Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge?

Bookmark list

  • Start Position
  • CALL TO ORDER/INVOCATION/INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHT/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE   Chair Chris Bramwell started the meeting at00pm. Commissioner Nathan Steele led the invocation and pledge of allegiance.  
  • PUBLIC COMMENTS PC    Resident Daria Evans wanted to know if she could make a comment on the work session.   Chair Bramwell suggested planning on having comments during the work session.  
  • CONSENT ITEMS  1.      Approval of the Octoberd,24 Planning Commission Draft Minutes                2.      Approval of the Octoberth,24 Planning Commission Draft Minutes
  • Motion: VICE-CHAIR BRYCE BRADY MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AT02PM. COMMISSIONER NATALIE HARBIN SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR:  BRAMWELL, BRADY, STEELE, OSTLER, AND HARBIN. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS.   Senior Planner Cache Hancey discussed how many we could have sitting as commissioners. The sitting members were clarified: Chair Bramwell, Vice-Chair Brady and Commissioners Nathan Steele, Graden Ostler, and Natalie Harbin.  
  • BUSINESS ITEMS   3.
  • Minor Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit - Burger King -4 N Mill Road   Planner Rachel Stevens presented the minor site plan amendment for Burger King. She included the existing conditions and the previously improved site plan. She also presented the proposed site plan and described the change for a double drive entrance. Planner Stevens presented the elevations and landscaping.
  • Planner Stevens provided recommended approval with the included conditions: the applicant shall install a minimum ofbicycle racks to meet the requirements as indicated in Vineyard Zoning Code.38.030.2(b)(ii) – Bicycle Rack General Requirement, all ADA ramps are a maximum of33%, the applicant receives a land disturbance permit, a drive-thru queuing analysis is approved by the City Engineer, one parking stall is designated as a “park and wait” stall, the applicant pays any outstanding fees and makes any redline corrections as may come up during the Planning Commission meeting, and the applicant is subject to all federal, state, and local laws.
  • Chair Bramwell asked for clarification.   Planner Stevens described the park and wait stall.
  • Commissioner Steele asked about the recommendation and clarified that it was not on the proposed site plan.   Planner Stevens said yes, it would be a condition of approval.
  • Commissioner Harbin asked where were they proposing to put the stall.   Planner Stevens provided the location on the Site Plan.
  • Commissioner Steele asked if they still satisfy the parking requirements with the park and wait.   Planner Stevens asked for Senior Planner Hancey’s response.   Senior Planner Hancey said yes. He added that it is also a conditional use permit.   There were no public comments.
  • Motion: VICE-CHAIR BRADY MOVED TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS AS LISTED AT08PM. COMMISSIONER HARBIN SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR VOTED YES: BRAMWELL, BRADY, STEELE, OSTLER, AND HARBIN.  THE VOTE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.    4.
  • Minor Site Plan Amendment - Wendy's5 S Geneva Road   Senior Planner Hancey presented the Wendy’s Site Plan and some background for landscaping. He discussed the request and included a water line that impedes tree requirements. He discussed this conversation.
  • Senior Planner Hancey noted that staff recommends approval of the minor site plan amendment with the following conditions: all fees are paid and redline corrections are made prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, and, determined by the city engineer, any tree that is located too close to the water line must be moved.   Vice-Chair Brady asked if there is a way of specifying larger plants instead of trees.
  • Public Works Director and City Engineer Naseem Ghandour noted the public works concern is deep roots. He noted that shrubbery without the deep roots it should be fine.   Senior Planner Hancey noted we could figure out wording of a condition.   Director Ghandour suggested language.
  • Community Development Director Morgan Brim vocalized a preference for trees and that the applicant could work with the public works director.   Vice-Chair Brady agreed that trees should be included as much as possible.   Discussion about the water line ensued.
  • Chair Bramwell asked if it was a water main or service for the development.   Staff Engineer Patrick James said it services the development.   Chair Bramwell asked if this will be an issue for all of the properties along Geneva.   Engineer James said that the waterline runs up to the Northern line of the property   Senior Planner Hancey provided a map for visual aid.   Chair Bramwell noted that the northern section will have the same issue.
  • Senior Planner Hancey acknowledged conversation about the landscaping with the applicant.
  • Commissioner Steele commented that this is an issue is because they are trying to open soon. He asked if we expect the landscaping to be installed before the Certificate of Occupancy with the winter weather.   Senior Planner Hancey described the bonding process.   The item was opened to public comments.
  • The applicant representing Dominion Engineering noted the reason behind this. He noted that Steve Pruitt could add one or two more trees in the back to meet the requirements.   Senior Planner Hancey added language for a condition to still require the six (6) trees but that they could be deeper in the development if needed based on the city engineer.   Vice-Chair Brady noted that he would still want six (6) of something in the front.   Senior Planner Hancey provided a language suggestion.
  • Motion: VICE-CHAIR BRADY MOTIONED TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONDITIONS PRESENTED AS WELL AS THE CONDITION DISCUSSED OF WORKING WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FOR PLACEMENT OF TREES AT20PM. COMMISSIONER STEELE SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR: BRAMWELL, BRADY, STEELE, OSTLER, AND HARBIN.  THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS.                             
  • WORK SESSION  5.      Zoning Code Overhaul - Building Design and Site Standards
  • Senior Planner Hancey provided a background and discussed the process.
  • Planner Stevens presented the site planning and building design requirements. She included the purpose of the proposed changes: create standards that are quantitative and remove subjective language.   Planner Stevens introduced changes for the design standards. These changes included keep language for design standards which are required and use the verb “shall”, and remove language defining “design guidelines” which use the verb should.
  • Planner Stevens addressed the Subdivision: Project Features section. The change would require at least two subdivision and project features. a list of features provided included, but is not limited to: project entry features, public art pieces, streetscape designs, pedestrian and biking facilities and trails. She noted in the presentation that project features are approved by the Planning Commission. Another change highlighted for this section was to remove language for “View protection and building massing” which are addressed later in the text.
  • Planner Stevens moved to present the Coherent Building Design changes which included: requirements shall apply to facades facing a street, rather than all facades; horizontal façade variation required on building greater than0’ through pop outs, surface pattern, etc.; varying roofline is required at every’; all buildings shall have at least one recess/ projection and every0’; and all building should have at least two architectural details.
  • Vice-Chair Brady asked why we are getting rid of all sides and just doing sides facing the street.   Planner Stevens noted the original intent to reduce the burden on developers. She asked about language and preference.   Commissioner Steele noted that he felt it was important to have a standard for all sides but that you should also be able to call out where the front is.   Director Brim referenced Draper’s code.   Discussion ensued.
  • Planner Stevens introduced the proposed change to the Building Additions and Accessory Buildings and Structures: defines a minor site plan amendment as any addition or accessory structure that is less than% or less than500 square feet. She included another proposed change to have a different standard including that minor site plans for Multi-family and Mixed-Use accessory structures are defined as less than% or less than500 square feet.
  • Commissioner Steele asked about the completion process of a minor site plan amendment.    Planner Sevens noted that it goes to the planning commission and outlines the major changes.
  • Planner Stevens presented Mechanical Equipment, Building Location, and Pedestrian Scale. The proposed changes highlighted included mechanical equipment shall be the same color as the building, provides a list of requirements for one main building entrance- each building must have(prominent feature, differing materials/ color, pedestrian amenities, or increased landscaping), and buildings greater than’ in height shall be built at a pedestrian scale and use at leastdesign element in the base.
  • Planner Stevens included the Building Materials, Color, and Finishes section. The proposed changes were: all building shall be at least% primary material, added additional approved primary materials and secondary materials, color elevations shall be required, remove language stating that all buildings should be “subdued earth tones and muted colors”, accent colors shall be less than, and bright, glossy, and fluorescent colors are prohibited.   Commissioner Steele appreciated removing the muted colors.
  • Planner Stevens reviewed the Subdivision and Site Design layout, and Site Access proposed changes: add language that pad buildings shall be designed in a compatible architectural style and constructed with similar materials, and to add language that drive-thru aisles shall follow Section.34.190 (Drive Aisles).
  • Commissioner Steele asked if the section for Drive-thru aisles was discussed in the last work session on the Zoning Code Text Amendment.   Planner Stevens confirmed.
  • Planner Stevens included the proposed changes to the section of Views and Landscaping Design Standards: a view corridor analysis may be required by the City Planner, remove language concerning landscape buffers, add language that all landscape developments shall include a landscape accessory, and add language that all site plans shall follow Landscaping Design Standards in Section.40.080.   Commissioner Steele asked if there needs to be more direction to the first suggested change.   Discussion ensued.
  • Vice-Chair Brady asked if there was a reason we are getting rid of the language for the landscape buffers.   Planner Stevens responded in saying it conflicted with the landscaping design standards and to reference it to where it goes into depth.
  • Director Brim noted that they took some good notes.   Commissioner Steele asked about landscape accessories. He noted that he thinks all developments seemed all encompassing. He requested to understand the intent.   Planner Stevens noted that all developments were intended. She asked if we wanted to reduce that.   Director Brim asked if it was for new development.    Discussion about language ensued.
  • Chair Bramwell opened up for public comments.
  • Ms. Evans
  • expressed that she was sad to see a section go. She noted that she wanted Vineyard to have character. She also expressed agreement to Commissioner Steele’s about the view corridor analysis.
  • Chair Bramwell asked Ms. Evans what the fair balance was between the views and new development.   Ms. Evans said she did not only want to see the top. She pointed out that on the trail, people can only see the condos. She noted that she wanted Vineyard to stay beautiful.
  • Senior Planner Hancey reminded that this does not apply to the Special Purpose Zoning Districts.   Ms. Evans stressed this for the rest of Vineyard as well.   Chair Bramwell asked if this would apply to the Geneva Road Development.
  • Senior Planner Hancey noted that the code said to revert to the main zoning code. We could put clear reference in.   Chair Bramwell called out the major areas of new development: East/ West side of the tracks where this will not apply.   Ms. Evans asked if it would apply to the Forge.   Senior Planner Hancey responded in saying no.    Director Brim highlighted the areas that it will apply.
  • Director Brim gave a background to the district regulations.   Senior Planner Hancey pulled up zoning districts map.
  • Commissioner Steele noted that Ms. Evans brought up good points he agreed with. He noted that you need emotional language to understand the spirit that the law is written. He added that the most appropriate spot for this is in the purpose section. He encouraged to have language that embraces the agricultural and rural history of Vineyard and different type of architectural styles.   Director Brim noted that we need to be object and that we do need standards.   Discussion ensued.   There were no more comments.    
  • STAFF, COMMISSION, AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
  • Commissioner Steele requested for the presentations to be incorporated into the agenda for reference. He stressed this for transparency and preparedness.   Director Brim discussed timelines.
  • Vice-Chair Brady noticed that Amber Rasmussen retired and thanked her for her public service.
  • Senior Planner Hancey provided an update and information on providing the commissioners with emails.   Commissioner Steele asked if it was Microsoft based.   Senior Planner Hancey said it is outlook.   Chair Bramwell asked if he had sent that email out.   Senior Planner Hancey said he has not yet.    
  • ADJOURNMENT   The meeting was adjourned at55pm.   MINUTES CERTIFIED COMPLETE ON: Decemberth,24     CERTIFIED (NOTICED) BY:                                                 Madison Reed, Planning Technician
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Unable to preview the file. Make sure you have Adobe Reader installed
Unable to preview the file.

Transcript

Event transcript
Uh, alright, we're gonna go ahead and open our uh, Planning Commission meeting today, November 6th, 2024 at 6:00 PM. Uh, we're 00:00:01
gonna start with uh, Pledge of Allegiance and opening prayer from Commissioner Steele. 00:00:11
Uh, the questions that we'll have to in this country and look at. 00:00:30
Just take her something that's not because that's what you have a but what we're talking about discussion tonight if we took a 00:00:35
couple of minutes. 00:00:38
And, umm. 00:00:47
I believe in the five of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, 00:00:52
with liberty and justice for all. 00:00:58
All right, we're gonna open the public comment portion of our meeting, so if anybody has any public comments, please come to the 00:01:10
stand and state your full name and you'll have, uh, 3 minutes to make any comments you'd like. 00:01:17
Alright, thank you. 00:01:32
Umm, I mean well I would plan on having comments during that, so if you wanna hold them. 00:01:36
All right. 00:01:45
Any other comments? 00:01:49
Alright, we'll go ahead and close the public comments. Uh, move on to consent items 3.1 and 3.2. I move to approve item, consent 00:01:51
item 3.1. Real quick, can we just clarify? I know Graydon and Brad are both up there as alternate. Umm, I think we only have 5 00:01:59
sitting people on the Commission just for the vote. Umm, just one of them can't vote. So we just need to clarify that. 00:02:08
There's one of you that as far as not OK, so upgrading will be the the city member then. That's right. Chris, Nathan, Natalie and 00:02:17
Graydon. Thank you for putting that in. 00:02:22
OK, all right. Once again I moved to approve the consent items 3.1 and 3.2. Is there a second? 00:02:28
All in favor, aye aye. 00:02:36
Unanimous. Uh, we'll now move on to business Item 4.3, the minor site sign amendment and conditional use permit for Burger King. 00:02:39
OK, Uh, we will actually have the privilege from hearing from Rachel Stevens. She's our, uh, remote planner. So she's taking on 00:02:45
this site plan. So she will be handling this presentation and I'll try to make it to my laptop or my, my can pick up the speaker 00:02:51
here. 00:02:57
OK, umm, let me know when I can get done. I think you're good right now. 00:03:06
OK, so Burger King. 00:03:12
Umm, there's a man for my respective amendment. 00:03:16
This is the existing condition. 00:03:20
This is a previously approved site plan. It was approved in 2019 for a single track aisle and a 3500 square foot building. Here's 00:03:25
the proposed site plan. A building is about 3200 square feet and they changed the design to have a double drive entrance to help 00:03:33
with congestion. 00:03:42
And. 00:03:52
There are the proposed elevations. 00:03:55
They're a little bit different than the rest of the yard, but you think it looks nice and and we saw the ordinances in the zoning 00:03:59
code. 00:04:04
Is the proposed landscaping. So even with expanding the drive Isle, things still have enough landscaping to meet the requirements. 00:04:10
And staff does recommend approval with the following conditions to install a minimum of three backpacks. Make sure that all ADA 00:04:23
stamps are maximum of 8.33% that they receive the Land of Service permit that attracts their community analysis of approved by the 00:04:30
city engineer. 00:04:38
And that one parking still is designated as a parking rate still so. 00:04:47
That last condition, they actually returned the training analysis today, so it wasn't able to be part of the packet, but the 00:04:53
queuing analysis did recommend having a parking list. 00:04:59
Are there any questions? 00:05:10
I think you said what it recommended What in the analysis? I didn't hear that part. 00:05:13
Umm a person wait stall so if the drive thru gets backed up they would have the Tarpon board and park to wait until their food can 00:05:19
be brought out. 00:05:25
Umm, as you mentioned that Chipotle has one. 00:05:33
Now to confirm, the parking wait stall was recommended from the report that was submitted today. So it's not on the proposed site 00:05:39
plan we're seeing tonight, correct? Right. So it would be a condition of approval. Thank you. Where is the person? 00:05:48
Where were they supposed to put the stall? The parking rate stall? Like in the parking lot around the side of the building? Like 00:06:00
if you complete the drive through on the far right side? 00:06:06
You guys see my mouth? 00:06:12
Yes, OK. So right where right now? OK, thank you. 00:06:14
I believe that accent is there too if you have any questions for them. So with the installation of that install there that removes 00:06:23
a parking spot, with that removed, do they still satisfy the city's parking requirements? 00:06:31
I think they they have 33 provided and so that's something our code doesn't address. 00:06:42
Their, umm, cash. Maybe you could check in on this. There are other instances where parking stalls are dedicated. It doesn't work. 00:06:52
Yeah. So I have no problem with there being a parking wait stall. I I just wanted to make sure. OK, stop our code. What's the 00:06:58
minimum number required? Do they are they above and beyond it? 00:07:04
OK. That's all I wanted to know. Thank you. 00:07:11
OK. 00:07:13
Any other questions right now? 00:07:18
Right. So we've got a public comment on that. 00:07:20
I always am open for comma. 00:07:26
But it is also conditional use permit application because of the drive through. Are there any comments on this item? 00:07:32
Close public comment then. 00:07:40
OK. 00:07:43
I have no issues. 00:07:46
We have a motion to move to approve the minor Site Plan amendment and conditional use permit with following conditions that the 00:07:50
applicant shall well as listed. Umm the conditions as listed. 00:07:56
Is there a second? 00:08:04
2nd, is this a roll call or just aye, All in favor, Aye, aye aye. Unanimous. We'll move to item 4.4 minor site plan amendment for 00:08:05
Wendy's. OK, I will be taking over. Rachel will be joining us back here shortly though. Umm, so yeah, a few months ago we had the, 00:08:13
the windy site plan come through for approval, umm, in, in the Planning Commission meeting. Umm, and one of the conditions of 00:08:20
approval for that. 00:08:28
A year go all the way to the north and be uniform on on all of their lots umm, but because they're delayed on the lots on north 00:09:05
it's causing a delay on this landscaping getting umm installed and and approved and and the Wendy's is is looking to open up later 00:09:12
this month umm and so they requested this uh amendment here that does include the the landscaping now uh right here umm a few 00:09:18
things to note so our. 00:09:25
I do apologize the the one that got uploaded here. 00:09:32
Umm with the uh, a packet actually just kind of shows you that that entire umm site they were wanting to do umm, and that's kind 00:09:36
of on hold now. And the landscaping here did get tweaked a little bit to what I'm showing you now. Umm, and a few things to note 00:09:43
that there is a, a water line that goes along this right here, which does prevent the, the planting of umm, deep rooted 00:09:51
vegetation. Umm, which means trees are hard to plant right there. Umm, but our code does require. 00:09:58
You planted along St. cartridges. Umm, and so we worked with a developer and just told them because of that, the, the water line 00:10:06
there, that they could move those trees elsewhere in their site. Or if that's not possible, umm, then they can replace those trees 00:10:12
with just like the similar, uh, plantings that they have, whether that's shrubs or grasses. Umm, and they, they do believe that 00:10:17
they can get some trees in that area. I think our, our standard, our city standard is, umm, that trees have to be 10 feet away 00:10:23
from a water line. 00:10:29
There might have been some confusion exactly to where that water line sits in that strip. Umm, so they thought they could get some 00:10:36
trees in there. Umm, and so you'll see on the staff report, I can open that back up. Umm, we just have a condition here that all 00:10:41
fees are paid in redline, corrections are made and that determined by the city engineer. Any tree that is located too close to the 00:10:46
waterline must be moved. So we just wanna make sure that, that we're not gonna kind of, uh, hurt our infrastructure there with any 00:10:51
kind of trees. 00:10:57
Quick question, uh, do we have some way if they can't do the trees, some way of specifying like some kind of larger plants, not 00:11:03
necessarily trees, but larger bushes that are taller or bigger? Mm-hmm. 00:11:09
Umm. So, uh, again, uh, our concern. 00:11:17
Engineering specifically our concern is with anything with deep roots on there. So I'm sure the amount, again, I'm on our with, 00:11:22
uh, pretend to be one, but, uh, I'm sure that there, uh, there may be some strawberry, like some larger strawberry that don't 00:11:28
have, uh, a decreased structure and, uh, something like that can be, uh, found and, umm, agreed upon to, uh, align with our, uh, 00:11:34
our three manual for, uh, landscaping and so forth. Then I'm sure we'll be, we, we would be open to that. OK. Uh, so we would, uh, 00:11:40
set that. 00:11:46
Be proposed, uh, we would work with, uh, George Trent, who is our worst and, uh, resident expert to make sure that's on behalf of 00:11:52
us. Yeah, that's, that's something I would want. Yeah. We, we could figure out some wording of a condition approval that does say 00:11:58
that they provide I. And that's what I don't know, kind of language, just a larger, you know, but I, I, I don't want it to have 00:12:04
any kind of nuance to it. Yeah. 00:12:10
What? What do you think? I'm not moving? 00:12:17
Uh, so I would think that that, let me keep a language on there that, uh, three or otherwise large, uh, large, uh, sharp 00:12:21
vegetation as, uh, as approved by, uh, public works, uh, arborist on that. I mean, uh, I think that's, uh, what that works for 00:12:27
manufacturers. Let's go ahead, Morgan. Yeah, I, I would, umm, I, I would say our preference is, is gonna be the, the trees, though 00:12:33
we do want some uniformity along that corridor. And so, umm, I get that there's a water line. So maybe that it should be that they 00:12:38
analyze. 00:12:44
Right. They provide that to the, the umm, the public works director, umm, and then, umm, the public works director can, can 00:12:50
approve, umm, whether or not we, we, we, we reduced trade. But I, I don't necessarily wanna like let someone off the hook of 00:12:56
having some uniformity in the landscaping. Yeah, yeah, I agree. And even if there's a like one spot that a tree would fit, I'd 00:13:01
still rather have at least one tree, even if it's not like uniform the whole way through, like anywhere. We can put it here. I 00:13:07
think we should put it and. 00:13:13
What was the depth there catch that you have on that landscaping buffer? Let me pull that up here. If it's 10 feet, then there 00:13:20
probably is an area. The the issue is this shows the water line in one location, but we have a map that shows it in a different 00:13:26
location. And so there's some confusion exactly how partly that water line is because if it is where it's at on this one, it's not 00:13:32
as big of an issue. It's where if it's where we think it is, it could potentially be an issue. So the condition could be that they 00:13:38
umm, that that they survey in. 00:13:43
Saving plan umm, with the intent of keeping the trees and then, you know, we take one or two out if we need to. 00:14:20
Is this a water main or is this a line they put in this part of the development? It's a kind of servicing the development. 00:14:28
And then is this gonna be something that comes up for all the properties along Geneva? There is that lane main just running that 00:14:37
whole length of all the site development. That water line is basically runs up to the northern part of that property and then 00:14:43
heads West towards Edgewater Apartments. 00:14:49
So it. 00:14:57
Yeah, like it go, it runs in between those two buildings right there. I mean, are we anticipating that northern portion then is 00:14:59
also gonna have the same issue of no trees? Yeah. 00:15:04
I would just emphasize, uh, what price did as well. Whatever can then, just because of that Geneva and yeah and, and when we get 00:15:11
back to this, I'm, I'm assuming that they're gonna be committing for this more than, uh, project either some time soon. Umm, and 00:15:17
they, they have indicated that they're willing to, to move the trees if, if they can't find them along, can you move them 00:15:22
elsewhere in the site as long as they can fit. Umm, so you know that that might be some room back here that they could potentially 00:15:28
towards the, the West of this building. 00:15:34
They could put some trees, umm. 00:15:40
But yeah, and this is all not an accurate site plan anymore. They might be shifting, you know, these building footprints, but. 00:15:43
OK. Any other questions or comments from commissioners something? 00:15:53
And then provide us with that check with that value. Umm, and then once they go and install that landscaping, we can clear that 00:16:28
bond and give it back to them. Umm, and it does. Yeah. But this, this will just hopefully help, uh, Wendy to be able to open up 00:16:33
sooner and get this area landscapes and, and look nicer sooner. 00:16:39
We'll open it up for any public comments any. 00:16:48
Partly insurance, we did the last year plans. 00:16:57
The whole reason behind this is because. 00:17:02
This is developer, we can see the price and we were doing all of the fact we have got all the plans back. We're just trying to get 00:17:06
so that we can have the run so that we can open it so. 00:17:12
We can do what we can see. It would increase. That is also umm, through it. 00:17:19
Indicated that you know, if there's one or two, you can't go in the front, you'll put it in the bathroom, bring his his part of 00:17:25
the landscape. He's got more room than than we do in the final time. 00:17:31
If that's OK with you. 00:17:39
Thank you. So we could right now it does show 6 trees and I believe that was what the code did require. Umm, we could say that 00:17:41
the, the condition is that they will umm install 66 trees along the road if possible with the condition that that the city 00:17:47
engineer I think more interested in something but they could move those further into their site if if determined necessary by the 00:17:53
city engineer. I I would still want 6. 00:18:00
Some things in the front if it can't be trees, something large or if it's a smaller tree with roots that aren't as deep. 00:18:06
Excellent. 6 along the frontage. OK, so this this is a condition that Morgan distracted up. I can read it. The developer will 00:18:11
survey the water line and provide a proposed landscaping plan for approval by the public works director with the intent on 00:18:16
preserving the number of trees being proposed. 00:18:22
It's due to the location and conflicts with water lines. The public works director may work with the developer on finding a 00:18:27
smaller tree type or relocating the trees to another location on site. 00:18:33
Umm, can we add in there somewhere about? 00:18:40
If and if the trees are relocated that a larger planting needs to be installed in its place. 00:18:44
Let's see something. Yeah, something that. 00:18:56
I prefer to submit our building height limit of 35 days. 00:19:00
There are bamboo. I was gonna say they are very tall. Uh. 00:19:06
Yeah. 00:19:14
But any other comments, questions? 00:19:17
Is there a motion? 00:19:21
Sure, I'll make this motion, uh, I move to approve, uh, the minor site plan application as presented with the, umm, conditions. 00:19:25
Shown uh as well as the condition we discussed umm, of working with the public Works director on segment of trees. 00:19:35
Is there a second? 00:19:45
One second, all in favor. Aye aye. All right, we'll move to uh, Part 5, work session for Zone Code Overhaul. 00:19:47
This is gonna be, uh, Rachel here again. 00:20:00
OK. 00:20:04
So just real quick, this is, uh, a continuation of our conversation we had last week where we were, uh, one of them, umm, uh, of 00:20:07
the zoning code overhaul that we're working on. This is just another section that, that Rachel's kind of been overseeing. And so 00:20:14
we're just looking for your, uh, feedback and comments on this section. Umm, it, it shouldn't relate to anything we talked about a 00:20:20
few weeks ago, though in terms we're still working on kind of drafting those changes that you requested. 00:20:27
Rachel without I'll send the time over to you. OK, so this is for site setting and building design requirements. So the purpose of 00:20:35
the proposed changes in this section is to create standards that are quantitative and remove subjective language and and that's 00:20:43
just so it makes it easier to enforce, easier to. 00:20:51
Define whether or not they need the code. 00:21:00
And also something to keep in mind, a lot of this section is. 00:21:04
Looking at a high level of project site planning, so not a small site plan like Burger King. There are a couple things that will 00:21:08
apply to those building design requirements and this only applies to zones that are not in a special purpose district. 00:21:17
Umm, here's the summary. I just copied and pasted this from the from the staff report that you all received, so I'm gonna move on 00:21:29
to get into the details. 00:21:36
So. 00:21:44
First off is to keep the language definition for design standards which uses the verb shell, and remove language to sign into 00:21:47
science guidelines which uses the verb should because it's hard to enforce something to say sure. 00:21:56
Subdivision project features. 00:22:10
Uh, the change we are proposing is to require at least two subdivisions and project features in each project. 00:22:15
The features are when are includes, but not limited to project entry features, public art pieces, streetscape designs, pedestrian 00:22:25
biking facilities, trails and anything else that can be approved by the Planning Commission. 00:22:32
Umm and then in this section. 00:22:41
Causing to remove language for view protection and building acting, but those are addressed later in the same text. 00:22:45
And coherent building design. 00:22:58
Some changes we're making proposing. 00:23:01
Are that requirements shall apply to that basis St. rather than all four facades. 00:23:05
And then? 00:23:13
Facade variation shall be required on buildings greater than 100 feet in length to pass out surface patterns or other things 00:23:16
within the code, and they're in Group. Sign is required at least every 15 feet. 00:23:25
Through. 00:23:35
Pack out staples and there were different materials and all buildings, so have at least one reset for projection and have more 00:23:37
every 100 feet and all the links you'll have at least two architectural details so. 00:23:48
Umm, the details including like. 00:24:01
Sign entryways, different material, artwork, things like that. Good question. Is there a reason we're changing it to just any 00:24:05
questions so far? Yeah, Bryce is asking one right now. Uh yeah. Just quick question, uh. 00:24:13
In that coherent building design, uh, it says why are we getting rid of the all sides? And now it's just sides facing the street. 00:24:23
No reason. 00:24:26
Uh, I'm just, I'm just thinking of different projects that are going on, uh, like in the downtown area where they're finishing all 00:24:32
the sites because people are intended to walk and see all the sides is there. 00:24:38
Yeah. I'm just curious, if we're trying to be more walkable, why not finish? Why not require the finishing of all four sides? 00:24:45
OK umm. I believe the original intent behind that was to reduce the burden. 00:24:54
Umm, reduce the burden on developers because we were increasing the standards required. 00:25:03
And so we just wanted to do it facing straight. Would you, umm, how do you feel about language thing facing a stream? 00:25:10
Side rock or would you rather just keep all sides? 00:25:20
I, I, I think it's important to have standards for all sides of the building. I don't know if every single side needs to have the 00:25:25
same standard because it's important to call out what the front is. But as it's worded right now means that the side of the 00:25:32
building could be all of link wall. I want to have some different materials. I want to have windows, I want to have some things 00:25:39
that create some kind of interesting aspect, whether it's residential or commercial, frankly. 00:25:47
Yeah, I agree. Yeah. 00:25:55
Rather than workshop it right now. 00:25:58
Can just go back and write some ideas down. There's a pretty good code too where it goes to make 100%, like 70 or 50% depending on 00:26:02
the price. So it's still still pull then and I've seen some with minimum standards that there needs to be at least a window. 00:26:09
Some things work with rather than just the problem, especially, uh, it's not streetscape to walkways and stuff like that, 00:26:19
especially in areas like that. If there's a different standard between that and between to like manufacturing buildings or 00:26:24
something, I can see. 00:26:29
That that I worked in one community that the code went even further. Instead of saying the sides of the building that faces the 00:26:35
street, it says any side of the building that is visible from a right of way. Umm. And in some buildings, that's every site. And I 00:26:42
think I'm OK with that. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. 00:26:49
That's the only question I have right now. 00:27:00
I'm taking notes. Umm. 00:27:03
Rachel, Rachel, we, we can take notes for you, too. So you, you keep on, Yeah. 00:27:11
OK. 00:27:16
Umm, building additions and accessory buildings and structures. So a change we're proposing is to define a minor site plan and 00:27:18
amendment as any addition to building or any accessory structure that is less than 15% of the total square footage or less than 00:27:25
7500 square feet. And then. 00:27:33
Have a slightly different standard for multi family for mixed-use. 00:27:42
Minor State Center members as 10%. 00:27:47
Or 7500 square feet. And uh, just for frame of reference, the megaplex is about 7500 square feet. 00:27:51
For our own educational benefit, a minor SAT site plan amendment is completed administratively with just staff, correct? Or does 00:28:05
that also come before the Planning Commission? That comes to the Planning Commission. The biggest difference is price and how how 00:28:11
much paperwork the applicant has to submit. I think it doesn't it Rachel drop it to 500. So it's a pretty big fee for that first 00:28:18
one and that they meant it. I think it's 500. 00:28:25
That that Burger King from tonight was a minor amendment. Yeah, both that. 00:28:33
OK. Mechanical equipment building location. So we're proposing that chemical equipment shall be the same color as the building 00:28:49
and. 00:28:55
And provide a list of requirements. 00:29:04
We provided a list of requirements for one the main building entrance. 00:29:07
And and say that it must have at least three of those features, such as different materials, pedestrian memories, or increasing 00:29:15
landscape. And that building is greater than 20 feet in height shall be built at a pedestrian scale in the base. And there's at 00:29:22
least one divine element in the base which is a different material. 00:29:30
Or flash, windows plus stores, stuff like that. There's a bunch of them listed in the cup. 00:29:38
Uh, the building materials color and finishes, some of the changes we're proposing is that all buildings shall be at least 60% 00:29:50
primary material and we added additional materials that can be so they don't have to request approval for primary and secondary 00:29:58
materials. 00:30:06
And. 00:30:15
That color elevation that requires and we removed language stating that all buildings should be subdued earth tones in this color 00:30:16
accent colors shall be less than 5% and instead of saying bright blasting fluorescent colors are discouraged, they said they 00:30:23
should be prohibited. 00:30:31
Umm, thank you for removing the language that says we have to use the editors ton. 00:30:43
I like having character and when everything is the same, 50 Shades of beige. Sometimes that can be a little discouraging. So thank 00:30:49
you for fixing that. I'm gonna miss the early 2000. 00:30:54
Still has a lot of that fluorescent colors might come into style. So I let the market, yeah. It reminds me of like lot Las Vegas 00:31:01
with master development. Yeah. 00:31:06
So I just thank you for catching that and removing it it's good for umm adjust with what the needs of today are. 00:31:14
Is there something else? I think you're good. 00:31:24
Subdivision and site design and layout and site access. So we are proposing to add language that town building should be designed 00:31:29
in a compatible architectural style and constructing similar materials to create a cohesive development and a language that drives 00:31:37
their eyes shall follow that section that is for drugs around. 00:31:45
And views and ranches by standards. Before we move on, I'm so sorry, Rachel. Umm. 00:31:57
Where #12 where it says drive through Wilshere follow the provisions in Section 1530 four 190. Is that the section that we 00:32:05
discussed at our last workshop? 00:32:10
OK. OK. Discussed that last time. OK, thanks. 00:32:16
The, uh, added language that year quarter analysis may be required by the city planners. Umm, we, we removed language concerning 00:32:28
landscape offers. 00:32:34
We added languages that all landed development should include a landscape accessories such as art, benches, lamps. 00:32:42
Or otherwise approved by the Planning Commission and added a sentence that says all site plans shall follow the landscape design 00:32:52
standards. And you guys covered that section last time too. Thank you. I'm just gonna keep interrupting. I'm sorry, umm, I, I 00:32:59
wanna actually get the opinion of everyone else on the, uh, Commission, uh, 14 views, uh, the language that's added just as a view 00:33:07
corridor analysis may be required by. 00:33:14
City Planner, do we feel like we need to provide a little more direction as to why and when? 00:33:22
Knowing that you weren't blocking like a significant part of the city from viewing Mount Baldy, right. And so it could be like 10, 00:34:01
it could be Utah land. Yeah, those those are all listed as specific. But as the language is proposed today, it is purely if the 00:34:10
city planner wishes to do it, wishes to require it or not. And I don't know if this maybe means we need to. 00:34:18
Not necessarily a zone, but a map that identifies. 00:34:27
These are the corridors in the city. If you're proposing anything within these shaded areas, your analysis will be required. I 00:34:31
know that's extra work and I don't wanna ask to do that, I just feel like we might need to. How much does the claim this in a bit 00:34:36
more of a corridor analysis? 00:34:42
Umm, most likely you would be doing a, umm, a sketch of model. So you would like layer in umm, some of the data that you already 00:34:49
had. So you like your survey data data and then, umm, it, it, you know, and you could be some sort of like a masking study. And 00:34:55
that's probably 1:00. We, we would want to find a little bit of definition. So like, are we, umm, is, are we gonna put Keith that 00:35:02
we can require the preservation of a view corridor? Or is it just. 00:35:08
TE tell us what we're gonna lose. 00:35:15
We'll do a little more work on that one. 00:35:46
Yeah, I, I would like to say shut up if you want me to disagree with you. Uh, I, I actually had a question about the landscape 00:35:48
buffers. Umm. 00:35:54
Is there a reason we're getting getting rid of that language like because. 00:36:00
Umm, I'm just curious. 00:36:07
It it conflicted a little bit with the landscaping design standards, so it was easier to just remove it from that section and 00:36:10
reference them to the landscape design standards where it goes into more depth about landscaping properties. OK, OK. 00:36:18
At last I am not hearing anything. 00:36:36
Yeah, yeah, you're good to keep going. 00:36:42
OK. OK. That was it. OK. Any other questions? 00:36:45
OK, well we got some good marching orders and so you give us a meeting or two, we'll, we'll come back with, umm, some more needs. 00:36:57
Cool. Alright, I'm so sorry, uh, on the very last page, umm, item number six says landscape accessories Colon. All development 00:37:05
shall include at least one of the following accessories. Art features benches, pots, lamps, artwork and sculptures. 00:37:13
Or other accessories as approved by the Planning Commission. 00:37:22
All developments seems very all-encompassing. 00:37:27
Was that intentional and as a minor site plan amendment, considered a development within all development? 00:37:33
Is our fire station that we approved, would that fall into the all development and will we require a pot or bench in front of the 00:37:43
fire department? And I, I, I just want to worry about this language. What's the intent here? 00:37:49
Umm yes, the intent was. 00:38:00
To include all developments that all development shedding good ones. That's how I read it. So may I, I, I think what do we wanna 00:38:06
reduce that? Well, I, I think, I mean, if I'm getting your point, umm, you're, you're saying maybe it should be new development, 00:38:13
umm, and not necessarily tagging on requirements for like a, a minor adjustment to, you know, and then maybe get a little bit 00:38:21
clearer like, yeah, the sky plan and above where you're bringing in a new building, then you're providing so. 00:38:28
A fire station. Yeah, that, that probably would be a good spot where you put put a bench or something like that. Yeah. I, I just, 00:38:36
I, I wanna understand better the intent of this one. What a like a single family home as well. If they were doing, if we have a 00:38:42
random single plot, would that qualify when they bring in a site plan for a single family home? So how, how our code is written 00:38:48
right now, isn't that 9 or below does not require a site plan. 00:38:54
Umm, OK then I would put in here the word site plan somewhere instead of development, yeah. 00:39:01
Or or do we wanna say like non because? 00:39:09
Adhere to it. I, I, I think instead of saying we need to require an accessory, there needs to be some kind of public art or 00:39:42
landscape. Umm, there's always a landscape plan that's approved, but some kind of accessory or public art component. Umm, that 00:39:50
makes sense with the scale of the project. And so if I'm putting in a new neighborhood, I don't need to put a mural on the side of 00:39:57
every house, but it helps to have a little pocket park that will have some of these items. 00:40:05
For an entry feature that could have some of these items, if it's a stand alone Burger King that I'm putting in, OK, I can put in 00:40:13
one of these things that's all consistent with the scale of the development. Yeah, I love it. So we yeah, we need to work on some 00:40:17
categories, OK. 00:40:22
Got it. 00:40:30
Mickey Mouse. 00:40:35
No, no. Umm, do we do public comment and work session? Uh, you, you can. Yeah, you can. Alright, well, I see. I just say it for 00:40:38
every item. No, I said I'm very transparent. I don't say work session umm. 00:40:46
Alright, I did. Actually didn't. I'm calling back on my word. Umm, we'll open up a public comment. 00:40:55
I wouldn't have been the chair long if I forgot about you, I imagine. 00:41:11
Thank you for explaining of my symptoms and umm, my sister. 00:41:20
On Y 72, yeah. 00:41:28
I mean, it could be. 00:41:42
July 19th, 2023 I came to the Planning Commission about exact same thing again. 00:41:47
Umm. 00:42:05
OK, 72 under. 00:42:08
Building Building design deadline. 00:42:11
So what's the like title of the section that you're looking at? 00:42:27
0.15.36.030. 00:42:33
OK. 00:42:40
Right there just red button. 00:42:44
Scroll up. Yeah, building is designed right there. OK, then you're. I really like this and I'm sad to see it go. Vineyard City 00:42:47
encourages creative and very architectural forms reflecting its historic rural character. 00:42:55
I don't want that to go. The goal is that all man made structures blend harmoniously with the natural envir environment. The 00:43:04
following design building requirements shall apply. OK, you can leave that last line out. Don't take all the good stuff out. I 00:43:13
know you don't want it to be subjective, but we have to have some subjectiveness in it to show what we. 00:43:22
As in your city want to be, I mean we want to be a blend harmoniously with Utah Lake and the mountains we want. 00:43:31
To be a beautiful city. If we're just being quantitative, we're just gonna be boxers and planters and trees in certain places, you 00:43:38
know? And umm, so that's my part on that. But then are you going down Slide 73? View protection? 00:43:50
Umm. 00:44:03
It's a show and I thought that's the language we want to put in, is the word shell. Care shall be taken to control the proportion 00:44:04
and massing of buildings. So where it is in there, we don't need to red line that. 00:44:11
I think we can keep that in and then I agree with UMM Commissioner Steels of via corridor analysis. It's I think it shall be 00:44:20
required by the city planner with these big projects. I think that is appropriate because we are losing so much even as you go 00:44:28
over on the overpass, the buildings in Utah City, we are we've lost that view. 00:44:37
When we moved into our community, we lost the view in Lakefront. Condoms came in. 00:44:46
And when you're on the late trail, those buildings are coming up, you can't see the mountains like you used to a year and a half 00:44:52
ago. And so I think we really should take good care to keep this appro the appropriate language in and I think some of these red 00:44:59
lines should be green lined. Again. Thank you. 00:45:06
Thank you, Daria. 00:45:17
California. Can I ask you a question on that, Daria? So, so you mentioned umm. 00:45:21
On the trail, the views that you want to see the mountains like, what would you see as? 00:45:27
You know what, what's the fair balance of development and then the obstruction of you, whether some property were on trail systems 00:45:31
well. 00:45:35
I don't want to see the very top. I want to see at least halfway. I mean, right now when you're on the trail, you're on your bike 00:45:41
or you're walking, obviously are those condos? And as it goes along, we're gon we're just losing so much. And when you're over the 00:45:47
overpass, you used to see more of the lake. And now because those buildings are going up and they're gonna go up even taller. We 00:45:54
have unlimited heights now. 00:46:01
That's. 00:46:11
I just want diner to stay beautiful. I I do wanna just remind that this section doesn't apply to areas with a special purpose 00:46:12
zoning district like the downtown. So we've all given apply. They they have their own standards about and they, they do include 00:46:19
stuff as the protections and stuff like that. But this is for projects outside of special purpose zoning. OK, well, for the rest 00:46:25
of vineyards. So let's keep it. 00:46:31
Let's keep it as so. 00:46:37
As natural as we can. 00:46:41
We're just getting a box after box 2 Neighbor Rd. How many, how many burgers and points are we getting up there, you know? 00:46:43
Would this apply to Geneva Rd. development? Another part of special zones? Umm, I, I do believe that their, their code for stuff 00:46:53
like landscaping says to revert to the, the umm, main zoning code. Umm, but we have to look into that more. How some sections 00:47:00
where they go, we could put language in here that maybe says that that's perfect zoning districts that don't have clear design 00:47:08
guidelines need to follow this section or something like that. Yeah, we, we could provide references to. 00:47:15
Yeah, analysis very general. So, so the areas of like major new development that can still happen, you have uh, you're gonna have 00:47:23
the east, West side of the tracks, uh, of the downtown and the UVU area. But this would not apply to that, correct. If it won't 00:47:30
apply to the UVU fields area with aquatic facilities, yeah umm. 00:47:38
That won't it won't. That sounds like it's a Washington. It's not replacing anything. So why would yeah, it it is interesting like 00:47:46
we're we're almost build out on this kind of stuff. 00:47:51
It's just a double key. That's a significant zoning just. 00:47:55
Six FY, the manufacturing district. So there's there's quite a few. I mean, this is kind of geared a lot towards like north of 00:47:58
800. You do have special purpose zoning districts. So just just kinda be like, I guess to to maybe kinda help understand, you 00:48:04
know, Paul says to design that, but then this has taken a portion of the city and so E each of our professional purpose zoning 00:48:09
districts have standards located with within them. Umm, what we're doing tonight is we're working on the ones that that are not 00:48:15
especially district. 00:48:21
Well, if I could, umm. 00:48:28
I, umm, sorry, it brings up a lot of really good points that I agree with, umm, particularly when it comes to what could be seen 00:48:30
seen as lucky language. But sometimes you need that more kind of emotional language talking about the historical character of the 00:48:37
community that blends harmoniously with the natural environment. You kind of need that so that you can understand the spirit that 00:48:44
the law is written in rather than just. 00:48:51
The letter of the law, and I think the most appropriate place for that, is within the purpose section. 00:48:59
Of the code, umm, and so there's a couple items within the purpose that I think there's a lot of new proposed language. I think 00:49:04
some of that can be cleaned up while also incorporating the spirit behind these design standards. And I would strongly encourage 00:49:13
that we have language that embraces the agricultural and rural history of vineyard as well as call out a couple. 00:49:21
Different kinds of architectural styles that are generally accepted and embraced like the agrarian and kind of old railroad type. 00:49:30
Umm. 00:49:33
I think that's the kind of stuff that is appropriate to have in the purpose section. And then as you go forward, it says how do we 00:49:38
measure that you're meeting this purpose? And that's when we go into the measurable. Yeah. And I would say too. So if we do put in 00:49:44
the purpose statement, so I guess my, umm, kind of overall consumers, well, we, we do need to be really objective. The purpose 00:49:49
statement is 100% the place to put it. But in the standards, if we're trying to implement that purpose statement, we do need 00:49:55
standards that. 00:50:01
That would a, a actually do that. So that's, that's something that that, that we should kinda think through. I, I, I agree. I 00:50:07
don't think any of the standards proposed here necessarily flies in the face of any of those purpose items. 00:50:14
And we have done some things I'm umm, Tim, Tim Blackburn, like with, with the yard, umm, he, he, he would always push to have some 00:50:23
sort of heritage El elements put into like the trash cans and like the bench design. He, he always has things that he was, he 00:50:30
would, he would push like the, umm, the Calderon. I mean that, that, that, that was part of like the heritage of the city into the 00:50:38
site somewhere. So I think that's a perfect example because what I say in movie theater and rotating sushi is harmonious. 00:50:45
With the with nature, it's not, but there I, I'm grateful that those are in our community. It makes our community and our economy 00:50:53
stronger. I want those here. But adding things like the cauldron and the little, the historic things they've done with the trash 00:51:01
cans absolutely satisfied this. And so whatever language encourages that, that is what we should do, OK. 00:51:08
Any other comments? 00:51:20
We'll move on to the next item, the National Commission and committee reports. 00:51:23
OK. 00:51:27
I don't necessarily have a report, but I have a request that I'd like to bring up if that's OK. Umm, could would it be possible 00:51:37
for the PowerPoint presentations or slides that are shared during the meeting to be incorporated into the agenda so we can have 00:51:43
those beforehand? 00:51:49
I know that's tough because it's got them done on Friday rather than on Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday, Uh, but there's often 00:51:57
times information. 00:52:01
That's brought up in the slides that I say, I didn't see that in the staff report. I didn't see the MV agenda. And I think for the 00:52:07
sake of transparency, as well as helping us to be better prepared, it would help me a lot. And that that might be one of those 00:52:13
reissuing on Thursday or you give the planner until Monday to, to, to provide, umm, kind of an updated staff report, umm, because 00:52:19
I just know a lot of times how things go. 00:52:25
You get so busy and then it's like staff report time crunch, crunch, crunch, totally good. And then and then PowerPoint time and 00:52:32
PowerPoint. But, but, but, but if we kind of know, OK, at least you have until Monday to to to get something like that. Would that 00:52:36
be? Yeah, Yeah, we can totally. And I've been there. 00:52:41
Believe me, I know. It's so hard. Yeah, OK. 00:52:47
Yeah, thank you. Something real quick, but I just wanted to mention, uh, Amber Rathenson, who used to be on the Planning 00:52:50
Commission and was serving as a council member in Vineyard, retired and just wanted to thank her for her service publicly. I 00:52:56
should do a lot on the Planning Commission and she did a lot on the City Council, so. 00:53:02
Umm, I, I do have something, umm, a few weeks ago we talked about, umm, transferring your emails over to outlook, uh, to the 00:53:12
official city e-mail, umm, and we have most of those ready to go. So I will be emailing you your old e-mail address with the new 00:53:19
e-mail and logging credentials. Umm, and that way we can uh, be up to date on our like grandma employee requirements. So, umm, 00:53:26
going forward, we will probably we will be. 00:53:33
Probably we will be contacting you via the city e-mail address. 00:53:40
Is that Microsoft based or Gmail based? Outlook. Outlook. 00:53:48
You said you sent that e-mail out. I have. Not yet. I will probably tomorrow. Well, Friday. I'm gonna be gone tomorrow. 00:53:55
Anything else? 00:54:04
All right. We will go ahead and adjourn. 00:54:07
All right, well, you never do it. 00:54:12
Uh, I, I have to refrain. I, if I was at like my day job, I'd be like. 00:54:19
I'm gonna feel better actually. Like. 00:54:24
I keeping with the heritage, I would like us to have a gavel site. 00:54:32
I'm like. 00:54:38