Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge? Click Here
Start Position | |
Bookmark0 | |
INVOCATION: Craig Bown | |
OPEN SESSION: There were no public comments made. BUSINESS ITEMS1 | |
MINUTES REVIEW AND APPROVAL: There were no minutes for review or approval. | |
Sign Standard Waiver: Valley Women’s Health and Alpine Pediatrics Kailea Robbins with Graphik Display & Sign has applied for a sign standard waiver to increase the number of wall signs located at7 E0 N (Parcel ID::037:0001). The zoning code allows for a building to have up to four (4) wall signs and the applicant is requesting an additional two (2) signs for navigation and marketing purposes. Planner II Braim gave a presented the staff report and sign standard waiver application. Chair Brady asked if there were any additional questions. When there were none he called for a motion. | |
MOTION: COMMISSIONER GUDMUNSON MONTIONED TO APPROVE THE SIGN STANDARD WAIVER FOR VALLEY WOMEN’S HEALT AND ALPINE PEDIATRICS WITH CONDITIONS. | |
There was a discussion concerning adding an additional condition that the applicant must turn off the signs at night. | |
Kailea Robbins with Graphik Display & Sign introduced herself and answered questions from the Planning Commission. | |
THE MOTION CONTINUED AS PREVIOUSLY STATED. COMMISSIONER BOWN SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL WENT AS FOLLOWED: CHAIR BRADY, COMMISSIONER GUNDMENDSON, AND CHAIR BOWN VOTED AYE. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. WORKSESSION5.1 | |
Zoning Text Amendment: Accessory Dwelling Unit LocationCommunity Development Director Morgan Brim gave a presentation about allowing detached accessory dwelling units in some areas in Vineyard. The zoning text amendment would allow accessory dwelling units to be located within a detached accessory structure. | |
There was a discussion about reducing the required lot size for detached accessory dwelling units. | |
There was a discussion concerning how ADUs are generally enforced. | |
There was a discussion concerning limited the size of detached ADUs. | |
There was a public comment made by Taggart Inovye. 2 | |
Zoning Text Amendment: Special Purpose Zoning Districts Ordinance SectionDowntown Vineyard (Town Center)Community Development Director Morgan Brim gave a presentation a zoning text amendment to modify the district use table, change the street façade requirements, modify the parking study section, and change other minor aesthetic requirements of the Special Purpose Zoning District. | |
Bronson Tatton, Nate Hutchinson, and Pete Evans with Flagship Development presented additional information regarding the requested text amendments and answered questions from the Planning Commission. | |
There was a discussion concerning allowing detached and attached single family dwellings in the downtown with a maximum of of total units. | |
There was a discussion about allowing taxi cabs as a prohibited use. | |
There was a discussion concerning street façade requirements. | |
There was a discussion concerning transparency requirements for entryways and creating smaller stoops and porches. | |
There was a discussion concerning location of waste containers. Chair Taylor asked if there was language to mitigate site and smell of waste containers. | |
There was a discussion concerning amenity requirements and concerning how a bond will limit development. | |
There was a discussion concerning fencing requirement in public areas and limited public areas. | |
There was a discussion concerning temporary uses and limiting the landscaping requirements. | |
There was a discussion concerning minimum clear branch height for privacy screening. | |
There was a discussion concerning minimum vehicular parking. | |
There was a discussion concerning building façade changing every0 square feet that it does not require to be changed on building oversfeet in height. . | |
COMMISSION MEMBERS’ REPORTS AND EX PARTE DISCUSSIONDISCLOSUREChair Taylor gave an update on the corridor master plan. Community Development Director Morgan Brim gave an update on public outreach about the corridor master plan. Public Works Director Naseem Ghandour gave an update on the signal about main street and0 north. Public Works Director Naseem Ghandour gave an update about funding received for pedestrian crossing and improvements. ADJOURNMENT | |
Chair Brady adjourned the meeting. CERTIFIED CORRECDT ON: November22 Certified by: /s/ Rachel Stevens Rachel Stevens, Planning Technician |
All right. Welcome, everybody. Apologies that we are running late. It is 6:15 and it is October 19th. This is the Vineyard | 00:00:03 | |
Planning Commission meeting we're going to open. Craig is going to give us an invocation. | 00:00:11 | |
Standard. | 00:00:22 | |
Heavenly Father, we're grateful today to meet. | 00:00:25 | |
And discuss the. | 00:00:28 | |
Needs of the city or he asked today that we might be able to. | 00:00:30 | |
Have a. | 00:00:35 | |
Good attitudes and a spirit of. | 00:00:37 | |
Partnership as we discuss things tonight and. | 00:00:41 | |
We're grateful for all the blessings that has given us and say the same as name Jesus Christ, Amen. Thank you so much. All right, | 00:00:44 | |
we don't have any minutes for review and approval, so we'll move into the open session if you have any public comments and come up | 00:00:50 | |
and state your name. Do you have anything? | 00:00:55 | |
Yeah, Yeah. You're just have like, OK. All right. | 00:01:04 | |
And then we'll just move straight into business. Item 4.1 sign standard waiver for the Valley Women's Health and Alpine | 00:01:09 | |
Pediatrics. | 00:01:13 | |
Should I plug it over there? Either way? Yeah, we'll just take it. | 00:01:19 | |
Actually, I should just prioritize this. | 00:01:38 | |
OK, so the applicant Kalia. | 00:02:30 | |
Robin is here with graphic display and sign. They're applying for a sign standard waiver. | 00:02:35 | |
They're trying to get 6 exterior wall signs approved on three of the building elevations at the new ABS medical office building | 00:02:40 | |
that's just South of the Panda Express in the Yard Lot B. | 00:02:48 | |
The current sign code outrightly permits only one exterior wall sign for elevation and a maximum of four except as approved | 00:02:57 | |
through a sign standard waiver. So we've had these kind of applications before, one kind of recently, nearly three or four months | 00:03:03 | |
ago. The applicant anticipates 2 tenants and would like to have two exterior wall signs per elevation for at exposure and | 00:03:09 | |
visibility for their businesses. | 00:03:14 | |
The Planning Commission has the authority to evaluate an approval of science standard waiver under a validating the following | 00:03:21 | |
criteria placement quantity. | 00:03:27 | |
Height, sign area, design and materiality. | 00:03:33 | |
I'd like to read the portions that talked about placement and. | 00:03:37 | |
Quantity. | 00:03:46 | |
So. | 00:03:48 | |
All right, so Vineyard Zoning Code Section 15 dot 48.040 provides the following detail placement. All signs shall be placed for | 00:03:55 | |
their visible and legible factors to be considered included location relative to traffic, movement and access, access points, site | 00:04:03 | |
features, other structures, and orientation relative to viewing distances and site triangles. | 00:04:12 | |
Wall signs may be approved on building walls other than the wall space occupied by the tenant in commercial centers in which some | 00:04:21 | |
tenants have little or no visibility from the street. | 00:04:25 | |
Then, for quantity, it says the number of signs that may be approved within any development shall be sufficient to provide | 00:04:31 | |
necessary facilitation of internal circulation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and wayfinding for safety of the occupants of | 00:04:37 | |
vehicles and pedestrians. Factors to be considered shall be those that impact safety considerations such as the size of the | 00:04:43 | |
development and the number of developments of areas. | 00:04:49 | |
The Planning Commission must determine if the additional 2 exterior wall signs. | 00:04:56 | |
Appropriately meet the criteria. | 00:05:01 | |
Here are. | 00:05:06 | |
The. | 00:05:09 | |
Sign area per elevations that have been called out so. | 00:05:12 | |
The science standard table allows a maximum of sign area of 5% on each building elevation, and the applicant is not doing any | 00:05:19 | |
signs or proposing to do any signs on the north elevation. They're proposing to do 2 on the South elevation, and the total signage | 00:05:25 | |
area for that is 2.4%. | 00:05:31 | |
2 signs on the West facing elevation coming to a total of 1.4%. | 00:05:39 | |
The east facing elevation would also have two signs with a total of 1.4% and in no case does the applicant exceed the 5% signage | 00:05:45 | |
area allowed per elevation. | 00:05:50 | |
I'm going to finish by reading. | 00:05:58 | |
The staff comments in the staff report and. | 00:06:01 | |
Some of the potential motions. | 00:06:06 | |
As they review this application, potential motions are you could move to approve the science standard waiver as requested, or you | 00:06:38 | |
could move to. | 00:06:43 | |
Deny the same strength waiver. So you have the things that you need to consider, Yeah. | 00:06:50 | |
All right. Thanks, Brian. You guys have any questions or comments? | 00:06:56 | |
Any questions or comments? | 00:07:01 | |
Have a motion. | 00:07:03 | |
Now I moved through to approve the Science Centered Waiver application as requested by Kalia Robbins with Graphics plan sign with | 00:07:06 | |
the proposed conditions. Do you want me to read the conditions? | 00:07:11 | |
Sure. Yeah, yeah. I the applicant pays any outstanding fees and makes any red line corrections. And the applicant is subject to | 00:07:20 | |
all federal, state and local laws. | 00:07:25 | |
Just really quick with the other building that we approve signage on the South elevation, because they have housing to the South, | 00:07:33 | |
we have them put in a condition that they have to turn off the signs at 9:00 at night, OK. | 00:07:41 | |
Not too far from that same residential location, maybe we add that. | 00:07:51 | |
It was directly on 400 S, yeah, like just just north of 400 S This ones like a block, a block away, basically, yeah. I mean, | 00:07:58 | |
there's nothing going on, but. | 00:08:05 | |
Right now at least there's nothing between them and the houses. And I don't know if those are going to be parking lots right | 00:08:12 | |
there. That's a fairpoint. It's it's, there's going to be commercial to the South of them. | 00:08:18 | |
A bank that'll be between them and Edgewater, there'll be some view lines. So if that's a concern, yeah, we just wanted to be | 00:08:27 | |
consistent. So I think Brian's just being cognizant of past decisions and so, but on that such ratting position, I would allow the | 00:08:33 | |
applicant if, if you'd like to respond. | 00:08:40 | |
Right. You know, yeah, we apologize. You have to be in the microphone or it doesn't get picked up. | 00:08:47 | |
Kylia Robbins, Yeah. | 00:09:01 | |
So in my e-mail correspondences with. | 00:09:03 | |
Cash Harding or hard that one, he did mention that for the yard development there they do require that any eliminated signs be set | 00:09:08 | |
on a timer. And so I factored that into the narrative that I submitted with everything so that whenever we go and do the | 00:09:17 | |
installation, we can either put it on a solar timer so that once the sun goes out and it'll go out. | 00:09:25 | |
A certain amount of time after. So the solar batteries will only last for X amount of time. Or we can wire them internally to | 00:09:34 | |
where once they turn off their inside lights, then their outside lights will turn off. So once their business is closed down for | 00:09:41 | |
the evening, then their exterior lights will also be turned off. So those were the two options that I've been given as far as how | 00:09:48 | |
we can accommodate any residential things or, or those. | 00:09:55 | |
Stipulations as far as. | 00:10:03 | |
The elimination being on timer, sure. And if the second one sounds like it would be more consistent with what we have the other | 00:10:04 | |
people. So is that already part of the sign? The sign code? It's not okay I. | 00:10:10 | |
If you guys want to put that as a condition I. | 00:10:19 | |
You can. | 00:10:23 | |
If you want to, I mean for the sake of consistency, which is something. | 00:10:25 | |
We've been wanting to. | 00:10:29 | |
And then just so you know, because there's the the minimum for a quorum tonight, all three would have to vote in favor of the | 00:10:32 | |
motion. So, so, so it's good to have that conversation to kind of understand kind of where your position is on it. And as far as | 00:10:38 | |
consistency goes, the other property being directly across the street from the apartments, that made a lot of sense, this one | 00:10:44 | |
being. | 00:10:49 | |
More than 100 yards further than that, right? I mean, you've got the Megaplex and you've got Top Golf, which is going to put up | 00:10:57 | |
way more lines than any 2 little signs. That's just, that's just one of those. | 00:11:03 | |
If you already have the structure for the sign like. | 00:11:10 | |
To turn off. | 00:11:14 | |
At a certain point like what I. | 00:11:16 | |
Doesn't feel like it would be a hardship ask. | 00:11:20 | |
Yeah. | 00:11:23 | |
Commission to we if we're thinking like really long range too, at some point, maybe across the street, there may also be | 00:11:26 | |
residential in the UVU campus as well. | 00:11:31 | |
Can't choose to be across the street from something that's already there. | 00:11:37 | |
Do whatever they want. | 00:11:42 | |
And so anyway, so if this motion does not pass, then I, we would recommend you make another motion if it's, if it's, you know, if | 00:11:44 | |
you're going to approve the sign, but it's the, the condition. So you guys are welcome to still move forward with, with the | 00:11:51 | |
motion, with the, the new condition and, and just just take it from there. Is there a specific condition you want to? | 00:11:57 | |
For I like the idea of keeping it consistent at the yard because we. | 00:12:06 | |
Whenever we're not consistent, we seem to pay for it later. Well, so with the other signs in the yard, do any of them have besides | 00:12:13 | |
the one that we approve that's directly across the street from the apartments, do any of the rest of them have any kind of | 00:12:18 | |
conditions as far as their sign lighting goes? | 00:12:24 | |
Not not that I'm aware of. I think that I think that's wrong. | 00:12:31 | |
Don't remember. | 00:12:35 | |
Directly across the street makes the most sense and technically somebody could come in. | 00:13:08 | |
To some of these other spots and have a sign that faces them that they can keep lit all the time without even coming to get a sign | 00:13:14 | |
standard waiver. So that's just what I think. I think it's just unnecessary. But then if you have anything, any effect, Craig, no, | 00:13:21 | |
OK, OK. | 00:13:28 | |
Then. | 00:13:37 | |
In that case, I think we can work it to move forward with the motion presented that is second, second, all in favor. | 00:13:39 | |
All right. Thank you so much. Thank you guys. All right, moving on to 5.1 zoning text amendment accessory dwelling unit location. | 00:13:48 | |
Great. | 00:14:00 | |
Oh, do we want to? | 00:14:03 | |
Do we want to do the downtown Vineyard one first or? | 00:14:04 | |
We we can make, we can make the 81 pretty quick, unless you feel like that's going to be I, I think it'll be pretty quick. All | 00:14:10 | |
right, so, so really quick. The drawing unit ordinance, that's one of those things that we adopted one of the general plan | 00:14:18 | |
elements to the moderate income housing portion over general plan. | 00:14:25 | |
That we would allow excessive dwelling units and also try to remove barriers to to accommodate more units. As you know we are in a | 00:14:34 | |
bit of a housing crisis and shortage even with the market starting to to turn down, there's still reports of rent is still going | 00:14:41 | |
up and and that's because they're you know we have especially in Utah County, we do have a fairly large university population. So | 00:14:49 | |
what this would do is currently at our Adu ordinance and so just. | 00:14:56 | |
For the public accessory growing unit is the unit that's a part of a main dwelling. So it'll be typically at the basement | 00:15:04 | |
apartment that gets converted, there's a separate entrance. And so it allows someone to offset their mortgage through through | 00:15:11 | |
developing and completing the construction of a of an apartment unit in the basement. And so it's, it's definitely helps the | 00:15:19 | |
person with the mortgage and it also provides another unit to accommodate the housing shortage that we have so. | 00:15:26 | |
The ordinance right now allows for a detached structure to be utilized, however. | 00:15:34 | |
The code requires that it be a detached garage and that the accessory unit be above the garage. And that that that kind of the | 00:15:41 | |
thinking in the past we modeled it after the Provo ordinance that has a similar language, but the thought was that if it was above | 00:15:47 | |
a garage, then we can ensure that the garage had the parking to, you know, that that would be associated with accessory dwelling | 00:15:54 | |
unit. | 00:16:01 | |
Doesn't say that, but that was kind of a thought of requiring it to be like basically a detached second floor garage type unit. | 00:16:07 | |
We, you know, in kind of thinking about it, if it's a detached garage, it's going to essentially be in a backyard anyway. And so | 00:16:17 | |
there would be the driveway space that would accommodate parking and they would still have to meet the parking code and you can't | 00:16:24 | |
do 2. And so it's not like they would have a basement unit and then they would build. | 00:16:30 | |
A, you know, a detached garage accessory drawing as well. So it still limited them to one on the property. So that's how the the | 00:16:38 | |
code, the code was, was written. We felt like this is a good change and this definitely aligns with the with the general plan. We | 00:16:45 | |
wanted just to get your thoughts on it. We had it marked for a public hearing, but we had some noticing issues. And so next week | 00:16:51 | |
we're going to have a joint meeting with the with the. | 00:16:58 | |
The City Council. | 00:17:05 | |
And they'll be a couple of cool items on there. We're, we're going to look at the design of the boardwalk park near Vineyard | 00:17:07 | |
Beach. And so that will be our first time seeing kind of that, that concept rolling out. And then we'll, we'll discuss the this | 00:17:11 | |
this issue as well. | 00:17:15 | |
Staff, you know, we, we believe that it aligns with the general plan. It helps with the overall issues with that that we've seen | 00:17:22 | |
with our. | 00:17:26 | |
Shortage in housing. I wanted to kind of touch it to go down 3 pages, go to 12. | 00:17:32 | |
I give you kind of you know you can see the some of the changes there. | 00:17:41 | |
You need to go to the man. Yeah, that one. | 00:17:47 | |
Perfect. I should come back up one get right there. That's fine. Yeah. So it shows the location. It basically clarifies it doesn't | 00:17:49 | |
have to be a detached garage. It can just be a detached structure. They still have to meet the parking requirement regardless and | 00:17:58 | |
then a minimum lot size. We did want to ensure that there was more room that it wasn't just like because we do allow for a lot. | 00:18:06 | |
As small as 5200 square feet for an Adu I felt though if it was going to be a detached unit. | 00:18:15 | |
That that it should have a larger lot. | 00:18:22 | |
In a way to kind of developing like a small house is sort of like putting 2 houses. And so we put 15,000 square feet. We kind of | 00:18:27 | |
looked around and we didn't like identify the exact number, but that that felt to be kind of a nice size. It is slightly over 1/3 | 00:18:34 | |
of an acre and so it could easily accommodate 2 units, you know, 1 detached and still provide some yard space for the accessory | 00:18:40 | |
line as well. | 00:18:47 | |
Let me see if there, I mean, I think those were like the main requirements owner occupied how how we wrote this one is that the | 00:18:56 | |
the the owner. So the owner shall live within the home or detached structure located on the property containing accessory going | 00:19:03 | |
unit. And so we, we, we provide a little bit more flexibility. Before it was that the the owner could only live in the primary | 00:19:10 | |
like unit. The problem was with all the state code stuff. | 00:19:17 | |
They're they're, they're crunching down more and more. That's probably another thing that they're going to look at. | 00:19:24 | |
And we have had some people that that want to develop a small apartment for themselves as one person because they they need the | 00:19:28 | |
the. | 00:19:33 | |
The revenue to offset the mortgage and so they they'd like to rent off the the bigger space to a family and so we we felt it was | 00:19:39 | |
appropriate not not to be too restrictive on where on the property the owner has to live as long as the owner is on the property | 00:19:46 | |
it it meets the general tab the antenna is donors on the property is going to be maintained at a much higher level so and it's | 00:19:54 | |
also really hard to enforce because you have to sit outside the house with stare at the house and see where. | 00:20:01 | |
The owner going, you have to know what the owner looks like and everything. So anyway, we're, we're trying to not do too many | 00:20:09 | |
codes that are hard to enforce. And basically the owner occupancy 1 is good because they do have to have the biannual business | 00:20:16 | |
license where we're able to verify the occupancy of the owner at that time. And so we felt that that that was sufficient enough. | 00:20:23 | |
I think that was essentially it. Let me see if there's anything on the next. So there's like 2 neighborhoods in Vineyard that have | 00:20:33 | |
homes that can actually do this to do it. Yeah, that's another thing too is if we want to reduce that, if you feel 15,000 maybe | 00:20:40 | |
too high, you know what I mean? Realistically, especially for vendor looking at a specific or if, if I was to take a guess, our | 00:20:47 | |
average lot size and Vineyard, you're probably at like maybe a six. | 00:20:54 | |
500 square feet. We do have a lot that are like 3000 square feet, 4005 thousand. | 00:21:02 | |
And so you could, I mean, if you went down to a 10,000, that's still a fairly large lot and they still would have to meet the | 00:21:08 | |
setbacks behind the house. There's a six foot requirement to be behind the house for fire clearance. And then you have your | 00:21:14 | |
general setbacks and height limitations. All the height requirements that are attached to a detached, you know, that are connected | 00:21:19 | |
to a detached structure would still apply. | 00:21:25 | |
So 3 feet from the property line is long up to 15 feet, and then for every foot above 15 you step back an additional foot. | 00:21:31 | |
Well, so I mean, we're happy to talk about any, any of those, any of those requirements if you want to adjust the lot size or you | 00:21:40 | |
know, we're game for whatever, whatever you'd like. | 00:21:46 | |
I think it all looks good. I think the lot size might need to be looked at a little bit more. | 00:21:52 | |
Maybe look and see kind of what homes could even do it with like a 12,000 or something just because I don't know. It's it's pretty | 00:22:00 | |
limiting as is. | 00:22:07 | |
I mean, if they're meeting the setbacks and stuff I don't see. | 00:22:15 | |
I don't see a whole lot of reason for it lot size to matter for me personally. | 00:22:21 | |
But. | 00:22:28 | |
I don't know. What do you guys think? | 00:22:29 | |
I was just curious, like what? | 00:22:34 | |
When you talk about enforcement. | 00:22:36 | |
Is there? | 00:22:38 | |
How do you do that? | 00:22:40 | |
Generally anyways, I guess I mean, you can't really sometimes, well, as far as the lot size that that's fairly easy one 'cause | 00:22:42 | |
they come in with like a typically a building permit. They have to a lot of times it's a TI finish on a basement or if it's a | 00:22:49 | |
garage, they would be building a new garage or, or, or adding a, you know, a detached accessory dwelling yet. And I, I provided a | 00:22:55 | |
couple pictures above. There's, you know, because I mean, they're Utah's not the only state. | 00:23:02 | |
Dealing with this issue. This is something, yeah, let's go to those. Yeah. I mean, those, those, those are a couple examples. | 00:23:09 | |
There's a lot of kids that that that you can you can buy. | 00:23:13 | |
If they were breaking, if they say they added square footage without telling people and, and, and now they're within 2 feet of the | 00:23:47 | |
property line and we got a complaint, then we'd go out and measure it. And then with the biannual inspection, we would also look | 00:23:54 | |
at the structure, make sure they didn't do any additions that that weren't approved. So we every two years we would go out and do | 00:24:00 | |
do an inspection of the site. | 00:24:06 | |
I do think we should have a limit on the size. Is there any kind of limit on how big it can be? | 00:24:14 | |
I think you can with detached structures. So that's something the state hasn't tackled yet. They they could, but you can | 00:24:20 | |
definitely, I think I believe at this point the detached structure, I'm pretty sure that you can you, you, you can lymph the size | 00:24:27 | |
of that. So if you I think we should limit the size because we have the size limit on in the attached dwelling, don't we? | 00:24:35 | |
We don't anymore. That was taken out. Yeah, that was that was one of the state code. Like I said, this is one of those ordinances | 00:24:43 | |
every year the state like takes away more land use controls from this from cities on this. So I just think it would be silly if | 00:24:51 | |
somebody built like a whole 3000 square foot house next to their house, which I I totally see happening, I think limiting size. | 00:24:59 | |
I'm not sure. | 00:25:08 | |
Is actually what size I want to do or what? Do you remember what the old square footage was for? Accessory 1200 square feet maybe | 00:25:10 | |
starting there? | 00:25:14 | |
And that's honestly, that's actually pretty big. That's a good size. And we do have coverage requirements that we may check as | 00:25:20 | |
well. If it's detached structure, I believe it's 25% of the backyard can be covered. The square footage of your actual backyard | 00:25:25 | |
can be covered with structures. And so this would fall into that too. So if you had a shed, we would count that and we would count | 00:25:31 | |
the accessory drawing unit and then we would do that calculation. | 00:25:36 | |
OK, that addresses my concern there. Yeah. So don't worry about the 1200 square feet or you can still have it, I guess. Yeah, we | 00:25:42 | |
should probably still have it. Somebody's on 1/2 acre and they can build real big. Yeah, if you pull back to you can get 25 feet | 00:25:50 | |
and you could easily do A2 story right into the roof system. I think 1200 square feet would be. | 00:25:58 | |
50% coverage total? Or is there a way to do a percentage based on the House if that makes sense? | 00:26:06 | |
Is that what the 1200 square feet came from? Initially it was 1200 square feet or not to exceed was it 50%? So if it was a 2000 | 00:26:12 | |
square foot primary unit, you could have a 1000 square foot access. You're drawing it, but the state man doesn't do do away with | 00:26:20 | |
it, but not to exceed 1200 square feet. So if the house was 5000 square feet, you, you could still only build up to 1200 square | 00:26:27 | |
feet. But all those were were done away with. But the detached structures, they, they haven't touched those. | 00:26:35 | |
And so you you could still have that type of regulation. If so, you could say 25% of the square footage of the main house, 50% not | 00:26:42 | |
to exceed, but they would still have to meet all the other requirements, the high setbacks, all that stuff. So yeah, we're happy | 00:26:49 | |
to whatever you feel is is the appropriate way to regulate it would have it in. | 00:26:56 | |
And I think we may have a member of the public here to speak about on this. | 00:27:05 | |
Oh OK. Oh no problem. I I I got a phone call from someone who wanted to come and talk about excessive drawing yet so I don't. | 00:27:11 | |
Oh, you're not. You're not that. | 00:27:19 | |
And I apologize you'll have to speak into the microphone. | 00:27:21 | |
Yeah, because our recorder doesn't pick it up. You don't have to speak. I didn't put you on the spot. I, I, I didn't know if you | 00:27:25 | |
were the guy I spoke with on the phone. So. | 00:27:30 | |
Yeah, Taggart, in a way. | 00:27:36 | |
I mean, if you like we, we, we could, we, we, we could research a few other because I, I bet this is a regulation that is covered | 00:28:09 | |
on a lot of the codes and we could bring some options. And I think with the percentage of structured units in the backyard plus | 00:28:15 | |
the 1200 maximum, I think, I think that would do it. | 00:28:21 | |
Because I don't think there's any 2400 square foot homes that are on bigger than a .05 acre lot or something. So I I'm not worried | 00:28:29 | |
too much about that. | 00:28:35 | |
Yeah, but what do you, how do you guys feel about? | 00:28:40 | |
Feel like that's right direction there. | 00:28:44 | |
Yeah, I feel, yeah, I feel like with all of those stipulations we already have in the code. | 00:28:47 | |
It's pretty covered. | 00:28:54 | |
Do you think adding the 1200 square feet would? | 00:28:57 | |
I think I got two of them in there. | 00:29:00 | |
I mean. | 00:29:06 | |
I think it's. | 00:29:13 | |
Yeah, I thought that would be beneficial. I don't think people want their neighbors. | 00:29:16 | |
Because they bought a large lot to have space, right? And then all of a sudden someone's building like a giant house next to their | 00:29:21 | |
backyard. Essentially, it would be like a guest house. So I think if we have this, I, I think 1200 square feet is pretty quick. | 00:29:28 | |
It's a good size for an accessory drawing in there. | 00:29:34 | |
Yeah, I would add that. | 00:29:41 | |
And so again, so the 12-12 hundred not not to exceed 1200 square feet or the overall coverage of the I mean all the other | 00:29:44 | |
regulations, yeah, the percentage of cap whatever that. | 00:29:49 | |
Cool. That's all we had on that one. So like I said, please, we need at least three for next week. So if you three could come at | 00:29:55 | |
we have, we have 8 commissions. OK, good. Yeah. And we'll we'll reach out to others. Would be great to have a whole Commission, | 00:30:02 | |
but Anthony and Tim are usually here too. | 00:30:09 | |
Cool. OK. We'll just plan on that then. | 00:30:18 | |
Here we need to make a note real quick. | 00:30:21 | |
All right, we got to move on to it. All right, moving on to 5.2 zoning text amendment special purpose zoning district ordinance | 00:30:23 | |
Section 3 downtown Vineyard Town Center. Yeah. So Bronson is proposing a petting zoo for downtown and. | 00:30:30 | |
They're the only rabid dogs. He's like, you know, we can't put these dogs. | 00:30:41 | |
Let's see. You want to jump to the next one, Brian. | 00:30:51 | |
OK. | 00:30:54 | |
And then you can just roll down to like where you see the code changes. | 00:30:58 | |
Let me start seeing. | 00:31:05 | |
OK. So we're in the process of reviewing Block 5 and 6, the downtown, pretty exciting project. I think we did a work session on | 00:31:08 | |
that last month. | 00:31:13 | |
And so, yeah, very exciting we do. And this kind of typically happens when you get a new zoning ordinance and you get the actual | 00:31:20 | |
development coming in. You kind of have to find where you need to make some adjustments. And I can feel like the the proposed | 00:31:26 | |
development that you that was shown in the work session basically met the intent and there was a few items. | 00:31:32 | |
That we had in the code that were kind of carries that carryovers from the initial code that we wanted to adjust. | 00:31:39 | |
Let me see here go to those red lines. | 00:31:48 | |
OK, what page are you on? | 00:31:56 | |
Yep. OK, great. And we'll, we'll do an overview of those. And Francis, if you wanna just jump up to the to the microphone and | 00:31:58 | |
you're you're even, you wanna just do a control plus so that this gets a little bigger. Yeah. | 00:32:05 | |
Yeah. So the first one is in regards to waste containers. It's saying waste containers shall be located below ground. I think | 00:32:16 | |
that's that's something that that that would be really neat. But we wanted to put one feasible. There are times where that's | 00:32:23 | |
that's not going to work. And yeah, we're below ground collection is not feasible and where waste containers are to be located | 00:32:30 | |
outside of the building footprint. If you want to kind of maybe bronze and provide kind of some some feedback as to. | 00:32:37 | |
Like to see that change? | 00:32:44 | |
Yes, Bronson Patton of the developer and Nate Hutchinson and Pete Evans are on Zoom. | 00:32:45 | |
Let's maybe test and see if their audio is working. | 00:32:56 | |
Can you hear me? Yeah, we hear. Repeat. | 00:33:00 | |
Great, I'm here for you, but. | 00:33:03 | |
About to go. You're welcome. Just to kind of keep keep going through those. So it's it's not back and forth. You can Pete, do you | 00:33:13 | |
do you want to go through it or do you want me to run through them? | 00:33:18 | |
I'm happy to. So as Morgan said, we appreciate the opportunity to come in and revisit some of these, some of these issues that we, | 00:33:24 | |
we knew there would be issues what we made the, you know, when we adopted the zoning code for this area, We just didn't know | 00:33:31 | |
really what those issues would be until we start laying this side out and we start designing buildings and meet with the | 00:33:38 | |
architects and run into the constraints of. | 00:33:45 | |
Implement the spirit of the code and lay that out. | 00:33:53 | |
To really, you know, get into what it's going to turn into, so. | 00:34:00 | |
We want to start just at the at the top on the I've been working. Oh yeah, that's a good idea. So Brian, why don't you go up? | 00:34:06 | |
Table 3.80 Yeah, just one page. | 00:34:16 | |
Go back one page. | 00:34:21 | |
Oh, this is a sorry, we're looking at the table. | 00:34:29 | |
One thing I want to add is some of these code. | 00:34:35 | |
Are things that just work here right there? | 00:34:38 | |
Some of the things we'll talk about tonight, we did. | 00:34:42 | |
They need, we need to save those in the last time we revisited that, right? | 00:34:45 | |
Yeah, that's it. | 00:34:55 | |
Oh yeah. | 00:35:01 | |
You know the special purpose on district. | 00:35:02 | |
3.8. | 00:35:27 | |
OK. | 00:35:51 | |
Are we there? | 00:35:58 | |
So Pete, can you see? So what Brian's trying to do is have the summary and then the table like the actual code, so we can kind of | 00:36:01 | |
see them side by side. | 00:36:06 | |
Great, great. So the first item is the uses table by district and it excluded basically single household uses in the in the | 00:36:11 | |
downtown station and in the downtown excuse areas and then also some in the lakefront commercial. | 00:36:21 | |
And so some of those we would like to modify as a permitted use from a non permitted use. And then some of them we would modify | 00:36:31 | |
conditionally with an asterisk so that it would be a. | 00:36:39 | |
You know, in the block there would be less than 5% of the overall units. And the idea here really is to have a diversity of | 00:36:47 | |
product and have complementary product. Most of these will be used as you know kind of a supplementary product, especially just | 00:36:56 | |
the like the single household detached in the lakefront commercial areas. So those have an asterisk. | 00:37:04 | |
The village general detached with an asterisk and then it just started at the top and the downtown station. | 00:37:13 | |
Or you have single household attacks so that that would allow us to do you know, like channels soap, for example. We have a large | 00:37:21 | |
block which requires block warm and we think that it would be really nice to have some attached town hall in my grandstone looking | 00:37:29 | |
product in there, even though the rest of that block is very dense. | 00:37:38 | |
And this would also be density not as dense and so it would just kind of break it up a little bit. Currently, right now, the use | 00:37:47 | |
table doesn't allow the single household attached as a permitted use. And so this would allow us to to add in those, you know, as | 00:37:54 | |
as desired in the different areas. Same with the downtown mixed-use areas. So having single household attached is a permitted use | 00:38:02 | |
in the lakefront commercial district use adding single household attached as. | 00:38:09 | |
That one would be limited to the 5% single household detached also as a permitted use limited to 5%. The downtown based use | 00:38:17 | |
district with just with the signal household details as a permitted use with less than 5%. Downtown station detached less than 5%. | 00:38:27 | |
Village general district single household detached less than 5%. | 00:38:36 | |
And the lakefront commercial? | 00:38:46 | |
Detached with less than 5%. So for example, we have an area in one of the blocks right now that we're laying out. We're just | 00:38:48 | |
designing it with a land fan of the urban planners, which represents. | 00:38:54 | |
We have a condition where two ****** are coming together in a Plaza and the urban planners were saying like, hey, this would be a | 00:39:01 | |
really cool place to put like a small single family detached house to keep activation in this area and keep, you know, kind of | 00:39:08 | |
kind of complemented this Plaza area. But right right now it's not permitted right now. We would we would have to give an | 00:39:15 | |
exemption to do that. So the idea would be. | 00:39:22 | |
To allow those users. | 00:39:29 | |
But in the cases where we're looking at detached uses, where the code doesn't currently contemplate any detached uses, keep to the | 00:39:32 | |
spirit of the density that was planned for the area by limiting the the number of units that that would be available for, but | 00:39:40 | |
allow a certain a small percentage of those to be detached so that we can use those as complementary product or complementary. | 00:39:48 | |
Housing options where it's appropriate. | 00:39:58 | |
And one thing that. | 00:40:01 | |
A lot of uses are to cover parking structures. So you build a tax townhomes, for example, to cover the parking structures so | 00:40:03 | |
you're not just looking at a parking structure itself. Yeah, when they need to cover the practice sugar, sorry, but really, put it | 00:40:09 | |
in front of the party. Like a liner. Like a liner building. | 00:40:16 | |
I think you should be on top of the parking structure. | 00:40:24 | |
And So what staff feels like this wasn't really a controversial ask because it's it's asking for less intense uses within the | 00:40:30 | |
district than than those districts are actually allow. As you know, when the code was originally written and then redrafted, it | 00:40:36 | |
was to allow for a lot of like higher density residential products. And so this would allow for the attached single family and the | 00:40:43 | |
detached single family in those districts which is currently not allowed. So. | 00:40:50 | |
More variety and that's and that kind of fits with the old general plan is trying to create housing types that fit multiple | 00:40:57 | |
generations. And so it would provide a spot, you know, someone wanted to live in a single family detached within downtown. It'd be | 00:41:03 | |
kind of cool. Right now it doesn't allow for that. | 00:41:08 | |
OK, I think we're going to keep going. | 00:41:19 | |
You want to go, does anyone have any questions You want to do questions or you want to? Yeah, it might be good just just to have | 00:41:21 | |
questions that as we're on each section. Yeah, I guess with those, some of them had a 5% maximum. Can we just make everything have | 00:41:27 | |
a certain percentage? | 00:41:33 | |
Yeah, I think, I think the idea on the maximum was just to make sure that we were sticking to the intent of the plan on the | 00:41:41 | |
detached product. So on the attached product, in my mind the single family attached product was just an oversight on definitions | 00:41:47 | |
with. | 00:41:53 | |
We're looking at the code a lot of the product that you know, like like that we would be wrapping parking garages with most of | 00:41:59 | |
those are going to be like a like a townhome product instead of a staff town home product. So those would those would really be | 00:42:05 | |
more like a single, single family attached product. And I think just definitionally, I don't think that that's one of the ones | 00:42:11 | |
where. | 00:42:18 | |
This wasn't envisioned in the plan where the single family detached area. | 00:42:25 | |
Or product, you know, when we get those, we weren't really anticipating doing those anywhere in the plan, but now we're laying it | 00:42:30 | |
out. There are areas where we think that it would be really complimentary and but you know, we we think that. | 00:42:37 | |
It's, you know, instead of just saying, hey, we want to have single family detached as a product category. Putting the percentage | 00:42:46 | |
on those would make it so you were confident that we were limiting those to the areas where they were, that they gave sense as a, | 00:42:53 | |
as a more of a, you know, compliment to the overall permit design. | 00:43:00 | |
Yeah, yeah. And I feel, I feel good about it. I just want to make sure that we keep to the intent and have wording in there that | 00:43:07 | |
keeps us to the intent of this is a downtown area, not a neighborhood area at all. And I'm sure that that's what you guys are | 00:43:13 | |
going for. If we can get some language in that, it just and I really think the 5% does that. Yeah. I mean if you get 20 items, if | 00:43:20 | |
only one of them is different than. | 00:43:26 | |
It truly is something that you would use just as a compliment or to make some unique design within the overall development. | 00:43:32 | |
OK. | 00:43:39 | |
OK, any any other comments on #1? | 00:43:44 | |
For questions. | 00:43:50 | |
Hey #2 was a request to add. | 00:43:52 | |
Course she renewed in section 3.01.010. | 00:43:56 | |
At 4.21 taxi cabs were a. | 00:44:05 | |
An unpermitted use or restricted use and the idea there on on eliminating that is a prohibited use. Was this to allow for the | 00:44:10 | |
optionality of different types of transit arrangements in the downtown area in the future, not because Bronson's always wanted to | 00:44:18 | |
fulfill his dream of running a cab service, but. | 00:44:26 | |
More so because, you know, as we look at other urban areas, there are some really creative. | 00:44:35 | |
Ride sharing programs and car sharing programs that are going on in some of these urban areas. And we we didn't want to be | 00:44:42 | |
technically a foul of, of that code provision if we came up with, you know, one of these. | 00:44:49 | |
One of these creative transit and ride sharing and car sharing options that was maybe run by the property owners association or | 00:44:58 | |
the downtown alliance or something like that. You know, we we think that there's a lot of really neat things happening and and | 00:45:06 | |
that will be happening in the future, especially in that downtown core areas. People really adopt that transit station and start | 00:45:13 | |
using the front runner and are using vehicles less and less. 30 some great. | 00:45:21 | |
To encourage that in creative ways. But you know that that was really the idea. The idea, and what can I talk about is to the idea | 00:45:29 | |
is not to have any kind of a, you know. | 00:45:35 | |
Taxi hub or or a taxi maintenance operation down there, We'd have to put language in there if we need to, but there's more just to | 00:45:44 | |
keep the flexibility for the future. Yeah. So you can still have taxi cabs obviously serving the area, but not not the office or | 00:45:50 | |
the the yard, the taxi yard. | 00:45:57 | |
Right, right. | 00:46:04 | |
Yeah, we can move on. | 00:46:10 | |
The next one is table 31. | 00:46:15 | |
.020 point 3 St. St. design requirements so a couple of things that we've run into while we've been designed these first two | 00:46:20 | |
blocks and then even more so as we start designing the blocks at downtown in the more downtown area closer to the train station, | 00:46:28 | |
the glazing requirements and the transparency requirements and the. | 00:46:36 | |
The minimum ground, the ground floor, right. So the request is to modify the minimum ground story transparency measured between 0 | 00:46:48 | |
and 10 feet above grade to 40%. And then we, you know, we found maybe including asterisks for downtown station to allow for single | 00:46:56 | |
story buildings for designing commercial purposes. | 00:47:04 | |
In that facility requirement as well, so long as the average building height is in excess of two stories. So there's a requirement | 00:47:13 | |
that those downtown station plans. | 00:47:18 | |
The at least two stories there we have stories there is that we would have seen commercial and retail tenants who would want a | 00:47:23 | |
single story building like an Apple Store or something like that, that would you know would dictate that building height. So | 00:47:32 | |
moving that to more of an average instead of mandate and then 9 to 12 feet is the minimum ground floor height. | 00:47:40 | |
Can I ask, I'm probably another reason for that is we do have all of our, all of our residential units open. So there's no, | 00:47:51 | |
there's no corridor like normal apartment complex out of the corridor. But as we work with Jeff, getting people out into the | 00:47:57 | |
street is really important. | 00:48:03 | |
And but that they're only have actually right into the failed and right on the streets and no other way having some privacy for | 00:48:10 | |
bedrooms and other things that you'll have. | 00:48:15 | |
In the ground floor area and some of the residential, you think it's important that it's not all last so that you're walking down | 00:48:22 | |
the potatoes looking right into people's units. | 00:48:26 | |
OK. As far as single story buildings in that area? | 00:48:34 | |
Do you see any of that? Like is that something you guys are imagining at all in that area? I just wasn't. | 00:48:38 | |
Well, like I said, I we don't have anybody that wants a single story building right now. | 00:48:47 | |
The Woodbury is to have a lot more retail experience than we do. The concern there was just if you have a tenant. | 00:48:53 | |
That you wanted in there, you know, for example, an Apple Store who wanted a single story building on on their own path. Then the | 00:49:02 | |
idea would be that you have always created flexibility that you'd be able to do that. | 00:49:09 | |
OK. And then we could have a percentage of square footage that can be active. The intent is definitely not to make this lesson | 00:49:16 | |
just maybe like inside of a four yard. For example, you can have a one story restaurant in 1/4 yard downtown that could be a | 00:49:24 | |
really cool but nothing else on top of it. It's in the courtyard surrounded by units and offices, etcetera. | 00:49:31 | |
Plus potentially a single store used in the middle of the courtyard for the middle of the sale or something like that. OK yeah, | 00:49:42 | |
that makes sense. Yeah. So for example, as we're laying out the one of the ideas on the on the train stage, the transit Plaza is | 00:49:49 | |
to have like, you know, maybe one or two small restaurants that would be single story that transit Plaza area so that there's | 00:49:56 | |
opportunities for people that are waiting for the train or. | 00:50:04 | |
You know, moving back and forth to that area, OK. | 00:50:12 | |
Yeah, perfect. Yeah. Just wanted to envision that a little bit better. So that's perfect. | 00:50:14 | |
And then I probably would say you're young a name tag or the Greg or Craig. Craig, did you have a question too? So I just wanted | 00:50:20 | |
to make sure that the obvious thing of story transparency is what I'm thinking. So that's like. | 00:50:28 | |
Glass cup essentially, right? Yeah, exactly. OK. | 00:50:35 | |
On the 1st floor and the transparency, like they said, what we run into is on those buildings in that first block where they're | 00:50:41 | |
bordering the same on frontage road, frontage road. And we've created the skewed condition, you know, kind of like think about | 00:50:48 | |
brownstones as they, you know, they have their exit out on the street, you know, the, the amount of transparency glazing on the | 00:50:55 | |
front of those. | 00:51:02 | |
The architects were just telling us they're. | 00:51:10 | |
Not conducive to that type of architecture. | 00:51:13 | |
OK, thanks. | 00:51:19 | |
Yep. | 00:51:20 | |
On section 3.410, point 040. | 00:51:26 | |
This one again just goes to transparency requirements for entries, the street sizes and port sizes. So we have opportunities, a | 00:51:32 | |
lot of these opportunities on a lot of these trees. | 00:51:40 | |
To to create this activity and and encourage people to enter next to their their units at the ground level onto these Paseos and | 00:51:49 | |
off the streets and create a lot of activity, but the the minimum porch and soup. | 00:51:56 | |
Requirements are really relating the ability of how how many opportunities we have on that and the architectural firm and they can | 00:52:04 | |
speak probably better this next week. The architectural firm is just concerned that we're artificially limited those opportunities | 00:52:12 | |
by making those requirements too large and they they feel like they can get a really good. | 00:52:20 | |
Pedestrian and residential condition with the smaller streets of portions. | 00:52:29 | |
And if you guys remember from the concept too is yeah, they're they're going really heavy on the on the more of the public spaces | 00:52:36 | |
too. So pushing people from the private spaces to more of the communal spaces. | 00:52:42 | |
Like a lot of this makes a lot more sense. | 00:52:49 | |
On Section 3, point 12.030. | 00:53:00 | |
This just have to do. This was just adding some optionality to some of the defocus spaces in both courtyards and plazas. So the | 00:53:06 | |
the opportunity that I mean all of these have been conditioned that they would be approved. But instead of just having a strict | 00:53:13 | |
restriction on the limitations, the opportunity that if you come up with a concept that that we really like, we think is | 00:53:19 | |
appropriate for some of those. | 00:53:26 | |
Public or semi public? | 00:53:34 | |
Areas to be able to bring it in and look at these structures. | 00:53:36 | |
Either enclosed or partially enclosed in some of those courtyards and plazas. | 00:53:43 | |
So is that like? | 00:53:49 | |
Structures in the open space or what is that? | 00:53:51 | |
For example, if we have a courtyard within a building and we wanted to have some kind of a shade structure as a part of that or | 00:53:57 | |
we're the sales come together and we have a bigger Plaza opening. And right now it's pretty limited on the amount of dollar | 00:54:03 | |
percentage of that Plaza or courtyard that could be covered. And this would just give the optionality again, I mean, it's it's | 00:54:09 | |
not. | 00:54:15 | |
Necessarily. | 00:54:23 | |
Increasing that completely, it's just saying there's the there's the option if we want to increase that we could come in with the | 00:54:24 | |
design that we feel would be a good sign for that area and if the Planning Commission agreed that we would be able to build that | 00:54:30 | |
plan. | 00:54:36 | |
OK. | 00:54:42 | |
OK. | 00:54:43 | |
In section 3.10, point 5, this is. This is in A&B. | 00:54:50 | |
And see, we are talking about materials and. | 00:54:58 | |
Adding some materials to that improved list. | 00:55:04 | |
Right now there's a lot of. | 00:55:08 | |
Used for metal paneling as an architectural list. Right now it's on the secondary material list, but we really feel like it should | 00:55:11 | |
be on the primary material list. | 00:55:17 | |
On the 1.2. | 00:55:24 | |
That's again just cleaning that up for you again from the secondary materials. And then 2.2 is adding fibers and then as an | 00:55:27 | |
optional approvable shuttle shutter material. So again, those shutter materials are approved a whole. So we would need to come in | 00:55:33 | |
with examples of what those would look like. | 00:55:39 | |
We just added fiber cement as a, as an option for those shutters to fibre submit hours, really durable, looks really good and we | 00:55:45 | |
think over the long term is less maintenance and what's better, Pete, for the the joint meeting next, next Wednesday, could you | 00:55:52 | |
have some, some examples of the, of the materials, maybe have like a touch sheet or something like that shows, you know, pretty | 00:55:58 | |
important, just get a better idea. | 00:56:05 | |
That. | 00:56:11 | |
OK, on subsection. | 00:56:17 | |
I'll tell you. | 00:56:23 | |
Codes where we have. | 00:56:29 | |
That porch requirement both on size and we had another balconies, a percentage of balconies that would have either front, front | 00:56:32 | |
porches or balconies that I I think section 3.5 is just I'm sure all over because we don't have small single family dwellings. | 00:56:42 | |
In here, but in subsection one and two and three-point 13.2, you know what we're trying to avoid is having this requirement. | 00:56:53 | |
Artificially derived. | 00:57:04 | |
Artificially Dr. the architectural design of the buildings, and there's going to be some buildings where porches make a lot of | 00:57:10 | |
sense. There's going to be some porches where they don't make any sense. | 00:57:16 | |
And. | 00:57:24 | |
We just, we don't want the balconies driving the that decision on the architectural side. Well, a lot of that too. Like for | 00:57:26 | |
example, we talked in the courtyards and we can do on those. For example, they each have private patios, but it makes more sense | 00:57:32 | |
to have a larger courtyard that's more useful for all of the units than having private patios for every single unit of borders | 00:57:38 | |
there. | 00:57:44 | |
So that was the thought. That was the thought on that too. | 00:57:51 | |
OK. | 00:57:59 | |
OK. Any questions on that? | 00:58:01 | |
In some of the. | 00:58:05 | |
Plans that you guys brought forward at a in another presentation there were patios that were like stepped up and then like set | 00:58:07 | |
back a little bit and. | 00:58:12 | |
In the Paseos and stuff and it was kind of cool. Are you guys getting rid of those or what? What's the thought there? | 00:58:18 | |
That that's when I was saying before is that, you know, we, we really want to, we really want the urban design and the | 00:58:27 | |
architecture to drive the elements instead of, you know, kind of having to kill wagging the dog. | 00:58:33 | |
On, on some of those requirements. And so for example, and on the street fronting the promenade, we we have the street conditions | 00:58:40 | |
where we have kind of set back porch. And in some of those conditions we're actually looking at you know, kind of like 3 foot or 4 | 00:58:47 | |
foot little railing going around some of those areas to make some of those areas. | 00:58:55 | |
So those are definitely a really important component of driving this really pedestrian, really active urban planning design. But | 00:59:02 | |
what we didn't want is, is the requirement to add balconies on upper levels, like overlooking the street where they just didn't | 00:59:09 | |
make sense, just to try to get a number. | 00:59:16 | |
OK. | 00:59:24 | |
OK, can I ask a silly question? Is there a percentage number that does make sense instead of 25 like? | 00:59:28 | |
To still. | 00:59:36 | |
Because I mean, if you say no, then I just think, OK, then no balconies are going to be built. But what is there a way to include | 00:59:38 | |
something so that some could still be considered, if that makes sense? And I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just asking a | 00:59:45 | |
question. I, I mean, I think it's a good question. I think, I think that answers, the short answer is, I mean, we're, we're doing | 00:59:51 | |
now it needs to be on a lot of these buildings because balconies are really popular and they, they rent really well. | 00:59:57 | |
But you know, especially where we're looking at this on a block by block condition and we're looking at, you know, maybe 2-3 | 01:00:05 | |
buildings at the time. | 01:00:09 | |
Will start to become really hard to keep track of. OK, where are you on your percentage basis on number of Falcons and you get to | 01:00:14 | |
the more train stationaries where you get really urban and balconies don't make as much sense but maybe porches do. And so you're | 01:00:21 | |
creating that you know that environment on the ground level but not a higher. So I don't know that there's a percentage number | 01:00:28 | |
necessarily that makes sense. I think that you know as we bring buildings in per review and. | 01:00:36 | |
The Planning Commission and the City Council are looking at them. There's opportunities where we're doing with them. You say, | 01:00:44 | |
well, you know, maybe it'd be nice to have companies here or there. We can look at those on a case by case basis. But from our | 01:00:50 | |
standpoint, we're, you know, we're putting balconies in where we think that it makes sense and where we think that people are | 01:00:57 | |
going to take advantage of and use properties and enhance the overall environment. | 01:01:04 | |
OK, thanks. | 01:01:11 | |
Yep. So on subsection 7 on the waste containers, we're we're just requesting them out to be that we located below ground when | 01:01:13 | |
feasible and and some of these areas that will be able to be located below grounds where we have unwindable blocks, we're | 01:01:20 | |
designing right now some underground parking. In most cases it won't be feasible to put them below ground and make some kind of a | 01:01:27 | |
podium. | 01:01:34 | |
Concrete structure below a building. | 01:01:42 | |
And then? | 01:01:45 | |
Where the next sentence we're below ground collection is not feasible. And where waste containers are located outside of a | 01:01:47 | |
building footprint, then we would have those restrictions where there they'd be located on the public view 10 feet away from every | 01:01:55 | |
property line. Our, our hope is that we'll be able to integrate most of the this cash collection and garbage waste containers | 01:02:02 | |
within a building so that they're actually integrated into the building. There's track shoots integrated. | 01:02:10 | |
Buildings that come down, we'll have a valley trap service where people are picking up garbage and then using these shoes still | 01:02:18 | |
going out under the ground floor. And then the trash trucks can just pull in off the street, pick them up on the ground floor from | 01:02:24 | |
there. But the requirement has written is really kind of one of the suburban condition where you're anticipating having a traction | 01:02:30 | |
closure. | 01:02:37 | |
You know, some distance away from the actual building, where in these more urban environments, we anticipate having the traffic | 01:02:44 | |
closure integrated with the building itself. | 01:02:49 | |
Pete on so you have the 10 foot minimum from any property line? | 01:02:54 | |
That you may want to clarify say St. property line, I think, I think we just say property line. Yeah. If you have a condominiums | 01:03:00 | |
or townhomes and and they're adjacent to a side property line, you know, it seems like the the intent is the street. | 01:03:07 | |
From the right away line. | 01:03:16 | |
Yeah, OK. | 01:03:21 | |
So I think one of the things here, I think one of the things people worry about here isn't so much seeing it as much as seeing it | 01:03:24 | |
and smelling it. If it's located within like a building or underground, then that's not much of A concern, but it's once it's. | 01:03:32 | |
Not, I think is once it becomes a concern and feasible. I mean the definition of feasible is something that's easy and convenient, | 01:03:42 | |
and I mean easy and convenient. | 01:03:47 | |
It's what we want to do for anything. It makes it a project way cheaper, but just want to make sure that it's done right. So we | 01:03:54 | |
want to make sure we have the language in here that it's. | 01:03:58 | |
You don't see it, you don't smell it, kind of. Is there any language we can add into here to kind of tie that down a little bit | 01:04:04 | |
better? | 01:04:09 | |
Yeah, I'm not, I'm not sure what what we could add. I mean my. | 01:04:16 | |
The reason why I had a feasible life rather than example is I mean my guess is 90% or more of the track collection will not be | 01:04:21 | |
underground because it just doesn't make sense to do underground. We also we have got some groundwater issues as well. | 01:04:30 | |
Yeah, just groundwater could. | 01:04:40 | |
Is an issue on the site. | 01:04:44 | |
Yeah, just is this where we are with groundwater and solar conditions, you're doing a coating product just really isn't, isn't | 01:04:47 | |
feasible. And so, so then you get to your next point, which is OK, it's going to be above ground. How do we make it the best | 01:04:54 | |
condition that we can to mitigate sight and smell? And that's really the. | 01:05:01 | |
What's that? | 01:05:09 | |
You're good. That's really the issue that we're talking about is, you know, how do we integrate them within the building and then | 01:05:12 | |
if they're not integrated within the building reverting back to the restrictions that separate and visually from both the road and | 01:05:17 | |
from the the residents. | 01:05:23 | |
OK. | 01:05:30 | |
All right. | 01:05:32 | |
The next subsection is the event of your requirement. So we worked a lot with this with staff just because. | 01:05:36 | |
We're trying to figure out a way to make sure that the city is confident that we'll be building the amenities and commensurate | 01:05:44 | |
with the residential units in the building. But then also understanding that some of these amenities are going to be shared over | 01:05:52 | |
more than one building and some of those amenities will be built, you know, in a phase following. | 01:05:59 | |
The development phase that it's in right now. So the language that we're proposing is. | 01:06:09 | |
In subsection 9, multi family units excluding delayed front residential district must see the following amenity levels of service | 01:06:15 | |
within public or private spaces and if the following many levels of service will not be installed at the time of building | 01:06:21 | |
completion, a certificate of occupancy should be issued for the building only on one showing that the necessary amenities are | 01:06:28 | |
planned in an upcoming development phase. | 01:06:35 | |
And two, the posting of the bond in the estimated amount of the requirement community and the term of the bond for the completion | 01:06:42 | |
of the required amenities should not exceed 12 months. | 01:06:47 | |
And then this is the other languages with existing each item should be well maintained, operational, go through a public | 01:06:54 | |
commercial or industry standard. And Morgan, I don't know if you want to sign in here, you and I talked a lot about this one and | 01:07:00 | |
how to make sure that we were providing the right level of service at the right time. | 01:07:07 | |
Sorry, I started eating my dinner. | 01:07:15 | |
Yeah. And the partners that we build in several blocks. | 01:07:20 | |
Bought the phases and many spread out. | 01:07:23 | |
So our concern was trying to hold. | 01:07:26 | |
One building up. | 01:07:28 | |
It's like the full promenade isn't in yet. Just things like that are going to take a little bit more time for us to develop out. | 01:07:29 | |
So we felt comfortable with the bonding language and, and that's actually pretty, pretty standard practice that we're already | 01:07:35 | |
doing the city. And so we, we still, we still get the amenities, but it allows us to phase in the project and phase in, in, in, in | 01:07:40 | |
the amenities as well. | 01:07:46 | |
Does the bonding having the 12 month expiration? | 01:07:53 | |
Does that covers it meaning like the amenities will be installed within that time frame or like will they have, is there ever a | 01:07:57 | |
time when it goes outside of that and you're like, well, the bonds expired, sorry you don't get your stuff right. Yeah, so this, | 01:08:03 | |
but what we would do is actually pull the bond and and yeah, if they didn't do it. | 01:08:09 | |
OK. | 01:08:19 | |
So obviously like the city would rather. | 01:08:26 | |
The developer construct amenities, but this gives us the ability to to come back in and do it ourselves if it's not done within 12 | 01:08:29 | |
months. | 01:08:32 | |
OK. If so, I guess I have a question on that. If we bond for it, generally if the developer is doing the amenities, they can get | 01:08:38 | |
more bang for their buck than the city can. So if. | 01:08:45 | |
It exceeds 12 months and the city has is like let's do it. We're not getting as much as we would generally. So how do are there | 01:08:54 | |
any teeth in there That is how does it future projects. | 01:09:00 | |
You know, and that's one thing that's nice with this development is gonna, it's gonna come in over several years and, and, and | 01:09:08 | |
lots of phases. And so they didn't put the amenities in and we and we didn't get what we needed. Then the, the next building, | 01:09:15 | |
that's that's where, that's where the city would most likely hold their, their, their feet to the fire and say, OK, you know, like | 01:09:22 | |
we didn't, we didn't get the menies out that we needed. We're only able to develop, you know, 75% of what the plan had called for. | 01:09:29 | |
And so we, we, we need to, we need to see that that completed as well. | 01:09:36 | |
And most likely we would then bond for the the past amount to so. | 01:09:41 | |
Yeah, I, I think, I think we feel pretty comfortable that there's at least enough teeth in there that the, the city would, would | 01:09:47 | |
be able to, to, to get those amenities in place. | 01:09:52 | |
And the state also has. | 01:09:58 | |
Requirements that you can't necessarily hold up a development if a developer is willing to bond. What's nice about this is that it | 01:10:01 | |
does provide at least a, a, a time period. And so we're able to kind of tighten it up that way. And then the other thing was with | 01:10:07 | |
the bond. | 01:10:12 | |
12 months, like say it exceeds 12 months generally for a park, especially a park in our city, if we were planning, it would take | 01:10:19 | |
five years. | 01:10:24 | |
For us to do that. So I mean there's the 12 months, but then the extra five years on top of that. So it's kind of. | 01:10:30 | |
I mean, it's, it's good that there's bonding. I'm just saying that this the city would take a long time. Like you guys would have | 01:10:38 | |
way more than 12 months. It would be you'd have more like 5 years. And that's where I. | 01:10:44 | |
Kind of worry a little bit that amenities might not get put in even if there's a bond, yeah. | 01:10:51 | |
I mean, I understand your concern. I think that that concern is would probably be more. | 01:10:58 | |
More applicable to like a single phase of division. You know, we're like Morgan said, we're going to be developing this out over a | 01:11:06 | |
decade or more. And so you know, if we run half step on. | 01:11:13 | |
We would expect that we would have to workout something with the city for, you know, our next phase of construction over that | 01:11:21 | |
phase of construction would be approved. OK, OK, that makes sense. | 01:11:27 | |
OK. On the next section on testing, just kind of have work blanket restrictions on where things can be fenced. I just split it up | 01:11:37 | |
so that we were separating kind of the more what what I return like general public areas from the more limited public areas like | 01:11:45 | |
the plazas in the courtyards. So this would give the opportunity. | 01:11:53 | |
To as approved by by staff to have. | 01:12:03 | |
Some limited fencing in some of those interior courtyards and classes. | 01:12:08 | |
So for example we have some. | 01:12:14 | |
Opportunities and some of those for some kids play areas where we might want to fence off some areas and make them a little bit a | 01:12:16 | |
little bit more secure or or a little bit less porous with the general public and with the kids playing in the area right. Right | 01:12:23 | |
now there's not much of an ability to fence off some of those areas. So this just gives us the ability on a case by case basis to | 01:12:31 | |
bring the plants to test some of those kind of more limited public areas like plazas and. | 01:12:38 | |
That sounds good. | 01:12:50 | |
Sorry, I did have one more question going back. Sorry on for the bonding, it said. | 01:12:51 | |
I'm trying to find it. | 01:13:02 | |
Excluding the lakefront residential district, is there a reason that that's excluded from this or? Yeah, because when? | 01:13:06 | |
When Flagship came through with the zoning award is that that I believe that was language that that was already in there. It's | 01:13:15 | |
because that was already developed and built out and we didn't want to tie a entitled development that already had their | 01:13:20 | |
entitlements in place to any new zoning provisions. So, so we we provide an exclusion. | 01:13:26 | |
OK, OK, cool print. | 01:13:34 | |
Thanks for clarifying that. | 01:13:37 | |
OK, in section 831410 A this this is an issue that we've covered into our first site plan. | 01:13:43 | |
Something that we didn't necessarily anticipate when we. | 01:13:53 | |
We're putting in a code by something that's been really great about having working through with this and trying to find creative | 01:13:57 | |
solutions for where we have a development that is going to develop out over a longer period of time and where the development is | 01:14:03 | |
going to be phased where we'll have. | 01:14:09 | |
Temporary parking lots that will be a part of a later development phase. | 01:14:16 | |
It doesn't doesn't make sense to put in landscaping and screening and all that to a full conditional permanent parking lot when | 01:14:21 | |
you're just going to tear it out. | 01:14:26 | |
You know and. | 01:14:33 | |
Build a building. There's something like that on top of it. | 01:14:35 | |
So this this is language that would allow for coming aboard, living in gas, skating plan, and landscaping treatment. | 01:14:39 | |
On the temporary parking lot areas. | 01:14:49 | |
But also in the time period of you know what is temporary need. | 01:14:53 | |
So, say in seven years, there's not really a need for a parking structure. | 01:15:00 | |
Then what happens in that case? | 01:15:09 | |
So that the lesson to that is the temporary parking lot should be removed and developing and the additional developed property | 01:15:12 | |
Chapel form the requirements of this section in seven years. I think, I think probably you're right. We need to have a sentence | 01:15:18 | |
there that if it's not removed and developed that that parking lot will be brought up to code standards, you know, by the end of | 01:15:24 | |
those seven years, OK. | 01:15:31 | |
So it's either one or the other either. | 01:15:40 | |
There, there is something built on that temporary parking lot and whatever is built it meets the code for parking lots for the | 01:15:43 | |
parking lot that's there will be brought up to to the standards for the parking lots. OK. And then on that maybe there's something | 01:15:51 | |
we could add in that as far as the landscaping and stuff is put in trees. | 01:15:59 | |
Are larger caliper that they're larger, more mature trees that get put in just because? | 01:16:08 | |
It was seven years that they should have been growing. So we should get something that's a little bit more mature in there. Well, | 01:16:16 | |
and I agree with that completely, but one thing that we found is that. | 01:16:21 | |
Planting a larger caliper tree, like if you're planting like a 4/4 inch or something like that in the tree, the survival rate is | 01:16:27 | |
actually fairly low. | 01:16:31 | |
But maybe we increase the amount of freeze or something like that. I mean, so would you guys be open to that, Pete? | 01:16:36 | |
And I am on landscaping stuff, but maybe, maybe we can say we have to submit an enhanced landscaping plan, you know, and Morgan | 01:16:45 | |
and Brian can talk about, you know, what that would mean or what that would look like. That way we can work on some language. And | 01:16:53 | |
I, I, I think that's a good thing to you because the, what we want to incentivize is the structure to, to, to come in or, or a | 01:17:00 | |
building that then is served by a structure. | 01:17:07 | |
And so if they if they want to keep the surface parking lot, then then they get dinged a little bit because they have to put in | 01:17:15 | |
more landscape and that we benefit from the city can get more open space. So we we can look at some numbers of that. | 01:17:21 | |
I'll make a note of that, all right. | 01:17:29 | |
On 3/14. | 01:17:35 | |
But in some of these areas where we have like these. | 01:17:38 | |
Either in a courtyard or on an area where we have units opening out onto the street, then we would want the ability to be able to | 01:17:48 | |
use trees to screen some of the windows or some of the openings to those homes. And that made conflict with the clear, the clear | 01:17:56 | |
branch height requirement. | 01:18:03 | |
Well, some of that too is like we're St. terminated headlights would be shining right in between it. He really likes it. He really | 01:18:13 | |
likes to plant a tree that would block those lights in Chinese right into the unit itself. | 01:18:18 | |
Another one of the examples, you know, maybe like an Evergreen that does branch down lower and you actually wanting leave those | 01:18:24 | |
branches lower, yeah or some some oak alumnus or something. | 01:18:30 | |
Cool. OK. | 01:18:38 | |
It's section 310 three 1610. This is the minimum ridiculous parking. We, we showed this one just a little bit on kinds of, you | 01:18:41 | |
know, trying to trying to revisit the parking requirements over time. And we think the best way to do it is through an objective | 01:18:49 | |
standard where we would get these parking studies reevaluated. | 01:18:57 | |
Have these different or have the ability at least to have parking re evaluated at these different milestones? | 01:19:06 | |
And then have those parking studies incorporated into the parking table. | 01:19:13 | |
In that section of the code. | 01:19:20 | |
So is this not in the original? | 01:19:28 | |
Code then we're we're any additional code there was an opportunity to reevaluate the parking, but there was there was no real | 01:19:32 | |
clear. | 01:19:37 | |
There's no real clear direction of what happened after that. It just said, you know, that the city plan and city engineer could | 01:19:43 | |
use that information in determining future requirements. | 01:19:50 | |
You know, are coming from a stuff Yeah, yeah, come from a studying is there's absolutely really looked at it and analyzed things. | 01:20:07 | |
This is what they should be, but that's more or less it you know it's it's just whatever the study shows I'm going to up it to 1 | 01:20:12 | |
space per every 10 square feet. | 01:20:18 | |
OK. | 01:20:28 | |
OK. | 01:20:38 | |
Tonight and so you know, hopefully they're trying to get into the package for for next week is there's a requirement in the. | 01:20:40 | |
In the building facades, and I apologize, we should, I should have gotten something in the in the building to science. But there | 01:20:51 | |
is a requirement on the devising lines that any building facile greater than 200 feet in length must change in material or massing | 01:20:58 | |
a goal to appear as multiple buildings. We think that that's a really great role. In fact, you know, we're the ones who proposed | 01:21:04 | |
that rule divisionally, but it doesn't really work in taller buildings and so. | 01:21:11 | |
What what we're proposing is to is to modify that to say except for buildings. | 01:21:19 | |
Six stories in height, then after some requirement would be required, but about six stories we move into a different type of | 01:21:24 | |
building category. And as you think about, you know, kind of larger, taller buildings that you're familiar with in more downtown | 01:21:33 | |
areas, those don't have those kind of artificial facade for a really cool building massing that's more. | 01:21:42 | |
A single kind of element, either with some kind of base element that's what grows up in a massage, or just a standalone structure. | 01:21:51 | |
And so that that's the only other thing that we would ask to be considered is the the facade on the taller buildings, not | 01:22:01 | |
artificially breaking those up so that it doesn't look forced. | 01:22:06 | |
Is what you know, you see any building in any urban setting that's really tall, it's usually fly glass. Could you explain just for | 01:22:13 | |
it's been a while since the Commission has looked at this code, but can you kind of explain what a a demise line is? | 01:22:22 | |
My sign is, what do you think of when you when you think about like a brownstone? | 01:22:33 | |
Complex in like New York or Boston where you have roadhouses that are next to each other and they're built with a shared wall but | 01:22:41 | |
they they look like different buildings because of the sauna on the front is different. One will be brick, one will be limestone | 01:22:47 | |
one will have a day window, one wall. And so as you look as you look down, for example, on a Market Street area where we're going | 01:22:53 | |
to going to have a you know a row of retail. | 01:22:59 | |
Storefronts. A lot of those storefronts will look different. They'll look like different buildings, even though behind that facade | 01:23:07 | |
they're the same building. It just breaks up the architectural character and the streaming to create a lot more interesting stream | 01:23:13 | |
scene and pedestrian experience. | 01:23:18 | |
Alright, yeah, that makes sense. | 01:23:26 | |
Good. | 01:23:29 | |
OK. That's, that's all we have. We, we really appreciate your consideration. And you know, like, like we said when we got this | 01:23:31 | |
original period, we don't know how this is going to change as we go through. We just know it will change. And so we appreciate you | 01:23:39 | |
working through some of these details as we try to get from concept to execution on this project. Cool. Great. Yeah, yeah. | 01:23:47 | |
Excited to see everything. | 01:23:56 | |
Great, thanks. And then so this will be on for the joint work session. So the agenda will be it'll be a little messy in the next | 01:23:59 | |
meeting, but it'll be a work session and then you go to a public hearing. And then so it'll be the Planning Commission will have | 01:24:05 | |
like their own meeting within the meeting. And then after the public hearing, it goes to the city City Council and then so it | 01:24:11 | |
comes up around. | 01:24:16 | |
Really helpful and hopefully was. | 01:24:23 | |
Too distracted? No, that's that's totally fine for sure. Cool. Great. Yeah, Thank you. | 01:24:26 | |
See you cool. | 01:24:33 | |
All right. Moving to Commission member report and ex parte discussion and disclosures. | 01:24:37 | |
And again, so Craig, just to kind of explain what this point is, is like if. | 01:24:44 | |
As a, as an appointed official, so being an elected official, you can get lobbied, you know, City Council members, that's just | 01:24:50 | |
part of being elected official. A developer can take him out and try to try to talk him into something with, with appointed | 01:24:56 | |
officials. We try to keep more of, I guess a wall between you and the, and the private sector. And so let's say if for some reason | 01:25:02 | |
a developer or someone else, you're making a land use discussion or a decision and a property owner really wants something, so | 01:25:08 | |
they, they, they talk to you about it. | 01:25:14 | |
This is, this is the opportunity for you to be transparent and say, or for any commissioner, because it's all about transparency. | 01:25:20 | |
So the public knows how our making our decisions. So typically that that doesn't happen. But also if you serve on like a specific | 01:25:27 | |
board or committee like Bryce and he like he, he, he, he works on the, on the on the corridor plan. And so if you wanted to update | 01:25:35 | |
the Commission on his progress there or if you have a conflict of interest, if you own a piece of property, you live right across. | 01:25:42 | |
Cool, so do you have something you need to? | 01:26:21 | |
Kind of an update on the corridor plan, the last. | 01:26:26 | |
Meeting is this Tuesday, I believe, here at the city office building. It's tomorrow, Commissioner Brady tomorrow night here. I | 01:26:31 | |
have that up the 20th City office, 5:00 PM. If you want to make comments, come and like, ask questions, make comments, get your | 01:26:39 | |
sticky note on the board, and if you haven't filled out the survey yet, fill it out. | 01:26:47 | |
Yeah, Staff, you have anything? It's been like a month and a half since I know it's been a little a little bit. It's gonna get | 01:26:57 | |
super busy. So it'll be fun though. Fun projects if you're a planning nerd like us. Downtown project. Yeah, absolutely. So I just | 01:27:03 | |
want to, you know, thank Brian for all his hard work on the corridor plan. He is. He's put in a lot of late nights. Help to | 01:27:08 | |
organize we all. I mean, after tomorrow night we would have had four public open houses. We're also setting up open houses | 01:27:14 | |
specifically for the high density areas. | 01:27:20 | |
We've had some, some Agnes and commissioners have mentioned this too, but also the City Council wants us to to, to reach out more | 01:27:27 | |
to just like your traditional single family home. But they, they want to hear from, you know, there's like that the Big East West | 01:27:33 | |
divide where the multifamily on one side and single family on other. They they want to get input from everyone. And so Brians done | 01:27:40 | |
done a great job. He's setting up specific meetings with some of those Hoas where we can do specific. | 01:27:47 | |
Open houses for for for their residents so we can get get get more of like the rental tenant. | 01:27:55 | |
Input that we typically lack and these is usually more just like the property owners. And so yeah, we're we're rolling good. I | 01:28:00 | |
don't know if you have anything else you want to share on. | 01:28:05 | |
The events have been really well attended. The first one that we had at Grove Park, we had hundreds of people. | 01:28:12 | |
The one that we had at Gambling Park, we had a lot of people come out to yes. Or when did we have Bupalooza? Yesterday, Yesterday, | 01:28:22 | |
hundreds of people going to see the plan. Yesterday we got plenty, like lots of comments and we've had over 600 people take the | 01:28:27 | |
survey I think at this point. | 01:28:32 | |
So we're hoping that maybe we can shoot for 1000 by the end of when we do our community engagement. So yeah, no thanks to the | 01:28:37 | |
community for supporting us and everything's going really well. | 01:28:42 | |
Awesome. Thanks, Brian. | 01:28:48 | |
Anything else? | 01:28:50 | |
OK, so. | 01:28:53 | |
I would just like to make sure that the thanks has been passed off to our city engineer. I think the city engineer has been | 01:28:55 | |
working very hard on making sure that a lot of the planning has been focused on. | 01:29:03 | |
So just hats off to that city engineer, whoever that might be. I don't know. That might be, but it also isn't also since. | 01:29:12 | |
The Falcons here for sure. Hopefully she she yeah, she goes on the right path. She'll be sitting here. | 01:29:24 | |
Probably. And then I'll be in the audience. Don't worry about how. | 01:29:31 | |
I could have done it better. | 01:29:36 | |
But yeah, but no, definitely stopping the staffing. What's happening here Emily is not definitely she's been doing well their | 01:29:38 | |
collaboration between the two. And then along with that something for sure that this is a clear report that our signal for the | 01:29:44 | |
Main Street 400 N is that out for is out for bids. We're waiting on people to get back-to-back to us to see how much it'll cost to | 01:29:51 | |
build. | 01:29:57 | |
That's kind of like one of those things is the collaboration between the planning and engineering continues on, you know? | 01:30:04 | |
I call myself other works now in terms of that so. | 01:30:11 | |
With that, the we've been, we've been receiving some additional improvements along with the. | 01:30:17 | |
Our pedestrian crossings. | 01:30:25 | |
Kind of moving forward that we were able to receive some funding our knows, it knows if notice that we're going to be receiving | 01:30:28 | |
funding for some pedestrian improvements. That was, you know, we appreciate the help with with that. That was, that was that was a | 01:30:34 | |
group effort between planning and engineering to get help put together. We did receive the funding about 9, almost $900,000 this | 01:30:41 | |
week to come in 2025 unfortunately, but you know, still, still give money. | 01:30:47 | |
In addition that the. | 01:30:54 | |
Nothing. I mean, we're looking at increasing the. | 01:30:58 | |
Identification of crosswalks along especially along the school areas on that it was posted this today with 24 waste off at near | 01:31:04 | |
near trailside on the South of Florida N 6 in the north. This is something that's been reviewed quite quite a bit and I think with | 01:31:12 | |
the with the feedback that we've been. | 01:31:19 | |
Receiving and also the feedback that we've been observing, you know, we were able to make that call to make sure that when we're | 01:31:28 | |
putting in stop signs is not an easy thing to just say, hey, just approve stop signs and place. We have to make sure that it's for | 01:31:35 | |
it's, it's benefiting not just the pedestrians, but also benefiting vehicles, vehicle traffic as well. | 01:31:41 | |
In my hair that some people say there's a driver frustration, I think I almost punched him in a roadblocks in front of a driver | 01:31:49 | |
actually caused those drivers to drive faster and more dangerously. So we just want to be caught. So we're cognizant about that | 01:31:55 | |
and of course with the and then finding better ways to identify our crosswalks to make sure that our pedestrians are staying safe | 01:32:01 | |
and our guards are. | 01:32:06 | |
Being aware of what possession should be and of course looking at the seeing how we can improve this trail connectivities. So I | 01:32:13 | |
would like to say that the partnership between planning and engineering as tensions as might be continues on. | 01:32:21 | |
We're trying to steal his engineer to the planning department. So he's he's been kind of better. We're almost there. We're going | 01:32:34 | |
to we're going to make some progress on that. I'm sure we do have a a new planning tech, Rachel Stevens. She is phenomenal. I | 01:32:40 | |
already a rock star. You know, he's the reason why we are took us from 100 residents to 21,000, but she's going to take us from | 01:32:47 | |
21,000. | 01:32:53 | |
40,000 But Rachel was a planner in the worm and wanted to work part time, so our position fitted great and she's a Vineyard | 01:33:00 | |
resident and the first week on the job I don't know. Do you want to say anything, Rachel? So. | 01:33:09 | |
First staff member that's a Vineyard resident. | 01:33:19 | |
Liz was Liz, Yeah. | 01:33:22 | |
There's a couple who live here, yeah. | 01:33:26 | |
Hey, you want to say something? Yeah. | 01:33:31 | |
I'm really excited to be here. I've been here is a really cool place. There's lots of exciting things going on. Cool. | 01:33:34 | |
And she also has some good design experience and stuff like that. So we're going to get it going on some projects. | 01:33:41 | |
And she told us that she was going to do engineering, but it was kind of a bland field, so she wanted to go to the planning field. | 01:33:50 | |
And we also have a new, new commissioner. Craig, do you want to is this your first meeting? Right. It's his first meeting up here. | 01:33:57 | |
Up here. OK. Do you want to maybe just get a little Ventro then? Yeah. Craig Brown. So I guess I'm technically a. | 01:34:05 | |
An alternate, but you know, so now it's good. Glad to be here. This was a. | 01:34:14 | |
Good. | 01:34:20 | |
Agenda to be broken in on sitting up on stand. So thank you. Great. Thank you for your service. We appreciate it. Absolutely. How | 01:34:21 | |
long have you lived in the city? | 01:34:26 | |
I think five years. Cool. Yeah. Well, for Vineyard, you're like old school now and you could be on the Heritage Commission, but | 01:34:31 | |
I'm like one of the old people there. Yeah. | 01:34:36 | |
No, thank you. And well, we love having you. Thanks so much for choosing Surf. | 01:34:41 | |
Yeah. Thank you. That's everything all right. Is that it? | 01:34:45 | |
All right, meeting adjourned. | 01:34:49 | |
Yeah, yeah. | 01:34:58 |
* you need to log in to manage your favorites
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
Loading...
All right. Welcome, everybody. Apologies that we are running late. It is 6:15 and it is October 19th. This is the Vineyard | 00:00:03 | |
Planning Commission meeting we're going to open. Craig is going to give us an invocation. | 00:00:11 | |
Standard. | 00:00:22 | |
Heavenly Father, we're grateful today to meet. | 00:00:25 | |
And discuss the. | 00:00:28 | |
Needs of the city or he asked today that we might be able to. | 00:00:30 | |
Have a. | 00:00:35 | |
Good attitudes and a spirit of. | 00:00:37 | |
Partnership as we discuss things tonight and. | 00:00:41 | |
We're grateful for all the blessings that has given us and say the same as name Jesus Christ, Amen. Thank you so much. All right, | 00:00:44 | |
we don't have any minutes for review and approval, so we'll move into the open session if you have any public comments and come up | 00:00:50 | |
and state your name. Do you have anything? | 00:00:55 | |
Yeah, Yeah. You're just have like, OK. All right. | 00:01:04 | |
And then we'll just move straight into business. Item 4.1 sign standard waiver for the Valley Women's Health and Alpine | 00:01:09 | |
Pediatrics. | 00:01:13 | |
Should I plug it over there? Either way? Yeah, we'll just take it. | 00:01:19 | |
Actually, I should just prioritize this. | 00:01:38 | |
OK, so the applicant Kalia. | 00:02:30 | |
Robin is here with graphic display and sign. They're applying for a sign standard waiver. | 00:02:35 | |
They're trying to get 6 exterior wall signs approved on three of the building elevations at the new ABS medical office building | 00:02:40 | |
that's just South of the Panda Express in the Yard Lot B. | 00:02:48 | |
The current sign code outrightly permits only one exterior wall sign for elevation and a maximum of four except as approved | 00:02:57 | |
through a sign standard waiver. So we've had these kind of applications before, one kind of recently, nearly three or four months | 00:03:03 | |
ago. The applicant anticipates 2 tenants and would like to have two exterior wall signs per elevation for at exposure and | 00:03:09 | |
visibility for their businesses. | 00:03:14 | |
The Planning Commission has the authority to evaluate an approval of science standard waiver under a validating the following | 00:03:21 | |
criteria placement quantity. | 00:03:27 | |
Height, sign area, design and materiality. | 00:03:33 | |
I'd like to read the portions that talked about placement and. | 00:03:37 | |
Quantity. | 00:03:46 | |
So. | 00:03:48 | |
All right, so Vineyard Zoning Code Section 15 dot 48.040 provides the following detail placement. All signs shall be placed for | 00:03:55 | |
their visible and legible factors to be considered included location relative to traffic, movement and access, access points, site | 00:04:03 | |
features, other structures, and orientation relative to viewing distances and site triangles. | 00:04:12 | |
Wall signs may be approved on building walls other than the wall space occupied by the tenant in commercial centers in which some | 00:04:21 | |
tenants have little or no visibility from the street. | 00:04:25 | |
Then, for quantity, it says the number of signs that may be approved within any development shall be sufficient to provide | 00:04:31 | |
necessary facilitation of internal circulation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and wayfinding for safety of the occupants of | 00:04:37 | |
vehicles and pedestrians. Factors to be considered shall be those that impact safety considerations such as the size of the | 00:04:43 | |
development and the number of developments of areas. | 00:04:49 | |
The Planning Commission must determine if the additional 2 exterior wall signs. | 00:04:56 | |
Appropriately meet the criteria. | 00:05:01 | |
Here are. | 00:05:06 | |
The. | 00:05:09 | |
Sign area per elevations that have been called out so. | 00:05:12 | |
The science standard table allows a maximum of sign area of 5% on each building elevation, and the applicant is not doing any | 00:05:19 | |
signs or proposing to do any signs on the north elevation. They're proposing to do 2 on the South elevation, and the total signage | 00:05:25 | |
area for that is 2.4%. | 00:05:31 | |
2 signs on the West facing elevation coming to a total of 1.4%. | 00:05:39 | |
The east facing elevation would also have two signs with a total of 1.4% and in no case does the applicant exceed the 5% signage | 00:05:45 | |
area allowed per elevation. | 00:05:50 | |
I'm going to finish by reading. | 00:05:58 | |
The staff comments in the staff report and. | 00:06:01 | |
Some of the potential motions. | 00:06:06 | |
As they review this application, potential motions are you could move to approve the science standard waiver as requested, or you | 00:06:38 | |
could move to. | 00:06:43 | |
Deny the same strength waiver. So you have the things that you need to consider, Yeah. | 00:06:50 | |
All right. Thanks, Brian. You guys have any questions or comments? | 00:06:56 | |
Any questions or comments? | 00:07:01 | |
Have a motion. | 00:07:03 | |
Now I moved through to approve the Science Centered Waiver application as requested by Kalia Robbins with Graphics plan sign with | 00:07:06 | |
the proposed conditions. Do you want me to read the conditions? | 00:07:11 | |
Sure. Yeah, yeah. I the applicant pays any outstanding fees and makes any red line corrections. And the applicant is subject to | 00:07:20 | |
all federal, state and local laws. | 00:07:25 | |
Just really quick with the other building that we approve signage on the South elevation, because they have housing to the South, | 00:07:33 | |
we have them put in a condition that they have to turn off the signs at 9:00 at night, OK. | 00:07:41 | |
Not too far from that same residential location, maybe we add that. | 00:07:51 | |
It was directly on 400 S, yeah, like just just north of 400 S This ones like a block, a block away, basically, yeah. I mean, | 00:07:58 | |
there's nothing going on, but. | 00:08:05 | |
Right now at least there's nothing between them and the houses. And I don't know if those are going to be parking lots right | 00:08:12 | |
there. That's a fairpoint. It's it's, there's going to be commercial to the South of them. | 00:08:18 | |
A bank that'll be between them and Edgewater, there'll be some view lines. So if that's a concern, yeah, we just wanted to be | 00:08:27 | |
consistent. So I think Brian's just being cognizant of past decisions and so, but on that such ratting position, I would allow the | 00:08:33 | |
applicant if, if you'd like to respond. | 00:08:40 | |
Right. You know, yeah, we apologize. You have to be in the microphone or it doesn't get picked up. | 00:08:47 | |
Kylia Robbins, Yeah. | 00:09:01 | |
So in my e-mail correspondences with. | 00:09:03 | |
Cash Harding or hard that one, he did mention that for the yard development there they do require that any eliminated signs be set | 00:09:08 | |
on a timer. And so I factored that into the narrative that I submitted with everything so that whenever we go and do the | 00:09:17 | |
installation, we can either put it on a solar timer so that once the sun goes out and it'll go out. | 00:09:25 | |
A certain amount of time after. So the solar batteries will only last for X amount of time. Or we can wire them internally to | 00:09:34 | |
where once they turn off their inside lights, then their outside lights will turn off. So once their business is closed down for | 00:09:41 | |
the evening, then their exterior lights will also be turned off. So those were the two options that I've been given as far as how | 00:09:48 | |
we can accommodate any residential things or, or those. | 00:09:55 | |
Stipulations as far as. | 00:10:03 | |
The elimination being on timer, sure. And if the second one sounds like it would be more consistent with what we have the other | 00:10:04 | |
people. So is that already part of the sign? The sign code? It's not okay I. | 00:10:10 | |
If you guys want to put that as a condition I. | 00:10:19 | |
You can. | 00:10:23 | |
If you want to, I mean for the sake of consistency, which is something. | 00:10:25 | |
We've been wanting to. | 00:10:29 | |
And then just so you know, because there's the the minimum for a quorum tonight, all three would have to vote in favor of the | 00:10:32 | |
motion. So, so, so it's good to have that conversation to kind of understand kind of where your position is on it. And as far as | 00:10:38 | |
consistency goes, the other property being directly across the street from the apartments, that made a lot of sense, this one | 00:10:44 | |
being. | 00:10:49 | |
More than 100 yards further than that, right? I mean, you've got the Megaplex and you've got Top Golf, which is going to put up | 00:10:57 | |
way more lines than any 2 little signs. That's just, that's just one of those. | 00:11:03 | |
If you already have the structure for the sign like. | 00:11:10 | |
To turn off. | 00:11:14 | |
At a certain point like what I. | 00:11:16 | |
Doesn't feel like it would be a hardship ask. | 00:11:20 | |
Yeah. | 00:11:23 | |
Commission to we if we're thinking like really long range too, at some point, maybe across the street, there may also be | 00:11:26 | |
residential in the UVU campus as well. | 00:11:31 | |
Can't choose to be across the street from something that's already there. | 00:11:37 | |
Do whatever they want. | 00:11:42 | |
And so anyway, so if this motion does not pass, then I, we would recommend you make another motion if it's, if it's, you know, if | 00:11:44 | |
you're going to approve the sign, but it's the, the condition. So you guys are welcome to still move forward with, with the | 00:11:51 | |
motion, with the, the new condition and, and just just take it from there. Is there a specific condition you want to? | 00:11:57 | |
For I like the idea of keeping it consistent at the yard because we. | 00:12:06 | |
Whenever we're not consistent, we seem to pay for it later. Well, so with the other signs in the yard, do any of them have besides | 00:12:13 | |
the one that we approve that's directly across the street from the apartments, do any of the rest of them have any kind of | 00:12:18 | |
conditions as far as their sign lighting goes? | 00:12:24 | |
Not not that I'm aware of. I think that I think that's wrong. | 00:12:31 | |
Don't remember. | 00:12:35 | |
Directly across the street makes the most sense and technically somebody could come in. | 00:13:08 | |
To some of these other spots and have a sign that faces them that they can keep lit all the time without even coming to get a sign | 00:13:14 | |
standard waiver. So that's just what I think. I think it's just unnecessary. But then if you have anything, any effect, Craig, no, | 00:13:21 | |
OK, OK. | 00:13:28 | |
Then. | 00:13:37 | |
In that case, I think we can work it to move forward with the motion presented that is second, second, all in favor. | 00:13:39 | |
All right. Thank you so much. Thank you guys. All right, moving on to 5.1 zoning text amendment accessory dwelling unit location. | 00:13:48 | |
Great. | 00:14:00 | |
Oh, do we want to? | 00:14:03 | |
Do we want to do the downtown Vineyard one first or? | 00:14:04 | |
We we can make, we can make the 81 pretty quick, unless you feel like that's going to be I, I think it'll be pretty quick. All | 00:14:10 | |
right, so, so really quick. The drawing unit ordinance, that's one of those things that we adopted one of the general plan | 00:14:18 | |
elements to the moderate income housing portion over general plan. | 00:14:25 | |
That we would allow excessive dwelling units and also try to remove barriers to to accommodate more units. As you know we are in a | 00:14:34 | |
bit of a housing crisis and shortage even with the market starting to to turn down, there's still reports of rent is still going | 00:14:41 | |
up and and that's because they're you know we have especially in Utah County, we do have a fairly large university population. So | 00:14:49 | |
what this would do is currently at our Adu ordinance and so just. | 00:14:56 | |
For the public accessory growing unit is the unit that's a part of a main dwelling. So it'll be typically at the basement | 00:15:04 | |
apartment that gets converted, there's a separate entrance. And so it allows someone to offset their mortgage through through | 00:15:11 | |
developing and completing the construction of a of an apartment unit in the basement. And so it's, it's definitely helps the | 00:15:19 | |
person with the mortgage and it also provides another unit to accommodate the housing shortage that we have so. | 00:15:26 | |
The ordinance right now allows for a detached structure to be utilized, however. | 00:15:34 | |
The code requires that it be a detached garage and that the accessory unit be above the garage. And that that that kind of the | 00:15:41 | |
thinking in the past we modeled it after the Provo ordinance that has a similar language, but the thought was that if it was above | 00:15:47 | |
a garage, then we can ensure that the garage had the parking to, you know, that that would be associated with accessory dwelling | 00:15:54 | |
unit. | 00:16:01 | |
Doesn't say that, but that was kind of a thought of requiring it to be like basically a detached second floor garage type unit. | 00:16:07 | |
We, you know, in kind of thinking about it, if it's a detached garage, it's going to essentially be in a backyard anyway. And so | 00:16:17 | |
there would be the driveway space that would accommodate parking and they would still have to meet the parking code and you can't | 00:16:24 | |
do 2. And so it's not like they would have a basement unit and then they would build. | 00:16:30 | |
A, you know, a detached garage accessory drawing as well. So it still limited them to one on the property. So that's how the the | 00:16:38 | |
code, the code was, was written. We felt like this is a good change and this definitely aligns with the with the general plan. We | 00:16:45 | |
wanted just to get your thoughts on it. We had it marked for a public hearing, but we had some noticing issues. And so next week | 00:16:51 | |
we're going to have a joint meeting with the with the. | 00:16:58 | |
The City Council. | 00:17:05 | |
And they'll be a couple of cool items on there. We're, we're going to look at the design of the boardwalk park near Vineyard | 00:17:07 | |
Beach. And so that will be our first time seeing kind of that, that concept rolling out. And then we'll, we'll discuss the this | 00:17:11 | |
this issue as well. | 00:17:15 | |
Staff, you know, we, we believe that it aligns with the general plan. It helps with the overall issues with that that we've seen | 00:17:22 | |
with our. | 00:17:26 | |
Shortage in housing. I wanted to kind of touch it to go down 3 pages, go to 12. | 00:17:32 | |
I give you kind of you know you can see the some of the changes there. | 00:17:41 | |
You need to go to the man. Yeah, that one. | 00:17:47 | |
Perfect. I should come back up one get right there. That's fine. Yeah. So it shows the location. It basically clarifies it doesn't | 00:17:49 | |
have to be a detached garage. It can just be a detached structure. They still have to meet the parking requirement regardless and | 00:17:58 | |
then a minimum lot size. We did want to ensure that there was more room that it wasn't just like because we do allow for a lot. | 00:18:06 | |
As small as 5200 square feet for an Adu I felt though if it was going to be a detached unit. | 00:18:15 | |
That that it should have a larger lot. | 00:18:22 | |
In a way to kind of developing like a small house is sort of like putting 2 houses. And so we put 15,000 square feet. We kind of | 00:18:27 | |
looked around and we didn't like identify the exact number, but that that felt to be kind of a nice size. It is slightly over 1/3 | 00:18:34 | |
of an acre and so it could easily accommodate 2 units, you know, 1 detached and still provide some yard space for the accessory | 00:18:40 | |
line as well. | 00:18:47 | |
Let me see if there, I mean, I think those were like the main requirements owner occupied how how we wrote this one is that the | 00:18:56 | |
the the owner. So the owner shall live within the home or detached structure located on the property containing accessory going | 00:19:03 | |
unit. And so we, we, we provide a little bit more flexibility. Before it was that the the owner could only live in the primary | 00:19:10 | |
like unit. The problem was with all the state code stuff. | 00:19:17 | |
They're they're, they're crunching down more and more. That's probably another thing that they're going to look at. | 00:19:24 | |
And we have had some people that that want to develop a small apartment for themselves as one person because they they need the | 00:19:28 | |
the. | 00:19:33 | |
The revenue to offset the mortgage and so they they'd like to rent off the the bigger space to a family and so we we felt it was | 00:19:39 | |
appropriate not not to be too restrictive on where on the property the owner has to live as long as the owner is on the property | 00:19:46 | |
it it meets the general tab the antenna is donors on the property is going to be maintained at a much higher level so and it's | 00:19:54 | |
also really hard to enforce because you have to sit outside the house with stare at the house and see where. | 00:20:01 | |
The owner going, you have to know what the owner looks like and everything. So anyway, we're, we're trying to not do too many | 00:20:09 | |
codes that are hard to enforce. And basically the owner occupancy 1 is good because they do have to have the biannual business | 00:20:16 | |
license where we're able to verify the occupancy of the owner at that time. And so we felt that that that was sufficient enough. | 00:20:23 | |
I think that was essentially it. Let me see if there's anything on the next. So there's like 2 neighborhoods in Vineyard that have | 00:20:33 | |
homes that can actually do this to do it. Yeah, that's another thing too is if we want to reduce that, if you feel 15,000 maybe | 00:20:40 | |
too high, you know what I mean? Realistically, especially for vendor looking at a specific or if, if I was to take a guess, our | 00:20:47 | |
average lot size and Vineyard, you're probably at like maybe a six. | 00:20:54 | |
500 square feet. We do have a lot that are like 3000 square feet, 4005 thousand. | 00:21:02 | |
And so you could, I mean, if you went down to a 10,000, that's still a fairly large lot and they still would have to meet the | 00:21:08 | |
setbacks behind the house. There's a six foot requirement to be behind the house for fire clearance. And then you have your | 00:21:14 | |
general setbacks and height limitations. All the height requirements that are attached to a detached, you know, that are connected | 00:21:19 | |
to a detached structure would still apply. | 00:21:25 | |
So 3 feet from the property line is long up to 15 feet, and then for every foot above 15 you step back an additional foot. | 00:21:31 | |
Well, so I mean, we're happy to talk about any, any of those, any of those requirements if you want to adjust the lot size or you | 00:21:40 | |
know, we're game for whatever, whatever you'd like. | 00:21:46 | |
I think it all looks good. I think the lot size might need to be looked at a little bit more. | 00:21:52 | |
Maybe look and see kind of what homes could even do it with like a 12,000 or something just because I don't know. It's it's pretty | 00:22:00 | |
limiting as is. | 00:22:07 | |
I mean, if they're meeting the setbacks and stuff I don't see. | 00:22:15 | |
I don't see a whole lot of reason for it lot size to matter for me personally. | 00:22:21 | |
But. | 00:22:28 | |
I don't know. What do you guys think? | 00:22:29 | |
I was just curious, like what? | 00:22:34 | |
When you talk about enforcement. | 00:22:36 | |
Is there? | 00:22:38 | |
How do you do that? | 00:22:40 | |
Generally anyways, I guess I mean, you can't really sometimes, well, as far as the lot size that that's fairly easy one 'cause | 00:22:42 | |
they come in with like a typically a building permit. They have to a lot of times it's a TI finish on a basement or if it's a | 00:22:49 | |
garage, they would be building a new garage or, or, or adding a, you know, a detached accessory dwelling yet. And I, I provided a | 00:22:55 | |
couple pictures above. There's, you know, because I mean, they're Utah's not the only state. | 00:23:02 | |
Dealing with this issue. This is something, yeah, let's go to those. Yeah. I mean, those, those, those are a couple examples. | 00:23:09 | |
There's a lot of kids that that that you can you can buy. | 00:23:13 | |
If they were breaking, if they say they added square footage without telling people and, and, and now they're within 2 feet of the | 00:23:47 | |
property line and we got a complaint, then we'd go out and measure it. And then with the biannual inspection, we would also look | 00:23:54 | |
at the structure, make sure they didn't do any additions that that weren't approved. So we every two years we would go out and do | 00:24:00 | |
do an inspection of the site. | 00:24:06 | |
I do think we should have a limit on the size. Is there any kind of limit on how big it can be? | 00:24:14 | |
I think you can with detached structures. So that's something the state hasn't tackled yet. They they could, but you can | 00:24:20 | |
definitely, I think I believe at this point the detached structure, I'm pretty sure that you can you, you, you can lymph the size | 00:24:27 | |
of that. So if you I think we should limit the size because we have the size limit on in the attached dwelling, don't we? | 00:24:35 | |
We don't anymore. That was taken out. Yeah, that was that was one of the state code. Like I said, this is one of those ordinances | 00:24:43 | |
every year the state like takes away more land use controls from this from cities on this. So I just think it would be silly if | 00:24:51 | |
somebody built like a whole 3000 square foot house next to their house, which I I totally see happening, I think limiting size. | 00:24:59 | |
I'm not sure. | 00:25:08 | |
Is actually what size I want to do or what? Do you remember what the old square footage was for? Accessory 1200 square feet maybe | 00:25:10 | |
starting there? | 00:25:14 | |
And that's honestly, that's actually pretty big. That's a good size. And we do have coverage requirements that we may check as | 00:25:20 | |
well. If it's detached structure, I believe it's 25% of the backyard can be covered. The square footage of your actual backyard | 00:25:25 | |
can be covered with structures. And so this would fall into that too. So if you had a shed, we would count that and we would count | 00:25:31 | |
the accessory drawing unit and then we would do that calculation. | 00:25:36 | |
OK, that addresses my concern there. Yeah. So don't worry about the 1200 square feet or you can still have it, I guess. Yeah, we | 00:25:42 | |
should probably still have it. Somebody's on 1/2 acre and they can build real big. Yeah, if you pull back to you can get 25 feet | 00:25:50 | |
and you could easily do A2 story right into the roof system. I think 1200 square feet would be. | 00:25:58 | |
50% coverage total? Or is there a way to do a percentage based on the House if that makes sense? | 00:26:06 | |
Is that what the 1200 square feet came from? Initially it was 1200 square feet or not to exceed was it 50%? So if it was a 2000 | 00:26:12 | |
square foot primary unit, you could have a 1000 square foot access. You're drawing it, but the state man doesn't do do away with | 00:26:20 | |
it, but not to exceed 1200 square feet. So if the house was 5000 square feet, you, you could still only build up to 1200 square | 00:26:27 | |
feet. But all those were were done away with. But the detached structures, they, they haven't touched those. | 00:26:35 | |
And so you you could still have that type of regulation. If so, you could say 25% of the square footage of the main house, 50% not | 00:26:42 | |
to exceed, but they would still have to meet all the other requirements, the high setbacks, all that stuff. So yeah, we're happy | 00:26:49 | |
to whatever you feel is is the appropriate way to regulate it would have it in. | 00:26:56 | |
And I think we may have a member of the public here to speak about on this. | 00:27:05 | |
Oh OK. Oh no problem. I I I got a phone call from someone who wanted to come and talk about excessive drawing yet so I don't. | 00:27:11 | |
Oh, you're not. You're not that. | 00:27:19 | |
And I apologize you'll have to speak into the microphone. | 00:27:21 | |
Yeah, because our recorder doesn't pick it up. You don't have to speak. I didn't put you on the spot. I, I, I didn't know if you | 00:27:25 | |
were the guy I spoke with on the phone. So. | 00:27:30 | |
Yeah, Taggart, in a way. | 00:27:36 | |
I mean, if you like we, we, we could, we, we, we could research a few other because I, I bet this is a regulation that is covered | 00:28:09 | |
on a lot of the codes and we could bring some options. And I think with the percentage of structured units in the backyard plus | 00:28:15 | |
the 1200 maximum, I think, I think that would do it. | 00:28:21 | |
Because I don't think there's any 2400 square foot homes that are on bigger than a .05 acre lot or something. So I I'm not worried | 00:28:29 | |
too much about that. | 00:28:35 | |
Yeah, but what do you, how do you guys feel about? | 00:28:40 | |
Feel like that's right direction there. | 00:28:44 | |
Yeah, I feel, yeah, I feel like with all of those stipulations we already have in the code. | 00:28:47 | |
It's pretty covered. | 00:28:54 | |
Do you think adding the 1200 square feet would? | 00:28:57 | |
I think I got two of them in there. | 00:29:00 | |
I mean. | 00:29:06 | |
I think it's. | 00:29:13 | |
Yeah, I thought that would be beneficial. I don't think people want their neighbors. | 00:29:16 | |
Because they bought a large lot to have space, right? And then all of a sudden someone's building like a giant house next to their | 00:29:21 | |
backyard. Essentially, it would be like a guest house. So I think if we have this, I, I think 1200 square feet is pretty quick. | 00:29:28 | |
It's a good size for an accessory drawing in there. | 00:29:34 | |
Yeah, I would add that. | 00:29:41 | |
And so again, so the 12-12 hundred not not to exceed 1200 square feet or the overall coverage of the I mean all the other | 00:29:44 | |
regulations, yeah, the percentage of cap whatever that. | 00:29:49 | |
Cool. That's all we had on that one. So like I said, please, we need at least three for next week. So if you three could come at | 00:29:55 | |
we have, we have 8 commissions. OK, good. Yeah. And we'll we'll reach out to others. Would be great to have a whole Commission, | 00:30:02 | |
but Anthony and Tim are usually here too. | 00:30:09 | |
Cool. OK. We'll just plan on that then. | 00:30:18 | |
Here we need to make a note real quick. | 00:30:21 | |
All right, we got to move on to it. All right, moving on to 5.2 zoning text amendment special purpose zoning district ordinance | 00:30:23 | |
Section 3 downtown Vineyard Town Center. Yeah. So Bronson is proposing a petting zoo for downtown and. | 00:30:30 | |
They're the only rabid dogs. He's like, you know, we can't put these dogs. | 00:30:41 | |
Let's see. You want to jump to the next one, Brian. | 00:30:51 | |
OK. | 00:30:54 | |
And then you can just roll down to like where you see the code changes. | 00:30:58 | |
Let me start seeing. | 00:31:05 | |
OK. So we're in the process of reviewing Block 5 and 6, the downtown, pretty exciting project. I think we did a work session on | 00:31:08 | |
that last month. | 00:31:13 | |
And so, yeah, very exciting we do. And this kind of typically happens when you get a new zoning ordinance and you get the actual | 00:31:20 | |
development coming in. You kind of have to find where you need to make some adjustments. And I can feel like the the proposed | 00:31:26 | |
development that you that was shown in the work session basically met the intent and there was a few items. | 00:31:32 | |
That we had in the code that were kind of carries that carryovers from the initial code that we wanted to adjust. | 00:31:39 | |
Let me see here go to those red lines. | 00:31:48 | |
OK, what page are you on? | 00:31:56 | |
Yep. OK, great. And we'll, we'll do an overview of those. And Francis, if you wanna just jump up to the to the microphone and | 00:31:58 | |
you're you're even, you wanna just do a control plus so that this gets a little bigger. Yeah. | 00:32:05 | |
Yeah. So the first one is in regards to waste containers. It's saying waste containers shall be located below ground. I think | 00:32:16 | |
that's that's something that that that would be really neat. But we wanted to put one feasible. There are times where that's | 00:32:23 | |
that's not going to work. And yeah, we're below ground collection is not feasible and where waste containers are to be located | 00:32:30 | |
outside of the building footprint. If you want to kind of maybe bronze and provide kind of some some feedback as to. | 00:32:37 | |
Like to see that change? | 00:32:44 | |
Yes, Bronson Patton of the developer and Nate Hutchinson and Pete Evans are on Zoom. | 00:32:45 | |
Let's maybe test and see if their audio is working. | 00:32:56 | |
Can you hear me? Yeah, we hear. Repeat. | 00:33:00 | |
Great, I'm here for you, but. | 00:33:03 | |
About to go. You're welcome. Just to kind of keep keep going through those. So it's it's not back and forth. You can Pete, do you | 00:33:13 | |
do you want to go through it or do you want me to run through them? | 00:33:18 | |
I'm happy to. So as Morgan said, we appreciate the opportunity to come in and revisit some of these, some of these issues that we, | 00:33:24 | |
we knew there would be issues what we made the, you know, when we adopted the zoning code for this area, We just didn't know | 00:33:31 | |
really what those issues would be until we start laying this side out and we start designing buildings and meet with the | 00:33:38 | |
architects and run into the constraints of. | 00:33:45 | |
Implement the spirit of the code and lay that out. | 00:33:53 | |
To really, you know, get into what it's going to turn into, so. | 00:34:00 | |
We want to start just at the at the top on the I've been working. Oh yeah, that's a good idea. So Brian, why don't you go up? | 00:34:06 | |
Table 3.80 Yeah, just one page. | 00:34:16 | |
Go back one page. | 00:34:21 | |
Oh, this is a sorry, we're looking at the table. | 00:34:29 | |
One thing I want to add is some of these code. | 00:34:35 | |
Are things that just work here right there? | 00:34:38 | |
Some of the things we'll talk about tonight, we did. | 00:34:42 | |
They need, we need to save those in the last time we revisited that, right? | 00:34:45 | |
Yeah, that's it. | 00:34:55 | |
Oh yeah. | 00:35:01 | |
You know the special purpose on district. | 00:35:02 | |
3.8. | 00:35:27 | |
OK. | 00:35:51 | |
Are we there? | 00:35:58 | |
So Pete, can you see? So what Brian's trying to do is have the summary and then the table like the actual code, so we can kind of | 00:36:01 | |
see them side by side. | 00:36:06 | |
Great, great. So the first item is the uses table by district and it excluded basically single household uses in the in the | 00:36:11 | |
downtown station and in the downtown excuse areas and then also some in the lakefront commercial. | 00:36:21 | |
And so some of those we would like to modify as a permitted use from a non permitted use. And then some of them we would modify | 00:36:31 | |
conditionally with an asterisk so that it would be a. | 00:36:39 | |
You know, in the block there would be less than 5% of the overall units. And the idea here really is to have a diversity of | 00:36:47 | |
product and have complementary product. Most of these will be used as you know kind of a supplementary product, especially just | 00:36:56 | |
the like the single household detached in the lakefront commercial areas. So those have an asterisk. | 00:37:04 | |
The village general detached with an asterisk and then it just started at the top and the downtown station. | 00:37:13 | |
Or you have single household attacks so that that would allow us to do you know, like channels soap, for example. We have a large | 00:37:21 | |
block which requires block warm and we think that it would be really nice to have some attached town hall in my grandstone looking | 00:37:29 | |
product in there, even though the rest of that block is very dense. | 00:37:38 | |
And this would also be density not as dense and so it would just kind of break it up a little bit. Currently, right now, the use | 00:37:47 | |
table doesn't allow the single household attached as a permitted use. And so this would allow us to to add in those, you know, as | 00:37:54 | |
as desired in the different areas. Same with the downtown mixed-use areas. So having single household attached is a permitted use | 00:38:02 | |
in the lakefront commercial district use adding single household attached as. | 00:38:09 | |
That one would be limited to the 5% single household detached also as a permitted use limited to 5%. The downtown based use | 00:38:17 | |
district with just with the signal household details as a permitted use with less than 5%. Downtown station detached less than 5%. | 00:38:27 | |
Village general district single household detached less than 5%. | 00:38:36 | |
And the lakefront commercial? | 00:38:46 | |
Detached with less than 5%. So for example, we have an area in one of the blocks right now that we're laying out. We're just | 00:38:48 | |
designing it with a land fan of the urban planners, which represents. | 00:38:54 | |
We have a condition where two ****** are coming together in a Plaza and the urban planners were saying like, hey, this would be a | 00:39:01 | |
really cool place to put like a small single family detached house to keep activation in this area and keep, you know, kind of | 00:39:08 | |
kind of complemented this Plaza area. But right right now it's not permitted right now. We would we would have to give an | 00:39:15 | |
exemption to do that. So the idea would be. | 00:39:22 | |
To allow those users. | 00:39:29 | |
But in the cases where we're looking at detached uses, where the code doesn't currently contemplate any detached uses, keep to the | 00:39:32 | |
spirit of the density that was planned for the area by limiting the the number of units that that would be available for, but | 00:39:40 | |
allow a certain a small percentage of those to be detached so that we can use those as complementary product or complementary. | 00:39:48 | |
Housing options where it's appropriate. | 00:39:58 | |
And one thing that. | 00:40:01 | |
A lot of uses are to cover parking structures. So you build a tax townhomes, for example, to cover the parking structures so | 00:40:03 | |
you're not just looking at a parking structure itself. Yeah, when they need to cover the practice sugar, sorry, but really, put it | 00:40:09 | |
in front of the party. Like a liner. Like a liner building. | 00:40:16 | |
I think you should be on top of the parking structure. | 00:40:24 | |
And So what staff feels like this wasn't really a controversial ask because it's it's asking for less intense uses within the | 00:40:30 | |
district than than those districts are actually allow. As you know, when the code was originally written and then redrafted, it | 00:40:36 | |
was to allow for a lot of like higher density residential products. And so this would allow for the attached single family and the | 00:40:43 | |
detached single family in those districts which is currently not allowed. So. | 00:40:50 | |
More variety and that's and that kind of fits with the old general plan is trying to create housing types that fit multiple | 00:40:57 | |
generations. And so it would provide a spot, you know, someone wanted to live in a single family detached within downtown. It'd be | 00:41:03 | |
kind of cool. Right now it doesn't allow for that. | 00:41:08 | |
OK, I think we're going to keep going. | 00:41:19 | |
You want to go, does anyone have any questions You want to do questions or you want to? Yeah, it might be good just just to have | 00:41:21 | |
questions that as we're on each section. Yeah, I guess with those, some of them had a 5% maximum. Can we just make everything have | 00:41:27 | |
a certain percentage? | 00:41:33 | |
Yeah, I think, I think the idea on the maximum was just to make sure that we were sticking to the intent of the plan on the | 00:41:41 | |
detached product. So on the attached product, in my mind the single family attached product was just an oversight on definitions | 00:41:47 | |
with. | 00:41:53 | |
We're looking at the code a lot of the product that you know, like like that we would be wrapping parking garages with most of | 00:41:59 | |
those are going to be like a like a townhome product instead of a staff town home product. So those would those would really be | 00:42:05 | |
more like a single, single family attached product. And I think just definitionally, I don't think that that's one of the ones | 00:42:11 | |
where. | 00:42:18 | |
This wasn't envisioned in the plan where the single family detached area. | 00:42:25 | |
Or product, you know, when we get those, we weren't really anticipating doing those anywhere in the plan, but now we're laying it | 00:42:30 | |
out. There are areas where we think that it would be really complimentary and but you know, we we think that. | 00:42:37 | |
It's, you know, instead of just saying, hey, we want to have single family detached as a product category. Putting the percentage | 00:42:46 | |
on those would make it so you were confident that we were limiting those to the areas where they were, that they gave sense as a, | 00:42:53 | |
as a more of a, you know, compliment to the overall permit design. | 00:43:00 | |
Yeah, yeah. And I feel, I feel good about it. I just want to make sure that we keep to the intent and have wording in there that | 00:43:07 | |
keeps us to the intent of this is a downtown area, not a neighborhood area at all. And I'm sure that that's what you guys are | 00:43:13 | |
going for. If we can get some language in that, it just and I really think the 5% does that. Yeah. I mean if you get 20 items, if | 00:43:20 | |
only one of them is different than. | 00:43:26 | |
It truly is something that you would use just as a compliment or to make some unique design within the overall development. | 00:43:32 | |
OK. | 00:43:39 | |
OK, any any other comments on #1? | 00:43:44 | |
For questions. | 00:43:50 | |
Hey #2 was a request to add. | 00:43:52 | |
Course she renewed in section 3.01.010. | 00:43:56 | |
At 4.21 taxi cabs were a. | 00:44:05 | |
An unpermitted use or restricted use and the idea there on on eliminating that is a prohibited use. Was this to allow for the | 00:44:10 | |
optionality of different types of transit arrangements in the downtown area in the future, not because Bronson's always wanted to | 00:44:18 | |
fulfill his dream of running a cab service, but. | 00:44:26 | |
More so because, you know, as we look at other urban areas, there are some really creative. | 00:44:35 | |
Ride sharing programs and car sharing programs that are going on in some of these urban areas. And we we didn't want to be | 00:44:42 | |
technically a foul of, of that code provision if we came up with, you know, one of these. | 00:44:49 | |
One of these creative transit and ride sharing and car sharing options that was maybe run by the property owners association or | 00:44:58 | |
the downtown alliance or something like that. You know, we we think that there's a lot of really neat things happening and and | 00:45:06 | |
that will be happening in the future, especially in that downtown core areas. People really adopt that transit station and start | 00:45:13 | |
using the front runner and are using vehicles less and less. 30 some great. | 00:45:21 | |
To encourage that in creative ways. But you know that that was really the idea. The idea, and what can I talk about is to the idea | 00:45:29 | |
is not to have any kind of a, you know. | 00:45:35 | |
Taxi hub or or a taxi maintenance operation down there, We'd have to put language in there if we need to, but there's more just to | 00:45:44 | |
keep the flexibility for the future. Yeah. So you can still have taxi cabs obviously serving the area, but not not the office or | 00:45:50 | |
the the yard, the taxi yard. | 00:45:57 | |
Right, right. | 00:46:04 | |
Yeah, we can move on. | 00:46:10 | |
The next one is table 31. | 00:46:15 | |
.020 point 3 St. St. design requirements so a couple of things that we've run into while we've been designed these first two | 00:46:20 | |
blocks and then even more so as we start designing the blocks at downtown in the more downtown area closer to the train station, | 00:46:28 | |
the glazing requirements and the transparency requirements and the. | 00:46:36 | |
The minimum ground, the ground floor, right. So the request is to modify the minimum ground story transparency measured between 0 | 00:46:48 | |
and 10 feet above grade to 40%. And then we, you know, we found maybe including asterisks for downtown station to allow for single | 00:46:56 | |
story buildings for designing commercial purposes. | 00:47:04 | |
In that facility requirement as well, so long as the average building height is in excess of two stories. So there's a requirement | 00:47:13 | |
that those downtown station plans. | 00:47:18 | |
The at least two stories there we have stories there is that we would have seen commercial and retail tenants who would want a | 00:47:23 | |
single story building like an Apple Store or something like that, that would you know would dictate that building height. So | 00:47:32 | |
moving that to more of an average instead of mandate and then 9 to 12 feet is the minimum ground floor height. | 00:47:40 | |
Can I ask, I'm probably another reason for that is we do have all of our, all of our residential units open. So there's no, | 00:47:51 | |
there's no corridor like normal apartment complex out of the corridor. But as we work with Jeff, getting people out into the | 00:47:57 | |
street is really important. | 00:48:03 | |
And but that they're only have actually right into the failed and right on the streets and no other way having some privacy for | 00:48:10 | |
bedrooms and other things that you'll have. | 00:48:15 | |
In the ground floor area and some of the residential, you think it's important that it's not all last so that you're walking down | 00:48:22 | |
the potatoes looking right into people's units. | 00:48:26 | |
OK. As far as single story buildings in that area? | 00:48:34 | |
Do you see any of that? Like is that something you guys are imagining at all in that area? I just wasn't. | 00:48:38 | |
Well, like I said, I we don't have anybody that wants a single story building right now. | 00:48:47 | |
The Woodbury is to have a lot more retail experience than we do. The concern there was just if you have a tenant. | 00:48:53 | |
That you wanted in there, you know, for example, an Apple Store who wanted a single story building on on their own path. Then the | 00:49:02 | |
idea would be that you have always created flexibility that you'd be able to do that. | 00:49:09 | |
OK. And then we could have a percentage of square footage that can be active. The intent is definitely not to make this lesson | 00:49:16 | |
just maybe like inside of a four yard. For example, you can have a one story restaurant in 1/4 yard downtown that could be a | 00:49:24 | |
really cool but nothing else on top of it. It's in the courtyard surrounded by units and offices, etcetera. | 00:49:31 | |
Plus potentially a single store used in the middle of the courtyard for the middle of the sale or something like that. OK yeah, | 00:49:42 | |
that makes sense. Yeah. So for example, as we're laying out the one of the ideas on the on the train stage, the transit Plaza is | 00:49:49 | |
to have like, you know, maybe one or two small restaurants that would be single story that transit Plaza area so that there's | 00:49:56 | |
opportunities for people that are waiting for the train or. | 00:50:04 | |
You know, moving back and forth to that area, OK. | 00:50:12 | |
Yeah, perfect. Yeah. Just wanted to envision that a little bit better. So that's perfect. | 00:50:14 | |
And then I probably would say you're young a name tag or the Greg or Craig. Craig, did you have a question too? So I just wanted | 00:50:20 | |
to make sure that the obvious thing of story transparency is what I'm thinking. So that's like. | 00:50:28 | |
Glass cup essentially, right? Yeah, exactly. OK. | 00:50:35 | |
On the 1st floor and the transparency, like they said, what we run into is on those buildings in that first block where they're | 00:50:41 | |
bordering the same on frontage road, frontage road. And we've created the skewed condition, you know, kind of like think about | 00:50:48 | |
brownstones as they, you know, they have their exit out on the street, you know, the, the amount of transparency glazing on the | 00:50:55 | |
front of those. | 00:51:02 | |
The architects were just telling us they're. | 00:51:10 | |
Not conducive to that type of architecture. | 00:51:13 | |
OK, thanks. | 00:51:19 | |
Yep. | 00:51:20 | |
On section 3.410, point 040. | 00:51:26 | |
This one again just goes to transparency requirements for entries, the street sizes and port sizes. So we have opportunities, a | 00:51:32 | |
lot of these opportunities on a lot of these trees. | 00:51:40 | |
To to create this activity and and encourage people to enter next to their their units at the ground level onto these Paseos and | 00:51:49 | |
off the streets and create a lot of activity, but the the minimum porch and soup. | 00:51:56 | |
Requirements are really relating the ability of how how many opportunities we have on that and the architectural firm and they can | 00:52:04 | |
speak probably better this next week. The architectural firm is just concerned that we're artificially limited those opportunities | 00:52:12 | |
by making those requirements too large and they they feel like they can get a really good. | 00:52:20 | |
Pedestrian and residential condition with the smaller streets of portions. | 00:52:29 | |
And if you guys remember from the concept too is yeah, they're they're going really heavy on the on the more of the public spaces | 00:52:36 | |
too. So pushing people from the private spaces to more of the communal spaces. | 00:52:42 | |
Like a lot of this makes a lot more sense. | 00:52:49 | |
On Section 3, point 12.030. | 00:53:00 | |
This just have to do. This was just adding some optionality to some of the defocus spaces in both courtyards and plazas. So the | 00:53:06 | |
the opportunity that I mean all of these have been conditioned that they would be approved. But instead of just having a strict | 00:53:13 | |
restriction on the limitations, the opportunity that if you come up with a concept that that we really like, we think is | 00:53:19 | |
appropriate for some of those. | 00:53:26 | |
Public or semi public? | 00:53:34 | |
Areas to be able to bring it in and look at these structures. | 00:53:36 | |
Either enclosed or partially enclosed in some of those courtyards and plazas. | 00:53:43 | |
So is that like? | 00:53:49 | |
Structures in the open space or what is that? | 00:53:51 | |
For example, if we have a courtyard within a building and we wanted to have some kind of a shade structure as a part of that or | 00:53:57 | |
we're the sales come together and we have a bigger Plaza opening. And right now it's pretty limited on the amount of dollar | 00:54:03 | |
percentage of that Plaza or courtyard that could be covered. And this would just give the optionality again, I mean, it's it's | 00:54:09 | |
not. | 00:54:15 | |
Necessarily. | 00:54:23 | |
Increasing that completely, it's just saying there's the there's the option if we want to increase that we could come in with the | 00:54:24 | |
design that we feel would be a good sign for that area and if the Planning Commission agreed that we would be able to build that | 00:54:30 | |
plan. | 00:54:36 | |
OK. | 00:54:42 | |
OK. | 00:54:43 | |
In section 3.10, point 5, this is. This is in A&B. | 00:54:50 | |
And see, we are talking about materials and. | 00:54:58 | |
Adding some materials to that improved list. | 00:55:04 | |
Right now there's a lot of. | 00:55:08 | |
Used for metal paneling as an architectural list. Right now it's on the secondary material list, but we really feel like it should | 00:55:11 | |
be on the primary material list. | 00:55:17 | |
On the 1.2. | 00:55:24 | |
That's again just cleaning that up for you again from the secondary materials. And then 2.2 is adding fibers and then as an | 00:55:27 | |
optional approvable shuttle shutter material. So again, those shutter materials are approved a whole. So we would need to come in | 00:55:33 | |
with examples of what those would look like. | 00:55:39 | |
We just added fiber cement as a, as an option for those shutters to fibre submit hours, really durable, looks really good and we | 00:55:45 | |
think over the long term is less maintenance and what's better, Pete, for the the joint meeting next, next Wednesday, could you | 00:55:52 | |
have some, some examples of the, of the materials, maybe have like a touch sheet or something like that shows, you know, pretty | 00:55:58 | |
important, just get a better idea. | 00:56:05 | |
That. | 00:56:11 | |
OK, on subsection. | 00:56:17 | |
I'll tell you. | 00:56:23 | |
Codes where we have. | 00:56:29 | |
That porch requirement both on size and we had another balconies, a percentage of balconies that would have either front, front | 00:56:32 | |
porches or balconies that I I think section 3.5 is just I'm sure all over because we don't have small single family dwellings. | 00:56:42 | |
In here, but in subsection one and two and three-point 13.2, you know what we're trying to avoid is having this requirement. | 00:56:53 | |
Artificially derived. | 00:57:04 | |
Artificially Dr. the architectural design of the buildings, and there's going to be some buildings where porches make a lot of | 00:57:10 | |
sense. There's going to be some porches where they don't make any sense. | 00:57:16 | |
And. | 00:57:24 | |
We just, we don't want the balconies driving the that decision on the architectural side. Well, a lot of that too. Like for | 00:57:26 | |
example, we talked in the courtyards and we can do on those. For example, they each have private patios, but it makes more sense | 00:57:32 | |
to have a larger courtyard that's more useful for all of the units than having private patios for every single unit of borders | 00:57:38 | |
there. | 00:57:44 | |
So that was the thought. That was the thought on that too. | 00:57:51 | |
OK. | 00:57:59 | |
OK. Any questions on that? | 00:58:01 | |
In some of the. | 00:58:05 | |
Plans that you guys brought forward at a in another presentation there were patios that were like stepped up and then like set | 00:58:07 | |
back a little bit and. | 00:58:12 | |
In the Paseos and stuff and it was kind of cool. Are you guys getting rid of those or what? What's the thought there? | 00:58:18 | |
That that's when I was saying before is that, you know, we, we really want to, we really want the urban design and the | 00:58:27 | |
architecture to drive the elements instead of, you know, kind of having to kill wagging the dog. | 00:58:33 | |
On, on some of those requirements. And so for example, and on the street fronting the promenade, we we have the street conditions | 00:58:40 | |
where we have kind of set back porch. And in some of those conditions we're actually looking at you know, kind of like 3 foot or 4 | 00:58:47 | |
foot little railing going around some of those areas to make some of those areas. | 00:58:55 | |
So those are definitely a really important component of driving this really pedestrian, really active urban planning design. But | 00:59:02 | |
what we didn't want is, is the requirement to add balconies on upper levels, like overlooking the street where they just didn't | 00:59:09 | |
make sense, just to try to get a number. | 00:59:16 | |
OK. | 00:59:24 | |
OK, can I ask a silly question? Is there a percentage number that does make sense instead of 25 like? | 00:59:28 | |
To still. | 00:59:36 | |
Because I mean, if you say no, then I just think, OK, then no balconies are going to be built. But what is there a way to include | 00:59:38 | |
something so that some could still be considered, if that makes sense? And I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just asking a | 00:59:45 | |
question. I, I mean, I think it's a good question. I think, I think that answers, the short answer is, I mean, we're, we're doing | 00:59:51 | |
now it needs to be on a lot of these buildings because balconies are really popular and they, they rent really well. | 00:59:57 | |
But you know, especially where we're looking at this on a block by block condition and we're looking at, you know, maybe 2-3 | 01:00:05 | |
buildings at the time. | 01:00:09 | |
Will start to become really hard to keep track of. OK, where are you on your percentage basis on number of Falcons and you get to | 01:00:14 | |
the more train stationaries where you get really urban and balconies don't make as much sense but maybe porches do. And so you're | 01:00:21 | |
creating that you know that environment on the ground level but not a higher. So I don't know that there's a percentage number | 01:00:28 | |
necessarily that makes sense. I think that you know as we bring buildings in per review and. | 01:00:36 | |
The Planning Commission and the City Council are looking at them. There's opportunities where we're doing with them. You say, | 01:00:44 | |
well, you know, maybe it'd be nice to have companies here or there. We can look at those on a case by case basis. But from our | 01:00:50 | |
standpoint, we're, you know, we're putting balconies in where we think that it makes sense and where we think that people are | 01:00:57 | |
going to take advantage of and use properties and enhance the overall environment. | 01:01:04 | |
OK, thanks. | 01:01:11 | |
Yep. So on subsection 7 on the waste containers, we're we're just requesting them out to be that we located below ground when | 01:01:13 | |
feasible and and some of these areas that will be able to be located below grounds where we have unwindable blocks, we're | 01:01:20 | |
designing right now some underground parking. In most cases it won't be feasible to put them below ground and make some kind of a | 01:01:27 | |
podium. | 01:01:34 | |
Concrete structure below a building. | 01:01:42 | |
And then? | 01:01:45 | |
Where the next sentence we're below ground collection is not feasible. And where waste containers are located outside of a | 01:01:47 | |
building footprint, then we would have those restrictions where there they'd be located on the public view 10 feet away from every | 01:01:55 | |
property line. Our, our hope is that we'll be able to integrate most of the this cash collection and garbage waste containers | 01:02:02 | |
within a building so that they're actually integrated into the building. There's track shoots integrated. | 01:02:10 | |
Buildings that come down, we'll have a valley trap service where people are picking up garbage and then using these shoes still | 01:02:18 | |
going out under the ground floor. And then the trash trucks can just pull in off the street, pick them up on the ground floor from | 01:02:24 | |
there. But the requirement has written is really kind of one of the suburban condition where you're anticipating having a traction | 01:02:30 | |
closure. | 01:02:37 | |
You know, some distance away from the actual building, where in these more urban environments, we anticipate having the traffic | 01:02:44 | |
closure integrated with the building itself. | 01:02:49 | |
Pete on so you have the 10 foot minimum from any property line? | 01:02:54 | |
That you may want to clarify say St. property line, I think, I think we just say property line. Yeah. If you have a condominiums | 01:03:00 | |
or townhomes and and they're adjacent to a side property line, you know, it seems like the the intent is the street. | 01:03:07 | |
From the right away line. | 01:03:16 | |
Yeah, OK. | 01:03:21 | |
So I think one of the things here, I think one of the things people worry about here isn't so much seeing it as much as seeing it | 01:03:24 | |
and smelling it. If it's located within like a building or underground, then that's not much of A concern, but it's once it's. | 01:03:32 | |
Not, I think is once it becomes a concern and feasible. I mean the definition of feasible is something that's easy and convenient, | 01:03:42 | |
and I mean easy and convenient. | 01:03:47 | |
It's what we want to do for anything. It makes it a project way cheaper, but just want to make sure that it's done right. So we | 01:03:54 | |
want to make sure we have the language in here that it's. | 01:03:58 | |
You don't see it, you don't smell it, kind of. Is there any language we can add into here to kind of tie that down a little bit | 01:04:04 | |
better? | 01:04:09 | |
Yeah, I'm not, I'm not sure what what we could add. I mean my. | 01:04:16 | |
The reason why I had a feasible life rather than example is I mean my guess is 90% or more of the track collection will not be | 01:04:21 | |
underground because it just doesn't make sense to do underground. We also we have got some groundwater issues as well. | 01:04:30 | |
Yeah, just groundwater could. | 01:04:40 | |
Is an issue on the site. | 01:04:44 | |
Yeah, just is this where we are with groundwater and solar conditions, you're doing a coating product just really isn't, isn't | 01:04:47 | |
feasible. And so, so then you get to your next point, which is OK, it's going to be above ground. How do we make it the best | 01:04:54 | |
condition that we can to mitigate sight and smell? And that's really the. | 01:05:01 | |
What's that? | 01:05:09 | |
You're good. That's really the issue that we're talking about is, you know, how do we integrate them within the building and then | 01:05:12 | |
if they're not integrated within the building reverting back to the restrictions that separate and visually from both the road and | 01:05:17 | |
from the the residents. | 01:05:23 | |
OK. | 01:05:30 | |
All right. | 01:05:32 | |
The next subsection is the event of your requirement. So we worked a lot with this with staff just because. | 01:05:36 | |
We're trying to figure out a way to make sure that the city is confident that we'll be building the amenities and commensurate | 01:05:44 | |
with the residential units in the building. But then also understanding that some of these amenities are going to be shared over | 01:05:52 | |
more than one building and some of those amenities will be built, you know, in a phase following. | 01:05:59 | |
The development phase that it's in right now. So the language that we're proposing is. | 01:06:09 | |
In subsection 9, multi family units excluding delayed front residential district must see the following amenity levels of service | 01:06:15 | |
within public or private spaces and if the following many levels of service will not be installed at the time of building | 01:06:21 | |
completion, a certificate of occupancy should be issued for the building only on one showing that the necessary amenities are | 01:06:28 | |
planned in an upcoming development phase. | 01:06:35 | |
And two, the posting of the bond in the estimated amount of the requirement community and the term of the bond for the completion | 01:06:42 | |
of the required amenities should not exceed 12 months. | 01:06:47 | |
And then this is the other languages with existing each item should be well maintained, operational, go through a public | 01:06:54 | |
commercial or industry standard. And Morgan, I don't know if you want to sign in here, you and I talked a lot about this one and | 01:07:00 | |
how to make sure that we were providing the right level of service at the right time. | 01:07:07 | |
Sorry, I started eating my dinner. | 01:07:15 | |
Yeah. And the partners that we build in several blocks. | 01:07:20 | |
Bought the phases and many spread out. | 01:07:23 | |
So our concern was trying to hold. | 01:07:26 | |
One building up. | 01:07:28 | |
It's like the full promenade isn't in yet. Just things like that are going to take a little bit more time for us to develop out. | 01:07:29 | |
So we felt comfortable with the bonding language and, and that's actually pretty, pretty standard practice that we're already | 01:07:35 | |
doing the city. And so we, we still, we still get the amenities, but it allows us to phase in the project and phase in, in, in, in | 01:07:40 | |
the amenities as well. | 01:07:46 | |
Does the bonding having the 12 month expiration? | 01:07:53 | |
Does that covers it meaning like the amenities will be installed within that time frame or like will they have, is there ever a | 01:07:57 | |
time when it goes outside of that and you're like, well, the bonds expired, sorry you don't get your stuff right. Yeah, so this, | 01:08:03 | |
but what we would do is actually pull the bond and and yeah, if they didn't do it. | 01:08:09 | |
OK. | 01:08:19 | |
So obviously like the city would rather. | 01:08:26 | |
The developer construct amenities, but this gives us the ability to to come back in and do it ourselves if it's not done within 12 | 01:08:29 | |
months. | 01:08:32 | |
OK. If so, I guess I have a question on that. If we bond for it, generally if the developer is doing the amenities, they can get | 01:08:38 | |
more bang for their buck than the city can. So if. | 01:08:45 | |
It exceeds 12 months and the city has is like let's do it. We're not getting as much as we would generally. So how do are there | 01:08:54 | |
any teeth in there That is how does it future projects. | 01:09:00 | |
You know, and that's one thing that's nice with this development is gonna, it's gonna come in over several years and, and, and | 01:09:08 | |
lots of phases. And so they didn't put the amenities in and we and we didn't get what we needed. Then the, the next building, | 01:09:15 | |
that's that's where, that's where the city would most likely hold their, their, their feet to the fire and say, OK, you know, like | 01:09:22 | |
we didn't, we didn't get the menies out that we needed. We're only able to develop, you know, 75% of what the plan had called for. | 01:09:29 | |
And so we, we, we need to, we need to see that that completed as well. | 01:09:36 | |
And most likely we would then bond for the the past amount to so. | 01:09:41 | |
Yeah, I, I think, I think we feel pretty comfortable that there's at least enough teeth in there that the, the city would, would | 01:09:47 | |
be able to, to, to get those amenities in place. | 01:09:52 | |
And the state also has. | 01:09:58 | |
Requirements that you can't necessarily hold up a development if a developer is willing to bond. What's nice about this is that it | 01:10:01 | |