-SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:34:01 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for an indefinite period of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Clark Ruttinger; Commissioners Angela Dean, Emily Drown, Michael Fife, Michael Gallegos, James Guilkey, Carolynn Hoskins and Marie Taylor. Vice Chair Matt Lyon was excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nora Shepard, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Daniel Echeverria, Principal Planner; Chris Lee, Principal Planner; Michelle Moeller, Administrative Secretary and Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney.
Field Trip
A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were: Clark Ruttinger, Carolyn Hoskins, Marie Taylor and James Guilkey. Staff members in attendance were Nick Norris, Daniel Echeverria and Chris Lee.
The following site were visited
• Indiana Ave – Staff gave an overview of the proposal. The Commission asked the difference in the area between CN & RMU 35. Staff stated auto repair was not allowed and more residential uses were allowed.
• 400 S and Concord – Staff gave an overview of the proposal. The Commission asked which properties were involved.
• 400 S and 900W – Staff gave an overview of the proposal. The Commission asked which properties were involved.
• 700 S and 900 W - Staff gave an overview of the proposal. The Commission asked if a strictly residential building would be allowed.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 25, 2015, MEETING. 5:34:34 PM
MOTION 5:34:37 PM
Commissioner Fife moved to approve the February 25, 2015. Commissioner Guilkey seconded the motion. Commissioners Dean and Drown abstained from voting as they were not present at the meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:35:02 PM
Chairperson Ruttinger asked Ms. Nora Shepard to review the request for a leave of absence from Commissioner Matthew Lyon.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:35:13 PM
Ms. Nora Shepard, Planning Director, read the letter from Commissioner Lyon’s request for a leave of absence.
The Commission and Staff discussed the bylaws that regulate leaves of absence and how they are generally handled.
MOTION 5:37:17 PM
Commissioner Gallegos stated regarding the request for a leave of absence from Commissioner Matt Lyon, based on the language in the Planning Commission’s Policies and Procedures A.11 of the policies he moved to grant Matt Lyon the requested leave of absence. Commissioner Fife seconded the motion.
The Commission and Staff discussed what would happen if a leave of absence was not granted, the importance of having as many Commissioners attend each meeting as possible, how new members are appointed and if a new Vice Chair needed to be elected. The motion passed unanimously.
The Commissioners and Staff discussed electing a Vice Chair and that it would be listed on the March 25, agenda and the length of the term for the new person.
Ms. Shepard reviewed the work/training session that will be held on March 25, in room 126. She asked the Commissioners to send suggestions for discussion topics to Staff.
The Commission asked to discuss the following:
• The definitions and differences in Conditional Uses, Planned Developments and other zoning requests to better understand how each was applied and reviewed.
• A field trip to review projects that were previously approved by the Commission.
• Overview of zoning definitions and planning in general.
• Issues regarding tabling items.
• Any upcoming items that may need some direction.
• A list of acronyms.
5:51:03 PM
900 W. 700 S. Node Rezone - The City is proposing to amend the zoning map designation of four properties located on the northwest corner of the 700 S. and 900 W. intersection. The following properties are affected: 664, 668, and 680 S. 900 W. and 910 W. 700 S. The parcels are identified as part of a “neighborhood node” in the Westside Master Plan. In order to support the development of the properties as part of a “neighborhood node,” the City is proposing to rezone them from RMF-35 (Moderate Multi-Family Residential) and CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning, to a CB (Community Business) zoning district. The CB designation will allow for a greater diversity of mixed uses and opportunities for additional housing. This type of project requires a Zoning Map Amendment. Although the properties are proposed to be rezoned to the CB zone, consideration may be given to rezoning the properties to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The subject properties are within Council District 2, represented by Kyle LaMalfa. (Staff contact: Chris Lee at (801)535-7706 or chris.lee@slcgov.com.) Case Number PLNPCM2014-00374
Ms. Shepard discussed the nature, history of the rezoning proposals and the Commissions role in approval and implementation of the proposals. She stated Staff was coordinating with other departments to help make any improvements, for the subject areas, consistent with the Master Plan and public improvements.
Commissioner Gallegos stated during the phase of the West Side Master Plan, city departments such as the Development Department could have been more involved in the process. He asked to have some of the other Departments be involved in the training session and at other times to present how they are integrating the proposed zoning changes.
Ms. Shepard stated Staff was working toward exactly what Commissioner Gallegos suggested.
Mr. Chris Lee, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the petition.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The difference in a commercial node and a community node.
• The difference in CN and CB zoning and which was preferred in the area.
• The height limits for each zoning.
The Commission discussed reviewing all of the petitions prior to making a motion. They determined they would hear each petition, hold the public hearing and make a motion after the final rezoning petition.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:08:22 PM
Chairperson Ruttinger opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Erik Lopez, Popular Grove Community Council, stated the Community Council wanted to see the community grow but they also wanted to make sure both business uses and residential uses were in the community. He stated they wanted to be involved in what the uses would be to ensure there was diversity and unique business brought to the area.
The Commission asked if CN zoning was being phased out.
Staff explained there are size restrictions for CN zoning, gave the history of the zoning and examples of where the CN zones are located.
6:12:22 PM
900 W. 400 S. Node Rezone - The City is proposing to amend the zoning map designation of twenty four properties located at, or near, the intersection of 400 S. and 900 W. The following properties are affected: 360, 362, 364, 366, 376, 412, 417, and 435 S. 900 W., 841, 843, 848, 852, 857, 858, 859, 864, 865, and 877 W. 400 S., 866 W. Pacific Avenue, 869 W. 300 S., 321, 331, 365, and 371 S. 870 W. The parcels are identified as part of a “community node” in the Westside Master Plan. In order to support the development of the properties as part of a “community node,” the City is proposing to rezone them from RMF-35 (Moderate Multi-Family Residential) and CN (Neighborhood Commercial), to the R-MU-35 (Residential/Mixed Use) zoning district. The R-MU-35 designation will allow for a greater diversity of mixed uses and opportunities for additional housing. This type of project requires a Zoning Map Amendment. Although the properties are proposed to be rezoned to R-MU-35, consideration may be given to rezoning the properties to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The subject properties are within Council District 2, represented by Kyle LaMalfa. (Staff contact: Chris Lee at (801)535-7706 or chris.lee@slcgov.com.) Case Number PLNPCM2014-00375
Mr. Chris Lee, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the petition.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Why RMU 35 zoning was being suggested versus CB zoning.
• Commercial uses were not required in the zone but could be incorporated if desired.
• The notification process for property owners of zoning changes.
• Percentage of owner occupancy of the properties.
• Public comments for the proposal.
• The end goal for the proposed zoning changes.
o To develop the property as outlined in the Master Plan while making the areas viable and sustainable.
• If the property owners were local.
• The public transportation for the area.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:24:14 PM
Chairperson Ruttinger opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one in the audience wished to speak to the petition; Chairperson Ruttinger closed the Public Hearing.
6:24:45 PM
Indiana Avenue Neighborhood Node Rezone - The City is proposing to amend the zoning map designation for properties located along the north side of Indiana Avenue between Navajo Street and Pueblo Street. The following properties are affected: 1380, 1410, 1416, 1420, 1424, & 1430 W Indiana Avenue. The properties are identified as part of a “neighborhood node” in the Westside Master Plan. In order to support the development of the properties as part of a “neighborhood node,” the City is proposing to rezone them from CN, Neighborhood Commercial, to R-MU-35, Residential/Mixed Use. The R-MU-35 designation will allow for a greater diversity of mixed uses and opportunities for additional housing. This type of project requires a Zoning Map Amendment. Although the properties are proposed to be rezoned to the R-MU-35 zone, consideration may be given to rezoning the properties to another zoning district with similar characteristics. The subject properties are within Council District 2, represented by Kyle LaMalfa. (Staff contact: Daniel Echeverria at (801)535-7165 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com.) Case Number PLNPCM2014-00381
Mr. Daniel Echeverria, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the petition.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The additional height that could be requested under a Conditional use
• The rear setbacks and if seasonal shadows were reviewed.
• Which zoning allowed drive-thrus.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:28:38 PM
Chairperson Ruttinger opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Diana Oaks, neighbor, stated the extra height was an issue as it would block the light to her property. She stated she supported the changes to bring growth back to the area, little neighborhood businesses would be preferred and there was not enough communication that was done prior to the proposal. She stated the proposed thirty five foot height would be a detriment to her property.
Chairperson Ruttinger closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The notification process for the proposal.
• The impact of a thirty five foot building next to the residential property and the setbacks for a project of that height.
• If R-1/500 zoning could be put on the property to restrict a structure higher than twenty five feet from being built on that property.
• Why only the north side of the street was being rezoned to CN.
o A mix of zoning would guarantee commercial use in the area.
• The height limit of the CN zoning.
• The reasoning for the zoning change and how it would affect housing for the area.
o By doing this the city was concentrating low income housing in an area where it already existed. In the northern areas the housing was more at market level so the proposal would not help the affordable housing issue for the city.
• When the zoning was initially changed in the area.
• The programs to entice developers to construct affordable housing.
• If zoning density could be created between the zones and how density was addressed in the plan.
6:46:50 PM
400 S & Concord Street Neighborhood Node Rezone - The City is proposing to amend the zoning map designation for properties located near the intersection of 400 S and Concord Street. The following properties are affected: 1217, 1221, 1225, 1233, and 1266 W 400 South. The properties are identified as part of a “neighborhood node” in the Westside Master Plan. In order to support the development of the properties as part of the “neighborhood node” the City is proposing to rezone them from R-1/5,000, Single Family Residential, to CN, Neighborhood Commercial and R-MU-35, Residential/Mixed Use. The CN and R-MU-35 designations will allow for a greater diversity of mixed uses and opportunities to expand and reinforce the neighborhood business node. The properties are currently used for single-family homes. This type of project requires a Zoning Map Amendment. Although the properties are proposed to be rezoned to the CN and R-MU-35 zones, consideration may be given to rezoning the properties to other zoning districts with similar characteristics. The subject properties are within Council District 2, represented by Kyle LaMalfa. (Staff contact: Daniel Echeverria at (801)535-7165 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com.) Case Number PLNPCM2014-00380
Mr. Daniel Echeverria, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the petition.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• How the proposal prevented neighbors from requesting zoning changes for their properties and constructing large buildings on those properties.
• Zoning changes could currently be requested by a property owner. The proposed rezone would not change that.
• Could the properties be combined and a big box built in the area.
o The RMU 35 regulations allow for a large developments if the properties are combined but design standards help break it up a bit.
o Would have to be supported by the Master Plan.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:52:38 PM
Chairperson Ruttinger opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Megan Foster, Director of the Lee Boys and Girls Club, supported the zone change as it would bring more people and improvement to the area. She stated a traffic light was a necessity for the intersection where the Boys and Girls club was located.
Mr. Eric Lopez, Community Council, stated the major concerns are that they want to make sure the community remained walkable, looked good and create a feel of an inviting community.
Chairperson Ruttinger closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The level of importance of the proposals and if they should be approved in stages not all at once.
• The planning best practices for changing the zoning.
• How to implement the plans and draw different businesses to the area.
• Establish a priority of development to help the diversity of the uses.
o The proposal was a start and other tools would move the diversity along.
• Which proposal best fit the Master Plan.
• Areas where different zoning would be more appropriate and if changes to the proposal were allowed.
o The Commission could make change to the zoning in the motion.
MOTION 7:05:25 PM
Commissioner Dean stated regarding PLNPCM2014-00374, 700 S 900 W Zoning Map Amendment, based on the findings and analysis in the Staff Report, testimony, and discussion at the public hearing, she moved that the Planning Commission propose to City Council designation of the northwest corner properties per the Staff Report discussion that they be zoned CN zoning in order to encourage commercial mixed use with the density, residential and the others. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION 7:07:20 PM
Commissioner Drown stated regarding petition PLNPCM2014-00375,
Zoning Map Amendment, based on the findings and analysis in the Staff Report, testimony, and discussion at the public hearing, she moved that the Planning Commission transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council for the
proposed zoning amendment. Commissioner Fife seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION 7:08:29 PM
Commissioner Fife stated regarding petition PLNPCM2014-00381, Indiana Avenue Neighborhood Node Rezone, based on the findings and analysis in the Staff Report, testimony, and discussion at the public hearing; he moved that the Planning Commission transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning amendment. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Guilkey stated once zoning went from R-1/5000 to something else it was never going back. He stated the city was losing single family homes and that was sad.
MOTION 7:09:55 PM
Commissioner Fife stated regarding petition PLNPCM2014-00038, 0 400 S & Concord Street Neighborhood Node Rezone, based on the findings and analysis in the Staff Report, testimony, and discussion at the public hearing; he moved that the Planning Commission transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning amendment. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion.
Chairperson Ruttinger stated it seemed contradictory to the Master Plan to maintain housing and was the only proposal that felt out of place.
Commissioner Taylor commended the Staff on implementing the Master Plan as requested by the Commission and the residents of the area.
The Commission and Staff discussed how the rezone area was chosen.
Commissioners Hoskins, Taylor, Fife, Drown, Dean and Gallegos voted “aye”. Commissioner Guilkey voted “nay”. The motion passed 6-1.
7:13:18 PM
The Commission took a short break
Briefing 7:18:29 PM
Commissioner Guilkey reviewed the information packet he passed out to the Commission and how it related to the Commission’s concerns with parking.
The Commission and Staff discussed the parking requirements in the zoning ordinance, the history of parking in Salt Lake City and why the changes were implemented.
The following questions and comments were discussed:
• The standard size of a parking stall.
• The cost for the parking permit program.
o Thirty five dollars a year per pass.
• How the parking permit program worked and the areas that have the program in place.
• If a proposal was not requesting exceptions would the Commission review the proposal based on parking requirements.
o Staff stated no, it would not be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
• When the community is involved in the transportation issues for their areas and when/how their questions are answered.
• There is not a frequent low cost transportation option in Salt Lake City.
• What do people do if they don’t have a car and there is no mass transportation.
• How the parking standards have affected the way people move about the city and the inconveniences it cause.
• A transportation option should be required to have at least one car per unit.
• The definition of frequent transit.
o Within ten minute intervals throughout the day.
There are currently a large number of buses that run every fifteen minutes.
o UTA and the City are not on the same page in developing transportation.
• Need to look at what the ultimate intention is and how to keep a balance of access.
• Why the parking was different for single family homes and apartment units.
o Because of the household size and the number of cars in a single family household than in a multifamily development.
• Everyone has at least one car and tends to travel for work.
• Have to encourage development but have a balance with parking.
• The next steps for reviewing parking and transportation in the City.
• Having shared parking available in areas and if it is available.
• Should have parking at homes and the ordinance should allow for one stall per unit.
• If the Commission should initiate a petition to change the parking requirements in the City.
• Have to look at the whole picture and find out where less than one stall would work and where more parking stalls are necessary.
• A parking study is being done and people need to be involved in the process.
The meeting adjourned at 8:28:06 PM
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT
Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 4:08:05 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for an indefinite period of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Clark Ruttinger; Commissioners Angela Dean, Michael Fife, Michael Gallegos, James Guilkey, Carolynn Hoskins and Marie Taylor. Commissioner Emily Drown was excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nora Shepard, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Michaela Oktay, Planning Manager, Joel Paterson, Zoning Administrator; Michael Maloy, Senior Planner; David Gellner, Principal Planner; Michelle Moeller, Administrative Secretary and Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney.
The Planning Commissioners and Staff discussed and reviewed the following items:
1. Intro/Ice Breaker Exercise/What Do You Do? (Nora Shepard)
a. Introductions
b. Rules for the meeting
2. Big Picture (Cheri Coffey)
a. Makeup and Numbers in the City are changing:
• SLC population is growing and changing
o Approx 190,000 today population
o Estimate 230,000 by 2030, 40,000 more people in 15 years, 40,000 people are similar to the size of Draper City today
• Demographic Changes/Changing Interests and Changing Attitudes
o Increase in ethnic minorities (34% of City) over 60% in Districts 1 and 2), refuge city (fear of government), University city/Teaching hospital/research/development, recreation minded, language, cultural changes (generations in homes, more single person households)
o Millennials and Empty Nesters - Different Generations/Similar needs; Different life style than “traditional” (no to private vehicles, don’t want a yard, like to attend activities, groups, not the house, 2 cars and kids, accepting of diversity, etc)
o Meaning of Family (traditional, no kids, no partners, family, extended support groups, etc
o 35% of City residents in 2010 lived alone
o Only 17% were married with School age kids
o 2011, there were 81,401 housing units - Different cultural norms for different groups (three or more generations living together)
o Changing Definition of Community
o Cyclists
o Urban Farmers
o Parent groups- soccer, Jr. jazz, scouting, etc
o School focused groups - School Community
o Environmental/Recreationalists
o Geographic
b. Values:
• Need to Accommodate Growth
• Want to Accommodate Choice
o Housing
o Mobility - by choice, no other options (income, disabilities, etc)
• Protect Air
• Protect Water
• Protect/Provide Access to Open Space/Nature/Recreation
• Access to Services/Programs (Cultural (arts, festivals, concerts, etc)
• Protect Quality of Life/Neighborhoods
• Embrace Diversity and differences
o Social Justice - Not just listening to those who engage but also those who don’t or don’t know how or have time to engage
o Public Interest
• Promote/Support Strong Economy
o Local Business
o Recruitment
o Easy to understand regulations and processes
o Loans/Incentives
c. Guiding Principals
• Adopted Policies and Plans like Plan Salt Lake
• Mayor’s Livability Agenda (2012-2016)
• Council’s Philosophy Statements (2012)
d. City of Neighborhoods
• Areas of Stability
o Zoning
o Conflicts in Land Use
o Urban Forestry
o Historic Preservation
o Provide Services, (housing rehab, park/trail improvements, safe mobility, etc)
• Areas of Change
o Growth along Arterials and transit routes
o Mixed Use neighborhoods in the Depot, Granary, West Temple Gateway, Sugar House Business District
• Access to neighborhood centers
e. How we address the Visions and Goals in Master Plans - examples
• Cutting Edge/Best Practices - get the Mayor to initiate a lot of petitions for us to work on progressive planning topics
• Planning Division Strategic Plan
• Public Interest - (Code of Ethics as Planners). Think of those who are voiceless, next generations, people who are new to the community, elderly, disengaged (some are fleeing countries because of government; they fear government so they won’t engage). Still need to think of them when planning
f. Housing Options - How address this value/goal
• Density along LRT route, near services, where capacity can handle it (arterials, corners, etc)
• ADUs- increase density but retain character
• Modify zoning districts, RMU-35 and 45 (neighborhood nodes, commercial properties on arterials/collectors, etc)
g. Mobility Options
• Safer pedestrian and cycling systems (don’t have to rely on private auto)
• Better transit options and schedules
• Incentives/facilities to provide choice for mobility options (lockers, showers, bike parking, becomes a realistic option to get around other than in car)
• Make using car a little more difficult (congestion, parking, etc) may lead to choosing other mobility options sometimes
h. Revitalizing Neighborhood Nodes - Generally these are older/original commercial nodes
• Walkable/bike able equals clean air
• Increase housing units in the areas equals more rooftops equals more services
• Walkable equals gathering centers/neighborliness
• Regulations to make it easier to reoccupy the space, making parking requirement similar for the types of uses - small restaurant, retail and services same parking requirements
i. Growing Pains
• How hard do we push?
• Balancing interests- Creative ways to get to the intent/goal
• Residents tend to want regulation and a process
• Business tends to want incentives and want to know what to expect and the rules, rather than a process
• 9th and 9th meeting in Council Office
• Parking (maximum is new- 2012, Idea adopted in 1995.) Tightening up 1995 - hurts a little more.
• Council adopted this policy - study more and maybe go back a tweak to make sure the intent is met
• Council adopted the amendments that decreased parking requirement in neighborhood commercial (works well when reoccupying space)
• Weighed issues of burden on residential with supporting small, local services in the neighborhoods. Regulations focused on how to ensure commercial services in these older neighborhood nodes - rather than too restrictive that leads to vacant storefronts
j. Sustainability- Incentive vs. Regulation
• Developers build buildings and don’t usually occupy the space. Require bike showers vs. bus passes.
• Water restrictions (audits) vs. incentives (lower water costs for using less water)
• How much regulation
• Competition with Cities in other states or with suburban cities in Utah
• Try to structure ordinances, in some instances to make process easier (quicker review) for those following the ordinance (mixed use, good design, etc) vs. those that need adjustments (cookie cutter approach, more parking than required)
3. SLC Zoning 101 (Nick Norris)
a. Why We have Zoning
• Implement Master Plans
• Establishes property Rights
• Expectations
• Directs Growth
• Preserve Building Stock/Housing Supply
b. Title 21A
• Introductory Provisions
• Administrative and Enforcement
• District Regulations
• General Regulations
• Amendments and Special Approvals
• Definitions
c. Introductory Provisions
• Purpose of Zoning Ordinance
• Decision Makers
o Noticing for Public Hearings:
Direct mailing to owners/occupants within 300 feet
Property posted with a sign (except wide scale map amendments)
Listserv email (all recognized organizations get every agenda)
Newspaper notice for Master Plan and Zoning Text Amendments
o Applicability
o Administrative Decisions
o Variances
o Enforcement process
• District Regulations
o Residential
19 Residential Districts (R-1, SR, R2, RMF and Mixed Use Zones)
o Commercial
9 Commercial Districts (SNB, CN,CB,CS,CC,CSHBD,CG,TC-75 and TSA)
o Form Based
2 Adopted Districts (FB-UN1 and FB-UN2)
2 in Progress (Along Sugar House Streetcar)
o Manufacturing
2 Manufacturing Districts (M-1 and M-2 )
o Downtown & Gateway Districts
4 Downtown Districts (D-1, D-2, D-3 and D-4)
1 Gateway District (GMU)
o Special Purpose
17 Special Purpose Districts (Agriculture, Open Space & Foothill Protection, Public Lands, Airport, Institutional, Mixed Use, Extractive Industries, Research & Business Parks)
o Overlay
12 Overlay Districts (Historic Preservation, Airport Flight Plath, Riparian, Design/Bulk/Use Overlays)
• State Street
• Main Street
• Capitol Hill
• Yalecrest
o General Provisions
Standards that apply to all districts
Accessory Units
Signs
Landscaping
Nonconforming uses
o Processes
Zoning Amendments
Special Exceptions
Conditional Uses
Planned Developments
Site Plan Review
Conditional Building and Site Design Review
4. Roles and Responsibilities: (Cheri Coffey)
a. How PC fits into the City Government Structure Implementation Adopted Policies
• Obvious role of PC
• Development Reviews
o Standard - generally complies with master plans (private petitions) - Administrative
o A lot of adopted policies - balance the conflicts
o Always think of the big picture and the public interest. Hard when there are few people from public who took time to come to the meeting and are watching. Have to remember those who aren’t there
Agree with project - don’t come
Fear government - don’t come
Busy with life - don’t come
Doesn’t mean they don’t care.
• Recommendations on the policies and regulations for Council to consider (city-initiated petitions) - Legislative
b. Planning Staff- Lots of Bosses
• Mayor - Part of administration
o Mayor Initiates Petitions (often times this is Planning Staff requesting Mayor initiates petition for us to work on)
o Sustainable City Code Initiative - Recycling, Urban Farming, Renewable Energy, etc
• Council
o Decision Maker on much of what the Planning Department does
o Initiates Legislative Intent Items (Projects relating to new regulations, studies, etc.)
Example Council - Studies to review zoning and master plan policies to preserve neighborhood character without use of local historic designation
CED
o Assigns us various projects
o Planning is seen as a leader and on cutting edge in how we do things. We often are tapped to help other departments/entities through leadership, facilitation, innovative thinking, etc
o Community Outreach/Engagement
• Yearly Performance Measures to implement Mayor’s Livability Agenda and Council’s Philosophy Statements
o Master Plans- 2 major master plan efforts per year
o Historic Preservation
2 new designations
3 unique ways to educate and inform property owners and the public about the value of historic preservation
c. How Planning works to implement Master Plan Policies
• Development Review (At permits counter or through process)
• Collaboration with Other Divisions/Departments/Agencies
o RDA
Review their strategic plans for consistency with adopted master plans
Monthly Meetings relating to their projects
Rezone RDA project areas to help them implement master plan goals and market the areas (zoned consistent with master plan, helps decrease the issues developers have in doing what the City wants done
Review of proposed development plans, RFPs, etc
• CIP & CDBG Application Review for master plan compliance
o Grant Applications- Help write applications so that it is clear how the proposed grant will help implement City policies
• Department Collaboration
o Manage Projects As Team (Transit Master Plan)
o Mini Charettes with HAND on development projects on City property
o Collaborative work meetings to identify how to coordinate projects and programs in geographic areas (Engineering, Transportation, Parks, Housing, RDA, Library, Arts Council, etc)
o Review City Projects (Like new Fire Station) to ensure no impact on historic structures/districts
o Working with Parks on hiring a consultant to write histories on parks and develop historic design guidelines
o Review of large City projects to ensure Urban Design best practices are adhered to
o Coordinate Public Engagement- Open Houses, Festivals, etc
o Working with other departments
5. Meetings/Decision Making (Michaela Oktay)
• Policy and Procedures
• Conduct and rules of engagement
• Making good decisions
• Making motions
• Tabling issues
• Conflicts of interest
• Ex parte communication
• The role of the public
6. Parting Thoughts
a. The Commission suggested the following:
• Include information regarding how proposals/projects fit into the big picture for the city.
• More information/context regarding the area plans, location and pre-meeting discussion should be included in the Staff Report.
• If information on the notice should state public vote did not apply to the Commission’s final decision.
• Have Staff list/summarize issues brought up during the Public Hearing for the Commission to discuss before making a motion.
• Opportunities to teach the public how to properly address the Commission.
The meeting adjourned at 7:48:16 PM
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Room 126 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Wednesday, April 8, 2015
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:35:31 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for an indefinite period of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Clark Ruttinger; Commissioners Angela Dean, Emily Drown, Michael Fife, Michael Gallegos and James Guilkey. Vice Chair Matt Lyon and Commissioners Carolynn Hoskins and Marie Taylor were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nora Shepard, Planning Director; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Doug Dansie, Senior Planner; Everett Joyce, Senior Planner; David Gellner, Principal Planner; Michelle Moeller, Administrative Secretary and Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney.
Field Trip
A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were: Clark Ruttinger, Emily Drown, Michael Fife and James Guilkey. Staff members in attendance were Nick Norris and David Gellner.
The following site were visited
• 1022 E 800 South Power Station - Staff gave an overview of the proposal. The Commissioners asked how many parking stalls there were. Staff stated the parking was not striped but there was room for eight cars.
5:35:59 PM
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MARCH 11 & MARCH 25, 2015, MEETING.
MOTION 5:36:05 PM
Commissioner Guilkey moved to approve the March 11 and March 25, 2015. Commissioner Fife seconded the motion.
The Commission discussed if new Vice Chair position had been elected and that Commission Lyon would like to speak to Staff about the position.
Staff stated they would talk to Commissioner Lyon and have the election listed on the April 22, agenda.
The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Drown abstained from voting for the March 25, minutes as she was not present at that meeting.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:38:28 PM
Chairperson Ruttinger discussed the possibility of a Planning Commissioner making a presentation regarding the role of the Planning Commission at a Community Council meeting.
Ms. Nora Shepard stated it would be good to have a Commissioner and Staff member attend the meeting as it would be an effective way to recruit people to the Commissions.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:39:58 PM
Ms. Nora Shepard, Planning Director, reviewed the Planning Commission retreat on March 25. She stated the City Council approved the utility box amendments with direction to Staff to review and modify some of the regulations and allow for further discussion. Ms Shepard reviewed Google Fiber that was coming to the city and stated Google would be installing utility boxes throughout the city, over the summer.
The Commission and Staff discussed the time frame for implementation of Google’s services.
5:42:52 PM
Transit Master Plan- The Transportation Division and consultant team will provide an update on the Transit Master Plan. The Transit Master Plan will help Salt Lake City and UTA set priorities over the next 20 years and guide decisions about the timing and location of transit improvements with the goal of creating an ideal network of buses, trains and streetcars. This update will focus on current travel patterns, population and employment density, and the current transit system. (Staff contact: Julianne Sabula (801) 535-6678 or julianne.sabula@slcgov.com.)
Ms. Robin Hutchinson, Transportation, reviewed the Transit Master Plan for Salt Lake City and stated the goal was to make it complementary to the region and specific to the public’s needs. She introduced the transit team Mr. Tom Brennan, Ms. Kathleen Sullivan, Mr. Chris Jones and Ms. Julianne Sabula.
Mr. Tom Brennan, consultant, reviewed the background and history of the Transit Master Plan for Salt Lake City. He reviewed the time line for the plan and asked the Commission for questions and comments.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The results from the survey of existing conditions and the unique challenges and operations of Salt Lake City.
• Notifying the Commission of the schedule for outreach so they could help to promote meetings and encourage people to attend.
• How travel time would be a considered in the plan.
• The unique circumstances that would be reviewed.
o Areas to improve neighborhood circulation.
o The divide between the west and east sides of the city.
o Service span and connectivity of transit.
• Considering accessibility to employment and hours of operation.
• These items seem like UTA’s responsibility and if they are not willing to change are there options to have other entities address the issues.
• Opportunities for the City to step in and help with the places where UTA does not provide services.
• If UTA could be replaced entirely and what that would do for the City.
• Connecting the plan with the surrounding areas.
• The integration process and time frame.
• The distance between bus locations and accommodation for quick transit.
• How traffic was measured and gauged.
• Trip patterns.
• Personal versus Public Transit travel times and which one was more of a benefit to the user regarding time.
• How data was complied and analyzed.
6:12:41 PM
McClelland Power Station Rezone at approximately 1022 East 800 South and 1026 East 800 South - Brad Knoles, representing Rocky Mountain Power and Camarlot Investments LLC, is requesting that the City amend the zoning map for two parcels located at the above listed address. The properties are currently zoned R-2 – Single and Two-Family Residential. The applicant is requesting that these two properties (0.24 acres total) be rezoned to RMF-30 – Low Density Multi-Family Residential in order to accommodate the relocation of an off-site parking facility serving an existing apartment complex on the property directly to the east. The applicant is also proposing to change the existing lot lines so that the parking lot will be located on the same site as the apartment complex. The intent of the proposed rezone is to ensure that zoning is uniform between the existing apartment building and the parking lot that serves that use, and, that the zoning will be consistent with the lot changes proposed. The rezone is also intended to help accommodate a reciprocal access agreement between Rocky Mountain Power and Salt Lake City Public Utilities. The subject property is within Council District 5, represented by Erin Mendenhall. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (801) 535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com.) Case Number PLNPCM2014-00907
Mr. David Gellner, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file). He stated Staff was recommending that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council for the petition.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The boundaries for the proposal.
Mr. Brad Knoles, Rocky Mountain Power, reviewed the petition and why they were requesting the rezone.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:
• The relocation of the parking lot.
• Why the rezone was necessary.
o The desire was to have the same zoning for the parking lot and the apartment unit when the property exchange was completed.
• The next steps for the proposal.
• The suggested expansion of the substation.
o It would not be a facility expansion but would allow safe vehicle access to the facility.
• The access to the property if the rezone was approved.
• If the purpose of the rezone was to allow for the property to be redeveloped.
o Development was not part of the proposal but could possibly happen in the future.
o It would be difficult to develop the property due to its surroundings.
• The Commission could not base their decision on the possibility of future development.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:26:10 PM
Chairperson Ruttinger opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one in the audience wished to speak to the petition; Chairperson Ruttinger closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 6:26:49 PM
Commissioner Gallegos stated regarding PLNPCM2014-00907, McClelland Power Station Rezone at 1022 East 800 South and 1026 East 800 South, based on the findings and analysis in the Staff Report, testimony, plans presented and discussion, he moved that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Zoning Map Amendment. Commissioner Guilkey seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
6:27:46 PM
Open Space Zoning Text Amendment - Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker is requesting the City analyze the appropriateness of amending the Zoning Ordinance relating to Open Space regulations. The amendments include text changes that address issues such as varied development standards based on park size, update of the use tables and sign regulations related to park and open space zoning and the functions of parks, golf courses, water treatment facilities and utility structures. Related provisions of Title 21A- Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The proposed regulation changes will affect sections 21A.32 Open Space and Natural Open Space Districts, 21A.36 General Provisions, 21A.46 Signs, 21A.62 Definitions and Sections 21A.24,26,27, 3, 32 and 58 Open Space Area of the zoning
ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact: Everett Joyce at (801) 535-7930 or everett.joyce@slcgov.com.) Case number PLNPCM2010-00406.
Mr. Everett Joyce, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as presented in the Staff Report (located in the case file) and reviewed the next steps for the proposal. He stated Staff was requesting that the Planning Commission table the issue and allow for the plan to be brought back for further review and approval at a future meeting.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The definition for Open Space Zoning and Natural Open Space Zoning.
• If the buffers along the Jordan River were included in the proposal.
o Yes, but the City had to be careful because high activity park use was not allowed in the Natural Open Space zoning.
• If the small park lots were in the Parks Master Plan.
o Staff has collaborated with the Parks and Public Utilities Departments on the plan.
• The structure height in the proposal and if it reflected current facility heights.
• If the proposal would help with the conversion of golf courses into multiuse areas.
o Yes it could.
• Including the other plans that apply to the proposal in the next presentation.
• The soccer facility and how it fit into the new zoning.
• The name of the proposal was a little deceiving and how it applied to any areas that were not natural open space.
• Purpose statement and land uses that are allowed in the zoning.
• Clarifying the title to clearly outline the purpose.
• How property was designated Open Space or Natural Open Space.
• Why Amphitheaters were added to the Natural Open Space.
o There are natural amphitheaters in some of the Natural Open Spaces and need to be addressed.
• Signage in the open space areas.
• Having language that stated no structures would be allowed in Natural Open Space areas.
• Clear definition of Natural Open Space.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:54:51 PM
Chairperson Ruttinger opened the Public Hearing.
Ms. Cindy Cromer stated she was on the task force who wrote the open space master plan. She stated there needed to be regulations for historic parks and parks need to be protected. She reviewed the history of the zoning for parks and height restrictions in park areas. Ms. Cromer stated she was opposed to anything that was not very specific about amphitheaters. She gave the history of the Natural Open Space zone and asked to keep the Public Hearing open specifically because a map depicting what was Natural Open Space
and Open Space was not included in the proposal. She urged the Commission to look at the implementation section of the Open Space Master Plan to see what else needed to be done.
Commissioner Drown asked if there were any other specifics, outside of the amphitheaters, that Ms. Cromer could make the Commission aware of.
Ms. Cromer stated the signage and way finding signage would be a good as it was a way to prevent people from getting lost. She stated she was concerned over anything that could be construed as a structure and that the Natural Open Space Zone was conceived as a very restrictive, protected zone. She stated she was opposed to anything that took the City away from that concept.
Mr. George Chapman stated he was against the proposal and it needed to be sent back to the Planning Department for further review. He stated this was open space so why did the City need a fire station or police station there. Mr. Chapman stated a small police station might be appropriate but not a fire station. He stated part of what was driving the petition was the proposed fire station on Forest Dale golf course but the surrounding residences would be impacted. Mr. Chapman stated this was not what a park was for and the public did not want fire stations in the open spaces, they wanted it to be available for everybody to use.
Ms. Judy Short stated she wanted to address the areas in Sugar House outlined in the plan and she thought it was a wonderful idea to expand the urban forest. She would like clarification on the statements regarding funding on a per-capita ratio. Ms. Short stated she supported funding for park maintenance because the parks needed a lot of maintenance. Ms. Short stated Imperial Park was a great example of what could happen when people read the zoning code. She stated she was confused about the open space zoned for new uses because she thought the Forest Dale fire station property would be rezoned to public lands. Ms. Short stated the proposed location of the Forest Dale fire station was an appropriate use of the property as it had never been used for open space activities.
Chairperson Ruttinger stated the Public Hearing would remain open.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Leaving the Public Hearing open.
• Amphitheaters in open spaces, if guidelines should be created and a map would help clarify the use.
• Clarifying the definition and use of open space.
• Why rezoning open space at the time of development was such an issue versus what was being proposed.
• Reconsider some of the uses in the proposal.
• Definitions of the uses proposed for open spaces in the proposal.
• If the open spaces were for public use only or if a private operator could operate them.
• A historic survey of historic parks and landscapes was in the works.
MOTION 7:15:22 PM
Commissioner Gallegos stated regarding PLNPCM2010-00406, Open Space and Natural Open Space Zoning Districts, he moved to table the petition and keep the Public Hearing open. Commissioner Dean seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
7:16:09 PM
Park Strip Landscaping – A Request by the City Council to amend the waterwise landscaping code. Planning staff will provide a follow up discussion to additional changes to the landscaping regulations that the Commission reviewed and made a recommendation on February 28, 2015. The follow up will focus on technical changes to the ordinance recommended by the City Attorney’s Office. The proposed application is city wide. (Staff contact: Doug Dansie at (801) 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com). Case number PLNPCM2014-00194
Mr. Doug Dansie, Senior Planner, stated the petition was previously approved and this was an update on the legal language in the plan and reviewed the changes in the plan.
The Commission and Staff discussed if a Public Hearing was needed.
Ms. Shepard stated this was an information only update.
MOTION 7:19:48 PM
Commissioner Gallegos stated regarding PLNPCM2014-00194, the Park Strip Landscaping Ordinance, he moved to accept the updated language as presented. Commissioner Drown seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 7:20:22 PM