►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting - June 09, 2021
Description
Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting - June 09, 2021
https://www.slc.gov/planning/
https://www.slc.gov/planning/planning-commission-agendas-minutes/
A
If
you're
in
salt
lake
city,
you
can
also
watch
on
youtube
or
you
can
click
on
the
agenda
and
the
agenda
has
a
link
to
webex
where
you'll
be
able
to
watch
the
meeting
and
also
be
able
to
participate
in
the
meeting,
meaning
that
you'll
be
able
to
provide
comment.
Webex
is
the
only
way
that
you're
able
to
provide
comment
to
us,
or
if
you
look
at
the
slide
at
the
very
bottom,
if
you're
unable
to
connect
to
webex,
you
can
always
send
us
an
email
at
planning.com
slcgov.com.
A
B
Thank
you,
john
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
call
the
meeting
to
order.
This
is
the
salt
lake
city
planning,
commission
meeting
of
june
9
2021..
B
I
brenda
shear
chair
of
planning
commission
hereby
have
determined
that
conducting
public
meetings
at
an
anchor
location
presents
a
substantial
risk
to
the
health
and
safety
of
those
who
may
be
present
at
the
anchor
location
due
to
the
center
for
disease
control
and
prevention,
cdc
social
distance
requirements.
I
find
that
conducting
a
meeting
at
the
anchor
location
constitutes
substantial
risk
to
the
health
and
safety
of
those
who
may
be
present
at
the
location.
D
John
crystal
showed
up:
oh
you
already.
We
got
her
she's
she's
here
we're
good
to
go.
B
I
think
we
are
good
to
go.
Thank
you.
So
we
are
going
to
go
ahead
and
start
the
meeting
with
the
approval
of
the
minutes
for
may
26,
2021.
B
Thank
you
crystal.
Do
you
have
a
second
I'll?
Second,
that
thank
you
carolyn.
I
have
a
motion
from
crystal
a
second
from
carolyn
we're
going
to
go
down
the
list
here.
Amy,
yes,
adrian,
yes,
carolyn,
yes,
john.
F
E
B
A
D
And
I
would
like
to
add
to
that.
Thank
you,
john
and
you
will
be
contacted
by
our
admin
staff
because
we
are
at
the
minimum
amount
of
commissioners.
At
this
time
we
will
get
folks.
We
will
get
folks
on
board,
but
replying
to
our
admins
and
hopefully
being
able
to
attend
the
meetings
without
a
quorum.
We
won't
be
able
to
have
planning
commission.
D
Matt
is
technically
done
at
the
end
of
the
month,
but
he
let
us
know
that
he's
not
going
to
attend.
I
mean
I
put
in
a
call
to
carolyn
to
hang
on.
I
don't
know
if
you've
listened
to
your
voicemail
carolyn,
I
have,
but
I
called
him.
Okay,
I
called
you
today
to
discuss
hanging
on
until
we
get
other
commissioners
on
so
that's
d1.
We
have
opening
in
d1
d2.
B
Well,
we
have
many
openings,
so
I'm
hoping
that
everybody
who
is
on
the
line
today,
all
our
participants
will
consider
nominating
someone.
Can
you
tell
us
michaela
how
people
can
do
that.
D
B
G
C
And
I
have
I've
been
struggling
with
some
allergies
today,
so
I've
been
coughing
and
I'm
hoping
I
can
get
through
this
without
coughing
too
much.
But
I
apologize
in
advance,
but
salt
lake
city
has
received
a
request
for
a
design
review
from
sam
stribling
with
gff
architects.
They
are
representing
the
property
owner
at
this
site.
The
design
review
is
to
allow
for
modifications
to
the
design
standards
in
order
to
develop
the
property
located
at
approximately
430
west
300
north
planning
staff
is
recommending.
C
The
project
site
consists
of
approximately
4.8
acres
and
is
presently
a
single
parcel.
The
applicant
previously
submitted
a
preliminary
subdivision
plot
to
consolidate
the
site
and
split
off
the
parcel
that
was
west
of
the
rail
line.
The
majority
of
the
site
has
never
been
developed
on
and
has
been
used
as
outdoor
storage
for
some
time.
It's
located
in
the
tsa
ucc
district,
which
is
the
transit
station
area
urban
center
core
district,
a
tsa
scorecard
review
was
submitted
earlier
this
year
and
it
was
found
that
the
project
qualifies
for
administrative
approval
with
128
points.
C
The
site
has
frontage
on
400
and
300
north
both
streets,
intersect,
the
front
runner
and
union
pacific
rail
line
to
the
west
300
north
is
considered
a
collector
street
and
400
north
is
a
local
street
as
part
of
the
development
of
the
site.
A
north-south
street
is
proposed
as
490
west.
The
transportation
master
plan
necessitates
that
the
street
is
a
collector
street
and
that
it
meet
the
standards
of
the
complete
street
ordinance
by
accommodating
pedestrians,
bicyclists
and
vehicles.
C
Station
the
proposed
is
project
will
include
a
seven-story
stick
on
podium
style
building
that
will
house
394
residential
units.
These
residential
units
will
include
studio
one
and
two
bedroom
units.
The
attached
garage
structure
will
be
located
behind
the
building,
and
access
to
this
garage
will
be
set
back
from
the
newly
created
490
west
street,
while
the
project.
While
the
project
requires
modifications
through
the
design
review
process,
it
does
provide
100
of
ground
floor
uses
along
both
of
the
street
facing
facades.
The
code
requires
80,
it
maintains
upper
floor
window
standards
of
25
glazing.
C
It
maintains
durable
materials,
building
materials
covering
at
least
eighty
percent
of
the
ground
floor
and
fifty
percent
of
the
upper
floors.
There's
no
ground
floor,
stucco
included
on
the
facades,
it
meets
the
blank
wall
length
maximum
of
15
feet
and
it
provides
building
light
and
service
area
screening
and
setbacks.
C
C
The
tsa
ucc
district
design
standards
has
a
limitation
on
the
length
of
the
street
facing
facade
of
200
feet.
The
ice
house
project
would
include
a
building
facade
of
334
feet
along
300,
north
and
377
feet
along
490
west.
C
C
There
is
also
the
limitation
of
the
percent
of
stucco,
both
traditional
and
ethis.
On
any
street
facing
building
facade.
The
ice
house
project
is
proposing
that
limitation
is
10.
The
ice
house
project
is
proposing
10.8
traditional
stucco
on
the
upper
floors
facing
490
west
and
36.6
percent.
Traditional
stucco
on
the
upper
floors
facing
300
north
additional
stucco
is
constructed.
C
C
The
ground
floor
glass
standard
is
also
requested
to
be
modified
in
the
tsa
district.
It
requires
sixty
percent
of
the
ground
floor
facility
class.
The
300
north
facade
will
include
45
glass,
which
is
approval
through
an
administrative
review.
Is
the
ground
floor
glass
where
the
ground
floor
uses
residential
the
490
west
facade
is
proposed
to
be
38
glass,
which
requires
planning
commission
approval
final.
The
final
modification
is
the
building
entrance
modification.
That's
requested.
C
C
Excuse
me:
I've
circled
these
areas
in
yellow
on
the
side
plan
here
that
include
the
three
sections
on
the
west
side
of
the
building
or
the
490
west
facade
in
one
section
along
300
doors,
the
facade
along
300
north
requires
five
building
entrances.
The
proposed
ice
house
project
will
include
seven
entrances
all
visible
from
the
street.
C
I
C
And
I
believe
he
has
a
presentation
prepared
and
steph
will
be
here
for
any
questions
planning
question
might
have
for
us.
J
Hi,
my
name
is
sam
stribling,
I'm
architect
with
gff
on
this
project
and
the
night
you
more
or
less
ran
through
everything
that
I
was
going
to
talk
about.
You
did
an
excellent
job.
Am
I
able
to
share
my
screen
this?
I
don't
know
yep.
If
not
I
covered
it.
Oh.
B
J
J
We
are
proposing
the
camber
ice
house,
the
seven-story
multi-family
project,
just
north
of
salt
lake's,
just
north
of
salt
lake
city,
and
it
is
sandwiched
in
between
400,
north
and
300
north
and
one
of
the
main
one
of
the
main
items
of
this
project
is
the
490
west
road
that
we
are
also
designing
and
providing
to
bridge
that
connection-
and
you
know,
connect
everything
in
between
fourth
west
hardware
on
through
and
keep
that
neighborhood
feel
a
lot
of
our
goals,
as
nunet
pointed
out
through
the
whole
thing,
is
to
take
what
is
a
fairly
sizable
building
and
really
break
that
scale
down
to
give
that
more
of
that
neighborhood
feel
putting
as
much
residential
residential
functions
on
the
street
so
that
we've
got
those
eyes
on
the
street.
J
We've
got
direct
engagement
and
beefing
up
the
landscaping
in
those
areas
so
that
we've
got
seating
areas,
plenty
of
planting
and
engagement
with
the
park
strip
which,
on
300
north,
is
quite
wide
and
really
just
just
developing
the
whole
area.
To
give
it
a
much
more
residential
and
homey
feel-
and
that
includes
not
just
the
main
building,
but
also
the
five
townhome
buildings
that
we
have
around
the
site
as
well.
J
To
her
point
about
building
materials,
we're
using
a
selection
of
dark
brick
at
the
base
moving
up
through
the
building,
we've
got
a
combination
of
metal
panel,
so
that's
a
flush
seam
metal
panel
on
the
corners
and
then
in
the
balcony.
Insets
we're
using
a
variably,
spaced
fiber
cement
panel
on
the
undersides
of
the
balconies.
There
will
be
a
again
more
wood
tone
and
then
we've
got
vertical
sections
of
wood
tone,
fiber
cement
to
really
warm
this
up,
we're
trying
to
make
it
as
tactile
and
as
responsive
as
possible.
J
We're
seeking
the
variances
to
the
glazing
on
level,
one
due
to
balancing
the
desires
of
being
able
to
see
out
onto
the
street,
with
people
being
able
to
see
back
in
and
keeping
that
in
mind
and
providing
people
both
their
privacy,
but
also
direct
engagement
and
we've
also
put
our
amenities
down
at
the
street
as
well.
So
our
leasing
office
is
on
490
west
and
our
bike
room
is
actually
at
the
corner
of
300,
north
and
490
west.
J
To
really
activate
that
we're
not
trying
to
push
that
activity
to
the
back
say
it's
a
place
where
you
come
up
and
you
meet
your
friends
and
they've
got
their
bikes
or
their
are
their
skis
and
you're
ready
to
go.
It's
right
there
out
front.
Broadly
speaking,
I
would
say
the
project
is
of
a
scale
with
its
neighbors
fourth
northwest
hardware,
but
that
we're,
I
feel
like
we're
doing
more,
to
break
this
down.
Now
we're
doing
more
to
bring
this
to
the
ground
and
really
try
to
engage
with
the
site.
J
So
if
anybody
has
any
additional
questions,
please
feel
free
to
ask.
I
I'm
pretty
excited.
B
K
I
I
would
like
to
get
a
little
bit
more
information
on
the
490
west
side,
considering
the
length
of
that
building
to
really
understand
how
you've
architecturally
broken
it
up,
and
I
just
would
like
to
hear
a
little
bit
more
from
you
on
that.
One.
That
question
before
us.
J
J
Okay,
so
bringing
up
the
site
plan
490
west.
Is
this
it's
a
long
curvy
street
and
we've
designed
it
with
two
lanes
of
traffic
and
then
two
full
with
or
two
bike
lanes
along
this
as
well,
and
to
break
that
up
we're
using
the
insets
of
the
building.
Part
of
the
reason
that
there's
no,
we
haven't
designed,
say
through
connections
or
broken
the
building
up
with
actual
alley
access
is
because
there's
nowhere
to
go
on
one
side.
We
are
bound
by
an
existing
warehouse
building
and
then
on
the
other
side.
J
J
It's
not
just
one
big
wall,
and
I
think
so,
if
you're
looking
at
say,
I
think
I
believe
this
is
hardware
hardware
and
forthwith
both
have
just
these
vast,
fast
long
walls,
they've
got
a
courtyard
there.
What
we're
trying
to
do
is
give
it
more
again
of
a
broken
down
residential
feel
so.
J
J
Again,
the
goal,
while
I'm
pulling
that
up
the
goal,
is
to
really
help
these
these
emerge,
and
so
it
doesn't
feel
like
just
one
big
square
wrap
of
a
building.
We
want
this
to
punctuate
the
site
and
give
us
some
opportunities
for
landscaping
for
those
little
parklets
that
are
scattered
throughout
the
front
and
engage
the
street.
B
There's
an
elevate,
amy,
there's
an
elevation
on
page,
oh
gosh.
What
is
it
sure
I'll
pull
that
up?
I
have.
B
I
think
the
elevation
is
actually
divided
in
our
in
our
staff
report
enters
two
pieces
because
it's
so
long.
K
J
K
B
B
Okay,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
open
the
public
hearing
any
participant.
May
I
may
ask
to
speak
the
way
that
you
ask
to
speak
is
to
on
the
lower
right
hand,
side
of
your
screen.
You
will
see
a
very
small
hand
if
you
will
push
that
hand
button
once
then
we
will
know
that
you
would
like
to
speak
so
john.
Do
we.
A
Sure,
commissioner,
did
you
want
to
have
marlene
show
that
that
little
graphic
before
the.
B
F
A
Okay,
thank
you
marlene,
so
marlene
is
highlighted
here
in
the
corner.
It's
a
little
tiny
hand
and
I
wish
that
webex
actually
made
a
little
easier
to
respond,
but
if
you
click
that
button
that
would
be
for
all
public
hearings
throughout
tonight.
B
A
We
do
we
have
david
shearer
david,
you
are
unmuted,
you
have
two
minutes.
L
Thank
you
very
much.
My
name
is
david
shearer,
I'm
the
chair
of
the
capitol
hill
neighborhood
council,
within
whose
boundaries
this
project
is
located.
The
capitol
hill
neighborhood
council
objects
to
the
applicant's
request
to
exceed
the
upper
floor.
Stucco
limit.
L
We
should
be
seeking
to
raise
the
level
of
finish
of
these
buildings
and
not
lower
it.
The
existing
building
across
300
north
from
the
project
site
has
a
high
proportion
of
brick
on
its
street
facade,
and
we
believe
that
this
project
should
have
at
least
that
level
of
finish
buildings
like
this
one
will
define
the
appearance
of
our
city.
For
many
years.
It's
worth
a
little
extra
investment
to
make
the
city
more
attractive.
L
L
As
you
know,
the
city
and
the
capitol
neighborhood
in
particular
have
seen
an
enormous
number
of
multi-family
projects
built
over
recent
years.
Our
city
is
becoming
denser,
which
is
good
from
the
standpoint
of
sustainability,
but
a
denser
urban
environment
requires
planning
that
ensures
that
neighborhoods,
like
capitol
hill,
are
not
armed
in
the
process
to
one
extent
or
another
large
multi-family
projects
impose
costs.
L
Economists
would
call
them
externalities
on
the
neighborhoods,
where
they're
located
developers
reap
profits
and
the
city
gains
tax
base,
while
the
surrounding
neighborhood
suffers
from
more
traffic
and
reduced
on-street
parking,
mediocre
design
and
a
lack
of
attention
to
public
space
traffic
and
parking
are
especially
important
issues
in
capitol
hill.
Our
narrow,
steep
streets
in
marmalade
already
suffer
from
cut
through
communal
traffic
from
the
north.
The
traffic
from
a
multi-family
project,
even
on
an
artery
like
300
west,
induces
even
more
traffic
on
these
streets.
L
L
L
The
capitol
hill
neighborhood
council
advocates
amending
the
planning
criteria
for
these
projects
to
require
the
following:
a
study
of
the
impacts
of
traffic
created
by
the
project
on
the
surrounding
neighborhood,
performed
by
a
qualified
engineering
firm
paid
for
by
the
developer
and
reviewed
by
the
city's
transportation
division.
This
study
should
demonstrate
that
the
surrounding
street
network
can
accommodate
the
additional
traffic
without
undue
harm
to
the
quality
of
the
neighborhood.
L
Reviewing
and
setting
parking
ratios
on
a
project
by
project
basis
to
take
into
account
the
ability
of
the
surrounding
neighborhood
to
absorb
overflow
parking
without
undue
convenience,
for
residents
easy
access
and
to
adequate
public
transportation
from
the
project
site,
especially
if
the
parking
ratio
is
to
be
less
than
one
car
per
unit.
And
finally,
a
greater
proportion
of
each
site
devoted
to
public
open
space.
L
B
A
You,
commissioner,
share,
it
looks
like
we
have
at
least
one
more
barbara
harvat.
Did
you
have
comments
on
this
project.
A
M
B
So
do
we
have
any
others
online,
john
or
email.
F
F
I'll
go
ahead
and
start
with
a
comment.
You
know
I'm
usually
pretty
harsh
critic
when
it
comes
to
the
architecture-
and
I
think
you
know
I'm
I'm
never
a
huge
fan
of
of
non-affordable
or
heat
materials.
F
But
I
think
when
you
look
at
a
project
like
this,
that
you
need
something
to
break
up
the
the
overall
mass
and
I
think
the
stucco
actually
when
done
well,
is
a
good
material
for
that,
and
I
think,
if
you
would
imagine
this
project
as
an
all
brick
project,
it
would
be
very
overwhelming
and
and
just
a
monster
on
the
street.
To
be
honest,
so
I
think
that
the
the
massing
is
broken
down
very
cleanly
and
very
well,
especially
with
the
curving
of
the
street.
F
I
think
the
elevation
is
very
deceiving
on
the
massing
of
this
project
and
I
think,
when
we
develop
these
very
large
lots
that
we
are
you
know
we
we
have
in
our
city,
it's
important
to
think
of
the
architecture
and
to
use
the
massing
in
a
in
a
creative
way
to
break
down
those
masses,
and
I
feel
like
this
was
a
successful
attempt
at
that.
So
that's
kind
of
my
my
two
cents.
B
I'm
also
interested
in
the
you
have
fairly
large
ground
floor
spaces
here
and
wanting
to
know
if
those
will
become
public
amenities,
little
parks
or
whether
they
will
be
shut
off
from
shut
off.
So
I'm
going
to
ask
that
of
the
of
the
advocate.
J
The
intent
of
the
amenity
spaces
on
the
interior,
those
are
primarily
for
the
tenants
but
the
exterior
spaces
so,
for
instance,
the
parklet
that
is
directly
off
of
490
west.
As
you
turn
in
between
the
leasing
office
and
the
bike
room,
that's
provided
for
public
seating,
we've
landscaped,
that
and
for
public
access.
Similarly,
we're
providing
a
public
area
outside
of
the
bike
outside
of
the
bike
storage
on
300
north
at
the
corner
there
as
well,
so
all
that
that's
open
to
anybody
who's
walking
by
there.
G
B
Thank
you,
john.
I
have
a
motion
by
adrian
and
a
second
by
john,
so
we're
going
to
go
down
the
list
now.
Amy.
K
F
B
N
N
All
right,
are
you
seeing
that,
and
is
it
large
enough.
N
Okay,
so
this
is
a
zoning
map,
amendment
for
jew
parcels
by
redwood,
road
and
indiana
avenue.
The
parcel
numbers
are
1668
west,
indiana
and
835
south
redwood
corner
property.
1668
1668
is
the
corner
property
that
has
frontage
on
both
redwood
and
indiana,
and
the
other
one
is
to
the
north
of
that
total
of
the
two
parcels
is
about
12
200
square
feet.
N
One
property
is
vacant
and
one
contains
a
single
family
dwelling.
It's
currently
zoned
r,
one
five
thousand
the
requested
changes
to
rmu
residential
mixed
use
zone
with
a
45
foot
height
limit
the
idea.
The
conceptual
idea
is
to
consolidate
the
parcels
and
build
some
kind
of
mixed-use
development,
there's
some
conceptual
drawings,
but
no
specific
site
development
plan,
putting
a
map
up
to
kind
of
put
it
in
context.
N
N
This
is
a
a
corner
that
hasn't
been
zoned
that
way
and
it
abuts
against
r1
5000
single
family
residential,
a
little
bit
of
an
aerial
view.
To
give
you
an
idea,
the
other
corners
of
redwood
are
more
commercial,
slash,
light
industrial
kind
of
uses,
and
then
this
is
again
one
existing
single
family
dwelling
and
a
vacant
property
some
pictures
of
it
I'll
scroll
through
these
rather
quickly.
N
This
is
the
existing
house
of
1668
west
indiana
and
looking
towards
the
corner
of
redwood
looking
west
on
indiana,
and
then
this
is
the
vacant
property
at
835,
south
redwood,
looking
towards
that
other
property
that
contains
a
single
family
dwelling,
and
then
there
is
an
alley:
that's
still
functional
between
the
property
at
835
and
the
single
family
residential
uses
to
the
north
key
considerations
and
staff
analysis
for
this
proposal
was
we
looked
at
neighborhood
and
city-wide
master
plans,
the
compatibility
with
the
change
with
adjacent
properties,
housing
mitigation
loss
and
consideration
of
alternate
zoning
districts,
so
in
terms
of
the
community
and
citywide
master
plans.
N
N
So
there
is
not
a
corresponding
master
plan
amendment
with
this
proposal,
as
the
property
already
meets
the
west
side
master
plan
for
this
area.
We
also
looked
at
planned
salt
lake
and
other
applicable
city
plans,
and
the
proposal
was
in
line
with
those
kind
of
perceived
changes
over
time
and
additional
housing
and
other
things.
Well.
Sorry.
N
The
rmu
45
zone
would
allow
a
building
up
to
45
feet
height
in
height,
because
the
property
of
but
single-family
residential
in
the
rmu
zones,
there
is
usually
a
process
to
go
taller
when
it
abuts
single
or
two-family
residential.
It
is
strictly
limited
to
45
feet
in
height
and
there
is
no
mechanism
or
process
to
exceed
that.
N
The
other
corners
of
the
intersection
being
zone
cc
have
a
height
limit
of
30
feet
by
right
and
could
go
to
45
feet
through
the
design
review
process.
So
this
being
this
northeast
corner
being
45
feet
would
be
in
line
with
the
potential
development
of
the
area
if
other
properties
were
redeveloped
on
the
other
intersection
corners.
N
The
purpose
of
this
diagram
was
also
to
illustrate
that,
when
in
about
single
family
residential,
there
is
a
10-foot
landscaping
buffer
required
and
then
in
the
case
of
this
particular
property,
there
might
be
some
different
configurations,
depending
if
the
front
yard
was
to
be
considered
indiana
or
redwood.
In
any
case,
if
the
front
was
on
red
yard,
redwood
sorry,
the
front
yard
was
on
redwood
road.
N
If
the
front
of
the
project
would
be
addressed
off
of
indiana,
this
becomes
a
side
yard
and
there's
a
10
foot
side
yard
requirement,
plus
one
foot
above
anything
being
built
above
30
feet,
an
additional
one,
foot
of
setback
for
anything
above
30
feet
for
multi-family
and
mixed
uses.
So
you
would
end
up
with
about
a
25-foot
side
yard
to
the
neighboring
property
and
a
10-foot
landscape
buffer.
N
Staff
found
looking
at
the
the
factors
that
we
consider
for
a
zoning
map
amendment
that
the
proposal
generally
complied
with
those
factors
and
we're
recommending
that
the
planning
commission
forward
a
positive
recommendation.
Recommendation
to
city
council
from
that
change
from
r1
5000
to
rme
45.
B
Thank
you
david
question
for
you
there,
since
there
is
an
alley
there
does,
that
affect
the
side,
yard
setback
or
backyard
setback.
B
K
David,
can
you
clarify,
did
you
say
setback
or
step
back
if
the
front
of
this
building
were
on
indiana.
N
If
the
front
were
only
indiana
this
sorry,
the
setback
from
the
side
property
line
increases
one
by
one
foot.
Every
foot
above
30
feet
the
building.
However,
after
after
up
to
30
feet
or
after
the
30
feet
could
be
stepped
back
rather
than
pulling
the
whole
building
back
those
upper
floors
or
that
elevation
above
30
feet
could
be
step
to
back.
K
I
have
a
real
problem
with
that,
because
the
that's
too
close
to
the
house
on
the
east
side,
I'm
really
concerned
about
its
relationship
to
the
houses
on
the
east
and
a
10
foot
setback
is
totally
inadequate
to
me.
That's
just
my
comment
here.
F
B
K
O
Yes,
hi,
my
name
is
kim
trang.
F
O
So,
like
david
here
present
everything
to
to
your
committee,
so.
O
The
reason
we
would
like
to
resorting
to
imu
45,
I
think
it's
a
lot
better
than
we
put
like
a
single,
a
single
family
home
there.
So
if
we
put
the
like
kind
of
business
below
and.
O
Residential
about
you
know
it
print
up
like
more
income
for
me
and
make
and
also
create
a
better
to
the
city
to
contribute
to
the
city.
Look
at
the
area
will
be
a
little
nicer
and.
B
B
K
Discussion
yeah,
I
feel
like
if
this,
if
this
project
had
an
actual
you
know,
we
were
also
looking
at
the
actual
design
that
could
guarantee
that
we
would
have
a
the
front
of
the
building
would
be
on
redwood.
I
would
be
more
than
happy
to
support
it,
but
given
the
fact
that
we
could
have
a
10
foot
buffer
to
those
houses
on
the
north
or
the
east,
I'm
not
in
support
of
this
tonight.
B
K
To
the
to
the
north,
I'm
talking
about
the
houses
to
the
east.
N
K
P
K
No
yeah,
I
was,
I
kind
of
google
earth
it,
so
I
could
see
where
it
was.
K
K
The
north
and
I'm
concerned
about
the
houses
to
the
east,
I'm
not
against
this
reason,
I
think
that's
a
better
use
of
the
corner,
I
just
with
the
unknown
of
what
the
project
would
actually
look
like,
and
I
can't
support
it.
O
Sorry,
if
I
may
add,
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
my
father,
we
do
have
a
couple
of
mock-up
designs
ready.
If
we
are
allowed
to.
You
know,
screen,
share
and
show
you
guys
if
you
guys
have
any
concerns
or
questions.
B
Well,
mr
chan,
thank
you
for
that.
But
unfortunately
this
is
a
rezoning
request
and
the
designs
will
not
be
become
part
of
it.
So
we
can
recommend
to
city
council
that
they
wait
to
approve
it
until
we
have
a
design
or
you
can
withdraw
it
and
bring
it
back
when
you
have
a
design.
G
G
B
N
N
B
B
Favor,
okay,
would
anyone
like
to
make
a
motion.
G
Based
on
the
findings
and
analysis
in
the
staff
report,
testimony
and
discussion
of
the
public
hearing,
I
mean
that
the
planning
commission
recommend
that
the
city
council
approve
the
proposed
zoning
map.
Amendment
file,
pln
pcm
2021
00249
for
the
properties
located
at
835,
south
redwood
road
and
1168
west
indiana
avenue,
respectively
proposed
zone
change
from
the
r1
5000
single
family,
residential
zoning
district
to
the
rmu
45
presidential
mixed-use
summit
district.
F
K
F
Q
Madam
chair,
when
we
have
six
members
of
the
commission,
we
need
to
have
a
majority
vote
right
to
to
pass
the
vote.
So
this
is
where
you
have
an
opportunity
to
vote
to
either
put
it
over
the
top
or
to
essentially
tie
it.
B
B
Okay.
So
we're
going
moving
on
to
item
number
three
in
our
agenda,
which
is
the
plan
development
of
preliminary
pratt
platt
at
approximately
eight.
B
And
18
this
is
pln
pcm,
2020-00826
and
pln
sub2020
00111,
and
it
is
being
presented
by
cliff
earl.
R
Good
evening,
commissioners,
I
would
like
to
start
off
by
saying
that
I
am
a
little
sick,
so
I
will
try
not
to
cough,
but
if
I
do
I
apologize
ahead
of
time.
Let
me
go
ahead
and
show.
R
Okay,
so
this
is
the
harvath
plan,
development
and
preliminary
plat.
This
is
a
request
by
david
and
barbara
harvath
property
owners
for
planned
development
and
preliminary
plat
approval
to
subdivide
two
lots
at
1844,
east
2700,
south
and
1852
east
2700
south,
and
create
a
third
lot
in
the
rear
portion
of
1852
east
2700.
South.
R
The
request
would
result
in
three
lots
that
do
not
meet
minimum
lot
width
requirements
but
would
meet
the
minimum
lot
size,
as
required
in
the
r1
12
000
single
family
residential
zoning
district
lot.
One
would
have
a
reduced
lot
width
from
80
feet
to
67.3
feet
lot.
2
would
be
reduced
from
80
feet
to
68..
R
R
R
R
The
north
to
the
north,
the
properties
are
zoned
r,
one,
seven
thousand
single
family
residential
properties
to
the
east
and
the
south
are
zoned
r.
One.
Twelve
thousand
single
family
residential
and
to
the
west
properties
are
zoned
r,
one
twelve
thousand
and
r
one
seven
thousand
single
family
residential.
R
R
Here
are
some
summer
photos.
The
top
left
photo
shows
the
property
locat
er.
Sorry,
these
are
more
site
photos.
The
top
photo
is
a
view
from
the
shared
driveway
looking
into
the
property,
and
the
top
right
is
a
view
of
the
shared
driveway
looking
towards
2700
cell.
The
bottom
two
photos
show
approximately.
Where
lot
three
will
be
located.
R
R
While
the
proposal
doesn't
meet
current
lot
width
standards
visually,
there
will
be
little
modification
to
the
current
properties.
The
majority
of
modification
will
will
occur
to
the
rear
of
the
property
behind
the
house
on
1852
east,
which
will
help
in
maintaining
the
existing
visual
appeal
of
single-family
homes
along
the
front
edge
of
2700
south.
R
The
second
issue
considered
as
driveway
location
and
parking.
The
proposal
would
utilize
the
existing
driveway
and
drive
entrance
only
modifying
the
width
by
utilizing
the
current
layout
of
the
properties.
It
will
minimize
the
visual
disturbance,
as
seen
from
2700
south,
in
order
to
maintain
the
same
neighborhood
character.
R
R
R
Excuse
me.
Sorry
discusses
the
proposed
design
of
the
home.
R
Stating
it
will
meet
all
r1
12000
zoning
requirements,
including
setbacks,
height
and
law
coverage,
in
addition
to
meeting
all
zoning
standards,
a
condition
of
approval
requires
the
dwelling
on
lot
three
to
also
adhere
to
the
front
facade,
control,
sections
or
front
facade
controls
in
section
21a,
24.010
of
the
zoning
ordinance.
The
application
describes
the
proposed
building
materials
as
stucco
fiber,
cement,
siding
and
glass
with
brick
or
stone
accents
in
the
project.
Narrative.
R
The
third
issue
or
sorry,
the
fourth
issue
that
was
considered
was
compliance
with
city-wide
and
community
master
plans.
The
subject
property
lies
within
the
sugar
house
master
plan
area.
The
request
lies
with
poly
aligns
with
policies
of
this
plan
relating
to
increasing
housing,
stock
and
infill
development.
R
R
The
subject
properties
within
the
boundaries
of
salt
lake
er
boundaries
of
the
sugar
house,
community
council,
early
notification
was
sent
to
the
sugar
house
community
council
chair
requesting
comments
for
the
proposal.
The
applicant,
as
well
as
planning
staff,
were
invited
to
attend
a
community
council
meeting
where
the
project
was
discussed.
R
Early
notice
was
sent
out
to
the
property
owners
and
residents
within
300
feet
of
the
subject
area.
As
of
the
publication
of
the
staff
report,
two
comments
were
received
in
favor
of
the
proposal
and
12
were
received
in
opposition
staff
is
recommending
that
the
commission
approve
the
plan,
development
and
preliminary
plat
with
the
conditions
listed
in
the
staff
report,
and
I
believe
the
applicant
is
here
to
present.
B
Thank
you
chris.
I
hope
you
recover
soon.
B
Yes,
before
we
allow
the
applicant
to
speak,
is
there
any
questions
for
chris?
I
do
have
one
question:
when
you
say
it's
24
feet
wide.
It's
actually
like
68.
Third,
the
one
is
actually
68
feet
wide
at
the
rear,
where
it
where
the
actual
built
building
will
be
right.
It's
just
24
feet
wide
on
the
street.
R
Yeah,
it's
just
the
front
edge
that
is
24
feet,
essentially
the
access
strip,
and
then
the
lot
will
widen
out
when
you
go
down
the
access
strip,
all
right.
B
R
R
Long
lots
so
yeah
they're
they're
fairly
large,
so
I,
like
I
said
I
haven't
seen
any
other
ones
come
in,
but
I
don't
know
if
it's
something
that
other
people
may
want
to
try.
B
S
Yeah
and
barbara
harvath
is
participating.
So
if
she
wants
to
say
anything,
I
guess
I
need
one
little
point
of
clarification:
do
you
guys
allow
the
applicant
to
speak
after
the
public
hearing
or
just
before
the
public
hearing.
B
We
will
allow
the
applicant
to
answer
questions
that
we
that
we
think
are
important
coming
out
of
the
public
hearing.
S
Well,
we'll
be
happy
to
do
that.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
service
to
the
community.
I
realize
that
planning
commission
meetings
last
a
long
time.
I've
attended
many
and
I
love
the
process,
but
we
really
appreciate
the
time
that
you
spend
and
the
time
that
staff
has
spent
on
this
chris
has
done
a
wonderful
job,
helping
us.
S
This
is
a
very
small
project
and
it
is
just
one
request:
it's
come
in
as
a
pd,
because
virtually
no
one
can
meet
the
requirements
that
you
have
in
your
code
for
a
a
staff
to
create
a
lot
in
the
back
unless
you
go
through
the
pd
process,
so
we're
we're
complying
with
your
pd
process
and
asking
and
requesting
respectfully
approval
of
the
pd
in
the
preliminary
plat
we're
only
requesting
one
variation
for
the
zone,
and
that
is
for
lot
width.
S
The
lot
width
requirement
requires
80
feet
of
street
facing
lot
width,
so
we're
requesting
a
reduction
for
all
three
of
the
lots
to
67
feet,
wide
68
feet
wide,
and
then
the
staff
is
actually
the
front
or
considered
the
front
under
your
code
for
the
for
the
lot
in
the
back,
which
you
are
correct,
make
sure
is
60
67
feet
wide
in
the
back
in
the
front.
S
So
these
are
our
12
000
square
foot
lots.
However,
barbara's
lot
she's
lived
there
for
over
15
years
it
faces
2700
south.
The
the
street
view
will
remain
the
same.
The
driveway
that's
going
to
service.
The
back
lot
is
already
in
existence,
and
that
will
be
the
same
street
view
that
the
neighbors
will
see
and
that
people
on
the
street
will
see.
S
S
It
also
promotes
barbara's
request
to
agent
place.
She
currently
lives
in
the
house
at
1844
and
she
would
like
to
move
to
the
back
house,
which
will
be
built
as
more
aging
in
place
friendly
than
the
three-story
house
in
the
front,
which
has
a
top
story,
a
main
level
and
then
a
basement.
S
It
promotes
retaining
the
look
of
the
single-family
homes
and
we
are
retaining
the
two
1930s
family
homes
that
face
2700
south.
It
is
still
low
density
residential.
We
are
not
requesting
any
sort
of
variation
from
the
zoning
lot
size,
which
is
12
000
square
feet.
I
know
some
of
the
neighbors
indicate
that
these
are
half
acre
lots,
but
that
is
not
in
keeping
with
the
zoning,
which
is
12
000
square
feet,
not
to
20
000
square
feet.
S
Many
neighbors
say
that
this
will
change
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
barbara
intends
to
still
live
in
the
neighborhood.
As
does
my
brother,
barbara
lives
with
her
aging
mother,
who's
84
and
her
bro
her
other
brother,
and
they
intend
to
move
to
the
back
lot
and
retain
the
1930s
houses
along
the
street.
S
S
It
meets
the
policy,
concerns
and
goals
of
the
pd,
and
also
of
the
sugar
house
plan
and
the
salt
lake
city
plans,
which
request
that
we
add
appropriate
infill
products
and
appropriate
infill
projects,
but
keep
the
existing
housing
stock
and
develop
underutilized
land
with
aging
in
place,
implementation
and
implementing
zoning
flexibility.
To
allow
for
that.
S
S
S
At
this
time,
no
impact
will
be
made
to
the
existing
easement
at
the
back
for
the
water,
ditch
that
a
neighbor
built
on
barbara's
land
that
will
remain
because
there
is
an
easement
there.
I
don't
know
if
the
water,
the
water
district,
permitted
them
to
build
that
ditch.
I
I
don't
understand
the
background
of
that,
but
that
will
remain
and
we
will
have
no
impact
on
that.
S
In
order
to
address
the
concerns
of
the
neighbors,
we
will
come
in
with
an
appropriate
house
design.
I'd
like
to
share
my
screen,
but
I
think
you
have
to
give
me
permission
to
do
that.
B
Let's,
let's
not
do
that
at
this
time,
john,
we
are
about
out
of
time,
miss
hale,
so
for
the
for
the
applicant's
presentation.
So
if
there's
anything
you
want
to
say
before
we
kind
of
wrap
it
up,
we'll
be
able
to
come
back
if
they're.
B
We
will
be
able
to
come
back
if
there
are,
if
there
are
questions
that
arise
out
of
our
public
hearing.
S
Okay,
I
would
like
to
just
sum
up
by
saying
that
we
we
want
to
address
the
concerns
of
the
neighbor.
Barbara
will
reduce
the
house
in
the
back
to
a
single
story
above
ground,
and
we
request
this
appropriate
infill
for
this
area.
There
are
no
added
homes,
except
for
one
additional
home,
as
was
feared,
no
commercial
at
all
is
being
requested,
as
was
feared.
S
No
second
story:
she
will
reduce
it
to
one
no
reduction
in
lot
size
and
no
ruination
of
the
flora
and
fauna
that
barbara
planted
there.
She
intends
to
keep
as
much
as
she
can
and
we
would
request
approval
and
respectfully
request
that
she
also
not
have
to
remove
her
detached
garage,
which
she
stores
a
lot
of
her
stuff
in.
B
B
A
I
I
I
Thank
you.
We
at
the
opera,
we
had
an
opportunity
to
review
this
project
at
our
land
use
committee
in
march,
and
we
flyered
the
neighborhood
and
one
of
the
neighbors
told
us.
We
missed
the
other
two
streets,
so
we
went
back
and
re-fired,
so
the
entire
55
homes
were
notified
of
this
proposed
development.
I
It
complies
with
the
purpose
statement
of
the
r1
12
000
zone
and
it
benefits
the
city
by
adding
one
more
additional
unit
of
housing
to
the
city.
But
does
this
benefit
the
neighborhood?
Does
this
make
a
more
enhanced
product
than
how
the
neighborhood
is?
Now
it's
consistent
with
the
master
plan,
because
it
still
retains
the
designation,
low
density
residential,
and
I
think
now,
we've
learned
a
little
bit
about
the
design
of
the
house
that
it
no
longer
will
plan
to
be
a
two-story
house.
I
I
I
The
subdivision
has
55
lots.
Many
homes
are
old,
some
in
better
repair
than
others.
I
received
17
written
comments.
15
are
opposed
to
this
change
and
two
are
in
favor.
Most
of
the
people.
Writing
comments
have
lived
in
their
house
for
many
years,
I'm
talking
30
and
40
years.
This
is
not
a
neighborhood
that
experiences
much
turnover
as
we
look
at
the
lot
from
the
sky
via
the
city
assessor's
website.
I
I
I
Even
though
adding
housing
is
important
to
the
city,
we'd
rather
see
a
small
area
plan
developed
for
highland
acres.
It
says
the
vast
majority
of
the
neighborhoods
in
favor
of
this
then
allow
one
pudd
in
the
middle
of
this
cohesive
community.
It
feels
like
spot
zoning,
and
we
ask
that
you
deny
the
request.
B
M
Yes,
I
have
been
a
long-time
resident
of
the
highland
acres
and
I
wanted
to
kind
of
give
a
little
light
on
the
zoning
that
we
have
right
now
in
1997.
Another
property
owner
in
the
highland
acres
subdivision
wanted
to
subdivide
their
lot
and
create
a
flag
lot.
M
We
did
not
want
to
lose
our
access
to
those
who
had
irrigation
water
to
lose
that
access
and
we
wanted
to
minimize
driveway
hazards
for
children
who
walked
to
highland
park
elementary
previous
to
that
time
the
area
was
zoned
r1
7000,
since
the
majority
of
property
owners
in
the
highland
acres
subdivision
wanted
to
preserve
our
area
with
large
lots,
and
we
did
not
want
any
flag
lots.
We
worked
with
the
city
to
create
zoning
ordinances
and
the
ordinance
we
got
is
the
one
that
we
currently
have.
M
The
r1
12
000
for
this
area,
with
the
stipulation
of
the
property
had
to
have
at
least
80
feet
of
street
frontage
to
prevent
any
possibility
of
subdivision.
The
zoning
amendment
was
approved
on
october
7
1997
at
that
time.
M
It
never
crossed
my
mind
nor
the
city
planner
or
anyone
else's,
that
a
family
would
buy
adjacent
lots
with
what
appears
to
be
the
express
purpose
of
creating
a
flag
lot,
and
I
want
to
assure
you
that
if
we
had
considered
that
situation
at
the
time,
we
would
have
lobbied
for
an
even
bigger
lot
size
in
our
zoning
24
years
later,
meaning
today,
many
property
owners
still
hold
the
same
view
that
we
held
in
1997,
and
we
want
large
lots
with
a
brief
review
of
the
highland
day
cruise,
as
is
with
a
brief
review
of
why
highland
acres
is
zoned
as
it
is
today.
M
M
B
A
This
is
from
porter
donahue.
The
email
says
this
application
violates
not
only
the
zoning
requirements
for
three
lots,
but
also
the
adopted
policies
and
restrictions.
The
application
incorrectly
identifies
detached
garages.
These
functioning
as
dwellings
and
the
applicant
david
has
conveniently
cancelled
an
inspection
by
angela
on
several
occasions
as
related
to
me
by
angela.
The
application
thus
provides
non-factual
false
information,
which
has
corrupted
the
entire
process,
in
fact,
in
being
a
corrupt
application.
A
This
application
is
wasted
of
the
taxpayers,
time
and
taxpayers
dollars
when
speaking
with
chris
earle,
he
told
me
that
garages
can
have
plumbing
in
the
atlas
can
put
garage
doors
on
the
garage
which
is
had
its
garage
doors
covered
over.
I
disagree
with
the
city
acting
as
an
advocate
for
the
applicants.
City
must
act
as
an
advocate
and
servant
to
the
citizenry.
I
would
like
to
know
of
any
and
all
conflicts
of
interest
involving
the
commissioners.
A
G
I'd
be
interested
in
hearing
from
the
applicant
any
comments
in
response
to
the
issues
raised
during
the
public
hearing.
If
there
are
any
that
she
wants
to
address.
S
Yes,
I
would
like
to
address
the
sugar
house
concerns.
Barbara
has
reduced
the
height
of
the
proposed
house
to
one
story
above
ground.
The
reason
she
would
like
to
have
a
three-car
garage
is
because
there
are
three
adults
who
live
in
the
house,
her
brother
herself
and
her
mother,
all
of
whom
currently
have
cars.
S
She
is
not
requesting
that
she
changed
the
nature
of
the
neighborhood.
She
is
not
requesting
that
she
tear
down
the
two
houses
and
put
in
six
planned
unit.
Developments
like
has
happened
up
on
20th
east.
She
is
merely
requesting
that
one
additional
family
live
in
the
neighborhood.
It's
a
vibrant
community.
Barbara
has
lived
there
in
that
neighborhood,
not
just
on
2700
south
for
decades,
but
also
in
the
neighborhood
right
behind
there.
So
she
is
also
a
good
friend.
S
I
am
uncertain
about
the
flag,
lock
concern
the
reason.
The
flag
lots!
Don't
work
in
this
case
is
because
your
zoning
regulations
are
hard
to
comply
with,
and
that's
why
we've
requested
it
in
a
pd
and
it
is
underutilized
land
and
one
additional
family
or
neighbor
would
enhance
the
neighborhood,
not
destroy
it.
The
look
from
the
street
will
be
exactly
the
same
as
it
is
now.
B
I
do
want
to
acknowledge
the
concerns
of
the
neighborhood
in
this
proposal
and
I
think
that
the
city
planner
here
the
staff
person
has
done
his
best
job
to
recommend
approval
based
on
the
actual
conditions
of.
B
So,
and
I
also
want
to
acknowledge
that,
although
things
were
developed
in
1997,
we
are,
we
are
in
a
kind
of
a
different
situation
now
in
the
city,
where
housing
has
become
a
much
more
important.
K
Yeah
I'd
just
like
to
say
that
I
can
imagine
a
lot
of
scenarios
where
you
would
actually
have
a
negative
impact
to
the
to
the
neighborhood
that
are
not
being
proposed
here,
and
I
always
find
it
so
interesting
how
whenever
we
have
an
adu,
everyone
complains
there's
not
enough
parking,
there's
not
enough
street
parking,
and
here
we
have
somebody
who
wants
to
have
enough
austria
parking
and
then
they
complain
about
that.
K
So
I
don't
know
quite
where
there's
a
happy
medium
parking,
but
you
know
to
me
looking
around
the
the
google
earth
of
the
areas
with
these
long
lots,
it's
not
a
huge
amount
in
that
neighborhood
and
I
don't
live
far
from
it.
The
majority
of
homes
surrounding
this
block.
K
Don't
have
these
long
lots,
so
I
feel
like
this
is
not
going
to
have
an
impact
to
the
neighborhood
in
any
way
that
they're
expressing,
but
I
can
sure
imagine
many
scenarios
that
they
could
do
by
right.
That
would
result
in
a
not
pleasing
effect.
So
I
think
this
is
a
good
project.
F
K
F
F
B
F
G
Yeah,
I
agree
with
everything
that's
been
said,
and
I
think
the
impact
of
this
particular
proposal
will
be
minimal.
G
I
appreciate
that
they're,
preserving
the
houses
in
the
front
and
that
the
view
from
the
streetscape
won't
be
affected,
and
I
see
adding
one
additional
house
in
the
rear
of
one
of
these
really
long
lots
as
an
effective
way
to
deal
with
an
aging
in
place
housing
circumstance.
So
I'm
I'm
in
support.
B
Thank
you.
Would
anyone
like
to
make
a
motion.
B
K
S
B
I'm
sorry
I
apologize,
but
we
really.
This
is
the
point
where
we're
gonna
vote,
so
I
think
you'll
be
happy
with
the
conclusion.
So
I
don't
think
you
want
to
interfere
at
that
point.
So
so
I
have
a
motion
from
adrian
and
a
second
from
I'm
sorry
is
that
amazing.
B
Sorry
and
a
second
from
amy,
so
amy.
K
F
B
G
B
F
C
M
M
C
M
M
M
K
K
F
F
A
B
B
You're,
muted
john,
can
we
unmute
him
there?
We
go
you're
now
you're
now,
unmuted.
F
Thank
you
thank
you
for
presenting
the
project
kelsey,
I'm
just
sitting
in
for
dave
brock,
who
was
called
away
at
the
last
minute,
so
I
think
I'll
just
defer
to
kelsey's
description.
B
A
A
All
right,
this
is
from
karen
karen
says
that
my
biggest
concern
is
parking.
I
park
in
back
of
my
home
utilizing
the
alley,
but
lake
street
is
how
I
access
the
alley
in
major
roads.
It
is
regularly
too
congested
to
pass
another
car
in
traffic
jams
where
cars
are
left
trying
to
back
up
into
night
south
traffic,
where
beyond
belmont
occur,
regularly,
I'm
also
surrounded
by
rentals
and
lawful
multi-unit
homes
and
have
been
for
over
20
years
parking
has
become
a
major
nuisance.
A
I
cannot
downsize
my
garbage
can
because
I'm
lucky
to
find
space
for
it
once
every
couple
of
months
and
even
then
is
regularly
removed
from
the
streets,
so
someone
can
park
or
rammed
into
the
middle
of
the
street.
Every
adult
comes
with
at
least
one
vehicle,
and
often
two
single
adults
often
come
with
romantic
partners
and
an
extra
vehicle.
The
reality
around
here
is
at
least
two
parking
spaces
being
used
for
every
adult,
renting
or
permanently
residing
any
conditional
use
would
have
to
provide
at
least
six
off-street
parking
spaces.
A
B
Thank
you,
okay,
all
right!
Thank
you!
It's
fine!
We
just
need
it
for
the
record.
Okay,
I
don't
see
any
other
hands
up
at
this
time,
so
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
hearing
and
bring
it
back
to
the
commissioners
for
a.
B
K
F
B
We
have
number
five
on
our
agenda
tonight
is
the
king
unit
legalization
at
approximately
forty,
forty
two
and
forty
four
madam
chamber,
take
a
five
minute
break.
Yes,
in
fact,
that's
an
excellent
idea.
Madame
vice
chair,
so
we
will
take
a
five
minute
break.
We
will
be
back
at
seven,
we'll
actually
take
an
eight
minute
break,
we'll
be
back
at
7,
20.,
okay,
everybody
thank
you.
B
F
B
B
B
F
F
F
F
F
B
Okay,
crystal
is
back
okay,
let's
go
ahead,
I'm
going
to
call
the
meeting
back
to
order
from
our
break,
and
we
have
number
five
keen
unit
legalization
at
approximately
40
42
and
44
west
500
north.
This
number
pln
pcm
2021-0030
and
it's
being
presented
by
caitlin.
H
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you,
members
of
the
planning
commission
and
the
public
I'm
happy
to
be
here
virtually
at
least
with
all
of
you
this
evening.
This
is
a
special
exception
request,
which
is
typically
handled
at
the
planning
staff
level.
However,
due
to
its
complexity,
planning
staff
has
brought
it
to
the
planning
commission
for
the
final
decision.
H
H
However,
I
wanted
to
highlight
the
two
main
ones
that
we
are
examining,
at
least
in
this
presentation,
and
the
first
is
that
the
excess
unit
must
have
been
legally
established,
the
second
of
which
is
that
the
excess
unit
must
have
been
continuously
occupied.
H
So
we
have
the
letter
and
the
affidavit
from
the
prior
owner
and
the
the
neighbor,
but
we
also
have
accounts
from
other
neighbors
and
directories
that
show
the
units
have
not
been
continuously
occupied.
We
also
have
a
sanborn
map
from
1950,
which
indicates
only
two
dwelling
units
in
that
building.
H
So
I
will
go
through
some
of
those
exhibits
for
you
here.
This
is
a
scan
of
the
the
building
permits,
as
you
can
see
right
under
the
owner
there.
I
don't
know
if
everyone
can
see
my
cursor,
but
it
indicates
that
there
are
three
units
present.
H
Additionally,
staff
went
through
quite
a
few
pulp
directories
from
1997
through
2021,
and
we
did
find
that
the
polk
directories
supported
the
existence
of
that
third
unit.
However,
we
were
not
able
to
locate
a
year
in
which
all
three
of
those
units
were
simultaneously
occupied,
at
least
as
referenced
in
the
bulk
directories.
H
I
have
some
site
photos
here,
just
to
show
you
the
subject:
property.
The
top
left
is
of
the
front
face
of
the
building
where
units
40
and
42
are,
and
then
the
top
right
shows
the
front
door
to
the
unit
at
44,
west
500,
north
there's
also
a
garage
and
a
semi-enclosed
storage
space
above
that
shown
in
the
bottom
left
photograph
and
then
across
the
street
to
the
south
is
a
public
park.
H
H
That
was
when
we
got
the
majority
of
the
phone
calls
in
the
emails
that
were
noted
in
your
staff
report.
It
was
during
the
early
notification
process.
We've
also
sent
out
a
public
hearing
notice,
as
well
as
posted
signs
and
all
of
the
public
comments
that
we've
received
have
been
forwarded
to
the
planning
commission,
either
in
your
staff
report
or
in
the
drop
box,
and
at
this
point
just
because
there
is
conflicting
evidence.
Stuff
is
recommending
denial.
H
However,
the
property
owner
does
have,
of
course,
those
affidavits
from
the
the
prior
neighbor,
as
well
as
a
letter
from
the
prior
owner
that
he
may
choose
to
discuss
with
the
planning
commission.
H
That's
all
I
have
for
my
presentation.
If
you
have
any
questions
for
me,
I'm
happy
to
take
those
or
the
homeowner
rory
is
also
on
the
line
and
is
able
to
speak.
G
I
do
I
have
a
question
about
the
standard
caitlyn
as
I
look
at
what
the
code
says
in
your
summary
unit
legalization
standards.
So
I
don't
see
that
the
requirement
is
that
the
unit
has
been
continuously
occupied.
G
I
see
that
the
excess
unit
has
been
maintained
as
a
separate
dwelling
unit
since
1995
and
then
in
order
to
determine
if
it
has
been
maintained,
the
following
may
be
considered,
which
would
be
evidence
that
it
has
been
occupied
at
least
once
every
five
years,
evidence
that
it
has
been
marketed
for
occupancy
and
so
on.
So
I
guess
I'd
like
some
clarification
from
you
of
what
you
were
evaluating
when
sifting
through
the
evidence.
H
B
A
And
commissioner
bell,
I
would
agree
with
you
that
it
doesn't
say
that
they
all
have
to
be
occupied
simultaneously
generally,
when
we
have
reviewed
these
we've
used
that
five
year
period,
just
to
say
you
know,
was
this
use
ever
abandoned
because
obviously
it's
become
a
legal
non-conforming
use.
So
did
they
abandon
the
use
of
that
one,
and
so
you've
used
that
five-year
period
to
determine
if
it
hasn't
been
occupied
at
least
some
period
of
time,
every
five
years,
but
obviously
things
happen?
Not
every
unit
needs
to
be
occupied.
At
the
same
time,.
G
Yeah
I
mean,
I
think
so
I
I
think
I
interpret
this
provision
to
say
that
it's
not
an
occupancy
requirement.
It's
the
creation
of
the
unit
and
occupancy
is
evidence
of
the
existence
of
the
unit,
and
I
think
that's
what
we
should
that's,
where
we
can
also
take
into
account
the
affidavit
and
the
other
information
that
was
presented
by
the
applicant.
So
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that.
B
Thank
you.
So
let's
go
ahead
with
the
applicant,
mr
kane,
would
you
like
to
go
ahead
and
speak.
O
Yes,
I
would
so,
as
as
caitlyn
mentioned,
I
got
the
letter
from
the
son
of
the
previous
owner
who
he
had
lived
in
this
property
for
many
years
and
he
confirmed
to
me.
I
didn't
know
him
previously.
We
just
spoke
the
other
day.
He
confirmed
to
me
that
the
apartments
were
consistently
filled
and,
as
the
other
evidences
showed,
as
we
were
just
saying,
he
confirmed,
there's
been
different
power
meters.
O
We
got
the
letter
from
the
power
company
saying
that
the
latest
one
they've
been
there
since
1967,
1985
and
1980,
so
it's
been
separately
metered
for
a
long
time,
but
both
the
previous
owner
and
one
of
the
neighbors
kelly
patterson,
who
knew
the
family
pretty
well
told
me
the
exact
same
thing
again.
I
haven't
been
living
here,
so
I
couldn't
observe
this.
But
to
me
I
figured
getting
that
from
those
two
people
was
pretty
good
evidence
and
then
one
thing
I
will
say
the
people
who
did
give
the
conflicting
arguments
a
lot
of
them.
O
It
seems
their
concern
was
just
parking,
and
one
thing
I
want
to
say
on
that
is
previously:
the
owner
had
not
maintained
the
property
very
well,
and
the
garage
wasn't
really
usable.
It
was
more
storage,
so
my
plan
would
be
to
make
that
garage
better
so
that
it
could
be
used
and
more
cars
could
fit
on
this
driveway.
So
it
is
my
goal
to
help.
If
that
is
an
issue
that
people
are
worried
about,
in
addition
to
that,
regardless
of
whether
it's
legally
a
triplex
or
a
duplex,
the
number
of
bedrooms
remains
the
same.
O
So
I
wouldn't
expect
that
to
be
an
issue
but
yeah,
as
I
said
it's,
I
think
it's
pretty
clear
based
on
everything.
I've
been
told
and
seen
that,
and
it
was
the
way
it
was
marketed
to
me
when
I
purchased
the
property
that
these
three
units
have
been
existing
and
rented.
This
way
for
a
very
long
time,
for
far
more
than
25
years,.
A
I
do
see
one
I
can
unmute
catherine
catherine
anderson.
Would
you
like
to
speak
on
this
topic.
T
Yeah
thanks
I'm
here
with
another
neighbor
ann
hammond
and
then
another
neighbor
roseanne
that
just
had
to
had
to
leave
for
a
little
bit.
So
are
your
right.
One
of
our
concerns
is
definitely
parking
potentially.
So,
first
of
all
I
have.
I
grew
up
in
this
house,
and
I've
lived
here
as
long
as
kelly
patterson
and
I
would
be
happy
to
sign
an
affidavit
saying
that
it
has
not
been
continuously.
T
The
third
unit
has
not
been
continuously
rented
out
and
when,
at
the
times
that
it
was,
it
was
done
so
illegally
and
the
previous
owner
has
a
history
of
dealing
with
inspectors
in
the
city
on
different.
They
were
basically
at
war,
the
whole
time
he
owned
this
place.
So
that's
an
issue,
but
yes
it.
The
parking
is
definitely
an
issue
right
now.
T
There
is
no
legal
parking
in
front
of
the
unit
on
500
north
and
there
is
only
one
legal
parking
space
on
the
street
on
west
capitol
street
and
I've
been
on
this
meeting
since
5
30,
and
so
I
was
listening
to
david
shearer
mentioned
traffic
issues
and
we
have
an
incredibly
horrible
traffic
issue
on
west
capitol
street.
T
I
do
also
know
that
when
this
was
first
purchased
and
the
construction
was
being
done,
I
went
over
and
talked
to
the
contractor
about
some
things
and
said:
oh
you
gotta.
You
happen
to
get
a
permit
fairly
quickly.
Oh
yes,
yes,
yes,
whatever
well
turns
out,
it
sounds
like
there
actually
was
no
permit,
hence
the
red
tag.
So
we
do
have
concerns
with.
G
Thank
you.
This
is
I
I
live
behind.
I
live
on
west
capitol
on
the
same
block
and
I'm
very
concerned
about
the
fact
that
it's
when
I
went
to
in
and
talked
to
the
contractor,
he
showed
me
four
units
and
he
explained
how
the
entrances
would
be.
There's
four
air
conditioners,
and
so
I'm
I'm
very
concerned
that
it's
you're
trying
to
get
a
legalization
for
a
triplex,
but
in
actuality
it's
headed
to
be
a
fourplex.
G
And
that
that
concerns
me,
I'm
very
concerned
about
the
noise
and
so
with
the
potential
of
having
say
four
couples
there.
Maybe
some
kids
a
lot
more
noise
and
I'm
very
concerned
about
the
parking
than
being
all
of
those
units
spilling
over
into
my
parking
in
front
of
my
house,
which
has
always
been
difficult
anyway.
G
So,
yes,
parking
is
a
problem,
and
I'm
also
concerned
about
the
appearance
that
they're
making
a
fourplex,
not
a
triplex
anyway,
and
a
triplex
is
illegal.
It
was
meant
to
be
a
duplex
in
a
family
neighborhood
and
to
to
go
ahead
and
make
it
a
triplex
is
not
not
okay,
it's
like
they.
They
illegally
used
it
as
a
triplex
from
time
to
time
and
the
time
I
was
when
I
was
raising
my
girls
there,
it
wasn't
occupied
continuously
as
a
triplex.
P
Can
I
get
the
clarification
of
the
name
of
the
second
speaker,
please,
for
the
record.
G
B
B
B
So,
thank
you
all
for
speaking.
Is
there
anyone
else
who
wishes
to
speak.
K
Can
I
just
clarify
this
document
that
shows
that
it
was
three
units?
Was
that,
does
it
say
september
12
1911
or
is
it's
like
scratched
out?
It's
on
page
40.
G
So,
just
to
reiterate
what
I
stated
earlier,
I
think
this.
The
stack
report
is
a
little
convoluted
in
the
analysis
of
the
standard
and
the
evidence.
I
think
it's
hard
to
for
us
to
discern
what
we
should
be
evaluating
and
sifting
through
it.
But
I
defer
to
you
know
everyone
else's
opinion
on
this
as
well.
G
I
don't
know
if
that's
every
five
years
from
1995
till
now
I
assume
so
or
if
it's
been
marketed
for
rent
if
it
hasn't
met
that
standard
or
if
there's
other
evidence
that
the
applicant
has
provided
demonstrating,
that
it
has
been
separately
maintained
or
has
been
maintained
as
a
separate
dwelling,
and
I
think
we
have
that
somewhat
with
the
affidavit,
as
well
as
with
the
rocky
mountain
power
feed
power
meters,
as
well
as
the
evidence
and
the
pope
directories
that
show
that
there
were
at
least
three
units
at
various
times.
B
I
agree
with
you.
I
would
agree
with
you
adrian.
I
believe
that
this
is
actually
that,
if
you,
if
you
put
aside
the
continuous
occupation
thing
which
is
really
a
red
herring,
this
has
clearly
been
a
separate
unit
for
many
many
many
years
much
longer
than
25
years.
So
and
I'm
especially
convinced
by
by
the
rocky
mountain
power
evidence.
B
That
in
which
we
determine
how
many
units,
for
example,
are
in
the
cities,
is
how
many
connections
there
are
with
rocky
mountain
power.
So.
K
Madam
chair,
can
we
get
a
legal
clarification
on
this,
because
I
tend
to
agree
with
you
and
adrian
that
the
you
know
the
standard
is
that
the
dwelling
unit
existed
as
a
triplex
and
one
of
the
ways
in
which
staff
is
going
about
trying
to
establish
that
is
to
see
if
it
was
continuously
occupied.
But
continuous
occupation
of
all
three
units
does
not
appear
as
a
legal
standard
by
which
we
are
making
our
decision.
Can
we
get
clarification
on
that
so
paul?
Can
you
speak
to
that.
Q
Yeah
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
have
to
lean
on
john
and
katelyn
here
a
little
bit
as
far
as
the
the
standards
here.
Give
me
just
a
second.
A
Oh
paul,
while
you're
looking,
I
have
it
there's
two
review
standards.
One
is
the
dwelling
unit
existed
prior
to
april
12
1995.,
so
I
think
that
we
can
establish
that
because
we
saw
that
in
the
building
card
second
standard,
so
you
have
to
be
both
of
these
is
the
excess
unit
has
been
maintained
as
a
separate
dwelling
unit
since
april
1995.,
and
so
then
it
gives
us
those
ways
for
somebody
to
prove
how
to
prove
that
it
was
occupied
since
1995..
A
It
doesn't
mean
that
every
single
day
since
1995
it
was
occupied
but
that
it
was
consistently
occupied,
which
is
why
we
created
that
five
years
to
say
that
it's
consistently
from
since
1995
until
today
has
generally
been
occupied,
and
my
guess
is
that
caitlyn
brought
this
because
I
think
they're
getting
some
conflicting
statements
from
neighbors
who
are
saying
it
wasn't.
But
of
course
we
do
have
a
signed
affidavit
from
somebody
who's,
claiming
that
it
is
that
it
does
meet
that
standard.
K
Right
so
john,
just
to
clarify,
if
we're
looking
at
standard
b
under
there,
where
it
says
the
xs
unit
has
been
maintained
as
a
separate
drawing
unit
the
following
may
be
considered,
and
so
I
guess
we're
just
really
stuck
on.
What's
our
legal,
I'm
stuck
on?
What's
our
legal
due
diligence
here
in
you
know,
may
I
consider
it
do.
I
feel
like
it's
that
litmus
test
I'm.
I
am
a
little
confused
by
by
where
our
legal
standing
is
on
on
these
standards
and
when
I'm
with
adrian.
N
Q
The
the
language
in
the
code-
I'm
admittedly
not
in
love
with
when
it
tells
you
that
it
it
may
be
considered.
Obviously
that's
a
discretionary
thing-
I'm
not
sure
that
that
was
the
intent
of
the
council
when
they
adopted
this
language
that
it
may
be
considered.
I
think
that
clearly
can
be
tightened
up.
Also,
the
sorry
I
am
scrolling
so
slowly
here,
the
consistently
john
where's
that
language.
A
So
in
order
to
determine
if
you
have
been
maintained
as
a
dwelling
unit,
the
following
may
be
considered
like
my
guess,
is
that
you
may
be
considered,
because
maybe
somebody
had
evidence
that
that
would
also
that
would
meet
that
standard
that
we
hadn't
listed.
But
it
does
give
you
a
through
d
options
as
to
how
they
could
prove
that.
Q
B
B
K
Do
it
I'll
do
it?
I've
got
it
up
now,
wow.
You
know
these
are
tough,
but
I
parking
is
not
on
the
table
for
us
to
consider.
So
it's
really
not
it's
not
something.
We
illegally
have
a
purview
on
on
this
one,
and
I
think
the
evidence
is
clear
enough
for
me.
K
Given
the
money
given
the
legal
standards
we
we
have
before
so,
based
on
the
information
in
the
staff
report,
the
information
presented
in
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing,
I
move
that
the
planning
commission
approve
petition,
pln
pcm
2021-00030
with
the
following
conditions.
K
B
Thank
you
amy.
I
think
it
goes
without
saying
that
also
the
applicant
will
not
be
building
for
you.
Okay,
so
do
I
have
a
second
a
second.
G
B
Thank
you
adrian
okay,
so
I
have
a
motion
from
amy
and
the
second
from
adrian,
so
amy.
K
F
B
D
B
Okay,
the
motion
passes
five
to
zero,
so
we
will
move
on
to
our
final
final
project
tonight,
which
is
the
high
grading
special
exceptions.
Approximately
1725
south
devonshire
avenue
davinci
drive
case
number
pln
gcm,
2021-00238
and
amanda
you've
been
waiting
a
long
time
to
talk,
go
for
it.
K
E
The
neverending
side
of
online
meetings,
okay,
so
I'll
dive
right
in
since
we've
been
here
for
a
minute,
I
am
presenting
a
special
exception
request
from
matthew
and
sarah
duvall
of
the
property
owners
of
1725
south
devonshire
drive.
They
are
requesting
exceptions,
approval
to
construct
a
single
family
home
that
exceeds
the
maximum
allowable
grade
changes
and
maximum
permitted
building
height
in
the
fr2
21780
foothills
residential
district.
The
requested
grade
changes
exceed
the
allowed
six
feet
in
the
buildable
area
and
four
feet
in
the
rear
yard
area.
E
E
E
The
law
is
about
50
000
square
feet
with
a
buildable
area
of
5700
square
feet,
which
is
about
11
of
the
the
lot
area.
The
proposed
single
family
dwelling
would
encompass
approximately
six
percent
of
the
total
law
area
and
then,
as
for
site
conditions,
the
grade
increases
by
30
feet
from
the
front
yard
setback
to
the
undevelopable
area
and
that's
an
increase
of
about
31
percent.
E
Here's
some
photos
of
the
subject
property
to
show
the
existing
slope
and
the
increase
in
in
the
slope.
The
gray
change
along
the
east
side
of
devonshire
drive
slips
upward
towards
the
foothills
and
then
the
established
grade
slips
downward
on
the
west
side
of
street.
The
subject
property
is
located
on
the
on
the
east
side.
Due
to
the
existing
slope.
E
E
E
The
grips
exceeding
six
feet
within
the
buildable
area
are
illustrated
in
purple
along
the
front
elevation
and
at
the
rear
of
the
home,
and
the
gray
changes
exceed
four
feet
and
height
are
shown
in
yellow
and
they're
located
in
the
rear
yard
as
well.
E
This
is
a
site
section
showing
the
proposed
grading
on
the
driveway,
which
is
next
to
the
garage.
The
area
that
exceeds
six
feet
is
hashed
to
purple
and
is
against
the
garage
wall.
The
total
cut
is
just
seven
and
a
half
feet
from
that
fortune.
E
So
the
first
cut,
which
is
in
the
buildable
area,
is
about
seven
and
a
half
feet
as
well,
and
then
the
second
cut
is
right
outside
of
the
the
little
area
and
is
five
feet:
2
inches,
there's
a
5
foot,
landscaped
area
separating
the
two
retaining
walls
as
required
in
code,
the
patio
and
the
retaining
walls
will
not
be
visible
from
the
public.
Right-Of-Way
and
apple
can't
submit
a
site
visibility
study
which
is
included
in
the
stock
report.
E
The
second
request
is
for
additional
building
height
the
fr2
zoning
district
permits
a
building
height
of
28
feet
from
established
grade.
The
applicant
is
requesting
additional
building
height
to
accommodate
a
section
of
the
street
facing
elevation,
the
establishment
of
the
property
flattens
out
right
below
this
area,
and
it
was
also
illustrated
in
a
site
section
located
in
the
staff
report,
so
because
of
this
they're
requesting
approximately
two
to
three
feet
on
a
185
square
foot
portion
of
the
roof.
E
The
overhead
section
of
the
roof
is
step
back
as,
as
is
the
whole
design
of
the
building.
But
this
porsche
is
stepped
back
from
the
front
line
of
the
building
by
about
25
feet
and
is
also
not
visible
from
devonshire
drive
and
there's
a
site.
Visibility
study
in
the
staff
report
that
the
architect
included
the
public
process.
A
hearing
notice
was
mailed
and
posted
on
the
city
and
state
websites
on
the
28th
may
28th,
and
then
I
posted
a
sign
on
the
property
on
the
31st.
E
And
planning
staff
recommends
that
the
planning
commission
approve
the
request,
based
on
the
information
in
the
staff
report,
the
request
for
special
exceptions
for
grade
changes
and
additional
building
height
in
the
fr2
zoning
district.
Well.
Well,
let
me
try
that
again,
plenty
staff
recommends
the
planning
commission
approved
a
special
exception
request
for
great
changes
and
additional
building
height
at
1725,
south
devonshire
drive
based
on
the
information
and
staff
report.
B
Amanda
yeah,
it's
late:
do
you
have
any
questions
for
amanda
at
this
time?
If
not,
we
will
move
on
and
to
see.
If
the
applicant
would
like
to
speak.
P
P
P
We
kicked
this
project
off
last
summer
and
we
built
a
very
respected
team
of
architects
and
builders
to
do
this,
the
right
way
and
to
respect
the
planning
code,
and
it
has
been
a
bit
of
a
rubik's
cube
to
design
because
of
the
the
l-shaped
pad
the
steep
grade,
the
and
the
20-foot
setback
as
amanda
shared
in
her
write-up.
P
P
Okay,
well
then,
I
I'm
not
gonna
fight
with
the
technology.
I'm
just
gonna
reference.
The
the
pages
in
your
document.
P
This
particular
area
has
really
made
us
rip
our
hair
out
a
little
bit
because
the
natural
grade
of
the
lot
flattens
out
at
that
point-
and
so
the
the
28
foot
envelope
also
flattens
out
right
there,
where
that
that
roof
line
pops
out.
So
that
has
been
a
challenge,
and
we
have
done
our
best
to
minimize
that
as
much
as
we
can.
P
The
amanda
noted
that
modest
grading
exception
to
create
the
flat
driveway
in
the
garage
area.
The
back
patio
grading
challenge
is
the
third
exception
and
really
the
least
expensive
approach.
There
is
to
have
one
11
foot
wall,
but
that
is
not
aesthetically
pleasing
and
it
really
creates
a
a
very
large
grade
exception.
P
So
the
the
team
worked
hard
to
design
those
two
walls
divided
by
five
feet
as
well
as
we
did
the
landscaping
plan
that
was
requested
to
make
it
more
in
keeping
with
the
surroundings
again.
This
feature
is
not
visible
from
the
street
from
any
angle,
and
so
the
only
people
who
could
possibly
see
this
are
the
neighbors
to
the
south.
P
E
P
B
B
If
you
wish
to
speak
on
this
particular
issue,
please
push
the
little
raise
hand
button
in
the
corner
right
hand,
corner
of
lower
right
hand,
corner
of
your
screen.
B
Thank
you,
okay.
I
would
like
to
know
that
we
have
two
letters
that
have
been
received
all
right,
so
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
close
the
public
hearing
and
bring
it
back
to
the
planning
commission
for
discussion
and
a
possible
motion.
B
I
believe
that
it
would
anyone
like
to
talk
about
this
one.
K
Amy,
please,
I
would
just
say,
mr
bell:
your
hard
work
has
paid
off
in
a
in
a
good
proposal
that
really
doesn't
raise
any
red
flags
with
me,
so
it
was
worth
it.
I
guess
just
to
tell
you
that,
based
on
the
information
listed
in
the
staff
report,
the
information
presented
and
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing,
I
move
that
the
commission
approved
the
special
exception
request
for
grading
an
additional
building
height
at
1725.