►
From YouTube: Planning Commission Meeting - 02/27/2019
Description
Planning Commission Meeting - 02/27/2019
A
B
B
C
D
A
A
F
Nothing
specific
to
report.
We
have
a
number
of
projects
that
the
Planning
Commission
is
seen
that
have
been
forwarded
on
to
the
City
Council
they're.
All
kind
of
in
this
in
this
briefing
work
session
phase.
So
we'll
have
a
number
of
updates
coming
up
we're
here
within
the
next
month
or
two.
You
want
projects
that
you've
seen.
Okay,.
D
A
G
Thank
you.
This
is
a
as
you
stated,
a
continuation
from
last
meeting
that
James
Alfond
Ray
has
submitted
a
request
to
amend
the
zoning
ordinance
to
allow
additional
height
for
properties
that
he
there
owns
or
has
interest
in
for
a
particular
project.
He's
looking
at.
There
was
some
discussion
last
meeting
and
and
some
confusion
about
exactly
the
wording
that
he
was
proposing
and
whether
it
would
work
for
his
project.
G
We
feel
that
the
current
ordinance
is
sufficient
and
I
think
also
I
just
want
to
let
you
know
that
you
have
been
receiving
comments
as
they've
been
coming
in
some
email
comments,
so
you
have
a
copy
of
those.
There
are
I
believe
people
here
who
have
indicated
a
desire
to
speak.
The
public
hearing
was
closed
at
the
last
meeting,
so
I'm
not
quite
sure
how
you
want
to
handle
that,
but
the
applicant
is
here
if
you
would
like
to
address
any
questions
to
him
as
well.
G
G
This
is
the
the
map
showing
where
the
other
intersections
are
that
are
allowed
additional
height.
If
you
wanted
to
reference
that,
and
then
the
applicants
proposed
project
just
a
reminder
that
it's
the
project
may
or
may
not
end
up
like
this
you're,
not
approving
the
project
per
se,
you're
approving
just
additional
building
height.
H
Yeah
Casey,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
this
corner
height
is
just
dictated
in
the
master
plan.
For
that
area,
correct.
That's
it's
basically
saying
that
they
want
that
corner
to
have
height
and
the
other
other
areas
from
what
I
remember
to
be
the
kind
of
taper
off
or
to
be
lower
from
that
point,
is
that
correct,
correct.
G
G
H
H
G
H
F
G
And
if
I
may
just
further
address
that
question,
so
the
master
plan
refers
to
the
urban
design
element
which
references
that
downtown.
Yes,
that
there
is
a
preference
for
the
intersections
to
be
taller
than
than
the
other.
The
inner
block
areas
and
and
the
downtown
plan
encompasses
this
area
so
that
that's
where
that's
coming
from
and
then
the
the
ordinance
itself,
the
FPU
and
to
ordinance
reflects
that
by
allowing
additional
height
at
certain
intersections.
G
I
I
Think
that
there
is
an
argument
as
a
logical
extension
of
the
application
that
other
parcels
could
be
identified
in
the
text
meant
because
we
are
amending
the
FB
UN
to
potentially
it's.
It
is
definitely
a
different
circumstance,
because
if
this
were
a
rezone,
we
would
identify
specific
parcels
that
are
the
subject
of
the
action.
I
H
H
What
was
set
there
and
then
it
kind
of
it
makes
all
of
these
properties
that
are
very
similar
to
it
around.
It
add
in
kind
of
an
unequal
situation
and
would
maybe
probably
require
them
to
go
back
and
get
some
sort
of
other
future
counsel
to
win
or
to
convince
them
to
approve
further
height
for
their
development
as
well
on.
H
What's
stopping
them
because
they're
no
different,
you
know
this
piece
right
between
the
two
that
he
owns
is
no
different
they're,
not
just
I'm,
actually
really
in
favor
of
increasing
density
in
this
area,
but
I
don't
think
this
is
the
way
to
do
it.
I
think
it
needs
to
have
a
distinct
zoning.
That's
separate
from
the
set
fbn
2,
because
the
FBN
2
is
different
enough.
E
Well,
another
way
to
accomplish
that
b2
required
development
agreement
as
a
condition
of
the
rezoning
I
mean
that
way
it
would
be
site-specific
and
would
address
the
plans
that
he's
proposed,
and
that
way
it's
it's
more
site-specific
than
just
the
text
amendment
and
there
are
more
controls
for
the
city
in
terms
of
the
development.
So
that's
that
no
one's
proposed
that,
but
that
you
know,
might
be
something
to
consider.
E
So
no
one
has
I,
don't
know
that
people
have
mentioned
this
I'm
and
so
I
didn't
want
to
know
where
people
are
on.
This
I
am
okay
for
some
reason,
with
sixteen
getting
additional
height,
since
it's
all
truly
one
building,
but
I
don't
understand
the
height
jumping
to
another
building.
It's
not
they're
to
me
that
there's
something
very
different
happening
there
and
it
feels
uncomfortable
to
me
be
jumping
over
an
alley
to
a
second
building.
E
H
I
mean
I
think
that
that
side
of
the
alley
is
there's
different
things
going
on
there
right
now,
it
looks
like
there's
the
potential
that
being
filled
with
you
know
with
other
developments
that
are
at
their
height
limit.
So
why
can?
Why
are
we
not
granting
an
additional
height
to
those
developments
which
I'm
not
even
against,
but.
J
H
G
E
A
K
B
The
reason
for
the
extra
height
is
twofold:
it
all
stems
to
the
environmental
contamination
that
is
spread
across
this
entire
site.
We
started
with
just
three
parcels
here
two
years
ago
and
as
we
did
our
testing
and
we
found
out
the
extent
of
the
contamination
it's
grown
to
eight
parcels.
It's
never
been
our
intention
to
go
in
and
assemble
a
bunch
of
land
and
then
ask
for
height
just
just
for
the
sake
of
that
and
speaking
with
the
neighborhood,
we
we've
done
a
ton
of
neighborhood
outreach.
B
That
neighborhood
is
very
unique
in
the
sense
of
the
zone
that
that's
down
there
in
the
way
to
enhance,
what's
happening
there.
Great
neighborhood
nodes
around
track
stops
so
with
the
contamination
who
were
very
limited
on
what
we
can
do
there.
We
can't
excavate
any
any
any
dirt
from
that
site.
We
also
are
limited
on
the
use
we
can
have
on
that
ground
floor.
We
can't
have
any
residential
uses
on
that
ground
floor.
B
So
in
talking
with
the
neighborhood,
they're,
really
fed
up
well,
I
shouldn't
say,
fed
up
from
what
I
heard
it's
called
a
bait
and
switch
where
developers
come
in
and
say
they're
going
to
do
parking
and
they
don't
end
up
doing
parking.
So
you
have
projects
down
there
that
are
very
in
adequately
parked
almost
have
no
parking
on
site.
B
So
in
meeting
with
the
neighborhood,
what
this
site
has
going
for
I'm
just
I'm
glad
the
contamination
is
on
the
Southside,
because
it
was
on
the
north
side.
This
would
be
a
very
difficult
sell
because
the
residential
streets
of
Washington
Jefferson,
north
900,
South
or
specifically
in
the
zoning
called
for
as
being
protected,
whereas
the
south
of
nights
out
is
all
fbu
and
that
doesn't
have
that
same
residential
character.
So
the
city
in
meeting
with
with
the
community.
B
H
B
Yes,
so
we
have
a
we've
done,
a
ton
of
testing.
We
have
map
that
shows
the
plume,
which
is
there
are
three
levels
of
the
plume:
it's
it's
it's
closer
to
the
surface
mid
surface
and
subsurface.
Underneath
the
groundwater
we
control
all
of
the
plume
and
the
only
off
site
it
does
is
go
into
nine
south.
B
So
we
have
an
approved
remedial
action
plan
from
the
State
Department
of
environmental
remediation
that
took
a
lot
of
work
to
get,
and
it
spells
out
all
of
this.
So
so
we
we
are
able
to
control
all
of
that
by
owning
these
eight
parcels
and
again
it
was
never
our
intention
to
own
8
parcels
down
in
this
project.
We
just
had
chuckles
lounge
and
we
were
moving
forward
with
that,
but
for
the
last
two
years
you
can't
do
any
so
I
mean
we're
in
the
unique
position
it's
good
and
it's
bad.
B
You
know
we
actually
got
into
this
big
ball
of
wax
and
it
unintentionally,
but
what
we're
in
a
very
unique
position,
because
we
control
all
the
contamination
now
so,
which
means
these
sites
can
be
redeveloped
at
once.
If
we
were
chuckles,
we
would
go
to
Henry's
and
say
you
guys,
causes
contamination,
we're
gonna
sue
you
guys,
because
you
caused
this
contamination,
and
so
you
need
to
make
it
right,
and
so
all
of
these
legal
issues
are
now
put
to
bed
because
we
control
all
of
the
all
of
the
contamination.
H
H
C
G
First,
off
the
the
FB
un-to
ordinance
is
about
five
years
old
adopted
in
2014,
so
we
would
anticipate
a
longer
period
of
time
to
see
the
effect
of
that
zoning
district
because
it
is
a
new.
It
was
new
at
the
time
a
form-based
code,
so
we'd
like
to
see
how
that
plays
out
before
we
start
increasing
the
height
of
chunks.
Of
that
that's
one
point.
The
second
point
is
referring
to
the
master
plan,
which
also
the
urban
design
element
talks
about
having
prominent
intersections
with
taller
buildings
to
to
push
the
density
there.
G
B
B
C
And
I
know
the
first
time
that
you
came
in
my
my
hesitation
was
because
I
agreed
with
staff
that
you
know
a
lot
of
effort
in
the
community
has
been
made
with
the
master
plan
and
the
zoning
and
all
that
stuff,
and
at
the
time,
with
the
original
plan,
there
was
some
hesitation
from
the
community.
It
feels
like
to
me.
The
community
has
completely
turned
around
on
this.
C
It
seemed
like,
at
least
in
the
central
9th
letter.
There
was
a
lot
of
their
reasons
for
liking.
This
project
was
tied
to
your
interest
in
doing
the
parking
with
his
project.
Yes
and
I,
don't,
but
that,
but
this
zone
does
not
require
parking.
Is
that
what
if
do
I
am
I
recalling
that
correctly,
so,
would
there
be
a
way
to
tie
the
extra
height
to
granting
or
to
doing
that
parking
element
for
the
community?
Since
that's
what
they're
looking
for
or
is
that
something
so.
B
If
I
can
speak
to
that,
we
actually
have
to
come
back
for
a
plan
development,
okay,
because
the
zoning
calls
for
75%
of
ground-floor
facing
public
streets
to
be
habitable
space.
But
we
can't
do
that
because
of
our
contamination
and
our
equity
isn't
comfortable
wrapping
retail
all
along
Washington
and
200
West.
They
would
never
go
for
that.
B
So
we've
discussed
this
with
this
with
the
community
that
well
we're
gonna,
make
900
South
fan
classic
and
we're
gonna,
add
196
on-site
parking
stalls,
but
we're
gonna
have
to
go
to
a
plan
development
because
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
meet
some
of
those
requirements
because
of
the
contamination.
That's
on
this
site,
so
I
can
confidently
say:
we'll
be
able
to
tie
parking
and
other
things
that
we're
talking
about
retail.
On
the
on
the
front
to
this
project.
C
C
B
Would
be
involved
in
that
process
of
granting
them
an
extra
five
storeys
and-
and
we
have
to
work
closely
with
them
through
this
through
this
contamination
on
testing
their
property
and
remediating
it
properly
for
the
state
code
as
well,
so
we've
been
in
touch
with
them
and
we
we
plan
to
be
a
great
neighbor.
They
have
two
great
retail
fronts
that
is
gonna
break
up
the
street
well
on
9th
south.
So
anyway,.
C
J
J
H
J
J
B
Thing
if
I
may
add
in
the
zoning
it
specifically
talks
about
more
density
along
major
corridors,
so
anyone
who's
just
fronting,
Washington
or
or
those
residential
streets
that
that's
not
a
major
corridor.
It
specifically
calls
out
900
South
as
a
major
corridor.
So
I
don't
know
if
that
alleviates.
Looking
at
the
zoning
text,
that's
already
in
place
on
ways
to
really
and
on
ways
to
then.
If
someone
in
Washington
comes
and
says
well,
they
got
you
know
they
got
height.
F
Yeah,
I
mean
just-
I
think,
I'd
agree
with
that.
If
the,
if
the
Commission
decides
to
forward
a
recommendation
of
positive
recommendation
onto
the
City
Council,
then
I
mean
I
would
recommend
that
you
do
it
based
on
some
of
the
reasoning
why
we
have
the
extra
height
in
place
already,
and
that's
because
it's
on
a
block
corner,
it's
near
transit
things
of
that
nature,
as
opposed
to
a
contamination
issue.
That
I
mean
you
base
it
on
a
contamination
issue
for
this
property.
Some
other
property
could
come
by
and
say
that
I've
got
this
issue.
F
H
H
So
this
seems
like
a
logical
extension
of
that
corner
if
it's
being
developed
as
one
project
and
I
think
that
the
underlying
justification
should
be
the
content
of
the
contamination,
because
that
is
a
unique
thing
to
this.
To
this
situation,
and
probably
if
somebody
came
with
that
same
unique
situation,
they
should
be
granted
a
similar
type
of
arrangement,
but.
L
J
On
the
information
presented
and
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing,
I
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
recommend
that
the
City
Council
approved
the
expanded
of
vondre
zoning
map.
Amendment
petition
PLN
PCM
2017,
zero,
zero,
five,
nine
zero
for
the
following
reasons,
and
that
the
planning
staff
draft
the
necessary
ordinance
language
to
reflect
this
recommendation.
G
A
C
A
I
E
F
F
A
A
D
C
A
A
K
This
is
a
conditional
use
request
from
Mary
Richardson
she's,
the
owner
of
the
property
at
932
East
Princeton
Avenue.
The
request
is
to
construct
an
accessory
dwelling
unit.
An
Adu
to
the
rear
of
the
house
on
the
property
staff
is
recommending
of
approval
of
the
project
with
conditions.
Now
this
project
is
before
the
Planning
Commission,
because
all
Adu
proposals
located
in
a
single-family
zoning
district
require
conditional
use
and
this
property
is
located
in
the
r15
thousand
single-family
zoning
district.
This
process
looks
at
compatibility,
location
and
potential
impacts
of
the
request
and
just
a
reminder.
K
The
proposed
a
to
you
is
approximately
576
square
feet.
It
has
a
gable
gabled
roof
and
a
height
of
approximately
4
feet,
7
and
3/4
inches.
The
primary
exterior
material
is
composite.
Wood
siding
one
parking
space
is
proposed
on
the
site.
The
entrance
to
the
Adu
is
oriented
towards
an
alley
to
the
rear
of
the
property.
The
closest
house
on
the
property
is
approximately
50.
K
The
closest
house
adjacent
to
the
property
is
approximately
50
feet
away
and
an
analysis
of
the
development
regulations
for
80
use
in
comparison
to
what
they're
proposing
is
located
in
attachment
a
of
the
staff
report.
These
are
some
photos
of
the
site
and
the
surrounding
development.
The
main
property
on
the
main
house
on
the
property,
the
rear
alley,
as
well
as
the
surrounding
development
on
Princeton
Avenue,
and
this
slide
shows
the
back
yard
of
the
subject.
K
Even
though
an
accessory
building
would
be
allowed
without
a
dwelling
one
feet
away
from
the
property.
The
dwelling
and
the
accessory
building
could
increase
the
activity
in
that
area,
and
so
that's
the
reason
for
the
condition
of
approval
and
in
terms
of
public
process.
For
this
application
staff
sent
notices
to
property
owners
and
residents
within
300
feet,
notifying
them
of
the
project.
K
We
also
sent
a
notice
to
the
East
Liberty
Park
community
organization
and
they
hosted
a
meeting
that
staff
and
the
applicant
attended
and
they've
provided
a
notice
or
a
letter
and
that's
included
in
your
staff
report.
And
then
we
also
received
two
additional
comments
that
are
included
in
your
staff
report
and
staffs
reviewed
the
project
and
finds
that
it
meets
the
conditional
use
standards
and
again
we're
recommending
approval
with
conditions
of
the
project.
K
A
A
D
A
N
I
get
evening,
I'm
Jason,
Stephenson
I'm,
the
co-chair
of
the
East
Liberty
Park
community
organization
also
called
el
Poco,
where
the
community
council,
where
the
project
is
located,
were
basically
everything
from
seventh
east
to
13th
east
and
for
about
eight
South
down
to
seventeenth
south,
so
Liberty
Park
to
East
High
is
a
good
way
to
think
about
us.
So
we
learned
about
the
project
through
an
email
back
in
January
and
realized
quickly
that
this
was
going
to
be
one
of
the
first
conditional
use
for
an
Adu
in
the
city.
N
N
What
the
parameters
are
where
they
can
go,
who
can
live
there,
and
so
what
we
chose
to
do
was
actually
hold
a
small
meeting
with
the
applicant
ahead
of
our
normal
community
council
meeting,
where
we
invited
neighbors
through
a
flyer
that
you
can
see
in
the
staff
report
and
also
help
go
board.
Members
who
are
interested
to
learn
more
about
a
to
use
in
this
process-
and
you
know,
through
this
process,
we
learned
that
there
is
still
a
lot
of
confusion.
Even
among
people
who
read
the
newspaper
every
day
and
kind
of
follow
these
issues.
N
So
that's
just
one
thing
I
wanted
to
relay
is
that
as
more
and
more
of
these
come
up
ad
us
are
still
a
little
bit
fuzzy
in
the
mind
of
people
that
live
in
our
city
and
work
on
these
issues,
and
so
we
had
a
great
meeting
and
we
really
want
to
thank
Amy
from
the
Planning
Division
and
also
the
applicant
for
being
there
and
answering
our
questions
and
the
project.
You
know
look
good
people
wanted
to
know
a
little
bit
more
about.
N
You
know
how
it
came
about
and
some
of
the
sightlines
one
neighbor
showed
up
and-
and
he
had
some
questions
about
sort
of
the
the
distance
and
the
height
of
the
project.
Another
neighbor
who
was
going
to
be
there
actually
ended
up
having
her
questions
answered
just
through
the
backyard
over
the
fence,
conversations
that
the
Flyers
helped
initiate
most
of
the
most
of
the
neighbors
we
spoke
with
and
flyers
were
comfortable
with
the
project
thought
it
was.
N
Okay,
maybe
didn't
quite
know
what
ad
use
were,
but
you
know
we
did
try
to
explain
it
within
the
our
conversations
in
the
flyer.
So
you
know
we
support
the
project.
We
think
it
is
definitely
going
to
be
a
learning
process
for
community
councils
to
go
through
this,
and
one
we
tried
to
do
was
establish
some
some
guidelines,
some
parameters,
an
approach
that
other
councils
could
follow,
and
so
this
is
something
that
we'll
probably
shop
around
to
some
of
our
other
co-chairs
and
folks
that
might
be
involved.
We
also
have
Dave
Richards
here
who's.
N
The
land-use
advisor
for
Alko
he's
got
a
couple
of
little
more
technical
comments
because
he
actually
understands
this
stuff,
so
he'll
he'll
take
it
from
here
evening.
Commissioners
I
think
in
this
specific
case,
it's
a
it's
a
good
fit.
It's
a
deep
sight.
The
ad
you
will
access
off
the
Allium
back,
so
there's
less
impact
with
the
street
parking
I.
Think
that's
one
of
the
better
ones.
I
think
you'll
see
come
before
you.
N
This
give
us
a
chance
to
start
looking
at
the
the
latest
version
of
the
ad
or
ordinance
and
studied
a
bit
and
see
how
it
might
impact
our
neighborhoods
but
sort
of
three
basic
comments.
I'd
like
to
relate
to
you.
First
one
is:
you
know:
parkings
can
always
be
an
issue.
I
mean
every
project
comes
up.
Parkinson
issue
suggestion
is
that
you
might
consider
amending
the
ordinance
where
you
require
one-off
street
stall
per
bedroom
as
opposed
per
unit.
You
get
multiple
bedroom
units.
Maybe
someone's
got
a
roommate.
N
Maintaining
that
versus
the
people
who
want
to
add
ad
use
to
their
property
for
their
reasons
and
there's
gonna
have
to
be
a
balance
worked
out
in
there
somewhere
and
then
the
third
one,
a
purpose
statement:
21
a
286
states.
The
goal
is
to
broaden
range
of
affordable
housing
and
I.
Guess.
My
question
is:
how
do
we
verify
it
that
actually
happens
pretty
much
everything
I've
seen
lately,
that's
either
getting
planned
or
built
is
really
pushing
towards
the
maximum
market
rate
that
they
can
achieve.
That
really
doesn't
address
the
goal
of
affordable
housing.
N
B
C
Mean
I'll
just
start
by
saying:
I
think
this
is
really
an
ideal
first
start
into
the
ATU
world,
because
this
one
seems
like,
as
was
stated
by
the
Elco
representatives,
that
it's
the
deep
lot.
The
fact
that
this
is
a
single
story.
It's
I
think
one
of
my
concerns
with
the
ad
use
going
forward
and
I
don't
know
when
they
come
to
us.
You
know
I.
C
Think
staff
is
usually
very
good
about
including
information
like
this,
but
those
sort
of
sight
lines
of
privacy
and
how
that's
going
to
impact
the
backyards
of
the
neighbors
in
which
these
things
are
have
the
potential
to
impact.
That's
that'll
be
important
to
me.
I
appreciate
the
the
fence
recommendation.
I,
think
that's
a
good
one
for
this
and
generally
I'm
pretty
excited
about
it
and
think
it's
a
great
first
project.
K
I
didn't
ask
them
if
they
were
okay
with
the
conditions
of
approval,
but
I
did
inform
them
that
we
were
imposing
those
beforehand.
In
my
conversation
with
her,
it
sounded
like
those
were
some
things
that
she
may
have
already
been
considering
prior
to
this
condition,
but
she
may
be
able
to
better
speak
to
if
she's
happy
with
us.
D
K
If
I
can
clarify,
the
glazing
is
actually
a
requirement
in
the
Adu
ordinance
if
it's
closer
than
a
four
feet
to
a
site
or
rear
property
line
in
this
case,
because
the
rear
property
lines
adjacent
to
an
alley.
It's
exempt
from
that.
So
any
windows
required
on
the
side
of
the
building,
such
as
openings
for
egress.
Those
will
have
to
use
obscured
glazing
if
they're
within
10
feet
of
a
property
line.
D
D
Unless
you
put
gaps
and
there's
I,
didn't
really
see
the
reason
for
it,
because
there's
no
neighbors
like
there's
no
one
living
like
there's
a
garage
on
one
side
and
then
there's
just
empty
lot
on
the
other
side,
so
I
didn't
feel
like
any
anybody's
privacy
was
actually
going
to
be
infringed
upon,
especially
if
you
have
the
glazed
windows,
but
I
think
you
know,
wooden
fences
are
nice
and
it's
I'm,
not
gonna
put
my
feet.
You
know
dig
my
heels
in
about
something
like
that.
C
D
A
I
A
A
O
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
Commission,
and
the
item
before
you
tonight
is
for
an
appeal
of
administrative
special
exception.
So
a
special
exception
approval
was
granted
prior
on
an
administrative
level,
and
that
has
since
been
appealed
which
elevates
it
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
a
public
hearing.
Tonight.
O
That
special
exception
is
needed
due
to
a
non-compliance,
and
the
ordinance
requires
that
a
detached
structure
be
located,
no
closer
than
10
feet
to
a
adjacent
primary
structure,
a
neighboring
home,
and
in
this
case
it's
an
existing
non
complying
structure.
Before
we
begin
at
that,
I
just
wanted
to
make
mention
that
we
did
receive
a.
O
Notice
last
night
from
mr.
Sean
Eagan
who's
an
attorney
representing
the
appellant
in
this
case,
and
he
is
they've
noted
they
notified
us
that
they've
commenced
legal
action
against
mr.
Svenson
the
applicant
and
to
stop
the
construction
in
the
garage
and
with
that
they've
asked
that
the
Commission
considered
tabling
the
item
until
that
the
legal
proceedings
are
resolved
with
that
you'll
need
to
decide
whether
you
want
to
table
it
or
hear
the
item
based
on.
You
know,
of
course,
that
the
Commission's
decision
is
to
look
at
the
special
exception.
O
C
A
A
F
O
Okay,
so
this
it's
important
to
note
that,
when
a
administrative
approval
is
elevated
to
this
status,
public
hearing
its
reviewed
and
de
novo-
in
other
words,
we're
looking
at
at
all
new,
so
we're
not
taking
into
consideration
any
prior
approval
that
was
given
in
this
case.
They
just
for
clarity
sake.
The
applicant
is
mr.
Paul
Svendsen
and
the
appellant
is
Jefferson
gross,
because
we're
going
to
look
at
both
the
application
and
and
I'll
give
some
thoughts
on
that
and
then
also
talked
about
the
and
the
appeal.
O
So
just
for
some
proximity
here.
This
is
properties
located
in
an
ar-15
thousand
zone,
single-family
residential
zone
in
the
avenues
Community
Plan
and
the
property
is
slightly
unique
in
that
the
the
home
that
we're
looking
at
is
the
is
a
former
carriage
house
of
the
adjacent
property
and
so
there's
a
a
unique
property
line
between
the
two
properties
and
the
garage
itself
includes
a
shared
wall
for
the
for
the
two
properties.
So
that
is
a
little
bit
unique.
O
In
considering
this
request,
we
look
at
the
conditions
for
an
inline
addition
and
the
two
concerns
that
are
of
most
interest
and
why
it's
before
you
tonight
is
to
verify
that
one
that
the
building
line
does
not
create
any
new
non-compliance
and
that
the
roof
line
and
the
exterior
materials
are
compatible
at
the
original
structure.
So
in
looking
at
that
first
standard,
it's
important
to
note
I'm
trying
to
do
a
representation
here.
O
The
new
addition:
you
can
see
that
as
the
home
jogs
here,
the
new
addition
would
be
a
would
start
at
approximately
six
foot,
six
inches
from
that
home.
So
as
we
see
it,
the
new
addition
follows
the
special
exception
regulation
to
not
create
any
new
non-compliance.
It
maintains
the
same
non-compliance
and
then
moves
even
further
from
the
home.
O
The
second
issue
is
on
architectural
compatibility,
as
we
look
at
that
we
just
look
at
the
height
of
the
structure
and
that
it
follows
the
same
basic
building
lines.
In
this
case,
the
top
image
represents
the
existing
structure
and
then
as
proposed.
This
would
extend
the
garage
out
and
add
additional
one
parking
stall
inside
maintaining
the
same
roofline
and
then
I
should
also
mention
the
building
addition
would
add
300
square
feet
to
the
property
which
would
put
right
at
the
limit,
but
still
within
the
parameters
of
the
zoning
ordinance
for
accessory
structures.
O
O
Again
it
has
a
bit
of
a
jog,
but
for
the
most
part,
as
as
shown
on
the
surveyed
plans,
sets
a
foot
and
a
half
off
the
back
of
the
structure
where
the
appellant
it's
argument
is
that
the
fence
line
which
is
directly
in
in
line
with
the
rear
wall
is
actually
the
boundary
by
acquiescence.
So
that's
the
the
key
to
the
appeal
and
with
that
that
the
construction
would
constitute
a
trespass
and
in
order
to
construct
this,
they
would
need
to
remove
this
fence,
which
would
create
security
and
privacy
concerns
between
the
two
properties.
O
This
is
kind
of
a
depiction
here,
I
an
apologize,
it's
a
little
hard
to
see,
but
this
line
would
be
in
line
with
the
wall
and
fence
line,
and
so
the
proposed
addition
would
come
directly
towards
directly
forward,
and
then
this
is
where
the
property
line
jogs
along
the
fence
lines
in
this
portion
of
the
fence
lines,
not
necessarily
of
concern,
but
the
wall
line.
There
is.
O
Out
and
again,
the
surveyed
property
line
shows
a
foot
and
a
half
here,
whereas
the
appellant
is
arguing
that
it's
actually
the
fence
line,
which
is
represented
by
the
red
line.
So
that's
the
primary
dispute
there
in
looking
at
that,
it's
important
to
consider
that
cities
in
general
and
Salt
Lake
City
is
no
different,
do
not
make
they
don't
have
the
authority
or
the
responsibility
to
discuss
boundary
line
disputes.
Those
are
a
civil
matter.
O
H
O
And
they
could
speak
to
that,
but
and
the
Planning
Commission
could
grant
this
and
in
the
legal
proceedings
we
were
forwarded,
it
looks
like
they're
proposing
a
temporary
restraining
order
to
stop
the
construction
of
it
and
again
that
would
be
happen.
That
would
happen
in
court.
That
wouldn't
be
our
issue
to
look
at
it
at
all,
but
they
could
work
that
out
amongst
themselves
as
to
you
know,
hold
off
on
the
project
or
whatever,
but
our
our
end
of
it
would
grant
approval,
which
would
be
good
for
up
to
a
year.
D
F
G
L
Paul
Svendsen
I'm,
the
original
applicant
eric,
has
done
a
very
nice
job
of
laying
out
the
issues
and
he's
been
terrific
to
work
with
all
the
way
through.
I
really
I
won't
take
up
ten
minutes.
I
just
wanted
to
set
two
really
quick
things.
The
I
think
there
are
two
separate
issues
that
are
at
work
here,
there's
clearly
a
boundary
line
dispute
now
that
has
caught
us
totally
off-guard,
because
we
did
a
survey
of
the
property
and
we
had
no
idea
that
there
was
any
dispute
whatsoever.
L
All
of
the
work
that
we're
proposing
to
do
is
within
the
surveyed
boundaries
of
the
parcel,
but
there's
a
disagreement
there
and
that
process
will
work
its
way
through
the
courts.
As
Eric
mentioned,
we
were
served
with
the
summons
and
complaint
last
night
and
we're
being
taken
to
court
tomorrow
morning
for
a
temporary
restraining
order.
Hearing
and
we'll
just
take
it
as
it
comes.
L
L
That,
however,
is
not
what's
in
front
of
you
tonight.
As
Eric
said
there's,
there
are
seven
standards
for
a
special
exception,
and
here
I,
as
eric
indicated
and
this
staff
report,
there
has
been
no
opposition
raised
with
respect
to
any
of
those
standards
and
if
I
can
I'll
just
go
through
them
really
quickly,
so
for
the
record
sort
of
and
then
I'll
step
back
and
you
can
do
your
work.
E
L
L
Oversized
two-car
garage
or
kind
of
a
tight
three-car
garage
just
totally
typical
up
up
in
this
federal
Heights
neck
of
the
woods.
The
second
criteria
is
no
substantial
impairment
of
property
value
here
again
having
a
720
square
foot
garage,
it's
very
common
amongst
neighbors
I
would
just
note
that
the
garage
that
were
attached
to
is
I
think
almost
exactly
that
size,
maybe
just
a
skosh
bigger.
So
there's,
certainly
president
here.
No
the
third
item
is
no
undue
impact
here.
L
I
think,
there's
really
none
to
speak
of
the
overall
situation
on
the
site
will
hardly
be
affected
at
all.
You
know
it
says
we're
talking
about
a
300
square
foot
increase
in
size,
so
it's
really
a
minimal
effect
compatible
with
surrounding
development.
I
think
that
that
is
exactly
the
same
reasoning
is
the
no
substantial
impairment.
This
size
of
garage
is
typical
in
the
neighborhood.
The
neighbor's
garage
is
the
same
size
I
think
it's
perfectly
compatible.
L
No
destruction
of
significant
features
here.
I
just
think
that's
not
applicable.
There
aren't
any
significant
features
here.
It's
a
pretty
humdrum
garage.
Six
is
no
material
pollution
of
the
environment.
That's
not
applicable
as
far
as
I
can
tell
and
number
seven
is
just
compliance
with
the
standards
and
that's
a
an
important
one,
because
under
the
zoning
ordinance.
L
It
says
in
particular
that
we
can
do
inline
additions
with
respect
to
existing
buildings
that
are
non
complying
as
to
yard
area
or
height
regulations,
which
is
the
case
here.
As
long
as
we
follow
the
existing
building
line,
which
we're
doing
we
don't
add
any
dwelling
units
which,
of
course,
we're
not
and
that
this
is
a
legitimate,
architectural
addition
and
I
think
we've
taken
some
pains
to
make
this
garage
nice
and
in
keeping
with
the
building
nuts
there
now.
So
that's
really
all
I
had
for
now.
L
A
M
My
name
is
Jefferson
groves
and
I
reside
at
1315,
East,
2nd,
Avenue
right
next
door
to
the
property
of
the
applicant
and,
as
I
mentioned
I'm,
not
a
real
estate
developer
I'm,
not
conversing
with
the
ordinances
and
and
alike,
but
I'll
try
to
do
my
best
in
this.
The
first
I
found
out
about
this
proposal
wasn't
from
a
neighbor
from
the
applicant
saying
that
they
wanted
to
do
something
proximate
to
my
property.
First
time.
M
I
got
notice
of
this
was
on
January
3
when
I
had
notice
of
this
application,
saying
I
had
basically
two
days
to
respond
from
December
21
date
on
an
envelope
that
was
postmarked
on
December
24th,
so
I
had
two
days
after
the
vacation
to
respond
and
provide
comments
and
tried
the
best
I
could,
in
that
short
of
a
period
of
time
after
the
staff
approved
the
special
exception.
I
then
raised
the
issue
about
title
and
I
think
that
it
would
should
give
pause.
This
Planning
Commission
to
approve
any
exceptions.
M
Dibble,
who
was
a
previous
owner
of
1305,
2nd
Avenue
and
the
owners
of
my
parcel,
and
that
was
long-standing,
and
that
was
the
boundary
and
both
property
owners
respected
it
both
as
far
as
privacy
and
the
like
and
I
had
always
understood
that
that
was
going
to
be
my
property
line.
Now,
incidentally,
I
keep
on
hearing
a
reference
to
a
survey.
I
have
not
seen
a
survey
in
this
file.
M
Then
we
filed
suit
yesterday
and
we
have
a
temporary
restraining
order.
Hearing
set
for
tomorrow,
the
cause
of
action,
its
boundary
by
acquiescence.
But
the
basis
of
the
action
is
to
quiet
title
to
the
property
and
so
that
everyone
understands
what
their
property
is
and
what
it's
not,
and
so
that
we
think
should
proceed
before
this
commission
acts.
I
should
mention
that
the
applicant,
in
this
case
is
largely
relying
and
as
opposition
of
the
temporary
restraining
order
upon
the
staffs
recommendation
here
and
I
presume.
M
If
this
commission
approves
the
proposal
will
also
rely
upon
that
and
give
them
some
information
of
approval
as
far
as
title
and
I,
don't
think
that
is
very
appropriate.
So
it's
not
as
if
these
things
are
proceeding
separately.
Instead,
the
applicant
is
relying
upon
what's
happening
here
and
so,
while
I
appreciate
the.
M
M
A
O
So,
anytime,
a
plans
are
submitted.
Site
plans
are
submitted,
as
they're
indicated
on
here,
just
even
with
the
markings
we
and
in
showing
the
property
line.
We
do
check
those
with
the
boundary
lines
we
have
for
the
property
recorded
at
the
county
and
it's
impossible
to
get
so
precise
to
measure
within
a
foot
and
a
half
to
see
if
these
line
up.
O
Nor
would
we
ever
make
that
determination
if
they
largely
follow
what
we
have
if
they
seem
to
not
have
any
major
discrepancies,
then
we
proceed
forward
as
if
these
are
or
understanding
that
these
would
be
survey
drawings
again,
if
that
is
incorrect,
that
is
an
issue
between
two
neighbors.
It's
a
civil
matter,
they've
taken
the
appropriate
action
filing
the
suit
and
that's
something
again
that
we
would
not
necessarily
look
at.
We
would
proceed
with
the
matters
as
written
in
the
ordinance,
so
just
just.
C
P
If
there's
a
pending
boundary
dispute,
I
definitely
understand
why
there
would
be
concern
or
why
that
would
give
you
pause.
But
in
looking
into
it
the
Planning
Commission
is
a
commission
of
limited
jurisdiction.
We,
the
Planning
Commission,
doesn't
make
decisions
about
boundary
disputes
and
yours,
you
have
very
strict
guidelines
and
making
decisions
about
special
exceptions.
So
I
would
guide
you
to
follow
those.
P
E
D
D
P
H
P
Very
limited,
and
so
whatever
decision
is
made
tonight,
is
based
on
the
limited
jurisdiction
in
the
ordinances
and
what
the
court
is
looking
at
tomorrow
is
something
much
different
and
whether
the
court
is
looking
at
tomorrow
isn't
about
the
merits
of
the
case.
Anyway.
It's
about
the
immediacy
of
the
potential
harm.
C
C
Based
on
the
findings
listed
in
the
staff
report,
the
information
presented
in
the
input
received
during
the
public
hearing
I
move
that
the
Planning
Commission
approved
the
special
exception
request
for
an
inline
addition
at
1305
East,
second
Avenue
and
the
Commission
finds
that
the
project
complies
with
review.
Standards
is
demonstrated
in
attachment.
A
of
the
staff
report.
D
E
E
O
A
A
A
K
E
E
C
F
F
Ready,
yes,
this
is
this:
is
you
know
what
feel
free
to
keep
continue?
I
mean
we
can
talk,
and
this
is
this
is
very
informal,
so
feel
free
to
get
a
cookie
get
a
drink,
so
I
I
think
a
few
commissioners
have
asked
and
and-
and
we
also
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
maybe
just
have
a
little
no
briefing
discussion
about
planned
developments.
F
Kind
of
the
purpose
of
this
is
that
you
know
last
year
in
2018,
nearly
half
of
all
the
the
petitions
that
you
you
all
reviewed
were
planned
developments,
which
is
a
lot
of
cases.
I
mean
it's
a.
It
makes
up
a
lot
of
your
workloads,
so
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
doing
things
right
for
you,
the
plan
development
ordinance.
F
That
was,
we
rewrote
the
plan,
development
ordinance
and
you
were
all
you
know,
participate
or
many
of
you
participated
in
that
it
was
about
a
year
ago,
but
we
do
have
some
newer
commissioners
and
thought
that
maybe
we
should
just
give
a
little
overview
of
of
the
plan.
Development
ordinance
itself,
and
also
what
we
want
to
do
is
just
provide
this
opportunity
to
maybe
get
some
feedback
from
the
commissioners.
F
How
do
you
think
things
are
going
with
plan
of
elements?
Is
there
anything
else
that
you
want
us
to
provide
to
help
you
make
decisions?
Is
there
maybe
something
that
in
the
future,
we
can
do
some
other
trainings
on
some
very
specific
things
that
we'd
be
happy
to
do
that?
So
just
a
really
quick
overview
on
really
why
you
see,
plan
developments
or
maybe
different
types
of
planned
developments,
there's
really
kind
of
two
main
types.
The
first
one
is
a
modification
to
zoning
rate
regulations
within
that
there's
two
different
types
of
that
type.
F
One
is
that
there
there
are
planned
developments
or
applications
that
are
specifically
mentioned
in
the
zoning
code.
For
example,
the
zoning
code
specifically
states
that
you
can
ask
for
five
feet
of
additional
height
in
certain
zoning
districts
through
the
development
process,
also
says
that
you
can
ask
for
a
planned
development
to
do
offsite
parking
in
zones
that
don't
allow
the
other
type
of
modification
to
zoning
regulations
are
not
those
specifically
stated.
F
F
You
know,
spelled
out
in
the
ordinance
and
that's
really
makes
up
most
of
what
you
all
see.
Those
are,
and
maybe
not
I,
don't
know
if
I'm
using
the
appropriate
legal
term,
but
we
would
consider
those
discretionary
applications,
meaning
that
they
have
development
rights
without
getting
a
plan
development
that
developer
is
coming
here.
It's
the
choice
of
their
own
they're,
trying
to
get
something
more.
F
What
that
means
is
that
Planning
Commission,
you
have
the
ability
to
deny
those
applications
if
they
don't
meet
the
standards.
The
next
type
of
of
planned
development
are
those
that
are
actually
required
by
ordinance.
We
have
a
couple
of
zoning
districts.
Two
of
those
is
the
gateway
mixed-use
and
the
commercial
shopping
where
it
says
in
the
zone
that
if
you
were
to
do
a
new
development
or
a
new
construction
or
a
big
enough
addition,
you
have
to
go
through
the
plan
development
process
as
your
development
review
process.
F
These
are
a
little
trickier
they're,
not
really
discretionary,
because
they're
we're
actually
requiring
them
to
come
to
you
to
get
approval
for
that
project.
It's
a
little
difficult
to
deny
those
projects,
because
then
we
are
really
denying
some
development
rights
associated
with
that.
We
will
make
sure,
as
planning
staff,
that
if
those
types
of
projects
come
your
way
that
we
try
to
point
that
out
in
our
staff
reports,
so
that
you're
aware
of
what
you're
looking
at
so
what
cannot
be
approved
through
the
the
PD
process?
F
What
is
any
additional
building
height
in
the
foothills
or
single-family
or
two
family
residential
zones,
specifically
not
allowed
to
be
reviewed
as
a
planned
development.
The
Planning
Commission
cannot
approve
land
uses
that
are
not
allowed
in
in
in
the
base
zone
and
Planning
Commission
in
those
zones
that
have
zoning
density
limitations.
The
Planning
Commission
cannot
approve
additional
density,
so
like
the
RMF
zones,
if
somebody
comes
in
and
they
only
have
a
certain
lot
size,
but
they
want
more
dwelling
units.
F
You
cannot
approve
that,
except
in
our
rewrite
of
the
plan
development
ordinance,
you
all
forwarded
a
positive
recommendation
to
a
specific
regulation
that
says
that
if
you
are
converting
a
non-conforming
commercial
used
to
a
residential
use
than
the
RMF
zones
that
you
all
can
basically
waive
the
density
limitation.
We
got
that
in
working
with
the
community,
because
not
forming
commercial
uses
are
an
issue
in
some
of
the
RMF
zones
and
they
thought
that
would
be
a
good
thing
to
do,
to
try
to
convert
those
and
to
increase
our
housing
stock
you.
F
So
what
is
the
the
purpose
of
a
plan
development?
This
is
a
really
key
important
thing
of
the
whole
planned
development
process.
There's
kind
of
what
the
city
wants.
Sometimes
what
the
developer
wants
and
then
that's
the
balancing
act
that
we
always
play
the
city,
what
the
city
wants
and
out
of
the
purpose
statement
of
the
plan.
Development
is
basically
getting
a
better
product
than
what
can
be
achieved
through
their
strict
compliance
with
zoning
regulations,
and
that's
specifically
stated
in
the
purpose
statement
of
the
plan
developments
also
to
implement
city
goals.
F
It's
kind
of
a
weird
property
or,
as
we
I
mean
Salt
Lake
City,
is
a
built
out
property
with
interesting
lot
configurations
and
interesting
zoning.
Sometimes
it
doesn't
really
necessarily
match
the
the
existing
development
pattern.
So
we
see
a
lot
of
planned
developments
that
come
in
because
to
try
to
meet
the
zoning
is
just
makes
things
very
difficult,
so
so
the
trick
for
for
us
and
the
Planning
Commission
is
really
to
try
to
look
at
those
and
balance
those
out
and-
and
you
know,
look
at
it
house.
F
How
do
we
accommodate
development,
but
then
utilize
our
plan
development
process,
utilize
those
standards
to
get
a
better
product
that
implements
our
city
goals.
I
mean
I,
think
that's
just
something
that
the
Planning
Commission
always
should
kind
of
keep
in
mind
when
looking
at
these
types
of
projects,
we're
just
gonna
give
a
very
quick
overview,
because
these
are
super,
exciting,
slides
that
I
have
here,
but
just
kind
of
roll
to
the
planned
development
standards
really
fast.
F
Just
to
give
a
little
refresher,
because
you
know,
like
I,
said
most
of
the
planned
developments
that
the
Planning
Commission
reviews
are
discretionary,
and
basically
these
are
the
standards
that
you're
reviewing
the
project.
You
can
approve,
deny
or
approve
with
conditions
projects
based
on
these
standards
and
then
again
it
gets
a
little
trickier
with
the
non-discretionary
plan
developments.
It
will
cross
that
bridge
when
we
get
to
it.
F
So
the
first
is
the
first
standard
is
plan
development
objectives
and
there's
really
three
components
to
this.
First,
this
first
standard-
and
these
are
all
spelled
out
in
the
in
basically
what
this
says
is:
does
the
project
meet
the
purpose
statement
of
the
plan?
So
one
are
we
getting
a
better
product
that
what
we
could
get
through
strict
compliance
of
the
code
and
does
it
help
to
achieve
a
city
goal?
The
third
component
of
this
is
that
a
plan
development
must
incorporate
one
of
the
listed
objectives
that
we
have
in
our
purpose
statement.
F
So
that's:
preserving
protecting
creating
open
space
and
natural
lands,
historic
preservation,
affordable
housing
or
meeting
our
housing
goals,
enhances
accessibility
and
mobility,
minimizes
resource
consumption,
consumption
impacts
on
natural
lands
and
or
I
should
say
or
implements
master
plan
goals.
The
project
only
meets
two
needs
to
meet.
One
of
those
objectives.
F
F
F
I,
don't
think
it's
happening
in
every
report,
but
add
a
little
section
in
the
key
consideration
section
of
the
reports
that
says:
here's,
maybe
how
we're
getting
something
a
little
bit
better
than
what
the
base
the
standard
says
or
how
does
this
differ
from
what
the
base
standards
say?
I,
you
know,
I
think
the
RMF
zones
are
a
pretty
good,
a
pretty
good
scenario
to
look
at
with
plan
of
elms
right
now.
Our
RMF
zones
do
deny
they
have
very,
very
few
design
standards.
F
You
can
build
a
pretty
ugly
apartment,
complex
by
right
in
our
car
m-f
zone,
but
you
can
come
in
for
a
planned
development
request
and
you
know
maybe
they're
looking
for
relief
from
a
setback,
maybe
from
some
landscaping.
But
what
that
does
is
that
opens
the
door
for
you
all
to
utilize
the
standards
to
try
to
get
a
better
design
product
to
get
a
product
that
actually
is
compatible
with
the
neighborhood
more
so
than
what
you
could.
What
we
could
just
get
by
right.
F
The
next
standard
is
master-planned
compatibility
and
that's
what
we
just
you
know
say:
here's
what
the
master
plan
says
about
this
area,
as
sometimes
it's
just
basic
land
use,
stuff
or
sometimes
there's
some
very
specific
design
criteria
and
the
master
plan
and
project
needs
to
meet
the
master
plan.
The
third
is
a
big
one,
design
and
compatibility.
F
So
is
the
project
compatible
with
the
neighborhood
in
in
relation
to
scale,
mass
intensity,
building
orientation,
materials,
perimeter,
setbacks,
pedestrian
interest,
interaction,
lighting,
dumpster
loading
areas
and
parking
buffers?
This
is
really.
This
is
one
of
the
big
changes
that
we
had
when
we
did
the
rewrite
to
the
plan
development
ordinance
in
the
past,
sometimes
I
felt
as
though
we
were
on
a
little
bit
shaky
ground
with
their
old
plan
deployment
ordinance
when
we're
getting
into
a
lot
of
real
kind
of
design,
criteria
on
front
facades
and
stuff
I
thought
it
was.
F
You
know,
good
decisions,
but
it
wasn't
a
lot
to
back
us
up.
In
this
case
we
actually
have
a
very
specific
standard.
Now
that
says
this
is
what
the
neighborhood
looks
like,
and
so
this
project
needs
to
to
be
compatible
with
that
number
for
landscaping.
There's
a
project
preserved,
mature
trees.
The
landscaping
along
the
periphery
of
the
project
is:
does
the
landscape
appropriately?
Is
it
scaled
appropriately
and
designed
to
minimize
impacts?
F
Does
the
project
implement
city
goals
relation
to
our
to
promote
safe
and
efficient
circulation
in
relation
to
impacts
on
local
streets,
pedestrians,
bicyclists
connectivity
and
emergency
vehicle
access
existing
site
features?
Is
the
project
preserve
any
natural
or
build
features
that
might
you
know
be
contributed
to
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
utilities?
Can
can
the
utilities
adequately
serve
the
project,
jump
up
and
get
there
here
a
little
bit
so.
F
F
F
The
last
kind
of
thing
I
want
to
throw
out
there
and
then
really
it's
because
you've
been
seeing.
Quite
a
few
of
these
is,
is
time
limit
situations,
plan
developments
are
valid
for
one
year
or
until
the
project
receives
a
building
permit,
or
at
least
they
have
full
building
permit
plans
they've
been
submitted
in
our
building
permits
office.
It
seemed
you've
been
definitely
seeing
more
and
more
of
these
and
honestly,
it's
not
unusual
for
projects.
F
F
F
That
requires
some
additional
time
to
work
through,
and
so
it's
not
unusual
for
us
to
get
those
I
think
the
key
thing
that
for
the
Planning
Commission
and
it's
also
kind
of
spelled
out
in
the
zoning
ordinance-
is
that
really
what
you're
looking
at
on
these
time
extensions
is
making
sure
that
there
isn't
a
change
in
in
some
sort
of
circumstance
related
to
the
project
or
the
neighborhood.
That
might
need
that
to
be
reviewed
again.
F
E
I've
been
on
I
think
two
and
a
half
three
years
now
and
we've
had
a
couple
come
through
that
not
many,
but
a
couple
come
through
that
are
getting
like
a
second
or
even
third
extension.
Do
we
have
any
kind
of
limits
on
that
because
at
some
point
it
feels
foolish
to
just
keep
pretending
something's
gonna
get
built
there.
Yeah.
F
I
think
actually
the
yeah,
and
you
can
continue
to
grant
those
your
long
extensions,
that's
where
that's
where
that
standard
comes
into
play.
If,
if
we
keep
granting
extensions
but
we're
finding
that
the
neighborhood
is
actually
changing,
and
that
may
be
what
you
reviewed
the
project
against
originally
isn't
really
applicable
anymore
because
of
changes
to
that
neighborhood
I.
Think
that
gives
you
the
ability
to
that
definitely
gives
you
the
ability
to
deny
the
extension
and
require
the
project
to
go
back
to
the
process.
E
F
Is
there
anything
else
that
the
staff
can
can
do
in
our
reports
or
our
presentations
related
to
plan
developments
that
might
help
you
make
decisions
and
then
also,
if
there's
something
else
associated
with
these,
that
you
might
want
to
get
a
little
bit
more
deeper
into
you
know,
just
let
us
know
and
we'd
be
happy
to.
You
know
I'd
like
to
do
these
trainings
on
nights
that
don't
have
a
lot
of
action
so
that
we're
not
keeping
you
here
until
midnight.
But
so
let
us
know-
and
you
know,
does
anybody
have
anything
at
this
point?
F
E
Then
we
can
really
evaluate
whether
what
we're
getting
is
an
enhanced
product
and
if
you
know,
I
like
it,
when
the
staff
reports
have
the
key
considerations
and
that
lays
out
the
issues
for
us
and
I'm
actually
I
prefer
to
see
the
tables
earlier,
rather
than
have
to
sit
through
all
of
the
plans
to
calluses,
and
that
may
just
be
a
function
of
the
PDFs
there's
a
way
to
link
it.
So
you
can
just
go.
You
could
pull
up
the
standards
and
the
evaluation
that
the
staff
has
done
and
look
at
it
with
the
plans.
E
F
A
F
Some
planners
aren't
reducing
the
size
of
the
documents,
so
you
basically
you're
scrolling
through
eight-and-a-half
by
11
piece
of
paper
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
you
get
to
a
24
by
36
and
then
everybody's
going
like
this
to
try
to
figure
out
how
to
make
it
work
so
yeah.
Well,
we'll
look
at
doing
that.
Maybe
that's
easy
enough
to
just
do
a
separate
PDF
of
the
plans
in
the
in
your
Dropbox.