►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting - December 08, 2021
Description
Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting - December 08, 2021
https://www.slc.gov/planning/
https://www.slc.gov/planning/planning-commission-agendas-minutes/
B
Hey
amy,
it
looks
like
we're
just
waiting
for
my
maureen
to
have
our
full
panel
tonight,
but
we
do
have
six
total,
so
we
do
have
a
quorum.
B
D
C
So
welcome
to
the
planning
commission
meeting
tonight
for
december
8th
2001
21.
Sorry,
I
amy
berry,
chair
of
the
planning
commission,
hereby
determine
that
the
ongoing
covit
19
pandemic
conditions
existing
in
salt
lake
city,
including,
but
not
limited
to
the
elevated
number
of
cases,
that
meeting
at
an
anchor
location
presents
a
substantial
risk
to
the
health
and
safety
of
those
who
would
be
present.
C
E
Thank
you.
This
is
nick
norris,
I'm
the
planning
director
for
salt
lake
city
and
wanted
to
quickly
go
over
some
basic
information
about
the
meeting
and
how
everybody
in
attendance
can
participate.
You
can
see
on
your
screen
that
there's
some
basic
information
about
how
to
join.
E
Obviously,
if
you're
in
the
webex
meeting
you've
figured
that
out,
but
if
you're
trying,
if
you're,
watching
on
either
youtube
or
on
slc
tv
and
you
want
to
join
these
links,
are
available,
you
can
copy
these
links
to
access
the
meeting
they're
also
on
the
planning
commission
agenda
from
the
planning
division
website
at
slc
gov,
slash
planning
under
planning
commission
if
you're
having
any
sort
of
issues
or
you
want
to
submit
written
comment
during
the
meeting.
E
E
Can
you
go
to
the
next
screen
please
to
participate
if
you're
in
the
webex
meeting
the
easiest
way
to
do
it
so
that
we
know
to
call
on
you
is
on
the
bottom
right
hand
corner
and
is
a
small
little
hand
icon,
and
you
can
see
it
on
your
screen
here
in
the
bottom
right
corner
of
the
presentation
outlined
in
orange
and
then
red
inside
the
orange
box.
If
you
click
on
that
it,
it
alerts
us
that
you
want
to
that.
You
have
that
you
want
to
speak.
C
E
Yeah
hang
on.
Let
me
fix
my
camera
here.
Yeah,
so
just
wanted
to
give
the
planning
commission
a
couple
of
updates
on
some
activity
at
the
city
council
level
of
items
that
came
before
the
planning
commission
in
the
past
last
night.
The
planning
commission
did
make
a
couple
of
decisions
on
some
zoning
proposals
that
the
planning
commission
has
seen
the
the
first
one
was
the
high
volume
water
using
land
uses
water
consuming
land
uses
proposal.
The
council
did
adopt
that
last
night.
They
did
lower
that
cap.
E
If
you
recall
the
maximum
amount
for
any
individual
land
use
was
300
000
in
the
initial
proposal,
300
000
gallons,
the
council
did
lower
that
to
200
000
gallons
and
they
also
took
action
asking
not
just
the
planning
division
but
other
divisions
involved
with
water
issues
in
the
city
to
propose
some
code
changes
to
further
help
address
water
conservation
and
water
preservation
in
the
city.
Since
it's
such
a
pressing
issue
with
our
ongoing
drought,
and
so
you
can
look
forward
to
that.
E
The
city
council
also
denied
a
zoning
map
amendment
around
1900,
south
and
1300
east.
That
proposal
was
go
from.
I
think
it
was
an
arm
of
30
or
35
to
an
arm
of
45..
They
did
deny
that
and
so
that
that
died
and
there
wasn't
any
sort
of
development
proposal
associated
with
that
that
project.
E
So
that's
that
they
also
held
several
public
hearings
and
approved
a
couple
of
valley
vacations
of
what
we
call
paper,
alleys,
those
alleys
that
were
planted
in
original
subdivisions,
but
never
actually
built
or
never
actually
used,
and
now
have
structures
and
garages
and
fences,
and
sometimes
even
large,
mature
trees
growing
in
the
middle
of
them.
So
a
couple
of
those
were
approved
as
well,
and
then
they
had
a
couple
of
public
hearings
that
including
the
the
bueno
avenue
project
and
they're
scheduled
to
make
some
decisions
on
those
as
early
as
next
week.
E
Oh
the
other
thing
that
they
did
adopt
after
they've
had
it
for
a
very
long
time.
Some
of
you
probably
were
not
even
on
well,
I
know
some
of
you
are
not
on
the
planning
commission,
but
several
years
ago
we
proposed
some
changes
to
the
sugar
house,
business
district
zoning
primarily
to
address
a
change
in
state
code.
That
said,
standards
needed
to
be
objective,
and
so
the
sugar
house
community
plan
has
a
bunch
of
design
guidelines
that
were
in
the
plan
that
the
code
required
compliance
with.
E
However,
they
really
weren't
written
in
a
way
that
made
it
easy
to
be
objective,
and
so
they
could
reasonably
and
be
interpreted
to
mean
different
things
to
different
people,
and
so
we
upon
that
change
in
state
code.
We
propose
some
changes
to
the
to
make
those
guidelines
standards
in
the
code
and
make
them
more
measurable
so
that
they're
they're
not
as
subjective
as
they
currently
are
in
in
the
community
plan,
and
I
think
that
that
is
about
it.
C
Okay,
thank
you.
Nick
moving
on,
I
would
be
looking
for
a
motion
to
approve
our
minutes
from
the
november
10th
meeting.
C
Thank
you.
I
have
a
motion
from
maureen
and
a
second
from
mike
to
approve
the
minutes
and
I'll
take
a
vote.
Maureen
yes,
amy.
B
C
H
C
John,
if
you
we're
trying
to
speak,
we
can't
hear
you.
B
I
see
that
he
doesn't
have
the
microphone
icon
or
the
video
icon
he's
going
to.
Oh,
there.
I
D
B
C
All
right
that
motion
passes
so
hopefully
john
lee
can
looks
like
he
got
out
so
he'll
be
coming
back
in
we'll
move
on
to
the
first
item
in
our
public
hearing,
and
that
is
a
conditional
use.
Adu
at
approximately
1849
east
1300
south
case
number
pln
pcm
2021-00533.
C
We're
still
not
hearing
you
aubrey,
you
might
have
to
give
him
the
phone
number
and
not
to
call
in
please
thank
you
I'll
text
him
right
now.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
all
right,
john
aubry's,
going
to
text
you
the
phone
number
on
code,
so
you
can
call
in.
E
Yeah,
that's
because
I
clicked
the
mute
button
on
them
and
I
was
trying
to
see
john.
You
may
also
want
to,
if
you're
on
a
computer
down
at
the
bottom
of
your
screen
on
the
arrow.
Next
to
the
mute
button,
you
can
open
up
your
microphone
settings
that
way
and
there
might
be
an
issue
with
the
microphone
being
on
the
right
setting
there.
So
you
may
want
to
troubleshoot
that
as
well.
B
He
says
he
can
hear
us
and
he's
tried
all
the
microphone
settings,
but
none
of
them
are
working.
B
So
I
I
did
text
him.
The
phone
number
and
passcode
so
he'll
have
to
get
out
and
join
via
telephone.
L
I
think
if
he
can
hear
us,
then
we
can
probably
proceed.
He
could
message
us
any
questions
he
has
or
it
seems
like
you
could
use
an
icon
assuming
that
all
works.
You
know
thumbs
up
icon
on
the
vote,
but
I
think
we
can
proceed
as
long
as
we
have
confirmation
at
this
point
that
he
can
hear.
C
Okay,
I
feel
confident
we
have
that
he's
still
on
the
attendees
list,
so
aubry,
if
you
just
want
to
communicate,
if
he
send
you
a
message,
let
us
know
sure
all
right,
and
hopefully
he
can
call
in
as
well,
and
then
we
can
hear
him,
but
all
right,
okay,
chrissy.
The
time
is
yours
for
your
presentation.
M
So
this
is
a
petition
for
conditional
use
is
for
a
new
adu
over
a
detached
two-car
garage
located
at
approximately
1849
east
1300
south.
The
subject
parcel
is
zoned
r1,
5000,
single
family
residential
and
is
also
in
the
yale
crest
compatible
info
overlay
zone
staff
is
recommending
approv.
The
commission
approve
the
request
with
conditions
the
proposed
detached
adu
would
be
located
in
the
rear
yard.
There
is
currently
a
detached
garage
on
site
that
would
be
rebuilt
at
the
existing
footprint,
but
is
now
proposed
to
have
an
addition
of
the
adu
above.
M
The
ad
was
approximately
416
square
feet
and
cantilevers
over
the
garage
which
has
which
has
a
floor
area
of
459
square
feet.
The
total
footprint
of
both
the
garage
and
adu
together
would
be
approximately
566
square
feet.
You
can
see
the
adu
outlined
in
red
on
the
site
plan
the
structure
measures
approximately
22
feet
in
height
public
comments
have
raised
concerns
about
the
structure's
height.
However,
the
commission
should
note
that
the
proposed
structure
meets
all
lot
and
bulk
standards
in
the
zoning
regulations.
M
The
adu
ordinance
allows
second
story
adus
to
be
equal
to
the
height
of
the
primary
dwelling
up
to
24
feet
in
height.
In
this
case,
the
primary
dwelling
is
22
feet
to
the
roof
pitch,
and
the
proposed
adu
is
also
proposed
at
22
feet
which
meets
the
adu
ordinance,
while
the
property
is
located
in
the
yell
crest
compatible
infill
overlay,
which
typically
has
more
restrictive
accessory
building
standards.
It
was
determined
that
the
adu
ordinance
prevails,
allowing
the
structure
to
be
up
to
the
height
of
the
primary
dwelling.
M
This
shows
the
proposed
elevations
you
can
see.
This
is
the
front
of
the
adu
on
the
lower
left-hand
corner
and
you
can
see
how
it
can
relievers
over
the
garage,
and
this
is
because
second-story
adus
that
exceed
the
17-foot
height
that
can
go
up
to
the
height
of
the
primary
structure,
must
be
10
feet
from
the
property
line,
so
the
applicant
was
required
to
set
the
adu
portion
of
the
building
10
feet
away
from
the
property,
while
the
garage
was
allowed
to
stay
at
the
existing
footprint.
M
M
So
as
far
as
public
comments,
staff
received
several
comments
in
opposition
to
the
adu.
They
were
primarily
concerned
with
the
height
and
the
interpretation
of
the
height
compared
to
the
yellow
crest
compatible
overlay
zone.
Additionally,
the
yellcast
neighborhood
organization
submitted
a
letter
today
expressing
concern
with
the
height
which
is
included
in
your
dropbox
account.
M
So,
as
mentioned
earlier,
planning
staff
recommends
that
the
commission
approve
the
conditional
use
request
for
an
accessory
dwelling
in
it
with
one
condition.
The
proposal
meets
all
the
applicable
standards
discussed
in
the
staff
report.
So
that
concludes
my
presentation
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you.
M
E
C
B
Okay,
yeah.
Thank
you.
I
don't
have
a
presentation.
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
couple
of
comments.
First,
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration
and
start
by
saying
that
we
love
this
neighborhood
and
strongly
believe.
Our
proposed
adu
is
not
only
consistent
with
the
dozens
of
other
homes
that
are
adjacent
to
us
in
the
nearby
blocks
that
already
have
similar
structures,
but
will
enhance
the
diversity
of
housing
in
the
neighborhood.
B
We
we
followed
all
the
rules
outlined
by
the
city
while
we're
developing
this
proposal,
and
there
were
quite
a
few
of
them
and
we
we
don't
feel
that
those
those
folks
that
argue
that
adus
are
going
to
become
commonplace
or
change
the
character
of
the
of
the
neighborhoods
are
correct.
It's
it's
a
pretty
difficult
process
and
it's
going
to
be,
I
mean
it's
difficult
to
get
a
complying
structure
approved.
B
We
we
want
to
state
that
approval
of
our
proposal
will
allow
us
to
the
opportunity
to
help
some
family
members
with
housing
who
could
otherwise
not
afford
to
live
in
our
neighborhood,
and
we
feel
we've
been
very
thoughtful
in
developing
this
plan
and
agree
with
the
staff
that
the
staff
report
that
commented
on.
B
C
E
Yes,
we
do
have
one
one
hand
up:
jen,
colby,
jen,
I'm
going
to
unmute.
You.
C
Okay,
before
you
start
just
to
give
lay
of
the
land
miss
colby,
if
you
want
to
state
your
name
for
the
record
and
then
you'll
have
two
minutes.
C
F
Can
hear
okay,
thank
you,
jen
colby
district.
Four.
After
hearing
this
presentation,
I
am
in
favor
of
this
approval.
I
would
also
remind
the
planning
commission
that
currently
I
live
in
district
four,
there's
not
a
single
lot
that
zoned
r1
in
district
four,
even
though
many
of
our
homes
are
actually
still
single
family
use.
F
Therefore,
adus
are
a
permitted
use,
not
a
conditional
use.
Every
other
district
in
the
city
has
conditional
use,
and
I
strongly
support
changing
that
in
the
future,
but
I
just
want
to
remind
everyone
that
central
city
and
university
neighborhoods
are
very
different
than
a
lot
of
the
rest
of
the
city.
I
encourage
you
to
look
at
our
master
plans.
I
know
that's
part
of
your
responsibilities
but
sort
of
an
east
side.
West
side
dialogue
is
really
not
fair
and
again.
Adus
are
permitted
in
our
neighborhoods
in
houses
that
look
just
the
same.
F
F
C
None
at
this
time,
thanks
amy.
Okay,
with
that,
we
will
close
the
public
comment
period
for
this
and
bring
it
back
to
the
commission
and
commissioners
at
this
time.
Do
you
have
any
questions,
comments
or
thoughts
for
the
applicant
staff
or
each
other
now's,
the
time
or.
N
M
Yeah
so
they're
using
the
existing
footprint,
which
is
subject.
The
one
condition
is
that
it's
subject
to
meeting
the
standards
of
our
non-complying
structures
ordinance,
but
they
are
proposing
to
meet
the
same
square
footage
they're
just
going
to
put
two
cars
in
instead
of
one.
B
N
N
Right
so
it
it
looks
shorter
than
that,
except
for,
like
the
cone
on
top
of
it-
and
I
guess
it
looks
like
the
the
adu
will
also
have
a
hip
roof,
but
maybe
its
wall
height
won't
be
as
low
as
the
wall
height
for
the
existing
home.
M
Yep
you're,
correct
and-
and
I
did
look
into
that
and
we
don't
distinguish
between
those
in
the
80
ordinance.
So
as
long
as
the
overall
height
is
the
same,
it's
allowed.
N
And
also,
it
sounds
like
the
the
city
attorney
determined
that
the
adu
ordinance
overrides
the
gail
crest,
the
yio.
What's
that
called.
M
Yup
the
yellowcrest
compatible
infill
overlay,
so
yeah
yeah
yeah,
so
we
had
internal
discussions
about
that
and
paul
can
jump
in.
But
along
with
the
planning
director
and
the
city
attorney,
it
was
determined
that
the
language
and
the
80
order
ordinance
specifically
says
that
that
section
prevails
over
the
yellcas
compatible
overlay.
N
L
Just
just
to
clarify
the
zoning
administrator
in
this
case,
joel
patterson
has
the
authority
to
interpret
the
code.
My
role
in
this
was
to
offer
an
opinion
as
to
how
a
court
would
interpret
those
competing
provisions
and
we
go
through
this
statutory
construction
exercise,
and
it
is
my
opinion
that
if
a
court
were
to
look
at
our
interpretation
of
that,
the
court
would
uphold
that
that
interpretation,
that
the
adu
provisions
are
superior
to
any
other
competing
provisions
in
the
cup.
N
B
E
This
is
an
ignorance,
so
basically,
what
the
provision
in
the
code
says-
and
I'm
happy
to
read
it
to
you-
is
that
basically
any
sort
of
yard,
bulk
or
height
in
the,
but
it's
called
it's
21a4050,
which
is
the
accessory
building
regulations.
E
Of
the
underlying
zoning
district
or
any
applicable
overlay
zoning
district,
unless
otherwise
regulated
by
this
section
and
this
section
because
it
has
a
specific
height
requirement,
it
would
basically
take
precedent
over
any
other
height
requirement.
It
does
not
take
precedent
over
the.
N
C
H
Motion
please
thanks
sandra
based
on
the
findings
listed
in
the
staff
report.
The
information
presented
input
received
during
the
public
hearing.
I
move
that
the
planning
commission
approve
the
conditional
use
request,
pln
pcm
2021-00533.
C
All
right,
thank
you.
I
have
a
motion
from
andra
and
a
second
from
mike.
Let's
take
a
vote,
oh
and
john
lee,
if
you
will
text
your
vote
to
audrey
at
this
time,
john.
K
C
G
C
C
Yes,
hey
that
motion
passes
unanimously.
Thank
you
all
for
that.
Moving
on
good
luck,
mr
morgan,
on
your
adu,
build.
C
C
2021-00681
and
p:
l
n
s:
u
b
twenty
twenty
one
dash
zero,
zero.
Nine
three
eight
the
planner
tonight
is
new
for
us.
Diana
martinez.
Welcome
for
your
first
agenda
item.
F
For
that
welcome,
I
appreciate
that.
I'm
sorry
that
I
can't
come
to
you
visually.
I
had
some
video
complications,
but
I
am
going
to
share
with
you.
B
F
F
F
So
I'm
so
sorry
that
this
plan
is
so
hard
to
read
it's
very
clustered,
but
I
tried
to
highlight
what
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
so
the
left
side
lot.
One,
the
red
dotted
line,
indicates
the
property
line
that
the
new
property
line
that
will
go
between
the
two
plots
so
lot.
One
lot,
two,
the
first
modification
that
is
being
requested
is
for
lot
one
because
of
the
existing
house
and
the
new
lot
line
for
the
east
side.
F
They
will
need
a
modification
approval
for
the
7.17
feet
that
they
are
going
to
have
to
to
deal
with.
They
won't
be
able
to
meet
the
10
feet,
that's
required,
so
that
is
the
first
modification.
F
F
This
is
the
only
way
to
really
divide
this.
This
lot
properly
to
to
keep
them
within
the
lot
area
requirement.
So
they're
both
meeting
5000
square
feet,
they're
actually
at
5015
square
feet
for
both
lot,
but
they
cannot
meet
the
width,
so
that
is
where
the
second
modification
comes
in.
The
applicant
is
complying
with
the
requirements
of
the
plan,
development
standards
and
the
subdivision
standards.
F
Therefore,
the
planning
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
the
application.
Regarding
public
comment,
we
did
get
one
comment
in
favor,
which
is
in
your
staff
report.
F
F
However,
I
was
able
to
call
back
the
neighbor
and
she
actually
had
three
concerns
that
I
think
that
I
was
able
to
address.
I
think
she
was
okay
with
my
answers
and
I
think
she
was
understanding
of
what
what
you
know
what
the
applicant
is
requesting.
So
I
think
we're
okay
on
that
one.
The
applicant
should
be
on
the
line
and
he
does
have
a
presentation
for
you.
But
to
reiterate
this
planning
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
the
application.
C
F
C
Is
that,
because
it's
not
a
condition
listed
in
the
staff
report,
is
that
something
that
is
just
required
by
code?
It
is.
F
Ex
right
that
would
just
be
required,
the
tr,
I
believe
the
transportation
engineer
actually
addressed
that
in
his
review.
So
that
would
just
be
a
next
step.
C
P
Wow
that
was
actually
really
good
spot
on
really
yeah.
No,
that's
that's
how
we
say
it
in
our
family,
so.
C
Awesome,
well
then
wonderful!
You
are
up.
I
hear
you
have
a
presentation.
Can
you
share
your
screen
at
this
time?
Absolutely.
C
Once
you
start
your
presentation,
jake
you'll
have
10
minutes.
C
E
C
You
just
removed
him
from
the
oh
there.
He
he
jumped
up.
Okay,
you'll,
have
10
minutes
for
your
presentation,
but
feel
free
not
to
take
that
full
time.
But
the
time
is
yours
now.
P
Wonderful,
thank
you
so
much
and
it
seems
like
I'm
having
some
issues
with
sharing
my
screen.
It's
just
a
short
couple
slide
presentation,
so
I'll
kind
of
go
over
the
bullet
points.
Instead,
the
lot
on
which
we're
requesting
this
plan's
development
and
subdivision
is
an
extra
large
lot
located
within
the
west
side
master
plan.
The
lot
will
be
subdivided
obviously
into
two
lots:
both
roughly
37
and
a
half
feet
in
width
and
as
diana
alluded
to
the
two
modifications
that
we
are
requesting
are
to
that
lot.
P
With
requirements,
as
well
as
to
the
side
yard
setback.
The
shared
drive
aisle
will
lead
to
two
new
proposed
garages
and
we
are
proposing
this
project
because
we
believe
that
it
contributes
to
infill
options,
utilizing
an
extra
large
lot.
P
P
I
I
actually
believe
that
there's
quite
a
few
lots
in
the
area
that
are
roughly
32
to
37
feet
in
width
and
another
thing
that
we
would
like
to
highlight
is
that,
because
of
the
shared
drive
aisle
between
the
two
properties,
even
though
the
the
property
line
will
be
less
than
required
by
code,
there
is
a
significant
difference
between
or
I'm
sorry
a
significant
distance
between
the
two
structures.
Once
the
second
structure
is
built
and
that's
all
I
had
so
any
questions.
C
Okay,
thank
you,
jake,
commissioners,
any
questions
for
the
applicant.
C
Okay,
we
will
open
the
public
comment
period
at
this
time
and
I
do
not
see
any
hands
raised
for
this
nick.
Do
you
see
something?
I
don't
they're
shaded
a
little
hard
to
see
on
my
screen,
so.
C
C
H
Go
ahead,
andrew
based
on
the
information
in
the
staff
report,
the
information
presented
and
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing.
I
move
that
the
commission
approved
the
wasatch
avenue
trust
plan
development,
pln
pcm,
2021-00681.
C
K
C
Amy,
yes,
andra!
Yes,
yes,
all
right!
That
motion
passes
unanimously.
Good
luck!
Mr
military!
You
have
approval
from
the
planning
commission.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
all
right.
Moving
on,
we
have.
The
next
agenda
item
is
the
central
park.
Townhomes
planned
development
at
approximately
1861
south
through
1300
east
case
number,
pln
pcm
2021-00886.
O
Great,
so
this
is
a
request
for
planned
development
and
preliminary
plat
approval
to
construct
five
new
three-story
town
homes
at
approximately
1861,
south
1300,
east
or
1871.
That's
the
proposed
address.
If
this
were
approved,
there
are
three
modifications
that
are
being
requested.
The
first
excuse
me
is
to
modify
the
minimum
lot
width
from
25
feet
to
20
20
feet.
25
is
the
minimum
lot
width
allowed
in
the
rmf
30
district
modifying
the
minimum
lot
size
for
three
units?
This
will
not
affect
the
total
density
of
the
lot,
but
reducing
them
below
the
allowed.
O
O
Of
the
proposed
structure
from
1300
east
they're
planning
to
do
glass
garage
doors,
that's
a
new
feature
that
wasn't
included
in
the
staff
report
and
then
there's
glass
on
the
front
door
as
well.
They've
also
modified
the
landscaping
plan.
A
little
bit
I'll
show
I'll
show
that
when
we
get
further
along
so
we'll
get
to
those
requested
modifications,
here's
the
additional
height
for
five
feet.
O
This
would
be
the
elevation
facing
the
park
and
they're
wanting
the
extra
five
feet
for
railings
or
rooftop
decks,
and
this
is
similar
to
a
project
that
was
approved
by
this
body
on
downington
avenue
and
they
also
have
rooftop
decks
of
a
similar
height.
That
was
a
reason
as
well,
but
resulting
to
this
rmf
30
district.
O
O
Projects
that
could
still
be
approved
that
would
have
similar
impacts
as
the
proposed
project.
The
first
the
applicant
could
submit
through
a
project
for
three
single
family
attached
units
with
the
same
footprint.
Not
much
would
change
other
than
the
density
or
they
could
submit
for
a
five-unit
multi-family
building
with
a
10-foot
setback
at
the
north.
I've
tried
to
illustrate
here
what
that
would
look
like
okay,
so
our
recommendation,
the
first
was
for
a
pedestrian
walkway
from
1300
east
there's,
always
a
spelling
error
in
our
typo
and
air
and
staff
reports.
O
I
fought
south
in
the
staff
report,
but
it
is
1300
east
from
the
sidewalk
through
here
to
keep
pedestrian
traffic
from
those
drive
entries
and
keep
it
out
here
for
people
coming
and
going
from
the
proposed
project
and
they're
complying
with
that.
O
As
you
can
see
here,
there's
also
it
modified
the
landscape
plan
and
they're
putting
polar
trees
along
this
south
elevation
zelkova's,
which
can
get
up
to
30
something
feet
tall
and
there's
the
location
of
those
zelkovas.
So
again,
our
recommendation,
my
recommendation
is
approval
with
the
with
that
condition
for
the
pathway
which
wasn't
submitted
at
the
time
of
the
publishing
of
the
staff
report,
and
that's
it.
C
Okay,
thanks
erin
any
questions
for
staff.
At
this
time.
H
Can
I
ask
a
question:
this
looks
to
me
like
a
great
project,
I'm
really
concerned
by
the
amount
of
green
grass
in
the
project.
Is
that
something
we
can
put
as
a
conditional
use
that
we
require
zeros?
I
mean
we're
paying
people
right
now
to
take
out
this
green
grass,
and
yet
so
I'm
confused
as
to
why
we're
putting
in
renderings
with
this
much
green
grass.
O
A
condition
would
have
to
be
in
line
with
one
of
the
standards
so
under
those
landscaping
standards
and
the
staff
report.
If
you
can
find
something
in
there
that
gels
with
those
standards,
then
that
would
fit.
But
you
can
see
here
it
looks
like
they're
really
going
for
a
shrub
look.
Those
are
a
lot
of
ornamental
grasses
and
shrubs
here
in
this
area
between
1300
east
and
the
building
so
I'll,
let
chris
manning
or
rick
plew.
Whoever
is
going
to
speak
on
this
kind
of
answer
that
question
for
you.
C
C
Okay,
so
once
you
get
sharing
ability
and
start
your
presentation,
you
will
have
10
minutes.
Q
All
right,
can
you
see
that
yes
see
that
okay
perfect
all
right,
so
we
will
address
the
the
landscaping
issue
shortly.
That
was
brought
up
previously.
Q
Q
We
had
a
duplex
located
right
here
and
then
there's
a
triplex
located
right
here,
and
we
just
wanted
to
note
that
you
know
we're
basically
replacing
five
units
with
five
units.
Q
I
hope
that
that
kind
of
makes
sense
and
and
rings
a
bell-
the
next
issue
that
we've
had
that
people
have
brought
up
I'll
go
to
here.
This
screen
is,
is
pulling
out
on
a
13th
east.
Q
We
know
it's
a
busy
road,
especially
in
the
morning,
and
you
know
at
midday
and
in
the
afternoon,
and
so
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
this
circular
driveway
is
understood
that
people
will
be
entering
from
this
south
side,
they'll
be
able
to
pull
in
their
garages
and
then
they'll
be
able
to
exit
up
here
on
the
north
side
safely
going
forward
without
having
to
look
around
these,
you
know
backing
out
into
the
traffic
that
can
be
an
issue.
Q
Q
E
C
B
Okay,
great
yeah,
so
we
do
have
a
shade
study
I'll
bring
that
up
in
just
a
second.
I
wanted
to
just
quickly
touch
base
on
the
lawn
comment.
As
aaron
mentioned,
this
is
predominantly
shrubs
and
ornamental
grasses.
The
only
we
only
have
a
total
of
733
square
feet
of
lawn
and
those
panels
are
in
the
backyards
of
the
site
and
those
are
basically
just
use,
so
very,
very
small
area
for
overall
lawn
and
then,
as
far
as
the
shade
study,
what
we've
done
is
we've
created.
C
B
But
in
order
to
fulfill
the
requirement
we've
gone
ahead
and
gone
through
this
so
march
is,
is
the
probably
the
the
one
time
where
we
really
come
furthest
out
into
the
road
we
do
not
reach
across
to
the
to
the
neighbors,
which
we
felt
was
a
good
thing.
That's
at
nine
a.m
noon!
It's
about
like
this,
so
on
and
so
forth.
We
do
stretch
it
out
a
little
bit
here
april.
It's
very
similar.
B
May
becomes
less
june
even
less
july,
even
less
august,
we
start
to
come
back.
A
little
bit.
September
comes
back
a
little
bit
and
then,
in
october
the
really
the
only
major
shade
difference
goes
back
into
the
park
and
again,
we've
got
large.
Mature
trees
are
buffered
all
around.
B
We
do
not
feel
that
this
would
impact
any
of
the
native
plants
simply
because,
if
they're,
if
those
trees
are
already
there,
anything
that
is
going
to
show
up
natively
is
already
well
adapted
to
shade
and
so
any
additional
shade
that
we're
going
to
be
providing
from
the
building
should
be
minimal
as
far
as
impact
any
any
habitat.
So
we
felt
pretty
good
about
this,
and
hopefully
this
is
meeting
the
desired
intent
of
your
request
on
that.
Q
All
right,
we
would
like
to
now
open
it
up
for
questions.
Okay
for
anybody
else.
C
B
B
And
with
by
standard,
they
have
to
be
at
25
feet
and
they're.
Looking
for
a
modification
to
go
down
to
20
feet.
Is
that
correct.
B
B
C
Okay,
thanks
andreas,
so
erin
can
you
bring
up
the
rendering.
O
I'm
happy
too
can
nick
or
opry
oh
there.
I
am
thank
you.
C
Okay,
so
to
the
applicant,
I
know
the
renderings
can
always
not
necessarily
show
everything
you
want,
but
you
know
one
of
the
things
that,
during
my
time
on
the
planning
commission,
which
is
coming
up
on
four
years,
we've
paid
a
lot
of
attention
to
how
we're
engaging
the
street.
C
I'm
never
a
fan
of
garages
being
what's
engaging
to
the
street.
But
I
understand
there
are
certain
lots
that
it
just
has
to
happen
this
way,
but
we've
also
paid
really
close
attention
to
the
home's
entrances
so
they're,
not
just
they
don't
look
like
just
a
door
on
the
side
of
the
building,
and
this
rendering
feels
like
that
to
me,
I
feel
like
you
need
to
do
better
for
the
actual
home
entrances
to
make
them
look
inviting
and
appealing
to
the
street,
and
so
what
else
do
you
think
you
can
do
here?
Q
Alrighty
yeah,
so
so,
regarding
that
we've
been
discussing
that
with
aaron
and
which
we
find
you
know
adding
that
side,
light
in
that
that
can
help
that
you
know
that
straightscape
view
as
you're
walking
along
the
sidewalk
and-
and
I
think,
including
the
glass
garage
doors,
also
are
very,
very
appealing.
Q
You
know,
I
think
it's
I
think
it
draws
your
attention
and
especially
you
know,
on
the
on
the
doors
now
they
you
know,
they
get
them
to
look
really
well
really
good.
We
also
have.
O
Q
The
railing
and
then
the
decks
that
can
also
you
know,
help
from
that
add
interest
to
that
street
streetscape
view.
C
Yeah,
I
think
the
railings
are
nice.
I
just
think
it
it.
I
dislike
having
the
garages,
be
such
a
prominent
visual
focal
point
that
the
the
entrance
to
the
actual
home
the
doors-
don't
I
don't
see
them
as
much,
and
I
don't
find
them
appealing
and
that's
something
that
we've
really
tried
to
pay
a
lot
of
attention
to
and
in
plan
developments
and
and
whatnot
that
we're
having
some
that
it's
actually
inviting.
C
So
I'd
like
to
some
things
that
you
can
do
to
decrease
the
visual
importance
of
those
garages
and
emphasize
it
on
the
the
actual
door
entrance
would
be
a
very
nice
thing.
Whatever
your
project
ends
up
being,
they
pay
attention
to
that.
K
Yeah,
I
would
agree
with
amy.
I
think
that
that's
there
could
be
a
lot
more
thought
into
the
hierarchy
of
the
way
that
you
would
enter
in
the
procession
from
the
street
to
the
the
front
doors
of
these
units.
K
K
Facade
could
be
simplified
a
little
bit
more,
maybe
reducing
the
number
of
material
changes,
and
I
think
that
would
help
with
the
scale,
maybe
changing
the
material
at
the
entry,
so
that
you
have
an
indicator
of
where
the
entrance
is,
but
then
making
the
upper
level
feel
heavier,
because
that
that's
the
main
portion
of
the
building
would,
I
think,
help
a
lot
with
this
composition.
So.
E
Madam
chair,
this
is
nick.
Can
I
ask
a
question
looking
at
the
rendering
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
where
the
door
is
to
the
unit
on
the
right,
it
doesn't
look
like
it
shows
up
on
the
rendering,
and
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
that's
accurate.
E
O
The
door
is
actually
set
back
on
lot.
Five
and
rmf
30
does
not
have
garage
standards
like
single
family
districts
do
for
like
we,
we
require.
You
can't
have
the
projecting
garage
so
zoning
wise,
yes,
but
design
wise
kind
of
development
standards
wise.
That
could
be
an
issue.
C
I'm
definitely
not
trying
to
hold
them
to
a
higher
degree
that
we've
held
other
projects
in
the
past.
I
actually
am
trying
to
be
consistent
with
how
the
planning
commission
has
been
viewing
these
types
of
projects
during
my
time,
which
is
all
I
can
go
on.
C
Okay
with
that,
we
will
move
on
and
we'll
do
a
public
comment
period
and
I'll.
Allow
you
the
applicant
to
address
anything
that
comes
up
during
that
time.
So
I'm
going
to
open
the
public
comment
period.
If
you
are
in
attendance
and
you
wish
to
speak,
please
raise
your
hand
in
the
lower
right
hand.
Portion
you'll
be
called
upon.
C
Is
the
community
council
is
judy?
Okay,
so
we'll
start
with
judy
all
the
other
comments.
Please
state
your
name
for
the
record
when
you're
called
upon
and
then
you
will
have
two
minutes.
This
is
a
public
comment
period.
We
don't
stop
for
a
back
and
forth
q
a.
However,
if
you
have
questions
the
two
minutes
is
your
time.
I
will
be
writing
down
any
questions
that
come
up
and
then
I
will
pose
them
to
the
applicant
or
staff
once
I
close
the
public
comment
period.
So
feel
free
to
ask
them.
C
We
just
won't
stop
for
a
back
and
forth
time
period.
Okay,
with
that
nick
go
ahead
and
start.
R
R
R
R
The
patio
on
the
west
side
is
fine
for
a
barbecue
or
having
a
drink,
but
the
traffic
might
be
too
intense
to
make
it
really
desirable.
Most
of
the
time
the
greenery
along
the
front,
sidewalk
doesn't
seem
to
be
inviting
between
the
street
and
the
garage
door
and
the
rooftop
rooftop
decks
invade
the
privacy
of
the
neighbors
on
westminster,
avenue,
mr
manning
indicates
he'll
save
some
of
the
trees.
In
fact,
nearly
every
tree
that
was
on
the
two
parcels
is
gone,
he's
not
adding
a
bus
stop.
R
R
A
planned
development
needs
to
achieve
one
of
the
five
objectives.
This
doesn't
meet
the
preservation
of
open
space
and
natural
lands.
All
the
trees
have
been
already
removed,
rather
than
planting
the
development
around
existing
trees.
The
development
comes
right
to
the
edge
of
the
redeveloped
parcel,
rather
than
being
an
enhancement
to
the
park.
R
There
was
no
attempt
to
preserve
restore,
come
up
with
an
adaptive
reuse
of
the
buildings
they
were
just
removed.
The
building's
scale
of
this
project
is
way
out
of
touch
with
the
development
historic
development
pattern
of
this
neighborhood.
It
doesn't
give
a
single
nod
to
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
R
This
parcel
is
in
a
wonderful
part
of
sugar
house
next
to
allen
park
and
across
from
westminster
college
there's
terrific
architecture
all
around
and
the
bungalows
are
wonderful.
This
project
the
parcel,
could
have
three
tastefully
designed
townhomes
on
them
that
fit
the
size
scale
and
feel
of
the
area
while
adding
to
the
character.
R
He
has
said
these
will
be
much
better
than
the
units
on
the
north.
I
we're
not
sure
that
a
19
to
20
foot
wide
unit
is
better.
His
lot
size
is
equal
to
that
of
the
downington
unit,
but
the
units
are
much
smaller.
Please
deny
the
request
for
a
planned
unit
development
and
deny
the
request
for
a
subdivision.
C
Oh
we're
not
we're
not
finished
with
the
public
hearing
yet.
D
Thank
you.
My
comments
tonight
fall
into
two
categories:
practical
and
conceptual.
First,
the
practical
ones.
A
normal
person
does
not
use
a
garage
exclusively
for
parking
at
best,
one
car
will
be
in
the
garage.
We
know
this
any
off-site
parking,
further
compromises,
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
the
park
number
two
by
exploiting
the
site.
The
developer
is
exacerbating
the
challenges
associated
with
infill
construction.
D
The
construction
phase
will
either
impact
the
park
the
public
street
already
jammed
with
traffic
or
the
neighbors.
We
know
this
additionally,
at
a
more
conceptual
level,
the
mass
of
the
proposed
building
is
misplaced.
On
the
interior
of
the
block,
the
staff
report
makes
frequent
comparisons
to
the
townhouses
on
downington
and
13th
east.
They
are
on
a
corner,
whereas
1861
is
next
to
open
space
and
a
single
family
zone,
it's
very
different
than
the
existing
townhouses
gestalt.
Psychology
is
about
the
whole
relative
of
the
sum
of
the
parts.
D
F
Thank
you
since
I'm
here.
I
guess
I'll
comment.
This
is
jen
colby.
I
live
in
district
four.
I
wanna
concur
with
the
chair's
comments
about
the
garages
facing
street
the
street
and
the
streetscape,
and
I
would
say
that
this
I
I
can't
believe
this
is
being
proposed
in
2021
as
a
urban
form,
even
though
it
has
to
do
with
parking
regulations
and
the
fact
that
we
seem
to
be
incapable
of
getting
people
to
have
options
besides
driving
that
kills
walkability.
F
It's
unbelievably
depressing
to
see
this
as
a
proposal,
and
I
am
trying
to
understand
if
the
house's
existing
houses
have
already
been
demolished.
I
concur
with
the
sugar
house
community
council's
comments
regarding
the
mind-boggling
waste
of
taking
five
existing
units
that
could
be
rehabilitated
that
are
already
affordable
and
already
built
out
that
it
fit
the
neighborhood
very
well
and
convert
them
into
this
sort
of
I
mean
it's
like
we
faced
some
sort
of
equivalent
of
a
redo
of
60-0
soviet
design
being
brought
to
us
by
market
forces
in
the
united
states.
F
I
just
can't
understand
what
is
happening
to
our
community.
This
is
the
last
kind
of
project
we
want
to
encourage
people
to
be
buying
up
as
real
estate
speculators,
older
houses
in
the
neighborhoods
we've
seen
these
articles
about
how
much
money
is
floating
around
here
and
proposing
these
kind
of
projects
that
only
increase
the
cost
of
housing
do
not
fit
the
neighborhood
and
just
undermine
the
character
of
our
city.
I
I'm
stunned
that
this
has
gotten
this
far
and
that
anyone
thinks
this
is
acceptable
for
our
neighborhood.
F
I
highly
recommend
there
are
many
good
urban
videos
out
there.
I've
gotten
down
a
rabbit
hole
with
not
just
bikes
about
amsterdam
and
dutch
planning.
We
are
so
far
behind.
We
have
a,
I
can't
believe,
what's
happening
to
our
city
and
I'm
extremely
disappointed,
and
this
should
be
denied
flat
out
and
we
need
a
much
better
proposal
and
if
the
houses
are
still
existing,
I
would
hope
this
person
would
just
sell
out.
Let
somebody
else
take
do
the
right
thing
and
go
find
a
screenshot.
F
E
All
right
next
on
the
list
in
order
of
appearance
is
casey
o'brien,
mcdonough
casey.
You
are
unmuted.
L
There
there
we
go
made,
it
happen,
hey
thanks.
Thanks
for
letting
me
speak
tonight,
I
I
live
in
the
avenues,
but
I
drive
past
this
project,
often
taking
my
daughter
back
and
forth
from
highland,
and
I
was
listening
to
all
the
presentations.
I
just
want
to
make
a
few
notes.
So
it's
interesting,
I
think,
when
developers
bring
up
what
was
on
the
lot
as
an
existing
structure,
which
we
all
know
very
well
is
gone,
so
I
I
find
it
a
little
bit
disingenuous
to
say
that.
L
Well,
we
had
five
units
before
and
we're
getting
five
units
because
we're
talking
about
apples
and
oranges,
I
say
that
because
you
know
we're
talking
about
giving
them
more,
giving
them
extra,
more
height,
more
density
in
trade,
for
for
what
was
there,
the
historic
fabric
of
the
of
the
city
next
to
allen
park
and
historic
park?
And
so
I
don't,
I
don't
think
that's
a
good
trade,
and
on
top
of
that,
I
think
when
we
look
at
the
buildings
having
the
height
having
decks
on
top
of
the
roofs
it
it
doesn't.
L
L
They
can
make
plenty
of
money
with
what
they
bought
and
what
it's
currently
zoned.
I
think,
if
you're
going
to
give
them
extra,
it
should
be
a
much
more
well-designed
product
project
without
garage
doors
facing
the
street,
possibly
with
less
density,
but
maybe
you
give
them
the
the
height
for
the
the
rooftop
units.
Maybe
they
could
spend
more
money
and
put
the
garages
underneath,
like
you
see,
on
projects
on
the
corner
of
17th,
south
and
northeast,
so
I
would
I
would,
as
a
resident
salt
lake
city
I
would.
L
L
Thank
you
good
evening,
everybody.
I
just
wanted
to
echo
what
casey
o'brien
mcdonough
said
as
well
as
judy
short
and
everybody
else
who
just
spoke
just
to
say
this.
Planned
development
does
not
meet
the
master
plan
for
sugar
house
and
basically,
the
preservation
portion
of
what
we
want
to
do
with
our
community.
L
L
L
L
The
existing
prescott
mirrors
structure
on
the
corner
of
downington
and
13th
east.
I
believe
that
they
wanted
to
build
four
units
there
in
the
planning.
Commission
only
allowed
three,
I'm
not
sure
about
that,
but
it
just
seems
like
that.
If
you
have
three
units
that
aren't
trying
to
excessively
consume
every
cubic
inch
of
space
and
fill
it
with
concrete
and
cut
out
sunlight
to
the
park,
I
understand
the
shade
study
was
minimal,
stand
there
and
watch
a
sunset
at
night
and
then
tell
me
how
minimal
that
is,
and
what
we're
going
to
be
missing.
L
E
O
E
My
screen
just
jumped
all
over,
is
it
baya
brennan?
Hopefully
I
pronounce
your
name
right.
I
apologize
if
not,
but
you
are
unmuted.
B
B
Thea
brannon
perfect:
I
I'm
a
member
of
friends
of
allen
park
and
participated
in
trying
to
help
save
the
park.
I
really
feel
that
this
development
is
completely
unsuited.
It
encroaches
onto
the
park
far
more
than
the
the
the
development
on
the
north
side,
which
is
buffered
by
the
creek
and
a
whole
bunch
of
trees.
B
These
people
have
have
put
out
a
design
which
I
think
actually
is
a
pretty
probably
a
pretty
cut-rate
architectural
design
that
doesn't
serve
the
neighborhood
is
completely
inappropriate
top
heavy.
It's
just
plain
hacky
and
you
know.
Maybe
it
belongs
on
the
west
side,
where
all
the
modern
stuff
is,
but
it
really
doesn't
work
and
it's
on
an
extremely
busy
street.
B
B
C
Okay,
with
that,
I
will
close
the
public
comment
period,
I'm
going
to
bring
it
back
to
the
commission,
I'm
going
to
make
a
couple
comments
and
then
I'll.
Let
the
applicant
respond
to
some
of
those
comments.
First
of
all,
the
question
of
downington
originally
wanting
four
units.
They.
That
proposal
was
always
three.
I
I
was
on
the
plane
commission
when
that
came
before.
So
I
remember
that
one.
I
want
to
clarify
that.
C
You
know
if
this
petition
is
denied
tonight
we're
not
stopping
the
development
of
this
lot.
We
may
determine
that
this
particular
project
is
not
suitable,
based
on
what
they're
asking
for,
which
is
a
reduction
of
the
lot
size
to
20
feet
and
an
extra
five
feet
for
the
back
patio
for
railings.
C
So
the
building
itself
is
at
30
feet
which
is
allowed
by
zoning.
We
don't
have
the
option
to
determine
if
that
is,
you
know
too
high,
because
that's
what's
allowed,
so
I
want
to
just
make
that
clarification.
So
when
the
planning
commission
starts
its
discussion
and
we
look
at
the
legal
standards
that
we
have
to
use
to
apply
to
our
reasoning
that
we
kind
of
keep
that
in
mind-
and
we
don't
have
discussions
that
are
a
little
outside
of
our
purview.
C
Okay
with
that,
I
would
send
this
back
to
chase
and
if
you
would
like
to
take
a
few
minutes
to
address
some
of
the
comments
that
came
up
then
I'll.
Let
you
do
that
now.
Q
All
righty,
thank
you.
Aaron.
Do
you
have
anything
off
the
top
of
your
head
that
you're
wanting
to
share
in
response
to
any
of
those.
O
I
I
don't
I'll
just
move
it
to
whatever
you
want
want
me
to
direct
it
to
or
you
can
take
control.
You
know
you
can
use
your
presentation.
Q
Okay,
thank
you.
Oh
yeah,
could
you
start
off
with
your
other
slide,
showing
if
we
were
to
do
three
or
four
units?
Q
Q
So
as
we
go
by
the
zone
and
and
what
the
code
and
standards
show,
we
could
do
basically
the
same
building
with
one
less
unit.
We
could
do
five
apartments
by
right
as
well,
which
would
also
maintain
the
same
amount
of
traffic
for
five
units
and
and
so
on.
Q
Alrighty
we
just
want
to
thank
everybody
for
their
comments
and
and
for
bringing
these
things
up
to
our
attention.
We
know
we're
aware
of
of
the
general
feeling
of
everything,
but
we
know
that
these
units
can
can
drastically
help
the
neighborhood.
C
Okay,
thank
you
I'll.
Take
you
to
the
planning
commission
now.
This
is
the
time
if
you
have
comments
or
thoughts
or
additional
questions.
Let's
have
a
discussion.
B
Very
nice
project,
but
I
think
a
nice
project
can
become
a
great
project
when
some
more
time
is
spent
on
it
and
kind
of
modify
some
things
to
put
some
things
together,
perhaps
to
even
reach
out
to
the
community
councils
that
it
involves
to
get
some
input.
I
mean
I
think
it
can
be
a
better
project.
In
my
view,
I
you
know
the
sentiment
is
you
know
the
garage
doors,
the
introducible?
H
A
little
bit
yes
go
ahead,
so
I
I
do
understand
people's
concerns
about
the
garage
door.
I
am
concerned
about
the
additional
cost
we
are
imposing
on
the
developers
when
we
send
things
back
again
and
again
and
again
for
a
further
review.
H
It
might
not
be
be
obvious,
but
this
does
raise
the
price
point
at
which
they
sell
these,
which
indirectly
affects
the
rents
on
all
the
other
structures
in
the
neighborhood,
and
so
I
am
concerned
about
sort
of
this
sort
of
form
of
land
use
regulation
because
it
does
affect
affordability
fairly
substantially
and
the
research
on
that
is
incredibly
clear.
H
H
C
I'll
just
state
that,
first
of
all,
I
my
view
on
that,
is
we
get
like
one
chance
at
this?
Whatever
the
lot
is,
could
be
any
lot
we're
only
going
to
see
this
development
once
in
our
lifetime.
So
I
agree
that
if
we
were
sending
something
back
multiple
times
over
and
over
and
over,
that
would
be
a
concern,
but
if
we
feel
a
project
is
really
not
hitting
the
mark,
it
is
better
to
send
it
back
and
and
help
the
developer
preserve
their
place
in
line
in
the
queue
so
they're
not
starting
over.
C
Rather,
if
the
option
is
we
deny
it
or
we
send
it
back
for
some
modifications,
it's
probably
in
their
their
best
interest
to
send
it
back
versus
denying
it.
But
those
are
questions
for
every
development,
so
I'm
not
pointing
this
one
out,
but
I
don't
want
commissioners
to
feel
like
you
know,
we
want
to
fast-track
things
because
of
this,
that
and
the
other
we
want
to
have
good
projects
and
I
think
everybody's
showing
that
they're
committed
to
that
as
well.
C
I
personally
am
not
in
favor
of
the
five
feet
in
height
extension,
I
think
a
railing
is
fairly
unimposing
in
terms
of
height,
but
I
don't
think
a
rooftop
deck
is
appropriate
use
for
this
spot.
Given
the
single
family
homes
along
westminster,
the
the
downington
project
didn't
have
that
as
an
as
a
constraint.
So
that's
kind
of
my
thoughts,
but
you
know
I'm
not
voting
tonight.
C
N
This
is
amy
burroughs.
I
just
want
to
say
allen
park
is
an
absolute
treasure
when
you
drove
past
there
and
there
were
these
weird
little
houses
here
which
are
gone
now,
you
kind
of
looked
at
it
and
thought.
What
is
that?
I
would
love
to
find
out
what
is
going
on
over
there,
and
I
think
now
this
this
part
of
allen
park.
If
you've
been
there,
it's
right,
it's
front
and
center
it.
N
It
looks
like
it
feels
like
it's
part
of
the
park,
and
I
think
looking
at
this
drawing
you
kind
of
wonder
what
is
that
a
dentist
office
or
what
is
this
building?
And
I
just
think
they're,
like
someone
said
before,
there's
just
not
a
good
enough
trade-off
to
give
additional
height
and
additional.
N
You
know
narrower
widths
when
what
is
the
neighborhood
getting
westminster
across
the
street
is
beautiful
and
it's
a
treasure
this
this
seems
to
be
like
not
like
it
doesn't,
doesn't
belong.
That's
what
I
think.
K
Yeah
I'll
kind
of
second,
the
the
the
initial
comments
from
amy
is
with
with
price
the
market
drives
the
price,
not
necessarily
them
having
to
design
something
again.
K
For
first
aid,
so
yeah-
and
I
I
I'm
a
fan
of
contemporary
design,
but
this
is
just
kind
of
a
copy
of
a
copy
of
the
copy.
I
don't
see
a
unique
approach
to
this.
I
don't
see
taking
the
care
and
time
it
takes
to
see
the
context
of
the
city
around
it.
K
I
don't
see
it
trying
to
speak
to
the
park
really
in
any
way,
which
would
is
a
huge
missed
opportunity
I
I'm
always
for
height,
but
in
this
instance
I'm
on
the
fence
with
it,
because
if
it
was
done
in
a
way
that
was
helping
to
accentuate
the
park
and
add
a
feature
to
this
part
of
town,
that
would
be
a
lot
different
than
just
a
copy
of
what
seems
to
be
an
attempt
at
modernism.
But
it's
it's
missing
the
mark.
So
that's
my
two
cents.
H
Based
on
the
findings
and
information
listed
in
the
staff
report
and
the
testimony
and
plans
presented,
I
move
that
the
planning
commission
approved
the
plan
development
request
for
the
central
park.
Townhouses
p,
l
n,
p
c
m
two:
zero:
two
one
dash
zero
zero,
eight,
eight
six
and
preliminary
subdivision
p:
l,
n
s:
u
b
2021-008.
C
B
C
E
C
Andra,
yes,
maureen,
no!
Okay.
That
motion
fails
in
a
vote
from
four
no
and
two.
Yes,
I
do
need
a
an
action,
so
I
will
need
an
alternate
motion,
I'll
I'll
try
to
make
it
for
you.
Thank
you.
F
F
C
B
C
John
yes
and
maureen:
yes,
yes,
okay.
That
motion
passes
four
to
four
yeses
and
two
no's:
okay,
so
that
that
project
was
denied
and
moving
on
to
the
next
agenda
item,
we
have
stealth
towers
text
amendment.
H
Can
I
can,
I
ask,
is
it
possible
for
us
to
take
a
five
or
ten
minute
break?
Would
that
be
possible.
C
N
Amy
I'm
here
can
I
leave
my
camera
off
while
I'm
eating.
Yes,
thank
you.
C
Okay,
I
will
do
that.
I'm
here
thanks
all
right,
we're
just
waiting
for
andreas,
although
we
have
a
quorum
without
him,
but
we
definitely
want
to.
C
O
So
I
go
over
a
definition
of
what
exactly
are
stealth
towers
and
their
antennas
completely
disguised
as
another
object,
otherwise
concealed
from
view,
so
they,
the
intended
use,
is
concealed
by
the
appearance
of
the
facility,
for
example,
this
water
tower
to
the
right
to
qualify
this
tower.
It
must
conform
with
the
dimensions
of
the
intended
disguise
and
it
must
be
in
concert
with
its
surroundings.
O
Currently,
stealth
towers
are
permitted
in
all
districts
if
they
meet
the
lot
and
bulk
standards
of
a
given
district,
and
that
includes
height
exceptions
such
as
flagpoles
church,
steeples
stadium
lighting,
there's
a
few
others
in
that
section.
Chapter
21a,
36.
O
So
a
few
things
about
the
public
lands
zoning
district,
where
this
request
is
located,
it
usually
has
individual
lots
or
a
small
cluster
of
lots.
O
It's
often
integrated
with
other
districts,
specifically
smaller
scale
districts
like
single
family,
small,
small
height
commercial
districts,
maybe
rmf
30,
not
usually
larger
districts
and
in
those
larger
scale
districts,
the
cell
towers
can
be
placed
on
top
of
buildings
so
but
on
those
large
districts,
the
public
use
is
usually
allowed.
O
O
Here's
a
height
comparison.
This
tree
is
just
for
illustration
purposes.
Stealth
tower
could
be
anything
but
just
a
kind
of
a
visual
to
see
the
height
of
the
proposed
tower
compared
to
surrounding
saloning
districts,
districts
that
usually
surround
the
pl
district
and
then
staff's
recommendation
is
to
forward
in
for
the
planning
commission
to
afford
a
negative
recommendation
to
the
city
council.
Regarding
this
proposal,
I
just
wanted
to
go
over
some
of
our
rationale
for
this
denial
as
proposed
there.
O
It
creates
unpredictable
outcomes
as
far
as
new
buildings,
our
new
towers
and
what
they
can
look
like.
The
stealth
tower
definition
is
pretty
open,
and
while
this
applicant
is
specifically
asking
for
a
tree
at
the
police
precinct
at
the
pioneer
police
precinct
at
700
west,
there
are
other
things
that
could
potentially
be
put
up.
That
could
be
out
of
character
with
a
neighborhood
like
an
extra
tall,
elevator
shaft,
elevator
bulkhead
as
discussed.
You
know,
it's
out
of
scale
surrounding
development,
allowing
75-foot
towers
in
these
districts
is
still
going
to
impact
non-public
lands.
Districts.
O
The
table
has
some
confusing
what
can
and
can't
be
allowed,
and
then
this
proposal
also
is
not
comprehensive
regarding
cell
towers-
and
you
know,
staff
is
aware
that
some
of
the
stealth
towers
need
some
updating,
but
that
requires
you
know
comprehensive
work,
I'm
looking
at
the
holistic
view
of
what
the
community
needs
and
what
providers
need,
and
at
the
moment,
staff
resources
are
have
been
directed
elsewhere
by
elected
officials,
and
so
with
this
request,
staff
was
unable
to
really
provide
the
full
analysis
that
would
be
needed
for
a
request
like
this,
and
that
concludes
my
report.
C
Okay,
any
questions
from
commissioners
for
staff.
H
I
have
a
quick
question
regarding
this
conditional
use
and
it's
more
clarification.
H
I
am
sympathetic
to
the
concern
of
limited
staffing
resources
to
support
each
of
these,
and
what
can
somebody
clarify-
and
this
has
come
up-
we've
seen
a
ton
of
these
adu
applications
where
it
seems
like
we
are
devoting
a
lot
of
staff
time
to
kind
of
reviewing
a
very
small
kind
of
change.
Can
can
you
review
exactly
what
this
conditional
use
means.
E
Find
reason
to
deny
them
and
it's
harder
the
way
our
zoning
code
is
written
with
so
many
standards
that
those
standards
are
oftentimes
intended
to
already
mitigate
the
types
of
impacts
that
a
conditional
use
is
looking
at,
and
so
normally
we
what
we
we
get
roughly
about
25
to
30
conditional
use
applications
every
year,
but
we
get
about
the
equal
amount
of
conditions,
applications
for
adu.
So
over
the
last
three
years
our
applications
have
doubled
most
of
the
ones
that
we
get
that
are
not
adus
are
either
cell
towers,
auto
related
uses
or
alcohol.
E
Related
establishments
bars
things
like
that
it
takes
about
between
60
and
70
staff,
hours
per
application
to
process
plus
finding
commission
time
which,
as
the
planning
commission,
is
well
aware,
when
agendas
are
have
a
lot
of
items
on
it,
it
delays
other
projects
and
other
proposals
as
well,
and
when
there's
minimal
impact
that
the
commission
may
have
on
an
application,
it
does
raise
the
question
as
to
whether
or
not
it's
worth
taking
something
through
a
process
like
this
or,
if
there's
a
better
way
to
do
it.
H
E
So
the
the
requirement,
the
requirement
that
they
have
to
be
approved
if
an
impact
can
be
reduced,
is
a
state
requirement.
It's
a
city,
ordinance
that
says,
if
they're
in
a
residential
zone
or
next
to
a
residential
use,
then
they
have
to
go
to
the
planning
commission,
so
the
city
could
change
that
if
they
felt
it
it
was,
it
was
warranted.
E
B
C
Okay
with
that,
I
will
bring
it
to
the
applicant,
meaning
it's
pizza,
simmons.
S
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair.
Thank
you,
members
of
the
commission.
Just
to
yeah
before
you
deny
it
is
a
application
to
amend
the
texting,
to
allow
for
stealth
facilities
up
to
75
feet
in
the
pl
zone.
Just
to
kind
of
give
you
a
little
bit
of
history.
Of
how
we
got
to
this
point
is
back
in
2018.
I
started
this
physical
project
working
and
looking
into
the
area
around
where
our
pioneer
precinct
is.
We
approached
the
city
about
swapping
out
one
of
the
light
poles
in
jordan
park.
S
S
So
that's
when
I
looked
at
that
location
notice
that
there
is
a
pretty
good
stand
of
monopod
or
pine
trees
in
that
area,
tallest
being
63
feet,
63
feet
in
height,
and
so
we
initially
proposed
an
80-foot
model.
Pine
in
that
area
went
to
staff
talked
to
them
about
that,
and
this
was
back
in
18
staff
didn't
see
an
issue
with
it.
We
then
proceeded
to
work
with
the
city
on
preparing
an
agreement
with
verizon
as
well
as
we
started
on
construction
drawings
for
that
facility,
because,
as
we
know,
permitted
uses
are
our
stealth.
S
S
We
did
that
all
the
different
departments
were
fine
with
what
was
being
proposed,
but
we
did
have
to
reach
out
to
the
planning
director
because,
as
the
state
as
the
city
codes
requires,
the
director
is
basically
the
one
that
approves
the
stealth
designs,
and
so
we
did
we.
We
approached
this
we
reached
out
to
joel
patterson.
At
the
time
we
talked
to
him.
That's
when
we
were
informed
that,
based
on
current
code,
you
are
limited
to
35
feet
and,
unfortunately,
based
on
current
code,
there
is
no
available
height
exceptions
for
stealth
facilities.
S
Currently,
right
now
you
have
out
of
let's
see,
I
think,
there's
five
varying
the
height
exceptions,
one
being
chimneys
to
another,
being
church,
steeples,
elevator,
shaft,
flagpole,
light
pole
and
mechanical
parapet,
and
so
unfortunately,
none
of
those
address
dressed
model,
pines
water
towers
or
any
other
type
of
stealth
facility.
And
so
that's
when
we
were
told
really.
S
Unfortunately,
we
would
be
limited
to
35
feet,
but
you
know
I
could
put
a
monopole
in
a
manufacturing
zone
within
the
district
or
in
the
commercial
zone
up
to
100
feet
and
I
have
in
the
city
of
salt
lake.
S
So
as
we
continued
forward
through
that
process,
we
talked
to
staff
about
what
to
do
next.
At
the
time
we
were
informed
that
you
know,
probably
a
good
option
would
be.
It
would
be
to
amend
the
code
to
see
what,
if
we
try,
allow
stealth
facilities-
or
you
know,
initiate
them
in
the
height
extensions
area
to
allow
us
to
get
a
little
bit
higher
height
as
we
started
going
down
that
down
that
path
and
again,
when
we
talked
to
the
staff
at
the
time
too,
they
were
informed
that
you
know.
S
S
Initially,
we
came
in
with
a
proposal
to
allow
stealth
facilities
as
a
permitted
use
in
all
zone
districts,
and
then
we
look
limited
to
60
feet
because
in
talking
with
verizon's
rf
engineers,
60
feet
was
kind
of
the
was
the
height
that
we
would.
We
could
work
with
because,
as
you've
seen
in
the
staff
report,
that's
that
you
were
represented.
S
We
provided
some
mapping
that
showed
the
varying
height
starting
at
80
feet
and
going
down
from
there
showing
down
to
30
feet
and,
as
you
can
see
going
through
those
slides
as
you
get
a
smaller
lower
in
height,
that
network
providing
the
service
that
we're
providing
starts
to
shrink
and
therefore,
and
ultimately,
what
that
means
is,
as
I
go
lower
in
height,
that
means
I'm
going
to
have
to
put
up
more
towers
in
in
that
area
to
provide
the
needed
service
that
verizon
and
their
customers
are
looking
for
when
they're
paying
their
bills
on
a
monthly
basis.
S
So
we
went
down
that
path.
We
provided
that
the
the
text
amendment
for
the
permitted
use
of
all
zones,
60
feet
started
started
getting
some
cons
comments
from
staff.
We
started
getting
comments
from
different
community
councils
that
we
had
went
and
attended
to,
and
the
bottom
line
is,
I
think
you
know
the
bottom
line
that
we
had
heard
was
you
know
really?
The
community
wanted
to
have
the
ability
to
have
a
say
in
what
was
being
presented.
S
You
know
to
see
that
the
industry
do
something
like
that,
and
so
we
took
all
that
information
that
we'd
heard
from
the
community
and
whatnot,
and
we
went
back
revised
our
amendment
and
decided
to
focus
only
on
the
pl
zones,
but
we
also
look
to
get
up
to
a
little
bit
higher
height
because,
ultimately,
for
macro
facilities,
we
need
to
see
what
we're
broadcasting
to
you
know
and
as
we
go
lower
in
height,
then
I'm
gonna
start
bouncing
my
signal,
not
all
the
way
off
of
buildings,
but
I'm
gonna
be
bouncing
my
signal
off
of
the
natural
landscape
and
and
whatnot
in
that
area,
and
so
we,
like,
I
said
we
presented
it
with
the
pl
zones
and
we
limited
down.
S
We
looked
at
going
with
a
maximum
75
feet:
height,
that's
what's
before
you,
we
went
to
other
community
councils
after
we
revised
our
amendment,
and
you
know
I
think,
a
lot
of
them
from
what
I
was
hearing
was
that
you
know
they
were
glad
to
see
that
we
were
starting
to
go
down
the
cop
process,
because
that
did
open
it
up.
It
was
unfortunate
because
it
seemed
like
in
the
discussions
that
we
were
hearing
or
that
at
least
would
be
presented
to
the
community
councils.
S
They
kept
kind
of
focusing
on
how
cops
aren't
really
the
avenue
to
go
and
that
you
know
I
keep
hearing
this.
Discussions
of
you
know
takes
up
too
much
staff
time.
Well,
I
mean
I
was
a
planner.
I
spent
a
lot
of
time
having
to
deal
with
conditional
use
permits.
When
I
worked
for
the
city
of
west
jordan,
I'm
not
certain
that's
you
know
that
should
be
a
reason
to
not
proceed
with
the
conditional
use
permit.
But
again,
that's
what's
before
you
this
evening.
S
S
C
Okay,
with
that,
I
will
open
the
public
comment
period
and
nick
do
we
have
lands
raised.
I
don't
know
if
patrick
wants
to
speak.
E
C
E
C
You
just
click
that
hand
icon
again
so
it'll
unraise
and
then
we'll
know
you're
you're
not
wishing
to
speak.
That
would
be
helpful.
E
R
Thank
you.
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
review
the
petition
from
verizon
wireless,
which
is
smaller
in
scope
that
terms
an
interesting
choice
of
words
while
they're
requesting
it
only
be
allowed
in
the
pl
public
land.
Zoning
district
they're,
asking
for
the
towers
to
now
be
75
feet
tall
instead
of
60.
R
R
We
know
that
pine
trees,
probably
reach
75
feet
and
flag
poles
might
also,
but
water
towers
can
be
even
400
feet,
especially
in
the
east.
We
understand
the
need
for
these.
We
like
to
have
good
cell
communication
service.
We
don't
want
these
to
be
a
buy
right
process
that
needs
to
be
conditional
use.
R
R
R
We
approve
this
only
if
it's
a
conditional
use,
so
the
sighting
of
the
pole
and
the
type
of
pole
can
be
reviewed
by
the
neighborhood.
Most
schools
are
probably
30
to
40
feet
tall.
These
will
tower
over
the
site.
Does
the
school
stand
to
benefit
from
any
rent
paid
by
verizon
for
the
use
of
their
land?
R
E
Just
for
the
record
we
did
receive
you
did,
you
did
receive
a
letter
from
the
east
liberty
park,
community
organization,
yeah.
C
And
there's
one
from
yell
crest
in
our
dropbox
as
well
yeah.
Okay,
with
that,
I
will
close
the
public
comment
period
and
bring
it
back
to
the
commission.
Does
the
applicant
have
anything
they
want
to
say
regarding
the
comments
we
just
heard.
S
Well,
I
think
the
you
know
we're
not
you
know
as
when
she
talks
about
in
concert.
I
mean.
Definitely
when
you
look
at
the
area
where
pioneer
precinct
is
in
that
location.
What
we're
proposing
is
is
is
definitely
in
concert
with
that
area
and
with
the
all
the
vegetation.
That's
there
I
mean,
like
I
said,
there's
several
different.
S
You
know
pine
trees
that
are
in
the
rear
area
of
the
pioneer
precinct
along
the
jordan
river
corridor
there
that
this
facility
would
blend
into
so
I
think-
and
I
think
also
with
every
location
I
mean
I
heard
I
think
aaron
mentioned
an
elevator
shaft.
You
know
we
wouldn't
be
building
building
an
elevator
shaft
unless
it
was
part
of
a
building.
There's
you
know
elevator,
we
wouldn't
just
build
an
elevator
shaft.
S
For
that
I
mean
that
could
be
a
possibility,
but
typically,
if
it's
within
a
cup
process,
we
would
hope
that
we
would
be
able
to.
You
know
the
industry
would
be
able
to
work
with
the
city
and
the
neighborhoods
to
create
something.
That's
in
concert,
because
again
that
is
one
of
the
criteria
that's
listed
in
your
staff
report-
is
that
it
has
to
fit
into
the
surroundings,
because
I
so
I
can't
see
how
a
staffer
saying
that
you
know
well,
they
can
build
an
elevator
shaft.
S
C
Okay,
thank
you,
commissioners,
any
thoughts
or
questions
for
staff
or
the
applicant
for
a
discussion
at
this
time.
K
I
have
a
question
for
staff.
I
guess
what
scenario
do
you
see
where
we
can
provide
cell
phone
towers?
I
mean
it
is
a
critical
part
of
infrastructure
that
we
need
to
allocate
for
and
if
we
don't
have
time
to
review
it
and
and
study
each
each
item.
How
are
we
going
to
provide
that
infrastructure.
O
So
we've
we've
had
these
discussions
with
the
applicant
specifically
taking
the
time
to
to
find
other
solutions,
and
it
want
to
make
clear
that
stealth
towers
are
currently
permitted
in
all
districts,
provided
they
meet
the
lawton
bulk
standards
of
the
given
district.
O
And
really
it
just
comes
down
to
presenting
something:
that's
comprehensive
for
the
wireless
communication
standards,
something
that
would
you
know,
address
the
community's
concerns
in
a
way
that
you
know
it's.
It
covers
the
whole
whole
issue
and
not
just
these
stealth.
Stealth
towers
in
a
single
district.
K
Yeah,
I'm
just
I
guess,
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out.
I
mean
you
know,
as
as
we
phase
out
the
adu
approvals
that
we
have.
I
mean
I
I
get
that
these
are
very
unique.
I
think
it.
It
could
be
a
planning
commission
issue
to
approve
these
types
of
things,
because
I
do
think
they're
valuable
they're.
It's
an
unfortunate
part
of
our
society
that
we
have
to
have
these
things,
but
it
definitely
is
something
we
need.
So
finding
a
way
to
to
kind
of
find
a
middle
ground
would
be
nice.
O
And
if
you
feel
that
it's
something
that
needs
to
be
addressed,
you
know
reach
out
to
to
the
city
council,
if
that's
a
priority.
N
Amy
this
is
amy
burroughs
and
I
wrote
to
michaela,
octay
and
amy
earlier
today,
because
one
of
the
public
comments,
page
91,
is
from
the
expense
community
council-
and
I
was
the
chair
when
that
when
we
held
them
meeting
and
asked
our
membership
to
vote
for
against
the
text
amendment
it's
changed
since
then.
I'm
not
I'm
not
in
that
position
at
eastman's
community
council
anymore,
and
I
don't
have
any
financial
stake
in
the
company.
N
So
we
felt
like
there
wasn't
a
conflict
of
interest,
but
miss
octave
wanted
me
to
mention
it.
So
it's
on
the
record.
So
I
feel
like
I'm
still
going
to
vote
on
this
issue,
but
yeah.
B
O
Yes,
so
the
lawton
bulk
standards
for
any
given
district,
they
can
release
that
stealth
tower
in
those
districts.
As
long
as
it
is
not
a
stealth,
doesn't
look
like
a
stealth
tower
background
noise
happening.
Sorry,
it's
a
little
bit
distracting,
but
they
also
there's
some
height
exceptions
in
our
code
that
allows
additional
things
to
go
beyond
the
allowed
height
in
a
district
like
church,
steeples,
stadium,
lighting,
flag,
poles
and
there's
a
few
other
things.
O
Mechanical
equipment,
elevator
bulkheads
those
things
are
allowed
to
be
higher
than
the
height
of
the
district,
and
so
there
are
options.
There
are
ways
to
do
it.
It's
this
just
it
doesn't
fit
what
they
have
for
this
specific
project.
B
C
We're
in
the
commission
discussion
phase
sorry.
B
N
Chairperson,
barry
I'll
make
a
motion
go
ahead.
Based
on
the
information,
the
staff
report,
the
information
presented
and
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing,
I
moved.
The
planning
commission
recommend
to
the
city
council
denies
the
proposed
text.
Amendment
pl,
ncpm,.
C
Okay,
I
have
a
motion
from
amy
in
a
second
from
mike,
and
this
is
again
a
recommendation
to
the
city
council,
who
will
be
the
ultimate
decider.
Let's
take
a
vote,
andra
abstain,
john.
K
C
C
C
I'm
cannot
hear
you
maureen.
I
can
see
your
photo
now
thumbs
up
or
down
thumb
up.
Okay,
that's
a
yes
vote
for
maureen
and
amy!
Yes,
yes,
mike.
G
C
Okay,
that
motion
passes
unanimously.
Your
next
step
is
the
city
council
on
that
one,
mr
simmons.
Okay,
moving
on
to
our
next
agenda
item
is
western
garden
zoning
map
amendment
at
approximately
550
south
600
east.
A
A
Okay,
this
is
a
request
to
amend
the
zoning
map
to
change
the
zoning
for
the
2.3
acre
parcel
located
at
550,
south
600
east
from
cn
neighborhood
commercial
to
fbun2,
which
is
a
form-based
urban
neighborhood
district
in
its
entirety.
A
Parcel
is
currently
occupied
by
the
western
gardens
commercial
center.
This
zoning
map
amendment
change
will
facilitate
the
redevelopment
of
the
of
the
parcel
into
a
multi-family
residential
project
and
staff
is
recommending
approval
with
conditions
and
actually
no
conditions.
Sorry
just
to
orient
you
I'm
sure
you
guys
are
all
familiar
with
this
property.
This
is
the
western
gardens
nursery.
A
This
is
a
photo
of
the
street
to
the
west
of
the
western
garden
parking
lot.
This
is
hawthorne
street
and
this
is
looking
towards
the
west,
so
they
have
these
little
bungalow
cottages
that
but
this
property
to
the
west.
A
I
have
a
few
comments
that
I'd
like
to
make.
There
have
been
questions
raised
by
the
public
during
the
review
process
regarding
the
necessity
of
an
associated
master
plan
amendment
with
this
requested
rezone.
I
wanted
to
touch
on
this
subject
briefly.
It
is
the
opinion
of
planning
staff
that
a
master
plan
amendment
is
not
necessarily
in
this
instance
for
the
following
reasons:
the
salt
lake
city
code,
section
218.02.040,
says
all
master
plans
or
general
plans
adopted
by
the
planning,
commission
and
the
city
council
for
the
city
or
for
an
area.
A
The
city
shall
serve
as
an
advisory
guide
for
land
use
decisions.
Amendments
to
the
text
of
this
title
or
zoning
map
should
be
consistent
with
the
purposes
goals,
objectives
and
policies
of
the
applicable
adopted
master
plan
or
general
plan
of
salt
lake
city.
So
this
section
says
that
zoning
amendment
should
be
consistent.
It
does
not
require
strict
compliance
with
an
adopted
plan,
and
this
is
consistent
with
what
applicable
state
code
says.
The
role
plans
are
as
well
further
a
master
plan.
A
A
I
don't
think
there's
anybody
on
this
commission,
but
several
years
ago,
trolley
square
and
anybody
who
was
involved
in
this,
but
several
years
ago,
charlie
square
went
through
a
rezone
process
on
the
parcel
that
they
own
on
600
south
right
across
right
around
the
corner
from
this
western
garden
property,
and
that
property
is
that
parking
lot
that
is
connected
by
the
bridge
that
goes
over
600
south
the
future
land
use
designated
in
this
designation.
A
The
central
community
master
plan
is
medium
residential,
mixed
use,
10
to
50
billions
per
acre
for
both
of
these
properties.
Both
of
these
properties
are
are
and
were
seeking
the
same.
Zoning
designation,
the
fbu
and
ii
trolley
square
did
not
choose
to
amend
the
master
plan,
nor
was
it
required
at
that
time.
So,
based
on
the
city
code,
sections
previously
mentioned
and
remain
consistent
with
the
trolley
square
rezone
process.
A
The
task
before
you
this
evening
is
decide
whether
or
not
the
standards
for
a
map
amendment
have
been
adequately
satisfied
and,
if
so,
to
forward
a
positive
recommendation
to
the
city
council
to
change
the
zoning
designation
on
the
subject
property.
As
you're
aware,
no
specific
project
has
been
proposed
to
accompany
the
map.
Amendment
request,
planning
staff,
has
provided
an
analysis
of
five
standards
for
zoning
map
amendments
in
your
staff
report
and
asserts
that
the
standards
have
been
met.
A
If
and
when
a
specific
development
proposal
is
submitted
to
the
city,
the
design,
the
massing,
the
scale,
zoning
standards,
historic
preservation,
standards,
etc
will
be
addressed
at
that
time,
and
this
leads
me
to
my
last
point:
any
new
construction,
it's
an
important
one,
any
nuance:
any
new
construction.
The
property
is
required
to
go
before
the
historic
landmark
commission
for
approval.
This
isn't
a
local
historic
district.
A
A
Based
on
the
analysis
and
findings
listed
in
the
staff
report.
It
is
planning
staff's
opinion
that
the
project
generally
meets
the
applicable
standards
and
therefore
planning
staff
recommends
the
planning
commission
forward
a
positive
recommendation
regarding
the
close
zoning
map
amendment
on
to
the
city
council
for
consideration
and
if
you
have
any
questions,
I'd
be
happy
to
try
to
answer
those
for
you.
C
All
right,
thanks
lex,
I
have
one
to
start
us
off
since
the
historic
landmark
commission,
the
hlc
will
be
reviewing
any
building
project
that
comes
down
the
road.
Is
there
a
reason
why
we
haven't
asked
them
for
their
thoughts
on
this
zone
change.
A
You
have
the
you,
have
the
prerogative
to
ask
them.
So
if
you
would
like
this
to
go
to
landmarks,
we
can
take
this
to
landmarks
for
their
their
input.
C
B
B
C
Okay,
commissioners,
any
other
questions
for
staff.
At
this
time.
B
A
And
under
the
code
it
it,
the
code
says
that
you
have
the
prerogative
to
forward
this
to
the
landmark
commission
for
their
inputs.
So
if
that's
your,
if
that's,
if
that's
your
will,
then
we
can
do
that.
C
Okay,
it's
like
saying
it's
my
understanding
and
you
can
please
correct
me
if
I
am
wrong,
but
I
think
we
have
like
three
options
in
that
regard.
We
can
we
don't
have
to
request
their
input.
We
can
make
a
decision
tonight
whatever
that
is.
C
C
So
we
do
have
options
in
that
regard
tonight
if
the
commission
wants
to
discuss
that
further
regarding
hlc's
potential
voice
in
this
any
other
questions
for
lex.
C
Okay,
we
can
always
pose
them
if
we
need
to
a
little
bit
later
with
that
we
have
tyler
morris
and
david
rems.
Are
they.
C
There's
david
and
tyler
on
the
list.
Okay,
do
you
have
a
presentation
you
wish
to
give
that
you
need
a.
I
C
I
Yeah
I'll
try
to
be
quick,
I
mean,
I
think
I
think
it's
it's
pretty
clear.
I
mean
kind
of
the
context
of
this
property.
What
we're
asking
for
and
and
how
impactful
this
is
on
that
block
there.
I
I
would
just
provide
a
little
bit
of
background
information,
so
we're
working
with
the
current
owner
of
of
western
gardens
to
potentially
rezone
this
and
develop
a
multi-family
property
here,
one
of
the
one
of
the
primary
pieces
of
feedback
we've
gotten
when
we've
we've
had
you
know
a
couple
of
community
council
meetings
has
been
that
people
are
sad
to
see
western
gardens
go,
and
I
just
want
to
say
that
we're
the
owners
reach
out
to
us
they're
trying
to
transition
out
of
that
business,
and
they
want
to
build
something
here
that
they
can
hold
that's
kind
of
a
durable
retirement
plan,
they're
friends
of
our
company
and
we're
trying
to
help.
I
You
know
them
get
through
that
process.
They'll
stay
in
his
owners,
we'll
stay
in
as
part
owners
and
move
ahead,
but
I
guess
the
takeaway
is
that
we're
not
like
trying
to
push
western
gardens
out
and
get
rid
of
that
as
a
resource.
I
know
people
really
value
it
around
there
at
another
high
level.
I
would
just.
I
would
just
comment
on
you
know
the
multi-family
opportunity
that
this
parcel
represents.
I
mean
there's,
there's
three
full-service
grocery
stores
within
a
block:
you're
two
blocks
from
transit.
I
You
know
you're
a
blog
from
seventies
to
block
fourth
east.
For
for
great,
you
know:
auto
transit
access,
you're,
a
couple
of
stops
away
from
downtown
a
few
stops
away
from
you.
I
mean
it's
really
just
a
very,
very
prime
multi-family
development
parcel
and
generally
the
feedback
that
we've
gotten
from
the
community
council
and
the
neighbors.
I
It
seems
to
agree
with
that,
and
you
know
largely
the
concerns
are
about
scale
and
bulk
and
how
tall
or
big
or
or
you
know
how
it
fits
in
with
the
neighborhood
here,
and
I
think
lex
did
a
good
job
of
of
commenting
on
how
fun2
works,
to
address
some
of
those
by
providing
more
significant
setbacks
and
step
backs
from
the
the
residential
portions
of
the
of
the
neighboring
properties.
I
Another
point
that
I
would
add
just
relative
to
this.
This
property
itself
is
it's
a
big
parcel
and
part
of
what
that
kind
of
implies
as
part
of
the
development
is
that
we
cannot
just
build
one
big
kind
of
brick
in
the
middle
of
it
that
exceed
you
know,
pushes
the
boundaries
of
what's
allowable
and,
if
you
and
two
is
it,
won't,
have
sufficient
buyer
access
effectively.
I
You
kind
of
have
to
either
squish
a
deal
in
here
and
have
it
wrapped
with
access,
or
you
have
to
split
it
into
and
have
access
down
the
middle
and
either
way
you
kind
of
break
up
the
bulk
of
what
would
be
a
property
on
this
site
and
we've
looked
at
a
lot
of
different
ways
and
there's
no
there's
no
real
way
to
get
around
kind
of
either
of
those
either
of
those
functions
and
just
for
background
for
kind
of
how
we
got
here.
I
You
know
we
started
six
six
eight
months
ago,
I
think
earlier
this
year
and
we
initially
came
in
requesting
a
zone
of
zone
change
to
ro.
The
uses
to
the
north
and
to
the
west
are
ro,
and
it
seemed
to
us
kind
of
like
a
logical
way
to
move
forward
with
it.
That
includes
the
moda
new
house,
apartment,
building
on
and
fits
out
there
and
there's
some
commercial
buildings
on
the
corner,
and
we
got
significant
pushback
from
from
the
community,
and
it
sounded
like
that.
I
You
know
they
were
not
receptive
to
the
potential
60
foot
height
there
and
it
sounded
like
would
like
it
potentially
an
additional
layer
of
oversight.
We
we
kind
of,
took
that
feedback
and
came
back
with
with
fbun2
which,
from
our
end,
works
as
a
really
good
transitional
use
on
this
site.
Again,
you
have
ro
to
the
north
middle
islands.
Kind
of
60
store
60
feet
five
stories,
you
have
kind
of
rmf
35
to
the
south
for
the
historic
homes
that
are
down
there.
I
You
know
in
the
35
foot
range
and
kind
of
our
internal
thought.
As
you,
you
know,
the
site
is,
is
pretty
well
laid
out
to
step
its
way
up
and
truly
transition
in
between.
You
know
two:
three
four
story.
As
you
move
to
the
north,
and
and
generally
I
think
you
know
the
some
of
the
concerns
we've
heard
in
the
community
council
are
just
that.
I
You
know,
even
if
we
believe
that
to
be
the
case,
maybe
someone
else
buys
this
later
and
they
believe
differently
and
they
try
to
build
four
four
stories
on
the
whole
thing,
even
a
budding
against
the
single
family,
and
you
know
that
my
general
thought
on
that
is
again.
I
The
setbacks
and
step
backs
that
apply
as
you're
as
you're,
coming
up
against
those
single
family
units
and
and
generally
just
the
the
fact
that
the
historical
landmarks
commission
will
have
oversight
here
as
well,
and
I
think
they're
they're,
going
to
echo
what
lex
has
said
in
his
report
that
you
know
being
reflective
of
the
neighboring
uses,
will
include
some
transitions
inside
of
the
site.
Like
that.
I
A
couple
other
notes
just
make
sure
I
hit
those
dimensions,
oversight,
step
backs
and
just
general,
you
know
applicability
of
of
multi-family.
Here
again,
we
think
this
is
just
a
tremendous
opportunity
to
add.
You
know
housing
stock
to
this
market
and
do
it
in
a
thoughtful
way.
I
We
think
fbun2
creates
an
ideal
envelope
and
additional
layers
of
oversight
to
kind
of
shape
that,
through
you
know,
input
from
historical
landmarks
and
from
planning
as
we
as
we
continue
down
the
road
with
this
and
just
one
other
node
that
I
think,
makes
sense
there
is,
you
know
it
doesn't
remove
any
existing
housing
stock.
It
doesn't
remove
any
existing,
historically
contributing
structures.
I
I
C
I
appreciate
your
context
that
you
know
the
owners
approached
you,
because
I
am
also
sad
to
lose
western
gardens.
That's
where
I
go.
I
C
Yeah
no,
I
appreciate
your
you're
mentioning
that.
Okay,
just
hang
tight,
we're
gonna
go
to
the
public
comment
period
and
then
we'll
bring
it
back
to
you.
If
we
need
to
after
that,
so,
okay
nick,
I
don't
see
any
hands
up
there,
they're
popping
up
okay.
So
if
you
are
I'm
going
to
comment
tonight,
please
again
just
state
your
name
for
the
record
before
you
start
and
then
you'll
have
your
two
minutes
nick.
If
you
want
to
start
us
off.
E
All
right,
I
believe
that
the
first
person
who
indicated
they
wanted
to
speak
on
this
was
cindy
cromer,
so
she's
alphabetical,
yeah.
C
E
C
Randy
just
a
quick
note.
As
a
representative
of
the
community
council,
you
will
have
five
minutes.
J
Oh
yes,
thank
you.
So,
as
stated,
my
name
is
randy
pury.
I
live
on
hawthorne
avenue
and
I
will
be
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
central
city,
neighborhood
council.
J
As
mentioned,
the
proposed
redevelopment
accounts
for
over
20
percent
of
the
acreage
on
the
block
and
will
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
surrounding
area,
based
on
conversations
between
cottonwood,
residential
and
our
community.
Since
last
june,
it
is
accurate
to
say
that
many
residents
in
the
central
city,
neighborhood,
council
and
beyond,
are
disappointed
to
learn
of
the
proposed
rezone,
as
well
as
the
loss
of
western
gardens
as
a
resource
in
local
business.
J
The
block
containing
the
proposed
rezone
has
historic
resources
identified
as
contributory
on
all
four
sides
to
the
north.
The
former
trolley
stables
building
containing
the
architect's
office
is
a
unique
resource
not
just
in
the
central
city,
historic
district
but
in
salt
lake
city
as
a
whole
to
the
west
hawthorne
avenue
a
private
court
with
historic
homes
built
for
workers
of
the
trolley
company
that
have
seen
recent
preservation
related
investment
to
the
south.
Several
single
and
multi-family
homes
that
have
also
seen
recent
preservation
related
investment
and
to
the
east.
J
Some
of
the
community
concerns
are
as
follows:
the
lack
of
significant
front
yard
setbacks
like
the
ones
in
cottonwood's
original
proposal
and
others
in
mid-rise
developments,
excessive
hardscapes
and
lack
of
public
amenities
like
open
green
spaces
are
already
having
repercussions
in
the
central
city,
local
historic
district,
given
the
enormous
financial
gain
that
stands
to
be
made
by
the
western
gardens,
property
owners
and
cottonwood
and
the
impact
to
the
neighborhood.
What
are
the
public
benefits
and
the
benefits
to
the
community
at
large
in
the
central
city
neighborhood
by
allowing
the
rezone
and
development
to
take
place.
J
J
As
mentioned,
the
moda
newhouse
project,
located
directly
to
the
north
of
hawthorne
avenue,
was
originally
at
the
same
height
as
the
original
cottonwood
proposal,
notably,
the
original
proposal
for
new
house
was
set
back
30
feet
from
the
north
property
line
of
the
cottages
on
hawthorne.
This
was
viewed
by
staff
of
the
planning
commission
and
the
historic
landmark
commission,
as
not
being
sufficiently
historically
sensitive
to
address
this.
The
applicant
for
new
house
pushed
the
project
85
feet
back
from
their
original
proposal
for
a
total
rear
yard
setback
of
115
feet
where
it
currently
sits.
J
The
proposed
rezoned
to
fbun2
of
the
western
gardens
parcel
is
incompatible
with
the
salt
lake
city,
community
preservation
plan,
the
salt
lake
city,
community
preservation
plan
articulates
specific
policies
and
actions.
That
quote,
will
help
preserve
those
areas
of
the
city
that
are
uniquely
historic
and
tell
the
city
the
story
of
the
city's
historic
past
through
spaces
and
structures,
while
also
providing
tools
to
stabilize
neighborhoods
and
areas
within
the
city
that
are
connected
by
community
character.
J
The
avenues,
yale,
crest
and
capitol
hill,
which
invoke
feelings
of
grandiose,
historic
nostalgia,
less
attention,
at
least
within
the
broader
community,
is
given
the
preservation
of
more
modest
historic
homes
and
cottages
of
the
kind
seen
on
hawthorne
avenue
and
elsewhere
throughout
the
central
city.
Local
historic
district.
J
The
central
city
neighborhood
council
believes
that
there
are
other
zoning
options
that
would
allow
development
of
the
parcel,
while
western
gardens
currently
sit.
That
would
be
more
compatible
to
the
historic
nature
of
the
area,
all
applicable
master
plans
and
the
salt
lake
city
community
preservation
plan.
The
current
proposal
by
cottonwood
would
impact
the
central
city
neighborhood
negatively
and
significantly
decrease
our
enjoyment
of
our
gem
of
a
neighborhood
while
adding
little
to
the
value
of
the
community
in
salt
lake
city
as
a
whole.
J
E
Give
me
just
one
moment
here
now:
we'll
go
back
up
to
the
top
of
the
list
and
I
believe
cindy
sent
an
email
saying
she
wanted
to
speak
on
this.
So
we're
going
to
start
with
cindy
cromer
cindy.
You
are
unmuted.
D
D
D
D
The
fbu
ii
sets
up
an
adversarial
relationship,
leaving
the
landmarks
commission
to
deal
with
the
hard
part.
The
fb
until
sets
the
developers
expectations
too
high
and
and
sixth
east
is
so
very
different
from
600
south,
where
the
city
approved
the
fbu
in
two
years
ago.
It
is
the
essence
of
the
central
city,
historic
district,
it
with
its
designated
bikeway,
its
pedestrian
corridor,
its
landscape,
medians,
and
it
has
a
human
scale.
All
of
those
things
are
lacking
on
600
south,
which
is
the
off-ramp
freeway.
D
G
Hello,
can
you
hear
me
yep
excellent?
This
is
jack
davis,
I'm
a
resident
of
district
4.,
I'm
currently
living
on
600
south
as
someone
who's
been
very
active
in
preservation,
related
efforts,
specifically
in
the
central
city,
local
historic
district,
which
is
perhaps
the
most
threatened
local
district,
as
well
as
the
most
modest
means
historic
district
in
our
city.
G
I
believe
that
the
proposed
zoning
map
amendment
is
inconsistent
with
many
of
the
purposes
goals,
objectives
and
policies
of
the
city,
as
stated
through
its
various
adopted
masters
plans,
including
the
central
community
master
plan
and
the
community
preservation
plan
adopted
in
2012,
rather
than
supporting
these
purposes
goals
and
objectives
articulating
these
master
plans.
The
proposed
zone
map
amendment,
if
approved,
would
serve
to
really
frustrate
these
plans
in
a
significant
way.
G
Notably,
the
staff
report
does
not
even
address
the
preservation
plan
adopted
as
recently
as
2012,
and
ignores
many
of
the
relevant
policy
prescriptions
in
the
central
community
master
plan.
As
I've
detailed
in
my
extensive
written
comments
on
this
proposal
that
are
in
the
staff
report
packet,
the
proposed
map
amendment
to
fb02
would
allow
for
development
that's
incompatible
and
out
of
scale
relative
to
existing
adjacent
single-story
properties,
many
of
which
are
contributing
historic,
one
of
which
is
historically
significant.
G
And
finally,
a
rezoned
to
fbon2
would
not
implement
adopted
plans
of
the
city
relating
to
historic
preservation,
but
instead
would
create
an
undesirable
zoning
mismatch
between
the
base
zone
and
the
historic
overlay
zone,
which
is
a
specific
concern
identified
in
the
preservation
plan.
This
unduly
places
the
burden
on
the
historic
landmarks
commission
to
regulate
mass
with
an
overscaled
base
zone.
Again
this
is
discouraged
by
the
preservation
plan,
because
the
landmarks
commission
would
be
better.
G
Their
time
would
be
better
served
addressing
design
rather
than
dealing
with
overscaled
projects.
I
would
encourage
you
to
forward
this
decision
or
forward
on
consideration
of
this
proposal
to
the
landmarks
commission
for
a
hearing
or
work
session,
to
evaluate
the
historic
appropriateness
of
this
zone
relative
to
the
overlay
zone
prior
to
forwarding
any
recommendation
to
the
city
council.
Thank
you.
E
All
right
next
up
is
casey
o'brien
mcdonough
casey.
You
are
unmuted.
L
Perfect
thanks
and
hello
again,
so
I
lived.
I
lived
about
a
decade
on
sixth
east
and
I'm
very
familiar
from
you
know
my
a
long
time
in
salt
lake
city
of
western
gardens,
setting
aside
private
property.
You
know
it's
their
right
to
do
what
they
want
with
their
property,
but.
L
In
earlier
comments,
they're
asking
for
something
other
than
what
they
know,
their
property
is
and
they've
owned
a
while,
I
believe
so.
I
think
they've
been
aware
for
a
long
time
with
their
property
zoned
to
me,
this
feels
like
another
ask
of
we
want
more.
We
want
more
height,
we
want
more
density,
we
want
more
units,
we
want
to
maximize
we'll,
say
their
investment,
and
I
would
just
say,
after
hearing
the
community
council
comments
and
other
comments,
I
would
I
would
say
the
biggest
factor
for
me
is
work.
L
This
is
in
the
heart
of
the
historic
district.
If
you
think
of
the
one
place
in
the
central
city
district,
that
means
the
most
is
trolley
square,
and
this
property
is
next
door
on
the
avenue
on
the
boulevard,
and
I
don't
think
this
is
the
right
answer.
I
think
that's
why
people
are
talking
about
the
master
plan
about
community
plans
about
all
those
other
planning
options.
It
needs
more
thought
and
it
needs
more
thought
on
a
bigger,
a
bigger
stage
than
I
think
the
planning
commission.
That's
why
people
are
talking
about
historic,
landmark.
Commission.
L
I
think
this
is
is
too
large
and
too
important
of
a
property
for
the
for
the
zoning
change.
So
I
would
encourage
you
not
to
vote
for
this
and
encourage
the
property
owners
to
work
with
the
community
council
and
with
the
local
residents
that
are
mostly
impacted
in
their
homes
nearby
to
find
a
better,
a
better
solution
for
them,
maximizing
their
investment.
Thanks.
C
I
just
say
if
you
are
you've
concluded
your
comments
if
you'll
click
that
hand
again
so
it
lowers,
then
we
know
you're
you're,
not
looking
to
speak
again.
Thank
you.
C
M
Right:
here's
the
email
comment,
dear
planning,
division
and
commission.
I
join
my
fellow
neighbors
in
central
city
in
opposition
to
this
rezoning
petition,
while
fbun2
has
great
potential
for
the
future
in
its
current
state,
nothing
should
be
rezoned
to
it
until
the
problems
and
flaws
which
it
presents
are
addressed
and
fixed.
M
We
have
seen
no
work
done
to
address
these
concerns
and
therefore
oppose
the
zoning
from
being
applied
elsewhere
until
the
serious
work
at
correction
occurs.
Major
concerns
with
fbu
and
2
include
some
of
the
following.
First
fbun2
allows
very
large
projects
with
significant
impact
to
neighborhoods
to
be
built
with
little
to
zero
community
engagement
projects
which
dramatically
change
the
nature
and
feel
of
an
area
permanently,
are
allowed
by
right
without
any
offsetting
quality
of
life
improvements
for
those
who
already
live
or
work
in
the
neighborhoods
where
they
are
built.
M
M
There
are
other
issues
with
fb12
which
have
been
brought
to
planning
and
the
administration's
attention
for
several
years.
Yet
we
see
no
movement
to
make
the
minor
tweaks
and
adjustments
which
would
make
it
a
great
zoning
type
for
salt
lake
city.
Until
these
serious
concerns
are
addressed
and
rectified,
we
cannot
in
good
faith,
endorse
its
use
in
any
part
of
the
city.
E
F
F
Thank
you
very
much
jen
colby
district
4..
First,
I
want
to
thank
the
cottonwood
residential
team
for
coming
to
the
community
council
several
times
and
being
willing
to
present,
consider
and
discuss.
I
do
appreciate
that
and
attended
those
meetings.
I
also
want
to
address
my
concerns
about
lex's
comments
about
the
sort
of
letter
versus
the
spirit
of
the
law
on
all
of
the
master
plans
and
city
plans
being
advisory.
F
I
think,
with
any
sort
of
rational
planning
process.
We
need
to
be
following
them
as
closely
as
possible
and
having
some
wiggle
room
just
to
avoid
this
and
pay
sort
of
grease.
The
skids
for
developers
is
problematic
to
me,
so
I
would
ask
you
to
stick
with
rational
planning
and
really
do
your
best
job
there,
but
in
any
case
for
this
proposal,
I
concur
with
all
of
the
previous
comments.
F
I
think
one
of
the
problems
here
is
we
confuse
density
with
complexity
and
complexity
of
urban
form
is
what
is
so
critical
for
healthy
vibrant
cities
and
just
saying
like
with
the
ro.
Well,
the
other
adjacent
properties
were
ro
and
therefore
doesn't
make
any
sense
whatsoever,
especially
in
a
historic
district.
I
support
reconsidering
this
to
rmu
35.
I
think
it's
very
crucial
to
consider
what
will
be
granted
by
wright,
and
certainly
this
will
be
a
major
gift.
F
I
appreciate
the
western
gardens
owners
and
I
realize
they
have
the
right
to
make
money
off
their
property,
but
I
think
it
also
needs
to
be
within
to
the
benefit
of
the
community
if
it's
going
to
be
a
major
up
zone-
and
I
do
appreciate
it's
coming
from
commercial
to
residential
or
mixed
use-
that's
super
important,
but
I
think
staying
within
the
future
land
use
densities
and
really
working
to
make
this
compatible
with
the
city
is
important.
Thank
you
very
much.
C
Okay,
I
don't
see
any
other
hands
raised,
any
other
emails,
kelsey
or
chrissy.
I
don't
know
who's
running
the
manny
in
the
emails
it's
kelsey.
C
C
Okay
with
that,
I
will
close
the
public
comment
period
and
I
will
allow
the
applicant
to
address
any
of
the
items
that
came
up
during
the
comments.
If
you
want
to
take
a
few
moments
to
do
that,
I'll,
give
you
that
time
now.
I
Yeah
I'll
I'll
take
a
couple
of
moments.
I
mean
all
this
that
you
know
I.
I
appreciate
the
exchange
we've
had
with
with
the
neighbors
and
the
community
council
if
nothing
they've
been
incredibly
consistent
and
transparent
with
us
right
on
concerns,
and
I
understand
why
they're
the
immediate
neighbors
there
and
it's
an
important
parcel
in
the
broader
city
and
it's
particularly
important
to
them,
because
it
is
their
their
actual
neighbor.
I
I
I
would
back
up
on
the
the
request
for
the
rezone
in
the
first
place
from
cn
is
because
to
my
understanding
and
our
discussions
with
with
our
our
design
team
is
that
it
doesn't
allow
dwelling
units
whatsoever.
So
I
mean
it's
we're
we're
going
to
kind
of
sideshift
from
from
commercial
to
residential,
and
then
it's
it's
an
up
zone
in
terms
of
height,
but
the
height
isn't
really
what's
driving
the
result.
I
The
re-zone
quest
to
get
re
request
to
begin
with,
and
some
of
the
other
comments
related
to
contributing
to
trolley
square.
You
know,
I
think
we
thought
through
this
a
lot
as
we've
been
thinking
about
how
you
know
you
would
reposition
this
property
and
I
think
one
of
the
best
ways
to
help
contribute
to
trolley
square
is
to
deliver
additional
bodies
and
consumers
for
that
area.
I
You
know,
there's
there's
a
number
of
comments
about
kind
of
setbacks
and
step
backs
and
height
and
kind
of
rmu
35
as
a
potential
alternative
use.
We
we
thought
about
all
that
as
well.
We
thought
about
rmu
35.
We
thought
about
rmu
45,
we
thought
about
you,
know
fb,
un2
and
ro,
and
you
know
I
I
just
refer
back
to
kind
of
my
my
initial
thought,
where
you
know
you
have
four
story
used
to
the
immediate
northwest.
That's
you
know
almost
50
feet
in
height
oreo
zone.
I
On
that
side,
you
know,
we
think
fbun2
with
a
mac
height
of
four
stories
and
and
50
feet
creates.
You
know
an
excellent
opportunity
for
transition
between
that
height,
and
you
know
the
35
foot
height
to
the
south.
If
you,
if
you
go
with,
you
know,
rmu
35,
it
doesn't
really
transition
at
all.
It
just
reflects
what's
related
to
the
south
and
carries
it
to
the
north,
so
I
mean
in
terms
of
transitional
use
of
that
site.
That
was
our
thinking
how
we
got
there.
I
I
certainly
understand
you
know
the
defense
for
rmu
35,
aside
from
the
height
the
setbacks
and
the
other
kind
of
guiding
factors,
there
are
pretty
similar,
there's
actually
smaller
side
yard
setbacks
for
the
rmu
zones.
You
know
the
the
rear
yard
is
a
little
bit
deeper
in
rmu,
where
it's
30
instead
of
20
but
functionally
because
of
fire
access.
You
have
to
end
up
at
30
with
fpun2
anyway,
just
to
be
able
to
to
create
access
for
fire.
I
So
for
us
from
a
functional
standpoint,
you
end
up
at
a
very
similar
place,
but
you're
able
to
put
a
little
bit
of
four-story
product
to
the
north,
and
you
know
our
overall
thought
on
on
at
the
too,
and
I
know
people
have
issues
with
that.
Some
people
have
issues
with
rl.
We've
heard
a
lot
of
opinions
on
all
of
these.
I
Is
it
part
of
the
additional
appeal
from
fpun2?
Is
you
know,
in
addition
to
the
historical
landmarks
commission,
that
we
expect
to
have
a
great
deal
of
back
and
forth
with
and
and
understand
that
they'll
have
a
tremendous
amount
of
impact
on
bulk
and
scale,
and
all
that
here
that
you
know
we
would
also
have
those
discussions
with
planning
under
the
unto
just
get
guided
by
the
form-based
characterization.
I
So
we
thought,
providing
you
know,
going
for
a
zone
that
require
additional
kind
of
input
from
planning
would
be
generally
viewed
as
as
optimal
for
the
site.
So
I'm
trying
to
see
if
there's
any
other
notes
that
I
missed
here.
I
think
that
that
hit
the
bulk
of
them.
But
again
you
know
we
we're
local.
I
We
want
to
build
something
that
people
like
and
that
it's
enduring,
and
we
appreciate
the
input
from
from
all
the
folks
here
we
appreciate
there's
what
we
view
as
a
kind
of
natural
creative
tension
between
you
know
what
what
different
groups
think
makes
sense
on
this
site
and
we're
looking
forward
to
to
figuring
that
out
as
we
move
forward
either
way.
All.
C
C
I'm
going
to
admit
that
I
am
not
as
familiar
with
that
plan.
It
seems
to
rarely
pop
up
in
a
review.
So
is
there
provisions
in
that
that
aren't
being
supported
by
the
fbun
or
is
it
your
opinion
that
it's
in
you
know
in
concert
that
they
don't
conflict.
A
C
Okay,
and
do
you
off
the
top
of
your
head
now,
where
nearby
there
are
other
fbun2
zones.
A
C
Okay,
is
that
like
because
I
I
I
don't
think
this
is
a
terribly
wide
spread
zone
yet
so
that's
about
the
only
spot
near
in
that
vicinity.
C
Okay
yeah,
so
we
only
have
that
one
all
right.
Those
are
my
questions.
Anything
else
from
commissioners
thoughts,
discussions.
K
Yeah,
I
have
a
few
comments.
You
know
I
I'm
very
familiar
with
this
site.
I
used
to
park
in
it
every
day
for
two
years
and
it's
the
majority
of
the
site
is
a
giant
empty
parking
lot.
K
That's
incredibly
underutilized!
I
mean,
I
don't
think
I've
ever
seen
it
even
a
quarter
full
in
the
entire
over
two
years
that
I
parked
there
every
single
day,
and
I,
I
think,
trolley
square.
K
You
know
I'm
generally
against
malls
and
downtowns,
but
because
of
the
historic
nature
of
the
site
and
the
the
fact
that
it's
actually
a
really
good
use
and
a
really
good
layout
for
the
type
of
use
that
it
has,
and
it's
very
underutilized
at
the
moment.
K
I
think
adding
more
people
and
walking
distance
of
this
of
that
spot
actually
helps
quite
a
bit
with
preserving
it,
because,
eventually,
if
people
continue
to
not
go,
it
will
become
obsolete
because
there's
a
lot
of
competitors
in
the
market.
So
I
think
thinking
through
these
types
of
things,
are
important
for
us
to
to
kind
of
think
of
what
the
future
of
this
area
would
be
and
what
would
happen
if
trolley
square?
Just
you
know
ended
up
going
away
because
lack
of
foot
traffic
and
lack
of
development
and
what
would
that
become.
K
So
those
are
questions
that
I
think
are
a
little
bit
bigger
than
just
the
one
property
and
I
would
kind
of
bring
that
up.
I
would
also
say
that
there's
a
lot
of
transit
really
close
to
this
area,
you're
in
walking
distance
from
both
the
the
park,
as
well
as
the
the
transit
stops.
So
it's
a
very
good
area
to
get
people
out
and
moving
around
so.
H
I
mean
I
guess
I
would
just
say
that
I
understand
the
residents
really
like
this
particular
retail
opportunity,
but
to
echo
the
call-in
user.
I
think
I
I'm
not
sure
who
that
was
exactly
but
like
if,
if
the
business
owner
is
not,
you
know,
this
is
not
the
highest
and
best
use
of
their
land.
There's
nothing.
H
We
can
do
to
preserve
the
fact
that
it's
a
garden
center,
I
mean
if
a
garden
center
is
just
not
good
land
use,
that's
not
going
to
stay
regardless
of
whether
this
gets
rezoned
or
not
they're,
going
to
try
to
find
some
better
way
of
of
using
their
land
and
selling
to
you
know,
they're,
not
they
don't
seem
to
be
the
sort
of
owner.
That
knows
how
to
do
that
themselves.
H
C
Anything
else,
commissioners,
I
think
again.
I
want
to
reiterate
the
the
choices
that
are
available
to
us
regarding
some
of
the
historic
landmark
commission
comments,
one
we
can
make
a
decision
and
forward
a
recommendation
to
the
city
council
just
flat
out.
C
E
Role-
and
I
wanted
to
give
some
insight
into
what
that
plan
says
as
broad
as
I
can,
given
it's
fairly
lengthy
and
how
it
relates
to
what
we
do
as
a
city
when
it
comes
to
preservation,
is
a
pretty
significant
portion
of
that
plan
discusses
city
actions.
E
What
we
should
do
to
promote
preservation,
engaging
various
tools
to
help
support
our
preservation,
efforts
of
the
city,
things
like
density
bonuses,
updating
surveys,
changing
codes
to
preserve
other
historic
elements
like
signs
and
things
like
that.
All
things
that
we've
done
as
a
city
and
continue
to
do
the
plan
itself
does
not
get
too
heavy
into
specifics
about
areas
and
what
should
happen
with
preservation
it.
E
Instead,
it
defers
to
ensuring
that
our
plan,
our
master
plans,
our
community
plans
and
things
like
that
are
including
preservation
in
in
those
plans
and
in
those
processes,
and
it
becomes
a
factor
for
decision
making.
And
so
it's
not
it's
it's
much
different
than
a
community
plan
in
that
regard
and
other
city-wide
plans.
E
E
Maybe
it
was
forgotten,
but
in
about
10
years
ago
in
2012,
the
city
council
adopted
an
update
to
the
central
community
master
plan,
as
it
pertains
primarily
to
foreign
south
and
in
that
it
created
different
stationary
goals
around
the
track
stations
and
around
the
trolley
station,
which
includes,
in
this
area,
there's
a
very
specific
statement
about
600
east
and
I'm
going
to
I'm
going
to
read
that
just
to
make
sure
that
it's
it's
on
people's
minds
as
they're
making
decisions
here.
E
But
this
is,
I
guess,
action
item
number
12,
whatever
it's
called
in
the
in
the
plan
and
it
says,
identify
zoning
solutions
for
the
block
faces
across
from
trolley
square
on
600,
east
and
600
south.
The
focus
should
be
to
encourage
development
on
vacant,
partials,
increase
residential
density
and
promote
the
preservation
and
adaptive
reuse
of
contributing
structures.
And
then
it
goes
on
to
talk
more
specifically
about
the
600
south
frontage.
E
And
so
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
that
update
to
the
plan
is
specific
to
this
block
face
and
to
this
site,
and
it
gives
us
direction
on
those
parcels
that
don't
contain
contributing
structures
to
increase
the
residential
density.
And
so
I
think
that
that's
important
to
note,
as
you
consider
the
this
proposal.
C
Thank
you
both
lex
and
nick
for
that
all
right
commissioners,
anybody
ready
to
make
a
motion
or
any
further
thoughts.
You
wish
to
articulate.
H
Who
is
that
it's
andra
okay
go
ahead?
Okay,
based
on
the
analysis
and
findings
listed
in
the
staff
report
testimony
and
the
proposal
presented.
I
move
that
the
planning
commission
forward
a
positive
recommendation
regarding
the
requested
zoning
map
amendment
for
the
property
located
at
approximately
550
south
600
east,
from
cn
neighborhood
commercial
to
fb
un2,
that's
form
based
urban
neighborhood
district
onto
the
city
council.
C
Okay,
will
there
be
any
consideration
andra
to
include
a
condition
to
request
a
courtesy
review
from
the
historic
landmarks
commission.
H
C
Okay,
I
would
just
clarify
it
would
not
delay
anything
they
would
their
comments.
Their
review
would
just
be
included
in
the
transmittal.
There
would
not
be
an
additional
meeting
or
thing
that
the
applicant
would
have
to
go
through.
It
would
just
be
them
giving
their
thoughts
and
comments
for
the
city
council
to
consider.
C
It's
fine.
I
just
wanted
to
put
that
out
there
for
the
record,
so
I
have
a
motion
from
andra
and
a
second
from
john
go
ahead
and
take
a
vote
on
that.
Amy.
N
K
Okay,
yeah.
I
would
also
just
add
that
I
would
be
open
to
adding
the
comments,
even
though
I
seconded
the
motion.
I
C
And
andra,
yes,
okay.
That
motion
passes
four
to
two
on
to
the
city
council,
for
you,
mr
morris.
I
C
C
Okay
and
I'm
kelsey,
then
will
you
be
monitoring
the
public
comment
period.
C
E
It
keeps
jumping
back
and
forth,
but
I've
got
multiple
screens
up,
so
this
is
a
proposal
that
was
initiated
by
mayor
mendenhall
at
the
request
of
of
the
rda
who's,
the
property
owner
to
rezone
the
property
that
is
the
former
site
of
the
old
fire
station
in
sugar
house
across
from
fairmont
park
and
was
for
a
while,
the
temporary
home
of
the
library.
E
The
proposal
would
do
two
things:
it
would
update
the
sugar
house
community
plan,
the
future
land
use
map
from
what
is
now
designated
as
public
lands
and
institutional
to
business,
district,
mixed
use
at
the
town
center
scale,
and
it
would
change
the
zoning
map
from
pl
public
lands
to
central
sugar
house
business
district
to
match
the
properties
to
the
north,
east
and
kind
of
southeast.
E
Our
recommendation
is
to
forward
a
positive
recommendation
to
the
city
council
and
we're
going
to
explain
why
here
first,
some
orientation
of
the
site-
these
are
pictures
of
the
buildings
that
are
on
there.
Excuse
me,
you'll
note
on
the
bottom
left
is
the
sugarhouse
business
district
kind
of
maintenance
facility.
E
This
is
what
the
sharehouse
community
plan
says
for
this
specific
site.
It's
the
business
district,
future
land
uses.
You
can
see
it
identifies
this
as
institutional
and
public
lands
in
this
portion
of
the
plan,
and
you
can
see
that
lighter
purple.
That
is,
which
is
that
business
district
town
center
scale
and
then
the
property
itself.
E
Hopefully
you
can
see
that
red
oval
there
it's
that
blue
kind
of
right
in
the
middle
of
that
map,
but
the
plan
also
includes
direction
on
the
expansion
of
the
sugar
house
business
district
and
includes
this
property
within
that,
and
that's
on
page
six.
This
map
is
on
page
16
of
the
sugar
house
master
plan.
E
Again,
you
can
see
the
area
in
the
light
blue
with
the
dark
blue
outline
is
where
the
expansion
should
be,
and
you
can
see
that
when
this
plan
was
adopted,
there
is
some
other
zoning
districts
in
the
area
that
have
since
been
changed
to
this
central
sugar,
sugar
house
business
district.
That's
that
cb
directly
towards
the
bottom
of
the
red
circle
that
shows
the
subject:
property
and
the
cs
to
the
right.
Those
have
been
changed
to
central
sugar
house
business
district
as
well.
E
The
current
zoning
of
the
property,
a
broader
context,
map
on
the
left,
where
you
can
see
in
pink
the
sugar
house,
business
district,
the
green
space
directly
to
the
left
of
the
subject.
Property
is
fairmont
park
that
contains
a
couple
of
different
uses.
Obviously
the
park,
the
fairmont
aquatic
center
and
this
and
the
boys
and
girls
club
and
then
a
zoomed
in
version.
So
you
can
see
the
properties.
E
It
should
be
noted
that
the
rda
also
owns
the
property
directly
to
the
east
and
the
intent,
I
believe,
is
to
combine
these
parcels
or
these
all
of
these
parcels
into
one
potential
development
site.
Again.
Our
recommendation
is
that
the
planning
commission
forward
a
positive
recommendation
to
the
city
council
to
adopt
the
proposal
because
it
helps
implement
the
sugarhouse
community
plan
and
with
that
that
is
the
end
of
that
presentation.
O
C
C
That's
what
I
thought
any
other
questions
for
nick
at
this
time
or
tracy
for
the
rda.
R
We
heard
this
issue
at
the
october
11th
meeting
of
the
sugar
house,
community
council
and
we've
been
soliciting
comments
from
the
land
use
committee.
We've
received
just
a
few.
Everybody
looks
at
me
like
well,
of
course.
Why
do
I
have
to
make
a
comment?
R
R
R
It
could
be
an
outdoor
plaza
or
a
community
garden
to
be
used
by
the
tenants
of
the
larger
building
with
the
streetcar
going
on
either
the
north
or
south
side.
It
opens
a
possibility
for
a
transit
area,
business
district,
like
magazines,
books,
flowers,
bakery
to
enhance
the
plaza
of
the
larger
buildings.
B
N
This
is
amy.
N
N
C
Okay
thanks,
I
have
a
motion
from
amy
burrows
and
a
second
from
mike.
Let's
take
a
vote,
we'll
start
with
andreas.
K
Thank
you.
I
will
vote
yes.
B
E
C
Okay,
great
that
motion
passes
good
luck,
tracy
tran,
on
the
next
stage
of
that
development
with
the
rda.
That
concludes
our
meeting
tonight.
I
want
to
remind
those
who
are
going
to
be
able
to
pretend
that
we
have
a
second
meeting
in
december
next
wednesday,
so
we'll
see
most
of
you
here
again
to
finish
out
the
year.
But
with
that
I
will
adjourn
the
meeting.