►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting - May 8, 2019
Description
Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting - May 8, 2019
A
Let's
call
this
meeting
of
the
Planning
Commission
to
order
I
have
a
couple
of
little
housekeeping
items.
Remind
you.
If
you
would
please
turn
your
cellphone's
off.
If
you
must
take
the
call
take
it
outside.
If
you
are
an
applicant
you'll
have
ten
minutes
to
speak
if
you're
just
going
to
speak
on
the
topic.
A
You'll
have
two
minutes
and
when
you
come
up
be
sure
to
speak
into
the
microphone
so
that
we
can
get
it
on
record
and
let's
have
everybody
in
the
audience,
be
courteous
of
everybody
else
and
have
no
booing
or
shouting
or
anything
like
that.
So,
let's
act
like
adults,
I
did
have
a
request
to
change
items
one
into
in
the
order.
There
was
a
request
by
the
property
owner.
They
had
a
conflict,
so
I
think
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
do
that
for
them.
C
E
A
F
A
H
I
J
You
did
awesome,
Thanks,
okay,
so
Mary
Warner,
Damiri,
the
project
architect
representing
the
property
owner
Cathy
adang
is
requesting
a
zoning
map
amendment
to
rezone
the
properties
at
approximately
402
and
416
East
900
south
from
CN
neighborhood
commercial
and
the
RB
residential
business
zoning
districts
to
the
Seabee
community
business
district.
The
primary
reason
for
this
rezone
request
is
to
rectify
this
split
zoning
on
the
property
at
416
East
900
South,
where
the
Southeast
Asian
market
currently
sits
and
has
sat
since
the
early
40s
as
you'll
see
on
the
map.
J
The
property
falls
within
both
the
neighborhood
commercial
and
residential
business
zoning
districts,
which
is
unusual
for
a
single
property.
The
property
owners
would
like
to
rehab
the
market
building
and
content
early
construct.
A
new
mixed-use
building
on
the
northeast
corner
of
this,
and
this
split
zoning
would
make
it
difficult,
as
different
parts
of
the
lot
would
have
different
zoning
requirements.
I
do
want
to
mention
that
the
initial
request
was
just
for
the
property
at
416,
East,
900,
South,
and
then
staff
recommended
that
they
include
402
to
keep
the
block
face
consistent
in
terms
of
zoning.
J
J
The
applicants
are
looking
to
rezone
the
site
to
community
business
for
multiple
reasons.
The
first
is
that
the
existing
neighborhood
commercial
district
does
not
allow
for
lots
greater
than
sixteen
thousand
five
hundred
square
feet
in
area,
and
the
existing
lot
at
416
is
just
over
thirty
thousand
square
feet.
J
In
general,
the
zoning
requirements
within
the
two
existing
districts
and
the
proposed
CV
district
are
relatively
similar.
One
difference
is
that
the
cv
zone
doesn't
have
front
or
corner
yard
setbacks
which
would
bring
any
new
building
constructed
closer
to
the
street
height
is
similar
in
the
existing
and
proposed
district,
so
25
feet
in
the
cien
zone
and
then
30
feet
in
the
RB
zone
and
30
feet
in
the
proposed
c
b
zone.
J
The
use
is
permitted
in
the
proposed
CB
zone
may
be
considered
slightly
more
intense
than
what
the
is
currently
permitted
on
the
site.
This
list
up
on
the
screen
indicates
the
uses
that
are
either
permitted
or
conditional
in
the
proposed
CB
zone
that
would
not
be
permitted
or
conditional
in
either
of
the
existing
zones.
Keep
in
mind
that,
though
I
use
may
be
permitted,
there
may
be
other
requirements
to
accommodate
that
specific
use
that
the
site
may
or
may
not
be
able
to
accommodate.
J
So
attend
use
at
the
Liberty
Wells
Community
Council
meeting
appeared
to
be
in
general
support
of
the
rezone
request.
Some
questions
were
asked
about
height
and
parking
again.
The
high
permitted
in
the
proposed
district
is
30
feet.
The
Manolis
building
is
30
feet
for
your
reference.
Any
new
use
on
the
site
must
be
must
accommodate
the
same
amount
of
parking.
That's
required
under
current
zoning
as
parking
is
tied
to
the
land,
use
that's
on
the
site.
J
If
the
uses
in
the
market
building
were
to
change
and
have
higher
parking
requirements,
additional
parking
shall
be
provided
in
the
amount
by
which
the
requirements
for
the
intensified
use
exceed
those
for
the
existing
use.
So,
as
the
request
generally
lie
aligns
with
the
guiding
standards
for
zoning
map,
amendments
staff
is
recommending
that
the
Planning
Commission
forward
on
a
positive
recommendation
to
City
Council.
D
J
D
J
The
and
it's
kind
of
because
this
is
its
own
block,
face
with
these
two
properties
and
then
the
blocks
to
the
east
and
west.
They
are
set
back
a
bit
but
I
think
if
they
were
to
set
it
back
slightly
and
they
could
still
keep
it
in
a
general
alignment.
And
then,
since
it's
its
own
block,
it
would
be
distinguished.
But.
D
K
My
name
is
Kathy
adang
I'm,
the
property
owner.
The
purpose
of
the
meeting
here
tonight,
I
actually
came
in
here
with
a
different
dialogue
altogether,
but
to
be
perfectly
honest,
I
came
in
here
with
somewhat
of
a
heavy
heart
because
of
our
direct
involvement
with
another
neighborhood
just
up
to
the
street.
The
ninth
and
ninth
district
and
the
repurposing
of
the
public
parking
stalls
up
the
street
that
effect
the
neighborhood
as
a
whole.
K
That
has
not
changed,
but
in
consideration
of
what
the
public
does
need,
and
the
growing
population
and
in
support
of
small
businesses
we
do
want
to
effectively
and
constructively
develop
a
property
that
is
conducive
to
use
for
everyone.
We
had
the
luxury
of
having
a
very
large
parking
lot
and,
according
to
the
plans,
as
you
can
see,
the
ones
that
we
are
proposing,
we
are
not
taking
down
the
Asian
market.
We
are
actually
just
proposing
that
we
have
to
shrink
it
down
a
little
bit.
K
Adding
more
parking
and
opening
up
grace
Court
for
accessibility
to
the
neighboring
properties
around
us.
At
one
time
we
considered
perhaps
adding
a
secondary
property
building
on
to
the
lot
at
this
time,
with
sort
of
the
argument
of
where
we
stand
as
a
community
and
also
as
an
individual
trying
to
develop
this
property,
we
are
taking
into
consideration
all
and
as
many
parking
spots
as
possible
so
that
it
doesn't
deteriorate
in
support
of
any
businesses
that
might
have
an
interest
in
occupying
the
space.
K
So
we're
just
asking
for
a
congruent
rendering
of
a
give
us
a
congruent
zone
with
whether
that
be
the
CN,
which
apparently
it
doesn't
meet
because
of
given
the
square
footage
RB,
if
need
be,
because
that's
what
we've
settled
for
at
Manolis
and
we'll
work
with
that,
but
CB
just
because
it
gives
us
an
opportunity
to
give
back
to
the
community
and
develop
this
beautiful
piece
of
property
in
support
of
what
the
community
might
need
and
want
to
see.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
Okay,
I
guess
you
got
off
flight,
no
questions.
So,
if
you'll
step
back
we'll
open
the
public
hearing,
okay,
we'll
open
the
public
hearing
on
this
item.
Is
there
anyone
from
the
Community
Council
that
wishes
to
speak
on
this
No?
Okay,
I
have
a
card
here
from
Kelly
markets,
come
on
up
state,
your
name
for
the
end
of
the
microphone,
and
you
have
two
minutes.
F
My
name
is
Kelly
markets,
thanks
for
having
me
listen,
I'm,
a
neighbor
in
this
neighborhood
and
and
and
this
whole
situation
has
gotten
way
out
of
control.
If
you
can
see
up
there
where
she
wants
to
put
this
building
up
there,
that's
actually
a
where
she
unloads
Freight.
There
is
no
freight
loading
zone
for
this
property.
For
this
great
big,
supermarket
I
live
right
back
behind
there,
there's
a
one-way
street
that
turns
into
a
loading
zone.
So
you
can't
even
aggress
your
property
of
where
you
might
have
to
go
through
her
parking
lot.
F
Well
now
she
wants
to
put
a
building
where
you
might
have
to
go
through
the
parking
lot.
She's
controlling
this
area,
and
that
being
said,
it's
getting
rather
dangerous
because
out
of
these
semi
trucks,
you
get
a
forklift.
That's
going
up
and
down
the
public.
Right-Of-Way
I
oppose
this
matter
because
we
don't
have
enough
information.
I
haven't
been
provided
enough
information
with
exactly
what
wants
to
go
on
here,
so
I'm
asking
simply
the
council
to
table
this
matter
until
we
get
more
information
and
we
can
at
least
be
safe
me
myself
as
a
resident.
F
The
rest
of
my
neighbor's,
etc
and
so
forth,
and
not
just
accommodate.
She
also
owns
a
building
on
the
very
exit
point.
It's
called
Manolis,
that's
another
place
that
just
puts
semis
and
you
can't
get
around
it's
just
utterly
dangerous
and
again,
I
haven't
been
provided
with
enough
information
based
on
that
one
particular.
What
square
that
on
that
tile
up
in
the
right-hand
corner
of
exactly
what's
going
on
so
I
think
it
would
be
in
everyone's
best
interest
again
to
table
this
matter
until
we
get
more
information.
Thank
you.
A
D
J
Similar
uses
are
allowed
and
exist
the
existing
in
the
proposed
district
that
both
require
loading
and
unloading,
and
we
don't
really
regulate
that
with
the
zoning
code.
So
I
can't
speak
them
that
much
to
zoning,
and
if
there
are
sorry
I
can
speak
to
zoning,
but
loading
and
unloading.
And
if
there
are
issues
it
would
be
more
of
an
enforcement
issue.
D
And
then
can
you
just
walk
me
through
real
quick?
So
it
seems
like
much
of
that
block
face
is
currently
residential
business
and
kind
of
up
and
down
I
mean
not
just
that
block
face
in
particular,
but
the
rest
of
the
street
and
key
just
walk
me
through
why
community
business
district
is
more
appropriate
than
just
change.
I
can
see
this
changing
community
neighborhood,
C
n
to
C,
B
YY
just
seems
a
whole
zone
to
be
RB,
I.
Think.
J
Rb
is
geared
towards
converting
there's
a
lot
of
single-family
homes
along
900
South
there
in
that
corridor
and
converting
those
homes
into
businesses,
but
yet
retaining
the
residential
character.
That's
one
element
of
our
B
and
our
B
is
more
restrictive
in
general
and
in
terms
of
they
do
have,
they
would
like,
as
they
mentioned,
to
do
mixed-use
a
mixed-use
building
and
that
limits
a
building
to
only
one
unit
above
a
ground-floor
RB.
D
J
J
D
H
L
L
What's
the
point
is
there
are
we
are
we
supposed
to
it
to
accommodate
the
property
owner,
or
are
we
trying
to
look
at
what
the
interest
of
the
public
is
or
what
the
master
plan
or
or
well
you
know
what
should
we
be
looking
at
when
we're
considering
a
zone
change
that
doesn't
have
a
project
attached
to
it?
Well,.
J
J
Another
thing
is:
if
the
site
could
accommodate
development
in
the
new
zone
and
there's
another
big
one.
Oh,
if
it's
aligns
with
kind
of
the
purpose
of
the
zoning
ordinance,
but
in
this
case
in
particular,
they
have
a
split
zone.
That
needs
to
be
rectified,
and
so
that's
another
thing
to
consider
and.
L
L
And
then
so,
then,
as
I
guess,
this
is
with
everything
we
do
but
like
if
an
applicant,
if,
if
somebody
comes
in
with
an
application
to
change
the
zone
as
long
as
we
see
that
it
meets
the
standards
of
analysis,
then
we
then
we
say
yeah
there
is
and
that's
what
compels
us
to
do
is
that
the
application
was
submitted.
It's
not
that
there's
that
we
should
be
looking
for
any
greater
public
good
in
this
zone.
Change
and.
J
A
E
Based
on
the
findings
and
analysis
and
the
staff
report,
testimony
and
discussion
at
the
public
hearing
I
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
that
the
City
Council
approve
the
proposed
zoning
map.
Amendment
petition
PLN
PCM
2018,
zero,
one
zero
to
five
to
rezone
the
properties
at
four
402
and
four
one:
six
East
900
south
from
CN
neighborhood
commercial
district
and
the
RB
residential
business
district
to
CB
community
business
district
do
I.
M
D
Mind:
okay,
I'm,
just
wondering
my
thought
about
this
block
face
to
me.
It
just
it
seems
like
the
the
block
face.
Thing
is
bugging
me
and
I,
don't
know
if
it's
because,
like
up
the
street
at
99,
think
we
kind
of
this
hodgepodge
of
Zoning
kind
of
zones
and
it's
happening
in
other
places,
but
that
the
we
have
had
on
11th
or
you
know
we
talked
about
this
all
11th
like
maintain
the
block
yeah.
M
J
I
mean
in
terms
of
the
front
yard
setback.
Well,
we've
kind
of
looked
at
it
like
it's,
it's
own
individual
block
face,
and
it's
this
little
commercial,
node
and
front
yard
setbacks
or
closer
setbacks,
might
kind
of
distinguish
it
as
this
little
hub
and
they're
also
proposing.
Maybe
some
outdoor
dining
there's
also
kind
of
a
big
park
strip
there.
That
is
an
additional
buffer
from
the
street,
not
from
the
sidewalk.
L
G
A
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
good
evening,
members
of
the
Planning
Commission.
This
is
a
request
for
approval
from
the
city
to
develop
five
residential
lots
on
two
properties
located
at
approximately
868
East,
2700,
south
and
27:16
south
900
East.
These
properties
are
adjacent
to
each
other,
it's
kind
of
an
L
shape
and
they
have
different
frontages.
But
it's
one
contiguous
piece
of
land.
There
is
an
existing
home
on
the
2700,
South
property
that
will
be
demolished
and
then
the
home
on
the
900,
East
property
will
remain
the
route.
B
B
And
you
can
see
that
it
does
have
double
frontage,
900,
east
and
27
minutes
south,
and
this
is
the
configuration
of
the
proposed
Lots
couple
Lots
on
27th
south
and
a
couple
Lots
behind
those
Lots
and
one
on
900
east.
This
is
a
project
that
I
refer
to
as
a
boomerang
project,
meaning
we've
dealt
with
this
once
and
it
did
not
see
fruition
and
it
has
come
back
to
us
for
another
go-around.
B
This
project
was
heard
by
the
Planning
Commission
in
November
of
2016,
along
with
the
request
to
rezone
this
property
from
r1
7000
to
r1
5000,
so
they're
seeking
a
5,000
square
foot
Lots
and
the
reason
they
are
before
you
is
because
they
are
wanting
to
create
lots
without
street
frontage
and
that's
required
in
the
city's
ordinance.
So
these
slots
here,
3
&
4,
would
be
Lots
without
the
the
street
frontage.
They
are
looking
to
have
a
reduced
front
yard
setback
on
those
Lots
as
well
as
they're,
looking
to
average
the
lot
sizes.
B
B
E
B
B
B
Fun
lots
three
and
four
okay:
this
is
the
exact
same
project
I
need
to
mention
that
was
was
approved
by
the
Planning
Commission
back
in
2016.
But
at
that
time
the
applicant
had
indicated
an
easement
here
from
this
is
Sierra
Park,
Circle
or
Clayburn
circle,
and
it
was
proposed
at
that
time
that
a
lot
three
would
take
access
off
of
that
that
called
a
sac.
They
were
never
able
to
hammer
out
an
easement
agreement,
so
that
fell
through
and
subsequently
time
passed
and
his
approvals
expired.
G
B
G
B
B
B
You
so
we
have.
We
have
reviewed
this
project
we've
provided
our
analysis
in
our
in
the
staff
report.
We've
determined
that
the
proposal
meets
a
couple
of
planned
development
objectives,
the
first
to
do
with
housing
and
the
second
to
do
print
with
the
master
plan
implementation.
In
my
mind,
it's
the
master
plan,
implementation
that
is
kind
of
key
here.
B
N
Colin
Strasser-
and
this
is
yeah.
This
is
my
builder
Mark
Stevenson
of
Red
Mountain
construction
or
met
Red
Mountain,
Builders
yeah.
As
as
Lex
said,
we
we're
back
here
again
only
with
a
better
product,
one
that
has
even
better
access
than
we
proposed
before
and
one
that
I
think
will
be.
You
know
we'll
be
able
to
build
on,
and
you
know,
create
a
very
nice
product
here
yeah.
So
let
me
touch
on
some
of
the
details
that
they
were
just
touched
on
so
yeah.
N
N
The
access
we
have,
we've
procured
an
easement
on
the
well
and
established
these
men
and
reestablish
the
easement
along
the
right
side
there,
and
that
currently
is
used
by
the
duplex.
That's
on
the
corner
there
and
they
have
a
little
carport
there
and
they
have
four
cars
that
parked
there
and
so
we're
proposing
to
basically
extend
and
then
kind
of
angle
that
in
giving
access
to
all
four
all
four
Lots
and
then
the
house
on
29th,
which
is
27
16
South.
N
That
house
will
remain
and
I
plan
to
sell
that
at
a
below
market
rate,
so
that
it
is
affordable
and
is
something
that
members
of
the
community
that
are
making
80
percent
of
the
average
median
income
can
afford.
And
so
that's
kind
of
a
strength
of
the
project
is
something
we're
excited
that
we
get
to
do
as
a
result
of
applying
for
the
plane
unit
development
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
also
really
like
about
the
configurations.
N
We
think
that
the
configuration
allows
for
a
lot
of
interactions
with
not
only
the
members
of
the
community
there,
but
also
with
the
duplex
and
kind
of
bringing
that
more
from
being
kind
of
an
isolated
duplex
on
the
corner
and
kind
of
into
the
subdivision
as
well
so
yeah.
If
there's
any
questions,
I
would
be
be
more
than
happy
to
answer
and
if
there
anything
work
you
would
like
yeah.
N
You
know
driveway
and
nothing
will
change
for
them
and
his
the
the
owner
of
the
properties,
Sam
Richardson,
who
wanted
to
be
here,
but
something
came
up
and
he's
all
on
he's
on
board
for
the
project
and
was
gracious
enough
to
allow
us
to.
You
know,
increase
the
burden
on
the
easement
that
runs
over
his
property
and
he's
very
excited
for
the
improvements
to
happen.
M
On
the
driveway,
we
will
be
putting
in
a
new
driveway
approach,
driveway
surface
and
additionally,
we'll
be
doing
some
landscaping
to
enhance
that
area
of
27
south
there's
a
Reagan
sign
on
the
corner
that
we
will
try
to
update
their
landscaping.
They
still
need
access
to
the
sign,
but
we
were
trying
to
do
some
zero.
You.
M
N
L
L
Are
you
situating
it
so
that
it
essentially
looks
like
it's
fronting
the
circle
it
just
it's
just
kind
of
an
I
mean
I
applaud
you
for
being
creative
with
the
placement,
because
it's
an
interesting
lot,
but
I
just
and
I
wasn't
able
to
go
on
the
field
trip.
So
I
wasn't
I,
didn't
I,
don't
have
a
visual
of
how
that
would
look.
I.
N
Mean
it
will
be
the
back
of
the
house
that
they
don't
be
as
seen
from
the
Sierra
Park
Circle
Sierra
Park
Circle
is
a
community
of
duplexes
that
have
car
ports
in
front
of
them.
It
is
not
the
most
aesthetically
pleasing
subdivision
I've.
Seen
with
that
said.
You
know,
these
will
be
very
very
I
mean
I
I,
hopefully
there's
our
beautiful
houses
and
I
hope
that
they
will
add
to
add
to
the
the
circle
as
as
far
as
the
back
of
the
house
as
much
as
it
could.
A
A
E
C
Been
kind
of
a
mess
for
a
while
and
going
downhill,
the
house
to
the
west
on
27th
looks
like
somebody
expected
to
take
it
down
and
then
stopped.
It
was
just
like
a
mess,
so
we're
pleased
to
see
it
and
I
think
not
having
the
connection
to
the
cul-de-sac
on
the
rear
is
actually
a
positive
thing,
because
that
was
about
the
only
negative
comment
that
we
heard
the
previous
time
around
this
time.
We're
still
hearing
it,
as
is
Colin,
but
it's
not
affecting
it's
not
part
of
this
plan.
So
it's
not
an
issue
I.
C
We
like
the
fact
that
the
house
will
remain
as
an
affordable
house
rather
than
a
grand
remodel.
It
will
be
a
semi,
remodel,
I
guess
so
that
the
prices
aren't
quite
so
expensive
because
you
probably
know
the
prices
in
sugarhouse
are
pretty
high.
It's
pretty
scary.
Probably
none
of
us
could
live
there
if
we
were
buying
a
house
today,
I
hate
to
say
that
and
the
only
negative
thing
I
heard-
and
this
has
nothing
to
do
with
it.
C
O
Thank
you,
Mike
Jameson
I'm
here,
primarily
because
I
am
the
property
owner.
The
adjacent
of
that
on
the
south
side
and
I
looked
at
the
plat
I
was
just
able
to
look
at
it
today
online
and
it
looks
like
a
better
plan
than
they
had
last
last
time
through
here.
One
of
my
big
concerns
but
I'm
a
big
concern,
but
a
concern
is
there
was
not
a
lot
of
detail
in
there
talking
about
what
kind
of
lighting
was
approved.
Is
it
shielded
lighting?
What
are
they
doing
in
there?
O
O
I,
don't
know
what
they're
gonna
do
about.
You
know
landscaping
inside
of
there,
but
there
was
no
other
landscaping,
and
my
concern
is
that
South
Side
that
the
property
right
there
there's
gonna,
be
two
units
back
built
in
there
and
I
see
no
landscaping.
No
fencing,
no
wall,
no
nothing
through
there,
so
I'm
kind
of
concerned
about
the
impact
it
has
on
the
existing
residents
on
Cera,
Park
Circle
and
the
I
just
talked
to
the
mr.
O
Strasser,
and
he
told
me
that
3
&
4
the
garages
were
going
to
be
not
facing
into
each
other
off
the
sides,
but
they're
gonna
be
moved
up
to
the
north
side
of
the
of
the
buildings
themselves.
So
you're
gonna
have
four
units
they're
going
to
have
facing
garages.
Now,
that's
not
on
this
plant.
So
one
of
my
concerns
is
also
how
a
project
can
come
in
and
get
approved
and
pushed
up
the
level
to
the
City
Commission
with
an
okay.
When
we
don't
even
have
the
actual
layout
of
what's
going
to
be
going
on.
O
O
You
know
by
opinion
on
that
is
if,
if
it's
built,
nice
looks
nice
as
landscaped
and
as
well
taken
care
of
it
probably
looks
a
lot
better
and
a
lot
of
the
stuff
that's
out
there
and
the
other
comment
I
might
want
to
make
to
you,
while
I'm
sitting
here
in
my
two
minutes
is
the
rezoning
of
some
of
these
product
properties
around
especially
out
in
that
area.
You
can
see
them
all
over
the
place.
O
There's
a
little
like
little
pocket
parks
of
these
brand-new
modern,
looking
modernist,
two
or
three
store
I,
don't
know
how
big
they
build
them
in
a
neighborhood
where
they
stand
out
like
a
sore
thumb
and
to
me
that
kind
of
some
were
missing
the
mark
of
trying
to
to
make
us
contiguous
neighborhood,
even
though
I
understand
we're
trying
to
accommodate
housing,
low
income,
housing,
affordable
housing
for
people.
So
anyway,
those
were
my
concerns.
A
A
P
Hi,
my
name
is
Gabriel
echevarrÃa
and
my
girlfriend
and
I
live
in
that
Sierra
Park
circle
I'm
down
the
straightaways.
We
just
wanted
to
touch
on
the
fact
that
we
we
appreciate
the
applicants
redesigned
that
doesn't
include
the
the
access
to
the
circle
because
I
feel
like
like
was
said
before.
That
was
one
of
the
most
important
concerns
last
time
around
because
of
how
it
would
impact
our
like
small,
quaint
Street.
E
A
B
Want
you
to
get
confused
here
and
think
this
is
a
design
review
process.
It's
not
it's
about
the
subdivision
design,
it's
not
about
the
design
of
the
homes.
There
is
no
design
control
in
that
area
for
single-family
homes.
The
city
does
have
standards
for
lighting.
They
have
to
be
directed
down.
They
can't
shine
on
to
the
neighbors
in
terms
of
landscaping
there.
There
really
isn't
a
landscaping
requirement
between
zones
that
are
both
residential.
E
B
G
N
Yeah
and
regards
to
the
the
three
Lots
rather
than
four,
we
think
that
the
four
really
are
the
best
use
of
the
land
and,
as
far
as
we
think,
they're
absolutely
functional
and
the
two
Lots
in
the
back
may
be
even
better
than
the
two
Lots
in
the
front.
Because
of
the
fact
that
there
is
a
lot
there
is
noise
from
27
South.
So
we're
pretty
content
with
it
with
the
configuration,
as
is,
can.
G
N
So
we
configured
the
garages
so
that
they
pretty
much
face
each
other,
but
they're
offset
so
wouldn't
be
like.
If
you
back
straight
in
and
straight
out,
you
and
in
the
other
garage
you
really
wouldn't
so
there's
plenty
of
room
we
think
for
moving
around
and
we
were
able
to
stick
a
few
parking
spots,
so
everybody
will
have
an
additional
parking
spot.
So
every
every
lot
will
have
three
spots
rather
than
required.
G
N
Yeah
so
the
front,
sorry
that
the
front
er
have
a
20
foot
or
the
average
block
setback
as
required
and
same
with
the
side
guards
they're
actually
outside
is
ten
in
inward
is
four
and
four
and
then
ten
towards
the
the
easement.
The
back
we'll
have
ten
on
on
the
side
and
ten
on
the
back
and
we're
asking
for
a
four
foot
setback
in
the
front
so
that
we
can
push
the
house
up
forward,
bringing
it
more
into
the
development
more
clustered
rather
than
impacting,
you
know,
possibly
Mike's
Jameson's
property
and
the
properties.
G
B
G
B
K
B
O
L
B
G
B
E
N
G
G
That
makes
sense,
because
I'm
I
had
a
little
leery
with
such
small
setbacks,
but
I'm
trying
to
put
it
in
context
of
what
how
these
Lots
are
situated
and
I
want
to
understand
how
they'll
be
away
from
certain
property
lines,
etc.
That
they're
meeting
the
right
codes
and
if
you
were
so
in
your
revised
plans
as
the
garages
facing
north
or
are
they
still
facing
each
other
east
and
west
they're
facing
north?
So
is
that
the
garages
that
are
they
going
to
be
protruding
into?
What
would
be
your
setback
or
is
it
the
house.
G
A
N
G
N
G
G
N
B
I
I'd
like
to
ask
a
question:
please
we
don't
have
the
floor
plans
for
number
three
and
number
four
and
I
understand
that
it's
not
this,
isn't
the
appropriate
time
to
discuss
those.
On
the
other
hand,
you're
asking
for
a
setback.
Release
based
on
the
footprint
of
these
buildings
and
I
would
like
to
ask
whether
this
entry
pavilion
thing
you've
got
sticking
out
into
what
would
be
the
front.
Setback
is
absolutely
essential
because
it
seems
to
me
if
it's
similar
to
the
one
on
the
one
that
we
have.
I
We
do
have
a
floor
plan
for
it's
basically
just
a
canopy,
and
why
would
you
come
to
us,
for
you
know,
I.
Instead
of
having
a
four
foot
setback,
you
would
have
a
ten
foot
or
more
setback
if
you
didn't
have
that
canopy
feature
there,
so
it
seems
like
it.
Perhaps
that
is
something
to
redesign
as
you
move
forward
and
therefore
we
won't
necessarily
have
to
have
a
four
foot
setback
switch
to
then
allow
you
to
bring
those
buildings
way
up
to
and
crowd
it
all
up
a
lot
and
I.
I
Don't
think
we
want
to
do
that.
Does
that
make
sense
to
everybody
what
I'm
saying
here?
Okay,
so
it's
just
assuming
that
that's
a
some
kind
of
an
entry
feature
that's
been
put
on
here
that
can
be
redesigned
and
if
it's
especially
if
it's
just
outside,
not
that
I,
don't
think
outside
is
important.
I
do.
But
it's
also,
that
particular
feature
is
not
particularly
consistent
with
the
architecture
as
I
see
it
here.
I
also
just.
I
So
I
think
that
would
give
us
a
sit
back
that
I
don't
know
what
the
scale
would
be,
but
it
looks
around
maybe
11
feet,
so
that's
a
much
better
setback
than
the
than
the
four-foot
one
you're
talking
about,
maybe
not
quite
that
big.
It's
also
reasonable.
The
these
buildings
have
little
ears
and
that's
what's
causing
your
setback
problems.
You
know
the
little
ears,
you
know
I'm
saying
about
the
design
and
you
don't
you're
not
really
particularly
crowded
on
this
site
from
the
standpoint
of
design.
I
C
N
N
And
because
of
the
confined
space,
I
think
that
it
was
not
not
only
is
it
a
necessity
to
have
that
smaller,
you
know
front
yard,
but
really
an
interior
side
yard.
It's
it's
very
consistent
with
the
society
side,
yard
of
the
front
two
Lots
right
and
so
they're,
just
as
close
as
you
know,
they're
actually
closer
than
you
know
what
we're
proposing,
really
that
the
yard
for
the
back
to
Lots
will
be
on
the
side.
They'll
have
a
side
door
there
and
aides
foreseeably
double
sliding
door
accessing
their
yard
and
I,
don't
foresee
them.
I
I
I
D
D
N
D
If
we're
saying
that
the
entryway
that
you
have
to
have
a
entryway,
it
can
be
the
only
thing
that
kind
of
extends
out
past
and
I'll
a
10-foot
setback.
You
know
four
by
six
or
six
by
six
entryway,
that's
what's
being
presented
here,
so
I'm,
not
sure
I
understand
why
that
condition
doesn't
work
for
you.
D
B
House
cannot
if
this
is
four
feet
to
the
property
line
mm-hmm.
What
they're
suggesting
is
they
would
grant
that
four
feet
and
then
this,
the
read
the
rest
of
the
bulk
of
the
house
would
be
I.
Don't
know
how
many
feet
this
is
11
or
whatever
I
think.
The
concern
that
Brenda
Shearer
is
bringing
up
is
that
if
they
across
the
board
say
you
get
a
four
foot
setback
you
could
you
could
potentially
move
the
house
out
all
the
way
to
that
four
feet?
I
think!
That's
the
that's!
That's
the
concern.
N
D
E
N
E
B
A
D
E
D
I
I
Madam
chairman,
based
on
the
analysis
and
findings
listed
in
the
staff
report,
testimony
and
the
proposal
presented
I
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
approved
the
subdivision
and
planned
development
request.
As
proposed,
the
Planning
Commission
finds
that
the
proposed
project
complies
with
the
review
standards,
as
demonstrated
in
attachments
e
and
F
of
the
staff
report.
The
provable
of
the
planned
development
and
subdivision
request
is
subject
to
the
following
conditions.
I
A
final
platen
is
required
and
shall
be
submitted
to
finalize
the
plat
and
compliance
with
all
city
department
and
division
comments
and
requirements,
as
noted
in
exhibit
G
and
number
three.
The
front
yard
setback
of
Lots
three
and
four
shall
be
10
feet
with
the
exception
that
a
an
entrance
feature
may
protrude
up
to
six
feet
into
the
front
yard
setback.
A
D
L
E
Q
I'm
hoping
this
is
quick
and
easy,
because
the
staff
report,
I
think
was
all
of
14
pages,
so
I'm
hoping
that's
an
indication
of
that.
So
this
is
a
request
by
it's
a
mayor,
initiated
petition
and
it's
for
changes
to
the
appeals
process
for
decisions
of
historic,
landmark,
Commission
decisions.
The
purpose
of
these
amendments
is
for
consistency
with
House
bill
315
that
was
just
passed
by
the
state
legislature
in
2019.
Q
These
changes
would
also
make
it
more
consistent
with
how
other
appeals
of
administrative
decisions
are
processed,
so
staff
is
recommending
to
forward
a
positive
recommendation
to
the
City
Council
and
just
to
give
you
some
background
on
this
proposal,
some
of
you
may
have
remembered
in
2017
when
the
state
legislature
passed
some
historic
preservation
amendments
and
our
existing
ordinance
as
a
result
of
those.
So
those
included
establishment
of
a
historic
preservation,
appeal
authority
in
Salt,
Lake
City
because
of
our
form
of
government
and
because
appeals
of
landmark
Commission
decisions
are
administrative.
Q
That
appeal
Authority
is
the
mayor.
It
also
allowed
the
applicant
to
choose
who
they
wanted
to
appeal
to,
so
they
could
choose
either
the
mayor
or
the
appeals.
Hearing
officer
and
then
it
allowed
them
to
have
30
days
to
appeal
a
decision
of
a
landmark
Commission
decision.
Initially
it
was
10
days.
So
in
a
nutshell,
basically
we
are
just
removing
the
preservation
appeal
authority,
so
removing
the
mayor
from
that
process
and
those
appeals
would
just
be
processed
through
an
appeal
authority.
A
A
D
Man,
this
is
great:
I
actually
objected
to
the
state
law,
so
this
is
I,
think's,
really
good,
just
to
remove
the
political
aspect
to
this
whole
process.
So
it's
good
for
everyone,
the
public
to
my
ear
and
the
developer
so
based
on
the
analysis
and
findings
list
in
the
staff
report,
testimony
presented
or
lack
thereof,
I
moved
the
Commission
for
a
positive
recommendation.
The
City
Council
regarding
the
proposed
amendment
to
section
2106
and
21,
a
16
related
to
appeals
with
historic,
landmark
Commission
decision.
The
Commission
finds
the
proposed
amendments
comply
with
review.