►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 2022
Description
Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting - March 23, 2022
https://www.slc.gov/planning/
https://www.slc.gov/planning/planning-commission-agendas-minutes/
A
A
A
To
the
salt
lake
city
planning
commission
meeting
for
march
23rd
2022.,
this
is
my
first
in-person
meeting
that
I'm
chairing.
So,
if
I
forget
to
do
stuff,
I'm
sure
paul
will
pipe
in
and
let
me
know
he's
looking
away
all
right.
So
let's
go
off
here,
so
we
didn't
have
training.
So
we'll
start
with
approval
of
last
meetings
minute
so
I'll
be
looking
for
a
motion.
A
D
A
E
E
That
probably
goes
for
anybody
who
comes
up
to
the
table
to
speak
as
well.
I'm
going
to
make
sure
everybody
can
hear
you.
I
wanted
to
give
an
update
on
a
couple
of
things
that
were
in
front
of
the
city
council
yesterday,
so
the
first
kind
of
big
thing
was
you'll.
Remember
in
january,
the
planning
commission
heard
a
proposal
regarding
homeless
resource
centers
last
night.
E
The
planning
commission
did
adopt
an
ordinance
that
city
council
and
thank
you
that
removes
at
least
for
the
time
being
homeless,
resource
centers
from
the
land
use
tables,
while
we're
working
on
updating
a
diff,
the
regulations
and
a
process.
To
do
that.
However,
one
of
the
things
that
they
did
do
is
that
they
put
they
also
adopted
as
part
of
that
ordinance,
a
provision
that
adds
the
rules
back
in
if
the
city
doesn't
have
something
in
place
by
a
certain
time.
E
It
was,
I
don't
know
where
the
final
date
landed,
but
it
was
sometime
in
next
calendar
year,
so
that
was
intended
to
address,
not
just
the
planning
commission's
concerns
that
were
raised,
but
the
concerns
raised
by
service
providers
and
to
give
you
an
update
on
that.
We
have
internally.
Over
the
last
several
months,
we've
been
trying
to
understand,
as
the
planning
division
understand
the
impacts
that
a
homeless
resource
center
has
on
city
resources,
so
that
we
can
update
regulations
and
those
things.
E
E
C
E
So
that
may
be
something
that
is
of
interest
and
we'll
provide
an
update
after
that,
and
then
we
hope
to
be
able
to,
in
the
coming
months,
update
with
the
commission
review
and
update
the
policies
and
procedures
so
that
we
can
address
any
potential
future
hybrid
or
virtual
meetings
right
now.
Our
the
planning
commission
policies
and
procedures
don't
allow
someone
to
participate
remotely
unless
the
chair
makes
a
declaration
and
as
we're
that
it's
unsafe
and
as
we're
moving
out
of
that
phase,
we
need
to
update.
A
A
Is
that
it?
Okay,
all
right
so
right
before
we
move
into
the
agenda?
If
you
are
here,
and
you
want
to
speak
on
an
item,
there's
cards
right
outside
the
door,
if
you
want
to
fill
them
out,
you
can
then
pass
them
on
to
john
and
they'll
make
it
up
to
me
that
just
helps
us
keep
things
organized
when
you're
called
on
to
speak
for
whatever
issue
you
want
that
podium,
I
guess,
is
what
you
where
you'll
be
speaking.
The
microphone
is
on
so
you'll
make
your
way
over
there.
A
H
H
J
H
H
K
H
Okay,
thank
you
for
mentioning
that
this
is
a
conditional
use
application
for
an
accessory
dwelling
use
adu
at
991,
south
tenth
east.
Just
so
you
can
locate
this
in
your
head.
It
is
southeast
of
the
ninth
and
ninth
business
area
in
that
neighborhood
the
request
is
for
an
accessory
dwelling
unit.
This
is
part
of
a
new
construction
to
the
property
so
that
the
property
owners
will
be
taking
down
the
existing
house
and
the
existing
detached
garage
in
the
rear
and
putting
up
new.
H
So
a
new
home
which
is
not
part
of
this
application
and
which
is
what
the
part
that
is
part
of
this
application
is.
The
detached
garage
will
now
have
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
on
top,
so
the
size
of
the
proposed
footprint
of
the
entire
accessory
accessory
dwelling
building
will
be
650
square
feet,
so
they
meet
that
the
accessory
dwelling
on
top
on
the
second
floor
will
be
450
square
feet.
The
proposed
height
of
the
building
will
be
22
and
a
half
feet.
H
H
This
is
a
picture
of
the
existing
house
on
the
left
and
the
existing
detached
garage
on
the
top
right.
I
just
want
to
put
this
picture
in
on
the
bottom
right.
This
is
the
alley
looking
from
the
north
to
the
south,
there
was
a
little
bit
of
a
talk
from
the
east
liberty
park,
community
organization,
about
the
alley
and
the
proposal
it's
it
was
in
I'm
sorry,
oh,
it
was
in
the
getting
some
feedback.
I
think
no,
okay,
it
was
in
the
extra
folder
in
the
sharepoint.
H
H
I
H
I
H
H
H
H
A
H
A
H
A
L
L
G
L
L
M
M
The
zoning
people
in
the
building
department
would
would
see
that
there's
no
demo
permit
and
there's
no
new
house,
and
they
would
compare
it
to
the
to
the
the
the
approved
petition
and
they
they
wouldn't
they
wouldn't
pass
it.
I
think
they'd
probably
call
diana
and
and
kind
of
halt
the
whole
process.
So
obviously
that's
that's
not
going
to
happen
in
this
case,
but
of
course
you
know
you
never
know,
but
but
it
it.
The
existing
house
is
one
story.
A
Okay,
you
guys
just
hang
tight
I'll
open
it
up
for
a
public
comment
period
and
then
once
I
close
it
we'll
bring
it
back
to
the
commission
and
there
may
be
further
questions.
So
we
will
open
the
public
comment
period
for
this
agenda
item.
I
do
not
have
a
card,
but
if
anybody
wishes
to
speak
now
is
your
time
on
this
one.
A
N
F
N
F
F
G
O
A
Okay,
seeing
none,
I
will
close
the
public
comment
period.
I
will
let
you
know
that
in
ordinance,
an
adu
requires
the
owner
of
the
house
to
occupy
either
the
principal
residents
or
the
adu,
so
they
have
to
occupy
one
of
them.
The
ordinance
does
not
regulate
like
who
they
may
rent
to
live
there,
but
there
is
an
ordinance
in
salt
lake
city
that
restricts
airbnbs.
A
If
anybody
ever
feels
a
resident
is
being
operated
as
an
airbnb,
they
would
call
civil
enforcement
within
salt
lake
city,
and
that
would
be
their
job
to
go,
regulate
that
diana.
Do
you
want
to?
Please
address
the
question
about
height
and
what
is
allowed
by
right
for
a
principal
structure
and
then
the
adu.
E
That
the
the
principal
building
in
this
zone
can
be
built
up
to
28
feet
if
it's
a
pitched
roof
and
that's
measured
to
the
highest
point
of
the
pitched
roof
or
23
feet
if
it's
flat
or
20.
20
feet.
If
it's
flat.
Sorry,
if
it's
a
flat
roof
structure
and
by
our
ordinance,
an
adu
is
not
allowed
to
be
taller
than
the
principal
structure.
E
E
C
I
would
like
to
say
that
when
we
say
there's
a
restriction,
it
can't
be
an
airbnb
that
means
that
the
adu
or
the
main
house
can
be
rented,
but
not
for
less
than
a
period
of
30
days
correct.
It
has
to
be
30
days,
you're,
not
changing
tenants
every
week
and
also
the
requirement
that
the
home
or
the
adu
has
to
be
occupied
by
the
homeowner.
C
That's
that's
like
forever.
That's
part
of
the
title.
So
if
they
sell
this
house
to
someone
else,
then
that
person
has
to
live
in
the
adu
or
in
the
building.
So
that's
it's.
It's
that
prevents
like
a
hotel
from
being
built
in
your
neighborhood,
which
hopefully
helps
you
feel
better.
I
have
a
real
quick
question
is:
is
the
the
garage
will
it
have
the
same
setback
in
the
alley
that
the
current
garage
has
like
you
can
see
from
the
existing
picture?
H
You
can
see
you
can
see
this
fence
line
the
vinyl
fence
where
it
meets
that
wood
fence,
that's
about
four
feet,
and
so
I'm
going
to
assume
that
it
is
about
the
same
with
that
applicant
saying
yes
too,
because
I've
been
out
there
several
times,
and
I
would
I
would
say
that
that's
about
four
or
five
feet
from
the
garage
door
to
that
wood
fence
and
then
and
they
and
it's
a
four
foot
setback
to
the
alley,
the
east
property
line.
So
I
would
just.
G
E
Yeah
and
so
what
we
do
think
a
condition
is
probably
warranted
because
we
you
couldn't
approve
the
proposed
height
based
on
the
existing
house.
That's
there,
and
so
in
that
case
you
couldn't
yeah
you'd
have
to
deny
the
the
conditionally
the
adu
application.
So
you
can
and
probably
should
put
a
condition
on
this.
That
says
that
the
building
permit
for
the
adu
has
proposed
cannot
be
issued
unless
it
is
issued
with
an
associated
building
permit
to
increase
the
height
of
the
principal
building,
subject
to
the
principal
building
meeting
all
of
the
zoning
stuff.
G
A
G
G
A
A
G
P
P
Proposed
building
is
seven
stories
tall
and
includes
292
units
and
202
parking
stalls,
so
the
parking
garage
entry
is
off
of
700
south
and
it
has
a
mid-block
walkway
on
the
western
property
line.
The
building
includes
commercial
space
and
a
leasing,
office
and
amenity
area
on
the
ground
floor
and
the
building
will
also
have
a
ground
floor.
Outdoor
dining
area,
as
well
as
two
upper
floor,
rooftop
decks.
P
P
It's
only
that
front
and
corner
side
yard
where
there
would
be
a
landscaping
relief
request,
the
yellow
there
is
the
mid-block
walkway
and
again
for
a
landscape
yard.
We
require
that
a
third
of
it
be
vegetated
which
in
this
case,
would
equal
just
over
1600
square
feet
of
vegetation
in
terms
of
the
additional
landscaping,
because
the
two
floors,
in
addition
that
they're
requesting
total
seventy
seven
hundred
or
no
seventy
seven
thousand
square
feet.
Rather
that
generates
that
10
percent
requirement
for
additional
landscaping.
P
P
So
the
motion
that
was
made
was
to
table
the
request
and
asking
the
applicant
to
explore
solutions
on
the
setbacks
and
landscaping
and
vegetation
relief
with
input
from
the
public.
The
commission
also
clarified
that
the
applicant
was
not
expected
to
return
to
the
community
councils
and
the
motion
passed
with
two
no
and
five
yes
votes.
P
P
P
P
So
the
recommendation,
planning
staff's
opinion
based
on
the
findings
in
the
staff
report,
is
that
the
project
meets
the
applicable
standards
and
recommends.
The
planning
commission
approve
the
request
with
the
following
conditions:
final:
approval
of
the
details
for
public
art
lighting,
streetscape
street
furniture,
mid
block,
walkway,
paving
sidewalk,
paving
and
landscaping
be
delegated
to
planning
staff
that
the
applicant
provide
an
awning
of
four
feet
in
depth.
P
A
J
J
So
that's
what
we
did
so
we
went
back
and
we
actually
took
calculations
on
what
our
landscape
coverage
we
or
our
vegetated
coverage.
We
were
providing
in
our
first
proposal
and
it
actually
was
really
close
to
the
vegetated
coverage.
That's
required
if
we
kept
a
10-foot
landscape
buffer
and
adding
the
extra
height
that
that
were
requesting.
J
So
we
have
a
I'll
I'll
run
through
our
calculations
and
how
we
came
up
with
that,
but
just
coinci.
By
coincidence,
we
were
in
dc
touring
union
market,
which
is
a
wonderful
neighborhood.
That
is
a
warehouse
district,
that's
being
revitalized
and
they
don't
have
any
landscape
buffers
or
park
strips
and
we're
fortunate
to
have
that.
So
what
they
did
was
got.
They
got
pretty
creative
in
adding
trellises
and
planters
along
the
facade
to
add
some
more
vegetation
coverage.
J
We
we
took
the
the
square
footage
of
the
landscape
buffer
requirements
and
the
extra
landscaping
that's
required
through
through
a
design,
review,
height
approval
and
we
calculated
not
the
area,
but
the
the
we
calculated,
the
third
of
those
spaces
that
are
required
for
vegetation.
The
other
two
thirds
can
be
rocks
mulch,
it's
not
vegetated
coverage.
So
what
we
found
out
is
that,
in
order
to
meet
the
landscape
buffer
requirements
and
the
additional
height,
we
have
to
provide
5282
square
feet
of
vegetated
coverage.
J
In
our
new
proposal,
we
are
providing
9870
square
feet
of
vegetated
coverage,
so
we're
providing
54
percent
more
vegetated
coverage
than
what's
required.
If
we
kept
our
10-foot
landscape
buffer
and
still
got
our
extra
height,
this
is
across
the
street
from
us.
It's
a
buy
right
building,
and
this
is
what
a
typical
landscape
buffer
looks
like
by
right.
It's
landscaping,
but
again
only
a
third
of
it
has
to
be
landscaping.
J
The
rest
of
it
can
be
rocks
mulch.
Whatever
the
case
is
so
we're
really
leveraging
the
park
strips
and
and
our
courtyard
and
the
mid
block
walkway,
to
provide
real,
robust
vegetated
coverage
in
those
areas
we
took
our
calculations
from
the
city
provided
hydro
zone
schedule
from
2013.
That's
where
we
got
all
of
our
calculations
and
information
from
this
is
the
current
right-of-way
on
400
west.
J
So
that's
the
task
we
were
given
and
that's
how
we're
responding
to
it
and
feel
like
we're.
We're
not
only
providing
a
more
enhanced
product
than
what's
required
by
zoning
through
our
ground
floor
activation
and
our
pedestrian
scale
and
keeping
in
line
with
the
existing
neighborhood
pattern.
But
we're
also
adding
a
more
robust
landscape
coverage
than
what
would
be
required
by
wright.
J
C
J
A
P
A
C
C
One
of
them
feel
satisfied
with
this.
One
of
them
is
judy
short
who's
on
the
land
use.
She
is
the
land
use
chair
for
sugar
house
community
council,
so
I
know
there
was
a
requirement
to
go
to
the
community
council,
but
that's
what
those
two
comments
on
there
at
the
very
end.
If
you
want
to
look
at
them.
A
I
A
G
A
G
G
G
A
G
A
A
A
You,
okay
and
then
I
do
have
a
card,
but
it
doesn't
tell
me
that
the
subject
from
denise
payne
is
this.
The
item
you
wanted
to
speak
on:
swanner,
okay,
all
right.
So
this
is
our
next
agenda
item,
which
is
the
swanner
preliminary
subdivision
at
approximately
2691
north
2200
west.
This
is
case
number
pln
suv.
A
A
I
think
468
pages
is
the
most
I've
ever
gotten
for
one
of
the
agendas,
so
you
win,
but
there's
two
main
things
for
us
to
talk
about
and
in
my
discussions
with
planning
staff
on
monday
to
try
to
wrap
my
head
around
this.
It
was
really
suggested
that
one
of
the
things
we
talked
about
first
so
just
kind
of
keep
in
your
mind
as
you
as
we
go
through.
This
is
the
real.
A
A
That
project
needs
to
come
before
the
planning
commission,
so
just
to
try
to
help
us
focus
and
not
get
really
off
track.
Is
those
six
standards
for
the
subdivision,
and
that
way
we
can
have
a
more
fruitful
discussion
about
what
recommendation
we're
actually
making
and
then
we'll
move
on
to
the
city
council.
A
I
certainly
don't
want
to
squash
any
talk
about
other
options,
because
there's
this
is
a
lot.
This
is
really,
in
some
cases,
really
kind
of
overwhelming
with
all
of
the
things,
and
so,
but
I
want
us
to
recognize
that
all
of
those
standards
that
daniel
provided
us
aren't
necessarily
things
that
we
ever
would
even
see
that
the
city
would
make
sure
that
they
are
met
when
a
development
proposal
came
for
lot
one
and
then
lot
two
and
then
lot
three
we're
really
looking
at
the
standards
for
creating
these
lots
as
empty
lots.
A
A
A
K
2691,
north
2200
west,
the
property
is
about
430
acres
in
size
and
is
mostly
vacant.
It's
located
at
one
of
the
north,
most
points
of
the
city
to
the
west
of
I-215,
it's
surrounded
by
agricultural,
some
recreational
and
some
residential
property
with
vacant
airport
property
generally
to
the
south,
occupies
most
of
the
land
at
the
southwest
corner.
K
K
So
again,
most
subdivisions
are
approved
by
city
staff
and
don't
come
before
the
commission
for
approval
this.
This
is
before
the
commission
again
because
of
the
block
size
issue.
They
are
coming
before
you
for
a
recommendation
on
the
block
size
modification
and
that
block
modification
would
go
to
the
mayor
for
an
approval
and
just
up
front.
We
are
approving
or
we
are
recommending
approval
of
the
subdivision
with
conditions,
and
we
are
recommending
that
the
commission
send
a
positive
recommendation
on
the
modification
request.
K
K
K
Additionally,
they
are
required
to
improve
3200
west
on
the
west
border
of
the
subdivision.
Just
to
note,
though,
this
road
could
be
closed
in
the
future
and
not
improved
and
I'll
talk
about
that.
A
little
bit
more
in
the
presentation
in
a
small
section
at
the
bottom
south
most
point
of
the
subdivision
needs
to
be
dedicated,
as
this
portion
of
the
roadway
was
never
dedicated
in
the
past,
but
the
majority
of
3200
west
was
actually
already
dedicated.
K
K
So
a
subdivision
process
is
different
than
most
petitions
that
come
before
the
commission.
The
commission's
purview
for
a
subdivision
is
limited
to
property
lines,
roadways,
road
plans,
utility
plans
which
include
sewer
water
and
storm
drains.
The
standards
of
review
really
only
pertain
to
these
things
and
the
standards
ask
whether
the
proposal
meets
these
minimum
code
requirements.
K
So
there's
not
much
discretion
in
the
code
requirements.
If
you
meet
a
lot
size
standard
or
a
roadway
standard,
we
have
to
prove
the
subdivision
things
like
buildings
uses
or
site
design
of
lots.
Those
are
outside
of
the
subdivision
per
view
and
with
subdivisions
conditions
are
normal.
Preliminary
subdivision
plans
are
not
final,
buildable
construction
plans.
Final
plans
aren't
developed
in
city
until
the
city
actually
provides
preliminary
approval,
then
a
developer
will
go
forward
and
develop
full
final
infrastructure
plans
that
include
full
technical
engineering
and
utility
regulation.
K
K
K
In
this
case
they
have
proposed
roads
in
those
same
locations,
so
we
find
that
they
they
did
meet
the
standard.
We
have
just
put
a
condition
in
here,
though,
related
to
the
3200
west
improvements
again
I'll
get
in
that
to
another
slide,
but
just
to
provide
the
flexibility.
If
3200
west
is
closed,
then
we
wouldn't
require
it
to
be
improved.
K
K
We
can
make
some
preliminary
reviews,
so
the
public
utilities
department
has
looked
at
that
found
that
it
generally
meets
the
requirements,
but
there's
a
number
of
different
detailed
standards
that
they're
going
to
have
to
meet
and
comply
in
their
final
detailed
plans.
So
the
condition
for
this
is
that
final
plans
comply
with
all
other
detailed
utility
regulations
and
then
the
fifth
standard
is
provisions
for
construction
of
any
required.
Public
improvements
are
included
again.
K
So
one
one
example
of
this
is
that
there
are
some
wetlands
on
the
property
and
the
developer
is
going
to
go
and
has
provided
plans
to
the
army
corps
of
engineers
for
review
of
those
wetlands.
And
so
we
have
to
add
a
condition
here
that
we
will
need
to
verify
federal
wetland.
Compliance
before
the
city
will
actually
accept
any
of
the
roadways
that
they
are
showing
on
this
subdivision
map
and
again
same
standard
final
infrastructure
plans
will
need
to
comply
with
other
all
other
detailed
regulations.
K
So
this
gets
us
to
the
requested
modification
to
the
block
size,
which
is
the
key
issue
for
the
commission.
So
the
commission
is
required
to
make
a
recommendation
of
the
on
this
request
as
part
of
the
subdivision.
But
again
the
final
decision
is
up
to
the
mayor,
so
the
block
size
regulation
in
question
is
a
3
000
foot
perimeter
length
limit
for
blocks.
K
K
The
second
is
that
imposing
this
would
require
the
subdivision
to
be
crisscrossed
by
a
number
of
additional
city
streets.
That's
a
financial
burden
on
the
city.
We
don't
anticipate
that
these
would
actually
be
fully
utilized
by
any
development.
That's
out
here,
so
it'd
be
a
long-term
maintenance
burden
for
the
city
and
then
third,
it
doesn't
align
with
city
policies
for
2200
west
that
actually
discourage
new
roadway
connections
onto
2200
west,
and
so
we
have
a
plan
out
here.
K
K
K
So,
based
on
that,
and
based
on
some
input
from
the
developer
city
departments,
actually
looked
at
that
more
detail
and
determined
that
really
3200
west
would
essentially
be
a
redundant
road
if
they
build
2.
900
west
transportation
supports
essentially
not
improving
3200
west.
If
2900
west
is
actually
built.
K
K
But
the
issue
is
that
this
is
a
city
street
or
shown
on
a
city
street
plan.
321
3200
west
is
shown
as
a
collector
street
on
our
official
street
plan
and
because
it's
shown
on
our
official
plan,
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
flexibility
to
say.
Well,
no
sure
you
don't
have
to
do
it.
Improvements
and
dedication
are
required
when
a
roadway
is
shown
on
one
of
our
plans.
K
Another
consideration
here
is:
the
developer
is
proposing
to
modify
a
canal
location,
so
there
is
a
canal
that
runs
through
the
property
at
the
southwest
area
of
of
the
subdivision.
It
runs
through
lots,
7,
8,
9,
10
and
11.
they're,
proposing
to
shift
that
canal
so
that
it
runs
along
the
east
side
of
3200
west.
K
K
There
is
a
potential
that
public
utilities
doesn't
agree
that
the
canal
be
moved
and
in
that
case,
property
lines
may
need
to
be
adjusted
to
ensure
that
each
of
the
sites
has
adequate
access
to
the
proposed
new
public
streets.
So
we
have
proposed
a
condition
to
allow
some
movement
of
their
proposed
property
lines
to
accommodate
the
canal
location.
If
that
ends
up
being
necessary.
K
Some
other
items
to
note
that
are
somewhat
outside
of
the
purview
here.
2200
west
access
has
been
a
concern
from
residents.
The
subdivision
is
proposing
a
that.
One
roadway
connection
on
2950
north
onto
2200,
west
and
residents
have
requested
that
no
access
to
the
site
from
2200
west
be
allowed
at
all
and
they
do
point
to
the
northpoint
master
plan
policy,
which
is
to
restrict
or
prohibit
access
from
2200
west
into
this
site.
K
K
K
Another
question
that
has
come
up
is:
can
the
city
hold
up
an
application,
while
a
new
master
plan
is
in
progress
and
just
for
context
here?
The
2001
north
point
master
plan
is
currently
going
through
an
update.
We
have
a
consultant
working
on
updating
that
plan.
They've
done
some
outreach
and
they're
working
on
a
draft
plan
at
this
point,
but
just
because
a
master
plan
is
in
progress,
it
doesn't
put
a
hold
on
any
development
in
the
area
that
the
master
plan
is
dealing
with.
K
K
K
K
Both
options
would
run
through
city
airport
property.
The
issue
here
is
that
the
city
can't
require
a
subdivider
to
actually
do
something
on
someone
else's
property
as
a
condition
of
approval
for
their
own
site.
So
we
we
don't
have
the
ability
to
make
them
build
this
extension
of
the
bypass
road
because
it
is
on
airport
property.
Having
said
that,
the
developer
has
been
working
with
airport
on
an
airport
has
actually
provided
a
comment
in
the
staff
report
that
supports
construction
of
the
road,
but
the
developer
still
needs
to
work
with
airport.
K
They
do
have
to
require
a
payment
of
a
fee
to
actually
use
their
property,
so
they'll
have
to
continue
work
with
them,
continue
work
with
engineering
and
transportation
on
what
that
roadway
actually
ends
up.
Looking
like
and
just
to
add
on
to
that,
the
realignment
actually
does
align
with
the
airport's
own
long-term
plans,
which
again
call
for
a
reconfiguration
of
3200
west
to
more
of
a
2900
west
configuration.
K
So
I
think
that
covers
most
of
the
major
topics
on
the
subdivision
again
staff's
recommending
that
the
planning
commission
recommend
approval
of
the
block
size
modification
to
the
mayor,
and
we
are
also
recommending
approval
of
the
subdivision
with
the
conditions
listed
in
their
staff
report.
Just
noting
approval
is
conditioned
on
the
mayor.
Approval
of
the
block
size.
A
K
A
Have
that
is
the
place
where
they
would
be
addressed,
and
I
would
just
I
don't
know
if
what,
where
you're
at
in
the
public
process,
but
then
I
would
encourage,
I
guess,
the
public
to
participate
in
that
component,
because
then,
if
development,
when
development
comes,
then
that
would
be
subject
to
the
master
plan
and
right
now,
there's
no
development,
we're
just
talking
about
the
lots
of
the
block
size.
So,
okay,
that's
what
I
figured
and
then
so
on
this
bypass
road
regarding
the
airport
land.
A
K
A
K
I
L
I
C
I
K
B
I'm
with
me
here
today,
patrick
marcotte,
he's
a
director
of
development
with
scanell
myself
mark
wilson,
colby
anderson
is
with
anderson
or
cole,
with
anderson
whalen
associates,
he's
a
civil
engineer
on
the
project,
so
he'll
be
the
one
putting
together
all
those
final
plans
that
daniel
was
talking
about
that
we
need
to
do
after
we
get
through
this
initial
process
and
also
with
me
today
is
brent.
Bateman
he's
our
attorney,
helping
us
with
our
land
use
and
getting
everything
to
this
point.
B
This
is
the
park
plan
that
was
included
in
in
in
the
staff
report.
It's
it's
oriented
with
north
facing
left.
So
that's
why
it
may
look
a
little
strange,
but
this
is
ultimately
our
our
current
plan
for
the
park.
Obviously,
that
includes
our
ability
to
relocate
the
rudy
drain.
If
that's
not
something,
that's
able
to
happen,
we'll
modify
accordingly
to
to
to
not
move
that,
and
then
this
shows
our
connection
points
to
2200
west,
and
then
this
is
the
north
part
of
the
bypass
road
that
comes
through
our
development.
B
This
is
just
an
alternative
view,
showing
the
the
improvements
that
we
intend
to
make
to
the
roadways.
This
is
this
is
similar
to
the
drawing
that
daniel
showed,
but
the
the
blue
line
here
is
this
bypass
road,
coming
from
from
2100
north
up
up
through
our
site
and
then
connecting
on
the
north
end.
Items
shown
in
orange
would
be
future
road
expansions
as
develop
occurs
in
the
area.
One
thing
I
do
want
to
point
out
is,
while
initially
all
traffic
would
be
coming
from
2200
west.
B
B
B
This
was
a
preliminary
phasing
plan
we
had
put
together.
I
I
think
the
intent
is,
you
know
we're
coming
out
of
the
ground
initially
with
two
buildings.
It
would
be
building
two
and
building
three
here,
however,
we
would
probably
be
doing
one
to
two
to
three
buildings
a
year.
So
this
is
a
a
multi-year
seven
to
ten
year
build
out
of
the
park.
It
would
be
our
intent.
B
B
If
we
had
to
meet
that
requirement,
we
would
have
almost
eight
miles
of
roadway
that
we
would
have
to
build
in
the
in
the
park
here
versus
the
the
less
than
two
and
a
half
that
would
go
in
as
part
of
our
current
plan.
So
those
would
all
be
roads
that
would
have
utilities
and
and
be
maintained
by
the
city,
and
it
wouldn't
be
a
very
efficient
park
for
us.
B
I
think,
ideally,
I'd
like
to
see
the
bypass
road
built
and
complete
as
close
to
the
completion
of
the
first
couple
of
buildings
as
possible.
Obviously
this
is
dependent
on
you
know
getting
through
some
processes
with
the
city.
We
have
to
design
it
as
well
as
the
rest
of
the
park.
So
ideally
we'd
like
to
see
that
complete
as
close
to
the
completion
of
the
first
two
buildings
as
possible.
Now
we
we
would,
if,
if
it
is
possible,
we
would
like
to
initially
use
the
bypass
road
as
a
construction
access.
B
A
Okay,
I
will
have
you
guys,
hold
tight,
we'll
open
the
public
comment
period.
If
there's
any
I'll,
give
you
a
chance
to
address
anything
that
comes
up
during
that
after
I
close
the
public
comment
period,
so
just
get
comfortable,
I'm
going
to
we're
going
to
open
the
public
comment
period.
If
you
filled
out
a
card
great,
I
will
first
be
calling
your
name
in
order.
As
you
come
up,
you
would
please
state
your
name
in
the
microphone
for
the
record
and
then
you'll
have
two
minutes.
A
This
is
a
comment
period,
so
we
don't
stop
for
a
back
and
forth
q
a.
But
you
are
more
than
welcome
to
ask
questions.
I
will
write
them
down
and
I
will
pose
them
to
either
the
applicant
or
staff
once
the
public
comment
period
is
closed,
but
I
won't
stop
what
we're
doing
in
order
to
give
you
an
answer
at
that
time,
but
I
am
going
to
be
writing
them
down
since
we're
back
in
person.
A
I
also
want
to
just
make
the
notice
that
we
really
we
really
want
some
decorum,
so
no
yelling,
no
clapping,
no
booing.
No,
any
of
that,
we
want
to
treat
everyone
with
equal
respect,
regardless
of
what
your
comments
are
this
evening.
So
with
that
we
will
begin
my
first
step
for
my
card
is
dan
thompson.
R
R
2200
we
have
on
the
south
end
is
where
the
sewer
and
water
ends
at
the
new
complex.
That
is
being
built
right
now
we
are
going
to
get
the
majority
I'd
say
all
of
the
traffic
from
their
construction
north
on
there
they
have
to
do
the
infrastructure,
I
believe,
before
they
put
in
their
buildings.
So
it's
there.
So
it's
ready
to
hook
up.
R
A
A
N
Yeah
peter
andrewarden,
I
do
live
in
the
neighborhood,
not
right
on
2200
and
and
really
appreciate
the
comments
by
by
the
city,
workers
and
dan.
It
was
a
very
good
presentation.
I
kind
of
realized
we're
late
to
the
party
here
and
that's
that's
fine.
I
I
think
that
it's
hard
for
me
to
be
pragmatic
about
everything
I
heard
today
about
maybe
there's
wetlands
out
there
I
mean
the
whole
area
is
wetlands,
really
maybe
not
federally
designated
as
such.
N
N
N
Certainly
it
won't
be
safe
during
this
this
process,
but
I
don't
want
to
take
up
any
more
of
anyone's
time.
Just
a
couple
rhetorical
questions:
where
did
the
rest
of
the
wildlife
go
where
you
know
we
have
all
these
warehouse
across
the
street
warehouses
across
the
street
already
some
of
them
haven't
even
been
leased.
Yet
I
understand
the
need
for
more
high
density
housing
and
I
I
respect
the
right
of
land
owner
to
to
use
the
land
as
as
they
see
fit.
I
just
am
worried
about
the
lack
of
remaining
open
space.
Thank
you.
Q
Thank
you.
I'm
here
today
on
behalf
of
rudy
reclamation
and
north
point
reclamation
combined,
we
own
about
3,
700,
acres
of
land
on
the
opposite
side
of
3200,
west
and
oftentimes.
You
hear
about
the
beauty
and
the
majesty
of
the
great
salt
lake
and
the
ecosystem
and
the
tremendous
wealth
of
wildlife
that
exists
in
connection
with
the
great
salt
lake.
That's
the
property
they're
talking
about
that's
what
they're
talking
about
for
over
110
years,
we
have
viewed
the
nurturing
and
the
care
of
that
land.
As
a
stewardship
that's
been
passed
down
to
us.
Q
It's
our
concern
that
development
directly
on
the
other
side
of
the
street
is
going
to
have
a
significant
negative
impact,
and
it's
very
important
that
3200
west
not
be
improved.
The
city
really
isn't
anxious
to
improve
it.
As
you
gathered
from
mr
echeverria's
comments,
the
developer
as
I
understand,
and
they
can
maybe
confirm
this-
is
not
interested
in
improving
3200
west.
Q
Improving
3200
west
would
impose
a
steady
stream
of
semis
and
other
traffic
and
lights
and
noise
on
those
wetlands
that
are
very
productive.
The
jurisdiction
of
the
city.
Interestingly
enough
only
extends
halfway
across
3200
west,
the
other
half
of
3200
west.
The
western
half
is
under
the
jurisdiction
of
salt
lake
county.
Q
My
comments
here
and
by
the
way
we
support,
we
support
the
developer's
request
for
the
block
size
modification
we've
had
the
opportunity
to
speak
with
the
developer.
We've
had
some
positive
discussions
and
we
appreciate
their
candor
and
their
willingness
to
meet
with
us
and
to
work
through
some
difficult
issues.
There
are
going
to
be
more
difficult
issues
that
will
come
up
in
the
future,
but
what
I
want
to
impress
here
today
is
that
the
wetlands
in
this
area
are
far
closer
to
proposed
development
than
any
wetlands
in
the
northwest.
Quadrant
are
to
the
inland
port.
G
He
asked
me
how
long
we've
been
out
here.
He
had
worked
for
the
streets
department
for
10
years
and
didn't
even
know
the
road
existed.
It's
a
small
road,
that's
already
falling
apart
and
any
construction
going
on
out.
There
is
just
going
to
tear
it
apart,
even
more
there's
residents
on
the
east
side,
wetlands
on
the
west
side.
G
I
really
hope
the
city
thinks
about
this
before
they
agreed
to
anything,
because
that
one
road
2200
west
is
not
going
to
work.
There's
going
to
be
more
accidents
than
there
already
has
been.
You
can't
ride
your
bike
on
that
road
anymore.
Without
a
semi
running
you
off
the
road
or
if
there's
a
car
coming
towards
another
semi,
the
way
it
is
with
no
improvements,
which
is
the
way
it's
going
to
be
for
quite
a
while.
G
You
have
to
move
off
the
road
in
order
for
the
semi
to
get
past.
You
it's
dangerous
and
I
really
wish
people
would
go
out
and
look
at
what
they're
going
to
be
voting
on
before
they
do
it,
because
it
really
makes
a
difference
to
the
people
that
live
out
there.
Residents
agriculture-
I
don't
know
how
I'm
going
to
pull
our
trailers
out
with
all
of
that
going
on
on
the
road.
A
D
D
You
actually
said
my
last
name
correctly,
which
is
rare.
I
get
mooster
a
lot,
so
my
name
is
alison
musser.
I
just
want
to
thank
you
for
your
time
tonight.
I'm
a
property
owner
along
2200
west.
I
don't
have
any
concerns
with
the
developer's
request
tonight
for
the
block
modification.
Instead.
I
just
want
to
use
this
time
to
reiterate
my
support
for
the
letter
you
received
from
the
west
point
community
council
so
that
had
four
kind
of
primary
topics
on
it.
First
is
the
scheduling
of
the
construction
roadways.
D
We
have
spoken
with
scanell
they've
been
really
great
and
transparent
with
us
and
we're
grateful
that
they
are
taking
into
consideration,
not
just
the
road
that
the
city
was
initially
going
to
develop,
but
an
improved
road
that
is
going
to
mitigate
traffic
off
of
2200
west.
We're
really
thankful
for
that.
At
the
same
time,
I'm
having
a
really
difficult
time
accepting
that
construction
is
going
to
potentially
begin
and
likely
begin
prior
to
that
construction.
D
Access
by
bypass
road
being
developed,
2200
west
is
already
like
falling
apart,
and
I
just
can't
imagine
large
trucks
hauling
dirt
out
of
there
on
2200
west.
For
what
we're
told
is
probably
going
to
be
five
to
six
months,
but
probably
more
so,
ideally
we'd
ask
that
the
construction
bypass
would
be
complete
before
construction
begins.
D
Additionally,
while
that
bypass
road
is
gonna
mitigate
traffic
on
2200
west
we'd
really
like
to
see
the
city
and
even
scanell
take
more
formal
measures
to
limit
or
prohibit
tractor
trailers
along
2200
west
during
peak
traffic
hours.
Not
always
we
do
have
residents
in
the
area
who
drive
tractor
trailers
for
a
living,
so
they
would
of
course,
need
to
be
exempt.
D
Denise
and
others
have
already
mentioned
that
2200
west
is
going
to
be
a
piecemeal
road
and
we
really
feel
like
the
city
needs
to
complete
the
improvements
along
that
road,
not
after
not
when
a
developer
decides
to
develop,
but
now,
because
that
master
plan
that
is
being
developed
and
going
to
be
launched
here
soon.
It's
no
longer
the
future.
It's
the
here
and
now
and
so
we'd
love
to
see
the
city
invest
in
that.
D
Lastly,
we
also
just
would
love
for
you
all
to,
rather
than
assessing
the
impact
of
individual
warehouses,
individual
developments,
we
really
want
to
assess
the
cumulative
effect
that
all
of
these
developments
are
having
on
the
west
side,
health
safety
quality
of
life.
This
is
all
going
to
impact
us
the
residents.
So
thank.
R
Also
said
my
last
name
right
yeah,
I
have
no
disagreement
with
the
block
size
change
if
it
actually
truly
will
reduce
the
amount
of
curb
cuts
going
into
2200
west.
I
just
want
to
echo
what
alison
was
saying:
2200
west
is
just
a
glorified
barn
like
a
it's,
a
dirt
road
that
has
been
abused
and
is
small
when
we
had
the
developments
off
of
2100
north
begin.
R
I've
lived
on
this
road
for
about
12
years
now,
and
we've
had
a
lot
of
animals
and
until
they
started
the
developments
and
the
trucks
started
coming
in
the
time
that
they
built
those
buildings.
I
had
to
bury
about
seven
animals
because
of
the
trucks
not
being
able
to
slow
down
to
watch
their
way,
and
luckily
none
of
that
was
part
of
my
actual
family.
It
was
just
animals
at
that
point.
R
I
have
videos
of
trucks
trying
to
pass
each
other
on
that
road,
and
you
cannot
pass
two
trucks
on
that
road
without
someone
having
to
drop
one
tire
off
the
side
or
the
other,
it's
that
dangerous
and
for
us
to
have
the
notion
that
we're
gonna
have
to
wait
six
months
to
a
year
with
fully
burdened
trucks.
Driving
up
and
down
2200
west
is
absolutely
crazy.
It
is
not.
R
It
is
not
safe,
it
is
not
proper
and-
and
that
is
not
a
development
plan
that
should
be
sustained
by
any
city,
because
it
is
a
huge
liability
because
it
is
a
known
liability
and
if
it's
only
delaying
a
project
by
six
months
to
get
an
access
road
put
in
place
properly,
then
that's
what
should
be
done.
So
that
is
those
are.
My
concerns
mainly
is
access
to
the
development,
the
right
of
ways
and
everything
else,
they've
been
very
transparent
about
it,
and
we've
been
very
grateful
about
that.
R
But
the
the
access
and
the
timing
of
the
development
is
extremely
crucial
in
this
one,
and
the
very
last
comment
I
wanted
was
business
park
has
been
that
zoning
has
been
there
for
a
very
long
time.
It
never
has
been
appropriate
for
this
area
and
it
never
will
be
appropriate
for
this
area
and
the
notion
that,
because
it's
always
been
that
way
means
that
it
is
okay
and
that
it
should
be.
That
way
is
also
not
correct,
which
is
why
I'm
I'm
really
glad
that
we
have
this
master
plan
update
coming.
R
S
S
It's
all
open
space
that
property
should
never
have
been
so
commercial,
it's
completely
wetlands
and
right
now,
all
the
environmental
testing
is
probably
completely
wrong
because
it's
during
a
drought,
so
once
we.
Finally,
hopefully
we
come
out
of
this
drought
soon.
That
area
is
even
going
to
be
much
much
more
of
a
wetland.
S
I
agree
with
one
of
the
gentlemen
when,
where
do
these
wildlife
go,
you
should
see
right
now
the
cranes
that
are
coming
out
through
their
migration
when
this
was
originally
zoned
commercial,
it
was
zoned
as
a
huge
flaw
altogether
when
they
zoned
it.
I'm
assuming
that
they
had
tried
to
put
some
of
the
residents
into
consideration
because
they
also
allowed
for
a
large
open
space
and
for
that
area,
2200
west,
it
is
too
small.
You
need
to
go
out
there.
S
It's
a
country,
road,
I'm
hearing
a
lot
of
long
term
and
intentions
from
the
builders
and
intentions
are
just
I
mean
I've
intended
to
do
a
lot
to
my
yard
and
it
hasn't
been
completed.
So
to
me,
I
feel
like
there's
a
lot
of
promises
right
now,
but
I
don't
think
it's
putting
the
residents
into
consideration.
I
don't
think
it's
putting
the
wildlife
in
consideration,
and
I
mean
this
is
actually
the
last
agricultural
neighborhood
in
salt
lake
city.
It
is
a
gem.
T
T
T
You
look
at
the
middle
column,
all
the
inputs
were
sort
of
brushed
over
and
let's
look
at
the
difference,
we're
putting
less
cars,
but
yet
we're
putting
thousands
of
tons
of
knocks
and
socks.
So
my
my
comment
is
what
you're,
seeing
from
the
developer
in
this
case,
presented
to
the
community
is
highly
questionable.
T
Whatever
they
put
in
front
of,
you
needs
to
be
looked
at
again
and
again.
The
intent
of
building
the
road
they
may
never
get
approval
and
they
get
to
build
a
project
and
run
these
people
into
the
ground
with
dust
knocks
and
socks.
You
all
know
that
the
west
side
is
the
most
polluted
urban
area
in
the
city
in
the
state.
Sorry,
the
largest
open
pit
mine
in
the
world,
five,
our
oil
refineries.
T
A
G
Elma
mendoza
and
I'm
at
2240,
west
3130
north
I'm
in
a
little
small
street,
and
when
I
come
out
of
the
street
onto
2200
west,
I
already
got
rear-ended
okay,
so
the
cars
are
coming
down
really
fast,
even
at
65
miles
per
hour,
and
so
it's
a
little
brown
belt
kind
of
like
a
little
turn
and
so
had
that
problem.
My
left
mirror
on
my
truck
already
touched
another
vehicle
and
I
was
in
my
lane.
G
G
So
now
I
don't
want
to
take
any
walks
because
the
street
is
very
narrow.
So
I
got
me
a
treadmill,
so
I'm
just
now
working
out
of
my
garage
for
the
walk,
and
so,
but
you
can
hear
when
fedex
is
coming,
you
can
hear
ups.
You
can
hear
a
semi
it'll
jolt,
the
house.
The
house
is
kind
of
already
cracking.
You
know
because
there's
vehicles
semis
coming
through
that
are
over
five
tons,
which
I
thought
they
weren't
allowed.
G
B
B
But
everybody
has
to
agree
to
do
that
and
to
agree
for
some
finality
to
all
of
the
property
owners
in
the
area
so
that,
instead
of
everyone
sitting
back
in
their
bunkers
waiting
to
throw
a
grenade
into
the
one
next
door,
we
can
move
forward
with
a
plan.
That's
safe
and
that
respect
respects
the
rights
of
all
of
the
owners,
the
ones
that
have
been
there
and
the
ones
that
will
be
there
in
the
future
and
so,
rather
than
using
street
safety
as
a
weapon
to
prevent
improvements
to
the
adjoining
private
property.
B
Let's
invest
the
money
that
it
takes
to
improve
the
street
and
allow
the
private
property
rights
to
work
themselves
out
for
the
highest
and
best
uses
in
the
area.
That's
what
we
would
like
to
do.
We
support
this
project.
We
think
it
makes
good
sense
and
we
think
it
keeps
you
know
the
the
option
and
is
really
the
only
viable
option
of
making
2200
west
safer,
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank.
A
A
A
M
The
first
one
is
from
cindy
cromer.
She
says
it
is
not
likely
that
you'll
see
another
subdivision
this
large
during
your
years
of
service
on
the
commission,
the
challenge
of
a
project
of
this
scale
has
been
met
by
daniel
aycheveria.
The
complexity
of
proposals
such
as
this
one
is
where
daniel
excels.
The
public
comments
include
ones
from
advocates
for
avian
wildlife.
The
credentials
of
these
authors
are
impeccable,
including
authors
of
books
and
lifetimes
of
experience,
I've
known
some
of
them
for
almost
40
years.
M
Finally,
the
commission
has
the
authority
to
initiate
petitions.
You
choose
not
to
do
so,
but
you
need
to
bird
strikes
or
the
collision
of
birds
and
buildings
result
in
the
deaths
of
millions
of
birds
each
year
the
building
you
are
in
tonight
is
guilty,
but
not
as
responsible
for
killing
birds
as
the
public
safety
building
in
the
main
library.
These
unnecessary
deaths
could
be
mitigated
through
the
conditional
use
process
if
you
added
a
condition
regarding
protection
of
existing
natural
resources
to
the
requirements
for
sustainability.
M
Of
course,
you
would
also
have
to
require
the
applicant
me
more
than
one
measly
requirement
seeking
approval.
Addressing
the
mitigation
of
losses
to
natural
resources
would
give
you
an
opportunity
to
strengthen
the
requirements
which
are
currently
far
too
lenient
to
deliver
worthy
projects
to
the
city's
built
environment.
M
And
the
second
one
says:
dear
planning,
commission,
my
name
is
stephen:
kaiser
of
kin
grows.
Llc
king
gross
holds
a
60
year
lease
with
option
to
buy
the
15
acre
property
of
budding
the
swaiter
subdivision.
Our
lease
property
is
located
directly
south
and
abutting,
the
south
property
boundary
of
the
proposed
swather
subdivision
at
2601
north
2200
west.
We
have
read
the
proposed
swan
or
southern
application
and
all
supporting
documents
and
planning
comments.
M
A
O
You
know
I'll
first
address
jack's
comment
with
regards
to
3200,
west
and
vacating
it
or
closing
the
road.
We
certainly
support
that
on
our
initial
plan.
You
know
we
had
that
as
an
approved
road
after
further
analysis
of
our
project
and
really
creating
the
right
amount
of
flow
and
all
the
requirements
to
be
met
from
fire
and
safety.
O
We
do
not
have
any
reason
to
improve
3200
west,
so
it
would
be
our
proposal,
obviously
to
also
to
vacate
3200
west,
even
the
roads
that
were
planned
to
go
into
3200
west.
We
would
develop
cul-de-sacs
with
the
intent
or
the
purpose
of
again
trying
to
keep
all
truck
traffic
and
auto
as
much
to
the
inside
of
the
of
the
project,
the
interior
of
the
development
as
possible.
O
That
brings
me
into
2200
west.
I
have
listened
to
the
public
tonight
and
everybody's
stories,
and
we
are
certainly
empathetic
to
to
your
concerns.
We've
had
several
conversations
with
community
council
as
of
late
of
thursday,
and
we
are
aware
of
the
challenges
of
2200
west
that
what
I've
heard
this
evening
is
the
current
challenges
and
what
exists
on
2200
west
and
have
for
some
time
in
the
stories
that
that
back
that
tonight,
what
we're
proposing
and
we're
funding-
which
I
think
is
an
important
thing
to
consider-
is
a
bypass
road
that
goes
through
our
site.
O
O
Now
we
always
like
to
be
transparent
and
set
expectations,
as
as
you
should
in
that
it
will
take
some
time,
as
dan
alluded
to
the
plan
is,
is
to
have
the
construction
road
constructed
by
the
time.
We're
probably
finished
civil.
So
while
there
will
be
some
added
traffic
construction
traffic
to
2200
west,
initially
it
will
be
limited.
O
O
It
down
and
incur
additional
cost
to
tie
it
into
2100
north
versus
the
original
plan
was
to
tie
it
in
back
into
2200
watts,
so
it
would
have
jogged
to
the
east
and
just
south
of
our
buildings
tied
into
2200
west,
so
that
would
not
have
really
fixed.
The
challenge
that
everybody
is
is
witnessing
right
now
so
again,
empathetic
to
the
situation.
I
understand
it.
C
This
is
amy
burroughs.
A
couple
of
things
that
I'm
thinking
about
is
that,
if
the
master
plan
right
now,
the
idea
is
to
limit
traffic
and
traffic
cuts
onto
2200
west.
It
seems
like
we
have
to
the
best
way
to
do
that
is
to
give
the
block
size
modification
so
that
those
that
many
roads
don't
have
to
be
built
onto
2200
west.
I
think
I
understand
that
correctly
and
then
the
other
thing
that
sticks
in
my
mind
is
that
we
can't
require
these
property
owners
to
do
something
on
land
that
they
don't
own.
C
So
we
can't
say
as
a
condition
of
getting
a
block
size
modification
that
you
want.
You
have
to
build
this
road
first,
because
they
don't
own
that
property.
Is
that
right,
daniel?
That's
what
it
felt
like
that
you
were
saying
that
we
can't
require
them
to
build
a
road
on
a
on
a
property.
They
don't
have.
P
C
G
K
K
There's
a
photo
here
of
2200
west,
so
you
can
see
the
existing
2200
west
is
really
this
light.
Colored
asphalt
and
there
is
a
property
actually
just
to
the
south
of
the
swather
site.
That's
actually
done
the
improvements
that
swanner
would
actually
be
required
to
do
so.
You
can
see
what
those
improvements
are.
It's
36
feet
of
additional
asphalt
on
the
west
side
of
2200
west,
so
it
widens
that
out
significantly,
so
you
actually
have
enough
room
for
two
lanes
and
then
a
center
turn
lane
and
then
there's
also
a
shoulder
as
well.
K
Generally,
improvements
have
to
be
done
on
the
side
of
the
property
that
is
immediately
abutting.
The
developer's
property
and
residents
have
actually
expressed
concerns
about
doing
any
improvements
on
the
east
side
of
the
roadway.
There
are
some
property
lines
that
may
encroach
into
what
is
functioned
as
a
right-of-way.
K
A
Okay,
I
will
let
the
public
know
that
is
often
a
frustration
of
mine
and
other
commissioners
that
we
get
limited
very
much
by
the
things
that
we
hear
that
we
understand,
because
we
live
in
the
city
too.
So
we
think
we
all
understand
those
things
that
we
don't
always
have
the
legal
purview
to
address
a
lot
of
those
things
that
come
up,
such
as
in
this
case.
When
does
this
work
get
widened
in
relationship
to
then
construction
traffic?
A
K
A
Was
just
thinking
if,
prior
to
this
road
being
widened
in
any
construction
traffic,
if
engineering
would
require
like
additional
construction
crews
to
direct
traffic
or
you
know,
stop
one
way
for
another
for
the
semi
to
come
through?
So
you
don't
have
those
conflicts
of
running
one
off
the
road
or
another?
But
I
don't
know
what
engineering
requires
for
those
things.
K
A
I
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
comment.
I
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
block
size
modification
and
I
want
to
tell
people
that
I
actually
did
go
out
to
the
site.
Today.
I
drove
both
2200
west
and
3200
west,
and
I
and
I
feel
like
many
of
you,
that
every
time
I
see
a
sign
on
a
natural
site
that
says
coming
soon
improvements,
I
get
a
little
skip
in
my
heart
too.
On
the
other
hand,
I'm
going
to
agree
with
mr
mcallister,
who
said:
I
believe
that
we
would.
I
We
really
should
have
a
plan,
so
we're
not
all
throwing
rocks
at
each
other,
and
hopefully
that
plan
is
what
north
point
is
working
on
right
now.
The
city
is
working
on
that
plan
right
now.
Unfortunately,
we
cannot
hold
up
this
project
while
that
plan
is
being
completed,
but
I
urge
everyone
who
is
interested
in
this
to
participate
in
that
plan
to
the
extent
possible,
and
I
will
make
a
motion
unless
somebody
else
has
something
to
say.
E
E
E
And
sorry
so
the
city
council,
that's
ultimately
a
city
council
decision
and
to
do
that.
One
of
the
one
of
the
things
and
it's
in
the
staff
report
that
we
have
to
consider
is
that
the
and
this
this
is
something
that
hopefully
will
maybe
address
with
that
north
point
plan
update,
is
that
3200
west
is
identified
on
the
city's
major
street
plan,
which
means
prior
or
part
of
vacating
or
closing.
It
means
taking
it
off
of
that
major
street
plan,
and
so
the
concept
that
we've
been
talking
about
is
replacing
this
bypass
road.
E
That's
been
talked
about
on
the
major
street
plan,
adding
that
to
the
major
street
plan
and
removing
3200
west.
That
way,
we
don't
necessarily
need
to
require
improvements
on
3200
west
when
adjacent
properties
develop
things
like
that
or
the
city
council
can
then
choose
to
eat
more
easily
close
or
vacate
it.
I
I
have
one
other
question
for
you,
nick
actually
it's
it's
about.
There
were
some
folks
who
wanted
to
consolidate
the
open
space
within
this
project
rather
than
having
it
be
on
each
lot,
and
I
know
that
that's
not
what
the
zoning
requires.
It
requires
each
lot
to
have
a
specific
amount
of
open
space.
What
do
we
have
to
do
to
change
that.
E
I
think
that
there
might
be
some
administrative
remedies
through
the
state
code
does
authorize
administrative
development
agreements
where,
if
we
think
that
the
actual
code
is
still
being
met,
that
we
can
enter
into
an
agreement
with
a
property
owner
to
do
that,
we'd
have
to
look
into
the
legalities
of
that
to
make
sure
if
that's
not
an
option
that
and
the
plan
development
isn't
an
option,
then
it
would
be
a
change.
A
code
change
basically
to
authorize
that
in
the
future
right.
E
E
I
G
E
Canal,
ultimately,
that's
up
to
that's
up
to
the
city
through
public
utilities,
because
public
utilities
is
the
entity
that
has
that
deed
restriction
or
is
in
favor
of
that
deed
restriction,
and
so
they
would
ultimately
be
the
deciders
there.
And
just
so
the
planning,
commission
and
everyone
in
the
room
is
is
aware.
We
have
had
developments
that
have
relocated
canals
before
similarly
done.
Similarly
things
where
they've
cut
through
the
middle
of
properties
to
make
them
more
conducive
to
development,
and
so
it
is
something
that
has
happened
in
just
putting
that
out
there.
I
I
You
location
further
down
on
the
page,
based
on
the
analysis
and
findings
listed
in
the
staff
report,
information
presented
and
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing.
I
move
that
the
planning
commission
send
a
positive
recommendation
to
the
mayor
for
the
block-sized
modifications,
as
requested
as
part
of
the
preliminary
l
n.
U
b
2021-00740.
A
G
A
D
A
H
G
A
G
G
A
E
Need
to
take
a
break,
madam
chair,
can
I
just
real
quickly
for
those
particularly
those
people
who
live
on
2200
west,
if
you
haven't
already
given
us
your
contact
information
to
participate
in
the
north
point
plan,
please
reach
out
to
us
and
let
us
so
we
can
make
sure
we
include
you
and
address
so
you
can.
Your
voices
can
be
incorporated
into
that
plan.
Thank
you.
G
A
L
Good
evening,
it's
good
to
be
with
you
all
in
person,
so
this
is
a
request
to
rezone
the
property
at
805,
south
800
west,
from
m1
light
manufacturing
to
rmu-45
residential
mixed
use.
The
property
is
approximately
.11
acres
and
the
intent
of
the
rezone
is
to
allow
the
property
owner
to
accommodate
a
multi-family
development
or
an
attached.
Single-Family
development
on
the
property
and
staff
is
recommending
the
planning
commission
forward
a
positive
recommendation
to
the
city
council.
L
L
The
first
is
the
master
plan
policies.
The
property
is
located
in
the
west
side,
master
plan
area
and
the
subject
site
is
along
the
800
south
and
700
west
industrial
corridor,
which
is
identified
as
an
important
gateway
into
the
west
side.
Community
neighborhood
this
corridor
is
principally
composed
of
industrial
uses,
abetting
single-family
homes.
L
The
plan
does
identify
the
need
for
additional
residential
density
within
and
around
this
node
as
well.
So
the
change
in
the
zoning
would
provide
an
infill
development
opportunity
as
supported
in
the
master
plan.
The
zoning
map
amendment
implements
neighborhoods
growth
and
the
housing
initiatives
stated
in
plan
salt
lake
as
well.
L
Next
is
some
compatibility
considerations
with
the
adjacent
properties,
and
there
have
been
several
that
were
identified
with
analysis
of
the
project.
First,
I'd
like
to
touch
on
is
the
development
characteristics
of
the
area
along
800.
South.
The
development
is
predominantly
reflective
of
the
current
m1
zoning,
so
these
are
larger
to
moderate
size,
parcels
that
contain
two-story,
commercial
and
warehouse
buildings
in
a
hard
surface
paving
they
have
minimal
setbacks
and
minimal
landscaping.
L
L
L
L
L
L
The
tolling
building
the
tallest
building
in
the
neighborhood
is
178
feet
located
directly
north
and
the
applicant
did
provide
a
shadow
study
which
showed
a
conceptual
45-foot
tall
building
massing,
and
it
indicated
that
the
single-family
dwelling
directly
south
will
not
be
impacted
by
the
shadow
of
the
conceptual
building.
So
it
is
staff's
opinion
that
the
development
standards
of
the
rmu-45
zoning
district
are
compatible
with
the
intensity
of
the
adjacent
uses
on
the
surrounding
property,
as
well
as
the
development
potential
of
the
area
and
also
align
with
the
development
goals
of
the
west
side.
L
Master
plan,
therefore,
based
on
the
information
in
the
staff
report
planning
staff,
recommends
the
planning
commission
for
a
positive
recommendation
to
the
city
council
for
the
proposed
zoning
map.
Amendment
at
805,
south
800
west
I'd
be
happy
to
take
any
questions
at
this
time.
The
applicant
is
also
here.
I
L
F
M
M
I
M
L
M
M
I
Confused
too
because
it
clearly
says
that
we
need
for
a
multi-family
for
single-family
attached
as
town
houses.
2500
per
unit
for
a
single
family,
detached
2500
for
twin
home
is
2500
for
non-residential
uses
no
minimum
and
it
doesn't
even
say
anything
about
multi-family.
So
I'm
I'm
and
and
how
can
you
build?
You
can't
build
an
elevator
building
on
a
4,
000
square
foot,
piece
of
land
with
15
foot,
10
foot
setbacks
in
the
front,
and
you
know-
or
you
know,
the
setbacks
you
got
here
with
and
25
of
the
lot
depth.
E
This
is
what
the
rme45
zone
says
for
multi-family
dwellings,
5
000
square
feet
for
new
lots,
so
there's
no
minimum
unit
requirement
for
lot
area,
no
minimum
for
existing
lots.
So
there's
no
minimum
lot
size
for
multi-family
if
it's
an
existing
lot.
So
basically
we
rely
on
what
the
bulk
that
is
allowed
in
the
zone
to
determine
that
and
whether
somebody
can
design
something
that
fits
and
meets
all
the
standards.
A
Yeah,
I'm
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
how
this
block
then
ultimately
kind
of
redevelops,
in
that
the
height
seems
more
appropriate
closer
to
the
freeway
in
relationship
to
the
rmu
zone.
That
is
on
the
corner
of
ninth
west.
I
think
ninth
west,
when
we
that
was
rezoned,
operates
much
differently
than
eighth
west,
but
that
I
I'm
not
convinced
that
the
rmu-45
is
the
right
zone
for
this.
A
M
M
So
we
thought
that
it
was
definitely
possible
that
we
could
see
other
applications
put
forward
for
some
of
the
larger
lots
but
east
of
us
on
our
block
phase.
As
you
approach
the
freeway,
creating
a
hierarchy
from
from
the
freeway.
We
certainly
understand
we're
not
part
of
the
node
at
ninth
at
ninth
west
and
again
we're
we
would
be
happy
to
concede
to
the
to
the
35.
I
don't
think
our,
I
think.
That's
all
we'll
end
up
doing.
A
A
A
E
E
E
A
A
E
A
G
G
A
E
E
A
F
F
F
F
Staff
feels
like
that.
This
actually
simplifies
the
code,
provides
one
standard
for
all
development
in
the
r2
zone,
and
so
we
provided
a
motion
that,
if
the
planning
commission
so
desires,
if
they
want
to
take
it
that
next
step
further
there's
a
motion
there
to
do
it
so
I'll
go
into
what
some
of
the
stuff
means
just
a
little
bit.
F
This
is
all
explained
in
the
staff
report,
but
building
coverage
is
the
the
amount
or
the
percentage
of
the
lot
that
can
be
covered
by
principal
and
accessory
buildings
on
that
particular
lot,
and
it's
really
to
ensure
that
there's
some
open
space
on
the
property
for
you
know
landscaping
outdoor
uses.
I
do
want
to
jump
in
really
quick
and
say
that
this
proposal
does
not
affect
or
impact
any
of
the
other
zoning
regulations,
such
as
setbacks,
building
height,
any
of
that
all
that
would
remain
in
place.
F
F
Expand
a
little
bit
on
the
current
building
coverage
regulations
like
I
said
before,
right
now,
single
family
dwellings
are
only
allowed
40
of
lot
coverage.
Duplexes
are
allowed.
45
of
the
lot
pardon
me
to
to
kind
of
expand
a
little
bit
on
this
lot
size
thing.
What
that
basically
says
is
that
if
you
create
a
new
lot
in
the
r2
zoning
district-
and
you
want
to
create
a
new
lot
for
single
family
development-
that
minimum
lot
size
has
to
be
5
000
square
feet.
F
If
you're
to
build
a
duplex,
you
need
8
000
square
feet
so
back
to
the
single
family
stuff.
We
have
a
lot
of
properties
in
the
city
that
do
not
meet
those
minimum
lot
size
requirements,
that's
because
they
were
basically
developed
before
these
current
zoning
regulations
are
in
place.
That's
the
case
with
the
applicant's
property
it's
actually
under
that
5000
square
feet,
so
because
it's
a
smaller
lot
size
if
you
limit
it
to
40
percent
you're,
getting
a
much
smaller
structure.
F
F
You
can
see
in
the
table
here
that
if
we
increased
it
from
40
percent
to
45
percent,
it's
a
fairly
minimal
change.
You
get
about
200
square
feet
of
additional
space
in
the
home
and
again
all
the
setback
requirements
building
height.
All
that
stuff
would
be
applicable
just
to
provide
a
little
context
of
where
the
what
areas
of
the
city
this
would
impact.
F
F
Excuse
me,
and
then,
with
staff's
kind
of
an
additional
recommendation,
it
does
expand
that
a
little
bit.
Basically,
what
this
shows
is
the
lots
that
are
currently
single
family
in
the
r2
zoning
district.
Now
that
doesn't
this
map
doesn't
necessarily
say
that
every
one
of
these
properties
is
going
to
expand.
There
may
be
a
number
of
these
properties
where
they
already
exceed
the
you
know
40
or
45
percent,
because
again
they
were
developed
prior
to
our
current
regulations.
F
I
A
M
A
A
It
I
just
actually
just
read
it
while
you
were
talking
sorry
any
other
questions
for
staff.
Okay,
we
have
the
applicant
here
is
jim
bradley.
If
you
want
to
come
up
and
state
your
name
for
the
record
and
then
if
you
want
to
make
any
comments
and
then
we'll
open
it
up
for
questions
from
commissioners
to
you,
well,
just
wait
till
you
can
tug
into
the
microphone.
So
it's
on
the
record.
T
A
Okay,
I'm
going
to
officially
open
the
public
comment
period,
any
other
emails
that
may
have
come
in
john
then
I
will
officially
close
the
public
comment
period
and
bring
it
back
to
the
commissioners.
I
I
found
the
staff
report
to
be
really
had
a
lot
of
really
great
things
to
help
direct
the
kind
of
process
of
evaluating
this
for
me
and
the
additional
request
from
staff
to
expand
this.
A
F
Scheer,
I
I
do
want
to
point
out
that,
just
to
kind
of
go
back
a
little
bit
on
your
question
when
we
advertise
this
on
the
agenda,
we
did
keep
that
that
language
more
open,
and
so
when
we,
when
we
did
the
ad
or
when
we
did
the
notification
for
the
public
hearing,
we
basically
just
advertised
it
as
expanding
the
building
coverage
in
the
r2
district.
So
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
notice
that
went
out
wasn't
so
specific
that
it
people
didn't
just
think.
E
Period-
and
this
is
what
it
defines
the
re
the
request
has.
This
is
a
zoning
text,
amendment
to
section
21a24110,
point
f:
to
increase
the
surface
surface
coverage
from
forty
percent
to
forty
five
percent
for
single
family
and
two
family
dwellings
in
the
r2
zone,
and
that's
all
it
says
so
it
doesn't.
It
doesn't
differentiate.
G
G
A
motion
please
adrian,
based
on
the
staff
report,
the
information
presented
and
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing.
I
moved
that
the
planning
commission
transmit
a
favorable
recommendation
to
the
city
council
regarding
petition
pln
pcm
2021-01228,
an
amendment
to
section
21a,
24,
110f
of
the
salt
lake
city,
zoning
ordinance
with
the
changes
proposed
by
planning
staff,
which
are
found
on
page
three
of
the
planning
commission
staff
report.