►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2020
Description
Planning Commission Meeting - November 18, 2020
A
Hello:
everybody
welcome
to
the
salt
lake
planning
commission
meeting
of
november
18th
2020.,
I'm
going
to
read
a
statement
about
our
need
to
hold
this
meeting.
As
a
virtual
meeting,
I
brenda
scheer,
chair
of
the
public
chair
of
the
planning
commission,
hereby
determined
that
conducting
the
planning
commission
meeting
at
an
anchor
location
represents
a
substantial
risk
to
the
health
and
safety
of
those
who
may
be
present
at
the
anchor
location.
A
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
a
new
strain
of
the
coronavirus,
sars
covent
ii,
due
to
the
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
the
location.
B
B
If
there
any
time
you
have
are
having
an
issue
with
notifying
us
that
you'd
like
to
speak
or
if
you
don't
want
to
speak-
and
you
would
like
us
to
read
your
comments
into
the
record-
you
can
do
so
through
that
email
address.
We
are
monitoring
that
email
address
and
we'll
get
your
email.
So
it's
a
good
idea
if
you
just
write
that
down
now
marlene,
if,
if
you're
listening
in,
if
you
could
maybe
scroll
to
the
next
page
so
for
those
of
you
that
are
participating,
would
like
to
speak.
B
When
your
item
comes
up
the
public
comment
period
for
your
item
comes
up,
you
should
have
a
little
hand
on
your
screen
when
you
click
that
little
hand
and
that
lets
us
know
that
you
want
to
speak
and
then
I
will
change
when
we
get
to
that
point.
I
will
unmute
you
and
allow
you
to
speak
again
if
you're,
having
trouble
with
the
hand
or
if
you're
running
into
any
issues,
send
us
an
email
and
we
will
and
we'll
deal
with
it
through
that.
B
C
C
That
decision
has
been
appealed
and
the
by
one
of
the
the
neighbors
and
his
ordinance
for
appeals
of
special
exception
decisions,
state
that
that
an
appeal
does
not
stay
the
decision
unless
specific
action
is
taken
by
the
planning
commission.
Those
people
who
have
filed
the
pill
have
requested
that
the
planning
commission
stay
that
decision
and
they
have
provided
a
letter.
C
What
a
stay
does
is
that
it,
it
prohibits
the
city
from
taking
any
sort
of
action
regarding
the
permit
related
to
the
special
exception,
so
it
means
we
couldn't
issue
permits.
We
couldn't
do
inspections,
we
couldn't
do
those
types
of
things.
It
does
not
stay
the
applicant
from
doing
anything
on
the
property
that
is
otherwise
legally
allowed,
and
so
that
is
something
to
keep
in
mind.
C
However,
the
code
specifically
the
construction
of
single-family
homes
from
that
ordinance,
so
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
out
there
so
that
you're,
aware
of
that,
so
basically
and
the
reason
for
that
is
it
even
if
you
issue
a
stay
they're
exempt
from
that
regulation,
and
so
they
could
do
whatever
they
want
with
the
trees
on
their
property.
Without
having
to
worry
about
that
regulation,.
C
C
E
A
E
I
mean
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
issuing
one.
I
should
say
the
neighbor
requested
it
if
it
adds
over
here.
It
was
a
controversial
issue
if
it
adds
a
layer
of
comfort
to
the
community.
What
was
a
controversial
kind
of
decision
and
conversation,
then
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
issuing
one,
but
am
I
the
only
one
that
is
there?
E
E
But
I
I'm
not
in
favor
of
issuing
this
day,
if
the,
if
it's
you
know,
they're
trying
to
get
around
or
they're
trying
to
incorporate
more
into
the
issue
before
us,
which
was
the
special
exception
for
the
nine
feet
of
additional
height,
I
don't
want
to
get
into
disputes
with
neighbors
about
overhanging
tree
limbs
so
from.
I
think,
I'm
convincing
myself
that
I
would
I
would
I'm
with
sarah.
E
A
All
right,
let's,
unless
there's
any
other
objections,
let's
go
forward
with
our
agenda.
The
first
item.
We
also
have
for
the
first
time
ever
a
consent
agenda
item.
We
treat
it
a
little
bit
like
we
do
the
approval
of
the
minutes.
So
you
can
see
the
consent.
Agenda
item
is
kensington
tower
time.
Extension
request
case
number,
pln
pcm.
E
A
A
A
E
H
G
The
adu
will
be
located
in
the
southeast
corner
of
the
rear
yard
and
will
measure
561
square
feet
in
size,
with
a
height
of
approximately
11
feet,
7
inches
a
concrete
walkway
will
pro
will
be
provided.
Giving
access
from
the
adu
to
the
primary
home
off-street
parking
for
the
primary
home
on
the
property
will
be
provided
by
an
existing
detached
garage.
G
This
this
slide
shows
the
design
concept
for
the
adu.
The
adu
will
be
covered
in
a
cement
board
sighting
and
painted
gray
with
wood.
Siding
accents
on
the
front
here
are
some
pictures
of
the
property.
The
top
photo
shows
a
view
of
the
property
looking
from
windsor
street.
The
bottom
two
photos
are
views
of
wind
street
looking
north
and
south.
G
G
A
A
A
B
B
F
I
think
it's
nice
to
point
out
when
adus
have
access
to
alternative
transportation
and
this
one's
a
great
candidate
for
that
with
the
I
believe.
It's
the
209
bus
route
along
900
east,
with
less
than
a
five
minute
walk
to
the
site
and
that's
a
peak
15
minute
frequency
off-peak
30-minute
frequency
with
easy
connectivity
to
downtown,
as
well
as
very
close
proximity
to
the
sugar
house,
business
district,
with
many
opportunities
to
walk
or
bike
to
work,
and
just
in
favor
of
this
proposal.
F
F
B
Yeah,
do
you
have
one
email?
This
is
from
dennis
reeves.
The
proposed
adu
at
2321
windsor
street
is
an
abomination.
It
will
ruin
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
The
unit
is
way
too
large
for
the
space
available
modal
and
the
property
owner
are
only
interested
in
padding.
Their
wallets
population
density
is
already
too
high
in
the
area.
Parking
is
also
at
a
premium
proposed.
Adu
will
just
exasperate
these
problems
as
a
resident.
I'm
adamantly
opposed
to
this.
Thank
you
for
for
your
consideration.
I
B
B
A
D
I
have
a
suggestion
to
chris,
but
it
will
be
any
planner,
so
I
guess
dwayne
when
you
take
a
photos
of
the
site
and
this
and
if
they're,
proposing
off-street
parking,
would
you
indicate
the
time
of
day
you
take
those
photos
because
oftentimes
it
looks
like
there's
ample
parking
and
then
maybe
there's
not
if
we
went
in
a
different
time
of
day,
it's
just
a
suggestion.
I'd
like
to
make
for
you
not
just
for
adus
but
for
projects
that
are,
you
know
having
parking
as
a
concern
expressed.
A
A
A
K
Yes,
I
am,
and
wayne's
going
to
be
assisting
me,
I'm
working
from
a
phone.
I
was
having
some
computer
issues
so
I'll.
Have
him
cue
up
the
presentation
in
a
moment
this
is
a
request
from
carolyn
and
josh
stewart
they're,
the
property
owners
of
the
east
liberty,
tap
house
at
850,
east
900
south,
and
this
is
a
request
to
change
the
establishment
to
a
bar
use.
It
was
approved
as
a
tavern
and
restaurant
license
and
conditional
use
approval,
and
so
the
bar
requires
a
new
conditional
use
approval.
K
K
K
K
The
city
noted
that,
as
they
were
going
through
their
re-licensing
that
they
were,
the
conditional
use
from
2014
was
only
for
a
tavern,
and
so
we
had
previously
issued
a
local
consent
for
a
social
club
in
a
bar
over
the
years
when
it
was
only
supposed
to
be
a
tavern.
So
there
was
some
confusion
between
the
davc
and
state
definitions
and
city
ordinance.
Definitions
of
different
alcohol
uses
next
slide.
K
So
bottom
line
is
the
city
made
some
mistakes
in
the
licenses
that
were
issued
over
the
years.
The
net
effect
was
that
basically
we
had
the
owners
had
switched
from
one
conditional
use
to
another
use
without
going
through
the
conditional
use
process
that
wasn't
necessarily
their
fault.
They
were
evolving
their
business
and
we
erroneously
issued
business
licenses
that
allowed
some
of
these
changes
so
now
we're
trying
to
rectify
that
issue.
K
K
next,
really
quick
map
location
by
ninth
and
ninth.
It's
a
little
corner
property
at
the
corner
of
windsor
and
900
south
next
couple
slides
to
show
you
some
pictures
of
the
existing
establishment.
This
is
taken
from
the
corner,
shows
the
outdoor
patio
and
see
a
little
bit
of
the
business
looking
down
the
sidewalk
along
windsor.
K
Next
slide
again
close
up
of
the
patio,
so
key
considerations
in
this
going
to
the
next
slide
was
we
were
looking
at
the
background
history
and
use
of
this
location
that
they
would
have
a
required
security
and
operations
plan
that
has
to
be
approved
by
the
salt
lake
city,
police
department
and
city's
building
official
for
this
type
of
use,
the
size,
limitations
of
indoor
and
outdoor
patio
space,
the
neighborhood
compatibility,
and
then
this
master
plan
policies
and
conditional
use
stay
on
the
side.
Please
fine.
The
security
and
operations
plan
has
been
filed.
K
If
they
keep
that
blocked
off,
it
would
stay
within
that
400
or
under
that
450
square
foot
limit.
So
we
are
including
also
that,
as
a
condition,
the
size
of
the
outdoor
patio
has
to
be
450
square
feet
or
less
neighborhood
compatibility
again,
given
the
kind
of
uses
in
the
ninth
and
ninth
area,
there
are
restaurants
and
other
uses.
This
use
is
compatible
with
the
neighborhood
uses.
There
was
one
public
comment,
that's
included
in
your
staff
report
from
mr
perekka.
K
K
E
K
E
E
K
E
To
present
the
stewards,
yeah
hi,
I'm
caroline
stewart-
this
is
my
husband
josh
stewart,
and
a
little
bit
of
background
on
us
is
that
we
have
co-owned
the
tap
house
since
2014
and
in
the
spring
of
this
year,
due
to
covid,
we
bought
out
our
partner,
who
is
the
managing
owner
and
operator,
and
some
owners
of
the
east
liberty
tap
house
and
we
live
in
the
neighborhood.
We
lived
in
the
neighborhood
since
2006.
E
our
three
children
go
to
school
in
the
neighborhood.
We
just
love
the
ninth
and
ninth
community
and
we
want
to
create
a
you
know:
a
respectable
responsible
gathering
space
for
people
to
dine
in
and
get
some
food
and
a
drink,
and
I
also
want
to
emphasize
that
there's
going
to
be
no
change
to
the
operations
and
or
the
concept
of
the
east
liberty
tap
house.
E
B
F
Hi
zachary
dusalt
speaking
in
favor
of
the
application.
I
just
want
to
apologize
to
the
owners
that
you
guys
have
to
deal
with
all
this
regulation
surrounding
alcohol
sales.
It's
very
much
a
utah
problem
and
only
we
would
have
six
different
definitions
for
a
place
where
you
can
get
a
drink
out
of
business,
but
I
also
wanted
to
address
what
crystal
said.
F
F
I
actually
live
right
next
to
a
bar
and
one
of
the
trade-offs
that
you
have
when
you
have
a
late
night
operating
bar
is
you
do
have
to
deal
with
a
little
bit
of
noise,
but
that
also
makes
up
for
it
by
what's
known
as
eyes
on
the
street,
and
a
bar
is
very
unique
in
that
its
operating
hours
are
outside
of
normal
business
hours
and
it
keeps
people
around
your
neighborhood
at
odd
hours.
Yes,
it
might
seem
like
an
inconvenience,
but
it
also
deters
theft.
F
It
deters
vagrancy
and
having
people
outside
around
your
neighborhood
at
those
late
hours,
it
does
make
you
feel
more
safe
and
secure.
It's
not
like
you're
walking
through
a
ghost
town.
So
that's
just
another
important
thing
to
keep
in
mind
with
outdoor
dining,
specifically
and
outdoor
drinking.
Is
that
the
more
people
you
have
out
and
about
the
less
likely
there
is
for
crime
and
vagrancy,
so
just
in
favor
of
the
project.
Thank
you.
E
C
K
A
J
A
A
A
A
H
B
B
H
H
This
is
an
existing
photograph.
Looking
east
on
emerald
and
the
property
on
your
right
is
the
subject
property.
This
home
is
going
to
be
demolished
and
replaced
with.
Can
I
have
the
next
slide?
Please
it's
going
to
be
replaced
with
12
units
and
what
is
being
requested
is
a
plan
development
because
the
it
will
create
lots
without
a
public
street
and
also
there
will
be
two
driveways
going
into
the
project.
C
I
Yes,
my
name
is
jared
hall,
I'm
the
architect
on
the
project.
Thank
you,
so
my
presentation's,
less
technical
than
kachi's
would
be
so.
This
is
located
on
emerald
avenue,
which
is
between
north
temple
and
south
temple
and
eighth,
west
and
ninth
west,
so
kind
of
right
behind
the
red
iguana
two
is
the
kind
of
easiest
way
to
find
it.
I
So
one
of
the
like
reasons
we
do
what
we
do
is
like
we're
trying
to
help
increase
density,
but
not
necessarily
increase
due
gentrification,
so
we'll
be
creating
these
houses
that
will
be
selling
for
a
price
point.
That's
less
than
the
one
house.
That's
there,
so
we're
going
to
be
increasing
the
amount
of
housing
by
11
units
and
not
really
increasing
the
price
of
the
unit
at
all.
So
we
think
that's
a
pretty
excellent
thing.
We
have
the
lots
without
frontage.
I
We
are
asking
for
a
modification
of
the
distance
between
driveways,
so
the
ordinance
says
they
need
to
be
a
hundred
feet
apart.
Our
driveways
are
only
93
feet
apart.
We
fill
between
the
really
light
load
that
these
driveways
will
have.
Three
and
six
car
garages
is
all
there
is,
and
the
super
slow
speed
that
emerald
is.
We
feel
it's
not
a
detriment
to
any
public
safety
that
that
small
amount
of
decrease
in
the
separation.
I
Let's
see
those
are
the
major
reliefs
like
we
on
kind
of
to
help
these
units
engage
with
the
street.
We
are
providing
pretty
big
five
foot
by
nine
foot
porches
on
the
right
on
the
sidewalk
of
emerald.
We
have
the
amount
of
glass
that's
required
in
the
tsa
code
on
that
ground
level.
To
provide
a
lot
of
kind
of
transparency,
we
are
using
two
different
materials
to
give
some
different
texture
to
the
facade
to
create
some
visual
interest
there.
I
So
we
are
also
each
of
the
units
that
is
on
emerald
street,
we're
providing
with
a
balcony
on
the
street
and
here's
a
better
view
of
kind
of
where
we're
using
that
stucco
and,
as
you
can
see,
you
can
see
it
right
when
you're
30
feet
in
the
air.
You
can't
see
it
from
the
street,
but
we're
doing
that
kind
of
the
this
area
is
not
the
best
area
right
now.
I
So
we're
trying
to
do
all
we
can
to
create
some
of
that
liveliness
on
the
streets
and
have
different
ways
that
people
will
be
looking
on
the
street.
You
know
keep
and
watch
out
for
their
neighbors
and
that's
the
end
of
our
presentation.
I
said
it's
definitely
not
as
technical
as
kochias
would
have
been
so.
A
H
H
H
Well,
for
some
reason
it
wasn't
showing
then
so
just
I
think
jared
has
explained
a
little
bit
more
about
the
project,
because
it's
the
tsa,
the
the
setback.
There
is
no
necessary
front
yard
setback,
but
on
the
renderings,
what
it
did
not
show
was
that
there
will
be
some
landscaping,
so
the
lots
without
street
frontage.
H
H
The
use
of
stucco
is
going
to
be
in
the
rooftop
and
pretty
much
will
not
be
visible
from
the
street,
and
the
other
reason
for
this
project
having
to
go
through
design
review
was
because
they
only
had
81
points
before
it.
It
went
into
this
process
and
it
needs
125
points
at
least
to
have
this
project
be
approved
with
you
know,
without
going
to
the
planning
commission
as
an
administrative
approval,
one
of
the
the
reasons
it
did
not
get
125
points
is
because
of
the
skill
of
this
project.
H
And
so
we
feel
that
we
find
that
modifications
result
in
a
better
product
and
complies
with
the
master
plan
expansion
for
this
area,
and
we
feel
that
the
modifications
still
meet
the
intent
of
the
design
standards
based
on
those
findings.
We
recommend
approval
of
the
project
with
the
conditions
listed
on
the
staff
report.
H
D
H
H
A
B
A
B
A
A
Also,
I
must
point
out
that
we,
the
the
tsa
menu
of
design
guidelines,
was
placed
in
the
drop
box
for
anybody
who
would
like
to
look
at
that.
So
we
do
have
a
copy
of
that
in
case
anybody's
got
time
on
their
hands
during
the
coronavirus
and
would
like
to
read
the
tsa
design
guideline
standards
and
their
scoring
okay,
I'm
gonna.
Do
we
have
any
I'm
gonna
open
it
up
for
public
comment
now
open
the
public
hearing.
B
F
Hi
zachary
dusol
speaking
in
favor
of
the
proposal
I
just
wanted
to
start
out
with.
If
this
was
on
north
temple,
one
block
north,
I
would
have
real
problem
with
it,
not
having
any
commercial
aspect
in
it,
but
this
is
kind
of
like
a
side
street
shoot
off.
So
I
I'm
fine
with
it
not
having
any
special
aspect
in
the
tsa
zone.
A
E
I
D
F
E
F
E
E
A
Well,
I
don't
really
have
a
problem
with
it,
but
but
then
my
aesthetic
sensibility
is
perhaps
a
little
bit
more
like
the
architects
than
than
everyone
else's.
So
I,
like
the
the
simplicity
of
it,
I
like
the
fact
that
it
has
two
clear
sets
of
materials
that
there
are
holes
punched
within
the
facade
or
entrances
and
for
patios,
and
so
I'm
I'm,
I'm
I'm
seeing
I'm
seeing
a
little
bit
of
the
disarray
of
the
windows
too,
but
I'm
willing
to
go
with
it.
A
A
A
C
Some
key
points
to
to
remember
about
this
proposal
and
what
it
does
is
that
it's
a
complete
special
exception
process
and
every
existing
special
exception
will
be
dealt
with
in
one
of
three
ways:
either
allowed
by
right,
no
longer
allowed
or
addressed
through
another
existing
process.
That
is
more
appropriate
review
process.
For
that
particular
item.
C
C
There's
42
different
authorized
special
exceptions.
In
the
code
we
average
about
150
per
year.
They
are
approved
in
one
of
three
ways:
all
of
them
start
with
staff,
with
the
exception
of
new
construction
in
historic
districts,
and
if
we
can't
approve
them,
then
they
go
to
the
planning,
commission
or
the
historic
landmarks
commission.
C
They
come
closely
from
most.
The
applications
we
receive
are
from
two
different
zoning
districts:
districts,
three
and
districts.
Five
districts
three
makes
a
lot
of
sense
because
of
the
the
presence
of
some
for
some
large
historic
districts
within
within
that
council
district
district.
Five
is
a
little
bit
of
a
surprise.
C
One
of
the
things
that
this
demonstrates
is
that
most
of
these
applications
are
coming
from
east
of
I-15,
which
really
creates
some
equity
issues
and
how
planning
resources
are
applied,
and
this
gets
to
that
a
little
bit.
It
takes
about
20
hours
staff
hours
to
review
an
application
that
includes
getting
all
the
noticing
reviewing
for
completeness
zoning
checks,
routing
for
review
by
other
departments
when
necessary,
producing
staff
reports
and
writing
letters
and
all
that
stuff,
and
it
equates
about
the
equivalent
of
one
and
a
half
ftes
per
year.
C
In
the
reasons
why
we
want
to
change
this,
I've
talked
a
little
bit
about
the
geographic
equity
and
what
it
does
is
that
it
prevents
us
from
applying
our
staff
resources
to
broader,
bigger
growth,
related
needs
of
the
city,
because
we
have
to
focus
on.
We
have
to
process
these
applications,
and
so
it
it
takes
away
that
equivalent
staff
time
to
focus
on
what
benefits
a
single
property
owner
versus
what
the
community
as
a
whole
needs.
It
helps
simplify
the
code.
C
The
more
things
that
you
have
to
worry
about,
the
key
changes.
First
off
in
historic
districts.
The
landmarks
commission
has
the
authority
to
modify
bulk
mass,
etc
through
the
special
exception
process,
instead
of
requiring
the
special
exception
application
and
the
required
applications
within
this
within
the
historic
district.
We
are
granting
this
authority
through
those
other
applications,
so
it
helps
simplify
that
process
by
eliminating
the
need
for
an
additional
application,
and
the
landmarks
commission
retains
all
the
authority
that
they
previously
had
one
of
the
big
ones
that
we're
looking
at
are
great
changes
and
retaining
walls.
C
C
The
change
would
require
a
stepping,
so
it's
more
of
in
line
with
what's
on
the
right
building
heights
in
residential
districts
would
be
based
on
the
development
pattern
of
the
block.
Again
hlc
retains
their
authority
accessory
structure
height.
This
is
something
that
we
talked
about
at
the
work
session.
There
would
be
no
change
to
a
buy
right
allowance,
but
if
you
have
a
taller
principal
building,
you
can
go
taller
with
your
accessory
building.
C
So,
for
example,
when,
if
you're
in
the
in
an
r1
district-
and
you
can
go
up
to
17
feet,
then
the
new
change
is
up
to
21
feet
if
it's
no
greater
than
75
percent
of
the
height
of
the
principal
structure
and
setbacks
must
increase
accordingly,
the
use
of
accessory
buildings
right
now,
if
you
wanted
to
use
a
shed
or
an
outbuilding
as
an
office,
a
hobby
shop
or
a
fitness
room
or
a
changing
room
for
a
pool.
Technically,
you
have
to
go
through
a
special
exception
process.
C
C
C
Instead
of
having
to
send
somebody
through
through
a
process,
front
yard
parking
was
another
thing
that
the
planning
commission
asked
us
to
find
a
way
to
allow
in
limited
situations,
and
so
this
proposal
does
that
it
clarifies
that
side
yards
have
to
essentially
be
blocked
by
buildings
or
non-existent,
and
there's
not
an
access
to
the
rear
yard,
and
this
proposal
establishes
some
minimum
dimensions
for
that
as
well
to
keep
cars
from
blocking,
sidewalks
and
and
other
things.
So
it
would
be
a
very
limited
application.
C
C
The
big
one,
that's
turned
out
to
be
fairly
complicated.
To
figure
out
are
ground,
mounted
utility
boxes
right
now,
someone
can
get
through
new
development.
They
can
build
on
100
of
their
site
if
the
zoning
allows
it
oftentimes,
they're,
forgetting
to
add
where
their
utility
boxes
and
transformers
are
going
to
go,
and
so
what
happens
is
that
they
end
up
asking
or
going
through
the
special
exception
to
use
the
right-of-way,
and
so
this
would
prohibit
that,
and
it
would
require
the
ground
running
utility
infrastructure
to
be
on
private
property.
C
For
new
development,
it
adds
some
setback
requirements,
access
requirements
for
the
public,
for
the
utility
requires
the
utility
approval
of
the
location
and
some
screening
requirements.
If
they're
in
front
or
corner
side
yards,
there
are
limited
situations
where
these
would
still
occur
in
the
right
of
way,
and
I
should
have
used
a
different
picture
that
shows
how
ridiculous
it
can
be
with
how
many
utility
boxes
are
there.
C
There
are
some
requirements
in
terms
of
and
similar
to
if
utility
box
is
serving
the
broader
neighborhood
and
it's
a
city-wide
type
of
thing,
so
there's
requirements
for
spacing
from
trees.
They
can't
impact
other
infrastructure,
and
if
the
city
has
already
identified
a
future
right-of-way
change
along
that
street,
then
they
have
to
it's
subject
to
being
able
to
still
accommodate
that.
C
As
far
as
community
input,
this
was
sent
out
to
all
of
the
community
councils
and
recognized
organizations.
It
was
also
sent
out
to
aia
utah,
we
put
it
online.
We've
had
176
unique
visits
to
the
online
open
house
info,
which
we
think
is
a
pretty
high
number
considering.
If
we
were
to
hold
an
in-person
open
house,
we
would
probably
get
less
than
a
dozen
people
coming
to
to
even
learn
about
the
proposal.
C
C
This
section
was
fairly
messy,
confusing
and
because
in
zones
like
the
cn
zone,
which
is
shown
in
the
picture,
you
need
a
special
exception
if
you're
in
a
required
front
yard,
which
this
is
a
required
front
yard,
and
this
was
an
approved
project,
but
now
those
would
still
be
allowed.
The
only
difference
is
that
there
would
be
a
10-foot
setback
when
you,
when
the
outdoor
dining
is
next
to
a
residential
property.
C
So,
in
this
case,
the
rear
of
this
property
is
next
to
residential,
but
because
the
outdoor
dining
is
in
the
front
yard
and
the
front
yard
is
not
adjacent,
it
wouldn't
apply
so,
and
then
we
added
some
hours
of
that
outdoor
music
can
be
played
right.
Now,
it's
limited
only
by
decibel
level,
which
is
really
difficult
for
us
to
enforce,
and
so
there's
some
hours
of
operation
when
they're
when
they
are
adjacent
to
a
residential
zone
as
well
inline
editions.
C
This
is
where
the
planning
commission
recommended
finding
a
way
to
allow
this,
and
so
what
the
code
has
it
is
written
right
now
says
is
that
you
can
do
an
inline
addition.
If
your
side
yard
does
not
meet
the
the
required
setback
as
it
is
now,
provided
that
it's
up
to
20
20
of
the
length
of
the
wall
and
a
single
story
in
nature.
C
So,
for
example,
if
you
had
a
40
foot
wall
long
wall
along
that
side
of
your
house,
that
could
be
extended
up
to
eight
feet
at
the
same
setback,
if
it's
greater
than
that,
it
has
to
meet
the
required
setback
as
it
exists.
Today
we
did
get
a
request
from
some
local
architects
who
do
a
lot
of
work
in
our
existing
neighborhoods,
and
they
they
were
suggesting
that
the
planning
commission
consider
that
that
be
increased
up
to
50
percent
with
the
max
of
up
to
16
feet.
C
And
their
argument
is
that
this
would
allow
for
an
additional
room,
not
just
a
small
hallway
or
an
extension,
to
an
existing
room
and
that
helps
particularly
single-family
homes
to
expand
as
needed
by
the
by
the
property
owner.
And
then
in
that
same
example.
A
40-foot
wall
could
be
extended
up
to
16
feet
in
length
along
the
setback.
C
We've
also
received
some
comments
about
vintage
signs
and
expanding
where
they
can
go
if
they
are
used
as
art,
and
so
the
the
request
was
from
the
sugar
house
community
council
right
now
in
the
sugar
house,
business
district,
one,
you
can
put
a
sign
on
your
property
as
art,
so,
for
example,
unfortunately,
we
lost
this
sign,
but
the
scenic
motel
sign
could
be
relocated
into.
One
of
these
districts
has
a
piece
of
artwork.
C
C
I
should
say
that
the
landmarks
commission
did
review
this
at
a
public
hearing
two
weeks
ago
and
they
recommended
that
the
city
approved
this
as
well.
So
we
have
the
public
hearing
tonight
and
then
we'll
start
the
transmittal
process
and
send
this
on
to
the
city
council,
and
that
is
the
end
of
my
presentation
and
now
I
need
some
water.
D
Go
ahead:
amy
nick!
Can
you
go
back
to
the
additional
height
for
accessory
structures
and
kind
of
kind
of
spell
it
out?
For
me,
when
is
this
a
high
limit
going
to
go
off
of
what
the
existing
structure
is
or
the
existing
zoning
height,
so
I'm
getting
at?
Would
you
allow
for
extra
height
above
the
zoning
if
the
primary
structure
was
non-conforming
in
height.
C
So
it's
the
existing.
It's
based
off
the
existing
structure,
not
what's
allowed
in
the
zone
so
and
then
there's
that
cap,
which
is
what
the
planning
commission
asked
us.
For
so
say
you
had
a
30
foot
tall
single
family
home,
which
that
picture
I
showed
was
right
now
under
the
current
rules,
you
could
go
up
to
17
feet
in
height
in
that
zone.
C
What
you,
if
there
were
other
taller
accessory
structures
around
you,
could
potentially
get
an
excess,
get
a
special
exception
to
go
taller
than
that.
If
there's
not,
then
you're
stuck
with
the
17
feet.
What
this
proposal
does
is
that
it
allows
you
to
increase
that
up
to
a
height
of
21
feet,
provided
your
setback
increases
one
foot
for
each
foot
in
height,
so
doing
so,
provided.
C
Yes,
so
right
now,
the
current
setback
for
accessory
buildings
is
one
foot,
so
it
can
be
as
close
as
one
foot
to
a
property
line.
Okay
17
feet
at
that.
If
you
were
to
build
a
21
foot
high
accessory
building
that
didn't
that
would
increase
by
four
feet
because
additional
four
feet,
because
it's
four
additional
feet
taller.
D
D
B
D
C
So
I
think,
can
you
yourself?
While
I
talk
I'm
getting
all
kinds
of
feedback,
and
I
can't
even
thank
you,
so
I
think
I
think
what
that
comes
down
to
really,
though,
is
that
just
because
something's
non-conforming
has
to
height
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that's
a
bad
thing
right.
A
lot
of
the
victorian
homes
in
our
city
that
are
two-story,
maybe
30
feet
tall
35
feet
tall,
and
I
think
we
want
to
make.
I
think
one
thing
that
helps
maintain.
C
That
is,
if,
if
we're
maintaining
that
character
in
that
scale,
so
just
because
it's
over
height
doesn't
necessarily
mean
it's
a
bad
situation,
and
I
think
that's
where
there's
some,
maybe
some
I
can
see
where
you're
coming
from
from
that
I'm
not
overly
concerned
with
it.
I
think
what
we're
hearing
mostly
about
we
haven't
heard
much
about
the
height
with
this,
but
with
this
proposal.
C
But
what
we
have
heard
in
the
past,
with
proposals
to
increase
the
height
of
accessory
buildings,
is
how
that
second
story
is
used,
and
so
one
of
the
things
that
we
are
that's
why
we
increased
the
setback
to
address
some
of
those
issues.
But
I
don't
know
that
it's
going
to
be
that
that
big
of
a
concern,
if
you
go
from
17
to
21
foot
and
you're
increasing
the.
B
J
J
It
has
not
had
a
whole
lot
of
participation
at
the
community
council
level.
The
the
second
point
I
want
to
make
is
that
this
is
very
abstract,
for
me
is
that,
over
time,
views
associated
with
special
exceptions
have
changed
dramatically.
An
example
is
outdoor
dining
30
years
ago.
You
would
have
thought
that
it
was
in
the
civilization,
as
we
know
it
if
a
fly
landed
on
someone's
food
at
an
outdoor,
dining
venue
and
our
views
on
that
have
just
changed.
J
F
F
I
don't
really
think
warrants
a
200
person
petition
from
all
of
your
neighbors
and
calling
you
a
slum
lord
or
for
wanting
a
few
extra
feet,
and
I
think
that
the
more
that
these
are
set
as
rules
and
less
as
special
exceptions
that
people
have
to
go
before
the
commanding
planning
commission
to
receive
and
all
their
neighbors
did
notice
around
them.
That
oh,
your
neighbor
wants
a
special
exception
to
for
extra
height
in
their
backyard.
F
I
think,
by
making
these
black
and
white
rules,
that's
gonna
cut
down
on
a
lot
of
that.
A
lot
of
that
conflict
and
hopefully
make
these
meetings
a
little
bit
more
productive
and
focused
on
bigger
projects
that
have
more
importance
to
other
city
goals.
So
I'm
just
in
favor
of
all
these
systemic
changes,
and
I
hope
we've
got
more
of
them
coming
down
the
pipeline.
Thank
you.
C
C
C
Planning
commission
sees
far
less
maybe
a
handful
per
year
on
your
agendas
and
the
ones
that
are
the
most
controversial
are
ones
that
are
going
away.
So,
for
example,
the
additional
residential
building
height
you
have
to
match.
You
have
to
meet
the
code
or
match
the
development
pattern
on
your
block
and
two
which
is
not
part
of
this,
but
will
be
coming
because
of
it's
it's
more
complex
than
what
we
initially
thought
and
it's
coming
separately,
but
will
come
in
january,
are
fences
in
the
front
yards.
C
C
C
E
C
So
every
every
one
of
those
will
be
changed
in
some
way.
A
lot
of
them
are
just
being
moved
to
another
process,
so
all
the
non-complying
stuff,
the
unit
legalizations
things
like
that
are
just
being
moved
to
another.
The
landmark
stuff
which
accounts
for
a
big
chunk
of
of
the
special
exceptions,
are
just
going
through
another
process
and
it
the
ones
there
are
some
that
are
just
going
away,
like
I
said,
with
the
fence
height
the
additional
building
height,
the
grade
changes.
C
A
A
C
E
E
A
A
second
I'll,
second,
okay:
I
think
that
was
maureen,
we'll
call
it
maureen.
Okay,
I
think
maureen
beat
amy
to
the
buzzer
that
time.
Okay,
so
I
have
a
motion
from
adrian
and
a
second
from
maureen.
Is
there
any
further
discussion
hearing?
None
I'm
going
to
take
a
vote
starting
at
the
bottom,
with
crystal.
D
E
A
D
A
C
Just
just
an
interesting
tidbit
of
information
in
2020,
you
will
have
heard
113
you'll
have
had
113
public
hearings
and
if
you're
wondering
how
that
compares
to
2019,
you
did
79
in
2019,
which
was
the
busiest
application
year.
We've
ever
had
so
you're
up
43
percent,
which
is,
I
think,
amazing,
considering
you
also
lost
two
meetings
to
natural
disasters.