►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting - January 08, 2020
Description
Planning Commission Meeting - January 08, 2020
A
A
C
D
E
A
B
G
First,
off
I
wanted
to
let
everyone
in
the
room
know
we
are
expecting
a
protest
outside
the
building
tonight,
not
for
anything,
that's
on
the
Planning
Commission
agenda,
but
but
but
it
the
police
department
has
indicated
that
they
are
a
little
bit
concerned
that
there's
the
potential
for
for
it
to
escalate,
and
so
just
so,
everyone
in
the
room
knows
that
we
have
direct
connections
to
the
police
department
up
here.
I'm
not
gonna,
be
silencing
my
cell
phone.
For
that
reason,
just
so
everybody
knows,
and
if
needed
we
they
will.
G
Let
us
know
provide
us
instructions
on
what
to
do
so.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
everyone
is
aware
that
that
is
happening
and
that
protest
is
supposed
to
start
at
6:00.
I,
don't
anticipate
and
the
police
department
doesn't
anticipate
anything
happening
that
would
move
inside
the
building,
so
it
may
get
loud
outside
it
may
that
may
be
a
disruption,
but
we'll
try
to
make
sure
that
we
we
control
our
audible
levels
as
best
we
can
so
I
mean
this
is
unusual,
but
if
anybody
has
any
any
questions
or
anything
feel
free,
okay,.
G
Okay,
great
thank
you
and
just
to
give
the
Planning
Commission
some
updates.
Today,
the
third
District
Court
issued
their
decision
on
the
city
versus
the
state
regarding
the
inland
port
and
unfortunately,
the
court
granted
this
state.
What's
the
right
term
summary
judgment
which
we're
evaluating
our
options
as
a
city
and
we'll
go
from
there.
G
So
the
other
thing
upcoming
for
the
Planning
Commission
that
you
guys
can
be
aware
of
by
city
ordinance
we're
required
to
do
an
annual
report
on
a
to
use,
so
that
will
be
coming
we'll
provide
that
to
the
Planning
Commission
in
the
public.
Basically,
what
it's
intended
to
do
is
to
just
understand
the
status
of
the
ordinance.
What
we're
seeing
what
kinds
of
barriers
are
still
are
to
creating
a
to
use,
and
that's
it.
It's
not
intended
to
necessarily
trigger
any
kind
of
new
action
or
anything
like
that.
G
It's
just
an
FYI
and
then
we'll
also
be
providing
our
Planning
Division
annual
report
that
we'll
go
over
with
you.
Hopefully,
sometime
in
February
and
and
I
think
the
big
takeaway
and,
as
the
Commission
knows,
are
we
had
our
busiest
year
in
terms
of
number
of
out
land
use
applications
submitted
to
the
city
last
year
that
we've
ever
had
our
workloads
increased
15%
over
the
prior
year,
which
was
our
previous
busy
year
so
and
the
year
before
that
was
was
equally
busy
and
our
and
to
get
put
it
into
a
little
bit
more
perspective.
G
A
A
They're
right
outside
the
door,
you
don't
have
to
fill
it
out,
but
it
just
helps
us
manage
the
public
hearing
portion
and
then
just
bring
it
up
to
the
front
and
they'll
end
up
in
front
of
me
and
and
during
the
hearing
on
the
item
on
which
you
wish
to
speak.
I'll
call
your
name
and
you
can
come
up
and
you'll
have
two
minutes
to
give
us
your
comments.
A
Community
council
representatives
have
five
minutes
to
speak
before
us.
Applicants
have
ten
minutes
just
so.
Everybody
understands
everyone's
a
lot
of
time
and
after
the
public
hearing
portion,
then
the
Commission
will
discuss
the
issue
and
make
either,
depending
on
the
matter,
a
recommendation
to
the
City
Council
or
we'll
make
a
decision
on
the
item
on
the
agenda.
So,
given
that,
let's
move
on
to
the
first
item,
which
is
conditional
use
for
a
tu
at
26:51,
South,
Imperial
Street,
which
is
case,
number
PLN,
PCM,
2019,
0,
0,
9,
9,
9
and
Lauren.
A
H
You
good
evening
planning
commission
alright.
So
again,
this
is
a
conditional
use
request
for
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
to
be
constructed
in
the
rear
or
northeast
corner
corner
of
the
property
property
at
2651
South
Imperial
Street
this
property,
as
you
see
highly
highlighted
on
the
map,
is
located
a
couple
blocks
south
of
sugarhouse
Park
and
is
zoned
r1
7000
single-family
residential,
where
ad
use
are
allowed
with
conditional
use
approval.
H
The
proposed
ad,
you
will
have
a
footprint
of
approximately
432
square
feet
and
features
a
living
room,
bedroom
and
bathroom
all
on
one
floor.
It
will
sit
4
feet
from
the
rear
or
east
property
line
and
4
feet
from
the
interior
or
north
property
line,
as
you
can
see,
circled
in
red
on
the
site
plan
and
then
finally,
here
are
the
building
elevations.
H
The
structure
will
feature
flighting,
sliding
glass
doors
on
the
west,
facade
which
faces
the
home
or
interior
of
the
property
and
then
clerestory
a
clerestory
window
on
the
North,
facade
and
Western,
and
it
also
features
a
western
red
cedar,
vertical
wood
siding.
So
these
are
black
and
white,
but
that
will
be
what
siting.
So
overall
staff
does
feel
that
the
ad
you
generally
meets
the
conditional
use
standards
and
is
recommending
approval
with
the
general
conditions
listed
in
the
staff
report.
So
please,
let
me
know
if
you
have
any
questions.
Thank.
I
J
Thank
You
Lauren
hello
up
again
everybody.
My
name
is
andrea
from
modal
living,
I'm
representing
Scott
and
Kim
Collette
in
their
project,
for
a
request
for
an
Adu
at
their
property
on
2651
south
to
Imperial.
Street
I
just
had
a
couple
pictures
and
renderings
that
I
just
wanted
to
show
you
guys,
since
the
elevations
are
black
and
white
they're,
pretty
sight
of
specific
to
what
is
going
to
be
on
Scott's
property.
So
it
is
gonna,
be
a
dark
gray,
charcoal
color
painted
on
the
Western
redcedar.
J
J
The
property
is
nine
thousand
five
hundred
and
eighty-three
square
feet
or
0.2
two
acres,
and
it
has
an
existing
single-family
dwelling
with
the
footprint
of
1233
square
feet,
which
will
not
exceed
more
than
50
percent
of
the
ATU
size,
which
is
four
hundred
and
thirty-two
square
feet.
There
is
an
existing
garage
in
the
rear
yard
that
measures
to
five
hundred
and
fifty-two
square
feet
and
will
have
a
distance
of
10
feet.
Eight
inches
from
the
closest
side
of
the
80
you,
the
existing
lock
coverage,
is
19%
and
with
the
ad
you
will
be
23%.
J
This
will
not
exceed
the
40%
maximum
building
coverage
allowed
in
the
r-1
7000
zone.
The
rear
yard
coverage
is
currently
13%
with
the
ad
you
23%
and
will
not
exceed
the
50%
rear
yard
coverage
allowed
for
ad
use,
as
mentioned
before,
the
maximum
height
of
the
home
is
18,
feet,
9
inches
and
will
not
exceed
the
height
of
the
ad.
You
11
feet,
3
inches
and
the
nearest
property
on
an
adjacent
property
or
sorry.
Then
the
closest
primary
dwelling
on
an
adjacent
property
is
approximately
41
55
and
a
half
inches.
J
J
Hydrant,
measured
from
the
furthest
point
of
the
unit
which
will
meet
fire
code,
sewer
power
and
water
service
to
the
ad
will
be
connected
to
the
existing
primary
dwellings
utility
lines.
A
televised
sewer,
lateral
inspection
was
performed
on
the
existing
sewer
line
on
September
30th
2019.
The
city
inspector
found
that
the
sewer
lateral
was
in
good
condition
and
passed
the
inspection
off
to
connect
the
new
proposed
sewer,
lateral
to
the
Adu
from
the
existing
sewer,
lateral
on
the
property
to
install
the
unit.
A
K
Thank
you
for
the
record
I'm
Judy
short
lenders
chair
for
the
sugarhouse
Community
Council.
We
reviewed
this
project
and
I
have
to
say
that
it
was.
It
was
difficult
to
review
it
because
we
didn't
get
all
the
wonderful
drawings
that
we
just
saw
here
and
when
we
that
drop,
what
drawing
was
labeled
new
modal
Oh
one
and
we
went
on
the
website,
and
that
was
a
two-story
building
with
what
looked
like
three
garages.
It
was
a
totally
different
building
from
what
we
were
looking
at.
So
the
process
was
confusing
and
I'm
hoping
this
applicant.
K
Given
the
quantity
of
these
applications
is
working
for
a
standard
plan
as
we
would
call
it
that
would
have
all
the
complete
documents
on
it.
I
have
some
concerns,
there's
one
parking
spot
on
the
street
and
it
makes
sense
when
you
take
a
picture
at
10
o'clock
in
the
morning
in
nobody's
home,
but
I
wonder
what
that
street
looks
like
it
7:30
at
night,
when
all
the
cars
are
back
I'd
really.
Rather
the
emphasis
be
from
the
planning
staff
that
parking
for
these
ad.
K
K
The
other
thing
that
bothered
us
was
that
there
seems
to
be
no
way
to
get
from
the
driveway
down
the
side
of
the
property
to
the
Adu,
except
through
the
grass
I
think
you
ought
to
put
a
sidewalk
in
there
now
we
did
flier
the
neighborhood,
but
we
didn't
get
any
comments
and
nobody
came
to
our
meeting
so
we're
not
really
enthusiastic,
but
we
have
no
reason
to
decline.
This
application.
A
A
B
B
E
In
on
the
same
topic,
the
renderings
that
we
see
don't
seem
to
match
the
site
plans,
always
so
I
wonder
if
it's
appropriate
to
show
a
rendering
that
might
be
of
the
correct
building,
but
not
of
the
site
conditions,
because
it
seems
like,
as
a
commission,
were
reviewing
site
and
conditions,
not
architecture
in
this
case.
So
if
there
are
rendering
shown
I
think
they
should
match
the
site
conditions,
and
it
seems
like
the
last
few
that
we've
seen
don't
always
do
that.
So
I
think
that
that's
important.
K
H
I
too,
would
like
to
come
in
lost
exactly
the
same
sentiments.
I
feel
I
mean
I
I
like
the
ad
use.
They
seem
to
be
very
workable,
especially
you
know
when
there's
a
lot
of
high
density
in
our
area,
but
we
I
think
we
should
have
a
better
rendering
of
what
we're
actually
seeing
on
the
sites
rather
than
just
a
very
nice
drawing
of
what
we
have
so
I
know.
Thank
you.
Either.
F
Lemonade
commotion,
okay,
based
on
the
information
in
the
staff
report,
the
information
presented
and
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing
I
moved
that
the
Planning
Commission
approved
petition
PLN
PCM
2019,
zero,
zero,
nine,
nine
nine
for
the
detached
accessory
dwelling
unit
conditional
use
with
the
conditions
listed
in
the
staff
report.
A.
B
L
C
B
M
To
give
a
little
bit
of
historic
background,
the
subject
property
was
created
in
1983
by
a
deed
that
granted
ownership
of
the
land
to
the
same
owner
of
the
property
to
the
east.
The
home
owned
1174
East
Chandler
was
built
in
1978,
and
it
is
likely
that
the
owner
acquired
the
subject
parcel
with
the
intent
of
using
as
an
extension
of
his
property.
This
photo
of
1985
shows
the
home
on
1170
for
each
Chandler
already
built
and
the
subject:
property
partially
landscaped.
M
Since
then,
the
two
abutting
properties
have
been
passed
on
to
other
individuals,
but
always
kept
on
they're
the
same
ownership,
while
the
property
is
still
functioning
as
the
rear
yard
of
1174
each
Chandler.
The
existing
OS
designation
poses
some
limitations
on
this
property
because
the
OS
zoning
district
is
intended
for
open
space,
natural
and
recreational
areas.
Residential
uses
are
not
allowed.
It
is
likely
that
at
the
time
the
subject
property
was
created,
its
zoning
allowed
for
residential
uses.
M
M
If
the
lot,
if
the
rezone
is
approve
principle
and
accessory
uses,
would
be
allowed
on
the
lot.
A
new
principal
use,
such
as
a
new
home
on
the
property,
could
block
views
and
create
environmental
impacts
to
the
neighborhood.
Assessor
uses,
on
the
other
hand,
would
not
substantially
impact
the
surrounding
properties.
This
is
especially
true
due
to
the
limited
intensity
of
development
allowed
in
the
proposed
zoning
district.
The
fr3,
the
fr3
12,000
zoning
district
is
intended
for
low
residential
density
that
is
appropriate
for
in
a
compatible
with
foothills
area.
M
The
zoning
ordinance
has
special
regulations
for
these
foothills
owns,
limiting
landscaping
and
grading
of
the
lot.
A
soil
study
will
be
required
before
any
significant
work
is
done
to
the
property
and
there
are
requirements
for
acessory
building,
height
and
placement
that
help
ensure
environmentally
sensitive
and
visually
compatible
structures.
M
Considering
the
impact
of
future
use
and
the
applicants
expressed
interest
in
using
the
subject
property
exclusive
exclusively
as
an
extension
to
the
property
to
the
East,
Lots,
1172
and
1174,
each
Chandler
could
be
combined
into
one
single
lot.
This
LOC
consolidation
would
prevent
the
construction
of
a
scene
of
a
principal
building,
but
would
allow
acessory
uses
and
accessory
structures.
The
applicable
master
plans
contained
city
goals
and
policies
that
support
the
proposed
amendment.
M
The
future
land
use
map
in
the
avenues
master
plan
calls
for
very
low
density
on
the
property
and
recommends
a
Foothill
development
overlay
zone
which
matches
the
intent
of
the
proposed
fr3
zoning
district.
The
proposal
is
also
in
line
with
the
policies
related
to
the
preservation
of
foothill
areas
and
the
natural
environment
found
in
the
avenues,
master
plan
and
plan
salt
lake
and
does
not
interfere
with
proposed
trails
and
corridors
found
in
the
open
space
master
plan.
These
city
goals
and
policies
are
further
discussed
in
attachment
D
of
the
staff
report.
M
The
proposed
amendment
is
also
found
appropriate
to
the
location
and
historical
context.
Does
staff
is
recommending
that
the
Commission
forward
a
positive
recommendation
to
the
City
Council,
with
the
condition
that
the
applicant
obtain
subdivision
approval
to
combine
the
subject
parcel
with
the
abutting
parcel
located
at
approximately
1170
for
each
Chandler
to
minimize
future
impacts?
M
D
M
M
G
Yes,
so
it
would
be
the
same.
I
mean
the
look,
differences
that
would
be
in
the
front
yard,
and
so
that
fan,
if
there
was
any
kind
of
a
fence
at
six
feet,
could
be
four
feet
at
the
property
line.
Once
it
gets
back
to
the
minimum
setback
can
go
up
to
six
feet
so
in
the
Oso
and
that
setbacks
ten
feet
so
ten
feet
from
the
site.
Sidewalk
go
six.
There's
also
the
option
for
special
exceptions
to
exceed
that.
G
B
B
G
G
M
M
N
Madam-Ji
commissioned
my
name
is
Bruce
beard
and
counsel
for
mr.
doe
mr.
doe
on
the
project.
I
was
the
applicant
because
mr.
Dahl
was
out
of
the
country,
but
Ben's
here
and
he's
willing
he's
more
than
willing
to
answer
any
questions.
I
would
point
out
that
this
is
not
the
first
time
that
it
has
been
discovered
that
the
city
zoned
private
property,
open
space
during
the
1995
comprehensive
rezone.
For
those
of
you
who
don't
know
in
1995,
actually
I
was
Paul
at
the
time
the
city
attorney
for
land
use,
but.
N
Nowhere
near
as
handsome
and
the
entire
city
was
Rees
owned,
the
zoning
code
was
rewritten
and
the
maps
were
done
and
at
least
on
one
occasion
that
I'm
aware
of
private
property
was
owned,
open
space
and
the
reason
I'm
aware
of
it
is
because
it
happened
to
be
across
the
street
from
me.
It
was
in
the
Wasatch
Park
area
and
that
whole
area,
that's
now
at
great
park,
was
actually
privately,
not
the
whole
area,
but
a
large
part
of
it
was
privately
zoned
and
was
privately
owned.
N
N
So
when
Ben
came
to
me,
we
suggested
we
talked
about
it
and
we
had
a
great
meeting
with
staff
and
we
agreed
to
not
do
not
to
try
to
seek
a
secondary
residence
which,
frankly,
we
possibly
could
under
the
rezoning
if
we
needed
to,
but
we
decided
to
be
very
accommodating
and
limited.
Only
to
accessory
uses
and
combine
the
lots
and
we've
we
don't
really
have
much
to
say
other
than
the
staff
report,
because
the
staff
report
was
very
thorough
and
we
had
a
good
meeting
with
staff
before
before
they
issued
the
report.
N
We're
here
to
answer
any
questions
if
you
have
any,
but
as
a
as
a
matter
of
public
policy,
we
agree
with
the
staff
and
we
think
that
it's
a
reasonable
compromise,
rather
than
been
trying
to
come
in
and
enforce
his
private
property
rights
under
the
open
space,
mrs.
owning.
We
think.
So.
We
would
ask
for
your
support.
If
you
have
any
questions
Ben's
here
to
answer
them.
Anyone.
C
Would
just
like
to
think
that
thank
the
staff
for
their
time
and
their
effort
and
looking
at
it
looking
at
this
and
examining
it
and
meeting
with
us,
it
was
greatly
appreciated
and,
as
we
said
know,
no
one
cares
about
the
the
character
of
that
neighborhood
more
than
those
of
us
that
live
there
and
we're
not
looking
to
put
a
residence
next
door.
We're
really
looking
to
use
it
for
accessory
purposes.
C
A
A
G
M
E
I
A
question
is
by
combining
the
Lots
as
well.
Does
that
allow
for,
rather
than
accessory,
you
development
and
a
significant
larger
development
like
if
they
were
to
extend
the
house?
A
bunch
may
come
by
the
primary
residence
much
larger,
because
now
that
the
lot
is
so
much
larger
due
to
like
setbacks
or
other
things,
I'm
saying
yeah.
A
L
Okay,
here
we
go
regarding
petition
peel
in
PCM
201
900
795
motion
chief
for
Chandler
Drive
zoning
map
amendment,
based
on
the
information
listed
in
the
staff
report.
The
information
presented
and
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing
I
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
that
the
City
Council
approve
the
proposed
zoning
map
amendment
as
presented
in
petition
PL
n
PCM
201
900
796,
with
the
conditions
listed
and
the
staff
report
Thank.
B
C
C
D
E
A
Motion
passes.
Thank
you.
All
Hey
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
actually
three
items
for
Cleveland
Court
at
approximately
1430
South
400
East.
So
the
three
matters
our
case
number
PL
and
PCM
2019:
the
zero
zero
one,
eight
nine,
which
is
a
master
plan,
amendment
a
zoning
map,
amendment
PLN,
PCM,
2019,
zero,
zero,
one,
nine
zero
and
a
proposed
plan
development
case
number
PLN,
SUV,
2019,
zero,
zero,
nine,
three,
four,
okay.
M
That's
me
again:
that's
you
again,
yes,
so
this
is
a
request
to
develop
a
seven
unit
row
house
at
the
property
located
approximately
1430
South
400
East.
To
built
this
development,
the
applicant
is
requesting
a
master
plan
amendment
to
change
the
future
to
land
use
map
designation
in
the
center
community
master
plan
from
low
density,
residential
to
medium
density
density,
residential
zoning
map,
amendment
to
rezone
the
property
from
RMF.
Thirty-Five,
moderate
density,
multi-family,
residential
FB
UN
one
form
base
urban
neighborhood.
M
The
cleveland
court
project
is
a
two
building
development
that
accommodates
a
total
of
seven
residential
units
with
a
mix
of
one
two
and
three-bedroom
units,
the
largest
of
the
two
buildings
fronts,
Cleveland
Avenue
and
400
East,
and
contains
four
units,
the
other
building
fronts,
Cleveland
Avenue
in
the
alley,
and
contains
three
units.
The
two
buildings
are
designed
as
single-family
attached
or
row
houses
and
the
units
are
arranged
around
a
community
courtyard.
M
All
facades
will
be
vertically
articulated
by
changes,
changes
in
wall
plane
and
will
contain
architectural
detailing
such
as
building
fenestrations,
canopies,
balconies
and
change
in
materials
building
materials
include
brick,
fiber,
cement
board
and
efis.
The
applicant
is
requesting
a
reduction
from
ten
feet
to
five
point
four
feet
for
the
front
yard,
located
along
the
South
property
line
in
Cleveland,
a
Boleyn
Avenue
and
a
reduction
from
16.8
feet
to
fifteen
point
two
feet
for
the
rear
yard
located
along
the
north
property
line.
M
The
staff
is
recommending
that
the
Planning
Commission
for
it
a
positive
recommendation
to
City
Council
for
the
proposed
master
plan,
amendment
and
zoning
map
amendment
and
the
Planning
Commission
approved
the
plan
development
with
conditions
listed
in
the
staff
report.
This
recommendation
comes
as
a
result
of
the
analysis
of
standards
and
four
key
considerations
before
I
jumped
in
to
the
key
considerations.
I'd
like
to
just
give
a
background
on
the
cleveland
court
project.
M
The
cleveland
core
project
was
originally
given
a
building
permit
in
2017
for
five
unit
development,
along
with
the
building
permit,
a
demolition
permit
was
issued
to
remove
the
single-family
home
that
was
on
the
property.
The
original
development
did
not
go
through
a
planning
process,
because
the
proposal
complied
with
the
standards
of
the
RMF
35
zoning
district.
The
applicant,
however,
is
making
the
requests
brought
to
you
tonight
because
they
have
modified
the
original
development
to
accommodate
seven
units.
M
These
additional
two
units
were
incorporated
into
a
very
similar
building
envelope,
as
shown
on
the
screen
and
facade
designs
by
reducing
the
square
footage
of
each
individual
unit.
So
going
to
the
key
considerations,
the
first
consideration
was
given
to
the
city
goals
and
policies.
The
proposal
disagrees
with
the
future
land
use
map
in
the
Central
Communion
master
plan,
which
the
applicant
is
requesting
an
amendment
to.
M
However,
other
policies
and
goals
found
in
the
master
plan
to
support
the
proposed
amendments
and
proposed
these
policies
and
goals
are
related
to
encourage
variety
of
housing
opportunities
and
compatible
development,
which
the
strict
density
regulations
and
lack
of
design
standards
of
the
current
RMF
35
zoning
is
unable
to
offer
the
proposed
FB
UN.
One
zone
e,
on
the
other
hand,
focuses
on
the
form,
scale,
placement
and
orientation
of
the
buildings
and
offers
more
opportunities
for
a
mix
of
unit
sizes
and
price
points.
M
One
of
the
staff
report,
the
second
consideration
was
given
to
the
proposed
design
and
compatibility
with
the
neighborhood
buildings
in
the
area
are
one
to
two
storeys
high
homes
are
primarily
oriented
to
the
streets,
but
some
apartment
buildings
are.
Are
we
into
the
interior
of
the
Lots
in
general?
Parking
is
located
in
the
rear
of
the
Lots.
The
proposed
development
is
a
two-story
high,
with
articulated
facades
and
durable
materials
on
the
street.
M
Third,
we
received
some
public
comments
regarding
on
street
parking
in
the
area.
Although
parking
is
not
required
in
the
FB
un1
district,
the
proposed
development
provides
8
off
street
parking
stalls,
the
three-bedroom
units
have
two
stalls
and
the
two-bedroom
units
will
have
one
stall.
The
one-bedroom
unit
does
not
have
a
dedicated
parking
stall
on
site.
M
Lastly,
staff
considered
the
proposed
setbacks
and
whether
they
were
appropriate
to
the
neighborhood.
The
image
on
the
screen
shows
how
the
setbacks
were
designated,
since
this
is
a
corner
lot.
The
corner
yard
setback
is
the
largest,
because
it
follows
the
development
pattern
of
the
block
faced
along
400
East,
which
is
the
longest
place
at
the
block
and
helps
keeping
a
cohesive
streetscape
in
the
area.
400
East
is
also
wider
and
has
more
vehicular
traffic
than
Cleveland
Avenue,
which
warrants
a
larger
buffer.
M
The
reduction
on
the
front
yard
from
ten
to
five
to
five
point
four
feet
is
consistent
with
the
small
yards
along
Cleveland
Aveline
Avenue,
and
helps
to
engage
with
the
street,
which
only
has
a
few
Lots
facing
it.
Likewise,
the
reduction
of
the
attached
garage
setback
helps
to
preserve
the
pedestrian
orientation
of
this
development
because
it
limits
the
driveway
space
and
makes
front
yard
parking
impractical.
M
The
interior
side
yard
serves
the
rear
of
the
development,
provides
adequate
space
for
utilities
and
vehicular
access
and
the
rear
art
rear
yard
reduction
from
16.8
feet
to
15
point
2
feet
is
consistent
with
the
north/south
yard
pattern
on
the
block
and
provides
appropriate
buffering
to
the
home
on
the
abutting
north
property.
The
existing
six-foot
solid
fence
between
the
two
properties
helps
mitigating
the
impacts
of
the
use
of
the
yard
area
as
an
amenity
for
the
adjacent
units,
while
the
courtyard
provides
an
area
for
the
other
residents
and
the
interior
of
the
lot.
M
Given
these
findings,
staff
concluded
that
the
proposed
amendment
offers
more
opportunity
for
a
development
that
fits
better
into
its
context
and
helps
to
further
further
City
goals.
Furthermore,
the
proposed
release
requested
through
the
plan
development
master
development
pattern
of
the
neighborhood
I
would
like
to
point
out.
The
community
council
sent
a
letter
in
support
of
the
development
and
we
did
get
four
additional
comments
after
this
was
posted.
So
it's
in
the
Dropbox,
if
you
haven't
looked
at
that
yet
all.
D
M
D
G
That's
basically
determined
by
the
master
plans.
The
older
master
plan
such
as
this,
the
centric
community,
one
we're
very
specific,
and
frankly,
it
applied
a
low
density
designation
that
doesn't
match
the
built
environment.
Our
density
is
actually
in
those
areas
that
are
low
density
are
actually
higher
than
what
the
master
plan
suggests,
for
whatever
reason,
I
think
that
was
before
all
of
anything
was
adopted
in
2005
before
many
of
us
were
involved
with
it,
and
so
we
have
to
rely
on
the
what
the
master
plan
designates
that
until
it
changes
so.
G
Plans
actually
don't
recommend
densities
because
they
recommend,
particularly
in
places
like
this,
they
would
recommend
that
that
the
neighborhood
basically
kind
of
maintain
the
development
pattern.
This
particularly
neighborhood
does
have
a
mix
of
housing
types
within
it,
and
so
that
would
open
that
opens
the
door
for
more
specific
discussions
about
a
site
versus
broad
policy
types
of
thing.
D
M
M
I
It's
not
like
huge
I
mean.
Is
there
any
history
on
why
it's
nothing,
there's
not
huge.
Just
I
mean
it
seems,
like
the
neighborhood,
all
kind
of
seems
like
a
neighbor
like
driving
through
you,
don't
necessarily
know
you
see
some
bits
and
pieces,
but
the
zoning
map
clearly
calls
for
a
much
different
pocket
here.
Why
is
like?
When
did
that
happen,
and
why
is
that
I?
Try.
M
To
get
into
that,
but
it's
kind
of
hard
to
track
exactly
what
happened.
I
would
imagine
that
that
got
zone
RMF
35,
because
when
they
did
the
rezone
the
1995
free
zone,
they
were
trying
to
match
what
was
there
and
in
this
area
does
seem
to
have
a
some
multifamily
and
I.
Don't
know
why
they
decided
to
grab
the
whole
area
to
do
that
time.
I,
don't
know
if
that
helps
you.
This.
A
I
P
I
Peter
Curran
representing
the
owner
and
Trent
Saxons,
our
architect.
If
you
have
any
design
questions,
our
our
firm
purchased
the
property
as
Meyer
said
after
it
had
already
been
approved
for
a
five
unit
development
when
we
bought
it,
we
decided
that
seven
unit,
smaller
with
smaller
units,
would
be
a
more
appropriate
design
than
essentially
on
the
very
similar
footprint.
P
We
tried
to
design
a
project
that
had
a
courtyard
to
create
a
community
feel
for
the
for
the
project.
It's
also
environmentally
sustainable,
F,
solar
on
the
roof
and,
as
was
mentioned,
the
project
was
supported
at
the
community
council
meeting
under
the
current
RMF
35
zoning
that
the
height
allowed
can
be
a
three-story
building
with
with
a
35
foot
height
limit.
Our
proposed
project
is
twenty
seven
and
a
half
feet
high
with
the
two
storeys
under
the
under
the
RMF
35.
P
The
original
plan
had
a
less
than
a
10
foot
backyard
and
now
we're
greater
than
15
foot.
So
actually
the
yard
increased
and
then
I
know,
there's
been
concern
about
building
a
multi-family
project
in
the
neighborhood
within
three
blocks
of
this
property.
There
are
44
properties
with
four
or
more
units,
and
there
and
ten
of
those
properties
have
eight
or
more
units.
So,
as
was
mentioned,
this
is
or
this
neighborhood
does
have
multifamily
projects
in
it
and
the
original
project.
P
If
we
had
had
to
price
them,
they
would
have
been
higher
price
units,
and
so
we
thought
we
want
more
diversity
in
the
neighborhood.
So
we
went.
We
have
one
two
and
three-bedroom
projects.
They'll
have
different
price
points,
so
we
can
have
you
know
single
people
couples
families,
also
the
project's
being
built
as
condominiums,
so
they
can
be
for
sale
units,
which
generally
means
you
try
to
build
them
at
a
higher
quality.
P
I
know
parking
has
also
been
an
issue
with
some
of
the
neighbors
that
will
have
8/8
garages
with
the
driveways.
You
could
fit
probably
for
another
four
to
eight
cars.
If
you
wanted
we're,
also
willing
to
add
another,
you
know
in
spot,
if
that's
a
concern
for
the
neighborhood
to
add
one
more
offs
offsite
parking,
although
it
would
be
uncovered
so.
The
Planning
Commission
also
made
some
recommendations
to
the
to
the
approval.
We
are
fine
with
number
one
which
which
asked
for
some
canapes
and
Stoops
for
the
for
the
front
porches.
P
We
do
have
a
little
bit
of
concern
on
recommendation
number
two,
which
was
to
have
the
doorways
on
Cleveland
Avenue,
be
the
primary
entrances
because
we're
trying
to
create
this
courtyard
feel
and
have
the
the
people
engage
with
each
other
within
the
buildings.
Although
we
believe
that
we
can,
we
still
have
doors
on
Cleveland
Avenue.
We
can
make
those
secondary
entrances
rather
than
just
basically
back
porch
entrances,
so
we're
willing.
P
A
P
O
D
So,
on
those
doors
to
Cleveland
Avenue,
one
of
the
things
at
least
to
not
make
them
look
like
a
back
door
to
have
some
sort
of
entrance
features,
whether
it
be
a
light
and
a
little
portico
or
whatnot
would
be
something
that
gives
it
that
interactive
feel
whether
or
not
then
they
still
go
to
the
courtyard
to
interact
with
each
other
is
great.
We're.
O
D
D
P
B
If
you
have
a
door
that
sort
of
thinks
it's
the
front
door,
it's
not
a
front
door,
it's
a
very
confusing
thing
for
visitors,
you
know
and
Halloween
trick
or
treaters,
and
everybody
else
and
I
think
it's
a
common
building
pattern
to
have
a
courtyard
that
has
all
of
these
entrances
into
it,
and
it
does
help
to
create
that
as
a
specific
sense
of
place.
So
so
I
would
not
be
in
favor
of
changing
this.
So
there
would
be
a
kind
of
you
know:
out-of-left-field
front
door
on
Cleveland.
F
B
Think
I
think
you
have
to
recognize
that
this
is
a
different
type
ology
than
the
different
building
type
than
the
kinds
of
things
that
we've
been
talking
about.
It
actually
creates
its
own
sort
of
space.
That
is
what
we
call
semi-private,
so
you
go
from
me
from
a
public
space
to
assess
actually
more
of
a
semi
Pub
semi
public
space,
and
therefore
people
are
more
willing
to
spend
their
time
in
that
space.
It's
just
like
the
front.
Porch
is
your
semi
public
space.
B
This
is
the
front
porch
of
all
of
those
channels,
and
so
it
becomes
it
becomes
everybody
sitting
on
their
front
porch,
you
know
enjoying
each
other's
company,
whereas
with
you
have
scattered
doors
around
the
outside
that
conflicts
with
with
creating
this
kind
of
this
kind
of
space.
On
the
internal
courtyard
of
the
building.
Well,.
F
Again,
I
appreciate
that.
So
thank
you
for
that.
But
can
we
talk
then
again,
I
don't
have
the
experience
you
do,
but
are
there
for
pedestrians
going
along
both
sides?
Are
there
things
we
can
do
so,
there's
more
engagement
for
pedestrians
or
do
you
feel
like
these?
The
renderings
are
being
that
kind
of
engagement,
I.
Think.
B
That
makes
it
very
tough
the
the
problem.
One
of
the
problems
is
that
there's
streets
on
all
three
sides
of
this
thing,
so
it
becomes.
Where
do
you
even
even
have
a
back
door?
You
know
you
don't
even
have
a
place
to
come
in
and
out
so
I
think
all
of
these
things
are
going
to
be
a
compromise
one
way
or
the
other.
I
O
We
do
have
one
entrance
off
of
fourth
east
and
then
we
do
have
one
garage
side
there.
So
there
is
an
entrance,
so
there
will
be
an
entry
door
coming
off
of
there,
so
it
will
feel
like
an
entrance
you'll
be
able
to
see
that
front
right.
Okay,
yeah
it'll,
look
a
little
bit
more
like
a
front,
but
the
main
entrance
will
be
around
in
the
course
other.
O
P
O
O
O
A
Any
other
questions
for
the
applicant
at
this
time:
okay,
seeing
none
I'll,
ask
you
to
step
back.
Thank
you.
It
will
now
move
to
the
public
hearing
portion.
So
just
a
reminder,
if
you
haven't
filled
out
a
card
but
would
like
to
speak,
please
feel
free
to
do
so.
If
you
don't
want
to
fill
out
a
card
but
still
want
to
speak,
that's
still.
Okay,
too,
when
you
come
up,
please
speak
into
the
microphone
and
state
your
name
for
the
record,
so
we
have
that
you'll
have
two
minutes
to
speak.
A
If
anyone
here
is
representing
the
Community
Council
you'll
have
five
minutes
to
speak
on
behalf
of
the
Community
Council
I
also
just
want
to
emphasize
that
there
are
three
items
before
us
on
this
matter:
we've
got
a
zoning
map
and
then
a
master
plan
amendment
and
a
zoning
map
amendment
those
both
go
to
the
City
Council
for
final
decision.
We
are
here
to
make
a
recommendation
to
the
City
Council.
A
The
only
decision
that
we
will
make
tonight
has
to
do
with
the
request
for
a
Planned
Unit
development
regarding
the
setbacks,
so
I
will
call
the
names
off
of
the
card
one
by
one
and
then
I'll
open
it
up.
If
there's
anybody
else
who
remains
in
the
audience
and
would
like
to
speak
so,
the
first
card
I
have
is
and
I
apologize
if
I
mispronounced
your
name
Leonard
brows,.
Q
Good
evening,
thank
you,
I
would
like
to
first
state
your
name.
My
name
is
Leonard.
Brows
I
would
first
of
all
like
to
pose
a
question
to
you.
Have
you
ever
heard
anyone
say
I
want
my
dream
house
built
next
to
an
apartment
building.
This
is
what
you're
doing
to
us.
I
lived
in
my
place,
I'm
catty-corner
to
this
property
for
10
years
and
I
built
and
I
bought
this
house,
because
it
was
in
a
very
quiet,
old,
neighborhood
single
families
almost
exclusively
and
now.
Q
We're
gonna
have
tons
of
noise
pollution,
light
pollution,
garage
doors,
opening
and
shutting
day
and
night,
and
if
everyone
has,
for
example,
two
kids
and
two
dogs,
can
you
imagine
the
noise?
This
is
gonna,
make
it's
and
the
parking.
If
you've
ever
driven
down
Cleveland,
you
can
barely
get
two
cars
at
the
same
time,
usually
you
have
to
pull
over
and
wait.
Til
one
goes
and
then
the
other
one.
This
is
a
nightmare
now.
Another
thing
is
the
alley:
Parvez
Rafa
Rafa.
Q
He
spoke
with
me
and
he
and
many
times
we
talked
about
this
because
he
said
the
city
has
no
budget
for
fixing
the
alleys
or
doing
anything
to
him.
There's
no
budget
and
the
city
does
own
this
Elliot
that
was
checked
out
by
him
and
I
managed
to
get
him
to
fill
a
few
of
potholes
a
couple
years
ago,
and
he
had
to
use
used
asphalt
because
he
said
the
city
has
no
budget
for
new
new
asphalt
and
they
should
not
be
allowed
to
have
people
coming
in
and
out
of
this
alley.
Q
There
should
be
a
fence
there
if
they
have
to
build
this
thing
at
all.
I
think
the
zoning
should
be
for
single
families,
which
is
what
was
there
in
the
first
place,
and
that's
why
we
all
live
in
our
neighborhood,
because
it's
a
quiet,
nice
place
and
this
is
going
to
destroy
it.
So
you're
lining
the
pockets
of
these
people
who
own
this
place
and
you're
taking
from
us,
because
it
devalues
our
desirability
and
and
the
property
values
of
our
neighborhood
and
so
to
line
these
pockets
you're
ruining
our
neighborhood.
Q
A
A
A
C
C
Ben
Peterson
I,
live
on
372
Cleveland
Avenue
right
across
from
the
property
I
would
I
would
first
say
that
our
street
is
maybe
23
feet
wide
and
I.
Would
echo
past
comments
that
you
cannot
get
two
cars
down
the
street
at
the
same
time,
if
there
are
people
parked
on
that
street,
now
add
on
to
that,
you
know
family
gatherings,
parties
thing
things
that
people
have
in
a
community,
that's
going
to
make
it
next
to
impossible
to
get
down.
C
Cleveland
Avenue
I
would
also
ask
miss
Shearer
the
whole
community
that
whole
neighborhood
is
a
community
facing
the
doors
inward
to
create
their
own
private
space.
That
alienates
the
rest
of
the
community
and
that's
not
why
we
live
there.
We
live
in
that
community
because
we
are
a
community
of
neighbors.
We
are
friends,
we
don't
you
know
we
would
like
to
be
part
of
this
community.
We
don't
want
this
built
are
in
our
opinion.
C
This
street
cannot
sustain
this,
and
if
you
are
to
build
this
than
to
face,
all
of
the
entrances
inside
would
alienate
two
streets.
It
would
alienate
fourth
east
and
it
would
alienate
Cleveland
Avenue,
and
we
are
part
of
that
community
and,
if
you're
going
to
put
something
like
this
in
our
community,
they
should
be
part
of
our
community,
not
the
other
way
around.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
I
A
I
Assuming
that's
correct
its
two
additional
families
that
can
afford
to
own
a
home
in
our
city.
That's
two:
two
housing
units
that
can
help
solve
this
housing
crisis
and
city
currently
faces
the
issues
of
parking.
I.
Think
they've
got
eight
parking
spots
off
off
the
street
for
seven
units.
If
that's
not
enough,
I,
don't
know
what
will
be
I,
don't
know
if
they
need
their
own
parking
deck
or
what
but
yep
just
supporting
this
good
and
I
think
smart
development
and
that's
it
Thanks
great.
A
R
My
name
is
George
Chapman
Commission
members
I
urge
you
not
to
approve
this
project.
Peter
Kroon
is
a
great
developer.
I've
worked
with
him
for
almost
ten
years
he's
been
fantastic.
The
problem
is,
in
my
opinion,
this
is
a
quiet
neighborhood
that
is
slowly
returning
to
normal
after
some
really
bad
times,
and
trying
to
increase
density
to
extra
units
even
to
extra
units
is
actually
going
to
be
an
imposition
on
the
neighborhood.
It's
going
to
discourage
people
from
staying
in
the
neighborhood
and
investing
in
the
neighborhood
and
in
particular,
the
parking
issue.
R
The
next
agenda
item
has
a
report
that
says
the
average
multifamily.
U,
residential
development
has
about
1.6
parking
stalls
per
unit.
This
doesn't
even
have
that
and
that's
important
because,
even
though
the
adjacent
neighbors,
no
one
owns
the
street
parking,
this
is
going
to
be
imposing
more
parking
on
the
residents
in
that
area
that
discourages
long
term
investment
in
the
area.
That's
wrong.
In
addition,
the
most
important
thing,
even
though
it's
on
the
next
agenda
item
the
FB
un1
zoning
is
specifically
tailored
by
this
city
to
apply
directly
next
to
transit
rail
transit
stations.
R
So
this
is
a
misuse
of
the
zoning
that
was
supposed
to
be
for
transit
stations
right
next
to
transit
stations,
Jefferson
Street
on
ninth,
south
and
sugar
house.
That's
it
it
wasn't
supposed
to
be
used
anyplace
else,
so
I
urge
you
not
to
approve
this
project
because
of
the
parking
issue
because
of
the
increase
in
density
and
a
stable
neighborhood
we're
trying
to
protect
at
the
character
of
that
neighborhood
and
because
of
the
parking
issues
which
negatively
impact
adjacent
neighbors.
Thank
you
for
listening.
R
A
C
Josh
Newton
I
live
kitty-corner
to
this
lot
and
I'm
in
opposition
of
it.
I
just
wanted
to
talk
about
the
setbacks
with
the
changes.
I
live
on
that
corner
and
my
house
is
approximately
about
10
feet
off
the
road
and
we
change
it
into
five
feet.
I'm
already
that
much
closer
to
the
road
I
can
hear
the
cars
I
can
fill
them
so
by
putting
in
five
feet-
and
that's
just
it's
too
close
for
you
know-
for
people
to
live
in
also
I
also
want
to
talk
about
bandwidth
that
interior
courtyard
yeah.
C
This
is
a
we.
Our
community
is
very
tight.
We,
you
know
a
lot
of
people,
it's
very
walkable
everyone's
walking
their
dogs,
but
turning
all
those
people
inside
to
those
courtyards.
That's
going
to
a
lien
em
from
this.
You
know
not,
you
know,
I'm
not
going
to
go
in
there.
I'm
going
to
walk
by
people
have
on
that
Street.
So
you
know,
I'd
like
to
you
know,
agree
with
ban
on
that.
We
should
have
them
facing
out
on
4th
and
on
Cleveland,
but
also
Cleveland
is
a
very
narrow
street.
It's
only
23
feet
wide.
C
We
already
change
the
parking
to
be
on
one
side
due
to
that.
If
you
have
two
cars,
you
cannot
get
a
car
down
that
road,
so
by
already
eliminated
half
the
street
parking
on
that
that's
going
to
be
a
concern,
even
though
they
do
have
driveways,
with
the
setback
of
only
being
10
feet.
I,
don't
know
many
people
that
have
you
know
we
have
one
Mini
Cooper
in
our
neighborhood
that
can
park
in
that
spot.
You
know,
that's
not
really
a
useable
spot.
C
It's
going
to
hang
over
the
sidewalk,
which
is
going
to
put
people
under
the
street
that
they
go
around
it
on
Cleveland,
which
is
a
it
passed
through
between
third
and
fourth
and
it's
not
a
slow
street
I've
constantly
tell
people
to
slow
down
on
that
street
because
they're,
speeding
and
ripping
down
that
street.
So
you
know
that
Street
is
not
any
slower
than
fourth.
Fourth
might
actually
be
safer
because
it's
so
much
wider.
You
know
we
have
kids
in
neighborhood
and
you
know
what
that
many
more
cars
it's
going
to
be
with
kids
playing.
S
One
of
my
concerns
is
how
many
bedrooms
are
there,
because
we
have
a
four
unit
just
between
me
and
them
they
had
11
cars
parked
between
the
four
on
the
street
and
the
seven
in
back
with
one
empty
space
when
I
walked
by
the
other
night.
There
were
ten
the
other
day
when
I
walked
by
that
were
associated
with
the
same
building.
So
you
know
if
they
add
two
units.
S
How
many
bedrooms
is
that
so
that
could
be
a
car
for
every
bedroom,
so
the
parking
like
everybody
else
says
on
Cleveland,
there's,
basically
no
parking,
it's
very
difficult
for
me
to
drive
my
vehicle
in
and
out
up
and
down
the
street,
because
I
have
a
big
truck,
so
the
parking
is
absolutely
a
very
critical
issue,
because
if
there
is
no
parking
there,
another
issue
is
going
to
be
snow.
Removal
with
the
five
foot
setback,
there's
no
place
to
put
the
snow
on
the
south
side
of
the
street
and
then
being
on
the
north.
S
There's
going
to
be
issues
with
them,
clearing
their
driveways
they're
little
ports.
You
know
the
things
out
the
side
there
if
they
put
any
kind
of
fence
up
that,
isn't
you
can't
put
the
shove
the
snow
through,
there's
gonna
be
nowhere
to
put
snow.
It's
going
to
be
hard
for
me
to
get
out
the
alley
because
of
the
limited
there,
the
setbacks
I,
you
can't
already
can't
see
going
in
and
out
of
there.
So
when
people
are
driving
up
and
down,
you
can't
see.
That's
another
issue,
there's
a
lot
of
issues.
S
I
don't
have
enough
time
to
speak.
Poor
I
believe
it's
Andrew
and
Adrian,
who
are
next
to
the
building.
They're
gonna
have
no
Sun
in
their
house.
They're
gonna
have
seven
air-conditioning
units
going
all
summer
long
and,
like
everybody
else,
says
it's
a
quiet.
Neighborhood
you
put
that
giant.
20
foot
wall
five
feet
from
Cleveland,
which
is
very
near
street
sun-blasted
on
there
it's
gonna
bad
idea.
Don't
do
it!
Thank.
E
My
name
is
Jason
rope,
shot
and
I'm.
Also
a
Blair
Street
resident
homeowner
I'm,
an
opposition
of
the
development
I,
do
appreciate
smart
design
and
the
restrictions
under
the
current
RMF
35,
moderate
density.
Zoning
I
think
is
appropriate
for
that
lot.
Size,
everybody's
and
in
all
of
the
neighbors
are
considering
the
parking,
which
is
an
issue,
but
there
are
bigger
issues
that
aren't
being
talked
about
yet
one
of
them
being
the
recycling
program.
That's
all
lake
city
is
imposing
on
for
unit
or
more
developments.
E
Currently
there's
nowhere
for
the
dumpsters
to
get
picked
up
on
this
current
design.
With
that
interior
yard
setback,
it
will
cause
a
big
issue
if
it's
not
extended
further
east
don
brought
up
a
good
point
that
the
telephone
pole,
that's
not
being
shown
on
the
plans
if
moved
further
north
will
be
in
his
parking
lot.
E
E
S
My
name's
Ken
Rosa
I
live
on
fourth
east,
my
wife
and
I
moved
in
there
ten
years
ago.
I
think
everyone
on
this
board
and
everyone
in
the
City
Council
should
go
down
and
look
at
Cleveland
Street.
It
is
a
pinch,
as
everyone
said.
Two
cars
cannot
go
by
if
we
all
lived
at
14:30
South
just
for
imagination
right
here.
We'd
all
have
the
same.
Wish
we'd
wish
there'd
be
a
single
dwelling
house.
That's
probably
not
gonna
happen.
It's
probably
going
to
be
a
five
unit,
which
means
more
of
everything.
S
Right
say:
you
live
in
our
neighborhood,
more
cars,
more
parties,
more
noise,
less
intimacy,
two
more
units,
more
of
everything
we
have
an
alleyway,
that's
used,
it's
quiet,
it's
quaint!
That's
intimate
and
clean.
What's
going
to
happen
to
that
alleyway,
when
how
many
more
cars
are
there
with
seven
units,
twenty
cars
a
day,
racing
down
that
alleyway
I,
don't
know
they
probably
will
we
have
children?
We
have
cats,
we
have
dogs,
I'm,
not
sure.
If
there's
much,
we
can
do
about
it.
S
That
from
perspective
the
perspective,
if
this
was
your
neighborhood
and
you
could
not
stop
a
five-unit,
you
are
changing,
it
is
low
density
on
this
card.
Seven
units
is
medium
density,
at
least
keep
it
low
density
five
units,
so
we
have
a
little
bit
less
of
everything
in
our
quiet
neighborhood.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
O
O
We
would
like
to
see
it
face
outward
towards
the
greater
community
and
also
the
way
the
garages
are
designed
doesn't
fit
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
as
well.
Most
of
the
parking
is
in
the
side
or
rear
yard
in
this
neighborhood,
even
in
a
lot
of
the
existing
multifamily
dwellings
that
were
given
as
examples.
So
this
design
of
having
the
parking
directly
on
the
street
is
is
very
different
than
the
character
of
what's
already
in
the
neighborhood.
O
A
A
A
Okay,
I
have
a
few
cards
from
individuals
who
don't
wish
to
speak.
I
wanted
to
submit
comments,
so
I
will
read
them.
One
is
from
Danielle
Bain
Smith
she's
opposed
as
a
resident
since
2013.
This
is
bad
for
single-family
residence.
It
will
increase
congestion
in
the
small
neighborhood
street.
It
will
also
create
parking
problems
on
narrow
streets
and
nearby
alleys.
Other
nearby
developments
have
been
changing.
Single-Family
residence
to
MFR
enough
is
enough.
It
is
taking
away
from
the
neighborhood
character.
H
Yeah
we
sent
in
a
letter
about
the
asking
for
slanted
roofs
and
a
lot
of
the
plan.
You
know
we
had
met
with
Peter
a
year
ago
and
saw
the
five
unit
plan,
and
so
some
of
the
changes
from
five
to
seven,
some
of
the
changes
I
liked
it's
more
feet
off
of
our
fence,
but
some
of
the
things
I'm
hearing
tonight,
I've
I
hadn't,
thought
about
in
five
feet
off
of
Cleveland
I
hadn't
thought
about
that.
I
was
thinking
about
my
fence.
H
I'll
be
honest,
is
tight
and
it's
my
kids
that
run
along
that
road.
That
Jeff
or
Josh
said
you
know
I
hadn't
thought
about
I,
just
hadn't
pictured
that
I
guess
for
some
reason
and
there's
gonna
be
seven
times.
Three
trash
cans
out.
21
I
just
feel
like.
Maybe
we're
trying
to
do
too
much
here
in
this
space
and
I
know
something's
going
to
happen,
but
is
two
more
units
really
going
to
solve?
H
A
C
Name
is
Ryan
wacker,
Lee
and
I
live
across
the
street
from
this
unit
or
this
potential
unit.
I
would
just
like
to
point
out
someone
stated
earlier
that
there
are
going
to
be
eight
garages
or
on-site
parking,
but
I'd
like
to
point
out
a
2017
study
by
the
United
States
Transportation
Department
that
states
that
the
average
single-family
home
has
one
point:
eight
cars
on
average,
so
that
means
most
people
probably
have
more
than
one
car.
So
we
could
probably
potentially
see
a
major
parking
problem
here.
Tall
I
wanted
to
say:
okay.
A
A
I
G
There
are
these
unusual
blocks
similar
to
this
particular
one
on
Cleveland
in
the
city
that
generally
were
kind
of
leftover
pieces
and
were
developed
after
the
neighborhood
around
them,
and
sometimes
it
just
kind
of
happened
and
and
when,
when
the
the
width
that
was,
there
was
probably
already
plaited,
and
so
we
were
just
kind
of
left
with
what
we
have
and
if
we
put
Park
strips
in
then
then
the
street
basically
doesn't
become
a
street
at
all.
So
it's
it's
it's
unusual,
but
it
also
happens
throughout
the
city
in
these
older
neighborhoods.
A
M
M
Rmf
35
front
is
20
feet,
corner
is
10
in
interior
is
10
and
in
the
rear,
is
25
percent
of
the
lot
depth,
but
not
no
less
than
20
and
no
more
than
25.
The
difference
is
how
the
setbacks
were
designated
in
the
RMF
35
and
now
how
they're
being
designated
the
initial
plan.
If
you
look
there's
just
one
building
in
this
one
there's
two
buildings
right:
they
have
different
setbacks,
can.
P
B
P
G
I
can
wait.
You
know
that
part
of
the
issue
is
that
at
10
feet
those
driveways,
basically
and
I-
think
there
was
a
comment
that
was
said
about
this
earlier.
Is
that
any
vehicle
parking
that
driveways
gonna
block
the
sidewalk
and
because
of
the
nature
of
the
street
we
we
felt
like
it
was?
It
would
be
safer
to
have
the
buildings
close
to
the
street
so
that
cars
couldn't
park.
G
B
G
G
Stall
is
about
20
feet
and
dive,
and
so,
if
it's
not
going
to,
if
when
it's
between
like
close
to
10
feet
in,
but
not
quite
20
cars,
where
that
happens
in
the
city,
cars
are
always
not
always
but
typically
Oh
crossing
the
sidewalk.
So
we
want
to
try
to
avoid
that
in
this
situation,
because
they
were
going
through
a
planned
development.
We
felt
pushing
the
building
further
to
the
south,
helped
address
that
problem
and
also
maintained
a
bigger
separation
from
the
next-door
neighbor
to
the
north.
A
P
You
know
and
I
think
a
lot
of
the
issues
brought
up
we're
gonna
be
issues
under
the
current
zoning
and
the
project
that
was
previously
designed
under
this
project
will
have
two
more
bedrooms
total
for
the
project,
not
just
two
more
units,
but
just
two
more
bedrooms.
So
you
know
it's
it's
not
that
much
bigger
a
project.
As
you
know,
people
might
think
it
is
so.
F
P
P
M
So
the
purpose
statement
off
the
FB
doesn't
mention
rail,
it
does
mention
and
let
me
pull
it
up
and
I
was
on
something
else.
It
does
mention
transportation
options,
so
it
says
the
purpose
of
the
forum
based
district
is
to
create
urban
neighborhoods
that
provide
the
following
and
there's
a
bunch
and
number
four
is
transportation
options
it
right
now
it
is
located
where
rail
is,
but
there's
nothing
in
the
chapter
of
the
form-based
district
that
limits
this
district
to
where
those
real
lines.
I
G
G
I
Have
in
those
districts
that's
why,
as
well,
I'm
least
in
the
central
ninth:
you
have
this
higher
density
housing
area
around.
What
is
residential
in
other
areas
right
around
it
right,
so
it
is,
it
does
talk
in
the
zoning
district
about
this
being
transitory
between
residential
use
and
a
more
dense
area,
at
least
and
sorry
anyway.
That's
probably
it
seems
like
it
would
be
in
that
areas
similar
to
which
I
find
is
really
interesting,
unique
and
odd
that
this
Liberty
Wells
is
RMF
35
and
the
middle
of
such
a
big.
G
G
E
A
couple
months
ago
we
saw
a
proposed
change,
and
I
actually
don't
know,
happened
to
that
to
the
RMF
30
text,
which
seems
like
it
would
allow.
This
is
35,
obviously,
but
it
seems
like
it
would
allow
things
similar
to
what
is
being
proposed
in
this
project.
Those
are
just
two
different
tools
that
we
currently
have,
that
we're
using
to
try
and
make
a
dent
in
the
housing
is
that
the
cities
in.
G
A
M
C
F
But
I
do
have
a
comment.
I
want
a
lot
of
the
people
who
are
here
to
understand
that
a
number
of
the
commissioners
actually
went
out.
We
drove
Cleveland,
we
saw
the
site
so
as
we're
making
decisions
tonight
you
need
to
know
that
we've
been
there
and
we've
been
there
today,
so
we
we're
trying
to
do
our
due
diligence
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that's
on
record.
Thank
I.
M
Do
you
want
to
make
a
clarification
before
you
make
a
motion
on
an
ad
or
in
the
condition?
Okay,
the
primary
door
has
to
be
facing
the
street
and
that's
a
requirement
of
the
FB
un1
staff
found
that
that
door
didn't
feel
like
a
primary
door.
A
door
has
to
be
there.
You
may
think
that
that
door
meets
the
standard,
but
we
do
need
the
doors
facing
both
streets
and
then
the
same
goes
for
the
ones
facing
400
East.
M
A
M
And
then
just
one
thing
they
did
mentioned
that
landscaping
wasn't
included,
they
have
a
pretty
basic
landscaping
proposal
that
could
change,
but
they
did
have
turf
and
that
met
the
standards
and
just
one
more
thing
was
the
approval,
clarification
that
someone
asked
the
does.
The
what
you
were
looking
at
today
is
changing.
The
zoning
district
would
would
which
would
allow
two
more
units
and
then
approving
the
setbacks.
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
clear,
correct.
Well,
you
were
to
be
approving
the
zone.
You
would
recommend
approval.
G
Yes,
yes,
you
can
yeah
real
quick
I
wanted
to
actually
read
the
landscape
buffer
thing.
Just
so
it's
clear,
that's
in
the
RMF
35
zone
and
what
it
says
is
that,
where
a
lot
of
butts
a
lot
in
a
single
family
or
two
family
residential
district,
a
landscape
buffer
she'll
be
provided
in
accordance
with
the
landscape
chapter,
which
says
I
think
it
says
ten
feet
in
this
case.
This
lot
does
not
abut
a
lot.
That's
in
a
one.
A
G
D
Yeah
I
think
that
we
think
about
these
things
a
lot
and
we
take
them
all
of
the
things
we
hear
into
consideration.
I
actually
drove
out
there
Sunday
morning
at
9:00
a.m.
because
I
felt
like
that
was
a
good
time
to
somewhat
capture
what
the
parking
is
going
on.
I
also
drove
out
there
again
Monday
morning
on
my
way
to
work.
D
Honestly
wonder
if
Cleveland
would
even
see
a
parking
impact,
because
people
would
probably
just
go
out
to
forth
East,
because
it's
right
on
the
corner-
and
there
was
plenty
of
off
street
parking
on
4th
East
both
times
that
I
went
by
to
try
to
get
an
understanding
of
how
that
Street
is
operating
and
I.
Think
that
I
hope
the
residents
know
that
you
know
I.
Think
about
these
things
in
a
relationship
to
to
to
how
the
experiences
that
I've
been
having
and
I've
lived
in.
D
My
house
for
20-plus
years
and
I
live
in
an
RMF
35
with
apartments
that
have
been
built
in
those
last
that
last
time
frame
those
two
decades
and
across
the
street
for
me,
already
existed.
A
two-story
apartment
and
a
three-story
condo
and
I've
never
had
a
problem
with
them.
To
assume
that
somebody
who
is
in
a
multi-family
dwelling
doesn't
have
kids
or
cats
or
dogs
isn't
always
accurate
because
they
want
to
have
a
good
neighborhood
too,
and
I've
literally
never
had
a
problem
with
them.
D
Our
off
street
parking
has
started
to
become
maxed
out,
so
so
eventually
that
that
our
concerns,
but
the
nature
of
my
neighborhood
has
changed
and
that
there's
more
people
there
I
interact
with
more
people.
They
walk
on
my
street,
more
I,
see
them
walking
their
dogs,
I
kind
of
get
to
know
them
and
and
I
don't
have
problems
with
noise
I've
in
22
years,
there's
been
one
tenant
across
the
street
who
got
evicted
in
less
than
seven
months
because
of
noise,
because
we
all
didn't
like
that.
D
I've
never
had
a
problem
with
parties,
except
for
that
one
person
and
I
live
right
by
Westminster
College.
So
you
would
think
that
we
would
be
a
party
central
and
we're
really
not
so
so.
I
just
I
always
grapple
with
the
assumptions
of
what
something
will
bring.
Investment
in
my
neighborhood
has
just
continued
to
grow
and
grow
and
grow
so
I
I
don't
know
that
we
can
blanketly
assume
a
lot
of
those
type
of
impacts.
D
I'm
not
saying
that
cannot
occur,
but
with
the
fact
that
they
would
be
condos
would
because
sometimes
the
apartment
unit
is
as
good
as
the
management
or
as
bad
as
the
management.
So
if
there
are
condos,
there
is
an
added
layer
of
control
over
who's
there
and
and
how
they're,
interacting
with
the
neighborhood
and
so
I,
feel
like
that
is
an
additional
safety
net
for
the
neighborhood
of
who
maybe
then
setting
up
their
home
there
and
how
they
want
to
interact
with
the
neighborhood
and
so
I.
D
Don't
I,
just
I
wanted
to
have
these
comments
out
there,
because
I
want
the
neighbors
to
to
hopefully
feel
that
these
are
things
that
you
know
I've
been
thinking
of
for
the
last
four
days
and
trying
to
go
out
there
at
various
times
in
different
days,
to
really
get
an
understanding
of
how
that
that
feels.
If
all
of
the
parking
were
focused
on
Cleveland,
that
would
absolutely
not
work.
I
I
am
I,
do
have
a
concern
about
reducing
that
setback
further
garage.
D
D
I
have
to
go
kind
of
over
into
the
little
pathway
to
the
building
next
out
to
behind
me,
and
so
I
do
wonder
about
the
ability
for
cars
who
park
in
the
garage,
not
in
that
10-foot
area
to
be
able
to
have
enough
room
to
back
out
when
I
went
there
Sunday
there
was
only
one
car
parked
on
Cleveland
on
the
south
side
in
that
front
section
and
meaning
the
one
off
of
fourth
east.
When
I
drove
by
Monday
there
was
no
car
there.
D
So
I
guess
it
is
a
question
of
how
much
how
much
parking
is
actually
having
it
on
Cleveland
on
the
south
side.
Will
that
affect
the
ability
for
those
vehicles
to
back
out
safely
and
I?
Didn't
see
a
huge
load
of
parking
on
Cleveland
on
that
section
because
they
can
only
park
on
the
south
side.
So
I'm
wondering
about
a
potential.
D
G
D
A
very
good
point:
that's
just
one
thought
I
had
in
a
relationship
to
how
I've
noticed
my
particular
shortened
approach.
Wait
in
my
garage
in
where
I
have
a
little
difficulty
getting
out
depending
on
how
what's
happening,
but
yeah.
Those
are.
Those
are
really
my.
My
thoughts.
I
was
hoping
with
the
alley,
because,
even
though
you
don't
own
it,
you
still
can
pave
it
and
that.
D
The
HOA
would
also
take
on
continued
maintenance
of
that
alley
for
that
section
to
keep
that
in
good
repair.
I
do
really
appreciate
the
that
you
have
three
bedrooms,
that
does
it
a
rare.
We
don't
see
a
lot
of
projects
coming
before
us
with
three
bedroom
options,
which
is
a
draw
for
families,
because
people
who
have
children,
they're
they're,
not
finding,
though
so
I
appreciate
that
option,
because
we're
not
seeing
that
very
much
in
the
city
at
all
in
these
type
of
projects.
But
thank.
F
I
want
to
bring
up
one
other
thing.
I
know
we
talked
about
this
little
courtyard
and
all
the
doors
inside
I
admire
this.
The
community
message.
These
people
feel
like
they
have
a
good
community
and
they
are
there
calling
each
other
by
name
they
it's
walkable
they.
You
know
they're
they're,
feeling
excluded
from
this.
That
I
think
there's
something
commendable.
That
they're
here
saying
we
want.
If,
if
something's
going
in
here,
we
want
it
to
be
part
of
our
community
I,
don't
I,
don't
know.
F
Yeah
I
mean
this
is
a
tiny
little
courtyard
I,
don't
know
that
I
buy
it's
to
build
community
when
you're,
excluding
everybody
around
you,
so
whether
it
is
that
was
their
intention
or
not
I,
don't
know
if
that's
really
helping
these
neighbors
become
members
of
the
neighborhood.
It's
and-
and
that
reinforces
the
concept
of
that.
This
commission
and
the
city
really
wants
war
fronts
on
the
street,
so
I
know
we
can't
do
it
on
some
of
these
units
with
the
way
they
the
dry.
F
I
F
E
E
B
B
O
In
one
issue
that
we
had
with,
that
is
along
the
north
side
of
this,
we
do
have
a
five-foot
utility,
easement
and
so
trying
to
do
anything
over
the
top
of
that.
That's
why
we're
trying
to
keep
that
all
all
green
space?
Okay,
so
if
that
does
have
to
be
torn
up,
then
you're
tearing
up
grass
and
not
asphalt.
Okay,.
B
A
B
Do
want
to
point
out
to
everyone
that
the
Liberty
Wells
community
council
did
support
this
application
and
they
had
they
met
with
the
the
applicant
at
a
special
meeting
and
it
was
well
attended
and,
although
nobody's
hear
from
them
from
there,
I
do
want
to
point
that
out.
We
we
have
in
addition
to
your
testimony.
We
have
letters
quite
a
few
letters,
some
of
them
from
you,
which
is
great.
A
I
I
E
F
You
know
it
allows
for
those
three
units
to
have
some
kind
of
engagement
with
the
street,
but
where
we
have
two
others
that
face
400
East,
oh
I,
guess
one
other
that
would
face
400
East
and
you
know
I,
don't
know
how
to
do
it
with
the
garage
right
there,
but
so
I,
don't
like
it.
I,
don't
like
it,
but.
F
So
you
know,
but
I,
don't
I
don't
see
another
solution,
although
I,
that's
not
my
job,
it's
not
I'm,
not
gonna
redesign.
The
thing,
that's
not
my
job,
but
yeah
I,
don't
like
it.
It
makes
me
uncomfortable
and
I
see
why
the
neighbors
are
here.
I,
see
why
they're
uncomfortable
this
really
does
an
exclusion
you
know
excludes,
excludes
everybody
and
that
that's
bothersome
for
a
neighborhood
that
feels
walkable
and
enjoyable
I
mean
as
we
drove
through
it
today.
F
It's
a
comfortable
neighborhood,
there's,
there's
a
number
of
multifamily
units
in
the
neighborhood,
so
I
feel
like
that's
okay,
but
you
know
that
part
doesn't
bother
me
it's.
How
are
we
having
this
multi-family
unit
engage
with
the
streets,
engage
with
the
neighbors
who
are
on
those
streets?
It's
and
we
have
three
sides
where
they
can
be
engaging
and
I
feel
like
sending
everybody.
Inward
is
the
wrong
message.
It's
it
really
is.
We
can't
give
all
these
neighbors
everything
they
want,
but
that
I
think
we
should
be
asking
for
something
more
and.
H
Also
I
also
kind
of
echo
your
comments,
Sara.
That
I
mean
I
appreciate
the
work.
It's
a
very
nicely
laid
out
project,
and
has
you
know
nice
renderings,
but
I
think
when
the
word
you
know
kind
of
facing
in
was
pronounced
is
when
I
thought
well,
if
it's
kind
of
facing
in
then
something
must
be
facing
out
and
like
we
heard
from
the
community
here
they
are
a
very
you
know,
a
social
community
and
they
they
do
things
together.
H
I
B
I
I
think
it
becomes
schizophrenic
in
that.
Where
is
the
front
entrance?
Is
the
front
entrance
in
the
courtyard
or
is
the
front
entrance
on
on
the
front
of
the
building?
So
now
you're
now
you're
asking
somebody
anybody
approaching
this
thing
to
make
a
decision
you
can
have
you
know
some
anyone
come
to
your
door,
which
you
think
is
your
back
door,
which
is
now
your
front
door
or
is
it
your
back
door?
We
don't
know-
and
this
is
a
this-
is
actually
the
like.
B
B
You
know
they
just
have
a
door
and
at
the
most
they'll
have
a
something
over
the
door,
but
they
won't
have
that
that
sense
of
being
part
being
out
out
in
the
street
and
not
yet
and
yet
not
out
in
the
street.
This
difference
between
you
know
taking
them
lawn,
chair
and
sitting
on
the
edge
of
your
lawn
and
sitting
on
your
front
porch,
it's
a
it's
a
feeling.
So
this
is
a
this
proof.
You
have
the
doors
inside
the
courtyard
it's
a
feeling
of
having
a
semi
protected
space.
B
A
M
I
A
I
Why
I
keep
coming
back?
I
mean
I
really
feel
for
the
neighborhood,
but
like
and
I
would
be,
but
it
the
current
zone
allows
for
this
as
being
as
developed
in
the
same
context
and
I
and
I
do
think
with
and
I
guess.
I'll
come
down,
I'm
pretty
to
probably
support
the
project
because
it
because
you
have
a
known
that
has
more
flexibility
to
end
it
and
allows
more.
The
form
based
on
will
get
more
flexibility
to
integrate
in
with
surrounding
neighborhoods.
B
G
B
G
A
F
A
B
It'll
be
regarding
PLN
PCM
2019:
oh,
oh
one:
eight,
nine,
zero,
one;
nine,
oh
and
oh,
oh,
nine,
three!
Four!
So
for
the
master
plan,
amendment
based
on
the
information
in
the
staff
report,
the
information
presented
and
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing
I
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
that
the
City
Council
approved
the
proposed
master
plan
amendment
as
presented
in
petition
PLN
PCM
2019:
zero,
zero
one.
D
B
E
A
E
C
L
I
L
E
A
Motion
passes
so
the
next
step
for
this
item
for
the
master
plan
amendment
and
the
zoning
amendments
is
to
go
before
the
City
Council
and
there
will
be
another
opportunity
for
a
public
hearing
at
that
time,
but
the
plans
unit
development
was
approved,
subject
to
approval
of
the
new
zoning
and
master
plan
amendments.
So
thank
you
all
for
coming.
Thank
you
for
participating.
We
appreciate
your
feedback
and
we
appreciate
you
coming
Thank.
S
C
C
A
A
T
Maybe
joined
by
Casey
here
in
a
minute
he's
gonna
there.
He
is
right
on
cue,
he's
gonna
help
answer
questions
if
any
arise
on
specific
proposed
changes,
but
seeing
that
there
are
a
few
members
of
the
public
here.
You
know
we've
spoken
about
this
for
nearly
two
and
a
half
years,
there's
been
numerous
work
sessions,
but
I
do
want
to
give
a
little
bit
of
background
for
the
public,
so
they
understand
what's
happening
here,
but
essentially
we're
talking
about
the
off
street
parking
and,
of
course,
is
you
know,
a
city's
change
over
time.
T
Transportation
changes
over
time.
The
demand
for
parking
changes-
and
you
know
cities
struggled
to
find
a
balance
between
too
much
parking
and
not
enough
and
both
of
those
come
with
problems
having
too
much
or
too
little.
And
of
course
we
are
trying
to
rebalance
those
effort.
Those
competing
needs
on
a
continual
basis,
and
in
this
case
we
feel
that
the
the
existing
ordinance
has
gotten
very
far
off
of
city
goals
and
just
really
become
very
outdated
and
so
what's
being
proposed.
T
T
Help
with
the
public
engagement,
help
formulate
a
lot
of
the
standards
and
and
then,
of
course,
we
worked
with
the
public
on
a
very
comprehensive
Public
Engagement
plan
throughout
the
time
with
open
houses,
online
surveys
meeting
with
focus
groups
there,
the
items
are
outlined
in
attachment
G
of
the
report.
We've
worked
internally
with
all
the
different
development
departments.
T
Will
comb
through
and
make
sure
that
all
references
are
lined
up
exactly,
and
you
know
another
thing:
for
example,
you
know
we've
got
pending
with
these
SROs
to
change
their
name
to
shared
housing.
You
know
thing
things
of
that
nature,
small
things,
but
other
than
that,
we're
proposing
that
it
be
recommended
for
approval,
as
presented
in
your
staff
report.
T
T
Okay,
maybe
so
in
looking
at
this.
Of
course,
it's
a
large
ordinance
and
it's
hard
to
go
through
every
single
little
thing
we
did,
but
I
wanted
to
kind
of
go
through
the
purposes,
because
these
were
kind
of
our
guiding
principles
as
we
went
through
and
considered
each
thing.
So
first
was
you
know
to
create
parking
regulations
that
reflect
the
market
demand
and
felt
that
that
was
you
know
in
some
areas
that
meant
more
parking
in
other
areas.
That
meant
less.
T
T
Our
ordinance
was
very
stringent
and
didn't
allow
for
a
lot
of
flexibility,
either
in
how
its
interpreted
or
in
different
parts
of
the
city,
and
then
we
wanted
to
overall
reduce
auto
dependency
and
encourage
alternatives,
which
of
course,
there's
a
lot
of
precedents
for
that,
and,
as
we
see
that
we're
becoming
more
and
more
urban
and
more
and
more
alternatives
become
available.
That
becomes
more
of
a
reality,
and
this
helps
further
that
cause
we
wanted
to
protect
our
neighborhoods.
T
That's
something
we
heard
from
a
lot
of
citizens,
they're
concerned
with
overflow
parking
into
the
neighborhoods
from
the
small
commercial
nodes,
and
we
we
understand.
We
want
to
protect
the
character,
those
neighborhoods
as
much
as
possible
and
finds
the
best
solutions
to
try
to
contain
parking
within.
T
Commercial
spaces
and
then,
of
course,
you
know
minimize
to
go
along
with
that
minimizing
the
visual
impact
of
parking
neither
surface
are
structured
through
design
standards
or
just
overall
size
of
the
structures
themselves
and
then,
of
course,
to
protect
the
environment
by
reducing
the
overall
parking.
We
feel
that,
there's
you
know
ability
to
help
with
our
air
quality.
You
know
reduce
surface
water
contamination,
all
the
things
that
come
with
parking
and
encourage.
You
know
more
walkable
neighborhoods,
so.
T
We
wanted
to
to
help
the
purpose
statements
better
reflect
that
our
sections
on
expansion
or
change
of
use
we've
proposed
some
changes
there
in
that,
for
example,
anything
less
than
a
25%
expansion
would
not
trigger
the
new
standards
in
the
urban
center
or
transit
context
or
anything
older.
You
know,
building
the
reuse
of
a
building,
that's
been
there
since
at
least
1944.
They
would
not
be
required
to
meet
the
new
standards.
So
there's
you.
T
Of
a
precedence
to
be
able
to
reuse
the
existing
building
stock
and
not
change
the
fabric
of
the
the
sites
and
the
neighborhoods,
and
then
you
know
if
the.
If
a
new
use
comes
in
and
doesn't
require
a
change
of
up
to
ten
stalls
or
25%
again,
they
would
not
need
to
meet
the
new
standards.
Any
change
outside
of
that
would
need
to
be
brought
up
to
the
current
state.
T
We'll
talk
more
about
those
parking
context,
but
the
idea
is
again
to
eliminate
this
kind
of
one-size-fits-all
mentality.
That's
in
our
current
code,
saying
that
you
know,
for
a
restaurant
in
sugarhouse
has
the
same
parking
needs
as
a
restaurant
downtown
or
a
long
redwood
road
which
we
know
that's
not
the
case.
They
have
very
different
needs
and
so
we'll
look
a
little
bit
more
about
those
parking
contexts
with
bike
parking
we
had
where
it
was
a
percentage
of
the
parking
provided
and,
of
course
that
goes
against.
T
You
know
if
you
didn't,
if
you
found
ways
to
reduce
it,
then
you
produce
gave
less
bike
bike
parking
and
we
felt
that
was
a
very
outdated
mentality.
So
we
changed
that
to
be
more
based
on
the
use
in
the
in
the
context
and
then
allowed
some
reductions
if
it's
secured
or
indoor
bike
parking
and
we'll
type
more
about
the
alternatives
on
another
slide.
But
that's
the
idea
of
well.
T
We've
introduced
or
proposed
to
introduce
a
parking
standards
manual
which
takes
a
lot
of
the
technical
information
that
most
people
don't
need
parking
angles
and
minor
dimensions
and
things
of
that
nature
and
introduce
them
to
a
consolidated
document
that
could
be
updated
without
direct
need
from
the
commissioner
council
on
that
as
minor
standards
change.
But
again,
those
are
largely
just
technical
standards
and
and
then
see
we
consolidated
a
number
of
standards
that
were
found
in
other
chapters.
T
For
example,
we
had
standards
for
drive-throughs
and
then
also
different
design
chapters
for
parking
garages
that
were
located
throughout
our
code
and
we
proposed
to
consolidate
those
all
into
the
parking
chapter.
So
if
you're
looking
for
parking,
it's
all
in
one
place
and
and
then
throughout
the
entire
document
we
made,
you
know
minor
changes,
grammatical
changes,
reduce
redundancies,
things
things
of
that
nature.
T
The
standards
for
electric
vehicles
of
are
proposed
to
remain
the
same
as
they
currently
are,
but
we've
feel
we've
set
up
a
framework
for
future
opportunities
and
one
that
will
likely
be
presented
before
too
long.
We'll
be
talking
about
possibility
of
20%
electric
vehicle
readiness
for
multi-family
housing
and
being
able
to
have
the.
T
That
would
be
a
lot
of
the
area's
downtown
or,
of
course,
forced
south
or
north
temple.
Urban
center
context
think
sugarhouse
or
areas
that
are
not
quite
downtown,
not
perfectly
served
by
transit,
but
have
pretty
close
proximity
and
they
have
kind
of
a
low
to
moderate
parking
demand,
neighborhood
center
context
and
the
best
example
of
that.
As
the
ninth
and
ninth
area,
we
find
those
are
the
areas
with
the
most
challenging
parking
needs.
They
have
fairly
high
demand.
They
don't
have
good
use
of
training,
they
don't
have
perfect
use
of
mass
transit.
T
Things
like
that
and
then
they're
surrounded
by
usually
they're,
surrounded
by
single-family
neighborhoods,
so
they're
very
challenging
scenarios
in
the
general
context
is
everything
else
being
from
industrial
areas
manufacturing
to
single-family
neighborhoods,
and
it
should
be
noted.
It's
not
saying
that
all
of
those
have
the
exact
same
parking
need.
What
it's
saying
is
they're
classified
in
a
context
and
then
still
each
use
within
that
is
going
to
have
its
own
parking
requirements.
So
questions
have
been
brought
up.
Oh
so
we
treating
single-family
homes
the
same
as
for
a
warehouse.
No,
that's
not
the
case.
T
There
goes
so
looking
at
on
a
map.
That's
what
that
looks
like
you
can
see,
there's
a
lot
of
areas
that
are
that
would
be
transit
context,
and
that
would
mean
we're
proposing
to
reduce
the
minimum
substantially
and
allow
the
market
to
kind
of
dictate
those
a
little
bit
better,
but
you
can
kind
of
see
how
the
other
areas
stack
up
as
far
as
the
different
contexts.
T
These
are
created
by
the
zoning
district
on
the
underlying
zoning
district.
So
if
something
were
to
rezone,
it
would
then
automatically
move
into
a
different
continent,
potentially
move
into
a
different
context,
or
at
least
those
would
stay
consistent.
So
this
document
would
not
operate
independently
of
the
underlying
zoning.
T
K
T
T
One
thing
that
should
be
noted
is
you're.
Looking
at
these,
and
just
in
general
thinking
of
the
parking.
This
refers
to
surface
parking
parking
provided
in
a
parking
garage
which
meets
all
this
setback,
standards
and
design
standards,
and
things
like
that
would
not
be
subject
to
these
same
minimums
and
maximums
and
the
ideas
we
don't
want
to
discourage
people
from
using
parking
garages
which
are
very
costly
placed
appropriately.
T
So
looking
at
the
alternatives
to
the
parking
calculations,
the
proposals
call
for
a
cap
at
40%
reductions
for
the
minimums
and
the
things
listed.
There
are
the
categories
that
we're
proposing
in
there
and
a
lot
of
them
are
just
slightly
modified
or
sometimes
heavily
modified,
but
the
shared
parking
would
now
be
based
on
peak
hours
of
or
I'm
sorry.
It
was
current.
It
is
currently
based
on
peak
hours
of
use,
and
now
it
be
more
just
based
on
the
uses
rather
just
hours
of
operation.
T
The
shared
parking
is
now
I'm,
sorry
I
just
said
no
one
and
the
proximity
to
transit
mass
transit
that
one
is
for
up
to
a
25%
reduction
when
located
within
a
quarter
mile
of
fixed
rail
transit
station
platforms,
excluding
single-family
or
duplex,
and
of
course
many
of
the
areas
that
are
already
near
a
transit
station
would
already
be
in
a
transit
context.
So
it's
really
just
applying
to
anything
else
that
you
know
the
one
off
properties
that
might
still
meet
that
requirement
and
then
they
could
still
get
some
reduction.
T
T
Reflect
you
know
the
city's
current
needs
of
specifically
of
affordable
housing
and
then
with
a
carpool
in
car
share.
We've
also
included
standards
in
there.
We
didn't
have
the
things
on
the
car
share
like
we
do
now,
but
that's
again
for
like
multifamily
developments
being
able
to
provide
a
vehicle
that
the
tenants
can
share
and
therefore
you
know
needing
less
vehicles,
and
then
we
do
have
kind
of
a
catch-all
that
it's
a
parking
study
of
you
there's
requirements
in
there
for
a
certified
parking
study
and
that's
it
could
potentially
lower
parking
counts.
Q
T
T
D
T
We
we
see
these
alternatives
is
taking
less
of
a
role
because
we're
trying
to
right-size
it
through
by
right
through
the
ordinance.
We
think
that
were
a
little
more
in
line
with
the
proposals
and
that
these
have
become
less
of
a
thing.
I
should
also
note
that
we've
proposed
to
eliminate
a
number
of
them
in
here
we
had
the
pedestrian
friendly
amenities.
T
That
was
a
big
hot
topic
and
a
lot
of
the
we
found
a
lot
of
this,
especially
multifamily
properties,
were
taking
advantage
of
these
and
they
weren't
really
creating
less
parking
need
and
the
the
parking
was
just
pouring
out
into
the
neighborhoods.
We
found
that's
one
of
the
big
areas
where
hopefully
were
helping
create
some
solutions
for
the
neighborhoods
and,
let's
see
if
I
can
get
this
to
me.
T
So
we,
your
report,
has
a
number
of
key
considerations:
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
all
of
them,
but
we
really
I
mean
we've
got
like
four
pages
of
how
it
meets
the
master
plans.
I
mean
this
accomplishes
a
large
amount
of
the
objectives
in
the
master
plans
and
talks
about
you
know
how
it
encourages
the
redevelopment
of
properties
and
using
an
existing
building
stock,
and
you
know
just
ways:
we've
simplified
it
and
incorporated
best
practices
and
all
that
senior
staff
report.
What
I
do
want
to
talk
about?
T
T
It
relates
to
multifamily
parking
or
multifamily
uses
in
the
general
context
and
when
we
took
it
originally
to
the
public,
we
proposed
studio
in
one
bedroom
at
one
stall
per
dwelling
unit,
two
bedroom-
we
had
it
two
stalls
per
unit,
Planning
Commission
felt
that
that
was
that
was
too
high,
that
that
was
too
high
of
a
minimum,
and
so
we
talked
about
potentially
at
one,
and
we
talked
about
that.
Well,
maybe
there
was
maybe
that
was
good,
but
maybe
a
little
too
low,
because
some
of
these
have
made
guest
parking
or
things
like
that.
T
So
we
settled
on
1.25
stalls
per
unit,
and
what
that
does
is
allows
that
incremental
to
scale
up
as
they
provide
more
units,
they
got
to
provide
some
extra
stalls
potentially
for
visitor
parking,
or
you
know
the
other
people
that
do
have
to
vehicles
and
of
course
these
are
minimums
and
it
doesn't
really
destructured
parking.
So
people
provide
structured
parking,
they
could
go
higher
or
they
can
get
up
to
the
Simmons
of
the
zone.
So
we
felt
that
was
a
fairly
good
compromise.
Of
course,
we'll
need
to
hear
tonight.
If
that's,
if
the
Commission.
T
Since
that's
not
or
case
you
can
chime
in
if
he
knows
I'll,
look
it
up,
I'm
good
right
here:
okay,
okay,
so
in
the
in
the
it
would
be
for
a
studio
or
one
bedroom.
It'd
be
two
spaces
per
dwelling
unit
and
for
more
than
two
bedrooms
would
be
three
spaces
per
dwelling
unit,
so
they
could
get
higher
and
we
have
not
seen
requests
that
high.
But
that
is
a
that
is
a
possibility
and
that
again
is
in
the
general
context.
So,
let's
see.
T
T
The
next
item
was
talking
about
the
proximity
to
mass
transit,
and
so,
although
we
have
a
proposal
in
there
for
a
reduction
based
on
proximity
to
fixed
rail
transit,
we
talked
about
the
idea
with
the
city
investing
so
much
into
the
high
frequency
bus
lines
that
maybe
there
would
be
an
opportunity
there
and
the
public.
You
know
our
meetings
was
generally
against
that
they
felt
that
maybe
they
lacked
some
permanency
and
that
there
wasn't
the
reliability
on
in
the
frequency
and
nights
and
weekends.
T
They
were
kind
of
more
geared
towards
commuters,
but
we'd,
see
the
city
has
committed
substantial
resources
and
is
committed
to
these
long-term,
and
you
know
not
even
just
the
routes
they
have
now,
but
expanding
that
in
a
number
of
areas
in
the
conversation
with
the
Commission
here,
one
thing
we
kept
hearing
was
that
it
would
be
a
shame
to
not
take
advantage
of
this
specifically
for
affordable
housing.
So
what
we
have
proposed
in
the
ordinance
before
you
is
that
it
with
additional
reductions
be
actually
for
high
frequency.
Bus
routes
also
be
tied
to
affordable
housing.
T
So
we're
saying,
in
addition
to
the
affordable
housing
reductions
they
already
have,
they
could
get
an
additional
15%
reduction
for
qualifying
affordable
housing
within
a
quarter
mile
of
a
bus,
stop
service
by
this
high
frequency
bus
routes
currently
and
so,
and
there's
definitions
in
there.
So
currently
that
would
be
second
South:
ninth
South
21st
South
and
the
State
Street
with
others
to
come,
as
they
continue
to
update
them.
There's
a
few
that
lacked
the
nights
and
weekends
that
we
kind
of
had
qualified
in
there,
but
wouldn't.
B
A
T
I
mean
they're,
I,
think
they're,
probably
always
going
to
be
controversial.
There's
gonna
be
opponents
and
proponents
for
affordable
housing
and
what
they
come
with,
and
we
find
that
true,
affordable
housing
units
don't
require
the
same
amount
of
parking,
and
so
even
though
the
perception
is
gonna
be
hey,
we
don't
want
that
because
they're
still
gonna
have
lots
of
cars
and
spill
over
we're
saying.
Well,
these
are
local.
You
know
one.
We
already
have
their
provisions
in
there
for
affordable
housing.
T
E
T
B
T
Yeah,
that's
what
we
proposed
based
on
the
conversation
that
was
had
in
here,
because
we
kind
of
kept
hearing.
We
heard
kind
of
a
lot
of
back
and
forth
of
well.
Should
we
tie
them
to
the
bus
lines?
Should
we
not,
and
it
seemed
like
everyone
that
said,
we
should
be
tying
them
to
the
bus
lines.
Also
in
the
same
breath
mentioned
affordable
housing,
so
we
proposed
together.
E
T
T
We've
proposed
to
eliminate
that's
a
good
question.
We
and
we've
only
talked
about
that
in
the
work
session
a
little
bit,
but
I
didn't
mention
that
tonight,
we've
proposed
to
eliminate
counting
on
street
parking,
there's
a
number
of
reasons
why
what
we
found
is
it
can
create
a
sense
of
entitlement
once
someone's
allowed
to
count
that
stall
as
soon
as
somebody
else
wants
to
use
it
for
something
or
other
we
get
in
fighting.
T
We
get
businesses
that
are,
you
know
out
there,
putting
signs
and
all
kinds
of
things,
and
then
we
get
you
know
we
say
okay
we'd
like
to
put
in
we
need
to
put
in
a
roundabout
or
we
need
to
put
in
bike
parking
or
we
need
to
put
in
a
bike
lane
or
planter,
or
something
rather
and
people
get
very
defensive
about
that,
and
we
feel
that
you
know
we
want
to
maintain
that
as
a
public
space.
Maybe
it's
a
future
drop-off
for
drones
and.
I
T
T
T
T
C
A
T
I
T
I
C
I
T
A
A
C
A
A
G
I
A
K
A
K
K
K
That
I
like
or
don't
like
that's
a
little
bit
outside
of
that
more
more
global,
like
for
a
financial
institution,
two
spaces
per
thousand,
so
think
of
the
average
little
credit
union.
That's
maybe
1,500
square
feet.
They're
gonna
have
three
spaces:
I
went
on,
Highland
Drive
has
about
twelve
spaces,
they're,
always
full
and
I.
Think
you're
just
going
to
encourage
idling
in
in
the
drive-through,
so
I
think
in
places
like
that
there
ought
to
be
space
for
a
strip
of
parking
and
a
convenience
store.
I
worry
if
they
have
a
gas
station.
K
I,
like
Eric's
reference
to
the
master
plan
and
I
like
the
way
it's
focused
in
his
staff
report,
so
I
could
hone
in
on
it.
One
thing
that
we've
talked
about
forever
is
having
a
parking
authority
in
sugarhouse
and
I'm.
Sorry,
that's
not
in
here
it
it's
sort
of
under
the
guise
of
shared
parking,
but
it
doesn't
help
the
my
parking
that
all
the
merchants
have
and
I
think
the
biggest
problem
that
we're
seeing
when
you've
got
sugarhouse
listed
as
an
urban
center.
But
in
truth
the
business
district
is
having
trouble.
K
There
are
some
that
are
doing
great,
but
there
are
other
places
that
spots,
the
turnover
probably
four
times
since
the
granite
building
has
been
built,
and
that-
and
you
know,
redone
the
section
in
the
center
Rockwood
building
has
no
parking
assigned
to
it.
Zero,
and
you
know
the
mellow
mushroom
just
went
out
of
business.
Some
of
the
long-standing
restaurants
are
they're.
Turning
over
regularly
part
of
it
is
because
there
aren't
people
that
are
shopping
there.
K
It's
it,
we
don't
have
I
mean
we
may
have
a
thousand
new
apartments,
but
that's
not
enough
bodies
to
keep
those
restaurants
in
business.
So
we
need
places
for
people
in
the
neighborhoods
of
sugarhouse
come
in
and
park
and
I
don't
see
that
happening
here,
because
you
know
I
mean
the
only.
The
only
hope
was
when
the
University
Health
building
came
in
and
they
built
the
wonderful
parking
terrace
and
so
there's
1,200
spaces
underneath
and
those
are
shared
and
after
five
o'clock
anybody
can
use
them.
K
But
I
haven't
seen
any
big
signs
around
saying,
come
park
here
and
that
doesn't
help
the
lunch
crowd.
So
I
just
worry
about
that.
I'd
really
like
to
see
a
parking
authority
where
somebody
going
to
you
know
take
their
dresser
whatever
that
secondhand
store
is,
could
also
stop
in
and
buy
some
paintbrushes
at
the
at
the
artists
place.
K
But
the
way
it
is
now
you
have
to
move
your
car
from
one
place
to
another
to
another,
and
people
do
that
I,
don't
think
the
hospital
allowance
is
enough
to
per
thousand
that
might
count
the
patients,
but
there's
an
awful
lot
of
staff
that
go
along
with
those
patient
beds,
so
I
think
maybe
four
or
five
per
thousand
is
more
reasonable
and
again
maybe
we
don't
have.
Maybe
we
won't
have
another
hospital
in
the
city
in
superstore,
one
per
thousand.
K
How
are
people
going
to
carry
all
those
big
boxes
from
Costco
home
on
the
bus,
I
just
I
just
think
these
are
unrealistic.
Even
Lynn
could
tell
you
living
in
the
Bronx
for
a
hundred
years.
She
maintained
a
car,
so
she
could
go
to
Costco
once
a
month
and
buy
her
stuff,
so
you
need
parking
it.
Some
of
those
places
I
like
the
incentives
for
reduced
parking
for
low-income
people,
I
think
that's
a
good
one
and
the
drive-through
stacking
spaces
per
Lane.
Five
I'll
bring
up
the
chick-fil-a
example
again.
K
K
So
we
have
more
intense
uses
and
fewer
parking
spaces
they're
starting
the
Dixon
building,
so
that
blew
up
that
parking
lot
and
now
everybody's
parking
down
on
Elm,
and
we
know
that
the
development
on
ninth-
it's
going
to
do
the
same
thing
and
they're
gonna
all
Park
on
him
and
pretty
soon
those
are
all
going
to
be
for
rentals
or
they're
all
going
to
turn
into
businesses.
I,
don't
know
I,
just
there's
got
to
be
a
solution
like
maybe
we
could
have
a
nice
shared
parking
terrace
somewhere
in
that
area.
F
First
I'd
like
to
thank
Eric,
he
must
have
thought
he
was
Sisyphus
many
times
rolling,
that
Boulder
up
the
mountain
and
having
it
tumble
down
again
and
I
can't
believe
that
we
are
the
only
people
here
talking
about
parking,
considering
the
bitching
we
hear
constantly
at
the
community
council
meeting.
So
beyond
me,
the
sugarhouse
business
district
should
not
be
an
example
of
urban
context.
Well,
it
is
true
that
there
is
intense
residential
development
taking
place
now.
F
This
does
not
negate
the
fact
that
there
is
a
large
contingent
of
businesses
that
draw
customers
from
some
distance
away.
I
can
tell
you
from
personal
experience
that
they
there
are
some
times
that
off-street
parking
can
be
problematic.
I
have
had
several
neighbors
tell
me
that
they
no
longer
go
to
these
businesses
because
of
the
parking
issue.
Yes,
encouraging
use
of
public
transport
is
laudable,
but
this
is
often
impractical
for
large
young
families
that
shop
once
a
week
now,
speaking,
specifically
to
the
proposed
ordinance.
F
The
1.25
ratio
for
two
plus
bedrooms
in
multifamily
projects
in
general
context
areas
and
even
less
for
other
contexts,
will
exacerbate
overflow
parking,
especially
when
parking
is
an
extra
expense
over
the
base.
Rent.
The
minimum
parking
for
SROs
is
assuming
used
by
people
with
few
cars.
However,
the
population
to
be
served
according
to
Salt,
Lake
City
will
include
students
and
recent
divorcees,
who
will
all
have
cars.
The
calculations
for
restaurants,
restaurant
use
uses
square
footage.
The
number
of
seats
should
be
used.
F
A
R
R
My
name
is
George
Chapman
commissioners
I
agree
with
everything,
Lynn
said
and
I
do
congratulate
Eric
and
the
planning
staff
for
being
amenable
to
our
suggestions,
but
I
don't
think
enough.
People
have
really
commented
on
what
we
have
in
front
of
you
and
that's
a
very
serious
issue
because
effectively,
if
you
approve
it
you're
doing
exactly
what
the
legislature
did
when
people
are
saying,
don't
increase
taxes,
they
ignored
us.
So
I'm
asking
you
not
to
close
the
public
hearing
I'm
asking
you
to
go
to
the
news
and
start
publicizing
this.
R
There
are
only
a
couple
people
here
in
the
most
important
issue
before
you
in
the
last
few
years.
It
doesn't
make
sense.
The
news
should
be
publicizing
it.
You
need
a
lot
more
comments
and
going
from
2
to
1.25
doesn't
make
sense
when
the
average
or
typical
family
residential
unit
has
1.6
stalls.
That's
reality.
In
addition,
I'll
remind
you
what
Lisa
Adams,
who
used
to
sit
on
your
board,
said
when
she
got
the
circulation
or
excuse
me
the
parking
plan
for
downtown
and
Salt
Lake
and
sugar
house.
R
She
said
if
we
lower
the
minimums,
we're
going
to
encourage
people
to
drive
down
the
street,
to
Mill,
Creek
or
Murray
and
it'll
actually
increased
pollution.
She's
right,
that's
the
problem.
We
have
too
many
other
cities
that
are
actually
impacting
what
you
do
with
parking
minimums.
In
addition,
I
want
to
remind
you
that
the
preeminent
mass
transit
fare
elasticity
study
points
out
parking
is
very
important
for
increasing
ridership
on
mass
transit.
If
you
don't
have
a
parking
lot,
that's
available
a
parking
spot.
That's
available.
People
will
not!
R
Even
if
you
cut
fares
and
half
they
won't
park
there,
even
if
they
could
cutting
fare
and
half
get
you
only
20%
ridership
increase.
The
main
reason
is
lack
of
parking.
That's
important
I'm
asking
you
not
to
approve
this
I'm
asking
you
to
keep
the
public
hearing
open
and
I'm
asking
you
to
go
for
throughout
you've
done
a
lot
so
far,
but
I'm
asking
you
to
approach
the
news
and
publicize.
The
fact
right
now
in
front
of
you
is
the
most
important
issue
in
Salt,
Lake,
City
right
now
and
almost
nobody's
here.
A
B
No
night
and
make
one
for
you:
okay,
my
name
is
Cindy
Krum
er
still.
Why
is
this
project
so
important?
There
are
three
reasons.
One
is
that
the
biggest
obstacle,
in
my
opinion
to
compatible
info
is
the
need
to
store
cars
somewhere.
You
saw
that
in
the
last
project
in
front
of
you,
I
thought
the
two
double
garages
were
horrid
and
completely
out
of
character
with
the
neighborhood.
Secondly,
the
space
required
for
storing
cars
reduces
the
potential
for
density
for
housing
and
I
did
the
math
on
this.
B
You
can
provide
housing
for
a
person
or
a
couple
very
comfortably.
In
the
space
required
to
park.
Three
cars
I
have
lovely
one
bedroom
apartments
in
the
space
required
to
park
three
cars.
There
you
have
it
third
developments
thrive
or
fail,
based
on
the
perceived
availability
of
parking.
Historically
parking
for
automobiles
was
at
the
rear
of
the
property
behind
the
owners
home
now
vehicles
are
accommodated
on
the
front
facade
of
a
house
just
as
if
they
were
family
members.
B
I
have
extreme
compliments
to
Eric
and
JP
goats
before
him,
because
I
wouldn't
want
to
work
on
this
project.
Nick.
That's
a
compliment
to
your
staff.
This
is
just
a
slog,
so
the
most
important
thing
I
can
say
to
you
tonight
is
that
you
need
to
earmark
this
modification
for
a
review
in
two
to
three
years.
B
So
that
there
was
more
parking
available
and
they
did
that
on
their
own
dime
and
it's
worked
out
beautifully
and
so
I
think
if
the
property
owner
pays
for
it,
understanding
that
it's
public
parking
that
it
ought
to
be
available
to
be
counted,
but
basically
developers
exploited
all
of
the
loopholes
in
the
alternative
parking
arrangements.
Thank.
I
My
name
is
Zachary
Dussault
and
I
just
want
to
start
off
by
saying
that
there's
been
nothing
more
public
policy
wise
to
damage
the
structure
of
cities
than
mandatory
off
street
parking
minimums.
The
the
adoption
of
the
automobile
as
the
primary
form
of
transportation
in
cities
has
completely
destroyed
the
walkability
of
cities.
It's
completely
destroyed
the
vibrancy
of
cities.
It's
destroyed
the
affordability
of
cities.
This
is
a
small
step
in
correcting
that
I
mean.
I
J
A
A
A
T
Interested
so
no
I
was
not
here
for
the
first
part
of
it,
but
it
started
from
the
onset
with
Clarion
and
and
associates
and
let's
see
if
I
could
find
in
here,
and
so
the
major
components
were
originally.
A
lot
of
focus
groups
were
formed
from
local
businesses,
local
developers,
things
like
that
bike,
advisory
groups,
things
things
of
that
nature
and
started
to
work
through
the
major
issues
with
them.
T
And
then
another
big
initiative
was
a
city
survey
and
there
was
nearly
700
participants
in
that
offering
feedback
on
a
number
of
items
and
then,
as
we
started
to
work
through
things,
we
worked
with
a
number
of
different.
We
worked
with
those
kind
of
advisory
groups
and
internally,
and
then
this
last
spring
we
really
started
to
kind
of
present
the
public
draft
and
that's
when
we
went
to
different
community
councils
held
numerous
open
houses,
went
to
different
events
and
you
know
kind
of
with
her
online
engagement
as
well.
T
So
those
were
the
events
that
took
place
as
far
as
the
the
public
process
on
this,
and
we
understand
like
it's,
it's
a
extremely
important
topic,
as
was
mentioned,
but
it's
a
hard
one
to
get
people
really
engaged
in.
It's
not
a
particularly
interesting
topic
from
a
lot
of
the
groups
and
those
that
are
out
there.
Our
grandfather
didn't
what
they
have,
and
so
how
do
you
find
the
people
that
will
be
affected
by
this?
A
T
One
of
the
most
engaged
group
was
groups
with
the
business
community
was
downtown
Alliance
and
we
met
with
them
quite
a
few
times
and
really
combed
through
the
standards
and
one
of
the
things
that
was,
you
know
they
echoed
a
lot
of
these
same
sentiments
that
are
echoed
in
sugarhouse
of
well.
We
need
to
provide
enough
parking
for
you
know
various
groups
employers
things
like
that,
but
we
don't
want
to
destroy
our
character
either.
They
recognize
both
those
things.
One
of
the.
L
T
Things
for
them
was
they
wanted
small
businesses
to
be
able
to
get
in
existing
buildings,
and
they
felt
that
not
having
caps
on
the
parking
garage
was
the
other
main
issue
and
they
said
okay.
Well,
we
can
find
ways
to
do
parking
garages.
We
can
find
ways
to
do
that
and
that
provides
the
solution
so
for
them
and
they
wanted
more-
and
this
was
echoed
by
a
lot
of
businesses
and
was
echoed
here.
C
T
Know
these
are
the
minimums,
there's
also
maximums,
but
you
know
we're
not
we're
not
dictating
people
have
to
do
the
minimum
and
we,
some
of
them,
are
uncomfortably
low.
Some
of
the
maximums
are
uncomfortably
high
and
we're
relying
a
little
bit
more
on
the
businesses
to
set
that
tone
and
to
show
us
what
the
appropriate
parking
is
and
then.
T
You
look,
you
know,
I
mean
we're,
not
naive,
that
this
is
a
fix-all,
you
know,
but
we
feel
that
we've
got
a
great
framework
now
in
this
framework.
If
we
need
to,
we
can
add
another
context.
We
can
tweak
context.
These
parking
counts
are
not
going
to
be
perfect,
but
we
feel
there
are
best
given
all
the
data
they're
our
best
effort
right
now,
those
can
be
amended
and
I
think
it's
appropriate
to
constantly
be
monitoring
these
things.
You
know
the
way
you
know.
No
one
knew
what
car
share
was
a
few
years
ago.
T
H
H
T
To
just
eliminate
that
altogether
they
provided
on
site,
we've
got
low
enough
minimums
in
the
other.
You
know
we
have
other
things
available,
but
we
we
don't
want
to
purposefully,
put
parking
in
the
street
when
we
can
provide
for
it
other
ways.
Obviously
we
we
don't
want
in
vacant
streets.
We
recognize
that
it's
a
valuable
asset
and
it's
a
great
place
for
the
public
to
use,
but
we
don't
want
to
give
the
perception
of
assigning
it
to
a
business.
Okay,.
H
T
T
F
F
A
Well,
I
just
want
to
commend
you
guys
again
for
doing
you
know
a
fantastic
job
and
marshalling
the
efforts
to
get
this
to
where
it's
at
that's,
not
an
easy
task
and
really
I
think
you
guys
did
a
really
really
great
job
with
us
and
particularly
and
incorporate
incorporating
so
many
comments
and
the
feedback
competing
feedback
even
among
the
Commission.
So
we
appreciate
that
okay
would.
I
G
I
may
this
this
is
where
I
make
the
pitch
of.
When
we
add
those
things
to
code,
it
keeps
us
from
doing
other
things
that
may
be
important
at
the
time
that
we
don't
know
about.
Yet
we
are
making
a
very
concerted
effort
over
and
you
guys
will
be
a
big
part
of
this
to
cut
our
staff
processing
times
the
amount
of
hours.
G
We
spend
a
staff
doing
this
work
by
as
much
as
six
thousand
well,
hopefully,
a
minimum
of
six
thousand
hours
in
the
next
six
months,
so
that
we
can
be
better
equipped
at
responding
to
problems
with
our
ordinances.
I
would
highly
oppose
putting
in
the
code
a
requirement
first
review.
The
parking
chapter
that
is,
it's
taken
us
hated.
G
Exactly
and
and
that's
that's
the
that
is
the
correct
Avenue
to
be
able
to
do
those
things.
We
do
hope
to
be
able
to
look
at
these
things
every
you
know
five
ten
years
so
that
we're
not
having
the
situation.
We
have
with
our
current
zoning
code,
that
is
mostly
25
years
or
25
years
old
now
and
woefully
inadequate
for
the
needs
of
the
city
right
now.
So,
despite
what
Bruce
Baird
would
say
that
it's
a
great
ordinance.
I
I'll
make
a
motion
then
thank
you
for
the
discussion,
basically
information
staff
report
and
the
information
presented
in
the
input
received
in
public
hearing
move.
The
Planning
Commission
recommend
approval
of
the
ordinance
amendment
petition
for
PLN
PCM,
2017,
zero,
zero,
seven,
five,
three
off
street
parking
mobility
and
loading
with
the
condition
listed
in
the
staff
report.
I've.
F
E
A
Right
so
that
passes,
and
my
only
final
comment
is
that
I
hope
that
when
this
moves
expeditiously
to
City,
Council
and
then
moves
expeditiously
to
being
adopted,
because
now
we're
going
to
create
a
period
of
uncertainty
with
your
workload
increasing
year
after
year
of
what
parking
standards
will
apply
and
when
these
will
take
effect.
So
I
would
just
ask
that
you
convey
that
to
City
Council
I.