Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Started. And we will open up with taking roll.

Commissioner Barrett? Yes. Commissioner Jeffrey Barrett? Here. Commissioner Amy Barry? Here. Commissioner Amy Burrows? Here. Commissioner Lila Rosenfield? Here. Commissioner Brian Scott?

Here.

Commissioner Michael Vila? Alright.

We'll move on into reports of the chair and vice chair. 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. Just a few things. As you know, the legislative session's in full swing. We're halfway through at this point. We have close to 30 bills that, in one way or another, impact the Planning Division and maybe the Planning Commission as well, including one that deals directly with the Planning Commission.

So we'll keep you abreast on those and how they play out throughout the session and go from there. We're not at this point, we're not really gonna talk much about those just because they're all in various forms of being either stuck in a committee or whatever. So we'll keep you updated. They do everything, like I said, of of impacting planning commission operations to solar farms to water, obviously, to housing, so everything in between. The City Council last week adopted the you may remember the zoning administration text amendment from last summer ish.

Fall, they adopted that. Basically, most of that is cleaning up kinda conflicting terms between what the zoning administrator who the zoning administrator is because it says prior to adoption, zoning code references both the planning director and the zoning administrator kind of interconnected. And so it's mostly clarifying that kind of stuff up, and then dealing with what a zoning review and approval actually means. So there's some fixes there, but that'll go into effect as soon as it's published. Let's see.

I think that's about all I had for oh, the other thing that they've they've had a couple of briefings. One was on the Allianz Street closure vacation process. So they have that slated for a decision, the first meeting in March, I think, March 3 or March 10, one of those two dates. So we'll keep you up to date on that as well. And that's all I have.

All right. Thank you. Next we'll move into our open forum. So it's a ten minute section for us to discuss planning topics that aren't directly related to a specific motion or item. So if anyone has a motion or would like to bring anything up. Mr. Chair, if I may.

So last week or last session, I put forward a motion that failed. And there were some concerns that related to immigration enforcement. And there were some concerns 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 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.

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 in order to vote on?

Makes it a little bit more clear. Yeah, I think. Okay.

Does that motion need a second?

I haven't actually moved it yet. I was sort of trying to get a barometer of the feeling of the commission.

Could you read it one more time, please?

Yeah. 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 city to the extent permitted by law. Any additional thoughts? Alright. 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 be 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, agenda.

I'll yes. Thank you.

I'll second it with that explanation too.

Alright. Then we have a motion and a second. Go ahead and vote.

Commissioner Barrett? Yes. Commissioner Barry? Yes. Commissioner Burrows? Yes. Commissioner Rosenfield? Yes. Commissioner Scott?

Yes.

Commissioner Bayla?

Yes.

Alright. Didn't look like there was anything else on open forum. K. Then we will move on to the consent agenda, which is just, approval of the meetings of the meeting minute meetings.

I move that we approve the consent agenda.

I'll second that.

Alright. Go ahead and vote.

Commissioner Barrett?

I abstain. I wasn't present in the last meeting.

Commissioner Berry? Yes. Commissioner Burrows?

I'll abstain because I wasn't at that meeting either.

Commissioner Rosenfield? Yes. Commissioner Scott?

Yes.

Commissioner Bayla?

Yes.

Alright. And then on to, the regular agenda item number two, the plan development and preliminary subdivision at approximately 1032, 1036, and 1046 South Jefferson Street.

Good evening. This is a planned development and a preliminary subdivision plot, two applications for this address. Upfront, I need to let you know that when we initially sent out the notice posting, it had a different petition number. Those petition numbers are on the screen now, and those are the correct ones. Just have to put that out there.

Sorry. This is a quick map showing you where the properties are. They're highlighted in yellow. There we go. Hold on. I can see. Marked by my cursor. This property is it is three parcels. They are just off of 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 planned development and the preliminary subdivision plot. Not on the staff report, but in your new motion sheets, we have added a condition. The condition is that the applicant must develop sixteen three bedroom, three and a 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 point four two acres, 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 feet feet 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 one car garage. They will be offered as for sale units, and the height of the building has been changed as well.

So last week, we had new revised plans come in. Those are what are in your your staff report. Initially, they were 30 feet 31 feet 11 inches, and that's been changed to thirty four eleven inches with three full stories. The first petition requested is a plan development. 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, 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 planned development for approval for not having frontage on the public street. Oh, sorry. They also want to reduce the rear yard setback from 10, excuse me, from 25 feet to 10 feet. And then the last one is allow an increase of two and a half stories to three stories, which would increase the allowable wall height for the third four floor by two and a half feet. And at this point, I'm gonna ask if there was any confusion about that half story issue. If not, I'm gonna skip that. All good?

Well, yeah. It's good, I think.

No go ahead if there's questions I about

think I understand it in this context. I wanted to I'll bring it up in the open forum as a Okay. More general

will come back to that as needed. So I'm going skip that. The second petition, again, is the preliminary subdivision plot approval, which is required to separate each lot for each townhome or each unit. This enables individual ownership. Typically preliminary subdivision plots are approved administratively by planning staff.

But when it needs the plan development for approval as well, it comes before you. This one generally meets the subdivision standards. So it will just go in conjunction with the planned 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 sixteen 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.

K. Great. First, do we have any questions from the committee on clarifying or

I just have one, Dana. What is the parking context for this zone?

So this is FBUN 1, 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. It doesn't scale with the size of the unit? Correct. It's per unit.

Sorry, the parking because we have a separate, basically, overlay for parking, correct? The four parking contexts?

Yeah. Uh-huh. Right.

What context is this in?

So it is listed as FBUN1 in the chart. And it is one parking space per unit.

Okay. So it doesn't actually it doesn't have the parking modification that the city made about three years incorporated into it?

I don't think I'm understanding. Maybe management can help on that.

I think I understand the question. So when we went through the mixed use consolidation, those mixed use zones, their parking context 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 F B 11 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 applied to it, the MU zones.

It's in the neighborhood center context.

Gotcha. Thank you.

Thank you.

And then it continues to be FBUN. This was not part of the mixed use consolidation It

is not. Correct. This zone is FBUN 1.

Thank you.

Uh-huh. Thank you.

Alright. If you wanna go ahead and give your presentation, you'll have ten minutes.

Let me switch over real quick. Sorry about that.

Pushing this thing to speak.

Alright. Cool.

And please state your name when you start.

Yep. My name is Drake,

and I am the property owner of this property. I just wanted to show a couple of slides kinda showing about how we're thinking about the project. Originally, when we sent our application, there was an argument basically saying, because we don't meet the density requirements, that reducing the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 10 feet was really the key to, you know, optimizing density. So I put together a a plan not utilizing the reduction in the rear setback where we could actually get 21 townhomes, two bed, one one bath, a much denser plan, but our our goal with this project was to build family size housing. 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. So not only does it align with the city goals, it also allows us to have larger interior side yard setbacks. They're actually twice as large as the minimum required setback and the setback that we have in our 21 unit plan. We also thought it was the least impactful way to develop and affect the neighbors as there's a 20 foot, public alley that is in the rear, and we'd just be scooting the buildings closer to, a five story apartment and its parking lot. This is just a slide to to to kinda bring some clarity to the two and a half 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 the overall height of the building or increase the amount of habitable space in the building. This adjustment just basically reallocates interior height from the first two floors to have a slightly larger wall height on the third level, making the homes more livable and comfortable for families who are gonna buy them and live them in them in the future. And that's everything that I got.

Okay. I will go ahead and open up for public comment. If you are here to speak on this item, you can step up to the podium over there and you will have two minutes. Or if you're the representative of a community recognized community organization, you'll have five minutes. And please remember to state your name as you begin.

Hello. Thank you, commissioners, and thank you, Diana, for all the communication and stuff on the home on Jefferson Street.

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

Is it on?

He's watching.

Sounds like it's on. Check. We're good? Yeah. Once again, thank you all. I appreciate your time. I am a homeowner on Jefferson Street. I also represent 20 local homeowners and signatures against this petition. 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 FBUN one zoning, so that would equal three parking spots. We're at 16 here with no overflow parking, no guest parking, and Jefferson Straight Street is already at a parking crisis. I mean, we, 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 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 wanna follow these same rules. This developer is asking for special treatment for building height, which is new today too, building placement, and setbacks, approving these changes undermining 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, 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 feet 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 shantytowns 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 sidewalk. Your time. You. I appreciate all of your time.

Go ahead.

Hi, everyone. Thank you. I'm also a homeowner on Meade Avenue behind the project. I'm not here in opposition of 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. 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 a invasion of our privacy. So we're not here to oppose it, but we would like you to reconsider 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 Duranty. Thank you.

That's all. Thank you. Anyone else? Alright. If you'd like to respond to those, you can, or we can move into discussion.

If you guys have any questions, we're actually not asking for an increase to height allowed, you know, beyond what's allowed in the zoning. And we do have one parking stall per lot, per garage, or per unit. And then regarding the trash bins, we have a dumpster with an enclosure surrounding it to accommodate the trash of the residents.

K. Thank you. With 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. 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. 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 rezone, so it doesn't require that.

Okay. That's why we talked about that before. Okay. Tell me again the idea of with garbage disposal. For the traffic 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 more likely that it'll become an eyesore or a problem for the neighborhood.

They did. In talking with stability sustainability, excuse me, The pass the the two ways to do it are gonna be a central bin or 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. They most likely couldn't fit all those on the alleyway for private pickup. So the the trash 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.

Cover will

be a fence around it and a Yes. Roof kind of thing?

Yes. It's on the alleyway.

Okay. So it's on the backside. 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. So I would like to see this, developer make the best effort they can to kind of limit that. 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.

I'm gonna 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 gonna 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 success. So it's up to them to decide what that

Okay.

Thanks. That's all.

So, I think these are any not this one specific, but any project is really difficult when the community 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 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 so with that in mind, I am wondering because I can't really discern the layout in terms of the outside perimeter of the proposed townhomes and how like, which side is gonna face the neighboring homes. And if, 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 3rd Floor in terms of windows facing, which would be, north and south.

Livable

While she's pulling that up, excuse me, page 22 in your staff report has the site plan that shows the walkways and where the front of those 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 3rd Floor as we are related to Okay. Then being above kind of then looking being able to not have as much privacy connection to the neighboring yards. So that was really my concern. Is if that's something that we can evaluate to possibly make some, if we feel like we need to make some modifications to allow for a better privacy for that floor.

Go ahead. The one thing I will say about that is that it is a there is a bedroom up there. That's our third bedroom. And it's a fire code requirement to be able to have egress from that bedroom in case there is a fire. 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 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, we have one bedroom window, I feel like that is adequate and appropriate. It's just as if it was like a bunch of windows. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? You're you're looking at me like you don't. Like, I'm not

trying to effectively. It is one window in each of the bedrooms. 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 can see, Commissioner Barry, the windows on page 29 of the staff report.

Yeah, I just didn't know which side those were facing. I mean I see that, but I don't know what's

They look similar in both directions, and because the doors are on the 1st Floor there, those are going to be facing north.

Okay.

Okay. And then I also had a clarifying question on the dumpster. I think clearly having a centralized dumpster is much 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 could, that would be a big negative impact to the neighborhood 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 blocking it from the alley. So there's a fence shielding the dumpster from the alley, But the dumpster is on our property.

Okay. Okay. So how is that going to affect then the already reduced setback on that side from 25 feet to 10 feet. I mean, I feel like that's a big setback and we're reducing any kind of like outdoor space. And if that's going to take up a section of it. Right? Trying to orient like how this is how that reduced setback takes away from outdoor space. Because there's really none here.

Yeah. There there isn't a ton of outdoor space. If we did bring it back, the it would still probably just be graveled or what's it called?

Are you gonna are they gonna be able to access their garages via this Jefferson And The Alley?

Yeah.

Okay.

There isn't a ton of, you know, active green space on here. There will be landscaping, But we're hoping to that bringing these family size housing. There is Jefferson Park right there. 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 the into the park. Okay.

I I've I've got a a couple of concerns. And 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. 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 on, you know, parked on the street now.

And so it it just it just seems like the parking issue is is a big one for me. I'm assuming that that the internal street that's created, the alley, is is basically gonna 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's just not any area. You very efficiently design these units for three units apiece, but there's no outdoor area whatsoever. And that's 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 think what you've done is all allowed. What I'm questioning is, even though it's allowed, that the right solution for for these these four buildings?

Go ahead. I will just say it's it is nice to see the three bedroom 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 100 or something. So that that is one one major benefit I I'd see that is coming out of that. That's all.

I would agree that I think that the three bedroom units are highly desirable. I'm not too concerned about parking. There's a lot of transit nearby. We've got the track station within half a mile. We've got State Street and the Route 200, which is a fifteen minute service, even less than half a mile.

Yeah, so that doesn't concern me as much. Wonder I've got a couple questions about the alleys, and then I have just a thing that I'm spitballing. So in terms of that alley, looking at it, it seems pretty dilapidated right now. It's not paved. It's sort of a double track path until it hits the new apartment complex on Gulps Avenue, which I assume is also part of that alley. Is there any plan to do any work on the alley as part of this project?

We are not privately doing any work to the alley Okay. As part of this project.

And and technically, all of the owners around the alley are are obligated towards its maintenance. Correct?

It's actually the city.

SPEAKER It's a public alley, not a public Okay.

Yeah.

Two: When you say alley, are you talking about the alley he's creating between the houses or the alley that is

No, the existing alley from Jefferson. And then I guess my other question maybe this is more for staff, if I may, Mr. Chair. I assume at some point I'm sorry, my planning history knowledge is failing me a little bit there was a transition away from permitting public alleys to be created as part of subdivisions. 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 an administrative approval?

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

Yeah. So 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 or even if that happened. 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 public right of way that's created 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 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 we're 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 code says frontage on a street.

Gotcha. Thank you. Would that central alley, the private alley, would it be fenced off, is the plan? Or is it intent?

Are you talking about the driveway?

SPEAKER The driveway, yes. In Sorry. Between. Driveway, alley, outside. Yeah.

The alley My apologies. SPEAKER is public, but the driveway is just parked.

Would the driveway be fenced off?

SPEAKER We don't have any plans to put up a fence on our driveway right now.

SPEAKER 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 planned development. Okay.

I know we're talking about.

And then they will, again, through the building permit process.

So I wonder, looking at looking at these floor plans, I'm wondering if we can kill two birds with one stone in terms of outdoor space and overlooking. And maybe this will make the situation worse. Don't know. I'm thinking through it, I'm throwing it out to the rest of the commission. I wonder if it would be possible to actually have that, I guess, north facing bedroom have a small deck and that be the window so that the window itself is set back like a sliding door.

Then you have the egress. You have the light. But you don't have the massive window right pressed up against the alley connecting Jefferson off the driveway. And then 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?

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 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. Yeah. And 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 have, I'm out of ideas.

I'm wondering if we can 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 that will occur because of that development?

If

the planning commission wants to do that, you're limited to the section of alley that's directly adjacent to the subject property. You can't make them do off-site Right. Things.

Right. I would be 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 that the dump truck dump truck is gonna have to or whatever the vehicle is that goes to the dumpster is gonna have to have better access and drivability for that. And if they're accessing their own parking garages via the alley, that that'd be, a requirement we look at adding to this.

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, driveway. Is that correct? Or is it accessed off the alley?

Private driveway. Okay.

And they they he's gonna the that is gonna give access to that via the alley or via Jefferson? It's

out on Can

you turn your mic on?

Yeah. Sorry. The gate opens up onto our private driveway, and then the bin gets wheeled out.

Okay. So I'm driving big jump truck. How long am I gonna get to that to empty it for you? Am I gonna 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. You.

Via Jefferson Street.

So

if I you think that is that that is good luck.

But

on Jefferson for that.

I think you'd come off Jefferson too, but then I think you'd exit on the alley. Not going to back out.

It's only showing one it says straight in out.

What's a straight in out?

That's the dumpster.

Oh, but I thought that we've been told that the 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 this street then connects out? Okay.

So you'd pick up the trash, then you'd hook north and then back east. So you would use the alley. I can't imagine

It's them not using the unlikely the dump trucks would back all the way out. Mean, there are worse. But then again, that alley is only 14 feet wide in the east west direction.

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.

Yeah. The the west, facing elevation will be facing the five story, 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 gonna 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

Have the windows.

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. K. 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 wordsmithing.

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 Oh,

got it.

Is why.

Got it.

If they didn't, they

would leave it all under one Sure.

In rent.

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 two of them vacate as well.

Thank you.

Microphone. 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 planned developments.

K. Can can can you guys identify the standard that speaks to that or do you want me to look it up?

Standard e is mobility.

Thank you.

And that's page 53 of 70 if you're looking for it.

Do, okay. I'm gonna try. I wanna, first of all, identify a finding that, the use of that alleyway is required for to meet standard e for the plan development standards, which is the mobility standard. So that's that's how the ALLE improvements tie into this plan development application. So 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 sixteen 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.

SPEAKER Is it just the intersection of the private street, is it the entire frontage of the alley?

SPEAKER I think the entire from the road to the intersection of the private street.

So that would be From the the property percentage of intersection. The area of the alley abutted 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?

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

Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. Is secured.

Everything that above. Thank you.

Yes.

An l shaped portion of the alley.

Thank you.

Okay. We have a motion by commissioner Burrows with a second by commissioner Rosenfield. Go ahead and vote.

If sorry. Did you just say improvements?

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 nexus?

That's clear to me. Is that appropriate language? Yeah? Okay. Great. Thank you.

Alright.

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.

But it has to meet city standards for Well,

but does that be to

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 the 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 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 very nervous about not being clear So

we've got if if unless there's another amendment or anything, we're we're gonna go ahead and vote.

Commissioner Barrett?

Yes.

Commissioner Berry? Yes. Commissioner Burrows?

Yes. And I really wanna thank the neighbors for sharing your thoughts and insights on this project. Commissioner Rosenfield?

Yes. Oh,

it was Rosenfield's. No.

Excuse me. I thought you said Bell.

Yes. Commissioner Rosenfield says yes.

Thank you. Commissioner Scott? No. Commissioner Villa?

No.

Four to two.

Alright. 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?

We don't have a second yet.

Sorry. I'll second that.

Okay. Now we do.

Sorry. Commissioner Barrett? Yes. Commissioner Berry? Yes. Commissioner Burrows? Yes. Commissioner Rosenfield?

Yes.

Commissioner Scott? Yes. Commissioner Vela?

No. Alright. That passes as well. Thank you. Next, we will move on to the next item on our agenda, which is, the design review at approximately 03:10, 03:34, and 336, and South, and 500 West. There's a lot of numbers. And five hundred nineteen, five twenty three, five twenty seven, and five thirty five west three hundred south. PLN or PLCPCM 2025Dash00896.

Alright. Before I begin, I just wanna 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 tenancy 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. So, this before you tonight is the design review for that facility. The applicant is Brett Tibbets. He's here with me. He's a principal at VCBO Architecture.

It's in the Gateway Mixed Use Sony District, and staff is recommending approval with the conditions listed in the staff report. The project location is located at the corner of 500 West And 300 South. You can see the site highlight highlighted in yellow. The size of the property is 2.16 acres, which is about 94,000 square feet. Here's some photos of the site.

The first top photo is a view towards the Salt Lake Mattress Building. The second photo, which is gonna be in the top right, is looking down 300 South. The bottom left photo is the current building on the site. And then the bottom right photo is looking south on towards 500 West. So there's three objectives for this project.

The first 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. The building con configuration is site plan shown here. It's an l shaped configuration. It will be connected to the Salt Lake Mattress Company building through the 1st And 2nd Floor. The building footprint itself is about 50,000 square feet.

The height of the building is 72 feet, which is three stories. It will step down to the Salt Lake Mattress Building, which has a height of about 36 feet tall. The exterior materials of the building are metal panels perforated in solid glass, brick, concrete, wood, and stone metal framing. So here are some renderings of the project looking towards the plaza. I'm just gonna flip through the next couple slides to orient you with the project.

Here's a vision a visual of the building at night. 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 in the middle of the plaza. This facade is the south facade of the building. This is what will be the main entrance of the building.

You can see where the second And 1st Floors connect through to the Salt Lake Mattress Building. And this will be on the future Market Street. On the corner of what will be Market Street and 500 West, 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, and other materials to break up the facade. Here's an elevation, an older photo of the Salt Lake mattress building, and a new of the reconstruction of the Salt Lake Mattress Building.

An issue that the CRA ran into and the applicant ran into is the Salt Lake Mattress Building used to be used for loading. You can see the loading dock on the old photo. In order to match the 1st Floor elevations between the two buildings and some other circumstances with the building, They are proposing to reconstruct the building, and this is just showing you the elevation at this time. So for the purpose of design review and for the Planning Commission, I want to focus on the existing street frontages. 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. So for this project, they are requesting nine modifications. I will go through each one of those and also give you some background as we go through those.

So the first modification is for residential units. It is important to note to the Planning Commission that, the waiver of this requirement is also in line with the recommended approval to the city council that the subject property be rezoned to D four, which would not require residential units on 500 West. The 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 in 500 West, I wanna emphasize that the larger components and phases of the Rio Grande District vision will include residential units. We're So not losing residential component entirely, it's just being allocated to different phases and locations within the broader development.

The next two slides and snippets are from the Rio Grande vision and implementation plan, showing the broader development. So on the phasing plan, you can see where the climbing gym is proposed is b. These are the first two phases of the project. And then as you see through the plan for the land use, it's showing that blocks A, G, C, and D are residential mixed use, whereas B was always kind of planned out to be a potential national governing training facility. And I'm sorry if that's hard to read, but I'm hoping my explanation of the yellow and red lines for mixed use residential help you visualize that.

Okay. So the next modification is building height. The GMU zone requires a minimum building height of 75 feet, and the height of the building is approximately 72 feet tall, which is a three foot reduction from the required minimum height. As I explained before, the Salt Lake Mattress Company building, it will step down to that, and that is 36 feet. So I wanna make sure that's clear.

And 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 wide runs and rises of the climbing walls. The step down in height also preserves views to the Rio Grande Building from 400 South as you enter the city, which was always the goal of that plan. The next 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 feet, 20 and a half feet for about 80 feet of the total 292 foot facade. The plaza depth here extends about a 137 feet. On the east facade along 500 West, there's a setback of approximately 17 feet for about a 132 feet of the 274 foot facade with a plaza depth about a 160 feet. And what is important here is the l shaped building form and these 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 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. 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. This slide addresses the ground and upper floor glass requirements. As you can see in the elevation drawings, the area shaded in blue indicate where glass is proposed, while the orange and tan areas show durable materials.

For context, climbing walls require areas of solid wall construction for the climbing routes and for bouldering bouldering walls. They need structural stability. 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. 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, myself, concludes planning staff that the reduced glass is justified giving the building specialized use as a recreational and climbing training facility.

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 put specifically placed public entrances that provide appropriate access while maintaining the security and, you know, controlled environment necessary to operate the facility. It's also important to understand what counts as a public entrance versus what doesn't.

Emergency exits, which are marked in red on the plans, are restricted. Also, for emergency use, the climbing wall access points to the outside climbing walls are shown in blue. And there are back of house stores for storage and mechanical systems. Those stores specifically wouldn't count as public entrances. So the green ones in green.

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 into Marquise Street, and then if needs be, you know, the doors could be opened if needed. But in most day to day use will be emergency access. The next modification is modification to the maximum length of blank wall. This slide addresses the maximum length of blank wall requirements.

Code section 21 A-thirty seven-five zero E limits blank walls interrupted by doors, art, or architectural features to 15 feet at the ground level on sorry, 15, that's not right, I apologize. 40 feet on the street facing facades. The applicant is requesting to increase the allowable blank wall length to 45 feet on the north facade. You can see those areas are shown in yellow. And then 25 feet on the east facade, which is on 500 West.

Again, the climbing facility requires solid raw walls ranging from 40 to 60 feet plus in height to support interior climbing surfaces. Both street frontages are activated by outdoor climbing walls. You can see the predominant outdoor bouldering and climbing walls on both both the north and east facades 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 facades look like from this view.

But you can see that even though the facades are long, the left photo would be your e Sorry, your north facade and then east facade, and they are activated besides those sections that I just showed. The next modification is the maximum length of street facing facades. While the building, full building facade measures 290 feet, 274 feet exceeding the 200 foot maximum, only the portion shown in the blue are near the street. The L shape and deep plaza setbacks break down the perceived length of the smaller segments. The corner really becomes the street's defining feature, creating a buffer that reduces the perceived wall length.

Again, it is in line with the vision plan for the Rio Grande District. Horizontal articulation is the next modification, which would require bay windows, recess entrances, windows, camping zonies, and niches gate openings as shown in the pictures. The USA climbing facility is requesting an exception to that requirement because the design is really reflecting the use. And instead, the proposed design creates visual interest through other methods that work better for this use. And the last modification is mid block walkways.

This slide addresses mid block walkways, which are a requirement in the GMU zone when identified in the downtown plan. The applicant is requesting a waiver due to the planned future streets in the area. The CRA is planning new two new public streets, Future Market Street for East West mid block connection, and Future Woodbike Court for a North South connection through the Arts Campus Plaza. Both will be platted and dedicated as public rights of way. The building anticipates these future streets by activating the south and west facades with wall planting street trees, building entries, cafe, public art areas, and retail space, and the reconstruction of the building.

The pedestrian connections are shown with the orange arrows showing a network connecting this building to the streets. Also important to notate that the application to rezone the property to D 4 also included a general plan amendment that proposed the midwife blockways would be modified to reflect the Rio Grande, district vision and implementation plan, which, 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. So in conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the modifications for the facility. The plans align with plans that Lake Downtown Plan, Rio Grande District Vision and Implementation Plan, and connects Salt Lake City.

We did find that 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 Baysoni District or chapter twenty one eight thirty seven. So I've listed the standards of approval there, which this meets. And that is my recommendation and the conclusion of my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Do we have any clarifying questions before we hear from the applicant?

Can you talk a little bit more about the rezoning that for this, that that changed the mid block walkway requirements and stuff like that?

So it's it's not necessarily changing mid block walkway requirements. But the council's considering, you saw this several months ago to change this zoning of this property from GMU to D4. So a lot of these modifications, if and when that were to be adopted, wouldn't be necessary under the future zoning. So part of that is in response to the CRA development plan for all of their land in this general area, which that's where they're working on the streets and mid block walkways and things like that. So the downtown plan mid block walkway map in this area was based on a previous development plan that has since been replaced.

And so it's not fully accurate. If that proposal gets adopted, it includes updating the downtown plan to reflect that.

The dev the new development plan has been approved? It is

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 tentatively at the March, then the amendment to the plan would relocate and readdress the mid block walkways and mid block streets.

To match, like, Market

Street To match what has been shown in this presentation.

And the rezone has is not done yet, but have they heard have they heard on it?

Yeah. They had a briefing last week, I think.

Yeah.

And it's sched they have it tentatively scheduled for the March. The CRA has a basically consented to the development plan

Yeah.

The board, which is the city council acts as the CRA board.

Why why don't we just wait?

I think that's probably up for the applicant

to inquire about that.

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 was the CRA.

Remember you.

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. 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. They've asked that we, with USA climbing, just look at a couple of other options.

I mean, this is so the CRA is contributing to the the rebuilding of the Salt Lake Mattress Building. And so this is taxpayer money that's going into this reconstruction and these efforts. So the board is is very careful on how that money is used. 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. This proposal still stands.

This is the proposal that we will continue to present to the board as well as some other options for them to consider. 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, 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 Climbing 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, 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 '90s appeal authority, not the city council.

Okay. Okay. Is kind of final decision on the design review is here. There is an appeal possible to the city administrator? What's

that called?

Hearing officer.

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. That's it for me for questions right now. Oh. Have, go ahead. Maybe you can, maybe you could identify in the, on page six of the report in the Parks and Recreation Center,

it says

that this design protects the natural environment. And I wonder if you can identify that specifically, how this design is protecting the natural environment of this area. 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 was to bring outdoor recreation and opportunities to this area. They're incorporating some natural like boulders and landscape into the plaza design. 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. This 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. Would Okay.

Because it's not grass. It's like concrete? Yeah. Thank you. With planters and stuff like that.

Yeah.

I've got a couple questions about the plaza. There are a couple references to the plaza being recessed or below grade. Is that correct?

Yes. The plaza is recessed two feet from the street and from the inside building. The primary reasons for that is for visibility, during competitive events. The plaza is anticipated to be a accommodate large quantities of spectators during national and international competitions that will be taking place at this location. Excellent.

Thank you. 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 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 want to make sure that if we are approving this substantial modification and setback, we're not going to end up with a space that doesn't continue to be public. Because I love the idea. Well, I'll save the grandstanding for the next section. But, sorry. And then, let's see.

I had a couple other questions. On page 14 we show the facade measurements. And they're the yellow boxes around the facade areas that are not compliant with standards, there's a very, very large facade that does not have a yellow box around it, and I want to understand why.

Sure. That's what I was pointing out in my presentation. That that's not very reflective because it's 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. You So that's the

see the reference K?

Yeah. And so I was on the wrong side of the building. And then the final question I have is if you look at the mattress building, the remainder of the building, that L shape, is quite far set back from I guess that's Market Street, that's the other Woodbine Court. It's actually 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 feet? Does that make sense?

I see what you're saying. The additional, how it goes back further to that, we could account for that as well.

Okay. So that's not permitted under the current? So it's

actually It would freezing be a modification. Out Yeah, 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 side yard setback, not a front setback. So they could have that extra feed on there. They don't have to meet the minimum or maximum setback. Got you.

So there's no minimum side yard setback in GMU?

I don't think so, but I'm pulling it up.

And the minimum height on D 4, the D 4 that we recommended to the council?

There's no minimum height in the D 4 zone.

Great, thank you.

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

So 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. It's just kind of the sequence of how thing of how it works.

K. So, Wayne, do we have a an idea of when those streets will come to fruition?

Yeah. We are in the design phase now. 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, utility infrastructure that's that's in place. We are working with the city in developing long term maintenance agreements. As far as the exact construction date, that I'm I don't know yet.

We're also gonna be working with USA Climbing on their construction schedule because we don't wanna get we basically don't wanna step on each other. And I would anticipate that as USA Climbing begins construction, we'll then work with them on the utility portion, and then the actual street construction will come at a later date. But we are gonna begin plotting here, we hope, within the next four 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.

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

I think, now that we're into this back and forth, if we want to just do clarifying questions, then we'll let them go. And then we'll get into the jump. Thank you. Any other clarifying questions? Okay. 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. One thing that needs to be understood, and I think it's 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 right of ways,

which includes Street State your name as well.

Brent Tippets. Thanks. With VCBO Architecture. And so because of that, we're we're kind of leading the pack, if you will, in trying to make this district come about. It it's it's really 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 this is The US Olympic training facility for climbing, and for the climbing team and for the Paralympic 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 facades and the lengths and so forth. The unique nature of what this facility needs to be by its 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

form.

The look 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 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. And also the l shape is very important 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, compete during the day and not be able to be shut down.

It's it's it's a unique function, and we understand that that requires some, variance in what the current standards are. But we think that this will be a great asset with the plaza with facing the Rio Grande, station with, 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, Green Circle.

Green.

Green what?

Loop. Green Loop.

Green Loop. Sorry.

It's okay.

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.

Before we go into questions, I will open up for a public comment. If there's anyone here who would like to speak on this topic, you can step up to the mic. And if you are from a local community organization or recognized community organization, you have five minutes. Otherwise, you have two 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 wanna just, mention that there is no setback, yard setback. No minimum setback requirements. Does answer your question?

Okay. It's to us now. Yeah. Alright. I think it's ironic that so many of the the formulaic requirements are asked to be waived.

The setbacks, the height, either higher or lower, the blank walls, the exterior, the percentage of glass, horizontal articulation, mid block, all of those are, let's waive those. But I'm enamored with the fact and I'll echo very much what was said that so much more could be built on this site. But to me, what I look at is the give back of what the plaza can do. You know, looking forward to the future where 500 West is a festival Street and the very, very unique nature of what happens in this building. I think that this project has taken it to a different level.

I think that it hasn't satisfied so many of the eight or nine, you know, specific requirements, but it's satisfying the vision for this area very well by the nature of what goes on in the building.

I I have a question. If the minimum height of 75 feet, 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 recognizes there will be some times where there might be something that's better at 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 carve out of downtown?

It's its own. Or do they overlap? They

have separate boundaries. So 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. Does any Okay. Are there any residences? Sorry. Oh my gosh. I gotta think faster. 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 within 300 feet of the project. Okay.

Okay. I have tons more stuff to say, but I'll wait. Why? Okay.

I'm going go ahead

and say

Here's the thing. So we're talking about you 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 mid block walkway. So you can't impose requirements because there's no street there.

But you can count a street that's not there as a mid block 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, 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 says what does it say? The intent of the rule is incompatible with the specialized recreational facility that requires access control and requires an accommodation on the blank wall rule and the facade length and the horizontal massing and the building entrance frequency.

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 the way that it's presented to us under a d four zone and the d four 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 d four if it changes? Would they have to start over their process if they wanted to use d four rules?

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

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 exemptions. And so that's what

we

did. And so now we're faced with that. So I know the timing is definitely unusual 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 to the legal avenues to acquire it, 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 mid block walks. It's like we're sorry, go ahead.

No. We're saying that we're actually part of the one: request is an exemption from that. Right? Because that's

Because we're

the

saying

we don't need visual

walkways because there will be streets instead, is kind of like the way that

But the

report

then on the facade length, etcetera, we're assuming that the streets aren't there. But for the mid block walk exceptions, we're assuming that they are there. It seems like there's an inconsistency.

So part of the issue is those mid block walkway like I said, that mid block walkway map was based on a prior development plan. So those mid block walkways in the current downtown plan do not align with property lines, buildings. The 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, 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.

And I'll also add that not to get defensive, because that's not my intent. But yes, technically, we did not we can't review those streets or those facades as street facing facades. But staff really did work with the applicant to try and activate those facades as best we could. So it's not like we completely ignored them. 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 facades at a better product.

Yeah. So I you know, just to build on this, I do think in some ways it it is I mean, I don't think that I specifically or we should be intractable on a lot of the exceptions that are being asked for. Part of the reason any applicant asks for exceptions is because they're saying 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 acceptable and do present a better project for what they're planning to do here.

I think my real concern is not being able to do a full design review on Market Street and Woodland Court. Even though, you know, Chrissy indicated that, you know, they paid 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 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 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 it does yield a better project and I'm I'm not having any consternation about approving a lot of those exceptions.

But I do think that not being able to do a full design review given the plans of these future streets which then present the the whole vibrancy of this this district, that's where I'm kind of still stuck on not being able to fully do that. And, you know, the building facade length has always been a big issue for me. I can appreciate and understand the reluctance or perhaps inability to do articulation given the use of the building. But I do think that there are treatments that can be affected visually on the exterior of these building facade links that are that are terribly long. And I think the the two frontages that we are able to do a design review, those building facade links 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 am I interacting with this? Which is the whole point of it. And so are we going to have that same treatment or that same feel on Market Street and Woodbine Court?

But I don't know. Right? So how will we effectively mitigate the those building facade lengths? I don't I think they can be mitigated, but we're not really able to evaluate them based on the standards. And so I don't know if that then means, 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.

Right. So

Or evaluation.

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 as a planning commission because of this timing. And that's that's where I'm at.

So so I just do wanna point out, excuse me, along 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. Along the Woodbine side, we are buffered by the Art Alley, which is 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're we've intentionally left the space for the Art Alley to work with. 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 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 and those staff report go over. 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

to Page 32.

I don't think it's page 12.

Page 12.

Where it has I think it's page 12 of 89. It has the south elevation, west elevation. Mhmm. They were just showing the south elevation a moment ago.

Yeah. I I wanted the architectural drawing part.

These these guys?

No. Yeah.

She's bringing it up. Yeah.

So that it just went away.

Need to

go the other side. Let me just I'm

looking forward.

I just