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 5:29:43 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Emily Drown, Vice Chair Clark Ruttinger; Commissioners Angela Dean, Michael Fife, Michael Gallegos, Matt Lyon, Marie Taylor, and Mary Woodhead. Commissioner James Guilkey, Matthew Wirthlin and Carolynn Hoskins were excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Casey Stewart, Senior Planner; Doug Dansie, Senior Planner and Michelle Moeller, Senior Secretary.
FIELD TRIP
A field trip was not scheduled for this meeting.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 23, 2014, MEETING 5:29:59 PM
MOTION 5:30:00 PM
Commissioner Woodhead moved to approve the April 23, 2014, with amendments. Commissioner Fife seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Taylor and Ruttinger abstained from voting as they were not present at the subject meeting.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:31:30 PM
Chairperson Drown stated she had nothing to report.
Vice Chairperson Ruttinger stated he had nothing to report
BRIEFING 5:31:41 PM
Outdoor Lighting – Planning Staff will brief the Planning Commission on latest research and concepts for outdoor lighting regulations. This is a reengagement of efforts started in 2010. (Staff contact: Casey Stewart at 801-535-6260 or casey.stewart@slcgov.com)
Mr. Casey Stewart, Senior Planner, reviewed the plan and the time line for the project. He stated future updates and reviews would be brought to the Commission.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The reasoning behind Staff’s preference to shrink the light spot.
o Reduce the light pollution and protect the star filled sky.
o Promote energy efficiency and conservations.
o Stop light spill onto neighboring properties.
o Ensure outdoor lighting reduction after hours and properly direct light to the surface or activity intended.
• How often the City received complaints about light pollution.
• The date of the provided graphic information.
o Staff stated the graph was from 2006.
• The size and layout of the Salt Lake Valley contributed to the amount of light pollution shown on the graph.
• The changes in lighting since 2006 and the possible impacts those changes would have on the information in the Staff Report.
• If the plan included street lights, efficiency and energy conservation.
o Staff stated the proposed plan was for private property.
o There is a street light master plan for the City regulated by Public Utilities.
• The current total of lumens in use and how that related to the proposed lumens budget.
• If it would be a detriment to enforce a lumen budget.
o Staff stated more research needed to be done before the final numbers were determined.
• The areas that would be required to follow the lumen budget.
• How the proposal would be implemented and the time it would take to enforce this ordinance.
o The plan would not be retroactive and would be applied to certain items going forward, those items still needed to be reviewed and determined.
• Was the proposed plan new or was it replacing a current lighting ordinance.
o Currently there was vague language in the ordinance that the proposal would clarify and replace.
• Would there be a definition of season or holiday as people could find something to celebrate all year.
o Staff stated this subject would need to be clarified.
• The other Cities that have applied this type of ordinance and how it worked in their communities.
• If the lighting issue would get bigger because of the proposal, or would it improve the light pollution issues.
o Staff stated the long term goal would be to reduce the light spot, help slow down the impacts and keep the light spot relatively the same as future growth took place.
• The environmental impact of the lighting.
o The major impact is to the wildlife such as birds, and mammals it affects their migration activities and natural habitats.
• What projects the proposal would affect, be applied to and how the existing issues could be improved.
o Would have to be added to and comply with the building code.
• The meaning of outdoor lights and if signage was included in the regulations.
• How the proposal would be applied to different zoning.
• How lumens are calculated.
• The steps for moving the proposal forward.
• How complaints about lighting are currently addressed.
• If Staff would work with other Cities to incorporate similar regulations.
o Staff explained the working relationship with other Cities in Utah regarding these types of proposals.
DISCUSSION 6:02:16 PM
Downtown Master Plan – As part of the planning process for the Downtown Master Plan, planning staff will brief the Planning Commission on the status of the project. Planning Staff will be reviewing various sections of the Draft Plan with the Commission. (Staff contact: Nick Norris at (801) 535-6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com)
Mr. Nick Norris, Planning Manager, reviewed the plan and the time line for the project. He stated future updates and reviews would be brought to the Commission.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• The Public involvement in the plan.
• The coordination with the RDA.
o They are both committees and Staff is working close with them to create the plan.
• If the metrics were for tracking or a target setting purposes.
o Staff stated the metrics would work both ways.
• Measuring the housing stock and diversity of downtown housing.
• Tracking the underdevelopment and undeveloped land would be a good way to measure “Vibrant and Active”.
• If there was way to determine the sales tax revenue from people living downtown versus visitors to the area.
• Changing the word increase to tracking, regarding medium income under the title “What is Prosperous”.
• How the economic data affects and applies to the plan.
• How the metric of increase in medium household income relates and balances with having diversity of incomes downtown and to the plan.
• The overall format of the document to better reflect the metrics and how they apply to all areas of the city.
• The metric under age distribution.
o Staff stated it was the population pyramid breakdown and the overall goal was to draw more families downtown.
• Adding a metric to measure the number of local business versus chain and national businesses.
• Transit safety and how different types of transit interact with each other.
o Example accident and incident reports.
• The bike lanes that were being measured.
o It would be all officially designated and stripped or segregated bike lanes in the downtown area.
• The definition of transit in the plan.
o Light rail and high frequency bus stops.
• Safety is a perception and the connection between the East and West sides of the city is really important to the walkability of the City.
• The neighborhood watch programs could be used to measure if they are effective and if they bring the community together to help create a safer environment which in turn would actually help the perception of safety.
• The connection to the canyons and other amenities outside the city and how to measure it.
• The number of billboards downtown.
Staff stated an updated version of the plan would be sent to the Commission and further review of the plan would be done at a later meeting. The Commissioners directed Staff to continue with the Public outreach between the Public Hearing meetings to better inform the public of the updates and progress of the plan.
The meeting adjourned at 7:04:17 PM