Planning Commission
Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge?
Troubleshooting steps
In your browser: open Menu (three dots) → Settings → System → turn off “Use graphics acceleration when available.” Then restart the browser.
Bookmark list
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
Loading...
Transcript
| 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 |