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 Chair, Prescott Muir, Bip Daniels, John Diamond, Craig Galli, Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott and Jennifer Seelig. Tim Chambless and Babs De Lay were excused.
Present from the City Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Planning Programs Supervisor Cheri Coffey, Principal Planner Marilynn Lewis; Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro and Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chair Muir called the meeting to order at 5:50 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 from Wednesday, April 28, 2004
The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as noted are reflected in the April 28, 2004 ratified minutes.
Commissioner Daniels made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. Commissioner McDonough abstained. Six Commissioners voted in favor, and one Commissioner abstained, and therefore the motion passed.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This item was heard at 7:29 p.m.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the “Utopia Project” which is a high-tech digital transfer of information back and forth as a result of what is going on in the telecommunication industry. The City has declined to participate in that project. Qwest has indicated that they will be able to provide DSL service to the entire City by the end of the year if the City desires. That request has land use implications and will require conditional use processes. The equipment that is used is generally located in the public right-of-way. Mr. Zunguze stated that there have been 41 requests to date and that number may be reduced to 29 conditional use applications. The City is interested in expanding DSL Service and has engaged the Community Councils as to how to expedite the process to meet the end of the year timeline. The Community Councils are willing to meet in small groups in the areas that will be affected or to have a City wide open house where all of the sites are discussed and public input is received. Mr. Zunguze said with that in place Staff needs direction as to how the Commission would like to handle the applications in a manner that is timely and will not be too overwhelming. He said that he envisions the Commission reviewing perhaps groups of seven to ten applications at one time, depending on the speed at which the Applicants submit the applications and Staff’s ability to process them.
Commissioner Daniels asked if Qwest is the only organization involved. Mr. Zunguze said that at this point that is correct. Qwest has brought this proposal to the City and there is an interest on the behalf of the City to see that service provided.
Commissioner Scott asked what the conditional uses will be allowing. Mr. Zunguze replied that the conditional use approval will allow the equipment cabinets to be installed in the public right-of-way.
Chair Muir stated that if the requests are presented to the Commission by regions then the notification will be simplified and it would spare the public from having to come back multiple times.
Mr. Zunguze stated that as the issues unfold the Commission will be notified.
Initiated Petition
Mr. Zunguze requested that the Commission initiate a petition to correct a discrepancy between Master Plans and the Zoning Ordinance with respect to institutional uses. In a number of Master Plans, parcels of land which are less than four acres have been designated for institutional use. The Zoning Ordinance calls for parcels that are 4 acres and above to be institutional uses. He asked the Commission to initiate a petition to clean up that discrepancy in the Master Plans that are affected.
Chair Muir initiated the petition.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the issue of filling the Planning Commission position of former Commissioner Jonas. He said that that will be a subject for discussion at the next Planning Commission retreat.
Commissioner Seelig asked for information regarding the process for the Commission to take that sort of action.
Mr. Zunguze said that the issues associated with that are efficiency and diversity of the Commission. He said that Staff is willing to supply scenarios that would identify what the Commission would be losing by not replacing the position and what the Commission will be gaining.
Commissioner Noda asked when the Planning Commission retreat is expected to be held. Mr. Zunguze replied that Staff is working to schedule the retreat for late June.
Commissioner Noda asked regarding the progress of the Planning Commission subcommittees. Mr. Zunguze replied that the Banner Signs Subcommittee will meet on May 19th. Staff is working to set up a City Wide Subcommittee meeting around May 24th. Staff is completing work that will be presented to the Downtown Subcommittee. He said that Staff will meet with that subcommittee when they have something substantial to present.
Commissioner Noda left the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
Mr. Zunguze stated that the Mayor is continuing discussions with regard to the North Salt Lake boundary adjustment request. The Planning Office has been directed to put on hold all processes related to this matter and wait to receive further direction. Staff has communicated the Planning Commission’s concerns to the Administration.
Commissioner Seelig asked if the request will have to come back to the Commission regardless. Mr. Zunguze replied that it may not have to come back to the Commission.
Commissioner Scott requested that Staff provide the Commission with copies of the Beck Street Reclamation Plan. Mr. Zunguze stated that Staff will make copies available.
Mr. Wheelwright stated that the Beck Street Reclamation Plan was adopted by Salt Lake City as a small area plan. North Salt Lake City did not adopt that plan.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the Salt Lake City notification process. Currently the Planning Division notifies the adjacent property owners and Community Councils directly by mailing, the general public through the newspaper publications, as well as onsite notification. He indicated that he does not have a problem with including another form of notification to reach the public.
Chair Muir asked if Staff posts the Planning Commission agendas on the website in the same timely fashion that they are mailed out. Mr. Zunguze replied that is correct.
Mr. Zunguze said that if there are additional suggestions Staff is willing to listen; however, there are always implications for additional measures. Mr. Zunguze stated that from a budgetary stand point he will have to work with the Administration.
Commissioner Daniels suggested looking at the expense of notifying everyone in a particular area which would include tenants. He felt that perhaps the Community Councils could assist in that process.
Mr. Wilde noted that the challenge with tenant notification is that currently the Applicant can obtain a list of property owners from the County. To provide notice to tenants, the easiest way is to send a notice to every address, which creates redundancy. Mr. Wilde referred to the place of worship notification for the discussion this evening, and said that it required several hundred dollars to notify the public. He said that there is no other way to avoid redundancy in noticing without sorting the notices manually. Mr. Wilde stated that there is not a reliable tenant list available at this point. He added that once the City assumes the responsibility to send notices to every tenant and the tenant’s names continually change, if the City fails to adhere to that standard the City is setup for a procedural error. He said that Staff has reviewed this matter before and if there is a way to accomplish that while managing the challenges, Staff is open to suggestions.
Commissioner Seelig stated that she felt it is the responsibility of the municipality to reach out to the community. She said that she realizes it is a City wide issue, which is larger than the Planning Division. She said that she has an issue with the idea that property owners receive a higher level of standard than the renters. She indicated that her request is satisfied if the information is posted on the City web page, which everyone has the opportunity to open. Commissioner Seelig stated that it is also the responsibility of the citizen to participate. She said that the community participation has been discussed in the Council Office. She thought perhaps there is something that the Planning Commission can do to open the communication to correct this discrepancy.
Commissioner Scott stated that the Community Councils communicate through email frequently. She said that the Community Councils would be a good resource to solve the noticing issue.
Mr. Wilde said that it would be helpful if the Community Councils could generate a list of interested citizens with the understanding that the City does not have the resource to keep it updated.
Mr. Zunguze referred to the Planning Commission’s request for Staff to map the conditional uses within the City. He said that conditional uses are defined in a variety of ways such as size, use, and for projects that may want to opt out of certain standards, as well as accessory uses. He said if the Commission had a certain concern Staff could target conditional uses that speak to that concern. He said that he did not see the point of going through the exercise of simply mapping all conditional uses.
Commissioner McDonough said that she recalls that discussion arising from the Commission trying to understand the net cumulative adverse impact. She said that when considering what may cause a net cumulative adverse impact it may have to do with the number of conditional uses.
Mr. Zunguze said that Staff could look at the conditions that carry the net cumulative adverse impact as one of the conditions and go from there.
Commissioner Scott noted that at the last Planning Commission meeting she requested that nonconforming uses which may impact a neighborhood be included in that mapping as well.
Chair Muir asked that Staff map those comparable uses on an issue oriented basis, whether they are conforming or conditional. He felt that that would give the Commission a better sense of the area, which would allow them to formulate an opinion regarding a cumulative impact.
Mr. Zunguze said that Staff will take a look at it in the context of those uses that carry with them potential negative connotation to the community as a whole or to an area. He said with respect to nonconforming uses from a data base standpoint it would be valuable.
Commissioner Scott referred to the discussion from the last meeting regarding the possibility of a no-fee business license in an attempt to keep track of some of the unusual uses. She asked if that discussion is proceeding. She wondered if there are issues with that associated with confidentiality reasons.
Mr. Wilde stated the discussion regarding that is on going. Staff has realized that there has to be a tracking system in place and Business Licensing would be the most logical way. He said that as far as the legal implications the discussion has not yet got to that point.
Mr. Zunguze added that there are concerns with not tracing these uses. He gave an example of the Dead Goat Saloon, saying that there are implications with not knowing where uses are with respect to distance requirements. He said that in terms of churches the City is looking at the option of requesting a no-fee license of some sort which would only speak to the zoning classification and not get into the detailed information which may cross into the grey area of freedom of expression. He said that the discussion with the Attorney’s Office is continuing.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
This item was heard at 5:51 p.m.
a. Mr. Jarod Densley and the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – Mr. Densley is requesting that the Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department declare a portion of the East Jordan Canal Extension property as surplus and to sell that portion to him as the abutting property owner. The property is located at 1785 East Meadow Downs Way, within Un-incorporated Salt Lake County. The portion of the canal property requested to be sold, is outside of the 66 foot wide right-of-way needed to maintain the canal at this location, and therefore is recommended by Public Utilities to be declared surplus and sold. The Planning Commission is not being asked to declare this property as surplus, because it is located outside of the Salt Lake City incorporated boundary, but rather is being asked to review this as a property conveyance transaction.
Motion
Commissioner Daniels made a motion to approve item A noted on the consent agenda.
Commissioner Noda seconded the motion.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
b. BIC Murray Medical Properties L.L.C. and Advanced Health Care and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – BIC Murray Medical and Advanced Health Care are requesting Public Utilities to grant standard utilities permits to cross the easement for the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal, with underground utilities. A driveway permit is also requested. The properties are located within Murray City, at approximately 6600 South (Winchester Street) and 960 East Street. The Public Utilities Department supports the granting of the utility and access permits.
Motion
Commissioner Noda made a motion to approve item B noted on the consent agenda.
Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Diamond, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted “Aye”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. All voted in favor, and therefore the motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-04-05, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission requesting to amend the Zoning Ordinance, as it relates to the definition for “Place of worship”, as it appears in the Zoning Ordinance Definitions. The text amendment relates to businesses and institutions claiming the “Place of worship” status, in order to locate in residential or other restrictive zoning districts.
This item was heard at 5:54 p.m.
Chair Muir noted that this is an “Issues Only Hearing”.
Principal Planner Marilynn Lewis presented the petition as written in the staff report. She stated that this year, the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow places of worship in additional zoning districts to ensure that the City’s land use regulations are as permissive as possible with regards to zoning districts allowing places of worship. Thus, places of worship are now allowed in residential zones, as well as commercial and industrial zoning districts; as either a conditional or permitted land use, depending on the zoning.
Ms. Lewis stated that another issue relating to “places of worship” has been the definition in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Some businesses and instructional institutions have attempted to use the existing definition to claim the same status as a place of worship as the means of seeking approval to locate in residential zoning districts. Therefore, the purpose of this petition is to provide a more clear definition of “place of worship” in order to reduce confusion regarding the types of facilities that can claim “place of worship” status and thus locate within residential neighborhoods. This definition would be applicable to all master plan areas.
Ms. Lewis stated that places of worship are allowed to locate within residential neighborhoods, in order to provide various services and programs to the residents of the City. Their various services and programs provide an outreach to encourage diversity and cultural expression within the community. By clarifying the characteristics of a place of worship”, residential neighborhoods, and their character, are better recognized and protected. Commercial businesses and instructional institutions have enormous potential to create permanent impacts to a site and the adjacent land uses. This amendment will decrease the potential for adverse impacts due to location, because it precludes commercial and instructional types of uses from claiming such status, and being able to locate in areas where they are not necessarily compatible.
Ms. Lewis stated that Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission take testimony this evening, and provide direction deemed most appropriate. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the hearing until the next meeting or a future date.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Ms. Lora Mengucci with the Church of Scientology addressed the Commission. She asked what problem will be solved by expanding the proposed definition.
Mr. Wilde gave an example of an instructional facility which attempted to locate in a residential district under the place of worship classification. Staff concluded that the zoning ordinance definition did not provide proper guidance to help determine if that use would qualify to locate there.
Ms. Mengucci inquired the name of the institution.
Ms. Lewis replied that it was the Tao Institute which provides instruction on different types of methodologies and religions. She said that the Tao Institute was not considered a place of worship because they did not worship there.
Ms. Mengucci stated that it is left up to the individual as to how they worship. She felt that the City may be leaving itself open for a lawsuit with the proposed amendment.
Mr. Wilde stated that the City is not attempting to keep places of worship out of residential districts. There is an attempt to keep commercial endeavors and retail sales outlets that go beyond providing services to their members out of residential districts. Mr. Wilde stated that there is a balance between trying to accommodate the rights of the places of worship as well as maintaining the integrity of the residential neighborhoods. He said that the intent is to try to avoid commercial enterprises from entering into residential districts under the guise of a place of worship.
Ms. Mengucci asked if the Tao Institution was claiming place of worship status.
Ms. Lewis stated that the Zoning Administrator determined that the Toa Institute was an institution for educational and instructional purposes.
Mr. Corky Ra with the Church of Summum addressed the Commission asking if the proposed amendment will affect all zoning districts. He felt that the proposed amendment is more restrictive rather than liberal.
Mr. Wilde clarified that in the case of a commercial or industrial district a place of worship is permitted. He referred to the commercial district as an example which allows retail sales as a stand alone right, saying that a place of worship could also have a retail sales outlet.
Mr. Ra asked if one applied for a place of worship permit in a manufacturing zone, under the place or worship context, not to build a book store, one would be restricted to do only things which are allowed in the manufacturing zone and under the place of worship definition.
Mr. Wilde replied that that is correct if one is applying for a place of worship. He said that the complete answer is that one would be allowed to have a place of worship and a book store in a zone which would otherwise allow a book store.
Mr. Ra referred to the language in the proposed amendment which states “primarily to serve the membership of the congregation”. He said that he is concerned that the proposed amendment would exclude the evangelical churches and other churches which hold religious worship for the general public. Mr. Ra specifically referred to the manufacturing zone which would be modified if the proposed amendment is adopted to not allow evangelical revivals. Mr. Ra said that he is not aware of any religion that is in favor of this proposal. He asked that the Commission deny it.
Mr. Pace addressed the Commission saying that the proposed definition amendment states that a place of worship is a building for public or private assembly for the purpose of religious worship. He said that he did not think that the intent of this amendment is to limit the worship to the members of the congregation. He noted that one could have public or private religious sessions with whomever one wanted to invite whether or not they are a member of the congregation. Mr. Pace noted the language which states that accessory charitable functions or commercial retail sales that are not integral to the religious function are not included if the church provides them to those outside of the congregation. He gave an example of a daycare and said that if a church provides that service to people beyond the congregation that is the point in which the daycare becomes a separate use.
Chair Muir stated that that is difficult to differentiate if the church is advertising to the public.
Mr. Pace said that he felt the intent behind that concept is that there are many religious organizations that have meetings and provide a nursery for the children of the adults that attend the meetings. He said that is different than opening a daycare to the general public. In the first case the daycare is incidental to the religious function. In the second case where the building is used as a daycare facility for the general public, it then becomes a second use and is only allowed at that location if the zoning allows for that. He said that the same thing is true in the case of a book store and so on. Mr. Pace said there are some categories that are going to be difficult to capture, such as services to the indigent.
Commissioner Galli asked if the proposed language came from any ordinances that have been subject to litigation. Mr. Pace stated that he believes that there is a need for substantial refinements to the proposed language, which is why he would not recommend that the Commission make a decision tonight. He indicated that some of the language was borrowed from the definitions that are used in the Internal Revenue Code.
Commissioner Galli asked if the proposed language that refers to accessory uses as charitable functions was drafted by the City Staff.
Mr. Pace said that he believed that was the case but he did not know that for a fact. He noted the need for a definition of places of worship in order to make zoning classifications. The proposed language would be amplifying the current definition. Mr. Pace referred to the distinction between primary uses and accessory use. The reason for that distinction is that there are a lot of uses that are not allowed as primary uses in certain zoning districts that are allowed as accessory uses. He gave an example of parking lots which are not allowed as primary uses in the open space zone, however, every public park has parking associated with it as an accessory use. Mr. Pace reiterated that if the primary use is a place of worship function then the incidental use for classes and such should be regarded as accessory. He said that everyone seems to recognize that at some point the scale of those operations can get so large that they become a separate primary use. In trying to draw that line Staff has asked if the use is integral to the religious function and is it offered to the members of the congregation or to the public at large. Mr. Pace stated that that is what the proposed amendment is in an attempt to capture.
Commissioner Galli felt that the proposed language is somewhat confusing. He specifically referred to the language which refers to the “off-site activities”.
Mr. Pace said that that may be subject to further revision. He said that the concept which Staff is trying to capture is to say that accessory charitable functions, meaning things that do not require independent zoning compliance, do not include commercial retail sales or institutional uses that are not integral or are not provided primarily to the membership of the congregation. One can avoid having a separate primary use if it is integral to the religious worship or if it is limited to the members of the congregation. Mr. Pace stated that the Planning Commission has the option to decide against the amendment; however, the reality is that it is sometimes difficult for the Zoning Administrator to make the determination that a request is or is not a place of worship.
Chair Muir stated that most of the places of worship struggle with the issue of meeting a peak demand during a very specific time of the week and then the facilities sit primarily vacant or under utilized. He referred to a church in the Avenues which leased their parking to Rowland Hall before they moved and this church may continue that arrangement with the Madeleine Choir School. Chair Muir said that that may not be an extension of the mission of the church; however, in terms of mitigating the parking demand on the neighborhood it is probably a good thing. He felt that it is also a neighborly thing for the church to do and it makes perfect sense. But according to the proposed language it may preclude that arrangement.
Mr. Pace said that he did not know how that would be dealt with under the current ordinance or the proposed language.
Ms. Susan Whitney, with the Wasatch Presbyterian Church addressed the Commission. She said that she came to the meeting wondering if the youth of the church will be allowed to sell t-shirts for fund raisers. She indicated great concern since witnessing the discussion this evening with regard to the preschool the fact that the church is expanding. She said that they hope to integrate daycare and other services that they do not consider part of their worship but they are part of their mission. She asked that the Commission consider the mission as well.
Mr. Brian Lindemood Pastor of Saint John Lutheran Church in Salt Lake City addressed the Commission. He said that he has concerns regarding in terms of their mission and beginning new ministries. He wondered if the church would be more limited than they currently are. He worried about the limits placed on fundraising. He felt that there is an important distinction between what happens at the place of worship and the mission of the congregation.
Ms. Lora Mengucci stated that her congregation sells books to the public. She felt that the proposed language would interrupt how they disseminate information and reach out to the public. She asked that the Commission decide against the proposed modification.
Mr. Michael Wright a parishioner of the Church of Scientology addressed the Commission. He referred to the proposed language which was borrowed from the IRS Code and suggested that in reviewing these issues that the City identify whether something is being used for profit which means it is a commercial enterprise. He said that it seems rational to look at a commercial business and say it is being primarily run for revenue.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Mr. Zunguze stated that there is no intention on the part of the City to confine, reduce, or restrict people’s ability to worship. On the contrary the Planning Commission recently approved an ordinance to liberalize the City’s land use laws to allow places of worship in a variety of districts that were previously not accessible. Mr. Zunguze said that with that change there have been challenges such as: there is now a district that predominantly never had to be reviewed in terms of allowing a church which has now caused some interpretation problems for the City given the current definition for places of worship. He said that this petition is an attempt to sort out all of that to allow the churches to be what they are, without being confused with other similar uses. The City is not in the business of trying to define how people worship or defining religion. The various congregations should rest assured that there is no attempt by the City to restrict their ability to worship; the City is trying to figure out how to interpret all these uses given the new opportunity for more expression. He said that it is very difficult to regulate issues such as this and the federal law is very clear as to what cities can and cannot do with respect to religious institutions.
Commissioner Galli asked if it is fair to say that Staff is not aware of public clamor against the existing language for the definition of the places of worship.
Mr. Zunguze replied that that is fair; however, the Zoning Administrator has had trouble in sorting out issues when it comes to determining if something is an appropriate use at a certain location because of what has been done with respect to opening all zoning districts to places of worship.
Commissioner Galli said that it is difficult to redefine places of worship. He said that he has great confidence in the Planning Staff and the City Attorney’s Office that as issues come up on a case by case basis they will be evaluated carefully. Commissioner Galli felt that perhaps an internal guidance would be more appropriate to assist the Zoning Administrator which could provide factors to look at in determining whether something qualifies as a place of worship. He felt that to try to codify this as an ordinance is an extraordinarily difficult task.
Commissioner Noda concurred with Commissioner Galli and felt that the Zoning Administrator using discretion on a case by case basis is the best alternative. Commissioner Noda indicated that drafting a new ordinance regarding the places of worship may be opening Pandora’s Box. She did not feel that the Planning Commission could draft an ordinance that would resolve all of the issues.
Chair Muir felt that other cities may not have the heightened sensitivity over this issues that Salt Lake City has. He noted that there is history in the Mormon community of religious discrimination against the church and where there is a vast majority the City needs to be very cautious about defending the rights of the minorities.
Commissioner Scott agreed with the comments of the Commission. She added that to come up with adequate language the Commission would have to scrutinize the difference between worship and mission and how the two are integrated. She did not feel that is the Commission’s role. Commissioner Scott indicated concern with the proposed language specifically mentioning the word “church”. She referred to the words synagogue, temple, and mosque which have been struck through and felt that in all fairness church should be struck as well, or the other nouns identifying specific places of worship should remain in the ordinance.
Commissioner Daniels stated that the mission of a religious organization sometimes is more important than the worship or the place of worship. He said that he felt that that is preserved with the current language.
Chair Muir summarized the feeling of the Commission saying that Staff should try to make the existing ordinance language work or the Planning Commission should have a very good reason to modify it, and if the Commission errs they should err on the liberal side. Chair Muir said that if there was an egregious abuse, the Commission could react to that. He said that the Commission as a whole seems somewhat uncomfortable with the proposed language and would rather err on the side of accommodation and see if a problem results.
Mr. Zunguze stated that Staff respectfully withdraws the petition and will wait to see what unfolds.
Mr. Pace agreed with Mr. Zunguze and added that if the Planning Commission is not impressed with the need to make the proposed change, it would be helpful to indicate that to Staff tonight to avoid wasting a lot of time on a new revision that the Commission does not think is an improvement over the current definition.
Commissioner Galli stated that the current definition is very broad which is as it should be. He said that the issues should be evaluated on a case by case basis and should be left to the expertise of the Planning Staff.
Chair Muir restated that the Planning Commission is of the opinion that the current definition is sufficient. The Commission concurred.
Petition No. 410-664, by Salt Lake City Public Utilities represented by Robert A. Sperling, requesting conditional use approval for an upgrade of an existing water treatment facility and replacement construction of the existing administration/chemical building located at 2200 North City Creek Canyon Road.
This item was heard at 6:36 p.m.
Deputy Director Doug Wheelwright presented the petition as written in the staff report. He stated that the request is for a conditional use to allow a water treatment facility in an Open Space Zoning District. The proposed project is an upgrade of the existing facility. The proposed location is about four miles up City Creek Canyon and is surrounded by City owned undeveloped Open Space. The current facility was built in 1953 and there has not been a prior conditional use approval for this facility. The zoning rewrite of 1995 changed that by applying the Open Space Zoning District which required a conditional use approval for utility buildings as defined in the ordinance. Therefore the Applicant is seeking conditional use approval in order to construct a new utility building and make other site development modifications. Mr. Wheelwright noted that the various City Department’s comments are included in the staff report. He noted that the Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill Community Councils support the proposal. Based upon the analysis and findings in the staff report, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the requested conditional use permit, as designed and reflected in the proposed site and structural drawings, with the conditions noted in the staff report.
Mr. Bob Sperling Engineer for Salt Lake City Public Utilities presented that site plan to the Planning Commission. He indicated that the seismic standards are nonexistent in the current structure, which is the motivation behind the proposal. Mr. Sperling described the landscaping plan for the site. He described illustrations of the proposed structure and stated that Salt Lake County Planning has requested that the structure blend in with the canyon.
Commissioner Scott noted that the footprint of the new building is considerably larger than that of the old building without taking into account the screened area and the appendage of the structure.
Mr. Sperling stated that the old building is 4,700 square feet and the new structure will be 6,100 square feet.
Chair Muir asked if Mr. Sperling is familiar with LEEDS Certification which is Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Mr. Sperling replied that he is familiar with that and it has been observed through the design process of this project.
Commissioner Galli noted that there was site preparation work done in the fall of last year, and he said that he did not notice best management practices. He hoped that the contractors will be monitored very closely with the proposed construction project.
Mr. Sperling replied that they are very sensitive to that and there are processes in place to police the contractors. Mr. Sperling stated that he appreciated knowing that and he will do what he can to make sure that the contractors are policed better.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
Mr. Denton Taylor an Avenues resident and frequent user of City Creek Canyon addressed the Commission with concerns regarding the aesthetics and landscaping of the site. He asked that a more aesthetic looking fence be used as oppose to a chain link. He felt that a lawn would be out of place in the Canyon.
Mr. Sperling stated that they are proposing a vinyl covered chain link fence (tan in color) for security of the site. He added that they do envision an impact on the Canyon users. He added that there will be a Canyon Users Advisory Board which will assist the Applicant during construction.
Commissioner McDonough inquired as to the type of irrigation system that is proposed for the landscaping. Mr. Sperling replied that for the first year or so the landscaping will need irrigation; however, after the plants are rooted they will be on their own.
Commissioner McDonough asked if they had discussed supplementing the irrigation by directing the rain water drainage off the roof of the structure. Mr. Sperling stated that that has not been considered but he will pass that suggestion along.
Chair Muir said that it behooves the Public Utilities to use all best practices regarding water quality management. He suggested roof drainage and percolation through asphalt surfaces if they could use porous paving materials.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Galli asked Mr. Sperling how much input is received from Vicky Bennett and others in the City who have responsibilities over environmental protection with projects that are environmentally sensitive.
Mr. Sperling replied that they worked with Ms. Bennett regarding the disposal of the asbestos from the old structure.
Commissioner Galli suggested including a condition which would require heightened scrutiny of this project. He hoped that that would ensure the environmental protection as well as the use of green building materials.
Chair Muir agreed and asked Mr. Zunguze if there are people within the City who have expertise to accomplish that request.
Mr. Zunguze noted that there are a number of experts within the City. He asked the Commission to state their expectation of the Public Utilities Department as to what degree the Commission is requesting cooperation. He indicated that there is a need for the Public Utilities to understand the Commission’s request and be able to accommodate it.
Chair Muir stated that there should not be a net additional cost and should not compromise the project or the agenda of Public Utilities. He said that the City is not getting the expertise that the City deserves. The proposal is simply a utilitarian building that does not reach the levels that it can and should.
Mr. Sperling stated that the structure was designed by an Architect who they felt was competent.
Commissioner Galli stated that perhaps the Commission is being harsh because the feeling is that the City needs to set a higher standard. He suggested that a general condition be included to document the adequacy of the environmental compliance as well as the green design of the building and parking lot to ensure that the City is meeting those standards.
Commissioner Seelig asked if it would be appropriate to ask for language to apply the standards that are being discussed City wide. She said that she agreed with the discussion taking place and felt that it should be extended to other projects in the municipality.
Chair Muir noted that the Mayor is looking at LEEDS Standards that may be applied to all City buildings.
Mr. Zunguze stated that that discussion is continuing. He said that is it sometimes costly to make the change from the current practices. It is difficult to pass something like that as a law because of the implications that it will have on the business community and home owners. Mr. Zunguze referred to Commissioner Seelig’s comment and said that Staff is not averse to looking at the suggestions beyond this project and coming up with language that the Commission could consider. He stated that with respect to this petition a clear cut indication needs to be made by the Applicant as to whether they will be able to perform on that, and ensure that the expectation is understood on both sides.
Commissioner McDonough referred to the concerns with the potential cost. She felt that the emphasis of the motion should be on the revaluation of simple synergies of materials and systems to perhaps find cost saving measures for the City. She thought that perhaps the standard practice of the City is more costly.
Chair Muir agreed and said that the Commission is challenging the Applicant to take extra steps to ensure a better quality product, especially with the water quality issue. He said that the Commission would defer to the Planning Director to make the determination as to when the Applicant has made their best effort. He felt that it would not be inappropriate for the Commission to impose LEEDS Standards when it is not part of the City Ordinance.
Commissioner Seelig wondered if the Commissioner should request that the Applicant come back to the Commission with a revised proposal.
Commissioner Galli felt that that is not necessary.
Commissioner Diamond agreed with Commissioner Seelig. He wondered how a project gets to this point where there have been architects and engineers who have spent a substantial amount of time on the project and then the Commission reviews it at the final stage. He said that a process needs to be set up where the Commission can comment earlier in the process. He disagreed with the project and felt that it should not be approved.
Motion for Petition No. 410-664
Commissioner Galli made a motion regarding Petition No. 410-664, based upon the analysis and findings in the staff report, that the Planning Commission approve the requested Conditional Use Permit, as designed and reflected in the proposed site and structural drawings, with the following conditions:
1. Final Landscape plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director.
2. Protection of established trees and landscaping, during excavation and construction.
3. Drought tolerant plantings be used that are in character with plantings native to the canyon.
4. Prior to construction the Applicant shall submit to the City’s Environmental Director, Planning Director, Administrative Assistant for Environmental and Intergovernmental Relations and the Mayor, documentation sufficient to demonstrate that the environmental protections and practices governing construction, the proposed landscaping, and proposed building design and materials are consistent with meeting a high standard of environmental sensitivity given the nature of the site.
Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.
Commissioner McDonough clarified that the motion does not require the Applicant to come back before the Planning Commission to review the results. Commissioner Galli stated that that is correct. The petition will be delegated to Mr. Zunguze and other experts within the City to ensure that the conditions are satisfied.
Commissioner Daniels, Commissioner Galli, Commissioner McDonough, Commissioner Noda, and Commissioner Scott voted “Aye”. Commissioner Diamond and Commissioner Seelig voted “Nay”. Prescott Muir as Chair did not vote. Five Commissioners voted in favor, and two Commissioners voted against, and therefore the motion passed.
Commissioner Noda said that she agreed with some of the comments submitted by Commissioner Seelig and Commissioner Diamond. She said that the point is well taken in that City projects should set a higher standard. If the Mayor’s advisory committees are pushing for environmental mitigation and green implementation, the Planning Commission needs to follow through on that mandate.
Commissioner Diamond concurred and said that it is extremely frustrating to give comment at final stage when you are aware of the time and energy spent by others to get to that point.
Chair Muir asked if a recommendation could go to the Applicant after the stage of the technical review committee to request that they take the project to the Planning Commission Design Subcommittee as a normal step on projects like this.
Commissioner Seelig noted that it needs to be codified in some way so that the Applicant may have a notice as to what the expectation is. She said that in all fairness to Public Utilities they followed the process as it is stated.
Mr. Pace addressed the Commission concerning the Planning Commission’s role regarding design reviews in their deliberations.
The Planning Commission concurred with Mr. Pace’s general comments and also noted that when it comes to conditional use reviews they had more latitude to address design issues in order to mitigate any negative impacts associated with projects.
Mr. Zunguze noted that the Planning Commission will continue discussion regarding the Planning Commission’s role within the City at the next Planning Commission retreat.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m.