Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

WELCOME TO THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR JULY 8th, 2026. WE WILL BEGIN OUR MEETING WITH THE ROLL CALL, VENESSA.

JEFFREY BARRETT.

HERE.

RICHARD LEBRIT. HERE. LYLA ROSENFIELD.

HERE.

ANNA SULLIVAN. HERE. THAT'S A QUORUM.

Great. Next on the agenda is a chair report, which I do not have today. Do we have a report from the vice chair?

Am I the vice chair today?

I think you are the honorary vice chair. That's why you're seated here.

Well, in that case, I have nothing to report.

Great. And then next on the agenda, while we're whipping through it, the report from the director.

The only thing I have to update the commission on is that we do not have any agenda items for what would be your next meeting. So you have some options. We can just cancel and not hold a meeting. That would be on the 22nd of July. So it's already kind of a holiday week. Or we could throw some sort of a training on there for the commission, but I'm going to leave it up to the commission to let us know what you would like to do.

For what it's worth, I will be traveling for work that day. But if you guys want to get together for a training of some kind, have at it.

I'd be interested in a training, potentially. I don't know if anybody else would, because I'm a sicko.

Do we need a motion to cancel the meeting?

No, if we don't have an agenda item, we'll just cancel it. So it just depends on if there's compelling interest from the

is there something specific that we can be trained on that someone has in mind or we'd have to put something together okay i i'm on the side of canceling probably then we're not we're not taking an action at this time correct we're just sort of advising generally no i i think i think knowing that you know at least

ONE COMMISSIONER WILL BE GONE WHO IS HERE TONIGHT. ONE WHO IS IN FAVOR OF CANCELING. ONE WHO IS INTERESTED IN A TRAINING. I THINK THE NEXT AGENDA IN AUGUST IS ALSO SOMEWHAT LIGHT, BUT WE MIGHT JUST THROW SOME SORT OF A TRAINING ON THERE. THAT GIVES US A LITTLE MORE TIME TO PREPARE SOMETHING AS WELL.

THAT SOUNDS RIGHT TO ME. Okay, after the director's report, we have the opportunity for a commissioner open forum of up to 10 minutes where we speak about things that are relevant to our general purpose here, but not specific to the agenda. Does anyone have an item to discuss tonight? Very well. Do we, sorry, do we have a consent agenda? We do. The consent agenda, on the consent agenda for tonight is just approval of the minutes for June 24, 2026. I was not in attendance, but. You can still vote for him. But let's go ahead with a vote.

We need a motion. I move to approve the minutes from last meeting.

I'll second.

Perfect. Roll call, Commissioner Barrett.

I will abstain since I wasn't here and haven't reviewed the minutes.

Commissioner LeBret?

Yes.

Commissioner Rosenfeld?

Yes.

Commissioner Sullivan?

Yes.

All right. Moving on to the regular agenda, we will begin tonight with a text amendment regarding community correctional facilities and jails. Go ahead.

Okay, good evening. All right, my name is Cassie Unger and I will be reviewing a proposed tax amendment that aims to remove community correctional facilities and jails as permitted uses within our land use tables. This request was brought up at a planning commission.

Cassie, you need to share your presentation.

Can you just hit the button? Sorry. Thank you. There we go. This request was brought up at a Planning Commission after the DHS purchased the property on the west side of Salt Lake City. At the March 25th Planning Commission meeting, staff discussed specific zoning options they could pursue to limit this type of use in the city. And on April 8th, the Planning Commission formally initiated the petition that we are discussing tonight. A reminder that these proposed changes would not apply to property owned by the state of Utah or owned by the federal government, because these entities are not subject to local zoning. The following amendment would only apply to private property, including private companies who may enter into contracts with the state or federal government. This petition proposes to remove the uses community correctional facility and jail as conditional uses from the land use tables. Both of these uses include types of detention facilities with varying degrees of security and confinement. Jails are typically run by county sheriffs and community correctional facilities are run by the Department of Corrections. Small community correctional facilities with 30 beds or less are currently allowed in the mixed-use 11 and M1 zones, and large facilities with over 30 beds are allowed in M1. Jails are currently allowed in the public lands district. Additionally, community correctional facilities are further restricted by location and not allowed within a half mile of residential districts. This map shows where small community correctional facilities are allowed with this additional limitation. And you can see there's only a small portion of MU 11 that is not located within a half mile of a residential zone. And then large community correctional facilities with over 30 beds are only allowed in the M1 zone west of I-215, which is shown in the red box. Jails are listed as a conditional use in the public lands districts. Public lands districts are shown here. The amendment proposes to remove the C in the land use tables for these uses so that the definition and use are still listed in the land use tables, but they are no longer allowed anywhere in the city. This amendment also recommends to delete section 21A-36-110. This section outlines specific regulations regarding community correctional facilities that further restrict site location, site design, and operational limits. This whole section is proposed to be removed since community correctional facilities would no longer be permitted anywhere in the city. So state code allows the Department of Corrections to enter into private contracts for correctional facilities. But before entering into a contract, the department is required to host a public hearing in the city where the facility is proposed and received input on the contract. Then the city council would have to give written permission that states the council has agreed to the establishment of the facility within its boundaries. If these uses are listed as conditional uses in our land use tables, it could be interpreted that the council has already agreed to the establishment of a facility in the city since they are permitted as a conditional use. But by keeping the uses listed in the table along with their definitions but removing the conditional use allowance, it is more clear that these uses specifically have been vetted by the city and are not permitted within city limits. Staff has found that these amendments align with many of the policies outside in Plan Salt Lake, including creating safe and convenient places to live, recognizing and advocating for the rights of all residents and visitors, and conserving city resources. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to City Council.

thank you I suppose we don't have an applicant uh on this item so uh do we have any public comment on on this agenda item I don't believe I have a card um all right well then we'll move into Commission uh discussion of this item or actually I suppose clarifying questions for staff first if we have any of those All right. Commission discussion.

I mean, I'm glad that our discussion surrounding the proposed and now seemingly, hopefully, tabled ICE detention facility on the west side was able to raise this sort of relatively specific technical issue. So I appreciate the staff for digging into the details here. Obviously I don't feel like this is enough. But I don't think that there's anything that we could do that would be enough. And that's sort of where I'm feeling. I'm obviously enthusiastic to remove these incarceration facilities, private incarceration facilities from the list of acceptable uses, but obviously, or not obviously, I do believe personally that we do need to do everything we can as a city to protect our immigrant and undocumented neighbors from the detention machine, as well as evaluating ways in a broader sense to move beyond sort of criminal punishment as the primary approach that we use for ensuring general social harmony. I GUESS MY ONE QUESTION, SO I GUESS MY ONE QUESTION, SO OBVIOUSLY THIS STRIKES THE FULL OBVIOUSLY THIS STRIKES THE FULL DESCRIPTION OF THE PREVIOUSLY DESCRIPTION OF THE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES. FACILITIES. I GUESS MY ONE WORRY IS IF A I GUESS MY ONE WORRY IS IF A FUTURE CITY COUNCIL WERE TO FUTURE CITY COUNCIL WERE TO WANT TO APPROVE A COMMUNITY WANT TO APPROVE A COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, THEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE FULL WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE FULL PROCESS OF CHANG Like, they would no longer be on record. So I assume that there would be some way for them to go through the history and review, but it's unlikely that they would actually do so. Is that correct?

WE WANTED TO REFER BACK TO THAT SECTION THAT OUTLINES THE SECTION THAT OUTLINES THE REGULATIONS FOR CORRECTIONAL REGULATIONS FOR CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, THEY COULD REFERENCE FACILITIES, THEY COULD REFERENCE THAT, BUT WITH IT NOT BEING THAT, BUT WITH IT NOT BEING LISTED IN THE TABLE OF USES AS LISTED IN THE TABLE OF USES AS ANYWHERE A PERMITTED USE, WE ANYWHERE A PERMITTED USE, WE JUST THOUGHT IT MADE SENSE TO JUST THOUGHT IT MADE SENSE TO DELETE THAT WHOLE SECTION.

DELETE THAT WHOLE SECTION. OKAY. OKAY. THAT MAKES SENSE. In theory in order to approve such a zoning change the cap it would have to go through a full process So it would have to be approved first by the Planning Commission and then by the City Council, correct?

Okay All right, thank you very much I Think it is a move in the positive direction. I

IF WE'RE TAKING TURNS. I THINK THIS IS A CLEAN APPROACH. I APPRECIATE STAFF'S WORK ON IT. I THINK IT'S CONSISTENT. I WON'T WAIT IN THE SAME WATERS AS COMMISSIONER ROSENFIELD ON THIS ONE BUT I THINK IT'S AN APPROPRIATE MOVE JUST GIVEN THAT SALT LAKE CITY HAS ALWAYS SORT OF BORN MORE THAN ITS SHARE OF THE STATE'S WEIGHT IN TERMS OF THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES AND SO FOR THAT REASON I THINK IT'S ALSO APPROPRIATE.

um commissioner leverett do you have anything or should we do you have a motion um no i don't have anything but i'll um i'll make the motion give me one second here all right is it all right if i make or would you like to go ahead okay please um

In the matter of, sorry, let me pull up my motion sheet specifically. All right, in the matter of PLN PCM 2026-00384, text amendment regarding community correctional facilities and jails, based on the information presented and discussion, I move that the commission recommend that the city council adopt this petition.

I'll second.

Okay, roll call. Commissioner Barrett?

Yes.

Commissioner Leverett?

Yes.

Commissioner Rosenfield?

Yes.

Commissioner Sullivan? Yes. Pass.

Moving on. The next agenda item is the zoning map amendment at approximately 1379 and 1395 West Van Buren and 1384 West Harris. And we will begin with the staff report. Oh, actually, before we do that, for those of you who have not been made aware, it seems that many of you have, there are cards that you can fill out outside of the front door, and make sure to check the box of whether you wish to speak or do not wish to speak, and appreciate you all being here.

Cool, all right, we'll get this going. This is, why did that happen? What is going on? Maybe not. Sorry. Vanessa? Yeah. Cool. OK. All right, second time's a charm. This is the zoning map amendment at 1395 West Van Buren. Also includes 1379 West Van Buren and 1384 West Harris. The subject properties, they are currently zoned R17000, which is a single-family residential district. They are requesting that you go, that they are rezoned to RMF30, which is our low-density multifamily district. Staff's recommendation is that planning commission forward a positive recommendation to city council with conditions. The subject properties, they total 1.25 acres. The blue house, 1379 West Van Buren on the top, that home is proposed to remain. And then the 1395 West Van Buren, the brick home and the associated garage is currently being demolished and I think it's actually pretty close to being done. The neighborhood context, as you can see from this zoning map, the neighborhood is generally heavily R1-7000, but the neighborhood does have actually quite good access to amenities. They're nearby to an elementary school, a middle school, the Glendale Library, the new Glendale Regional Park, the 17th South River Park, and tons of bike lanes and bus stops. The proposal, so the applicants did not include any materials aside from a narrative. And that narrative states that their intention is to construct 24 or so units on the site. Those units would be affordable for sale housing. That affordable for sale housing does qualify as their community benefit. The development potential of this site as it's currently zoned, because it's so large, one and a quarter acres, it gets a little confusing when we talk about what they could do right now. All said and done, if they went through AHI, planned development, subdivision, things like that, they could get anywhere between three and 28 units. Under the RMF 30, they could do 26 to 35 units. depending on the building type. And they also get one additional bonus unit that is not subject to lot area for the retention of the home at 1379. They may still need planned development for lots without street frontage. And then the AHI does not have a density cap. Here is the zoning standards side by side between the two districts. As you can tell, they are actually quite similar in terms of setbacks and lot coverage. And so the RMF 30 is our low density residential multifamily district. So it's supposed to be kind of that in between single family and higher density. The one thing that the RMF 30 district does have that the R1 7000 district does not have is design standards that helps ensure maybe a little bit more well-designed buildings that aren't just big, big boxes. Staff did receive lots of public input regarding this project majority in opposition and the main concerns of the public comments were parking utilities and infrastructure and then just general neighborhood and neighborhood character and compatibility In response to these, staff tried to craft the conditions of approval with those in mind to help ensure that these concerns could be eased. With that, for parking we suggest a recommendation that no modifications can be made to the parking and that they must provide parking at the established rate in our parking chapter. Public utilities did let the applicants know that any upgrades to utilities, whether it's onsite or downstream because of the development, that would have to be at their cost. That cost is not being passed on to the neighbors or the surrounding community. And then, like I said, the neighborhood character concerns, we tried to craft lots of different conditions that hold the applicant to RMF 30 because we think RMF 30 is not that different from R17000, but by adding these conditions like height, they can't get extra height from a process, or we require a greater landscape buffer to help kind of buffer it from the surrounding single-family homes, things like that. MAP amendments, they are reviewed against adopted general plans, including Plan Salt Lake and Housing SLC. Plan Salt Lake does encourage us to enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods. it also encourages increasing the number of medium density types and options housing slc suggests increasing opportunities for home ownership and other wealth and equity building opportunities this project again 24-ish units at an affordable rate all for sale so that checks that box We also look at the West Side Plan because this project is located in the West Side Plan boundaries. The West Side does suggest promoting reinvestment and redevelopment in established neighborhoods. It also suggests determining unique and compatible ways to add incremental density through infill development. Appropriate cases include lots that have unique shapes or where the impact on adjacent properties could be decreased due to the unique properties of the parcels. Again, this is one and a quarter acres. It's very large, allowing us the opportunity to add some conditions that help decrease the impacts on the neighborhood. Like we discussed a couple minutes ago, the community benefit is providing for sale affordable housing. City Council, just like they do on the MAP amendment, City Council has final authority on that community benefit, but their community benefit that they are proposing is for sale affordable housing. We did have these recommendations. They kind of fall into two categories, whether it's neighborhood character or neighborhood compatibility. community benefits so that a lot of these like the height shall not exceed 30 unit size things like that are in the neighborhood compatibility section while the community benefit parts are kind of their own thing as well This kind of breaks it down a little bit further. Yeah, that is all I have for you. The applicants are here with their own presentation. But if you have any questions, I'm happy to.

Can someone please remind me if we should hold our clarifying questions after the applicant or if we should do those now?

I think it's better just to hold all clarifying questions until after the applicant may actually answer some of your questions.

OK, great. If the applicant would like to come up and present.

We have a few of us here. Kind of a team effort. THAT'S GREAT.

AND IF YOU COULD PLEASE EACH AND IF YOU COULD PLEASE EACH AND IF YOU COULD PLEASE EACH INTRODUCE YOURSELVES FOR THE INTRODUCE YOURSELVES FOR THE INTRODUCE YOURSELVES FOR THE RECORD. RECORD. RECORD.

AND I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT YOU AND I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT YOU AND I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT YOU HAVE TEN MINUTES UNLESS I'M HAVE TEN MINUTES UNLESS I'M HAVE TEN MINUTES UNLESS I'M CORRECTED BY STAFF. CORRECTED BY STAFF. CORRECTED BY STAFF. LET'S ASSUME TEN MINUTES. LET'S ASSUME TEN MINUTES. LET'S ASSUME TEN MINUTES. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY.

My name is Perry Harrison. I am with the nonprofit HomeBuilder, a nonprofit that builds affordable housing throughout the state of Utah.

My name is Hunter Huffman. I'm with Higher Design, the architectural and urban designer on the project.

My name is John Marsh. I'm a property owner with Kerry. And I'm also on the North Salt Lake City Planning Commission. So it's humbling and interesting to be on the other side.

Our other applicant or co-applicant on this application is in the audience. See you back here. So they own the property at 1379 West Van Buren. John and myself also own the Harris address parcel that's on the rear side. A overview of our goals. So we purchased the property over a year ago. One of the main things we looked at is subdividing the property because it is a large piece of property, R17 zone standards. We were looking at the city's affordable housing incentives and using that specifically to produce affordable housing that people can buy. We care deeply about homeownership and the benefits that that provides to community members. And so we wanted to create a product that people can buy and that they can afford. So our intention from the beginning has been a pocket neighborhood and how to fit that in into kind of the space that we had. We purchased the property with just intending to work with our single 1395 West Van Buren property. As we were looking at fire access and how far back it needs to go on the lot, we spoke with our neighbors on the east side and asked if they were interested in sharing a fire access so that they could subdivide their property as well. They were interested in working with us, and so we kind of started with that process of how can we subdivide, and then with an intention to apply for an AHI layer after doing a subdivision. As we got into that process and meeting with planners, we started looking at some of the constraints that come with that, the difficulty of having a really deep lot. It ended up with being solid rows of townhouses. It wasn't a design that we loved. as a city planner myself, who is very interested in urban design and having good neighborhood design, wanting to have something that is more like a pocket neighborhood where it feels like a smaller neighborhood within the larger neighborhood. So we looked at the RMF 30 zone, looked at the general plans that would support this type of infill and similarities between the RMF 30 zone and the existing zoning, they are pretty similar as staff mentioned. So that's kind of where we ended up with this rezone application.

And just to note, some of the constraints that we've run into, one is the water and sewer infrastructure. That's been something that's obviously come up quite a bit. The water main is roughly 100 years old. It's an old four-inch main that repeatedly breaks and leaves residents without functioning water for days at a time until it's repaired. to the point where the fire hydrants are not even testable. So this project would enable the cost to be borne by a developer rather than by the residents, the neighborhood, the taxpayers, so that that infrastructure can be upgraded. There's also an abandoned high pressure gas pipeline that runs across all three of these parcels that would also be removed by the developer cost as well.

Do you want to talk about walkability?

So similar to what staff had presented, we really look at walkability of a project in terms of how we approach it and what's appropriate with the overall context. As we looked at what's shown here is the walking shed of quarter mile, half mile radius. There's a lot of points of interest that point to a variety of housing types that would benefit from building this neighborhood, including the parks that were mentioned by staff. There's the middle school, elementary school, and then plenty of transit and bus stops as well, including neighborhood retail, restaurants, and even the Glendale Library and other community resources, all within a 10-minute walk of this. specifically looking at Glendale Library and the Mountain View Elementary and Glendale Middle, all within five to ten minutes walks of each other, including the Jordan River Trail, which is a very short ride to this site as well. So as we looked at what is compatible with the neighborhood, we're also looking at how this project can also provide a stage of life housing aspect of things in terms of, rather than a typical R17 approach, we can also look at things in terms of housing types and the sizes that would be appropriate to these proximities.

So one thing that we wanted to maintain and that was important, and it is in the code that you have, design that is Street facing RMF 30 doesn't allow garages on the streetscape we want it to blend into the the neighborhood that's there so it looks like a standard single-family type of development from the streetscape on Van Buren and then when you enter into the neighborhood is then when you have a some of the smaller attached units that are put into the neighborhood in a very intentional way. So we kind of created these renderings based off of what we'd want to see on the street level from Van Buren, really focusing on blending with the neighborhood and making sure that the neighborhood that's there retains its character and this development is compatible with it.

And staff already went over the general plan alignment and the proposed conditions. Some of the challenges that we've sort of run into, and I can let Perry speak to this in a moment, but some of the conditions are not ideal when it comes to trying... We understand what the intent is behind some of the conditions, but we'd like to... And I also recognize this is not necessarily the forum where we can adjust conditions, that happens at the council level, but just to sort of make it known that we would like to adjust some of these going forward.

Sure. So the nonprofit HomeBuilder is built on decades of experience in architecture, urban planning, and affordable workforce home ownership projects. We were introduced to the marshes and this potential pocket neighborhood and did some analysis on how feasible it would be to actually deliver the affordable home ownership that they're looking to do as well as what the community benefit would be. We did a comparison here of where it stands right now as we understand it by right what can be done in the R17 existing zone in a PUD context with the affordable housing incentive and then how that would compare with just a base application for a rezone to RMF30 as well as the proposed conditions that staff has put together and then our potential suggested adjustments. As John said, Obviously, this isn't the forum to discuss those conditions, but primarily the overview of this would be putting a minimum bedroom count of two bedrooms across the entire community does limit the flexibility of what type of housing we can deliver and at what area median income, as well as the minimum bath count of two full baths per residence. is quite anti-productive to being able to make this project pencil. Those are our two main concerns. The last concern is the parking requirements. Going above and beyond the zone standards and adding an additional 0.25 guest stalls per housing is frankly quite onerous and makes it so effectively we're reducing the amount of homes that can be built here, which generally is a trade-off, but in this case it absolutely craters the feasibility of this project. It makes it so that it is a net loss to be able to build these at this AMI level while simultaneously building them as large as being proposed. The alternatives that we are proposing is to go above and beyond on the AMI, pushing it all the way down to 60% AMI for 20% of the homes, as well as maintaining the majority, 60%, at 80% AMI, again, higher than what staff recommended, and then having a 20% remainder as 100% AMI. None of these would be left at market rate. All of them would be deed restricted. All of them would be owner restricted as well that you would have to own and reside within the community otherwise the remaining standards are either identical to what staff proposed or stronger we'd like to introduce even more tree cover if necessary we'd like to at least have a tree per home as well as we are looking at doing 40% lot coverage. We'd like to make sure that there's not as much building coverage of the site. We'd like to keep those nice, compact units. The one trade-off we would like to explore is pulling back that guest parking requirement. To note, the existing zoning standards is one stall or garage per home if it's a single bedroom, and then it does go up to two-car garage or two stalls per home if it's two cars or more. So it's effectively the same, and in fact exceeds what exists already under the AHI existing zone, which would just be one per home.

Can I add something? Please.

I don't think we had our timer running, but I think we're well beyond the 10 minutes, so if you guys could wrap it up, I'd appreciate it.

Really quickly, in terms of the concessions that are, what's that?

Sorry.

In terms of the concessions that are being asked, as we looked at unit sizes and what that needs to be with the parking count and everything, we do feel that it would be much easier to bring the height down on some of these units to be able to be more compatible with the neighborhood if we were able to ask for that concession at not a minimum of the two bedrooms.

That's all. Thanks.

Great. Thank you. Could you guys make room for staff so that we can, if we have any questions for staff? Yeah, a couple of you can stay up.

We can switch out depending on who you have questions for.

Do we have any clarifying questions for staff or the applicant?

Yeah, I have a question. With the AMI restriction, I know it runs with the land. For how long?

IF THEY WENT THROUGH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES, IT WOULD BE 30 YEARS, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE RECOMMENDING A TIME FRAME ON IT, AT LEAST AS WE HAVE IT WRITTEN RIGHT NOW. OKAY.

SORRY, COULD YOU RESTATE THAT?

IF THEY WENT THROUGH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES, THE DEED RESTRICTION RUNS WITH THE LAND FOR 30 YEARS, BUT AS WE'VE RECOMMENDED IT NOW, THERE'S NOT A SUNSET DATE.

So it would serve in perpetuity.

Yes, excellent. If I can jump in. You're welcome to add a date as a recommendation to the city council, but those details are typically we worked out in the development agreement with the city council.

And in terms of what we're permitted to recommend, the applicant requested a different set of conditions than was recommended by staff. Can we recommend that set of condition or some sort of synthesis between the staff and applicant conditions? Or do we have to either recommend no conditions and let the council work it out or recommend staff?

YOU CAN RECOMMEND YOUR OWN YOU CAN RECOMMEND YOUR OWN CONDITIONS. CONDITIONS. CONDITIONS. JUST FOR CLARITY THOUGH BECAUSE JUST FOR CLARITY THOUGH BECAUSE JUST FOR CLARITY THOUGH BECAUSE OF THESE CONDITIONS WERE OF THESE CONDITIONS WERE OF THESE CONDITIONS WERE PRESENTED, THE RECOMMENDED PRESENTED, THE RECOMMENDED PRESENTED, THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS BY THE APPLICANT CONDITIONS BY THE APPLICANT CONDITIONS BY THE APPLICANT WERE PRESENTED IN THE STAFF WERE PRESENTED IN THE STAFF WERE PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

REPORT. REPORT. AS STAFF WE DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE AS STAFF WE DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE AS STAFF WE DID

FENCES ARE PERMITTED. WE DON'T HAVE A CONDITION THAT WE PROPOSED THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW FENCES. SO THEY TECHNICALLY COULD PUT A GATE.

I CAN ADD TO THAT AS THE APPLICANT. AS SOMEBODY WHO LOVES COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD, WE WANT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE ACCESSIBLE TO EVERYBODY, NOT GATED OFF.

Gotcha. But that would not, obviously, because that verbal agreement can't be held by day. Sure.

They could put a gate.

Yes.

Thank you.

I would add, you can add a condition that it not be gated as well. Excellent.

Thank you. I have some questions about the applicant's proposed conditions. So these are the first staff has heard these tonight, I'm gathering. They sent the presentation this afternoon, but yes this afternoon was the first time Yeah, I just from my perspective that's not ideal it could be that staff would be amenable to certain of these conditions and the conditions are so central to the proposal that I just find it challenging. We could, off the top of our heads, but it's just not normally how we use this venue, but crafting a dozen conditions in real time. So that's not ideal from my perspective.

And if I can just add, I think there was a little bit of miscommunication between us and staff about timing and how that was all supposed to happen. And so I apologize for that. That was something that we didn't really understand the process in terms of when conditions should be discussed, how that works.

Yeah, and certainly open to having staff review those conditions and either having that come back to you or to go to the city council, however process that you and staff would like that to be.

Just so you understand where I'm coming from, you know, typically what we do is add a condition or two or delete a condition. But this, you know, it's almost like we're being asked to negotiate existing conditions. And that's atypical from my perspective.

Yeah, I agree. I also, I mean, I feel like I have a lot of comments on this, but this is the part for clarifying questions, right? So maybe we should discuss that and other comments after public comment.

Sure. Do we have any other clarifying questions for staff in particular?

I think I have some clarifying questions, but also with the same caveat about the conditions. And I don't want to make this seem like I'm going to negotiate conditions. I just have some clarifying questions about your proposed conditions. What is the mix of housing in terms of bedroom, bathroom matches, are you thinking, based on those numbers? I know you removed the restrictions, but you didn't say what the mix would look like or what it would be.

So the intention is at least 60% of the homes would be two bedrooms or more. We'd ideally like to have some family size units in as well. I'm currently building for Habitat for Humanity, and we've done a project that was nearly 23 and four bedroom homes. Unfortunately, we have been unable to find families of that size in order to fill all of those homes. not located in Salt Lake City, another municipality. And so we're well aware that going exclusively large family size type homes can sometimes oversaturate the market for affordable housing. And so we'd want to have a nice blend. We'd also like to see, and maybe the marshes could speak more to this, a transitional blend at various housing stages. What we're seeing a huge dearth of across the state is starter homes, opportunities for young, smaller, either working professionals or small families to be able to enter, excuse me, the purchased home market, be able to start accruing equity. And so ideally there would be some element of one bedroom homes as well that allows them to have that flexibility.

And I could add that serving to a multi-generational type of family, being able to have a mother-in-law by a separate unit and live in close proximity to your family that is really supportive of families.

Do you have a follow-up, Commissioner Leverett, or can I jump in? Go ahead.

Go ahead and jump in. Jump in, please.

So I was going to ask, you know, we have an affordable housing specialist and an architect with the applicants tonight, but we don't have a site plan. And it strikes me that, or a prospective tentative site plan, we have some elevations. And it strikes me that we wouldn't need... list of potentially wouldn't need a list of 10 conditions on the up zone if we had a site plan so that's part of the question what you know why not the other part of the question is around the 24 units because it seems to me that that is a characterization of intent but it's not the applicant is not held to that number in the in the conditions, correct?

Correct. So on the site plan, they're not required to submit anything other than a narrative. Some applicants do decide to submit plans with their petition, but they did not. I can't speak to why, but that's what they decided. And so we process it just based off the information given. In terms of the unit count, we felt like there could be a little bit of leeway there instead of holding them to a firm 24. We felt that there could, you know, I think the max was 26 to 35. The 35 was if they did tiny homes or cottages. They were 1,500 square feet per unit. And then all the other unit types in RMF 30 were 2,000 square feet per unit. So the 26 to 35, we felt that just the standard of the RMF 30 fit the site.

Okay. And then a question for the applicant, I think, a clarifying question. You indicated in your speaking to concerns with the conditions that the visitor parking, I think, in particular, you thought was going to be difficult to work with. I think that the phrase used was crater the feasibility of the project. But then you also suggested that you'd be willing to to sort of aspire to achieve a 40% lot coverage goal. So in other words, to go above and beyond in terms of open space on the site. And I just don't know how those two are consistent with each other. If you're willing to allow for more open space, how is extra parking to mitigate neighbor concerns a problem?

So I've looked at lots of site plans for this property and lots of different options. It really comes down to buildable envelope. And as soon as the requirement of two stalls per unit is kicked into place, in addition to the 0.25 of guest stalls that the concessions currently are asking for, it starts to, it's all about access and being able to get to those stalls so that residents not only can they have a parking stall, but also be able to use said parking stall and it be absorbable by the market and their standards or the expectations of the market itself. So we could throw 30, 50 parking stalls and then just shove all the units all over one corner, but the absorption of the project would likely be very low. And so when the comment was made in terms of cratering the feasibility, it comes down to the buildable envelope in the sense that We're trying, in this environment, trying to provide as many enclosed garages as possible. And in doing that, it starts to increase our buildable envelope substantially, and especially as we're required to now have not only two bedrooms, but two bathrooms in addition to that. That's additional buildable envelope that now we have to plan for that is stealing away from what would be otherwise open space. So as soon as the reduction or the concession happens in terms of going down to a one-bedroom unit or even a two-bed, one-bath unit, that starts to greatly affect our unit design in terms of how we access those and how those units work together to create a cohesive site plan that does provide not only a resident, the new resident benefit of the open space, but also an open space benefit to the neighborhood itself. Because we would just like the marshes shared, they had a proposal on a site plan that was just your typical slam in front load town homes and they could do it. It would work and there's a chance that the market would absorb it, but that's not something that they're looking to do. And that would be affordable for this particular project.

If I might ask a question for staff, what was the concept behind that two-bathroom requirement? How was that responsible to community comments when many of the community comments were actually directly related to fear of water overusage, and yet here we are requiring a more water-intensive build-out potentially?

Mostly from a family housing size aspect, yeah. Thank you. Mm-hmm.

As far as am I so in affordable multi-family rental, you know, you have 60% AMI and it's on a one bedroom. So it is specifically set for the one bedroom unit. Is that is it the same here or is it a general 80% AMI?

We didn't have it set at a bedroom specific level in our recommended condition, but we could add that if

And I do want to clarify, if it's OK, that the 50% of units at affordable and then the other 50% at 100% AMI, that wasn't staff's recommendation. That's what the applicant proposed. And then we assessed and believed that it met the community benefit.

OK. Sorry, I have one more question.

When was the west side plan last updated?

Was it 2014?

2014, thanks.

All right, unless there's anything else, I think we can close the applicant presentation period and go to, and open up public comments. I'm going to start I have different piles here based on boxes that were checked. But before I start going through these piles in the order in which they were received, I'm going to remind everyone, if you haven't been here before, that you'll each have two minutes to speak. And Vanessa will be timing you. We won't be too uncivil if you're in the middle of a sentence, but we would like to just keep things moving. And if you are a representative of a community council or another recognized community organization, you can have five minutes. So we will get started.

Sorry. If I may, is the plan to alternate between support and opposition? What's typical?

I SUGGEST YOU JUST MAKE IT AS I SUGGEST YOU JUST MAKE IT AS I SUGGEST YOU JUST MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE AND JUST GO EASY AS POSSIBLE AND JUST GO EASY AS POSSIBLE AND JUST GO THROUGH THE CARDS IN THE ORDER THROUGH THE CARDS IN THE ORDER THROUGH THE CARDS IN THE ORDER THAT YOU HAVE THEM. THAT YOU HAVE THEM. THAT YOU HAVE THEM. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO. THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO. THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO. SO I'M GOING TO START BY READING SO I'M GOING TO START BY READING SO I'M GOING TO START BY READING SOME CARDS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE SOME CARDS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE SOME CARDS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD NOT INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD NOT The next comment is from Brandon Besser who says, strongly opposed to Van Buren Rezone. Please see email previously provided to Glendale Council. The next is from Bonnie Jean Marchant. I add my concerns to others opposing the rezoning of the Van Buren property in Glendale. One, the project is too large and tall for the small area. It would be built in. Three units would have full view of my backyard and home. I would have no privacy. Number two, In the 70s, portions of Harris Avenue received the variance from the city council. This allowed the street to be more narrow with the plan to make it a dead end, not a thoroughfare. And number three, the Van Buren property would fit a few single family homes, as was the original intent. And number four, the area is known for its gang problems. More tightly fit homes creates more hiding places. The next comment is from Sagan Gottberg. I support density, but this area is inappropriate for 24 townhomes. Cindy Spangler, strongly opposed to the rezone of Van Buren property. It greatly opposes the west side development plan. I have also written an email regarding this to Ben. I support affordable housing, but this density will change the character of the neighborhood. The next comment is from Wendy Turner, who actually, I'm just noticing, did not indicate whether or not she wished to speak. But I will read her comment. And if she wishes to speak, she can come up later in the evening. Traffic issues. Will project be finished, not abandoned? Too many units.

So those, I believe, are all

that I have in that category. And so we will now... Oh, one second.

I think I may have more. I have at least one more.

This is from Kathy Nelson. I have lived in this area for 40 years. This has been a family area, and we do not want multifamily homes. It will depreciate our home values and make it congested for the area and congest the streets. In the category of I Wish to Speak, we are going to start with Jennifer Madrigal. And just so you're prepared, the next speaker will be Van Turner. And Jennifer, if you can just go over to the podium, introduce yourself, and then you'll have two minutes. Thank you.

Hi. OK. So my name is Jennifer Madrigal, and I'm the chair of the Glendale Neighborhood Council, newly elected this year. Excuse me. Sorry, I should have five minutes. Oh, gosh. If you've read through the amendment proposal materials, you'll note that the Glendale neighborhood overwhelmingly voted to reject the application. The Glendale neighborhood council board also unanimously rejected support for the application unless the density is restricted to eight to 10 units instead of the current 23 or apparently 24. As a side note, I noticed in the professional planning memo details that only policies and recommendations from city plans that support the rezone were included and recommendations that are in contradiction to planning recommendations and policies were not included. So I hope that everybody on the commission has had a chance to read through my comments regarding sections that... actually oppose this rezone. The thriving in place and the west side master plans are especially in contradiction to the rezone. So I'd like to detail my reasons as the chair of the Glendale Neighborhood Council for disapproving the reason application. For one, this isn't an appropriate location for higher density infill. Number two, the one-off manner of approval of this RMF 30 application and others in the deep interior of our neighborhood is in direct contradiction to the locations recommended in the Westside Master Plan. And without a study on the impact of these recent continuous one-off infill approvals is inappropriate. Number three, I'm concerned about the applicant's mindset towards my neighbors, the environment, and the city. Number four, neither Glendale nor District 2 have any representation right now on the Planning Commission. Number five, approving this level of density after the large amount of public backlash will only further the literal and figurative divides between the city and Glendale. So number one, it's an inappropriate location for higher density infill. Glendale was redlined less than 100 years ago, but there's also a current form of economic redlining, which is arguably the reason that Glendale is the last neighborhood to experience a development boom. Glendale is boxed in on three sides by the east-west train tracks, the 201, the I-15, and the Redwood Road and 215. And it's four sides if you count the tracks to the north at South Temple and the I-80. We have a grand total of three buses that run along the outskirts of the residential area, no access tracks. And with the train stop for up to an hour at least once daily, this restricts opportunities for active transport. We've been unsuccessful for 20 years in begging the city for a high school that is closer to the current 4.5 mile distance. We don't have simple amenities like a grocery store or a coffee shop or a sit-down restaurant anywhere within our 1.2 square area where residential development is located. Glendale is unique in that most neighborhoods would see additional retail retail development with an increase in residential housing but developers are not interested in risking development in glendale because there's access is so difficult for people outside of the neighborhood to come in and there's no place to put it i've personally counted at least 600 residential units in glendale that have been developed in the last three years but the infill is not bringing with it associated business and retail development and until the east west divide is resolved this level of higher density housing in the neighborhood doesn't make sense in glendale Additionally, the West Side Master Plan states that the areas of change in a community such as the West Side, where a large portion of the community is comprised of established neighborhoods, are either in small and localized areas such as intersections and nodes that are mentioned in the plan, or they're in large districts separated from the majority of the area by some type of boundary. This is directly in the heart of one of these neighborhoods. It is not at one of these nodes. It's in an inappropriate place, according to the West Side Plan. and i would argue that we have been pretty understanding as a neighborhood about the large number of multi-family housing developments and rezoning that has been pushed along the nodes and corridors like 900 west 1700 south california avenue redwood road i think there's over a dozen of these multi-family housing developments but forcing this level of density into the center of a very winding SUBURBAN STYLE NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T FOLLOW THE GRID SYSTEM AND IS BLOCKED FROM EAST WEST ACCESS FOR OVER HALF A MILE NORTH AND SOUTH DUE TO THE JORDAN RIVER AND THE SURPLUS CANAL IS JUST INAPPROPRIATE. INCLUDES INITIATIVES TO MAINTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY INCLUDES INITIATIVES TO MAINTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY INCLUDES INITIATIVES TO MAINTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY AND CHARACTER AND SUPPORT NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY AND CHARACTER AND SUPPORT NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY AND CHARACTER AND SUPPORT NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTITY AND DIVERSITY. IDENTITY AND DIVERSITY. IDENTITY AND DIVERSITY. GLENDALE IS KNOWN FOR HIGH GLENDALE IS KNOWN FOR HIGH GLENDALE IS KNOWN FOR HIGH DIVERSITY AND THE LARGEST AVERAGE DIVERSITY AND THE LARGEST AVERAGE DIVERSITY AND THE LARGEST AVERAGE

Thank you. Guys, if you could hold your applause, we try to keep it a little bit more subdued in our meetings, but I appreciate your excitement. Van Turner, and after Van, it will be Stephen Likens. And a reminder, Ms. Madrigal had five minutes because she's the Community Council Chair, but you'll have two. Thanks.

Thank you so much for having me here this evening. It's great to be here with my neighbors behind me here. Van Turner lived at 1600 Navajo Harris. The property is right across the street. I lived on the west side my whole life. within two and a half blocks of the same location. We have several homes that we have in the neighborhood. We have three businesses. I went to the schools there. My kids have, my grandkids are going. So we're heavily involved and we love the neighborhood. And as I'm standing here, I'm thinking, what's good about Glendale? You know, there's so much good about Glendale. We have, the Olympics were there. We loved it. We had the Union Pacific Railroad. Now they're gone. We got trails. We have the tire recycler. It was removed. We have Jordan Park, Peace Gardens, Sorenson Center, Unity Center. We have community gardens. We had the night out party for 25 years. A lot of you folks helped on that. We have Sandlot. We have many, many good things. We have good schools, new libraries, golf courses. We have pickleball courts and we have tennis courts and we have big parks. We have more open space than any part of this city. And we're proud of these things. And we've all worked hard to get this, whether it be a street light in front of our house or sidewalk curb and gutter or a water line that don't break. And it's been a battle for many, many years, and we're proud to be where we are. And we love to be there. And these things have all brought us together. That's why we're here tonight. We work as a community, and we are a tight community. I don't know, most of us think it's the best community in Salt Lake City. I do, anyway. And when I see this proposal, this zoning change, what I see is division. I see people that don't like what they see for many reasons. That's your time. Time? Thank you for considering it. I'm against the proposal.

Guys, again, please on the clapping. Next, we'll hear from Stephen Likens. And I don't know, please introduce yourself for the record so that we have your name correct. After Stephen, we'll be hearing from Lonnie Whitaker. And Steven, you have two minutes.

Hello, my name is Steven Likens. I live on Van Buren. So I'm not opposed to change, as I know that to learn and to grow is change, and it has to happen. I am opposed to change that creates more problems added to existing problems and difficulties. Creating row houses or townhome community of the proposed size in this area creates more problems and difficulties. In a previous meeting, it was shared how having the elementary school, middle school, library and parks and walking distance made this area ideal for such a proposal. First argument is the local elementary school is already one of the highest enrolled elementary schools in the district. There is a Spanish dual immersion program with the middle school sharing a campus with many open enrollment permits that are accepted, which cause large class sizes, especially in the upper grades. This large enrollment creates a traffic issue which has generated a special committee to address the issues with almost no success in eliminating traffic congestions during the school year. This congestion has led many families to feel unsafe having their elementary age children walk to school. The next point is that while walking in the neighborhood is nice, we are limited in access to public transit that can be used instead of cars. In many instances, it takes two or three times as long to use public transit, which leads most people to drive to work instead. If families are parking on the street, this will narrow the driving area of our streets, which creates difficulties for the buses And my final point is yard space for homes and children that will live there. When the number of homes increases, there is a domino effect that should be considered. More homes means more cars, children, pets, sidewalks, and asphalt. More homes mean fewer trees, lawns, and other green space that helps to naturally cool the paved area during the summer heat. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, Lonnie Whitaker. And while Lonnie is coming to the podium, I'm going to take the opportunity to read another comment of someone who doesn't want to speak. This would be from Delmer English, who just says that he or she is against housing units. All right. Ms. Whitaker, go ahead.

Hey, my name is Lonnie Whitaker and I'm here to oppose the zoning amendment. Many people who have stayed living in this area or who have chosen to move to this neighborhood have done so because of the unique character of the neighborhood. We have single family homes and yards that we can enjoy. Kids can play outside. Unlike many parts of the city, we are unique in that we still have green space around our homes, gives us the ability to have gardens and grow much of the fruits and vegetables we love. We can also spend time outside and get to know our neighbors as they also spend time outside. According to the Westside Master Plan, it states the goal of the plan is to preserve the character, scale, and land use of the neighborhood. But allowing this zoning amendment to pass and therefore allowing the marshes the ability to build now 24 townhomes on this piece of land would completely go against the character and scale and land use of this unique neighborhood. We have many homes on this street that were built over 100 years ago. According to the marshes with the current zoning they can put in almost as many homes as they plan to without the with the amendment But have chosen to seek this amendment to make the process easier for them Which I also assume means it meets cheaper for them and allows them to add even additional homes, which will make them more money I'm disappointed that they're absolute disregard for our neighborhood in this street, which I call home It seems to me they're trying to capitalize on the current cry for affordable housing while lining their pocketbooks I don't expect them to understand the character and uniqueness of the street and neighborhood as they don't live here. In fact, they don't even live in Salt Lake City. They're coming from another city trying to tell us what is best for us and our neighborhood. I'm glad I live within 300 feet so I found out about this issue. in conclusion i truly hope you will take into consideration what this zoning amendment and 24 town homes would mean to our little neighborhood i hope you will value the history character and safety of our neighborhood over tax dollars please vote against this zoning amendment and limit the number of single-family homes that will be allowed at this property thank you um while helen black comes to the podium i'm going to read another uh card ms black are you

Oh, it was in the wrong stack, I apologize. Helen says, I oppose the rezoning. It goes against the West Side Master Plan. I have lived here over, I think this says 80 years, and it's always been a single family home community. And I'll read another one while I'm at it. This is from Pam English, who says, against housing units, one family dwelling's OK, one family to a house, adding only a few houses there with yards for families. Now let's get back to the other stack. Next to speak is Ross Whitaker. And Ross, if you could please introduce yourself, then you'll have two minutes.

My name is Ross Whitaker. Have you ever visited, have you gone to that area, the community, have you visited that area? I just wanted to make sure. It goes against the West Side, like it says, the West Side Master Plan, which was adopted in 2014. I have physically visited THE STREET DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION AND FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND ASKED FOR THEIR OPINION. THEY'RE CONCERNED WITH SNOW REMOVAL BECAUSE OF CARS PARKED ON THE STREET, OVERFLOW. GARBAGE PICKUP. IF THEY HAVE 24 HOMES UP THERE, THAT MEANS THERE'S 48 CANS THAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE STREET THAT DOESN'T FIT. Through our online petition, we posted 362 electronic and 60 signed petitions against this proposal. I received notice today that our State House Representative Angela Romero sent you a letter concerning her concerns and asked you to please consider the community. Last year, your last meeting, June 24th, Castlewood Development came in and proposed to you a development. But in their proposal, they also went and said that they met with the community and made a change. The marshes have never done nothing like that. They've never spoke to any of the community. They've only spoken to three people in the neighborhood. Two are the ones that they bought the property from. The one that's on the west side was opposed. But what if it was in your neighborhood or your family? What would you do? What would happen? As a committee member, I would hope that you would take into consideration the community thoughts.

That's your time.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, if we could hear from Frances Likens. And after Frances, we'll hear from Esther Widner. Please introduce yourself. And again, you'll have two minutes.

Hi, I'm Frances Likens. I live down the street, within 300 feet, a little bit longer than that. I'm opposed to this for several reasons. After speaking with the public utilities of the water department, they commented that they would have to take the water from their development all the way down Van Buren, all the way to Cheyenne, and all the way Navajo to 1700 South. Rest estimate, $500 million. He said they'd have to bond it, more than likely. And we know in the state of Utah right now, bonds are not representative by by voters they can bond without taxes and we have learned that they can raise taxes without having public input that's one of my major concerns we have taxes without representation the other is a traffic issue which is a big deal we are one we are one street Everybody to get to 17th South from Cheyenne, Van Buren Circle, High Street, Utah Street, must go through our neighborhood to get to 1700 South. We have no bus stops in our area. It was done that way because it's not big enough streets. This was years ago. Don't we have a bus stop on 17th South? We have a bus stop on California Avenue. I worked downtown. For me to take a bus to downtown took me an hour. For me to drive, it was 15 minutes. It is not reasonable. We have families who have three families and a home that just live right here in this area. Three families to a home, which means six cars, eight cars. And parking is restrictive. It's difficult. The buses go down. They have to stop and wait for a car to go, school buses, fire trucks, whatever. It is not feasible to have 48 new cars or 60 cars because nobody has two cars in the family anymore, especially if you have children. That's a pie in the sky thought. Our homes are nice homes. We have nice, well, my yard is terrible. We have nice homes. We have water. We have green space. I am grateful that I live here. We've raised four children here. We moved here 38 years ago. We have stayed. It is not feasible. We have housing around the corner by the church. Time?

That's your time.

So next we have Esther Widner. Esther. And after Esther, we'll hear from Alexandra Bond.

Good evening. I had a whole speech prepared, but it sounds like everybody has already addressed a lot of my concerns. I live at 1402 West Van Buren, so I am kitty corner from the proposed housing We have been in full view of all the construction that's gone on thus far and we've already discovered parking issues So here are my concerns I'm just asking the Commission to carefully consider whether or not the benefits of this rezone outweigh the impacts in existing neighborhood and and whether RMF 30 is truly the right fit for this location. If you came and saw and you looked at this property, this 1.5 acres, it's just not enough room for that many people. The water lines break on our street yearly. We were trapped in our house for two days because it exploded right in my driveway. Tell me how adding 24 more units or 26 is going to improve that. They say it will. I don't believe it. I just don't believe it. And to see the ache that's going with my neighbors here, what they're going through, it's just, really, please just consider it. I just don't think rezoning is necessary. It stays with the land, not with the owner.

Thank you. Next, we'll hear from Alexandra Bond. And after Ms. Bond, we'll hear from, gosh, this is hard for me.

I APOLOGIZE. I DID OKAY.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Alexandra Bond, and I live directly across the street at 1390 West from the proposed project. So we will be impacted significantly by this build. As a single family home with a very large driveway, our neighbors across the street always kept several cars parked in it. This in itself was never a problem because it was rare when more than one car would leave at a time. But when that did happen, we would obviously have to wait for them to exit their property before we could exit ours. Our neighbors were always aware and conscientious about not blocking us in and generally letting us leave first so as not to hold us up. With this proposed plan of 24 units, and now possibly more, there will be potentially 48 additional cars within a very concentrated area. Does this proposal come with parking consisting of two spaces for each unit? Not clear on that. What about visitors? Where are they going to park? What happens if there is an emergency? How are 48 cars all going to get out without congesting the entire street and surrounding neighborhood? Also concerned is the trash and recycling. Will this project provide dumpsters for recycling and trash? If not, how will the street physically accommodate 48 additional cans? As it sits now, our house serves as a bit of a windbreak. There's debris that blows into our yard consistently from across the street. How is that going to look with 24 units? Our house is a relatively new home. The houses behind us are even newer. Progress is inevitable, and I'm sure no one here is opposed to new construction, but we are opposed to construction that will overload our neighborhood with not only a strain on existing resources, but will completely destroy the nature and quietude of our streets. One of the main reasons we moved here was because of the quiet and character of the neighborhood. We are a few blocks from both 17 South and Redwood Road, both very busy thoroughfares, and yet you would never know that because the fact that our street is idyllically sleepy and quiet. It is probably the most desirable aspect to potential new homebuyers. How will that be affected by this current proposal? Thank you for your time.

Thank you. And if you could please introduce yourself so that we can be sure that we've got your name correct.

Good evening, everyone. My name is . I live at the 1379 Van Buren Avenue. I was born and raised in this community, and it will always be home to me. I support the proposal rezoning because I believe Glendale needs more housing opportunities for individuals and families who want to live here. this was not a decision i made lightly i believe this is a project i'm sorry i believe this is a project an investment in the future of our neighborhood and a step towards providing more housing while respecting the community i love thank you for your time and consideration thank you next if we could hear from brian black and after brian we will hear from gina manchego

Two minutes, and if you could introduce yourself.

I'm Brian Black, 53-year resident of Van Buren Avenue. I remember riding my bicycle when the current homes over there were being constructed. That definitely, the proposed change detracts tremendously from what's there now from what it was when I was growing up when there was probably 20 maybe 24 homes on the street now we're talking about putting 24 units in a space that I used to ride my bike through in a few seconds please consider when the folks here the folks of the Glendale Community Council meeting we had a month ago are so opposed to this Please listen to their voices as opposed to those coming from outside looking for investment and development opportunities. Thank you.

Thank you. Gina Manchego? Oh, very good. Okay. No. Oh, I'm not, I don't think I'm gonna read that. It's a comment, a negative comment about the applicant. But so, just noted. Next, oh sorry, this is another I'm not, I do not wish to speak. This is Kim Black. I am a neighbor across from said building area and we do not need such construction of smaller dwelling single family home, or sorry, And we do not need such construction of smaller dwelling single family homes, not apartments. The next card I have is for Lynn Robison. Did she wish to speak? Okay. All right, then we have a question from Lynn, which is what is the annual median income? Why do we need higher density in this area? And now we're left with a short stack, I shouldn't characterize the stack, a stack of support cards for which none, no one has indicated whether they would like to speak or not. Are there any of the four folks who are, or the handful, Leo Hafoka, Marie Folahola, Christina Folahola, Do we do do any of these folks want to speak? No. All right. Well, then we have one two, three Four five six Folks present who've indicated their support for the project by sharing cards. I

IS THERE WRITING ON ONE OF THOSE?

SORRY, THERE IS. I'LL READ THOSE. THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR. SO MARIE SAYS I WILL FULLY SUPPORT. I FEEL IT WILL BE GOOD FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND LEO SAYS GOOD FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I FULLY SUPPORT IT. AND THE OTHERS HAVE JUST INDICATED THEIR SUPPORT. So thank you all for being here and participating in public comment. I think we should now give a few minutes, correct me if I'm wrong, to the applicant to respond.

Mr. Chair, usually you'll make an announcement if anyone else wishes to speak. Oh, sure, thank you.

Is there anyone that we haven't captured with these cards through that process? If there's anyone who would wish to speak who did not send a card up to the front, you have the opportunity to do so now. okay great then let's um provide staff and the applicant a short opportunity i don't know if we have a typical number of minutes five minutes ish you you can provide them

Your policies and procedures say that you can provide them with an opportunity to respond to the public comment. So you can decide what that is. Guys, go ahead. We'll give you a few minutes.

Can you officially close the public hearing?

I move to close the public hearing. Let's close the public hearing. Let's give the applicants a few minutes to respond. And then we will go into a commission discussion.

So, I think that, you know, being a large property, there's WHERE IT WAS ONE HOUSE BEFORE THAT'S ON THIS LARGE PROPERTY, AND IT IS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE GOING TO MULTIPLE HOUSES. THE PROCESS, AND MAYBE TO HELP CLARIFY THIS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL, IS A SUBDIVISION PROCESS IN DIVIDING THIS LAND INTO WHAT WOULD BE A TOTAL OF SEVEN LOTS WITH THE EXISTING HOUSE THAT IS THERE REMAINING. and that's kind of that basis of where we started from for for our unit numbers with the affordable housing incentives that's our intent is to make it blend in with the character of the neighborhood we don't want it to impact the neighborhood we appreciate yard spaces there's a new location for wasatch community gardens around the corner that is a two acre site another backyard urban garden that's around the corner very supportive of those organizations and the access for residents in the neighborhood and this potential new neighborhood to access those food opportunities. If you don't have space to grow your own food, there is space in the community for people to grow food. I don't know. Is there anything else that you don't want to respond to in comments?

And just as part of our, you know, engagement with the neighbors and with other folks in the community, it's, you know, we... Is your microphone on? Yes. Sorry. I will talk a little closer. Thank you. We're in the initial stages. There's some existing water rights and a well right that are there present. We're in the initial stages of trying to donate that to Wasatch Community Gardens for use at their new two acre parcel that's around the corner on Cheyenne. We do want to be mindful of that historic use and provide a community benefit there as well in addition to what we've discussed with the water line upgrade. Recycling and garbage would be all handled on site. There would not be impact to the street. And transportation department, other organizations within the city have reviewed and found minimal impacts as a result of this as well. So, thank you.

And just responding to the comments on neighborhood character that I guess you could say legacy of Glendale. A lot of that neighborhood is 1920s or earlier. And part of what the marshes are trying to do is be mindful in terms of the architecture as well and the overall scale. WHEN WE DID OUR SITE ANALYSIS AND OUR VISIT, WE SAW MANY NEIGHBORING TOWNHOME PROJECTS THAT DID NOT DO THAT AND THEY'RE 30 FEET UP TO A FLAT ROOF AND THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE INTENT OF WHAT THE MARSHES WANT TO DO. THEY WANT TO BE VERY MINDFUL OF WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER IS EVEN IN ARCHITECTURAL TRADITION AS WELL.

THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF BEFORE WE MOVE INTO COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION, AND THAT IS IF YOU COULD, BECAUSE I DIDN'T SPEND ENOUGH TIME ON THIS PART OF THE STAFF REPORT, CHARACTERIZE THE RESPONSE FROM PUBLIC UTILITIES ABOUT THE WATER LINE ISSUE? BASED ON SOME OF THE CHARACTERIZATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S A SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH PROJECT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT COULDN'T SUPPORT IT. CHARACTERIZE IT FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

DEFINITELY. SO RIGHT NOW I BELIEVE IT'S A SO RIGHT NOW I BELIEVE IT'S A SO RIGHT NOW I BELIEVE IT'S A FOUR-INCH WATER MAIN THERE. FOUR-INCH WATER MAIN THERE. FOUR-INCH WATER MAIN THERE. PUBLIC UTILITIES HAS MADE IT PUBLIC UTILITIES HAS MADE IT PUBLIC UTILITIES HAS MADE IT PRETTY CLEAR THAT UPGRADES ARE PRETTY CLEAR THAT UPGRADES ARE PRETTY CLEAR THAT UPGRADES ARE GOING TO BE NECESSARY DUE TO ANY GOING TO BE NECESSARY DUE TO ANY GOING TO BE NECESSARY DUE TO ANY KIND OF MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT KIND OF MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT KIND OF MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT THAN A SINGLE F LIKELY TO EITHER 8 OR 12 INCHES, INCLUDING DOWNSTREAM. WHETHER THAT'S JUST THE WHOLE STREET, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, PUBLIC UTILITIES SAID THAT IT IS AT THE APPLICANT, THE DEVELOPER'S COST. IT IS NOT AT THE COST OF IF THEY'RE REPLACING THE PIECE IN FRONT OF YOUR HOME THAT YOU CONNECT TO, IF IT'S BECAUSE OF THIS PROJECT, IT'S THEIR COST. SO.

DID THEY PROVIDE A COST ESTIMATE?

I DON'T BELIEVE THEY DID, NO.

DID THEY CHARACTERIZE THE LENGTH OF THE RUN OF THIS NEW 8 INCH OR 10 INCH PIPE?

IT MIGHT BE IN THEIR COMMENT IN THE STAFF REPORT. I DON'T HAVE THEIR COMMENT IN MY HEAD.

THEY DON'T DISCUSS THE LENGTH. THEY DO MENTION THAT IT WILL LIKELY NEED TO BE AN 8-INCH WATER MAIN AND THEIR COMMENTS ARE VERY CLEAR THAT LIKELY THEY'LL NEED TO DO IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THIS DENSITY AT THEIR COST.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING FOR STAFF BEFORE WE GO TO DISCUSSION?

quickly so there was a mention briefly of of transportation uh raising concerns uh it doesn't look like that was included in the department review uh have you heard anything of concern from transportation transportation provided a comment that said they had no issues okay gotcha thank you um

MAY I ASK FOR A THREE-MINUTE MAY I ASK FOR A THREE-MINUTE RECESS? RECESS? RECESS? YOU MAY, BUT BEFORE YOU DO, YOU MAY, BUT BEFORE YOU DO, YOU MAY, BUT BEFORE YOU DO, CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? YES. YES. YES. IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE CAN IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE CAN IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE CAN KNOW HOW THE APPLICANT WOULD KNOW HOW THE APPLICANT WOULD KNOW HOW THE APPLICANT WOULD DEAL WITH THE TRASH ISSUE?

DEAL WITH THE TRASH ISSUE? DEAL WITH THE TRASH ISSUE? BECAUSE THIS WAS RAISED BY A BECAUSE THIS WAS RAISED BY A BECAUSE THIS WAS RAISED BY A NUMBER OF THE PUBLIC. NUMBER OF THE PUBLIC. NUMBER OF THE PUBLIC

So they'd have to have a private entity provide their trash pickup and recycling. So it would ultimately be up to them, that private entity, to figure out what they need to do that. We have seen developments go both ways, but typically there is a threshold where they will only serve it if it's dumpsters on site.

not to get too into the weeds then but you know on my block a lot of people have glass they have green waste essentially a compost i mean a given home could have four units are are you then indicating that those amenities provided by the city or those opportunities wouldn't would not be available potentially to residents of this type of a development so that's right so we the city would require obviously garbage pickup but we also require recycling for private JUST LIKE WE DON'T REQUIRE A PROPERTY OWNER TO HAVE GLASS. PROPERTY OWNER TO HAVE GLASS.

PROPERTY OWNER TO HAVE GLASS. THE CITY DOES PROVIDE THE THE CITY DOES PROVIDE THE THE CITY DOES PROVIDE THE COMPOST BINS. COMPOST BINS. COMPOST BINS. GREAT, THANK YOU. GREAT, THANK YOU. GREAT, THANK YOU.

PER COMMISSIONER ROSENFIELD'S PER COMMISSIONER ROSENFIELD'S PER COMMISSIONER ROSENFIELD'S REQUEST, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A REQUEST, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A REQUEST, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK. FIVE-MINUTE BREAK. FIVE-MINUTE BREAK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

Thank you. . Thank you.

STARTED AGAIN? THANKS AGAIN FOR BEING HERE, BUT IF WE COULD HAVE THE FLOOR FOR THE COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

Can I ask staff one more question?

Sure.

Am I understanding correctly that were they to go the planned development route, they would be limited to seven units in this space?

So it gets a little cloudy. They would need to go through a planned development to create seven lots, because they can only get three lots with street frontage. That's required in R17. They could get seven total lots based on lot area. Four of those lots would need to be approved via the plan development. There is with the AHI, plan development is not necessary if you're going through the affordable housing incentives to create lots without street frontage. It's not necessary to do the PD at that point. So it would be an administrative, they would need to do the subdivision, the preliminary plat, the final plat, but that would not have to come before you for approval from Planning Commission.

So just to be clear, if it was an AHI, it could be done administratively, but if it were a planned development, it couldn't? But it'd be the same seven lot outcome?

Help me clarify this a little bit, but maybe I'm just explaining it poorly. Under regular code, seven lots here would require a plan development. But if they utilize the AHI, the AHI allows an exception to plan developments for the purpose of creating lots without street frontage.

But if they're requesting some other type of modification through the affordable housing incentives, sometimes they would have to come before you. But there are certain items that allow an administrative approval of that plan development, which lots without street frontage would be one of them.

So their only modification to the site was lots without street frontage. They wouldn't need to go through the plan development if they're doing AHI.

And is my understanding correct that IF YOU COULD ACTUALLY GET SEVEN, COULD HAVE MULTIPLE UNITS. COULD HAVE MULTIPLE UNITS. THEY COULD HAVE ESSENTIALLY A THEY COULD HAVE ESSENTIALLY A SINGLE FOUR PLEX. SINGLE FOUR PLEX.

UP TO FOUR UNITS PER LOT UP TO FOUR UNITS PER LOT UNDER THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNDER THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INTENTIVES IN THE R17 DISTRICT. INTENTIVES IN THE R17 DISTRICT. SO SEVEN TIMES FOUR, 28. Right.

But subject to site constraints, et cetera. Sure. Sure. Okay. Do we have any other questions for staff before we go into our discussion? All right. Commissioner Rosenfield?

Yeah. AGAIN, OBVIOUSLY HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED, BUT WHAT WOULD, HAVE YOU EVALUATED AT ALL WHAT THIS LOT WOULD LOOK LIKE UNDER THE PROPOSED, THE MOST RECENTLY, THE ONE WE'VE MOST RECENTLY SEEN PROPOSED EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS INITIATIVE?

Sure. 2,000 square feet per unit. It's over 50, almost 55,000 square feet in size. Rough estimate is 27 units, if I did the math right in my head. Again, site constraints, things like that. Setbacks would apply to the perimeter plan development, not necessary to create lots without frontage under that proposal right now. SO A SIMILAR NUMBER. THANK YOU.

I might have a couple questions. But first off, I want to say thank you to everyone that came and spoke this evening. I do recognize we have a shortened, smaller commission, and also talked about appointments in the neighborhood as well. You know, I occasionally play basketball at the Sorenson Center on Saturday mornings. I didn't say I learned to swim there. I got better at swimming there. I'm trying to get better at swimming at the Sorenson Center, so I go there all the time. I've been lost on my bike in the cul-de-sacs in the neighborhood. I barbecued at Jordan Park a number of times every year. And I am sensitive to everything that was brought up tonight. On paper, in the theory of the project itself, I think a pocket neighborhood in a warm and welcoming neighborhood and the layout of it and the grass in the area, it could make sense. But I would say I don't know that we have enough information today to make an informed decision. I know from community comment that the community doesn't have enough information to make an informed decision in favor of this, given the overwhelming comments against it. But I don't know that we have enough as a commission to make an informed decision. And I say that because we have two different sets of conditions on the table. We have a set of potential outcomes that would be similar to what's proposed that can be allowed anyway, but we are presented with an application to approve or deny. But I don't think we have enough information to do that. I also think that just given the brief backgrounds of the applicants, I don't think that I don't think that you all are getting credit for how much thought is going into this. And it's not coming across the best way. And yes, it's not required to present drawings or plans or anything sort of fully fleshed out. But I think when you're trying to get community trust, I think it's important to sort of have those things. And I think without that, you put yourself really behind, I don't know, whatever analogy you want to use, eight ball for this instance. So I don't know that I have enough. I know I don't have enough to go for it, but I don't know what our options here are, or what the applicant wants to do, or what we're looking at doing here. Because we have two sets of conditions up, and I don't want to negotiate conditions. I don't want to negotiate heights. I don't think we should talk about that here, or lay it out here. I don't think we should spend our time on that. But I don't know what the next steps are.

I have some comments in a similar, no, I have comments in a similar vein.

That's where I am. You all know where I stand now.

I really appreciate how Commissioner Leverett talks about his lived experience in your neighborhood. I have those too, but he did a better job at recounting his than mine, so I'll just set that aside. But thanks for being here. We have a west side community plan from 2014. To the extent that there are inconsistencies with this proposal, and that there are consistencies, but to the extent that there are inconsistencies, those are ones that I have recognize I acknowledge to briefly characterize those you know they did talk about increased density but it talks about increased density in sort of the the edges of the neighborhoods and in nodes which are specified you know so I recognize that And to the extent that there are newer plans that the city has promulgated that are citywide that speak to housing, more density, more affordable housing. That's that's where we get into the conditions here and again the conditions are The conditions that are still being litigated And you know again to Commissioner leverage. We have two sets of conditions. They speak directly to the nature of the affordability Which is the only reason? We would do this up zone is because it's consistent with plans that we have that are more recent that speak to housing affordability But that's an unclear picture right now given the uncertainty around the conditions. And the indication from the applicant that the conditions may not be workable for them. Will those conditions speak to the affordability, the housing pieces that are the reason we would up zone this in the first place? So those are some of the concerns I have. I mean, I will say that a little bit closer to home for me in the Liberty Wells neighborhood, even in the East Liberty Park neighborhood, there are communities like this that really work in the context of a neighborhood that generally speaking doesn't take that form. But where a couple of lots have opened up, it's worked pretty well. So aesthetically, in terms of can it work for the community, I think it could. But I'm sensitive to the fact that we do have a plan that's only 12 years old for the neighborhood. There are inconsistencies with this type of density interior to the neighborhood, et cetera. And Because the picture around affordability, number of units, et cetera, is hazy, I don't know that newer plans trump a plan that's only 12 years old if the community is saying we still put a lot of weight on certain of the provisions of that 12-year-old plan. I don't know that for me the housing stuff and the values that are real supersedes some of the priorities of the 12-year-old plan.

I agree with Commissioner Loverett that we don't have enough information. And I think that we could table this for next meeting. Sorry, y'all. But my concern is that we won't necessarily be able to come to an agreement on what direction to give to the staff. Because I suspect that the directions that I would like to give to staff are going to look pretty different than what maybe some other folks in AT THIS TABLE WOULD GIVE. I MEAN, I THINK JUST TO GIVE A SENSE, SOMEBODY ASKED, WHAT IF THIS WAS YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? I MEAN, I LIVE IN DISTRICT 4, SO I CHOOSE TO LIVE DOWNTOWN, OBVIOUSLY, I'M A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT ULTIMATELY, I AM ALWAYS EXCITED TO HAVE NEW NEIGHBORS. That's my general rule of thumb. And I think that the idea that we have an obligation to push new neighbors in affordable units to the periphery, to arterials where there is a ton of you know, traffic and trucks and pollution and noise because interior to the neighborhood should be reserved for a particular type of housing unit. I think that that is a problematic approach to take. And frankly, you know, with regard to traffic, I think adding additional parking into the requirements in order to ameliorate the concerns about parking will actually like vice versa j will just increase traffic right people will you know be able to choose to actually park within the neighborhood rather than parking a little bit further away and walking which is going to potentially ameliorate those traffic concerns so certainly like for me the the thing that i would ask is like evaluate the staff conditions versus the requested conditions see if we can work out what what what of this approach would pencil, see if we can get a minimum, you know, see if we can get real clarity on what the affordability looks like and then remove the parking, the guest parking, because why are we doing that? So, but again, I suspect there are going to be different voices on the commission, and I'm not sure that we're going to be able to table and give clear direction to staff to actually come to a conclusion that we would be able to vote on next time.

I don't know. I think maybe we could. I mean, if the direction is, sorry, what?

I WOULD LOVE TO MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE WE START TALKING ABOUT POSSIBLE MOTIONS. TO ME, THERE IS ENOUGH INFORMATION HERE FOR US TO FORM A RECOMMENDATION. AND I BASED THAT ON A FEW THINGS. THE PURPOSE OF RMF 30 IS TO PROVIDE A TRANSITION BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING AND LARGER MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS. THAT SENTENCE MAKES ME THINK BACK TO A PREVIOUS MEETING WHERE WE WERE DISCUSSING KIND OF A SIMILAR PROJECT. BUT THE ENVIRONMENT THAT THAT PROJECT WAS IN WAS VERY DIFFERENT. IT WAS SUPER CLOSE TO A MAJOR TRANSIT HUB. IT TRULY WAS TRANSITIONAL FROM LARGER MULTI-FAMILY TO SINGLE FAMILY. DRIVING INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD It is single family. This wouldn't be transitional to me. It would be a big chunk that is all of a sudden multifamily, which I don't necessarily, or not multifamily, but more density. And I don't necessarily think that more density is bad. In fact, I think it's good, generally. But I think this is very... tight density very suddenly and in a way that does not Support what RMF 30 is is about the the proposal of RMF 30 the other thing that came to mind is transit within I kind of talked about it, but within plant Salt Lake the one of the initiatives around housing is to Sorry, I lost my place to promote high density residential in areas served by transit looking at the UTA maps It's not very well served by transit, and it is kind of a food desert. So you have to have a car, it seems like. So the houses themselves, it seems like you're packing in pretty tightly. But then imagining the cars packing in as well is a lot. I mean, driving down that street, for me, there was a moment where I kind of had to pull off to the side to let somebody else go through. Like, two cars couldn't fit fully through, which there are larger developments around streets where that is the case. BUT I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK APPROVING A PLAN THAT APPROVING A PLAN THAT APPROVING A PLAN THAT ENCOURAGES THAT IS BENEFICIAL TO ENCOURAGES THAT IS BENEFICIAL TO ENCOURAGES THAT IS BENEFICIAL TO WHAT PLAN SALT LAKE IS ABOUT. WHAT PLAN SALT LAKE IS ABOUT. WHAT PLAN SALT LAKE IS ABOUT. SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I WOULD SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I WOULD SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE RECOMMENDING FEEL COMFORTABLE RECOMMENDING FEEL COMFORTABLE RECOMMENDING DENIAL. DENIAL. DENIAL. BUT I WILL NOT MAKE A MOTION. BUT I WILL NOT MAKE A MOTION.

BUT I WILL NOT MAKE A M HOW DO YOU THINK ABOUT UNDERSTANDING YOUR POSITION? HOW DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT COULD, YOU KNOW, CONCEIVABLY BUILD AS MANY UNITS HERE REGARDLESS OF OUR APPROVAL? AND THAT RMF 30, YOU KNOW, TO STAFF'S POINT, POTENTIALLY ALLOWS the city to have design standards and other, I mean, how do you think about that? Because if this applicant is committed to the project, they can achieve some level of density

But there will be some site limitations. I mean, staff talked about with the math, maybe 28. But surely that's not realistic given the actual site limitations. I would be interested to know what is more realistic. And I guess that is my position. I also feel like in the development due diligence process, there would be a lot of roadblocks here regarding

WATER. WATER. I WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING I WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING I WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING TOO. TOO. TOO. I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER there might be a possibility or realm of some other smaller piece that might make sense and that's what I don't have and I want to give sort of credence to that but I have enough information to say no based on what Commissioner Sullivan said I agree with her and everything she said I also want to point out a couple more things I think we tossed out a lot of terms here um and and one of the favorites of uh planning professionals, especially projects like this. We talk about NIMBYism, not in my backyard. And it's usually transit projects, transit oriented development, or something that's happening with high density in a neighborhood that doesn't have that already. And we have these set responses to those sort of things that, oh, people don't want affordable housing in their backyard. I think it's going to bring crime. I think it's going to bring these other things. And from the community comments and from knowing the Glendale neighborhood, It's not about quality of people coming to the neighborhood. It's that what's in the backyard is a lack of transit, a lack of grocery stores, a lack of other options. And so we talk about bringing in more affordable housing. Is that really the need for the neighborhood? Is that really where it should go when we're talking about amenities? You bring in affordable housing, you're thinking about people who need other public services in a neighborhood that's already asking for public services. And so I don't think it fits from that standpoint. So changing the AMI numbers and shifting that piece doesn't sell it for me at all. That doesn't make it more attractive as a project. It doesn't make it a community benefit because community doesn't need that benefit. the community has people there figuring out how to make it work multi-generational living people in the houses with other with parts of their families um and they're figuring that part out right the part they're not figuring out is how do i get a grocery store how do i get more walkable neighbors i get more safe safe things in my neighborhood um and i think that's what we need to look at right so the way we apply you know would apply this to

similar project right in the middle of downtown or in avenues like yeah we'd be arguing about these things and how affordable can it be but that's not really a selling point for me in this space I don't I don't disagree with either of you I guess you know Commissioner Rosenfield talks about tabling and I you know one thing that I would be curious to know is if a THE APPLICANT IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT'S THE MINIMUM THEY CAN DO ON BATHROOMS, PARKING, YOU KNOW, BEDROOMS, ET CETERA. IF THAT VISION IS CONSISTENT WITH STAFF GOALS AROUND THE PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, And if it's not, would staff be recommending it, right? We don't know that staff would even be recommending this project if it were taking a form that were consistent with the applicant's goal, stated goals. We just, so that's the challenge here. Like, I don't know that a staff recommendation would be forthcoming. The other challenge that I have with this is just, and I said this to staff the other day, but what, When in the context of an up zone, and we haven't talked about this, and I'm curious to hear from you guys. In the context of an up zone, when you need to apply 10 conditions to get there, we're accustomed to seeing like two to four. 10 conditions isn't an up zone with conditions. It's writing a new zone that doesn't exist, essentially. So I think that's kind of asking a lot of us. And I just don't know that I approve just on those grounds. I have a problem.

I mean, that is interesting, because to argue against myself here, right, like I generally am quite hesitant about spot zonings, about saying, okay, here in this one area, right, like, yes, okay, can we talk about upzoning larger chunks, but like doing it one at a time, suddenly this is RMF 30. that's a that's an interesting issue i do wonder about speaking to the like lack of resources in the community uh presumably that the 2014 west side general plan did excuse me um have a a component to try and increase access to some of those resources to grocery stores to public transit am i correct

Yes, the plan does talk about how the community does need these things, but again, that's outside of this request. Of course.

Right. You know, and then the question becomes, like, does this request further those goals or does it detract from those goals? And I think... The argument to be made that it furthers those goals is because this is a lower density neighborhood, it becomes much harder to support those services. It becomes much harder to support transit. I know that. I've looked at that information. But it also becomes much harder to support a grocery store. I'm not an expert on that particular market area. But I do wonder... You know, you run into this bit of a chicken and an egg problem. You can never up zone. You can never increase intensity because there's not enough resources. And because you haven't increased intensity, there's never enough resources. So that is the word of caution. And then, like, in theory, the way that there's, you know, we're supposed to square that circle. And I'm just using folksy aphorisms now, Maya. apologies, is that you put the new development on the margins. You put it on the major arterials. But then, again, you are forcing folks who want to go for those new bill affordable units into areas that are deeply unpleasant or less pleasant to live. I do think your particular definition of RMF 30, the purpose of RMF 30, that weighs heavily on me. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, FROM A LEGALISTIC PERSPECTIVE, YOU'RE LEGALISTIC PERSPECTIVE, YOU'RE RIGHT, THIS ISN'T A TRANSITION RIGHT, THIS ISN'T A TRANSITION ZONE, IT'S A SPOT-UP ZONE IN THE ZONE, IT'S A SPOT-UP ZONE IN THE MIDDLE, WHICH ISN'T TO SAY THAT MIDDLE, WHICH ISN'T TO SAY THAT THERE SHOULDN'T BE THIS LEVEL OF THERE SHOULDN'T BE THIS LEVEL OF DENSITY HERE, BUT IS THIS THE RIGHT DENSITY HERE, BUT IS THIS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO ABOUT IT. WAY TO GO ABOUT IT.

ARE YOU DONE? ARE YOU DONE? YEAH, GO AHEAD. YEAH, GO AHEAD. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN'S COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN'S CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CHARAC Is it that RMF30 can be valuable in that it serves as a transition between lower and higher density types? Or is it that that is what it's for? Because I think that's an important distinction.

yeah that's a great point and I did look up the purpose statement to see and I think it does say you know provide a transition between single family housing and larger scale I think in my opinion that's written to say that it can serve as that but that's not the only intent because the next sentence then says the primary intent of the district is to maintain the existing physical character of established residential neighborhoods in the city while allowing for incremental growth through integration of small-scale multifamily building types. So I feel like when you take this and the paragraph as a whole, it could be, it's both.

And yeah, my opinion.

Commissioner Lopry?

I guess my other main issue and reason I would feel comfortable recommending denial is the applicant has indicated that it is financially infeasible to work with the conditions that are listed here. So I guess it's not so much a reason to recommend denying, but it is a reason not to recommend approval.

and to my earlier point if we just i think we could take the action of just adopting wholesale the applicants proposed conditions but if we were to do that again to my earlier point we don't know if staff would recommend based on those current current conditions recommend this application because we don't know if those conditions meet the goals that they might have for the provision of affordable housing etc sure

But we could just table to give the applicant more time to, or to give staff more time to evaluate the applicant's economic feasibility and see if we can come to a position where the applicant feels that it's economically feasible and staff feels like they are comfortable making that call.

Anecdotally, I don't think that one bedroom, one bath for sale units are the most needed thing.

And any other discussion, or do we have any among us interested in making a motion?

I'm going to move to table, correct, is the correct language?

Yeah, if you want to table it and ask the applicant to provide a more formal list of conditions, respond to that, et cetera, then that would be the correct way to do that.

So I move to table this application with the request that the applicant provide a thorough list of their requested conditions to staff and that staff evaluate those conditions and see if there is an appropriate way in their professional judgment and planning expertise that there can be a synthesis between the conditions that planning staff has recommended and the conditions the applicant desires.

Do we have a second?

I think it's a friendly amendment. Yep. So I would add the caveat that It doesn't have to be the set number of units already. We would entertain a proposal for a fewer number of units, if possible, if feasible. I'm not asking to come back and negotiate this one. It could be any new proposal of units or whatever you might come up with. Leave that open. I don't want to keep them constrained to just the two sets of conditions on the table and coming up with something in the middle.

I'm saying... I mean, I don't know if that's actually permissible within the procedures of staff. But if it were, I would accept that friendly.

Sorry, I was just wondering if we can see the proposed conditions, the side-by-side again?

Could you put this up, Ben? I ALSO JUST WANT TO NOTE WHILE WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION AROUND THE MOTION AND THE POTENTIAL FRIENDLY SECOND, THAT IF WE WERE TO DENY THE APPLICATION, THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. THEY COULD HAVE THEIR DAY BEFORE COUNCIL WITH THE APPLICATION AS IT STANDS. SO ANYWAY, JUST FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.

YES, BUT THAT MEANS THAT, RIGHT, LIKE, TO MY MIND, THE GOAL OF THIS IS TO GIVE STAFF MORE TIME TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT. BECAUSE APPARENTLY THERE WAS SOME SORT OF MISCOMMUNICATION, THE APPLICANT WASN'T ABLE TO DISCUSS THE CONDITIONS AS THOROUGHLY AS THEY WANTED TO AND ULTIMATELY IF THE COUNCIL ENDS UP IN THE SAME POSITION THAT WE'RE IN, RIGHT, TRYING TO NEGOTIATE ON THE FLY, THAT'S GOING TO BE PROBLEMATIC AS WELL.

BUT ISN'T IT THE CASE THAT WE COULD, IF WE DENIED THE APPLICATION,

they could go back to the drawing board they don't have to go before council correct they could go back to the drawing board either by either if we formally table or if we deny correct or am i not so if you deny it automatically gets sent to the city council and so at that point the commission's work on this is done unless the council sends it back i mean i i can tell you the council is not going to negotiate on the fly It's just not their practice, and it's not a good practice for any decision-making body like the Commission Council. So I think it ultimately comes down to whether or not you think there can be conditions applied that makes this accessible, knowing everything that you know now from the staff report, from the community input, et cetera, and from the applicant. If you think there is a yes or a possibility there, then obviously you'd make that motion to get to that point, which I think would be consistent with the table. If you don't think there is, then your motion really, well, I'm not gonna say the motion should be, but the thing that the commission should consider is whether or not RECOMMEND DENIAL OR NOT. THAT IS YOUR PREROGATIVE TO THAT IS YOUR PREROGATIVE TO THAT IS YOUR PREROGATIVE TO DECIDE THAT POSITION. DECIDE THAT POSITION. DECIDE THAT POSITION. SO, I MEAN, THERE'S A MOTION ON SO, I MEAN, THERE'S A MOTION ON SO, I MEAN, THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE AT THIS POINT WITH AN THE TABLE AT THIS POINT WITH AN THE TABLE AT THIS POINT WITH AN AMENDMENT. AMENDMENT. AMENDMENT. A SECOND WITH A FRIENDLY. A SECOND WITH A FRIENDLY. A SECOND WITH A FRIENDLY. AND SO I THINK AT THIS POINT YOU AND SO I THINK AT THIS POINT YOU AND SO I THINK AT THIS POINT YOU NEED TO START CALLING THE VOTE NEED TO

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE FRIENDLY AS ISSUED IS A, FRIENDLY AS ISSUED IS A, FRIENDLY AS ISSUED IS A, UNDERSTANDABLE TO STAFF AND B, UNDERSTANDABLE TO STAFF AND B, UNDERSTANDABLE TO STAFF AND B, IN LINE WITH THE STAFF'S IN LINE WITH THE STAFF'S IN LINE WITH THE STAFF'S PREROGATIVE. PREROGATIVE. PREROGATIVE. IT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE, NOT IT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE, NOT IT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE, NOT STAFF'S.

STAFF'S. STAFF'S. IF YOU WANT THEM TO CONSIDER IF YOU WANT THEM TO CONSIDER IF YOU WANT THEM TO CONSIDER LESS UNITS IN A WAY THAT MAKES LESS UNITS IN

Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't say, like, less units to make it right. Like, the friendly is just, like, that is one of the possibilities.

Are you saying my amendment is unfriendly?

Well, I'm just trying to really wrap my head around what the friendly means.

I didn't want to constrain them to the math that's here and the numbers and the units that are here.

YEAH, SURE, I'M FINE WITH THAT. YEAH, SURE, I'M FINE WITH THAT. YEAH, SURE, I'M FINE WITH THAT. I'M FINE WITH OPENING IT UP A I'M FINE WITH OPENING IT UP A I'M FINE WITH OPENING IT UP A LITTLE BIT MORE. LITTLE BIT MORE. LITTLE BIT MORE. I WOULD NOT BE FINE WITH SAYING I WOULD NOT BE FINE WITH SAYING I WOULD NOT BE FINE WITH SAYING WE EXPECT YOU TO GO FOR A LOWER WE EXPECT YOU TO GO FOR A LOWER WE EXPECT YOU TO GO FOR A LOWER NUMBER OF UNITS.

NUMBER OF UNITS. NUMBER OF UNITS. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY.

I WILL ACCEPT THAT FRIENDLY I WILL ACCEPT THAT FRIENDLY I WILL ACCEPT THAT FRIENDLY AMEND

Let's let's do that again. Yeah, I'm in a muddy conversation. I just want to make sure that we're all clear before we're okay.

No, absolutely So I am moving to table with the instructions that The applicant provide their preferred conditions to staff and then then that staff evaluate them and and the community feedback we received tonight and their own recommended conditions to see if they can work with the applicant to identify a solution that is both economically viable and aligned with planning practices, not obligating the same level of density or intensity that was proposed by the applicant.

I'll second.

Commissioner Barrett?

Yes.

Commissioner LeBret?

Yes.

Commissioner Rosenfield?

Yes.

Commissioner Sullivan?

Can I make a comment along with my vote? I've probably made it clear how I feel on it, but it's very hard for me to envision it going back and going through this process again and this same thing not happening again. And with that, no.

It passes three to one.

All right. Someone remind me how I end a meeting, given that I am standing in for the chair today.

All you need to say is, because we've gone through all the agenda items, the meeting's adjourned.

THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT AND GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR TONIGHT AND GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR TONIGHT AND GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR WORK WITH THE STAFF. WORK WITH THE STAFF. WORK WITH THE STAFF. THANK YOU.

Five seconds is the average time your eyes are off the road while texting while driving.