►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting - 08/24/2022
Description
Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting - 08/24/2022
https://www.slc.gov
A
A
this
meeting
is
a
hybrid
meeting
wayne.
Can
you
confirm
that
andra
and
andreas
are
connected.
B
A
Yes,
for
both
okay,
all
right,
then
we
have
full
attendance,
because
this
is
a
hybrid
meeting.
One
of
the
complaints
we
do
get
via
people
who
are
watching
webex
is
that
we
really
do
need
to
speak
into
the
microphone,
whether
it's
us
as
commissioners.
Anybody
from
the
public
who's
giving
comments.
A
A
Okay,
we're
gonna
jump
right
into
this.
We're
going
to
ask
for
approval
for
the
minutes
for
july
27th
to
have
a
motion.
A
B
A
E
A
Okay,
moving
on
to
the
report
of
the
chair
and
the
vice
chair,
I
just
want
to
bring
up
a
topic
for
of
just
some
initial
thoughts.
Nothing
too
major,
and
that
is
hybrid
meetings-
are
very
sporadic
and
they're
going
to
be
very
rare,
but
I'm
concerned
that
our
recent
update
with
policy
policies
and
procedures
didn't
necessarily
address
commissioner's
participation
and
expectation.
A
I
personally
have
some
strong
feelings
about
it,
but
I
just
want
to
bounce
it
off
of
other
commissioners
about
you
know
if
we're
in
town
and
we're
not
sick,
you
know
what
is.
Is
it
wrong
to
have
an
expectation
that
we
are
here
in
person
if
we're
having
a
hybrid
meeting.
F
F
B
I
know
in
my
case
it's
really
nice
to
have
these
when,
because
my
sometimes
my
employment
goes
late
and
having
the
having
this
hybrid
media
allows
me
to
be
here.
A
D
I
will,
as
the
attendee
that
chose
virtual,
I
think
in
my
personal
case
it
was
optimal
to
be
online
from
a
group
standpoint.
I
think
your
policy
is
better
it's
one
of
those
times
where
public
policy
may
diverge
from
what
is
most
convenient
for
me.
So
I
think
that's
a
very
reasonable
policy.
G
A
So
I
would
just
like
to
propose
that
I
talk
to
staff
about
perhaps
bringing
us
a
an
updated,
an
updated
piece
on
the
policies
and
procedures.
I
think
this
is
such
new
territory
that
we're
still
kind
of
figuring
it
out,
with
maybe
some
reasonable
exceptions
that
we
might
capture,
and
then
we
can
talk
about
it
in
one
of
our
in
the
like
later
discussion
in
a
future
meeting
of
possibly
updating
the
policies
and
procedures
for
that.
A
A
A
Thank
you
all
right.
We're
gonna
move
on
into
the
technical
director
of
the
planning
division,
nick
norris,
to
talk
about
the
petition
initiation
for
drive-throughs,
and
they,
the
central
sugar
house,
business
district
zoning
district.
I
do
want
to
just
help
us
focus
a
bit
prior
to
nick's,
starting
really
the
question
before
us
tonight.
Isn't
the
merits
or
demerits
of
a
drive-through
is:
do
we
want
to
initiate
a
petition?
A
If
we
agree
to
we
want
to
initiate
a
petition,
then
staff
will
go.
Look
at
all
this
stuff
and
put
together
issues
for
us
to
think
about,
and
maybe
a
proposal
or
not
and
then
we'll
have
when
they
bring
it
back
into
a
full
meeting,
then
we
will
have
a
more
in-depth
discussion.
I
just
don't
want
us
to
get
too
hyper
focused
on
something
that
we
don't
need
to
be
discussing
tonight,
because
we
don't
know
what
staff
will
be
bringing
back.
A
J
All
right,
thank
you,
and
this
will
be
really
really
quick,
but
this
is
in
response
to
a
request
from
the
from
the
commission
to
look
at
this
issue,
and
so
we
provided
just
kind
of
some
background
information
on
drive-throughs
and
where
they
are
in
the
sugar
house.
This
was
our
ask
was
specifically
about
the
sugar
house,
business
district.
So
that's
what
we've
provided
is.
J
Some
one
and
two
so
one
and
two
have
the
same
land
use
tables,
so
whatever's
allowed
in
one
is
allowed
the
exact
same
way
in
two
okay,
so
it's
both,
and
so
we
put
together
a
sorry.
I'm
gonna
try
to
hide
this,
just
a
quick,
little
windshield
type
of
map,
so
you
can
get
a
general
idea
of
where
drive-thrus
are
in
the
sharehouse
business
district.
J
There
are
several
more
that
are
on
the
periphery,
east
and
and
west,
primarily,
and
so
the
types
of
things
that
we
would
that
that
we
wanted
to
bring
to
the
commission
to
consider
really
is
workload
and
where
this
fits
in
priorities
and
that's
partly,
I
think
we
want
some
direction
from
the
commission
on
that,
but
it's
also
partly
something
that
we
can
relay
to
both
the
mayor
and
city
council,
who
are
the
primary
drivers
of
what
our
priorities
are
so
they're
aware
of
workloads.
J
One
thing
to
consider
is
the
more
broad
this
becomes
the
more
work
it
also
becomes,
which
means
there's,
there's
a
timeliness
factor
there
as
well,
and
the
level
of
stakeholder
and
engagement
increases
based,
obviously
on
the
scope
and
breadth
of
that
proposal.
So,
right
now
in
sugar
house,
drive-throughs
are
a
permitted
use.
J
For
example,
in
sugarhouse
there's,
primarily
three
different
types
of
drive-throughs,
the
one
that
most
people
are
common
with
restaurants,
particularly
the
fast
food
places,
but
we
also
have
pharmacies
that
have
drive-throughs
and
also
banks
and
financial
institutions
that
have
have
drive-throughs
over
the
years.
We've
had
other
similar
types
of
uses.
J
Retail
uses
go
into
a
space
that
had
a
draft
through
window
and
they've
chosen
to
use
those,
for
example,
it's
not
currently
used,
but
across
from
the
liquor
store
and
sugar
house,
there
was
a
retail
store
that
actually
had
a
drive
up
window,
and
so
those
are
also
somewhat
used
somewhat
as
well,
particularly
in
the
smaller
kind
of
kwik-e-mart
types
of
places.
So
just
wanted
to
get
that
on
on
the
radar
and
then
turn
it
over
to
the
commission
to
either
ask
questions
or
go
from
there.
A
Okay,
who
would
like
to
start
a
brief
discussion?
I
guess
of
the
merits
of
if
we
wish
to
initiate
a
petition
and
then
maybe
give
some
direction
on
the
scope.
What
else
was
there?
Nick
that
you
were
interested
in.
J
Area
and
if
you
want
us
to
look
not
just
at
the
land
use
tables
but
maybe
also
consider
the
drive-through
regulations
as
well.
C
I
I
probably
I
probably
would
like
to
see
this,
but
pretty
limited,
not
huge,
not
for
the
whole
city
and
also
for
us
to
make
a
decision.
I
think
it
would
be
important
for
us
to
understand
that
the
drive
through
regulations
too
so
like
do
they
do
a
traffic
study
and
do
they
anticipate
business
and
have
you
know
that
kind
of
stuff.
J
One
thing
I
will
comment
on
with
the
traffic
study:
I
went
back
and
looked
at
the
traffic
study
that
was
done
for
a
particular
drive-through
and
sugar
house,
that's
problematic
and
in
hindsight,
looking
at
it,
I
think
everybody
knows
that
it
was
wrong,
and
so
I
don't
know
how
much
stock
I
would
put
in
that
kind
of
attract
study.
But.
J
Right
and
it
went,
it
came
to
the
planning
commission
as
a
planned
development,
because
that's
how
the
hotel
that
was
on
that
same
property
was
approved,
and
so
because
that
property
is
subject
to
a
planned
development.
Any
future
change
has
to
also
go
through
the
plan
development
process.
So
it's
a
little
bit
different
than
most.
J
Just
that's
great
general
generally.
We
can't
require
someone
to
make
an
update
to
their
property.
However,
if
there
are
various
operational
types
of
requirements,
those
can
be
applied
to
existing
uses.
So
if,
if
there's
not
that,
we
would
do
this
for
a
drive-through,
but
just
give
you
an
example,
some
uses
will
have
hours
of
operation
or
some
users
will
have
to
suddenly
submit
like
a
security
and
operations
plan,
so
that
may
apply
to
a
use,
even
if
it's
already
existing
when
they
go
to
renew
like
a
business
license.
E
So
the
the
planning,
the
process
that
you
would
go
through
here,
you
could
do
some
research-
maybe
you
don't
really
have
to.
Maybe
you
just
have
to
take
it
to
through
a
public
process
and
have
hearings
and
go
to
the
neighborhood
council
and
the
things
that
you
do
that
way
and
then
come
to
us
again
right.
E
It
could
be
pretty
simple:
it
doesn't
really
necessarily
have
to
have
a
tremendous
amount
of
I
mean
public
process
is
not
simple
but
or
short-term
short
timing,
but
but
it
it
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
displace,
for
example,
working
on
affordable
housing,
incentives
or
absolutely.
E
Urban
forest
plan,
or
whatever
I
mean
it,
it's
not
as
anywhere
near
as
complicated
or
doesn't
have
to
be,
and
so
I'd
be
interested
to
know.
If
we
can
do
it
in
a
very
non-complicated
way,
as
in
changing
the
p
to
a
c
or
a
c
to
a
not
you
know
on
the
tables
and
and
with
what.
What
would
the
minimum
kind
of
process
be
required
for
that.
J
Yeah,
so
the
minimum
process
would
be
to
prohibit
the
use
right,
because
that's
just
simply
deleting
that
p
from
the
table,
there's
no
necessarily
any
research
to
do.
If
you
want
to
change
it
to
a
from
a
permitted
use
to
a
conditional
use.
We
probably
do
want
to
look
at
those
regulations
to
make
sure
that
they
can
address
the
impacts,
and
that
may
require
some
research,
probably
not
a
lot.
I
think
really,
honestly.
D
D
You
know
we
consistency
as
consistently
see
applications
that
have
more
parking
than
we
think
of
in
walkable
neighborhoods,
and
I
think
it's
you
know
the
combination
of
the
drive-throughs
making
it
super,
making
it
much
less
pleasant
to
walk,
but
also
making
it
that
much
easier
for
cars
to
come
in
to
the
neighborhood
and
for
people.
You
know
nearby
that
oh
I'll
just
get
in
the
car
and
drive
two
blocks
instead
of
maybe
walking.
So
I
guess
I
see
this
as
I
wouldn't
want
to
see
it
spread
outside
of
these
specific
zoning
districts.
D
Given
that
this
is,
I
think
it
very.
It
ties
in
very
directly
with
the
stated
plans
for
the
sugar
house
business
district.
I
didn't
realize
the
c
was
going
to
be
harder
than
just
a
not
available
use,
but
I
guess
I
I
I
I
realize
staff.
Can
you
know
staff
time
is
very
limited,
but
I
to
me
it's
a
very
high
priority
area
because
it's
so
integral
to
everything
else
that
and
that
the
planning
staff
and
commission
are
working
on,
including
the
redesign
of
2100
south.
A
C
I
I
think,
maybe
think
about
if
the
different
uses
should
be
treated
different
like
if
a
restaurant
is
different
than
a
dry,
cleaner
or
pharmacy
or
bank,
or
something
like
that
or
if,
like,
if
a
coffee,
if
it's
a
coffee
place
different
than
a
restaurant,
I
don't
know.
A
Okay,
I
would
be
open
to
emotion
if
somebody
wants
to
make
it
or
not.
We
can.
K
B
Have
one
a
bit
of
clarification,
I
would
like
it
stated
for
the
record,
because
of
some
debates,
I've
seen
on
social
media
about
this,
that
this
any
any
of
these
actions
would
not
get
rid
of
existing
drive-throughs
in.
A
G
A
F
A
F
A
Levi,
yes,
brenda,
yes,
and
I
will
also
vote
yes,
so
that
motion
passes
unanimously.
I
would
just
then
ask
nick
that
perhaps
we
can
get
a
briefing
first
before
you
start
like
a
huge
public
process.
A
J
I
do
what
we'll
do
is
that
we'll
put
together
some
basic
options
where
you
can.
J
A
To
you,
and
then
I
think,
one
of
the
things
that
has
been
stated
is,
if
we
look
at
when
we
do
land
use,
table
a
conflict
to
the
stated
goal
of
a
particular
district,
or
in
this
case
pedestrian
oriented.
A
Is
that
part
of
a
review
that
planning
staff
under
the
commission
can
do
and
finally,
on
that
specific
drive
through?
That
is
really
the
impetus
for
this.
Can
we
also
look
at
how
it's
oriented?
That's
part
of
the
problem,
and
part
of
the
problem
was
originally.
They
wanted
to
wrap
it
around
the
building
and
then
create
this
separation
from
the
sidewalk,
and
that
was
part
of
the
issue
right.
J
A
Then
resulted
in
this,
but
if
there's
something
that
that
can
direct
like
how
those
things
are
oriented,
that
would
be
maybe
helpful,
because.
L
A
A
Are
we,
okay,
all
right
we're
going
to
move
on
to
the
public
hearing
portion
of
our
agenda?
First
up,
we
have
the
planned
development
at
approximately
1146
south
redwood
road.
Oh
wait!
I'm
sorry!
I
retract
this.
We
have
the
planning
commission
discussion.
First,
I
just
read
right
over
it.
I'm
sorry!
A
This
is
just
the
10
minutes
that
we
can
take.
If
we
have
questions
that
result
in
more
work
for
staff,
I
guess.
A
I
I
also
neglected
to
bring
up
for
paul
when
I
asked
about
attendance
and
updating
our
policies
and
procedures.
If
there
was
something
legal
you
wanted
to
pipe
in
about
that.
B
Unless
we
were
trying
to
deal
with
requiring
somebody
to
be
here
who
was
claiming
a
disability
and
then
we
that's
a
whole
different
encounter,
I.
B
I
mostly
because
I'm
trying
to
be
quiet.
If,
if
we
were
dealing
with
somebody
who
had
a
disability
who
claimed
that
they
needed
to
participate
remotely,
then
we
might
have
a
concern.
But
you
know
they're
your
partners.
G
A
Okay,
we're
gonna
be
quiet
tonight,
that's
good!
Now
we
will
move
on
to
the
public
hearing
portion
and
I
apologize
for
that.
This
is
the
plan
development
at
approximately
1146
south
redwood
road,
and
this
is
going
to
be
case
number
pln,
pcm
2022-00366.
A
M
Thank
you.
So
this
is
a
planned
development
for
property
located.
M
A
A
M
So
the
principle-
okay
principal
buildings
without
street
frontage,
the
project
has
nine
buildings
that
do
not
have
frontage
on
a
public
street
additional
building
height.
The
applicant
is
proposing
about
an
extra
foot
of
height
for
this
district
and
then
obstructions
in
the
yard
on
the
buildings.
There
are
second
story,
balconies
that
do
encroach
in
the
front
yard.
By
about
five
feet
and
staff
is
recommending
approval,
as
proposed.
M
They
are
proposing
tandem
parking
in
the
garages
and
then
they
are
proposed
to
be
three
stories
and
about
31
feet
in
height,
and
this
is
just
the
elevations
that
are
being
proposed.
So
the
elevation,
the
six
plex
right
here
on
the
top
left,
is
what's
going
to
be
facing
redwood
road.
You
can
see
that
there's.
These
are
the
main
types
of
materials
that
they're
using
stucco
metal
and
brick
veneer
for
the
facades,
just
some
neighborhood
characteristics,
so
multi-family
residential
is
a
permitted
use
in
the
cc
district.
M
This
area
has
got
a
mix
of
different
uses
so
right
on
redwood
road,
there's
a
bunch
of
commercial
and
then
to
the
east,
behind
the
commercial
there's
all
single-family,
residential
and
then
to
the
west.
There's
a
mix
of
different
uses,
industrial
and
commercial
type
uses,
and
then
the
nine
line
trail
is
about
a
third
of
a
mile
north
of
the
property.
M
The
site,
so
the
quincy,
which
is
just
north
of
dawson
place,
which
is
what
we're
talking
about
tonight,
was
approved
a
couple
of
months
ago.
So
you
can
see
it's
similar
to
dawson
place
is
similar
to
what
was
approved
previously.
It's
a
multi-family
townhouse
development
you've
got
commercial
around
it.
O'reilly's
is
right
there
and
then
some
restaurants
across
the
way
and
access
to
both
of
these
sites
is
going
to
come
from
redwood
road
on
a
shared
access,
drive
right
down
the
middle
between
the
two
properties.
M
M
But
nine
of
these
buildings
do
not
so
they
are
asking
for
a
modification
to
allow
those
nine
buildings
to
not
have
to
face
a
public
street
additional
heights.
So
the
cc
district
allows
a
maximum
height
of
30
feet,
but
the
plant
development
process
does
allow
the
planning
commission
to
approve
up
to
five
additional
fee
in
height
and
the
applicant
is
proposing
about
an
extra
foot
of
height.
It's
just
the
way.
The.
C
M
Is
designed
that
gives
it
that
extra
height
and
then
obstructions
in
the
yard,
so
in
code
it
identifies
a
loud
obstruction
within
the
required
yards.
So
on
this
little
diagram,
you
can
see
the
two
large
red
lines
are
the
required
front
yard
and
they
have
proposed
balconies
on
this
building
that
encroach
that
front
yard
by
about
five
feet,
so
the
yellow,
if
you
can
see
it,
the
yellow
lines
are
pointing
to
where
the
balconies
are
on
the
site
plan.
M
A
Okay,
it
doesn't
look
like
we
have
any,
but
that
kind
of
changed
the
presenter
is
alec
meyers.
Are
you
what's
right?
Okay,
if
you
would
just
state
your
name
for
the
record,
really
be
uncomfortable
close
to
that
mic.
Sure,
and
then
you
can
have
up
to
10
minutes,
but
you
don't
need
to
take
that
much.
I
I
respect
your
time,
as
I
probably
won't
take
that
my
name
is
alec
myers.
I
work
with
manifest
developments.
I
just
wanted
to
give
a
couple
minutes
and
be
here
to
answer
any
questions
for
this
project.
Our
intended
goal
and
vision
with
this
was
to
figure
out
how
to
bring
for
sale,
housing,
salt
lake
city
at
a
price
point
that
we
consider,
historically
and
and
by
current
standards,
affordable.
I
We
have
a
lot
of
construction
and
a
lot
of
building
here
in
salt
lake
city
and
a
lot
of
it
tends
to
be
larger
for
rents,
apartment
buildings
due
to
land
prices
and
stuff
like
that,
and
so,
as
we
looked
for
a
project,
we
wanted
to
find
something
that
was
a
townhouse
style
that
was
would
be
considered
kind
of
entry-level
housing
and
our
intended
goal
is
to
have
these
for
sale
below
400
thousand
dollars
per
units
which,
for
salt
lake
city,
is
increasingly
difficult
to
find,
especially
for
new
construction
because
of
the
zoning.
I
This
is
being
permitted
and
applied
for
as
a
multi-family
building,
but
it
is
being
constructed
under
residential
codes.
Three
stories
slab
on
grade
townhomes:
all
the
units
have
vertical
partition,
walls,
there's
no
horizontal
partition
walls
and
so
we're
trying
to
keep
the
construction
and
the
costs
kind
of
affordable
and
and
attainable
for
people.
One
reason
that
we
decided
to
go
for
the
pitched
roofs
tends
simply
for
longevity
and
maintenance
reasons,
because
this
is
a
multi-family
building,
that's
being
sold
to
individual
owners.
I
There
is
a
condo
plat
that
is
being
worked
on
concurrently
right
now
and
for
for
long-term
maintenance
to
keep
the
condo
association
dues
lower.
We
decided
we
opted
for
a
pitched
roof.
I
That
kind
of
went
a
little
bit
above
that
30
foot
height
limits,
although
none
of
the
living
space
goes
above
that
so
that
it's
just
a
little
bit
of
background
on
kind
of
how
we
ended
up
with
those
design
decisions
other
than
that
we've
we've
been
making
a
lot
of
progress
kind
of
offline
with
with
udots
and
with
our
neighbors
to
the
north,
to
kind
of
have
a
have
a
good,
a
good
strategy
for
kind
of
minimizing
the
car
disruption
on
redwood
road
is
a
busy
road
we
have
about.
You
know
six
lanes.
I
Three.
Three
going
north
through
going
south
udots,
was
very
insistent
on,
on
figuring
out
a
a
convenient
way
for
both
of
our
projects
to
share
a
an
access
point,
and
so
what
we
have
planned
is
basically
a
30-foot
wide
lane
15
feet
on
both
properties.
We've
executed
cross
cross
access
easements
with
our
neighbors,
and
we
believe
that
it's
kind
of
the
best
way
to
get
these
two
different
projects
side
by
side
into
this
neighborhood.
I
I
don't
have
too
much
more
to
add.
I
think
we
kind
of
went
over
the
site
plan
in
the
elevations,
but
I'm
happy
to
kind
of
answer
any
questions.
If
you
have
any.
A
I
B
I
There
is
some
some
discussions
going
on
with
the
fire
engineers
currently
as
to
whether
or
not
the
buildings
are
sprinklered,
which
they
likely
will
be.
I
believe
our
neighbors
cw
to
the
north
is
sprinkling
their
buildings.
There's
a
little
bit
of
discussion
as
to
whether
or
not
ours
would
be
the
fire.
Engineers
tend
to
always
err
on
the
side
of
being
conservative
and
careful,
and
so
the
buildings
will
likely
be
sprinklered.
I
It
includes
a
hammer
head
at
the
ends
and
it's
30
feet
wide,
which
does
exceed
fire
department
regulations
for
building
for
for
fire
access,
roads
that
are
greater
than
500
feet
and
less
than
750.
They
require
26
feet.
We
went
to
30
feet,
and
so
we
have
as
far
as
the
dimensions
and
stuff
of
the
driveway
and
the
turnaround,
the
fire
department's
pretty
happy
with
it.
I
think
the
last
question
that's
currently
being
answered
right
now.
Offline
has
to
do
with
sprinklers.
A
A
Yes,
and
if
you
you'll
have
two
minutes,
you'll
just
step
up
to
that
lectern
right
nope,
just
there
you
go
yeah
and,
and
unfortunately,
you
have
to
bend
down
but
state
your
name
for
the
record
and
then
you'll
have
two
minutes
to
give
your
comments.
N
Perfect,
my
name
is
ian
cahoon.
I
put
my
home
address
on
the
paper,
so
if
I
need
to
change
it
to
cws,
I'm
happy
to
I'm
here
to
address
or
represent
them,
we're
all
for
the
project
we
feel
like
it
complements.
The
quincy
really
really
well
adds
more
revitalization
to
the
west
side
like
we
talked
about
earlier,
affordable
housing
is
big,
and
I
think
both
of
our
projects
really
address
that.
As
far
as
I'm
aware,
there's
a
transit
station
just
right
across
the
road
or
very,
very
nearby.
N
So
I
think
it
adds
a
lot
to
the
public
transportation
and
use
of
that
transportation
as
well,
and
then,
as
we
talked
about
earlier,
there's
that
nine
right
line
trail
just
down
the
road
and
being
able
to
access
more
public
transportation,
especially
at
a
more
affordable
price
as
well
as
that
nine-lane
trail.
We
feel
like
really
adds
to
the
neighborhood,
and
we
we
love
and
support
the
project.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
I
appreciate
your
comments.
Anybody
else
here
tonight
wish
to
speak
on
this
item.
Anybody
that
sent
an
email.
L
A
Okay,
with
that
I'll
close
the
public
comment
hearing
and
bring
it
back
to
the
commission,
any
final
questions
or
thoughts
for
staff
and
or
applicant,
and
if
you're,
andreas
or
andra,
I'm
not
always
looking
at
the
screen
andra.
So
don't
count
on
me.
Seeing
you
wave
a
hand
you
might
just
have
to
pipe
up.
E
Yeah
we
have
a
letter
from
o'reilly,
auto
parts
next
door,
raising
some
issues
about
their
visibility.
Have
you
got
any
thoughts
about
that.
I
We
haven't,
they
haven't
reached
out
to
us
to
discuss
it
at
all
so
yeah.
I
know
nothing
off
the
top
of
our
minds.
We'd
be
happy
to
touch
base
with
them.
I
do
understand
that
you
know
for
many
years,
they've
had
at
least
for
the
southbound
traffic.
You
know
kind
of
unobstructed
visibility
of
their
signage
and
of
their
storefronts.
I
think,
from
our
point
of
view,
we've
tried
to
kind
of
meet
the
zoning.
I
You
know
setbacks
and
stuff
like
that
with
at
least
the
building
face.
I
do
believe
they
have
a
pretty
tall
sign
in
there
just
just
on
the
inside
of
their
property
line
that
probably
jets
up
above
the
roof
line.
I'd
have
to
go.
Do
you.
I
Of
them
yeah
yeah
and
that's
probably
that's
a
detail
that
hasn't
been
worked
out
yet
with
with
them.
O'reilly,
I
believe,
is
a
tenant
and
so
we'll
have
to
kind
of
work
with
the
land
owner
and
the
tenant
as
well.
So
there's
kind
of
a
few
different
discussion
points
to
go
through,
but
the
currently
on
on
that
south
property
line,
the
back
calf,
has
about
a
five
foot
fence,
but
it's
slatted,
it's
it's
metal,
and
so
you
can
kind.
E
I
E
E
M
Yeah
we,
they
did
have
a
meeting
with
the
applicant
a
month
or
so
ago,
and
there
should
be
a
letter
in
the
staff
report
packet
from
them
in
support
of
it.
Thank.
O
A
A
A
F
B
B
A
I
A
Q
The
applicant
is
requesting
design
review
because
of
buildings
over
65
feet
in
height
are
required
to
go
through
the
design
review
process
up
to
120
feet
a
maximum.
The
building
is
proposed
at
76
feet
approximately
they
are.
They
also
need
designer
view
to
modify
the
maximum
length
of
a
street
facing
facade.
Q
Q
Q
The
aerial
photo
is
not
quite
up
to
date,
but
you
can
see
in
this
other
image
that
there
is
some
new
development
that
is
around
the
site,
so
you
can
see
the
new
office
building
to
the
north
of
the
site.
There's
also
a
apartment
building
south
of
the
site
as
well
as,
if
you
can
see
my
mouse
nope
at
the
top
left
corner
of
that
image.
Q
Q
So,
just
for
a
project
overview,
the
project
is
a
640
six
story.
Building
above
ground
214
units.
There
is
approximately
9
750
square
feet
of
commercial
and
2
000
square
feet
of
lobby
space.
The
building
street
facing
ground
level
facade
will
consist
of
a
light
stone
veneer
base
with
floor
to
ceiling
ground
floor
windows.
Q
The
garage
screening
will
be
horizontal,
horizontal
metal
screening
and
the
upper
five
levels
of
the
street
facing
facade
will
be
brick,
dark,
metal,
paneling,
fibers
and
fiber
cement
wood
tone
siding
the
building
also
includes
a
u-shaped
recess
above
the
second
level.
That
also
includes
the
amenity
deck.
It's
set
back
approximately
31
feet
for
about
70
feet,
and
then
the
site
is
accessed
through
one
parking
garage
entry
off
of
700
south,
which
is
below
that
amenity
deck.
Q
The
mid
block
is
10
feet
wide
with
a
6
foot,
unobstructed
pathway,
which
is
the
rezoning
code
requirement.
The
mid
block
walkway
has
trees,
turf
area,
it
also
passes
six
live
work
units
with
landscaped
planters,
as
well
as
operable
garage
door.
Looking
windows
that
open
up.
So
this
provides
a
transition
from
the
semi-public
private
space
from
those
patios
to
the
mid-block
walkway,
and
then
a
public
easement
will
need
to
be
recorded
against
their
property.
Q
So,
as
far
as
the
proposed
modifications,
the
first
one
is
building
height.
So,
as
I
mentioned
in
the
d2
zone,
any
buildings
over
65
feet
are
required
to
go
through
designer
view
and
they're
proposing
76
feet.
So,
while
the
building
may
be
taller
than
the
immediately
adjacent
structures,
it
is
in
line
with
the
redevelopment
that's
currently
occurring
in
the
area
and
meets
the
expectation
for
the
d2
zone
and
the
redevelopment
we're
seeing
design.
Standard
g
specifically
relates
to
building
height
and
states
that
buildings
should
relate
to
the
human
scale
and
minimize
negative
impacts.
Q
The
scale
of
the
proposed
building
is
broken
up
through
both
horizontal
and
vertical
massing,
through
color
materials
and
changes
in
plane,
and
then,
additionally,
it
has
that
upper
street
facing
facade
u-shaped
break,
which
also
breaks
up
that
building
mass
to
address
the
increased
height
so
facade
length.
So,
as
I
mentioned,
the
maximum
facade
length
in
the
d2
zone
is
200
feet
and
they
are
requesting
293
feet.
The
purpose
of
the
maximum
facade
length
is
to
break
up
large
expenses
of
building
to
create
spaces
that
are
more
human
scale
and
create
comfort
for
the
pedestrian.
Q
The
proposed
development
seeks
to
accomplish
this
with
active
ground
floor
uses
high
levels
of
ground
floor
transparency
with
awnings
several
changes
in
the
building,
plane
breaks
in
material
and
color
along
the
frontage
and
then
the
recessed
area
above
the
second
floor.
Additionally,
the
parking
garage
serves
as
a
break
on
that
ground
level
and
I'll
show
this
here.
So
this
is
the
ground
level
and
then
the
street
facing
elevation,
the
applicant
exceeds
most
of
our
meats
or
exceeds
our
ground
floor
use
requirements.
Q
Q
Q
That
is
a
highly
active
ground
floor.
Use
that
we
we
typically
see
a
lot
of
lobbies
in
leasing,
areas
is
the
ground
floor
and
this
provides
a
much
more
active
ground
floor
than
we
than
we
often
see
and
as
required.
Q
You
can
also
see
on
this
lower
graphic
that
there
is
landscaping
requirement
landscaping
proposed,
as
well
as
several
streetscape
features
like
benches
and
tables.
Those
would
be
required
to
be
reviewed
as
public
way
encroachment
permits,
so
they
will
be
reviewed
at
a
later
time
for
applicability,
but
they
are
proposed
and
the
applicant
is
willing
to
do
those.
Q
I
also
wanted
to
point
out
along
the
parking
garage
entrance.
There
is
a
wall
that
is
not
as
interesting
and
they
are
proposing
landscaping
in
front
of
that
wall,
and
then
you
can
see
the
the
outdoor
dining
patio
with
more
trees
and
on
the
side
than
is
required
by
our
code
and
then
exceeding
the
maximum
parking.
Q
So
in
the
d2
zone
the
minimum
is
the
maximum
parking
is
equal
to
the
minimum,
so
they
are
required
to
have
107
spaces
is
the
minimum,
and
that
is
also
the
maximum
of
107
spaces,
but
through
transportation
demand
management,
which
is
strategies
that
they
can
propose
to
exceed
that
maximum.
They
can
go
up
to
214
spaces,
but
even
with
they
are
proposing
to
do
transportation
demand
management
strategies,
but
even
with
that
they
still
exceed
the
maximum
parking
by
36
spaces.
Q
Q
I
did
receive
a
comment
from
the
neighboring
property
owner
concerned
about
removing
street
parking.
I
looked
into
this
with
transportation,
division
and
fire
and
because
of
the
width
of
700
south,
it's
less
than
26
feet
with
parking.
Any
building
over
30
feet
would
be
required
to
provide
that
same
fire
lane
which
would
result
in
removing
parking.
So,
whether
it's
this
proposal
or
not
any
building,
that's
over
30
feet
would
have
the
same
outcome
and
then
there
were
two
other
comments
that
are
included
in
your
staff
report.
Q
N
Right,
can
you
hear
me
hi?
My
name
is
grant
wise
and
development
associated
with
the
lotus
company.
N
Yeah
first,
we
would
like
to
just
thank
the
members
of
the
planning
commission
for
the
opportunity
to
present
our
lotus
alchemy
project.
Also,
I'd
like
to
thank
the
planning
staff
to
kind
of
help
us
navigate
through
the
development
review
and
plan
development
process.
We've
had
two
pre-submittal
application
meetings
and
we've
also
had
a
drt
meeting
as
well.
So
I
appreciate
their
help.
N
N
N
Some
of
the
project
goals
for
lotus
alchemy
includes
designing
an
innovative,
mixed-use
multi-family
development
to
complement
the
downtown
master
plan
and
enhance
the
quality
of
living
in
the
d2
zoning
district,
also
to
create
a
pedestrian
friendly
environment
by
offering
a
privately
owned
public
mid-block
walkway
to
influence
engagement
of
neighborhood
amenities
and
also
provide
amenities.
Both
residents
and
public
pedestrians
will
enjoy.
The
project
will
feature
two
retail
spaces:
a
restaurant
space
and
six
live
work
units.
H
H
H
Oh
sorry,
so
we
are,
but
because
of
that
we
are
our
restaurant.
Our
hospitality
concept
does
require
a
taller
plate
height
and
so
we're
pushing
trying
to
get
at
least
16
feet
on
that
ground
level.
Retail
to
facilitate
not
only
our
in-house
operations
get
a
little
more
storefront,
a
little
more
room
for
the
awning,
a
little
more
fenestration,
but
just
operationally
we
need
a
taller
plate
height.
So
the
the
five
stories
of
wood
frame
with
the
the
16
clear
plate
height
on
the
ground
floors
is
pushing
us
slightly
above
the
the
65
foot
minimum.
H
The
other,
the
other
project
goal
is
to
create
a
pedestrian
friendly
environment
by
offering
a
privately
owned,
privately
owned
public
mid-block
walkway
to
influence
engagement
of
the
neighborhood
amenities.
That's
the
the
live
work
units
that
we
aligned
along
the
east
side
of
the
development,
as
well
as
the
the
the
restaurant
concept
in
that
southeast
corner.
H
We
we
hope,
between
the
way
it
opens
up
on
that
southeast
corner
and
kind
of
funnels
down
into
like
a
really
fun
unique,
live,
work,
mid-block
experience,
we
think
it's
going
to
be
pretty
pretty
active,
pretty
unique
and
yeah
pretty
have
some
great
curb
appeal:
we're
also
proposing
a
green
green
bike
station
right
on
that
corner
as
well,
and
then
our
third
project
goal
is
to
provide
amenities.
Both
residents
and
public
pedestrians
will
enjoy.
The
project
will
feature
two
retail
spaces:
a
restaurant
space
and
the
six
live
work
units,
as
mentioned
earlier.
H
Some
of
the
design
review
highlights,
as
mentioned
in
our
application.
The
lotus
alchemy
project
is
requesting.
Oh
wait,
I'm
sorry.
I
already
addressed
that,
but,
in
addition
to
lotus,
alchemy
is
designed
to
incorporate
multiple
facade
breaks
that
we
talked
about
earlier.
Several
material
changes
and
building
masses
changes
to
comply
with
recommended
facade
length.
For
example,
the
skybridge
manatee
will
step
back
31
feet
and
will
span
77
feet
in
width.
Also,
the
project
will
include
a
total
of
nine
exterior
metal
changes.
H
So
again,
as
grant
mentioned
earlier,
we've
been
through
a
few
different
pre-submittal
applications
where
we
tried
to
incorporate
as
big
of
a
facade
break
as
we
could
by
incorporating
the
sky
bridge
and
the
break
in
the
retail,
to
kind
of
separate
it
into
two
big
big
building
masses,
which
we
we
think
will
come
off
aesthetically.
We
think
it'll
be
a
great
great
transition.
H
H
Some
of
the
planned
development
highlights
for
the
planned
development
application.
The
request
for
additional
parking
is
to
accommodate
our
neighbor
the
669
office
building
through
a
shared
parking
agreement
of
75
off-street
parking
stalls
mentioned
earlier.
The
lotus
alchemy
development
is
determined
to
support
the
downtown
central
ninth
master
plan,
vision
of
transit-oriented
development
and
providing
convenient
access
to
the
nearby
public
transit
transit,
the
track
station
on
main
street
participation
in
a
bike
sharing
program
and
a
public
mid
mid
block
walkway.
E
A
E
E
Q
E
A
Any
other
questions
for
the
applicant
at
this
moment.
Okay,
I
will
move
on
to
the
public
comment
period.
Hang
tight,
anything
that
comes
up
I'll,
give
you
the
chance
to
address
it.
So
we're
going
to
open
the
public
comment
period
for
this
agenda
item.
I
don't
have
any
cards.
Is
there
anyone
in
attendance
that
wishes
to
speak
to
this
okay,
any
hand
raised
for
a
hybrid
environment?
A
Any
comments
received.
Okay
with
that
I
will
close
the
public
comment
period,
nothing
for
you
to
address
any
final
questions
or
thoughts
for
your
staff
and
our
applicant.
E
Well,
I'm
not
really
very
happy
about
increasing
the
minimum
minimum
maximum
parking,
I'm
assuming
that
the
office
building
next
door
was
also
built
to
parking
standards
and
therefore
why
would
they
need
an
extra
whatever
it
is?
Why
are
we
building?
You
know
even
more
than
it's
possible
to
build.
I
don't
understand
this
because
it's
not
just
a
matter
of
hiding
it
inside
the
building.
It's
also
a
matter
of
creating
incentives
for
pedestrian
and
transit,
so
that
we
don't
have
as
much
parking.
C
C
I
also,
I
also
think
that
some
of
the
some
of
the
accommodations
that
are
considered
with
this
project
are
things
that
were
considered
that
were
talked
about
for
affordable
housing
like
if
you
build
affordable,
housing,
we'll
let
you
have
a
longer
building
or
we'll.
Let
you
have
a
taller
building
and
there's
that
the
trade-off
on
this
project
seems
to
be
like,
like
it
was
thought
about,
like
there's,
a
change
in
materials
and
there's
fenestration
and
that
kind
of
stuff,
and
maybe
additional
vegetation
where
the
building
is
so
long.
C
But
it's
kind
of,
like
I
kind
of,
am
worried
about.
If
we,
if
we
get
too
liberal
and
saying
okay
to
kind
of
accommodations,
then
who
is
ever
going
to
do
affordable
housing
to
get
an
accommodation.
E
Just
to
clarify,
I
think,
the
things
that
you're
talking
about
are
things
which
might
be
approved
in
the
downtown
district,
and
so
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
that
later.
So
I
think
it's
a
real
super
concern
actually
about
what
actually
counts
for
those
things,
and
that
and
raising
it
in
context
of
this
project
gives
us
an
example
to
go
after.
D
If
I
can
follow
up
on
brenda's
comments
on
parking,
I
too,
my
heart
sank
a
little
bit
when
I
saw
that
we
were
asking
for
more
parking
than
what
was
permitted.
That
said,
I
really
do
like
it
that
it's
mixed
use.
I
do
think
the
bar
for
a
unit
in
in
salt
lake
is
probably
that
you
know
we
need
at
least
one
parking
spot
for
each
residential
unit,
because
very
few
households
are
willing
to
live
without
a
car
at
all.
D
D
In
terms
of
you
know,
income
restricted
housing
dealt
with
separately.
My
sense
is
that
this
these
units
improve
housing,
affordability
overall,
so
that's
not
a
concern
to
me.
You
know
anything
with
more
supply
increases,
housing,
affordability
and
then
income
restricted
housing.
I'd
like
to
see
dealt
with
separately.
E
E
E
And
there's
an
internal
ramp,
okay,
so
sort
of
a
split
level
behind
the
behind.
So
thank
you
that
helps
great
deal,
and
so
what
I'm?
What
I'm
getting
at
actually
is
that
over
time
we
may
want
to
convert
parking
spaces
into
retail
areas.
But
if
we
have
a
split
floor
like
that,
it
makes
it
very
very
difficult
to
do.
E
H
Great
great
question:
I
was
hoping
to
answer
that
so
yeah
when
we,
when
we
purchased
the
west
lot,
it
was
a.
It
was
a
transaction
with
the
owner
of
of
669,
which
is,
if
you
study
it
closely,
is
dramatically
under
park,
their
their
existing
parking
lots
to
the
north
and
and
the
size
of
the
building
relative
to
the
amount
of
parking
provided.
There
was
was
dramatically
under
what
what
they
needed.
They
were
parking,
some
of
that
on
that
existing
on
that
existing
east
lot
relative
to
their
current
location.
H
So,
as
as
part
of
the
transaction,
we
committed
to
helping
helping
supply
those
needed
75
additional
stalls
that
they
they
needed
just
to
lease.
Some
of
that
existing
space,
which
is
still
a
concern
on
their
end,
but
was
the
minimum
they
needed
to
to
make
their
existing
existing
lease
at
least
terms
with
their
tenants.
C
E
E
Who,
where,
where
this
on-street
parking
is
gone,
and
there
may
be
some
way
of
leasing
or
another
another
way
of
mitigating
the
lost
parking
as
a
part
of
your
parking
garage,
especially
if
you're
already
going
to
be
admitting
people
into
the
parking
garage
who
are
not
residents?
H
That's
still
undetermined,
because
we
we
have,
we
have
looked
at
a
few
different
options
to
to
allow
individuals
into
the
parking
structure
and
the
public
into
the
parking
structure.
We'd
have
to
create
a
second
level
of
security,
a
second
level
of
of.
H
E
H
That
that
is
correct.
We
we've
look.
We've
been
looking
at
a
few
different
options
with
our
architect,
ktgy
on
on
how
to
kind
of
create
those
second
layers
and
kind
of
two
two
tiers
of
of
access
control
into
the
into
the
structure.
That's
that's
exactly
what
we're
doing
on
our
our
republic
project.
That's
just
in
for
final
permit
review
we're
still
working
that
out,
because
we
we
want
to
make
sure
we
we
make
it
available
for
the
public
without
compromising
the
the
security
to
to
the
structure
itself.
E
Well,
it
seems
to
me
that
we
are
we
if
we
approve
a
whole
lot
of
additional
parking.
E
That
is
really
allowed,
that
that
might
be
one
of
the
conditions
that
we
have
some
access
for
public
parking
in
that
building,
especially
since
there's
no
street
parking
and
and
you
have
retail
space,
and
so
I'm
I'm
thinking
that
that
might
be
a
condition
that
we
would
put
on
there.
Yeah.
B
We're
saying
about
parking
and-
and
I've
lived
in
really
large
cities
where
there
was
very
good,
reliable
public
transportation,
and
at
that
point
I
was
kind
of
like
yeah
parking
is
not
that
important.
Having
lived
in
salt
lake
city
myself
for
a
long
time,
I
would
not
take
public
transit
to
work
as
I
don't
because
it
will
take
me,
like
I
don't
know
two
hours
plus
to
make
to
work.
I'm
sure.
So
I'm
not
too
concerned
with
parking.
I
like.
I
B
A
B
Madam
chair,
as
far
as
the
parking
issue
being
a
potential
condition
of
approval,
I
would
have
a
concern
that
we're
we're
converting
on-street
parking
into
some
sort
of
a
right
for
an
adjacent
property
owner.
I
think
this
is,
I
think,
it's
outside
of
the
scope
of
what
you
can
do
as
far
as
the
condition
goes,.
R
B
B
G
E
E
E
C
A
A
I
don't
know
that
we
have
to
get
into
the
weeds
of
that.
I
think
that
is
up
to
you.
I
I
don't
I
mean
I
guess
for
our
terms,
I'm
thinking
public
parking
is
included
in
your
dedication
to
669
and
that
yes,
after
hours,
that's
probably
when
the
public
would
be
parking
there
right.
I
don't
know
that
we
want
to
get
so
many
that
we're
dictating
your
hours
of
when
who
can
park
where.
E
E
Okay,
so
that
would
assume
just
I'm
trying
to
think
of
it
in
my
head
here
that
you
would
have
a
specific
area
for
those
parking,
those
folks
parking
in
there.
Whatever
time
they
park
there,
a
key
card
or
some
other
that
just
goes
into
that
specific
area,
as
well
as
a
parking
public
parking
that
would
be
able
to
park
there.
Would
that
violate
your
agreement
with
those
guys.
A
E
Okay,
madam
chair,
I
would
like
to
make
a
motion
based
on
the
findings.
In
the
listed
in
the
staff
report,
the
information
presented
in
the
input
receive
during
the
public
hearing.
I
move
that
the
planning
commission
approved
the
design
review
pln
pcm
2022-00442.
E
A
F
A
D
G
B
A
H
A
And
I
will
also
vote
yes,
so
that
motion
passes
ten
yeses
to
one
now,
congratulations,
you're
off
and
running.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
your
time
tonight.
Thank
you.
Okay.
Moving
on
to
our
next
agenda
item,
we
have
design
review
at
approximately
370
south
west
temple.
This
is
case
number
pln,
pcm
2022-004.
O
O
So
this
shows
some
of
the
surrounding
development,
with
this
two-story
building
to
the
north,
the
federal
building
across
the
street,
to
the
east,
to
the
rear
of
the
property.
There's
that
three-story
hotel
and
then,
of
course,
the
subject
properties
there
and
in
the
corner
would
be
a
future
28-story
multi-family
building
that
would
share
the
property.
O
O
This
gives
you
a
little
bit
of
an
idea
of
the
site
and
how
it
relates
to
the
mixed
use
tower.
The
parking
entrance
would
come
from
400
south
and
enter
actually
beneath
a
portion
of
the
building.
It
would
there's
a
portion,
that's
kind
of
cantilevered
and
it
would
enter
there
and
that's
also
where
utility
access
would
be,
but
it
kind
of
shows
you
the
varying
roof
lines
here
that
as
they're
proposed.
O
So
in
the
considerations
for
this,
of
course,
it's
a
design
review
consideration
and
those
are
listed
in
your
staff
report
as
to
how
they
have
met
that.
But
we
do
look
at
a
number
of
things
how
they
meet
the
purposes
of
the
zoning.
Ordinance,
of
course,
is
the
central
business
district,
which
this
fits
in
well
with
as
a
hotel
and
dense
development,
but
also
how
it
implements
the
objectives
in
the
master
plan
and
those
again
are
are
shown
in
your
staff
report.
O
And
then
the
standards
for
design
review
really
talk
about
the
compatibility
both
with
neighboring
property
and
then
how
the
building
proposal
relates
to
the
pedestrian
and
the
pedestrian
experience.
O
So
with
this
building,
of
course,
it's
a
little
unique
in
that
they've
got
the
you
know,
28
story,
building
to
the
south
or
proposed
to
the
south
and
then
a
relatively
new
two-story
building
to
the
north,
which
is
a
difficult
transition.
But
this
building,
of
course,
steps
down
from
the
taller
building
and
steps
up
from
the
lower
and
has
those
varying
roof
lines
with
portions
that
are
set
back
in
this
three-dimensional
image.
You
can
kind
of
see
how
that
happens,
to
create
a
lot
more
variety
and
change.
The
overall
massing
of
the
building.
O
O
So
with
that
staff
is
recommending
approval,
as
as
proposed
in
this
in
the
staff
report
as
well,
but
and
then
we'll
let
the
if
there's
any
other
questions
or
anything.
I
can
answer
those.
Otherwise
we
can
have
the
applicant.
O
L
A
Sorry
doesn't
look
like
we
have
any
other
questions
for
staff,
so
we'll
take
it
to
the
applicant.
Is
it
michael
glenbosky.
L
L
I'm
michael
glomboski
I
work
with
domain
companies,
develop
development
manager
for
this
project
murder.
The
group
that
also
did
the
exchange
out
here
behind
us.
I
set
before
you
guys
for
that.
If
you
were
here
three
or
four
years
ago,
when
that
was
so.
Thank
you
for
your
time
tonight.
I'm
here
to
answer
your
questions.
More
than
present
we're
excited
about
both
these
projects.
L
We're
excited
to
bring
a
new
hotel
to
this
market.
Some
of
the
struggles
with
the
design
of
the
hotel
is
trying
to
build
in
all
the
amenity
spaces
that
the
hotel
needs
to
function.
It's
ground
floor,
ballroom,
restaurant
meeting
spaces,
which
you
know
take
a
little
more
height,
so
our
our
first
floor
does
have
a
20
foot
floor,
height,
similar
to
the
last
project.
They're
talking
about
that
base,
building
height
being
very
active
with
the
lobby
entrance
in
the
restaurant,
then
we
have
our
guest
room
floors
above
that
and
then
on
the
top.
L
We
have
another
terrace
with
a
rooftop
bar.
We
did
our
best
to
set
that
mass.
It's
about
40
42
feet
back
from
the
street
wall
facade.
You
can
see
it
up
there
on
the
top
of
the
building.
Our
actual
roof
line.
Height
is
112
feet.
So
that's
again,
I
think
the
mid
block
height
max
is
100
feet.
If
that's
correct,
so.
L
Not
necessarily
we're
here
because
of
that
additional
height,
and
you
know
adding
that
rooftop
box
again,
we
set
it
back
42
feet
from
the
the
front
wall,
which
is
at
112
feet.
So.
L
It's
not
technically
attached
to
it.
They're
two
separate
buildings,
the
so
there's
a
the
fun
part
with
this
side
is
our
neighbor,
the
the
little
building
to
the
north,
his
graphics
company's
house
there.
He
has
an
easement
that
runs
through
our
site.
That
is
he's
never
used
it,
but
he
has
the
right
to
have
this
driveway.
L
That
goes
through
our
property,
so
he
can
exit
directly
to
fourth
south,
and
so
that's
why
we
have
this
sort
of
tunnel
on
the
back
side
of
our
building,
which
we're
also
using
as
our
means
of
servicing
the
buildings
and
the
driveway
and
the
parking
garage.
So
we
haven't
used
it
with
him,
so
he's
excited
to
see
how
he
has
a
paved
driveway
right
now,
it's
just
grass.
L
He
already
has
a
back
gate,
but
he's
again
never
driven
that
way,
so
it
would
be
valet
parking,
so
guess
would
park
come
up
to
the
lobby.
Valet
would
take
their
car
to
the
garage,
so
the
guests
would
not
actually
be
accessing
the
graduate
b
valley.
L
E
L
And
it
wasn't
mentioned,
but
we
do
have
a
tiny
sliver
of
a
future
mid-block
walkway
that
runs
through
our
property.
You
can
it's
kind
of
cut
off
on
this
screen,
but
if
you
have
the
actual
report-
and
you
see
our
full
site
boundary,
there's
the
road
that
says
easement,
but
our
site's
sort
of
shaped
like
utah
on
the
top
little
piece
of
it.
There's
roughly
about
10
feet
there
that
to
the
future
side
to
the
north,
be
developed,
we're
holding
for
that
use.
A
A
C
A
question,
if
you
guys
know,
does
the
downtown
community
council
usually
comment
on
projects
not
usually
okay,.
G
I'm
willing
to
make
motion
please,
based
on
the
findings
listed
in
the
staff
report,
the
information
presented
and
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing.
To
the
extent
we
had
any.
I
move
that
the
planning
commission
approved
the
design
review
request
for
the
hotel
project
located
at
approximately
370
south
west
temple
for
petition
pln
pcm
2022-00422.
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
C
A
K
Yay,
I
seem
to
be
technology
challenged
these
days
good
evening.
K
Madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
this
is
a
request
for
a
rezone
at
8,
56,
west
1300,
south
jordan
atkin
is
the
petitioner
and
he
is
requesting
that
this
property
be
rezoned
from
the
existing
zoning
of
r1
5000,
which
is
a
single
family
residential
district
to
the
fb
until
which
is
the
form
based
urban
neighborhood
district,
and
he
has
indicated
that
he
has
the
intent
to
build
six
single-family
attached
residential
units
on
this
property
planning
staff
is
recommending
denial
on
this
request.
K
This
is
in
your
packet,
it's
kind
of
hard
to
see
up
on
this
screen,
but
here
on
the
left,
the
property
and
outlined
in
the
yellow
is
the
subject
property
and
all
along.
This
block
face
is
essentially
single-family
homes.
Yes,
there
is
some
commercial
development
across
the
street.
There's
some
on
the
corner.
K
I
would
contend
that
this
commercial
development,
which
is
facing
the
sorensen
unity
center
is,
is,
is
oriented
towards
the
intersection
of
ninth
western
california
avenue
here
on.
The
right
is
the
current
zoning
and
you
can
see
that.
K
K
K
As
I
mentioned
previously,
we
have
outlined
in
your
staff
report
reasons
why
we
are
not
in
a
position
to
support
this
request.
Those,
I
think
those
reasons
are
pretty
black
and
white.
The
applicant
also
makes
a
reasonable
argument
for
it,
so
I
would
keep
your
mind
as
open
to
that
as
well.
K
K
We
received
one
letter
of
support
from
a
member
of
the
public,
but
that's
all
the
written
comment
that
I've
received
and
at
this
point,
based
on
the
analysis
and
findings
listed
in
the
staff
report,
it's
planning
staff's
opinion
that
the
project
does
not
meet
the
applicable
standards
and
therefore
recommends
that
the
planning
commission
forward
a
negative
recommendation
regarding
the
proposed
zoning
map.
Amendment
request
on
to
the
city
council
for
their
consideration
and
if
you
have
any
questions,
I'd
be
happy
to
try
to
answer
those
for
you.
A
I
have
a
question
lex:
are
there
any
more
appropriate
zones
that
give
them
a
little
bit
more
density,
but
would
work
here
other
than
fbu
in
staff's
opinion,.
C
If
we,
if
we
recommend
to
the
city
council,
to
approve
this
change,
do
they
still
hear
that
you
recommend
it
against
it?.
A
B
Just
going
to
jump
in,
but
what
does
go
to
the
city
council
is
your
recommendation.
Is
the
planning
commission's
recommendation,
but
the
packet
that
goes
our
you
know
our
staff
report
goes,
but
it's
your
recommendation.
That's
going
to
the
city
council.
K
A
Well,
it's
well
not
quite
to
totally
just
yeah,
like
the
full-on
discussion
would
happen
after
the
public
comment
period,
but
questions
that
can
be
related
to
your
concerns
are
certainly
appropriate
at
this
point.
Okay,
it
is
a
hard
line,
difference
but
yeah.
I
think
so
yeah
any
other
questions
for
staff.
Okay,
we'll
move
on!
We
do
have
the
applicant
jordan
atkin.
A
S
All
right,
I
will
do
my
best
all
right.
Let
me
know
if
you
need
help.
Well
excuse
my
almost
tardiness.
My
name
is
jordanac
and
I'm
with
tag
slc.
The
applicant-
and
this
is
our
rezone
request.
S
S
It
had
tested
positive
for
radon,
it
had
kind
of
a
janky
basement
where
there
were
like
a
root,
had
got
under
the
slab
and
broke
the
slab
up.
They
had
chipped
it
out.
It
just
had
like
a
rug
over
it
and
then
even
within
our
due
diligence,
the
property
we
found
out
tested
positive
for
asbestos.
S
And
when
that
kind
of
stuff
happens,
that's
usually
when
I
get
a
call
and
they
say
what
can
we
do
here?
We
always
check
with
the
zoning
map
first
and
foremost
where
we
identified.
This
was
an
r15
zone
and
our
lot
was
just
over
12
000
feet.
S
We
considered
the
master
plan
and
which
we're
familiar
with
and
realized
that
this
was
in
a
community
node
which
calls
for
a
mix
of
residential
uses
from
20
to
30
dwelling
units
per
acre
in
buildings
that
are
appropriately
skilled
to
reduce
impacts
to
nearby
single
family
homes,
and
with
this
and
considering
adding
a
little
bit
of
gentle
density
versus
the
two
single
family
homes
that
we
very
likely
could
have
done
by
nearly
by
right,
we
decided
to
submit
our
application,
which
was
in
january
january,
3rd
of
22..
S
S
This
is
our
community
node
and
then
you
know
it's
like
does
density
fit
here,
we're
a
very
close
proximity
to
the
sorensen
multural
multicultural
center,
the
three
creeks
confluence
on
the
jordan
river
trail
and
then
we're
a
full
80
feet
from
two
separate
commercially
zoned
and
used
properties.
S
The
spot
zone
is
something
this
isn't
our
first
time
with
this,
but
the
process
of
singling
out
a
single
parcel,
a
single
parcel
of
land
for
use
materially
different
and
inconsistent
with
the
surrounding
area
and
the
adopted
city
master
plan
for
the
sole
benefit
of
the
property
owner
and
to
the
detriment
of
the
rights.
So
we
started
to
break
that
down
and
we
asked
is
a
oh
yeah
is
a
single
family
attached
or
townhome
style
product
materially
different
than
a
single
family
home?
S
Is
it
materially
different
than
the
duplex
in
this
photo,
which
is
directly
across
the
street,
and
is
it
materially
different
than
the
two
separate
commercial
properties,
a
mere
80
feet
away,
and
we
just
really
couldn't
couldn't
see
that
and
is
it
consistent
with
the
plan?
When
we
read
the
plan,
we
felt
the
overarching
vision
of
the
plan
was
to
promote
density
in
areas
that
would
not
materially
affect
the
existing
neighborhood,
and
it
does
also
call
out
the
basically
east.
S
All
of
this
would
residential
uses
would
occur,
east
of
redwood
other
than
the
you
know.
The
couple
projects
you've
seen
over
there
lately
is
it
solely
for
our
benefit,
although
personal
benefit
is
essential
when
developing
property.
Otherwise,
why
take
all
the
risk?
S
It
was
a
bit
of
a
mix
up,
we
wanted
to
clear
up.
We
want
to
make
sure
our
request
is
solely
for
residential
use.
It's
a
little
bit
of
a
mix
up
between
the
management
and
our
planner
as
to
if
it
was
appropriate
to
introduce
the
development
agreement.
When
we
went
through
this
process,
it
felt
that
was
really
the
only
thing
that
we
we
could
see
that
was
affecting
our
ability
to
move
forward
was
that
we
could
add
some
of
those
other
more
intense
uses
to
the
property.
S
So
we
put
forward
a
development
agreement
which
we're
happy
to
abide
by
or
we
can
throw
it
away
whatever.
We
have
every
intention
of
abiding
by
what
we
said
and
I
bring
this
up
because
we
did
present
it
to
the
community
council.
So
we
thought
for
consistency.
We
should
do
that.
The
height
would
be
two
defined
as
two
and
a
half
stories
or
thirty
feet.
The
current
zone
does
allow
for
28
foot
structures.
S
We
would
do
at
least
one
parking
stall
per
unit
and
then,
beyond
that,
we
would.
We
can
even
and
have
the
intention
to
comply
by
the
underlying
max
building
coverage
of
the
r15
zone,
which
is
40.
I
think
we're
around
35
with
this
very,
very
basic,
drawing
that
we
have
so
the
the
thing
that
we
continue.
This
is
very
basic.
S
The
thing
that
we
continue
to
hear
from,
we
feel
this
body,
the
city
council,
the
community
councils
and
almost
all
residents
is:
why
is
there
not
more
for
sale,
housing
being
built
in
the
city?
And
we
think
that
this
project
is
almost
the
poster
child
of?
Why
that's
not
happening?
S
We've
been
at
this
for
eight
eight,
some
odd
months
now
it
you
know,
we
have
re
resources,
much
in
excess
of
the
average
person
who
would
want
to
pursue
this,
and
the
overwhelming
obstacles
that
are
continuously
met
in
our
view
are
part
of
why
this
housing
is
not
being
built
because
you're
not
going
to
see
this
on.
S
In
our
view,
large
tracts
of
land
in
these
tod
sites
that
you,
that
that
exist,
it's
going
to
have
to
be
this
gentle
increase,
pushing
into
these
single
family
neighborhoods
slightly,
not
in
the
middle
of
a
block
face,
but
this
is
80
feet
away
from
two
separate
commercial
buildings
so
that
that's
all
I
have-
and
I
will
welcome
any
questions
you
might
have.
S
It
was
that
we
would
comply
by
the
under
the
the
fbun
one
zone,
which
was
two
and
a
half
stories,
or
a
30
foot
height
maximum
at
least
one
parking
stall
per
unit,
and
then
we
additionally
have
considered
adding
that
we
would
not
exceed
the
maximum
coverage
that's
allowed
by
the
zone
and
what
that
is.
I
had
a
different
drawing,
but
I
deleted
it.
S
But
what
that's
basically
saying
is
if
you
can
build
for
cover
40
of
the
lot,
with
the
building,
whether
there's
one
house,
two
houses
or
in
our
request,
potentially
up
to
six
the
lot
area,
the
open
space,
the
light
and
the
air
is
not
materially
different
between
those
those
uses.
S
E
I
have
a
question
for
you:
if
you
did
not
achieve
this
zoning,
what
would
be
the
development
potential
of
this
site?
How
many
units
could
you
build
on
this
site.
S
B
A
That
is
just
for
the
proposed
rezone.
That's
it
not
for
any
specific
development,
although
he's
giving
you
his
intent.
A
City
council,
yeah,
yeah
yeah,
that's
their
their
purview,
any
other
questions
for
the
applicant.
At
this
time.
B
S
We
we
did
explore
a
variety
of
a
variety
of
zones,
there's
other
than
the
r15.
The
cn
zone
is
the
next
closest
zone,
which
we
felt
was
far
worse
than
this
there's
sr
3
in
equal
distance
to
m1
from
here.
S
The
sr3
only
allows
for
two-story
units
and
kind
of
the
key
to
this
is:
is
the
ability
to
stack
that
square
footage
into
into
that
third
level,
a
little
bit
to
get
more
bedrooms
and
then
any,
and
then
we
also
looked
at
the
rmf
30,
which
would
have
been
four
four
dwelling
units
and
then
so
because
of
the
the
stricter
facade
requirements
and
articulation
requirements
of
the
fbun1.
That's
that's
why
we
elected
to
put
this
forward.
A
R
B
D
I
can
chime
in
I
I
feel,
similarly
to
levi
that
you
know
it's
unfortunate.
88
of
our
land
is
zoned
for
only
single
single-family
housing.
It
does
seem
like
this
is
a
little
ad
hoc
just
to
re-zone
a
single
parcel.
I
appreciate
the
differentiation
of
the
personal
exclusive
personal
benefit
in
terms
of
the
definition
of
spot
zoning.
I
wasn't
familiar
with
that
and
I
I
based
on
that
criterion.
D
I
don't
believe
this
is
spot
zoning
and
yeah,
so
I'm
I'm
sympathetic
to
what
levi
is
saying.
We
desperately
need
more
missing,
missing
middle
housing
and
88
of
our
land
is
zoned
to
not
have
it.
A
A
A
I
just
wonder
if
there's
a
different
zone
that
allows
you
to
get
like
two
duplexes
or
something
where
yeah
we
make
modifications
to
it,
but
it's
not
using
a
zone,
I'm
just
concerned
about
using
the
fbu
and
zone
where
it
wasn't
written
to
be
and-
and
that's
really
where
I'm
stuck
not
so
much
in
the
proposal
or
you
know
wanting
to
do
this
very
low
level
density
and
and
redevelop
this
lot.
I'm
fine
with
that.
I
just-
and
I
that's
where
I'm
at.
E
I
I
visited
the
site
today
and
all
of
the
houses
along
the
block
on
both
sides
are
basically
single
story.
Houses
with
nice
pitched
roofs,
and
this
would
be
from
an
architectural
standpoint.
It
especially
if
it's
two
and
a
half
stories
tall
and
very,
very
different
in
terms
of
its
form
and
typology.
E
I'm
not
opposed
to
having
a
little
additional
density,
but
I
think
the
design
of
this
project,
as
proposed
in
any
case,
is
really
not
at
all
sympathetic
to
the
neighborhood
around
it,
and
I
would
like
to
see
a
limitation
in
the
height,
so
I
would
actually
go
with
an
rmf
30
zoning
so
that
we
could
have
a
limit
in
the
height
and
perhaps
do
something
a
little
more
creative
than
this
sideways
townhouse
stuff
that
we
see
quite
a
bit-
that's
intrusive
in
everywhere,
pretty
much
everywhere.
It's
built.
F
Yeah,
I
think
it's
a
tricky
problem
to
solve,
because
we
have
more
how
like
single-family
housing
than
any
other
city
our
size,
this
close
to
downtown.
So
I
just
feel
like.
We
need
to
start
filling
in
these
lots
and
we
need
to
start
adding
the
density
because
we're
in
a
huge
housing
shortage,
and
I
can
understand
that
things
like
this
will
stand
out
in
the
beginning.
F
But
there
will
be
more
that
come
into
these
neighborhoods
and
start
to
change,
and
so
this
is
a
beginning
of
a
change
for
a
neighborhood,
and
I
know
that
it
makes
the
zoning
map
not
so
pretty,
because
it's
not
yellow.
A
Anymore,
what
your
thoughts
are,
then.
I
agree
this
could
be
the
beginning
of
like
a
transformation,
but
then,
back
to
my
question
is
then
fbun
the
zone
we
want
to
see
then
get
spread
out,
because
then
we
would.
F
B
F
A
At
I
think
I'm
I'm
with
you,
so
I
just
wanted
to
to
think
out
loud
and
ask
your
thoughts
on
that.
As
this
transforms,
I
live
in
a
very
eclectic,
infill,
neighborhood
and
yeah,
as
some
of
these
newer
ones
have
come
along
they're
visually
jarring
and
then
at
some
point
I
ignore
it.
I
don't
notice
it,
but
they
do
then
spur
new
things
to
come
and
to
infill.
So
I
I
think,
that's
where
any
scenario
that
we
look
at
of
how
this
changes.
A
G
G
Quite
have
something
that
works
for
this
particular
neighborhood
in
this
particular
area.
I
think
the
map
the
community
plan
supports
as
a
community
node
development-
that's
denser
than
what's
there
now,
and
it
supports
a
broader
use
of
range
of
uses
than
what's
there.
G
Now,
from
my
perspective,
I
don't
think
it
meets
the
definition
of
a
spot
zone,
because
the
master
plan
supports
different
zoning
than
perhaps
what's
there
currently,
and
I
I
understand
your
concern
that
we're
setting
a
precedent,
but
I
think
in
this
in
this
case,
if
it's
a
matter
of
not
approving
something
because
we're
concerned
about
how
our
code
works
currently-
and
it's
not
designed
for
this-
I
would
say
we
approve
it
understanding
that
this
is
not
the
best
solution
and
we
wouldn't
necessarily
come
to
the
same
decision
on
other
parcels.
E
My
brain
really
interesting
problem
and
I
think
you
know
it's
which
comes
first,
the
zoning
or
the
chicken
and
and
and
I'm
a
little
concerned
that
that
doesn't
make
sense,
of
course,
but
I'm
I'm
I'm
basically
saying
you
know
in
a
sense
I
wish
we
could
take
this
whole
block
front
and
turn
it
into
fbu
into
or
whatever
right,
rmf
30,
because
it
it
really
does.
E
It
is
incredibly
conveniently
located
to
parks
and
to
the
and
it's
also
sort
of
isolated,
it's
actually
a
dead-end
street
which
had
nobody's
mentioned.
So
it's
it's
a
dead-end
street.
It's
very
isolated!
It's
next
to
a
small
triangular
piece,
that's
right
across
the
street
from
the
sorensen
center.
So
in
a
sense
you
know
if
you
could
plan
this
transition
to
a
higher
density.
That
would
be
great,
but
we're
not
planning
that
transition
we're
just
kind
of
boom
boom
boom.
And
so,
if
we're
not
doing
any
planning,
then
we're
not
doing
any
planning
well.
G
B
Oh
sorry,
these
are
all
very
good
comments
right.
I
live
in
glendale,
it's
in
the
middle
of
all
of
this,
like
spot
development,
that's
happening
so
I
have
a
single
family
home.
I
know
tag
you
have
a
development
by
the
711
or
1700
south
behind
marine
products,
which
there's
a
car
that
got
dumped
there.
That
needs
to
be
removed.
Yeah.
B
So
and
homeless
encampments
all
over
around
my
house
on
the
empty
lot.
So
I
agree
with
the
statement
that,
madam
I'm
sorry,
commissioner
cher.
I
hope
I'm
pronouncing
your
name
correctly
made
with
brenda.
Yes,
thank
you,
which
was
what
comes
first
right,
the
the
the
edgar,
the
the
the
zoning
and
I
would
love
to
address
that
for
glendale,
because
we're
going
to
continue
to
tag
and
see
w
urban
and
many
others
coming
here.
Developing
one
lot.
I
B
A
Yeah,
so
this
is
my
hypothetical.
I
totally
meant
me
hypothetical.
Not
you
adrian
is
that
then,
if
I
look
at
the
future
is
of
what
could
be
allowed
in
fbun
appropriate
for
as
these
things
continue
to
grow,
not
necessarily
this
development,
but
what
is
allowed
in
fbun,
because
that
then,
theoretically,
will
be
the
zone
that
people
come
to
us
again
and
again
for
along
this
particular
area
and
and
they
may
not
be
as
articulate
or
have
a
sensitive
or
sensitive
of
a
of
a
project.
F
A
A
D
A
Some
of
the
discussion
has
been
in
modifying
certain
incentives
or
whatnot
in
the
rmf
30
zone,
but
it
does
exist.
Okay,
amy
final
comment.
C
A
A
G
A
T
I'm
sorry
chair,
could
you
please
restate
that
motion
or.
A
P
B
D
B
A
F
A
Rick,
no
brenda
no,
and
I
will
also
vote
now
for
the
same
reason,
maureen
stated
so
that
motion
passes
seven
yeses
to
four
no's:
okay
you're
on
to
the
city
council.
Thank.
K
K
I'd
just
like
to
say
I'd
just
like
to
give
you
guys
kudos.
That
was
a
very
healthy
and
very
thoughtful
discussion,
and
I
well
done.
A
A
A
And
casey
or
kelsey
is
on
board
as
the
planner,
and
we
have
two
consultants,
jessica,
guerrero
and
callie
new.
Thank.
T
You,
madam
chair,
good
evening,
commission.
As
you
know,
my
name
is
kelsey,
I'm
here
with
jessica
and
cali
from
design
workshop.
T
This
test
text
amendment
was
briefed
back
in
june
2022
and
since
that
briefing
staff
and
design
workshop
worked
together
to
address
the
comments,
feedback
and
concerns
that
the
planning
commission
provided.
I
can
now
turn
the
time
over
to
jessica
and
cali
cali.
You
should
have
presenting
privileges.
R
Great,
are
you
able
to
see
my
screen.
R
R
Our
presentation
is
brief
and
we'll
just
be
providing
a
quick
reminder
on
the
process
and
then
reviewing
the
code
changes
as
they
relate
to
your
specific
feedback
made
in
june.
We
saw
you
two
months
ago
and
in
that
time
covered
community
engagement.
So
we
won't
cover
that
again,
but
we're
happy
to
cover
any
questions
that
you
may
have
in
the
q.
A.
R
So
again,
just
to
reiterate
our
project
focus.
We
addressed
pedestrian
orientation,
human
scale,
design
and
building
heights,
and
in
this
code
update-
and
we
reviewed
the
overall
process
with
you
in
our
last
meeting,
but
you
can
see
that
we
completed
extensive
background
work
and
had
many
community
member
inputs
and
presented
the
90
draft
in
june.
Since
then,
we
have
made
some
final
refinements
to
the
language
based
on
your
feedback.
R
So
we're
going
to
share
with
you
what's
been
updated
since
we
last
met
and
on
the
screen,
we've
lifted
a
summary
of
your
feedback
to
us
and
then
on
the
right.
We've
briefly
listed
how
or
if
we
updated
the
code
in
response
and
we'll
go
over
these
one
by
one
in
more
detail
and
subsequent
slides.
R
So
to
start,
the
feedback
was
that
we
should
limit
the
ability
for
residential
developments
to
utilize
private
amenities
on
the
ground
floor.
So
the
proposed
code,
language
provides
two
options
for
the
ground
floor
of
a
building
both
with
the
purpose
of
increasing
the
amount
of
active
uses
and
or
visual
interest.
R
So
the
ground
floor,
you
shall
promote
in
active
pedestrian
environments
through
the
inclusion
of
uses
that
capture
the
attention
of
passerby.
This
includes
retail
establishments,
retail
services,
civic
spaces,
restaurants,
bars
art
and
craft
studios
and
other
uses
determined
to
be
similar
by
the
planning
directory
and
or
commission.
R
E
R
Florida
florida
ceiling,
I
believe
I'll,
see,
go
ahead.
Florida.
R
R
R
Okay
and
then
option
two
identifies
a
required
percentage
of
the
ground
floor,
space
that
must
be
in
active
use
and
the
percentage
of
the
building,
which
must
provide
visual
interest.
R
The
second
comment
was
that
there
was
some
confusion
about
whether
these
zoning
amendments
extend
beyond
the
scope
of
the
downtown
plan,
so
the
image
on
right
shows
the
downtown
master
plan
project
boundary
and
the
map
on
the
left
shows
the
downtown
zone
districts
with
the
downtown
master
plan,
neighborhood
names
overlaid.
R
R
So
there
was
a
comment
to
consider
adjusting
the
facade
length
threshold,
so
we
added
a
purpose
statement
to
this
section
stating
that
existing
requirements
aimed
to
create
more
visual
interest,
comfort
and
activity
at
the
street
level
by
breaking
up
the
massing,
creating
material
requirements
and
required
screening
for
service
areas.
R
R
There
we
were
asked
to
consider
encroachments
into
the
mid-block
walkway,
so
we
added
in
clarifying
language
for
the
mid-block
walkways.
Any
new
development
shall
provide
a
mid-block
walkway
if
it
has
been
identified
in
a
city-adopted
master
plan.
D
Q
R
Another
comment
was
that
any
building
above
200
feet
in
height,
should
provide
a
real
public
benefit.
So
the
required
elements
for
buildings
above
200
feet
were
adjusted
to
include
the
following.
So
buildings
over
200
feet
must
provide
a
mid-block
walkway
provide
affordable
housing
exceed
the
minimum
requirement
for
ground
floor
uses,
provide
a
restrictive
covenant
on
a
historic
building
or
provide
a
restrictive
covenant
for
a
500
square
foot
privately
owned
publicly
available
open
space.
R
So
here's
a
look
at
the
proposed
building
heights
with
a
map
indicating
the
zone
districts
on
the
left
and
a
table
on
the
right.
So
in
the
d1
cbd,
the
existing
maximum
is
375
feet
on
corner
watts
and
100
feet
in
the
mid
block.
The
proposed
maximum
is
no
height
maximum,
but
over
100
feet.
It's
subject
to
conditions
and
design
review
and
the
d2.
R
The
proposed
maximum
is
120
feet
with
conditions
and
d3.
It's
180
feet
with
conditions
up
from
90
feet
in
d4
75
feet
with
120
to
375
feet
permitted
in
certain
locations,
subject,
subject
to
conditions
and
design
review,
gmu
buildings
over
90
feet
and
up
to
180
feet
are
subject
to
design
review
and
the
cg
75
feet
is
the
height
limit
150
in
the
depot
district
and
in
the
form
based
district.
It's
50
feet.
R
R
The
we
created
a
requirement
that
a
restrictive
covenant
guarantees
the
public
space
over
might
remain
and
included
requirements
for
shade
canopy
coverage
to
mitigate
urban
heat
island
effect
and
provide
refuge
to
people
of
all
ages.
R
There
was
a
comment
that
the
street
should
be
designed
to
be
more
human
scale,
so
this
was
really
at
the
heart
of
this
project
and
collectively
we've
listed
many
of
the
changes
that
seek
to
address
this.
These
are
just
some
of
the
examples
of
standards
that
changed
that
helped
to
provide
to
promote
safety,
vibrancy
and
comfort
in
pedestrian
spaces.
R
And
finally,
there
was
a
comment
about
whether
there
is
a
cohesive
plan
and
visual
image
for
the
downtown
area.
So
I'm
pulling
a
quote
from
the
downtown
plan
that
the
mountain
setting
sets
the
tone
of
downtown's
image
and
identity
as
a
unique
place.
The
zoning
code
adjustments
reinforce
the
idea
that
the
character
and
image
are
defined
by
the
mountains
and
while
buildings
and
land
uses
vary
throughout
the
downtown.
R
The
unifying
features
that
tie
the
districts
together
are
the
streets
and
public
spaces
and
house
spaces
allocated
and
a
significant
defining
feature
of
the
downtown
plan
is
the
concept
of
growing
the
central
business
district
and
having
growth
spread
to
the
west
and
south,
which
is
reflected
in
the
zoning
code.
Adjustments.
R
So
with
that,
it
will
conclude
and
open
it
up
to
questions
and,
as
stated
in
the
staff
memo
staff
is
recommending.
The
planning
commission
recommend
positive
approval
of
the
code
changes
to
city
council
and
I'll
also
note
that
we
did
receive
a
public
comment
from
uta
board
trustee
carlton
christensen
that
we
can
discuss
in
further
detail.
T
T
Okay,
we
received
an
additional
public
comment.
It
should
have
been
added
to
your
dropbox
around
5
pm,
so
you
may
or
may
not
have
had
time
to
see
that
as
from
james
alfondre
in
support
of
the
proposal
as
well,
just
read
it
right
at
the
beginning
of
this
presentation.
A
So
I
do
have
a
question
for
carlton
christensen's.
His
comments
were
about
specifically
the
depot
district
and
central
area
to
eliminate
heights
restrictions
or
vastly
increase
them,
and
now
I
can't
remember
what
the
height
limit
is
for
that
area.
Yeah.
Can
you
remind
me
how
tall
that
area
can
go.
T
A
Well,
so
I
guess
are
we
still
are
we
still
employing
the
you
know
trajectory
down
from
the
core
of
the
downtown
to
like
at
the
outskirts
when
you
get
to
the
gateway
that
you
want
it
to
still
go
down?
That
viewshed
is
that
why
we're
not
allowing
for
limitless
height
and
just
yeah.
T
T
We've
worked
with
uta,
they
did
provide
that
public
comment
and
it
would
be
forwarded
to
city
council,
but
as
of
right
now,
it
would
be
up
to
the
planning
commission
to
make
that
recommendation.
If
you
wanted
to.
G
E
Kelsey
on
our
chart
on
page
18
that
has
the
heights
of
the
various
districts
current
and
proposed
when
it
says
none
that
means
that
there
would
be
no
height
limit.
Is
that
correct?
E
T
P
P
In
many
of
the
zone
districts,
there
are
currently
no
minimum
heights,
and
so
that's
where
the
none
is
in
the
current
height
limitation
section
of
that
chart.
We
are
introducing
some
adjustments,
but
that
sort
of
stays
relatively
consistent.
What
mostly
changes
is
those
height
maximums
and
those
are.
There
are
some
adjustments
there
going
through
design
review,
really
focused
on
again
kind
of
pedestrian
active
activation.
Looking
at
heights
and
step
backs
making
sure
that
there's
proper,
open
space
things
like
that.
E
E
P
Yeah,
so
the
design
review
requirements
would
apply
to
everything.
What
we've
tried
to
do
through.
Some
of
these
tables,
though,
is
identify
that
when
people
are
asking
for
additional
heights
that
there
are
some
specific
standards
through
the
design
review
process
that
they
need
to
meet,
and
so
that's
what's
kind
of
all
these
footnotes
on
pages
19
through
22
of
of
your
packet.
P
So
as
an
example
in
d1,
anything
above
200
is
subject
to
some
certain
conditions
and
design
review,
and
that
goes
in
the
packet
to
footnote
five
and
that
talks
about
the
options
that
cali
mentioned
in
the
presentation.
So
mid-block
walkway
is,
is
included
or
there's,
affordable,
housing
or
it
exceeds
requirements
for
ground
floor
use.
So
all
those
things
that
she
went
through
they
need
to
meet
one
of
those
in
order
to
exceed
or
to
go
beyond
200
feet.
E
Height,
so
I'm
a
developer,
I'm
just
going.
To
paraphrase
this
for
my
own
yeah
helpfulness
here.
I
think
this
talk
this
through
for
myself
is
so
I'm
a
developer.
I
want
to
build
a
300
foot
building
in
the
d1
district.
E
T
E
T
T
T
E
T
So
page
150,
starting
on
150.
P
And
the
new
language
is
underlined,
what's
being
deleted
is
strikethrough
that
really
starts
on
page
153
with
the
applicability
and
then,
as
you
get
into
the
actual
standards
which
begin
on
page
154.
That's
where
there's
some
of
those
adjustments.
So
that's
where
we're
adding
in
some
of
these
requirements
related
to
additional
transparency
or
active
use,
adding
in
some
information
and
requirements
related
to
step
backs
and
making
sure
that
there's
some
kind
of
proper
separation
between
between
buildings.
P
So
there's
as
kelsey
said,
there's,
maybe
not
a
lot
of
red
lines
here,
but
really
important
ones
that
focus
on
pedestrian
kind
of
connectivity
and
just
kind
of
an
overall
pedestrian
nature
of
development,
so
that
buildings
aren't
overwhelming
people.
A
F
F
My
you
know
my
only
concern
with
the
way
some
of
this
is
presented
is
some
of
the
building
diagrams,
and
I
know
that
those
are
kind
of
a
nitpicky
thing,
but
they
look.
Some
of
them
look
like
they're
kind
of
early
1900
construction,
development
style
and
I'm
just
concerned
that
that
doesn't
really
relate
to
the
scale
of
which
what
we're
talking
about-
and
I
think
it's
a
little
misleading
to
some
of
the
facade
designs
and
things
are
just
very
kind
of
again
turn
of
the
century,
and
so
that
is
one
of
my
concerns
about
this.
F
If
this
goes
through
those
diagrams,
maybe
could
use
a
little
bit
of
updating.
That's
just
something,
a
quick
comment,
because
there's
not
very
many
of
them
and
I
feel
like
if
we're
going
to
have
buildings
that
are
100
feet
tall
and
we're
showing
a
building.
That's
you
know,
yeah
ten
stories
or
five
stories
it.
F
T
A
E
I
I
okay,
I'm
fine
with
the
I'm,
not
fine
with
the
design
review
things,
but
I
think
they're
they're,
fine,
I.
What
I
I
actually
would
like
to
talk
about
is
the
kind
of
exceptions
that
are
allowed
for
extra
height,
and
then
this
goes
back
to
something
that
was
said
earlier.
T
E
E
If
so
I
try
to
look
at
this
and
say
if
I'm
a
developer,
which
one
do
I
choose
as
the
easiest
and
I
choose
the
the
one
where,
if
I
have
a
mid
block
walkway
well,
obviously
you
have
to
do
that
anyway,
but
if
you,
I
think
that
the
thing
that
that
seems
to
me
the
hardest
to
do
is
affordable
housing
and
the
easiest
to
do
is
whatever
it
means
by
increasing
the
minimum
standard
for
retail
or
ground
floor
uses,
and
I
don't
think
that
that
even
those
things
aren't
even
close
in
terms
of
weighing
what
what
the
city
needs.
E
What
is
appropriate?
What
needs
to
happen?
You
know,
we've
already
got
a
lot
of
ground
floor,
uses
being
having
to
be
pedestrian
oriented,
that's
already
in
there,
and
so
I
I
just
don't
see
those
as
equivalent,
maybe
open
space,
but
certainly
not
equivalent
to
affordable
housing,
nobody's
going
to
pick
affordable
housing.
Out
of
that.
A
List
that
was
one
of
my
questions.
Are
they
really
equal
in
value?
Would
an
approach?
Something
like
you
could
do
one
of
these
two
things
or
two
of
these
to
then
create
some
equivalency
was
what
was
just
going
on
in
my
head,
but
I
don't.
I
don't
know
if
that
you
know
if
they're
equal
to
each
other
as
subjective
to
the
person.
Well,.
E
A
Are
these
five
things
of
equal
value
and
I
don't
necessarily
think
they
are,
but
I
don't
know
how
to
assign
them
a
value.
E
E
So
yeah,
but
I
I
think
we
all
know.
F
L
F
F
D
I
would
agree-
and
I
would
also
say
that
I
mean
adding
the
density.
Also
is
what
you
need
for
walkability,
because
once
you
have
a
certain
amount
of
density,
you
can
you
sort
of
have
the
the
population
density
to
support
some
of
those
ground
level,
businesses
and
then
you
might.
It
might
not
be
so
convenient
to
have
two
cars
in
a
two-person
household.
So,
and
I
I
second,
your
john's
views
on
affordability
as
well
you
just
by
allowing
more
density.
You
do
kind
of
improve
affordability.
D
So
if
the
municipal
government
wants,
if
the
city
of
salt
lake
wants
to
set
aside
money
for
more
dedicated,
affordable
housing,
that's
income,
restricted
and
sort
of
you
know
make
the
developer
hole
on
this
that'd
be
great,
but
I
have
not
seen
any
evidence
that
the
city
of
salt
lake
is
actually
willing
to
put
real
money.
There.
A
Okay,
so
do
we
have
any
further
questions
because
we'll
bring
it
back
for
like
our
final
discussion
after
the
public
comment
period,
and
I
think
we
might
be
conflating
the
two
at
this
point
and
I'm
guilty
of
that,
so
any
further
questions
from
commissioners?
A
B
I
I
Throughout
downtown,
in
addition,
in
specific
in
cg
zone,
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
are
wanting
to
voice
is
the
qua
or
ask
is,
will
any
of
the
current
proposed
changes
affect
the
ability
to
have
life
science
in
the
area
zone?
Cg
we're
just
very
concerned
that
life.
A
I
Speaking
of
the
microphone
there,
we
go
we're
also
pretty
excited
about,
obviously,
the
increase
in
density.
As
we
see
salt
lake
grow
as
well
and
potentially
growing
into
that
area
closer
to
I-15,
in
particular,
the
area
where
cg
is
looking
to
increase
height
heights
up
to
150
feet.
B
Between
400,
south
and
700,
south
and
300,
west
and
I-15,
so
yeah
just
wanted
to
voice
that
comment
and
thank
you
so
much
kelsey
for
all
your
hard
work
on
this
and
the
team.
I
know
you
guys
have
been
really
great
to
talk
to
throughout
this.
So
thank
you.
A
Thank
you
and
thank
you
for
sticking
out
through
the
whole
meeting
any
no
one
else
is
in
the
room,
so
we
can
bypass
that
comment,
wayne
anybody
email
or
on
webex.
I
don't
see
anybody.
A
Okay,
with
that,
I'm
going
to
close
the
public
comment
period
and
we'll
bring
it
back
for
our
final
discussion,
but
allow
the
consultant
and
our
kelsey
to
address
that
question
are
those
particular
uses
of
life
sciences
and
that
still
allowed
and
the
new
I
mean
I
feel
like
they
are.
T
A
T
And
then,
just
to
address
commissioner
gantt's
comment
about
the
city
funding
for
affordable
housing.
I
believe
that
the
city
funded
about
20
million
last
budget
year
for
affordable
housing.
D
E
D
I
don't
my
understanding.
I've
looked
into
the
affordable
housing
trust
fund
to
try
to
understand
this
kelsey
because
I
have
been
concerned
about
this,
particularly
with
the
affordable
housing
overlay.
I
think
it's
being
set
aside
for
specific
projects,
loans.
That
is
my
understanding
of
how
the
affordable
housing
trust
fund
money
is
being
used.
Is
loans
to
developers.
D
T
I
can
come
back
next
meeting
and
clarify,
and
I
know
that
we've
had
some
discussions
internally.
This
is
way
on
a
tangent
kind
of.
S
T
But
having
tony
milner
or
somebody
from
housing,
stability
come
and
speak
to
the
planning
commission
about
what
they
do.
A
A
Yeah,
let's
just
one
by
one,
get
everyone
every
department
division
from
the
city
to
come
and
like
and
and
get
us
up
to
speed.
Okay,
any
kind
of
wrap-up
discussions
brenda,
especially
about
your
concerns
about
the
value
of
this.
E
P
Yeah,
so
the
requirements
in
kind
of
your
base
zone
district
for
ground
floor
activation
are
either
70
or
80.
P
Moving
using
this
requirement,
you
have
to
go
to
100,
which
is
a
pretty
significant
adjustment
for
for
some
of
these
buildings,
and
so
it
is
very
clearly
defined
at
similarly
as
cali
showed
on.
The
previous
slide,
for
the
open
space,
for
instance,
is
very
clearly
defined
of
what
are
some
of
the
dimensions
that
that
need
to
be
there,
so
that
is
included
in
the
language.
A
I
particularly
feel
that
a
lot
of
this
language
has
been
trying
to
address
some
of
the
public
comments
we've
continually
gotten
over
and
over
and
some
of
the
comments
we've
been
making
like.
We
would
like
to
see
this
and
it
does
it
in
an
incentivized
way
of
like
if
you
want
this
extra
height
hey.
This
is
what
we're
hearing
people
want,
so
we
can't
make
you
do
a
hundred
percent
ground
floor
rectification
activation,
but
if
you
want
to
hold
yourself
to
that
to
get
this
height
kudos.
A
So
in
a
way
I
just
and
I
get
the
the
impetus
or
the
direction
of
these
five
things.
I
still
don't
know
that
they're
of
equal
value,
but
that's
not
necessarily
for
us
to
articulate
and
assign.
E
I
think
70
is
quite
a
bit
actually
and
that's
our
minimum,
isn't
it
in
in
most
places
and
so
for
going
from
70
to
100,
which
is
actually
not
very
realistic,
given
the
fact
that
you've
got
all
kinds
of
circulation
and
other
things
you
have
to
do
on
the
ground
floor,
I
don't
think
you
need
to
talk
better.
Okay,.
F
F
F
E
E
A
F
P
The
way
the
language
reads
it:
it
is
net,
it's
not
gross
right.
If
you
had
a
growth,
you
couldn't
have
your
elevator
and
your
stair,
and
some
of
the
other
things
that
you
have
to
have
for
a
building
right.
So
it
is
about
your
net
space,
and
I
think,
as
part
of
the
review
that
the
planning
commission
would
do
is
that
you
would
need
to
take
a
look
at
that
and
make
sure
that
maybe
those
things
are
minimally
sized.
E
F
A
A
D
B
A
D
F
A
B
A
B
A
Adrian,
yes,
and
I
will
also
vote
yes,
so
that
motion
passes
unanimously.
Thank
you
both
for
your
presentation
and
especially
kelsey.
Thank
you
for
your
work
on
this.
With
that
conclusion,
we
are
adjourned.
B
Before
before
we
leave,
I
wanted
to
just
thank
the
camera
crew.
I,
the
visual
here,
was
great.