►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting - March 27, 2019
Description
Planning Commission Meeting
A
Gentlemen,
we're
gonna
call
this
meeting
of
the
Planning
Commission
to
order
like
to
remind
you
of
a
few
things.
Please
turn
off
your
cell
phones
if
you
have
to
take
a
call,
take
it
outside
and
let's
be
respectful
of
people
who
come
up
to
speak
if
you're
part
of
the
public
coming
up
to
speak,
you
need
to
come
to
the
microphone.
You'll
have
two
minutes
to
speak.
If
you're
from
the
community
council
you'll
have
five
minutes
and
let's
no
no
booing
cheering.
Let's
just
try
to
be
polite
with
each
other.
Okay,.
D
C
A
E
G
You
Paul
Thank
You,
chair,
I,
will
endeavor
to
be
clear
in
my
speaking.
My
name
is
Lonnie
Egerton
Goff
I'm
very
pleased
to
be
here
before
the
Commission
to
discuss
and
remind
you
that
we
are
looking
out
for
an
action
from
the
Commission
this
evening.
We're
looking
to
do
a
briefing
and
I
assume
you'll
be
doing
the
public
hearing
after
I
do
a
brief
presentation
and
then
we
plan
to
bring
this
back
to
the
Commission
at
some
point
in
the
future.
G
We
will
be
anticipating
some
changes
since
the
public
open
house
that
was
in
February,
we've
received
several
comments
and
had
a
meeting
with
a
couple
of
folks
that
were
very
interested
and
had
some
concerns
and
we're
trying
to
address
those
as
we
go
forward.
We
have
had
conversations
with
our
attorney.
That's
helping
us
through
the
ordinance
changes
and
I
just
wanted
to.
Let
you
know
that
kind
of
up
front
so.
C
G
Development
and
enhancement
of
livable
healthy
and
sustainable
neighborhoods.
My
division
is
responsible
for
the
growing
SLC
housing
plan
and
we
have,
as
part
of
that
plan,
been
working
with
planning
staff
to
identify
barriers
to
affordable
housing
and
housing
in
general.
As
we
all
know,
we
have
challenged
with
a
variety
of
housing,
products
and
types
for
inclusivity
and
equity
throughout
the
city,
and
our
mission
includes
a
variety
of
housing
types
and
people
throughout
the
city.
G
This
has
been
challenging
ordinance
over
the
past
20
years,
since
it
was
initially
adopted,
I
guess.
Under
the
cordini
administration
there
have
been
different
interpretations
of
the
formula
used
for
the
actual
dollar
amount
that
would
be
paid
to
the
Housing
Trust
Fund
over
the
course
of
two
different
revisions
to
this
ordinance.
We
have
worked
with
housing
advisory
I'm
going
to
get
the
other
part,
the
hab
board,
to
try
and
address,
and
at
least
understand
why
those
formulas
have
been
such
a
challenge.
G
They
are
the
board
that
reviews
any
housing
mitigation
plans
which
are
required
by
the
ordinance
and
I
think
we've
only
been
able
to
capture
just
under
$10,000
in
the
past
three
years.
That
information
is
in
more
detail
in
your
packets.
If
you
want
to
get
it
into
more
detail
about
that,
we
can
so
we're
working
on
the
process.
That's
a
focus
for
the
revisions.
We
want
to
remove
the
term
affordable
because
we
want
to
include
all
types
of
residential
use.
G
All
housing
a
building
permit
would
be
the
mechanism
in
order
to
trigger
the
need
for
looking
at
if
there's
a
loss
of
housing
units
and
that
would
require
housing
mitigation
plan
to
be
worked
on
with
the
building
services
group
and
then,
as
appropriate.
Talking
with
planning
and
housing
and
Neighborhood
Development
staff
I
keep
trying
to
use
the
mouse
a
second.
G
If
a
housing
mitigation
plan
would
be
required
that
would
be
submitted
to
the
building
services
division.
It's
a
little
bit
tricky
because
the
building
services
division
is
separate
from
hand
and
separate
from
planning
just
administrative
Lea,
but
our
civil
enforcement
manager
is
the
one
that
works
with
the
housing
advisor
I
can't
I'm.
Sorry
I've
lost
the
acronym
meaning,
but
it's
have
board,
so
he
managed
manages
anything
that
comes
before
the
board,
including
potential
housing
mitigation
plans.
So
the
details
of
the
the
exemptions
we've
expanded
that
it
seems
counterintuitive
like
almost
a
double
negative
I.
G
Think
one
of
our
public
pointed
that
out,
but
we've
expanded
it
to
be.
An
exemption
would
be
if
there's
not
a
loss,
a
net
loss
of
residential
units.
Also,
if
there
is
a
if
it's
not
a
permitted
or
conditional
use
in
the
zone,
then
we
would
refer
to
the
land
use
and
that
exemption
would
be
allowed
and
then,
lastly,
if
we
replace
other
uses
through
an
adaptive,
reuse
process,
so
those
are
the
kind
of
the
high
level
changes
that
we
are
proposing.
G
We
did
talk
extensively
with
the
hab
board,
several
have
board
members
and
with
billing
services
staff,
Orion
goth
as
the
director
of
billing
services
and
several
of
his
managers
to
kind
of
just
work
through
what
would
make
sense
for
process
within
the
city
to
capture
the
needs
for
a
mitigation
plan,
and
we
also
worked
extensively
with
joel
patterson
in
planning
and
I
have
talked
quite
a
bit
with
Wayne
and
Mikaela
just
to
understand
how
we
would
all
work
together.
So
that's
really
the
bulk
of
what
I
have
to
present.
G
C
F
C
F
G
F
H
F
Think
with
this
rewrite
it
kind
of
changes,
the
whole
process
I
mean
we're.
The
way
that
process
was
set
up
has
been
set
up
in
the
in
the
past
has
been
a
little
problematic
because
it
ties
it
to
land
use
application,
whereas
actually
now
this
is
changing
it
to
the
building
permit
stage.
So,
if
you're
coming
in
just
for
a
building
permit
and
you're
removing
a
housing
unit,
then
this
mitigation
kicks
in
so
it
gets
us
outside
of
the
whole.
You
know
zoning
district
coverage
kind
of
scenario,
and
it's
really
just
a
we're.
I
I
G
I
F
Need
to
actually
back
up
on
my
statement
a
little
bit
here
as
I'm
going
through
this
I'm
going
through
this
ordinance.
Oh,
there
are
some
things
where
it
is.
There
are
some
exceptions
right,
and
so
you
know
it
isn't,
like
I
say
stated
before,
where
it's
just
a
like-for-like
scenario.
There
are
some
exceptions.
So
if
the,
if
the
housing
is
a
non-conforming
use
which
would
be
kind
of
in
our
maybe
our
manufacturing
zones,
where
basically
dwelling
units
are
not
allowed
so
that
be
non-conforming
use,
that's
an
exception
to
this
code.
F
C
F
F
E
G
E
E
E
E
C
B
G
We're
hoping
that
this
isn't
a
competition
between
affordable
and
non
affordable
units.
We
want
to
improve
the
possibility
of
housing
throughout
the
city,
so
that's
been.
The
conversation
like
I
said,
with
planning
and
with
building
services
and
with
the
administration
higher
up
than
me
saying.
We
want.
You
know
housing
for
everyone
and
if
we
limit
this
to
just
affordable
housing
units,
then
we
limit
the
potential
mitigation.
H
Wanting
in
the
so
I'm
taking
it
that
by
removing
affordable,
you're,
allowing
also
a
monetary
capture
for
a
larger
portion,
well
pretty
much
everything
for
the
mitigation
trust,
but
I'm
wondering
since
this
ordinance
doesn't
deal
with
on
the
mitigation
plan.
What
is
that
an
internal
policy
of
what
you're
looking
for
what
goes
into
the
mitigation
plan,
because
I'm
wondering,
if
that
can
kind
of
address
affordable
for
affordable
if
we're
losing
an
affordable?
Can
we
be
getting
it
back?
And
maybe
it's
not
written
into
this
ordinance?
H
H
I,
don't
know
how
much
of
that
is
even
the
Planning
Commission
level
topical
purview,
but
it
might
be
important,
as
you
are
redoing
this
ordinance,
that
you
also
look
at
how
you
revise
review
mitigation
plans
and
what
you
expect
in
them,
and
it
might
be
a
good
opportunity
to
address
this
question.
That's
coming
up
of
like.
Why
are
you
removing
affordable
that
you
can
then
have
a
mechanism
where
you're
trying
and
you
know,
to
work
towards
an
gain
of
affordable
units
instead
of
a
loss?
Yes,.
I
So
in
the
first
part
of
this
revised
ordinance,
it
crosses
out
the
demolition
permit.
So
if
somebody
comes
in
and
just
wants
to
demolish
three
houses
on
their
lot,
this
isn't
triggered
because
they
have
to
be
going
for
a
building
permit,
or
is
there
a
distinction
between
a
building
permit
in
a
demolition
permit?
Yes,.
G
I
G
B
G
F
There's
gonna
be
a
coordinated
effort
with
this.
This
is
and
putting
this
in
here
is
probably
a
bit
of
the
cart
before
the
horse,
because
you
guys
are
gonna,
be
seeing
hopefully
within
the
next
Oh
five
months
or
so
four
months
or
so,
an
ordinance
on
adaptive.
Reuse.
That's
going
to
set
up
what's
allowed
guidelines
things
like
that
on
reusing
buildings
and
it'll
outline.
F
Just-Just,
maybe,
as
an
example
building
in
a
you
know
particular
area.
That's
at
least
you
know.
Fifty
years
old
would
be
eligible
for
adaptive,
reuse,
meaning
that
you
could
get
exemptions
from
certain
zoning
criteria
to
keep
that
building
intact
as
opposed
to
demolishing
the
building.
So
we
could
keep
some
of
our
so.
F
C
F
G
B
You're,
let's
say:
I
operate
a
nonprofit
that
does
arts
programming
for
at-risk
youth
and
I,
take
a
house
in
a
neighborhood
and
convert
it
from
the
dwelling
unit.
To
my
my
program:
choice,
mm-hmm.
What
accommodations
are
there
for
organizations
that
are
doing
things
that
are
good
for
the
public
good
to
have
to
participate
in
this
mitigation
plan
for
housing.
G
B
I
do
think
there
should
be
some
some
cross-referencing
within
the
zoning
code
that
this
does
exist
and
this
can
apply
if
you're
in
a
particular
zone
and
you're
going
to
demolish
a
residential
unit.
Just
so,
people
are
on
notice
and
it
doesn't
arise
the
first
time
at
the
building
permit
issuance.
So.
G
B
I
think
there
should
be
some
cross-referencing
in
the
zoning
ordinance
to
this
ordinance
so
that
people,
if
they're
in
you,
know
looking
at
a
properties
in
a
residential
district
and
they
need
to
demolish
the
residential
units
that
they
know.
This
ordinance
will
kick
in.
So
they
don't
get
through
the
entire
development
process
and
get
to
the
point
of
a
building
permit
and
then
finding
out
about
the
I'm.
H
Why
would
you
leave
the
valuation
determination
up
to
the
developer
and
not
have
some
secondary
city
source
to
agree
with
that
valuation,
because
we've
seen
nationally
how
we
devalue
property
and
then
we
get
away
with
not
paying
the
proper
things
if
we're
talking
about
trying
to
properly
fund
the
trust?
What
was
the
rationale
behind,
leaving
that
valuation
determinations
solely
up
to
the
developer?
Well,.
G
So
that
I
don't
think
it
was
entirely
in
tension,
the
appraised
value
or
the
development
process
that
the
value
has
to
be
ascertained
at
some
point,
and
our
intention
was
to
say
this
is
going
to
be
the
appraised
value
of
these
units
that
are
being
lost
based
on
the
stay
at
the
Salt,
Lake
County
appraiser's
office,
and
then
the
new
units,
or
the
lack
thereof,
would
have
a
percentage
and
we
put
out,
we
started
with
5%
and
that
became
too
problematic.
At
least
it
was
based
on
billing
services
conversation.
H
Don't
ills
into
the
second
part
of
my
evaluation?
One
is
I,
don't
think
you
should
be
leaving
it
up
to
the
developer,
to
give
you
a
valuation,
because
obviously
they
have
a
different
self-interest
than
the
city.
The
second
I
think
point
zero.
Zero
four
is
point
zero,
four
point:
zero
four
is
ridiculous.
H
G
H
If,
currently,
if
you
were
capturing
all
of
the
all
of
the
funds
that
you
could
technically
could
be,
it
would
still
be
vastly
underfunded,
and
so
this
is
an
opportunity
to
work
it
backwards
from
what
you,
what
you're,
trying
to
attain
what
your
goal
for
this
is
and
then
are
you.
Are
you
signing
a
proper
valuation
to
it
in
terms
of
what
we're
losing,
what
we're
gaining
and
so
that
the
developer
doesn't
tell
you
how
much
it's
worth
and
then
they
they
know.
G
H
I
So
I
have
one
more
concern
about
the
way
this
is
going
forward
and
it's
and
it
is,
you
know
that
there
is
an
exception
for
properties
which
are
dilapidated
or
something
like
that
and
otherwise
need
to
be
taken
down.
I
would
not
make
that
exception.
It
I
would
say
something
like
if
I
how,
if
it's
a
unit,
that's
been
lived
in
within
the
last
two
years,
because
you
could
just
allow
things
to
go
down,
and
we
don't
want
that.
That's
exactly
the
opposite
of
what
we
want,
but.
I
J
J
The
history
of
this
ordinance,
it's
a
sad
tale,
but
its
characteristic
of
the
cordini
administration.
It
was
never
designed
to
generate
a
lot
of
money
for
the
housing
trust
fund.
It
was
all
about
creating
additional
tax
base,
which
was
what
the
cordini
administration
was
all
about.
You
can't
understand
how
the
math
operates
until
you
understand
that
what
cordini
wanted
to
do
was
increase
the
tax
base.
J
If
the
tax
base
was
higher
than
there
was
no
money
going
into
the
fund,
that's
the
math
that
Lauren
Parisi
presented
to
you
on
why
such
community
gardens
not
very
long
ago.
The
policy
here
changes
completely
if
you
take
out
the
words
affordable
and
you
change
whether
you're
talking
about
residential
or
non-residential
development,
it
changes
everything
in
terms
of
the
policy.
The
math
has
been
problematic
since
I
started
down
this
path
on
the
21st
of
February.
J
Housing
thinks
that
you
come
up
with
a
big
number.
The
numbers
that
have
been
generated
have
been
negative
I,
don't
know
why
we
can't
get
on
the
same
page
about
the
math,
but
we
can't
the
references
in
the
ordinance
to
the
number
being
prohibitively
high
are
not
consistent
with
what
the
staff
is
generating.
J
The
point
o4
is
just
absurd.
This
is
what
I
do
all
day
every
day
and
usually
on
the
weekends,
I
rehab,
dilapidated
housing,
there
historic
buildings,
the
very
nice
most
of
them
now
ones
that
aren't
nice,
yet
aren't
rented
so
to
suggest
that
this
is
what
it
costs
to
provide,
affordable,
housing
and
that
all
it's
worth
to
the
CD
is
0.04.
J
It's
just
insulting.
It
cost
me
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
a
unit
if
the
building
is
already
up
and
I
don't
see.
Turning
this
over
to
civil
enforcement,
I
did
send
you
some
comments
early
today,
I'm
sorry,
they
were
late,
but
I.
Hope.
If
you
didn't
have
time
to
read
them,
you
will
read
them
and
thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
A
K
K
You,
my
name
is
Tim
Funke
I
work
on
housing
and
have
for
many
years
at
crossroads.
Urban
center
I
haven't
done
much
planning
and
zoning,
because
you
know
20
years
ago,
crossroads
was
instrumental
along
with
many
other
interests.
Housing
advocates,
and
there
were
more
of
us
than
there
are
now,
because
a
lot
of
the
federal
dollars
that
were
being
spent
on
that
are
gone.
What
you
have
is
a
lousy
ordinance
that
we're
trying
to
make
better
what
you
don't
have
is
real
cents.
In
the
ordinance
we've
read
the
ordinance
we've
met
with
your
staff.
K
Your
staff
told
us
that
they
had
not
checked
with
other
jurisdictions
across
the
country
that
have
mitigation
ordinances
that
have
worked
fairly
successfully
over
time
over
the
last
20
years.
Since
the
cordini
administration.
You
have
had
nothing
but
fault
steps
on
this.
This
could
be
another
false
step.
If,
indeed,
you
go
ahead
with
the
ordinance
as
it
is
written.
Your
staff
has
been
agreeable
to
us.
They've
group
they've
met
with
us,
but
they
told
us
that
they
had
not
checked
with
any
other
places.
K
You
can
get
on
the
internet
and
look
under
mitigation
ordinances
and
by
George
you'd,
be
surprised
at
how
many
jurisdictions
have
ordinances.
Every
state
has
a
different
law
that
overrules
much
of
what's
in
the
ordinances
and
others
in
our
state,
but
you
can
still
do
a
better
job
than
we're
doing.
Why
is
that
important
affordability?
I
come
from
an
organization
that
works
on
affordability,
for
people
in
housing.
If
you
don't
have
affordability
in
here,
it's
lost
in
the
discussion.
We
cannot
be
with
you
with
every
demolition
or
application.
You
have
to
do
it.
K
The
city
has
to
do
it.
The
city
hasn't
been
doing
it.
So,
let's
do
it
right.
This
is
just
the
more
we
talk
about
it.
The
more
I
get
perplexed
and
I.
Tell
you.
I
haven't
done
this
before,
but
I
was
at
Crossroads
when
we
actually
had
the
conversation
about
how
to
do
it,
it
wasn't
accepted.
Let
me
give
you
one
example
on
our.
K
Need
to
hear
this
point,
we
have
behind
us
at
crossroads,
we're
on
forced
south
and
for
feast.
We
have
behind
us,
I,
forgetting
the
name
of
the
apartment,
building,
197
unit
apartment
building,
to
build
that
unit,
those
one
hundred
ninety
four,
ninety
seven
units,
none
of
which
are
affordable.
We
had
four
units
of
low-income
housing
torn
down.
There
was
not
one
penny
returned
to
the
state
or
to
the
housing
trust
fund,
because
those
were
lost
because
of
all
of
the
ambiguity
and
the
the
silliness.
That's
in
our
present
ordinance.
A
K
A
B
E
F
B
A
L
All
right
so
Caleb
Cox,
representing
t-mobile,
is
requesting
this
conditional
use
approval
to
install
a
new
antenna
antenna
array
with
a
diameter
of
39
inches
on
a
utility
pole
located
in
the
public
right-of-way
at
922
South
Emory
Street
seen
here.
A
special
exception
is
also
being
requested
at
this
time
to
allow
existing
utility
boxes
associated
with
the
antenna
array
to
remain
on
the
southwest
corner
of
the
private
property.
L
Salt
Lake
City's
zoning
code
allows
antenna
arrays
to
be
mounted
on
utility
poles
that
are
in
the
public
right
of
way
in
any
zoning
district
by
right
or
through
the
building
permit
process.
If
the
diameter
of
the
array
is
30
inches
or
less,
if
the
diameter
is
greater
than
30
inches,
the
array
must
obtain
conditional
use
approval
before
a
building
permit
can
be
issued.
L
There
is
an
existing
antenna
array
located
on
the
subject
utility
pole
that
would
be
replaced
by
the
proposed
array
seen
here.
The
city
issued
a
building
permit
for
a
30
inch
array
to
be
constructed
in
2015.
However,
the
array
was
built
much
larger
than
what
was
approved
and
therefore
this
antenna
is
illegally
existing.
As
you
can
see
on
this
overhead
view,
the
existing
array
has
a
diameter
of
80
inches
or
6
feet,
8
inches.
So
that's
that
outer
circle
and
then
the
proposed
array
would
have
a
diameter
of
39
inches
or
3
feet.
3
inches.
L
Again,
a
special
exception
is
also
being
requested
for
the
size
of
the
existing
utility
boxes
on
the
site
that
are
seen
here.
Salt
Lake
City's
zoning
code
also
allows
utility
boxes
associated
with
antenna,
equipment
or
antennas
on
private
property
that
do
not
exceed
4
feet
in
width,
3
feet
in
depth
and
4
feet
in
height,
but
anything
larger
must
receive
special
exception
approval.
So,
during
the
review
of
this
conditional
use
request
for
the
antenna
array,
it
was
discovered
that
this
equipment,
too,
was
constructed
larger
than
what
the
initial
building
permit
approved.
L
So
three
of
the
five
existing
boxes
that
are
starred
here
exceed
the
dimensions
allowed
by
right
without
special
exception
approval.
So,
therefore,
though,
though,
the
equipment
will
not
change,
the
applicant
is
requesting
a
special
exception
so
that
the
equipment
can
remain
while
this
equipment
is
not
very
visible
from
Emory
Street.
It
is
very
visible
from
the
9
line
trail
that
abuts
the
property
just
to
the
south.
So
as
a
condition
of
approval,
a
solid
wood
fence
must
be
installed
around
this
equipment
so
that
it's
completely
hidden
from
the
9
line
trail.
L
So
with
this
petition,
quite
a
few
concerns
have
been
raised
by
the
community.
A
large
part
of
this
concern
doesn't
necessarily
involve
the
conditional
use
at
hand,
but
the
amount
of
time
it
took
to
open
up
an
enforcement
case
to
investigate
the
size
of
the
existing
array.
While
the
Planning
Division
can't
speak
directly
to
the
enforcement
process,
it
seems
there
was
multiple
misunderstandings
across
different
city
departments
in
terms
of
the
size
of
the
antenna
that
was
approved
and
the
size
of
the
antenna
that
was
actually
constructed.
L
But
because
the
amount
of
time
it
has
taken,
staff
is
also
suggesting
the
condition
that
exists.
The
existing
array
be
taken
down
within
90
days
of
this
approval,
no
matter
if
a
new
building
permit
is
issued
or
not
for
this
proposed
array,
it
was
still.
The
existing
array
still
needs
to
be
taken
down
within
90
days.
L
Finally,
many
concerns
were
heard
regarding
the
negative
visual
impact
of
the
array.
The
array
will
be
very
visible
from
the
ground
on
Emory
Street
and
the
conditional
use
standards
do
consider
compatibility
of
uses
and
structures.
In
this
case,
it
cannot
be
determined
that
a
39
in
Turei
has
more
of
a
negative
visual
impact
than
a
30-inch
array
which
would
be
allowed
without
conditional
use
approval.
L
So
in
general,
planning
staff
does
feel
that
the
proposal
generally
meets
both
the
conditional
use
and
special
exception
standards.
The
conditional
use
ordinance
also
specifically
states
that
conditional
uses
are
allowed
uses
unless
appropriate
conditions
cannot
be
applied
to
mitigate
any
detrimental
impacts
that
may
arise
by
introducing
the
need
new
use,
so
planning
staff
does
feet
does
not
feel
that
the
39
inch
array
creates
a
detrimental
impact
opposed
to
a
30
inch
array
and
therefore
is
recommending
approval
of
the
conditional
use
and
special
exception
with
those
conditions
with
those
conditions.
Yes,
any.
M
Caleb,
I'm
rec,
representing
t-mobile
in
this
matter,
I
appreciate
that
the
time
to
to
talk
to
you
guys
we're
seeking
approval
for
the
conditional
use
permit,
as
well
as
the
special
exception,
as
lauren
has
stated,
just
to
kind
of
give
you
a
very
concise
rundown
from
t-mobile's
side
of
this.
The
site
was
never
supposed
to
be
built
as
large
as
it
was.
M
M
Initially
it
was
supposed
to
be
30
inches
with
three
antennas
flush-mounted.
As
you
saw
on
the
on
the
picture,
we
went
through
several
configurations
to
try
to
get
to
that
30
inches.
Unfortunately,
the
closest
we
could
get
is
39
inches,
which
I
would
contend.
A
lay
person
looking
up
from
60
feet,
down,
probably
wouldnt
be
able
to
tell
the
difference
of
9
inches,
but
the
code
is
there
and
that's
why
we're
here
for
a
conditional
use.
M
I
also
wanted
to
state
that
the
the
actual
location
and
the
usage
of
this
site
is
pretty
important
to
the
west
side
of
Salt
Lake
it
serves
for
without
over
4,600
people.
You
can
kind
of
see
the
area
there.
It's
right
in
the
middle
of
this
very
densely
populated
residential
area,
it's
hard
to
put
cell
towers
in
residential
areas
as
I'm
sure
you
know.
So
that's
why
we
utilize
the
utility
poles
so
essentially,
I
am
here
to
to
rectify
this
as
the
best
we
can.
M
M
M
We
are
yeah
we're
agreeable
that
the
ninety
days,
we'll
do
our
very
best.
You
know
we'll
we'll
stick
to
that.
If
that's
the
condition
that's
put
forth,
we
we
are
when
this
was
bill
and
and
in
the
past
this
kind
of
a
we
kind
of
were
able
to
piggyback
off
Pacific
corpse
franchise
agreement
with
the
cities.
We
are
now
getting
our
own
and
that's
in
process
so
that
we'll
have
to
go
through
the
City,
Council
I
think
that
would
might
be
the
only
item
that
might
but
I.
M
E
M
Know
that's
a
tough
question
there.
There
are
there's
a
lot
of
cities
that
have
pretty
strict
guidelines.
Salt
Lake
City
is
actually
pretty
good
when
it
comes
to
utility,
poles
I
think
there's
just
a
new
ordinance
that
just
passed.
It
makes
it
a
little
bit
easier
even
to
go
on
utility
poles
just
to
to
so
we
did
I.
Think
it'll
reduce
the
amount
of
actual
amount
of
poles
and
rooftops
will
have
to
do
so.
M
The
thirty
inches
is,
it
is
a
tough
measurement
to
meet
and
in
that
I
think,
probably
when
that
ordinance
was
written,
the
the
size
of
the
antennas
were
quite
a
bit
smaller
and
now,
with
the
faster
technologies
and
the
more
capacity
I
mean
all
these
people
watching
Netflix
on
their
phones,
the
the
technology,
just
it
makes
them
a
little
bit
bigger,
as
it
gets
I
mean
even
now,
some
of
the
new
ones
coming
out
that
would
never
fly
on
one
of
these
polls.
I
mean
they're
they're
as
big
as
a
door.
It's
so
yeah.
M
M
C
N
M
Hard
to
say
and
and
a
lot
of
changes
have
have
been
happening
at
C
mobile,
since
this
happened
believe
it
or
not.
The
people
that
are
involved
in
this
are
no
longer
at
the
company
and
it's
if
we're
building
several
sites
all
at
once,
all
the
time,
and
as
far
as
we
can
tell
they
grab
kind
of
the
wrong
equipment
and
went
to
town.
It
was
a
it
was
kind
of
a
era
of
building
fast.
You
know
these.
M
These
carriers
are
kind
of
always
at
kind
of
an
arms
race
with
each
other
right
now,
it's
the
5g.
This
was
probably
the
4G
and
I
think.
As
far
as
we
can
tell
the
wrong
acquit,
the
wrong
materials
were
picked
up
by
the
crew
and
put
up,
and
it's
hard
to
catch
that
and
that's
why
we
got
brought
to
our
attention
when
code
enforcement
picked
it
up.
So.
M
Knowing
their
needs,
unfortunately,
they
will.
But
as
far
as
t-mobile
goes
and
internal
conversations,
you
know
we
don't
want
the
neighborhood
to
suffer
so
we're
gonna,
probably
look
at
maybe
another
utility
pole
in
the
area
where
we
can
maybe
kind
of
pick
up
that
slack
yeah.
But
we
are
going
from
six
to
two
three
antennas
so.
A
A
D
F
F
M
I
think
we're
I
think
well,
I
mean
it'll
help
the
neighborhood
in
that
it
was
built
incorrectly,
we're
gonna,
correct
it,
rectify
it
and
maybe
in
the
future.
If
we
want
to
go
bigger
here,
we'll
go
through
the
proper
avenues
and
channels
to
do
so,
but
I
think
I
think
the
issue
now
is.
It
was
bill
incorrectly,
it's
out
of
compliance,
we're
trying
to
bring
it
to
compliance
and
then
we'll
go
from
there.
Thank.
J
A
Back
we'll
open
the
public
hearing,
okay,
we'll
open
the
public
hearing
on
this
item
is
there
anyone
from
the
community
council
here
would
like
to
speak,
seeing
no
one:
okay!
Is
there
anybody
from
the
public
who
would
like
to
come
up
and
speak,
come
up
to
the
microphone
and
state?
Your
name
and
you'll
have
two
minutes.
O
Good
evening
my
name
is
Mike
Harmon
and
I
am
with
the
Poplar
Grove
neighborhood
alliance.
So
we
had
been
tracking
this
issue
since
2015,
when
this
illlegal
cell
tower
was
put
into
place
and
I
appreciate
Lauren's
kind
of
description
of
it
she's
much
nicer
than
I
am,
but
she
calls
me
misunderstanding:
I
call
the
ineptness.
O
We
brought
this
a
number
of
times
two
different
processes
within
the
city
and
we
were
fail
at
every
step
of
the
way,
including
the
planning
director,
not
Wayne,
he's
not
the
planning
director
I
get
that,
but
I
mean
we
have
a.
We
went
through
enforcement.
They
told
us
it's
in
compliance,
we're
like
we
can
tell
them
between
30
inches
and
80
inches
again
30
inches
less
than
3
feet,
80
inches
more
than
six
feet.
O
Okay,
we
actually
purchased
a
device
to
measure
the
thing
and
I
think
that
the
process
that
were
in
place
there
should
be
in
place
were
not
in
place
and
that
we
were
again
failed
by
that.
So
it
is
kind
of
bait
and
switch.
Oh,
we
have
this
huge
antenna,
great
we're
going
out
of
39
inches.
Okay,
we
want
30
inch
antenna
and
the
concern
about
the
special,
the
boxes
that
again,
it
is
against
the
nine
line
which
is
we've
invested,
huge
amounts
of
money.
O
A
D
Name
is
Michael
Clara
and
on
the
staff
report
on
page
66
there's
a
document,
that's
called
from
the
Poplar
Grove
neighborhood
alliance,
that
was
written
back
in
January
and
number
of
those
issues
haven't
been
addressed
and,
what's
concerning
to
a
number
of
people
in
the
community,
is
just
a
dishonesty
that
t-mobile
has
approached
this
issue
and
then
the
the
complicity
that
we
saw
with
the
planning
to
planning,
department
and
Zoning
Department
to
allow
this
to
happen
for
two
years
to
be
illegal
and
violate
city
ordinances.
There's
no
consequences
to
this
whatsoever.
D
He
can
just
come
in
here
and
sit
here
and
say:
oh,
we
just
made
a
mistake
and
we
picked
up
the
wrong
equipment.
30
inches
from
6
feet
to
11
inches
is
just
a
mistake
that
we
picked
up
the
wrong
equipment.
What
else
are
they
doing
wrong
and
then
there's
no
countervailing
power
to
give
them
any
kind
of
incentive
to
do
anything
right?
They
can
come
in
a
community.
D
Do
something
wrong,
and
then
everybody
just
says:
oh,
it's,
ok,
just
come
back
and
get
a
conditional
use
permit
one
of
the
issues
that
the
community,
the
Community
Alliance
plans
to
pursue,
is
found
on
page
75
is
that
has
not
been
addressed
at
all
and
that's
on
it.
Page
75
of
the
report
quotes
one
of
our
documents
about
the
wetland
preserve,
that's
a
few
blocks
away,
and
the
Jordan
River
and
the
Planning
directors
told
us
that
by
federal
guidelines
they
can
flip
this
tower
in
with
no
net.
No
consequence,
we
disagree.
D
The
director
of
environmental
policy
and
compliance
with
the
United
States
Department
of
Interior
has
recently
pointed
out
that
cell
towers
need
to
go
through
an
environmental
assessment
process
when
they're
next
to
wetlands
or
next
to
a
migratory
bird
path
which
the
Jordan
River
is
one
of
those
designations
where
we
have
the
migratory
bird
path
there,
and
so
we
would
ask
also
that
the
Planning
Commission
require
that
they
adhere
to
the
federal
guidelines
or
ask
for
an
environmental
assessment
be
done
on
this
issue.
Thank
you.
Thank.
C
C
C
C
C
L
L
C
Hearing
the
community's
concerns-
and
you
know
there
clearly
there's
some
of
the
frustrations
they've
had
the
only
thing
that
was
we
really
have
teeth
to
is
that
we
have
to
identify.
There
is
a
detrimental
impact
that
that
cannot
be
health
and
safety
standards,
so
it
has
to
be
identify
some
other
impact.
Yes,.
H
C
L
I'm
not
quite
sure
we
had
talked
about.
We
talked
with
the
applicant
here
that
that
there
could
be
potential
for
graffiti
and
that's
why
they
selected
wood,
so
it
could
be
painted
easily.
If
that
does
happen,
the
problem
with
landscaping,
although
that
would
be
nice
to
have
there
is
that's
the
city
property
on
the
other
side,
and
it
might
be
hard
to
maintain
just
in
that
location,
but
in
terms
of
I'm,
not
super
familiar
actually
with
our
graffiti
policy
and
I,
don't
know
how
it
applies
on
private
property,
so.
L
H
M
H
I
mean
I
think
the
vinyl
is
is
harder,
but
which
is
great
if
they
want
chain
link
through
the
slats
for
some
screening,
because
chain
link
doesn't
screen
it,
but
as
far
as
graffiti
goes,
that
is
something
that
the
city
will
take
care
of
fairly
quickly.
I
think
they
have
a
really
quick
turnaround
on
any
of
those
requests,
so
it
would
fall
under
that
purview.
L
C
L
A
recent
one
that
I
just
happened
to
know
about
is
on
12:26
South,
1100
East
and
that
just
for
reference
is
73
to
3
feet.
Tall
and
10
feet
2
inches
in
diameter,
and
it
is
kind
of
a
mixed
zone
in
terms
of
there's
residential
and
commercial
in
the
area.
But
that
I
just
happen
to
know
of
that
because
it
was
recently
went
through.
Our
process
is.
L
H
L
L
A
B
N
C
Want
to
say
that
I
I
feel
for
the
neighbors
who
feel
like
they
were
not
given
a
fair
shake
from
the
get-go
I
think
that's
troubling
and
I
get
their
concerns,
but
in
our
discussion,
I
think
it's
clear
that
our
hands
are
tied
as
to
what
we
can
do
and
that,
hopefully
the
city
will
follow
up
with
those
those
issues
and
help
make
it
right
for
the
community.
But
I
will
vote
yes,
Sarah.