Like driving a Tell the Small School.

You have to be well, I want real baby.

But how do I get where I'm what's you doing now?

We run in the Uber Institute, not UVU.

So I'm doing the the Lithian startup.

And then residential project will look at you want to be a part of that.

We forgot to start the world.

Really?

Yeah, Great Salt Lake.

I'm doing a partnership with a startup on a lithium mining thing up there.

It's insane.

How are the environmentals treating that?

Really good.

Is there the technology they're using is going to clean the lake, pull out the arsenic every bad thing.

So there's suspended solids which are good and bad.

But they can have technology to percolate it out and get it out, and they sell off all the rare herbs.

And then they can put the salt back in it.

Uh-huh.

And then put it back in the lake at whatever page they want.

You know, and they only need 300 million dollars.

So are you the one that's back?

No.

It's funny because they were talking with the couple of finance companies, and both of them said we don't do anything under 500 million.

It's recording in progress.

Not the 5%.

We don't want to make a waste of our time and money.

Oh boy.

No.

I don't know if there's been messages.

Well, let's just find an idiot just with a lot of money.

Oh my fear is there's one organization that will do it and fund it.

Just happen to be China.

Uh oh.

And I don't that's it.

I'm out.

I'm not just kicked out.

Yeah.

Where it is, nice.

It's on the Great Salt Lake.

Oh.

Wait, there's Lake Yimble in the Great Salt Lake.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And a lot of other scadmium and a lot of their precious rare earth menu suspended in there.

And it's concentrated because the the way the Lake Dead Lake's also settled there.

Yeah.

Settles there.

But it's it's on the bottom, it's suspended in the water.

It's everywhere.

It's on the shoreline.

Um added to it.

They're tailings.

They put it all back, you know, they didn't pull any of that out.

So they have concentrations.

Yeah, and they're tailings.

No, are they are they pulling that out?

No.

No, they don't have the technology.

Okay.

So while you're 80, I was gonna uh start with this presentation, and what it's about is detached accessory dwelling units.

And what I'm hoping to do during this work session is to get some feedback from our commission about preferences of what you would like to do because there's certain things that we have to do because there is a new state law passed about the attached accessory dwelling list.

There's other things that we have discretion that maybe we could make it you know more broad as and not as limited, etc.

So I'm gonna go through that.

I'm gonna um you know, Darien before had given you a really good outline about the new legislation.

Um this is in Senate Bill 284, which had a lot in it, one part uh that is significant is detached accessory dwelling units.

So I'm just gonna briefly go over the requirements, and then I have a number of slides and illustrations of pictures to solicit feedback on generally what our commissioners would like to see.

So that's the layout.

Uh new state law, it's set up Bill 284.

It requires cities to allow detached accessory dwelling units.

Uh we have already have our apartments allowed to them as interior or attached basement apartments, etc.

And we've had that for quite a while.

Uh but now for the detached, because we don't allow them currently.

But now for the detached because we don't allow them currently internal ADUs are permitted now such as basement apartments but the detached ADUs we don't allow but the new state law requires that all cities virtually all cities throughout the state very few are excluded.

It allow them as a permitted use on residential laws 11,000 square feet or greater.

It's effective on October 1st of this year.

So after this you know potentially if need be I can come back and get some more in for informal feedback from you but potentially I could get your feedback and then be craft code and then we go through an adoption sets.

So some of the basics of the new state law requirements is that we must allow them on these laws for they're larger when they this lot already has a single family and also it's in a residential do we know sort 11,000 and more I have a map that that'll show you an illustration.

It'd be interesting to see the percentage of home data just a quarter acre yeah yeah so they have to be a quarter acre minimum that's not very good.

I have a map illustration but I think I'll do a more refined maps in the future but that that's coming.

Some of the other basics of the requirements is that they must be permitted uses we can't allow them only as a conditional use permit.

We can require additional parking for this but it's limited to one parking space if the detached ADU is less than 650 square feet or two parking spaces but no more if it is 650 square feet or greater.

No it's on site okay you don't get to count them off street only we don't have to require it but we may require it.

Oh okay but this is the limit meaning if I want to require four new parking additional parking spaces for this detached ADU.

The state law doesn't this is the maximum gotcha but they do allow frequents so the other thing is uh we can't uh regulate design elements and there is a list of what the state law considers design elements and it applies to single family homes as well however it says it we can require the design to be consistent with primary home if you have a three car garage for your house but you're only required two park for a typical home a two car garage and the and the driveway with the two that's four total which is our requirement oh I see so you count driveway part of your house draw all red if we can count that you can do it potentially yeah yep we have minimum dimensional standards whether it's enclosed or unenclosed but yeah the state law lastly is that it states that we must provide a process for converting a legal accessory structure into a detached ADU.

At a minimum they have to meet setback requirements and compliance with building health and fire clouds conversions are probably the most complicated in terms of potential in administration and all that but that'll be at the end we'll talk about that so now let's see I'll just go over some themes that were noted when we did some research the majority of cities in our region already allow detached ADUs but many uh and most of them require owner occupancy of one or the other if you have a limited two months or five months are all we go because we've had this with the ones that skewed that the owner occupancy is that that's your prime primary home the difference in the SIR is they have to be on the site for half of the year and so this would be on our open seeds some of them are saying it has to be you can only have I mean they either has to when one or the other have to be on our office they both have the rentals.

Um many of them also require or only allow one ADU on a lot.

So one internal or one detached, but you don't get to.

These are just common themes, just so that you have kind of a um an idea of that.

Uh no portable units or units on wheels are allowed.

Um many of them require at least one additional parking space.

They also have to additional meeting building and prior safety funds.

Yeah, it's a short-term rental third things or less.

Um short term rental.

Yes, with a considerable manufacturer, yeah.

Small manufacturer both they have to look on.

They have to be um on uh permanent foundation.

So if you've had a beneficial but then uh there would be uh potentially compatibility that would be considered depends on what is adopted.

But uh that's what lastly um some other common themes in our region are that's these size limits, they do vary.

You know, some are you know no more than a thousand square foot on a detached ADU.

Um some of them are a combination of a lot coverage in the rear yard, uh but also no greater than let's say 800 per feet.

Um they also have size limits in relation to the primary dwelling, so that it is accessory to subservient to the primary, so it can't be any greater than the primary, or some of them say no greater than 50% of the primary dwelling.

Umits can really vary.

Some of them can be uh one story max or up to two stories, um, or uh, you know, and we can also regulate by number of stories in addition to a height limit in terms of the the height.

Um 20 feet to the peak of the roof is uh another standard.

So that just gives you an idea of what's going on.

Some of the um does it include um the limitations with what other structures on with regards to mass size of that structure?

He you you can you can she has something that she'll cover on on lot coverage, okay.

It does, but she'll cover that.

She has something to talk about where you can only do so much of your lot coverage between that and other structures that you have.

But a lot of them that's like your there's also a size of other structures limited.

Yeah, yes.

Um that one can get mixed out fast.

Mm-hmm.

That yeah, that's true.

Well, right now our detached uh accessory structure, like just for a shed, you know, is uh we have size requirement max or 25% of the room, whichever is less.

So we can have a number of things when we're talking about um size and also height, where you may have a minimum standard, but also it has to meet this standard, whichever's less.

So um that that'll come up.

Some of the practices we do now for our internal ADUs, uh, we would recommend doing similarly for detached ADUs.

Um just that detached ADUs, the state law says uh that the lot uh we have to require it on lots of 11,000 square feet or greater.

We are are allowed, you can decide or your preferences as a commission could be uh well, we want them in all residential zones, or let's say 8,000 square feet or larger, you know, and control the size based on the property.

We can we we could, yeah.

Yeah, or a lot coverage.

Uh you could do that.

We'll get more into that.

Some of them uh also that we do now that we would recommend that we do with detached ones is that it is a permitted use.

We have a special use permit uh that they apply for and it's over the counter, it doesn't go to the planning commission, but we do have a permit for it.

Yeah, that's the fee for the permit.

For the internal okay.

And all the fee you're asking what the fee is now for an internal one.

I don't know.

We'll have to look it up.

Yeah, building permits are typically.

Oh, heck no.

Yeah.

No, the fee for that evaluation, yeah.

Okay, so clear and objective standards uh that we have now, and we recommend that the no subjectivity owner occupancy is a requirement, and we'd recommend that we continue with that.

Um address and utility meeting.

So you can't have an additional right now with internal ADUs, our code clearly states you don't get an additional address, and you have to come off of the utility lines that you have.

You can't have like a separate meter with another address because basically you're a duplex then.

You're in an R2 zone, and uh but we have to do that.

Or we want the rest of having all that subdivided through all the areas.

Exactly.

It does open the door for a desire potential for subdividing those uh lots now.

There's some people want to see that then that that's what you'd want to have is separate meters, separate addresses.

But uh there's also the perspective of no, we really don't want to go down, we want to allow them, but we don't want to subdivide them up.

Um recorded appropriate, that's one of our standard practices.

So now questions.

And um is to get a feel for what you guys are thinking, what you'd like to see.

Where should we allow detached ADUs?

Should they be allowed in all residential zones?

So here's some of the the options, and I've got some pictures and then we'll go back.

So the law says we must allow them on lots 11,000 square feet or greater.

Uh you might consider well what we have a lot of R110.

What about 10,000 square foot or greater?

Or what about all of our residential zones?

Uh, but as long as they don't exceed a certain percentage of lot coverage, because then it's commensurate with the size size of the lot and what else is on that property.

And so if we just we'll go back for your feedback, but I just want to show you this map.

This map shows uh in all residential zones, lots that are 11,000 square feet are larger.

Now, this is kind of broad because it does include large like schools and parks and things like that.

But it gives you cemeteries, uh, and we can refine that down for weekends.

They're a lot, they're already pretty dense.

They're probably our most request.

This shows the same thing, but lots 10,000 square feet are greater.

So just shows uh kind of it's not a huge difference, but they're not incremental increase there as far as the number of uh homes that would be eligible.

I I would lean towards the it's on any lot as long as it meets those other requirements, the total coverage because you have some smaller lots that are going to be perfect for this, and you have big lots that are gonna be terrible for this.

I and I think I would look at the um envelope of it rather than come in from this because you're gonna miss out on some great opportunities that the homes are gonna have to do this.

Um and that limit is just I think it's too general of just throwing the square footage out there in a land, yeah.

The land one.

Yeah, I think it needs to be a percent of coverage.

I that's what I'd like to think we ought to be careful when we get to the historic part of the city.

That we may not want to allow them in the historic area.

Well, it doesn't if they have to match the character of matches the character, I think.

Maybe so, yeah.

I think that's something, but I guess that's true.

You can't make them too big, so they would fit in with the smaller store.

You can put size limitations on it so that the accessory dwelling unit is in fact ancillary to and smaller than the primary.

Yeah, I wouldn't that I would want it you wouldn't want a big ADU that oversized or overpowers the the size of the existing hall.

Sneaking up the small little storage would want to be smaller.

That's true.

Is there a living?

How small?

I'm just trying to think of one home so people can come to it and live instead.

Well, we found uh we found a illegal detached ADU the other day that would be advertised for how many square feet?

150, 150 square feet, 850 a month.

Sounds like a sounds like a great deal of things.

Is it the minimum?

No, that was regarding parking.

Oh, only regarding parking.

So if your ADU is over 650 square feet, that that's the parking lot.

The law does not require any minimum square footage for the new state law does not require us to add more parking period.

So what's the limit of the total?

Because in the IADU, there was a table of square footage.

Interesting.

Okay, so they can't do a hundred.

Well, because these tiny homes, you know, they're they are really really small.

No, and so two, three hundred square feet is not a mutual foot of home.

minimum square footage for this new state law does not require us to add more parking period so that she's asking for food what's the limit of the colouring because in the IAEU there was a time of square footage I thought no interesting okay so they can't do a hundred but because tiny homes you know they're they are really really small and so two three hundred square feet is not a mutual for the time of home and it's around idiot is my opinion you know like the ancillary of the percentage stuff but beyond that I I agree yeah I mean my mother build a house in part city that was eight fifty to be used the whole time yeah so I mean eight fifth isn't that what they were saying eight fifty is like the snacks parking no I just look there so you can you we could go bigger yes but they're recommending eight fifty nine for parking oh no then that's six fifty it's really hard if we're jumping around because what I've done there's there's so many different aspects of this that if we just you know isolate right now and just get some feedback on certain things because we're gonna put this together later and so it's much much easier if we you know and I know that it's like well and if it's like well yes but you know it depends on this that's totally fine.

Well I I'm with Ron I think we ought to open it up to all the lots and and um have it on a percent of coverage.

I don't know what that percentage is.

Don't worry about that right now.

Don't worry that you know depends on what coverage well knife right we'll get to that part.

We've always said to the main unit subscribe it'd be small and it needs to be not going to be subservient size height setbacks all of it's coming later.

Yeah okay right now all I'm trying to get from you is where in the city should we even consider these the state law requires us in residential zones to have 11,000 square foot lots or greater.

Maybe the commission wants it more you know we do want more we want it everywhere.

I think we're gonna pull it that I mean that's what it sounds like but the quiet ones I don't know getting steamrolled on so there's one two three four else theme is where you can I appear you're wondering what the citizens we are being reported well because the neighborhood the neighbors will see this as a tracking them so I'm wondering what they're thinking as far as a residential city council definitely has their opinions on this.

Yeah.

I've already asked them about these things.

So and they will be more conservative than you I think but I don't want to get into that I want to hear from you guys because the important thing is to be allowed somewhere we ought to allow it in everybody ought to have the opportunity for this just because they don't own you know five acres in the mouth of the gang in the state a family member that needs housing they ought to be able to have that on proposal it it sounds like the the majority would like to consider it in all of our residential single family home areas uh if we take into account other factors like a lot coverage you know other standards but every as all as opposed to for a majority yeah okay so I got that down and that's super awesome we are going to the next one this is an eight this should be kind of an easy bar how many ADUs should we be allowed on a lot like uh the max could be you know two ADUs uh so you have one internal basement apartment with the house and then you have another one uh detached so you have two so actually you have three units you have your primary your uh internal one and then a detached one or you could say you can have uh an ADU on the lot no problem it's just you either have it one is attached internal or one is detached but but for instance you can't have a basement apartment or yeah and you can't have a detached one right or can you have both would you be okay with both or one or the other I I I personally think it's one or the other and I think it has to do with parking more than units.

Where are you going to put all that part you're gonna queue up a lot of your land this type of apartment the parking will become that bigger issue huh you could create require off street parking for if you had three health well in some areas but like a little sugar lot I think that can put on lot size guys it's my thing yeah exactly I think if you've got some larger lots are uh you can easily go uh if you catch in a and and a yeah internal idiot so and you can meet the parking lot easy yeah so depending on lot size so it could be one could be both but it really depends on the size of that lot is what I guess heard square feet than two you probably have half acre above or acre and above you're probably looking somewhere else I would feel more comfortable at least half acre yeah but but but I want to go back to your point about parking issues so I think if we did allow three housing units on one lot then I think we should require southwest okay what uh and we'll get we'll we'll get to that so it depends if we allowed it you want to make sure we have parking yes but I think

You probably have any two per acre above or acre and above.

You're probably looking somewhere else.

I would feel more comfortable, at least half acre.

Yeah.

But but I want to go back to your point about parking issues.

So I think if we did allow free housing units on what I think we should require South Paul Street, but okay.

What uh and we'll get we'll we'll get to that.

So it depends.

If we allowed it, you want to make sure we have parking.

But I think plus enough to have maybe, but there will be standards.

But if they had less but it beat all of the other standards, does the square footage matter?

Right.

Yeah, I don't know.

Keep on talking.

I'm taking a perspective of how we this is a family city or has been.

Do we make these large enough that we could have these couples have had to out now come back at least for a while, live within the city and go to our schools, which are starting to close down.

Or do we make them all one in two person places?

But it doesn't affect it, doesn't help at all the the neighborhoods or the schools or well, nope, no that the accessory dwelling unit that you're creating could be occupied by the the owner of the home, and the main home could be rented out to somebody else.

You can downsize your own house.

You can downsize on your own property, exactly.

I mean that makes sense if that's the case.

I'm just wondering if we have so many small things, but all we have is individual persons written in a maybe a young couple, but we don't solve the problem of stuff of allowing couples and stuff back into the city.

So all we have now is just frenzy of people.

They're for short periods of time, and then they would I think it's more likely that the mother and father will make it smaller place, they'll let one of the children with their family.

And also note that on the internal ADU, there is no max or min on square footage of either space, whether it's the primary or the ancillary.

So within the footprint of the existing home, the state doesn't allow us to regulate that at all.

So the split in the share and the size of the unit isn't dictated.

On a detached, that's where we do have some flexibility and some and we can dictate how big, how much, how large, how tall, all of these.

And then if you want to go to external, you have to have an acre.

So I could do that.

I think that makes sense.

Because if you do the internal hand, right?

But if you do the one ex terms, which we're allowing everywhere, this you just allow a larger lot to have an internal version.

But with X would you allow four of that, one up that basement and then two external fees.

What I'm saying, if you have if you have an acre, sure, why not?

Wait, you can't have two extra.

Why not?

I would agree with that too.

Wait, I don't think once you go to acre, once you go.

You got no big options.

Yeah, it's such a big parcel.

Like you're subdividing the little but you're just talking about little units.

They're not they're still not that big.

So we would an acre acre is a lot of land if you start breaking it down.

Yeah, but it's all right.

I don't think you can go more than because one has to be one has to be owner occupied all the time.

Correct.

And if you're gonna do that, then the two would only have to be rented, one has to be by the primary owner.

So that's to me limits you to one inside, one outside, because one has to be the primary owner in it.

Yeah, so you really can't go more than that on a lot.

If there's a lot of still on a lot, it's there's still on a lot.

Doesn't matter, you still have to meet the state law, and the state law requires one to be the primary home and a person.

That's a minimum.

I don't think that's preclude having precludes that.

You can check that out.

I don't think that I don't know that the state law requires occupancy, but we require, and I think and I would recommend.

Yeah, I mean I'm not big on building.

I haven't got some guy with five acres building.

Well, I'll go show you one.

Yeah, I don't want a massive.

I don't think that's right.

Yeah, there's always an exception.

And then you can tell me if you think that's a good idea or not.

I I uh let's try to stay out of the discussion except on this one.

So let's uh let's talk about what the logic behind this whole thing is with the state.

Isn't it to kind of find more housing for for either low income or moderate income?

It's not well.

Or it's got the kids who can't afford a house.

Uh creating housing to say as housing housing options creating more housing, I'd say clearly.

Yeah, but what I'm saying is it's not about building rental problem for ski shellings.

Like nightly rent, so it's about long-term residential, right?

Unless we wake up building more housing unit creates the opportunity for more portable.

Right.

So yes, we're doing that's what they're talking about.

Because it'll bring the price of housing back, is what you're trying to find.

Because we're one of the most expensive states.

We can't figure that now for residential.

But does it bring the price of only that whole high or yes?

There's more housing Obega because there for the price of housing substance.

No, no, no.

Okay, there we actually drop that.

Assume we're only gonna get to two units max.

No, I don't think that's true.

I don't think we're there yet.

Dave and I aren't there yet.

But what if they did have five acres?

Then would you say it's still the right to subdivide?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

So we're we're just not there yet.

We're still thinking that you could have three separate buildings on a lot if it's over a half an acre or one acre, pick your side acre.

Yeah, over an acre.

And I don't uh and I'm not there yet.

I know.

I know.

Okay.

You can't.

We can come back to that one, but that one we're not you don't we don't we haven't reached a now.

You could outvote us, you know.

Okay, let's just let's let's assume in one scenario is that you can't have more than two.

Okay.

Uh is there a majority thinking that we should just have one internal or one external, that's only one AU on a lot, or would you like to see one uh allow them to if they have the capacity to do an internal plus the detached APUs?

That'd be two additional.

We already said yes.

Yeah, we said we said half acre per acre.

Well what we're talking now is do we even allow more than one external?

No, if you that's what this that's what they're saying.

That's what's the car.

So we we figured at a half acre.

We figured it a half acre, you could have an internal and an internal question here.

I guess very hard to write.

Ask the question and then you can give the answer.

Okay.

Ask the question.

So they heard the 20,000 or more, and then I heard an acre or acre or more.

So the acre, yeah, the acre was more outside.

So if you have to original questions, go back to my question.

How many ADUs should be allowed on a lot options?

Two ADUs on a lot, one internal and one external, or only allow one on the lot.

You either get it inside internal or external.

Two below twenty thousand square feet.

You get one internal.

That's your thought.

What about the rest of the commission?

Well, this said 11,000.

11,000.

So from 11.

From 11 to 201 or the other.

That's my thought.

That includes an internal and an external.

No, no, an internal or your eleven thousand feet internal or a technical.

That's right.

However, oh yeah, I said that wrong.

It's your decide it they could.

Yeah, but something like away.

Everything below gets to choose whether they want it internal or external.

My reaction to that was just that I think we should allow both, and I think it should be based on lot coverage, but I don't know what that coverage size is.

That's okay.

We can figure that out later.

I would agree.

I'm done with that.

You should allow both, but with a lot coverage.

Your question didn't expand it where we've come.

Well, yeah, but that's that's been that right now because there's the we'll have like five different workshops because you guys take five, we're gonna do five.

Let's don't control the conversation.

Let's let's let this open up and then it'll naturally give itself in stupid ideas go away in goodwood state.

Okay, let's move to the second one.

Yeah, so the next micro what I was proposing then was half acre to an acre.

We could have an external and an intern.

Everybody just said now that they wanted it and an internal.

So that was already, I think everybody kind of agreed on.

So then the question is what about uh over an acre?

Yes.

And what I was saying over an acre is that you should be able to have an internal and one or two extra.

Yes.

Yes.

Don't have to.

Do you have a question?

I have a question.

So if somebody wants let's say that that's what we allow is that you can have an internal basement apartment and you can have two exterior detached units, right?

So you can theoretically, Mr.

Bridge One put in two tiny houses.

Could you put in one larger building and have an upstairs and a downstairs and have it connected?

What does that look like?

I think that's part of the requirements that you come up.

We haven't talked about how big we shouldn't have water.

We're still on item two.

I'm not, I'm not, I'm not there yet to the to the four units.

I'm still stuck on three.

Yeah.

And actually, I would even give that three requirement down to 11,000.

I just don't think there's that.

That's what we said.

Okay, so we're not at a happy quarter.

No, no, it's everywhere.

Well, there were there were some that thought it should be as long as we met the criteria, you can have both an internal and external.

There were some that thought maybe it should be allowed, but only if it had certain size, whether that's 11,000 square feet or 20,000 square feet.

That was my there were some, but there I think it was a little more mixed as far as the reaction to whether uh you could have up to three total units on a lot.

Some felt like there had to be certain criteria that needed to be met, some felt like there needed to be a square footage lot.

So in that particular case, you would have only so many square feet of percentage of the original home dwelling for your percentage of the property coverage.

Yeah.

So if our existing house is covering 50%, and we say, for example, you can cover 60%, they can only cover another 10% with the quote.

Like we don't have to do that.

So we don't have these big huge things in the backyard, two or three.

And I think we agreed with one of the accessory, the external ADU to be cancelled.

So the main size of how many height is how many cutbacks are balcony.

I love the conversation.

Um I just want to bring up a point that as much as we want to allow this, and everybody gets one and all this, but also impacts to other people, you know, that are given adjacent living birds.

So and a lot of people, so that was an odd in one of the points that got brought up during this conversation was that a lot of people's main investment in their whole life is their house, right?

They buy something they expect to be a certain way for the rest of their lives.

Single family home, single family neighborhood.

I understand the whole uh housing command room that we're in, and I think that there's certainly options for that, but that's just something that would mind has been step on any and how high, how big, and yeah, those are the other criteria that come into play, Apple.

So it was one of the reasons why it was a half acre.

Yeah.

Well, yeah, I live by your house where it's because I'm not it's kind of the building.

It's having so many neighbors at the risk of not liking them.

Why about 12 liking them or then?

I don't have 12 acres, so I can't just like put my house in acres and then show myself a lot of space.

All right, let's focus back on the next topic.

Okay, so parking right now, uh, I just want you to know that our existing parking code requires two a two-car carage in in the hall and there's two in the driveway.

So that's a total of four parking spaces.

An internal ADUs, because we do require four, we don't require two.

We already require four.

We are not allowed to require any more parking spaces for that internal eight use.

So that's the four.

However, the state law does allow us if we want to to require additional parking spaces if there's a detached AU.

And they but they do put limits on it.

So if the detached ADU is less than 600 square feet, we can require only one additional parking space.

We don't have to, but we could require one.

But if it's 650 square feet or greater, we could require two parking spaces.

So there's some options.

I'd like to get a feel for the permission of what you uh think for if we should require only one additional parking space, uh regardless of the size, or if we should go with what the state allows us to, one parking space for the smaller one, and then two parking spaces if they want something a little bigger, um, or no parking space.

Maybe we we don't want to have any more parking space requirements.

We we think the four, the two-car garage and the driveway, that's if we could do that as well.

Uh we could also consider if it was near a transit station or some kinds of transit, then we wouldn't necessarily need to require um or reduce the parking requirement.

Uh because like right now, I mean, it depends.

Some of our residential zones are near uh some kind of a transit station.

Uh but the ones up the hill, the larger lots, 11,000 square feet or greater, um, are not real close to transit station.

But it could be a caveat that in that event you could produce the parking lot.

There's a lot of different ways we don't have to require do we have any feel for I mean there's a couple of this.

First off, uh if I own the upper home and I rent the lower home of pay for the upper home, I can have two to three or four kids in cars but with that already.

Yeah, without doing that.

The other problem is we actually have snow around here.

And if you don't have adequate space park, we don't have enough parking for those when they have to be on the street.

Then we're gonna have it in the street, which could cause really problems for our snow removal because where do you park them?

If you've got two up and two down, you've got two more four ones, they'll be parked off the street.

So we'd have to be very careful that we're not adding to the congestion of the street during street cleaner guys, the uh snow removal guys have trouble types.

I actually think what the state came on to this is pretty good.

The reason I say that is we're not a walker, everybody's got a car, everybody's new to have a car.

You put two people that 650 or 700 square foot unit, they're both gonna have cars.

You put three in there, they're gonna have three cars, and so I think you have I think that's what the state has come up with, it's probably yeah you're gonna live you could have five.

And I think that has to be off street.

So if you have a six hundred and fifty one square foot unit, you're gonna have six parking spells.

Yeah, that's yeah.

Now the state last year required us to count um tandem parking spaces to two deep.

So potentially if you have the six, and we and they had uh six hundred and fifty one square foot detached accessory drilling unit, those two would not necessarily we wouldn't have to require uh covered, and they could be tandem, so if you have a three-car garage with your whole that's and and the driveway, yeah and the driveway, yeah.

So I mean, my sense is is that what the state allows us to require that there is some support for that.

Okay, so we have solid.

You agree with the city council on that one.

What did they say about block size?

Uh I will say they're much more conservative.

Yeah, it's yeah, they like what the state allows us to say.

Yeah, 11,000 more.

Yeah, they're very conservative, they're concerned.

There's there's but the theory behind that is this.

They're not saying that they never want it to go to the other, they're saying this is new to the city, and it might be good to take a small step first, do this first, see how it works, and learn from it, and then re-look at it in a year and add to it.

I think there's been plenty of already looking at it.

I'm just saying that was communities.

And it's clear that where things need to go, and so this interim step is it holds things back.

I agree.

Script the band-aid off, move forward.

I guess we're not elected first.

Say whatever you want.

Yeah, it's gonna go through us before it gets back to them, though.

And we can send a message of what we think, and I think they always ask what does the planning commission.

They seriously on all of them.

So they want to know what you're thinking and what your buildings are.

They honestly look at that.

I think there's so many people, so many residents that will change their mind on what they think is acceptable once their conditions change.

Right.

Uh and I'll use a personal.

I have a 10,000 square foot bot.

My parents are downsizing, and I'd love to have them be able to.

But if it's the eleven thousand that under that rule on that lock.

Exactly.

So to me, you know, and to me, that type of you know, you know, multi-generational family housing to me seems like and that would be a great fit for a 10,000 square foot block.

But they're automatically gonna cut off how many percentage of um homes that are 11,000 feet bigger.

That's really just that's kind of just I would really keep in mind two though, and I mean I I agree in terms of the hard cutoff, but the thing is um you can do multi-generational with an internal, you know, an additional well, I'll give you another issue.

Mobile, yeah, that's a hundred percent the issue.

So yeah, here's a great you can do a detached APU, but you cannot do an attached AP, is what you're saying.

I'm seeing a mobility for a detached home that would sit behind my home, for example, uh at one level to be able not multi-story.

The only way I could get a detached or an internal data downstairs, multi-stairs for uh my model.

You couldn't go you couldn't go out.

No, so to me, building building that to me would be a lot easier to for their mobility build something from the ground up, they pick out how they do it.

Rather than adding on things, absolutely cost on that I think would be substantially more than what I've I've had somebody come out and price it just for the heck of it.

The roof that comes in costs, yeah.

The experience and yours so the other side of the point is what you know.

My daughter told me she said, I think I want to move back to Salt Lake, and you'd like to live.

So I'd like to go to a little unit, move out.

And I don't know that I want to be in that chaos all day.

So I could nice later 600 square feet of each other.

No, just I'm just saying you're gonna have both sides of the you've got the parents who live in a house, the house is too big.

I mean, my house is 8,000 square feet.

And when I had all the kids there, and boyfriends and girlfriends, it was you know, I felt like it was too small, but now it's like it's emptied.

So it'd be nice to have them live there and move it all in.

And there's a lot of these.

That's what this discussion is taking place for.

It's just really two things that you guys just described, are probably the highest things that are hopefully they are used for.

That was number two.

Well, two and three.

Okay, so the next question, but in general, I don't know.

How large of the ADU do you think would be appropriate?

The you know, well, a lot of the other cities have uh a maximum size for detached ADU to be a thousand square feet or less.

And uh uh, but also you can consider well, in relation to the primary home, uh you know, we may have a square footage, but also we don't want any bigger than the primary home, or it has to be less in size.

So you can have multiple criteria like uh, but also yeah, it could be smaller, like well, no larger than 50% of the primary home.

Or no larger than 75%.

Um also you could have a rear yard lot coverage um added in.

So but just if we just take the size, you know, uh, in terms of uh uh detached ADU, is there a sense of uh you know the size that a thousand square feet you can you can have a fair amount in a thousand square max on there?

What about me?

Yeah, I agree.

The other thing is I just just so you uh can compare this table, shows you on accessory structures um with the size limits that we have already, and so these are not livable, but uh if you have a shed or something that you're building or a garage, detached garage, if your property is less than 15,000 square feet, you have a maximum of 750 square feet of a detached accessory structure, or 25% of the rear yard lot coverage, whichever is less.

Okay, so that's where I was going with my original question is this one.

Um I think this limits things far too much because I mean I look at where my well, I'm too over two and a half acres.

I've got a barn.

That barn takes up a good trick was great.

Oh well.

I could put I could put by several thousand food we know structures on and have it blended in no word.

Uh so I think that that's having that you'd limit it by the by the detached structure.

We overall set structures.

Uh there ought to be some exclusions with obviously things that uh you don't have to deal with and I think when we get to the smaller lots, yeah.

I would really like to know what we're already dealing with the lot coverage.

I mean the architect in me doesn't want to completely wipe out green space.

Yeah.

So just remember though, Dave, everybody doesn't take care of a place like you do to have that many to have that many on it.

I mean, yours is a max, you you know what I mean?

You you really take care of it in that, but this covers everybody in the city, not you know what I mean.

Everybody to have that many can it it doesn't always turn out well, and we buy these valves.

Your yours is great, and you can handle them.

We have these valves within those uh ranges as well that allows you to go beyond the two thousand square feet through a CUP.

And that that doesn't it's too limited still.

It gives you a 50% increase for a uh property that like yours that has an A designation, it's true.

So that allows you to go up to 3,000 square feet.

Right.

When you consider this along with the two, it's two reminds me.

So you're saying on two that attached eight mutes to get the max, and that's too limited.

How do the bags see these as far as the land loans?

Is there a square footage on the don't know the answer to that?

No, I think.

Some of it remains what we say about either.

Well, I mean, what I'm asking is if we approve something that the bank will not fund, it's not good, huh?

So I don't know what the banks are.

Yeah, but we we don't do land use on based on what a bank will fund or what it doesn't fund.

However, it might control it.

I mean you might be a point that you deal with, but we can't.

As part of this, you don't consider, but as far as reality at mine.

I just want to come up with great things, but the bank says I I've not gonna fund a 600.

Then they can't do it.

Well, is there a way to find out how much green space we have on an average lot size?

I mean, I I know Dave, yours is bigger.

Well, but if we take like an 11 to 20,000 square foot lot, 11 20,000 or less, what what's the average coverage?

So I'm good with doing the percentage.

Having a having a green space percentage.

I'm just saying these other ones that limited off larger ones, which that's not the issue.

Yeah, that's so I'm just trying to figure out what is that.

You're well, that's that's where on the rear yard the lot if you're to have a an accessory structure.

Here's your size limits and four twenty-five percent of rear yard lock coverage, whichever's less.

So if I had a small lot and the uh 25% rear yard lock coverage for all accessory structures is 600 square feet max, then I it can't be any more than 600 square feet.

So you're you're saying that what the code currently allows for accessory structures should be used for these little that's what you're doing.

This is a definite already.

By definition, these are accessory buildings.

Yeah, and therefore they must say they're follow our accessory buildings in house.

But I can also tell you and the large lots in the sensitive area over here.

I think that's where we have maximum lot coverage period for the whole lot, not just rear yard, but it's it's R15 and below is 50% max lot coverage.

If a larger than that like R120s and about you've got a 40% lot coverage max else, where else I think we don't have a mandatory.

Like overall, it's a rear yard max lot coverage.

We also have limitations on more space parking arts front kind of a thing, max.

But so for the smaller lots of 40,000 or less is what you're saying.

You would like to see this is a comparison.

So this is what's currently in the unfortunate.

So I could as well.

If I have 2,000 square feet, I probably have a thousand.

I'll tell you a thousand with a second.

I could still hire the second API.

Yeah, these are for all detailed.

This is what it has to actually pull the train.

Yeah.

You're saying I say I have 15 feet.

If you have it depends on how much room you have in your rear yard.

This coverage is 25% of your rear yard area.

Your total lot area.

Your rear lot area.

Also, can I stop us?

Because I thought we already agreed that we didn't necessarily care about property size and comparison.

It needs to be small.

Smaller than the main house.

That can be an additional requirement.

You may have even three standards.

You need to meet all three.

And if you can't you know, to meet this other one, maybe it has to go smaller.

We're bringing this up because these are by definition an accessory building.

You're allowed to have out to two detached buildings on a lot in sand.

Right.

A lot of things to make that is cool.

I mean, yes, you can.

That's that part of you.

But we're just giving you the baseline, what we've got now.

So I think it's important to consider.

I think it's important to consider the total impact of what we're talking about here.

Like Flint pointed out uh recently.

If you want wide acceptance, this these are the standards that are already in place that people accept as the standard that they can't have more than two detach structures in their rear yard, and that um they can't exceed a certain a certain size unless they go to the planning commission for some extra uh extra room.

Say I thought we had agreed on that already.

But I do have a question.

If you just look at the last slide, sure you had set on rear block coverage.

25% of the colours.

Yeah, we do we want to.

I guess this is a question of the room.

Do we want to pay it external ADUs, or do we have the right to think about this on front?

Yeah, that's another question that we're getting to.

Yeah, that's a good one.

And I think it's a good thing.

Bigger lots is not an issue.

It's not gonna be an issue on smaller lots.

Yeah, my condition on bigger blocks where it needs to be dealt with rearing or start behind the back behind the rear plane of the home, extended to the side property lines.

When we get to the one on the pro how you fit them on the lots, we'll talk about that if you can put it in front and how that might vary between lot sizes.

A lot of the big lots of the homes were placed sort of the back, and then all your room is in the front.

You have not having to make a decision on any of this tonight.

We're just just discussing.

We need to discuss that.

That's a good idea.

But a lot of people do your line.

Just as executive session.

Uh no decisions are getting made here.

We might have to meet again.

I think well, maybe I will tell you I will tell you this is so much better than watching the videos.

We get credit for this.

We're actually baking.

He's awake.

Well, we can come back.

And then if uh I'm I'm thinking uh I wanted to also bring you some more examples of the size limits that are going around in our region that's I think it would be really interesting.

You could take a couple of lots.

This is the architect.

Take a couple of lots, lay them out, show what a typical home looks like on six thousand square foot lot, eight thousand lot, eleven, twelve, so on so forth.

And how much is behind it?

Typically, and then how much area could be built in.

What would it look like?

I know the the lots are but I I know over an acre or over two acres.

I mean I building up this piece of truck.

Not even sure where I wanted it.

Yeah, and and you all have to consider the percentages of lots like days, which days isn't an office.

There's not a lot of lots like yours in the city.

Okay, you know, that it's kind of that on stream end.

In what way?

By having the house in the back, or having both both his layout, the size, I've got two roads on both sides of my graph.

I could go to the house.

He has a private road and a and a public road.

So you can probably say one lot size.

I guess you wouldn't open up the wasp.

Serial level.

So I'd be confident.

Yeah, then that's right.

And then we got a part just stop.

Do you have a sense of uh preferences for how tall an ADU should be?

We can look at setbacks.

And you know, you may have like, well, I'd be okay with two stories, but it depends on how far away it is from the property line.

But um I think this because you're gonna be you're gonna be really close if you're smaller, so therefore it ought to be below.

If you're gonna be big, then you're not gonna be able to say you're gonna get less complaining if you have a one story versus the two stories.

We get that now, they're gonna down into my house.

You're now at the bottom here, you're not far away from my house.

I just have a couple pictures.

These are examples of like uh not cute little one stories.

This is like a one and a half where you have bonus room up above and uh this one is like two stories.

Uh these are just images of examples of what that might be.

Uh why I I I like what David is saying, because I think it has to do with height.

Or size of law.

Size a lot.

But height has to do with the size, how far away things are.

So and I think you could make an argument that it's further away from uh joining property line spawn.

So if you're if you're five feet away, maybe it's one story.

Ten feet away, maybe it's a story and a half if you're 20 feet away, maybe it's two stories.

Yeah, just that five is two people want it.

Yeah, whatever whatever the calculation is, it has to do with the viewplane size.

Every be uh everybody be open to, you know, they can have two stories, but it really depends on the size of the lot and what kind of setback that's I think so.

Because if they're really close, then maybe it's just gonna be once right.

Okay, and again, it's important to remember this regulation that she's got on the screen that talks about what the maximum height in the rear yard area for a detached building is.

This is for existing accessory structures.

Which these are these are accessory structures, so they would also need to follow this same minimum or maximum sorry, height, unless they got a conditional use permit to regulate that additional exercise.

We're gonna be getting so many conditional views permits and if we design something that doesn't have some good objective criteria to say if you got setbacks, you you're okay.

You go higher to get set back.

I'm just I'm just saying what the current process is.

I'm saying the current process, so then it doesn't have that.

Yeah, the challenge with conditional use is we're almost balanced.

These are well, these are permitted uses with as long as they can meet the standards you guys put in place.

And the council is one of the percent, so they don't meet that, and that's conditional use.

Well, they don't get it.

Well, they do now.

I'm talking about an accessory structure.

Oh, I'm talking about an eight years.

I thought we were still on ADU, so are you starting to do it?

Okay, I got it.

We're talking about the existing framework that we're in my accessory buildings.

Yeah, Dave, right.

If I mean it's currently, yeah, that's what I thought we were still on the code.

We're running short on time.

Um year maybe you need to meet it or you don't.

Yeah, we've got it.

Oh, for sure.

I guess I should have started at four.

I like that.

That's what Dave said.

I think this is a really good discussion though, because you guys are really getting out what you're thinking and and what we can work for.

I think it's good we can think about these now for the next two weeks.

Well, you recovered two weeks ago.

Okay.

Well, I want to memorize the stuff, bring it back, and continue on.

Maybe giving you some step beforehand, like being hungry.

Yeah, well, it doesn't matter.

Oh, we could send these slides out.

Yeah, it wouldn't be really helpful to have those.

Absolutely, no problem.

Because we have them only got a will.

Because people are not similar to our big we've got to deal with that.

I don't want to take them one at a time.

You know what I mean?

Yep.

It's a good thing.

Well, that was just a lot of time.

I'm that whole discussion.

The only thing that makes me super nervous about that one is when you all went to four.

Yeah, but I feel the same.

It's not that.

So if you're looking at your awesome.

So there are some machines.

Oh good for you.

I guess uh state funding.

They started some.

You might be able to start meeting.

Yeah.

So it's uh you know, it is just a still in the meeting.

But I'll just wonder how they're doing it.

We don't need more.

You know who's one of these.

Come on.

I don't know.

Well, I'm I can tell you stories up with your work for that for years ago.

No, that's true.

I think I think that is an ethical guy.

I don't think we're awesome.

All right, welcome everybody to the uh May 21st where the planning commission meeting.

We'll do a quick round of introductions of planning commissioners and staff, and then we'll do a pledge of allegiance.

David Hart, Mark, Danny Schoenfeld, Cameron Duncan, Dave Bromley, Steve Rigley.

James, do you want to introduce staff?

Yes, thank you.

Um development director.

Um city attorney, Will Hawk's planning director.

Um hearing my seniors twice or three times.

Do you want to see if we can fix it or should I just keep going?

Okay.

Clinton Spencer is uh plan uh development services manager.

I said chance is a senior planner.

Ivan Hooper, transportation engineer.

And Jan Gillilen.

I can actually say her last name, so I will say it.

She is uh filling in for Aisha tonight.

She works in our office as well.

Thanks, Jen.

Thank you.

We'll do a quick uh Pledge of Allegiance and get started.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which is one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

The first agenda item tonight is the Jazz box phase four B.

Mike, do you want to do the introduction?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Chair.

One second.

All right.

Is that better?

Yeah, okay.

Yes, the first item that we have on our agenda is um SEG presenting a request for a site plan review of a uh modified site uh that would encompass the jazz box.

Uh this is a uh phase within their um redevelopment plans for the mall.

I believe our applicant is here.

Uh Larry uh Oldham with uh Babcock Design is representing the applicant.

Did you guys want to come down and uh okay?

If you'll state your name and address for the record, and that's what we got across.

Larry Oldham, 672 West Houston Street, Stansbury Park, Utah.

Uh I'm a partner and uh architect with Babcock Design representing SEG today.

Uh today we are looking at the uh site plan approval for the new practice center for the jazz.

Um start from the bottom up, I guess.

Uh we have a hundred and nineteen thousand uh underground parking garage that will house 300 cars.

Uh a third of those cars will be a private use by the Utah Jazz, and the the other two-thirds will be a public use by Intermountain Health.

Uh you must have heard that uh the new partnership with them, so they are uh the development to the north of us, uh they will share that garage with the jazz.

Um both of the facilities will have uh uh plaza area at the at the grade.

Um the site amenities area that will be uh uh part private parking for the jazz side uh with some open space for uh entertaining any sponsors or invited guests, so that will not be a a public area.

Um the facility is um a private facility that will house uh the jazz practice to basketball courts, locker rooms, uh weight rooms, and other exercise areas for their conditioning and uh and um health.

Uh it would also house the uh the jazz basketball administration, their executives, any trainers and coaches.

Um followed the aesthetic of the um the hockey center as far as the geometry, the materials.

Uh they will be very similar in look.

Uh that's also reflects what we are doing on the west side for the SCG employee office areas that we've already discussed.

Um, from the commission.

I have one.

Um I have a question.

So when um when we as the architectural review committee met and reviewed this, there was no real information about the building that is currently marked with an IHC banner.

Um is that part of this discussion now?

That is not part of this discussion.

They will have their own separate site planning process, building permitting process.

There are a couple images that if you look closely, you can see some grayed out images, and that is very similar to what right there, yeah.

That's that is the that that is the facility, yeah.

So uh now that's that where it's headed now?

That's where it's headed now, yeah.

So we uh so the jazz will occupy the south half of the the parking area on top.

That's where the jazz will uh the building will be, and then right adjacent to it.

So your your demarcation is the edge of your building.

Yes, it's the white wall, the glass wall, and the roof.

Correct.

That wall where the arrow is, yeah.

Yeah, and then the rest of that to the north building behind it to the north and to the west is something that IHC will have to come and get approvals for.

If you're counting the the geometry, the volume to that to the west of that upper that yes, that is I see.

Yeah, I'm allowing what we're talking about.

But so we're talking about everything to the south of that blue ribbon building.

Blue ribbon building.

Yes, that the I the amount.

Yeah, but but is it here?

Yeah, or is it here?

No, it's where you're here.

Yeah, okay.

So the image in the upper right is there.

That is the entire jazz building.

Did he bring any site plan or anything?

This this maybe shows it a little bit better.

But we would have loved to have brought these together because they they are on the set some what you know, but based on how they this was being announced and so forth, we could not bring it at that point.

So this is fully anticipated going back through the architectural for the IC building, but based on their timing, we still had to move ahead with the Jazz facility.

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure we were clear because I didn't want those on the architectural review board to I think this one I might showing shows at the best right here.

He's pointing to the edge.

Yeah.

And then that's where the other one starts.

Yeah, that's fine.

That's what we were shown.

Yes, and that's the same.

Yeah, we're not seeking any approval for the Intermountain Health portion of the project.

Any other questions, Steve?

So it looks like any turn.

So it looks like this is not attached to anything with the mall.

This is all north, I mean north and east of the city.

So there is a small section that is attached to the mall, and that's where there is there is some interior jazz space in the existing Macy's.

Yeah.

It is attached there, but then as you move north, the the larger volume where the the jazz is, there is a 40-45-foot space between the mall and the jazz.

So it mostly takes most of the parking lot to the east side of the of that area.

It takes a significant amount, yeah.

And that is replaced by the public parking on the inner mountain health side.

On the other side, yeah, underneath okay.

And just a quick question on that where it says side amenity area, and then the mall ring road.

That area reports adjacent to Mall Ring Road.

That's going to be like a uh a restricted, like maybe gated parking area or something.

Is that right?

Well, right adjacent to the mall.

Is that is that a gated?

Yeah, that is that is a it hasn't been determined if it's gonna be gated.

Restricted.

There will be a 24-hour security presence there.

Okay.

Okay, and you're um you're good with the four findings and the 10 conditions.

Uh there was one condition about the uh sidewalk going south on the west side of the ring road, um, that we would request, I guess, further discussion on.

Um the the image in red is the is the proposed sidewalk.

Currently, the current pedestrian pathway at uh what is it 10450 south?

The it's on the west on the east side of the ring road.

Uh we would like to currently keep it there.

Um a couple of reasons for this is um i i if we install the sidewalk on the west side of the ring road, there there is really nothing for any pedestrian, no nowhere for them to go.

Um that is the back of house of the hockey facility.

Uh it's a 24-hour monitored uh secured parking lot that the public doesn't have access to.

Uh we prefer to keep the public as far away from players, coaches, enter any action interaction with them, and we don't want to create a position where we have onlookers you know standing at the fence or anything like that.

Um so we prefer to keep it to the east side uh of the ring road.

Also, there in one to three to five years, there's there could be another rink, and we don't want to install new construction to just tear it out.

Um so that's a couple reasons, you know, for discussion.

Mr.

Chair, I have a I have a couple of questions.

Just to clarify what you were just talking about with the sidewalk.

So it sounds like there's no issue with connecting to existing sidewalks, it's just the placement of the sidewalk, is what you want to discuss.

So the connections would be crossing the ring road.

So uh it would be crossing up towards to the existing side.

The left image there, yeah.

That's an existing cross would be crossing there, and then down south we'd be crossing again.

Okay.

So that's something to consider.

Okay, and then um you had mentioned 300 total parking spaces, 150 shared.

Is that right?

And then 150 dedicated to SEG to the jazz.

Um the the Jazz probably have a hundred and thirty, and the remaining will be for Intermountain Health, and that will be the I'm sure they'll have some reserved doctor parking, but the remainder would be public parking.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay, thank you.

All right, Mike, is there any other additional information or clip?

Sorry.

You wanted to provide sure.

Um, I'll go through some of the uh fill in the gap material, I guess.

Um, as was mentioned, this is the building being proposed.

Uh 67 feet tall has been through the ARC meeting.

Uh it was approved there.

And let's see.

So this is kind of the process we looked at.

So earlier this year we went through an phase to approve the site, all the site preparation for this building.

That was done in uh in March.

You've seen probably all the construction going on over at the site right now.

Uh, they got things uh pretty well torn up and are well underway of constructing or getting the site ready for this building.

So um yes, we did the site preparation, went to the ARC uh April 29th, was approved there, and then uh today we're we're well the applicant is looking for full site plan consideration from the commission.

Um, and then as was mentioned, this IHC building uh was just announced.

We'll be seeing that probably uh in a couple of months, maybe like late July in terms of site plan.

But uh that will be coming before the ARC and the planning commission for approval.

Uh in terms of this is uh the yellow is kind of the footprint of the the uh underground parking.

Uh one of the questions we've had all along is how does this site integrate to the with the area north with the existing parking lot?

The IHC uh expansion kind of help answer that.

This is a site plan that uh was provided to us by the um well, the architect for a IHC.

Um it's conceptual, nothing is binding, but this is just kind of an idea to get an understanding of how that will integrate in the future uh with the existing parking.

You can see the existing parking are those ones that are angled, and this will kind of you know shows how that integrates to the north in the future, or possibly how it could.

Um yeah, in terms of parking, I think that's been discussed pretty well.

One of the considerations that we had, uh one of the requirements of the ordinance is to provide landscape stalls at the ends of parking islands or parking stalls.

So in this upper parking area, um, we would require these two painted islands to be to include landscaping on them.

Um parking access gates, that question is just to make sure that they provide enough uh area to pull off of the road so there's no backing onto the street as cars, you know, enter into the site, or if they're just gonna have it open, kind of that we one of the things that the ARC talked about as well was you know what kind of is there gonna be like a shack that's gonna be installed there, and uh the inf the feedback we got from the applicant that is if there is anything that's constructed for permanent surveillance security, it will match the the building and stuff.

So we just want to get a better understanding of how that access is gonna work, and we can work through that through the final approval process.

There is a nice uh amenities closet that's provided on site.

Whoops, I'm going the other way.

Um, several amenities provided here in the Cairns Design Standards there are some criteria for uh kind of get a just a look and feel of the type of quality and design that those amenities should um should match and follow.

One of those that uh we haven't seen yet is there's a shade structure that uh is being proposed on the site.

Uh there's a fire pit, there's you know several seating and table elements.

So we would just like to be provided with the details for those so that we can make sure that they match the quality and design given the uh the type of use that they're going to be used for and the um the customer thereof.

I don't think that there'll be anything subpar, but we would like to see those design standards to design so that we can make sure that they're uh following in line with the design the cairn's design criteria.

Um with this plaza area, as you look at the site, the paving is all the same from the parking to the plaza, and it just seems like this is an opportunity to really you know to make that plaza area something different, something better.

Um so to provide some our recommendation would would be to implement different different paving materials, designs, coloring, so you can differentiate it from the parking area versus when you walk into this plaza area.

Uh just give the that plaza area a little bit more context.

Um pedestrian connectivity.

So going back to this connecting sidewalk.

So the the route that exists now for people to cross from one point to another, uh you have to cross a road four times.

So that would be across, yeah, either a road or a driveway four times to get from one place to another, where if you installed the parking or the uh sidewalk, you wouldn't have to make any of those crossings.

Our ordinance requires that pathways should not deviate unnecessarily from a direct route or involve significant amount of out of direction travel.

So based on that standard, we feel like requiring this sidewalk does have uh does have merit, and we would recommend approval, but again, this is all in your hands.

So with that, we do find that the application is larger than compliance with the ordinance and we're excited to work with the applicant through final process to bring this building to fruition.

Um I've got our recommendations and our findings on the on the board, and glad to answer any questions.

Any questions?

Steve.

So on the sidewalk, I mean you said you didn't want that because of Gawkers.

I mean, can you have a fence that's high enough along that sidewalk to keep people from to get the privacy of that area, or what what all options would they have?

So one of the elements they have in terms of privacy is um they've got a there's a four-foot concrete retaining wall between the level of the sidewalk and then the parking level, and then you know, and then the amenity space is pushed so far back that from the pedestrian level, I don't know that you'd really be able to interact or or you know that I don't know that that would be problematic, especially if you're gonna have on-site security.

But um, I mean you could, you know, they could put up a fence or something like that to keep people out of that space as well.

I I would agree with that.

I think the sidewalk is needed.

Remember, you're putting an IHC facility just to the north of it.

You're gonna have people going back and forth, and to ask people to cross the street four times just so that you're not having somebody stand there and look.

I think it's just wrong.

Yeah, but I like the sidewalk.

I'm just wondering what they could do to get mitigated and meet their needs.

I'm sure they'll as far as uh do we allow some type of a fence or rot and iron fence or something like that.

Somebody can do rot iron fence that area.

Well, isn't that the landscaping?

I see the facility is gonna be further north than what this is.

Yeah, so get it.

Dude, I think the IHC facility is further north than what this is.

People are gonna walk back and forth and ask them across the street all the time, I think is a safety issue.

And I I don't really think I mean if people are gonna stand and watch, they're gonna stand on the yellow line, it's 20 feet away.

It's not that big of a deal.

So let them have the sidewalk to stand on.

Because they're gonna be going from IEC over to crispy cream, right?

Yeah.

Those are the two just fit in so well together.

That's how you celebrate a good health screen.

Where the pizza place.

I just think I think the sidewalk ought to be there.

I think we ought to follow the order.

Clean what's so where number one is to the left of that is the entrance into the hockey parking.

And then to the left of that, it's kind of hard to tell, but is there a sidewalk on the south side of the hockey practice facility?

Yes.

I drove there.

Well, I drive that every day, but I drove there this morning.

It's funny how you drive something a million times and you don't notice things.

I'm like, I wonder if I should make sure that there is, but I went and checked this morning.

There's very much a sidewalk on the south side of that building.

Okay, well, and I can see it looks like over on the left-hand side of that picture, there's a crosswalk going north and south from the old Pier 1.

Yeah.

So needs to do another question.

Yes, thank you.

I was just I just wanted for orientation to understand.

Yeah, what is it that the side well, what are people accessing right here?

So this is number where number one is that would be the entrance to the facility.

Uh number one would be across a so the Maul Ring Road is on the right hand side.

So is traffic is traveling south.

That number one is so that lane for people turning right off of Mall Ring Road across the front of the dedicated road.

It's a turning lane.

Provides clarity.

Oh the applicant one.

So I think you need to come down to the bottom of the colour.

Yeah, if you can come down and speak into the mic, please.

Well, sure.

Either one.

So at the left of number one, that that is the entrance into the back of house parking parking lot.

That's where the players park, that's where the coaches park.

That's where any food service or any any there is no public entrance in that.

The public entrance is on the west side.

Um so yeah, that's that's I think it's important to note that's the back out, the back of the house.

Okay.

I just I don't I don't know that you wouldn't have a lot of pedestrian require needs for the back of the facility.

I think I agree.

I think you're gonna have people moving all over the place.

Yeah, you do have the former Pier 1 and the other retail components that are south of that location.

So if you're walking from the mall entrance, which is just on the north side of the IC, there are pedestrians that walk down through that area.

You've got all the restaurants down there, you've got other things.

I I just think you ought to provide as a walkway.

Okay.

Are there any other questions?

Or they're gonna walk.

Did you have another anything else you want to present?

No.

Okay.

This item has been noticed to the public.

Is there anybody here that would like to speak on this item?

Oh, I also have the finishing materials here if you want to see those.

I mean well.

Nobody in Mike, do you want to see if anybody's online?

Or is it just stuff?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now, and we'll address you one at a time.

I'm not seeing any hands.

Okay, we'll close that to public comment and bring it back to the commission for further or further deliberation, possible action.

I'll be happy to make a motion.

Okay, if we're ready for that.

Please.

I don't think oh wait.

I I'm I'm in agreement with Lenise as well as far as the are we the only two were on the uh sidewalk issue.

Rust you agree.

I like the sidewalk just because I think there needs to be a refuge area when they're over there.

Otherwise, people are gonna be standing there and they're gonna be up against the curb and in the street.

I don't and I think they are gonna pass through there.

I think there's other ways to screen the back of the house, so to speak.

That's fine.

I just think you're gonna have people in the street if you don't have a slide.

Yeah, I'm just thinking the way that I would view uh pedestrians moving, and it doesn't seem like there would be on that area there, but uh it's not that big of issue.

Okay.

Okay, we all set it.

Okay, uh I'll make a motion that the planning commission determined that determines that the proposed development enhancements contained in the architect's letter exhibit A.

Am I reading the right thing?

Yes, be accepted as justifying any actual or perceived shortcomings in meeting the applicable Karen's design standards and further motions that preliminary site plan review is complete for the jazz box phase four project located at 1045 450 south state, based on the following uh four findings and subject to the following 10 conditions.

Is there a second?

I'll second that camera.

David Hart?

Yes.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes, Dave Bromley?

Yes, Ron Mortimer?

Yes, Stephen Wrigley?

Yes.

Lenise Davenport?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfills.

Yes.

This motion carries.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is this Sandy Schulz uh subdivision.

Probably just mispronounced that big.

Sandy Scholzen.

Schulzen, thank you.

Subdivision.

That's a bit of a tongue twister, isn't it?

Yeah.

Uh this uh item is brought to us by the applicant David Denison with Gardner Group representing the property owner.

They're requesting a preliminary subdivision review for the land associated with the Scholzen um apartment mixed use development.

This proposal would consolidate a few uh existing parcels into one larger lot to allow for the future mixed use development that I referenced earlier.

I believe the applicant is here and able to present on their request.

Anything you want to present.

Good evening.

Uh Dave Dennison with Gardner Group, uh 201 South Main, Salt Lake City.

Um we're happy to submit this preliminary plat.

Um what happened is we were part of a different plat that never actually got recorded.

We've been working on this project for quite a while.

Um we realize we've got there's five lots there that we're combining into one lot for our project, and we're really excited to get started.

So any questions?

Any questions?

This is the project we reviewed a year and a half ago.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It was a good project.

I liked it.

Yeah, yeah, we're excited.

And uh, if you have any questions, I've got Adam Lankford with uh WRG.

Uh we're partners with with them on this project, so it's a joint uh project.

Mr.

Chair, um, I noted in the staff report that there were apparently decades worth of considerations on this property, and nothing has made it to this to this far in the process.

And I just wonder whether it's from the applicant or from staff if we could get a better understanding of why what what the issues have been.

I th I think at this point I'm I'm just grateful it's out where it's at.

And I think we just move forward, and there's been a lot of history with it, and it hasn't been all under Gardner Group, it's been through others, it just has gone through many operat development uh scenarios, but the main thing has been the economy.

The main thing has been it started with COVID, it got hit with that, it's just had several issues after issue that we have dealt with in trying to get this out of the ground.

So we're really happy where it's at.

And and I might add two of the uh big issues have been are all of our UDOT easements we've got with UDOT.

We've got all of the required easements, and then there's a ditch going through right through the middle of property, and we've worked really hard with uh Watermaster, and we've got all of our legal documents in place submitted to the city to reroute that ditch so that if they ever need the water that we we can continue that so nothing will change from that point of view.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

There has been a lot of work from the city put into this.

Um, our RDA and the gardeners working for months with with the RDA as well to make this happen.

So we're we're happy where it's at, and um just if we can get this going, this is a great project for the city.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item has been noticed to the public.

Anybody here would like to speak on it?

Anyone on oh, sorry.

Clint, did you have anything?

Sorry.

I don't have to say anything.

I was promised to keep this meeting short, so apologies.

No, you're fine.

I like this new format.

Um just a couple of things.

I think for in terms of consideration, uh, there's a 16-foot tip dedication that needs to take place as part of the platform um recording.

And then um with the site plan that was approved, uh the setback or the the PUE that is going to be accommodated along that street frontage is kind of in flex, so we'll need to work with uh the applicant on that to make sure that we get that dialed in.

But I think that we can accommodate at least a 10-foot PUE along the street frontage.

Um that's all I really have to say.

So thank you.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Okay, no, no, the real part.

Anyone on anybody online?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak on this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now, and we'll address you one at a time.

No hands.

Okay, we'll close that to public comment and bring that back to the commission for possible action and deliberation.

Yeah, I'm ready to move forward with the motion.

Okay.

The Sandy Scholson subdivision at 10116 South Monroe Street based on uh the four findings and three conditions detailed in the staff report.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Steve.

Dave Bromley.

Yes.

Stephen Wrigley.

Yes.

Kevin Duncan.

Yes.

David Hart.

Yes.

Ron Mortimer.

Yes.

Lynnice Davenport?

Yes.

And Daniel Shellen Pellet.

Yes.

This motion carries.

Okay.

Thank you.

I think that completes our items.

We have minutes from May 7th.

We need to approve.

I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes.

All in favor?

Mike, any updates from you?

Oh my God.

Well, Jane, since James stepped out for a sec, I'll cover my items first.

As far as upcoming uh meetings, we will have a meeting on June 4th.

That's our next available meeting.

And uh it looks like we'll also uh dovetail another conversation about uh accessory dwelling units and continue that conversation.

It was a great uh participation from all of you.

And we and we really do value your input and we'll have a major impact on what we end up bringing back to this body and to the city council.

So thank you for uh indulging us on that.

We'll make sure we allow for enough time to get that wrapped up this next go around.

Um beyond that, I don't know if we'll have items for the 18th or the uh July 2nd yet.

Um as of right now, I'm showing in our um PC availability sheet that uh we've shared with you all, the Google Sheet.

Um I do show that we have enough uh planning commissioners to constitute a quorum, at least for the July 2nd.

Dave, you said that you were not gonna be available.

Is that what I understood?

Well that's what I was asking about.

If I'm on July 2nd, there is now maybe a conflict on me.

Okay.

Uh so if there is if there is a chance to push those earlier, that's great, but obviously I understand that's not feasible sometimes.

Yeah, I I don't know yet.

Uh uh, we're a little far away to know for sure if we're gonna have any items.

Um, but I do know for sure we'll have one on June 4th, June 18th.

I don't have anything scheduled just yet.

Um and July 2nd, it's still unclear, but at least I'm showing that we have availability from our planning commissioners.

Um I will not be here for the second.

I do have you down for not available in Cameron, not available on on the July 2nd, but uh I don't know about Ron.

I'm available.

You are available, okay.

So pretty much everybody else is on that date.

Uh so if we do have items, it looks like we'd be able to have a meeting that night.

Um then it looks like we have enough.

Uh look like everyone's gonna be here next uh on June on June 4th, which would be great to get your input on the ADUs at that meeting.

And then it looks like we have enough availability on June 18th.

But as we get into summer months, I know a lot of people are traveling.

So if uh we don't end up having a quorum, we'll have to cancel the meeting regardless if we have items or not.

But thanks for participating on that uh spreadsheet.

It does help us with coordination and planning for our meetings and helping us keeping that updated.

Um as far as uh some staffing updates.

Um as you are aware, Bryn Bollander um and Thomas Irvin um both departed the city a couple months ago, month and a half ago.

Uh we have uh hired cash uh as he was introduced last meeting, right?

Okay, I did we did do that, right?

I made you go up and do the whole thing, yeah.

Okay.

Um we've been in the interview process for another planner uh position, and we have made uh a hire uh for that, and we'll introduce you to him in our next meeting.

So uh look forward to that.

Coming from where?

Uh from the U.

Okay.

So it's an entry-level position, and uh they uh just graduated with their master's degree uh from the U, and this will be their first uh real planning job.

So it'll be it'll be exciting.

That'll be great.

We can knock all the idealism out of them.

Dave might find that uh uh an easy challenge.

It's a challenge.

Um but other than that, I don't think I don't know of any other He didn't have anything.

Okay, I think that's it for Mark.

All right, we'll take one last motion.

Motion to adjourn.

All in favor?

Or adjourned, thank you.

Yeah, I'm taking asking for yeah, I think sorry about the.

Oh, okay.

Sorry, not even.