Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, we're gonna go ahead and get started and we will begin by taking roll.

Jeffrey Barrett.

Here.

Amy Burrows. Here. Lila Rosenfield.

Here.

Brian Scott.

Here.

Anna Sullivan. Here. It's a quorum.

All right. AND ON TO THE REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO REPORT I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO REPORT THIS WEEKEND. THIS WEEKEND. NOR DO I. NOR DO I. SO MOVING TO THE REPORT OF THE SO MOVING TO THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR. We'll have our open forum. So this is for commissioners to bring up any concerns or ideas that aren't directly related to an item on the agenda. So we have 10 minutes if you would like for that. Is there anything anyone would like to bring up? All right, then we'll move on to our consent agenda, which includes the approval of the minutes for May 27, 2026, an extension request for Elliott South development at approximately 846 and 850 South Richard Street, and extension request for Elliott North development at approximately 29 West, 800 South. And neither of those has a public hearing. So if someone would like to make a motion.

Can I ask a quick question? If the new extension rules have been published or approved yet?

Yeah, they have been published. These were just submitted before they went into effect. But the new rules are in effect.

Are there any more extension requests that are on the old rules that might be coming forward?

Yeah, there's at least two on the next agenda. But I don't anticipate you'll see many after that.

OK, thank you. I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda.

I'll second. All right. We have a motion and a second from Commissioner Barrows and Rosenfeld. So we'll go ahead and vote.

Commissioner Barrett?

Yes.

Commissioner Barrows? Yes. Commissioner Rosenfeld?

Yes.

Commissioner Scott?

Yes.

Commissioner Sullivan? Yes.

All right. So.

Oh. I APOLOGIZE. I NEED TO NOT VOTE FOR THE MINUTES BECAUSE I WASN'T AT THE MEETING.

YOU ACTUALLY CAN VOTE FOR THE MINUTES AS LONG AS YOU REVIEWED THEM. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ABSTAIN. YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO BE HERE FOR THEM.

I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN FROM THE MINUTES. I APOLOGIZE IF THAT'S OKAY. IF WE NEED TO DO SOME PROCEDURAL THING. I REVIEW THEM.

COOL.

PERFECT.

THANKS.

ALL RIGHT. THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST WORK SESSION ABOUT THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY PLAN.

If you just push the click share big round button. There you go.

there we go good evening commission my name is Megan Booth I'm a principal planner in the planning division and tonight I'm here with Seth Rios another principal planner to talk about the central community plan update Chrissy Gilmore is our planning manager and helped us with the citizen conditions report so she may jump in here and there throughout the presentation So the purpose of this plan update is the central community plan is currently outdated. It was updated in 2005. So the purpose of the update is to create a vision for the next 15 years and align the central community plan with other newer citywide plans, such as Plan Salt Lake, Growing Water Smart, and Housing Salt Lake City, Housing Salt Lake. So right now we are here where you see the arrow in the public engagement phase of this plan update. The existing conditions report was published on SHAPE SLC and the project launched last week. So that is where we are. So here's the timeline. Right now, we're looking at opportunities and issues. We're going to the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, and the City Council to present our existing conditions report. We're currently doing stakeholder interviews. We will have some open houses. We have an online survey launched already. You may have seen that. And we're doing several in-person outreach events. The next step will be work sessions with the council and commissions. We'll share our engagement results, get feedback, and begin drafting initiatives based on what we have heard. And then our hope would be, and that would run through September, our hope would be to have a final document between October and December and to adopt sometime early next year. So the plan area boundaries, you can see that here the plan area is approximately six square miles or 3,885 acres. For this update, the focus is on five neighborhoods because downtown and Gateway already have their own adopted plans, the downtown plan and the Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan. As a result, those areas are not included in the plan update. So here are the five neighborhoods, Central City, East Central North, East Central South, Liberty, and Ballpark. And within those five neighborhoods, there are 12 sub-neighborhoods. So to go over some development history of this area, Salt Lake City's grid pattern is one of the most defining features and has shaped the city's growth since its founding in 1847. The original city was laid out according to the Plot of Zion, a one square mile grid envisioned by early Mormon settlers under the direction of Brigham Young. The plan reflected agricultural principles and the desire for orderly development. with wide 132-foot streets and large blocks designed to accommodate homes, gardens, livestock, irrigation, and future growth. The central community contains some of the city's earliest development and illustrates how Salt Lake City's urban form evolved over time around the city's iconic grid. As the city expanded southward, development patterns began to change. South of 900 South, the Bigfield Survey divided former agricultural land into narrower 25-foot lots. You can see that on the picture, creating a more compact neighborhood pattern that allowed homes to be built closer together and increase residential density. These historic development patterns continue to influence the character, scale, and layout of the central community today. So I want to talk a little bit about development periods. In the early 20th century, we saw rapid residential growth, the late 20th century, commercial redevelopment and infill, and in the early 21st century, we're seeing increases in multifamily development along corridors. This slide illustrates how the central community has grown and changed over time. The oldest buildings shown in blue and green are concentrated on the northern portion of the plan area. near downtown, reflecting the city's earliest development. Many of the residential neighborhoods were built between 1880 and 1930 and have remained largely intact, preserving their historic character. Transportation investments have played a major role in shaping development patterns in Central Community, from the development of the streetcar to the construction of Interstate 15. In the mid-20th century, shown here, 1930, 1940, the federal government and private lenders used a practice called redlining, which was developed for mortgage lending. Marginalized groups were confined to less desirable areas, and this shaped development, and those patterns continue today. I-15 also reshaped the central community and that was constructed and began in 1950 and opened in 1960 and created a physical barrier that reduced neighborhood connectivity and displaced residents. Development patterns shifted in response to the new transportation corridor and the freeway influenced decades of development by creating direct investment towards some areas while contributing to disinvestment in some. This map shows how the development patterns.

Megan, do you want to go back to that last slide?

Yeah.

Just to explain that graph, the image on this slide, I think it's interesting that so on the left side of it, that road is 300 West. And you can see those yellow buildings. Those are homes that were demolished and displaced. So this map's from approximately 1950. And then the freeway came in, and those homes no longer exist. So just an example of how that affected that area and contributed to displacement. Sorry, Megan.

No problem. I fully expected that. This map shows the development patterns in the building coverage and intensity today. The open space is distributed in the form of streets, yards, parks, institutional campuses, you can see that in white, and other undeveloped areas. The open space is not equally distributed, with some space areas having more space than others. Some neighborhoods have smaller building footprints with more space between structures, while others have larger or more continuous building footprints and more intense urban environment. These patterns contribute to the character of the neighborhoods and influence our opportunities for infill, open space, preservation, and future growth. So with that introduction, I'll go ahead and turn it over to Seth to go over some highlights of our existing conditions report.

Okay, so this slide just gives a little summary of some of the information that we found out just looking at the demographic data and how central community compares to the rest of Salt Lake City. So we found that central community is more renter occupied with more units coming from multi-family housing than single family housing. We found that it's less racially diverse than the rest of the city with a higher share of white residents in these neighborhoods. We also found that This area has fewer children living here with more working age adults and college students when compared to the rest of the city. Residents are also more likely to live alone or in non-family households, which the Census Bureau defines as unrelated people living in the same housing unit. Central community also has fewer residents over the age of 60 and an overall smaller average household size. This community also has a lower median income than this city median income, which is interesting because in this neighborhood, residents have a higher rate of going to college. So that's an interesting fact. And we found that this neighborhood is also less auto-dependent with fewer residents driving alone and higher rates of walking, biking, transit use, and working from home. So it's important to note that it's really hard to say that the central community is blank just because these facts vary significantly from neighborhood to neighborhood. This is just a summary of when we look at the central community as a whole. So Central Community is home to approximately 51,000 residents, or a quarter of the city's total population, and overall population in the plan area has grown about 10% since 2010, but that growth has not been evenly distributed. There's been significant growth in ballpark in Central City, but on the flip side, there's been population decreases on the southeast corner of the plan area. So as I mentioned earlier, overall central community is less diverse in Salt Lake City as a whole with minorities comprising 27% of the local population compared to 35% citywide. White residents make up 73% of the population in central community and Hispanic residents are the second largest group of 14%. So as you can see, this graph just shows that those numbers vary from neighborhood to neighborhood, and it shows that Central City and Ballpark have, they're just more diverse than other neighborhoods in the plan area. So Central Community has a median age of 33.15 years, which is generally in line with the city's median age of 33.9 years. That said, the community skews slightly towards college and working age residents with fewer children aged five to 17 and fewer senior residents than other neighborhoods in the city. Additionally, age distribution varies significantly across the plan area. As shown on the map, the northern area has significantly fewer households with children than the southern end. And then the opposite is also true where the white parts of the map have higher proportions of college aged residents. So understanding who lives where helps us to plan the right mix of housing services and amenities for each neighborhood. The median household income in Central Community is approximately $63,000, and that's compared to the city-wide average of $75,000. This is $10,000 lower than the city-wide average. And like everything else, it varies from neighborhood to neighborhood, but it's important to know that Central City, East Central, and Ballpark have median household incomes below $55,000. Liberty and East Central South have much higher income levels at $85,000 and $92,000, which is almost $30,000, around $30,000 more than the other neighborhoods. ON TOP OF HAVING A LOWER MEDIAN INCOME THAN THE CITY AS A WHOLE, ABOUT 41% OF HOUSEHOLDS IN THE PLANNED AREA EARN LESS THAN $50,000 A YEAR. This wage disparity grows even more when we step back and look at the area median income, or AMI. The AMI for the Salt Lake Metro is $106,000, which means that the typical central community household earns about 60% AMI, placing it in the low income category. These numbers indicate that affordability is a challenge throughout the central community. So this chart shows that a higher percentage of central community residents live below the poverty line and are without health insurance when compared to Salt Lake City as a whole. Lower median income and higher poverty rates can have significant impacts on central community residents, including a higher share of income spent on housing costs. One thing to note is that neighborhoods with the highest poverty rates today are largely the same ones that were historically redlined or received less investment. This is important context and shows that there are disparities by neighborhood. And this table also shows that Ballpark and Central City have the highest rate of youth poverty, senior poverty, and uninsured individuals. So housing is considered affordable when households spend 30% or less of their income on housing expenses. Whenever they spend more than 30% of their income on housing, somebody's considered to be cost burden, and those spending 50% or more are extremely cost burden. Cost burden can limit a household's ability to pay for necessities such as transportation, food, healthcare, and unexpected expenses. This chart shows that the median home value in Central Community is $470,000, slightly below the Salt Lake City average of $495,000. MEDIAN RENT AND MEDIAN MORTGAGE COSTS ARE ALSO SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN CITYWIDE AVERAGES. WHILE THESE AVERAGES ARE ATTAINABLE TO SOMEBODY MAKING THE MEDIAN INCOME, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE MEDIAN RENT AND MORTGAGE IS UNATTAINABLE TO MORE THAN 40% OF RESIDENTS. DESPITE LOWER HOUSING COSTS, THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES HIGHER RATES OF HOUSING COST BURDEN THAN SALT LAKE CITY OVERALL. REMEMBER THAT 40% OF CENTRAL COMMUNITY HOUSEHOLDS ARE LESS THAN $50,000 A YEAR. And this challenge is especially pronounced among renters who face substantially higher rates of cost burden than homeowners in every neighborhood. Another thing I want to point out before going on to the next slide is this cost burden scenario in the bottom right. It just shows how unattainable it is for an average central community resident to purchase a home within central community. The important numbers are highlighted on the right side, and it basically just shows that to afford a home in central community, a household would have to make $134,000 a year to not be cost burdened. So the plan area includes zoning categories shown on the screen. Those are residential, mixed use, open space, institutional, and public land. Within these broad categories are 24 unique zoning districts, and each one has its own specific set of regulations that govern land use, building height, setbacks, and other development standards. These zoning designations vary very drastically if you look at different neighborhoods. It's very different. The mixed use zoning aligns with the development period map that we showed earlier. A lot of the new growth is happening in these areas that are zoned MU or mixed use. And we found that the land use aligns closely with the zoning map. So in areas that show residential here, you'll find on the ground that generally those areas have residential land uses. The same goes for the mixed use zones. If it shows mixed use on the zoning map, then that means that there's either commercial or mixed uses on the ground. So those align pretty closely. So as I mentioned earlier, this planned area has more multi-family housing than single family. And even though apartments account for 63% of housing in the area, they only occupy about 21% of the land used for housing. The inverse is true of single family housing. It accounts for 30% of the total units, while occupying the majority of residential land area. Other housing types include duplexes and single family attached. And I think this map is really interesting because the previous zoning map showed that the southeast corner of the plan area is mostly single family zoning. However, this map shows that there's a lot more housing variety in these neighborhoods. South and east of Liberty Park, you can see a ton of duplexes and multifamily units mixed in with the single family housing. And there's a few possible explanations for this. The first one is that the first zoning map in Salt Lake City was adopted in 1927. By this point, much of the planned area was already built out. And then the other reason is that duplexes used to be allowed by right in these areas until the citywide rezone happened in 1995. So that could explain some of this variety that you're seeing in neighborhoods. And it just shows that there's more going on in these neighborhoods than the zoning map would suggest. So the average density in this planned area is 12.7 units per acre. This is higher than the citywide average of 8.9 units per acre, not including Central Community. Central City and East Central have the highest average density that you can see on this chart here. So now moving into transportation, this plan area includes more arterial streets than other neighborhoods in Salt Lake City. The slide here shows a list of some of the major arterial roads in the plan area going east to west and north to south. When it comes to active transportation, we see that the plan area has a lot of good options for bike lanes. The active transportation network has been significantly improved since the pedestrian and bicycle plan was adopted in 2015. Were you gonna, did you just? Okay, notable projects include the Nine Line, 1100 East, 300 West, and 200 South. And something to note here on this map is that Ballpark has a lot fewer options and connectivity options when it comes to active transportation. So there's 15 bus routes that run in the area, with six running every 15 minutes. 98% of households live within walking distance of a bus route, but only 50% live within walking distance of a frequent bus route that runs every 15 minutes. All three tracks lines run through the planned area. However, only about a quarter of households live within walking distance of a track station.

On that note, talking about access, one of the themes that emerged from our existing conditions analysis is access to parks, recreation, and open space. The central community has the lowest level of park access of any planning area in Salt Lake City. When we look at the amount of parkland available per resident, the community has about 2.8 acres per 1,000 versus citywide average of 3.5 acres per 1,000 residents. We also evaluated park access using a walkability measurement, which looks at how easily residents can reach a park based on distance and proximity, and the results show that many areas of the community are underserved, meaning residents may have to travel farther and across to access recreational opportunities. The map on the right illustrates the distribution of parks throughout the central community, and while there are several parks within the plan area, they are not evenly distributed. Some neighborhoods, particularly in the southwest portion of the plan area, have fewer parks and limited access to open space. Another important finding is that there are no designated natural lands within the plan area. However, residents do have connections to nearby natural areas through trail streets and regional trail networks. In the existing conditions report, there is a trails map that shows that. Overall, the data highlights a significant gap in park acreage, park accessibility, which will be an important consideration as we move forward through the plan update. This slide I included, it shows that there's obviously a correlation between the areas with lower tree canopy coverage and the corresponding locations with higher surface temperature as shown at the heat map. It just highlights the importance role that trees play in reducing the urban heat island, providing shade, improving neighborhood resilience to rising temperatures. The central community contains a significant number of historic resources, including three local historic districts, eight national registered districts, and 89 individual sites compared to other plan areas. It's important to understand the difference between a local and national historic destination. Local historic districts and local landmarks are regulated by Salt Lake City, meaning changes to those properties are subject to review by the Historic Landmark Commission and also subject to our city preservation ordinances. On the other hand, national register designation is primarily, I can't say the word, I'm sorry, honorary and recognizes a property's historic significance at the national level. With federal funding permits or tax credits that are involved, national register designation does not give the city authority to regulate alterations or demolition in national register districts. That's just kind of an overview. Therefore, the city's preservation review authority is focused on local designation for designated historic districts and landmarks. Next slide. Arts and culture. There's a strong concentration of mural sculptures and cultural landmarks throughout this community. Public art contributes to the neighborhood identity and placemaking and the community character. And public art is really important to the sense of place in this plan area. And it contains a significant concentration of public art. Many public art pieces are located along major corridors and parks and around civic spaces and within emerging mixed-use districts, helping create a memorable place and strengthen the neighborhood character. Public art does support economic activity by enhancing public spaces and attracting visitors. So some key takeaways from our presentation is that at this point growth is concentrated in Ballpark and Central City. Housing affordability remains a challenge as Seth explained. There is a strong transit and active transportation network, but there's uneven access to parks and open space, as well as tree coverage. Historic inequalities continue to influence community conditions, and there is a significant variation among the different neighbourhoods within this plan area. So just moving forward where we're at, we just published that report. Please take a look at it if you haven't already. Our next events, we're going to be doing two open houses next week, one at Finchley Art Gallery and one at Tracy Erriary. We're trying to reach both the east and west side of the plan area. We are doing a few different pop-up engagement events. And one of the events I'm very excited for is the Sip and Troll on June 24th. We partnered with Hill Utah to do a neighborhood walk audit and social. The approximate time is 6 p.m. We're still working on the details. And then we're partnering with the Transportation Division to do kind of an east side walk audit at Reservoir Park. Next slide. So we want to hear from you and we want to hear from all the residents in central community. We have a goal to try to get 100 surveys in phase one. We're already at like 70 as of this afternoon, so it's completely possible. So if you're listening online or you're here, please scan the QR code and check out our survey and share it with friends and family, residents, visitors, anyone in this plan area. And that is the end of our presentation. If you have any questions or comments, we'll happily take them.

Great. Thank you. We do not have public comment for this, so I think we'll just bring it back to the committee for questions or discussion or anything.

Can you, I've got many questions, so this is my district, this is my home. I was wondering if you could start by expanding on the employment, because it looks like the majority of employment is in management, business, science, and arts occupations. And there's this really interesting thing that I think you called out a little bit, where a lot of the social factors that we think of as determining income, so type of employment, racial makeup, age... not having kids, right, like all of those things tend to be associated with higher incomes and yet the neighborhood overall is lower income. Do we have a sense, I mean I wonder if some of that is just the student population which doesn't have any, much of any income often. WHERE SO FIRST OF ALL WHAT DOES MANAGEMENT BUSINESS SCIENCE MANAGEMENT BUSINESS SCIENCE MANAGEMENT BUSINESS SCIENCE AND ARTS OCCUPATIONS INCLUDE AND AND ARTS OCCUPATIONS INCLUDE AND AND ARTS OCCUPATIONS INCLUDE AND SECOND OF ALL DO YOU HAVE ANY SECOND OF ALL DO YOU HAVE ANY SECOND OF ALL DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS MORE BROADLY ON WHAT WHAT THOUGHTS MORE BROADLY ON WHAT WHAT THOUGHTS MORE BROADLY ON WHAT WHAT IS CAUSING THAT DISCONNECT IS CAUSING THAT DISCONNECT IS CAUSING THAT DISCONNECT BETWEEN AGAIN THOSE THESE FACTORS BETWEEN AGAIN THOSE THESE FACTORS BETWEEN AGAIN THOSE THESE FACTORS THAT OFTEN DEMOGRAPHICALLY WE SEE

So this data was taken from the 2023 census, so it's all of the categories in which they grouped. I would need to look, pull that data and probably see specifically which occupations that all encompasses, but I think it correlates directly with the education college college-age residents that live in this, or college-educated residents that live in this plan area.

Gotcha.

I would think. And the uses that surround this plan area, too, and access to jobs within the plan area.

That makes sense.

Yeah, I think Megan hit on our guess is that it's a lot of recent graduates that haven't moved out, so they just probably aren't up at that level yet to be making a mid-level salary yet.

GOTCHA. APPRECIATE IT. AND THEN, OKAY, SO, BUT NEVERTHELESS, RIGHT, SO THE CENTRAL CITY, ESPECIALLY THE NORTH CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD ALSO HAS A LOT OF LOW INCOME RESIDENTS. LIKE, ALSO HAS A LOT OF MINORITIZED RESIDENTS AND LOW INCOME RESIDENTS, RIGHT, LIKE THAT IS THE PLACE THAT IS, TENDS TO BE, TENDS TO HAVE THAT CONCENTRATION. I am curious, so I know a lot of unhoused folks often take up residence in my neighborhood. And of course I'm happy to welcome them there until such time as we can find better solutions. But I am curious to what extent your existing condition reports sort of evaluates the movement pattern of that particularly mobile population, which might not always, you know, doesn't have necessarily an address but might tend to concentrate in specific areas.

THAT QUESTION I AM GOING TO TAKE NOTE OF AND LOOK INTO FURTHER AS WE MOVE THROUGH THIS PROCESS. BUT I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER AT THIS MOMENT.

EXCELLENT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND THEN NEXT QUESTION, IN TERMS OF THE HISTORY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE ZONING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE WERE A COUPLE MENTIONS OF THE 95 REZONE, CORRECT? AND THAT WAS JUST A PRETTY BROAD DOWN ZONING.

Yeah, that was when the R1-5000 zone was created. I think there was a different zone that was more widely used before that that just allowed duplexes by right. It didn't require any special permission or anything. It was just allowed. PRETTY MUCH MOST OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. I THINK FEDERAL HEIGHTS WAS AN EXCEPTION, BUT FOR THE MOST PART DUPLEXES WERE ALLOWED EVERYWHERE BEFORE THAT DOWNZONE.

OKAY. AND WERE THERE ANY OTHER, WERE THE SHIFTS IN ZONING, I WANT TO SORT OF FOCUS IN ON 70s, 80s, WERE THERE OTHER SHIFTS IN THE ZONING CODE THAT HAPPENED ESPECIALLY IN CENTRAL CITY DURING THOSE TWO DECADES?

I think what I remember from our research is that there was a lot more commercial development in the middle of the 1900s. That was like when it really spiked. Yeah. It was during that time period. I think that was another trend that we saw specifically in this neighborhood.

As far as if zoning changed during those periods, we can definitely look into that. I don't have a great answer for you right now though on what zoning existed in the 70s and 80s.

Thank you. I do want to draw some attention. I appreciate the way in which you put equity at the center, or at least that's the foundation of this investigation. I think that that's absolutely essential, and I am very glad about that turn in our profession. That sort of, I think, primed me a little bit to look at the various maps you saw through the lens of that redlining map. And I think that the the interesting thing or the compelling thing is that the areas that were considered generally Generally safe quote-unquote still desirable are the areas that have single-family zoning and were down zone in the 90s right as we were sort of finally starting to shake off the hangover of red line well starting barely to shake off the hangover of redlining and restricted covenants I think That is a really interesting reality where, okay, so there was no longer a possibility of keeping out racially minoritized communities by law, or directly by law, and so instead there were these other approaches that might have been part of the coalition to encourage that down zoning, I think. And likewise, I think, interestingly, with historic districts, where we see that the areas that were considered the most desirable are now considered historic districts, which continues, I guess, protecting that investment in a racialized sense. And this is the hobby course, I think I've beat it a couple times, but with the long 90s and the transition to the asset economy, where in the 80s and 90s there were some things that were deregulated and some things that were actually upregulated, and those upregulations tended to create asset problems. TO TRANSITION TOWARDS AN ECONOMY IN WHICH THE SO-CALLED MIDDLE CLASS WAS ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, EARN FOR RETIREMENT, EARN FOR OR TO ACHIEVE THEIR RETIREMENT NOT THROUGH PENSIONS OR WORKING OR COMMUNITY PROTECTION BUT THROUGH THE OWNERSHIP OF ASSETS. AND SO IT'S INTERESTING TO LOOK AT THESE MAPS AND FOR ME I SEE THIS COME OUT PRETTY CLEARLY THAT THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONES ARE THE AREAS WHERE COMMUNITIES WHICH DESIRED AND HAD THE POLITICAL SWAY TO PROTECT THEIR ASSETS We're able to engage in that particular process of down zoning And I do think if that's important for us to keep in mind not just for this work session But for other questions about what zoning looks like Thank you for letting me grandstand for a little bit I think in terms of Transportation I would hope that I know that with SB 242, we are pretty restricted in what we can do with arterials and the changes that we can make given the, frankly, incredibly striking danger of the streets in this particular neighborhood and the number of deaths, injuries and deaths that have occurred. That said, I would hope that there might be opportunities to investigate the pursuit of policy AT THE STATE LEVEL AS SORT OF AT THE STATE LEVEL AS SORT OF AT THE STATE LEVEL AS SORT OF PART OF THIS PLAN TO MAYBE PART OF THIS PLAN TO MAYBE PART OF THIS PLAN TO MAYBE CLAW BACK SOME CONTROL OF OUR CLAW BACK SOME CONTROL OF OUR CLAW BACK SOME CONTROL OF OUR STREETS. STREETS. STREETS. BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS SHOWS BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS SHOWS BECAUSE I THINK THAT THIS SHOWS THAT THE DECISIONS THAT THE THAT THE DECISIONS THAT THE THAT THE DECISIONS THAT THE LEGISLATURE MADE PUT OUR LEGISLATURE MADE PUT OUR And while obviously there's not too much we can do about that right away, I still think that part of the process of strategic planning, part of the political process of planning is evaluating ways we can shift the territory on which we operate to make our people safer even if it's not an immediate possibility.

Thanks for sharing. I did go ahead and take notes of all of that, so thank you.

Appreciate it.

I I also noticed that it said 45% of the vehicle collisions in this neighborhood are include pedestrians and bicyclists and I I just think there should be way more outrage against about bicyclists and pedestrians being hit by cars then. YOU KNOW, LIKE IF THERE'S A DUPLEX ON THE LOT NEXT TO YOU. SO I HOPE THAT THAT ALSO GETS SOME ATTENTION, STUFF LIKE THAT. THE THING THAT I WAS, I READ THE COLOR OF LAW AND I HAVE A LOT MORE TO LEARN ABOUT RED LINING AND THAT KIND OF STUFF, BUT I WONDER, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE SEEN, WHEN I SAW THAT RED LINING MAP THAT WAS DONE IN GRAPHICS THAT MATCH ALL OF YOUR OTHER MAPS, YOU KNOW, LIKE IT'S A REAL modern. It looks like it was made in the same time as all the other maps that we're talking about. And I don't know that I've seen that before. Usually you see the old drawing, redlining, and then with a modern thing overlaid on it. Just wonder if there's consideration about best practices on how to move past those things if that's if showing them in a like a modern graphic representation Reinforces that or if it's just educational or what it is like what's the best way to like let's Let's do something about it show it in a way that encourages a solution instead of an entrenchment, if that makes sense. But I don't know. That maybe is just a thing I need to learn about, and I haven't looked into it yet. But also, if you guys know best practices for how to handle that, I would love to see that. I ALSO IDENTIFY THAT MAYBE A LITTLE BIT BETTER AS BEING LIKE THESE LINES WERE DRAWN IN THE 50S AND THE EFFECTS STILL EXIST BUT THIS ISN'T OUR CURRENT, THIS ISN'T WHAT WE WANT TO SEE GOING FORWARD, RIGHT? RIGHT. IT DIDN'T SEEM TERRIBLY CLEAR. IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT RED LINING, THAT'S CLEAR. IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO SALT LAKERS, THAT SHOULD BE CLEAR BUT IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE IT WAS CLEAR FROM THE TEXT.

That's very helpful. All of that's helpful, but the graphic especially, I hadn't considered that. And you make a great point that us creating a new map might signal that somehow that's a current practice or that we're supportive of it. So I think we'll definitely look at switching that map out or figuring out a different way to display it. Thanks for bringing that up.

EVERYBODY WHO LIVES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, EVERY MAP THEY LOOK AT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE LIKE, OH, MY HOUSE IS HERE. OH, MY HOUSE IS DANGEROUS. MY HOUSE IS IN THE MOST DANGEROUS AREA, WHICH IS NOT THE POINT, RIGHT? OTHERWISE, THE GRAPHICS, I REALLY, REALLY LOVE THE GRAPHIC DESIGN. LIKE YOU HAVE THE NEW CONSISTENT ICONS FOR EVERYTHING. I LOVE IT. I THINK IT LOOKS SO PROFESSIONAL. LIKE THE POINT THAT WE GET TO WHERE ALL OF THE CITY PLANS AND DOCUMENTS LOOK LIKE THAT. I LOVE IT. I THINK IT'S REALLY GREAT. I THINK IT DOES MAKE OUR CITY LOOK LIKE WE'RE THOUGHTFUL AND CONSISTENT AND A LITTLE BIT MORE EQUITABLE LIKE EVERYBODY'S NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IS GOING TO BE EASY TO SEARCH AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. I LOVE IT. SO GREAT JOB.

THANK YOU. KUDOS TO OUR GRAPHIC DESIGNER, BRIAN. HE'S AWESOME.

I GUESS WE'RE JUST GOING AROUND. I GUESS WE'RE JUST GOING AROUND. SO I FEEL COMPELLED TO SPEAK. SO I FEEL COMPELLED TO SPEAK. A COUPLE OF POINTS PROMPTED BY A COUPLE OF POINTS PROMPTED BY THE COMMENTS OF MY FELLOW THE COMMENTS OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER SO FAR. COMMISSIONER SO FAR. FIRST TO COMMISSIONER FIRST TO COMMISSIONER ROSENFIELD'S QUESTION FIRST TO COMMISSIONER ROSENFIELD'S QUESTION ON THE 1995 DOWNZONE. ON THE 1995 DOWNZONE. IT'S NOT JUST DUPLEXES THAT ARE in what are we calling it east central south it's a lot of um multi-family like actual four plexes are very common um in the east liberty park neighborhood and and and just around and so and they're not you know they're they're typically 1970s 1980s so i'm curious for YOU KNOW, I REALLY APPRECIATE IT AS A RESIDENT OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S COOL. BUT I'VE ALWAYS BEEN CURIOUS ABOUT HOW THAT CAME TO BE. WE HAVE AN EXPLANATION ON THE DUPLEXES BUT NOT SO MUCH ON THE FOUR PLEXES. ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT BEFORE I KEEP TALKING?

YEAH. I JUST WOULD SAY IT'S REALLY UNIQUE TO EACH PROPERTY. WE CAN'T LIKE LOOK UP THE ZONING HISTORY OF EVERY SINGLE I think it's safe to assume that just the zoning has changed over time. It's constantly changing. Even the practices, like what's best practice has changed since those houses were built. So I don't have an explanation for, you know, how they were built throughout the neighborhood. I'm not really sure.

IT IS INTERESTING YOU BROUGHT THAT UP BECAUSE THE PLANNING DIRECTOR WHEN HE REVIEWED OUR DRAFT ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP THE SAME THING. WHAT DOES THE ZONING SAY? WHY DO WE HAVE THESE FOUR PLEXES OR EVEN LIKE SIX OR TEN UNIT BUILDINGS? WE DID GO THROUGH THE ZONING BOOKS AND THE ZONING MAPS AND TRIED TO FIGURE OUT WHEN AND HOW THOSE WERE ALLOWED AND WE COULDN'T COME UP WITH IT. SO POTENTIALLY THEY JUST BUILT THEM. WE DON'T KNOW.

JUST AN ENFORCEMENT THING. MAYBE THEY'RE JUST BACK THEN THEY MAYBE THEY'RE JUST BACK THEN THEY MAYBE THEY'RE JUST BACK THEN THEY DIDN'T REALLY CARE ABOUT THAT DIDN'T REALLY CARE ABOUT THAT DIDN'T REALLY CARE ABOUT THAT AND THEY JUST LET IT FLY I AND THEY JUST LET IT FLY I AND THEY JUST LET IT FLY I DON'T KNOW BUT IT'S FUNNY YOU DON'T KNOW BUT IT'S FUNNY YOU DON'T KNOW BUT IT'S FUNNY YOU BROUGHT THAT UP BECAUSE WE WERE WE BROUGHT THAT UP BECAUSE WE WERE WE BROUGHT THAT UP BECAUSE WE WERE WE DID SPEND A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO DID SPEND A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO DID SPEND A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT FIGURE THAT OUT FIGURE THAT OUT YEAH I'VE ALWAYS BEEN CURIOUS YEAH I'VE ALWAYS BEEN CURIOUS YEAH I'VE ALWAYS BEEN SO I APPRECIATE THAT AND I APPRECIATE PLANS LIKE WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT LATER THAT GET US MORE IN THAT DIRECTION. AND THEN THE OTHER JUST HIGH LEVEL QUESTION SORT OF TO COMMISSIONER BURROWS' COMMENTS ON THE PLANS. What's the status update? You know, we're working through this one. We've had some other, you know, there's a lot of work on neighborhood plans. What's left outstanding, you know, that, you know, neighborhoods for which there's a 30 or a 40 year old plan?

So we are updating the community plans, and we're doing three a year. So right now we're working on Northwest Avenues and Capitol Hill that you've seen already, I believe. And then now we're working on Central Community. Do you guys remember the order?

I think Central Community will just be the only one we start this year, given the size of it, and it's a very complex area. But essentially, we're just going to go in order of the oldest plans. So Sugar House will be coming up soon because it's one of our older ones. But yeah, it'll just go in order of plan date.

And Northwest is at council. It's just been on hold because of budget season. So that should be briefed in July. We just heard July 21st and then public hearing in August.

Kind of a general question about the community plans I have is whether opportunity zones are contemplated at all in any of them. And I just ask that because I think Central City and Ballpark are just about to be added as opportunity zones. So I think it might be worth considering that in this. And then I also wanted to comment on what Commissioner Burroughs was saying about redlining I think it can be helpful in a more modern context to look at How do I say this a redlined a red line map Overlaid with qualified census tracts which are current and can give you And a better idea of how some of those things are held over in current times.

Thank you. I took a note of that as well.

Sorry, one more thing. Can you go back to the slide about parks really quickly? I think this is really helpful. I think it might be even more helpful to know the size of these different parks. I know obviously Liberty Park, the larger ones are outlined, but it might, yeah.

In the existing conditions report, if you go to that section of it, there is a list of every park and the size and location. Page 76. Page 76.

Yeah, I was also struck by the parks thing because I'm also a resident of this neighborhood, and I think that a lot of people around there, because of how much Liberty Park is used and how prominent it is, think of the area as being like, oh, no, this is where you live, and then there's a lot of access to parks. I do, at least. So it's interesting to see that, like, per acre, it's actually less. And I wonder what that says about just the distribution of size of park and of how people use parks and how that differs from family to single people to teenagers. I don't know. I would not have guessed that the area containing Liberty Park is where there aren't parks in Salt Lake.

That's really interesting. I was actually listening to a podcast today and they were talking about in American cities, big American cities with bigger parks, that they're actually seeing this kind of trend happening where you have a large acreage dedicated to a park, but residents want access to pocket parks or playgrounds or just more access in general. So I don't think this is just centralized to Salt Lake. I think this is SOMETHING THAT OTHER LARGE CITIES IN THE U.S. ARE GRABBLING WITH.

I THINK THAT'S AN INTERESTING THING THAT STOOD OUT TO ME AND I WONDER WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT HOW PEOPLE ARE USING PARKS AND PERCEPTION OF THEM BECAUSE I AT LEAST THINK, OH, NO, I LIVE NEXT TO A PARK AND IT'S VERY CLOSE AND IT'S A HUGE PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD KIND OF THING.

That's all. Yeah, we can definitely look into that through our next talk to residents about it and see how they're using them.

I HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT. AS I LOOK AT ALL OF THESE AS I LOOK AT ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT MAPS, IT STRIKES ME DIFFERENT MAPS, IT STRIKES ME THAT THE BALLPARK NEIGHBORHOOD IN THAT THE BALLPARK NEIGHBORHOOD IN MANY WAYS, IN TERMS OF A LOT OF MANY WAYS, IN TERMS OF A LOT OF THE TRENDS WE'RE ANALYZING FOR THE TRENDS WE'RE ANALYZING FOR HERE, IS MORE AKIN TO WHAT WE like a west side neighborhood in terms of a lot of trends, in terms of, you know, trees and income and other things, and yet a lot of times in different policy and sort of programmatic contexts, know we talk about planning a thousand trees on the west side or planning and i i guess i you know maybe we should be paying more attention to sort of some of these more granular data things than just what neighborhoods are on the west side of i-15 or on the east side of i-15 you know i i'm on the board of an organization called true utah and we've WE DO THE SAME THING. WE PRIORITIZE THE WEST SIDE WE DO THE SAME THING. WE PRIORITIZE THE WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOODS OF WHICH THE BALL PARK NEIGHBORHOODS OF WHICH THE BALL PARK IS NOT ONE AND YET FROM A SHADE IS NOT ONE AND YET FROM A SHADE PERSPECTIVE AND PROBABLY A HEAT PERSPECTIVE AND PROBABLY A HEAT ISLAND EFFECT PERSPECTIVE. ISLAND EFFECT PERSPECTIVE. IT'S MORE AKIN TO A WEST SIDE IT'S MORE AKIN TO A WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOOD. NEIGHBORHOOD. JUST A COMMENT, SOMETHING TO BE JUST A COMMENT, SOMETHING TO BE THINKING ABOUT.

THINKING ABOUT. THANK YOU. the data on the parks and the perception. And I think, let me try to keep this kind of short, but it's also, for me it's kind of shaky ground because I think we're in the age of, a lot of debate around media literacy and data literacy, but I think if the common perception is that in and around Liberty Park, it's a huge park and people have access and a bunch of things like that, but the data shows something different, say, is that, are we measuring the right thing rather than, oh, we're wrong about what we feel? So we'll go back and forth with that and look at some other data measures to say people around Liberty Park typically think they have huge access to parks and Central City has a lot of parks, but maybe not. I know we've had members from the ballpark community come and say they wanted more access to green space and more parks and rather see that than some of the other things that were presented. But in and around Liberty Park, maybe it's a different perception because we're not measuring the right thing. And so I would be open to more different measures of how we access parks. I know it's been pretty consistent across the board, and it's a good rule of thumb in what we're using, acres per 1,000 people. But maybe there's another measure that reflects the common sentiment in what people feel, even though there's some danger there. And I say that to say, even articles about people wanting more pocket parks and these sort of smaller things in their neighborhoods. Well, I spent a lot of time in planning and zoning in the community, but we had pocket parks because we had housing vacancies. We had to have something there because otherwise it was just a torn down house. And so we had pocket parks and water capture area, recapture areas and things like that because we needed it there. I don't know if anybody necessarily wanted it, but it was better than an alternative, right? But you also have the history of, and I think Salt Lake is one of the few cities, I don't know what the measure is for this, but from public access to pools and rec centers, things like that went away in the 70s and 80s in most of the cities in the Midwest. And Salt Lake has fantastic facilities here. The fact that I can name Northwest and Sorenson and other parks and folks in the avenues came, last month and said they wanted to see a public facility there that's something that people don't have but those things disappeared because people wanted more exclusivity and not be around the public as the public got more diverse right and i think salt lake is in a space where you have these great public spaces and the push towards more isolation and more smaller spaces that are uh maybe for this cul-de-sac or this block of those sort of things may not be the right direction to go in So I'll be careful with that sort of trend.

All right. I hear what you're saying. Yeah, with the perception of rec centers is different. The perceptions of park is different. Maybe going more private, private recreational facilities, more HOA owned kind of parks and neighborhoods. Is that, do I have that right? Okay, got you. Follow me.

THAT WAS GREAT. I JUST THOUGHT HARDER THAN I I JUST THOUGHT HARDER THAN I I JUST THOUGHT HARDER THAN I HAVE IN A LONG TIME. HAVE IN A LONG TIME. HAVE IN A LONG TIME. AND ALSO, LIKE IF BALLPARK RIGHT AND ALSO, LIKE IF BALLPARK RIGHT AND ALSO, LIKE IF BALLPARK RIGHT NOW COUNTS AS OPEN SPACE OR PARK NOW COUNTS AS OPEN SPACE OR PARK NOW COUNTS AS OPEN SPACE OR PARK SPACE, YOU CAN'T GO IN THERE. SPACE, YOU CAN'T GO IN THERE. SPACE, YOU CAN'T GO IN THERE.

I MEAN, BALLPARK IS, IF YOU I MEAN, BALLPARK IS, IF YOU I MEAN, BALLPARK IS, IF YOU LIVE BY BALLPARK, YOU CAN'T, IT'S LIVE BY BALLPARK, YOU CAN'T, IT'S LIVE BY BALL

WELL, IT'S SHOWN IN GREEN, SO IF THAT'S PART OF THE CALCULATION IS BASED ON COLORS, THEN THAT DOESN'T SEEM FAIR BECAUSE BALLPARK IS NOT OPEN SPACE. IT'S SURROUNDED BY TALL BUILDINGS AND, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, LIKE YOU CAN'T GO IN THERE. THAT DOESN'T COUNT. YEAH, LIKE THAT BIG PARK, I ALSO CONSIDER LIBERTY PARK MY PARK, BUT IT'S PRETTY FAR AWAY FROM MY HOUSE. SO THE BIG KIND OF, I DON'T KNOW IF IT COUNTS AS A REGIONAL PARK, BUT BIG PARKS LIKE THAT ARE Super essential. And then the artesian well is also, I think, one of the parks in this neighborhood. It's like that's a totally different thing even if it's counted the same as a park, but it really is a totally different thing too. But anyway, I can see a huge space on this map that doesn't have any parks.

A couple more. First of all, on figure 1.7, the percentage of buildings constructed by decade, I just have a big text, units, question mark. So I think it would be useful to understand, because obviously we see this substantial decline. There's been almost no buildings built terms of residential or commercial since it looks like the 80s especially relative to like the early 20th century I am curious like what percentage of units in the neighborhood was built more recently because obviously like a larger the larger building will have but what does it only count as one in figure 1.7

Yeah, figure 1.7 is the actual buildings constructed. So we can look into the unit count. I'm sure we have it. I just don't know it off the top of my head.

Next question, in terms of transportation again, I would just note, so you talk about high frequency buses and the relatively limited number of those. I think it is probably useful to call out the fact that previously this neighborhood had more high frequency buses. Route 220 and Route 205 were both 15 minute service and were cut. during the COVID pandemic. They were planned to be, well, they were planned to be restored this year or 205 was planned to be restored yet this year it did not happen. So I think it might be useful to just note that point that there is clearly a demand, a historical demand for that higher frequency service and it just hasn't been provided due to financial constraints.

Okay, sounds good. So just to make sure I have my notes here, buildings constructed by decade broke down into units. And then note that this neighborhood had more bus lanes, but was cut during COVID.

Bus frequency, high frequency buses, not lanes.

Perfect, got it.

And then the last thing, just a quick question about demographics. No discussion of the LGBTQ community. It is Pride Month, so I feel like I have to call this out. I think that this is probably the queerest neighborhood in Salt Lake. I don't know that for sure, and I would be curious to see if there's any data backing it up.

Great.

As it's a work session, I don't believe we need to table or anything, so thank you guys very much.

Great job. It's pretty impressive that our own planning department is doing these reports. It's awesome. It's amazing.

It's really, really impressive work. I know how much work goes into plans like these, and I so appreciate everything that the entire planning team and you guys especially are doing.

All right. We will move on to our next work session, which is expanding housing options.

630, calling out 630 for this agenda item was quite spot on. Good job.

Cool. All right. Well, we are going to get into our expanding housing options. This is a briefing on our public engagement. We recently concluded our public engagement portion of this project. I'm Ben, principal planner. With me is Andy, senior planner. And then not here with us today, but Alicia, she has been a huge part of this project as well and helped us two bozos keep it on track. JUST SOME BACKGROUND. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE FULL PROPOSAL AGAIN BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN BRIEFED ON IT BEFORE. WE'RE JUST GOING TO HIT ON SOME BASICS OF IT. WHAT IS EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS? CITY COUNCIL INITIATED THIS PROJECT TO CHANGE SOME RESIDENTIAL ZONING RULES TO HELP EASE THE HOUSING SHORTAGE. AS WE ALL KNOW, HOUSING IS CRUCIAL AND WE'RE RUNNING INTO A LOT OF ISSUES WITH IT RIGHT NOW. The primary goal is to enable small infill housing. That small infill housing should be compatible with the existing neighborhoods, but it should also be attainable to buy or rent. And then the districts that would be impacted with this project are the R1 districts, those three districts, the R2 district, SR1 and SR1A. And so it impacts a lot of the city. 36% of all land within Salt Lake City falls within those zones. And that's 77% of all residential land.

all right so as ben said we're not going to do a deep dive on the content of the proposal since we've been through that before you've got links to a bunch of information in your packet the website all the info sheets and everything but just as a quick summary for those who may not be familiar there are several key components that are part of this project The first is creating new zoning regulations for what we're calling small lot dwellings. That would be small single family homes, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes of up to four units. Along with that, this proposal includes some modifications to the development standards of the base zoning districts. That includes changes to things like lot dimensions, setbacks, heights, lot coverages. These are things that we're going to be talking about with you in more detail today. And the plan also proposes some changes to the flag lot standards to make that type of development easier. The proposal does not eliminate single family zoning or prohibit the construction of large single family homes. It doesn't require all new housing to follow the small lot dwelling standards. It's just another option that is available to property owners if they choose to use it. We are also not proposing any changes to the map. So the zoning will stay the same. The overlay districts will stay the same. No changes are proposed to the historic districts or any of the zoning. Given a little bit of an overview, our team has been very busy interacting with the public since the beginning of the year. In January, or I think maybe December even, we launched the Housing Options website on ShapeSLC, the city's engagement platform. Since then, we've had almost 2,500 website visitors. There was a survey on the website which had over 150 responses. Those are attached to the memo that was provided for you, so you can take a look at those. If you had a chance to go through it, you'll see we received all sorts of comments from residents, non-residents, all different ages, demographic groups, and people have very strong opinions on this, on all of the different options on both sides of any given option. But we really did our best to reach out to the public in as many ways as possible, not only through the website and survey, also through social media, on the city's Instagram accounts, on other social media. We had email campaigns going out from the planning account, from city council district emails. We also held in-person meetings. So we listed 13 public events or meetings, which included things like open houses, town hall meetings. We went to the Winter Farmers Market, the Olympics Watch Party. And those open houses, just want to note that We held them in different geographic areas across the cities, on the east side, downtown, and on the west side, just in an effort to try to get the word out as much as possible. In addition to all of those events, the online posting and sharing of this, there was also some media coverage. You may have seen some of this. The project was covered several times in the Building Salt Lake blog. in the Salt Lake Tribune. There was an article even on homes.com, KSL. They're also featured in the CityCast Salt Lake newsletter. So went through a great effort just to try to get the word out, get as much response from the public as possible.

Cool. So a little bit about how we have this presentation laid out. We have six different topics that have kind of been the overarching themes throughout the public engagement. At the end of each of those six topics, we have some feedback requested. We'd like to have that feedback requested done in the middle of our conversation with you instead of at the beginning. Goodness gracious. instead of at the end, so we're not having to jump back and forth to slides and things like that. So the topic is fresh on your mind, and then we can discuss it at that point. I'm going to put this back on real quick.

But we'll kind of leave it up to you to kind of pace yourself and moderate how much time you want to take. So, you know, if we spend 10 minutes on each, that's about an hour. So, you know, give or take, depending on how much discussion you want to have. But we'll leave that up to you.

All right, we're back.

So the first and kind of the biggest topic that we have for you is the floor area of small lot dwellings and whether that can be considered family size housing or anything like that. The proposal of small lot dwellings limits the floor area, the gross internal space to 1200 square feet if it's 17 feet or taller. So double story, you got 600 on the bottom, 600 on top, you got 1200 square feet. If it's 17 feet or less in height, you can go up to 1,700 square feet because we would allow you to have that basement. That would allow those smaller homes the less visual impact on the existing neighborhood. The limitations on the gross floor area is obviously to kind of... THAT IS LESS EXPENSIVE. YOU KNOW, IT'S A SMALLER LOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S A SMALLER LOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S A SMALLER LOT, IT'S A SMALLER HOME THAT'S IT'S A SMALLER HOME THAT'S IT'S A SMALLER HOME THAT'S NATURALLY GOING TO BE LESS NATURALLY GOING TO BE LESS NATURALLY GOING TO BE LESS EXPENSIVE THAN THE AVERAGE NEW EXPENSIVE THAN THE AVERAGE NEW EXPENSIVE THAN THE AVERAGE NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.

SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. WILL YOU TELL ME AGAIN IF THE WILL YOU TELL ME AGAIN IF THE WILL YOU TELL ME AGAIN IF THE HOUSE IS SHORTER THAN 17 FEET, HOUSE IS SHORTER THAN 17 FEET, HOUSE IS SHORTER TH

ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR A BUILDING LESS THAN 17 FEET, ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR A BUILDING LESS THAN 17 FEET, INTERNAL SPACE IS LIMITED TO INTERNAL SPACE IS LIMITED TO 1700. 1700.

INCLUDING ON THE TWO FLOORS INCLUDING ON THE TWO FLOORS BUT ONES DOWNSTAIRS.

BUT ONES DOWNSTAIRS. EXACTLY. EXACTLY. NOT SEEN FROM STICKING OUT OR NOT SEEN FROM STICKING OUT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THIS PROPOSAL, THIS PART WAS THIS PROPOSAL, THIS PART WAS TAKEN FROM DURHAM, NORTH TAKEN FROM DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA. CAROLINA. WE HAVE HARPED ON IT BEFORE IN WE HAVE HARPED ON IT BEFORE IN PREVIOUS Durham had their own small lot dwelling ordinance, 1,200 square feet on 2,000 square foot lots. Durham's median single family home was 605,000. Salt Lake City's is 615,000. Durham found that those 1,200 square foot homes were $250,000 less than that standard median single family home. So a pretty big impact. We had got a lot of comments regarding This this aspect of the proposal a Lot of people think that smaller homes are the new Way to go, you know, not everybody wants to live in an apartment Some people want to live in a home but can't afford it because they're so expensive. They're too big things like that other people they don't think that 1200 square feet it is big enough for a family and Big enough for three to five people. Some people think that smaller homes allowing them to be on smaller lots could lead to demolitions, things like that. And staff's analysis and response to this is that we do believe that 1200 square feet is big enough for at least three bedrooms. There's a floor plan on this slide that shows three bedrooms there. We talked with the guys from Durham that we've been in contact with regarding this project. They said that every home that they've seen come through, they all had three bedrooms, two bathrooms. There's also shifting household sizes in the city. I think since 2000 Salt Lake City has the average household size has decreased by over half a person from almost 2.7 to 2.1. So the household sizes are shrinking. Also, a lot of our existing neighborhoods, especially kind of like Sugar House, Central City, places like that, a lot of small bungalows in there that people have raised families in. It's not like this city has not supported families with these smaller homes. As I've mentioned before, smaller homes on a smaller scale, you'll get a smaller price. So that's a pretty big aspect that we think should encourage this. And then finally, if you still want to build a large home, you can. We're not outlawing a larger single-family home. You're just going to have to follow the base zoning district that you're currently in, just like you do now. That's not changing. We're not taking away your right to build a big home or anything like that. And so we have some feedback here for you to consider. One, should we keep it as we've proposed it here, or should we incentivize three bedrooms by allowing additional gross floor area, internal space, if you do provide three bedrooms? And so with that, we're open for questions, open for discussion, should you want to discuss amongst yourself or anything like that.

So your proposal, the option two is that you'd go from 1,200 to 1,500, not to the 1,700, if you do the third bedroom at the 17 plus feet.

Correct. And so we did not include 17 feet or less in the additional gross square footage. So we wouldn't allow you to take 1,700 up to 2,000 because we think as you start approaching that 2,000 number, that price is- It's just going to keep going up.

If, I mean, I guess thinking about the trade-offs here. Sure. If we were to take option two, would that make it so that there tends, or do you think in your planning judgment that it would make it so that there is a tendency towards less or fewer people new small area or small small lot homes per lot because the floor area will expand a little bit the footprint will expand a little bit uh because because like you could do you could subdivide i think we discussed it was up to four basically on most like r1 5k lots so um

THERE'S NO LIMIT ON HOW MANY YOU CAN DO ON A LOT SO LONG AS EACH OF THEM ARE ON 2,000 SQUARE FEET. IN REGARDS TO INCREASING IF WE WOULD INCREASE THE FOOTPRINT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN ADDITION TO THE 300 SQUARE FEET OF INTERNAL AREA, WE WOULD NOT. SO THE FOOTPRINT LIMITATION WOULD STAY AT 850 MAX.

I guess what I'm thinking about is more a sort of response by owners of lots that might do small lot housing units, where if we grant this additional size, it might be that they're more likely to choose one slightly larger building rather than two smaller buildings.

I I think that and this is just conjecture just we haven't really calculated but You generally expect, if it's a developer trying to maximize what they can build on a lot, they will likely build to the maximum that's allowed, both density-wise and footprint or floor area-wise. So the question would just be, you know, is the increase more than the increase they would gain by an additional unit? My guess would be that 300 square feet is a pretty small amount. It's not going to... I mean, we did touch on this in the memo that, right, 300 is 25% of 1,200. So it's actually, it would be 25% larger than what we're currently proposing. So it could, right, 25 times 4 is 100%. It might even out to the value of one additional unit. But my guess is that the value of the additional unit would probably be more So I would assume they would be more likely to maximize the number of units over the space. But it's hard to know and that would vary very much from case to case depending on specifics.

But in theory, what it could end up being is that there is a higher profit margin basically on that slightly larger unit, which means that costs go up, fewer families are able to afford rent or, okay.

Yeah, that's not lost on us here is that by allowing that additional square footage, we are inherently increasing the cost of that home.

And the three bedrooms would be required in that case, whereas right now, build a 1,200 square foot house with one bedroom.

Exactly. If you want to go up to 1,500 square feet, you have to do three bedrooms.

MY INCLINATION IN THE INTEREST OF STICKING TO 10 MINUTES FOR EACH I'M JUST KIDDING BUT IS MY INCLINATION IS TO STICK WITH OPTION ONE AS PROPOSED ME TOO PERSONALLY I THINK THAT YOU KNOW AS WE HEARD IN OUR LAST AGENDA ITEM YOU KNOW THE FAMILY SIZES ARE GETTING SMALLER THIS PROPOSAL DOESN'T HAVE TO CREATE A SOLUTION THAT WORKS FOR EVERY FAMILY IT JUST HAS TO CREATE MORE HOUSING OPTIONS THAT WORK AVERAGE FAMILY AND THE AVERAGE AVERAGE FAMILY IN SALT LAKE CITY AVERAGE FAMILY IN SALT LAKE CITY AVERAGE FAMILY IN SALT LAKE CITY TWO BEDROOMS IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TWO BEDROOMS IS MORE THAN ENOUGH TWO BEDROOMS IS MORE THAN ENOUGH AND YOU KNOW SO I I THINK THAT AND YOU KNOW SO I I THINK THAT AND YOU KNOW SO I I THINK THAT STICK STICK WITH WHAT YOU'VE GOT STICK STICK WITH WHAT YOU'VE GOT STICK STICK STICK WITH WHAT YOU'VE GOT ESPECIALLY GIVEN WHAT THE EVIDENCE ESPECIALLY GIVEN WHAT THE EVIDENCE ESPECIALLY GIVEN WHAT THE EVIDENCE IN OTHER YOU KNOW PRECEDENT IN OTHER YOU KNOW PRECEDENT

I WOULD AGREE. I WANT TO BE VERY SHORT. I WILL DISAGREE MAINLY ON THE PART THAT THE AVERAGE FAMILY SIZE CAN BE DETERMINED BY WHAT YOU CHOOSE. SO IF YOU CHOOSE TO ONLY ALLOW SMALLER HOMES AND WE KEEP INCENTIVIZING SMALLER HOMES ON TIGHTER LOTS AND IT'S NOT JUST THE INSIDE OF THE HOUSE IT'S ALSO THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE. footage you have outside of it, is it detached or is it townhomes? Those things determine how many people want to live in a place and how many people are comfortable living in a place and you, the policies kind of shrink the family size because there are other options outside the community and people move other places. So you see the numbers drop and in our last slide we saw Central City family sizes drop. Is that a choice because the houses are too small and other houses are bigger in other places or are we only building small? I think we have to be very careful about what drives what here. um and i think i would lean towards incentivizing and leaving the choice there how it's worded how how it works leave it up to the builders and kind of figure that out but i don't think we can determine which one drives which i'll be careful but based on assumptions on that

IF I MAY JUST ADD A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT. SORRY IF YOU WEREN'T PLANNING ON THIS. MY TEAM IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON A THREE PLUS BEDROOM INITIATIVE TO TRY TO EXPLORE HOW TO INCENTIVIZE KEEPING FAMILIES AND BRINGING FAMILIES BACK INTO THE CITY SINCE WE'RE LOSING THEM AT A FASTER PACE THAN THE REST OF THE AND THE INCORPORATING IT INTO THE EHO AS AN INCENTIVE OPTION CAME UP OUT OF THAT PROJECT AS MAYBE, YOU KNOW, SINCE THIS IS TRYING TO DRIVE IT A MORE ATTAINABLE HOUSE, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN INCENTIVIZE MAYBE A FAMILY SIZED UNIT SO THAT WE CAN GET SOME OF THOSE FAMILIES BACK INTO THE CITY? JUST FOR CONTEXT.

I'm not sure the idea that smaller houses drive smaller family sizes feels right, but I'm not sure it aligns with what we've seen over history, which is that in America, housing sizes have doubled or tripled, and family sizes keep going down. So I don't know if, like, there are so many confounding factors. And, you know, there's potentially like a revolution of rising expectations, all of these different factors. And for most of human history, people were living with quite large families in 600 square foot homes. And while we shouldn't expect people to do that now, I don't think that given that a three family house with a well amenitized community, I think a three bedroom house with a well amenitized community could absolutely serve a family. I think that that was demonstrated in the image.

The only thing I had on this is I think that the floor plans are very helpful in helping people understand what a 1,200 square foot thing means. And so I would suggest developing something for the 1,700 option and kind of what the concept of that at least looks like so that it, I think that helps just convey that a fair bit. So I think let's go ahead and move on to front yards.

Well, if it's okay, sorry. We would prefer if you guys could do a straw poll if you feel comfortable with that between the options. That way we have clear direction.

Yep. So if you prefer option one, just raise your hand. If you prefer option two, great.

Thank you.

Thank you. This is very helpful. I appreciate the conversation. WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CATEGORY WHICH IS FRONT YARDS, ANOTHER TOPIC THAT I THINK EVERYONE I SPOKE TO HAD AN OPINION ON. PEOPLE CARE A LOT ABOUT YARDS AND IT'S VERY INTERESTING TO HAVE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AROUND THIS. As currently proposed, the proposal would remove block face averaging. The current requirement for front yards is that it's equal to the average of the block face, which means in order to determine that you have to measure on every house on the block. The proposal would remove that requirement instead replace it with a straightforward 20-foot front yard for the base zoning districts and 10 feet for the small lot dwellings in the base zoning districts That would be 20 feet or equal to the abutting front yard the reason for that We've talked about this in the past, but the averaging standard is kind of difficult to explain it's complex and hard for people to implement and But it does help give a sense of uniformity across the block face, which is important to a lot of people. So that's why our proposal includes the option to be equal to the neighboring front yard. That still helps get at that uniformity. It addresses situations that may be Like on the image on the screen there may be a non-conforming building or something that doesn't meet that standard and so it still allows the option to be in line with those. But for the small lot dwellings we proposed a smaller front yard setback because just having a larger setback significantly cuts into the buildable area on those smaller lots. So when we took this to the public, what we heard, as you know, comments on both sides, a lot of opinions on this when it comes to block face averaging. We had some people who were in favor of removing that requirement. It seems like people who had maybe recently interacted or had to meet that code would be more likely the ones to complain about it. Most people not too familiar with it. But we did have comments from people saying it's difficult for a variety of reasons, and they would prefer just a simple, straightforward front yard setback. But we also heard from people opposed to removing that. Again, really that sense of uniformity and consistency along a streetscape, I heard repeatedly from a lot of people. That's important to a lot of people in the community. For instance this comment we received recommended using the average of the block face minus three feet So we had some people recommending reducing it some people wanted bigger front yards quite quite a variety of comments that we received and When it comes to the front yard requirement for small lot dwellings, again, we heard similar to what Ben was talking about on the floor area conversation, where there are some people who just express they just want a house. They currently can't have one, and they don't care how big the yard is. They just want something that's attainable within their price range, and in some cases, maybe even prefer a smaller yard for less maintenance. But then again on the opposite side, you know people who have lived in existing homes Maybe in a neighborhood that already has large front yards. That's very important to them and I heard from a lot of people who felt is very important to preserve that and people concerned that maybe new construction that Juts out in front of the existing building line along the street would be maybe out of character with the neighborhood and that would be a concern and So with all of that in mind, just a couple of thoughts to think about as you discuss amongst yourselves. As I mentioned before, larger setbacks do disproportionately impact smaller lots. So in this example on your screen is a, just an example of what a 2,000 square foot lot might look like. On the left side, it has a 10 foot setback in the front and rear. You can see that leaves adequate space for about an 800 square foot footprint, which is pretty consistent with our previous discussion about good family-sized housing. But on the right side, an example with the front yard setback increased to 20. You can see that significantly eats into the buildable area On a lot that's only 55 feet deep, that's more than half of the lot now is reserved for front and rear yard open space. So again, it's a trade-off that we want to hear your thoughts on preserving that uniformity, the aesthetic qualities of a consistent front yard versus allowing that space to be used for housing. There are different options that you could choose. We're leaving this one kind of open-ended. We want to hear your thoughts on just changes to maybe the base zoning requirement for front yards, changes to small lot dwellings. We're interested in your thoughts on what changes could be made that aren't overly limiting to the small lot dwellings. So this image on the screen is attempt to kind of illustrate that concern it shows for cottage dwellings with a 10-foot setback in between two typical single-family homes at the 20 foot so you can see that that's kind of the concern that we've heard from people we're interested to hear your thoughts is the proposed idea to either have 20 or to match the adjoining property is that matching the adjoining property part of the calculation right now that we would still propose keeping that in, or that would be our suggestion.

20 FOOT OR MATCH YOUR ADJOINING 20 FOOT OR MATCH YOUR ADJOINING PROPERTIES? PROPERTIES? PROPERTIES?

RIGHT. RIGHT. RIGHT. THAT IS FOR JUST THE BASE THAT IS FOR JUST THE BASE THAT IS FOR JUST THE BASE ZONING DISTRICTS. ZONING DISTRICTS. ZONING DISTRICTS. NOT FOR THE SMALL LOT. NOT FOR THE SMALL LOT. NOT FOR THE SMALL LOT. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY.

SO AS A PERSON WHO I MEASURED SO AS A PERSON WHO I MEASURED SO AS A PERSON WHO I MEASURED ALL MY NEIGHBOR'S YARDS WHEN ALL MY NEIGHBOR'S YARDS WHEN ALL MY NEIGHBOR'S YARDS WHEN WE DID OUR HOUSE AND I WAS LIKE WE DID OUR HOUSE AND I WAS LIKE WE DID OUR HOUSE AND I WAS LIKE THIS IS WEIRD SO THIS MAKES SENSE, THIS PROPOSAL OF THE BASE OR 20 OR 10 PROPOSAL OF THE BASE OR 20 OR 10 PROPOSAL OF THE BASE OR 20 OR 10 OR THE ADJOINING PROPERTY SEEMS OR THE ADJOINING PROPERTY SEEMS OR THE ADJOINING PROPERTY SEEMS LIKE IT MAKES SENSE. LIKE IT MAKES SENSE. LIKE IT MAKES SENSE. WE'VE SEEN BEFORE WHERE THE WE'VE SEEN BEFORE WHERE THE WE'VE SEEN BEFORE WHERE THE OPTIONS OF WHAT THIS PERSON OPTIONS OF WHAT THIS PERSON OPTIONS OF WHAT THIS PERSON COULD BUILD ON HIS YARD WERE COULD BUILD ON HIS YARD WERE COULD BUILD ON HIS YARD WERE SO CRAZY BECAUSE IT SEEMED LIKE SO CRAZY BECAUSE IT SEEMED LIKE SO CRAZY BECAUSE IT SEEMED

DO YOU MIND CLARIFYING WHAT THE DO YOU MIND CLARIFYING WHAT THE RULES ARE FOR CORNER LOTS?

RULES ARE FOR CORNER LOTS? YEAH, CORNER LOTS, I THINK YEAH, CORNER LOTS, I THINK WE PROPOSED 10 FEET ON THE WE PROPOSED 10 FEET ON THE CORNER. CORNER. I'VE GOT THAT PRINTED OUT. I'VE GOT THAT PRINTED OUT.

I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. HEAD. ANDY CAME PREPARED WITH THE ANDY CAME PREPARED WITH THE DRAFT ORDINANCE.

So in the base zoning districts, the proposal would be the front yard is 20 or equal to the abutting. And then the same for corner yards except for R1-5000, which would be 10 feet or equal to the abutting on the corner side.

OK, so like R17.5K would still, or 7K, would still have that full 20 foot on both sides.

20 on both sides if it was a corner for R17 or 12.

I also like this proposal. I think cities are change. And if you're living in a city, sometimes your neighborhood's going to change. And sometimes your next door neighbor might be a little bit closer. And especially with water use concerns, I think going for less yards and having more communal space is deeply valuable. Frankly, I would almost say reduce the setback for the base zoning as well. My one concern about that is just massing. I think that if somebody chooses to build just an enormous monolithic face you see some of them sometimes in the south right like these like McMansion style buildings where it's just almost the entire lot is taken up by one person's house that would be my one concern so I'm curious if there's a way to reduce that setback for both small lots and the base zoning but somehow try and when in when the base zoning is taking advantage of that extra 10 feet IT'S JUST AVOIDING THAT MASSING ISSUE THAT YOU SOMETIMES SEE WHEN THERE'S NO SETBACK REQUIREMENT OR LIMITED SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

WE DID HEAR FROM SOME PEOPLE IN THE BASE ZONING DISTRICTS WHO SAID, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO DO AN ADDITION TO THE FRONT OF MY HOME BUT I CAN'T BECAUSE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IS TOO RESTRICTIVE. SO IT WOULD LEAD TO AN ADDITION WOULD INCREASE THE SIZE. just want to acknowledge that that was something that we heard too was that you know people thought and again on both sides we heard all sorts of opinions but

I mean, could you look at like requiring some sort of step back or partial block face so like people could build, say, a patio, but it can only take up a proportion for those single family homes?

I think step back, if that's the direction given to avoid, if the direction is given to reduce the base zoning, but avoid that monolithic, if that's the direction to step back.

I WOULD JUST ADD THAT THE LOCK COVERAGE IS STILL APPLICABLE. THERE'S A 50% LIMITATION. I THINK THE ABILITY TO ACHIEVE A MONOLITHIC SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS PRETTY RARE IN THE CITY GIVEN THERE'S A HEIGHT LIMITATION, RIGHT, PROPOSING 30 FEET AND THEN THERE'S STILL LOCK COVERAGE. THERE ARE ALL THESE OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL TRIGGER kind of like reduced mass and so I step backs are typically appropriate when when you have like a taller building height allowances right and maybe you're wanting more pedestrian interest along that that corridor or that street but typically not in like an r1 or an r2 district yeah that would be really challenging to administer and you'd end up with some weird looking houses

Well, I mean, I was, I mostly, to be honest, thinking about like a patio or a mudroom, right? Like that is allowed. So it's just like, if you're talking about a two story home, the first 10 feet of that, if you want to add on a patio or a mudroom to the front of your house, it just has to be a single story. That would basically be the goal that I was going towards. But if you think it would be infeasible to administer, then I am sympathetic to that.

I THINK IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT CODE SECTION OF ENCROACHMENTS. LIKE IF WE WANTED TO ALLOW A LARGE PATIO ENCROACHMENT INTO A FRONT YARD, LIKE TEN FEET INTO A FRONT YARD, THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT CHAPTER OF THE ORDINANCE THAN WHAT WE'RE AMENDING RIGHT NOW. OKAY. WE COULD POTENTIALLY LOOK AT THAT, BUT THAT WOULD BE OUR ENCROACHMENT TABLE IF YOU WANTED LIKE AN ENTRY FEATURE TO GO INTO THE FRONT YARD.

Yeah, because ultimately that's what I was thinking, some sort of entry. I mean, like it could be like a sunrum as well. But if encroachments is just like a sort of muscular encroachment policy is a better way to address that, then I think we should look at that instead.

The only one thing while we're on front yards is that in the draft for the flag lot section, it says that they'll match everything. And I think that it would make sense to cut that front yard down significantly to like five feet or something, because at that point you're already behind another house. It's not about fronting out onto the street and that's just taking up space between. So, yeah.

Yeah, I think the front yard for the flag lot was, I think we kept it the same as what the flag lots exist now, mostly for privacy purposes between the two lots, but we can certainly look at that. NEXT SECTION.

ARE WE DOING STRAW PULLS ARE WE DOING STRAW PULLS ARE WE DOING STRAW PULLS AGAIN?

AGAIN? AGAIN? WE DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC OPTIONS WE DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC OPTIONS WE DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC OPTIONS LISTED ON THIS ONE.

LISTED ON THIS ONE.

LISTED ON THIS ONE.

IF YOU HAVE ONE, WE'LL TAKE IF YOU HAVE ONE, WE'LL TAKE

What it's worth I want to know what while I'm talking I'll express my opinion which is I'm fine with all this I think that the base zone approach I prefer it to the averaging and the 10-foot front yard doesn't offend me and it seems consistent with the goal you guys are after with this plan, so I'm okay with all this I think the straw poll is just raise your hand if you're cool with the approach that has been proposed that was originally proposed by the team and

I ACTUALLY WANT TO MENTION, I DISAGREE. PERSONALLY SPEAKING, YES, I WOULD LOVE MY FRONT YARD TO BE SMALLER, BUT JUST THINKING ABOUT IT AS A THING THAT IS GOING TO NEED COMMUNITY SUPPORT, IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE THAT THE COMMUNITIES THAT THIS IS HAPPENING IN ARE NOT GOING TO BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY by this occurring to me. I think, you know, some compromise is necessary and I just, I can see there being a large amount of community pushback and I can understand why in that respect.

Are you speaking specifically to the front yard or to the housing proposal more broadly?

The front yard, the setback.

Just to be clear for my sake, is that the base zoning front yard or the small lot dwelling front yard?

How do I word this?

The 10 foot or 20 foot?

The 10 foot. Okay, thank you.

I would personally say that we should not take in advance an assumption of what the broad community wants. I think this is really important for providing access not only to current residents but future residents and while there are some people who are going to be frustrated and i i suspect that will come up again in future discussions my personal feeling is that that we should go for it and if there's a substantial amount of pushback later on in the process that's a discussion that might need to be had but i think right now this is the appropriate planning practice

Yeah, I guess I mean to say that part of what we're taking into account here are the comments made. And the comments kind of pull me both ways, honestly. But I find, while that's not the only thing under consideration, obviously, I do find that a compelling argument, I guess I would say.

Do we want to do a straw poll, or do we want to just move on?

I don't know that, I don't know how to frame one. We can run down and do a one sentence per each, but.

Yeah, you could just split it, right? So just do a straw poll for the base zone at 20 and then a straw poll for the small lots at 10.

Okay. So those in favor, in support of the 20 foot base zone? All right, those opposed? I mean, do I have to do both? I don't know. There's only two options. Those in favor of the 10 foot small lot. All right, thank you.

Great, thank you for that direction. Moving on to the next topic, we've combined here height and side yards. They're different categories, different standards, but when it came to the comments we were receiving, those seemed kind of interconnected related to privacy and views and that sort of thing, which we felt came up quite a bit. And so we wanted to try to maybe have that discussion of those two together. As currently proposed, the code would increase building heights by a small amount, two feet for pitched roof buildings and four feet higher for flat roof buildings. And the proposal also includes a decrease in the side yard setbacks for the R1 7,000 and 12,000 zones, decrease of two feet or four feet. The reason for that, generally speaking to eliminate barriers to building, particularly on small lots or narrow lots. So when a lot is narrow, obviously those side yards are gonna have a bigger impact, take up a larger percentage. And then of course, also for the small lot dwellings, those setbacks will have a larger effect. The reason for the increase in height was to make second story building, two story buildings more viable or feasible, either for new construction or a second story addition to an existing home. The height is consistent with surrounding municipalities. So when we actually looked up all the neighboring cities, they're all at least 30 feet. In some cases, cities allow up to 35 feet in residential zones. But over 30 feet is when some additional fire code requirements kick in. It's also... trying to be consistent with, for instance, the FBUN1 or RMF30 zones, which allow 30 feet. So we didn't want to kind of go higher than that. So that explains some of the reasoning for why things are proposed as they have been. When we took this to the public, of course, we heard comments on both sides. When it came to height, we heard from some people who actually support the increase in height and requested even further increase. This example is recommending up to 35 feet. And then for people who are opposed, we heard, again, as I mentioned, privacy is big, views were a concern, and just kind of a general opposition to large buildings. We heard a lot. So we heard from people on both sides on the height, side yards as well. Some people recommended even going further than what we had proposed. This example comment in support recommends setting the setback for both sides to four feet instead of four and 10, which is what is currently proposed. And then those who were opposed to decreasing the side yards, again, had similar issues, safety, visibility, privacy. Those are the sort of things that we were hearing. So as you consider those comments that we received, we would just like you to think about The proposed increase was intended to be relatively minor. The image on the screen shows a 28 foot and a 30 foot building side by side. So you can tell there's definitely a difference in height, but if you were not out with a measuring tape, it's not likely to be a very noticeable difference. Having consistent side yards across the zones helps simplify the review process. and make things easier to explain, reduce potential mistakes or issues or confusion. We do recognize that when buildings are closer together, you do lose a sense of privacy, but this is again a trade-off as we've been discussing, right? And we wanna find the appropriate balance of respecting those concerns about privacy, but also removing barriers so that we can have built more housing. And then we had some people concerned about safety, you know, buildings closer together, maybe prone to fire issues or things like that. We also wanted to acknowledge those comments, but just stress that every time a building is built in the city, a permit is required, always require fire department review and approval before anything is issued. So with that in mind, yeah, I guess we'll let you get to it. Either same as before, keep it the same. Some people recommended reducing either the height or the setbacks or increasing height or setbacks. We're interested to hear your thoughts.

Okay. One question I had real quick. Aren't building heights on sloped roofs measured from the average or are they now from the peak?

FROM THE PEAK. A LOT OF CITIES DO IT A LOT OF CITIES DO IT DIFFERENTLY BUT OURS IS DIFFERENTLY BUT OURS IS FROM THE ESTABLISHED GRADE TO FROM THE ESTABLISHED GRADE TO THE PEAK, IS THAT CORRECT? THE PEAK, IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK IN RESIDENTIAL. I THINK IN RESIDENTIAL.

I THINK IT'S MEASURED I THINK IT'S MEASURED DIFFERENTLY IN THE FOOTHILLS DIFFERENTLY IN THE FOOTHILLS BUT HEIGHT IS NOT MY THING SO BUT HEIGHT IS NOT MY THING SO KELSEY IS LOOKING INTO IT.

KELSEY IS LOOKING INTO IT. AT LEAST IT USED TO BE THAT AT LEAST IT USED TO BE THAT THE FLAT ROOFS ARE JUST TO THE THE FLAT ROOFS ARE JUST TO THE TOP AND THEN P so uh like i think it was the midpoint that you might be thinking of yeah so i just want to because i think part of the reason that it was like that previously at least is that that gives a little bit more equity in the usable space between flat roof and pitch roof um so it's actually QUITE A LOT OF THE UPPER FLOOR SPACE WOULD BE LOST IF IT'S NOW.

YEAH, LIKE THE DRAWING SHOWS THE MAXIMUM AT THE PEAK, WHICH MAY NOT BE THE CASE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.

IT'S DEFINITELY MEASURED TO THE PEAK. I THINK WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT

where it's taken from the like natural grade it's taken from the established grade to the peak to the highest point it's on the roof where it's measured if it's to the peak oh it's not midpoint in these districts it's oh it isn't okay all right definitely when we looked at other cities right i think bountiful measures to the midpoint

Cottonwood Heights, where I used to work, took an average of the four corners and averaged that to the top. There are a lot of different ways. Salt Lake City historically regulated the number of floors or stories. That also gets complicated. There are a lot of ways of doing it. Our proposal, as with all of the other recommendations, is just A TABLE WITH A SIMPLE NUMBER IS TYPICALLY THE BEST, JUST MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD, LESS COMPLICATED, LESS CONFUSING. THAT'S OUR RECOMMENDATION, BUT WE'RE OPEN TO CONSIDER YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS.

THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS APPLY TO BOTH SMALL LOT AND BASE ZONING.

The small lot dwellings, they are 4 feet and 10 feet regardless of the zone they would be in. Okay. If the base zoning is not changed to 4 feet and 10 feet across the board, those would apply for standard single family dwellings.

Okay.

Wait.

So they're the same?

They could be the same if this change is adopted. Yes.

Okay. I would support reducing both side yards for small lot dwellings to four feet. I think that that's personally, I think, again, we live in a city. This is a cityish zoning change. And I think that for those small lot dwellings, it's worthwhile to maximize the usable space. Again, I worry for the base zoning, just because single family homes can get very large and a little more monolithic, that could cause problems.

Is there like a utility or fire access reason for the 10 feet on the one side?

I kind of assume there was. Yeah. A lot of times that's where you'll find the driveway as well on the 10 foot side. I'm not particularly.

Yeah, and then fire has a calculation based on the height of the building and then some fancy calculation with how their ladder goes. So you would need about 10 feet on one side too for those 30 foot buildings.

SIDE YARD 1 AND 2 BEING DIFFERENT, YOU CAN JUST CHOOSE WHICH SIDE IS 10 AND WHICH IS 4. SO THESE TWO HOUSES COULD BE 20 FEET APART AND THESE TWO HOUSES COULD BE 8 FEET APART.

YES.

AND THAT'S THE WAY IT IS KIND OF RIGHT NOW.

THAT IS CURRENTLY, YES.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THIS. I THINK THE 30 FEET MAKES A LOT OF SENSE GIVEN, ESPECIALLY IF THAT'S WHERE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES ALREADY ARE AND THE SIDE YARD STUFF MAKES SENSE TO ME. I DON'T HAVE ANY, MY IMPULSE IS TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF ALL THIS ONCE AGAIN.

I agree with them. Cool.

Okay. Sorry to go back to the measuring thing. It may be that in the code, if it says it's measured to the hip, but in definitions, in the illustrations, in 21A62.050, it defines the building height and has a little diagram that shows how it defines it, and it shows that as measuring to the middle. SO MAYBE THAT'S NO LONGER REFERENCED OR IS OUTDATED, BUT... THAT'S JUST FOR SPECIFIC DISTRICTS, THOUGH.

OH, OKAY.

SO IT'S NOT THIS DISTRICT.

YEAH, IT DOESN'T LIKE VERY HELPFULLY REFERENCE THAT WHEN IT IS APPLIED, BUT IN THE R1, SR, R2, IT'S TO THE PEAK. I BELIEVE IN THE MULTI-FAMILY IT'S TO THE MIDPOINT. OKAY.

GOT YOU. SO IF YOU'LL REMEMBER WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO LOOK UP IS THE on these illustrations, there's illustration A is for height measured from established grade, and then B is height measured from finished grade. And so to explain that, some zones require a different type of measurement, but in residential, we're looking at established grade, which is that first image there to the peak.

So in that case, I'm not sure, I would suggest pitched roof being higher than flat roof or bringing the flat roof one down but I think that having them both at the same height is going to incentivize building flat roofs because if you're yeah so currently the the pitched roof is 28 feet in most of the zones and the flat roof is 20 and so it would be going to 30 and 20 in my head never mind forgive me Okay, that accounts for exactly what I was worried we were not letting happen, so never mind. Sorry about that. All good. Do we want to do a straw poll real quick of if you think that this is appropriate? Yeah, so everyone who is in favor of this?

Cool. All right. Moving on to off street parking. That was a pretty big topic in these comments. To be upfront, there are no changes to the parking requirements in the base zoning district. If you're building to the base zoning district, whether that's a duplex or a single family in R1 zones, you're still gonna be required to provide two spaces per unit. The small lot dwellings, however, we have built in a reduction there down to one parking space per unit. This is because that's identical to the AHI as we have it now. That was a huge concern with the AHI. It hasn't really come to be an actual problem. And then it's also similar to the ADU code. But the ADU code does have some built-in reductions that we'll get to in just a second. Example comments here. Some people think that we should waive parking completely, especially if you're close to transit. Some people think that developers and home builders know how much parking they need to provide and that we should let the market decide and let them figure it out themselves. Those opposed believe that every house in the city does indeed have two cars or more and that streets are filled with parked cars and that kids and it's just a safety issue and that transit is not an effective solution here. Our response to this is that each parking space adds to the final cost of the house. The developers are not building parking for free. They're going to pass those material costs, the labor costs, all those costs are going to get passed on to the buyer. Each parking space takes up about 200 square feet of space. That's a pretty significant chunk of space, especially when we're talking about 2,000 square feet of lot area. That's 10% per parking space. excuse me, that space that couldn't be used for open space on the lot or for housing. And then, as I mentioned earlier, those parking requirements, they're identical to the AHI parking requirements, and those have not been an issue at this point.

Ben, if it's okay, just for people listening, AHI is our affordable housing incentive.

Yes, affordable housing incentive. So sorry. That's okay.

When was that put into effect, the AHI? I believe it was 23.

I THINK APRIL OF 2023 OR 2024.

SO WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF YEARS OF COLLECTING FEEDBACK ON THAT. AND SO THE FEEDBACK REQUESTED HERE, KEEP IT AS PROPOSED, ONE PARKING SPACE PER SMALL LOT DWELLING UNIT OR THE OPTION TWO THAT WE HAVE HERE IS INCREASE TO ONE AND A QUARTER OR ONE AND A HALF SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT. AS A REMINDER, FRACTIONS ARE ROUNDED UP. five or higher or half or higher. But if we do increase, we strongly urge that we should include those exceptions found in the ADU code. That is, if you're within a quarter mile of transit, you can waive it. Or if you're within half a mile of a bicycle lane or path, you can waive it as well. So if we do increase, we do urge that there is an exception there as well. And then I'll turn it back over to you.

I THINK EVERY DAY IS A GOOD DAY TO ABOLISH PARKING MINIMUMS. YEAH, I THINK, AGAIN, THIS IS A CITYISH PROPOSAL. WE'RE TRYING TO ADVANCE TOWARDS THE FUTURE OF A CITY THAT IS MORE WALKABLE, THAT IS MORE URBAN. I THINK IT'S UNNECESSARY TO HAVE ANY PARKING MINIMUMS HERE. AND IF FOLKS HAVE TROUBLE PARKING, THAT IS, I THINK, A SIGNAL THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO SOMEWHERE THAT You know, like, within the base, someplace with the base zoning that has parking, or, I don't know, switch to an e-bike. So, I'm actually interested that you did not provide an option 3 to just eliminate the parking minima entirely.

Yeah, similarly, I kind of think, especially as we're looking at small lots and houses, and I'm trying to parse out in my head what the kind of layout might be in inputting kind of the stuff as we go, right, with 10-foot front yard setbacks, and only 1,200 square feet, and garage space isn't cut out separately, so it would take away from living space, so... they probably won't do that. So it's like outdoor parking, and I'm not sure where that fits in in that configuration. I think it would make more sense to not require parking for them.

Sure. And to clarify, that could be option three on the screen is to reduce parking even further. Yeah.

You are not limited simply to these options.

Yeah, I think I like option three maybe as like zero spaces.

Require zero, but if you want to put in. Yeah.

and then you don't need any uh reduction either minus one space like this lot will swallow cars that come by do other folk have comments or we can do a straw poll or i would support one space per dwelling unit i'm with commissioner sullivan i think the one space is appropriate broken record over here i like what you guys are up up to

I will say I also support one space at a minimum because anything less or any number less actually adds a cost to the folks who actually need their cars and I think it's a little regressive and has some issues there. Especially dealing with small lot dwellings and people who might be living in those.

It adds a cost to people who need cars?

Yeah, for people, so someone who doesn't have the ability to be without their car, needs to travel to handle something, and that's probably, I mean, people who have multiple cars have more disposable income. They'll find parking. There are parking garages. There are a bunch of stuff around they'll be able to do. They can take Uber and a bunch of things like that, but if you have a car, that you scrap by the pay to get to a certain place. And a lot of students, a lot of people, part-time students, people working, have to go to different places. Transit may be harder for them to access. They might need that car, right? And we eliminate parking. And now they're parking illegally, parking further away, making their life more costly in that way. So I see all that stuff now along the, I don't know what we call it, the border between A LOT OF PARKING ALONG THE A LOT OF PARKING ALONG THE TRACKS. TRACKS. A LOT OF THINGS I SEE WALKING A LOT OF THINGS I SEE WALKING A LOT OF THINGS I SEE WALKING AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. JUST PEOPLE PARKING ILLEGALLY JUST PEOPLE PARKING ILLEGALLY JUST PEOPLE PARKING ILLEGALLY ALL THE TIME.

ALL THE TIME. ALL THE TIME.

AND IF THERE'S NOT ONE AND IF THERE'S NOT ONE AND IF THERE'S NOT ONE REQUIRED, THEN IT WON'T BE REQUIRED, THEN IT WON'T BE REQUIRED, THEN IT WON'T BE BUILT AND THEN PEOPLE WHO NEED A BUILT AND THEN PEOPLE WHO NEED A BUILT AND THEN PEOPLE WHO I, YOU KNOW, LIKE, I LIVE DOWNTOWN. I DON'T HAVE PARKING. I DO HAVE A CAR. AT WORST, I HAVE TO WALK A BLOCK TO GET A GOOD PARKING SPOT. AND, LIKE, IT'S A LITTLE ANNOYING, BUT PERKS OF LIVING IN A CITY.

I'M KIND OF THINKING OF IT AS MORE OF LIKE A CARROT VERSUS STICK APPROACH. And having no requirement for parking feels like a stick approach, where it's like you're incentivizing people not having a car by making it really difficult to have a car. And instead, you should incentivize it by making public transit cheaper and things like that first.

I guess I would say that given where we are at with climate change, I think an all of the above approach is essential right now. And an all of the above approach does mean yes, because there are so many externalities, so many additional costs to broad-based car ownership. SO MANY SOCIAL COSTS, I THINK THAT, LIKE, YES, THAT THOSE SOCIAL COSTS SHOULD NOT BE BORN BY THE OVERALL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY OF THE MIX OF OUR CITY.

ALL RIGHT. I THINK, YEP, STRAWFUL TIME. WE CAN SAY THAT THERE IS AN OPTION THREE THAT IS NO PARKING REQUIREMENT. SO THOSE IN FAVOR OF OPTION ONE, TO KEEP IT AS PROPOSED WITH ONE SPACE FOR DWELLING UNIT. Those in favor of option two to increase? And option three? All right.

All right. So three split. Thanks. Sorry. Next is ownership and occupancy. Hot topic now is investor ownership of single family dwellings. This proposal does not include any restrictions for small lot dwellings on who can own or occupy that small lot dwelling. This is consistent with the base zoning district. We don't require owner occupancy of a single family home. We don't require owner occupancy of a townhome or anything like that. This is a modern exclusionary tool to kind of discriminate against certain folks from owning or occupying a home. We got a ton of comments. All the comments that we received on this were against investor ownership. Nobody likes investor ownership. Increasing the number of rentable units by allowing small lot dwellings on 2,000 square feet, people think that that's gonna encourage investors to come in and tear down and build rental units instead of building units for sale. Our response, again, no owner occupancy standards for standard building that we have here. There's some legality in tracking and enforcement difficulties there. Questions arise of what makes one an investor, how many homes do you need to have to become an investor, and there are Families that only own one home, but they have it in a trust or an LLC. So there's a lot of gray area there that provides a lot of difficulties. Also, adding additional requirements like owner occupancy could inevitably hamper the production of housing, and that's not something that this project wants to do. We don't want to say we're allowing new housing, but it comes with all these caveats of, well, you gotta owner occupy it. um we want to make clear that we want to increase housing opportunities for homeowners and renters alike renters belong in the city renters are part of the city renters make this city great and it is a goal in housing slc to increase owner or housing opportunities for both groups Research also suggests that targeting institutional ownership is not terribly effective because it gets so messy, like those questions of how money makes it an institutional owner. And it's also out of the scope, yes. How do you define institutional owner in this context? Right. That article, that scholarly article, I think it was published,

yeah the one we were looking at that was linked in the report i think categorized institutional owners as those owning a thousand or more units and so uh and it found that you know that's only like less than one percent are those like mega corporations that own THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS. MOST OF THE LANDLORDS ARE MORE SMALLER SCALE, MAYBE TEN OR LESS PROPERTIES THAT THEY OWN. THAT'S WHAT'S MORE COMMON. BUT IT'S JUST A VERY DIFFICULT THING TO TRACK AND ENFORCE AND POSES A LOT OF COMPLICATIONS.

Yeah, and along with that, it's out of the scope of this. It's likely not easily tackleable at the local government level. It's likely going to require legislation from either the state or federal government that may be more appropriate. The options here are keep it as proposed with no owner occupancy requirements or anything like that. Option two is we could add regulations. Obviously, our preferred option here is option one. But if we wanted to add regulations, we've got direction to add these regulations. It could be something similar to the ADU. That requires one of the units on the property to be owner-occupied and that's what we would we would urge if this is the direction that if there's a small lot dwelling development that has ten units or However many units we would suggest only one of those Be owner-occupied if you do wish to add regulations

Can we add an option three?

Yeah, let's add one.

Add regulations if you can. Not to necessarily do it, but try. And as a unelected, unpaid person sitting here, I will say, try it out, man. Do something. Try some things. Get weird. Get in trouble. Figure it out. I don't know. I mean, I think it's worthwhile, right? I think there are different studies, but it... Like studying housing and owner occupancy and finding rent things. I mean, you can say like, well, there's a recent study on this, but also it's like housing, right? It's a millennia of research on housing and how we how we do handle housing, how you make sure that it's fair in a certain way. Right. So, man, get weird. I don't do it. I don't care.

I believe this is a key provision of the road to Housing Act that the House and Senate have each passed separate versions of Thus speaking to the federal government taking care of it Not yeah, okay, and then also there part of the low-income housing tax credit program is it's mostly rental housing right but part of it is to um there is a part of it wherein investors build the houses and then sell them to the tenants after 15 years um so I would like for that to be cut out of this if possible

I think that there's the evidence of, like... massive investors buying houses and driving up the prices. It depends market by market, but it's not necessarily the primary issue that I think it's sometimes seen to be. You were correct that this issue has been dealt with for millennia. It's actually really interesting. Last week, I was reading Engel's The Housing Question, and he was asking these same questions. And interestingly, despite what Some on the left today might argue he is quite remarkably against homeownership and mortgages because he sees them as a way of chaining people to their employers. And so I don't think that this is necessarily... something that we should intercede in in this way. I think it's not right. The question of how to make greater housing justice I think is better addressed collectively through things like tenants unions than it is by mandating home ownership that every single person becomes the lord of their castle.

I know the ADU conversation, it wasn't going anywhere until ownership was required. So I think as a concern for the, I mean, I kind of think that it's gonna come down to a political issue and when this law is passed by the council, they're gonna hear if people have an appetite for not having owner occupancy requirements. But I don't know that it seems fair to not have any owner occupancy requirements for small lot dwellings where we still have them for ADUs. That seems like crazy. But I actually kind of think that the decision to have owner occupancy requirements will match the conversation on ADUs, I think. But also, I want to consider option three. Can you clarify what option three is? I might vote for that. What is it?

Get weird.

Like figure out a way to limit institutional ownership? Is that the option three?

just be flexible whatever regulations you find might work or incentivize something i think the carve out for government programs that produce low-income housing and depending on what that agency might be whether it's a government quasi-governmental agency or someone like habitat you don't want to carve them out and make sure they're not including certain things right but you want to have the ability to shape this the way you want to and make sure it's not abused in any way i don't know what that is i would love to sit down and figure it out but no one's paying me to do that yeah yeah right so Yeah, so that's what it is, like add if you can or get weird with the section.

Yeah, to me it's kind of like these are very broad options and option three needs to be a little bit more specific maybe, but get weird with it, sure.

I mean I would support something that like tried to work towards like a cooperative model so if like all of the small lot dwellings on a single lot are managed cooperatively by all of the residents together that could be right like one you know that gives some sort of bonus but I don't think I would support any sort of pro or requirement for specific owner occupancy of any specific unit.

All right, if anyone has anything else, otherwise we'll do a straw poll. So option one, keep as proposed. Option two, add regulations. Option three, get weird.

Like option three.

All right, thank you guys. I admit to not understanding option three, and so maybe I didn't give it my full consideration.

Moving on to the last section.

Yeah, we will certainly do research and see what we can come up with.

See how weird we can get.

Okay, the last one, we just have a group of other concerns. These are not ones that we necessarily have specific recommendations, but just items that came up repeatedly. We wanted to make sure we acknowledge those as part of our public engagement report, just discuss a little bit. So one comment we received quite a bit of was concerns about demolition of existing homes. We received a lot of comments just generally fear that increasing the development rights on properties generally will lead to more demolitions as more construction occurs. We had a lot of comments from people just generally related to the affordability of the small lot dwellings as proposed some people skeptical that it would work or just skeptical that anything would be affordable that you know the new housing that's built would remain unaffordable um people concerned that you know maybe we should be doing more adding things like rent control or you know we had a lot of comments about short-term rentals having a negative impact on affordability. So just had a lot of different comments from a lot of different angles about how important affordability is and wanting to get that right. And then we also got comments from people about property values and taxes quite frequently. And again, on both sides, some people, I think generally, if you feel that this is a negative thing, that's gonna be an overall negative, you feel that that's gonna negatively impact your property values. But we also had some people that felt that it would increase property values by increasing the development rights. But they were also concerned about that because of the associated increase in tax. And so on either end, there are definitely very valid concerns that we heard from the public. A FEW RESPONSES TO THOSE AS FAR AS DEMOLITION, WE SHARE THOSE CONCERNS. WE AGREE THAT UNNECESSARY DEMOLITION SHOULD BE AVOIDED. AS PROPOSED, THE CODE WOULD INCENTIVIZE THE RETENTION OF EXISTING HOMES, THE PRESERVATION OF A HOME BY ADDING A BONUS IF YOU PRESERVE THE EXISTING HOME. We looked at data from other cities, so Durham we've talked about in the past. We asked them, and they noticed no change to their rate of demolition after their reform was passed. Interestingly, Houston found a decrease in demolitions after they allowed townhomes more broadly, which is kind of interesting. We heard from some people comments that demolitions occur A lot of times what we see now is a smaller, in worse shape house gets torn down and replaced with a super mega mansion. And so maybe one way that this code would prevent demolitions is because the size restrictions prohibit that type of building, although larger homes are still allowed in the base zoning district. AFFORDABILITY, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT QUITE A BIT TONIGHT. I DON'T NEED TO HASH IT OUT TOO MUCH MORE. BUT THE STATE CODE DOES PREVENT US FROM IMPLEMENTING EVEN MORE THINGS LIKE RENT CONTROL. SO THAT WAS NOT CONSIDERED FOR THAT REASON. AND JUST TO REMIND PEOPLE, SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. have not been and no change is proposed to that so those will continue to be prohibited if people have concerns about those we encourage them to reach out to enforcement and they will address that and then on the property values and taxes this is an interesting one we tried to do a little bit of research ultimately right it's impossible to predict with any degree of certainty the impact that this would have but We did look at the research broadly. Research on upzoning tends to point to upzoning leading to higher property values just in response to those development rights. But interestingly, in Utah, rising home values don't necessarily mean higher property values. Depends on a lot of factors, the budget set by the taxing entity, the rate at which all of the properties in the boundaries increase or decrease in value. So if your home rises in value faster than your neighbors, then you may end up paying a larger percentage of the overall property taxes. But the impact of this does not necessarily mean an increase in taxes. That depends on a lot of factors. So these are all things that we felt were very valid concerns. We do just wanted to acknowledge that we thought about these and that we feel that the proposal does do some things to address some of those and we hope that addresses the concerns of the residents.

We don't have any specific feedback on those. But the next steps, based off of this feedback and this discussion tonight, we will go back and revise the draft ordinances based on this feedback, incorporate it where it's necessary. And then we will write that staff report. It will probably be very long. but we will write that staff report and we will get this scheduled for a formal public hearing with you where you'll make that recommendation to city council city council will probably have a briefing before probably multiple briefings especially once we make these revisions and then they may even make more modifications and then they can approve approve with modifications or outright deny so that's just a little brief overview of the next steps and that's all we got for you so thank you for your valuable feedback and fruitful discussion thank you guys

And just to confirm, Salt Lake is majority renter, correct?

It is, yes. I think we looked at it yesterday. It was like 54% renter, I think. I could be off a percentage or two.

Can I ask another quick question about the last couple of items? The demolition concern, was there any consideration or does the plan include, and I just do not recall, of incentives to preserve?

It does.

It does.

So what does that look like?

a one bonus unit um it's not subject to the lot area uh if you retain an existing dwelling okay similar to um the rmf uh density bonus okay all right thanks guys thank you everyone awesome thank you all thank you our next meeting is the 24th