SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes
451 South State Street, Room 126
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Vice-Chairperson Judi Short, Fred Fife, Andrea Barrows, Craig Mariger, Gilbert lker, Gregory DeMille and Stephen Snelgrove. Diana Kirk, Aria Funk and Mike Steed were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Ray McCandless, Joel Paterson, Emil Pierson and Doug Dansie.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:40 p.m. by Mr. Smith. Minutes are presented, in agenda order, not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission.
Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which, they will be erased.
Mr. Smith welcomed Gregory DeMille as a new member of the Planning Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. lker moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, September 17, 1998. Mr. Fife seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. Fife, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Mr. lker, Mr. DeMille and Mr. Snelgrove voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk, Ms. Funk and Mr. Steed were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
PUBLIC HEARING -The Planning Commission will receive public comment and consider making recommendations to the City Council on the North Gateway Redevelopment Project Area Report.
Mr. Mariger declared a conflict of interest for this agenda item, recused himself from the Planning Commission and left the room.
Ms. Alice Steiner, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency, stated that the Neighborhood Development Act (17A-2-1213) requires that the Redevelopment Plan meet the following criteria: (1) The plan shall be consistent with the community's general plan, master and other plans of the community involved in development or capital improvement programs affecting the project area; and (2) The Redevelopment Agency shall consult with the Planning Commission of the community in preparing a project area redevelopment plan. Ms. Steiner continued by stating that all of the objectives of the master plan have been incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan (Page 14) with the goal and objective to implement the master plan as adopted by Salt Lake City as it may be amended from time to time. Ms. Steiner then stated that the North Gateway Area encompasses the area from North Temple Street to 400 South Street and from 400 West Street to the eastern boundary of 1-15.
Ms. Steiner then highlighted some of the major points of the plan. She stated that at the September 17, 1998 City Council meeting, it was recommended that the project be renamed to: "The Depot District Redevelopment Project Area Plan".
Ms. Valda Tarbet, of the Redevelopment Agency, stated that a letter will need to come from the Planning Commission acknowledging consultation by the Redevelopment Agency and that the Plan is consistent with the master plan.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Mr. Stephen Goldsmith, a resident in the area, recommended to the Redevelopment Agency and the Planning Commission that he would like to see the following changes made to the beginning of the paragraph on Page 12, Item B. Housing Funds:
"Pursuant to Section 17A-2-1264, the Agency fRa;' will adopt a project area budget for a redevelopment plan which allocates 20°/o of the tax increment funds to income targeted housing payable to the Agency for the life of the redevelopment plan ... "
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Ms. Steiner commented that if the phrase "to income targeted housing" is added to the Plan, it will limit the way that the Redevelopment Agency could use the 20°/o tax increment funds so that it would have to go into income targeted housing only. The Redevelopment Agency would prefer to have the flexibility so that there can be mixed income developments.
Motion for the North Gateway Redevelopment Project Area Plan:
Ms. Short moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve the North Gateway Redevelopment Project Area Plan and to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council that the Plan is consistent with the corr1munity's general plan, master plan and other plans of the community involved in development or capital improvement programs affecting the project area subject to the following correction:
1. That the beginning of the paragraph on Page 12, Item B. Housing Funds be changed to read:
"Pursuant to Section 17 A-2-1264, the Agency may will adopt a project area budget for a redevelopment plan ... "
Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. Fife, Ms. Barrows, Mr. lker, Mr. DeMille and Mr. Snelgrove voted "Aye". Mr. Mariger was recused. Ms. Kirk, Ms. Funk and Mr. Steed were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 410-317 by NEXTEL Communications requesting a conditional use to build an 80 foot high telecommunications monopole antenna at 4910 West Amelia Earhart Drive in a Light Manufacturing "M-1" zoning district.
Mr. Ray McCandless presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recommendation, a copy of which is filed with the minutes. Mr. McCandless stated that NEXTEL Communications is requesting approval to construct an 80 foot high cellular telecommunications monopole antenna and co-locate with US West Wireless at 4910 West Amelia Earhart Drive. Also proposed is a 10 foot by 20. foot equipment building at the base of the monopole.
Ms. Barrows asked if there is a provision in the ordinance that requires that the painting of the monopoles be maintained. Mr. Wright responded in the affirmative and stated that because painting the monopoles is a condition of approval the City can enforce if the monopoles are not being maintained.
Mr. Mariger asked if a beacon light will be required by the FAA. The initial response by FAA was that a beacon light will not be required.
The petitioners, Ms. Lee Cotter of US West Wireless and Mr. Harold Dudley of NEXTEL Communications, were present for this portion of the meeting and stated that they were in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Comrr1ission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 410-317:
Ms. Barrows moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 410-317 for a monopole antenna subject to the following conditions as listed in the staff report:
1 Painting the monopole and antennae a flat medium to light gray color.
2 Using a black or dark green vinyl coated chain link fence around the perimeter of the site.
3 Obtaining approval of a landscaping plan from the Planning Director.
4 The equipment building be constructed of similar materials and painted to match the warehouse building on the property.
5 If a beacon is required by the FAA, the light be directed up and away from the City.
6 Minimal antenna bracing be used and a detailed drawing of the mounting structure be provided to and approved by the Planning Director.
Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. Fife, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger,
Mr. lker, Mr. DeMille and Mr. Snelgrove voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk, Ms. Funk and Mr. Steed were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PLANNING ISSUES
Continued discussion of the East Central Conservation Zoning.
Mr. Smith noted that this request has been postponed until a future Planning Commission meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING -Continuation of the Planning Con1mission hearing to consider recommending zoning changes in the northern portion of the Gateway District. The proposed changes include amendments to the Salt Lake City Zoning Map and to the text of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. These changes include: 1) creating a new "D-4" Downtown District; 2) creating a new "GMU" Gateway Mixed Use District: 3) extending the boundary and making an1endments to the text of the "D-3" Downtown District; and 4) making text amendments to the Sign Ordinance.
Messrs. Joel Paterson, Emil Pierson and Doug Dansie were present to go over the zoning map and zoning ordinance text changes that were recommended by the Planning Commission after a public hearing on September 17, 1998. The public hearing was continued to October 1, 1998. In the meantime, the Planning Commission scheduled a work session on September 23, 1998 to discuss changes to the Gateway zoning and to discuss affordable housing issues in the Gateway in further detail.
Mr. Pierson stated that the City Attorney did not make any changes within the Sign Ordinance or the Off-Street Parking and Loading Ordinance.
Mr. Dansie explained the current Billboard Ordinance and then identified the changes being proposed as they relate to the Gateway District. He stated that the definitions now includes 600 North Off-ramp as a Gateway Street. Another change is where the ordinance identifies "priority for removal of non-conforming billboards". There is a first, second and third level priority for removing billboards. Billboards in the new Gateway zones have been identified for second priority removal. Mr. Dansie then stated that a change was made to the billboard map which no longer allows a billboard to be built in the Gateway District.
Mr. Pierson noted several minor changes within the Downtown Districts. A major change is located on Page 3 under Architectural Character and Materials. The wording that was changed now states that "All new buildings in the Gateway district shall have a minimum of seventy percent (70°/o) of the exterior material of brick, masonry, textured or patterned concrete and/or cut stone, the seventy percent (70o/o) includes the windows of the building. With the exception of minor building elements (e.g. soffit, fascia) the following materials are allowed only under the conditional use process: E.I.F.S., tilt-up panels, corrugated n1etal, vinyl and aluminun1 siding, and other materials."
Mr. Pierson then noted that the following institutional uses have been added to be allowed in the "D-3" and "D-4" zoning districts: community and recreation centers, government facilities (excluding those of an industrial nature), prisons, libraries, museums, music conservatories, serr1inaries, schools {professional and vocational), schools K-12; private and schools K-12; public.
Mr. Pierson continued by stating that brew pubs, taverns and private clubs are specified to be indoor or outdoor in the Gateway Mixed Use zone. Does the Planning Commission want the brew pubs, taverns and private clubs in the Downtown Districts to have an outdoor provision as well? The Planning Commission agreed to also include an outdoor provision for these uses in the Downtown Districts as conditional uses.
Mr. Pierson then addressed affordable housing in the Gateway District. He stated that the City Attorney has left the original concept, however, the wording has changed considerably. Numbers 1 and 2 (under Letter N) now reads:
1 Notwithstanding the rr1inimum height requirements identified above, any buildings that have at least 20°/o affordable residential units shall be allowed to have a minimum building height of 30 feet.
2 Affordable housing units within market rate developments shall be integrated throughout the development and shall have the same exterior appearance as the market rate units.
Mr. Mariger noted that his understanding of the ordinance states that if there is a 75 foot building or a 90 foot building with a non-flat roof affordable housing does not need to be included; also, if there is a 90 foot building with a flat roof affordable housing does not need to be included if the conditional use process is used. Mr. Mariger feels that this requirement is not creating much of an incentive.
Mr. Mariger then stated that he feels that any buildings in the Gateway and the "D-3" zoning districts, that are using the additional height incentive, and have five or more residential units, should have at least 20% of the total units as affordable. Mr. Pierson asked if that number should be a minimum of 10 units? The Planning Commission agreed to a 10 unit minimum for requiring affordable housing when using the incentives.
Mr. Mariger then stated that the purpose of the affordable housing should be to provide people with lower incomes the ability to live in the Gateway; not to allow people with lower incomes to have a nicer home than they could otherwise afford. Mr. Mariger recommended that the phrase "affordable housing should be integrated into the project in an architecturally acceptable manner" should be included in the ordinance.
The Planning Commission continued with a lengthy discussion regarding affordable housing.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Whitney Rearick, housing advocate for Utah Issues, stated that she feels that inclusionary zoning and other ways of encouraging affordable housing helps the market. She also feels that inclusionary zoning will direct the developer's attention to where the need really is. Ms. Rearick recommended that there be more incentives, including parking incentives. She then encouraged the Planning Corr1rr1ission to not think of affordable housing as low income people. It makes sense that half of all the housing that is built should be for less than 1OOo/o of median income.
Mr. Roger Mania, representing the Disabled Rights Action Committee, stated that he would like to see more wheelchair accessibility and entryway. He stated that he lives in one of the nicer low income housing projects in Kearns, however, he would like to be able to live in the Gateway area. Mr. Mania then stated that he feels that all new construction should be 100°/o accessible and include a 20°/o rent reduction.
Mr. Srr1ith noted that Salt Lake City has now adopted the 1997 Uniform Building Code requiring that all new units be either adaptable or accessible.
Upon receiving no further requests to address the Planning Commission, Mr. Smith closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Comrr1ission discussion.
Mr. Smith stated that his understanding of the Planning Commissioner's views, after the September 23, 1998 work session, was that the incentives proposed were not significant and that there should be a well stated City-wide housing policy on how affordable housing issues were going to be addressed. How does the Planning Commission pass something on to the City Council that really addresses the whole affordability issue?
Mr. Dansie stated that a lot has been done towards affordability. Staff has focused on the approach of eliminating barriers to affordable housing and providing incentives to create affordable housing. Mr. Dansie explained that in the proposed ordinance, parking requiren1ents are low and densities can be very high. The Gateway area also has ongoing non-zoning methods of creating affordable housing such as tax credits, Redevelopment Agency funds and other funding sources. Mr. Dansie then stated that to really tackle this problem of affordability, particularly for extremely low income afford ability, it really needs to be addressed on a regional basis, not just Salt Lake City, to effectively deal with the problem.
Mr. Wright then stated that Mr. Frank Gray, who has worked on part of the City's housing policy, has the philosophy that only the best materials should be used on homes that are affordable. Using durable materials usually means there is less of a maintenance issue and the structure will last longer. Some studies have shown that by using the less expensive materials, it actually costs more over time then if n1ore durable materials are used.
Mr. Paterson then noted a few mapping issues that have been addressed by various property owners located within the Gateway area.
Mr. Wilde stated there is a Freeway Scenic Landscape setback requirement in most of the zones that are adjacent to the freeway that requires either a 10 or a 20 foot landscape strip along the freeway. Mr. Wilde then stated that a Freeway Scenic Landscape setback requirement has not been clarified in the "G-MU" zoning district and asked the Planning Con1mission to include this in their motion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-98-63:
Ms. Short moved, based on the findings of fact, to forward Petition No. 400-98-63 to the City Council with the recommendation that the City Council hold a public hearing and adopt ordinances to the proposed Salt Lake City Zoning
Ordinance text and map amendments including:
1 The "D-4" Downtown Secondary Central Business District (Chapter 21A.30).
2 The Off-Street Parking and Loading Ordinance (Chapter 21A.44).
3 The Sign Ordinance (Chapter 21A.46).
4 Clarification that the "Freeway Scenic Landscape setback" applies to the "G-MU" zoning district.
5 All of the changes that the Planning Commission discussed during their discussion.
Ms. Short further moved that the Planning Commission and the City Council consider pursuing a regional and city-wide approach to developing an affordable housing program. Ms. Barrows seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Mr. Fife, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Mr. lker, Mr. DeMille and Mr. Snelgrove voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk, Ms. Funk and Mr. Steed were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10p.m.