Chair Murphy reported that the Commission had previously had a work meeting and received the intern's report along with Chuck Gillette's memo regarding issues with Sensitive Lands. The Commissioners need to set a strategy of what we want to do and go about this. One thing that was discussed was maybe we should look at the Sensitive Lands Ordinance and leave it the way it is where it pertains to residential property and add to Chapters 18 and 19 for multi-family and commercial in regards to the sensitive lands issues instead of adding a lot to the Sensitive Lands Ordinance.
Commissioner Pack gathered from the meeting that the concerns were broader than sensitive lands. It's more about design standards on commercial and multi-family residential. If we are going to come up with a plan, we need to look at the design requirements regardless of whether it's sensitive lands. Once the design standards have been thought through we can see how it applies to the Sensitive Lands Ordinance.
Commissioner Loris stated according to City Engineer Chuck Gillette, the majority of the issues with sensitive lands was the slope. Once we change the design application, we can change how those slopes are impacted by the design. Commissioner Anderson commented at the last meeting about the slope and Center Street and the top of the mountain. He studied it and it's only a fifteen degree angle anywhere along Center Street to the top of the hill which is a 28% slope if we want to compare it. 8% is where our sensitive lands' issue starts but our angle from Center Street is 28%. He agreed with Commissioner Pack if we change the design specifications a lot of the sensitive lands issues go away.
Commissioner Anderson commented it's more of a design issue with multi-family and commercial. If we can get it closer to the mountain and in the rear of the project who cares if the building is higher? It's the distance and the angle.
Kevin Rudd stated it's a lot about placement of the building on a particular site. Currently, there is no set distance on setbacks for commercial areas and the Site Plan states, "protecting at least two major views of Snow Canyon and Pine Valley." We need to come up with something more definitive than these two statements.
Dale Coulam commented it often involves how a slope is defined. A lot of times we are talking about the tiny washes that aren't really washes anymore and if a parking lot is put in it captures any drainage water. Are we really trying to protect the small washes? The Sensitive Lands Ordinance applies well as far as lava no matter what type of development. The problem areas are how to define slope, the disturbance area required for multi-family and commercial parking and the design guidelines where our view definition may not be what the Commissioners want to see.
Commissioner Anderson suggested having bullets points instead of so much language because it takes away from people's ability to create something unique. The goals are to protect the view shed, natural environment and allow a building and parking lot to be built. If there is a natural barrier between them and they are set back in a cove, it's a different story than the concept plan we've been discussing. How do we tie everybody to the same requirements? Being closer to the mountain it doesn't affect anyone; but closer to the travel areas it affects people but we don't want to take anybody's rights away.
Kevin Rudd suggested starting with the number one concern in the Sensitive Lands Ordinance such as that when it comes to multi-family and commercial in slope areas between 8%-14% refer to these chapters in the ordinance, but also state in those two areas when it goes above that slope refer to more restrictive guidelines in the Sensitive Lands Ordinance.
Dale Coulam commented that is consistent with what the interns recommended.
Chair Murphy stated that two things came out during the work meeting. The ordinance says 8% but a recommendation was that 12% is more of a reasonable number. If it's between 8%-12% slope maybe it doesn't need to be in sensitive lands, and it could be pulled back into the design guidelines. The other thing discussed was transitional areas.
Commissioner Anderson asked if they should be concerned about residential as far as sensitive lands.
Kevin Rudd stated the ordinance is designed for Low Density and it's in Low Density areas that it will affect. An example was given regarding development in Kayenta, and how the slopes were handled for the VA facility and Red Mountain Estates. It works residentially. When we receive development applications, he reviews the Sensitive Lands Map and looks at the different areas. If there are a lot of lines and it appears to have slope areas, we ask the engineer to define the washes, etc. more clearly. Then Sensitive Lands Committee walks the areas and washes and made a recommendation to the Commission and City Council. The recommendation for Red Mountain Estates was that preserving the washes would not meet the goals of the Sensitive Lands Ordinance.
Commissioner Anderson stated maybe that's one thing we need to address so we don't waste your time and the engineer's time. Maybe it's the length of the area and the slope has to continue so far. Example, if there's are two washes, then the slope has to continue past the two washes that might solve the problem.
Chuck Gillette explained they looked at extending the slope length. They also looked at creating the transition area based on anything that doesn't continuously rise above the building height it would be removed from sensitive lands. If it's just a hill, it would not be in sensitive lands. A hill will sometimes rise, then flattens out and goes up again. Technically, the flat portion is not sensitive lands but when it goes back up it is sensitive lands. Once you are in sensitive lands, as long as that continuous slope keeps going up at least on an average at that minimum slope, it should all be sensitive lands even if there are some flat spots halfway up the hill. They have been trying to work on a definition to encompass that philosophy that maybe draw a cross section line across the property and lay that in the predominant direction of the natural slope and find a spot where you switch from 7.9% to 8.1% and then define that as a line and maybe there is a test to push it up or if there is variation push it down, etc. However, he has not figured it out.
Commissioner Anderson stated that he doesn't want to do away with the ordinance. He just wants to analyze it now. We pretty much know where the sensitive areas are.
Dale Coulam's concern is the approximation on the Sensitive Lands Map. The committee has walked the property. The City does not have a right to go on the property without an application.
Kevin Rudd explained that the Sensitive Lands Committee only has power to review and make recommendations to the Commission and Council.
Chuck Gillette suggested creating some zones in Sensitive Lands.
Chair Murphy asked the Commissioners to go through the ordinance section by section and see what we need to adjust.