Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

and get started. And we will open up by taking roll.

Amy Burrows. Here. Lila Rosenfield.

Here.

Brian Scott.

Here.

Anna Sullivan. Here. That's a quorum.

All right. Thank you. As the chair, I do not have anything to report to the director.

It's been quiet. We don't have anything to update you on.

OK. I'll move into our open forum, which is a segment for many commissioners to bring up items not directly tied to a specific agenda item. So we have 10 minutes for that. Is there anything that anyone would like to discuss?

No.

All right, then we will move on to the consent agenda, which is approval of the minutes for July 8, 2026.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from July, that July meeting. Second.

Roll call, Commissioner Burroughs.

Yes, and I wanted to say thank you to Commissioner Rosenfield for spearheading that. THE BANNING OF PRIVATELY OWNED JAILS, WHICH HAPPENED IN THAT LAST VOTE. I WASN'T THERE TO VOTE FOR IT, BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU DOING THAT. SO THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER ROSENFIELD?

AYE.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT?

YES.

COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN? YES. PASS.

ALL RIGHT. THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA. THE FIRST ITEM IS THE CONDITIONAL USE AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT AT APPROXIMATELY 2200 SOUTH HIGHLAND DRIVE.

Thank you, Chair. These are plan development and conditional use.

Can you hit the button so it's? Thank you.

Thank you. So these are plan development and conditional use requests for Gem Sugar House. The property is located at 2200 South Highland Drive, and it's in the MU 11 zoning district. And the surrounding properties are also in the MU 11 zoning district. The proposed building is 16 stories and has a maximum height of nearly 185 feet. It has 139 residential units and 52 hotel units. And there's just over 9,000 square feet of commercial uses. And these include the first floor bank, the retail space, and then a top floor restaurant. And the property is about one-third of an acre, and there are 164 parking stalls per post. As far as existing conditions on the site, on the left, there's an existing Zions Bank, and that use will continue in the new building. And then on the right, you can see the existing Parleys Trail and kind of the edge of the building there. So the projects before the commission tonight are the planned development for modifications to the required open space, and then also the conditional use for the drive-through use for a financial institution. The applicant has already also submitted applications for affordable housing incentives, administrative design review that's associated with the affordable housing incentives, and lot consolidation. And these latter three will be reviewed administratively. applicant is also requesting a development agreement to modify the affordability requirements and this request will come before the Commission for a recommendation at a later date and is then subject to City Council approval. So the subject of tonight's discussion are the plan development and the conditional use. And so the relevant ordinance sections that are applicable are those for conditional uses and plan developments. And in kind of the preparation for this, I know there are a few areas where there have been questions. So I wanted to go ahead and talk about those. The first is building height. And so I wanted to go through the proposed building height and what's allowed by zoning. And so on the left here at the top, you can see the exceptions that are allowed by the zoning ordinance. And then at the bottom on the left, there's a summary of what's permitted for height. And then on the right, using the cross section, it shows the various allowances and heights, and those are identified. So the base MU 11 zone allows for 125 feet. And then in this area of Sugar House, additional height up to 150 feet is permitted with the plan development, or not with the plan development, with meeting the open space requirement and active use. and then the affordable housing incentives allow for an additional three stories and each of these stories can be 12 feet in height and so total this allows for an additional 36 feet which brings the total height permitted to 186 feet and so this is just a foot over more than the maximum height of the building And then there is a portion of the building that's eight feet, 10 inches taller, and this includes the stair elevator tower, and then also the screening of mechanical equipment. And so there are two height exceptions in the general provisions that allow these uses to be taller. However, only five feet is permitted for the mechanical equipment. AND SO THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT BEYOND THIS CAN BE ALLOWED BEYOND THIS CAN BE ALLOWED BEYOND THIS CAN BE ALLOWED BASED ON ADDITIONAL HEIGHT BASED ON ADDITIONAL HEIGHT BASED ON ADDITIONAL HEIGHT ALLOWANCE THAT'S IN THE GENERAL ALLOWANCE THAT'S IN THE GENERAL ALLOWANCE THAT'S IN THE GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR THE MU ZONES AND PROVISIONS FOR THE MU ZONES AND PROVISIONS FOR THE MU ZONES AND THIS ALLOWS FOR ANY HEIGHT OVER THIS ALLOWS FOR ANY HEIGHT OVER THIS ALLOWS FOR ANY HEIGHT OVER FIVE FEET ON THE FIRST FLOOR, I'M FIVE FEET ON THE FIRST FLOOR, I'M FIVE FEET ON THE FIRST FLOOR, I'M SORRY, OVER EIGHT FEET ON THE SORRY, OVER E So another thing I just wanted to clarify are the frontages. So the property fronts Highland Drive, and that is the only public street that it fronts. To the north is Wilmington, which is a private drive. And then Sugarmont is to the south, and it was not dedicated as a street. It's considered real property. And future plans are for the roadway to be removed, and then the trail will remain. And so the proposal is only required to meet the street-facing facade requirements on Highland Drive. For the planned development, the requested modification is for the open space. The MU 11 district requires 10% of the lot to be open space area at the ground level with an outdoor active space. And so this is to allow the additional height for 150 feet, which is above that base height of 125 feet. And it can include plazas. And the applicant is meeting the 10% requirement of 2,810 square feet. However, most of the space is obstructed by the upper floors of the building. AND THE CITY'S DEFINITION FOR OPEN SPACE AREA STATES THAT THIS AND THE CITY'S DEFINITION FOR OPEN SPACE AREA STATES THAT THIS MUST BE UNOBSTRUCTIVE. MUST BE UNOBSTRUCTIVE. AND SO THE APPLICANT HAS AND SO THE APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED THESE OBSTRUCTED AND IDENTIFIED THESE OBSTRUCTED AND UNOBSTRUCTIVE AREAS ON THEIR UNOBSTRUCTIVE AREAS ON THEIR PLANS. PLANS. SO ON THE SCREEN YOU HAVE LEVEL SO ON THE SCREEN YOU HAVE LEVEL ONE ON THE LEFT AND LEVEL FIVE ONE ON THE LEFT AND LEVEL FIVE ON THE RIGHT AND SO LEVEL ONE ON THE RIGHT AND SO LEVEL ONE SHOWS THE OPEN SPACE AREAS AT SHOWS THE OPEN SPACE AREAS AT GRADE AND THEN LEVEL F And so the level one open space, which is where it was required, provides 590 square feet of unobstructed open space at the northeast corner of the property. And then elsewhere on the site, the open space is obstructed by the floors that are above. However, on that level five floor, the applicant provides a total of 8,715 square feet of open space, and about 7,000 square feet of this is unobstructed. And this area includes the pool deck and other common amenity areas. And so on this slide, the left, you can see the building where Highland Drive is on the right. And then Sugar Monarch Parley's Trail is on the lower left. And you can see how those upper floors obstruct the open space. And then the top right graphic shows the unobstructed area on the northeast corner. And then the bottom right graphic shows the obstructed area on the southeast corner. And so that's near the drive-thru and the retail space. And so for the plan development, the proposal must meet at least one of the six objectives. In this case, it meets two, housing and master plan implementation. It meets the affordable housing incentives. It also provides family-sized units. And in addition to this, it meets city master plans, including Plan Salt Lake, the Sugar House Plan, and Housing SLC. As far as the conditional use on the drive-through, the Zions Bank has been on the site since 1979, and much of the area around the site has redeveloped since then. The surrounding area developed in the context of that existing drive-through and the proposed use represents a continuation of the previously established use on the site. As part of the redevelopment of the drive-through, they are making improvements. The new curb cut will be right in, right out only, and then the existing curb cuts allow for left turns. In addition to these improvements, the traffic study provided by the applicant and reviewed by transportation, it does show that this will have a negligible impact with their proposed use. So staff's analysis finds that it meets the applicable standards in the base zoning district, the standards for the drive-through facilities, and the stacking areas in the parking chapter, and the conditional use standards. Staff also finds that the proposal is consistent with the citywide Plan Salt Lake, Sugar House Plan, and also Housing SLC. As far as public process, the proposal went through the typical public process. The notices were sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet that provided 45 days for public comment. There was not a request to attend a meeting where the project was presented. Staff received a letter from the community council and several email comments, and those were included with the staff report. And there was one additional comment that was posted on the website and in laser fish. And so staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission approve the proposal with the conditions in the staff report. And then that concludes staff's presentation. Do you have questions or comments for planning staff? The applicant is also here and has a presentation.

Do we have any clarifying questions real quick?

um sorry i do so the modification of the affordable housing incentive do we know what what the modification is that they want um we're working through that with them right now and so once we um have that ready to bring to you we'll schedule that for the commission okay um then let's just go ahead and hear from the applicant great

When we're... Hello. Hi, Commission, thank you for hearing from us and staff for your diligent effort on this. My name is Max Muller with the Gardner Group, 201 South Main Street here in Salt Lake City, Utah. I just wanted to say quickly, I'll have my architects discuss more of the minutiae or answer any questions, but we've worked extensively with city council, with the sugar house community council we've worked with city staff and zions bank who is going to remain as the landlord on this project in perpetuity to to create something that meets the spirit and intent of the zoning consolidation that occurred um over the last few years with the with the city and um our you know our our goal here has been to create something in sugar house somewhat markedly different than a lot of the housing that's been built over the last five to ten years. We wanted to create a mixed-use project that really provided amenity to the community, and that's why we looked at hotel uses. We also plan to do a restaurant on the rooftop floor. We want to interact with the future Parley's Trail. And so all told, what we were really excited about this project and we think it would make a uh... an exceptional addition to the neighborhood and we we've been really thoughtful in working with all the stakeholders to create something uh... and again just just wanted to stress we're meeting all zoning requirements and and that's really how we got to this place and and my architects will introduce themselves uh... you know there were a number of site constraints that led to this, but we felt, you know, truly we're meeting the spirit of the new zoning code in the MU 11 district. So thank you again for your consideration and we'll present and happy to take any questions.

Good evening. My name is Kaz Martin. I'm the owner and architect of Engine 8 Architecture. Also with me is Mari Hanton. And thank you all for your time. And Sarah and Noah, thank you as well for a great job explaining some things, because it'll make, I think, this a little faster for us as well. without replicating everything everyone's already said, I guess what I first wanted to quickly do is just say that, you know, we've really we really took a deep look at this project from the beginning. And like Max said, it's I think it's a pretty unique project and we're trying to make A REALLY LOVELY ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WE STARTED THE PROCESS LOOKING BACK THROUGH THE HISTORY OF SALT LAKE, THE HISTORY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OBVIOUSLY EVERYONE KNOWS WHERE IT GOT ITS NAMESAKE AND ALL THESE THINGS BUT WE KIND OF TOOK THIS FIRST INITIAL DEEP DIVE TO ESTABLISH SOME REALLY STRONG CONCEPTS WITH THE PROJECT. because we wanted to make a special project. And then also some sort of serendipity with the gym kind of brand concept with Gardner and how that dovetailed into everything, which we were pretty excited about, and looking at some architectural precedents. And we came up with this concept of from raw to refined, which I'm not going to talk about a lot, but I guess the point being is that we really took a close look at the kind of design spirit of this project and what's appropriate for the neighborhood, some initial first sketches. Really quickly just to highlight a little bit more about the ground floor and some of the constraints that Sarah walk through again without repeating all those I think it's just important to know that it's a it's a challenging site it's an irregular shape access is limited to only one side and then that combined with a lot of the zoning requirements. that we think are great, enhanced active use, glazing, all these things, you're trying to fit a lot of goals into one site. And so we feel like we try to do our best to balance all those. And at the end of the day, that's why we're asking for some of these modifications. The open space, again, Sarah, thank you so much for walking through that. I think all we would like to add to that is that, in our minds, this wasn't really a sort of checking the box for you guys. We always wanted to provide this type of connections to the neighborhood, to Parley's Trail, and really have the ground floor pedestrian experience kind of slide under our building and connect to everything. Given the site constraints, it was very difficult to provide the unobstructed to the sky portion of the open space and still meet all of the other kind of requirements as well as just making a project that works, you know, financially for the developer and for the neighborhood to provide the housing that we need. Really quickly, the Port Cachere and the kind of drive-through, we just wanted to throw a couple of precedent images up to give the idea of what that space would feel like. It's not just a parking garage space. It's very much a kind of multimodal pedestrian vehicles. It's enhanced design and not just a parking garage. and then looking at the landscape as well we're really trying to do more to make the you know the public sidewalk this beautiful landscaped area tied these concepts back to the project you know really this corner we feel is almost kind of an extension of Parley's Trail and the way that you sort of slide under the building and connect to and of course the drive-through as well THAT WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE WITH ALL THESE OTHER WITH ALL THESE OTHER WITH ALL THESE OTHER REQUIREMENTS TOO. REQUIREMENTS TOO. REQUIREMENTS TOO. SO IT'S CHALLENGING AND WE FEEL SO IT'S CHALLENGING AND WE FEEL SO IT'S CHALLENGING AND WE FEEL LIKE THE END RESULT THAT WE'VE LIKE THE END RESULT THAT WE'VE LIKE THE END RESULT THAT WE'VE DESIGNED TO I THINK REALLY IS LIKE DESIGNED TO I THINK REALLY IS LIKE DESIGNED TO I THINK REALLY IS LIKE MAX SAID IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT MAX SAID IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT MAX SAID IN THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WE'RE ALL TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN WE'RE ALL TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN WE'RE ALL TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN THE NEIGH EVEN GOING DOWN TO THE LIGHTING AND TAKING THAT TO THE NEXT LEVEL. THIS ISN'T A BARE BONES APPROACH TO DOING THINGS. IT'S REALLY ABOUT PLACEMAKING AND MAKING A REALLY LOVELY AREA FOR EVERYONE TO ENJOY. GENERALLY SPEAKING, I THINK EVERYBODY'S FAMILIAR WITH THE GROUND FLOOR AND THE DRIVE THROUGH. I WOULD JUST MENTION THAT YOU CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, IT'S BUT THERE'S NOT A TON OF ACTUAL BUILDING AT THE GROUND FLOOR. BUILDING AT THE GROUND FLOOR. A LOT OF IT REALLY IS OPEN. A LOT OF IT REALLY IS OPEN. NATURAL LIGHT COMING INTO THAT NATURAL LIGHT COMING INTO THAT SPACE, VISUAL CONNECTIONS SPACE, VISUAL CONNECTIONS SPACE, VISUAL CONNECTIONS THROUGH THE CORNER, BOTH THROUGH THE CORNER, BOTH THROUGH THE CORNER, BOTH CORNERS WHERE THE CANAL EASEMENT CORNERS WHERE THE CANAL EASEMENT CORNERS WHERE THE CANAL EASEMENT IS AND WHERE YOU TURN THE CORNER Levels two, three, and four are parking, but even that, with the approach we took to screening, it's really kind of more of a translucent decorative panel, which we really see as an opportunity for public art. the level five is of course the amenity deck that that you already heard a little bit about with the open space and we're providing a lot of additional open space it does not meet the requirements of ground floor open space but I guess we just think it's important to mention that we're not building this building to the maximum envelope you know that's available and so that kind of I think is good for everybody because we're stepping the building back it's sort of mass I think becomes lighter IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY DOING THAT AS WELL. THAT AS WELL. THAT AS WELL. LEVELS 5, 6 AND 7 ARE WHERE THE LEVELS 5, 6 AND 7 ARE WHERE THE LEVELS 5, 6 AND 7 ARE WHERE THE HOTEL ROOMS ARE THAT'S WORTH HOTEL ROOMS ARE THAT'S WORTH HOTEL ROOMS ARE THAT'S WORTH MENTIONING. MENTIONING. MENTIONING. AND THEN FROM 8 UP TO 15 OR 14 AND THEN FROM 8 UP TO 15 OR 14 AND THEN FROM 8 UP TO 15 OR 14 REALLY ARE UNITS. REALLY ARE UNITS. REALLY ARE UNITS. 15 AND 16 ARE PENTHOUSE UNITS 15 AND 16 ARE PENTHOUSE UNITS 15 AND 16 ARE PENTHOUSE UNITS AND THEN OF COURSE THE AND THEN OF COURSE THE AND THEN OF COURSE THE RESTAURANT AS WELL. also just wanted to talk a little bit about kind of the quality of the design and materials obviously there are requirements as far as durability glazing these sorts of things we're proposing triple over triple the amount of glazing that's required on the street facing facade and while we're not even you know I don't believe there's requirements except from the street facing facade we keep that same quality of design and of materiality around the entire project so you don't turn the corner and as soon as we're allowed to use something else we're using it we maintain those materials we maintain that glazing around really the entire project knowing that you know that's the sort of product that we're trying to deliver and that we don't want the building to look like we only made it nice where someone said we had to So again, these are the secondary facades, and as much attention has been paid to those as well, looking through the materials. And obviously, this is all in the report, so I won't spend too much time with that. But we did want to flip through a few renderings to give a little bit of a better idea of kind of the finished product. And we'll zoom in a little bit more here to get, again, a better feeling for that plaza at the southeast corner. And we'll have some more images of some concepts for the screening at the garage as well, because it's not proposed to just be a light gray. But again, looking at how this portcachere really in the drive-through becomes kind of part of that ground floor experience. This is the south elevation. And again, that strong connection to Parley's Trail and very nice landscaping. It's worth pointing out really the openness at this corner. It's about 16 foot clear to the underside of that area. So it's not open to the sky, but is by no means cramped. It's very spacious and airy. of you looking down really kind of highlighting the step backs the amount of open space on level five as well and then just a couple of quick concepts we're still working through this and it will continue to develop but at least to demonstrate what the intent is with that screening and that we really see it as an opportunity for public art Potentially it could change over time. This could be custom printed onto the screening material. It also was worth mentioning it lets air come through. It lets a certain amount of light come through still. So it's not a heavy mass at the base of the building. And just another idea there as well. So in the interest of time, we'll keep it to that for now. Thank you very much.

thanks sorry thank you i just if we have time um i know commissioner you asked about our affordable proposal if we want to we can talk about that if you'd like um it's still in conceptual phase but since you asked um i we did became prepared um so we uh We meet right now and have it in our proposal that we would do the traditional affordable housing incentives that the city has established. However, We have proposed an alternate route, and we're working through staff right now on that. The idea is, aptly named Homes for Heroes, the idea was there are so many arrows in the quiver for solving the affordability issue. And we've actually seen this play out in other cities. We were inspired by Councilwoman Young, her story of when she first came here as a teacher, she received reduced cost housing and that allowed her to the path to home ownership. And in speaking with a number of the municipal departments in that area, the fire chief for Sugar House and the police department, and even Salt Lake Public Schools, there's a serious lack of housing for those individuals. So they commute from other counties. And the thought came, well, could we provide so many units a year that are free of cost? And it also came to us, well, we have a bank at the bottom. And could the bank help us out? And the thinking is, can we find some solution where, hey, you're not paying rent for a year. The police chief comes to us and says, here's a new recruit. Or the fire chief comes to us and says, here's a new recruit. They commute all the way from Ogden. And it would be great if we could get them a little closer to the department, because we want to grow those people. And so we would provide them that unit. Our hope would be to work with Zions Bank, give them a bank account where they could put what would have been their rent. This is by no means a requirement, but they could do this and then move on to, you know, Maybe Zions Bank could help them with a reduced loan. So it really wasn't us saying, well, we don't like the affordable housing incentive from the city. It's a really great program, and it's a good way to do it, and it's worked out in a number of scenarios. Our thought was, hey, um and or here's another idea where this this could solve some of the other issues to provide a pathway to housing for the people that we know we have a retention issue in the city because of simply the cost of living so that's our our proposal um the idea obviously would be funded by us we're not looking for public subsidies but it would just be another quiver or arrow in the quiver for the city, and hopefully it would be a model that other developers could use. We're looking at pursuing a development agreement, so it wouldn't be codified, but it would be cool to see more options like this and more capabilities. So that's our proposal, and it'll come before you all in due time. So thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and open up the public comment. So I have some names up here. You'll have two minutes or five if you're representative of a recognized community group. And you can step up to that mic there. And first we will hear from Jim Jenkin. Jim Jenkin. Oh, sorry, are you on?

Oh, my bad. That's the Avenues Council.

I apologize. We can hear from Lynn Schwartz, then. And please state your name as you start. Thanks. Lynn Schwartz. The first project in the Sugar House business district. Sorry, I don't think that mic's on. Can we? Is it? Oh, okay. My bad. Go ahead.

The first project in the Sugarhounds Business District aired through the massive Kansas City Obsidian to renew and re-learn with extra high bonuses allowed. the community should expect is that it complies with the requirements to receive these bonuses the developers requesting benefits based on enhanced ground floor use which requires 100 of active use inclusion of the telecom room access drives for the parking and drive-through use and Resident only use amenities on upper floors as complying with enhanced open space twists the definition of public space into an unrecognizable shape. There is only a 2% unobstructed ground level space and adding resident use only areas to make up the required 10% violates both the spirit and letter of the ordinance and should not be considered compliant. The stated purpose of the new MU 11 was to increase long-term housing. The removal of 52 units of this housing for hotel use is in direct contradiction of this purpose. The purported justification for removal of 25% of long-term units is the urgent need for short-term hotel units. Hotel units belong in hotels, not in long-term, urgently needed housing. This should be denied as contrary to the purpose of the new MU 11 zone. The continued assertion that this project is a context compatible development is absurd on its face. It is more than three times the height of neighboring buildings. This is no one's definition of context compatibility. The first new MU11 project should strive to meet all requirements in their entirety and not be a roadmap for all following projects to receive all available bonuses without meeting all requirements. Not generated by AI.

Thanks. Next we have Judy Short.

I'm Judy Short, representing the Community Council. The MU 11 zone generally allows up to eight stories in height or 11 stories through the design review process. Buildings in Sugar House can go up to 150 feet if they're bound by I-15. And they can be 150 feet if additional design standards are added. And affordable housing incentives may allow three additional stories up to 36 feet through administrative design review if specifically affordability requirements are met. This building will be 58 feet taller than the standard M11 zoning. The point of these concessions is to give the city something in return, not just to benefit the developer. In this case, the city or the neighborhood gains ten additional affordable units. 10. That's not 10 units for an extra 70 feet of height. Granted, these are 30% of AMI. But who is benefiting from this? This does not seem like enough. They should provide 20 or 30 or maybe 50 affordable units. THERE'S A PROPOSAL NOT YET PART OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INITIATIVE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW WORKFORCE HOUSING TO BE FREE RENT FOR ONE YEAR WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE SAVED RENT WOULD BE USED AS A DOWN PAYMENT FOR A HOME. The affordability proposal has good intentions but needs a lot more work. It's hard to believe that not paying rent for a year would give the individual or family money left over to come down with a down payment for a house. Maybe three or five years is more feasible. THIS WILL HAVE TO SHOW POSITIVE RESULTS FOR THE IDEA TO CONTINUE OR SPREAD TO OTHER BUILDINGS. 191 UNITS WITH 10 TRULY AFFORDABLE AND 5 RENT FREE. WE SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL TO NOT APPROVE TOO MANY OF THESE UNITS BEFORE WE KNOW IF THEY REALLY WORK. SO PEOPLE COME UP WITH MONEY TO ACTUALLY BUY AN APARTMENT OR A HOUSE. RENT IN THIS BUILDING FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT IN THE AFFORDABLE WERE GOING TO BE $3300 A MONTH. INCREASE IN VACANCY RATES. INCREASE IN VACANCY RATES. 40,000 A YEAR PLUS FOOD, CLOTHING 40,000 A YEAR PLUS FOOD, CLOTHING AND UTILITIES. AND UTILITIES. THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT'S THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT'S CATERING TO LOW INCOME PEOPLE. CATERING TO LOW INCOME PEOPLE. WE'VE HEARD THE VACANCY RATE IN WE'VE HEARD THE VACANCY RATE IN THE CITY INCLUDING DOWNTOWN THE CITY INCLUDING DOWNTOWN IS RISING BECAUSE THE RENTS We like the fact there are four levels of parking or 169 stalls. However, that leaves 50 units with no parking. Because public transportation takes so long, statistics show that most people in Sugar House will drive their car. And the majority of those people will have two adult drivers, which makes the parking scarcity even worse. People from outside Sugar House already don't come to our town to shop or eat because there's very little parking. Until we have a better rapid transit system, without a long wait between transferring from one to another, merchants will still be hurting. Homeowners will still have spillover parking in front of their homes. And if you add in parking for all the contractors in the white trucks, we're really in trouble. we have concerns about the parley's trail it's been in our plans since 2011 to safely connect the trail from sugar house park we have maps with ideas on how to connect them all and it's important that we make sure this trail gets completed this trail starts at the mouth of parley's canyon and goes through mill creek salt lake south salt lake before it ends at the river This connection is critical to getting the trail complete. We've looked at the plans carefully and are assured all these connections will eventually happen. For right now, this will go directly to the existing tracks line. We haven't talked about short term rentals. Try to be creative with the ordinance so we don't create a housing shortage. Think about the reality of having 25% of our visitors come to Utah and stay for 30 days. That's just not reality. WE FEEL THAT NO UNITS IN A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENT SHOULD BE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENT SHOULD BE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENT SHOULD BE SHORT-TERM UNITS. SHORT-TERM UNITS. SHORT-TERM UNITS. THEY TAKE UNITS OUT OF THE THEY TAKE UNITS OUT OF THE THEY TAKE UNITS OUT OF THE HOUSING MARKET. HOUSING MARKET. HOUSING MARKET. INCREASED HOUSING WAS THE INCREASED HOUSING WAS THE INCREASED HOUSING WAS THE REASON FOR ALL THE UPZONING THAT REASON FOR ALL THE UPZONING THAT REASON FOR ALL THE UPZONING THAT JUST TOOK PLACE.

JUST TOOK PLACE. JUST TOOK PLACE. SHORT-TERM RESIDENT UNITS SHOULD SHORT-TERM RESIDENT UNITS SH All right, then I will go ahead and close the public comment and give the presenter, if you have anything you'd like to address that you heard, you're welcome to or not.

I don't think so unless there's any questions from the commission.

Okay, thank you. Then we will bring it back to the commission.

I have a request for staff. One of our public comments was from a previous commissioner who mentioned that drive-throughs were not allowed in the Sugar House Business District. And that was what I remembered, too. So will you explain what happened with that rule?

Sure. So in 2023, there was an ordinance adopted that changed drive-throughs from, removed drive-throughs as a permitted or a conditional use in the CHBD1 and CSHBD2 zoning districts. which covered the Sugar House Business District. And then as part of the mixed-use zoning consolidation that occurred last year, those two zoning districts went away, and so drive-throughs are now a conditional use in the MU5 zoning district and then the MU11 zoning district.

So I can add some additional information for that. So in the MU 11 drive-thrus are only allowed when associated with a financial institution. They're not allowed with other uses, and only on certain streets, arterials, which Highland Drive is. And that was something that was added by the city council when they adopted the zoning consolidation. It was not part of the original proposal, but the council added that.

And that's all over the city. Anywhere where you put a drive-through in an MU-11, it has to be on an arterial, and it has to be a financial institution. Correct. OK. So in this case, this request is for conditional use. They just have to meet the conditional use requirements.

That's right.

OK. That was a surprise to me, because we talked about drive-throughs in Sugar House for so long. So that was kind of a new rule to me. I wonder, in the condition number five, Can you look at that? I'll look at it too. Yeah. THERE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE APPROVAL THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE APPROVAL THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE DONE FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW. DONE FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW. DONE FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW. IS THAT RIGHT? IS THAT RIGHT? IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S NOT BEING DONE BY US. THAT'S NOT BEING DONE BY US. THAT'S NOT BEING DONE BY US. THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE JOB. THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE JOB. THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE JOB. RIGHT.

RIGHT. RIGHT.

THERE'S STILL AN ADMINISTRATIVE THERE'S STILL AN ADMINISTRATIVE THERE'S STILL AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FOR THAT DESIGN APPROVAL FOR THAT DESIGN TO BE DONE THAT HASN'T HASN'T BEEN APPROVED YET RIGHT IT HASN'T BEEN DONE YET AND THAT WILL BE DONE IN THE LATER POINTS SO THE CONDITION FIVE IS THAT DRAWINGS DOCUMENTING A STOP SIGN FOR THE DRIVE THROUGH EXIT WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE ALONG THE STREETS WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR ZONING REVIEW PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT YEAH AND THAT'S A THAT'S A NORMAL REQUIREMENT LIKE SIGNS USUALLY GO THROUGH ZONING REVIEW RIGHT.

BUT IN THIS CASE, THE DESIGN BUT IN THIS CASE, THE DESIGN BUT IN THIS CASE, THE DESIGN REVIEW ISN'T DONE YET UNTIL THIS REVIEW ISN'T DONE YET UNTIL THIS REVIEW ISN'T DONE YET UNTIL THIS PROCESS IS DONE.

PROCESS IS DONE. PROCESS IS DONE. RIGHT. RIGHT. RIGHT. THE DESIGN REVIEW WILL BE DONE THE DESIGN REVIEW WILL BE DONE THE DESIGN REVIEW WILL BE DONE FOLLOWING THIS PROCESS AND THEN FOLLOWING THIS PROCESS AND THEN FOLLOWING THIS PROCESS AND THEN AFTER THE DESIGN REVIEW, ONCE AFTER THE DESIGN REVIEW, ONCE AFTER THE DESIGN REVIEW, ONCE THEY HAVE THEIR CONSTRUCTION THEY HAVE THEIR CONSTRUCTION THEY HAVE THEIR CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PREP Yes. So as part of the affordable housing incentives, those allow for administrative design review for projects that are using the incentives.

OK. So I have another question, because when I hear what the community council from Sugar House is saying, I agree with them, unless there's something that I'm missing. If you're building a building in MU 11, it can be 125 feet tall, unless you're on 4th South or you're in this part of Sugar House, right? And then it can be 150 feet tall if you meet those two requirements to have 100% ground floor activation and 10% open space. Correct. So you can then, if you meet those two requirements, you can go up to 150 in this neighborhood. And then you can get another three floors if you meet the affordable housing incentive. OK. And so your finding is that they do meet the 100% ground floor activation the way that they've designed it.

SO THEY MEET IT AS FAR AS THE LOBBY USE AND THEN THE RETAIL SPACE, THE DRIVE AISLES DON'T COUNT. AND THEN THERE IS THAT SMALL, I THINK IT'S A FIRE RISER ROOM OR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT THAT'S ON THE CORNER. AND I BELIEVE THEY MAY NEED TO HAVE A MODIFICATION FOR THAT AS PART OF THAT ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGNER VIEW. BUT I CAN DOUBLE CHECK THAT.

AND THEY DON'T MEET THE 10% I MEAN, I LOOKED AT THE TABLE FOR THAT AND IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT IT HAS TO BE 10% ON THE GROUND FLOOR. SO YOUR FIFTH FLOOR OPEN SPACE, I WAS GLAD TO SEE THAT WORD IN QUOTATIONS IN THE REPORT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T COUNT. IT'S NOT ON THE GROUND FLOOR. SO AND I DIDN'T CALCULATE ALL OF THESE NUMBERS, BUT THEY ARE AT 2% OF OPEN SPACE ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND NOT 10. For the unobstructed open space, it's at 2%. Right.

And unobstructed open space is what it's supposed to be, right? That meets the definition for open space, yes.

Okay. So to me, it feels like they don't meet that. I mean, in this specific neighborhood, you get an extra 25 feet if you meet these two requirements and 2%. It's not 10%, but the other one, the active use, probably they do, or mostly do, or it could be covered with administrative approval of their design review. That's what I'm seeing. That's what I see.

Yeah, I also, on the enhanced active use, I wonder at... It calls out in there that you can exclude the drive aisles for parking. It seems like excluding the extra drive aisles for a drive-through might stretch that a bit. I was also wondering about... PART OF THE EXTRA HEIGHT IS COMING FROM THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES BUT THEY'RE ASKING TO DO TWO STORIES INSTEAD OF THREE AND THEY ARE TALLER THAN 12 FEET SO IS THAT PART OF THAT KIND OF DEFERRED AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVE THING THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT LATER OR?

SO THE WAY THAT WE INTERPRET THAT REQUEST FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES IS THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING THE THREE RATHER THAN THE TWO JUST BECAUSE THEY INCREASE IN THE STORIES IN ORDER TO MEET THE HEIGHT OR IN ORDER TO MEET THE HEIGHT OR IN ORDER TO MEET THE HEIGHT OR IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT TO GET TO THE HEIGHT HAVE THAT TO GET TO THE HEIGHT HAVE THAT TO GET TO THE HEIGHT THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING. THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING. THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING.

THEY'RE REQUESTING THOSE THREE THEY'RE REQUESTING THOSE THREE THEY'RE REQUESTING THOSE THREE STORIES FOR THE 36 FEET. STORIES FOR THE 36 FEET. STORIES FOR THE 36 FEET. THE INTENT OF THAT 12 FOOT PER THE INTENT OF THAT 12 FOOT PER THE INTENT OF THAT 12 FOOT PER STORIES WAS ALSO TO PUT A CAP ON STORIES WAS ALSO TO PUT A CAP ON STORIES WAS ALSO TO PUT A CAP ON THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL HE IT WAS WORDED DIFFERENTLY, AND THEN THE COUNCIL WANTED THERE TO BE SOME CAP SO THAT WE COULD FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH EXACTLY HIGH. SO THEY DIDN'T WANT LEVELS THREE STORIES. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST THE AVERAGE OF THE OTHER STORIES IN THE BUILDING. AND THEY THOUGHT, WELL, SOMEBODY COULD GAME THAT AND GET TALLER. IF THEY ADD THREE STORIES, IT COULD BE 40 OR 50 FEET OF HEIGHT. AND SO WHAT THEY SUGGESTED WAS LET'S PUT A CAP SO THAT THE INTENT WAS IF THEY HAVE THREE STORIES, THEY CAN'T HAVE, WELL, THEY'RE QUALIFIED TO HAVE THREE STORIES. THE MAXIMUM ADDITIONAL HEIGHT THEY COULD GET IS 36 FEET. WHETHER THEY USE ALL THREE STORIES OR NOT, THE CODE DOESN'T ADDRESS. SO IT WAS A WAY TO CAP THAT SO THEY COULDN'T SAY, WELL, WE GOT THREE STORIES, WE CAN MAKE THEM ALL 20 FEET.

OKAY. OKAY. IN READING THROUGH IT I THOUGHT IT WAS SAYING JUST THAT A STORY CANNOT BE EXCEED 12 FEET, BUT OKAY. AND THEN IN REGARDS TO THE OPEN I also, even if we took everything as unobstructed, I think that some of it is also kind of pushing that idea of open space when it defines the open space it talks about, a place that can be actively used, or a plaza, or whatever. And a lot of what, even if it is obstructed on this, is very small that I don't really know. MEET THE LETTER OF THE LAW IN THAT, BUT IT'S NOT ACTIVE USABLE SPACE. IT'S ONE FOOT WIDE STRIPS THAT GO ALONG THE SIDES. I THINK THAT WAS ALL I HAD.

CAN I MAKE A NOTE TO THE COMMISSION?

SURE. SO ONE OF THE IDEAS HERE.

CAN YOU PLEASE GET CLOSER TO THE MIC?

One of the ideas here in having a hotel component as well as a traditional multifamily is that it would be a public gathering space on the fifth floor amenity deck. And so part of our thesis, and this is more on the development side, but you go into a lot of high-rise multifamily projects, and you go and you tour the amenity space, and they feel fairly empty. um they're very nice you know they finish them out with a million dollars worth of ff e whatever but as you walk around there there's no one there and i'm sure you've seen it if you have friends who live in a nice multi-family project and when you go into a hotel it feels a little different when i think about the asher adams If you've ever gone into the station there that they've redone, that's like a public meeting space and people come and they have a cocktail and they sit down there and they can meet with their family and friends before a mammoth game. And so our idea here was how do we activate that fifth floor amenity deck beyond the idea of saying, well, that's private and it's just for the residents is untrue. If you live in Sugar House and you have a family member who wants to come and stay here, you could go and meet them in the lobby and have a drink. Or if you're with your friends and you want to go grab a drink at the bar there. you could do that. You could also go to the top floor and have dinner. And so, understood on the idea of not totally meeting the open to the sky, open space on the ground floor, but it's our hope and really our investment thesis that people will want to come to this place and meet after work and go have a drink or go up and have dinner AT THE ROOFTOP RESTAURANT. SO CERTAINLY UNDERSTOOD THERE SO CERTAINLY UNDERSTOOD THERE ARE SOME SITE CONSTRAINTS HERE ARE SOME SITE CONSTRAINTS HERE BUT WE WANTED TO CREATE A BUT WE WANTED TO CREATE A THIRD PLACE IN SUGAR HOUSE AND THIRD PLACE IN SUGAR HOUSE AND NOT SIMPLY ANOTHER MULTI-FAMILY NOT SIMPLY ANOTHER MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT. PROJECT.

I MEAN ULTIMATELY THOUGH IT I MEAN ULTIMATELY THOUGH IT WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO PAYING WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO PAYING CUSTOMERS, CORRECT?

I GUESS HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT A COFFEE SHOP? DO YOU GO TO A COFFEE SHOP AND HAVE A COFFEE AND SIT AND LOOK Sure, theoretically, you could kick someone out if they were there for hours and hours. It's not a public library, right? But we'd hope it to be a meeting space, and we want it to be activated. And it is open to the public as an establishment. So you don't necessarily have to pay, but probably appreciate it if you did.

I love coffee shops, but they're not open space. especially if they're on the fifth floor of a building. That for sure does not feel like open space if you're walking around Sugar House and It's on the fifth floor.

And for what it's worth, right, like the Asher Adams, because it's on the ground floor and because you can sort of walk through it and because it has that feel of an old train station, there is a little bit more of an invitation, it feels like, to actually enter that space, walk through that space, or just sit in that space for a little bit, even though I'm sure technically they could kick one out. I think... You know, I have some concerns. First off, so just to make sure that we're being clear, the hotel usage is allowed by right, correct? That is not part of any of the reviews we're performing?

Correct. The hotel is a permitted use in the zone.

Excellent. Thank you so much. I really, I worry about the drive-through more than anything. I think, you know, as much as we want to make like event streets that are hybrid pedestrian and car usage, you just need to go a block over and you see, right, Americans are very, very used to not being in the street and not being in a driveway. So I have a hard time imagining that THE SHARED USE THAT'S ENVISIONED HERE WOULD ACTUALLY BE INVITING FOR PEDESTRIANS TO GO INTO THE BANK DRIVE THROUGH. AND IN THAT CASE, I FEEL LIKE GIVEN THE SUGAR HOUSE PLAN, WHICH STATES, LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND IT. Starting to provide multiple functional front entrances, mixed-use development. Right. So, you know, I just don't think in terms of what the Sugar House plan envisions for this area, in terms of having a highly, highly pedestrianized environment, I don't think that is compatible with two large driveways taking up the vast majority of the ground floor. You know, I think the height and the density bonuses and the open space, would I like there to be a little more open space? Yes, probably, on that ground floor. I'm not too worried about the covering of the ground floor open space, even though I'm, you know, it's that itself is a borderline, but I don't think it's a borderline to say that this should not be a drive-through. Given the compliance with the applicable general plans required to approve a conditional use OR THE APPLICABLE GENERAL PLANS REQUIRED FOR CONDITIONAL USE. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A DRIVE THROUGH IN THIS LOCATION IN THE FUTURE IN A NEW BUILDING, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A DRIVE THROUGH THAT ALREADY EXISTS, IS ACTUALLY COMPLIANT.

I SHARE THE CONCERNS OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. I SHARE THE CONCERNS OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. I SHARE THE CONCERNS OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. I SHARE THE CONCERNS OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. I SHARE THE CONCERNS OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. I SHARE THE CONCERNS OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. I SHARE THE CONCERNS OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. I SHARE THE CONCERNS OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. I SHARE THE CONCERNS OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. I SHARE THE CONCERNS OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. I SHARE THE CONCERNS OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. I SHARE THE CONCERNS OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. I SHARE THE CONCERNS OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. I SHARE SOMETHING EQUAL BACK IN RETURN TO BENEFIT. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT.

CAN I MAKE A QUICK I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY RELATED TO THE DRIVE-THROUGH USE AND THE KIND OF GOALS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, DUE TO THE SITE CONSTRAINTS, WE WOULD HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF CURB CUTS INTO THIS PROJECT EVEN IF THERE WEREN'T A DRIVE-THROUGH. CERTAINLY THERE'S POTENTIAL FOR MORE TRAFFIC BECAUSE OF THAT DRIVE-THROUGH. BUT BECAUSE OF OUR LIMITED ACCESS ONLY COMING OFF OF WE WOULD HAVE THOSE TWO CURB CUTS THERE TO SERVE THE PROJECT CURB CUTS THERE TO SERVE THE PROJECT CURB CUTS THERE TO SERVE THE PROJECT KIND OF REGARDLESS OF WHETHER KIND OF REGARDLESS OF WHETHER KIND OF REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE DRIVE-THROUGH WAS THERE OR THE DRIVE-THROUGH WAS THERE OR THE DRIVE-THROUGH WAS THERE OR NOT. NOT. NOT.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS WORTH I THOUGHT THAT WAS WORTH I THOUGHT THAT WAS WORTH MENTIONING. MENTIONING. MENTIONING. IS THAT A HARD DESIGN IS THAT A HARD DESIGN IS THAT A HARD DESIGN CONSTRAINT? CONSTRAINT? CONSTRAINT? WOULD IT BE PERMISSIBLE UNDER WOULD IT BE PERMISSIBLE UNDER WOULD IT BE PERM

I'm not sure to be completely honest, but I think with the traffic coming in and out and where we have the ability to actually make a curb cut because of the private drive and Sugarmont to the South. So I don't know how they would react to that, but my based on what we've learned through going through the process in our traffic study, I think splitting that traffic into two different curb cuts was desired by them rather than funneling it all through one.

OKAY. AND THEN THE OTHER, OBVIOUSLY I AND THEN THE OTHER, OBVIOUSLY I KNOW, SO TO CLARIFY WITH REGARD TO KNOW, SO TO CLARIFY WITH REGARD TO THAT PROPOSED ALTERATION OR THAT PROPOSED ALTERATION OR ALTERNATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ALTERNATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVE, WOULD THAT COME BEFORE INCENTIVE, WOULD THAT COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION AGAIN OR WOULD IT THE COMMISSION AGAIN OR WOULD IT JUST GO THROUGH STRAIGHT JUST GO THROUGH STRAIGHT THROUGH THE COUNCIL?

THROUGH THE COUNCIL? YES, IT WOULD COME BEFORE THE YES, IT WOULD COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION. COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION WOULD MAKE A THE COMMISSION WOULD MAKE A RECOMMEND

I had another question about that. Actually, is part of what you're maybe in discussions about the types, the unit types for that? I definitely see the value in having a studio, a one bedroom, a two bedroom, a three bedroom that's like that. Not so much, and up to a certain number, but not so much just all studios. AND I ALSO WANTED TO CLARIFY THE NUMBER BECAUSE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC SAID 10. BUT IF THEY WERE TO MEET THE 5%, IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE 7, RIGHT?

RIGHT. WITH THE HOTEL UNITS, THE NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS THAT WOULD BE NEEDED WOULD BE 7.

I JUST WANTED TO THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DRIVE THROUGH AND THE ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAYS CITY CODE ACTUALLY DOES ALLOW ANY DRIVE THROUGH TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY AS AN EXIT SO THAT ANYWAY THE DRIVE THROUGH REGULATIONS ALLOW THAT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE USE IS A CONDITIONAL USE OR A PERMITTED USE.

THANK YOU. MY ARGUMENT IS THAT A MY ARGUMENT IS THAT A MY ARGUMENT IS THAT A DRIVE-THROUGH IN THIS LOCATION DRIVE-THROUGH IN THIS LOCATION DRIVE-THROUGH IN THIS LOCATION IS NOT COMPATIBLE REGARDLESS OF IS NOT COMPATIBLE REGARDLESS OF IS NOT COMPATIBLE REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY DRIVEWAYS THERE ARE. HOW MANY DRIVEWAYS THERE ARE. HOW MANY DRIVEWAYS THERE ARE. GIVEN THE PLAN, THE APPLICABLE GIVEN THE PLAN, THE APPLICABLE GIVEN THE PLAN, THE APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN WHICH IS A GENERAL PLAN WHICH IS A GENERAL PLAN WHICH IS A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF THAT FUNDAMENTAL PART OF THAT FUNDAMENT or the standards by which we review it. I'm also, frankly, I'm a little worried about the fact that in addition to saying, okay, we're getting this height bonus, which, again, I think the height is reasonable. Salt Lake City is growing up. We're a big city now, and that's all okay. But I worry that given the fact that what I'm hearing is, like, not only are we hoping to... pull back to just do that 30% AMI. Well, actually, to use that to get the hype bonus, actually what we're hoping to do is to do this new untested version, which frankly would not serve individuals who are as low income as a 30% AMI permanently affordable housing would. Teachers, firefighters, police officers, Often they are not paid well enough in many cases. But I would say that they're not necessarily in that 30% AMI bracket. So instead we're saying we're giving less units to people who need them less, and we're also kicking them out after a year. And I'm not... I think that's a future part of the discussion, not for... That's fair.

So thank you. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE COMMENTS OR A MOTION THEY WOULD LIKE TO FORWARD?

I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

I HAVE A, MIGHT BE A STAFF QUESTION, MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR DEVELOPERS. ON THE, WE TALK ABOUT THE 10% VERSUS THE 2% THAT'S UNOBSTRUCTED. And then we're offering a trade-off, which is a fifth floor open space. Is that precisely what we're doing there?

No. So I think that what we're proposing is that we are providing 10% open space at the ground floor, but only 2% of that 10% at the ground floor meets the definition of unobstructed open space. so that's really i don't know how you categorize it but then we're also just pointing out that we're providing a lot of additional open space that isn't at the ground floor so the request is for eight percent of the ten percent i guess to be obstructed i guess is the sort of technical request but but to be clear we are providing ten percent of open space it's just that it's not all meeting the unobstructed requirement

And you're proposing that on the fifth floor, that is public open space that people can readily access because it's a hotel there. Correct.

And that obstruction, it's just parking, right? Because you go up to the fifth floor, the first floor where there's actually active uses. Correct. I mean, plus the bank. No, actually, no, it's not plus the bank. The obstruction is all parking. Is all parking?

Parking. Correct. It's the overhang of the second floor above. I mean, it's a roof.

Did you see that? Show us the picture of what that open space looks like. It actually looks like it's got carpet on the ground and it's got, like, light fixtures in it.

Yeah.

Where we saw, like... I mean, it's like the roof of the parking is what it's obstructed by.

Yeah, I'm just like, it's not necessarily an attempt to maximize overall ground, like floor area, because the only thing that's obstructing it is parking, which is...

It's not units.

No, it's not units. It's not like we're giving away, you know, additional... Oh, that one, go...

well and those are precedent images but these like this thing is is that the drug but but these were really more in reference to the porka share not directly to the open space I think that the maybe a better illustration of what we're proposing is in the renderings at the ground floor so I think in particular you know this being this public plaza and the idea being that

you know people who are visiting this retail if it's a cafe or whatever are stopping and hanging out there as if it's a public plaza like the plaza at the sugar house monument so if you're looking at that now we're saying that that's obstructed it doesn't count as open space because the garage hangs over it yeah correct yes sir correct and so i'm not convinced that that's a bad thing um As someone who's, I don't know, walked around with my head exposed most of the summer, I mean, I would enjoy a nice shade that doesn't blow away in the wind. And so I don't understand the purpose of what we have from our obstructed rules. But from looking at this, I wouldn't say that that doesn't meet the spirit of our open space rule. But that's just my opinion of it.

Could I get you to show the plan view where it's open space and then the obstructed open space is hashed and the unobstructed open space is just green? BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T LIKE DRIVE THROUGHS TO COUNT AS OPEN SPACE, LOOK HOW MUCH OF THE OBSTRUCTED OPEN SPACE IS RIGHT BY THAT DRIVE THROUGH. THAT LITTLE CORNER UP THERE IN THE TOP RIGHT IS THE ONLY UNOBSTRUCTED OPEN SPACE. THAT'S THE DEFINITION. SO I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION UNLESS. SO I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION UNLESS.

ONE LAST QUESTION. ONE LAST QUESTION. IS THERE A PARKING MINIMUM HERE IS THERE A PARKING MINIMUM HERE OR IS THIS CONSIDERED DOWNTOWN OR IS THIS CONSIDERED DOWNTOWN HIGH TRANSIT, NO PARKING HIGH TRANSIT, NO PARKING MINIMUM?

MINIMUM?

THERE'S NO PARKING MINIMUM. THERE'S NO PARKING MINIMUM. GOT YOU.

GOT YOU. SO THE OVERHANG ISN'T EVEN SO THE OVERHANG ISN'T EVEN NECESSARY IN TERMS OF THE ZONING NECESSARY IN TERMS OF THE ZONING CODE. CODE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. BASED ON THE INFORMATION BASED ON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS DISCUS deny this plan development application because evidence has not been presented that demonstrates the proposal complies with the table with requirement number one in table 21A25.070.C.2 to earn the additional height. Is that clear?

YES. TO CLARIFY, WOULD THIS BE A TO CLARIFY, WOULD THIS BE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DENY BOTH RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DENY BOTH THE CONDITIONAL USE AND THE PLAN THE CONDITIONAL USE AND THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT?

DEVELOPMENT? JUST THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT ON JUST THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT ON THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. OKAY.

OKAY. THE ADDITIONAL 25 FEET ON THE THE ADDITIONAL 25 FEET ON THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION? WE HAVE A MOTION?

COULD I ASK REALLY QUICK IF COULD I ASK REALLY QUICK IF YOU COULD BRING THAT TABLE UP SO YOU

SO I CAN GO AHEAD AND BRING THAT UP IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE FROM THIS COMPUTER. OTHERWISE I'D NEED TO PLUG IN A DIFFERENT LAPTOP. SO IT WILL TAKE ME JUST A SECOND TO GET THERE.

OKAY. THANKS. THIS STILL DOESN'T HAVE A SECOND, RIGHT? I WOULD SECOND A PROPOSAL TO DENY THE CONDITIONAL USE. I'M STILL DECIDING ON WHETHER I WOULD SECOND ON THE PLAN

THERE'S SEPARATE MOTIONS. THERE'S SEPARATE MOTIONS.

WE DISCUSSED AND THERE'S WE DISCUSSED AND THERE'S WE DISCUSSED AND THERE'S STILL A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. STILL A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. STILL A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. SORRY, WHAT? SORRY, WHAT? SORRY, WHAT? THERE'S STILL A MOTION ON THERE'S STILL A MOTION ON THERE'S STILL A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

THE FLOOR. THE FLOOR. I'M ASKING FOR IT. I'M ASKING FOR IT.

I'M ASKING FOR IT. IT HASN'T BEEN SECONDED, BUT IT HASN'T BEEN SECONDED, BUT IT HASN'T BEEN SECONDED, BUT IT WOULD NEED TO BE WITHDRAWN, I IT WOULD NEED

So to clarify, my motion is to deny the additional height on this project because the project does not meet that step number one in the additional height table right there.

Okay, do we have a second? I will second. Okay.

Okay, I think we need a clarification here. Commissioner, can you clarify, is your motion to deny the plan development for failure to comply with this table, or is your motion to approve the plan development and modify it solely to remove the additional height?

Approve it and deny the additional height. Approve it without the additional height.

I also need to clarify, you're not necessarily approving or denying the extra height. You're denying a modification to the 10% open space area requirement.

YES. THAT IS WHAT I MEAN TO DO. THAT IS WHAT I MEAN TO DO. IF THEY DON'T HAVE 10% OPEN IF THEY DON'T HAVE 10% OPEN SPACE, I DON'T WANT THE SPACE, I DON'T WANT THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.

ADDITIONAL HEIGHT. BASICALLY YOU'RE NOT BASICALLY YOU'RE NOT APPROVING REDUCING THAT 10% APPROVING REDUCING THAT 10% OPEN SPACE AREA DOWN TO 2%. OPEN SPACE AREA DOWN TO 2%. RIGHT. RIGHT.

AND THAT IS WHAT I WILL SECOND AND THAT IS WHAT I WILL SECOND AS WELL. AS WELL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. OKAY. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. COMMISSIONER BURROWS? COMMISSIONER BURROWS? YES.

NO. COMMISSIONER ROSENFELD?

COMMISSIONER ROSENFELD? YES.

YES. AND CAN I ADD A COMMENT? Sure, I guess I would I would comment that I would support That if they supported the plan in terms of housing This the the obstruction and the sort of open space modifications that were necessary. I would Be voting in favor, but because it is not supporting that portion of plan Salt Lake I oppose

Sorry, was that a yes or a no?

That was a yes. Thank you. As in yes, I deny.

OK. Commissioner Scott?

Yes.

Commissioner Sullivan? Yes. Pass.

OK. I'll make a motion for the conditional use request. Based on the information presented in this discussion, I move that the commission approve this conditional use application as recommended by staff.

Okay, we have a motion, do we have a second? If not, then motion fails.

Greg? I, based on the information presented, I recommend that the, or I would have the commission deny the conditional use due to noncompliance with the Sugar House Master Plan, which states that this should be a highly pedestrianized environment, which drive-through is not compatible with.

Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second?

I WAS GOING TO ADD, IF YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION TO DENY A WAS GOING TO ADD, IF YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION TO DENY A CONDITION TO USE BASED ON WHAT THE CONDITION TO USE BASED ON WHAT THE GENERAL PLAN SAYS, I THINK YOU GENERAL PLAN SAYS, I THINK YOU NEED TO CITE SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF NEED TO CITE SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF THE GENERAL PLAN. THE GENERAL PLAN. IN ORDER FOR THAT TO HAVE ANY IN ORDER FOR THAT TO HAVE ANY STANDING. STANDING. YES.

YES. ONE MOMENT.

I'd like to make it well okay I want to make a motion I based on the information presented and the discussion I move that the commission approve this conditional use application as recommended by staff.

We have a motion to have a second second. We have a second.

Commissioner Burroughs yes, commissioner Leverett yes, commissioner Rosenfield no commissioner Scott, yes. Commissioner Sullivan, yes. Pass.

Okay, thank you guys very much. Thank you all. Next, we will move to our next agenda item, which is the rezone and general plan amendment at approximately 567 East Warnock Avenue.

Can I ask a quick question? I know it's done. I just want to clarify my brain. If they come back and meet the 10% open space requirement, that they can have the additional height, right? That's what we just voted for?

If there's another modification, they're just by right at that point.

OK. OK. OK. And that would just go to the administrative design review.

No, there would be no plan development. So it would just be design review if they comply otherwise.

Thank you.

There we go.

There we go.

Is that full screen? Wait for it. OK. Good evening, commissioners. I am Aaron Barlow, senior planner.

And I am Jenna Benson, associate planner.

It looks like something's happening. And we will give it just a second.

I think we're good to go.

We're good. We can go forward. Thank you. So this is a request for a zoning map and general plan amendment at 567 East Warnock Avenue. This request was made by Altus Development Group on behalf of the property owner. The current zoning at the site is R17000, single family residential, and it is proposed to be changed to RMF35, moderate density, multi-family residential. This requires a map, or a general plan amendment to the Sugar House Community Plan's future land use map, which currently designates the property as low density residential. The applicant is requesting to change this designation to medium density residential. The subject property is located on Warnock Avenue to the west of 600 East and Interstate 80 is directly to the north of the property. For some background on the site, UDOT acquired the property in the early 2000s during an I-80 expansion project and demolished a single family home that was located on the property. since then it has remained vacant and undeveloped in july the city council approved a petition to vacate the alley abutting the east side of the property and that alley is included in this request The applicant has made this request with the intent to develop four attached townhome units on the site, which is pictured here. If approved, these units would match the scale of the units at the Woodland Commons townhome development, which is located directly west of this site. The four units on this site would be incorporated into that development.

There is a single family house to the north of the subject property. And the applicants have been working closely with this property owner through multiple processes. With the alley vacation, the owner of this property worked along with them. And then there is a plan in the works to purchase additional property from this lot for the proposed community benefit. The only other adjacent land use is the Nibley Ward LDS church building across the street So what would this rezone change? Specifically, well, RMF 35 has a few different building types. In this case, they're proposing a row house building type, which is why it's shown on the screen here. But a multifamily building would also be permitted, given this rezone. So some of the things that would change, first is additional height. There's a smaller setback. When you look at the setback of the single-family house facing Warnock Avenue, that's a compatible 10-foot setback. THERE'S A SMALLER REAR SETBACK WHICH WILL HELP FACILITATE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AREA AND ALLOW FOR MORE SPACE FOR THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT. WITH LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH MORE UNITS ARE PERMITTED THROUGH THE RMF 35 ZONING DISTRICT. YOU CAN SEE A LOT HAS TO BE AT LEAST 7,000 SQUARE FEET FOR A NEW HOME. IN THE RMF 35 DISTRICT THAT'S 750 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT. BUT THERE IS A THREE-UNIT MINIMUM FOR ROW HOUSES. AND THEN THE LOT WIDTH, THERE'S NO LOT WIDTH MINIMUM AND BUILDING COVERAGE UNDER R17, THERE'S A MAX PERCENTAGE OF BUILDING CAN COVER. IN THE RMF 35 THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE, 150 SQUARE FEET OF OPEN SPACE IF IT'S INCLUDED IN A COMMON AREA OR THEY CAN HAVE A PRIVATE AREA OF 200 SQUARE FEET. And this is just to illustrate that with the changes in density and the spacing of homes, there's already in this neighborhood a significant number of multifamily units. There are duplexes. Homes are much closer together. And the R17 does not really reflect the reality on the ground in this area. As far as compliance with general plans, the proposal generally complies with Plan Salt Lake, the Sugar House Plan, Housing SLC, and Thriving in Place. It's intended to promote infill housing within the existing neighborhood. This existing neighborhood has transit available, active transportation opportunities, there are parks nearby, and there are nearby commercial uses. PROPOSAL WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO THIS SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO THIS SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO THIS SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO THE CITY. THE CITY. THE CITY. ALL NON-CITY INITIATED REZONES ALL NON-CITY INITIATED REZONES ALL NON-CITY INITIATED REZONES MUST INCLUDE A COMMUNITY MUST INCLUDE A COMMUNITY MUST INCLUDE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT. BENEFIT. BENEFIT. IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING PUBLIC OPEN SPACE. PROPOSING PUBLIC OPEN SPACE. PROPOSING PUBLIC OPEN SPACE. FROM THE BEGINNING, WAY PLAN FOR A COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE, AND THAT WILL BE LOCATED TO THE NORTH OF, THESE ARE PRELIMINARY PLANS, BUT THE PLAN IS TO PUT THE BUILDINGS THERE ON THAT LOT, AND THEN TO THE NORTH HAVE THE COMMUNITY OPEN SPACE. AS NOTED EARLIER, THE INTENT TO PURCHASE SOME PROPERTY FROM THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE TO EXPAND THAT PUBLICLY AVAILABLE OPEN SPACE, AND THAT OPEN SPACE WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WOULD NEED TO INCLUDE SOME SORT OF SHADE, WHETHER THAT'S FROM A STRUCTURE OR FROM TREES. SOME OUTDOOR RECREATION AMENITIES THAT COULD BE BENCHES, BARBECUE, PATIOS, UP THE GROUND, WHATEVER. AND STAFF HAS KEPT THESE CONDITIONS RELATIVELY VAGUE TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY AND ENCOURAGE CREATIVITY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT OPEN SPACE BECAUSE PLANS COULD CHANGE BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S STILL AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT THAT PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE INTO A DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD HAPPEN ON THIS SITE. So staff recommends sending the city council an approval recommendation with the conditions relating to the community benefit.

All right, thank you. Do we have any quick clarifying questions? All right, is the applicant here? She is. Do you have a presentation that you wanted to give or no?

Yes, she does.

Great, please join us up here.

Just tell me next slide.

Thank you so much.

My name's Jill Genesee.

Can you talk into it a little bit more?

OK, thank you. We are the builders of the adjacent Woodland Commons townhome development at 2435 South. I wanted to share some examples of what our existing development looks like. So this is a rendering of what the townhomes look like facing east on 500 East. The project come with three beds three beds Three and a half baths and are approximately 21 underscore feet with full two car garages These are just a couple of quick examples of how the actual product has has turned out in our already existing buildings So currently we have building number five that is existing. It's being built currently. We would like to put another building right next to building number five and then have a community area to the east of that new building. And these are just a few quick examples of what the area might look like. We're thinking an open area with some pergolas and maybe some tables and a barbecue area. That's all.

Great. Thank you very much. I will go ahead and open this for public comment. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on this topic? NO. THEN I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT BACK TO US FOR DISCUSSION.

THIS WOULD BE A PRIVATELY OWNED, PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN SPACE?

THAT IS CORRECT. THERE WOULD BE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW PUBLIC, THEY CAN SET THE HOURS, BUT THAT WOULD, THERE WOULD BE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW PUBLIC ON THE SITE.

OKAY. THANKS. I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

GO AHEAD.

BASED ON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS DISCUSSION, I MOVE THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THIS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AS THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED.

SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

COMMISSIONER BURROWS? YES. COMMISSIONER LOVERETT? Commissioner Rosenfield. Yes. Commissioner Scott.

Yes.

Commissioner Sullivan. Yes. Pass.

All right. Thank you. Want to do the second one?

Sure. Based on the information presented and the discussion, I move that the commission recommend that the city council adopt this zoning map amendment as staff has recommended.

Second.

All right. We've got a motion and a second. We'll go ahead and vote.

Commissioner Burroughs. Yes. Commissioner Lovret.

Yes.

Commissioner Rosenfield.

Yes.

Commissioner Scott.

Yes.

Commissioner Sullivan. Yes. Pass. Awesome.

Thank you very much, guys. And then we'll move on to the Avenues Community Plan.

Can I request that we take a five minute recess?

Yeah, sure. We'll take five.

Thank you.

okay so this is a there we go this is a presentation on the avenues community plan update this is a follow-up presentation to what was given on may 27th planning commission meeting where staff presented an overview of the plan the public engagement process summaries of the plan sections and tonight we're going to focus on what has happened since that meeting the previous slide deck from the may 27th meeting is also available if the commission would like to revisit any of that material so the action requested of the planning commission this evening is to consider the historic landmark commission's recommendation, review the revisions to the draft plan, hold a second public hearing, and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the plan. This presentation will summarize the key discussion topics from the May 27th Planning Commission meeting, as well as from the Historic Landmark Commission meeting and revisions to the plan since that time. So at the Planning Commission meeting, some of the main discussion topics included the moderate density residential land use designation, which is below Seventh Avenue, including what is envisioned for that area and how the designation relates to existing residential development. There was also clarification regarding the plan's reference to expanding flex routes in the transportation section, a statement supporting preservation of Route 209, if that is the city's desire, as well as opportunities for mixed-use development along specified corridors while preserving existing housing and recognizing limitations on the extent of mixed use that may be allowed as a consideration. The Historic Landmark Commission held a public hearing on July 9 and voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Landmark Commission's presentation focused largely on the commission's role, specific considerations for them in the impact properties in the historic preservation overlay, as well as how preservation more broadly outside of the overlay has been incorporated into the community plan. So just for context, the Historic Landmark Commission reviews properties that are subject to the historic preservation overlay. These includes properties that are within local historic districts, as well as individually listed local landmark sites. So this is a map of the avenues and the local historic districts. And the 36 local landmark sites are largely within these shaded areas, with the exception of two that are north of Seventh Avenue. The Historic Landmark Commission considered specific initiatives intended to streamline review for projects subject to the historic preservation overlay. This included administrative review for new construction projects without public street frontage, developing a library of pre-approved accessory dwelling unit plans that are compatible with the historic district, as well as creating a pattern book for historically compatible building types based on existing buildings in the avenues. The following summarizes the key discussion topics from the commission at that meeting. We gave an overview of just the administrative decision process as it relates to projects in the historic preservation overlay. There was a question about community feedback regarding commercial uses and nonconforming uses. Comments about the LDS hospital campus as an opportunity and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods and building height. SUGGESTIONS FOR SUPPORTING NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATIONS NORTH OF 7th AVENUE. THERE WAS ALSO A DISCUSSION OF HOME OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES AND THE BALANCE BETWEEN RENTER AND OWNER IN THE AVENUES AND THEN THERE WAS CLARIFICATION THAT ADOPTION OF THIS PLAN PROVIDES, LIKE THIS PLAN PROVIDES GUIDANCE AND THAT IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS AND INITIATIVES SUCH AS THE STREAMLINING MEASURES THAT I JUST DISCUSSED WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PROCESSES AND APPROVALS. ADDITIONALLY, THERE WAS ALSO CLARIFICATION THAT ADOPTION OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE PLAN DOESN'T ACTUALLY CHANGE THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES. IT'S JUST TO PROVIDE FUTURE GUIDANCE FOR DECISION MAKING. So since the May 27th Planning Commission, staff has revised the draft in response to Planning Commission discussion, Historic Landmark Commission recommendations, public comments, and city staff review. The following summarizes some of these revisions. so the avenues guiding principles i think almost all of them were revised so that they were more tailored to reflect the community priorities and values this was largely in response to comments that were submitted by the greater avenues community council transportation and mobility the initiative regarding flex routes was broadened to support evaluating options for providing effective transportation to the northern parts of the community THERE WAS ALSO LANGUAGE ADDED TO SUPPORT PRESERVATION OF EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES. IT WASN'T SPECIFIC ABOUT THE ROUTES OTHER THAN THESE ARE ROUTES THAT ARE SERVING KEY DESTINATIONS AND OPPORTUNITY AREAS. And then we also updated a map in that section to remove trails that were labeled as existing bikeways and instead identify trail heads. This was just because the bike ped plan was adopted in 2015 and so some of those existing trails were no longer reflected accurately. In the air quality section, we added emphasis on maintaining existing tree canopy, supporting publicly available EV charging infrastructure, and improving energy efficiency in existing buildings. Natural environments now includes language about trail planning and consideration of watershed. This is in response to department comments from public utilities, as well as proactive wildfire mitigation. Preservation, we added EMPHASIS THAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY THAT EXISTS NOW IS MAINTAINED AND RECOGNIZE IT AS AN IMPORTANT TOOL FOR PRESERVING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. WE ALSO ADDED LANGUAGE TO SUPPORT IDENTIFICATION OF PROPERTIES AND AREAS THAT MAY QUALIFY FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION OR WARRANT FURTHER STUDY. WE DID NOT LIMIT IT TO THE AREA NORTH OF 7th AVENUE. In economy, we added language that the Avenues is primarily a residential neighborhood and that economic development is a secondary and more supportive role. Government now recognizes community organizations and the important role that they play in terms of community engagement. um like the greater avenues community council and then future land use section we have included guidance for mixed use designations that are not shown in the future land use map in the future land use section using specific criteria that is in that section, as well as emphasis on preserving existing housing. We've added some information to the LDS hospital campus section to provide guidance in the event that it redevelops in terms of the existing open and publicly accessible space and maintaining some aspect of that if the site were to be redeveloped. And then we've updated one portion of the future land use map in the upper City Creek Canyon area to reflect natural open space and it currently reflects just open space. So in terms of the public engagement, the Avenues Community Plan is rooted in ideas gathered through a variety of public engagement methods over the last year. This is a snapshot of the engagement that we've done this last year. There is a detailed public engagement report that is available online on the SHAPE SLC page and also included in your packet in your memo. The revised draft responds to community engagement as well as commission recommendations and department comments. Ultimately, this plan is intended to identify common values, define what makes the community unique, guide future growth, and provide clear direction for decision making. And staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to City Council to adopt this Avenues Community Plan.

Great. Thank you. Do we have, well, do we have any clarifying questions real quick? I'm guessing no, but Okay, I will open up public comment. You have two minutes or five if you're a representative of a community council or a organized community, I forget, community organization, there we go. So first we'll hear from Jim Jenkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Jim Jenkins. I am the chair of the Greater Avenues Community Council Housing Committee. it is my pleasure to address this body on this important topic and I apologize that we didn't have something for you in your packet our meeting was only last night we appreciate that the drafters of this plan have been responsive to community input as has been said they have been key in recognizing several of our major contentions The fact that we are primarily a residential neighborhood, that we interface with the downtown community district. They've made note of our terrain challenges and other natural constraints. And that the current adherence of the LDS hospital development to avenue setbacks is desirable for future development. There was one thing that the committee wanted me to bring to the commission, and that is the consensus of the Land Use Committee was to request that the commission recommend against the proposed allowance of administrative approval for structures under the criteria of not visible from the street. The committee considers this criteria a sort of odd and ambiguous thing that will produce variable and undesirable results. While we sympathize with the desire to reduce staff work and to facilitate owners' development of their properties, and we feel that the administrative approval is appropriate to the case of accessory structures, but ask that it be dropped for primary structures. At the recent historic landmarks hearing, Salt Lake City landlord Cindy Cromer testified compellingly against this approval, citing buildings of her own ownership in this configuration that she described as damaging adjoining structures also of her ownership, which I thought was a really nice neutral presentation of the fact that this does not always work and it doesn't. The avenue's steep terrain and tight street grid would further exacerbate the issue as would the question of what conditions existed historically since the historic overlay would also be involved. Our committee was unanimous in this request and I thank you for your attention.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC? SPEAK ON THIS TOPIC?

NO?

NO? ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THEN I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT THEN I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE. COMMITTEE.

WILL YOU SHOW US WHAT MR. WILL YOU SHOW US WHAT MR. JENKINS IS TALKING ABOUT? JENKINS IS TALKING ABOUT? THE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET

So he's talking about this initiative that the Historic Landmark Commission considered specifically, which for clarification, staff already has approval to approve accessory structures administratively. So this was an initiative that we presented to the Historic Landmark Commission for their consideration because it impacts properties in the historic overlay. SO AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THIS MIGHT BE IS RIGHT NOW THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION HAS TO REVIEW NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A PRIMARY STRUCTURE. SO WHAT WE ASKED THEM TO CONSIDER WAS IF STAFF LEVEL APPROVAL COULD BE AUTHORIZED FOR BUILDINGS WITHOUT PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE. SO THIS TOP PHOTO HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT. SO THESE TWO STRUCTURES THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THE FRONT HERE, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A PROJECT THAT WENT THROUGH THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION BUT WAS NEVER BUILT. THESE TWO FRONT BUILDINGS ARE EXISTING AND THEN THE NEW DEVELOPMENT IS TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. There was also a discussion about that, again, this plan, the initiatives in this plan would not authorize this. So if the plan was adopted as is with this initiative included in it, it would still require a text amendment for us to authorize staff at an administrative level to approve these types of buildings without street frontage. I believe the public comments largely related to concerns that there would be no notice for these types of projects. And so that was something that was brought up that as part of this second review, if the plan were to be adopted as is, there would be a subsequent review where those types of things could be considered in terms of noticing how property owners would be alerted to this kind of development.

Where is this stuff in this report, in the text of it?

Sorry, in the plan itself? Yeah. It is in the preservation section of the community plan. And I can pull that up on here too as well.

It's on 239 of our report. Say again? 239. Out of 258?

Yeah. I also wanted to mention that I saw when I saw the accessory commercial unit that little part of the report how this is a residential it's mostly residential but there's space for little buildings I love that I think that's a great idea and the avenues feels like the type of neighborhood where if there was a coffee shop or a WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, A FLOWER SHOP THAT WAS JUST PART OF THE BLOCK, PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IT REALLY, LIKE THAT SEEMS LIKE APPROPRIATE FOR THE AVENUES, THE PART THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO I LIKED THAT.

AND SORRY, I JUST WENT ALONG WITH THAT WHOLE LONG EXPLANATION WHEN ALL YOU HAD ASKED WAS FOR WHERE THIS WAS IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN.

NO, THAT WAS GOOD. I NEEDED TO KNOW ALL THAT STUFF. And as always, I'm so impressed that this department does this quality of work that you just do it while you're also doing your other jobs. I'm really impressed by it. These reports look so good, and they are so well thought out and really professional. And I'm really proud of you guys. congratulations that's a lot of work and that's a lot of savings too for the city for to not pay somebody else to do it thank you and kudos to our graphic designer who is not here yeah for sure

So in the plan, it's in the growth section. It's initiative number three on page 13 of the PDF.

If you look up on the screen here, it's number three in the initiatives.

And that, as you said, that's not like the end of that discussion. That's kind of like the beginning of that discussion. And an actual text amendment would have to be done and would have to be noticed. And you could consider at that time, are we still noticing things that are administratively approved and that kind of stuff? Yes.

OK. That sounds good.

Anyone else? OK. Well, I would like to echo that this looks great. And thank you guys for all your hard work. And if someone would like to make a motion.

I'll make a motion. Based on the information presented in this discussion, I move that the commission recommend that the city council adopt this petition.

Second.

All right. We have a motion and a second. Go ahead and vote.

COMMISSIONER BURROWS? YES. YES. COMMISSIONER LOVERETT? COMMISSIONER LOVERETT? YES. YES.

COMMISSIONER ROSENFIELD?

COMMISSIONER ROSENFIELD? YES. YES.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT?

COMMISSIONER SCOTT? YES.

YES. COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN?

COMMISSIONER SULLIVAN? YES.

YES. THAT PASSES. THAT PASSES. THAT PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT IS THE END OF OUR THAT IS THE END OF OUR THAT IS THE END OF OUR MEETING. MEETING. MEETING. THANK YOU, EVERYONE. THANK YOU, EVERYONE. THANK YOU, EVERYONE. CAN I SAY REALLY QUICKLY, CAN I SAY REALLY QUICKLY, CAN I SAY REALLY QUICKLY, SCHOOL STARTS FOR SALT LAKE SCHOOL STAR