►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting - August 25, 2021
Description
Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting - August 25, 2021
https://www.slc.gov/planning/
https://www.slc.gov/planning/planning-commission-agendas-minutes/
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Thank
you
and
sarah,
yes,
okay,
that
motion
passes
unanimously.
Thank
you.
All
the
next
step
would
be
the
report
of
the
chair
and
the
vice
chair
and
since
friend
is
not
here,
and
I
have
nothing
we
can
just
move
along
to
the
report
of
the
director
nick.
F
Thank
you.
The
only
thing
that
I
have
to
report
on
is
the
status
of
the
proposal
to
remove
special
exceptions
from
the
zoning
code.
The
city
council
held
a
public
hearing
last
week
and
received
a
few
comments
about
outdoor
dining
when
it's
next
to
residential
uses,
and
so
they've
asked
us
to
provide
some
options
to
help
further
buffer
those
compared
to
what
was
in
the
proposal.
So
we're
working
on
that.
Hopefully
those
will
be
back
on
their
agenda
as
soon
as
possible,
and
that
is
it.
F
Oh
yes,
sorry
there
was
a
the
planning
commission
approved
a
planned
development
on
2700
south
back
in
june
early
june.
That
decision
was
appealed
last
thursday
or
wednesday,
or
I
don't
know
within
the
last
two
weeks.
F
The
hearing
officer
heard
that
appeal
and
issued
a
decision
to
uphold
the
planning
commission's
approval
of
that
project.
A
Moving
on
moving
up
okay!
Well
with
that,
we
will
begin
the
public
or
the
agenda
portion.
Our
first
item
up,
my
dropbox
is
a
little
out
of
order.
So
one
moment
there
we
go.
A
Okay,
so
our
first
one
up
is:
we
have
a
conditional
use
for
the
church,
the
samoan
independent
seventh
day,
adventist
church.1612
1624,
south
10th,
west
pln
pcm,
2021,
002
64
and
the
planner
is
amy
thompson.
G
Hi
good
evening,
I'm
just
waiting
for
presenter
power,
so
I
can
share
my
screen.
Oh
there
we
go.
G
This
is
a
conditional
use
proposal
submitted
by
jeffrey
gardner,
he's
the
architect
representing
the
property
owner,
the
samoan,
independent
seventh-day
adventist
church,
and
they
are
requesting
conditional
use
approval
for
a
new
church
building
to
be
located
at
16
12
to
16
24
south
1000
west
conditional
church
is
a
conditional
use
in
the
rmf
35
zone.
So
that's
the
reason
that
the
proposals
before
the
commission
this
evening
and
staff
is
recommending
approval
of
the
proposed
condition
conditional
use.
G
The
new
church
building
includes
a
multifunctional
gym
space,
which
will
double
as
a
chapel
and
sanctuary
space.
The
project
also
includes
two
classrooms
and
a
kitchen
and
support
spaces:
surface
parking
provided
for
the
project
on
the
north
of
the
site
and
the
project.
The
design
of
the
project
meets
all
the
zoning
regulations
and
those
are
outlined
in
attachment
d
of
the
staff
report.
G
The
project
site
is
currently
two
separate
parcels
and
these
parcels
will
need
to
be
consolidated
to
meet
the
lot
width
requirements
for
this
use
in
the
rmf
35
zone.
The
applicants
have
submitted
a
lot
consolidation
application,
and
this
requirement
was
noted
in
the
next
steps
portion
of
the
staff
report
and
then
just
a
quick
note.
On
the
background
of
the
proposal,
the
planning
commission
did
grant
conditional
use
approval
for
the
simone
independent
seventh-day
adventist
church
at
the
same
location
in
august
of
2018..
G
The
previous
proposal
was
the
same
as
the
new
proposal.
Apart
from
the
design
of
the
new
building,
you
can
see
the
rendering
on
the
bottom
portion
of
the
screen
there.
That
was
the
previous
design
that
was
proposed
and
the
church
that
formerly
existed
on
the
site
that
photo
shown
on
the
top
there.
That
was
demolished
in
2018,
but
I
just
wanted
to
have
those
on
there
as
a
reference
conditional
use.
G
These
photos
are,
these:
are
some
photos
of
the
site,
the
top
one
is
the
existing
site
view
looking
west
from
1000
west.
The
bottom
picture
is
the
development
across
the
street
directly
across
the
street,
from
the
proposal
and
standing
on
1000
west,
and
that's
the
development
to
the
north
side
of
the
proposal
that
building
that
you
can
see
on
the
left
there
in
the
picture
is
also
a
church
and
then
on
the
bottom.
G
You
can
see
the
development
to
the
south
of
the
subject
property-
and
this
is
the
slide,
outlines
the
public
process
we
sent
out
notice
to
the
recognized
organization.
A
All
right,
so
I,
the
applicant
jeffrey
gardner,
is
here,
mr
gardner,
do
you
have
a
presentation
you
want
to
go.
D
I
I
don't
have
a
further
presentation
other
than
what's
shown
really
that
you've.
H
D
A
Okay,
then,
commissioner,
is
any
questions
for
mr
gardner.
Okay,
with
that,
I
will
open
the
public
hearing
nick.
Do
you
see
anyone
in
attendance
from
the
community
council.
F
I
don't
see
any
names
that
I
recognize,
but
I'm
not
exactly
sure
which
community
council
this
is
amy.
Do
you
know
the
top
of
your
head.
G
Not
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
just
one
second,
I
do
know
that
we
didn't
get
any
response
from
the
community
council
when
I
sent
it
out.
But
let
me
look
who
the
chair
is.
A
Let
me
just
give
a
brief
outline
to
the
public
if
there
isn't.
If
this
is
an
item,
you
wish
to
speak
in
the
bottom
right
hand,
corner
you'll
see
a
hand.
It
looks
like
this
if
you'll
click
that
you'll
be
raising
your
hand,
and
that
will
let
us
know
that
you
do
wish
to
speak.
Please
only
use
that
on
the
topic
that
you
do
want
to
speak
on,
that
might
help
identify
if
there's
anyone
here.
That
wishes
to
give
some
comments
so.
G
F
I
do
not
see
turner
in
attendance,
I
do
not
see
any
hands
raised.
A
And
nick,
do
you
also
want
to
give
the
email
that
people
can
email?
You
comments
that
you're
monitoring
tonight.
F
F
And
if
you're
looking
for
the
hand
again
it's
in
the
it's,
it's
should
be
at
the
bottom
right
hand,
side
of
your
screen
on
most
people's
screens.
It's
a
really
really
small
hand.
So
if
you
see
it-
and
you
want
to
speak
click
on
that,
but
I
am
not
seeing
any
hands
coming
up
and
I
john,
I
don't
believe,
we've
had
any
emails
requesting
to
speak
on
this.
Have
we
we
have
not
received
anything.
A
I
Madam
vice
chair,
I
will
entertain
a
motion
for
you.
Thank
you
carolyn
all
right.
Now,
let's
do
it.
This
is
for
the
church.
Slash
place
of
worship
at
1612-1624,
south
1000
west
conditional
use,
petition
number
is
p:
l,
n,
p
c
m
20
21
0
zero.
Two
six
four.
I
Sorry
keep
going
okay
and
that's
the
planning
staff
finds
that
the
project
generally
meets
the
apple
cult
standards
of
approval
and
therefore
recommends
the
planning
commission
approve
the
conditional
use
for
the
proposed
church,
slash
place
of
worship
and,
like
I
said,
the
petition
is
p:
l,
n,
p
c
m
twenty
twenty
one:
zero
zero.
Two
two
six
four.
D
D
Made
and
the
reasons
for
the
motion
generally,
that's
I
move
to
approve
this
based
on
okay,.
I
A
That's
sarah,
okay.
Okay.
I
have
a
motion
from
carolyn
and
a
second
from
sarah
we'll
go
down
the
list.
Maureen.
Yes,
adrian.
A
Yes,
you're
right,
thank
you.
Carolyn.
I
A
J
A
A
A
A
I'm
questioning
are
these
petition
numbers
2020
correct,
or
should
they
be
20
21.
K
No
that's
correct.
Okay,.
K
Okay
can.
D
K
Okay,
perfect!
Thank
you
all
right.
So
this
is
a
special
exception
request
from
michael
and
sue
workman,
the
property
owners
of
2589
east
village
circle.
They
are
requesting
approval
for
a
rear
yard
fence
that
exceeds
six
feet
in
height.
The
combined
height
of
the
fence
and
proposed
retaining
wall
would
measure
seven
and
a
half
feet
from
grade
and
then
to
speak
to
your
question
about
the
petition
number.
K
They
did
apply
for
a
special
exception
in
august
of
2020
after
a
neighbor
submitted
a
complaint
about
a
fence
being
built
without
a
without
a
permit,
and
so
we've
been
working
with
applicants
since
then-
and
there's
been
a
couple
planners
on
the
on
the
project,
but
we
decided
to
bring
it
to
the
planning
commission
because
of
the
the
neighbor's
opposition
and
then
also
the
property
owner,
wanted
to
just
have
a
public
hearing
and
move
forward
from
here
after
being
told
to
be
denied
at
an
administrative
level.
K
K
D
K
So
this
slide
has
a
few
things.
So
there's
the
the
site
plan
on
the
left,
top
left
and
then
elevation
of
the
fence.
So.
A
Your
screen
is
not
forwarding,
so
we
just
see
your
your
initial
screen
still
well
that.
D
K
A
See
the
the
screen.
K
K
Yes,
okay,
okay,
perfect,
so
I'll,
just
quickly
repeat,
fences
are
allowed
up
to
four
feet
in
the
front
yard
of
a
property
and
then
six
feet
in
the
rear
and
side
yards,
and
the
planning,
commission
and
director
can
improve
taller
fencing
if
the
proposal
is
necessary
for
the
security
of
the
property
and
then
if
there
are
no
negative
effects
on
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
K
Okay,
so
here
is
the
cyclin,
so
the
applicant
is
has
already
built
the
fence
and,
like
I
mentioned,
there
was
a
civil
enforcement
case,
and
so
they
did
take
down
the
the
top
portion
of
the
fence.
But
the
special
exception
request
is
for
the
northern
48
feet
of
fence
height
and
there's
not
the
the
property
changes
grade,
and
so
a
special
exception
is
not
required
for
the
additional
62
feet
of
length.
K
The
bottom
photos
are
from
the
south
of
the
property
to
the
north,
and
you
can
see
the
first
two
are
the
existing
fence
that
measures
six
feet
from
finish
grade,
which
is
where
we
measure
fence
height
and
then
the
photos
in
red
correlate
to
the
site
plan,
and
that's
where
the
exception
is
being
requested.
K
So
so
I
took
some
photos
of
the
property.
The
applicant
has
stated
that
the
additional
fence
height
is
to
secure
the
property
and
also
provide
privacy
for
their
home,
as
well
as
the
neighbors
to
the
west.
K
You
can
see
the
property
to
the
west
in
the
left-hand
column
and
then
the
fence
when
I
was
standing
at
grade,
so
they
can
see
the
they're
uncomfortable
with
being
able
to
see
into
the
neighbors
windows,
and
they
also
don't
want
people
to
be
able
to
see
into
their
rear
windows.
So
the
two
photos
on
the
left
are
standing
on
top
of
the
steps
of
the
rear
yard
and
then
upgrade.
K
And
then
so
I
asked
permission
to
go
into
the
backyard
of
the
property
directly
west
of
them,
which
is
the
property
where
the
owner,
who
has
voice
opposition
at
1335,
south
wasage
drive.
I
did
the
same
thing.
I
stood
on
the
top
of
their
steps
and
took
photos
and
then
stood
at
grade.
The
top
left
photo.
K
That's
the
fence,
that's
six
feet
from
finish
grade
on
the
subject:
property,
it's
approximately
10
and
a
half
feet
from
the
grade
of
the
property
on
wasatch
drive
and
then
the
other
photo
below
it
is
standing
on
their
rear
steps,
and
you
can
see
that
you
know
the
windows
are
visible
about
half
of
them
and
the
other
two
photos
are
standing
at
grade,
and
so,
while
they
are
visible
from
from
the
steps,
if
the
height
is
increased,
it
will
block
the
full
house,
but
also
the
mountains,
and
that
is
the
concern
of
the
property
owners
to
the
west.
K
So
when
reviewing
the
proposal,
we
look
at
specific
special
exception
standards
for
additional
expense
height,
as
well
as
the
general
standards
for
special
exceptions
and
based
on
based
on
the
existing
fence
and
the
proposal.
It
doesn't
comply
with
five
of
the
eight
standards
which
are
listed
right
here,
as
well
as
in
the
staff
report,
and
then
it
doesn't
comply
with
seven
or
three
of
the
seven
general
special
exception
standards.
K
So,
in
regards
to
the
specific
standards,
the
fence
and
retaining
wall
are
not
transparent
and
there
are
no
ornamental
features
or
architecture.
Architectural
embellishments
proposed
the
overall
character
and
design
of
residential
neighborhood
is
for
fences
to
be
no
more
than
six
feet
tall
within
the
rear
yard.
K
Believe
it's
appropriate
to
permit
a
fence,
that'll
measure,
ten
and
a
half
feet
from
the
neighboring
property,
and
then
the
the
overall
proposed
height
is
not
compatible
in
in
residential
neighborhoods,
a
public
process.
It
did
start
in
october
2020,
so
the
petition
was
originally
signed
to
myra
when
she,
when
she
changed
her
position,
she
reassigned
it
to
chris
earle,
and
now
it's
been
assigned
to
me.
So
it's
it's
taken
a
while
and
that's
why
we
just
wanted
to
get
there
on
the
planning
commission
agenda,
so
they
can
move
forward
with
their
project.
K
K
A
Okay,
I
believe
the
applicant
is
your
representative,
michael
workman,.
D
A
H
H
Thank
you.
I
will
not
be
making
a
presentation,
but
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
I
just
have
a
few
things
to
touch
on
from
our
position.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
come,
firstly
and
and
meet
in
this
forum.
We
appreciate
that
it's
been
quite
a
long
process,
and
we,
this
is,
is
nothing
personal
with
our
neighbors
to
the
west,
they're,
very
nice
people
and
a
great
family.
So
this
has
nothing
more
to
do
than
with
primarily
our
privacy.
H
The
security
issue
we've
haven't
haven't
had
any
issues
to
arise
with
that,
it's
the.
If
you've
been
out
to
the
property,
the
pictures
I
I
feel
show
that
it's
more
at
a
distance
than
it
really
is
it's
looking
right
down
into
the
private
areas
of
their
home
and
they
into
the
private
areas
of
ours,
and
so
it's
it's
very
disconcerting
and
and
we
feel
the
need
to
have
our
window
coverings
in
the
private
areas
of
our
home
and
in
the
front
of
our
house.
H
We,
you
know,
would
have
our
window
coverings
up,
but
we'd
like
to
have
the
window
coverings
up
more
in
the
back
of
the
house,
but
it's
it's
really
close
proximity
and,
in
the
great
angle,
we're
looking
right
down
into
their
house
and
and
they
vice
versa
into
ours.
I
I
think
that,
in
terms
of
the
staff
report,
I
would
respectfully
disagree
with
with
the
section
21a
dot,
52.030
and
and
specifically
f
under
that
which
says
it's
keeping
within
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
urban
urban
design
of
the
city.
H
First,
a
quick
tangent,
the
the
staff
member
prior
to
amanda
chris
earle,
who
I'm
sure
all
of
you
know,
had
passed
away
unexpectedly
and
chris
had
encouraged
us
to
go
and
and
find
pictures
of
fences
and
examples
of
fences
where
the
height
exception
was
commonplace,
and
it's
very
difficult
to
do,
because
you're
asking
to
take
pictures
of
people's
property
without
permission
or
anyway,
it's
it's
a
very
uncomfortable
situation
to
start
snapping
pictures
of
people's
properties.
But
with
that
grade,
all
the
way
down.
H
All
the
way
down
at
least
10
or
more
blocks
to
2100,
south
and
beyond,
is
on
a
grade
where
it's
commonplace
for
the
the
retaining
wall
and
fence
combination
to
be
well
over
80,
and
so
that
the
downhill
neighbor
would
be
would
have
a
fence
at
grade
that
that
is
very
similar
to
what
we're
proposing
and
we
did
submit
some
pictures
of
fences
that
people
allowed
us
to
to
take
pictures
of,
and
one
was
eight
foot
ten
inches
and
but
we
staff
chose
not
to
use
those,
because
I
guess
she
couldn't
verify
whether
or
not
they
were
permitted,
and
I
we
do
feel
that
it
that
it
goes
within
the
character
of
that
neighborhood
because
of
the
grade.
H
So
in
her
rationale,
the
reason
that
f
doesn't
comply
is
is
that
we
can't
prove
that
those
fences
are
permitted.
However,
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
is
is
littered
with
them
as
far
away
south
and
then
east
up
into
the
foothills.
There's
many
many
many
examples
of
backyard
fences
where
the
downhill
neighbor
is
is
looking
at
a
fence.
H
That's
you
know
eight
feet
or
beyond,
so
I
I
respectfully
disagree
with
that
with
that
rationale,
and
that's
primarily
the
reason
if
the
from
the
pictures
that
you
can
see
that
staff
has
provided
that
height,
where,
where
the,
where
the
horizontal
boards
are
and
the
picture
in
the
top
left,
that
would
be
six
feet
from
grade.
So
that
would
be
if
we
were
denied
the
exception.
That
would
be
the
height
of
the
fence.
Essentially
there's
a
cap
on
there.
That
brings
it
up
to
six
feet.
H
I
also
would
say
that,
on
on
page
seven
staff
has
commented
that
we
would
that
we
have
either
voiced
or
documented
someplace
that
I
can't
find
that
we
would
immediately
appeal
a
denial
from
this
hearing.
That's
simply
not
true
we're
willing
to
accept
the
findings
of
the
commission
and
and
we're
willing
to
move
forward
in
whatever
way
you
all
see
fit.
H
So
I'm
not
sure
where
staff
has
that,
but
that's
not
something
that
that
my
wife
sue
or
I
expressed
that
we
would
do,
and
I
can't
find
it
anywhere
in
writing
that
I
said
that.
So,
if
I,
if
it
is
someplace,
then
then
I'm
I'm
telling
now
that
we
will
not
be
appealing
this
decision
and
and
that's
that's
my
presentation
or
position
today.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
workman.
I
would
just
like
to
state
that
appealing
a
decision
whether
you
do
or
not
is
entirely
you're
right
and
would
have
no
varying
on
our
decision
here
tonight.
So,
whatever
you
said
or
didn't,
say
you,
you
do
have
the
right
to
appeal
any
decision
we
make.
So
just
keep
that
in
mind.
A
A
If
you
are
having
trouble
with
any
of
the
technology
tonight,
you
can
send
an
email
directly
to
public
dot
comments,
wait.
What
is
it
planning
comments?
Nick.
A
Planning
at
slcgov.com
they're
being
monitored
as
we
speak.
We
can
get
that
on
the
public
record
as
well.
So
with
that
the
public
hearing
is
open
nick,
do
you
see
anyone
from
the
community
council?
First.
F
A
A
If
you
read
miss
worman,
if
you
would
state
your
name
for
the
public
record
and
you
will
have
two
minutes
sure.
L
It's
sue
workman
go
ahead.
Thank
you.
Actually,
I
appreciate
my
husband
speaking
agree
with
everything.
I
just
wanted
to
verify
too
that
the
three
boards
looking
at
the
photos
that
you
all
are
looking
at
right
now.
It
does
not
go
up
to
that
top
rail.
You
know,
there's
an
open
space
and
a
top
rail.
It's
not
the
end
of
the
height
of
the
fence.
It's
just
three
boards
worth
it's
about.
L
Half
that
height,
just
just
as
a
visual
for
people
to
know
that,
and
also
I
know,
amanda
started
the
the
call
by
saying
that
the
neighbors
complained
that
there
was
no
permit-
and
I
just
I
do
want
to
say
that
again,
these
are
neighbors
that
we
like
and
that
are
that
are
good
people
and
that
we
actually
planned
because
of
the
disrepair
our
original
fence
was
falling
over
for
years,
and
we
both
both
our
neighbors
and
ourselves,
planned
the
fence
together
that
we
were
building
this
fence
together
and
they
were
totally
on
board
with
it
it
and
it
only
came
until
after
the
fence
was
built
that
we
found
out
that
they
did
not
like
it.
L
This
was
always
supposed
to
be
something
that
was
mutually
beneficial
as
far
as
our
privacy
and
that
we,
you
know,
took
out
all
kinds
of
trees
and
everything
so
that
we
could
increase
the
light
and
still
have
a
privacy
fence.
So
it
was
a
little
bit
of
a
surprise
for
us
to
even
find
out
that
they
they
didn't
like
it.
To
be
honest,
so
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
throw
that
out
there
that
this
was
something
that
that
we
didn't
just
do
without
talking
to
our
neighbors.
L
Originally.
This
was
nothing
that
we
just
threw
up
without
their
consent,
and
then
I
you
know
this
is
just
kind
of
a
surprise
to
us
as
well,
so
just
want
to
throw
that
out.
There.
A
F
Let's
see,
I
am
not
seeing
any
other
hands,
so
if
you
don't
mind
clicking
on
that
hand
again
it
unraises
it.
So
then
we
know
that
you're
there
you
go
perfect.
Thank
you
so
much.
I
do
not
see
any
other
hands
raised.
John.
D
F
D
All
right
well,
this
is
from,
and
I'm
I'm
not
gonna
say
this
name
correctly,
and
I
apologize
it's
hello.
I
will
not
approve
of
the
over
height
fence
between
our
backyards.
I
work
remotely
at
home
would
love
to
enjoy
the
beautiful
scenery
right
outside
our
home
and
backyard
of
which
the
fence
would
interfere
with
immensely.
We
take
great
joy
in
gardening
in
our
backyards
during
the
summer
and
the
extended
high
defense
would
block
much
needed
sunlight
from
the
flowers
and
vegetables
we
spent
so
much
time
and
effort
cultivating.
D
A
Okay,
seeing
that
I
will
close
the
public
hearing
for
this
agenda
item
and
bring
it
back
to
the
commission,
any
questions,
thoughts,
comments
for
staff
or
the
applicant,
or
a
discussion
and
or
a
motion.
B
B
I
guess
we
go
with
the
I
mean:
how
does
that
get
measured
and
why
this
just
feels
like?
I
don't
know
that
it
impacts
this.
What
our
decision
will
be,
but
I'm
super
curious
how
we're
measuring
a
six-foot
fence
when
the
neighbor
does
see
a
10-foot
fence?
Can
you
answer?
Is
that
enough
of
a
question?
Does
that
make
sense,
yeah
you're.
K
Asking
the
same
question
that
I
started
asking:
no,
no,
it
is
confusing,
but
we
measure
from
finished
grade
of
the
property
where
the
fence
is
on.
So
the
applicants
have
said
that
the
fence
is
completely
on
their
property.
K
So
we
measure
from
from
that,
but
if
your
my
screen
is
still
shared,
so
if
you
look
at
the
bottom
right
photo
that
fence
on
the
right
hand,
side
is
about
eight
and
a
half
feet
from
there,
the
subject
property,
but
six
feet
from
the
neighboring
property,
and
so
we
would
measure
from
the
neighboring
property
because
they
own
it
and
it's
it's
technically
on
their
property.
So
it
is
it
is.
It
is
hard,
though,
to
to
find
those
property.
B
Lines
that
actually
makes
sense,
so
they,
the
one
neighbor,
could
have
a
six
foot
fence
and
the
one
the
other
one.
If
it's
different
grades,
then
it's
going
to
be
two
different
fences
right
next
to
each
other,
but
you
have
to
go
with
the
okay
that
that
actually
makes
some
sense.
So
I
appreciate
that
the
answer
to
that.
D
And
commissioner
urquhart,
this
is
john.
We
we
we
were
asking
these
same
questions
all
the
time
ourselves,
but
I
think
one
way
to
kind
of
look
at
it
is
you
know
everybody
has
a
right
to
have
a
six
foot
fence
in
their
yard.
If
we
measured
from
the
neighbor's
yard,
they
would
really
only
be
able
to
have
like
a
four
foot
fence
on
their
side,
and
so
we
worked
with
the
zoning
administrator
to
make
sure
that
everything
met
those
standards.
E
I
guess
I
have
a
question
for
staff
as
well.
Since
we've
established,
you
know
the
it
goes,
I
guess
the
fence
starts
to
count
unfinished.
You
know,
whichever
side
has
a
finished,
I
guess
finished
base
of
that
fence.
E
I
noticed
there
was
something
about
if
it
had
ornamental
features
or
architectural
embellishments
or
something
it
can
go
beyond.
That
is
that
is
that
correct.
K
E
K
Possibly
I
brought
a
fence
here
a
few
months
ago
and
you
know
the
conversation
was
back
and
forth
about
the
transparency,
but
you
know
I
think
it's
it's
still
a
case-by-case
basis
and
but
on
the
last
meeting
we
had,
I
believe
you
know
we
went
back
and
forth
a
lot
about
the
transparency
of
it
and
is
it
80
transparent
or
is
it
not?
But
you
know
in
this
case
it's
not
80
transparent,
so
it
doesn't
mean
it
does
not
meet
that
standard.
A
Amanda
just
to
clarify,
I
believe,
from
the
last
meeting
that
special
exception
was,
if
it's
approved,
then
it
had
to
be
eighty
percent
transparent,
correct
if
it
meant
there
were
certain.
There
are
certain
things
in
the
code
that
would
allow
an
overhyped
fence
for
that,
but
it
would
be
required
that
it
be
eighty
percent
transparent.
I
think,
like
a
swimming
pool,
is
one
of
them
right.
K
Yes,
that's
I
I
believe
that
was
the
the
consensus
at
the
end
of
the
at
the
end
of
the
meeting,
because
some
of
these
aren't
applicable,
you
don't
have
to
meet
all
of
them,
which
we
also
discussed,
because
it's
not
a
front
yard
fence.
So
it's
not
creating
a
walden
effect
right.
It's
not
on
a
it's,
not
on
a
driveway,
so
it's
not
impacting
traffic.
So
for
this
staff
report,
I
just
looked
at
the
ones
that
were
applicable
to
the
rear
yard.
A
E
A
F
Yes,
quick:
we
have
a
someone
who
raised
their
hand
after
you
close
that
public
hearing
I'd
like
to
ask
the
person
if
they've
intended
to
speak
on
that
last
item
or
on
this
item.
C
F
N
I
did
I
never
got.
I
raised
my
hand,
I
never
did
get
called
one
night
was
trying
to
get
in.
I
just
wanted
to
bring
up
one
point
on
the
last.
I
know
that
it's
been
voted
on
and
everything
now,
but
one
important
point
I
wanted
to
bring
up
is
on
the
south
end
of
the
fence.
That
is,
six
foot
on
the
workmen
side,
we're
proposing
to
bring
the
other
side
since
the
workman's
grade
drops,
but
the
neighbor
to
the
west
did
not
drop.
N
Whereas
it's
dropping
now
on
the
workman's
side,
significantly
on
the
north
side,
where
the
proposed
edition
was
it
does
not
affect
the
how
tall
the
fence
was
on
their
side
on
the
all
the
way
across.
If
that
makes
sense,
so
if
you
take
their
grade,
their
grade
remains
the
same
all
the
way
across
now.
It's
lowering
that
grade
for
just
the
42
feet.
F
All
right,
mr
schultz,
I
think
at
this
point
because
the
planning
commission,
sorry,
I
did
not
see
that
your
hand
was
up
and
there
were
no
hands
raised
after
we
checked
and
after
we
read
the
email.
So
at
this
point,
if
there's
the
planning
commission
can
make
a
decision
as
to
to
recall
that
decision
and
open
up
the
public
hearing
again
if
they
choose,
but
that's
up
to
the
up
to
the
commission
to.
O
A
A
G
You
happy
to
be
here.
I
will
share
my
screen
again
once
I
get
handed
those
presenter
powers
over.
G
Yes,
we
can
great.
So
this
is
a
proposal
by
bill
grodnick.
He
submitted
an
application
for
a
zoning
text.
Amendment
related
to
second
story:
rooftop
commercial
uses
that
would
impact
all
properties
in
the
fbsc
zone,
which
is
the
form
based
special
purpose
corridor
edge
subdistrict
and
it
would
impact
properties
city-wide.
G
This
map
shows
all
the
fbse
zoned
property
within
the
city.
Staff
is
recommending
that
the
commission
forward
a
positive
recommend
recommendation
to
the
city
council
regarding
this
request.
G
The
fbsc
zone
currently
limits
commercial
or
non-residential,
uses
to
the
first
two
stories
and
a
height
of
30
feet.
The
proposed
text
amendment
would
allow
for
rooftop
commercial
uses
above
the
second
story,
subject
to
meeting
that
30-foot
height
requirement.
G
G
I
do
want
to
briefly
touch
on
the
background
of
this
proposal.
The
petition
was
submitted
by
the
owner
of
the
property
at
2166,
south
ninth
east,
which
is
in
the
fbse
zone.
The
applicant
has
an
existing
two-story
building
that
he
intends
to
use
as
a
restaurant,
which
is
a
permitted
use
in
the
fbse
zone,
he'd
like
the
ability
to
add
outdoor
dining
to
the
rooftop
above
the
second
story,
but
because
of
these
limitations
within
the
fbse
zone.
G
That's
why
he
submitted
this
text
amendment,
although
the
applicant
is
applying
for
these
changes
because
of
plans
for
his
specific
building.
The
proposed
changes
would
impact
all
fbsc
zone
properties
and
not
just
this
specific
property,
and
we
did
get
some
public
comments
that
were
submitted
speaking
specifically
about
this
property.
So
I
just
want
to
reiterate
that
this
is
a
city-wide
proposal
and
make
sure
we
keep
that
in
mind.
G
When
analyzing
the
proposal
staff
did
considering
the
following:
the
first
being
compliance
with
master
plan
policies.
The
proposal
affects
the
fbsc
zone,
which
is
primarily
located
within
the
sugar
house
community
area.
There
are
several
several
policy
and
goal
statements
in
the
sugar
house
community
plan
that
are
supportive
of
the
proposal.
G
Additionally,
the
proposal
is
consistent
with
several
initiatives
included
in
plan
salt
lake
related
to
neighborhoods,
beautiful
city
and
economy,
applicable
plans
and
policies
are
outlined
in
the
staff
report.
In
attachment
c,
the
master
plans
reiterate
that
the
area
is
expected
to
be
vibrant,
mixed-use
pedestrian
oriented
area
and
active
commercial
uses
in
the
fbse
zone,
provide
eyes
on
the
street
and
the
streetcar
corridor.
G
The
plans
emphasize
supporting
small
businesses
and
providing
incentives
for
developers
to
accommodate
these
businesses
into
new
projects.
The
second
consideration
is
in
regards
to
the
conditional
use
process.
The
text
amendment
proposal
was
heard
by
the
sugar
house
lab
use
committee
and
it
was
a
very
engaging
and
productive
meeting.
During
that
meeting,
the
sugar
house
community
council
suggested
that
residents
at
the
meeting
suggested
that
this
process
should
be
a
conditional
use
for
second
story
rooftop
uses,
and
the
community
council
chair
also
submitted
a
letter
with
that
recommendation.
G
Planning
staff
did
carefully
consider
that
suggestion
and
ultimately
decided
that
we
should
not
add
the
conditional
use
process
for
commercial
uses
above
the
second
story.
So
we're
not
recommending
adding
that
to
this
text
amendment
and
the
reasons
are
because
of
the
impacts
that
it
has
to
other
zones.
G
Many
of
our
zoning
districts
do
not
have
that
two-story
commercial
use
limitation
that
this
zone
has
so
the
change
would
also
require
identifying
whether
a
rooftop
use
is
permitted
or
conditional
in
all
of
the
zoning
districts.
Staff
believes
that
these
impacts
go
beyond
the
scope
of
this
petition,
as
it
would
impact
all
the
land
use
table.
G
The
second
consideration
in
related
in
relation
to
the
conditional
use
for
second
story
rooftops,
relates
to
confusion
when
implementing
the
ordinance
separating
out
the
rooftop
use
above.
The
second
story,
as
a
conditional
use
solely
on
its
own,
complicates
the
approval
and
permitting
process
when
the
use
is
otherwise
permitted
on
the
interior
of
the
building
and
above
the
first
story
of
the
roof.
G
As
the
commission
knows,
conditional
use
must
be
approved
unless
significant
negative
impacts
cannot
be
mitigated
in
looking
at
a
restaurant
use,
for
example,
or
another
use
that
would
otherwise
be
permitted
on
the
interior
and
above
the
first
story
of
the
roof
staff
believes
that
any
of
these
impacts
would
be
negligible
when
looking
at
these
uses
above
the
second
story,
and
also
certain
uses
within
this
zone
still
require
a
conditional
use
process.
G
G
There
are
specific
uses
that
are
identified
to
require
a
conditional
use
process
to
look
at
potential
impacts
and
compatibility
with
adjacent
land
uses
and
surrounding
neighborhoods
examples
of
permitted
uses
in
this
zone
are
restaurant
office
and
retail
and
art
gallery
examples
of
conditional
uses
are
mostly
alcohol,
related
uses.
Those
are
bar
establishments
taverns,
and
so
those
types
of
uses
that
require
conditional
use,
the
rooftop
activity
would
be
analyzed
and
addressed
for
impacts
as
part
of
that
conditional
use
process.
G
The
third
consideration
was
the
impacts
of
the
proposal.
Under
the
current
fbsc
zone,
commercial
use
is
permitted
or
conditional,
depending
on
the
use
above
the
first
story,
so
the
current
regulations
only
limit
commercial
uses
above
the
second
story.
G
The
requirement
in
this
zone
is
25
of
the
lot
depth
up
to
a
maximum
of
25
feet
and
staffs
of
the
opinion.
These
existing
setback
requirements
are
sufficient
in
terms
of
buffering
commercial
uses
when
they
are
adjacent
to
residential
zoning
and
finally,
another
suggestion
that
was
made
at
the
community
council
meeting
related
to
was
related
to
height
exceptions,
and
they
believed
that
we
should
have
that.
We
should
add,
in
a
height
exception,
for
rooftop
amenities
and
structures
such
as
pergolas,
sound
walls
and
elevator
stair
bulkheads.
G
These
types
of
structures
are
included
in
the
overall
height
measurement
for
building
height.
The
apple
king's
proposal
maintains
that
existing
commercial
building,
height
requirement
of
30
feet
steps
of
the
opinion
that
even
a
two-story
building
with
some
of
these
mentioned
rooftops.
Amenities
and
structures
will
likely
be
under
the
30-foot
requirement,
and
so
this
exception
for
the
height
would
be
necessary.
G
The
community
council
held
a
meeting
the
sugar
house
land
use
meeting.
There
was
an
open
house
held
for
the
item,
public
hearing
notice
and
public
comments.
Staff
did
receive
seven
public
comments
on
the
proposal
on
four
in
opposition
and
three
in
favor,
and
we
also
received
additional
public
comments
from
someone
who
had
already
submitted
comments
in
opposition
after
the
staff
report
was
published,
and
those
comments
were
added
into
your
dropbox.
G
I
believe
yesterday
and
staff
has
reviews
reviewed
the
standards
for
sending
text
amendments
related
to
this
proposal
and
again
we
are
recommending
to
forward
a
positive
recommendation
to
the
city
council.
That's
all
I
have
for
my
presentation.
I
can
take
questions
or
from
the
applicant
bill.
Gravnic
or
paxton.
Guyman
are
both
on
the
line.
C
G
So
the
30
foot
height
requirement
is
something
that
currently
exists
in
the
zoning
ordinance
and
they're,
proposing
to
keep
that
in
the
way
building
height
is
measured.
So
if
they
have
like
a
railing
around
the
top
of
the
building,
that's
included
in
the
overall
height,
something
like
an
elevator
would
be
included
in
the
overall
height.
So
it
can
be
up
to
30..
If
you
have
a
two-story.
C
G
If
they
were
to
have
structures
above
that
30
foot,
height
limitation,
so
let's
say
the
roof
of
the
building
itself
is
30
feet
and
then
they
wanted
to
add
a
railing.
On
top
of
that,
that
was
like
eight
feet
tall
or
something
that
wouldn't
be
permitted
above
the
30
feet.
So
the
way
height
is
measured
is
to
the
top
of
those
structures
on
the
roof.
C
C
That's
my
only
goal.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you.
I
agree
with
adrian
on
that
language.
I
had
some
questions
on
that
as
well.
I
think
that
might
have
been
a
little
bit
explained
a
little
bit
clearer
above
three,
so
amy.
I
have
a
question,
though,
on
the
permitted
uses.
Why?
When
because
this
fbsc
zone
for
this
area
is
not
that
old,
I
can't
remember
the
exact
year
it
went,
but
it's
been
pretty
recent.
Why
was
rooftop
uses
not
included
in
that
permitted
land
use
table
for
this
sound?
G
G
A
G
Mentioned
in
the
presentation
we
don't
have
rooftop
uses
as
a
permitted
or
conditional
use
in
any
of
our
zones,
so
that
could
be
why
we
didn't
add
it
to
the
land
use
table
at
that
point.
But
nick
may
have
some
more
information
on
that
yeah.
F
So
we've
we're
seeing
it
more
and
more,
and
so
I
think
that
I
think
the
just
in
some
regards
the
public
is
is
asking
for
more
of
these
types
of
uses,
and
so
you
know
this
applicant
proposed
a
text
change
so
that
they
could
deal
with
it
on
their
property
and
in
their
zone.
I
would
imagine
that
sooner
or
later,
we'll
be
addressing
it
on
a
more
comprehensive,
but
there's
nothing
that
has
been
started
in
terms
of
that.
A
So
then
that
brings
up
then
a
follow-up
question
for
me:
if
one
of
the
reasons
we're
not
you
know
we're
taking
it
in
this
form
is
because
we
don't
want
the
added
impacts
of
adding
it
to
the
land,
use
tables
for
all
zones,
but
you
foresee
we're
going
to
be
doing
that
anyway.
A
Is
that
a
reasonable
reason,
I
guess,
if
we're
going
to
be
doing
anyway,
why
can't
we
just
do
it
now
and
tackle
everything
in
the
land
use
table
and
make
it
a
conditional
use
versus
waiting
for
the
inevitability
of
doing
that
in
the
future.
F
So
we
generally
will
respond
to
what
they
are
proposing
and
even
the
city
doesn't
really
have
the
right
to
expand
a
private
application
to
include
other
things
and
so
one
we
need
to
respond
to
that
application.
Two.
We
don't
know
when
we're
going
to
get
to
it,
how
big
of
a
priority
it
is
to
change
or
to
address
rooftop
use.
F
So
it's
probably
a
lot
more
complicated
than
I
think
people
think
just
because
of
how
building
heights
are
measured
in
different
areas
and
what
types
of
exceptions
and
height
encroachments
that
we
that
would
be
allowed
and
there
may
not
be
a
need
for
it
to
be
a
conditional
use
everywhere.
F
It's
not
impactful
in
many
zones
at
all,
and
so
I
think
that's
that's
part
of
part
of
the
reason
why
it's
important
to
consider
this
application
has
proposed
on
its
own
own
merits
and
not
hold
it
accountable
for
something
that
the
city
may
or
may
not
do
in
the
future.
A
Okay,
all
right
any
other
questions
for
amy
from
the
commissioners.
A
All
right.
We
will
move
on
to
the
applicant
bill,
groudnick
and
paxton
guyman.
You
do
you
have
a
presentation.
You
need
presenters.
M
Right,
yes,
if
you
would,
this
is
paxton
guyman.
The
property
owner
bill
grodnick
is
on
the
line
as
well.
He
may
chime
in,
but
he's
asked
me
to
take
the
lead
on
presenting
a
few
points.
A
Rights,
mr
guyman,
or
you.
A
M
A
Yeah
before
I
start,
your
timer
will
agree
on
what
photos
she
brings
up
for
you,
so
you're
good
with
it
and
mr
gronik,
you
can
pipe
in
at
any
time,
but
collectively
both
of
you
will
have
up
to
10
minutes
and
once
we
get
the
photo
up
that
you
like.
I
will
start
your
timer
and
but
we'll
wait
for
that.
M
M
M
That's
been
followed,
so
I
applaud
amy
and
the
staff
for
what
they've
done
on
this.
We're
really
here
for
a
fairly
simple
application
and
there's
been
a
lot
said
about
it,
but
it
really
boils
down
to
this
right
now.
Under
this
zone,
you
can
have
a
rooftop
use
on
a
single
story
building
as
long
as
the
rooftop
use
doesn't
exceed
30
feet,
and
all
that
we're
asking
is
for
the
text
to
be
amended
to
allow
for
rooftop
uses
on
second
stories.
M
As
long
as
we
still
meet
the
30
foot
height
restriction,
so
the
30
foot
height
restriction
is
already
in
place
and
will
continue
to
be
in
place.
We're
simply
saying
hey
if
it's
allowed
on
one
story:
rooftop
use.
Why
not
two
as
well,
and
that's
really
the
long
and
short
of
it.
Now,
there's
there's
more
that
I'd
like
to
explain
this
particular
building.
If
you
look
at
it,
this
building
was
renovated
extensively
in
2018.
M
It
was
designed,
engineered
and
constructed
with
permits
to
allow
for
rooftop
use.
As
far
as
the
building
code
goes,
it's
got
two
different
stairway,
ingress
and
egress
to
the
roof.
It's
engineered
to
support.
Rooftop
uses
the
building
faces,
900
east,
as
you
can
see,
and
if
you
look
at
the
building
in
the
rooftop
itself,
you'll
notice
that
it
already
has
built
in
a
sound
barrier
wall
on
the
back
part
of
the
roof.
M
If
you
can
see
that
that
will
allow
for
more
of
a
private
ambiance
for
rooftop
dining,
it
will
block
noise,
facilitate
the
blockage
of
noise
for
residences
in
the
back.
But
when
you
look
at
this
building
on
its
own,
it
is
ready
for
use
and
occupancy.
The
problem
is
my
client.
The
owner
of
the
property
is
not
meeting
with
the
success
he
would
like
in
terms
of
finding
the
restaurant
user.
He
does
have
a
restaurant
user
lined
up
who
will
take
occupancy
if
we
can
get
rooftop
uses
approved.
M
It's
going
to
be
a
wonderful
high
quality
restaurant
mexican
restaurant
dining
experience
with
the
rooftop
use,
so
sort
of
imagine
yourself
sitting
up
there
on
a
fall
evening
enjoying
the
great
outdoors
while
dining
in
this
setting,
and
I
think
you'll
see
why
it
is
becoming
more
popular
as
one
of
the
staff
members.
Mr
norris
indicated
something
else.
I
want
to
point
out.
There's
been
a
lot
of
concern
raised
that
if
you
adopt
this
proposed
text
amendment,
of
course
it
applies
to
any
property
within
the
fbsc
zone.
M
This
is
a
map
showing
the
location
of
all
the
properties.
With
this
current
zoning.
Now
the
significance
of
this
map
is
that
the
property
owner
my
client
went
to
the
effort.
Let's
see
go
to
there,
we
go
that
map,
so
those
properties
in
purple
are
the
properties
that
currently
have
this
zoning
in
in
the
city.
M
My
client
went
to
the
effort
of
driving
every
one
of
these
properties
to
see
what
existed
and
we
can
represent
you
with
accuracy
that
there
are
only
three
two-story
buildings
that
exist
today
in
this
zone
and
of
those
three
buildings,
none
of
them
appear
to
qualify
or
be
adaptable
to
a
rooftop
use.
So
you
know
I
understand
that
we're
just
talking
about
existing
buildings
and
something
could
always
be
built
in
the
future,
but
as
it
stands
right
now
we're
not
opening
up
pandora's
box
and
that's
the
point
I
want
to
make.
M
M
So
I
don't
want
there
to
be
concern
that
somehow,
by
approving
this
we're
going
to
see
a
flood
of
applications
for
rooftop
uses,
that's
just
not
it's!
It's
not
in
the
cards!
There's
not
that
many
properties
that
would
qualify
again.
You
ask
yourself:
what's
the
impact,
and
I
think
it's
important
to
point
out
that
when
you're
considering
text
amendments,
one
of
the
guides
you
refer
to
for
decisions
like
this-
are
the
master
plans,
and
here
the
master
plans
talk
about
supporting
small
businesses
and
providing
incentives
for
developers
to
accommodate
businesses
into
new
projects.
M
In
other
words,
it's
intended
as
a
zone
that
allows
for
revitalization,
and
here
that's
precisely
what's
occurred.
My
client
has
incurred
nearly
two
million
dollars
in
revitalizing
and
rehabilitating
this
property,
and
the
restaurant
use
on
the
rooftop
is
something
that
would
add
to
the
desirability
of
this
location
for
restaurant
operators.
M
It's
also
worth
pointing
out
that,
right
now,
if
a
if
a
rooftop
use
is
allowed
on
a
single
story,
what
is
the
additional
impact?
What
is
the
harm
of
allowing
rooftop
uses
on
the
second
story?
There's
really
not
a
change
in
impact.
In
fact,
as
amy's
staff
report
points
out,
the
impact
may
even
be
less
being
on
a
second
story
instead
of
a
first
story.
D
M
Would
make
is
that
the
staff
has
gone
to
great
lengths
and
analyzing
this
and
has
come
up
with
a
positive
recommendation,
and
I
think
that
speaks
volumes.
They've
gone
to
great
efforts
to
analyze.
What
should
be
done
here
and
you
know
from
our
perspective,
we
don't
really
care
whether
it's
a
conditional
use
or
permitted
use,
and
we
understand
amy
and
the
staff's
reasoning
for
why
they
don't
want
to
go
with
the
conditional
use
approach.
M
We
simply
want
it
to
be
available
under
the
code,
and
for
that
reason
we
respectfully
request
your
support
and
ask
you
to
forward
a
positive
recommendation
to
the
city
council
to
approve
this
text.
Amendment
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
A
I
do
thank
you,
mr
rhonda.
Did
you
want
to
pipe
in?
Are
you
good?
Okay,
all
right,
thank
you
for
that
presentation,
mr
guyman.
As
commissioners.
Any
questions
for
the
applicant
at
this
time.
I
Judy
short's,
always
here,
I
think
in
general,
we're
in
favor
of
this
amy's
gone
over.
You
know
the
public
process
that
we
went
through,
so
we
had
it
at
in
the
newsletter
we
had
at
the
land
use
meeting
and
we've
received
a
number
of
comments,
and
I
don't
think
that
the
neighborhood
as
a
whole
is
against
it,
but
I
think
there's
some
specifics
that
bother
us.
I
I
Another
issue
that
we
hear-
and
you
know
this
well-
is
that
sound
is
a
big
deal
and
it's
all
relative.
Just
like
that
tall
fence.
You've
talked
about
a
minute
ago,
it's
where
it's
located
and
what's
in
proximity
to
it,
whether
you
can
hear
the
sound
and
salt
lake
county
does
a
poor
job
of
enforcing
if
they
do
any
enforcing.
I
I
These
can
review
each
individual
one,
because
if
you
buy
your
house
today-
and
maybe
your
does,
your
realtor
tell
you
these
are
the
implications
of
the
zone
in
the
lot
next
to
you,
I
don't
think
they
do
and
I'm
not
sure
the
average
buyer
investigates
all
that,
especially
not
in
the
market.
We
have
today
where
you
got
to
be
on
the
spot
in
five
minutes.
I
A
All
right,
thank
you,
judy
just
to
clarify
for
anyone
who
is
in
attendance
that
wishes
to
speak
on
the
bottom
right.
Please
click
the
hand
that
will
raise
your
hand.
Let
us
know
you
do
wish
to
speak.
A
This
particular
petition
is
something
that
the
planning
commission
will
be
forwarding
a
recommendation
on
to
the
city
council,
who
will
be
ultimately
making
the
decision.
So
nick
looks
like
we
have
at
least
one
hand
raised
that
I
see
for
sarah
woolsey.
F
J
Right,
my
name
is
george
chapman,
madam
chair
commissioners.
I'm
against
this
proposal
because
parking
requirements
are
not
enough
to
mitigate
the
significant
negative
impacts
on
adjacent
businesses
and
residents
of
the
popularity
of
rooftop
bars.
Rooftop
bars
are
a
great
idea,
but
this
is
a
new
added
use
needing
more
parking,
much
more
parking
really,
but
parking
was
already
set
before
this
was
proposed,
and
this
is
not
really
going.
It
says
that
rooftop
first
floor
is
okay,
but
this
is
a
third
floor
and
this
is
way
up
higher.
J
It's
not
there's
not
a
little
difference,
there's
a
big
difference
going
from
first
floor
to
third
floor
and
that
affects
adjacent
of
residents.
Homeowners
and
that's
a
big
deal.
Also
the
developer
was
told
that
operation
was
not
allowed,
but
he
built
it
anyway
without
showing
the
rooftop
structures
on
the
approved
design
that
we
reviewed
that,
in
my
opinion,
looked
like
he
was
thinking.
If
he
built
it,
they
can't
stop
him
that,
in
my
opinion,
is
disrespectful.
J
J
The
planning
commission,
a
couple
of
times
and
past
year
has
approved
form-based
zones
far
away
from
rail.
So
essentially,
this
can
open
the
floodgates
to
hundreds
or
more
requests
again.
The
biggest
reason
to
deny
this
is
the
parking
was
already
set
before
this
new
added
proposed
use,
and,
finally,
I'd
like
to
add
that
the
planning
staff
for
many
many
meetings
has
been
very
responsive
and
professional
in
answering
questions
very
complicated
questions
from
many
concerned
citizens.
A
Thank
you,
george
okay,
and
just
to
reiterate,
if
you
wish
to
email
comments,
you
can
do
that
right
now
at
planning.com,
slcgov.com
and
they're
being
monitored
as
we
speak.
Moving
on
nick
to
the
next
person.
P
All
right,
thank
you,
madam
vice
chair
and
everybody
serving
tonight
in
this
meeting,
I'm
a
resident
of
the
sugar
house
area.
I
live
on
hollywood
avenue
about
a
block
from
21st
south,
so
the
foreign
code
is
not
right
in
my
area,
but
I
do
am
over
earth
over
300
feet
from
an
indoor
property
that
has
caused
my
neighborhood
significant
sound
concerns
for
20
years,
there's
a
dance
club
on
21st
south
and
given
the
sensitivity
we've
had
to
significant
sound
concerns
for
over
20
years
from
that
business.
P
I
I
agree
with
the
concern
that
this
would
open
up
this
code
to
this
type
of
code
to
allow
rooftop
I'm
going
to
save
restaurants,
but
the
worry
would
be
bars
that
are
open,
late
bars
that
have
more
sound
bars
that
have
music
because
those
significantly
impact
quiet
residential
streets.
P
I
was
not
at
the
sugar
house
council
and
did
not
hear
the
proposal
for
the
conditional
use,
but
after
hearing
it
tonight,
it
feels
like
that
might
make
more
sense
to
have
those
decisions
made
on
a
conditional
basis
with
the
input
of
the
neighbors
versus
the
the
forum
based
code.
So
again,
my
concern
is,
in
general,
sugar
house.
Development
is
impacting
residents
significantly.
M
F
Bill
actually
has
the
ability
to
unmute
himself,
however
man,
I'm
sure.
Normally
we
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
then
give
the
applicant
and
the
applicant's
team
of.
A
A
A
Hey
nick
sarah,
if
you
would
unclick
your
hand-
and
let
us
know
that
you've
already
spoken,
that'll,
take
you
off
the
list.
Thank
you
all
right
see
now
other
hands
up,
for
we
will
close
the
public
hearing
and
bring
it
back
right
now.
I
will
allow
the
applicant
time
to
address
any
of
the
comments
that
were
raised.
E
I
I
just
all
I
wanted
to
add
was
that
the
only
outdoor,
dining
my
building
would
have
would
be
the
this
rooftop
deck,
and
this
how
critical,
even
with
or
without
covet
in
our
midst,
how
important
outdoor
dining
is
people
have
gotten
very
comfortable
with
it
very
used
to
it.
They
search
out
the
restaurants
that
have
the
outdoor
dining
and
we
think
would
be
a
great
amenity
for
the
sugar
house
area
to
be
able
to
have
outdoor
dining
at
the
the
restaurant
that
wants
to
go
in
there.
A
Okay,
mr
guyman,
would
you
like
to
take
the
opportunity
to
address
any
of
the
concerns
brought
up.
M
No,
I
mean
the
comment
was
made
that
this
would
be
a
rooftop
bar.
It's
it's
not
a
bar,
it's
just
an
extension
of
outdoor
seating
for
the
restaurant,
but
other
than
that.
I
think
you've
been
fully
apprised
of
the
issues
again.
We
want
to
bring
this
to
the
city
council,
hopefully
with
a
positive
recommendation.
Thank
you
for
your
efforts.
A
E
Mr
grammer,
how
would
you
address
the
the
comments
about
the
noise
and
the
potential
of
neighbors
being
adversely
affected
by
the
noise?
Do
you
expect
that
this
restaurant
and
or
I
don't
know
amenity
that
you'll
have
up
there
or
allow
up
there?
I
will
have
you
know
high
levels
of
noise.
How
would
you
address
those
concerns.
M
First,
is
that
this
is
not
something
that
would
be
in
use
365
days
a
year
right
I
mean
this
is
somewhat
seasonal
because
it
depends
on
the
weather,
so
you're
certainly
going
to
have
weather
conditions
that
would
not
allow
for
outdoor
rooftop
dining
at
least
a
fair
part
of
the
year,
but
then.
Secondly,
we
still
have
to
comply
with
the
city's
ordinances
regarding
noise
and
when
outdoor
activities
need
to
need
to
be
shut
down.
M
I
don't
remember
in
salt
lake
city,
if
that's
10,
pm
or
11
pm,
but
the
restaurant
operations
will
still
have
to
comply
with
those
ordinances.
So,
yes,
it
will
be
an
outdoor
dining
experience.
But
when
you
look
at
this
particular
property,
where
there's
that
that
barrier
wall
at
the
back
of
it
that
sits
about
six
feet,
high
that'll
certainly
serve
to
to
mute
some
of
the
noise.
M
There's
no
question
that
there's
some
noise
with
rooftop
dining.
Now
this
is
a
it's
not
a
concert,
there's
not
loud
noise,
it's
not
a
dance
hall
or
a
club.
It's
it's
a
restaurant
use
and
you
know
people
have
to
comply,
they
can't
be
nuisances,
and
you
know
I
think,
when
you,
when
you
step
back-
and
you
say
well
how
much
noise
is
that
really
going
to
add.
It's
certainly
not
going
to
add
much
during
the
hours
of
operation.
A
Any
other
questions
from
commissioners.
C
I
have
a
couple
of
comments
go
ahead,
so
I
think
the
language
is
confusing
because
it's
it's
referring
to
a
30-foot
height
requirement
when
really
that's
the
limitation,
so
it's
it.
It
creates
a
little
bit
of
ambiguity.
I'm
not
going
to
take
too
much
mind
to
that.
If,
if
the
intent
is
clear,
but
in
my
view,
if
the
ordinance
isn't
going
to
include
other
requirements
on
outdoor
uses
such
as
hours
of
operation
or
sound
buffering
requirements
when
adjacent
to
a
residential
property,
I
think
it
should
be
a
conditional
use.
C
I
mean
we
look
at
sidewalk
dining
as
a
conditional
use
that
has
to
go
through
us
and
we
hear
comments
and
concerns
from
neighboring
property
owners
of
the
impacts.
So
to
me
it
just
seems
I
don't
know
why
we
would
treat
outdoor
dining.
That's
you
know
two
stories
up
any
differently,
but
that's
that's.
My
possession.
F
A
I
think
nick
was
first
and
then
we'll
go
to
andreas.
F
Otherwise
it's
allowed
in
any
required
yard
in
most
zoning
districts
that
also
allow
restaurants
and
cafes,
so
the
zoning
districts
where,
where
it
requires
a
special
exception,
it's
only
if
that
is
in
a
required
yard.
So,
for
example,
a
cn
zone
has
a
required
side
yard
of
10
feet.
So
if
someone
proposes
outdoor
dining
in
that
side
yard,
then
they
would
have
to
get
a
special
exception
for
that.
E
Well,
just
just
general
comment
in
my
thoughts.
I
do
I
do
agree
with
with
what
judy
mentioned
I
mean
it
would
make
a
lot
more
sense
to
to
view
it
as
a
single
project
rather
than
you
know,
kind
of
more
of
a
blanket
type
of
a
an
approval.
I
mean
there's
nothing
particularly
that
I
view
as
being
negative
in
this
particular
project.
E
However,
you
know
like
she
was
saying
when
that's
when
somebody
buys
a
house,
for
example,
they're
not
privy
to
the
information
of
what
is
allowed
not
allowed
to
be
built,
you
know
across
the
street
or
next
to
a
you,
know,
somebody
by
your
new
house
in
the
area.
So
I
do
you
know
have.
I
do
offer
credibility
to
judy's
comments.
I
think,
in
this
particular
case.
B
I've
got
a
comment
I,
with
all
due
respect.
I
disagree
with
andreas,
I
think,
and
even
judy,
which
surprises
me,
because
I'm
usually
right
on
board
with
what
judy
has
to
say,
but
I
think
people
buy
houses
all
the
time
without
knowing
the
exact
uses
that
certain
properties
in
certain
zones
have
that
might
butt
up
against
them.
If
they
do
their
research
then
go
find
that
out,
but
I
don't
think
we
should
be
making
decisions
based
on
somebody
who
might
buy
a
house
sometime
in
the
future.
B
I
like
the
idea
of
rooftop
dining.
I
think
this
is
a
chance
for
us
to
not
even
encourage
it
but
allow
it
in
certain
areas-
and
I
you
know,
I'm
not
sure
how
everyone's
feeling,
but
I
think
this
I'm
in
support
of
sending
a
positive
recommendation
and
I'd
like
to
know
where
everyone
else
is
on
that
or
you
know
a
couple
of
you,
because
if
there
are
other
concerns
that
I'm
not
thinking
of
I'd
like
to
know
it.
J
I'll
jump
in
I
I
I
would
agree,
I
think,
as
you
know,
we're
all
pushing
density
in
our
our
cities
and
pushing
for
height
and
all
these
things-
and
this
is
a
byproduct
of
that.
We
take
away
open
space
on
the
ground
floor
and
this
is
essentially
open
space
just
a
little
bit
taller.
J
Yeah
I
I
would
agree.
I
think
I
do
have
a
similar
concern
with
the
the
bars
I
had
an
office
next
to
a
bar,
and
that
does
start
to
get
pretty
loud
if
there's
no
reasonable
control
over
the
the
sound
system.
But
I
think
in
general
it's
an
amenity
to
the
city,
and
I
think
we
should
start
thinking
about
the
future
of
the
city
and
and
start
allowing
things
like
this
to
happen.
C
A
That's
what
I
was
going
to
say
as
well
adrian
amy
thompson.
You
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
perhaps
the
potential
businesses
that
most
residents
would
be
having
an
impact
with
would
would
be
bars
what
about
dance.
Well,
they
wouldn't
even
do
that
on
the
roof,
but
I
guess
if
you
were
drunk
enough,
you
might
but
bars
and
taverns.
Those
are
already
conditional
uses,
no
matter
what
and
regardless,
if
the
rooftop
amenity
is
permitted,
that
particular
business
type
would
still
entail
a
conditional
use,
correct.
G
Yeah,
that's
correct,
so
any
rooftop
component
associated
with
those
uses,
whether
it's
on
the
first
story
or
above
the
second
story.
If
this
text
amendment
is
passed,
would
go
through
that
conditional
use
process
and
those
impacts
would
be
looked
at.
C
C
A
A
Okay,
it
kind
of
cut
out,
so
I
wanted
to
make
sure
sarah,
yes
and
maureen.
Yes,
okay,
that
is
five
in
favor
and
one
against
the
motion
passes
to
send
a
positive
recommendation
to
the
city
council.
Congratulations,
mr
grudnick,
and
as
a
this
is
my
neighborhood.
I
will
just
thank
you
for
not
bringing
in
another
pizza
joint,
that's
my
than
that
you're
off
to
the
city
council.
Thank
you.
Both.
A
I
saw
a
thumbs
up
we're
gonna
forge
ahead.
This
is
the
zoning,
the
2200
west
zoning
map,
amendment
pln
pcm,
2021-0,
five,
seven
five
and
the
planner
is
chrissy
gilmore.
D
Q
So
this
is
a
request
to
amend
the
zoning
map
of
the
subject:
property
located
at
2016,
north
2200
west
from
ag2
agricultural
to
m1,
light
manufacturing
zoning
district.
The
property
owner
is
seeking
to
amend
the
subject
property
to
accommodate
future
development
was
the
state
of
reason.
No
specific
site
development
proposal
has
been
submitted
at
this
time.
Q
Q
So
as
far
as
considerations
and
staff
analysis,
the
the
north
point,
small
area
plan
was
adopted
and
was
reviewed
and
that
plan
was
adopted
in
2000
and
includes
the
subject
property.
The
plan
shows
the
future
land
use
of
this
area
as
business
park,
which
was
consistent
with
the
zoning
put
in
place
during
the
city-wide
zoning
amendment
in
1995.
Q
While
the
northwest
the
north
point,
small
area
plan,
identifies
the
area's
business
park,
it
also
states
that
business
the
business
park
zone
should
be
amended
to
allow
retail
service
type
businesses
that
would
support
the
employee
base
in
the
area.
So,
while
not
strictly
in
line
with
the
master
plan,
the
master
plan
does
recognize
the
future
need
for
retail
and
business
that
wouldn't
necessarily
be
accomplished
under
the
business
spark
zone.
So
staff
felt
that
generally,
the
proposal
meets
the
intention
of
the
master
plan
recommendations
of
note.
Q
Q
As
far
as
the
inland
port
regulations,
though,
the
property
is
owned,
ag
or
ag2.
Since
it
is
within
the
overlay
zone,
they
could
already
already
do
uses
that
are
allowed
in
the
m1
zone.
It
is
just
that
any
use
in
the
m1
zone
not
allowed
in
ag2
would
need
to
go
through
a
conditional
use
process.
So
as
far
as
impact,
the
change
in
zoning
would
have
little
impact.
Q
Since
the
m1
zone
uses
could
already
be
accommodated
under
the
current
zoning,
it
is
just
a
matter
of
what
process
they
would
go
through
and
then,
as
far
as
compatibility
with
adjacent
properties,
the
properties
immediately
surrounding
the
subject.
Property
were
recently
rezoned
from
agriculture
ag2
to
m1,
so
it
should
be
fairly
compatible.
Given
that
the
subject
the
properties
surrounding
the
subject
property
are
of,
this
would
be
of
the
same
zone.
Q
A
A
Done
all
right,
we'll
move
on,
I
believe,
nick
smith
is
on
the
line.
Yes,.
A
Okay,
then
you
we'll
have
up
to
10
minutes,
feel
free
not
to
take
that
whole
time.
But
it's
up
to
you.
The
time
is
yours.
D
Perfect,
I
will
make
it
short.
We
did
recently
we
own
the
property
that
is
the
u
shape
around
the
proposed
property
that
we're
looking
to
have
the
rezone
done
on
that
was
just
recently
approved
by
city
council.
D
I
think
earlier
this
year
I
think
in
march
or
so
for
for
m1
zoning,
so
it
took
us
a
little
while
to
to
purchase
the
property
from
the
homeowner
that
we
purchased
it
from.
But
after
we're
able
to
get
that
accomplished,
we're
just
trying
to
keep
consistency
and
conformity
with
the
other
adjacent
uses
in
the
area.
We
don't
have
really
any
intent
of
a
specific
use.
D
Currently
what
we're
going
to
do,
but
with
the
gentleman
to
the
back
kevin
cazzoli
and
also
the
gentleman
also
to
the
south,
who
has
also
just
recently
built
a
few
other
buildings
in
the
m1
zone,
we'd
like
to
hope
that
you
guys
would
push
forward
with
a
positive
recommendation
to
the
city
council
on
this
as
well.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
Okay,
mr
smith,
thank
you,
commissioners.
Any
questions
for
the
applicant.
A
F
D
Was
considered
by
everyone
with
the
accompanying
photos
of
the
the
trees
in
the
area.
A
Okay,
we
did
get
the
the
dropbox
the
that
letter
and
attachments
in
our
dropbox,
so
we
have
had
access
to
it.
Did
you
have
any
other
comments
you
wanted
to
give
us
tonight.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
mr
skidmer.
There
is
anyone
else
in
attendance
trying
to
look
at
the
attendee
list.
A
Okay,
any
comments
that
were
emailed
in
john.
A
All
right,
seeing
that
there
are
no
other
public
comments,
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
that
portion
the
public
comment
portion
and
bring
it
back.
So
commissioners,
do
you
have
any?
I
guess
the
comments
we
received
from
the
from
the
west
point.
Community
council,
mr
smith,
were
in
regards
to
losing
the
trees
and
the
mayor's
initiative
to
you
know
be
planting
a
lot
of
trees.
Did
you
want
to
take
a
moment
to
give
comments
to
that.
D
Really,
I
I
mean
we
plan
on
trying
to
keep
what
we
can
and
see
what
will
accommodate
with
the
surroundings
I
mean
most
of
stuff
is
on
the
perimeter,
but
I
think
we'll
end
up
determining
based
upon
what
we
actually
make
a
decision
on
on
building
there
and
so
we're.
You
know
we
we
may
or
may
not
be
able
to
keep
some
of
those
as
well.
A
Q
Yeah
and
I
don't
believe
that
there
is
a
street
tree
requirement
in
the
m1
zone
nick,
you
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
I
don't,
I
don't
believe,
that's
there.
Otherwise
they
would
just
meet
the
general
landscaping
standards
like
30,
like
plant
material.
F
Yeah
so
so
there
is
a
street
tree
requirement
along
all
public
streets,
but
there's
also
the
tree
protection
ordinance,
which
basically
says
that,
as
part
of
any
sort
of
development
proposal,
an
applicant
has
to
basically
get
approval
to
remove,
what's
called,
what's
defined
in
our
code
as
a
specimen
tree,
meaning
it's
a
tree
of
significant
value,
even
on
private
property
and
the
approve
the
the
demo.
The
removal
of
those
trees
is
subject
to
urban
forestry
approval,
even
on
private
property.
So
that
would
be
something
that
would
be
addressed
at
time
of
development
application.
A
I
A
Okay,
adrian,
yes,
okay,
that
motion
passes
unanimously.
Congratulations,
mr
smith,
here
on
to
the
next
step.
Okay,
moving
on
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda,
that
is.
D
A
This
is
a
zoning
text,
amendment
for
tech,
lake
city,
land
use
changes,
pln
ecm,
2021-00511.
A
And
nick
you
are
presenting.
F
I
am
thank
you,
so
this
is
a
proposal
initiated
by
mayor
aaron
mendenhall
to
update
the
zoning
code
to
address
tech
related
land
uses
in
the
city.
This
is
one
of
the
mayor's
goals
for
2021,
and
it's
also
has
outlined
in
the
staff
report,
helps
implement
and
achieve
goals
in
plan
salt
lake
and
in
numerous
community
plans
that
are
outlined
in
the
staff
report.
F
So
each
of
these
factors
is
discussed
in
the
staff
report
and
generally,
the
planning
staff
is
of
the
opinion
that
all
of
the
factors
support
this
proposal.
So
the
proposed
changes
will
add
a
number
of
uses.
The
first
is
a
biomedical
use
and
the
definitions
in
the
staff
report,
but
basically
these
are
facilities
and
types
of
uses
that
perform
research
and
development
in
the
field
of
medicine
and
produce
biological
biomedical
or
pharmaceutical
products.
F
One
of
the
requests
that
we
received
in
since
the
staff
report
was
published
from
our
sustainability
department
was
that
these
facilities
should
be
required
to
obtain
an
exemption
from
the
utah
department
of,
I
should
say,
environmental
quality
with
the
air
quality
division,
if
they're
not
producing
below
or
above
the
amount
of
building
emissions
that
would
otherwise
trigger
some
special
permit
and
remediation.
F
This
allows
us
to
track
the
the
uses
so
that
we
know
what
the
impact
is.
We
know
that
all
land
uses
produce
some
emissions
and
the
department
of
air
quality
is
established
thresholds
for
what's
acceptable
without
having
to
take
mitigation
measures,
and
so
this
would
help
us
ensure
that
that's
occurring
when
people
submit
building
permission
to
build
facilities
or
business
licenses
to
occupy
existing
places
or
make
changes
to
existing
buildings.
Like
I
said
this,
this.
F
F
F
There's
no
special
special
provisions
proposed
with
this,
showing
shows
all
the
areas
in
purple
where
these
things
are
allowed.
As
we've
done
our
research
on
this,
we
looked
at
other
cities
that
have
similar
definitions
and
similar
facilities
and
from
what
we
can
find
that
these
uses
operate
very
similar
to
office
buildings
in
terms
of
impacts,
with
one
exception
that
we'll
get
to
later
in
this,
and
those
are
data
centers
but,
like
I
said,
we've
separated
that
out
as
a
use.
So
it's
not
included
in
the
definition
of
a
technology
facility.
F
The
third
use
is
kind
of
related
to
the
biomedical
use,
and
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
these
were
not
confused
and
the
other
thing
that
we've,
I,
that
we
notice
in
our
code
is
that
medical
lab
was
listed
in
four
or
five
different
ways
in
our
code.
Sometimes
it
was
a
medical
lab.
Sometimes
it
was
medical,
dental
and
optical.
Sometimes
it
was
just
medical
and
optical,
sometimes
just
dental,
and
so
we
combined
all
those
to
avoid
the
confusion
and
and
not
only
were
they
different
uses.
F
They
were
also
in
different
zones,
and
so
we
combined
those
into
one
use
to
make
it
easier
and
reduce
the
need
to
make
interpretations
and
address
conflicts
of
the
code.
One
of
the
public
comments
that
we
heard
about
this
particular
use.
The
original
definition,
which
is
in
our
current
definition,
includes
the
manufacturing
of
medical
devices.
We
removed
that.
F
We
did
get
some
comment
that
these
shouldn't
be
loud
in
institutional
zones.
So
if
you
look
on
the
map,
a
lot
of
those
orange
dots
that
are
in
the
middle
of
that
yellowish
color,
the
yellowish
colors,
tend
to
be
our
residential
neighborhoods.
Those
are
institutional
zones
for
the
most
part
and
the
reason
why
we
added
these
into
this
zone
is
because
of
the
other
uses
that
are
already
allowed
in
those
zones:
offices,
medical
research,
hospitals,
meta
again,
medical
clinics
are
allowed,
so
some
very
similar
uses
that
produce
very
similar
impacts.
F
The
fourth
use
is
an
existing
use
in
our
code
also,
and
it's
being
updated
a
little
bit
the
research
and
development
facility,
and
these
are
places
that
basically
test
materials
and
products.
So
when
you
get
a
phone
and
it's
tested
by
ul
labs
or
something
like
that,
where
they
figure
out
at
what
height,
can
it
be
dropped
and
not
break
that's
what
these
places
are,
but
there
are
also
places
like
we
have
a
facility
down
in
the
gateway,
recursion
medical.
That
does
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
research.
F
F
So
the
last
use
that
we
added
based
on
input
in
our
research
is
a
data
center
and
we
broke
this
out
from
the
technology
facility
because
of
how
resource
heavy
they
are,
and
I
think
in
the
staff
report,
we
put
a
link
to
to
an
article
that
discusses
a
data
center.
That's,
I
think
it's
in
arizona,
but
these
are
some
of
the
largest
water
users
that
we
have
around.
F
Unfortunately,
we
don't
have
massive
ones
in
salt
lake
city,
yet
but
they're
out
there.
We
know
we
have
them
in
the
region
and
they
can
use
millions
of
gallons
of
water
every
single
day,
and
so
we
wanted
to
break
that
out
and
because
of
the
nature
of
these
uses,
they
tend
to
have
very
few
employees
for
their
size
and
they
tend
to
be
in
big
warehouse
like
buildings
without
any
sort
of
street
engagement.
F
And
one
thing
to
note
that
I
believe
this
is
going
to
be
on
your
next
agenda,
but
this,
but
the
mayor
has
initiated
a
petition
to
limit
the
amount
of
water.
Any
single
land
use
can
can
use,
and
so
data
centers
are
one
of
the
reasons
why,
and
so
this
will
be
subject
to
that
when
it
goes
through.
It
is
currently
that
petition
is
currently
operating
under
what
we
call
temporary
land
use
regulations,
meaning
we
are
not
processing
any
applications
for
any
use
that
would
exceed
300,
000
gallons
of
water
per
day.
F
We
don't
have
a
lot
of
uses
right
now
in
the
city
that
do
that,
but
we
also
don't
want
more.
So
we've
invoked
the
temper
the
pending
ordinance
doctrine,
as
that
implies
and
we're
holding
those
applications,
which
means
we
have
180
days
from
the
time
that
was
initiated
to
get
something
adopted,
and
so
that
180
days
goes.
I
think
it
ends
end
of
december
early
january.
So
we're
gonna
get
this
to
the
planning
commission
in
a
few
weeks
and
then
on
to
the
city
council,
a
few
weeks
after
that,
so.
F
F
It
doesn't
include
the
data
centers,
but
this
compares
the
four
uses
as
to
where
they
are
going
and
where
they
would
be,
and
the
staff
report
outlines
why
the
the
rationale
behind
making
these
permitted
uses
where
we
have
proposed
our
recommendation,
like
I
said,
is
that
the
city
council
adopt
or
make
recommend
the
city
council
adopt
the
proposed
amendments
and
that
we
want
to
reiterate
that
the
planning
commission
should
consider
that
request
from
sustainability
so
to
make
biomedical
uses,
cement
proof
of
compliance
or
an
exemption
from
the
utah
division
of
air
quality,
and
that's
it.
A
Thank
you,
commissioners.
Any
questions
for
nick.
C
I
have
a
question
for
nick
on
the
biomedical
uses
where
you've
got
the
prohibition
within
a
half
mile
of
residential
pieces.
If
the
facility
produces
hazardous
or
radioactive
waste.
So
do
you
mean
that
the
facility
has
to
actually
generate
it
or
is
it
if
they
use
any
kind
of
hazardous
waste,
they
would
be
prohibited
from
being
located
within
half
a
mile
of
residential
use.
D
F
C
Yeah,
no
so
the
radioactive
waste
I
get.
I
think
my
concern
is
that
the
the
restriction
with
hazard
is
waste
because
that
really
encompasses
so
many
inputs
and
biomedical
uses
that
might
be
problematic
for
some
and
effectively
limit
it
within
any
of
the
zoning
districts
within
half
mile
of
a
residential
use
where
it
would
otherwise
be
permitted.
A
Okay,
I
believe
we
have
a
claire
cohen,
who
is
the
advisor
for
the
tech?
I
can't
remember
your
exact
title:
let's
go
with
the
city
if
you
want
to
take
a
few
minutes
to
give
your
comments
to
this
petition.
O
Sure,
thank
you.
Yeah
just
focus
on
technology
and
innovation
initiatives
with
the
city-
and
I
just
wanted
to
throw
my
support
behind
the
good
work
that
nick
and
his
team
have
put
together
with
updating
these.
These
different
zoning
changes
that
are
being
proposed.
O
It's
really
important
as
the
city
grows
and
as
we
kind
of
step
into
the
future,
that
we
we
don't
work
against
ourselves
as
we're
trying
to
find
the
jobs
of
the
future
a
place
to
set
up
shop
and
and
for
our
community
to
to
be
able
to
participate
in
the
benefits
of
those
when
it
comes
to
healthcare.
Innovation,
there's
some
really
unique
components
to
that
industry.
It's
the
first
time
that
a
mayor
has
focused
on
one
specific
industry
as
an
economic
development
cornerstone
and
the
reason
why
is
because
these
jobs
are
sticky.
O
They
don't
get
up
and
leave
very
quickly
or
very
easily,
because
they're
rooted
in
physical
space
needing
lab
space,
research
and
development,
they're
high
wage
jobs.
So
these
are
jobs
that
will
help
pull
people
up
that
economic
ladder
as
well
for
for
more
opportunity
and
the
other
thing
is,
we
have
a
really
solid
pipeline.
O
Coming
from
the
university
of
utah,
we
have
this
built-in
mechanism
that
feeds
into
this
industry
and
then
also
there's
the
public
health
benefit
as
well
like,
as
you
have
people
focus
on
this
industry,
developing
new
technologies
and
products
that
go
to
market
they're,
more
health,
conscious
and
so
the
more
that's
out
in
the
community.
There's
there's
a
public
benefit
that
comes
along
with
it.
O
So
because
of
all
these
reasons,
and
and
just
knowing
that
you
know
as
as
the
city
grows
and
as
we
mature
we've
got
to
stay
competitive,
it's
really
important
to
look
at
these
these
types
of
changes.
So
thanks
nick
for
for
doing
the
work
on
this,
we
fully
support
it.
O
We
appreciate
this
coming
up
to
the
planning
committee
and
want
to
help
in
any
way
that
we
can
to
to
move
this
forward,
knowing
that
it's
not
only
a
mayor's
priority,
but
also
just
a
really
healthy
way
to
update
the
city
and
help
us
stay
on
top
of
things
as
things
get
more
competitive
and
as
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
leading
out
being
the
capital
city.
A
I
I
We
appreciate
the
fact
that
manufacturing
has
been
taken
out
of
this
definition.
We
had
we
have
an
issue
with
the
place,
that's
in
sugar
house
right
in
the
middle
of
a
bunch
of
houses,
and
we
don't
need
to
have
that
ability
expand.
I
One
thing
that
struck
me
that
wasn't
in
my
letter
is
that
a
lot
of
these
as
nick
called
them,
the
small
orange
dots
in
the
yellow,
are
schools
and
churches
in
the
residential
districts
residential
neighborhoods,
and
it
strikes
me
that
we
have
a
terrible
housing
shortage
and
I
think
we
have
plenty
of
place
in
the
city
for
businesses
to
exist
and
I'd
like
to
propose
that,
should
the
use
be
changed
for
a
school
or
church
or
some
institutional
zone,
that
it
revert
back
to
a
housing
zone,
and
I'm
not
sure
I
care
at
this
point
what
housing
zone
that
might
be,
but
that
might
be
a
way
to
free
up
a
little
more
land
for
housing.
A
A
Okay,
with
that,
I
will
close,
I
feel
safe
to
close
the
public
hearing
and
bring
that
back
to
nick
well,
two
questions,
I
guess
from
judy:
you
want
to
clarify
what
the
rp
and
vp
zoning
is
and
then
your
thoughts
on
taking
out
institutional
zones.
F
Ironically,
the
city
doesn't
have
any
zoning
authority
over
research
park,
and
so,
however,
we
chose
the
city
is
also
required
to
zone
all
the
land
in
the
city,
so
we
had
a
zone
at
something,
even
though
we
don't
regulate
it,
which
is
one
of
the
funny
things
about
state
law
but
anyway,
so
we
we
chose
to
add
these
uses
to
research
part
in
the
event
in
the
future.
F
We
don't
know
that
this
is
gonna
happen,
but
if
somehow
there's
a
change
in
that
and
the
city
does
end
up
having
some
zoning
authorities
that
they're
at
it
and
the
bp
zone
is
the
business
park
zone.
So
it
is
not
widely
mapped
it.
Basically,
I
think
the
easiest
way
to
think
of
the
bp
zone
is
that
it's
it's
m1
lite,
it's
really
a
manufacturing
zone
that
doesn't
quite
allow
as
many
of
the
uses
that
the
m1
zone
allows,
but
it
also
doesn't
allow
things
like
retail
and
restaurants,
and
things
like
that.
F
So
it's
it's
kind
of
a
rough
zone,
but
most
of
that
bp
zone
in
fact
is
mapped
along
20
north
on
2200
west.
In
that
north
point
area
that
that
chrissy
actually
was
talking
about
in
the
previous
application
before
you
and
then
it
scattered
around
oc
tanner
on
state
street,
his
own
bp
and
there's
a
couple
other
places.
Some
right
where
300
west
makes
the
bend
into
and
becomes
back
street
and
then
a
small.
D
A
Okay,
what
are
your
thoughts
on
the
institutional
part.
F
I
well
I
know
this
is
that's
a
little
bit
separate
from
this
proposal.
The
housing
but
frankly,
housing
should
be
allowed
in
the
institutional
zone,
and
I
think
that's
a
different
proposal
that
should
be
considered
by
the
city.
It's
pretty
hard
to
have
some
sort
of
a
clause
in
a
zoning
code
that,
when
a
use
goes
away
that
it
reverts
back
to
some
other
down
zone,
use
more
than
likely
otherwise.
A
Hey
commissioners,
any
questions
comments,
thoughts,
discussion.
C
I
would
just
say:
I've
worked
with
a
number
of
biotech
related
companies
and
trying
to
work
with
the
current
zoning
code
is
quite
a
challenge.
So
I
think
this
is
a
huge
step
forward
in
making
the
city
increasing
economic
opportunities
and
development
opportunities
within
the
city.
D
A
C
Based
on
the
information
and
the
staff
report,
the
information
presented
and
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing
and
the
discussion
of
the
commission
such
that
it
was,
I
move
that
the
planning
commission
recommend
that
the
city
council
adopt
pln
pcm
2021-0051
technology
related
land
uses
zoning
amendments
as
proposed.