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, Craig Galli, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig.
Present from the Transportation Advisory Board were Vice Chairperson Debbie Medina, Mark Smedley, Bonnie Mangold, Jim Jenkin, Keith Jensen, John deJong, Milton Braselton, Mark Garfield, and Jeanetta Williams.
Present from the Planning Division Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Principle Planner Doug Dansie, and Planning Commission Secretary Andrea Curtis.
Present from Salt Lake City Staff were City Transportation Director Tim Harpst, Assistant Chief of Police Scott Atkinson, and Transportation Planning Engineer Kevin Young.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Chambless called the meeting to order at 5:45 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.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2005
(This item was heard at 6:51 P.M.)
Commissioner De Lay moved for the Planning Commission to approve the minutes as presented. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 8-0. As Chairperson, Commissioner Chambless did not vote.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(This item was heard at 6:52 P.M.)
Chairperson Chambless confirmed with Vice Chairperson Noda that a meeting has been set for February 23 at 12:00 p.m. with the new City Council Chair Dale Lambert and Vice Chair Nancy Saxton.
Commissioner Seelig queried the progress on scheduling a joint meeting; Chairperson Chambless deferred the answer pending the outcome of the meeting on February 23.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
(These items were heard at 6:52 P.M.)
Planning Director Louis Zunguze withdrew the agenda item “Interpretation of pad sites” until a later date.
Director Zunguze confirmed the adoption of the Walkable Communities (WC) Ordinance by the City Council and noted that it will become effective in four months’ time in order to allow the community to become familiar with its concepts. He stated that the Planning Division has created a brochure outlining what the ordinance addresses, who is affected by it, and the approval and appeal processes involved. Director Zunguze explained that during the approval process, the City Council made considerable changes to the WC Ordinance. He asked Principle Planner Doug Dansie to explain those changes and reminded the Commissioners that the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Ordinance mirrors to the WC Ordinance to some extent. Because of the changes to the WC Ordinance, review and revision of the TOD Ordinance will be necessary in order to maintain continuity between them. He requested that the Commissioners determine how involved they would prefer to be in that review and revision process.
Mr. Dansie assured the Commissioners that the City Council did not make substantive changes to the Walkable Communities Ordinance. He explained that the changes did not focus on design elements such as instituting a maximum set back, having a percentage of glass at ground level, having the front door orient to the street, etc.; these remain intact. The Council’s changes focused on the process for obtaining a waiver from the requirements, such as when an architect wants to vary from the prescription of the ordinance. Initially the WC Ordinance called for such requests to be funneled into the Conditional Use process, which was already in place. The Council determined that since Conditional Use is designed to address uses, not design, it is not the most effective method to assess variances. Therefore the Planning Division created a new Conditional Building and Site Design Review, through which such requests will be assessed against specific design-based criteria. Mr. Dansie referred Commissioners to the memo regarding the Transit Corridor Ordinance dated February 9, 2005, which outlines the new process.
Mr. Dansie continued that reflections about addressing simple concerns, e.g. the location of a front door or fenestration of a window, through the Community Council process led to patterning the Conditional Building and Site Design Review process on that used by the Historic Landmark Commission which allows for administrative approval when notices have been sent out and no response or interest has been generated. Where response is generated, the matter will be addressed by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Dansie restated Director Zunguze’s request that the Commissioners determine the level of involvement they would prefer during the TOD Ordinance revisions. Director Zunguze confirmed that the City Council will hold a public hearing on the matter, which would essentially make an additional Planning Commission hearing redundant. He offered to have Staff review the two ordinances, make any necessary changes, and then provide the specifics to Commissioners.
Commissioner De Lay supported this approach to the revisions, citing the City Council hearing and the minor substantive nature of the changes as grounds to accept the recommendations of the Director and Staff in making the revisions to the TOD Ordinance before the Planning Commission grants final approval.
Commissioner McDonough requested an opportunity to ask additional questions after further review of the February 09, 2005, memorandum with process outline provided by Mr. Dansie. Director Zunguze assured her that the opportunity would be provided at the next meeting. Mr. Dansie clarified that the changes in the appendix of the memo are those adopted by the City Council in the Walkable Communities Ordinance. The items that will change in the TOD Ordinance will reflect the language adopted in the WC Ordinance. When queried by Chairperson Chambless, Director Zunguze deferred setting a specific date to present changes in the TOD Ordinance to the Planning Commission until he had the opportunity to further review the project with Staff.
Commissioner De Lay made a motion that the Planning Commission allow Planning Division Staff to modify the Transit Oriented Development Ordinance to match the new design criteria and process of the final Walkable Communities Ordinance as adopted by the City Council, and then return the modifications to the Planning Commission for final review. Commissioner Noda seconded the motion. All commissioners voted “aye”; as Chair, Commissioner Chambless abstained. The motion passed unanimously, 8-0 in favor.
Director Zunguze informed the Commissioners that North Salt Lake City apparently has intentions of moving forward with disconnection. While Salt Lake City has been advised of this, State statute mandates that North Salt Lake provide public notification advertising their intention in order to allow the City 30 days to hold a hearing about the issue. No information about the progress of North Salt Lake’s publication process is available; Director Zunguze pledged to keep Commissioners advised as events unfold. Commissioner Scott inquired as to the City’s response to North Salt Lake’s stated intention and the possible involvement of the Mayor’s Office. Director Zunguze stated that the Mayor and other administrative officials are working on a response, the details of which are not yet available.
Director Zunguze reminded the Planning Commission that the new viable and enforceable Policies and Procedures are in place. All diligence will be made to assure compliance with them, including procedures and attendance. He will meet with Chairperson Chambless and Vice Chair Noda in the upcoming week to discuss this and other issues.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters
(These items were heard at 7:04 P.M.)
a. 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.
b. 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 consider unfinished business.
PRESENTATION FROM WASATCH REGIONAL COUNCIL
(This item was heard at 5:53 P.M.)
Planning Director Louis Zunguze presented Bob Terragno, Relations Coordinator from Envision Utah, and Doug Hattery, Transportation Engineer and Planner from the Wasatch Front Regional Council.
Mr. Hattery introduced the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) as the agency responsible for putting together a plan for transportation and the programming of Federal Highway and Transit funds, which is called the Wasatch Front Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). He explained that the Council itself, which makes those decisions, is made up of 18 mayors and County Commissioners from Morgan, Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and Tooele Counties. By Congressional mandate, the RTP is updated every three years; it is hoped that this year’s Federal Highway and Transit Program reauthorization will include an extension of the three-year update mandate.
Mr. Hattery stated that the WFRC’s Regional Transportation Plan focuses on where people will live and work in the future. Those projections traditionally have been based on master plans from each community. The WFRC combined these different plans to create a model identifying future travel patterns and concentrations, and then worked to identify highways and transit systems that would be needed to accommodate those projections. During the past 10 years the WFRC has been increasingly involved with the Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG), a non-profit agency similar to the WFRC which does the planning for Utah County. The cooperation between the WFRC and MAG specifically focuses on traffic studies as one tool for improving the RTP. The RTP itself is the guiding policy for highway and transit improvements, including bikes and trails, in the Wasatch Front region. It seeks to address congestion issues and concerns based on expected growth projections. It is also used to set priorities for both Federal and State highway and transit projects and fund allocations, which are allotted for a 5 year period.
The Wasatch Front Regional Transportation Plan’s goal is to create a better transportation system to serve future area residents. This year the approach to the RTP is being handled differently. The new approach includes a more broad view of the region and how it will appear in the future. In the new process, the WFRC is working directly with MAG in creating a more expansive vision of the future. Also included in the process are reviews of safety and security issues and environmental matters. Past planning processes began with indications of needed transit routes, and then often required revision after reviews of environmental issues. The hope is that by considering these items together from the onset of planning, the new planning process will negate the need for extensive future revisions.
Mr. Hattery identified the greatest change to the WFRC’s planning process as the inclusion of a visioning process called “Wasatch Choices 2040”. This process asks local officials and the public what they would like to see the region look like in the future, with greater focus on the interaction between land use and transportation. The outcomes of the process will be used to develop the long-range transportation plan. Mr. Hattery explained that while the WFRC has skills in transportation planning, Envision Utah has more experience working with communities holding workshops to obtain residents’ views and opinions for future land use. Thus the two entities are partnering to conduct a series of 12 sub-regional public workshops designed to increase involvement of City Councils, Planning Commissions, Transportation Advisory Boards, Community Councils, business community members, and the general public. He referred to Mr. Terragno to explain more about the visioning process.
Chairperson Chambless asked if any Planning Commission or Transportation Advisory Board members had questions for Mr. Hattery prior to continuing with Mr. Terragno’s portion of the presentation. Commissioner Galli referred to Mr. Hattery’s indication that the Wasatch Front Regional Transportation Plan is increasing the focus on municipalities’ master plans and questioned how the existence of individual community plans rather than overarching municipal plans affects the RTP. Mr. Hattery indicated that community plans were considered when a municipal plan is not available. He emphasized that the WFRC does not seek to force any community group to adopt a specific type of plan or development. Instead they seek to develop a vision that all communities can accept and participate in.
Commissioner Galli questioned whether existing local open space plans are considered when the WFRC makes its plans; Mr. Hattery assured him that they are and explained that open space preservation is one of the primary questions of the “Wasatch Choices 2040” workshops. Once open space needs are identified, the RTP will reflects those preferences.
Commissioner Diamond identified legislative concerns about a looming transportation crisis that equate economic development with freeway construction and the elimination of congestion. He questioned the validity of this concern. Mr. Hattery responded that a good transportation system, incorporating both highways and mass transit, is needed to encourage economic development, citing needs for improved transit from Weber and Davis Counties, extensions of light rail, and bus system improvements. Mr. Terragno added that the cooperation of the WFRC and MAG enhances the planning process by synchronizing timetables and methodologies to create an overall plan that is linked across the region. This allows the region to compete with other metropolitan areas, such as Denver and Phoenix, as a region rather than as individual cities. Because the vast majority of Utah’s population continues to work and grow along the Wasatch Front, this concerted approach by the WFRC and MAG also ensures the region is more able to attract new businesses and develop economically.
Commissioner De Lay asked Mr. Terragno to clarify which counties are included is his references to the “metropolitan Salt Lake area”. Mr. Hattery explained that Morgan and Tooele Counties participate in the Wasatch Front Regional Council but that Davis, Salt Lake, Weber, and Utah Counties are the main focus.
Transportation Advisory Board member Bonnie Mangold asked Mr. Hattery to clarify whether the transportation planning impetus comes from projections of where people will live and work, or whether the WFRC reasons that transportation plans will determine where people live and work. Mr. Hattery responded that each drives the other. He explained that the new “Wasatch Choices 2040” process is designed to better respond to this relationship by identifying development patterns while determining which transportation system best serves that model.
Chairperson Tim Chambless queried the presenters about the impact of recently proposed Federal budget cuts and funding deficits on planning for transportation along the Wasatch Front. Mr. Hattery responded that the President’s projections of a 1% national funding decrease should not negatively impact Utah’s funding because Congress authorizes highway and transit spending in five year periods; each year’s new budget appropriates funding for the coming year from that previously authorized sum. The appropriations for Utah have increased during the past years and should continue to do so, although without the large boosts seen in the past which were a result of the dedicated gas tax. Mr. Terragno expressed concerns that projected Federal funding cuts threaten transportation plans much less than State legislative concerns do. He identified an enormous gap between the funding needed and that proposed by both the Legislative Leadership and the Governor.
Commissioner Galli requested that Mr. Hattery explain the joint resolution passed by Wasatch Front Regional Council and Moutainland Association of Governments regarding local funding transportation issue. Mr. Hattery responded that the Regional Transportation Plan adopted in 2003 made assumptions about the increases in available funding from local and state revenues, such as the gas tax increasing approximately every six years by $.05 per gallon, other increases from the general State fund, a sales tax increase from transit to accelerate construction of light and commuter rail systems, etc. Therefore, building everything outlined in the current plan would require those funding increases. When the RTP was adopted, the WFRC created a finance committee to take a proposal to the State Legislature to identify needs and make recommendations for funding allocations. That committee developed a recommendation and presented it to WFRC and MAG in a joint meeting last October. Those two organizations adopted a joint resolution and presented it to the State Legislature’s Transportation Task Force, which was created a few years ago to examine the State’s transportation needs and make recommendations to the legislative body.
Mr. Hattery explained that the essence of the proposal from WFRC and MAG demonstrates that over the next 10 years an additional $4 billion statewide, not just along the Wasatch Front, is needed for highways in order to address capacity, reconstruction, and preservation needs. Another $1.5 billion in additional funds will be required to build the recommended commuter and light rail lines over the same period of time. The recommendation is quite comprehensive and will have a significant impact on Legislative spending. Included in the recommendation are proposals for increasing highway revenues, such as raising the gas tax by $.05 per gallon, indexing the gas tax to inflation from this point forward, removing the exemption for gas purchases from the sales tax, and increasing vehicle registration fees dedicated to the highway budget. Recommendations for increasing available transit funds include an equalization of the UTA sales tax rate to .5% throughout their service area; current rates vary between counties. Standardizing the sales tax would eliminate UTA’s need for increased property tax to pay capital costs and still enable the needed improvements and expansions to current services.
Mr. Terragno reiterated the importance of the collaboration between the two non-profit organizations, Wasatch Front Regional Council and Mountainland Association of Governments, in creating a transportation infrastructure plan. He reminded the Planning Commissioners and Transportation Advisory Board members that there is no single item that costs taxpayers more than the transportation infrastructure; the bill for the 2030 RTP, which the 2040 RTP will supersede in three years, was presented at $23 billion, with other estimates as high as $30 billion. Mr. Terragno then expressed the hope that the Commissioners and Board Members will have a better understanding of how the transportation infrastructure plan corresponds with the land-use decisions made across the 74 Wasatch Front Region jurisdictions and how important their participation in the envisioning process is.
Mr. Terragno reviewed the schedule for the sub-regional public workshops, which include five scheduled for Salt Lake County. Director Zunguze verified that the Mayor’s office began mailing letters of invitation participate in the envisioning process yesterday. Mr. Terragno emphasized that the members of the City Council, Planning Commission, and Transportation Advisory Board should be included in those invitations. The first “Wasatch Choices 2040” workshop for Salt Lake residents will be held at the Columbus Community Center in South Salt Lake on February 22, 2005. Mr. Terragno identified areas included in this workshop as South Salt Lake, West Valley City, the Magna Township, and Emigration Canyon Township, as well as Salt Lake City. The workshop at the Gallivan Plaza will be held on March 9, 2005, and will include public officials and residents from the same group of communities. Workshops are scheduled from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Terragno then explained the roll of the “Wasatch Choices 2040” workshops in the RTP development process. He identified the visioning process as used by the military, corporate researchers, large businesses, and others who need to project 30 or more years into the future. The scenario envisioning process is a good methodology when the goal is to understand the differential consequences of available options. The process begins with public workshops to uncover grassroots, broad-based opinions. Individual governments maintain local control and have oversight in the process via a local steering committee whose members are officials from all four participating counties. Although a natural tension arises between regional imperatives and local control, the envisioning process provides opportunities to examine transportation system imperatives and link them more realistically with land use to provide the most functional, effective, and cost-effective transportation system possible.
Mr. Terragno outlined the process as interactive, with mixed groups from the represented communities seated together looking at growth figures, sub-regional maps, and other materials to generate ideas which are then used to guide designs for a variety of future plan scenarios. He cited Lehi as an example of a city whose transportation issues have been drastically impacted by decisions made in surrounding communities removed from its own voters, and he highlighted the need for communities to work together to more adequately assess needs and facilitate solutions.
He explained that these inter-community workshops produce material for planning staff at Wasatch Front Regional Council, Mountainland Association of Governments, Envision Utah, and local planning staffs who participate in the technical advisory committees for WFRC. The ideas generated in the workshops about transportation, land use, and how they interact are used by the planners to create numerous alternative scenarios for the future which combine these elements in various ways. These scenarios are then tested against a number of quality of life issues, compared, and then narrowed down and/or recombined into an entirely new design which meets the goal of a single, preferred regional scenario.
The quality of life issues Mr. Terragno identified as assessment filters against which developing scenarios are tested include job creation, land consumption, air quality, traffic, water use, miles of driving, open space, and housing opportunities. He explained that the job creation filter focuses not on commercial retail jobs but on high skill, high wage jobs designed to bolster tax revenues and to encourage young people who pursue higher education to settle locally.
Land consumption evaluations consider restrictions caused by wetlands and steep areas where it is unsafe to build; growth projections greatly affect this assessment filter. Mr. Terragno indicated that current projections indicate the population of the Wasatch Front will double between the years 2000 and 2035, with another doubling of population by 2050.
Mr. Terragno acknowledged that traffic congestion will increase regardless of the options adopted. This assessment filter is designed to identify plans which maximize congestion control and those which do little to prohibit uncontrolled growth. He noted that travel demand figures, measured in vehicle miles traveled, might seem to match population growth projections but in fact outstrip them.
Once the various regional scenarios have been compared and evaluated, the final product of the process is given to the Wasatch Front Regional Council and Mountainland Association of Governments, who then move forward with their transportation plans. Envision Utah serves to facilitate communication and constructive interaction between these two groups.
Mr. Terragno contrasted the new envisioning process with previous models for transportation planning. Previous design methods began with reviews of land use plans across jurisdictions, and graduated to discussions with Mayors, City Councils, and Planning Commissions to identify needs. Often the needs identified were only accurate for a 3 to 5 year period. Information generated during this process was then used to design a transportation system for the next 30 years. Public participation was generally limited to Open Houses throughout the region, to which turnout has traditionally been poor. The drawback of this former approach becomes apparent upon realizing the land use plans in many of the jurisdictions change, often substantially, before the transportation plan is approved and implementation can begin. The end result was design of tomorrow’s transportation system based on yesterday’s land use.
Mr. Terragno conceded that no one can accurately predict land use changes in any jurisdiction over the next 30 or more years. What the Wasatch Front Regional Council and Mountainland Association of Governments have asked Envision Utah to do is take a more interactive approach, examining the reciprocal influences of land use and transportation. The scenario building process enables WFRC, MAG, and local jurisdiction planners to construct a credible picture of the future and project outcomes of differing courses of action, and then test them against quality of life indicators. While a perfect plan may not be achieved, a vision of the desires for the future of the region will be acknowledged.
Mr. Terragno acknowledged that those communities which have a strong contingent of local officials and a broad range of resident stakeholders participating in the workshops will be more strongly represented in the final vision for the area. Communities with less participation will not have as many of their ideas represented. However, unlike the Open House format of previous design processes which were often attended by fewer than 20 people, the participation of 1,000 or more stakeholders is anticipated through the “Wasatch Choices 2040” workshops. Public involvement is therefore exponentially higher than in the past.
Mr. Terragno reviewed the simplified timeframe for the RTP development process, beginning with workshops in February and March 2005. From March to May 2005, planners will formulate scenarios based on the information generated in the workshops. Once those scenarios have been narrowed to a few final options using quality of life filters, the planners will return to the communities for additional input. Those who were invited to the regional workshops and any additional workshop participants will be invited to a combination Open House/workshop in August. Wasatch Front Regional Council and Mountainlands Association of Governments will then adopt a final Regional Transportation Plan.
Chairperson Chambless asked Mr. Terragno to verify the population projections he provided. He reviewed the figures given as being that in April 2000 the Federal census showed 2.24 million residents in the state of Utah, with Mr. Terragno projecting an increase to 4.5 or 5 million by 2040. Mr. Terragno confirmed that he believed the number to be accurate; Mr. Hattery indicated that it might be lower. Chairperson Chambless verified that Mr. Terragno had stated the population would double again by 2060 up to 10 million statewide. Mr. Terragno indicated that his figures showed a tripling of population by 2054. Chairperson Chambless indicated that his information shows a projected population of 5-6 million statewide by 2054.
Chairperson Chambless also asked for verification of population shares along the Wasatch Front. He reiterated that 80% of Utah’s population lives in the 20% of available land that constitutes the Wasatch Front, from immediately north of Ogden to just south of Provo. He asked if it were fair to predict the same population ratios would be maintained. Mr. Hattery expressed a belief that the ratio would remain fairly constant. He indicated that some spread to Tooele County would be expected but that they are limited somewhat by available water; spillover into Wasatch, Summit, and Morgan Counties could also be expected but the region along the Wasatch Front, from Brigham City to Payson or Nephi will still contain the greater majority of the state’s population. He then offered to verify the specific projected numbers for the Members.
(Information submitted to the Planning Commission and Transportation Advisory Board via e-mail on February 10, 2005, by Mr. Hattery projects statewide population doubling from 2000 to 2037, with the Wasatch Front’s population doubling by the year 2047; by 2050, the Wasatch Front's share of the state's population will decrease from 76% in 2000 to 67%.)
Mr. Terragno summarized the reasons for the presentation to the Members being primarily to invite them to participate in the “Wasatch Choices 2040” process by joining the workshops, and secondarily to prepare them for the presentations that will be made after the scenario development which will hopefully help the Members make determinations for Salt Lake City. He emphasized that the participation of public officials in the envisioning process is vital to the efficacy of the planning process.
Transportation Advisory Board member Bonnie Mangold asked why water was not considered to be a limiting factor along the Wasatch Front as Mr. Hattery expressed it would be in Tooele County. He responded that water will be a limit in most areas of Utah; water rights in Tooele County are especially limiting. Chairperson Chambless expressed his interest in the issue of water availability when considering future scenarios.
Chairperson Chambless thanked Mr. Hattery and Mr. Terragno for their presentation and called for a five minute break to allow Transportation Advisory Board members to withdraw from the remainder of the meeting if they desired. All TAB members withdrew, as did those from Salt Lake City Staff.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(This item was heard at 7:05 P.M.)
Chairperson Chambless asked if there was any unfinished business. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:06 P.M.