04/08/2004 - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, APRIL 8 , 2004
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Thursday, April 8,
2004, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State.
The following Council Members were present:
Carlton Christensen Van Turner Nancy Saxton
Jill Remington Love Dave Buhler Dale Lambert
Eric Jergensen
Rocky Fluhart, Deputy Mayor; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Edwin
Rutan, City Attorney; and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder were present.
Councilmember Love presided at and conducted the meeting.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
#1. RE: Adopting an ordinance amending the regulations contained in the Salt
Lake City Zoning Code regarding places of worship, pursuant to Petition No. 400-03-22.
View Attachment
Councilmember Love said she understood the airport had concerns about a provision
which allowed places of worship in airports. She said those issues needed to be
discussed before a formal vote. Jodi Howick, Assistant City Attorney, said information
had been sent to the Council summarizing the Airport director's concerns. She said
there were a variety of legal issues which created constraints on policy decisions
about churches in airports.
Ms. Howick said the main reason the airport wanted to be removed from the proposal was
because they did not believe there were benefits in terms of what could be done at the
airport. She said they also felt the proposal would create confusion about authorized
activities at the airport. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Council needed to be aware there
were legal constraints but the airport management group had broad discretion in terms
of how they established policies and what could legally be done. Councilmember Lambert
said he did not think including the airport in the proposal would compel them to allow
places of worship since the airport was City property. He asked why the airport felt
the necessity to be excluded from the zoning.
Ms. Howick said existing code contained provisions regarding how airport property was
controlled within the terminals with respect to meditation rooms. She said implementing
meditation or quiet rooms was a policy decision. She said the airport did not believe
a zoning change was needed for them to implement those types of amenities.
Councilmember Lambert said he did not understand why it was important to exclude the
airport because the zoning change would not require implementation. Ms. Howick said
because this issue was controversial at airports across the county, they were concerned
including the airport in the zoning ordinance would create an appearance of authorized
use. She said the airport wanted to rely on its current implementation authority.
Councilmember Christensen asked why the airport would say no to an entity that wanted
to have a religious business if they were willing to pay fair market rent.
Russell Pack, Airport Commercial and Administration Division Director, said airports
typically tried to identify concessions or services which met the highest demand for
passenger needs. He said play areas were developed to accommodate the large number of
children coming to the airport. He said a competitive process was used to establish
airport concessions. He said airport policies were used to determine how to best
utilize the limited amount of space in terms of circulation, optimal revenue, and
highest passenger service.
04 - 1
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, APRIL 8 , 2004
Mr. Pack said part of the competitive process required concessionaires to guarantee a
percentage or specific amount of revenue to the airport. Councilmember Christensen
asked if more space would be available in the new airport. Mr. Pack said yes.
Councilmember Christensen asked if the airport anticipated being equally competitive
for concessions. Mr. Pack said yes. He said airlines wanted to reduce space to save
money and concession revenues directly offset fees they were charged by the airport.
He said reducing the length and width of concourses saved the airlines more money but
also limited the amount of concession space available. Councilmember Jergensen asked
why the planning staff suggested the addition or approval of places of worship in this
particular zone.
Doug Dansie, Downtown-Special Projects Planner, said he reviewed land use charts in
all zoning districts. He said if a specific zone allowed places of congregation such
as stadiums, theatres, or convention centers, staff felt places of worship should be
included because of similar impacts. He said places of concentration were allowed in
the airport zone. He said when the Planning Commission discussed the issue they felt
the airport should have the option to have a meditation chapel.
Councilmember Jergensen said he understood the airport felt a meditation chapel could
be implemented without a reference to churches/places of worship in the zoning. Ms.
Howick said that was correct. She said the airport believed the trend for these types
of facilities did not constitute chapels. She said they were considered quiet areas
where people could meditate but formal services were not held. Lynn Pace, Assistant
City Attorney, said Mayor Anderson asked a question concerning how the City would
handle these issues for employees. Mr. Pace said even though there was no obligation,
the City could provide a type of quiet space or room/area for employees. He said a
zoning violation would not occur as long as the room was not used primarily as a place
of worship. Councilmember Jergensen asked if there was potential for litigation if
the airport provided a worship area and subsequently another party petitioned the
airport for a similar space and were denied.
Ms. Howick said she did not believe so. She said airport space was handled consistently
across the country and all areas within an airport were designated by airport management
for specific uses. She said those uses were dedicated primarily for transportation
and revenue needs. She said airports were not a public forum for first amendment
purposes. She said if the airport leased space to a specific church then an equal
protection argument could be made that other churches should have access to the same
kind of space and lease.
Councilmember Buhler moved and Councilmember Saxton seconded to adopt Ordinance 18 of
2004, (Option 5) excluding the airport and adding a requirement for a written waiver,
as part of the conditional use process, if a church chose to locate within 600 feet of
an existing alcohol establishment (brewpub, microbrewery, tavern, private club, etc. ) .
The waiver would specify that the place of worship waived the state law requirements
so the alcohol establishment could expand in Manufacturing Districts.
Councilmember Lambert said he supported the proposal with the exception of removing
the airport. He said he had not heard a compelling reason to remove them. He said he
felt this issue needed to be applied consistently and could not see how this created
a problem for the airport.
Councilmember Saxton said she originally questioned why places of worship should not
be allowed at the airport. She said she was concerned that allowing places of worship
would set an expectation that this was a permitted use. She said she believed the
airport would still have the authority to establish a meditation area if they desired.
04 - 2
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
THURSDAY, APRIL 8 , 2004
Councilmember Turner said after reviewing the issues he felt the proposal would work
well. He said the Church of the Nazarene said it was difficult to find property to
accommodate parking for 300 cars. He said room was available on the City's west side
and he felt the proposal would not affect the neighborhoods in his district.
Councilmember Love said she supported the motion and wanted to help churches who were
looking for a site. She said she felt the airport needed to be included in the proposal.
She said in the future a prayer room might be desired. She said she felt a prayer room
was different than a quiet room and wanted to keep options open.
Councilmember Love called for the question. All Council Members voted aye, except
Councilmember Lambert who voted nay.
(0 04-5)
The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
sc
04 - 3