SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Tim Chambless, Vice Chairperson Laurie Noda, and Commissioners Craig Galli, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Commissioner Peggy McDonough was out of town.
Present from the Planning Division Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Principle Planner Marilyn Lewis, Associate Planner Janice Lew, and Planning Commission Secretary Andrea Curtis.
Present from the Salt Lake City Staff was Vicki Bennett, Environmental Programs Manager.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Chambless called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased.
Planning Commission Members voting during the meeting are as follows: Commissioner Noda, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Diamond, and Commissioner Seelig. Commissioner Chambless, as Chairperson, did not vote.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2005
(This item was heard at 6:00 P.M.)
Commissioner Scott moved for the Planning Commission to approve the minutes as presented. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. As Chairperson, Commissioner Chambless did not vote.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(This item was heard at 7:56 P.M.)
Chairperson Chambless reported that he and Vice Chair Noda met with City Council personnel, namely Chairperson Dale Lambert, Vice Chair Nancy Saxton, Executive Director Cindy Gust-Jensen, and Planning and Policy Analyst Janice Jardine, as well as Planning Director Zunguze, from 12:00 to 2:00 p.m. on February 23, 2005. He indicated it had been a constructive session in which key issues such as long-range planning and the need for additional staffing were discussed. Vice Chair Noda explained that the City Council would like to schedule a retreat with the Planning Commission on Tuesday, March 15, 2005, from 5:00 to 6:30 p.m. to discuss long-range planning and funding for additional staff.
Chairperson Chambless conveyed the City Council’s message that they will always accept a formal letter but that they wished to stress they are no more than a telephone call away, inviting both direct and formal communication. He reiterated the Council’s desire to have a formal letter from the Planning Commission as soon as possible outlining what is needed to ensure effective long-range planning, especially budgetary concerns as the Planning Division is significantly understaffed in both Planners and Enforcement Officers. He summarized the content of the projected letter as needing to outline the essential requirements for increased budget for Planning Staff with explanation that long-range planning requires adequate staff and is the only way to be proactive rather than reactive in addressing the City’s needs. It was confirmed that the previously selected members of the subcommittee to draft the letter include Commissioners McDonough, Noda, Seelig, and Chambless. Director Zunguze offered his services in providing information on best practices and statistics as necessary.
Commissioner Seelig referenced previous Commission discussions regarding a letter to the Mayor and questioned whether the Administration yet had forwarded its recommended budget to the Council. Director Zunguze indicated that the budget has not yet been sent and indicated the Council recommended such a letter be sent.
The Commissioners extended their congratulations to Director Zunguze on his recent appointment as Community & Economic Development Director.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 6:01 P.M.)
Planning Director Louis Zunguze introduced Soren Simonsen, Chair of the Historic Landmark Commission, present in his capacity as Chair of the Parley’s Creek Corridor Trail Advisory Board, to discuss the master plan of the Parley’s Creek Corridor Trail. He noted that this project is important to the quality of life both for Salt Lake City and the region as a whole.
Helen Peters, founder and Executive Committee Member of the PRATT (Parley’s Rails, Trails, and Tunnels) Coalition joined Mr. Simonsen in the presentation. Mr. Simonsen referred the Commissioners to the information packet they received and invited them to a public meeting held in the Salt Lake County Government Center (2100 South State St., South Building Atrium) on Saturday, March 19, 2005, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The master plan for the Trail, completed by Salt Lake County, will be unveiled at this Open House. The PRATT Coalition has been working on the plan for a number of years. Information about the master plan will be presented and opportunity for questions provided. Formal presentations will be made at 9:00 a.m., 10:00 a.m., and 11:00 a.m. by representatives from the various involved jurisdictions. Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon will make an introduction at 9:00 a.m., and Bruce Talbot, the South Salt Lake City Community Development Director, will make the 10:00 a.m. introduction; a Salt Lake City representative will make the 11:00 a.m. introduction. Bill Farrand, the Executive Director of the Coalition who is on loan from the National Parks Service, Trails and Rivers Division, will make a 20-30 minute informational presentation as part of the Open House. The purpose of tonight’s briefing is to provide basic information about the Trail and to extend an invitation to Commissioners to attend.
Mr. Simonsen stated that the master plan was completed by Salt Lake County in cooperation with Salt Lake City, spearheaded by Salt Lake County planning staff. He identified the Parley’s Creek Trail as an 8 mile corridor roughly following the I-80 Parley’s Creek corridor from the mouth of Parley’s Canyon to the Provo-Jordan River Parkway. He referred Commissioners to the map in their informational packet. He noted that on the west end between Sugar House and I-15 the trail splits into a loop trail, part of which will follow the rail corridor recently acquired by UTA and which is being considered for possible freeway and light rail development.
Mr. Simonsen drew Commissioners’ attention to the brochure in their packets that was prepared by the Salt Lake County Planning Division through a National Foundation for the Arts grant, which funded a design competition for a crossing between Sugar House Park and the Hidden Hollow Nature Preserve. He identified this as a very creative approach to creating a pedestrian-grade separated crossing and indicated similar crossings may occur where the Trail intersects 700 East, State Street, 300 West, the light rail corridor, and other major north-south transportation routes. The other brochure in their packets highlights the social, physical, and economic benefits of creating walkable communities.
Commissioner Diamond asked how the project addresses the involved communities’ support of or opposition to the project, and how the project addresses security issues.
Mr. Simonsen stated that in building the Coalition to develop the master plan, many individuals from involved communities were consulted, including City Council members, planning staffs, Planning Commissioners from some jurisdictions, Engineering, Public Works divisions, property owners, and community stakeholders. He indicated that the PRATT Coalition is essentially a grassroots organization with close to 500 people who have expressed interest in the Trail’s development and are part of the community advocacy efforts. These people include property owners, business owners, and interested citizens; the Advisory Board includes elected officials from Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County, with plans to include members of the South Salt Lake City Council. They have had briefings with policy advisors, included mayors and key staff, in all the communities and received express support from all three jurisdictions for the project. In addition, they have received more than $1.5 million for design and construction, primarily from State and Federal sources. Over $500,000 has been received from Salt Lake City through the Community Improvement Program approved by the City Council. The Coalition has tried with earnestness to build support through all of the communities and feel satisfied that they have been able to develop positive relations with them.
Commissioner Diamond asked how the 1300 East 2100 South corridor issue has been received by property owners there. Mr. Simonsen indicated that 2100 South hasn’t been an issue because that corridor is avoided with the proposed alignment in the master plan, which actually uses the rail right of way, a public easement now owned by UTA. UTA has not determined how and when to use that corridor, but the Coalition is preparing an application for shared use, similar to that which is used in Sandy and Draper. In the interim, the Coalition considers the Trail a great way to supervise and address security issues currently problematic in this abandoned corridor. The belief is that public use, lighting, and other trail improvements will actually improve security. The 1300 East crossing is still under discussion with property owners to determine a final alignment design. Ms. Peters reiterated that the property owners along the corridor are actively involved in those discussions. Mr. Sorensen remarked that Woodbury Corporation, who owns one of the buildings in that area, actually provided some funding for the design competition and have expressed considerable support of the Trail’s positive impact on the development of area property. He summarized that both business and residential community members in the Sugar House area have been supportive of the proposed Trail.
Mr. Simonsen reiterated his invitation to Planning Commissioners to attend the Open House and encouraged them to explore any additional questions there. Chairperson Chambless thanked Mr. Simonsen and Ms. Peters for their presentation and information.
(This item was heard at 8:03 P.M.)
Director Zunguze explained that he will be conducting a national search for a replacement Planning Director while he functions in the dual roles of Planning Director and Community Development Director. He pledged that he would remain fully engaged in the Planning Division and the associated Boards and Commissions in order to ensure the momentum continues.
Director Zunguze reminded the Commissioners about the importance of the upcoming March 9, 2005, meeting where the TRAX expansion petition will be discussed. Commissioner De Lay reminded the Commission that she will recuse herself from that item, and Commissioner Seelig stated that she will be unable to attend as she will be out of town.
Chairperson Chambless queried the status of adding Commissioners; Director Zunguze indicated the process should be completed by the end of April.
Director Zunguze informed the Commission that the City Planning Division has received the Critical Lands Grant, associated with trails, open space, etc. The $10,000 grant will be used to help reclassify open space.
Director Zunguze distributed a Long-Range Projects Status Report and information about Commission Initiated Petitions. He encouraged Commissioners to express to the City Council the reasons why long range and city-wide planning is so vital to the City and should be funded.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters
(These items were heard at 6:14 P.M.)
Murray City DBA UTOPIA and Salt Lake City Public Utilities – As part of Murray City’s implementation of the UTOPIA telecommunications infrastructure network, Murray City is requesting approval of overhead and buried fiber optic cable utility installations involving Salt Lake City Public Utilities owned property for the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal, at five locations within Murray City. The request is to allow standard utility crossing permits at 6040 South Fontaine Bleu Drive, 6120 South Rodeo Lane, 6575 South Vinecrest Drive, 6500 South 1300 East, and 1354 East 6400 South. Please see attached maps for details. The Public Utilities Department staff intends to approve the utility permits as requested.
Salt Lake County Flood Control and Salt Lake City Public Utilities – Salt Lake County is requesting a standard utility permit from Salt Lake City Public Utilities to construct a storm water overflow diversion structure within the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal and on Canal property. The diversion structure is proposed to allow excess storm water from the canal to enter Corner Canyon Creek, as part of a Flood Control agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County. This location is within the city limits of Draper, Utah. The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the utility permit as requested.
It was noted that these items are published for the benefit of the public and no action is required by the Planning Commission. Any public comments or concerns may be directed to the respective department managing the project. Chairperson Chambless asked if anyone on the Commission or from the public had any questions or wished to comment on the public notice agenda items. Hearing none, Chairperson Chambless moved to the public hearings.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(This item was heard at 6:15 P.M.)
Petition No. 450-05-01 – Salt Lake City Corporation is making a formal application to the Utah State Department of Community and Economic Development for designation of a Recycling Market Development Zone (RMDZ). This is an economic development tool only and does not have any proposed changes to the City’s existing land use policies, zoning ordinance, or zoning map. As part of Salt Lake City’s application, the City must demonstrate approval of and commitment by the City Council and the Mayor, to the RMDZ Program. The proposed RMDZ boundaries will encompass an industrially zoned area from I-80 on the north, 2100 South on the south, I-215 on the east, and to the City limits on the west. (Staff – Vicki Bennett at 535-6540)
Vicki Bennett identified the proposed RMDZ as a development tool rather than a rezoning issue. She explained it is a State program under which cities are asked to designate an area where recycling businesses can be located. A number of existing recycling businesses in this area have requested that the area be so designated. Some State incentives can be received by businesses in an RMDZ, e.g. a 5% tax credit on machinery and equipment, 20% State tax credit up to $2,000, and some technical assistance from the State’s Recycling and Economic Development Departments. In addition, the City is offering technical assistance and non-monetary assistance to businesses wishing to access this economic incentive. Numerous cities throughout the State are designating these zones and Salt Lake City hopes to remain competitive by doing the same.
Recycling businesses are already allowed in the M1 and M2 zones, so it does not change the type of business located there; the RMDZ serves to attract more businesses to the area. The determination to locate the RMDZ west of I-215 locates the zone away from residential areas and maintains current area norms. The hope is to make a more positive environmental impact; often recyclable materials are unable to be processed because we do not have the right type of service here. Glass is a key example of this. Additionally, prices are negatively impacted because of the materials quantities able to be processed by existing facilities. The RMDZ is designed to bring in new industries, thus providing more jobs and improving our recycling capabilities.
Commissioner Scott asked how the boundaries for the RMDZ were determined. Ms. Bennett indicated that the boundaries primarily are designed to include current recycling businesses and to attract new businesses. Since recycling is allowed in all M1 and M2 zones, the determination was made to include all of these zones west of I-215. Commissioner Scott queried the review of areas further north, near the refineries. Ms. Bennett indicated that there are no current recycling businesses in that area that would qualify, therefore the area was not considered at length.
Commissioner Scott asked if there will be any increased regulatory requirements because of State subsidies. Ms. Bennett indicated that recyclers already have to meet all environmental regulations. However, with the RMDZ in place, opportunities for the City’s influence over recyclers will increase. Currently the City has no environmental regulations to enforce; such enforcement is done at a County and State level. By having the RMDZ, the City for the first time will have a tool to encourage compliance; recyclers who do not comply may have the offered incentives and/or RMDZ designation revoked. No automatic increased oversight from the State comes by designating the RMDZ.
Commissioner Muir asked for clarification of the economic development agenda, concerned that these types of businesses chase away other types that perhaps have less environmental impact. Ms. Bennett asked for clarification of the concern. Commissioner Muir referred to letters in the packet indicating an adverse affect on property demand in the area; increasing the tax base through one type of business does not seem to balance with decreases from businesses avoiding the area. Ms. Bennett stated that environmentally, recycling businesses are preferred over other types of manufacturing. The industry is not a polluting type of industry. Generally the businesses reuse products but do not generate emissions. Businesses recovering materials for energy aren’t allowed to take advantage of the incentives. Most of the recycling industries of which she is aware are not considered to be high risk from an environmental standpoint. Ms. Lewis reminded the Commission that the recyclers are already permitted in the M1 and M2 zones; they are either permitted or Conditional Use.
Commissioner Scott pointed to community concerns about environmental impact and a preponderance of recyclers attracted to the area as indicated in letters included in the Staff Report packet. She queried Ms. Bennett about a projected influx of this type of industry into the area. She recognized that recyclers are much cleaner than in the past, not land fills or dumping grounds but rather areas where materials are treated and then removed to landfills. Ms. Bennett confirmed that recyclers are required to recover a certain percentage of the materials, so they cannot serve as dumping areas. She projected that there would be only a small number (2 or 3) of new recyclers, in addition to the 6 or 7 already there, attracted to the area because the market is limited. Commissioner Scott asked if they expect to attract alternative types of recyclers or if research shows that existing recyclers simply get larger. Ms. Bennett indicated that the area is beginning to see some competition but cited Owens-Corning as an example of a recycler with very limited abilities to recycle available materials, using only clear glass in fiberglass production, with the nearest general glass recycler located in Colorado. While she indicated the City’s desire to attract other types of recyclers, it is unknown whether the incentives offered will be sufficient to do so.
Commissioner Diamond asked about the neighborhood impact and queried whether the demographics around existing recyclers were examined and whether pinpointing those specific areas might not promote growth in those areas rather than spreading it throughout the entire M1 and M2 zones. Ms. Lewis indicated that the wider RMDZ allows business owners more options about their future needs. Pinpointing might limit site potential. Commissioner Diamond asked if a study had been done about increases in truck traffic, air pollution, and noise pollution as a result of increased recycling. He indicated concerns about the large size of the RMDZ, suggesting that perhaps the incentives could still be effective in a smaller area. Ms. Bennett cited the requests of existing businesses spread throughout the area and the desire to incorporate their needs, and stated that since recyclers are allowed in these M1 and M2 zones it seemed logical to not limit the options by narrowing the RMDZ. Commissioner Diamond identified this as a wider issue for Planning Commissioners to consider, perhaps in a different area or confined to a smaller portion of the zones. Ms. Lewis indicated that the businesses are already permitted or Conditional Use in the M1 zone; altering that would require changes to the zoning ordinance.
Commissioner Seelig clarified that recycling businesses are permitted in M1 and M2. Ms. Lewis stated that outdoor recycling is a Conditional Use in M1. Commissioner Seelig verified that based on the particulars of the business, including traffic and output, the request for a recycling business would be reviewed by the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis and queried whether the creation of the RMDZ would change that review process. Ms. Lewis confirmed that it would not change. Commissioner Seelig referred to a letter in the packet from the Poplar Grove Community Council, which states in part “We further understand that this designation allows the City/State more regulatory oversight responsibilities for businesses operating within the RMDZ” and clarified that the City oversight is actually limited to recommendation that a recycler’s tax credits and technical assistance be withdrawn. Ms. Bennett concurred. Commissioner Seelig cited concerns from citizens and businesses, including smell and waste products, and verified that the City has no jurisdiction over those concerns. Ms. Bennett stated that the City has zoning regulations and nuisance regulations that allow the City to ask for clean up. She indicated that because of these applications some Enforcement officers have been visiting some of these facilities and encouraging them to maintain regulatory requirements in order to achieve the incentives offered by creation of the RMDZ. Ms. Bennett drew attention to the need for enforcement independent of the RMDZ issue. Commissioner Seelig acknowledged that while these types of businesses are already allowed in the M1 and M2 areas, increasing their concentration would necessitate a greater of enforcement, and she questioned the City’s willingness to commit the resources necessary to do so. Ms. Bennett was unable to comment.
Commissioner Noda inquired about the frequency of complaints about current recyclers’ noise, trucks, smells, etc. Ms. Lewis acknowledged that there have been a variety of complaints from time to time. Commissioner Noda asked how many trucks current recyclers have bringing materials in and out of their facilities each day. Ms. Bennett indicated there had not been an actual study of the number but stated it would vary.
Chairperson Chambless asked how long-range population projections would affect the need for recyclers and the large recycling area proposed under the RMDZ. Ms. Bennett expressed her belief that the need for recycling products will mirror population increases. She cited concerns about the current landfills’ long-term capacity, which is currently estimated to be about 15 years, and stated that any efforts made to save landfill space are highly valuable.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were anyone present wishing to speak on behalf of the partnership. Brad Mertz, from the Recycling Coalition of Utah, and Steve Handy, Consultant for Recycling Coalition of Utah, spoke for the group. Mr. Handy identified himself as a communications consultant and the designated spokesman. He explained that the process for obtaining the RMDZ began a year ago and outlined the steps taken, including the open hearings and meetings with the Glendale and Poplar Grove Community Councils. He emphasized that the RMDZ is about economic development, citing the 1996 bill that allows RMDZs. The State of Utah contracted with the Recycling Coalition of Utah to implement and regulate the law throughout the state. Current recyclers in the M1 and M2 zones have requested that they be allowed to take advantage of the incentives in this law, which has a 5 year provision. He outlined the process for implementation as beginning with a written resolution from a municipality and then the State of Utah Bureau of Economic Development regulates the RMDZ, working with the City to provide an annual report. He conceded that the incentives are quite small but pointed out that every little bit helps when working on a tight margin. He distributed a written Frequently Asked Questions position on what recycling zones are to the Commissioners (attached).
Mr. Mertz stated that the intent of the legislation is to stimulate markets for recyclables. He explained that the legislation is aimed at companies which can take recycled material and use it in their manufacturing processes, thereby create a market for recyclables. He referred to Ms. Bennett’s earlier mention of Owens-Corning, citing them as an example of a local company that can take waste material from Salt Lake City and turn it into a viable product, motivated by the State’s incentives. The State anticipates local governments will partner with them in creating incentives. The City then has a little more control by using incentives to ensure compliance with regulations.
Chairperson Chambless asked for representatives from the local Community Councils. Jay Ingleby spoke on behalf of the Glendale Community Council as First Vice-Chair. He referred Commissioners to the petition submitted by the Glendale Community Council at the Open House. He identified pollution concerns from several businesses west of the community, namely Thatcher Chemical, US Welding, City landfill, Union Pacific Railroad, etc. He cited EPA statistics indicating that 40% of diesel locomotive smoke, which is concentrated along the 900 South corridor, is cancer causing. He expressed trepidation about residents’ health should the RMDZ be implemented and draw even more recycling businesses to the area. He articulated reservations about the City’s ability to enforce the regulations due to understaffing and concerns about the need for even greater enforcement should the number of recyclers increase.
Mr. Ingleby also identified Nelson Refining on Gladiola Street as a continual violator of regulations; he denied that such businesses are contributing to the community in positive ways. He identified 1300 South, North Temple, and 2100 South as the major arteries to access the proposed RMDZ and cited heavy traffic as a major worry along school routes. He worries that the community would be the ones to suffer if the RMDZ didn’t function as well as hoped. He stated that the 900 South rail line has been devastating to the community and fears the area is becoming a dumping ground for the City. He read the Community Councils’ request: “Please deny this request and have some respect and concern for our residents. We are not a dumping ground. We are part of this City, too.” He referred to the petitions in the Commissioners’ packets and asked them to consider whether or not they would like to have the RMDZ in their community because Glendale prefers not to have it in theirs.
Commissioner Diamond reminded Mr. Ingleby that M1 and M2 zones already allow for these businesses to function under Conditional Use permits. He suggested that if enough people in the community who are concerned about these types of businesses, they might consult with Planning Division Staff about the possibilities of rezoning the area. He reiterated that the discussion tonight about the RMDZ will not affect the current zoning. Mr. Ingleby identified the need for long-term planning for such a large area, which residents feel could be used for other purposes. He indicated a preference for locating the RMDZ closer to the landfill and further from the community. Commissioner Diamond emphasized the importance of these concerns being addressed in a forum that will allow exploration of the zoning issues. Mr. Ingleby suggested that the RMDZ be tabled until studies about the health impact on residents can be completed.
Chairperson Chambless asked Mr. Ingleby about the date of the signed petitions. Mr. Ingleby indicated that the petitions are dated to the City on August 23, 2004. Ms. Lewis clarified that the Open House was held August 26, 2004, and that the petitions were submitted that night. Chairperson Chambless noted that people did not have a chance to hear the presentation prior to signing the petition. Ms. Lewis concurred, indicating she was unaware of what information went out with the petitions.
Chairperson Chambless invited Norm Tabish, a community member, to speak. Mr. Tabish identified himself as a member of the Glendale Community Council, serving as the Community Action Chairman. He expressed concerns about the types of materials that would be stored at the recycling plants, citing cases of fires at other businesses that have been problematic. He stated that many businesses in the area present environmental hazards. He identified a railroad tie company located at 1600 South Redwood Road that stores railroad ties treated with creosote, a chemical listed by the EPA as carcinogenic. Rain and snow can cause leeching, putting this chemical into the ground. A previous fire at the location sent smoke and ash into the atmosphere for several days, with much of the ash settling in the Glendale area. No study about the resultant pollution was ever conducted. He also identified the Sap Brothers’ Truck Stop on California Avenue and Redwood Road as an environmental hazard, with the parking lot having from 8 to 40 diesel trucks running their motors nonstop. A slight wind brings the spent diesel fuel directly to the Glendale area. Within a few blocks is also the Thatcher Chemical Company, with a seemingly never-ending number of chemical spills, about which the residents know very little. A sulfuric acid spill 13 years ago caused a mass evacuation of Glendale for nearly 2 days. Residents have concerns about recycling plants, not knowing what chemicals or other hazards may be involved. Mr. Tabish suggested that a study should be made and consideration of the area should include the effects of these hazards on residents.
Chairperson Chambless read into the record the comments from community member Ross Andra, “I want to move a tire recycling plant over there – all others on a case-by-case basis.” Mr. Andra clarified that he was against the proposal.
Chairperson Chambless invited Randy Sorensen, Chair of the Glendale Community Council, to address the Commission. He spoke on behalf of the elderly in the area, specifically expressing concerns about air quality in the neighborhood and its effect on those in poor health.
Chairperson Chambless read into the record the comments from community member Olive Jones, “I do not like the idea of a Recycling Development Zone.”
Chairperson Chambless invited Bruce Alder, President of Alder Construction to speak. Mr. Alder referred to the letter he submitted to the Commission on February 22, 2005. He corrected a statistic cited in the letter. The original reads, “Are you aware that the State incentives granted Nucor $1,750,000 in tax credits in just one year?” He clarified that the number is questionable; some reports indicate a credit of as much as $35,000,000 and others as low as $900,000. He reiterated that he believes his original quote to be correct but acknowledged it may be inexact.
Mr. Alder reiterated the belief that the RMDZ issue is not a planning and zoning issue but rather a development tool. He referenced the Staff’s report that incentives were being offered by the State and City to a select group of businesses and expressed a belief that these incentives are unfair and unnecessary. He noted that many of the existing recyclers are not small, local companies but rather large national corporations, such as Owens-Corning. He noted that while the incentives were identified by Ms. Bennett as being “quite small” they obviously were large enough for these companies to hire a professional communications consultant to speak on their behalf. He proposed that development be encouraged by improving current recyclers’ compliance with regulations and improving the roadways, which he believes would encourage many types of businesses to consider the area and induce current property owners toward further development.
Chairperson Chambless asked Ms. Lewis and Ms. Bennett to comment on the boundary change from the original 1300 South to North Temple area to the currently proposed 2100 South to North Temple. Ms. Bennett explained that the desire to be more inclusive led to expanding the RMDZ to include all M1 and M2 zones, where these types of businesses are already permitted.
Commissioner Muir asked whether or not a standing master plan exists for the area. Ms. Lewis explained that the area is identified as industrial. Commissioner Muir emphasized that this is by zoning ordinance and not as part of a master plan, which does not exist for the area. He identified the need for a master plan to aid the Planning Commission in making long-term decisions. Mr. Wheelwright clarified that the western boundary of the Salt Lake City master plan ends at I-215. West of that no comprehensive master plan has been completed. Chairperson Chambless clarified that the RMDZ proposal specifically encompasses the area west of I-215 where no master plan exists. Ms. Lewis concurred. Commissioner Seelig asked about the implementation of a master plan for the area. Mr. Wheelwright explained that the master plan for this area is part of the Northwest master plan and is part of the Mayor’s budget proposal.
Chairperson Chambless asked for additional public comment. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Muir expressed doubts that additional recycling is vital to the area, noting that Metro provides service for 65% of the construction waste for the entire Wasatch Front, Rocky Mountain is the largest paper recycler in the Intermountain West, and ACE serves two states and nine Utah counties. He indicated a belief that service industries and offices may be the focus of future growth in the area with heavy industry taking a lesser role and referred to the need for a master plan to guide long-range plans for the area. He expressed a preference for grants as economic incentives rather than relying on zoning inducements.
Commissioner Noda indicated concerns about the large size of the RMDZ designation, acknowledging that M1 and M2 zoning allows for these industries but noting uneasiness about community impact of increased noise, pollution, and traffic.
Commissioner Galli expressed apprehension that evaluation and discussion of the issue easily blurs into other issues. He reiterated the narrow scope of the RMDZ proposal, specifically that it designed to take advantage of an economic development package legislated by the State in 1996. He summarized many of the comments and concerns being expressed as challenges to the 1996 law granting economic incentives and to 1995 M1 and M2 zoning. He emphasized Salt Lake City’s pro-recycling history and that recycling is not heavy industry but instead is a well-regulated and highly desirable industry. He cited concerns about traffic, pollution, air quality as issues to be considered under zoning ordinances and not as part of this economic incentive designation. He emphasized the need to demonstrate the Commission’s belief in the benefits of recycling by making a favorable recommendation to the City Council regarding the RMDZ and then asking Staff to reevaluate the neighborhood impact concerns.
Commissioner Seelig expressed her strong support for recycling programs but stated that the RMDZ is more about a holistic vision for a community, which is hampered by the lack of a master plan for the area. She stated that she cannot support the RMDZ without a master plan in which the community has participated. Commissioner Noda concurred with Commissioner Seelig’s assessment of the need for a master plan in the area.
Commissioner Muir agreed with Commissioner Galli’s desire to encourage recycling but disagreed that there is a lack of market response to the recycling need. He reiterated that many current recyclers serve areas much larger than just Salt Lake City, perhaps because of the central location and ease of transportation access. He accepted the desire to send a positive message about recycling but suggested that the RMDZ be applied as a spot-zone, with planning staff assessing the cumulative impact of each new applicant and then linking the RMDZ designation to each specific property.
Commissioner Galli responded that some types of recycling, specifically glass, are not available in this area because profit margins are so narrow as to make them economically unviable. He emphasized that the types of incentives provided by the RMDZ designation are necessary to encourage additional recycling that will prevent overuse of the existing landfill and foster economic growth. He agreed that an alternate to the broad RMDZ area might be in order and suggested the Planning Staff consider an overlay zone, similar to that used for some light industrial facilities, which would allow recyclers to locate within the overlay zone without requiring a Conditional Use; however, locating too near residential areas would require a Conditional Use permit. He expressed concerns that delaying recommended approval of the RMDZ might negatively impact recycling support. He stated that supporting the RMDZ now would not equate to an immediate influx of recyclers to the area; sufficient time would be available prior to City Council’s approval for Planning Staff to evaluate and propose an overlay zone option.
Commissioner Scott agreed with Commissioner Galli but expressed concerns that the citizens would not feel they have been adequately represented. She emphasized that their voice is best heard through the enforcement process, constantly following up when they see problems. She stated the need to maintain recycling in central locations with easy transportation and to serve as a presence that would remind the community of the need to continue recycling efforts rather than overburdening landfills.
Director Zunguze urged the Commission to continue their pattern of careful deliberation rather than overreaction to issues. He suggested that the RMDZ be tabled to allow Planning Staff sufficient time to engage the Economic and Environmental offices in obtaining clarification about some of the issues raised in tonight’s discussion, namely the size of the RMDZ area and specific recycling industries the City hopes to attract to the area. He supported the need for a long-range master plan in the area but pointed out that placing a moratorium on the area until such a plan is in place is unrealistic. Regarding the level of enforcement, he drew to the Commissioners’ attention the overwhelming workload currently experienced by the Enforcement section, who deal with myriad problems over a large area while understaffed.
Commissioner Muir agreed with Director Zunguze’s comments and asked that the Commission have the opportunity to talk with a current recycler about the actual impact of the incentives offered under the RMDZ program and how they will in turn contribute to the community.
Commissioner Noda agreed with the idea of tabling the motion. She stated a need to have sufficient information to make a well-informed decision without negatively impacting the City’s commitment to recycling. She reiterated concerns about the breadth of the area and the impact to surrounding neighborhoods. She expressed support for Staff’s efforts in developing recommendations for the area and reiterated the need for additional funding for Enforcement and Planning Staffs.
The Commission discussed at length concerns about implementation of conditions for conditional use permits and the need for increased Enforcement funding to enable improved levels of enforcement. Director Zunguze asked for specifics about cases believed to not be in compliance with conditions of their conditional use permits, rather than generalized statements that cannot be acted upon.
Commissioner Galli queried whether tabling the motion pending further study would negatively impact the City’s ability to compete for recycling businesses. Ms. Bennett indicated that she was unaware of any specific companies awaiting the outcome of tonight’s decision and agreed that additional review of boundaries and/or overlay zoning possibilities may be helpful. She requested that the item be revisited within the next two months rather than indefinitely postponed. Director Zunguze agreed that it should be possible to review the issue in that time period. He emphasized that allowing the Planning Staff additional time to resolve the issues will prevent further delays later by the City Council.
Motion for Petition No. 450-05-01: Commissioner De Lay moved that Petition 450-05-01 be tabled until Staff is able to provide further information on environmental impacts and specifics regarding how State incentives impact current and prospective recycling businesses.
Commissioner Muir asked that the City’s strategic position on this issue, e.g., is the City the only city on the Wasatch Front with a comprehensive recycling program, does the City shoulder the preponderant burden of accommodating recycling facilities, etc., be included in the additional information presented to the Commission along with information on environmental impacts and specifics about the effects of the incentives on recycling businesses.
Commissioner De Lay accepted Commissioner Muir’s request to include the City’s strategic position in the information requested from Staff.
Amended Motion for Petition No. 450-05-01: Commissioner De Lay moved that Petition 450-05-01 be tabled until Staff is able to provide further information on environmental impacts, specifics regarding how State incentives impact current and prospective recycling businesses, and details of the City’s strategic position on the issue.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. All voted in favor, 7-0; therefore the motion to table Petition No. 450-05-01 passed unanimously.
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:38 p.m.
(This item was heard at 7:43 P.M.)
Petition No. 410-715 – Bernard Rosenson is requesting conditional use approval to allow a 16 resident assisted living facility for the elderly in the historic Wolfe Mansion at 273 No. East Capitol Blvd. The property is zoned "RMF-35". (Staff – Janice Lew at 535-7625 or janice.lew@slcgov.com)
Janice Lew explained that Mr. Rosenson is currently under contract to purchase the stated property contingent upon receiving approval of this petition. She identified the property as a landmark site located in the Capitol Hills district which was given conditional use approval in August 1997 to be used as a bed and breakfast. Prior to that conditional use, the building was used as an apartment building. The site maintains its historic integrity and residential character; no significant changes are proposed to the building or site. The facility would provide accommodations for up to 16 residents in 13 existing units. Staff recommends approval of the petition with conditions outlined in the Staff Report.
Commissioner De Lay asked for clarification regarding the signage recommendation. Ms. Lew explained that the monument sign indicated in the recommendation is a free-standing sign with a full base.
Commissioner Diamond asked for explanation of the “x” marks on the plans submitted. Ms. Lew explained that the marks represent changes to the plans submitted for the original conditional use. She stated that any changes to the building would be primarily for maintenance purposes.
Commissioner Scott questioned whether an elevator is currently installed in the facility; Ms. Lew confirmed that it is.
Chairperson Chambless invited the petitioner to speak. Mr. Rosenson identified himself as President of Sign of the Dove, a healthcare and lodging company in business since 1977 with existing assisted living retirement communities in California and Nevada. He stated that the Utah facility is the prototype for a new concept of assisted living facility called Mansions Assisted Living. He outlined the new approach as finding mansions in a suitable environment which were built in the time period of the residents and then furnishing them with antiques in order to provide a pleasing living environment.
Chairperson Chambless queried the locales of the existing California facilities. Mr. Rosenson responded that the company has facilities from San Diego to Sacramento. Commissioner De Lay asked if the group were a non-profit or for-profit entity. Mr. Rosenson replied that they try to be profitable.
Chairperson Chambless asked if there were anyone from the Community Council or neighborhood who wished to speak. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing. There was no further discussion among the Commission.
Motion for Petition No. 410-715: Based on comments and findings of fact from Staff, Commissioner De Lay moved the Planning Commission approved the request to use the subject property as a 16-resident assisted living facility for the elderly subject to the following conditions:
1. The conditional use approval shall be valid for a one year period unless a building permit is issued and construction is actually begun, or the use commenced within that period, or a longer time is requested and granted by the Planning Commission.
2. A Certificate of Appropriateness shall be required prior to the issuance of a building permit for any new signage. The signage shall be limited to one monument sign that identifies the property with a maximum area of 24 square feet and maximum height of 4 feet. The signage shall be compatible with the architecture of the building and not have a negative impact on the streetscape and historic district.
Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion. All voted in favor, 7-0; therefore the motion to approve Petition No. 410-715 passed unanimously.
(It is noted that a discussion of density and square footage requirements was conducted after the vote. Deputy Director Brent Wilde conferred with Ms. Lew prior to citing zoning ordinances that clarified the difference between dwelling units and rooms, and verified that the conditional use is compliant with the ordinance.)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(This item was heard at 8:09 P.M.)
Commissioner Scott queried the status of North Salt Lake City’s request to disconnect. Director Zunguze reported that no additional information is available.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:10 P.M.