►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting - 10/24/2018
Description
Planning Commission Meeting
A
A
C
E
F
Okay,
this
is
a
rezoning
master
plan,
amendment
request
for
a
property
located
at
505,
south
400
East.
The
request
is
a
rezone
from
the
RO,
which
is
residential
office.
Zoning
district
to
the
RM,
you
residential
mixed
use,
zoning
district
and
accompanying
master
plan
change
from
residential
office
mixed-use
to
high
mixed
use.
F
Property
location
is
here
at
fronts,
on
400
East
small
parcel
and
you
might
look
familiar
as
this
body
dealt
with
a
rezone
on
the
adjacent
property
about
a
year
ago
year,
a
little
bit
more
than
a
year
ago.
So
it's
it's!
The
parcel
that's
outlined
on
the
screen
for
you.
It's
part
of
kind
of
a
larger
square
block.
The
adjacent
property
was
rezone
to
RM
you.
So
this
is
the
piece
that's
left
as
ro
there's
a
picture
of
the
existing
building
on
the
site.
F
It's
physically
connected
to
the
buildings
on
the
adjacent
parcel
which
are
zoned
are
now
Azhar
owned.
Rm?
U
so,
they're
looking
for
a
change
to
that
same
zoning
district
to
make
the
greater
parcel
uniform.
If
you
will
the
area
zoning
is
kind
of
a
patchwork
of
zoning
1995.
The
city
number
of
rezoning
zin.
That
area
as
an
attempt
to
try
to
make
the
existing
development
match
the
zoning,
so
you've
got
a
patchwork
of
anything
from
public
lands
to
various
rmu
zones,
ro,
which
is
residential
office.
Sr
3,
which
is
essentially
single-family
residential.
F
Some
are
MF,
45
are
MF,
75
cm
and
then
the
TSA
zones,
which
are
the
closer
to
400
South
you
get
into
the
TSA
zones.
The
property
itself
is
about
a
half
mile
to
either
the
track
station
between
6th
and
7th
east
or
the
library
track
station
on
400
South,
just
by
the
Public
Library.
It's
about
a
half
a
mile
from
both
of
those
there
was
no
specific
site.
Development
plan
was
submitted
with
this
application.
F
The
stated
intent
was
to
allow
that
the
different
zoning
to
allow
flexibility
for
future
redevelopment
options
for
both
multifamily
or
mixed-use
developments
and
current
zoning.
As
I
said
it
was
ro.
It
allows
office
and
residential,
but
no
retail
or
commercial
uses.
Rm
you
would
allow
commercial
retail
in
mixed
uses,
and
the
rmu
zone
does
include
some
design,
standards,
considerations
and
staff
analysis.
One
of
the
interesting
things
with
our
Ozona
is
that
the
height
limit
of
ro
is
60
feet
unless
it
abuts
a
zoning
district
with
higher,
with
a
higher
height
limit.
F
In
that
case
that
then
can
go
to
90
feet.
So
the
rezoning
of
the
adjacent
parcel
to
rmu
now
allowed
this
piece
of
ro
to
actually
go
to
90
feet
rather
than
60,
so
the
rezoning
to
RM.
You
would
knock
it
back
to
75,
so
they
would
actually
be
getting
less
height
than
would
be
possible
under
the
ro
zoning.
F
In
terms
of
we
looked
at
it's
located
along
a
major
arterial,
it
has
good
proximity
to
downtown
it's
in
the
East
downtown
area
and
covered
in
the
master
plan.
The
proximity
to
transit
has
been
mentioned
and
that
recent
rezoning
of
the
adjacent
property
and
also
looked
at
compatibility
with
adjacent
properties,
so
staff
is
recommending
that
the
Planning
Commission
forward
a
positive
recommendation
to
City
Council
for
both
the
master
plan
and
the
zoning
map.
Amendment.
G
C
G
F
E
F
E
So
I
assume
the
property
line,
the
dry,
the
driveway
that
goes
back
to
the
parking
on
the
south
side
of
the
parcel
I
guess
in
theory,
I
mean
just
looking
at
the
satellite
image
and
I
wish
I'd
look
closer
on
the
tour
today,
but
it
looks
as
though
the
single-family
property
also
goes
right
up
to
the
property
line,
and
so
it
seems
like
this
would
then
make
it.
So
they
would
both
be
right
next
to
each
other.
They
could
be
there.
A
A
E
A
E
I've
had
this
question
before
when
we've
changed
owns,
which
will
then
change
the
setback
which
then
ultimately
changes
the
look
and
feel
of
that
street
face
and,
as
there
is
part
of
the
master
plan
of
500,
are
I,
guess
400
east
connected
to
the
500
South
component
of
this,
but
is
there
as
there
are
we
trying
to
make
the
street
face,
reduce
the
setback
in?
Is
that
like
a
goal
for
the
master
plan,
or
is
it
not
no.
F
I,
don't
believe
that
was
a
goal
in
the
master
plan.
We
are
trying
to
make
the
area
more
walkable
and
there's
a
recognition
that
there's
a
lot
of
residential
density
in
that
area.
So
it
would
be
nice
to
have
some
commercial,
the
ability
to
develop
some
commercial
to
serve
that
residential
component,
so
that
not
everything
is
a
drive
to
get
to
commercial
type
uses
and.
F
E
F
G
A
B
F
D
D
F
D
D
G
F
F
G
F
F
G
F
G
A
The
high
street
and
the
rme
you
45,
you
were
asking
about
the
setback
it.
It
also
doesn't
have.
When
you
get
to
more
intense
uses
like
non
central
and
multi-family.
It
does
not
have
an
interior
side
yard
setback
unless
it
abuts
a
single
or
two
families.
Owning
district,
so
it'd
be
the
same
situation
with
the
rmu,
where
there
would
be
no
side
yard
setback.
C
H
The
idea
it's
an
existing
office
building.
Our
intentions
are
to
redevelop
it
with
multifamily
and
have
the
opportunity
to
do
some
type
of
mix
of
uses
and
retail
if
market
conditions
allow
for
that.
So
as
we've
worked
with
David
and
with
the
staff,
we
feel
again
very
comfortable
with
the
surrounding
uses.
The
compatibility,
especially
given
the
parcel
just
to
the
north
of
us,
which
was
zoned
rmu
for
very
similar
reasons,
having
the
optionality
of
mix
of
uses
in
creating
a
more
walkable
livable,
dynamic
neighborhood
here
on
the
east
side
of
Salt
Lake.
H
That
is
obviously
you
know
within
walking
distance
to
tracks
within
walking
distance
to
for
South
within
walking
distance
to
a
number
of
employment
centers
in
the
in
the
city.
So
that's
that's.
Our
vision,
for
this
parcel
is,
is
primarily
multifamily
with
an
opportunity
to
incorporate
a
mix
of
uses
again
based
on
market
demand.
We
understand
the
the
issues
with
the
setbacks
and
some
of
those
things,
one
of
the
things
that
I
would
point
out
on
the
site
itself
on
the
south
side
of
the
site
and.
H
For
an
existing
image
on
the
south
side
of
the
site
and
one
of
the
things
that
that
we've
identified
it
I
think
there
were
some
concerns
about
the
lack
of
a
set
back
up
against
the
single-family
homes,
access
to
our
existing.
We
have
a
shared
parking
agreement
with
the
the
site
just
to
the
west
of
us
and
access
to
that
parking
happens
on
the
south
side
of
the
site.
It's
not
our
intention
at
all
to
disrupt
that
access.
G
D
D
D
H
D
D
H
H
H
C
C
My
I
saw
the
survey
stakes
go
up,
and
it
was
rather
alarming
to
see
that
the
property
line
is
right
up
against
the
north
wall
of
the
building
that
I
live
in
and
not
only
have
I
been
taken.
Care
of
yard
work
for
the
north
property.
I'm
I'm
am
in
support
of
the
zoning
change
in
principle,
but
I
think
without
an
actual
site
plan,
a
site
design.
C
It
might
be
difficult
to
gauge
whether
or
not
it's
appropriate
because
of
that
zero
setback,
and
that's
really
my
only
problem-
I
mean
the
site-
does
kind
of
tell
them
that
they
should
use
the
curb
cut
they
have
and
the
parking
access
they
have,
but
if
they
start
developing
and
have
you
know
and
as
of
right
to
develop
what
they
want.
According
to
the
zoning,
then
I
may
be
looking
at
the
scenario
that
brenda
was
describing
earlier
and
so
without
a
site
plan.
C
It's
it's
hard
to
gauge
whether
or
not
they're
actually
going
to
do
the
appropriate
thing.
That's
about
all
I
can
say.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Is
there
anyone
else
who
wants
to
speak
on
this
one,
seeing
no
one
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
bring
it
back
up
to
us.
Do
you
want
to
have
staff
come
up
the
applicant.
G
F
Depends
on
what
their,
what
they're
proposing,
we
would
have
to
look
at
that
development
plan
now,
if
it
meets
the
setbacks
and
things
like
that,
it
could
be
built
by
right.
If
it's
asking
for
some
relief
from
the
zoning
ordinance
standards,
whether
it's
setback
or
other
things,
then
it
may
have
to
go
through
a
plan,
development
or
other
process
so
hard
to
say,
since
we
don't
have
a
development
proposal
with
this,
we
would
have
to
evaluate
that
at
the
time
to
see
how
it
meets
the
zoning.
G
G
G
E
E
G
E
A
F
E
F
I
E
That's
I
guess
that's
kind
of.
Ultimately.
My
point
is
that
I'm
wondering
if
these
that
the
parcel
directly
to
the
south
and
probably
the
next
one
and
the
next
one
they
would
probably
in
order
for
anything
to
be
feasibly
built
in
RMF
45,
to
take
advantage
of
that
density.
They'd
have
to
combine
those
problems,
I'm
looking.
G
B
I,
don't
know
when
you
guys
care,
but
I,
look
at
the
committed
land
use
table,
so
assisted
living
and
reception
center
and
general
retail
and
nursing
kind
of
homes
are
the
main
use.
Differences
that
are
in
are
in
you,
but
not
in
ro
correct.
But
although
almost
all
those
are
actually
allowed
in
a
RM,
u
45
zone
as
well
correct.
D
Once
again,
I
am
not
in
favor
of
this
change
in
the
zoning
I
was
not
in
favor
of
changing
the
zoning
on
4/4.
Excuse
me
on
fifths
ow,
for
the
reason
that
the
Ahram
use
owning,
as
you
can
see
very
clearly
in
the
one
that
was
actually
changed.
Rmu
allows
the
projects
to
come
right
up
to
the
the
full
full
that
the
full
basically
coverage
of
the
of
the
property,
and
that
shows
it
very
clearly
there
on
that,
one
that
was
so
that
was
changed
already.
D
D
At
this
point,
I
don't
think
we
have
a
sense
from
that
that
would
be
poppin
when
we
haven't
seen
that
kind
of
development
on
all
on
any
of
the
rmu
45s
that
we
have
already
proved
here
that
are
already
there,
so
a
absent,
a
giant
fact
that
there's
a
you
know
huge
market
demand
for
this
absent
and
and
and
I
think.
Mr.
Briggs
was
pretty
eloquent
that
why
can't
we
make
a
change
on
this
site
when
it
when
a
an
actual
development
proposal
comes
in,
so
we
can
review
it.
D
We
can
review
it
at
that
time
for
for
exceptions
or
conditional
uses,
or
even
a
zoning
change
at
that
time,
when
we
can
actually
see
a
development
product
that
talked
that
will
will
let
us
understand
how
it
works
with
the
sites
around
it.
For
all
of
these
reasons,
I
don't
see
any
real
urgency
in
changing
this.
Zoning
and
I
also
see
some
negative
consequences
to
it
possible,
as
mr.
Briggs
in
said,
but
to
his
property
to
the
south
and
to
the
other
residential
properties
on
this
street.
At
this
time,.
G
I
would
just
say
that
it's
not
required,
and
it's
really
not
part
of
our
review
when
looking
at
a
rezoning
petition
to
look
at
a
site
plan.
The
analysis
is
whether
this
this
proposal
fits
in
with
with
the
adjacent
zones
and
is
otherwise
consistent
what
they
want
to
do
with
the
property
in
terms
of
detailed
development.
That's
a
separate
analysis
and
I.
Think
we've
been
asked
to
consider
a
rezoning
petition
for
this
parcel,
and
you
know
we
don't
have
a
development
plan
at
the
moment.
D
Nevertheless,
I
still
disagree
that
this
should
be
done.
I
think
it
does
not
fit
with
the
surrounding
zoning,
particularly
the
RMF
45
zone,
to
the
south,
the
residential
projects
to
the
south,
the
nature
of
the
street
itself
and
its
quality
as
an
open
space.
All
of
these
things
are
under
our
consideration
for
his
owning
change
and
therefore
I
am
against
it.
Well.
G
I
would
say
that
this
ro
hole
that's
been
created,
whether
you
agree
with
rezone
or
not.
We
end
up
with
this
parcel.
That's
now,
zoned
are
oh,
that's
totally
inconsistent
with
anything.
That's
adjacent
to
it.
So,
for
those
reasons
I
would
say
would
make
more
sense
to
or
at
a
positive
recommendation
actually.
D
G
It's
entirely
inconsistent
with
the
height
that's
allowed
in
an
RA
zone,
I'm
ready
to
make
motion
based
on
the
findings
and
analysis
and
the
staff
report.
Testimony
and
discussion
at
the
public
hearing
I
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
that
the
City
Council
approved
the
proposed
master
plan
and
zoning
map
files,
PLN
PCM
2018,
zero,
zero,
six,
four,
two
and
PLN
PCM
2018:
zero,
zero,
six,
four:
three:
four:
the
property
located
at
55
15,
South,
400
East
proposed
zone
change
from
the
RO
zoning
district
to
the
RM.
U
zoning
district
and
corresponding
master
plan
amendment.
D
C
E
B
C
G
D
A
D
Based
on
the
findings
and
analysis
and
the
staff
report,
testimony
and
discussion
at
the
public
hearing
I
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
that
the
City
Council
denied
the
proposed
master
plan
and
zoning
map
amendments
files,
PLN
PCM,
2018,
zero,
zero,
six,
four,
two
and
PLN
PCM
2018:
zero,
zero,
six,
four:
three:
four:
the
property
located
at
5:15
South,
400,
East,
proposed
zone
change
from
the
ARA
residential
office,
zoning
district
to
the
rmu
residential
mixed
juice,
zoning
district
and
corresponding
master
plan.
Amendment.
B
J
J
J
In
fact,
I
believe
across
the
street
is
East
Mill
Creek.
So
it's
in
the
far
ends
of
that
city.
Basically,
it
consists
of.
There
were
force
homes
on
the
site.
Three
of
those
have
been
demolished
and
the
plan
development
consists
of
16
single
family
homes
on
two
private
streets.
This
is
the
preliminary
subdivision
that
was
approved.
J
The
request
for
the
major
modification
is,
let
me
back
up
and
I'll
show
you
on
there.
The
second
home
from
the
left
or
third
home
from
the
right
is
one
that
is
has
not
been
demolished.
It's
still
there,
and
so
the
developer
has
proposed
keeping
that
and
it
would
occupy
lot
207,
which,
on
your
screen,
where
it
says
phase
2
right
below
it,
says
207,
that's
basically
where
they
existing
home
sits.
J
The
reason
for
this
is
is
basically
that
they've
found
that
they
could
build
the
other
seven
homes
on
that
street
and
in
retain
the
existing
home.
The
existing
home
actually
faces
ninth
East
at
the
present
moment,
so
there
would
be
some
remodeling
to
move
the
front
door
to
the
interior
street
as
opposed
to
facing
ninth
East
and
this
home,
which
is
the
center
home
on
the
picture
on
the
screen,
would
be
separated
from
90s
by
new
construction.
J
This
is
a
major
modification,
because
the
list
of
minor
modifications
is
a
fairly
narrow
list
of
what
staff
could
do
and
so
we're
bringing
to
the
Planning
Commission.
We
did
notice
this
and
took
it
to
the
sugarhouse
Community
Council
haven't
had
a
lot
of
feedback,
but
the
feedback
that
we
have
had
is
basically
that
it's
a
good
thing
to
have
some
architectural
diversity.
J
The
second
part
of
this
is
that
home,
because
it's
existing
home,
but
no
longer
it
has
no
room
to
add
a
garage
on
it,
and
so
they
would
put
the
parking
in
the
front
yard
and
I
do
want
to
clarify
that
it's
the
front
yard
on
the
interior
court.
It's
not
the
front
yard
on
ninth
east
I
think
the
staff
recommendation
would
have
been
different
if
the
parking
were
on
9th
east,
but
it's
interior
to
the
block.
So
basically
that's
it.
G
J
Basically,
a
pad
it
doesn't
show
up
too
much
in
this
drawing.
Basically,
this
drawing
looks
like
a
wider
sidewalk,
but
there
is
room
for
two
parking
stalls
right
there,
they're
the
streets
narrow
enough
that
there's
no
parallel
parking
elsewhere
on
this
interior
court,
so
there
would
only
be
two
those
two
stalls
in
front
of
that
specific
home.
It's
a
its
parallel
parking.
J
J
J
B
J
B
G
G
J
G
G
G
J
B
J
It's
it's
a
it's
a
cul-de-sac
but
they're
off
the
round
thing
at
the
end:
I
guess
so
it
is
a
dead-end
street.
It
doesn't
have
a
rounded
turn
around,
but
it
does
have
built
into
it
some
easements,
so
that
there
is
room
for
fire
service
to
back
around
and
that
there
I
know
fire
has
some
concerns,
but
it
was
approved
based
on
their
previous
recommendation
and
that
part
of
the
plan
development
is
not
changing
at
all.
So
thank.
B
D
G
K
K
After
we
did
that
assessment,
we
quickly
realised
that
it
would
be
better
for
the
community
and
the
area
and
the
aesthetics
to
retain
the
home
and
renovate
it
it's
in
nice
condition
and
that
somehow
got
miscommunicated
or
slipped
through
when
the
original
developer
got
his
improvement
approval
for
the
plans.
So
the
original
plan
said
that
the
home
was
going
to
be
demolished
and
we
think
that
would
be
a
mistake
for
the
area
and
the
community,
so
we'd
like
to
retain
the
home
and
renovate
it,
and
so
that's
the
main
reason
for
the
request.
K
As
was
mentioned,
it
also
would
require
a
modification
to
the
parking,
and
so
the
seven
new
homes
that
we
would
build
in
phase
two
would
all
have
a
two-car
attached
garage
and
two
parking
spaces
in
the
driveway
for
those
homes,
and
then
this
home
would
not
have
a
garage.
It
doesn't
currently
have
a
garage,
and
so
we
would
rotate
the
front
door
to
face
the
new
Street
as
all
eight
homes
in
Phase
two
will
face
the
new
Street
and
we
would
do
parallel
parking
with
two
spaces
in
front
of
this
home.
K
Nothing
else
in
the
plan
would
change,
and
if
anyone
would
like
to
see
it,
we
also
have
copies
a
little
bit
easier
to
see
of
the
rendering
that's
up
on
the
screen,
which
it's
a
little
hard
to
see
as
well,
but
that
parking
for
the
parallel
parking
would
be
a
material
called
grass
creep.
So
it
would
essentially
be
blocks
for
the
parking
area
with
grass
growing
in
between
them
to
soften
the
feel
of
that
and
make
it
look
a
little
bit
nicer
for
the
area
in
the
community
and
that's
it
I
mean
questions.
C
D
K
B
K
C
D
C
I
just
realized
I
forgot
to
fill
out
a
card.
It's
okay,
we've
got
a
few
from
me
already.
My
name
is
Judy
short
and
I'm.
The
land
use
chair
for
the
sugarhouse
Community
Council.
We
were
pleased
to
see
this
project
come
back
before
us
with
a
request
to
save
the
existing
home.
We
prefer
that
anytime,
we
can
get
it
when
there's
a
home,
that's
in
good
enough
condition
that
it's
worth
renovating
and
I
think
that
was
our
original
request
with
the
first
developer
and
I.
C
Don't
know
where
the
miscommunication
happened
on
that
this
was
a
two-part
phase.
1
and
phase
2
phase
1
is
completely
built.
There
are
eight
nice
new
homes.
The
two
on
ninth
East
face
9th
East,
they're,
all
sold
they're
all
occupied
they're,
all
landscape.
They
look
great
and
these
homes
I
think
one
home
is
already
sold
of
these
8.
So
we're
excited
to
have
some
nice
new,
traditional
looking
houses
in
sugarhouse.
We
need
lots
of
housing
and
particularly
new
single-family
housing.
C
K
Thing
I
did
forget
to
mention
Judy
brought
up.
There
is
a
home
in
Phase
two
that
is
sold
already.
It's
actually
the
one
on
the
left
of
those
three
homes
on
lot,
206
that
home
sold
already
but
not
started.
None
of
the
others
in
phase
2
are
sold
and
all
eight
and
phase
one
are
occupied
and
closed.
Already.
That's
great.
G
If
people
don't
have
questions,
I
have
a
motion
go
for
it.
Based
on
the
information,
the
staff
report,
the
information
presented
in
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing
I
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
approved
the
proposed
major
modification
associated
with
PLN
PCM
2018,
zero,
zero,
five,
four
o
cottage
court
phase.
Two,
because
the
proposal
is
in
substantial
conformity
with
the
approved
development
plan
in.
D
C
D
A
This
is
the
parking
chapter
rewrite
we.
We
started
this
project,
oh,
what's
it
been
a
little
over
a
year
ago
now,
where
the
city
had
identified,
you
know,
we've
had
a
number
of
issues.
I
guess
you
would
say,
with
our
parking
chapter
in
our
code,
what
didn't
seem
to
quite
match
where
we
are
market
wise,
also,
very
complicated
and
and
not
very
easy
to
read
through
so
the
city
initiated
a
petition
to
to
relook
at
our
parking
chapter,
and
also
we
gathered
up
some
money
to
hire
a
consultant
to
actually
help
us
with
that.
A
Like
I
said
we
started
this
about
a
year
ago
and
anticipated
it
was
only
gonna,
be
a
couple
month
process.
However,
in
that,
within
that
year
we
unfortunately
lost
a
few
staff
members
in
our
office,
the
person
that
was
actually
working
on
this
project
moved
to
a
different
office,
and
then
we
had
a
number
of
projects
that,
like
the
inland
port,
that
kind
of
took
a
front
seat
to
everything
we
were
doing
so
we
want
to
jump
start
this
project
again.
I
All
right
sure,
so
my
name
is
Jim.
Spung
I'm,
with
Clarion
associates
the
consulting
firm,
that's
been
contracted
by
the
city
to
rewrite
this
chapter,
I'm
happy
to
be
here.
I'm
a
former
resident
of
Salt
Lake
I
mean
you've,
you
grad
and
I
own
property
here,
so
I
love,
Salt,
Lake
and
I'm
excited
to
help
you
guys
sort
out
parking
which
is
such
an
easy
topic
to
talk
about
right.
I
It
came
up
in
every
application
tonight
so,
as
Wayne
said,
we're
I'm
I'm
here
mainly
to
provide
an
overview
of
what
the
project
is
and
then
to
introduce
the
draft
that
we
have
today
and
then
we'll
go
over
next
steps
as
to
what
you
can
anticipate
in
the
future.
So,
first
just
to
introduce
the
firm
Clarion
associates
as
a
national
consulting
practice.
They've
been
around
for
a
little
over
25
years.
We're
made
up
of
planners
attorneys
designers,
landscape,
architects
and
really
our
bread
and
butter
is
writing
codes.
I
I
So
why
update
this
this
code?
First
and
foremost,
it's
really
an
aim
to
implement
the
parking
policies
that
have
been
adopted
over
the
years.
The
current
chapter
hasn't
had
a
comprehensive
rewrite.
In
a
long
time,
there
have
been
piecemeal
amendments
that
you've
seen
over
the
last
several
years
to
try
and
fix
things
and
I
think
the
staff
has
realized
that
the
band-aid
approach
isn't
working
anymore
and
that
it
really
needs
to
just
have
a
comprehensive
look
at
how
it
fits
into
the
to
the
policies
as
well
as
the
rest
of
the
code.
I
Some
other
key
elements
is
to
encourage
infill
and
redevelopment,
which
has
been
reiterated.
A
lot
of
the
planned
policies
that
have
been
adopted
to
reconsider
the
one-size-fits-all
approach
right
now,
there's
a
parking
standard
that
applies
generally
citywide
that
doesn't
really
work
as
well
with
the
variety
of
development.
You
have
we'll
talk
about
that
in
a
little
while
be
more
user
friendly,
consider
alternative
modes
biking,
pedestrians.
That
was
another
big
focus
of
the
policies
that
we
reviewed
and
then,
lastly,
to
modernize
the
code
to
reflect
best
practices
and
current
national
trends,
and
this
is
stuff.
I
That's
it's.
It's
kind
of
more
theory
based
where
car
ownership
is
going
down
slowly,
the
younger
demographics
are
starting
to
not
own
as
many
cars
they
don't
want
to
drive
as
much
so.
The
demand
for
parking
is
changing,
especially
with
transit
in
Salt,
Lake,
City,
with
tracks
and
other
modes.
So
we've
we've
considered
those
things
in
updating
the
ratios
for
how
much
parking
is
required,
so
in
reviewing
all
the
policies.
These
are
some
common
themes
that
we
saw.
Salt
Lake
is
that
is
a
place
for
people,
not
cars.
I
I
The
next
one
is
to
eliminate
barriers
to
economic
growth
and
affordable
and
sustainable
housing.
Parking
is
a
good
way
to
do
that,
allowing
for
more
flexibility,
maybe
through
shared
parking
or
on
street
parking.
The
last
example
the
last
petition
we
heard
tonight
was
a
good
example
of
shared
parking
or
the
LDS
Church
was
willing
to
share
their
parking
with
with
the
adjacent
uses,
to
reduce
auto
dependency
to
protect
neighborhoods.
This
was
a.
This
was
one
that
was
mentioned.
I
Probably
the
most
and
all
the
policy
documents
is
to
say,
we
need
to
provide
sufficient
parking
for
land
uses,
but
not
to
have
a
detrimental
impact
on
the
adjacent
neighborhoods,
with
spillover
parking,
minimize,
visual
impacts
of
parking,
minimize,
pedestrian
conflicts,
so
again,
pedestrian
friendly
and
then,
lastly,
to
be
environmentally
friendly
to
help
reduce
emissions.
Water
quality.
If
you
have
huge
parking
lots
and
all
that
water
is
running
into
the
storm
drains,
that's
not
good
for
water
quality,
so
parking
is
a
way
to
get
at
that,
as
well
as
the
heat
island
effect.
I
So
here's
a
brief
timeline
of
of
kind
of
how
this
project
has
transformed
over
time.
So,
as
Wayne
mentioned,
we
began
our
existing
ordinance
analysis
interview
about
a
year
ago.
We
did
our
background
research
and
we
also
did
a
detailed
review
of
your
current
standards
and
spoke
with
staff
about
things
that
we
thought
looked
weird
that
didn't
really
that
doesn't
typically
work
well
in
other
communities.
We
then
went
through
a
phase
of
public
engagement
where
we
had
staff
interviews.
I
We
interviewed
some
stakeholders
in
the
community
and
we
also
published
an
online
survey
and
got
a
lot
of
feedback
from
I
think
it
was
around
two
or
three
hundred
respondents
that
we
heard
back
from
next.
We
created
an
outline
of
proposed
changes
so
based
on
all
the
feedback
we
had
heard
and
are
speaking
with
staff
and
stakeholders.
I
We
created
outline
and
summarize
the
things
that
we
thought
needed
to
be
fixed
and
staff
reviewed
that
and
signed
off,
and
then
we
began
the
drafting
phase,
which
was
last
January
to
April
and
over
the
summer
staff
has
had
the
document
and
has
made
some
revisions
to
that.
So
that's
how
we
got
to
where
we
are
today,
so
the
next
ten
or
so
slides
are
just
a
high-level
review
of
what's
what
the
new
parking
chapter
looks
like
and
what's
different
than
what
your
current
standards
are
today.
I
So,
first
and
foremost,
this
is
the
new
structure
or
the
outline
of.
What's
in
this
chapter,
you
can
see
here,
we've
reorganized
the
content
to
be
more
user-friendly
and
more
intuitive
to
where
you
start
with
purpose
and
applicability.
How
parking
is
calculated,
how
much
parking
you
need
with
a
required
off
street
parking,
how
you
can
get
adjustments
to
those
parking
requirements
and
then
location
and
design
standards,
and
you
can
see
their
use
and
maintenance,
non-conforming
parking
or
administrative
things,
so
first
is
purpose
in
applicability.
I
The
purpose
statement
right
now
in
the
parking
chapter
is
very
broad,
so
we've
revised
that
to
be
much
more
specific
and
it's
specifically
addressing
a
lot
of
these
targeted
policies
that
are
in
the
plan
documents
the
Salt
Lake
has
adopted
the
next
update
our
new
compliance
triggers.
So
right
now,
depending
on
how
much
you
do
on
your
site,
you
may
not
have
to
comply
with
parking
the
current
parking
standards
or
not
so
in
this
new
draft.
I
If
you
add
a
dwelling
unit
or
if
you
expand
your
building
or
use
by
more
than
25%
or
if
you
require
a
conditional
use
approval,
those
things
would
trigger
compliance
with
the
parking
section.
Some
exemptions
which
are
new
are
a
lot
smaller
than
5,000
square
feet,
except
for
single-family
and
duplex
would
be
exempt
from
parking
requirements.
So
if
you
have
a
small
business
that
needs
to
move
in,
maybe
it's
an
adaptive,
reuse
or
they're
building
on
a
small
site,
they
wouldn't
be
required
to
to
provide
parking
minor
expansions.
I
So
next
is
the
calculation
of
parking.
This,
essentially,
is
how
do
the
how-to
staff
determine
what
counts
as
a
parking
space
and
what
doesn't
and
how
to
calculate
those.
So
one
thing
that
we've
changed
is
calculating
parking
based
on
square
footage
and
not
the
number
of
employees
right
now
and
a
lot
of
your
non
residential
zones.
Industrial
zones-
there
are
requirements
to
say
you
need
one
stall
per
12
employees.
Well,
employees
come
and
go
and
that's
really
difficult
to
administer
and
enforce.
So,
rather
than
doing
it.
I
The
next
bullet
is
what
counts
and
doesn't
count
towards
parking.
So
new
in
this
draft
is
that
there
is
no
limit
on
structured
parking
and
several
of
the
policy
documents.
There
were
statements
saying
to
incentivize
subgrade
and
structured
parking
throughout
the
city.
So
one
way
to
do
that
is
to
say
you
have
a
parking
maximum
of
X,
but
if
you
have
structured
parking,
then
you
can
go
beyond
what
that
maximum
would
allow.
Otherwise,
so
that's
in
this
draft
and
then
the
next
thing
is
a
conditional
use.
I
I
Then.
Lastly,
we've
clarified
the
procedures
for
what
happens
if
there's
an
unlisted
use,
so
something
in
the
code
doesn't
have
a
specific
parking
requirement.
The
director
can
either
assign
a
standard
based
on
it
most
similar
use
or
the
applicant
can
submit
a
study
to
justify
what
they
think
the
parking
should
be,
which
would
eventually
be
approved
by
the
director.
I
So
the
required
off
street
parking
is,
is
the
number.
So
how
much
do
you
need
for
each
land
use
and
one
thing
that
we've
done
to
really
help
the
document
be
more
user-friendly,
as
we've
consolidated
all
of
the
parking
requirements
into
one
table
right
now,
they're
scattered
kind
of
all
over
the
place
and
we
think
having
it
in
one
place,
makes
it
much
easier
to
understand
and
to
read
and
also
to
administer.
I
Similarly,
we've
organized
all
the
uses
allowed
in
each
district
into
one
place
into
one
table
and
we've
categorized
those
by
category
and
subcategory
and
I'll.
Show
you
an
example
of
what
the
table
looks
like
in
a
few
slides.
The
next
big
change
is:
we've
tailored
the
standards
based
on
neighborhood
context
and
character,
as
I
mentioned,
Salt
Lake
City
is
a
very
diverse
place.
I
I
Obviously
very
different
parking
demands
very
different
character
areas,
so
we've
decided
to
segment
the
city
into
four
distinct
context
areas,
so
a
transit
context
and
urban
center
context,
a
neighborhood
center
and
finally,
a
general
context.
So
the
first
one
is
transit.
This
would
be
areas
immediately
adjacent
to
mass
transit.
These
areas
typically
have
the
lowest
parking
demand.
Usually
they
have
no
minimums
and
if
they
do
sometimes
they're
very
low,
there's
some
specifics
examples
of
what
these
areas
might
be
in
the
city,
so
City
Creek,
downtown
Main,
Street,
the
gateway
central.
I
Ninth,
these
areas
that
are
very
urban
in
nature
and
there's
a
list
of
districts
that
fall
into
this
category.
The
urban
center
is
kind
of
the
next
tier
up
or
down.
Whichever
way
you
look
at
it,
this
is
a
more
higher
density,
pedestrian,
oriented
development.
That's
in
an
urban
center,
lower
moderate
parking
demand.
This
would
be
like
sugar
house
or
marmalade
areas
where
there's
urban
activity,
but
there's
still
a
lot
of
driving
and
you
can
see
the
list
of
districts
in
this
context.
The
next
is
a
neighborhood
center.
I
So
this
is
your
smaller
moderate
scale
shopping
node,
and
this
would
be
your
ninth
and
ninth
areas
that
typically
aren't
well
served
by
transit,
but
that
people
can
walk
to
and
the
adjacent
areas
they're,
not
a
regional
draw,
typically
and
again,
there's
a
list
of
districts
that
would
fall
into
this
category
and
then
the
last
one
is
the
general
context.
So
these
are
your
auto
dependent
areas,
they're
more
suburban
in
nature.
They
typically
require
much
more
parking
because
people
rarely
walk
or
bike
to
these
places.
I
So
here's
a
screenshot
of
the
new
parking
table
and
I
can
walk.
You
through
that,
so,
on
the
very
left
hand
side,
you
can
see
the
residential
uses
as
a
category
below
that
as
a
household
living
which
is
a
subcategory
and
then
within
that
subcategory
or
all
of
your
household
living
land
uses.
As
you
work
your
way
to
the
right.
The
first
column
is
your
general
context.
The
second
is
neighborhood
center
urban
and
transit
and
then
the
very
far
right
hand.
Column
is
the
maximum
parking
allowed.
I
I
So
those
are
the
required
parking.
So
one
thing
that
that
the
policies
and
staff
also
asked
clearing
to
look
at
is
how
how
can
we
be
more
flexible
and
allow
adjustments
when
they're
when
they're
justified?
So
one
thing
that
we've
looked
at
is
allowing
the
administrative
reduction
citywide
if
specific
criteria
are
met,
there's
a
menu
of
options
for
people
to
reduce
their
parking,
that's
required,
but
they
can't
reduce
their
parking
by
more
than
40%
of.
I
What's
required
and
I'll
go
through
some
examples
of
how
someone
can
reduce
parking
so
shared
parking
agreements,
that's
one
way
to
reduce
how
much
parking
you
have
to
provide
on-site.
If
you're
approximate
to
transit,
you
can
reduce
parking
up
to
25%
if
you're
within
a
quarter
mile
of
a
fixed
transit
station
in
the
general
and
neighborhood
context,
affordable
and
senior
housing
can
have
a
25%
reduction.
Studies
show
that
these
types
of
land-uses
typically
don't
require.
H
B
B
I
I
It's
at
the
same
time,
you
have
to
be
realistic
to
say,
probably
not
half
your
parking
is
going
to
be
shared
parking
or
half.
Your
parking
is
going
to
be
absorbed
by
being
close
to
transit.
So
it's
striking
a
balance
between
what's
realistic
with
what
the
market
will
support
but
and
then
the
last
bullet.
There
is
something
that
we
actually
spoke
about
today
with
staff
we're
discussing
possible
private
on-site
car
share
standards.
I
So
we've
we've
come
to
see
the
scooter
movement
where
scooters
are
all
over
the
place
and
it's
probably
likely
that
businesses
will
grasp
onto
that
model
and
have
cars
available
on
site
for
the
use
of
the
tenants
or
the
users
of
that
property.
So
if
that
were
to
happen,
then
the
parking
demand
might
be
lower.
So
a
few
other
examples
of
van
and
carpool
parking
for
lots
with
a
hundred
or
more
parking
spaces.
I
A
van
pool
space
could
could
be
substituted
for
seven
other
regular
spaces
on
street
parking
can
count
towards
parking
minimums
if
your
adjacent
to
that
use
and
there's
some
limitations
in
the
draft,
for
example,
if
you're
in
a
residential
area,
that's
as
permits,
you
can't
do
on
street
parking
pedestrian
friendly
amenities.
This
isn't
your
current
code.
This
is
something
that
Clarion
and
staff
have
been
talking
about
right
now.
There's
a
reduction
allowance.
I
If
you
provide
pedestrian
amenities
on
your
site
for
restaurant
or
retail,
uses,
we're
not
sure
that
that
really
translates
into
reduced
Park
parking
demand.
If
you
provide
a
bench
on
your
property
I,
don't
know
if
less
people
are
going
to
drive
to
your
site,
but
something
that
we're
talking
about
with
staff,
whether
it's
who
have
carried
that
forward
or
not,
and
then.
I
I
We've
moved
removed
a
lot
of
the
technical
design
criteria
out
of
the
code
and
put
it
into
a
separate
engineering
manual.
We
find
that's,
that's
becoming
much
more
popular
in
cities
all
over
the
nation,
because
people
don't
really
care
how
thick
the
asphalt
is
or-
and
that's
not
planning
and
zoning
stuff.
I
That's
engineering
so
take
that
stuff
out
of
the
code
and
let
the
engineers
figure
out
dimensional
requirements
and
things
and
cities
are
also
doing
that,
because
it's
much
easier
to
update
those
standards
to
reflect
best
practices
without
having
to
go
through
a
zone
text
amendment
to
do
that.
We've
introduced
bio
detention
areas
as
a
landscape
alternative,
and
you
can
see
in
the
image.
There
is
an
example
similar
to
the
parking
requirements
table.
We've
consolidated,
all
your
parking
location
and
setback
standards
into
one
place
in
one
table.
I
We've
also
consolidate
all
the
district,
specific
location
and
design
standards
into
this
section,
and
then
there
are
a
lot
of
other
revisions
that
we
won't
go
into
tonight.
But
in
the
draft
there
are
footnotes
identifying
everything,
that's
proposed
to
be
different
than
what
the
current
standards
are.
I
So
the
next
section
talks
about
loading
and
drive-throughs
we've
updated
the
thresholds
for
when
you
have
to
provide
loading,
docks
right
now,
I
think
the
a
lot
of
the
older
ordinances
around
the
nation
require
too
many
loading
stations,
I
think
even
in
Salt
Lake
there's
a
loading
requirement
for
multifamily
development
I,
don't
know
really
why
you'd
need
a
loading
dock
for
multifamily,
but
we've
we've
reviewed
that
and
updated
those
standards,
and
also
to
reflect
that
there
are
more
frequent
deliveries
by
smaller
trucks.
Now
than
having
a
big
semi
delivery.
I
So
the
last
thing
we'll
talk
about
or
the
second
to
last
thing
is
adjustments.
So
if
you,
if
you
need
an
alternative
through
the
design
standards,
there's
a
couple
of
ways,
you
can
do
that.
We've
clarified
the
process,
the
authority
and
the
limits
for
who
can
approve
those
design,
modifications
smaller
minor
things
can
be
approved
by
the
planning
or
transportation
director.
This
might
be
things
like
the
aisle
width
or
parking
stall
dimensions.
I
Things
like
that
if
you
have
a
unique
site
or
if
it's
an
infill
or
redevelopment
project-
and
you
just
can't
make
the
numbers
work
and
you
need
an
extra
foot
for
something
staff
can
do
that
administrator.
You
don't
have
to
get
a
variance
or
come
to
the
come,
get
a
special
exception.
Any
larger
modifications
would
require
a
special
exception
and
then,
lastly,
we've
updated
some
of
the
nonconformity
standards,
essentially
establishing
language
that
if
you
have
an
existing
parking
and
loading
facility,
this
new
ordinance
won't
make
it
illegal.
I
It
will
just
make
it
non-conforming,
so
they
can
continue
and
then,
lastly,
if
your
property
has
made
non-compliant
because
of
eminent
domain
that
doesn't
make
you
illegal
either,
that
would
be
illegal,
non-conforming
use
and
there's
an
example.
If
a
road
expands
and
eliminates
some
of
your
parking
stalls
or
makes
your
setbacks
not
compliant,
there's
nothing
that
the
owner
can
do
about
that.
So
they
would
be
kind
of
grandfathered
into
the
what
their
current
standards
are.
I
So
with
that
kind
of
a
lot
of
information
very
high-level
view,
but
the
next
steps
are
to
keep
working
on
the
draft,
so
staff
and
Clarion
will
review
the
draft
and
produce
a
revised
version.
Staff
will
then
carry
forward
a
public
engagement
process
and
then
it
will
come
back
to
the
Planning
Commission
for
review
and,
ultimately,
a
recommendation
to
the
council.
So
with
that,
are
there
any
questions
you.
I
G
C
I
I
think
it's
more
when
we
ask
questions
you,
you
start
hearing
the
same
things
over
and
over
again
and
I.
Think
that's
a
pretty
good
indicator
that
that's
probably
the
general
consensus
and
I
would
say
the
thing
that
we
heard
most
was
about
the
neighborhood
protection,
where
they
say:
I
don't
really
care
as
long
as
it
doesn't
screw
up
my
neighborhood.
You
know
and
that's
kind
of
the
sentiment
for
any
planning
decision,
but
but
that's
kind
of
how
we
gauged
what
what
the
survey?
How
do
how
to
consider
the
survey
when
we
did
the
draft.
G
A
A
You
know
if
a
zoning
district
was
within
a
quarter
mile
of
transit,
but
then
that
same
zoning
district,
a
property
in
that
same
zoning
district,
was
located
out
off
of
Redwood.
It
had
the
same
parking
maximum
and
we
were
running
into
issues
with
that.
So
that
is
one
of
the
things
that
we're
looking
at
in
this
process.
Yeah.
I
And
this
this
draft
to
answer
your
question,
the
only
way
you
could
increase
the
maximum
is
through
a
parking
study
so
that
the
applicant
would
have
to
come
in
and
prove
through
a
study
saying
that
I
need
this.
Many
you
won't.
Let
me
have
that
many
and
then
the
director
ultimately
could
approve
that
you.
A
G
E
I
Sorry,
the
the
the
rationale
for
having
a
structured
parking
not
count
toward
the
maximum
is
that
it's
it's
really
expensive.
So,
if
someone's
willing
to
pay
that
much
to
have
more
parking
or
power
to
them,
they
probably
need
it
and,
like
I,
said
ultimately
in
the
in
the
policies,
the
the
city
really
is
trying
to
encourage
subgrade
and
structured
parking
because
it's
it
typically
looks
better
and
you
have
design
standards
for
parking
structures
in
urban
area,
so
it
that.
E
I
B
B
E
I
I
D
A
A
G
I
G
I
So
it
is
part
of
the
ordinance
and
that's
actually
one
of
the
elements
that
we're
taking
out
into
the
design
manual.
So
a
bicycle
design,
bicycle
parking
design
is
in
that
new
engineering
manual
that
has
location
requirements
and
design
requirements
for
where
that
can
be.
How
far
from
an
entrance
things
like
that.
So
it
is
in
here,
but.
G
A
So
that
wouldn't
that
would
be
adopted
and
Jim
again
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
because
you've
had
more
conversations
on
this,
but
that
would
be
adopted
by
reference,
so
basically
the
well.
Let
me
put
it
this
way.
The
the
ordinance
would
say
for
engineering
standards,
dimensional
standards-
please
refer
to
this
this
manual,
but
this
manual
again.
This
is
only
for
really
kind
of
strict
engineering.
Dimensional
things
like
my
parking
stall
must
be
eight
feet.
Three
inches
wide
by
17
feet:
six
inches
long,
that's
not
something
that
is
a
land
use
issue.
A
That's
an
engineering
type
component!
That's
the
kind
of
thing
that
would
be
in
the
engineering
manual.
The
benefit
to
that
is
that
if
there's
some
new
standard
that
comes
out
nationwide,
where
it
says
instead
of
seventeen
feet
six
inches,
it
should
be
17
feet.
We
don't
have
to
go
through
a
code
change,
I,.
G
D
Have
a
question
about
the
the
maximum
parking
allowed
under
the
general
conditions
of
a
single-family
bill?
You
use
and
it
says,
for
maximum
parking
spaces.
I
know
a
lot
of
properties
where
there's
more
than
four
parking
spaces,
especially
if,
as
we
always
do,
we
count
the
area
of
the
driveway.
That's
usable
in
fact
so
I
have
to
you
know
technically
four
spaces
in
my
house,
because
I
have
a
two-car
garage
and
a
driveway
in
front
of
it.
So
does
my
neighbor,
but
then
he
has
his
parking
space
for
his
RV.
D
That
he's
built
next
to
the
parking
garage
which
I
don't
envy,
but
you
know
I
might
envy
if
I
got
an
RV,
so
I'm
just
wondering
and
then
there's
the
guy
who's,
how
who's
got
a
eight
I've
got
a
seven
thousand
square
foot
house
and
has
a
lot
of
parties
and
has
about
ten
parking
spaces
off
street
or
the
university
president,
who
similarly
has
a
lot
of
parties
and
has
about
ten
off
street
parking
spaces.
I'm
just
wondering
how
this
particular
thing
is
going
to
play
out
around
the
city
with
fairly
large
properties.
D
That
may
have
a
lot
of
visitors
may
have
you
know
where
I
don't
think
the
neighbors
are
going
to
be
that
happy
when
you
shut
down
their
parking
I,
just
I'm
just
calling
attention
to
that
as
a
potential
issue,
I
went
to
a
place
where
he
I
had
a
barn
in
the
back
and
had
you
know
parking
for
the
horses
and
the
horse
care
carries
the
horse.
Jim
Haller,
and
you
know
a
tractor
and
a
bunch
of
other
I
mean
zone
residential
I
know.
But
you
know.
A
A
Official
parking
stalls
on
your
yard
on
your
lot,
there's
a
difference
between
usable
parking
stall,
as
you
kind
of
said,
versus
at
an
actual
legal
parking
location
and
most
people
have
you
know
if,
let's
say
you
have
just
a
kind
of
a
standard,
two-car
garage
attached
to
your
house
that
you
have
a
driveway
to
that
leads
into
bull
stalls
that
actual
driveway
in
front
of
your
house
would
not
be
considered
a
a
parking
stall.
From
a
zoning
perspective,
we
were
reviewing
the
number
of
parking
stalls.
We.
D
A
A
You
know
typically
a
parking
stall
where
just
take
a
single-family
single-family
zoning
district
parking
is
not
for
it
to
count
as
your
required
parking.
It
can't
be
located
in
the
front
yard.
Now
that
doesn't
say:
you're
not
allowed
to
just
park
your
car
in
your
front
driveway,
but
that
is
not
seen
as
meeting
your
required
parking.
The
party
required
parking
is
on
a
hard
surface
area
somewhere
behind
the
front
building
line
of
your
home
and
then
so
there's
a
difference
between
a
driveway
from
a
zoning
perspective.
A
G
I
Could
say
to
that
that
it
is
unusual
to
have
a
maximum
for
your
residential
use
for
a
single-family
I,
don't
know
if
I've
seen
that
before
and
in
reviewing
the
parking
section
initially
there's
a
lot
of
detail
in
here.
That's
not
very
common
across
the
nation
for
lack
of
a
better
term.
It's
like
micromanaging
type
language,
where
you
specify
exactly
where
things
can
be
and
how
many
things,
and
typically
with
with
ordinances.
I
You
say
you
need
this
many
parking
stalls
and
as
long
as
you
meet
the
design
criteria
for
your
LOB's,
so
your
lot
coverage
your
setbacks,
your
landscaping
and
kind
of
do
whatever
you
want.
If
you
want
to
have
a
parking
lot
in
your
back
yard,
okay,
as
long
as
it's
behind
your
house
and
you
can't
see
it
and
it
meets
all
the
other
standards.
So
so
it
is
a
bit
unusual,
but
it's
a
current
standard.
So
we
carried
it
forward,
but
we
could
reconsider
that
if
that's
something
I.
D
What
to
what
and
what's
not
you
know-
and
you
know
when
does
accountant
when
doesn't
and
I'm
only
interested
in
making
my
neighbor
park
his
RV
in
his
backyard
and
not
his
front
yard.
You
know
I
mean
I,
think
and
I'm
I'm.
You
know
the
people,
the
wind
kept
their
wind
stream
in
their
front
yard
for
you.
No,
they
can
tell
you
that
that.
D
I
Yeah
so
one
thing
that
I'll
mention
that
that
was
a
pretty
big
change
was
the
the
restaurant
uses.
I'm
sure
you've
probably
beat
that
horse
to
death
here
in
Planning
Commission
meetings
of
restaurants
needing
more
parking
than
what's
allowed
and
I
want
to
say
right
now.
The
maximum
for
restaurants
was
two
or
four
spaces
per
thousand
square
feet
which
is
really
low.
So
we've
amended
that
and
it's
in
the
draft
essentially
to
allow
more
parking
for
restaurants
so
that
you're
not
creating
barriers
for
restaurant
owners
to
not
have
enough
parking
yeah.
I
I
I
So
the
general
context
is
5,
which
is
your
suburban
areas,
the
and
the
neighborhood
context.
The
urban
center
context,
which
would
be
like
sugarhouse,
is
2
per
thousand
as
a
minimum,
and
then
there's
no
minimum
in
the
transit
context,
which
would
be
downtown
and
the
maximum
for
all
uses
is
9
per
thousand.
But.
I
I
G
I
C
I
We're
always
gonna
argue
about
parking,
and
a
big
change
here
is
that,
regardless
of
what
the
minimums
and
maximums
are,
there's
a
lot
of
tools
to
adjust,
either
of
those
through
those
adjustments
that
we
went
through
so
a
parking
study
or
if
you're
close
to
transit
or,
however,
they
can
justify
having
less
or
more
there's
some
flexibility.
But
you
have
to
have
a
baseline
at
some
point
to
the
parking
consultants
will.
I
I
know
a
question
that
the
Nick
wanted
to
raise
was
having
any
minimums
at
all
in
the
transit
context.
Right
now,
the
only
minimums
in
this
draft
are
for
residential
and
there's
no
minimums
for
anything
else.
He
questions.
If
we
even
need
minimums
for
residential
I,
don't
know
it
depends.
Cities
are
all
over
the
map
on
this
we're
drafting
a
code
and
Bloomington
Indiana
right
now,
which
is
the
home
of
Indiana
University,
and
they
don't
have
any
minimums
anywhere
in
the
city.
I
They
only
have
a
maximum
and
they
just
leave
it
up
to
the
market
to
say,
I
think
I
need
this
many
spaces
to
lease
my
space
or
sell
my
units
and
they're
gonna
build
according
to
what
they
can
make
a
profit
on.
So
that's
a
policy
discussion
that
the
city
needs
to
have,
but
I
think
Clarion
would
support
the
idea
of
removing
minimums
in
the
transit
context.
I
B
I
It
just
depends
on
the
economics
you
know
developing
as
a
math
equation.
So
if,
if
they're
spending
thirty
thousand
dollars
to
build
a
structured
parking
stall,
then
they're,
probably
gonna
figure
out
a
way
not
to
build
any
if
they
if
they
can,
but
at
the
same
time,
if
you
have
an
office
base
or
a
unit,
and
you
can't
lease
it
without
parking,
then
they're
gonna
provide
parking.
I
So
the
the
development
community
in
our
experience
has
and
I
figured
out
what
their
niche
market
is
and
how
much
parking
they
need
to
lease
in
certain
areas
of
the
country
and
for
planners
to
arbitrarily
assign
a
number
to
say.
You
need
this
many
parking
spaces
when
the
planners,
that's
not
really
their
expertise
and
assigning
those
figures.
So
so
I
think
we
kind
of
lean
to
say:
let
the
market
dictate
what
they
need
to
make
it
viable.
Where
I
think
we
would
step
in
is
for
neighborhood
protection
and
things
to
say.
I
B
I
And
that's
all
we
were
talking
about
that
earlier
with
staff
as
well
as
that,
it's
probably
more
better
address
in
your
land
use
tables.
So
what's
permitted
and
conditional
are
not
permitted
in
your
districts.
So
if
you
have
a
commercial
parking
lot,
that's
permitted
in
downtown.
Well,
people
are
gonna,
build
them
and
they
don't
tend
to
go
away
very
easy
because
it's
like
a
storage
unit,
essentially
where
it's
you
have
zero
overhead
costs
and
you
get
money.
G
I
I
A
That
was
that
was
a
good
discussion
today.
I
think
it's
something
that
we're
gonna
continue
to
kind
of
work
through
over
the
next
month
as
we
work
through
this,
but
it
does
become
a
land
use
issue.
I
mean
there
are
places
where
we
need
the
commercial
parking
lots
or
we
have
them
near
Airport
near
the
airport,
but
yeah
I
certainly
don't
need
those
in
the
downtown
area.
So
yeah.
I
And
I
know
in
Denver,
specifically,
they
they've
banned
surface
parking
lots
in
all
of
their
downtown.
There's
still
some
that
existed,
that
have
been
grandfathered,
but
no
new
surface
laws
can
come
in
that
are
strictly
just
for
for
commercial
parking.
One
thing
this
ordinance
would
allow
is
shared
parking
agreements.
So
if
you
have
a
development
next
to
a
surface
lot,
that
is
empty
all
the
time
the
two
owners
could
could
create
a
shared
parking
agreement
to
say
yes,
you
can
use
some
of
my
parking.
That's.
I
One
thing
that
we
did
revise
in
this
draft
is
how
the
city
administers
those
agreements
I
think
right
now
you
require
them
to
be
recorded
and
it
becomes
an
enforcement
issue
with
the
city
to
go
on
private
property
and
regulate
how
parking
is
administered.
So
we
usually
advise
that
cities
get
away
from
enforcing
private
agreements
where
we
say
at
the
time
of
development
presented
a
shared
parking
agreements
that
both
property
owners
have
signed
off
on.
I
You
can
take
it
to
the
county
and
have
it
notarized
or
record
it
or
whatever,
but
essentially
it's
up
to
the
property
owners
to
figure
out
how
that's
going
to
work
and
if
it
becomes
a
problem,
it's
on
there
it's
on
their
heads.
If
they're
non-compliant
with
zoning,
then
they
need
to
fix
it,
but
otherwise
I
don't
know.
E
I
The
shared
parking
agreement
happened
where
they
shared
50
spots
on
a
vacant
lot
and
that
bla
tree
develops,
but
there's
no
there's
no
complaints
about
it.
Does
the
city
care?
You
know
that
their
shared
parking
agreement
isn't
working
anymore
because
I
guess
it's
an
enforcement
by
complaint
types.
What
do.
B
I
Then
it's
up
to
the
owners
because
their
their
zoning
agreement
was
based
on
that
shirt,
parking
agreement
so
now
they're
in
violation
of
zoning
and
have
to
figure
out
how
to
fix
it.
I
guess
so:
it's
it's!
It's
a
compliance
and
it's
an
enforcement
issue
that
I
don't
know
if
there's
an
easy
way
to
solve
with.
I
B
K
B
K
B
I
I
can
talk
to
Don
naylet
he's
the
director
of
the
firm
and
the
manager
of
this
project.
I
mean
he's
he's
got
a
lot
of
experience,
he's
been
around
at
Clarion
for
almost
25
years.
So
almost
as
long
as
it's
been
around
and
I'm
I'm
guessing
he's
drafted
150
codes
all
over
the
country,
so
I
can
talk
to
him
and
see
if
he's
drafted
solutions
to
that
issue,
because
it
is
I
mean
it
could
potentially
be
a
problem
with
there's.
D
G
I
actually
kind
of
think
putting
the
public
hearing.
First
I
mean
it
has
its
merits,
because
then
you
can
take
themes
that
you're
hearing
but
I
mean
there
are
themes,
and
you
probably
already
know
them
and
I
wonder
if
doing
work
sessions
with
chunks
of
them
also
then
serve
to
help
educate
the
public
on
perhaps
certain
things
that
they
were
thinking
and
then
they
can
change
or
modify,
or
you
know
ultimately
adopt
a
different
view
or
the
same
view.
But
without
that
information
they
don't
have
that
opportunity.
G
A
And
we're
gonna
do
some
public
engagement
work
prior
to
coming
back
to
you,
so
we're
gonna
go
out
there
with
with
the
ordinance
draft
out
to
the
public
and
ask
for
feedback
and
ask
for
public
comments
through
the
process.
So
we
will
do
that
part.
It's
more
of
you
know.
What's
the
best
way
for
for
you
to
be
able
to
digest
I.
G
A
One
thing
we
can
do
is
we
could
just
keep
this
in
your
Dropbox
I
mean
we
know
that
the
meeting
stuff
just
goes
away,
but
we
could
keep
a
folder
parking
chapter
and
just
keep
this
in
there.
So
you
know
when
you're
really
wanting
to
get
into
some
exciting
reading
before
you
go
to
bed,
you
can
just
open
this
right
up
and
start
reading
about
parking
ordinances,
but
at
least
you
can
kind
of
have
it
and
start
looking
through
it
a
bit
and.
A
I,
don't
have
an
answer
to
that.
Yet
are
the
planner
that
we're
assigning
this
to
has
been
on
parental
leave
for
the
past
six
weeks
and
so
as
a
gift
when
he
got
back
today,
we
informed
him
that
he's
doing
the
parking
chapter
so
you're
welcome
Eric
by
the
way,
if
you're
listening,
but
so
that
that's
something
that
we're
gonna
start
taking
on
over
the
next
few
weeks
is
getting
him
up
to
speed
and
then
start
developing
a
Public
Engagement
plan
on
how
we
can
get
the
word
out.
There.
B
Something
I
think
would
help
me
is
so
all
the
minimums
and
the
maximums
some
context
from
some
either
some
actual
professionals
or
benchmarking
other
cities
as
to
why
these
numbers
are
what
they
are,
because
I
have
a
really
hard
time.
I
mean
we
hear
from
the
neighborhood,
always
with
the
restaurants
and
stuff
and
out
creeps
out,
but
like,
for
example,
a
crematorium
requires
two
per
thousand.
That
seems
like
a
lot
to
me,
although.
B
A
library
also
requires
two
per
thousand
that
doesn't
seem
like
enough,
but
like
that
I
don't
have
any
professional
context
or
expertise
to
make
a
decision
around
that
and
so
I
don't
know
how
either
it's
like
hearing
from.
Like
you
know,
restaurant
owners
have
been
through
the
process
and
saying
here's
what
I
need
and
here's
how
I
work
and
here's
how
here's,
how
we
didn't
here's,
how
I
did
it
at
this
site
and
why
it
mattered-
or
maybe
it's
from
you,
know,
here's
what
Denver,
Boise
and
Portland
do
in
these
contexts.
I
B
B
B
B
A
K
B
Per
thousand
weight
to
be
candid
I,
don't
really
know
a
thousand
foot
art
gallery
how
many
people
go
to
the
thousand
for
art
gallery
opening?
How
many
you
know
you've
got
a
if
you've
got
a
how
many
tables
do
you
sit
at
a
thousand
foot
restaurant
like
how
many
people,
so
how
many
people
can
you
fill
in
a
thousand?
B
I
I
A
B
C
Know
if
we're
talking
about
having
no
minimums
in
a
residential
area,
I
think
there's
certainly
plenty
of
people
living
in
this
city
who
currently
have
no
parking
because
they
live
in
an
old
house
without
driveway
and
those
people
probably
well
I,
know
for
sure
they
have
an
opinion
about
this
and
I
know
also
know
plenty
of
people
have
an
opinion
about.
You
know
how
much
should
they
have
entitled
to
in
front
of
their
house.
So
you
gotta
be
good
to
hear
public
hearing
around.
I
An
important
caveat
to
that
is.
We
were
very
clear
in
the
survey
that
this
chapter
addresses
off
street
parking
so
like
issues
with
parking
meters
or
resident
permits
and
stuff.
We
accepted
comments
like
that,
but
we
just
told
them
upfront
that
stuff's
not
part
of
the
scope
of
this
work.
So
it's
important
that
people
don't
freak
out
about
on
street
parking,
because
that's
not
what
this
chapter
does
other
than
the
on-street
parking
allowance.
B
Another
one
the
swimming
pool
requires
one
per
thousand,
but
indoor
recreation
center
requires
three
per
thousand
I
mean
I,
you
know
basketball,
Korver's,
the
swimming
pool
has
that
different
of
a
you
know,
I'm,
just
curious.
Why,
though,
you
know
I'll
be
helpful.
This
is
the
issues
we're
gonna,
try
to
start.
Why
I
mean
we
probably
make
good
decisions
but
educate
us
on
why
those
are
the
right
numbers.