SALT LAKE CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah
Present for the Planning Commission were Laurie Noda (Chairperson), Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Craig Galli, Peggy McDonough (Vice Chairperson), Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig.
Present from the Planning Division were Alexander Ikefuna (Planning Director), Cheri Coffey (Deputy Planning Director), Joel Paterson (Planning Programs Supervisor), Sarah Carroll (Associate Planner), Kati Weiler (Acting Planning Commission Secretary), and Deborah Martin (Senior Planning Secretary).
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Noda called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Audio recordings of Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time.
A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were Tim Chambless and Kathy Scott. Planning Division Staff present was Joel Paterson.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2005.
(This item was heard at 5:48 p.m.)
Regarding Petition 400-03-08 (Page 7), Commissioner Seelig noted that it was she who moved to approve the petition and not Commissioner McDonough as indicated in the minutes.
The minutes also state that Commissioner Seelig was on the (banner) “subcommittee and she did not recommend the two mile radius”. Commissioner Seelig explained that she was not exclusively opposed to the recommendation; it was the subcommittee as a whole who did not recommend the two mile radius.
THEREFORE, Commissioner Scott moved that the Planning Commission approve the minutes for October 26, 2005 with the noted corrections. Commissioner Chambless seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Diamond, Commission McDonough, Commissioner Muir, Commissioner Scott and Commissioner Seelig voted aye. Commissioner De Lay abstained from voting and Chairperson Noda did not vote. The motion passed.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
(This item was heard at 5:51:14 p.m.)
Neither the Chairperson nor the Vice Chairperson had anything to report at this time.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
(This item was heard at 5:51:36 p.m.)
Appointment of Planning Commissioners - Planning Director Alexander Ikefuna explained that the City Council will consider the appointment of Robert Earl Forbis, Jr. as a new Planning Commissioner at their meeting scheduled for November 10, 2005. It is anticipated that Mr. Forbis, Jr. will attend the next Planning Commission meeting scheduled for November 30.
Mr. Ikefuna explained that Commissioner Seelig provided a list of possible Planning Commissioner candidates, and Mr. Ikefuna has contacted two gentlemen on that list. One of the candidates indicated that he is over committed to other boards at this time and would try to reduce his other commitments before he would be able to commit to the Planning Commission. He will get in touch with Mr. Ikefuna regarding his decision. The second candidate who was contacted declined.
Planning Commission Retreat – Mr. Ikefuna invited Planning Commission Members to submit topics and issues that they would like to discuss at their retreat scheduled for December 13, 2005. He noted that Commissioner McDonough and Chairperson Noda have submitted issues for discussion.
Transit Oriented Development Corridor – Mr. Ikefuna explained that alternative proposals from which the Planning Commission recommended for the Transit Oriented Development Corridor for 400 South have been forwarded to the City Council. The City Council had set up a subcommittee to review the alternative proposals. Should the City Council act on the alternative proposal, the issue must come back to the Planning Commission for an amendment to the applicable master plans. Mr. Ikefuna noted that Carlton Christensen, Eric Jergensen and Nancy Saxton are the Council Members on the subcommittee to review the alternative proposals.
Subcommittee to Address Traffic Issues Around Research Park – Mr. Ikefuna requested an update from Commissioner Chambless who represents the Planning Commission on the subcommittee that was formed by the Commission to address the traffic issues around Research Park. Mr. Ikefuna noted that the subcommittee and issues may have evolved into something larger than what the Planning Commission had originally envisioned.
Commissioner Chambless explained that he is the co chair for the subcommittee and they have had well attended meetings in September and October. Their next meeting is scheduled for November 21. Commissioner Chambless then explained that individuals living south of Research Park are hopeful that the subcommittee could address traffic issues in the northeast quadrant of Salt Lake City as well as the immediate area around Research Park. Commissioner Chambless said that upcoming meetings will further define the role of the subcommittee, and a full report will be made in the near future.
PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA
(This item was heard at 5:56 p.m.)
There were no items on the Public Notice Agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Petition No. 400-05-32, a request initiated by the Planning Commission to amend the zoning ordinance to expand multiple family dwelling opportunities in the downtown and commercial zoning districts. This request would amend Tables 21A.26.080 and 21A.30.050 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to allow multiple family dwellings, as permitted uses, in all downtown and commercial zones and remove the restriction that these units must be above or below first story office, retail and commercial uses or not adjacent to the street. (Staff – Sarah Carroll at 535 6260 or sarah.carroll@slcgov.com)
(This item was heard at 5:57 p.m.)
Ms. Carroll explained that the districts specifically affected by the text amendment are the D 1, D 2, D 3, D 4, CN, CB, CC, CS, CSHBD and CG zoning districts. Multi family dwellings are allowed in these zoning districts provided they are located above, below or behind first story retail, commercial or office space. Otherwise, multi family dwellings are either allowed as a conditional use or not at all in most of these zoning districts. The proposed change would allow multi family dwellings as permitted uses without the restriction of first story retail, commercial or office space.
Ms. Carroll explained that Staff is also requesting modification to the definition of multi family dwellings. The current definition defines multi family dwellings as “the building containing three or more dwellings other than single family attached dwellings on a single lot.” Staff recommended deleting the words “other than single family attached dwellings” so that townhouses may be included in the definition. A copy of revisions to the Staff Report was presented to each Planning Commission Member.
The Commissioners did not have questions for Staff, and Chairperson Noda opened the hearing for public comment.
Jim Jenkin (Member of the Transportation Advisory Board) said that he supports mixed use in all areas of the City. He encouraged the Commission to address the need for schools in the downtown area where residential uses are being encouraged. The implication from the text amendment, he believes, is that more children would be moving into the downtown area and efforts need be made to provide schools within walking distance.
Receiving no further comments, Chairperson Noda closed the hearing to public comment. The Planning Commission held no further discussion on the proposed text amendment.
Motion for Petition No. 400-05-32
Based on the analyses outlined in the Staff Report and the revisions to the Staff Report presented during the meeting, Commissioner De Lay moved for the Planning Commission to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed zoning text amendment. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion. All voted aye; the motion passed.
Commissioner De Lay further requested that the email submitted by Carlton DeTar be entered into the record. The email states that Mr. DeTar supports the proposed amendments to the City Code that would “limit in-line development and redefine demolition in Salt Lake City residential neighborhoods”.
Acknowledging Mr. Jenkin’s comments, Commissioner Seelig and Commissioner Diamond agreed that school issues should be addressed. Commissioner Seelig suggested initiating a petition, and Commissioner Diamond suggested reviewing the Downtown Master Plan to evaluate how schools could participate in the social/entertainment fabric of downtown.
Deputy Planning Director Cheri Coffey explained that City Administrators have discussed night life verses schools in the downtown area recognizing that liquor establishments may not be closer than 600 feet to schools. It is an internal policy that a school would be allowed if it could obtain a letter from the State Liquor Commission stating that it would be acceptable for a new liquor establishment to locate in the downtown area even if a school were located within 600 feet. The City has found, however, that the Alcohol Beverage Control Commission
is not willing to issue such a letter.
Mr. Ikefuna added that Community Development Administrators and representatives from the Board of Education meet periodically to discuss school issues. The City Administration has been advised that the Board of Education has proposed closing some schools as a result of declining population. The City Administration, on the other hand, realizes long range needs to attract more residents and renewed interest in the downtown area will require more schools to accommodate the families living Downtown. Mr. Ikefuna assured the Commission that the Mayor and City Administrators will continue to discuss and confront growing needs.
Initiation of a Petition
Arising from multi family development discussions, Commissioner De Lay noted that “live/work space” is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance. She explained that financial institutions are denying loans on these kinds of spaces because they are unable to determine if the spaces are commercial or residential. Commissioner De Lay recommended that the Planning Commission initiate a petition to define live/work space.
By consensus of Planning Commission Members, Chairperson Noda directed the Planning Staff to move forward with a petition to define live/work space.
Petition 400-05-25, Initiated by the City Council requesting to amend provisions of the Salt Lake City code that may contribute to residential infill that is not compatible with the surrounding development with various single and two family residential zoning districts. The Planning Commission will consider recommending amendments to the city code regarding inline additions, building height, yard requirements, garage placement, accessory building standards, lot size, building coverage, definition of the term demolition, and the fines assessed for construction activity in violation of the proposed standards. (Staff – Mr. Joel Paterson at 535-6141 or joel.paterson@slcgov.com)
(This item was heard at 6:12:45 p.m.)
Mr. Paterson made a PowerPoint presentation followed by questions from the Planning Commission and the public.
A full description of this proposal is found in the Staff Report. The proposal is briefly described as:
A. Remove provisions allowing in-line additions through the over-the-counter building permit process.
B. Modify front yard setbacks in the FR, R-1, R-2 and SR Zoning Districts – In that the minimum setback should be determined by the average neighborhood setback.
C. Modify building heights in the R-1/5000, R-1/7000, R-2, SR-3 zoning districts.
D. Modify height location and size of attached garages and accessory buildings.
E. Modify maximum lot size.
F. Modify maximum lot coverage for new construction and additions.
G. Modify fines
Mr. Paterson responded to a question and example cited by Commissioner De Lay. The standard of twenty-three feet for maximum building height (C) had been selected because, even though this would result in a bungalow type home, Staff concluded that a house at a height of twenty-three feet would have little opportunity to tower over other neighboring houses.
He stated the height standard is not an absolute; there is a twenty-three foot envelope or an averaging of height of other single family and two-family dwellings on the block face. In the example cited, a street that had six Victorian homes with an average height of thirty feet, could have a new home built up to thirty feet, but it would be a problem if it was thirty-five feet, which would be above the average building heights on the block face.
In response to a question posed by Commissioner Chambless, Mr. Paterson explained that the height restriction would not apply to chimneys. Chimneys must have a certain amount of clearance from the roof of the house to meet the fire code.
Mr. Paterson explained that most standards would have a tiered approach. If base standards can be met, a building permit can be issued over-the-counter. If the applicant can demonstrate that the proposal outside of the base zoning standard is in keeping with the development pattern within the block: it enters the tiered Public Review process.
Commissioner Chambless asked what the penalties for violations to the ordinance were and how strictly they would be enforced.
Mr. Paterson and Ms. Coffey explained how the typical fine was enforced, and Ms. Coffey stated that there are examples where the owner has been required to take elements off of a structure that were in violation of the code.
Commissioner Diamond confirmed with Mr. Paterson that neighborhoods could adopt more restrictive regulations by using an overlay. When there is a conflict between existing standards and an overlay, the overlay prevails.
Commissioner Seelig commented that she would like the Administrative Hearing process to be added to issues regarding the twenty foot setback standard between an accessory structure and an abutting principle structure in order to be consistent with the other processes.
Mr. Paterson explained the fine process at Commissioner Galli’s request. There is no appeal on a penalty imposed. Commissioner Galli asked Mr. Paterson to double check to be certain that there was no appeal on a penalty.
Commissioner Muir stated he would prefer to see the width of an attached garage be determined by a measurement of the width of the garage doors.
Commissioner De Lay commented that she believed this was allowed under the new ordinance. She went on to state that this was one of the largest public turnouts at a Planning Commission Meeting that she has attended. She asked the Commission Members if they were completely opposed to the ordinance or just objected to sections of the proposed ordinance.
It was noted that the Planning Commission received comments in writing regarding the proposed ordinance change. These were discussed in the meeting and entered into the record. The letters will be attached to the minutes.
Commissioner Diamond did not agree with the proposed standard for height on accessory structures. He stated that limiting the size of garages could lead to additional accessory buildings. He preferred the existing pattern. He also stated that he believes twenty-three feet for a residence is too low and it should be reviewed. He felt that it would not allow diversity of design and wondered how the department would police the size of property and what should not be a standard exception within the developmental pattern of a neighborhood. He wondered if, once one homeowner in a neighborhood received an exception, would his neighbors be required to also apply for an exception.
In response, Commissioner De Lay reminded the Commission that individual neighborhoods do have the option of implementing stricter regulations if they want to go through the overlay process.
Commissioner Galli reminded the Commission that they do not have final approval authority to amend the Zoning Ordinance, but only to forward the recommendation to City Council.
Seeing no further comments by the Commission, Chairperson Noda opened the public hearing.
Many members of the Community Council and public commended Mr. Paterson’s work on the proposed ordinance.
Wayne Woolsey said that he was required to go through a hearing process when he constructed his home, but across the street at 675 8th Avenue, a large house was built, which he thinks exceeds the limit. He opposed the process, objecting to the height limit. He believes it should be thirty feet at the crest.
Mr. Ikefuna agreed to follow up on the inconsistency with his neighbor across the street and will send a Planning Commission letter to Mr. Woolsey in follow up to his concern.
Mr. Paterson stated that he was familiar with the background of the issue Mr. Woosley presented. The Call house structure at 675 8th Avenue was three feet from the property side lot line. This house has been reviewed by the Building and Licensing Division and meets the current regulations.
Mr. Paterson went on to explain how the house was constructed without violating the current Zoning Ordinance. The builder obtained a permit to remodel the structure. He then tore down the unimproved portion of the house using a second remodeling permit. In this two step process, the builder was able to construct a new house which towers over the neighboring homes.
In response to public comment and a question posed by Commissioner De Lay, Mr. Paterson clarified that some homes will not be able to construct accessory buildings. Commissioner De Lay suggested that everyone in Utah wanted a garage because it snows.
Cindy Cromer requested that the ordinance be passed and then a specific date be set for review of how it was working.
Ann Robinson, Licensed Architect with Renovation Design, sent her comments via e-mail, which were added to the record as instructed by Commissioner De Lay. Ms. Robinson presented an alternate proposal to keep the current zoning ordinance regulations.
Concerns were expressed by the public regarding the current lengthy process of acquiring a permit and the fear that the processing time would increase.
Concern was also expressed by the public that the houses may become anonymous houses without diversity and creativity due to the height restrictions. The height restriction is too low for some neighborhoods.
Comments were made that a proposed remodel should not be allowed as an excuse to demolish a structure such as was the case with the house at 675 8th Avenue.
Sidney Fonnesbeck, Avenues resident, was strongly in favor of the proposal. She expressed disappointment that it did not happen five years ago. It is frightening that the Call house meets the Zoning Ordinance. They were allowed to use the existing walls to get around the current Zoning Ordinance and then they were allowed to tear those walls down. It was called a remodel with 100 percent of the house rebuilt. As soon as the rest of the house was built, the walls of which were the bases for the inline permit were torn down. No longer does a two story house exist, it is now a four or five story house. Five years ago the Board of Adjustment was told a compatibility ordinance was in the works. Ms. Fonnesbeck also explained that the hard surfacing in conjunction with the overbuild has caused drainage problems on adjacent properties. Drainage has always been important because of the topography of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Seelig asked whether or not drainage was part of the permit process.
Mr. Paterson confirmed that drainage must be confined to the subject property.
The following were speakers or individuals who had comments read by Chairperson Noda at the meeting.
In opposition:
Michael Bradley (Designer), Jared Bullock (Renovation Design Group), John Donner (Tuff Shed), Thaddeus Halls, Claudio Holzner, Chris Humbert, Jim Jenkin, Clint Johnson, Ron Price (Yalecrest resident), Dave Richards (East Central resident and Architect), David Rose, Annie Vernon, and Andie William.
In favor:
Mauricio Agramont, Marie Anthony, Lester Aoki, Shane Carlson, Cheryl Cook (Avenues Infill Committee), Cindy Cromer, Cody Curtis (Avenues resident), Christian Fonnesbeck, Bob Greely, Kurt Huffaker (Utah Heritage Foundation), Clint Johnson (Boardwalk Remodeling Design), Ann Kelsey, Janet McCullough, Earl Miller, Margaret Miller (Avenues resident), Ruth Morgan, Jill Mortensen, William Petrick, Kimberly Pilger, Lon Richards (Greater Avenue Community Council), L. Rex Sears( Sugar House Community Council), Margaret Utermoehlen, Jill Van Windervelt (Avenues Community Council Member), Tracy Wake, Spike (Daniel) Weiser and Rob White (Utah Heritage Foundation).
Commissioner Chambless and Commissioner Diamond asked Mr. Paterson how he quantified development averages.
Mr. Paterson explained it was by determining heights and mass, not building materials or style.
Commissioner De Lay asked if the term “development pattern” was defined.
Mr. Paterson said it was not.
Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Galli agreed that it should be determined on a case by case basis. She also requested an explanation of the tiered approach.
Rob White (Executive Director of the Utah Heritage Foundation), stated that if the proposed construction meets the Zoning Ordinance and there is no objection, the permit can be issued over the counter. If it does not pass, then there is recourse in an administrative hearing and then a full commission hearing.
Seeing no further speakers, Chairperson Noda closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Scott was impressed with the number of people who came and shared recommendations. She explained that Commissioners are charged to uphold standards; the findings show that the proposed ordinance supports the standards. One concern expressed by the public was that of cookie cutter homes. Infill Development is one house at a time and is not cookie cutter. Salt Lake City needs to get something in place now. She was in favor of proceeding with a motion.
Commissioner Diamond was concerned that other neighborhoods were not represented and that the ordinance might not be appropriate for some of those neighborhoods. He declined to support an ordinance that would be implemented for the entire City. He stated that this ordinance is not appropriate for all neighborhoods.
Commissioner Seelig wanted to discuss the twenty-foot setback and to add an administrative hearing process to the proposal that might allow an accessory structure to be located closer than twenty feet from a dwelling on an adjacent lot.
Commissioner McDonough agreed with Commissioner Diamond who stated the three tiered system was administration heavy and wondered if it was an effective method. She wondered if builders would take the least path of resistance or will they try to go through the process to promote infill compatible with the neighborhood. Bad building comes in all sizes. One blanketed ordinance is potentially ineffectual.
Commissioner De Lay expected more dissent. She supported the proposal even though there is an issue with the height restriction. She supports a review of the ordinance in one year. She asked why the permit process was getting longer.
Mr. Paterson stated there is a lot of building construction activity and neighbors are challenging over-the-counter permits. The building permit process is not routine anymore. With these standards, the Planning Division is trying to add some reasonableness to the system.
Chairperson Noda commended Mr. Paterson and acknowledged the public comments did support the ordinance. The Avenues were strongly supported and other Community Councils were missing, but she believed the ones affected the most by these changes, were present. She noted there was flexibility. There is a tier process, but it was not an impediment. She supported the building height and a one year review of the proposed ordinance. The Chairperson expressed support for the ordinance and thanked the public for comments.
Commissioner Diamond voiced the opinion that there were enough changes that both Staff and the Commission needed to take more time and then readdress the issue at a later date. He defended this position by reminding the Commission that the proposed ordinance would result in major changes of the administrative review process.
Commissioner Galli commented that Staff had never been more prepared. He recommended that the Commission advance a positive recommendation with the list of amendments since they were not the ultimate decision makers.
Commissioner Chambless thanked the public for participating. Overall, 75 percent of those who spoke had a favorable opinion of the proposed ordinance. He agreed with Cindy Cromer who recommended a review in twelve months. He also agreed with Commissioner Galli that the Commission should not table, but forward the proposal with a favorable recommendation.
Commissioner Galli asked Commissioner Muir if he would support the Commission advancing the proposed ordinance with the direction that neighborhoods be allowed to opt out.
Commissioner Muir felt it would be better if they could opt in rather than opt out. The ordinance may dampen investor interest in neighborhoods that are starved for investments.
Commissioner Galli stated in response to a public speaker’s proposal that we follow the pattern that has been set in Dallas. The Commissioner responded that he did not want Salt Lake City to be Dallas and that action was needed to prevent it from becoming that way. He proposed a standard to opt in; stating that inaction on the proposal posed a risk to those who have the most at stake in the form of potential delay. He also stated there was a benefit to the opting in amendment. It would allow choice and this could be a catalyst to energize neighborhoods to become more active participants in the planning process. It would be good for the entire city.
Commissioner Scott believed the reason people from Central City and East Central did not show strong attendance was that people have been demoralized by incompatible infill. It is hard to get energized people when there is no sense of community, no sense of neighborhood. Sometimes incompatible infill is promoted by those that have the greatest capacity to make an economic investment in a neighborhood and they may not be the neighbors that have been there a long time. She believed the capacity to opt out or opt in would not encourage neighborhood attendance, but that of investors who do not reside in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Galli was in favor of an opting out amendment to allow neighborhoods, with guidance from the Planning Division, to opt out of the new proposed ordinance. He further proposed better education and advertising efforts on behalf of the Planning Division to encourage more community involvement.
Commissioner Seelig acknowledged she had full faith that Staff followed all noticing requirements. She stated that the issue has come up before and believes fliers with technical language are not adequate to reflect to the public the true impact proposed changes have on their lives. She used the example of the “Country Club” house. She was in agreement with what Commissioner Galli had to recommend, but she favored the opportunity to opt in.
Commissioner Galli reminded the Commission that this was an emergency. He urged moving the proposal forward with a positive recommendation to avoid more monster homes which were allowed under the current system. He warned that opting in could delay the process by months. He reminded the Commission that the market was moving quickly in the City, allowing opportunity for both good and bad infill. He acknowledged that Commissioner Muir made a good point; the ordinance is not a good fit for everyone.
Commissioner Seelig asked how the Planning Commission was going to guarantee that the outreach occurs.
Mr. Ikefuna explained that the City Council rejected the original presentation and asked Staff, due to the emergency, to identify the deficiencies in the current base zoning and then make a recommendation. The Avenues, Yalecrest and the areas that are considered in danger were closely examined. A lengthy discussion took place regarding the pros and cons of restrictions. The issue of opting in and opting out was also explored. Staff generally agreed that it would be in the best interest of the City to simply change the base zoning. It was acknowledged that areas on the West side do not have a need for the changes, but will in the future, so the decision was made to implement it city wide.
The proposal was then taken back to City Council and they were pleased with the product. It was the Council who asked the Planning Department to proceed with the public review process and subsequent submission to the Planning Commission.
The public process has been widely conducted, there has been input from the public. The majority of public comments have reflected the City Council’s position that the current ordinance is inadequate to protect the integrity of established neighborhoods. There is no consistency, especially regarding Building Services. He urged the Planning Commission to take action and forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. He indicated that doing so would basically restore order to the process. He added that the City Council and Mayor would like to see some kind of resolute action on this issue.
Mr. Ikefuna agreed with Commissioner Galli’s assumption that even though the Planning Division was willing to work with the neighborhoods, additional resources may be needed to oversee these changes if they were to take place irrespective of any opt in or opt out condition. He informed the Commission that his department already plans to ask the City Council for additional resources to implement the ordinance, if it becomes necessary in the future.
Commissioner De Lay addressed the process used to inform the public. She stated that she had faith that the Planning Division had followed policy and advertised adequately. She went on to comment, There are very vocal people who reside in these other neighborhoods and the fact that they are not here, tells her that it is a non issue to them.
Commissioner Seelig suggested adding a sunset clause to make the proposed changes disappear after a year unless people come forward.
The Planning Commission as a whole rejected the suggestion.
Commissioner Diamond asked if the proposed ordinance should be tabled.
Commissioner Galli was not in favor of tabling the proposed change to create an amendment to opt in or opt out. He expressed the opinion that time was important and the changes should be moved forward with a favorable recommendation. The decision to take this path would allow the Planning Staff to react to the public and adjust accordingly. He favored language that acknowledged that the ordinance might not fit every neighborhood and might need adjustments in the future. These adjustments could be accommodated by approaching the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Muir acknowledged that he would be favorable to moving forward with a one year evaluation with input from neighborhoods in the City.
Commissioner Muir asked Mr. Paterson which was the easier process; opting out or opting in.
Mr. Paterson replied that it was easier to opt in. He said that the Planning Division expected the proposed ordinance to act as a template for other communities if they choose to go a different direction.
Commissioner Muir expressed the opinion that the proposed ordinance was obviously warranted in certain neighborhoods that are being overrun by incompatible infill. But, he was not in favor of more restrictions, predicting it would make life impossible for some investors, contractors and architects.
Chairperson Noda stated that she believed the Commission needed to look city wide in the beginning stages. She supported Commissioner Galli’s idea of an opt out solution. She recommended transmitting a favorable recommendation of the proposed ordinance and allowing other communities to withdraw. She further supported review of the city wide ordinance in one year. She disagreed that the changes would be an impediment. Stating that, “Sometimes when we get more standards we get more creativity.”
Commissioner Seelig stated that she would be in favor of allowing neighborhoods to opt out and revert back to the original ordinance.
Commissioner Diamond wanted neighborhoods to create their own overlays rather than reverting back.
Commissioner Galli stated that the neighborhoods should, if they chose to opt out, have the choice to create an overlay or revert back to the original Ordinance.
Commissioner Diamond reflected Commissioner Muir’s opinion that the Planning Division is not currently adequately staffed to police the new process and provide timely service. He instructed Mr. Paterson to address the problem with a specific plan when the proposed ordinance is presented before the City Council.
Motion for Petition 400-05-25
Commissioner Scott moved that based on the analysis and findings presented in the Staff Report, the Staff recommendation, and community comments and discussions during this meeting, the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve Petition 400-05-25 to amend the Zoning Ordinance as presented with the following amendments:
• A review of the ordinance at the end of one year to analyze its effectiveness, and that the City Council note that the Planning Commission recommended the proposal with the ability of communities to opt out of the ordinance if they proceed through the overlay approach.
• Commissioner Seelig requested a second amendment to include the tiered approval process concerning the location of accessory structures twenty feet from the principle buildings on adjacent lots.
• Commissioner Galli requested a third amendment that at one year they evaluate the administration of the ordinance city wide to ensure that the Planning Division has sufficient resources to administer the ordinance in a timely fashion and in a manner that does not encumber development or create too many obstacles to developers, architects and builders. The review includes sufficient resources to provide the community outreach.
Commissioner Scott accepted the amendments.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner De Lay. Commissioners Chambless, De Lay, Diamond, Galli, Scott, and Seelig voted “aye”. Commissioners McDonough and Muir opposed the motion. The motion passed with a 6-2 vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(This item was heard at 10:05 p.m.)
There were no issues to be discussed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned 10:06 p.m.