►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting - June 26, 2019
Description
Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting - June 26, 2019
A
We'll
open
this
meeting
of
the
Planning
Commission
a
couple
of
reminders:
if
you
want
to
speak,
you
can
fill
out
a
card
or
what
we
call
for
that.
You
can
come
up
and
speak
if
you're
speaking
for
the
public
you'll
have
two
minutes.
If
you're
the
applicant
you'll
have
ten
minutes,
let's
be
courteous
of
each
other.
Let's
turn
off
our
cell
phones.
If
you
have
to
take
a
call,
take
it
outside
and
we'll
just
try
to
keep
things
moving
here.
A
C
We're
down
to
you,
9
Planning,
Commission
members,
we're
in
the
process
of
trying
to
get
a
couple
of
more,
but
with
nine
Planning
Commission
members
five
makes
the
quorum.
It's
just
really
important,
and
just
as
a
reminder,
if
you
could,
let
us
know
when
we
send
those
emails
out
and
phone
calls.
Please
make
sure
you,
let
us
know
if
you
can
make
the
meeting,
so
we
can
plan
accordingly
appreciate
it.
Thank.
A
E
E
So
this
is
a
conditional
youths
request
made
by
property
owners,
Lance
and
Kalyn
frame
for
approval
to
constructed
a
new
detached
edu
structure
behind
the
existing
single
family
home
at
2250.
South
1800
east
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
the
request
subject
to
conditions
that
are
listed
in
the
first
page
of
your
staff
report.
E
This
project
is
being
presented
to
Planning
Commission,
because
all
edu
proposals
within
single-family
zones
require
the
conditional
use
review
and
the
subject.
Property
is
located
in
the
r-1
7,000
single-family
zone.
The
review
considers
compatibility,
location,
configuration
and
potential
negative
impacts
of
the
use
and
per
state
code
conditional
uses
are
allowed
uses
if
appropriate
conditions
can
be
applied
to
mitigate
any
adverse
impacts.
E
So
the
subject
property
is
highlighted
in
yellow
on
these
maps.
It
is
located
just
south
of
2100,
south
and
east
of
sugarhouse
park.
Their
surrounding
area
is
largely
the
zoned
r1
7,000
single-family,
residential
and
the
property
as
a
corner
lot,
with
furniture
on
both
Carly's
Canyon
Boulevard
and
1,800
East,
with
an
above-average
lot
area
of
approximately
10,000
802
square
feet.
E
A
one-story
single-family
structure,
a
detached
two-car
garage
in
a
small
shed
structure
that
the
applicant
would
demolish
if
this
edu
of
request
is
approved.
So
here's
some
pictures
of
those
structures
on
the
top
left.
That's
the
front
of
the
existing
home
from
1800
top
right
is
the
furniture
on
parlays
Canyon
Boulevard,
and
this
is
actually
from
an
angle
where
you
can
see
the
most
into
this
property
from
almost
any
other
angle.
E
Looking
at
this
frontage,
you
can't
see
as
much
of
the
structures
or
the
back
yard
of
this
property
and
then
the
bottom
picture
is
me.
Standing
at
that
curb
cut,
you
can
see
the
detached
two-car
garage
left
that
would
remain
and
then
that
small
white
shed
structure
would
be
demolished
if
this
request
is
approved.
E
So
this
conditional
use
review
is
for
the
new
ad
you
use
in
structure
only,
but
the
submitted
plans
do
reflect
some
additional
improvements.
The
applicant
would
make
concurrently
with
the
edu
project.
These
extra
items
do
impact
the
edu,
but
do
not
require
Planning
Commission
approval.
They
could
be
completed
with
a
building
permit
and
they
don't
require
any
special
kind
of
review
process.
So
the
first
extra
project
component
is
the
construction
of
a
breezeway
that
would
connect
the
existing
single-family
home
to
the
existing
detached
garage.
E
That's
on
site
per
zoning
ordinance,
creating
a
substantial
building
connection
like
this
makes
it.
So
what
is
currently
viewed
as
two
structures
of
be
viewed
as
one
structure,
which
is
similar
to
a
single-family
home
with
an
attached
garage
and
making
this
connection
does
impact
the
edu
as
the
maximum
footprint
of
the
edu
is
limited
to
50%
of
the
footprint
of
the
existing
principal
structure
so
making
this
breezeway
connection.
Essentially,
it
increases
the
footprint
of
that
existing
principal
structure.
It
increases
the
maximum
permitted
edu
footprint
from
423.
E
If
the
house
was
just
standing
on
its
own
and
not
connected
to
the
garage
to
650
square
feet
and
it
making
the
connection
also
creates
the
potential
to
construct
a
new
detached
garage
on
the
property
in
the
r-1
7000.
Zoning
district
accessory
structures
are
limited
to
the
same
building
coverage
limit
of
50%
of
the
footprint
of
the
principal
structure
up
to
a
maximum
of
720
square
feet.
So
because
the
existing
garage
would
be
viewed
as
an
attached
garage.
E
This,
these
are
all
four
elevations
of
the
proposed
edu.
It
does
have
a
proposed
footprint
of
649
square
feet
in
a
pitched
roof
not
to
exceed
17
feet
in
height.
The
structure
has
entrances
on
the
north
and
south
elevations,
but
both
of
them
would
be.
Neither
of
them
would
be
visible
from
18th,
east
or
parlays
Canyon
Boulevard,
due
to
the
siting
of
the
new
garage
and
the
existing
structures
to
the
east.
The
primary
building
materials
include
hardy
board,
siding
asphalt,
roof,
shingles
and
then
aluminum,
gutters,
soffit
and
facia,
and
the
interior
would
contain
one
bedroom.
E
One
and
a
half
bathrooms
in
a
combine
you'd
have
a
combined
kitchen
and
living
area,
and
again
the
scope
of
review
this
evening
is
limited
to
the
8080
u8e
you
use
in
structure.
None
of
the
other
discussed
elements
would
be
under
review
and
the
project
was
reviewed
against
the
edu
zoning
standards
and
the
conditional
use
standards.
Staff
is
recommending
approval
with
conditions
and
just
to
briefly
touch
on
those.
E
The
first
one
would
require
that
the
certificate
of
occupancy
for
the
edu
would
not
be
issued
until
the
breezeway
connection
passes
the
final
building
inspection,
and
that
is
because
that
connection
does
provide
for
a
larger
Adu
footprint
and
the
second
one
is
just.
This
is
just
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
zoning
for
ad
use,
but
one
the
one
egress
window
that
would
be
required
on
the
west
elevation
it
can.
E
F
E
C
C
E
No,
it's
it
the
required
setback.
The
structure
has
to
be
at
least
four
feet
from
any
side
or
rear
lot
line,
and
then
there's
some
other
provisions
for
where
there's
a
required
10-foot
setback.
If
it
was
taller
than
seventeen
feet,
it
would
have
to
have
a
10-foot
setback.
I
can't
remember
the
other
provisions,
there's
a
couple
other
instances
where
it
would
have
to
have
a
10-foot
setback
and.
E
G
Time,
Lance
frame,
my
wife,
still
works,
so
she
couldn't
make
it.
But
thank
you
so
much
for
the
opportunity
to
present
my
family's
project
before
the
committee.
This
projects
truly
been
an
amazing
team
effort
and
collaboration.
Every
step
of
the
way
with
the
city
we've
been
collaborating
with
city
officials
for
over
a
year,
if
you
count
kind
of
our
feedback
on
the
Adu
ordinance
and
this
actual
project
and
regarding
the
the
ordinance
I
submitted
public
comments.
Multiple
times,
I
had
multiple
email
conversations
with
Amy
on
the
council
who's.
G
The
lack
of
housing
stock
and
subsequent
rising
cost
of
housing
in
Salt
Lake
is
an
issue
that
hits
very
close
to
home
for
our
family.
The
ATU
ordinance
represents
a
path
to
alleviate
a
portion
of
this
heavy
burden
that
we
feel
I'm
extremely
grateful
for
this
ordinance,
which
could
potentially
allow
us
an
opportunity
to
improve
our
families
quality
of
life
and
help
the
city
achieve
their
housing
goals.
G
At
the
same
time,
we
love
our
neighborhood,
and
we
have
made
a
strong
effort
to
design
this
project
to
integrate
with
the
surrounding
structures
in
both
design
and
scope.
It's
our
sincere
hope
that
this
project
will
beautify
the
neighborhood
and
be
a
positive
addition
to
sugarhouse
we're
humbly
asking
for
your
approval
to
move
forward
with
this
project.
Thank
you.
H
G
G
Besides
a
very
small
additional
piece
of
concrete
that
we'd
be
pouring
to
get
that
corner
piece.
So
it's
easier
to
get
into
the
one
car
garage
there
will
be
no
kind
of
additional
driveway
being
poured.
The
part
to
the
north
of
the
new
garage
will
be
landscaped,
we're
planning
to
put
a
hedge
along
that
north
fence
and
then
we'll
have
a
pathway.
It's
most
likely
going
to
be
brick
between
the
Adu
and
the
existing
garage
kind
of
the
pathway
to
the
back,
and
then
the
rest
will
be
grass
in
the
backyard
most
likely.
A
J
My
name
is
Judy
short
and
I'm.
The
land
use
chair
for
the
sugarhouse
Community
Council.
This
is
really
an
interesting
project
and
I
think
we
asked
as
many
questions
as
you
did,
because
it's
difficult
to
figure
out
driving
by
four
times
and
looking
at
it,
trying
to
figure
out
where
it's
gonna
go.
But
I
think
this
is
a
good
solution
and
we
don't.
We
don't
basically
have
any
negative
comments
about
this,
but
we
did
get
confused
by
the
ordinance,
so
the
ATU
ordinance
says
the
size
of
your
ad.
J
You
cannot
exceed
50%
of
your
home
square
footage.
So
in
this
case
the
square
footage
is
about
a
thousand
now
as
different
her
reports
that
footprint
mines
his
footage,
but
the
numbers
don't
matter,
but
the
petitioner
has
figured
out
he
can
put
a
breezeway
between
the
house
and
garage,
and
this
is
80.
You
can
be
50%
of
the
square
footage
of
the
two
parcels
combined
and
apparently
this
is
common
practice
and
she
even
gave
me
the
definitions
and
I
guess
those
are
in
some
ordinance
somewhere,
but
why
wasn't
it
in
the
ATU
ordinance?
J
That's
that's.
What
kind
of
threw
us
completely
for
a
loop,
because
on
this
parcel
it
works
very
well
because
there's
10,000
square
feet,
but
I
can
see
a
lot
of
people
doing
that
to
cram.
You
know
it's.
My
new
favorite
word
now
cram
another
building,
unto
a
very
small
lot,
so
I
guess
I
would
like
to
see
you
talk
about
that
in
conjunction
with,
what's
in
the
ordinance
and
whether
it
should
only
apply
the
lot
is
over
so
many
square
feet
or
something
so
that
we
don't
end
up
with.
J
You
know
lots
of
concrete
on
a
parcel,
but
we
could
still
have
our
accessory
dwelling
units
so
and
we're
also
worried
and
I'll
say
it
every
time
we
have.
One
of
these
I'll
say
it.
This
is
not
going
to
be
an
affordable
unit
and
I'm
not
sure
the
accessory
dwelling
unit
is
gonna,
be
owed
an
affordable
unit
because
the
requirements
like
a
separate
sewer
line
water
line
things
like
that
or
adding
the
cost
I'm
told
it's
thirty
thousand
dollars
to
build
that
which
is
quite
a
bit
of
money.
D
My
name
is
Ling
Schwartz
I'm,
the
vice
chair
of
the
sugarhouse
community
council,
land
use
and
zoning
committee.
While
this
project
meets
the
letter
of
the
Adu
regulations,
it
is
a
lesson
in
how
if
a
loophole
exists,
someone
will
exploit
it.
It
is
clear
that
the
spirit
of
the
ADA
requirements
was
that
the
ad
you
would
be
significantly
smaller
than
the
primary
residence.
However,
using
the
pretext
of
attaching
a
garage
with
a
breezeway,
the
lot
will
have
two
residences
of
essentially
the
same
above-ground
footage
and
two
two-car
garages.
D
It
kills
me
to
oppose
this
project,
because
it
is
clear
that
the
owners
need
to
rent
out
the
primary
residence
and
because
they
are
the
first
project
in
a
long
time
that
does
not
use
lego.
Architectural
design.
I
would
also
add
that
all
the
ad
use
we
have
seen
that
will
be
rented
will
be
market
rate
so
that
the
goal
of
affordability
has
yet
to
be
realized.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
K
Name,
my
name
is
Thomas
Olsen
I
live
in
2250
Hannibal,
one
Street
west
of
this
property.
The
biggest
concern
I
have
is
a
setback,
so
we
have
a
16
feet
requirement,
I
believe
the
garage
on
both
the
properties
due
west
of
this
property
going
to
be.
They
have
some
garages
which
are
well
within
the
16
feet
required.
Also.
My
major
concern
is
parking.
We
have
serious
issues
in
our
area
with
parking.
We
have
a
lot
of
people
in
that
area.
Parking
is
at
a
premium.
K
People
are
parking
one
car
in
front
of
one
house
instead
of
two
cars
in
front
of
one
house
and
we're
running
out
of
space.
We
just
have
no
more
space
for
more
cars
on
the
area.
It's
difficult
enough
as
it
is,
especially
when
schools
you
know.
When
schools
open
to
park
there
is
no
parking
on
parties.
Canyon
Boulevard.
You
got
bike
lanes.
You
can't
park
there
once
you
start
parking,
the
other
cars
on
1800
and
Hannibal
Street,
there's
just
no
more
parking
in
the
area.
It's
going
up,
it's
gonna
be
a
big
mess.
L
In
two
minutes,
Jason
Mendenhall,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
I
live
just
west
of
the
property.
We
share
a
fence
line.
I
bought
my
house
four
years
ago
and
part
of
the
serenity
of
the
neighborhood
is
the
space
in
between
the
houses
due
to
the
yards.
These
houses
were
built
in
the
40s,
and
you
know
they're
80
years
old
and
I've
wanted
to
live
in
this
neighborhood.
My
whole
life
it
took
me
till
I
was
34
to
afford
it
and
so
I
understand.
L
You
know
that
it's
hard
to
pay
your
mortgage
and
you
might
have
to
supplement
that
with
a
with
a
secondary
apartment
on
the
property,
but
I
could
look
out
the
window
and
see
20
different
apartment
complexes
being
built
and
I
just
feel
like.
You
know
that
that
having
this
unit
5
feet
from
my
fence
with
the
windows
towering
over
into
my
yard,
is
something
I
never
expected
from
such
an
established
community.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
A
B
F
B
E
E
B
M
Just
thinking
the
public
does
raise
a
good
comment,
but
I
think
Judy
made
a
very,
very
good
comment
that
in
this
case,
perhaps
it's
not
that
big
of
a
problem,
but
it
can
another
subsequent
petitions
for
ad
use.
So
we
may
have
to
look
into
that
for
future
cases.
All
in
all,
though
I
think
the
project
makes
make
sense
to
me
so.
F
E
Is
a
height
requirement,
so
the
maximum
is
17
feet,
but
if
the
principal
structures
taller
than
17
feet,
it
can
be
up
to
the
height
of
the
principal
structure
up
to
24
feet,
provided
it
has
a
10-foot
setback
from
the
property
lines.
So
it
can.
It
can
match
the
height
of
the
principal
structure
up
to
24
feet
as
long
as
they
provide
greater
setback.
B
Since
we're
learning
about
beta
use
as
we
go
along
here
a
little
bit,
can
you
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
the
the
difference
between
the
50%
of
this,
the
footprint
of
the
home
versus
the
square
foot
of
the
home,
and
how
that
and
and
is
that,
is
it
common?
When
we
have
that
sort
of
standard,
you
know
50%
of
the
main
structure
for
an
accessory
unit,
or
whatever
does
that
ever?
Does
it
always
take
into
consideration
the
garage
footprint
as
well,
or
is
that
unique
to
80
use,
I
guess.
E
E
I
N
E
E
F
Have
why
is
I
mean
that
but
garages
clearly
built
for
the
Adu
in
this
case
we've
got
the
principal
home
being
added
to
a
garage
to
get
additional
square
footage,
but
why
is
that
second
garage
square
footage,
not
because
this
is
not
separated
not
counted
as
part
of
the?
If
you
did
a
breezeway
between
the
edu
and
the
second
garage,
would
that
then
make
you
would
then
count
both
those
footprints
in
the
650
requirement?
F
E
So
we
count
the
this
when
it
comes
to
the
how
big
of
a
footprint
they
D,
you
can
have.
We
total
the
principal
structure,
the
breezeway
coverage
and
the
garage
which
puts
them
over
the
I
guess
1300,
so
they
could
have
650,
which
is
the
max,
and
the
ad
ordinance
specifies
that
it
does
not
count
towards
so
the
accessory
structure
coverage
requirement
is
separate.
E
O
E
F
Yeah
right,
so
what
I'm?
What
I'm
getting
at
here
is.
It's
like
we've
got
we're
attaching
a
garage
over
to
an
existing
home
and
that's
permitting
the
landowner
to
expand
the
square
footage
of
the
ATU,
because
it's
inflicting
me
like
I'm
trying
to
get
around
are
we
building
Adu
or
we
just
building
a
second
like
building
or
a
lot.
You
know
and
then
versus
and
we've
got
the
second
garage
which
is
being
built
which
is
going
to
go
towards
the
ATU.
F
It's
for
the
use
of
the
ATO,
which
I
do
think
is
great
and
a
good
addition,
because
I
think
it
addresses
some
of
the
parking
concerns
that
often
come
with
these
and
clearly
you've
got
two
cars
to
park
in
a
600d
square
unit.
So
it's
good,
but
then
we're
permitting
that
two-car
garage
to
be
built
in
addition
to
a
600
square
foot
edu
so
it's
like,
but
even
though
they
are
related
right
to
each
other.
The
total
square
footage
of
those
two
units
is
it's
pretty
significant.
I.
C
F
C
H
A
A
N
B
Will
move
to
approve
the
conditions
or
approve
or
based
on
the
findings
listed
in
the
staff
report?
The
information
presented
and
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing
I
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
approved
the
conditional
use
for
the
ATU
subject
to
the
following
conditions
listed
in
the
staff
report
recommended
by
staff,
and
this
is
for
I,
should
say
for
PLN
PCM
2019:
zero,
zero,
two
six,
three,
a.
F
F
H
A
H
M
I
P
I
F
About
just
the
impact
of
the
neighbors
to
the
the
West
I
mean
I
I,
get
on
a
large
those.
My
grapple
with
on
a
large
property
of
seven
thousand
square
feet.
You're
buying
in
the
are
seven
thousand
district.
Do
you
expect
to
have
some
distance
from
people
around
you,
and
that
may
be
why
he
chose
that
zone.
C
There's
not
a
lot
of
locations
in
the
city
that
that
that
this
could
even
happen
because
in
most
cases,
accessory
buildings
are
built
within
setback
areas,
and
if,
in
that
case,
you
cannot
connect
the
principal
structure
to
the
to
the
accessory
structure,
because
that
would
be
a
violation
of
then
of
a
setback
of
the
principal
structure.
There's
there's
very
few
parcels
in
the
city
where
the
accessory
building
is
actually
in
a
buildable
area
and
can
meet
the
zoning
requirements
to
allow
them
to
attach
it.
Q
Good
evening,
so
this
is
a
request
by
assisting
Community
Design
Center,
in
collaboration
with
the
University
of
Utah
School
of
Architecture,
who
you
see
some
students
behind
me
here
and
they're.
Also
representing
the
property
owners
at
64,
West
Andrew
Avenue.
They
requesting
a
conditional
use
approval
to
construct
an
accessory
dwelling
in
it
to
the
rear
of
the
house
of
the
property,
and
we
are
recommending
staff
is
recommending
approval
with
conditions.
A
Q
This
project
is
before
the
Commission,
because
the
proposed
Adu
is
located
on
the
r15
thousand
on
single-family
residential
zoning
district,
the
ATU
proposal,
a
do
proposals
located
in
single-family
zoning
districts
require
conditional
use
process.
The
process
looks
at
compatibility,
location,
configuration
and
potential
impacts
of
the
request
and
just
a
reminder
that
conditional
uses
are
allowed
if
appropriate
conditions
can
be
imposed
to
mitigate
any
concerns.
Q
So
the
the
proposed
accessory
dwelling
unit
is
650
square
feet
and
the
height
is
pros
at
17
feet,
which
are
the
maximum
square
footage
and
height
allowed
the
parking.
As
you
see
on
the
site
plan,
they
have
two
parking
stalls
that
are
for
the
main
residents
that
are
covered.
They
do
not
have
a
legal
third
stall
on
site
and
they
also
don't
have
legal
street
parking,
but
they
are
within
1/4
mile
of
a
UTA
bus
stop
which
is
on
State
Street
and
about
15th
south.
So
the
parking
requirement
can
be
waived.
Q
Q
And
then
just
some
pictures
of
the
site
and
the
surrounding
development.
So
this
image
here
on
the
left
is
the
primary
residence
on
the
on
the
site.
You
can
see
a
little
bit,
there's
a
wood
fence
that
and
some
flags
above
the
wood
fence
and
that's
approximately
where
the
ATU
would
be
in
the
rear
of
the
property.
And
then
this
is
the
adjacent
home
to
the
west
of
the
site,
and
then
these
images
show
the
surrounding
context.
Q
So
the
first
image
on
the
top
left
is
the
home
directly
to
the
east
and
then
the
upper
right
hand
corner
is
the
home
that
it's
two
parcels
to
the
west
and
I
wanted
to
show
this
one
that
you
would
be
able
to
see
the
accessory
dwelling
in
it
through
the
property
here,
as
well
as
the
property
on
West
temple,
which
is
this
bottom
right
or
bottom
left
picture.
You
would
have
a
visible
view
of
the
accessory
dwelling
in
it
from
that
parcel
as
well.
Q
Although
my
site
visit
I
didn't
feel
that
they
were
significant
impacts
and
that
with
the
vegetation
and
the
fence
that
currently
surround
the
property
and
they're
pretty
well
mitigated,
and
then
the
other
image
on
here
is
just
across
the
street.
There
is
a
church
across
the
street
from
the
property.
Q
As
part
of
the
process
we
notified
as
part
of
the
early
notification
process,
property
owners
and
residents
within
300
feet
of
the
property.
The
community
council
also
hosted
a
small
community
meeting
where
the
applicant
was
president,
as
well
as
staff,
and
the
applicant
gave
her
presentation.
No
public
comment
has
been
received
to
date,
though,
and
staff
is
recommending
approval
with
the
conditions
in
your
staff
report.
The
first
one
is
just
that
windows
are
no
larger
than
necessary.
Our
zoning
review
requested
another
look
at
those.
Although
they
do
appear
to
comply,
they
just
requested
another
look.
Q
Q
I
R
As
much
as
anybody
can
be
prepared
to
speak,
okay,
Jason
wheeler
with
assist
Community,
Design
Center,
happy
to
be
here
representing
Prabhu
dolma,
who
is
the
owner
of
the
property
along
with
their
husband,
thupten
Cunha,
and
they
they're
a
multi-generational
family
from
Tibet
actually
and
have
been
living
in
the
home
for
about
15
years
and
essentially
are
at
a
point
where
they
need
some
additional
space.
It
is
a
deep
lot
as
as
Chris
you
mentioned,
and
kind
of
a
deep
narrow,
a
lot
and
what's
interesting
is
because
it
faces
south
on
these.
R
These
blocks
that
are
primarily
oriented
east
west.
Most
of
the
other
properties
that
back
up
to
this
property
are
also
deep
lost,
but
they're
perpendicular
to
the
lot
that
we're
looking
at
so
as
Chrissy
mentioned,
the
closest
primary
residence
is
about
50
feet
away.
So
there's
some
substantial
separation.
I.
Think
one
really
neat
thing
about
this
project
is
it's
a
collaboration
with
the
University
of
Utah
School
of
Architecture
design,
build
program
where
the
students
will
actually
be
helping
to
construct
the
home
for
the
family
to
help
make
it
more
affordable.
R
It
will
be
in
the
immediate
term
occupied
by
residents
of
the
of
the
family
of
the
immediate
family,
and,
as
was
mentioned,
they
don't
have
any
plans
at
the
time
to
rent
it
out
to
somebody
else,
but
they
would
go
through
the
landlord
good
landlord
program,
as
obviously
there's
nothing
that
would
prevent
them
from
doing
that
in
the
future.
We're
excited
for
this
project
excited
to
be
presenting
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
might
have.
H
R
I
R
My
understanding
of
the
parking
ordinance-
and
this
is
an
understanding
that
I've
come
to
very
painfully-
is
that
if
you
park
in
the
front
yard
setback,
my
home
is
in
the
avenues.
I've
received
a
ticket
on
my
own
vehicle
for
parking
in
the
front
yard
setback
in
my
own
property.
So
my
understanding
is
that
if
they
were
to
park
a
vehicle
there,
they
could
be
ticketed
by
the
city.
Currently
the
that
there
is
enough
space
and
that
front
yard
setback
to
park
three
two
additional
cars
stacked
and
then
on
the
side.
R
The
in
the
side,
yard
setback
there's
also
space
for
a
third
additional
car.
So
you
could
easily
fit
five
to
six
vehicles,
parts
in
the
yard
there,
including
in
that
covered
area
the
they
are
not.
They
will
not
be
adding
any
additional
parking
at
this
time
with
the
with
the
addition
of
the
ATU
as
there's
there's
not
going
to
be
any
change
in
the
family
dynamics
or
family
structure
they're,
just
simply
going
to
be
moving.
Miss
Paroo
from
the
main
house
into
the
ATU,
maybe.
I
R
R
Would
be
a
clapper
style,
siding
is
what
they're
proposing
it's
that
the
hope
is
honestly.
There
is
a
at
the
back
of
the
home.
Currently
there
is
a
detached
accessory
structure,
that's
being
used
for
some
storage,
it's
been
there
for
a
while
and
there's
a
lot
of
good
wood
in
there
and
then
they're
actually
hoping
to
reclaim
strip
and
then
reuse
that
wood
with
the
with
the
construction
of
the
house
for
part
of
the
house.
R
I
A
M
R
Was
received
well,
there
weren't
any
specific
comments
from
from
people
about
this
specific
house.
There
was
just
some
curiosity
about
the
Adu
ordinance
in
general,
and
one
person
did
ask
the
question
about
renting
out
like
like,
what's
to
prohibit
this
family
from
renting
this
property
to
somebody
else
in
the
future,
and
the
answer
to
that
is
nothing
really
right,
but
but
that's
not
necessarily
something
that's
governed
by
the
Adu.
So
that
was
the
only
question
that
somebody
had
okay.
R
M
R
When
I
went
out
there
to
take
some
measurements,
I
did
speak
with.
Can
I
play
with
your
arrows
here?
Okay,
so
I
spoke
with
the
homeowner
and
bottom
left-hand
side
there
just
to
get
permission,
taxes,
the
property.
So
we
could
get
a
measurement
between
that
house,
which
is
the
closest
house
and
where
the
ATU
would
be
the
ATU
would
be
the
site
of
the
ad.
A
A
A
N
Hi,
my
name
is
Nicole
Zen
aunty,
so
we've
been
working
with
a
conga
family
for
about
a
year
the
conga
family
migrated
from
from
Tibet
and
about
15
years
ago
they
worked
with
the
University
of
Utah
as
well,
when
Miss
conga
got
into
a
car
accident
and
the
car
rolled,
and
it
caused
her
to
be
paralyzed
from
the
waist
down.
So
this
ad,
you
would
also
be
an
accessible
ad.
You,
our
nonprofit,
directly
works
with
a
lot
of
individuals
with
disabilities,
and
we
hear
a
lot
of
questions
about
housing
specific
to
individuals
with
disabilities.
N
Q
So
the
parking,
as
was
brought
up
at
Commissioner
Shearer,
there
is
parking
on
site
that
you
can
see
in
the
photos,
but
according
to
our
ordinance,
that's
technically
considered
front
yard
parking
because
it's
in
the
front
yard
step
back
and
it's
the
permeable
surface.
So
they
could
go
through
the
process
of
what's
a
special
exception
to
legalize
that
parking.
But
right
now
the
parking-
that's
not
under
the
carport,
wouldn't
be
considered
legal.
Under
the
the
parameters
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
Q
C
It
does
it
couldn't
Chris
me
Chrissy,
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
it
looks
like
there
might
be
more
parking
under
the
dot
structure,
which
I
guess
can
be
seen
as
a
carport
in
the
front
it
looks
like
you
could
fit
two
cars
under
there,
which
would
be
two
legal
parking
locations
and
then
also
the
spot.
That
is
to
the
side
of
that
could
be
considered
because
it's
not
in
the
setback,
because
it's
not
in
the
front
yard
setback.
It's
actually
behind
the
front
line
of
that
building
right
there.
M
A
H
H
A
L
B
A
A
O
All
righty,
so
I'll
go
ahead
and
get
started,
but
before
I
begin,
I
do
want
to
point
out
that
staff
is
actually
recommending
that
you
table
this
item
tonight.
There
is
still
a
bit
of
fine-tuning
that
needs
to
be
done
to
the
actual
text,
amendment
language
that
we
kind
of
caught
at
the
last
minute,
but
we
did
want
to
continue
with
the
public
hearing
and
hear
from
the
public
as
well
as
get
your
feedback,
since
we
briefed
you
on
this
back
in
December,
so
we
did
want
to
move
forward
with
it,
but
we're
recommending
tabeling.
O
So,
as
we
discussed
previously
last
December
facilitating
new
housing
development
for
our
growing
population
is
a
top
priority
of
the
current
administration
per
the
current
five-year
housing
plan.
A
major
goal
is
to
quote
reach
a
point
where
all
residents
of
Salt
Lake
City
current
and
prospective
regardless
of
race,
age,
akhom
economic
status
or
physical
ability
can
find
a
place
to
call
home.
So
not
only
does
this
goal
emphasize
the
creation
of
more
housing
in
general,
but
the
creation
of
different
types
of
housing
for
people
in
various
stages
of
their
lives
that
have
different
needs.
O
So,
with
this
in
mind,
the
city's
housing
plan
specifically
calls
for
the
removal
of
strict
zoning
regulations
that
can
impede
creative
housing
solutions.
Like
some
of
the
regulations
within
our
multifamily
zoning
districts.
Therefore,
multiple
updates
are
being
proposed
to
the
RMF
low
density,
multi-family
residential
zoning
district,
which
we
will
go
be
going
through
tonight.
O
So
as
a
reminder
about
the
RMF
30
district,
there
are
well
there
are
actually
four
multifamily
residential
districts
in
our
city,
ranging
from
low
density
or
the
RMF
30
to
the
highest
density
or
the
RMF
75.
The
goal
is
to
solidify
updates
to
the
RMF
30
to
start
and
then
come
back
and
update
the
three
other
multifamily
districts
in
a
similar
manner.
O
The
majority
of
the
parcels
in
this
district
or
565
have
single-family
homes.
130
have
duplexes
170,
have
multifamily
buildings
or
have
three
or
more
units,
and
then
the
rest
really
vary
in
terms
of
non-conforming
commercial
uses
and
larger
plan
developments.
I
wanted
to
show
you
all
this
map
that
illustrates
the
amount
of
land.
That's
really
zoned,
multi-family
residential,
so
you
can
see
that
in
the
orange
and
then
the
yellow
is
the
single-family
residential
residential
in
our
city
and
then
the
gray
would
be
commercial
industrial
things
of
that
nature.
O
So
you
can
see
it's
kind
of
a
smaller
area.
That's
actually
zoned,
specifically
for
multi-family
residential
okay.
So
let's
dive
into
the
changes
or
the
proposed
text
amendments,
and
so
the
first
thing
that's
being
proposed-
is
to
introduce
design
standards
for
new
buildings
in
this
district
and
many
of
our
other
zoning
districts
already
have
design
standards
for
new
construction,
but
not
the
multi-family
residential,
and
this
is
something
that
the
community
has
asked
for
before
and
we
think
will
encourage
compatibility
with
new
multi-family
buildings.
O
So
at
this
point,
we'd
be
requiring
building
entrances
on
ground
Street
facing
facades
and
then
for
those
entrances.
We'd
also
require
entry
features.
We
are
requiring
50
percent
durable
material
on
a
front
facing
facade,
and
when
we
brought
this
to
you
last
time,
that
number
was
70%
and
based
on
some
feedback,
we've
heard.
We
would
like
to
lower
that
a
little
bit
due
to
the
expense.
We
were
also
not
restricting
efis,
as
we
were
before,
and
so
the
rest
of
the
50%.
O
You
could
use
a
material
like
that
and
then
we'd
be
requiring
20%
glass
on
the
ground
street
facing
floor
and
15%
on
the
upper
street
facing
floor.
Blank
walls
cannot
exceed
15
feet
and
then
we
would
also
be
requiring
some
screening
of
mechanical
coal
equipment
and
service
areas
if
there
are
any
/
within
a
development.
So
those
are
the
design
standards
being
introduced.
O
O
So
the
first
is
a
cottage
development
which
consists
of
two
or
more
small-scale
single-family
homes
or
cottage
type
units
arranged
uniformly
on
a
lot
around
open
space
or
green
space
and
per
our
conversation
last
time
we
are
limiting
the
size
of
the
cottage
to
cottages
to
850
square
feet
of
usable
floor
area,
not
including
the
basement.
So
that's
going
to
be
limited
instead
of
an
850
square
foot
footprint.
O
So
you
see
these
a
lot
coming
through
as
planned
developments
and
then
also,
as
we
talked
about
at
the
briefing
we
kind
of
tweaked
the
standards
for
these
side
oriented
row
houses,
so
they
would
be
kind
of
held
to
higher
standards
in
order
to
be
approved
without
plan
development,
we
would
be
requiring
a
front
building
entry.
Garage
doors
cannot
be
on
the
front
of
the
unit.
O
So
next
we
are
proposing
changes
to
required
lot
area
in
these
districts,
so
in
the
city's
multi-family
residential
zones,
the
zoning
ordinance
requires
that
a
lot
can
be
a
certain
size
to
accommodate
a
certain
number
of
dwelling
units.
As
seen
on
this
table
per
today's
code,
you
need
five
thousand
square
feet
of
land
for
a
single-family
home,
eight
thousand
square
feet
for
a
duplex
and
three
thousand
square
feet
for
each
unit
within
a
multi-family
building.
O
Therefore,
we
are
proposing
to
reduce
the
lot
area
required
per
dwelling
unit
in
this
district
for
all
land
uses
and
slightly
more
for
row,
houses,
cottage
developments
and
tiny
homes
to
encourage
those
more
compatible,
missing
middle
type,
building
forms
with
smaller
lot
size
requirements.
We
also
hope
that
this
will
drive
the
construction
of
smaller,
more
affordable
units,
so
this
proposal
differs
a
little
bit
from
last
time.
O
You
saw
this
because
we
are
proposing
to
reduce
the
requirement
for
a
single-family
to
family
and
multi-family
uses
from
3,000
square
feet,
a
unit
to
2500
square
feet
a
unit
and
with
these
changes,
39%
of
Lots
in
this
district
would
become
eligible
to
add
at
least
one
more
unit.
So
Justin
is
just
as
an
example.
If
you
you
take
a
look
at
these
existing
buildings
in
our
city,
they
so
here
at
8:25,
South
800
East.
O
This
currently
has
12
units
on
17,500
square
feet,
and
so,
with
our
current
area,
standards
they'd
be
able
to
get
five
units
with
the
proposed
area,
standards
for
a
row
house
form
or
a
cottage
form,
which
this
is
kind
of
like
a
mix
of
the
two
they
could
get
11.
So
it's
not
quite
what
they
have
today
but
closer
and
then
for
a
multi-family
form,
which
is
like
an
apartment
or
a
condo
building.
O
They
could
get
seven
multifamily
units
with
the
proposed
changes
to
area,
and
this
is
just
looking
at
area
and
then
we
look
at
this
apartment
style
building
that
exists.
Today
we
have
16
units
on
8429
square
feet
of
land.
They
would
currently
be
allowed
to
have
two
units
per
these
per
our
current
standards
and
we
are
proposing
to
allow
row
house
or
cottage
units
and
three
multifamily
units,
so
you
can
kind
of
get
an
idea
of
we're
trying
to
shoot
for
the
middle
ground
here.
So.
O
O
Lots
in
our
city
are
in
the
arm
of
thirty
district,
are
not
nowhere
near
eighty
feet
wide,
so
we
had
proposed
to
reduce
this
requirement
down
to
fifty
feet,
but
we've
found
that
there
are
many
other
drivers
of
sufficient
lot
width
and
adequate
spacing
between
units,
including
required
driveway
widths,
required
setbacks,
Building
Code
requirements
and
things
of
that
nature.
So
we're
proposing
to
eliminate
required
lot
width
because
there's
other
drivers
that
will
ensure
we
have
adequate
spacing
between
buildings,
and
this
is
one
of
the
other
zoning
barriers
that
we
just
feel.
O
Moving
on,
we
would
like
to
require
more
allow
more
than
one
structure
on
a
lot
which
is
currently
not
permitted
to
discourage
buildings
that
are
hard
to
access
or
have
little
visibility
for
safety
purposes.
However,
again
there
are
other
building
code
and
fire
standards
in
place
to
encourage
visibility
and
access,
and
this
having
more
than
one
structure
on
a
lot,
is
a
historic
development
pattern
that
we
see
throughout
the
city.
O
This
is
just
an
example
of
I
believe
it's
a
four-plex
in
the
front
with
a
duplex
to
the
rear,
and
so
you
can
see
it
fits
nicely
on
this
lot
and
so
allowing
more
than
one
principal
structure
on
a
lot
can
also
encourage
more
creative
housing
development.
So
this
is
something
that
we
would
like
to
allow
outright.
Instead,
instead
of
having
to
go
through
plan
development,
approval.
O
So,
finally,
what
these
changes
staff
realizes
that
some
development
pressure
may
be
put
on
single-family
homes
inside
and
outside
of
local
historic
districts.
Therefore,
in
order
to
discourage
the
collection
or
banking
of
multiple
parcels
of
land
to
accommodate
large
developments,
a
lot
with
maximum
is
now
being
proposed.
O
Additionally,
we
are
proposing
to
allow
a
unit
bonus
when
a
building
permit
is
pulled
for
an
additional
housing
unit
on
a
lot
and
the
existing
structure
on
the
lot
is
retained.
The
idea
is
that
if
a
lot
can
now
accommodate
one
more
unit
with
the
changes
to
area
which
many
will
be
able
to
perhaps
they'd
be
more
likely
to
add
that
unit
within
or
attach
to
the
existing
home.
If
they
could
then
get
an
additional
unit.
On
top
of
that,
instead
of
completely
demolishing
what's
there
and
not
being
able
to
have
as
many
units.
O
So
this
is
just
a
little
snippet
of
the
eligibility
maps,
we're
calling
them
that
were
in
your
staff
report
and
I
know.
This
is
hard
to
see,
but
it
illustrates
the
lots
that
would
be
not
with
the
changes
to
area,
and
this
is
only
looking
at
area.
So
obviously
there
will
still
be
other
factors
that
come
into
play
when
thinking
about
or
when
being
able
to
add
additional
units
on
a
lot.
O
But
looking
at
existing
land
use
an
area,
the
Green
will
be
able
to
add
at
least
one
more
unit,
so
that
is
345
or
39
percent
of
the
Lots.
And
so
thinking
about
the
unit
bonus.
We
have
a
net
unit
gain
without
the
bonus
of
3040
units,
and
this
is
if
the
Lots
were
to
maximize
what
they
could
get
based
on
area
and
what
they
already
have.
O
So
it's
an
addition
to
what
they
already
have
with
the
unit
bonus
if
they
preserved
what
they
had
and
then
did
the
units
on
top
of
that
they
could
get
a
little
bit
more
three
thousand
five
hundred
and
seventy,
and
then,
if
all
of
the
properties
were
demolished
in
our
our
math
30
district
and
completely
wiped
clean,
which
wouldn't
happen.
But
let's
say
it
did.
You
could
get
three
thousand
four
hundred
and
fifty
eight
units,
so
you
can
see
with
the
unit
bonus
it
kind
of
offsets
that
demolition,
if
that
makes
sense.
O
So
now,
I'd
like
to
kind
of
touch
on
the
community
concerns
that
were
voiced
as
we
went
out
to
the
public
with
these
changes,
I
kind
of
just
touched
on
this,
but
anytime
you
allow
additional
housing
on
a
lot.
There
may
be
a
concern
about
demolition,
and
so,
like
I
just
mentioned
we're
trying
to
introduce
that
lot
with
maximum
and
the
unit
bonus
to
offset
that
we've.
We
also
feel,
like
we've,
been
very
strategic
in
the
lot
areas
that
we're
proposing
to
use.
O
O
So,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
these
text
amendments
are
just
a
piece
of
the
puzzle,
but
we
also
are
working
with
our
housing
and
neighborhood
Development
Department
to
facilitate,
or
they
facilitate
programs
that
are
more
directly
working
with
affordable
programs.
So
that
was
something
else
that
came
up.
O
The
other
thing
to
consider
is
that
there
is
a
large
stream
that
runs
through
the
center
of
the
property
and
per
the
riparian
corridor
rules.
There's
has
to
be
a
50-foot
buffer
on
either
side
of
the
stream,
so
that's
also
going
to
limit
development,
but
that
is
zoned
RMF
there
and
what,
if
we
wouldn't
be
taking
that
part
out
so
again,
we
are
recommending
that
you
table
this
item
tonight.
But
please,
let
me
know
if
you
have
any
questions.
M
Actually
more
of
a
comment:
I
guess:
I
do
actually
like
your
presentation
and
it
made
really
good
sense.
I
know
you
want
us
a
table
that,
but
I
did
like
everything
that
I
heard
one
question
I
had
currently
in
the
formations
that
you
have
the
cottage
and
the
side:
nosing
where's
the
parking
of
those
currently
like
do
they
have
parking
and
those
existing
structures.
That's.
O
A
good
point,
and
that's
something
that
has
the
historic
landmark
Commission
brought
up
parking
for
cottage
type
developments,
because,
as
you
can
see
in
this
picture
here,
it
would
be
hard
to
accommodate
parking
on
the
site
and
they
still,
those
cottages
would
still
be
required
to
have
two
spaces
per
unit.
So
that
is
something
like
I
said
that
the
RMF
30
team
would
like
to
kind
of
see.
M
M
M
O
Right
now,
if
you
were
to
build
so,
and
we
get
a
lot
of
interest
in
tiny
and
right
now,
if
you
were
to
build,
want
to
build
a
400
square
foot,
tiny
house,
you
would
have
to
have
a
5,000
square
foot
parcel
to
do
so,
and
so
we
are
going
to
reduce
that
requirement
to
1500
square
feet.
This
differs
from
an
Adu
because
it
doesn't
have
to
be
owner-occupied.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
tied
on
the
same
lot
as
a
single-family
dwelling
like
the
two
projects
you
saw
tonight.
So
that's
how
it
differs.
I
You
know
I
would
be
really
concerned
as
a
neighbor
of
somebody
who's
got
a
you
know,
a
somebody's
sliver
landless
next-door
where
they
build
a
tiny
house.
Those
things
are
just
cheesy,
you
know,
for
the
most
part,
I
mean
yeah.
You
can
get
some
really
cute
ones,
but
most
of
the
time
they're
just
cheesy
mm-hmm,
so
I
don't
see
how
that
really
helps
us
very
much.
Okay,.
O
I
I
C
K
M
O
O
F
You
ever
is
there
something
like
subdivide
a
lot
I
mean
so
I,
actually
like
those
like
cottage
development.
That
was,
you
know,
I
mean
with
these
tiny
homes.
I
mean.
Are
you?
Can
someone
subdue
I,
guess
subdivide
some
of
these,
like
a
5,000
square
foot
lot
and
the
three
Lots
and
put
three
tiny
homes
on
it?
Would
that
be
different
than
so.
F
O
We
were
trying
to
allow
Lots
without
street
frontage
without
having
to
go
through
the
plan.
Development
I.
Don't
think,
that's
what
we'll
end
up
doing
anymore.
So
if
the
Lots
are
but
don't
have,
Street
frontage
tighten
with
the
tiny
houses
they
might
have
to
go
through
plan
development,
but
we
would
for
the
cut
for
the
cottage
and
the
row
house,
side,
oriented
row
house
I
think
the
language
is
now
that
they
can
have
lots
without
street
frontage
for
those
two
particular
forms.
But
everything
else
that
doesn't
have
street
frontage
would
go
through
plan
development.
F
My
one
questions
who,
with
the
row
houses
I,
mean
think
we've
talked
a
lot
about
them:
kind
of
coming
in
the
side,
oriented
row,
houses
and
so
I,
like
the
conversation
about
the
front
oriented
development,
the
one,
the
other
concern
that
I
always
have
is
that
you've
got
that
which
I
think
you've
you've
got
a
six
foot.
You
made
it
larger
here,
but
it's
it's
really
a
neighbor
who
is
on
the
one
side
who
then
ends
up
with
this
30-foot
wall,
mm-hmm
kind
of
in
their
backyard
yeah?
O
O
That's
30
feet
already,
isn't
isn't
quite
feasible,
so
we
reduce
that
one
side
to
6
try
to
try
to
maintain
some
kind
of
buffer
and
then
again
we're
trying
to
delineate
each
unit
on
the
interior
sides
with
different
design
elements
and
also
require
class
to
help
break
up
that
longer.
Wall
they'll
also
have
to
have
entry
features
on
each
unit,
so
hopefully
that
helps
and
and
the
the
design
I'll
yeah.
The
design
elements
will
be
required
on
either
side.
So,
like
differentiation
and
building
materials
articulation
of
a
certain
distance
things
of
that
nature.
O
O
F
F
Wayne,
and
was
it
I
mean
it
seems
like
you,
you
is
you
read
it
and
think
about
it.
It
seems
like
the
intent
was
to
intensify
development
with
less
like
with
less
single-family
homes
and
more
like
condos
apartment
buildings,
but
Cindy's
rise
or
Hansel
she'll,
probably
just
yell
at
me,
in
the
public
hearing
but
I
mean
just
to
me.
They
were
they're
located
too
and
they
located
on
these
major
thoroughfares.
I
F
F
I
O
I
That
is
really,
you
know
you
could
potentially
have
some
really
nasty.
You
know,
let's
this
woods,
brick
and
this
was
block,
and
this
was
yeah
and
now
shiplap,
and
then
this
was
I
really
don't
want
to
have
the
consequence
that
we
have
on
some
of
our
buildings
now
where
people
are
trying
to
make
them
seem
as
if
they're,
two
or
three
or
ten
buildings,
where
you
have
so
many
multiples
of
materials.
M
I
D
I
O
I
A
I
B
O
A
D
My
name
is
Lynn
Schwartz
I'm,
vice
chair
of
the
sugarhouse
community
council,
land
use
and
zoning
committee,
the
allowing
of
cottage
developments
and
site
oriented
row
houses
without
special
approval
is
asking
for
developments
which
will
cut
out
community
involvement,
which
has
clearly
felt
to
be
an
impediment.
We
feel
the
community
should
be
involved
in
what
goes
into
the
community,
also
with
all
the
increased
density
and
streamlining
of
ostensibly
burdensome
regulations
and
supposedly
unnecessary
community
input,
there
is
no
requirement
for
affordable
units.
Hoping
and
praying
that
affordability
will
magically
occur
is
daydreaming
of
the
highest
order.
D
J
We
reviewed
this
and
sent
out
flyers
and
had
our
trustees
talk
to
people
that
lived
in
some
of
these
areas
that
are
affected
in
sugarhouse
and
I
was
pretty
amazed
that
we
didn't
get
too
many
objections.
The
the
places
that
are
labeled
in
sugarhouse
are
the
Graystone
apartments
and
the
Elizabeth
Street
condos.
Both
of
those
are
pretty
much
senior
housing.
All
owner-occupied
I've,
been
in
many
of
the
units
they're
all
well
kept
up.
J
I
know
that
the
militia
bus
Street
ones
were
built
in
71
in
the
Forest
Glen
condos
in
78,
and
the
Greystone
in
60,
so
I
guess
they're
getting
older,
but
they're
well-maintained.
So
we
didn't
seem
to
feel
that
this
was
I'll,
call
it
a
threat
to
tear
those
down
and
put
in
twice
as
many
units
on
those
spaces.
I,
don't
think
that
might
happen
in
50
years,
but
nobody's
worried
about
it.
J
Now
the
place
people
like
to
see
some
development
was
along
7th,
east
and
90s,
where
the
lots
are
wide
and
you've
seen
a
few
places
where
they're
like
a
hundred
and
ten
feet
deep,
and
so
those
are
places
that
some
of
this
would
fit,
and
many
of
those
are
in
need
of
upgrades.
So
we
kind
of
saw
both
sides
of
the
argument.
J
I
think
Lynn
is
absolutely
right
and
I've
been
toying
with
the
idea
of
putting
together
a
slide,
show
and
trying
to
talk
to
Nick,
about
showing
it
to
you
and
to
show
you
the
wonderful
over-the-counter
permits
and
the
houses
that
result
from
those
because
they're
pretty
terrible.
Some
are
fine,
but
there
are
a
lot
of
really
bad
monstrosities
and
if
you
start
digging
in
little,
you
know
divide
a
75-foot
lot
into
two
and
put
two
strips
of
things.
J
I
think
it
could
be
pretty
interesting
and
we
get
screamed
at
all
the
time
from
the
people
that
live
above
13th
east
that
all
the
development
in
sugarhouse.
All
those
apartments
is
ruining
their
neighborhood.
You
know
it's
two
miles
away,
but
it's
ruining
their
neighborhood.
So
there's
a
community
feel
that
has
to
be
and
the
other.
The
other
thing
I
mean
I'm
glad
you're
tabling
this,
because
I
haven't
really
gotten
into
the
weeds
and
looked
at
all
the
different
details.
J
J
There's
a
comment
in
there
that
there
are
a
hundred
and
a
thousand
twenty-eight
parcels
that
are
6/10
of
an
acre
or
twenty
six
hundred
and
thirteen
feet,
and
if
the
minimum
is
twenty-five
hundred.
That
sounds
like
a
lot,
but
it's
really
that
if
there's
there's
no
space
around
these
homes,
especially
if
you
put
a
driveway
and
a
garage
I,
think
you
need
a
penalty
for
removing
housing.
J
You
know
you
might
be
taking
out
a
three
Plex
and
putting
in
a
ten
Plex,
that's
great.
But
what?
If
you're,
taking
out
an
old,
dilapidated,
four
Plex
and
building
a
monster
home
I
think
there
needs
a
penalty
and
the
cottage
development
thousand
square
feet
of
open
space.
I
would
bet
this
room
is
probably
close
to
three
thousand
square
feet
and
a
thousand
square
feet
is
not
much
if
you're
going
to
have
eight
homes
and
that
space
is
included.
J
The
driveway
and
the
and
the
sidewalks
are
part
of
that
thousand
swerve
eating,
so
I
think
there's
some
issues
that
need
to
really
be
looked
at
and
I,
don't
think
they're
gonna
be
affordable,
nothing
new
is
affordable,
and
so
the
more
you
take
down
a
14
Plex
building
to
put
in
six
new
townhomes
you've
lost
eight
units
and
tripled
the
rental
price.
I
think
that's
part
of
the
reason
we
have
so
many
people
that
don't
have
housing
right
now.
P
For
you
to
think
about
so
I
own
six
properties
in
the
RMF
30
and
35
zoning
classifications,
they're
all
located
national
registered
districts,
I
have
managed
rental
properties,
since
the
mid,
1970s
and
I
probably
have
more
experience
with
affordable
rental
properties
than
anyone
working
in
this
building.
Because
of
my
age
and
for
the
past
year
and
a
half
I've
been
saying
to
the
planning
staff.
This
is
the
wrong
place
to
start
in
an
effort
to
increase
density.
I
have
no
objection
at
all.
To
increase
density.
P
I
can
show
you
the
difference
in
the
performance
of
a
building
with
four
units
and
one
with
six
units.
The
six
unit
building
performs
better.
You
are
fortunate
tonight,
if
you
have
any
in
questions
about
the
intent
of
the
1995
ordinance
when
the
RMF
zones
were
initiated,
you
can
ask
Judy
and
me
because
we
were
both
on
the
Planning
Commission.
The
other
person
who
would
know
is
Doug
Danzig
and
he
left
as
I
was
coming
in.
P
P
These
two
requirements
in
the
existing
ordinance
are
more
effective
in
protecting
the
existing
affordable
units
than
the
overlay
for
a
historic
district
I'm
going
to
say
that
again,
because
it's
original
and
it's
potent
the
requirements
in
the
RMF
30
zone
for
lot
size
and
lot
width
are
more
effective
than
the
overlay
zone
for
historic
districts.
We
have
lost
in
the
Central
City
historic
district
52
contributing
structures,
since
the
district
was
initiated.
Historic
district
status
does
not
a
viable
historic
building.
The
research
that
the
staff
has
done
is
meticulous.
P
I
say
that
every
time
I
talk
about
this,
but
we
could
accomplish
more
by
doing
the
things
that
doctor
Chris
Nelson
told
us
to
do
and
I've
identified.
Those
at
issue
for
me
are
their
their
itemize
their
the
the
economics
here
are,
but
the
assumption
that
economics
are
not
relevant
to
what
happens
here
that
the
Planning
Commission
doesn't
deal
with
economics
is
just
going
to
lead
us
to
disaster.
Economics
are
highly
relevant,
they're
relevant
to
me.
P
The
way
I
am
and
construction
costs
are
deciding
factor
and
if
I
asked
a
contractor
to
protect
the
existing
building,
while
he
was
constructing
a
new
building
in
the
rear
yard,
he
would
elevate
the
price
considerably
because
of
the
liability
issues
and
because
of
the
amount
of
time
it
would
take
to
work
around
the
existing
structure.
This
is
just
not
real
world
to
think
that
you're
going
to
be
able
to
incentivize
with
some
unit
bonus
preserving
the
existing
structure.
It's
not
going
to
work.
P
It's
going
to
be
much
more
cost
effective
to
tear
everything
down
and
start
over
they're
missing
informations.
Here
the
design
standards
I'm,
sorry,
but
they
are
not
working.
They
work
somewhat
in
the
historic
districts
with
the
Landmarks
Commission,
they
they're
not
working
elsewhere
vacant
buildings.
The
city
doesn't
even
know
what
it
has
in
vacant
properties.
It
knows
what
it
has
in
boarded
properties,
but
in
vacant
residential
structures
it
has
no
clue
I
do
because,
when
I
go
around
flyers,
I
can
see
how
much
dust
there
is
on
the
porch
and
that
nobody's
come
and
gone.
P
There
are
obstacles
to
putting
these
vacant
structures
back
into
service
and
the
city's
not
dealing
with
that.
The
city
hasn't
dealt
with
the
cost
of
losing
an
unsubsidized,
affordable
unit.
So
what's
the
value
of
an
unsubsidized,
affordable
unit,
I
mean
what
the
city
is
doing
if
I
can
just
tantrum
for
a
moment
more
is
it's
shifting
the
burden
of
affordable
housing
from
where
it
is
in
the
marketplace
now
to
taxpayers
who
will
have
to
subsidize
every
new
unit
of
affordable
housing?
What's
affordable?
That
exists?
Is
it's?
P
What's
it
risk
here
with
this
proposal
and
then
I
think
there
are
whole
bunch
of
master
plans
that
haven't
been
addressed.
If
you're
going
to
amend
them,
then
go
ahead.
You
have
the
authority
to
recommend
amendments
to
the
central
community
master
plan
and
other
master
plans
like
the
preservation
plan,
and
we
also
paid
for
the
National
Register
nomination
for
the
Binion
and
the
Douglass
neighborhoods
we
paid
for
that
with
CDBG
funding
and-
and
this
just
runs
roughshod
over
that
city
policy,
so
I
think
there's
some
documents
that
haven't
been
included,
I
think
there's
some
issues.
P
P
Well,
I,
wasn't
speaking
on
behalf
of
qme
council
only
on
behalf
of
my
buildings,
which
are
all
severely
threatened
unless
I
put
them
in
a
housing
trust
by
this
proposal.
So
if
you
want
me
to
tell
you
what
was
going
on
in
95,
Judy
and
I
can
tell
you
we're
both
on
the
Planning
Commission
at
the
time,
and
there
was
a
whole
mindset,
then,
and
that's
what
that's
why
you
have
what
you
have,
and
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
major
streets.
P
P
So
I
argued
constantly
with
Bill
right
during
my
tenure
on
the
Planning
Commission
and
one
time
he
said,
the
95
ordinance
was
a
massive
down.
Zoning
and
I
got
ready
to
argue
with
him
and
I
realized.
He
was
right
and
I
couldn't
argue
with
him.
It
was
an
absolutely
massive
down
zoning.
If
you
look
at
the
Bryant
neighborhood,
we
had
gotten
at
down
zone
2
thinking.
We
were
accomplished
something
in
85
from
an
R
6
and
an
R
7
to
an
R
5.
P
Those
numbers
at
the
end
are
the
number
of
floors
in
the
zone,
so
we're
talking
about
an
area.
That's
now
that
I've
invested
in
that's
now
an
RMF
30
with
zone
for
five
floors
of
residential
housing
before
the
95
ordinance.
Okay.
So
the
95
ordinance
was
a
massive
down
zoning
and
there
was
an
effort
to
avoid
making
tons
of
stuff
non-conforming
all
right.
So
then
you
get
the
patchwork
quilt.
But
the
mindset
29
years
ago
was
a
big
down.
P
Zoning
across
the
residential
areas
of
the
city
and
and
things
went
from
an
r32
and
are
two
things,
went
from
an
r5
to
an
RMF,
30,
35,
and-
and
so
that's,
why
you
see
the
mix
of
the
single
family
that
survived
and
some
multiple
units
which
are
now
non-conforming
is
density.
So
my
six
flex,
it's
non-conforming
as
all
get-out
to
density
I
I,
could
maybe
get
a
single-family
residence
on
the
parcel.
P
I
I
C
F
Only
thing
that
I'm,
like
I'll,
be
quick,
so
it
seems
like
we've
got
the
zones
that
are
trying
to
protect
some
historic
housing,
I'd
be
interested
in
staff
presenting
when
they
come
back.
Talking
about
this
concept
is
we're
tearing
down
these
old
homes
if
we're
actually
losing
units
right,
I
mean
I'm,
sure
I
know,
there's
affordability,
problems
appeal
building
new
stuff,
but
you
know
actually,
if
we're
looking
at
when
I
was
reading,
a
report
by
the
Kim
gardener,
Institute
or
whatever
that
talks
about
the
number
of
new
units
that
have
come
on
board
and
stuff.
F
So
are
we
actually
losing
units?
This
comment
because,
and
then
you
know
that
piece
it
seems
like
me.
This
is
discussion
like
we're
using
the
zoning
district
which
which
even
Cindy
kind
of
spoke
to
where
it's
like
it's
zoned,
a
way
to
protect
a
historic.
So
should
those
properties
not
be
zoned,
RMF
30
should
be
zoned,
something
else,
and
then
you
know
do
we
I
mean
it
seems
like
arm.
F
F
The
housing
thing
yeah
the
concept
of
Indian
and
Judy
both
mentioned
that
in
this
happening
sugar
house,
that
people
are
tearing
down
homes
and
they're,
tearing
down
old
apartment
buildings,
putting
up
new,
expensive
high-dollar
stuff,
and
then
my
understandings
that
we've
really
been
increasing
housing
stock
in
the
city
or
its
kind
of
least
that's
what
this
report
from
the
Kim
Carter
Institute
would
seem
to
imply
and
I'm
just
kind
of
curious
to
kind
of
dig
into
that
a
little
bit
more
as
the
staff
can
look
into
like.
Are
we
actually
increasing
units?
F
O
If
I
can
respond
to
that
I,
we
have
these
numbers
and
I
can
bring
them
back
next
time
and
make
it
more
clear.
But
we
project
just
on
land
area
alone,
that
we
could
gain
over
just
over
2,000
units
and
that's
a
net
gain
of
existing
and
what
could
be
added
at
3040
and
then
with
the
bonus,
if
you
were
to
preserve
that
would
be
three
thousand
five
hundred
and
seventy
units
if
all
the
units
were
demolished
and
every
developer
was
to
start
over.
O
F
No,
no!
It's
not
about
the
potential
right.
It's
about
what's
happening
now,
right!
Are
we
seeing
that
places
that
are
old?
You
know,
new
buildings
are
gonna,
be
more
expensive
than
old
apartment
building
right
I
mean
so
what
the
con
was
made
that
we're
taking
a
four
a
six
unit,
duplex
or
townhome,
tearing
it
down
and
putting
in
for
expensive
nice
condos
right
and
is
that
I
just
wanna
know
if
that's
actually
like
happening?
F
F
O
It's
hard
to
get
those
numbers
without
doing
like
the
performers
and
things
like
that,
but
we
did
kind
of
look
at
that
and
it
just
it's
such
a
case-by-case
thing.
However,
construction
costs
are
really
high
and
if,
in
the
RMF
district,
like
we've
seen,
things
are,
if
you
have
a
multi-family
building
in
the
RMF
districts,
they're
probably
grandfathered
in
in
terms
of
you
have
many
more
units
than
you
could
have
today
or
have
what
the
changes,
and
so
what
we
find.
H
F
Seems
like
we
have
a
historic,
this
historic,
neighborhoods
and
homes
which
everyone
loves
them
these
that
you
want
to
trying
to
protect
and
we've
designed
a
zone,
that's
multifamily
to
try
to
do
that,
and
there's
some
weird
constrictions
in
it
that
maybe
was
designed
to
try
to
keep
and
protect
those
and
may
be
successfully
did
at
the
same
time
we're
also
trying
to
increase
housing
stock.
The
argument
coming
from
the
city
is
that
I
think
is
a
supply
and
demand
argument.
Then.
F
Supply
out
there,
maybe
in
the
short
run
you
know,
there's
these
are
market
rate,
but
in
the
long
run
the
more
supply
that's
out
there,
the
better
off
we're
all
going
to
be
in
terms
of
housing,
cost
right,
right
and
then
submit,
but
then
I'm
also
looking
at
your
numbers,
and
so
one
want
to
make.
You
know
we're
not
really
increasing
the
unit's
necessarily
right.
So
we're
not
really
a
drought,
we're
actually
adding
more
supply.
D
F
F
You
know
neighborhoods,
it's
got
an
authentic
feel
that
we're
losing
mm-hmm,
but
at
the
same
time
we
want
to
have
this
transitional
multifamily,
housing
and
I'm
not,
and
we
want
to
increase
supply
drastically,
I
think
to
deal
with
the
affordability,
housing
costs
and
I'm,
not
in
the
proposal,
even
here,
I'm,
not
sure
if
it
is
bold
enough
to
accomplish
that
goal.
Okay,.
O
C
H
C
The
RMF
zones-
and
so
that's,
that's
I,
think
why
you're
seeing
you
know
definitely
the
more
modest
approach
here
as
we
you
know,
if
this
is
a
concept
that,
as
it
moves
into
the
City
Council
you
know
gets
approved,
the
intent
then
would
be
to
start
working
on
the
other
RMF
zones,
which
are
by
nature
right
now
supposed
to
be
more
dense.
But.
F
F
Do
you
you
better
address
a
historic
preservation
concept
within
another
way,
rather
than
a
zoning
way
or
a
rezone,
those
properties
that
you
really
care
about
to
something
else,
so
they
actually,
you
know
or
better,
protect
it
and
maintain
that's
the
goal
and
then
allow
a
more
bold
initiative
on
the
parts
that
you're
not
really
caring
about
historic
preservation
on.
So
you
actually
do
get
upscale.
You
know
you
do
get
more
development,
more
density,
you
don't
get
these
townhomes
of
three
different
units.
You
get
more
cottage.
F
F
I
F
It
one
unit
itself
may
remain
affordable,
but
the
existing
pressures
on
the
every
other
parcel
are
higher
because
you
have
less
supply
right,
I
mean
that's
the
on
the
supply
and
demand
are
good
right.
So,
yes,
you
tear
down
one
affordable
unit.
You
lose
one
affordable
property,
but
on
the
aggregate
and
a
big
enough
level
you
know
you
you're,
not
you're
snot.
You
need
to
increase
supply
to
make.
You
know
everyone
else.
Everyone
else
is
all
the
other.
All
the
other
properties
are
gonna,
go
up
because
you're
keeping
that
one,
because
you've
got
less
supply.
F
I
A
little
bit
concerned
in
general
with
the
RMF
30
zoning
districts,
because
I
don't
think,
there's
much
consistency
in
the
way
that
the
design
the
topologies
are
working
out
along
the
street.
So
you
have,
you
know
a
bigger
part,
we're
building
a
little
house.
Then
you
might
have
a
tiny
house
and
then
you
might
have
a
cottage
house
and
then
you
might
have
a
sideways
house
and
then
a
big
apartment
project
I
mean.
Is
there
nothing?
We
can
do
about
that,
because
consistency
of
typology
is
one
of
the
most
important
urban
design
principles
we
have.
I
We
know
that
that
you
know
you
have
house,
house,
house,
house,
house
or
town
house,
you
know
17
blocks,
you
know
Beacon
Hill
or
something
that
is
that's
a
high
density
but
consistent,
a
reformat.
And
so
what
we're
doing
here
is
encouraging,
nay,
even
asking
for
a
hodgepodge
of
different
topologies.
That's.
I
H
I
I
C
Will
go
back
and
and
and
like
Lauren
said
you
know,
I
was
it
was
our
intent
as
we
roll
through
that
we
knew
we
needed
to
clean
up
some
more
dense
language
on
this,
but
we'll
go
back
considering
the
meeting
and
and
what
you
all
said
and
try
to
address
it
as
well
as
we
can.
You
know
we
may
just
come
back
with
you,
don't
want
it
Brendon.