Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Hey, Heat. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey.

started. Um and we will open up with taking role. Commissioner Barrett. Yes. Commissioner Jeffrey Barrett here. Commissioner Amy Barry here. Commissioner Amy Burroughs here. Commissioner Laya Rosenfield here. Commissioner Brian Scott here. Commissioner Michael VA. All right. Um, we'll move on into reports of the chair and vice chair. Um, and as chair, I have nothing to report this this time. I have nothing to report.

Move over to the planning director's report.

Thank you. Um, just a few things. As you know, the legislative session's in full swing. Uh, we're halfway through at this point. Um, we have close to 30 bills that in one way or another impact the um, planning division and maybe the planning commission as well, including one that deals directly with the planning commission. So, we'll keep you a breast on those um, and how they play out throughout the session and um, go from there. We're not at this point, we're not really going to talk much about those just because they're all in various forms of being either stuck in a committee or whatever. So, uh we'll keep you updated. They do everything like I said of of um impacting planning commission operations to solar farms to water obviously to housing. So, everything in between. Um the city council last week um adopted the you may remember the zoning administration text amendment from last summerish fall. They adopted that. Um, basically most of that is cleaning up um kind of conflicting terms between what the zoning administrator who the zoning administrator is um because it says they'll prior to adoption that code the zoning code references both the planning director and the zoning administrator kind of interconnected. And so it's it's claring mostly clarifying that kind of stuff up. Um and then dealing with what a zoning review and approval actually means. Um so there's some fixes there, but those that'll go into effect as soon as it's published. Um let's see. I think that's about all I had for uh Oh, the other thing that

they've they've had a couple of briefings. one was on the Alien Street closure vacation process. So, they have that slated for a decision, the first meeting in March, I think March 3rd or March 10th, one of those two dates. So, we'll keep you up to date on on that as well. And that's all I have. All right. Thank you. Uh, next we'll move into our open forum. So, it's a 10-minute section for us to discuss uh planning topics that aren't directly related to a specific motion or a item. So, if anyone has a motion or would like to bring anything up, Mr. Chair, if I may.

So, um last week I or last session I put forward a motion that failed uh and there were some concerns that uh related to immigration enforcement and there were some concerns uh that there was not enough clarity there. So I have tried to clean up and clarify that motion and with your permission I'd like to present it again. Okay. So this would um direct planning staff to provide to the commission for consideration a zoning amendment which prohibits the construction or use of facilities for immigration, detention or enforcement anywhere in the city to the extent permitted by law. Um do for for those of you who are there, do you think that cleans up some of your concerns with clarity? And for those of you who weren't, is that something that would be an order to vote on? Um, makes it a little bit more clear. Yeah, I think.

Okay. Does that motion need a second? Well, I haven't I haven't actually moved it yet. I was sort of trying to get a barometer of the feeling of the commission. Could Could you read it one more time, please?

Yeah. Um, it would direct the planning staff to provide to the commission for consideration a zoning amendment which prohibits the construction or use of facilities for immigration detention or enforcement anywhere in the in the city to the extent permitted by law. Any additional thoughts? All right, then I'll move I move that the planning commission directs planning staff to provide to the commission for consideration a zoning amendment which prohibits the construction or use of facilities for immigration detention or enforcement anywhere in the city to the extent permitted by law.

I'll second that. So just to clarify, this motion is to put it on an agenda because it has to it's an official action of the planning commission. So it has to be placed on an agenda first. Okay. So the motion would be to add this to a future agenda for consideration. So you're not voting to actually initiate it tonight, just to put it on a future uh agenda. It I'll Yes. Thank you. I'll second it with that explanation, too. All right. Then we have a motion and a second. We'll go ahead and vote. Commissioner Barrett. Yes. Commissioner Barry,

yes. Commissioner Burroughs, yes. Commissioner Rosenfield, yes. Commissioner Scott, yes. Commissioner Ba, yes. All right. Um, didn't look like there was anything else on open forum. Okay, then we will move on to the consent agenda which is just uh approval of the meetings of the meeting minute meetings. I move that we approve the consent agenda. I'll second that. All right, go ahead and vote. Commissioner Barrett,

um I abstain. I wasn't present in the last meeting. Commissioner Barry. Yes. Commissioner Burroughs. Um, I'll abstain because I wasn't at that meeting either. Commissioner Rosenfield. Yes. Commissioner Scott. Yes. Commissioner Ba. Yes.

All right. And then on to uh the regular agenda. Item number two, the planned development and preliminary subdivision at approximately 10:32, 10:36, and 10:46 South Jefferson Street. Good evening. This is a plan development and a preliminary subdivision plat um to applications for this address. up front. I need to let you know that when we initially sent out the notice posting, it had a different petition number. Um, those petition numbers are on the screen now and those are the correct ones. Just have to put that out there. Um, sorry. This is a quick map showing you where the properties are. They're highlighted in yellow. Um there we go. I don't know if you can see marked my cursor. This property is it is three parcels. They are just off of um Jefferson Street. They're just south of 900 South and west of West Temple. Based on the information and findings listed in the report, the staff is recommending approval of both applications for the plan development and the preliminary subdivision pot. um not on the staff report but in your new motion sheet we have added a condition. The condition um is that the applicant must develop 16 three-bedroom 3 and 1 half bath units as shown in the floor plans reviewed for this application if approved. The subject property currently consists of three parcels totaling approximately.42 acres. Uh 1032 South and 1036 South Jefferson Street currently have occupied

dwellings. 1046 South is an empty lot. It's quite small. It's kind of original size 25 ft wide. The proposal is for a 16-unit development with within four buildings. Each building will have four units and each will be three-bedroom, three and a half bath units with onecar garage. They will be offered as fourale units and the height of the building has been changed as well. So last week we had new uh revised plans come in. Those are what are in your your staff report. Um, initially they were 30 feet 31 feet 11 inches and that's been changed to 3411 in um with three full stories. The first petition requested is a plan development. Uh the approval is needed for four modifications that the applicant is asking for. The first is to allow two buildings without public front public street frontage. As you can see on the site plan above, um only two buildings are right on on Jefferson Street. The other two are behind. So they need a modification for that. In addition, because they're doing a preliminary subdivision, each unit will have will be its own lot. And so there's only the two front lots that front onto Jefferson Street. The other 14 would need the plan development for approval for not having frontage on the public street. Oh, sorry. Um, they also want to reduce the re rear yard setback from 10 uh, excuse me, from 25 ft to 10 ft. And then the last one is allow an increase of two and a half stories to um three stories which would increase the

allowable wall height for the third floor floor by 2 and 1/2 ft. And at this point I'm going to ask if there was any confusion about that half story issue. If not I'm going to skip that. All good. Um well yeah it's good I think. No, go ahead. If there's questions about that, I think I understand it in this context. I wanted to I'll bring it up in the open forum as a more

general. I will come back to that as needed. So, I'm going to skip that. Um, the second petition again is the preliminary subdivision plot approval which is required to separate each lot for each town home or each unit. Um, this enables individual ownership. Typically, preliminary subdivision plots are approved administratively by planning staff. Um, but when it needs the planned development for approval as well, it comes before you. Um, this one generally meets the subdivision standards. So, it will just go in conjunction with the plan development. Again, the recommendation based on the information and findings listed in the report, the staff recommends that the planning commission approve both applications for this project with one condition of approval that the applicant develop 16 three-bedroom, three and a half bath units as shown in the floor plans reviewed for this application. The applicant is here obviously and does have some slides to show you and is ready for any questions.

Okay, great. Uh first, do we have any questions from the committee on clarifying or I just have one D. What is the parking context for this zone? So, this is FBUN1 and it only requires one parking space per per unit and they do have them. They are meeting the parking requirement regardless of the number of bedrooms. There's only one required unit there. It doesn't scale with the size of the unit. Correct. It's per Yeah. And per unit. This Sorry, the parking because we have like a separate basically overlay for parking. Correct. The the four parking contexts. Yeah.

Uhhuh. Right. What what context is this in? So it it is listed as FBUN1. Okay. In the chart and it is one parking space per unit. Okay. Okay. So, it doesn't actually it's doesn't have the the parking modification that the city made about 3 years incorporated into it. Um I don't think I'm understanding. Maybe management can help on that.

I think I understand the question. Um so when we went through the mixeduse consolidation, those mixeduse zones, their parking context um is dependent on distance from transit. So they can go from like neighborhood context to transit context depending on how far away they are. the FB11 zone is not in those mixed use zones. So, I'm looking up right now to see what context it's in, but it doesn't have that distance to transit um applied to it like the MU zones. It it's in the neighborhood center context. Thank you. Thank you. Um and then it continues to be FBUN. This was not part of the mixeduse consolation.

It is not correct. The zone is FBUN1. Thank you. Thank you. All right. If you want to go ahead and um give your presentation, you'll have 10 minutes. Let me switch over real quick. Sorry about that.

Pushing this thing to speak. All right. Cool. And please uh state your name when you start.

Yep. My name is Drake. Um, and I am the property owner of this property. Um, I just wanted to show a couple of slides um, kind of showing about how we're thinking about the project. Originally, when we sent our application, um, there was an argument basically saying because we don't meet the density requirements. Um, that reducing the rear yard set back from 25 ft to 10 ft was really the key to, you know, optimizing density. Um, so I put together a a plan um not utilizing the reduction in the rear yard setback where we could actually get 21 town homes um two bed, one one bath. Um a much denser plan, but our our goal with this project was to build familysiz housing. Um it's a need and a desire that's been expressed by both the city and the community. If you wouldn't mind going to the next one. Um, so not only does it align with the city goals, it also allows us to have um larger interior sideyard setbacks, um they're actually twice as large as the minimum required setback um in the setback that we have in our 21 unit plan. Um, we also thought it was the least impactful way um to develop and affect the neighbors as there's a 20 foot um public alley that is in the rear um and we just be scooting the buildings closer to um a five-story apartment and its parking lot. This is just a slide to to to kind of bring some clarity to the 2 and 1/2 to three and a half stories. It sounded like everybody understood it, but just basically just wanted to say that this doesn't in change change the overall height of the building or increase the amount of habitable space in the building. Um, this adjustment just basically reallocates interior height

from the first two floors um to have a slightly larger wall height on the third level um making the homes more livable and comfortable for families who are going to buy them and live them in them in the future. And that's everything that I got. Okay. Um I will go ahead and open up for public comment. Um if you are here to speak on this item, you can step up to the podium over there and you'll have two minutes. Um or if you're the representative of a community recognized community organization, you'll have five minutes. Uh and please remember to state your name as you begin. Thank you commissioners and thank you for all.

Sorry, can you turn the microphone on? There should just be a button.

Is it on? Guys, he's watching. Sounds like it's on. Check. Good.

Yeah. Once again, thank you all. I appreciate your time. Uh I am a home homeowner on Jefferson Street. I also represent 20 local homeowners and signatures against this pet petition. Uh I'm welcoming new development. We just need it at a smaller scale. Definitely think that it should be one parking spot per lot per the FBUN1 zoning. So that would equal three parking spots. We're at 16 here with no overflow parking, no guest parking. And Jefferson Street is already at a parking crisis. I mean, we uh we have two brand new parks. We have the large apartment complex that charges $50 a month for a parking fee, incentivizing tenants to park on the public street, effectively prior prioritizing our public street parking. We fought hard to align with the ballpark proposal that just passed. We were in all those meetings. We just want to follow these same rules. This developer is asking for special treatment for building height, which is new today, too, building placement and set packs. Approving these changes undermine the zoning code we just fought for. In the future, if a developer wants to do that in my lot, this would affect this whole light uh open space, but it will not affect me right now, but it will affect others in the future. We should just follow the ballpark proposal that we all worked hard on for a long time. This is just too many units. I would welcome 12 units compared to 16. The trash 16 cans out on the road will take up 77 ft of space. That's just trash between three. If it's an open trash can, that's

open for communities to dive in, make a mess, and make a make shanty towns in that alleyway. the privacy in the in the backyard setup. Yeah, it butts up to that backyard, but other backyards it walks right into the sidewalks into. Thank you. I appreciate all of your time. Go ahead.

Hi everyone. Thank you. Um I'm also a homeowner on Me Avenue behind the project. Um, I'm not here in opposition to the project. I understand the need for dense housing and appreciate that these will be homes that are for sale. My concern is with the variances, specifically by not requiring it to face the road, um, the situation is that eight of those units will face my backyard and have direct view into my backyard combined with the reduced setback and the additional height. And so, we're just concerned that it's a bit of an invasion of our privacy. So, we're not here to oppose it, but we would like you to reconsider um requiring the direction of the units to face Jefferson Street as the code. Can you please state your name for the record? Yeah, I'm Katie Duranti.

Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Um if you'd like to respond to those, you can or we can move into discussion.

Um if you guys have any questions, um we're actually not asking for an increase to height, uh allowed, you know, beyond what's allowed in the zoning. Um and we do have one parking stall per lot, um per garage or per unit. Um, and then regarding the trash bins, we have a dumpster with an enclosure surrounding it to accommodate the trash of the residents. Okay. Thank you. Uh, that I'll go ahead and open it up to us for discussion. Oh, and I'll close the public comment.

I have a a few questions. Um, first for the planner, does this does 16 units with three bedrooms in each unit meet the definition of medium density? Like the same definition that the ballpark station area plan calls for medium density? Yes. Does this meet that? Yeah. Low density typically is single family. Okay. Um, are there tenant relocation requirements for this developer? Why not? because it hasn't because that hasn't gone through for for plan developments yet. This isn't a reszone so it doesn't require that. Okay, that's why we talked about that before. Okay.

Um tell me again the idea of with garbage disposal for the trash pickup. So he will have one bin behind the buildings in the southwest corner. Okay. Well, like the the police or I thought sustainability in particular said that that was maybe the least attractive option because that makes it um more likely that it'll become an isore or a problem for the neighborhood.

They did in talking with stability um sustainability, excuse me. Um the pos the two ways to do it are going to be a central bin or um 32 bins and the you know Jefferson is a one-way street. Parking is limited so they would have to put them out on the public road. Um they most likely couldn't fit all those on the alleyway for private pickup. So the the trash bin the one trash bin was the best option and that was fine. That there that was an option with sustainability. Will the trash bin be in an enclosure? It will be it's required to be covered.

Covered has a has a fence around it and a roof kind of thing. Yes, it's on the alleyway. Okay. So, it's on the back side. So, it will have side coverage.

The the pictures of the existing alleyway show that there's already some garbage and stuff like that kind of accumulated there. Um, so I would like to see this uh developer make the best effort they can to kind of limit that. Um, also the urban forestry recommended that there's a medium species of tree instead of the ones that were proposed at first. Is there any change on has has the I don't if there's any agreement on using a medium species of tree or if that's a possible condition that we could include or something like that.

Um I'm going to look at management for that but typically that's worked out with urban forestry during the building permit process and the landscaping plan but I'm going to Is there anything more to add to that? Yeah. No. So that would be worked out during that process. And can urban forestry require medium species of tree? Because the the language in the report was that they would prefer it. But so they they can require they base their decision on the planting and the grow like the impervious area around where the tree is going to be planted and how much space it has so that the tree has the most the highest chance of of success.

Okay. So it's they we it's up to them to decide what that Okay. Thanks. That's all.

So um I think these are um any not this one specific, but any project is really difficult when the community um opposes it and wants us to vote no. And I think the I think the misunderstandings are that tonight we don't have we're not stopping the development because they have a right to do that under the current zone. What we are looking at are the exceptions they're asking for. And so if we vote no, we're voting no on the reduced setback on the increased height and those types of things. So, um I think our role is to really evaluate the comments that we receive from the public to within our purview, within our ability to see if there are things that we can do to try to mitigate certain harms to the community, to the neighborhood. And um so with that um in mind, I am wondering cuz I can't really discern um the layout in terms of the um outside perimeter of the proposed town homes and how like which side is going to face the neighboring homes and if um like yeah like I'm not sure which what what side is is facing those homes and if there is a a way to mitigate perhaps that like more livable third floor in terms of windows facing which would be um north and south. While she's pulling that up, excuse me. Um page 22 in your staff report has the site plan that shows um the walkways and where the front of those uh units would

be. 22. page 22 of 70. Yeah. So, it looks like the entryways are facing out because there's a central drive aisle where all the garages are. So, I guess I'm not I'm not so concerned about that. I'm really thinking about the third floor as we are related to them being above kind of then looking being able to not have as much

um privacy connection to the neighboring yards. Um, so that was really my concern is if that's something that uh we can evaluate to possibly make some if we feel like we need to make some modifications to allow for um a better privacy for that floor. Go ahead. Um the one thing I will say about that um is that it is a there is a bedroom up there that's our third bedroom. Um, and it's a fire code requirement to be able to have egress from that bedroom in case there is a fire. Um, so we couldn't have like a bedroom without a window.

I'm not suggesting you have zero windows. I just wasn't sure how many we're talking. Do you know what I'm saying? If we're talking like three windows, maybe we could reduce that to one. So that's what I'm trying to understand is if on those third floors, you're talking just one bedroom window. having a smaller window on the third level.

It doesn't necessarily have to be smaller. It's it's more of of just trying to limit so that it's not like a full um wall of a window. Do you know what I'm saying? Just to provide a little bit more privacy for that. So it's not like a bank of windows being able to look out onto the neighboring properties. Like if we have one bedroom window, I feel like that is adequate and appropriate. Um it's just as if it was like a bunch of windows. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Um you're you're looking at me like you don't like I'm trying to um it is one window in each of the bedrooms. Um there isn't more than one. They're large windows.

So you have one bedroom. We have one bedroom facing out that way and it has one large window in it. Okay. That's what I wanted to try to better understand. You you can see uh Commissioner Barry the um windows on the on page 29 of the staff report. There's Yeah, I just didn't know which side those were facing. I mean, I see that, but I don't know what's they they look similar in both directions. And because the doors are on the first floor there, those are going to be facing north.

Okay. Okay. Um and then I also had a clarifying question on the dumpster. I think clearly having a centralized dumpster um is much uh less of an impact to the neighborhood considering then we would have all of those cans having to go out on the street. And I visited this site so I um could that would be a big negative impact to the neighborhood um in terms of parking on garbage day. But I'm wondering why just to clarify we're placing the dumpster on the alley and not on the property. The dumpster is on the property. It's just on the back of the property and the the fence goes around to the rear um blocking it from the alley. So, there's a fence shielding the dumpster from the alley, but the dumpster is on

um our property. Okay. Okay. So, so how is that going to affect then the already reduced setback on that side from 25 ft to 10 ft? I mean, I feel like um that's a big setback and we're reducing any kind of like outdoor um space and if that's going to take up a section of it, right? I'm trying to orient like how this is how that reduced setback um takes away from outdoor space because there's really none here.

Um yeah, there there isn't a ton of outdoor space. If we did bring it back, the it would still probably just be um graveled or um what's it called? Are you gonna are they going to be able to access um their garages via this Jefferson and the alley? Yeah. Okay.

Um there isn't a ton of, you know, active green space on here. There will be landscaping. Um, but we're hoping too that bringing these familysiz housing, there is Jefferson Park right there. Um, we're hoping that the families who come here will be able to utilize that park and make good of all the funds that the city's investing into into the park.

Okay. I I've I've got a a couple of concerns and um I guess the parking is the biggest thing for me. There's there's what 48 units, you know, 16 times three you get 48, but there's only, you know, one one car per unit. uh whether whether that's allowed or not is is that the right decision knowing that that at least half of these units would have two drivers and so you know driving up and down Jefferson and and the adjacent streets there's there's cars, you know, parked on the street now. And so it it just it just seems like that the parking issue is is is is a big one for me. Uh I'm assuming that that the internal street that's created, the alley um is is basically going to get taken care of by homeowners association and there'll be snow removal required, you know, in that. So I think that's okay. I I guess the other concern that I have is that there's there's really no outdoor areas. There's no porches. There's no no sitting area. There's I mean there there's just not any area that you've you've very efficiently designed these units for three units a piece, but there's there there's no outdoor area whatsoever. And that's in in creating a neighborhood that just seems it just seems contrary to to creating a neighborhood because there's no real outdoor gathering areas. I I have a concern with that. So those are just comments on my side. I I I I think what you've done is is you know is all allowed? What I'm what I'm questioning

is even though it's allowed, is that is that the right solution for for these these four buildings?

Uh go ahead. I I will just um say it's it is nice to see the three-bedroom um units going in. That's something that we hear a lot about but don't actually get and when we do it's like two of them out of a hundred or something. So that that is one one major benefit I I see that is coming out of that. That's all.

I would agree that I think that the the three-bedroom units are highly desirable. Um I'm not too concerned about parking. There's a lot of transit nearby. Um, we've got the track station within half a mile. We've got State Street in the Route 200, which is a 15-inute service, even less than half a mile. Um, yeah. So, so that doesn't concern me as much. I do wonder I I've got a couple questions about the alleys and then I have just a thing that I'm spitballing. Um, so in terms of that alley, looking at it, it seems pretty dilapidated right now. It's not paved. It's sort of a a double track uh double track path um until it hits the the the new apartment complex on GZ Avenue, which I assume is also part of that alley. Um is there any plan to do any work on the alley as part of this project? Um we are not privately doing any work to the alley. Okay. um as part of this project

and and technically all of the owners around the alley are obligated towards its maintenance. Correct. It's actually the city. It's a public alley, not a private alley. Yeah. Um when you say alley, are you talking about the alley he's creating between the houses or the alley that is existing?

No, the existing alley uh from Jefferson. Um, and then I guess I guess my other question, maybe this is more for staff if I may, Mr. Chair. Um, uh, the I assume at some point, and I'm sorry, my my planning history knowledge is failing me a little bit, there was a transition away from permitting publicly alley public alleys to be created as part of subdivisions. Um, when did that change in planning practice occur? That hasn't yet. That was what Nick was talking about that it just had a briefing with the city council. So, it has not been adopted yet. If that's what you mean, like a administrative approval.

No. No. This would be like presumably this this whole area was created through the subdivision processes at the at the time it brought in this alley into existence. The existing alley that is currently not doing so hot. Okay. Um this is a subdivision process. It is creating an alley, but that alley will actually be private. won't be city-owned and created through the subdivision process. And so I assume there was a change at some point in like the way that the city thinks about subdivisions where an alley like this like the one that's going to go through the town homes doesn't become does this make sense?

Yeah. So it's not it hasn't been a change in city code or policy or anything like that. It's really just a preference of subdividers on whether they choose to provide and create alleys. It's very possible that in the past some city administration or council decided they didn't want to accept any new alleys as part of a subdivision process, but I don't know when that when or even if that happened. Okay. But there's nothing specific about that. So in order to transmit an alley, a subdivider would actually have to get approval from the council. No. So basically any any public rideway that's created

is um in a subdivision is created by recording a plat. That plat requires any of that land to be identified and dedicated to the city. The city through the people the entities who sign the subdivision plat and ultimately approve it which is the mayor ultimately decides whether to accept those dedications or not. So you usually they're accepted, but it's just mostly a matter of preference from the subdivider whether or not to provide access directly to a street or to include alleys in it. Most nowadays do not include alleys.

Gotcha. But those alleys don't count towards the because one of the exceptions that were being asked for is that not every property would be on a public right of way. Alleys don't allow for that. No alleys don't the the code says frontage on a street. Gotcha. Thank you. Um would that central alley the private alley would it be fenced off is the plan or is it intend? Are you talking about the driveway? The driveway. Yes. Sorry. In between. Yeah. Let's driveway. Alley outside. Yeah. Okay. My the alley is public but the driveway is just part. Would the driveway be fenced off? We don't have any plans to put up a fence. Okay.

On our driveway right now. All right. Thank you. And is this the maximum or is this the minimum width permitted? Is that driveway the minimum width permitted by the fire code currently? Yes, it's a little bit larger than that. Okay. Yeah. Fire has done an initial review based on the plan development talking about

and then they will again through the building permit process. Um, so I wonder um looking at looking at these um floor plans I'm wondering if we can kill two birds with one stone in terms of outdoor space and overlooking and and maybe this will make the situation worse. I don't know. I'm thinking through it and I'm throwing it out to the rest of the commission. I'm wondering if it would be possible to actually have that I guess north facing bedroom have a a small deck and that be the window so that the window itself is set back um like a sliding door then then you have the egress you have the light but you don't have the massive window right it right right pressed up against the alley connecting Jefferson off the driveway um and then I like it I'm not sure how to Tetris it in. But could that be a condition that would mitigate some of the concerns about the fact that this height is creating a direct overlook into the neighbor's yards?

Uh, I don't know that we could really I don't know that that would be a condition. You would have to ask the applicant if they would want to do that and then they'd have to bring it back to you for your approval to look at that review. And and in terms of practicality, that really wouldn't change anything in terms of view lines. In fact, it would probably make it worse because then a person then there's I mean if there's a picture frame that is what you look out as opposed to it being a balcony where anything you can like look at any angle. Yeah, it's fair. So, and you're still at the same height and still just as far out. So,

but appreciate the feedback. Um, yeah. Then I don't really see any good way to mitigate that bedroom, which isn't to say that it shouldn't happen because I think that this is in line with the community plan, but I don't have I don't I don't I'm out of ideas. Um I'm wondering if um we can uh condition improvements for drivability to the alley given that the dumpster is going to be accessed via that way as well as that's an access to the because we do require some developers to make public improvements to various things given an impact um that will occur because of that development.

Yeah. If if the if the planning commission wants to do that, you're limited to the section of alley that's directly adjacent to the to the subject property. You can't make them do offsite, right, things,

right? I would be um I would actually encourage us to think about at least requiring some sort of improvement for drivability. I'm not saying you have to pave it, per se, but that that portion is improved given um that the dump um the dump truck is going to have to or whatever the vehicle is that goes to the dumpster is going to have to have better access and drivability for that. And if they're accessing their own parking garages via the alley that that be um a requirement we look at adding to this.

Uh is there Yeah. So, is the that's the site plan I was looking at as well, and it actually shows the dumpster being accessed off the central um driveway. Is that correct? Or is it accessed off the alley? It's accessed off the private driveway. Okay. And he's going to the that is going to access to that via the alley or via Jefferson out on Can you turn your mic on? Yeah. Sorry. Yeah, the gate opens up onto our private driveway and then the bin gets wheeled out.

Okay, so I'm driving big drum truck. How am I going to get to that to empty it for you? Am I going to do it via Jefferson Street or via the alley, the public alley? I would assume you would probably come up our driveway. It's via Jefferson Street. Via Jefferson Street. So I think that is that that is good luck. But on Jefferson for that. I think you'd come off of Jefferson, too. But then I think you'd exit on the alley. You're not going to back out. It's only showing one. It's a straight in out. What's a straight in out? That's the dumpster. Oh, but I thought that we've been told that that the driveway connects to the alley. I think that was a misunderstanding of alley. No, that does. It does. It does.

Oh, it does. So So this this street then connects out. Okay. Yeah. So you would you you'd pick up the trash and then you'd hook north and then back east. You so you would use the alley. I can't imagine them not using the dump truck. It's unlikely the dump trucks would back all the way out. I mean maybe um there are worse, but then again that alley is only 14 ft wide um in the east west direction. So I I I also like that as a condition. I wonder who is going to be looking at the west elevation and the east elevation. I'm looking at those on page I don't know what page this is. East elevation. Yeah.

The the west um facing elevation will be facing the fivetory uh apartment in the alley and the east facing elevation will be facing Jefferson Street. the east elevation. So he's saying the east elevation that shows the blank. Yeah. That is going to be between between the buildings. Correct. And then the more colorful one with the windows, that's what would be on Jefferson. And then both of the west elevations for both buildings that have like this smiley face. It's really it's it's really boring.

Yes. But I guess it faces a five-story building and an alley. Okay. I like the idea of making improvements to the alley where it has to be used by this property, but I'm not skilled at word smithing. Speaking of conditions, there's a condition. The one condition is that the plan for three beds, three and a half baths be carried out essentially. Was there any talk that the stated intention of for sale units be part of the condition or was that not considered?

So just the fact that the applicant is doing the preliminary subdivision plat is is why. Got it. Um if they didn't, they would leave it all o under one. Sure. In red. That makes sense. Yeah. Sorry. That's helpful. Have the current tenants been informed that you're before this commission tonight? Yes, we've already had um two of them vacate as well.

Thank you. microphone. Would the plan would the plan development have to include the improvements to the alley, not the subdivision plan?

Yeah, that would be a condition that you are tying to a standard of approval. I think there's a circulation type of standard in for plan developments. Okay. Can can can you guys identify the standard that speaks to that or do you want me to look it up? Uh standard E is mobility.

Thank you. And that's page 53 of 70 if you're looking for it. do um okay I'm gonna try I want to first of all identify a finding that um the use of the alleyway is required for to meet standard E for the plan development standards um which is the mobility standard um so that's that's how the alley improvements tie into this plan development um application. So, uh based on this information presented, that discussion, and that finding, I move that the commission approve this plan development application as recommended by staff with the following conditions. Number one, the applicant must develop 16 three-bedroom, three and a half bath units as shown in the floor plans reviewed for this application. And the applicant must make improvements to the public alley to the extent that the private street intersects it.

Is it just the intersection of the private street or is it the entire frontage of the alley? I think the entire from the road to the intersection Yeah. of the private street. So that would be the the property the area the the area of the the area of the alley abuted by the property would be Yeah. Yeah. Yep. I'll second. Is that clear enough? So we're talking about the the portion of the alley adjacent to the subject property, right? On both sides. What do you mean? Right. the entire width of the alley. And there's a length, too. Doesn't the alley go?

It's on the It's on the north side and the west side of the property down to about where the the the garbage Yeah. Yeah. is situ. Thank you. Yes. An L-shaped portion of the alley. Thank you. Okay. Um we have a motion by Commissioner Burroughs with the second by Commissioner Rosenfield. We'll go ahead and vote. If sorry, did you you did you just say improvements? Yeah. Is that is improvements? I don't know if that's clear enough.

If I may offer a friendly, could it be improvements sufficient to support a garbage truck? Is that just to make it clear that that's the the nexus? That's clear to me. Um is that appropriate language? Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you. All right. I think what you're saying is it it the alley needs to be able to support highway heavy traffic, either a fire truck or or what you're saying, you know, a a garbage truck or something like that. Agreed. It has to meet city standards for

Well, but does city standard? I mean, I guess that's my question is does it have to be to city standard or or would it be sufficient to be a match to the driveway condition? the con the condition of the driveway because the driveway presumably is designed to accommodate that truck

there there's engineering standards for that. So whatever engineering basically because this includes a subdivision it'll be part of a public improvement agreement that they enter into with engineering who has those standards whether it's a driveway and necessary for to support a fire truck or an alley to support the a garbage truck. So they'll have those standards based on the anticipated weight of those vehicles. Great. You don't need to do anything. We're kind of we're very nervous about not being clear enough. So So we've got if if unless there's another amendment or anything, we're going to go ahead and vote. Commissioner Barrett, yes. Commissioner Barry,

yes. Commissioner Burroughs, yes. And I really want to thank the neighbors for sharing your thoughts and insights on this project. Commissioner Rosenfield. Yes. Oh, it was Rosenfield. No, excuse me. I thought you said Bill. Yes. Commissioner Rosenfield says yes. Thank you. Commissioner Scott, no. Commissioner Villa, no. Four to two. All right. So, that passes. Does someone want to make the motion for the subdivision?

Based on the information presented and discussion, I move that the commission approve this preliminary subdivision plat application as recommended by staff. Commissioner Barrett. Uh, we don't have a second yet. Sorry. I'll second that. Okay, now we do. Sorry. Commissioner Barrett, yes. Commissioner Barry, yes. Commissioner Burroughs, yes. Commissioner Rosenfield, yes. Commissioner Scott, yes. Commissioner Veila, no.

All right, that passes as well. Thank you. Next, we will move on to next item on our agenda, which is Uh the design review at approximately 310 334 and 336 and south and 500 west is a lot of numbers and 519 523 527 and 535 west 300 south PLN or PLC PCM 2025-0000896 Six. All right. Before I begin, I just want to give a little background on this project. The state of Utah and the Salt Lake City Community Reinvestment Agency have invested in this project. A lease agreement has already been executed confirming the site for the USA climbing national training center. The site visibility and secured tenency support the site's planned development as a regional training facility. The hope is that this project will serve as a catalyst for continued private investment while reinforcing the city's broader goals for activation within the Rio Grande district. Um so this um before you tonight is the design review for that facility. Um the applicant is Brent Tibbitz. He's here with me. He's a principal at VCBO architecture. It's in the Gateway mixeduse Sony district and staff is recommending approval with the conditions conditions listed in the staff report. The project location is located at the the corner of 500 West and 300 South. You can see the site

highlight high highlighted in yellow. The size of the property is 2.16 acres which is about 94,000 square ft. Here's some photos of the site. The first uh top photo is a view um towards the Salt Lake Mattress building. Um the second uh photo which is going to be in the top right is looking down uh 300 South. Um the bottom left photo is the current building on the site and then the bottom right photo is looking um south on towards 500 west. So there's three objectives for this project. The first um objective is to build the US climbing national training center, reconstruct the Salt Lake Mattress Company building, and create a public plaza on the corner of 300 South and 500 West. Um the building configuration is site plan is shown here. It's an L-shaped uh configuration. Um it will be connected to the Salt Lake Mattress Company building through the first and second floor. Uh the building footprint itself is about 50,000 square ft. The height of the building is 72 feet uh which is three stories. it will step down to the Salt Lake Mattress building which has a height of about 36 um feet tall. Um the exterior materials of the building are metal panels pre uh preferated and solid glass, brick, concrete, wood, and still metal framing. So, um here are some renderings of the project um looking towards the plaza. I'm just going to flip through the next couple slides to orient you with the project. Here's a vision a visual of the building at night. Um part of the requirement for this facility is to meet

the CRA public art requirement. So this is one of the proposals or these statues um in the middle of the plaza. Um this facade is um the south facade of the building. Uh this is what will be the main entrance of the building. Um you can see where the second and first floors connect through to the Salt Lake Mattress building. And um this will be on f the future Market Street. Um on the corner of what will be Market Street and 500 West. Um that is what this rendering is showing. As you can see, staff has worked with the applicant to try to activate this future street frontage, adding planters, trees, um, and other um, materials to break up the facade. Um, here's an elevation um, an older photo of the Salt Lake Mattress Building and a new ele of um, the reconstruction of the Salt Lake Mattress Building. An issue that the CRA ran into and the applicant ran into is the Sullic Mattress building used to be used for loading. Um you can see the loading dock on the old photo in order to match the first floor elevations between the two buildings. Um and some other circumstances with the building. Um they are proposing to reconstruct the building and this is just showing you the elevation at this time. Um so for the purpose of design review um and for the planning commission I want to focus on the existing street frontages. Uh 300 west is the north facade. I'm sorry that's a typo. 300 south is the north facade and 500 west is the east facade. Um so for this project they are um requesting um nine modifications. I will

go through each one of those and also give you some background um as we go through those. So the first um modification is for residential units. Um it is important to note to the planning commission that um the waiver of this requirement is also in line with the recommended approval to the city council that the subject property be reszoned to D4 which would not require residential units on 500 West the um this is matching with how we're treating development on along this frontage and on this block. And while this particular phase of the project won't include residential and 500 west, um I want to emphasize that the larger components and phases of the Rio Grande district vision will include residential units. So we're not losing residential component entirely. It's just being allocated to different phases and locations within the broader development. Um the next two slides and snippets are from the Rio Grande vision and implementation plan. um showing the broader development. So on the phasing plan you can see where the climbing germ is proposed as B. Um these are the first two phases of the project. And then as you see through the plan uh for the land use um it's showing that blocks A, G, C and D um or residential mixed use whereas um B was um always kind of planned out to be a potential national uh governing training facility. And I'm sorry if that's hard to read, but I'm hoping my explanation of the um yellow and red lines for mixeduse residential help you visualize that. Okay, so the next modification is building height. The GMU zone requires a minimum building height of 75 ft and the

height of the building is approximately 72 feet tall, which is a three-foot reduction from the required minimum height. Um, as I explained before, the Salt Lake Mattress Company building, um, it will step down to that and that is 36 feet. Um, so I want to make sure that's clear. And the this request in height also aligns with the citywide plans and heights outlined in the Rio Grande district vision and implementation plan. It meets the operational needs of the climbing facility with r wide runs and rises of the climbing walls. Um the step down in height also preserves views to the Rio Grande building from 400 South as you enter the city which was always a goal of that plan. Um the next um modification is front yard setback. So let me just walk you through the setback design along the two street frontages on the north facade along 300 South. The building has a setback of approximately 20 ft 20 and 1/2 ft for about 80 feet of the total 292 foot facade. The plaza depth here extends about 137 ft. On the east facade along 500 West, there's a setback of approximately 17 ft for about 132 feet of the 274 ft facade with a plaza depth about a 160 ft. Um, what's important here is the L-shaped building form and these steer deeper setbacks. They work together to pull the building mass away from the street intersection. The L-shaped form and deeper setbacks pull the mass away from the street and create create space for the public plaza on the corner which will support community use and programming and also in is in line with the vision for the area. Um, as you can see, here's another snippet of the plan with the plaza as the heart of the Rio Grande district. The next modification requested was for the ground and upper floor glass. Um,

this slide addresses the ground and upper floor glass requirements. As you can see in the elevation drawings, the areas shaded in blue indicate where glass is proposed, while the orange and tan areas show durable materials. Um for context, climbing walls require areas of solid wall construction. For the climbing routes and for bolding ring bouldering walls, they need structural stability. Um the limit of use of glass is important to support the climbing routes and the structural stability of the building both inside and outside of the facility. Um efforts were made to make the activity of the building visible from the inside and outside of the facility and the glass was placed strategically. staff. Um myself concludes um planning staff that the reduced classes justify giving the building specialized use as a recreational and climbing training facility. Um the next modification is building entrances. As a national training center, this facility requires controlled access for member check-in safety liability security for visitors, staff, and athletes. The standard foot for standard 40 foot entrance spacing is not well suited for the specialized recreational use as a national training center. The facility will have um uh specifically placed public entrances that provide appropriate access while maintaining the security and you know controlled environment necessary to operate the facility. Um it's also important to understand what counts as a public entrance versus what doesn't. Um emergency exits which are marked in red on the plans are restricted. Um also the for emergency use the climbing wall access points to the outside climbing walls are shown in blue and there are back of house doors for storage and mechanical systems. Um those stores specifically wouldn't count as public entrances. So the green ones in green um

however the they did plan and think ahead to how the streets will operate in the future. There will be a public access to the arts campus plaza, a public access out onto Marcus Street, and then um if needs be, you know, the doors could be opened if needed. Um but in most dayto-day use will be emergency access. Um the next modification is um modification to the maximum length of blank wall. Um this slide addresses the maximum length of blank wall requirements. Code section 21A37050E limits flake walls interrupted by doors, art or architectural features to 15 ft at the ground level on sorry 15 that's not right. I apologize. Um 40 ft on the street every on the street facing facades. The applicant is requesting to increase the allowable blank wall length to 45 ft on the north facade. Um you can see those areas are um shown in yellow and then um 25 feet on the east facade which is on 500 west. Um again the climbing facility requires solid raw walls ranging from 40 to 60 ft plus in height to support interior climbing surfaces. Um both street frontages are activated by outdoor climbing walls. Um you can see the predominant outdoor bouldering and climbing walls on both both the north and east facads. um where climbers will actively be using them. The public plaza on the corner provides viewing areas for spectators and creates an animated pedestrian friendly environment. So, I included this slide because it's really hard to see what those two facads um look like from this view, but you can see that even though the facades are long, the um left photo would be your e um sorry, your north facade and then east facade. and they

are activated um besides uh those sections that I just showed. Um the next modification is the maximum length of street facing facades. Um while the building full building facade measures 290 ft 274 ft exceeding the 200 um foot maximum only the portions shown in the blue are near the street. The L-shaped and deep plaza segs break down the perceived length of the smaller segments. Um the corner really becomes the street's defining feature creating a buffer that reduces the perceived wall length. Um again it is in line with the vision plan for the Rio Grande district. Um hor horizontal articulation is the next modification which would require bay windows, recess entrances, windows, camping awnings, niches, gate openings as shown in the pictures. Um the USA climbing facility is requesting an exception to that requirement because the design is really reflecting the use and um instead the proposed design creates visual interest through other meth methods that work better for this use. And the last modification is midblock walkways. Um, this slide addresses midblock walkways which are a requirement in the GMU zone when identified in the downtown plan. Um, the applicant is requesting a waiver due to the planned future streets in the area. Um, the CRA is planning new two new public streets, future market street for east west medlock connection and future wood by corn for a north south connection through the arts campus plaza. Both will be platted and dedicated as public rights of way. Um the building anticipates these future streets by activating the south and west facads with wall planning street trees, building entries, cafe, public art areas and retail space. Um and the reconstruction of the building. Um the

pedestrian connections are shown with the orange arrows um showing a network connecting uh this building to the streets. Um, also important to notate that the application to reszone the property to D4 also included a general plan amendment that proposed the Midwa blockways would be modified to reflect the Rio Grande uh district vision and implementation plan which um this aligns with. And here is a snippet of the mobility overview within that plan. So you can see how that connects to the green loop and other streets in the area. Uh so in conclusion um staff is recommending approval of the modifications for um the facility the plans align with plans at lake downtown plan Rio Grande district vision and implementation plan and connect Salt Lake City. Um we did find that um the plans meet the standards of approval. The planning commission may consider modifications that exceed the allowances listed in the section or any other design standards in the bay zone district or chapter 21837. Um so I've listed the standards of approval there which this meets and um that is my recommendation and the conclusion of my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Thank you. Uh do we have any clarifying questions before we hear from the applicant? Can you um talk a little bit more about the reasonzoning that for this that that changed the midblock walkway requirements and stuff like that? So, it's it's not necessarily changing the midblock walkway requirements, but the council's considering and you saw this several months ago, but to change this zoning this property from GMU to D4. So, a lot of these modifications um if and when that were to be adopted wouldn't aren't wouldn't be necessary under the future zoning. So,

um part of that is in response to this the CRA's development plan for all of their land in this general area, which that's where they're working on the streets and modifi midblock walkways and things like that. So, the downtown plan, mid block midblock walkway map in this area was based on a previous development plan that has since been replaced. And so, it's not fully accurate. Um, if that proposal gets adopted, it includes updating the downtown plan to reflect that. The de the new development plan has been approved. It is in

no if the zoning if so if if the council adopts it's a it's a an amendment to the downtown plan and changing the zoning from GMU to D4. So if they adopt that, they're slated to adopt that tenatively the end of March, then that would that plan, the amendment to the plan would relocate and readress the midblock walkways and midblock streets to match like Market Street to match what is been shown in this presentation. And uh the reszone has is not done yet, but have they heard have they heard on it? Yeah, they had a briefing last week, I think,

and it's they have it tenatively scheduled for the end of March. The CRA has a basically consented to the development plan. Yeah. The board, which is the city council acts as the CRA board. So, um why why don't we just wait? I think that's probably up for the applicant to inquire about that. Um I also have a question. There was the CRA board was going to decide yesterday on the reconstruction of the mattress building if they approved that. So did that happen in that meeting? We have Wayne Mills, former Yeah, Wayne Mills. I remember questions.

That was a specific item that was listed in the staff report that we would hear if the reconstruction of the mattress building was approved by the CRA board yesterday. Yeah, the board reviewed it yesterday. Um there's still still a few things that we need to work out with the board. They had a pretty robust discussion about rebuilding the the mattress building. Um they've asked that we uh with USA Climbing just look at a couple of other options. I mean, this is um so the CRA is contributing to the the rebuilding of the uh Salt Lake Mattress building and so this is taxpayer money that's going into this reconstruction and these efforts. So, uh the board is is very careful on how that money is used. Um and so they've asked that we take a little step back and do some calculations on, you know, what it would cost to potentially completely tear the building down and then just start over. Um this proposal still stands. This is the proposal that um we will continue to present to the board as well as some other options for them to consider. Um, but if but like I said, this proposal that you're hearing tonight still stands. In the event that the board approves some sort of modification to that, obviously if the design changes, we'll need to work with planning and you all if you approve this design review tonight, we would work with planning or USA climate would work with planning on modifications if necessary to the design review approval and there's a mechanism in the ordinance to allow for that. I have another question. Page 17 of the report indicates that if uh we decline or we don't approve this that the appeal goes to the city council, which is this the first time I've heard that.

That's incorrect. This is a this is goes it goes to the um 90s appeal authority, not the city council. Okay. Okay. So, this this is kind of final decision on the design review is here. There is an appeal possible to the city administrator. What's that? No, it's a it's a hearing officer, right? And then the next would be court. So, it's not city council is in because they're CRA, but Okay. Thank you for that. Um, that's it for me for questions right now.

I have Oh, go ahead. Maybe you can maybe you could identify in the in on page six of the report in the parks and recreation center. It says that this uh this design protects the natural environment. And I wonder if you can identify that specifically how how this design is protecting the natural environment of this area. Um, it was on page six. There's a parks and recreation heading. Let me see if I can get it better. That's generally speaking to providing one goal of um was to bring outdoor recreation and opportunities to this area. They're incorporating some natural like boulders and landscape into the plaza design. Um, so it's just providing meeting the parks and recreation goal of plan Salt Lake for that that specific section. So it meets that.

Okay. The the sentence says the project demonstrates commitment to parks and recreation by protecting natural environments while providing accessible outdoor recreation opportunities for all ages and abilities. But maybe protecting natural environment maybe was the wrong word choice. I apologize. Okay. because it's not it's not grass, it's like concrete. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. With planters and stuff like that. Yeah. Yeah. I've I've got a couple questions about the plaza. Um there are a couple references to the plaza being recessed or below grade. Is that correct?

Yes. The plazas are recessed two feet from the street and from the inside building. The primary reasons for that is for visibility. Uh during competitive events, the plaza is anticipated to be a um accommodate large quantities of spectators during national and international competitions that will be taking place at this location. Excellent. Thank you. Um, are there any So, the lease agreement between USA Climbing and the CRA presumably requires that the plaza be open, correct, to the public? That is the intent. Yes.

Is it the intent or is it currently in the lease agreement? My name is Steve Brown. I represent the uh USA Climbing Organization and that is in the term sheet. So it is it is confirmed that we will have a joint ownership a joint operating agreement with the city regarding the plaza use. Okay. And that would be continued until the lease agreement is terminated.

Correct. I just I I want to make sure that if we are approving this substantial modification and set back, we're not um going to end up with a space that doesn't continue to be public because I love the idea. Well, I'll save I'll save the the grandstanding for the next section, but um sorry. Um and then let's see. I had a couple other questions.

Oh, yes. Um the on page 14 we show the facade measurements. Um, and there the yellow boxes around the facade areas that are not compliant with standards. There's like a very very large facade that's does not have a yellow box around it. And I want to understand why. Sure. Um, that's what I was pointing out in my presentation. um that that's not very reflective because it's um that flat wall is going to be these two pictures is what those look like. Those areas where it's blank. Ah, got it. Yes. Okay. So, that's

you see the reference. K. Yeah.

Um and so I I I was on the wrong side of the building. Um and then the final question I have is um if you look at the mattress building, the remainder of the building that Lshape is quite far set back from I guess that's Market Street or is that um that's the other uh Woodbine Court. Um is that it's actually it's like the one perspective that we don't get. Is that setback another exception or is that permitted because the mattress building is fulfilling the requirements that that's less than 10 ft. Does that make sense?

I see what you're saying. The additional how it goes back further to the we could account for that as well. Okay. So that is that's not permitted under the current. So it's actually it would be a modification. Yeah, it would it would be okay. Yeah, if I could add. So that's right now because those streets don't exist, we're reviewing that as a sideyard setback, not a front setback. So they could have that extra um feed on there. They don't have to meet the minimum or maximum setback. Gotcha. Um so so there's no minimum sideyard setback in GMU?

I don't think so, but I'm pulling it up. Hold on. Okay. Um, and the minimum height on D4, the D4 that we recommended to the council, there's no minimum height in the D4 zone. Great. Thank you.

Okay. So, I have a I want to build off of that to clarify the design review parameters. So, um, regarding the building facade length on the future streets for Market and Woodbine, um, I I I guess I'm wondering what our purview is to, um, evaluate those building facade lengths because they're definitely exceeding 200 feet. Um, even though they're not currently on a public-f facing street, they are going to be eventually. And so how does the design review um hamper our ability to evaluate those standards related to these future streets?

So we have we have to look at the building as it's proposed under the current conditions. So until there actually are streets there, we can't apply that standard. So it's just kind of the sequence of how thing of how it works. Okay. So, um, Wayne, do we have a an idea of when those streets will come to fruition?

Yeah, we are in the design phase now. Um, we have a design team working on the design of all the public improvements that includes all of the new streets as well as the infrastructure, um, utility infrastructure that's that's in place. Um, we are working with uh the city in developing long-term maintenance agreements. Um, as far as the exact construction date that I'm I don't know yet. We're also going to be working with USA Climbing on their construction schedule because we don't want to get um we basically don't want to step on each other. And I would anticipate that as USA Climbing begins construction, um we'll then work with them on the utility portion and then um the actual street construction will come at a later date. But we are going to begin um platting here, we hope, within the next 4 months to start actually the subdivision process for dedicating those streets. And then there's like a gazillion steps that lead up to actual construction that we still need to work out.

So, do current conditions mean what's on the ground physically? On the ground or already approved, right? So, if a subdivision had already been approved and is in place, just hasn't been built, then we would consider that to be a street. But if that hasn't happened, then it's not.

Okay. So I'm just Okay. Well, so if that is the case that that we have to consider it as if that street did not exist and is not going to exist, um then how does that align with uh condition or um standard B of design review which B2 which states that the building shall be cited um that or sorry B1 primary entrances shall face the public sidewalk because the primary entrance does not currently face a public sidewalk that that exists.

I think now that we're into this back and forth, let if we want to just do clarifying questions and we'll let them go and then we'll get into the general. Thank you. Any other clarifying questions? Okay. Um you can go. Do you have a presentation that you wanted?

We don't have a formal presentation. We're here to answer any questions that you may have. But I just a couple of things that maybe would help the conversation a little bit. Uh one thing that needs to be understood and I think has come out is is that we're phase one of this new district and because of that there's a lot of things that are going on around it. We are actively working with CRA and their and the city's planning team on the development of the rideways which includes Can you state your name as well? Brent Tippetsz with VCBO Architecture. And uh so because of that, we're we're kind of leading the pack if you will in trying to make this district come about. Um it it's it's really the the unique nature and and we're excited to be able to present this type of a project to the city of Salt Lake because um this is the US Olympic training facility for climbing and for the climbing team and for the parolympic team and so it's it's a great opportunity we believe for Salt Lake and Something that has to be considered is the unique nature of this building itself. So we've talked about the frontal facads and the lengths and so forth. The unique nature of what this facility needs to be by its uh its function. It cannot have interruptions in the facade if you will. For example, the length of a climbing wall for competition has to be a certain width. And so you can't just randomly come in and put windows in the middle of that climbing wall. It has to be a continuous contiguous uh uh form. Um the lo the functionality

I won't get into all the details, but the L-shape of this is very important. You'll notice that it the entrance orients to the Salt Lake Mattress building. that's intentional so that we can utilize and capitalize on that and use that one entrance as a control point that will serve uh into both the national training center and into the Salt Lake Mattress building which will house retail and a cafe function. The upper floor will also be offices for the USA climbing team. Um, and also the Lshape is very important uh that the outside walls are facing toward the northeast so that they're protected from sunlight during competition so that the competitors are able to uh compete during the day and not be able to be shut down. It's it it's it's a unique function and we understand that that requires some uh variance in what the current standards are, but we think that this will be a great asset with the plaza with facing the Rio Grand uh station with uh 300 South is intended to be what's called Festival Street. The plaza is tying in intentionally into that festival street and 500 West is is planned to be part of the uh green uh circle

green green what loop green loop green loop sorry that's okay uh that goes around and so we're trying to orient to that. So there's there's a lot of influences that are here and we do respect the fact that this is a unique ask but for the function of the building there's very little flexibility in how it is laid out and what we're presenting.

Um before we go into questions um I will open up for public comment. If there's anyone here who would like to speak on this topic you can step up to the mic. Um, and if you are from a local community organization or recognized community organization, you have 5 minutes. Otherwise, you have 2 minutes. Is there anyone here for this? Nope. Okay. Then I will close the public comment and then bring it back to us and now we can discuss. I do want to just um mention that there is no setback um um yard setback, no minimum setback requirements to answer your question. Okay, it's us now. Yeah.

All right. I I uh I I think it's ironic that um so many of the the formulaic requirements are asked to be waved. You know, the the setbacks, the height either higher or lower, the the blank walls, the, you know, the exterior, the percentage of glass, horizontal articulation, midblock. Well, all of those are, you know, let's let's wave those. But I'm enamored with with the fact and and I'll echo very much what was said that so much more could be built on this site. But the to me what I look at is the the give back of of what the plaza can do. Uh you know looking forward uh to the future where where 500 West is a festival street and and and the very very unique nature of of what happens in this building. Um, I I think that that that this project has has taken it to a different level. I think that it hasn't satisfied so many of the the eight or nine, you know, specific requirements, but it it's satisfying the vision for this area very well by by the nature of what goes on in in the building.

I I have a question. If the minimum height of 75 ft, does that envision applying to every part of every building that's built on the in this zone? Basically, it's intended to say that's the desired minimum height, but because the code has a process to modify it, yeah, it's it's recognizes there will be some times where there might be something that's better at a lower height. Okay. I wonder what what community council is this in. I saw a letter from Granary District, but I don't know that Granary District is a cutout of Central City. Is it in Central City? Downtown.

Downtown. Did Did they send any response? They didn't send a response, but I sent it to both because of the proximity requirement. Is is Granary District Alliance a carveout of downtown? It's it or do they over they overlap? They have separate boundaries. So it it is literally the south of this south of 400 South. So that's why they received a notice and responded because it's adjacent. Okay. Does any are there any residences Sorry. Oh my gosh. I got to think faster. Um are there any residences in this in like the Granary District Alliance right now? Are there any homes? Yes. any residents?

Yes. Okay. And is there was there any outreach to residents instead of business owners just or do you assume that Granary District Alliance does that? We sent out notices as we would for any other project um within 300 ft of the project. Okay. Okay. I have tons more stuff to say, but I'll wait. Why? Okay. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and say here's the thing. So,

um, we're talking about you you don't have to get kind of like you don't have to consider that the building is this long because it's not currently on a street. So, it doesn't matter. But, we're saying but we're counting on these streets to take the place of the midw block walkway. So, you can't impose requirements because there's no street there, but you can count a street that's out there as a midblock walkway instead. I also think that same idea that we don't need to put residences in this part of the project because there will be residences in the other parts of the project is kind of a um kind of like do we consider what's there or do we consider what's planned kind of like which one is it? There's a part of the report that um says what does it say? The intent of the rule is incompatible with the specialized recreational facility that requires access control and requires uh an accommodation on the blank wall rule and the facade length and the horizontal massing and the building entrance frequency. Um so I wonder if it's the rules that are incompatible with the building or if the building is incompatible with this zone right now. And if this building would be completely buildable, the way that it's um the way that it's presented to us under a D4 zone, and the D4 zone is under it's already gone past us. It's already at the city council, why why not just wait or say does it change the entitlement like what rules they're applying under? Would they be subject to D4 if it changes? Would they have to start over their process if they wanted to use D4 rules?

Um, they probably wouldn't have to start over, but we would have to do a whole different analysis, right? And so some of those issues like and and I'll remind when we were talking about um both in the zoning consolidation and when we made modifications to the design review standards, we specifically talked about some land uses that could not poss we could not possibly write regulations for and recreation uses, schools, auditoriums, theaters, all of those things came up.

Yeah. And at the time the direction that the planning commission gave was let's make sure that we have in the design review process the ability to make modifications to that instead of just writing blanket exceptions. And so that's what we did. And so now we're faced with that. So, I I think it's I know it's the timing is definitely unusual um with these kinds of applications, especially when we have our city council and CRA who are trying to consider how to deal with these roads. One of my hesitations with the roads is that right now they have to cross property not owned by the CRA,

right? So that's why one of the reasons why I'm a little concerned that they may not happen. So waiting for that to play out or waiting for something else to play out is totally dependent on a third party property owner agreeing to those or the city going through the legal avenues to acquire it. Yeah. Which who knows, right? That's one reason why we can't really consider the future streets because they may not actually happen if those neighboring property owners don't agree. Right.

Sorry. And yet we are considering that they're there for the purposes of accepting the project from the midblock walks. It's like we're sorry. Go ahead. No, we're saying that we're actually part of the request is an exemption from that, right? We don't need to block ways because there will be streets instead is kind of like the way that the report

but but then but then the on the facade length etc. We're assuming that the streets aren't there but for the midblock walk exceptions we're assuming that they are there. I it's just in it seems like there's an inconsistency. But so part of the issue is those midblock walkway, like I said, that midblock walkway map was based on a prior development plan. So those midblock walkways in the current downtown plan do not align with property lines, buildings, the uh one goes right through that mattress building, right? So if we were strictly following that as is today, we would say, "Sorry, you have to demolish that building or not build this and work it around it, right? Which means going on someone else's property or making it so that there's a split between these buildings. And so there's some rational reasons why we are at this point and why we're looking for those modifications. Um, and I'll also add that not to, you know, get defensive because that's not my intent, but yes, technically we did not we can't review those streets or those facads as street facing facades, but staff really did work with the applicant to try and activate those facads as best we could. So, it's not like we completely ignored them. You know, Megan insisted that they add the planter boxes back in to activate that facade. So, it wasn't like we just were like, "Oh, it doesn't they don't have to meet it and like let it be." We really did try to work with them to get those facads um at a better product.

Yeah. So I, you know, just to build on this, I do think in some ways it it is um I mean I don't think that I specifically or we should be intractable on a lot of the um the exceptions that are being asked for. Part of the reason any applicant asks for exceptions is because they're saying um that with this exception they can produce a better product. and our role is to evaluate do we agree with that on each point right so there are definitely things of this that I think are um um acceptable and and do present a better project for um what's they're planning to do here I think my real concern is um not being able to do a full design review um on Market Street and Woodbine Court even though um you know Chrissy indicated that you know they paid attention attention to certain things. I I think in some ways it is a little premature and I think that's one of the the challenges of leading the pack out of a development is are all of these other um components then we're not really able to fully evaluate what all exceptions are going to happen on this particular parcel and how this will eventually play out. um because we can't do a full design review and and so I'm just concerned that it is too premature. There's a lot of this that I think are is great and I I think does yield a better project and I'm I'm not having any consternation about um approving a lot of those exceptions, but I do think that um not being able to do a a full design review given the plans of these

future um streets which then present the the whole vibrancy of this this district. Um, that's where I'm kind of still stuck on not um, being able to fully do that. And, you know, the building facade length has always been a big issue for me. Um, I can appreciate and understand the um reluctance and or perhaps inability to do articulation given the use of the building, but I do think that there are um treatments that can be um affected visually on the exterior of these um building facade links that are that are terribly long. And um I think the the two frontages that we are able to do a design review those building facade links um are are really mitigated by that plaza, right? And so it's it seems to be like I I don't necessarily I always think about building facade length about if I'm standing there, how does this make me feel? How does how how am I interacting with this? Which is which is the whole point of it. And so are we going to have that same treatment or that same feel on on um Market Street in Woodbine Court? But I don't know, right? So how will we effectively mitigate the those building facade links? I don't I think they can be mitigated, but um we're not really able to evaluate them based on the standards. And so I don't know if that then means then I if I can't evaluate them based on the standards because I have to do current conditions then I can't even propose modifications to those lengths if I felt like they were appropriate. Correct.

Those aren't well they wouldn't be subject to the length because they're not a street facade. So right so evaluation

that's that's where I then just come back to that if I feel like that we we aren't able to make a a full evaluation um as a planning commission because of this timing and that's that's where I'm at. So, so I just do want to point out, excuse me, along uh Market Street for example, I don't know how much attention you're paying to the fact that at street level, we do have planters and articulation that takes place along Market Street. Um along the Woodbine side, we are buffered by the art alley, which is uh that is going to be a substantial addition. In essence, it's going to be another plaza for the city in this area that will be taking advantage of that that we we've intentionally left the space for the art alley to work with. Um, we do have operable windows along that side, large operable sections of windows. The interior space is a strength and conditioning area and those windows would open up and so you'd be able to uh have engagement with the exterior of the building along the the art alley area.

So I'm not an architect and usually the architectural drawings in the staff report go I don't try to they give me a headache if I try too hard to figure out what's going on. Is those designs that you've just specified reflected in these architectural drawings? And can staff point me to the page so that I can maybe try to ask Commissioner Scott? I have page 12. Page 12 where it has I think it's page 12 of 89. It has the south elevation, west elevation. They were just showing the south elevation a moment ago. Yeah, I wanted the uh architectural uh drawing part. These these guys.

No, yeah, she's bringing it up there. Yeah. Ah, see that it just went away. We need to go the other side. I just want to ensure I I want to I want to I'm trying to think ahead too here. Yeah, we don't have

um if those features you're you are describing to me my report has gone away um are reflected in this design that's before us even if I cannot evaluate those two sides are those designs reflected in this design so that if um I did feel like uh voting to approve um this application that one of the conditions be that it does not deviate from the design that's that's appearing before us which then doesn't I'm not evaluating it per say the non-existing conditions but I'm evaluating on what's presented but it's

if I just may refer to page 12 there's um the architect wanted you to take a look at the west elevation that shows those windows and then um so The street facing facades are outlined in the blue box, but below those I've included the west elevation, which will and the south elevation. You can also you can also look at page 32 for a higher definition. My pages just went black, so mine are slow. There we go. kind of

if it's okay if I add in that that section of wall from the mattress building to the end of the building is 155 ft that break up. I got I'm trying to listen to two people. Can we take one second Chrissy because I want to hear what you say too and here's the microphone to help. So, I was just saying this is the south elevation and that's the longest stretch that we're really talking about that is sort of undifferentiated and then this is the west elevation that faces on woodbine and this is where he was talking about the gym with the operable windows etc. Okay.

Okay. I was just going to mention and I I'm sorry I got ahead of myself there, but that section of wall um the west side that from the mattress building all the way up that's 155 ft just to give you a scale of like what that is that block and then you have the mattress building below and that's where the art campus will be. Yes, approximately 155. I just added that up. That's part of the next another phase the art campus or art alley. So it's it's a alley. It's a plaza. Yeah, that's part of the uh public improvement design that we're doing right now. Be part of that pack that phase one public improvement package.

Is there any are there any improvements um like murals or anything for the southern facade in the existing agreement? for the like facing towards the future Market Street. Gotcha. Uh no, there are not any murals proposed at this point. Okay. Thank you.

If I could uh I appreciate the challenge of trying to take a one-dimensional drawing and try to think of it in a third dimension. I've been doing this for way too long and it's caused me sign significant brain damage. But what we have done through the course of the last how long Wayne year and a half almost two years we have done exhaustive collaborative interaction with Talisman the city's civil engineer talking about all the infrastructure the road placements etc. Loi who's been doing some of the the design as well, the landscaping so that we can be as sensitive as we possibly can given how we're the first in the in the game and and we don't we want to be as collaborative as we possibly can and that's what we've tried to do. It really I think in CRA would support the statement that we've been exhaustive in that process and we've had to make a number of modifications as things have evolved in terms of the real grand district. And so we are here. I don't deny that it may seem premature, but our goal as a team is to try to get this facility up as soon as possible in a meaningful way for our athletes to be able to train in this facility prior to the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles. And we're it's going to be a challenge.

Um but we're we're trying to commit to do that for them. And so that's why we have we've spent significant amounts of engineering and architectural time and money to get to the point where we are right now. And we're very hopeful that we can answer the questions that are that uh are necessary to be answered so we can accomplish that goal. And I will echo Brent's uh comments. We're we're excited to present this vibrant, unique uh Olympic flagged facility to the city. We think it's going to be it's going to be really cool. Uh I love the architecture. I love the design. We've modified we've thrown as much thrown as much glazing in as we possibly can. We've tried to animate the architectural fenestrations with angles and materials. We're we're open to hearing what you have to say, but we really are anxious to be able to proceed. We're in a very active fundraising procedure right now and and we realize we're using the design as we currently have it and showing those to our our major asks and uh recognizing that things may change a little bit. But we've really really worked hard for a couple of years to try to make this work both for our team and for the city.

It's super exciting to have USA climbing in Salt Lake City. That's pretty cool. As a I was a high school climber, so and I have a lot of friends that climb indoors and it it is really cool. So I'd like for it to work. I wonder if um given that like the main entrance is on a street that doesn't exist right now and um is on land that might not be owned by I mean faces a a street that doesn't exist on land that may not be owned by our by our applicant. I wonder if there's some kind of trigger where we can say as soon as you secure that we can then the whole thing is okay. Is there some kind of condition that a good easy trigger to tell when that's happened?

Can I clarify something really quick? Sorry, Nick. Um, Market Street, that property, that property is actually owned by the CRA. Um, Woodbine. So, that's the the street to the uh

yeah, to the west. Uh we are currently in negotiations with that property owner to get that street. So um Market Street, you know, regardless of if it is right away a public street, it will be improved as part of CRA owned property to get access into into that building. Does can we ask for a subdivision map or something to be approved with the street there? That is already in the staff report in the next steps that a subdivision would require.

That's that's what I thought that that would need to be done before building permits are issued. That right. So we don't need an additional Yeah, you don't need an additional condition because they have to do it. There's no way around that. But but that subdivision would not require Market Street to be in place. Correct. I guess if they changed the subdivision.

Well, I think the reality is if if for whatever reason the CRA can't get the land to either extend Market Street through the property directly west of that is owned by the University of Utah and then it goes to the property that's owned by the same company that it owns where Woodbine would be the same property. That's one big piece there. So if those don't happen then that probably doesn't become a public street. It probably becomes some kind of essentially a buyer access lane to be frank and you know and to access parking.

Yeah, that's correct. Um that you know we are we are currently working on plan A, plan B, plan C to try to make sure that um in the event that our turning these into public streets falls a little bit behind. That is still our intent. that is in the Rio Grand District vision and implementation plan that has been endorsed by the CRA board. There is a commitment to putting in this infrastructure. Um but if um in the event that uh getting that property falls behind a little bit, we have been doing um other designs kind of plan B designs where Market Street can be built um to where we get the fire access turnaround and it's still, you know, we have no intent to build something ugly. I mean, even if in the interim it will be a, you know, private drive of some sort that we can provide access to USA climbing. Um, you know, we as a CRA own that property. We do we aren't going to build something that is, you know, where it's kind of a a sore thumb, I guess you would say, for the community. I if Market Street were developed as a a fire access lane, would that be a public sidewalk um for condition B1? uh for the purposes of condition B1,

if we were to build that as a private driveway, we would yeah, we would have to actually put in and we would be willing to add a a public access easement um so that people can gain access to the building even from like Fifth West and wherever they need to get to the building to

to to be clear in the next steps section of this um report. Step one, after approval, step one is subdivision. A subdivision will be required to finalize the development configuration and that would include that one public street or two. It may it may not include any may not include any. That's what I'm saying. That's what I've been saying this whole time is like we don't actually know 100% that they will be public streets. They could be something else. They both require agreements from other property owners to to construct a street. Otherwise, Market Street becomes essentially the driveway.

Yeah. Um, I will I will just uh throw in there. think that uh in terms of the facade length, some of that's a little misleading in terms of how it like talks about a 290 whatever length because I at least based on the elevations can't find anything that's much more than 210 um in any without any breakup or like without stepping out to be the mattress building or anything like that. Um, I I usually am hesitant when I see a long list of uh of asks, but I think that like Nick said, that's that's the point of of this committee and of how the code is written for these, that certain things are just it's too specific to um to know. And so I I understand the uh the hesitance around the future of the streets and and like what that leaves. But that aside, I I'm at least comfortable with most of um most of these designs decisions. And uh I mean I think that those are th those facades are attractive enough and and welldeveloped enough to that they are good to be on that street. And if it's not a street and it's an alley, then it's a alley with real nice facade along it. Um, but that's my two cents.

Okay. Followup question, Megan. So, if um how much modification can the applicant do to a project um that could be approved administratively or has to be kicked back to the commission? That would be in the design review section for appeals. I can pull that up for you. Um, and go through I have that already up if you want me to jump in. Sure.

So, there's a few things that wouldn't require to go back to the planning commission. It's if they're making modifications based on like fire code or adopted building code. Um, one the other one is minor changes to building materials. And then there's a third one that let's see if it if um other than those first two if it complies as an applicable section of that doesn't have to do with one request or a condition of approval otherwise like any changes to the development plan that are you know major changes would be coming back to you. What about changes to the landscaping because those those feel like they would be minor enough for administrative. So then

yeah, if they're not seeking a modification to a landscaping requirement, then we would just apply whatever the landscaping requirement requires. So if because I'm thinking this through. So if um the planters on the other perimeters, right? So we're not reviewing the facade length, but the planters that would effectively um break that that articulation or bring some articulation in that form. Um if then there was a condition that any changes to those types of of planting and landscape were proposed that it would have to come back for a review.

You you can add you can add something like that as a condition.

That's okay. Uh one question other question I did have was on the plaza design. Um, I understand the need for the fencing in and the kind of two foot step down for, you know, security and because it's a it's a business where there will be spectators out there and but um has any any um kind of thought gone towards making some section of that like removable with some steps so that in certain instances there is a little bit more permeability in there because I think that we have this great plaza and the whole thing is that the fact is that we're in the middle of this and it's this cutout. Um, and so as much as possible, I I think a lot of the benefit of that is in the kind of feeling like you're not cut off from what what's there.

So the glass panels is which those are

uh they are removable. They can be taken out, but you also need to know that there's liability issues associated and we cannot allow free access to those walls. The primary reason that they're removable is actually during competitions. They would go away during that time period when it's a supervised environment and you can control who goes up and uses it, but we can't have free access to that wall at other times. Okay, great. Yeah, that's that's kind of the situation I was envisioning. Like I think that makes it Yeah. Thank you. That was also a department comment from the police department to make sure, you know, there adequate um um walls and lighting and things to keep people that shouldn't be on the pause at times and are on the walls at times they shouldn't be on the walls.

Mhm. They're not. So, okay.

Does anyone else have comments, questions, discussion? I mean, I'll just say generally, I want to echo Commissioner Scott's comments from a few minutes ago. I mean, I I completely appreciate that it's very difficult to approve the first project in a site that is still so in flux. Um, it's hard to, you know, uh, earlier the previous agenda item, you know, we're thinking very much about adjacent properties and and looking over into adjacent properties and that kind of thing. And when you don't have that opportunity, it's a little bit challenging. But I look at these facads, even the ones that we're not supposed to be looking at. You know, the Market Street is the is the only one that gives me any concern and and or at least that gives me particular concern. It's a south facing facade. And you know, I I just I feel like even if we did have purview there today, um you they you based on the interior design as I understand it, that's that's a wall that really needs to be that long. And I don't know what um what kind of articulation or kind of superficial work on the facade that could be done. I'm not an architect, but um I I I do have concerns mostly about where we are and whether this is the appropriate time to approve this project, but I think uh overall it's an exciting enough addition and I understand all the exceptions that are being asked for. Um I don't mind that the site is being exempted from residential. I think that's I think that the you know gateway mixeduse zone has delivered a lot of residential already in the area and it's done a lot of work and it doesn't necessarily need to do that work on this site. You know, I I'm pretty favorable despite a lot of the reservations that you guys have helped me think through and understand that I wasn't thinking about previously. I appreciate those of you that have served on this commission

longer than me, but generally, you know, I think that you have to on a project like this for a neighborhood, the first approval is never going to be an easy one. I guess that's my view. So I just um I think that those are um a great um way to look at this if we are going to that south um facade along future market street that is the facade that you have said you would you are planning to put planters right I didn't hear that question fully what was the last

um that on the south elevation the future market street side. That is the length of that facade. That is where you are planning to put planters. That's correct. What you see in this image here actually is um we plan on having them there. They also wrap around to the east. We have them on the east facade as well.

Right. So, um, because, you know, facade links are something that I try to pay attention to. I think this is what I said earlier is that, um, breaking it up doesn't always have to be architecturally. You we could be doing other things to at least make it not feel so long. And then just this really unwelcome wall, right, to pedestrians. and and that's part of the whole goal of the CRA is is to have this be a big pedestrian environment with a lot of different things going on. So um that that you know that's the the crux of like what we're able to review um given the current conditions if the commission maybe so I would just suggest that if the commission feels that um dealing with um that um facade the south elevation that um requiring that those planters um be part of that is an acceptable design, right? Um that the condition is any changes to any proposed changes to that particular element um would then have to come back to the commission to ensure that it happens. If we don't condition something that we want to ensure happens, then it may not happen. So sometimes the conditions can feel um overboard, but it's it's it's there to make sure that something does occur because if it's not conditioned, there's been way too many times I don't have enough digits on my um appendages to account how many times it just didn't happen. So if if the commission, you know, feels that the proposal of that type of landscaping and that type of

thing is actually um um attractive enough and breaks that up that um we want to keep that, then I would just um suggest that we think about putting a condition that those any changes to those um would have to come back to the commission. Okay.

Just just a comment, Commissioner. Um, I'm looking at at the next steps. Um, and you know what we're we're about this evening is approving the design review application. And so this is to me this is the first step. The applicant still has to to do the subdivision has to go through all of the department comments uh public art requirement and sustainability requirements. So I think this is just the initial step. Does this does this main concept make sense? Yes or no?

No, I don't think that's accurate. I think the next steps would not include these types of things that we're talking about. Subdivision doesn't none of that will matter. So, so some things we look at when we look at in a whole are very tied to specific things whether it's the plan development like so the last application um some some things don't spill over. I guess the comment that I have is I'm looking at this south facade and these planters and the planters seem integral to the facade. That's that's what my point is. In which case, but

haven't we been told that the only thing that can be administratively approved change-wise is things related to fire, you know, materials. This is a design of the facade. I I think the planters are the facade in a in some sense. Excuse me. Sorry, you guys really I was just gonna say that this seems like we're arguing over something silly at this point. Um I I think

I I just wanted to jump in real quick and say with that concern that condition one, final landscape and public space plans must been approved by the planning commission during the building permit process. If you're comfortable deferring me, you know, or staff making sure that those are still there, that may cover that or we can make it more specific. I I think that is a great suggestion, Megan, and thank you for that. I think any I'm still in favor of a condition um that um articulates that though the the the presence of those planters is integral to the design and any modification for that st we can delegate to staff but with a clear understanding of what of what we want to see and so it doesn't have to come back to the commission and I appreciate that comment from you Megan um but it I think we the condition still needs to be clear enough direction for staff so they know how to um administer it. If the applicant then at some point wants because after this we don't you know they do a bunch of stuff um to get the building permit that we're not a part of. If the applicant then decides, well, we want to modify this part, staff has enough direction from us to ensure that the role of those planters is still part of this design that it is integral because they could then still change it and remove it and make it so it's, you know, just one foot high and then it's doesn't do the thing. So, I would just um try to advocate for a condition that articulates that we view this as an integral part to the design and then any modifications can be delegated to staff to approve.

So I don't I don't think anyone's against that. Um, if you want to take a second and figure out language that would I wrote down language if you want. I mean just as a suggestion it would be the same commission uh condition but you would just add the planter specifically as shown on the south facade as inner to the building. Yeah, I can do this. My screen decided to come back up real quick. I just wanted to say is I think that we have under control. Was there anything else that anyone wanted?

I mean, I I don't know if I feel like the planters are enough. Um, it seems like the rest of the commission is moving towards that. I I I have like four different minds on this. I love the plaza. I love the idea of of building a a climbing facility. I I cannot forget and I think I mentioned this during the D4 discussion um that you know this whole the the way for this project was cleared through a tremendous amount of violence on our own house population and then like the petty you know policy bureaucrat part of me is like well but if we can't look at market street then how are we fulfilling that one specific condition but also I don't want that to get in the way of the general benefits that this will provide to the community and the fact that that that this that is correct. Like it's really hard to to to have that first project happen.

So I yeah, I'm I'm deeply ambivalent. I don't know if there's a way to get that under control. If if your concerns on that are still related to this kind of general idea, I think that then we can try and do a motion and vote and yeah, see how we come out that way. Yeah, let's do that. Okay. So for PLN PCM 2025-0000896 based on the information presented and discussion I move that the commission approved this design review application as recommended by staff with the um following conditions that I can't that is

that's blurry blurry I thought it was my glasses but it's not the final landscape and public space plans must be reviewed and approved by the planning division during the building permit process. Condition two, all exterior materials must be approved by the planning director as durable materials prior to issuance of building permits. And condition three, that along the south facing facade, the proposed planters um be considered integral to the design and any modifi proposed modification can be delegated to staff. I'd second that.

Great. We have a motion from Commissioner Barry and a second from Commissioner Burroughs. Go ahead and vote. Commissioner Barrett, yes. Commissioner Barry, yes. Commissioner Burroughs, yes. Commissioner Rosenfield, yes. Commissioner Scott, yes. Commissioner Bella, yes. Great. Thank you guys. It's exciting. Good luck. I hope everything falls in place. Yep. It'll be great for Salt Lake City. Go Team USA. That's horrible. Yeah, that's horrible.

Let's go ahead and take five minutes. Come back at 7:50.

Hey. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Hey, honey. Okay, now we are cool. Let's go ahead and move on to our last regular item. Uh, I guess our last petition, uh, alley vacation at approximately 567 East Waro Avenue.

Good evening, commissioners. I'll try and move as quickly as I can. It's been a long night. This is a request for an alley vacation at approximately uh 567 East Warog Avenue. I apologize for the uh um dyslexia there with the address. and between 234 South 600 East here marked in the red. It's a 16 1/2 ft wide alley about 80 foot deep between Waro Avenue and the I80 uh right ofway and staff is recommending that the planning commission forward a positive recommendation to the city council to approve this request. Let's get situated of what's going on here. Here's a view of the alley from the street. Uh you can see there's a curb cut here in the staff report. have historical aerial imagery that shows it used to be a driveway for a house that once sat on this property. Here's Waro Avenue looking to the east. You can see the driveway again and the power lines that go through the property. There's the development um woodland cove woodland

woodland commons, sorry. Um that is the applicant also was part of the development of that. Uh the church across the street and here's Waro Avenue. It's very wide. There is a little section of rightway but kind of between I 80 and the property to the east and this is a view of that. Um broad alley vacations must meet a set of its standards and also um one of four policy considerations and this proposal actually meets two of them. The first is lack of use. This alley has only ever functioned as a driveway for 567 East Waro Avenue since the development of the I80 freeway and it's essentially blocked by that freeway as well. And urban design, it does not serve its initial original purpose as a rear access drive for properties in the that subdivision. And 500 and 600 East already provides sufficient active transportation infrastructure already, bike lanes and and things available there. Uh so yeah, recommending a posit uh positive recommendation and I'm happy to take any questions. Do we have any clarifying questions?

Are these residential properties that Oh, yeah. Thank you. All right. Um applicant, do you want to say anything or you here just for questions? Just answer questions. Okay, great. Uh will you actually say your name into the mic though real quick? Jill Genese. Great. Thank you.

Um I will go ahead and open up for public comment then. Seeing none, I will close public comment um and come back to us for discussion or motion or whatever we have. I just want to note that this is, you know, that the the reason that this has to be discussed is at least in part that um you know, there's a highway tearing through the fabric of our city and we're still dealing with a legacy of that. And I can hope and dream that maybe we'll eventually figure out how to reduce the level of freeway tearing through our city. And so I'm probably going to be voting no simply because I can dream.

Yeah, that 1958 uh aerial photo is unrecognizable because of the freeway, I think. But this is the only um alley vacation I'll ever vote for. Based I'm gonna make a motion. Okay. Based on the information presented in the discussion, I move that the commission approve this alley vacation application as recommended by staff. Second. Just to clarify, you're recommending approval to the city council. Correct. I am. Yep. Recommend approval to the city council. All right. Um, we have a motion by Commissioner Burroughs and I think you won by a second. So,

I could second. Oh, okay. So, uh, and a second from Commissioner Ba. Um, so we'll go ahead and vote. Commissioner Barrett, yes. Commissioner Barry, yes. Commissioner Burroughs. Yeah. I want to say yes because I think it meets every one of the conditions and standards and that kind of stuff. So, thank you, Commissioner Rosenfield. No. Commissioner Scott, yes. Commissioner Bella, yes. 5 to one. All right. Thank you very much. And then we will move into our fire code review training.

So, while the team's coming up, this is a request from the planning commission to have um some overview of uh fire code and how it applies. So representatives from both building services which reviews the does the fire code review and the fire department are present and I'll let them introduce themselves. Can we make sure to send Richard Lever a thing to a note that this happened because I think he was one of the people who was most interested. Oh

um Mr. Chair, can I also make a statement before and before they start? Um, so I requested um this briefing and so I'm hoping that you can address in your presentation um my brain just um how when you're doing the review for the for the um building permit um how you may modify um a an application after we've done it. like how your modifications supersede anything that we've done, right? And I think that the commissioners may need a better understanding of of of the relationship of that. Do you does that make sense?

Yeah. Okay. Thanks. I just before you like got in your your presentation, you may or may not have decided to or thought about talking about that, but I think that's an important aspect for our role in it.

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we have a a summary, an overview prepared. Um, kind of anticipated some questions and then certainly we anticipated a back and forth. If you know, if there's anything we don't cover that you'd like clarification on, we can easily move into that and we'll answer as best we can. Um, just real quick by introduction, um, my name is Tony Alred. I'm the city fire official by virtue of being the division chief over fire prevention on the fire side. Um, the rest of this is the fire review team. We brought a a couple others with us. Captain Demens on my team. She's my deputy fire marshal and Seth, one of the other plan reviewers. Troy Anderson, um, the city building official and Doug Baitman, our senior fire plans reviewer. So between Doug and Seth, they do the lion share of fire plans reviews in conjunction with building plans reviews once it gets to the permitting phase downstream from where we're planning and you are involved

and and I'd like to just say I'm appreciate this opportunity. I was actually excited to come before you guys and take the time with us. Um you were looking you are looking at the uh the fire plans review of Salt Lake City right here. This is the group. So, I appreciate this opportunity. Thank you.

We're we're we're all here. Yeah. You take us out. There is no planet for ascension at all. Yeah. Um with that, I think I'll Doug's probably the best position to move you through the um slides we prepared. Um, we'll move through fairly quickly, but feel free, like I said, um, stop us for if you want us to expand on anything.

Oh, sorry. Again, thank you for having us here. Um, I don't know exactly what your experience is or your knowledge on fire code or how it is applied. No, this is a great great opportunity. So, please, if you have any questions, feel free to ask them at any time during the presentation. So when we do get a planning commission submittal before us, of course we look at the the international fire code which is adopted by by this the city to the city council. Um and that is updated or renewed modified every 3 years. So currently we are on the 2021 edition of of the fire code. Um, how does this Okay, so one of the major things that we would look at when any project comes in is the access road leading to that property or that building. Um there are certain parameters that are established for the width that that road needs to be in order to accommodate the fire apparatus arriving on scene and then also being able to navigate around that scene. That minimum width is 20 ft. That's exclusive of shoulders, sidewalks, anything like that. Um, it needs to have a clear height of 13 ft 6 in so that you know power lines, utility poles, anything like that, bridges, trees, we need to make sure that that has that clear height so that the trucks don't, you know, get impeded or cause further damage along along the way. Um, when there is a deadend road that's greater than 150 ft, they they they were required to have an emergency vehicle turnaround. the specifications for that, the dimensions, you can have what they call a hammerhead, kind of looks like a T culde-sac, something like that. Again, is in that's in appendix D to where those specifications are. So, we we do

that. We deal with that occasionally on projects. Um, it does come up. Other things we look at are of course if is parking allowed on the street? If it does, that reduces what that allowed width for that road would be for us. So, we you know, we we have to look at that. Sometimes we have bus stops that encroach into that travel lane. Um we have medians or bike lanes that we have to take into consideration when we look at that actual required width for a fire apparatus to come to. We also look at make sure that the the corners and the turn radi are met so that again these trucks are sometimes quite large. They carry a lot of valuable equipment on them. So we have to make sure that the the streets are designed properly to accommodate those the turn radius on those vehicles. And then we look at the type of material that those roads are create created out of. Um we want to have an all-weather driving surface. Um we have defined that as concrete or asphalt. Um and we want to make sure that it is designed to withstand the weights that those trucks carry. Um and and the outriggers on on the larger trucks. So the the ladder mounted apparatus doesn't doesn't go through the asphalt and impact other city utilities. Any any questions there? Clear as mud.

So appendix D is adopted by the city. Correct. It's not correct. Applied on us by the state. Correct. Great. Thank you. Just like and you were here I think for for the first case where we had that alley that that was going through between the the four units. So, you know, the first thing that that that I I was looking at is okay, it it's not a dead end, so they can turn and, you know, but then we have the approval, but you would be looking at the turning radius to make certain that the length of the truck could turn left, I guess, in in in that situation.

Correct. There's there's there's been others I think that have come before us and that we've approved that it it looks like the the the length is greater than 150 ft. Um and you know we were told well it's gone through the departments already and it and you I guess my question is how are we doing as a commission? Are you getting a lot of those that have come before us and we've said yes, then they get to to you when you're finally reviewing it where where there's redesign that's necessary because it it has exceeded one of these these requirements that 150 dead end in particular.

Right. So there there is a little bit of an in intricacy with that 150 ft because it's um I think this next slide will address kind of what your question is. And so when we do have an a fire department access road that is there, you create a building um off of that road on a lot that's there, you have to have all ground level exterior walls of that building located within 150 ft. So sometimes there might be a a a deadend fire apparatus road that might be greater than 150 ft, but if that firet truck doesn't have to travel down that road 150 ft to get to within 150 ft of the most remote section of that building, then they wouldn't have to provide that turnaround. We we can make a a a choke point to where it says, you know, a sign would be erected to say no fire department access past this point. So there may it may look that there might be a um an access point that is greater than 150 ft in a dead end, but it might not actually be utilized as that.

And one thing I'd like to add to that is um when things are coming through planning commission, they're at a a higher level and and Doug and Seth and our team gets into the the the weeds on these things. But what we've done um fairly recently, probably what past year, year and a half, is we've got these guys earlier access with Nick's team and the planning department to do a cursory review earlier as early as possible before it comes to you guys. And so Doug and Seth um will look at it and and raise flags if possible. So, we're doing that in addition to our standard fire review to try to take away some of those prevent some of those discrepancies as well.

That's fair. Any other questions on that? Great. So, so that 150 ft just if they if something extends beyond that, there needs to be an ability for the full ladder engine to turn around if if correct. If the road is 150 ft, but that doesn't allow them to get to the building, the most remote part within 150 ft. Does that make sense? That makes sense. Yeah. Then they would have to have that turnaround. Thank you.

Great. So again, 150 ft at the maximum distance from a fire department access road and that's partially due to the effect um that the pre-connected hoses that are on the truck are generally between 150 and 200 ft. So it just anytime you have to build a hose line or extend the hose that takes time and fire grows exponentially. So every minute you can double in size of a fire. Um then as part of that approved route for a firefighter access on that 150 ft, we want to look at how does the firefighter get around that building. So, how do they navigate obstruction trees, um, fences that are erected, gates? Um, and so what we have, if you look at the the picture on the right there, we've come up with a calculation in order to allow for the fire department to set up ground ladders and and operate to get to a roof or do a window rescue and then also provide access for the firefighters still to operate around them with hose lines. And so generally we want to depending on the height of the building we can have between 8 and 13 ft that the fire department needs to operate safely and effectively on at least one side of the building. And there is the opportunity to increase that distance of 150 ft through alternative means and methods. And that's a an allowance made in the code to where the the designer or the architect can pro pro um they can come to us and say, "Hey, we know we don't meet the fire code in this particular section, but we're willing to enhance a certain building element type of construction. Make the sprinklers more dense. Um provide smoke detection in in areas that's not typically required." And they would make that proposal to the fire code official. So either Chief Alred or Captain Demons, they would look

at the the the building and the proposal and they may allow that up to um right now we we go to about 200 feet and then we incrementally allow stuff after that but we also require additional um measures taken for the building design. Um this is a big one right now. Um, with a lot of building going on in Salt Lake, of course, we look at building heights and what they call aerial apparatus. So, anytime you have a building that is greater than 30 ft in height, that's where the ladder that's mounted on the truck becomes necessary in order to get to those upper levels because the ground ladders that are take that are carried on those trucks are only 35 ft. And so when you put it at that angle on that previous slide, in order to have the correct number of rungs above the ladder to safely dawn and doth those um roof structures and higher windows, it it becomes necessary to then have those ladder mounted vehicles. Whoops. I don't know what happened there. Um, one thing that happens when you have the aerial axis is the road widths increased to 26 ft. And that's to allow for that those outriggers, those stabilizer points to come down off of those trucks and then also still allow other apparatus to navigate around them on those roads. Um, that road that is there, that 26t wide road needs to be located 15 to 30 feet from that building. And that allows that ladder that is up to 100 feet on that truck to be positioned at the right angle, navigate around that building, and allow the the fire department to operate um in the in the correct fashion. Some of some of the things that we look at that become um problematic are obstructions, power lines, utility lines, because again, you don't want to be operating a ladder with some energized equipment and make contact

with that. Then you've got a bigger issue. Um trees are also a potential issue. So we work very we try to work very closely with urban forestry to work around existing trees but then also any new trees we try to limit the height and and and coordinate spacing so that we can still have that that access to those those buildings where where needed. I have a question. The proximity distance do you need that on all sides of the building or just one?

No. So when you have aerial access, that's only required to one side of the building. Yeah. And so it just needs to be that and generally that's on the side where you have, you know, a city street. If not, they have to provide that 26 ft plus a minimum of 15. So now you're looking at 41 feet that that is needed in order to provide aerial access. Does that does that often or ever conflict with if there's like no setback? You know what I mean? Is there still room where where we've run into issues with it on the street are actually where we have very large white park strips because sometimes that property line is already more than 30 feet away from where the

fire apparatus can park. That's why we built into the code several years ago the alternative means and methods to increase that distance because it just doesn't fit our environment all the time. Yeah, I was going to say that's where I've run into it mostly is on on that where there's really really wide sidewalks and and park strips and so it's hard to do that. Does it one more real quick? Does a 30 foot tall building do you calculate it the same way you guys do or do you calculate the way I look up and I'm like that's 30 feet up there because it's it can be complicated. Yes, that's that's on this slide right here. Oh, okay. Okay. Any any other questions on what we

Yeah, I actually So, an issue that came up um was on 8th east uh where the roadway is actually separated into basically two directions center divider with a with a center divider with a planter in the middle. Um do you still does is each side required to be 26 ft at that point? Correct. That seems like it conflicts with some city urban design goals, but um that's interesting. Thank you.

Yeah. And the reason again for that is because it's that actual road with if there is that center divider there, we don't want to have to put a stabilizer on unsecure, unfirm ground. So grass, something that's been receiving a lot of water, we put that stabilizer down, then all it it might not be stable and that would sink. What is the actual width of the stabilizer from edge to edge? Uh, at this I really don't know. It varies depending on what apparatus you have, but it again it's it's it's not only the width of that apparatus stabilizer, but it's to allow another apparatus to go around it. Understood. Thank you.

One of the places in the city where you can see where we've incorporated all of this is in Central 9th. So part of the nine line and on the south the north side of 900 south through there there are pads for the stabilizers and everything else and that was part of that was in coordination with not just our urban design requirements or goals I should say but making sure that we could meet fire as well. So we're happy to show you how that works in real in the real world but if you go out there you'll see that and the nine trail itself in some sections can surface that. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. We we we've incorporated over the last three years, we've worked with um transportation and streets on like we see those features on 20 on the latest revisions to 2100 South um the N line. Um you will see both areas that qualify as aerial access um that by all appearances are part of a sidewalk. like the fire department doesn't we we're looking for performance not necessarily visually what it looks like. So through doing things like mountable curbs um overpoured sidewalks. So visually in day-to-day they're used as sidewalks um they just look like curbs but we've got some specifications where you can go to that. So, you know, when we need to get a little closer to the building, but the street's further away, that's one of the options we've moved to in certain areas is from the street transition to what appears to be a sidewalk and is used as a sidewalk. Actually, in the event of emergency becomes aerial access. Um, instead of a 4-in sidewalk pour, those are actually poured and reinforced up to 75,000 lbs. And then that curb you see in a lot of places the transition curb instead of the vertical curbing that's to allow for us to get up on them. And then even in areas like on 21 or south I think on the second south extension in some places to make sure that those parcels along that roadway can still be built and the road can provide aerial access. Even the median itself, that divided median in the middle is built with, you'll see it on 2100 South is built with the sloped curbs and then even though it's stamped, it's actually weightbearing concrete across the top of it. So our rigs can move both between the lanes and can set up and use that as part of and then that now qualifies as aerial access.

That makes sense. Thank you. these real specific things are are you all of your um firefighters they they just know how to recognize those or do you have to tell like the the person in this station this specific road has blah blah blah or anybody that that's a challenge and that's why sometimes some of these incorporations take a long time because they come to me and and say and I go to our operations teams the chiefs that run the fire engines dayto-day and I say are these options that you feel we can train our firefighters. I can't just train the firefighters in that local area because we I can't guarantee which we all they back each other up.

Um and so then we say, "Okay, we're going to start incorporating this feature and you'll see a number of these types of features in the slides. Can we can we familiarize our crews enough through training and you know starting day one to start to recognize these features?" And we've incorporated a lot of features as a city that we weren't doing even a few years ago. Aerial landing pads that we call them um marked to show that this is a safe area to put your rigs. In short, anywhere that you see those transitioned curbs rather than the vertical curbs, we're able to tell our firefighters, engineers, the people that drive that that's the indicator that you should be able to roll up and mount on the abuing concrete surface. Um, you know, there's a number of features that we brought into play in the last few years, but it does take we have to be careful because we do have to make sure, okay, can we can we make sure that the responding crews recognize that that's what that's for.

Yeah. Can't be too specific because then it's not useful. Yeah. And it, you know, and we have to be able to recognize it at 3:00 in the morning in a snowstorm in February and just like in in the middle of the summer and, you know, so it has to be, we try to make it somewhat intuitive. And I that's that's where I a lot of these accommodations I I make I have I go through a process with our operations crews and chiefs to make sure that, you know, it doesn't make you know, what makes sense to me behind a desk at the public safety building might not make sense to an engineer on the street. Did somebody else have a question?

Great. So again, we're looking at when a building is greater than 30 ft. And this answers your question on how it's measured. So on a pitched roof, it's measured to the eve. And on a on a flat roof or where there's a parapit, we measure to that highest roof level or building element level. So if it's got a a parapit wall, we would measure to to that point and that's measured from grade. Um there is an exception that you don't have to provide aerial access and that would be triggered by if your building is made out of a certain type of construction. So that would be the non-combustible construction. You have a a a 13 NFPA 13 fire uh sprinkler system in it, which is the most robust sprinkler system. And then you have stairways that go all the way to the roof with a standpipe connection there for firefighter activities. And you would typically see those in your high-rise buildings is where you would see that.

Is a stand pipe like a faucet, like a similar to that. Stamp pipe is uh if when you're walking up stairwells in a in a building that's got more than three levels, you'll see a connection that looks like a Y and then it's where the firefighters can thread in their hoses and then work from that stair enclosure to the interior um building environment and and water is fed through the sprinkler system. And there's always water pressurized in there once there's an activation. Yes.

Yeah. and we can attach our and we'll pull up and there's exterior connections that we'll actually attach the um engine to. The engine pumps water and can charge and supplement that system if it's not what we call a wet system that is already plumbed with a um you know an existing water supply that's plumbed into it. You know, we we did that this morning at the high-rise fire over by the the capital. We operated off stand pipes supplemented by trucks. The external ones, they're the big red markers that say FDC. Correct. Fire department connection. Correct. And those might be to supplement both the the sprinklers or the stand pipes or a combination of both.

Correct.

And and then because like what like we mentioned before has the the large park strips and a very uh large number of lots that are very narrow but deep and we're starting to get infill with different types of developments. it makes it difficult to provide adequate aerial access because we we do like to have the long side of the building because that gives us the most area to operate um for not only um firefighting operations but rescues. So we have um in coordination with the the fire prevention bureau come up with some some alternate means and methods to deal with uh when we can't provide that long side of the building on these these unique and and narrow parcels that we have in Salt Lake. And so, um, we want to provide at least 25% of the total building perimeter. And then, um, again, based on that, um, criteria that the fire chief and and the operations chiefs and the fire marshall have decided, um, we they we' ask them to add these extra features into their building design, which help provide kind of an offset to where we don't have that full long side of the building. um not going to really get into that because it's you know a lot of lot of dead information there but um that this would be for a commercial building and then uh the other option is of course residential. So a lot of these apartment buildings that we have um a little bit more stringent requirements because there are people there at different periods of time especially at nighttime a lot of um as as chief likes to refer to it heads and beds um you know night people awaking at a difficult hour. So, we've we've incorporated a little bit more secure stair enclosures and tried to tried to limit limit the the possibilities for electrical fire um in incidences and um added a little bit

more fire suppression in the the stair towers to to help with the evacuation and and minimize the extent of the fire growth. Any questions there? I know it's a lot of code stuff, but it's again it makes sense to myself and Chief Alred. So, we try to incorporate that and hopefully help keep building design and approvals moving forward. Is roof access uh so that your firefighters can access the building from the roof or so we can run up to the roof to escape?

Yeah, good question. the one of the basic tactics for um preventing fire spread and slowing a fire down inside a a essentially the the chimney effect. The main purpose of getting to the roof is to be able to ventilate a structure, create a chimney in the structure. It's essentially the same. If you don't open the flu to your chimney in your house, that smoke's going to move out and the heat and the smoke move out into the living space. you pop the flu open in your house and it's now moving up, clears out the environment so that we can operate and both increase survivability and slow the spread of fire. And so that's the main purpose of roof access is to increase the survivability inside the inside the structure. Um, you know, there's other there's other reasons we need access to the roof. Um, prevent exterior flame spread, provide protection to abuing buildings, all that kind of stuff. So, um, it's a great question. It's not entirely intuitive, but that's really one of the core tactics that we use to, you know, alleviate and and, you know, get those toxic gases out of there for people that are in the building to give us additional time to find them. You know, we we try to the longer we can improve the survivability inside a building, the more people we're going to bring out alive. And so, that's the basis of that importance of that roof access. Does that answer your question? Okay.

And and again, this just uh goes back to the road widths. Uh as you can see from the the picture there, you know, 20 ft uh the difference between the 20 and 26 ft, why that's needed. Um um parking does impact that. So if there is on street parking, we have to um essentially subtract six feet of that road width. And when you have a a 26 foot wide road, that means there's no parking allowed on there. When you go 26 to 32, you can park on one side. Any road that's wider than 32 feet, you can park on both sides and still allow for that navigation of those fire apparatus. There was a case where uh there was a request to to build something here and the thing that had been built next door, the neighbors were mad because when this thing was built, you guys closed off street parking like unexpectedly I think um where when it was originally approved there was expected to be street parking and then once you made the fire considerations there was no more street parking. So that can happen and it happens like after after we see the project. Does it happen a lot or is is that even true? Because honestly people are like fire won't let us do that. They say that a lot to us.

Yeah. I mean there's a little bit of nuance to that. Fire I I I in my role as the fire official have no authority over whether parking is allowed on a road or not. So our determination at this level is just whether with the presence of parking does that road qualify as a as a code required aerial access or emergency access road. Parking and other features. The code actually specifies it be free of obstruction. And so allowed parking is considered an obstruction. So we simply point that out and it's on the developer if they want to continue to use that road. it either needs to be modified or they need to go to transportation and ask to have that that obstacle in this case the parking removed. So we don't actually order

Oh. parking to be repl it doesn't Yeah. If with parking there it doesn't qualify and then they engage the transportation division the closed parking. Okay. And and to add to that um with uh like urban forestry um chief's team and when we're working through the AM&M process we don't say remove those trees. We don't have the authority over those trees and so we invite a collaborative process with urban forestry. So, I think that adds to it. So, we're not saying get rid of the parking and get rid of the trees. We don't have the authority to do that. So, okay. Great. Boy, I think a lot of people are throwing you under the bus. Yeah, they are.

We're used to it. Yeah. So, go ahead.

So, I I am curious. every foot wider of unobstructed roadway, the design speed of the roadway goes up. The the sense of people driving down that road that they can go fast, that they can speed, that they can move goes up. The longer pedestrians have to cross, the less likely are you are to make it when darting, right? Like why do roadways kill people? Um, and I'm wondering how uh the fire department or maybe the code body uh evaluates the trade-off between the lives saved by needing to, you know, basically encourage a a a world in which developers are incentivized to push for wider and wider streets because that's the only way they're going to get the height they need versus the, you know, so that saves lives because there are people, you know, you can you can save lives in case of a fire versus the number of lives lost um because of of those wider streets and those roadways that are no longer safe for pedestrians and the people who are living their day-to-day lives every day.

Yeah, that's a good question and it brings up I mean the two issues, safety in the building you're sleeping in and then safety on the streets for you know walkable neighborhoods and that type thing. Um they're a little bit of two conversations and that's why we engage in kind of both conversations. They're just done kind of done in different venues. Um the fire access for the building is kind of done in this venue and then my participation with transportation Lynn Jacobs and the safe streets initiative kind of is the conversation where that pedestrian safety and crash speed safety is taking place right now. There's a I know they're just finishing that we've been working on the latest revision of that for the last year. I think that's I just looked through the final on it. I think it should be in front of the council here pretty quick. And that's more of a all departments, streets, um public services, fire, police engaged in that. And so that's when you see some of the standard designs we've come up with for different traffic calming features. Um you'll see a lot of those. um like we've been involved in it. It's the exact conversation. How do you balance that? And that's where you see the specifications for like the they have their traffic calming devices. They're speed bumps um that you see across the city. Those are specifically designed to not impede fires um time to get to an emergency unnecessarily, but still provide that traffic calming feature. And so we work with transportation to come up with a certain number of standard designs. one for arterial roads, one for smaller roads. Um we work with them on things like the radiuses for the um roundabouts. Um for instance, where the whale is in um in Sugar House, that roundabout itself went through a number of designs. So we're like, what what's that sweet spot for creating tight enough features that it brings those

speeds down? like you're interested in the entire you you'll notice a lot of those features that we've seen lately on 11th east from that section from 9 south to 2100 South where you've got extended curbs turnouts and that type of thing in in raised walkways. Um we work with them a lot on those types of features. So we so a little bit of two different conversations but we are engaged in that conversation. That's where a lot of those features come from.

Thank you. I I guess where I would say my thinking goes is like yes, they are two they're currently two separate conversations, but that's there's a they're not fully because ultimately like if a developer can't build higher buildings on A East that means that the developer has a an incentive to push for getting rid of that boulevard, to push for um you know, bills in the legislature that force us to make wider roads, for example, and and like it it's it's a thing I struggle with and I I think about um just in terms of, you know, the h how many people are are dying as a result of fires right now in the city? Do you have that number off the top of your head? Like per year? I can tell you we've had we had two direct fire rated deaths last year. Okay. We had um we've had one in TW we had two that I can think of in 25. Um and I think a lot of that is the performance of these of these buildings.

Yeah. In under fire. You know, we've had a lot a number of large fires. We've had a number of large fires in multif family structures and we take it as a compliment that we've had a extremely low number of fire deaths relative to other municipalities our same size generally. Um, a lot of that has to do with our resourcing. Um, and that we're an ISO1 fire department and that the buildings perform, as I I refer to it as, the building needs to perform as an extra crew on a fire and those features really work in our benefit and enable us to keep those fire fatalities low.

Absolutely. And I mean, it's a credit to your department. They remarkable work. Um, and then the, you know, h how many people have died as a result of of traffic violence in Salt Lake City in a year? And that's the like if we are creating it's it's it's tough and I think that there's a a tradeoff there that commission maybe isn't

we focus the discussion a little bit. This is an area that the city has discretion on. We have to fire the fire code. the fire code specifies a certain width of road and we're just trying I think we're explaining the administration and I I appreciate it. Thank you.

So this uh proximity to the building we've mentioned it before and Nick did bring it up. Um you know we when we we do have those large park strips um through the alternative means and methods we've allowed those to go up to 50 ft. Now we've given them some criteria that they need to meet through through an application again that is reviewed by the fire chief or the deputy fire chief and pursued. Um so you know we have taken that into consideration and allowed those distances up to 50 ft which has helped projects move forward. Um and and one of the last things we look for is of course water supply. Um that's fire hydrant locations, distances to buildings and and the the the type the amount of gallons per um minute that is is required. Um on a residential single family dwelling town home structures, you need to be 600 ft away from the farthest point of that building. And the way we measure that is from the hydrant, we go down the center line of the road to the property, make a right angle, and then find the most remote part of that building. Um, if if they're within 600 ft, they would comply. Um, any type of commercial structure. In the appendices, there's uh appendix appendix B and C and that gives the required fire flow and um for the duration in hours and also the spacing of hydrants which could be anywhere from uh 250 ft up to 500 ft spacing on an average um layout. Um and this would those um diagrams kind of give you an idea of how we look at that. Um and again but water is very important because not only does it supplement the the apparatus that already carry water on them but we have to work closely with public utilities for you know their impacts on upsizing water lines and making sure that the actual fire flow is

there. So there have been instances where water lines have had to be upgraded throughout the city and which is very impactful to the to the development. And that's kind of the the core ideas of what we look at in a planning commission submitt. Uh generally site access, how the fire department operates and and do they have enough water. So, um, at this time, if you guys have additional questions or, um, any kind of comments, please.

It It's not not a question as much as a comment. And I I've been fortunate enough to work in, I think, 28 states and completed projects there, worked with fire marshals all over the country. And I I will just say that um working in Utah, both at the state level and the state fire marshall level, I've always found Utah to be very accommodating and being a part of a solution as a part of as opposed to saying these are the regulations, you know, go do it. um your notion of of the alternative methods and and materials. Um you know, working in in in hillside um locations where you only have access from one side,

being able to use swimming pools as alternate water sources, having additional fire equipment within the building that helps helps them get up and down easily and stuff. I mean, seriously, I I I la Utah for being very accommodating and finding solutions as opposed to, you know, just being very very rigid about it. Um, every project that I've ever done seems to be a different um solution or or, you know, it there it's not one case, you know, or one rule fits all. Every one of them is a little bit different. And I I applaud you guys for being very accommodating to, you know, to finding a solution. So, thank you.

I appreciate that. And I I will say that that Captain Demons and Chief Alred are very accommodating. They they jump on meetings all the time and they they look at each project individually. Don't hold any, you know, past projects accountable for what people are trying to do and and it it really has helped move a lot of projects on that in the past would have been stalled. I just have some um thoughts and uh you know obviously the thank you for all your work because um we I won't I won't digress but one of the things that I think is important for the commission to understand which is why I'm glad you're here um and and I want to clarify the relationship. So, I'm really glad that you're jumping in on these projects earlier to try and just So, I'm wondering by the time these projects come to the planning commission. Um, how how much um have you done the review, like what's the difference between the comments that come to us in the staff report? Um, what's the difference? because I think sometimes the commission gets hung up on trying to do your job in reviewing um the project and we're looking at the comments you've given and then we're asking all these questions that quite frankly we're not we don't know the answers to when we're we're not the fire specialist. So, um, is that relationship in your pre-re to the comments that you give that are part of the staff report, um, is there a way that those can be aligned better in like real time so that the commission isn't trying to question the length of this road and the width of it that we understand it's already been done. Does that make sense?

And and I'm just wondering if that's it. You may not even have an answer, but that's one of the reasons why I was really glad to have you come is so that we could understand how much work you're already doing so that we're not trying to then question the project in a way that we don't have the expertise to even evaluate, but you've already done it. and and there have been many times in a staff report where the p the comments from other departments um were submitted earlier than than changes have been made and so they're kind of in congruent and I guess I would really um think it it might be um helpful to have those align better to the work you've already done so that if changes are made after the public comment portion um that they're reflected so that we understand you've already done all of it and and reviewed it to all of these things so that we're not spending a lot of time doing things that we just don't really have the expertise for anyway.

So typically the the process when we're in our 45day public engagement is also when all the department reviews happen

and so they all they get routed to all those departments divisions that look at it. Ideally, we will have comments that say yes, this complies or there's no issues or something like that, right? So, there's something there. And that's something that we I think it's it's harder with the fire code because there is a lot of um the the fire official has a lot of discretion for some things. And so trying to work through those things can be t can take some time, especially you just heard the process they go through for that. So, one of the things that we've been really working on with the the fire code review u team is how can we get comments that are more direct about whether something does or doesn't comply or if there's going to be some issue at the building permit level so that everybody knows particularly the decision makers.

So, that's an ongoing process. Part of it is and one of the reasons why we um changed the development review team, the DRT thing in our code is because we want to start using that actually for these types of applications that come before the planning commission, landmarks commission where we can get everyone in the room to resolve any sort of conflicts, right?

Or we can ask questions like, hey, what about this comment? Things like that. And we can have the applicant there, too. So it's kind of this discussion where the applicant can ask questions, we can figure out what a path forward is to resolve some of those types of conflicts. So in in the the realm of our the role that we play, so if um we bring up

additional questions, then there is like a path for then you to then continue to ask those. I think I think it's great if we ask questions of like is this adequate? Is that adequate? I think the rule I think when we go down things of like well I don't think this is going to work and I don't think that is going to work is the wrong conversation for us and then but but I guess now hearing you it could be appropriate for us to speculate like is this going to be adequate? Is that going to be adequate? And then that becomes your

right and and I think where where it becomes where it creates some issues that we would just have to resolve is when there's a desire to do something like increase the distance between buildings. What is there's always the downstream effects of that right? So if you do that what does that mean over here? What does that mean here? And those are the things where if if they're made at a meeting make it really hard for everybody who has to sign off on those permits direct. That's why our code has that modification thing because if you do add something like that

and we still need to comply with our fire code, our building codes, our utility standards, etc. Other engineering standards, that's why it gives us that modification, that ability to modify those things so we can make great

those. Yeah. So then I'm also wondering um after we do our role and we we give approvals and maybe we have conditions, maybe we don't, but um you still have to do the the final um review. So you're working with them to address a lot of issues. Um but then once it's gone through our process, you still have a lot of um discretion, I guess, or the authority to then continue to modify certain things in order to make sure that it's meeting fire code, right?

Yeah. Um I'd like to just add that so once we get more information because we'll get the the full plan set for submitt. This happens with building code as well. it'll go through planning commission and all of a sudden we'll get some some pages in appliance set and go wait a minute this and it's something you guys would not have seen. So once that comes through um yes we do have the A&M process and whatnot but one thing we do look out for and watch for and we'll reach out to Nick's team is if we see something that would affect what you guys approved then we'll discuss it with the planning department. So we we won't change stuff and and change what you guys approved. Um we'll discuss it with them. So um but I did want to say one thing that is a challenge. Um Doug was going to say it, but sorry I buted in Doug. Um by the time it comes through you guys, sometimes there are some just surprises surprises. There's more windows over here that they really they added in and they and now we have a 364 page plan set. Um, so the the the time it comes through here is at a higher level view and then when we get into the nitty-gritty then the stuff comes out.

So I can't add windows is what you're telling me. You just Yeah. Not big windows. Anyways, um but but we don't if we see anything that's going to affect that went through a planning commission or saying, "Wait a minute, they're changing this." And we do this with building code as well. Sizes wait they're they're trying something different. We'll reach out to the plans reviewer and the zoning reviewer.

Okay. Yeah. I think that's important for us to to fully appreciate that. Um I I guess I just don't want us to try to be doing your job. Um because and and it's really good to hear that you're jumping in earlier because I think the more all of those things happen before they come to us, the smoother it is for our process and then we can just focus on some little thing that we'll spend two hours talking about. But um that said, I really do um appreciate that. Let me think. Oh, the other thing I just wanted to wrap up. So, I also am really glad to hear about the modifications and how much you employ them. Like, okay, we can't meet it exactly here, but these are some things you can do. Because we've had plenty of developers that have been said that have come and said like, well, I can't do this because the fire said no way. So, now I have to have this thing. And and now I'm really understanding that's, you know, because sometimes I I hear that and I think I don't know about that. But now I understand like, no, well, you could have done modifications to this design. So really, it's that's why I said like sometimes people are throwing you under the bus here of like, no, I have to do it this way because fire said so. And and I still don't know that if that's true or not. But now at least I think the commission understands there are um avenues forward for those the give and take of modification so that you're still getting it the way it needs to be for code and we're not in the position to think like oh I guess then we have to it has to be done that way. Do you know what I'm saying? So I'm I'm really glad that you brought that up in in this discussion so that we understand that. Yeah, it might be useful, you know, to for you to know kind of what our standard for approving

uh alternate means or denying an alternate means um is. And really ultimately the standard is is as an office as my office is anyway, I don't I never want to say that we won't consider an alternate means proposal by a developer. I think that's that's actually probably the most interesting part of my job. I actually look forward to that. um probably more than about any element I like seeing the new technology and the new design and so the standard we set is whatever you bring to us I can't you know any given code that they are having trouble meeting we look at an alter we're happy to entertain an alternative and the standard really is does it meet the intent and performance of what the existing code would provide and that's really and if they can and that's really the bar we set when we're looking at it and we incorporate a lot of fire growth scenarios in that uh we look at is the feature a life safety feature, is it an exit time feature? Is it a fire growth feature? And so we kind of try to categorize it, you know, when they're saying, you know, if if if they can't meet the raw number of exits, can they meet enough other exits that, you know, in other places that give us the same overall exiting capability of the city or of the building? It might not be per code but the performance the accumulative co performance gives them that in like in in addition to over sprinkling a building which gives us some exiting time but ultimately something like a sprinkling system can add life safety features like increased time but it's a suppression system. It's not an extinguishing system. So, it's not an answer to no fire access at all because eventually, no matter how much time you build into the building, you can't substitute ultimately getting fire engines there within a certain amount of time. So, we try to balance that, but we

really are we really try to remain open to anything. And and and we're pretty open when we start entertaining these like we're looking for overall meet the performance of the code. And one of the good things about our the program we use to track building permits and things is that when there is an alternative needed methods approved or denied, it gets flagged for that property. So when we pull up that when that address is associated with a land use application or a building permit, it pops up. So every so all of us inside the city can see that. So we know if somebody says, "Well, fire is making me do this." we can be like, well, we actually don't see that they actually have approved something or, you know, they did approve your alternative means or they denied it. And so, the one universal truth about development is that permitting departments will always be played off one another. That's just part of our realities. So, we know that, but internally, I think we're always hesitant when somebody says, "Well, so and so told me this." It's like, "Okay, well, we'll check with soand so, right?" And lo and behold, more often than not, that's not the case.

Yeah. I was I was gonna ask, how involved are you guys in when like community and area plans are getting drawn up in terms of like looking at comparing zoning and because I what Nick said is also been my experience where like 90% of the problem is not being able to get close enough to the front of the building or there being trees lining the street or something like that. And so I imagine you have a pretty good sense in your head of like, oh yeah, this street there's no way like no one can get aerial access here, but then we're also telling people to build eight stories. Um, yeah, I can kind of answer that. I mean, I think a lot of that has been that's the that's one of the advantages of entertaining these alternate means is one now we have the more alternative means that we're able to get to an agreement on for different areas of city especially cities that have been recently reszoned for other uses. Initially, I think you go through a series of AM&Ms where you're looking at these alternatives and once and you sort of build a library of what's worked on other properties as you continue to do approvals and then you're able to kind of offer solutions. Like I I always start our meetings with developers telling them I would make a terrible architect. I would make a a terrible, you know, design professional because I'm just not as creative as pro I probably should be. But what I can do is bring to the table, hey, this is we saw this on a property two blocks over, you know, and then we saw another version out over here. Here are some options that you can combine in your alternative means that we've that we that we've looked at and know work in the past. And so I think the longer the more projects we have in a newly zoned area, it kind of builds us that book of things that we can at least point to that work in other places. And I I my my take is that I I feel them going smoother the more projects we get into in a new in a newly zoned area.

That's awesome. I think in my mind that's like the benefit of that flagging program is that like you have a map and you look at it and be like, "Oh yeah, there's six on this block." So like let's look at this street section. So and just to go back to your question about like overall master planning. Um one example that you guys might remember was the mixeduse consolidation zoning amendments. um planning staff had suggested actually downzoning some of those properties because of we worked with fire and knew that they wouldn't have that aerial apparatus um with and then we definitely reroute any of the master plans that we are working on to fire as well.

Cool. Thanks. Thank you guys. So sort of combining the two questions when when talking about AMM, do do you provide advisory opinions be or are you able to provide advisory opinions about what alternative means and methods might work prior to something coming before the planning commission or do you really have to evaluate that when the building permit is pulled?

Yeah, the AM&Ms are managed at the permitting phase. Um, you know, we would certainly be happy. We we do it we do get involved in DRTs when it seems like they're going to be obvious fire conflicts that might be showstoppers to a project. Um, Troy's team does a great job of kind of incorporating us if if we think it's going to have to start to get into the discretionary creative solutions. Um, and we'll see stuff brought in from out of state that we haven't seen in the city before. And then we'll go so far as to, you know, reach out to other fire marshals. we'll we'll reach out to Denver or San Antonio or you know virtually anywhere and say do you wish you had allowed are you glad you allowed this or are you sad now in retrospect that you did and kind of have that discussion with them directly so we're not filtering that through um anybody with you know a motivation

thank you

um I I'd like to add to that one thing I would like to say about the A&Ms is they're specific Nick touched it back um on this they're specific to that project that address. So, as much as we try to compare other ones coming in, um we don't want to broadstroke AM&M, this will work for this. So, they're specific to that because every every project's different. So, I just wanted to add that. Yeah. And I think in our role, I often like having tried to figure out some AMMS on other projects, my assumption when I see these site plans that come to us and aren't fully developed and like it doesn't I know that the training radius is wrong and like whatever. I I don't try and fix it here because I know that it'll either get worked out with you guys or an AMM will be the solution if that doesn't work out. And so that's kind of my takeaway for for us is that like, you know, if we see something, obviously we're you guys are going to be better at finding it than us. And it probably means that there's an AM and M coming down the road that'll that'll cover that. So

yeah, I think along those lines too, one thing to always keep in mind as a commissioner and as a commission, as a body is that if you see something that whether you're looking at the comments and there's questions about whether something does comply with a department's comments or there's a question about because I know we have had some comments where this requires an alternative means methods and so when you see that you do have discretion to say hey we want to make sure that those things are taken care of before we actually give final approval.

So you can that those are val very valid reasons to continue something because it it it means that you don't have the information you need to approve it, right? So that's something that you can you can always do and that's one of our roles is to help you guide you through that if you do see something because there's often times where you know I don't want to answer and make interpretations about the fire code right

it's not my job not my expertise not my knowledge and so I think it's always great when a decision-m body can say hey we want you to go and get clarification on this statement this comment or whether this does comply with that aspect effect. Are you talking about the department comments at the end of the report? Yeah, they're actually really really important. I read sometimes read them. Yeah.

But um and usually we will try to address those before it ever comes to you. But there are sometimes where, you know, you may get pages of comments and something gets missed or we see something and we don't think it's an issue, but you do as the decision maker. So there's absolutely um the ability for the commission to do that. It sounds like it's problematic if we um try to make big changes at this meeting like move the buildings 15 ft apart or something like that. But have you seen have you seen any big changes that came from fire that after we

Oh yeah. I mean we've had some that the project just dies, right? they just couldn't do meet the fire code and they couldn't find an alternative means methods. It happens and that that happens sometimes. Um you know and just another example getting back to some of the honor street parking things is that um there's been cases where they've where the particularly on like 200 west and around 900 south where the it's really narrow and we have the light rail catinaries above it. So that limits fire access or especially the aerial access. Um where the developers like well I just want to get rid of the on street parking and we've said no and those projects stop or they

say we'll just get rid of the parking. They're like that's their proposal and sometimes we say no. Now, you know, one of the I think unintended consequences if you've followed the legislature on the followup to the SP 195 that limited what we can do on our streets is that we can't remove more than three stalls per block face anymore under that law if it passes. So, that's going to actually have profound effects, right? Because we can't use we can't allow someone to do that anymore as an alternative method. So, that will end up limiting what can be built in some of these places. 800 South where we have limits and things like that.

Do you think that we've what kind of mistakes can you can could we quit making concerning like fire not decisions but like what kind of mistakes can we quit making that Well, I think the I think one of the biggest things and you mentioned this is trying to move elements of a design around, right? Like particularly buildings or open space or parking, you know what I mean? because all of that has those ramifications.

And um I I think it's always better when you look at that and you're like, you know what, I don't think this complies is to identify the standard it doesn't comply with and just be clear that it's like, you know, we're going to give you the opportunity to go and address this to make sure it doesn't have issues with other departments and if you can't then we can't say that you meet the standard, right? I think that's a better approach than saying, well, we want this to be 14 feet wide instead of eight feet wide. This landscape buffer, like you know, we had a project along the Jordan River where that happened,

where the landscape buffer was increased. It happened to be along the fire access road. And so then we're kind of like, okay, well, what do we do here? You know, and those people haven't come back with a solution yet. So, okay. All right. Well, thank you guys for coming and presenting. We appreciate it. And that is all for the evening. Uh, our next meeting is on the 25th. Thank you. Thank you guys. Thank you guys. No, that was that was perfect. Do you guys want