►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting - June 27, 2018
Description
Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting - June 27, 2018
https://www.slc.gov/planning/
A
A
D
A
B
A
E
E
E
Okay,
so
we're
at
three
all
right,
so
we
may
not
have
a
meeting
July
25th,
we'll
check
with
the
actually
I,
don't
think
we
would
even
have
enough
to
make
a
quorum
that
meeting
so
we'll
probably
be
canceling.
That
meeting
I
will
let
you
know
for
sure,
though.
Okay.
One
last
item
is
we're
gonna
start
to
revisit
our
staff
reports
a
little
bit
and
just
make
sure
that
they're
accomplishing
what
everyone
needs
them
to
accomplish
and
try
to
simplify
them.
E
If,
if
possible,
I
know
you've
recently
added
discussion
with
Nick
about
some
thoughts
on
staff
reports,
I
was
just
hoping,
maybe
in
our
next
round
of
review,
for
our
next
meeting
when
you're
reading
through
the
staff
reports.
If
you
could
kind
of
take
some
mental
notes
about
what
might
be
working,
what's
not
working
how
we
can
improve
getting
the
information
to
you
in
an
easier
manner,
and
just
in
you
know,
instead
of
we
can
do
it.
E
Having
the
discussion
in
a
meeting
but
I
think
it
might
be
almost
easier
if
you
can
kind
of
jot
down
those
thoughts
and
maybe
email
them
to
me
and
then
we'll
kind
of
go
from
there.
I'm
doing
the
same
thing
with
the
staff
and
I
would
like
to
do
same
thing
with
all
the
Commission
members
too.
So
that's
it
right.
Thank.
A
F
Right
I,
thank
you.
So
again,
this
is
the
request
for
time
extension
for
the
bishop
place
planned
development.
You
can
see
it's
shown
on
the
screen,
it's
located
at
approximately
430
to
north
and
300
west.
This
development
was
approved
in
2014
by
this
commission,
and
this
is
the
fourth
time
extension
that
they
have
requested.
The
development
involved,
the
redevelopment
of
a
historic
cul
de
sac
called
Bishop
place,
or
also
it's
a
court
development
and
the
rehabilitation
of
the
homes
on
this
street.
F
F
However,
the
developer
is
still
requesting
to
maintain
their
original
approval
for
the
development
and
we
are
recommending
approval
of
the
time
extension
in
case
the
developer
does
decide
to
go
with
the
original
plan
as
we
want
to
encourage,
restoring
and
rehabilitating
these
historic
homes,
and
we
don't
want
to
disincentivize
their
preservation
by
eliminating
this
option.
So
that's
that
for
me,
the
developer
is
here
in
case,
there's
any
questions
for
him,
but
he
doesn't
have
a
presentation
so.
A
F
F
Could
potentially
still
go
through
the
plan
development
process
again,
but
it
would
be
another
process
that
they'd
have
to
go
through
more
time.
I
don't
know
if
that's
specifically
a
consideration
at
this
point
through
the
economic
hardship
process,
but
just
keep
in
mind
that
the
developer
would
face
another
process
with
the
Planning
Commission
they're.
E
A
really
it's
probably
much
more
complicated
explanation
that
we
can
get
into
this
evening,
but
it
it
kind
of
goes
into
the
takings
issue
on
if,
if
there's
a
takings
associated,
if
the
city
denies
demolition,
there's
an
economic
review
panel,
that's
formed
to
review
the
economics
of
what
they
can
do
with
the
structures
intact
versus
you
know.
You
know.
E
It
would
take
to
make
it
so
that
the
structures
are
actually
usable
versus
demolishing
those
structures.
There's
a
lot
of
mathematical
formulas
that
go
into
that
and
then
the
economic
review
panel
makes
a
recommendation
based
on
very
specific
standards.
That
goes
then
back
to
the
historic
landmark
Commission
Commission,
and
they
make
a
final
decision
based
on
that
recommendation.
I
Can
we
just
talk
this
through
because
I'm
kind
of
confused?
So
if
landmarks
says
you
can't
tear
anything
down,
then
this
planned
development
would
stand
and
and
therefore
it
could
or
could
not
be
developed,
but
at
least
that
it
would
be
in
place
to
sort
of
smooth
away
or
or
redevelopment
of
the
existing
properties
right.
If.
F
Would
be
starting
from
beginning
essentially
with
a
new
development
proposal.
The
current
zoning
is
sr3,
which
would
allow
for
a
number
of
townhomes.
I
believe
the
numbers
around
30
townhomes
could
be
built
on
this
property,
so
it
would
have
a
higher
density
count
than
currently
is
on
here,
because
of
the
current
structures
with.
I
F
I
F
If
they
were
actually
putting
in
a
full-sized
public
street
through
this
property,
then
it
wouldn't
come
back
to
this
body.
The
buildings
themselves
would
just
go
to
the
Historic
Landmarks
Commission,
but
I
would
expect
given,
given
the
width
of
this
property
and
the
frontage
that
they
would
probably
do
a
private
street
which
would
involve
a
planned
development
process
and
in
the
Planning
Commission.
They.
K
I
K
I
K
It's
complicated
because
what
the
landmark
Commission
is
supposed
to
do
is
to
consider
and
accept
or
reject
the
economic
hardship
panels
recommendation
the
recommendation
was
for
six
of
the
nine
structures.
The
landmark
Commission's
denial
was
based
on
the
fact
that
what
we
have
is
an
intact
assemblage
of
late
1800s
working
worker
housing.
K
So
the
there
are
more
conversations
to
be
had
about
what
is
the
impact
of
the
hardship,
determination
on
the
previous
denial,
and
so
those
are
some
issues
we
have
to
sort
out
and
again,
hopefully
we
don't
have
to
spend
a
whole
lot
of
time
and
in
court
or
a
whole
lot
more
process
we've.
This
has
been
a
long
road,
so
here
we
are.
F
To
is
it
it's
because
of
the
plan,
development
objectives
and
you
have
to
meet
certain
objectives.
So
we
made
findings
for
those
objectives
in
the
staff
report
and
if
they
don't
maintain
their
compliance
with
those
objectives
by
demolishing
all
the
buildings,
then
they
would
lose
that
the
right
to
keep
this.
B
J
F
F
E
B
H
C
A
M
M
You
can
see
on
the
left,
the
future
land
use
map
and
the
zoning
map
on
the
right.
The
subject
property
is
shown
in
yellow
and
is
on
the
south
side
of
five
hundred
South.
It's
located
near
the
tracks
line
and
southeast
of
the
University
of
Utah.
You
can
see
on
the
future
land
use
map
that
it's
designated
high-density
residential,
the
property
to
the
north
is
designated
low-density
residential
and
then
on
the
zoning
map
on
the
right
again,
the
property's
designated
as
our
f75,
the
property
to
the
north
is
RMF.
M
30
to
the
north
east
is
the
university
of
utah
and
then
to
the
east
is
the
Mount
Olivet
Cemetery,
which
is
designated
as
open
space,
so
the
future
land
use
map
calls
for
high-density
residential
and
the
proposed
don't
change
for
residential
mixed-use.
That's
with
some
that
fits
within
this
category.
M
M
These
include
livable
communities
and
neighborhoods
that
have
a
variety
of
land
uses,
also
having
unique
and
active
places
where
people
can
socialize
and
gather,
and
a
potential
development
for
this
site
would
clew
include
a
mix
of
commercial
and
presidential,
with
the
primary
use
being
residential
and
then,
as
I
previously
mentioned.
This
would
implement
the
master
plan.
Land
use
category
of
high
density
residential.
M
Another
issue
is
the
existing
zoning
limitations
of
the
site.
The
site
is
a
very
small
site,
it's
approximately
8,000
square
feet
and
it
has
about
50
feet
for
the
width
of
the
site,
and
so
the
existing
zoning
of
RMF
75,
which
requires
a
minimum
nine
thousand
square
foot
site
for
a
multi-family
use
and
a
minimum
block
width
of
at
least
80
feet
limit
the
development
on
the
site
to
essentially
a
single-family
home
development.
M
So
the
requested
change
from
RMF
75,
the
rmu
45
would
allow
for
the
development
to
be
consistent
with
the
future
land
use
map
in
the
central
community
master
plan
and
so
staffs
recommendation
for
them.
Zoning
map
amendment
needs
to
forward
a
recommendation
to
the
City
Council
to
approve
the
request.
Great.
J
Okay,
so
just
real,
quick
and
so
I
mean
essentially
I
mean
they
they're,
losing
some
of
their
height
require
ability
but
they're
gaining
the
ability
to
put
commercial
units
or
commercial
and
a
blower
end
of
the
billing
sure,
and
there
are
enough
you
cannot
do
commercial
now,
looking
at
the
elec
your
comparison
table.
Thank
you
for
including
that,
by
the
way
of
the
different
zones,
shame.
M
E
So
the
RMF
75,
all
of
our
RMF
zoning
districts,
have
very
strict
density
limitations
to
where
you
can
only
put
a
certain
number
of
dwelling
units
per
square
footage.
In
this
case
it's
only
an
8,000
square
foot
lot,
so
you
couldn't
actually
even
put
multifamily
on
this
site,
meaning
3
units
or
more
because
you
need
at
least
9,000
square
feet
to
put
a
multi-family
on
this
site
and.
E
C
E
E
We
were
starting
with
the
project
where
we're
looking
at
lot
with
situations
and
our
RMF
zones,
because
they're
really
working
very
well
we've
taken
a
little
step
back
from
that
and
we're
actually
looking
at
go
in
a
whole
different
direction
where
there
are
MF
zones,
because
the
other
issues
that
they
really
don't
have
any
design
standards
associated
with
them.
So
we're
actually
we're
actually
analyzing
right
now.
The
potential
of
doing
our
are
map
zones
more
as
form
based,
which
would
add
some
design
criteria
to
those
zones
and
try
to
get
us
out
of
that
antiquated.
E
E
J
E
A
E
F
E
M
H
D
D
F
D
The
parcel,
as
you
guys
know,
is
located
next
to
the
15
story:
assisted
living
facility,
our
senior
living
facility,
I,
should
say
friendship,
Manor
and
then
it's
also
on
the
other
side.
We've
got
that
Mount
Olivet
Cemetery
and
then
it's
located
directly
across
from
the
track.
Stop
at
University
for
the
University
Stadium,
the
two
views
that
are
kind
of
the
primary
views
that
you'll
see.
Sorry
I,
don't
know.
What's
going
on
with
everything
here
all
right.
Well,.
D
Sorry
about
this,
so
yeah,
it's
located
next
to
the
15
story,
tall
building,
Mount
Olivet
on
the
on
the
east
side
and
then
the
track
Stadium
stop
up
here
on
the
north,
the
two
primary
reviews
are
coming
down
from
the
University
and
then
coming
up
500
south,
which
you
know
Friendship
Manor,
really
kind
of
dominates
that
view.
At
this
point
the
existing
zone-
RMF
75,
you
know
thank
you,
Sarah
for
going
through
that
and
Wayne
for
clarifying
what
the
kind
of
restrictions
are.
D
There
I'm
going
to
just
kind
of
briefly
touch
on
them,
even
though
I
think
they've
kind
of
been
hammered
home
at
this
point
this
so
the
allowed
uses
on
the
site.
We've
got
multifamily
dwellings,
but
because
of
the
lot
size,
we
cannot
build
a
multi-family
building
as
Wayne
was
explaining.
We've
got
a
single-family
attached
dwellings,
which
we
need
a
planned
development,
because
we
have
units
that
don't
face
a
public
right-of-way,
so
we'd
have
to
go
through
planned
development,
but
plan
development
also.
D
Has
this
restriction
where
you
ever
have
to
have
a
minimum
lot
size
of
9,000
square
feet
in
order
submit?
We
don't
meet
that,
so
we
can't
go
plan
development,
which
also
kills
all
of
the
other
conditional
use
process
that
we
could
potentially
go
through
to
make
the
site
develop
well,
and
so
that
leaves
us
with
the
single-family
detached
dwelling,
but
I
don't
think
the
site
necessary
lends
itself
well
to
a
single-family
attached
dwelling.
D
If
we
look
back
on
the
site
images
we're
next
to
a
15-story
assisted
living
facility
in
a
graveyard,
it
kind
of
makes
for
an
unfavorable
development.
So
I
think
that's
why
we
still
have
a
vacant
lot
in
our
city,
and
so
what
we're
looking
at
is
basically
a
sad
story
of
a
urban
infill
that
never
was
and
never
will
be
right
and
I.
D
A
couple
other
fast-food
joints-
and
you
know
a
half-mile-
is
typically
kind
of
the
radius
in
which
people
are
willing
to
walk
in
an
urban
environment
to
reach
a
destination
point,
whether
it's
a
coffee
shop
or
a
transit,
stop
or
something.
And
so
what
we're
looking
at
is
basically
a
area
of
the
town.
That's
not
walkable!
There's
no
real
community
services,
there's
no
gathering
places
for
community
other
than
you
know
if
you
had
more
than
a
half
a
mile
in
either
direction.
D
So
that's
that's
kind
of
the
intent
of
going
to
the
RM
you
to
offer
some
sort
of
commercial
viability
to
service
the
existing
neighborhood
and
the
residents
that
are
there.
So
what
we're?
Looking
at
is,
you
know:
could
that
be
a
coffee
shop,
a
gathering
place?
We
could
also
look
at
you
know
it's
small
deli
that
services
friendship
manner,
something
that
creates
a
walkable
environment
for
the
individuals
that
are
living
in
Friendship
manner,
gets
them
out
of
the
building
and
an
off-site
and
then
in
terms
of
affordability.
D
There's
a
huge
real
estate
market
right
now,
that's
moving
into
downsizing
baby
boomers,
moving
out
of
the
suburbs
back
into
the
city,
smaller
spaces,
more
urban
environments
and
then,
of
course,
we're
so
close
to
the
university
there's
an
opportunity
to
maybe
target
ten-year
professors
or
even
visiting
professors,
adjunct
professors,
people
that
kind
of
would
like
a
nice
space
close
to
the
University
and
close
to
transit.
So
our
question,
is
you
know?
What
is
what
does
the
city
really
want
right?
D
A
A
B
My
name
is
Esther
hunter
I'm,
chair
of
the
East
Central
Community
Council,
and
also
the
University
of
Neighborhood
Council.
We
first
of
all
want
to
applaud
this
applicant
for
reaching
out
to
us
early
to
really
talk
about
how
the
community
and
the
neighborhood
felt
about
the
development
and
that
possibility.
It's
rare
that
developers
do
that
and
it's
awesome
when
they
do,
because
you
can
sit
and
work
out
things
ahead
of
time
and
we
did
have
a
vote
of
our
board.
Our
Executive
Board
13
people
voted.
B
Everybody
was
in
favor
of
that
the
board
represents
the
various
neighborhoods
as
well
as
the
executive
officers.
We
did
not
have
a
meeting
in
between
the
applicant
is
meeting
with
us
tomorrow
at
our
meeting,
but
we
did
not
have
a
general
community
meeting
that
we
were
able
to
actually
bring
them
in
to.
B
We
had
a
couple
of
dissenting
worries
which
mostly
had
to
do
about
density
in
general
and
also
the
actual
intended
use
being
in
the
university
neighborhood
and
always
having
conflicting
issues
between
party
houses
and
the
neighborhood.
That's
something
that
we've
just
learned
to
work
with
and
that
doesn't
really
affect
right
now.
But
in
the
future,
when
the
applicant
comes
back
for
any
exceptions
for
this,
we've
begun
those
conversations
and
that's
what
the
board
was
just
concerned
about
is
that
we
are
able
to
talk
about
that.
B
We've
talked
about
landscape
and
other
things,
buffers
the
fact
that
this
is
a
very
senior
complex,
next
door,
with
very
aging
and
many
different
types
of
ailments
that
people
have
that
we
especially
want
to
be
respectful
to
the
high-rise
and
the
things
that
they
have
there,
that
it
doesn't
disrupt
life,
their
quality
of
life.
At
this
point,
and
so
again
that
isn't
this
zoning
issue,
but
it
is
part
of
what
the
board
brought
up,
but
in
general
again
it
was
a
favorable
vote.
Thanks
great.
A
L
Hello,
I'm,
Roger,
Lamoni
I'm,
president
of
the
board
of
trustees
of
friendship,
Manor
and
some
of
the
faces
here
are
familiar.
It's
similar
to
a
development
that
was
proposed
a
couple
of
years
ago.
At
that
time
they
needed
some
right
away
from
us.
Our
concerns
to
remain
for
the
impact
of
our
residents,
a
friendship
manner,
especially
the
business
component.
L
We
are
concerned
about
parking
and
people
parking
in
our
lot,
which
is
also
shared
with
the
First
Unitarian
Church
and
their
preschool,
and
we
are
concerned
about
people
simply
driving
through
our
parking
lot,
cutting
across
from
13th
to
500
South
to
get
to
the
property.
You
know
there
is
no
parking
on
that
stretch
of
500
South,
and
so
we
are
not
sure
where
the
customer
parking
will
be.
It
can't
all
be
walk
in
traffic
because
that
never
seems
to
occur
in
Salt
Lake
City.
L
N
My
name
is
Elizabeth,
wait,
I'm,
also
on
the
board
of
trustees
of
friendship,
manor
I'm,
also,
a
former
small
business
owner
in
Salt,
Lake
City,
and
at
one
point,
when
we
converted
the
business
from
one
use
to
another
or
expanded,
we
expanded
the
use,
we
turned
building
behind
the
primary
business
into
another
business
use.
There
was
a
real
question
and
a
delayed
response
because
of
the
traffic
flow
and
they
use
adequate
parking.
N
So
it
just
made
me
aware
of
all
of
the
considerations
for
traffic
flow
in
and
out
of
an
area
as
well
as
sufficient
parking
for
the
proposed
use
of
a
space.
The
space
that
I
had
had
the
business
that
I
owned
was
a
music
studio
where
there
were
temporary.
There
were
people
there
for
a
short
period
of
time
and
then
leaving
so
there
wasn't
a
concentrated
gathering
of
people
during
the
week
day.
It
was
also
off
of
a
street
where
there
was
a
very
easy
to
way
flow
and
I.
N
Don't
know
whether
you're
noticing
the
the
traffic
flow
on
in
that
particular
area.
In
that
particular
area,
one
can
enter
the
property
only
from
the
east
and
only
if
you're
traveling
east
on
5th
south.
You
can
also
enter
the
area
only
if
you're
traveling
north
on
13th
east
and
then
there's
a
real
temptation
to
enter
the
area
through
the
parking
lot
of
friendship
Manor.
N
Those
seniors
in
friendship
Manor
across
the
driveway
that
accesses
the
the
parking
for
friendship,
Manor,
there's
a
smoking
area,
that's
on
the
east
side
of
the
parking
lot
from
friendship
Manor
where
the
residents
go
to
smoke.
So
there's
no
smoking
in
friendship,
manor
facility
and
we've
provided
a
stop
sign
in
a
walkway
across
the
driveway
to
to
the
friendship,
manor
parking
lot
to
a
gazebo
where
they
can
smoke.
N
That
is
the
part
that
is
the
driveway
that
one
would
enter
to
the
friendship
manor
parking
that
we
have
every
expectation
just
because
I've
seen
it
from
the
point
of
view
as
a
business
owner
every
expectation
that
people
would
either
purposely
or
by
mistake,
come
into
the
friendship,
Manor
working
area
and
then
provide
that
much
less
security
for
people
friend,
friendship
manner,
simply
going
out
to
walk
their
pets
or
smoke.
Friendship
manner
is
very
self-contained.
N
Residents
often
don't
leave
the
facility
to
go
anyplace.
They
would
not
be
probable
patrons
of
any
business
across
the
road.
The
parking
air,
the
driveway
to
that
parking
lot,
because
there
is
there,
are
eating,
there's
an
eating
facility
inside
Friendship
manner
and
there's
a
garden
facility,
so
friendship,
Manor
was
designed
for
that
purpose.
To
be
self-contained
and
and
I
thought
I
heard,
a
timer
did
I
hear
a
timer.
Thank
you,
but.
A
A
Does
anyone
else
from
the
community
who
would
like
to
speak
on
this
matter
all
right,
seeing
none,
we
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
hearing
and
bring
it
back
up
to
the
Commission.
See
where
we
want
to
go
from
here.
Maybe
have
Sarah
come
back
up
at
least
have
any
questions.
Maybe
you
can
address.
I
am
very
familiar
with
the
having
taken
my
kids
to
this
ECNs
preschool
Unitarian
Church
for
five
years.
A
I
know
that
parking
area
very
well
and
thanks
for
letting
the
school
use
the
parking
it's
very
important,
but
I
do
know
that
it
is
complicated
for
the
access
and
I
can
see.
I
can
see
some
concern
with
utilizing
the
parking
and
the
driveways,
even
if
it's
mistakenly
and
happying
happening
quite
a
bit
so
I'm,
assuming
that
this
project
would
have
to
have
access
on
to
fifth
south
and
it
does
currently
or
do
they
have
to
get
permission
from
you
dot
to
get
a
cut
out
to
that
street.
How
does
that
work?
There.
A
M
J
I
think
for
tonight,
I
mean
are
I,
certainly
have
heard,
I
hear
the
community
concerns
and
think
that
we
don't
want
people
driving
through
and
impacting
their
unnecessarily,
but
I
think
I
mean
we're
looking
at
this,
not
as
this
project
but
more
as
this
zone
appropriate
for
this
space,
I
and
I
think
it's
totally
appropriate.
It's
one
of
the
more
straightforward
ones
that
we've
dealt
with
it
seems
like
a
mixed
use
in
this.
J
You
know
as
a
real
concern
and
something
that
we
want
to
make
sure
we
take
note
of
and
manage,
and
but
you
know,
access
to,
neighboring
properties
is
not
a
can
of
zoning.
It's
not
it's,
not
a
really
a
standard.
We're
reviewing
here,
it
was
would
be.
You
know,
but
I
think
that
the
zone
looks
like
it.
We
would
be
positively
impactful
from
the
neighborhood
in
the
area
and
it
seems
appropriate
to
the
master
plan
and
I'm
supportive.
A
I
Make
a
motion:
okay,
based
on
the
findings
and
analysis
and
the
staff
report,
testimony
and
discussion
at
the
public
hearing
I
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
that
the
City
Council
approved
the
proposed
zoning
map.
Amendment
file,
PLN
PCM,
2018,
zero,
zero,
two,
five,
six
Provo's
zone
change
from
RMF;
seventy
five
high
density,
multi-family
residential
district
to
rmu
forty
five
residential
mixed
use,
residential
district
in
order
to
allow
the
property
to
be
developed
with
high
density
residential
use.
A
second.
A
I
C
A
B
O
O
The
main
purpose
of
these
amendments
is
to
better
define
the
srted
well
in
use
and
also
to
expand
the
number
of
zoning
districts
where
the
use
is
permitted.
The
mayor
initiated
this
petition
with
the
intent
of
implementing
elements
of
the
growing
SLC
housing
plan,
which
was
formally
adopted
by
council
at
the
end
of
2017,
so
first
I
just
wanted
to
briefly
discuss
the
SRO
housing
type
and
what
it
is
can
generally
be
described
as
a
structure
or
a
part
of
a
structure
that
contains
individual
rooms
of
combined
sleeping
and
living
areas.
O
O
Pulled
up
just
some
images
off
the
internet
to
try
to
illustrate
what
the
SRO
housing
type
might
look
like
on.
The
top
left
is
a
picture
of
what
could
be
a
potential
SRO
layout
with
two
individual
units.
I
contain
their
own
sinks
in
the
units,
but
they
share
toilet
and
shower
facilities
and
under
the
definition
being
proposed
tonight.
These
tenants
would
share
a
common
kitchen
located
elsewhere
in
the
building
and
they
might
share
that
kitchen
with
more
than
just
themselves.
O
So
these
are
just
some
some
additional
things.
I
wanted
to
note,
so
the
physical
form
in
layout,
you
might
notice,
is
similar
to
other
uses
such
as
a
dormitory
or
hostel,
but
they
are
residential.
Housing
type
meant
to
be
it
out
on
a
monthly
basis
or
even
potentially
sold,
because
there
are
typically
small
rooms
of
shared
amenities.
O
They
might
cost
developers
less
to
construct,
which
would
allow
them
to
pass
savings
on
to
future
tenants
via
reduce
rental
rates,
and
they
are
typically
more
affordable,
housing
type,
but
it
doesn't
always
mean
that
they're,
officially
income
restricted
in
recent
years.
Changing
demographics
and
living
preferences
have
led
to
the
development
of
market
rate
asuras
for
those
who
simply
refer
to
live
alone,
don't
want
to
have
to
maintain
amenities,
and
this
could
include
young
professionals
who
spend
a
lot
of
time
outside
of
their
homes
are
also
seniors
who
live
independently
still,
but
they
wish
to
downsize.
O
So
it
could
accommodate
a
range
of
types
of
of
people
were
different
incomes,
so
I'm
going
to
summer.
The
next
few
slides
will
summarize
the
proposed
the
specific
text
amendments.
There
are
two
major
changes:
more
significant
changes.
First,
the
amendment
of
the
definition
of
an
SRO
dwelling
and
we're
also
proposing
to
expand
the
number
of
zoning
districts
where
this
type
of
use
would
be
permitted.
There
are
also
three
minor
amendments
that
are
necessary
just
to
maintain
consistency
throughout
the
code,
but
they're
more
housekeeping
items,
I'd
say
so.
O
O
It
currently
defines
SRO
dwelling
use
more
like
a
studio
apartment,
saying
that
each
individual
unit
must
be
self-contained,
which
means
that
all
amenities
that
have
to
be
located
inside
the
unit,
nothing
would
be
shared
and
each
unit
shall
not
exceed
five
hundred
square
feet
in
size.
This
definition
inhibits
the
development
of
true
SRO
housing,
which
typically
includes
the
common
kitchen
or
toilet
facilities
that
are
shared
between
tenants.
So
we
are
proposing
to
fully
amend
this
definition,
so
it
accurately
reflects
what
the
SRO
use
is.
O
We
would
add
language
saying
unless
otherwise
stipulated
so
that
the
SRO
definition
would
kind
of
trump
that,
and
we
also
want
to
strike
out
apartment
hotels,
because
it's
not
found
anywhere
else
in
the
code
and
it
the
term
could
be
confused
with
SRO
dwellings.
So
we
want
to
take
that
out.
So
this
is
the
second
more
significant
amendment.
O
O
They
did
include
joining
districts
with
existing
design
standards
in
place,
districts
that
already
permit
uses
with
similar
characteristics
or
levels
of
intensity
districts
that
typically
have
close
proximity
to
frequent
public
transit
and
districts
that
a
permit
or
typically
located
near
a
mix
of
uses,
so
residents
could
have
accessibility
to
employment
or
other
amenities
by
foot
or
bicycle.
We
looked
at
all
the
zoning
districts
and
came
up
with
the
list
on
the
right.
O
O
Currently,
the
the
SRO
dwelling
is
kind
of
grouped
in
with
multifamily
dwellings
and
we're
proposing
to
make
the
SRO
dwelling
its
own
standalone
residential
use,
so
it
wouldn't
be
a
type
of
multifamily
drawing
it
would
be
its
own
residential
use.
So
we
want
to
add
that
put
it
in
its
own
row
under
residential
and
we
would
maintain
the
same
minimum
required
parking
ratio
which
would
be
one
half
space
per
individual
unit.
O
O
So
one
requirement
states
that
buildings
containing
commercial
or
office
uses
above
the
second
story
shall
incorporate
multifamily
dwellings,
boarding
houses,
but
in
breakfasts
or
hotel
uses
for
at
least
50%
of
the
total
floor
area
of
the
building.
We
just
want
to
add
single
room
occupancy
dwellings.
O
We
think
that
that
used,
the
SRO
dwelling
use
is
similar
to
the
other
specific
uses
in
this
section.
So
you
want
to
add
it
so
the
SRO
dwelling
used
to
be
permitted
or
encouraged
in
mixed
use.
Developments
in
the
d3
zone
and
just
to
wrap
this
up.
I
did
want
to
quickly
address
the
growing
SLC
housing
plan
because
it
was
the
reason
this
petition
was
initiated.
O
So
we
could
advance
some
of
its
goals
and
objectives.
This
blurb
I
think
kind
of
sums
up
the
plan.
It
outlines
solutions
for
reaching
a
point
where
all
residents
current
and
prospective
regardless
of
race,
age,
economic
status
or
physical
ability
can
find
a
place
to
call
home.
The
city's
housing
policy
must
address
issues
of
affordability,
creating
long-term
solutions
for
increasing
the
housing
supply,
expanding
housing
opportunities
throughout
the
city,
addressing
systemic
failures
in
the
rental
market
and
preserving
existing
units.
O
These
two
specific
goals
that
I
think
this
petition
directly
addresses
is
increasing
housing
options
by
reforming
city
practices
and
also
building
a
more
equitable
City
and
it
staffs
opinion.
These
changes
directly
support
these
two
goals:
we're
modernizing
the
land-use
code
and
zoning
regulations
to
reflect
affordability,
needs
and
provide
housing
options
for
all
income
levels
and
also
different
living
preferences.
So
staff
is
recommending
that
the
Planning
Commission
forwards,
a
favorable
recommendation
to
the
City
Council
for
their
consideration.
O
C
C
O
I
J
I,
just
I
forgot
this
definition,
so
each
unit
consists
of
one
combined
living,
which
would
be
like
a
living
room
or
and
sleeping
room.
So
like
is
this:
are
we
putting
multiple
people
in
in
the
same
room
with
these,
or
is
it
single
room
occupancy
in
a
sense
of
like
it's
one
person
per
room,
but
then
they're
sharing
other
amenities
in
the
house
like
I'm
trying
to
forget?
J
Is
it
similar,
like
if
I
get
together
with
three
or
four
of
my
friends
and
I,
run
out
a
house
and
I've
got
a
house
and
each
of
us
have
our
own
room
and
then
we
share
a
kitchen
or
the
common
areas,
or
is
it
different
where
it's
like
we're
putting
multiple
people
in
each
of
those
rooms?
And
so
maybe
the
three
of
us
we're
not
putting
six
of
us
because
we're
all
and
then
we're
you
know,
I
mean
help
me
understand.
Yeah,.
O
E
E
That
said
it's
for
one
or
two
people
per
room,
but
we
backed
off
of
that,
because
if
we
wanted
to
allow
enough
flexibility
that
if
he
made
a
big
enough
room
to
mail,
Building
Code-
and
you
could
put
three
people
in
that
room
and
have
multiple
rooms
with
three
people
and
meet
all
their
building
code
requirements
and
everything
else,
you
could
still
fall
under
that
som.
Sro.
J
J
A
longer
term,
that's
right
right,
so
I'm,
not
so
that's
what
I'm
kind
of
getting
at
is.
It
seems
like
you're,
really
like
it
like
the
place.
We
just
rezone,
d'armée
45
you're,
putting
a
giant
hostel
for
students
with,
like
you
know,
a
bigger
room.
That's
got
20
people
sleeping
in
it
a
living
area
in
a
study.
Maybe
a
kitchen
he's
trying
to
like
am
a
student
housing.
I
could
see
the
neighborhood
being
really
really
mad
about
that.
G
J
J
J
But
if
you've
got
if
you've
got
a
room
and
since
it's
a
small
room
10
by
10,
right
small
bedroom,
but
you
could
probably
fit
to
2
beds
or
a
bunks
3,
that's
just
different.
If
you
got
one
person,
there's
only
so
many
10
by
10
rooms,
you
put
in
a
structure
also
need
a
lot
to
people
in
those
rooms
which
may
lower
the
rent
me.
This
is
a
goal
and
something
you're
getting
you're
getting
twice
to
3
times
the
occupancy
and
a
pretty
confined
ability
and
which,
looking
at
the
zoning
map
I
mean.
J
A
J
I
Too,
am
a
little
bit
uncomfortable
with
this
as
a
the
broadness
of
this,
because
it
if
you
look
if
you
do
look
at
the
map,
which
is
on
page
56
to
57
of
our
booklet,
there's
a
tremendous
amount
of
Central
City
area
where
this
could
have
a
tremendous
effect
by
conversion
of
large
homes
to
SROs
everywhere
to
but
to
building.
As
just
as
this
property
we
just
approved,
they
could
come
back
and
as
of
right
as
of
right
and
build,
you
know,
I,
don't
know
how
many
units
8,000
times
four
stories.
You
know.
I
E
Is
something
that
the
Planning
Commission
can
consider
as
a
recommendation,
but
is
key
to
remember?
The
you
know.
Conditional
use
process
is
a
through
state
code,
they're,
essentially
still
in
a
loud
use
unless
that
impacts
can't
be
mitigated.
But
that
is
something
that
the
Planning
Commission
certainly
can
recommend
to
the
City
Council.
If
they
think
that
there's
there
might
be
certain
impacts
in
certain
zoning
districts
is.
A
A
K
Mr.
chair
yeah
can
I
offer
a
recommendation
he's
looking
of
the
the
text.
The
proposed
amendment
to
the
term
dwelling,
unless
otherwise
stipulated
in
this
chapter
is
proposed
to
be
added.
A
couple
of
things
with
that
stipulated
generally
indicates
an
agreement.
I
would
say,
unless
otherwise
stated
or
specified
and
I
would
say
in
this
title
so
that
it
covers
all
of
21.
A
the
other
thing
that
that
particular
language
does.
Is
it
modifies
everything
in
front
of
it,
which
would
include
occupancy
on
a
monthly
basis
and
I'm
a
little
bit
concerned?
K
Given
all
the
conversation
that
we
have
about
short-term
rentals
in
the
city
that
we
might
want
to
specifically
tie
that
to
short
term
or
not
short
term
but
to
single
room
occupancy,
so
that
it's
not
every
kind
of
dwelling
unless
otherwise
specified
it
would
be,
unless
otherwise
specified
for
a
short
I,
keep
saying
a
short
term
for
a
single
room.
Occupancy
use,
something
like
that.
H
Yeah
so
I
mean
I'm
grappling
with
knowing
we
have
this
housing
crisis
and
we
have
this
crisis
and
affordability
that
we
have
to
step
out
of
our
comfort
zone.
A
lot
I
think
in
some
regards
how
we
want
to
propose
solutions
but
I
think
the
transitory
nature
of
an
SRO,
because
it's
a
monthly
and
you
don't
expect
them
there.
A
H
G
G
J
H
You
can
have
three
people
to
an
apartment.
You
can
get
less
apartments
in
a
building
than
you
could
in
SRO.
I
totally
see
that
difference
in
in
ratcheting
up
that
density,
but
I,
just
I,
don't
know
how
I
don't
know
why
it's
so
different
from
an
apartment
to
an
asura.
For
me,
the
difference
is
the
transitory
part,
not.
B
J
G
G
H
I
A
E
G
G
H
J
I'd
be
fine
with
a
one
one
person
or
family
per
bedroom.
I
mean
to
me
that
accommodates
make
some
progress
in
this
direction.
Without
you
know,
opening
it
up
to
what
I
think
is
both
highly
really
dense
and
then
also
you
know,
I'm
even
visioning,
just
slumlords
like
just
been
hacking.
People
in
I
mean
I'm
gonna,
be
honest
as
bad
as
that
sounds,
but
like
just
packing
cheap
rent,
you
know
here
it
is
and
when
I
can
take
care
of
it,
three
people,
here's
a
bedroom,
I
mean
it's
like
I
got.
J
G
A
Is
there
anything
from
a
policy
directive
that
you've
gotten
that
would
push
towards?
You
know
that
the
necessity
of
having
three
families
there
are
three
people
per
room
versus
the
one
I
mean.
Obviously
it
puts
a
lot
more
people
on
there,
but
I
mean.
Are
we
going
because
you
know
I
grew?
They
me
that
we're
trying
to
address
a
housing
problem,
and
so
are
we
going
to
be
addressing
it
in
an
aggressive
way
by
going
with
Matt
suggestion,
yeah.
O
H
E
H
I
If
we
don't
know
that,
then
we
don't
know
the
answer
to
this
question.
I
mean
yes,
if
it
is
a
600
square
foot
unit
and
the
building
code
allows
up
to
four
people:
okay,
if
it's
a
two
hundred
square
foot
unit-
and
we
try
to
put
four
people
in
it,
that's
a
whole
different
story.
So
what
if
we
don't
know
what
that?
What
the
answer
to
that
is:
it's
a
fire
code.
I
It's
a
fire
code,
occupancy
situation,
but
it
will
be
on
that
square
footage
based
on
the
square
footage
of
the
unit
and
its
distance
from
fire
exits
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
So
there's
a
lot
of
there's
a
lot
of
conditions
that
have
to
go
into
the
design
of
the
building
to
allow
that
kind
of
density
and.
H
I
think,
if
we're
looking
at
not
putting
in
our
own
language
that
knowing
what
that
building
code
is,
is
helpful,
I
mean
it
might.
That
might
lay
our
concerns
about
how
many
people
per
room
if
it's
related
to
the
size
of
the
room
and
then
we
could
I,
would
be
more
comfortable
with
not
adding
that
language,
but.
H
K
C
B
To
page
60
in
the
staff
report
to
the
building
services
comments,
they
talk
about
what
the
building
code
requires
for
occupancy.
It
says
an
efficiency
dwelling
unit
which
is
a
unit
defined
as
having
a
living
room
of
not
less
than
220
square
feet
of
floor
area
and
an
additional
100
square
feet
for
each
additional
occupant
provided
with
a
kitchen
and
bathroom,
and
what
what
this
SRO
proposal
that
Ashley
has
is
suggesting
that
the
unit
has
either
a
kitchen
or
a
bathroom,
but
not
both.
O
O
I'm,
pretty
sure,
I'm,
sorry
to
convolute
things
but
I'm
pretty
sure,
because
I
spoke
with
the
reviewer
about
this,
because
our
current
definition
defines
a
studio
apartment.
He
was
wanting
us
to
add
a
definition
for
an
efficiency
dwelling
unit,
which
is
a
studio
which
has
a
kitchen
in
a
bathroom.
So
I
believe
that
this
section
of
code
refers
to
a
street
a
self-contained
studio
apartment.
The
standards
might
be
similar
for
an
SRO,
but
I
can't
confirm
that.
A
A
J
I
E
E
It
gets
difficult
when
we
route
things
and
we
get
our
reviews
from
building
services
because
they
and
sometimes
they're
kind
of
looking
at
it
from
a
building
code
perspective,
but
we're
looking
at
it
from
a
zoning
perspective
and
it
can't
it
has
a
tendency
to
convolute
things
a
little
bit
we're
just
trying
to
define
a
specific
use,
we're
trying
to
we're
trying
to
fill
a
hole
in
our
allowable
housing
types
in
the
city
right
now.
The
way
that
our
sor
definite,
our
definition
is
stated,
it
doesn't
really
define
an
SRO.
E
It
defines
a
studio
apartment
because
says:
every
unit
must
be
self-contained.
It's
basically
doesn't
make
any
sense,
so
we're
we're
basically
we're
trying
to
we're
trying
to
fill
that
gap
in
the
housing
need
within
the
city,
and
there
is
some
you
know,
issues
between
building
code
and
and
like
this
efficiency
dwelling
unit.
You
know
they
would
like
us
to
add
some
things
to
try
to
help
in
their
future
reviews
with
other
uses,
and
this
happens
a
lot
it
people
always
want
to
build
on
our
zoning
code
changes
to
fix
other
things.
G
Was
gonna
comment
that
I
did
a
quick
google
search
here
of
the
definition
of
SRO
by
HUD
and
they
actually
define
it
as
a
property
that
includes
multiple
single
room
dwelling
units.
Each
unit
is
for
occupancy
by
a
single
eligible
individual.
The
unit
the
unit
need
not
earn.
The
unit
need
not
but
may
contain
food
preparation
or
sanitary
facilities,
or
both.
J
J
If
we're
looking
at
this
building
services,
zoning
comment
I
mean
they're,
saying
in
a
way
we
can't
discriminate
based
on
the
number
of
occupants
per
room
on
their
hair
for
housing
standards.
But
this
line
about
where
it
says
you
could
say
there
has
to
be
100
square
feet
of
sleeping
area
per
occupant
under
that's
what
he's
so
kind
of
hinting
at
the
efficiency
dwelling
unit,
it's
kind
of
common
area,
if
220
square
feet,
plus
an
additional
100
square
feet
for
each
individual
occupant
and
provided
with
a
kitchen
and
bathroom.
J
I
Have
a
sense
just
a
month
between
us
here
that
if
this
were
more
widely
understood
that
half
the
city
would
be
freaking
out
at
the
at
the
potential
of
having
a
single
room.
Occupant
building,
you
know
converted
or
built
next
to
them,
partly
because
of
the
tenure
issued.
I
mean
the
length
of
the
transitory
issue
and
partly
because
of
the
densities.
I
O
G
O
We
wrote
this
definition
just
based
on
a
lot
of
research
on
different
cities,
how
they
define
they
use,
how
they
regulate
it.
This
is
what
we
chose
and,
like
I
said,
we're
trying
to
be
as
least
prescriptive
as
possible,
because
the
building
code
is
extremely
prescriptive
for
an
example.
This
is
how
they
regulate
a
studio
apartment,
which
is
self-contained,
but
they
do
have
minimum
floor
areas
per
occupant.
They'll
have
a
minimum
number
of
kitchens
per
total
number
of
occupants
using
that
kitchen
under
the
congregate
living
facilities.
O
I
Those
circumstances
I'm
thinking
I'm
thinking
of
proposing
that
we
table
this.
While
we
get
that
information
from
the
building
code
so
that
we
have
a
better
idea
of
how
that
would
actually
work
in
practice
here
in
Salt
Lake,
under
our
own
building
codes,
not
somewhere
else
and
I,
do
think
we
ought
to
have
a
little
bit
more
information
on
how
the
Fair
Housing
Act
would
also
work.
With
this
proposal.
G
J
G
Obviously,
you
guys
know
how
many
are
in
each
of
these
zoning
areas
approximately.
But
then
is
there
any
way
to
get
at
say
within
a
zoning
area
or
within
an
area
of
the
city
that
this
is
applied
to
how
many
say
vacant
lots
or
potential
potentially
developable
houses
that
could
be
divided
into
an
SRO.
E
J
What
what
I
think
would
be
helpful
is
looking
at,
maybe
if
we
were
Verizon
recommendations
on
tearing
the
zoning
so
now,
instead
of
just
coming
out
saying
these
are
all
the
zones,
so
these
are
the
ones
that
we
definitely
hundred
percent
would
do
this
ones.
We
can
consider
I
mean
if
we
were
to
scale
that
the
zones
back
a
little
bit,
which
ones
would
we
scale
back
and
why
or
maybe
we
don't
scale
them
back,
and
you
completely
disagree
with
that
point
of
scaling
anything
back
art.
E
C
E
I
think
it
is
important
to
recognize
when
you
look
at
that
list,
Ashley
that
you
know
we're
not
touching
the
RMF
zones,
we're
not
touching
those
zones
where
it's
you
know
strictly
multifamily,
that's
not
in
the
proposal.
When
you
look
at
those
districts.
Those
are
all
zoning
districts
that
allow
a
mix
of
uses
that
don't
have
density
limitations
in
place,
so
they
all
have
very
similar
characteristics
as
what
this
proposal
would
be.
A
J
C
J
G
She
was
like
I
feel,
like
we've,
seen
something
like
that
with
not
a
sorrows
but
the
accessory
dwelling
units
there.
There
was
some
analysis
done
about
how
it
had
worked
out
in
other
cities
and
in
our
city
since
implementation
I,
don't
know,
there's
anything
any
recent
implementation
of
this
out
there
that
you
could
look
at
and/or
talk
to
that
city
on.
J
In
these,
under
this
definition,
you
know
it's
got
the
one
per
occupant
or
whatever
you
know.
This
is
where
they've
kind
of
been
developed,
and
these
are
the
zones
for
which
the
city
provides
it
to,
and
they
do
tend
the
neighbor
single-family
residential
or
they
don't,
and
you
know,
and
and
cities
are
particularly
our
peers-
would
be
I-
think
nothing
helpful.
J
I
I
J
We
do
look
at
this.
The
only
place
they
really
end
up
is
right
around
the
University
and
there's
just
a
little
bit
of
that
node.
That
isn't
you
know
when
the
market
moves
it
to.
That
would
be
hopeful
to
understand.
You
know
I'm
just
trying
to
make
a
motion:
okay,
I'm
motioned,
the
Planning
Commission
table
at
the
table,
PL
and
PCM
2018;
zero,
zero,
zero,
six,
six
and
asked
staff
to
come
back
with
additional
information
regarding
how
other
cities
have
defined
SROs
and
how
those
have
been
implemented
in
those
communities.
J
How
building
codes
with
in
Salt
Lake
City,
provide
restrictions
on
density
and
occupancy
in
the
areas?
How
looking
at
reducing
the
impact
near
single-family
districts
or
how
you
know
what
you
know,
what
that
would
be
that
we're
we're
proposed
districts,
neighbors
single-family
districts
and
what
we
want
to
look
at
there
and
then
how
this
proposal
overlays,
along
with
the
occupancy
sort
of
restrictions
overlays
with
the
Fair
Housing
Act.