►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting - 09/26/2018
Description
Planning Commission Meeting - 09/26/2018
A
D
B
A
It
was
a
small
group,
but
it
passes
so
we're
good
reported
the
chair
and
vice
chair
I
was
unable
to
make
it,
but
I
just
would
like
to
congratulate
and
thank
the
planning
staff
for
their
work
for
their
summer
series
this
this
summer
and
I
heard
from
Sarah
who
attended
the
last
two
loved
them
so
good
job.
Thank
you
thank
you,
and
did
you
have
anything
Maureen?
No,
all
right!
A
E
Just
really
quick,
just
so
the
Commission
knows.
Last
week
the
city
council
did
appoint
a
new
planning
Commissioner
so
that
her
name
is
Adrienne
Bell
she's,
a
land
use
attorney
and
former
city
planner
from
Baltimore
so
probably
brings
some
good
experience
to
the
Commission.
She
was
unable
to
be
here
tonight
because
she
had
a
prior
obligation,
but
she
will
be
at
the
next
meeting,
so
there's
that
she
replaces
Emily
drown.
So
who
was
officially
done
now?
E
The
Commission
who
served
two
terms
and
will
bob,
has
his
common
practice
we'll
bring
her
back
to
give
her
some
sort
of
a
plaque
to
think
and
give
you
guys
the
time
to
to
recognize
her
efforts
and
and
everything
else,
a
couple
other
things
I,
don't
know
how
in
tune
the
Planning
Commission
is
with
various
staffing
levels
and
things
that
happen
in
the
Planning
Division.
But
just
let
you
know,
we've
had
a
fairly
unusual
summer,
because
we've
had
three
people
who
have
had
babies
this
summer,
so
we've
actually
been
very
short-staffed,
but
we're
back.
E
We
only
have
one
person
out
still
the
city
has
a
pretty
generous
parental
leave,
so
you
get
I
forgot.
The
amount
of
time,
but
something
like
eight
weeks
of
paid
time
off
when
you
have
a
child,
so
we've
been
dealing
with
that
through
all
the
other
craziness
that's
been
going
on
in
the
world
of
planning,
but
hopefully
the
reason
I
bring
it
up
is
because
now
we're
we're
fully
staffed,
and
we
still
we
do.
In
the
last
budget
year,
the
City
Council
did
fund
two
new
planning
positions,
but
we
haven't
gotten
that
money.
E
Yet
so
we
haven't
hired
those
two
positions,
but
we
will
be.
We've
had
a
put
a
number
of
projects
on
hold
for
very
history,
since
we
just
didn't
have
the
bodies
to
work
on
things,
so
those
are
all
going
to
be
ramping
up
over
the
next
three
months.
So
things
like
that
you've
seen
that
you
haven't
seen
for
a
while
the
SRO
ordinance
the
changes
to
our
early
engagement
regulations.
E
You'll
start
to
see
those
things
come
back
before
you
for
that
and
then
finally,
the
the
City
Council
next
week
is
going
to
start
the
I
think
it's
next
week.
No
it's
on
the
October
8th.
So
in
two
weeks
they
are
going
to
start.
The
public
hearings
on
the
ADA
ordinance,
so
I
think
we're
finally
have
that
out
of
a
spot
that,
at
least
until
based
on
what
the
City
Council
hears,
that
it's
going
to
be
moving
forward
and
is
in
an
adoptable
and
hopefully
usable
format
versus
what
was
there
before.
A
You
all
right
we
will
get
on
with
our
agenda.
Just
thank
you
to
the
public
for
coming
out
this
evening.
If
you
do
want
to
speak
on
one
of
the
topics
tonight
during
our
public
hearings,
there
are
some
cards
just
outside
the
door
and
it's
it's
helpful.
If
you
can
grab
one
and
we
can
so
we
kind
of
have
an
idea
of
who
wants
to
speak
on
the
various
topics.
A
That
would
be
great
and
you
can
just
send
it
to
the
either
side
of
the
table
and
it
gets
over
to
me
it's
not
imperative
and
we'll
anyone
speak,
even
if
you
don't
fill
one
of
those
out,
but
it
helps
with
a
record.
So
we'll
start
with
our
first
item,
which
is
some
unfinished
business.
This
is
not
a
public
hearing,
but
this
is
the
sugarhouse
heights
planned
development
and
preliminary
subdivision.
F
All
right
good
evening,
this
is
the
continuation
of
a
planned
development
and
preliminary
subdivision
request.
That
was
first
heard
on
August
22nd,
Planning
Commission
meeting
and
as
a
quick
reminder,
it
is
a
request
for
approvals
to
construct
four
new
single-family
homes
on
four
new
Lots,
which
would
be
accessed
by
a
new
private
driveway
and
planned
development.
Approval
was
required
because
two
of
the
new
Lots
would
not
have
frontage
on
a
public
right
away,
but
the
applicant
hasn't
requested
any
other
relief
from
any
other
parts
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
F
This
slide
just
shows
the
motion
that
was
made
on
August
22nd,
so
the
Commission
tabled
the
item
and
requested
the
alteration
of
the
eastern
elevations
of
the
homes
on
Lots
1,
&
2,
which
face
they
have
frontage
on
Highland
Drive,
to
include
architectural
features
that
are
typically
found
on
the
front
facade
of
a
single-family
home.
The
Commission
also
asked
the
applicant
to
explore
the
option
of
providing
access
to
the
site
off
of
Highland
Drive
rather
than
Katyn
way,
which
is
a
private
roadway
on
the
south
side
of
the
property.
F
Then
here
just
a
few
quick
visuals
to
refresh
your
memories.
Here's
aerial
imagery
that
highlights
the
parcel
and
surrounding
uses.
You
can
see
the
highlands
of
sugarhouse
PUD
to
the
south
and
west
of
the
site,
as
well
as
the
commercial
zoning
and
uses
directly
to
the
south
of
the
site,
and
then
these
were
some
examples
of
nearby
structures.
F
So
when
it
comes
to
the
revised
Eastern
elevations
on
lots
of
one
into
this
slide
shows
the
new
elevation
for
the
structure
on
lot.
1.
The
left
is
what
was
proposed
in
August,
and
the
right
image
is
what
is
proposed
this
evening.
Changes
include
an
added
pitched
roof
forum
on
the
eastern
elevation,
semi,
enclosed
porch,
with
a
slab
on
grade,
altered
window
configurations,
an
increased
use
of
wood,
siding
and
added
lighting
fixtures,
and
then
here
are
all
four
elevations
for
your
reference.
Since
those
reforms
are
kind
of
tricky.
F
And
this
slide
is
the
revised
Eastern
elevation
for
the
structure
on
lot.
To
again,
the
left
is
the
former.
The
right
is
what's
being
proposed
this
evening
and
the
same
types
of
changes
were
made
to
this
structure
is
the
last
one?
Not
they
don't
look
identical,
but
it's
it's
the
same
types
of
changes
and
then
here
are
all
four
elevations
again.
F
The
access
alternative,
as
mentioned
before
that
was
one
of
the
requests
in
the
motion.
The
applicant
afforded
me
this
graphic
and
saying
that
it
shows
that
the
site
cannot
accommodate
four
Lots
with
access
off
of
Highland
Drive
I
didn't
get
much
more
clarification
beyond
that,
but
I
could
let
them
address
that
in
their
presentation,
if
they'd
like
to
even
without
this
access
information,
I'd
say
it's
staff
stance
that
eliminating
the
existing
curb
cut
on
Highland
Drive
is
a
positive
aspect
of
this
project.
F
The
current
driveway
location
requires
the
tenants
of
the
site
to
enter
exit
a
heavily
trafficked
route,
which
is
also
close
to
the
busy
intersection
with
2700
south,
which
could
also
have
a
long.
You
know
queue
of
cars
during
peak
travel
times,
so
I'm
not
sure,
that's
an
alternative.
We
would
encourage
from
staff
level,
but
but
it
was
asked
to
be
explored
and
the
recommendation
is
the
same.
We're
recommending
approval,
as
most
recently
proposed,
subject
to
conditions
that
were
included
in
the
motion,
which
is
on
the
motion
sheet,
so
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Great.
A
G
G
This
is
the
project
as
platted
I
want
to
point
out
and
these
might
be
difficult
to,
but
in
these
rectangular
boxes,
up
top
we've
ran
a
calculation
of
lot
size
versus
the
buildable
envelope
and
on
the
proposed
plan
is
written,
we're
using
less
than
25%
of
the
law,
which
lot
sizes
are
point
one
one
acre
to
construct
the
home,
so
it
allows
for
a
very
similar
size
to
get
law
that
doesn't
need
a
variance
for
size
of
the
neighborhood.
Here
are
you
know?
G
We
took
a
lot
of
the
feedback
from
the
public
about
the
architectural
e-electric
community
that
exists
in
sugarhouse,
so
I
wanted
to
show
you
a
sampling
of
within
a
half
mile
radius.
In
the
past
year,
696
homes
have
closed
or
sold
on
the
open
market
in
this
area.
Here's
50
of
them
I'll
go
fast,
so
we
don't
bore
you
and
I
want
to
show
you
how
eclectic
the
eclectic
neighborhood
is
all
right:
low,
sell,
150,
median
priced
336
in
this
area
within
a
half
mile
of
the
home
planted
on
this
map.
G
G
So
we
want
to
show
that
we
took
strong
consideration
and
took
everybody's
feedback
and
didn't
just
make
a
bit
of
a
porch.
We
made
the
front
door
access
truly
off
Highland
Drive
for
Lots
one
and
two.
We
changed
the
roofline
we
added
windows.
We
did
everything
that
was
requested.
I'll
add
a
little
more
light
as
to
why
we
can't
do
access
off
Highland
Drive
number
one.
G
If
we
use
our
already
deeded
and
owned
access
off
gateway
and
do
it
as
proposed,
then
we
can
fit
the
four
Lots
without
any
other
variants
other
than
what
staff
recommended
that
we
need
the
approval
to
build
two
homes
off
of
the
private
drive.
There's
no
other
variants
needed
everything
fits
according
to
zoning.
Should
we
change
it
to
a
hammer
head
drive
off
Highland?
We
not
only
have
to
increase
the
access
road,
which
is
just
an
increase
increase
of
asphalt
by
about
50%.
It
just
takes
up
more
of
the
Lots.
G
So
then
we
need
to
get
four.
We
need
a
variance
on
minimum
lot
size
on
every
single
lot,
including
setback
and
frontage
measurement
variances.
So
four
Lots
isn't
going
to
work.
If
we
do
a
hammer
head
on
Highland
now
would
three
fit
without
in
a
variance
or
two
yes
likely,
but
then
it
just
frankly
doesn't
financially
pencil,
and
if
it's
not
us,
it's
no
one
else
can
do
it
either
so
again,
here
it
is
as
proposed
with
access
off
of
our
already
private
deeded
access,
and
you
know
we
took.
G
A
Great,
thank
you
so
yeah
I
think
the
the
two
points
that
were
brought
up
by
the
commissioners
were
the
the
road
alternative.
Frankly,
isn't
one
of
my
concerns
I
think
that
enough
evidence
was
shown
last
time
that
that
the
property
owner
of
this
property
has
a
right
to
access
that
private
road
and
I.
Don't
I,
don't
believe
it
will
add
that
much
traffic
to
it
and-
and
there
was
still
the
gate
correct
to.
G
A
C
D
A
D
D
I
think
I
was
also
one
of
the
other
things
as
a
standard.
You
know,
especially
under
a
it,
was
what
are
they
meeting
I?
Don't
know
that
that's
changed,
so
we
didn't
just
have
those
two
issues.
I
remember
succinctly:
bringing
up
well
Matt
brought
it
up,
but
that
I
agreed
the
were
they
meeting
the
standards
for
plan
development?
Do
they
even
qualify
for
a
plan
development
because,
based
on
the
matrix
in
the
previous
staff
report,
it
didn't
really
look
that
they
were.
H
D
We
look
at
a
plan
development
objectives.
Obviously
the
applicant
has
stipulated
they
made
a
couple
of
those,
and
staff
has
basically
said:
they'll
meet
them
if
they
meet
conditions.
But
when
I
read
a
lot
of
the
rationale,
you
know
it
says,
er
a
plan
development
will
result
in
a
more
enhanced
product
than
would
be
achievable
through
strict
application
of
the
land
use
regulations,
while
enabling
the
development
to
be
compatible
with
adjacent
and
nearby
land
developments.
A
I
A
I
I
I
A
I
A
I
F
So
I
will
admit:
I
didn't
do
a
very
thorough
analysis
of
if
the
house
was
to
be
preserved.
What
could
be
built
I
think
there
would
be
room
for
a
couple
additional
homes
if
that,
if
the
historic
home
is
demolished,
there's
only
enough
lot
width
to
accommodate
two
single-family
homes-
that's
2,
2
D
plots
that.
I
A
I
A
I
I
Don't
appreciate
the
way
that
they
laid
out
the
alternative.
I
think
they
it
was.
It
was
really
meant
to
be
hey.
This
is
really
bad
versus
an
honest
effort
to
actually
accommodate
that
and
so
I'm
just
saying
that
I
do
think
their
own
thing
is
better,
but
you
know
they've
got
a
driveway
there,
that's
quite
a
bit
wider
than
the
one
they're
showing
in
the
middle
of
the
block
and
some
other
things
like
that.
So
it's
just
not
a
very
it's.
It's
deliberate,
it's
kind
of
deliberately
so.
I
Not
convinced
that
it's
all
that
impossible
so
to
do
that,
nevertheless,
having
them
drawn
it
out,
I
do
think
that
that
they're,
probably
right
at
the
for
the
way
they've
got
it
is,
is
best
and
also
I,
appreciate
that
I
think
that
actually
it's
better
to
come
off
the
side
street
than
you
come
off.
Highland
Drive.
D
J
I
think
we
can
get
guidance
from
staff
and
I'm
in
the
I'm
in
the
I'm
in
trouble,
seat,
I,
think
I'm,
not
totally
sure,
but
generally
I
feel
that
way
with
Nick
sitting
next
to
me,
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
it's
a
question
about
whether
or
not
it's
better
or
not.
I
mean
why
don't
I
think
put
two
houses
or
four
houses
on
this
lot
is
irrelevant
to
us
whether
or
not
it's
financially
feasible
or
not,
is
not
relevant
to
us.
It's
not
our
asan.
J
Our
thing
for
consideration,
I
mean
if
I
remember,
I
mean
the
discussion
here.
Was
that
whether
the
use
would
they
met?
You
know
essentially
for
the
first
statement
standard
a
when
I'm
at
D
and
whether
they
kind
of
work
trying
to
make
up
pleasing
environment
and
I
made
the
argument
last
time
that
the
view
along
Highland
looks
like
a
bunch
of
rear
houses
and
was
not
a
pleasing
environment
for
Highland.
J
The
other
question
I
have
which
I
trying
to
grapple
with
now
I
mean
now
they've
done
all
this
kind
of
work
on
the
side
of
Highland.
Is
that
whether
or
not
they
do
or
do
not
meet
standard?
A
combination
and
coordination
of
architectural
styles,
building
forms
and
building
materials
and
building
relationships?
J
Although
they've
not
argued
that,
but
there
is
clearly
a
lot
more
design
on
on
that
Highland
way.
That
has
a
mixture
of
wood
and
different
styles.
It's
not
before
it
was
just
this
blank
wall
with
the
pipe
running
down
the
middle
of
it,
the
utility
pipe
and
so
I'm,
probably
I,
don't
know
where
I'm
at
I'm,
not
as
opposed
to
as
I
was
we
were
originally
but
but
those
were.
Those
are
my
points
last
time
where
I'm,
you
know
what
I'm
looking
at
this
time.
J
I
I
agree
with
you
that
the
that
the
these
facades
are
a
world
better
and
they
are
also
a
slightly
larger
investment.
I
can
tell,
and
certainly
from
the
very
first
things
they
started
out
with
when
they
way.
If
you
look
at
the
first
staff
report,
you
know
from
the
changes
that
they
had
to
make
from
the
first
staff
report,
and
the
other
thing
is
that
there
actually
orienting
the
units
to
the
to
actual
to
highlight
drive.
So
that's
I
think
a
difference
too.
If
you
look
at
the
interiors,
so
I
would
be
inclined
to.
I
This
designation
shall
be
noted
on
the
final
plat
and
two
prior
to
record
a
ssin
of
the
final
subdivision
plat,
the
applicant
shall
submit
all
documentation
required
by
21
a
55
point:
1
1,
o
disclosure
of
private
infrastructure
costs,
including
detail
on
the
future
management
and
maintenance
of
all
private
infrastructure
to
be
reviewed
and
approved
by
staff.
Ok,.
I
D
K
F
L
A
M
M
Alright,
that
was
mine,
alright,
so
we
the
plan
development,
approximately
15,
70s,
South,
Main
Street
in
the
ball
park.
Neighborhood.
If
you
look
at
the
map,
it's
unusual
sight
for
such
a
small
parcel
to
have
frontage
on
three
streets
have
Main
Street
on
the
east,
Van
Buren
Avenue
on
the
north
and
Harris
Avenue
on
the
south.
It's
currently
made
up
of
three
parcels
of
property
which
actually
were
all
single-family
homes.
At
one
point
in
time,
there's
a
small
vacant
commercial
structure
on
the
northeast
corner
and
an
associated
parking
lot.
M
The
property
is
owned,
a
CC
jazz
corridor
commercial,
as
is
the
opposite
side
of
the
street
multi-family
residential
uses,
are
permitted
in
the
zone,
the
properties
of
the
Westers
owned
as
our
one
five
thousand,
and
they
have
existing
single-family
homes.
You'll
find
this
neighborhood
there's
a
lot
of
mixed-use
between
our
along
Main
Street
between
residential
and
commercial
and
multi-family
type
of
uses.
So
we
look
at
the
proposed
site
plan
here:
the
appellants
proposing
to
construct
11
townhome
units
on
the
property.
M
The
project
is
made
up
of
two
parallel
structures:
one
facing
onto
Main
Street
and
one
facing
towards
the
west.
The
drive
aisle
separates
the
two
structures
and
provides
access
to
a
rear
loaded
garage
for
each
unit.
There
is
a
landscape
buffer
II
requirement
along
the
west
property
line
between
the
proposed
development
and
the
single-family
homes
there,
and
it
is
shown
on
the
plans.
The
project
is
meeting
its
Austrey
parking
requirements
in
the
each
personal
garage,
but
they
have
requested
to
add
angled
stalls
which
are
here
on
the
along
Main
Street.
M
You
can
see
them
on
the
site
plan.
The
renderings
probably
show
them
a
little
bit
better.
It
would
require
the
removal
of
two
trees,
but
they
will
be
replaced
with
additional
trees,
but
they
would
be
on
the
west
side
of
the
sidewalk.
Transportation
has
reviewed
it
and
given
an
initial
approval,
but
it
was
still
need
to
go
through
the
process
to
do
that.
The
project
is
being
reviewed
as
a
plan
development
as
they
requesting
three
modifications
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
M
The
first
is
a
reduction
in
the
corner
side,
yard
setback
along
Harris
Avenue,
which
again
is
the
south
and
is
on
the
bottom
of
here.
The
second
one
is
a
reduction
of
the
corner
side
yard
setback
along
Van,
Buren
Avenue,
which
on
the
north
and
the
third
is
to
request
the
requirement
for
entries
along
Harris
Avenue
I
want
to
just
maybe
go
through
the
whole
project
as
a
whole,
so
you
can
kinda,
look
at
and
feel
for
it
and
then
I'll
go
through
the
modifications
individually.
M
So
if
we
look
at
here,
this
is
the
Main
Street
elevation.
It
has
six
units
facing
on
a
Main
Street.
Each
one
has
front
door
on
the
street
as
a
walkway
connecting
to
the
sidewalk
along
Main
Street,
and
each
one
has
a
fenced
private
area
for
each
individual
unit.
You
can
see
the
proposed
angled
parking
being
demonstrated
there.
These
three
building
materials
are
stucco
hardy
board
panels
and
glass.
M
As
a
note,
the
CC
zone
does
not
have
any
doesn't
currently
have
any
design
standards
related
to
the
amount
of
glass
or
exterior
building
materials,
we'll
find
out
that
they
do
actually
have
one
four
entries,
but
so
this
is
looking
east
along
Van
Buren
Avenue
towards
Main
Street.
So
the
building
here
in
the
front
is
we
that
rear,
building
or
West
building
you
can
see
the
design
is
similar
to
the
east
building,
but
in
this
one
has
five
units
rather
than
six
or
a
little
bit
larger.
M
There
are
entries
provided
along
the
ambient
Avenue
for
both
units
that
face
the
street.
Each
of
these
units
also
has
an
additional
entry
from
their
private
yard
areas,
whether
that's
from
Main
Street,
on
the
east
building
or
from
their
Western
or
from
the
rear
on
the
West
building,
the
landscaping
design,
which
is
in
the
landscaping
plan
and
the
tall
complete
package,
and
so
not
shown
here
necessarily,
but
the
landscape
design
is
wrapping
from
Main
Street
to
Van
Buren.
M
So
you
kind
of
to
mimic
the
same
design
just
for
VI,
providing
some
continuity
between
the
two
frontages.
This
slide
is
looking
north.
This
would
be
from
Harris
Avenue,
Main
Street
would
be
on
the
right
here.
You
can
show
so
this
would
be
South
elevation.
You
can
see
there's
a
much
smaller
setback
and
no
entries
along
the
street
proposed
right
now.
The
same
building
materials
and
design
features
wrap
the
buildings
in
their
entirety.
M
So
now
we
kind
of
looked
at
the
project.
I
want
to
talk
about
the
modifications
in
detail.
The
first
and
probably
the
most
significant
one
is
a
reduction
in
the
corner:
side,
yard
setback
along
Harris,
Avenue,
the
corner
and
front
yard
setbacks
are
the
required,
is
a
15-foot
corner
or
front
side
rec
setback.
It
should
be
noted
that
we
were
on
the
tour
we
may
have
noticed
so
there's
travel
mean
it's
going
out
on
the
east
side
of
Main
Street
that
have
no
setbacks.
M
So,
if
you're
on
the
east
side
of
Main
Street
you're
in
the
same
zone
but
the
overlay
there
allows
you
to
eliminate
that
setback.
If
you're
on
the
west
side,
you
do
not
have
that
opportunity
in
this
situation,
because
there's
three
frontages
Main
Street
would
act
as
the
front
yard.
Setback,
Harris
and
Van
Buren
would
be
your
corner
side
yards
that
only
matters
because
you're
trying
to
identify
what
the
rear
is
again
because
they're
the
same
at
15
feet.
So
the
applicant
is
requesting
your
reduction
from
15
feet
to
4
feet
along
Harris.
M
Avenue
the
majority,
the
building
will
actually
sit
at
5
feet,
but
there
are
architectural
projections
around
the
windows
that
cantilever
out
on
the
second
and
third
floors
at
1
foot
and
the
reason
they
made
the
request
and
the
applicant
is
tried
to
justify.
That
is
it
if
we
look
at
this
slide
and
you
look
at
these
photographs,
the
top
photographs
are
looking
at
a
street
view
with
the
north
side
being
on
the
right,
and
you
can
in
an
in
the
aerial
photograph
in
the
bottom,
along
Harris
Avenue.
M
You
don't
have
any
homes
fronting
on
Harris
Avenue,
they
all
front
on
Van
Buren.
This
is
this
is
really
their
rear
yard.
You
can
see
the
garages
are
set
back
either
at
the
either
with
a
0
setback,
or
maybe
one
or
two
feet,
and
so
really
the
development
pattern
for
a
setback
along
that
Street
is
is
much
lower
than
15
feet.
M
There's
no
Park
strip,
like
I,
said
it's
line
with
garages
and
really,
and
we
it
really.
It
serves
as
more
like
a
service
road
or
an
alleyway,
it's
more
narrow
than
a
typical
Salt,
Lake
standard
Street.
So
step
believes
that
the
reduce
setback
is
is
in
keeping
with
the
existing
development
of
pattern
of
the
neighborhood.
M
The
second
request
is
for
along
van
Buuren,
Avenue
and
Van.
Buren
is
a
very
typical
residential
street,
where
we
do
have
front
yards
and
homes
set
back
from
the
street
the
building
itself.
The
building
wall
is
meeting
the
setback
of
15
feet,
but
again
these
architectural
projections-
they
cantilever
over
2
feet
on
this
one.
So
the
portion
of
the
project
that
does
not
meet
this
setback
is
outlined
in
red.
So
you
can
see
it's
it's
just
a
small
portion
of
the
wall
that
does
not
meet
that
setback.
M
This
portion
of
the
building
did
meet
it
at
their
original
design,
but
as
we're
reviewing
that,
we
found
that
the
South
were
the
driveway
hits
Harris
Avenue,
that
it
didn't
meet
the
clear
view
or
clear
vision
triangle
so,
which
is
intended
to
ensure
pedestrian
safety.
Some
people
are
entering
or
exiting
there
that
you
have
sufficient
space
to
be
able
to
see.
M
If
somebody's
walking
down
the
road
the
applicants
could
eat
could
redesign
to
meet,
could
redesign
this
facade
to
meet
that
by
removing
the
architectural
features
but
staff
things
that
they
do
add
interest
to
that
facade.
It
is
a
street
facing
facade
and
would
like
to
see
as
much
architectural
detailing
as
we
could.
M
The
the
last
or
third
request
is
to
waive
the
requirements
for
entries
on
Harris
Avenue.
The
CC
zone
has
very
few
design
standards,
but
does
require
an
entry
on
all
Street
frontages,
which
in
this
case
is
three
so
as
was
discussed
earlier,
it's
not
really
a
typical
Street
and
we
didn't
believe
it
requires
the
same
sort
of
activation.
That
van
Buren
would
require,
which
is
lined
with
typical
single-family
homes
and
also
I.
Think
it's
important.
M
If
the
Commission
determines
that
the
reduced
corner
side
yard
is
appropriate,
it
really
would
be
difficult
to
construct
a
meaningful
entryway
with
a
porch
or
some
other
typical
entry
feature
with
such
a
small
side
yard
no
parched
review.
It
literally
almost
be
jumping
out
into
the
street
this
so
just
to
discuss
the
public
engagement.
The
project
was
discussed
with
the
ball
park.
Community
council,
they
did
provide
comments
which
are
available
in
your
packet.
There
was
general
support
for
the
project.
They
did
have
a
few
comments.
M
If
you
want
to
go
through
that
the
project
was
discussed
with
two
other
residents,
one
in
person
and
one
on
the
telephone.
One
was
opposed
generally
to
the
loss
of
the
parking
areas.
He
believed
that
they
were
required
parking
for
the
commercial
building
that
is
located
to
the
south
across
the
street
from
Harris.
M
We
did
a
lot
of
research
and
find
out
when
these
buildings
were
built
and
when,
when
that
building
was
built,
it
was
just
a
building
in
a
parking
lot.
Those
homes
to
the
north
were
tore
down
one
period
and
another
there's
there's
a
time
line
in
your
packet
as
well,
but
we
found
that
it's
not
required
parking.
M
The
standards
of
approval
recommends
the
Planning
Commission
approved
the
project
with
two
conditions,
one
that
the
parcels
are
combined
into
a
single
lot
and,
second,
that
the
mature
trees
along
the
west
property
line
should
remain
to
act
as
a
buffer
between
this
project
and
the
adjacent
single-family
homes.
So,
if
you
have
any
questions,
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
them.
M
I
M
And
I
can
identify
they're
generally
located
almost
directly
in
the
middle
of
that
West
building,
so
between
they're
generally
located
about
right
here
and
they're
right
on
the
fence
lines.
So
it
seems
to
certainly
be
something
you
could
construct
around.
You
know
I
think.
Sometimes
it's
right
in
the
middle
of
a
lot.
It
would
be
difficult,
but
there
are
planned
development
standards
that
speak
very
specific
to
existing
mature
vegetation
that
currently
act
as
a
buffer,
and
so
we
couldn't
find
any
reason
to
to
not
require
that
they
remain.
A
M
M
A
M
There
isn't
there's,
certainly
no
render
published
policies,
it's
something
that
people
can
request.
It's
things
that
we
have
approved,
especially
in
areas
where
parking
is
is,
is
where
their
parking
issues.
Probably
you
know.
We've
we
talked
to
the
transportation
division,
so
they
would
look
at
look
at
it.
Favorably
I
haven't
been
able
to
get
the
urban
forester
to
return.
My
calls
yet,
but
they
would
review
it
as
well
and
if
they
felt
that
that
it
wasn't
it
didn't
meet
their
standards,
they
could
certainly
do
deny
the
request.
Okay,.
M
J
M
So
the
minimum
is
one
car
for
a
1/4
one-bedroom
unit
and
two
cars
for
a
two-bedroom
unit.
Okay,
so
they
are
at
their
they're
meeting
their
minimum
got
them,
but
they
would
be
able
to
count
their
and
the
exceeded,
because
you
can
also
count
your
on
street
parking
so
in
the
sense
they
do
exceeded.
But.
H
N
J
As
part
of
this
kind
of
manner
of
you
kind
of
process,
do
we
have
any
say
in
whether
that
the
angled
parking
happens
along
Main
Street
or
not,
or
is
that
something
that
would
be
done
through
a
normal
transportation
sort
of
process?
And
it's
not
really
relevant
to
our
discussion
about
the
planned
development
here?
I
certainly.
M
E
Parks,
trips
are
kind
of
an
odd
situation
because
they
are
regulated
through
the
zoning
ordinance,
but
other
sections
of
our
code
give
different
departments
some
leeway
on
what
happens
in
there.
So,
for
example,
one
of
the
things
that
we've
unfortunately
had
to
do
on
some
of
our
wider
parks
trips
when
we
have
taller
buildings,
is
actually
removed.
Some
of
the
park
ships.
E
J
N
A
C
C
A
C
J
C
All
I
think
have
thoughts
on
that.
I
think
we.
We
believe
it
helps
alleviate
parking
problems
that,
because
we
are
meeting
the
parking
code
right
now,
we're
concerned.
If
guests
came
to
visit
or
somebody
had
a
party
or
an
activity,
social
event,
that
the
parking
might
go
down:
Van,
Buren,
Street
or
in
front
of.
P
C
A
A
So
if
there's
a
representative
from
that
Community
Council,
who
would
like
to
speak
on
the
community
councils
behalf,
no
all
right,
then
we'll
go
to
the
general
public.
I
have
two
cards
that
I
believe
wanted
to
speak
on
this
issue.
Lisa
Lewis
yeah
come
on
up.
You
know
just
give
your
name
into
the
microphone.
You'll
have
two
minutes
to
speak.
C
C
The
neighbor
at
17
West,
Van
Buren.
My
house
is
right
next
to
that
project
and
they'll
be
looking
into
my
backyard
from
their
porches
and
I'm,
not
thrilled
about
that,
but
I'm
very
concerned
about
the
parking
because
he
mentioned
that
Harris
is
not
much
wider
than
like
an
alley.
Van
Buuren
is
the
same
width
within
a
you
know.
I
mean
it's
only
to
my
eye,
but
Van
Buren's,
no
wider.
If
cars
are
parked
on
both
sides
of
an
Buren,
only
one
car
can
pass
through
it
becomes
one
lane.
C
So
I
don't
believe
it's
realistic
that
only
one
car
will
be
necessary
for
people
that
live
in
the
one
bedroom.
I,
don't
believe
the
angled
parking
is
done
anywhere
in
the
ballpark
area.
The
only
business
I
can
think
that
doesn't
really
have
a
park
strip.
Is
the
police
story,
the
fire
department,
which
is
on
the
corner
or
13
and
main
so
they
can
pull
their
trucks
out
onto
Main
Street?
That's
the
only
one.
Everyone
else
has
a
park
strip
along
main,
a
thick
one
on
Van
Buren.
C
The
park
strips
aren't
quite
as
wide
as
they
are,
but
I'm
very
worried
about
the
parking
situation.
That's
my
primary
and
the
other
one
is
a
privacy
and
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood
is
one-story
bungalows.
And
yes,
it's
not
ten
storeys,
it's
only
three,
but
we
have
solar
panels
on
our
house
and
I'm
concerned.
Also,
they'll
block
our
panels.
Q
Robert
Lewis
live
at
17,
West,
Van
Buren
and
my
concerns
are
my
property
line.
There's
a
the
fence
and
the
way
back
is
is
it
was
going
to
be
replaced
and
we
have
also
a
shed
or
actually
it's
our
garage
that
we
use
as
a
shed
that's
right
on
the
property
line
and
then
there's
chain-link
fence
that
goes
from
the
shed
to
the
to
Van
Buren.
And
you,
if
you
look
on
the
picture
there,
you
can
see
it
so
I'm
interested
in.
Q
What's
going
to
happen
to
to
that
whose
is
it
you
know,
I
mean
we
moved
here
and
I
found
that
the
property
lines
are
not
necessarily
the
property
lines.
You
know
we
tried
to
find
out
what
the
the
plot
plan
is
for
our
place
and
it
was
from
nineteen
twenty
something.
So
in
her
point
on
parking,
when
there's
a
baseball
game
around
there,
the
place
is
not
park
about
it's.
You
know,
that's
only
about
four
blocks
away,
and
so
there's
there's
nothing.
Q
There
are
people
that
almost
sometimes
pull
right
into
our
drive
to
find
a
parking
space.
So
it's
in
the
angle,
parking
I've
been
in
communities
where
they've
angled
parked
like
that
in
being
on
Main
Street
you're
gonna
have
some
blind
moments
there.
It's
not
like
a
parking
lot
in
a
in
a
shopping
mall.
Q
It's
a
parking
lot
like
you're
backing
into
traffic
and
there's
a
bicycle
lane
there
that
with
the
people
will
not
be,
they
won't
be
seeing
those
people
and
they'll
go
back
right
into
Main,
Street
and
I'm
sure
we'll
be
hearing
various
close
calls
and
I
hope.
That's
all.
There
is
that's
pretty
much.
What
I
have
great.
A
Thank
you
very
much
appreciate
it.
Is
there
anybody
else?
That's
all
the
cards
I
believe
I
had
for
this
project.
Is
there
anyone
else
who
would
like
to
speak
on
this
come
on
up?
If
you
do
all
right,
seeing
none
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
hearing
on
this
come
back
to
the
Commission
I
guess
John.
Do
you
want
to
come
up?
I
I'll
start
with
some
questions,
I
assume,
as
with
any
project
that
address
some
of
the
concerns
of
the
community.
A
M
A
M
That
would
be
on
the
onus
of
the
applicants
to
make
sure
that
they
have
that
surveyed,
but
that
would
be
on
the
site
plan
and
when
they
go
to
submit
their
billing
plans,
though
they'll
have
all
that
surveyed
and
provide
their
and
and
it
can
be
viewed
by
the
public.
If
they
would
like
to
to
see
that
as
well.
Okay,
great.
A
And
the
bike
lane
I
didn't
notice
that
earlier
as
well
is
that
is
that,
because
I
know
that
we've
got
one
spot
in
the
city
that
you
have
back
in
because
of
the
bike
lane,
and-
and
this
is
one
that
you
go
in
forward
and
it's
angled
is
that
and
I
and
I.
There
probably
are
other
examples,
but
I'm
just
trying
to
think
is
that
problematic
with
the
bike
lane
er?
Is
it
not?
Is
it
happen
all
over
the
place
that
we
have
the
engl
parking
and
a
bike
lane
well.
M
I
think
anytime,
there's
parking
and
you're
backing
up
into
anywhere.
There
bicycle
there's
always
a
potential
there
being
you
know
an
accident,
but
frankly,
even
if
you're
I've
seen
people
try
to
get
into
parallel
spots
and
hit
people
on
bikes,
and
so
you
know
any
any
sort
of
interaction
anytime,
you
don't
have
a
protected
bike.
Lane
I
think
that
there's
going
to
be
some
sort
of
you
know
there
could
potentially
there's
a
potential
for
issues.
You
know
I
I,
think
for
this.
You
know
when
it
comes
down
to
it.
You
said
it
happens.
M
A
M
So
if,
if
we
didn't,
if
this
wasn't
approved
tonight,
multi-family
residential
uses
are
a
permitted
use,
so
they
could
build
a
building
up
to
30
feet
in
height.
It
would
have
to
be
15
feet
from
the
each
street
face.
It
is
set
at
this
rear,
which
is
10
feet.
It
would
still
need
to
have
a
landscape
buffer.
Of
course
they
would
need
to
meet
their
parking,
but
but
you
certainly
could
do
that
it
wouldn't
have
to
be
the
same
design.
M
J
M
A
A
M
E
M
A
And
just
to
drive
the
point
home
to
the
community
who
spoken
of
the
neighbors
here,
I
just
want
to
I
just
want
to
say
the
reason.
We're
asking
these
questions
is
just
to
say
that
if
they
didn't
come
to
us-
and
we
have-
we
had
no
authority
over
this
by
right.
The
landowners
could
build
something
that
would
occupy
essentially
the
same
space
and,
and
you
know
it
probably
have
the
same
impact
on
your
privacy
as
as
this
project
would,
and
so
sometimes
we're
evaluating
a
project.
You
know
worst
case
scenario
versus
you
know
this.
A
I
Would
like
to
discuss
a
little
bit
more
in
this
project
I
the
thing
when
we
drove
by
on
our
site
visit
today.
I
actually
happened
to
be
just
sitting
there
looking
out
the
window
and
noticed
this
24-inch
30-inch
caliper
tree
right
on
the
street
and
and
looked
at
the
at
the
tree
lawn
there
with
all
of
the
huge
trees
along
Main
Street,
realizing
that
they
would
go
away
if
this
project
were
were
built.
J
J
It's
not
real
until
you
get
to
Nate,
Wade
and
I,
just
confirmed
it
again
on
the
map
that
you
see
that
you
don't
really
see
it
further
south
either
it's
much
more
prevalent
on
kind
of
13
south
north,
where
we
have
all
those
car
dealerships,
but
I
just
think.
It's
really
I
think
it's
not
I
would
really
hate
to
see
that
sort
of
development
pattern
move
down,
and
especially
is
this
area
but
gets
built
up
because
it's
going
to
I
think
it's
gonna
be
densified,
more
commercial
business,
more
everyone
else.
J
Businesses
know
where
else
is
gonna
want
parking
along
there,
whether
they
need
it
or
not,
and
I
just
hate
to
extend
that
sort
of
tradition
down
that
way.
It
does
sound
like
we
mean
they
could
come
back
in
the
future
and
deal
with
other
options.
It
becomes
a
bigger
problem,
but
my
gut
is
to
say
to
not
approve
the
angled
parking
for
the
extra
three
or
three
spots,
because
I
think
we
I
think
we
lose
more
there
and
then
you
know
and
they're
welcome
to
or
the
community
if
they
come
back,
I
mean.
K
It
sounds
like
I'm
in
the
minority
here,
but
I
disagree
with
that
I
ride
my
bike
literally
on
Main
Street
past
this
site
at
least
once
a
week.
I
don't
have
I
mean
I
can
see
the
kind
of
the
part
and
I'm
writing
the
whole
Main
Street.
So
I
see
a
lot
of
angled
parking.
I
see
it
in
other
places
utilized
in
other
places
in
our
city,
I.
K
Think
it's
a
good
use
and
as
we
build
up
I
mean
we're
taking
this
whole
parking
lot
away,
that
the
neighbors
rely
on
we've
that
we've
read
that
in
our
or
comments
I.
Just
think
I
like
this
building
or
like
I
like
the
project
and
I,
think
the
angled
parking
is
a
really
nice
thoughtful
addition.
It
makes
me
think.
They've
really
put
a
lot
of
thought
into
not
only
the
res,
the
new
residents,
but
the
neighbors,
so
I
and
I
love
a
tree.
K
R
K
D
Yeah
so
I
kind
of
have
to
agree
with
her
because
I
feel
like
we.
So
though,
the
residents
are
concerned
about
parking,
but
they
don't
want
to
add
more
parking
because
they
don't
like
this,
but
they
don't
want
to
parking
on
their
street,
and
so
we
there's
it's
like
this
illogical
circle.
They
were
going
in.
D
We
have
many
streets
where,
if
you
have
cars
on
both
sides,
they
become
single
lanes.
There
are
everywhere
in
the
city
and
I
appreciate
that
concern
that
overflow
will
go
there,
but
since
we
can't
require
them
to
provide
more
parking
than
the
ordinance
stipulates
and
they
already
meet
that
I
I
also
think
angled
parking
is
such
a
better
use
of
our
streets
than
parallel
parking
a
because
it
seems
like
90%
of
the
people
in
the
city.
D
Don't
know
how
to
parallel
park,
and
so
not
only
if
you,
if
they
parallel
park
right,
you
could
get
four,
but
you're.
Only
gonna
get
three,
maybe
two,
depending
on
how
bad
it
is,
but
that
we're
not
utilizing
our
spaces
to
the
their
their
most
efficient
use
and
I
think
angled
parking
and
I've
seen
it
in
other
places.
It's
actually
by
the
fire
station.
Maybe
it's
on
West
temple
for
a
business
or
some
sort
of
an
office
building
and
had
to
cut
that
out.
D
I,
don't
think
it
has
to
be
unpleasant
if
they
landscape
it
properly.
I
think
I
cut
out
for
angle.
Parking
can
be
very
pleasing
and
and
I
personally,
don't
lament
the
loss
of
some
of
our
parking
strips,
because
I
feel
like
they're
a
big
waste
of
space.
Most
of
the
time
I
mean
if
people
maintain
them
they're
nice,
but
what
are
they
used
for
other
than
they
get
to
take
up
water?
D
So
I,
don't
I
kind
of
agree
with
Sarah
I'm,
not
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
it's
a
big
issue
and
I
think
if
we
were
talking
about
some
way
to
alleviate
a
parking
crunch
for
Van,
Buren
and
Harris,
then
this
is
a
really
good
alternative
that
gets
yield
you
more
parking
than
you
would
if
you
left
it
parallel.
Okay,.
A
I
I
Requirements
here
about
native
trees,
existing
landscaping
and
so
forth,
having
very
mature
trees
and
so
forth,
they're
preserved
and
maintained.
That's
explicitly
in
these
requirements,
I
think
it's
not
just
a
function
of
parking
I
think
it's
the
function
of
green
space
that
makes
us
feel
more
supported
as
pedestrians
as
we
walk
along
the
street.
It's
a
matter
of
encouraging
that
pedestrian
activity
as
main
street
in
this
area
develops
more.
We
want
there
to
be
a
tradition
of
having
large
trees
on
a
tree
lawn
in
front
of
the
in
front
of
the
building.
I
If
you
take
the
trees
down,
you
will
use
more
water,
then
you
don't
and
certainly
will
create
greater
Danish
problems
with
having
the
parking
there.
I
think
that
we
have
a
lot
of
parallel
parking
along
Main
Street,
a
lot
and
even
in
the
aerial
photos
that
we're
looking
at
now.
There's
nobody
parked
there.
So
I
think
that
it
would
be
a
big
mistake
to
get
rid
of
what
should
be
an
excellent
example
of
how
a
residential
property,
not
a
commercial,
would
mind
you
that
may
need
this.
I
You
know
I
got
a
park
and
pull
in
and
go
to
the
7-eleven
this
we
don't
want
it
to
look
like
a
7-eleven.
We
want
it
to
look
like
a
residential
property
and
that's
what
residential
properties
do
they
have
a
wide
tree
lawn
that
separates
them
that
buffers
them
from
the
noise
of
the
street
that
creates
shade
for
pedestrians
going
by
and
I
feel
pretty
strongly
about.
This
and
I
would
not
support
this
project
if
it
has
the
parking
in
it.
Okay,.
E
One
a
mr.
chair
can
I
just
weigh
in
a
little
bit
on
the
street
tree
thing.
Ultimately,
the
removal
of
any
existing
street
trees
is
up
to
the
urban
forester.
They
are
considered
City
assets
and
they
shall,
when
somebody
is
proposing
to
remove
it
when
it's
not
diseased
or
dead
or
whatever
they
actually
have
to
reimburse
the
city
for
it
and
pay
for
the
value
of
that
tree.
That
value
is
usually
determined
based
on
the
CAO
existing
caliper
and
replacing
it
with
an
equal
caliber
inch.
E
Not
you
clearly
don't
provide
the
same
sized
tree,
but
but
in
whatever
number
of
trees,
it
would
add
up
to
equal
that
so
just
wanted
to
throw
that
out
there.
So,
even
if
the
Planning
Commission
decides
to
approve
that
parking
that
doesn't
outweigh
the
urban
foresters
responsibilities
and
role
in
in
approving
any
removal
of
those
trees,
so.
C
A
D
B
A
A
S
All
right
so
Jordan
Atkin,
the
developer
and
owner
of
the
property,
is
requesting
planned
development
and
preliminary
subdivision
approval
to
construct
for
single-family
attached
units
or
townhomes
on
the
property
at
25,
93,
South,
700
East,
highlighted
here
in
red.
The
units
will
be
side
oriented
on
the
lot
or
facing
the
south
side,
as
opposed
to
all
facing
the
street
or
having
direct
public
street
frontage.
The
subject
property
is
located
on
the
east
side
of
7th
east.
Just
a
few
blocks
south
of
I-80
in
the
sugarhouse
neighborhood.
S
This
part
of
700
East
is
lined
with
a
mix
of
single-story
brick
single-family
homes,
as
well
as
larger
for
flats
and
six
flats,
and
then
there's
larger
apartment
buildings
directly
across
7th
east.
There
is
a
current
there's,
currently
a
duplex
on
the
subject
site
that
will
be
removed
to
accommodate
the
new
development
along
with
two
larger
accessory
structures,
and
then
the
site
is
zoned,
RMF
30
or
a
low
density,
multi-family
residential.
S
S
The
applicants
have
requested
3
modifications
to
the
zoning
and
subdivision
ordinance
through
this
planned
development
process,
so
the
first
is
to
create
under
sized
Lots
without
direct
public
street
frontage,
as
I
mentioned.
As
you
all
know,
the
ordinance
does
not
allow
their
creation
of
Lots
without
street
frontage
to
discourage
landlocked
parcels
with
low
visibility
and
little
access.
But
here
access
easements
will
be
established
along
the
south
side
of
the
lot
so
that
each
individual
town
house
can
be
on
its
own
lot.
S
More
landscaping
on
the
site
is
difficult
to
accommodate,
because
the
driveway
is
required
to
be
at
least
20
feet
wide
per
fire
requirements.
Fire
access
requirements
and
also
to
accommodate,
turned
the
turning
radiuses
of
the
cars
going
in
and
out
of
those
driveways
there.
So
in
lieu
of
that
landscaping
or
the
the
length
of
the
landscaping
they're
proposing
to
install
a
six
foot,
cedar
fence,
along
with
service,
berry,
trees,
taller
and
taller
shrubs
to
create
a
sufficient
buffer
between
the
property
and
the
proposed
to
the
property
to
the
south
and
the
proposed
driveway
area.
S
So
here
are
the
renderings
of
the
proposed
project.
Looking
from
7th
east,
the
in
the
original
design
that
was
submitted,
the
front
unit
wasn't
completely
oriented
to
the
street,
which
is
something
that
the
sugar
house
master
plan
really
hones
in
on
and
stresses
should
be
done
with
planned
development
projects.
So
since
then
the
design
has
been
modified
and
they
have
included
a
centered
front.
Entryway
highlighted
by
two
taller
front
window
panes
the
front
balcony
was
extended
over
the
front
door,
creating
somewhat
of
a
canopy
over
the
door
or
a
more
inviting
front
entrance.
S
S
Something
else
I
wanted
to
note,
because
the
lot
as
a
whole
is
just
under
80
feet
wide
off
of
7th
east.
It
doesn't
have
the
lot
with
to
accommodate
a
multi-family
dwelling,
so
without
a
plan
development
approval,
they
could
only
have
two
units
or
a
duplex
on
the
lot
if
they
were
to
somehow
acquire
five
feet
of
land
or
five
feet
of
width.
To
get
that
80
feet
requirement,
they
could
have
the
four
units,
but
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
have
them
on
their
own
Lots
without
street
frontage.
S
A
N
F
There's
a
few
reasons,
so
the
biggest
reason
we
wanted
to
keep
the
scale
of
all
the
residences,
and
so
that
lowest
point
is
about
19
feet,
keeping
a
nice
data
minute.
Is
it
recesses
back?
Secondly,
we
wanted
to
break
down
that
linear
facade.
You
know
running
east-west
or
yeah,
east-west
and
just
break
it
up
into
the
individual
homes
rather
than
seeing
this
long
daunting
pitch.
F
B
A
B
My
name
is
Judy
short
and
I'm.
The
Landis
chair
for
the
sugarhouse
Community
Council.
We
reviewed
this
in
our
usual
manner,
flyering
the
neighborhood
and
having
them
at
the
Land
Use
Committee
and
the
main
sugar
house
council
meeting,
and
there
were
comments
and
at
each
meeting
the
developers
were
good
to
take
a
look
and
change
the
plans.
B
We
know
access,
we
still
worry
a
little
bit
about
the
front
parcel
I
agree
with
Matt
about
the
peak
of
the
roof,
but
I
also
trust
the
architects
aesthetics.
We
know
access,
probably
on
that
front.
You
know
it
will
be
through
the
garage
and
I
know
this
I
know
the
master
plan
calls
for
our
houses
on
the
street,
need
to
have
a
sidewalk
to
the
street,
but
I
think
it
looks
kind
of
funny
in
that
front
yard,
or
maybe
it
needs
a
second
sidewalk
that
goes
to
the
driveway,
the
rest
of
the
homes.
B
Maybe
I
think
Lauren
did
a
great
job
of
going
through
the
master
plan
and
reminding
all
of
us
how
the
various
facets
of
this
plan
meet
the
objectives
of
the
sugarhouse
master
plan
as
well
as
blend
Celt
like
this
does
meet
the
goal
of
the
Salt
Lake
City
goal
of
adding
more
housing
units
it
adds
to
net
units,
it
doesn't
preserve
the
predominant
land
pattern
of
single-family
homes
and
the
density.
If
this
were
applied
to
an
acre,
the
project
is
more
dense
than
five
to
ten
units
per
acre.
They
won't
be
affordable.
B
The
developer
states
a
price
point
of
four
to
five
hundred
thousand
for
each
unit.
Three
units
are
isolated
from
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood
not
facing
the
street,
there's
no
pedestrian
sidewalk
in
the
interior
of
the
project.
Now
the
mature
trees
on
the
property
are
going
to
be
removed
and
I,
don't
think
it
provides
sufficient
space
for
private
amenities.
There
really
aren't
many
amenities
on
this
parcel.
The
upstairs
balcony
looks
great,
but
I'm
not
sure
how
much
it
can
really
be
used.
B
If
the
kitchen
area
is
on
the
first
floor,
I
would
think
that
something
like
that
would
be
used
for
barbecuing
and
family
parties,
and
it
just
seems
in
a
funny
place
the
the
back
exterior
that
on
the
east
side
that
that
parcel
has
at
what
looks
like
the
largest
parcel
in
the
batch.
It's
like
4,000
square
feet,
but
a
lot
of
the
back
is
just
a
big
retention
pond
or
swale
I'm,
not
sure
how
useable
that
actually
is.
B
If
it's
an
amenity
and
the
two
interior
Lots
have
five
by
twenty
seven
feet
on
the
north
side
of
the
house,
which
it's
good
for
shade
in
the
summer,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
it's
a
very
useable
space.
So
I,
don't
think
we're
very
pleased
with
this
project.
Price
point
is
high
I,
provided
you
with
some
other
examples
of
similar
town
homes
along
7th
East
that
have
sold
for
less
with
more
amenities.
B
And
the
tag
units
appear
larger,
but
I
think
a
lot
of
the
footprint
is
really
the
size
of
the
garage
when
you
compare
the
tag
units
to
the
other
examples
that
we've
provided
and
I
think
our
concern
is
more
down
the
road
because
of
the
city's
big
push
to
add
new
infill
housing,
we're
going
to
see
more
and
more
of
these
and
of
the
five
or
six
we've
already
approved.
This
is
sort
of
the
smallest
lot
squishing
in
four
units,
the
others
were
a
little
bit
larger
and
I.
B
Just
don't
want
to
see
us
in
our
eagerness
to
add
more
housing
sacrifice
the
ambience
of
the
nice
neighborhoods
that
we
have
in
sugarhouse
I.
Think
that's
the
piece
that
we
see.
That's
missing.
It's
just
a
little
bit
small,
not
a
lot
of
outside
space.
Maybe
if
you're
buying
this,
that's
all
you
want
I,
don't
know,
but
we
don't
want
to
see
this
be
the
start
of
an
example
of
squeezing
as
much
as
we
can
on
each
lot.
Thank.
A
C
I
C
C
I
I
C
I
A
G
Just
give
us
your
name
good
evening.
My
name
is
David
Headey
and
I'm,
the
neighbor
to
the
east
of
the
proposed
property
and
I
guess
just
anecdotally
I
think
I
represent
fairly
well
sort
of
the
the
phenotype
of
people
who
are
sort
of
coming
into
the
neighborhood
and
discovering
it.
For
the
first
time
my
wife
and
I
moved
into
the
property
January
of
this
year,
and
we
were
especially
excited
that
somehow
Lake
Street
is
able
to
maintain
a
fairly
quiet,
sugarhouse
feel,
even
though
it's
just
the
block
off
of
seven.
G
So
I'd
like
to
thank
Judy
and
Lauren
and
Jordan
the
developer
for
sort
of
working
with
the
community
to
try
to
create
buffers,
I
think
the
biggest
concern
that
I
have
is
primarily
that
I
agree.
This
feels
like
a
very
sort
of
squished
property.
It
just
seems
anecdotally
that
it
should
really
be
three
units
rather
than
four
and
I.
Don't
know
that
that's
something
that
can
be
addressed
in
the
scope
of
this
meeting
so
I'll
just
say.
G
So
we
had
proposed
in
a
previous
meeting
that
it'd
be
taken
under
consideration,
that
the
CC&R
stipulate
that
homeowners
would
not
be
able
to
then
essentially
flip
it
into
a
rental
property,
and
that
would
be
my
the
biggest
consideration
to
me
is
that
that
respectfully
be
taken
under
consideration,
because
to
me
that
sets
the
precedent
for
maintaining
and
integrating
into
the
community
versus
really
creating
sort
of
a
dissonance
between
an
established
community
and
sort
of
a
line
of
rental
properties.
But
otherwise
we
think
it's
coming
along
very
well.
Great.
Thank.
A
S
Of
a
single
family
attached
units,
no
setback
is
required
and
if
there
is
one
it's
four
feet
so
they're
meeting
that
and
they
did
kind
of
look
into
trying
to
scoot
it
more
to
the
south
just
to
give
those
future
property
owners
more
space.
But
with
the
20
foot
width
requirement
of
the
driveway,
it
was
just
kind
of
get
achieving
a
balance
between
a
good
landscape
buffer
and
some
space
for
those
future
property
owners
and.
S
D
So
I
couldn't
really
tell
in
your
rendering
on
the
south
side,
where
you
have
the
entrances
for
the
other
three
units.
I
couldn't
really
tell
how
those
entrances
are
marked
or
highlighted
so
they're,
not
just
I
was
I'm
trying
to
I
always
struggle
with
how
to
describe
the
feel
of
it
and
I
think
I'm.
Settling
on
this,
like
a
warehouse,
feel
it
was
like
garage
door
garage
door.
Nothing
is
really
inviting
and
I
just
couldn't
tell
from
your
rendering
how
you're
treating
the
entrances
for
the
three
units
that
are
not
facing
700
East
I.
Think.
C
C
F
K
Have
a
question
about
the
West
elevation
with
the
entrance:
that's
on
700
I
from
our
earlier
discussion.
I
understand
why
you
pitched
the
I:
have
the
roof
pitch
the
way
you
do,
but
it
makes
it
feel
like
this.
Is
the
side
of
the
house
I'm
just
wondering
if
you
can
add
a
roof,
something
else
to
make
it
declare.
This
is
the
front
and
just
on
this
one.
The
others
of
course
make
sense,
but
I
just
keep
looking
at
this,
and
with
that
that
porch
it
just
I
want
something
that
declares
to
the
street.
F
A
completely
valid
statement
and
in
our
drawing
board
we
presented
several
schemes,
doing
intermittent
pitches,
maybe
coming
out
and
do
dormers
also
may
be
doing
a
hipped
roof
and,
to
be
honest,
it
just
felt
like
we
were
adding
elements
that
just
didn't
really
add
to
it.
It.
It
felt
at
this
point
more
of
like
a
decorative
decoration
and
it
didn't
as
a
whole
when
you'd
look
at
it,
it
just
didn't
feel
part
of
the
same
building,
which
is
why
we
tried
to
incorporate
that
balcony
and
really
present
an
entrance.
F
A
K
A
D
No
I'm,
sorry
I
actually
agree
with
Sarah
I,
don't
think
you've
you've
hit
it
on
the
seventh
east
site.
I
think
it
looks
like
a
side
of
the
house
and
the
porch
itself
doesn't
indicate.
This
is
the
front,
so
I
mean
we're
just
agreeing
with
Sarah
on
that
one
I
also
wanted
to
follow
up
on
the
comments
or
versus
a
renter
versus
owner,
so
first
of
all,
I
actually
very
much
dislike.
This
idea
that
renters
are
not
invested
in
our
community.
D
I
have
lived
in
my
home
for
twenty
years
and
I've
had
five
owners
on
one
side.
Three
on
the
other
and
I
have
a
renter
that
has
been
there
longer
than
any
of
the
owners
and
I
hope
he
never
leaves
I
like
him
better
than
any
of
those
eight
owners
I've
ever
had,
and
so
there
are
owners
further
down
the
street
that
don't
take
care
of
anything.
So
to
suggest
that
renters
aren't
going
to
be
as
invested,
I've
hurt.
D
Is
this
project
going
to
have
an
HOA
which
you
could
own
it
rent
it
out,
but
then
the
HOA
has
components
to
it
that
require
upkeep,
which
address
some
of
the
concerns
of
the
neighborhood,
but
don't
place
a
limit
that
is
not
based
on
any
factual
data
of
who's
going
to
be
more
invested
in
the
community.
So
I,
just
wonder:
did
you
plan
on
having
this
have
an
HOA?
Are
you
open
to
that?
We.
D
D
E
D
D
I
C
K
Judy
brought
this
up
and
I
think
it's
a
good
point.
The
walkway
goes
from
sidewalk
to
front
door
on
the
west
side,
but
there's
a
walkway
I
mean
there's
no
way
to
unless
you're
walking
down
the
driveway
I.
Just
wonder
why
there
wasn't
the
walkway
that
attached
to
this
to
the
street
from
for
the
other
three
units,
as
was
their
thought
to
that
I
reason
you
didn't:
do
there.
F
K
A
S
J
J
J
S
J
Right
but
I'm
so
I'm
kernel
with
the
two
things
like
so
one
is
how
they're
tying
the
reduced
front
yard
setback
and
the
reduced
side,
entry,
buffer
or
the
roof
side,
entry,
side,
yard
setback
or
front
yard
setback
and
the
creation
of
the
undersized
Lots
with
creating
a
modification
for
I'm,
really
tired.
Today,
I'm
mumbling
to.
J
But
like,
but
how
it
ties
to
creating
different
housing
types,
it
isn't
also
with
the
new
ordinance,
which
is
a
I'm
working
through
the
new
ordinance
I'm.
Sorry
that
you
guys
are
in
some
ways,
guinea
pigs
for
it
or
one
of
the
first
times
how
the
other
thing
in
the
Ordnance
too,
is
that
it
creates
a
better
product
and
could
be
created
without
strict
application
of
Zoning
standards.
And
so
you
know
one
of
the
comments
in
the
public
was.
J
Could
this
be
three
units
that
would
you
know
or
fewer
units
right,
which
would
maybe
would
not
necessarily
a
creation
of
undersized
Lots?
You
know:
would
that
be
better
or
worse,
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
I'm,
just
trying
to
I
mean
am
I
thinking
about
this
right
and
the
way
to
trying
to
tie
this
like
they're,
saying
they're,
creating
a
housing
stock.
That's
not
in
the
neighborhood
now
and.
H
J
To
create
that
housing
stock,
that's
not
in
the
neighborhood,
they
have
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
to
accomodate
the
front
balcony
and
they
have
to
create
undersized
Lots
without
Street
frontage
to
achieve
that
objective
and
that
by
doing
those
two
things
they're
achieving
a
better
product
and
they
could
do
without
strict
application
of
zoning
standards
am
I.
Thinking
about
this
correct
from
end
to
end
yeah.
S
J
J
S
J
Right
that
there's
not
a
lot
of
second-story
balconies
that
go
along
front
of
houses
like
to
me:
that's
not
a
common
feature
among
front
of
houses
that
you've
requested.
Now,
whether
or
not
it
matters
to
the
overall
neighborhood
I,
don't
know.
But
to
me,
that's
not
a
common
feature
that
you
see
in
that
neighborhood
or
anywhere
and
Salt.
Lake
is
second
storey
balconies
along
a
front
from
a
lot
or
is
I'm,
not
sure
how
that's
necessary
to
create
a
diversity
of
housing
stock
and
achieve
a
better
product.
I.
C
E
C
A
All
right,
thank
you
all
very
much.
Thank
you.
Okay,
do
we
have
a
motion,
discussion
I,
you
know
I
I
feel
like
I.
Actually
am
NOT
I
feel
like
you
know,
we
have
had
a
lot
of
discussions
about
the
orientation
of
the
the
front
unit
and
it
seems
like
there's
a
little
heartburn
over
this.
This
one.
Doesn't
this
one
doesn't
bother
me
like
others,
I
think,
partly
because
it
is
on
seventh,
east
and
seventh.
East
is
a
pretty
major
road
and
it's
you
know
it's.
Q
A
The
balcony,
which
I
think
is
is
fine,
I
think
white
stucco
is
becoming.
Is
the
new
beige,
so
you
know
we're
gonna
see
that
over
and
over
I
think.
But
you
know
I'm,
not
this
one
doesn't
give
me
a
lot
of
heartburn
I.
Don't
think
what
they're
asking
for
is
that
the
modifications
are
that
that
big
of
a
deal
both
in
the
front
and
on
the
side?
A
I
Yeah
I,
like
the
design
but
I,
think
it's
a
little
bit
out
of
place
in
this
particular
area.
We
also
have
to
we
have
to
address
the
issue
which
I
think
Nick
has
brought
up
to
us
before,
which
is
this
slot
housing
typology
that's
beginning
to
be
very
important
throughout
all
of
our
neighborhoods,
which
allow
that
kind
of
density,
even
with
a
plan,
develop
Planned,
Unit
development,
because
the
design
of
the
slot
housing?
I
There
will
be
more
projects
like
this
all
the
time
and
I'm
I'm
okay,
with
this
particular
design
for
a
slot
housing
project.
The
question
is
that
do
we
encourage
the
slot
housing
along
7th,
700
and
I?
Think
there
might
be
a
reason
to
do
that,
because
these
are
houses
where
you
don't
actually
have
to
back
out
onto
700.
You
can
turn
around
with
in
your
garage
and
then
come
back
out
to
the
street
facing
forward,
but
having
said
that,
there's
also
a
lot
of
sort
of
little
bungalows
remaining
in
this
street.
I
Most
of
them
are
brick
and
I.
Think
this
thing
is
going
to
stick
out
like
a
sore
thumb
in
its
height
and
its
bulk,
essentially
so
I'm
concerned
about
those
particular
issues.
The
roof
doesn't
doesn't
particularly
bother
me
with
there's
plenty
of
roofs.
This
kind
of
gable
end
roofs
that
are
facing
this
way
on
the
street.
So
that's
that's
not
a
real
big
concern,
but
actually
it's
more.
The
white
stucco
and
than
anything
else
I
think
page
would
be
better.
I
A
So
on
your
comments,
Brenda
I
think
I
mean
it
is
RMF.
30
is
the
zoning.
So
if
it
were
I
think
what
Lauren
was
saying
if
the
property
was
a
little
wider,
they
could
add
more
units
by
right
and
so
I'm
guessing
that
over
the
time
as
these
properties
on
7th
east
redevelop,
we're
gonna
see
a
lot
more
of
this
bulk.
A
K
A
new,
normal
I
think
we
want
to
make
it
the
best
that
it
can.
You
know
what
can
we
do
to
say
so
that
it
becomes
a
blueprint
for
good
things
and
not.
Oh
here
goes
one
one
more
of
these
and
you
know.
Maybe
that
is
a
little
beyond
our
purview
but
I'm.
You
know
if
this
is
gonna,
be
the
first
I'd
like
it
to
be
a
good
example
for
people
to
be
able
to
look
at
and
go.
Yes,
that's
our
standard,
so.
D
I
think
we
are
gonna
see
more
of
these
in
70s,
because
there's
a
wider
availability
of
these
longer
lots
on
7th
east.
They
typically
originally
had
almost
wore
terms
behind
them,
and
so
you're.
We're
gonna
see
these
a
lot
more
because
the
lots
will
allow
it.
I
I
think
that
I
mean
I
agree
with
Sarah
that
the
treatment
of
the
front
facade
just
isn't
what
I'd
like
it
just
like
to
see.
I
think
they
could
do
something
a
little
bit
better
with
that.
What.
D
I
I
think
having
yeah,
maintaining
a
different
pitch
and
I.
Don't
know
all
the
architectural
terms.
So
maybe
you
do.
But
you
know,
I
have
I,
have
a
seperate
pitch
off
of
my
porch
that
that's
different
from
my
roof
and
I
think
those
type
of
things
can
be
included
and
and
I
know
with
architect,
felt
like
they
didn't
contribute
to
the
design.
But
from
our
perspective
we're
looking
at
how
does
it
feel?
A
H
A
D
A
D
E
Q
E
H
D
Can
go
from
there
or
whatever
happens,
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
approved
petitions
PL
and
sub-20
18-0
0,
5,
5,
5
and
PLN
s,
UV
2018,
0,
0,
6,
6,
5,
tagged,
700
plan
development
and
preliminary
subdivision
with
the
conditions
listed
in
the
staff
report
with
the
following
modifications,
one
that
they
add
some
architectural
details,
such
as
a
dormer
for
the
front
facade
to
make
that
more
pronounced
and
fitting.
E
I
I'm
really
uncomfortable
with
that
that
I
think
that
this
you
know
it
there's
a
tendency
for
people
to
think.
Well,
we'll
just
add
a
dormer
to
it
and
it'll
be
better.
You
know,
but
design
is
a
holistic
process,
and
so
it's
not
just
adding
a
dormer
or
you
know,
I
mean
sometimes
you
can
say
well,
let's
have
a
front
porch
or
you
know
it's
just
it's
not
it's
a
matter
of
composition
and
perhaps
I'm
sure
that
this
design
team
is
up
to
it.
I
D
Those
are
great
I
appreciate
those
would
the
idea
that
it
is
more
pronounced
and
that
it
reflects
more
of
a
continuity
within
the
neighborhood.
Does
that
do
something
because
I
agree
with
you
I
want
it
to
do
something
and
in
it
the
dormer
may
not
be
the
right
thing.
Is
that
sufficient
in
your
mind,
of
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish?
Or
would
you
word
it
differently?
Would
you
want
some
different
articulation
of
an
idea.
A
D
A
D
I
Disagreed:
this
is
like
the
side
of
a
house.
I've
disagreed
vehemently
I,
don't
think
it
looks
like
the
side
of
a
house.
That's
why
I
want
you
to
say
something
realistic
about
what
you
want
that
you're
not
getting
I,
don't
think
that
that's
a
fair
assessment
of
this
design
at
all.
It
has
this
out
the
architectural
element
of
the
of
the
comes
over
the
front
door
that
simulates
a
porch
in
some
ways
forget
that
it's
a
balcony
just
see
it
as
a
seat
as
a
roof
on.
I
What's
really
a
kind
of
opening
that
distinguishes
the
door,
it
has
the
sky-blue
doors
and
windows
next
to
it
that
definitely
indicate
that
this
is
the
door
to
a
unit
or
to
a
building.
It
has
oversized
window
and
the
features
that
it
has.
And
you
know
my
my
only
concern
about
this
compositional
I
don't
have
a
concern.
Compositionally
I
have
a
concern
with
frankly,
with
the
color
scheme
of
black
and
white,
it's
very
black
and
very
white
and
the
doors
to
the
garage
or
black
glass-
and
you
know
it's
kind
of
woo
should.
A
D
D
A
D
C
A
D
J
C
A
Right,
my
last
tiebreaker
I'm
actually
going
to
go
ahead
and
vote
no
to
this
motion,
because
I
I
think
that
we
might
be
able
to
do
better
and
try
again
that
this
doesn't
end
the
debate
at
the
moment.
But,
let's,
let's
try
it
again.
I
think
that
if
we
are
going
to
ask
for
some
better
direction
or
I,
think
we
need
do
need
to
be
more
clear
and
I
and
I
stand.
Agreeing
with
Brenda
I
mean.
Ultimately,
this
project
doesn't
bother
me
that
much
with
the
aside
of
the
new
beige.
A
Doesn't
bother,
it
doesn't
bother
me
as
much
as
it
seems
to
bother
you
I,
don't
I
agree
with
Brenda
that
I
don't
I'm,
not
a
big
fan
of
the
color
scheme,
but
that's
you
know.
I
had
I
had
a
contractor
who
told
me
that
all
the
rage
is
this
mountain,
modern
I,
don't
know
if
this
is
mountain
modern,
but
this
is
what
everybody
wants
to
buy
and
that's
what
the
market
decides
and
that's
not
really.
It's
not
really.
A
My
my
aesthetic,
but
that's
not
really
I,
don't
really
feel
like
that's
my
place
to
dictate
it
dictate
that
component,
but
whether
or
not
it's
compatible
with
the
neighborhood,
that's
absolutely
within
our
purview,
and
so,
if
that's,
how
would
you
say
it
would
better
fit?
The
neighborhood
I
would
say
that
this
project
is
substantially
better
than
what
is
currently
on
the
property.
I
A
A
D
A
I
I'm
going
to
actually
move
to
approve
with
conditions
listed
in
the
staff
report
period
so
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
approved
petitions
pln
su
B,
2018
0,
0,
5,
5,
5
and
pln
s
UB
2018
0,
0,
6,
6,
5,
ta,
G,
or
tag
700,
planned
development
and
preliminary
subdivision.
With
the
conditions
listed
in
the
staff
report.
All.
D
F
A
F
A
D
E
D
E
N
N
These
are
some
more
views
of
the
area.
You
can
see
another
shot
from
above
showing
those
parcels.
The
second
view
here
is
from
East
Capitol
Boulevard.
Looking
west
the
white
building
right.
There
is
an
outbuilding
for
the
house,
which
is
located
on
East
Capitol
Street,
which
is
down
below
it
the
front
of
this
house
right
there,
and
then
this
is
a
shot
from
down
here
at
this
corner,
where
Clinton
Avenue
comes
out
and
accesses
East,
Capitol
Boulevard
and
that's
a
shot
of
the
duplex,
that's
located
in
that
in
that
spot,
oops.
N
Okay,
given
that
the
petitions
that
have
been
submitted
are
first
for
a
subdivision,
they're
looking
to
reapportioned
these
three
parcels
into
six
parcels
and
then
the
planned
development
is
to
reduce
the
front
yard
setback
for
the
southeast
single
family
dwelling
from
20
feet
to
10
feet.
Oh
excuse
me
also,
the
reapportionment
of
that
parcels.
N
The
buildings
that
are
planned
is
up
on
the
north
on
each
side
of
these
streets,
East
Capitol,
Boulevard
knees,
Capitol
Street
would
be
twin
homes,
so
it'd
be
a
single
building,
separated
by
a
firewall
with
a
single
family
dwelling
on
each
side
and
then
totally
detached
down
here
on
the
south.
End
of
each
of
these
would
be
a
single
family
dwelling,
so
for
a
total
of
six
units
there.
N
This
is
a
rendering
of
the
buildings.
This
is
from
East
Capitol
Boulevard
up
here
on
the
north
side,
where
you
can
see
the
twin
homes
separate
it
out,
and
then
the
one
down
below
is
the
other
view.
Looking
up
the
street
with
a
single-family
dwelling
prominent
in
that
one-
and
this
is
just
giving
you
a
little
bit
of
an
overview.
N
The
step
back
here
is
20
feet
which
meets
the
standards
for
the
r2
zone
up
here
in
this
area,
due
to
the
shape
of
this
parcel,
which
comes
down
and
has
this
triangular
shape
down
here
or
where
they're
proposing
the
setback
adjustment.
It
drops
down
to
ten
feet
in
that
area
and
then
I
just
include
this
slide.
To
give
you
a
better
idea
of
what
we're
looking
at.
So
these
measurements
out
here
are
showing
what
the
setback
would
be
from
the
property
line
of
where
the
house
is
proposed.
N
N
I
L
C
L
C
Because
of
financial-
and
you
know
economic
reasons
it
was
put
on
hold
and
we
started
it
back
up,
probably
what
2016
and
been
trying
to
get
it.
Oh,
you
know,
through
all
the
issues
and
and
I
think
we're
we're.
Finally,
we're
excited
to
be
here
and
finally
able
to
sit
down
with
you
guys
again
and
I.
Think
Chris
did
a
great
job
of
going.
You.
I
Q
I
N
I
A
L
L
Given
you
out
the
written
version
of
my
comments,
so
I'm
going
to
sort
of
summarize
a
little
bit
I
think
the
real
problem
here
is
that
the
applicant
fundamentally
misunderstands
the
nature
of
this
neighborhood
from
the
pictures
that
they
showed.
You
could
be
forgiven
for
thinking
that
you're
in
some
dusty
corner
of
magna,
rather
than
one
of
the
highest
income
neighborhoods
in
Salt,
Lake
City.
The
pattern
of
the
street
as
you
go
north,
is
that
there's
a
5-foot
tree
lawn
and
a
five-foot
sidewalk.
L
This,
the
Neighborhood
Council
actually
put
in
a
request
for
capital
improvement
funds
last
year
to
do
exactly
that
and
the
engineers
looked
at
it
and
it's
expensive,
but
it
is
something
that
they
would
like
to
do
so
not
having
sidewalks
and
tree
lawn
as
part
of
this
property.
As
part
of
this
project
is
a
problem,
more
importantly,
going
to
the
architecture
of
the
of
the
project.
This
is
essentially
a
three-story
tall
building.
L
You
will
not
find
any
buildings
that
rise
directly,
three
storeys
from
the
visible
bottom
of
the
building
and
I'm.
Not
talking
about
the
technical.
You
know
average
great
I'm
talking
about
what
you
see
walking
the
street.
In
fact,
you
will
find
very
few
buildings
on
these
Capitol
Boulevard
that
are
more
than
one
story
above
their
apparent
grade
and
those
that
are
two
stories
almost
invariably
have
a
garage
or
a
lower
portion
of
the
building
between
the
sidewalk
and
the
two-story
portion
of
the
house.
L
So
this
is
the
existing
character
of
this
neighborhood,
and
this
project
to
my
eye
does
not
at
all
comply
with
the
existing
conditions
and
both
the
Capitol
master
plan
and
plan
salt
lake
are
very
clear
that
infill
housing
in
this
area.
What
one
should
take
into
account
the
new
construction
should
be
compatible
with
existing
structures.
That's
a
quote
from
the
capital
master
plan.
L
So
I
also
would
like
to
raise
a
sort
of
technical
question
about
how
the
building
height
is
determined
in
this
case
on
this
is
these
are
shed
roofs.
The
pr2
zoning
building
limitation
actually
refers
to
the
ridge
of
a
ridged
roof
or
the
height
of
a
flat
roof.
It
does
not
give
a
height,
and
in
the
third
page
of
what
I
handed
you
is,
it
is
a
copy
of
the
diagrams
from
the
zoning
code
that
are
supposed
to
tell
us
how
to
figure
out
a
building
height,
but
it's
not
easy.
L
I
can't
see
a
way
of
reconciling
these
diagrams
with
the
way
the
r2
zone
is
worded.
It
does
not
seem
the
way
it's
worded,
to
give
us
any
guidance
as
to
how
to
figure
out
the
maximum
height
of
a
shed
roof.
So
I
would
like
to
ask
at
least
that
this
be
tabled,
so
that
question
can
be
resolved,
but
the
general
position
of
the
neighborhood
is
that
this
is
not
compatible
with
the
existing
context.
A
A
The
height
variance
requested
is
totally
I'm,
not
sure
ingenuously,
just
dissing
I'm,
not
sure
with
the
rest
of
the
street.
These
staff
reports
stating
no
sidewalk
in
is
incorrect.
The
developer
should
be
providing
sidewalks
okay
and
then
we
have
Lorraine
Brandt.
Who
also
has
a
comment?
Are
you
here,
Lorraine
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
to
speak,
would
you
like
to
speak?
Urdu,
I'm,
gonna
read
your
comment.
Okay,
this
is
the
the
PUD
does
not
complement
the
two
family
homes
across
East,
Capitol
Boulevard,
where
homeowners
have
preserved
or
updated
red
brick
and
vertical
siding.
C
Name's
sue,
Korth
and
I
live
at
600,
North,
East,
Capitol
Street,
so
I
live
at
the
end
of
the
right
away
across
this
property,
and
my
main
concern
is
the
sidewalk.
It's
come
up
over
the
30
years,
I've
been
living
on
that
property
that
we
need
a
sidewalk
we've
had
blind
people
walking
up
and
down
Keys
Capitol
Boulevard
I
walk
daily
on
East
Capitol
Boulevard
in
the
dark
or
with
my
kids.
C
It's
just
unsafe.
During
the
legislative
session
there's
parked
cars
parked
all
the
way
up
and
down
on
the
west
side
of
the
street.
There's
ice,
there's
snow
and
there's
no
sidewalk
and
I'm
in
the
I.
Don't
know
what
you
call
it.
The
plan
seemed
like
they
pushed
aside
a
sidewalk
as
a
responsibility
of
the
developers,
but
there's
no
safe
way
to
walk
from
fifth
north
to
7th
North
without
being
in
cars,
and
so
one
way
the
other
needs
that
needs
to
be
addressed
if
they're
not
responsible
for
it.
C
A
O
Just
at
500
North
and
East
Capitol
Boulevard,
there's
no
sidewalk
crossing.
There's
no
block
way
even
going
to
cross
that
way.
And
then,
when
you
go
up
up
East
Capitol
Boulevard,
there's
nothing
so
I'm
very
concerned
that
sidewalk
there
is
paramount
actually
to
the
safety
of
the
state
legislature.
People
visiting
the
state
legislature
and
people
living
up
the
hill
and
people
walking
like
I
do
up
around
that
way
and
the
size
of
the
building,
I
I
really
didn't
come
to
even
think
about
this.
O
But
the
size
of
the
building
I
agree
with
what
was
said
earlier
about
the
the
size
of
this
building.
It's
you
know,
it's
a
really
nice
neighborhood
to
walk
in
and
the
the
the
more
you
put
in
I'll
call
them
McMansions.
Maybe
that's
not
quite
the
right
term,
but
something
that
takes
up
all
of
the
space
and
and
just
takes
away
the
view
as
you're
walking
down,
and
there
seems.
N
Yeah,
it's
actually
a
big
issue.
I
considered
it
quite
a
bit
when
I
was
looking
at
this
there's
a
very
expansive
area
of
Capitol
Hill
that
has
no
sidewalks
at
all
and
I
reached
out,
specifically
both
to
transportation
and
engineering,
to
see
what
they
would
recommend
and
if
we
should
absolutely
require
the
sidewalk
goes
in
here.
Under
the
staff
comments
section,
you
can
read
how
they
responded.
They
said
that
they
were
pretty
ambivalent
about
it.
N
They
said
that,
due
to
the
fact
that
there
is
not
an
established
plan
by
the
city
to
put
sidewalks
in
there
that
they
in
their
departments
wouldn't
require
it
and
I
just
want
with
that,
the
developer
is
not
fighting
that
from
the
feedback
that
I've
gotten
from
the
developer.
They
would
be
willing
to
put
in
a
sidewalk.
It
was
just
a
question
of
if
they
put
in
the
sidewalk
and
it's
just
a
very
limited
part
of
this
area.
Let
me
go
back
to
the
diagram
here.
So.
N
If
there
were
a
sidewalk
on
that
on
those
parcels
that
are
there,
but
you
go
up
the
street,
there's
no
sidewalk
up
here
in
any
of
these
areas.
You
come
all
the
way
down
here
to
the
Capitol.
There's
no
sidewalk
there.
It
would
just
be
stranded,
but
if
there
is
a
larger
plan
and
if
they
have
funds
I,
don't
think
that
would
be
a
bad
idea
at
all.
I
mean
I.
Think
that
would
be
great.
My
first
impression
was
that
would
that
would
be
the
way
to
go
so
how.
A
Does
that
work
long
term
if
the
city
were
to
establish
a
plan?
Would
that
be?
Is
it
as
as
big
of
a
hurdle
of
having
to
acquire
property
from
landowners
and
pay
homeowners
for
that
land
and
put
in
sidewalk,
or
is
it
something
that
they
could
put
into
the
right-of-way
of
the
street
like
how
I
mean
how
like
I
guess,
my
question
is,
ultimately,
how
likely
is
it
that
there's
going
to
be
a
master
plan
for
sidewalks
in
the
area
a
long
term
and
that
that's
going
to
take
place
I.
E
A
J
Aspects
about
the
plan
I
mean
looks
like
the
driveways
got
those
high
retaining
walls
and
whatnot.
That
would
make
it
more
challenging
for
a
sidewalk
to
go
through
this
part,
I
mean
I'm
from
AI
before
I
moved
to
Salt.
Lake
I
was
in
Mill
Creek
and
there
are
a
lot
of
partial,
completed
sidewalks
and
that
sort
of
community
yeah.
N
Well,
and
as
you
can
see
here
and
a
recommendation
that
I
made
on
the
first
page
of
the
staff
report,
is
the
visual
they've
given
the
rendering
here
they
are
showing
those
walls
coming
all
the
way
out
to
the
property
we
would
say
or
not
to
the
property.
They
are
actually
sending
beyond
their
property
lines
right
out
to
the
street.
Those
would
have
to
end
at
the
property
lines
so
that
there
is
space
in
that
right-of-way
to
allow
for
that
in
the
future,
and
that's
a
recommendation
that
I
made
that
should
go
along
with
us.
N
A
I
N
N
N
E
In
the
handout
that
was
provided
by
a
member
of
the
public,
the
graphic
that
they
referenced
actually
applies
to
properties
that
are
outside
of
the
r2
zone
and
some
other
zones,
so
it
doesn't
actually
apply
to
this
property.
The
building
height
is
measured
to
the
top
point
of
the
roof
when
it's
a
pitched
roof,
a
pitched
roof.
This
would
be
considered.
It
looks
like
this
is
a
pitched
roof,
because
it's
the
the
pitch
is
a
2
over
12
and
by
ordinance
by
definition
of
what
a
pitched
roof
is
I.
E
N
Not
truthfully
when
they
came
in,
they
were
originally
looking
to
have
the
building's
even
taller
than
they
are
now.
I
went
through
a
process
with
them,
where
the
only
way
they
could
have
obtained
that
was
through
a
special
exception
for
height.
It's
based
on
other
properties
are
on
the
block
face.
They
there
was
nothing
there
that
would
have
allowed
that,
so
they
designed
the
buildings
and
brought
them
down
within
the
height.
That's
allowed
per
the
standards
of
the
r2
zone.
So
the
main.
N
N
I
E
J
Regrade
the
property
to
meet
the
condition
that
you
suggested
and
I
agree
with
that,
keeping
that
public
right-of-way
available
and
that
then
changes
the
grid.
The
base
level
grade
does
the
vice
oom.
The
building
still
needs
to
meet
the
height
standards,
and
that
would
be
reassessed
during
construction.
When
you
see
them
saying
like.
N
Yeah
I
would
assume
so.
The
first
thing
is
I
think
I
don't
know
if
I
would
assume
to
say
that
they're
going
to
have
to
regrade
the
whole
parcel
out
there
at
the
edge
of
their
property
line.
There
may
need
to
be
a
little
bit
of
grading.
That's
done
out
there
in
in
the
area
that
is
the
right-of-way,
but
I
don't
know
if
that's
gonna
require
regrading
the
entire
parcel
I
can't
speak
to
that.
I.
Don't
have
that
expertise!
N
A
R
K
Problems
with
this
project,
it
looks
good
to
me
I'm.
You
know
it
always
bothers
me
when
neighbors
are
concerned,
but
the
concerns
that
I
heard.
Aren't
you
know
it's
more
as
the
aesthetic
it's
you
know,
they're
they're,
just
some
things
that
we
can't
necessarily
that
are
isn't
in
our
purview
to
worry
about
so
I
I,
like
a
project
that
has
front
facing
on
both
sides.
It
you
know
it's
a
good
use
of
the
space.
I,
don't
have
any
problem
with
that
triangle.
You
know
that
little
easement,
so
that's
I'm
thinking
it's
I
like
it.
B
K
A
N
C
I
I
J
K
J
K
K
A
C
A
A
C
A
N
A
D
A
I
I
A
L
A
A
E
Chair
before
they
start
I,
just
I
want
to
kind
of
go
on
record
to
recognize
the
staff
effort
on
this
project.
I,
don't
know
if
people
realize
the
amount
of
time,
and
so
just
to
give
you
an
idea
in
the
since
the
first
week
in
August,
really
I
guess
it
was
the
second
week
in
August
that
we
were
started
working
on
this
project.
E
We've
allocated
more
than
a
they're,
pretty
close
to
a
thousand
staff
hours
researching
meeting
with
people
talking
to
State
Department's
federal
departments,
property
owners
Airport,
you
name
it,
and
it's
Daniel
and
and
Tracy
are
kind
of
the
face
of
this
of
this
project.
But
there
are
four
or
five
other
people
behind
the
scenes
who
have
done
a
lot
of
legwork
to
get
this
to
a
spot
that
to
help
protect
the
city's
long
term
interest
in
the
northwest
quadrant
associated
with
this,
so
I
just
wanted
to
thank
them
and
everybody
else.
A
H
Right
so
good
evening,
we
were
here
two
weeks
ago,
so
we
presented
an
original
ordinance
in
related
to
the
inland
port
zoning
modifications,
and
at
that
meeting
we
had
a
public
hearing
and
we
received
a
lot
of
feedback
and
the
Planning
Commission
asked
us
to
look
at
some
of
those
requests
and
respond.
So
we
are
here
today
with
some
responses
and
and
an
updated
ordinance
for
you
before
we
dive
into
the
changes
I'm
just
going
to
give
you
a
kind
of
a
quick
recap
of
what
our
task
is.
We
are.
H
Our
task
is
to
develop
zoning
regulations
to
respond
to
the
Utah
State
code
11:58,
which
is
the
inland
port
authority
amendments
that
were
well
inland
port
authority
code.
That
was
a
passed
in
July,
so
we
need
to
allow
inland
port
uses
in
eight
of
our
zoning
districts.
We
also
need
to
develop
standards
to
mitigate
the
negative
impacts
of
inland
port
uses,
and
we
have
to
do
all
of
these
things
and
they
must
be
adopted
by
December
31st
of
2018
and
if
we
do
not
make
these
changes
to
allow
inland
port
uses.
H
Thus,
a
city
basically
loses
the
ability
to
regulate
these
I'm.
Just
a
reminder:
here's
the
jurisdictional
area
in
the
blue
outline
on
the
city
boundary
is
they
hatched
and
hatched
area,
and
this
shows
the
zoning
districts
within
the
jurisdictional
boundary.
This.
We
made
a
few
changes
earlier
this
year,
where
we
looked
at
inland
port
uses
and
the
manufacturing
zones,
and
we
we
did
update
some
of
those
things
back
in
I.
Think
February
is
when
they
were
adopted,
but
what
this
changes
the
state
code.
H
We
need
to
make
sure
that
we
allow
inland
port
uses
in
all
in
this
entire
area,
not
just
the
manufacturing
zones
within
the
city,
I
mean
with
some
of
the
other
additional
language
in
the
state
code
about
this
natural
resource
storage
and
things
like
that.
We
need
to
make
sure
that
we
also
allowed
those
those
type
of
things
to
meet
state
code.
H
So
I
mentioned
the
earlier
earlier
text
amendments
this
year
and
just
wanted
to
remind
you
that
over
the
last
year
or
two
we've
also
done
numerous
amounts
of
northwest
quadrant
related
zoning
amendments
and
in
particular
the
northwest
quadrant
overlay,
still
applies
in
this
area.
So
we
focused
a
lot
on
creating
like
a
buffer
area
in
a
development
area
in.
H
That
there's
landscaping
requirements
and
some
bird
some
birds,
safe
or
bird
friendly
development
standards
within
our
zoning
code,
I
mean
just
wanted
to
highlight
our
timeline
here.
So
we've
we
did
a
lot
of
public
engagement
up
front.
We
were
here
where
we
are
now
is
in
the
yellow.
So
we
are
looking
for
a
recommendation
from
Planning
Commission
tonight
to
ensure
that
we
meet
that
December
31st
deadline.
H
P
So,
just
to
recap
a
little
at
the
last
Planning
Commission
meeting,
we
did
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
inland
port
overlay
zoning
approach
itself.
We
are
proposing
in
a
overlay
over
this
entire
port
authority
area
that
would
allow
for
light
industrial
uses
higher
intensity
light
industrial
uses
would
be
conditional
uses.
We
are
also
proposing
that
these
conditional
uses
be
required
to
provide
an
impact
mitigation
plan.
P
That
shows
and
tells
us
how
they're
specifically
going
to
mitigate
some
specific
impacts
that
these
uses
may
have,
and
at
the
last
Planning
Commission
meeting
the
Commission
and
public
had
some
suggestions
and
concerns.
So
I'm
gonna
go
over
what
how
we
responded
to
some
of
those,
so
the
first
issue
was
uses
were
brought
up
in
particular
that
some
uses
were
permitted
out
here
that
were
thought.
Maybe
they
should
be
conditional
I'm.
P
The
first
one
was
grain
silos,
so
we
did
look
at
grain
silos
and
local
examples
didn't
appear
to
cause
any
issues,
but
the
some
of
the
guidelines
that
were
viewed
that
we
reviewed
relating
to
buffering
did
suggest
that
there's
the
potential
for
dust
from
some
of
these
grain
silos.
So
we
are
proposing
to
make
this
a
conditional
use
in
order
to
ensure
that
there's
not
going
to
be
dust
issues
with
these
grain
silos
if
they
are
put
out
here
in
this
area.
P
Additionally,
there
were
concerns
about
railroad
repair
shops
and
again
we
did
look
at
some
local
examples
that
don't
appear
to
cause
any
issues,
including
some
UTA
facilities,
including
their
frontrunner
facility.
But
again,
some
of
the
buffering
guidelines
that
we
looked
at
did
suggest
that
there
may
be
some
potential
impactful
outdoor
activities,
especially
related
to
emissions,
so
we're
proposing
to
make
this
a
conditional
use
as
well
in
order
to
try
and
capture
some
of
those
outdoor
activities,
negative
impacts.
P
So
the
other
issue
that
came
up
was
the
buffering,
and
particularly
the
railroad
freight
terminal,
one
mile
buffer.
So
we
are
currently
proposing
a
residential
one
mile
buffer
for
the
residential
freighter,
sorry
for
the
railroad
freight
terminal
to
protect
residential
areas
for
many
emissions,
I'm
sort
of
impacts.
P
We
make
wouldn't
apply
to
those
properties
unless
they're
trying
to
do
something
that
wasn't
allowed
in
that
February
zoning
they're
going
be
off
they're
trying
to
go
beyond
what
the
February's
allowed
restriction
new
restriction
cook
again
so
for
this
particular
use,
railroad
freight
terminals,
it
was
allowed
as
a
use
without
a
one-mile
buffer
in
February,
and
because
of
that,
these
properties
could
have
a
railroad
freight
terminal
on
their
properties
without
that
buffer
requirement.
So
recognizing
that
and
recognizing
that
there
wouldn't
really
be
no
effect
with
a
one-mile
buffer
because
of
those
locked
in
development
agreements.
P
We
are
not
proposing
a
buffer
in
the
ordinance
just
recognizing
that
there
wouldn't
be
an
impact.
However,
for
natural
resource
storage
transfer,
loading
and
unloading.
That
particular
specific
use
did
not
exist
in
the
February
zoning.
The
the
development
agreements
locked
into
because
of
that
a
buffering
standard
for
this
particular
use
could
still
apply
if
those
properties
wanted
to
do
natural
resource
storage.
D
P
P
D
Really
be
clear,
so
the
free
terminal
was
listed
as
a
conditional
use,
ditional
use,
but
that
but
no
buffer
with
the
one-mile
buffer
from
residents
attention
but
they're,
not
calling
the
prison
there's
no
buffer
for
the
prison
for
that.
So
if
a
freight
terminal
is
proposed
there,
it
would
be
a
conditional
use
that
would
come
to
us,
but
we
cannot
consider
a
buffer
for
that
correct.
P
D
P
D
P
A
A
J
J
H
A
A
E
A
A
H
P
We
did
also
consider
sorry
specific
standards
related
to
energy
efficiency,
and
there
was
some
specific
proposals
on
the
table.
I
think
there
was
the
ASHRAE
standard,
but
we
did
realize
looking
at
that
and
from
public
comments
that
the
new
State
Building
Code
does
require
compliance
with
a
new
energy
standard
anyway,
and
one
of
the
alternative
routes
of
compliance
with
that
energy
code
is
actually
that
ASHRAE
standard
that
we
were
considering
so
because
of
that
we're
not
proposing
any
additional
language,
since
it's
already
required
by
the
new
State
Building
Code.
P
Additionally,
we
did
look
at
lighting
standards
and
there's
a
specific
lighting
suggested
lighting
ordinance
in
your
packet
from
David
shear.
But,
looking
at
that,
we
ultimately
thought
that
it's
a
little
too
comprehensive
for
this
ordinance
and
may
be
warranted
to
look
at
that
as
a
the
full
separate
sort
of
proposal,
rather
than
as
a
component
of
this
particular
ordinance
proposal.
P
However,
some
of
the
things
that
are
in
that
sort
of
in
that
lighting
ordinance
are
somewhat
addressed
with
the
northwest
quadrant
amendments
that
we
went
through
last
year
and
some
of
those
involved
lighting
standards
such
as
requiring
cutoff
for
light
fixtures.
So
that
light
doesn't
trespass
beyond
properties
and
shielding
for
lights.
That
doesn't
dress.
So
it
doesn't.
The
light
from
the
fixtures
doesn't
go
up
into
the
sky
and
create
more
light
pollution.
P
Additionally,
the
canoe
through
the
conditional
use
process
that
we
would
be
using
to
look
at
these
uses.
We
can
request
additional
lighting
details
and
impose
limits
or
restrictions
on
any
of
these
uses.
So
if
we
determine
that
there
may
be
a
bird
impact
or
there's
light
pollution
impacts
from
a
use,
we
can
impose
a
limit
or
restrict
their
their
lighting
that
they're
proposing
for
a
site.
P
Additionally,
as
far
as
noise
standards
go
on,
we
did
consider
not
the
noise
ordinance
changes
as
well.
The
noise
regulations
in
city
code
are
actually
outside
of
the
zoning
ordinance
and
they're
regulated
by
generalized
areas
of
the
city,
residential
commercial,
industrial,
so
any
changes
that
would
be
made
to
that
would
impact
uses
beyond
just
the
inland
port
itself
that
we're
looking
at.
So
it
tends
to
go
a
little
bit
beyond
the
scope
of
this
proposal,
because
of
that
we
didn't
propose
specific
changes
as
far
as
noise
limits
go.
J
P
J
J
E
E
J
E
P
Okay,
we
did
Oh
other
yeah.
We
also
looked
at
other
miscellaneous
additions
to
the
ordinance,
including
one
specific
one
was
the
baseline
overview.
There
was
some
question
what
we
compared
to
these
conditional
uses
too
so
we'd
be
comparing
the
impacts
of
these
conditional
uses
to
what
could
occur
with
a
permitted
use
out
here.
Additionally,
there's
we'd
made
some
miscellaneous
language
changes.
P
A
lot
of
them
from
public
suggests
suggestions
to
sort
of
tighten
up
the
language
in
the
ordinance,
and
we
also
did
add
some
additional
water
related
review
standards
at
the
request
of
Public
Utilities
and
just
again
to
emphasize
the
conditional
use
process
does
allow
us
to
consider
a
variety
of
potential,
denture
detrimental
impacts.
So
if
we're
not
capturing
something
specifically
identify
the
impact
mitigation
plan,
the
conditional
use
process
can
still
capture
those
negative
impacts.
A
Those
negative
impacts
can
like
that
we
can
help
mitigate
or
require
things
that
would
mitigate.
Would
that
include
that
does
include
air
quality
right
yes,
and
what
sort
of
I
know
I'm
gonna
ask
this
question
but
I
know
there's
not
a
real
answer:
I
mean
what
sort
of
things
can
we
do
to
impact
air
quality
from
a
land
use
standpoint
like
if.
P
P
P
A
H
D
You
can
you
clarify
again
because
I
feel
like
I,
remember
reading,
but
we
had
a
big
meeting,
a
lot
of
pages
to
read
and
I
may
remember
it
wrong.
So
I
did
read
it
it
just
and
I'm
tired.
So
I
may
not
remember
correctly,
but
I
seem
to
remember
that
there
was,
you
did
add
a
buffer,
the
thousand
foot
buffer
for
the
Natural
Area
right.
Yes,.
D
Never
remembered
reading
that
and
but
you
hadn't
said
it
so
and
I
just
want
to
say,
though
the
amount
of
work
that
you
all
put
into
this
and
and
you
took
it
hard
because
I
remember
I
said
you
know
it
would
be
great
if
you
researched
other
organizations
and
in
other
places
and
the
amount
of
research
you
did
and
all
those
points
was
very
impressive.
So
I
just
want
to
commend
you
all
on
that.
Yeah.
A
I've
been
looking
at
all
my
notes
that
I
took
from
the
last
meeting
and
really
like
through
what
was
already
in
place
through
the
underlying
zoning
zoning
and
the
stuff
that
you've
added.
You
really
have
addressed
pretty
much
everything
that
was
brought
up.
That's
that's
very
impressive,
I'm
sure,
a
lot
of
time,
any
other
questions
before
we
go
to
the
public
hearing
on
this.
J
For
Nick,
that
was
the
one
mile
buffer
from
residential
neighborhoods,
that's
set
kind
of
a
where
it
is
I
know.
We
talked
a
little
about
the
last
time,
I
kind
of
felt
weird
about
it.
I
asked
I
think
in
our
recommendation.
When
we
did
elastin
stuff,
we
recommended
that
the
City
Council
look
at
a
mile
and
a
half
or
two
miles
or
something
like
that,
but
we
still,
but
that
still
is
like
set
from
a
mile
from
I
mean
a
mile
is
not
that
far.
It's.
J
L
E
J
Mean
I,
don't
look,
I
mean
I,
know
we're
kind
of
that
in
a
weird
shape.
Well,
we've
gotta
move
things
through
the
that
we
strategically
the
big
picture
objective
is
do
anything
we
can
to
hold
on
to
the
conditional
use
right
as
soon
as
we
cross
the
line
or
go
too
far
where
and
lose
conditional
use
and
we
lose
it
all,
which
is
what
we
originally
had
right.
J
J
H
Keep
in
mind,
there's
there's
a
scale
here
so
in
terms
of
how
far
I
mean
in
terms
of
the
railroad
freight
terminal
and
actual
inland
ports
from
what
I
understand
you
have
to,
they
have
to
have
at
least
8,000
linear
feet
of
rail.
So
it's
it
wouldn't
even
be
possible
in
that
area
east
of
the
airport.
So
it
would
push
a
lot
of
that
and
pray
this
well
this
area,
so
I
guess.
J
J
P
P
A
All
right
great,
thank
you
very
much.
All
right!
We're
gonna
go
ahead
and
open
the
public
hearing
on
this
thanks
again
for
coming
out
and
understanding
I.
Think
we've
made
it
clear
the
type
position
that
the
city
is
in
and
that
we're
in
and
we
so
appreciate
the
time
you're
putting
into
this
and
I
think.
It
was
incredibly
helpful
to
us
and
staff
to
hear
the
comments
last
time,
and
so
we're
excited
to
hear
what
people
have
tonight.
A
R
R
R
Help
so
we've
been
working
with
okay,
so
I'm
Dorothy,
Owen
and
I.
Am
the
council
chair
of
the
West
Point
Community
Council?
We
are
the
home
of
the
airport,
the
International
Airport,
the
state
prison,
the
regional
Athletic
Center,
the
West
Point
community
counts
the
West
Point
salt,
like
campus
I,
was
at
Community
College
and
we
will
have
a
lot
of.
We
aren't
the
actual
site
of
potential
freight
terminal,
but
a
lot
of
the
development
is
in
our
area.
R
So
with
that,
we
have
a
very
big
interest
and
we
are,
it
is
our
neighbors,
who
are
the
residences
that
are
affected
by
the
buffer
zone
and
I
can
walk
to
the
inland
port
jurisdiction
in
two
minutes
from
my
front
door.
So
with
that
I
appreciate
being
here,
I
appreciate
the
staff
and
their
ability
to
get
work
on
this
at
the
next
budget.
R
There
was
19
of
us
and
we
responded
with.
We
met
and
basically
said
that
we
all
agreed,
including
the
landlords,
Rio
Tinto
and
Kalina
Capital,
that
one
mile
buffer
around
the
prison
was
appropriate.
We
brought
that
to
the
City
Council
on
February
1st
and
we're
told
that
the
City
Council
heard
us,
but
they
couldn't
act
on
it
at
that
time
because
of
the
political
situation.
R
So
what
now?
It
was
quite
a
shock
to
hear
that
when
we
brought
back
this
proposal
that
everyone
had
agreed
on
that
now
we
couldn't
do
it
and
I
think
I
understand
the
issue
with
the
existing
land
agreement
is
that
the
right
terminology,
land
agreement
it
was
signed
after
we
brought
up
the
issue
and
presented
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
presented
of
the
City
Council
and
after
we
were
told
we
hear
you
this
just
isn't
the
time
to
do
this.
So,
given
the
situation
that
we're
in,
we
need
to
be
ingenious.
R
R
R
Don't
we
don't
real
potential,
doesn't
have
a
problem
with
making
that
change
with
that
position.
So
I
understand
why
the
staff
could
would
assume
that
there's
not
any
give
on
that
issue,
but
that
is
not
what
our
conversations
in
February
were,
nor
what
the
conversations
were
ninety
minutes
ago,
so
I
think
we
need
to
sit
down
with
the
proper.
We
also
met
in
August
in
August,
the
community
council
invited
the
two
main
representatives
of
the
property
owners
to
attend
our
night
out.
We
had
a
booth
called
the
big
issue
tent.
R
We
also
invited
Jim
Russell,
who
is
with
DFC
M,
to
be
there,
and
we
had
the
Department
of
Corrections
there
and
we
wanted
our
residents
to
understand
what
was
going
on
was.
We
also
wanted
to
build
our
relationship
with
these
very
critical
actors,
so
we
are
very
much
willing
to
again
approach
them
and
help
put
together
a
meeting
and
make
a
decision
on
on
this
issue.
So
I
know
I'm
going
over
my
time
here,
but
I
think
this
is
really
critical.
The
buffer
issue
is
a
really
really
important
issue
for
the
community
I'm.
R
Just
amazed
when
I
listen
to
all
the
work
you
do
about
getting
it
right
for
the
very
smallest
types
of
facilities
that
impact
a
neighborhood
and
what
we're
talking
about.
Here's,
how
we
treat
the
prison,
which
is
the
largest
residential
facility,
four
thousand
people
in
our
community.
It
will
be
our
largest
employer,
a
thousand
people
employed
there.
R
24/7
it'll
also
be
the
largest
volunteer
site
in
our
community,
so
we
will
do
whatever
we
have
to
do
to
help
make
this
work
and
to
help
you
through
this
and
I'm,
just
asking
that
we
be
creative
and
see
how
we
can
resolve
this,
and
not
just
assume
that
we
can't
do
the
right
thing.
Last
thing
I
want
to
share
with
you
is
wisdom
from
the
members
of
the
inland
port
authority.
So
at
the
meeting
that
we
just
completed
with
them,
you
were
talking
about
hiring
the
executive
director.
R
The
executive
director
by
state
law
is
supposed
to
be
hired,
November
1st,
that's
in
five
weeks,
and
the
board
reported
back
there's
up
there
right
that
it
would
take
four
to
six
months
to
hire
this
person,
and
somebody
said
well.
The
state
law
says
we
have
to
have
it
done
by
November
first
and
the
person
the
board
member
said.
Yes,
it
does
but
and
I
have
to
read
the
quote
here
so
I
get
it
right
here,
but
his
quote
was
we
need
to
do
it
right,
not
fast
and
I.
R
Think
that's
very
good
advice
and
I
think
we
should
take
that
advice
from
the
inland
port
authority
and,
if
they're
going
to
do
it
right
and
not
fast
that
they
certainly
need
to
understand
that.
That's
the
same
thing
with
these
very
critical
zoning
decisions,
so
dilemma
of
staff
is
that
you
have
to.
R
You
know,
deal
with
a
lot,
that's
in
front
of
you,
so
our
concession
is
that,
yes,
you
pass
something
the
best
that
we
can
under
the
constraints
that
we
have,
but
you
have
as
an
amendment
to
that
all
the
issues
and
things
that
need
to
be
addressed
and
handled
and
the
intervening
time
afterwards
and
then
on
January
2nd.
We
go
about
a
process
of
pursuing
those
issues
and
making
amendments.
There's
nothing
in
the
law
that
says
once
you've
owned
it
a
certain
way.
You
can't
change
it
and
I
do
think.
R
We
need
to
talk
to
our
legislators
about
amending
the
law,
I
mean
if,
if
the
inland
port
is
going
to
ignore
it,
and
actually
the
governor
also
ignored
his
requirement
to
appoint
members
by
a
specific
date,
it's
I'm
not
quite
sure
why
Salt
Lake,
County
well
Salt
Lake
City
is
the
only
government
entity
that
is
paying
attention
to
the
law.
So
with
that.
C
B
Talked
really
fast,
okay,
one
thing:
a
number
of
us
met
at
my
living
room
last
night.
Talking
about
this
plan
and
its
really
clear,
there's
nothing
very
concrete
in
this
whole
thing.
You
know
it's
just
sort
of
this
vague
thing,
so
you
guys
get
a
lot
of
credit
for
trying
to
corral
the
Indians
and
see
what
you
can
do.
I
won't
talk
about
the
buffer,
because
Dorothy
adequately
covered
that
the
conditional
use
designation
gives
you
the
opportunity
to
make
sure
whatever
is
proposed
can
be
looked
at
carefully
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
B
I
think
that
maybe
one
of
your
most
powerful
tools
on
page
eighteen
number,
3d
of
the
staff
report,
there's
a
chart
and
it
lists
things
that
are
conditional
and
in
the
m1
zone.
I
think
you
need
to
compare
those
and
just
make
sure
that
if
it's
a
permitted
use
or
conditional
use,
that's
the
way
you
want
it
or
are
there
some
of
those
things
that
you
might
want
to
change
now,
while
you
can
so
that
they
don't
come
back
to
haunt
you
later.
B
I
have
to
remember
that
birds
do
not
respect
an
arbitrary
line
drawn
in
the
sand.
So
when
you're
putting
up
those
tall
grain
silos,
try
to
be
sure
that
those
get
put
in
the
right
place
because
the
birds
are
going
to
hit
them
if
it's
in
their
pathway,
think
about
whether
this
or
not.
This
would
be
your
home
that
you
might
live
a
mile
across
a
block
across
like
Dorothy
does
or
that
you
might
live
in
in
the
prison
or
your
son
might
be
a
security
guard
at
the
prison
spending
all
that
time
there.
B
A
O
O
We
appreciate
the
conditional
use
of
relating
to
the
freight
terminals
and
the
silos
and
that
1,000
foot
buffer
we
tried
to
put
together
a
letter
in
a
psyche,
but
all
we're
going
to
say
is
thanks
for
the
good
work.
Essentially,
so
we
really
appreciate
what
the
staff
did.
Dorothy
addressed
the
one-mile
buffer
in
regards
to
the
prison
that
development
agreements
to
read
that
on
Monday
was
sort
of
a
shock.
I
knew
about
them
in
February,
but
the
implications
of
that
I'm
still
we're
still
trying
to
figure
out
or
I
still
AM.
O
So
it
might
be
that
we'll
come
back
with
some
more
specific
comments
for
the
City
Council,
but
we're
not
prepared
to
do
that
at
this
point
and
Dorothy's
point
about,
we
want
to
work
with
the
land
owners
to
put
in
that
one
mile
buffer.
We
want
them
to
come
back
with
a
letter
saying
we
agree
to
put
that
mile
buffer
in
because
that
is
our
understanding
that
they
agreed
to
that
in
February.
So
hopefully
we
can.
We
can
put
that
in
I.
Think
there's
a
really
good
chance
of
that.
O
There
are
major
concerns
about
the
same
land
port
and
how
it's
proceeding,
but
in
relationship
to
the
zoning
text
amendments
at
this
point
we
really
appreciate
the
work
that
the
staff
has
done
and
that
you've
done
and
the
way
you
have
listened
to
people
and
if
we
we
might
be
coming
back
with
some
additional
comments.
But
right
now.
Thank
you
great.
L
There
are
so
many
things
we
could
talk
about
about
this,
but
I'm
very
as
a
planner
I'm,
very
sympathetic
to
the
short
short
amount
of
time
that
the
planning
staff
has
to
do
this
and
I
hope
that
Dorothy's
point
about
taking
it
up
on
January,
2nd
and
continuing
with
it
is
it's
taken
to
heart.
The
main
concern
I'd
like
to
voice
right
now
is
that
the
mitigation,
the
impact
mitigation
process,
is
still
largely
up
to
the
applicant
to
assess
what
the
hazards
are,
that
their
project
represents
and
also
to
suggest
mitigation
measures.
L
The
planning
staff
may
be
very,
very
good
at
urban
planning,
but
they,
frankly,
don't
have
the
technical
expertise
to
assess
themselves.
The
kinds
of
reports
that
they're
likely
to
get
in
response
to
that
request,
so
I'm
not
sure
what
they're
going
to
do
with
it.
The
dissolution
that
I,
see
that
can
be
rather
quickly
incorporated,
is
as
the
ordinance
roof
right
now.
The
planning
director
has
the
ability
to
request
third-party.
L
Reports
on
these
various
things
simply
require
them
for
everybody,
and
that
way
the
staff
won't
have
to
worry
about
reviewing
them,
because
they'll
be
able
to
rely
on
the
professional
probity
of
the
architect
engineer
or
whoever
produces
the
report.
They
will
be
able
to
assume
that
that
person
has
done
a
professional
job
and
that
the
results
are
in
accord
with
professional
standards
and
they
will
be
able
to
accept
them.
It's
not
optimal.
It
would
be
nice
to
have
them
independently
reviewed,
but
the
amount
of
work
involved.
L
A
Q
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity.
My
name
is
Nigel
Swamy
I'm,
the
chair
of
the
River
District
Chamber.
We
represent
businesses
and
communities
on
the
west
side
of
Salt
Lake,
including
the
inland
port.
A
few
weeks
ago,
we
sent
a
letter
to
the
Planning
Department
and
mr.
Norris
has
acknowledged
receipt
of
that.
That
is
sub.
We
also
sent
it
to
the
mayor's
office
and
some
of
the
mayor's
contacts
we
presented
that
to
City
Council
last
week,
and
they
have
also
received
a
coppy
we're
pleased
with
the
planning
departments
proposal
tonight
and
I.
Q
Look
forward
to
reading
through
the
details
on
it.
I
believe
conditional
use
for
this
area
is
going
to
be
very
important
to
take
a
look
at
each
project
on
a
case-by-case
basis.
As
we
have
seen,
the
inland
port
board
meet
it.
It's
clear
that
they
are
going
to
need
to
rely
on
to
entities
moving
forward
and
one
of
them
being
the
Salt
Lake
City's
planning
department,
the
other
being
the
State
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
in
making
their
determinations
and
their
planning.
So
I.
O
Name
is
Richard
home
and
I'm,
a
trustee
of
the
Rose
Park
Community
Council
I'm
co-chair
of
the
Westside
coalition.
We
have
something
in
common
with
kindergarten
teachers.
We
can
start
out
hard
and
get
easy,
but
we
can't
start
out
easy
and
get
hard.
Nobody
can
imagine
the
intensity
associated
with
the
inland
port.
We
can't
sit
here
today
and
understand.
What's
going
to
happen,
we
just
can't
a
massive
amount
of
concrete
transportation.
O
Intense
industrial
operations
and
I
think
we
need
to
reinforce
the
thought
of
innovation
and
how
we
look
forward
to
planning
especially
contingent
conditional
use,
is
the
one
tool
that
we
have
and
I
would
suggest
that,
rather
than
evaluating
every
single
project
on
an
individual
basis
that
we
set
a
baseline
of
standards
that
everyone
has
to
satisfy
that
way.
When
someone
comes
in,
we
can
understand
the
Delta
that
exists
between
the
standard
and
what
they
are
proposing.
A
A
Don't
know
I
think
the
buffer
thing
I
mean.
How
is
it
just?
Is
it
deuce?
Do
you
find
it
just
a
waste
of
time
to
put
the
buffer
in
for
the
prison
just
for
the
sake
of
putting
it
in
in
case
there's
some
changes
going
forward
or
is
that
just
problematic
I,
don't
I,
don't
I,
guess
I,
don't
from
what
I
understand
I,
don't
see
the
harm
and
putting
it
in
there.
D
A
H
H
Just
curious
yeah,
so
that
was
part
of
I,
think
the
title
of
that
petition
was
like
global
trade,
port
and
manufacturing
zones
text
amendment
and
specifically
we
there
was
an
existing
provision
for
railroad
freight
terminals
that
restricted
building
another
freight
terminal
within
five
miles
of
another
I.
Don't
know
if
that
rings
any
bells,
but
we.
H
That,
because,
if
with
that
five
mile
buffer,
you
essentially
couldn't
put
any
sort
of
inland
port
in
this
area,
so
we
went
in
and
removed
that
provision.
But
through
our
research
we
found
that
I
think
it
was
a
report
that
was
discussed
in
the
staff
report.
There
was
a
policy
recommendation
from
the
California
I
can't
remember
what
it's
called
eresources
board:
yeah
Air
Resources
Board.
H
A
H
A
A
P
Q
What
can
be
done
afterwards
languages
essentially,
if
the
city,
if
the
jurisdictions
involved
and
there's
also
Magna
in
West,
Valley
City
here?
But
you
know
we
don't
think
they're
doing
anything.
If
the
juror
says
jurisdictions
involved,
don't
adopt
an
ordinance
addressing
land
use
regulation
for
an
inland
port
by
December
31st,
then
you
are
deemed
to
have.
H
Q
Or
you
are
accepting
what
the
state
is
telling
you
that
those
uses
are
I,
believe
that
we
can
amend
that
that
we
can
continue
to
look
at
this
after
that
date.
I
think
it'll
be
critical
to
see
what
the
state
legislature
does
in
the
upcoming
general
session
and
and
try
to
work
with
with
what
they
do.
I'm.
A
Guessing
it'll
just
stay
on
the
radar
of
staff
to
consider
that,
as
we
move
forward,
probably
post
session,
to
see
what
we
okay.
So
as
long
as
we
know
that
the
door
isn't
closed
and
mr.
shear
brought
this
up
and
we
kind
of
talked
about
the
last
time
and
I.
Think
last
time
you
said
that
there
just
really
isn't
a
way
to
do
this.
Although
the
statute
does
allow
the
director
to
ask
for
some
sort
of
third-party
assessment
who
who
does
pay
for
that?
Is
that
something
that
would
be
required
of
the
applicant
to
pay?
E
Something
that
we're
gonna
try
to
figure
out
what
the
council?
Okay,
it's
a
new
if
the
city
pays
for
it,
it's
a
new
resource.
If,
if
we're
gonna
put
that
on
the
land
use
applicant,
then
we
need
to
basically
establish
that
in
our
fee
schedule
that
that's
part
of
the
application
fee
to
be
paid
prior
to
any
kind
of
approval,
so.
I
I
I
That
there
are
ethics
of
the
qualified
professionals,
you
know
it.
For
example,
we
require
environmental
and
environmental
assessments
to
be
done
by
qualified
environmental
assessment
guys
you
know
so
not
your
friend,
so
I
don't
see
any
reason
why
we
couldn't
add
something
that
says
that
a
qualified
professional
has
to
do
these
impact
studies,
and
not
so
you
can't
just
you
know,
get
it.
Somebody
who's,
not
a
qualified
transportation
or
expert
to
talk
about
the
transit
traffic,
yeah.
H
I
H
I
A
P
Some
of
these
things,
like
a
transportation
impact
study,
I,
think
we
definitely
even
without
calling
out
specifically
that'll,
be
professionally
prepared,
but
there
may
be
instances
in
here
where
we
could
add
the
language
professionally
prepared
to
make
it
more
clear
that
we
expect
a
professional
experienced
in
this
to
give
us
their
analysis.
Yeah.
A
I
mean
I,
think
I
think
that's
really
important
back
to
sort
of
baseline
question
and
when
we're
talking
about
mitigation,
I,
think
and
I
would
love
to
put
the
burden
on
the
developer.
To
you
know
they're
gonna
be
making
on
this.
So
we
probably
should
expect
that
they're
putting
forward
some
money
so
that
we
can
really
evaluate
what
sort
of
problems
are
going
to
be
caused
and
how
are
we
going
to
mitigate
it
and
so
I
think,
spelling
that
out
and
any
way
that
we
can
is
vitally
important.
A
Oh,
that
would
be
my
recommendation
is
to
add
at
least
without
without
adding,
because
they
also
don't
want
to
burden
the
staff
unless
there's
going
to
be
some
compensation
for
that,
so
I,
don't
I,
don't
want
to
like
do
something
weird
about
this.
So
what?
How
does
that?
Am
I
asking
something
unreasonable
or
I.
A
P
A
P
For
the
we
actually
looked
back
and
looked
at
some
studies
and
guidelines
by
some
organizations
that
provide
some
sort
of
general
buffering
standard
for
these
sorts
of
uses.
So
we
looked
through
those
lists
of
uses
and
found
some
similar
to
natural
resource
processing
such
as
the
silo
and
outdoor
storage
of
loose
bulk
materials
and
a
thousand
feet
is
a
specific
number.
But
there's
some
there's
some
range,
that's
appropriate
and
the
guidelines
we
looked
at
were
somewhat
around
a
thousand
feet
and
a
thousand
feet
specifically,
is
what
we've
used
in
the
past.
For
others.
J
P
Generally,
actually
didn't
go
much
further
beyond
a
thousand
feet,
except
for
some
super
intense
uses
that
were
that
we're
prohibiting
in
this
area,
so
that
I
think
the
ranges
we
were
saying
was
something
like
860
feet.
They
were
doing
at
meters,
so
ended
up
being
800
or
so
so
a
thousand
feet
seemed
fairly
appropriate.
P
A
A
C
H
H
D
Feel,
like
you
know,
all
we
can
do
is
request.
The
City
Council
look
at
it
further
and
the
more
we
get
into
this
realm
of
telling
them
what
to
do.
The
more
we're,
not
gonna,
get
it,
and
so
I'd
like
to
just
stick
with
Reeve
we're
pointing
this
out
to
you,
yeah
and
we'd,
like
you
to
really
consider
it
and
look
at
it
and
then
I
hope
that
the
community
comes
out
in
force
again.
P
C
A
Sure
thing
right:
second,
we
have
a
motion
by
Maureen
and
a
second
by
Amy
and
before
we
vote,
I
will
again
echo.
Thank
you
so
much
for
all
your
work,
I
really
appreciate
all
the
staff
and
please
let
the
staff
know
everybody's
worked
on
it.
How
much
we
appreciate
it
and
thank
you
so
much
to
the
community
for
coming
out-
and
this
is
just
the
first
step
and
this
going
forward
so
keep
doing
it
and
keep
pushing
all
of
us
in
the
City
Council
to
move
forward
with
this
and
make
it
make
make
some
lemonade.
E
Mr.
mr.
chair,
real
quick
one
thing
that
we
might
you
don't
need
to
change
your
motion
or
anything
for
this,
but
one
thing
that
we
might
add
in
there
is
that
suggestion
that
Brenda
made
about
how
to
pay
for
that
third-party
review.
If
it
is
done
by,
if
we
make
that
change,
then
we
might
not
need
to
add
that
language
in
there
okay.
So
what
we're
gonna
bring
it
up
for.
H
A
E
C
A
C
C
A
C
A
Thank
you
before
before
we
go
and
know
the
public
is
welcome
to
leave
if
you
would
like,
but
we
have
a
some
unfinished
business
from
previous
meeting
where
we
did
not
elect
our
chair
and
vice-chair
moving
forward
as
much
as
I
would
love
to
do
this
forever.
I
can't
so
and
Paul
doesn't
want
me
to
so.
If
we
would
like
to
finish
that
business
tonight
and
and
vote
in
a
new
chair
and
vice
chair,
that
would
be
great.
Does
someone
have
a
motion
as
to
is
that
how
we
do
it,
but.
E
A
K
A
K
Q
E
A
G
E
E
E
Did
the
best
we,
you
guys,
did
great
with
the
tools
you
were
given,
but
but
that's
something
that
we
want
to
help
that
that
we
want
to
help.
You
know
it's
not
just.
It
would
be
jointly
done
with
the
chair
and
vice
chair
of
the
Landmarks
Commission
so
well
and
we'll
work
with
you
to
set
up
a
time.
That's
convenient
for
all
everybody.