►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting - September 11, 2019
Description
Planning Commission Meeting - September 11, 2019
A
C
D
B
A
A
So
now
a
report
I
have
two
things.
First
of
all
welcome
to
John
John's
new
to
our
Commission.
So
any
commissioners,
if
you
haven't,
met
him
yet
we'll
do
the
hazing
at
the
end.
You
know
thank
you
for
joining
us.
Thank
you
for
being
here
and
it
is
9/11.
So,
at
the
request
of
one
of
my
fellow
commissioners,
I
thought
we
could
take
a
minute
and
just
have
a
moment
of
silence.
So
if
we
can
all
do
that.
A
E
Nothing
specific,
except
for
the
item,
that's
on
the
agenda
at
the
time
requests
for
an
extension
of
time
for
a
planned
development
on
900
West.
So
we
do
have
the
applicant
and
the
staff
who
worked
on
that
project
here.
If
the
Planning
Commission
wants
to
ask
any
questions
or
discuss
that
just
get
a
quick,
a
reason
for
the
extension
you
can
ask
the
applicant
for
that.
Okay,.
A
F
A
general
contractor
and
developer
assisting
the
owner
of
this
project
in
developing
and
then
building
it
for
him
as
well
great
he's
a
gentleman
who
is
from
out
of
the
country
and
has
done
a
good
job
of
buying
Lots
and
building
some
homes
and
buying
some
others
and
fixing
it
up
and
selling.
And
the
reason
for
this
extension
is:
he
has
two
homes
that
he
has
had
to
get
sold
to
raise
the
money
to
go
ahead
and
and
complete
this
project.
So
we're
just
waiting
for
one
more
sell,
and
this
extension
will
do
that.
G
A
C
A
C
H
B
A
Yes
and
Adrienne,
yes,
okay,
unanimous!
Thank
you
very
much
passes.
Thank
you
can't
wait
to
see
it
built.
Okay,
another
reminder
to
anybody.
If
you
want
to
participate
in
our
meeting
at
all,
we
welcome
that.
We
have
these
cards
that
are
out
right
outside
the
door.
If
you
can
fill
that
out,
it
just
helps
them
meet
and
go
a
little
faster.
If
you
don't
get,
it
filled
out,
we'll
still
give
you
time,
but
it
will
make
them
meeting
go
a
little
slower.
So
if
you
can
do
that,
for
us,
that'd
be
great.
A
I
Thank
you.
So
this
is
a
proposal
for
an
unmanned
communication
site
with
a
monopole.
The
project
is
located
on
5600
West,
just
south
of
California.
The
monopole
will
be
located
in
the
northwest
corner
of
the
site
and
the
primary
use
on
the
site
is
a
large
warehouse
building,
and
then
this
image
provides
a
broader
context
of
the
site.
It's
located
about
half
a
mile
north
of
SR
201
and
on
the
west
side
of
5600
west
you
can
see
California
to
the
north
and
the
future.
Mountain
View
corridor
is
located
to
the
west.
I
Here,
a
few
photographs
of
the
site,
the
photograph
on
the
upper
left.
It
shows
the
location
approximately
of
where
the
monopole
would
be
located
and
to
the
right
is
the
warehouse
building.
That's
to
the
south
of
the
location
on
the
lower
right
is
the
view
to
the
south
west
and
then
I'm,
sorry,
the
north
west
of
the
parcel
and
then
on.
I
The
lower
right
is
the
view
to
the
southwest,
so
the
nella,
vation
and
site
plan
of
the
proposed
monopole
and
then
the
communication
site,
and
then
there
are
two
key
considerations
that
were
included
in
the
staff
report.
The
first
are
the
visual
and
neighborhood
impacts.
The
property
is
in
the
far
western
part
of
the
city,
and
it's
near
many
industrial
uses.
I
I
Additionally,
it's
located
within
the
inland
port
and
all
conditional
uses
in
the
inland
port
require
Planning
Commission
review.
It
does
specifically
exempt
wireless
communication
facilities
from
the
impact
mitigation
plan,
that's
required
for
other
uses,
and
so
based
on
this
information,
a
staff
recommends
approval
of
the
proposed
conditional
use
for
the
telecommunications
facility
and
the
monopole
and
the
site.
Are
there
questions
for
staff
any.
A
F
Name
is
Doug
coffered
I
work
with
the
company
called
Smart
link.
We
do
the
real
estate
work
for
AT&T.
We
were
originally
trying
to
co-locate
on
an
existing
tower
about
a
quarter
mile
to
the
north.
That
property
that
might
not
it's
marked
by
the
yellow
arrow
or
the
monopole,
is
located
a
group
of
trailers
and
truck
yard.
F
We
attended
a
co-locate
on
that,
but
the
least
that
the
tower
owner
has,
with
the
property
owner
required
that
we
obtain
an
additional
ground
space
outside
of
their
existing
lease
area
and
we
were
unable
to
come
to
an
agreement
with
the
property
owner
to
obtain
additional
ground
so
that
necessitated
that
we
go
and
find
our
own
location.
So
we
would
ever
talk
to
landmark
west
about
using
their
facility
and
we're
close
to
having
the
agreement
consummated.
A
Okay,
none
right
now,
we'll
have
you
step
back
and
we'll
open
the
public
hearing,
and
we
may
call
you
back
up
so
we'll
open
the
public
hearing.
Is
there
anybody
that
is
here
to
speak
on
this?
Anybody
from
the
Community
Council
anybody
who's,
not
on
the
Community
Council
all
right!
Well,
close!
The
public
hearing
are
that
at
this
point,
are
there
additional
questions
for
staff
or
the
applicant
or
I'll?
Take
a
motion.
A
F
F
A
I
Thank
you.
As
you
stated,
this
is
a
designer
view
for
1465
South,
700
East,
and
the
request
is
for
a
reduction
of
approximately
12
feet
of
the
15
foot,
front
yard,
setback
for
the
construction
of
a
canopy
for
outdoor
dining.
You
can
see
in
the
image
here
the
property
outlined
in
yellow
it's
located
on
the
east
side
of
700
East
and
on
the
south
side
of
Roosevelt
Avenue,
the
property
to
the
north
is
Zone.
I
C,
N
and
the
other
surrounding
properties
are
zoned
residential
and
all
of
them
are
used
for
residential
purposes,
and
this
photo
has
a
couple
photos
of
the
existing
conditions
on
the
site.
The
photo
on
the
left
shows
the
existing
building
and
the
view
to
the
north
east,
and
then
the
photo
on
the
right
is
the
view
across
Roosevelt
Avenue
facing
south.
I
This
is
a
proposed
rendering
of
the
building
showing
the
canopy
structure
for
outdoor
dining
and
the
canopy
would
be
located
on
the
West
elevation
facing
700
East.
This
is
the
proposed
site
plan
for
the
project.
There
are
to
be
three
parking
spaces
on
the
site.
There
was
one
site
plan
that
was
included
with
the
staff
report
that
showed
a
fourth
parking
space
in
the
front
yard,
setback
that
can't
be
permitted
and
the
proposed
canopy
would
be
on
the
west
elevation
again
facing
towards
700
East.
I
These
are
the
north
and
west
elevations
on
the
North
elevation
and
that's
showing
what
faces
Roosevelt
and
you
can
see
wood
trim
around
the
canopy
and
then
on
the
west
elevation.
There
would
be
wood
trim,
brick
columns
and
then
a
gabion
rock
wall
for
the
base
and
then
on
the
east
and
south
elevations.
These
are
the
two
sides
that
would
face
the
residential
properties.
The
canopy
wouldn't
be
visible
from
the
east
elevation
and
then
on
the
I'm.
Sorry,
it
would
be
that
wouldn't
be
I'm.
Sorry
on
the
South
elevation.
I
So
there
are
three
key
considerations
that
were
outlined
in
the
staff
report
for
the
project.
The
first
is
the
reduction
in
the
front
yard
setback,
which
was
discussed
in
detail
in
the
staff
report
and
in
attachment
H
for
the
design
review
standards.
The
proposed
canopy
meets
the
standards,
including,
but
it's
oriented
to
the
sidewalk.
It
will
facilitate
pedestrian
interest
and
since
it's
a
small
structure,
it
would
be
human
scaled
as
far
as
impacts
to
adjacent
properties.
The
proposed
use
is
permitted
and
it
complies
with
the
parking
requirements.
I
The
proposed
canopy
itself
is
oriented
towards
the
street
and
pedestrians.
It's
oriented
away
from
the
adjacent
residential
uses.
Staff
has
heard
some
concerns
from
neighbors
regarding
the
parking
in
the
proposed
use,
and
there
was
additional
email
correspondence
that
was
placed
on
the
Dropbox
on
Monday,
with
some
emails
from
applicants.
I
And
so,
based
on
staff's
review
staff
recommends
approval
of
the
proposed
design
review
for
their
reduction
of
approximately
12
feet
of
the
15-foot
front
yard
setback
subject
to
the
four
conditions
of
approval
on
the
slide,
and
then
I
wanted
to
note
that
there
is
that
additional
fourth
condition
of
approval
regarding
the
parking
in
the
front
yard.
So
are
there
questions
for
staff.
C
D
J
J
I
And
that
was
something
that
did
come
up
in
other
discussions,
and
so
the
original
proposal
had
the
canopy
cantilevering
over
that
outdoor
dining
right
and
then
once
the
design
review
was
required
for
the
extent
of
the
canopy
into
the
front
yard
setback
the
applicant
wanted
to
have
the
the
posts
and
the
columns
just
to
simplify
the
construction
of
it.
Since
there
were,
the
design
review
process
was
necessary.
C
I
C
Not
like
they
could
put
up
windows,
my
assumes
it's
gonna
be
very
noisy
patio
mm-hmm,
that's
not
like
you
could
put
up
windows
or
do
when
we've
had.
We
had
one
here
that
was
someone's
trying
to
build
a
rock
wall
that
was
particularly
hit,
but
you
saw
this
as
essentially
it's
an
open-air
canopy,
okay,.
K
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
couple
of
quick
clarifications,
and,
and
some
of
the
questions
that
were
asked
just
now
actually
get
at
these
very
issues
appreciate
all
of
staff's
work
on
this
and
especially
Sarah's
work
on
their
report.
Again,
what
we're
talking
about
right
now
is
is
in
fact
just
simply
a
canopy
over
the
existing
and
approved
outdoor
dining
space.
K
This
outdoor
seating
area
is
along
the
westerly
face
of
the
project,
and
so
you
can
imagine
in
this
you
know
summer,
Sun
or
elsewise.
You
would
have
you
know,
essentially
Sun
kind
of
glaring
down
on
you
and
obviously
the
canopy.
There
have
been
some
studies
that
we've
done
that
have
indicated
the
need
for
this
canopy
just
for
the
sake
of
making
it
a
more
kind
of
comfortable
environment
from
a
from
a
purely
temperature
perspective
and
and
also
obviously,
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
was
hit
on.
K
Was
this
question
about
you
know
the
posts
and
the
the
ease
or
excuse
me,
the
change
in
the
construction
method
as
well,
that
the
benefit
of
using
this
post
method,
as
opposed
to
just
simply
a
a
can
deliberate
system
as
well,
is
obviously
we're
fronting
right
along
there
to
700,
and
so
you
can
imagine
that
there's
some
traffic
and
so
on,
and
this
kind
of
provides
a
little
bit
of
a
barrier
from
that
traffic.
I
think
almost
psychologically
for
patrons
sitting
on
the
patio.
K
There
would
likely
kind
of
provide
a
little
bit
of
defense
from
the
street
and
so
I
think
it
serves
a
definite
purpose,
both
from
a
psychological
as
well
safety.
Again,
that's
kind
of
outside
of
the
scope
of
the
review,
but
nonetheless
relevant,
I,
think,
and
so
again
this
was
covered
very
well
in
an
exhibit
H
of
the
staff
report,
but
just
want
to
kind
of
touch
on
a
couple
of
the
key
pieces.
Now,
obviously
the
the
neighborhood
commercial
zone
is
is,
you
know,
allows
for
this
type
of
use.
It's
intended
to
encourage
small
local
businesses.
K
This
is
just
that
we're
talking
about
kind
of
a
smaller,
one-off
restaurant,
we're
not
talking
about
a
chain.
This
isn't.
You
know
this
is
very
much
intended
to
be
a
social
gathering
place
and
specifically
the
patio
you
have
kind
of
this
ability
to
kind
of
come
together,
socialize,
while
still
partake
of
kind
of
the
outdoor
space
and
the
environment
that
the
yuta
has
to
offer
again.
This
is
oriented
to
the
sidewalk
and
specifically
to
the
pedestrians
as
you'll,
see
in
the
in
the
layout
and
the
overall
design
of
the
canopy.
K
K
And
lastly,
again,
this
is
consistent
with
the
you
know:
plan
for
Salt
Lake,
as
well
as
the
central
community
master
plan,
and
we
think
that
this
is
will
be
a
great
addition
to
the
neighborhood
and
to
the
to
the
overall
environment
and
really
give
residents
in
the
area
a
new
place
to
to
come
and
gather
socialize
and
eat
so
happy
to
answer
any
other
questions.
Any
question
may
have
thank.
F
C
F
J
A
J
L
F
A
F
Mark
Mason
I
own
the
property,
just
south,
it's
duplex,
it's
got
a
garage
for
each
side.
Unfortunately,
the
garages
are
unusable.
This
these
property
has
flooded
three
times
in
the
last
five
years
or
called
100
year
storms.
However,
the
grading
of
seventh
east
causes
water
to
go
over
the
sidewalks
into
the
garages,
so
my
property
is
very
dependent
on
parking
when
I
look
at
the
the
renderings
there's
90
seats
inside
this
restaurant
36
on
the
patio
36
on
the
patio
that
adjoin
my
property
there's
going
to
be
a
considerable
amount
of
noise.
F
Coming
off
of
this
there's
going
to
be
limited
parking
available
when
my
tenants
come
home
at
night,
because
it's
a
dinner
rush.
If
we
look
at
comparable
properties
or
restaurant
communities,
if
you
look
at
Park
Cafe
around
the
corner,
parking
is
a
challenge
there
and
that's
a
breakfast
nook,
so
everybody
that
lives
in
the
neighborhood
has
already
parked
by
the
time
patrons
are
coming
in
in
the
morning.
F
What
this
will
do
with
the
dinner
rush
is
actually
have
a
negative
effect
on
the
tenants
and
their
ability
to
park
close
to
their
property,
as
well
as
increase,
walk
traffic,
which
you
know
that
there's
been
issues
at
seventh
East
in
Blue,
Liberty
Park,
where
I
wouldn't
not
be
as
comfortable
with
asking
my
tenants
to
walk
several
blocks
in
the
neighborhood
at
night
in
the
dark,
because
the
lighting
is
not
great
either.
There's
been
a
shooting
in
Liberty
Park
about
a
year
and
a
half
ago,
and
that's
not
something
I
can
encourage.
A
A
J
B
I
B
C
B
E
Not
really
it's
just
something
so
earlier
this
this
year
we
adopted
new
design
review
regulations.
So
it
used
to
be
that
we
could
do
modifications
to
setbacks
through
staff
approvals,
so
that's
usually
how
they
have
how
they
happened.
But
since
the
rules
changed,
those
have
to
now
come
to
the
Planning
Commission.
So
it's
just
a
new
thing
that
you
guys
haven't
seen.
E
E
Sure
can
I
make
a
comment,
so
there
is
a
comment
about
the
two
stalls
I
think
they're
actually
shown
in
that
rendering
that
would
be
to
the
side
of
the
outdoor,
the
structure,
yes
and
and
so
reading
the
regulation,
the
required
you're
you're,
approving
a
reduction
in
the
required
front
yard
so
that
required
frame
if
the
Planning
Commission
were
to
approve
this.
That
required
front
yard
goes
down
to
whatever
feet.
That
request
is
three
feet,
and
so,
if
those
parking
stalls
are
outside
of
that
required
front
yard,.
M
E
C
E
C
E
C
J
J
E
E
Think
generally,
when
we,
when
we
have
this
close
integration
of
commercial
uses
with
residential
neighborhoods,
especially
on
a
street,
that
Roosevelt
is
mostly
residential.
We
prefer
to
I
think
from
an
urban
design
perspective.
Keep
that
green
space
instead
of
having
it
be
replaced
with
parking
for
those
that
may
be
familiar
a
very
similar
situation
where
all
the
landscaping
was
removed,
and
it's
all
parking
now
is
in
the
15th
and
15
neighborhood,
where
the
Einsteins
bagel
shop
is
that's.
The
parking
lot
is
basically
up
against
the
sidewalk
and
it
creates
a
situation
for
pedestrians.
So,
okay.
J
J
J
You
know
it's
it's
lower,
so
that
you
have
more
view
into
this
space
and
it
doesn't
create
that
sense
of
a
wall
in
the
front
like
you
actually
have
a
building
there
and
I
would
also
like
to
see
the
material
be
consistent
all
the
way
around
on
that
wall.
So
if
it's
gabion
its
gabion,
if
it's
wood,
its
wood
but
not
sort
of
change
material
in
the
middle
here.
A
C
A
A
F
My
comment
would
be
I
think
to
reduce
some
of
the
heaviness.
My
colleague
had
mentioned
would
be
to
reduce
the
thickness
of
the
upper
canopy
to
create
a
feeling
of
lightness
versus
having
so
much
heaviness
on
top
and
on
bottom
I.
Think
that
just
creates
an
unbalance
in
the
feel
where,
if
you
were
to
lighten
that
up,
I
think
that
could
help
reduce
that.
C
I
C
D
C
I
J
Extension
out
towards
the
street,
the
setback
is
I,
think
reasonable,
given
both
the
property
to
the
north
and
to
the
south
of
this
of
this
building,
as
shown
on
the
aerial
photograph
here,
although
I
would
like
to
actually
know
what
those
dimensions
are
sometime
in
a
staff
report,
so
yeah
I
would
I'm.
I
would
like
to
make
a
motion.
J
J
M
A
A
E
J
K
M
J
A
F
L
A
A
G
Okay,
thanks
for
your
patience
there.
This
item
is
a
modification
to
an
older
plan
development
in
1982,
the
Kerrigan
Cove
subdivision,
/,
planned
development
was
approved
up
in
Kerrigan
Canyon,
as
you
can
see
here,
on
the
aerial
photograph
and
just
for
a
general
sense.
That's
a
essentially
at
the
very
top
of
2100
South
kind
of
that
direction,
and
there
was
a
lot
in
this
20
lot
development
that
has
yet
to
be
built
on,
and
that's
a
lot
highlighted
in,
yellow
and
the
subject
of
our
application
of
the
application
tonight.
G
And
the
request
is
pertains
to
the
side
yard
setback.
If
you
reviewed
the
applicants
request,
it
also
included
a
request
related
to
the
front
yard
and
staff.
Looked
at
that
reviewed
that
and
compared
that
to
the
plat
of
this
particular
subdivision
and
the
plat
had
some
specific
notes
regarding
the
front
setback.
It
essentially
stated
that
the
front
property
line
is
the
also
the
front
setback
line,
and
after
that
determination
was
made.
The
applicants
request,
we
got
for
a
reduction
in
front
yard.
Setback
became
irrelevant
just
want
to
point
that
out.
G
For
those
that
went
up
to
visit
the
site
today,
you
can
kind
of
see
from
this
panoramic
that
I
tried
to
piece
together
a
general
sense
of
the
property
and
the
trees
that
are
on
there
and
because
of
the
trees,
it's
hard
to
see
where
the
slope
starts.
But
it
does
go
up
in
the
photograph
approximately
anywhere
between
30
and
50
feet
from
the
front
property
line.
G
This
might
give
you
a
little
better
sense.
These
images
are
in
your
staff
report
on
the
left
is
just
a
rendering
of
what
the
structure
is
proposed
to
look
like
at
the
left
of
that
image
is
the
garage,
and
that
is
the
side
yard
that
is
in
question.
The
required
side
yard
for
the
based
on
the
zoning
would
be
20
feet.
The
applicant
is
requesting
10
feet
and
in
their
site
plan
to
the
right
in
that
area,
highlighted
by
that
red
line,
that
is
the
10-foot
setback
in
question.
G
This
next
slide
contains
three
images.
Just
to
give
you
a
sense
of
the
subdivision
when
it
was
approved,
the
lot
is
in
red,
highlighted
or
drawn
in
red.
The
highlighted
sections
in
yellow
are
the
language
on
the
plat
that
referenced.
The
the
building
setback
indicates
that
the
front
lot
line
is
the
also
be
a
setback
line
for,
and
that
only
pertains
to
a
certain
number
of
Lots.
It's
1,
1
&
2.
What
you
can
see
in
the
lower
left,
corner,
Lots,
3,
4,
5
and
part
of
6,
and
then
17,
18,
19
and
20.
G
G
The
the
development
conditions,
covenants
and
restrictions
has
a
different
setback
for
buildings
and,
as
I
looked
at
the
aerial
photograph
of
this
development,
I
noticed
at
least
half
of
the
homes
appeared
to
be
closer
than
20
feet,
some
significantly
closer
than
20
feet
to
the
side,
lot
line
and
I
couldn't
find
permits
or
any
specific
variances
or
other
City
action,
clearly
stating
what
went
on
with
those
particular
projects.
But
there
are
a
number
that
are
closer
than
20
feet
so.
G
In
your
packet,
there
was
also
a
slope
map
that
was
done
at
the
original
development,
and
you
can
see
that
a
number
of
those
lots
of--lots
have
undeveloped
areas
on
them,
which
are
areas
greater
than
40
percent
in
slope.
This
particular
lot.
Five
had
the
least
buildable
area
left
after
those
slopes.
D
G
C
So
in
the
in
the
packet
there's
a
letter
where
the
HOA
outlines
where
this
development
does
not
meet
their
their
standards,
that
would
then
be
up
to
the
developer
and
the
HOA
through
or
another
own
private
legal
action
to
resolve
and
and
those
standards
that
they're
discussing
here
and
not
before
us
as
a
body.
That's.
G
C
G
C
G
G
A
N
Be
faster
right,
my
name
is
Lindsey
Nicola
and
I
own
the
law
in
Carrigan
Canyon,
when
I
first
saw
a
lot
v,
I
immediately
fell
in
love
with
it,
the
trees,
the
hillsides
and
the
privacy
up.
There
was
something
that
drew
me
to
the
law
and
I
was
very
excited
that,
with
some
hard
work
because
of
the
uniqueness
of
the
law
that
I
could
potentially
you
know,
live
somewhere.
That
is
both
beautiful
and
remote,
but
also
just
so
close
to
downtown
Salt
Lake
City.
So
I
really
love
this
lot.
N
You
know,
as
Casey
mentioned
in
his
report,
you
know
from
overhead
shots
and
from
the
research
that
we
could
do.
You
know
around,
but
approximately
seven
to
nine
of
the
homes
in
the
lot
currently
do
not
meet
the
20
foot,
side,
yard
requirement,
and
so
we
also
feel,
like
our
plan,
lives
in
harmony
with
that
and
that
it
would
fit
right
into
the
development.
So
thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration
on
this
great.
A
A
H
Kellie
Ragsdale
I'm,
the
one
of
the
immediate
neighbors
adjacent
to
this
property,
I've
sent
ins,
Mike,
Mike
complaints
and
concerns
about
this
I
hope
you've
had
a
chance
to
read
them.
There's
a
few
pictures
in
there.
If
you
have
read
them,
I
won't
reiterate
too
much
other
than
as
as
far
as
the
variances
that
are
asking
or
they're
requesting
I
am
against
them
because
they
do
change
the
characteristics
of
the
canyon.
H
The
just
in
listening
to
things
today
and
then
listening
or
getting
information
the
last
couple
weeks.
The
only
thing
I'd
like
to
add
is
is
that
this
has
kind
of
been
interesting
in
that
the
petitioner
has
provided
the
HOA
and
the
neighbors
with
a
bunch
of
information.
I
was
one
of
the
ones
that
got
ahold
of
Casey
Stewart
to
ask
more
questions
about
the
process.
Here
and
how
this
all
went,
Casey's
been
providing
us
all
with
a
bunch
of
additional
information
that
the
city's
come
up
with
studies,
things
that
you've
seen
come
up
here.
H
Recommendations
from
the
city
on
on
what's
been
done
in
the
canyon.
What
hasn't
been
done-
and
it's
quite
surprising
to
me-
because
we've
never
seen
any
of
this
up
until
just
a
week
or
two
ago,
we
haven't
had
a
chance
to
study
it.
Like
I
said
it
does
change
the
characteristics
in
the
canyon,
quite
a
bit.
It's
new
information
to
a
lot
of
us
and,
as
we
all
study
it
more
informations
coming
about
about
things
that
have
been
done
historically
up
there
and
that
our
on
record
there
is
an
active
HOA.
H
The
monitors
this
kind
of
stuff
is
in
place
to
look
at
this
and
I
feel
that
myself
privately
as
an
individual
and
then
the
HOA
has
been
left
out
of
the
process
to
some
degree
I'm,
not
asking
that
the
city
not
allow
anything.
What
I'm
asking
for
ultimately
is
that
we
have
a
chance
to
study
this
further
before
you
make
any
decisions.
I
think
there
needs
to
be
more
engineering
done.
H
H
A
F
Name
is
Collin
King
I'm,
the
president
of
the
HOA
at
Kerrigan
Canyon.
There
are
seven
different
homeowners
here
tonight.
All
of
a
subject
to
this
variance
request
will
object
to
it.
We
object
to
it
on
behalf
of
the
HOA
board
and
we've
sent
letters
to
the
petitioners
or
requesters.
Those
are
part
of
the
record.
I
also
sent
a
letter
yesterday
to
KC
Stewart
and
that's
part
of
your
packet.
F
The
reason
one
thing
I
want
to
make
clear
right
now
and
that
is
the
staff
recommendation
to
allow
this
variance
is
based
on
what
I
see
inadequate
and,
in
fact,
factually
wrong
information.
They
said
we
looked
at
an
overhead
satellite
picture.
I've
had
that
picture
for
years
and
and
based
on
just
an
estimate
from
an
overhead
satellite
picture.
They
say
well,
it
looks
like
seven
to
ten.
Are
there
lots
for
homes
also
violate
or
have
variances
less
than
the
20-foot
Salt
Lake
zoning
side
setback.
That's
flatly
wrong.
F
I
went
out
there
today
and
measured
every
single
difference
inside
setbacks.
With
my
measuring
tape
in
the
middle
of
that
rainstorm,
it
took
me
an
hour.
There
was
one
home
that
is
less
than
the
20-foot
side
setback,
one
home
and
one
home
only,
and
it's
only
on
one
side
of
that
home.
So
it
is
not
in
conformity
of
substantial
conformity
to
grant
this
variance.
A
You
very
much
okay,
those
are
the
only
two
cards.
I
have.
Is
there
anybody
else?
This
is
your
last
chance
to
say
something
all
right.
Seeing
then
we'll
close,
the
public
hearing
and
I
think
we're
going
to
have
questions
for
staff
and
the
applicant.
So
let's
have
you
both
come
up
and
we'll
see
where
the
Commission
is.
N
B
Casey,
it
seems
that
a
lot
of
this
will
hinge
on
that
information
about.
My
understanding
is
that
when
this
was
originally
plaited,
that's
that's
the
standard
in
which
we
have
to
adhere
to,
or
you
would
normally
adhere
to.
So
if
it
was
originally
plaited
with
allowing
that
it
was,
it
was
laid
out
that
it
was
allowing
10-foot
setbacks.
Then
that's
what
the
standard
would
be.
Is
that
right?
B
If
that's,
how
it
were
originally
plaited,
correct
and
and
the
staff
report,
it
says
there
was
no
indication
of
what
the
setback
was
on
the
side
yard
at
all
and
so
you're,
going
based
purely
on
your
observation
from
these
satellite
images
that
there
seems
to
be
a
pattern
that
that
20
foot
setback
has
not
been
clearly
adhered
to
over
over
the
history
of
this
project.
And
then
we
have
the
argued
argument
from
the
property
or
the
HOA
president,
arguing
that
that's
not
the
case.
Is
there
a
way
to
more
definitively
have
that
information.
B
G
A
fair
question:
I
mean
it's,
it's
it's
accuracy
is,
is
I,
don't
know
like
I
can't
attest
to
it
and
whether
I
took
a
tape
measure
out
there
and
measured
it
I.
You
know,
I
would
think
that
might
be
accurate,
but
really
without
a
surveyor
who's
who's
licensed
in
the
state
to
declare
what
a
dimension
is.
B
E
Challenge
would
be
unless
the
property
lines
are
clearly
marked
right,
I
mean,
obviously
you
know
where
the
homes
are,
but
you
don't
visually
know
where
property
lines
are
unless
somehow
they're
clearly
marked,
and
that
mark
is
accurate
right.
So
yeah
survey
would
be
the
only
way
to
really
determine
that.
Okay,.
C
C
N
C
So
so
that,
but
that
is
listed
in
the
HOA
in
their
written
and
thence
with
a
now,
we've
got
ours,
but
presumably
with
you're
doing
a
planned
development,
you're
moving
things
around
all
the
time
and
so
ours.
You
know
the
question
before
us:
whether
or
not
this
proposal
is
consistent
with
the
other
development
correct
standard
which
I
consider
right.
G
C
N
N
If
I
could
I
can't
speak
to
exact
footprint,
they'll
pull
up
an
aerial
I
can
speak
to
building
square
footages,
I'm,
so
building
area.
Overall,
the
average
square
footage
is
7688
square
feet
throughout
the
subdivision,
the
largest
area
of
a
home
there
is
fourteen
thousand
three
hundred
and
thirty
nine.
The
smallest
existing
is
three
thousand
eight
hundred
and
seventy
eight
we
are
proposing
3215,
so
it
will
absolutely
be
the
smallest
throughout
the
subdivision,
and
that
is
not
including
garage
space.
That's
just
exterior
wall
dextry
wall
of
livable
space,
Thank.
M
G
G
N
N
However,
with
scale
you
know,
they
they're
approximately
scaled
to
be
reflecting
of
that
and
then,
as
you
see
a
lot
five,
our
proposal
is
to
scale
on
on
this
image
as
well,
and
then
I
also
wanted
to
add
that
the
total
footprint
so
Kristen
mentioned
the
total
square
footage.
But
this
footprint
is
2,700
square
feet.
N
J
And
Chairman
I
would
like
to
move
motion
to
approve
consistent
with
staff
recommendation
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
approve
a
major
modifications
to
the
Kerrigan
Cove
planned
development
subdivision
aka
boa
case
number
8862
of
1982
to
allow
a
building
setback
of
10
feet
along
the
east
side
yard
within
the
platter,
Bowl
building
area
Thank.
D
A
K
B
I'm
just
gonna
say
I,
you
know
it
feels
like
there's
a
lot
of
I'll
use.
The
word
hesitancy
from
the
HOA
to
reading
the
staff
report
to
any
new
project
here
and
what
I
didn't
hear
from
the
community
was
a
specific
reason
as
to
why
we
could
not
we.
Why
why
we
should
not
approve
everdew
setback
on
the
side
yard
and
so
I'll
vote
YES
as
well
great.
A
J
L
L
Rewrite
of
the
off
street
parking
chapter
of
the
zoning
ordinance,
and
so
tonight
we
will
be
going
through
it.
We
give
a
brief
overview
and
kind
of
framework
and
background
for
members
of
the
audience
for
newer
members
of
the
Commission
and
to
just
give
us
all
a
refresher
of
where
we
are
with
this
again.
L
Additionally,
we
wanted
to
re-review
the
permitted
alternatives,
and
this
is
the
ability
to
either
raise
or
lower
those
parking
requirements
and
see
if
those
standards
that
we
had
in
place
were
still
accomplishing
what
we
originally
intended,
or
if
there
was
something
else
we
should
be
doing.
The
third
was
to
consider
basic
parking
lot,
design
and
access
points
and
the
dimensional
standards.
So
that's
what
was
envisioned
with
the
rewrite
up
here
of
this
chapter,
so
sure
what
that
is,
as
we.
L
L
And
the
next
was,
of
course,
to
simplify
the
the
code
which
currently
there's
a
lot
of
things
related
to
parking
dispersed
in
many
chapters
and
there's
a
lot
of
complexity
to
it,
both
for
staff
for
developers,
and
it's
just
needed
some
simplicity
to
it.
And
then,
of
course,
we
wanted
to
modernize
it
based
on
planning
best
practices
and
market
trends
and
reckon
a
real
day
implement
those
things
a
little
better.
L
Assumes
job
with
that,
we
made
a
lot
of
revisions
and
a
lot
of
it,
who
is
general
just
going
through
the
whole
thing
kind
of
coming
through
it,
and
we
kind
of
had
four
guiding
principles
throughout
those
and
they're
shown
in
green
here.
First,
we
wanted
to
emphasize
pedestrian
scale
development.
We
wanted
to
recognize.
You
know
where
the
capital
city
were
largely
built
out
environment.
We
want
to
focus
on
the
individual
and
and
be
able
to
create
standards.
Based
on
that.
So
just
one
example
on
that,
for
example,
we
looked
at
the
bike
standards.
L
Currently,
our
bicycle
parking
standards
are
such
that
they're,
a
percentage
of
supplied
parking
well.
So
if
people
get
got
a
reduction
in
parking,
they
also
gave
us
a
reduction
in
bike
parking,
which
is
of
course
backwards.
If
you
supply
less
parking,
you
want
more
bike
parking
bike
parking,
and
so
we,
you
know,
for
example,
that's
one
thing
we
did
for
pedestrian
scale.
Development
has
looked
at
that.
As
far
as
for
economic
growth,
we
reconsidered,
for
example,
the
regulations
on
affordable
housing
and
for
senior
housing
to
find
relaxed
standards
for
parking
there.
L
Simplified
the
process
for
adjustments
so
currently
different
things
had
to
go
through
like
a
special
exception,
or
they
needed
more
complicated
interpretations
for
something
as
simple
as
changing
the
angle
of
certain
parking
or
just
minor
minor
details.
Sorry
I'm
having
a
little
trouble
with
this
laptop
and
then
with.
L
It's
not
one
email,
okay.
Here
we
go
and
then
also
talking
about
environmental
best
practices.
We
just
wanted
to
consider.
You
know
reconsider
options
such
as
car
share
the
ability
for
people
to
have
a
vehicle
that
they
could
have
a
subscription
to
and
use
only
as
needed
and
be
able
to
lower
parking
counts.
But,
of
course,
with
this
you
know
there
was
feedback
from
the
Planning
Commission
from
developers
from
business
owners
from
residents,
community
council
and,
of
course,
going
through
the
the
different
plans
and
kind
of
making
decisions
based
on
those
instruments.
L
L
The
transit
context
is,
of
course,
a
located
along
transit
lines.
It's
your
highest
density
development
and
typically
has
the
lowest
parking
demands.
The
urban
center
context
is
kind
of
that
adjacent
to
downtown
area
or
other.
You
know
areas
such
as
sugar
house
that
have
high
density
development,
pretty
good
access
to
public
transit
or
other
mobility
options
and
low
to
moderate
parking
demand
and
then
a
neighborhood
center.
These
typically
kind
of
the
poster
child
for
that
is
kind
of
the
ninth
and
ninth
area.
L
Those
are
typically
areas
that
have
neighborhood
scale
development,
lots
of
pedestrian
amenities,
but
maybe
are
not
well
serviced
by
transit,
and
they
we
found
that
they
really
have
the
most
varied
parking
needs.
They
have
need
to
support
the
businesses
with
lots
of
parking
or
traffic,
but
we
don't
want
that
pouring
into
the
neighborhoods
they're.
Typically
the
most
complicated
scenario.
L
L
We
did
explore
just
going
with
a
straight
map
based
context
area
and,
as
we
explored
that
found
that
it
presented
a
number
of
challenges
with
you
know,
ideas
of
treating
properties
different
the
word
zoned
differently.
It
was
much
more
difficult
to
administer,
to
modify
and
things
like
that.
We
felt
that,
after
kind
of
exploring
in
its
entirety,
that
sticking
to
the
context
based
on
zoning
designation
was
going
to
be
the
best
option
possible.
So
with
that
it.
Basically,
this
is
how
it
came
out.
L
M
L
L
Yes,
have
a
map
that
said
okay,
if
you're
in
this
area,
you
you
basically
reference
a
map
that
you
know
draws
those
in
and
it
got
very
challenging
when
you
thought
about
the
idea
of
so
what?
If
somebody
does
a
parcel
combination
or
something
rather
read
of
IDEs,
a
subdivision
and
now
they're
in
two
different
zone?
L
You
know
parking
classifications
or
they
acquire
more
property
it
just
it
got
really
messy
to
try
to
consider
how
that
would
be
administered,
and
then
you
know,
there's
a
lot
that
are
very
small
zoning
designations,
that
kind
of
wrap
around
each
other
on
some
of
these
fringe
areas,
and
that
really
would
have
made
it
kind
of
unfair
in
a
lot.
In
our
opinion,
in
a
lot
of
ways,
so
Eric.
L
So
yes,
so
they
be
in
the
open
space,
they
would
just
be
a
general
context.
We
don't.
These
were
the
context
that
were
based
on
what
we
felt
were
zones
that
were
proximate
to
mass
transit
and
things
like
that,
and
so
we
can
look,
but
you
have
parks
and
things
like
that
are
typically
open
space
and
they.
L
Developments
for
open
space
and
parks
are
going
to
come
through
the
Planning
Commission
that
comes
through
those
type
of
processes,
and
so
that's
where
the
a
lot
of
those
things
are
looked
at
rather
than
being
decided
exclusively
through
a
plan
like
this
and
then
also
with
the
general
context.
What
you'll
see
is
we
made
them
the
least
modifications,
so
they
have
the
highest
parking
demand
and
the
highest
minimums,
and
things
like
that.
G
In
response
to
your
question,
it's
considered
part
of
the
general
context,
so
what
which
is
essentially
the
gray
area
on
the
map
and
that
does
have
parking
requirements.
So
if
you're,
if
you
have
an
open
space
property
a
park
and
you
want
to
propose
a
trailhead,
you
would
go
through
the
land-use
table
and
find
trailhead,
and
in
this
ordinance
we
put
the
uses
in
a
table
and
a
trailhead
would
require
so
many
parking
spaces,
for
instance.
So
we
do
address
parking
for
open
space
areas
and.
L
B
B
L
E
Quick
just
to
go
back
to
the
open
space
question.
A
little
bit
is
so.
This
is
something
that's
been
an
ongoing
issue
in
the
city.
The
the
draft
ordinance
actually
has
no
minimum
parking
for
parks
and
open
space,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
because
we
oftentimes
like
in
a
small
neighborhood
park.
We
wouldn't
want
to
build
parking
because
it
takes
up
the
park
space.
It
takes
up
the
open
space
small
trail
heads
up
in
the
foothills.
We
don't
want
to
take
up
private
land
to
build
parking
lots.
E
We
want
to
just
rely
on
on
on
the
street,
and
so
that's
that's
been
a
long-standing
kind
of
viewpoint
that
the
city's
has.
That
doesn't
mean
that
we
couldn't
build
it.
It
just
means
that
we
wouldn't
be
required
to
build
it
when
we
have
when
we
have
a
facility
that,
like
a
park
or
a
trailhead
or
something
like
that,.
L
Okay,
so
I
wanted
to
give
an
update
on
the
public
process,
and
so
this
is
you
had
a
briefing
a
little
less
than
a
year
ago,
we're
Clarion
the
consultant
that
originally
worked
on
this
project
gave,
but
so
these
are
some
of
the
things
we've
done
since
that
time.
I
don't
need
to
run
through
everything
here,
but
you
can
kind
of
look.
L
L
Page
and
emails
that
went
out
about
2,800
emails,
I'm
working
with
different
developers
and
things
like
that,
specifically
sending
out
the
draft
ordinance
sending
out
summaries
looking
for
feedback
and
working
with
them
and
feel
that
we
were
able
to
get
to
pretty
consistent
messages
from
those
groups
and
I'll
kind
of
highlight
those
citywide
respondents
were
generally
pretty
pleased
with
the
proposed
changes.
People
were
were
very
risk.
L
They
were
pleased
with
the
work
we
had
done
and
basically
wanted
to
see
this
move
forward
and
thought
it
was
not
very
needed,
the
biggest
area
of
concern.
You
know,
here's
this
whole
ordinance,
48
pages
or
whatever
it
is,
and
there's
all
these
ins
and
outs
and
the
primary
concern
of
basically,
everyone
was
well.
What
are
the
minimums
and
maximums?
That's
what
they're
most
interested
in.
L
Okay,
a
few
other
takeaways,
though
specifically
from
like
sugarhouse
in
the
east
side.
They
felt
that
a
lot
of
the
alternatives
that
are
currently
on
the
books
were
far
too
permissive.
That
developments
had
gone
in
recently
were
able
to
make
reductions
that
did
not
actually
reduce
parking
demand
and
that
parking
just
ended
up
in
the
neighborhoods,
and
so
that
was
something
that
they're
very
aware
of
and
wanted
to
see
changed
from
the
current
ordinance
and
overall
they
were
pleased
with
what
we've
proposed
in
the
in
the
ordinance
before
you.
L
Additionally,
they
talked
about.
They
felt
that
private
development
needed
to
bear
the
majority
burden
and
they
wanted
to
see
them
build
parking.
Garages
would
be
preferred
and
if
they
found
ways
to
share
those
among
businesses
and
things
like
that,
they
felt
that
that
would
be
a
really
great
solution.
Do.
L
L
And
they
felt
that,
for
example,
for
the
the
sentiment
that
was
shared
was
you
know
they
were
weary
of
too
much
parking
pouring
into
single-family
residential
neighborhood
on
street,
so
that
was
one
of
their
sentiments.
Also,
they
felt
that
basically,
retail
and
restaurant
uses
needed
low
minimums
to
reuse
a
lot
of
the
building
stock.
L
That's
there,
but
they
needed
to
have
high
enough
maximums
to
support
their
customer
bases,
and
so
that's
kind
of
that
complex
scenario
that
we've
talked
about
and
even
in
studying
what
we
did
compared
to
other
cities,
we
found
that
our
maximums
were
way
way
low
compared
to
comparable
cities.
So
that's
something
that
we
definitely
took
note
of
the
sentiment
from
the
Westside
was
largely.
They
were
pleased
with
the
regulations
in
place.
They
didn't
want
a
lot
of
change.
L
They
felt
that
there
wasn't
enough
transportation
options
available
to
him
and
there
wasn't
enough
mix
of
uses
to
support
too
many
changes
and
they
kind
of
asked
hey
hold
off
on
too
many
changes
in
our
area.
We
don't
want
to
create
problems
where
there
aren't
any
for
downtown
one
of
the
opinions
that
was
expressed.
The
most
was
that,
although
in
general
for
downtown
parking
demand
is
decreasing
as
transportation
and
other
mobility
options
are
made
available,
office
space
is
actually
nationwide,
is
increasing,
for
parking,
require
needs
and
basically
what's
happening.
L
Is
the
more
workers
are
fitting
into
smaller
spaces,
as
we
get
away
from
big
filing
cabinets
and
large
spaces,
they're
able
to
come
with
their
laptops
and
they're,
putting
more
employees
in
a
smaller
space
and
with
that
they
need
more
parking,
and
this
was
also
kind
of
based
on
their
take
rates
of
public
transit
passes
and
things
like
that,
and
they
also
felt
it
was
important
to
be
compatible
to
be
competitive.
With
you
know,
some
of
the
development
office
development
happening
in
the
south
end
of
the
valley.
L
D
L
Pedestrian
friendly
downtown
is
in
their
best
interest
as
well.
So
next
I
wanted
to
talk
about
the
alternatives
to
parking
calculations
and
the
reason
I'm
going
to
this
next
is
we
want
to
talk
about
the
parking
numbers
tonight,
but
I
want
to
have
everyone
have
a
good
understanding
that
the
number
written
on
there
has
waste
and
it
can
be
altered
up
or
down
so
I
want
to
kind
of
set
the
table
with
that,
make
sure
everyone's
clear
as
to
what
those
alternatives
are
before
we
look
at
the
exact
numbers.
L
The
easiest
way
to
do
this
was
to
just
look
at
what
we
incur
allow.
So
currently
we
don't
have
an
overall
limit
to
the
reductions
that
can
be
made.
We
have
a
provision
for
shared
parking
and
it's
based
on
peak
hours
of
use,
and
then
we
have
one
for
proximity
to
mass
transit
and
allows
up
to
a
50%
reduction.
L
But
if
there's,
if
you
could
find
offsite
parking,
you
could
actually
reduce
your
required
parking
and
then
we
have
pedestrian
friendly
amenities
and
they
can
have
their
own
standard.
What
we
found
as
we
went
through
this
is
that
a
lot
of
these,
though
they
were
well-intentioned,
didn't
exactly
equate
to
someone
being
less
inclined
to
drive
a
car.
L
For
example,
I
like
to
highlight,
we
have
one
that
talks
about
having
a
drinking
fountain
within
50
feet
of
an
entrance
and
although
that's
a
great
thing
and
the
people
of
Salt
Lake
are
less
thirsty
because
of
it,
it
doesn't
mean
they're
going
to
get
out
of
a
car
and
suddenly
not
drive
to
work.
So
weary
examined
those
and
and
again
with
the
all,
the
plans
with
the
feedback
of
the
community
and
everything.
What
we're
proposing
and
the
reduced
and
revised
parking
calculations
altogether.
L
First
of
all,
we
felt
that
the
vast
majority
of
our
transit
is
covered
by
the
transit
context,
those
that
weren't
many
of
them
were
covered
by
the
urban
center
context
and
felt
that
the
few
left
over
properties
would
be
covered.
With
this
with
this,
there
was
quite
a
bit
of
discussion
as
to
which
properties
would
be
able
to
receive
this,
whether
it
was
from
the
platform
itself
whether
it
was
from
the
line,
whether
it
included
high
frequency
bus
routes.
L
Things
like
that
I
think
that's
an
important
topic
for
this
Commission
to
discuss
the
feedback
we
received.
Primarily
there
was.
This
was
a
fairly
hot
topic.
We
heard
considerable
voice
that
people
did
not
want
it
from
bus
routes
or
just
the
line
itself
that
they
did
not
feel
that
that
was
fully
reliable
or
something
when
a
development
goes
in
is
going
to
be
there
for
the
next
hundred
years.
Those
routes
can
change
and
things
like
that,
and
they
liked
the
permanency
of
a
fixed
rail
transit.
L
Stop
for
these
reductions
and
again
we
we
feel
that
we
have
right-sized
a
lot
of
the
parking
to
begin
with
and
allowed
for
reductions.
In
other
areas
that
hopefully
projects
that
maybe
the
other
reductions
would
be
appropriate
for
that
they'll
still
be
able
to
take
advantage
of
things.
But
that's
that
was
definitely
a
pretty
hot
topic
and
I.
Imagine
still
one
for.
M
M
L
No
I
don't
know
how
you
can
say,
there's
specific
evidence
one
way
or
another,
and
this
is
largely
based
on
the
sentiment
of
the
neighborhoods
and
the
people
that
we
spoke
to.
I
can
say:
Casey
and
I
are
both
transit
users.
From
personal
experience
you
know:
I
commute
in
I,
get
off
at
North,
Temple
UT
a
just
removed
my
two
bus
lines
to
get
to
work
every
day
and
seems
like
I'm
right
downtown
coming
from
a
really
prominent
location,
and
you
know
those
were
high
frequency
bus
routes
and
and
and
they're
gone
and
so
I.
L
Can
you
know
my
own
personal
experience?
I
can
see
that
so
I.
You
know
I'm
a
little
sympathetic
to
that
sentiment
and
the
same
time.
The
city's
just
invested
substantial
resources
for
these
high-frequency
bus
routes
and
putting
a
lot
of
faith
in
them
and
I
and
I
think
there's
good
reason,
I
think
it's
it's
a
great
area
for
discussion,
I
just.
E
Wanted
to
point
out
that
this
is
gonna,
be
one
of
those
things
where
adopted:
city
policies
and
the
community
feedback.
We're
getting
are
conflicting,
and
so
that's
going
to
be
a
point
that
we're
gonna
expect
the
Planning
Commission
to
to
consider
what
direction
to
go
with
this
particular
item
with
the
proximity
to
transit,
so
I
will
say
along
those
same
lines,
there's
there's
more
evidence
that
shows
that
that
bus
ridership
is
similar
to
rail
ridership.
E
When
the
bus
line
itself
is
more
permanent
in
nature,
it
has
the
infrastructure
in
place
the
bus,
shelters,
the
more
enhanced
kind
of
stopped
those
kinds
of
things
or
there's
been
an
investment
into
into
the
line.
It's
a
lot
harder
to
move
it
when
it's
just
a
sign
on
a
post
which
says
bus
stop,
so
the
city
has
funded,
updating,
I,
think
I,
think
four
lines.
E
Four
bus
routes
in
the
city
that
are
now
considered
high
frequency
that
weren't
just
a
few
weeks
ago,
and
so
that's
get
and
part
of
that
is
in
more
enhanced
bus
stops.
So
if
you
go
up
and
down
900
south
you're
gonna
start
seeing
those
bus,
shelters
and
things
like
that
start
appearing,
and
so
that's
a
question
that
we're
gonna
have
to
figure
out
as
a
as
a
commission
I
just.
M
L
L
Valet
parking
we've
just
proposed
some
new,
more
clarified
criteria
with
that
the
affordable
and
senior
housing
in
any
of
these
we
can
Casey
can
help
us
go
through
if
you
want
to
go
through
any
of
these
specific
ins
and
outs
of
these
you've
got
them.
You
have
two
documents,
you
have
the
proposed
ordinance
and
then
you
have
a
proposed
ordinance
with
notes,
and
that
notes
has
all
these
footnotes
of
kind
of
how
we
got
to
what
we
got
to
anything
that
we
decide.
L
We
want
to
discuss
a
whole
bunch,
fantastic,
we're
scheduled
for
another
work
session
on
the
25th
you
if
you
want
to
come
back
with
those
questions,
I
think
that
would
also
be
appropriate
or
you
know,
provide
them
with
me,
so
I
provide
them
to
me.
So
I
can
come
back
with
additional
information
with
this
we've.
L
Also,
the
carpool
and
car
share
included
new
standards
on
that
and
reductions
based
on
those
and
then
also
we
have
one
for
a
certified
parking
study
demonstrating
different
needs
and
that's
again
kind
of
this
idea,
maybe
of
an
office
where
someone
comes
in
says
we
have
a
higher
employee
count.
We
have
a
unique
situation
for
whatever
reason
as
to
why
we
should
be
required
either
more
or
less
parking
than
then
what
would
be
there,
and
we
have
ways
that
that
would
need
to
be
verified
by
his
transportation
engineers
and
by
our
staff.
So
so.
L
M
C
D
L
D
One
of
the
findings
in
that
was
the
issue
of
shared
parking
and
I
still
want
to
touch
on
that
a
little
bit
more
so
I
better
understand
it.
So
you've
changed
provisions
for
shared
parking
based
on
use,
but
is
there
anything
in
there?
That's
incentivizing
shared
parking,
because
one
of
the
findings
in
that
study
stated
the
benefits
than
the
need
for
like
a
parking
authority
which
essentially
builds
upon
that
idea
of
shared
parking.
D
It's
one
of
the
problems
we
experienced
in
various
spots,
especially
like
ninth
and
ninth,
where
I
own
this
nobody
else
can
park
here.
What
we
get
all
those
conflicts,
long
for
south
and
people
are
getting
voted
and
ticketed.
So
how
are
we
trying
to
to
increase
the
benefits
to
the
public,
which
also
then
I
think
helped
the
businesses
to
have
more
shared
parking
instead
of
this?
D
E
E
D
E
E
And
what
we
do
is
that's
what
shared
parking
and
offsite
parking
is
intended
to
do
so,
for
example,
it
works
really
well
downtown.
It
hasn't
quite
worked
as
well
in
other
parts
of
the
city,
but
you
know
the
city
was
able
to
build
the
Eccles
theater
without
building
a
single
parking
spot,
because
we
could
share
what
was
around
there
because
it
was
available.
The
property
owners
of
the
garage
were
like
yeah.
We
want
people
to
park
in
a
garage
when
it's
not
being
used.
E
D
Its
have
we
done
a
review
of
other,
like
cities
that
may
be
capitalized
more
on
shared
parking.
I,
just
don't
want
to
pass
up
all
of
the
work
you
guys
have
been
doing,
because
this
takes
so
long
to
not
address
something,
that's
becoming
a
problem
throughout
the
city
and
that
maybe
there's
something
more.
We
can
do
to
really
look
at
it,
knowing
that
other
agency
or
other
divisions,
you
know,
could
be
part
of
it,
but
I
don't
want
to
pass
it
up,
because
we.
E
Have
looked
at
those
things
and
those
are
in
other
cities:
those
are
things
that
are
done
outside
of
a
zoning
code,
so
it
that's
that
parking
authority.
Viewing
parking
is
more
of
a
utility
those
types
of
things,
but
they
need
to
be
the
zoning
code
itself
isn't
good
at
doing
that.
It's
not
they're
not
really
set
up
for
that.
So
there
needs
to
be
other
mechanisms,
and
that's
that
downtown
and
sugarhouse
parking
study
that
you
referenced.
It
did
identify
that
I
think
the
city
is
well
aware.
E
I
think
that
downtown
Alliance
and
the
Chamber
of
Commerce
is
well
aware
of
that
and
I
think
everybody
wants
to
get
there,
but
because
a
lot
of
the
parking
is
almost
all
privately
owned,
we
need
to
bring,
or
at
least
the
offshoot
parking.
We
need
to
bring
those
property
owners
and
operators
along
with
that,
and
that
takes
a
long
time
and
we're
not
there.
Yet
is
the
city
just.
F
The
thought
when
I
was
in
LA,
we
would
do
multi
families.
We
get
incentives
to
do
an
extra
story
if
we
included
low-income
housing
as
part
of
the
development,
we
could
replace
a
lot
of
that
parking
with
bicycle
parking.
Would
there
be
a
way
to
incentivize
business
owners
by
increasing
us
by
a
story
or
leasable
square
footage
if
they
include
so
many
public
parking
spaces
within
their
development?
That
could
be
a
way
of
doing
it,
but.
E
If
that's
yeah
I
mean
we
can
we
can
look
at
that?
That's
something
that
we'd
have
to
figure
out
how
to
administer
and
manage,
and
when
you're,
when
you're
doing
things
like
that
you're,
essentially
creating
for
lack
of
a
better
term,
a
bank
that
you
have
to
operate
so
that
you
know
what's
there,
who
has
rights
to
what
that
takes
a
certain
level
of
staff,
time
and
administration
to
be
able
to
do
that.
So
those
are
all
things
that
we'd
have
to
consider
one
if
we
have
the
ability
to
even
do
it
as
a
city.
L
You
want
anything:
okay,
I'll
just
say
one
other
thing
that
Nick
mentioned
about
downtown
Alliance,
just
having
met
with
them
a
number
of
times.
I
know
that
is
something
that
they
are
very
specifically
working
on,
as
well
as
coming
up
with
signage
plans
and
different
things
and
being
able
to
create
kind
of
a
that
Bank
within
their
own
organization
to
find
who.
M
L
And,
like
Nick
mentioned,
the
zoning
ordinance
isn't
in
the
perfect
place
to
create
those
incentives.
We
hope
that
by
hopefully
right
sizing,
these
were
increasing
property
values,
we're
increasing
use
and
we're
eliminating
excess
or
creating
opportunities
for
things
like
that
that
we're,
hopefully
you
know,
kind
of
right
sizing.
It.
L
So
with
that
next
I
wanted
to
give
a
brief
explanation
of
the
new
layout.
That's
in
here
just
so
as
we
go
through
it.
We're
gonna
primarily
look
at
the
handful
of
the
numbers
on
these
context
sheets,
but
if
you
happen
to
be
referencing
the
ordinance
tonight
or
at
another
time,
I
want
you
to
be
able
to
understand
this
section.
Oh
400
is
the
parking
counts,
minimum
and
maximum
sand.
It's
the
bulk
of
this
ordinance
is
this
large
table
of
all
the
uses,
and
so
as
you'll
see
here.
L
First
column
is
the
land
use
itself,
and
so
what's
been
done
is
all
land
uses
that
are
used
elsewhere
in
the
zoning
code
are
represented
here
and
they're
categorized
first
by
that
kind
of
large
top
large
level
thing
here
you
know
like
residential
uses
and
then
the
smaller
context
of
household
living.
Okay,
so
that's
the
first
column.
There
is
your
reference
things.
L
Given
that
there's
a
whole
slew
of
uses-
and
you
may
have
interest
in
certain
ones
and
but
in
respect
to
time,
I
understand
I'd
like
you
to
be
able
to
look
through
those.
If
there
are
certain
ones
that
stand
out,
we
can
certainly
discuss
those
at
a
later
time,
but
what
I
wanted
to
do
hopefully
was
to
go
to
the
parking
context.
You
have
in
front
of
you
and
so
you've
got
the
transit
context
there.
L
L
We're
proposing
that
in
the
transit
context
that
there
would
be
no
minimums
for
office
uses
and
that
the
max
would
be
two
per
thousand,
and
that
goes
a
little
bit.
It
seems
a
little
contrary
to
what
I
said
earlier,
that
the
office
is
requiring
more
yet
we're
setting
our
new
maximum
below
the
old
minimum.
But
again
we
want
to
we're
encouraging
structured
parking
for
that
and
feel
that
we
have
their
requirements
in
place
for
appropriate
structures
and
saying
that
office
use
should
not
spill
out
and
be
surface
level
parking,
yeah
I'll
it
grates
yeah.
E
I
was
just
gonna,
make
a
follow-up
comment
that
one
of
the
reasons
behind
that
is
to
if
somebody
is
going
to
do
surface
parking
lot
in
our
transit
area,
we
don't
want
it
to
take
up
a
lot
of
space.
We
would
rather
have
the
property
be
taken
up
by
building
than
by
surface
parking.
So
that's
why
I
want
another
reason
why
that
maximum
is
kept
pretty
low.
L
And
this
is
as
we
go
through
these.
This
is
a
great
place
to
if
we
want
to
debate
any
numbers,
anything
like
that,
though,
that
would
be
appropriate,
otherwise,
I'll
keep
rolling
through
with
retails
again
very
similar.
We
had
a
minimum
of
two
per
thousand
and
a
max
was
again
based
on
the
zoning
district,
but
typically
it
was
fairly
low,
we're
again
proposing
the
minimum,
no
minimum
and
again
a
maximum
and
the
two
per
thousand
we're
saying
these
are
in
a
transit
area.
You
should
be
walking
or
using
transit
to
get
to
him.
L
Otherwise
he
shouldn't
be
same
thing.
Don't
take
up
a
lot
of
space,
build
structured
parking
if
you,
if
you
feel
you
require
more
than
that
for
retail
restaurant
a
little
bit
different
and
that
we're
looking
at
two
per
thousand
for
a
minimum
and
a
maximum
five
per
thousand
and
felt
that
those
were
a
little
more
in
a
a
little
more
appropriate
based
on
the
findings
that
we've
searched
with
other
cities
and
kind
of
best
practices
and
and
reflect
user
rates.
G
J
M
L
So
these
numbers
they
honestly
they're
a
compilation
of
so
many
different
places,
they're
from
the
original
counts.
A
lot
of
them
came
from
Clarion
in
their
studies,
either
other
cities
best
practices.
What
they're
seeing
being
implemented
parking
studies
they
have
for
use,
use
rates
and
then
also
based
on
feedback
we
received,
as
we
met
with
people,
they
got
fine-tuned.
L
I,
don't
know
if
I
can
give
you
it
on
any
of
this
I
don't
know.
If
I
can
give
you
a
direct
answer
on
exact
numbers.
We
felt
that
was
a
fairly
appropriate
range.
The
minimums
were
a
little
uncomfortable.
The
maximum
is
a
little
uncomfortable.
The
market
hopefully
chooses
something
appropriate
in
between,
but
all
of
these,
of
course
are
open
for
discussion.
L
L
J
And
I
think
that's
recent
work
given
given
what's
going
on
there,
but
but
when
we
build
these
I
mean
when
we
build
these
units
like
this
and
build
this
happen
at
parking
like
this
there's
a
couple
of
problems
with
the
design
of
the
buildings.
If
you
want
the
transit
context
wants
to
be
development
context
where
maybe
you
don't
know
out
looking
at
parking
lots
and
that's
true
of
all
of
these
sort
of
higher
density
places
that
were
what
we're
looking
at
right.
J
They,
they
don't
want
to
be
parking
lots,
but
it's
hard
to
imagine
how,
if
you
have
a
parking
lot,
the
same
size
as
the
building.
You
know
it
can't
be
sort
of
a
parking
forward
kind
of
use
and
that
definitely
would
not
be
appropriate
in
a
transit
context,
so
not
quite
sure
how
you're
going
to
administer
that
if
somebody
wants
to
come
in
with
a
max
I.
J
L
J
I
have
no
problem
with
the
office
where
you
and
and
even
the
retail,
where
you
look
at
structured
parking
guests
taking
up
some
of
that
I.
Don't
know
why
restaurants
would
be
that
much
different
in
the
transit
context,
because
they're,
you
know
going
to
be
in
buildings
that
are
not
just
a
single
restaurant
building,
but
presumably
right
right
well,.
M
M
J
L
Man,
okay,
I
apologize.
We
have
got
them
error
on
here.
It's
the
only
one
in
the
whole
ordinance,
so
this
is
good
I'm
glad
we
found
it
up
front
cuz.
There
are
no
others
that
can
guarantee
that
so,
okay,
so
yeah.
So
there
is
no
Thank
You
Nick,
there's
no
minimum,
so
something
could
come
in
as
a
reuse
without
requiring
any
parking.
That's
that's
part
of
what
would
be
solved.
Okay,.
I
A
M
C
C
I
have
60
people
that
work
there,
that's
about
all
I
and
we
all
drive
cars
so
like
I
saw
like
that's
my
only
comparable
deal,
but
so
what
couple
things
always
want
given
and
say
that
one
I'm
I'm
less
concerned
about
minimums
in
or
even
maxims,
arguably
in
downtown
areas,
because
I
feel
is
long.
The
problems
you
want
to
prevent
other
things
that
are
outside
of
parking
right,
so
surface
parking
lots.
C
So
it
seems
like
zoning
things
can
do
that
and
we
it
should-
and
it
seems
like
the
market,
then
is
gonna
dictate
minimums
and
maximums.
These
developers
are
gonna
build
what
they
need
to
build
because
they're
putting
millions
of
dollars
into
it.
So
they
need
to
make
sure
that
it's
gonna
work
financially
right
to
me.
I
think
the
bigger
problem,
the
one
that
we
deal
with
here
is
a
body
more
frequently
are
quite
anything
like
the
guy
that
came
here
in
front
of
us
today
when
I
have
some
real
challenges
to
think.
C
If
that
business
is
gonna,
be
successful,
the
way
that
guys
building
it
out
like
one
it's
right
there
on
seventh
70s,
no
one's
gonna,
want
to
sit
on
that
patio
and
have
dinner,
and
regardless
of
how
nice
he
thinks
he
can
make
it
and
and
the
with
parking
there
there's
no
parking
along.
This
is
aluminum
he's
gonna
for
that
I'm,
getting
people
there
I
mean
but
he's
building
it
and
that's
what
they're
doing
and
that's
it's
gonna
be
a
problem.
C
I
think
you
know
same
thing
with
overnight:
the
ninth
where
the
condos
got
Bill
is
kind
of
small
and
mid-sized
developers
that
are
less
sophisticated,
I
guess
to
understand
their
market
where
they're
using
in
their
giant.
You
know
and
that's
where
we
have
problems
in
the
in
the
deal
and
I.
Think,
where
were
those
really
and
I
can
die
even
think
about
politically
about
how
you
move
this
thing
through
grouping
the
whole
city
in
a
general
context
is
hard
to
understand.
I.
C
Think
I
think
it's
almost
be
easier
if
you
did
have
a
way
that
you
had
like
general
context,
because
I'm
in
redwood
road
in
the
State,
Street
and
partly
70s,
everything
are
a
little
front
then
running
things
around.
You
know,
through
the
avenues
or
through
Rose
Park
or
through
these
neighborhoods
right
I
mean
the
neighborhood
impact
is
just
different.
That's
where
you're
gonna
have
people
and
I
think,
and
maybe
it's
the
same
and
it
works
out
the
same,
but
like
politically
I
think
for
people
to
see
their
neighborhood
tied
in
with
these
lease.
C
So
that's
my
I
guess
my
feedback
in
that
sense.
Is
it
ways
to
articulate
more
clearly
that
when
you're,
you
know
it's
really?
It's
not
the
neighborhood
centers
that
matter.
It's
what's
around
them
that
matters.
You
know
what
I
mean:
it's
not
that
it's
not
that
actual
parcel
it's
what's
around
them,
that's
the
impact,
its
external
and
so
I
think
figuring.
How
we
better,
articulate
that
and
spell
it
out,
is
gonna,
be
helpful
with
me
understanding
what
you're,
proposing
and
also
curating
a
shorter
meeting
when
the
public
comes
here
to
present
yeah.
C
C
L
C
A
L
Okay,
so,
and
they
kind
of
go
hand
in
hand,
so
these
context
sheets
are
gonna,
be
very
beneficial
to
you.
What
you'll
find
out
a
course
like
we
said
this
neighborhood
center
is
the
most
complex
situations
possible.
Okay,
that's
the
that's
a
real
challenging
one.
The
general
context,
rather
than
think,
is
all
lumping
in
together.
L
Think
of
it
as
the
least
change
from
the
current
ordinance
and
that
each
of
those
are
still
dealt
with
by
use
and
that
we
hopefully
have
addressed
those
appropriately
and
that
people
are
generally
comfortable
with
how
things
are
so
we'll
kind
of
look
at
those
look
at
those
numbers.
Look
at
any
of
the
alternatives,
and
things
like
that
honestly,
this
is
the
parking
context,
is
kind
of
the
meat
and
potatoes
of
this
discussion.
I
mean
we're
I
would
say
we're
well
over
halfway
through
this.
L
The
next
part
we
look
at
more
specifically
about
some
of
the
residential
counts,
that's
kind
of
hot
topic
as
well,
after
that,
it's
a
real
super
fast
report
on
kind
of
what
we
did
in
the
other
sections
that
are
largely
cleanup
items.
So
it's
really
just
giving
a
feel.
Are
you
comfortable
with
kind
of
where
this
sets
us?
Is
there
something
else
we
should
be
considering?
Are
we
you
know
and
I
understand,
I
appreciate
the
comment
of
what
does
two
per
thousand
mean?
Those
are
hard
they've
been
studied.
L
They've
been,
you
know,
a
lot
of
people
who
looked
at
these
and
they're
based
off
of
a
lot
of
studies
and
industry
standards
and,
and
things
like
that
and
I
understand.
They
don't
mean
a
whole
lot
to
the
general
public,
but
to
the
developers
and
things
like
that.
They
absolutely
know
that
they
can
report
to
you
exactly
what
their
market
needs.
D
I
would
just
like
to
say
I'd
like
to
see
some
incentive
for
in
terms
of
environmental
best
practices
to
promote
alternative
surfaces
from
asphalt,
because
we
allow
it
in
the
code.
But
we
don't
we're
talking
about
reducing
heat
islands
and
we're
talking
about
you
know.
Permeable
surfaces
I'd
like
to
see
some
a
little
bit
more
language
related
to
that.
E
One
thing
on
that
topic:
just
real
quick,
our
sustainability
Department,
is
actually
working
on
a
sustainable
code
initiative
right
now
that
will
address
a
lot
of
those
things
that
will
impact
the
zoning
ordinance.
So
it
may
not
be
through
this,
but
there
will
be
some
things.
I
think
the
consultant
that
they've
hired
has
given
a
first
kind
of
list
of
things
to
potentially
include
and
I
know
that
heat
island
and
storm
water
retention.
Detention
are
both
on
that.
So.
E
L
Thing
to
kind
of
look
at
that
with
that
I
mean
the
scope
of
this
project.
Is
it
didn't
focus
on
that
as
much
and
I'll
even
bring
up
at
the
end
of
this
I?
We
kind
of
identified
through
this
project.
What
we
think
are
some
potential
next
steps
or
some
some
other
opportunities
beyond
this,
though,
maybe
we
should
consider-
and
that's
that's
absolutely
one
that
we'll
talk
about
so
yeah.
L
L
Yeah
so
I
think
that'd
be
good.
If
there's
something
you
want
me
to
explore,
I,
probably
not
gonna
I'm,
not
gonna,
respond
to
you
directly,
obviously
I'm
annoyed
setting.
But
please,
if
you
have
suggestions
you
want
me
to
be
prepared
with.
Let
me
know
and
I
understand.
This
was
a
is
a
huge
document
to
try
to
digest.
I've
tried
to
you
know.