Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge? Click Here
Start Position
INVOCATION/INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHTS/PLEDGE OFALLEGIANCE Bryce Brady opened the meeting. Chris Bramwell led the Pledge of allegiance, offered an invocation, and inspirational thoughts.
OPEN SESSION – Daria Evans made a public comment about the Villa’s Town Hall meeting. She asked about the shoreline improvement grant. Thomas Pool asked about plans for the intersection at Vineyard Loop Road and Main Street. Patrick James stated that staff is working on a pedestrian crosswalk at that intersection. Thomas Pool asked another question about the intersection at W and Vineyard Loop Road. He requested a crosswalk.  MEETING MINUTES1
June,23 MOTION: Anthony Jenkins made a motion to approve the meeting minutes from June,23. Chris Bramwell seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Chris Bramwell, Anthony Jenkins, Bryce Brady, Craig Bown, and Graden Ostler. The motion passed unanimously.BUSINESS ITEMS1
Site Plan  - Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) Well house #7 Anthony Fletcher presented the site plan applications for items1,2, and3. CUWCD is requesting site plan approval for three new pump houses located at approximately0 E0 N,0 E00 N and0 E0 N. The well pump houses will improve water efficiency in the region.
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan - Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) Well house  #163
Site Plan  - Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) Well house #174
Chris Bramwell asked a question regarding well site #16. There will be a paved road leading to the well house.
There was a discussion concerning the access and maintenance of the trail near well site #7.
MOTION: Craig Bown made a motion to approve site plans for well house #7,, with the conditions discuss and it the staff report. Anthony Jenkins seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Chris Bramwell, Anthony Jenkins, Bryce Brady, Craig Bown, and Graden Ostler. The motion passed unanimously.     2
Public Hearing - Zoning Text Amendment –.12.060 – Dimensional Standards Table Cache Hancey presented the Zoning Text Amendment which is a request from Bird Homes to increase the maximum height from’ to’ in the RMU district. The maximum residential use has been reached in the RMU district. The applicant is requesting this change to construct office buildings.
The applicant, Bird Homes, came to the lectern. He stated the goal is to buildClass A office spaces that arestories each. The applicant is requesting the extra height to allow for rooftop equipment and for taller stories.
There was a discussion as to whether the applicant could dig below grade. The developer stated that the buildings need to stay at grade due to the footings required. Morgan Brim stated four stories seems a reasonable height for this location. He stated that view corridors will not be interrupted. He stated that the City would like to see more employment in the RMU district.
There was a discussion regarding a future text amendment allowing for more residential. Bryce Brady stated he would not be in favor of more residential in the RMU district.
MOTION:  Criag Bown made a motion to open the public hearing. Anthony Jenkins seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Chris Bramwell, Anthony Jenkins, Bryce Brady, Craig Bown, and Graden Ostler. The motion passed unanimously. Angela Trego made a comment that she and her neighborhood are not in favor of this text amendment. She stated that this amendment does not support the General Plan and will affect the views. Tyler Haroldson made a comment that he was not worried about the view. He stated he was not happy with how mixed use has turned out and that the area is not walkable. He asked staff about increasing setback of the office building.
Daria Evans  stated that she is not in favor of the zoning text amendment. She is also concerned about  maintaining views. She is concerned about setting a precedent for future developers.
Jordan Christensen made a comment that he feels the change is marginal and residents will benefit from the zoning text amendment.
Dale Thedra made a comment that she moved to Vineyard because it felt like an organized and a well-planned community.  She stated her view is very important to her. She  stated that increasing the building height is unnecessary in this zone.
MOTION: Anthony Jenkins moved to close the public hearing. Craig Bown seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Chris Bramwell, Anthony Jenkins, Bryce Brady, Craig Bown, and Graden Ostler. The motion passed unanimously.
Anthony Jenkins stated that he likes to address all changes at once. He would like to see a residential zoning text amendment the developer mentioned. . Criag Bown stated he would also like to know what else is coming, and perhaps enter into a development agreement. A discussion ensued concerning view corridors.
There was a discussion regarding office ceiling height.
Chris Bramwell stated he is uncomfortable with raising the height in the entire RMU zone and asked if there was a way to create an exception. A discussion about different options ensued.
Bryce stated that he would like to see view corridor plans because the view is very important. A discussion about a development agreement ensued.
There was a discussion on previous applications for this site. A discussion about variances ensued.
There was a discussion on what action the planning commission will take.
MOTION: Anthony Jenkins made a motion to continue item4 and for the applicant to come back with specific site specific locations, view lines, and traffic analysis. Craig Bown seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Chris Bramwell, Anthony Jenkins, Bryce Brady, Craig Bown, and Graden Ostler. The motion passed unanimously.  5
Public Hearing - Zoning Text Amendment –.38.030 Parking Requirements Cache Hancey presented the zoning text amendment to parking requirements. The  proposal would remove the additional parking stalls required for visitors for hotels and motels. A comparison of parking requirements in surrounding cities was shown.
The applicant, Karla Mata, came forward to the lectern and answered questions from the Planning Commission.
MOTION: Anthony Jenkins made a motion to open the public hearing. Craig Bown seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Chris Bramwell, Anthony Jenkins, Bryce Brady, Craig Bown, and Graden Ostler. The motion passed unanimously. The following individuals came forward to make a public comment: Daria Evans Tyler Haroldson Jordan Christensen Russ Evans
MOTION: Craig Bown moved to close the public hearing. Anthony Jenkins seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Chris Bramwell, Anthony Jenkins, Bryce Brady, Craig Bown, and Graden Ostler. The motion passed unanimously. There was a discussion on parking study’s and hotel occupancy rates. There was a discussion concerning commercial business parking, and that they are incentivized to provide adequate parking. Several Planning Commission members provided thoughts on the Zoning Text Amendment.
MOTION: Craig Bown moved to recommend approval of ordinance23-27 to the city council as presented. Anthony Jenkins seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Those voting aye: Chris Bramwell, Anthony Jenkins, Bryce Brady, Craig Bown, and Graden Ostler. The motion passed unanimously.WORK SESSION1
General Plan Amendment to Element Technology Goalregarding the protection of personal privacy in technology advancements. The Planning Commission discussed a General Plan Amendment to address privacy concerns. No action will be taken. Morgan Brim led the discussion. The city council has asked staff to pursue this update. As technology increases, privacy concerns increase as well. This would create a policy that as technology advances privacy is a top priority.
A discussion concerning transparency and SMART city technology ensued. Chris Bramwell stated he would like to be on the subcommittee for this General Plan update.  
COMMISSION MEMBERS’ REPORTS AND EX PARTE DISCUSSIONDISCLOSUREAnthony Jenkins discussed how to make the application process smoother for staff, applicants, and the Planning Commission.   Morgan Brim provided updates on the Economic Development Strategic Plan and a Parking Study.  gave updates: working on EDSP, working on parking study. Bryce Brady and Anthony Jenkins terms are almost over.
ADJOURNMENT Bryce Brady adjourned the meeting at21 pm.   Certified correct on:August,23     NOTICED BY:   /s/                           Rachel Stevens, Planner
Yes. 00:00:01
My dad up there. 00:00:11
Oh yeah. 00:00:20
Trying to do development behind. 00:00:28
Is that they want to do itself. 00:00:35
I'm ready. What time are you doing? Are you sure? 00:00:43
Oh yeah. What? What time? 00:00:51
So I didn't catch the end of it. I didn't. 00:00:55
Really, the neighborhood is very. 00:01:05
Yeah. 00:01:18
Connect. 00:01:22
Good chair where staff ready so whenever, yeah. 00:01:26
All right. 00:01:39
Welcome, everybody. Today is Wednesday, July 19th, and this is the Vineyard Planning Commission. We'll get right into things. 00:01:40
Chris will give us a thought indication and Pledge of Allegiance. 00:01:46
We have a workshop item on the agenda tonight that I'm very excited about, so I'm gonna do an initial thought, learning on 00:01:54
privacy, since we're gonna be talking about privacy and planning and the general amendment for it. A little background, as cities 00:02:00
build out and technology is utilized more, there's a lot of opportunity to use technology to benefit citizens and how they engage 00:02:05
in the city and with the people that own properties and businesses. But there's a privacy right you have to balance, you know, you 00:02:11
don't wanna have. 00:02:16
Too much surveillance or any surveillance, people still need to have autonomy, be able to move freely throughout the city and, and 00:02:22
live their lives peacefully and be left alone. So you have to balance development with the new technology that comes and, and, and 00:02:28
balance everybody's rights. So for the thought. 00:02:34
In Code, Utah has a little bit about privacy already of things you have to consider the first one, the applicability to government 00:02:40
entities the legislature recognizes in the Government Records Access and Management Act 2 constitutional rights. 00:02:47
With great tech, we don't want to be Luddites, but let people just be left alone. So I'm very excited for that topic today, and 00:04:24
we'll say that. 00:04:29
To the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with 00:04:38
liberty and justice for all. 00:04:44
Our Father in heaven, we are very grateful that we can be gathered here together as a community, as a Planning Commission, and 00:04:56
with the public in attendance. Please bless us as we convene this meeting that we can be diligent and mindful of the duties and 00:05:03
authority that we've been given, that we can remember the the community and people that we were here to serve and the Constitution 00:05:09
that we. 00:05:15
Please bless us that we can be inspired and that we can make decisions that will benefit not just the citizens of this community, 00:05:22
but those who have to follow after us and live with these decisions for years to come. We're thankful for all you've given us, and 00:05:28
we say these things. Amen, Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Thank you, Chris. All right, we'll move into an open session. This is a time 00:05:34
to make public comments on things that are not on the agenda. 00:05:41
If you want to come forward, state your name and. 00:05:48
You have as much as 3 minutes. 00:05:51
Any public comments? 00:05:55
Hey, Kevin. 00:06:05
Villas 55 plus community Last night we had a great town hall meeting with our City Council people Amber Rasmussen and Christy 00:06:09
Welch and a host of people from the county. 00:06:15
And they were talking it, they mentioned one thing and I'm curious to know what you are planning with this. They mentioned that we 00:06:22
have received a grant for shoreline improvement. 00:06:29
And I was wondering what your plans are for that shoreline improvement and when we might see those improvements start happening. 00:06:35
OK, yeah. So this is something you can talk with staff after. There are plans that we approved at whole shoreline plan and we're 00:06:42
going after grants for each little part of it. And the whole, the whole point of the plan was so that we can go after these 00:06:48
grants. So if you want to talk to staff after, they can send you the details of plans we're thinking about. 00:06:54
And those plans that. 00:07:02
Are going to come through Planning Commission and going to come through the City Council. Some of them, I believe one of them did 00:07:05
like it two years ago, a year and a half ago, and they can send you all the documents. Would that be the one that you have already 00:07:12
received the grant for? They said last night you received a $3,000,000 grant. So we received a 3 million. 00:07:19
The county has a lot of a lot more funding this this year and so we did a an updated grant. 00:07:27
Any other public comments? 00:08:08
My name is Thomas Paul. I've been a resident since 2018. I've been here Utah. 00:08:20
I'm curious what's there, if there are any plans for the intersection that Vineyard, Loop Rd. and Main. I think at the point. I 00:08:26
live in the Springs area. 00:08:32
I think walking across that road is pretty dangerous with children and families and I'm curious if there's any consideration for 00:08:40
either, you know, either a light there or possibly kind of a light with The Walking path across or just easily just a crosswalk 00:08:48
Initially you guys thought brought anything, any thought to that? 00:08:56
Let the engineers speak. Yeah, I can respond to that. We, we are in working on a pedestrian crossing at that, at that intersection 00:09:05
with flashing lights. 00:09:10
Protected crossing and median just like what we're doing on on Center Street by by the school there. OK, perfect. The other thing 00:09:17
again similar crosswalk issue, I guess the. 00:09:24
I mean a few crosswalks off Vineyard Loop Rd. across from the springs to the condos there. I see kids crossing that time off 00:09:34
crossing across that road all the time. 00:09:39
I see people speeding down that road all the time. And so I just see it as I just see it as a potential issue, you know, if kids 00:09:44
trying to go to the school in either direction, you know, the public school or the charter. And I just don't want to see something 00:09:51
happen there. And so I think simply some lines drawn down like you guys are doing right now with the green. I think that would be 00:09:57
pretty easy to do if that's something you guys could possibly consider. 00:10:03
Down the way, yeah. And yeah, that's something that that city staff deals with separately from the Planning Commission. We don't 00:10:11
put in the class box or anything. 00:10:15
Here, So if you want to talk to Scott, they can give you details on timelines or stuff like that and even just reporting concerns 00:10:19
puts it on the radar so that stuff like that can happen. OK, thank you. Talking about the intersection primarily coming out of the 00:10:24
55 up community, the malware drive like that. 00:10:29
Specifically the springs, that's where I mean, that's where I live. That's where I noticed. So yeah, the yeah, it's 80 W St. so 00:10:35
across from there. I live a couple streets in from there. That's why I see Kit. I mean, during the school year, obviously it's 00:10:41
summer now, but during the school year I would see kids coming across there all the time. Got it. And. 00:10:46
That road specifically vineyards with Rd. you know, a lot of people, especially driving, I mean with the amount of residents that 00:10:53
have been put in by the lake, the amount of traffic going down at quite a considerable speed has definitely had an uptick. So I 00:10:58
just don't want to see an issue like that. 00:11:04
Come up, you know, I mean, last thing I want to see outside my house is a kid get hit, you know what I mean? So just want to just 00:11:10
want to see if that's not, you know, I guess something to consider. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks. 00:11:16
Any other public comments? 00:11:24
All right. Seeing as there are none, I will move into meeting meeting minutes for review and approval. There is a motion on. 00:11:28
Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from June 21st, 2023. Thanks, Anthony. Do I have a second? Second. Thanks, Chris. 00:11:35
All in favor, aye. All right, moving on to business item 4.1, site plan, Central Utah Water Conservative Conservancy District. 00:11:42
Well, house #7 do we want to go through all of these at the same time or? OK, so we're going to do 4.14 point 2 and 4.3 all at the 00:11:50
same time because they're basically all the same exact thing. 00:11:57
So. 00:12:05
Who's got this one? 00:12:07
Hello, my name is Anthony Fletcher and I'm a planner here. 00:12:11
So we have these three well sites proposed to be built in the city and you know these sites, these well sites are basically going 00:12:21
to enhance the efficiency and reliability of the water system in the city. So it is a good thing we have them named as well 7. 00:12:32
16 and 17. 00:12:44
And we have well 7 located right around the. 00:12:47
The A side of Trailside Elementary and we have 16 located at the East Geneva area and then we have 17 located right by the 00:12:53
Edgewater homes. 00:12:59
So that's the elevation for. 00:13:08
The site the the well houses that are going to be built, they pretty much look the same and each of these buildings are going to 00:13:12
have a square footage of about 1000 and 4074 square feet. 00:13:20
So that's the 16. 00:13:32
Which has a square footage of 1730. 00:13:34
And well, 17, it's going to have 1700, I mean 1073 as well, square foot. 00:13:39
That's the site plan we have. 00:13:48
This is going to be a full site a well 7. 00:13:53
And we have it all going to it fenced all the way to restrict public access. 00:13:56
It's going to be the same for 16 and 17. That's the 16. 00:14:04
And we got a site plan for 17 and all these are going to have some landscape around it. 00:14:09
That's the landscape plan. 00:14:17
17. 00:14:22
Now, well, 16 is going to. 00:14:25
Have conditional use permit to have it developed and we did tell the Central Utah Water guys to have that applied. So they have 00:14:29
done the application and we will be presenting that in the next meeting. 00:14:37
So. 00:14:47
I propose a move to approve the side plan as requested by Sean from Central use of water with the proposed conditions. Thank you. 00:14:48
Thanks. Any questions? 00:14:54
The reason for the conditional use permit for was that number 171616 is because it's in a zoning area that it's not committed. It 00:15:02
needs a conditional experiment still still the same plans as the other ones. Nothing different or really special about that one 00:15:09
other than it's in its own that it just needs a conditional use. 00:15:17
We'll we'll have that back to you in two weeks. Next meeting. Yeah, yeah. 00:15:26
And so if you approved it with the conditions of the staff report that that would have proved that one with the Commission that 00:15:32
for the conditional use permit. So they wouldn't be able to submit a bill implement until that the CPS completed. Yep. 00:15:38
If someone makes a motion on this, can it be a motion for all three or do we need to do them on separately? 00:15:46
You can do the motion for all three. I would just you know, if you if you state that you might want to just say maybe add well 00:15:52
site 716 and 17. 00:15:58
Do I have a motion? I have a question on the that one is by Edge Edge Townhomes. Is that correct? It's one that they're currently 00:16:07
drilling, right? 00:16:11
Yeah. 00:16:17
Yeah, yeah, Geneva Road and where X development is. So is that one, because right now it's a dirt Rd. easement is that I'm 00:16:19
assuming that's all gonna be developed with a page Rd. So that's account for enough, OK. 00:16:25
Any other questions? 00:16:34
I'm making the assumption, the one that's by Trailside Elementary, that they are going to restore back the trail full access I 00:16:37
guess, right? It's hard to tell. Is it going to close access to the trail? 00:16:43
Yes, during construction. 00:16:53
Yeah, so what's the black? 00:16:58
The black patching going around there. 00:17:01
Yeah. 00:17:04
Ohh when? 00:17:08
Right here OK but I think I said you bring up a good point I think that that's a worthwhile condition to put in there is that the 00:17:11
trail and the safe access to school for kids the. 00:17:17
Uninterrupted there. I'd say maintain. I mean, they've been drilling right now and you can get there, but I have had my child come 00:17:24
home on more than one occasion with super muddy shoes. And so they're just not maintaining their full construction area, I guess. 00:17:32
So I mean, it's maintained, it's just not clean. That's all. Right. So for Saint Patrick, the maintaining. 00:17:41
Travel access. So they they they may have to reroute during construction, but at least making sure that there's still trail access 00:17:50
during construction and that the trail is restored. 00:17:54
So yeah, you can add that in the condition. 00:18:01
Do you want to make a motion? Yeah, I can make a motion. 00:18:05
To approve site plans for well House 716 and 17 as represented or as present tonight, along with the conditions discussed. 00:18:12
And I would say with the conditions in the staff report, with conditions discussed tonight and in the staff report. 00:18:26
Do I have a second? 00:18:34
I'll second that. Thanks, Anthony. All in favor. 00:18:37
Alright, moving to Item 4.4, the zoning text Amendment 15 point 12.060 for the dimensional standards table. 00:18:41
All right, this one is new once this pops up. 00:18:55
A little presentation and also the applicant is here. If you do have any questions, I myself or the applicant can hopefully answer 00:18:58
any of those. It just takes a second to load. 00:19:03
All right. 00:19:11
OK. So as you mentioned, this is a zoning text amendment for the dimensional standards table and this specific request is to 00:19:17
increase the building height within the RMU zone. 00:19:22
Just a little background on this application. It is being applied for by a developer, by an applicant, and their desire for the 00:19:27
zoning text amendment is to increase the building height, the maximum building height from 60 feet to 70 feet. This will only 00:19:35
apply to the regional mixed-use zone, as you can see in this little map off to the right, that's everywhere in that Peach color. 00:19:42
And what I have highlighted there is there's only currently 2 undeveloped partials in the RMU and that's what's in yellow. 00:19:51
Within that Peach color, however, this zoning test would apply to all future development as well as redevelopment. 00:19:58
So this is essentially the zoning text amendment is just striking the 60 turned into 70. 00:20:08
And so that's all I have. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. 00:20:16
Just to clarify, for the RMU, we have a maximum on the residential units that can be put there and we've reached the maximum, 00:20:22
correct? The maximum residential has been capped there and so this would not allow for future residential in this area. 00:20:30
OK. You guys have any questions? 00:20:38
I, I think a little background. Yeah, yeah. Just as a public hearing. So when you're done, you may want to have the apple come up 00:20:42
and then open, officially open a public hearing after that. Yeah, Yeah. So Brian Bird and his team are here as well, but they are 00:20:49
applying for this as they're proposing here in the next few few weeks or months. They own kind of that like pie quarter pie piece 00:20:56
of land across from the HBA building. 00:21:04
And they are planning on payments of office buildings. There is they submitted their application. Upon our review, we realize that 00:21:11
the buildings did sit above the 60 feet. I don't remember the exact height, but it was just barely above that 60 feet until they 00:21:17
applied for this zoning text amendment to be able to accommodate those buildings for for reference. How tall is that Home Builders 00:21:24
association? I'm glad you asked. I haven't pulled up so I have that right here it is 52 feet. 00:21:30
Just like slightly taller than that then OK. 00:21:38
Would you guys mind coming up and kind of discussing what your thoughts are, what your project plans are, kind of the reasoning 00:21:41
behind the one change? 00:21:46
So do you have a copy of that rendering? 00:21:52
Yeah, I can. I can pull that up. 00:21:55
So our goal is to just. 00:22:02
For sale office space, 3 buildings of four stories, so Class A so you know, still in concrete. 00:22:05
We're worried about maybe some of the rooftop equipment as far as height because we don't know how that. 00:22:14
Applies with the zoning, you know, as far as the height. So that was the reason to bump it up just to make sure we can get what we 00:22:18
need up on top and then still have some floor to ceiling heights that are a little taller so that we can get the four stories. 00:22:25
That's kind of a rendering of what we're looking at doing. 00:22:32
And I think that line shows the height. 00:22:39
At well, that's 69. Yeah. And that's with all the equipment. Yeah. So your zoning ordinance would be a foot taller than what that 00:22:42
line shows. And how many of these buildings is 3/3 of them? Yep. OK. 00:22:49
OK, so the HBA or Home Building Association building is tall, but it's also below the grade of the roadway. 00:22:57
So it doesn't look that far. And so I guess my own question is, is. 00:23:07
How will it look? Yeah, I mean, obviously it'll be taller. Yeah. Like, is there a way to explore instead of saying Max 60 feet, we 00:23:13
say Max height above grade, whatever. And then like, you'd have to obviously have to dig down a little bit. But yeah, with the 00:23:19
water table, we want to stay where we're at is what we're seeing. I don't know if you, you know, I don't know what their site look 00:23:25
like or what the soils were. 00:23:31
We need to stay at grade to do what we're doing. Our footings are pretty massive. 00:23:37
So to go four stories, the difference in structural engineering between a three story and a four story, you jump. 00:23:42
Requirements or whatever that is so we would be going down that the size of the footings are much larger. We got to keep them up 00:23:49
out of the water table that that's part of it. I think a lot of the stuff you guys are designing for your downtown district is all 00:23:56
this dollar taller, correct. We had a meeting with the mayor and a bunch of people probably a year ago and she really wanted. 00:24:04
The height of the building, so we're trying to work on like a multi family thing South of this. So our S half of our property 00:24:12
won't retail bottom with some units stacked on top. So she, you know, and the planners that you've hired, I think wanted like 00:24:18
taller looking buildings towards the face. Is that right, Morgan? I don't want to speak for her the different meetings we've had, 00:24:25
but we think this would be nicely, I mean, and we felt like in in, in that area on that corridor. 00:24:32
Four stories seem to to to be appropriate and looking at. 00:24:40
Kind of impacts to from the residential units, they actually seem very minimal and you go across the tracks on the West side we. 00:24:44
Most of your view lines to the mountains are going to be are are pretty much like there's not really like a like a big view line 00:24:57
that would be interrupted from that building. Really the main spot was on from the townhomes looking South and so from the edge 00:25:03
hometown. 00:25:08
That appears from just like a pedestrian perspective where, you know, adding the 10 feet that you might have more of an impact. 00:25:16
But other than that, from like the West side of the tracks, we didn't appear. They didn't appear to be much. 00:25:24
This is a district that from our economic development standpoint like this is where we would like to see more employment. It's in 00:25:35
a, it's in a great corridor. We are working with ARM on widening Center Street where. 00:25:42
Working with up right now Union Pacific to remove the spur line that runs along Geneva Rd. which then allows us to have U dot 00:25:50
widen sedentary because that, that's kind of where that the pinch point is from a traffic perspective. But we have we we feel like 00:25:57
this, this actually would be a really good spot to add employment, especially with with what restaurants around it. I mean, it's, 00:26:05
it's, it's one of those uses that we think would actually go really well right here. 00:26:12
We also. 00:26:21
I don't want to be misinstrued that I'm completely against it. I'm just trying to think of ideas that can even though we're 00:26:23
raising that can still soften I guess. Yeah, what makes sense and I know that site development, but just the thoughts. The other 00:26:29
thing we did to address that is we have different options. We also stacked the buildings running lengthwise longer North and South 00:26:35
so that there is corridors between the buildings instead of turning them parallel to the Edgewater to the north, you know, as far 00:26:41
as views, so. 00:26:46
They're, they're skinnier, you know, so they're North and South. 00:26:53
Versus like the home village association building has faced the road. So I'd be like turning the home builders building sideways 00:26:57
North and South. They'd give more of a view South. 00:27:01
But you know, did you say you were working on a residential? Yeah, South. So on the same piece, we're just, we're still trying to 00:27:06
figure out how to park it. What, you know, how to make the retail work below the units on top. So we're not. I thought we were so 00:27:13
that that that would require another zoning text amendment. RMU does, like we mentioned, has that residential cap. And so they 00:27:21
would have to go through a zoning text amendment, get, you know, the recommendation from Planning Commission approval from. 00:27:28
To to do that. 00:27:36
So is the anticipated height then of the residential units we would we would like to go. So if you're familiar with like what ITO 00:27:38
Ivory's doing around Macy's, University Mall. 00:27:44
So that's what we would like something like that. So retail bottom side, so kind of where the play area is, you know, as you go 00:27:51
past Macy's, you're out behind over by the AL's Sporting Goods, kind of that look. You know, obviously different colors get 00:27:58
different scheme just to support retail. We need the rooftops, you know, so. 00:28:05
That's kind of our goal. Of course, you guys can say yes or no, we think you'd like it, but. 00:28:14
Any other questions? So if they did that, they would come back in a second phase on the South part of that lot and then they they 00:28:20
make, they would request a text amendment and they'd go through a similar process. 00:28:26
But like that, tonight is just the height. 00:28:34
Right. 00:28:37
OK. Any other questions for them before we open it up for the public hearing? 00:28:39
All right. I think that's all the questions for us. Thank you. Thanks. All right, so before we open it up to a public hearing, 00:28:45
again, kind of the same thing as it was within open session, come state your name. You have 3 minutes to make your comments before 00:28:51
you come up. It's usually best to think of what you want to say instead of kind of stumbling about as that way you can get more 00:28:57
information in your 3 minutes. 00:29:03
Also you can ask questions and I will write down your questions. 00:29:10
And then we'll go throughout the questions after. So if you have any questions, I'll write them down and I'll make sure that they 00:29:14
get asked. So I have a motion to open up a public hearing. Make a motion to open the public hearing for do I have to say sure? 00:29:21
Yeah, for zoning text amendment 15 point 12.060. Do I have a second? 00:29:28
Second, all in favor? 00:29:36
All right. 00:29:39
Hi, my name is Angela Trigo, I live in Parkside and have been talking with some of the residents along Parkside and Willows area 00:29:44
and we would like to recommend that you do not pass this. 00:29:50
As you know, you are the gatekeepers of the general plan, and every time we add a little change here and a little change there, 00:29:58
it's like the little boy in the ****. You got one right? You get 1 hole, you can stick a finger in it and you can fix it and it 00:30:06
works. But all of a sudden you start approving a lot of these small changes and your **** fails. 00:30:14
I'm concerned that we're moving towards that area and so I'm going to ask that the Planning Commission really takes hold to what 00:30:23
your job is, which is to stay true to the general plan. 00:30:29
I'm afraid that as we move from 60 to 70 feet, while that doesn't seem like a lot, any building that goes in in the future could 00:30:37
potentially ruin views. Topgolf actually already hinders my view and that's not that tall. Luckily it's see through mostly. 00:30:45
But this idea that no, it's not going to affect a lot of the views, even for people that are on the far West side of the tracks. 00:30:55
Isn't true. These things are going to start to affect our views and everybody in the townhome area. 00:31:02
I think additionally the fact that they want to include additional residents. 00:31:09
What's that going to do to our traffic? It's just going to continue to increase traffic issues that we currently don't have 00:31:14
resolved. And quite honestly, we don't have the power to change such as Orem Center Street, right? We're we're at the mercy of 00:31:20
what is the Orem city in U dot going to do? So I would like to recommend that you do not pass this in any way, shape or form. 00:31:27
Vineyard is in a unique situation where you have the power. 00:31:34
There is limited resources in Utah County. 00:31:42
And so we can hold these developers accountable to get in good businesses and good things into our city, but not ruin our view, 00:31:45
not increase traffic issues and other negatives that occur of that. Thank you. 00:31:52
My name is Tyler Harrelson. 00:32:10
I'm a resident on Mill Rd. I live just north of where this area is. 00:32:12
And I used to live right across the street at the Concorde Geneva apartments. I recently moved. 00:32:18
As far as the actual height requirement, I already, I mean the buildings there are tall enough that can't really see from Morgan 00:32:22
was talking about a pedestrian point of view. It's kind of hard to see as it is. So I don't think there would be much concern from 00:32:29
my point of view if I'm trying to look at the mountains or the lake. 00:32:35
Not a huge concern. You can also see right through the buildings, like every morning when I take my dog out on a walk. 00:32:44
We're walking through all sorts of buildings, so unless someone is really, really determined to look out their their back window, 00:32:50
my development at least. 00:32:54
Just looking at the back window for like however long they want to. I don't think I've ever seen someone just sit there and just 00:32:59
stare. But if they wanted to then that might mess with that. My bigger concern was I saw there was a set back proposal condition 00:33:06
that you could have added that was suggested. I have been not super happy with how mixed-use this has been. The entire area has 00:33:13
been in general. 00:33:20
Obviously, as you've noted, it's pretty much all been residential. 00:33:28
Except for when you get near the forge, which is not. 00:33:32
And it's sort of mixed-use, but you do have to walk quite a while before if you're in residential to get to commercial. And I'm 00:33:36
not super happy with how walkable the areas are. A lot of the intersections are not super safe. The middle road is really large 00:33:42
and there's no sidewalks connecting everywhere. But I would like to hear what staff has to say about how adding an additional set 00:33:47
back would influence that. That makes it so you have to walk that much farther to get to, in this case, an office building where 00:33:53
you work. 00:33:58
Also in this development, not necessarily in this proposal exactly. 00:34:05
I'm concerned about the access, walkability access to like the DQ and those those commercial businesses over there right now it's 00:34:10
pretty dangerous to walk on the internal St. there. 00:34:15
And obviously going on. 00:34:21
Hill Rd. is also concerning so. 00:34:24
Thanks, Taylor. 00:34:26
I will just no, sorry, I'll come back to that. 00:34:28
I'm Daria Evans. 00:34:41
Villas resident. 00:34:45
I'm here to persuade you to. 00:34:46
Keep the zoning. 00:34:50
As it is. 00:34:52
If you start with this amendment. 00:34:58
Then you'll have to. 00:35:02
Address other amendments with their residents that he wants to bring in and also the view amendments. I mean the the zoning 15.36 00:35:04
point 030.1.8 I you know about the views because it says all views are to be all views are to be. 00:35:15
I'm sorry, I can't say this correctly. The Max permitted height is 60 feet. 00:35:29
And so you'd have to change that zoning and also the next 115.36 point 032. 00:35:34
Due to community quality and character created by the surrounding scenic beauty, it is essential that the city and also divisions 00:35:44
and site plan designs preserve general access to significant views. These views include Mount Timpanogos, Provo Canyon, West 00:35:51
Mountain and Utah Lake. So those things would have to be addressed also along with you changing this zoning and the amendment for 00:35:58
the residents that they want to bring in. 00:36:04
Once you start changing one. 00:36:12
It's just, you know, one thing leads to another. 00:36:14
And you're going to lose all. 00:36:19
Sense of. 00:36:22
Like she said, power, you know, and I think you guys are, you gentlemen are doing a good job. 00:36:23
And what you're doing and I would like to see you preserve the integrity of our general plan also. So I hope that I'm persuading 00:36:31
you that you need to keep what you've what you've already got. And because if future developers want to come in or redevelopers, 00:36:39
well, this guy got 10 more feet, I would like 20 more feet and then you're going to have. 00:36:48
Just keep rehashing yourself. 00:36:58
Same problem, so thank you very much for your time. 00:37:01
Hi, my name is Jordan. I live in the preserve. 00:37:19
This feels like a very marginal change. It feels like. 00:37:23
I feel like the the organizations who aren't flexible enough to make marginal changes become very brittle, become very power 00:37:28
hungry organizations. I don't think we need to do that as a city. 00:37:33
But I think, like Tyler was saying, most of the residents around that area would benefit more from focusing on pedestrianizing the 00:37:41
area rather than nitpicking a few feet on a building. 00:37:46
Yeah. Thank you. Thanks. 00:37:52
Hi, Dale Tedro, also from the Villas, one of the reasons that we purchased in Vineyard, we've been following Leisure Villas up and 00:38:07
down the Wasatch Front as they built different 55 plus communities. And so we would be in the different cities in West, South 00:38:15
Jordan, West Jordan, out on Pioneer Crossing, a variety of different places, Springville. 00:38:24
And those, most of Springville, not so much, but most of those places. 00:38:33
You can tell we're absent a master plan, a general plan. 00:38:37
It looked like they built attractive homes and then, oh, then we need this. And so they put this in and and so on. And Vineyard 00:38:42
had a general plan. 00:38:47
And it was organized and it looked good and it looked like a place I wanted to live. We waited three years for the particular unit 00:38:53
we're in so that we could have the view that we have and if we lived in our motor home for a while. 00:39:00
We sold it, by the way, we don't have a motor home anymore, so. 00:39:09
We don't want to give that up and we don't want chaos here. And that is one thing I usually, I don't show up here very often, but 00:39:15
I, I do read the minutes and so on and. 00:39:20
It seems like almost every time a new project starts, there's got to be some variation of the general plan. And I know some of 00:39:26
that is necessary, but we don't need this. We don't need to go up higher. We had a meeting last night with the developers of of 00:39:34
the downtown Utah City and we talked a lot about height and we care about that and we hope that you will will listen. 00:39:42
Thanks. 00:39:51
Thank you, Dale. 00:39:53
Any other public comments? 00:39:57
All right, seeing as there are none, drive a motion to close the public hearing. 00:40:02
Yeah, I need to close the public hearing. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor, Aye. 00:40:07
All right. Any other questions you guys want to ask or feedback you want to? 00:40:14
One question I had and it is a concern I have is where possible, I like to make changes completely like if we, if we know if we 00:40:19
anticipate future changes, I'd like to see. 00:40:26
All them upfront just so we can address them holistically like if, if there is a residential change there because then it is kind 00:40:34
of piece mealing it a little bit. Not that I'm saying I'm opposed to height or residential, but just as a general practice trying 00:40:40
to address. 00:40:47
All known text amendments up front that was that was more of a comment than a question, but can I add to that? So is there 00:40:54
similarly, I agree it would be nice if we know what's coming within a reasonable degree. 00:41:01
To develop. 00:41:09
The development agreement or I don't know if that's the right term, but is that the right term? 00:41:10
Yeah, a development agreement is a process that that that the city could engage in with what the problem, but it doesn't need to 00:41:16
go through that process. There's so many amendments, there's zone changes. Yeah. So I guess the other thing is if we have other 00:41:21
things that are coming up, would it make more sense to just put them all together in one package of some of sorts, whatever that 00:41:26
is and then. 00:41:32
It just addresses that and we wouldn't necessarily have to change zoning to the whole thing. It's just like for this development, 00:41:38
it gets we agreed to terms XY and Z. Yes, I I see, I see what you're saying. And that's one of these things like a run by from a 00:41:44
just a legal land use, you know, Utah State law kind of thing. I can run by by our our legal counsel. But but yeah, typically a 00:41:50
development agreement allows you to essentially take your underlying zoning as like the base zone and then make modifications on 00:41:56
top of that. 00:42:02
That's a very common thing for like situations like this where you don't necessarily want it to apply to the entire city or to a 00:42:08
entire district, but you want to have a zoning approval that is site specific and this is attached to plans. And so you can do 00:42:15
that too. So oftentimes we'll, you know, I've seen that in other cities where they'll have basically a development with plans and 00:42:23
like landscaping, it can go as far down in detail as you want that are all part of an agreement that that gets approved. 00:42:30
Planning Commission and City Council. So that's, that's definitely a, you know, a route that the, the applicant can take as well. 00:42:38
Yeah, I was just thinking cuz is there also any merit if we change the height here to, I can't remember what other zoning things 00:42:44
she mentioned that we have to trickle down and change other codes as well. 00:42:51
So they're they're at this pleasure. Why are you guys? No, you're good. I was just going to say that those sections of code don't 00:42:59
have a specific height, like limited. It doesn't say 60 feet. And so you wouldn't have to specifically change that. It's one of 00:43:06
those things where our code just says we need to protect the views of things such as Utah, Lake of Mountain, Benoit. But there's 00:43:13
there's not anywhere to my knowledge in the code that that does say that 60 feet besides this. 00:43:20
Yeah, to, but those are good guidelines. 00:43:28
And I think, I think that that is important that day you look, look at those things, that doesn't necessarily mean you can't make 00:43:31
amendments, but you know, there's, there's like kind of the, the qualitative review. And that's something that that you could look 00:43:39
at as well. We have in the past had had applicants provide perspectives where they, they actually show up from a pedestrian point 00:43:46
of view how, how it looks or from, you know, someone in one of the apartment units maybe on the 2nd floor to see kind of where. 00:43:54
You know, if you go from 60 to 70, what kind of view lines are going to are going to be blocked? I mean that that is that is 00:44:02
within the purview of the Planning Commission if you if you wanted to, to request something like that. But yeah, so you do have 00:44:09
like, so as a Planning Commission, you have to kind of weigh kind of qualitative measurement of, you know, aspirationally the city 00:44:16
wants to preserve views because that's what makes vineyards so amazing. You have the lake, you have the mountains. 00:44:22
But it's not it's, it's not from like a code based thing. It's not saying like you, you can't go up, I mean. 00:44:30
In any foot above grade is going to provide some, some sort of impact. And so it's, it's up to you as a Planning Commission to, to 00:44:36
see, you know, qualitatively or, or are you meaning that? But it's not like a quantitative measurement like like you would in a 00:44:42
specific zone that says, you know, 60 feet, 70 feet, that's, that's very measurable. 00:44:49
OK. Thank you, Ed. 00:44:56
As those just thoughts really, I mean, I just try to make the most sense of what seems to go forward because I do agree it does if 00:44:59
we know if we're going to continue, not necessarily on purpose to come back and ask for changes. That was my only request so. 00:45:05
I have a few questions. So how tall were the apartments across from that and then the Edgewater townhomes? 00:45:15
As well, we, we could do that, that, that research, but we probably would want to have because when we do measure height and this 00:45:21
is where sometimes it's taking that elevation, it's not always 100% accurate from a height measurement. We take the back of top of 00:45:28
curb. And so you take where your curve is on the street and you draw your line straight out to the building and then you measure 00:45:35
up. So anything below that isn't part of the, the, the calculation. It's based off of where your street. 00:45:42
Basically the curb line is from there and so. 00:45:49
But that's information you'd like. We can pull that up, but we, you know, we'd probably want to. 00:45:52
Do some some good research on that as opposed to just kind of pulling it up in this meeting. But if you like, we're happy to do 00:45:59
that research. I will say the the ones directly across the street, there are four story residential buildings, the Edgewater 00:46:04
townhomes to the north. Those are three stories. 00:46:10
Plus BF. 00:46:17
But if you want like the feet, because that's how we're kind of measuring this and then we could go and pull elevations and get 00:46:19
that. Actually, I think Brian's team built a good chunk of development on Mill Rd. so they would have access to that information 00:46:25
too. And then on on the traffic, I know we've discussed the the size of that road. So as far as I'm aware, traffic concerns at 00:46:31
least. 00:46:38
Through traffic increased height there may be you know it allows. 00:46:45
More cars will be coming there and more people in the building, but there's not any expected major traffic concerns. But the 00:46:49
capacity that's there right now. Yeah, the road itself was built to accommodate full build out. Now this obviously would provide a 00:46:55
slight increase above kind of what that base was, but it was built kind of beyond that. That's a question. Let's see, maybe I'll 00:47:02
ask a little better. But that that's another thing as part of zoning changes you are you are allowed to request. 00:47:09
You know, an analysis of other impacts and so if that's one that that you'd like to see you, you could I was going to say that 00:47:17
they have done a traffic study on this side. 00:47:21
To show that do we have it where I can just because it wasn't related to the building height, I didn't bring that I don't have 00:47:26
that ready and that's one of those if you wanted some feedback from our engineering team in another meeting that would give them 00:47:33
some time to digest that and provide you like a really specific like will this need there's a drop the level of service like that 00:47:40
and and I do think that it does impact that because. 00:47:47
If we're raising it 10 feet, which means adding another story, that's. 00:47:55
Story of office building. Like that's more space, that's more cheaper. 00:47:58
Everything does have to be said into the mic. 00:48:04
My name is Ryan Pullman. 00:48:08
I'm with Brian. 00:48:13
We could just make the purpose flat and it would get underneath it and it wouldn't be as aesthetically pleasing. 00:48:15
So we could just go back and say, OK, well, let's just pull them all flat. It's not going to be as good looking in the building 00:48:22
and we'd be underneath the height. 00:48:25
So that that's kind of the balance of, you know, of trying to make it more aesthetically pleasing with some iterations of sizing 00:48:29
and the equipment up there. 00:48:34
And that is compared to just making a flat, but it's not an issue of pulling it down by a whole story. 11 thought that I've been 00:48:41
having as we've been discussing is right now, you know it's at 60 feet. People bought the property knowing that what the zoning 00:48:46
code is right now. 00:48:51
I'm wondering if there's ways that we could word this where it would allow for people to come in and ask for maybe it is a 10 foot 00:48:58
variance if it's just for aesthetics. 00:49:03
Rather than adding another floor. That way it doesn't fundamentally change, but I would also want to tie to it that. 00:49:07
Sight lines, if that's what we're trying to preserve, then we'd need to see renderings to say, well, what would it look like here? 00:49:15
And if it still meets the intent and you can still see what people would want to see, then maybe it's a green light. Or if you 00:49:21
see, hey, that actually blocks the whole Mountain View, which is therefore detrimental or the antithesis of our general plan and 00:49:27
then it's a no go. So I think that's. 00:49:32
One thing we could consider moving forward. 00:49:39
What was something like this? Because yeah, where it sounds like it's not fundamentally changing the building necessarily, it's 00:49:42
more of putting equipment up on top rather than putting it in a place that wouldn't be as as pleasing, but, you know, could, could 00:49:48
still add some issues with the views. Just trying to think of ways that we could. 00:49:54
Control that in the site plan process, right. And then maybe a question for for Brian's team is if like have you looked at options 00:50:03
for doing like ground mounted equipment? 00:50:10
Maybe having less of a of the equipment on the roof and doing the ground is that, is that something? 00:50:17
OK. So the equipment is just too large? 00:50:32
These are like, it's not like residential rooftop units. It's the equipment's too large. You guys also have a zoning ordinance 00:50:36
that requires so much open space and also Plaza space, 2 separate items, right? And so to have those areas, you know, it doesn't, 00:50:43
we don't want those down there where those are at or they'll be hearing that equipment sound. As far as views, just put yourself 00:50:50
where this property sits, right? So to the east of it is a concrete masonry wall with probably graffiti right from the strip mall. 00:50:58
Across from it is the Maverick convenience gas station store Starbucks. Full of cars, right? 00:51:06
An office building to the South. So I don't know where the views are. Everybody that's out here, the Leisure Villas is a mile and 00:51:13
a half W Her view will not be obstructed. We don't want this zone in the residential area. So we're not asking to change. We're 00:51:19
not trying to pillage, you know, residential neighborhoods. We developed the property to the North Edgewater. We developed the 00:51:24
Vine Apartments to the across the street. 00:51:30
If you look at the views, I mean depending on which apartment building you live in, whether it's the Alloy or Concord. 00:51:38
Their views are already obstructed by their own buildings. 00:51:45
You have a How many residents are in the city vineyard right now? What are you up to? 00:51:49
20,000. 00:51:54
I heard two comments of concerned people, which everybody has their view. We don't think we're a pillaging developer. We actually 00:51:57
think we do a lot of good for the city at that general plan that was created. Why did they change then? Right? There's always 00:52:04
changes. You guys didn't have the current zone until you made the change. That's just that's how life works. Does that make sense? 00:52:10
We I know you can always be afraid of adding that next 10 feet. That's always the worry or the finger and the ****. 00:52:17
Where's the, where's the, you know, where's that water issue? It's, it's a building. 00:52:25
We think it's going to be good looking. We actually think the views, the people to the north are probably the only people having a 00:52:29
destructive view and their obstruction is air and the current Maverick. So I actually think their views will increase. 00:52:36
You know again. 00:52:45
RMU is all we're talking about, right? We're not trying to change the neighborhood by Parkside. We're not trying to change the 00:53:17
neighborhood by Leisure Villas. We got railroad track with front runner running on it. All right. We got a pedestrian area. Your 00:53:24
planning staff you guys have hired who are super professional in their job. The reason it's taken 2 years is they're so detailed. 00:53:32
They believe a walkable community is is what's needed and to make a walkable community happen, you need to have. 00:53:39
Of those buildings. But anyway, yeah, it is a change, but so is the current plan that you guys are all representing. I sat on 00:53:47
Provost City's Planning Commission did the same thing you guys did. We wouldn't have a planning. We don't need a Planning 00:53:52
Commission if there was never an opportunity to make a change or to make our city better. Does that make sense? Developers don't 00:53:58
make cities worse. You know, we're not bringing a strip club. We're not bringing a bar. You know, this, this is a building. It's a 00:54:03
four story building. It's not a high rise. 00:54:09
You know, it's, you know, you got a Provo, you got an arm, They got buildings taller than this. 00:54:15
But if you don't want it, we'll just build a strip mall. We don't care. 00:54:51
It's what tenants want fresher space. So if you go to Lehigh and again, you guys may not want to be those cities, right? Your 00:55:24
Vineyard, you may want to be different than Lehigh's office buildings that are being built and you want to be different than 00:55:29
Pleasant Grove buildings built. But just go toward those buildings and go towards Old Town buildings where they're lower heights. 00:55:35
So for us to get tenants, we got to have taller Florida ceiling heights and that's that's what's getting a silver. So we're like, 00:55:40
we're about four feet over right now. 00:55:45
Is that yeah, I think you're at like we're 65 with the mechanical. So we're, yeah, we're like 4 feet over and we could play with 00:55:52
the with your current code, we could play with your top of curb thing. 00:55:57
Does that make sense? Like we can raise our grade? 00:56:03
You know, we can raise our grade and go with your code and block as much view as we're asking you to do, right? So if the 00:56:06
building's built around us already set at an elevation, they can't raise or lower, correct? We can raise our grade, put in our 00:56:11
curb and gutter and then stay at your 60 feet and that neighbor would have the same obstruction. So we're really just trying to do 00:56:17
it the right way. 00:56:23
Does that, does that make sense? Like I we could raise, we could bring in four foot of fill, put our carbon gutter on it, hit your 00:56:30
60 foot ordinance. 00:56:33
And we're higher than if we brought the grade down a foot so that we're still out of the water table and that's where the 10 feet. 00:56:38
We're just trying to be, you know, a lot of people give developers crap, but you know, if there weren't developers, none of them 00:56:47
would have the hust they live in currently. And so as I said, I appreciate Sharon just. 00:56:53
I'm not a professional planner, so just take what I'm saying is just I'm just trying to make the best decisions I can as well. You 00:56:59
know, 'cause. 00:57:03
I haven't been working on it on two years and I get it, you know. 00:57:07
Couple, couple days in advance, try to look at it, make the best decision. So sure, take what I'm saying, yeah, I'm just trying to 00:57:12
explore and understand best I can and. 00:57:17
Try to make the best choice that thing everybody is. But so if we if we could clarify just a couple things. So we do have 00:57:22
standards in the code about the roof line. We do require the roof line to undulate and mechanical equipment on a roof line on 00:57:29
roofs still have to be screened regardless of the height. And so maybe it's less elaborate or less green, but there, there still 00:57:37
are some some screen even if it's a one story it is mechanical. 00:57:44
And so. 00:58:23
So anyway, I just want to clarify a few those. And then there was I think there's been some some kind of maybe a little 00:58:24
miscommunication or some made a Little Mix up on the general plan and the zoning. So I don't know if cash you want to kind of just 00:58:30
do that. This is a zoning amendment. And I think some of the residents have talked about the general plan. The general plan is, is 00:58:36
something that is set in place and the general plan is what guides these these types of decisions. And so because the general plan 00:58:42
is like the guiding principle. 00:58:48
Zoning is how you implement the general plan. So that's why I was saying the general plan. You look at it and there's a lot of 00:58:54
qualitative things there and you go, OK, it's kind of up to you to try and interpret that and do the best you can to try and meet 00:59:01
the intent of the general plan. And so I just wanted to provide a little clarification on those points. Thanks. 00:59:07
Do you guys have any other what? What is the option if? 00:59:15
I mean there's value in high quality. Nice building the location. I have it up on maps, but I'm uncomfortable with the entire. 00:59:18
RMU having a new 70 foot limit, especially because I think there will be redevelopment, the lands become more valuable and so so. 00:59:27
Like a special use zoning district where you can do a specific zoning ordinance that would guide the development of that site. And 01:00:07
so if you wanted to make it site specific, but I know that's a concern, is that essentially you provide redevelopment 01:00:13
opportunities that could go up to 70 feet. The other is, as Commissioner bonehead had suggested, was doing a development 01:00:19
agreement. Development agreement is the ability for the City Council to enter into an agreement specifically. 01:00:25
On that site with the property owners and they could attach actual plans to it and they could say, OK, you know, we're going to 01:00:32
agree to these plans. And then there's, you know, we want as a city, we want like AB and C to, to, to happen on that site as well. 01:00:39
And so it provides kind of it's like a, an additional tool that that the city, City Council can utilize to make something more 01:00:47
site specific and then the special zoning district. So there's different ways of getting there. And we're this is the text 01:00:53
amendment approach to to the district. We were pretty comfortable with that because we felt like the RMU district itself is, is 01:00:59
fairly built out. You do have. 01:01:05
A couple pads that this could be utilized on if you saw like redevelopment. 01:01:12
Of the commercial areas, I mean typically you're that's a 20 to 40 year time period where you might see some of those other sites 01:01:17
redeveloped, but that would be several decades out. And those are sites that are kind of pushed further to Geneva Rd. So from I 01:01:23
guess staff standpoint, we didn't feel like there there would be a major impact even from our redevelopment perspective in the 01:01:29
future because like what could redevelop it actually could be a fairly positive redevelopment because you do right now have kind 01:01:35
of like. 01:01:41
The strip retail and there's nothing we're not dot dog of that, but you know, sometimes if there was a redevelopment in 20 years 01:01:47
from now, you know, that could actually be a mechanism to help it be redeveloped a higher and greater use and it's closer to 01:01:55
Geneva Road. And so you know, and these buildings would would shield basically that that retail development if it if we did see 01:02:02
redevelopment site. So so knowing that another amendment would have to come for also. 01:02:10
Increased residential, is that correct? And and we realized that would be an extra height as well. And I think there are concerns 01:02:17
of just everything being able to be 70 feet. Now I think everybody would agree we don't want strip malls and vineyards either. I'd 01:02:25
hate to have just no, it wouldn't be there, but it wouldn't be 70 feet though, because residential 9 foot ceilings are different 01:02:32
than a 12 to 14 for commercial office. So if you, if you did say, if you did four story, if you did a four story 9 foot, right. 01:02:40
Even if you went 10 feet, you're 40 feet. 01:02:47
And then say retail, so if your retail is 12, so you're 52. So it's not a I'm just saying you can get, we could get the 01:02:51
residential under the 60. 01:02:56
Do we have AI don't I don't know what is your height? What's your height? Yeah, inside my units like like to add to add to add 01:03:02
more units what would require because there's no more residents. So I would I would be more comfortable with an approach of what 01:03:08
is a a development agreement and not increasing the 70 feet for the entire zone. 01:03:14
And having the discussion from that perspective and look at the project as a whole of what it would add and incorporate the 01:03:21
residential aspect to it as well. 01:03:25
Was this the same Planning Commission that gave extra units to Top Golf? 01:03:33
This is OK. I was wondering this is the same Planning Commission so. 01:03:39
This is the same Planning Commission, but also talked often building units. I believe you own some of these. We were talking about 01:03:47
the units. Yeah, I know you own some of the units in the regional mixed-use and none of it got mixed when you build those units. 01:03:53
No, I didn't. I didn't use any of those. Well, do you own any of the property in there buying at all? I don't. Well, this got 01:03:59
built out. This whole development got built out and actually. 01:04:04
I believe it got denied in the Planning Commission for those extra units. And if I see residential units again, 100% I'm denying 01:04:11
it because this area is built out. It's a regional mixed-use. It's only residential. There's like almost no mixed-use. And now at 01:04:19
this point, it's not going to be a we need residential to add make like commercial at this point for me, not a chance like. 01:04:27
To make a mixed-use, you add a commercial because there's already residential so. 01:04:36
That's a story for another time, but that's not something to bring up right now. We're talking about the height for the offices. 01:04:40
And I think that it's important that what Jario was saying that there's a view corridor and it's not just you live here, You look 01:04:47
out your window, there's a view. It's you walk here, you're walking on the street here. It's you're driving your car down and you 01:04:55
go over the overpass and you're waiting at the light. You still see the mountains. It's and that might seem. 01:05:02
I think that that at the very least we need to see something like that. We'd be happy to. We were never asked to. We would have 01:05:40
had that here too. 01:05:44
You guys have any more questions or comments? 01:05:49
I'd be curious on staff take on like what? 01:05:52
What would one step back? I appreciate that. How much power the public thinks that the public. The final question has this is just 01:05:56
to make a recommendation to the City Council, which they listen to us if yeah, they want to. 01:06:04
They can, they can still make their decisions however they'd like. However, I always want to give the best recommendation right on 01:06:14
what's what we think is right and they can do whatever else they'd like with that. But from a staff standpoint, if, if zoning were 01:06:19
to remain the same. 01:06:24
And making a recommendation that City Council explore a development agreement for maybe a handful of office buildings that do go 01:06:30
up to the 70 feet as long as they meet the view corridors or parking studies or whatever it might be. Is that. 01:06:36
A good approach in your opinion, that stuff, you know, if that's the intent that we're going for us to not make it, yeah, I mean 01:06:44
it's an applicant initiative application and so. 01:06:50
That would be up to Brian and his development team if they wanted to kind of do do a reboot. I mean they have the information, but 01:06:58
but start the development agreement process. I mean that that would allow the Planning Commission to to to work on more of a site 01:07:04
specific. 01:07:10
Amendment and so you would have like plans development agreement could be, you know, recommended with the plans and then you could 01:07:17
address it sounds like there's some concern about maybe how that S peace with the residential could could occur. And so that it 01:07:24
would allow you to get more into the details of that at at that, you know, because you'd have an agreement with attached plan, but 01:07:32
that would be applicant initiated and so that that that like the city wouldn't be the one. 01:07:39
You know, applying for development. So your recommendation is that we would only speak to what's being proposed. Well, I think I 01:07:47
think Brians hearing you guys and it would be up to his team. So he could so he could take a different route. Sounds like there is 01:07:53
some concern about the view corridors and so you can request that the the applicant come back with, you know, perspective showing 01:07:59
from from. 01:08:05
Different, you know, orientations around the site, how the view corridor is it could be preserved, how it could be impacted by the 01:08:13
additional 10 feet. 01:08:18
And then we could give the engineering team the opportunity to look at the, the, the Tia, the traffic impact analysis and, and 01:08:23
answer those questions. And so there's, there's kind of different routes. So they could come back with that or they could kind of 01:08:29
reboot the process and, and come back with a development agreement. So it's, you know, that, that, that would be up to up to Brian 01:08:36
and, and if you wanted to, to submit that. 01:08:42
Just my last comment that I want to make here is like. 01:08:49
I love the idea of having Class A office space nearby because one of the ideas of Vineyard is that you can live, work, play, all 01:08:53
that, all the above close by, you know, without having to drive for an hour on the freeway. So I think that's very much a positive 01:09:00
and having it, the high end stuff is very much a positive as well. I think the concerns that are voiced, that have been voiced are 01:09:08
valid concerns as well. You know, when I see a project like this, knowing that someone could come in and propose like 5. 01:09:15
You know, fast food. 01:09:22
Great pursuit because we are lacking that. But then how do we do it in a way that you reduce the cons and increase the pros as 01:09:54
much as possible? I think that's the best way to approach every project. Just to give you before you vote. So you know what our 01:10:02
original option when we went in was? It was 3/3 story buildings and it was 5 drive through lanes for fast food, correct? Yeah. So 01:10:09
after two years of working with the staff, you guys hire and pay like at least I don't know how and how many DRCS did. 01:10:17
Yeah, no, I mean serious like this is the message trying to RAM write something in super quick like we can without your 01:10:24
permission, right to hit your code. You can always say no. Then we can file a lawsuit against your current code. We can do 5 01:10:30
restaurants with Dr. Throughs and maybe Morgan will say there's something, I don't know. Yeah, I mean, we figure it out and we can 01:10:37
do 33 Storey buildings. I mean with with that too. 01:10:43
That was that that that was that was the let's just remind everybody where we've been. 01:10:50
Yeah. I think that that's, I mean that that was because we like that we can sell pads for way higher for a restaurant pad than an 01:10:54
office space pad, right, right. I mean, so. 01:10:59
I I don't know, I mean it, it's, it's up to the the the Planning Commission on you know, you can make a recommendation tonight. 01:11:05
You can request more, more information. But Brian is correct. I mean they, they, they can't do Dr. throughs there. If I'm a 01:11:13
traffic impact standpoint there, there, there there is concerns about putting several Dr. throughs that close to to the center St. 01:11:22
So you got your peak hour launch and you know, stuff like that. 01:11:31
But we would have to look at those specifically and they could do that on to, but they'd still do have to meet, you know, site 01:11:34
plan requirements and traffic impact. But we think we can meet it. We've paid for Hell's engineering traffic study. We've done 3 01:11:39
photometrics plans, correct. We've done two different landscaping designs. If we would have known there was a view corridor 01:11:45
requirement, we'd have that already here too, yeah. 01:11:50
I guess I'm just saying that, yeah, a project like this or, you know, high quality office space actually meets a lot of what we're 01:11:55
going for with a pedestrian based community where people don't necessarily have to. 01:12:01
Walk to work but while obviously mitigating any cons and the space is office space for sale so it's not big conglomerate owning 01:12:08
the building that none of you can ever go use his office. The spaces are divisible into 1500 square foot units. 01:12:16
So you could go 15103 thousand 3500 all up to 7000 square feet. If you need more, you can take multiple floors. So it's for sale 01:12:25
could be anybody. I mean, really, if it if you really do need space for a smaller base business, that's, you know, go try to find 01:12:31
that type of space anywhere. And it's usually the big boys and on the big, you know, the big offices and other local guys with 01:12:37
offices can't even get in those. So you can actually buy your space and you know, have a what it whatever it is, we actually think 01:12:43
it's super helpful. 01:12:49
Again, if you don't like it, we can go back and charge down. We're only coming this way cuz we were pushed this way. It's not us. 01:12:55
You know, we didn't start out with four story. Just go to the office. We're just trying to, you know, figure out what does the 01:13:01
city want want. Sounds like we hit it completely wrong. We haven't had any work session or discussion. We've had multiple work 01:13:07
sessions. Not not in planning fishing, but we as the planning staff and the City Council members have met with. 01:13:13
This this development firm. 01:13:20
For a long time. 01:13:23
Yeah. Any other questions, comments? 01:13:24
Personally, I'd like to see the view corridor before passing it. 01:13:32
Organizing. Either way, I'd like to see that. 01:13:36
Even bigger picture, because I may be getting more into like the site plan of it rather than just the general purpose of the code. 01:13:41
My gut feeling on the code is if there's specific things that we want to bring into the city, like let's be more surgical about it 01:13:49
rather than like a blanket, the entire zone changes. And so if if it's possible to say like, hey, this project, let's look at it, 01:13:56
but let's look at this project rather than say the entire zone. 01:14:03
That would be my preference to move forward personally because there may be opportunities and part of that would be all right. How 01:14:11
can we guarantee that the sight lines are done and from where right is it from? The third story of the alloy still needs to be 01:14:17
able to see the top of Timpanoga, you know, like you have to also. 01:14:24
They probably would be OK. I'd be more like the pedestrian view office is the most impactful so but I'm just saying like you need 01:14:33
to clarify what that means because preserving. 01:14:38
Sightlines, it's subjective is what I'm saying. So trying to make it as clear as possible of like what would qualify and what 01:14:44
would not. I think that makes it easier on everything. Is it possible to make it conditional like 60 feet, but conditional like 01:14:51
some conditional use permit? You could, I'll be, I probably want to get a recommendation from legal counsel on that. Conditional 01:14:58
uses. I mean, that's a mechanism that that you don't necessarily want to apply to everything. 01:15:05
Typically it's attached to to a use. Sometimes it can be attached to like a development standard. 01:15:13
And you could say, well, the, you know, the use of 70 foot building compared to 60 foot building could qualify. So that's one of 01:15:18
those we've got to run by our legal counsel. If you wanted to look into that. Wouldn't that be a variance though you would have to 01:15:25
do for height? That's a variance of a requirement. Yeah, variance is a kind of tough in in Utah. There's five criteria for 01:15:31
variances, but typically a variance is. 01:15:38
You cannot develop your property at all. 01:15:45
Because of some very unique characteristics. So the only times I've seen variances get approved, well, I mean like a really good 01:15:48
example I give is a property had a fault line running through it and we required a geologist to look at it and provide 01:15:55
recommendations for setbacks. And with those setbacks based off of the fault line provided no buildable pad on the person's 01:16:02
property. So they got they were able to get a variance to the front set back. 01:16:10
Because it took out complete use of other property by applying the zoning code as it was written in this case, they have use of 01:16:18
the property and they, they can build, you know, I mean, it wouldn't be the, you know, the four floors, but they, they could build 01:16:24
the three. So they still have used some property. So most likely they wouldn't get approved for forbearance. They, they could 01:16:31
apply for one, but the, the hearing officer would, would most likely look at that criteria, not not approve it. 01:16:38
But but the development agreement, if you wanted to make it site specific that that's where I would that seems like a good route 01:16:46
or a special zoning district for, for that, that property. So there's two ways of doing it to make it very site specific, maybe 01:16:53
even in the RV. And that's another thing we could we could explore the amendments that are on. You could have a natural map that 01:17:00
clarifies where 70 feet. 01:17:06
What would be allowed is that might be it might be might be another way of doing it. 01:17:14
That will step back the actual building, you know, another, you know, 15 feet. So there's, you know, there's design standards that 01:17:48
that you can put in as well. 01:17:53
Any other questions or Yeah, I'd just like to add, I don't know if this is the highest and best use of this project, but it seems 01:18:04
like for Vineyard it's good or great and where it's, you know, just so such a small adjustment and that's something to consider. 01:18:14
You know, compared to what else could be there, So yeah. Yeah. So just to reiterate, so you have your options tonight would be a 01:18:25
recommendation for approval or denial or a recommendation for, you know, approval with modifications or a continuance with 01:18:31
requests for additional information. So you have kind of your buffet of options tonight. Question for you, regardless of the 01:18:37
outcome tonight, even if it is a continuance. 01:18:44
Can and will the City Council take it up in their next meeting? 01:18:51
They would wait for your recommendation and so so we they would have their public hearing would be continued on their agenda. You 01:18:54
know to to a date certain. So if you continue it, I'd say continue it. You know to to like the next Planning Commission meeting or 01:19:01
you know in two Planning Commission. Do you want you want to have a specific. 01:19:07
Time to to continue or or we have to renounce and we can renotice. But it's yeah, it's just administratively a lot easier to pick 01:19:15
a date. 01:19:19
Yeah. Does anybody want to make a motion or? 01:19:23
But again, I just want to reiterate where my thoughts are, I guess, blanket across the rezone. I'm not in favor of just saying, 01:19:28
you know, go from this height to this height. But I am in favor of recommending that the City Council explore a development 01:19:35
agreement to focus just on this area as a place to increase the height while not making that blanket change across the zone. 01:19:42
It's probably a better way to wear that, but that's that's what I'm thinking. I'm not sure if anyone else has opinions on that. 01:19:50
There was a specific pole height provision put in there, but it was limited to that site in in the I believe like we had a code 01:20:27
section so we could explore something like that within the RMU where you have an actual map that says this is yeah. And I'm not 01:20:33
opposed to this at all. I mean, I'm just trying to make the best decision I've been given within the last couple of days of like 01:20:39
getting something, you know, so. 01:20:46
I would need to talk to the legal counsel and just make sure we're, we're good from a zoning perspective. I, I think we can do 01:20:54
that in the Army. 01:20:58
Yeah. 01:21:02
So I. 01:21:03
Yeah. I just would like a little bit more information as long before making a recommendation. So it's all three on the same page 01:21:06
as Anthony or? Yeah. So the recommendation would be a denial of the ordinance request, but a recommendation of the city. 01:21:14
Explorer entering into a project, specific project or development agreement. You could do a because right now you have the. I mean 01:21:23
that would be up for Brian his team, whether or not they want to. If they applied for special drawing district or development, we 01:21:30
could do a continuation. Yeah, you can do a continuation. What I'm saying kind of under the like the process right now it's a 01:21:36
zoning text amendment to the RMU. We could see if. 01:21:43
We could make the actual like the current RMU specific to to that site. Yeah, I'd have to that's one of those things we have to 01:21:50
work with the the attorneys can start to get it into like land use law. But we we could see if maybe there's like a map or a legal 01:21:57
description that would limit the amendment to a specifically legal description. So we we could do that. And it sounded like if you 01:22:04
continued it to that there was some interest that seemed like the. 01:22:11
Rendering showing the. 01:22:19
You know, impacts that the view lines from various orientations around the site, even if we need to do that as a city, not 01:22:21
necessarily the developer here, but as a city kind of see if we were to pass this, maybe do it ourselves kind of what the view 01:22:26
would be. 01:22:32
Hesitant to continue things because the city. 01:22:38
Well, the city, yeah, the city, the city works in weeks and months. And that's not, that's not easy to work with as an applicant. 01:22:45
I, I think, I think like you need to be sensitive to that too. Like if, if we're opposed to it, I think it's. 01:22:52
The kinder thing to do is to deny it tonight rather than continue. Let's see that. 01:23:00
Most of the time I'm opposed to just continuing out the process. If we're talking about this timing, if you recommend a denial, 01:23:09
then it goes to the City Council and then they would officially deny it. And so it doesn't necessarily save a lot of time. What I 01:23:16
recommend is you're saying the City Council couldn't approve it? No, they they could, but it would push them to the City Council. 01:23:23
Whereas if you want if you want to actually just see some some changes. 01:23:31
Continuing at well, one meeting, that's actually fairly common. I mean, like it seems like over half our applications get 01:23:38
continued because you, we want to see some, some changes. And so I actually think that's, that's, that's fairly normal. Now if you 01:23:44
continue at like 3 or 4 times that, that would get fairly annoying and, and could, could really push out a process. So but yeah, I 01:23:51
think one meeting is not, is even if you see your sight lines, are you still comfortable? 01:23:57
Ever blanket raising to 70 feet across the RMU 'cause if you're not, then that means it's. Yeah, like don't ask for things if we 01:24:04
already know what we're going. Yeah, and that's what I'm doing. If we were to do sight lines, I would want the city to do it so 01:24:09
that we could see it in multiple work. Well, your recommendation could be that sidelines come back for this project and that we 01:24:15
entertain making a site specific in the RMU district and then we could work on language that would tie the height to to this 01:24:21
property. 01:24:27
Under the RBU and so and that might take a meeting. I think we could probably have it by the next meeting. 01:24:34
We'd have to get with, like I said, with legal counsel on that to make sure we're able to do that. But. 01:24:43
I think that that's reasonable. 01:24:52
OK, but even still that continuation would. 01:24:54
But if we did a continuation and instead of doing a developer agreement and we approved it on the next one on City Council group, 01:24:59
and then it would be faster than them coming through the Planning Commission and the City Council of development agreements. 01:25:06
OK. So you're just saying like putting more in there around the sight lines ended zoning text amendment more where the sight lines 01:25:13
and like Morgan was saying how to? 01:25:17
Restricted to this having language yeah we could even put like a map I mean that's yeah that's my big thing is like let's look at 01:25:23
this let's not be too general with it and then also let's. 01:25:28
The cons that we're seeing or that have been brought up, our sight lines, the parking, the traffic, whatever. And I think there's 01:25:35
ways to mitigate that to say this is a like you can move forward with this if it doesn't violate AB and C, right? And if it 01:25:41
violates those, then it's a no go. If it doesn't, then welcome to video, right? I think that's a good approach. And you can also 01:25:47
limit it to. 01:25:52
Non residential uses too. If the concern is that you know you could get it like a 5-6 Storey Rd. 01:26:00
Natural building, I thought there's some concern with that then you can at least limit the height of up to 70 to non residential 01:26:07
uses. Yeah, I just don't wanna get too far ahead and think about site specific because we are talking zone and they are permitted 01:26:13
and within their rights to build anything within the current zoning today, right. And that's not what's under scrutiny necessarily 01:26:19
so. 01:26:25
Yeah. 01:26:39
So I'll make a motion to continue this and come back with language that allows us to be site specific to address any concerns with 01:26:40
sight lines and parking traffic. 01:26:47
And then to make a recommendation to City Council. Do I have a second I'll second all in favor aye. And this is do we need a roll 01:26:56
call to continue this not continuous Once you do a recommendation to City Council on the on the ordinance that then you would this 01:27:01
is just a continuous. 01:27:07
Great. Thank you, guys. Thank you. 01:27:13
All right, moving on to 4.5 public hearing from the zoning text amendment 15 point 38.030 for parking requirements. 01:27:16
All right, this will be. 01:27:26
Me again presenting. 01:27:28
And we have a zoning text amendment for parking requirements. This is an application submitted by Carla Motto with X Development. 01:27:31
This would modify the parking requirements for hotel and motel uses throughout the city. 01:27:38
So I do need to make a little clarification in the agenda that went out, the language wasn't quite specific in the staff report it 01:27:47
did mention all it said was it's gonna strike the plus 10 minimum spaces for visitor parking and that's the accurate change that 01:27:54
they are applying for here. So as I mentioned this is applicant initiated, it would strike those 10 minimum visitor parking spaces 01:28:00
for hotel or motel use. 01:28:06
And then on this next slide, I think we can have some good discussion on it's just benchmarking of surrounding neighborhood or 01:28:14
surrounding municipalities. 01:28:17
And their requirements for for hotel uses. So real quick going back, just going over our code, a hotel or motel requires 1 space 01:28:21
per room, plus one space per 100 square feet of restaurant and bar serving area, plus one space for 100 square feet of outdoor 01:28:27
seating serving area, plus 10 minimum spaces for visitor parking, plus one space for 200 square feet of meeting room floor area. 01:28:33
And so here I have. 01:28:39
A benchmark, multiple cities throughout the valley and Salt Lake Valley. I have kind of my summary in that second column and then 01:28:46
the code right after that. 01:28:50
So once again, the applicant is here. If you have any questions, I'm Carla Kash. Would you be able to, if the Council or the 01:28:56
Commission and public want to see us, would you be able to zoom up on that table at all? Let's find out. 01:29:03
That's his heart. 01:29:12
OK, there you go. 01:29:14
I can do this way and my summary is a little bit quicker. It's easier to read. 01:29:16
You might even wanna just do just a quick maybe not every single one, just kinda point out a few of them. OK, so Orem Pleasant 01:29:22
Grove. They're both one stall parking stall per room. Lehigh one stall per room plus one stall per employee on working on a shift. 01:29:29
Spanish Fork one stop per room plus one stall per 200 square feet of restaurant. American Fork one stall per room, 10 stalls per 01:29:37
1000 square restaurant, 30 stalls per 1000 square feet of meeting room. Salt Lake City is 1 stall per. 01:29:44
So quite a bit lower than what we have. South Salt Lake, one stop per room plus one stall per 200 square feet of office, meeting, 01:29:52
etc. Straight per one file per room. Sandy, one stall per room plus one stall per 200 square feet of office, meeting, etc. Eagle 01:29:59
Mountain one stop for bed. Saratoga Springs, one stop for room plus one stop per employee. And then Springville was one stop per 01:30:06
room, +2 additional stalls. So just just to clarify. 01:30:13
Are are is it showing that Vineyard is the highest? 01:30:20
I mean, it really, I mean, if you had 30 employees working at your hotel, then you know that would, you know, something like 01:30:23
Lehigh or Saratoga Springs would be essentially higher because if they have those 30 employees working at the same shift at the 01:30:31
same time. So it's really dependent on how you interpret that code. But yes, because of that, the specific 10 guest dogs, we are 01:30:38
quite a bit higher than everybody else. Everybody else seems to have similar when it comes to meeting space or restaurant serving. 01:30:46
Area they have similar requirements but the 10 guest stalls was fairly. 01:30:53
Out of ordinary, no other city had that that I could find. And then just to clarify, to come through this question is gonna come 01:31:00
up from the public and from the Commission if they were to add in Vineyard, a restaurant. 01:31:06
Then our, our, our code would still account for that restaurant space separately, correct? Yeah, yeah. So all this would do, let 01:31:14
me go back to all this would do is remove that 10 minimum spaces for visitors. 01:31:19
Parking. So if a hotel came in with a restaurant, with a bar, with whatever it may be, with meeting space, we would add up all 01:31:25
that and include that in the parking calculation. 01:31:30
Should we do public comment 1st and then get to our questions or is there something that you guys want to say that would help 01:31:40
clarify things for the public before and the applicants here? So you may want to hear from the applicant prior to the public. You 01:31:45
can ask questions. 01:31:50
I'm just saying process wise. 01:31:55
Hi, everyone. Carlo Mata with X Development. I realize along with some of the other topics that have already been discussed today 01:31:59
is parking in general is kind of a polarizing discussion, right? And so we understand that it's something sensitive. We are always 01:32:06
trying to be very aware of those sensitivities. We've always tried, we always use, you know, one of the most. 01:32:14
Respected engineering firms that does the traffic and parking studies for all of our projects. 01:32:23
We at this point, we don't have any as, as we've done our studies, we don't have any failures with our parking. Obviously stuff, 01:32:29
stuff around us can affect our projects, but we've been trying to responsible with that and and sensitive to that to the point 01:32:36
where we already work together with Edgewater townhomes that had a severe parking problem. As you know, we sold them land to help 01:32:43
solve their problem, which gave them another 140 stalls. 01:32:50
We are always trying to find ways to work with the city and work with. 01:32:57
Our neighbors here in in Vineyard to, to be good neighbors and and to, to find solutions. So we do feel like with the hotel use as 01:33:02
was already brought up and this particular code that's already in place is more aggressive than the majority of the cities. 01:33:11
We are trying to work to bring in a hotel that would be a great benefit to the city. But current, you know, the, the, the current 01:33:21
code makes it a little bit difficult with the size requirements and and so forth to be able to, to make a site plan work for that. 01:33:30
And so if this isn't just specific obviously to one particular hotel, but, but we do feel like this is a good overall change. 01:33:40
Let's see. 01:33:50
Do you have any, any questions for me? Yeah, I have a question. So this and I don't see the site plan here cuz it's not a site 01:33:52
plan approval. That's the location of the hotel. I know I saw. 01:33:59
Where the hotel is planned though, it's right next to the lot where you sold for those additional parking spots, is that correct? 01:34:07
Well, that, I mean that's one particular area that we're looking at. It's not, I mean, again, we're not on the site plan approval 01:34:12
right now, but yes, we're looking in that area. 01:34:18
So if you had, if you had known this was gonna be an issue, would you have not sold maybe as much land potentially? I mean, right 01:34:23
now we have to accommodate several different things. We've given some land for the parking. We've also had to work around a Wells 01:34:31
site. That makes the dimensions very complicated, right? And again, we want to be good neighbors. So we're trying to work and we 01:34:38
also worked hard to try to bring in this youth to be working closely. 01:34:46
With your great planners to try to provide some symmetry with the use across the uses across the street where there's some height. 01:34:53
So we'd like to bring in some height to have a nice entryway for the city. And so we're trying to plan that balancing act, but but 01:35:01
we also need to do it within the code. And so we, we feel like this is overall something that's not going to harm the city there. 01:35:08
I don't really know of a lot of hotels or if any of that that have 100%. 01:35:16
And occupancy, Even if we did, we'd still be able to have a space per room, right? 01:35:24
So anyway, we feel confident that this is. 01:35:30
A good recommendation for the city. 01:35:36
Did you make any inquiry or discuss trying to get any of the other property back that you sold so you could just move the 10 01:35:40
parking spot requirement? 01:35:44
No, we would definitely not want to do that. No, we, I mean, we feel strongly that we, we wanted to be able to, to help solve a 01:35:50
problem that, you know, in the end the cars end up spilling on to our property. We have every right with to go ahead and tow those 01:35:57
cars, but we've been trying to accommodate to be able to find a solution, right. So we we haven't been towing. 01:36:04
In the meantime, while we try to solve this problem, we feel like, you know, we we would like to workout other ways than to to be 01:36:12
harmful to a neighbor. Yeah, I could just add that's so the edgehome townhomes. It's that that that is a site that the City 01:36:20
Council mayor have worked for a long time to see if they could try to help with with the parking at the development that that we 01:36:27
know has had a lot of issues because especially a lot of those are investor owned. So like individual townhomes owned by. 01:36:35
Investors or blocks of town owns owned by investors bought of them don't live in Utah. And so it's like, you know how many 01:36:42
students can come and travel here. So that's that's been an issue. And so we know that that's a use that is under park and so 01:36:49
having the parking to accommodate a use that we know that demands a lot of parking, I would think kind of the priority would go 01:36:56
there. And when we worked with the applicant on this, we felt like. 01:37:03
You know, especially looking at a lot of the other cities, we, we appeared to be kind of like. 01:37:11
A higher amount than what a lot of the other cities were. Plus it's one of those things too is from like a commercial standpoint 01:37:15
when we look at parking, residential is kind of just a different game. But even just to get financing, you have to have the 01:37:22
minimum amount of parking to even get financing from a commercial perspective. And a hotel is not going to put in that level of 01:37:30
investment if they don't have enough parking. So I guess I guess that's where we weren't as. 01:37:37
Actually seemed like a pretty good trade off, giving more parking to the residential, which we know absolutely needs that they're 01:37:45
they're, you know, screaming for it, whereas the hotel use we're just looking at all different cities where we're like the highest 01:37:51
amount for the hotel parking. So that's that's, you know, it actually seemed like a really good trade off. 01:37:58
My only comment on that is I agree that the city should play a role in establishing minimums for residential parking. When it 01:38:06
comes to commercial, I think it's a little bit different because if I can ever park at a restaurant, then I won't go to that 01:38:13
restaurant. And they, you know, they're the ones that that suffer, right? Or if I can't park at A at a movie theater, then I go to 01:38:19
a different movie theater, right? And so when it comes to commercial. 01:38:26
Yeah, I I'm less inclined to for the city to stay like we we know what you need. 01:38:34
They, they know what they need more residential is, is a different animal. And I do definitely think we need to step in and make 01:38:40
sure that there's minimums there. But yeah, that's one thought I've had with this is like if you book a hotel and you don't have a 01:38:47
place to park, you are not gonna go to that hotel again and they will not succeed. So I think they know that too. Sure. 01:38:53
All right. Any other comments before I open it up before, before we open it up for a public hearing? 01:39:03
All right. Do I have a motion to open up the public hearing? 01:39:09
Yeah, Nick Washington for the public hearing. Thanks, Anthony. Do I have a second? Second. 01:39:13
All right, same things before. If you have a comment come up, state your name. 01:39:17
Try to keep it to three minutes and any questions you have I will write them down and. 01:39:23
Them after. OK. Hello again, Daria Evans resident. I have a question on clarification please on slide 126. 01:39:29
Yes, the whole part of that is red lined out and only the green part is left. One space per room plus one space for each 200 01:39:41
square feet of assembly, conference, banquet, sit down, restaurant facility space. 01:39:48
So I need a clarification. I'll clarify that because we were talking about that earlier in the. 01:39:56
In that agenda that went out, it didn't specify it this way. It was like you're saying you have the green text and but it didn't 01:40:06
have everything. So this is how it is right here is how it will be approved. Yeah, that will be if approved, this is what would go 01:40:14
in. As opposed to what? So if this would be swapped out before it goes to City Council, you would have this language. 01:40:23
OK, so. 01:40:32
So basically everything's staying the same except for the 10 to 0 parking spot. Everything's staying the same except for the 10 01:40:37
visitors. OK. 01:40:41
OK, well. 01:40:46
I encourage you to keep the tempos in the spots because like you say, you know, if you don't have a place to park, if you're going 01:40:48
to stay at a hotel, you're not going to go stay at that hotel. It's just like a restaurant. And you know, as we've talked about 01:40:53
this before, I. 01:40:57
More parking becomes adequate parking, you know, so an excess would be adequate in 10 spaces isn't really that much more. So I 01:41:03
encourage you to keep it the way it is. Thank you. 01:41:10
My name is Tyler Harrison, I live on the road. I would like to recommend that we get rid of the parking minimum. 01:41:28
I have seen data, so I read this sort of stuff. I've seen data on how a lot of these parking minimums were started out. A lot of 01:41:37
cities go look at another city's code and take that city's code and apply to their own. And then a lot of those cities got theirs 01:41:43
by data from the 50s. 01:41:49
With that data, because I'm a stats guy and it was like, like they have like two data points. They went to McDonald's or whatever, 01:41:55
and that's somewhere in Iowa. That's how they came out with the requirement. 01:42:00
They also generally made them so that they were for the maximum capacity that you could conceive of of reasonably having at any 01:42:06
point, which I don't really think for businesses the appropriate way. Because when you build more parking, it makes it you gotta 01:42:12
walk across that, you gotta pipe through that, you gotta put all the city surfaces through that to cost a lot of money. It's also 01:42:19
a lot less efficient as far as tax revenue. 01:42:25
So you generally the parking is not making enough tax revenue to cover that piping and that sort of thing. I don't know how this 01:42:33
exact code was built, but it looks a lot like that. 01:42:38
Generally speaking, I just. 01:42:45
I've never been to a hotel in my life that didn't have enough parking ever. Like I don't know if any of you have, I've never been 01:42:49
to one. I've been to most of those cities that you guys that we looked at that have less parking requirement and. 01:42:56
Some of them have stayed in hotels and had no issue with parking in Provo and Salt Lake. 01:43:04
You would think I wouldn't stay an optimal class, but it's happened. I also have worked next to a lot of these hotels and I just 01:43:10
do not see why this is necessary. Frankly, I think it would be a better recommendation for to get rid of all the parking 01:43:16
requirements and have a requirement that they work with the city and look at some data based on their current trends at that time 01:43:22
to see what the parking requirement is. But as far as the specific one. 01:43:28
It is completely unnecessary to have this much parking. It's just totally overkill and I'm going to have to pay for it in taxes in 01:43:35
my my little niece that just got **** just got to deal with the debts that we incur if we keep building so much freaking parking 01:43:42
and building so much infrastructure and not getting tax revenue to cover it. 01:43:48
This is hugely problematic for for lock building, blockability and transit and that sort of stuff. 01:43:57
I really do not want to see just stayed in if we get rid of it. So that's it. Thanks, Tyler. 01:44:03
Hi, my name is Jordan. I really feel like it's on the onus of the city to justify why a hotel would need 10 visitor parking spots 01:44:19
specifically in Vineyard, where as if you build the same exact thing on the other side of Geneva you wouldn't need that. 01:44:27
So if you have any feedback of why we have this exact code, I'm all yours. 01:44:36
On this, yeah, I don't know. I'm sorry. Yeah. So typically. 01:44:44
So especially like the parking codes that were written, I think this was part of the original zoning code and I think it was 2010. 01:44:52
Am I correct on that cache? He seems to know like the the history of Arizona code better than I do, but I. 01:45:01
I, I remember going through the code and we even found like other city names. And so like that's how a lot of zoning has been 01:45:12
written in the past because it's, it is called cumbersome and you're paying an attorney $200.00 an hour many times. So I think 01:45:19
what a lot of cities do is they, they copy each other. And so it's not necessarily based off study, so. 01:45:26
That is something we could look at and see if there was a study for parking that accompanied the original parking ordinance. I, I 01:45:33
would probably say no in like the research that we, and we've gone through a lot of the records, I don't know if there was like an 01:45:39
initial study done with the original parking code. So, so anyway, my bet is that it most likely was taken either from that or some 01:45:46
of the ITE standards. 01:45:52
That are based off in an empirical studies where they go out and they go and they look at different uses. 01:46:00
And like they'll look at 10 other hotel sites in a suburban location and they say, well, on average at peak hour, you know, there 01:46:07
there's this type of parking demand and then they apply that and then cities adopt those standards. So you are it was the 2009, 01:46:13
yeah, was when that was passed. 01:46:19
Yeah. So it sounds like at best this would be something based off the ITE standard, which I happened to look that up this week. 01:46:26
And their empirical driven, data-driven approach to making decisions here referenced 2 studies and one of them had like almost 01:46:34
1000 rooms and one of them had like 600 rooms. And they both had the same level of parking. 01:46:43
They both observed the same number of cars parked in their stalls. 01:46:52
During two of these studies and so the IT recommendation was to say, Oh well, we'll just draw a best fitting line, which would 01:46:56
have been a flat line, but they didn't they drew some some amount of parking that increases with your with your number of rooms 01:47:03
because that. 01:47:09
What I'm trying to say here is like, even if we have the best case version of a parking mandate for our hotels. 01:47:16
That's just absolutely flawed. Like, why? Why are we saying that we would know better than somebody who actually has financial 01:47:25
skin in the game? Thank you. 01:47:29
I. 01:47:38
But our servants resident and happy to be here. Thank you for the work you do. Just I know Vineyards had the history of parking 01:47:42
issues. I've been to many City Council meetings and just it's been a problem. And so I'm for more stringent parking requirements 01:47:48
to ensure we don't have it. I know if we don't have an employee parking requirement and the employees have got to park somewhere 01:47:55
too, I assume and. 01:48:01
And like my wife took, my line that I've used in City Council many times is excess parking, is usually adequate parking or is 01:48:09
adequate parking. 01:48:13
When you come into, it turns out to be problem parking when there's not enough. 01:48:18
So just I think we just need cockroaches cautiously and make sure that we do have adequate parking for a hotel and for a hotel. I 01:48:22
think that's that's a great thing for Vineyard, but. 01:48:27
Just want to be sure there's a place to park for it, so thank you. 01:48:33
Any other comments from the public? 01:48:41
Not do I have a motion to close the public hearing. 01:48:43
Make a motion to close public hearing. Thanks, Greg. 01:48:46
Second, thanks, Anthony. All in favor? 01:48:49
All right, any other comments? 01:48:54
Questions. So this isn't necessarily part of the zoning text amendment, but one thing that I think can and should be part of 01:48:56
standard practice for all projects is with site plan just reviewing parking studies than it is like. 01:49:03
Case by case, right, like you're looking at that and I think that solves a lot of issues. I I tend to learn more towards the camp 01:49:10
of, you know, for commercial, yet they do have. 01:49:16
Financial incentive to to get it right and to not under park their their area. So I'm comfortable personally removing the visitors 01:49:23
stalls. I've actually never had anyone visit me when I was at a hotel. I'm usually visiting the people, you know, which is why I'm 01:49:30
in a hotel. But I also understand, you know, the employees and things like that. That can be a concern. 01:49:37
So that that that's kind of where I'm at, but I'd like to hear what everyone else has to say. 01:49:46
I think it's good to match surrounding cities. I mean, I know that's probably based off of no data at all, I guess, but do they, 01:49:53
is there an anticipated percentage of which they assume they'll operate at, so like 120? 01:50:00
Rooms were there like 80%, like what's there like 8% occupancy or something, do you know? Yeah, just a question. 01:50:08
So we haven't been given occupancy rates. We have an idea of the number of rooms, but we don't, we are still finalizing 01:50:20
negotiations. We're not sure if this isn't the actual operator that would go in. So we haven't gotten down to that level of of 01:50:26
detail yet. When we get to site plan approval, we we would have that information for you at that time. 01:50:33
What is one estimate on the number of rooms? It's about 125. 01:50:41
What? How much staff would be needed at any given moment? Again, I don't know that level of detail. Yeah, yeah. 01:50:47
Any other questions for her or can she said. 01:50:57
I think we're good. Thanks guys. 01:51:01
Any other comments or questions? 01:51:03
So I'm kind of in the same boat as Anthony. Is a commercial building or a commercial use, They need to know how much parking they. 01:51:06
Need and if we're requiring something that they don't need. 01:51:16
I think that that's a burden that they shouldn't be required to bear because in order to be a successful hotel or to be a 01:51:23
successful restaurant, you need to have parking. And to be under parked for something like that would be a huge mistake for a 01:51:28
hotel. And I think that most hotels that are building, especially nowadays, are real tight on their numbers and know exactly what 01:51:34
they need. 01:51:39
So I think that. 01:51:46
I think that having less strict requirements and just them coming with a parking study, which they do when they come, I think it's 01:51:48
the best approach for it. I do. I just wanted to add one more thing that this particular hotel is a large chain. It's a reputable 01:51:57
chain and it's one that is very familiar with and very comfortable with the one to one ratio. So. 01:52:05
That makes us comfortable with with with asking for this change. Can you let us slide? Can you can you tell us like what the name 01:52:14
rhymes with her? We we won't tell Eric that he's all What does it mean? 01:52:20
Motel so this is for I just want to make sure I understand this is for the all hotels in the city correct? 01:52:29
Downtown being a special purpose design as it does have its own park parking code, but outside of East Geneva that whole area 01:52:41
would fall within this and then does the Forge, you know there. 01:52:47
I mean, I'm just looking here because the X development site. 01:52:55
There's no residential that you'd have overflowed to. So we say specific, no concern. We obviously just had the previous 01:52:59
individuals here and even there. I mean those are all going to be managed parking lots. There's no overflow concern to 01:53:05
residential. Even if we removed it and there were an overflow concern, I don't see any overflow happening to residential 01:53:12
communities where there's no managed towing already occurring. And and for those in attendance that haven't been like. 01:53:18
You watch like Hawks kind of the residential parking now of any residential developments being made because of the history that 01:53:25
we've seen as has happened in some of the developments, so. 01:53:29
I have no issue with removing the 10 spots and especially the impact of any other hotels that come there. Wouldn't they wouldn't 01:53:34
be. It appears near any residential neighborhood single family that does not have a managed parking lot. So. 01:53:41
There are no further comments. There was somebody want to make a motion. 01:53:50
I'll make a motion. 01:53:57
I guess to approve the zoning text amendment as discussed today under the recommend approval, sorry, I moved to recommend approval 01:54:01
of Ordinance 202327 to the City Council. And I apologize if you've done this, but if you could maybe say as presented, because we 01:54:10
do have the staff report one that's different. So if you say that's presented, it would be OK. Let me start over. 01:54:19
Move to recommend approval of the Ordinance 2023 Dash 27 to the City Council as presented. Thank you meeting. Thanks, Craig. Do I 01:54:29
have a second? 01:54:33
I'll second that. Thanks, Anthony. And this is roll call, Chris. Hi, Anthony. Hi, Craig. Hi, Greg. All right, that passes. Thank 01:54:39
you. 01:54:43
All right, moving on to 5.1, General plan amendment to Element 10, Technology Goal 2 regarding the protection of personal privacy 01:54:49
and technology advanced states. 01:54:55
Thanks so much, Chair and members of the Planet Christian. And it's been a good and fruitful night. So I feel like we've been able 01:55:02
to have a really good discussion on these topics. So and then yeah, if you could go to goal to just have it on the screen. 01:55:10
So this is the topic that, that, that we've, we've discussed, not necessarily like informal means. I think it's come up a little 01:55:21
bit led by the public. I know Commissioner Brownwell being kind of our, our resident expert on this topic, he's, he's definitely 01:55:27
brought it up, but making sure that privacy is a top concern for the city as, as we implement technology, you know, we're, we're 01:55:33
starting to see a lot of the smart city stuff. 01:55:40
Coming out, there's some really amazing technology and there's things that like being able to tell us when a trash can needs to be 01:55:47
empty, like like things like that, that simple, which really do impact the amount of staff that that we need. And it, you know, 01:55:54
helps us to, to be more efficient. Things like helping us to, to understand at a higher level that the usage of our trails so that 01:56:01
we know like which trail has to invest more money in. 01:56:09
And, you know, upkeep and there's a there's a whole whole bunch of things that we're starting to see come, come, come down the 01:56:17
line. And some of those are items that could potentially affect the privacy of our residents. And so we know that this is a real 01:56:24
concern for the mayor and the council and the commissioners have brought this up and members of the public. And So what this would 01:56:31
be is a more of working on the policy of goal tube being a general plan. This would just be. 01:56:39
See that as we bring on technology and new advancements to technology that we would make privacy a top priority. And so the 01:56:46
recommendation would be that we work with like a subcommittee of the planning, Planning Commission. So that could be one or two 01:56:54
members of the Commission. There were three, that's fine. We would just have to notice those meetings. So we would prefer to have 01:57:01
not not more than two to work with staff and our legal counsel and. 01:57:09
I think it's really something we could probably meet once or twice, but it would be a simple policy statement as part of Goal 2 01:57:16
that would make sure as we develop out technology and we build frameworks for technology, that we make privacy of personal 01:57:23
information at a top priority. And that that's like part of the metric when we implement smart city solutions and those types of 01:57:30
things, so. 01:57:36
That, you know, we just wanted to have kind of that conversation. This is more just a kickoff meeting. We can go as, as as deep as 01:57:44
you'd like tonight. But we feel like that might be a good way of doing it is making a subcommittee that we could work with their 01:57:50
their little tassel and then bring back a recommendation to the Planning Commission and also to the City Council for adoption. 01:57:56
So we can open it up for this conversation. Yeah, one of my immediate thoughts is just around, I think privacy and transparency go 01:58:04
hand in hand. So just simply the city having maybe a transparency web page or something like that that says here's the data that 01:58:11
we could have about you specifically, which would be like, you know, your water usage or, you know, whatever it might be, right? 01:58:18
Like what could you tie back to me? 01:58:25
And said like, and if someone's uncomfortable with it, you know, is there opt in, opt out or is it something that could be, you 01:59:02
know? 01:59:07
Brought up in City Council and voted on. I don't, I don't know what it is, but transparency is the first start because some people 01:59:11
don't even know, including myself. Like what? What all is being tracked? Yeah, that's that's good. So we we can make it a privacy 01:59:17
and and transparency. I mean that that those could be two elements that that we get some policy statements on. 01:59:24
Any other questions? Does anybody want to be on this? 01:59:34
Committee to word it out and I I don't I don't see being super time Sammy maybe one or two meetings but basically taking the 01:59:37
language and providing some good policy statements that help guide it and the City Council when they when they start implementing 01:59:43
technology. So this is. 01:59:49
Citywide, specifically just to downtown or down or to city like everything, yeah. But whenever we adopt technology, they'd be and 01:59:55
we can make the policy statements if there's something specific to downtown you want it or something specific to. 02:00:03
I don't know like just how we communicate with, with the public, you know, information that we get from the public in regards to, 02:00:13
to utility. 02:00:17
E-mail information and phone numbers, like, yeah, I need anything, any information like how do we safeguard that? Or you know, do 02:00:24
we necessarily need that, like that, that level of information? 02:00:29
So I so the I want to emphasize like this is pretty, this is cutting edge stuff. This is forward-looking. 02:00:37
No city we're aware of that. There are cities in the country that have done smart city stuff. Nobody's done a approach of privacy 02:00:44
in the development of smart cities. So this would be kind of the first discussion in Utah of how do you manage privacy for what's 02:00:50
coming and the amount of data collection is crazy and especially in downtown. 02:00:56
In code right now, there's requirements for all government entities, state and cities. If you collect any data that's not public, 02:01:33
private control protected, you have to give notice of purpose and use of that data. You have to have retention schedules assigned 02:01:40
for that data. You have to tell the individual any other private or public entities you share that data with this. This has been 02:01:48
in code in grandma since 1991. You have to dispose of that data according to it, according to. 02:01:55
Retention schedule, you can't keep it forever. And then you can't share it with anybody except for when there's certain use cases. 02:02:03
So what we're about to have is there's gonna be a lot of data share. You get a technology provider, collect the data on your 02:02:08
behalf, they're sharing it with us. They sync it with you have UTA trains coming in, you have the UVU stop or pass to get off the 02:02:13
train. 02:02:17
You know right now. 02:02:52
Every company and the city and everyone knows what's happening. So it's just, I think this is a perfect discussion to start having 02:03:53
right now and plan for it. That's great. And we do have a consultant that we've been working with and so I can check to see if we 02:04:00
still want a retainer, but it's SRT Labs. So they're the group that had provided some of the framework for our a smart cities plan 02:04:06
for the city. And so that that could be a group we could see if we could pull them into the sub community to. 02:04:13
You know from the technology that that they work on. 02:04:21
And how how maybe this kind of initial first steps that we're taking with smart cities, how we can protect privacy so that that 02:04:24
can be part of the conversation as well. OK, cool. 02:04:29
So I assume Christie would want it, but yeah, thanks. I also think so. I talked about like the transparency skills with it, but 02:04:36
the intent and purpose I think is important too, right? Because if I knew that. 02:04:42
The city was doing facial recognition on my kids at the splash pad, tracking how much they've been there. 02:04:49
For what purpose? Then I'd be like, yeah, maybe let's go somewhere else. You know, like, like there's, there's no benefit to us 02:04:56
for you to know what my 7 year old is doing at the splash pad necessarily. So like I think letting the intent know. So like 02:05:02
traffic counters, trail uses, like that kind of stuff might make sense. And I think most people in general are probably OK with 02:05:08
like anonymized aggregated data, like how many people were at the splash pad yesterday. And then you can look that up on Google 02:05:14
Maps. Basically it'll tell you whether. 02:05:20
You're not as busy as you. Yeah. But like, if it's where was Anthony yesterday at 2:00 PM, like that's where people are gonna 02:05:26
probably always and forever be uncomfortable, right? Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. No one really wants to be a part of that, right. Well, we 02:05:33
have it being deleted or Sullivan, he may be able to know if somebody home based off of the current water usage. I know if there's 02:05:40
a leak, that's a good point. Automatically they're like, hey, there's an increased water. So that's a type of surveillance. 02:05:48
And, and it's at the familiar level of of in this home, but, but that's the things to consider now, because that data us in this 02:05:55
room may not be smart enough to use it, but, but that data is very viable to people to know who's home, who's using what, what's 02:06:01
their usage. Let's sell products or let's pick up their tracks, their, their trash cans at a certain week now and let's go pick it 02:06:06
up that that is coming with autonomous mechanism to do all of this. 02:06:12
And people here have been, you can see they they want to be left alone. Just they want to have, I think our culture is let's have 02:06:18
a yeah, we want to be a modern city, but let people still have a little bit laid back feel where they can live here and choose to 02:06:25
live, succeed, worship, whatever it is and peace without us controlling everything. And we have some really great software that we 02:06:31
use. I'm sure you've heard of it. Chris is placer IO. 02:06:38
Placer AI and that that'll and I think that uses kind of an aggregation of cellular. 02:06:45
Information, but it helps us know for like events. 02:06:51
How many people are coming from events? It helps us understand kind of generally wet weather where they're coming from. But that's 02:06:56
the kind of technology is like, maybe we don't necessarily need to know exactly where their rooftop is, but you know, like, like 02:07:03
at what level of information do do do we need? Or is it just just good enough to know that like, you know, people generally from 02:07:10
this area are, are, are coming to to to an event because that that's stuff that does help us in planning and so. 02:07:17
It's good to have that data, but like we don't necessarily need to know, you know, like exactly where they live or you know that 02:07:24
that type of information. 02:07:28
So. 02:07:33
Anyway, so sound like Chris, you're you're all good to be on like a subcommittee then just a scary conversation after watching the 02:07:35
Mission Impossible. 02:07:38
Can I, can I just add a couple of comments? Sullivan, Water wastewater manager for city. 02:07:44
The smart city terminology is getting a really bad rap from a lot of people. And so I would just want to kind of present some of 02:07:50
the views or some of the thoughts that I've had as we've been investigated this. So I've got several sewer lift stations. 02:07:57
That run motors, pumps, stuff like that. And we're soon to have a water booster station to be running, not all the time, but 02:08:05
frequently. And so some of the smart city technology. 02:08:11
As it's turned can allow me to monitor the amperage, the electricity that's being used in those pumps and determine if I'm 02:08:19
potentially going to have a failure. You know, I'm not monitoring who's flushing what or turning whatever on, but it helps me 02:08:26
better do my job without hiring people, you know, So if I can predict failures on on electronics and motors and stuff like that, I 02:08:33
can I can better, you know, have inventory created and stuff like that. So. 02:08:41
I think there needs to be some explanation and some additional information given out there that smart city is not just about, you 02:08:49
know, knowing who you are, where you are and what you're doing all the time. It's about the the mechanics of the city, the 02:08:54
logistics and stuff like that of how we can better serve the residents and potentially save them tons of money by not having a 02:08:59
lift station go down in the middle of a big event and you can't flush your toilet, you know, stuff like that. So just some of my 02:09:04
views on that. 02:09:10
And I think that's kind of where Anthony was saying like transparency, like as long as we're transparent with what we're doing 02:09:16
with the data and how it's being used. And I think most people generally are OK with it as long as they know exactly what's 02:09:21
happening with it. 02:09:26
But I mean, there's probably at least half of us that never read privacy policies and so. 02:09:32
Yeah, exactly. So, So from here, yeah, we'll work with Chris. I mean, like I said, if there's another commissioner must be part 02:09:41
of, just let us know and then we'll we'll start from there and we'll get some recommendations for the general plan brought back to 02:09:47
you. Great. Thanks, Morgan. Yeah, no problem. 02:09:53
All right. Moving on to Commission Member reports and expertise, discussion and disclosure. 02:10:01
Anything from the Commission? 02:10:07
I just wanted to bring up one thing, well actually two things. I should have said this when people were here. I saw something 02:10:09
interesting over 4th of July is like if you ever think your city doesn't have enough commercial parking. 02:10:16
How are there always firework stands that can pop up with no problem in commercial parking lots? So I thought that was kind of 02:10:24
funny because it's true there's always room. But when it comes back to that, I don't want to say it was an issue earlier, but the 02:10:30
DRC meetings sometimes it appears that applicants. 02:10:37
Have already gotten to a point where they feel like hey, this is a slam dunk kind of thing, or that they at least have an like an 02:10:45
advocate. 02:10:50
That will be sitting either on this body or on the City Council body, which isn't a bad thing to have. But do does the Planning 02:10:55
Commission need to be more involved in those? 02:11:00
The thing that we risk, I think is they're like, well, I know this is gonna pass the City Council or I'm not saying that's what 02:11:08
they said tonight, but like, you know, this is a formality, but we've already got something drummed up. I'm just wondering how do 02:11:13
we, how do we avoid maybe someone? 02:11:19
Any surprises on any side, I guess, right. Like because you know, if an applicant comes in and like, oh wow, like I thought we 02:11:26
already had this worked out or ironed out. How do we how do we avoid surprises? Yeah, I think the DRC is a good way and we could 02:11:32
we could add it. I'm honest. Yeah, yeah. And like I said, we can have up to two. The one thing that we don't want to do with the 02:11:38
Commission, it's just kind of like a bad practices having kind of the individual meetings with commissioners and and developers. 02:11:43
You can do that with the city. 02:11:49
City Council is elected and so you know, they're they're like, they're the people you can pull into those meetings. But on a DRC 02:11:55
level, I think that's appropriate to have them one or two commissioners. 02:12:00
With the applicants of just because these folks may are be aware of it and on board doesn't mean these folks aren't there. So I 02:12:07
don't know, it's not maybe more of a one off case than the norm, but I was trying to get ahead of any surprises. I wouldn't mind. 02:12:15
He mentioned like, well, then we have a working meeting. I mean, I if is that, how do we stay informed? 02:12:22
Because I felt like he was kind of trying to pit US against each other. You guys have been working with him for two years and we 02:12:30
found out 48 hours ago, you know what I mean? So like, how do we how do we even do? Like I honestly feel like I am doing the city 02:12:36
a disservice because I have no idea about everything that's happened. Is that what I mean? I guess I have just a quick comment on 02:12:43
that is. 02:12:49
We are the protectors of the General Plan. 02:12:56
We go off of the general plan and we don't. We shouldn't necessarily even be thinking a whole lot about the excess like we're 02:13:01
supposed to focus on the general plan, so it just needs to be that. 02:13:07
Maybe in DRC meetings or when city councilors or staff are meeting with these people that it's clear, like if we're going to go 02:13:14
this direction, like these are the things of the general plan that we're missing or that we're hitting, and then bring up those 02:13:21
things in meetings like this. Like this is how this meets the intent of the general plan and this is how it deviates from the 02:13:28
general plan. I think would be helpful because it really does come down to, are we on the same page with City Council? 02:13:36
And we should be because we should all be looking at the general plan. And that's a good point because if every applicant knows we 02:13:44
will start from the general plan as a starting point. And anything that's, if you're asking for anything different from that, you 02:13:50
need to provide, you know, like sight lines or like what, like anything that could potentially go against this, you need to 02:13:56
explain either why or how it does conform. 02:14:02
And that they can expect those well, and I'll I'll just say to. 02:14:09
We we did request that information, yeah. So no. And I don't want to get. 02:14:14
You know, those conversations, it's also kind of difficult because with these developers, we've been working with them for two 02:14:22
years, but we haven't had a DRC meeting with them for over a year ago, probably the last one they went to. So it's hard for us to 02:14:29
keep you up to speed. I mean, they're still so far behind with with everything as well. That makes sense. 02:14:37
What's the best way to keep everyone in the way? So I think to Craig's point, what what we could do though, is. 02:14:46
Do an update of DRC and Planning Commission. So we do have like the staff update and that that actually would be a good time. And 02:14:54
because you are at a point of body, it's one of those things where it is hard to pull commissioners into every meeting. But like I 02:15:01
think Elise giving you like the update on DRC and we're also happy to to meet with with with commissioners like as staff. And so 02:15:08
if any commissioner wants to even settle like a regular meeting, we're happy to do that. 02:15:16
Like, well, like we try to meet with with Bryce before, before the meetings to discuss the Janice. So Bryce usually is very on top 02:15:23
of it. And Anthony's old school. He's, he's, he's always been kind of connected to all the development. But we're happy if, if 02:15:30
there's anyone who wants like a special meeting to review projects, we're happy to do so. But we can, we can do a DRC update. And 02:15:36
so with me starting to come to the DRCS starting tomorrow. 02:15:42
I can, I can give that update. Yeah, that's great. 02:15:50
One other thing I was gonna suggest is one thing our department is trying to do, we have a goal for, is to get the agenda out 02:15:53
sooner to the Planning Commission, to the public. So you do have more time to review these documents. And that way on the Thursday 02:16:00
beforehand you read through and like, well, I have a question about this. Do you have time to meet? And that's what we tried to do 02:16:06
this past week with each one of you is we knew that these two amendments were complicated. 02:16:12
So I just also wonder if they know that they're already gonna come to us again, some sort of change. 02:16:19
Right. Yeah. 02:16:26
We, we discussed, I mean, we could talk more in detail like later on individually, but yeah, I mean, and it was one of. 02:16:30
You can trust it like there. Nothing was guaranteed, you know it was. 02:16:42
Working on a project that then that we knew wasn't going to be a slam dunk basically. And but that's part of the planning process 02:16:48
is you work, you fine tune you, you know, you get the project to a point where just like I think Commissioner Jenkins mentioned 02:16:54
where was like you, you, you want to elevate the really great aspects of it and the the impacts you want to try, try, try to 02:17:01
reduce. And as you go through the process you, you kind of get there. 02:17:07
As best you can, so. 02:17:14
Or anything else from staff? 02:17:17
Or from the Commissioner, yes. 02:17:20
So from staff we are working on our economic development strategic plan that'll be coming down the pipeline soon. We are 02:17:22
interviewing next week. We've got four really great firms. And so that that's one of those will have a a committee and you know up 02:17:31
to two can sit on that committee and that that'll be won't be the interview committee, but it'll be. 02:17:39
The the working group kind of like we've done with, with other projects. And so if there's some interest, just yeah, send us an 02:17:48
e-mail, but we can do up to up to two. 02:17:52
You know on that as well. And so I would say probably like we would really didn't move in probably in September, there'll probably 02:17:56
be a few just like initial set up meetings in in August and getting the contract in place in September, October that is when we'd 02:18:03
really see these kicked off for that. 02:18:09
And then I was just, I guess it's worth bringing it up now. We've got about six months until Anthony and Anthony and I are both 02:18:18
done. So we should start looking for new alternates and commissioners. 02:18:23
Soon. 02:18:30
Yeah, that's your second term, right? So you have to wait. You have to wait one year. 02:18:33
Throw it back on whatever that wants it, right? I do have one thing. The Utah EPA conference is this fall and September. Towards 02:18:39
the end of it, I sent an e-mail out to each one of you. If you're interested in going, let me know and we can get group tickets. 02:18:45
It's a little bit cheaper to do it that way. 02:18:51
It's in Ogden, so local. 02:18:58
We could all take for we could all take foreigner up together, you know. 02:19:02
Yeah. So yeah, if you're interested in that, let me know. And we do do have fun too. It's a 2 day, so it's not you both days. We 02:19:06
can get your hotel out there, so. 02:19:10
Cool. 02:19:15
Just real quick, I gotta always ask. I haven't been at the post office. I already I'll put it on my calendar to go. I usually in 02:19:28
my previous role here, I was going there a lot more frequently and I don't so much anymore, but I will probably cuz I'm gonna 02:19:36
start doing more public notices again like the mailings for that and they're all there more frequently, but I'll add it to my. 02:19:45
To my calendar to do like to slowly do that and we have been trying to get a a a U PS: store so you know. 02:19:54
Yeah, that would also mean we've reached out about that song, so well, we'll let you know if we can get some meetings with them. 02:20:02
OK. And real quick, I just wanted to comment that Ephraim got a State Park approved and it is being 100% paid by grants. So yeah, 02:20:09
and it's like a $3,000,000 skate park, so just saying grants and just. 02:20:17
Yeah, we do. We do, yeah. So we can, we can look at that. If you see anything, we look at the the Tony Hawk grants, they got some 02:20:27
really, really good ones, but those are typically for like low, low income, but there's other. 02:20:32
Of other grants out there. Let us know it's going to go on. And just something to inform you this is Rachel's last. 02:20:37
One more so not not less what she is. 02:20:46
You can tell I'll be moving to Vegas for my husbands law school but I'll still be working remotely but I won't be here in person. 02:20:50
So we'll we'll try to get her back in person three years from now, but we'll see what happens. 02:21:00
Well, thank you. 02:21:07
Cool, if that is everything. 02:21:10
Then meeting adjourned. 02:21:13
Oh. 02:21:25
Link
Start video at
Social
Embed
* you need to log in to manage your favorites
My Favorites List
You haven't added any favorites yet. Click the "Add Favorite" button on any media page, and they'll show up here.
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Unable to preview the file.
Unable to preview the file.
Yes. 00:00:01
My dad up there. 00:00:11
Oh yeah. 00:00:20
Trying to do development behind. 00:00:28
Is that they want to do itself. 00:00:35
I'm ready. What time are you doing? Are you sure? 00:00:43
Oh yeah. What? What time? 00:00:51
So I didn't catch the end of it. I didn't. 00:00:55
Really, the neighborhood is very. 00:01:05
Yeah. 00:01:18
Connect. 00:01:22
Good chair where staff ready so whenever, yeah. 00:01:26
All right. 00:01:39
Welcome, everybody. Today is Wednesday, July 19th, and this is the Vineyard Planning Commission. We'll get right into things. 00:01:40
Chris will give us a thought indication and Pledge of Allegiance. 00:01:46
We have a workshop item on the agenda tonight that I'm very excited about, so I'm gonna do an initial thought, learning on 00:01:54
privacy, since we're gonna be talking about privacy and planning and the general amendment for it. A little background, as cities 00:02:00
build out and technology is utilized more, there's a lot of opportunity to use technology to benefit citizens and how they engage 00:02:05
in the city and with the people that own properties and businesses. But there's a privacy right you have to balance, you know, you 00:02:11
don't wanna have. 00:02:16
Too much surveillance or any surveillance, people still need to have autonomy, be able to move freely throughout the city and, and 00:02:22
live their lives peacefully and be left alone. So you have to balance development with the new technology that comes and, and, and 00:02:28
balance everybody's rights. So for the thought. 00:02:34
In Code, Utah has a little bit about privacy already of things you have to consider the first one, the applicability to government 00:02:40
entities the legislature recognizes in the Government Records Access and Management Act 2 constitutional rights. 00:02:47
With great tech, we don't want to be Luddites, but let people just be left alone. So I'm very excited for that topic today, and 00:04:24
we'll say that. 00:04:29
To the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with 00:04:38
liberty and justice for all. 00:04:44
Our Father in heaven, we are very grateful that we can be gathered here together as a community, as a Planning Commission, and 00:04:56
with the public in attendance. Please bless us as we convene this meeting that we can be diligent and mindful of the duties and 00:05:03
authority that we've been given, that we can remember the the community and people that we were here to serve and the Constitution 00:05:09
that we. 00:05:15
Please bless us that we can be inspired and that we can make decisions that will benefit not just the citizens of this community, 00:05:22
but those who have to follow after us and live with these decisions for years to come. We're thankful for all you've given us, and 00:05:28
we say these things. Amen, Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Thank you, Chris. All right, we'll move into an open session. This is a time 00:05:34
to make public comments on things that are not on the agenda. 00:05:41
If you want to come forward, state your name and. 00:05:48
You have as much as 3 minutes. 00:05:51
Any public comments? 00:05:55
Hey, Kevin. 00:06:05
Villas 55 plus community Last night we had a great town hall meeting with our City Council people Amber Rasmussen and Christy 00:06:09
Welch and a host of people from the county. 00:06:15
And they were talking it, they mentioned one thing and I'm curious to know what you are planning with this. They mentioned that we 00:06:22
have received a grant for shoreline improvement. 00:06:29
And I was wondering what your plans are for that shoreline improvement and when we might see those improvements start happening. 00:06:35
OK, yeah. So this is something you can talk with staff after. There are plans that we approved at whole shoreline plan and we're 00:06:42
going after grants for each little part of it. And the whole, the whole point of the plan was so that we can go after these 00:06:48
grants. So if you want to talk to staff after, they can send you the details of plans we're thinking about. 00:06:54
And those plans that. 00:07:02
Are going to come through Planning Commission and going to come through the City Council. Some of them, I believe one of them did 00:07:05
like it two years ago, a year and a half ago, and they can send you all the documents. Would that be the one that you have already 00:07:12
received the grant for? They said last night you received a $3,000,000 grant. So we received a 3 million. 00:07:19
The county has a lot of a lot more funding this this year and so we did a an updated grant. 00:07:27
Any other public comments? 00:08:08
My name is Thomas Paul. I've been a resident since 2018. I've been here Utah. 00:08:20
I'm curious what's there, if there are any plans for the intersection that Vineyard, Loop Rd. and Main. I think at the point. I 00:08:26
live in the Springs area. 00:08:32
I think walking across that road is pretty dangerous with children and families and I'm curious if there's any consideration for 00:08:40
either, you know, either a light there or possibly kind of a light with The Walking path across or just easily just a crosswalk 00:08:48
Initially you guys thought brought anything, any thought to that? 00:08:56
Let the engineers speak. Yeah, I can respond to that. We, we are in working on a pedestrian crossing at that, at that intersection 00:09:05
with flashing lights. 00:09:10
Protected crossing and median just like what we're doing on on Center Street by by the school there. OK, perfect. The other thing 00:09:17
again similar crosswalk issue, I guess the. 00:09:24
I mean a few crosswalks off Vineyard Loop Rd. across from the springs to the condos there. I see kids crossing that time off 00:09:34
crossing across that road all the time. 00:09:39
I see people speeding down that road all the time. And so I just see it as I just see it as a potential issue, you know, if kids 00:09:44
trying to go to the school in either direction, you know, the public school or the charter. And I just don't want to see something 00:09:51
happen there. And so I think simply some lines drawn down like you guys are doing right now with the green. I think that would be 00:09:57
pretty easy to do if that's something you guys could possibly consider. 00:10:03
Down the way, yeah. And yeah, that's something that that city staff deals with separately from the Planning Commission. We don't 00:10:11
put in the class box or anything. 00:10:15
Here, So if you want to talk to Scott, they can give you details on timelines or stuff like that and even just reporting concerns 00:10:19
puts it on the radar so that stuff like that can happen. OK, thank you. Talking about the intersection primarily coming out of the 00:10:24
55 up community, the malware drive like that. 00:10:29
Specifically the springs, that's where I mean, that's where I live. That's where I noticed. So yeah, the yeah, it's 80 W St. so 00:10:35
across from there. I live a couple streets in from there. That's why I see Kit. I mean, during the school year, obviously it's 00:10:41
summer now, but during the school year I would see kids coming across there all the time. Got it. And. 00:10:46
That road specifically vineyards with Rd. you know, a lot of people, especially driving, I mean with the amount of residents that 00:10:53
have been put in by the lake, the amount of traffic going down at quite a considerable speed has definitely had an uptick. So I 00:10:58
just don't want to see an issue like that. 00:11:04
Come up, you know, I mean, last thing I want to see outside my house is a kid get hit, you know what I mean? So just want to just 00:11:10
want to see if that's not, you know, I guess something to consider. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks. 00:11:16
Any other public comments? 00:11:24
All right. Seeing as there are none, I will move into meeting meeting minutes for review and approval. There is a motion on. 00:11:28
Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from June 21st, 2023. Thanks, Anthony. Do I have a second? Second. Thanks, Chris. 00:11:35
All in favor, aye. All right, moving on to business item 4.1, site plan, Central Utah Water Conservative Conservancy District. 00:11:42
Well, house #7 do we want to go through all of these at the same time or? OK, so we're going to do 4.14 point 2 and 4.3 all at the 00:11:50
same time because they're basically all the same exact thing. 00:11:57
So. 00:12:05
Who's got this one? 00:12:07
Hello, my name is Anthony Fletcher and I'm a planner here. 00:12:11
So we have these three well sites proposed to be built in the city and you know these sites, these well sites are basically going 00:12:21
to enhance the efficiency and reliability of the water system in the city. So it is a good thing we have them named as well 7. 00:12:32
16 and 17. 00:12:44
And we have well 7 located right around the. 00:12:47
The A side of Trailside Elementary and we have 16 located at the East Geneva area and then we have 17 located right by the 00:12:53
Edgewater homes. 00:12:59
So that's the elevation for. 00:13:08
The site the the well houses that are going to be built, they pretty much look the same and each of these buildings are going to 00:13:12
have a square footage of about 1000 and 4074 square feet. 00:13:20
So that's the 16. 00:13:32
Which has a square footage of 1730. 00:13:34
And well, 17, it's going to have 1700, I mean 1073 as well, square foot. 00:13:39
That's the site plan we have. 00:13:48
This is going to be a full site a well 7. 00:13:53
And we have it all going to it fenced all the way to restrict public access. 00:13:56
It's going to be the same for 16 and 17. That's the 16. 00:14:04
And we got a site plan for 17 and all these are going to have some landscape around it. 00:14:09
That's the landscape plan. 00:14:17
17. 00:14:22
Now, well, 16 is going to. 00:14:25
Have conditional use permit to have it developed and we did tell the Central Utah Water guys to have that applied. So they have 00:14:29
done the application and we will be presenting that in the next meeting. 00:14:37
So. 00:14:47
I propose a move to approve the side plan as requested by Sean from Central use of water with the proposed conditions. Thank you. 00:14:48
Thanks. Any questions? 00:14:54
The reason for the conditional use permit for was that number 171616 is because it's in a zoning area that it's not committed. It 00:15:02
needs a conditional experiment still still the same plans as the other ones. Nothing different or really special about that one 00:15:09
other than it's in its own that it just needs a conditional use. 00:15:17
We'll we'll have that back to you in two weeks. Next meeting. Yeah, yeah. 00:15:26
And so if you approved it with the conditions of the staff report that that would have proved that one with the Commission that 00:15:32
for the conditional use permit. So they wouldn't be able to submit a bill implement until that the CPS completed. Yep. 00:15:38
If someone makes a motion on this, can it be a motion for all three or do we need to do them on separately? 00:15:46
You can do the motion for all three. I would just you know, if you if you state that you might want to just say maybe add well 00:15:52
site 716 and 17. 00:15:58
Do I have a motion? I have a question on the that one is by Edge Edge Townhomes. Is that correct? It's one that they're currently 00:16:07
drilling, right? 00:16:11
Yeah. 00:16:17
Yeah, yeah, Geneva Road and where X development is. So is that one, because right now it's a dirt Rd. easement is that I'm 00:16:19
assuming that's all gonna be developed with a page Rd. So that's account for enough, OK. 00:16:25
Any other questions? 00:16:34
I'm making the assumption, the one that's by Trailside Elementary, that they are going to restore back the trail full access I 00:16:37
guess, right? It's hard to tell. Is it going to close access to the trail? 00:16:43
Yes, during construction. 00:16:53
Yeah, so what's the black? 00:16:58
The black patching going around there. 00:17:01
Yeah. 00:17:04
Ohh when? 00:17:08
Right here OK but I think I said you bring up a good point I think that that's a worthwhile condition to put in there is that the 00:17:11
trail and the safe access to school for kids the. 00:17:17
Uninterrupted there. I'd say maintain. I mean, they've been drilling right now and you can get there, but I have had my child come 00:17:24
home on more than one occasion with super muddy shoes. And so they're just not maintaining their full construction area, I guess. 00:17:32
So I mean, it's maintained, it's just not clean. That's all. Right. So for Saint Patrick, the maintaining. 00:17:41
Travel access. So they they they may have to reroute during construction, but at least making sure that there's still trail access 00:17:50
during construction and that the trail is restored. 00:17:54
So yeah, you can add that in the condition. 00:18:01
Do you want to make a motion? Yeah, I can make a motion. 00:18:05
To approve site plans for well House 716 and 17 as represented or as present tonight, along with the conditions discussed. 00:18:12
And I would say with the conditions in the staff report, with conditions discussed tonight and in the staff report. 00:18:26
Do I have a second? 00:18:34
I'll second that. Thanks, Anthony. All in favor. 00:18:37
Alright, moving to Item 4.4, the zoning text Amendment 15 point 12.060 for the dimensional standards table. 00:18:41
All right, this one is new once this pops up. 00:18:55
A little presentation and also the applicant is here. If you do have any questions, I myself or the applicant can hopefully answer 00:18:58
any of those. It just takes a second to load. 00:19:03
All right. 00:19:11
OK. So as you mentioned, this is a zoning text amendment for the dimensional standards table and this specific request is to 00:19:17
increase the building height within the RMU zone. 00:19:22
Just a little background on this application. It is being applied for by a developer, by an applicant, and their desire for the 00:19:27
zoning text amendment is to increase the building height, the maximum building height from 60 feet to 70 feet. This will only 00:19:35
apply to the regional mixed-use zone, as you can see in this little map off to the right, that's everywhere in that Peach color. 00:19:42
And what I have highlighted there is there's only currently 2 undeveloped partials in the RMU and that's what's in yellow. 00:19:51
Within that Peach color, however, this zoning test would apply to all future development as well as redevelopment. 00:19:58
So this is essentially the zoning text amendment is just striking the 60 turned into 70. 00:20:08
And so that's all I have. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. 00:20:16
Just to clarify, for the RMU, we have a maximum on the residential units that can be put there and we've reached the maximum, 00:20:22
correct? The maximum residential has been capped there and so this would not allow for future residential in this area. 00:20:30
OK. You guys have any questions? 00:20:38
I, I think a little background. Yeah, yeah. Just as a public hearing. So when you're done, you may want to have the apple come up 00:20:42
and then open, officially open a public hearing after that. Yeah, Yeah. So Brian Bird and his team are here as well, but they are 00:20:49
applying for this as they're proposing here in the next few few weeks or months. They own kind of that like pie quarter pie piece 00:20:56
of land across from the HBA building. 00:21:04
And they are planning on payments of office buildings. There is they submitted their application. Upon our review, we realize that 00:21:11
the buildings did sit above the 60 feet. I don't remember the exact height, but it was just barely above that 60 feet until they 00:21:17
applied for this zoning text amendment to be able to accommodate those buildings for for reference. How tall is that Home Builders 00:21:24
association? I'm glad you asked. I haven't pulled up so I have that right here it is 52 feet. 00:21:30
Just like slightly taller than that then OK. 00:21:38
Would you guys mind coming up and kind of discussing what your thoughts are, what your project plans are, kind of the reasoning 00:21:41
behind the one change? 00:21:46
So do you have a copy of that rendering? 00:21:52
Yeah, I can. I can pull that up. 00:21:55
So our goal is to just. 00:22:02
For sale office space, 3 buildings of four stories, so Class A so you know, still in concrete. 00:22:05
We're worried about maybe some of the rooftop equipment as far as height because we don't know how that. 00:22:14
Applies with the zoning, you know, as far as the height. So that was the reason to bump it up just to make sure we can get what we 00:22:18
need up on top and then still have some floor to ceiling heights that are a little taller so that we can get the four stories. 00:22:25
That's kind of a rendering of what we're looking at doing. 00:22:32
And I think that line shows the height. 00:22:39
At well, that's 69. Yeah. And that's with all the equipment. Yeah. So your zoning ordinance would be a foot taller than what that 00:22:42
line shows. And how many of these buildings is 3/3 of them? Yep. OK. 00:22:49
OK, so the HBA or Home Building Association building is tall, but it's also below the grade of the roadway. 00:22:57
So it doesn't look that far. And so I guess my own question is, is. 00:23:07
How will it look? Yeah, I mean, obviously it'll be taller. Yeah. Like, is there a way to explore instead of saying Max 60 feet, we 00:23:13
say Max height above grade, whatever. And then like, you'd have to obviously have to dig down a little bit. But yeah, with the 00:23:19
water table, we want to stay where we're at is what we're seeing. I don't know if you, you know, I don't know what their site look 00:23:25
like or what the soils were. 00:23:31
We need to stay at grade to do what we're doing. Our footings are pretty massive. 00:23:37
So to go four stories, the difference in structural engineering between a three story and a four story, you jump. 00:23:42
Requirements or whatever that is so we would be going down that the size of the footings are much larger. We got to keep them up 00:23:49
out of the water table that that's part of it. I think a lot of the stuff you guys are designing for your downtown district is all 00:23:56
this dollar taller, correct. We had a meeting with the mayor and a bunch of people probably a year ago and she really wanted. 00:24:04
The height of the building, so we're trying to work on like a multi family thing South of this. So our S half of our property 00:24:12
won't retail bottom with some units stacked on top. So she, you know, and the planners that you've hired, I think wanted like 00:24:18
taller looking buildings towards the face. Is that right, Morgan? I don't want to speak for her the different meetings we've had, 00:24:25
but we think this would be nicely, I mean, and we felt like in in, in that area on that corridor. 00:24:32
Four stories seem to to to be appropriate and looking at. 00:24:40
Kind of impacts to from the residential units, they actually seem very minimal and you go across the tracks on the West side we. 00:24:44
Most of your view lines to the mountains are going to be are are pretty much like there's not really like a like a big view line 00:24:57
that would be interrupted from that building. Really the main spot was on from the townhomes looking South and so from the edge 00:25:03
hometown. 00:25:08
That appears from just like a pedestrian perspective where, you know, adding the 10 feet that you might have more of an impact. 00:25:16
But other than that, from like the West side of the tracks, we didn't appear. They didn't appear to be much. 00:25:24
This is a district that from our economic development standpoint like this is where we would like to see more employment. It's in 00:25:35
a, it's in a great corridor. We are working with ARM on widening Center Street where. 00:25:42
Working with up right now Union Pacific to remove the spur line that runs along Geneva Rd. which then allows us to have U dot 00:25:50
widen sedentary because that, that's kind of where that the pinch point is from a traffic perspective. But we have we we feel like 00:25:57
this, this actually would be a really good spot to add employment, especially with with what restaurants around it. I mean, it's, 00:26:05
it's, it's one of those uses that we think would actually go really well right here. 00:26:12
We also. 00:26:21
I don't want to be misinstrued that I'm completely against it. I'm just trying to think of ideas that can even though we're 00:26:23
raising that can still soften I guess. Yeah, what makes sense and I know that site development, but just the thoughts. The other 00:26:29
thing we did to address that is we have different options. We also stacked the buildings running lengthwise longer North and South 00:26:35
so that there is corridors between the buildings instead of turning them parallel to the Edgewater to the north, you know, as far 00:26:41
as views, so. 00:26:46
They're, they're skinnier, you know, so they're North and South. 00:26:53
Versus like the home village association building has faced the road. So I'd be like turning the home builders building sideways 00:26:57
North and South. They'd give more of a view South. 00:27:01
But you know, did you say you were working on a residential? Yeah, South. So on the same piece, we're just, we're still trying to 00:27:06
figure out how to park it. What, you know, how to make the retail work below the units on top. So we're not. I thought we were so 00:27:13
that that that would require another zoning text amendment. RMU does, like we mentioned, has that residential cap. And so they 00:27:21
would have to go through a zoning text amendment, get, you know, the recommendation from Planning Commission approval from. 00:27:28
To to do that. 00:27:36
So is the anticipated height then of the residential units we would we would like to go. So if you're familiar with like what ITO 00:27:38
Ivory's doing around Macy's, University Mall. 00:27:44
So that's what we would like something like that. So retail bottom side, so kind of where the play area is, you know, as you go 00:27:51
past Macy's, you're out behind over by the AL's Sporting Goods, kind of that look. You know, obviously different colors get 00:27:58
different scheme just to support retail. We need the rooftops, you know, so. 00:28:05
That's kind of our goal. Of course, you guys can say yes or no, we think you'd like it, but. 00:28:14
Any other questions? So if they did that, they would come back in a second phase on the South part of that lot and then they they 00:28:20
make, they would request a text amendment and they'd go through a similar process. 00:28:26
But like that, tonight is just the height. 00:28:34
Right. 00:28:37
OK. Any other questions for them before we open it up for the public hearing? 00:28:39
All right. I think that's all the questions for us. Thank you. Thanks. All right, so before we open it up to a public hearing, 00:28:45
again, kind of the same thing as it was within open session, come state your name. You have 3 minutes to make your comments before 00:28:51
you come up. It's usually best to think of what you want to say instead of kind of stumbling about as that way you can get more 00:28:57
information in your 3 minutes. 00:29:03
Also you can ask questions and I will write down your questions. 00:29:10
And then we'll go throughout the questions after. So if you have any questions, I'll write them down and I'll make sure that they 00:29:14
get asked. So I have a motion to open up a public hearing. Make a motion to open the public hearing for do I have to say sure? 00:29:21
Yeah, for zoning text amendment 15 point 12.060. Do I have a second? 00:29:28
Second, all in favor? 00:29:36
All right. 00:29:39
Hi, my name is Angela Trigo, I live in Parkside and have been talking with some of the residents along Parkside and Willows area 00:29:44
and we would like to recommend that you do not pass this. 00:29:50
As you know, you are the gatekeepers of the general plan, and every time we add a little change here and a little change there, 00:29:58
it's like the little boy in the ****. You got one right? You get 1 hole, you can stick a finger in it and you can fix it and it 00:30:06
works. But all of a sudden you start approving a lot of these small changes and your **** fails. 00:30:14
I'm concerned that we're moving towards that area and so I'm going to ask that the Planning Commission really takes hold to what 00:30:23
your job is, which is to stay true to the general plan. 00:30:29
I'm afraid that as we move from 60 to 70 feet, while that doesn't seem like a lot, any building that goes in in the future could 00:30:37
potentially ruin views. Topgolf actually already hinders my view and that's not that tall. Luckily it's see through mostly. 00:30:45
But this idea that no, it's not going to affect a lot of the views, even for people that are on the far West side of the tracks. 00:30:55
Isn't true. These things are going to start to affect our views and everybody in the townhome area. 00:31:02
I think additionally the fact that they want to include additional residents. 00:31:09
What's that going to do to our traffic? It's just going to continue to increase traffic issues that we currently don't have 00:31:14
resolved. And quite honestly, we don't have the power to change such as Orem Center Street, right? We're we're at the mercy of 00:31:20
what is the Orem city in U dot going to do? So I would like to recommend that you do not pass this in any way, shape or form. 00:31:27
Vineyard is in a unique situation where you have the power. 00:31:34
There is limited resources in Utah County. 00:31:42
And so we can hold these developers accountable to get in good businesses and good things into our city, but not ruin our view, 00:31:45
not increase traffic issues and other negatives that occur of that. Thank you. 00:31:52
My name is Tyler Harrelson. 00:32:10
I'm a resident on Mill Rd. I live just north of where this area is. 00:32:12
And I used to live right across the street at the Concorde Geneva apartments. I recently moved. 00:32:18
As far as the actual height requirement, I already, I mean the buildings there are tall enough that can't really see from Morgan 00:32:22
was talking about a pedestrian point of view. It's kind of hard to see as it is. So I don't think there would be much concern from 00:32:29
my point of view if I'm trying to look at the mountains or the lake. 00:32:35
Not a huge concern. You can also see right through the buildings, like every morning when I take my dog out on a walk. 00:32:44
We're walking through all sorts of buildings, so unless someone is really, really determined to look out their their back window, 00:32:50
my development at least. 00:32:54
Just looking at the back window for like however long they want to. I don't think I've ever seen someone just sit there and just 00:32:59
stare. But if they wanted to then that might mess with that. My bigger concern was I saw there was a set back proposal condition 00:33:06
that you could have added that was suggested. I have been not super happy with how mixed-use this has been. The entire area has 00:33:13
been in general. 00:33:20
Obviously, as you've noted, it's pretty much all been residential. 00:33:28
Except for when you get near the forge, which is not. 00:33:32
And it's sort of mixed-use, but you do have to walk quite a while before if you're in residential to get to commercial. And I'm 00:33:36
not super happy with how walkable the areas are. A lot of the intersections are not super safe. The middle road is really large 00:33:42
and there's no sidewalks connecting everywhere. But I would like to hear what staff has to say about how adding an additional set 00:33:47
back would influence that. That makes it so you have to walk that much farther to get to, in this case, an office building where 00:33:53
you work. 00:33:58
Also in this development, not necessarily in this proposal exactly. 00:34:05
I'm concerned about the access, walkability access to like the DQ and those those commercial businesses over there right now it's 00:34:10
pretty dangerous to walk on the internal St. there. 00:34:15
And obviously going on. 00:34:21
Hill Rd. is also concerning so. 00:34:24
Thanks, Taylor. 00:34:26
I will just no, sorry, I'll come back to that. 00:34:28
I'm Daria Evans. 00:34:41
Villas resident. 00:34:45
I'm here to persuade you to. 00:34:46
Keep the zoning. 00:34:50
As it is. 00:34:52
If you start with this amendment. 00:34:58
Then you'll have to. 00:35:02
Address other amendments with their residents that he wants to bring in and also the view amendments. I mean the the zoning 15.36 00:35:04
point 030.1.8 I you know about the views because it says all views are to be all views are to be. 00:35:15
I'm sorry, I can't say this correctly. The Max permitted height is 60 feet. 00:35:29
And so you'd have to change that zoning and also the next 115.36 point 032. 00:35:34
Due to community quality and character created by the surrounding scenic beauty, it is essential that the city and also divisions 00:35:44
and site plan designs preserve general access to significant views. These views include Mount Timpanogos, Provo Canyon, West 00:35:51
Mountain and Utah Lake. So those things would have to be addressed also along with you changing this zoning and the amendment for 00:35:58
the residents that they want to bring in. 00:36:04
Once you start changing one. 00:36:12
It's just, you know, one thing leads to another. 00:36:14
And you're going to lose all. 00:36:19
Sense of. 00:36:22
Like she said, power, you know, and I think you guys are, you gentlemen are doing a good job. 00:36:23
And what you're doing and I would like to see you preserve the integrity of our general plan also. So I hope that I'm persuading 00:36:31
you that you need to keep what you've what you've already got. And because if future developers want to come in or redevelopers, 00:36:39
well, this guy got 10 more feet, I would like 20 more feet and then you're going to have. 00:36:48
Just keep rehashing yourself. 00:36:58
Same problem, so thank you very much for your time. 00:37:01
Hi, my name is Jordan. I live in the preserve. 00:37:19
This feels like a very marginal change. It feels like. 00:37:23
I feel like the the organizations who aren't flexible enough to make marginal changes become very brittle, become very power 00:37:28
hungry organizations. I don't think we need to do that as a city. 00:37:33
But I think, like Tyler was saying, most of the residents around that area would benefit more from focusing on pedestrianizing the 00:37:41
area rather than nitpicking a few feet on a building. 00:37:46
Yeah. Thank you. Thanks. 00:37:52
Hi, Dale Tedro, also from the Villas, one of the reasons that we purchased in Vineyard, we've been following Leisure Villas up and 00:38:07
down the Wasatch Front as they built different 55 plus communities. And so we would be in the different cities in West, South 00:38:15
Jordan, West Jordan, out on Pioneer Crossing, a variety of different places, Springville. 00:38:24
And those, most of Springville, not so much, but most of those places. 00:38:33
You can tell we're absent a master plan, a general plan. 00:38:37
It looked like they built attractive homes and then, oh, then we need this. And so they put this in and and so on. And Vineyard 00:38:42
had a general plan. 00:38:47
And it was organized and it looked good and it looked like a place I wanted to live. We waited three years for the particular unit 00:38:53
we're in so that we could have the view that we have and if we lived in our motor home for a while. 00:39:00
We sold it, by the way, we don't have a motor home anymore, so. 00:39:09
We don't want to give that up and we don't want chaos here. And that is one thing I usually, I don't show up here very often, but 00:39:15
I, I do read the minutes and so on and. 00:39:20
It seems like almost every time a new project starts, there's got to be some variation of the general plan. And I know some of 00:39:26
that is necessary, but we don't need this. We don't need to go up higher. We had a meeting last night with the developers of of 00:39:34
the downtown Utah City and we talked a lot about height and we care about that and we hope that you will will listen. 00:39:42
Thanks. 00:39:51
Thank you, Dale. 00:39:53
Any other public comments? 00:39:57
All right, seeing as there are none, drive a motion to close the public hearing. 00:40:02
Yeah, I need to close the public hearing. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor, Aye. 00:40:07
All right. Any other questions you guys want to ask or feedback you want to? 00:40:14
One question I had and it is a concern I have is where possible, I like to make changes completely like if we, if we know if we 00:40:19
anticipate future changes, I'd like to see. 00:40:26
All them upfront just so we can address them holistically like if, if there is a residential change there because then it is kind 00:40:34
of piece mealing it a little bit. Not that I'm saying I'm opposed to height or residential, but just as a general practice trying 00:40:40
to address. 00:40:47
All known text amendments up front that was that was more of a comment than a question, but can I add to that? So is there 00:40:54
similarly, I agree it would be nice if we know what's coming within a reasonable degree. 00:41:01
To develop. 00:41:09
The development agreement or I don't know if that's the right term, but is that the right term? 00:41:10
Yeah, a development agreement is a process that that that the city could engage in with what the problem, but it doesn't need to 00:41:16
go through that process. There's so many amendments, there's zone changes. Yeah. So I guess the other thing is if we have other 00:41:21
things that are coming up, would it make more sense to just put them all together in one package of some of sorts, whatever that 00:41:26
is and then. 00:41:32
It just addresses that and we wouldn't necessarily have to change zoning to the whole thing. It's just like for this development, 00:41:38
it gets we agreed to terms XY and Z. Yes, I I see, I see what you're saying. And that's one of these things like a run by from a 00:41:44
just a legal land use, you know, Utah State law kind of thing. I can run by by our our legal counsel. But but yeah, typically a 00:41:50
development agreement allows you to essentially take your underlying zoning as like the base zone and then make modifications on 00:41:56
top of that. 00:42:02
That's a very common thing for like situations like this where you don't necessarily want it to apply to the entire city or to a 00:42:08
entire district, but you want to have a zoning approval that is site specific and this is attached to plans. And so you can do 00:42:15
that too. So oftentimes we'll, you know, I've seen that in other cities where they'll have basically a development with plans and 00:42:23
like landscaping, it can go as far down in detail as you want that are all part of an agreement that that gets approved. 00:42:30
Planning Commission and City Council. So that's, that's definitely a, you know, a route that the, the applicant can take as well. 00:42:38
Yeah, I was just thinking cuz is there also any merit if we change the height here to, I can't remember what other zoning things 00:42:44
she mentioned that we have to trickle down and change other codes as well. 00:42:51
So they're they're at this pleasure. Why are you guys? No, you're good. I was just going to say that those sections of code don't 00:42:59
have a specific height, like limited. It doesn't say 60 feet. And so you wouldn't have to specifically change that. It's one of 00:43:06
those things where our code just says we need to protect the views of things such as Utah, Lake of Mountain, Benoit. But there's 00:43:13
there's not anywhere to my knowledge in the code that that does say that 60 feet besides this. 00:43:20
Yeah, to, but those are good guidelines. 00:43:28
And I think, I think that that is important that day you look, look at those things, that doesn't necessarily mean you can't make 00:43:31
amendments, but you know, there's, there's like kind of the, the qualitative review. And that's something that that you could look 00:43:39
at as well. We have in the past had had applicants provide perspectives where they, they actually show up from a pedestrian point 00:43:46
of view how, how it looks or from, you know, someone in one of the apartment units maybe on the 2nd floor to see kind of where. 00:43:54
You know, if you go from 60 to 70, what kind of view lines are going to are going to be blocked? I mean that that is that is 00:44:02
within the purview of the Planning Commission if you if you wanted to, to request something like that. But yeah, so you do have 00:44:09
like, so as a Planning Commission, you have to kind of weigh kind of qualitative measurement of, you know, aspirationally the city 00:44:16
wants to preserve views because that's what makes vineyards so amazing. You have the lake, you have the mountains. 00:44:22
But it's not it's, it's not from like a code based thing. It's not saying like you, you can't go up, I mean. 00:44:30
In any foot above grade is going to provide some, some sort of impact. And so it's, it's up to you as a Planning Commission to, to 00:44:36
see, you know, qualitatively or, or are you meaning that? But it's not like a quantitative measurement like like you would in a 00:44:42
specific zone that says, you know, 60 feet, 70 feet, that's, that's very measurable. 00:44:49
OK. Thank you, Ed. 00:44:56
As those just thoughts really, I mean, I just try to make the most sense of what seems to go forward because I do agree it does if 00:44:59
we know if we're going to continue, not necessarily on purpose to come back and ask for changes. That was my only request so. 00:45:05
I have a few questions. So how tall were the apartments across from that and then the Edgewater townhomes? 00:45:15
As well, we, we could do that, that, that research, but we probably would want to have because when we do measure height and this 00:45:21
is where sometimes it's taking that elevation, it's not always 100% accurate from a height measurement. We take the back of top of 00:45:28
curb. And so you take where your curve is on the street and you draw your line straight out to the building and then you measure 00:45:35
up. So anything below that isn't part of the, the, the calculation. It's based off of where your street. 00:45:42
Basically the curb line is from there and so. 00:45:49
But that's information you'd like. We can pull that up, but we, you know, we'd probably want to. 00:45:52
Do some some good research on that as opposed to just kind of pulling it up in this meeting. But if you like, we're happy to do 00:45:59
that research. I will say the the ones directly across the street, there are four story residential buildings, the Edgewater 00:46:04
townhomes to the north. Those are three stories. 00:46:10
Plus BF. 00:46:17
But if you want like the feet, because that's how we're kind of measuring this and then we could go and pull elevations and get 00:46:19
that. Actually, I think Brian's team built a good chunk of development on Mill Rd. so they would have access to that information 00:46:25
too. And then on on the traffic, I know we've discussed the the size of that road. So as far as I'm aware, traffic concerns at 00:46:31
least. 00:46:38
Through traffic increased height there may be you know it allows. 00:46:45
More cars will be coming there and more people in the building, but there's not any expected major traffic concerns. But the 00:46:49
capacity that's there right now. Yeah, the road itself was built to accommodate full build out. Now this obviously would provide a 00:46:55
slight increase above kind of what that base was, but it was built kind of beyond that. That's a question. Let's see, maybe I'll 00:47:02
ask a little better. But that that's another thing as part of zoning changes you are you are allowed to request. 00:47:09
You know, an analysis of other impacts and so if that's one that that you'd like to see you, you could I was going to say that 00:47:17
they have done a traffic study on this side. 00:47:21
To show that do we have it where I can just because it wasn't related to the building height, I didn't bring that I don't have 00:47:26
that ready and that's one of those if you wanted some feedback from our engineering team in another meeting that would give them 00:47:33
some time to digest that and provide you like a really specific like will this need there's a drop the level of service like that 00:47:40
and and I do think that it does impact that because. 00:47:47
If we're raising it 10 feet, which means adding another story, that's. 00:47:55
Story of office building. Like that's more space, that's more cheaper. 00:47:58
Everything does have to be said into the mic. 00:48:04
My name is Ryan Pullman. 00:48:08
I'm with Brian. 00:48:13
We could just make the purpose flat and it would get underneath it and it wouldn't be as aesthetically pleasing. 00:48:15
So we could just go back and say, OK, well, let's just pull them all flat. It's not going to be as good looking in the building 00:48:22
and we'd be underneath the height. 00:48:25
So that that's kind of the balance of, you know, of trying to make it more aesthetically pleasing with some iterations of sizing 00:48:29
and the equipment up there. 00:48:34
And that is compared to just making a flat, but it's not an issue of pulling it down by a whole story. 11 thought that I've been 00:48:41
having as we've been discussing is right now, you know it's at 60 feet. People bought the property knowing that what the zoning 00:48:46
code is right now. 00:48:51
I'm wondering if there's ways that we could word this where it would allow for people to come in and ask for maybe it is a 10 foot 00:48:58
variance if it's just for aesthetics. 00:49:03
Rather than adding another floor. That way it doesn't fundamentally change, but I would also want to tie to it that. 00:49:07
Sight lines, if that's what we're trying to preserve, then we'd need to see renderings to say, well, what would it look like here? 00:49:15
And if it still meets the intent and you can still see what people would want to see, then maybe it's a green light. Or if you 00:49:21
see, hey, that actually blocks the whole Mountain View, which is therefore detrimental or the antithesis of our general plan and 00:49:27
then it's a no go. So I think that's. 00:49:32
One thing we could consider moving forward. 00:49:39
What was something like this? Because yeah, where it sounds like it's not fundamentally changing the building necessarily, it's 00:49:42
more of putting equipment up on top rather than putting it in a place that wouldn't be as as pleasing, but, you know, could, could 00:49:48
still add some issues with the views. Just trying to think of ways that we could. 00:49:54
Control that in the site plan process, right. And then maybe a question for for Brian's team is if like have you looked at options 00:50:03
for doing like ground mounted equipment? 00:50:10
Maybe having less of a of the equipment on the roof and doing the ground is that, is that something? 00:50:17
OK. So the equipment is just too large? 00:50:32
These are like, it's not like residential rooftop units. It's the equipment's too large. You guys also have a zoning ordinance 00:50:36
that requires so much open space and also Plaza space, 2 separate items, right? And so to have those areas, you know, it doesn't, 00:50:43
we don't want those down there where those are at or they'll be hearing that equipment sound. As far as views, just put yourself 00:50:50
where this property sits, right? So to the east of it is a concrete masonry wall with probably graffiti right from the strip mall. 00:50:58
Across from it is the Maverick convenience gas station store Starbucks. Full of cars, right? 00:51:06
An office building to the South. So I don't know where the views are. Everybody that's out here, the Leisure Villas is a mile and 00:51:13
a half W Her view will not be obstructed. We don't want this zone in the residential area. So we're not asking to change. We're 00:51:19
not trying to pillage, you know, residential neighborhoods. We developed the property to the North Edgewater. We developed the 00:51:24
Vine Apartments to the across the street. 00:51:30
If you look at the views, I mean depending on which apartment building you live in, whether it's the Alloy or Concord. 00:51:38
Their views are already obstructed by their own buildings. 00:51:45
You have a How many residents are in the city vineyard right now? What are you up to? 00:51:49
20,000. 00:51:54
I heard two comments of concerned people, which everybody has their view. We don't think we're a pillaging developer. We actually 00:51:57
think we do a lot of good for the city at that general plan that was created. Why did they change then? Right? There's always 00:52:04
changes. You guys didn't have the current zone until you made the change. That's just that's how life works. Does that make sense? 00:52:10
We I know you can always be afraid of adding that next 10 feet. That's always the worry or the finger and the ****. 00:52:17
Where's the, where's the, you know, where's that water issue? It's, it's a building. 00:52:25
We think it's going to be good looking. We actually think the views, the people to the north are probably the only people having a 00:52:29
destructive view and their obstruction is air and the current Maverick. So I actually think their views will increase. 00:52:36
You know again. 00:52:45
RMU is all we're talking about, right? We're not trying to change the neighborhood by Parkside. We're not trying to change the 00:53:17
neighborhood by Leisure Villas. We got railroad track with front runner running on it. All right. We got a pedestrian area. Your 00:53:24
planning staff you guys have hired who are super professional in their job. The reason it's taken 2 years is they're so detailed. 00:53:32
They believe a walkable community is is what's needed and to make a walkable community happen, you need to have. 00:53:39
Of those buildings. But anyway, yeah, it is a change, but so is the current plan that you guys are all representing. I sat on 00:53:47
Provost City's Planning Commission did the same thing you guys did. We wouldn't have a planning. We don't need a Planning 00:53:52
Commission if there was never an opportunity to make a change or to make our city better. Does that make sense? Developers don't 00:53:58
make cities worse. You know, we're not bringing a strip club. We're not bringing a bar. You know, this, this is a building. It's a 00:54:03
four story building. It's not a high rise. 00:54:09
You know, it's, you know, you got a Provo, you got an arm, They got buildings taller than this. 00:54:15
But if you don't want it, we'll just build a strip mall. We don't care. 00:54:51
It's what tenants want fresher space. So if you go to Lehigh and again, you guys may not want to be those cities, right? Your 00:55:24
Vineyard, you may want to be different than Lehigh's office buildings that are being built and you want to be different than 00:55:29
Pleasant Grove buildings built. But just go toward those buildings and go towards Old Town buildings where they're lower heights. 00:55:35
So for us to get tenants, we got to have taller Florida ceiling heights and that's that's what's getting a silver. So we're like, 00:55:40
we're about four feet over right now. 00:55:45
Is that yeah, I think you're at like we're 65 with the mechanical. So we're, yeah, we're like 4 feet over and we could play with 00:55:52
the with your current code, we could play with your top of curb thing. 00:55:57
Does that make sense? Like we can raise our grade? 00:56:03
You know, we can raise our grade and go with your code and block as much view as we're asking you to do, right? So if the 00:56:06
building's built around us already set at an elevation, they can't raise or lower, correct? We can raise our grade, put in our 00:56:11
curb and gutter and then stay at your 60 feet and that neighbor would have the same obstruction. So we're really just trying to do 00:56:17
it the right way. 00:56:23
Does that, does that make sense? Like I we could raise, we could bring in four foot of fill, put our carbon gutter on it, hit your 00:56:30
60 foot ordinance. 00:56:33
And we're higher than if we brought the grade down a foot so that we're still out of the water table and that's where the 10 feet. 00:56:38
We're just trying to be, you know, a lot of people give developers crap, but you know, if there weren't developers, none of them 00:56:47
would have the hust they live in currently. And so as I said, I appreciate Sharon just. 00:56:53
I'm not a professional planner, so just take what I'm saying is just I'm just trying to make the best decisions I can as well. You 00:56:59
know, 'cause. 00:57:03
I haven't been working on it on two years and I get it, you know. 00:57:07
Couple, couple days in advance, try to look at it, make the best decision. So sure, take what I'm saying, yeah, I'm just trying to 00:57:12
explore and understand best I can and. 00:57:17
Try to make the best choice that thing everybody is. But so if we if we could clarify just a couple things. So we do have 00:57:22
standards in the code about the roof line. We do require the roof line to undulate and mechanical equipment on a roof line on 00:57:29
roofs still have to be screened regardless of the height. And so maybe it's less elaborate or less green, but there, there still 00:57:37
are some some screen even if it's a one story it is mechanical. 00:57:44
And so. 00:58:23
So anyway, I just want to clarify a few those. And then there was I think there's been some some kind of maybe a little 00:58:24
miscommunication or some made a Little Mix up on the general plan and the zoning. So I don't know if cash you want to kind of just 00:58:30
do that. This is a zoning amendment. And I think some of the residents have talked about the general plan. The general plan is, is 00:58:36
something that is set in place and the general plan is what guides these these types of decisions. And so because the general plan 00:58:42
is like the guiding principle. 00:58:48
Zoning is how you implement the general plan. So that's why I was saying the general plan. You look at it and there's a lot of 00:58:54
qualitative things there and you go, OK, it's kind of up to you to try and interpret that and do the best you can to try and meet 00:59:01
the intent of the general plan. And so I just wanted to provide a little clarification on those points. Thanks. 00:59:07
Do you guys have any other what? What is the option if? 00:59:15
I mean there's value in high quality. Nice building the location. I have it up on maps, but I'm uncomfortable with the entire. 00:59:18
RMU having a new 70 foot limit, especially because I think there will be redevelopment, the lands become more valuable and so so. 00:59:27
Like a special use zoning district where you can do a specific zoning ordinance that would guide the development of that site. And 01:00:07
so if you wanted to make it site specific, but I know that's a concern, is that essentially you provide redevelopment 01:00:13
opportunities that could go up to 70 feet. The other is, as Commissioner bonehead had suggested, was doing a development 01:00:19
agreement. Development agreement is the ability for the City Council to enter into an agreement specifically. 01:00:25
On that site with the property owners and they could attach actual plans to it and they could say, OK, you know, we're going to 01:00:32
agree to these plans. And then there's, you know, we want as a city, we want like AB and C to, to, to happen on that site as well. 01:00:39
And so it provides kind of it's like a, an additional tool that that the city, City Council can utilize to make something more 01:00:47
site specific and then the special zoning district. So there's different ways of getting there. And we're this is the text 01:00:53
amendment approach to to the district. We were pretty comfortable with that because we felt like the RMU district itself is, is 01:00:59
fairly built out. You do have. 01:01:05
A couple pads that this could be utilized on if you saw like redevelopment. 01:01:12
Of the commercial areas, I mean typically you're that's a 20 to 40 year time period where you might see some of those other sites 01:01:17
redeveloped, but that would be several decades out. And those are sites that are kind of pushed further to Geneva Rd. So from I 01:01:23
guess staff standpoint, we didn't feel like there there would be a major impact even from our redevelopment perspective in the 01:01:29
future because like what could redevelop it actually could be a fairly positive redevelopment because you do right now have kind 01:01:35
of like. 01:01:41
The strip retail and there's nothing we're not dot dog of that, but you know, sometimes if there was a redevelopment in 20 years 01:01:47
from now, you know, that could actually be a mechanism to help it be redeveloped a higher and greater use and it's closer to 01:01:55
Geneva Road. And so you know, and these buildings would would shield basically that that retail development if it if we did see 01:02:02
redevelopment site. So so knowing that another amendment would have to come for also. 01:02:10
Increased residential, is that correct? And and we realized that would be an extra height as well. And I think there are concerns 01:02:17
of just everything being able to be 70 feet. Now I think everybody would agree we don't want strip malls and vineyards either. I'd 01:02:25
hate to have just no, it wouldn't be there, but it wouldn't be 70 feet though, because residential 9 foot ceilings are different 01:02:32
than a 12 to 14 for commercial office. So if you, if you did say, if you did four story, if you did a four story 9 foot, right. 01:02:40
Even if you went 10 feet, you're 40 feet. 01:02:47
And then say retail, so if your retail is 12, so you're 52. So it's not a I'm just saying you can get, we could get the 01:02:51
residential under the 60. 01:02:56
Do we have AI don't I don't know what is your height? What's your height? Yeah, inside my units like like to add to add to add 01:03:02
more units what would require because there's no more residents. So I would I would be more comfortable with an approach of what 01:03:08
is a a development agreement and not increasing the 70 feet for the entire zone. 01:03:14
And having the discussion from that perspective and look at the project as a whole of what it would add and incorporate the 01:03:21
residential aspect to it as well. 01:03:25
Was this the same Planning Commission that gave extra units to Top Golf? 01:03:33
This is OK. I was wondering this is the same Planning Commission so. 01:03:39
This is the same Planning Commission, but also talked often building units. I believe you own some of these. We were talking about 01:03:47
the units. Yeah, I know you own some of the units in the regional mixed-use and none of it got mixed when you build those units. 01:03:53
No, I didn't. I didn't use any of those. Well, do you own any of the property in there buying at all? I don't. Well, this got 01:03:59
built out. This whole development got built out and actually. 01:04:04
I believe it got denied in the Planning Commission for those extra units. And if I see residential units again, 100% I'm denying 01:04:11
it because this area is built out. It's a regional mixed-use. It's only residential. There's like almost no mixed-use. And now at 01:04:19
this point, it's not going to be a we need residential to add make like commercial at this point for me, not a chance like. 01:04:27
To make a mixed-use, you add a commercial because there's already residential so. 01:04:36
That's a story for another time, but that's not something to bring up right now. We're talking about the height for the offices. 01:04:40
And I think that it's important that what Jario was saying that there's a view corridor and it's not just you live here, You look 01:04:47
out your window, there's a view. It's you walk here, you're walking on the street here. It's you're driving your car down and you 01:04:55
go over the overpass and you're waiting at the light. You still see the mountains. It's and that might seem. 01:05:02
I think that that at the very least we need to see something like that. We'd be happy to. We were never asked to. We would have 01:05:40
had that here too. 01:05:44
You guys have any more questions or comments? 01:05:49
I'd be curious on staff take on like what? 01:05:52
What would one step back? I appreciate that. How much power the public thinks that the public. The final question has this is just 01:05:56
to make a recommendation to the City Council, which they listen to us if yeah, they want to. 01:06:04
They can, they can still make their decisions however they'd like. However, I always want to give the best recommendation right on 01:06:14
what's what we think is right and they can do whatever else they'd like with that. But from a staff standpoint, if, if zoning were 01:06:19
to remain the same. 01:06:24
And making a recommendation that City Council explore a development agreement for maybe a handful of office buildings that do go 01:06:30
up to the 70 feet as long as they meet the view corridors or parking studies or whatever it might be. Is that. 01:06:36
A good approach in your opinion, that stuff, you know, if that's the intent that we're going for us to not make it, yeah, I mean 01:06:44
it's an applicant initiative application and so. 01:06:50
That would be up to Brian and his development team if they wanted to kind of do do a reboot. I mean they have the information, but 01:06:58
but start the development agreement process. I mean that that would allow the Planning Commission to to to work on more of a site 01:07:04
specific. 01:07:10
Amendment and so you would have like plans development agreement could be, you know, recommended with the plans and then you could 01:07:17
address it sounds like there's some concern about maybe how that S peace with the residential could could occur. And so that it 01:07:24
would allow you to get more into the details of that at at that, you know, because you'd have an agreement with attached plan, but 01:07:32
that would be applicant initiated and so that that that like the city wouldn't be the one. 01:07:39
You know, applying for development. So your recommendation is that we would only speak to what's being proposed. Well, I think I 01:07:47
think Brians hearing you guys and it would be up to his team. So he could so he could take a different route. Sounds like there is 01:07:53
some concern about the view corridors and so you can request that the the applicant come back with, you know, perspective showing 01:07:59
from from. 01:08:05
Different, you know, orientations around the site, how the view corridor is it could be preserved, how it could be impacted by the 01:08:13
additional 10 feet. 01:08:18
And then we could give the engineering team the opportunity to look at the, the, the Tia, the traffic impact analysis and, and 01:08:23
answer those questions. And so there's, there's kind of different routes. So they could come back with that or they could kind of 01:08:29
reboot the process and, and come back with a development agreement. So it's, you know, that, that, that would be up to up to Brian 01:08:36
and, and if you wanted to, to submit that. 01:08:42
Just my last comment that I want to make here is like. 01:08:49
I love the idea of having Class A office space nearby because one of the ideas of Vineyard is that you can live, work, play, all 01:08:53
that, all the above close by, you know, without having to drive for an hour on the freeway. So I think that's very much a positive 01:09:00
and having it, the high end stuff is very much a positive as well. I think the concerns that are voiced, that have been voiced are 01:09:08
valid concerns as well. You know, when I see a project like this, knowing that someone could come in and propose like 5. 01:09:15
You know, fast food. 01:09:22
Great pursuit because we are lacking that. But then how do we do it in a way that you reduce the cons and increase the pros as 01:09:54
much as possible? I think that's the best way to approach every project. Just to give you before you vote. So you know what our 01:10:02
original option when we went in was? It was 3/3 story buildings and it was 5 drive through lanes for fast food, correct? Yeah. So 01:10:09
after two years of working with the staff, you guys hire and pay like at least I don't know how and how many DRCS did. 01:10:17
Yeah, no, I mean serious like this is the message trying to RAM write something in super quick like we can without your 01:10:24
permission, right to hit your code. You can always say no. Then we can file a lawsuit against your current code. We can do 5 01:10:30
restaurants with Dr. Throughs and maybe Morgan will say there's something, I don't know. Yeah, I mean, we figure it out and we can 01:10:37
do 33 Storey buildings. I mean with with that too. 01:10:43
That was that that that was that was the let's just remind everybody where we've been. 01:10:50
Yeah. I think that that's, I mean that that was because we like that we can sell pads for way higher for a restaurant pad than an 01:10:54
office space pad, right, right. I mean, so. 01:10:59
I I don't know, I mean it, it's, it's up to the the the Planning Commission on you know, you can make a recommendation tonight. 01:11:05
You can request more, more information. But Brian is correct. I mean they, they, they can't do Dr. throughs there. If I'm a 01:11:13
traffic impact standpoint there, there, there there is concerns about putting several Dr. throughs that close to to the center St. 01:11:22
So you got your peak hour launch and you know, stuff like that. 01:11:31
But we would have to look at those specifically and they could do that on to, but they'd still do have to meet, you know, site 01:11:34
plan requirements and traffic impact. But we think we can meet it. We've paid for Hell's engineering traffic study. We've done 3 01:11:39
photometrics plans, correct. We've done two different landscaping designs. If we would have known there was a view corridor 01:11:45
requirement, we'd have that already here too, yeah. 01:11:50
I guess I'm just saying that, yeah, a project like this or, you know, high quality office space actually meets a lot of what we're 01:11:55
going for with a pedestrian based community where people don't necessarily have to. 01:12:01
Walk to work but while obviously mitigating any cons and the space is office space for sale so it's not big conglomerate owning 01:12:08
the building that none of you can ever go use his office. The spaces are divisible into 1500 square foot units. 01:12:16
So you could go 15103 thousand 3500 all up to 7000 square feet. If you need more, you can take multiple floors. So it's for sale 01:12:25
could be anybody. I mean, really, if it if you really do need space for a smaller base business, that's, you know, go try to find 01:12:31
that type of space anywhere. And it's usually the big boys and on the big, you know, the big offices and other local guys with 01:12:37
offices can't even get in those. So you can actually buy your space and you know, have a what it whatever it is, we actually think 01:12:43
it's super helpful. 01:12:49
Again, if you don't like it, we can go back and charge down. We're only coming this way cuz we were pushed this way. It's not us. 01:12:55
You know, we didn't start out with four story. Just go to the office. We're just trying to, you know, figure out what does the 01:13:01
city want want. Sounds like we hit it completely wrong. We haven't had any work session or discussion. We've had multiple work 01:13:07
sessions. Not not in planning fishing, but we as the planning staff and the City Council members have met with. 01:13:13
This this development firm. 01:13:20
For a long time. 01:13:23
Yeah. Any other questions, comments? 01:13:24
Personally, I'd like to see the view corridor before passing it. 01:13:32
Organizing. Either way, I'd like to see that. 01:13:36
Even bigger picture, because I may be getting more into like the site plan of it rather than just the general purpose of the code. 01:13:41
My gut feeling on the code is if there's specific things that we want to bring into the city, like let's be more surgical about it 01:13:49
rather than like a blanket, the entire zone changes. And so if if it's possible to say like, hey, this project, let's look at it, 01:13:56
but let's look at this project rather than say the entire zone. 01:14:03
That would be my preference to move forward personally because there may be opportunities and part of that would be all right. How 01:14:11
can we guarantee that the sight lines are done and from where right is it from? The third story of the alloy still needs to be 01:14:17
able to see the top of Timpanoga, you know, like you have to also. 01:14:24
They probably would be OK. I'd be more like the pedestrian view office is the most impactful so but I'm just saying like you need 01:14:33
to clarify what that means because preserving. 01:14:38
Sightlines, it's subjective is what I'm saying. So trying to make it as clear as possible of like what would qualify and what 01:14:44
would not. I think that makes it easier on everything. Is it possible to make it conditional like 60 feet, but conditional like 01:14:51
some conditional use permit? You could, I'll be, I probably want to get a recommendation from legal counsel on that. Conditional 01:14:58
uses. I mean, that's a mechanism that that you don't necessarily want to apply to everything. 01:15:05
Typically it's attached to to a use. Sometimes it can be attached to like a development standard. 01:15:13
And you could say, well, the, you know, the use of 70 foot building compared to 60 foot building could qualify. So that's one of 01:15:18
those we've got to run by our legal counsel. If you wanted to look into that. Wouldn't that be a variance though you would have to 01:15:25
do for height? That's a variance of a requirement. Yeah, variance is a kind of tough in in Utah. There's five criteria for 01:15:31
variances, but typically a variance is. 01:15:38
You cannot develop your property at all. 01:15:45
Because of some very unique characteristics. So the only times I've seen variances get approved, well, I mean like a really good 01:15:48
example I give is a property had a fault line running through it and we required a geologist to look at it and provide 01:15:55
recommendations for setbacks. And with those setbacks based off of the fault line provided no buildable pad on the person's 01:16:02
property. So they got they were able to get a variance to the front set back. 01:16:10
Because it took out complete use of other property by applying the zoning code as it was written in this case, they have use of 01:16:18
the property and they, they can build, you know, I mean, it wouldn't be the, you know, the four floors, but they, they could build 01:16:24
the three. So they still have used some property. So most likely they wouldn't get approved for forbearance. They, they could 01:16:31
apply for one, but the, the hearing officer would, would most likely look at that criteria, not not approve it. 01:16:38
But but the development agreement, if you wanted to make it site specific that that's where I would that seems like a good route 01:16:46
or a special zoning district for, for that, that property. So there's two ways of doing it to make it very site specific, maybe 01:16:53
even in the RV. And that's another thing we could we could explore the amendments that are on. You could have a natural map that 01:17:00
clarifies where 70 feet. 01:17:06
What would be allowed is that might be it might be might be another way of doing it. 01:17:14
That will step back the actual building, you know, another, you know, 15 feet. So there's, you know, there's design standards that 01:17:48
that you can put in as well. 01:17:53
Any other questions or Yeah, I'd just like to add, I don't know if this is the highest and best use of this project, but it seems 01:18:04
like for Vineyard it's good or great and where it's, you know, just so such a small adjustment and that's something to consider. 01:18:14
You know, compared to what else could be there, So yeah. Yeah. So just to reiterate, so you have your options tonight would be a 01:18:25
recommendation for approval or denial or a recommendation for, you know, approval with modifications or a continuance with 01:18:31
requests for additional information. So you have kind of your buffet of options tonight. Question for you, regardless of the 01:18:37
outcome tonight, even if it is a continuance. 01:18:44
Can and will the City Council take it up in their next meeting? 01:18:51
They would wait for your recommendation and so so we they would have their public hearing would be continued on their agenda. You 01:18:54
know to to a date certain. So if you continue it, I'd say continue it. You know to to like the next Planning Commission meeting or 01:19:01
you know in two Planning Commission. Do you want you want to have a specific. 01:19:07
Time to to continue or or we have to renounce and we can renotice. But it's yeah, it's just administratively a lot easier to pick 01:19:15
a date. 01:19:19
Yeah. Does anybody want to make a motion or? 01:19:23
But again, I just want to reiterate where my thoughts are, I guess, blanket across the rezone. I'm not in favor of just saying, 01:19:28
you know, go from this height to this height. But I am in favor of recommending that the City Council explore a development 01:19:35
agreement to focus just on this area as a place to increase the height while not making that blanket change across the zone. 01:19:42
It's probably a better way to wear that, but that's that's what I'm thinking. I'm not sure if anyone else has opinions on that. 01:19:50
There was a specific pole height provision put in there, but it was limited to that site in in the I believe like we had a code 01:20:27
section so we could explore something like that within the RMU where you have an actual map that says this is yeah. And I'm not 01:20:33
opposed to this at all. I mean, I'm just trying to make the best decision I've been given within the last couple of days of like 01:20:39
getting something, you know, so. 01:20:46
I would need to talk to the legal counsel and just make sure we're, we're good from a zoning perspective. I, I think we can do 01:20:54
that in the Army. 01:20:58
Yeah. 01:21:02
So I. 01:21:03
Yeah. I just would like a little bit more information as long before making a recommendation. So it's all three on the same page 01:21:06
as Anthony or? Yeah. So the recommendation would be a denial of the ordinance request, but a recommendation of the city. 01:21:14
Explorer entering into a project, specific project or development agreement. You could do a because right now you have the. I mean 01:21:23
that would be up for Brian his team, whether or not they want to. If they applied for special drawing district or development, we 01:21:30
could do a continuation. Yeah, you can do a continuation. What I'm saying kind of under the like the process right now it's a 01:21:36
zoning text amendment to the RMU. We could see if. 01:21:43
We could make the actual like the current RMU specific to to that site. Yeah, I'd have to that's one of those things we have to 01:21:50
work with the the attorneys can start to get it into like land use law. But we we could see if maybe there's like a map or a legal 01:21:57
description that would limit the amendment to a specifically legal description. So we we could do that. And it sounded like if you 01:22:04
continued it to that there was some interest that seemed like the. 01:22:11
Rendering showing the. 01:22:19
You know, impacts that the view lines from various orientations around the site, even if we need to do that as a city, not 01:22:21
necessarily the developer here, but as a city kind of see if we were to pass this, maybe do it ourselves kind of what the view 01:22:26
would be. 01:22:32
Hesitant to continue things because the city. 01:22:38
Well, the city, yeah, the city, the city works in weeks and months. And that's not, that's not easy to work with as an applicant. 01:22:45
I, I think, I think like you need to be sensitive to that too. Like if, if we're opposed to it, I think it's. 01:22:52
The kinder thing to do is to deny it tonight rather than continue. Let's see that. 01:23:00
Most of the time I'm opposed to just continuing out the process. If we're talking about this timing, if you recommend a denial, 01:23:09
then it goes to the City Council and then they would officially deny it. And so it doesn't necessarily save a lot of time. What I 01:23:16
recommend is you're saying the City Council couldn't approve it? No, they they could, but it would push them to the City Council. 01:23:23
Whereas if you want if you want to actually just see some some changes. 01:23:31
Continuing at well, one meeting, that's actually fairly common. I mean, like it seems like over half our applications get 01:23:38
continued because you, we want to see some, some changes. And so I actually think that's, that's, that's fairly normal. Now if you 01:23:44
continue at like 3 or 4 times that, that would get fairly annoying and, and could, could really push out a process. So but yeah, I 01:23:51
think one meeting is not, is even if you see your sight lines, are you still comfortable? 01:23:57
Ever blanket raising to 70 feet across the RMU 'cause if you're not, then that means it's. Yeah, like don't ask for things if we 01:24:04
already know what we're going. Yeah, and that's what I'm doing. If we were to do sight lines, I would want the city to do it so 01:24:09
that we could see it in multiple work. Well, your recommendation could be that sidelines come back for this project and that we 01:24:15
entertain making a site specific in the RMU district and then we could work on language that would tie the height to to this 01:24:21
property. 01:24:27
Under the RBU and so and that might take a meeting. I think we could probably have it by the next meeting. 01:24:34
We'd have to get with, like I said, with legal counsel on that to make sure we're able to do that. But. 01:24:43
I think that that's reasonable. 01:24:52
OK, but even still that continuation would. 01:24:54
But if we did a continuation and instead of doing a developer agreement and we approved it on the next one on City Council group, 01:24:59
and then it would be faster than them coming through the Planning Commission and the City Council of development agreements. 01:25:06
OK. So you're just saying like putting more in there around the sight lines ended zoning text amendment more where the sight lines 01:25:13
and like Morgan was saying how to? 01:25:17
Restricted to this having language yeah we could even put like a map I mean that's yeah that's my big thing is like let's look at 01:25:23
this let's not be too general with it and then also let's. 01:25:28
The cons that we're seeing or that have been brought up, our sight lines, the parking, the traffic, whatever. And I think there's 01:25:35
ways to mitigate that to say this is a like you can move forward with this if it doesn't violate AB and C, right? And if it 01:25:41
violates those, then it's a no go. If it doesn't, then welcome to video, right? I think that's a good approach. And you can also 01:25:47
limit it to. 01:25:52
Non residential uses too. If the concern is that you know you could get it like a 5-6 Storey Rd. 01:26:00
Natural building, I thought there's some concern with that then you can at least limit the height of up to 70 to non residential 01:26:07
uses. Yeah, I just don't wanna get too far ahead and think about site specific because we are talking zone and they are permitted 01:26:13
and within their rights to build anything within the current zoning today, right. And that's not what's under scrutiny necessarily 01:26:19
so. 01:26:25
Yeah. 01:26:39
So I'll make a motion to continue this and come back with language that allows us to be site specific to address any concerns with 01:26:40
sight lines and parking traffic. 01:26:47
And then to make a recommendation to City Council. Do I have a second I'll second all in favor aye. And this is do we need a roll 01:26:56
call to continue this not continuous Once you do a recommendation to City Council on the on the ordinance that then you would this 01:27:01
is just a continuous. 01:27:07
Great. Thank you, guys. Thank you. 01:27:13
All right, moving on to 4.5 public hearing from the zoning text amendment 15 point 38.030 for parking requirements. 01:27:16
All right, this will be. 01:27:26
Me again presenting. 01:27:28
And we have a zoning text amendment for parking requirements. This is an application submitted by Carla Motto with X Development. 01:27:31
This would modify the parking requirements for hotel and motel uses throughout the city. 01:27:38
So I do need to make a little clarification in the agenda that went out, the language wasn't quite specific in the staff report it 01:27:47
did mention all it said was it's gonna strike the plus 10 minimum spaces for visitor parking and that's the accurate change that 01:27:54
they are applying for here. So as I mentioned this is applicant initiated, it would strike those 10 minimum visitor parking spaces 01:28:00
for hotel or motel use. 01:28:06
And then on this next slide, I think we can have some good discussion on it's just benchmarking of surrounding neighborhood or 01:28:14
surrounding municipalities. 01:28:17
And their requirements for for hotel uses. So real quick going back, just going over our code, a hotel or motel requires 1 space 01:28:21
per room, plus one space per 100 square feet of restaurant and bar serving area, plus one space for 100 square feet of outdoor 01:28:27
seating serving area, plus 10 minimum spaces for visitor parking, plus one space for 200 square feet of meeting room floor area. 01:28:33
And so here I have. 01:28:39
A benchmark, multiple cities throughout the valley and Salt Lake Valley. I have kind of my summary in that second column and then 01:28:46
the code right after that. 01:28:50
So once again, the applicant is here. If you have any questions, I'm Carla Kash. Would you be able to, if the Council or the 01:28:56
Commission and public want to see us, would you be able to zoom up on that table at all? Let's find out. 01:29:03
That's his heart. 01:29:12
OK, there you go. 01:29:14
I can do this way and my summary is a little bit quicker. It's easier to read. 01:29:16
You might even wanna just do just a quick maybe not every single one, just kinda point out a few of them. OK, so Orem Pleasant 01:29:22
Grove. They're both one stall parking stall per room. Lehigh one stall per room plus one stall per employee on working on a shift. 01:29:29
Spanish Fork one stop per room plus one stall per 200 square feet of restaurant. American Fork one stall per room, 10 stalls per 01:29:37
1000 square restaurant, 30 stalls per 1000 square feet of meeting room. Salt Lake City is 1 stall per. 01:29:44
So quite a bit lower than what we have. South Salt Lake, one stop per room plus one stall per 200 square feet of office, meeting, 01:29:52
etc. Straight per one file per room. Sandy, one stall per room plus one stall per 200 square feet of office, meeting, etc. Eagle 01:29:59
Mountain one stop for bed. Saratoga Springs, one stop for room plus one stop per employee. And then Springville was one stop per 01:30:06
room, +2 additional stalls. So just just to clarify. 01:30:13
Are are is it showing that Vineyard is the highest? 01:30:20
I mean, it really, I mean, if you had 30 employees working at your hotel, then you know that would, you know, something like 01:30:23
Lehigh or Saratoga Springs would be essentially higher because if they have those 30 employees working at the same shift at the 01:30:31
same time. So it's really dependent on how you interpret that code. But yes, because of that, the specific 10 guest dogs, we are 01:30:38
quite a bit higher than everybody else. Everybody else seems to have similar when it comes to meeting space or restaurant serving. 01:30:46
Area they have similar requirements but the 10 guest stalls was fairly. 01:30:53
Out of ordinary, no other city had that that I could find. And then just to clarify, to come through this question is gonna come 01:31:00
up from the public and from the Commission if they were to add in Vineyard, a restaurant. 01:31:06
Then our, our, our code would still account for that restaurant space separately, correct? Yeah, yeah. So all this would do, let 01:31:14
me go back to all this would do is remove that 10 minimum spaces for visitors. 01:31:19
Parking. So if a hotel came in with a restaurant, with a bar, with whatever it may be, with meeting space, we would add up all 01:31:25
that and include that in the parking calculation. 01:31:30
Should we do public comment 1st and then get to our questions or is there something that you guys want to say that would help 01:31:40
clarify things for the public before and the applicants here? So you may want to hear from the applicant prior to the public. You 01:31:45
can ask questions. 01:31:50
I'm just saying process wise. 01:31:55
Hi, everyone. Carlo Mata with X Development. I realize along with some of the other topics that have already been discussed today 01:31:59
is parking in general is kind of a polarizing discussion, right? And so we understand that it's something sensitive. We are always 01:32:06
trying to be very aware of those sensitivities. We've always tried, we always use, you know, one of the most. 01:32:14
Respected engineering firms that does the traffic and parking studies for all of our projects. 01:32:23
We at this point, we don't have any as, as we've done our studies, we don't have any failures with our parking. Obviously stuff, 01:32:29
stuff around us can affect our projects, but we've been trying to responsible with that and and sensitive to that to the point 01:32:36
where we already work together with Edgewater townhomes that had a severe parking problem. As you know, we sold them land to help 01:32:43
solve their problem, which gave them another 140 stalls. 01:32:50
We are always trying to find ways to work with the city and work with. 01:32:57
Our neighbors here in in Vineyard to, to be good neighbors and and to, to find solutions. So we do feel like with the hotel use as 01:33:02
was already brought up and this particular code that's already in place is more aggressive than the majority of the cities. 01:33:11
We are trying to work to bring in a hotel that would be a great benefit to the city. But current, you know, the, the, the current 01:33:21
code makes it a little bit difficult with the size requirements and and so forth to be able to, to make a site plan work for that. 01:33:30
And so if this isn't just specific obviously to one particular hotel, but, but we do feel like this is a good overall change. 01:33:40
Let's see. 01:33:50
Do you have any, any questions for me? Yeah, I have a question. So this and I don't see the site plan here cuz it's not a site 01:33:52
plan approval. That's the location of the hotel. I know I saw. 01:33:59
Where the hotel is planned though, it's right next to the lot where you sold for those additional parking spots, is that correct? 01:34:07
Well, that, I mean that's one particular area that we're looking at. It's not, I mean, again, we're not on the site plan approval 01:34:12
right now, but yes, we're looking in that area. 01:34:18
So if you had, if you had known this was gonna be an issue, would you have not sold maybe as much land potentially? I mean, right 01:34:23
now we have to accommodate several different things. We've given some land for the parking. We've also had to work around a Wells 01:34:31
site. That makes the dimensions very complicated, right? And again, we want to be good neighbors. So we're trying to work and we 01:34:38
also worked hard to try to bring in this youth to be working closely. 01:34:46
With your great planners to try to provide some symmetry with the use across the uses across the street where there's some height. 01:34:53
So we'd like to bring in some height to have a nice entryway for the city. And so we're trying to plan that balancing act, but but 01:35:01
we also need to do it within the code. And so we, we feel like this is overall something that's not going to harm the city there. 01:35:08
I don't really know of a lot of hotels or if any of that that have 100%. 01:35:16
And occupancy, Even if we did, we'd still be able to have a space per room, right? 01:35:24
So anyway, we feel confident that this is. 01:35:30
A good recommendation for the city. 01:35:36
Did you make any inquiry or discuss trying to get any of the other property back that you sold so you could just move the 10 01:35:40
parking spot requirement? 01:35:44
No, we would definitely not want to do that. No, we, I mean, we feel strongly that we, we wanted to be able to, to help solve a 01:35:50
problem that, you know, in the end the cars end up spilling on to our property. We have every right with to go ahead and tow those 01:35:57
cars, but we've been trying to accommodate to be able to find a solution, right. So we we haven't been towing. 01:36:04
In the meantime, while we try to solve this problem, we feel like, you know, we we would like to workout other ways than to to be 01:36:12
harmful to a neighbor. Yeah, I could just add that's so the edgehome townhomes. It's that that that is a site that the City 01:36:20
Council mayor have worked for a long time to see if they could try to help with with the parking at the development that that we 01:36:27
know has had a lot of issues because especially a lot of those are investor owned. So like individual townhomes owned by. 01:36:35
Investors or blocks of town owns owned by investors bought of them don't live in Utah. And so it's like, you know how many 01:36:42
students can come and travel here. So that's that's been an issue. And so we know that that's a use that is under park and so 01:36:49
having the parking to accommodate a use that we know that demands a lot of parking, I would think kind of the priority would go 01:36:56
there. And when we worked with the applicant on this, we felt like. 01:37:03
You know, especially looking at a lot of the other cities, we, we appeared to be kind of like. 01:37:11
A higher amount than what a lot of the other cities were. Plus it's one of those things too is from like a commercial standpoint 01:37:15
when we look at parking, residential is kind of just a different game. But even just to get financing, you have to have the 01:37:22
minimum amount of parking to even get financing from a commercial perspective. And a hotel is not going to put in that level of 01:37:30
investment if they don't have enough parking. So I guess I guess that's where we weren't as. 01:37:37
Actually seemed like a pretty good trade off, giving more parking to the residential, which we know absolutely needs that they're 01:37:45
they're, you know, screaming for it, whereas the hotel use we're just looking at all different cities where we're like the highest 01:37:51
amount for the hotel parking. So that's that's, you know, it actually seemed like a really good trade off. 01:37:58
My only comment on that is I agree that the city should play a role in establishing minimums for residential parking. When it 01:38:06
comes to commercial, I think it's a little bit different because if I can ever park at a restaurant, then I won't go to that 01:38:13
restaurant. And they, you know, they're the ones that that suffer, right? Or if I can't park at A at a movie theater, then I go to 01:38:19
a different movie theater, right? And so when it comes to commercial. 01:38:26
Yeah, I I'm less inclined to for the city to stay like we we know what you need. 01:38:34
They, they know what they need more residential is, is a different animal. And I do definitely think we need to step in and make 01:38:40
sure that there's minimums there. But yeah, that's one thought I've had with this is like if you book a hotel and you don't have a 01:38:47
place to park, you are not gonna go to that hotel again and they will not succeed. So I think they know that too. Sure. 01:38:53
All right. Any other comments before I open it up before, before we open it up for a public hearing? 01:39:03
All right. Do I have a motion to open up the public hearing? 01:39:09
Yeah, Nick Washington for the public hearing. Thanks, Anthony. Do I have a second? Second. 01:39:13
All right, same things before. If you have a comment come up, state your name. 01:39:17
Try to keep it to three minutes and any questions you have I will write them down and. 01:39:23
Them after. OK. Hello again, Daria Evans resident. I have a question on clarification please on slide 126. 01:39:29
Yes, the whole part of that is red lined out and only the green part is left. One space per room plus one space for each 200 01:39:41
square feet of assembly, conference, banquet, sit down, restaurant facility space. 01:39:48
So I need a clarification. I'll clarify that because we were talking about that earlier in the. 01:39:56
In that agenda that went out, it didn't specify it this way. It was like you're saying you have the green text and but it didn't 01:40:06
have everything. So this is how it is right here is how it will be approved. Yeah, that will be if approved, this is what would go 01:40:14
in. As opposed to what? So if this would be swapped out before it goes to City Council, you would have this language. 01:40:23
OK, so. 01:40:32
So basically everything's staying the same except for the 10 to 0 parking spot. Everything's staying the same except for the 10 01:40:37
visitors. OK. 01:40:41
OK, well. 01:40:46
I encourage you to keep the tempos in the spots because like you say, you know, if you don't have a place to park, if you're going 01:40:48
to stay at a hotel, you're not going to go stay at that hotel. It's just like a restaurant. And you know, as we've talked about 01:40:53
this before, I. 01:40:57
More parking becomes adequate parking, you know, so an excess would be adequate in 10 spaces isn't really that much more. So I 01:41:03
encourage you to keep it the way it is. Thank you. 01:41:10
My name is Tyler Harrison, I live on the road. I would like to recommend that we get rid of the parking minimum. 01:41:28
I have seen data, so I read this sort of stuff. I've seen data on how a lot of these parking minimums were started out. A lot of 01:41:37
cities go look at another city's code and take that city's code and apply to their own. And then a lot of those cities got theirs 01:41:43
by data from the 50s. 01:41:49
With that data, because I'm a stats guy and it was like, like they have like two data points. They went to McDonald's or whatever, 01:41:55
and that's somewhere in Iowa. That's how they came out with the requirement. 01:42:00
They also generally made them so that they were for the maximum capacity that you could conceive of of reasonably having at any 01:42:06
point, which I don't really think for businesses the appropriate way. Because when you build more parking, it makes it you gotta 01:42:12
walk across that, you gotta pipe through that, you gotta put all the city surfaces through that to cost a lot of money. It's also 01:42:19
a lot less efficient as far as tax revenue. 01:42:25
So you generally the parking is not making enough tax revenue to cover that piping and that sort of thing. I don't know how this 01:42:33
exact code was built, but it looks a lot like that. 01:42:38
Generally speaking, I just. 01:42:45
I've never been to a hotel in my life that didn't have enough parking ever. Like I don't know if any of you have, I've never been 01:42:49
to one. I've been to most of those cities that you guys that we looked at that have less parking requirement and. 01:42:56
Some of them have stayed in hotels and had no issue with parking in Provo and Salt Lake. 01:43:04
You would think I wouldn't stay an optimal class, but it's happened. I also have worked next to a lot of these hotels and I just 01:43:10
do not see why this is necessary. Frankly, I think it would be a better recommendation for to get rid of all the parking 01:43:16
requirements and have a requirement that they work with the city and look at some data based on their current trends at that time 01:43:22
to see what the parking requirement is. But as far as the specific one. 01:43:28
It is completely unnecessary to have this much parking. It's just totally overkill and I'm going to have to pay for it in taxes in 01:43:35
my my little niece that just got **** just got to deal with the debts that we incur if we keep building so much freaking parking 01:43:42
and building so much infrastructure and not getting tax revenue to cover it. 01:43:48
This is hugely problematic for for lock building, blockability and transit and that sort of stuff. 01:43:57
I really do not want to see just stayed in if we get rid of it. So that's it. Thanks, Tyler. 01:44:03
Hi, my name is Jordan. I really feel like it's on the onus of the city to justify why a hotel would need 10 visitor parking spots 01:44:19
specifically in Vineyard, where as if you build the same exact thing on the other side of Geneva you wouldn't need that. 01:44:27
So if you have any feedback of why we have this exact code, I'm all yours. 01:44:36
On this, yeah, I don't know. I'm sorry. Yeah. So typically. 01:44:44
So especially like the parking codes that were written, I think this was part of the original zoning code and I think it was 2010. 01:44:52
Am I correct on that cache? He seems to know like the the history of Arizona code better than I do, but I. 01:45:01
I, I remember going through the code and we even found like other city names. And so like that's how a lot of zoning has been 01:45:12
written in the past because it's, it is called cumbersome and you're paying an attorney $200.00 an hour many times. So I think 01:45:19
what a lot of cities do is they, they copy each other. And so it's not necessarily based off study, so. 01:45:26
That is something we could look at and see if there was a study for parking that accompanied the original parking ordinance. I, I 01:45:33
would probably say no in like the research that we, and we've gone through a lot of the records, I don't know if there was like an 01:45:39
initial study done with the original parking code. So, so anyway, my bet is that it most likely was taken either from that or some 01:45:46
of the ITE standards. 01:45:52
That are based off in an empirical studies where they go out and they go and they look at different uses. 01:46:00
And like they'll look at 10 other hotel sites in a suburban location and they say, well, on average at peak hour, you know, there 01:46:07
there's this type of parking demand and then they apply that and then cities adopt those standards. So you are it was the 2009, 01:46:13
yeah, was when that was passed. 01:46:19
Yeah. So it sounds like at best this would be something based off the ITE standard, which I happened to look that up this week. 01:46:26
And their empirical driven, data-driven approach to making decisions here referenced 2 studies and one of them had like almost 01:46:34
1000 rooms and one of them had like 600 rooms. And they both had the same level of parking. 01:46:43
They both observed the same number of cars parked in their stalls. 01:46:52
During two of these studies and so the IT recommendation was to say, Oh well, we'll just draw a best fitting line, which would 01:46:56
have been a flat line, but they didn't they drew some some amount of parking that increases with your with your number of rooms 01:47:03
because that. 01:47:09
What I'm trying to say here is like, even if we have the best case version of a parking mandate for our hotels. 01:47:16
That's just absolutely flawed. Like, why? Why are we saying that we would know better than somebody who actually has financial 01:47:25
skin in the game? Thank you. 01:47:29
I. 01:47:38
But our servants resident and happy to be here. Thank you for the work you do. Just I know Vineyards had the history of parking 01:47:42
issues. I've been to many City Council meetings and just it's been a problem. And so I'm for more stringent parking requirements 01:47:48
to ensure we don't have it. I know if we don't have an employee parking requirement and the employees have got to park somewhere 01:47:55
too, I assume and. 01:48:01
And like my wife took, my line that I've used in City Council many times is excess parking, is usually adequate parking or is 01:48:09
adequate parking. 01:48:13
When you come into, it turns out to be problem parking when there's not enough. 01:48:18
So just I think we just need cockroaches cautiously and make sure that we do have adequate parking for a hotel and for a hotel. I 01:48:22
think that's that's a great thing for Vineyard, but. 01:48:27
Just want to be sure there's a place to park for it, so thank you. 01:48:33
Any other comments from the public? 01:48:41
Not do I have a motion to close the public hearing. 01:48:43
Make a motion to close public hearing. Thanks, Greg. 01:48:46
Second, thanks, Anthony. All in favor? 01:48:49
All right, any other comments? 01:48:54
Questions. So this isn't necessarily part of the zoning text amendment, but one thing that I think can and should be part of 01:48:56
standard practice for all projects is with site plan just reviewing parking studies than it is like. 01:49:03
Case by case, right, like you're looking at that and I think that solves a lot of issues. I I tend to learn more towards the camp 01:49:10
of, you know, for commercial, yet they do have. 01:49:16
Financial incentive to to get it right and to not under park their their area. So I'm comfortable personally removing the visitors 01:49:23
stalls. I've actually never had anyone visit me when I was at a hotel. I'm usually visiting the people, you know, which is why I'm 01:49:30
in a hotel. But I also understand, you know, the employees and things like that. That can be a concern. 01:49:37
So that that that's kind of where I'm at, but I'd like to hear what everyone else has to say. 01:49:46
I think it's good to match surrounding cities. I mean, I know that's probably based off of no data at all, I guess, but do they, 01:49:53
is there an anticipated percentage of which they assume they'll operate at, so like 120? 01:50:00
Rooms were there like 80%, like what's there like 8% occupancy or something, do you know? Yeah, just a question. 01:50:08
So we haven't been given occupancy rates. We have an idea of the number of rooms, but we don't, we are still finalizing 01:50:20
negotiations. We're not sure if this isn't the actual operator that would go in. So we haven't gotten down to that level of of 01:50:26
detail yet. When we get to site plan approval, we we would have that information for you at that time. 01:50:33
What is one estimate on the number of rooms? It's about 125. 01:50:41
What? How much staff would be needed at any given moment? Again, I don't know that level of detail. Yeah, yeah. 01:50:47
Any other questions for her or can she said. 01:50:57
I think we're good. Thanks guys. 01:51:01
Any other comments or questions? 01:51:03
So I'm kind of in the same boat as Anthony. Is a commercial building or a commercial use, They need to know how much parking they. 01:51:06
Need and if we're requiring something that they don't need. 01:51:16
I think that that's a burden that they shouldn't be required to bear because in order to be a successful hotel or to be a 01:51:23
successful restaurant, you need to have parking. And to be under parked for something like that would be a huge mistake for a 01:51:28
hotel. And I think that most hotels that are building, especially nowadays, are real tight on their numbers and know exactly what 01:51:34
they need. 01:51:39
So I think that. 01:51:46
I think that having less strict requirements and just them coming with a parking study, which they do when they come, I think it's 01:51:48
the best approach for it. I do. I just wanted to add one more thing that this particular hotel is a large chain. It's a reputable 01:51:57
chain and it's one that is very familiar with and very comfortable with the one to one ratio. So. 01:52:05
That makes us comfortable with with with asking for this change. Can you let us slide? Can you can you tell us like what the name 01:52:14
rhymes with her? We we won't tell Eric that he's all What does it mean? 01:52:20
Motel so this is for I just want to make sure I understand this is for the all hotels in the city correct? 01:52:29
Downtown being a special purpose design as it does have its own park parking code, but outside of East Geneva that whole area 01:52:41
would fall within this and then does the Forge, you know there. 01:52:47
I mean, I'm just looking here because the X development site. 01:52:55
There's no residential that you'd have overflowed to. So we say specific, no concern. We obviously just had the previous 01:52:59
individuals here and even there. I mean those are all going to be managed parking lots. There's no overflow concern to 01:53:05
residential. Even if we removed it and there were an overflow concern, I don't see any overflow happening to residential 01:53:12
communities where there's no managed towing already occurring. And and for those in attendance that haven't been like. 01:53:18
You watch like Hawks kind of the residential parking now of any residential developments being made because of the history that 01:53:25
we've seen as has happened in some of the developments, so. 01:53:29
I have no issue with removing the 10 spots and especially the impact of any other hotels that come there. Wouldn't they wouldn't 01:53:34
be. It appears near any residential neighborhood single family that does not have a managed parking lot. So. 01:53:41
There are no further comments. There was somebody want to make a motion. 01:53:50
I'll make a motion. 01:53:57
I guess to approve the zoning text amendment as discussed today under the recommend approval, sorry, I moved to recommend approval 01:54:01
of Ordinance 202327 to the City Council. And I apologize if you've done this, but if you could maybe say as presented, because we 01:54:10
do have the staff report one that's different. So if you say that's presented, it would be OK. Let me start over. 01:54:19
Move to recommend approval of the Ordinance 2023 Dash 27 to the City Council as presented. Thank you meeting. Thanks, Craig. Do I 01:54:29
have a second? 01:54:33
I'll second that. Thanks, Anthony. And this is roll call, Chris. Hi, Anthony. Hi, Craig. Hi, Greg. All right, that passes. Thank 01:54:39
you. 01:54:43
All right, moving on to 5.1, General plan amendment to Element 10, Technology Goal 2 regarding the protection of personal privacy 01:54:49
and technology advanced states. 01:54:55
Thanks so much, Chair and members of the Planet Christian. And it's been a good and fruitful night. So I feel like we've been able 01:55:02
to have a really good discussion on these topics. So and then yeah, if you could go to goal to just have it on the screen. 01:55:10
So this is the topic that, that, that we've, we've discussed, not necessarily like informal means. I think it's come up a little 01:55:21
bit led by the public. I know Commissioner Brownwell being kind of our, our resident expert on this topic, he's, he's definitely 01:55:27
brought it up, but making sure that privacy is a top concern for the city as, as we implement technology, you know, we're, we're 01:55:33
starting to see a lot of the smart city stuff. 01:55:40
Coming out, there's some really amazing technology and there's things that like being able to tell us when a trash can needs to be 01:55:47
empty, like like things like that, that simple, which really do impact the amount of staff that that we need. And it, you know, 01:55:54
helps us to, to be more efficient. Things like helping us to, to understand at a higher level that the usage of our trails so that 01:56:01
we know like which trail has to invest more money in. 01:56:09
And, you know, upkeep and there's a there's a whole whole bunch of things that we're starting to see come, come, come down the 01:56:17
line. And some of those are items that could potentially affect the privacy of our residents. And so we know that this is a real 01:56:24
concern for the mayor and the council and the commissioners have brought this up and members of the public. And So what this would 01:56:31
be is a more of working on the policy of goal tube being a general plan. This would just be. 01:56:39
See that as we bring on technology and new advancements to technology that we would make privacy a top priority. And so the 01:56:46
recommendation would be that we work with like a subcommittee of the planning, Planning Commission. So that could be one or two 01:56:54
members of the Commission. There were three, that's fine. We would just have to notice those meetings. So we would prefer to have 01:57:01
not not more than two to work with staff and our legal counsel and. 01:57:09
I think it's really something we could probably meet once or twice, but it would be a simple policy statement as part of Goal 2 01:57:16
that would make sure as we develop out technology and we build frameworks for technology, that we make privacy of personal 01:57:23
information at a top priority. And that that's like part of the metric when we implement smart city solutions and those types of 01:57:30
things, so. 01:57:36
That, you know, we just wanted to have kind of that conversation. This is more just a kickoff meeting. We can go as, as as deep as 01:57:44
you'd like tonight. But we feel like that might be a good way of doing it is making a subcommittee that we could work with their 01:57:50
their little tassel and then bring back a recommendation to the Planning Commission and also to the City Council for adoption. 01:57:56
So we can open it up for this conversation. Yeah, one of my immediate thoughts is just around, I think privacy and transparency go 01:58:04
hand in hand. So just simply the city having maybe a transparency web page or something like that that says here's the data that 01:58:11
we could have about you specifically, which would be like, you know, your water usage or, you know, whatever it might be, right? 01:58:18
Like what could you tie back to me? 01:58:25
And said like, and if someone's uncomfortable with it, you know, is there opt in, opt out or is it something that could be, you 01:59:02
know? 01:59:07
Brought up in City Council and voted on. I don't, I don't know what it is, but transparency is the first start because some people 01:59:11
don't even know, including myself. Like what? What all is being tracked? Yeah, that's that's good. So we we can make it a privacy 01:59:17
and and transparency. I mean that that those could be two elements that that we get some policy statements on. 01:59:24
Any other questions? Does anybody want to be on this? 01:59:34
Committee to word it out and I I don't I don't see being super time Sammy maybe one or two meetings but basically taking the 01:59:37
language and providing some good policy statements that help guide it and the City Council when they when they start implementing 01:59:43
technology. So this is. 01:59:49
Citywide, specifically just to downtown or down or to city like everything, yeah. But whenever we adopt technology, they'd be and 01:59:55
we can make the policy statements if there's something specific to downtown you want it or something specific to. 02:00:03
I don't know like just how we communicate with, with the public, you know, information that we get from the public in regards to, 02:00:13
to utility. 02:00:17
E-mail information and phone numbers, like, yeah, I need anything, any information like how do we safeguard that? Or you know, do 02:00:24
we necessarily need that, like that, that level of information? 02:00:29
So I so the I want to emphasize like this is pretty, this is cutting edge stuff. This is forward-looking. 02:00:37
No city we're aware of that. There are cities in the country that have done smart city stuff. Nobody's done a approach of privacy 02:00:44
in the development of smart cities. So this would be kind of the first discussion in Utah of how do you manage privacy for what's 02:00:50
coming and the amount of data collection is crazy and especially in downtown. 02:00:56
In code right now, there's requirements for all government entities, state and cities. If you collect any data that's not public, 02:01:33
private control protected, you have to give notice of purpose and use of that data. You have to have retention schedules assigned 02:01:40
for that data. You have to tell the individual any other private or public entities you share that data with this. This has been 02:01:48
in code in grandma since 1991. You have to dispose of that data according to it, according to. 02:01:55
Retention schedule, you can't keep it forever. And then you can't share it with anybody except for when there's certain use cases. 02:02:03
So what we're about to have is there's gonna be a lot of data share. You get a technology provider, collect the data on your 02:02:08
behalf, they're sharing it with us. They sync it with you have UTA trains coming in, you have the UVU stop or pass to get off the 02:02:13
train. 02:02:17
You know right now. 02:02:52
Every company and the city and everyone knows what's happening. So it's just, I think this is a perfect discussion to start having 02:03:53
right now and plan for it. That's great. And we do have a consultant that we've been working with and so I can check to see if we 02:04:00
still want a retainer, but it's SRT Labs. So they're the group that had provided some of the framework for our a smart cities plan 02:04:06
for the city. And so that that could be a group we could see if we could pull them into the sub community to. 02:04:13
You know from the technology that that they work on. 02:04:21
And how how maybe this kind of initial first steps that we're taking with smart cities, how we can protect privacy so that that 02:04:24
can be part of the conversation as well. OK, cool. 02:04:29
So I assume Christie would want it, but yeah, thanks. I also think so. I talked about like the transparency skills with it, but 02:04:36
the intent and purpose I think is important too, right? Because if I knew that. 02:04:42
The city was doing facial recognition on my kids at the splash pad, tracking how much they've been there. 02:04:49
For what purpose? Then I'd be like, yeah, maybe let's go somewhere else. You know, like, like there's, there's no benefit to us 02:04:56
for you to know what my 7 year old is doing at the splash pad necessarily. So like I think letting the intent know. So like 02:05:02
traffic counters, trail uses, like that kind of stuff might make sense. And I think most people in general are probably OK with 02:05:08
like anonymized aggregated data, like how many people were at the splash pad yesterday. And then you can look that up on Google 02:05:14
Maps. Basically it'll tell you whether. 02:05:20
You're not as busy as you. Yeah. But like, if it's where was Anthony yesterday at 2:00 PM, like that's where people are gonna 02:05:26
probably always and forever be uncomfortable, right? Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. No one really wants to be a part of that, right. Well, we 02:05:33
have it being deleted or Sullivan, he may be able to know if somebody home based off of the current water usage. I know if there's 02:05:40
a leak, that's a good point. Automatically they're like, hey, there's an increased water. So that's a type of surveillance. 02:05:48
And, and it's at the familiar level of of in this home, but, but that's the things to consider now, because that data us in this 02:05:55
room may not be smart enough to use it, but, but that data is very viable to people to know who's home, who's using what, what's 02:06:01
their usage. Let's sell products or let's pick up their tracks, their, their trash cans at a certain week now and let's go pick it 02:06:06
up that that is coming with autonomous mechanism to do all of this. 02:06:12
And people here have been, you can see they they want to be left alone. Just they want to have, I think our culture is let's have 02:06:18
a yeah, we want to be a modern city, but let people still have a little bit laid back feel where they can live here and choose to 02:06:25
live, succeed, worship, whatever it is and peace without us controlling everything. And we have some really great software that we 02:06:31
use. I'm sure you've heard of it. Chris is placer IO. 02:06:38
Placer AI and that that'll and I think that uses kind of an aggregation of cellular. 02:06:45
Information, but it helps us know for like events. 02:06:51
How many people are coming from events? It helps us understand kind of generally wet weather where they're coming from. But that's 02:06:56
the kind of technology is like, maybe we don't necessarily need to know exactly where their rooftop is, but you know, like, like 02:07:03
at what level of information do do do we need? Or is it just just good enough to know that like, you know, people generally from 02:07:10
this area are, are, are coming to to to an event because that that's stuff that does help us in planning and so. 02:07:17
It's good to have that data, but like we don't necessarily need to know, you know, like exactly where they live or you know that 02:07:24
that type of information. 02:07:28
So. 02:07:33
Anyway, so sound like Chris, you're you're all good to be on like a subcommittee then just a scary conversation after watching the 02:07:35
Mission Impossible. 02:07:38
Can I, can I just add a couple of comments? Sullivan, Water wastewater manager for city. 02:07:44
The smart city terminology is getting a really bad rap from a lot of people. And so I would just want to kind of present some of 02:07:50
the views or some of the thoughts that I've had as we've been investigated this. So I've got several sewer lift stations. 02:07:57
That run motors, pumps, stuff like that. And we're soon to have a water booster station to be running, not all the time, but 02:08:05
frequently. And so some of the smart city technology. 02:08:11
As it's turned can allow me to monitor the amperage, the electricity that's being used in those pumps and determine if I'm 02:08:19
potentially going to have a failure. You know, I'm not monitoring who's flushing what or turning whatever on, but it helps me 02:08:26
better do my job without hiring people, you know, So if I can predict failures on on electronics and motors and stuff like that, I 02:08:33
can I can better, you know, have inventory created and stuff like that. So. 02:08:41
I think there needs to be some explanation and some additional information given out there that smart city is not just about, you 02:08:49
know, knowing who you are, where you are and what you're doing all the time. It's about the the mechanics of the city, the 02:08:54
logistics and stuff like that of how we can better serve the residents and potentially save them tons of money by not having a 02:08:59
lift station go down in the middle of a big event and you can't flush your toilet, you know, stuff like that. So just some of my 02:09:04
views on that. 02:09:10
And I think that's kind of where Anthony was saying like transparency, like as long as we're transparent with what we're doing 02:09:16
with the data and how it's being used. And I think most people generally are OK with it as long as they know exactly what's 02:09:21
happening with it. 02:09:26
But I mean, there's probably at least half of us that never read privacy policies and so. 02:09:32
Yeah, exactly. So, So from here, yeah, we'll work with Chris. I mean, like I said, if there's another commissioner must be part 02:09:41
of, just let us know and then we'll we'll start from there and we'll get some recommendations for the general plan brought back to 02:09:47
you. Great. Thanks, Morgan. Yeah, no problem. 02:09:53
All right. Moving on to Commission Member reports and expertise, discussion and disclosure. 02:10:01
Anything from the Commission? 02:10:07
I just wanted to bring up one thing, well actually two things. I should have said this when people were here. I saw something 02:10:09
interesting over 4th of July is like if you ever think your city doesn't have enough commercial parking. 02:10:16
How are there always firework stands that can pop up with no problem in commercial parking lots? So I thought that was kind of 02:10:24
funny because it's true there's always room. But when it comes back to that, I don't want to say it was an issue earlier, but the 02:10:30
DRC meetings sometimes it appears that applicants. 02:10:37
Have already gotten to a point where they feel like hey, this is a slam dunk kind of thing, or that they at least have an like an 02:10:45
advocate. 02:10:50
That will be sitting either on this body or on the City Council body, which isn't a bad thing to have. But do does the Planning 02:10:55
Commission need to be more involved in those? 02:11:00
The thing that we risk, I think is they're like, well, I know this is gonna pass the City Council or I'm not saying that's what 02:11:08
they said tonight, but like, you know, this is a formality, but we've already got something drummed up. I'm just wondering how do 02:11:13
we, how do we avoid maybe someone? 02:11:19
Any surprises on any side, I guess, right. Like because you know, if an applicant comes in and like, oh wow, like I thought we 02:11:26
already had this worked out or ironed out. How do we how do we avoid surprises? Yeah, I think the DRC is a good way and we could 02:11:32
we could add it. I'm honest. Yeah, yeah. And like I said, we can have up to two. The one thing that we don't want to do with the 02:11:38
Commission, it's just kind of like a bad practices having kind of the individual meetings with commissioners and and developers. 02:11:43
You can do that with the city. 02:11:49
City Council is elected and so you know, they're they're like, they're the people you can pull into those meetings. But on a DRC 02:11:55
level, I think that's appropriate to have them one or two commissioners. 02:12:00
With the applicants of just because these folks may are be aware of it and on board doesn't mean these folks aren't there. So I 02:12:07
don't know, it's not maybe more of a one off case than the norm, but I was trying to get ahead of any surprises. I wouldn't mind. 02:12:15
He mentioned like, well, then we have a working meeting. I mean, I if is that, how do we stay informed? 02:12:22
Because I felt like he was kind of trying to pit US against each other. You guys have been working with him for two years and we 02:12:30
found out 48 hours ago, you know what I mean? So like, how do we how do we even do? Like I honestly feel like I am doing the city 02:12:36
a disservice because I have no idea about everything that's happened. Is that what I mean? I guess I have just a quick comment on 02:12:43
that is. 02:12:49
We are the protectors of the General Plan. 02:12:56
We go off of the general plan and we don't. We shouldn't necessarily even be thinking a whole lot about the excess like we're 02:13:01
supposed to focus on the general plan, so it just needs to be that. 02:13:07
Maybe in DRC meetings or when city councilors or staff are meeting with these people that it's clear, like if we're going to go 02:13:14
this direction, like these are the things of the general plan that we're missing or that we're hitting, and then bring up those 02:13:21
things in meetings like this. Like this is how this meets the intent of the general plan and this is how it deviates from the 02:13:28
general plan. I think would be helpful because it really does come down to, are we on the same page with City Council? 02:13:36
And we should be because we should all be looking at the general plan. And that's a good point because if every applicant knows we 02:13:44
will start from the general plan as a starting point. And anything that's, if you're asking for anything different from that, you 02:13:50
need to provide, you know, like sight lines or like what, like anything that could potentially go against this, you need to 02:13:56
explain either why or how it does conform. 02:14:02
And that they can expect those well, and I'll I'll just say to. 02:14:09
We we did request that information, yeah. So no. And I don't want to get. 02:14:14
You know, those conversations, it's also kind of difficult because with these developers, we've been working with them for two 02:14:22
years, but we haven't had a DRC meeting with them for over a year ago, probably the last one they went to. So it's hard for us to 02:14:29
keep you up to speed. I mean, they're still so far behind with with everything as well. That makes sense. 02:14:37
What's the best way to keep everyone in the way? So I think to Craig's point, what what we could do though, is. 02:14:46
Do an update of DRC and Planning Commission. So we do have like the staff update and that that actually would be a good time. And 02:14:54
because you are at a point of body, it's one of those things where it is hard to pull commissioners into every meeting. But like I 02:15:01
think Elise giving you like the update on DRC and we're also happy to to meet with with with commissioners like as staff. And so 02:15:08
if any commissioner wants to even settle like a regular meeting, we're happy to do that. 02:15:16
Like, well, like we try to meet with with Bryce before, before the meetings to discuss the Janice. So Bryce usually is very on top 02:15:23
of it. And Anthony's old school. He's, he's, he's always been kind of connected to all the development. But we're happy if, if 02:15:30
there's anyone who wants like a special meeting to review projects, we're happy to do so. But we can, we can do a DRC update. And 02:15:36
so with me starting to come to the DRCS starting tomorrow. 02:15:42
I can, I can give that update. Yeah, that's great. 02:15:50
One other thing I was gonna suggest is one thing our department is trying to do, we have a goal for, is to get the agenda out 02:15:53
sooner to the Planning Commission, to the public. So you do have more time to review these documents. And that way on the Thursday 02:16:00
beforehand you read through and like, well, I have a question about this. Do you have time to meet? And that's what we tried to do 02:16:06
this past week with each one of you is we knew that these two amendments were complicated. 02:16:12
So I just also wonder if they know that they're already gonna come to us again, some sort of change. 02:16:19
Right. Yeah. 02:16:26
We, we discussed, I mean, we could talk more in detail like later on individually, but yeah, I mean, and it was one of. 02:16:30
You can trust it like there. Nothing was guaranteed, you know it was. 02:16:42
Working on a project that then that we knew wasn't going to be a slam dunk basically. And but that's part of the planning process 02:16:48
is you work, you fine tune you, you know, you get the project to a point where just like I think Commissioner Jenkins mentioned 02:16:54
where was like you, you, you want to elevate the really great aspects of it and the the impacts you want to try, try, try to 02:17:01
reduce. And as you go through the process you, you kind of get there. 02:17:07
As best you can, so. 02:17:14
Or anything else from staff? 02:17:17
Or from the Commissioner, yes. 02:17:20
So from staff we are working on our economic development strategic plan that'll be coming down the pipeline soon. We are 02:17:22
interviewing next week. We've got four really great firms. And so that that's one of those will have a a committee and you know up 02:17:31
to two can sit on that committee and that that'll be won't be the interview committee, but it'll be. 02:17:39
The the working group kind of like we've done with, with other projects. And so if there's some interest, just yeah, send us an 02:17:48
e-mail, but we can do up to up to two. 02:17:52
You know on that as well. And so I would say probably like we would really didn't move in probably in September, there'll probably 02:17:56
be a few just like initial set up meetings in in August and getting the contract in place in September, October that is when we'd 02:18:03
really see these kicked off for that. 02:18:09
And then I was just, I guess it's worth bringing it up now. We've got about six months until Anthony and Anthony and I are both 02:18:18
done. So we should start looking for new alternates and commissioners. 02:18:23
Soon. 02:18:30
Yeah, that's your second term, right? So you have to wait. You have to wait one year. 02:18:33
Throw it back on whatever that wants it, right? I do have one thing. The Utah EPA conference is this fall and September. Towards 02:18:39
the end of it, I sent an e-mail out to each one of you. If you're interested in going, let me know and we can get group tickets. 02:18:45
It's a little bit cheaper to do it that way. 02:18:51
It's in Ogden, so local. 02:18:58
We could all take for we could all take foreigner up together, you know. 02:19:02
Yeah. So yeah, if you're interested in that, let me know. And we do do have fun too. It's a 2 day, so it's not you both days. We 02:19:06
can get your hotel out there, so. 02:19:10
Cool. 02:19:15
Just real quick, I gotta always ask. I haven't been at the post office. I already I'll put it on my calendar to go. I usually in 02:19:28
my previous role here, I was going there a lot more frequently and I don't so much anymore, but I will probably cuz I'm gonna 02:19:36
start doing more public notices again like the mailings for that and they're all there more frequently, but I'll add it to my. 02:19:45
To my calendar to do like to slowly do that and we have been trying to get a a a U PS: store so you know. 02:19:54
Yeah, that would also mean we've reached out about that song, so well, we'll let you know if we can get some meetings with them. 02:20:02
OK. And real quick, I just wanted to comment that Ephraim got a State Park approved and it is being 100% paid by grants. So yeah, 02:20:09
and it's like a $3,000,000 skate park, so just saying grants and just. 02:20:17
Yeah, we do. We do, yeah. So we can, we can look at that. If you see anything, we look at the the Tony Hawk grants, they got some 02:20:27
really, really good ones, but those are typically for like low, low income, but there's other. 02:20:32
Of other grants out there. Let us know it's going to go on. And just something to inform you this is Rachel's last. 02:20:37
One more so not not less what she is. 02:20:46
You can tell I'll be moving to Vegas for my husbands law school but I'll still be working remotely but I won't be here in person. 02:20:50
So we'll we'll try to get her back in person three years from now, but we'll see what happens. 02:21:00
Well, thank you. 02:21:07
Cool, if that is everything. 02:21:10
Then meeting adjourned. 02:21:13
Oh. 02:21:25
scroll up