Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

get started welcome everyone we will begin by taking roll Amy burrows here Lila Rosenfield here Brian Scott here Anna Sullivan here that's a quorum

all right moving on to report the chair and vice chair um i do not have anything to report our vice chair is not here this week uh so we'll move to the report of the director i don't actually have anything to report this week either we're in like the lull between city council meetings so there's no updates All right, thank you. To our open forum, so this is a 10 minute segment where if commissioners have something they want to bring up that's not directly tied to an agenda item, we can discuss that. Is there anything anyone wanted to talk about?

I have a question about public comments. If you get a lot of public comments that seem to apply to a different department in the city, do you share those public comments with that department or with someone else THE COMMENTS ARE DIRECTED TOWARDS A PLANNING COMMISSION THE COMMENTS ARE DIRECTED TOWARDS A PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION BUT THEY SEEM TO APPLICATION BUT THEY SEEM TO APPLICATION BUT THEY SEEM TO APPLY TO A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT APPLY TO A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT APPLY TO A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT LIKE ENFORCEMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE LIKE ENFORCEMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE LIKE ENFORCEMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WOULD YOU SHARE THOSE THAT, WOULD YOU SHARE THOSE THAT, WOULD YOU SHARE THOSE COMMENTS?

COMMENTS? COMMENTS? DOES THAT INFORMATION GET FROM DOES THAT INFORMATION GET FROM DOES THAT INFORMATION GET FROM HERE TO THERE? HERE TO THERE? HERE TO THERE? YEAH, IF IT'S SOMETH OR THEY DON'T THINK THAT A DEPARTMENT IS DOING THEIR JOB OR DEPARTMENT IS DOING THEIR JOB OR APPLYING THEIR REGULATIONS APPLYING THEIR REGULATIONS CORRECTLY, THOSE WE SHARE, CORRECTLY, THOSE WE SHARE, BUT THERE'S REALLY WITHOUT ANY BUT THERE'S REALLY WITHOUT ANY BACKGROUND. BACKGROUND. BUT IF IT'S LIKE A LEGITIMATE BUT IF IT'S LIKE A LEGITIMATE ISSUE THAT SOMEONE RAISES AS PART ISSUE THAT SOMEONE RAISES AS PART OF THEIR PUBLIC COMMENTS, WE'LL OF THEIR PUBLIC COMMENTS, WE'LL SHARE IT WITH WHOMEVER IS THE SHARE IT WITH WHOMEVER IS THE RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT OR RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT OR DIVISION.

All right, then we will move along to our consent agenda, which has three items this week. It's the approval of the minutes for June 10th, an extension request for a planned development at approximately 552 North, 1500 West, and the third one is another extension request for a planned development at approximately 843 West Hoyt Place. And those do not have public hearing, so we will just move to discussion or a motion. I MOVE TO PASS THE CONSENT AGENDA.

I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

COMMISSIONER BURROWS. YES. COMMISSIONER LEBRON. SORRY. COMMISSIONER ROSENFIELD.

YES.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT.

YES.

COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN. YES.

All right, so that passes. On to our regular agenda. First item up is the, wait, item four there. The zoning map amendment and general plan amendment at approximately 1990 South, 500 East, and 2002 South, 500 East.

sorry one moment technical difficulties okay here we go thank you all right my name is cassie younger and i am presenting on the wells on fifth zoning map and general plan amendment This request is for, this is a request by Castlewood Development and is for a zoning map and general plan amendment at 1990 and 2002 South 500 East. The current zoning is R15000 and is proposed to be changed to RMF35, a moderate density multifamily residential district. This also requires an amendment to the central community future land use map from low density residential to medium density residential. The subject property is 1990 and 2002 South 500 East and is 1.03 acres. The site has three frontages along 500 East Hollywood and Redondo Avenue. It was previously the historic Wells Ward meeting house. This meeting house burned down in 2024 and has been vacant ever since. The property lies within the Liberty neighborhood, about a mile west of Sugar House downtown. The site is one block north of 2100 South, which is zoned primarily MU3 and has a variety of small businesses and town homes. While the blocks north are primarily R15000, there are some pockets of RMF35 nearby, like the senior living facility and the recently rezoned Sears site on 400 East. This site has a variety of transit options close by, with a UTA bus stop one block north and 500 east and an S line station 0.3 miles south. The proposed development offers 22 townhomes, each with four bedrooms and three and a half baths. Each unit has a two-car garage, and the site offers eight guest parking stalls on site. The site plan proposes over 12,000 square feet of open space, including a playground amenity. And while the RMF 35 zone allows up to 35 feet in height, the development is proposing to cap it at 30 feet. The community benefit offered is that all of these are family size units with over three bedrooms and three baths, and these units will all be offered for sale. The open space is over three times the required amount for this development, and the open space is mostly contiguous with over 3,000 square feet of a playground. The applicant has also offered to integrate an educational component to the play area to make the installation more engaging and interactive for children. The zoning map requested to allow for this type of development since our one zones do not allow single family attached or townhomes in the district and have a minimum lot size of 5000 square feet. The general plan amendment would also accommodate this type of density to develop, which is proposed at 21.3 units an acre, which is considered medium density residential on the future land use map of the Community plan. Shown here is a table that compares the existing zone with the proposed zone RMF35 and also the development standards of the proposed project. You can see by this table they are not proposing to build to the maximum height or density that the zone would allow. While the RMF35 zone would allow up to 59 lots for the lot size requirement, the applicant is only proposing 22. Many aspects of this proposed development actually comply with the standards of the RMF 30 zone, which is our low density multifamily residential zone, including the density of 22 units and the height cap of 30 feet. The applicant is requesting the RMF 35 instead due to the smaller front yard requirements. This allows them to keep the majority of their open space within the interior of the site plan within the greenways and playground amenity instead of accommodating a larger front setback. The applicant presented at the Liberty Wells Community Council and received a lot of public feedback on their project. The applicant then revised their design after the meeting to accommodate some of the concerns. This included decreasing the number of units from 24 to 22, adding eight guest parking stalls, and increasing the setbacks along Redondo Ave and Hollywood from 10 feet to 13 and 14. THESE CHANGES TO THE PLAN ARE PROPOSED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND HAVE BEEN LISTED IN THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ALIGN WITH CITYWIDE AND COMMUNITY PLANS AND THE HOUSING PLAN SLC ALL OF WHICH ADVOCATE FOR MEDIUM DENSITY HOUSING OPTIONS PARTICULARLY THOSE NEAR TRANSIT AND COMMERCIAL AREAS WHICH THE SITE IS NEAR BOTH OF. The proposed community benefit aligns with our standards by providing housing that meets the needs of the current and future community. Family sized housing is a real need in Salt Lake City and has become a priority of the mayor to attract families to Salt Lake. The unit size floor plans and playground amenity of this development aim to attract growing families to the Liberty Wells neighborhood. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council with the following conditions, which includes the proposed community benefit and the site design changes to better align with the existing development in the community.

All right, do we have any clarifying questions or comments before we go to public comment?

I have a question. I noticed that there were a number of comments that said something about $580,000 price point and HOA fees, but that's not anywhere in the packet. I was wondering where those numbers might have come from.

I believe they did list the market price at the Liberty Wells Community Council. OK. That was discussed.

The conditions will be part of a development agreement if the property is re-zoned? So does that stay with the property if somebody else buys this property and it's re-zoned, that development agreement will be applied to them too? And then does that development agreement ever expire in 50 years if somebody builds something different? Or would they have to come for approval to get the development agreement to end? I think we put a 30-year term on that.

We can associate a term with them. But many development agreements run in perpetuity.

Oh, OK. Thank you.

All right, then we will go ahead and open up for public comment. If you are going to speak, you can step up to the podium there. You'll have two minutes or five if you're a representative of a recognized community organization. And please state your name at the beginning of your.

The applicant is also here. Oh, I'm sorry.

Jumping ahead, my bad. Do they have a presentation?

Yes.

Yes, okay, if you guys would like to come and give that. Sorry about that.

Thank you for your time tonight. My name is Haley Pratt. I'm representing Castlewood Development, the applicant. Rather than spend time repeating a lot of staff's presentation, I wanted to focus on some of the key items of the project, then hit on a theme that we are seeing in some of the residents' concerns and how we responded to them. So our proposed development is 22 family oriented townhomes that are for sale townhomes that's on a vacant site within walking distance of transit, parks, schools and commercial services. It provides missing middle housing opportunities without displacing any residents or commercial uses. When approaching the design, we heard loud and clear that family-oriented housing was a priority in the city. And so when we were looking at our floor plans and the site layout, we tried to keep that in mind. So all of our units have four bedrooms, with three bedrooms being on one floor, catering to that family dynamic. And then every unit has a two-car garage. We also, when designing the site, one of the priorities was trying to limit any vehicular and pedestrian conflict points for every unit within the project. So every unit actually has a pathway that connects to our central pocket park, avoiding any vehicular and pedestrian points of conflict. Highlighting again that family-focused approach to how we laid out the project. And as Cassie mentioned, we're three times the required open space. um in quantity but we're also really hitting on um quality so here's a concept design of how the pocket park we envision it um progressing we have two playground amenity features and then we also have multiple elements of that educational play components for building off that playful learning landscapes concept um now moving on to community feedback There were three themes that came up in the community council meeting and then also subsequently the staff report included many comments. And the three concerns that I heard were, among others, but primarily density, building scale and height, and parking. Here's an exhibit that just shows that our old plan had 24 units. Our new plan has 22, so we've reduced by two units. The second issue was scale and height. And we've addressed that in a few different ways. The first is setback. So we've increased our front setbacks along Hollywood and Redondo by about three to four feet, which is the red. And then the green exhibit is just to show you how substantial that setback is. So from the property line, it's about 13 to 14 feet. And if you measure actually from the back of walk, it's closer to 16 to 17 feet. And then this is an exhibit just showing how it generally aligns with what's existing within the neighborhood context. Cassie mentioned this, but we're capping our height at 38 feet. The adjacent zone permits up to 28 feet, so we're two feet difference. And then by removing units, we were actually able to really add a substantial amount of space between the western property boundary, which is where we're abutting those existing single-family homes. The red squares are where buildings were previously, and now our average western setback is 40 feet. We do have one point that's a little bit closer, and that's because we needed a fire turnaround. It is going side to side with an existing home, so it doesn't have those views or privacy concerns that oftentimes come up with new development. And last but not least, parking. Again, every unit has two stalls, and then we've accommodated an additional eight parking stalls. for guests, so our average is two, we're at 2.36 stalls per unit, which is well above city code. It's well above approved neighboring townhome projects that I know have some residents voiced some spillover concerns. And it's honestly well over above a lot of the existing bungalows in the neighborhood. Just to wrap it up, this site is large enough to accommodate family-sized homes, meaningful setbacks, and a substantial pocket park and greenway. If the property remains R15000, we'd likely only see about seven single-family homes with no sort of shared amenity space. Our proposal allows 22 families to live in a highly connected and desirable neighborhood While providing the open space and ownership opportunities that simply wouldn't exist with the current zone The proper it's a vacant parcel in your transit with so we're not displacing any residents or commercial businesses and We really hope that you recognize the unique opportunity this site presents. Its proximity to transit, the parks, schools, and just everyday services really makes it well-positioned to deliver meaningful family home ownership. And in doing so it directly supports the city's goals of attracting and retaining those families within the city So I appreciate your time again. I'm happy to answer any questions And I can also come up if there are any specific comments or questions that come up with public with more public comments.

Oh Okay, cool. Yep, happy to

All right, thank you. Then now we will go to public comments. So first I have Shawn Steinman, if you'd like to step up to the mic there. You have two minutes.

Wonderful. Thank you so much for having me out. My name is Shawn Steinman. I'm at 1240 East Stringham Avenue. This project is pretty well thought out. A project like this, I think, allows for attainable housing that is much needed in a community like this. You look at the average median income within Salt Lake City, I'm sorry, average median household price, it's about $600,000. If we were to have 10 to 12 single family homes here, it would probably have to be one to two million bucks per home on this. So attainable housing is one of the biggest issues within the state of Utah right now. And I know that Mayor Mendenhall is very passionate about getting more attainable. This is something that we'd be able to see houses that, you know, my kids and my grandkids could afford, especially with having four bedroom homes versus getting them into a 1500 square foot bungalow that's 100 plus years old that has seismic issues and all kinds of stuff. So for me, I look at a project like this and the intentionality behind a project like this, and I see an incredible opportunity for homeownership versus just getting any type of rental options here homeownership if you look at the stats nationwide stats most homeowners and the average homeowners net worth is right around four hundred thousand dollars versus renters or right around seven thousand dollars so getting an intentional for sale product in the neighborhood like this is something I support greatly and I know that there's gonna be a whole bunch of people that don't want something like this in your backyard but looking at the mayor's initiative and the governor's initiative within the state of Utah and within the city I really want to just ask for the Commission and for the council to really be thoughtful about the process here especially with all the negative comments that are going to probably come out of this and just really support projects like this within the city this is the missing middle that creates the fabric of the city and allows for more family homes to come in to the city in general so highly support this and appreciate your time and your service within the city thank you thank you that's the only card I have if there's anyone else who would like to speak on this you can step up to the microphone you have two minutes please state your name

Hi, thanks for having us. My name is Jonathan Metzman. I'm also here with my partner, Alyssa Johnson. We live at 1999 South 500 East, which is directly across the street from this proposed development. First of all, we're very pleased that we're developing this vacant lot. We were there when the church burned down and it's been a kind of an eyesore and it's great that we're bringing more housing into the area. However, we still respectively oppose the amendment from going from a single family to a moderate density multifamily resident. Our main concern is mostly around what was addressed earlier as well as a couple other concerns. First, density, parking, height, sunlight, affordability, and neighborhood compatibility are kind of our lists here. We weren't here in the initial meeting, but we just kind of want to give some more additional comments from anything that was not addressed. We are pleased that we are reducing from a 24 to a 22 bedroom number. However, I did see that we're going from a three bedroom to a four bedroom. So I'm not sure if that's exactly addressing the density concerns. And along the density concerns, I still haven't seen a very comprehensive plan for how we will address overflow parking. Currently parking on the street is very limited. We have a shared driveway on our whole street. So every house has 2 houses with one shared driveway. Each of those driveways roughly accommodate one and a half cars depending on you know how we kind of maneuver. On 500 East we don't have any street parking. So that means overflow parking needs to go to the surrounding streets. These are all single lane streets of stop signs. So if we're increasing the density by 8 to 9 X I haven't seen any comprehensive plan for how we will address this overflow So one thing we asked for the city is to evaluate. How are we going to accommodate for this rise parking? This is not only that's time Okay. Thank you. I'd love to see that.

Thanks.

I Thank you. And along with that, I mean, safety is also- That's time. That's your time.

You have two minutes, sorry.

Okay, sure. Also, we'd like to see- So, you're done. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry.

I'll just finish up here. Like he said, my name is Alyssa Johnson. We live in the unit right across the street. I'm his partner. We went around the neighborhood, and we would really like you to, I guess, take note that everyone that we talked to, aside from one person, had a lot of reservations about these townhomes, specifically about the density.

Can you please get closer to the mic? Sorry.

Yes. Sorry. i'm going from a 24 to a 22 unit with four bedrooms means a significant increase in cars um going from 32 feet to 30 feet doesn't really seem like enough for us um i think those are my two main concerns i mean those are addressing the two amendments that are being proposed here so thank you okay thank you very much

Is there anyone else who would like to? Yeah, go ahead.

Hey, I'm Garo Tokchian. I'm at 447 Hollywood. And this whole thing looks great on paper. I mean, they've dotted all the I's, crossed all the T's. I mean, this thing, hey. But come on, guys. Reality. People live here. 50 East is a bike lane. You can't park on 50 East. Great, they reduced it from 24 to what, 22. But really, I mean, how many people are gonna live in these units? I mean, we went from seven single families to 22 townhouses in a frigging neighborhood that's already jam-packed. I know you guys got a job to do. Cassie, I know you got a job to do. We gotta push this through for tax dollars, great. I'm glad people are here. cheering this thing on but i know you guys don't live in the neighborhood but reality is the neighborhood think about that is i know developers i know all this bs but people live here guys thank you thank you uh is there anyone else who would like to speak on this topic uh sorry i don't no no sorry we don't answer we don't do back and forth and if

You didn't have it during your times, sorry. She finished and sat down, so yeah, sorry. Did you wanna speak?

Hey, everyone. My name is Ryan Tomlinson. I live at 443 East Hollywood, and I'm just here in opposition of this development. First of all, I understand and I support the city's goal of increasing the housing supply and providing more opportunities for specifically medium density housing Salt Lake City is growing and I think it's an important goal for the mayor and for the city I think my main point of contention with this is I haven't really seen sufficient evidence that this specific plot needs to be rezoned to medium density there are numerous open and for sale along 21st East that are more along major transit corridors. They have more local business opportunities. They're just more suitable to a developer if their main goal is not a financial goal at the end of the day. I think this kind of just detracts from the neighborhood in general. And yeah, so I think my main point is that there's so many better plots for the city to guide a developer towards rezoning rather than this one that's in the middle of a small single family neighborhood. So thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? all right um if you you have a moment if you'd like to respond to any of those um the main i mean i think they mainly start centered around density and parking um or we can move into our discussion if not there was one clarification just that we had always anticipated the four bedrooms i wasn't sure where the confusion was so um and then again we have the 2.36 stalls per unit um

which is well above what's existing in the neighborhood. But I appreciate the feedback and I'm happy to stay after and talk with residents and answer any clarifying questions too.

So, okay. Great, thank you. Then we will bring it back to the committee for discussion.

Would the park be publicly accessible?

At this point, we aren't anticipating it would be public. The main reason is just because these future homeowners will end up having to cover the cost of the park with their HOA fees. It's something that we've discussed internally about. But no, at this point, it's not anticipated to be public.

So the entire facility would be fenced off?

no no no no it will there will be connections and most likely residents in the surrounding neighborhood will be able to use it it's just we're not going to be able to take we aren't taking away the rights of the future homeowners from prohibiting people essentially but there will be access there will be pathways it's not going to be fenced all right so it's it's It's privately owned, but there's no public easement recorded or anything like that.

Gotcha. But there would be nothing preventing people from entering the park other than law, basically.

Yeah.

Okay. But in the future, the HOA could theoretically choose to step up enforcement. Yes. That's what you're saying. I appreciate the clarification.

You worded it much better than I did.

Yes.

On that west side where it is smaller setback, what is that distance? It's a little over 10 feet. OK.

I wanted to thank the people who've made comments on this. And it sounds like the project has changed based on comments that the neighborhood has made. And I particularly note the conditions. Will you close up the conditions for this rezone? If it's rezoned, there are all of these rules that usually properties with RMF 35 PROPERTY WILL HAVE TO, LIKE FOREVER, WHOEVER OWNS THIS WILL HAVE TO. SO I APPRECIATE THE INPUT THAT'S COME FROM THE RESIDENTS, THE TIME THAT YOU SPENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS PROPERTY to gather signatures, to talk to your neighbors, to express the things that you were worried about. And hopefully, some of those things have been addressed. I also want to note that in the comments that we heard tonight, or the comments that I read, things said like, this is a residential neighborhood. People live here. And what I want to say is people will live in these houses. That's who will live there. Residents will live there. They'll be neighbors that live in those houses, in those town homes. There were some comments like, I'd rather see some more desirable type of houses. And what I'm telling you is that some people desire a row house. Some people want a four bedroom row house to live in. And I'm hopeful, I think that in the end it will be a good, if it's rezoned and built the way that it's agreed to, I'm hopeful that it will be a good addition to your neighborhood and will be filled with people who are residents, who are neighbors, who will also contribute to your community. But I know that changing things is hard and that, That building was beautiful, and it's very different from what's going to be there in the future. But it's just going to be there. Nobody's rebuilding a big church on that lot. So I'm hopeful that these additional units will make a good part of your neighborhood, too. I appreciate the time that you've spent and also realize that we aren't the last ones to hear this project. It also goes to the Salt Lake City Council. So you have a Salt Lake City Council member that you can talk to. And you can continue to make comments and talk to the land owner. And I encourage you to do that. But I think remember that people who live in houses that are row houses are also people. Thanks, guys.

Yes, I also appreciate the comments that were provided and I appreciate the developer making some changes based on those comments. um on visiting this site i think it just struck me how close it really is to 21st south and and that it kind of is the perfect place for kind of a downgrade to the single family neighborhood um i am curious do we know how tall that meeting house was I just noticed comments about like looming and light being blocked and I was curious how tall the previous structure was. I also appreciate how close it is to transit. While this project, I mean, it's hard to imagine any project providing more parking than this, honestly. You know, if a just multifamily apartment building were there, I can't imagine each apartment would have two parking spaces, let alone additional for guests. So I think that's really a positive, but also a positive is how close the S line is and the bus stops along 21st South.

and yeah i would just note that this is an intersection between two transit lines it's an intersection between 205 and 21. that's north south access and east west access rapid access to downtown currently route 205 is a 30 minute service in the plan it's a 15 minute service when that actually happens is an open question but in theory um and i would i i i mean I think that in terms of proximity to transit and in terms of the ability to live a lifestyle that's lower car or no car, there's a real opportunity here for community members. I am a little bit curious, and this is me being the technical policy wonk that I am. First of all, do you know, under the expanded housing options that is currently being proposed and evaluated in front of the commissioner, obviously we haven't passed that. It's not legal. I know that. But do you know if this kind of project would be in the realm of permissible under that expanded housing options ordinance?

I was currently drafted, I believe each R1 5000 lot could have up to three, four, four dwelling units and up to 30 feet in height. So if we did the math and broke these lots into, do you know how much square footage there is?

About 44,000 square feet. SO THAT WOULD BE THE SAME NUMBER OF WELLINGS UNDER THAT.

SO THAT WOULD BE THE SAME NUMBER OF WELLINGS UNDER THAT. SO THAT WOULD BE THE SAME NUMBER OF WELLINGS UNDER THAT. BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON LOT, BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON LOT, BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON LOT, MINIMUM LOT AREA AND THAT PROJECT MINIMUM LOT AREA AND THAT PROJECT MINIMUM LOT AREA AND THAT PROJECT DROPS IT DOWN TO 2,000.

DROPS IT DOWN TO 2,000. Thank you. And then I'm just going to raise my perpetual bugaboo spot zoning and not wanting to just do a skip. Because it's incredibly close to 21st South, and I think that this is the natural next spot for density. My concern is, are we doing it? one parcel at a time, why are we doing it one parcel at a time rather than evaluating, I mean obviously an applicant asked, we have to consider that, but I would once again put on the record my concern over the fact that rather than like comprehensively saying this is right close to 21st South, it's right close to transit, maybe we should evaluate EXPANDING FURTHER NORTH THE MU ZONING OR AN RMF MODERATE ZONING OR AN RMF MODERATE ZONING OR AN RMF MODERATE DENSITY ZONING. DENSITY ZONING. DENSITY ZONING. INSTEAD SAYING THIS PARTICULAR INSTEAD SAYING THIS PARTICULAR INSTEAD SAYING THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL IS CHANGING, THIS PARCEL IS CHANGING, THIS PARCEL IS CHANGING, THIS PARTICULAR PLAN IS CHANGING. PARTICULAR PLAN IS CHANGING. PARTICULAR PLAN IS CHANGING. I DON'T THINK THAT'S ENOUGH FOR I DON'T THINK THAT'S ENOUGH FOR I DON'T THINK THAT'S ENOUGH FOR ME TO SAY NO TO AN OPPORTUNITY TO ME TO SAY NO TO AN OPPORTUNITY TO ME TO SAY NO TO AN OPPORTUNITY if this development pressure is in this area, we should really be evaluating holistically how to accommodate it most effectively.

I'LL JUST ADD THAT THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY PLAN IS BEING UPDATED. Y'ALL WERE BRIEFED LAST COMMISSION MEETING THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS PART OF THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY PLAN AND THOSE NEW DESIGNATIONS FOR FUTURE LAND USE WILL BE IDENTIFIED IN THAT DRAFT. OKAY. THAT'S COMING.

BECAUSE WE JUST SAW THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. WE DIDN'T SEE POTENTIAL DESIGNATIONS.

So they're in public engagement for existing conditions, and then they'll draft a land use map and those policy chapters in the future. So while, yes, this is just one property, we're updating that community plan.

so so the the applicant's biggest sin is that they're early um potentially potentially i don't know that i haven't seen the actual draft i haven't actually you know we haven't actually passed emu or expanded out housing options um but that's certainly both of these things could could accommodate that and ultimately we're getting quite a bit out of this in terms of privately owned public space. And then, or public, not public space, privately owned green space. And then lots of opportunities. I mean, I think that there's too much parking, right? 2.3 or 2.6? 2.63? Yeah, that's for something that's 100 feet or 500 feet from a high-frequency transit stop. And HALF A MILE FROM A STREET CAR LINE THAT SEEMS HIGH, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS THE DESIRE OF THE COMMUNITY, AND CERTAINLY IF THAT HELPS RESOLVE SOME CONCERNS, I THINK THAT THAT'S A WORTHWHILE PERHAPS COMPROMISE RIGHT NOW IN THIS MOMENT. SO I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS, BUT I WOULD CERTAINLY, IF SOMEBODY ELSE WISHES TO MAKE A MOTION.

I can make a motion. Based on the information presented.

I'm sorry, public comment has been closed.

But your agenda said dinner started at 5.30.

I'm here representing the Brewell Community Council.

So your agenda's confusing.

Does it say that?

So I figured, oh, you're having dinner at 5.30, meaning the meeting will start at about 6.

The meeting starts at 5.30 and the public hearing for this item is closed.

The agenda says...

Thank you. We don't, this isn't a back and forth thing. I'm sorry, guys. We open the public comment and you have your chance to speak and then we discuss and...

THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AND I'M LOOKING AT THE AGENDA AND I'M LOOKING AT THE AGENDA AND I'M LOOKING AT THE AGENDA AND IT SHOWS DINNER AT 5 O'CLOCK AND IT SHOWS DINNER AT 5 O'CLOCK AND IT SHOWS DINNER AT 5 O'CLOCK AND THE MEETING STARTS AT 5 30.

AND THE MEETING STARTS AT 5 30. AND THE MEETING STARTS AT 5 30. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SORRY. SORRY. SORRY. QUICK QUESTION. QUICK QUESTION.

QUICK QUESTION. IS IT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF OUR IS IT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF OUR IS IT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF OUR AUTHORITY TO REOPEN PUBLIC AUTHORITY TO REOPEN PUBLIC AUTHORITY TO REOPEN PUBLIC COMMENT?

I move to reopen public comment for five minutes.

I'll second.

OK. We have a motion and a second. Go ahead and vote.

Commissioner Burrows? Yes. Commissioner Leverett?

Yes.

Commissioner Rosenfield? Yes. Commissioner Scott?

Yes.

Commissioner Sullivan? Yes.

Thank you, I appreciate you giving me this opportunity. Liberty Wells understands the need for increased gentle density in our neighborhoods. The council even created a statement on density and the types of housing options we want to see in our community. That document was created in response to the spot rezoning of the Sears Mansion property. That rezoning went against a whole list of guidelines provided by the planning department. It also went against all of the neighbors and the community council that all spoke out in opposition and recommended a duplex, triplex, fourplex, or a cottage court. all true missing middle housing forms that are identified as house scale buildings that fit seamlessly into existing residential zone neighborhoods. Sorry, I ran up the stairs. We hear developers throwing out missing middle housing on almost every development, all while their plans violate the key hallmarks of that housing form. Daniel Parolek, the architect who famously coined the term missing middle housing, strenuously opposes piecemeal spot rezoning in established residential neighborhoods. He argues that evaluating multi-unit projects on a case-by-case basis through spot rezoning creates unnecessary community friction, drives up developer risk, and fails to solve the broader housing crisis. When a single lot is spot rezoned for a higher density, developers often maximize the site with boxy, out of scale units that clash with the neighborhood's existing character. The state of Utah thought enough of Paralek and his firm that they were engaged to create a whole missing middle resource guide for cities across the state. It's a good read, I recommend it. What Castlewood is proposing is included in this guide and I would sincerely ask for the council that this petition for a spot rezone be denied. The development on the corner of 4th East and Cleveland didn't require a rezone and yet it added density and also maintained the scale of the existing community. Please send Castlewood back to the drawing board and keep the existing zoning. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, then we'll close the public comment and bring it back to the committee.

Thank you for that comment. Based on the information presented in this discussion, I move that the commission recommend that the city council adopt this position with the conditions listed in the staff report.

Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. We'll go ahead and vote.

Commissioner Burrows? Yes. Commissioner Loverett?

Yes.

Commissioner Rosenfield?

Yes.

Commissioner Scott?

Yes.

Commissioner Sullivan? Yes.

All right, that passes. You want to make this one S2, right?

BASED ON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS DISCUSSION, I MOVE THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THIS POSITION WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. THIS IS FOR PLN PCM 2026-00331 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

COMMISSIONER BURROWS. YES. COMMISSIONER LOVERETT.

YES.

COMMISSIONER ROSENFIELD.

YES.

Commissioner Scott.

Yes.

Commissioner Sullivan. Yes.

All right, that passes as well. Thank you very much. Thank you. We will move along to our next agenda item, which is the text amendment for the definition of family.

Sorry, the thing is loading, as you can see. I exited out of it, but not when I personally exited. I was kind of doing that. I saw it exit out of something.

We may need five minutes. I'm not sure what's going on with this.

Okay. We'll go ahead and break for five minutes as we figure out the technical difficulty. Sorry.

No.

Hi, my name is Madison Blodgett, and I will be presenting a zoning text amendment to amend the definition of family in the city code. So the request is for a zoning text amendment, and this was initiated by the city council to modify the definition of family, which is in 21A62040, which is the definitions chapter, as well as some other related sections of code. And the staff recommendation is to forward a positive recommendation to city council to approve the proposal. So the proposal details. So the current definition is integral part of the code and it determines the type of dwellings such as single family, two family, multi family. and then how many people can occupy a dwelling as well as who. The definition does not apply to some types of dwellings such as fraternities, sororities, group homes, and assisted living facilities. Those are separate uses with their own definitions and are not affected by this. And then the definition is broken up into three parts that establish occupancy based on the relationship of the occupants. So under the current code, a family can consist of an unlimited number of related people, and related means by blood, marriage, or adoption, up to three unrelated people or two unrelated people and their children. Or is the key part in this definition, as it prevents the mixing of unrelated and related people, unless it's the two unrelated adults and their children. And then finally, the current definition is used in Title 12, which is about vehicles and traffic. And it specifically is used in the neighborhood parking limitations, defining household, which is used to define excess vehicles, which excess vehicles are defined as more than one registered vehicle per licensed driver in a household. So in this instance, a household is defined the same as family, and then it's used to determine if the household has excessive vehicles. So this current definition presents some challenges, which is one of the reasons why we're updating it. The first challenge being that it is difficult to enforce because it requires proving relationships. It's also inequitable and treats households differently based on their relation. It does not allow mixing of related and unrelated people, restricts living arrangements, and reduces housing options, leads to underutilized housing and higher per person housing costs, as well as creates barriers to ownership and affordability. So the proposed changes to address these challenges are to create one uniform rule for all households by removing the relationship-based restrictions on the number of people considered a family, basically treating functional families or chosen families the same as traditional families. And this will not apply to sororities, fraternities, boarding houses as well, just to reiterate. And since relationship will no longer establish occupancy, occupancy will be based on the number of bedrooms in the dwelling. And then finally, the proposed changes will delete the definition of household and excess vehicle in Title 12. So as part of the work to draft this amendment, staff looked at other cities and what they're doing as far as what their definition of family is. And as you can see in this map, there's several states that have done statewide preventing cities from limiting the number of unrelated people, as well as some specific cities. And one local example is Draper. So this is comparing the current code with the proposed. So as you can see, the current definition has the three pieces that you have to fit into one of. But the proposed code is just going to be one or more persons living together in a dwelling. And then the occupancy limits will be no more than two people per bedroom plus one additional person for the entire unit. We also have language to clarify studios, since those technically don't have a bedroom, and that will be no more than two people for the entire studio or efficiency unit. And then all bedrooms must meet the building codes definition of a bedroom, which includes minimum qualifications for like floor area, the dimensions, ceiling height, egress, et cetera. So there are several benefits to making this change. It creates flexibility in living arrangements, increases housing options, availability, and access, reduces barriers for all those who want to live in the city, and that's for renters, homeowners, as well as aging in place. And it activates existing underutilized housing options and naturally occurring affordable housing. The proposal also furthers a lot of the city's goals and policies The specifically planned Salt Lake housing SLC and thriving in place flexible living arrangements increased housing options activated housing reducing barriers and preserving naturally affordable units are all supported by support the goals found in these citywide policies and So for a little background and some context, in April 2025, the city council adopted a legislative intent to consider updating the definition of family in the zoning code. In November of 2025, planning staff provided an informational transmittal to council with some options for them to provide direction on how to proceed. These options included maintain the existing definition, but increase the number of unrelated people to five. Increase the number of unrelated people to five and allow households to include a combination of family types. Or simplify the definition by removing occupant limits and treat occupants the same regardless of a relationship. And council favored option three, but with consideration to include restrictions based on the number of bedrooms. And so staff used that to proceed with this amendment. So the current definition in the zoning code has been there at least since 1995. But the term family has been in the zoning code since its first adoption in 1927. And over the last century, it's changed. So when it first was in the zoning code, it allowed any number of individuals living together with the only qualifier being that they're doing the cooking on-premise. It also remained basically the same in 1949. The only extra thing is that they called out how to be separate from another group or a family. And it wasn't until 1955 that the definition included a relationship qualifier. And this might be due to some of the societal shifts at the time, as well as growing suburbs. And then the most recent definition before the current was in 1978, and this is most similar to the current definition, except it doesn't have the inclusion of two adults and their children. In addition to some of the other challenges discussed, one of the biggest challenges is enforcement. So enforcing this definition is difficult because it requires proving the relationships of occupants. And the burden of proof when it comes to enforcement is on the city or the person making the complaint. And that would require the city somehow getting documentation from the occupants to prove that they're related which the city cannot do and that you know documents are not required to do so a lot of times these complaints end up closing because there's no way to prove them And the same thing applies to the household and excess vehicle. And this one is actually completely impossible to enforce because since excess vehicles are going to be based upon the number of vehicles registered to a house, it requires having registration information. But when parking enforcement goes out and does response to any sort of complaint, they don't have access to that information. So they can't enforce it anyway. And then additionally, these impacts occur regardless of the occupant's relationship. And so in trying to enforce relationship instead of actual standards that apply to the possible issues, it doesn't, it's not actually a good way to enforce. So throughout the process, we received some public comment that raised some concerns about the impacts of this proposal. So I wanted to go through and address some of those concerns. So the number one concern raised by the public was parking, specifically the availability of on-street parking. So unrelated households are not the only ones that contribute to street parking. People use street parking regardless of the relationship. A household made up of two married adults and their two children of driving age might park two of their vehicles on the street, and a household of four unrelated roommates may do the same. Each household then creates the same impact of street parking regardless of their relationships. LIMITING THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED PEOPLE IN DRILLING WILL NOT ADDRESS THE ACTUAL PARKING ISSUE. THERE ARE BETTER ENFORCEMENT TOOLS THAT ALREADY EXIST. SO IN THE ZONING CODE, THERE IS A PROVISION THAT REQUIRES ALL OFF STREET PARKING BE USED FOR PARKING. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE'S A HOUSEHOLD THAT HAS LIKE A TWO-CAR GARAGE, BUT THEY USE THAT GARAGE FOR STORAGE, THIS PROVISION WOULD ACTUALLY PREVENT THEM FROM DOING THAT BECAUSE THEY NEED TO USE THAT PARKING FOR, OR THAT GARAGE FOR PARKING. Additionally, there are other parking enforcement tools that are not in the zoning codes, such as the 48-hour limit for street parking, which basically prevents someone from storing a vehicle on the street for more than 48 hours. There's also time limited parking in certain zones like to our parking zones and then residential permit parking and these are much better ways to try to address parking concerns instead of regulating the relation of people. The next concern that was brought up was nuisances, specifically nuisances like noise, you know, garbage, using the yard for, the front yard for parking, using the front yard to store junk, poorly maintained landscaping, as well as, you know, concerns that the more people that are not related living together will lead to, you know, more vandalism or property discrepancies. sorry, property destruction. And specifically, a lot of these concerns are around the University of Utah. So first, this proposal does not actually remove occupancy. It'll still limit the number of bedrooms, but it would also apply to both. to all households, not just unrelated households. And these nuisances are not exclusive to unrelated households. As in the case of parking, the city already has enforcement tools that are much better and able to be documented to address nuisances. specifically like a noise ordinance, garbage containment requirements, landscaping slash yard maintenance standards, and then also laws that prevent vandalism and other sort of crimes. Another concern raised was that landlords will try to put as many people as possible into a dwelling, leading to overcrowding and life safety concerns. So first is overcrowding is a concern regardless of the relationship of the occupants. And this proposal actually sets occupancy limits for all households where the current definition only has a cap for unrelated households. Additionally, all housing is subject to building code occupancy as well as space standards for like a bedroom. And while the proposed occupancy limits are generally consistent with the building code, they do establish a cap on the number of occupants per bedroom. Under the space and occupancy standards in Title 18, no such cap exists, provided an additional 50 square feet for each additional occupant beyond two is provided. So this actually is more restrictive than like what building code occupancy standards are. the next concern I guess the last concern was exploit expletive landlord practices and then the loss of single-family dwellings slash single-family dwellings turning into multifamily while removing unrelated occupancy limits will not actually allow landlords to maximize maximize profit because this will This will allow, or this still has a occupancy limit and it does not change land use. So multifamily is not gonna be allowed in a zone that doesn't allow multifamily. The density will not change based upon the number of people living in a house. The density is gonna be based upon the number of units. in acre. So this is not going to change any sort of land use and this is also not going to end up with single family homes becoming multi-family or turning into boarding houses, fraternities or sororities. Again, those are all separate uses. The aim of this is to actually reduce housing costs instead of landlords using it to make more money. And so finally, the recommendation is, based on the information discussed, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.

Sweet. Thank you. Do we have any quick clarifying questions or public comment?

Other than the broad sort of envelope restrictions, does the single-family zoning district have any restrictions on the number of bedrooms that can be built inside a house?

I don't believe so, no.

Thank you.

Did a previous version of this language not include the replacement occupancy limit? Because there were a lot of comments that were like, occupancy is now unlimited.

Yeah, so the initial draft, when we first started the process, just referenced building code for occupancy. But as we went through the process more, we found that building code, while it does establish occupancy, there really is no cap. which because the building code allows two people per bedroom plus an additional person for every 50 square feet of bedroom and so technically you could have like a really large bedroom and have you know five six people that could be allowed in um in just a single bedroom this still allows two per bedroom but caps it at only one additional person for the entire dwelling

OK. And then I wonder if there's an enforcement action taken whether occupancy is based on how many unrelated people live in a house or whether it's based on, if the definition changes of occupancy, how many people per bedroom kind of thing. Does the enforcement action go to the tenants or does it go to the owner?

Um, that's a great question. The owner's ultimately responsible, so that's who the enforcement is aimed at.

Okay, so you would ask them, you would ask them then, like, how many people, well, so if you apply for an apartment or you rent a home, it's a two-bedroom home, do you have to, like, promise to the landlord that there's only five of us or something like that? Is that a normal thing?

Well, that would be an issue, a discussion between the people renting or leasing the space and the owner. The city is not, we don't collect that information.

So when the city goes to enforce, if the neighbor says, like seven people live in that house that has two bedrooms, then how does that enforcement happen?

well we we generally know because of um assessment data and building permit data how many bedrooms are in every dwelling so we can look that up and then kind of verify that part there's still a gap that's hard to enforce with this proposal it's just not as difficult as proving the relationship of people so it will that part will rely on

the property owner disclosing the information so if i if i rent a house right now that has two bedrooms and there are five of us when we move in but then i have another baby so there's six of us and now we're exceeding occupancy does the do i have to move does it do i have to tell the person i'm renting the house from that there's another occupant now or something like how i don't know how that works i haven't that's between like you and the landlords but it seems like it's also between you and the neighborhood if you're going to say you live next to a house that has two bedrooms and five people can live there like it's also between you and the neighbors that are complaining because enforcement would still be based on complaints right that's correct yeah okay well i'm gonna think more about that so that's the end of my question thank you all right then we will move on to public comment

Okay. So if you would like to speak, you can step up to that mic and you'll have two minutes. And please state your name at the beginning. And we'll start with Brian Burnett.

Thank you. My name is Brian Burnett. I'm Vice Chair of the Foothill Sunnyside Community Council. I would request five minutes.

Okay.

Great. Okay. First of all, I'd like to thank you all for serving in this capacity. I know it's a sacrifice for you and for the planning staff. I know these are difficult issues and they're challenging and I appreciate your service. The Pueblo-Sunnyside Community Council has reviewed the proposed changes to the definition of family in the Salt Lake City Zoning Code. We have serious concerns with this proposal. The proposal modifies the definition of family and removes the restriction on the number of persons living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit. The Foothill Sunnyside Community Council area is immediately south across the street from the University of Utah student housing. We've already seen some of the effects of this on our neighborhood. The proposed amendment reviews most occupant limits and relationship distinctions Although we recognize that this can be challenging to enforce These restrictions make some sense in certain contexts For example, I know this is limited by bedrooms. Let's assume that an investor acquires a home in our neighborhood with six bedrooms He rents the house to 12 college students plus one, two for each bedroom plus one, 13. This results in increased parking, traffic, noise, and other concerns. Those people will likely invite other college students over for parties. This situation is very much a concern for a family neighborhood. If this is allowed to happen, we fear that our neighborhood will be significantly changed. We doubt Salt Lake City has the enforcement capabilities and political will to mitigate these concerns. We fear that the result of this zoning change will result in families moving from our neighborhood. And our goal is to ask people to come to our neighborhood. And young families are currently moving into our neighborhood. It was mentioned that this zoning provision is difficult to enforce. The same can be said about many Salt Lake City ordinances. Even this one still has a bedroom restriction, so you have to figure out how many bedrooms they have, how many people are there. It's still an enforcement challenge. And I think back to a time on short-term rentals. I looked at an administrative decision. there were there were 40 pages in the administrative record trying to enforce a short-term rental a lot of ordinances are difficult to enforce doesn't mean we shouldn't have them and i think you ought to ask yourselves is this a situation you'd like to have moving next to your home We would encourage Salt Lake City to retain the limit as set forth in the current, or certainly further restrict it. This is, as I discussed, it has unintended consequences. The public is busy. It's hard to get them engaged in every issue. And I know that it's, despite several open houses or whatever, it's hard to get everybody in line on this. But the public does want to be consulted on these things. And I've tried to talk to people in my neighborhood, and without exception, everybody has opposed this. And although I know you do not answer directly to the public, your city council members that you make this recommendation do. And therefore, I think it's important you consider how the voters of this area perceive this. because I think overwhelmingly there's opposition to this change. And if you don't think that there are consequences for not having people involved in decisions, I would refer you to some of the election results that just happened regarding Stuart Adams, the Senate president, or the two county commissioners in Box Elder County who voted for the data center, both not elected. So I think it's folly to just ignore the voters' concerns on this. And it reminds me, I grew up in Logan. The area west of Utah State University used to be a nice housing area with families. That is not the case now. Mostly rental, split up, absentee landlords. I have a friend who still lives there. He was friends with 11 widows. Ten of those widows have passed away and their estates have been sold the homes. In every single instance, it's an investor who bought the home and is packing it with students. I had a partner in my old firm who was investing in housing in other cities he's never even been to and never intends to be to. What's his primary concern? Return on investment, not maintaining the property, not making sure the tenants are complying with the law. I think this is just really going to be hard, still hard to enforce. And I think the unintended consequence is, for us, living next to the University of Utah, is in a generation we will be like that area just west of Utah State University, not a family housing area anymore. If you want to encourage families to come and move to Salt Lake City, my recommendation is you modify this proposal. Again, I thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next, we'll hear from Kimball Young.

Hi there. I, too, want to thank you for your service. I had the opportunity to be on the Planning Commission in the 1990s, so I know how difficult things are. I, too, live in the Foothill Sunnyside area. I happen to be the chairman of our community council and just would like to reaffirm, restate, add to what Brian has said in terms of the public response in our area. and remind you that District 6 and Foothill Sunnyside is right in the heart OF DISTRICT SIX. IT'S THE ONLY ONE OF OUR SEVEN CITY COUNCIL AREAS THAT HAS A MAJORITY OF OWNER-OCCUPIED DWELLINGS. ABOUT 65 TO 68% IN DISTRICT SIX. WHEREAS THE REST OF THE CITY TAKING IN DISTRICT SIX IS 55% RENTAL. Matter does is incentivize more rental properties and We have a pretty dynamic area in the Foothill Sunnyside community We have a lot of families and we'd like to see more families living in our area as owner occupied in the owner occupied dwellings. And I think that what's being proposed here works against that. And I'm hoping that we can keep the matter the way it is, which would be the least of the two approaches in terms of rental development and furtherance. Thanks for your attention to the matter.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this? Nope. OK. I will go ahead and close the public comment and bring it back to us for discussion.

There's a few things I want to say about public comment. There's like 80 pages in this report that are public comment. And a lot of them were like, I don't like this idea because our neighborhood's already ruined by having students next to us. it could only get worse and I think that a lot of those comments like a lot of times when we hear public comments it's somebody complaining about the current situation like we haven't changed anything it is you already don't like your neighbors right so that's that's kind of like a lot of those comments are about that or fear of like what could possibly change and I think A lot of what goes into whether, when I talk to somebody about an issue, whether they agree with me or not is kind of based on how I present it. So there are, like when this was originally presented, like we're going to get rid of, you can have as many unrelated people as you want. that doesn't sound good but then you realize on the other side there is an occupancy limit in another way that maybe makes better sense in a lot of ways that sounds okay so if if you ask me about it this way it's not that great you ask me about it this way okay i could probably get behind that but there is a lot of public comment on this um there's a there's definitely a trade-off in being the capital city and having a big university at least one big public university and smaller private university because we have students living here and on the whole i would say our city is better because we have the university of utah because we have students living here then it is like the hardships that may come because young people living together are different than young people and older people living together, or newly independent younger people are different. But I think on the whole, our city is served well by having the University of Utah here. That's how you get university professors for neighbors. You have to have students if you want to have um if you want to have professors for neighbors too and if you want families to live here and people with children they have to go from being children themselves to being young people to being students at a college or being young professionals or being independent but also having roommates for a while and then they go and be parents or go and be grown-ups that make our neighborhood great so we have to have we can't just not have students and we don't want to just not have students i also hate to just disparage renters, because people who don't own their home and rent it, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. That's just how some people choose to house themselves, and renters are not ruining anything. I think sometimes people who own homes and don't care for them don't give the people who live there a lawn mower. They don't have YOU KNOW, SPRINKLER SYSTEMS. THOSE YARDS AREN'T GOING TO THOSE YARDS AREN'T GOING TO THOSE YARDS AREN'T GOING TO LOOK GOOD AND THAT'S MORE THE LOOK GOOD AND THAT'S MORE THE LOOK GOOD AND THAT'S MORE THE FAULT PROBABLY OF THE PERSON WHO FAULT PROBABLY OF THE PERSON WHO FAULT PROBABLY OF THE PERSON WHO OWNS THE HOUSE. OWNS THE HOUSE. OWNS THE HOUSE. AT ANY RATE. AT ANY RATE. AT ANY RATE. MY CONCERN MORE THAN THERE BEING MY CONCERN MORE THAN THERE BEING MY CONCERN MORE THAN THERE BEING TOO MANY PEOPLE TO LIVE IN A TOO MANY PEOPLE TO LIVE IN A TOO MANY PEOPLE TO LIVE IN A HOUSE BASED ON THESE OCCUPANCY HOUSE BASED ON THESE OCCUPANCY SIZED OUT OF THESE RULES. LIKE THAT REALLY IS MY CONCERN. I CAN SEE SOMEBODY WITH A LOT OF CHILDREN THAT HAS THREE BEDROOMS BECAUSE THERE'S ONE FOR THE GROWNUPS AND ONE FOR THESE KIDS AND ONE FOR THESE KIDS. LIKE YOU HAVE ANOTHER KID, THREE KIDS COULD FIT IN THIS ROOM AND THREE KIDS COULD FIT IN THIS ROOM. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? LIKE THAT'S KIND OF MY CONCERN AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S, IT SEEMS LIKE ENFORCEMENT IS KIND OF HARD IN THAT WAY TOO BUT MAYBE IF THEY'RE NOT CAUSING PROBLEMS FOR THE NEIGHBORS NOBODY WILL COMPLAIN AND NOBODY WILL EVER KNOW. I'M HAPPY TO SEE THE DEFINITION THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW GO AWAY, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT'S NOT SERVING US. AND THERE ARE ALREADY ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS BASED ON THAT DEFINITION, AND EVERY SINGLE TIME WE TALK ABOUT RULES, THERE'S SOMEBODY THAT'S COMPLAINING ABOUT ENFORCEMENT, LIKE, RIGHTFULLY SO. IF THESE THINGS ARE HAPPENING, THEY'RE NO GOOD. Come and give a ticket to somebody tell somebody that people cannot live there that many people at any rate That's the way I feel about it I wonder if this has every single kink worked out because it seems like there'd be some cases that would also maybe not be fair, but I I like this approach better than the one that we have now That's it

Thank you, Commissioner. That was insightful. And I appreciate, yeah, I mean, I think, I agree that I have a concern about sizing families out. And also, I worry that the size created for studios is too small. It actually reduces the amount of residents that can be in a studio. And that's going to both potentially size out families who can only afford that. And it's also going to size out, I don't know, a polycule of three. And probably you shouldn't have a polycule of five in a studio apartment. But I think a group of three adults living together in a studio apartment is probably fine. I mean, I do, I think, happy Pride Month, everybody. Family extends well beyond the definitions that we can give it, and it extends beyond any definition that we can give it. And I think that there is a great deal of value in allowing all of those definitions to flourish by instead really talking about what we are doing, the problems that we are trying to prevent, rather than trying to describe a specific boundary. I worry a little bit about the lack of vehicle restrictions, the complete removal of vehicle restrictions. You mentioned that our enforcement officers are not able to look up titles. Is that state regulation that prohibits us from having that access to that information? And if so, do we want to keep it on the books so that if the state regulation changes, we can potentially in the future enforce against people who have way too many cars?

So that information came straight from compliance, which is the city's parking enforcement division. I'm not 100% sure about the state law thing, but they do not have access to registration. There's not a way for them to get access to it. And so whether it's a state law or not, it's just not something the city has access to. So there's no way to actually enforce it.

SO IT IS A STATE REGULATION. IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULE THAT'S ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY THAT LIMITS ACCESS TO VEHICLE REGISTRATION INFORMATION. TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OUTSIDE OF BASICALLY POLICE ACTIVITY. SO THERE HAS TO BE A VALID REASON AND THEY'VE SAID THAT THIS TYPE OF THING IS NOT A VALID REASON TO ACCESS THAT. SO THEY WILL NOT GIVE ACCESS TO THE CITY FOR THAT PURPOSE.

BUT THAT'S NOT EVEN LIKE A LEGISLATION. IT WOULDN'T EVEN BE NECESSARILY THE STATE LEGISLATURE. THAT'S AN EXECUTIVE DECISION BY AN AGENCY.

I BELIEVE THE STATE LAW BASICALLY SAYS THAT THAT ACCESS CAN'T BE USED FOR CERTAIN THINGS AND THEN GIVES THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS THE ABILITY TO DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE RULES ON HOW TO. basically enforce that yeah so and that's been handed down and it's been that way for years so I would not anticipate there's all kinds of privacy issues with that kind of stuff that being used incorrectly you know the the people who do parking enforcement and in our civil enforcement team don't go through the same level of training that police officers do as far as you know how they do their investigations and things like that so I would I would be shocked if that data actually ever gets you freed up to be used for that purpose. Yeah, I think it would probably revert to being more restrictive than I Mean I do think that there might be ways to do it anonymized Right and and if they you know, if the state law does change we can change our ordinance.

Yeah Okay

and there would be no other meaningful way to enforce no because we'd have no way of knowing who the who those vehicles belong to other than literally like staking out well even then right like a vehicle may be in a parent's name that their adult child drives maybe registered at a different house it may be you know there's so many things yeah that it just is

And there would be no way to enforce on what actually is happening with that vehicle. That's right. Yeah.

And the other reality, too, is that even though we have off street parking requirements. THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO PARK IN YOUR DRIVEWAY OR HAVE TO PARK IN YOUR DRIVEWAY OR HAVE TO PARK IN YOUR DRIVEWAY OR YOUR GARAGE. YOUR GARAGE. YOUR GARAGE. YOU HAVE TO KEEP IT CLEAR AND YOU HAVE TO KEEP IT CLEAR AND YOU HAVE TO KEEP IT CLEAR AND AVAILABLE FOR PARKING. AVAILABLE FOR PARKING. AVAILABLE FOR PARKING. BUT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO CHOOSE TO BUT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO CHOOSE TO BUT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO CHOOSE TO PARK WHEREVER THEY FEEL IS THE MOST PARK WHEREVER THEY FEEL IS THE MOST PARK WHEREVER THEY FEEL IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE FOR THEM. APPROPRIATE FOR THEM. APPROPRIATE FOR THEM. AND WHETHER THEY PARK A who lives in what dwelling?

Yes. I mean, I guess I just ask because I think that the public comments both here and in the previous matter that came before the commission demonstrated what I think is like the real core problem with cars, which is that car ownership makes us all fight each other. Suddenly, we're no longer thinking of each other as neighbors. We're no longer thinking of each other as people who need to take care of each other. We're no longer thinking about the students in the house next to us as learners who can potentially provide joy and vibrancy to the neighborhood. Instead, we're thinking about them as people who are competing for car space. And I think that that is deeply problematic. And if we can do things that make it harder for people to own three or four or five or six cars and get into this mindset of, I am in my little fiefdom of my automobile and can do whatever I want, that would be beneficial. So that's why I am hesitant to say, let's take this off the books entirely. But I hear that it's basically impossible to enforce. And it probably is. Problematic to have a completely unenforceable code item. I do wonder if there might be an opportunity to evaluate ways that we could But probably the best way to do that is just to charge for on street parking and I'm not sure that that's really politically viable What else

Yeah. What about residential permit zones? How do those work? Are households limited to a certain number of those permits that they can have?

So it depends. So the residential permit parking, one, it applies to all residents, right? So whether you're renting or owning, you can get those. OK. Some areas do have a limit on the number per residence that will be granted. And so that's one way to limit that. That's all managed through the transportation division. So they go out, they do a study and they come up with some proposal for that before it's created. But they are transportation would do that based on essentially on street parking use where they go out and actually Document how many on street parking? Spaces are available and how it's used at different times throughout the day different days of the week To give them an idea of how big the demand actually is Okay, that's what that's how they currently calculate it.

Yes, okay and there is like this is not the first time the question of like parking enforcement zones has come up in relation to the broader zoning questions i assume that there is no way that that can ever be placed even in proximity to the remit of the zoning code or the planning commission and the city or i mean i guess the city council can choose to change the ordinance but we can't make any recommendations to them on that course is that correct probably not yeah because it's outside of your scope um

I'LL ADD THAT AROUND THE UNIVERSITIES IS WHERE THOSE EXIST. YES. AND SO IF EVEN WITH THOSE, THERE'S STILL THE PARKING COMPLAINTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THEY'RE NOT A THEY DON'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM. THEY HELP MANAGE IT BETTER, BUT THEY DON'T SOLVE THE PERCEPTION OF NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, COMPETING FOR ON STREET PARKING.

YEAH. IT'S JUST IT WOULD BE NICE TO SEND THIS OVER WITH A PACKAGE FOR LIKE THE COUNCIL TO EVALUATE SO I GUESS I'M PUTTING THAT ON THE RECORD I DON'T THINK WE CAN MOVE TO IT BUT I THINK THAT IF THE COUNCIL IS LISTENING I WOULD I THINK IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO EVALUATE BETTER WAYS TO RESTRICT PARKING IN LIGHT OF THIS THAT SAID I do wonder, can we make recommendations to shift some of the language? So for example, saying that the cap doesn't apply to children under a certain age, or increasing the number of people who can live in a studio by one. Would that be something that we could move to do here, or would we need to table it and wait for the staff to revise?

THAT'S UP TO YOU. YOU CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING. WRITING IN AN EXCEPTION FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN IS PRETTY EASY. JUST ADD THAT WORDING TO THE END. SIMILAR WITH THE STUDIO SIZE, IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE NUMBER, YOU CAN CHANGE THE NUMBER BY MOTION.

um can i make a comment about the the studio um question so under building code the minimum size for studio is like 200 feet and so the reason why we put the cap at two is because someone or like you could have a studio that's only 200 square feet and have two people in it which is small so it's trying to like account for studios of all sizes um including like the smallest possible

So the building code limit is two people plus one person per 50 square feet?

Yes. And so actually building codes, rules for efficiency unit studios is different. It is the two for like a minimum unit plus an additional person for every 100 square feet.

Okay. I mean, I would, and that, because that is incorporated in under state law, that is still enforceable no matter what. Yes. interesting and and what is the enforcement act action especially for own owner occupied units like if there is an owner if there is an owner occupant say two bedrooms four kids and two adults under the current code if a neighbor makes a complaint what would be the process by which the city would enforce this ordinance

THIS IS THAT GAP I WAS TALKING ABOUT. THIS CREATES THE SAME SITUATION JUST WITH A RELATED HOUSEHOLD AS THE UNRELATED. AND THAT WOULD BE ONE REASON WHY YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER WRITING IN AN EXCLUSION FOR CHILDREN. RIGHT. I GUESS. BASICALLY THE INFORMATION WOULD HAVE TO BE VOLUNTEERED TO US. IF IT WAS OWNERS, WE PROBABLY MORE THAN LIKELY COULD NOT DO ANYTHING.

Okay. So not even a fine or a fee or anything?

Probably not.

Okay. Because, like, I'm seeing, like, in the bill itself it says that there's no penalty for violation. Is there a penalty? In what? Like, in the text of the ordinance there's a, is there a penalty for violating the ordinance? If so, please state the penalty reference or reference another ordinance that prescribes a penalty here. And it's just a blank line.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS BOILER PLATE LANGUAGE IN THE BOILER PLATE LANGUAGE IN THE BOILER PLATE LANGUAGE IN THE APPROVED AS TO FORM. APPROVED AS TO FORM. APPROVED AS TO FORM. THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY ADDITIONAL PENALTY OTHER THAN ADDITIONAL PENALTY OTHER THAN ADDITIONAL PENALTY OTHER THAN THE ZONING VIOLATIONS.

THE ZONING VIOLATIONS.

THE ZONING VIOLATIONS. NO ADDITIONAL THING. NO ADDITIONAL THING. NO ADDITIONAL THING. WE HAVE TO PUT THAT IN THERE WE HAVE TO PUT THAT IN THERE WE HAVE TO PUT THAT IN THERE BECAUSE IT IS A POTENTIAL BUDGET BECAUSE IT IS A

All right, so theoretically like a homeowner in that situation under the current version of the text and well under the future version of the text could be fined if they had too many people. Potentially. Potentially, but it's unlikely to happen.

That would be my.

Okay, thank you. If other folks have thoughts, please share them. I'm gonna try and workshop some language for a

motion all right I have a couple of things and I'll say just starting off I'm inclined to be in favor of this but there are a lot of different themes that have come up over the last few weeks last few meetings that I think lean towards this, we aren't looking at unintended consequences and we're not really properly measuring externalities associated with all these policies kind of overlapping each other. And I think this conversation, people look at it as the limit on unrelated people living in the same house. And then in the report, that was a great report, there's statements about maximizing the use of a house and those sort of pieces, which leads to conversations about, you know, we had an expanding housing options, ADU conversations. We looked at separate living spaces, basements, those kind of things. And then we had this other conversation of how we limit investor-held properties. And that seems like a lot, right? This is a lot of different topics, but all falls down to the one thing of we think that increasing housing options makes housing more affordable. We're operating under that assumption, but we don't really know that. And one example of that is with expanding housing options, you take a single-family home, you ask ADUs, you expand the basement, and now a place that could have been affordable for a single family is now maximized out to have three other families on that property, and you can't afford it anymore. for existing homeowners is great because now they have this new added value in these new revenue streams that they can use to do other things with but if you never had a house you don't have a house and you don't have access to that at all and you're subjugated to rent someone's basement if you can and dealing with the properties that are out there um and i don't know if we're measuring that i don't know if we're looking at how these things overlaying each other and touching each other and when it comes to looking at i i think i will i will um give grace to the commenters who talked about students um because that's the easy way to measure it right but we're not looking at the investors who step in in between the students and who might exploit students who might exploit the market to have have something there um and it's not all bad things everything's not gonna become like some quasi frat a sorority house but With the nature of other investments we have in this community, I can't see why you wouldn't buy a five-bedroom house and turn it into some sort of tech co-working space for five engineering students or something like that to put them in a place together and start popping those up around campus. It makes a lot of sense. It's a cool thing to sort of do. You get some funding behind it, and it kind of goes. I'm sorry I put that on the record if it happens. I really apologize. But those kind of things happen with these sort of rule changes, and you don't really know who's going to exploit what right and so we're in this space trying to make spot changes the same way we were spot zoning right but we're making spot changes to policies that allow different doors to open and we don't know how they're going to be exploited we got to be sensitive to that but when it comes down to it like on this face it's really hard to enforce who's related in the house There's so many biases and prejudices that come into play and people who file complaints, there's so many things layered in that. Even with the cars, I've seen other communities here in the county, you go in a neighborhood and there's like 20 cars in front of a house, that person is operating a Lyft or a rideshare service or a Turo. And so they have 20 cars outside the house all registered to them, but they're all their business in the house and doing something like that. Police can enforce those things, but then that turns every housing issue into a criminal issue. And that's why you have code enforcement versus Police. Two different levels of things and you don't want to bog down the police in doing these things and looking up these things, right? And so that's why it's a split there within the state legislature. But if you want to make these things criminal, you go down that path. But then you need more police officers and you're wasting their time doing these things and more incidents with police and then now police incidents go up, right? That's not something that benefits anyone. And so... said all that to say i'm going to vote for this but i don't know you know if we're measuring the right things or we can really measure the impact of it i think it makes sense from an enforcement standpoint um that's already difficult to do i think that we have a lot of other tools and i expect you know the city and the council and everyone to be proactive and interactive with what's happening and be able to regulate what we can but we have to take this step because you're moving forward and sort of making the laws on the books better but they have to be dynamic, right? You can't sit on this, it'll have to be some other changes. And it might be in the ADU space or the investor, like who owns the property space and those sort of pieces. And I think what last meeting I said, get weird with things, but you have to actively monitor it to be that kind of weird. And so, good luck to all of us and we'll move forward.

Good luck to all of us. Well, I hope that the plans like Plan Salt Lake or driving in place and those kind of things give the kind of the overarching like priorities kind of. Hopefully a lot of this stuff will work. And then also there's stuff like YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF THE ZONES DIDN'T WORK. LIKE NOTHING WAS BUILT THERE. SO LIKE IT'S CHANGING NOW. SO I HOPE THAT WE WILL STAY DYNAMIC. BUT THIS SEEMS LIKE A GOOD STEP TO ME AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT IT WILL HELP AND FAMILIES WILL FIT. FAMILIES OF EVERY SINGLE KIND WILL FIT. Or groups of engineers who just want to go working. It's a good idea. Trademark.

Yeah, I think I'm generally in favor of expanding that definition of family. The one question that came to mind was whether there was any thought of just moving to using the term household instead of family. And then because I wonder if like in the last thing we heard a lot about family sized housing and I wonder if that creates a little bit of confusion. I know that's a colloquial thing, not an actual code term, but I wonder if that was considered.

SO WE DID CONSIDER CHANGING IT TO HOUSEHOLD BUT THE ISSUE WITH THAT IS FAMILY IS USED SO MUCH IN THE CODE THAT CHANGING TO FAMILY WOULD JUST BE KIND OF A MESS TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND CHANGE EVERY TIME FAMILY IS USED IN THE CODE. I MEAN SPECIFICALLY LIKE SINGLE FAMILY OR MULTI FAMILY THAT'S USED LIKE IN A LOT OF SECTIONS OF THE ZONING CODE AND SO THOSE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE CHANGED WITH THIS.

The other thing I think in looking at the kind of public comments I also think that the fact that the concern and the enforcement issue and everything about this is in such a geographically like limited area means that the solution for that is something that needs to also be more targeted to that and maybe that's an overlay zone or maybe that's a higher fines for something in that area or whatever. But I think that keeping this definition more tight just for that little portion doesn't make sense. And so I think that the benefits of this more broadly kind of do make a lot of sense. I know that this is how I found out that I apparently broke this law by buying my first house and renting out three rooms in it, because that's how I paid for it. And I think that, again, it's measurement. It's how do you know these things, because there are instances of that. There are instances of developers buying up places. And it's all hard to get. But I do think that the idea that There's a house with bedrooms that people can't move into because it's like, well, we had a kid, so now we can't have renters and things. It makes a lot of sense on updating this. The part that really I found interesting and most kind of spoke to me was the historical look at the term and how it was actually for a very long time about cooking, which I just find interesting. Previously, the idea of a family or of household centered around that, around like, oh, we eat together, so we're a family. And so I think that it makes a lot of sense to broaden that term of family as much as we can, but also to look at all these kind of instances. And I think that the idea of an exception for kids under whatever age makes a lot of sense because, yeah, it would be crazy to be like, well, you had your third kid. Get out. So that's all.

I agree that the idea of cooking is cute. Part of me is like, maybe we should go back to that. We all take care of each other. But also hard to enforce. Are you cooking together enough? So I would like to make a motion. On the matter of PLN PCM 2026-00244, definition of family text amendment, I move that the commission recommend that the city council adopt this petition with the following recommendations. First, for section 2b, amend to, in the case of efficiency units, no more than two persons per unit for units less than 300 square feet and otherwise no more than three persons per unit. And second, add language that for the purposes of this definition, each person under 18 shall be considered one half a person. and i would accept friendly amendments if somebody wants to workshop that could you say the the first part again yeah um the studio part yeah in the case of efficiency units no more than two persons in uh per unit for units less than less than 300 square feet and otherwise no more than three persons per unit

I think we should take another shot at giving an exception for kids.

Yeah. So the question of the studio one, then, is about whether or not it's two or three, basically?

The question is, so for the smallest size studio and efficiency units, we're still putting a cap on it 200. or at two people. And then once we go up, right, it's not just falling back purely to the, I guess, it's not falling back purely to the building code where like every additional hundred square feet, you can add an additional person. Cause like there are studios that have 700, 800, even 900 square feet. And at that point you're talking, SIX PEOPLE, I THINK. SIX PEOPLE, I THINK. SIX PEOPLE, I THINK.

SO JUST KIND OF WANT TO BRING SO JUST KIND OF WANT TO BRING SO JUST KIND OF WANT TO BRING THIS BACK TO PROCEDURES. THIS BACK TO PROCEDURES. THIS BACK TO PROCEDURES. WE HAD A MOTION. WE HAD A MOTION. WE HAD A MOTION. I THINK BEFORE WE REALLY DIVE I THINK BEFORE WE REALLY DIVE I THINK BEFORE WE REALLY DIVE INTO DISCUSSION OF THAT MOTION, INTO DISCUSSION OF THAT MOTION, INTO DISCUSSION OF THAT MOTION, IT EITHER NEEDS TO GET A SECOND IT EITHER NEEDS TO GET A SECOND IT EITHER NEEDS TO GET A SECOND OR NOT GET A SECOND.

I mean, my thoughts and suggestion would be that I think the studio one is probably all right, and that it would make more sense to just put a thing that says excluding CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 16 OR CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF WHATEVER WE PICK UP.

I MEAN, ONCE YOUR KID TURNS 16, THOUGH, ARE YOU GOING TO MOVE? KICK THE OLDEST KID OUT OR SOMETHING THAT SEEMS LIKE.

TRUE. I GUESS THAT NUMBER JUMPED OUT TO ME BECAUSE OF PARKING.

YOU GUYS, 16 COMES REALLY FAST. ONE DAY YOU HAVE A BABY, THE NEXT DAY YOU HAVE A 16-YEAR-OLD AND THEN YOU HAVE TO MOVE. BUT I THINK, I KNOW, I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN, LIKE IS THERE A CAR. BUT DO YOU GUYS HAVE A SUGGESTION OVER THERE FOR WHAT WE MIGHT DO TO ALLOW

I would suggest just to make sure that we're not stepping on any other like federal or state law about FAIR HOUSING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT IF YOU GET TO THIS WHERE I WOULD JUST SAY SOMETHING LIKE EXCLUDING ONE OF THE OCCUPANT'S CHILDREN AND LEAVE IT AT THAT. SO THAT ELIMINATES THE 18-YEAR-OLD HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT.

YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.

YOU KNOW, WHICH WHO'S HAD THOSE, RIGHT? YEAH. or exactly or or somebody who who because of either you know because of their health or whatnot can't live on their own and they live with their parents or their siblings or something like that yeah I think that would make sense I like that one too okay yeah thank you question what if we're fully excluding children how does that

impact um foster parents and the potential for abuse or overcrowding there i think that's as gentle as i can ask it do those are those under like a different zoning designation or um well i guess foster houses wouldn't be because those are just

WELL, FIRST WE SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE ORIGINAL MOTION FAILED. I DON'T THINK THAT HAPPENED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. I DO THINK ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE WHY SOME CITIES HAVE JUST REMOVED IT ALL TOGETHER WITHOUT THE COMPLICATIONS.

No, we don't want to do that. Can we just make a suggestion that would you guys prefer if we ask if you guys want to consider other language or what other cities do? Or would you prefer that we just make the suggestion that children are considered, like children of occupants are considered different?

Well, I prefer that you make a motion that the commission ultimately is comfortable with, right? and can vote on. Whether that's for or against is up to you. But our concern is just making sure that whatever that motion is, it's clear enough that we can relay it to the city council. They're going to be the decision makers. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And they also initiated this. So they asked for it. They are asking for your recommendation on what you think is best long term for all the city goals when you think about them collectively.

And their process includes board smithing and all of that kind of stuff.

If they want to, yeah. Yeah, they have full flexibility.

Yeah. Would you hate it if we tabled it and asked you to add language?

Only if you don't give a specific direction. If it's language that you think you can add here, I would prefer you just do it. Otherwise, we'd be taking time on other agendas and things like that.

I'm going to try. I think I don't. I'm going to make this part, and then if you want to do a friendly concerning studio, OK. Sorry, I'm stuck searching. OK. Based on the information presented in this discussion, I move that the commission recommend that the city council adopt this petition with the following recommendation, that children of an occupant are not Are allowed outside of occupancy limits.

I think you could say excluded from the calculation or something like that.

Children of an occupant of the residents are excluded from the occupancy limits.

OKAY. I'LL SECOND AND I WOULD LIKE I'LL SECOND AND I WOULD LIKE I'LL SECOND AND I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A FRIENDLY. TO OFFER A FRIENDLY. TO OFFER A FRIENDLY. I WOULD ADD AND FOR SECTION 2B I WOULD ADD AND FOR SECTION 2B I WOULD ADD AND FOR SECTION 2B AMEND TO IN THE CASE OF AMEND TO IN THE CASE OF AMEND TO IN THE CASE OF UNITS NO MORE THAN TWO PERSONS UNITS NO MORE THAN TWO PERSONS UNITS NO MORE THAN TWO PERSONS PER UNIT FOR UNITS LESS THAN 300 PER UNIT FOR UNITS LESS THAN 300 PER UNIT FOR UNITS LESS THAN 300 SQUARE FEET AND OTHERWISE NO SQUARE FEET AND OTHERWISE NO SQUARE FEET AND OTHERWISE

OK, we have a motion and a second. Just a quick discussion. I'm still a little confused on what that says.

OK, so in the case of efficiency units, for units that have less than 300 square feet, like the really smallest studios, those still have a maximum of two people. Every other studio, so any studio that has 300 square feet or more, THERE'S A MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY OF THERE'S A MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY OF THERE'S A MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY OF THREE PEOPLE.

THREE PEOPLE. THREE PEOPLE. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE. IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE. IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE. SO YOU'RE JUST ADDING THAT SO YOU'RE JUST ADDING THAT SO YOU'RE JUST ADDING THAT THE SMALLER STUDIO IS ONLY TWO. THE SMALLER STUDIO IS ONLY TWO. THE SMALLER STUDIO IS ONLY TWO. EXACTLY. EXACTLY. EXACTLY. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. GOTCHA. GOTCHA.

GOTCHA.

GOTCHA. SORRY. SORRY. SORRY. I WAS LIKE, IS THERE MATH IN I WAS LIKE, IS THERE MATH IN I WAS LIKE, IS THERE MATH IN THERE? THERE?

Yes.

Commissioner Scott?

Yes.

Commissioner Sullivan? No. Passes three to two.

Thank you very much. And our last item, the text amendment for affordable housing incentives fines.

CAN I ASK A POINT OF ORDER? PERSONAL PRIVILEGE? CAN WE, CAN, MAYBE I'M JUST BEING CURIOUS, BUT COULD WE EVER FIND OUT WHY YOU VOTED NO OR WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE VOTED YES FOR? IS THAT A DISCUSSION WE CAN HAVE SOMEDAY OR RIGHT NOW OR NEVER?

I THINK PROBABLY WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT AFTER, BUT I DON'T KNOW.

IS THAT OKAY? YEAH, I THINK YOU CAN TALK ABOUT THAT AMONGST YOURSELVES AFTER.

OKAY, THANKS. THANK YOU.

All right, so this proposal, this proposed text amendment is a city-initiated text amendment that will adopt the fines for violating our affordable housing incentives program standards into the zoning code. So the affordable housing incentives or the AHI program is a planning process that was implemented in 2023 as a way to allow for increased density in exchange for affordable housing. The AHI code establishes a certain set of affordability benchmarks that applicants must meet. This is enforced through a restrictive covenant. There's a legally binding agreement that is recorded against the property and through fines. The applicant agrees to the terms of the restrictive covenant at the time of signing. The purpose of this text amendment is primarily a clarification and cleanup text amendment. It does not change or implement any new policies. Currently, the code refers to the enforcement mechanism of the fines for violating AHI requirements as being listed in the consolidated fee schedule. However, the consolidated fee schedule cannot legally list fines, as fines are not considered fees. Therefore, this text amendment is proposing to place the specific fines for violating the AHI requirements directly into the code. The proposed amendment includes three specific fines to add to the zoning code for the violation of these AHI regulations. The first is $100 per day fine for any unit that is designated as affordable through the AHI that is renting in excess of the agreed rental rate, plus the difference between the market rate of the unit and the approved rental rate that was agreed upon by the applicant. There is also a fine of $500 proposed for any affordable unit being utilized as a short-term rental. and finally there is an additional 100 fine per day they're all per day fines for violating any other requirements within the restrictive covenant that is not otherwise addressed here placing these fines into the code is intended for the city to provide transparency and clarification to staff residents applicants and landowners on the penalties for violation of the restrictive covenant and reinforce the protections and maintenance of the affordable housing that is provided through the ahi program based on the findings listed in this staff report and the standards for zoning text amendments planning staff recommends that the planning commission forward a positive recommendation to the city council all right thank you go ahead and open up for public comment hearing none i will close public comment and bring it back to us for a discussion or motion

Based on the information presented in discussion, I move that we pass this.

Second.

Wait, I think.

Wait a second. Commissioner Burroughs.

Oh, wait, sorry. Oh, I thought you were. No.

No, I did have a question. I was just trying to formulate it, and then things got fast. I have a clarification question about one of the proposals. The first. First? No, second. Can you go back to the screen? So is that none of the actual 3. 500 day for short-term rental. That is for Owners of the building like yes, that's correct.

So one of the one of these standards One of the things they agreed to on the restrictive covenant is that they cannot use Any unit that has been designated as affordable through the affordable housing incentives Cannot be used as a short-term rental.

What if a leaseholder wanted to use it as a short-term rental?

my understanding is that would be that's still the the owner's responsibility to ensure that that doesn't happen yeah so if if someone who's leasing a space is doing that and it violates their restrictive covenant then that's a you know the owners is completely responsible for enforcing that it probably violates whatever lending funding agreements they have as well but

Okay.

Okay. We'll talk about it after. There's no reason not to vote for it now.

Cool.

Thank you.

All right. We have a motion and a second.

Go ahead and vote.

Commissioner Burroughs? Yes. Commissioner Leverett?

Yes.

Commissioner Rosenfield? Aye. Commissioner Scott?

Yes.

Commissioner Sullivan? Yes. Pass.

All right. That is all. Thank you.

Thank you.