Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Gonna go ahead and get started. Welcome everyone to the February 25 planning commission meeting. We will open up by taking roll.

Commissioner Jeffrey Barrett. Here. Commissioner Amy Barry. Here. Commissioner Amy Burroughs. Here. Commissioner Richard Lubbock?

Here.

Commissioner Lila Rosenfield? Here. Commissioner Brian Scott?

Here.

Commissioner Anna Sullivan? Here. Commissioner Michael Vella?

Here.

Alright. Next we'll move on to the reports of the chair and vice chair. The only thing I have today is that we're welcoming a new commissioner. So Anna Sullivan is going to be representing District 1. So thank you for joining us.

How about you? No. I have nothing. Awesome.

How about the

Except welcome. Welcome.

Report of the Director.

Yes. I have a few items to go over. I wanna give you some some updates on some of the applications you've heard in the past. The first few are regarding some city council actions. These were adopted between December and February of this past few months.

The RMF 35 and RMF 45 zoning district text amendments. The water conservation portion was written into the plan Salt Lake and the zoning administration text amendment. And lastly, the off street parking manual portion of the ordinance was actually written into the ordinance per state law. So those were all adopted recently by the city council. The following have been briefed to the city council, but no adoption has occurred yet.

Alley and street closure text amendments, those are scheduled for adoption in March. Expiration of land use approvals, the briefing is scheduled for March 3. The Rio Grande master plan and zoning map amendment, that's rezoning parts of the Gateway Mixed use Zoning District to the D 4 District. That public hearing is scheduled for March 10. The fence height text amendments.

The public hearing is scheduled for March 10. The zoning and map amendment at 265 East 100 South. The public hearing is scheduled for it was held February 3 and it's not scheduled for a decision yet. And lastly, the following items are pending Planning Commission scheduling, the Smith's Ballpark Zoning Amendments, the Avenues Community Plan Update Briefing, and the Expanding Housing Options Briefing. So we just wanted to give you an update on those items, let you know the status of those. So thank you.

Hey, Casey. On the items that have passed in the city council in the last couple of months, were there any major changes that the council made to those?

No. Looking at that list, there there was no no major change.

Alright. Thank you. Next, we will have a moment for open forum. If there's any planning topics not directly related to a specific item or application that any of the commissioners want to discuss, we'll have ten minutes.

I I have a question about an item that was I missed the first meeting when it was motioned, but it was motioned in past last week last meeting to look at options for making rules about what's the what Detention. Detention, like detention facilities. Sorry, that

word escaped me. So I I I was expecting to see it

on this agenda, but maybe maybe I'm not expecting the right thing. So I wonder if we can get an update from staff about what is the next thing we should expect to see and kind of, like, timing on it.

Yeah. Staff needs some time to actually research the request, and so it likely won't be before the commission March, early April.

Okay. And that will be, like like you'll say, these are the current rules that apply and here are some options if you wanna change the rules, like that kind of stuff?

More or less, I think, it'll primarily be about the rules that apply and our limitation a local municipality when it comes to federally owned land or leased property as well. So the options going forward might be limited. Okay. But those will be presented if there are any.

Okay. Good. Mhmm. Alright. Thank you. Thank you.

Anything else anyone wanted to talk about for open forum? Alright. Then we will move into our consent agenda, which is just one item, the approval of last week's meeting or last meeting's minutes.

I'll make a motion to approve it.

I'll second. Alright. We have a motion and a second on that. We'll go ahead and vote.

Commissioner Barrett?

Yes.

Commissioner Berry? Yes. Commissioner Burrows? Yes. Commissioner Leverett? Yes. Commissioner Rosenfield? Yes. Commissioner Scott?

Yes.

Commissioner Sullivan? I will abstain as I was not here. Commissioner Bella?

Yes.

Alright. Thank you. Then we'll move into our regular agenda, and the first item is the text amendments to update landscaping buffers, and we'll hear from staff.

Thank you. I will be your planner for this item, Noah Elmore. Mayor Mendenhall, in consultation with city council, initiated a text amendment to update the landscaping chapter 21 a dot 48. Since the chapter was last updated in 2023, some sections have been found to need revision to better understand and utilize the standards. Additionally, changes to the state code were adopted that limit the applicability of a landscape plan.

Staff is recommending the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to city council. Firstly, the amendment includes a new provision which provides flexibility for public infrastructure projects in the right of way. If the project cannot meet landscaping requirements due to the design, concerns, or insufficient space to provide healthy conditions for plant life, then the project may be exempt from the chapter. Otherwise, public infrastructure projects in the right of way must still comply with the standards of the chapter. The amendment also clarifies language so that the zoning administrator has the ability to modify landscaping standards in the event of unique property conditions such as topography or the size or shape of the lot.

Then the amendment also removes parking lot landscaping requirements when abutting the principal building on the same lot. The standard in its current form has had the unintended consequence of buffering a building from its own parking lot. And you can see what that looks like here with the new revised drawing. The hatching represents the required perimeter parking lot landscaping. And you can see the lack of hatching between the parking lot and the building.

Again, this is the revised proposal. The proposal will also align city code more closely with state code. Specifically, the applicability of providing a landscape plan has been clarified to exempt those projects already exempt pursuant to Utah code 10 dash 20. Applicability in this case meaning whether a landscape plan is required, not whether compliance with the landscaping chapter is required. So those landscaping standards are still going to apply regardless of whether or not a plan is required.

And speaking of those landscape plan requirements, the proposal also includes removing the requirement of a landscape plan for the new construction of single family and two family dwellings. Again, this does not exempt those specific projects from complying with landscaping requirements. It only exempts them from needing to submit a landscape plan during permitting. Landscape plans stamped by a licensed landscape architect can be costly for those building a new home. So this is seen as removing a barrier to help encourage new housing construction ease those cost burdens.

And finally, the amendment includes provisions to permit artificial turf within the front and corner side yards. Artificial turf is already permitted elsewhere on properties such as the rear yard, for example. So this does not necessarily represent a shift away from a blanket ban on artificial turf, but rather expanding it from where it's already permitted to include a little bit more. However, artificial turf would not be permitted in those landscape buffers, such as, you know, when a residential property versus a heavy industrial use, also would not be permitted within the public park strip in the right of way. Furthermore, other landscaping standards such as the required minimum 33% live vegetation would still need to be complied with.

We understand artificial turf is not without its advantages and its disadvantages. With those in mind, the amendment includes provisions to mitigate possible downsides of artificial turf. These include standards for a minimum permeability, a material quality, and aesthetic maintenance. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission approve, or forward a positive recommendation to the city council. And that's all I have.

Alright. Do we have any clarifying questions in the account?

Can you go back to I think it's either the second or third illustration you had. No. Not that one. Yeah. Keep going. One more, please.

I don't have any other illustrations.

Okay. So I understand the text amendment, you know, makes sense. When you go to the next sheet, Illuminates parking per landscape requirements when abutting buildings. Tell me exactly what that means.

So that's what this illustration here is showing. So this is representing one property and it has the building with its parking lot. And so the requirement is saying that you no longer need to provide in perimeter parking lot landscaping between the parking lot and the building all on one property. Currently, as the standard is written, that building would need to have a landscape buffer between its own parking lot. So it's not really a sensible standard as written. So this would amend that so you no longer have to buffer from your own parking lot for your building.

And then, going to the advantages and disadvantages, graphic that you had. So staff feels that that the advantages are are, outweigh the disadvantages of of artificial turf?

I would say that we understand there are both advantages and disadvantages. And that's why we incorporated those standards to mitigate the disadvantages. So we feel that in combination with our mitigation standards and the advantages combined, then they outweigh the disadvantages because we've mitigated those.

Thank you.

In terms of the buffering of the parking with the landscape, if you could go back to that image, please. Do you know, in terms of comparable communities, if there are similar?

I think, is this clarifying about the presentation?

No.

Okay. Apologies.

All

right. I may be taking a shot at the same thing, which is different language. So, is towards the presentation though. I think you said it was let me get you I misquote you. You said it was excessive, the buffer, but the the language seems, I don't know, excessive and not useful, I think, in I just lost the the text here.

But the language used to describe the buffer against the building sounds very subjective in a way, and there might be an objective way of saying it, but it sounds like, oh, no. The language is not correct around it, and I'm trying to figure out. I'll describe the buffering. Because it was around the buffer around the parking lot and saying we were moving it because it's excessive. So to what that means there, like whether there's a measurement of excessiveness.

So I don't think I used the term excessive necessarily per se. So we're not eliminating parking lot, perimeter parking lot landscaping wholesale. We're only eliminating it when abutting the principal building. And what we mean by that is in the illustration here, you can see there's hatching around the parking lot except for that area immediately between the parking lot and the building. So within that area between the building and the parking lot, we will not require that perimeter parking lot landscaping because that standard has made it more difficult to properly build out properties.

And it's also, perhaps I said, not quite sensible to have a building buffered against its own parking lot since the perimeter parking lot landscaping is to buffer against neighboring uses, not uses on the same property.

Okay. So on page five, it says excessive. But I'm trying to figure out why. And and the level is I'm just trying to get to that point of why is it excessive to have landscaping around the building if it's a buffer? Like, how do we get to the word excessive? Is that am I is that making sense? Am I

Yeah. I think so. Yeah.

Well I mean, if so it could serve a lot of different purposes. It could be for to break the wind, to break snow, to break things accumulating at the building, to buffer around the 1st Floor of the building and have trash accumulation. There are a lot of reasons to have a buffered landscape around, to keep trash from blowing or things falling out of the car and blowing up against the building, protecting the sidewalk, protect keeping the sidewalk clean, parking in the building. There are a lot of reasons around having and requiring it. Could be just beautification or just, you know, just wanting there are a lot of reasons for it. Right? But we're we're we're drawing on the fact that it's excessive because it serves the same building. It just doesn't seem like the right language to me.

So I think I can maybe help to clarify that. So when we're looking at our landscape buffer, it's to help mitigate these use on the site from neighboring uses. So for example, if we're looking at some sort of manufacturing or commercial use, and it's abutting a residential use, the intention of the buffer is to mitigate that commercial use from, say, a residential use. Whereas if we have buffering within the site, that's not quite matching the intent of that standard because it's mid it's buffering within the site versus around the site. So it's to mitigate to have the buffer within the site doesn't quite match the intent of the standard in the first place.

I have I have some thoughts along the same line. So if I'm gonna open up and then we can come back to that unless anyone had other qualifying questions real quick. No? Okay. I'm gonna go ahead and open for a public comment. If there's anyone who would like to speak to this. Alright. Seeing none, I will close the public comment and bring it back to us, and we can keep going. My thoughts on that were similar, that it does serve a different purpose than buffering against an adjacent building. Right?

That's about like buffering from the adjacent building. But I think it's actually possibly more important along that stretch of building that there is a buffer. One for, like, safety, for people pulling in and parking too close and not stopping, and for keeping clear like an ADA kind of walkway there. The other thing I wanted to bring up about this was I think I think this graphic is a little it's confusing. I don't know if it's misleading, but there's an old graphic, which is the exact same thing, except for that other l still has hatch marks in it.

Right? Mhmm. So the only difference is that that's no longer hatched. If that's not needed, what we're really like, keeping that that that in there kind of suggests that, like, oh, there would still be this green. But my understanding is that what we're changing is that basically, could park right up against the sidewalk. Like that l doesn't have to exist now. Correct?

So I think that's kind of to commissioner Leverett's point. Like, if occupants of this site want to have some sort of landscaping buffer, they are allowed to have that still. We're not saying you cannot have landscaping here under any circumstances. You're still allowed to do that. Hence the graphic, like someone could still have landscaping there if they so desired for whatever reason may come to mind.

And so there might not even however someone wants to design a building, there might not even be a sidewalk up against the parking lot in the position as illustrated in this particular graphic. So yes, landscaping isn't required there. It could still be there. If we don't have, say we remove that green, then does that imply there's no landscaping allowed there at all? So it kind of goes either way.

Okay. I I just in my mind, what we're doing is changing that graphic so that we can get rid of that l. It's like what we're saying is the difference. And so I think and regardless of what the graphic is exactly, I think my my main comment is more that I think it's a different purpose, but a landscape buffer up against the building is important for a number of things, like commissioner Leverett said, for watershed off of any roof around there. Right? Like, where's that gonna go? And and, honestly, my my main thing is for safety of pedestrians who might be walking along a path there that that's the spot where we actually need a buffer to make sure that someone coming in parking doesn't hit someone. So that's all.

Can we talk artificial turf?

At your leisure. K.

Poor Noah, you probably didn't think this would be such a hot topic. So I'm not in favor of artificial turf. So I'd like to understand, I think, the real impetus of driving why we want to make this permitted. And then I have some concerns about if it is allowed, that we have some sort of I don't know. I have some other comments about it, but I'd like to understand the rationale of why we really want to allow this.

So as I mentioned, the petition was initiated by Hall in consultation with city council. My understanding is they've received public feedback regarding the topic. And that's the impetus behind the So

I mean, notwithstanding my personal disdain of this artificial turf, I think that there's two or three in my neighborhood that I walk by. One of my concerns honestly, and this is going to be kind of graphic, but dogs that defecate on this artificial turf and then there are lazy owners who don't pick up after them because I see this all the time. Plus, I know of two apartment buildings that have a dog area and they have put artificial turf there. And I have serious concerns about, like, bacteria and health issues of how artificial turf can deal with that because now we're not having the kind of drainage and etcetera that you have with grass and dirt. And I I, if we do allow it or that, we can put some sort of requirements that it's a certain type of tirf that'll, that can handle this.

I'm not an expert on this stuff because I don't like it. But there may be a type you can get that can deal with that, but I don't know. But I don't think it should be allowed for dog runs like the department buildings do. Like I think we, if they do end up going that we want to allow this, that we need to have some better restrictions on certain applications of it because I don't think it, I think it can be like a health issue for sure. And so that's where I'm at with that.

Like I'm not keen on allowing it, but if we do I would want some better clarifications on those type of issues.

If I may add a little bit to that. We do have a standard here stipulating and requiring artificial turf shall be cleaned regularly and maintained in an appropriate and neat manner.

Yeah, I don't think we can actually enforce that. That's the problem, right? Is the enforcement of that. And is that the the weighing it? Obviously, we're gonna not really be able to enforce that. And then if we do, it's because somebody complained about it. So it got really bad. And then is that trade off, sufficient for the health concerns that some of these issues may bring up? And I don't know how I feel about that. But I so I mean, I read that, but I just don't think that that's something I'm not sure that it's a sufficient enough safeguard given that there's no way for us to enforce that. Quick question.

Once that 30% vegetation cover minimum has been fulfilled, which would still be required, correct, is just straight dirt permitted? Like, is that underneath a tree a bare patch of ground that is shaded? Is that a permissible way of landscaping under our current codes?

I can't recall if dirt itself is permitted. I think there would be issues with dirt as far as dust control. But I think when looking at the 30% live vegetation, in my experience, I've looked at hundreds of landscape plans. I've never seen someone ever propose dirt. There's always crushed mulch, rock, never dirt.

Okay. Thank you. I wanna talk a little bit about trees. Forestry obviously had some problems with the artificial turf. And I I do.

I mean, I I think about for example, and I I pulled it up here. Let's see what it is. But in the same '21 a '48, the same ordinance that we're proposing changes to here, there's a section called private lands tree preservation. And that section is all about, you know, when there's construction on a site, the things that the city does to ensure that, you know, specimen trees are, you know, healthy and survive the construction process. And that standard, which seems much more sensitive than the four foot standard in this proposal, talks about the drip line of the tree plus one foot, and that that's what's required in the minds of forestry to protect existing trees.

So I looked into that a little bit, and, you know, it seems like, from what I was reading, you know, 80 to 90% of all tree roots are in the first foot of soil below the surface. And it's those roots that are the biologically active roots. They're the ones that do all of the, like, oxygen exchange, that uptake all the water. So then I looked into how do you install artificial turf. It seems the way you install it is by excavating four to six inches of soil and removing it, and then compacting the soil, and then putting aggregate in, and compacting the aggregate, and then putting underlayment down, and then the saw the turf, and then little, like, sand or rubber particulate in in which you then rake in to keep the the blades up.

But to you're destroying the root system of that tree. I mean, you're 30% or more of the root system of that tree. And, you know, if a permit were required to do to do this type of landscape work, you you would have to protect to the tree line, not to four feet. If you protect to just four feet, which this proposal shows, you're you're losing the tree. Maybe not immediately, but in five years, seven years.

Then talk about urban heat island effects. You know, this artificial turf gets to a 170, 180 degrees. So to the extent that there are any roots left after you've installed it, you're baking what roots remain, and that has a a damaging effect on trees. You reduce the canopy, suddenly that compounds the urban heat island effect. Clearly, have a lot of problems with this. I I it makes me very uncomfortable.

I have a a few questions. Which part of this text amendment is a response to getting the city's code to match with the state code?

So

Is it just the part that accepts public works?

It's the under the applicability, the reference to Utah code 10 dash 20. So it's providing if something's already exempt pursuant to Utah code 10 dash 20, then this chapter doesn't apply. That's the only addition from state code.

Okay. Okay. So I wonder if someone, has in their parking strip right now, they have grass because it's required and they switched to artificial turf. Would that require a permit or any inspections or anything?

Well, I think to begin with, artificial turf, we're not that is still prohibited in a park strip.

Oh, Okay. So your front yard instead of the park strip. If you're switching over, I have grass right now, but I'm gonna switch it over to artificial turf in my front yard. Do I need a permit for that?

As code is currently written, if you're doing strictly, you know, grass to artificial turf, a permit would not be required. However, that does not mean you are exempt from landscaping standards. So if do something that doesn't comply with the chapter, you're still liable to civil enforcement action.

Right. And our civil enforcement actions are complaint based. So if I, if my neighbor switches over their front yard to artificial turf, I could complain because I don't know if they've chosen one that's permeable to the extent that's required. I don't know if it's UV resistant to the extent that's required in this road. It's kind of like you could put in the cheapest, worst artificial turf.

And unless your neighbors like know enough to complain about it and then code enforcement has enough time to come and check and like, did you have the permeable kind? It's kind of like that is a Wild West. I I feel like the restrictions, like the, the conditions that you're putting on it are not are in the in the sense that they're not enforceable, they're also not mitigating. And I also understand all of the, the position that urban forestry takes that these changes do not improve, the condition of this city. I'm I'm kind of more moved by that.

Of course, there will be a political decision if the city council, wants to say, you know, enough people have asked about this and we feel it's okay. But I think from like a planning or like neighbor or like enforcement type thing, this this isn't the way to go. And there are and it doesn't meet the standard of improving the condition of this city when when our natural condition and our trees have been like a huge, you know, focus of this city. I also think that this this drawing probably needs to be redone if it's gonna be included in the text amendment because I think it does. It took me a long time to figure out what was different between those two.

And in real life, the difference between those two would be pretty obvious. You know? So I think maybe the drawing needs to be work reworked if that's a rule that needs to be made.

Coming at it from the other angle, and I am frankly quite concerned about the turf plan. But I do wonder what is the water differential? Like if you're replacing a square foot of crabgrass or of non native grass species with a square foot of turf, what's the difference in irrigation requirement? Because yes, we care a lot about the urban heat island effect, and I hear that. And yes, we care a lot about protecting trees, definitely.

But at the same time, grass ain't great either. It's pretty damaging. There's half a century of research on the way that grass interacts with environments like the one we live in. So I'm just wondering if there was any sort of evaluation of the trade offs that you looked into when researching this amendment.

Are you asking for like a specific number or like metric?

Yes. I mean if you have a specific metric, or even an order of magnitude, it would be helpful. Is there anything that is not turf that has the irrigation requirements that turf has in our environment?

So I think it's recognized through Salt Lake City policy that grass turf is highly water intensive. And so when we look at our we maintain a drought tolerant species plant list. So we do refer residents to that when creating a landscape plan, as an example. So and we no longer permit turf. We have caps on the amount of turf.

So I think our policies and standards, both presently and in this proposal support a shift away from turf to alternatives. And we're not saying that alternative must be, you know, artificial turf, as an example. We're not saying it must be mulch or anything else. We're simply creating those options for alternatives that aren't grass turf.

I I would like the list of alternatives maybe not to include artificial turf. There was also citizen made a comment one time when we were talking about turf that, if one neighbor on the street replaces their front yard with turf and it's bright green, every other person on the street's like, oh, that's what my yard is supposed to look like. So instead of us all having like deadish yellowish lawns at the end of the summer, everyone's trying to keep up with this artificially green. And I and I that feels like now your neighborhoods are gonna be driving around and, like, this house will be bright green all the time, even in winter if snow doesn't fall on it. And and then like my grass is mostly dead because it's super hot and it didn't snow this winter.

And I'm gonna try to put way more water on it to make

it look better. I I think that that's a I super in favor of alternatives to grass. But I think artificial turf is not it. So I just want to clarify that the alternative to artificial turf doesn't have to be grass. Right? And then there's nothing that's seen that's one, it's either artificial or real. There are plenty of other options in the code. I don't have grass in my front yard. But I also don't have artificial turmer. So I don't want us to get stuck in that trade off.

Like the, maybe the issues about water intensive use for grass versus all the other options that we can have for landscaping our front yards.

I mean, I guess the difficulty with some of those is like especially if you're talking about family compatible uses. I love a xeriscaped landscape, and ultimately, if and when I choose to raise a family, will be in an apartment I don't plan to have a lawn. But nevertheless, for individuals who do choose to live in a space that has a front lawn, do have a family, want their kids to be able to play, they're probably not going to choose xeriscaping because it's not really compatible with, you know, kids rolling around. Is artificial turf more compatible? I don't know. It it kinda bangs up your body.

It so hot Yeah. That you couldn't you wouldn't want anybody stepping on that. It's too hot in our summer so I don't think it is compatible for actual use.

Yeah. So in that case, it's really just an aesthetic or that would be your opinion, Commissioner?

Yeah. Mean, I think it has appeal for people because they don't think they have maintenance. But give it a couple years and there's just weeds growing up all through it and it looks bad too. But, you know, they're using less water but there are also other alternatives. I don't use that much water in my landscaping. That it, like so that's what I'm just saying is like it doesn't have to be grass. It's not the default alternative. But you know, the appeal I think to people is that then it's green all year long and doesn't that look pretty? But there's, then there's the disadvantages to it so as well. I think I'm home.

So a couple of points that you brought up earlier that are very much germane. The turf itself is an inch and a half to two inches plus or minus. Then you've got an infill of the rubber pellets and the silica, whatever. So, that's another two or three inches, four inches, two to four inches of aggregate. We use artificial turf with athletic professional and college baseball, football, we do that all the time.

What you see on the field looks pretty cool. But what you see down below is there's a very complex drainage system to keep that looking good. And there's a very prescribed regimen to clean it on a weekly basis, you know, over and over to keep it looking good. So, the notion of using artificial turf and it reduces water consumption and it's fewer allergies from grass and it reduces the gas powered equipment. Yes, but.

And then there's the but is there's a lot of other things that you have to do to keep it looking good. So if you just put it, you know, if you don't have that drainage system the way it's supposed to be installed underneath it, it doesn't work, it doesn't self clean, it doesn't do any of those kinds of things. The thing that I kind of bristle about is that, you know, potentially provides an accessible service consistent with ADA standards, yes. But decomposed granite can do that and other things that are still sturdy enough for wheelchair use and things like that, but is also permeable and it doesn't have the off gassing and the heat buildup that turf does. So I look at the advantages and the disadvantages and I don't normally disagree with staff recommendations, but I do disagree with this one that I believe that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages of using this.

I have a question, Kelsey or Casey. So, I don't know if this has ever come up in my tenure, but is it possible to send like a bifurcated recommendation or like recommend a favorable recommendation on a portion and a negative recommendation on another portion? Or is it the whole thing or nothing? You know, all or nothing?

My guess would be that the procedurally, the better way to do that would be to send it back to staff and say, we'd like this split up by them. And then we could look at those separately. But I don't

That's an alternative for sure. Yeah. I, we hadn't, I hadn't asked if there was a, you know, like they wanted to get this through in a timely manner or if it's okay to send it back, I don't know.

I'm curious about the list in Hold on. Sorry.

Oh,

I'm gonna sorry. Try respond to that question. You could do it essentially if you voted in in favor of recommending it with some modifications or some changes. But you you wouldn't necessarily pull them out, pull different parts out and say yes to this and

and no to this. That's what I wanted to know. Thanks.

In the list of advantages and disadvantages, are they placed in any order of importance at all?

No. I mean, I did try to like kind of line them up with how, you know, one trades off with the other, but there's no particular order in terms of importance, alphabetical. There's no particular order to this in one way or the other.

Okay. I guess I'm curious kind of what the weight of these different advantages and disadvantages are. I mean, the reduced water consumption, that, for example, changes a lot based on whether it's grass that you're replacing or some other landscape material. And then do we I don't think it's in here. Do we know the general lifespan of the artificial turf?

I think to answer that question kind of more broadly, what you're getting at is it's going to vary. How much water is being used is not just how much somebody is watering their grass. Do they have a sprinkler system? Do they have one acre? Or do they have a tenth of an acre? So that's why I can't really rank these or weight these is because it's going to vary from property to property. There it's just it's entirely variable.

So I'm prepared to make a motion to recommend denial, I'm also, amenable to I mean, I think for me, we were going to send it back, table it and send it back, I would just want this part removed. And I guess those are the two options that I'm in favor of. So I don't know what if staff has an opinion on what you would if you would rather table it so that you can just go back and clean this up and remove the artificial turf part or if because it was a petition initiated by the city council that you want to leave it in there. And that's what

I I think for what it's worth, part of the timing we're looking at is that spring is coming up. That's a very popular landscaping season. So I think of course management's welcome to disagree. But you might want to consider maybe some sort of modification added to it so that the petition can continue being processed. So that the standards that can help people with their landscaping can come into effect in time for when they're looking to plan their landscaping?

Yeah. I think the only modification I would be in favor of is eliminating the artificial turf allowance. So I don't know that that's actually a modification.

I also think that there's enough concern about the parking lot component that we didn't even really fully get to hash that over. And I would really like to see this split into three proposals the legislative level fix, the turf, and the parking lots, just so that we can get on the record all three of those, that the commission has a separate set of opinions for each. And so I would support a motion to table with the request to split that into three separate motions next time we come back.

Well, think it would be two, because the artificial turf wouldn't come back.

Well the other consideration is not requiring a landscaping plan for new construction of individual homes which I think are we fine with that one? If we're fine with that one and then the legislative maybe those two stick together and the other two are separate.

But the landscape plan, that's a requirement of state statute. Right? That's a change that we're making to a company.

I can help to clarify on that. So what we're proposing is a landscape plan would not be required during permitting. That does not exempt them from landscape standards. Additionally, regarding permitting, we cannot withhold issuing a permit or issuing a temporary certificate of occupancy for a lack of a landscape plan.

And if I may, since this was initiated by the mayor and supported by the city council, recommendation for denial or approval with suggested modifications, would be preferable. It would be challenging for us to go to the table and make some of the suggested edits and bring it back for recommendation.

Then I say we recommend denial.

I'm ready to make a motion for that. Alright. This is for PLN PCM twenty twenty five dash zero zero four six one. Based on the information presented in discussion, I move that the commission forward a recommendation of denial to the city council for this text amendment for the following reasons. And that it does not comply with zoning text amendment standards one, guiding principle six.

It does not minimize impact on the national natural environment. And two, the sub point h of protecting the environment. It increases the heat island. We decrease water permeability. And we increase water pollution from runoff. And potentially, buffering reducing the buffer requirement can also have those same impacts.

I can second that.

Alright. We have a motion from commissioner Barry and a second from commissioner Vella. So we'll go ahead and vote.

Commissioner Barrett.

Yes.

Commissioner Barry. Yes. Commissioner Burrows. Yes. Commissioner Leverett? Yes. Commissioner Rosenfield? Yes. Commissioner Scott? Yes. Commissioner Sullivan? Yes. Commissioner Bella?

Yes.

Alright. Thank you very much. Thank you. No.

He's not in person.

Next we will hear oh, sorry. The Northwest Plan update. Case number oh, I got a PLN PCM 2025Dash00773.

Alright. Good evening. So thank you for taking your time this evening. This is a follow-up presentation from the public hearing held on the Northwest oh, goodness. Thank you, Mike.

There we go. Thank you.

Held in January. The this presentation primarily addresses the comments and questions that we received during that hearing. I do have the old slide deck available so if anybody needs the prior presentation, I'm happy to get that up. Okay. So the first public comment and comment from one of the planning commissioners provided questions regarding how the North Point and the Northwest plan work together.

The Northwest community plan boundaries include now, they now include the entirety of the North Point Small Area Plan. To ensure that the boundaries, to ensure that the North Point Small Area Plan provides clarity and guidance, staff conducted a comprehensive assessment to see if there were any existing gaps. Ultimately, the small area plan thoroughly addresses how the North Point community should redevelop it should redevelop. And if redevelopment occurs, the plan addresses the protection of sensitive lands and the future transportation network. With that said, we did identify specific targets and initiatives in the updated Northwest Plan that should still apply to the entirety of the Northwest Community Plan area including North Point.

As now noted in the draft plan, the specific targets, policies, and initiatives addressing riparian areas, air quality, natural environment, public lands, trails, and water conservation found in this plan apply to the North Point area. Please note the North Point small area plans, policies, development standards, and future land use map will take precedence over development in that community. Secondly, the commission asked a question regarding connectivity within the community and to other communities as well. The transportation and mobility chapter includes the following target. Increase the percentage of funding to improve neighborhood connections and general maintenance.

In addition, there are there are several supportive initiatives which are displayed on the screen to help implement that target. They include implement Connect SLC, which is the Salt Lake City wide transportation plan. Implement the pedestrian and bicycle master plan as well as the street and intersection typology design guide. Support implementation of recommendations from the SLC West East connection study. This would this specifically is huge for those connections between neighborhoods.

And then we worked closely with UDOT to ensure that any expansions include improvements for all users that have been act on existing residences and existing businesses. There was a question about fossil fuel industries in this plan area. There are no extractive industries in the Northwest but there are two petroleum storage uses. That type of use is impactful to soil and air quality. And so we ensured that the air quality chapter provides specific directions and policy moving forward on these types of impactful uses.

And they include the initiatives on the screen. There was also a question about heavy polluters in the community. Staff did research to dig into what the heavy polluters would be. It it's a little challenging when you pull up an air quality map because this community plan is near the, airport and it's surrounded by freeways. We did find that the existing freight rail and the operation yards are incredibly impactful when it comes to air quality.

So that was listed. These are kind of the four heavy hitters in that community plan. And then there was a a question and some direction provided regarding bilingual and universal signage. And we have an initiative in the Parks and Recreation chapter that is in line with the Parks and Public Lands. They're currently working on this to update all of their signage to be bilingual for way finding.

It is a short and sweet presentation this evening. So with that, planning staff is asking the planning commission to forward a positive recommendation to the city council for this plan. And then I can take any questions regarding the presentation at this time. Great.

Alright. Then we will go ahead and open up for public comment. The only card I have is Cindy Cromer. Would you like to step up to the mic? You'll have two minutes.

I have a long history of being ineffective and nowhere more so than with transfer of development rights, which I began working on in 2010 with respect to incentives for historic preservation. And then I moved over to the North Point area and talked about their role in protecting sensitive lands. Those transfer of development rights included in the small area plan have not been implemented. I understand from talking with staff that there is a draft, but we don't have them yet. And we don't have anything in this plan that promotes them.

So So here's how I think transfer development rights could help here. On the Jordan River, it talks about linear feet. It does not talk about width. And the best way to cluster development near the Jordan River is with transfer of development rights. With respect to preservation, I have not looked to see how many surviving adobes are in the portion of Fair Park that is included in this plan.

But the last time I checked, there were surviving adobe structures in the Fair Park National Register District. And one of the effective ways to promote preservation of historic buildings in the National Register District and elsewhere is through transfer of development rights. So the development right goes from the historic resource to somewhere else that is not a historic resource. That's what I started working on in 2010. I have made zero progress so far.

So, I'm persistent, as you know, and I think that the transfer of development rights called for in the Northpointe plan and not called for in this plan are overdue and would assist in the protection of sensitive lands and historic structures. Thanks.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak on this topic? Okay. Then I will go ahead and close the public comment and bring it back to us for discussion or emotion.

Would you I'm so sorry. Would you like me to respond to that comment?

Oh, Sorry.

Go ahead.

Okay. Yeah. Perfect. Thank you, miss Comer, for bringing up transfer development rights. She's correct.

The North Point plan does integrate transfer development, a TDR program essentially, to protect sensitive lands, riparian areas, and the Jordan River. We have not included it in the Northwest Plan. However, it could still be a useful tool. It is identified in Plan Salt Lake which means it's in our general plan and doesn't necessarily have to be in this specific community plan because it's still an identified tool on that plan. The city council has initiated a petition to, have us research and draft a TDR program and we are in that process right now. That should be going to city council with the transmittal and a briefing within this year.

Is it precluded in the Northwest plan? Because it's not mentioned, but is it precluded from No.

No. No. No. Because it's in Plan Salt Lake. Yeah.

Alright. Thank you. I'll bring it back to us.

I wasn't here for when this was presented before, but my gosh, I I can't believe you guys did this when you also were doing your other jobs. Like, this is a this report is usually contracted with a professional outside company for a lot of money, and it's really, really impressive. It looks great. It comprehensive. You're you're talking with residents is like it's it's really it's really good.

Like I'm really proud that my city, did this report. And I also appreciate, I watched the meeting though so I heard the, comments that were made and the questions that were answered and I think you did a good job of addressing those and, adding that additional part to the report that answers, you know, some of those questions. So I'm really I'm really impressed. I think this is a great plan and I good job.

Thank you for those comments.

I mean, I'm really quite pleased about the the addition of of the support, the transition to clean energy sources. I feel like in a general plan, that's the kind of breadth that gives the city a lot of leeway to use the latest tools. Would you agree that that's sort of the goal with that particular just, like, blanket? Excellent. Multilingual signage. So was this added, or was this just already in there?

That was already in there. So Gotcha. After planning commission, we watched it again and again to make sure that we were thorough as far as detailing what was requested of us and going back into the plan to see what was already addressed and what we could add so that all of those comments and concerns were medicated.

Appreciate it. I

mean, would I would love to see an actual move towards trying to not just do not just do multilingual signage for trails, but also do multilingual signage for streets and encourage private property owners to engage lingual signage. I think long term, that should be our vision for the area. But it's not something that I really want to hold up this whole plan over. So I don't know if there's a way to just incorporate that kind of thinking in something something later down the line.

I I can raise it as a a a point of discussion with planning commission within our transmittal to city council and see if they have the same desire to add it into the plan.

Okay. Thank you.

My background is in affordable housing. So I work at Utah Housing Corporation, and so I I read the plan with kind of that through that lens. So I just wanted to mention, I appreciate how how the support for affordable housing and funding for affordable housing that's in there, as well as I'm also a resident of the Northwest area. I'm from District 1, and I very much appreciate the looking to limiting displacement of current residents, because I know that's a a big concern in my neighborhood, and allowing people to thrive in place.

I'm gonna sound like a repeat record. Very much appreciate as well. I think the Northwest land update is well done. And I think many of the things are really thoughtfully considered for what happens in the next fifteen years. I don't have any fault with anything in there. I mean, looks and feels very comprehensive. Will it change over the next four Certainly. But that's that's what a a plan update, you know, is is intended to do. So well done.

I'll make a motion if y'all are done talking. Oh, did you wanna make a motion? Go ahead. Do you have it?

Alright. Based on the information presented in discussion, I move that the commission recommends that the adopt this request.

I can second that.

Alright. We have a, motion from commissioner Sullivan and a second from commissioner Vella. So we will go ahead and vote.

Commissioner Barrett. Yes. Commissioner Berry. Yes. Commissioner Burrows. Yes. Commissioner Leverett? Yes. Commissioner Rosenfield? Yes. Commissioner Scott?

Yes.

Commissioner Sullivan? Yes. Commissioner Bella?

Yes.

Passes.

Awesome. Thank you very much.

Great.

That is all we have for the agenda this evening. Our next meeting will be on March 11. Thanks everybody.