SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes
451 South State Street, Room 315
Present from the Planning Commission were Chairperson Max Smith, Vice-Chairperson Judi Short, Aria Funk, Fred Fife, Andrea Barrows, Craig Mariger, Mike Steed and Stephen Snelgrove. Diana Kirk and Gilbert lker were excused.
Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director William T. Wright, Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Margaret Pahl, Joel Paterson, Emil Pierson, Doug Dansie and Lisa Miller.
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:25 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 Stephen Snelgrove as a new member of the Planning Commission.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Barrows moved to approve the minutes of Thursday, August 20, 1998. Mr. Steed seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Funk, Mr. Fife, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Steed and Mr. Snelgrove voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk and Mr. lker were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PETITIONS
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 400-98-61 by Salt Lake County requesting that Salt Lake City close and vacate portions of the east side of 200 West between 1 00 and 200 South to accommodate the Salt Palace expansion.
Mr. Max Smith noted that this request has been canceled.
PUBLIC HEARING -Petition No. 400-98-51 by the Salt Lake City Council requesting that the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance and the Salt Lake City Subdivision Ordinance be amended to provide a review and approval process for reduced public street width requirements in residential developments.
Ms. Margaret Pahl 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. Ms. Pahl stated that the review of alternatives for adopting a new standard for reduced street width has involved coordination among many differing departments, each with its own mission and goal. An attempt to design one standard could not be achieved. Instead, the review group recommends a performance approach. Ms. Pahl continued by stating that this will allow each department to review the individual development plan and make a recommendation regarding the minimum width that would satisfy concerns for their area of responsibility. This performance approach could be incorporated into the planned development process.
Ms. Barrows asked if the City departments had any concerns for reduced street widths in hillside areas. Ms. Pahl stated that Public Utilities might need more of a right-of-way depending on the slopes of the property and the need for curving. Ms. Barrows asked if a minimum right-of-way is identified in the ordinance. Ms. Pahl stated that the absolute minimum right-of-way for Public Utilities, to have the utilities still located underground, is approximately 19 feet. The absolute minimum right-of-way for the Fire Department is 20 feet. Therefore, staff should never be bringing anything under 20 feet to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Mariger feels that a minimum right-of-way should be put in the ordinance because he feels that if a minimum is not determined people will always try to push the limits.
Ms. Pahl stated that the idea of delegating this to the Planning Commission without any minimums was that each proposal would be different and the Planning Commission would have the discretion as to what they would like to approve.
Mr. Wright brought up the fact that placing a minimum right-of-way may be difficult because there are some existing dedicated streets that are less than 20 feet that may need to come before the Planning Commission at a ·future date.
Ms. Barrows stated that perhaps a minimum right-of-way could be required on new streets and any existing streets would be on a case by case basis.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone ~ished to address the Planning Commission. Upon receiving no response, he closed the hearing to the public and opened it for Planning Commission discussion.
Motion for Petition No. 400-98-51:
Ms. Short moved, based on the findings of fact, to approve Petition No. 400-98-51 to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance 21A.54.150 and forward a favorable recomn1endation subject to the following condition as added by the Planning Commission:
1. That there be a minimum 20 foot pavement section within a right-of-way as determined by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Funk seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Funk, Mr. Fife, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Steed and Mr. Snelgrove voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk and Mr. lker were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING -The Planning Commission will 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 amendments to the text of the "D-3" Downtown District: and 4) making text amendments to the Sign Ordinance.
Mr. Joel Paterson presented the staff report outlining the major issues of the case, the findings of fact and the staff recorr1mendation, a copy of which is filed with the rr1inutes.
Mr. Smith opened the hearing to the public and asked if anyone wished to address the Planning Commission.
Ms. Stephanie Smith, a concerned citizen, asked if the zoning will have continuity? Mr. Emil Pierson explained to Ms. Smith that he will provide her a document that will explain the continuity of the Gateway zoning.
Ms. Edie Trimmer, a concerned citizen, stated that she has some concerns about making sure there is some kind of transition between the "GMU" zoning and where it relates with other neighborhoods. She feels that the Gateway zoning is a good place to encourage city-wide affordable housing with a rr1ix of income levels.
Mr. Precsott Muir, an architect, stated that he wholly supports most of the ideas in the spirit and intent of the Gateway Master Plan. He then stated that he supports affordable housing and inclusionary zoning within the Gateway. The AlA has considerable concerns with urban design standards and the restrictions they place on design. Restrictions on materials would impede opportunities for affordable housing. Infixing public opinion about materials does not allow for the opportunity for changes in public perception and taste. A lot of projects have been done in this area over the years, the vitality of the area is borne from the diversity of building materials, types and uses, and should continue into the future. Mr. Muir continued by stating that a compromise on this may be a design review process, so that things could change and adjust over time with the character of the area. The AlA and Downtown Alliance welcomes the idea of the parking restriction changes in the "D-3" zoning. However, he feels that surface parking needs to be addressed on a long term basis.
Mr. Tony Christophersen, representing Geneva Rock, stated that their property has been rezoned on the border of "GGC" and "GMU" zoning districts. Mr. Christopherson wanted to know why the parcel was split in two zoning districts.
Mr. Pierson explained about the 200 South corridor, and offered to change the zoning. Mr. Christopherson then asked how the new zoning will affect our current status of a legally non-conforming use? Mr. Wright stated that non-conforming rights still apply, but if you change the use and build back new, they must follow the new zoning.
Mr. Stephen Goldsmith, representing Artspace, stated that affordable housing is a great step in the right direction. The restrictions on parking are very good; focusing on pedestrians is vital. Mr. Goldsmith stated that his concerns are with the "GMU" zoning district and with the housing component on 500 West. On 500 West, all housing must have 50o/o housing component. He feels that this is dangerous because it eliminates places of worship and museums. Mr. Goldsmith continued by stating that his biggest concerns are the design standards and that he agrees with Mr. Muir, in that there should be a design review.
Ms. Mary Woodhead, a concerned citizen, stated that the Blight study comments about the businesses on 200 south between 500 & 600 West and that they are inappropriate in the district. Mr. Dansie responded by stating that the uses of concern are permitted in the "GMU" and "D-3" zoning districts. In fact, on 200 West retail is required on the ground level of any new construction.
Mr. Dansie read some written comments and concerns into the record that had been received relating to the proposed zoning changes.
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. Funk stated that she is concerned about the broadness of the conditional use process. Prior to the new Zoning Ordinance, there were many requests for conditional uses. Ms. Funk asked if there could possibly be an administrative review board?
Mr. Dansie stated that the design review board is the Planning Commission. Conditional uses are a big administrative issue, however, it is the only tool the City has.
Mr. Wright stated that without a broader review process, the City may miss the links to connect and create a neighborhood. All new construction will be a conditional use. For now, the Planning Commission will review all new construction in the "GMU" zoning district; not the "D-3" or "D-4" zoning districts.
Ms. Barrows asked about the provisions for Institutional uses. It appears that the Gateway zoning says that if an institutional use is proposed it will need to go through a conditional use process. Would it be easier if someone wanting to build a church asks for a zone change? Ms. Barrows then stated that she is concerned because Institutional uses generally have a lot of leeway, concerned that the Planning Commission will be over burdened.
Mr. Dansie stated that there are a lot of non-traditional institutional uses allowed in the gateway zones. Mr. Wright stated that it is difficult to predict where institutions will be. In the 1995 Zoning Ordinance rewrite, staff did not try to zone any future institutional uses, staff just mapped the ones that exist.
Mr. Smith asked if institutional uses should be expanded into the "D-3" zoning district? Mr. Paterson stated that not allowing institutional uses in the "D-3" zoning district is an oversight. The proposed ordinance allows schools in the gateway districts as permitted uses. Mr. Paterson then stated that staff will change the ordinance to allow them in the "D-3" zoning district.
The Planning Commissioners continued to discuss concerns and clarifications to the proposed changes of the Zoning Ordinance. One major concern discussed was affordable housing.
Mr. Wright stated that affordable housing is a significant issue. He suggested that a subcommittee should meet to work through possible recommendations. The City Council will be looking for this component in the proposed zoning classifications.
Mr. Paterson stated that staff has done research from across the country and found that there is a range of opportunities. Affordable housing works best when it is done on a region wide basis. Mr. Paterson then stated that staff does not want to penalize the Gateway area, and possibly loose developers.
Mr. Wright stated that staff does not want a 100% lower income project to develop, we want a mixed income neighborhood. Private developers will need to have additional funding resources.
Mr. Smith stated that he likes the 20% affordable housing project, with an opt out. However, he stated that he feels that with the opt out, the money should be channeled back into the Gateway district, so the area does not become gentrified. Mr. Paterson stated that he agrees with Mr. Smith's recommendation that if a payment is made in that area it should go back to that area.
Mr. Mariger stated that he opposes the 20% requirement anywhere in the City. He feels that the developer must find alternate funding sources. Mr. Mariger also feels that affordable housing should not be regulated by zoning. Affordable housing should be provided by the government.
Mr. Wright stated that Salt Lake City provides more affordable housing than any other city in the state. Staff's planning policy for the Gateway is for a real mixed-use neighborhood. If affordable housing is left to the developers, staff fears the area will gentrify. Mr. Wright then stated that the Redevelopment Agency has created a model which looks at why affordable housing fails and why it succeeds, which may be able to help define the threshold number of units.
After a lengthy discussion, it was decided that a Planning Commission subcommittee should meet on Wednesday, September 23, 1998 to discuss issues related to affordable housing. It was also decided that staff prepare a document summarizing research that has been, assessment of experiments that have worked and failed and the concerns of the Planning Commission.
Motion for Petition No. 400-98-63:
Ms. Funk moved, based on the public comment and the need for further study, to continue the public hearing for Petition No. 400-98-63 to the October 1, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. She further moved that a subcommittee meet to discuss issues and consider recommendations related to affordable housing in the Gateway. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Funk, Mr. Fife, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Steed and Mr. Snelgrove voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk and Mr. lker were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Request from Michael S. Leventhal for Cross-Star Development Group for a second extension of the one year time limit on Conditional Use No. 410-200. for a four unit residential planned development and preliminary subdivision approval for the project located at 700 South & Egli Court (717 East) in a Residential "RMF-35" zoning district.
Mr. Wright presented the request by Cross-Star Development Group for a second one year extension of time to the Planning Commission. Mr. Wright stated that because there has been no significant changes to the Zoning Ordinance or zoning map in the area since this project was first approved, the request for a second extension of the approval period is a reasonable request. The new approval period will expire on October 16, 1999. Mr. Wright then stated that approval of the time extension should be subject to the applicant recording a final plat before obtaining building permits as originally required.
Mr. Michael Leventhal, the petitioner, was present for this portion of the meeting and stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendations.
Motion for Cross-Star Development Group's second one year extension of time (Conditional Use No. 41 0-200):
Ms. Funk moved, based on the findings of fact, to grant a time extension until October 16, 1999 for Petition No. 410-200 subject to recordation of a final subdivision plat as previously required. Ms. Short seconded the motion. Ms. Short, Ms. Funk, Mr. Fife, Ms. Barrows, Mr. Mariger, Mr. Steed and Mr. Snelgrove voted "Aye". Ms. Kirk and Mr. lker were not present. Mr. Smith, as Chair, did not vote. The motion passed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.