►
From YouTube: Planning Commission - September 25, 2019
Description
Planning Commission - September 25, 2019
A
B
A
C
A
A
F
A
Welcome
Darren
we're
happy
to
have
you
alright,
let's
move
on
to
the
agenda
items
just
as
a
housekeeping
measure.
If
you
would
like
to
speak
on
any
of
the
items
on
the
agenda,
it's
helpful
if
you
fill
out
one
of
these
white
cards
and
bring
them
up
and
then
when
we're
at
the
public
hearing
portion,
I'll
call
your
name
and
you
can
come
up
to
the
microphone
and
just
please
state
your
name
for
the
record
and
then
you'll
have
two
minutes
to
speak
on
the
issue.
A
G
All
right
good
evening
planning
commissioners,
so
in
August
of
2018,
the
Planning
Commission
approved
this
plan
development,
a
proposal
to
develop
five
new
lots
with
single-family
homes
in
a
private
driveway
at
950
and
91950
and
1960
south
1700
east
modifications
approved
through
that
planned
development
included
the
creation
of
four
Lots
without
public
street
frontage
and
a
reduced
front
and
rear
side
yard
setback
for
the
home
to
be
constructed
on
lat.
One
right
off
of
1700
east
a.
G
Condition
of
approval
was
included
that
requires
the
applicant
returned
to
the
Commission
for
a
final
review
of
the
home
on
lot,
one
again
that
about
1700
east
before
a
building
permit
can
be
issued,
and
this
is
what
is
before
you
today.
The
additional
conditions
placed
on
the
approval
related
to
this
design
are
listed
on
the
screen,
including
number
two,
that
the
eastern
elevation
of
the
home
on
lot.
One
shall
comply
with
the
front
facade
requirements
in
the
zoning
ordinance
number
three.
G
The
eastern
elevation
of
the
home
on
lot
1
is
subject
to
standards
for
attached
garages
or
that
it
can't
be
more
than
50%
the
width
of
the
front
facade
and
then
number
4.
All
five
of
the
homes
shall
have
primary
exterior
building
materials
of
masonry
in
the
front
in
the
form
of
brick
and
stone,
Hardie,
board,
wood
or
stucco.
G
The
total
lot
areas
range
from
eight
thousand
four
hundred
and
twenty-five
square
feet
to
nine
thousand
830
where
feet,
while
over
the
minimum
lot
size
requirement
of
seven
thousand
square
feet
per
lot
in
this
dish,
the
building
envelopes
that
were
improved
approved
are
approximately
3,000
square
feet.
Each
Lots,
two
through
five,
are
accessed
via
a
private
drive
that
you
can
see
on
the
site
plan
there
and
then
the
the
front
lot
will
be
accessed
off
of
1700
east
and
then
each
home
will
contain
a
two-car
garage.
G
G
These
are
the
proposed
elevations
for
the
house
on
lot.
1,
the
primary
building
materials
include
vertically
oriented
board
and
batten,
siding
made
of
hardy
board
a
horizontally
order,
oriented
lap,
siding
made
of
hardy
board
and
shakes
made
of
hardy
board
in
some
of
the
gable
Peaks,
and
a
small
amount
of
stone
will
be
used
on
the
front
porch
columns.
The
Planning
Division
considers
all
of
these
to
be
durable
quality
building
materials
that
comply
with
this
associated
condition
of
approval.
That
I
mentioned
previously.
G
G
Staff
finds
that
the
proposed
design
of
the
home
on
lot
one
complies
with
all
four
conditions
of
approval
and
staff
also
finds
that
the
design
compliance
with
the
planned
development
standard
related
to
compatibility
as
listed
on
the
screen
there,
and
so
therefore,
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
this
request.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
If
you'd
like
to
make
a
presentation
or
discuss
your
application,
please
feel
free
to
come
forward.
You
don't
have
anything
okay,
so
the
applicant
is
electing
not
to
make
a
presentation
to
the
Commission.
So
then
we
can
open
the
public
hearing.
So
is
there
anybody
here
in
the
public
who
would
like
to
speak?
A
H
I
find
the
right
distance
I'm
happy
to
make
a
motion.
Thank
you,
Amy,
based
on
the
information
contained
in
the
memo
dated
September
25th
2019,
the
staff
report
dated
August
8
2018,
the
information
presented
and
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing
I
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
approved
the
proposed
design
of
the
single
family
home
to
be
built
on
lot,
one
of
the
Hopkins
Estates
Subdivision.
This
approval
is
associated
with
the
larger
plan
development,
PLN,
SUV
2018,
two
zero,
zero,
zero,
three
three,
which
was
approved
by
the
Planning
Commission
on
August
8
2018.
A
G
I
B
G
All
right,
thank
you
again
before
I
begin.
I
do
want
to
clarify
for
the
Commission
and
members
of
the
public
that
these
text
amendments
being
proposed
tonight
pertain
to
zoning
standards
in
the
RMF
30
district
and
that
district,
only
no
other
zoning
district
is
being
updated
at
this
time
and
no
properties
are
being
rezone,
two-armed
RMF
30.
At
this
time
there
was
some
confusion
that
another
rezone
from
r2
to
RM
F
35
might
be
affected,
but
that's
not
what
we're
looking
at
tonight.
So
just
for
clarification
and
then
also,
hopefully,
you
all
got.
G
There
were
some
additional
public
comments
that
came
in
today
and
we're
put
in
your
Dropbox
all
right.
So
to
begin
at
the
June
26
Planning
Commission
hearing
staff
asked
that
the
Commission
actually
table
this
item
in
order
to
for
us
to
fine-tune
the
proposed
zoning
ordinance
language.
The
language
has
now
been
finalized
and
staff
has
also
made
a
few
additional
updates
to
the
proposal
to
address
some
of
the
concerns
that
were
raised
at
the
last
public
hearing
and
that
we
think
make
for
an
overall
better
proposal.
G
The
first
objective
in
the
housing
plan
specifically
speaks
to
amending
land
use
and
zoning
regulations
to
facilitate
new
housing
development
based
on
current
zoning
standards.
The
average
lot
size
in
the
RMF
30
zoning
district
cannot
accommodate
anything
more
than
a
single
family.
Home
76%
of
Lots
cannot
anything
more
than
a
duplex
or
two
units
on
a
lot.
This
multifamily
zoning
district
cannot
accommodate
multifamily
uses,
which
is
why
this
district
must
be
updated
to
accommodate
the
city's
rapidly
growing
population.
G
As
noted
in
our
housing
plan,
this,
it
is
estimated
that
the
city
will
add
30,000
residents
by
2030,
so
in
particular,
these
updates
aim
to
facilitate
the
development
of
small-scale
multifamily
structures
that
are
compatible
with
existing
structures
and
residential
neighborhoods
or
what
is
commonly
referred
to
as
missing
middle
housing
like
triplexes
row,
houses
and
small
apartment
buildings.
So
the
general
changes
that
were
presented
to
you
in
June
are
listed
on
the
screen
there,
which
include
the
introduction
of
building
design
standards
to
the
within
the
RMF
30
zone.
G
The
allowance
of
certain
building
forms,
including
cottage
developments,
sideways
row,
houses
and
tiny
houses
without
special
approval
or
plan
development
approval,
the
reduction
of
required
lot
areas
per
unit,
the
removal
of
minimum
lot
width
requirements,
the
allowance
of
multiple
buildings
on
a
lot
granting
a
density
bonus
and
implementing
a
lot
with
maximum
as
mechanisms
to
deter
from
demolition.
So
those
are
the
general
amendments
that
are
being
proposed
to
the
arm
of
30
chapter.
G
So
as
a
reminder,
there
are
actually
four
multi-family
residential
districts
in
the
city,
ranging
from
low
density
or
RMF
30,
which
the
text
and
amendments
are
being
proposed
to
to
the
highest
density
or
RMF
75.
The
goal
is
to
solidify
updates
to
the
RMF
30
districts
to
start
and
then
come
back
and
update
the
three
other
districts
in
a
similar
manner.
G
Looking
solely
at
the
RMF
30
district,
there
are
approximately
1028
properties
located
in
the
arm
of
30
that
are
greater
than
2,600
square
feet
or
adequate
to
build
upon
331
or
about
a
third
of
these
properties
are
located
in
a
local,
historic
district
where
demolition
is
difficult
to
achieve,
and
one
more
thing.
The
majority
of
parcels
in
this
district
or
565
have
single-family
homes,
130
have
duplexes
and
178
have
multifamily
buildings
and
the
rest
vary
in
land
use
from
non-conforming
commercial
uses
to
larger,
planned
developments.
G
All
right
so
now
I'd
like
to
go
over
the
updates
that
have
been
made
to
this
proposal
since
June.
So
the
first
is
the
updated
purpose
statement
again.
The
city's
housing
plan
encourages
the
removal
of
zoning
barriers
to
housing
development
in
general.
However,
the
more
specific
goal
within
the
RMF
30
district
is
to
facilitate
the
development
of
small-scale
multi-family
housing
types
that
are
compatible
in
terms
of
mass
and
scale
with
existing
structures
and
residential
neighborhoods.
G
Therefore,
the
purpose
statement
was
updated
to
reflect
this,
instead
of
simply
stating
the
allowed
uses
in
the
district
and
the
number
of
units
allowed
per
acre
like
it
previously
did.
The
idea
is
that
the
zoning
regulations
within
the
ARMA
30
district
all
work
together
to
further
this
purpose
statement,
and
so
the
updated
statement
is
on
the
screen.
There.
G
Second,
we
updated
a
few
of
the
standards
for
cottage
and
sideways
row
house
developments
in
response
to
your
comments
from
June.
The
city
would
like
to
promote
these
two
building
types
in
particular,
because
they
work
well
as
infill
development,
especially
on
Salt,
Lake's
long,
narrow
Lots
and
can
be
subdivided
to
promote
home
ownership
of
smaller
units.
G
So
in
particular,
we
limited
the
height
of
cottages
to
23
feet
for
pit
Truths
and
16
feet
for
flat
roofs
and
reduced
the
parking
requirement
to
one
stall
per
unit
and
the
height
requirements
are
those
that
are
currently
in
our
sr1,
a
district
which
covers
a
lot
of
the
avenues
and
some
of
Capitol
Hill.
So
that's
where
we
pulled
those
numbers
from
and
again
cottages
are
meant
to
be
smaller
units
clustered
around
open
space,
and
then
we
also
renamed
side
oriented
row
houses
to
sideways
row.
G
The
Central
Community
master
plan,
where
many
of
the
RMF
30
properties
are
located,
call
for
20
units
per
acre
within
areas,
zoned
RMF
30.
The
same
goes
for
the
sugarhouse
master
plan,
20
units
per
acre,
and
that
equates
to
2178
square
feet
per
unit
to
allow
for
the
average
lot
size,
which
is
just
a
little
over
six
thousand
square
feet
to
accommodate
three
units
or
triplex.
We
rounded
this
number
down
to
two
thousand
square
feet
per
acre
for
single-family
to
family,
multifamily
and
row
house
structures.
G
The
minimum
lot
size
was
kept
at
1500
square
feet
per
unit
for
cottage
developments
and
tiny
houses,
as
these
units
are
limited
in
area
the
building
footprint
and
can
be
accommodated
on
smaller
Lots
staff
feels
the
staff
feels.
These
numbers
remain
in
line
with
the
recommendations
of
the
different
community
master
plans,
while
allowing
for
some
incremental
growth
within
small
compatible
building
forms.
G
G
So,
finally,
in
keeping
with
the
idea
of
allowing
incremental
growth
within
small-scale
multifamily
building
forms,
staff
is
proposing
to
limit
the
number
of
units
within
multifamily
structures
to
eight
units
with
a
traditional
form
based
code.
The
dwelling,
the
number
of
dwellings
is,
are
often
limited
per
building
form
in
order
to
encourage
compatibility,
smaller
apartment
buildings
or
what
are
often
referred
to
as
multiplex
forms
are
typically
limited
from
anywhere
from
6
to
10
units
in
the
arm
of
30
district.
G
G
Finally,
I'd
like
not,
finally
so
at
the
June
26th
Planning
Commission
meeting
a
few
questions
were
asked
that
are
revisited
in
the
staff
report
for
this
item
with
more
detailed
responses.
However,
I'd
like
to
go
over
three
of
those
questions
right
now.
The
first
question
asked
was:
is
there
a
trend
happening
in
Salt,
Lake
City,
where
we're
seeing
housing
being
demolished
and
then
replaced
with
fewer
housing
units
so
to
investigate
that
we
looked
at
our
projects
that
have
had
to
go
had
to
go
through
what
it's
called
housing
mitigation,
so
with
any
demolition
of
housing?
G
So
it's
not
that
we're
seeing
projects
go
through
this
process,
because
they're
demolishing
units
and
fewer
units
are
being
built
and
also
just
to
note
commercial
uses
are
not
allowed
in
RMF
districts,
so
you
wouldn't
see
that
happening
where
units
are
demolished
and
commercial
units
are
coming
in.
The
second
question
was:
how
are
these
text
amendments
facilitating
the
development
of
affordable
housing
units
that
are
30,
30
percent
or
less
AMI?
G
The
quick
answer
to
that
is
these
particular
text.
Amendments
were
never
meant
to
directly
facilitate
affordable
housing
units
by
HUD
standards,
but
instead
facilitate
more
missing
middle
housing
in
general.
However,
as
the
economic
theory
of
filtering
explains
as
market
rate,
housing
is
built,
higher
income
people
move
into
it
and
free
up
more
affordable
units.
G
Moreover,
these
text
amendments
work
to
encourage
smaller
units
which
may
be
inherently
more
affordable
and,
finally,
RMF
30
zones
are
scattered
throughout
the
city.
Allowing
more
density
in
these
in
these
areas
would
allow
slightly
denser
more
two
more
affordable
developments
in
high
opportunity
areas,
which
both
the
housing
plan
and
plan
Salt
Lake's
specifically
encourage.
The
city
is
also
looking
to
invest
in
creative,
missing
middle
housing
projects
in
these
high
opportunity
areas,
but
current
zoning
makes
these
projects
basically
impossible
to
build
with
based
on
current
zoning.
G
And
finally,
it
was
asked
what
is
being
done
to
preserve
existing
structures
with
the
proposed
text
amendments.
This
has
been
said
before,
but
a
third
of
these
properties
are
located
in
local,
historic
districts,
where
demolition
must
be
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
historic
landmark
Commission.
A
unit
bonus
is
being
introduced
that
targets
existing
single-family
homes
in
in
particular,
as
there
are
so
many
single-family
homes
in
this
district,
the
idea
being
that
if
a
structure
is
being
preserved,
more
units
could
be
added
within
or
onto
a
structure
than
what
could
be
achieved
with
demolition.
G
Allowing
more
units
and
zoning
flexibility
on
a
lot
within
a
local
historic
district
would
also
make
it
less
likely
for
someone
to
claim
economic
hardship
as
a
reason
for
demolishing
a
historic
structure.
The
city
does
acknowledge
that
some
demolition
may
occur,
but
all
these
things
are
being
done
to
promote
the
retention
of
existing
structures
when
feasible.
G
I'd
like
to
reiterate
that
the
city's
master
planning
documents
encourage
the
development
of
new
and
diverse
housing
options
to
accommodate
Salt
Lake
City's,
rapidly
growing
population
and
specifically
speaks
to
removing
zoning
barriers.
In
order
to
do
so.
In
particular,
the
housing
plan
says
to
develop
infill
ordinances
that
promote
a
diverse
housing
stock
increase
housing
options,
create
redevelopment
opportunities
and
allow
additional
units
within
existing
structures,
while
minimizing
neighborhood
impacts.
G
Housing
initiatives
in
planned,
Salt
Lake
specifically
say
to
increase
the
number
of
medium
density.
Housing
types
and
options
encourage
housing
options
that
accommodate
Aging
in
Place
Direct,
new
growth
towards
areas
with
existing
infrastructure
and
services
that
have
the
potential
to
be
people
oriented
and
enable
moderate
density
increases
within
existing
neighborhoods,
where
appropriate
and.
G
B
G
G
Do
I
but
I
have
it
summarized
in
the
staff
report,
but
as
I
recall,
we
thought
that
those
delineation
standards,
because
it
was
specifically
saying
that
each
unit
would
have
to
be
quote
unquote,
delineated
as
its
own
through
the
use
of
different
colors,
different
building
materials,
articulation,
etc
to
break
up
those
longer
building
walls.
And
we
or
we
had
some
comments
that
that
might
be
too
prescriptive
and
limit
design.
And
it's
also
hard
as
a
zoning
reviewer
to
review
that
because
it
can
be
subjective.
G
F
H
G
We
do
have
a
provision
about
having
the
front
facing
unit
being
oriented
to
the
street
in
terms
of
that's
where
the
entry
should,
where
the
entry
should
be,
and
the
entry
feature
and
garage
doors
are
prohibited
on
a
front
facade
and
then
finally,
it
has
specific
glass
requirements,
and
these
are
all
different
from
like.
Let's
say
a
single-family
house
came
in
they,
these
standards
wouldn't
apply
so.
H
I
feel
like
the
no
delineation
is
too
far
one
way,
because
what
I've
also
seen
is
that
the
standards
are
like
you
have
to
have
a
door
facing
this
street
or
just
so
generic
for
you.
That
developer
can
come
to
you
and
they
just
put
a
door
and
no
other
features,
nothing
else.
Then
we
struggle
with
and
and
from
your
perspective,
they
have
met
the
ordinance.
They
have
met
the
design
code.
It's
good,
then,
when
it
comes
to
us
our
perspective
is
again:
that's
not
really.
H
Going
after
and
so
I
think
it
places
an
undue
burden
on
you,
because
you
just
have
this
on
paper
like
oh
yeah,
you've
met
this
and
it's
not
meeting
a
spirit
that
we
have
collectively
over
the
last
18
months
that
I've
been
doing
this
been
moving
towards,
so
I
feel
like
we
haven't.
We
need
to
work
on
that.
That
particular
part
of
this
no
delineation
and
the
way
that's
kind
of
just
don't
think
hit
the
mark.
For
me,
okay,
I.
G
Will
say
that
we
with
these
text
amendments
we
really
beefed
up
the
entry
feature
standards.
If
you
look
at
page
19
through
21
of
the
staff
report,
you
can
see
there's
diagrams
for
what
the
entry
feature
standards
should
look
like
and
we
redid
those
so
that
they're
very
have
this
residential
character
and
they're
specific
in
terms
of,
if
there's
any,
if
it's
required
to
be
articulated,
we
have
dimensions
on
that
and
things
of
that
nature.
So
I
think
we
really
did
a
good
job
of
beefing
up
those
easier.
H
I
think
you're
really
going
for
it.
I
just
think
it
puts
not
having
this
come
before
the
Planning
is,
where
I
think
we're
missing
that
crucial
step,
because
so
explain
to
me,
then,
if
the
reason
they
come
to
us
now
is
because
they're
planned
developments
and
they
don't
have
some
of
them,
don't
have
a
front
facing
lot
right.
G
G
H
A
H
I
I
don't
feel
comfortable,
letting
that
become
a
completely
administrative
role
if
they
were
closer
to
what
we
have
been
trying
to
accomplish.
I
would
probably
feel
better.
Okay,
I
also
have
another
hypothetical
question
sure.
So,
if
on
the
new
law
coverage
requirements-
and
we
talked
about
cottage
developments,
actually
have
one
of
those
on
my
street
and
I-
think
it's
really
charming
and
I
really
like
it.
G
Depends
and
a
cottage,
we
typically
see
that
you
shape
and
I
think
we
think
of
a
u-shape
when
we
think
of
cottage
developments,
but
the
standards
just
say
two
or
more
structures
limited
in
size,
so
they
could
be
arranged
one
after
another.
In
a
line
they
could
be
arranged
in
that
you
shape.
You
would
probably
need
a
relatively
wide
lot.
I
mean
and
relatively
greater
than
30
feet
wide
cuz.
H
Then
my
last
hypothetical.
So
if
in
this
text
amendment
could
you
say,
he's
preserve
a
single-family
home
or
even
demolish
it
and
put
on
a
collection
of
tiny
homes,
because
those
are
typically
less
than
2,000
square
feet?
Are
we
precluding
that
type
of
development,
because
even
the
minimum
still
is
2,000
so.
G
G
A
C
G
If
you
look
at
other
communities,
they
do
limit
the
footprint
and
the
height,
and
so
we
were
thinking
about
a
flat
roof
structure,
going
up
to
all
all
the
way
to
30
feet,
which
is
the
general
height
max
in
this
district,
and
we
didn't
think
that
that
would
be
compatible
or
necessary
and
that
16
and
the
23
again
was
pulled
from
our
sr1,
a
district
which
is
a
zoning
district.
That
covers
a
lot
of
the
avenues
and
Capitol
Hill
area
and
then
also
I
will
say
the
area
the
gross
area
restriction
excludes
basement
area.
C
I
guess
that's
where
I'm
going
with
that
question
is
that
16
feets
are
really
difficult.
It's
way
too
tall
for
a
single
storey
building,
but
it's
not
tall
enough
for
a
two-story
building.
So
it
seems
like
a
difficult
choice.
I
think
it's
very
similar
to
what
the
previous
Adu
ordinance
was,
which
was
a
17
feet
for
a
flat
roof.
G
G
I
G
A
little
bit
different
of
a
conversation,
but
the
RMF
30
districts
were
properties
are
in
areas
that
have
access
to
those
things
and
with
any
development.
There's
Building
Code
fire
reviews,
and
to
be
honest,
that
is
something
those
are
things
that,
if
they
don't
have
the
capacity
to
meet
building
fire
code,
etc.
That
might
limit
some
of
these
developments.
But
that
is
not
something
that
the
zoning
ordinance
can
change.
Thank.
E
G
K
Else
where
you
have
a
series
of
tiny
houses
shirt,
a
single
lot,
do
you
do?
Can
you
show
us
any
of
those
and
somebody
look
that
up
I
mean
from
my
perspective,
that
seems
like
that
would
be
a
very,
very
difficult
situation
and
might
look
kind
of
shantytown.
Ish
I
mean
that's,
maybe
putting
it
a
little
harshly,
but
we.
L
K
Is
it
is
a
very
that
it's
a
time
it
was
a
really
small
house
and
to
have
a
cluster
of
them?
You
know
next
door
to
my
single-family
house.
I
think
would
be
a
real
problem.
I
will
say
are
actually
if
we
talk
about
trying
to
have
a
scale,
that's
consistent
across
the
neighborhood
they're
out
of
scale.
So.
G
The
reason
why
we
included
tiny
houses
as
an
allowed
building
form
is
we
got
so
much
interest
from
the
public
to
do
these
and
we
got
interest
from
developers
and
although
I
don't
have
a
specific
example
of
a
tiny
house,
community
I
have
heard
from
developers
that
they
would
like
to
do
tiny
house
communities,
and
maybe
we
won't
get
a
cluster
on
one
lot
me.
Maybe
something
else
will
get.
Is
tiny
houses
in
the
back
of
a
single-family
home
or
something
like
that?
But
you
could
you.
A
D
I'm
Judy
short
on
the
land
use
chair
for
the
sugarhouse
Community
Council,
and
we
reviewed
this
clear
back
in
March
and
then
we
had
a
lot
of
online
dialogue
back
and
forth
and
I
think
the
general
sentiment
was
for
the
specific
places
that
Lauren
called
out
on
the
maps.
That
said
these
are
going
to
be
changed.
There
wasn't
a
lot
of
objection.
There
places
along
7th,
east
and
9th
east
that
have
big
deep
plots.
They
seem
to
be
underutilized,
the
houses,
don't
look
in
terrific
condition
and
perhaps
some
renovation
of
those
areas
seemed
appropriate.
D
D
One
was
built
in
71
and
one
in
78
I've
been
through
units
in
both
of
those
they're
very
well
maintained,
and
they
have
a
very
strong
organization
of
owners,
they're
all
individually
owner
occupied.
So
we
didn't
feel
like
those
would
be
because
you'd
have
to
redevelop
the
whole
thing.
We
don't
think
anybody
would
take
that
on
maybe
in
2050
they
might.
But
we
don't
think
we're
quite
at
that
point
yet.
D
But
the
one
thing
we
were
concerned
about
was
Alan
Park.
This
is
on
the
list
and
over
my
dead
body,
will
this
turn
into
a
housing,
development
and
I
hope
there's
enough
restrictions
on
it
already
with
the
riparian
corridor
and
I
know,
the
city
has
some
other
things
in
the
works,
and
so
maybe
that
will
be
saved,
but
just
keep
that
in
the
back
of
your
mind,
I
think
neighborhoods
in
the
city
are
affected
in
different
ways.
You
know,
if
you
think
about
sugar
house,
the
lots
I
think
are
generally
bigger
in
Central
City.
D
Even
you
know:
Liberty
Wells
that
neighborhood
and
a
little
bit
to
the
west
of
State
Street,
the
lots
are
smaller,
and
so,
if
they're
smaller
Lots
and
you
start
adding
more
housing
it
you
get
a
lot
more
people.
I,
don't
know
if
there's
just
a
different
kind
of
an
impact
and
I
think
those
neighborhoods
may
bear
the
impact
and
they're
already
getting
the
effect
of
all
the
brand-new
apartment.
Buildings
they're
going
up
and
I
really
don't
think,
there's
an
incentive
not
to
tear
down
old
homes.
D
I,
don't
know
if
you've
heard,
but
with
the
accessory
dwelling
unit,
we've
learned
that
the
city
requires
a
separate
sewer
and
water
line
to
a
separate
unit
in
the
back
and
that's
a
$30,000
charge.
Brach
smelly,
that's
a
lot
of
money
when
you
think
you're
going
to
get
it.
You
know
a
nice
inexpensive
place
to
rent
out
well
you're,
not
getting
affordable
housing.
You
are
getting
a
unit,
so
I
worry
that
saving
the
old
home
and
then
putting
units
in
the
back.
It's
still
gonna
cost
money.
D
All
these
new
units
are
going
to
cost
more
than
rehabbing
existing
units
and
I
wonder.
She
gave
an
example
of
people
that
had
to
go
through
the
housing
mitigation
process.
I
wonder
if
that
really
puts
any
money
into
the
housing
mitigation
fund
always
worry
about
that.
It
seems
to
never
grow
and
we
needed
to
grow
bigger.
So
maybe
that's
the
incentive
for
keeping
older
houses
is
that
if
you
take
a
house
down,
you
have
to
pay
$25,000
or
something
I.
Don't
know
thanks.
A
A
M
We
read
fast,
my
name
is
Mark
bunts
I
live
in
district
for
the
Binion
area,
back
in
the
60s
and
70s,
the
city
was
losing
population
of
family
homes,
try
to
try
it
and
increase
the
population.
The
city
loosened
zoning
densities
and
thus
became
the
apartments
and
the
four
and
six
Plexus
in
the
neighborhoods
that
has
led
to
more
degradation
of
our
neighborhood
in
the
early
80s.
M
Our
home
was
once
again
becoming
our
homes
or
once
becoming
family
homes.
Again,
with
the
changes
is
being
proposed
to
the
RMF
30,
you
are
trying
to
increase
rental
property
at
the
cost
of
our
neighborhoods.
These
neighborhoods
have
only
started
to
recover
since
the
early
2000s
citizens
of
Salt
Lake
City
deserve
to
trust.
The
city,
boards
and
departments
will
to
follow
the
master
plans
that
took
10
years
to
implement
we've
invested
in
this
city
and
both
money
and
in
time,
and
the
city
needs
to
honor
our
commitments
to
the
current
zoning
regulations.
M
Changing
the
rules
isn't
just
is
just
as
we
are
reira
covering
our
investments
would
indicate
a
city
officials
cannot
be
trusted
as
to.
Why,
then,
would
that
we'd
even
bother
to
have
zoning
rules,
reject
the
amendment
restore
order
to
the
original
writing
and
detailed
with
the
density
on
property
by
property
basis,
as
we
have
begun
done
in
the
past?
So
you
would
have
the
options
to
do
just
like
you
have
done
in
the
past,
make
selections
based
on
property
lengths.
Thank
you
all.
N
So
my
name
is
Cindy
Krum
ur
still
and
I
spoke
to
you
in
June
about
the
house
of
cards.
Those
of
you
who
will
remember
remember
the
visual
aid
supporting
affordable
housing
in
the
cities.
Rmf
zones
which
are
in
established
neighborhoods
in
the
next
two
minutes,
I
have
to
be
more
effective
than
I
have
ever
been
in
this
timeframe,
because
I'm
not
getting
through
to
folks
about
the
impact
on
affordable
housing.
First
and
most
importantly,
the
planners
do
not
have
access
to
information
which
drives
decisions
about
the
redevelopment
of
income
properties.
N
They
cannot
anticipate
the
consequences
because
they
do
not
have
the
data
and
they
cannot
reasonably
obtain
it.
They
are
like
so
many
other
people
in
this
city
speculating
about
our
neighborhoods.
They
are
speculating
with
planning
tools.
Other
people
speculate
with
financial
tools
after
being
ineffective
for
so
long.
I
gathered
information
about
properties
in
the
RMF,
30
and
35
zones
that
planners
do
not
have
and
the
variables
that
drive
decision-making
of
developers
and
existing
property
owners
of
investment
properties
for
a
development
or
an
investment
property
owner.
The
relevant
variables
are
the
cost
basis
per
unit.
N
The
taxable
gain
depreciation
and
the
all-important
number
of
units
allowed
three
years
ago.
The
price
for
a
buildable
lot
was
between
a
hundred
thousand
and
one
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
dollars
per
unit
I
paid
a
hundred
thousand
dollars,
but
found
a
comparable
for
a
hundred
and
fifty
thousand.
The
county's
2019
assessed
values
which
you
have
in
the
spreadsheet
in
front
of.
You
range
from
one
hundred
and
thirteen
thousand
to
one
hundred
forty
nine
thousand
eight
hundred
ninety
seven
per
unit
in
four
plexes
and
six
plexes.
These
are
all
real
numbers.
N
N
The
amount
of
land
required
has
been
reduced
since
your
hearing
in
May,
and
that
creates
even
more
problems
in
terms
of
what
gets
demolished
so
for
the
RMF
30
of
the
three
buildings
listed
on
your
spreadsheet,
two
of
them
get
demolished
and
the
total
loss
in
number
of
units,
all
of
them
well
maintained,
is
11.
On
this
spreadsheet
I
can
go
into
more
details.
I
think
there
are
other
people
who
want
to
speak.
Yes,
Thank,
You,
Cindy,.
O
O
The
amazing
things
that
have
happened
in
our
neighborhood
we've
seen
a
lot
of
those
areas.
Several
of
those
areas
where
we
were
worried
about
apartment
buildings
going
in
have
renovated
existing
homes
and
really
turned
those
into
some
beautiful,
very
livable
properties
and
have
not
gone
up
in
you
know,
become
too
expensive,
I
guess
relative
to
to
the
neighborhood.
So
we
would
just
like
to
see
that
this
neighborhood
I
think
the
Bennion
neighborhood
was
not
is
not
being
considered
as
part
of
the
research.
That's
going
into
this
decision
and
I'd
like
to
see
that
happen.
O
The
one
and
I
was
actually
impressed
by
the
presentation
and
then
I
heard
a
sort
of
a
big
warning
sort
of
message,
which
was
the
term
high
opportunity
areas
that
made
me
a
little
nervous
for
the
for
the
neighbors
or
the
people
who
live
there
right
now.
It's
always
a
little
bit
scary
to
hear
your
neighborhood
referred
to
that
way
right.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
P
Then
Pershing
district
six
do
I
need
to
give
my
address.
No
okay.
Thank
you.
District
six
I
read
with
a
lot
of
interest.
Actually
this
new
proposal,
I
I,
was
frankly
shocked.
I
I
wanted
to
provide
some
historical
perspective
to
you,
I
I'm,
looking
across
the
room
here,
seeing
that
maybe
some
people
weren't
born.
Yet
maybe
some
people
didn't
live
here
or
not
don't
remember
because
they
were
too
young.
P
Multi-Family
need
to
be
called
multifamily
dwellings.
Today
they
were
apartments
and
that
resulted
in
a
destruction
of
neighborhood
identity,
cohesion
and
property
values
that
have
taken
40
years
to
recover.
We
destroyed
that
neighborhood,
we
destroyed
it.
If
we
don't
learn
from
our
past
mistakes
in
zoning,
we
are
doomed
to
repeat
them.
We
have
a
great
city.
We
are
the
envy
of
all
midsize
cities
in
the
United
States.
Did
you
know
that
because
we
have
single-family
residences
close
to
an
urban
core
everywhere
else
in
the
United
States?
P
It's
been
blighted
with
the
suburban,
you
know
flight,
but
in
the
60s
in
the
70s
we
kept
that
alive
and
we
should
be
commended
for
that.
We
do
need
more
housing,
but
I
am
astounded
to
watch
see
those
statistics
put
up
there
that
they're
going
to
tear
down
even
in
local
historic
districts,
homes.
That's
against
our
the
LHD
number
one
number:
two,
it's
against
three
city
ordinances,
adding
to
our
air
pollution,
sustainability
and
and
affordability.
This
Aging
in
Place.
This
is
not
good.
P
Most
of
the
homes
that
were
described
there
are
1500
square
I
live
in
a
single-family
home,
that's
1,200
square
feet.
We
need
to
be
working
with
the
state
to
increase
state
tax
credits,
to
rehabilitate
these
lower
priced
existing
homes
in
LHDs.
You
know
retrofitting
them
we're
having
them
bringing
up
standards
and
get
a
tax
credit
for
that
and
you
let
people
do
that.
Our
Lots
are
small
enough.
We
have
a
high
enough
density.
One
other
point
really
quick.
You
someone
brought
her
up
here
about
utilities.
Did
you
know
that
we
had?
P
Q
Q
Bought
my
house
thirty
years
ago,
downtown
Salt
Lake
just
below
the
University
I,
put
everything
that
I
have
into
that
house.
I
have
solar
panels
on
it.
I
have
a
beautiful
garden
and
I
feel
like
a
lot
of
the
people
on
the
planning
on
the
planning.
Staff
are
young
and
they
really
don't
understand
people's
investment
in
their
properties
and
what
they
value.
Q
Q
F
Well,
thank
you.
Paul
Spence
and
I
live
in
the
avenues.
I'm
also
remember
that
Historic
Landmarks
Commission
nice
to
be
here
I
just
had
three
very
quick
things
to
say.
One
is
I
want
to
just
compliment
the
staff
on
how
well
presented
how
well
thought-out,
how
thorough
I
think
this
proposal
is
I.
Think
it's
one
of
the
better
zoning
works,
I've
really
ever
seen
from
Selig
sitting
I
think
it's
a
tremendous
step
in
the
right
direction,
with
respect
to
the
idea
that
we
will
be
losing
existing
housing.
F
I
think
that's
wrong,
and
there
are
two
reasons.
One
is
that
much
of
this,
as
Lauren
has
pointed
out,
much
of
the
zone
that
we're
talking
about
is
within
historic,
landmark
districts,
local
historic
districts,
as
we
all
know,
demolishing
a
historic,
significant
historic
house
and
the
local
historic
district
is
damn
near
impossible.
So
the
that's
one
protection.
The
other
thing
is
just
the
skyrocketing
property
values
that
we've
seen.
We
are
at
a
point
now
that
even
you
know
anywhere
in
the
central
Salt
Lake
area.
F
Lots
with
existing
homes
on
them
are
gonna
be
prohibitively
expensive
from
demolishing
it's
not
going
to
make
sense,
even
if
you
can
put
four
or
tiny
houses
on
it.
That
will
never
make
financial
sense,
so
I,
don't
think
we're
gonna
see
a
rash
of
demolitions.
What
I
do
think
is
we're
gonna
see
an
increase
in
density,
and
we
need
that
I
mean.
Finally,
there's
been
all
this
talk
about
helping
the
missing
middle
and
the
city
is
stepping
up
and
doing
something
about
it.
I
think
it's
great.
F
The
last
thing
is
on
the
delineation
and
I
think
this
is
a
minor
point,
but
it
seemed
to
me
like.
Maybe
there
was
some
confusion
among
the
panel
about
that.
The
removal
of
the
delineation
requirement
does
not
mean
that
the
units
on
sideways
row
houses
will
no
longer
face
the
street.
The
one
on
the
end
will
still
face
the
street
and
they're
very
rigorous
design
guidelines
in
place
to
make
sure
that
that
entry
feature
embraces
the
street.
It
just
means
that
we
won't
have
a
fake
Disneyland
looking
hodgepodge
and
will
allow
developers
to
do
something.
P
P
On
the
board
of
preservation,
Utah,
which
used
to
be
the
Heritage
Foundation
and
I'll,
read
from
a
prepared
statement.
Dear
members
of
Salt
Lake
City
Planning,
Commission
preservation,
Utah's
trustees
and
staff
have
examined
the
proposed
text,
amendments
to
the
RMF
30
low
density,
multi-family
residential
district
and
gives
the
section
we've
recognized
that
these
amendments
will
be
highly
detrimental
to
historic,
neighborhoods
throughout
the
city
and
will
ultimately
diminish
the
unique
character
of
these
same
neighborhoods.
We
additionally
recognize
that
these
amendments
are
likely
to
reduce,
not
increase
the
amount
of
low-income
housing
in
Salt
Lake
City.
P
Much
of
the
best
low-income
housing
in
Salt,
Lake
City
is
found
in
the
very
sort
of
older
residential
buildings
that
will
be
targeted
by
these
amendments.
Despite
us
assertions
made
in
the
RMF
30
memorandum,
our
experience
is
that
developers
when,
given
the
opportunity,
will
prioritize
economic
return
over
historic
preservation
or
other
benefits.
For
these
reasons,
we
strongly
encourage
members
of
the
Planning
Commission
to
recommend
against
incorporating
these
text
amendments
into
Salt
Lake,
City's
zoning
ordinances,
my
mother,
founded
Heritage
Utah
years
ago
to
stop
the
demolition
on
South
temple.
P
A
M
M
They
took
you
a
long
time
and
you
came
up
with
some
really
useful
and
fairly
wide
area
stuff,
so
I'm
not
saying
that
this
doesn't
fit
I'm
saying
it
doesn't
fit
everything.
The
RMF
30
affects
the
people,
I
work
for
the
poor
and
we
have
seen
I
have
been
in
these
jobs
that
at
various
places,
crossroads
urban
center
being
the
primary
place,
and
so
we've
seen
it
and
we've
seen
all
this
wonderful
zoning.
M
Come
forth
and
we've
seen
it
kill
our
people,
move
them
out,
tear
down
the
apartments
that
they
have
been
in,
not
that
apartment.
Some
of
those
apartments
are
still
up,
but
most
of
them
have
been
torn
down
because
they
were
in
a
zone
a
long
six
south
along
this
south
boy
right
across
the
street.
Here
right
across
the
street,
tore
down
like
a
hundred
units
to
build
the
State
Board
of
Education
building
early
I
mean
it's
just
phenomenal,
the
public
buildings
that
have
gone
in
to
take
out
decent
housing.
M
So
what
we're
saying
you
is
you
don't
need
to
do
this
citywide?
We're
not
saying
it's
not
well
done
we're
saying
it's
overdone,
it's
not
too
small
and
it's
too
large,
and
maybe
we
need
to
make
it
medium
sized.
That's
what
we
say.
There
are
a
lot
of
things
we're
concerned
about
in
terms
of
visitability
in
terms
of
disability
access,
but
the
affordability
question
is
the
one
you
want
to
talk
about.
There's
nothing
in
here
about
affordability.
M
A
E
E
My
name
is
Jared
Hall
resident
in
district
3
and
I
just
quickly
want
to
speak
in
support
of
this
zoning
change,
I
think
as
a
city
we
are
growing.
We
need
to
increase
our
density.
Yes,
we
have
single-family
homes
near
our
downtown,
but
not
everyone
thinks
that's
the
greatest
thing.
Some
people
think
that's
a
waste
of
resources
to
have
a
urban
core
surrounded
by
such
low
density,
housing,
I,
agree,
I,
think.
The
unit
bonus
that
is
in
the
ordinance
is
a
very
good
way
to
try
and
preserve
housing.
E
A
F
F
What
like
that,
where
it
isn't
some
specialized
class
whose
incentives
are
totally
misaligned
trying
to
make
changes
that
we're
leaving
to
make
changes
in
our
city,
but
it's
actually
people
within
the
neighborhood's
themselves,
who
know
their
neighborhoods
that
are
empowered
to
make
those
changes,
and
so
we
really
need
to
find
ways.
Sensible
ways
like
this
that
lower
those
barriers
to
entry,
so
regular
Jill
blows
like
myself,
can
do
work
like
this
I'm
in
favor
of
this
just
to
point
out
Jared
who
just
spoke
before
me.
F
E
B
G
To
yeah
so
to
start
with
the
first
one,
with
Alan,
Park
and
I
will
say
we
did
get
a
lot
of
public
comment.
The
community
is
concerned
with
preserving
the
open
space
that
Alan
Park
has
to
offer
in
response
to
that.
It's
currently
zoned
RMF
30,
so
there
could
currently
be
a
housing
development
there.
The
one
thing,
I
will
say
is
the
right.
Parian
corridor
does
run
through
this.
Basically,
the
center
of
that
whole
property,
and
even
with
these
text
amendments
that
will
could
get
you
a
few
more
housing
units.
G
G
G
And
this
is
a
multi-family
zone
that
today
doesn't
really
allow
multi-family
housing.
As
we
see
on
this
map,
you
can
see
the
multifamily
zones
are
highlighted
in
orange
and
that's
the
30
35
45
and
75.
The
yellow
are
the
zones
that
are
all
single-family.
Those
zones
are
not
being
touched.
If
we
were
to
go
area
by
area,
we
would
be
having
to
just
rezone
single-family,
potentially
commercial,
different
zoning
districts.
G
D
C
I,
first
of
all,
I
thank
everyone
for
coming
out.
I
know
this
is
something
that
obviously
a
lot
of
people
care
a
lot
about.
I
think
that
it's
and
I
think
it's
important
that
we
understand.
All
of
these
concerns.
I
also
think
it's
important
that
we
have
zones
that
work
for
their
intended
use,
and
so,
if
the
intention
is
to
have
a
multi-family
zone
where
it's
essentially
impossible
to
build,
multifamily
housing,
I
think
it's
important
and
I
and
I
think
Stafford
for
bringing
this
to
us.
C
I
also
think
that
it's
it's
important,
that
we
preserve
single-family
homes
and
it's
important
that
we
preserve
the
character
of
neighborhoods,
but
it's
also
important
that
we
allow
for
development
within
our
city,
because
there's
no
additional
empty
land
and
our
city
needs
to
to
densify.
So
I
think
that
this
is
a
really
important
step
in
it,
and
I'm
really
grateful
this
staff
has
brought
it
to
us.
H
So
these
are
more
to
the
other
planning
commissioners,
but
you
know
I
feel
really
comfortable
with
all
the
work
that
Lawrence
done
and
then
the
staff
has
done
and
I
actually
agree
with.
Darrin
I
mean
I
live
in
an
RMF
zone
in
a
single-family
home
that
is
surrounded
by
density
developments
and
we
all
seem
to
co-exist.
But
I
think
that
map
really
showed
me.
We
preserve
our
single-family
homes,
a
lot
so
I
don't
feel
like
we're.
H
We're
singling
them
out,
but
I
am
concerned
about
the
delineation
because,
as
I
stated
before
for
those
bucks,
sidecar
type
developments,
we
just
haven't
seen
really
good
ones
come
before
us
in
18
months,
they've
all
been
pretty
bad
and
we've
we've
had
to
modify
every
one
in
my
memory
to
make
it
just
because
it
says
you
have
to
worry
into
the
street.
They
don't
do
a
good
job,
and
so
my
concern
is
on
that
I.
F
H
And
I
I
do
agree
that
that
can
be
too
prescriptive
and
I
don't
want
to
necessarily
go
that
way.
I
think
it's
more
of
the
general
treatment
of.
Is
this
really
meeting
the
intent
and
oftentimes,
no
matter
how
good
those
things
come
on
paper
staff
in
something
yeah
you
meet
it
and
then
we
see
it
and
it's
like
no
okay.
K
H
K
I,
don't
recall
many
issues
with
the
front
and
I,
don't
recall
and
I
I
know
that
we
disagree
on
what's
an
acceptable
solution
to
some
of
these
things:
architectural
II
but
I'm,
an
agreement
that
we
should
not
have
a
big
blank
wall
on
the
back,
but
I
think
that
the
requirements
that
this
provides
provides
enough
windows
and
so
forth
to
solve
that
problem.
I
am
in
favor
of
not
having
severe
divination
requirements
for
two
reasons.
K
One
is
that
I
actually
like
units
to
have
quite
a
bit
of
coherence
and
not,
as
someone
said
earlier,
have
a
hodgepodge
that
is
kind
of
fake,
a
business
Disneyland,
because
we
have
to
change
materials
or
colors
from
one
thing
to
another
or
different
details
or
whatever
I,
don't
think
that's
a
natural
way
in
which
design
should
be
accomplished,
and
the
second
is
it's
very
hard.
If
we
don't
have
that
kind
of
definition
of
delineation,
then
we
don't,
then
we
really
setting
ourselves
up
for
an
interpretation,
that's
very
difficult
to
do
so.
C
Agree
with
Brenda
I
IE,
but
I
also
want
to
add
that
I
hope
that
the
that
this
proposal
does
not
get
held
hostage
by
a
very
small
part
of
it.
I
think
the
delineation,
though
it
may
be
important,
is
only
the
side
of
one
type
of
potential
building
in
here
and
I
think
that
to
to
prescribe
that
you
have
to
design
a
building
in
a
certain
ways
very
difficult.
It's
very
difficult
to
work
under,
but
I
think
it's
also
something
that
it's
such
a
small
part
of
this
proposal
that
I
I
I.
C
H
I,
don't
want
to
halt
the
entire
proposal
and
and
I
don't
want
to
delineate
I
want
to.
Perhaps
yes,
Brenda
says
state
that
these
do
come
before
the
Planning
Commission
I.
Think
most
of
us
will
remember
what
that
horrific
back
rear
looks
like
on
that
seventeen
hundred
South
six
nice
developments
that
we
all
thought.
We
never
want
to
see
that
again.
H
If,
if
these
were
just
a
one-off
and
didn't
come
before
us
all
the
time,
it
wouldn't
be
such
a
big
thing
in
my
mind,
but
these
are
becoming
the
most
frequent
type
of
in
Phil's
were
seeing
on
lots
and
they
don't
meet
the
spirit
they're.
The
developers
have
not
up
to
their
game
and
design
and
I
really
have
struggled
with
what
they
look
like
and
I
think
we,
as
a
body
have
struggled
with
them
and
so
I
don't
want
to
hold
this
hostage,
but
I
do
think.
K
I
would
like
to
raise
the
question
again
of
tiny
houses.
I
am
concerned
that
it's
going
to
look
like
a
summer
camp
and
and
I
know
that
unless
I
can,
unless
we
can
bring
forward
some
examples
of
what
this
in
fact
might
be
and
how
they
would
be
site
planned
and
whether
there
are
concerns
about
that
site,
planning
I
think
we
all
have
a
pretty
good
idea
of
what
a
cottage
development
might
look
like
with
its
small
houses.
K
There's
in
fact
a
lot
of
precedent
in
Salt
Lake
for
those
small
houses
on
the
interior
of
our
large
blocks
and
so
I'm,
pretty
comfortable
with
that.
But
I
am
not
familiar
with
communities
of
small
house
of
tiny
houses,
except
for
ones
that
have
been
created
for
homeless
people
so
and
and
and
that
might
be
necessary
for
some
places.
K
C
G
No
there's
no
minimum
size,
a
cottage
development
consists
of
two
or
more
and
tiny
houses
could
be
developed
on
their
own.
Cottages
can
also
have
lots
without
street
frontage
and
tiny
houses
cannot
have.
So
if
you
were
to
build
tiny
houses
on
their
own
Lots
without
street
frontage,
that
would
be
a
planned
development
approval
that
makes
sense.
H
G
You
can
choose
to
put
all
these
units
on
one
lot
or
their
own
Lots
cut
it.
The
cottage
standards
are
written
in
such
a
way
that
you
can't
put
the
cottages
on
their
own
lot
and
not
have
to
get
any
special
approval,
because
that's
a
building
form
that
we
want
to
encourage
tiny
houses.
If
you
put
them
on
their
own
lot,
you
would
have
to
go
through
plan
development,
but
you
could
choose
to
put
it
on
one
lot.
C
K
C
G
F
Think
the
issue
with
the
tiny
house
movement
that's
been
happening
is
that
everybody's
building,
these
things
on
trailers
and
then
that
they
get
a
round
building
code
and
we
have
no
control
over
that
they
can
just
Park
it
wherever
they
want
on
their
property.
I
think
this
is
a
way
to
control
that
and
to
start
the
conversation
of.
How
can
you
create
a
rental
unit?
That's
affordable
for
somebody,
and
the
city
can
actually
control
that
yeah.
C
K
You
know,
or
some
of
those
old
motels,
that
you
know
you
little
little
have
little
Motel
II
houses.
You
know
I'm
I
am
concerned
that
that
is
really
I.
Don't
know
how
else
you
would
I,
don't
know
how
you
would
cite
design
these
things
and
I.
Don't
know
that
we
know
and
and
if
we
don't
know
then
I
don't
think
we
should
put
it
in
here.
You
know
and
but.
F
E
C
K
G
C
C
A
A
Okay,
just
so
everybody
understands.
Procedurally,
this
is
a
zoning
amendment.
The
Planning
Commission
makes
a
recommendation
to
the
City
Council.
The
City
Council
has
the
final
decision-making
authority
on
this
matter.
So
what
we
approve
here
was
a
recommendation
that
would
then
be
reviewed
and
decided
on
by
the
City
Council.
F
Was
just
going
to
mention
if
there
happens
to
be
anything
that
might
be
holding
you
back
a
little
bit
in
that
motion,
you
can
mention
with
the
recommendation
that
staff
further
research
a
certain
thing,
whether
it's
tiny
houses
or
additional
articulation
on
the
sides,
or
something
like
that
that
we
could
then
proceed
forward
to
the
City
Council
if
it
were
to
be
a
positive
recommendation
and
research.
Those
further
yes,.
A
H
Based
on
the
findings
and
analysis
in
the
staff
report
dated
June
26
2019,
the
memo
dated
September
25th
2019
and
testimony
provided
I
moved
that
the
Planning
Commission
forward,
a
positive
recommendation
for
PLN
PCM
2019
zero,
zero.
Three
one:
three:
two,
the
City
Council
to
adopt
the
proposed
zoning
ordinance
text,
amendments
related
to
updates
to
the
RMF
30,
low
density,
multi-family,
residential
zoning
district
with
the
following
provisions:
the
staff,
further
research
and
articulate
the
tiny
homes
I,
don't
know
exactly
had
a
word
that
Brenda
would
like
what
is
it?
You
want.
K
H
A
C
H
H
I
I
H
E
C
H
G
A
G
B
B
E
F
If
you
want
I'll,
be
honest,
I
think
the
staff
we
have
some
concerns
about
forcing
one
form
to
come
through
the
Planning,
Commission
I.
Think
we
one
thing
is
we
had
to
identify
a
process
as
to
which
it
goes
through.
So
whether
it
was
a
plan,
development,
design,
review
or
conditional
use
conditional
use
really
is
only
looking
at
detrimental
impacts
that
come
from
the
use
and
so
I
don't
think
it's
appropriate
to
use
it
for
design
review
I
think.
H
So
I
hear
that
I
think
my
reticence
has
been
that
those
reviews,
an
administrative
level,
have
been
very
another
wording
I'm
looking
for,
but
have
just
been
really
simplistic
like.
Oh,
you
have
a
door,
you
meet
the
standard,
you're
good,
and
then
it
comes
before
us
in
or
just
like.
That's
really
not
our
intent.
That
doesn't
engage
the
street,
and
so
there
seems
to
have
been
in
these
past
18
months
of
all
these
reviews,
a
disconnect
of
your
ability
to
feel
like
you
can
say
this,
isn't
quite
what
we're
going
for.
You've
got
a
door.
F
Thing
I
would
add,
though,
is
that
currently
these
zones
are
EMA,
30,
35
40,
they
don't
have
any
design
standards
at
all,
and
so
for
them,
if
they
just
meet
the
basics
and
like,
for
example,
you'd
have
the
one
on
17
South.
They
just
met
the
base
standards,
and
so
they
could
come
in
and
build
what
they
wanted.
Hopefully,
in
this
case,
where
we're
having
heightened
design
standards,
those
designs
would
be
forced
into
becoming
a
better
product
than
you
may
have
seen
in
the
past.
So.
H
Do
you
feel,
like
administrative
Lido,
that
you
have
the
tools
to
say
to
a
project?
You
are
not
engaging
on
this
side,
this
side,
wave,
rail
or
whatever
development
you're,
not
engaging
the
street
appropriately,
because
you
have
a
door
and
that
looks
like
I
mean
I
always
say
it
looks
like
a
warehouse
with
a
door
slapped
on
it.
It
doesn't
engage
at
all.
Do
you
feel,
like
you,
have
the
tools
now
with
this
text
amendment
to
accomplish
that?
Where
I
haven't
seen,
you
were
able
to
accomplish
that
before
yeah.
F
I
do
think
that
they
I
think
that
they
are
they're,
certainly
better
than
the
zero
ones.
We
have
it
right
now,
but
yeah
I
do
think
that
we
have
the
tools
to
do
that,
but
if
there
is
people,
if
there's
you
know,
if
you're
hesitant
to
move
forward
with
that,
we
definitely
could
look
further
into
strengthening
those
design
standards
on
the
outer
facades
to
to
just
you
know,
to
get
more
detailed,
we
could
do
that.
F
We
started
at
one
point
with
really
detailed,
looking
at
everywhere
as
a
foreign
base
own,
and
then
we've
kind
of
made
it
to
to
this
proposal.
So
we
do
have
a
lot
of
and
we
do
have
other
options.
We
could
go
into
further
detail
about
what
those
things
are,
but
I
think
that
if
you
were
to
move
forward,
we
would
just
I
would
just
ask
that,
specifically
what
design
standards
you
would
want
us
to
further
refine.
H
H
Okay,
so
my
plane
I
think
that
the
design
standards
that
I
have
seen
come
before
our
stencils
short
is
on
the
front
facing
how
it
interacts
with
the
street
and
those
rear
yards
that
can
look
really
monolithic,
and
in
that
sometimes
we
ask
for
some
sort
of
breakup,
so
it
could
be
color,
it
could
be
material
could
be
a
window,
it
could
be.
It
could
be
anything,
but
those
are
the
two
things
that
they
continue
to
fall
short
on
of
what
comes
before
us
and
do
you
feel
like
there
are
designs.
C
C
F
R
C
E
C
E
H
So
the
motion,
as
it's
written
to
forward
and
a
positive
recommendations
with
the
following
conditions,
said
one
tiny.
The
provision
for
tiny
homes
is
removed
from
the
text
amendment
until
further
study
and
to
clarify
what
that
means,
what
it
would
look
and
how
it
would
function
is
added
and
to
that
staff
do
further
review
of
design
standards.
For
these
side,
rail.
B
My
quick
statement
is
that
I,
just
I
don't
have
a
good
solution,
because
I'm
very
torn
I
appreciate
the
comments
about
historic
preservation
and
affordability.
Preservation
and
I
do
think
that
sometimes
we
think
that
new
development
will
provide
a
better
housing
stock
when
in
fact,
it's
often
the
older
housing
and
the
older
buildings
that
that
provide
better
affordability
and
so
I
have
can
some
concerns
that
this
will
increase
demolition
and
and
and
not
provide
what
we're
going
for.
B
I
A
H
A
Right,
thank
you.
All
right
motion
passes,
so
the
next
step
again
is
City.
Council
will
review
the
recommendation,
as
well
as
the
full
text
amendment
and
make
the
final
decision.
Okay.
That
moves
us
now
to
the
work
session
in
the
agenda.
So
the
first
item
in
the
work
session
is
a
presentation
or
briefing
on
the
hand,
consolidated
master
plan,
Jennifer
Schumann.
E
O
L
Beautiful
thank
you.
I'm
Jennifer
Schumann,
with
Salt
Lake,
City's,
housing
and
Neighborhood
Development
and
I'm
excited
to
be
here
today.
Thank
you
for
making
the
time
on
your
busy
agenda
to
allow
us
to
do
a
briefing
on
our
HUD
consolidated
plan
and
thank
you
to
the
planning
team
to
get
us
for
getting
us
to
this
point.
This
is
the
first
time
I've
had
the
opportunity
to
present
to
the
Planning
Commission.
So
there
was
many
a
question
as
I
as
we
go
through
this
process.
L
I
would
love
to
start
with
introducing
my
team
part
of
my
team.
I
have
I'm
here
at
the
table
with
me:
Susan
Becker,
with
Zions
Public,
Finance
Inc.
She
might
be
a
familiar
face.
She
does
a
lot
of
work
here
in
the
city,
her
and
her
team,
and
then
we
have
Muriel,
HML
and
I,
never
say
her
last
name,
because
I
I'm
always
very
worried
about
pronouncing
it
wrong,
but
Muriel
is
with
strategic
communications
and
is
helping
us
with
the
Public
Engagement
component
of
our
consolidated
plan
and
then
in
the
audience.
I
have
tone.
L
Toni
Milner
familiar
face
potentially
he's
been
in
front
of
the
Planning
Commission
for
several
different
things:
I'm,
including
issues
around
our
housing
plan.
So
with
that
I
would
love
to
take
a
few
minutes
to
kind
of
talk
about
the
consolidated
plan,
what
it
is
and
then
turn
it
over
to
Muriel
to
talk
about
the
process
and
then
Susan
to
talk
about
or
myself.
L
We
might
tag
team
that
to
talk
about
kind
of
the
data
that
goes
into
the
plan
so
with
that
I'm
going
to
jump
in
and
then
we'll
turn
will
open
it
up
for
any
questions
that
there
might
be.
So
what
is
the
consolidated
plan?
It
is
a
terrible
name
for
some
amazing
things
that
we're
able
to
do
in
our
community
I'm.
It
is
HUD
nomenclature,
so
I
apologize
for
that
other
other
than
that.
L
It
is
looking
at
four
different
funding
sources
at
salt
lake
city
receives
Community
Development,
Block,
Grant,
funding,
emergency
solutions,
grant
funding
and
home
investment
partnership
program
and
housing
opportunities
for
persons
with
AIDS.
Each
of
these
programs
come
with
a
long
list
of
regulations
and
how
these
funds
can
be
deployed,
but
they
do
a
lot
of
great
things
in
our
you
and
I'm
gonna
touch
on
a
few
of
those
I'm
every
five
years.
L
We
get
the
opportunity
to
develop
a
plan
I'm
with
a
lot
of
input
from
many
many
stakeholders
I'm,
we
develop
a
plan
that
provides
a
framework
and
a
guiding
document
for
how
these
funds
get
deployed
in
our
community
over
a
five-year
period.
So,
if
you've
been
on
the
Planning
Commission
for
more
than
five
years,
you
might
have
seen
this
in
the
past,
so
I
want
to
start
with
actually
talking
about
our
current
consolidated
plan,
it's
called
neighborhoods
of
opportunity.
L
You
might
have
seen
this
graphic
in
the
past
I'm,
where
we
highlighted
five
very
specific
areas
in
which
we
wanted
to
deploy
the
federal
funding
again.
This
came
about
by
doing
a
lot
of
community
engagement,
I'm,
looking
at
data
and
looking
at
the
trends
within
our
community,
and
we
came
down
to
these
five
specific
areas,
but
even
within
each
of
those,
the
funds
are
very
specific
and
how
they
can
be
used,
for
example,
in
education,
we're
actually
targeting
early
childhood
education
as
a
way
to
address
inter-gender
in
intergenerational
poverty.
L
So
we're
going
through
a
very
similar
process
for
the
2020
2024
plan,
that's
very
hard
to
say,
I'm.
It
sounds
like
a
four-year
plan,
but
it
really
is
five
HUD
ears.
So
with
that
I'm
gonna
turn
over
to
Muriel
to
talk
about
the
process
that
we're
going
through,
as
we
gather
information
that
informs
the
plan.
Okay,.
S
Perfect
thanks
Jen,
so
I'll
be
quick.
I
know
it's
been
a
long
night
I
used
to
serve
on
my
city's
Planning
Commission
as
well.
So
I
understand
that
you
know
you
guys
are
volunteers
that
are
here
taking
taking
your
time
to
do
this.
So
just
really
briefly,
we
wanted
to
talk
about
the
public
process
that
we're
undertaking
to
develop
the
consolidated
plan
and,
first
off
we
kicked
off
our
process
in
June
and
before
we
did
anything,
we
wanted
to
put
together
a
plan
for
the
plan
right.
S
How
were
we
going
to
engage
with
residents
the
broader
public,
so
we
established
goals
for
how
we
would
do
that
measurable
time
bound
objectives
for
meeting
those
goals,
as
well
as
the
associated
strategies
and
tactics,
so
I'm
gonna
just
again
go
through
very
high-level.
Some
of
those
tactics
right
the
to
do
is
that
come
out
of
a
plan
like
this
again
the
citizen
participation
component
of
the
overall
consolidated
plan.
S
We
right
off
the
bat
assembled
a
stakeholder
advisory
committee,
and
these
are
representatives
of
the
nonprofit
community
state
government
representatives,
service
providers,
those
that
are
in
this
space,
providing
direct
services
to
vulnerable
populations
with
unmet
needs,
and
we
got
a
lot
of
great
feedback
from
them.
We
had
our
initial
meeting
in
July
and
had
another
one.
We've
been
really
busy
this
week
just
yesterday,
so
in
tandem
with
that
engaging
with
the
stakeholder
groups,
we
also
put
together
an
interdepartmental
technical
advisory
group
treat
a
forum
in
government.
S
We
haven't
done
like
a
like
a
full
community
assessment,
but
what
we
have
done
is
developed
a
survey
and
we
have
sent
that
out
far
and
wide
and
through
the
feedback
we're
getting
from
the
stakeholders.
We
feel,
like
that's
representative,
of
the
demographic
we're
trying
to
serve
through
the
funds
that
this
plan
provides.
S
So
through
kind
of
a
myriad
of
different
tactics,
we've
been
trying
to
essentially
get
the
get
the
right
feedback
with
the
survey
itself,
we've
gotten
over
2,000
responses
and
have
also
been
out
in
person
at
about
almost
a
dozen
community
events.
So
far,
so
in
terms
of
assessing
the
need
on
a
technical
side,
science
made
public
finance
team
has
been
doing
that
and
then
again,
we've
been
trying
to
get
feedback
just
as
much
as
possible.
Give
it
the
limited
scope
that
we
have.
Thank.
E
S
So
we're
here
today
we
want
your
direction
and
feedback
as
well
as
we
move
forward.
You
will
have
an
electronic
version
of
this
handout.
This
just
represents
again
high-level
data
and
information
about
our
citizen
participation
efforts
to
date,
as
well
as
some
technical
information
that
Susie's
team
has
put
together
happy
to
give
a
printed
handout
to
anyone
who's
interested.
We
also
left
some
at
the
front
just
wanted
to
show
you
two
quick
slides
on
the
feedback
that
we've
received
so
far.
S
The
serving
fielding
process
has
been
going
on
for
about
a
month
and
a
half
to
help
get
the
word
out.
We
made
sure
that
we
translated
all
of
our
materials
into
Spanish,
so
the
surveys
in
Spanish
we
have
flyers
collateral
materials
that
we've
asked
not
only
our
stakeholder
advisory
committee
members
to
get
out
to
their
groups.
We've
asked
the
city's
divisions
to
get
it
out
to
anyone
with
a
list
right.
You
guys
may
have
seen
this.
S
K
S
Yeah
we
could
take
it
together
if
you
like,
just
joking
okay,
so
moving
on
I
know
it's
really
hard
to
see
and
I
it's
one
of
my
pet
peeves
when
someone
puts
up
on
a
slide,
something
that
you
can't
see
anyway.
So
we've
called
out
a
few
of
these
metrics
and
the
number
one
and
number
two.
So
we
asked
residents
what
services
should
the
city
prioritize?
S
We
didn't
say
specific
to
HUD
consolidated
funding
plan
funding
because
no
one's
going
to
know
what
that
means,
but
we
just
asked
in
general,
based
on
a
list
of
services
that
we
knew
were
eligible
for
the
funding
to
rank
and
they
were.
It
was
a
forest
ranking
one
through
four
options,
and
this
is
kind
of
what's
risen
to
the
top
number
one
homeless,
services
number
two
transportation
services
and
then
I
knew
that,
like
someone's
gonna
ask
what
are
the
three
and
four,
so
he
doesn't
put
him
right
here.
Parks
in
public
lands
actually
came
out.
S
Surprisingly,
as
a
number
three
and
then
Housing
Services
is
a
number
four.
So
those
were
the
top
now
keep
in
mind
that
this
survey
was
not
necessarily
scientifically
fielded.
It
was
an
open
source
survey
for
anyone
to
take.
We
are
able
to
identify
residents
specifically
within
the
city
to
make
sure
that
it
we're
getting
that
feedback
from
residents,
but
it
wasn't
necessarily
a
scientifically
fielded
survey,
just
again
given
limitations
with
scope,
but
it
still
tells
us
a
lot
and
then
we
wanted
to
show
you
this
heat
map.
S
L
What
process
did
you
go
through
as
you
created
and
identified
what
the
goals,
what
the
needs
are
and
then
what
the
goals
are
as
well,
so
we
have
to
identify
a
pretty
extensive
list
of
all
of
the
different
engagements
that
we
do
and
all
the
different
presentations
that
we
do
as
well,
so
you
guys
will
be
noted
in
there
I'm
we
complete
a
needs
analysis
as
well.
That
was
great.
It's
late,
a
needs
assessment
and
an
analysis
of
impediments.
L
I
was
trying
to
combine
those
two
words
apparently,
so
this
really
identifies
kind
of
what
those
needs
are
in
the
community,
not
only
from
what
the
community
members
feel
like
they
need,
or
the
stakeholders
in
in
our
community
feel
like
is
necessary,
but
also
using
data
to
I
if
I,
what
our
unmet
needs.
What
are
the
funding
gaps
that
exist?
What
are
the
service
gaps
that
exist,
and
then
we
look
at
analysis
of
impediments
to
fair
housing.
So
what?
L
What
are
the
challenges
that
we
have
as
it
comes
to
fair
housing
and
and
ensuring
that
there
is
equitable
access
to
services
and
housing
in
our
community
and
then
Susan
and
our
team?
Do
a
housing
market
analysis
where
we
pull
in
what
the
housing
market
looks
like
trends
that
we
have
seen
and
forecast
where
we're
going,
because,
again,
this
is
a
five-year
plan.
All
of
that
comes
together
to
create
the
strategic
plan.
What
are
the
specific
goals?
What
are
the
specific
metrics
and
what
are
the
strategies
around
achieving
those
goals
so
with
that?
L
H
L
Our
current
plan,
there
are
some
challenges
that
we've
had,
one
of
which
is
housing
right,
so
the
cost
of
housing
has
gone
up
pretty
substantially
and
so
that
we
have
not
done
as
well
in
that
area
and
the
space
in
which
we
are
finding
challenges
in
is
new
development.
With
these
funds
we're
pretty
limited
in
how
much
we
can
allocate
towards
that
I'm
and
as
costs
go
up,
it
means
the
number
of
houses
that
are
developed
go
down,
and
typically
this
is
single
family
homes
that
we're
talking
about
here.
L
H
L
S
Also,
where
you
know
the
interdepartmental
technical
advisory
group
kind
of
comes
in
handy,
because
we
can
have
representatives
from
the
different
divisions
in
one
place
to
say
you
know.
Yes,
we're
receiving
this
pot
of
money.
You've
got
this
one
that
has,
you
know,
specific,
a
specific
set
of
federal
regulations,
but
if
we
can
collaborate
together
than
maybe
we
can
leverage
those
funds
more
efficiently,.
E
L
S
Also
wanted
to
come
with
to
you
earlier,
though,
right,
so
that
we
can
get
your
initial
feedback
as
we're
developing
the
plan
so
that
we're
not
just
coming
plan
in
hand
and
saying
please
put
your
stamp
of
approval
on
it,
so
I
think
it's
really
great
feedback.
You
know,
where
are
your
measurable
objectives?
How
are
we
measuring
progress
over
time?
I
think
we
are
starting
to
see
in
the
data
that
there
has
been
measurable
progress
from
past
plans.
J
Yes,
and
to
go
back
to
your
question,
I
was
going
to
jump
in
there.
We
are
doing
something
a
little
different
as
we
look
at
the
data
this
year.
We
certainly
have
to
follow
all
the
HUD
requirements
and
they're
very
detailed
and
intensive,
but
we
feel
like
the
data,
needs
to
tell
a
story,
and
so
we
are
tracking
the
data
from
the
prior
plan
five
years
ago
and
then
what
is
the
data
telling
us
today?
Where
are
we
seeing
some
changes
in
the
numbers?
A
J
Know
you
name
it
and
we
are
looking
at
it.
It
is
so
incredibly
detailed.
A
musical
population
growth,
housing
units,
condition
of
housing,
units,
rathus
net
ethnicity,
cost
burdens,
30,
50,
80
percent
of
ami
we're
looking
at
market
conditions,
transportation
costs,
it's
just
a
wide
range
web
pain.
Yes,.
F
K
J
In
terms
of
the
data
we
have
to
fill
put
in
all
the
required
data
required
by
HUD,
okay
and
that,
in
the
needs
assessment
in
the
market
analysis,
that's
fairly
data-driven,
but
the
strategic
plan.
We
are
going
to
come
together
and
bring
all
of
these
pieces
and
parts
together
and
have
it
tell
the
story
and
make
the
strategic
priorities
based
on
data
and
on
public
input.
Surveys
and
council
input
your
input,
everyone
so.
K
Came
to
my
house,
so
is
it
it
was.
Did
it
go
out
to
all
households
in
the
community?
Did
it
go
to
random
households
where
it
wasn't
more?
On
the
west
side
than
the
east
side?
Was
stakeholders
versus
just
regular
old
citizens?
You
know
you
said
2000
people
and
I
want
to
know
the
composition
of
those
people
is
yeah.
S
We
can
crosstab
that
with
a
demographic.
So
when
we
come
back,
we
can
kind
of
show
you.
You
know
the
make
up
on
the
aggregate
of
who
had
responded,
but
it
was
open
source,
so
it
wasn't
scientifically
fielded.
So
we
do
have
to
have
the
caveat
that
it
wasn't
randomly
sample
is
sampled
right,
but
we
got
it
out
as
best
we
could.
So
we
didn't
have
like
a
mailer.
S
Those
tend
to
be
a
bit
cost
prohibitive,
given
the
scope
of
this
type
of
project,
but
we
got
it
out
multiple
times
on
through
the
city's
official
social
media
channels.
We
got
it
out
through
next
door
and
through
mass
emails
that
you
know
the
current
the
city
currently
has
as
well
as
again
our
stakeholder
groups.
We
had
it
translated
into
Spanish
and
if
there
were
any
inquiries
to
have
it
translated
into
another
language,
we
would
be
totally
open
to
that
as
well.
S
K
You
think
that
your
response
that
you
got
that
people
think
that
the
needs
are
on
the
west
side.
Can
you
explain
that?
Do
you
think
it's
because
people
just
think
of
the
west
side
that
way
or
are
they
responding
to
some
data
that
they
actually
have
access
to?
Or
you
know
this
could,
it
seems
to
me
like
it's
kind
of
it
runs
the
risk
of
being
kind
of
prejudicial.
S
So
that's
a
good
question.
We
asked
this
Geographic
question
about
where
the
areas
in
the
city
are
with
the
most
unmet
need
purposely
after
we
had
asked
a
series
of
questions
about
services
right,
so
it's
top
of
mind
for
folks
the
types
of
services
that
we
were
asking
about
and
then
they
you
know
they
indicated
where
they
felt
like
those
needs
were
now
keep
in
mind,
do
to
HUD
requirements.
There
are
certain
areas
of
the
city
that
are
not
eligible
for
this
funding,
but
other
than
that,
this
is
just
what
your
residents
told
us.
Yeah.
H
J
S
H
I
think
it
would
be
nice
to
see
some
of
that
overlap
of
something
that
is
subjective
to
people's
notions
and
then
also,
though,
but
actual
data
where
needs
are.
What
is
where
is
eligible?
I
know
when
I
served
on
my
community
council.
That
was
like
a
sliver,
this
big
that
was
available
for
that
type
of
funding,
so
for
Block
Grants,
so
we
never
went
for.
So
it
would
be
nice
to
correlate
that
as
well.
A
A
A
R
Chair
members
of
the
Commission
nice
to
meet
with
you
this
evening,
we're
again
talking
about
the
off
street
parking.
Last
time
we
went
over
a
summary
of
quite
a
bit
of
the
changes
and
a
lot
of
the
big-picture
stuff
tonight
we
want
to
address
just
a
handful
of
questions
and
then
field
any
questions
you
have
as
well
we'll
jump
right
in
so
we
basically
kind
of
have
three
ish
outstanding
items
that
we
need.
R
And
of
course
those
are.
You
know
in
a
transit
context
where
you
know
we
don't
have
minimum
for
parking,
so
we
basically
need
to
discuss
how
many
stalls
would
be
appropriate
per
unit.
For
those.
That's
the
first
question.
So
a
couple
things
for
reference
is
that
single-family
homes
attached
or
detached
in
the
same
context
would
require
two
stalls
per
unit
at
a
minimum,
and
we
feel
that
this
does
have
some
opportunity
for
lower
parking
just
due
to
the
tight
of
homes
and
the
arrangement
here,
but
also
taking
into
consideration
that.
R
H
R
B
F
R
That
what
we
just
need
to
know
what
it
would
be
in
the
general
context,
which
in
effect
means
the
RMF
zones.
Okay,
because
that's
the
only
the
only
zone
that
would
allow
for
them
in
there
is
the
icer
same
so
yeah.
We
just
need
to
know
what
would
be
appropriate
as
a
minimum
parking
standard
in
the
RMF
zone
for
cottage
development
forms.
B
B
And
do,
though,
do
they
have
I
mean?
Has
anyone
looked
to
see
if
they
are
being
served
by
the
parking
and
I'm
guessing
they
have
no
off
street
parking?
I
don't
know,
Amy
is
that
the
case
and
I've
you've
seen
I'm
just
wondering
if
there
are
examples
either
locally
or
in
another
state?
That
has
done
something
like
this
and
what
sort
of
population
of
development
like
this
draws
and
if
they
well.
R
Two
more
things
are
found.
Typically,
they've
been
created
in
zones
that
are
a
little
closer
to
transit
or
have
other
options.
That's
part
of
the
appeal
of
them
to
make
them
more
dense,
and
so
this
is
a
little
bit
outside
of
that
we're
in
and
we're
saying
it's
in
a
zone
that
we
want
to
have
some
density,
but
don't
necessarily
have
good
access
to
transit.
R
Some
of
the
RMF
s
do
they've,
got
pretty
good
access
to
transit
and
others,
not
so
much
so
and
again
we're
looking
at
okay,
well,
family
types,
who's
gonna
live
in
these
is
there
a
different
need
for
vehicles
and
what,
if
they
don't
have
vehicles?
What
are
the
other
options?
Or
is
it
okay
just
to
leave
it
up
to
the
market?
And
so
that's
where
we
kind
of
said
well.
We
need
to
come
up
with
a
baseline
and
again
we've
kind
of
put
out
there
one
or
1.25.
We.
H
A
H
A
R
I
mean
it
would
stuff
to
meet
the
zoning
standards
for
setbacks,
and
things
like
that
parking
in
the
rear,
so
I
mean
it
couldn't
be
designed
exactly
like
that.
Obviously,
but
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
these
as
examples
and
we
don't
you
know
it's
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
different
scenario.
Then
maybe.
K
F
Think
I
think
the
issues
we're
critiquing
a
design
that
clearly
didn't
allow
for
that.
I
think
if
we
were
to
see
and
layout
that
actually
showed
the
parking
we'd
get
a
better
understanding
of
that
and
maybe
finding
an
example
would
help
clarify
kind
of
how
that
might
work
with
one
stall
versus
two
stalls
I
think
in
this
situation
they
are
showing
the
parking
they're
actually
garages
in
the
back
off
the
alley.
That.
J
R
H
B
B
C
B
R
C
R
R
E
R
Names
escaping
me,
I
can
look
at
it.
It's
back
just
cut,
slides
and
the
transportation
demand
management
which
had
a
number
of
provisions,
so
those
are
the
ones
we're
proposing
to
eliminate
and
the
other
ones
we're
restructuring
and
you
used
to
be
able
to
go
up
to
a
higher
overall
reduction.
Now
it
would
be
capped
at
40%,
so
we're
in
a
little
bit
more
comfortable
area.
R
As
far
as
the
the
opinion
of
the
public
that
we've
heard
in
that
they
feel
more
comfortable
with
the
lower
base
rates
and
then
allowing
people
not
to
be
able
to
reduce
it
substantially
more
than
that
I
think
they
just
felt.
You
know
we
now
can
see
a
little
clearer
what
we
know,
what
we're
gonna
get
rather
than
the
developers
coming
in
and
proposing
all
kinds
of
reductions,
and
they
thought
they
were
getting
one
thing
and
now
they've
got
their
reduced
down
to
nothing
so
in
parking
zone.
R
With
this
one.
Here
we
thought
that
maybe
it's
a
little
bit
more
appropriate
again
to
move
this
towards
a
one
stall
minimum
for
multifamily.
We
had
some
options
of
okay
breaking
out.
You
know
a
studio,
a
one-bedroom
might
be
a
lower
parking
count
and
then
the
higher
bedroom
count
that
felt
that
maybe
this
was
again
an
opportunity
to
take
it
down
to
the
one
stall
per
minimum
which
meets
a
lot
of
our
other
goals
and
let
them
market
dictate
it
a
little
bit
more.
So.
R
K
H
R
H
I
A
R
K
Brenda
well,
I
think
that
the
1.5
is
good,
but
I
think
that
actually
in
the
future,
we
will
all
have
different
alternatives
to
get
around.
That
will
include
needing
a
parking
space
so
someday
not
at
the
far
distant
future.
This
is
my
prediction:
we
will
actually
have.
You
know
parking
garages
that
need
to
be
repurposed
yeah
and.
K
K
R
R
The
public
in
general
was
very
happy
with
that
and
that's
something
we
did
hear
quite
a
bit.
They
did
not
when
we
talked
about
the
idea
of
the
high
frequency
bus
routes,
the
voice
of
the
public
that
we
heard
was
not
in
favor
of
that
they
didn't
trust
them.
You
know,
obviously
some
of
them
were
implemented,
yet
they
didn't
feel
there
was
enough
permanency
that
the
routes
could
change
things
of
that
nature.
R
However,
we
also
know
the
city
has
invested
a
lot
in
these
high-frequency
bus
routes,
and
we
know
that
they
are
in
areas
that
are
you
know
they
provide
really
good
service.
That's
there
often-
and
so
you
know,
including
this
additional
reduction
for
proximity
to
high
frequency
bus
stops,
would
seem
to
go
along
the
lines
with
the
city
goals,
so
we
kind
of
have
the
two
viewpoints
here,
and
so
we
wanted
to
take
a
look
at
these
and
get
the
opinion
of
the
Commission
on
this
I've
put
in
here.
R
The
frequency
of
the
different
routes,
I
think
what's
important
to
remember,
is
not
just
weekday
but
look
at
the
Saturday
Sunday
and
the
evening,
and
so
you
can
see,
of
course,
most
of
them
weekday
there
they're
all
15
minutes
during
the
weekday
on
Saturdays.
Half
of
them
are
remaining
at
that
15
minute
interval,
and
then
they
go
to
30-minute
intervals,
Sunday's
they're,
more
relaxed,
none
of
them
are
more
than
thirty.
Some
of
them
are
every
hour
and
after
7
p.m.
R
R
Yeah
perfect
in
case
you
just
point
out,
so
the
fixed
rail
transit
is
every
15
to
20
minutes,
and
that
generally
goes
till
10:00
at
night
is
when
they
switch
to
a
little
different
schedule.
Now
again,
you
have
to
take
into
context
the
transit
context
already
has
the
reductions
the
urban
center
already
has
made.
You
know
major
reductions
or
no
minimums,
so
not
every
single
area
is
represented
here
everywhere
on
the
bus
route,
but
I'll
show
you
the
the
maps
here
to
kind
of
give
you
a
better
idea
of
that
as
well.
E
C
R
R
R
K
R
F
N
K
E
F
K
H
Would
really
like
to
see
because
one
of
my
issues
with
allowing
this
is
that
these
high
frequency
of
us
is
because
you
can
tell
this
on
their
destination
the
you
or
downtown
and
the
times
that
they
run
in
at
7:00.
They
basically
stop
is
that
they're
ferrying
people
from
outside
the
city
into
work
and
then
back
out.
I
really
would
like
to
see
the
investment
that
the
city
has
done
into
these.
Are
they
capturing
actual
Salt
Lake
City
residents?
H
Is
that
what's
and
we're
not
there
yet
because
we
don't
have
enough
of
that
data,
but
if
we're
gonna
allow
for
a
reduction
in
parking,
I
really
want
to
know
that
these
are
serving
so
like
city
residents,
because
that's
where
their
impact
is
gonna
be
and
just
logically
I.
Don't
think
that
they're
doing
that,
because,
because
of
their
timing
and
their
destination
routes,
I
mean
I
live
close
to
21
and
I
basically
can
go
to
that.
H
K
I
R
R
A
R
The
primary
area
is
already
not
part
of
urban
center
or
transit
context
that
this
would
benefit.
The
we
see
would
be
along
would
be,
would
all
be
neighborhood
center
context.
So,
ninth
and
ninth
area
I'm
along
24
South,
you
know
some
some
portions,
just
below
sugar
house
on
13th
east
there's
a
handful
of
those
areas
that
are
that
our
neighborhood
center
context
that
this
would
kind
of
be
an
extra
incentive
for
them.
Those
are
the
primary
areas
that
we
found
but-
and
there
are
a
few
others,
it.
E
Currently,
in
the
TSA
zoning
districts,
when
you
develop
a
TSA
project,
we
have
a
point
system,
and-
and
we
allow
four
points-
if,
if
you
have
a
project
that
is
within
or
near
a
stop
where
three
bus
lines
come
together,
so
that
might
be
another
way
to
look
at
it
is
is
how
many
bus
lines
come
to
a
service.
I
stopped
and
therefore
would
be
bringing
people
from
many
different
directions
versus
just
along
a
particular
route,
so
that
that
would
be
another
way
to
consider
it.
Yeah.
H
A
H
C
K
You
know,
I
think
that
the
the
problem,
the
big
problem
here,
is
the
one
that
we
just
identified,
which
is
that
these
things
change,
and
you
know
the
2
and
the
9
and
the
21
have
been
with
us
for
what
now
a
month,
and
so
you
know
and
now
to
encode
them
in
something
like
this
and
and
allow
something
that's
going
to
be
built
and
and
probably
will
last
for
a
hundred
years.
I
think
that's
that's
going
a
little
far.
R
E
R
R
B
Look
at
maybe
if
you
were
to
consider
buses
a
night
and
I,
tend
to
agree
with
the
hesitation
to
allow
the
bus
routes
get
together
reduction
but
reducing
the
distance
from
them.
So
perhaps,
instead
of
a
quarter
mile
for
you
get
a
quarter
mile
for
the
train,
but
for
a
bus
route
you
it
would
be
less
and
I,
don't
know
what
that
would
be,
but
perhaps
being
directly
on
the
line
or
something
would
be
a
way
to
make
it
a
little
bit
more
specific.
B
B
If
we're
trying
to
put
an
affordable
building
on
a
tracks
line,
those
are
going
to
be
the
most
expensive
properties,
because
they're
right
by
tracks,
you
could
get
a
cheap
piece
of
property
on
a
bus
line
that
we
could
then
incentivize
with
having
live,
reduce
parking
and
really
create
a
deeply
affordable
project
that
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
on
the
tracks
line.
If.
H
You
look
at,
though,
where
are
these
high-frequency
of
s
Transco?
Then
you
would
be
putting
some
burden
on
off
street
parking
or
on
on
street
parking
and
laying
on
21st
there's
really
not
when
21st
doesn't
have
very
much
on
street
parking
90s
like
you're,
looking
at
really
busy
roads
that
aren't
going
to
be
able
to
accommodate
that
overflow.
If
you
reduce
the
proximity
to
this
high
frequency
bus
route
and
so
I,
don't
know.
If
then
we're
just
creating
another
problem,
because
typically
now
they
just
kind
of
overflow
into
regular
street
parking.
H
R
H
They
were
sold
to
get
a
so
if
they
were,
let's
say
on
State,
Street
or
yeah.
The
200
runs
on
State
Street
and
they
wanted
to
do
an
affordable.
You
know:
what's
the
percentage
they
could
apply
for
a
reduction
in
off
street
parking
for
building
affordable
and
how
much
affordable
would
qualify.
Does
it
have
to
be
20%
30%
do.
R
E
E
A
B
A
R
H
Would
be
personally
for,
like
I
am
not
in
favor
of
a
reduction
along
a
bus
route
unless
we
could
actually
show
with
data
that
Salt
Lake
City
residents
are
using
these
bus
routes
because
it's
so
Lake
City
who
will
feel
the
parking
impacts
and
and
I
don't
think
these
high
frequency
bus
routes
are
targeting
Salt
Lake
City
residents.
I
have.
E
H
I
agree
with
that:
I
did
I,
but
I
agree
with
the
public's
comments
on
that
and
they're
they're
not
going
to
likely
to
change
in
the
next
50
years,
and
so
there's
more
ability
for
and
and
they
service
a
little
bit
better.
That
is
that
a
resident
who's
living
near
a
tracks
line
can
just
jump
on
it
and
get
to
where
they
want
to
go.
But
I
see
your
point.
I
just
I
think
I
fall
in
line
with
the
public
comments
on
this
one
I'm.
I
Actually
make
an
agreement
with
over
25
percent,
but
mainly
because
what
kind
of
testing
the
waters
in
the
way
and
we're
kind
of
going
to
see
what
happens
once
this
might
be
implemented
so
not
having
something
to
look
at
from
previous
I.
Think,
that's
a
that's
logical
percentage
to
kind
of
go
from
and
then,
if
something
happens,
to
show
either
way.
Then
that
can
be
modified
a
later
day.
At
a
time.
F
Something
that's
been
successful
with
the
council
when
I
kind
of
feel
like
you're
kind
of
at
odds
and
not
an
agreement.
Is
somebody
just
having
a
straw
poll
and
see
how
your
other
members
feel.
So,
if
you
wanted
to,
if
the
chair
wanted
to
suggest
a
straw
poll
to
support,
adding
transload
are
adding
this
density
or
parking
reduction
to
bus
lines
and
just
the
council
just
do
thumbs-up
and
thumbs-down,
and
you
could
see
if
we
get
support
that
way.
A
R
A
A
R
B
Last
row,
this
just
popped
in
my
head
that
I
was
wondering
about
as
if
there
might
be
any
other
data
elsewhere
in
that,
perhaps
in
creating
an
incentive
to
build,
perhaps
affordable
or
whatever
we're
incentivizing
people
to
build
next
to
bus
lines
that
exist.
Currently,
then
that
those
would
create
an
anchoring
effect
to
those
bus
lines
in
the
future.
Because
then
you've
created
a
demand
on
those
bus
lines
and
then
it
makes
it
much
harder
if
you
ta
listened,
but
they
would.
B
B
B
A
R
Yeah,
so
I
wanted
to
touch
on
two
other
things
and
then
I'll
ask
if
there's
any
questions
or
anything,
but
I
just
wanted
to
point
this
out
really
quickly.
That's
in
their
packet.
We
have
this
parking
standards
manual
and
we've
basically
relocated
technical
information,
sight,
distance,
triangles
parking
angles,
stall,
widths,
that
type
of
stuff
and
moved
it
into
a
consolidated
document
that,
as
would
be
adopted
by
reference.
But
if
we
made
little
modifications
or
changes
in
there,
they
would
not
be
part
of
adopted
code.
R
That
would
allow,
for
you
know,
minor
alterations
of
of
technical
specifications,
and
so
that's
in
there
we've
updated
kind
of
how
that's
to
be
updated
on
administrative
level
and
graphics,
and
things
like
that.
I
just
wanted
to
point
that
out
it's
in
your
packet.
We
would
not
be
looking
at
the
exact
requirements
in
there
again.
We'd
just
be
adopting
it
by
reference
moving,
some
of
those
things
out
of
the
code
and
then
I
wanted
to
point
out.
Well,
we
way
back
at
the
beginning.
R
We
talked
about
the
scope
of
this
project
and
can
identify
it
exactly
what
we
were
instructed
to
do
on
here
and,
as
we've
gone,
we
feel
we've
hopefully
done
that,
but
as
we've
gone
through
here,
we've
kind
of
identified
a
few
more
opportunities
in
the
future
and
we
kind
of
wanted
just
to
make
the
Commission
aware
of
those.
So
the
first
is
there's
this
section,
o
6o,
which
is
parking
location
in
design.
We
feel
there's
and
that's
largely
pulled
in
from
a
lot
of
different
sections
of
code.
R
R
We'd
still
have
to
do
public
engagement
in
different
things,
but
I
wanted
to
make
you
aware
of
that
and
then
the
last
one
is
you
know
we
currently
have
this
land
use
table
and
it
takes
up
a
huge
portion
of
the
parking
chapter,
because
we
have
to
identify
every
single
land
use
and
not
that
this
is
unique
to
parking.
But
you
know,
there's
going
to
be
opportunities
in
the
future,
to
re-explore
that
and
consolidate
it
substantially.