Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge? Click Here
No Bookmarks Exist.
Welcome, David to the Vineyard Planning Commission meeting. 00:00:17
Today is December 18th, 2024. It is 6:02 PM and we'll get things started. Natalie Harbin is going to give us a pledge of a Pledge 00:00:21
of Allegiance and an invocation. All right, pledge first. All right, let's do it. 00:00:29
I pledge allegiance to flag the United States of America to the public, which it stands one nation under God, indivisible, with 00:00:38
liberty and justice for all. 00:00:44
Let's pray. 00:00:52
Father, we thank you for your goodness to us. We thank you for this evening and for every minute and hour that you give us. 00:00:54
We ask that this would be a productive time where we are thoughtful and mindful of our present and our future and the gift that it 00:01:00
is to us, and that we would be thoughtful as well and kind in our remarks and give us wisdom. And we ask all these things in Jesus 00:01:06
name, Amen. 00:01:11
You, Natalie. 00:01:18
All right, we'll move to public comments. David, you got anything for us? 00:01:20
Sure. 00:01:28
So David Larae, resident. 00:01:30
So I've, I've heard rumors that we're having discussions about the. 00:01:33
Pod two of the homesteads development, the city is having discussions with them and about they like to change the zoning for that 00:01:41
area from what it's currently is, which is our 1-8. 00:01:47
To something that would allow the more density. 00:01:54
I use like the comment that we have out there right now next to it in pod one. Which one is Pod 2 again? It's this the field 00:01:58
between the school and the first cul-de-sac. Yeah, just just South of school and it ends at the cul-de-sac, first cul-de-sac on 00:02:04
off of Holy Rd. on the east side of Holy Rd. Yeah. 00:02:10
So that's anyway. And so there is a. 00:02:17
And I was hearing about a list of all the wonderful things that the developer is going to give us, like they're going to give us a 00:02:21
10 foot wide trail, you know, down there. And so to connect, go long Hallway Rd. then connect over to the sports park and they're 00:02:27
going to give us no additional entrances onto Hallway road and a couple of things like that. And if I, as I looked, I went back 00:02:34
and got my maps from from 2017 when they were when they were, we talked about that last. 00:02:41
Here this meeting and they. 00:02:48
Those were already on the table and we already had those. He's not like he's giving us anything new for that. 00:02:51
So I just want to say that if by chance you all get to be involved in any discussions about that, would you please keep in mind 00:02:57
that that that what, that those aren't new offerings. He's just asking for something more, giving us the same things. 00:03:04
And so if he really, really wants to do that badly and the city really feels the necessity to make the higher density. 00:03:12
I would not be in favor of that personally, but that's what the case. Then please make sure you're getting something good from him 00:03:19
in return. 00:03:23
So that's that's number one, number two. 00:03:28
About the same same issue. 00:03:31
Some reasons to some reasons for considering not going to higher density there is that we've in the city we're doing a lot with 00:03:34
high density already. And the idea is the idea he's selling as understand it is that these make great starter, make better starter 00:03:41
homes. Right now a single family dwelling is is out of reach of most people starting out. 00:03:47
And I see that as a good point. However, if we do do that, then we'll. 00:03:55
We'll be making even more. 00:04:02
Vineyard will be more higher density everywhere else and we'll have more starter home and more people just starting out who will 00:04:05
financially not be as able to contribute in other ways to the city. You know, we ought, we're often compared to Cottonwood Heights 00:04:11
because we have similar sizes, but the difference there is that they have a lot more business. So they have a better tax base 00:04:17
there and also they have a also there are a lot more. 00:04:23
Because they're nowadays $1,000,000 homes. I mean any anything bigger than 1/3 of an acre with a big house is $1,000,000 anymore. 00:04:30
So they have a lot more of those and so they have a lot more people who are further along in the, in the, in their path through 00:04:38
life and, and probably better able to support things like the latest 5K run or the, or sponsoring part of the Boa Palooza and 00:04:45
things like that. And so we don't have a lot of that in our city. If you think about it. We have the lake fronts and we have the, 00:04:52
so the shore, sorry, the shores and the Hamptons. And then we have a sleepy Ridge and. 00:04:59
Maybe a few other houses scattered throughout, but not a real solid development of, of higher end homes. And so we really don't. 00:05:07
So if we end up catering to lots and lots and lots of starter homes, I mean, at one, at one hand, that's nice to give people a 00:05:13
product to move into, but the other hand, we're limiting our, our ability as a city to be able to fund ourselves. And, and you 00:05:19
know, because all those folks will be, they'll be more than payment property tax, but less overall. And so we, we, we, we need to 00:05:25
be. 00:05:31
That we're, besides growing our business base which we should be focusing on, we should also be making sure that as from a 00:05:37
residential standpoint that our property tax base doesn't get, you know, washed out or diluted. 00:05:43
Yeah. So it give me a good balance there would be good. So those are some arguments I would I would leave you in favor of keeping 00:05:50
it as is. The R18 is still a pretty high it's a medium density. It's just. 00:05:56
Barely medium density from from high density, it's and you know, 600 square, 66000 foot square foot a lot is somewhere between the 00:06:03
7th and an eighth of an acre. It's just just tiny. And I mean they'll, they'll, they won't have much lawn to mow if they build a 00:06:10
house on that, you know, so. 00:06:17
It really is pretty high density already and I think that we need more of that kind of product as well in our city. 00:06:25
So those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you, David. 00:06:32
Planning Commission and City Council on approval on whatever happens with their plan. 00:07:05
But nothing is really public right now. They have not submitted any application or anything like that as of right now. OK. And the 00:07:11
way I remember it is, well, I remember the same way David is the. 00:07:16
Where I used to keep the maps, remember they came to this map on my phone, yeah. 00:07:51
So 2017 maps and it was very clear that that was yeah. And like, is it that very well could be there. Could we have that shared? 00:07:56
If you have that, Bryce, could you share that out? I'd love to see the original. And then we'll make sure when we when we have 00:08:01
this discussion and Planning Commission that we can show you kind of their original plan. Like this is what was approved in 2017. 00:08:06
This is what they're wanting to change to just to make sure you're comparing apples to apples. And that's that's if or when it 00:08:12
comes and also if there's. 00:08:17
I would love to know like where we are on our density requirements to know what sort of leverage we have to your point, David, 00:08:23
like where can we? 00:08:27
And we'll demand that you give us a vote. 00:09:00
We'll make sure you have a full analysis on the staff side that you can make a full determination on your recommendation to the 00:09:04
City Council. And one more point really quick, but we haven't left that comment period yet. So one more. And as the cemetery is 00:09:11
offering, as I understand there's two acres he's offering. I was looking at at the homesteads. 00:09:18
All the homesteads boundaries and it's it would have to be careful to make sure that 2 acres aligns with some Parkland or 00:09:27
something on the. 00:09:32
In the Hallway Farms development area so that we actually could make a cemetery out of it because. 00:09:37
That you deem necessary if they do want to approve it. So cool. 00:10:11
Cool. Thanks, David. While I won't be on the Planning Commission when that happens, I'll I'll be here for sure. 00:10:17
Thanks, David. 00:10:25
Moving to consent items. Approval for the November 6th, 2024 Planning Commission meeting minutes. 00:10:28
Do I have a motion on that? 00:10:35
I motion. 00:10:38
2nd. 00:10:40
All in favor, aye. Moving to business item 4.2, should we put off the calendar until? 00:10:42
We have more people. So we have people that are. Yeah. I mean, if I don't know if we need an official motion, but I think for 00:10:49
actually, sadly, both of these items, it would make a lot more sense. I mean, it would be helpful to have the calendar approved 00:10:55
before the new year, just so we know. And if you look at the staff report, there's no. 00:11:01
I don't think there's any dates taken off except for January 1st or the 2nd 1st. So does the, you know, the standard first and 00:11:07
third Wednesday of the month except for that first meeting in January which is a combined Planning Commission City Council 00:11:12
meeting. I. 00:11:16
I have a question on that actually. So I'm about to start a busier travel season for my job. Is it possible for me to do a zoom in 00:11:22
for these if I'm not in this? Yeah, we have been able to set up for electronic connection before. I'll have to talk with Pam on 00:11:29
how that works on if you're connected online, if that's if you can be like a sitting member or if you can't. But I'll, I'll talk 00:11:35
to her and figure that out. 00:11:42
I think we should be OK if you unless you want to maybe. 00:11:49
Do a modified calendar, just I don't know the legal process here. 00:11:55
On saying that, the first meeting will be held and the calendar can be determined on January 8th. 00:11:59
That would be the first meeting that we're proposing. And then from there, hopefully more members of the Commission are here and 00:12:05
you can vote on a full calendar at that meeting. Perfect. 00:12:10
I believe January 8th is actually a City Council meeting that we're doing an ombudsman training. It's a combined Planning 00:12:15
Commission City Council meeting. So we did include it on this calendar. But I'm saying if we just say this calendar can be 00:12:21
approved, will be reviewed and approved on January 8th at a Planning Commission meeting, I think that should be okay. That's fine. 00:12:27
When Sorry, no, go ahead, couple. 00:12:35
Business questions. Do we have nominations or appointees at the start of the new year for the Planning Commission yet? So we don't 00:12:38
have any as of right now. The mayor may choose to and the council may choose to do that on the 8th. Sometimes it does take them a 00:12:46
little bit longer to go through that process. I know that that they are aware that that Bryce is retiring. 00:12:54
And that we'll need a new Commission member. 00:13:03
OK, so. 00:13:07
What I would I'd like to make a motion that we adopt the calendar. 00:13:08
Just approving the meetings of the 8th and the 15th because I feel like some of these business items would be more appropriate on 00:13:15
the 15th when meeting as just us rather than also with the City Council setting. I don't really want to necessarily reign on their 00:13:22
parade with some of our day-to-day business stuff. I think that's more appropriate for the 15th. OK, so Nate has made a motion to 00:13:29
delay item 4.2 until the 15th meeting, but also approving. 00:13:36
The meetings for January 8th and January 15th. 00:13:44
Do I have a second? 00:13:47
Second, all in favor, aye. Then item 4.3, before we delay this, make a motion to delay this. I would like to put in that I think 00:13:49
that Nate would make a great Planning Commission chair. He's very level headed. I really appreciate having him on the Planning 00:13:57
Commission. And so while we're not picking that now, I just want it on the record. 00:14:05
Would make a great chair. It's nice I moved to have this pushed to another date. 00:14:14
All right. No, it's all good. Do you want to move it to the 15th also? 00:14:23
I think that would be a more appropriate time because that's when we'll have a more full body. 00:14:30
But I want to hear both of your opinions with that. 00:14:35
I think that would be I think that makes sense too. Yeah, I think so since it's just the three of us and and you're moving off, we 00:14:38
want to give other. 00:14:42
People an opportunity they want to. So do I have a second? 00:14:47
I'll second all in favor. Aye, all right, that's being moved. 00:14:51
And we'll move right into the work session for the 2024 zoning text amendment overall. 00:14:56
Cash, you got this or Anthony, this is going to be me, OK. 00:15:01
We're trying something new here, using iPad for a presentation so I can take notes. 00:15:05
So this is the last section it did look like if you look through the the notes here and also I need to note that I did not include 00:15:40
the presentation. 00:15:43
Because I got it finished at like 5:50 today, but I essentially the Word document that was with this staff report is everything in 00:15:47
that presentation. I just have it. 00:15:54
In the different it looks a little different. Anyways, I'll just go through these. 00:16:00
Sure, there is paper copies over there David, if you do want. 00:16:08
Yeah, if you want to look at that, that's the. 00:16:14
Paper copy so the slideshow I just condensed most of what you'll see in the paper copy just to make it a little bit easier to read 00:16:16
and I'll go through each section. Feel free to stop me at any time if you do have questions or you have other changes that you 00:16:22
see. But the first section 15 two, which is title, authority, purpose and declaration of intent and effective date, we just we 00:16:28
added title. So everywhere you'll see in green applications, building structures, applicability, minimum requirements, those were 00:16:34
all added and then we just. 00:16:40
Cleaned up some of the language that was we felt was confusing or archaic. A lot of this code was originally adopted with the very 00:16:46
first joining code in like 2014 or something like that, and a lot of it was just copy and pasted from other jurisdictions. So we 00:16:52
just wanted to clean it up as much as possible. 00:16:58
Umm. 00:17:05
Let's see. 00:17:07
I'll go on. 00:17:11
1506 land use authorities and officers. So this is one that probably there might be some more conversation to be had on it. Right 00:17:12
now, our code does require that we stagger the appointments of Planning Commission members so that not more than one renewal is 00:17:20
member terms are to be staggered so that no more than one term shall expire each year. When you have 8 Commission members, that's 00:17:27
technically impossible to accomplish. So we looked at other cities. I talked to Pam about this and she felt that 3. 00:17:35
An appropriate number. That's actually, we have a few right now, they're that way. So we just want to make sure we are meeting our 00:17:42
code. And so that's why we're suggesting to change it to three appointments instead of one term can expire at the end of each 00:17:47
year. 00:17:51
Do you have any comments on that? 00:17:57
OK, just before we keep going for the record. 00:17:59
The city attorney has reviewed none of this yet. So yeah, that'll be essentially the next step is once we've gotten all the 00:18:04
comments from you, we will send it to him and he'll make sure that we're meeting state code and all that, and then it'll be a 00:18:10
business item, which we'll vote on. Correct? Yep. This is just a work session just to talk and to make sure we have it where we 00:18:15
wanted since we asked you to do some things last time when you're bringing it back with the changes. Yeah. Thank you. 00:18:20
The next section is about the quorum. So quorum is having three members here. 00:18:26
And right now the wording in this makes it makes it seem like a vote requires the majority of the Planning Commission, which would 00:18:32
actually be four to five people because the Planning Commission is made-up of eight people. And so we just added language to say 00:18:38
sitting present members of the Planning Commission. And that way, you know, if there's three of you here, it just requires that 00:18:44
majority to to vote. 00:18:50
Commission organization. We included some. 00:18:58
No, it would. It would still have to be 3, wouldn't it? Let me. All actions of the Commission shall require the vote of a majority 00:19:02
of the total sitting present members of the Commission. So of the three of us here, two of them need to be OK with it. It's the 00:19:08
majority of who is there. I personally feel that it should be the majority of the total body, regardless who's president, 00:19:14
including the alternates. 00:19:20
So we could, do you want me to change it to that of the Commission, not including the alternate? Yeah. I don't want it to be two. 00:19:26
I want it to at least be 3. Everything OK? Yeah. 00:19:30
We could say with a minimum, we could say of a minimum that makes sense majority of. 00:19:35
Yeah, whatever the way to word it. 00:19:42
However, I would like to hear what the. 00:19:44
Argument for this would be. 00:19:47
Because it seemed right away we're all like, so was there a reason? Yeah. And that would be technically tonight if we had a site 00:19:48
plan before you, you could not vote to approve it with, even though you had the three of us. You have a quorum here. And if we had 00:19:54
a minimum thing, you need to have four people voting. 00:19:59
OK, which is fine. I don't think we've ever had an issue Where so do you think just a minimum of three? Yeah. So even if we have 00:20:06
stuff come forward, I don't think that there are issues and if there are, if they are controversial enough that somebody's voting 00:20:12
no, then I think that we should have more. 00:20:17
OK. 00:20:24
Sorry, can you speak into the mic there? You OK? Sure, thanks. So point of there as long as you do that for everyone in the. 00:20:27
So you're saying that we have? 00:20:35
You'd have to have four or five to make a majority, but there are 5 sitting council members at anyone time, right? Commission 00:20:37
members at one time. We have alternates, so the majority of the five. 00:20:43
So I guess I'll work on this language. So that does a vote requires at least three people and that three people have to be an 00:20:50
affirmative. So in this case, if site plan was here tonight, we wouldn't have to postpone that because we don't, we do have a 00:20:55
quorum, but we don't have a majority of the total Commission, which is 8 people. 00:21:00
And so we would still allow that vote to take place, but it'd have to be a unanimous vote among the three sitting members, even 00:21:07
even if one of the people up here was an alternate. So the way I the way I see it, and we'll need to talk to Jamie about legality 00:21:12
of it, if there were two sitting members and an alternate up here and it was, you know, a mess among the three, the alternate 00:21:17
would be, at that time, a sitting member. Yeah. When an alternate is sitting up here, they are considered a member of the Planning 00:21:22
Commission. 00:21:28
So maybe just to say 3 a minimum of three. 00:21:34
OK. 00:21:38
But I'll let you figure that out, OK? Yeah, I'll work on that language and bring it back. I think before bringing it back, that is 00:21:41
one worth sharing with the city attorney because we need to know what applicant rights there are and that we aren't being overly 00:21:45
burdensome with some of our rules. Yeah. 00:21:50
I mean, even if the City Council has only three City Council members and a City Council meeting, it has to be unanimous when they 00:21:56
pass things. Yeah, yeah. So we'll try to just make it equal to what the city council's minimums are. 00:22:02
OK, Commission organization. This just allows for the Commission to elect a chair pro temp in case the chair and vice chair are 00:22:08
gone. Right now, there's really no language that outlines the process for that, so we just wanted to include that. 00:22:16
Vineyard, the development. 00:22:25
Let's see. Oh, the DRC, we're finally getting this in here through presses. I was just gonna ask, probably over a year overdue for 00:22:27
right now, but the DRC membership right now essentially allows everybody to have a designee except for the Planning Commission 00:22:34
chair. And we are now adding that language in so the planning cushion chair can have a designate. 00:22:40
This next one, super simple, just an establishment of districts. This just gives a brief summary of what every district is. The 00:22:50
RMU, the FOI, the Archie, the GRMU was missing the Geneva Rd. mixed-use, so we just included that. This is the definition straight 00:22:57
from the DRAMU code language. No changes or anything like that to it. 00:23:03
I did have a quick question on the zoning map. This was an issue that was brought up when the homes Holdaway Farms came and the 00:23:10
map has different coloring for different zoning. 00:23:16
Do we want to define the zoning for future developments because there's still zoning on the map that is low density that. 00:23:22
So you're saying like this density equals this many units per acre? Yeah. 00:23:33
I can talk to, I know exactly what you're talking about where people were saying this is high density when it's other people are 00:23:39
saying this is actually low density. And then it's like we called it low medium density because we don't have any definitions. So 00:23:45
it was zoned as low density. And the developer came in with a plan that eventually got approved by the City Council but denied by 00:23:51
the Planning Commission that had a greater density than all of our medium density in the city. And they said that it was low 00:23:57
density because of some. 00:24:02
Yeah, yeah, some arbitrary, they thought that and we didn't have a way to like have teeth in that and that was super annoying with 00:24:09
that. OK, yeah, I can include that in the definitions of for each zone kind of what. And I do remember having this conversation 00:24:15
with Morgan when this whole thing came about and I I do remember him pushing back for some reason. I don't remember what that is, 00:24:21
but I'll, I'll try to figure that out and bring that. 00:24:28
One way or another, back to you guys, OK? 00:24:35
The OK, yeah, this is the the zoning map we just talked about like uncertainty, uncertainty regarding boundaries of various zones. 00:24:40
So if you look at the zoning map, it just kind of has a line going down different areas. And generally that's that's a long lot 00:24:46
lines, but there are a few like for example, we're doing a site plan right now for the LDS Church along Geneva Rd. where they have 00:24:52
one lot that is split into two different zones. And so this language here just. 00:24:58
Helps us simplify exactly how we determine which zone to rule that property as. 00:25:05
And we did have that language in there before, if you'll notice on the paper copy everything in red and stricken out is what was 00:25:12
in there. We just tried to make that language a little bit easier to understand. 00:25:17
The next one, this is probably a little bit more complicated, the district E table. I tried to provide a brief summary up at the 00:25:26
top of everything we did, but if you looked at our previous, our current district use table, it's pretty ugly. It's really hard to 00:25:32
find anything. And so actually Madison spent countless hours redrawing a new table and splitting it up. So now we'll have a 00:25:39
residential category, a commercial category, and. 00:25:46
A public. 00:25:53
I only included those two in the paper copy actually, but we just split it up rather than having one long table. It just makes it 00:25:55
easier to read. And then here are a few changes that we are making to it or suggesting that we make to it, changing the short term 00:26:01
rental from not permitted to permitted. As we've discussed in the past about short term rentals, I think the first one of these 00:26:08
work sessions that we did kind of creating these standards on short term rentals and we'll come back to that once again. 00:26:15
But right now, it's just not permitted across the board right now. 00:26:23
We're changing to permitted, but with the subscript note saying it has to follow the standards that we are working on getting 00:26:26
approved and that's only in the single family home neighborhoods I believe and maybe the RMU. 00:26:33
Then we added check cashing and other credit services. I know there's been some talk online about the city creating a zone or 00:26:42
allowing this type of use, but I did just want to reiterate that if we don't outline specific standards for different uses, then 00:26:49
we have to essentially use like this. If, if a check cashing place wanted to come in, we would have to rule and just say this is a 00:26:57
financial institution and it is governed by that standard, which is pretty low by creating. 00:27:04
Or something like this, we can now put on some more requirements and I think we went over those in the past of kind of having 00:27:11
these distance requirements, total number of businesses we're allowing. So we're including that in the table. We are changing car 00:27:17
wash from permitted to conditional in the RMU. We've had a lot of drama about car washes in the past. We did want to just put in 00:27:23
some more kind of barriers there. And so that would actually, I believe they are only permitted now in the manufacturing or the FY 00:27:29
zone and the rest. 00:27:35
Conditional in any of our other like commercial zones Event Center, we change that from not permitted to conditional in the 00:27:42
regional commercial. 00:27:46
We added the mobile food court with it only being conditional in the RMU. We added retail tobacco specialty business. So once 00:27:52
again similar to that check cashing, we just we want to create standards for this. And so it's a conditional in the regional 00:27:59
commercial and then establish or tattoo establishment we included on here because that wasn't anywhere and that is permitted in in 00:28:05
most of our commercial zones, RMUGRMU, FM, UR, SHE and NC. 00:28:12
So with that, are there any? 00:28:20
Yeah, I have. I see no issues with the actual substance of the table and what we discussed. I feel like it's consistent. The only 00:28:22
suggestion I have with formatting of the table is that the zoning district uses heading is only at the beginning of the table and 00:28:30
when it's on multiple pages, sometimes I get lost. So that is a way we could format that when it's actually published. 00:28:39
That is a problem with technology, so. 00:28:48
To make a Long story short, we pay for Muna Scribe. I think it's mean scribe. I don't actually forgot the name of the Municote. 00:28:51
Thank you. Municode and they have two different softwares. We use this one as a self-publishing software and the tables that we're 00:28:58
allowed to use are very restrictive. One method that we could do is every, I don't know, every five rows. We could just include 00:29:05
the zoning so that it would be there. So it's easy to follow so. 00:29:12
But there was nobody out with the notes. Was it uploaded? 00:29:20
As a Word document, I believe in the future is just uploaded as a PDF that would resolve that issue. 00:29:25
You can correct me if I'm wrong. So it's usually created in the software on the website itself. So you can't create it in Word and 00:29:34
just copy it inside. You can paste it as a picture and it won't be clear enough to work with. 00:29:42
The file December 18th PC notes. 00:29:51
Was created within the system, yes. 00:29:55
Yeah, we don't software, like I said, it has so many. It is great for the most part, but the table feature on it is the most 00:29:59
frustrating thing in the world. I think Madison probably recreated this table two or three times because of the issues it had. And 00:30:06
yeah, it was created in here and then I took screenshots of it and created the note document that you're looking at. Like I said, 00:30:12
the substance wise, I don't see an issue with it. I just want to make sure when it is published in the actual municipal code. 00:30:19
Then it's formatted in a friendly way, and if that means you need to have some ribbons throughout it to remind us what the heck 00:30:27
we're looking at. 00:30:30
Then maybe that's how we do it. I just ask that you please consider that. It's not. Yeah. So substance, just user friendliness. 00:30:34
So, yeah, I'll show you. So this is like I said, this is the updated table, what it looks like where we did split it. And that's 00:30:40
the reason we did split it. So now residential, it's a little easier to read. Let me show you the original. Yeah, just the zoning 00:30:46
district uses every seven. Yeah. Yeah. So every. 00:30:53
Yeah. So right now, like for example, if you wanted to find out motor vehicle fueling station and the RMU, you're then scrolling 00:31:00
up here and then you have to go down here. You moved a little to the left or right. 00:31:04
Yeah, yeah. So just add a ribbon every 10 or so. All right, I'll have Madison do that. Take her a few hours. Thanks. 00:31:10
OK, let me go back to this. 00:31:19
Maybe. 00:31:27
OK, Anything else with the district E table? 00:31:30
If not, I can continue. 00:31:37
You're good, OK. 00:31:40
01 other a few other things. This is not in the paper copies. These are the things I caught. 00:31:44
But that that's really up to to you guys on on what you think is the best route. 00:32:17
If they are putting in like permanent lighting. 00:32:51
So we should catch that at that stage. I get that some people still might do some work themselves and don't get a permit, but in 00:32:54
that stage we should catch it. And, and it's also another thing if if you do see it and it is causing concern, if you have a 00:33:00
bright light shining into your window, let us know and we'll do what we can. 00:33:05
And then the other thing is we simplified the garage detached garage language. It was just a really giant section of the the 00:33:13
district use table and we just changed it to I think permitted with a subscript saying review the code below just to make the 00:33:19
table look better. 00:33:24
OK, development agreements. 00:33:32
We mostly just simplified language here, as you'll see in the paper copy. Everything in red we're taking out green is all new. And 00:33:35
then the second section there says that every development agreement is supposed to be reviewed by the City Council every year. 00:33:42
Once again, I don't think that. 00:33:51
Happens often enough and so we added some language that says the council or staff shall review a development agreement and then if 00:33:54
staff does it that they need to provide a report to the City Council on if they are meeting those obligations from the development 00:33:59
agreement. So for example, right now with Holdaway Fields starting to develop a lot, Anthony's been going through their 00:34:05
development agreement and saying, you know, when are we going to get our 400 S Rd. connection? Are we making sure that they're up 00:34:11
to date on their landscaping? 00:34:16
And all that. And so this just allows staff to do that report to the City Council just because that's a lot more likely to get 00:34:22
done than just the council reviewing every development agreement. I don't know what your thoughts are on that. That makes sense. 00:34:30
Yeah, in the past, whenever I see stuff like this municipal code, you can usually tie that to. 00:34:39
Years ago, a certain development agreement got approved that members of the council said I really don't want to approve this. And 00:34:45
they said, well, what have we reviewed every year? OK, then I'll prove it. That's usually where this is coming from. And if this 00:34:51
was inherited from another community, cool. I'm interested to see the origin of this particular one for Vineyard. 00:34:57
Provo had a weird one or if this was something from a few years ago that about a development agreement that we're concerned about, 00:35:05
but I think it totally makes sense. 00:35:11
Staff do it and then write up a summary every 12 months that can be on consent calendar unless there's something worth raising. 00:35:17
You wonder the last time the development agreement for the homesteads was reviewed? Great question. Well, we're about to go in a 00:35:22
few months ago. 20 years ago. 00:35:28
I'm curious so and and that would be good if it is in here, it would help create a practice in our department because right now if 00:35:35
it's up to the council to review it then. 00:35:39
You know, it's just not going to happen, but right now if we do say or staff that would then kind of create the mandate for us to 00:35:44
do it and it would be kind of put on a yearly thing for us to provide for the council. As far as single family housing, they're 00:35:50
the only ones, well, except for I guess holdaway fields now that are still building and they've still got quite a lot left. I 00:35:55
think it could be wise to review that. 00:36:01
Yeah, maybe when we're reviewing this pod two, we could look back at the whole development agreement as well, just to make sure 00:36:08
amenities and promises. 00:36:12
Cool. OK, um. 00:36:18
OK. Yeah, permitted uses this essentially. It just was a little confusing at the beginning because it sounds like that the plan or 00:36:23
the city planner gets to review and render a final decision for every permitted use application that comes into the city. And I 00:36:31
just wanted to create some language to differentiate what the Planning Commission approves versus what the city planner approves. 00:36:38
So for example, like a building or if a business wants to move into an already existing structure, that is something the planning. 00:36:45
Can review, we say, oh, this is a permitted use, they're allowed to move into here. But if it's a site plan, a commercial site 00:36:53
plan, we want the Planning Commission to look at it. Same thing single family homes planning or the planner does approve that, not 00:36:58
the Planning Commission. So we just wanted to create that language in there. And most of this is redundant in the site planning 00:37:04
section as well, just differentiating the the two. 00:37:09
Umm, then approval standards, we removed some redundant language. It was just, you know, essentially laid out everything that we 00:37:16
review, but it's also like every site plan needs to comply with the requirements of the zoning district. And then it includes all 00:37:22
these different things, like the just different standards, height setbacks, all that. But that's something that's just in the 00:37:28
zoning standard. So we felt that language was not necessary. 00:37:34
Conditional uses, this one, we did include a section in here saying the title report and survey of the subject property may be 00:37:42
required by the city planner. Right now it is just required. I don't know what your thoughts are on that. There's a lot of 00:37:48
benefits to having a title report, but we felt that there might be some cases where a conditional use is is report or conditional 00:37:54
use. 00:37:59
Permit is required and we filled title report might not prove to to be a benefit to to the Planning Commissioner staff. 00:38:06
And in that case, we could, you know, waive that requirement. We're fine keeping it as a requirement if you do want it. But for 00:38:15
example, if somebody wanted to do a home preschool, I believe they need a conditional use permit. And so that would be an example 00:38:20
of do we want to make them go through all this title work for this home preschool, you know, and that is something that the city 00:38:26
planner in this new language could wave. 00:38:32
I, I was with you until you gave that example because I went absolutely do a title report for that because is that person a renter 00:38:40
or the owner? And are we OK with the owner knowing that they're running a preschool out of the house they're renting and that's 00:38:45
something that's why you'd run the time. We do check that in the business license application. So we do kind of have those 00:38:51
measures in place. But like I said, it's, it's up to you guys if, if you do or if we do want to create kind of a standard of when 00:38:56
we would waive that requirement. 00:39:02
Anytime I see the word may, I'm followed up with a cool Under what circumstances? 00:39:10
That's just kind of my general. 00:39:15
Roll with most of these because when it says maybe if the city planner feels like it. Obviously casual, but that's the risk. You 00:39:18
guys are awesome city planners, but what about 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now? 00:39:24
I want to make sure we're getting people accountable. Yeah, no, I'm totally agree. So yeah, I'll look into that. And if I do find 00:39:31
special circumstances where I do think that would be adequate, then I'll include them. If not, I'll just remove that. 00:39:37
But that's only one opinion. 00:39:44
You have at least double that over here. Either that or like dig into specifics of these are the ones that we wouldn't OK. 00:39:46
Are there any other ones besides like? 00:39:59
Preschool. Are there any other examples of? 00:40:01
So I mean, for example, right now we are we're reviewing like a site plan application for a tire shop that's not near any kind of 00:40:05
residential. 00:40:08
That is a conditional use. So that would require higher report and we will be, I guess this could be a good example. We are 00:40:14
already getting a title report because they have to do a plat. So now we're gonna make them possibly do another title report for 00:40:20
this business. So that might be in a circumstance where it's like we don't really need to see this again, but this would be 00:40:26
another good one that would be good to run through. Our attorney is he's the one who generally touches a lot of things. 00:40:32
If we can, if they've submitted a title report in the beginning, is that not something we can just that we have on record or that 00:40:38
they would? 00:40:41
Well, the art requirements, title reports, I believe Anthony yeah, they're only valid for 30 days. And so say for example, they do 00:40:44
this platting, we get it approved and then 31 days later they go through a site plan with conditional use. We now have an expired. 00:40:52
Got it, Tyler report. Where do we want to put that burden back onto them? 00:41:00
Only get that and that is obnoxious so yeah, I appreciate doing something to be more so yeah we'll dig into this to answer 00:41:06
language to make it not duplicative work but if it. 00:41:11
Hasn't been yeah, existing, right. If it hasn't happened before, I'm with me. I'd like it to happen. Some language there. The 00:41:15
survey also. Yeah, I love that it's a may there because very few conditional use permits really need an all to serve it. 00:41:25
I would love to avoid that because that's also just a. 00:41:34
It's a pretty expensive cost for the developer that nine times out of 10, you go, OK, cool, yeah. And then put away. And so only 00:41:38
ask for things if we feel like it's a substitute, if it would help. Yeah, change a decision, Right. And maybe that's how we word 00:41:43
it with where is May. 00:41:49
May be required by the city planner if it is of substance to the decision at hand, or even just saying by the city planner at his 00:41:55
discretion. 00:42:00
OK. Yeah, we'll work on languages and like I said, I think it would be another good one to run by our legal to make sure. Yeah. 00:42:05
And the same would apply for the section right underneath it when talking about traffic impact analysis. Yeah, we talked at length 00:42:11
about that and I wanna make sure if there's a may there, we have conditions on when. 00:42:17
Yeah. And and this one, it was just the language in red was super confusing. If required by the Commission, DRC engineer, traffic 00:42:24
impact analysis will be required. So we just rephrased it essentially saying it may be required if requested by the Planning 00:42:32
Commission, DRC or city engineer. So any one of our bodies could request it. And in that case it is now required document. 00:42:40
Instead of saying it may be required, say oh will be required. Will be required if requested. 00:42:49
OK, good catch. 00:42:56
Change my. 00:42:58
All right. 00:43:02
General property development standards removed language about flag lots. We don't have any standards in our city 4 flag lots, and 00:43:05
so this section right now is talking about driveway or lot frontage requirements and where we don't have any flag lots and we 00:43:12
don't have flag flag standards. It felt unnecessary to include this language unless we wanted to create a section specifically 00:43:18
talking about flag lots and how we want to. 00:43:24
You know, examine those. 00:43:32
Or what requirements we want to put onto those? Is there any possibility that there could be a flag lot? I I mean, I there's 00:43:34
always a yeah, always a possibility that something could happen like that. 00:43:39
But I think, and Rachel is the one who did this section, so she has a little bit more insight on why she wanted to remove that. 00:43:45
But I think it it just comes down to we need to create the section on flag lots that have these standards in place rather than 00:43:51
just say right now this is saying we don't require driveway frontage requirements for flag lots. Like let's create the standard 00:43:56
rather than just kind of. 00:44:02
Ignore it. Yeah, OK, yeah. 00:44:08
The next one, again it's talking about front yard parking prohibited and it says that no vehicle parking shall be permitted in any 00:44:11
required front yard setback area except on driveways located in residential loans that directly access a garage or carport. We 00:44:17
felt that that. 00:44:23
We already do have a requirement of where parking can be located in a front yard. And we felt that like this language was first 00:44:29
redundant, but also could be restrictive of additional parking. If somebody wanted to put in a concrete pad that didn't access a 00:44:34
carport or driveway, but they wanted to have something just as you know, if they have an Adu or something like that. So we wanted 00:44:40
to remove that language. 00:44:45
Clearview triangle, this one we've been having a lot of hard times with lately because of the graphic that we include in the 00:44:52
zoning code is very confusing on where we actually measure. So essentially the Clearview triangle is a 12 foot line measured from 00:44:58
the driveway to the street and then from the driveway entrance to either side. And it creates this triangle, a view protection 00:45:03
triangle that we don't want to see any fences, any permanent structures, anything like that in that area. But the way that the 00:45:09
code is written right now. 00:45:14
Makes it from the curb line and essentially by the time you get to the curb line to the driveway, you're already at like 10 feet 00:45:21
or something like that. And so it makes it useless. And so we changed how we measure that, how we measure the. 00:45:26
The Clearview triangle and then we remove the graphic. When we come back for approval we will probably have an updated graphic to 00:45:33
show this just because they are helpful, but in this case it did hurt us. 00:45:38
So accessory dwelling units, this one might be a little bit more of a duty to get through. So in our general plan, we actually do 00:45:47
have this in here in our moderate income housing section that we will approve mobile housing types intended for long term 00:45:54
placement that adhere to a permanent foundation. That's in our general plan. It's also in our moderate income housing report that 00:46:01
of things that we need to continually improve is Adu. 00:46:08
And so we felt that this was a good time to include it. 00:46:15
A question What constitutes as a mobile house? 00:46:18
Great question. Essentially you could get something like a pre manufactured home and put that on a permanent foundation, but it 00:46:23
would have to be fit within our detached accessory structure code. 00:46:29
So we're trying to figure out the best way to do this without people thinking we're just allowing like a trailer park to exist or 00:46:37
like a shipping container. People have done that and built like a house on a shipping container. So we don't allow containers 00:46:43
right now in the city. So that would prohibit that. But this mostly is speaking to like pre manufactured homes. I think that's 00:46:49
where. 00:46:55
I get hung up is the term mobile housing when I think you might mean modular prefab is exactly yeah, I just yeah, I use the word 00:47:02
mobile just because that was what is in our general plan. Let me pull that up Mobile would. 00:47:11
I think would contradict the rest of the statement where it's saying it's adhere to a permanent foundation, so then it's no longer 00:47:21
mobile. We don't want it to be mobile, so. 00:47:26
And I know that most trailers aren't early either. If you're saying like a trailer park, a mobile home, but I don't know, then we 00:47:31
can dig into more specifics on what it looks like. Is it really a modular home or is it a prefab 1? Because there's some really 00:47:37
fantastic prefabbed homes that would even match as an accessory dwelling unit. It's very different than doing a double wide. And 00:47:44
maybe this is where we could include some sort of definition that could help us. 00:47:50
I believe that we got this language straight from the state. So the state. 00:47:57
Going back to where you were asking about kind of where we're at with density in the state, essentially the state has this 00:48:02
moderate income housing report that we have to fill out every year that kind of talks about the state of the city and what we're 00:48:07
doing to encourage moderate income housing. And one of those sections that we have to that the city has chosen to report on is our 00:48:13
accessory dwelling units. And from there they kind of create a menu of different things that you can choose. And so this is 00:48:18
something that was. 00:48:23
Chosen by the the Planning Commission City Council, probably in 2022. 00:48:29
Is one of our strategies that we would adopt by the end of 2025 is to allow this mobile housing type? I can see if that language 00:48:33
did come straight from the state. My guess is it would be hard to change that if we want to qualify this under the modern income 00:48:40
housing if we did change it to be more restrictive than what the state is. But I can look into that specific when when the City 00:48:47
Council approved those things, did we not approve an extra 1? 00:48:54
We did, but we can no longer report on one of the goals. And I forget which one it is, but this year they essentially they gave us 00:49:02
the approval on the moderate income housing and said starting this year you can no longer report on this, this goal. 00:49:09
And it's not a fun report today. So I wonder how we can get the definition of, yeah, exactly what mobile housing is that is 00:49:17
intended for long term placement that adhere to. Yeah. And it's also who's determining what that is. There's a lot of kind of Gray 00:49:24
area in there, I think. 00:49:30
One of the. 00:49:38
Low hanging fruit to do it is out of Section 3 of Design standards. 00:49:39
To say absolutely, we allow mobile housing types as long as it complies to all our types. That's a good idea. And the set design 00:49:44
standards are the roof needs to match the primary building, the siding needs to match the primary building. So if it's a mobile, 00:49:50
it looks like a prefab and that's how you do it. Yeah, that's a great idea. I'll include that in there. 00:49:56
Then license denial revocation, we included this that if somebody does have an Adu license, but they do have zoning violations, 00:50:06
this is a method that we can use to. 00:50:11
Help them come into compliance. This would be helpful. For example, if they do have, if they're operating their home as a duplex 00:50:19
where they're renting out the top and basement, but they have an active Adu license, we can now revoke it. 00:50:24
We just wanted to have that language in there to back this up. 00:50:31
Has a lot of may. So again, just the talk with the attorney. Yeah, Yeah, OK. 00:50:37
When I see I I was involved in code enforcement once where? 00:50:43
This was in another city in another state so I'm OK sharing it where we were getting as a code enforcement officer. Lots of push 00:50:47
from. 00:50:52
A certain person of high standing in our community who didn't like their neighbor. 00:50:58
And so they said hit him with everything and we have words like may. So it means, yeah, you can get him with that. I want to be 00:51:02
fair and I want to be good. And so that's the reason I yeah, we'll we'll work on that to kind of create kind of a standard on how 00:51:09
we will determine if it will be maybe do a control fine for the word what may through all of our with the nodes should and may. I 00:51:15
think maybe we should just. 00:51:22
Shall should. Yeah, well. 00:51:28
OK. I think this is maybe the last section is home occupations. And I think we actually did review some of this with you already 00:51:30
before, but we've made quite a bit updates with this with Kelly, our business licensing person. And here we just we broke off some 00:51:38
of the permitted and not permitted language. It was very confusing on it was like on not permitted uses, it was like medical 00:51:45
practitioners and veterinarian services and it's like are they related? Is it like vet medical uses? 00:51:53
And they want to read them hobby breeding. Yeah, yeah, we, we will allow that. They will have to, you know, go get a license And 00:52:30
there are standards that they do have to follow, but we would not allow commercial anyways. The ones that we are not permitting 00:52:36
would be medical practitioner, medical spa, veterinarian services, animal boarding, pet daycare, vehicle sales that are that 00:52:42
include vehicle services that include but not limited to repair, painting, maintenance sales. Same thing with recreational 00:52:48
vehicles and then major appliance. 00:52:54
You have any questions on that? 00:53:01
Or anything you want to include, anything you want to take off. We had a meeting a while back about medical practitioner about if 00:53:03
somebody does massages or if they do certain not. Is that defined? Yeah, we are creating the definition of that to be very 00:53:09
specific that a medical practitioner, somebody who's a licensed individual giving medical, whether it's a procedure or advice. We 00:53:15
actually do allow like like there's a lot of doctors with telehealth, we do allow them to do that because they're not actually 00:53:20
practicing. 00:53:26
They're not seeing patients, yeah, yeah. But somebody who does like Botox, this would be very specific that that is a medical 00:53:32
practice as you are injecting somebody with something and you have to be licensed. And so that is now very specific in here on 00:53:37
what that is. 00:53:43
I have a question and we forgive me if we did talk about this last time, but if we're, how are we enforcing this? So it's all 00:53:49
through the license. So if you had a business that you were a vet and you wanted to open a little vet shop in your house, you'd 00:53:55
apply for business and we'd deny it. If you did anyways, then just through code enforcement and in some instances we could involve 00:54:01
the the. 00:54:08
Sheriff's Office, if somebody does continue operating business that we deem it to be unsafe. 00:54:15
Under the vehicle services, would this include since it has painting, maintenance or sales repair? I know of someone that does 00:54:20
vehicle wrapping. Does that include that? So because we do say vehicle services that include but not limited to, we probably would 00:54:26
include vehicle wrapping. I would include that in a similar fashion as painting as you're kind of changing the exterior of the 00:54:32
vehicle. It causes a lot of issues because it's in a neighborhood that doesn't have much. I think I know exactly where you're 00:54:38
talking about. 00:54:44
All the parking so I I can include that specific language to say wrapping is not permitted. Yeah, I think it'd be helpful cuz I 00:54:50
think that would be good to. 00:54:55
Pursue that. 00:55:01
It's, I think it's, this is any sort of vehicle services are going to be very disruptive within. I think that is resolved with the 00:55:03
current language with #2 where home occupations are limited to only one customer at a time and by appointment only. Yeah. And they 00:55:10
can't. That's where a code enforcement needs to nail them. And that's where if we don't get a complaint, we don't know to go after 00:55:18
it. And even if we do, they could provide. And you know, if somebody is doing a vehicle wrapping business, they could. 00:55:25
Yeah, I have a customer comes in, they make an appointment, they drop off their car and they leave. But then they have 10 cars 00:55:33
parked because they had 10 clients that showed up at one time, but at different times. Then on the next one where it says 00:55:38
conditions that apply to all home occupation types and you talk about utilities. 00:55:43
Yeah, get rid of the word utilities because then it says the home occupations shall not have demand on municipal services, 00:55:49
including the public right of way. 00:55:53
If you just Scroll down to the end there, we're talking mainly just like they're not using electricity and gas, but. 00:56:00
I mean the public right of ways, municipal service as well. 00:56:08
Yeah. And we've talked about in for our business licenses, there are a lot of things that people can't do if. 00:56:11
But there are a lot of things we left that we specifically left the door open that people can do a lot of things. Yeah, Because 00:56:20
people should be able to do anything they want as long as they're not disturbing people around them, right. If nobody knows that 00:56:27
you drove a car into your garage and you're wrapping it in your garage, by all means, by all means do that. Or if somebody like, I 00:56:35
know people repair old cars and eventually sell old cars and stuff like that. If, if they're not having a disturbance, then it. 00:56:42
I think that it should be permitted and we're pretty strict with what people aren't allowed to do in those situations. From for 00:56:50
cars specifically, we talked about how they can't have any kind of equipment outside. They have to have a garage door closed. They 00:56:59
can't have cars or engines or anything like that outside of of the garage. Yeah, it can't be visible at all. So. 00:57:08
So are you just kind of saying that we already have kind of the tools to work through these problems? 00:57:18
So do you think we should remove a lot of this like the vehicle? Because I do see actually your point, if somebody did, they had a 00:57:23
hobby of fixing up old cars and selling them, would that be a business though? It could be. And at that point, yeah. Are they 00:57:29
actually going out and getting a license and doing that? 00:57:35
Yeah. So I don't think that it's necessary, but because we already have the code to enforce these things, I don't think we need 00:57:40
to. Yeah, we're we're more judging it based off of the impact rather than the use. 00:57:46
I think impact is the keyword there. And so if we are making any amendments, it's really just that section about utilities where 00:57:53
it says home occupations do not have a demand beyond what's typical in residential uses. You can say customer visits or whatever. 00:58:01
Well we even have a traditional house has. 00:58:09
Stuff there is very specific. People cannot park on the street. They have to have a parking spot off. They can only have this many 00:58:18
people that come every day. 00:58:23
Like it's very specific. Yeah. I think the hard thing is everybody can agree to that. But then when it comes down to it and you 00:58:28
have a vehicle wrapping business that's really successful, you're not gonna turn down a client for, but you get a right. But yeah, 00:58:32
you're right. It is once we get the complaint that we can do something about it. We don't turn people down. But you say, awesome, 00:58:37
come on, Thursday. 00:58:42
OK, let me make a note of that. 00:58:48
Because yeah, I don't want to. I don't want to restrict people from having at home businesses because I have. 00:58:52
Oh yeah, I forgot to include we're going to remove anything associated with the skateboards as not permitted. It was way 00:58:59
restrictive before. 00:59:04
OK. Yeah, I'll work on changing that up just so it kind of points more towards. 00:59:11
Yeah, exactly What you're talking about is something that says. Please see. Yeah. 00:59:15
OK. We, another thing we wanted to include is something about aggregate impact. So if somebody had multiple home occupations which 00:59:21
we don't want to deny them from, but we want to make sure that their impact is equal to a total of 1, which I think makes pretty 00:59:27
common sense there. Another one was nonprofit organizations. If they are a non profit organization with impact, they have to 00:59:33
follow the standards here. 00:59:38
And then we're including a section saying that the city can require or, yeah, may require inspections to determine compliance. 00:59:47
This is mostly if somebody does say, hey, I want to do this as my home occupation and we're a little iffy on if that meets our 00:59:54
standards, we can request to come to a brief inspection and then a license may be revoked upon any violation of the requirements 01:00:01
or conditions. I think pretty simple there. 01:00:08
Once again, the horde may we do want to include the hard thing is, you know, let's say you know, Bryce is he has a simple code 01:00:17
violation of I don't know, you have some weeds in your yard. Are we then going to go remove your business license for that code 01:00:24
violation? I don't know if that's fair. If the planning director despises price enough that that's honestly, I joke, but that's 01:00:31
what I'm trying to I'll look into the language to see if there's something we can do to. 01:00:37
Rework it so we can have this, yeah? 01:00:46
A certain amount of warnings or something, Yeah. 01:00:49
And then yeah, the very last thing is the utilities, the home occupation shell not have demand of municipal or utility services or 01:00:55
community facilities in excess of those usually in customary provided for residential uses. 01:01:02
I'm on the wrong slideshow here, and I'll include that where it says including the right of way to show that people cannot use the 01:01:09
street for their business, as you mentioned. But we just felt that that was important to include. And then business management, I 01:01:15
think we talked to you guys about this at the very first work session where we had this idea that like if people wanted to, it was 01:01:21
like once a year they could hold an event where they had more than one customer come to their house. And the idea was like, I 01:01:27
don't know, a Pampered Chef. 01:01:33
Or something like that. But then we determined that's going to be way too hard for staff to ever enforce. And then if that becomes 01:01:39
a problem, we'll just use code enforcement. Yes. And that's when it goes back to what's typical for a neighborhood. People have 01:01:45
parties. If it becomes every Tuesday and Thursday, then that's not typical. But now and then, yeah. So that's exactly why I 01:01:52
removed it. We'll just use code enforcement on areas where it becomes a problem. 01:01:59
So I think that is everything I had. So are there any sections or anything like that you have comments on? But I thank you guys 01:02:07
for going through all this with us. It's been a long few months of reviewing the code and hopefully sometime maybe early February, 01:02:14
we'll have this kind of all finalized and ready for you to get kind of any final feedback before it goes to to City Council. 01:02:22
Cool. David, do you have anything that you that we maybe missed or? 01:02:31
Cool. 01:02:37
All right. Thank you so much, Cash. I know this stuff is kind of mind numbing, but you guys are doing a good job. 01:02:39
Um, staff Commission and committee reports. Did you guys have anything? 01:02:46
I am so excited to say that stuff is moving forward with the skate park. Like it's cool that it's my last meeting and the whole 01:02:52
purpose of me being on the Planning Commission, I feel like, is to get this skate park happening. So I'm excited that there's 01:03:01
actually stuff that's happening. There will be Flyers going out there with a survey that you can take and a link to donate. 01:03:10
We've already received a donation, right? 01:03:21
We've received a donation where we're in talks with some businesses for donations and things are looking really positive, so be on 01:03:23
the lookout for that. It's exciting. 01:03:29
I think it'll be great for our many, many, many children and youth that live in Vineyard. 01:03:37
Yeah, that's all I had. Staff. Did you guys have anything? 01:03:44
I don't think so. We I can give a brief update on the City Hall project. So we did have that RFP go out today is actually the 01:03:48
final day for any proposals to be submitted. And so staff will be reviewing that over the next few weeks and then it'll go to City 01:03:54
Council to approve on an architecture firm to to start the design for the City Hall project. So that'll be early next year that 01:04:00
that that take place. OK. 01:04:06
Cool, if that's everything. 01:04:12
Can we do a big public thank you for thank you for your service? Thanks. We could do a ground applause, but it would be very loud. 01:04:16
Thank you. 01:04:26
Thank you so much, Steph. It's been a great eight years. And I'll still be at me. Yeah, we'll still hear from you. And for the 01:04:28
first time in eight years, will you use the gavel? 01:04:33
All right, I'm going to use the gavel. I'm going to have it on video too. OK, meeting adjourned. 01:04:41
I. 01:04:51
Link
Start video at
Social
Embed
* you need to log in to manage your favorites
My Favorites List
You haven't added any favorites yet. Click the "Add Favorite" button on any media page, and they'll show up here.
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Unable to preview the file.
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Unable to preview the file.
Welcome, David to the Vineyard Planning Commission meeting. 00:00:17
Today is December 18th, 2024. It is 6:02 PM and we'll get things started. Natalie Harbin is going to give us a pledge of a Pledge 00:00:21
of Allegiance and an invocation. All right, pledge first. All right, let's do it. 00:00:29
I pledge allegiance to flag the United States of America to the public, which it stands one nation under God, indivisible, with 00:00:38
liberty and justice for all. 00:00:44
Let's pray. 00:00:52
Father, we thank you for your goodness to us. We thank you for this evening and for every minute and hour that you give us. 00:00:54
We ask that this would be a productive time where we are thoughtful and mindful of our present and our future and the gift that it 00:01:00
is to us, and that we would be thoughtful as well and kind in our remarks and give us wisdom. And we ask all these things in Jesus 00:01:06
name, Amen. 00:01:11
You, Natalie. 00:01:18
All right, we'll move to public comments. David, you got anything for us? 00:01:20
Sure. 00:01:28
So David Larae, resident. 00:01:30
So I've, I've heard rumors that we're having discussions about the. 00:01:33
Pod two of the homesteads development, the city is having discussions with them and about they like to change the zoning for that 00:01:41
area from what it's currently is, which is our 1-8. 00:01:47
To something that would allow the more density. 00:01:54
I use like the comment that we have out there right now next to it in pod one. Which one is Pod 2 again? It's this the field 00:01:58
between the school and the first cul-de-sac. Yeah, just just South of school and it ends at the cul-de-sac, first cul-de-sac on 00:02:04
off of Holy Rd. on the east side of Holy Rd. Yeah. 00:02:10
So that's anyway. And so there is a. 00:02:17
And I was hearing about a list of all the wonderful things that the developer is going to give us, like they're going to give us a 00:02:21
10 foot wide trail, you know, down there. And so to connect, go long Hallway Rd. then connect over to the sports park and they're 00:02:27
going to give us no additional entrances onto Hallway road and a couple of things like that. And if I, as I looked, I went back 00:02:34
and got my maps from from 2017 when they were when they were, we talked about that last. 00:02:41
Here this meeting and they. 00:02:48
Those were already on the table and we already had those. He's not like he's giving us anything new for that. 00:02:51
So I just want to say that if by chance you all get to be involved in any discussions about that, would you please keep in mind 00:02:57
that that that what, that those aren't new offerings. He's just asking for something more, giving us the same things. 00:03:04
And so if he really, really wants to do that badly and the city really feels the necessity to make the higher density. 00:03:12
I would not be in favor of that personally, but that's what the case. Then please make sure you're getting something good from him 00:03:19
in return. 00:03:23
So that's that's number one, number two. 00:03:28
About the same same issue. 00:03:31
Some reasons to some reasons for considering not going to higher density there is that we've in the city we're doing a lot with 00:03:34
high density already. And the idea is the idea he's selling as understand it is that these make great starter, make better starter 00:03:41
homes. Right now a single family dwelling is is out of reach of most people starting out. 00:03:47
And I see that as a good point. However, if we do do that, then we'll. 00:03:55
We'll be making even more. 00:04:02
Vineyard will be more higher density everywhere else and we'll have more starter home and more people just starting out who will 00:04:05
financially not be as able to contribute in other ways to the city. You know, we ought, we're often compared to Cottonwood Heights 00:04:11
because we have similar sizes, but the difference there is that they have a lot more business. So they have a better tax base 00:04:17
there and also they have a also there are a lot more. 00:04:23
Because they're nowadays $1,000,000 homes. I mean any anything bigger than 1/3 of an acre with a big house is $1,000,000 anymore. 00:04:30
So they have a lot more of those and so they have a lot more people who are further along in the, in the, in their path through 00:04:38
life and, and probably better able to support things like the latest 5K run or the, or sponsoring part of the Boa Palooza and 00:04:45
things like that. And so we don't have a lot of that in our city. If you think about it. We have the lake fronts and we have the, 00:04:52
so the shore, sorry, the shores and the Hamptons. And then we have a sleepy Ridge and. 00:04:59
Maybe a few other houses scattered throughout, but not a real solid development of, of higher end homes. And so we really don't. 00:05:07
So if we end up catering to lots and lots and lots of starter homes, I mean, at one, at one hand, that's nice to give people a 00:05:13
product to move into, but the other hand, we're limiting our, our ability as a city to be able to fund ourselves. And, and you 00:05:19
know, because all those folks will be, they'll be more than payment property tax, but less overall. And so we, we, we, we need to 00:05:25
be. 00:05:31
That we're, besides growing our business base which we should be focusing on, we should also be making sure that as from a 00:05:37
residential standpoint that our property tax base doesn't get, you know, washed out or diluted. 00:05:43
Yeah. So it give me a good balance there would be good. So those are some arguments I would I would leave you in favor of keeping 00:05:50
it as is. The R18 is still a pretty high it's a medium density. It's just. 00:05:56
Barely medium density from from high density, it's and you know, 600 square, 66000 foot square foot a lot is somewhere between the 00:06:03
7th and an eighth of an acre. It's just just tiny. And I mean they'll, they'll, they won't have much lawn to mow if they build a 00:06:10
house on that, you know, so. 00:06:17
It really is pretty high density already and I think that we need more of that kind of product as well in our city. 00:06:25
So those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you, David. 00:06:32
Planning Commission and City Council on approval on whatever happens with their plan. 00:07:05
But nothing is really public right now. They have not submitted any application or anything like that as of right now. OK. And the 00:07:11
way I remember it is, well, I remember the same way David is the. 00:07:16
Where I used to keep the maps, remember they came to this map on my phone, yeah. 00:07:51
So 2017 maps and it was very clear that that was yeah. And like, is it that very well could be there. Could we have that shared? 00:07:56
If you have that, Bryce, could you share that out? I'd love to see the original. And then we'll make sure when we when we have 00:08:01
this discussion and Planning Commission that we can show you kind of their original plan. Like this is what was approved in 2017. 00:08:06
This is what they're wanting to change to just to make sure you're comparing apples to apples. And that's that's if or when it 00:08:12
comes and also if there's. 00:08:17
I would love to know like where we are on our density requirements to know what sort of leverage we have to your point, David, 00:08:23
like where can we? 00:08:27
And we'll demand that you give us a vote. 00:09:00
We'll make sure you have a full analysis on the staff side that you can make a full determination on your recommendation to the 00:09:04
City Council. And one more point really quick, but we haven't left that comment period yet. So one more. And as the cemetery is 00:09:11
offering, as I understand there's two acres he's offering. I was looking at at the homesteads. 00:09:18
All the homesteads boundaries and it's it would have to be careful to make sure that 2 acres aligns with some Parkland or 00:09:27
something on the. 00:09:32
In the Hallway Farms development area so that we actually could make a cemetery out of it because. 00:09:37
That you deem necessary if they do want to approve it. So cool. 00:10:11
Cool. Thanks, David. While I won't be on the Planning Commission when that happens, I'll I'll be here for sure. 00:10:17
Thanks, David. 00:10:25
Moving to consent items. Approval for the November 6th, 2024 Planning Commission meeting minutes. 00:10:28
Do I have a motion on that? 00:10:35
I motion. 00:10:38
2nd. 00:10:40
All in favor, aye. Moving to business item 4.2, should we put off the calendar until? 00:10:42
We have more people. So we have people that are. Yeah. I mean, if I don't know if we need an official motion, but I think for 00:10:49
actually, sadly, both of these items, it would make a lot more sense. I mean, it would be helpful to have the calendar approved 00:10:55
before the new year, just so we know. And if you look at the staff report, there's no. 00:11:01
I don't think there's any dates taken off except for January 1st or the 2nd 1st. So does the, you know, the standard first and 00:11:07
third Wednesday of the month except for that first meeting in January which is a combined Planning Commission City Council 00:11:12
meeting. I. 00:11:16
I have a question on that actually. So I'm about to start a busier travel season for my job. Is it possible for me to do a zoom in 00:11:22
for these if I'm not in this? Yeah, we have been able to set up for electronic connection before. I'll have to talk with Pam on 00:11:29
how that works on if you're connected online, if that's if you can be like a sitting member or if you can't. But I'll, I'll talk 00:11:35
to her and figure that out. 00:11:42
I think we should be OK if you unless you want to maybe. 00:11:49
Do a modified calendar, just I don't know the legal process here. 00:11:55
On saying that, the first meeting will be held and the calendar can be determined on January 8th. 00:11:59
That would be the first meeting that we're proposing. And then from there, hopefully more members of the Commission are here and 00:12:05
you can vote on a full calendar at that meeting. Perfect. 00:12:10
I believe January 8th is actually a City Council meeting that we're doing an ombudsman training. It's a combined Planning 00:12:15
Commission City Council meeting. So we did include it on this calendar. But I'm saying if we just say this calendar can be 00:12:21
approved, will be reviewed and approved on January 8th at a Planning Commission meeting, I think that should be okay. That's fine. 00:12:27
When Sorry, no, go ahead, couple. 00:12:35
Business questions. Do we have nominations or appointees at the start of the new year for the Planning Commission yet? So we don't 00:12:38
have any as of right now. The mayor may choose to and the council may choose to do that on the 8th. Sometimes it does take them a 00:12:46
little bit longer to go through that process. I know that that they are aware that that Bryce is retiring. 00:12:54
And that we'll need a new Commission member. 00:13:03
OK, so. 00:13:07
What I would I'd like to make a motion that we adopt the calendar. 00:13:08
Just approving the meetings of the 8th and the 15th because I feel like some of these business items would be more appropriate on 00:13:15
the 15th when meeting as just us rather than also with the City Council setting. I don't really want to necessarily reign on their 00:13:22
parade with some of our day-to-day business stuff. I think that's more appropriate for the 15th. OK, so Nate has made a motion to 00:13:29
delay item 4.2 until the 15th meeting, but also approving. 00:13:36
The meetings for January 8th and January 15th. 00:13:44
Do I have a second? 00:13:47
Second, all in favor, aye. Then item 4.3, before we delay this, make a motion to delay this. I would like to put in that I think 00:13:49
that Nate would make a great Planning Commission chair. He's very level headed. I really appreciate having him on the Planning 00:13:57
Commission. And so while we're not picking that now, I just want it on the record. 00:14:05
Would make a great chair. It's nice I moved to have this pushed to another date. 00:14:14
All right. No, it's all good. Do you want to move it to the 15th also? 00:14:23
I think that would be a more appropriate time because that's when we'll have a more full body. 00:14:30
But I want to hear both of your opinions with that. 00:14:35
I think that would be I think that makes sense too. Yeah, I think so since it's just the three of us and and you're moving off, we 00:14:38
want to give other. 00:14:42
People an opportunity they want to. So do I have a second? 00:14:47
I'll second all in favor. Aye, all right, that's being moved. 00:14:51
And we'll move right into the work session for the 2024 zoning text amendment overall. 00:14:56
Cash, you got this or Anthony, this is going to be me, OK. 00:15:01
We're trying something new here, using iPad for a presentation so I can take notes. 00:15:05
So this is the last section it did look like if you look through the the notes here and also I need to note that I did not include 00:15:40
the presentation. 00:15:43
Because I got it finished at like 5:50 today, but I essentially the Word document that was with this staff report is everything in 00:15:47
that presentation. I just have it. 00:15:54
In the different it looks a little different. Anyways, I'll just go through these. 00:16:00
Sure, there is paper copies over there David, if you do want. 00:16:08
Yeah, if you want to look at that, that's the. 00:16:14
Paper copy so the slideshow I just condensed most of what you'll see in the paper copy just to make it a little bit easier to read 00:16:16
and I'll go through each section. Feel free to stop me at any time if you do have questions or you have other changes that you 00:16:22
see. But the first section 15 two, which is title, authority, purpose and declaration of intent and effective date, we just we 00:16:28
added title. So everywhere you'll see in green applications, building structures, applicability, minimum requirements, those were 00:16:34
all added and then we just. 00:16:40
Cleaned up some of the language that was we felt was confusing or archaic. A lot of this code was originally adopted with the very 00:16:46
first joining code in like 2014 or something like that, and a lot of it was just copy and pasted from other jurisdictions. So we 00:16:52
just wanted to clean it up as much as possible. 00:16:58
Umm. 00:17:05
Let's see. 00:17:07
I'll go on. 00:17:11
1506 land use authorities and officers. So this is one that probably there might be some more conversation to be had on it. Right 00:17:12
now, our code does require that we stagger the appointments of Planning Commission members so that not more than one renewal is 00:17:20
member terms are to be staggered so that no more than one term shall expire each year. When you have 8 Commission members, that's 00:17:27
technically impossible to accomplish. So we looked at other cities. I talked to Pam about this and she felt that 3. 00:17:35
An appropriate number. That's actually, we have a few right now, they're that way. So we just want to make sure we are meeting our 00:17:42
code. And so that's why we're suggesting to change it to three appointments instead of one term can expire at the end of each 00:17:47
year. 00:17:51
Do you have any comments on that? 00:17:57
OK, just before we keep going for the record. 00:17:59
The city attorney has reviewed none of this yet. So yeah, that'll be essentially the next step is once we've gotten all the 00:18:04
comments from you, we will send it to him and he'll make sure that we're meeting state code and all that, and then it'll be a 00:18:10
business item, which we'll vote on. Correct? Yep. This is just a work session just to talk and to make sure we have it where we 00:18:15
wanted since we asked you to do some things last time when you're bringing it back with the changes. Yeah. Thank you. 00:18:20
The next section is about the quorum. So quorum is having three members here. 00:18:26
And right now the wording in this makes it makes it seem like a vote requires the majority of the Planning Commission, which would 00:18:32
actually be four to five people because the Planning Commission is made-up of eight people. And so we just added language to say 00:18:38
sitting present members of the Planning Commission. And that way, you know, if there's three of you here, it just requires that 00:18:44
majority to to vote. 00:18:50
Commission organization. We included some. 00:18:58
No, it would. It would still have to be 3, wouldn't it? Let me. All actions of the Commission shall require the vote of a majority 00:19:02
of the total sitting present members of the Commission. So of the three of us here, two of them need to be OK with it. It's the 00:19:08
majority of who is there. I personally feel that it should be the majority of the total body, regardless who's president, 00:19:14
including the alternates. 00:19:20
So we could, do you want me to change it to that of the Commission, not including the alternate? Yeah. I don't want it to be two. 00:19:26
I want it to at least be 3. Everything OK? Yeah. 00:19:30
We could say with a minimum, we could say of a minimum that makes sense majority of. 00:19:35
Yeah, whatever the way to word it. 00:19:42
However, I would like to hear what the. 00:19:44
Argument for this would be. 00:19:47
Because it seemed right away we're all like, so was there a reason? Yeah. And that would be technically tonight if we had a site 00:19:48
plan before you, you could not vote to approve it with, even though you had the three of us. You have a quorum here. And if we had 00:19:54
a minimum thing, you need to have four people voting. 00:19:59
OK, which is fine. I don't think we've ever had an issue Where so do you think just a minimum of three? Yeah. So even if we have 00:20:06
stuff come forward, I don't think that there are issues and if there are, if they are controversial enough that somebody's voting 00:20:12
no, then I think that we should have more. 00:20:17
OK. 00:20:24
Sorry, can you speak into the mic there? You OK? Sure, thanks. So point of there as long as you do that for everyone in the. 00:20:27
So you're saying that we have? 00:20:35
You'd have to have four or five to make a majority, but there are 5 sitting council members at anyone time, right? Commission 00:20:37
members at one time. We have alternates, so the majority of the five. 00:20:43
So I guess I'll work on this language. So that does a vote requires at least three people and that three people have to be an 00:20:50
affirmative. So in this case, if site plan was here tonight, we wouldn't have to postpone that because we don't, we do have a 00:20:55
quorum, but we don't have a majority of the total Commission, which is 8 people. 00:21:00
And so we would still allow that vote to take place, but it'd have to be a unanimous vote among the three sitting members, even 00:21:07
even if one of the people up here was an alternate. So the way I the way I see it, and we'll need to talk to Jamie about legality 00:21:12
of it, if there were two sitting members and an alternate up here and it was, you know, a mess among the three, the alternate 00:21:17
would be, at that time, a sitting member. Yeah. When an alternate is sitting up here, they are considered a member of the Planning 00:21:22
Commission. 00:21:28
So maybe just to say 3 a minimum of three. 00:21:34
OK. 00:21:38
But I'll let you figure that out, OK? Yeah, I'll work on that language and bring it back. I think before bringing it back, that is 00:21:41
one worth sharing with the city attorney because we need to know what applicant rights there are and that we aren't being overly 00:21:45
burdensome with some of our rules. Yeah. 00:21:50
I mean, even if the City Council has only three City Council members and a City Council meeting, it has to be unanimous when they 00:21:56
pass things. Yeah, yeah. So we'll try to just make it equal to what the city council's minimums are. 00:22:02
OK, Commission organization. This just allows for the Commission to elect a chair pro temp in case the chair and vice chair are 00:22:08
gone. Right now, there's really no language that outlines the process for that, so we just wanted to include that. 00:22:16
Vineyard, the development. 00:22:25
Let's see. Oh, the DRC, we're finally getting this in here through presses. I was just gonna ask, probably over a year overdue for 00:22:27
right now, but the DRC membership right now essentially allows everybody to have a designee except for the Planning Commission 00:22:34
chair. And we are now adding that language in so the planning cushion chair can have a designate. 00:22:40
This next one, super simple, just an establishment of districts. This just gives a brief summary of what every district is. The 00:22:50
RMU, the FOI, the Archie, the GRMU was missing the Geneva Rd. mixed-use, so we just included that. This is the definition straight 00:22:57
from the DRAMU code language. No changes or anything like that to it. 00:23:03
I did have a quick question on the zoning map. This was an issue that was brought up when the homes Holdaway Farms came and the 00:23:10
map has different coloring for different zoning. 00:23:16
Do we want to define the zoning for future developments because there's still zoning on the map that is low density that. 00:23:22
So you're saying like this density equals this many units per acre? Yeah. 00:23:33
I can talk to, I know exactly what you're talking about where people were saying this is high density when it's other people are 00:23:39
saying this is actually low density. And then it's like we called it low medium density because we don't have any definitions. So 00:23:45
it was zoned as low density. And the developer came in with a plan that eventually got approved by the City Council but denied by 00:23:51
the Planning Commission that had a greater density than all of our medium density in the city. And they said that it was low 00:23:57
density because of some. 00:24:02
Yeah, yeah, some arbitrary, they thought that and we didn't have a way to like have teeth in that and that was super annoying with 00:24:09
that. OK, yeah, I can include that in the definitions of for each zone kind of what. And I do remember having this conversation 00:24:15
with Morgan when this whole thing came about and I I do remember him pushing back for some reason. I don't remember what that is, 00:24:21
but I'll, I'll try to figure that out and bring that. 00:24:28
One way or another, back to you guys, OK? 00:24:35
The OK, yeah, this is the the zoning map we just talked about like uncertainty, uncertainty regarding boundaries of various zones. 00:24:40
So if you look at the zoning map, it just kind of has a line going down different areas. And generally that's that's a long lot 00:24:46
lines, but there are a few like for example, we're doing a site plan right now for the LDS Church along Geneva Rd. where they have 00:24:52
one lot that is split into two different zones. And so this language here just. 00:24:58
Helps us simplify exactly how we determine which zone to rule that property as. 00:25:05
And we did have that language in there before, if you'll notice on the paper copy everything in red and stricken out is what was 00:25:12
in there. We just tried to make that language a little bit easier to understand. 00:25:17
The next one, this is probably a little bit more complicated, the district E table. I tried to provide a brief summary up at the 00:25:26
top of everything we did, but if you looked at our previous, our current district use table, it's pretty ugly. It's really hard to 00:25:32
find anything. And so actually Madison spent countless hours redrawing a new table and splitting it up. So now we'll have a 00:25:39
residential category, a commercial category, and. 00:25:46
A public. 00:25:53
I only included those two in the paper copy actually, but we just split it up rather than having one long table. It just makes it 00:25:55
easier to read. And then here are a few changes that we are making to it or suggesting that we make to it, changing the short term 00:26:01
rental from not permitted to permitted. As we've discussed in the past about short term rentals, I think the first one of these 00:26:08
work sessions that we did kind of creating these standards on short term rentals and we'll come back to that once again. 00:26:15
But right now, it's just not permitted across the board right now. 00:26:23
We're changing to permitted, but with the subscript note saying it has to follow the standards that we are working on getting 00:26:26
approved and that's only in the single family home neighborhoods I believe and maybe the RMU. 00:26:33
Then we added check cashing and other credit services. I know there's been some talk online about the city creating a zone or 00:26:42
allowing this type of use, but I did just want to reiterate that if we don't outline specific standards for different uses, then 00:26:49
we have to essentially use like this. If, if a check cashing place wanted to come in, we would have to rule and just say this is a 00:26:57
financial institution and it is governed by that standard, which is pretty low by creating. 00:27:04
Or something like this, we can now put on some more requirements and I think we went over those in the past of kind of having 00:27:11
these distance requirements, total number of businesses we're allowing. So we're including that in the table. We are changing car 00:27:17
wash from permitted to conditional in the RMU. We've had a lot of drama about car washes in the past. We did want to just put in 00:27:23
some more kind of barriers there. And so that would actually, I believe they are only permitted now in the manufacturing or the FY 00:27:29
zone and the rest. 00:27:35
Conditional in any of our other like commercial zones Event Center, we change that from not permitted to conditional in the 00:27:42
regional commercial. 00:27:46
We added the mobile food court with it only being conditional in the RMU. We added retail tobacco specialty business. So once 00:27:52
again similar to that check cashing, we just we want to create standards for this. And so it's a conditional in the regional 00:27:59
commercial and then establish or tattoo establishment we included on here because that wasn't anywhere and that is permitted in in 00:28:05
most of our commercial zones, RMUGRMU, FM, UR, SHE and NC. 00:28:12
So with that, are there any? 00:28:20
Yeah, I have. I see no issues with the actual substance of the table and what we discussed. I feel like it's consistent. The only 00:28:22
suggestion I have with formatting of the table is that the zoning district uses heading is only at the beginning of the table and 00:28:30
when it's on multiple pages, sometimes I get lost. So that is a way we could format that when it's actually published. 00:28:39
That is a problem with technology, so. 00:28:48
To make a Long story short, we pay for Muna Scribe. I think it's mean scribe. I don't actually forgot the name of the Municote. 00:28:51
Thank you. Municode and they have two different softwares. We use this one as a self-publishing software and the tables that we're 00:28:58
allowed to use are very restrictive. One method that we could do is every, I don't know, every five rows. We could just include 00:29:05
the zoning so that it would be there. So it's easy to follow so. 00:29:12
But there was nobody out with the notes. Was it uploaded? 00:29:20
As a Word document, I believe in the future is just uploaded as a PDF that would resolve that issue. 00:29:25
You can correct me if I'm wrong. So it's usually created in the software on the website itself. So you can't create it in Word and 00:29:34
just copy it inside. You can paste it as a picture and it won't be clear enough to work with. 00:29:42
The file December 18th PC notes. 00:29:51
Was created within the system, yes. 00:29:55
Yeah, we don't software, like I said, it has so many. It is great for the most part, but the table feature on it is the most 00:29:59
frustrating thing in the world. I think Madison probably recreated this table two or three times because of the issues it had. And 00:30:06
yeah, it was created in here and then I took screenshots of it and created the note document that you're looking at. Like I said, 00:30:12
the substance wise, I don't see an issue with it. I just want to make sure when it is published in the actual municipal code. 00:30:19
Then it's formatted in a friendly way, and if that means you need to have some ribbons throughout it to remind us what the heck 00:30:27
we're looking at. 00:30:30
Then maybe that's how we do it. I just ask that you please consider that. It's not. Yeah. So substance, just user friendliness. 00:30:34
So, yeah, I'll show you. So this is like I said, this is the updated table, what it looks like where we did split it. And that's 00:30:40
the reason we did split it. So now residential, it's a little easier to read. Let me show you the original. Yeah, just the zoning 00:30:46
district uses every seven. Yeah. Yeah. So every. 00:30:53
Yeah. So right now, like for example, if you wanted to find out motor vehicle fueling station and the RMU, you're then scrolling 00:31:00
up here and then you have to go down here. You moved a little to the left or right. 00:31:04
Yeah, yeah. So just add a ribbon every 10 or so. All right, I'll have Madison do that. Take her a few hours. Thanks. 00:31:10
OK, let me go back to this. 00:31:19
Maybe. 00:31:27
OK, Anything else with the district E table? 00:31:30
If not, I can continue. 00:31:37
You're good, OK. 00:31:40
01 other a few other things. This is not in the paper copies. These are the things I caught. 00:31:44
But that that's really up to to you guys on on what you think is the best route. 00:32:17
If they are putting in like permanent lighting. 00:32:51
So we should catch that at that stage. I get that some people still might do some work themselves and don't get a permit, but in 00:32:54
that stage we should catch it. And, and it's also another thing if if you do see it and it is causing concern, if you have a 00:33:00
bright light shining into your window, let us know and we'll do what we can. 00:33:05
And then the other thing is we simplified the garage detached garage language. It was just a really giant section of the the 00:33:13
district use table and we just changed it to I think permitted with a subscript saying review the code below just to make the 00:33:19
table look better. 00:33:24
OK, development agreements. 00:33:32
We mostly just simplified language here, as you'll see in the paper copy. Everything in red we're taking out green is all new. And 00:33:35
then the second section there says that every development agreement is supposed to be reviewed by the City Council every year. 00:33:42
Once again, I don't think that. 00:33:51
Happens often enough and so we added some language that says the council or staff shall review a development agreement and then if 00:33:54
staff does it that they need to provide a report to the City Council on if they are meeting those obligations from the development 00:33:59
agreement. So for example, right now with Holdaway Fields starting to develop a lot, Anthony's been going through their 00:34:05
development agreement and saying, you know, when are we going to get our 400 S Rd. connection? Are we making sure that they're up 00:34:11
to date on their landscaping? 00:34:16
And all that. And so this just allows staff to do that report to the City Council just because that's a lot more likely to get 00:34:22
done than just the council reviewing every development agreement. I don't know what your thoughts are on that. That makes sense. 00:34:30
Yeah, in the past, whenever I see stuff like this municipal code, you can usually tie that to. 00:34:39
Years ago, a certain development agreement got approved that members of the council said I really don't want to approve this. And 00:34:45
they said, well, what have we reviewed every year? OK, then I'll prove it. That's usually where this is coming from. And if this 00:34:51
was inherited from another community, cool. I'm interested to see the origin of this particular one for Vineyard. 00:34:57
Provo had a weird one or if this was something from a few years ago that about a development agreement that we're concerned about, 00:35:05
but I think it totally makes sense. 00:35:11
Staff do it and then write up a summary every 12 months that can be on consent calendar unless there's something worth raising. 00:35:17
You wonder the last time the development agreement for the homesteads was reviewed? Great question. Well, we're about to go in a 00:35:22
few months ago. 20 years ago. 00:35:28
I'm curious so and and that would be good if it is in here, it would help create a practice in our department because right now if 00:35:35
it's up to the council to review it then. 00:35:39
You know, it's just not going to happen, but right now if we do say or staff that would then kind of create the mandate for us to 00:35:44
do it and it would be kind of put on a yearly thing for us to provide for the council. As far as single family housing, they're 00:35:50
the only ones, well, except for I guess holdaway fields now that are still building and they've still got quite a lot left. I 00:35:55
think it could be wise to review that. 00:36:01
Yeah, maybe when we're reviewing this pod two, we could look back at the whole development agreement as well, just to make sure 00:36:08
amenities and promises. 00:36:12
Cool. OK, um. 00:36:18
OK. Yeah, permitted uses this essentially. It just was a little confusing at the beginning because it sounds like that the plan or 00:36:23
the city planner gets to review and render a final decision for every permitted use application that comes into the city. And I 00:36:31
just wanted to create some language to differentiate what the Planning Commission approves versus what the city planner approves. 00:36:38
So for example, like a building or if a business wants to move into an already existing structure, that is something the planning. 00:36:45
Can review, we say, oh, this is a permitted use, they're allowed to move into here. But if it's a site plan, a commercial site 00:36:53
plan, we want the Planning Commission to look at it. Same thing single family homes planning or the planner does approve that, not 00:36:58
the Planning Commission. So we just wanted to create that language in there. And most of this is redundant in the site planning 00:37:04
section as well, just differentiating the the two. 00:37:09
Umm, then approval standards, we removed some redundant language. It was just, you know, essentially laid out everything that we 00:37:16
review, but it's also like every site plan needs to comply with the requirements of the zoning district. And then it includes all 00:37:22
these different things, like the just different standards, height setbacks, all that. But that's something that's just in the 00:37:28
zoning standard. So we felt that language was not necessary. 00:37:34
Conditional uses, this one, we did include a section in here saying the title report and survey of the subject property may be 00:37:42
required by the city planner. Right now it is just required. I don't know what your thoughts are on that. There's a lot of 00:37:48
benefits to having a title report, but we felt that there might be some cases where a conditional use is is report or conditional 00:37:54
use. 00:37:59
Permit is required and we filled title report might not prove to to be a benefit to to the Planning Commissioner staff. 00:38:06
And in that case, we could, you know, waive that requirement. We're fine keeping it as a requirement if you do want it. But for 00:38:15
example, if somebody wanted to do a home preschool, I believe they need a conditional use permit. And so that would be an example 00:38:20
of do we want to make them go through all this title work for this home preschool, you know, and that is something that the city 00:38:26
planner in this new language could wave. 00:38:32
I, I was with you until you gave that example because I went absolutely do a title report for that because is that person a renter 00:38:40
or the owner? And are we OK with the owner knowing that they're running a preschool out of the house they're renting and that's 00:38:45
something that's why you'd run the time. We do check that in the business license application. So we do kind of have those 00:38:51
measures in place. But like I said, it's, it's up to you guys if, if you do or if we do want to create kind of a standard of when 00:38:56
we would waive that requirement. 00:39:02
Anytime I see the word may, I'm followed up with a cool Under what circumstances? 00:39:10
That's just kind of my general. 00:39:15
Roll with most of these because when it says maybe if the city planner feels like it. Obviously casual, but that's the risk. You 00:39:18
guys are awesome city planners, but what about 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now? 00:39:24
I want to make sure we're getting people accountable. Yeah, no, I'm totally agree. So yeah, I'll look into that. And if I do find 00:39:31
special circumstances where I do think that would be adequate, then I'll include them. If not, I'll just remove that. 00:39:37
But that's only one opinion. 00:39:44
You have at least double that over here. Either that or like dig into specifics of these are the ones that we wouldn't OK. 00:39:46
Are there any other ones besides like? 00:39:59
Preschool. Are there any other examples of? 00:40:01
So I mean, for example, right now we are we're reviewing like a site plan application for a tire shop that's not near any kind of 00:40:05
residential. 00:40:08
That is a conditional use. So that would require higher report and we will be, I guess this could be a good example. We are 00:40:14
already getting a title report because they have to do a plat. So now we're gonna make them possibly do another title report for 00:40:20
this business. So that might be in a circumstance where it's like we don't really need to see this again, but this would be 00:40:26
another good one that would be good to run through. Our attorney is he's the one who generally touches a lot of things. 00:40:32
If we can, if they've submitted a title report in the beginning, is that not something we can just that we have on record or that 00:40:38
they would? 00:40:41
Well, the art requirements, title reports, I believe Anthony yeah, they're only valid for 30 days. And so say for example, they do 00:40:44
this platting, we get it approved and then 31 days later they go through a site plan with conditional use. We now have an expired. 00:40:52
Got it, Tyler report. Where do we want to put that burden back onto them? 00:41:00
Only get that and that is obnoxious so yeah, I appreciate doing something to be more so yeah we'll dig into this to answer 00:41:06
language to make it not duplicative work but if it. 00:41:11
Hasn't been yeah, existing, right. If it hasn't happened before, I'm with me. I'd like it to happen. Some language there. The 00:41:15
survey also. Yeah, I love that it's a may there because very few conditional use permits really need an all to serve it. 00:41:25
I would love to avoid that because that's also just a. 00:41:34
It's a pretty expensive cost for the developer that nine times out of 10, you go, OK, cool, yeah. And then put away. And so only 00:41:38
ask for things if we feel like it's a substitute, if it would help. Yeah, change a decision, Right. And maybe that's how we word 00:41:43
it with where is May. 00:41:49
May be required by the city planner if it is of substance to the decision at hand, or even just saying by the city planner at his 00:41:55
discretion. 00:42:00
OK. Yeah, we'll work on languages and like I said, I think it would be another good one to run by our legal to make sure. Yeah. 00:42:05
And the same would apply for the section right underneath it when talking about traffic impact analysis. Yeah, we talked at length 00:42:11
about that and I wanna make sure if there's a may there, we have conditions on when. 00:42:17
Yeah. And and this one, it was just the language in red was super confusing. If required by the Commission, DRC engineer, traffic 00:42:24
impact analysis will be required. So we just rephrased it essentially saying it may be required if requested by the Planning 00:42:32
Commission, DRC or city engineer. So any one of our bodies could request it. And in that case it is now required document. 00:42:40
Instead of saying it may be required, say oh will be required. Will be required if requested. 00:42:49
OK, good catch. 00:42:56
Change my. 00:42:58
All right. 00:43:02
General property development standards removed language about flag lots. We don't have any standards in our city 4 flag lots, and 00:43:05
so this section right now is talking about driveway or lot frontage requirements and where we don't have any flag lots and we 00:43:12
don't have flag flag standards. It felt unnecessary to include this language unless we wanted to create a section specifically 00:43:18
talking about flag lots and how we want to. 00:43:24
You know, examine those. 00:43:32
Or what requirements we want to put onto those? Is there any possibility that there could be a flag lot? I I mean, I there's 00:43:34
always a yeah, always a possibility that something could happen like that. 00:43:39
But I think, and Rachel is the one who did this section, so she has a little bit more insight on why she wanted to remove that. 00:43:45
But I think it it just comes down to we need to create the section on flag lots that have these standards in place rather than 00:43:51
just say right now this is saying we don't require driveway frontage requirements for flag lots. Like let's create the standard 00:43:56
rather than just kind of. 00:44:02
Ignore it. Yeah, OK, yeah. 00:44:08
The next one, again it's talking about front yard parking prohibited and it says that no vehicle parking shall be permitted in any 00:44:11
required front yard setback area except on driveways located in residential loans that directly access a garage or carport. We 00:44:17
felt that that. 00:44:23
We already do have a requirement of where parking can be located in a front yard. And we felt that like this language was first 00:44:29
redundant, but also could be restrictive of additional parking. If somebody wanted to put in a concrete pad that didn't access a 00:44:34
carport or driveway, but they wanted to have something just as you know, if they have an Adu or something like that. So we wanted 00:44:40
to remove that language. 00:44:45
Clearview triangle, this one we've been having a lot of hard times with lately because of the graphic that we include in the 00:44:52
zoning code is very confusing on where we actually measure. So essentially the Clearview triangle is a 12 foot line measured from 00:44:58
the driveway to the street and then from the driveway entrance to either side. And it creates this triangle, a view protection 00:45:03
triangle that we don't want to see any fences, any permanent structures, anything like that in that area. But the way that the 00:45:09
code is written right now. 00:45:14
Makes it from the curb line and essentially by the time you get to the curb line to the driveway, you're already at like 10 feet 00:45:21
or something like that. And so it makes it useless. And so we changed how we measure that, how we measure the. 00:45:26
The Clearview triangle and then we remove the graphic. When we come back for approval we will probably have an updated graphic to 00:45:33
show this just because they are helpful, but in this case it did hurt us. 00:45:38
So accessory dwelling units, this one might be a little bit more of a duty to get through. So in our general plan, we actually do 00:45:47
have this in here in our moderate income housing section that we will approve mobile housing types intended for long term 00:45:54
placement that adhere to a permanent foundation. That's in our general plan. It's also in our moderate income housing report that 00:46:01
of things that we need to continually improve is Adu. 00:46:08
And so we felt that this was a good time to include it. 00:46:15
A question What constitutes as a mobile house? 00:46:18
Great question. Essentially you could get something like a pre manufactured home and put that on a permanent foundation, but it 00:46:23
would have to be fit within our detached accessory structure code. 00:46:29
So we're trying to figure out the best way to do this without people thinking we're just allowing like a trailer park to exist or 00:46:37
like a shipping container. People have done that and built like a house on a shipping container. So we don't allow containers 00:46:43
right now in the city. So that would prohibit that. But this mostly is speaking to like pre manufactured homes. I think that's 00:46:49
where. 00:46:55
I get hung up is the term mobile housing when I think you might mean modular prefab is exactly yeah, I just yeah, I use the word 00:47:02
mobile just because that was what is in our general plan. Let me pull that up Mobile would. 00:47:11
I think would contradict the rest of the statement where it's saying it's adhere to a permanent foundation, so then it's no longer 00:47:21
mobile. We don't want it to be mobile, so. 00:47:26
And I know that most trailers aren't early either. If you're saying like a trailer park, a mobile home, but I don't know, then we 00:47:31
can dig into more specifics on what it looks like. Is it really a modular home or is it a prefab 1? Because there's some really 00:47:37
fantastic prefabbed homes that would even match as an accessory dwelling unit. It's very different than doing a double wide. And 00:47:44
maybe this is where we could include some sort of definition that could help us. 00:47:50
I believe that we got this language straight from the state. So the state. 00:47:57
Going back to where you were asking about kind of where we're at with density in the state, essentially the state has this 00:48:02
moderate income housing report that we have to fill out every year that kind of talks about the state of the city and what we're 00:48:07
doing to encourage moderate income housing. And one of those sections that we have to that the city has chosen to report on is our 00:48:13
accessory dwelling units. And from there they kind of create a menu of different things that you can choose. And so this is 00:48:18
something that was. 00:48:23
Chosen by the the Planning Commission City Council, probably in 2022. 00:48:29
Is one of our strategies that we would adopt by the end of 2025 is to allow this mobile housing type? I can see if that language 00:48:33
did come straight from the state. My guess is it would be hard to change that if we want to qualify this under the modern income 00:48:40
housing if we did change it to be more restrictive than what the state is. But I can look into that specific when when the City 00:48:47
Council approved those things, did we not approve an extra 1? 00:48:54
We did, but we can no longer report on one of the goals. And I forget which one it is, but this year they essentially they gave us 00:49:02
the approval on the moderate income housing and said starting this year you can no longer report on this, this goal. 00:49:09
And it's not a fun report today. So I wonder how we can get the definition of, yeah, exactly what mobile housing is that is 00:49:17
intended for long term placement that adhere to. Yeah. And it's also who's determining what that is. There's a lot of kind of Gray 00:49:24
area in there, I think. 00:49:30
One of the. 00:49:38
Low hanging fruit to do it is out of Section 3 of Design standards. 00:49:39
To say absolutely, we allow mobile housing types as long as it complies to all our types. That's a good idea. And the set design 00:49:44
standards are the roof needs to match the primary building, the siding needs to match the primary building. So if it's a mobile, 00:49:50
it looks like a prefab and that's how you do it. Yeah, that's a great idea. I'll include that in there. 00:49:56
Then license denial revocation, we included this that if somebody does have an Adu license, but they do have zoning violations, 00:50:06
this is a method that we can use to. 00:50:11
Help them come into compliance. This would be helpful. For example, if they do have, if they're operating their home as a duplex 00:50:19
where they're renting out the top and basement, but they have an active Adu license, we can now revoke it. 00:50:24
We just wanted to have that language in there to back this up. 00:50:31
Has a lot of may. So again, just the talk with the attorney. Yeah, Yeah, OK. 00:50:37
When I see I I was involved in code enforcement once where? 00:50:43
This was in another city in another state so I'm OK sharing it where we were getting as a code enforcement officer. Lots of push 00:50:47
from. 00:50:52
A certain person of high standing in our community who didn't like their neighbor. 00:50:58
And so they said hit him with everything and we have words like may. So it means, yeah, you can get him with that. I want to be 00:51:02
fair and I want to be good. And so that's the reason I yeah, we'll we'll work on that to kind of create kind of a standard on how 00:51:09
we will determine if it will be maybe do a control fine for the word what may through all of our with the nodes should and may. I 00:51:15
think maybe we should just. 00:51:22
Shall should. Yeah, well. 00:51:28
OK. I think this is maybe the last section is home occupations. And I think we actually did review some of this with you already 00:51:30
before, but we've made quite a bit updates with this with Kelly, our business licensing person. And here we just we broke off some 00:51:38
of the permitted and not permitted language. It was very confusing on it was like on not permitted uses, it was like medical 00:51:45
practitioners and veterinarian services and it's like are they related? Is it like vet medical uses? 00:51:53
And they want to read them hobby breeding. Yeah, yeah, we, we will allow that. They will have to, you know, go get a license And 00:52:30
there are standards that they do have to follow, but we would not allow commercial anyways. The ones that we are not permitting 00:52:36
would be medical practitioner, medical spa, veterinarian services, animal boarding, pet daycare, vehicle sales that are that 00:52:42
include vehicle services that include but not limited to repair, painting, maintenance sales. Same thing with recreational 00:52:48
vehicles and then major appliance. 00:52:54
You have any questions on that? 00:53:01
Or anything you want to include, anything you want to take off. We had a meeting a while back about medical practitioner about if 00:53:03
somebody does massages or if they do certain not. Is that defined? Yeah, we are creating the definition of that to be very 00:53:09
specific that a medical practitioner, somebody who's a licensed individual giving medical, whether it's a procedure or advice. We 00:53:15
actually do allow like like there's a lot of doctors with telehealth, we do allow them to do that because they're not actually 00:53:20
practicing. 00:53:26
They're not seeing patients, yeah, yeah. But somebody who does like Botox, this would be very specific that that is a medical 00:53:32
practice as you are injecting somebody with something and you have to be licensed. And so that is now very specific in here on 00:53:37
what that is. 00:53:43
I have a question and we forgive me if we did talk about this last time, but if we're, how are we enforcing this? So it's all 00:53:49
through the license. So if you had a business that you were a vet and you wanted to open a little vet shop in your house, you'd 00:53:55
apply for business and we'd deny it. If you did anyways, then just through code enforcement and in some instances we could involve 00:54:01
the the. 00:54:08
Sheriff's Office, if somebody does continue operating business that we deem it to be unsafe. 00:54:15
Under the vehicle services, would this include since it has painting, maintenance or sales repair? I know of someone that does 00:54:20
vehicle wrapping. Does that include that? So because we do say vehicle services that include but not limited to, we probably would 00:54:26
include vehicle wrapping. I would include that in a similar fashion as painting as you're kind of changing the exterior of the 00:54:32
vehicle. It causes a lot of issues because it's in a neighborhood that doesn't have much. I think I know exactly where you're 00:54:38
talking about. 00:54:44
All the parking so I I can include that specific language to say wrapping is not permitted. Yeah, I think it'd be helpful cuz I 00:54:50
think that would be good to. 00:54:55
Pursue that. 00:55:01
It's, I think it's, this is any sort of vehicle services are going to be very disruptive within. I think that is resolved with the 00:55:03
current language with #2 where home occupations are limited to only one customer at a time and by appointment only. Yeah. And they 00:55:10
can't. That's where a code enforcement needs to nail them. And that's where if we don't get a complaint, we don't know to go after 00:55:18
it. And even if we do, they could provide. And you know, if somebody is doing a vehicle wrapping business, they could. 00:55:25
Yeah, I have a customer comes in, they make an appointment, they drop off their car and they leave. But then they have 10 cars 00:55:33
parked because they had 10 clients that showed up at one time, but at different times. Then on the next one where it says 00:55:38
conditions that apply to all home occupation types and you talk about utilities. 00:55:43
Yeah, get rid of the word utilities because then it says the home occupations shall not have demand on municipal services, 00:55:49
including the public right of way. 00:55:53
If you just Scroll down to the end there, we're talking mainly just like they're not using electricity and gas, but. 00:56:00
I mean the public right of ways, municipal service as well. 00:56:08
Yeah. And we've talked about in for our business licenses, there are a lot of things that people can't do if. 00:56:11
But there are a lot of things we left that we specifically left the door open that people can do a lot of things. Yeah, Because 00:56:20
people should be able to do anything they want as long as they're not disturbing people around them, right. If nobody knows that 00:56:27
you drove a car into your garage and you're wrapping it in your garage, by all means, by all means do that. Or if somebody like, I 00:56:35
know people repair old cars and eventually sell old cars and stuff like that. If, if they're not having a disturbance, then it. 00:56:42
I think that it should be permitted and we're pretty strict with what people aren't allowed to do in those situations. From for 00:56:50
cars specifically, we talked about how they can't have any kind of equipment outside. They have to have a garage door closed. They 00:56:59
can't have cars or engines or anything like that outside of of the garage. Yeah, it can't be visible at all. So. 00:57:08
So are you just kind of saying that we already have kind of the tools to work through these problems? 00:57:18
So do you think we should remove a lot of this like the vehicle? Because I do see actually your point, if somebody did, they had a 00:57:23
hobby of fixing up old cars and selling them, would that be a business though? It could be. And at that point, yeah. Are they 00:57:29
actually going out and getting a license and doing that? 00:57:35
Yeah. So I don't think that it's necessary, but because we already have the code to enforce these things, I don't think we need 00:57:40
to. Yeah, we're we're more judging it based off of the impact rather than the use. 00:57:46
I think impact is the keyword there. And so if we are making any amendments, it's really just that section about utilities where 00:57:53
it says home occupations do not have a demand beyond what's typical in residential uses. You can say customer visits or whatever. 00:58:01
Well we even have a traditional house has. 00:58:09
Stuff there is very specific. People cannot park on the street. They have to have a parking spot off. They can only have this many 00:58:18
people that come every day. 00:58:23
Like it's very specific. Yeah. I think the hard thing is everybody can agree to that. But then when it comes down to it and you 00:58:28
have a vehicle wrapping business that's really successful, you're not gonna turn down a client for, but you get a right. But yeah, 00:58:32
you're right. It is once we get the complaint that we can do something about it. We don't turn people down. But you say, awesome, 00:58:37
come on, Thursday. 00:58:42
OK, let me make a note of that. 00:58:48
Because yeah, I don't want to. I don't want to restrict people from having at home businesses because I have. 00:58:52
Oh yeah, I forgot to include we're going to remove anything associated with the skateboards as not permitted. It was way 00:58:59
restrictive before. 00:59:04
OK. Yeah, I'll work on changing that up just so it kind of points more towards. 00:59:11
Yeah, exactly What you're talking about is something that says. Please see. Yeah. 00:59:15
OK. We, another thing we wanted to include is something about aggregate impact. So if somebody had multiple home occupations which 00:59:21
we don't want to deny them from, but we want to make sure that their impact is equal to a total of 1, which I think makes pretty 00:59:27
common sense there. Another one was nonprofit organizations. If they are a non profit organization with impact, they have to 00:59:33
follow the standards here. 00:59:38
And then we're including a section saying that the city can require or, yeah, may require inspections to determine compliance. 00:59:47
This is mostly if somebody does say, hey, I want to do this as my home occupation and we're a little iffy on if that meets our 00:59:54
standards, we can request to come to a brief inspection and then a license may be revoked upon any violation of the requirements 01:00:01
or conditions. I think pretty simple there. 01:00:08
Once again, the horde may we do want to include the hard thing is, you know, let's say you know, Bryce is he has a simple code 01:00:17
violation of I don't know, you have some weeds in your yard. Are we then going to go remove your business license for that code 01:00:24
violation? I don't know if that's fair. If the planning director despises price enough that that's honestly, I joke, but that's 01:00:31
what I'm trying to I'll look into the language to see if there's something we can do to. 01:00:37
Rework it so we can have this, yeah? 01:00:46
A certain amount of warnings or something, Yeah. 01:00:49
And then yeah, the very last thing is the utilities, the home occupation shell not have demand of municipal or utility services or 01:00:55
community facilities in excess of those usually in customary provided for residential uses. 01:01:02
I'm on the wrong slideshow here, and I'll include that where it says including the right of way to show that people cannot use the 01:01:09
street for their business, as you mentioned. But we just felt that that was important to include. And then business management, I 01:01:15
think we talked to you guys about this at the very first work session where we had this idea that like if people wanted to, it was 01:01:21
like once a year they could hold an event where they had more than one customer come to their house. And the idea was like, I 01:01:27
don't know, a Pampered Chef. 01:01:33
Or something like that. But then we determined that's going to be way too hard for staff to ever enforce. And then if that becomes 01:01:39
a problem, we'll just use code enforcement. Yes. And that's when it goes back to what's typical for a neighborhood. People have 01:01:45
parties. If it becomes every Tuesday and Thursday, then that's not typical. But now and then, yeah. So that's exactly why I 01:01:52
removed it. We'll just use code enforcement on areas where it becomes a problem. 01:01:59
So I think that is everything I had. So are there any sections or anything like that you have comments on? But I thank you guys 01:02:07
for going through all this with us. It's been a long few months of reviewing the code and hopefully sometime maybe early February, 01:02:14
we'll have this kind of all finalized and ready for you to get kind of any final feedback before it goes to to City Council. 01:02:22
Cool. David, do you have anything that you that we maybe missed or? 01:02:31
Cool. 01:02:37
All right. Thank you so much, Cash. I know this stuff is kind of mind numbing, but you guys are doing a good job. 01:02:39
Um, staff Commission and committee reports. Did you guys have anything? 01:02:46
I am so excited to say that stuff is moving forward with the skate park. Like it's cool that it's my last meeting and the whole 01:02:52
purpose of me being on the Planning Commission, I feel like, is to get this skate park happening. So I'm excited that there's 01:03:01
actually stuff that's happening. There will be Flyers going out there with a survey that you can take and a link to donate. 01:03:10
We've already received a donation, right? 01:03:21
We've received a donation where we're in talks with some businesses for donations and things are looking really positive, so be on 01:03:23
the lookout for that. It's exciting. 01:03:29
I think it'll be great for our many, many, many children and youth that live in Vineyard. 01:03:37
Yeah, that's all I had. Staff. Did you guys have anything? 01:03:44
I don't think so. We I can give a brief update on the City Hall project. So we did have that RFP go out today is actually the 01:03:48
final day for any proposals to be submitted. And so staff will be reviewing that over the next few weeks and then it'll go to City 01:03:54
Council to approve on an architecture firm to to start the design for the City Hall project. So that'll be early next year that 01:04:00
that that take place. OK. 01:04:06
Cool, if that's everything. 01:04:12
Can we do a big public thank you for thank you for your service? Thanks. We could do a ground applause, but it would be very loud. 01:04:16
Thank you. 01:04:26
Thank you so much, Steph. It's been a great eight years. And I'll still be at me. Yeah, we'll still hear from you. And for the 01:04:28
first time in eight years, will you use the gavel? 01:04:33
All right, I'm going to use the gavel. I'm going to have it on video too. OK, meeting adjourned. 01:04:41
I. 01:04:51
scroll up