►
From YouTube: Planning Commission - July 08, 2020
Description
Salt Lake City Planning Commission - July 08, 2020
C
E
D
I
friended
shears
Salt
Lake,
City,
Planning
Commission
Vice
Chair,
hereby
determined
that
conducting
the
Salt
Lake
City
Planning
Commission
meeting
at
an
anchor
location
presents
a
substantial
risk
to
the
health
and
safety
of
those
who
may
be
present
at
the
anchor
location.
The
World
Health
Organization,
the
President
of
the
United
States,
the
governor
of
Utah,
the
Salt
Lake
County
Health
Department
Salt
Lake
County
mayor
and
the
mayor
of
Salt
Lake
City
have
all
recognized.
A
global
pandemic
exists
related
to
the
new
strain
of
the
corona
virus.
D
Sars
CoV
to
do
the
emergence
state
of
emergency
caused
by
the
global
pandemic.
I
find
that
conducting
a
meeting
at
an
anchor
location
under
the
current
state
of
public
health
emergency
constitutes
a
substantial
risk
to
the
health
and
safety
of
those
who
may
be
present
at
that
location.
Moreover,
the
city
and
county
building,
which
is
the
anchor
location
for
Salt
Lake
City
Planning
Commission
meetings,
is
presently
closed.
A
regular
occupation
due
to
damages
sustained
during
the
march
2020
waves.
A
F
D
A
A
G
G
2020
colleges
for
my
delay
and
getting
situated
here
at
the
first
item
on
our
agenda
is
the
approval
of
the
minutes
for
June,
24th,
2020,
but
I
understand
we
don't
have
copies
of
those
minutes
yet
so
we
will
wait
until
the
next
meeting
in
order
to
approve
the
minutes
from
the
last
meeting.
Next
item
would
be
the
report
of
the
chair
and
the
vice
chair.
I
have
nothing
to
report
Brenda.
Do
you
have
anything
to
report
nothing
from
Brenda?
Okay?
The
next
thing
would
be
the
report
of
the
director.
So
is
there
anything?
Yes.
A
I
have
well
I,
guess
one
thing,
because
we've
already
covered
the
minutes:
Andres
and
Sara.
We
need
you
to
reapply
in
order
to
renew
your
appointment
to
the
Commission
I
understand
you
should
have
received
an
email
with
some
kind
of
form
to
fill
out.
You're
welcome
to
put
down
any
one
of
the
management
team
as
references
if
you'd
like,
but
in
order
to
renew
your
appointment
on
the
commission,
we
need
you
to
fill
out
those
applications.
G
F
F
G
A
Is
correct
so
if
there
are
any
members
of
the
public
who
are
watching
or
listening
along
item
number
two
under
the
public
hearings
as
your
please
planned
development
and
preliminary
subdivision
at
approximately
6:30,
7:00
or
300
West
and
other
addresses,
including
Pugliese
Street,
has
been
postponed.
I
don't
have
a
date
to
when
that
will
be
postponed
until.
G
G
H
K
I
I
Just
a
recap:
23
unit
residential
projects,
project
six
units
in
the
renovated,
Telegraph
building
seventeen
three-story
townhome
units
proposed
to
be
added
on
site
and
there's
two
properties
involved:
one
zoned
RMF
45
and
one's
own
art,
which
is
single
and
two
family
residential
and
the
combined
parcel
would
be
0.79
acres
again.
It
is
reusing
the
Telegraph
exchange
building
which,
in
which
itself
is
not
a
city
landmark
or
protected
building,
and
it
is
RMF
45
and
again
just
for
any
of
the
public
that
are
watching
the
meeting.
I
The
reference
map
of
where
the
properties
are
located
in
the
zoning
and
recap
from
May
27th
Planning
Commission
meeting
when
the
applications
were
tabled
by
the
Commission,
the
PC
directed
the
applicant
to
consider
or
address
the
following.
Looking
at
the
driveway
location
options
and
entering
from
chase,
there
were
questions
on
if
that
was
considered
in
the
design
increasing
the
front
setback
for
the
800
east
facing
units.
I
There
were
questions
about
the
fire
department,
access
issues
and
approval
on
those
and
addressing
issues
on
the
north
side,
particularly
with
the
proposed
elimination
of
a
10-foot
landscaping
buffer
between
the
telegraph
property
on
the
r2
parcel
and
what
would
be
the
single-family
residence
to
the
north.
Also,
there
was
a
dumpster
located
on
that
property
line,
Planning
Commission
further
directed
or
there
were
questions
on
the
materials
and
design
elements
and
balcony
encroachments
over
Jace
Avenue.
I
After
the
May
27th
meeting,
the
applicant
has
been
working
with
staff
and
there
were
additional
meetings
with
the
fire
department.
The
fire
department
access
issues
have
been
solved.
The
proposed
design
is
approved
by
fire
or
revised
fire
department.
Comments
were
included
in
your
staff
report
package.
The
proposed
there's
a
proposed
4-foot
landscaping
buffer
now
on
the
north
side
of
the
project,
between
that
what
would
be
the
Telegraph
lofts
project
and
the
single-family
residence
to
the
north
and
they're
asking
for
a
reduction
of
that
required
buffer
from
10
feet
to
4
feet
wide.
I
Previously,
the
proposal
was
to
have
no
buffer
there,
so
they're
proposing
a
reduced
width
for
field
landscaping,
buffer,
the
dumpster
and
recycling.
On
the
north
side,
property
line
has
been
eliminated
and
there'll
be
a
limpid
they'll,
be
individual
cans
provided
for
each
unit
and
the
balcony
encroachments
over
chase
Avenue,
which
is
private
right
away.
The
applicant
is
seeking
property
owner
aggrievement
or
those
balconies
can
be
pulled
back
to
match
the
existing
roofline
of
the
Telegraph
Exchange
Building
itself.
I
So
we're
suggesting
that
as
a
condition
of
approval
as
working
with
those
details,
just
quick
overview
site
plan,
there's
a
copy
included
in
your
staff
report
packet
just
pointing
out
the
landscape
buffer
on
the
north
side
has
been
added
of
4
feet
and
the
one
other
item
that's
been
added.
It's
in
a
blue
box
on
kind
of
the
bottom
right
corner,
a
community,
pedestrian
access
gate
between
the
Telegraph
project
and
the
Smith's
property
to
facilitate
some
pedestrian
interaction
between
that
development
in
the
99th
business
district,
you've
seen
the
renderings
before
and
I
know.
I
The
applicant
will
have
some
more
of
those
in
there
in
his
presentation
can
just
brief
overview.
The
townhome
units
that
face
800,
East
and
the
Telegraph
building
in
the
background-
and
this
would
be
the
location
of
the
driveway-
would
be
adjacent
to
that
existing
fence.
That
is
the
single-family
residence
to
the
north,
and
there
would
be
a
4-foot
landscape
or
buffer
landscaping
buffer
between
the
fence
and
the
driveway
edge.
I
Considerations
as
reiterated
in
the
in
the
meeting
in
May,
there
were
master
plan
policies
that
both
support
the
proposed
rezoning
and
master
plan
amendments
and
conflicting
statements.
We
also
looked
at
the
recent
2014
rezoning
of
the
r2
property,
which
had
previously
been
RM
f-35
and
was
part
of
a
broader
community
initiative
to
read,
create
some
rezoning,
zin,
the
ninth
and
9th
area,
and
the
master
plan
shows
both
properties
as
low-density
residential
in
the
future
land
use
map.
E
I
E
G
L
Thank
you
so
much
I'm
gonna
have
David.
Think
I
want
to
thank
David,
he's
gonna
pilot,
our
presentation,
and
then
tonight
I
have
with
me
my
architects,
Julian
Hanson
and
a
Ralph
Nagi
Sawa
from
NJ
and
sa
architects.
I
will
try
to
not
duplicate
a
lot
of
information
that
you
guys
have
already
occurred
on
this
and
really
just
address
the
responses
to
the
comments
from
last
time.
L
Again.
I
just
want
to
start
out
by
thanking
the
planning
staff,
Molly,
David,
Joel,
Nick
and
Marlene
I
know
how
much
time
you
guys
have
spent
with
me
on
this
and
I
certainly
appreciate
your
valuable
time.
I
also
just
want
to
make
sure
Ralph
and
Julianne
had
their
audio
turned
on
you
guys.
You
guys
available.
I
L
Before
I
get
into
the
changes
I
last
time,
I
told
you
guys
kind
of
vocally
about
the
historic
nature
of
the
building.
Some
pictures
from
between
19
1990
of
staff
members
in
the
building,
as
it
was
used
as
the
switching
station
for
Salt
Lake's
main
backbone
for
the
telephone
new
telephone
technology
and
we're
excited
to
frame
a
number
of
these
pictures
and
obviously
have
it
kind
of
throughout
our
new
development,
really
exciting
stuff.
L
L
Okay,
next
line,
okay.
So
the
changes
last
time
I
mentioned
fire
approval.
We've
been
working
with
city
fire
representatives
for
over
two
years
on
this
and
have
designed
a
land
plan
in
accordance
with
the
standards
set
forth.
At
this
time
we
had
full
fire
approval
of
the
plan
presented.
You
know
it's
the
middle
mr.
Steve,
Colette
and
Teddy
Shawn
have
been
very
helpful
in
Salt
Lake
City
fire
staff,
and
we
certainly
appreciate
their
assistance.
The
next
issue
was
the
transition
on
our
north
property
line
from
the
RM
45
to
just
a
standard
residential
neighborhood.
L
L
We
were
able
to
compressed
our
common
area
between
the
Telegraph
building
in
the
town
homes
by
4
feet
and,
in
addition
to
the
20
foot,
wide
setback
that
we
already
had.
We
added
a
4-foot
landscape
buffer
in
an
effort
to
enhance
the
transition
from
the
townhomes
to
the
single-family
residences.
On
the
Northland
project,
we've
incorporated
this
4-foot
landscape
buffer.
The
buffer
will
be,
in
addition
to
20
foot
setback,
creating
an
overall
side
yard
setback
on
the
north.
L
The
project
at
24
foot
for
20
feet
for
4
inches
our
landscape
plan
for
this
149
foot
long
by
4,
foot
wide
buffer
includes
a
count
of
24
kindred
spirit,
Connor
oak
trees
to
be
planted
every
6
feet.
These
trees
will
be
one
in
three
quarters
to
two-inch,
caliper
and
10
to
14
foot
tall
at
installation.
The
growth
pattern
for
this
tree
species
is
3
feet
per
year
in
height
35
to
40
foot
in
mature
height
and
a
six
to
eight
foot
wide
six
to
eight
foot
width.
L
We
believe
this
plant
he
planned
in
the
24
foot.
Four
setback
will
provide
a
generous
transition
to
the
single-family
residential
homes.
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that,
with
just
the
current
zoning
of
the
r2,
there
would
just
be
an
8
foot,
side,
yard
setback
on
this
side
required
and
so
now
we're
at
20
24
foot
4.
So
it's
a
pretty
substantial
distance
and
a
nice
transition
with
that
landscape
plan.
Additionally,
the
noise
and
potential
smells
associated
dumpster
at
that
transition
point.
L
One
of
the
commissioners
had
mentioned
that
they'd
like
to
see
a
gate
from
the
back
of
the
property
onto
the
Smiths
parking
lot
to
access
the
United
Knight
business
district.
While
we
don't
have
final
approval
from
the
Smith's
organization,
we
have
some
favorable
initial
conversations.
They
like
the
idea
of
our
residents,
approximate
60
residents
being
able
to
walk
over
and
shop
at
their
store
and
so
we're
working
on
the
final
details
on
a
gate
that
would
go
over
there.
L
One
of
the
most
important
things
with
the
fire
approval
is
that
our
initial
plan
we
had
a
permanent
fire
pad
on
the
southwest
portion
of
the
land
plan
that
was
approximately
40
feet
long
and
eight
feet
to
eat.
This
would
have
taken
out
two
to
three
historic
trees
as
part
of
our
fire
approval
that
has
been
removed
and
you'll.
Note
that
on
the
fire
claim
that
all
those
trees
will
remain
so
that's
exciting.
L
Mat
lion
just
asked
the
question
about
a
driveway
layout
that
included
a
location,
another
access,
location
off
of
Chase
Avenue.
We
started
working
on
this
project.
The
first
thing
we
did
was
go
to
all
of
the
homeowners
on
chase
inclusive,
the
church
of
price
that
had
that
commercial
building
there,
and
we
knew
because
that
was
a
private
right
of
way
that
we
needed
to
get
a
really
solid
agreement
and
support
in
place
from
all
those
landowners.
L
We
had
agreed
that
in
our
leases
for
our
project
that
we
would
allow
not
our
tenants
to
park
on
Chase
Avenue,
with
the
exception
of
obviously
the
comings
and
goings
of
the
ten
cars
that
would
be
going
into
the
two-car
garages
of
Chase,
and
so
as
such.
That
agreement
was
curated
over
a
long
period
of
time
and
is
in
place
and
does
not
include
us
having
an
access
point
and
additional
traffic
on
that
small
private
street.
L
So
that
was
one
of
the
central
reasons
that
that
we
didn't
change
the
land
plan
to
adhere
with
that
in
the
other
one
least
units
in
order
to
do
so
in
plan,
which
obviously
is
an
economic
challenge
in
terms
of
us
being
able
to
justify
the
adaptive
reuse
strategy
on
historic
building
Mac
before
I
go
on
to
other
stuff.
I
just
wanted
to
offer
my
architects
any
additional
comments
on
that
topic,
because
I
know
it's
a
it's
an
important
one
for
you
Matt.
M
M
I,
don't
know
if
we
can
help
him
with
that,
while
we
figure
that
out
to
address
the
third
thing
about
the
chase.
Avenue
access
is
this
also
part
of
the
fire
agreement
and
the
fire
design
and
the
best
way
to
get
fire
access
to
site,
so
otherwise
we'd
be
again
losing
more
than
two
units
to
get
fire
access
through
the
site
to
create
chase,
to
create
access
on
taste
and
then
I.
M
Polyp
I
just
lost
my
train
of
thought,
and
so
that
was
another
driver
was
the
friar
access
and
that
strip
the
corner
tree
there
on
face
would
have
to
go
with
the
sight
lines.
It
would
be
in
the
sight
line
safety
traffic
they
create
on
what's
the
design.
So
that
was
a
fourth
item
of
not
wanting
to
create
extra
access
on
chase.
L
K
Good,
yes,
apologize
for
the
inconvenience
not
to
get
to
my
phone
having
audio
difficulties
here,
but
we
have
discussed
over
over
the
past
few
years.
We've
been
working
on
this
project
for
the
past,
maybe
three
or
four
years
now
and
we've
been
in
discussion
a
lot
with
the
fire
department
once
said
it
John
and
with
that
said,
you
know,
we've
come
up
with
make
several
different
plan
and
the
plan
that
we
ended
up
with
serves
the
best
for
both
parties
for
the
you
know,
for
the
fire
department
and
for
us.
K
So
we
thought
by
putting
the
additional
load
on
Chase.
Avenue
was
a
was
a
burden
and
they
couldn't.
We
couldn't
get
access
to
the
rest
of
the
units
on
site,
and
so
they
felt
that
coming
in
on
the
north
end,
they
would
just
come
straight
in
and
then
hose
hose
the
south
to
the
south
direction,
and
then
they
would
use
Chase
Avenue,
also
as
access
and
stop
and
go
and
angled
northward
for
the
fire
access
and
we've
made
accommodations
for
Ted
and
they
have
sights
off
on
everything.
L
F
L
The
the
current
proposal
has
the
encroachment
of
those
balconies
matching
the
encroachment
of
the
historic,
Telegraph
and
roofline
on
the,
and
it
was
just
one
of
the
details.
We
did
not
so
night
basically
says
that
we
have
to
show
they'll
add
to
the
agreement.
We
we'd
be
more
than
happy
to
do
so
and
if,
in
fact,
we
do
have
to
lose
that
protrusion
ie
pull
it
back
farther
than
the
existing
encroachment
of
the
Telegraph
rooms
line.
M
M
L
L
So
I
know
there
were
some
other
comments
about
setbacks
and
I.
Think
our
group
will
respond
to
those
as
commissioners
pose
of
those
questions.
We've
provided
a
pretty
deep
narrative
in
the
updated
memo
and
so
I'll
refrain
from
really
getting
into
the
weeds
on
that
I.
Think.
In
summary,
you
know
we
we
feel
like
this
project
is
a
substantial
enhancement
to
the
community.
It
provides
for
its
own
parking
load
while
at
the
created
a
highly
walkable
community
and
bikable
community.
L
D
K
L
We've
removed
all
gates,
it's
it's
open.
We
don't
feel
that
the
the
pressure
in
this
community
is
gonna
require
us
to
have
a
gated
community
and
I.
Don't
think
it
comports,
with
just
the
spirit
of
the
community
to
try
to
close
the
whole
thing
a
lot.
We
want
to
keep
it
as
open
as
possible,
and
that
includes,
as
a
mention
before
an
outdoor,
Bistro
and
kind
of
dining
area
in
front
of
the
Telegraph
building
itself,
where
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
interactivity
with
the
street
sidewalk
and.
E
L
E
L
E
Right
and
I
appreciate
the
improvements
you
guys
have
made.
I
think
the
trees
are
a
big
would
be
a
big
help
and
the
garbage
change.
The
big
thing
I'm
just
kind
of
weighing
and
trying
to
think
through
is
we're
we're
resilient
of
property,
and
you
know
if
I
were,
if
I
bought
a
neighboring
property.
What
I
expect
you
know
47
cars
to
be
coming
along,
my
house,
you
know
on
a
on
a
daily
basis.
You
know
moving
in
and
out
Matt.
L
E
That's
great,
so
thank
you
for
clarifying
I.
Just
think.
Like
you
know,
we
were
talking
on
the
impact
in
the
neighborhood
and
for
people
who
buy
neighboring
properties.
You
know,
as
I'm,
trying
to
five
neighboring
properties
right,
anticipate
the
zoning
changes
and
result
in
37
cars.
Is
that
reasonable
not
I
mean
you
know,
that's
my
what
I'm
trying
through
it
is.
It
is
an
urban
area
or
the
placement
is
your
street
and
certain
they
was
Smith's
in
the
back.
The
back
of
that
lot.
E
There's
you
know
the
property
owners
along
that
way
would
have
some
expectation
of
cars
and
I.
Just
that's
my
there's
the
question
that
I'm
thinking
about
and
the
concern
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
how
we
mitigate
or
address
because
I
you
know
otherwise
like
what
you've
done
and
I
think
I'd
be
really
great
beautiful
project,
and
so
that's,
but
that's
what
that's.
What
I'm
like
I'm,
just
trying
to
work
through
as
we
consider
the
standards
on
the
project.
So
thank
you
for
clarifying.
N
L
That's
a
really
good
question.
We
spoke
with
our
waste
management
company
and
negotiated
a
protocol
where
our
tenants
on
traffic,
they
would
simply
roll
them
to
the
back
of
their
garages,
and
the
trash
truck
would
have
what
they
would
manually
roll
them
to
our
drive
aisle
for
disposal
and
then
they
would
exit
so
they're
not
going
to
be
put
on
the
street
attempts
traffic.
L
L
You
know
crystal
it's:
it's
a
good
question.
We've
been
kind
of
grappling
with
that.
I
think
that
it
would,
it
would
be
intended
for
the
residents
of
the
community
simply
because,
if
we
granted
public
access,
we
would
have
to
also
provide
a
convoluted
public
easement
back
through
the
property
that
could
negatively
impact
the
the
community
and
also
just
create
a
lot
of
kind
of
public
traffic
in
the
community.
L
G
L
Yeah,
it's
a
good
question
crystal.
You
know
it's
interesting
because
you
know
these
three-story
modern
townhouse
or
they
call
them
kind
of
slot.
Slot
developments
are
kind
of
being
approved
all
over
the
city,
both
on
the
east
side
and
the
west
side
and
they're
being
approved
in
communities
with
existing
closing
stock.
Whether
it's
you
know,
Victorian
cross
wings,
two
stories
Britain,
you
know
California
bungalows
or
you
know
traditional
kind
of
sugar
house.
One
was
so.
L
If
you
look
to
the
north
are
contiguous
property.
There
was
a
home
that
was
torn
down
and
rebuilt
and
it
was
kind
of
personal
with
our
architectural
vernacular
this
modernism
and
we
feel
like
we're,
we're
matching
more
the
character
of
that
new
house
and
we're
also
contributing
to
a
pattern
of
development.
That's
really
already
happening.
You
know
throughout
the
city.
L
Additionally,
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
there
is
no
kind
of
thoroughbred
style
on
eighth
East
that
fronts
a
feast.
It
goes
anywhere
from
again
from
bungalows
to
two
deco
to
craftsman.
It's
it's
really
pretty
eclectic.
You
could
not
put
your
finger
on
a
thoroughbred
style
on
stream
as
it
sits,
and
so
we're
essentially
matching
more
of
the
already
established
eclectic
nature
of
it
and.
M
L
You
know
I
hear
you
and
I
absolutely
validate
why
you
know
I,
don't
know
if
David
mr.
Galanter
can
comment
on
it,
but
we
did
have
an
overwhelming
amount
of
supportive
parties
send
in
additional
comments
this
week
and
I.
Think
that,
because
the
public
hearing
is
closed
on
this,
that
he
can't
really
speak
to
those,
but
there's
definitely
a
lot
more
support
and.
L
One
other
thing
that
I
think
is
important:
that
I
mentioned
last
time
is
that,
yes,
we
are
asking
to
resume
the
previous.
The
833
parcel,
we're
asking
it
to
match
the
RM
45
of
the
Telegraph
has
changed
parcel
it.
You
know
four
years
ago
it
was
an
RM
35
zone
which
would
have
allowed
for
seven
units
on
that
parcel,
which
is
the
exact
density,
we're
kind
of
asking
for,
and
then
it's
a
but
but
the
reason
I
bring.
L
That
up
is
that
our
proposal,
we
expect
you
to
cap
us
at
the
proposed
23
units,
whereas
if
that
entire
parcel
was
our
945,
it
could
be
I,
don't
know
the
exact
formula,
but
it's
a
lot
more
units
I
think
it's
twice
as
many.
So
as
part
and
we're
saying:
hey
yeah,
we
are
changing
the
zone
on
this
r2
bot,
but
we're
looking
for
any
more
density
than
the
23.
C
I
think
that
that's
an
appropriate
development
I
think
it
gets
to
be
a
little
bit
difficult
when
you
try
to
match
something,
that's
older
or
more
restore.
We
just
built
things
differently
back
then,
and
you're
never
going
to
get
something
that
feels
that
way.
Right,
I,
just
that's
just
something:
I
want
to
throw
out.
There
is
a
design
kind
of
pathetic
it's
better
than
I.
Do
something
new
in
a
new
way.
If
it's
the
neighborhood.
C
D
I
would
I'd
have
to
join
John
in
that
comment.
I
think.
The
other
thing
is,
you
do
want
the
historic
building
to
actually
shine.
You
know
it's
the
one
that
the
attention
needs
to
be
focused
on
and
has
a
nice
open
space
next
to
it,
and
I
think
that
the
other
buildings
are
sort
of
more
of
a
background
and
I
didn't
hear
a
lot
of
complaints
about
the
architecture
actually
from
the
community.
They
were,
they
had
other.
You
have
other
concerns,
so.
K
A
Commissioner
Bell,
if
I,
could
just
ask
a
question
of
the
Commission
I,
just
want
to
remind
you
that
there's
multiple
applications
here.
Our
petitions,
rather
with
this
application,
not
just
for
the
planned
development
I,
appreciate,
always
the
discussion
on
design
and
what-have-you.
But
we
also
need
to
talk
about
the
zoning
map
amendment
and
the
master
plan.
Amendment
that
are
associated
with
this
want
to
make
sure
that
we,
the
Commission,
has
an
opportunity
to
just
pop
the
question
so.
A
Have
all
three
petitions
before
you?
The
master
plan
amendment
and
zoning
map?
Amendment
are
for
the
city
council
recommendation
only
so
there's.
No,
you
know
final
decision
there
that
the
Planning
Commission
makes
and
in
the
planning
the
planned
development.
Yes,
is
within
your
purview
to
to
make
a
decision
correct.
So.
A
If
you
have
some
things
to
discuss
there
and
I
also
want
to
also
state
for
the
record
that,
because
I
know
there's
a
number
of
people,
probably
listening
in
or
or
following
along
in
this
conversation
tonight,
that
the
Commission
closed
to
the
public
hearing
on
this
item.
At
the
last
time
it
was
discussed
that
doesn't
mean
that
it's
the
end
of
the
conversation
for
this
item,
because
it
will
go
to
the
City
Council
for
consideration
and
they
will
hold
an
additional
public
hearing
specifically
on
the
master
plan
amendment
and
zoning
map
amendment.
G
G
I
G
I
E
It's
not
like
it's
not
like
the
reconfiguration
I'm,
not
I,
really
really
wish
they
did.
This
had
a
second
route
off
chase
to
minimize
the
impact
of
the
neighborhood
north,
but
it's
not
like
there's
necessarily
more
cars
that
are
going
to
be
going
in
and
out
and
moving
around
those
two
properties
that
couldn't
be
done
by
right
if
they
built
it
forward,
if
they
built
within
the
current
zoning,
is
that
correct
statement?
E
D
I
D
C
I
would
agree
and
I
think
when
you
look
at
sustainability,
one
of
the
more
sustainable
things
is
to
reuse
a
building
than
to
just
tear
it
into
the
dump.
So
I
think
if
you
look
at
the
full
context
of
the
site
with
the
Smiths
behind
the
building,
and
you
look
at
the
corner
lot
and
just
the
adjacencies
I
think
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
for
this
law
specifically
to
continue
with
this
kind
of
programming
whether
this
was
somewhere
else
in
the
neighborhood.
C
G
C
E
G
F
N
G
Seven
in
favor,
one
opposed
motion
passes,
make
a
positive
recommendation
to
the
City
Council
again
this
the
City
Council
will
hold
a
separate
public
hearing
on
this
item
when
it
goes
when
it's
scheduled
on
their
agenda.
So
there
will
be
another
opportunity
for
members
of
the
public
to
provide
input
and
comment
directly
to
the
City
Council.
Okay.
Moving
on
to
the
second
motion,
just.
D
I
A
D
So,
madam
chairman,
I
am
willing
to
make
a
motion
on
this.
Thank
you.
I'm
going
to
this
is
a
motion
to
approve
the
plan
development
they
from
the
information
in
the
staff
report.
The
information
presented
and
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing
I
moved
with
the
Planning
Commission
vote
to
approve
the
plan
development
petition.
Pln
SU
be
2019
0,
1,
1,
1
2,
with
the
following
conditions
of
approval.
Ever
the
conditions
of
approval
listed
in
the
staff
report.
D
E
D
G
G
D
F
Alright,
so
no,
this
is
a
request
to
allow
bar
establishment
in
an
existing
restaurant
at
239
South
500
East,
the
property
is
located
in
the
RM.
U
residential
mixed
use.
Zoning
district
and
in
this
district
the
proposed
use
requires
a
conditional
use.
Approval
cf
is
recommending
for
this
request
approval
mission
list.
That's
in
the
staff
report.
The
property
is
currently
utilized
for
a
restaurant
and
associated
perky
and
the
application
please
don't
bring
a
bar
establishing
within
our
establishment
with
an
existing
building.
A
restaurant
is
a
permitted
use
in
the
RM.
F
U
zoning
district,
but
a
bar
establishment
is
a
conditional
use
I'm
trying
to
change
pages
there
you
go
primary
difference
between
new
and
existing
uses.
Is
that
with
a
bar
licensed
alcohol
could
be
service
to
customers
for
not
dining.
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
extend
business
hours
to
accommodate
this
new
use,
but
this
RC
any
changes
to
the
property,
including
ecstasy,
going
in
the
parking
area
if
approved,
is
limited,
28
in
floor
area
as
the
loudest
conditional
use
in
the
RM.
U
district
in
the
proposed
bar,
it
is
2400
square
feet.
F
The
property
complies
with
the
distant
requirement
of
the
Utah
Department
of
Alcoholic
Beverage
Control,
and
the
proposal
is
found
to
be
consistent
with
the
central
community
master
plan
and
citywide
master
plan
plan.
Salt
Lake
and
in
line
with
in
the
neighborhood
land
use
mix.
Staff
has
not
received
any
comments
from
the
community
council
nor
the
general
public
and
have
assessed
that
the
proposal
should
not
create
any
significant
negative
impact
of
any
cried.
The
condition
recommended
is
related
to
the
recording
of
the
security
and
operations
plan,
which
is
required
by
ordinance
for
alcohol-related
uses.
F
A
You
have
a
few
minutes
to
sorry
and
I
muted
you,
because
there
was
a
lot
of
extra
sound
coming
in
from
somewhere.
Do
you
have
10
minutes?
If
you
want
to
make
your
case
if
you're
comfortable
with
the
way
things
staff
is
the
way
staff
has
presented
things
and
you
you
don't
have
to
say
anything,
certainly
stick
around
to
answer
questions.
If
the
Commission
have
questions
okay,.
F
E
We've
been
running
businesses
in
Salt
Lake
City
for
about
twelve
years
and
we
feel
coming
out
of
the
pandemic.
It
will
be
very,
very
difficult
for
us
to
continue
as
a
restaurant
space
bar
something
we've
always
considered
next
to
our
other
business
urban
lounge
as
a
nice,
complementary
business,
we
take
things
very
seriously
like
noise,
any
sort
of
property
maintenance
and
keeping
the
neighborhood
nice
and
yeah
I
need
any
questions
or
concerns.
We're
happy
to
answer
all.
E
D
G
G
C
A
G
N
Don't
share
Alma
commotion.
Thank
you.
Based
on
the
information
listed
in
the
staff
report,
the
information
presented
and
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing
under
the
that
the
Commission
approved
the
request
for
conditional
use
for
a
bar
establishment,
a
2:39
south
reading,
as
presented
in
petition
PLN
ppm
20
2000
3
2
1,
with
the
condition
listed
in
the
staff
report.
G
G
Motion
passes
unanimously,
so
that
brings
us
to
the
end
of
the
public
hearings,
as
is
a
replace
planned
development
has
been
postponed,
will
not
be
hearing
that
application
tonight
will
now
move
into
our
work
session,
where
we've
got
twenty
one,
twenty
one
or
twenty
one.
One
design
review
that
approximately
twenty
one
was
five
East
100
South,
and
these
are.
G
G
F
G
F
B
Good
evening,
the
purpose
of
this
work
session
is
for
the
Planning
Commission
to
provide
direction
to
the
applicant,
so
they
can
finalize
their
proposal
and
bring
the
application
back
to
the
Planning
Commission
for
a
final
decision.
Additionally,
because
this
is
a
larger
development
project
and
one
of
the
first
major
redevelopment
to
the
21st
and
21st
neighbourhood
plan
area,
we
wanted
to
briefly
go
over
the
details
with
you
before
diving
into
a
public
hearing
with
that.
B
I'll
briefly
introduce
the
project,
and
the
applicant
has
also
prepared
a
presentation
for
you,
so
Rock
Worth
companies
in
a
erbia
requesting
design,
review
and
special
exception
approval
to
construct
a
mixed-use
developments
at
approximately
2100,
south
and
2100
east
on
the
northeast
corner,
which
is
zoned
C,
be
community
business
district.
Multiple
parcels,
existent
location
will
be
consolidated
if
the
proposal
is
to
be
approved
for
orientation,
and
this
is
the
site,
we
have
loop,
the
blue
plate
diner
here
and
Dilworth
elementary
is
north
of
the
site
and
it's
the
drycleaner
as
well
on
the
site.
B
The
proposed
project
consists
of
two
buildings:
a
north
and
a
south
building.
The
North
Building
is
three
storeys
and
includes
77
housing
units,
while
the
South
building
includes
approximately
21,000
square
feet
of
retail
space
on
the
ground
floor
in
a
second-story
of
thirty-one
housing
units,
it
includes
three
outdoor
seating
areas
which
are
at
both
ends
of
the
building
and
then
in
the
middle.
B
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
utilize
shared
parking
between
the
residential
and
retail
uses
allowed
under
the
parking
chapter.
Under
the
shared
parking
they
are
required
to
provide
180
parking
stalls.
They
are
providing
108
parking
stalls
in
an
underground
parking
garage.
50
three
service
stalls
on
site
and
25
stalls
are
provided
on
the
street
for
a
total
of
186
stalls
under
the
parking
ordinance
that
they
are
privy
to
short
or
parking
along.
The
street
is
allowed
to
be
counted
towards
their
parking
counts
on
the
parking
garage
is
accessed
through
a
two-way
way
out.
B
It
is
on
this
north
east
side
of
the
development,
the
original
or
iterations
of
the
project
place
their
ramp
in
a
different
spot.
But
in
response
to
public
comments
received
regarding
concerns
with
parking
pulling
out
onto
2100
East,
the
applicant
redesigned
the
placement
to
try
and
encourage
those
exiting
and
entering
the
parking
garage
to
come
off
of
2100
south.
B
There
are
two
different
planning
processes
of
this
project
must
go
through,
and
the
first
is
designer
view
due
to
the
building
size
limits
in
the
CV
zone
on
buildings
in
excess
of
7,500
square
feet.
Gross
square
feet
of
the
first
floor
are
required
to
go
through
design
review
process.
They
are
not
requesting
any
other
relief
through
design
review,
and
then
they
are
also
requesting
special
exception
approval
due
to
requested
additional
height
on
the
North
Building.
B
The
Planning
Commission
may
approve,
as
a
special
exception,
up
to
3
feet
of
additional
height
and
maximum
here
in
the
Seabee
zone
is
30
feet
and
then
they
can
also
do
an
additional
5
feet
for
parapet
walls
that
scream
mechanical
equipment.
So
this
request
is
for
additional
3
feet
on
the
North
Building
of
the
roof
deck,
bringing
the
total
height
and
width
parapet
walls
bringing
the
total
height
to
35
feet.
B
B
This
is
the
South
elevation
of
building
1,
which
is
the
South
building.
The
materials
proposed
include
glass,
brick
and
hardy
panels.
You
can
see
the
top
is
the
full
scale
of
the
building,
which
is
about
460
feet
in
length
and
and
it's
broken
up
into
the
East
Wing
and
the
West
Wing.
There's
also
this
vehicle
entrance
about
half
way
through
allowing
cars
to
go
in
and
out
of
the
site,
and
then
this
is
the
South
elevation
of
building
2,
which
is
the
North
building.
The
materials
are
also
glass,
brick
and
hardy
panels.
B
B
So,
as
mentioned
at
the
proposed
development
in
the
CD
zoning
district
development
in
the
CV
district
is
intended
to
provide
for
close
integration
of
moderately
sized
commercial
areas
adjacent
to
residential
neighborhoods
I'm
under
designer
you
process.
They're
not
required
to
do
I,
think
they're,
not
requesting
specific
modifications,
but
they're
required
to
go
through
design
interview
because
of
the
building
size
limits
and
in
the
CV
zone.
21
a
twenty
six.
B
Thirty
directs
the
Planning
Commission
to
consider
additional
standards
for
larger
buildings
on
the
compatibly
compatibility
standards
were
adopted
by
the
City
Council
in
2016,
in
reaction
to
new
development
that
the
council
found
to
be
out
of
scale
with
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
So,
while
staff
is
of
the
opinion
that
the
project
is
well
designed
in
many
aspects,
there
is
apprehension
with
whether
the
project
is
adequately
meeting
the
compatibility
standards.
B
I've
only
included
two
of
them
on
here,
which
are
the
the
ones
that
we
were
unsure
of
right
now
and
we'd,
like
your
feedback
on,
which
is
the
proposed
type
compatibility,
which
is
pros.
Height
and
width
of
new
buildings
shall
be
visually
compatible
with
buildings
on
the
Block
face
and
then
facade
design.
B
I'm,
additionally,
the
development
is
in
the
recently
adopted
21st
21st
neighborhood
plan
area.
The
new
master
plan
was
specifically
created
for
this
neighborhood
to
create
a
unique
neighborhood
destination,
but
also
one
that
will
remain
compatible
and
skill
with
nearby
existing
and
well.
The
nearby
existing
and
well-established
residential
neighborhood
plant
have
several
objectives
that
discuss
preference
for
small
buildings
and
various
step
box
to
create
active
front
yard
uses.
B
Additionally,
the
length
of
the
slits
should
not
exceed
longer
than
150
feet
as
an
objective
in
the
plan,
so
in
closing,
I've
provided
a
few
questions
for
the
Planning
Commission
to
consider
and
to
guide
conversation
with
the
applicant.
These
are
is
a
scale
of
the
project
compatible
of
larger
the
larger
neighborhood.
An
immediate
black-faced
does
the
length
of
the
buildings
negatively
impact
pedestrian
accessibility,
particularly
particularly
along
2100
south,
and
do
the
design
elements
proposed
on
the
buildings
sufficiently
very
pedestrian
oriented
Street
and
reduce
the
visual
skill
of
the
buildings.
B
You
may
also
wish
to
discuss
any
questions
with
the
applicant
after
their
presentation,
potentially
related
to
additional
height
requests,
the
public,
pedestrian
oriented
design
and
the
different
master
plan
planning
process
objectives.
So
with
that
I
will
let
the
applicant
present
or
answer
any
questions
at
this
time.
I.
N
N
B
N
N
B
G
B
G
N
N
O
This
is
Tom
Tom
Henry
from
rock
worth
companies
representing
a
Mossberg
LLC.
We
have
a
few
representatives
here:
we've
got
from
our
company,
Adam
Davis
is
here:
Sarah
lucam
ski
Brian
Cheney
from
Cheney
Law
Group
and
our
architect.
Ryan
mokou
vêoc
is
also
here
to
answer
questions.
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
hear
the
concerns
of
the
Planning
Commission.
We
appreciate
Chrissie
she's
done
a
fantastic
job
of
describing
the
project,
so
is
it
possible
Krissy,
I
haven't
used
this
WebEx
share
content.
Is
that.
B
B
O
Well,
so
this
begins
our
brief
presentation.
We
just
wanted
to
show
existing
conditions
to
those
of
you
who
might
not
be
familiar
with
a
blue
plate
diner
in
the
2121
coffee
corner.
So
much
of
the
public
comment
that
we
received
in
working
through
the
sugarhouse
community
council
process
talking
with
planning
staff
it
had
to
do
a
safety
I
think
it
had
to
do
with
traffic
it
had
to
do
with
parking
and
safety,
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
wanted
to
bring
up.
O
Just
in
these
two
photos
that
you
can
see
if
you're
familiar
with
the
site,
the
uses
are
quite
dilapidated:
they've
outlived
their
useful
life
in
our
estimation
and
we're
excited
at
the
prospect
of
turning
over
the
site
and
providing
the
things
that
the
small
area
plan
asks
for
one
of
the
ways
that
we
plan
on
doing
that
is
eliminating
leave.
We
have
six
different
vehicular
access
points
on
the
parcel
and
you're
looking
at
two
of
them
right
here.
In
this
view,
you're
seeing
one
right
both
of
these
right
near
the
corner,
2100
and
2100
east.
O
Additionally,
part
of
this
addressing
the
safety
concern
remove
slides.
This
is
this
is
a
view
looking
at
the
northeast
corner
again
addressing
what
we
believe
to
be
the
biggest
concerns
which
are
traffic,
mostly
pedestrian
traffic,
as
it
relates
to
Dilworth
elementary
school
and
those
students
getting
to
and
from
school.
We've
tried
to
address
these
concerns
in
three
ways
since
we've
talked
the
first
of
which
is
on
the
corner,
we're
trying
to
create
a
nice
landing
area
and
also
a
great
place
for
pedestrians.
O
People
who
are
patronizing
the
site
and
just
passers
by
you
give
them
a
great
opportunity
to
enjoy
a
gathering
place.
The
sidewalk
here
at
this
location
is
approximately
18
feet
wide,
with
an
additional
five
feet
up
above
that
retaining
wall
that
you're,
seeing
which
directly
accesses
those
retail
store
fronts.
So
a
really
nice
wide
sidewalk
giving
a
great
opportunity
for
anyone.
O
So
those
are
a
couple
quick
ways
that
we've
tried
to
address
safety
on
the
corner,
Krissy
mentioned
and
moved
to
the
site
plan.
Krissy
mentioned
briefly
this
additional
issue,
and
this
is
that
represents
the
ramp.
I,
don't
know
if
you
can
see
that
magnifying
glass
that
I'm
using,
but
that
represents
the
rain,
both
in
and
out
to
the
parking
structure
that
I'll
show
you
in
the
next
slide
for
all
the
residents
that
are
proposed
to
live
here.
O
This
is
something
we'd
like
to
talk
to
the
Planning
Commission
a
little
bit
about.
There
is
a
setback
issue
here.
That
would
make
this
just
a
little
bit
more
practical
for
us,
and
we
will
talk
about
that.
Maybe
briefly,
if
there's
time
other
thing,
the
other
thing
that
we
did
I
and
I'll
show
it
in
this
next
slide
is
we
added
the
scope
of
the
parking
structure
has
been
increased
and
that
was
in
response
again
to
neighborhood
concerns.
O
The
parking
structure
used
used
to
it
was
formerly
proposed
to
be
directly
underneath
the
primarily
residential
building,
but
we
have
added
this
area
as
well
just
to
get
to
make
sure
that
every
unit
has
one
parking
stall,
below-grade
secure,
I
forget
to
get
as
many
cars
off
of
street
and
off
of
the
common
parking
lot
as
possible,
so
that
oh,
these
are
the.
These
are
the
ways
that
we
have
addressed
the
concerns
of
the
public.
We
are
also
very
concerned
about
these
issues.
O
We
think
they're
very
valid
concerns,
something
we're
very
sensitive
to
we're,
we're
passionate
about
this
site.
We
love
the
area,
we
many
of
us
that
a
part
of
the
application
we
live
in
the
vicinity.
We're
excited
about
the
area
plan
that
was
proposed.
We
saw
the
former
application,
which
I
think
was
the
impetus
for
the
area
plan.
It
was
a
six
storey
residential
project
that
the
neighborhood
I
think
rightfully
so
they
they
shot
it
down,
and
this
is
we're
trying
to
respond
to
that
area.
O
Just
have
a
first-rate
project
both
from
a
commercial
residential
perspective
that
complements
the
neighboring
community,
gives
gives
the
neighbors
and
residents
that
are
well
established,
a
great
reason
to
come
visit
this
site,
because
the
site
has
is
incredibly
well
located
site
that
is
so
underutilized
currently
and
we
just
want
to.
We
want
to
bring
it
back
to
life.
We
want
to
put
the
best
of
local
restaurants
and
retailers
on
the
main
level
and
give
folks
a
fantastic
reason
to
come
and
be
a
part
of
it.
O
We're
excited
about
our
architect.
We're
excited
about
our
team.
We
have
like
Krissy.
She
walked
you
through
the
renderings
we'd,
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
have
where
we
are
very
excited
about
the
prospect
of
this
project,
though,
and
like
I
mentioned
we,
it
is
absolutely
our
intention
to
just
to
respond
perfectly
to
the
Seabee
zone
and
even
get
as
much
of
the
area
plan
as
we
can
it's
practical.
O
J
J
Krissi's
done
such
a
great
job
and
kind
of
giving
us
a
little
bit
of
a
kind
of
prime
the
pump
a
little
bit
with
regard
to
the
concerns
that
we
probably
would
run
into
this
evening,
and
so
our
big
focus
really
has
been
trying
to
kind
of
get
out
in
front
of
that
and
address
those
head
with
regard
to
the
building
length.
As
we
talked
about
at
the
grade
level
for
pedestrians,
it
really
is
two
buildings
at
the
pedestrian
level
because
they
have
that
break
now.
J
That
break
is
a
it's
for
automobile
traffic,
of
course,
but
there
is
a
break
that
we
put
in
there
and
then
really
we're
just
excited
about
the
scale
of
the
facade
along
21st
South.
It
is
a
longer
technically
a
long
building.
We've
done
a
really
good
job,
I'm,
quite
proud
of
the
design
we've
come
up
with
in
order
to
make
this
building
feel
as
if
it
were
a
compilation
of
six
or
seven
or
eight
buildings
along
a
typical
old-world
style,
Main
Street.
J
If
you
will
we
kind
of
trying
to
decide
that
what
type
of
style
we've
come
up
with
here
and
I'm,
going
to
call
it
old
old-world
with
a
modern
twist,
a
contemporary
twist,
we've
changed
our
material
pallets
every
every
few
days
in
the
at
that
retail
level,
we've
changed
our
color
palettes
and
I'm
just
I'm,
just
hoping
you
guys
like
this
design
as
much
as
we
do
I'm.
Just
we're
just
really
excited
about
that
project.
J
O
This
is
tall
again
I
just
wanted
to
mention.
Also
I'm
gonna
go
back
to
this
main
level
site
plan.
It
was
mentioned
that
this
past
view
it
is
vehicular,
certainly,
but
it's
also
pedestrian
and
another
thing
to
mention.
One
reason
why
we
do
like
be
the
underpass
and
the
bridging
of
the
building
with
the
second
level
is.
It
does
give
us
this
opportunity
to
create
outdoor
spaces
both
covered
outdoor
spaces.
We
have.
O
We
have
two
outdoor
spaces
for
outdoor
dining,
this
one
here,
which
we
think
will
be
a
fantastic
outdoor,
dining
area
for
a
restaurant
to
come
and
occupy
that
space
right
there
and
again
pedestrian
access
on
both
sides
and
then
also
this
location
over
here.
This
is
also
a
covered
outdoor,
dining
and
again,
and
we
have
another
one
over
here.
O
On
this
main
level,
like
Brian
or
like
Ryan
said
this,
is
it
is
two
buildings
on
the
main
level
with
this
break,
we
do
like
the
break
and
we
like
the
bridge,
which
you
get
as
an
architectural
feature,
I
it
it's
not
pictured
here,
but
it
gives
us
an
opportunity.
We
feel
to
have
multiple
iconic
features.
You
know
one
being
this
corner
element
that
really
identifies
the
property
in
brands
it,
but
then
also
to
do
it
again
over
here
centrally
located
in
the
project.
O
So
these
are
some
of
the
design
features
that
we've
put
together,
where
we
know
we're
in
front
of
you
because
of
the
size
of
the
building
that
triggered
this
process,
and
as
Brian
mentioned,
you
can
see
we're
trying
to
address
the
Seabee
zones
requirement
that
facades
be
I
altered
to
create
the
appearance
of
multiple
buildings.
I
believe
this
is
the
actual
language
from
CP
ordinance
see
that's
a
little
small
I.
O
Don't
know
if
you
can
see
that
this
is
from
the
CD
ordinance
and
speak
I'll.
Just
read
it.
Facade
treatments
should
be
used
to
break
up
the
mass
of
larger
buildings,
so
they
appear
to
be
multiple
smaller
scale,
buildings,
married
roof
lines,
varying
facade
plains,
upper
storey,
step
backs
and
lower
building
heights
for
portions
of
buildings.
Next
to
less
intensive
zoning
districts
may
be
used
to
reduce
the
apparent
size
of
the
building.
So
we
are
doing
our
best,
like
I
mentioned,
with
this
design
to
address
that
concern
and
I.
O
G
J
So
the
clear
height
underneath
that
is
roughly
12
to
13
feet,
there's
a
lot
of
slope
actually
on
this
site,
and
so
it
varies
even
even
during
the
width
of
that
drive.
But
it's
about
12
to
13
feet.
It's
big
enough
for
vehicles,
not
big
enough
for
a
fire
truck
most
likely
but
fired
Fire.
Department
access
is
done
elsewhere,
achieved
elsewhere
on
the
site
and
how.
J
E
Does
that
include
your
outdoor
dining
space
or
no?
No,
so
the
outdoor
dining
on
top
of
that
Greg
and
you
you
believe
it
people
will
want
to
sit
under
a
driver
underpass
and
how
about
for
dining
I
don't
mean
to
be
catty.
I'm.
Sorry,
no
I
understand
like
I,
have
real
concerns
of
the
length
of
the
building.
J
E
J
Another
great
question
I
think
that
the
one
thing
that
I'd,
maybe
time
like
jump
in
here,
but
the
one
thing
that
we're
excited
about-
is
that
that
deep
sidewalk
that
we
have
running
along
a
good
portion
of
the
of
that
21st
South
it
gets
wider.
We
call
it
kind
of
landing
pad
there
at
that
southwest
corner
of
the
project.
The
northeast
corner
of
the
intersection.
J
J
E
J
G
O
True,
this
is
Tom
again
that
these
buildings,
the
retail
level,
is
what
we
would
refer
to
a
double
fronted.
There
is
no
back
and
that's
something
you
may
be
familiar
with:
Holiday
Village
Square,
which
is
our
project
in
holiday.
It's
exactly
the
same.
There's
parking
in
the
rear
on
its
west
side
and
there's
also
parking
in
front,
but
there's
a
streetscape
and
the
streetscape
is
really
it's
really
important
and
access
must
be
provided
from
the
pedestrian
walkway
in
front
of
it
in
the
right-of-way.
So
it
is
double
fronted.
O
One
thing
that
I
would
mention
is
it
it
does
present
some
challenges,
it
increases
expense
and
it,
but
I
think
it
creates
an
incredible
environment.
It's
it's
something
that
in
Utah
it's
somewhat
unique
but
I
think
to
create
the
streetscape.
That's
wanted
it's
it's
required
because
we
have
have
an
interesting
population
here
that
I
think
we
want
to
have
the
traditional
Main
Street
that
exists
in
some
larger
cities,
but
we
also
have
our
fair
share
of
Suburbans
that
want
to
park
right
in
front
of
the
store
that
they
wish
to
patronize
and
I.
O
Think
we
need
to.
You
know
we
need
to
give
the
opportunity
for
both
things
to
occur,
and
that's
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
is
give
people
the
opportunity
to
park
their
suburban
right
in
front
of
the
stores
they
want
to
patronize,
but
also
create
the
pedestrian
environment
that
everyone
also
wants,
so
invite
people
to
come
along.
Walk
along
the
street
I
do
think
that
I
wish
to
clarify
I,
don't
think
the
ceiling
height
we're
worried.
We
roughly
have
sick.
We
have
about
16
foot
average
and
average
clear
heights
in
our
retail
base.
O
Some
are
taller
than
others
because
of
what
Ryan
mentioned.
There
is
slope
along
the
site,
there's
quite
a
bit
of
it.
There's
about
11
feet
of
slope
coming
from
the
east
down
to
the
west,
but
no
these
are
going
to
be
very
nice
retail
base,
clear
Heights
and
yes,
I
do
think
that
covered
patio
in
that
drive,
aisle
I
mean
I
to
call
it
an
underpass
I
think
when
you
hear
an
underpass,
you
think
freeway
I
refer
to
it
as
a
drive
aisle.
Yes,
I.
O
Absolutely
think
that
that
is
an
active
spot
where
people
are
going
to
see
an
active
crowd.
It's
gonna
be
an
extension
of
a
dining
area.
That's
inside
the
space
and
I
definitely
think
it's
going
to
be
a
great
place
that
restaurants
will
be
interested
in
in
renting,
and
it
will
also
be
storefront
on
the
buildings
in
in
that
drive
aisle,
so
those
those
retailers
on
that
main
level.
That's
that
storefront
to
them
so
very
inviting
lots
of
glass,
I
Ryan.
What's
the
percentage
of
glass
that
we
have
on
that
retail
level
on.
G
J
It's
actually
an
log.
The
buildings
need
to
be
today,
it's
actually
an
egress
requirement
for
the
tenants
or
the
units
on
the
second
level,
as
I
get
more
than
four
units.
I
have
to
provide
two
access
points
to
an
egress
and
exterior
stair,
an
interior
stair
or
an
elevator
operator
by
generator.
So
we
could.
J
C
Question
would
be:
could
you
treat
the
the
pass
through
more
as
an
anchor
or
a
gateway
and
then
transition
the
building
design
style
to
a
different
style?
After
that?
To
create
two
separate
buildings
or
at
least
see
a
feeling
of
two
separate
buildings
is
right
now
I
think
well
with
getting
us
is
the
how
overwhelming
the
facade
is,
and
it's
just
a
repetitive
facade
for
very
long
run
and
if
there's
a
way
to
break
that
up
and
use
the
architecture
already
there,
which
you
have
a
drive
aisle.
C
O
Is
this
is
Tom
speaking
again,
I
mean,
like
Ryan,
said,
there's
a
practical
issue
associated
with
that
bridge.
We
you
know
we
like
it
as
an
architectural
feature,
but
your
suggestion,
if
I
could
restate
your
suggestion,
just
a
completely
different
architectural
style,
different
storefronts,
don't
repeat
them
again,
perhaps
on
the
eastern
building.
O
C
O
I,
don't
think
that's
a
bad
suggestion
at
all
I
think
we're
like
I
mentioned
in
the
beginning,
we're
trying
to
comply
with
the
area
plan
where
you
know
so.
These
suggestions
are
obviously
part
of
this
process,
and
why
why
you
all
are
devoting
the
time
that
you
are
so
I,
don't
think
that's
a
bad
suggestion
at
all
I
mean
we're
looking
for
those
suggestions,
so
breaking
up
the
building
more
with
additional
different
style
store,
Francis
and.
D
I
also
have
a
way
of
making
that
even
more
prominent,
which
is
that
even
keeping
the
bridge
across
but
not
having
units
above
the
driveway.
So
you
actually
have
it
in
a
severe
indentation.
So
you
might
have
just
to
make
pedestrian
access.
So
you
still
have
the
and
you
still
have
the
accessibility
issues
taken
care
of
by
continuing
the
out
the
exterior
walkway
or
into
you
know
the
interior
walkway.
D
D
C
D
Well,
I
think
that
the
the
main
objection
or
the
objection
visa
V,
the
the
design
review
on
this
project
is
because
of
the
length
of
these
buildings.
I,
don't
know
from
the
neighborhood
perspective
whether
the
safety
issue
is
still
out
there,
but
if
we
can
solve
the
length
of
the
building
problem,
then
I
think
accepting
the
changes
that
you've
made
on
the
four
to
about
safety
in
sidewalks
and
so
forth
could
be,
could
be
even
better
to
be
more
easily
accommodated.
F
N
O
N
J
I'm
pulling
this
up,
I
left
my
mouse
at
my
office
and
I'm
pulling
this
up
as
quickly
as
I
can
and
I'm
talking
through
it,
so
that
I
don't
sound
like
I'm
wasting
your
time.
So
the
east
end
of
the
project
is
about
167
feet.
Scuse
me
header
61
feet,
and
then
you
have
a
break
and
again
that
breaks
roughly
40
feet
give
or
take,
and
then
the
west
side
is
267
feet,
247
feet,
267.
O
If
you're
talking
about
this
break,
if
you're
familiar
with
the
site,
the
existing
site,
this,
there
is
an
apron
that
exists
right
here,
that's
centrally
located
on
the
site,
so
the
salon
is
located
here.
I
alterations
here.
If
this
is
the
existing
drive
aisle
so
again,
this
represents
a
consolidation
of
a
bunch
of
drive
aisles
not
just
on
the
corner
or
blue
plate
in
2121
coffee.
O
It's
located,
but
I
think
I'm
I
can't
remember
if
I
mentioned
in
the
beginning,
but
I
believe
there
are
six
different
vehicular
access
points
that
currently
exist
on
associated
with
this
proposal,
and
we
would
be
reducing
it
to
three
which
we
would
assume
that
that
is
what
is
wanted.
You
know
get
the
accesses
further
from
the
corner,
I.
O
O
H
B
H
City
does
retain
the
rights
in
the
future
and
I'm
not
saying
this
is
going
to
happen
anytime
soon,
but
we
do
retain
the
right
to
redesign
our
public.
Rights-Of-Way
has
needed
down
the
road,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that
is
very
clear
and
on
the
record
that
that's
that's
the
reality
of
using
the
on
street
parking
to
help
offset
parking
requirements.
H
Yeah
it
it's
probably
unlikely
that
we'll
be
able
to
fit
trees
there,
but
in
those
what
appear
to
be
other
than
see
landscape
plan.
But
what
appears
to
be
the
green
or
kind
of
planting
areas
in
between
stalls
there's?
There
would
be
space
to
get
some
sort
of
tree
and
those
in
those
locations,
and
that
would
probably
be
more
likely
to
be
a
requirement
of
urban
forestry.
O
H
N
Commons
yeah,
you
know
I
in
my
11
years
of
being
a
community
advocate
and
in
sugarhouse
I.
Remember
this
whole
process
for
this
small
area
plan
and
what
precipitated
it
and
I
think
that
you've
done
a
good
job
with
the
corner,
actually
really
like
how
that's
looking
and
that
you've
addressed
a
lot
of
the
concerns
with
the
sidewalk
with
especially
there.
N
So
hopefully
this
will
encourage
that
I
am
so
concerned
with
the
length
of
how
this
looks
and
in
my
11
years
what
I've
really
come
to
understand
is
there's
this
chasm
between
what
someone
like
me
who's,
just
your
average
president
hears
things
as
and
then
what
architects
see
as
something
hitting
the
mark
and
when
I
look
at
this
as
your
average
resident
I,
don't
see,
I
mean
I,
get
what
you're
saying
about
there's
differences,
but
overall,
when
you're.
Looking
at
it
as
the
whole
facade,
it
just
looks
really
enormous
along
2,100,
south
and
I.
N
When
we
were
going
through
this
small
area
plan,
what
the
feel
they
really
wanted
to
get
was
to
try
and
save.
What
is
there
now
in
terms
of
totally
different
looking
buildings
I
think
you
could
do
more
with
awnings,
you
could
do
more
with
making
an
entrance
feel
completely
different
right
now
the
entrances
really
do
feel
the
same,
and
so
my
comments
are,
you
know
at
base
level
of
what
residents
are
seeing
and
feeling
and
I
don't
know.
N
The
length
of
this
building
has
been
sufficiently
broken
up
to
kind
of
meet
the
the
goal
of
the
small
area
plan.
I
mean
I,
like
what
you're
doing
and
I
really
like
that.
The
height
you've
kept
I
know
that
was
a
big
concern
for
the
neighbors.
During
that
whole
process,
I
mean
overall,
I
feel
really
positive
about
this,
but
this
facade
on
2100
South
is
a
really
big
focus
for
me
for
this.
N
O
That
so
that's
also
noted
and
I
think
you
know
we
can.
We
can
put
our
heads
together
and
try
to
create
some
additional
differences
between
storefronts
we're
not
asking
for
it
unless
the
Planning
Commission
is
open
to
it,
but
one
of
the
things
that
would
help
a
lot
is
we're.
We
are
heavily
restricted
by
this
height,
this
height
restriction,
and
we
we
wouldn't
use
it
for
any
additional
stories.
O
One
of
the
reasons
why
I'm,
just
speaking
from
my
perspective,
the
parapet
itself,
it
doesn't
very
much
and
that's
because
it
can't
we're
kind
of
stuck
between
a
rock
and
a
hard
place.
We
want
to
create
some
very
nice
retail
presences
inside
those
inside
those
retail
stores
and
restaurants,
and
to
do
that
we
need
a
certain
height
in
there
and
then
to
have
a
decent
environment
inside
the
residential
space.
O
Above
it
also,
there
are
some
basic
height
requirements
and
our
limitation
is
this
35
feet,
I
guess
if
we
had
a
little
bit
more
and
I,
don't
even
think
it
wouldn't
be
much
I,
don't
Ryan's
the
architect
he's
on
the
phone.
If
we
had
two
feet
three
feet
to
be
used
with
him,
adjusted
within
the
parapet,
none
nowhere
else,
I
think
we
could
get
more
creative
with
storefronts
and
the
storefront
glass
comment
that
you
just
made
totally
agree
totally
agree.
We
can
make
the
storefront
level
look
different.
O
O
You
know
by
putting
their
awning
up
with
their
colors
their
logos
so
long
as
it's
within
the
sign
ordinance
and
then
some
rules
and
restrictions
that
we
would
like
to
make,
but
that
would
create
a
very
eclectic
environment
if
we
can
do
stuff
like
that,
and
if
the
Planning
Commission
is
open
to
things
like
that,
we
certainly
are
as
well,
because
it
will
add
variety
and
I
going
back
to
the
parapet,
question
I'm
not
asking
for
it
but
you're.
It
does
look
somewhat
linear
we're
moving
it
around
about
as
much
as
we
can
I.
N
Mean
I'm,
not
the
architect,
but
I
was
thinking
very
much
about
changing
some
of
the
roof
lines
to
make
it
visually
more
appealing,
I,
don't
know
what
the
limitations
are
on
height
request,
so
I'll
leave
that
up
to
Christie,
but
I
am
personally
open
to
seeing
some
variations
on
the
roof
lines
in
the
parapet,
specifically
to
achieve
this
goal
of
making.
These
look
like
there
are
different
buildings
to
visually
break
up
this
facade
and
how
it
relates.
To
my
end,
the
pedestrian
I
think
in
terms
of
signage.
N
You
know,
sugarhouse
was
the
driving
force
to
change
the
sign
ordinance
to
allow
for
blade
signs,
but
what
I've
noticed
in
the
business
district
is
even
though
they're
allowed
just
businesses
just
don't
think
outside
this
box
of
how
to
create
some
eclectic,
look
and
then
help
visually
identify
their
business.
So
I
don't
know,
as
you
know,
the
property
owner.
What
you
can
do
to
help
facilitate.
N
That
eclectic
looks
because
that
ultimately,
is
a
big
appeal
for
that
pedestrian
connectivity,
but
you
know
to
the
businesses
at
least
what
I've
been
seeing
at
the
business
district
down
the
street.
It's
not
really
manifesting
the
way
that
hoped
or
really
that
it
should
in
terms
of
giving
that
it's
know
something
unique
in
a
way
that
people
can
see
as
they're
walking
in
the
street.
What's
there
so
maybe
there's
something
you
can
do
as
a
property
owner
to
help
facilitate
that
and
not
required.
N
O
D
D
This
reminds
me
of
a
place
I
saw
in
in
Arizona
in
a
very
expensive
neighborhood,
where
the
upper
floor
wasn't
actually
a
floor,
but
it
looked
just
like
this.
So
I
think
this
has
the
kind
of
barren
look
to
it
right
now,
then
I
think
would
be
better,
better
live
in-depth
with
signage
and
lighting
and
and
even
and
even
signs
that
are
perpendicular
to
the
building
and
so
forth.
M
Playing
with
the
height
restrictions
a
little
bit
more
there
just
to
break
it
up
or
what,
where
I,
really
struggle
with
it?
Is
it
just
doesn't
feel
walkable
or
bikable,
or
really
engaging
on
that
street
level
front,
especially
with
kids,
walking
by
I
would
love
to
see
an
improvement
that
involve
more
seating
or
by
grounds
beyond
just
the
one
corner.
I
think
would
also
help
with
making
it
feel
more
inviting
to
the
neighborhood.
C
I
would
I
was
going
to
jump
in
and
say:
I
agree
with
the
the
height
changes
just
to
the
parapets
and
getting
those
a
little
bit
less
is
less
than
a
row
and
then
I
would
also
agree
with
the
idea
of
the
signage.
You
know
we
picked
some
of
your
may,
be
potential
tenants
and
put
their
signage
up
just
to
kind
of
get
a
feel
for
what
it
might
look
like
it.
When
we
do
real
retail
space,
we
do
that
sometimes
just
to
get
the
idea
out.
C
So
you
can
see
is
just
saying
sign
of
a
bunch
of
times,
there's
a
little
it's
a
little
hard
to
get
that
feel
of
what
that
you
know,
feelings
going
to
be,
but
yeah
I
think
I
see
some
planters
there,
but
I
think
kind
of
engaging
the
street
a
little
bit
more,
maybe
showing
you
know
how
our
bike
racks
going
to
be
used
on
the
site.
How
are
you
know?
C
B
O
To
that
we
want
to
be
very
sensitive
to
the
massing
concerns
of
the
neighborhood
and
certainly
the
city
on
the
North
Building
again,
just
the
reason
why
we
asked
for
that
I
guess
it's
a
it's,
not
a
variance
I
can't
remember
special
exception.
We
asked
that
special
exception
there
was.
It
was
to
be
able
to
create
interior
space
that
we
felt
was
a
little
higher
quality,
but
but
we're
trying
not
to
affect
the
community,
which
is
why,
on
that
North
Building
we're
saying
we're
not
asking
for
the
parapet
to
increase
at
all.
O
We
just
so
from
the
exterior.
No
one
noticed
s--
now
on
this
one
we're
asking
for
a
different
purpose.
Where
we're
saying
we
don't
need
to
do
anything
with
any
intended
space,
and
we
just
would
like
to
be
able
to
move
it
up
a
little
bit
like
I,
say
Ryan.
Do
we
need
more
than
two
feet
in
your
opinion.
O
Did
we
lose
Ryan
I'll
be
the
architect
for
now
I,
don't
think
we
need
more
than
two
feet.
I
think
we
can
I
think
we
could
do
a
lot
with
a
couple
of
feet
with
parapet
just
to
just
to
create
that
variety.
There
great
suggestions
about
trying
to
engage,
2100,
South
and
I
think
we've
got.
We've
got
some
good
ideas,
new
folks.
J
Mike
yeah
I,
think
two
or
three
feet
would
be
would
be
helpful.
I'm
always
I,
absolutely
agree.
I
think
there
are
a
few
things
we
could
do
to
make
this
a
bit
more
interesting
and
that
roof
has
always
come
back
to
the
problem.
So
we'd
love
three
feet.
If
I
can
get
more
I'll
take
it
because
I
think
there's
a
lot
we
do
with
it
there's
a
lot
you
can
do
with
some,
whether
it's
a
a
curved
roof
or
a
slow-ass.
J
O
O
Think
we're
open
to
things
like
that
and
I
appreciate
the
comments,
we're
always
stuck
between
a
bit
of
a
rock
and
a
hard
place.
We
are
trying
to
appeal
to
as
many
as
we
can
with
the
design
I
like
the
idea
of
more
variety
and
the
comment
about
earth
tone.
Colors
I
think
we
welcome
that.
We
just
it's
hard
as
I'm
sure
you.
You
know,
you
see
you
see
so
many
proposals
we
do.
We
do
just
we
want
to
create
something.
O
It
is
so
interesting
fun,
but
not
just
from
the
outside,
but
from
the
inside.
We've
got
interesting
uses
interesting,
restaurants,
interesting
places
to
go,
and
we
pick
for
the
outside
to
reflect
that
as
well.
So
we
really
appreciate
these
comments,
because
I
think
we
it
gives
us
a
little
bit
of
Liberty,
knowing
that
the
Planning
Commission
is
in
favor
of
a
little
bit
more
variety,
yeah.
N
F
N
M
O
We
will
be
looking
at
it
we'll
be
looking
at
ways
to
engage.
Both
I
mean
I,
think
there's.
There
are
things
that
are
aesthetic
and
then
there
are
things
that
are
practical
and
I.
Think
we'll
look
at
both
I
mean
we
I
think
we
we
hear
you
loud
and
clear,
want
to
engage
pedestrians,
we
want
it
to
be
safe
and
we
want
visual
interest
but
and
I
guess
you
know
we've
kind
of
got
it
like.
O
We've
talked
about
there's
a
front
in
the
back
here,
both
of
which
are
gonna
be
treated
as
primary
access
points,
whether
you're
walking
to
the
site
or
whether
you're
driving
so
I,
think
we
can.
We
can
work
on
figuring
how
figuring
out
how
that
works
both
on
both
sides
of
the
building,
certainly
paying
attention
to
2100,
South's
frontage,
so
I
think
we've
got
some
good
direction.
I
think
you've
made
some
great
suggestions
and
a
good
process.
I.
D
Also
I
want
to
I
want
to
see
a
north/south
section
to
the
site.
Are
you
talking
about
elevation
changes
and
I?
Don't
think
I
can
find
one
I've
got.
You
know
a
bunch
of
drawings
here,
but
I,
don't
I
haven't
been
able
to
find
fun
to
find
anything
that
actually
encompasses
both
building.
So
that
would
be
be
something
to
add
to
the
list
of
things
we
need
to
show.
D
Yeah
I
I,
don't
see
it
here
and
I,
don't
know
if
you
have
anything
it's
not
in
our
packet,
but
I
want
to
know
how
that
will
works
between
the
two
buildings
in
the
parking
and
the
relationship
with
that
space.
I
want
to
see
what
that
space
is
like,
even
though
it's
filled
with
parking.
I
want
to
get
a
sense
of
that.
From
the
standpoint
of
a
section,
a
science
section,
release
and.
D
D
N
O
So,
there's
still
a
portion
of
that
that's
in
progress
because
you
may
be
familiar
with.
We
made
an
initial
proposal
that
did
not
include
the
blue
plate,
diner
and
the
2121
coffee
parcels,
and
when
that
you
know
we,
we
moved
ahead.
Assuming
that
we
were
not
going
to
contract
for
those,
then
we
and
we
did
our
environmental
reports.
We
submitted
them
to
the
state
sampling
reports
and
the
sampling
reports
came
back
clean,
I
speaking
yeah.
It
is
it's
wonderful,
but
because
we
weren't
come.
O
O
O
Do
we
have
any
more
time
to
talk
about?
One
minor
issue
sure
go
back
to
the
site
plan
and
again
this
you
heard
me
start
in
at
the
beginning
talking
about
safety,
because
that's
really
what
we
heard
loud
and
clear
from
the
neighborhood.
So
one
of
the
things
that
we
changed
again,
it
was
this.
It
was
the
direction
of
this
ramp
and
we're
trying
to
accomplish
a
couple
of
things
here,
the
first
of
which
I'll
start.
Here.
We
want
to
maintain
a
26
foot,
foot
wide
drive
Isle
for
safety
purposes,
for
fire
truck
access.
O
Things
like
that.
We
don't
want
to
compromise
this
at
all.
There
is
a
setback
requirement
because
of
this
jog
in
the
property
line
right
here
and
I
believe
that
setback
requirement
is
seven
feet
right
now,
we've
got
seven
feet
and
three-quarter
inches
right
now
between
this
property
line
and
this
wall
that
represents
the
North
retaining
for
our
ramp.
O
This
we
want
to
maintain
the
ramp
heading
east
because,
like
I
mentioned
in
the
beginning,
we
do
want
the
traffic
to
exit
the
residential
parking
garage
to
the
east,
giving
them
a
reason
to
exit
in
this
fashion
and
head
to
21
south
and
not
go
to
2100
East,
especially
in
the
morning
our
previous
proposal.
The
ramp
was
going
north
and
south
like
this,
and
that
obviously
gave
an
option.
The
compromise
that
we're
hoping
for
is
this
in
an
attempt
to
keep
this
drive
aisle
at
26
and
keep
the
setback
where
it's
required.
O
O
Don't
know
that
there's
much
of
a
loss
to
the
site
I
as
a
result
of
that,
and
it
keeps
us
from
then
feeling
like
we
need
to
change
the
direction
of
it
because,
as
it
sits
right
now
and
we're
planning
on
putting
in
a
high-quality
residential
projects,
in
addition
to
this
commercial
project-
and
we
want
this
to
feel
safe,
we
want
it
to
be
wide
enough.
20
feet
is
really
a
bare
minimum
bare
minimum,
so
we're
hoping
the
Planning
Commission
may
be,
as
you
consider
this
over
the
next.