Salt Lake City 2018 Planning Commission, 10 Jul 2019

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting - July 10, 2019

Description

Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting - July 10, 2019

A

Mission to order a couple of housekeeping items if you'd please turn their cellphones off. If you need to take a call, please take it outside keep the chatter to a minimum and if you're going to speak, you'll be asked to come up during the public hearing and you need to state your name into the microphone for the record and you'll have two minutes to speak as part of the public.

A

If you're from the community council you'll have five minutes and let's try to be courteous of each other, no booing hissing, shouting kind of stuff going on and try to stay really on point with your comments so that this meeting doesn't run till like 11 o'clock. Okay,.

A

With that we'll get started, I need.

A

A motion to approve the minutes from last week.

B

So moved West.

A

C

I'll, second, that.

A

Let me make my notes here: Amy.

A

Adrian abstain, Matt, yes,.

D

A

A

Weston, yes, Caroline. Yes,.

A

Do I need to do anything? Okay, all right. The minutes are approved.

A

The chair has nothing to report. The vice chair isn't present today. So take it away. Direct thank.

E

You just a couple of announcements. First off for those of you been on the commission for a while, even if you haven't now, we wanted to let everybody know and I. Don't know if this has been said at a previous meeting, but one of our administrative assistants in our office is retiring. Her last day is Friday, so Deb who fills danwon Marlene was not here, is leaving the city after 30 years working for the city, so we're sad to see Deb go but were all very jealous of her able to retire.

E

So wasn't the Commission to know that a couple of updates on some action and things that are going on with the City Council on planning related manners matters. They did. They had a briefing on the d2 design standards. Yesterday, it looks like there's general support for moving forward with that. So hopefully that will be in the next few months adopted.

E

Most planning items were put on hold during the budget process, which is pretty typical, given their council's workloads, and then they also looked at a couple of rezoning, the 2700 South cottage that you guys approved the planned development for which required the reason. They've had a briefing on that as well, and then the right, the change, the proposed changes to allow drive-throughs in certain areas of the TSA zoning district.

E

So those went on a couple updates on some of the big projects that we are working on and we have, for the most part, wrapped up our public engagement on the redo of our parking chapter. So that means the next step is to start talking about it with the Planning Commission, so that'll yeah, sorry, so that will hopefully happen start happening in August in September.

E

We also are started the public engagement on the fleet block. We had an open house on Monday at the site where we had about 50 people show up there's a lot of excitement about the block and the proposal there. So we are writing a new coming. We've developed a new zoning district for that which piggy backs off of what's happening in the central 9th neighborhood, so it's a new form based code that allows taller buildings and bigger buildings in what is in central 9th to match the granary area our summer planning series.

E

Our next event is on July, 29th and that'll, be in sugarhouse, so those that information will go out next early next week. So far at those we've had two events, one was in a torrential downpour. We still had about 30 people show up and the last one we had about 50. um So we're expecting large crowds wanted to give an update on the planning divisions workload. So June was the busiest June that we've ever had in terms of land use applications which also we had the big.

E

The busiest quarter that we've ever had in the busiest six month period that we've ever had so July is on track to be the busiest month we've ever had. So just so, you know that that's going on. Most of those applications are things that are handled at the staff level, but all of the Planning Commission agendas are full basically through August. So we anticipate that we'll have five or we're trying to limit meetings to five or six applications unless they're, simple and small.

E

So you you can expect to have five similar agenda links to tonight five or six items. We think that will probably go through the remainder of the year. Just so everybody knows, and the the mayor's office is working on they're going through applications for new commissioners because we're down to the the minimum that were allowed to have under our ordinance. And so if something happens and we lose another commissioner, for whatever reason we won't be able to meet until we have another one appointed. So probably some bad timing.

E

If that were to happen, but it is what it is and we'll keep going for it and that's probably half.

A

Thank You Nick we'll move to our first item, which is a major modification to the RR plan development.

A

A

F

G

Thanks for having me here tonight, as you mentioned, were discussing proposed modifications to an earlier approved plan development. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved this project in November 2018 I was a planned development located approximately 171 North redwood road. If you look at the map, it's just north and west intersection of North temple and redwood road, so 301 unit multi-family residential development, replacing what is currently a vacant field. The property is located in a TSA zoning district where the use is permitted and the project received the TSA score that would have allowed for administrative approval.

G

However, the applicant requested several modifications to the zoning ordinance which necessitated a plan development. The stated modifications were necessary due to the unusual site, which has you can see frontage on three public streets with redwood road on the east, Gertie Avenue on the south and Herald Street on the west. Those requests were to allow a building to exceed the maximum corner side yard along Herald Street. Second, a lot of surface parking in a corner, side, yard and third, two ways: some design standards along the West facade, mainly on the ground floor.

G

This next slide. You can see the area in question where the modifications were requested, circled in red at the intersection of Gertie Avenue and Herald Street, when reviewing this staff did has some concerns about the street corner, although it doesn't currently resemble a typical public street, it kind of lurks and operates and looks like a private drive into the parking lot.

G

This development will really begin to help this street involved into a more than type of a street, the applicant proposed to add an enhanced landscape area at the corner, which contained like seating and art and trees. The proposals shown on this side on the bottom right the Commission discussed this at length, but there was definitely some concerns about whether or not this enhanced landscaping was going to be enough to really activate that corner. Ultimately, the Planning Commission did approve the requested modifications.

G

So earlier this year, staff met with the applicant he discussed potentially making changes to their already approved development plan. The proposed modification would extend the structure along Verdi Avenue, which would place the building direct at the corner of Bertie Avenue and Herald Street. That's the extension is shown outlined in red this eliminates the need. Excuse me for the earlier approved modifications, but by doing that and proposing evenly the corner, it created a need for a few new modifications.

G

So now the applicant is requesting three separate modification, the ordinance one to allow the facade along Gertie Avenue to exceed the maximum length by approximately 78 feet. Second, to reduce the required amount of ground floor glass along herald street by 10% and, lastly, to allow in offsite parking on on a property with this that has three frontage, so the Planning Commission can consider mayor Monica fate, modifications of a plan development.

G

If the Commission believes that the requested modifications are in substantial conformity with the approved development plan, staff has reviewed these and they believe the two of these requests to meet that standard and I'll go into detail about each request in the following size.

G

So on this we're talking about looking at the structure itself, the first modification is exceed the maximum facade length. The zone allows 200 feet off for a street facing facade. So what we're this would be the south facing a long, dirty Avenue. The applicant is proposing a facade length of approximately 278 feet. The extension of the building is architectural II compatible with the remainder of the structure, and it would accommodate there amenity deck.

G

On the second floor of that, these images just go a few different views of the structure, there's more in your packet and then the applicants will also be here to discuss the design in more detail. I'm staff is supportive of this modification. You know in general, we do not support lengthy street facing facades, which is why the standard is there.

G

However, in this case, bringing that building up to the intersection will really encourage a lot more activity, a pedestrian activity or interest at that corner than the original design, which is a major goal of the north temple master plan staff. Also leza. The amount of articulation provided will help to avoid a monotonous or flat facade and further the design will also help to shield that surface parking lot from the street and sidewalk behind it.

G

So the second modification is reduction in the glass requirement along Harold Street, which is that really small street that stubs into the apartment complex to the north. The reduction is from sixty percent to fifty percent, so this image on the slide shows outlined in red that provided an amount of glass which is which seems fairly significant on up it's a very small section of a building. If you look to the left, so the staircase on the left side, as well as a short span of all, makes it difficult to meet the standard.

G

The building also contain mechanical equipment, which the applicant would like to shield from public view. The provided glass is located near the corner of the structure and is highlighting that building feature, and so, for these reasons, staff is supportive of this request. So the third and final modification requested by the applicant is to allow for an off-site surface parking lot on a property that has a frontage on a public street. In this case it would be Gertie Street. So on the map on the slide, the approved development area is outlined in blue.

G

The offsite parking lot is located south outlined in red clearly does have frontage on Bertie Avenue, so in the two images on the right show two views of the proposed parking lot from on the north side from the apartment project itself. The applicant has stated that the parking lot is essential to the viability and success of this project.

G

I'm gonna, let the applicant, provide more detail and justifying the request, as mentioned in the report provided staff does not believe that the master plan in the area would support the development of a surface parking lot along the street frontage. The request does not activate the area or create a pedestrian friendly environment, as is recommended for a transit oriented neighborhood.

G

Admittedly, at the moment, if you went out there, I think it may not appear and is not currently a dense urban transit oriented neighborhood, but it's evolving and it's the obligation and I think of staff to consider how the neighborhood could transform and what it could look like in the applicants. Development along greedy, Avenue I will actually do whom really a great deal to help create that type of neighborhood and meet the policies and goals of the master plan.

G

Without the surface parking lot mentioned, the Planning Commission may only approve a major modification if it isn't substantial conformity with the approved development plan. Staff does not believe that this sort of quest meets that standard, so I'm just to wrap things up staff. These are the proposed changes to the design of the structure itself, will create a better development by activating the corner and recommends the Commission approve the additional facade lengths and the reduction in glass along herald and for the reasons just mentioned earlier, staff does not recommend approval of the outside surface parking lot.

G

I'm happy to answer any questions and the applicant is here, and they would like to make a presentation as well tonight. Any.

A

Questions for John I.

H

Do John so how many parking spots are going to be taken away by extending the building off to Gertie and Harold I? Don't.

G

Think there's gonna be a significant reduction and I. That might be a good question for the applicant, the parking it is going to lose some of the parking, but so.

H

I guess my my real question is: if they lose whatever parking they're going to by extending that building regardless of this offsite parking, would they still meet the ordinance? Yes, so it doesn't put them in non-compliance. That way, no.

G

I believe they have 299 parking stalls for 301 units. The requirement would all would be about 178.

D

The additional lot to meet the parking standards to.

G

Not meet the zoning minimum parking standards, they do not need it. Sorry.

H

I have one more follow-up, so if, if could the could an applicant at a later date, common request through a planning to use a lot as a surface parking lot, not not connected to this development? No.

A

H

Use would that be or just flat-out denied so.

G

A site parking is allowed on the zone, but it's not allowed as a as the primary use of the property. If.

F

G

Has frontage on a lot so if you had like rear lot or you've had rear portions of the property and you wanted to add additional parking and then utilize it as offsite parking for your neighbor whomever that would be allowed. It's it's really the street frontage that creates the issue here. Okay, so.

F

If this were to lots- and this was a portion of the rear that didn't have any frontage but an easement through the first lot than they could park by right on the rear portion- yes,.

G

I mean they would obviously have to design and follow all the landscaping rules and most my names but yes, and whichever lot is created in the firaon, would have to meet the minimum lot size.

F

A

Anyone else right now, thank you, we'll bring the applicant up.

G

You, okay, okay, I'll, get it I.

G

Know I'm trying.

G

G

Sorry I'm, looking at it and I just don't see you.

G

But there was multiple ones open.

G

That, well, that is there.

G

A

Okay, gentlemen, be sure to say your names for the record for us and you have ten minutes.

I

John seminar, jzw architects, Blake Henderson Henderson.

J

Development Payton.

F

Wonderly jzw, architects.

A

Make your pitch take.

J

Our pitch well, thank you for having us in and having us in again. We do appreciate it John. Thanks for your presentation. We appreciate two of your recommendations and not so much the third, but so we are back in front of me again.

J

I think we have a a better scenario for all with the building in its new design, and it came up for several reasons, mostly us, finding that we needed to provide better amenities for our potential resident or our future residents, and we think those amenities create a longer longer base tenant who stays longer, which creates more stable in a better community. So and as we thought about improving the amenities it kind of dawned on us hey, we can probably improve these amenities and meet the exactly the intent of the zoning code there.

J

So I'll turn it over to John from the design aspect and how, as an architect, he sees the length of the building and how we justify that yeah.

I

So previously we had our pool amenity up on the roof here in order to bring it down visually, bring it down to the street level. We we decided to extend our podium out and, like Blake said it has the added benefit of us being able to engage that that Street frontage along Harold. Here, as John mentioned, we had to extend our building to do that so so exception. One is the building length here and, as you can see in that top image, we've done everything we can to aesthetically architectural e-brake that form.

I

So you don't have a 300 foot cruise ship sitting there. You know all one mass: it's it's really broken into the base building and then the amenity deck. We really see it as two broken buildings with with the podium connecting but well.

J

And what's important that there is a significant 40-foot separation between the two buildings, and that is our drive aisle that does enter and goes under the podium, but then exits on the other side into the open parking lot correct.

I

But you can see that it almost doesn't show up it's so small, all right, so the next. The next exception is the the grazing percentage along a long Harold Street. As you can see, a little better may be in this image here.

I

So we've carried the the design in an aesthetic of the glazing that we had along dirty, Avenue pulled it around the corner, so it's a cohesive design and and due to as John mentioned, we have some. We have a Dodge dog wash station back here that we don't really it's not super appealing from the street. So we wanted to hide that behind the architecture here and then we're left with this staircase. That's it's not really available to add more glazing, so we we've maxed out all that we can operationally here and hopefully and.

J

We feel that the staircase it's important to bring the staircase down. It provides another access point, an ingress, egress again activating that area, that space is designed for a light sandwich shop, a coffee shop or some type of amenity for the public on that corner. So we do think, hopefully, as the tendency grows in the area, we can get that foot traffic to support that type of yeah restaurant. So.

I

We feel like we've in this move. We've been able to really activate the street frontage, is here and better meet the design into the disowning intent for the area. The other.

J

Thing I want to stress John. If you can go back to that. First picture, the the top picture. I thought we had a different angle of it, which really we feel brings the amenity down lower. There is landscaping up top there. There is trees. So again it provides more energy and more activity at a much lower level than having that originally up on our fourth story of the roof. So by bringing that amenity down again, we think it brings more activity, more energy and breaks the building up. So.

I

Then the third exception is the: is the parking lot? So let's go there. This was our previous design. This is the one that got approved. Our intent in this whole. This whole proceeding here is is to take this exact design, move it across the street and double it basically. So this is the original design. This is, this is what was approved, and this is this- is we've shifted it across the street? Here we've set it up with with seating areas, a pergola fire pits planting areas. So it's we really.

I

We really see it as a rideshare park where the whole community can use this as a waiting spot for for uber pick up, lift whatever whatever company you prefer.

J

We will be adding roughly 1200 to 1500 new residents in that specific area. There is not a public park in the area. What the discussion we had last time we were in front of you was going back and forth. Is it a viable park? Will it really attract people I? Think there was mixed opinion on that this time it has truly doubled in size. There is seating out there.

J

There is pathways and walkways, so we do think not only for ride share, but it's probably an area where people can go with their pet and and sit outside, and it is right at the corner of the intersection of two dead-end streets and.

I

As you can see here, it's it's connected to all three phases of this development in the West Station area. So you can see, there's I, don't know how many tenants we have total 700 well, there's.

J

There's over 300 units, one and a half plus right, so maybe 1200 people in there.

I

So we really see it as a community, a community gathering space here at the end of this pathway.

I

So this flying through there here is this is our design. It adds 47 stalls but, most importantly, it adds this this space here, this community park, this rideshare Park and.

J

We feel it greens up the entire parking area, which is now just it's an active parking lot. Now, it's gravel and dirt. It happens to have a lot of kind of overnight, camping and in the area right now, which is not ideal in in some of the questions that were asked of John on on the we don't need this Mike zoning or code to support the building. We strongly do believe we need this for marketing purposes to support the building less than one spot per unit.

J

It makes it extremely challenging to rent up your units, and without this, that sort of it would be.

K

We do feel the.

J

Other thing and I think John will click through. We show.

J

These are two parking areas: I'm sure you guys are very familiar with them, owned by the holding family on six South and forth south and years ago they were ugly flat, non landscaped parking areas. It's.

I

J

Their land bank but they're much more attractive. Now with landscaping, we intend to hopefully do the same right now, there's not a viable, a viable development to go on this site, or we would probably develop it. We do need it for parking. Now. We do think parking does decrease in the future and there's nothing easier to switch to a more appropriate use than a parking lot. It's pretty easily changed. It doesn't cost a whole lot of money to to tear out asphalt and build up from there as a future use.

J

So that truly is part of our thinking. We don't think a a active retail or restaurant space would survive there. Right now does not have the traffic, but, as we activate this area more hopefully and as parking needs do die down, and we do think they will they're not there yet that this could be a development site in the future and again parking is very easy to to change and and redevelop.

I

And to that point we see this as a catalyst with the width presenting it as a rideshare park for the for the community. We see it as a catalyst to push for less dependence on parking, less cars, so we we're hopefully pushing it in that direction and then eventually becomes viable to redevelop.

A

Any questions for the applicant right now.

A

Carolyn, what's what's.

C

The affordability of the units there.

J

Is a good question: these are market rate apartments, so there is no affordable tax component to it. We've designed this to be what we consider a workforce housing market.

J

They are 30 to 50 percent, less than the viaduct area and 60% less than moving in in town and significantly less than like a fourth fourth west or hardware building so question, but market rate significantly less than in the city and and we're getting us most of our tenants are those who have looked in the city and find it much more affordable to be out at our location in our buildings.

J

L

D

Welcome the parking lot is it: is it fenced? It.

J

Is planned to be fenced and secured and I want to make clear that, just because of the the type of rendering it is a nice wrought iron type fence, it is not a solid, can't see through type fence. It's just. We are rendering capabilities on the art we have. It makes it look like a solid fence. It is not an.

I

End in front here, sorry, man in front here we would carry so there are there's an existing brick wall here on the Apollo parking lot that we would carry that aesthetic across.

D

So it's it's gated as well.

K

D

And it is used exclusively for the residents not as a general parking for that's.

J

Correct exclusively for residents.

D

A

Anyone else you can step back we'll do the public hearing.

D

A

I'll open the public hearing on this item. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on this item.

A

Anyone seeing none, I'll close the public hearing will bring it back to the Commission. Do you want staff.

D

Question for Stafford or the applicant, the the the DRI I mean the the road that is kind of on the west portion of that of the parking lot is that a private driver is that a road so the.

G

Area just to the west of the this parking manner, I mean most of the areas really a sea of parking right now, so, whether it's for just restaurant, the next one or southern ones, the lumber store there, but we can get private drive.

F

Where does the right-of-way end where's gertie out.

G

Let me get through that first map I think.

A

Her liking crosses.

F

F

Right but where does it so.

G

F

This somewhere yeah so.

G

If you look at this map and if I get this arrow here kind of wants to play game, you're, Gertie Avenue goes to like right. There yeah.

A

And Herald Street doesn't extend across Gertie Avenue. It.

G

Does not a lot of these stories did extend at one time when this was a single-family neighborhood, but those times have long passed.

A

Any more questions for John was.

D

There ever a conversation about trying to create any sort of mid-block, Crossing kind of in that area out towards North temple or no I. Don't.

G

Think there I mean there hasn't been from our side of things. I think a lot of is that there's multiple property owners in between so I think it might be difficult to do that for right. Now, I'm, you know, I think the semester, the no temple master plan for this station area does talk about eventually seeing a grid that grid network through the neighborhood. But you know obviously there's businesses happening or occurring right there. So I, don't we don't a timeline for anything like that.

D

um So in in staffs, opinion with I think he's these parking lots like downtown, for example, if they're, if they're just for private use right so for specific building.

D

Is that does that mean it's I think for the problem? I'm just going to start with statement, you can help me answer it we'll talk through it.

D

So with all these like downtown surface parking lots we have part of the problem, is: is they're all pay Lots now and so, like you can they're there gold lines, many people are paying 100 plus dollars a month per spot and so they're just kind of there and I think they're kind of stuck for a lot of those reasons, and in this circumstance, if it's a private lot that is tied to a development, could they turn it into a commercial law if they wanted to in the future?

D

So if like parking demands for their building, went down, they decided to open up for commercial law. Is that something that could be done under the current zoning or not yeah?.

G

I mean once it's approved as an offsite parking lot. It's not the approval, isn't tied necessarily to that development. It could be at some point in time. It could just refer.

D

To commercial, a lot that people can get on there and ride tracks down to the airport, yes,.

A

Anything else for John the applicant.

A

Discussion, dots.

A

D

um For the applicant, maybe where you guys went so.

D

You feel like you, need all those parking spots that are kind of built and that sort of deal we.

J

Do if, if we utilize those, is it 43 spots, 47 spots, we will have one point two spots per unit. Currently the project behind district north is parked at one point. Two five spots per unit we often on a Saturday and Sunday night, are over parked. We can't supply all of our residents with with parking. We feel that one point two five is a very close number. It's again, it's only in the weekend nights when everyone's home, that that becomes a problem, yeah being.

F

A renter myself, who has two cars for the household having proper parking is absolutely key and having it fill secured for me, would be everything in a development like this. If this is somewhere, I was choosing to live.

D

A

One can I can I ask one.

J

Question and it may be over for the planning, could there be a because I Matt came up with a good good position that I didn't consider. We have not considered making any paid parking a lot to support the airport. Could there be a development agreement in place at that says? Hey this is not intended for that. Use you the next developer or the next owner, rather cannot do that.

J

We cannot do that and put a condition like that on that, because I think that's a valid concern and that's truly not our intent, but but if there's nothing preventing that limiting.

E

The uses as an action that is up to the City Council to do that. So if there were some sort of development agreement that would limit the long term use of a piece of property, that would be essentially a zoning amendment right.

I

E

Enter into that development agreement to do that.

J

D

And there's so much lots over there that that's a really long-term question.

D

Because you didn't know my bigger thing, I'm, just thinking through is your big note, is that there is no other kind of public park and there is like a lot of lack of green space kind of in the area.

D

That's why I asked if you need all those parking spots, if you know you were to remove the four or five that right there, you actually would make a square nice little parking where you would actually put like a playground. You put a playground or something on there. I mean like a real pocket.

J

Real park right.

D

15L spots like that was my only like that was what that question was getting at. Is it because then you have a you do have this like? It looks like a bucket park right and then you have the parking lot. Gated parking lot behind it, which I imagine would be an amenity to to your residents if it.

F

Would it would their.

D

Family or whatever, as well but Gaius.

J

If we, the zoning, is 30 feet, I think so the quick question is, would we lose what five spots or.

I

Feedback and this I'd have to look at the zoning, but I think that if your park or maybe it's a different zone, though so maybe that's if.

J

We think that we have a there's a zoning apartment. If we are truly 30 feet of park space, then we do meet the parking require or the zoning parking requirement.

J

Right now, I really don't want to lose those seven spots, because we really do think it helps us market it and a better marketed projects better for everybody and, like I, said I, think I truly believe as a developer, that parking requirements do go down in the future they're in this area, where a redwood road North temple, IAT I-15, they all meet right there. Unfortunately, it is a heavy traffic traffic area with a lot of cars and the Meridian is a great project. Our neighbor, our competitor, they are struggling.

J

They've been running up as long as we have and they're, not even close to where we are, and we just know it because they are parked one one lesson: one per unit we've had that conversation with.

F

J

We just want to find ourselves there and we think by allowing us to get to this puple, quick things by allowing us to do this partner. We we do improve that current dirt parking lot, which it will probably remain, as is for a while. If we can't do this, it allows us to better amenitized our building, which is better for all, and it brings more activity to that corner which hopefully is better for the community, and we do have a double the size and that's Park. That's.

I

One it's one point from I mean we appreciate it, but I disagree to two points. I feel like it does activate that that Street frontage there that the way we've set that park up I feel like it is a community amenity and it does activate Gertie Street, where it's it's clearly not activated now, and it's pedestrian friendly. The way we've designed it and I feel like it's. It's set up for future redevelopment.

I

The way we've designed it right.

H

No I'm gonna say that I feel like this site is a little interesting because you have two dead ends and so I'm sympathetic to the constraint of having such limited availability of potential off street parking because they dead end I think it was like to see a little bit more green and there are my rooms, some more trees or something that actually mean it.

H

I mean your renderings are a little hard because they they look like just a little strip of green space and and this harkens back to that that lengthy discussion we had when you're here in November is, if it's really useable. If it's just like hey I'm gonna, stand out there and wait for my uber, like that's, not really green space that becomes a community asset, and so I don't know. If it's you know amenable to losing a couple more spots, to increase some of that greenery to make it a real amenity that people are using.

H

Because, especially do you allow dogs, that's where they're gonna go yeah, there's nowhere else around there to do that. So so,.

I

If we push back in nine feet, low lose one set of stalls, that's four, so we'd be at 43 and I I, don't know operationally, but it would double the size of that and I think it would make it yeah.

H

I would feel better as that balance of increasing that green space amenity and because I do appreciate the just a physical limitation of those two dead ends that when you do have overflow there's even work for them to possibly even spread out. They had the ability to spread out somewhere and be something else right and.

J

Remember the other challenge we had was we do have. We are surrounded on three sides by city streets and that's a particularly hard thing to to designed to and meet the 200-foot building, lengths activate all the streets and it just it gets the more streets uniting is more and more complicated, and so we felt that we really achieved that on the development site and this parking lot helps and in all the ways we've just discussed.

A

H

So I'd be willing to make a motion I'm not sure how it needs to be worded, though start.

A

With start with the one on the motion sheet, yeah.

H

Just a slightly pulled it back up. Give me a second before.

E

That happens, one thing that I wanted to offer as a suggestion and it's my understanding that we, we don't have authorization from the property owner where the proposed surface parking lot is that's something that Paul tells me we'd, be okay, with a condition. If you go down the route of approving that offsite parking, that that would be okay, with a condition that they provide that to us before they can actually do any kind of work. There.

H

A

H

Just reading it really car cuz, there's multiple ones on here.

H

Okay, I'm gonna give a stab at it.

H

Based on the information in the staff report, the information presented and the input received during the plant. The public hearing I move that the Planning Commission approved major modifications to PLN SUV 2018, zero, zero, zero, six four one, our our planned development with the following Roddick eight modifications that they increase the green space in the offsite parking lot that they provide.

H

J

Is authorization.

H

From the other property owner to staff, I.

H

Think that's it.

A

You want to see how much they increase.

D

By increasing the green space.

H

Yeah so yeah. This is why I don't like making modified motions? Did you agree that if you doubled that or would you just kind of so.

I

If we took nine feet, that loses it as four stalls and that would that would double the park space here so.

H

With the following modifications that they take four stalls out of the proposed offsite parking to increase the green space and provide authorization from their current property owner to staff for its use.

A

Okay, a second.

D

Yes, I'll second Matt.

A

Thank you any more discussion.

A

Okay! Well vote. Adrian! Yes, Matt! Yes, Amy! Yes, Weston! Yes,.

B

A

Carolyn Oguri.

C

A

J

A

J

You very much for green.

A

J

Do it we look forward to it thanks John thanks.

A

Okay, we'll move on to our second item, which is a conditional use ad you at 11:43, Lake, Street, Christina,.

M

Okay, thank you for having me. So this is a request by Carrie Larsen, the homeowner at 11:43, South, Lake, Street she's, requesting conditional yeast approval to construct an accessory dwelling in it or an AVO in the rear of the property and staff is recommending approval on this request with conditions.

M

So the this project is before the Commission, because I proposed a to you. The proposed ad was located in the r15 thousand single-family residential zoning district and all the Adu proposals located in the single in single-family zoning districts require conditional use approval. As you know, this process looks the compatibility, location, configuration and potential impacts of the request and then just as a reminder, conditional uses are allowed uses if appropriate conditions can be imposed to mitigate any adverse impacts.

M

So the proposal, the Adu, is approximately 500 520 square feet, with a height of approximately 11 feet, 7 inches, which is below the the maximum allowed for both the entrance. As you can see, hopefully, you can see on the screen I'll just kind of walk through this, so this is the existing house on the property. This is Lake Street right here, so this is the west side and we have Princeton Avenue on the north and then there's an alleyway. That's cut off of the site plan right here, but that's on the east side.

M

The ATU is located in the rear of the property behind an existing detached garage and the entrance of the Adu faces the alleyway, which is allowed because it's further than 10 feet to 10 feet setback from the property line.

M

Then the ID has two parking spots provided. So you see this existing garage there's two parking spots within the garage that serve the main residence and then there is also tandem. Parking, though, would be allowed on the driveway that would serve the ATU, the colors on the screen. I hope you can see it better in your staff report. These show an existing fence, so the blue, the blue, is the existing fence that surrounds the property. It's 6 feet tall and it comes around up like this and then there's a green color.

M

This is from the existing fence, that's proposed to be removed and the pink color is an existing fence, or is it proposed new fence? So the proposed Adu would be screened and fenced in by this new fence and then as well as it's also buffered by Princeton, Avenue and the alleyway.

M

And then the closest closest house on the adjacent property is approximately 80 feet away, and you can see that there's a buffer of 45 feet from the South property line, 16 feet from the east and then 20 feet from the north and then just some images of the renderings of the ATU. This is proposed as fiber cement hardy board, and then this is the east elevation which is entrance, and then you can see the West elevation and so forth. South and North.

M

These are some images of the subject property, so this is the main residence on the property that proposed accessory dwelling unit would come back here behind this fence, and then this is the garage right here to actually be behind the garage so even further behind there. This is the front of the main house on the subject property.

M

Then this is where the garage is on the property right now and the fence to be removed is right here, where the accessory dwelling, when it would go, and then the new fence would follow this sidewalk line coming up to the garage, and then this is just another view showing from the garage which is about right here up into the main property and then just the context surrounding the site. This is a duplex that's located immediately across the street on Princeton Avenue north of the site.

M

This is the alleyway, so the accessory drilling it'll be about right here, buffered by the alleyway, and then we have a home, that's south of the property, and this is a garage that is across the alleyway to the east.

M

So, as far as public process goes, staff said not noticed to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposed the proposal, as well as provided notice to recognize community organizations which in this case was the East Liberty Park community organization. The applicant did attend one of their meetings and discuss their proposal and from what I understand there were no concerns. Besides just general questions about accessory dwelling units, but no concerns with this specific proposal. I mean your.

M

This was sent to me after the staff report was published, but you should have received a letter of support from the community council as well as I received two phone calls from neighbors in support of the proposal as well. So staff finds that the proposal meets the approval standards for conditional uses and we're recommending approval with the following conditions.

M

The applicant actually has revised the site plan so I believe it it's all the requirements. So the site plan was revised to meet requirements for other divisions that they will comply with the registration process, which she has already submitted. Receipts that show she's in in the process of going through the good landlord program and that this is just for the approval for the items discussed in the staff report and I'll. Take any questions.

M

Questions for Chrissie.

A

You the applicant here she is, why don't we have her come up.

A

State your name for the record and if you have anything you want to say in support of that or we'll ask you questions sure.

F

I'm Kerry Larson, thanks for having me yeah thanks for considering this ad, you I am planning to build it to house my mother, she's 70 years old.

F

She lives in Spokane Washington now and she moved up to Spokane to be by me and then I moved here about 12 years ago now, she's ready to retire and again wants to be by me, which is fantastic and, as we kind of talked about you know, she's been an in-home care for a long time and we kind of talked about that because she lives it on a daily basis and we wanted her close by me, but not with me and so, and then a neighbor told me that Salt Lake had approved the ad you processed through conditional use, and things like that.

F

So I was like. Oh my gosh. This is like a win-win because she can have her own space, her own independence, but be very, very close to me. She's very healthy and happy. You know now, but you never know what's gonna happen in the future. So that's the whole reason for wanting to build it at this time. So.

M

A

Questions any questions for the applicant I, don't see any so. Why don't you step back? Thank you, we'll open the public hearing on this item. Is there anyone from the Community Council here who would like to speak on this?

A

Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this item.

E

Yeah, so a a conditional use by law is a use that is, that sometimes may have an impact that is on adjacent properties. That is greater than what would otherwise be permitted, and they require a review to see if those, if there are any issues and if so, if those issues could those impacts could be reduced, and so that's why the City Council decided that ad use in single-family zoning districts should be conditional use.

E

So we could look to see what the impacts are and then decide if there are any and if there's any conditions that could be put on it.

E

That's correct yeah, so if right, both units could not be rented, they have to be occupied by an owner or relative of the owner. Basically,.

A

Seeing no one else who would like to speak on this item it do. What do you want to come up, come up to the microphone state, your name and then you can ask your question. Oh.

N

My name is robert marcum uh I, wasn't too clear about where the parking is and how much parkings provided could? Could somebody clarify.

O

M

So there's parking provided in the garage there's two stalls in the garage and then the parking.

O

M

Then there's parking that would be tandem so in front of the garage on the like on the pepper Cement pad in front of the garage.

O

M

The they have to have parking for the primary residence, which is two stalls and then one stall for the the accessory dwelling unit. And then there's also street parking up in front of the primary residence.

F

M

And then street parking.

N

M

Front of the property on Lake Street, there is a stall there too,.

M

You you so we also have. There is also street parking on Lake Street here.

F

M

Fire hydrants on the corner, so there is also enough room for a stall about right here.

M

Or opposite just.

P

M

P

A matter of protocol generally, we work I, guess we're in a friendly mood. Tonight, generally, we don't take questions from the comment from the public. The comments are supposed to be directed to the Planning Commission. If, if you have some specific questions, we need you to come to the microphone and ask a specific question and it'll be up to the Commission and staff as to whether we can answer that specifically.

F

P

To the microphone, please.

N

O

Adequate adequate parking for both the Adu and the original home. We.

A

Will take that under consideration and answer your question when we're done with the public hearing, okay and.

O

When will that be shortly,.

A

Okay, thank you.

A

Is there anyone else who wants to speak on this before I close the public hearing, seeing no one I will close the public hearing Chrissie since you're there? Is there adequate parking for this? Yes, so.

E

So by that answer, it complies with the parking requirements established in the ordinance for for an ad you.

A

Thank You Nick.

E

It is shown on the drawings yeah we can, after after staff can meet you in the hall and show you and go over the drawings with you and show you how they comply.

A

Okay, any we're bringing this back to the Commission. Any questions for Chrissie I'm.

D

A

Thank you, Matt.

D

Basically, fine, as Liston's fundings listed in the staff report, the information presented in the input received in the public hearing and move the Planning Commission approve conditional use, PLN PCM, 2019, zero, zero, four one, two four, the detached accessory dwelling unit ad you with the conditions of approval below final approval and details, noted on the following condition, shall be delegated planning staff and those and conditions. One two and three, as listed in the staff report. Thank.

A

You a second second Thank You Adrian, any discussion. Okay, we'll vote; Adrian, yes, Matt! Yes,.

D

A

Yes, Weston, yes and Carolyn agree.

H

A

Do you the conditional use is approved, thank you and you will go talk to this gentleman. Won't you, okay, we'll move on to our next item, which is a conditional use for Emerson ad. You Lauren.

L

Okay good evening, commissioners, so this is another conditional use request for a detached accessory dwelling unit to be constructed on the northwest corner of the property at 8:15 East Emerson shown here. This property is located southeast of Liberty Park and zoned r1 5000 single-family residential. Where ad use our conditional uses.

L

It should be noted that a building permit was recently issued for the construction of a single-family home on this site, but the conditional use that we're reviewing tonight is solely for the accessory accessory dwelling unit and not the single-family dwelling, that's being built now and you can see in this picture the Lots already under construction.

L

The eastern property line also runs through the center of this garage that you can see here, which will accommodate one parking spot within and then also a tandem parking spot in front of the this garage, and the new single-family home will also have an attached garage on it, and so there will be four parking spaces total so that meets the one space for the ATU and the two spaces for the single-family home.

L

So here's just a closer view of that north west corner of the lot where the ad you will be located kind of just next to the existing garage and then, as you can see, there is a church located just to the north of the site which the ad you will abut.

L

So here is the site plan. The proposed ad: you will have a footprint of approximately 427 square feet and has a lofted bedroom space. It will be set back from the rear property line four feet and from the interior or west property line four feet as well, and it will be 17 feet tall. So it meets the zoning for ad use.

L

And then here are the elevations of the proposed Adu, so the labels in red would be kind of the outer elevations facing the north are facing the church and then the west side faces the property to the west. Of course,.

L

So 80s are required to have obscured glazing on those outer walls facing the adjacent properties which this one will, as indicated with the dark coloring. The sleeping room window on the West elevation also cannot be any larger than necessary to comply with minimum building code standards and therefore it has been made a condition that this window on the West elevation be slightly reduced to meet this standard other than this staff does feel that the Adu generally meets the conditional use standards and is therefore recommending approval with those conditions listed in the staff report.

L

So please, let me know if you have any other questions.

A

Questions for Lauren right now, I have.

B

A couple questions that are, there might be just general Adu questions, so in order to be to qualify for an Adu, you have to supply two parking spots for the original singing event single family, or is that just a general rule in all single-family zones? No.

L

Just that this is a new single-family home being built and will have those two spaces. But when you're building an Adu, we just can consider the one spot for the ATU. Okay.

B

So that you mentioned in the previous edu, there was mentioned that there was a two parking spot requirement for the single-family unit. So I was just trying to understand that. So that's not I think no.

L

I was just trying to convey that there will be four spots on the site. Total got.

B

It okay and then the 17-foot height of the building. Is there I'm just trying to just trying to learn of.

L

B

So sometimes you know in this space and I'm just looking on the on the staff report, but they the kind of one and a half story, seems to be the standard and that you know, because we've got the street front require, or the street face requirement right where it's buildings can only be the height of the average of the street, face buildings or the height of the I'm, talking about the height and I'm and then went, but the ATU is seventeen foot flat top.

B

It feels like it's taller than well what what it is in the neighborhood generally. Is that not the case or is that it just? It just feels a lot more.

L

An ad you can be seventeen feet tall or the height of the existing home, whichever is less, and so in this case the proposed home is going to be twenty feet, and so they get the lesser which is seventeen but yeah there. There is an averaging, sometimes with height, for principle structures, but not for the ad you, okay,.

B

And is there any consideration for flat roofs versus pitched roofs, I.

L

Don't believe so it's just seventeen feet or the height of the house, whichever is less okay,.

B

H

Lauren, does this really mean all the window requirements? It looks like I can't imagine like there's really.

F

Why does the window on the West elevation have to be smaller? It's.

L

A window used for egress and it the height, is just a little bit too big a little bit too tall. So the minimum the window can't be any larger than the minimum necessary to meet aggress just to provide privacy for the, and this is for the outer facing walls, and so the dimensions are listed in the staff report, but the minimum height can can be 24 inches and it's a little bit taller than that. I think it.

F

L

F

Code actually wants blank walls along just.

L

Smaller windows, along facades, property outer facades.

D

No design requirements working on an ad you for material choices right.

L

Now believe so,.

A

Any more questions for Lauren is your applicant here.

A

Why don't we invite him up state your name for the record, and you have ten minutes I'll.

B

A

And then better, we'll ask you questions.

Q

G

Hair I'm, the owner and.

Q

My dad just turned 70 on June 30th, so he's also thinking about moving out here, and this would be the perfect place for him to chill out and be close to family cuz. My my brother actually just moved here from back east as well, so we found a lot and the city passed the ordinance, so we were pretty excited and I think we've been very sensitive to the neighbors and there's lots of parking. So any questions, questions.

A

For the applicant.

D

Walk me through the exterior exterior material you're, using on this. It's.

Q

B

Q

Siding vertical.

B

Is that design gonna match your single family at your building, yeah.

Q

Very similar, yes yeah, it's also a flat roof, 20 20 feet tall with metal and then cedar facing the street.

A

Anyone else I think that's everything, step back. Thank.

O

A

Alright, we'll open the public hearing on this item. Is there anyone from the Community Council.

A

Seeing no one anyone wait, wait, wait just a second anyone else, who'd like to speak you and do you want to speak now, you're the Community Council, which is a specific organization.

F

A

F

A

Would you like to come up to the microphone state? Your name and you'll have two minutes to say what you want to say.

F

My name is sue ellen Ebert's, I'm gonna have to talk really fast, then, okay, the metal siding, does not match anything in the community. We have bungalows everywhere on the whole street number two. There isn't a lot of parking. We struggle with parking as it is. There are many renters on the street, often there's an owner two people living as owners and two or three people living in the basement. There's one situation where there's the whole house is a rental and there's two people mainly renting in three additional renters.

F

So we have plenty and plenty of cars, I've spoken to other neighbors who elderly neighbors who are 80 plus, and they complain that when they go shopping, when they come back, they can't park in front of their own house. And then you know they can't carry their packages I'm a photographer, so I have heavy gear.

F

Often, and our driveway is very short, my truck doesn't fit down it so I have to park somewhere else. When there are parties all the owners on you know, a lot of the owners. Spaces are taken, so we have to think of. If there's one resident, often there's not just one car, we have, you know family visiting friends, there's another house where there are renters. There are three gals that are renting in there University students, and so they have a lot of friends.

F

They just moved in, and so often there are four or five cars in front. So I'm just using this as an example that we already have a parking problem, so I have two concerns. Summing up the parking and the facade that is very, very different from what we have on the whole street I know. That's already. The materials have already been ordered and that's already in the plan and I'm not asking for that to not be done.

F

I'm just stating that there are a lot of neighbors, complaining and they're not here tonight, but they asked me to give in convey that they're a little shy. Thank you. Thank you.

A

Sir, do you want to come up and say something I want you to stay state, your name into the microphone for the record and then you'll have two minutes. Yeah.

O

My name is Robert miner I live directly across the street from the the proposed dwelling and I've lived there for 45 years and my neighbors to the street from me here who she was just talking about over there 55 years and this morning, when I was leaving I noticed that they had put saw horses out in front of the house which they told me they were going to do, because when they leave to go to the market, there's no parking, so they they've taken hands the thing into their own hands, but after 55 years there.

O

Why should you have to continue to do that? Bottom line? Parking is the issue the house right next door to the development has more than the legally more occupants in it than that's legal and the one right next door to me. Also, a rental has more in it than as legally renter was supposed to be I'm, not a complainer other than the fact there's. Never any parking available, and- and so when I put my garbage out, I have to put it in the in the out out in the driveway, or else they won't pick.

O

It up because the cars are lined street the street, so as I was looking at this development, I know that our developer here he told me that he's got a double car garage in the front for for the house that he's building but I'm having a hard time understanding where the additional parking is for this additional unit that he wants to build.

O

The reason I asked that is I know he's got they split the garage so he's, probably counting one of the places in the garage and then one in front of the garage. The problem with that is. It appears to me that that is a shared driveway and who's gonna park. You know in front of their garage in the shared driveway when you can't, when you kind of have to maneuver it again and out so those cars are going to end up basically on the street right in front of.

A

His development, sir, that's your two minutes. I think we understand what your concerns.

O

Just been explained to you, there's a fire hydrant right there and then the driveway where he goes into his garage, so there will be no parking in front of his place. It'll all move to the neighbors. Thank you. Thank.

A

You anyone else wish to speak on this item.

A

Come up to the microphone state, your name and you'll have two minutes. My.

N

Name is robert marcum and I guess I have the same question as before. Is there adequate.

O

Parking for the house.

F

And the ad you on this site will.

A

Answer that question after the public hearing is over.

O

Okay, but but aren't you going to approve it before it's over, not.

A

The public hearing.

F

A

The public hearing is the public process, will close the public hearing and after that, we'll still have discussion and we'll have an opportunity to give you that information about the parking before we approve or disapprove. This.

F

Okay, thank you. Thank.

A

A

A

Okay, seeing no one will close the public hearing on this Lauren. Could you come back up and explain the parking plea.

L

Of course, so I've tried to highlight the parking and green here so for the house. They'll have two spaces in that front green box in the attached garage and then two spaces are required for the house and then for the ATU they're required to have one space and they can accommodate that within the garage towards the back of the lot, and they also have one tandem space in front of that and I've seen on another site plan R in rendition that the driveway will be kind of paved to the side.

L

So they might be able to park to the side a little bit there. Yeah.

H

Some Lauren I'm having trouble picturing, what's happening here so the picture, so the garage is underneath the new house, that's what I'm.

L

Not quite and there's a elevation of the single-family home in the staff report, yeah.

H

I thought that was the idea there.

L

They look similar, but if you look on.

H

L

H

That out to me just now so without that rendering, in the staff report, there's two parking stalls off street in the new house incorporated into that off of Emerson. Well,.

L

If you look on the South elevation, they have an attached garage on the ground level and there's two spaces accommodated there right.

H

So see and I thought that was the idea. So I was confused. Okay,.

L

H

Those two are the for the new house: they're not on the street they're a garage, yes and then the ad you will take this shared current garage space, so we're not taking any tandem with this shared driveway, because that's obviously you can't do that. So the ad will park in that garage space, the homeowners two cars will go correct.

L

Thanks you're welcome sorry for the confusion. That's.

A

Anyone else my.

H

Inability to read architectural Charles.

D

So this section just processing so tonight we're considering the conditional use side right to prove that the zoning standard piece you feel like it meets the zoning standards and so really for us, which the part, so the parking piece is a standard and it means yes, yes,.

F

D

Or no crescent, it's not like, we can really I mean I feel for the neighborhood in the area that has parking problems, but since they meet the standard, it's not like we're approving a house, but we're improving things. Special around parking is no condition applied to it exactly right, we're just they meet the standard. So we gotta move on, like that's, not one of the conditions that we can. Our findings that we can find is a problematic. That's.

E

D

E

With the parking requirement.

D

I with it, but it's not like it's not there's we came out of finding so that doesn't, and so it doesn't matter so what's before us today, really for the odd you know for who are here really on page 30, you know in 31 or 32.

F

The staff report.

D

I mean the one part about this project that I find more I, find the material to be rather weird, and it feels very out of place, but so is do you is? The house is also being built out of the same metal.

L

That's real exciting! That's.

D

Essentially, what it kind of looks like is like a warehouse or like or like a or a truck container right.

L

Metal and wood and there's some specs for the material within the staff report. I saw those yeah I.

D

Mean there is this condition within the staff report or a condition of approval that does or is it hold on? I found it a second ago.

D

Mass-Scale design and architectural detailing of the surrounding structures, if they were later not to the proposed structure and I, feel like the metal siding, doesn't because it's very unique and different for anywhere in the city or many residential stuff. But if the house is going in and that sort of same material mm-hmm, the house has been approved.

D

L

They have, they were issued, a building permit I.

D

Write under design there was no design or other standards that needed to be done. You.

L

D

It seems like that the house, with that style, is going into the neighborhood mm-hmm, regardless of what happens here.

D

Okay, that's my questions. Thank you. Okay,.

A

Any other questions for Lauren.

A

Anyone ready to make a motion I'll.

F

Make a motion: Thank You, Adrian,.

F

She showed the party.

A

Showed you where the party was and.

D

We also discussed that the parkings not part of the conditional use that were discussing today, I.

F

L

Discuss this too afterwards, if you like, there's.

F

E

Access from the driveway that you can see in that picture, which is a shared driveway, yeah.

F

Lauren, if you want to pull it back up, I'm, fine, holding, emotion and sure.

L

Can you see that long rectangular green box.

F

L

They actually subdivided the garage into two. So half of the garage is on the property to the east and then half of the garage is on this new property. So they have that space on their lot.

F

L

And they built a fire of wall in between the garage in order to be able to do that.

E

Yeah that met all of our requirements. The zoning ordinance does allow accessory buildings garages to to straddle a property line if they are split and their firewall protected.

E

A

Are you satisfied, sir?

A

Did we answer your question? Okay,.

O

A

We answered the question: Thank You, Adrian.

F

Based on the information in the staff report, the information presented and the input received during the public hearing I move that the Planning Commission approved, petition, PLN PCM 2019, zero, zero, three four nine four, the detached accessory dwelling unit conditional use with the conditions listed in the staff report.

A

A

B

I'll second Thank.

A

You Weston any more discussion.

A

Let's vote Adrian, yes, Matt.

D

I mean I I'm, not a fan of the general design, but given the houses there. Yes thank.

A

H

Of echo, Matt's sentiment, I really really wish. We had more input on design and materials to make them compatible with the neighborhood, but since that's not in our purview on this one. Although, yes thank you.

A

B

I'm also share the same hesitation. I do think that had some compatibility issues but I think that our hands are tied on it. So, yes thank.

A

You and Carolyn.

C

I, don't like the design either, but yeah.

A

Thank you. The conditional use is approved, Thank You Lauren. Thank.

L

A

Okay, we'll move on to our item number four, which is the Washington Street alley: vacation mayara.

R

All right, this is a request to vacate the alley north of the property located at 10:40 South Washington Street. The request was initiated by kevin theo belt, the property owner of the majority of the parcels abutting the alley.

R

This request is before you today, because an alleviation requests, the Planning Commission has a role in providing accommodation to the City Council and the City Council makes the final decision in regards to this particularly request planning staff is recommending the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to City Council, with the condition, listen and a staff report, the sub it subject. Alley is 15 feet wide and approximately 253 feet long. It runs west of Washington Street towards the UTA abandoned railroad line.

R

The alley has been fenced off and the applicant has been using it for his business, so he would like to vacate the alley to incorporate it into the adjacent properties. The applicant owns six parcels adjacent to the alley which are highlighted in blue in the presentation and his family owns another parcel shown in purple, bringing their ownership to a total of seven out of the a parcels abutting the alley.

R

The applicant justifies the request with the argument that the alley has not been used as a public right away for at least the past 20 years, and it attracts criminal activities and creates an unsafe condition.

R

In aerial photographs, we see that the property has indeed not being used as an alley. For several years. The last photograph found documenting the entire alley and obstructed was registered in 1997. The first picture over there between then and 2002. The West portion of the alley started being used for storage and by 2010. The entire alley had been completely occupied.

R

Also around 2010, a fence was installed on the east end of the alley where you see, if you can see that very well, but that car parked by Washington Street over there 90 degrees, the street, that's where the fence is and then later on, they fenced off the west end of that alley. This is what it looks like now.

R

Staff recognized that the fence on both ends of the alley and the encroachments that occurred over over time may have contributed to the lack of use of the right away. Staff also finds that the alley being closed off to public access is unlikely that the existing off the alley contributed to unsafe conditions. Other factors, other factors related to the existing conditions surrounding the alley, might have more to do with unsafe conditions than the alley itself.

R

However, the subject subject alley does not have a connectivity that is significant for pedestrian or vehicular connection in the city. The alley dead ends at an abandoned railroad line and the only connection to the alley is from Washington Street, which also dead ends 220 feet south of the alley.

R

Washington Street also feels more like a driveway and a parking area. As you can see in that picture over there, then a public right away.

R

Due to the nature of the abutting properties as well, which are located in a cg, the general commercial zoning district, we feel like the alley might not be used as a transportation connection or a urban design element. The cg zoning district is our most intense commercial district and is the closest in terms of use to the like manufacturing zoning district. The alley could be used for service and access to adjacent properties, but the current owner does not use it that way, since they have access from Washington, Street and Brooklyn Avenue.

R

Two of the properties are currently landlocked and their only access is through the alley. So we made a condition that to vacate the alley, those parcels would have to be consolidated with the abutting parcels.

R

The proposal to vacate the alley was presented to two community councils affected by the request, and they were both Lee generally in support of the request and staff has not received any other comments. Thank.

A

You any questions for staff right now.

B

So the master plan for the area just calls for it to continue its industrial use. Yes,.

A

Is your applicant here?

A

Why don't we bring him up state your name for the record.

A

N

A

Us why you want to do this? Okay,.

N

My name is Kevin Theobald I own all of those buildings, with the exception of 1026, which blunts my neighbor. However, he has he is in support of it and he has signed off on it.

N

The reason we're asking for the city to vacate it is we're getting to the retirement age and what we I think. What we're gonna do is try to sell the whole parcel.

N

Hopefully, there's some developers for some low-income housing or something like that and the alley divides at and also there's a detox, the Oh a detox center across the street and it's a real good possibility. I've talked to them, they're kind of after it for the receiving area and stuff for patients and stuff like that. So there's there's a chance of that, but that's the main reason, the other. The other reason is yeah.

N

We put up the fences long time ago, we've been on the 10:50 side for 45 years, nobody's ever used it, and in about last 20 years, as the neighborhood's kind of deteriorated, we've seen a lot of transients and undesirables in there.

N

So and plus we used it for storage, obviously, but my employees have to go back and forth from 269 to 1050 and we've seen quite a few things in there and a little bit of it was for safety, and we found all kinds of stuff in there before you know fence it off from you know: undesirables I guess for lack of a better word, and so that's basically why we we'd like to you guys to consider it. Okay,.

A

Thank you any questions for the applicant okay, you can step back. Thank you. Thank.

F

A

So we'll open the public hearing on this item. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on this item?

A

Seeing no one I'll close, the public hearing bring it back up to the Commission. Do we need to have staff? Come back up someone ready to make a motion yeah.

H

I didn't have a question for staff. Okay, so, on this UTA light rail transit corridor is, it might be out of your realm of knowledge, but is this they still own that easement, even though it's not being used right? What he's.

A

Meant I know: I UTA probably owns that because.

H

A

A bunch of railroad tracks from right.

H

So they still own that, yes, okay and we don't know if what their future plans are for to keep it. So it rip it out utilize it. The.

E

City's master plan long term calls for a the light rail to have a downtown bypass. So this corridor is one of those potential locations for it that rail court, Bend and rail quarter.

A

Anything else so.

B

The applicant suggested that he wanted to sell it to a developer, to develop some housing there, which would kind of speak differently to my question about its long-term uses and industrial use and I I would hate to have the applicant talk me out of what he wants, but I would say that if it's, if it's going to be a use outside of industrial use, I I could see the potential need for access like that to break up those blocks and break up larger buildings. Long term be an actual asset to that area.

B

So can maybe can you speak to the I mean? Is that a possibility outside of the master plan too I mean I I? Don't really know, though,.

R

Any use that is permitted in the CG CG zoning district would be allowed and I believe that multifamily is allowed in the CG, but it the light. Industrial warehouse outdoor storage is also permitted use in the CG. So it.

B

Could be housing, it.

R

Could be houses.

B

B

A

Any discussion any more questions you somebody want to make a motion.

A

Bang Seadrill.

F

A

F

On the findings and analysis and the staff report, the policy considerations for our vacation and the input received I moved with the Planning Commission forward. A positive recommendation to the City Council for the Ahly vacation proposed in PLN PCM 2019, zero, zero, four zero zero, but the conditions listed in the staff report as second.

A

Any additional discussion.

A

K.Will vote: Adrian; yes, Matt. Yes,.

P

A

No WestEd, no Carolyn, yes,.

A

P

We need for in order to have a majority of the quorum, so this is where the chair gets to vote. Okay,.

A

I'm gonna vote. Yes,.

A

You got your vacation.

E

Well, not yet City.

A

Council goes to the City Council. Sorry, it goes to the City Council, but we we recommend it for it.

A

Will go to the last item on the agenda tonight? Is the zoning map amendment and 1937 south 1200 East's.

F

F

K

Okay good evening we're.

D

Good great thanks for asking.

K

Okay, this is in regards to zoning map amendment and it is 1937 south 1200 east.

K

The summary of this petition is the applicants is seeking to amend the zoning map for the subject parcel from RMF 35 to RMF 45, and the reason is the applicant also owns the adjacent parcel to the south. That is owned. Rmf 45 and the requested change would facilitate consolidation and future development of the parcels at a higher density than it's currently allowed and with us I'll just explain a little bit about the neighborhood and what's going on here in this area. So this map gives an overview of what we're talking about.

K

It's located right on 1200 East in the middle of the image there and you can see the red box, which is where the subject parcel is located. 12 teast! If you go south, you can see it's right near 2100 south and then, if you go north, you can see where the Westminster campus begins and it's also in between 11th, east and 13th east. So just kitty-corner from about where this is is the sizzler and Liberty Park right there in that area, and this area is a very unique neighborhood.

K

It's diverse and it's very close to the business district there in sugarhouse and I say diverse I'm, talking mostly about building types that are found here with many different types of multi-unit buildings, mixed in with single-family dwellings, as well as some businesses, churches and schools. Different things such as odd and as I mentioned previously. The subject parcel is currently within the 30, the RMF residential multi-family 35 zone, but it abuts the RMF 45 zone to the south.

K

You can see the different colors there on the map, and so the client is owning those parcels that are zoned differently and he's seeking to change the RMF 35 up to the arm of 45 zone, and with this it shows some of the diversity I was speaking about in the previous slide. This is looking north from 2100, south and right down there at the bottom of the street is the jiffy lube and then, as you move up the street, you can see the very tall tower.

K

That's right there, which is owned by the applicant, that is the Irving Heights building.

K

That's a tall building I think it's probably between about 75 to 8 to 80 feet in height, and it has 7 stories if I'm remembering correctly, everything from their South, except for the Jiffy Lube is multifamily buildings and it's the same for the other side of the street, which is most of the urban schoolhouse development and then on the other side, there's some single-family homes and then there's more multi-unit development, and this map on the right is just meant to point out some of the development density. That's in the area.

K

Those numbers represent number of units per acre on these sites that are multi-unit developments and, as you can see here, the there's several different multi-unit developments that are readily apparent in the area in different zoning districts. It's mostly the are about 35 zoning district, which is up in the oranges, color and then the purple color is the arm of 45, with the point being that the red box, that's enclosed, is the two parcels that they would like to consolidate and develop on under their proposal.

K

If it were switched to RMF 45 the maximum density that could be allowed, there would be 34 units per acre, which is actually on the low end of all the other developments that are in the area, they're already multifamily, and then this shows specifically sorry about that. I'm, not sure what happened to to that view. But anyway, this is the house that we're seeing right there. That blue house is the subject parcel in 1937, south 1200 east and then you're, seeing the Irving Heights building right there and then the lower photo 1961 style, 1200 East.

K

That is just a parking space right now, which is overflow parking for Irving Heights they've got plenty of parking on their own parcel without using the separate parcel, and so what they're proposing is combining these two parcels and building on that, and this is just showing the current versus the proposed zoning standards and what could happen? What could change potentially by allowing the up zone right now? The major changes is the height in the RMF. 35 would be a maximum of 35 feet that could potentially go up to 45 feet with the zone. Change.

K

The setbacks would vary slightly, there's a little bit of difference there, but not a whole lot, and the major issue is the density according to the applicant they're, seeking this mostly for the change in density, because here you can see the dynamic change. If both of those were consolidate, our MF 35 parcels, you could only allow 10 units if they were consolidated and built out under the RMF 45. Then you could allow up to 19 units we're not focusing on it and we're not doing it.

K

We're not we're not reviewing it at this time, but the applicant after getting some initial public feedback put together a conceptual plan.

K

Their conceptual plan is showing 18 units and only going up three storeys, so they're they're, saying that they're not going for height and that they're just trying to get more units in there I'm sure that they may have a little bit more to say about that when they make their presentation and to summarize staff is recommending the Planning Commission forward a favorable assessment to the city council, because the RMF 45 standards would provide for a project. That's compatible with the established development pattern of the immediate neighbourhood.

K

This isn't a project that would be very different from a lot of the other established multifamily units that are there. The potential maximum density would be less than majority of the other multifamily developments in the area. It's a prime location for additional density based on transit access, proximity to retail and outdoor amenities and the existing development pattern and three different master plans, plan salt lake, the sugarhouse master plan and growing SLC all support the proposed zoning change.

A

Any questions for Chris right now.

F

Chris, can you talk me through your analysis of the sugarhouse master plan and how it, in your opinion, it supports the proposed zoning change? Yes,.

K

Definitely let me go to where I've written out a lot of this, so the sugarhouse master planned.

K

One thing that it talks about is, you know, I'm looking specifically the future land use map to start off with the future land use map is aligned with the current zoning as it is, the RM f-35 zone is zoned right now as medium density, residential, which is calls for 8 to 20 units per acre and then right next door. On that same parcel that we're talking about which is RMF 45, it is zoned for medium high density residential, which is 20 to 50 Welling units per acre, but with us it was interesting.

K

Looking at you know the master plan and what what it's calling out it mentions that.

K

Sorry, the medium high density residential section states that, although medium high density high, although medium high density is not a prevalent land-use in sugarhouse, it is appropriate. The community have some higher density housing. The density range for this land-use categories from 20 to 50 dwelling units per net acre higher density residential development within or on the periphery of the sugarhouse business district is desirable. This is on the periphery of the sugarhouse business district and examples of zoning districts think can be used to implement.

K

This density are CS, HB d, ro, RM, f, 35 and r MF 45. It specifically is calling for this density in either the RM f 35 or the RM f 45 zone. So it is staffs opinion almost that the way that they've got the zoning or the density, the future land use map they're right now on the RM f 35. According to this, it shouldn't be medium density. It should be medium high-density because it is saying that it medium high-density should be in the RM, f 35 zone or the arm at 45 zone.

K

So that's that's one element of it and then the other thing is it calls out specifically in different places. You know where this kind of development where it should occur and how it should be. It talks about fitting in with the existing development pattern, which it certainly does in this area, with all of the other existing multifamily dwellings that are in the area multifamily buildings.

K

Also, it calls out easy access to the business district, which it definitely has as well as to community amenities such as you know, obviously, everything that can be found in the business district park, which is very close, green space and then also there's very easy access to transit, which is readily available on 21st South, 13th East, even down on 11th east.

F

N

You're welcome.

A

Any other questions for Chris.

A

Sure applicant here, yes.

K

And he gave me a zip drive. Let me see if I can get this plug if.

A

We could make it work right.

K

Okay, you guys should.

A

State your name for the record. Yes,.

S

Thank you. My name is Ned skanky I'm, the applicant Darrin mono is the architects. Okay,.

A

You'll have ten minutes: okay,.

S

Well, thank you so much and I appreciate your your service here and I appreciate the staff, isn't a great job analyzing this time and obviously spent a lot of time on this project. I appreciate the input from the neighborhood. We have tried to be go to community council meetings and discuss with them our project.

S

While he's doing that, I'll just give a little context, I'm on on Who I am so sugarhouse is an important place to me. Our family is owned property in sugarhouse for I'm, a third generation now and I raised my kids on Douglas streets, I, still own a condominium there and I office in the Irving Heights apartment, so I'm on the street daily. So the long-term viability and success of sugarhouse is very important to me. Grew up sweeping the gutter in front of the buildings and mowing lawns there.

S

So so we are committed to the long-term viability, we're not just developers looking to make a quick buck. Chris has done a great job.

S

Talking about the background of this area, as he mentioned, the the area is currently zoned multifamily. The intent of the area is to house density, I think what our thought is is we'd like to keep density where its intended to be rather than trying to go and affect single-family neighborhoods and make additions there. So our goal is to use the multifamily zonings more efficiently, so we're already zoned multifamily to the south of us.

S

Everything is multifamily to the north of us there's four more multifamily buildings, so under the current zone- and this is what I would share is this is currently by right what can be developed on the site? We could do a 35-story building on one lot and a 45 storey building on the next. They would face north and south parking lot in the back and have two curb cuts.

S

So what we would like to do and what the reason we're wanting to move forward with a rezone is a few reasons. One, the the dent upping the density is is helps us from a development standpoint to do it a better product. But the second reason there are two is when we went and met with the Community Council, not that yeah the community council. We got only two pieces of feedback and one was affordability. Originally we talked about doing townhomes on this site and they had been large, 2-bedroom townhomes but not affordable for working-class.

S

So we went back and looked at our unit mix. We've we've addressed our unit mix. We've have some studios, they'll, be more affordable, one bedrooms and two bedrooms so trying to address some affordability. It's not a low-income housing project. We don't have any financing through that program, we're just trying to be affordable by design with our intent.

S

Secondly, by consolidating the light the lot it allows us to activate the street 1200 East is a great pedestrian street right now we will be removing a parking lot in a single-family home and we'll be replacing it with a building that faces the street. It addresses the street in a positive way. It'll eliminate two additional curb cuts, because we will use the same access that the Irving Heights building has. So we are limiting curb cuts on 1200 East, more pedestrian-friendly, we're also improving the pedestrian experience by having a nice building there.

S

So the concerns that have come up are generally and I, get changes, hard and I appreciate. Then people don't like change, but generally the the concerns that have come up. As I mentioned, the community council had addressed affordability. Another big issue has been the traffic. Now the the traffic engineer, the transportation engineers have looked at this project in this application and have had no comment to confirm that there will not be a significant impact to parking on this site.

S

Our proposed plan has more parking than is required, so we want to help eliminate on street parking we're required to have 24 based on our concept here, this site has 27, so we have an additional three parking stalls for the site.

S

Again, we feel like it fits with the development pattern. We're committed to a good project in sugarhouse, I think that what we have proposed here is significantly better than the project that we could build by it, built by Wright currently and drastically improves the activation in the street, the pedestrian accessibility and, if we're gonna, do density, let's do it where it's intended to be in these multifamily zones. Our intent is not in effect to go in and spot zone to take away any single-family zonings.

S

It's just saying: can we use the multifamily zones more effectively as it fits with the the plan, so I hope you'd support this plan again. For a few reasons, one help us address the the need for more housing and affordable housing by design to create a better pedestrian experience and a more pedestrian friendly Street, and then to keep density where we need density to be.

A

Any questions for the applicant what's.

D

The height on your proposed we're.

S

Proposing that the building be 35 feet, so we would anticipate staying within the arm of 35 height restriction.

S

A

Other questions for the applicant okay: why don't you go ahead and step.

D

How many, how many units are on that Southside so.

S

The total project will have 19 units. Do you want to weigh in on their currently.

Q

18 18 showing right now suit, so we kind of split it up into two buildings to break down the mass and each one has three units per floor and three floors so that so each of them have nine units. So.

D

But the southern just has nine units other.

Q

Than correct yeah well, it would be combined into one parcel, so it would be one project, one building technically, but we're splitting that a little bit to get light into all of the units and and to just break down the mass a little bit. So the southern half of the building would have nine units, the northern half that building would have nine units and.

S

We did try and address massing here so instead of coming in with just one block building Darren was great. He split the buildings in two from the street view you're looking at this, and you think it could potentially just be four townhomes, so we're trying to address that transition from a high density to the south to a lower, more residential des designation to the north couple.

Q

Other things we've done is to put the ground floor, entrances on the street itself to activate that street front, so that it's not just people entering from a parking lot. So so they have some sort of dialogue with the street and also that that separation between in the middle of the building is becomes a walkway from the parking lot to the front for those people on the ground Florida to access, but also as a way to get to the parking from the street.

D

Between the two lots.

D

Your poll 5.8 acres,.

S

Over half an acre, we're point like two five on one end point combined.

D

For solid a tanker, Oh, God, okay, it's.

S

All I ever half an acre, so Kristin mentioned there'd, be like 34 units per acre. We don't have an acre or half an acre, so the only there's, only nine additional units we'd be approving here, essentially.

F

You look at any design alternatives where you're not you're, consolidating a lot, but not changing the zoning.

S

So we we have playing around with a few different ideas as well: yeah, I think when we run into so. If we kept, we have to have the same zoning to consolidate the Lots. If we do an RMF 35 zone for both that there's a potential for that, it would reduce the number of units and it does affect kind of our ability to develop the site. It.

Q

Also affect the ability to affordably, because you have fewer units that would be larger as opposed to more units that some of them could be studios. The.

S

Alternative on, if we did an existing zoning, for example, we work, we do fewer units, but you would do larger units and and the affordability is affected there and then the potential for those to turn into rented rooms, and things like that goes up. So we're trying to we're trying to. We feel as be a do it a smart development appropriate for the area here.

Q

In order to combine them into one parcel, they have to be the same zone, so we'd have to go either to the 35 or the 45, or do what Ned showed at the very beginning and do two separate parcels which would each have to have their own curb cuts and parking lots.

F

A

Any other questions for the applicant right now.

A

Okay, why don't you step back? Thank.

S

A

And I'll open the public hearing on this item, someone from the Community Council here.

A

Thanks Judy you'll have five minutes.

C

Judy short sugarhouse community council, we did our usual process where we notified the neighbors and we had a number show up and so you've seen attached to my letter. We have email comments and comment cards that were filled out at the meeting. I think the biggest objection we heard had to do with traffic and parking and I appreciate what Chris is saying about the master plan and all the density that it calls for.

C

I was thinking back to the days when we worked on that plan and who would have thought sugar house would look like it looks today. This seems like a pipe dream to me, but but there's other impacts because of the intensity of the development. All over the business district people cut through neighborhoods 13th east people cut through. You know they try to avoid that neighborhood. So they come down the side streets on 12th east people cut through because they don't want to go to the 21st and 11th intersection.

C

Traffic is backed up there many times of the day, maybe not at 3 o'clock and maybe not at ten.

F

C

The rest of the time it's pretty well bumper-to-bumper and so the overflow parking the neighbors are telling us. They don't feel like it's safe to walk from their house, which would be probably Ramona, a12 east area to the business district for fear they get run over by a car. That's speeding down their street, trying to get somewhere so I think there's other impacts around the neighborhood than just.

C

Is this the right zone in the right parcel I, I Drive that Street, frequently and I know that at 8 o'clock at night every every parking space on the street is packed. That tells me that all the parking lots for all those buildings are also packed.

C

They're gonna take out the parking lot at 1960. The picture shown in the staff report shows seven or eight cars parked there and I bet that was taken at ten o'clock or noon. My guess is at night it's full. So where are those twelve or fifteen cars gonna park if the streets already packed so I?

C

Think that's the basis for I mean I, understand what the master plan says, but there's also a quality-of-life issue, and is that worth adding another building to just increase six more units than he could build if I built the zoning stayed the same I'm, not sure there is. Thank you. Thank.

A

You I have a card from lynch. Warts are you here there you work.

A

Introduce yourself and you'll have two minutes.

A

To get taller pull the microphone down there, you go.

F

Lin Schwartz land use and zoning committee sugarhouse Community Council the staff report discussing consideration to compatibility States quote. Although fewer areas in sugarhouse are suitable for medium high-density housing, it should be considered where feasible, unquote. It seems feasibility is an elastic concept and it can clearly not be said to describe sugarhouse now, which leads to significantly increased congestion. Already.

F

The staff report also states quote the development objective for new medium high-density projects is to locate and design the new projects so that land-use conflicts with surrounding single-family, housing or other uses are minimized. Unquote, adding 18 more units will exacerbate congestion and traffic issues already expressed by several residents during the land use and zoning committee meeting. Concerning this proposed zoning change. It is already a saturated neighborhood and without additional parking spaces, it is difficult to know how this would not add to congestion.

A

Thank you. I have two cards here from people who don't want to speak, but they had a comment: one from Laura Fisher.

A

She said the rezone she's in support of the rezone rezone promotes smart urban infill in a pedestrian friendly neighborhood near transit, retail and offices. Salt Lake needs housing in these types of neighborhoods to reduce smog and traffic. I have another comment from Alan skanky. He said he feels this rezone makes better use of. The lot will improve the area and the neighborhood. Currently a parking lot and an old house. He feels the project will add the right kind of density where it already is allowed.

A

Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to speak on this? Sir? Why don't you come up state? Your name for the record and you'll have two minutes.

Q

My name is Joe wolf and Barger. I live in the neighborhood, live on Westminster Avenue and 1231 East. My largest concern with this is in is the traffic impact I, don't know how you can not plan on additional vehicles and traffic being there. We heard earlier in this in this meeting that it's difficult to rent an apartment, if you can't, if you don't, have two parking spots per apartment there they're already below that in their plan and I, think this is just going to exacerbate the problem that already exists.

Q

If I will agree that their design looks better than a lot of the multi-family housing units in that neighborhood. But we shouldn't let past mistakes from previous Planning Commission's that what they've allowed to go on. We need to address them as they. You know what we can do right now and unless we are planning on ways of handling 21st, South, 11th, East, 13th, East and making them more able to handle the amount of traffic. That's already there. I can tell you from living there, my kids as they grew up.

Q

They didn't play in the front yard they played in the back yard because of the traffic our dog. It's you can't. You can't have a normal family experience as it is right now and I, don't I, just don't think we should continue. Moving on with that, I think that the nine units is is fine, I think it's fine I think that there's plenty of additional space they own the the applicant already owns buildings there they can. They can do more with that. Thank.

A

You anyone else come up state your name for the record into the microphone and you'll have two minutes. I'm.

T

Skylar rest at all, I live next door to my friend, Joe and I I think. Similarly, my biggest concern is the traffic. You can change this zone to a zone, 45 wait that doesn't magically fix, 12th Street, a 1200 1200. It doesn't magically fix 1100, which backed up all the way to nearly half a mile. Just at like 5:00 p.m.

T

at a traffic light, it doesn't fix the seven potholes that are in the intersection of 21st and 11th right now, with just the normal use that we have currently and there's also three to four large apartment buildings. Coming up a block away. There's gonna be a lot more demand in this small area that was designed for originally medium density, 35 homes, smaller homes as well. There are all two-lane roads. How are we accommodating these larger and larger buildings when they're we already are struggling as it is?

T

It just seems like a little rushed in trying to change what exists now before we have the infrastructure in place to really make this safe and comfortable and livable and I would also hate to see the charm of sugar house crumble away, like the roads are crumbling.

A

Thank you there. Anyone else in the audience come on up.

A

And say your name for the record and you'll have two minutes: hey Andrew,.

T

Scan gee I'm in favor of this project I think that so the concerns that have been raised, I grew up, went to Highland High School when lived in this neighborhood. The concerns that have been raised, truck traffic I think that's best left to traffic engineers and I've dealt with many development projects. Where lay people discussed traffic and I understand that it can appear to be congested, but generally traffic engineers, as a city, has professionals who look at these types of issues and make determinations as to whether traffic is appropriate.

T

They're only adding eight additional units here, which is a more efficient, better design than what I think is allowed under existing zoning. Even though it's more density, it would be fewer.

T

Probably just in many units are probably just as many residents in the place. The other thing that parking has been raised. The applicant will need to comply with all parking requirements, regardless of what's built, so the parking is will be what it may and would be met according to city standards. So I, don't I feel like that.

T

It's an issue that should be addressed later on once the applicant actually has the proposal coming forward to it's going to be developed there, but I guess my biggest issue is this: is the right place to build density sugar houses where, if we want salt like to have housing near transit near retail, near offices, if we want to reduce the smog, we want to build housing where there's public transit, where people can walk and be in a neighborhood without having to commute from Bluffdale or Harriman?

T

We want density in the right near beds, and this is the right neighborhood for it. Thank you. Thank.

A

You anyone else in the audience, come on up state, your name for the record Roger.

I

Burge I I'm, the owner of the property actually directly.

P

To the east of the existing curving heights project and I was actually talking to Ned I know Ned, I I. Consider him a friend the applicant about the the impact is specifically the parking, and maybe it's just best than Ned answers. The question we were in the middle of it about my concern is just simply the increased in traffic. That's going behind my property I was asking him. Is there going to be some separation between the existing irving heights project and the new proposed one?

P

A

This point he doesn't have a project for us, then.

P

I would ask that there be some kind of condition to take to take into account property line owners that are on the east side of the project like mine, where now we're going to have, we've got already an existing parking lot back there and there's going to be now an additional parking lot for a multi-unit, whereas now there's just a single-family home right there. So that would just be my only.

J

Comment: okay,.

A

A

A

Get to the microphone a couple.

T

Of things they mentioned transit we actually we don't have a tracks, I think we would love attracts, but we don't, and so it's they're still gonna be driving downtown they're still gonna be driving to work. It's unrealistic to say that this is an environmental benefit or that this is going to be effective, transit, wise and then to maybe, if they want to come to us more and talk with us about solutions to fixing the traffic. Maybe we'd be amenable to it.

T

Talking about ways to reduce driving through that Street, but we haven't done that yet, and I just feel like rushing to get. This done is going to cause a lot more problems now, rather than working with the community. I know, they've done a lot and I appreciate that, but a little bit more to be more smart about how they're doing this. Okay, sorry.

A

Are you done okay,.

A

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak, I? Think I think we get everybody in the room now seeing no one I'll close the public hearing on this, bring it back up to the Commission.

A

Do we want staff here cave staff? Please Chris! Do you want the applicant up here? Okay, the applicant please come up. I know. Amy has something she wants to share so we'll let Amy take the floor so.

H

Full disclosure to everyone, I live three doors down from this project, I've not participated in anything. The Community Council did I haven't spoken to any of my neighbors, specifically to ensure that I did not have to recuse myself from this meeting so I've, but I've paid obviously special attention to it. So one of the questions I have for you Chris is because just my head is depending on a lot of things. What is the current? The current density, if it was RM f-35, is 8 to 20 correct. That's.

K

H

K

What that's, what that's, what the future land use map recommends. That's for that zone, so.

H

It seems if you're doing 19 18 units you would meet the density for an RMF.

F

H

F

H

So really the question to me as I've been thinking about this for a long time is what is the density, the proper density that this neighborhood can realistically absorb? I've lived there 22 years, there's only been two new developments in that time one was Irene schoolhouse, which is about 20 years old now and the other one. Was the sugar house apartments directly across that Street by jiffy lube.

H

The difference in the impact of those two I find interesting, because Irving schoolhouse is much larger, but that came a long time ago before the reduced parking requirements in Austria parking was ample. When sugar house apartments went in, they got a reduced parking requirement because of the proximity to transit and off-street parking became virtually non-existent at night.

H

So typically, I will count about five spots open at night along all of 12th east on the upper part of Ramona, where I live so I'm also curious net and, firstly, I want to say I want to just applaud you. You've been a great neighbor. Irving Heights has bought that apartment across the street.

H

I have nothing but positive things to say about your relationship and how much you do care about the neighborhood, so I just want to put that out there to you, because you've been your family has been a wonderful component to that neighborhood and keeping it up captain and whatnot. So when I came, I had to go home before the meeting for my dogs and when I left at 5:00, there were 15 cars parked in your overflow parking. So realistically, then those 15 cars are then also going to be fighting for that off street parking.

H

That is at night non-existent because, as the parking behind are being pretty much taken at night.

S

Yeah I guess. Let me comment on that. So recently we on the Irving Heights property. We reconfigured our parking lot so that we would have sufficient for that building with the elimination of this other building the on 1200. The parking lot that's on 1200 is a is a compliment. It's a rental! You rent a covered space there. We also have covered spaces on the back of the lot.

S

The brand new there have solar panels on top, but they're more expensive. So we do have people opting not to park behind our building currently, but in.

H

How many spots are available for rental behind Irving? That's a time.

S

I think we have I mean I think we may have well yeah I think we have honestly 10 to 15 space in the back. That are not rented that are open because.

H

I think one of the questions and one of the standards for this density question is adequate off street parking, which right now really does not exist, and so you know we were just talking about people I think we can handle this density right.

B

H

Personally, live in they're 22 years have no problem, walking I. Think the traffic is fine, I think we're it. It is impactful is then on the major streets which you know. If somebody actually wants to try to bypass those two intersections going through our neighborhood they'll. Do it once mhm cuz they'll realize it's not that easy to get in and out, but it is a struggle for those of us who live there to make a left-hand turn and it's exacerbated at the moment because of the closure of 13 deist.

H

But you know we're not just talking about people because we're talking about cars, and so, if you are gonna, do 18 units that would be attentionally be 36 cars. If we were talking to cars a unit and.

S

H

Providing 27 and then we're also losing were 15. People were parked, I, don't even know how many you have rented. It wasn't full, but at 5 o'clock 15 people were parked there, all of whatever excess for your potential development to what those people that then, would be displaced from the parking lot in question. There's nowhere for them to go on 12th east, because there's just not this. The room and I heard for me parking on the street. Is it's public street I? Don't care if you live there, you're visiting you're going to school.

H

I, don't have a right to park in front of my house, but other people don't share that opinion in the neighborhood and so there's the perspectives of everyone to try to put in there. So there's not anywhere for them to overflow and right now, school's out when Westminster is in session further north, that's fully taken by students. So how? How do you propose to make these things compatible so because, right now, I'm feeling like we have enough density?

H

We have plenty of density and in many respects this pocket neighborhood has has met its share of density because we have so many diversity from for unit for apartment, complex to Irving, schoolhouse.

S

H

And so we've in a way, we've done a lot of our part. So how am I going to reconcile if I wanted to support this of what that impact to the off street parking is going to be because it's going to be substantial, given your units you're proposing and the displacement of the people parking right now and where are they? How are you going to manage that because there's nowhere for them to go mm-hm.

S

H

The other question then Chris I mean one of the things in is because I've lived in DC, where you were lucky to park three blocks near where you lived, but is that? Where we want to be headed, because that's kind of the scenario where we're setting the foundation for is that you can't park anywhere near where you live? You have to go two streets over well.

K

The the way I can answer that is I put this out to other departments to review, one of which was transportation.

H

Transportation.

K

Came back with absolutely no concerns about this, they feel like it is a street that can handle the load and they're meeting all the parking standards and they had no concerns about it.

H

Yeah and that's that's partly I think this is a really good case- study of the difference between those kind of ideals of what weeks we hope for because we're close to transit and then the reality of what's happening and seeing that the the two major developments, the difference of impact from Irving's schoolhouse to shore house apartments and and the reduced requirements set for Shore house apartments and how that then completely took all over off street parking. The difference was night and day between those two developments.

H

This is that's a hard one because it meets I think it meets the load and traffic flow, but it there's no off street parking available at night and and they're meeting their requirements, but we're now going to be displacing potentially 25 cars, maybe more it.

K

Would be my guess- and you know it's pure speculation, but I would imagine that you know the reason that we are encouraging. Development in multifamily zones such as us is because they are closer to transit, and it seems that this is purely cool. Colloquial and I. Don't have stats on this, but it seems that more people are seeking to live in these areas specifically, so they can transition a way for us away from owning a car and using a car full time using transit and maybe a combination of other transportation options. Yeah.

H

I wish that was actually happening on the ground. I have another question for you Nick. So obviously the majority of these multifamily units were built 40 50 60 years ago, before zoning. So when the zoning happened to do RMF, 35 45 I mean this is like you want to throw the dice on a zoning and go to this neighborhood and you'll find six different zones.

H

What was the rationale for creating that zone? Is it we're gonna create this zone, because this is pretty much typical of what's already here on the ground versus any future use, because that seems to be how some of that played out yeah.

E

You're talking the RMF zones.

H

E

Particular so my understanding of it back in the mid 90s is that the RMF zones were were created in response to what was seen at the time has density was bad for the city. So if you, if you look at the history of the city from 1960 to 1990, we we lost close more than 20% of our population, so we had 30,000 people move out of the city, and our population went from 190,000 160,000.

E

One of the response that the city had at the time was well. If people want to live in the suburbs, our zoning should match what people are looking for in the suburbs, and so we started to amend our zoning ordinance and basically come up with suburban standards. As a result, we have a long-standing expectation that that's what we should be as a city. Our master plans that we have done unless over the last 15 or 20 years have started to switch that and recognized that we need to change what we've been doing.

E

We can't continue to to grow in a matter that is auto oriented for a number of reasons which I think everyone in this room understands impact has an air quality, the lack of the the cost to maintain even our existing right of ways with how big they are and how wide they are, and the inability to build new roads I. Don't think that the city has any interest in coming through and, for example, widening 2,100 South to add lanes in taking out properties.

E

I, don't think anyone really wants to see that happen, and so the what the result of all that is that something has to give, and we either need to recognize that there are certain areas of the city that can support more density because of what is there? Yes, it does mean that there's going to be increase in traffic, more competition for parking and all of those things all of those things do end up, leading to supporting more transit and I know that people don't really like to hear it.

E

But when it's easy to drive a car people are going to drive a car when it's harder to drive a car, there's gonna be less people driving, and that is what's happened and most cities, not just in the United States that have made changes, but that in around the world, and that it's one of the natural progressions of cities is to have that competition for parking as we grow and develop, because we can't, particularly with our geologic conditions, we can't. We can't continue to go out.

H

So that's just gonna be a sticking point is I, don't feel like. We have currently adequate street parking to support additional that type of density, because it's not just the density that you're proposing with what would be new, but also the cars that you're displacing, who will still live in the area because they live it every nights and it was odd because I was walking down the street with my dog the same day.

H

I got the postcard in the mail for this project and I was thinking, I, told theses, really almost its capacity for density and then I got this postcard. So this is a little question. That's long been on my mind and I. Don't I, don't know how to reconcile this because I'm not necessarily opposed to bringing more people into my pocket neighborhood, but the parking is at capacity and how do we? How do we rectify that?

H

How do we reconcile this and how do we make because we're not just talking about yours I'm, also including who who's getting displaced and there's just not at night, there's not parking for them. So what? What could you do? I mean- and it would be above and beyond what you're required, and that's that's the sticking point, because you're meeting the requirement you're going over it for three stalls, but yet it's I think we saw in reality how that did not.

H

It didn't work for sugar house apartments because then Austrian Parkin became non-existent, whereas before it was really abundant. So it's not that I want to put the burden on you, I'd love, to put it back on, share house apartments, but but but I don't know where, where those people are gonna go, how we're going to accommodate them with Atticus adequate Street parking, which is which is a component of, is this density correct for this location.

S

I think the way I could respond, and partially this is due to our long-term investment in sugarhouse is we would be a very open to exploring. You know whether we add additional bike parking and open like they do. Bike stations would be open to looking at that.

S

We have seen an increase in renters who don't have cars and I think what Nick was saying is starting to happen and that people are saying I don't need a car in sugarhouse anymore, because it is just a bigger hassle.

S

We are not qualifying for a reduced parking being close to transit. We don't qualify, we're not close enough to transit to get an additional reduction at this point, so we are supplying what is required by code, but I think we would be open to trying to figure something out whether that's.

S

Brainstorm ideas: you know as we're talking here, but more bikes, moving more scooters.

S

And we could potentially well I mean the other thing too. People don't like the parking costs money, but it has the same effect that Nick's talking about. If, if parking costs, forty five dollars to park, your car, you may think I don't need a car. So there's some of economic elements that we can. We can try that will help with this and I think we would be interested in trying to figure that out in in sugarhouse, because what we want sure has to be successful long term.

S

We want the residents who were there in the single-family zones to be happy with what they've got and to make room for the additional people who want to live here and then take part of this high-density walkable community, so I'm open to ideas. But we would be willing to work on something for sure. Well,.

H

I'm going to let other commissioners have questions if they have them, not monopolize all of it.

D

um Yukie is the up zone. The only way you can get additional density in an RMF 35, no plan development or anything else that kind of fits or tool that you could use it providers known as an.

F

D

F

D

What about I mean so we last meeting, we had a big discussion about our MF 30 and we know that we're generally trying to up zone all of these zones. Yes,.

K

D

Of 35 is next, and then 35 is next and I don't I mean this is I'm trying to look at this project without looking at considering their project, because it's really about the property not about the proposal right and so with what's coming in arm, f-35 is any of what this applicant addressing well precinct density, or is that the plan maybe redo arm of 35 in the coming months? Not.

E

In the country working on the arm of 30, which is a different yeah.

D

Drink, that's when we discuss.

E

Last right, it's.

D

A very fine longer.

E

Longer term, to look at the arm, the other arm, if zones, that's the only one, that's currently I'm better right now, that's we don't have the capacity. So we don't have a timeline on when we're gonna get those other zones are.

D

My third is the only one that you guys are currently learning in. It's not like a pipeline of things that are coming right.

E

And in it it doesn't necessarily it's not a significant change in density for multifamily. It is more of a change for for the well.

D

30 but we don't.

E

Know you, don't you don't know right 30 for the townhomes and duplexes and things like that. We.

D

Don't know what's in.

E

D

Yeah, we don't know.

E

What that will entail, there's.

D

No timeline on no or goal or anything when that's gonna be redone. Okay, thanks.

F

I had some concerns just about the just the planning analysis. If we take the statement that anything that's designated as medium density residential but is zoned, RMF 35 could technically be up zone to RMF 45 per the plan. I I guess I I'm struggling with that, because it's pretty clear in the plan that high-density residential is limited and should only be in specific areas within sugarhouse, and if we take that analysis, you could apply it to this entire area to the north. Well,.

K

I'm simply saying that, in that, it's speaking about medium, high density is how it's designated with that. It specifically says that the zones where you should have medium high density residential in the master plan, two of those zones are included our arm of 35, an RMF 45. When it's talking about the one, that's a step down from now, which is the medium density. It specifically mentions RMF 30 zone. So that's just something that was in the master plan, something to consider I'm, not saying that that's law or anything like.

F

No I know, but by that that would mean that the plan would need to be changed, because the zoning doesn't match the plan, as opposed to saying that the plan should dictate what the zoning should be in the area right.

K

Well, I I, you know this is just one item: I went through and I looked at the other items that the master plan mentions, such as the existing development pattern, fitting in with the neighborhood. You know the proximity to transit and being located on the periphery of the business district. For this specific parcel it meets all of those I. You know we're not looking at changing everything else on the future land use map. I was just simply calling that out based on the language. That's in there.

F

I guess I would be more comfortable if I mean I know. His plan is not up for discussion, but if there was a development agreement tied to the zoning approval, so that we knew that the height would be limited not to what's approved and are I'm four to five, but would be limited to what he's agreed to.

F

A

You any other thoughts.

D

Yeah man I, must my sins like I. Think if I was in those houses in that neighborhood I would have the expectation that there would be some that that zone wouldn't keep moving over, but I mean that's. It was such a clear line on the mat that's drawn and of the masterplan coming off that alleyway, where it splits these.

F

Two areas: encroachment issues, a concern for me. That's why I were.

D

To live in that area, I have an expectation that that there was a clear line that was drawn. That was the line that was made, and that was what it.

F

Matches the land-use plan and.

D

I never has my problem in the height and the actual density and what the potential height would be.

H

I think you're hearing the gambit like I actually have I didn't. Rarely would say this mostly I, don't trust if a developer says we'll do this and I'm like unless it's conditioned but I feel like you're you're saying it would be a 35 feet and I feel like that's what it's gonna be a I trust you on that and I'm not I'm, not concerned about the density in terms of people I'm concerned about that overflow, inadequate street parking and so you're. Hearing kind of simple, multiple concerns, not necessarily related to like your specific proposal.

H

So I still am NOT I mean I. Don't have all the solutions either, um but I would say that as you go forward to the City Council that be something you've come up with some other alternatives or some ways to combat that, because we are not the final saying that yeah I don't come with the answers. I just come with the problems.

A

Would someone like to make a motion.

A

A

You there's no easy answer on because the project isn't part of this.

A

It's just the zoning to consolidate that zoning and we make a recommendation to the City Council, but.

H

They will they.

A

Will have another public hearing yeah.

H

No, they will so Chris if.

H

Based on the the proposal that they've, you know presented to you, it was like this is, or intended.

K

Their conceptual plan right.

H

Is would that and kick them back to the planning Commissioner or would that be over the counter, because they would have met everything you.

K

Know I can't totally answer that because it was so conceptual we don't have you know all the information we need to truly review that, but looking at it very quickly is a quick overview. It could probably just be developed per right. I, don't know if there would need to be another planning process, but I truly can't answer that 100%, because obviously what they've done is just a couple of drawings. There's no measurements, you know, there's none of the other things.

H

K

To review so I'm not absolutely sure something.

H

That might be. Another sticking point is that it's like Adrian mentioned they chew. You know we can't put a development agreement on there's no development at this point, but if then, we- the City Council, reasons this and then there's no second look at it, so they try to make sure that happened is another hesitation, because you could develop it by right and then it just over-the-counter and there's no other review from the community or the Planning Commission.

S

Is if we were to submit a plan and attach it to the application? Does that have to be done at application? Then, okay,.

P

I add up say that again well,.

S

So we couldn't attach it. Can we attach a plan now to the application? I mean, like not I'm, not saying right now now but like in this process, so that.

E

Yeah you can and then it's up to the City Council, essentially to decide I mean if your proposal is. We want to build this. The City Council has the option at that point in time to determine if they want to condition your zoning to limit you to what you proposed to them or.

P

E

That's that's up to the council to be.

Q

Conditioned to only allow thirty five feet height, but allow the additional density without without a stipulation of exact. Exactly this I.

E

Mean that that's also an option that the City Council has and they they have done that on other projects. Because of my commission may remember a project on South rezoning on South temple, where they rezone dit to an R mu from RM, f I, think it was 35 to RM. You 35 simply to deal with the density issue and then the City Council limited the uses so that they couldn't do commercial uses on the site, because army who allows some retail office and things like that. So they.

F

Did that through the ordinance approving the rezoning yeah, they put conditions on it that way, I think.

E

That was a development agreement.

F

E

Generally, the council's preferred method for dealing with those, but.

A

We could make this recommendation with our own additional things. We want them to look at.

H

I'm more comfortable, seeing something attached to it to then not because I question your what you're saying, because I really do think and that's gonna follow through what he says, but then, but then, like my concerns, Matt's concerns or Adrian's concerns can be a little bit more addressed, and then you don't like to do it once because there's always a fear and some of the projects that we come through here is that is it.

H

Is it gonna end up being kind of what the the vision that would that we've set is, and so when we, when we do it, when we recommend a rezone and there's the potential as you something else? It's always. This fear like well it's out of our hands in because they can come back and change it, and so it's I think I would be more comfortable if there were something attached to it. That expressed more of your vision that then we could really not be talking in these conceptual, like I, have an issue with this.

H

What are you gonna do about it? Mm-Hm.

S

H

Would have something to show like this is how we're addressing this, and we can talk about that. That's where I'm at I don't know that I would feel comfortable, forwarding any recommendation. But at this point I would probably be negative just because I there's all these outstanding things, even even.

A

With a additional condition that the what was he said, limit the height yeah.

H

Because there's no proposal, it's just the rezone at this point there's but I think we could be.

A

That could be a recommended condition to the City Council for their consideration. Well,.

H

Personally, because my biggest concern here is this adequate inadequate off street parking and how we're going to address that to have more density when we can't realistically accommodate it. So there's no condition I think but I can foresee to put on that. Maybe not until I would see a proposal, and maybe he can address it in this in a new substantial proposal. I don't know.

D

Really appreciate you guys, I think your project is well-designed and looks really nice. Unfortunately, and again isn't again, it's nothing to do with you. It's really not I.

D

Don't think that the proposal of changing the zone meets the master plan. I, don't think that the probably disagree with staff on I think there is a clear marker where there's intended to be a place where you have a down zoning as you move away from 21st south, going from more dense to 45 to 35 I, probably think the master plan again is drawn so clearly it should, you know, does not necessarily you know it does not necessarily mean it should be more dense in that sort of area.

D

So absent of your proposal, like I, am gentle probably against this rezone I'm willing to add a comment. So I'm like a motion here in a second less almost to jump in before me, but I will make a comment to the City Council that when they consider this, that they can discuss the development agreement or other options, you know, and that may be, and they can weigh that on their own. We're not the final decision-making body, but they can, but that the council can consider that I.

D

Don't think I need to see it come back here. Can I just have a procedural.

H

D

H

So if we make a motion, whatever it be to the City Council, can the applicant say like oh I- want to modify it and not go through to the City Council at that time and then change it and come back here or do they have to start all over I.

E

Think I don't know, Paul do you know I.

P

Had a hard time following what you meant by change well,.

H

Okay, so hypothetically, if, if we proposed a negative recommendation to the City Council and the applicant decides well, hey I do want to attach a plan to that that maybe the Planning Commission could review and they would do a positive recommendation. Can they well.

P

They would attach it after a negative recommend.

H

No like right and so I'm saying if we, if we had a motion so I'm thinking like we don't do a motion and we table it and give them the opportunity to to attach a plan if they choose. But if, if we make a motion- and we put some sort of recommendation to the City Council, does it make it harder for the applicant procedurally than to say like oh wait, I do want to put something and attach to this would and come back to the Planning Commission.

H

Would they have to start all over or could they if we table it, would that be the better procedure? I guess what I'm getting at.

P

We technically, when we're dealing with a rezone we're not dealing with a specific plan.

P

Because they could.

P

Get the approval from the planet Earth from the City Council and then decided to do something different that fits the zoning understanding. These concerns the City Council, can impose a requirement that they enter into a development agreement. Anyways I, guess I'm still having a hard time following you about coming back to the time. Well,.

H

I guess what I'm gonna say is I feel, like the tides here might be going to a negative recommendation right.

P

But not that that doesn't kill that doesn't kill the application. They can still move forward to this I.

H

Know and I guess it's the applicants decision if they feel like they want to have time to change that or if you're, okay with that moving forward. That's up to you I, just I, just didn't want to create a more complex procedural future for the applicant if they wanted to do something different I just didn't want to put together a recommendation and have a vote if they wanted to maybe do some changes, but they're.

P

Not locked into a plan if they attach that to this application, even.

F

At this level, they're not locked into it, doesn't.

P

Lock into it, yeah.

F

P

The reason so they.

H

Were just thinking if they didn't want to go through with getting a negative recommendation if they wanted a positive one, that's all right.

H

I just didn't want I just wanted to give the option.

E

So it's generally, this is I mean. Obviously this is an unusual where there's the potential for a negative recommendation from the Planning, Commission and and I haven't had this discussion with these applicants, but another applicant applicants when they've asked about, but the likelihood of a negative recommendation, what it means they often will say if we came up with a plan.

E

Would that help and my my general response to them is I, think you're you're, making your risk greater because you're investing more time and money into something that you have no guarantee is going to happen, and that would be my general advice to an applicant anyway in to the Planning Commission.

E

I would I would say that if you have concerns with the proposal, I think the prudent thing to do is if one, if you have enough information, uh fin firm ation on the on the request and you and you still have issues with it- would be to make a negative recommendation and list the it list. The reasons why that way, the City Council can look at those and then they can decide.

E

If there's that you know if they, if they go down the path of disagreeing with the Planning Commission's recommendations, they can look at that and decide if there's ways to make it work, because they are the decision-makers.

P

You know there was a time when the Planning Commission occasionally would recommend a development agreement on a rezone. The City Council's made it fairly clear that they don't appreciate that they want that to be their idea, which is fine.

P

It puts them in a difficult spot when, when we recommend a development agreement and it's not something that they think is appropriate and then you know a lot of awkward stairs in the room.

P

So I said what Nick said about a negative recommendation: works we've had situations in the past where we had a tie on the vote and we just couldn't get there, and so it was a neutral recommendation. I, don't know where this is going. I, don't know that that's something I would necessarily recommend, but you know if you feel like you want to ask the applicant if they want to table this or something more specific, but I.

H

Just I think I also want to find a way to make this successful and with just the rezone on the table, it's hard for me to get there. That's really my reasoning.

P

Reason doesn't guarantee that the plan is going to be exterminated in the way that they attach room.

A

Matt, you were gonna, make a motion. Let's yeah,.

D

So what we can do here, basically, findings, listen, the staff report, their furniture presented and the input received. I move the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council regarding the planning or the zoning map amendment at 1937, south 1200 East petition, PLN PCM, 2019, zero, zero, one, eight three, two change a subject parcel from our MF 35 to 45 I. Think the concerns really were mainly based around whether or not there was additional height was appropriate at on that parcel.

D

Given that the rest of the block kind of tries to slope and whether or not additional density was appropriate, given traffic parking and other sort of pressures, and that those two things did not necessarily meet the master plan as drawn when it talks about medium housing density. Well, it does appreciate the staff sort of I'll leave it at that I kind of go further. A.

A

Second, to that I'll.

B

Second, that thank.

A

You Weston take a stab at this Hadrian. Yes, Matt, yes, Amy, yes, Weston, yes, Carolyn Oguri,.

H

A

You have a negative recommendation with concerns. Thank.

S

You very much good.

A

Luck with the City Council, okay, thank you very much appreciate it. Okay, we have no other business. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you.