Transportation Engineering Consultants for the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Sugar House Streetcar extension. Their final report will be reviewed by RDA Board, the Transportation Division, Planning Commission, TAB, and the City Council in April for potential approval. After that it will go to the Administration for approval.

The consultants have divided the LPA into three phases.  

January 22, 2012

 To:                               Salt Lake City Planning Commission

FROM                        Judi Short, Land Use Chair, Sugar House Community Council

RE:                              Alley Vacation 2591 Park Street

 A subcommittee of the Sugar House Land Use and Zoning Committee took a field trip on January 7, 2012 to review this proposal.  I won’t repeat all the details as summarized for you by the letter from Scott Kisling, a member of our committee.  After reviewing the configuration of this neighborhood, and the subject alley, we mused about what the purpose might have been for such an unusual configuration back when the land was first platted.  Scott does a good job of describing it, as I am sure the staff report will as well.  It bothers us that the owner of Parcel 1619477073 is opposed to the change, and the owner of Parcel 1619477031 is in favor, provided he can have access to his garage.

After careful review of the confusing layout of the parcels involved, our group agreed to approve the alley vacation, subject to the following conditions:

 o  The lot lines, of all affected properties, including the alley which would be vacated, should be drawn up.  This should be done by a surveyor, or someone familiar with the rules and regulations regarding the required size of driveways, turning radius, etc. to be sure that what is agreed upon meets Salt Lake City Zoning Code.  Each property owner adjacent to any portion of the alley needs to sign an agreement indicating their approval of the change. 

o  All applicable city departments (Transportation, Police, and Fire, at a minimum) must also review and approve the design.

o  If conditions one and two are met, then the City Planning Director, Wilf Sommerkorn, may approve the document and forward the request to the City Council for final approval. 

This is a very difficult parcel.  If the two parcels at the north and south of the alley, respectively, could be subdivided into three lots, and a new home built on the resultant parcel of approximately 45 x 200 feet, this might provide more activity on the alley and be a deterrent to crime.  However, the condition of the alley is abysmal, and the parcel might not be very attractive to someone to do that.  To close this alley takes away any future thought of having accessory dwelling units in this area.  The north and south parcels are both large enough to accommodate an accessory dwelling unit on each parcel, with access from the alley.

If the above agreement cannot be reached, then perhaps Scott Kisling’s idea of putting a gate across the alley near the midpoint, is the best solution.  That would prevent the alley from becoming a thoroughfare for crime.

A small subcommittee (Judi Short, Scott Kisling, and Amy Barry, along with the petitioner and the city planner) met on site to review the proposal for an alley vacation  at 2591 Park Street.  The proposal was a difficult one, because of the configuration of the neighborhood and the various alleys.  Two of us were in favor of granting the request, and one was not in favor of approval.  In the end, my letter recommended approval only after all the property owners could agree on exact lot lines (done under the supervision of someone from the city skilled in the issues) before it goes to the City Council.  The usual alley vacation lets the property owners on either side split the alley,  but in this case that is not possible because of the two property owners who want to retain some access to the alley.  In addition, I made the comment in my letter that closing alleys is directly in conflict with the city’s new Accessory Dwelling Unit proposal that is currently before the city council.