Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We're going to go ahead and get started. I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY JUST AT THE BEGINNING BECAUSE I HAVE A COUPLE COMMENT CARDS HERE FOR THE VAN BUEREN PROJECT. SO THAT PROJECT, THE PUBLIC COMMENT WAS CLOSED AND THEN TABLED AND SO ON THE AGENDA IT SAYS THAT WE AREN'T HAVING ANY MORE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT SO WE WON'T BE OPENING THAT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT THAT HASN'T BEEN SUBMITTED YET, YOU CAN SUBMIT IT ON A CARD AND THAT WILL GET ADDED TO THE RECORD OR THE ACTUAL DECISION THAT WILL BE MADE ABOUT THIS IS MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. And so we encourage you to go and, sorry, not the Planning Commission, that's us, the City Council. And so we encourage you to go to that meeting and have your voices heard there. With that, we will go ahead and take roll.

Jeffrey Barrett.

Here.

Amy Burrows. Here. Richard Leverett.

Here.

Lila Rosenfield.

Here.

Brian Scott.

HERE.

ANNA SULLIVAN. HERE. BEN RASKIN.

HERE.

THAT'S A QUORUM.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL MOVE TO THE REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. THE ONLY THING I HAVE TO REPORT IS THAT WE HAVE A NEW PLANNING, NOW THAT I GOT IT WRONG, I'M IN MY HEAD, PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER JOINING US, BENJAMIN RASKIN FOR DISTRICT 7. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND WELCOME. THANK YOU. I HAVE NOTHING.

THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR? THE REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR? THE ONLY THING THAT I WANTED THE ONLY THING THAT I WANTED TO MENTION, AND THIS ISN'T ON TO MENTION, AND THIS ISN'T ON THE AGENDA, BUT DURING THE THE AGENDA, BUT DURING THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT, WE THOUGHT IT DIRECTOR'S REPORT, WE THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE A GOOD IDEA TO WAS GOING TO BE A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION ON HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION ON PEOPLE'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS PEOPLE'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS WHEN THEY'RE IN PUBLIC HEARINGS WHEN THEY'RE IN PUBLIC HEARINGS LIKE THIS. LIKE THIS. SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FEW SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES, AND CITY ATTORNEY DISCUSS THAT WITH YOU AND SO PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE CAN HEAR IT AS WELL. IT'S ALSO PART OF YOUR MANDATED STATE TRAINING.

Have you used this on your computer before? No. Oh, shoot. Do you need to open it?

I'm just going to... You want to open it?

This?

Mm-hmm.

Somewhere. There it is. Share to your screen. The screen?

Mm-hmm. There you go.

Okay, you ready?

Sorry about the technical difficulties. Thank you for letting me take a few minutes. I just want to do this mini training on planning commission meetings and the First Amendment. I'm going to keep this pretty brief and high level, hopefully just give you the quick information that you need to know in order to navigate some of these thorny issues that can come up when we do have public meetings and public hearings in particular. So we're just going to cover very briefly what speech is protected or not protected under the First Amendment, what speech rights do members of the public have during public hearings, what are the Planning Commission's rules of decorum, and how are violations of those rules handled? What speech is generally protected? So a lot of speech. It's a big umbrella. Offensive speech is generally protected, including profanity. Repugnant speech, hateful speech, speech you don't agree with, and personal opinions. The background to this, of course, is the First Amendment to the Constitution. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. That's a pretty broad directive. So the US Supreme Court has consistently upheld that right. They've said that the function of free speech is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of dissatisfaction with the conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. They said in 1964 that the First Amendment freedoms represent a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide open. And in 1989, if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. So a lot of speech is generally allowed. We'll get into some limitations in this context in a bit. But what speech is not protected? Incitement of imminent lawless action, very legalistic kind of phrase. So this is, you know, speech that must be directed towards a specific person or group, must be a call to commit immediate lawless action, and there must be an expectation that the speech will in fact lead to lawless action. So general calls of, we plan to storm the building, or one of these days the people will rise up and you'll be sorry. Too general, not specific, call to immediate lawless action, and it's probably not a realistic expectation that that's going to happen too imminently. Obscenity, not protected. So think in your mind more like sexual conduct descriptions, displays, things like that, not profanity. Threats. So speaker intends to place you, the commission, a member of staff, or another member of the public present at the meeting in fear of bodily harm, and that the person to which those comments are directed has a reasonable belief that the speech was a threat. Defamation, these are false statements about another person's reputation. Satire is OK. But in a public figure context, you must show that the speaker knew the statements were false and acted with reckless disregard for the truth. So not really something that happens here, fortunately. But that is not a form of protected speech. Actual disruption of a meeting, not possible disruption of a meeting, actual disruption of a meeting. So commissioners can't hear the next speaker. Other speakers are blocked from approaching the microphone or commissioners can't hear other commissioners or staff or applicants presenting. What speech rights does the public have during public hearings? So public hearings are a limited public forum. So you have traditional public forums. Make your speech on the sidewalk, the public square, those are traditional public forums. This is a limited public forum. They occur on property owned by the government. That is not a traditional public forum that the government has intentionally opened up to the public for use by certain groups of people or for discussion of certain limited topics. So that is the situation we have here. We have opened up these chambers not to have a wide-ranging discussion about any topic that someone wants to discuss. It is about the items on the agenda. And we have only certain items, you know, according to city code and the policies and procedures that have public hearings associated with them. Content-based restrictions are permitted in limited public forum. So example is allowing the discussion of only the item on which a public hearing is being held and not on other topics. Must still be viewpoint neutral, so must allow all speakers to speak both for and against that topic, not just one side or the other. Reasonable viewpoint neutral limitations are permitted, such as a time limit per speaker, speaker order, but restrictions must be enforced equally. So the Planning Commission's Rules of Decorum, sorry for all of the text on this slide, but these are, I wanted to print for you, or print, haha, put on the slide for you the complete list of the Rules of Decorum, so I just want to refresh everyone's recollection about what those are. So these are in place for people to feel safe and comfortable in participating in their government. A respectful and safe environment allows a meeting to be conducted in an orderly, effective, efficient, and dignified fashion free from distraction, intimidation, and threats to safety. Failure to follow these rules may result in removal from the meeting. Security officers may ask participants to open any large bags, purses, or backpacks for inspection and may also request changes to placement of recording equipment or other props to help facilitate the meeting. If you have written remarks, documents, or other materials for the commission to review, please do not approach the dais. Instead, submit them to staff who will distribute the items on your behalf. Generally, props and equipment are not allowed. If you have a prop or piece of equipment integral to a presentation, please clear its use with a staff member or security officer if needed before entering the meeting room. Signs are permitted so long as they do not cause disruption, block the view of others, or impair the commission's ability to make a record of the meeting. Sticks or dowels are not allowed. Jeering, cheering, clapping, stomping feet, yelling, whistling, or using obscene words or gestures may intimidate other speakers and cause a disruption. Such activities are not permitted during the meeting. Historic elements in meeting rooms must be respected. Feet must be kept off furniture, avoid leaning against or touching paintings and other decor, and no food or drinks are allowed in the formal council chamber, room 315, which we are currently using this meeting as overflow. So why do we have these rules? It sets out pretty clearly in the beginning of the rules of decorum in the policies and procedures. To enable a meeting to be conducted in an orderly, efficient, effective, and dignified fashion allows ideas and viewpoints to be shared free from distraction, intimidation, and threats to safety, and to provide a place where people of differing viewpoints can feel safe participating in their government. And how should the commission handle violations of these rules? Decorum violations and just general management on decorum is the responsibility of the chair, and that's in Rule 6A of our policies and procedures, that it is the chair's obligation to, quote, maintain order and decorum at the meetings of the commission. So the next step would be to identify the rule violated on the record. So an example, you have exceeded your two-minute time limit on your comment. Please stand aside. Or you are speaking off topic about... Topic X, which is not the subject of this public hearing, please confine your comments to only this item on the agenda. Or identifying how someone is disrupting the meeting and how it is impacting the ability for the meeting to function. You would then direct the speaker to cease the rule of violation. Of course, this needs to be enforced consistently. You should warn people in the meeting that violating the rules of decorum may result in them being removed from the room or the meeting being halted and continued at another time. If the violations persist, then consider if just one or two individuals need to be removed or if the meeting needs to be adjourned to a different day. Announce your decision and state on the record what rule violations you observed, how many warnings you gave, and why you decided to remove speakers or adjourn the meeting. And then just some final thoughts. Not all rule violations have to be treated the same. A single instance of cheering, jeering can and should be treated differently than threats of physical violence. The commission can and should take immediate action when presented with actual threats to the safety of commissioners, city staff, or other individuals attending the meeting. Rules must be enforced equally. Speakers you agree with cannot get two and a half minutes, while speakers you don't only get two. If you are personally offended by any comments that are made, you can turn your chair or leave the room, assuming we maintain a quorum. Just because conduct is annoying doesn't make it a rule violation. And be judicious. Interrupting and responding to speakers that are violating the rules can further inflame rather than getting a meeting back on track. Use breaks if needed. And if you are not sure if a rule violation has occurred, let the speech continue. Happy to answer any questions. Just wanted to have, again, a very brief mini training on this since we haven't had one.

No. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We will. Next we'll have our open forum. So this is a 10-minute section for commissioners to bring up any issues or thoughts they have that aren't directly tied to an item on the agenda. Is there anything that anyone has this week? All right. Then we will move on to the consent agenda. OUR CONSENT AGENDA HAS TWO ITEMS ON IT, THE APPROVAL FOR THE MINUTES FOR AUGUST 26, 2026, AND THE DESIGN REVIEW FOR SILO PARK AT APPROXIMATELY 522 SOUTH, 400 WEST. SO I WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW, IF ANYONE IS HERE TO SPEAK ON THAT. SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THAT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.

I'd make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Second.

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

Commissioner Raskin.

Abstain.

Commissioner Sullivan. Yes. Commissioner Scott.

Yes.

Commissioner Rosenfield.

Yes.

Commissioner Leverett.

Yes.

Commissioner Burroughs.

Yes. And I would also like to note that I appreciated the report that Planner Seeley wrote. It was very good. I appreciate it a lot. And also, particularly the note that she put on the comments from the transportation department where she said, these have been discussed. They've been resolved. I really appreciate that. So I didn't have to ask that question. Thank you. Yes. Commissioner Barrett.

Yes.

Pass.

Great. Next, we will move on to our regular agenda. So item three, the zoning map amendment at approximately 1379 and 1395 West Van Buren and 1384 West Harris. And just again, like it's called out on the agenda and I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, but I've gotten a couple more cards. There isn't a public hearing for this. Thanks.

Yeah, we need a password, please. We are also disconnected from the city network and the iDrive.

Yeah, it's disconnected. Sorry for the technical difficulties, guys. Give us a sec.

All right, let's get going. This is the continuation of the zoning map amendment request at 1395 West Van Buren. Just a quick little recap. You, the Planning Commission, heard this at the July 8th meeting. The item was tabled to allow staff and applicants to review potential modifications or conditions of approval. The conditions of approval that are on the staff report today are largely similar to those at the July 8th meeting. For some background, the zoning map requests currently, they are R17,000, single family. They are requesting to go to RMF 30, low density residential. Staff does recommend a positive recommendation with conditions, and we'll get to those conditions a little bit later. The three properties total about one and a quarter acre. The blue house on the top image there is proposed to remain. The brick house has been demolished. Neighborhood context, like I said, predominantly R17000 single-family zoning, but they are in a pretty walkable area with quite a few amenities, including Glendale Middle and Mountain View Elementary, both about a half mile away. The Glendale Regional Park that is partially finished and continuing to be constructed is right across 1700 South. And you also have the Jordan River Trail nearby. The applicants have revised their proposal. All units will be two-plus bedrooms. They are proposing a 40% lot coverage. The RMF30 district does allow 50% lot coverage, but they are proposing to remain at 40%, which is identical to the R17000 district. They are proposing pitched roofs only and limiting their height to 30 feet max. They are also proposing buffer yards and to keep the parking requirements without modifying those. And then we've also come to an agreement with the conditions of approval that no additional density via the affordable housing incentives to try to keep the impact on the neighborhood small. Their community benefit has not changed. At the July 8th meeting, it was affordable for sale housing. It still is affordable for sale housing. And on community benefits, it is council's responsibility. They have the final authority regarding any public benefit. They may accept the proposed benefit, modify the benefit, or require a different public benefit, or they could waive it altogether based on the merits of the proposal. A little refresher on the development potential between the R17 and RMF30 district. Via various different processes, they could get up to 28 units. With the base zoning as it is right now, that would require a subdivision, a planned development, and the affordable housing incentives. Under the RMF 30 district, they can get up to 35 units depending on building type, plus one additional bonus dwelling unit that is not subject to lot area. Plan development may still be necessary if they are creating lots that do not have street frontage under the RMF 30 district. But the AHI would have no density maximum or unit maximums. But as I just mentioned, we have agreed that they would not be able to modify the density via AHI. This is a zoning comparison table for you. As you can tell, a lot of this is very similar. Very similar side yards, front yards are identical. The building heights are pretty similar as well. I'm not going to get into the nitty gritty of everything, but it is there for you. This shows that the RMF30 district does have additional design standards that do not apply to the R17000 district to help ensure that they are decently designed buildings. Again, we do recommend that planning commission forward a positive recommendation to city council with conditions. And here are those conditions. I'm not going to go through every single one of them, but we have broken them down by neighborhood compatibility and community benefit categories. The neighborhood compatibility category essentially holds them to the RMF 30 district and doesn't allow them to really make many modifications via affordable housing incentives or parking reductions or anything like that. And then the community benefit just ensures that these will be for sale and at those AMIs listed and that they are at least two bedrooms. And then eight and nine on the screen are regarding tenant relocation assistance. Next steps, you will forward a recommendation to the city council that could be positive, negative, or positive with other conditions. And then city council will hold briefings and public hearings on the proposed map amendment. And they can also make any modifications they see fit. And then they can approve, decline, or approve with modifications. That is all I have for you. The applicants are here for any questions if you have them.

Maybe I'm having a hard time understanding the difference, but I can't understand why this route, if they're going to have to go through plan development likely anyway. The difference is, if you look at the table on page 12 of the staff report, The differences are so subtle, like the only difference here really is 28 versus 30 feet. Why this route?

That may be better addressed by the applicant.

Hi, Hunter Huffman, the designer on the project. So part of the reason for the rezone is to design the units holistically rather than in an individual lot basis. So essentially through AHI, it would allow us to get up to seven individual single family home lots and then essentially build four units per lot on each one of those, which wouldn't allow us in a development and planning perspective to design a continuous and open green space as an example. THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE AS A POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE AS A POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFIT THAT WOULD BE COMMUNITY BENEFIT THAT WOULD BE OPEN SPACE TO NOT ONLY THE NEW OPEN SPACE TO NOT ONLY THE NEW RESIDENTS BUT ALSO TO THE REST OF RESIDENTS BUT ALSO TO THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY AS WELL. THE COMMUNITY AS WELL.

ANYONE ELSE HAVE CLARIFYING ANYONE ELSE HAVE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? APPLICANT?

I WONDER IF YOU COULD DETAIL I WONDER IF YOU COULD DETAIL THE DIFFERENCES TO THE CONDITIONS THE DIFFERENCES TO THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE PRO

Sure. One of the conditions included two beds and two baths. We removed that just for the applicant said that that was hard to work around and for water concerns. And then we also had a condition that a quarter parking stall for guest parking per unit. That was removed based off of conversation with planning commission at that meeting.

Thank you.

All right, then I will bring it back to the commission for discussion.

IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT IT IS SPOT ZONING IN A PLACE THAT SPOT ZONING IN A PLACE THAT SPOT ZONING IN A PLACE THAT REALLY DOESN'T MATCH WHAT THE REALLY DOESN'T MATCH WHAT THE REALLY DOESN'T MATCH WHAT THE CITY'S PLANS ARE. CITY'S PLANS ARE. CITY'S PLANS ARE. THE WEST SIDE MASTER PLAN TALKS THE WEST SIDE MASTER PLAN TALKS THE WEST SIDE MASTER PLAN TALKS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PLACING THE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PLACING THE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PLACING THE TRANSITIONAL MULTI-FAMILY TRANSITIONAL MULTI-FAMILY TRANSITIONAL MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING IN ALONG BUSIER STREETS HOUSING IN ALONG BUSIER STREETS HOUSING IN ALONG BUSI About as far away from any of those nodes you can get at any one time. So I just, that doesn't make sense to me. It seems to go against what the ideals set in, or an initiative set in both Plant Salt Lake and the West Side Plan trying to do.

So right before this meeting, I took the opportunity to actually visit the site. It's a really remarkably large site in a really gorgeous neighborhood. I disagree, kind of, that it's as far as you can get. There are places that are much deeper into neighborhoods. This is a couple of turns away from 17 South and the new Glendale Regional Park, certainly within walking distance. I also have a sort of temperamental concern about spot zoning. And at the same time, I think the project proposed here makes a lot of sense. And the goal for contiguous green space, I think, is highly beneficial in this sort of very large lot that otherwise would end up being a sort of strange alleywayed single family home community. I think that that's... Roughly my feeling. I think that this is appropriate and reasonable. I worry about the idea of siting all moderate density along arterials or high density corridors that in many ways reinforces environmental injustice by basically having those houses that are affordable to folks who are low income. be alongside these corridors with higher levels of pollution. 17th South is not a pleasant corridor to live along. And so I think it is very worthwhile for us to approve this project and with the sense that this is close enough to that transitional zone that it is an appropriate place given the project envisioned.

I WASN'T HERE FOR THE DISCUSSION IN JULY, BUT I WATCHED IT AND I THOUGHT I WAS REALLY IMPRESSED WITH THE ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMUNITY AND THEIR RESOURCEFULNESS THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY COLLECTED SIGNATURES AND THEY HAD A CHANGE.ORG AND THEY CAME TO MEETINGS AND THEY HAD T-SHIRTS. I WAS REALLY IMPRESSED WITH WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY ABOUT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY ABOUT THIS PROJECT. I also was really impressed with the discussion of the commissioners that were here. It was like one of the most thoughtful discussions I've heard on a project. So I really thought that some good points were made and hopefully there's more understanding um you know in the community for what this will look like i think the changes to the conditions make sense for this time and then also um i think that rezoning it and then putting all these conditions on is when you look at the conditions they're kind of to protect the neighborhood THE THINGS THAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT MIGHT CHANGE INSTEAD OF LOTS OF TIMES WE GET REQUESTS FOR CONDITIONS THAT WOULD LIKE OR EXCEPTIONS THAT WOULD LIKE WELL LET ME BUILD THAT CLOSER TO THE LET ME BUILD HIGHER OR LET ME BUILD CLOSER TO THIS OR LET ME HAVE LESS AND THE CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE ARE MORE LIKE LOOKING AT HERE ARE MORE LIKE LOOKING AT HERE ARE MORE LIKE TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S ALREADY THERE. THAT'S ALREADY THERE. THAT'S ALREADY THERE. IT'S A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD. THOSE TWO SCHOOLS, BEAUTIFUL THOSE TWO SCHOOLS, BEAUTIFUL THOSE TWO SCHOOLS, BEAUTIFUL SCHOOLS ARE RIGHT THERE BY IT. SCHOOLS ARE RIGHT THERE BY IT. SCHOOLS ARE RIGHT THERE BY IT. I WISH THERE WERE MORE GROCERY I WISH THERE WERE MORE GROCERY I WISH THERE WERE MORE GROCERY STORES AND A more families living in that neighborhood is always a good thing. So I'm hopeful that this will be, that it will be built well. Also in this route there are design requirements, like they have to use better exterior The building has to look better and last for longer if you go this route. So I think it will be a better neighborhood too, a better little neighborhood in your big neighborhood. So I'm hopeful that it will work. And I'm appreciative that the conditions seem to be on the side of the neighbors.

I just wanted to clarify one thing with the node comment is, yeah, you're right. It probably is closer. I was looking at the map where it kind of pulls them out into little bubbles. And I kind of stand by my point. But there are farther places away from nodes, so point taken. But I do have a question. How is compliance done on something that has this restriction forever?

WHAT RESTRICTION IN PARTICULAR? WHAT RESTRICTION IN PARTICULAR? LIKE THE AFFORDABILITY? LIKE THE AFFORDABILITY? IT'S DEED RESTRICTED. IT'S DEED RESTRICTED. I'M NOT SURE HOW WE GO ABOUT THAT I'M NOT SURE HOW WE GO ABOUT THAT 30 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. 30 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.

ANY TIME WE HAVE AN ANY TIME WE HAVE AN AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT AS PART OF SOMETHING LIKE AS PART OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS, IN THAT DEVELOPMENT THIS, IN THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IT SPELLS OUT THE PROCESS THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO VERIFY THAT THEY ARE THE PROCESS THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO VERIFY THAT THEY ARE MEETING THOSE THINGS. MEETING THOSE THINGS. SO JUST LIKE WITH AFFORDABLE SO JUST LIKE WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES, THEY HAVE HOUSING INCENTIVES, THEY HAVE ANNUAL REPORTS. ANNUAL REPORTS. IT WOULD BE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO IT WOULD BE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT. THAT. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY IT CAN BE AND THEN OBVIOUSLY IT CAN BE INVESTIGATED UPON COMPLAINT USUALLY INVESTIGATED UPON COMPLAINT USUALLY FROM SOMEBODY WHO MAY BE LIVING FROM SOMEBODY WHO MAY BE LIVING THERE OR IN THIS CASE A PROPERTY THERE OR

THE TENANT RELOCATION REQUIREMENTS ARE NEW TO THIS TENANT RELOCATION REQUIREMENTS ARE NEW TO THIS TENANT RELOCATION REQUIREMENTS ARE NEW TO THIS CONVERSATION OR THEY WERE THERE CONVERSATION OR THEY WERE THERE CONVERSATION OR THEY WERE THERE BEFORE? BEFORE? BEFORE? BECAUSE THAT BUILDING IS GONE. BECAUSE THAT BUILDING IS GONE. BECAUSE THAT BUILDING IS GONE. THAT TENANT LIVES SOMEWHERE THAT TENANT LIVES SOMEWHERE THAT TENANT LIVES SOMEWHERE ELSE NOW. ELSE NOW. ELSE NOW.

SO FOR THEM, THAT SPECIFIC SO FOR THEM, THAT SPECIFIC SO FOR THEM, THAT SPECIFIC FAMILY WILL GET THIS TENANT FAMILY WILL GET THIS TENANT FAMILY WILL GET THIS TENANT RELOCATION BENEF subject to housing unit replacement and the tenant displacement i believe they could either pay that tenant or they can pay into a city fund okay

Yeah, so the fund isn't for paying the tenant. It would be they could either limit the rental cost on a replacement unit or they could pay into the housing fund. The tenant relocation assistance, we can actually go back several years to apply that. So if those tenants were displaced as a result of this proposal, like they bought the land a couple years ago knowing this was coming, that is something that the city council could hold them to is still providing that relocation assistance.

TO FIND THAT SPECIFIC FAMILY THAT LIVED THERE BEFORE THE HOUSE WAS TORN DOWN.

IT MAY BE DIFFICULT OR IMPRACTICAL, BUT IT IS IN THE CODE THAT WE CAN LOOK BACK.

OKAY. YEAH, THE TWO THINGS THAT STOOD OUT TO ME, ONE WAS THE In matching the purpose of the zoning district, it says that RMF 30 is to transition between a residential and a higher density. And so spot zoning in this does seem like that doesn't quite meet that, though it meets a lot of the other rest of it. The other thing... is that this does kind of feel halfway between a rezone and a planned development because some of the stuff that we're looking at and talking about like circulation and park strips around the outside and things like that. And I do worry sometimes about having a development agreement tied to a rezone that has this much stuff in it because I think that it, it means that it has to be this or else it won't be anything. And so if this exact thing doesn't work out, then it will either sit empty or it would have to come back to us. And like we've recently had, was it just last week where we had a thing where we had previously zoned something differently and then they came back to rezone it back to what it was so that it matched with the area around it. And so I worry about locking such specifics in with zoning. That's why I think it tends to be a little bit more in line with the plan development agreement because then that's tied to the building permit. And so if that building doesn't get built, then the zoning remains and you can still do something else.

um as we're having this conversation i'm sort of recalling my comments in the previous meeting and so i'll i'll go over a couple of those again so i do think that you know we've got newer city plans focused on housing and other things general plans that are newer than the west side master plan but the west side master plan is still the plan that the neighborhood AND THE NEIGHBORS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT, AND IT'S THE NEIGHBORS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT, AND IT'S MOST OF THEM, AS FAR AS WE CAN MOST OF THEM, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENT, TELL FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENT, HAVE AN ACTIONABLE PLAN TO HAVE AN ACTIONABLE PLAN TO POINT TO, AND IN THAT PLAN IT POINT TO, AND IN THAT PLAN IT SAYS, YOU KNOW, DENSITY SHOULD BE SAYS, YOU KNOW, DENSITY SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON THESE NODES AND IT FOCUSED ON THESE NODES AND IT SAYS DENSITY SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON SAYS DENSITY SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON THESE NODES AND OR ODDLY SHAPED THESE NODES AND OR ODDLY SHAPED PAR AND SO I THINK THAT THE OPPOSITION HAS SOME TRACTION THERE BECAUSE THEY YOU KNOW THERE MAY BE NEWER PLANS THAT ARE CITYWIDE BUT THERE'S ALSO THIS PLAN AND SO THAT'S THAT'S ONE COMMENT AND THEN SIMILAR TO WHAT DO WE CALL YOU CHAIR CHAIR SCOTT COMMISSIONER SCOTT YOU KNOW I I'M A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT An up zoning with nine conditions because it feels like not only are we spot zoning, but then we're almost like creating a bespoke zone by, you know, by just taking the pen and And so I DON'T KNOW. I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFLICTED, THOUGH, BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY A GREAT FIT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T LIVE THERE. IT SEEMS LIKE A WELL-DESIGNED AND THOUGHT OUT PROJECT THAT I WOULD WELCOME IF I LIVED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I DON'T. AND I ALSO AM A LITTLE BIT CONFLICTED BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE PROCESSES BY WHICH UNDER THE CURRENT ZONE THEY COULD GET ABOUT THE SAME DENSITY AND IT MIGHT NOT LOOK AS GOOD. SO THAT IS A CONCERN TO ME. SO THOSE ARE MY INITIAL THOUGHTS.

Sorry. I think going back over our earlier notes and the public comment that we had in opposition to this and talking about the neighborhood and I've given this a lot of thought about what it would take to get to this place and what it would take to sort of get my approval for this. And I think it comes down to this isn't the infill This isn't the infield that I don't like. I guess that's the way to put it. There are some projects that are, I think as other commissioners spoke on, that harm, I think, different communities from an environmental standpoint and that offer less amenities than other communities might have. I don't think this is that. I don't think it's perfect. I don't think But I also don't think we get the infield that matches exactly how the neighborhood was constructed and the homes that were constructed decades ago. And so there has to be a middle ground. I think this might be it. I don't have a compelling reason to make this not that. But I think it fits in. I think it works for. multi-generational housing in the neighborhood and I think it gives opportunity for homeownership in a neighborhood that makes sense more so than you know five or six massive homes would in that spot and I don't know that we could get the five or six massive homes on that in those spots that would make sense for the neighborhood either so I think this is a reasonable solution there are some complications that I think the council and staff will have to work out in dealing with whether this is a like a planned community or not and what that looks like on a holistic scale. I hope we don't have to come back to it and deal with it, but... I THINK FOUR OR FIVE MEETINGS AGO, WE HAD A COMMENTARY AROUND HOUSING OPTIONS AND HOMEOWNERSHIP OPTIONS AND I WAS A REAL STRONG COMPONENT OF TAKING RISK AND LOOKING AT THINGS DIFFERENTLY. I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THOSE. I THINK THIS COULD MAKE SENSE. um and i think it'll be a benefit to neighborhood i think it's not as bad or not bad at all compared to some of the other infield projects we've seen uh particularly the ones that are like up against gas stations that have concrete everywhere and those are the ones i'm worried about i'm not worried about this one to that extent from an environmental standpoint um but i do get the neighborhood's concerns um and i think that uh you know i wouldn't um i don't know it's a It's a stress to say, like I'm not living in a neighborhood, but I spend a lot of time over there. But I wouldn't vote for something that I wouldn't want to live nearby. I guess I would say that. And that's not fair to say, really. But that's just how personal I feel right now in saying that. But this one I think I can support from that standpoint.

JUST A QUICK FOLLOW-ON TO THAT. I APPRECIATE THE POINT THAT YOU I APPRECIATE THE POINT THAT YOU COULD IMAGINE LARGER LOTS WITH COULD IMAGINE LARGER LOTS WITH LARGER HOMES, FEWER LARGER HOMES, FEWER LARGER HOMES, FEWER LARGER HOMES THAT WOULD FEEL LESS LARGER HOMES THAT WOULD FEEL LESS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH IS GENERALLY A PRETTY WHICH IS GENERALLY A PRETTY SMALL HOME AND SMALL FOOTPRINT SMALL HOME AND SMALL FOOTPRINT HOME NEIGHBORHOOD. HOME NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK IN SOME WAYS THIS WOULD I THINK IN SOME WAYS THIS WOULD FEEL MORE that that i want to make is when you when you look at a satellite map of this neighborhood there are a couple of areas with very low density one of them is holy to me because it's the sandlot filming location um and so you know i i'll hedge my comment but BUT THERE ARE AREAS WHERE THERE ARE LARGE OPEN SPACES, DEEP LOTS. THERE ARE LARGE OPEN SPACES, DEEP LOTS. THERE ARE LARGE OPEN SPACES, DEEP LOTS. IT'S BASICALLY VAN BUEREN AND IT'S BASICALLY VAN BUEREN AND IT'S BASICALLY VAN BUEREN AND NAVAJO. NAVAJO. NAVAJO. THERE ARE TWO MAIN AREAS. THERE ARE TWO MAIN AREAS. THERE ARE TWO MAIN AREAS. OTHERWISE THERE'S MORE DENSITY OTHERWISE THERE'S MORE DENSITY OTHERWISE THERE'S MORE DENSITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT THOSE AREAS WHEN WE'RE BUT THOSE AREAS WHEN WE'RE BUT THOSE AREAS WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT DENSIFICATION, THINKING ALMOST JUST VISUALLY INVITE HIGHER DENSITY TO BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND AND ALSO WITH THE CITY'S BROADER GOALS. SO THAT'S JUST SORT OF, YEAH, I'M ON THE FENCE ABOUT IT.

I'll make a motion unless anyone else wants to speak. Based on the information presented in this discussion, I move that the commission recommend that the city council adopt this petition with the conditions listed in the staff report.

Second. All right. We've got a motion and a second.

Commissioner Ruskin.

Abstain.

Commissioner Sullivan.

No, and I'll say I just think it makes more sense to go through a plan development route, but no. Commissioner Scott?

No.

Commissioner Rosenfield?

Yes.

Commissioner Loverett?

Yes.

Commissioner Burroughs? Yes. Commissioner Barrett?

WHAT DO WE DO IF I VOTE NO? WE'LL HAVE THREE TO THREE. HOW DOES THAT WORK? HOW DOES THAT WORK?

IF THERE'S A TIE, THE MOTION IF THERE'S A TIE, THE MOTION FAILS.

FAILS. I'LL VOTE YES.

I'LL VOTE YES. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION PASSES. THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND THEN WE'LL

go ahead and get back to it uh next we have the text amendment for expanding housing housing options so we will hear from staff report all right thank you commission so today as you mentioned we're going to be reviewing expanding housing options this is something that you've had several informational briefings on but this is the first public hearing before we dive into it i do want to make a note that the Due to an error with the noticing, we are going to need to also reschedule this again before you make your recommendation. So for today, we'll just be doing another overview for the benefit of anyone in attendance and our new commissioner, as well as updating you on any changes that have occurred since your last discussion. And then we look forward to hearing comments from the public. With that, I'll give a quick overview of the project. So this is a city council initiated change to the residential zoning rules to ease the housing shortage. The primary goal is to enable small infill housing that's compatible with existing neighborhoods. maintainable to buy or for rent. And specifically, we're looking at six zoning districts, the three R1 districts. Those are our single family zones. And then we have three two family zones, R2, SR1, and SR1A. Those are the zones that allow both single family and duplex buildings. The map on your screen shows each of those zoning districts. As you can see, it spans basically every neighborhood in the city. Of all the residentially zoned land in Salt Lake City, 77% of the land is covered by one of these affected zones. So just want to stress that this is a wide ranging citywide proposal that would impact all different areas of the city.

NEXT WE WILL GET INTO KIND OF THE KEY COMPONENTS BEFORE WE NEXT WE WILL GET INTO KIND OF THE KEY COMPONENTS BEFORE WE DIVE INTO EVEN MORE FINER DETAIL DIVE INTO EVEN MORE FINER DETAIL LATER IN THE PRESENTATION BUT LATER IN THE PRESENTATION BUT EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS IT HAS A EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS IT HAS A COUPLE OF KEY ITEMS ONE IS CREATING A COUPLE OF KEY ITEMS ONE IS CREATING A NEW LAND USE CALLED SMALL LOT NEW LAND USE CALLED SMALL LOT DWELLINGS THAT WOULD ALLOW SMALL single-family, duplex, triplex, fourplex, townhomes, up to four units. In these districts, they would come with some regulations that we'll get into later, but they would be on smaller lots. It also modifies the base zoning districts that Andy just talked about. It changes lot dimensions, like removing lot widths. It modifies setbacks to make them consistent across the board. Building heights are increased slightly. Lot coverage allowances are increased to allow room for expansions. And then there are some other small changes in those districts. There are also changes to the flag lot standards, mostly to make them easier. We don't really get a lot of them. And so we're trying to encourage or remove barriers to flag lots as well. we want to be clear what this project what this proposal does not do this proposal does not eliminate single-family zoning or those space zoning districts those six districts remain intact and as the base zoning districts those prevail small lot dwellings are essentially simply a land use within those districts that have different regulations This does not prohibit the construction of large single family homes, nor does it require anybody to do small lot dwellings. Small lot dwellings are simply an option if you opt into them. If you say you want to do small lot dwellings, we will hold you to those standards. If you submit a building permit for a standard house, as long as you meet the regulations for that base zoning district, you can still build that house. This does not remove any historic overlay protections. If you are located within a local historic district, all those protections remain. We are not touching that. If somebody is proposing a small lot dwelling in the local historic districts, it still requires a certificate of appropriateness. It still requires to go to the Landmark Commission for a public hearing and all of that. And then finally, this does not rezone any property. No zoning designations are changed on the zoning map. So now we'll get into the finer grain here. The key components of the small lot dwellings, like I just mentioned, new building types are permitted. But these building types aren't really that new. They are permitted already under the affordable housing incentives. It's just another way to increase housing supply. SMALLER LOTS, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE 2,000 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT. THEY DO HAVE SIMILAR HEIGHTS TO THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT THAT IS ACTUALLY SET AT THE DISTRICT MAXIMUM, WHICH VARIES BASED OFF OF THE DISTRICT YOU'RE IN, BUT YOU WILL FOLLOW THAT BUILDING HEIGHT MAXIMUM. The setbacks are similar as well. And then the parking is one parking space per dwelling unit, which is similar to the ADU requirement and identical to the affordable housing incentives requirement. Along with those small lot dwellings being on 2000 square feet, in exchange for shrinking the lot size, we also would regulate the footprint of the home and the gross floor area of the home. The max footprint, depending on building type, is between 850 square feet and 1000 square feet. um just for clarity's sake that is the space that the building takes up on the ground and then the maximum floor area which is the measurement of the internal space of each floor is limited to 1200 to 1700 square feet per unit if you are 17 feet tall or less we would permit you to have a full-size basement so that's how you would get that 1700 square feet This is the table that would be essentially if this proposal is adopted. This would be in the zoning code. I won't go through all of this because it's a lot, but later if there are questions, we can get back to it.

OK, so coming into this, we understood that not every parcel in these zones would be able to add. Another housing unit would have capacity for this. And so we put together a simple model to give us an estimate of how many parcels within these zones would have space for a small lot dwelling, and that's assuming the principal structure stays on the lot and these are infill units. We also did this because we wanted to understand whether or not this would create equitable distribution across neighborhoods, across plan areas, and we weren't specifically targeting certain areas of the city. how we did this was we took the gross lot area of each slot within these affected zones and then we subtracted the footprint of the principal building we didn't take into account accessory structures so if a property had a garage or a detached garage or a shed or some other structure we didn't include it in this analysis because those are EASIER TO MOVE OR MODIFY. EASIER TO MOVE OR MODIFY. AND SO THEN WE APPLIED A 10-FOOT AND SO THEN WE APPLIED A 10-FOOT AND SO THEN WE APPLIED A 10-FOOT BUFFER AROUND THE PRINCIPAL BUFFER AROUND THE PRINCIPAL BUFFER AROUND THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT TO ACCOUNT BUILDING FOOTPRINT TO ACCOUNT BUILDING FOOTPRINT TO ACCOUNT FOR SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS OR FOR SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS OR FOR SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS OR REQUIRED YARDS IF A LANDOWNER REQUIRED YARDS IF A LANDOWNER REQUIRED YARDS IF A LANDOWNER WANTED Um... And so after these adjustments, parcels with more than 2,000 square foot of contiguous remaining open space were identified as potentially capable of accommodating additional small lot dwellings. I do just want to stress that there are a lot of constraints that couldn't be modeled. And this should be viewed as a rough estimate of capacity rather than a firm determination of how many lots will be eligible for to add small lots to add infill housing using this code. But what we found is across the city, approximately 35% of the properties in these zones have space for at least one new home under the small lot dwelling code. Okay, and that 35% is still quite a bit of lots that could take advantage of this program. And so we also wanted to kind of use our history of utilization with other infill housing programs that the city has initiated over the past few years to understand what kind of and what kind of growth we might expect. So for accessory dwelling units, since 2023, 83 accessory dwelling units have been permitted. And that's about a 0.22 utilization rate based on all the properties that could add an ADU and the ones that actually have. AHI, affordable housing incentives, we've seen SIMILAR, VERY SLOW INCREMENTAL CHANGE SINCE 2024, 19 UNITS ACROSS FIVE PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN ISSUED BUILDING PERMITS IN THESE ZONES. AND SO IF WE, AND THAT'S WHAT, A PROPERTIES THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE VERSUS THE ONES THAT ELIGIBLE VERSUS THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED SINCE 2024. HAVE BEEN PERMITTED SINCE 2024. AND THEN RESEARCH FROM DURHAM, AND THEN RESEARCH FROM DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA, AFTER ADOPTING NORTH CAROLINA, AFTER ADOPTING SIMILAR CHANGES, THEY'VE SEEN 215 SIMILAR CHANGES, THEY'VE SEEN 215 UNITS BUILT IN THE FIRST FOUR UNITS BUILT IN THE FIRST FOUR YEARS. YEARS. AND SO IF WE ASSUME A 1% AND SO IF WE ASSUME A 1% UTILIZATION RATE, WHICH IS FAR UTILIZATION RATE, WHICH IS FAR HIGHER THAN ANYTHING WE'VE SEEN HIGHER THAN ANYTH units that we could expect to utilize the small lot dwelling code. OK. This is new, just clarification that because small lot dwellings, there have been a lot of concerns that there could be additional modifications requested through plan developments, through building preservation incentives, and through affordable housing incentives. And so the proposal has been modified to clarify that if a landowner or developer wishes to BUILD USING THE SMALL LOT DWELLING CODE, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO THEN ALSO APPLY FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR ANY REASON, FURTHER REDUCED SETBACKS OR LOT WIDTHS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT OR BUILDING PRESERVATION INCENTIVES OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES. Okay, finally, we have had a lot of questions throughout this process on how the expanding housing options proposal differs from other ways to add infill units to properties, namely affordable housing incentives and accessory dwelling units. SO JUST TO GO THROUGH THIS, EACH OF THESE IS A WAY IN WHICH A HOMEOWNER, A PROPERTY OWNER COULD ADD ADDITIONAL HOUSING, IN-FILL HOUSING TO AN EXISTING PROPERTY. BUT THEY HAVE DIFFERENT GOALS. NOT ALL OF THEM WILL WORK FOR EVERY PROPERTY. AND SO THEY HAVE DIFFERENT STIPULATIONS. AND SO THIS CHART JUST LAYS OUT HOW THESE ARE DIFFERENT AS FAR AS THE ZONES THAT THEY'RE APPLIED TO FOR AHI AND ADUS APPLIED TO MOST ZONES WHILE EXPANDING HOUSING would just apply to these six zones that we are talking about namely the the single family and two family zones planning applications would not be required for expanding housing options which is similar to how adus are regulated right now RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS FOR AFFORDABILITY WOULD ALSO NOT BE AFFORDABILITY WOULD ALSO NOT BE AFFORDABILITY WOULD ALSO NOT BE REQUIRED. REQUIRED. REQUIRED. AS WE'VE MENTIONED BEFORE, AS WE'VE MENTIONED BEFORE, AS WE'VE MENTIONED BEFORE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES IS KIND OF THAT CAPITAL A IS KIND OF THAT CAPITAL A IS KIND OF THAT CAPITAL A AFFORDABILITY. AFFORDABILITY. AFFORDABILITY. WE WILL ENFORCE IT. WE WILL ENFORCE IT. WE WILL ENFORCE IT. IT'S THROUGH DEED RESTRICTION tend to be more affordable and more attainable so they will not require a deed restriction they would require a unit size limitation similar to adus they would allow additional housing types similar to what ahi already allows and then the maximum unit count per lot wouldn't be wouldn't be limited based on how many units per lot but would be limited based on lot area a minimum of 2,000 square feet per unit owner occupancy would not be required as it stands right now in the small lot dwelling and the expanding housing options proposal new units can be sold so that makes them different from accessory dwelling units which right now cannot be sold separately And then parking requirements are the same as affordable housing incentives and ADUs.

Great. All right. So we're going to now move away from the small lot dwelling code, talk about changes that are proposed to the base zoning districts. So just to explain the difference, right? Every property that's affected by this proposal is in a certain zone. Those include all of the requirements that you see on this screen. So building height, yards, coverage, things like that. This is what would be required if you're building a typical house, so something that's larger than the maximums for small lot dwellings. If you have an existing home today and you want to just build a regular addition or something like that, you would be subject to the requirements in the base zoning district. So that's what we're reviewing here. The table shows side by side the current and proposed. We won't go through everything, but just want to highlight a few notable changes across the different districts. So the building height is proposed to increase for pitched roofs from 28 feet to 30 feet, for flat roofs from 20 to 24 feet. Front yards are changing slightly in the base districts, whereas now the requirement is typically based on the block face average. This proposal would remove the averaging requirement and set it at a straight 20-foot or equal to the depth of an abutting front yard. And building coverage is changing across all of the R1 zones, either from 35 or 40 percent up to 50 percent. all of the affected zones are also no longer have a minimum lot width requirement. And that's something that's consistent with what the city has been doing elsewhere with the RMF and the mixed use zones that those also similarly removed lot width requirements. real quick does the max building coverage include accessory like a shed a garage all that kind of stuff yeah a building is uh i believe it would be anything with walls and a roof essentially is what would count towards that So moving on to the R2, R2 is our two-family duplex zone. The proposed changes are, you'll notice, very similar to what's being proposed to change in R1. So a slight increase to the height allowed, removing averaging from the front yards, and a slight increase there on the coverage, just from 45 to 50%. But again, a big idea with this is to provide some consistency across all of the many zones that the city has. Notably, in the R2 district, there is currently a restriction on how many duplexes you can have on a block face. You can only have two side by side or three overall on the block face. That's a restriction on building duplexes in a zone where the purpose is to allow duplexes. So another change proposed is to remove that restriction. And then our SR1 and 1A, those are also single-family and two-family zones. SR1A is most commonly found in neighborhoods like the Avenues or Capitol Hill. Main difference here is that the SR 1 a zone is a little bit shorter The the maximum building heights is lower than what's allowed in the other zones that we're looking at And so the proposal would increase height in that zone as well But by the same proportion so by two feet for pitched roof and by four feet for a flat roof and then the last Significant major component to this proposal is changes to the flag lot standards. Flag lots are lots that are subdivided behind an existing lot, and they don't have frontage on a street, and so the access is provided by a driveway. Currently, those are a conditional use, which requires Planning Commission approval. The main change here is changing that to a permitted use, so they avoid the public hearing process, and then also making some changes to the code to remove barriers, things like reducing driveway width requirement minimums and reducing the minimum flag lot area. Any permitted or conditional use in the zone would also be allowed in a flag lot.

SORRY, EXCUSE ME, THOSE FLAG LOT MODIFICATIONS ARE IN R1, R2, SR1 AND SR1A? OR FOR THE WHOLE CITY IN EVERY ZONE?

THOSE HAVE A SEPARATE SECTION. I GUESS IT'S IN THE GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL, RIGHT? SO IT WOULD BE EVERY RESIDENTIAL ZONE.

not just those four every all like the foothills residential zone all the every residential zone would allow flag lots i think that's correct yeah they currently do as well yeah oh they currently do what oh you're just changing the barriers to flag lots in every residential zone yes yes thank you

I have a question.

I think their presentation, are you guys still going? Happy to answer questions. We do have more, but feel free to jump in.

No, I'll wait until the end of your presentation. Thank you. Thank you.

All right, so now we will get into kind of a public engagement overview. It's not going to be super in-depth because back in July we gave you a very thorough and in-depth public engagement only report and presentation. But engagement overview anyways, we had almost 2,500 website visitors on our new SHAPE SLC website with over 150 survey responses. Multiple Salt Lake Gov social media accounts made posts about the proposal and directed folks to the website and our email address. housing options at SLC gov we had numerous email campaigns and the planning divisions emails go to over 2,000 recipients council members also had some email blasts that they did on their own accord regarding the petition as well We also held 13 various meetings across the city from open houses and town hall meetings that we were invited to by council members themselves. We tabled at the farmers market. We tabled at the opening ceremony of the Olympics watch party. We went to a Valentine's Day event hosted by council member Petro. So we have been out and about regarding this project. And we've also had quite an extensive amount of media coverage, whether it's from local blogs or local newspapers to national websites like homes.com. There's even been quite a few more that have been recently published as this has gained more attention because it was coming to Planning Commission. We went to City Council last night. So there have been quite a few more articles published recently.

AS FAR AS WHAT WE HEARD THROUGHOUT THIS ENGAGEMENT PROCESS, JUST TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORIES, THE COMMON THEMES INCLUDED SPECIFICS SUCH AS THE SIZE LIMITS, YARDS, HEIGHTS, PARKING AND OWNERSHIP THAT THE PUBLIC EXPRESSED EITHER CONCERNS OR SUPPORT FOR. Members of the public believe that this will lead to a lot of large-scale teardowns and change neighborhoods irreversibly, whereas others feel that the proposal is not aggressive enough and does not go far enough in various different aspects to move the needle on housing supply and affordability. Thank you. And so staff requested direction from the Planning Commission. We took some of these specific issues to the Planning Commission for direction in response to the public input. And you can see up there on the screen for each of these issues that we brought to the Planning Commission, For most of them, the commission voted in favor of keeping these standards as they were originally proposed. There were two that were split, three and three amongst the commission, parking and ownership. But without that clear direction from the commission, no changes were made to those provisions.

So a little bit about how this project aligns with the city's general plans. Plan Salt Lake, as you're aware, is the citywide general plan. I won't read all of these policies or goals, but generally Plan Salt Lake encourages increasing uh access to housing increasing medium density types encouraging housing options and growing i like the one that says growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live how they live and how they get around so generally plant salt lake is encouraging of additional housing options city-wide Housing SLC is the city's specific housing element to the general plan. This included specific goals, for instance, of making progress towards 5,500 units of deeply affordable housing, but also to increase the supply of housing at all levels of affordability and increasing opportunities for home ownership and other wealth and equity building opportunities. something that is a policy supported by this plan and is also a goal of expanding housing options. And then the last relevant citywide plan that we looked at was Thriving in Place, our anti-displacement strategy. That plan says that the city needs to support policies that help create more housing in every neighborhood, including new rental housing in neighborhoods where lower-income people have been excluded. while stabilizing neighborhoods facing the highest displacement pressure. So those all three plans included specific policies that helped guide us as we were preparing this.

So Ben already mentioned this at the beginning of our presentation, but because there was a public hearing noticing error, our recommendation for this evening is that the Planning Commission should table this item to a later date to be determined by staff and continue the public hearing. And then next steps, so after that second public hearing is scheduled, Planning Commission will then forward a recommendation to the City Council. And then finally, the City Council will hold additional briefings and public hearings on the proposed amendments. They may make modifications to the proposal, and then they will approve, approve with modifications, or decline the proposed amendments.

OK, that's all we have. We're happy to answer questions.

Great. So we'll do some, if anyone has quick clarifying questions, Ben, do you want to go?

Yeah, thank you. First day of school, still trying to figure out where the bathrooms are and when you're supposed to raise your hand. So first, I just, in regards to the small lot dwellings at the beginning of presentation, you said houses, I'm sorry, with those particular new units, anything lower than 17 feet is permitted to have a basement?

Correct. So 17 feet tall or less. The floor area, the gross floor area maximum would be 1,700 square feet. You're still required to have the smaller footprint, but you would be allowed to do a basement to get that fuller, larger gross floor area, if that makes sense.

all right thank you and a second question for this it's sort of in the same regards and sort of figuring this out with um unlike an adu this thing can be split up so if a homeowner has a small dwelling on their property they could sell that particular piece of property to an individual correct thank you anyone else

Yeah. Has any thought been given, I guess, to the maximum number of units on a large site? The only thing, I guess, that kind of troubles me a little bit is a really large lot could fit a lot of these. And that is also the type of lot that would change the neighborhood the most. So I was just wondering if that was under consideration at all.

DURING THE DRAFTING OF THE CODE, WE INITIALLY HAD IT LIMITED BY LOT TO FOUR UNITS. BUT THERE ARE LOOPHOLES THAT SOMEBODY COULD GO THROUGH SUCH AS SUBDIVISIONS TO CREATE MORE LOTS. AND SO IN A SPIRIT OF ENCOURAGING HOUSING PRODUCTION, WE REMOVED THAT RESTRICTION AND SOLELY BASED IT ON LOT AREA.

OKAY. I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE SAID I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE SAID I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE SAID THAT IN THE LAST MEETING, SO THAT IN THE LAST MEETING, SO THAT IN THE LAST MEETING, SO SORRY.

SORRY. SORRY.

YOU'RE FINE. YOU'RE FINE. YOU'RE FINE. I HAD ONE OTHER QUESTION. I HAD ONE OTHER QUESTION. I HAD ONE OTHER QUESTION. 157 SURVEY RESPONSES SEEMS LIKE 157 SURVEY RESPONSES SEEMS LIKE 157 SURVEY RESPONSES SEEMS LIKE A REALLY LOW NUMBER. A REALLY LOW NUMBER. A REALLY LOW NUMBER. HOW, LIKE, WAS THAT HOW, LIKE, WAS THAT HOW, LIKE, WAS THAT SURPRISING, I GUESS?

So that's just the responses that we received through the website. I think you'll notice between the last report that we provided and as well as tonight's, I think we have several hundred additional pages attached to each one of additional written comments that we've received and then of course lots of phone calls and in-person events and meetings and discussions. But with that being said, it is fair to say that the council brought this up yesterday as well. There is a desire to make sure that we're reaching out as much as possible to as many different groups as possible. And so that is something that we hope to continue to do, right? We're going to have two public hearings with this group and we expect to have more opportunities for input as this proceeds to the city council as well. I might, if I could go back to the comparison chart between the ADUs, affordable housing, and small lot dwellings to your initial question about the 2,000 square foot thing. So you'll notice maximum unit count per lot. Affordable housing incentives, you can do up to four units on a lot. And that's regardless of how big the lot is. So if you had a lot that was a typical 5,000 square foot lot, potentially you could do up to four units if you meet every setback in parking and all the other requirements. So conceivably under that option, you may be able to achieve higher densities even than what's being proposed with small lot dwellings. Same thing for accessory dwelling units, right? You can add an extra unit to basically any residential lot regardless of the size. And so that was one thing that I think Ben was getting at is that It may seem like it might be more dense, but it's not necessarily the case. It really depends on the context of each specific property. But that was another consideration for why we felt like just setting a minimum would be best.

THANK YOU.

WHAT'S THE TIMELINE FOR THE WHAT'S THE TIMELINE FOR THE PUBLIC NOTICING THAT WAS MISSED? PUBLIC NOTICING THAT WAS MISSED? CAN WE REASONABLY EXPECT THIS TO CAN WE REASONABLY EXPECT THIS TO SHOW UP AT THE NEXT MEETING OR SHOW UP AT THE NEXT MEETING OR WILL IT TAKE A LITTLE LONGER?

WILL IT TAKE A LITTLE LONGER? IT WILL BE ON YOUR NEXT IT WILL BE ON YOUR NEXT MEETING. MEETING. SO TWO WEEKS FROM TONIGHT. SO TWO WEEKS FROM TONIGHT.

THANK YOU.

All right, then I will go ahead and open up for public comment. So we've got a number of people. So in the spirit of trying to get through these, what I will do is I will read both the name of the person who is up to speak as well as the name of the person after them and the person after them. And if you're one of those two people who is soon to speak, please just come and stand right behind the podium. A, so we can get through them quickly, and then also because there are people in the overflow room, and that gives them a second to get over here. And then we went over the kind of decorum stuff, but a couple of things. So obviously, we ask that you don't boo or jeer anyone. And in the spirit of equity that we talked about in that, we also ask that you don't clap or cheer for people. We just let them speak, and then the next person will move on and speak. And if there are questions that you ask up there, we'll do our best to take them down. And either we or staff will try and address those we find pertinent at the end. But this isn't a question and answer thing where we're going back and forth. So with that in mind, we will first hear.

Mr. Chair, will you let everyone know how much time they have? Yes, I will do that.

Also, so you'll have two minutes. If you are the representative of a registered organization, then you will have five. If you are that, please just state so at the beginning when you step up to the mic. And yeah. All good? Sweet. Recognized? Registered? I think they're both. So first we will hear from Lynn Schwartz. And then we will hear from Ben Enger. And then we will hear from Jackson Murphy. So Lynn, if you would like to step up. And those next two, please just get in line behind her.

Lynn Schwartz, duplexes, twin homes, two family homes, and cottage homes built on existing ordinance size lots and with present interior side lot and rear yard setbacks are missing middle housing types that are compatible with existing neighborhoods. They should be encouraged with down payment assistance and mortgage rate buy down programs. While there are existing sideways facing triplexes and quadplexes that were built before 1995, their potential to overwhelm neighboring single family houses is mitigated by lower building heights, many times with the ground floor one half below grade. Without these mitigating factors, a looming presence next to a neighboring single family house is assured while the eho touts the use of base zone heights and setbacks this is disingenuous as the coming rezone of all residential zones will increase building heights and lock coverage and reduce interior and rear yard setbacks There is a great likelihood that this proposal will negatively compete with the AHI program. While the EHO mandates smaller dwellings with possible multi-unit projects, they would be exempt from the affordability and owner occupancy deed restrictions of the AHI, and therefore much more attractive to developers and investors. This is especially true for smaller lots. Also, when you include a density bonus, for retaining an existing dwelling using the AHI program becomes an even less attractive option for the same amount of units. If density was the solution for affordability, New York would be cheap.

Thank you. Next we will hear from Ben Enger and then Jackson Murphy and then Thomas Christensen.

Ben Engel. Engel, sorry. Hello, I'm Ben Engle. I live in District 4. You know, downtown in District 4, we have that kind of higher density, some of these larger buildings and not so much smaller infill. And I think I just really applaud the city and the staff and Planning Commission, City Council for trying to get flexible and trying to allow for more possibilities for what we can do. With that flexibility, I see that a lot of times we get zoning variance comes to the Planning Commission often, and I'd like to see what we can do to make very clear intentions for what our city wants to do. I think that generally comes across that we're all kind of on the same page, but it seems that oftentimes the developers don't see the same page. So I'd just like to encourage you guys to always stick to our guns, try to stay steadfast in our vision for what the city has for the future, and don't always encourage more variance and more administrative hassle that seems to go through on a lot of these properties to go through. We just did the rezone, and there was, I think, a very clear intention on all of that, and then it seems like before we even get the ink dried on the paper, we get variances on all these and re-zones on everything. So I think it could expedite development if we didn't have to be so wishy-washy on some of these things. And I think that this offers opportunities for smaller developers too. I know that that's I think that it's always a problem in Salt Lake City that we don't get the smaller developers that can do more custom and appropriate kinds of designs and building for the areas. Usually when we have these large corporations that are doing it, they lose sight of some of the more creative solutions there too. So I support having some more smaller local developers be able to utilize these flexibilities. So thanks.

Thank you.

Next up we will have Jackson Murphy and then Thomas Christensen and then Brandon Dayton. One thing I forgot is when you step up, please just state your name for the record as you begin. It's Jackson Murphy. NO. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. NEXT WE'LL HAVE THOMAS NEXT WE'LL HAVE THOMAS CHRISTIANSEN AND THEN BRANDON CHRISTIANSEN AND THEN BRANDON DAYTON AND THEN MATT SADAKUS. DAYTON AND THEN MATT SADAKUS.

I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW. HI, THOMAS CHRISTIANSEN. I want to talk about what this proposal means for families. Starter homes, the kind of housing that expanding housing options would legalize, can bring families with children back into the city instead of pricing them into the suburbs the moment they need more space or more affordability. That matters for our schools. Declining enrollment threatens neighborhood schools. Fewer students mean fewer resources. Eventually it means school closers that hollow out neighborhoods. Allowing family-sized homes is the only way our city can sustain the schools that are already here, rather than letting them vanish. And this matters for the character of our neighborhoods. Our neighborhoods are defined by the people who live there, not the buildings they live in. Quality neighborhoods need families. Families putting down roots and meeting their neighbors. Families watching each other's kids. or picking up groceries for their elderly friends. Families that are there when a spouse gets sick or a parent passes away. And finally, this matters to me. I want to raise my family here in this city that I live in and love. I want to afford a home for my family. Right now I can't. When considering this proposal, I'd ask this commission to think a bit less about buildings and a bit more about families that can finally afford to live here and bring life here if you let them. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll hear from Thomas Christensen, and then Brandon Dayton, and then Matt. Oh, wait, sorry. That was Thomas Christensen. So next, Brandon Dayton, then Matt Sudeikis, then Zoe Newman.

All right. I'm Brandon Dayton. I'm a resident of Rose Park. I'm in support of the expanding housing options. proposal. I would love to see these changes happen in my own neighborhood. I personally love living in the city. I've lived here for 16 years. It's had a profound impact on my life, made my life so much better, so much richer. In general, cities play a couple of roles that I think are really important. They are places where we gather people together, we innovate, we create, we build things we could never do on our own. Part of that includes making our lives better. It's a place we can come together and thrive together. So this has always been the source of the best creativity, innovation, discovery in human history. But this can't happen when a city becomes unattainable, becomes unaffordable. And this has been my concern that I've seen over the years is I've seen friends move away because they can't afford to live in the city. And so that's why I support this proposal. WE NEED TO HAVE A CITY THAT WELCOMES PEOPLE HERE. WELCOMES PEOPLE HERE. I WANT MORE PEOPLE TO COME TO MY I WANT MORE PEOPLE TO COME TO MY CITY. CITY. I WANT MORE NEIGHBORS. I WANT MORE NEIGHBORS. I WANT THIS TO BE A WELCOMING I WANT THIS TO BE A WELCOMING PLACE. PLACE. WITH THAT, I SUPPORT THIS WITH THAT, I SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL. PROPOSAL. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M SURE I GOT THAT WRONG. I'M SURE I GOT THAT WRONG. AND THEN ZOE NEWMAN AND THEN AND THEN ZOE NEWMAN AND THEN MELISSA KLEIN.

okay uh hi i'm matt sadowskis i live in the ballpark uh district five um i'm here to speak in favor of expanding housing options i think a lot of the other speakers have already i don't want to necessarily recap their points but i think broadly speaking this is a way to allow for the variation that some of our favorite neighborhoods have and has been outlawed by going to exclusive single family zoning. I think if we make buy right development, more available to I think it enhances the ability of smaller developers to build unique interesting types of housing that I think we've lots of people complain about the giant funky looking buildings that are all kind of the same because they're made to they're designed to navigate some kind of process. Nobody likes that, right? So this will be a giveaway for people to build more variation and allow for more residents, which would allow for cooler restaurants, nice little bar down the street, local grocery stores, that sort of thing. I think this is... EXACTLY THE SORT OF THING WE NEED IN THE CITY. NEED IN THE CITY. PLUS TO ALLOW MORE KIND OF PLUS TO ALLOW MORE KIND OF HOUSING IN KIND OF HOUSING IN KIND OF NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE PROHIBITED IT AND HAVE THUS PROHIBITED IT AND HAVE THUS BECOME VERY EXCLUSIVELY TO BECOME VERY EXCLUSIVELY TO UPPER-CLASS RESIDENTS. UPPER-CLASS RESIDENTS. AND SO I THINK ALLOWING FOR SOME AND SO I THINK ALLOWING FOR SOME SOCIOECONOMIC MIXING WILL PROBABLY SOCIOECONOMIC MIXING WILL PROBABLY DO US SOME BENEFITS TOO. DO US SOME BENEFITS TOO. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO

Thank you. Next, Zoe Newman, then Melissa Klein, then Matthew Klufeldt.

Hi, my name is Zoe Newman, and I'm with the Utah Housing Coalition. The Utah Housing Coalition strongly supports this proposal as an important step toward a more affordable, inclusive, and equitable city. The need in our communities are clear. In Utah, fair market rent for a two bedroom apartment is over $1,500 a month. To afford that without spending more than 30% of your income on housing, a household must earn $63,000 per year. That's $30 an hour. For Utahans with the lowest incomes, the crisis is even more severe. There are only 28 affordable available rental homes for every 100 extremely low income household, leaving a shortage of more than 44,000 homes. Behind these numbers are seniors, families, people with disabilities, essential workers, and neighbors struggling to afford a place to live. There is no single solution to our affordable housing crisis. However, Utah must invest in deeply affordable housing, expand rental assistance, preserve existing affordable homes, and strengthen tenant protections. We must also address regulatory barriers that limit housing supply and increase cost. For decades, restrictive zoning has limited where and what types of homes can be built, excluding renters, first-time homebuyers, lower-income households, and working families from many of these neighborhoods. Expanding housing options can begin that change. Allowing smaller lots, more housing types, and thoughtful info will not solve the affordability crisis alone, but zoning reform is a very important part of a broader strategy. REMOVING THESE UNNECESSARY BARRIERS CAN CREATE MORE BARRIERS CAN CREATE MORE HOUSING CHOICES WHILE HELPING HOUSING CHOICES WHILE HELPING OUR INVESTMENTS IN AFFORDABLE OUR INVESTMENTS IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING GO FARTHER. HOUSING GO FARTHER. WE ARE VERY GRATEFUL. WE ARE VERY GRATEFUL.

THAT'S TIME. THAT'S TIME. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NEXT WE'LL HEAR FROM MELISSA NEXT WE'LL HEAR FROM MELISSA KLEIN AND THEN MATTHEW KLEWITT KLEIN AND THEN MATTHEW KLEWITT AND THEN EMILY SLOAN PACE.

AND THEN EMILY SLOAN PACE. MR. CHAIR FOR A SECOND. MR.

CHAIR FOR A SECOND. I NEED TO BE EXCUSED He's just stepping out for a moment.

Oh, OK. OK, Melissa Klein, thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to be a part of this, because I have been a frustrated homeowner of Sugar House, in Sugar House, for the last several months, since late April, when I first heard from Sarah Young that this was happening. I have had a long storied relationship with Sugar House, 34 years. I have a question for the Planning Commission that I'd like you to research and come back to us with an answer on. And that is, would the Utah CLT, it's a land trust, community land trust, be able to buy my adjacent lot or more on my street that become available. And by doing that, they would be able to, basically what I've been able to understand is that they would be able to own that lot and property for 99 years. They can build whatever will fit to attain an attractive home ownership option for a single couple or family looking to move up into a neighborhood where they grew up. I get that. That was me. I was in Southern California and Northern California and Central California. I just tried to stay with my family. My husband and I moved to Salt Lake City. We started over. We moved into a duplex. We lived there for four years, and we saved our money. We made $95,000 combined. I think the current statement today in the paper is that you can buy a house for $114,000 combined in this market. And this morning, I looked at Holiday, and there were 72 homes. townhomes for sale. They're available people. Please go there and don't become me in 34 years and have to stand up in front of a bunch of people I don't know to defend my rights. That's time.

Thank you. Next we'll hear from Matthew Kluet and then Emily Sloan-Pace and then Jen Ungvichian.

Great. Hello, commissioners. My name is Matthew Kluet. I'm the vice president of public policy at the Salt Lake Board of Realtors. We are a local trade association representing about 9,000 realtor and affiliate members who either live, work, recreate, or a combination of the above within Salt Lake City. I'm here today on behalf of our association to voice our support for the expanded housing options proposal. Each quarter, our association publishes a report that details the income necessary to afford the median-priced home in various municipalities throughout the county. In the report, we also dive into other data points like price-to-income ratios. I highlight this because Salt Lake City has the highest price-to-income ratio in the county for single-family homes at 8.99. and the second highest ratio for multifamily homes at 5.33. This translates into an income of either 194,000 to afford the median price single family home, or 123,000 to afford the median multifamily home in the city. With a median family income of about $75,000 within the city, clearly there is an affordability problem that needs to be addressed. Our association advocates for policies and solutions that helps expand the American dream of homeownership to as many individuals and families as possible. This expanding housing options proposal does just that by advancing innovative solutions within residential zones that encourage more missing middle housing. Small lot dwellings will provide a more affordable housing type that is desperately needed. Similar to the affordable housing incentives and ADU programs, small lot dwellings will allow prospective homeowners and current homeowners alike new opportunities to either subsidize their existing mortgage or a first opportunity to get into an equity building home. Overall, there is a lot to like with this proposal. I want to thank all of you and your incredible staff for the hard work of crafting this innovative approach, and once again, has Salt Lake City at the forefront of addressing the affordable housing crisis. I will once again end by reiterating that we support this proposal and urge you to advance it with a forward, positive recommendation.

Thank you. Next we'll hear from Emily Sloan-Pace, and then Jen Ingvichian, and then Willie Littig.

I registered two times, once as DCC and then once as a homeowner, so am I doing both right now?

You only get one.

Okay, so I'll take my recognized community organization.

What's the community organization?

Downtown Community Council.

Okay. Is that... Cool. Sorry, there's a list. I don't know. They know. I don't know.

Sure. Good evening. I'm here as chair of the Downtown Community Council. My name is Emily Sloan Pace. The DCC supports the fundamental goal behind expanding housing options. We need more housing and more kinds of housing in Salt Lake City. and we should make it easier to add thoughtful density through smaller homes, flag lots, conversions, and other forms of infill. Downtown certainly isn't in a position to argue that density itself is the problem. We live with considerable more density than what is contemplated here and understand both its benefits and trade-offs. Our concern is narrower. We aren't yet convinced that the ordinance, as designed, will reliably produce the outcome being used to sell it, affordable or even broadly attainable starter homes. I would encourage the city to address six things before moving forward. First, distinguish between producing more housing, producing less expensive housing, and producing affordable housing. A 1,200 square foot home may cost substantially less than a 2,500 square foot home and still be unaffordable to a large share of Salt Lake households. If the principal benefit of this ordinance is additional market rate housing at somewhat lower price points, that may still be worthwhile, but we should describe that accurately. If we're calling these starter homes, we should be able to demonstrate who will actually be able to buy them. Second, show us the economics. The city can model representative projects using actual Salt Lake land prices, construction costs, financing fees, and a reasonable developer return, and estimate likely sale prices and rents. If affordability is one of the primary public benefits of EHO, that analysis should be part of the public record, and it should be performed across several neighborhoods because the economics differ substantially depending upon where in Salt Lake the project is built. Third, examine whether the incentives actually favor home ownership. Zoning can create a small house. It cannot by itself create a starter home. If the same development can be sold to an owner-occupant or retained indefinitely as a market-rate rental, we should understand which option is more attractive economically. That doesn't mean imposing a blanket owner-occupancy requirement. But if expanding home ownership is a stated objective, the ordinance should make ownership, subdivision, financing, and sale as straightforward as possible, and consider incentives for ownership-oriented projects. Fourth, prioritize additive density over unnecessary demolition. One of the most promising aspects of this proposal is the opportunity to add housing to land that is already developed, a rear yard home, a flag lot, or additional units while retaining the existing house. We should make sure the ordinance does not unintentionally make demolition the economically preferred route where preservation plus infill could achieve much of the same density. Please encourage incentives for retaining existing housing while adding units. Fifth, treat trees, open space, and solar access as infrastructure rather than obstacles to overcome. Downtown has seen the consequences of development sorry of developments that maximize the building envelope while treating mature trees shade permeable ground and usable open space as expendable we should not repeat that mistake elsewhere reduced setbacks increased lot coverage and increased height have consequences those should be evaluated against the city's goals for tree canopy heat mitigation storm water and existing roof Finally, measure what happens. Before adopting this ordinance, establish what success looks like. Track units created, units demolished, ownership versus rental, sale prices and rents, and impacts on tree canopy. Then require a formal review after two years. If the ordinance is producing what was intended, great. If it's producing primarily high-priced rentals, unexpected demos, substantial tree loss, or highly uneven neighborhood impacts, the city should be prepared to adjust the policy. The DCC supports expanding housing options and thoughtful density, but development is not itself the public benefit. The public benefit is the housing and the communities that we produce as a result. This is a significant change to the city's residential zoning. We should make sure that the incentives in the ordinance are actually aligned with the outcomes we're promising residents.

Thank you. Next, we'll hear from Jane Vichian, then Willie Littig, then David Gibson.

GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING. I'M JEN AND I'M SPEAKING ON I'M JEN AND I'M SPEAKING ON I'M JEN AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MAVEN. BEHALF OF MAVEN. BEHALF OF MAVEN. WE SIT BETWEEN DISTRICTS FOUR WE SIT BETWEEN DISTRICTS FOUR WE SIT BETWEEN DISTRICTS FOUR AND FIVE. AND FIVE. AND FIVE. AT MAVEN A BIG PART OF OUR WORK AT MAVEN A BIG PART OF OUR WORK AT MAVEN A BIG PART OF OUR WORK IS BUILDING COMMUNITY AND IS BUILDING COMMUNITY AND IS BUILDING COMMUNITY AND CREATING PLACES WHERE PEOPLE FEEL CREATING PLACES WHERE PEOPLE FEEL CREATING PLACES WHERE PEOPLE FEEL CONNECTED. CONNECT And two important pieces of that for us are proximity and vibrancy. Our housing needs change throughout our lives. When you're starting out, your needs are much different than what you need when you start raising a family or when you decide to downsize. But through all those stages, being able to live near your people and the places that have become part of your everyday life is what helps us stay connected to the communities that we've built. When our neighborhoods don't offer those different types of housing, those life transitions can also mean having to leave your community altogether. And we think that we lose something really valuable when that happens. We also believe proximity creates vibrancy. We want neighborhoods where local businesses can thrive, where people walk and use transit, where neighbors know each other, and where those everyday interactions make a place feel like a community. And to me, to Maven, that's what expanding housing options is really about. It's about making room, making room for people at different stages of life, with different household sizes and different housing needs, while allowing them to stay connected to the communities that they already know and love. If we say we want Salt Lake City to be welcoming and inclusive, I think our zoning has to reflect that. A city that only has room for one type of household in each neighborhood isn't inclusive, however good the intention. EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE OUR VALUES AROUND COMMUNITY AND BELONGING MATCH WHAT WE CAN MAKE POSSIBLE FOR OUR NEIGHBORS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NEXT WE'LL HEAR FROM WILLIE LITTIG AND THEN DAVID GIBSON AND THEN JENNIFER MADRIGAL.

NO?

So and if you're one of the people that call out, please just stack up in a line. And then Peter Wetzel will be after that.

Hi, I'm David Gibson, Salt Lake City resident and licensed architect. Here are some of my concerns regarding the proposed residential zoning text amendment. I'm going to add something. In my area of Yellowcrest, this proposal will create no affordable housing whatsoever. It's not possible. We already have houses that size that are over a million dollars. Now to my main text. Utilities. Utilities such as supply water and sewer mains were sized for the existing density of residential areas. Increasing density substantially could exceed the utility mains capacity. Consistent front yards. Average block front yards vary considerably in our area of Yellowcrest from around 10 feet to 40 foot. Within a particular block and block face, the average front yards are similar or identical. This is important to maintain a coherent, compatible character of a neighborhood. If a block has an established large setback, which is now reduced, The park strip large old growth trees could die since their root systems run primarily into the front lawn areas. Those roots would be severed and those trees would die. The house height is unclear to what roof midpoint, roof ridge, bearing plate. This is not clear. I'll bypass the cider as that was clarified. Overall, I do not support this proposed amendment to the Salt Lake City residential zoning. There's a lot being proposed and more time and clarity outreach is needed to sufficiently understand and comment on what is being proposed. IN ANY CASE, I'LL ADD THAT WE HAVE 10-FOOT SETBACKS AND THE 20-FOOT FORCES THOSE HOUSES TO BE FURTHER SET BACK THAN THE 10-FOOT WHICH IS KIND OF NONSENSE FROM MY POINT OF VIEW. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NEXT WE'LL HEAR FROM JENNIFER

Hi, I'm the chair of the Glendale Neighborhood Council, Jennifer Madrigal. So good evening. I wanted to just let you know that during a recent spring meeting that we had, a public meeting at our Glendale Neighborhood Council, Glendale unanimously voted to support the Expanding Housing Options Initiative with stipulations. WE WOULD LIKE THE INITIATIVE TO INCLUDE PARALLEL EFFORTS ON THE PART OF THE CITY TO SUPPORT THE ABILITY OF OUR CURRENT GLENDILE RESIDENTS TO BENEFIT FROM THESE SPECIFIC CHANGES. SO THIS WOULD INCLUDE SOMETHING SUPPORT BY CITY SUBSIDIZED LOWER INTEREST RATE LOANS. or down payment assistance, an owner occupancy requirement maybe, adequate parking for those of us who are not located near reasonable public transit infrastructure, increased public transport generally in Glendale to support the infill and a grocery store maybe among other possible efforts. There are a number of large parcels that could be changed in Glendale if the initiative moves forward, with multiple additional units per parcel able to be added. And not only that, but with a unique resident makeup in Glendale, which includes large multi-gen... families, multi-generational income families, and working class commuters who have things like utility trucks that they need to park. We want to put Glendale residents at the forefront of benefiting from these changes. I do have my own personal concerns with the initiative, which includes a small maximum square footage size of what I understand to be only 1,200 to 1,700 square feet, or if I understand correctly, 2,000 square foot, including parking. And the other concern that I have is the lack of owner occupancy requirement. Today, this morning, the Kem Gardner Policy Institute, their 2025-2026 State of the State's Housing Market Meet, they announced projections of new housing units required in the next 10 years. Starter homes were in the lowest bracket of new projected homes required, with under 62,000 units. The new housing for prime families, which would be age 35 to 64, is double that, with over 120,000 new units that are projected to be required in the state. And then older 65 plus units, which we hope would be largely ADA accessible, are close follow at around 98,000. So with this data, it's confusing that the EHO proposition caps the square footage of these new small lot units at under 2,000 or under 2,000 square feet. The policy findings at this meeting included a note that the smaller units on smaller lots would be beneficial. To be clear, when they had the panelists' discussion, they were talking about 15,000 to over 2,000 square foot for the house, not including parking. So this small 1,200 square foot footprint isn't enough for the kind of growing family with two kids, where household size in Glendale is double that of the city. And then regarding owner occupancy, I worry about the potential for real estate investors to use these changes as an opportunity to develop and then rent out units. So why not at least require at least one owner occupied unit after the development occurs to just protect our home ownership a little bit? And I just want to close by asking the Planning Commission to consider the impact that these changes could have on some of our underserved communities, and just to make sure that you're being considerate in ensuring that the changes don't disproportionately impact the communities that don't have the means or the ability to easily provide comment, either tonight or at other times. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll hear from Peter Wetzel, then Michael Nibley, then Austin Whitehead.

I had a handout to get to the yeah, we have OK got it. Thank you Peter Wetzel. The planning division claims under expanding housing options, the neighborhoods will remain the same. That the character and unique qualities of the neighborhood will be preserved. planning division proposal states eho housing that is built should fit the scale of the neighborhood and be priced at attainable levels should not shall that is no guarantee the planning division states the goal is to create gentle infill opportunities that fit in with the character of the low density salt lake city neighborhoods Replacing decades-old housing stock on blocks where the development pattern has followed 20 to 35 foot front yard setbacks and overall building heights of 16 feet with new development patterns of 10 foot front yard setbacks and overall building heights of 30 feet is not gentle infill. nor does this preferential development pattern preserve the character and unique qualities of the neighborhood. Insufficient public awareness, insufficient public understanding, insufficient public engagement. Given the metrics offered by the Planning Division staff report dated June 10th of 2026, the city has failed to bring about public awareness of expanding housing options. If the public is unaware of EHO, then they can't understand it. The nine planning division public forums held earlier this year were one-sided presentations tailored to exclude Q&A. In fact, at the April 13th session, when the audience asked questions, a city council member took the stage and shut down the public inquiry. The message, although not spoken, shut up. We don't want to hear what you have to say. Pause, EHO until residence. That's your time.

EHO. Thank you. Thank you. Michael Nibley, and then Austin Whitehead, and then Kathy Chambliss. Yeah.

Just a break in a second.

Oh, sorry. Michael Nibley. No. Okay. Austin Whitehead.

Hello. My name is Austin Whitehead. I live in Liberty Wells, District 5. I'm a graduate student at the University of Utah studying city planning and am in support of expanding housing options. There's a lot of data supporting these changes, but I want to focus on my personal story. My partner and I bought a home in 2020 for $300,000, 25% below the median home price at the time. It's an 850 square foot 1920s bungalow on a 4,000 square foot corner lot with no off street parking, all factors that contributed to its relative affordability. Other homes on our block are similar, with some larger homes, duplexes, and fourplexes mixed in. Notably, this entire neighborhood is zoned R15000, which would make building our house and a lot of the rest of the block illegal today. We moved to Salt Lake City in 2018 for its balance of affordability, job opportunity, and access to recreation. Over the eight years we've lived here, we've watched that affordability disappear. I want young people to be able to continue to move to Salt Lake City to find relatively affordable small houses like the one I was able to buy. Our current R1-5000 zoning doesn't match the existing housing mix in these neighborhoods and prevents furthering the diversity of homes that makes Salt Lake City such an incredible place to live. I urge you to support these changes. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll hear from Kathy Chambliss. Chambliss.

Hi, my name is Kathy Chambliss, and I strongly support the expanding housing options proposal before us tonight. I have only heard about it recently, even though I think I'm fairly well informed, so I'm not sure where I've been. But I have some suggestions for how you should get more word out about this. I've lived in Salt Lake City. for over 50 years, and in 2021, my husband and I approached the Planning Commission for an addition of ADU to our home that we live in above Foothill Drive, which is not part of the area suggested for this because we live in the foothill overlay where there's lots of big lots and they assume that people who live there don't want to have more dense housing. But we requested that we build an ADU so that our young, our son and his wife and our two grandchildren could move in because they could not afford to live in Salt Lake City or they could not afford to buy a house big enough for their growing family even though they lived in the Liberty Wells neighborhood. So we were able to, through the Planning Commission, get permission to build an addition to our home for our family. And it has enriched our neighborhood. We have young kids riding their bikes down the street. Our neighbors love it. We had no opposition from our neighbors. They attended the Planning Commission meeting on Zoom, because this was during the pandemic. And they supported it because they wanted it. We're not NIMBYs in our neighborhood. But the advantage of having our younger family members here, they're able to take care of us in our aging process. And they fill the schools in that part of Salt Lake City. Plus the home that they vacated, another family can move into. So we're very much in favor of more density in Salt Lake City.

Thank you. Thank you. We've still got a number of people to hear from tonight, so we're going to go ahead and take a short break, and we will get going again at 740. Thank you.

Thank you.

UTILITIES PER UNIT. THAT IS NOT AFFORDABLE EITHER. SO I JUST DON'T SEE HOW THESE PARTICULAR CHANGES ARE GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE IN ANY WAY. I GUESS WE BETTER HUSTLE. I THINK INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOODS SHOULD DECIDE ON THESE ZONING CHANGES. IT DOESN'T SEEM FAIR TO HAVE A Austin, Texas added an ADU zoning, and this has seen the demolition of older, less expensive houses to see luxury ADUs or multiplexes, and the less fortunate neighborhoods, the underserved neighborhoods are the ones that have seen the most gentrification. So I urge the Planning Commission to reconsider this one-size-fits-all approach and to address some of the questions that others have spoken to or commented on so eloquently. Thank you so much.

Next we'll hear from Callan Glasser, then Mike Christensen, then Mohith Ripale.

Hi, my name is Callan Glauser. Good evening, chair and commissioners. I'm an economist and a lifelong resident of Salt Lake City, and this proposal. There's a lot of ground that's been covered by others, so I want to talk to you today about who actually builds this kind of housing that is in the proposal. There's a misconception that missing middle reform mainly benefits large developers. The evidence says otherwise. After Seattle passed similar reforms, nearly 1,000 unique builders took part in the redevelopment that followed. NOT A HANDFUL OF BIG FIRMS, A WIDE BASE OF SMALL LOCAL BUILDERS EACH TAKING ON ONE OR TWO PROJECTS AT A TIME. THAT'S NOT A COINCIDENCE. REQUIREMENTS LIKE PARKING MINIMUMS FUNCTION AS FIXED COSTS. A LARGE DEVELOPER SPREADS THAT COST ACROSS 40 UNITS. A SMALL BUILDER HAS TO ABSORB THE SAME COST ACROSS FOUR. Permissive zoning for duplexes through fourplexes lowers that barrier specifically for local contractors and lenders who don't have the capital to compete for a big multifamily project but can build a fourplex on one lot. But that only works if the zoning is flexible. Unit configuration for odd lots, parking requirements small builders can actually absorb, and design standards a small builder can actually meet. I'd ask this commission to keep that in mind as you finalize this ordinance. The goal isn't just to legalize more housing types. It's to make sure that those who actually construct them are neighbors and local builders with thinner margins and less capital can make the numbers work. This is how we strengthen our local economy. And I think that that's worth keeping in mind. So thank you.

Thank you. Next we'll hear from Mike Christensen and then Mohith Rappal and then Christina Robb.

I'M MIKE CHRISTIANSEN. I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF SALT I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF SALT LAKE CITY FOR OVER TWO DECADES LAKE CITY FOR OVER TWO DECADES NOW AND USED TO SERVE ON THE NOW AND USED TO SERVE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. PLANNING COMMISSION. AND I JUST WANTED TO VOICE MY AND I JUST WANTED TO VOICE MY SUPPORT FOR EXPANDING HOUSING SUPPORT FOR EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS. OPTIONS. AND THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS WHY AND THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS WHY I SUPPORT IT. I SUPPORT IT. I THINK THE BIG ONE IS THAT WE I THINK THE BIG ONE IS THAT WE ALLOW FOR A LOT MORE DIVERSE TYPES OF HOUSING HERE IN SALT TYPES OF HOUSING HERE IN SALT LAKE CITY AND I FEEL THAT WILL LAKE CITY AND I FEEL THAT WILL HELP TO INCREASE AFFORDABILITY HELP TO INCREASE AFFORDABILITY OVER TIME SO THANK YOU. OVER TIME SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

Hi, my name is Mohith Ropale. I grew up in Salt Lake City and graduated from the University of Utah just four years ago, along with a lot of my closest friends. Since then, we've scattered into every kind of job. Engineers, public workers, bartenders, waiters, photographers, but almost every one of them loved living here. The nature, the amenities, and especially the community we built in Salt Lake was special. The other thing that I've heard from all of them is being priced out. I've heard the jokes that we'll afford a house when we're dead or that owning one means moving to a field in the middle of Iowa. Too often I've watched friends who work in the city move away from the community they grew up in simply because they couldn't afford to stay. When the only housing allowed is thousands of square feet on large lots with big side and rear setbacks, housing stays expensive. When we allow more flexible types of housing, we get more housing, and prices stay within reach. EHO lets people choose a home that fits the life they actually have, instead of having to choose between an unaffordably large single family house, renting indefinitely, or leaving the community they love. This is a choice that too many of my friends and me have had to make. I encourage you to vote for the EHO, vote for affordable housing, and vote for the people of the city to be able to live here.

Thank you. Thank you. Next we'll hear from Christina Robb, and then Joan Sharp, and then Turner Bitton. Christina Robb? Going once. All right. Joan Sharp, and then Turner Bitton, and then Marcus Jessup.

Hello, I'm Joan Sharp, and I have lived in many cities, and I'm very surprised in Salt Lake that you went to Durham, North Carolina, which I have lived in Fayetteville, North Carolina, and Richmond, Virginia, to compare. Topography is so different. Population is so different. Salt Lake has mixed-use neighborhoods. You have the model. You've had it for years. Look at Marmalade. Look at the avenues. Oh wait, the prices have gone up with the density. And by the way, they're so old, no one can afford to buy them because they can't pay double the price to remodel. I am for affordable living. I have a nephew who rented in Liberty Wells for a while and the house next door was torn down for a way taller house and sold for a million dollars. So then his roommates were kicked out of the other house. So the same thing can happen. I think raising heights is a mistake. You start to lose the charm of our city. I think you need to look at this neighborhood by neighborhood. We need affordable housing. We need a young population. I'm not against this. But making this just easy by doing blanket zoning does not make sense. Our areas are different. I drove on 1,900 today and between 2,100 and 80 beautiful small family homes. And then all of a sudden, ugh. huge high homes and wide. That's what the zoning is going to do. We need to support individuals to be able to afford to remodel where we already have dense living in Marmalade and in the avenues. Thank you. Thank you.

Next we'll hear from Turner Bitton and then Marcus Jessup and then Thomas King.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Turner Bitton. I'm a resident of District 2, also a former planning commissioner for a glorious six months. I'm the founding executive director of Wasatch Advocates for a Livable Community. I got into this work because a few years ago I looked around and I was the only one of my friends that owned a home in Salt Lake City, let alone owned a home at all. What the proposal in front of you, there's a few fundamental truths about these reforms. They're battle tested. They've worked in communities from across the country, from Durham to Seattle, Minneapolis to Portland. And in Houston, these reforms were the key to creating housing affordability and new ownership opportunities. How often do you as commissioners have the opportunity to do those two things? In all of these communities, these reforms have promoted housing affordability writ large in the market. New options are the key to unlocking affordability. Having more options and choices between an expensive single family home and a large multi-family apartment complex, that is where affordability runs. I also want to talk to you about where public opinion actually stands on this proposal, because tonight's conversation doesn't capture that. There's been a lot said about what the public thinks about this. The public tells policymakers over and over and over again in socialist polls, in MAGA polls, in moderate polls, and in a poll that we conducted earlier this year of Salt Lake City residents, overwhelming support for this. We've included the polling memo in your report as public comment. I'd ask the commission to see your role tonight not as getting ahead of public opinion, but as implementing what residents have already told the city that they want. They want more action, they want more options, and they want the opportunity to put down roots right here in their community and to grow as part of this Salt Lake City that we all know and love. LASTLY, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THESE HOMES ALREADY EXIST IN EVERY SINGLE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THIS CITY, FROM YELLCREST TO THE AVENUES TO GLENDALE TO POPLAR GROVE TO SUGAR HOUSE, DUPLEXES, QUADPLEXES, AND SMALL STARTER HOMES ALL EXIST.

THAT'S TIME. THANK YOU. NEXT WE'LL HEAR FROM MARCUS

good evening commissioners i'm marcus jessup with the salt lake home builders association we have more than 600 members builders suppliers trades people related businesses small builders representing residential construction in salt lake and tulip counties the the slhba supports expanding housing options The KMC Gardner Policy Institute recently reported that Salt Lake City permitted 3,000, in 2025, Salt Lake City permitted 3,347 housing units, nearly 3,000 apartments, 312 condos, townhomes, twin homes, or duplexes, and 77 single-family homes. Rental housing is essential. We also want people who hope to buy a home to have that opportunity. Today, more than 9 in 10 Salt Lake County renters cannot afford a medium-priced home. Young adults need starter homes. Working families need stability. Older residents need places to downsize without leaving their neighborhoods, potentially freeing larger homes for growing families. The city's share of households with children fell from 24.8% in 2010 to 17.8% in 2021. Housing costs are not the only reason, but that decline is a warning. Families are finding it increasingly difficult to put down roots and build a future in Salt Lake City. Smaller homes can also close the affordability gap. City staff in the report cited Durham, North Carolina, where small-law homes sold for a medium of $348,000 versus $605,000 for a standard single-family home, medium-sized family home in Salt Lake City, about 42% less. EXPANDING HOUSING OPTION ALLOWS SMALLER HOMES AND SMALLER ALLOWS SMALLER HOMES AND SMALLER LOTS FOR PRESERVING SINGLE LOTS FOR PRESERVING SINGLE FAMILY ZONING AND HISTORIC FAMILY ZONING AND HISTORIC PROTECTIONS. PROTECTIONS. FOR GENERATIONS WHO WANT TO OWN FOR GENERATIONS WHO WANT TO OWN A HOME, WE NEED A REALISTIC A HOME, WE NEED A REALISTIC ENTRY POINT, A CHANCE TO BUILD ENTRY POINT, A CHANCE TO BUILD EQUITY AND CLAIM PART OF THE EQUITY AND CLAIM PART OF THE AMERICAN DREAM. AMERICAN DREAM.

THIS PROPOSAL WILL NOT SOLVE THIS PROPOSAL WILL NOT SOLVE AFFORDABILITY ALONE, BUT

Well, hi, I'm Thomas from Fair Park, and I just want to share my complete support for expanding housing options. So as many have said, we have lots of small rental units here, and then we have expensive single-family homes on big lots. and we don't have much in between i know a lot of people who would love to be able to buy a home i don't know anybody who insists on a 7 000 square foot lot with two off-street parking spaces many of my friends are leaving because salt lake doesn't offer homes where people can put down roots at a price my generation can afford our schools are closing because people can't afford to start families here It's a policy failing that we're driving away essential workers and talented young people. And frankly, it's a moral failing that we're currently prioritizing things like parking and the appearance of our neighborhoods over keeping them livable. In my opinion, expanding housing options as it is is already a conservative, compromised solution. This is not an issue that I think needs further study or delay or dilution. When you look at the cost, you know, with every day of inaction, we're driving more people out. i personally love my small home on my small lot i don't see how it would tear the city apart to build a few more like it and with expanding housing options we can make salt lake a place where more people can choose to stay thanks thank you uh next we're from morgan julian and then michael lane and then jim genlin

Hi, my name is Morgan Julian. I am a resident of Salt Lake City. I work for an affordable home ownership developer in the city. I am here speaking in favor of the expanding affordable or expanding housing options text amendment. I do have a few considerations to the proposed text, but I would first like to thank Salt Lake City planning staff as I used to be a planner myself and I know how hard this type of ordinance overhaul is. and how much research and effort that they put into this. I would like to... I would like for staff and Planning Commission to reconsider the minimum lot size of a 2,000 square foot per unit for the small lot development. So... smaller units equal more affordability doesn't always necessitate more affordability if they can't absorb the land cost or cost of construction. More units are able to do this. Currently under the AHI, a fourplex can be built on a 6,000 square foot lot, but only three units can be built under the proposed code because of the 2,000 square foot lot size maximum. THREE UNITS WOULD HAVE TO ABSORB ALL THE LAND AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS VERSUS THE FOUR UNIT WHICH WOULD DRIVE UP THE PRICE PER UNIT WHICH KIND OF GOES AGAINST THE AFFORDABILITY PORTION OF THIS INCENTIVE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NEXT WE ARE FROM MICHAEL LANE AND THEN JIM JENLIN AND THEN JANET HEMMING.

My name is Michael Lane. I live in Poplar Grove. I understand the need for and I do support additional housing, but I have three questions about the proposal. I'd like to know who actually benefits. Does it actually help the homeowners who need affordable housing or does it primarily increase development value of single family properties for investors and developers? Two, where do the cars go? And can infrastructure handle more high density growth? My property is 6,500 square feet. It currently has one home. Under the proposed change, I could support three units. If one unit becomes three units or more, where do the additional cars, traffic, and infrastructure demands go? Three, what are we giving up in the name of growth? Neighborhood character isn't just the buildings, it is the people, the families, and the relationships that actually make a community. If we dramatically increase development potential, does it actually create affordable housing, or does it create incentive to replace existing homes and displace the communities we're trying to improve? I support the growth. I do support housing. But before we approve anything along these lines, I would like the city to demonstrate who benefits, whether our infrastructure can actually support these changes and how we're protecting the existing communities. Thank you.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT WE'LL HEAR FROM JIM NEXT WE'LL HEAR FROM JIM NEXT WE'LL HEAR FROM JIM GENLIN AND THEN JANET GENLIN AND THEN JANET GENLIN AND THEN JANET HEMMING AND THEN FRANZ HEMMING AND THEN FRANZ HEMMING AND THEN FRANZ OMISON.

OMISON. OMISON. I APOLOGIZE FOR MY I APOLOGIZE FOR MY I APOLOGIZE FOR MY HANDWRITING. HANDWRITING. HANDWRITING. I AM JIM JENKIN AND I AM THE I AM JIM JENKIN AND I AM THE I AM JIM JENKIN AND I AM THE CHAIR OF THE GREATER AVENUES CHAIR OF THE GREATER AVENUES CHAIR OF THE GREATER AVENUES COMMUNITY COUN And particularly the flag lot treatment is brilliant. And I'll get to some of that. But first, I want to talk about a couple of showstoppers for us. One is the reduction of front yard setback to essentially a coin flip between two adjacent lots. AND THE OTHER IS CREATION OF A SINGLE HOUSING TYPE THAT'S SINGLE HOUSING TYPE THAT'S SINGLE HOUSING TYPE THAT'S PRIVILEGED ABOVE ALL OTHERS PRIVILEGED ABOVE ALL OTHERS PRIVILEGED ABOVE ALL OTHERS PAST OR PRESENT. PAST OR PRESENT. PAST OR PRESENT. AND THAT WOULD BE SMALL LOT AND THAT WOULD BE SMALL LOT AND THAT WOULD BE SMALL LOT DWELLINGS AND THEIR SETBACK DWELLINGS AND THEIR SETBACK DWELLINGS AND THEIR SETBACK EXEMPTIONS. new housing type is it is a difficult thing and I think we need to make sure we get it right in our regular meeting last week I presented a spreadsheet because it's it's relatively easy to pencil out the costs on these things right you can take readily available public information and get your land use cost you make some assumptions about building per square foot and you pencil that out and I presented that As this is set up, a 1,200 square foot dwelling will reach about the 30% AMI affordability level in most zones and occasionally even in the most expensive. If you go to other zones, other areas of the city, basically downtown into the west where the land use cost is significantly less, then it's relatively easy to approach affordability. The only problem with that is that subsequent to a question by a citizen, I expanded that analysis a little and looked at the rental return in that same model, and in every instance, The rental return is more than the base construction. So there's more profitability in these small units as rentals than there is in their sale to homeowners. So where are the guardrails? How do we establish them that will protect the ability of home buyers to buy these small And this is particularly bad on the west side where land is cheap, and it would pay a developer to buy a large lot, scrape the existing home, build as many of these things as he can, and rent them out. So that's my nightmare scenario for this. And I really don't see that we have any guardrails. in this proposal that would prevent that kind of exploitation by developers. And so, at the moment, we can't support this as written. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll hear from Janet Hemming, and then Franz Amason, and then B. Losi? Loos?

Good evening. If we want to know what we're going to get with the expanding housing options, we have to look at Durham, North Carolina, the city which installed the same concept seven years ago. Here's what Durham said in their official reports. The vast majority of small houses on small lots and duplexes were built in lower wealth residential areas. What does that mean for Salt Lake? West side neighborhoods like Glendale, Poplar Grove, Rose Park, and Fair Park will be the primary EHO targets. Supporters say, and they've all said tonight, that the EHO will provide new family housing, but Durham has no proof that families primarily occupied or benefited from these units. In fact, doesn't have occupancy statistics. Durham also doesn't know how many were owner-occupied, how many were rentals, the household income of occupants, the final sales price, nor was it able to determine if these small dwellings increased affordable housing, which has also been talked about tonight, for low-income households. There are so many missing facts. In short, zoning codes should not be built on vague promises. Consider this. In the last decade, Salt Lake City has built 35,000 to 45,000 apartments and multifamily units for renters. These benefited university students, young professionals, empty nesters, and couples without children. Missing from this demographic are young families with children and growing families with children. Thousands of families of children have left this city. IS IT TIME TO SAY THE QUIET PART OUT LOUD? IS IT TIME TO ASK IF FAMILIES WITH SMALL YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES WITH GROWING CHILDREN ARE NO LONGER WELCOME IN SALT LAKE CITY? BECAUSE NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE IS BEING BUILT IN THE CITY FOR THEM AND THE 1200 SQUARE FOOT EHO WILL NOT ATTRACT FAMILIES.

Next we'll hear from Franz Amazon and then be loss and then Brian Burnett Good evening.

My name is Franz Amazon. I'm and I strongly oppose the expanding housing options. I Want to be very clear. I am NOT opposed to housing. I am NOT opposed to responsible growth I am opposed to dramatically increasing residential density across established Salt Lake City neighborhoods without first proving that our infrastructure can handle it. The City is proposing changes affecting R1, R2, SR1 and SR1A family neighborhoods, predominantly single family and two family neighborhoods, the proposal would create substantially more opportunities for multiple housing units and small lot development. That means more people, more cars, more demand for water, more demand on the sewer system, more demand for police, fire services, and more pressure on our streets and highways. My question is, Where is the infrastructure analysis showing that Salt Lake City can handle the cumulative impact of thousands of property owners taking advantage of these new development rights? Our transportation system is already heavily congested, our water resources are not unlimited, and we cannot keep adding population to the same geographic area and simply assume that the infrastructure will somehow catch up later. Salt Lake City is a great place to live precisely because of the character of its established neighborhoods. We should not destroy the qualities that made this city desirable in the first place in an effort to solve a regional housing problem. If a region needs more housing, let's think regionally. There are communities outside Salt Lake City where new housing can be planned together with the roads, water, sewer, and other infrastructure needed to support it. That's time. Thank you.

Next we'll hear from B. Loss, and then Brian Burnett, and then Judy Short.

Hi, I'm Elosi, and I can just tell by everybody here that they're extremely concerned one way or the other about what's going to happen to the city. And I've lived here for a very long time and moved to Liberty Wells when people said, oh my gosh, you're going to live below 50 East? That's a disgusting neighborhood. So I've seen a lot of changes, and I see all the demographics in our city that make it unique, the type of housing that goes together. You can walk down one street and the houses are all attached. And it's always been affordable until 2019 when things doubled. And that's, I don't understand why, but I think when you look up and you find out that 108,000 of our homes in our valley are owned by investors and LLCs and people don't even live there, that is something we need to address. So in this policy, I think, you know, there's probably some great things to be looked at, but there's a lot of things that have to have a screeching halt because you guys are wise enough to say, you know, we just don't want it to go to developers that are going to build things that don't fit in and don't match the character that are the duplexes that are already there or the ones that is the entire streets attached. Like why can't there be limitations on, that make it look just like those things that are already there. I think any of you that have an existing home or even an apartment and it's something that goes up in your backyard that all the sun blocks all the sunlight that you've had, that you've gotten used to, or your views that you've gotten used to, or even your neighbors that are now gone because their house got plowed down and they can't afford it, that is going to be shocking. You know, there are places in our neighborhood that there were low-income places that families lived in that we all knew that got plowed down and those families had nowhere to go and their kids are wandering the streets so these things have to be addressed because we love our neighborhood and we love the city and there are options and that can be done really and i pray and hope you guys can do that um also like the infrastructure the sewage like it breaks all the time you know the water you can smell it in certain areas please address those things we're told not to use water and yet we keep adding that's time thank you thank you

Next we'll hear from Brian Burnett and then Judy Short.

Brian Burnett with the Foothill Sunnyside Community Council. First of all, I'd like to thank you for your time. I appreciate all the effort you put in. These are difficult issues, and we're grateful for your service, as well as the staff. I know they put a lot of time in. These are difficult issues. Let me just address some of my main concerns. The setbacks. The 10-foot setback. That's not a gentle infill in my neighborhood. That's not maintaining the character of my neighborhood. And I haven't talked to anybody in my neighborhood who agrees with that. And we could do a lot better job of getting the word out. I mean, we've had, I think, an affordable housing rally here today. But in my neighborhood, people are not too excited about this. And I think this 10-foot setback, first of all, the canopies for a bunch of trees on my street extend more than 10 feet, as do the root systems. You're going to destroy the nature of my neighborhood. DESTROY GREEN SPACE, WHICH I THINK YOU'RE ALL IN FAVOR OF, RIGHT? EVERYBODY IS IN FAVOR OF GREEN TREES. YOU'RE GOING TO DESTROY THOSE THINGS IF YOU ALLOW A TENTFIELD. YOU NEED TO BUMP THAT BACK. THAT'S ONE THING YOU CAN DO. PARKING. SO IF WE PUT FOUR LOTS WHERE ONE LOT USED TO BE AND THEY HAVE THREE BEDROOMS, THAT'S 12 BEDROOMS. And recently you voted the, you know, you can put two people per bedroom in these. So that's 24 people. You've got four parking spots. And if you don't think that's going to happen, you ought to drive around some of the university places. If you're near the university, Developers are going to come in and go, wow, this is a great opportunity. I can put 24 kids in there. I checked at the University of Utah. The housing next year is a little under $1,000 a month for housing. That's $24,000. You can cash flow a lot of development on $24,000. And then suddenly, you get four parking spots and cars all over the place. That dramatically impacts the neighborhood. That's not gentle infill. AND THEN JUST GENERALLY, AND THESE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN WELL Are these going to be owner occupied? Are these going to be rentals? And my fear is they're going to be rentals because the developers have the cash, they have the incentive, they've got the economic incentive. It's not more units per se. If it was more units per se, housing costs would come down a lot in Salt Lake City because we build a ton of apartments. So they're going to maximize what they can build and maximize the rent. They're not worried about affordable housing. They want a return on investment. And so I fear that the whole purpose of this thing is going to get flipped upside down because developers are going to benefit the most from it. And if you don't change some of these other things, you're going to mess up some neighborhoods that were really nice. And I have families that are telling me they'll move out of Salt Lake. if something like that moves up next to him. It just changes the character of the neighborhood. If you've got 24 students with a bunch of cars and parties and stuff, that changes it. You voted last couple months ago. Let's put two people in there for every bedroom. So that could very well be what you get with their cars. And believe it or not, public transportation in that area is not all that great. I KNOW YOU HAVE A UTA COMMISSIONER ON THE BOARD OR EMPLOYEE, BUT IT'S JUST HARD TO GET FROM POINT A TO POINT B. SO MOST OF THESE KIDS HAVE CARS. The intent is great. We all want affordable housing. I wish this could work. And maybe smaller houses would work. But you've got some things you need to work on. And if you really want to get support from a lot of Salt Lake that you haven't heard from tonight, you're going to need to make some changes. And you need to have more outreach. Right now, nobody in my neighborhood knew this was going on. So anyhow, those are my thoughts. Again, I appreciate your time.

Thank you. Next we'll hear from Judy Short. And then I had some cards that didn't have anything on the subject, so I'm not positive if they were for the item we didn't have public discussion for. But if you are Troy Rawlings, Michael Puck, Dan Carvajal, or Matthew Morris, if you are interested in this, you can go ahead and line up there.

Thanks. I'm Judy Short from the Sugar House Community Council. The elephant in the room is affordable housing. We haven't said much about it, but I'm told council members and staff are worried about it. We all spent a lot of time studying the issue when that ordinance was written. To my letter in your planning commission packet, I included the page that was written by Andy Hulka providing how these two ordinances would work together. I think you need to read that again. Homeownership needs to really be a priority. so buyers can build up equity. If the property owner is renting everything, it might provide more affordable housing, but it won't provide any long-term gain to the person paying the rent. Public transit needs to expand. A good transit system would reduce the number of cars, which could make available land on which to build. Alleys could be maintained and more usable to provide access to backyards for parking for additional units. Build larger units for families. Emphasize a basement, we haven't even heard that word today, a basement for extra bedrooms without using more land. Spell out the need for green space and make it a written requirement. Just like affordable needs to be a written requirement in about every third line of this combined ordinance. Developers won't think about it if it's not in their face. We need trees to cool the air if the houses are going to be so close together. Emphasize the affordable housing initiatives. That needs to be part of this. If we don't have affordable units, we get more Airbnbs and developers building for profit, not to help the citizens. Many of you made examples like that earlier today. And I'd like to talk about the front yard setbacks. There's a proposal for everything is at 10 feet. I think it's much more friendly to have it the average of the block face. And I'm sorry if that means planners have to go and measure, but it's a much more exciting development. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead.

Hi, Dan Carvajal speaking in favor of the new ordinance changes. I'm a resident of Liberty Wells, new father. This is not normally how I spend my time coming to planning commission meetings, but I asked my wife if she could... take the baby tonight and I come and speak to something that we both find really important, and that is our neighborhood and the importance of everything we love about it. It's got parks, it's got families, we walk to the daycare, and there's no less than six coffee shops, which is awesome. While I love everything that's there now, I know there can always be more. There can always be new opportunities to enrich my life with new people, new relationships, new businesses. And this is a great step forward in that happening. And I think we should continue to support it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

You want to go ahead?

My name is Michael Pack, and I live in District 3. I'm against the EHO. I think affordable housing is definitely necessary. But I'll just give the example of where I live. I live on a street across the street from us. Most of the homes that are originally were kind of those little post-World War II bungalows. And so across the street, three houses across the street from me are all now owned by California people. They're rental properties. They're college students in there. They each have their own car. One had six in it, one had eight in it. They cram in because it doesn't bring the prices down. They just can get the rent and they get a bunch of college students living in there to have to be able to afford it that way. So we have six to eight, that was like 14 cars from two houses, just two houses. And so you talk about affordability, there's also something about quality of life. When you get home in the evening, if you don't have a garage or a driveway like many of these homes do not, and you've put in your full day and you want to go into your house and take it easy and you can't find a place to park, You know, that also has to do with, I'm all for people having a space and a house. It's traditionally been the American way that the, you know, the greatest investment most Americans have was their home. But when you start doing these kinds of homes, these small homes like this where You start losing a tax base because most of them become rental property. Or if you go down my street again, we had one of those really charming little homes. The lady lived there with her father, lived there, I don't know how many, 40, 50 years, 60 years, passed away. And now, instead of that house, there's a $2 million McMansion in that property. And it takes up the whole footprint. And you can't see your neighbors. And there's no privacy for the people that have their backyards fully exposed. So while affordable housing is very important and is very necessary, I don't think this is the way that you'll get to it.

Thank you very much for your time. One last time for Troy Rawlings or Matthew Morris. Okay, I've got a couple comments to read in. This is from John Becker. Blanket zoning is bad zoning. And from Jackson Murphy, Salt Lake City can be a leader on the biggest issue facing Utahns with this reasonable incremental proposal. Young families are priced out. Is there anyone else who didn't submit a card who would like to speak on this?

Nope.

All right. Then we will bring it back to the committee and to the staff to talk about anything that they want to address. I'll just run through kind of some of the stuff I heard highlighted over and over again. So concerns about the EHO competing with the affordable housing initiatives and pushing those out. I'm concerned about not being family oriented enough in neighborhoods, not making space for children and young families. Needing incentives to preserve existing housing so that it doesn't get knocked down in lieu of lots of smaller homes being built. Whether or not the capacity is there for utilities for these new homes. Concerns about the maximum square footage. the quality of the neighborhoods, and then concerns about public engagement. So if you guys would like to speak to those or any other things that you heard that you would like to talk about, please.

Sure. There's a lot there. And I think, as you can tell after tonight, this was pretty representative of our experience as we went out into different public events and received comments. you'll notice there's a wide variety of opinions and people feel very strongly on both sides. And so that's something that we really tried to represent. Earlier in the summer when we presented this, we tried to highlight some of the themes. I felt like I heard a lot of those same themes tonight. And there are some of these that... are proposed in a specific way for a specific reason. And some of those themes, we would appreciate additional feedback and discussion from you on. So those are some of the things that we identified, like front yards. That came up. I heard that quite a bit. I think we had a slide about that. I don't know if that's included on this, but the analysis that we performed on the front yards was that if you take a 2,000 square foot lot, it's basically like, I'm going to try to explain the math, but a 10 foot setback is like, 10% or something of the lot. And so adding another 10, it takes it to like 20% of the lot now is just the front yard. So it restricts what can be built and makes building housing less likely. But that was something that we brought to you, that it was identified by people that maybe it might lead to some inconsistencies. And we wanted to hear if, in every case, all of these, there's going to be trade-offs, right? More housing or preserving yards, or more housing or allowing parking. And we did try to balance that. you know there is still parking requirements and we did not include the exceptions that are allowed for adus in the proposal because we wanted to ensure that an appropriate amount of parking is provided that it won't be reduced necessarily down to zero but again as you heard right that people feel very strongly on that issue and so um That's your job is to listen to all of those comments and interpret how to best achieve the city's goals, which are varied and could be achieved in a lot of different ways. So that's a couple. Front yards, parking is one that we want to discuss further and interested in your opinions. Talking about affordability overall and that this won't guarantee affordability or that it won't be affordable to families. That is also something that was very important. Key to this, when we introduced the topic, we said, here's what the project does, here's what it doesn't do. And one of the directions that we did receive throughout this whole process was don't completely abolish single family zoning. And so the way that our zoning works is you can have a residential lot with a residential home. And then if you want to build something extra, it has to go through one of these options that we have. An ADU is accessory to the primary, so it has to be smaller. You have to have some ownership on the lot, right? So that's, you get extra, but there are a few strings attached. with affordable housing incentives. You can add extra density, but it has to be deed-restricted affordable housing. And so with this project, the direction was generally we want to add more housing, but not just anything, right? You can't just add any townhome or as many townhomes as possible. And so the key there was that at least what we felt like we heard from people was we want to allow it, but only if it's affordable. And so while we have one product, or one option, affordable housing incentives, which allows more units with deed-restricted affordability. As you saw from one of the slides we presented earlier, there's only been a small handful of those projects. Now, it's still early, and we hope that that will continue to be used, but it hasn't led to widespread adoption or some of the concerns that we heard of. DEMOLISHING AND BUILDING FORPLEX ON EVERY LOT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT HASN'T BEEN WHAT'S BEEN EXPERIENCED. But generally, the thinking is, OK, well, how can we encourage more affordable housing through the free market without a deed restriction? Is there some other way to formulate the code or restrict things otherwise to ensure that things end up, if not in a guaranteed price range, comparatively more attainable and affordable than a larger alternative? And so that's why that was key is that we do agree with the comments that people don't want just any new housing, right? It needs to serve a purpose. It needs to provide a benefit to the residents. And so that was key to the small lot dwelling proposal. But again, we're interested in your thoughts and opinions, your feedback on what you heard, and if there's anything we're missing or anything that should be tweaked. We are still open to that. Nothing is set in stone. And that's the purpose of this is to talk through it and find the right balance. But if there were specific items that we want to touch on, be happy to continue to explore and discuss.

Great. I'll bring it back to us then. But thank you. And I want to say, I think that in hearing these comments, they are saying, it's a list of sticking points that people have, right? But it's sticking points that have been, looked at and we're trying to figure out the best kind of balance here and there. I think that your presentation earlier was a pretty good representation of then what we heard in comments. So I appreciate that. And I think you guys did a great job with that. But I'll bring it back to the committee.

We can go ahead and discuss. This might have been with a different project, but I seem to recall that there was a display of a three-bedroom house in the envelope that is proposed under EHI, VHO.

Yes, it was. We had something in the public engagement presentation. It is not in this one, I don't believe. No, it is not.

OK, but it is certainly possible to have a three bedroom home, which would support a family of two parents and two kids.

Excellent. I wonder if it would be possible to show us a map where, or just explain that if you're doing an EHO option, if you can also do an AHI option, or if those two THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE IN EVERY THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE IN EVERY GEOGRAPHY TOGETHER OR LIKE IF GEOGRAPHY TOGETHER OR LIKE IF GEOGRAPHY TOGETHER OR LIKE IF THEY COULD BOTH HAPPEN IF THEY THEY COULD BOTH HAPPEN IF THEY THEY COULD BOTH HAPPEN IF THEY COULD STACK ON TOP OF EACH OTHER.

COULD STACK ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. COULD STACK ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. SO WE HAVE WRITTEN AN ADDITION SO WE HAVE WRITTEN AN ADDITION SO WE HAVE WRITTEN AN ADDITION SINCE LAST TIME WE SAW YOU FOR SINCE LAST TIME WE SAW YOU FOR SINCE LAST TIME WE SAW YOU FOR THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT REPORT. THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT REPORT. THE PUBLIC ENGA AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES. IT WOULDN'T ALLOW YOU TO STACK IT WOULDN'T ALLOW YOU TO STACK IT WOULDN'T ALLOW YOU TO STACK SMALL LOT DWELLINGS WITH AVUs SMALL LOT DWELLINGS WITH AVUs SMALL LOT DWELLINGS WITH AVUs AND ALL THAT. AND ALL THAT. AND ALL THAT. BUILDING PRESERVATIONS. BUILDING PRESERVATIONS. BUILDING PRESERVATIONS. YOU COULDN'T UTILIZE ANY OF THE YOU COULDN'T UTILIZE ANY OF THE YOU COULDN'T UTILIZE ANY OF THE INCENTIVES IN ADDITION TO THE INCENTIVES IN ADDITION TO THE INCENTIVES IN ADDITION TO THE SMALL LOT DWELLINGS. SMALL LOT DWELLINGS.

And if there's a way, there was some request for if you could show the economics. What does this mean? What could you, on an average lot, what could you build? And how would that, does it seem like it would just be an investor that buys it and tears everything down and builds a new something? Even though I know economics change. Right this minute, it's better to be a renter than to be an owner maybe in Salt Lake City. But I know those things change too. So that's not set in stone either. But I wonder if there's a way to give the information that people are asking about. Like, I'm super worried about this thing. Is there a way that you can tell me a lot about it, and here's the best way to answer it? I also think there's something like, I don't necessarily want a 10-foot setback on my street. I don't want that. But sometimes you make rules for the whole city, and you hope that every single house on my street doesn't get torn down and rebuilt 10 feet away from the house. BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT I WONDER IF THERE'S A WAY TO ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU KEEP HEARING. LIKE WE THOUGHT ABOUT IT. LIKE THIS IS OUR BEST ANSWER TO THAT.

COMMISSIONER BURROWS, I FEEL LIKE A LOT OF THAT IS IN THE PACKET.

Of course it is, but still like the public is still saying the same stuff that's in the packet, but the public is still like, I still have a problem with this. You know what I mean? So it needs to be like a way that's digestible for people. Because you're still planning on doing more outreach, right? Like the outreach is not done unless it is. If it's done, then everyone just needs to read it and get their answers answered.

Yeah. Sorry, this isn't a, no, sorry.

I mean, I'm not sure digestibility is actually the core problem, to be honest. I think that like we saw a big age difference, right? There were some pretty obvious demographic trends, and I think that there is. I mean, I have a long discussion that I'm hoping to give because I won't be able to be here in a couple weeks, but I guess to give a sort of preview, I think that there's some real differences in raw interests, like material interests, who benefits from this and who doesn't benefit from this or is potentially harmed by it. and that's not going to be addressed by like telling the staff to or asking the staff to go back and do More like a clearer version of the packet it has to do with just like literally like we are making a trade-off here and we have to decide what that trade-off is and Sometimes that just has to be okay That's true.

I agree with that The only sorry The only kind of specific things that stood out to me is I think I misread in the packet when I was going through because it says abutting residents on, or no, adjoining residents on the whatever. So is the idea that it's whichever house is on your right or left, like that's the... the setting so i think that um it might make sense to for that just to be like a face a house on the block so that it's not necessarily i don't know i think that might might allow for a better um well i guess but i mean that would pull things forward potentially more yeah But anyways, that was the only thought I had on that and then the other question I had was about The changing the definition of pitched roofs To get rid of shed roofs. Could you explain that a little bit?

sure, so Just to kind of remind everyone, we have different height maximums depending on whether your roof is a flat roof or a pitched roof. And so pitched roof buildings are allowed to be a little bit taller than flat roofs. What's currently in the code now is a combination of two measurements. There's a maximum wall height measurement and then a maximum overall building height measurement. And those are both currently in the code. That also gets confusing and can be complex when there's difficult steep slopes or cross slopes or if the wall or the architecture is unique or different. Sometimes it makes things hard to measure. And so that's part of the reason why we are moving away from wall height measurement to just a set building height But without the wall height restriction, that could open up potentials for a roof that's slanted just to one direction with a taller wall on one side and a shorter one on the other. that could lead to taller buildings or more impact, potentially, to neighbors. Or similarly, that you could do a very gentle slope and then kind of mask it with a parapet and get the appearance of a flat roof, but the extra height of a pitched roof. So there were a couple of things that, again, these are pretty in the weeds technical issues, but some things that came up as we were doing the review and we heard from people, right, obviously, building height is a big concern. Privacy is important to people, and we do want to make sure that we're addressing those comments. So it was just an idea to try to ensure that a pitched roof is actually, you know, something with two pitches that slant downwards towards the exterior of the building. That way you don't get... A unique like inverted roof or shed style or something else that might lead to more impact to neighbors. That's what that was. And those are still permitted. They're just taken as flat roofs. Right. If it doesn't meet the new definition of pitched roof, then it would just have to be the lower height for flat roofs.

OK. So I, and the lower height is 20?

I think 24 in most cases, 20 in SR1A.

Yeah, currently it's 20 proposed to be 24.

OK. OK. So you could do a shed roof, but it would max out at 24? I wasn't sure if the way it was written where the definition of pitched roof became... I get the idea of we don't want butterfly roofs because that then does exactly what you're saying. I don't want to exclude shed roofs as an option, but I think that... I get the idea of we also want to limit that exposure in some way. So, OK.

Thank you. You might have answered this before, but if we are talking about an R1 5K lot, and it's exactly 5,000 square feet, the lot, and it has a conforming single family home on it, Is it possible to build any EHO buildings on that through subdivision, or because it's perfectly matched, you can't actually do anything?

IT WOULD DEPEND. THERE IS A DENSITY BONUS THAT WOULD ENCOURAGE THE PRESERVATION OF THAT HOME. BUT IT WOULD ALSO EXEMPT THAT HOME FROM HAVING TO CONFORM WITH THOSE SMALL LOT DWELLING STANDARDS. in order to build a small lot dwelling so like um the you know if you have a 1 200 square foot footprint home that obviously wouldn't comply with the the footprint limitations um so we would grant exemptions to that as long as the house is preserved correct that makes sense thank you and maybe just another note on that that

It could be possible to add a unit maybe as an addition to the existing home. The way that our proposal is set up, the setbacks apply to the perimeter of the development. And so you could attach or have it separated, but there isn't... necessarily a minimum separation other than what may be required by fire or building code. And so, you know, you could take the existing building, conceivably a hypothetical situation where an existing home is 2,400 square feet and they remodel and split it into two units without even changing the footprint, and those would be two small lot dwellings. So there are a lot of possible variations on this, but those are just a few more to maybe point out.

It gives much more flexibility. Did anyone else have?

Yeah, I was going to ask, I appreciate these maps. Thank you. Both the affected parcels one and... The other one that I can't think of the name of right now. I was wondering if it would be possible to know kind of the median lot size in each of the neighborhoods, because that changes a lot as to how many units could be added. And I wonder, differing neighborhoods, if that what kind of difference that would make. And then last time in July, I think there were only three of us that are currently here here. And we did a number of straw polls. And I'm wondering if we could do those same polls again.

I'd rather, I mean, when we did them before, there were seven of us here, or six, because they were saying it was five versus one or three.

I was thinking it was a really small group. It must have been an different meeting.

No, there were six of us there.

Okay. I'll also add, those straw polls carry no weight. Oh, I know. They're just to give us direction. Yeah. So ultimately, they're not really a factor in whatever your ultimate vote is.

I want to pivot to the flag lot standards and at the beginning of your presentation this evening you talked about with the if this were to be approved that it would eliminate having people to come for this commit a commission to seek you know relief from that and so get rid of that what are the pros and the cons of including this in there specifically what are the cons of this when we are including uh small lot dwellings you know which would go on i was presumably in the back you know that would be available for somebody to sell off to another homeowner and as opposed to what would currently happen with an adu which is a part of the house the the cons of the flag lot subdivision or either or not having to have it come before the planning commission like is it been has it been such a um as a new member literally first day so i'll take that on the chin too but i mean has it been a problem in the past with uh builders and developers having to come here to look for uh you know an easement on that or have some sort of uh recommendation done or you well basically i'm trying to figure out why this was included in this entire uh rezoning you know when we were talking about r123 and then the s1 and 1a it so it just seems like with such a large amount of potential redistricting or like rezoning options we're adding one more to that and i kind of want to know why it wasn't added to added to this recommendation you guys are making

I THINK I'M HAPPY TO JUMP IN ON THAT. SEVERAL YEARS AGO THE COUNCIL SEVERAL YEARS AGO THE COUNCIL ASKED US TO STUDY THE VARIOUS ASKED US TO STUDY THE VARIOUS BARRIERS TO CREATING HOUSING IN BARRIERS TO CREATING HOUSING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. AND SO WE DID A FULL STUDY OF AND SO WE DID A FULL STUDY OF THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, ONE, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, ONE, I THINK, SO I'VE WORKED WITH THE I THINK, SO I'VE WORKED WITH THE CITY FOR 19 YEARS NOW. I think in those 19 years, we've done two flag lots, residential flag lots in these zones. We do them a lot in commercial zones, particularly in industrial zones, but they are very easy. They don't have the same process. They don't have the same standards. And so when we looked at those, THERE WERE SO MANY BARRIERS, THE FIRST BEING THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS. THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS IS REALLY NOT AN APPROPRIATE, IT'S INTENDED TO LOOK AT THE IMPACTS OF A USE, NOT WHETHER SOMETHING FITS INTO THE COMPATIBILITY OF WHAT'S SURROUNDING IT, WHICH IS REALLY THE PRIMARY CRUX OF A FLAG LOT, RIGHT? And so it's not like once that's approved and built, there's gonna be zero chance that we ever could remove that conditional use approval, right? And so it just isn't the right process for something like that. So that was why that was proposed to take out. The other key provisions, NOT ONLY DOES THE FRONT PROPERTY HAVE TO MEET THE MINIMUM LOT HAVE TO MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN WHATEVER ZONE IT IS. SIZE IN WHATEVER ZONE IT IS. SO IF YOU'RE IN AN R1 5,000 SO IF YOU'RE IN AN R1 5,000 ZONE, THAT HAS TO STAY 5,000 ZONE, THAT HAS TO STAY 5,000 SQUARE FEET. SQUARE FEET. BUT THE LOT ON THE FLAG LOT HAS BUT THE LOT ON THE FLAG LOT HAS TO BE 1.5 TIMES THE FLAG. SIZE. THAT MEANS IT HAS TO BE 7500 SQUARE FEET. THAT MEANS IT HAS TO BE 7500 SQUARE FEET. THAT MEANS IT HAS TO BE 7500 SQUARE FEET. SO TOTALLY YOU WILL NEED 12500 SQUARE FEET. SO TOTALLY YOU WILL NEED 12500 SQUARE FEET. SO TOTALLY YOU WILL NEED 12500 SQUARE FEET TO ADD ONE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FEET TO ADD ONE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FEET TO ADD ONE ADDITIONAL DWELLING. DWELLING. DWELLING. IN THE OTHER ZONES, R1-12, THAT IN THE OTHER ZONES, R1-12, THAT IN THE OTHER ZONES, R1-12, THAT GOES UP TO 18,000 PLUS 12,000. GOES UP TO 18,000 PLUS 12,000.

GOES UP TO 18,000 PLUS 12,

So I have a couple of comments. I'm broadly supportive of the EHO proposal. And I think my comments will reflect that. You know, first off, I guess a question before I get into my comments, which is, do you guys feel that the decision to keep the small lot dwelling or to attach the small lot dwelling to the other changes that you've made to the zones around setbacks and other things, do you think that that was the right decision? Because I feel like, you know, in terms of sort of I'M GOING TO JUMP IN HERE TOO. THAT DECISION WAS MADE FOR US BY THAT DECISION WAS MADE FOR US BY THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN THEY THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN THEY INITIATED THIS. INITIATED THIS. THEY ASKED US TO LOOK AT A BROAD THEY ASKED US TO LOOK AT A BROAD RANGE OF THINGS. RANGE OF THINGS. I'M CURIOUS. I'M CURIOUS. SO THEN THE OTHER COMMENTS I SO THEN THE OTHER COMMENTS I WANTED TO MAKE.

WANTED TO MAKE. SO FIRST OFF, I WANTED TO MAKE

HAD SORT OF A MOMENT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WHEN I WAS HAD SORT OF A MOMENT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WHEN I WAS ANTICIPATING TONIGHT WHERE I HAD ANTICIPATING TONIGHT WHERE I HAD SORT OF A CONCERN ABOUT TARED SORT OF A CONCERN ABOUT TARED DOWN RISK AND HOW THIS COULD DOWN RISK AND HOW THIS COULD AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE NEIGHBORHOODS GENERALLY AND AND I WENT BACK TO THE STAFF REPORT AND SPENT SOME TIME I WENT BACK TO THE STAFF REPORT AND SPENT SOME TIME THINKING ABOUT IT. THINKING ABOUT IT. I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF COMFORT THERE. COMFORT THERE. WE CAN'T KNOW NOW BASED ON THE WE CAN'T KNOW NOW BASED ON THE DATA THAT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT DATA THAT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. BUT I DO THINK THERE'S ENOUGH BUT I DO THINK THERE'S ENOUGH DIRECTIONALLY THERE BASED ON OUR DIRECTIONALLY THERE BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE AHI AND THE AND THEN WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE OTHER COMMUNITIES, WHICH I OTHER COMMUNITIES, WHICH I OTHER COMMUNITIES, WHICH I WISH THERE WERE MORE EXAMPLES, WISH THERE WERE MORE EXAMPLES, WISH THERE WERE MORE EXAMPLES, BUT THE HANDFUL, WE'VE SEEN THAT BUT THE HANDFUL, WE'VE SEEN THAT BUT THE HANDFUL, WE'VE SEEN THAT FOR ALL THESE PROGRAMS, THE FOR ALL THESE PROGRAMS, THE FOR ALL THESE PROGRAMS, THE UTILIZATION RATE IS LIKE A UTILIZATION RATE IS LIKE A UTILIZATION RATE IS LIKE A THIRD OF 1% PER YEAR MAX. THIRD OF 1% PER YEAR MAX. THIRD OF 1% PER YEAR MAX. SO THEN THE 373 NUMBER IS SO THEN THE 373 NUM FIVE YEARS, WHICH IS LIKE DOUBLE OR TRIPLE, YOU KNOW, THE RATE OF UPTAKE. AND THAT 373 NUMBER, THAT'S 1% OVER FIVE YEARS OF ALL OF THE AFFECTED LOTS. NOT ALL OF THE LIKELY LOTS, WHICH IS 30%. SO I JUST, THE MORE I SORT OF SAT WITH THE NUMBERS IN THE REPORT, IT JUST SEEMS TO ME LIKE THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT, IT'S LIKELY TO AFFECT NEIGHBORHOODS. IN A MUCH SLOWER, MORE INCREMENTAL WAY THAN I THINK IN A MUCH SLOWER, MORE INCREMENTAL WAY THAN I THINK A LOT OF THE COMMENTS, CONCERNED A LOT OF THE COMMENTS, CONCERNED COMMENTS. COMMENTS. THERE WAS A SPECTER OF JUST THERE WAS A SPECTER OF JUST WHOLESALE NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE. WHOLESALE NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGE. I AM AT LEAST COMFORTED. I AM AT LEAST COMFORTED. I DON'T THINK THAT IS LIKELY TO I DON'T THINK THAT IS LIKELY TO OCCUR. AND I WILL SAY THOUGH WITHIN A BLOCK OF MY HOME TODAY THERE ARE BLOCK OF MY HOME TODAY THERE ARE THREE LARGE HOUSES THAT ARE ALL THREE LARGE HOUSES THAT ARE ALL PUSHING THE 40%, YOU KNOW, PUSHING THE 40%, YOU KNOW, THAT FEEL JUST MASSIVE AND THAT FEEL JUST MASSIVE AND NOT, AND THEY'RE 5,000, 6,000 NOT, AND THEY'RE 5,000, 6,000 SQUARE FOOT HOMES WHEN YOU SQUARE FOOT HOMES WHEN YOU INCLUDE THE ADUS AND THE, YOU INCLUDE THE ADUS AND THE, YOU KNOW, THE GARAGES, ET CETERA, KNOW, THE GARAGES, ET CETERA, THEY'RE EVEN BIGGER IN SOME THEY'RE EVEN BIGGER IN SOME CASES. CASES. AND THOSE I THINK ARE LESS AND THOSE I THAN THREE UNITS MIGHT BE, WHICH IS THE MOST YOU WOULD EVER SEE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE THE ONE THAT I LIVE IN AND MOST OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS. I MEAN, A 7,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT IS PRETTY STANDARD. AND THERE ARE NATURAL CONSTRAINTS TO WHAT MIGHT BE BUILT THERE BASED ON FRONT YARDS, ET CETERA. SO THAT'S THE FIRST COMMENT. THE OTHER COMMENT HAS TO DO WITH THIS NOTION THAT A 1,200 SQUARE FOOT HOME IS NOT A FAMILY HOME. In order to give myself comfort there, I looked back. The obvious thing was to ask Claude, what was the average family size in 1950 in America? What was the average family size in 1960 in America? AND THE AVERAGE SQUARE FOOT OF A HOME WAS LIKE 1250 SQUARE FEET. AVERAGE SQUARE FOOT OF A HOME WAS LIKE 1250 SQUARE FEET. AVERAGE SQUARE FOOT OF A HOME WAS LIKE 1250 SQUARE FEET. SO THEY WERE DOING IT SOMEHOW. SO THEY WERE DOING IT SOMEHOW. SO THEY WERE DOING IT SOMEHOW. WE WERE DOING IT SOMEHOW BACK WE WERE DOING IT SOMEHOW BACK THEN AND WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE THEN AND WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE THAT WORK. THAT WORK. TODAY THE AVERAGE FAMILY SIZE IN TODAY THE AVERAGE FAMILY SIZE IN SALT LAKE CITY IS LIKE 2.1, 2.2. SALT LAKE CITY IS LIKE 2.1, 2.2. AND IN SALT WHICH I THINK IS ABOUT AS MUCH AS WE COULD ASPIRE FOR IN SALT LAKE CITY BEST CASE SCENARIO IS THAT IN SOME FAMILY FRIENDLY OR FUTURE WE MIGHT ACCOMPLISH WHAT WHERE SALT LAKE COUNTY IS TODAY IF WE COULD DO 3.3 PEOPLE IN 1200 SQUARE FEET IN 1960 WE CAN DO 2.7 PEOPLE IN 1200 SQUARE FEET TODAY AND SO I JUST THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE JUST HAVE TO RETHINK NORMS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT WE NEED IN ORDER TO FIT A FAMILY. SO THOSE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS. YOU KNOW, I STILL HAVE SOME CONCERNS I THINK THAT ARE WARRANTED AROUND, YOU KNOW, ARE THESE ALL GOING TO BE RENTALS? ARE WE ACTUALLY CREATING HOMEOWNERSHIP? BUT I THINK THAT I KIND OF ONE THING I ALSO APPRECIATE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL IS THAT IT'S NOT SO PRESCRIPTIVE AND IT'S TRYING TO JUST GIVE IT'S TRYING TO JUST GIVE IT'S TRYING TO JUST GIVE SPACE FOR CREATIVE SOLUTIONS AND SPACE FOR CREATIVE SOLUTIONS AND SPACE FOR CREATIVE SOLUTIONS AND HOUSING TYPES. HOUSING TYPES. HOUSING TYPES. AND I TAKE TO HEART I THINK AND I TAKE TO HEART I THINK AND I TAKE TO HEART I THINK SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT I'VE SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT I'VE SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT I'VE HEARD FROM TURNER BITTEN AND HEARD FROM TURNER BITTEN AND HEARD FROM TURNER BITTEN AND OTHERS TONIGHT THAT A LOT OF OTHERS TONIGHT THAT A LOT OF OTHERS TONIGHT THAT A LOT OF THESE HOUSING TYPES EXIST IN OUR AND THEY ADD A LOT OF INTEREST AND A LOT OF SOCIOECONOMIC DIVERSITY THAT I APPRECIATE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, BUT THOSE ARE VESTIGAL KIND OF RELICS AND I THINK THAT THIS PROPOSAL JUST GIVES MORE ROOM FOR THAT KIND OF THING TO THRIVE AGAIN.

SO THOSE ARE THE COMMENTS I WANTED TO MAKE.

THANK YOU.

ANYBODY ELSE?

YEAH.

Well, given the circumstances surrounding the Expanding House and Auctions vote and given that I will be unable to make our subsequent meeting, I'd like to give my thoughts on some of the questions that face the Commission as we evaluate this matter. We've, over the course of several months, gone over the fine policy details. And I very much appreciate the work that staff has done on those details. But for a moment, I'd like to zoom out and talk a little bit about the context. I want to talk about political economy. Bear with me. The downzoning that this proposal seeks to partially undo was part of a wave of downzonings that occurred throughout the United States in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Why did these occur? In the 1970s, the United States faced a crisis not unlike the one that we are facing today. Conflict in the Middle East drove oil prices up and led to a massive economic downturn. As a result, pensions started going insolvent. A series of wildcat strikes threatened to bring the economy to a standstill, and the quality of life promised by the New Deal started to fall apart. I'm sorry, but is this? It is relevant, I promise. I promise. Can you move to that? Yeah. In the face of the crisis, pension funds were dismantled and certain welfare programs started to be unwell. But in exchange, we shifted to an asset economy. The federal government created or expanded programs that supported the purchase of single-family houses and cities across the country aggressively downzoned. and backed off their commitment to public and social housing, guaranteeing that housing crisis prices would increase faster than wages. We may have lost our social net, the thinking went, but at least folks could sell their home for a tidy profit when they retired. Now, you'll notice that this compromise has a built-in time limit. If housing prices increase faster than wages, the situation could only last one or two generations before nobody who works can reasonably afford a home. It also encourages mass speculation on housing. We saw this first crisis downstream in 2008. We have been living in the aftermath in a non-functional housing system ever since. This zoning amendment serves as a baby step towards fixing that problem. Fellow commissioners, the old world is dying and a new one is struggling to be born, and our community has a choice to make. I know what I choose. I choose neighborhoods that are dense and diverse, frequent, reliable public transit. I choose to welcome new neighbors. I have confidence that, with all due consideration to the comments we heard today, as well as those that we will hear in the coming weeks, that those of you present will make a correct decision. Thank you. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? ANYTHING ELSE? ANYTHING ELSE?

ENTERTAIN A MOTION?

ENTERTAIN A MOTION?

ENTERTAIN A MOTION? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING I MOVE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TABLE THIS ITEM TO A COMMISSION TABLE THIS ITEM TO A COMMISSION TABLE THIS ITEM TO A LATER DATE, THE NEXT MEETING, I LATER DATE, THE NEXT MEETING, I LATER DATE, THE NEXT MEETING, I GUESS.

GUESS. GUESS. AND KEEP THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND KEEP THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND KEEP THE PUBLIC COMMENT OPEN. OPEN. OPEN. AND CONTINUE THE PU Commissioner Scott.

Yes.

Commissioner Sullivan. Yes. Commissioner Raskin.

Yes.

Pass.

Great. Thank you very much. And thank you guys for your work. Thanks. See you in two weeks. We're not quite done. We got to do our vote on that. But you guys can hang around if you want. But we're just voting in chairs now. Is there a particular process for that? Or just someone make the point?

So Jen, oh, go ahead.

Good, good. No, there's not. Somebody can nominate you. You can say you want to run again if you do. And then just everybody votes in favor or whatever they want to do. But you are allowed a consecutive term should you choose that.

I move that we retain both the chair and the co-chair.

Second.

Got it.

Motion and a second.

So hold on. We got to do one position at a time. There are no combined votes.

Sorry. We're a package. I move that we retain the chair.

I'll second that.

All right. Let's vote. I will stand for it.

Commissioner Roskin.

Aye.

Commissioner Sullivan. Yes. Commissioner Scott. Yes. Commissioner Rosenfield. Yes. Commissioner Burrows. Yes. Commissioner Barrett.

Yes. All right. Congratulations me.

I'll make a motion to retain Barrett as vice chair.

Second.

All right. We've got a motion and a second.

Commissioner Barrett.

Sure.

Commissioner Burroughs. Yes. Commissioner Rosenfield.

Yes.

Commissioner Scott.

Yes.

Commissioner Sullivan. Yes. Commissioner Raskin.

Yes.

Pass.

Sweet. Thank you, everyone. Next meeting is plus 14. 23. 23. Yep. Let me be clear.

Red alert. Activate view screen, Mr. Sulu. What you're looking at, Captain, is the Romvian Pollution Belt, formed hundreds of years ago. Wasn't it before people became aware of pollution and began...