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, Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Craig Galli, Peggy McDonough, Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Bip Daniels was excused.
Present from the City Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright, Principal Planner Ray McCandless; 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 5:47 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, August 11, 2004
The Planning Commission made revisions to the minutes. Those revisions as noted are reflected in the August 11, 2004 ratified minutes.
Commissioner De Lay made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.
Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner De Lay, 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.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
The Chair and Vice Chair had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
This item was heard at 5:48 p.m.
Mr. Zunguze stated that he did not have anything to report.
Chair Muir referred to the Planning Commission minutes of March 2004, which the Planning Commission reviewed and tabled the North Salt Lake City boundary adjustment proposal. He specifically referred to the discussion in regard to forming a Planning Commission Subcommittee to discuss that proposal. He indicated a need to form a Subcommittee and noted that the North Salt Lake City boundary adjustment proposal is scheduled the Planning Commission meeting on September 8th under the Report of the Director.
Commissioner Noda made a motion to form the Planning Commission Subcommittee to review the North Salt Lake City boundary adjustment.
Commissioner McDonough seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner De Lay, 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.
Commissioner Scott noted that September 8th is right around the corner. She asked if the proposed North Salt Lake City boundary adjustment will be reviewed as a public hearing at that time.
Chair Muir felt that a public hearing for the boundary adjustment should be subject to the progress of the Subcommittee.
Commissioner Scott noted that the original discussion of the Subcommittee included a large group of interested parties. She asked if those people will be included in the Subcommittee at this time.
Chair Muir said that he felt that the item should be confined to the Planning Commission and Planning Staff at this time.
Commissioner De Lay noted that the subcommittee members are Commissioner De Lay, Chair Muir, and Commissioner Scott.
Chair Muir asked if any other Commissioners would like to volunteer for that group.
Commissioner Noda stated that she would like to be included in that Subcommittee.
CONSENT AGENDA – Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters:
a. Xebec Empire and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department – Xebec Empire, a transportation/shipping company is requesting that Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department release an existing water line easement which extends east from Empire Road into Xebec’s property to supply internal site fire hydrants. Previously, Public Utilities required the easement to insure the continuance of the fire line, but now is requiring that the easement be dissolved due to the abandonment of the water line. The prior owner of the property was Sysco Foods, which has relocated its operations. The property address is 1800 West 1700 South in the Manufacturing “M-1” Zoning District. All surrounding land uses are industrial.
Commissioner De Lay made a motion to approve item A noted on the consent agenda.
Commissioner Seelig seconded the motion.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner De Lay, 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
Petitions 410 – 674, 675, 676, 677, 679, 680 and 681, by Qwest Corporation requesting to install electrical utility cabinets measuring approximately 40-inches long by 48-inches high by 14-inches deep for Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) services at the following approximate locations:
Petition No. Location Zoning District
410 - 674 1818 South State St. BP - Business Park
410 - 675 1996 South Broadmoor St. SR-1 - Special Development Pattern Residential
410 - 676 2200 S. Foothill Dr. RMF-35 - Moderate Density Residential
410 - 677 2139 S. Foothill Dr. I - Institutional
410 - 679 2107 S. Scenic Dr. FR-3 - Foothills Residential
410 -680 2287 S. Scenic Dr. FR-3 - Foothills Residential
410 - 681 2450 E. Parley’s Way CB - Community Business
This item was heard at 5:53 p.m.
Principal Planner Ray McCandless presented the petitions as written in the staff report. He stated that Qwest Corporation is making preparations to provide digital subscriber services (DSL) to Salt Lake City residents. As part of Qwest’s build-out plan, they need to upgrade their existing system by installing new equipment cabinets next to or near some of the existing cabinets/cross connect boxes. He stated that most of the City can be serviced by the existing infrastructure; however, there are outlying areas of the City where remote facilities are needed to clarify the signal. These sites are primarily located in the Sugar House, Avenues, and the Rose Park areas. Mr. McCandless stated that Staff is proposing to bring the sites before the Commission for review in two separate groups. The first group consists of seven sites which are primarily located in the Sugar House area. The second group consists of sites located in the Rose Park and Avenues areas which will be presented at a later date.
On July 21, 2004 Planning Staff held an Open House to satisfy the Community Council notification requirements, and to gather input from the affected property owners. Mr. McCandless noted that five of the seven sites proposed this evening are located on private property the other two sites are located in the park strip in the public way. Mr. McCandless referred to aerial maps of the proposed sites identifying the specific locations of the proposed cabinets. He identified the issues associated with specific sites as noted in the staff report.
Mr. Eric Isom, Government Affairs Director for Qwest, addressed the Commission. He stated that there have been concerns within the community and criticism that Qwest has not been providing DSL services as quickly as it has been requested. Qwest has made a commitment to Mayor Anderson and the City Council to deploy DSL services in the area and make it available to 90 percent of the residents by the end of the year. In order to expand the DSL service to Salt Lake City residents it requires the deployment of remote terminals. Mr. Isom stated that Qwest is in agreement with the Staff recommendations with the exception of number four in the general recommendation section of the staff report. He stated that Qwest is going to expend a great deal of capital for this infrastructure improvement. He stated that Qwest is concerned that if they are required to install new equipment within a year it would be another great expense for Qwest. He stated that Qwest has already been proactive in working with the community and making the boxes as aesthetically pleasing as possible. He noted that the original request was for 41 sites and the possibility of deploying 41 boxes; however, that has been significantly reduced to 22 remote terminals. He added that Qwest originally requested larger cabinets to provide service to more residents; however, Qwest has decided to use smaller cabinets to please the community. Mr. Isom noted that if Qwest is required to make changes to accommodate the technological advances it will end up being very costly.
Commissioner Scott clarified that the condition four will not require that the boxes be retrofitted on a year to year basis; it would be more like five years.
Mr. Isom stated that to change the boxes even once is very costly and it is a grave concern for Qwest.
Chair Muir asked regarding the serviceable life of the equipment.
Mr. Don Green, Engineering Manager for Quest addressed the Commission. He stated that he is not sure as to the length of time that the equipment lasts. He stated that they have been deploying the remote terminals for about ten years and they have not needed to replace any boxes.
Chair Muir asked if it would be reasonable to require as the equipment becomes obsolete then the Applicant would replace the equipment with the latest technology, assuming that the City would prefer underground technology.
Mr. Isom stated that Qwest would prefer to replace the equipment on an ongoing basis as there are technological advances.
Mr. Steve Barth, a representative of Qwest addressed the Commission saying as the demand for new technology increases, the outdated technology is less available. He stated that the goal of Qwest is to get to the point to where the boxes are underground.
Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Barth where is the technology for this type of service headed. He specifically asked if they will eventually be wireless.
Mr. Barth said that he believed that is the direction that technology is moving.
Mr. Isom added that the boxes serve a functional purpose. The technicians who service the boxes need to have access to them.
Commissioner Chambless noted that perhaps in the future the boxes will not be needed. Commissioner Chambless asked if there is a timeline in mind as to when the wireless service will be available.
Mr. Barth replied that the technological market is ever changing and there is no way to predict advances. He stated that there are competitors with wireless service and there is a public demand for wireless service now. He added that there are issues with the wireless service but it is available.
Commissioner Scott asked if there are underground or partially underground boxes available.
Mr. Barth reiterated that there are no underground facilities because the technicians need to have access to the materials enclosed in the boxes. He added that Qwest is a consumer of the newest technology. Qwest purchases the newest technology from others in that industry.
Mr. Isom added that an additional concern for Qwest is that the DSL boxes must be waterproof to preserve the electronic equipment inside of them.
Mr. Mike Johnson, a representative of Qwest, addressed the Commission saying that if the box were put below ground it would be difficult to work on a cabinet and the moisture underground would also be a concern.
Mr. Zunguze stated that he did not think that there is an adversarial situation here. He said that it is important for Qwest to appreciate that the City cherishes its streetscape. He stated that the City is looking for assurance from the Applicant and some leverage for the Planning Commission to apply, should new changes in the technological market occur. He noted that technological improvements are advantageous to the public and the City, particularly those specific to the street furniture which will be placed in the public right-of-way. Mr. Zunguze asked the Applicant what assurances they could provide to the City that progress and technological advances will be reflected in efforts to improve cabinets installed in the streetscape.
Mr. Isom stated that Qwest is willing to work with the City; however, he would have to discuss that issue with other Qwest Staff before making any commitments. He stated that Qwest is willing to fulfill the commitment in providing service and be a more responsive corporate member of the community.
Mr. Barth stated that Qwest is willing to do whatever is reasonably necessary. He said that it is unclear as to when Qwest would be required to replace the equipment. He stated Qwest has an obligation to change with the market and with the new technology as it becomes available. He added that the boxes have been modified to be as small as possible.
Commissioner McDonough referred to the Applicants’ comments regarding the demand for new technology which would lead to the replacement of the boxes. She stated that the timeline in which that is done is at the discretion of Qwest.
Mr. Barth stated that Qwest is willing to discuss a solution; however, he did not feel that the Staff recommended condition four is the answer.
Mr. Wilde referred to a past proposal in which a utility company was providing utility boxes. He said that a concern that the Planning Commission had was that the utility company might have been more responsive in communities with tighter regulations and they might have been providing smaller boxes in other communities. He asked the Applicant if they are proposing the best product in terms of box size.
Mr. Mike Johnson stated that Salt Lake City’s requirements are the strictest in the State.
Mr. Barth noted that the proposed box size is the smallest that is available. The original box size was larger, but throughout the process the size box which is proposed this evening became available and Qwest switched to the smaller box. He noted that Qwest has a federal requirement by which they have to provide space in their boxes for competitors. He felt that requirement accounts for the size of the box.
Mr. Zunguze said that if the Commission is concerned with this issue, the Commission could, if so inclined, approve the proposal and delegate that issue to the Planning Office to find a solution which Mr. Zunguze would report back to the Commission. He stated that Staff would try to find a solution such that the boxes do not become a permanent feature of the streetscape, when technological advances render them obsolete.
Commissioner Noda agreed with that suggestion, saying that she felt that we need to strike a balance between the needs of the Community and the ever changing technology with Qwest’s telecommunication infrastructure. Commissioner Noda stated that she understood some of the issues that Qwest is raising; however, technology is constantly changing and Salt Lake City certainly has the right to require that some of that technology be put in place. She stated that the public wants boxes that are as discreet as possible.
Commissioner Seelig referred to the color of the boxes and asked if it serves a particular function.
Mr. Barth stated that the intent is to make the box as neutral as possible. The paint is the type which allows easy clean up of graffiti. He stated that Qwest has crews that go around servicing the boxes and they check for graffiti as well.
Commissioner Seelig asked if the paint for the boxes comes in other colors. She indicated a concern is with vandalism.
Commissioner Chambless added that most of the boxes are placed near hedges and perhaps a forest green would help to boxes blend in.
Mr. Isom said that the proposed color of the box comes from the manufacturer.
Mr. Green added that the power company typically has used the dark green for their boxes. He said that Qwest does on want their boxes to be confused with power cabinets.
Commissioner Seelig noted that a number or other such defining mark would identify the type of box.
Chair Muir opened the public hearing.
No one was forthcoming.
Chair Muir closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Scott referred to condition number four and asked where the five years came from.
Mr. McCandless noted that it was a number that was initiated by the Planning Commission.
Chair Muir felt that the language of condition number four does not work. He felt that the Commission should convey the intent of the Planning Commission in a motion that over time Qwest would replace obsolete and existing equipment with the intent of introducing smaller and eventually underground equipment. Chair Muir agreed that the Commission should delegate the specific language to the Planning Director to work out with Qwest understanding the intent, and report back to the Commission.
Motion for Petitions 410 – 674, 675, 676, 677, 679, 680 and 681
Commissioner Galli made a motion to approve Petitions 410 – 674, 675, 676, 677, 679, 680 and 681, based on the findings of fact and recommendations noted in the staff report with the exception that the recommended condition number four be replaced with the following condition, “Qwest agrees to retrofit this equipment as technology allows for smaller or underground cabinets based on reasonable criteria to be negotiated between Qwest and the City Planning Division within 14 days of this approval.” The approval is also subject to the following conditions:
1. The cabinets, including the cement pad, be removed within 90 days if they no longer needed or used and any lease with property owner terminated.
2. A surety bond or cash bond be posted assuring removal of the equipment and pad unless covered by the existing franchise agreement with the City.
3. All utilities and cables to and from the cabinets be placed underground.
4. Qwest agrees to retrofit this equipment as technology allows for smaller or underground cabinets based on reasonable criteria to be negotiated between Qwest and the City Planning Division within 14 days of this approval.
5. All lease agreements with property owners shall contain a 'hold harmless' language to sufficiently protect the property owner from liability.
6. Qwest will include a sticker on each individual DSL box for the proper single point of contact for 24-hour response graffiti removal.
And that the Planning Commission also approve the following Staff recommended site-specific conditions of approval:
Petition Address Recommendation
410 – 674 1818 South State Street Set the cabinet back at least 10' from the sewer line as required by the Public Utilities Department.
410 – 675 1996 South Broadmoor St. Recommend approval of option 1 as it is not visible from Foothill Drive.
410 - 676 2200 S. Foothill Dr. The manager of the apartment complex has requested additional landscaping be installed around the cabinet to help screen it. This should be a condition of approval.
410 – 677 2139 S. Foothill Dr. No modifications or conditions are recommended.
410 – 679 410-679 2107 S. Scenic Drive Staff recommends approval of Option A and that the entire width of the 10' wide park strip not be paved with concrete, only the areas directly under the cabinets. The cabinet must be set back from the sewer line at least 10 feet.
410 – 680 2287 S. Scenic Drive The adjoining property owner is requesting that concrete be poured the width of the parkstrip to reduce maintenance of the parkstrip around the boxes. However, Staff is recommending that pavers or some other decorative material be used in the 10' wide parkstrip instead of concrete in accordance with Section 21A. 48.060, Park Strip Landscaping. The cabinet must also be set back from the existing water main at least 10 feet.
410 – 681 2450 E. Parley’s Way No additional approval conditions are recommended.
Commissioner Scott seconded the motion.
Commissioner Seelig asked to amend the motion to require that the Applicant include a graffiti removal telephone number on the cabinet.
Mr. Ralph Vigil, Right-of-way Agent with Qwest, addressed the Commission saying that Qwest has established a single point of contact for the public which Qwest has committed to a 24-hour response in which the graffiti will be removed for this project. He stated that it would not be difficult to include a new sticker on the box which would allow the public to contact the proper individuals.
Commissioner Galli accepted that amendment.
Commissioner Scott accepted the amendment as well.
Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner De Lay, 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.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Continuation of discussion of barriers to housing development in the City.
This item was heard at 6:55 p.m.
Mr. Zunguze stated that the Administration and City Council Staff are in the process of revamping the City’s housing policies by looking at opportunities to motivate developers to provide more housing throughout the community and specifically in the Downtown Area. Mr. Zunguze stated that he has challenged members of the development community to specifically identify areas within the Ordinance that are not conducive to developing additional housing in the City. Mr. Zunguze stated that he has invited two members of the development community to identify those barriers for the Planning Commission this evening.
Mr. Dan Lofgren, with Cowboy Partners, addressed the Commission saying that some elements of the City process are working well. He stated that within the last three years, Cowboy Partners has managed to develop 584 housing units in the City, as well as two more housing projects that will add roughly 175 units within the next 12-24 months. Mr. Lofgren stated that the process with the City’s Development Review Team (DRT) has been very positive lately; they have been helpful in solving problems associated with projects that they review. He stated that the Planning Staff has been helpful in thinking through issues and helping explore solutions.
Mr. Lofgren said that he has explored options for housing development in several “RMF” zoned locations and has found that it is difficult to meet the minimum lot size requirements. Mr. Lofgren said that his interpretation of “RMF” zones is that they reflect a historical bias toward large lot single family developments. The mathematical formulas such as the “minimum square footage” of a lot in the “RMF” zones relate more to density rather than impact and building mass. He indicated that the building mass has more of an impact on the surrounding community than the density of a structure.
Chair Muir noted that the “RMF” zones seem to be geared toward large property aggregation and large development rather than infill which is more appropriate to the current condition of the City.
Mr. Lofgren added that the “RMF” zones tend to favor “green-fill development”, rather than the reuse of a site.
Mr. Lofgren referred to the portions of the ordinance which relate to the notion of retail on the street level. He said that the intent is to enhance commercial districts by requiring retail on the street level; however, it pushes the residential up and back. In most cases the residents that live above or behind a commercial enterprise will never be on the street level; they will typically pull their cars into the parking behind the structure and never have a reason to walk the sidewalks below their dwellings. Mr. Lofgren said that the value of mixing residential and commercial comes from allowing the residents to exit their homes onto the street. He felt that the residents need to feel like they belong in a neighborhood rather then the back door of a commercial use.
Mr. Lofgren said that he felt that the initiative to increase housing in the City has not reached every office that participates in the development process. He asked that the message be forwarded to every office that there is an initiative to increase housing Downtown.
Mr. Lofgren felt that the cost of creating parking for a good residential development is the single biggest impediment. He encouraged the Planning Commission and City Administration to explore offsite and shared parking solutions. He stated that in some cases it may not be necessary for the residential parking to be located approximate to the dwelling unit; perhaps the parking could be a half-block away in a commercial structure with a lease agreement. Mr. Lofgren referred to several structures Downtown that are approximately 80 percent empty by 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and all day Saturday and Sunday. He felt that those commercial structures could host a large number of residential parking stalls. He stated that shared parking can not be a 1-unit to 1-parking stall ratio, while there are big gaps of time where the parking would be available, there is a bit of overlap.
Mr. Lofgren referred to San Francisco, Manhattan, and Seattle saying that in each of those markets there is a premium for Downtown living. People are willing to pay more to live in smaller spaces and noisier locations to avoid long commutes to work. He noted that Salt Lake City does not enjoy the same premiums; however, Salt Lake City does have the same cost implications for developing Downtown. Mr. Lofgren felt that overcoming the parking barrier would be a huge step forward and would add energy to the Downtown housing.
Mr. Wilde noted that it may be helpful at some point for Staff to provide the Commission with the historical perspective on some of the issues raised this evening. He said that he did not view the comments expressed this evening as criticism. He noted that there were purposeful decisions made in relation to the current ordinance and an understanding of those decisions may be helpful in creating a more conducive situation.
Chair Muir felt that would be better expressed at another time perhaps internally.
Mr. Lofgren said that he and Mr. Russ Watts are quite enthusiastic to participate in a collaborative way to help build something more constructive.
Mr. Russ Watts, with Watts Enterprises, addressed that Commission. He stated that the desire of all developers is to revitalize Downtown. He stated that retail does not bring vitality to the City; housing will bring vitality which will in turn create a need for retail. Mr. Watts referred to Trax saying that millions of dollars have been spent on that project and yet the parking requirement remains at two parking stalls per unit. Mr. Watts referred to Seattle, and Denver as examples of shared parking success. He said that they have grouped projects together requiring them to each contribute a certain amount of money per unit and create a shared parking element within the vicinity of the proposed developments. Mr. Watts also suggested requiring the developers to contribute to open space as a creative element. He felt that may create more density for the developer and reduce the cost per unit which would allow people to own or rent in the City.
Mr. Watts agreed with Mr. Lofgren’s suggestion of utilizing the time slots when commercial parking structures Downtown are empty for residential parking. He stated that there are numerous vacant spaces along Main Street that could be redesigned to house people; however, the parking requirement will not allow that. He felt that if there is an option to be creative with parking for residential sites there are plenty of sites Downtown that could be utilized.
Chair Muir asked what the result would be if the parking requirement was removed and the responsibility to find parking for residents fell to the developer.
Mr. Wilde said that the Downtown “D” and “RMU” zones the parking requirements have been reduced to one-half stall per unit. He said that he felt that there may be an issue with the residential districts near Downtown such as Capitol Hill which still requires two parking stalls per unit. Mr. Wilde said that there have been discussions of allowing overlay zones which would allow a reduced parking requirement for areas near Downtown.
Chair Muir said that he feels that the parking associated with developments should be a market issue rather than a City regulatory issue. He said that if a renter or buyer is not going to enter into agreement without a parking stall then the developer would go find them a parking stall. Chair Muir said that he would agree with eliminating the parking requirements in the critical areas and leave it to the developer to solve.
Mr. Watts suggested tandem parking in the City. He said that in San Francisco it has been successful. He added that, as a developer, if a client came to him and needed a parking stall he would work to find one.
Commissioner De Lay referred to the Belvedere Condominiums Downtown which has no parking; the residents have to pay to park at another location. She agreed that the market will bear the parking demand. Commissioner De Lay suggested an ordinance that would allow the flexibility to use “pay parking” within a certain number of blocks near the site as a substitute for the parking requirement. She agreed that there are numerous possibilities within the City for residential dwellings that can not be utilized because of the parking requirements.
Commissioner Scott noted that there have been requests to demolish structures to be replaced with surface parking lots. She felt that there is enough available parking Downtown to support an increase in residential. Commissioner Scott referred to the information submitted by Mr. Watts saying that she did not see a direct correlation with the success of a development based on the parking regulations.
Mr. Watts referred to several developments which have been completely controlled by parking. He referred to a site in which a 34-unit project was approved with an underground parking structure to hold the required two cars per unit. He said that when they analyzed the cost of the parking structure they found that they would go broke building it. Mr. Watts said that after several plans they ended up building 6-units at 650 thousand dollars a unit due to the required two parking stalls per unit. He said that if he could build one stall per unit, he could build a structure with 20-units at 300 thousand dollars per unit. The possibilities for the site are completely controlled by the parking requirements. He added that there is also the element of interest groups that do not want more cars in their neighborhood.
Commissioner De Lay noted that the City is making efforts to improve mass transportation and it is contradictory to keep the parking requirements as they are.
Commissioner Noda agreed that the parking requirements and mass transportation policy are contradictory to each other. She felt that as the Trax system improves and as mass transit is more available, more people will want to live Downtown. She added that the amenities Downtown are an important attraction to the public.
Mr. Watts reiterated if the people are moving Downtown the markets and other amenities will follow.
Commissioner Noda said that as the population starts to age the idea of living Downtown will be more attractive; they will not want and need large houses and yards. Commissioner Noda agreed with the concept of shared parking. .
Mr. Watts said that if the parking requirements are reduced there will be an automatic increase in density, because the space that may have been used for parking will be replaced with more units. He said that the cost of housing would also be reduced with increased units and housing would be more affordable for the public.
Chair Muir suggested two options, one: to reduce the parking requirements in the “RMF” zones or two: reduce the parking requirements in a target area in the City. He asked if the impediments are that people can not envision living Downtown or are they specific to certain zones.
Mr. Lofgren said that he would like to see the creation of neighborhood wide objectives. He said that there are existing expectations from people in the community who are invested in the status quo. He said that there are also areas of the City where a more comprehensive approach may be explored. He referred to the concepts of tandem and shared parking saying that they should not be controversial to implement. He said that there may be specific neighborhoods that are consistent with the objective and it may be necessary to eliminate the parking requirement altogether, such as Main Street.
Commissioner De Lay indicated concern with eliminating the set back requirements. She wondered how projects would be reviewed on an incremental basis, to ensure the integrity of a site.
Mr. Watts replied that the development requirements that relate to plans are pretty restrictive which may help preserve the integrity of projects.
Chair Muir reiterated that the Administration should look at one specific zoning district rather than a target area. He noted that it may be difficult to find areas that are not resistant to change. He said that he felt that those issues could be solved by allowing the community to highlight the assets and amenities of the area and then allowing the development community to come in and respect those assets.
Mr. Lofgren said that his experience has taught him that people are not resistant to change; it is the pace in which the changes are made. He said that as people understand that there are regulations in place to ensure the protection of the character and integrity of the community, they are more willing to accept the changes.
Mr. Wheelwright referred to the American Towers project 20 years ago, which the first set of dwellings sold quickly and the second went bankrupt. He said that he heard the complaint from realtors that the development was built at one-half stall per unit and this market requires two stalls per unit. He said that the parking has been a constant issue for developers and lenders for 20 years. Mr. Wheelwright said that there are several areas of the City where there have been substantial liberalizations in the ordinance related to parking requirements and nothing has happened.
Mr. Watts replied that the interest rate jumped from 8 to 18 percent, which is the reason why the American Towers development did not succeed. He said that it is obvious to developers that not all people are willing to abandon their cars. The question is, can they be parked off site or in more creative ways.
Mr. Wilde added that there has been an issue with the neighborhoods working against development that might absorb the available parking in an area. Mr. Wilde felt that issue would be eliminated in areas near Trax and where mass transit is more available.
Commissioner De Lay said that there is a market requesting the combination of two parcels to increase the space on a site for a family. If the City wants more families Downtown the City should make that process easier.
Chair Muir added that the City needs to figure out a way to tap the family market to keep people living in the City.
Commissioner De Lay noted that the single professionals who move into the lofts Downtown, eventually have families and are then forced to move outside the City to get a place with enough room for their families. People are leaving Downtown because the City’s process is long and difficult.
There being no other unfinished business to discuss, the Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 7:53 p.m.