►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting - August 11, 2021
Description
Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting - August 11, 2021
https://www.slc.gov/planning/
https://www.slc.gov/planning/planning-commission-agendas-minutes/
A
A
A
That's
so
cute
and
if
you
I
want
to
make
an
announcement
that
the
I
brenda
shear
planning
commission
chair,
hereby
determine
that
with
the
ongoing
covet
19
pandemic
conditions
existing
in
salt
lake
city,
including,
but
not
limited
to
this
week's
spike
in
utah
cover
19
hospitalizations
and
the
presence
of
the
more
aggressive
and
contagious
delta
variant.
A
B
Marlene,
could
you
could
you
share
that
slide
again?
Thank
you.
B
A
B
Okay,
sorry,
I
didn't
do
this
earlier,
I
was
looks
like
we
were
having
some
sound
issues,
but
I
think
we've
got
them
solved.
So
if
you
are
at
home-
and
you
would
like
to
join
in
the
meeting
as
we're
watching
here-
there
is
a
website
here.
You
can
also
find
this
link
at
the
at
our
website
on
the
agenda.
B
B
B
If
you
will
please
hit
that
button
one
more
time,
so
that
little
hand
disappears
so
that
we
know
that
that
you
wouldn't
like
to
speak
at
any
additional
public
hearings.
Again,
like
we
said,
if
you
have
any
issues,
feel
free
to
email,
us
and
we'll
make
sure
we
can
do
anything.
We
can
do
to
help
you
connect.
A
Thank
you
all
right.
So,
first
we'll
begin
with
approval
of
the
minutes
for
july
14th
and
july
28
2021,
and
I
believe
we
can
approve
those
both
at
the
same
time.
So
do
I
have
a
motion.
A
A
A
The
motion
passes
and
the
minutes
are
approved.
Next
comes
the
report
of
the
chair
and
the
vice
chair
and
I
do
not
have
anything
to
report.
Amy.
A
Thank
you
now
the
report
of
the
director
nick
or
john.
E
I
don't
have
any
much,
but
just
a
few
things
that
some
of
you
may
be
aware
that
in
this
budget
year
that
the
city
council
adopted
in
june
and
go
went
into
effect.
E
On
july
1st,
we
were
funded
four
new
positions
in
planning
that
funding
becomes
available
on
september
one
and
we
are
in
the
process
of
reorganizing
our
division,
with
the
purpose
of
being
able
to
focus
more
on
city
initiatives
and
to
get
those
through
in
a
more
timely
and
effective
way,
and
we
also
had
a
couple
of,
as
many
of
you
know,
a
couple
people
leave,
and
so
we
actually
have
hired
three
people
in
the
last
three
or
four
weeks
to
fill
some
existing
vacancies.
E
That's
one
has
started
trevor
ovindon,
who
came
over
from
public
utilities
and
is
going
to
be
working
at
the
planning
counter,
the
planning
counter
or
the
there's
two
staff
people
there.
They
handle
all
of
the
application
intake
and
are
the
first
point
of
contact
for
any
kind
of
planning
or
zoning
question,
and
then
we
also
have
hired
two
people,
which
I
don't
know
if
they've
actually
fully
notified
their
current
employer.
E
So
I'm
going
to
hold
off
on
saying
who
they
are,
but
just
so
you
know
that
we
are
working
diligently
on
filling
all
of
our
vacancies,
so
hopefully
by
mid-september
we
will
have
all
of
our
vacancies
filled
and
we
will
keep
the
planning
commission
update
on
what
that
means
for
our
workloads
and
your
workloads
and
everything
else,
and
that's
all.
I
have.
A
Thank
you
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
go
to
the
items
that
are
public
hearings.
The
first
is
the
ground
lease
area
at
approximately
1269
south
legacy
view
street
case
number
pln
pcm
22.
F
Okay,
so
I'm
assuming
you
can
all
see
that
so
this
is
a
petition
for
conditional
use
to
enlarge
the
area
used
for
ground
equipment.
That
is
part
of
a
project
to
co-locate
wireless
antennas
on
an
existing
monopole
at
1269
south
legacy
view
street
the
subject:
parcel
is
zoned
m1,
light
manufacturing
and
the
proposal
qualifies
for
a
streamlined
review
under
fcc
regulations,
which
is
gone
into
in
your
staff
report.
F
Lease
area
is
proposed
to
be
18
feet
by
25
feet,
and
you
can
see
that
in
the
green
on
your
screen,
so
the
existing
ground
lease
area
is
just
below
that
you
can
see
the
rectangle
below
that
and
then
the
green
is
the
proposed
new
area,
and
then
you
can
also
see
the
new
antennas,
which
are
the
gray
ones
on
the
bottom,
which
are
co-located
with
other
wireless
providers.
F
The
zoning
ordinance
encourages
and
permits
co-location
of
equipment,
but
requires
conditional
use
review
if
the
ground
leaks
equipment
does
not
fit
into
the
current
leased
area,
which
is
why
this
proposal
needs
conditional
use
approval.
The
additional
ground
lease
area
will
be
fenced
using
the
same
material
as
the
existing
fence.
F
F
So
as
far
as
public
process,
the
recognized
community
organization,
the
glendale
community
council,
was
notified
and
they
did
request
a
presentation
at
their
july
meeting
the
applicant
and
myself
were
there
and
they
didn't
express
any
concerns
at
that
point
and
I
did
not
receive
a
letter
from
them
and
then
the
early
notification
of
property
owners
was
sent
out
and
I
also
did
not
receive
any
comments
from
the
public,
so
staff
is
recommending.
The
planning
commission
approves
the
conditional
use,
and
that
concludes
my
presentation,
but
I'm
available
for
any
questions.
A
A
You
sorry,
let's
go
ahead
and
hear
from
the
applicant
first.
C
Hi,
my
name
is:
can
you
hear
me?
Okay?
Yes,
we
can.
Okay,
thank
you
for
allowing
us
to
be
here.
We
appreciate
the
opportunity.
My
name
is
liz
walker,
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
a
t
and
along
with
me
on
the
meeting
link
is
brian,
seek
who's
with
smartlink
and
also
here
on
behalf
of
a
t,
and
I
think
chrissy
summarized
all
the
important
details
for
you,
but
we're
here
just
to
say
thank
you
for
consideration
of
our
request.
A
C
A
C
C
A
C
A
A
And
it's
chrissy
gilmore
again.
F
Yes,
thank
you.
So
this
is
a
request
for
approval
of
two
new
lots
to
accommodate
a
duplex
development
at
1048
west
southwest
temple
in
the
rmf
35
zone.
The
applicant.
C
F
Requesting
modification
to
the
zoning
rules
under
a
planned
development
to
allow
for
new
lots
that
do
not
meet
the
lot
area
or
lot
width
requirements.
The
requested
relief
from
lot
areas,
approximately
8
000
square
feet
to
6
000
square
feet
and
lot
width
from
50
feet
to
approximately
37
feet
for
the
new
duplex
lot.
F
Again,
this
is
in
the
rmf
35
zone,
which
allows
for
multi-family
and
single-family
development
for
a
duplex
considered
a
two-family
dwelling.
The
provisions
of
the
zone
are
a
max
height
of
35
feet
and
a
front
setback
of
10
feet.
Rear
setback
of
25
and
side
set
back
of
four
on
one
side
and
10
on
the
other.
F
F
F
So
for
background
on
the
design,
the
applicant
brought
the
proposal
to
the
planning
commission
in
june
of
2020
with
a
different
design.
The
planning
commission
had
concerns
with
the
design
and
whether
it
fit
the
neighborhood
context
and
if
the
front
facade
adequately
engaged
the
street,
the
planning
commission
tabled
the
item
to
give
the
applicant
a
chance
to
address
their
concerns.
F
F
So
as
far
as
development
potential
and
lock
character,
the
law
could
be
developed
without
this
process.
If
the
single
family
home
were
to
be
were
to
be
demolished,
the
existing
law
is
approximately
14
300
square
feet.
So
the
end
has
a
lot
width
and
area
to
accommodate
a
density
of
five
attached
multi-family
units.
It
is
depending
on
staff
that
a
new
duplex
while
retaining
the
existing
home
is
a
better
fit
for
the
neighborhood,
as
shown
by
subdividing
the
law.
F
It
would
not
be
out
of
character
for
the
neighborhood,
as
most
of
the
lots
are
also
would
also
be
narrow
and
skinny
and
are
about
six
thousand
square
feet.
Overall.
The
proposal
meets
the
housing
goals
and
plan
development
objectives
to
broaden
the
range
of
housing
types
specifically
missing:
middle
housing,
which
is
lower
scale,
multi-family
housing
that
are
not
bigger
than
the
large
house,
not
bigger
than
a
large
house,
and
generates
enough
density,
support,
transit
and
local
community
amenities.
F
So
here
are
some
site
photographs.
The
house
on
the
in
the
center
is
the
existing
house
that
will
be
retained
and
then
on.
The
left
is
where
those
trees
are.
Is
the
proposed
duplex
lot
on
the
bottom
left?
You
can
see
the
site
again
with
the
context
of
the
adjacent
home
and
then
the
bottom
right
is
the
alley
where
the
parking
will
be
accessed.
F
We
did
receive
three
public
comments,
two
in
support
and
one
against
the
proposal
and
the
black
part
community
council
heard
the
item
at
their
may
2020
meeting
and
at
that
time
they
didn't
have
any
concerns
and
staff
did
not
receive
a
letter
from
them.
So,
in
summary,
staff
is
recommending
conditions
with
approval,
and
that
concludes
my
presentation.
C
H
Well,
thank
you
so
much
chrissy.
I
think
you
did
a
great
job
explaining
the
project
and
appreciate
everyone
for
listening
in
here
tonight.
Based
on
the
feedback
I
received
last
summer
from
the
planning
commission,
I
went
back
to
the
drawing
boards.
G
H
H
I'd
like
to
add
to
that
you
know
this
lot
has
sat
vacant
for
over
30
years
and
since
I've
been
involved
in
the
project,
for
you
know
a
little
over
a
year
now,
I've
just
seen
junk
and
trash
on
the
site.
So
by
adding
this
here
will
do
a
lot
to
just
kind
of
aesthetically
clean
up
the
area
I
also
want
to.
You
know
just
add
in
that.
I
believe
this
new
design
is
very
compatible
with
similar
homes
in
the
area.
H
There
are
homes
that
were
built
a
while
ago
that
do
sit
on
narrow
lots
similar
to
mine.
Also
by
adding
in
this
building
it.
You
know
it's
more
compatible
with
the
current
neighborhood
in
terms
of
look
and
feel
than
if
the
owner
were
to
demolish
the
home
and
do
a
new
town,
home
or
multi-family
project
in
the
area.
A
A
A
B
I
think
there
might
be
a
little
some
issues
with
the
sound
I
think
they
can
hear
us,
but
their
ability
to
speak.
So
what
I
want
to
do
is
basically
turn
on
everybody's
microphone
on
the
attendee
list
and
then
turn
it
back
off
to
see
everybody
that
I've
turned
off
and
on
it's
fixed.
I
just
want
to
let
people
know.
So
if
you
are
speaking,
I
am
going
to
turn
everybody
on
and
then
we'll
try
turn
them
off
and
make
sure
everybody
can
speak
if
they
want
to.
B
A
We
did
receive
three
letters
on
this,
but
these
letters
were
from
last
year.
It
should
be
noted,
so
they
they
are
not
responding
to
the
current
proposal.
Right.
B
So
anybody
who,
if
there
is
any
if
anyone
wants
to
speak
and
they're
struggling
at
all
the
sound
we
can
make
them
a
panelist.
They
just
need
to
raise
their
hand
and
let
us
know
that
they
want
to
speak.
So
I
don't
see
any
right
now,
but
we
can.
We
can
definitely
make
sure
people
can
speak
if
they
would
like
to.
E
B
Okay,
so
if
it's
mark
or
mary
like
what
I
can
do
is
just
make
them
a
panelist
and
see
if
they
would
like
to
speak
just
so,
you
know
if
we
move
you
to
a
panelist
and
your
camera's
on
you
are
going
to
be
on
camera.
So
I
do
want
to
let
you
know
ahead
of
time.
So.
B
B
I
guess
the
issue
is
now.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
nobody's
raised
their
hand.
I
think
we
just
want
to
make
sure
if
you
would
like
to
speak.
They
can
indicate
that
if
there's
anybody
who's
in
the
attendee
list,
can
you
click
on
your
little
hand
to
indicate
you
could
speak
just
so
we
can
test
it
and
make
sure
it's
working.
I
A
Okay,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
bring
it
back
to
the
commission
for
a
discussion
or
a
motion.
D
I'll
pipe
up
really
briefly
adam,
you
may
remember
that
I
was
probably
one
of
the
more
vocal
ones
when
you
were
here
last
year
and
I
never
had
a
problem
with
the
lut
size
or
anything
that
was
really
how
it
interacted
with
the
pedestrians
facing
and
I'll
just
tell
you.
This
design
is
substantially
better
in
in
achieving
that.
So
thank
you
for
taking
that
time
and
and
doing
something
that
will
last
a
long
time
and
be
a
benefit
to
the
entire
community.
D
J
A
A
Adrian,
yes,
don,
yes,
sarah,
yes,
so
the
motion
passes
5-0,
congratulations!
Thank
you
all
for
attending
and
good
job,
I
would
say
on
the
redesign-
and
I
also
just
want
to
mention
it's
not-
that
the
planning
commission
does
not
like
modern
design,
because
we
have
often
preferred
modern
designs,
but
this
is
a
much
nicer
accomplishment
for
the
neighborhood.
D
D
Detached
accessory
dwelling
unit,
I
just
want
to
clarify
for
the
commissioners
and
the
public.
We
have
two
separate
things
happening
here:
the
accessory
dwelling
unit,
the
adu
is
under
the
conditional
use
portion
of
this
petition.
It
is
the
condenser
air
conditioner.
That
is
the
special
exception,
so
just
that
we
can
keep
those
in
mind
as
separate
things
and
sarah
is
the
planner
and
if
you
are
ready
to
start
sarah
go.
F
As
stated,
this
is
a
proposal
for
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
and
special
exception
for
the
setback
of
an
ac
condensing
unit
at
1228,
south
800
east.
The
property
is
zoned
r15000
on
the
photo
on
the
left.
You
can
see
an
aerial
photo
of
the
property
that
highlights
the
location
of
the
proposed
adu
in
the
rear
yard,
and
then
the
photo
on
the
right
is
of
the
existing
dwelling
on
the
property.
F
The
site
plan
for
the
adu
shows
it
set
back
33
feet,
6
inches
from
the
rear
of
the
existing
dwelling
and
approximately
10
feet
from
the
rear
of
the
property.
The
north
side
yard
setback
is
4
feet,
10
inches,
the
ac
unit
would
be
in
the
shard,
and
the
special
exception
is
for
it
to
be
less
than
four
feet
from
a
property
line.
It
is
proposed
to
be
three
feet:
four
inches
and
to
the
south.
F
I
got
ahead
of
myself
here.
This
slide
shows
the
existing
conditions
on
the
left
and
then
the
proposed
adu
and
parking
pad
on
the
right,
and
then
this
slide
shows
the
four
elevations
of
the
proposal.
The
east
elevation,
which
would
face
the
rear
of
the
existing
dwelling,
is
on
the
top
left.
The
south
elevation
is
on
the
top
right.
The
windows
that
are
in
close
proximity
to
the
adjacent
property
would
have
obscured
glass
and
then
the
north
elevation
is
on
the
bottom
left
and
it
has
two
clear
story:
windows.
K
D
Wonderful
welcome
sam.
If
you
want
to
go
ahead,
you
have
10
minutes,
for
your
presentation
feel
free
to
not
take.
All
of
that
time
is
yours.
K
Okay,
yeah
sarah
did
a
a
great
job
of
kind
of
giving
a
quick
overview
of
our
adu
proposal
for
the
venom
edu
proposal,
but
I
just
really
quick
wanted
to
mention
that
you
know
so
our
organization,
we
are
a
community
design
center,
a
non-profit
architecture
firm
that
only
takes
on
projects
that
we
feel
benefit,
not
only
community
members,
but
the
community,
the
community
as
a
whole,
and
the
reason
we
took
on
this
project
is
because
we
feel
like
it
addresses
several
kind
of
issues
that
are
important
not
only
to
the
to
the
community
member
or
the
homeowner,
but
to
the
community
as
a
whole.
K
And
so,
as
a
result,
this
home
is
is
designed
to
be
an
accessible
kind
of
zero
entry
unit
where
the
individual
can
continue
to
age
within
this
unit
for
for
a
long
time,
and
so
we
believe
this
unit
provides
kind
of
accessible,
sustainable
and
equitable,
affordable
housing
far
into
the
future.
We
also
took
care
in
designing
this
unit
that
it
respects
kind
of
the
surrounding
accessory
structures,
both
in
form
massing
and
scale.
K
K
I
will
mention,
because
we
have
had
some
comments
regarding
parking,
that
we
are
providing
an
off-street
parking
stall
on
the
alleyway,
so
we're
providing
one
off
street
parking
stall
and
since
the
resident
is
currently
living
in
the
basement,
we're
actually
not
increasing
the
demand
for
parking
on
the
area
at
all,
because
the
the
resident
is
still
is
currently
living
in
the
home.
We're
just
kind
of
relocating
her
to
the
to
the
back
of
the
property
in
the
adu
that
will
be
constructed,
yeah
and
I'm
happy
to
you
know.
K
Our
special
exception
is
just
so.
We
replaced
the
special
exception,
we're
requesting
special
exception,
because
we
believe
that
the
the
ac
condenser
unit
works
best
and
kind
of
in
this
current
location
near
the
back
of
the
property
within
the
setback,
because
that
allows
us
to
to
put
as
much
much
distance
as
possible
between
kind
of
the
existing
neighboring
residences
and
the
the
noise
that's
created
by
the
the
proposed
hvac
connect
condenser.
K
It
will
be
concealed
by
kind
of
a
six
foot
tall
fence,
so
we
believe
that
this
is
the
best
location
for
it.
Alternatively,
you
know
we
would
be
forced
to
kind
of
locate
it
at
the
front
of
the
adu
unit,
but
that
in
turn
require
you
know,
places
a
lot
closer
to
the
neighboring
residents
and
then
increases
the
the
amount
of
noise
that
the
neighboring
residents
can
can
hear.
So
I
will
stop
sharing
and
yeah.
K
D
All
right
did
I
hear
something:
okay,
john
any
representative
of
the
community
council.
As
we
open
up
the
public
hearing.
B
There
are
no
hand
raised
hands
raised
for
anybody
if
they
joined
late.
If
you
would
like
to
speak,
you
would
need
to
click
on
the
little
hand,
at
the
bottom
right
hand,
corner
indicating
to
us
that
you
would
like
to
speak.
I
currently
don't
see
any,
and
I
do
not
think
nick
that
we've
received
any
emails.
Have
we.
D
There
all
right,
then,
seeing
no
public
comments
further,
we'll
close
the
public
comment
portion
of
this
agenda
item
and
bring
it
back
to
the
commissioners.
If
there
are
questions,
comments,
discussion
or
if
somebody
would
like
to
make
a
motion,
it
is
a
two-parter,
so
you'll
need
to
there'll
need
to
be
two
different
motions
for
this.
One.
G
I'll
go
ahead
and
make
a
motion.
Thank
you.
Adrian
start
with
the
conditional
use
request,
based
on
the
information
listed
in
the
staff
report,
the
information
presented
and
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing.
I
mean
that
the
commission
approves
the
request
for
a
conditional
use
for
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
at
1228,
south
800
east,
as
presented
in
petition
pln
pcm
2021-000.
D
C
G
Go
ahead
and
make
that
motion.
Thank
you.
Based
on
the
information
listed
in
the
staff
report,
the
information
presented
and
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing.
I
believe
that
the
commission
approved
the
request
for
special
exception
for
a
condensing
unit
located
less
than
four
feet
from
the
north
lot
line
of
the
property
at
1228
south
800
east,
as
presented
in
petition
pln
pcm
2021-0077,
with
the
conditions
listed
in
the
staff
report.
D
C
D
Adrian,
yes,
all
right,
both
of
those
motions
passed
unanimously.
Thank
you,
sam
you're,
good
luck
in
your
build
and
I
think
it'll
be
a
good
asset
to
the
neighborhood.
A
L
Thank
you
for
that,
madam
chair.
I
don't
know
about
that,
but
anyhow,
okay,
so
this
is
the
a
rezone
and
master
plan
as
amendment
as
you
noted
for
two
properties
on
southwest
temple,
I'll
start
sharing
my
screen.
L
All
right,
you
should
be
seeing
my
presentation
now,
okay,
so
this
particular
zoning
map
and
master
plan
amendment.
It's
a
requested
change
from
the
rmf
35
multi-family
residential
zone
to
cg
general
commercial.
It
involves
two
parcel.
One
of
those
parcels
is
split
zoned
and
the
majority
is
cg
and
a
smaller
parcel.
That's
undeveloped
and
zoned
rmf
35.
L
L
L
From
a
zoning
map
perspective,
here's
a
more
wide
view.
It's
at
the
edge
of
a
larger
cg
zone
that
exists
in
the
city
and
just
the
very
front
of
the
property
is
owned.
Rmf
35,
as
well
as
this
adjacent
property,
a
little
bit
more
of
a
close-up.
To
give
you
an
idea,
the
larger
property
is
about,
92
percent
of
it
is
zoned
cg
already,
and
this
portion
at
the
front,
eight
percent
or
0.311
acres
is
zoned,
rmf,
35
and
then
the
second
parcel
is
completely
rmf
35
and
it's
also
about
0.311
acres.
L
This
is
similar
to
the
oakland
construction
property
immediately
to
the
south,
which
went
through
a
rezoning
a
number
of
years
ago.
It
had
the
same
kind
of
split
zoning
situation
and
they
were
expanding
their
office
to
the
front
of
the
parcel
at
south
on
along
southwest
temple.
There's
some
existing
conditions
photographs.
This
is
from
southwest
temple,
looking
east
with
a
little
bit
of
a
south
slant
and
the
larger
building
you
see
that
extends
up
to
the
street
is
oakland
construction
offices.
L
L
We
found
that
the
proposal
complied
with
the
factors
for
a
zoning
map
amendment
and
the
master
plan
proposal
to
change.
That
is,
it's
being
amended
to
provide
consistency
with
the
zoning
change.
So
staff
is
recommending
that
the
planning
commission
forward
a
positive
recommendation
to
city
council
for
both
the
proposed
zoning
map
and
master
plan
amendments.
D
I
do
yeah
so
david
on
the
future
land
use
map.
These
are
calling
for
a
medium
density
residential
which
is
consistent
with
its
current
zone.
D
Can
you
give
me
a
kind
of
a
history
of
how
this
cg
zone
like
did
it?
Was
it
kind
of
grandfathered
in
when
the
last
master
planning
it
happened
that
it
was
already
there,
and
so
that's
why
it's
still
cg
and
I'd
like
to
get
a
little
better
understanding
of
that.
L
I
I
think
that
again,
when
we
rezoned
this
area
of
the
city,
we
made
it
reflective
of
the
development
that
was
there
so,
along
that
portion
of
southwest
temple,
there
are
a
number
of
those
heavier
commercial
uses.
If
you
will
so
it
was
zoned
that
and
again,
I'm
not
sure
the
rationale
for
why
we
went
to.
D
D
Okay,
I
feel
like
the
residential
is
more
in
line
with
what
you
you
see
and
interact
with
when
you're
on
west
temple
and
oakland
sticks
out
like
and
not
in
a
good
way
in
terms
of
on
this
section.
So
I
just
wanted
to
get
a
better
understanding,
but
I
appreciate
your
your
response.
A
A
L
A
Yeah,
but
basically
these
commercial
areas
are
are
cg
is
a
zone
that
I
thought
we
were
trying
to
get
rid
of.
A
L
A
L
No,
we
don't
typically
because
there
are
separate
properties.
We
don't
include
that,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
we
could,
we
should
have
recommended
that
didn't
think
of
that.
A
Okay
is
the
applicant
here.
L
Okay,
john,
if
you're
on
muting,
it's
paul,
washburn,
taylor,
smith
and
brad
banks.
B
Yeah
so
paul
washburn
has
been
moved
over.
I
can
unmute
him
or
he's
going
to
mute
himself
if
you'd,
like
weather
smith,
the
one
who
may
have
some
issues
is
brad
banks,
I'm
not
able
to
unmute
or
mute
him
for
some
reason.
So.
B
B
B
M
Thank
you.
This
is
paul
washburn.
Can
you
hear
me
all
right?
We
can.
Thank
you
very
much.
The
intention
of
this
zone
change
master
plan
change
is
to
allow
the
bank
street
to
build
a
small
office
building
in
the
area
that
is
now
covered
with
grass
the
office
that
they're
utilizing
now
is
actually
built
on
top
of
a
dock
area
that
I
think
has
been
there
historically,
probably
back
from
the
1950s,
and
they
have
some
issues
with
ada
access
and
also
being
an
older
structure.
M
The
ability
to
you
know
have
all
the
I.t
equipment
influencers
they
need
to
have.
All
of
those
things
are
a
problem,
so
the
intent
is
to
build
a
6
000
foot
office
space.
It
will
be
34
feet
in
height
at
its
highest
point.
M
We
are
going
to
add,
I
think,
to
the
overall
side
about
42
parking
stalls.
Don't
we're
very
conscious
that
we
don't
want
parking
to
screw
onto
the
street,
we'll
actually
end
up
with
better
parking
than
we
have
now
now.
One
of
the
reasons
this
site
has
worked
out
so
well,
for
this
company
is
the
rail
access
that
it
has
to
the
west
end
of
the
property,
as
they
sell
various
hardwoods
to
different
companies
within
the
city.
M
That
has
been
a
real
benefit,
plus
the
location,
the
ability
for
customers
to
find
them
and
for
them
to
be
able
to
get
the
customers.
So,
at
any
rate,
I'm
glad
to
answer
any
questions
you
might
have.
As
far
as
the
request
for
the
zoning,
that's
what
was
recommended
to
us
by
stamp
and
that's
that
we're
just
doing
the
best
we
can
with
that.
We
would
like
to
be
able
to
add
on
to
the
site
and
be
able
to
get
the
office
space
that
we
need.
B
N
N
Oh
very
fancy.
I
appreciate
that
so
I
wanted
to
start
by
saying
thank
you
guys
for
your
time
and
thank
you
for
bothering
to
engage
the
community
in
this
process.
I
know
it's
a
requirement,
but
not
everybody
does
it.
You
know
with
consideration
and
kindness
and
everybody
has
in
this
project
this
project.
N
I
appreciate
that
the
majority
of
the
intermountain
wood
property
is
already
zoned
for
general
commercial,
but
I
think
what
we
need
to
consider
particularly
important
to
the
residents
are
the
partials
that
they're
requesting
to
rezone
from
rmf
35
are
immediately
adjacent
to
the
streets
closest
to
the
single
family
homes
across
the
street.
But
at
the
same
time,
if
I
read
zoning
tables
correctly,
I
see
that
office
and
office
is
not
a
permitted
use
in
rmf
35.
N
I'm
sorry,
I
didn't
catch
the
name
of
the
commissioner
who
brought
this
up,
but
we're
concerned
that,
by
going
through
by
changing
the
zoning
and
going
through
the
design
review
process
that
we
could
get
a
building
up
to
90
feet
and
that's
happened
for
several
several
general
commercial
zones
in
ballpark
in
the
past
several
years,
particularly
you
know,
75
foot
all
apartment
buildings
seem
to
be
sprouting
up
in
our
neighborhood
regularly
and
we
don't
necessarily
feel
like
our
neighborhood
is
getting
the
infrastructure
that
would
be
needed
to
support
that
density.
N
N
So
what
was
proposed
during
the
meeting
and
what
david
gilner
and
also
councilmember
mano
were
discussing
during
the
meeting
was
a
development
agreement
to
limit
the
height
of
future
developments.
I
understand
the
property
owner
was
amenable
to
that.
However,
I
also
understand
that
this
rat
is
not
a
planning
commission
situation,
that
this
is
a
city
council
matter,
but
I
did
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
that
this
recommendation
is
in
the
staff
report
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
this
recommendation
also
went
by
you.
N
Tall
apartment
building
is
not
a
suitable
use
across
the
street
from
single
family
homes,
and
I
understand
that
the
company
has
plans
to
build
a
35
foot
tall
office
building
at
present
well
or
that's
the
stated
intent,
but
it
seems
to
be
coming
extremely
profitable
to
put
up
90
foot
tall
apartment
buildings
in
the
neighborhood,
so
we
would
really
love
for
that
height
limit
to
be
somehow
attached
to
the
property,
if
at
all
possible
through
the
course
of
this
rezoning.
L
G
B
A
D
Oh
david
and
and
the
applicant
and
following
up
on
brenda's
consternation,
I
share
it
in
that.
Whenever
we
look
at
a
new
zone,
it
really
is
what's
going
to
what
you
could
do
and
and
so
there
are
multiple
things
that
you
could
do-
that
I
have
a
problem
with
one
would
be
height,
but
the
other
one
would
be
how
that
it
that
you
know
you
don't
have
a
parking
lot
in
front
that
it
actually
complements
your
surrounding
not
withstanding.
Oakland
oakland
is
not
a
good
example
of
what
fits
in
that
neighborhood.
D
It
really
doesn't
interact
well,
and
it
wasn't
designed
to
do
that.
So
you
know
I'm
worried
about
how
your
office
building
would
look
and
function
with
that
interaction
to
the
street,
that
there
would
wouldn't
be
a
parking
lot
in
front
that
it
would
kind
of
have
a
feel
that
fits,
and
you
know
that
I
worry
that
if
we
support
or
if
I
support
a
rezone,
that
you
know,
then
you
you
can
do
all
the
things
that
you
want
to.
D
Do
I'm
not
against
you
expanding
your
business,
but
I
don't
necessarily
think
that
what
could
happen
under
a
cg
zone
is
beneficial
or
appropriate
for
that
area
of
west
temple
and
and
oakland
is
not
one
that
I
would
look
at
of
wanting
to
duplicate.
So
I'm
still
struggling
with
that-
and
I
don't
know
david
if
you
have
some
comments
to
that
or
the
applicant
has
some
comments:
yeah,
that's
where
I'm
at.
M
M
The
majority
of
the
parking
would
be
to
the
west
side
of
the
building
that
I
think
we're
trying
to
be
conscious
of
that
as
well,
that
the
majority
of
the
site
would
either
have
the
building
or
landscaping
as
far
as
the
building
height,
we
have
no
intention
to
do
anything
different.
This
is
a
very
profitable
business.
It's
a
business
that
needs
to
have
access
to
the
railroad.
M
There
is
no
intent
in
trying
to
change
it
to
some
kind
of
a
residential
application,
as
was
mentioned
in
our
neighborhood
meeting,
we're
more
than
happy
to
enter
into
a
development
agreement
with
the
city
council
to
limit
the
height.
I
think
if
it
is
a
I'm,
not
sure
whether
they're
doing
a
chicken
and
egg
thing
here,
but
even
the
site
plan
or
a
concept
plan
of
recycling,
I
think
we'd
be
glad
to
enter
into
a
development
agreement
with
that
as
well.
M
Now
we're
not
trying
to
do
anything
different
than
what
we
are
proposing
and
I
I
understand
the
distrust
that's
out
there.
These
days
is
part
of
the
times
we
live
in,
but
we
just
would
like
to
do
what
we
want
to
do
and
we
we
are
going.
We
are
not
planning
on
building
the
smaller
structures
and
the
34
feet.
C
A
So
I
have
a
question
for
david.
What
other
zoning
is
there?
Is
there
not
another
zone
that
would
provide
these
gentlemen
with
what
they
need,
without
opening
it
up
to
all
kinds
of
other
possibilities.
L
L
As
far
as
maybe
setback
separation,
it's
still
depending
where
that
office
is
situated
exactly
on
the
parcel,
it
could
have
different
setbacks
on
different
part
of
that
property.
So,
when
we're
trying
to
eliminate
a
split
zone,
parcel
typically
we're
trying
to
get
it
uniformed
and
not
kind
of
just
shift
the
problem
of
split
zoning
to
a
lesser
version
of
the
problem
that
already
exists.
A
A
I
am
concerned
that
it
could
have
far
more
of
a
warehouse
feel
to
it
and
that
would
definitely
not
be
appropriate
on
what
is
a
really
a
breast
family
residential
street
for
the
most
part,
so
not
notwithstanding
the
very
lovely
but
kind
of
overwhelming
oakland
building
to
the
south.
A
So
okay
is
there
and
I
guess
the
question
is:
is
there
anything
that
we
can
say
in
our
motion
to
the
effect
that
we
recommend
a
well?
Can
we
say
in
our
motion
that
we
recommend
a
that
the
city
council
develop
a
developer
agreement
with
the
applicant.
E
This
is
nick,
I
you
know,
I
think
you
can
make
whatever
emotion
you
feel
is
appropriate
and
if
that
includes
recommending
the
council
in
our
development
agreement
to
address
some
of
the
issues
you've
talked
about,
then
you
know
how
the
council
feels
about.
That
is
up
to
the
council.
Yes,
of
course,
but
the
planning,
but
funny
christian.
I
mean
you're
you're
part
of
your
task
and
your
duty
is
to
identify
and
come
up
with
recommendations
on
master
plan
and
land
use
regulations.
E
And
so,
if,
if
you
identify
issues
and
concerns,
then
you
should
express
what
those
are
and
if
you
don't
feel
like
there's
a
way
to
overcome
those,
then
you
should
probably
consider
recommending
denial
of
a
proposal.
But
if
you
think
there
is
a
way
that
you
could
get
that
that
you
can
make
something
happen,
then
it's
okay
to
to
add
those
elements
to
whatever.
Whatever
motion
a
commissioner
chooses
to
make,
I.
E
That
this
particular
application
is
identifying.
One
of
the
issues
that
we
have
with
our
zoning
code
in
general
is
that
it
doesn't
allow
these
medium
scale
types
of
uses
we
run
into
it
in
the
rmf
zones
with
density
and
we've
had
people
apply
for
rme
zones
to
get
around
those
density
limitations
and
they
end
up
with
development
agreements.
E
Saying
don't
do
the
commercial?
No
commercial
uses
that's
residential
only,
and
this
is
the
opposite
of
that
we're
having
a
situation
where
we
just
do
not
have
zoning
districts
that
allow
for
those
medium
scale,
office,
buildings,
those
things
that
are
between
30
and
45
feet,
and
you
know,
or
even
60
feet
I
think,
is
actually
more
realistic.
So
you
know
just
something
to
think
about,
as
we
hopefully
down
the
road
start
talking
more
about
some
zoning
changes
and
zoning
reform.
A
G
So
r,
but
that
allows
for
even
taller
buildings,
yeah,
okay,
so
that's
everyone
say
that
would
be
an
ideal.
I
would
suggest
that
we
do
recommend
that
the
rezoning
be
conditioned
upon
the
execution
of
a
development
agreement.
That's
negotiated
between
the
city
council,
the
applicant
to
address
building
height
and
the
specific
development
components
for
the
site.
I
would
also
suggest
that
we
say
that
the
parcels
should
be
consolidated,
because
the
justification
and
reasoning
behind
the
request
is
to
expand
the
campus.
G
A
I
I
tend
to
agree
with
that.
Anybody
have
any
strong
objections
to
that
kind
of
con
consensus
here.
M
A
All
right,
thank
you
very
much
for
that.
Okay,
so
adrian,
would
you
got
to
go
ahead
and
make
a
an
a
motion?
Please.
G
Sure,
based
on
the
findings
and
analysis
in
the
staff
report,
testimony
and
discussion
at
the
public
hearing,
I
mean
that
the
planning
commission
recommend
that
the
city
council
forward
a
positive
recommendation
to
the
city
council
for
the
proposed
master
plan
and
zoning
map
amendment
for
the
properties
located
at
1948
and
1950
southwest
temple,
as
requested
through
the
following
applications
and
with
the
following
recommended
changes.
C
A
D
H
A
A
On
to
item
number,
five
called
the
ward
over
height
fence
appeal.
A
I
We
can
hear
you.
Okay,
all
right
is
everyone
able
to
view
the
screen?
Yes,
we
could
see
it
wonderful.
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair.
As
you
said,
this
is
an
appeal
of
a
staff
level
decision.
It
was
a
denial
of
a
special
exception
request
for
an
overhyped
fence
at
179,
west
paxton
avenue,
the
requested
fence
has
been
partially
built.
I
The
applicant
is
asking
for
an
eight
foot,
tall
fence
in
the
side
and
rear
yards
and
then
a
five
foot,
seven
inch
fence
in
the
front
side
yard
and
then
a
four
foot
tall
fence
along
the
front
property
line.
I
This
is
located
in
the
rmf
35
residential
zoning
district,
and
this
is
a
graphic
representation
of
the
height
request
that
the
homeowner
is
making
without
fence.
The
orange
line
is
the
eight
foot
tall
fence
area.
There
is
a
eight
foot
tall
gate
at
the
rear
of
the
property
that
connects
to
the
detached
garage.
I
So
per
the
zoning
ordinance
for
residential
districts,
a
height
of
six
feet
is
allowed
for
fences
in
the
side
and
their
property
lines.
As
you
can
see
here,
the
applicant
is
requesting
eight
feet
in
the
front
yard
area.
The
area
that's
denoted
as
the
space
between
the
front
plane
of
the
home
and
the
front
property
line.
I
I
With
somebody
else
speaking
or
should
I
go?
No,
no,
please
go
ahead,
caitlyn,
okay,
all
right!
Sorry
about
that,
and
then
this
is
a
view
of
the
rear
of
the
property
showing
the
eight
foot
tall
gate
and
the
eight
foot
tall
fence
and
the
rear
yards
again,
where
a
maximum
height
of
six
feet
is
allowed.
I
For
the
special
exception
standards,
I've
outlined
them
in
a
little
bit
more
detail
in
your
staff
reports
and
then
the
brevity
say
just
boil
them
down
to
kind
of
the
the
meat
of
the
idea.
I
So
those
are
the
compliance
with
zoning
ordinance
and
district
purposes,
no
impairments,
property
values,
no
undue
adverse
impact
on
character,
public
health,
safety
and
welfare
that
would
need
to
be
compatible
with
the
surrounding
development,
not
destruct
significant
features
and
not
contribute
material
amounts
of
condition
to
the
area.
I
I
If
they
are
asking
for
additional
height
for
a
fence
and
around
the
corner,
lots,
then
additional
height
may
be
given,
but
the
homeowner's
property
has
an
interior
lot,
they're,
also
not
requesting
the
incorporation
of
any
ornamental
features
and
subject.
Property
is
not
a
school
or
another
approved
recreational
use
which
would
allow
for
additional
fence
heights.
I
The
applicants
states
that
there
are
negative
effects
from
the
surrounding
neighborhood
with
regard
to
noise,
light
and
privacy
on
the
site,
which
is
why
the
applicant
states
they
do
meet
these
standards.
However,
staff
has
made
the
finding
that
an
eight
foot
tall
fence
would
not
provide
any
more
benefit
than
a
six
foot.
Tall
fence
would
and
again
keeping
within
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
staff
is
me
finding
that
this
is
not,
including
with
the
character
of
the
surrounding
developments.
I
I
For
the
public
process,
we
have
sent
out
a
public
hearing
notice
as
part
of
the
original
special
exception
application.
The
blm
pcm
2021.
I
I
We
have
also
received
two
public
comments,
one
in
favor
and
again
one
opposed
both
of
those
have
been
uploaded
to
the
dropbox,
and
that
is
everything
that
I
have
for
you
this
evening.
You
do
have
the
homeowner
and
his
counsel
on
the
line.
If
you
have
any
questions
for
them
or
any
questions
from
me,
we
are
happy
to
hear
those.
A
B
It
just
I
could,
if
I
could
interrupt
you.
Sorry,
there's
there's
two
applicants
and
it
looks
like
with
jeremiah
taylor
and
you
look
like
you're
coming
in
clear
and
that's
good.
B
O
Thank
you,
I'm
jeremiah
taylor,
I'm
mr
awards
attorney
and
really
this
special
exception
request
boils
down
to
the
circumstance
of
referencing
the
ordinance
that
talks
about
negative
impact
due
to
light
encroachments
on
privacy,
safety,
security
and
other
aesthetics
noise.
O
So
the
special
exception
ordinance
allows
what
it
calls
additional
height
fences
when
the
property
is
when
it
is
determined
that
a
negative
impact
occurs
as
against
the
property.
For
these
reasons,
these
security,
these
privacy,
these
safety
reasons
and
the
ordinance
also
mentions
the
standard
that
the
fences
in
keeping
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
O
So
really
this
appeal
and-
and
this
issue
boils
down
to
this
balancing
of
mr
ward's
right
to
protect
his
property
and
reduce
the
negative
impact
from
security
and
safety
issues
and
balance
that,
with
keeping
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
urban
design
of
the
city.
O
So
the
first
relevant
question
for
the
commission
is
whether
mr
ward's
property
experiences
a
negative
impact
relative
to
safety
and
security,
and
in
answering
this
question,
it's
important
to
note
that
mr
ward's
property
is
situated
differently
than
any
of
the
neighboring
properties,
because
both
the
front
and
the
back
of
his
house
and,
most
importantly,
the
back
of
his
house.
There
are
exposed
to
negative
impacts
that
we
address
in
our
appeal
and
also
that
I
will
address
here
and
am
I
able
to
present
to
my
screen.
O
Okay,
so
you
can
see
here
the.
O
O
Okay,
so
these
are
just
images
that
show
that
the
back
and
the
front
of
mr
ward's
property
are
exposed
to
the
goings
and
comings
of
both
the
trains
on
the
tracks,
as
well
as
pedestrians
that
exit
the
tracks
I'm
going
to
scroll
down
here.
Can
you
see
me
scrolling
the
images.
O
O
If
I
scroll
down
further
here's
a
an
image
from
the
street
view
toward
mr
ward,
the
back
of
mr
ward's
property
and
then
off
in
the
distance.
Here
you
can
see
a
train
that
is
the
ballpark
track
station.
So
you
can
see
the
alley
on
the
left
with
the
puddles.
That's
the
alley
where
mr
ward's
property
is
and
then
you
can
see
how
close
the
the
track
station
is.
O
O
So,
first
of
all,
the
tracks
are
elevated,
so
people
on
the
trains
can
see
into
mr
ward's
backyard
if
there
is
only
a
six
foot
fence
and
people
disembarking
from
the
trains
homeless,
people
others
who
frequently
pass
by
the
alley.
We've
submitted
evidence
of
loitering
people
doing
drugs,
people
vandalizing
even
defecating
in
the
alley.
We've
even
provided
photographic
evidence
of
each
of
these
things
and
the
additional
height
helps
shield
mr
ward's
backyard
from
the
noise,
the
views
and
the
shenanigans
of
these
individuals.
O
We
have
also
provided
evidence
to
missouri's
property
and
the
surrounding
areas.
The
frequent
subject
of
theft
and
vandalism.
We
provided,
for
example,
in
our
appeal.
I
won't
show
it
now
for
the
interest
of
time,
but
two
men,
stealing
a
generator
evidence
of
two
instances
of
people
stealing
packages.
After
mr
off
of
mr
ward's
front
porch
evidence
of
a
homeless
lady
who
caught
a
chain-link
fence
to
gain
access
into
mr
ward's
neighbor's
side
yard.
O
Okay,
I
can
scroll
down
one
neighbor
said
quote:
I've
had
had
people
walk
into
my
backyard
and
then
run
away
after
they
find
me
there.
Someone
once
stole
a
bicycle
from
my
backyard
that
returned
it
and
stole
a
hula
hoop
right
in
front
of
me.
Someone
has
tried
to
break
into
the
house
tearing
open
a
screen
and
trying
to
wedge
open
a
window.
While
I
was
home,
I've
had
someone
break
padlocks
off
shed
doors.
O
O
O
And,
as
you
can
see,
mr
ward
stores,
his
truck
and
his
vehicle
right
behind
the
fence,
we're
talking
about
before
this
fence
was
up
when
there
was
only
a
six
foot
fence,
someone
broke
into
his
backyard
broke
into
this.
This
truck
and
stole
a
firearm
and
mr
ward
filed
a
police
report
which
we
referenced
in
our
appeal.
C
O
O
Even
in
this
hearing,
it
has
been
mentioned
that
that
there
were
four
homicides
last
year
in
the
ballpark
area.
This
is
that
area
the
track
station.
A
few
hundred
feet
from
mr
ward's
property
is
the
ballpark
track
station
for
homicides.
That's
been
mentioned
in
this
very
today
in
these
public
hearings.
O
Also,
a
lack
of
public
safety
in
the
ballpark
area,
also
low
to
no
pedestrian
lighting.
In
some
of
the
areas
surrounding
mr
ward's
property.
These
have
all
been
referenced.
Today,
commission,
I
submit
based
on
this
evidence,
which
again
is
only
a
sampling
of
what
happens
in
this
area.
Mr
ward's
property
is
certainly
the
subject
of
negative
impacts
relating
to
security,
safety
and
privacy,
and
the
additional
height
helps
dissuade
people
passing
by
from
viewing
mr
ward's
yard
accessing
his
backyard
accessing
his
vehicles
and
his
other
property
store
back
there.
O
The
very
existence
of
this
special
exception
to
allow
additional
height
for
safety
and
privacy
purposes.
The
very
existence
of
this
ordinance
shows
that
additional
hype
does
help
dissuade
these
types
of
negative
impacts,
lessen
them
and
dissuade
people
from
imposing
them
upon
mr
ward's
property,
so
that
standard
of
the
special
exception
ordinance
has
been
met.
O
Okay,
I'll
wrap
it
up
quickly.
I
was
going
to
play
for
you,
a
recording,
which
I
won't
do
of
the
train
tracks
going
by
it's
very
loud,
and
the
fence,
especially
the
additional
two
height
of
two
feet
of
height
of
the
fence,
helps
lessen
that
noise
now
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
I
have
to
touch
on
this
because
this
is
the
main
thing
that
staff
is
recommending
a
denial
of
this
appeal,
the
character
of
this
neighborhood.
O
I
won't
pull
it
up
for
the
interest
of
time,
but
if
you
look
at
exhibit
v,
it
shows
a
variety
of
types
of
properties,
varying
degrees
of
styles,
colors,
curb
appeal,
varying
types
of
fences,
fences
in
the
front
fences
on
the
side.
In
the
back,
I
think
it's
safe
to
say
that
there's
really
not
a
consistent
character
of
house
or
fence
in
this
neighborhood,
and
I
think
many
would
agree
that
mr
ward's
fence
looks
nice
and
actually
adds
to
and
benefits
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
O
O
If
this
negative
impact
applies,
so
if
there
were,
if
there
were
ever
a
reason
to
exercise
the
planning
commission's
authority
to
allow
a
heightened
fence,
I
would
submit
that
this
is
it,
and,
and
especially
in
the
back,
especially
in
the
back
with
the
with
the
eight
foot
gate
and
the
eight
foot
fence
that
blocks
people
passing
by
the
alley.
Also
in
the
front
where
he
has
the
eight
foot
gate
in
the
front
that
prevents
people
from
accessing
the
side
of
his
house
and
therefore
the
back
of
his
yard.
O
I
do
have
to
say
I
know
I'm
out
of
time,
but
I
do
have
to
say
that
there
there
is
an
area
where
mr
ward
is
willing
to
concede,
and
that
is
the
side
of
the
fence
that
borders
the
neighbor's
property.
It
seems
to
me,
like
one
of
staff's
main
reasons
for
denying
this
was
that
the
neighbor
next
door
was
concerned
about
the
height,
in
that
it
blocked
the
view
of
the
tenants
of
the
four
plex.
O
A
Thank
you,
mr
taylor.
Thank
you.
Okay,
let
us
go
ahead
and
move
and
ask
the
commissioners
if
they
have
any
questions
at
this
time,
for
the
planner
and
staff
or
for
the
applicant.
N
Actually,
I
didn't
I
was
curious
to
I
was
pardon
me.
I
was
curious
to
hear
the
discussion
points,
because
I
know
that
this
applicant
is
not
the
only
person
in
the
neighborhood
who's
applied
for,
or
at
least
expressed,
a
desire
for
an
above
height
fence
before
due
to
some
of
the
public
safety
concerns
that
have
been
brought
up.
I've.
It's
been
a
an
interesting
discussion.
I
look
forward
to
hearing
more
frankly.
B
O
So
I'm
someone
who
actually
lives
in
this
neighborhood,
probably
about
two
blocks
from
mr
ward's
home.
I
have
experienced
some
of
the
negative
effects
that
we
continually
hear
about
so
personally,
looking
around
this
neighborhood,
it
is
very
different.
You
have
quite
very
nice
places
and
not
so
nice
looking
places,
and
so,
in
my
opinion,
I
I
don't
think
his
eight
foot
fence
looks
bad.
I
saw
it
put
in
it.
It
looks
very
nice
and
I
can
understand
his
concerns
and
I
don't
think
that
there
should
be
a
problem
with
it
personally.
B
We
can
move
on,
it
looks
like
we
have
one
more
paul
garcia.
You
have
two
minutes
if
you'd
like
to
share
your
thoughts.
P
Hello
there
thank
you
for
considering
this
motion
and
thank
you
for
sharing
the
process.
With
myself.
I
am
mr
ward's
neighbor.
I
live
across
the
street
from
him.
You
can
see
my
house
in
one
of
the
photos.
I
would
strongly
urge
you
to
consider
mr
ward's
appeal
and
consider
his
his
request
to
lower
the
side
fence.
I've
also
experienced
quite
a
substantial
amount
of
vandalism.
I've
had
my
fence
cut.
P
So
this
is
a
pretty
serious
issue
outside
of
aesthetics,
and
if
you
do
look
at
some
of
the
neighboring
fences,
they
are
in
disrepair
and
that
actually
impacts
the
neighborhood
poorly.
It
looks
like
owners
here,
don't
care.
It
looks
like
residents
here
are
neglectful
and
it
makes
us
look
like
easy
targets
for
continued
vandalism.
P
I've
I
had
my
camera
on.
I
could
show
you
the
hole
in
my
fence
that
was
cut,
but
yes,
especially
given
that
situation
housing
prices
tax
is
going
up,
which
we
completely
understand.
Oh
here's,
the
tracks
going
by
you
can
hear
that
right
there.
I
would
strongly
urge
you
to
consider
his
request
and
I
thank
you
for
your
time.
A
Question
solutions
to
speak.
I.
A
A
G
I'm
curious
how
others
are
viewing
this
and
what
is
the
view
of
the
commission
on
this
particular
application
or
appeal?
I
should
say
I
mean
I'm
completely
sympathetic
with
the
landowner
here.
I
think
it's
a
unique
set
of
circumstances
that
he's
dealing
with
and
can
understand.
A
Actually,
that's
my
concern
too.
I
do
think
that
the
special
exception
implies
a
unique
situation
rather
than
I'm
just
afraid
of
the
things
going
on
around
my
neighborhood
there's
a
lot
of
bad
stuff
going
on
in
my
neighborhood
is
I
mean
that
would
mean
that
the
entire
ballpark
neighborhood
would
have
an
eight-foot
fence
and
I'm
not
in
favor
of
that
happening,
because
I
think
actually,
researchers
have
shown
that
that
kind
of
walling
off
actually
makes
it
worse,
makes
crime
less
visible
to
people
and
who
are
in
their
homes.
A
Unfortunately,
I
see
that
if,
if,
if
that's
the
case
with
this
person
and
this
side,
it's
also
the
case
with
20
or
30
others
up
and
down
very
near
there
up
and
down
that
alley
and
around
the
corner
and
so
forth.
So
then
we
get
into
the
situation
which
is
really
unsafe,
which
is
to
have
a
lot
of
fences
around
the
neighborhood.
So
that's
sort
of
where
my
preference
would
be
to.
A
Maybe
split
the
difference
as
the
applicant
was
suggesting,
by
having
the
fence
fight
allowed,
to
go
up
to
eight
feet
behind
the
wall
of
the
apartment
next
door,
but
otherwise
to
have
it
be
as
allowed
by
code.
G
Yeah-
and
I
I
agree
with
brenda-
I
mean
I,
I
totally
get
the
falling
off
parts
of
the
city-
don't
create
safer
places
for
anyone,
but
I
I
do
also
understand
and
am
empathetic
with
the
issues
that
the
landowner's
facing.
So
I
would
support
the
split
the
difference
approach
as
well.
I
don't
know
how
others
feel.
J
I
don't
know
that
I'm
seeing
a
particular
set
of
circumstances
where
we
should
make
an
exception
here,
because
exactly
what
you,
what
brenda
just
said,
then
we're
making
exceptions
to
30
houses,
40
houses
and
that
I
do
not
feel
okay
about.
So,
if
we're
not
going
to
do
that,
then
I
don't
want
to
make
an
exception
even
on
this
one.
That's
my
gut,
but
you
know
I'd
like
to
hear
what
everyone
else
has
to
say.
D
So
I'm
I'm
kind
of
in
line
with
sarah,
I
think
back
on
the
I
mean
this
is
my
third
year
on
the
planning
commission
and
I
think,
back
on
the
handful
of
special
exception
requests
for
overhead
fences
that
we've
had
and
they've
all
made
very
similar,
similar
cases
and
felt
that
you
know
they
were
unsafe,
all
that
same
stuff.
So
at
some
level
I
do
worry
that
where
does
it
stop
and
when
will
eight
feet
not
be
tall
enough?
When
will
it
be
ten
feet
and
where
does
where?
D
Where
do
those
special
exceptions
end
and
is
this
particular
site
any
more
unique
than
the
other
requests
we
received
in
my
tenure
that
were
basically
laying
out
public
safety
issues
in
front
of
us
as
well.
A
A
D
They
all
come
to
us
with.
We
are
special.
We
have
these.
You
know
public
nuisances,
public
safety
issues,
and
I
don't
know
that
where,
where
is
one
actually
really
special,
and
where
is
one
that,
like
okay,
we're
all,
we
all
have
some
of
those
similar
problems?
D
H
I
mean
I,
I
agree
with
a
lot
of
the
planning
issues
of
walling
people
out
it.
It
definitely
is
an
issue
when
people
jump
the
fence,
what's
going
to
stop
them
from
jumping
an
8
foot
fence
versus
a
6
foot
fence,
if
they're
gonna
be
able
to
jump
one,
they
can
probably
jump
another
eyes
on
the
street
is
really
a
way
to
keep
people
in
check,
and
I
agree,
I
think
it's
difficult
like
that.
I
have
empathy,
but
it's
it's
hard.
A
J
A
Thank
you.
I
have
a
motion
from
sarah
and
a
second
from
maureen,
so
maureen,
yes,
amy.
D
A
C
G
A
So
the
vote
is
four
to
one,
and
so
the
upholding
of
the
denial
is
passed.
Thank
you
very
much.
Everyone
is
there
anyone
else
who
has
any
other
business
with
planning
commission?