►
From YouTube: Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting - 04/06/2023
Description
Salt Lake City Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting - 04/06/2023
https://www.slc.gov
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
That's
put
on
jointly
by
the
state,
historic
preservation,
office
and
preservation
Utah
this
year
it's
on
June
9th,
which
I
think
is
a
Friday
at
the
Columbus
School
in
South,
Salt,
Lake
and
I.
Think
registration
is
only
like
10
or
15
dollars.
So
it's
a
good
deal.
If
you're
an
architect,
you
can
get
a
lot
of
CEUs
and
just
learn
about
kind
of
what
what's
going
on
in
the
preservation,
World
Statewide
and
the
second
announcement
is
where
the
preservation
conference
was.
C
B
Okay,
great
so
that
moves
us
into
the
agenda
for
this
evening.
First
off
we
have
an
extension
request
for
new
construction
and
special
exceptions
at
approximately
738
South
Green
Street
I.
Don't
believe
that
there's
any
discussion
to
be
add
here
and
it's
not
a
public
hearing.
So
unless
anyone
has
any
questions
for
Sarah
or
the
applicant
I
would
entertain
a
motion.
B
E
My
most
recent
comment
to
you
had
to
do
with
the
building
on
the
Southeast
corner
of
600
South
and
600
East
and
300
South
and
I'm,
going
to
circle
back
to
the
issue
of
what
makes
a
building
contributory,
but
I
feel
some
urgency
in
asking
you
to
clarify
your
expectations
for
the
materials
submitted
for
projects
in
districts
in
terms
of
their
impact
on
the
streetscape
and
especially
on
nearby
contributory
buildings.
Here's
an
example
from
a
recent
Planning
Commission
meeting,
not
out
not
in
a
historic
district
and
I'm
choosing
the
Planning
Commission.
E
E
There
were
no
renderings
to
show
what
the
completed
Street
would
look
like,
although
one
could
guess
that
it
would
receive
sunlight
for
only
brief
portions
of
the
day
and
approximate
a
man-made
Canyon,
the
commission
proceeded
to
Grant
the
additional
length
I'm
asking
you
to
provide
instructions
to
the
planning
staff
about
your
expectations.
You
have
received
comprehensive
drawings
for
single-family
infill
at
times.
The
schematics
for
large
projects
have
also
been
superb.
E
An
example
was
the
Masonic
Temple
apartments
now
known
as
the
Regis,
but
at
times
the
images
have
been
absent,
as
they
were,
with
station
424
and
trolley
North
in
the
Central
City
District,
the
streetscape
is
important
and
the
interface
with
surviving
contributory
structures
is
important.
The
inconsistency
of
images
submitted
suggests
to
me
that
the
application
process
is
not
controlling
what
is
submitted.
The
variation
suggests
to
me
that
the
planners
are
not
waiving
some
applicants
through
and
holding
others
to
a
higher
standard.
E
What
I
think
is
happening
is
that
there
is
an
adequate
specificity
regarding
the
plan
submitted
and
I'm
asking
you
to
look
at
opportunities
to
fill
that
Gap.
There
are
no
guarantees
that
what
the
applicant
presents
will
be.
What
we
perceive
at
the
end
of
construction,
but
I
can
assure
you
that
in
many
current
situations,
such
as
the
one
with
the
Planning
Commission
recently,
we
don't
have
adequate
information.
Thank
you.
B
Okay,
great
moving
on
to
our
public
hearings.
For
the
evening
we
have
two
of
them,
starting
with
the
Fisher
Mansion
Carriage
House
HVAC
at
approximately
1206
West
200
South
and
I
am
going
to
recuse
myself
from
this
hearing.
Due
to
some
past
work
on
the
project
and
Mike
is
going
to
take
over
as
the
chair,
you
can
do
that.
F
C
C
C
This
is
the
north
elevation,
as
shown
on
the
screen,
which
was
approved
by
the
landmark
Commission.
So
what
was
installed?
We
have
eight
HVAC
units,
as
you
can
see
in
the
photograph.
The
conduit
line
runs
up
the
elevation
and
additionally
to
secure
the
units
and
the
conduit.
The
engineering
division
installed
the
steel
cages
and
the
conduit
covers
in
response
to
last
month's
discussion.
The
applicant
is
proposing
a
vegetative
screen
to
mitigate
the
impact
of
the
installed
units.
C
Staff
is
also
recommending
that
the
applicant
paint
the
conduit
to
help
with
the
visual
impact
The
Proposal
is
Illustrated
on
the
screen
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
install
or
to
plant
hops.
As
the
vegetation
for
this
screening,
as
discussed
in
the
staff
report
and
last
month,
staff
often
works
with
property
owners
and
applicants
on
appropriate
location
and
installation
of
mechanical
equipment.
C
Had
the
applicant
contacted
staff
staff
would
have
worked
on
a
reduction
of
the
unit's
appropriate,
citing
and
reduction
of
the
conduit
lines.
With
that
said,
staff
does
find
that
the
proposed
visual
mitigation
is
appropriate
and,
in
summary,
we
are
recommending
approval
of
this
screening.
I
can
answer
any
questions
at
this
time.
If
there's
any
for
staff
or
I
can
just
call
the
applicant
up
to
discuss
the
proposal
as
well.
C
G
G
So,
in
order
to
mitigate
this
whole
thing,
it
was
suggested
by
Salt
Lake
City
engineering
to
meet
with
planning,
and
we
all
got
together
and
the
result
is
what
you're
seeing
on
the
screen
as
the
proposed
solution
to
this,
and
the
reason
we
did
it.
That
way
is
that
we
just
wanted
to
get
all
eyes
on
it.
Instead
of
us
keep
coming
back
here
and
suggesting
something
and
going
down
that
Pike,
it
was
decided,
let's
just
get
together
and
come
to
a
resolution
for
that
that
problem
that
we
can't
find
ourselves
in.
G
H
F
G
So
there's
two
proposals
of
the
type
of
screen:
it
depends
on
how
the
costs
come
in
for
for
it,
but
basically
it's
you
have
poles,
you
have
a
screen
and
the
and
the
Hops
grow
up
the
screen,
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
discussed
was
that
what
is
it
going
to
be
in
summer
and
what
is
going
to
be
in
winter?
We've
we've
represented
that
in
the
report.
Basically
turning
the
leaves
around
because
they
can
die
on
the
vine.
G
They
don't
die
back
and
there
is
the
maintenance
that
somebody
will
need
to
come
and
cut
those
at
some
point,
so
they
can
grow
back
but
they
grow.
They
establish
themselves
pretty
thoroughly.
If
we
allowed
them,
we
could
have
it
25
feet
tall
which
I,
don't
think
is
quite
desired,
because
that
really
would
obscure
it,
and
there
was
no
intent
of
actually
harvesting
the
Hops.
F
G
I
G
Part
of
that
is
that
there's
swinging
gates
in
front
of
the
cages
that
open
up,
so
you
have
to
have
enough
room
for
that
gate
to
open
and
some
a
maintenance
person
to
be
there.
So
if
they
have
to
do
a
condenser
replacement,
they
have
room
to
to
mitigate
that
and
be
able
to
repair
that
on
site.
It
does
not
touch
the
building.
It
comes
up
to
the
building,
but
just
like
the
cages
and
the
condensing
units,
the
only
thing
that
really
touches
the
building
are
the
conduit
lines
and
the
covers.
J
G
G
J
G
G
G
So
and
just
kind
of
we
offered
an
all
all-season
green
Vine,
but
the
ones
that
we
found
they
are
quite
invasive
or
can
be
quite
invasive,
and
that
creates
a
an
environment
where
you
have
a
lot
more
maintenance
where
you
have
to
keep
cutting
it
back.
So
it
doesn't
grow
over
everything
and
most
of
the
other
vines
that
we
looked
at
die
back.
So
you
would
have
no
screening
in
the
winter.
I
F
G
D
D
G
If
you
look
at
the
bottom
left
corner
on
there,
that
screen
will
come
out.
In
fact,
we
have
a
view
of
that
where
the
screen
comes
out,
I
think
we
provided
that
with
you,
so
you
can
kind
of
see.
No,
it's
the
that
one
right
there,
so
you
can
see
how
far
the
screen
comes
out.
So
in
order
to
see
that
seven
foot
you
would
have
to
go
there,
stand
by
the
Dominion
fence
and
turn
90
degrees
and
actually
look
at.
F
F
E
At
your
previous
hearing,
you
could
have
had
or
heard
a
Blame,
Game
and
I'm
grateful
that
it
was
not
at
this
point.
I
think
it
would
be
useful
to
ways
to
avoid
something
similar
happening
in
the
future
to
any
historic
building,
but
especially
to
one
owned
by
the
public,
and
that
is
because
this
solution
is
marginally
adequate
and
would
not
have
been
good
enough.
At
the
outset.
E
We
could
blame
the
pandemic
and
then
rest
assured
that
the
problem
wouldn't
recur
for
a
while
if
the
pandemic
ever
ends,
we
could
recall
the
board
of
adjustment
case
which
I
witnessed
in
which
the
structure
was
built
in
the
wrong
place,
because
the
wrong
person
was
on
the
meaningful
end
of
the
tape
measure.
I,
don't
know
how
a
permit
for
five
of
something
morphs
into
eight
I
want
to
go
to
a
conceptual
level.
This
problem
occurred
because
we
put
too
much
emphasis
on
the
front
of
a
building
and
failed
to
treat
all
sides
with
respect.
E
I.
Consider
this
focus
on
the
front
to
be
a
comprehensive
shortcoming
of
our
approach
to
preservation.
For
me,
whatever
I
can
see
from
the
garden
is
important.
Secondly,
and
again,
at
a
conceptual
level,
this
problem
occurred
because
too
much
emphasis
was
placed
on
the
interior
of
the
building
at
the
expense
of
the
exterior.
E
The
city
regulates
modifications
to
the
exterior
and
only
deals
with
the
interior
in
terms
of
Code
Compliance,
someone
flipped
those
relationships
in
this
case
at
the
expense
of
the
exterior
as
I
fumed
from
the
audience
at
the
previous
hearing,
I
I
thought
the
people
in
this
building
will
be
accustomed
to
working
Outdoors.
They
could
put
on
a
sweater
or
add
a
fan.
It
wasn't
necessary
to
compromise
the
rear
facade,
but
that's
where
the
conceptual
area
took
us.
Thank
you.
F
G
But
it
did
come
to
light
when
we
did
present
the
cages
and
that's
why
we're
sitting
here
today
is
because
then
that
came
and
was
revealed
that
part
of
it.
We've
learned
our
lesson
and
anytime.
We
we
deal
with
this
again,
we'll
make
sure
that
we
contact
planning
for
Mitigation
Of
how
to
place
the
condensing
units.
F
J
I
am
I'm
glad
to
know
that
the
Hops
Vines
are
as
sturdy
as
that
they've
been
described.
I
do
have
the
concern
of
them
getting
really
an
unwiled
and
and
unruly.
However,
if
it's
built
into
the
regular
maintenance
of
the
of
the
property,
then
it
seems
that
it
won't
become
an
eyesore
on
top
of
the
eight
units
that
are
on
the
back
of
the
the
side
of
the
building
there.
So
I
do
like
this.
If
there
has
to
be
a
compromise,
I
can
live
with
this.
F
D
D
F
Very
good
and
I
think
Kenton.
My
only
comment
is
I
brought
up
the
same
notion
when
I
was
looking
at
the
plans
and
seeing
a
seven
foot
opening,
it
seemed
a
little
arbitrary
I,
don't
know
what's
coming
in
and
out
of
that,
that
back
door
that
would
require
seven
feet.
Opening
but
I'm
since,
quite
frankly,
since
staff's
recommendation
was
was
to
approve
this
I'm
I'm
going
to
leave
that
alone.
But
now
I'll
look
to
my
Commissioners
for
a
motion.
F
I
F
J
F
B
A
A
A
A
Some
additional
information
for
the
request
says
this
window
is
needed
for
egress
and
Ingress
to
allow
the
room
to
be
habitable
per
building
code.
As
you
can
see
on
the
floor
plan,
they
have
the
demolition
plan
to
go
ahead
and
open
the
wall
and
then
right
now
it's
labeled
as
storage,
but
the
only
reason
why
it
is
is
because
it
needs
a
window
in
order
order
to
be
habitable.
A
So
the
applicant
provided
the
details
for
the
replacement
window.
As
I
mentioned,
it's
important.
The
design,
placement
and
material
be
appropriate
for
the
historic
building
the
assistant
existing
Second
Story
window.
It's
located
this
one
right
here
in
the
middle
is
an
arch
window
with
art,
glass
or
antique
lead.
A
beveling
and
the
new
windowsill
will
match
the
existing
window.
A
L
B
B
L
B
B
J
C
F
Excuse
me,
I,
didn't,
have
a
question
just
to
comment
as
well,
and
it's
it's
it's
pleasing
to
see
that
that
you
know
the
the
replacement
windows
was
respectful
of
the
rest
of
the
house
and,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it'll
look
like
it's
a
part
of
the
original,
and
that's
that's
why
we're
all
here
is
to
is
to
keep
that
look
and
feel
of
the
district.
You
know
as
it
is
in
intact.
So
thank
you
well
done.
D
J
F
M
Thank
you
tonight,
I
wanted
to
go
ahead
and
talk
with
you
about
the
proposed,
affordable
housing
incentives.
So,
first
of
all,
what
I
wanted
to
do
was
talk
about
the
goals
and
the
background
of
the
project,
the
process
and
then
the
proposed
incentives
and
their
applicability
to
Historic
districts.
First
I
want
to
talk
about
the
how
they
would
apply
in
the
single
and
two
family
zoning
districts
and
then
the
residential
multi-family
or
RMF
zoning
districts,
and
then
also
the
multi-family
and
mixed-use
Zoning
districts
and
then
there'll
be
some
time
for
discussion.
M
One
point:
one
intent
of
them
is
to
make
taxpayer
dollars
go
further.
So
for
projects
that
already
have
affordable
housing,
they
may
be
able
to
increase
the
number
of
affordable
units,
and
then
they
may
also
be
able
to
provide
units
that
are
affordable
to
those
that
have
lower
Amis
than
they
would
otherwise
have
been
able
to,
and
they
also
are
designed
to,
hopefully
have
a
market
rate
development
be
able
to
provide
affordable
units
as
well,
and
they
may
provide
options
for
property
owners
to
provide
new,
affordable
housing
units.
M
So,
first
of
all,
I've
already
talked
a
little
bit
about
affordability
in
relation
to
Ami
or
area
median
income,
and
so
for
the
incentives.
What
we're
looking
at
are
the
2022
income
guidelines
from
HUD
for
the
Salt
Lake
City
metro
area,
which
includes
Salt,
Lake
and
Tooele
counties,
divides
the
affordable
housing
into
three
different
groups.
The
first
would
be
housing
units
accommodating
those
earning
up
to
30
Ami
at
extremely
low
income
and
then
for
very
low
income.
M
So
if
you're
looking
at
the
area
median
income,
which
would
be
a
hundred
and
two
thousand
four
hundred
thirty
percent
of
that
for
a
one-person
family,
it
would
be
twenty
one
thousand
five
hundred
for
an
annual
income.
So
they
would
have
about
538
dollars
available
for
housing
each
month
and
then
for
a
four-person
family.
They
would
have
about
thirty
thousand
seven
hundred
for
the
annual
income
and
then
768
dollars
per
month.
And
so
then
you
can
see
how
that
increases
at
50
or
80
percent
Ami.
M
So
just
kind
of
taking
a
step
back
and
looking
at
Salt,
Lake,
City
and
first
of
all,
we're
multi-family
housing
is
permitted,
have
where
we
are
in
the
city
and
county
building
highlighted,
and
you
can
see
the
zoning
districts
that
allow
multi-family
housing
around
the
the
downtown
area
and
then
extending
along
corridors,
including
third
West,
Redwood
Road,
and
then
there
are
concentrations
in
Sugarhouse
as
well
oops.
And
then,
when
you
look
at
single
and
two
family
housing,
these
are
generally
surrounding
the
areas
where
multi-family
housing
is
permitted.
M
You
can
see
it
on
both
east
and
west
of
I-250
of
I-15.
There
is
no
housing
permitted
or
single-family
housing
permitted
to
the
west
of
I-215,
and
then,
when
you
add
all
of
these
together,
you
can
see
that
housing
is
permitted
on
just
a
little
less
than
20
percent
of
the
land
area
in
the
city,
and
there
is
quite
a
large,
quite
large
areas
where
housing
is
not
permitted.
Lake,
City,
Creek,
Canyon
or
by
the
airport
and
into
the
Northwest
Quadrant.
So
it
is
somewhat
limited
within
Salt
Lake.
M
As
far
as
the
affordable
housing
incentives
project,
the
process
started
in
late
19
early
2020,
with
a
survey
to
the
community
put
together
a
framework
for
their
proposal.
I
went
back
out
to
the
community
with
another
survey
and
then
in
2020
in
2021
worked
to
develop.
An
internal
draft
then
went
out
to
the
public.
Last
year
with
a
public
draft
in
January
had
Outreach
during
the
Spring
and
then
held
the
Planning
Commission
Hearing.
M
In
May
of
last
year,
we
received
quite
a
bit
of
feedback
from
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
community,
and
so
in
the
summer
and
fall
of
last
year,
I
did
additional
research
on
options
and
worked
with
developers
to
test
the
feasibility
of
the
incentives.
The
mayor's
office
convened
a
focus
group,
and
so
we
worked
with
the
group
to
develop
additional
modifications
and
then
refined
those
and
made
additional
recommendations
and
put
the
out
a
new
draft
in
March.
M
We
have
a
couple
briefings
with
the
Planning
Commission
last
month
and
then
another
hearing
is
scheduled
with
the
Planning
Commission
for
later
this
month,
and
I
also
wanted
to
note
that
when
we
started
the
project,
we
did
call
it
an
overlay,
but
as
we
put
together,
the
different
proposals
and
incentives
it
wouldn't
be
applied
in
the
way
that
a
traditional
over
would
be
overlay
would
be
applied
like
the
historic
overlay.
So
we
changed
the
name
to
be
called
incentives
instead,
and
so
it's
in
a
new
incentives
chapter
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
M
As
I
mentioned,
there
was
a
focus
group
that
was
put
together,
and
someone
wanted
to
highlight
just
briefly
the
recommendations
from
the
focus
group.
The
first
was
to
remove
the
proximity
to
Transit
and
arterial
Road
requirements.
They
also
made
a
recommendation
to
incentivize
preserving
existing
housing.
M
They
wanted
to
add
additional
design
standards
for
the
single
and
two
family
zoning
districts,
and
we
also
wanted
to
add
additional
incentive
options
for
deeply
affordable
and
larger
units,
and
they
made
some
recommendations
for
future
zoning
and
subdivision
text
amendments
so
for
historic
preservation
and
as
it
relates
to
you
as
a
commission
in
the
affordable
housing
incentives.
I
wanted
to
talk
about
how
they
would
apply.
M
Do
want
to
note
that
properties
that
are
in
National
register
historic
districts
or
individually
listed
on
the
national
register,
but
are
not
in
local
historic
districts,
are
not
subject
to
the
city's
historic
regulations,
so
those
regulations
wouldn't
apply
to
them
as
far
as
adding
units
and
some
in
historic
districts.
This
could
be
done
with
additions
or
if
there's
vacant,
land
or
open
land,
it
could
be
done
with
new
construction.
M
Just
to
kind
of
give
you
a
refresher.
Here's
where
the
local
historic
districts
are
in
the
community,
I
tried
to
put
sites
on
there
and
it
just
became
a
little
overwhelming.
So
we
have
the
districts
on
there
instead,
now
I
want
to
go
ahead
and
talk
about
the
proposed
incentives
themselves,
so
for
the
single
and
two
family
zoning
districts.
M
These
are
the
R1,
the
fr,
the
R2
and
Sr
zoning
districts,
we're
proposing
to
permit
additional
housing
types,
and
so
that
would
include
two
family
or
Twin
Homes,
triplexes,
fourplexes,
sideways
and
row
houses
and
groups
of
three
to
four
and
cottage
developments,
and
so,
with
the
original
proposal,
half
of
these
units
would
need
to
be
affordable
to
those
earning
up
to
80
Ami,
and
so
we
have
a
number
of
changes
proposed
from
last
year.
But
that
stays
the
same
for
these,
as
I
mentioned
before.
M
One
of
the
recommendations
from
the
focus
group
was
for
an
incentive
to
preserve
existing
housing,
and
so
one
of
their.
This
would
be
done
by
allowing
a
second
detached
dwelling
on
the
property,
and
if
this
was
added,
there
would
be
a
lower
affordability
requirement
from
50
percent
of
the
units
to
one
of
the
units.
M
If
a
property
owner
chose
to
do
this,
they
would
need
to
meet
the
existing
height
and
lot
coverage
requirements
for
the
zoning
District.
The
existing
setbacks
and
yards
would
also
apply
to
the
perimeter
of
the
development
itself
rather
than
between
the
two
units,
and
so
again
as
the
Historic
Landmark
commission
and
for
historic
properties.
You
two
have
the
ability
to
make
some
modifications
to
these
requirements
so
as
far
as
where
this
would
be
applicable,
it
would
apply
in
all
single
and
two
family
zoning
districts.
M
We
did
remove
a
previous
proximity
to
Transit
and
our
Taylor
Road
requirement,
and
we
did
that
due
to
the
frequency
of
the
non-fixed
route
transit
route
changes.
So
during
covet
a
lot
of
the
bus
routes
changed
either
their
actual
route
or
their
frequency,
and
so
it
was
just.
We
realized
that
that
was
not
the
best
way
to
incentivize
it
and
by
removing
it
we're
also
increasing
the
equitable
distribution
of
the
housing
types
across
the
city.
M
So,
as
I
mentioned
briefly,
but
wanted
to
just
go
over
in
a
little
bit
more
detail,
there
would
be
no
increase
in
height
permitted
from
that
base.
Zoning
district
there
would
not
be
an
increase
in
building
coverage,
permitted
the
same
or
increased
yards
or
setbacks
would
be
required
for
the
perimeter
of
the
property.
The
minimum
lot
width
would
not
apply
and
then
also
one
off
street
parking
space
would
be
required
per
unit.
M
I
wanted
to
go
ahead
and
give
one
example
of
having
that
additional
unit
as
a
detached
dwelling.
So
this
is
a
historic
example
from
a
from
the
Avenues,
and
so
you
can
see
here
there's
that
orange
circle
that
has
four
Lots
within
it,
and
so
you
can
see
with
both
of
those
properties
that
front
Sixth,
Avenue,
there's
a
second
detached
dwelling
to
the
rear,
and
so
the
one
on
the
left
has
an
existing
duplex
and
then
there's
another
property
to
the
rear,
and
this
is
actually
the
best
photo
that
we
had
of
it.
M
But
it
shows
that
this
does
it
has
occurred.
Historically,
it
has
occurred
in
the
Avenues,
also
in
Capitol,
Hill
and
likely
elsewhere
in
the
city.
And
so,
if
someone
wanted
to
do
this
today,
they
would
need
to
meet
the
base
zoning
requirements.
As
far
as
built-in
coverage
and
height,
one
parking
space
would
be
required
per
unit
and
they
would
also
need
to
meet
those
perimeter.
Setbacks
would
likely
look
a
little
bit
different
than
this
does
Additionally.
The
focus
group
recommended
some
increase
in
design
standards.
M
There
were
some
existing
requirements
for
Street
facing
facades
and
they
recommended
some
additional
ones
as
far
as
having
durable
building
materials,
and
that
would
include
the
fiber
cement
board,
that's
shown
here
or
brick.
We
also
clarified
where
the
building
entrance
would
be
located
and
added
some
additional
requirements
for
open
space
and
again
for
historic
properties,
they're
already
the
existing
residential
design
guidelines.
So
those
would
apply
to
these
as
well.
M
There
are
a
number
of
properties
in
the
Capitol
Hill
Avenues,
Central,
City
and
University
historic
districts
that
are
in
RMF
zoning
districts,
and
so
in
these
zoning
districts
we
would
not
permit
additional
height
or
building
coverage.
The
minimum
lot
width
requirement
would
not
apply.
The
Yards
would
apply
to
the
perimeter
of
the
development
as
far
as
parking
one
space
would
be
required
per
unit
for
up
to
10
units
and
then
more
than
10
units
would
follow
the
requirements
in
the
parking
chapter
when
there
are
some
special
except
special
allowances
for
affordable
housing.
M
In
that
parking
chapter,
there
are
design
standards
both
for
row,
houses
and
sideways
row
houses
and
then
some
additional
design
standards.
When
there
are
more
than
two
units
for
properties,
Property
Owners,
to
use
the
incentives,
they
must
meet
the
affordability
requirements
and
so
for
the
RMF
zones
that
we
would
remove
the
density
limits.
So
the
arm
of
stone
has
have
these
qualifying.
M
So
the
prop
this
property
is
80
250
square
feet.
There
was
previously
a
building
on
the
site
that
was
destroyed
by
fire
in
2007,
and
so,
as
I
mentioned
before,
for
the
RMF
zoning
districts,
there
are
qualifying
Provisions
for
density.
So
you
need
a
minimum
of
8
000
square
feet
for
a
duplex.
Then
you
need
a
minimum
of
9
000
square
feet
for
three
units
and
then
an
additional
three
thousand
square
feet,
which
does
change
as
the
site
gets
larger
for
a
multi-family
building.
M
So
in
this
particular
case
you
needed
to
have
a
minimum
of
8
000
square
feet
for
the
duplex,
and
then
the
property
would
also
need
to
be
a
minimum
of
50
square
feet
for
that
duplex,
and
so
they
had
to
have
a
lot
line
adjustment
to
get
that
extra
six
inches
of
lot
width
so
that
they
could
put
the
duplex
on
the
property.
And
so
with
this
we
would
remove
the
density
requirements
for
the
property,
and
then
the
limitations
would
basically
be
based
on
the
built-in
coverage
and
parking
and
height.
M
And
so
one
thing
that
happens
when
you
have
these
these
density
limitations.
Is
you
end
up
with
somewhat
large
buildings?
You
have
a
building
here
where
that
has
a
3300
Square
footprint
for
two
units,
there's
a
one
unit
in
front
one
unit
in
back,
and
so
you
end
up
having
quite
large
units.
And
so,
if
you
have,
if
you
to
remove
those
density
requirements,
there
would
likely
be
the
ability
to
have
smaller
units
and
more
units
on
the
site.
M
M
So
one
example
of
a
building
in
a
TSA
zone
is
station
424
and
Central
City,
Historic,
District,
and
so,
as
I
mentioned
in
these
TSA
zoning
districts,
projects
that
have
a
development
score
that
qualifies
for
administrative
review.
Our
eligible
eligible
for
an
increase
in
height,
that's
limited
to
one
story,
and
so
on.
The
incentives
projects
that
were
in
a
core
District
would
be
able
to
have
up
to
two
stories,
and
then
projects
that
are
in
transition
zones
would
be
able
to
have
one
story
and
so
again
with
projects
that
are
in
historic,
Districts.
M
The
Proposal
would
need
to
be
compatible
with
the
district
and
meet
the
standards
and
the
guidelines
for
that
District.
But
it
would
be
an
option
to
have
this
extra
story.
The
Proposal
would
need
to
meet
the
affordability
requirements
for
that
extra
story,
and
so,
for
example,
station
424
did
choose
to
have
that
extra
story,
and
if
the
incentives
were
in
place,
they
would
need
to
provide
affordable
units
for
that
extra
height,
but
they
could
have
up
to
two
additional
stories.
M
M
And
then
there
were
two
options
that
required
10
of
the
units
as
affordable
and
one
was
at
a
lower
Ami
of
60
and
then
the
other
was
for
larger
units,
but
at
80
Ami
and
the
feedback
that
we
heard
from
the
community
was
for
a
greater
percentage
of
units
and
also
to
Target
the
units
towards
more
deeply
affordable
units
at
a
lower
Ami.
And
so
we
worked
with
developers
to
to
see
how.
M
If
we
could
do
this
and
what
kind
of
percentage
of
units
we
could
require
is
Affordable
and
what
affordability
level
we
could
go
to.
And
if
we
increase
the
percentage
of
affordable
units,
it
wouldn't
be
feasible
for
the
developer,
and
so
we've
provided
some
additional
options
that
have
a
lower
percentage
of
the
units
as
affordable,
but
are
targeting
lower
Amis
with
them
too.
M
So
the
the
desired
outcome
for
for
the
proposal
is
that
market
rate
developers
could
include
affordable
units
and
projects
and
wouldn't
have
a
negative
effect
on
their
returns.
And
then,
if
you
have
an
existing
affordable
project,
they
could
construct
more
units,
and
so
we've
achieved
this
by
adding
some
additional
incentive
options
for
more
deeply
affordable
units
and
for
larger
units.
M
With
the
proposal
last
may,
we
also
received
a
number
of
comments
on
the
reporting
and
enforcement
aspects
of
it.
So
we
have
added
some
additional
reporting
requirements
to
the
proposal.
We've
clarified
the
enforcement
penalties,
we've
increased,
the
fines
that
could
apply,
and
also
non-compliance
at
a
certain
point,
can
result
in
a
lien
being
placed
on
their
property
for
the
fines,
and
then
the
business
license
related
to
the
property
can
also
be
revoked.
M
There
are
some
additional
changes
from
last
May's
proposal.
One
of
them
is
to
ensure
consistency
with
the
downtown
building
Heights
text
Amendment,
which
has
at
the
weeding
for
city
council
action,
also
made
some
modifications
to
the
Landscaping
requirements
in
commercial
districts
and
allowing
those
to
be
at
above
grade,
and
then
we've
made
some
additional
housekeeping
and
other
clarifying
changes,
and
so
that
is
what
I
wanted
to
talk
about
with
the
commission.
F
I've
got
I've
got
a
few
questions
in
looking
at
the
examples
that
you
had
most
of
these
were
on
the
side
or
to
the
back
of
an
existing
unit.
There's
there's
neighborhoods,
or
there
are
neighborhoods
here
and
there's
houses
here
that
that
the
house
is
built
towards
the
back
of
the
the
lot
and
they
may
be
deep
Lots.
Would
this
allow
for
for
a
new
construction
in
front
of
a
house.
M
So
originally
there
was
a
requirement
that
it
would
apply
for
those
single
and
two
family
zones
when
it
was
within
a
quarter
mile
of
high
frequency
Transit,
which
included
bus
routes
and
then
adjacent
to
an
arterial
roadway,
and
it
would
over
the
course
of
the
past
couple
years.
Those
routes
have
changed
frequently
like
the
actual
routes
themselves
and
then
also
the
frequency
they
became
not
as
high
frequency,
so
they
wouldn't
have
met
those
requirements,
and
so
I
was
kind
of
it
was
determined
that
that
would
not
be
the
best
way
to
regulate
the
incentive.
M
C
I
can
jump
in
to
address
the
like
if
there's
a
large
front
yard
and
the
house
is
set
back
and
there's
potentially
room
to
build
another
structure
if
that
home
was
contributing.
I
think
that
would
be
a
pretty
burdensome
too
right,
because
you
would
be
covering
the
the
front
elevation
and
the
principal
structure.
A
C
F
That
seems
I
want
to
choose
my
word
wisely
it
it's
just
not
enough
I
mean
if
you
have
10
units
and
you
it
seems
like
there
would
be
more
more
than
one
per
unit
1.2
or
1.5,
or
something
because
it
just
feels
like
at
least
to
me
that
if
there
are
10
units,
there's
going
to
be
a
need
for
12
13
14
cars,
meaning
that
those
additional
cars
are
going
to
just
have
to
find
a
place
on
the
streets
in
place.
And
a
lot
of
these
neighborhoods
are
already
taxed
with
cars
on
the
street.
C
I
can
jump
in
and
adjust
that
hi
I'll
just
be
talking,
I'll
jump
in
and
adjust
that
comment.
The
the
proposal
is
a
minimum
of
one
if
the
developer
chose
or
the
market
proved
that
they
needed
additional
parking,
they
could
choose
to
add
additional
parking.
The
issue
with
the
city
requiring
more
than
one
in
this
situation,
is
that
that
actually
increases
the
cost
of
the
unit
and
it's
less
likely
they're
going
to
achieve
a
needed
Ami
for
the
development.
So
that's
why
it's
established
at
one
as
the
minimum.
F
I
I
M
The
primary
incentive
with
this
is
to
allow
a
development
right
that
they
don't
otherwise
have
to
allow
additional
height
or
to
allow
you
know,
allow
that
additional
unit,
and
so
that's
kind
of
a
zoning
incentive
that
we're
providing
and
so
the
light
tech,
the
low
income,
housing
tax
credits.
Those
are
a
tax
credit
program
that
projects
can
choose
to
use,
and
so
this
you
could
choose
to
have
a
litec
project,
use,
affordable
housing
incentives.
M
The
idea
one
thing
with
that
too,
is:
if
a
project
had
you
know.
Let's
say
they
had
100
units
that
they
could
provide
with
the
existing
zoning
and
if
they
could
go
up
an
extra
floor
then,
rather
than
having,
let's
say,
20
of
the
units,
so
you
have.
If
you
had
100
units
and
20
of
them
were
affordable,
you
could
go
up
an
extra
floor
and
have
another
20
units.
Then
you
could
have
another
four
or
five
more
affordable
units
in
your
project
that
you
wouldn't
have
otherwise
been
able
to
have.
I
Although
it
would,
let's
be
realistic,
it's
unlikely
that
those
units
would
be
on
the
top
floor.
I
mean
like
that's.
The
other
thing
that
strikes
me
about
this
is
that
the
numbers
are
just
so
small
here,
like
five
percent
of
units
is
not
very
many
units
right,
I,
don't
I
mean
again.
This
is
like
we're
getting
outside
of
purview.
If
we're
talking
about
that,
but.
M
So,
just
to
address
that
first
comment
about
the
location
of
the
units.
We
do
have
a
comparable
units
provision
in
the
proposal,
and
so
the
units
couldn't
all
be
on
the
same
floor.
They'd
have
to
be
equally
dispersed
about
in
the
building.
They
have
to
be
accessed
from
the
same
entrance.
They'd
have
to
have
access
to
all
the
amenities
that
are
in
the
building.
If
there
were
a
range
of
unit
types
in
the
building,
the
affordable
units
would
also
need
to
be
in
that
same
range.
I
D
L
E
D
That
and
that
veined
it
was
noted
that
developers
were
part
of
the
process.
Discussions
with
them
seems
like
mixing
the
affordable
units
in
market
rate
units
would
be
less
appealing
to
developers,
because
you
know
you
could
get
this
social,
this
stratification
or
or
this
flattening
of
stratification
in
which
buyers
would
seem
to
want
what
were
the
developers
responses
to
these
ideas?.
D
M
M
D
B
M
M
L
B
M
There
could
be
a
100
fine,
that's
existing
that
could
be
applied,
will
also
have
a
specific,
affordable
housing
incentives,
fine
that
would
be
added
to
the
Consolidated
fee
schedule
and
that's
updated
annually,
and
then
there's
an
additional
fine.
That
would
be
the
difference
between
the
market
rate
of
the
unit
and
the
affordable
rate,
and
then
those
though,
once
those
equal,
five
thousand
dollars
or
it's
been
90
days,
a
lien
can
be
placed
on
the
property
and.
B
M
There
is
a
project
web
page
and
we
do
have
a
comment
form
on
that
project
web
page
that
people
can
fill
out
at
any
time
and
then
it
is
tentatively
scheduled
for
a
Planning
Commission
hearing
on
April
26th,
and
so
that
would
have
a
public
hearing
with
the
opportunity
for
the
public
to
provide
comments.
Then.
I
K
This
is
a
lot
of
stuff
it
covers.
You
know
almost
every
kind
of
habitation,
and
it
is
a
lot
today
and
where
I
had
a
problem
with
was
the
additional
bigger
buildings
for
cheaper
I
think
that
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
evidence
of
harm
already
being
done
by
giant
buildings
in
in
existing
neighborhoods
and
I.
Think
it
harms
harms
everyone,
and
the
return
on
this
is
just
too
low.
M
There
are
restrictions
as
far
as
the
built-in
coverage
that
it
must
meet
the
existing
permitted
building
coverage
and
height
for
zoning
districts
for
the
RMF
zoning
districts
and
then
the
single
and
two
families
owning
districts
where
the
additional
height
does
come
in
is
in
those
multi-family
and
mixed-use.
Zoning
districts
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that's
clear.
K
F
F
M
So,
just
for
the
the
Ami
levels,
80
Ami-
that
kind
of
that
50
to
80
Ami
for
low
income
is
a
fairly
common
reference
or
68
60
and
then
the
very
low
income
at
that
30.
Those
are
kind
of
those
are
done,
really
kind
of
common
references
and
then,
as
far
as
where,
where
we
set
these,
some
of
them
was
looking
at
those
low
income,
housing
tax,
credit
requirements.