Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO GO ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO GO ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. AHEAD AND GET STARTED. AHEAD AND GET STARTED.

WE'LL OPEN BY TAKING ROLL. WE'LL OPEN BY TAKING ROLL. WE'LL OPEN BY TAKING ROLL. JEFFREY BARRETT. JEFFREY BARRETT.

JEFFREY BARRETT.

HERE. HERE. HERE. AMY BURROWS.

AMY BURROWS.

AMY BURROWS. HERE. HERE. LYLA ROSENFIELD.

LYLA ROSENFIELD. LYLA ROSENFIELD. HERE. HERE. HERE. BRIAN SCOTT. BRIAN SCOTT. BRIAN SCOTT. HERE. HERE. THAT'S A QUORUM.

THAT'S A QUORUM. THAT'S A QUORUM. ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. AS THE CHAIR, I DO NOT HAVE AS THE CHAIR, I DO NOT HAVE

Yes, a couple updates. So if the commissioners opted into the stipend awards, this would affect you. Everyone gets $40 per meeting, and there used to be a $500 cap. There's now a $1,000 cap. So this won't affect your stipend running out halfway through the year like it did before. And this change went into effect on July 1st. And then Ben Raskin was appointed to the Planning Commission yesterday. He will represent District 7. And we are currently interviewing potential District 2 commissioners. And we're still accepting applications. And that's all we have.

Great, thank you.

Thank you.

We'll move to our open forum. So this is for commissioners to bring up anything they would like to discuss that's not directly tied to a specific item on the agenda. So we have about 10 minutes for that. Is there anything anyone would like to discuss? All right, then we will move right along to the consent agenda, which is the approval of the minutes for August 12, 2026.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR AUGUST 12, 2026. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR AUGUST 12, 2026.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR AUGUST 12, 2026. GOT A MOTION, ANY SECOND? GOT A MOTION, ANY SECOND? GOT A MOTION, ANY SECOND? I WASN'T HERE.

I WASN'T HERE. I WASN'T HERE. WERE YOU NOT HERE, AMY? WERE YOU NOT HERE, AMY? WERE YOU NOT HERE, AMY?

I THINK EVEN IF YOU'VE READ I THINK EVEN IF YOU'VE READ I THINK EVEN IF YOU'VE READ THEM, THEN YOU CAN STILL. THEM, THEN YOU CAN STILL.

THEM, THEN YOU CAN STILL. WELL, I'M HAPPY TO SECOND WELL, I'M HAPPY TO SECOND WELL

I don't see the minutes for August 12th. They're not on the web page. I'm not sure. I haven't read them because I don't see them.

They're there.

They're up. I can't vote because I haven't read them because I don't see them.

Well, we've got a motion and a second.

OK. Commissioner Barrett?

Sure. I'll vote yes.

Commissioner Burrows? I ABSTAIN BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THE MINUTES.

COMMISSIONER ROSENFELD?

YES.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT?

YES.

PASS.

ALL RIGHT. THEN WE WILL MOVE TO OUR FIRST REGULAR ITEM AGENDA WHICH IS THE DESIGNATION OF GILGALL SCULPTURE GARDEN AS A LANDMARK SITE AT APPROXIMATELY 749 EAST, 500 SOUTH.

Good evening, members of the commission. This is a request. Will you hit the button so that it just goes up there? Oh, sorry. I thought it was up there.

Thank you.

Let's go back. I want you to see my first slide. This is a request for the designation of a local landmark site. It's for the Gilgal Sculpture Garden, which is located at 749 East, 500 South. Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the map amendment request and subsequently the local landmark designation. Again, this is the location. This is just kind of northeast of Trolley Square. It's currently zoned open space. There's a tiny little portion that you can see here where the cursor's located that is zoned RMF 35, and that's a result of a boundary adjustment that occurred in the past to include some of the features of the park into the park itself. And I'm going to back up. I forgot to say something. I'm going to start out just like I did for the Landmark Commission. If you have not read the historic site form that was prepared by Adrian White, it is absolutely fascinating. And I would highly recommend it. If you haven't read the whole thing, do it.

It's really interesting.

So the site history is a vision of Thomas Battersby Child Jr., and he was a former masonry contractor and bishop of the Jesus Christ Church of Latter-day Saints 10th Ward. The property is already currently in a National Register District. It's a contributing structure or contributing site here. in the district, and the property consists of 16 sculpture groupings, 30 engraved stones, and over 70 engraved floor stones that represent various figures and themes from the Bible and the Book of Mormon, as well as other religious, philosophical, literary, and patriotic inspiration. Work in the gardens began in 1945 when Child was 57 years old and continued to his death. IN 1963. SO THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ART INSTALLATION OF THE PROPERTY IS 1945 TO 1963. The designation of the Sculpture Garden is warranted because it's the state's only visionary art environment. It's significant in local, regional, state, and even national history in architecture, engineering, or culture. And it's associated with the lives of persons of significance in the history of the city and the state. It's very distinctive in the characteristics of the type. period or method of construction, or the work of a notable architect or master craftsman, which Child was. And the sculpture garden retains historic integrity in terms of location, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. So in essence, this meets all the standards and consideration factors for a map amendment and local designation, as I've noted for you in the staff report. The local historic designation criteria is Chapter 21A51-40. Requests are evaluated on historic significance, integrity, eligibility to be on the National Register, which it already is, and established planning policies. The crux of this evening is for you to look at a zoning map amendment in order to recommend that the City Council adopt the H historic preservation overlay zone for this particular property. Again, we recommend that you forward a positive recommendation to the city council to approve the local landmarks designation request for the Gilgal Sculpture Garden. On August 6th, the Historic Landmark Commission heard this request and they voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation as well. So again, your role tonight is to recognize that the Landmark Commission has made the determination that this is something worth listing individually as a local site and then whether or not it is appropriate to impose the historic preservation overlay zone and if that is done and then the city council adopts that then any sort of modifications to the site or any structures, sculptures, what have you within that area would be subject to review for any sort of modifications. So that's all I have for you. If you have any questions, I'm happy to try to answer those.

Does the historical preservation overlay match exactly the borders of this property?

Yeah, it would reflect the legal description.

Does it have any effect on adjoining properties?

No.

Thank you.

ARE THERE ANY KNOCK ON EFFECTS ON ADJOINING PROPERTIES? ADJOINING PROPERTIES? ADJOINING PROPERTIES? I KNOW A COUPLE MONTHS AGO WE I KNOW A COUPLE MONTHS AGO WE I KNOW A COUPLE MONTHS AGO WE APPROVED SOMETHING FOR I THINK IT APPROVED SOMETHING FOR I THINK IT APPROVED SOMETHING FOR I THINK IT WAS JUST MIXED USE DISTRICTS AND WAS JUST MIXED USE DISTRICTS AND WAS JUST MIXED USE DISTRICTS AND THERE WAS A MENTION ALSO IN THE THERE WAS A MENTION ALSO IN THE THERE WAS A MENTION ALSO IN THE COMMENTS. COMMENTS. COMMENTS. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. CAN YOU START OVER? CAN YOU START OVER? CAN YOU START OVER LIKE I DO KNOW THAT WE DID APPROVE SOME LIMITATIONS TO APPROVE SOME LIMITATIONS TO APPROVE SOME LIMITATIONS TO ADJOINING PROPERTIES FOR CERTAIN ADJOINING PROPERTIES FOR CERTAIN ADJOINING PROPERTIES FOR CERTAIN BUILDINGS WITH LANDMARK STATUS. BUILDINGS WITH LANDMARK STATUS. BUILDINGS WITH LANDMARK STATUS.

DO YOU KNOW IF ANY OF THE CURRENT DO YOU KNOW IF ANY OF THE CURRENT DO YOU KNOW IF ANY OF THE CURRENT ADJOINING PROPERTIES WOULD BE ADJOINING PROPERTIES WOULD BE ADJOINING PROPERTIES WOULD BE AFFECTED IN ANY WAY BY THIS? AFFECTED IN ANY WAY BY THIS? AFFECTED IN ANY WAY BY THIS? NO. NO. NO. OKAY.

OK

What's up? Oh, sorry. Okay. I'm sorry. My bad.

Hi, my name is Adrienne White. I conducted the research for the Historic Site Forum. This is Judy Short. She is the president of the Friends of Gilgal Garden board and nonprofit. so if you have any questions for us about anything i think the the question that commissioner rosenfield brought up is a conversation that the friends of gilgal garden is having in particular the chukarama uh parcel that's just north of gilgal garden there is concern that if there aren't conditions put on that parcel that there could be negative impacts on the garden itself. So a conversation about conditions that you might want to recommend as a commission for the preservation of the garden is appreciated by the Friends of Gilgal Garden.

EXCUSE ME. THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO DISCUSS. WHAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU IS THE APPLICATION AND THE APPROVAL, WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO MOVE THAT FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE MATTER THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME IN UNDER A DIFFERENT APPLICATION.

PERFECT. THANK YOU.

WAS THERE, DO YOU GUYS HAVE A PRESENTATION OR ANYTHING?

WE DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION. JUST IF YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS AFTER REVIEWING THE STAFF REPORT, WE WERE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. And I was just responding to the question about public comment. So I'm not trying to do anything inappropriate here. I apologize.

We'll go ahead and hear from Cindy Crummer.

Okay. Thank you.

My name is still Cindy Cromer and I have never been a board member for the Friends of Gallagher, but I have been a hanger on for almost 30 years fretting over the preservation of this space. So to keep it short, The city added step backs for new development adjacent to city register sites in the downtown area. This change got passed me, I wasn't participating. When this benefit for city register sites was proposed in the MU plus zones, as the commissioner indicated, I was paying attention. And now I'm pointing out that there's no benefit for city register sites zoned open space. the benefit is based solely on registered buildings not sites next to the mu 5 and higher zoning the short version is that you and the landmarks commission are leaving the probable new construction next to gilgal to the fire marshal you and the landmark commission won't have any input Unlike the Landmark Commission, you could initiate a petition at a subsequent meeting. You could direct the staff to deal with this. What can I do? I can go to the mayor. This is her nomination. i can go to the handful of developers like cowboy partners who i think would do a good job of respecting the garden and ask them to get a right of first refusal on the chukarama parcel if they possibly could and i can continue to complain that the fire marshal should not be in charge of compatible infill urban design or historic preservation at all ever thanks

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this topic? Yeah. Go ahead and state your name and you'll have two minutes.

Hello, my name is Whitney Robinson from Preservation, Utah, and just want to echo the presentation that was very finely given already, and he covered the points that I was going to make. And just in addition to that, just to state that while Gilgal is trying for national register status, as we know, that doesn't offer a whole lot of protection. So this landmark status would go ahead and provide that protection for safety against future redevelopment in the area. So thank you so much. We appreciate you hearing us.

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

If you guys can stay up there in case we do have a question.

Thank you.

I don't have a lot to say except that I think that it makes sense to approve this application. I don't see any reason why we wouldn't do it. And it sounds like there may be some judgment by the community that more needs to be done. I don't pretend to completely understand that issue, but I'd be happy to learn more in future. But I think that I don't see any reason why we wouldn't approve this application as made today. Curious to hear from others.

Yeah, I just want to slow down to ensure. And could staff come back up? Um. I WANT TO SLOW DOWN TO ENSURE I I WANT TO SLOW DOWN TO ENSURE I I WANT TO SLOW DOWN TO ENSURE I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS CHANGING BECAUSE THIS SITE IS CHANGING BECAUSE THIS SITE IS CHANGING BECAUSE THIS SITE IS ALREADY OWNED BY THE CITY, ALREADY OWNED BY THE CITY, ALREADY OWNED BY THE CITY, CORRECT? CORRECT? CORRECT? IT'S OWNED BY THE CITY, IT'S IT'S OWNED BY THE CITY, IT'S IT'S OWNED BY THE CITY, IT'S A CITY PARK. A CITY PARK. A CITY PARK. RIGHT. RIGHT. RIGHT. IT'S OWNED BY THE CITY. IT'S OWNED BY THE CITY.

Yeah, so the H Historic Preservation District is an overlay. And should it be realized there, again, any sort of modifications, alterations to the site, to the sculptures, to any sort of structures there would come to city staff for review for historic appropriateness. And we would issue a certificate of appropriateness for those types of changes. So that's the protection that it affords.

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WHILE THE CITY WOULD BE, THE CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD BE OBLIGATED TO MAINTAIN IT AS A PARK, THEY COULD THEORETICALLY CHANGE THE STRUCTURES OR THE SCULPTURE OR THE NATURE OF THE SITE WITHOUT THE PROTECTION.

THEY COULD DO THAT NOW, YES.

AND THAT IS WHAT THIS IS DESIGNED TO PREVENT.

YES, WE WANT TO AVOID ANY SORT OF INAPPROPRIATE, ANY SORT OF INAPPROPRIATE

modifications that are not historically appropriate understood thank you you're welcome uh would this interfere with um the ability to to i guess uh ensure that the site is appropriately weatherized doesn't decay over time

I MEAN IF THOSE THINGS OCCUR AND THIS IS REALIZED AND THE PARKS DEPARTMENT COULD SAY WE NEED TO FIX THE ROOF ON THE BOWERY OR YOU KNOW WHATEVER. ABSOLUTELY. WE WOULD REVIEW THAT AND HOWEVER THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT IS HISTORICALLY APPROPRIATE.

THAT MAKES SENSE. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

I MEAN, I'LL JUST THROW IN, I ALSO AGREE THAT I THINK WE SHOULD GO AHEAD WITH THIS, BUT IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS OR WE CAN HEAR A MOTION?

GO AHEAD. SURE?

OKAY. BASED ON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THE DISCUSSION, I MOVE THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THIS PETITION.

I'LL SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

COMMISSIONER BURRITT?

YES.

YES. COMMISSIONER ROSENFIELD? COMMISSIONER ROSENFIELD? YES.

YES. COMMISSIONER SCOTT?

COMMISSIONER SCOTT? YES.

YES. PASS.

PASS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM NEXT WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM NEXT WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER 3, THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NUMBER 3, THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NUMBER 3, THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AT APPROXIMATELY 715 SOUTH AT APPROXIMATELY 715 SOUTH

Okay, sorry, I'm just checking the mic first. Let me know when you guys are ready.

Yeah, go ahead, thank you.

Okay, this is for a zoning map amendment at 715 South Gudgel Court. The property currently is RMF 30. The applicant is proposing to rezone it to RMF 35. And staff's recommendation is for approval with conditions that the two units that they would like to build be for sale. Some background on the property. It's currently vacant. There's some off-street parking being used by the adjacent property. If it were to be developed, they wouldn't be using that parking anymore. It's a small lot. It's a little over 3,000 square feet. And then just for more context, the applicant's narrative, they haven't submitted any formal plans with this rezone request, but they've submitted the intent to build two units on this property. A little more context on the neighborhood, it's in the central community, which acts as a transitional area, has a variety of housing types, including single-family homes, townhomes, duplexes, apartment complexes, you name it. This property specifically fronts Gudgel Court, which is a small court that's in between a large block. AND THESE PROPERTIES ON THIS STREET HAVE SMALL FRONT YARDS AND LIMITED OFF STREET PARKING. A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT ON THE PARCEL ITSELF. IN THE BLUE ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE THAT'S 715 SOUTH GUDGILL COURT. THAT'S THE PARCEL THAT'S BEING REQUESTED TO BE REZONED TODAY. IN 2023, IT WAS ACTUALLY SUBDIVIDED FROM A LARGER LOT. AND SO YOU CAN SEE IN THE GRAPHIC THAT IT USED TO BE A PART OF ANOTHER LOT THAT HAD A HISTORIC BUILDING ON IT. DURING THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS, THEY WERE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THAT BUILDING IN ORDER TO GET THE SUBDIVISION APPROVED. AND THE INTENT AT THE TIME OF THAT SUBDIVISION WAS TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE NEWLY CREATED LOTS. THEY ALSO AT THE TIME DID REZONE THE LOTS FROM RMF 35 TO RMF 30. SO THIS REQUEST IS TO REZONE IT BACK TO ITS PREVIOUS ZONING. AND SO THE CONTEXT AND REASONING BEHIND WHY THEY REZONED IT TO RMF 30 AT THE TIME WAS THAT RMF 30 WOULD ALLOW FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT THEY WANTED TO BUILD IN THE PROPOSED LOTS THAT YOU CAN SEE FOR LOT 3 AND 2. NOW THERE'S RECENTLY BEEN CHANGES IN DECEMBER OF 2025 TO THE RMF 35 ZONE. WHICH HAS REDUCED MINIMUM LOT WHICH HAS REDUCED MINIMUM LOT SIZES, ADDED NEW STANDARDS, SIZES, ADDED NEW STANDARDS, ELIMINATED LOT WIDTHS AND MADE ELIMINATED LOT WIDTHS AND MADE IT EASIER TO DEVELOP ON. IT EASIER TO DEVELOP ON. SO NOW THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO SO NOW THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO REZONE IT BACK BECAUSE OF THE MORE REZONE IT BACK BECAUSE OF THE MORE PERMISSIBLE STANDARDS IN THE So just looking at some key considerations, it generally lines with Plan Salt Lake in the Central Community Plan. The Future Land Use Map in the Central Community Plan outlines this area as medium density. Both RMF 30 and RMF 35 fall under medium density, so they're both considered appropriate for this area. More so, the amendment aligns with Housing SLC and Thriving in Place, which calls for an increase in housing supply. AND THEN HERE'S SOME MORE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT. AND THEN HERE'S SOME MORE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT. IN THE TOP LEFT YOU CAN SEE IN THE TOP LEFT YOU CAN SEE THAT'S THE ENTRANCE TO GOVIL COURT THAT'S THE ENTRANCE TO GOVIL COURT AND THEN THE HOME ON THE LEFT AND THEN THE HOME ON THE LEFT THAT'S THE ONE THAT WAS PRESERVED THAT'S THE ONE THAT WAS PRESERVED DURING THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS. DURING THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS. THERE'S A VARIETY OF HOUSING THERE'S A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES ON THE STREET. TYPES ON THE STREET. YOU CAN SEE IN THE BOTTOM LEFT YOU CAN SEE IN THE BOTTOM LEFT THAT'S ACTUALLY A QUAD PLEX. THAT'S ACTUALLY A QU And then here's the zoning map. As you can see, the entirety of the block, other than these three parcels, are zoned RMF 35. So those three parcels that used to be one and then were split were rezoned RMF 30 in 2023. Now just the singular parcel is being requested to be rezoned back to RMF 35. So the two north of it wouldn't be changed. AND THEN I THINK I MENTIONED MOST OF THIS BUT THE LOTS ARE MOST OF THIS BUT THE LOTS ARE MOST OF THIS BUT THE LOTS ARE RELATIVELY SMALL AND THERE'S A RELATIVELY SMALL AND THERE'S A RELATIVELY SMALL AND THERE'S A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AND VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AND VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES AND IT'S A PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL IT'S A PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL IT'S A PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL ZONE OTHER THAN A CHURCH ON THE ZONE OTHER THAN A CHURCH ON THE ONE OF THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCES FOR THE REASONING FOR WHY THEY ARE PROPOSING TO ARM OF 35 IS THE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF ARM OF 35. BECAUSE THE LOT DOESN'T MEET 4,000 SQUARE FEET, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT A ROW HOUSE WHICH REQUIRES 2,000 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT. THEY ONLY HAVE ENOUGH FOR ONE YOU ALSO WOULD NEED A MINIMUM OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET FOR A TWO-FAMILY YOU ALSO WOULD NEED A MINIMUM OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET FOR A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING WHICH THEY DON'T MEET DWELLING WHICH THEY DON'T MEET THAT REQUIREMENT IN RMF 30. THAT REQUIREMENT IN RMF 30. SO RIGHT NOW THE RMF 30 LIMITS SO RIGHT NOW THE RMF 30 LIMITS THEM TO A SINGLE FAMILY THEM TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. DWELLING. RMF 35, HOWEVER, HAS SMALLER RMF 35, HOWEVER, HAS SMALLER SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENTS FOR SQUARE FOOT REQUIREMENTS FOR ROWHOUSES, MULTI-FAMILY, ROWHOUSES, MULTI-FAMILY, RESID Applicants for zoning amendment must provide a community benefit. Their provided community benefit was to have for sale housing. These wouldn't be rentals. We would have a condition for them to be for sale. I provided a little information. The central community you can see has a higher percentage of renters than Salt Lake on average. So there is a critical need for for sale housing in the central community. The standards that were reviewed were the map amendment standards and the community benefit standards. And then from the public comment, there were two that were opposed and then there was one in favor with conditions. And then again, staff is recommending approval with the condition that those two units that be developed be for sale to meet that community benefit. And then that's anything, if any questions, just let me know.

Any clarifying questions?

And the applicant is here if you have any questions for the applicant as well.

Does the applicant have a presentation or? I don't think so.

No, he doesn't.

Okay. We'd still like you to join us up here in case we have any questions for you. If you can come join us at the front table. And then we will go ahead and open up for public comment. Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this project? Okay, and we'll go ahead and close public comment and bring it back to us for discussion or motion.

The community benefit is still to be determined and that will be determined with city council when they rezone, is that true?

so what they proposed for the community benefit was to offer for sale housing city council could impose more community benefits or change it or not accept it so they could change at any point if they don't feel it's sufficient enough but that is what's their proposed community benefit

How does a community benefit of for sale housing, how does that work? Who has to buy it? What if somebody buys it and then rents it? You know what I mean? How does that work? How far does it go? Have we done that before? Does it work out?

I think that would be an attorney question maybe.

I CAN TAKE IT. COUNCIL HAS BROUGHT UP THE QUESTION BEFORE OF CAN THEY REQUIRE OWNER OCCUPANCY WITH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR FOR SALE UNITS AND TECHNICALLY THEY CAN. THEY HAVEN'T IMPOSED THAT AS OF YET WITH A COMMUNITY BENEFIT BUT IF THAT IS NOT IMPOSED THEORETICALLY SOMEBODY COULD BUY THE UNIT AND RENT IT. So, I mean, they could add that condition at the city council level.

But that's not a decision for us anyway. We just say we agree with rezoning it because it meets these standards and you will determine the community benefit at a later time. Or not you, city council will determine the community benefit.

It is within your purview to recommend that they add that as a condition. You wouldn't be approving that, but it is in your purview to suggest that.

When you say to suggest that, do you mean make it a condition of our... We can't make it a... I just want to understand what you mean by that. Go ahead. It wouldn't be a condition of our approval. It would just be a recommendation to the council.

So you can make a recommendation to city council to approve and you can also make a recommendation to them that with that approval that they revisit the community benefit. Is that the question that you're asking? Yes.

Yeah.

HAVING READ THROUGH THE PETITION, HAVING READ THROUGH THE PETITION, IT LOOKS LIKE THE FIRE IT LOOKS LIKE THE FIRE IT LOOKS LIKE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS SOME CONCERNS DEPARTMENT HAS SOME CONCERNS DEPARTMENT HAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT ABOUT THE ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT ABOUT THE ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT ANYTHING HERE. ANYTHING HERE. ANYTHING HERE.

HAS THE APPLICANT BEEN ABLE TO HAS THE APPLICANT BEEN ABLE TO HAS THE APPLICANT BEEN ABLE TO REVIEW THOSE COMMENTS? REVIEW THOSE COMMENTS? REVIEW THOSE COMMENTS? YEAH, SO HE ACTUALLY SPOKE YEAH, SO HE ACTUALLY SPOKE YEAH, SO HE ACTUALLY SPOKE WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND WITH THE SO WHEN THE BUILDING PLANS ARE PROPOSED THEY'LL HAVE TO WORK PROPOSED THEY'LL HAVE TO WORK PROPOSED THEY'LL HAVE TO WORK WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THEY CAN OFFER CERTAIN THEY CAN OFFER CERTAIN THEY CAN OFFER CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS ON CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS ON CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS ON CERTAIN STREETS. STREETS. STREETS.

THERE ALREADY IS HOUSING ON THIS THERE ALREADY IS HOUSING ON THIS THERE ALREADY IS HOUSING ON THIS STREET AND THERE'S SOME STREET AND THERE'S SOME STREET AND THERE'S SOME DIFFICULTY WITH IT. DIFFICULTY WITH IT. DIFFICULTY WITH IT. BUT I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE IF NOBODY ELSE HAS FURTHER COMMENTS. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE IF NOBODY ELSE HAS FURTHER COMMENTS. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE IF NOBODY ELSE HAS FURTHER COMMENTS. OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL. OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL. OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL. APOLOGIES.

APOLOGIES. APOLOGIES.

GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. LET ME PULL UP THE MOTION SHEET. LET ME PULL UP THE MOTION SHEET. LET ME PULL UP THE MOTION SHEET. BASED ON THE INFORMATION BASED ON THE INFORMATION BASED ON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED AND THE DISCUSSION, I PRESENTED AND THE

HAVE A MOTION? ANY SECOND? I'M HAPPY TO SECOND IT. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

COMMISSIONER BARRETT?

YES.

COMMISSIONER BURROWS? YES. COMMISSIONER ROSENFIELD?

YES.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT?

YES.

PASS.

AWESOME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, GUYS.

And then we will move on to item number four, the zoning text amendment for gas stations.

It's under that box, too. Oh, you got it. OK, sorry.

Good afternoon, commissioners. This is a text amendment to the gas station provisions correction text amendment, which was adopted in January of last year. This is a city-initiated petition to amend sections of our zoning ordinance to correct the numbering, cross-reference related, and clerical errors to the provisions related to gas stations. The applicable sections are our land use tables and a minor error in the actual section of gas station provisions. City staff is recommending that Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to City Council. so as i mentioned in january of 2025 the city adopted some amendments and some amendments to the gas station provisions and the land use table section was left out leading to a few minor clerical errors in the codification Most notably, the qualifying provisions in our land use tables got misnumbered and some of the numbers got put in just incorrect places. So what this text amendment does is it fixes those, makes sure that where gas stations are in the land use table, They are always pointing to a provision that points back to Section 21A36.120, which are the regulations for gas stations and facilities with underground and above ground fuel storage tanks. Another correction this text amendment does, I have highlighted down here where this says, for sites described in 21A36, currently I think it points to 21A36120.C1, and it is supposed to point to B1. So amending that as well. As I mentioned, we are recommending that you forward a positive recommendation to the city council for this text amendment. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Great.

Any clarifying questions?

All right. There's no applicant presentation. So I will go ahead and open for public comment. Is there anyone who would like to speak on this topic? Seeing none, I'll close public comment and bring it back to us for discussion or a motion.

I'll make a motion.

I ACTUALLY DO HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. DO YOU REALLY? I DO. SORRY. NO. NO. SO I'M NOTICING THAT THE TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS, GAS STATIONS ARE PERMITTED FOR D2, D3, AND D4. IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH THE PREVIOUS, THE AS ADOPTED VERSION OF THIS TEXT?

YES, THIS TEXT AMENDMENT DOES NOT CHANGE ANYWHERE THAT GAS STATIONS ARE NOW ALLOWED WHERE THEY WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY. OKAY. IT JUST CORRECTS THE NUMBERING.

GOT YOU. THANK YOU. YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION IF YOU WOULD LIKE.

THIS IS BAD. I WANT TO TAKE OFF MY GLASSES. BASED ON THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THE DISCUSSION, I MOVE THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THIS PETITION.

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

COMMISSIONER BURRITT.

YES.

COMMISSIONER BURROWS. YES. COMMISSIONER ROSENFIELD.

YEP.

COMMISSIONER SCOTT.

YES.

PATH.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I HAVE AN ITEM I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS. I CAN'T MAKE THE MOTION. I WOULD LIKE TO RECONSIDER A MOTION THAT PASSED DURING THIS MEETING BECAUSE YOU CAN DO THAT DURING THE SAME MEETING. BUT I CAN'T MAKE THE MOTION BECAUSE I DIDN'T VOTE WITH THE MAJORITY BECAUSE I ABSTAINED. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT OR ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE MINUTES. SO IF WE NEED AN OFFICIAL RECONSIDER A MOTION, MAYBE ONE OF YOU WHO VOTED FOR THE MINUTES COULD MAKE THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER THAT OR WE COULD JUST TALK ABOUT IT.

LET'S TALK ABOUT IT AND THEN WE'LL MAKE A MOTION MAYBE. WE'LL MAKE A MOTION MAYBE.

IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION, DO WE HAVE TO DISCUSSION, DO WE HAVE TO REOPEN THE COMMISSIONER COMMENT REOPEN THE COMMISSIONER COMMENT SECTION? SECTION? THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. MY POINT IS PRETTY SIMPLE. MY POINT IS PRETTY SIMPLE. ON THE REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ON THE REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS THE... TWO, WHICH IS THE... I HAVE THE WRONG MINUTES OPEN. I HAVE THE WRONG MINUTES OPEN. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO,

COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND JAILS?

COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES AND JAILS? NO, NOT THAT MEETING.

NO, NOT THAT MEETING. CONDITIONAL USE AND PLAN CONDITIONAL USE AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT AT 2200 SOUTH DEVELOPMENT AT 2200 SOUTH HIGHLAND.

HIGHLAND. ON THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT MOTION, ON THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT MOTION, THE MOTION SAYS THAT COMMISSIONER THE MOTION SAYS THAT COMMISSIONER BURRELL MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE BURRELL MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND DENY THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND DENY THE OPEN SPACE MODIFICATION FROM I JUST WANT IT TO BE REALLY CLEAR THAT WHAT WE VOTED ON WAS WE DENIED THE MODIFICATION AND THEREFORE THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IS NOT ALLOWED. I DON'T WANT IT TO SOUND LIKE WE ALLOWED ADDITIONAL HEIGHT. MAYBE THAT'S CLEAR IN THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE MINUTES, BUT I WANT IT TO BE CLEAR.

LET ME GET THERE AND TAKE A LOOK.

SORRY, I DIDN'T FIND THOSE MINUTES UNTIL AFTER THE MEETING STARTED. I APOLOGIZE.

I THINK THAT THEY, ARE YOU JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE INTENT NOT BEING CLEAR?

YES, IT'S NOT CLEAR THAT WE IT SAYS ALLOWING ADDITIONAL HEIGHT WHICH MAKES ME THINK THAT WE DID MEAN TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL HEIGHT AND WE DIDN'T.

DENY THE OPEN SPACE MODIFICATION.

MAYBE THE DENY IN FRONT OF ALL THAT LANGUAGE IS FINE. I JUST WANT IT TO BE REALLY CLEAR. BECAUSE OUR INTENT WAS CLEAR.

I MEAN THE MEETING WAS RECORDED. I MEAN THE MEETING WAS RECORDED. I MEAN THE MEETING WAS RECORDED. ALTHOUGH OBVIOUSLY THE MINUTES ALTHOUGH OBVIOUSLY THE MINUTES ARE THE OFFICIAL QUESTION.

IS THERE A WORD THAT COULD BE ADDED OR DO YOU FEEL LIKE LEGALLY THAT LANGUAGE IS AS CLEAR AS IT MEANT TO BE AND THAT'S ALREADY WHAT'S BEEN COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANT AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF?

I THINK IF WE JUST MADE A SIMPLE CHANGE, IF WE SAID FROM 10% TO 2%, WHICH WOULD ALLOW ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, WOULD THAT CLEAR IT UP SO IT'S SHOWING THE DENIED OPEN SPACE?

I FEEL BETTER ABOUT THAT, YEAH.

SO JUST CHANGE INSTEAD OF ALLOWING ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, WHICH WOULD ALLOW ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.

Okay. I move that we reconsider the approval of the meeting minutes.

I'll second that. Okay.

Go ahead and vote.

Commissioner Barrett. Yes. Commissioner Burroughs. Yes. Commissioner Rosenfield. Yes. Commissioner Scott.

Yes.

Pass.

OKAY. AND THEN I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AND THEN I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FOR THE THE MEETING MINUTES FOR THE PREVIOUS SESSION WITH THE PREVIOUS SESSION WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATION ADDING FOLLOWING MODIFICATION ADDING IN ON PAGE NUMBER FOUR, IN ON PAGE NUMBER FOUR, MODIFYING THE LANGUAGE, MODIFYING THE LANGUAGE, COMMISSIONER BURROWS MADE A COMMISSIONER BURROWS MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT MOTION TO APPROVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND DENY OPEN SPACE AND DENY OPEN SPACE MODIFICATION FROM 10% TO MODIFICATION FROM 10% TO 2% WHICH WOULD HAVE ALLOWED 2% WHICH W

Commissioner Barrett.

Yes.

Commissioner Burroughs. Yes. Commissioner Rosenfield. Yes. Commissioner Scott.

Yes.

Pat. Great. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. And that is all we have for this evening. Our next meeting is September 9th, I believe. Thank you, everyone.