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
| And had their first meet up. | 00:00:22 | |
| Which stands for. | 00:00:35 | |
| Recreation culture. | 00:00:40 | |
| Because we work for a question. | 00:00:44 | |
| Reporting Arrowhead. | 00:00:57 | |
| It's OK. I got. I got. | 00:01:01 | |
| Here. | 00:01:09 | |
| City. | 00:01:47 | |
| OK. | 00:01:51 | |
| Oh, welcome to Planning Commission, everybody. | 00:01:52 | |
| It's gonna open this up and we're gonna start with UM. | 00:01:58 | |
| What you gonna do, Chris? We're gonna do a. | 00:02:05 | |
| Just a plan, vacation. | 00:02:10 | |
| Thank you. | 00:02:13 | |
| What do we do? See the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, | 00:02:16 | |
| indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. | 00:02:22 | |
| Our Father in Heaven. We are very thankful that we can be gathered here today as a public body, as the Planning Commission, and | 00:02:33 | |
| have members of our community here with us. Please bless us as we have this meeting and we administer our duties, that we can do | 00:02:40 | |
| so to the best of our abilities, that we can work for the benefit of this community and for the generations to come here and | 00:02:46 | |
| vineyards. We're thankful for all the blessings that you've given us Mercedes things. Amen. Jesus Christ, Amen. | 00:02:53 | |
| All right. So we'll move on to an open session. | 00:03:03 | |
| This is for a time for public comment. | 00:03:11 | |
| About anything not on the agenda for this night, so is that. | 00:03:16 | |
| Do we have any public comments today? | 00:03:23 | |
| Nope. Cool. We'll move on to #3 minutes for approval. | 00:03:27 | |
| Do I have? | 00:03:36 | |
| Yeah. | 00:03:39 | |
| I had a chance to review those. This is from April 5th, July 19th and August 2nd and I make a motion to approve the minutes. | 00:03:40 | |
| For 3.13.2 and 3.3 OK do I have a second? | 00:03:47 | |
| All right, All in favor, aye. | 00:03:54 | |
| Excellent And number. Moving on to business items. | 00:03:57 | |
| We've got a. | 00:04:04 | |
| Let's see 4.1 site standard waiver for the Mr. Car Wash. | 00:04:06 | |
| And do we have a presentation about that? Yeah, Anthony was gonna put that up real quick. Excellent. So I don't believe the | 00:04:12 | |
| applicant is here, but we should be able to address any questions that you may have. Sounds good. | 00:04:18 | |
| All right, so. | 00:04:31 | |
| So we have application for the sign standard waiver. | 00:04:34 | |
| For Mr. Car Wash. | 00:04:39 | |
| And that is the location. | 00:04:42 | |
| Right on the Northside of O'reilly's auto parts along the Geneva Rd. | 00:04:45 | |
| And that's the location up close. | 00:04:53 | |
| So the applicant, Ruth Gillies, who is with Gillies Sign and Design, is proposing to install one one single tenants monument sign | 00:04:57 | |
| and multiple additional wall signs on each elevation of the Mr. Car wash being constructed. | 00:05:07 | |
| So a signed standard waiver is required to fulfill the following requirements, which is the. | 00:05:18 | |
| Single tenant monument sign height and the glow effect. | 00:05:29 | |
| And also the number, location and size of the wall signs on each of the elevations. | 00:05:34 | |
| So I'll take the first one, which is the single tenant monument sign. | 00:05:43 | |
| The proposed sign measures 10 feet in height, but the code actually allows for six feet. Now with the signed standard waiver, he I | 00:05:48 | |
| mean the the applicant can. | 00:05:54 | |
| Have a sign up to 10 feet for a single tenant sign. | 00:06:03 | |
| The applicant also wants to have a Halo glow effect on the logos of the sign and that can also be allowed through the. | 00:06:10 | |
| Science standard waiver. | 00:06:20 | |
| Having the permission approved that. | 00:06:23 | |
| So that is the proposed single tenant monument sign. | 00:06:28 | |
| With all the dimensions I will mention, the glow effect is only on the stars, On the only on the stars, yeah. | 00:06:34 | |
| Not on any of the lettering. | 00:06:41 | |
| Now the second part of the application was the number, location and size of the wall signs. The application proposes additional | 00:06:48 | |
| wall signs on each elevation. The code actually allows for one maximum of one sign per elevation, but with the sign standard | 00:06:58 | |
| waiver they will be allowed to have more. Now the West and N elevations have two wall signs being proposed. | 00:07:08 | |
| South and E elevations have three signs that are also being proposed. | 00:07:18 | |
| And that is an illustration of what they are proposing. | 00:07:25 | |
| So. | 00:07:39 | |
| We recommend a staff to approve the. | 00:07:41 | |
| Application for the science Standard waiver for Mr. Car Wash. | 00:07:46 | |
| And that would be the proposed motion, if you agree. | 00:07:55 | |
| OK, I do have a few questions. So in the in the code, what is the intent behind not having the glow effect on science? | 00:08:00 | |
| The the language about the glow is is very vague but mostly it has to do with impact. We don't want large bright signs that are | 00:08:12 | |
| glowing and and impacting neighboring residential subdivisions. And with this sign, the single tenant monument sign being on | 00:08:18 | |
| Geneva Rd. we don't see that as being an impact at all. The other signs that are on the building they will be lit up but they | 00:08:24 | |
| won't have the glow effect. So our code specifically calls out that glow effect not the illumination right. OK And that that glow | 00:08:30 | |
| effect is just. | 00:08:36 | |
| It is behind these stars, correct. Correct. On the, on the monument side, on the monument, yeah, cast real quick. | 00:08:43 | |
| Clarify glow effect versus. | 00:08:53 | |
| Illuminated. | 00:08:57 | |
| What's the difference? So the glow effect, it all all it says, it says internally illuminated science of opaque face panels so | 00:08:59 | |
| that only letters, logos, numbers or symbols appear illuminated. Halo effect is not allowed except through a science standard | 00:09:05 | |
| waiver. So that Halo effect, that glow effect is essentially lighting. That's not that logo or the lettering it's it's outside of | 00:09:12 | |
| that that scope. But in this instance it's used to help enhance that logo. | 00:09:19 | |
| But it's not particularly the glow effect isn't lighting up per SE, the the logo or the lettering. | 00:09:28 | |
| Say that it's a difference between it having. | 00:09:34 | |
| Like a panel in front of where it's going first, There's not. | 00:09:39 | |
| I think is are you Bruce Oh so the applicant is here probably has better expertise if you wanna go to the microphone up there And | 00:09:46 | |
| Anthony will you bring the slide show back to the introduce yourself for us Ben Murray Gillies with Gillies signs and I can | 00:09:54 | |
| specify so the illumination what it is, is the light is actually coming through the letters but with the Halo it's actually | 00:10:01 | |
| they're stud they're stood off and the light shines behind. OK so it gives it like the Halo effect. So it's like fine. | 00:10:09 | |
| There's there's the wall, and then the sign stands off just a little enough that it illuminates through the back as well to give | 00:10:17 | |
| it like a Halo effect. OK? | 00:10:22 | |
| That's what I was like, trying to figure out how it was cool. | 00:10:27 | |
| To answer your question. | 00:10:33 | |
| OK, and then I'll write which. | 00:10:35 | |
| Outside of the glow effect, which of these signs is in violation of size? | 00:10:40 | |
| So on the. | 00:10:50 | |
| So it's the one of the wall signs looking outside 80% of building frontage if you. | 00:10:55 | |
| Share which of those signs it is and what you want to go back to the elevation that shows. | 00:11:01 | |
| So the Mr. Carl or the Mr. part on the on the so I can't really read what elevation that is. That's the worst. | 00:11:09 | |
| The West that and on the east elevation, those are both that Mister wording is outside of that 80%. | 00:11:17 | |
| Just because it's so close, it's like on the edge of the building there. OK, so it's. | 00:11:25 | |
| Essentially, the white space on either side is being violated, correct? Yeah. And this is, this is one of the most common reasons | 00:11:35 | |
| we do get these signs and waivers is because people like to put their signage on the corner of buildings just to help increase | 00:11:40 | |
| visibility. And so this kind of follows that suit. | 00:11:46 | |
| OK. What do you feel it would impact visibility of the sign to have it? | 00:11:54 | |
| Within the science standard table. | 00:12:02 | |
| I think because the part that actually faces the road the way that the tunnel, it kind of faces more north, the longer part. So | 00:12:12 | |
| one of the reasons we were hoping to get the science standard waivers because it is a little bit on that side, that's the main | 00:12:19 | |
| visibility so. | 00:12:26 | |
| It can still be seen somewhat from the other elevations, but the main one is that this is your main sinus. Yeah, OK. | 00:12:35 | |
| That's good to know. Thank you. | 00:12:43 | |
| And I will say, I don't believe that any of the signs themselves were beyond the actual size requirement, right. I was seeing that | 00:12:47 | |
| and then I was, yeah. So it's the number of signs because our sign code only allows for one wall sign on each elevation and each | 00:12:53 | |
| of these elevations have multiple signs, right. It's not often we have a standalone, correct. Correct. OK. And I was wondering | 00:13:00 | |
| like in this district has, have we been approached for? | 00:13:07 | |
| A waiver such as this for at the Halo effect or a larger sign. I I wasn't here when though Riley got approved. That's really the | 00:13:15 | |
| only other building in this district so that has gone or that has been developed. The Jiffy Lube is under construction right now. | 00:13:21 | |
| We haven't heard from them what kind of signage they're looking at doing. | 00:13:27 | |
| So I can't answer that. | 00:13:35 | |
| And then the difference between a six, a six foot monument and 10 is pretty significant. I'm wondering like. | 00:13:38 | |
| Is that like, what is the offset from the road? Is that going to impede visibility for people turning in and out because it's | 00:13:47 | |
| already going to be a pretty tight traffic situation there? | 00:13:53 | |
| Do you have the site plan on this? | 00:14:03 | |
| Presentation by chance. | 00:14:07 | |
| So the actually I'm looking at it right now, this sign is pretty far north on the site and the entrance to the Mr. Car Wash will | 00:14:11 | |
| be it looks like. | 00:14:16 | |
| The right, and I think it'll be the O'Reilly parking lot is going to be the main entrance for now and This site is, you know, it's | 00:14:22 | |
| too. | 00:14:26 | |
| Partials up from that O'Reilly. | 00:14:31 | |
| So, but this this site does not have direct access on Geneva Rd. so we don't see it impeding any kind of visibility for vehicles | 00:14:34 | |
| turning. | 00:14:38 | |
| With the this with the sign because it's in a. | 00:14:43 | |
| The difference thought the normal for an entrance. Is that like the purpose of making it? | 00:14:51 | |
| Needing it bigger. | 00:14:57 | |
| They tend to just like it, as close to the building as possible or an entrance, but. | 00:15:00 | |
| A lot of times there's the sight triangle and different things that we, you know, want to be conscious of. So I think that's one | 00:15:09 | |
| of the reasons why they wanted it more on that side than actually closer to the O'Reilly. | 00:15:15 | |
| OK. | 00:15:23 | |
| OK. Does anybody else have? | 00:15:26 | |
| Questions. The only question I had is. | 00:15:29 | |
| On the West side, which essentially is the backside of it facing the homes, it seems unusual to have at least illuminated signs on | 00:15:33 | |
| that side. I mean, I don't live in that neighborhood, but I think we need to be conscious of that. I'm not positive of the | 00:15:40 | |
| O'Reilly as one on the backside, but maybe you could explain, you know, would those be lit 24/7 or are those just signs that maybe | 00:15:46 | |
| aren't lit on the backside? | 00:15:52 | |
| All their signs are lit. None of them are 24/7 though. They're all on a timer, so it's like from dusk till dawn. | 00:15:59 | |
| But not 24 hours. | 00:16:08 | |
| OK. I mean, you bring up a good point. | 00:16:12 | |
| Those are my neighbors. I should think about that. So. | 00:16:15 | |
| I'm assuming that business hours is peak time for having the signs on. | 00:16:20 | |
| Can it be on a timer that coincides with those hours so that when like the big main lights are shut off? Maybe like? | 00:16:28 | |
| I don't know. Like an hour later. | 00:16:37 | |
| The the science on the building are also or I mean on outside of the building or at least the ones that are gonna be facing the | 00:16:40 | |
| West. The West side, yeah, we the timer can be programmed to anything. So if that's something typically Mr. Car Wash is open until | 00:16:47 | |
| 8. If you want like the West side to be turned off at 9:00 or 10:00, we're happy to accommodate and you can do that as a | 00:16:55 | |
| conditional approval. We've done that multiple times with these sunshine waivers. | 00:17:03 | |
| OK. Yeah, that was my only call out. Just to see it on the backside because you know, once someone's queued up, you know, probably | 00:17:13 | |
| looks nice there. But it's not necessary in the sense of like attracting business from the road. And I just want to make sure it's | 00:17:18 | |
| not a nuisance to neighbors, but I think there's ways to. | 00:17:24 | |
| Accommodate that. | 00:17:32 | |
| OK. Thank you. | 00:17:34 | |
| OK. Does anybody have a motion? | 00:17:37 | |
| I think we can add some conditions here, such as the. | 00:17:46 | |
| Timer to limit. | 00:17:52 | |
| Light impact to the neighborhood? Yeah, the West facing ones of the main ones, I'd be concerned. | 00:17:55 | |
| But I would probably recommend turning it off when the business is done. You know the other. | 00:18:01 | |
| Elevations could probably have it on, but the one facing it. | 00:18:07 | |
| Residences. | 00:18:11 | |
| OK. | 00:18:14 | |
| Yeah. I think it's no like we're going to have so many businesses and like lit areas right there. That's good. | 00:18:16 | |
| Rear facing. | 00:18:27 | |
| Yeah, I don't think that's what they're going for here either, yeah. | 00:18:30 | |
| If they're all in timers, I I feel like we can. | 00:18:34 | |
| Add that into the conditions so I'm happy to make a motion unless there's other conditions. | 00:18:42 | |
| Well, I was thinking about timing of the white. When should it shut off regardless of hours of operation, I think it should be. | 00:18:48 | |
| Daylight. You know, convenience or. | 00:18:57 | |
| You know to not interrupt the neighbors back there, so. | 00:19:02 | |
| Through 8:00 PM in July is different. 8:00 PM, yeah. So when the sun goes down, it goes off regardless of when the business on | 00:19:07 | |
| that backside. Yeah, I mean, if it gets dark at like 6 though. So we want business still to be able to advertise but not on the | 00:19:14 | |
| back, That's fair. | 00:19:21 | |
| How would we word that? I mean, anything that we do will be. | 00:19:32 | |
| You know, it'll it'll go to code enforcement. If we do get complaints about this light being turned on, whether it's, you know, | 00:19:38 | |
| 6:00 PM in the winter and it's a bright light. I think probably the easiest way that that we'd be able to enforce it on our end is | 00:19:45 | |
| if you did put a time, whether that's 8:00 or 9:00 PM, that'd probably be the easiest in terms of enforcement goes. | 00:19:51 | |
| Because it's just for the West elevation, correct? | 00:20:00 | |
| And we also we do have lighting standards already correct, not spilling over into neighboring residents. | 00:20:04 | |
| Yeah, there definitely are some protections that we already do have in place, but the more we can kind of back it up, the easier | 00:20:13 | |
| it is for code enforcement if it does become an issue. OK, so like the West facing lights off by desk. | 00:20:20 | |
| So we're going to put that. | 00:20:28 | |
| I think you're saying a time is probably, yeah. | 00:20:33 | |
| That's like a general dusky time. | 00:20:38 | |
| I don't know. | 00:20:41 | |
| 6:00 PM in the winter time. | 00:20:43 | |
| So maybe I have like 7 so that like because I don't know, we're not going to bed at 7 usually, right? | 00:20:46 | |
| Yeah. I would say and if we already have kind of rules in place around signage and people can make complaints about it, would we | 00:20:57 | |
| just say outside of operating hours, turn, you know, the lights get turned off and then you can use the complaint process. I don't | 00:21:04 | |
| necessarily think we need to micromanage it as if we have code in place and I'm looking at it here. I mean there is some | 00:21:11 | |
| substantial distance. You have a parking lot there too. OK. I'm going to say operating hours and right now. | 00:21:18 | |
| Uncomfortable with that because they are currently until 8:00 PM. And what time do they open? Eight AM? 8:00 AM? | 00:21:26 | |
| I'm comfortable with 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM if you want to specify that. And then if they change their hours and want to change their | 00:21:36 | |
| light, they can come talk to us. | 00:21:41 | |
| OK, so that condition. | 00:21:48 | |
| The condition of. | 00:21:56 | |
| Lights located beyond from. | 00:21:59 | |
| 8 to 8. | 00:22:03 | |
| Operating hours, Yeah, yeah, you could specify operating hours, and I'd also specify on the West elevation. | 00:22:05 | |
| And following all existing correct lighting requirements, yeah. | 00:22:12 | |
| Which would it be better to say operating hours and then specifically say their operating hours? | 00:22:18 | |
| I mean, if they change them though, I mean, looking at it, cuz those lights are kind of directional too. So cars like that, it's | 00:22:24 | |
| right above like the day you go in. So it indicates like, hey, it's open. Yeah, you probably do want them on during operating | 00:22:30 | |
| hours. But yeah, mostly I'm just wondering what's going to make staff's job easier? Probably either one will be easy enough for | 00:22:36 | |
| us. | 00:22:42 | |
| You know, whether it's operating hours and we know what their hours are, we can enforce it. Or if you say it's 8:00 PM, then we | 00:22:48 | |
| know at 8:00 PM if they're on after that, we can work it out that way. | 00:22:53 | |
| What do you are you guys more comfortable with just saying a general operating hours? | 00:22:59 | |
| OK. | 00:23:07 | |
| So I'm happy to make a motion more discussion. | 00:23:12 | |
| I move to approve the Science Standard Waiver application as requested by Ruth Gillis with Gillis Sign and Design, with the | 00:23:18 | |
| proposed conditions of meeting all existing lighting requirements and only having the West elevation lit during operating hours. | 00:23:27 | |
| OK. All in favor, Aye. | 00:23:39 | |
| OK. Thank you. Thank you and we can move on to our. | 00:23:42 | |
| Work session. | 00:23:47 | |
| 5.1 Transportation Master Plan We've got a presentation correct by Josh Gibbons. | 00:23:50 | |
| Yeah. Health Engineering has been working on our transportation master plan and Josh Gibbons will present that. Excellent. Thank | 00:23:59 | |
| you. | 00:24:02 | |
| All right. | 00:24:10 | |
| OK. Well, thank you. Let's be here tonight. My name is Josh Gibbons. I worked with Hales Engineering. We're a transportation firm | 00:24:13 | |
| doing traffic analysis and transportation planning of course, or an introduce or so. I'm Jillian Riches. I'm also the tales | 00:24:21 | |
| engineering working on the transportation master plan for Vineyard. So Ryan Hills apologizes he couldn't be here tonight. He had | 00:24:28 | |
| another public meeting to go to. So you got us to. But we'll carry on and we're happy to be here. | 00:24:35 | |
| So we've been working on the master plan for a few months now. As you probably know, we talked with a couple of you. I know about | 00:24:43 | |
| this. We've done some public outreach for this. And so tonight we're here to give you an update on where we're at and where we're, | 00:24:50 | |
| what our next steps are and to get your input and feedback and your thoughts so we can incorporate those as we keep moving | 00:24:57 | |
| forward. Next week, our plan is to present to the City Council as well on the same material, just so you know. | 00:25:04 | |
| So as we go through, feel free to ask any questions you have. We have some slides just to kind of introduce the process for you | 00:25:12 | |
| and for the public that's here tonight as well. So feel free to ask questions as we go. | 00:25:19 | |
| So in this process, we're working on a Transportation Master Plan that's the key element of this, but it also involves four other | 00:25:27 | |
| deliverables or plans. The first would be the Transportation Master Plan where we look at future traffic demand. | 00:25:34 | |
| And what projects are needed to accommodate that demand, you know, as far as new roads, widening of roads? | 00:25:41 | |
| But also looking at multimodal facilities for heads, bikes, transit all that, once we're done with that, we do a capital | 00:25:48 | |
| facilities plan where we identify, you know what's the priority of these projects, which ones should be first, which ones can we | 00:25:54 | |
| wait on a little while and then what, what are the costs associated with some of these projects? | 00:26:01 | |
| And then that takes us into an impact free facilities plan where we identify the eligibility of set projects for impact fees where | 00:26:09 | |
| we can where you can charge developers their impact fee to go towards those projects. And then we have an impact fee analysis | 00:26:16 | |
| which takes that and actually calculates the fee that it's going to be charged per home or per thousand square feet of you know | 00:26:24 | |
| each land use. So that's kind of the process we're in most of that focus on the TMP but leading into the rest of course. | 00:26:32 | |
| Overall, we just want to talk about how this plan fits in with the rest of the of the plans and studies that are done in this in | 00:26:42 | |
| the city. Obviously you have a general plan that establishes city goals and land uses. The master plan for transportation takes | 00:26:49 | |
| that general plan and the land use is proposed and kind of plans out at a high level, at a macro level, you know how wide should | 00:26:56 | |
| the roads be to accommodate this land use that we've now planned and. | 00:27:03 | |
| You know what roadway connections should we plan on? | 00:27:11 | |
| Beyond that then you have what are called traffic impact studies that developers are many times required to do to say because of | 00:27:15 | |
| my development I need to add a turn lane or I need to help contribute towards the future traffic signal or you know change | 00:27:21 | |
| specific things about intersections. So this is more high level this master plan and not so much in the details, though you will | 00:27:28 | |
| see we talked about some intersection stuff as part of it as well. | 00:27:34 | |
| So you know the the reason to do this now it it the last plan was kind of smaller, it was done 16 years ago. So Vineyard has | 00:27:43 | |
| changed a lot since 2007 and so now now is a good time to update that. There's a lot of, there's a lot going on as far as | 00:27:50 | |
| development as you know that you've seen and and road projects like Vineyard Connector coming in. | 00:27:57 | |
| We should grab the. | 00:28:06 | |
| We've got the laser pointer here. So you have Vineyard Vineyard Connector which is currently being built. Of course you have 1600 | 00:28:10 | |
| N which is currently being built as well, both key key roadways for the north side of Vineyard. Also recently the Mountain Land | 00:28:16 | |
| Association of Governments mag, they adopted their 2023 regional transportation plan, their RTP or the outline projects. And so | 00:28:23 | |
| now we're using their info, their latest modeling and such to use in this plan. We were a little delayed that's why it's been a | 00:28:29 | |
| few months since. | 00:28:35 | |
| Since we last kind of talked with some of you, we were waiting for them to finish that model, which they finished, you know, about | 00:28:42 | |
| a month or so ago. So now we're moving forward with that new model. | 00:28:46 | |
| This is not just about cars. We're looking at, you know, vehicles, but also transit, blocking biking. You already have a great | 00:28:53 | |
| active transportation plan that looks at walking and biking, but we're going to take that, add to it where needed and this will | 00:28:59 | |
| lead into other future efforts that the city is already kind of talking about. As far as a parking master plan, Mill Rd. Holdaway | 00:29:04 | |
| Rd. master plans as well. | 00:29:10 | |
| The purpose and goals of this would be we want to stick with the cities goal to stay connected, right? We want to make sure that | 00:29:18 | |
| all modes of transportation are connected in the city, that people can walk, bike safely and efficiently, they can get to transit, | 00:29:25 | |
| you know, when, when, when, when needed, and that's kind of our overarching goal here, so. | 00:29:32 | |
| There we go. | 00:29:41 | |
| Julian kind of talked about existing conditions. | 00:29:43 | |
| A little bit. And have a collector which is more of a balance between access and mobility and then an arterial which has a lot of | 00:30:20 | |
| mobility but not as much access. And MAG recommends having a collector every half mile in arterials every mile. So that's | 00:30:25 | |
| something that we want to keep in mind as we move forward with looking at functional classifications in the future and if any of | 00:30:30 | |
| that should be reclassified and things like that. | 00:30:36 | |
| Then we also looked at the existing intersection controls. So the map that I have on the page just shows. | 00:30:43 | |
| Signals roundabouts and always stops. It's not showing the two way stops but. | 00:30:50 | |
| We look at those a little bit as well, different intersections and then we also have the we show the process that we look at. So | 00:30:56 | |
| we might start out with an always stop and then as track volumes increase throughout the years, we might look at that intersection | 00:31:01 | |
| and see if we need to consider other intersection controls. What that will also look at U dot standards for spacing between other | 00:31:07 | |
| signals and things like that to make sure they don't have signals too close to each other. | 00:31:13 | |
| That the spacing criteria is met, so we'll look at the different intersections and see if there's any other intersection controls | 00:31:20 | |
| that we could consider moving forward. | 00:31:23 | |
| An example of this is at 600 N right now that's just a two way stop. We've been looking at that and we might consider alternative | 00:31:27 | |
| intersection controls there and delve into that a little bit more. | 00:31:33 | |
| And then another existing condition that we looked at is level of service. So level of service just describes congestion of | 00:31:42 | |
| roadways or intersections. And it's on a scale from A to F, with A being the best level of service and with F being the worst. And | 00:31:47 | |
| Josh will talk a little bit more about how we defined what's acceptable and not acceptable for this plan. And his level of service | 00:31:53 | |
| is from the viewpoint of the car driver. That's correct. Yeah. It's really a measure of congestion or delay of the car driver. | 00:31:58 | |
| That's correct. | 00:32:04 | |
| Like a pedestrian. No, No. Yeah. Yeah. And I would say it's the average car driver. So you might have a, you know, let's say you | 00:32:10 | |
| come to an intersection and you wait 2 minutes to go through the intersection at a signal. That's your experience. But others | 00:32:18 | |
| might go straight through if there's a green light, right. So you can average out the experience of all drivers on a road. And | 00:32:25 | |
| that's kind of what how you define it. So every city and municipality can define what their acceptable threshold is. | 00:32:33 | |
| If we were to set a standard of level of service, A for example, we would be overbuilding our roads for, you know, just to | 00:32:41 | |
| accommodate a peak hour condition of no delay basically. Which is why we always set a standard that's not A, not B usually, and | 00:32:48 | |
| usually it lands between C&E are the acceptable thresholds that cities set. In more rural areas, for example, we've seen | 00:32:56 | |
| communities choose C as their acceptable thresholds, so A through C would be their their acceptable range. | 00:33:03 | |
| Like Salem City for example has LOSC is our standard more urban areas go to D and even more dense urban areas sometimes go to E as | 00:33:12 | |
| their letter of acceptability. Some cities vary that threshold by robot type. So like Lehigh for example they their threshold is D | 00:33:20 | |
| for arterial, C for collector. As we talk to city staff we we've come up with what's shown on the screen here. So first of all | 00:33:28 | |
| there's two categories we look at city roads and then the the future downtown roads that are going to be built. | 00:33:36 | |
| The downtown, the idea is to make that very walkable narrow cross sections where possible and in those cases we tend to allow some | 00:33:45 | |
| congestion to occur so that we don't over build a road and make it not walkable right. And if you over build a road, it's just | 00:33:52 | |
| longer crossing distances to go across the road for pedestrians and it makes it not walkable as much. So we set separate standards | 00:34:00 | |
| for for those two for that reason. For city roads you can see. | 00:34:07 | |
| At a local level for local roads, the standard we propose is B or B or better basically to make sure you don't overload our local | 00:34:15 | |
| roads in Vineyard for Collector, if you see or better arterial D or better in the downtown, maybe C are better for local and then | 00:34:23 | |
| E or better for collector and arterial to allow some of that congestion to occur to allow it to be walkable. So any questions on | 00:34:31 | |
| these or kind of a complicated chart, but that's that's what we've talked about with staff. So that question on how? | 00:34:40 | |
| So obviously there's engineering standards within sounds like obviously you work with. | 00:34:49 | |
| That improves level of service as well. So yeah, that's all going to be taken into account. So, yeah. | 00:35:26 | |
| OK. So as far as level of service, we can look at it from a perspective of just a roadway segment or an intersection looking at a | 00:35:33 | |
| roadway segment, it's usually based on a daily traffic volume capacity to say that a road can handle for example two lane | 00:35:39 | |
| collector about. | 00:35:45 | |
| At a near LOSF condition, I'll say it is 12,000 cars a day, so at an acceptable level it's less than 12,000, but that 12,000 is | 00:35:52 | |
| our LOSF threshold, if that makes sense. | 00:35:58 | |
| And then we calculate a volume to capacity ratio from there to say where does it fall from A to F if that makes sense. So we have | 00:36:04 | |
| these thresholds. Those are two way volumes. So it's basically 6000 cars, One Direction, 6000 cars the other direction, if that | 00:36:12 | |
| makes sense. And those are the numbers we use in in in this to identify how a roadway segment is performing. Does that make sense | 00:36:19 | |
| for intersections? It's based on peak hour delay, so average delay in seconds per vehicle. | 00:36:27 | |
| Is how we look at that so. | 00:36:34 | |
| In a second here, we'll see kind of that level of service for existing conditions. So that's what this is We looked at. We took | 00:36:38 | |
| some several counts throughout the city. We already had many, many counts based on past studies we've done in the city as well. So | 00:36:45 | |
| we got a good kind of sample size of traffic counts in the city. | 00:36:51 | |
| On the right side is the map, the numbers, I know they're kind of small, but those are the daily traffic volumes on each Rd. | 00:36:59 | |
| basically and the colors represent the general level of service of each segment. To highlight a couple things for these existing | 00:37:06 | |
| conditions, we realize, and I know you've seen it, that there is some congestion on 800 N or Vineyard Connector. Of course, U dot | 00:37:14 | |
| recently made a change in the lanes over here that I think has helped quite a bit and from what we've seen. | 00:37:21 | |
| But there is still some congestion, of course, so there'll be kind of a sea condition and AD condition. According to U dot, their | 00:37:29 | |
| roads are those should be LOSD or better. So this actually fits in their standards as acceptable. So LOSD are better there. | 00:37:37 | |
| And then down here, you kind of see a yellow behind the number that's LOSC for that Center Street bridge and our public | 00:37:46 | |
| involvement. We heard a lot about that bridge, how people feel like it is congested going over that towards Mill Rd. So that | 00:37:52 | |
| that's another spot of congestion, though it is still acceptable for the standard. But you can see here there are lots of | 00:37:58 | |
| intersections that are at 4 levels of service. There's a few on Geneva. This one at 800 N in Geneva is orange for LOSD. So still | 00:38:05 | |
| acceptable but congested I think. | 00:38:11 | |
| Before the lane change, it was probably LOSF, but now with the lane change, it appears it's gotten much better at LOSD or so | 00:38:17 | |
| anyway. So this is kind of what we look at. The last one I'll mention here would be 600 N and Main Street. It's very hard as you | 00:38:24 | |
| know for someone to turn left off of 600 N onto Main Street. And so that's something that we'll we'll look at to see if there's | 00:38:30 | |
| something that we can do there to fix that operation. But yeah, overall this is what what we kind of see today as the existing | 00:38:36 | |
| conditions. | 00:38:42 | |
| Roads and intersections. | 00:39:19 | |
| Yeah. | 00:39:22 | |
| Yeah. So we had all that put together, the functional class and level of service and intersection controls. And then we were able | 00:39:27 | |
| to bring some of those maps to a public open house that we had here in Vineyard on April 25th. And we also had a Facebook Live | 00:39:33 | |
| event the week before on April 18th where we went over the same information that we just went over with all of you. | 00:39:38 | |
| And in that period, we got 131 responses. You can kind of see the breakdown of the people who responded. So majority of the people | 00:40:17 | |
| who responded are people who live in Vineyard, but we also include people who work in Vineyard, shop in Vineyard or do other | 00:40:22 | |
| records activities in Vineyard and there are some overlap there as well. | 00:40:28 | |
| 400 N and Geneva Road and also Center St. and Mill Rd. We heard some people suggesting that we could look into adding another | 00:41:20 | |
| connection into Vineyard from I-15 and just getting more access to Vineyard from other cities from that way and also Center St. | 00:41:26 | |
| and Mill Rd. Heavy congestion and just generally safety concerns, getting to and from parks, adding more crosswalks where we can | 00:41:32 | |
| and improving pedestrian safety. And that goes along with the multimodal stuff that we want to look at as well, making sure | 00:41:37 | |
| there's good safety and connectivity. | 00:41:43 | |
| Throughout the city. | 00:41:49 | |
| And yeah, I think Josh will continue from here. One thing I will say the years you'll see there are a little random if you just | 00:42:25 | |
| look at them. But the reason we chose those years is for impact fees you have to look at a six to 10 year window from now. So we | 00:42:32 | |
| chose a 10 year horizon from now to 2033 is the first kind of future year to look at and 2050 is mags future year they're looking | 00:42:38 | |
| at as well. So that's why we did look at those two. | 00:42:45 | |
| So future conditions just to kind of give you a glimpse of what we're seeing so far 2033, this is what we expect as of right now | 00:42:52 | |
| as far as. | 00:42:56 | |
| Level of service and traffic volumes. So within a 10 year period based on those land use projections from MAG and the local | 00:43:02 | |
| adjustments we made Vineyard Connector we show going to basically A5 lane capacity or volume in the future, you know 36,000 or so | 00:43:09 | |
| cars, almost 40,000 cars a day. | 00:43:17 | |
| On Vineyard Connector, so that would require kind of A5 Lane Rd. There with two lanes per direction, 1 center turn lane to the | 00:43:25 | |
| north. You can see on the future Vineyard extension those volumes are increasing and the project may be needed up there down here | 00:43:31 | |
| on Center St. | 00:43:37 | |
| We expected that volume to grow. That volume will grow on Center St. on the bridge and we may need to do something near there to | 00:43:43 | |
| increase capacity as well. There's other congestion. You can see some yellow roads, LOSC, those are still acceptable, but | 00:43:49 | |
| obviously growing in some congestion there. | 00:43:55 | |
| Phase there and there's a few other spots in the city that we see congestion of course that we want to look at. So these are kind | 00:44:37 | |
| of the 1st results we're getting back for that future condition and this kind of leads into us knowing what projects we could | 00:44:44 | |
| potentially look at. Any questions on those at all at this point or? | 00:44:50 | |
| OK. So looking at potential projects, MAG already has their funded projects that we know are likely to come in in a certain time | 00:44:58 | |
| period. So we can look at those. We know what we've assumed here. We haven't listed every single new road that a development will | 00:45:06 | |
| build within their development. We just focus on the major ones for now. And the projects we look at, it includes both | 00:45:14 | |
| intersection and roadway projects to mitigate that unacceptable Los and we try to phase them by year. | 00:45:21 | |
| So I have a table here. If you can't tell this is a draft format. I've written it twice on the screen. But these are potential | 00:45:29 | |
| projects we've talked about. So I'll just kind of look at just kind of go through them really quickly here. So as a phase one | 00:45:37 | |
| immediate need these, would we put these here to potentially address the 2023 issues. So three of these aren't are on Geneva Road | 00:45:45 | |
| 1600 N, 400 N and Center St. on Geneva Rd. adding capacity in various ways by adding turn lanes. | 00:45:52 | |
| Or U dot changing signal timing and whatnot. We've learned that. | 00:46:00 | |
| The rail line on the West side of Geneva is really the physical barrier there. Once that rail is consolidated, U will have many | 00:46:08 | |
| more options to explore for widening on Geneva if needed or other changes at the intersections. For now their their hands are a | 00:46:13 | |
| little bit tied with the railroad, but we expect that a lot of these things can be fixed once that rail goes away and is | 00:46:18 | |
| consolidated there. | 00:46:24 | |
| You can see here we have 600 N and Main Street showing the crosswalks. Like Jillian said, that's already being worked on by staff, | 00:46:31 | |
| and that'll be a great addition to have some crosswalks across Main Street there. | 00:46:36 | |
| In addition to that, you know one thing we'll kind of look at would be maybe an alternate intersection control there. Right now | 00:46:42 | |
| it's two way stop on the east and West side, but we would maybe consider other things potentially. | 00:46:48 | |
| You know, whether it's maybe a roundabout or whatever it may be restricting, you know, just doing different things there. And | 00:46:56 | |
| that's something we don't know the answer yet to yet, but we'll we'll we'll we'll be working on that too. | 00:47:02 | |
| For a short term need to 203033 and like I said vineyard connector. | 00:47:11 | |
| Would likely have to go to five lanes between Main Street and Geneva Rd. | 00:47:16 | |
| Center St. and Mill Rd. We, we expect we need to increase the capacity there by changing maybe some of the lane configuration | 00:47:22 | |
| there or the signal timing to get more cars through you know during that peak time. | 00:47:27 | |
| For long term needs, so far what we're looking at would be Vineyard Connector both to the north and to the east would be widening | 00:47:34 | |
| the three, sorry, the seven lanes there to accommodate the demand. That's mostly due to I would say local development that's | 00:47:40 | |
| proposed, right. The downtown is a big part of that where they're proposing some densities there. | 00:47:46 | |
| And the good thing about Vineyard is there's not a lot of cut through traffic, so but the The thing is that this is caused by a | 00:47:55 | |
| lot of local development of course so. | 00:47:59 | |
| 1600 N we go to five lanes. Like I've already said, that's already in the mag plan as well. | 00:48:06 | |
| There's an idea for 1200 N to actually extend that over the rail between Venture Connector and Geneva Rd. That would be probably | 00:48:12 | |
| A5 Lane Rd. going over there. So that would be one idea to take pressure off of Vineyard Connector and other roads too. And then | 00:48:18 | |
| Main St. in the downtown area, we just want to make sure we have that intersection and that roadway segment wide enough to | 00:48:24 | |
| accommodate the demand. | 00:48:31 | |
| There's a couple more here for increasing intersection capacity on Geneva Rd. which like I said you already thinking about and | 00:48:38 | |
| working on. And then 400 S down there by the Orem Park. We we've, we've talked with staff about that how there's concerns about | 00:48:46 | |
| the flow of traffic between Geneva Road and Vineyard Rd. by the park. And so at least in the future future condition we would | 00:48:53 | |
| expect we can widen that segment of Rd. potentially and then make other intersection improvements there as well. | 00:49:00 | |
| So the next steps we have here would be we want to look at more at the multimodal that the roadway is usually the first step | 00:49:09 | |
| because that takes the longest to do the modeling. But now that we have that framework, we'll we'll now focus on active | 00:49:15 | |
| transportation and transit projects as well. And then we'll establish the future functional classification of rows, make sure you | 00:49:21 | |
| have a good grid network planned out for the future. And we'll we're going to propose some transportation guidelines to be used | 00:49:27 | |
| like access management guidelines. | 00:49:33 | |
| Traffic impact studies to make sure you get what you need out of those studies for your future transportation system, traffic | 00:49:40 | |
| calming, all that. And then we'll then focus on impact fees to look at the costs of those 10 year projects for the impact fees and | 00:49:46 | |
| we'll calculate the eligibility of those and then we'll identify the impact fee from there. So sorry, there was a lot of | 00:49:52 | |
| information. We're really excited about this work and we're excited to work in Vineyard. Are there any questions about any of that | 00:49:58 | |
| we we went over? | 00:50:04 | |
| And beyond questions, any feedback? Any thoughts you have too? | 00:50:14 | |
| One I was going to ask it. | 00:50:18 | |
| Like after our discussion, can we take public questions? | 00:50:21 | |
| Sorry, I'm not sure it's up to you. Is it being work session? You can ask for public to make comments if they have any okay. | 00:50:26 | |
| Can you hold your question till okay? I'll let you know. | 00:50:36 | |
| Earlier, you'd mentioned you were going to talk a little bit more about multimodal transportation. | 00:50:41 | |
| I didn't see. Yeah, sorry, I meant that we're going to cover that in the plan. We're still, yeah. So the timeline for this is | 00:50:47 | |
| we're planning to wrap it up by late November, early December before the year wraps up. So like I said, the focus has been so far | 00:50:53 | |
| on Broadway and traffic modelling for vehicles so far. That's kind of the pinch point on these plans many times. So we want to | 00:51:00 | |
| make sure we get that out of the way. The modeling takes time and we're happy where we're at now and now we want to take that, | 00:51:06 | |
| take these robate projects. | 00:51:13 | |
| And see how we can incorporate multimodal elements. So that would be the next presentation where we come and talk to you about | 00:51:20 | |
| that as well. So I apologize, we don't have a lot right now. | 00:51:24 | |
| One thing, I guess one thing I will say, I know there's been even in the public outreach and discussions we've had with staff, you | 00:51:29 | |
| know some some neighbors within the city talked about well, could you do a pedestrian crossing at 400 N across the rail, you know | 00:51:35 | |
| to connect the east and West side. So as an example that would be one thing we're going to talk about more and see feasibility and | 00:51:42 | |
| all that. So that's great. Yeah, the, the other comment I was going to make is. | 00:51:49 | |
| And we're already kind of cut in half with the rail I think anytime. So you know vendor connector right now the width that it is, | 00:51:56 | |
| if you widen it, it almost like makes it, it makes it less accessible by anything other than car. And so I want to make sure that | 00:52:03 | |
| if we've got a walkable downtown, you don't have to drive to get there to walk, right. | 00:52:10 | |
| And and you can widen the road and still have other modes to get there. So you know trail we've got one hopefully they'll reopen | 00:52:19 | |
| soon that goes underneath the vineyard connector and other ways that we can do that. So I just wanna make sure that that's part of | 00:52:24 | |
| the the conversation too and I also wanna make sure that. | 00:52:30 | |
| We try to get it as close to right the first time because it, you know, it's expensive to widen, but it's also expensive to. | 00:52:38 | |
| Road diet, right. Like, I think we've kind of discovered that Mill Mill Rd. is not in danger of having any traffic issues any | 00:52:45 | |
| time, you know, it's a very big Rd. It is, yeah. | 00:52:50 | |
| And that causes its own problems, but it's under building, right? So. | 00:52:57 | |
| You know, getting at its close to long term, right As possible, definitely. Yeah, great, great comment. So yeah, OK, can we would | 00:53:01 | |
| you mind accessing the microphone, Can we get your question? | 00:53:09 | |
| Introduce yourself and then. | 00:53:17 | |
| Eileen Erickson in the Sleepy Ridge area. I want to know how you're going to move a railroad. | 00:53:20 | |
| We all want to know that, OK? | 00:53:27 | |
| All right, what you were talking about. So if you want to answer, I can. I can answer that one because that's outside his scope. | 00:53:31 | |
| Cool, cool. | 00:53:35 | |
| So the works director, so the rails for that he's referring to is the rail spur that goes along Geneva Rd. on the east side of the | 00:53:41 | |
| city. And we're currently in discussions with Union Pacific in terms of realigning that through Ellsberg along the east part of | 00:53:49 | |
| the city through the industrial area. So. So the road will be coming down Geneva where 1600 N would be. Are you familiar with 69 N | 00:53:57 | |
| OK, So what would be where 69 N would be and then then cut W toward out through the. | 00:54:06 | |
| Vineyards industrial area to South of Almond and then reconnect. | 00:54:14 | |
| And then that not only are we working on Union Pacific, but we're also working with the Federal Railroad Administration, which is | 00:54:53 | |
| a federal agency, as well as the Utah dot because as soon as that becomes available, it is cleared like what was presented in this | 00:55:00 | |
| thing. There's lots of projects that are going to pick up not just with dot, but city Voron has potential projects that they would | 00:55:07 | |
| like to do as well and but to answer the question. | 00:55:15 | |
| Your real question about how you remove a railroad one truck at a time. | 00:55:23 | |
| And if I could add to that too, like like Naseem said, I think that one, one big thing that'll help in your traffic, even though | 00:55:28 | |
| it's on the Orem side on Center St. once that rail is consolidated, Orem has plans to widen that pinch point east of Geneva on | 00:55:34 | |
| Center Street where it goes down to two lanes out to five lanes. That'll be huge, I think for both Orem and Vineyard to get out of | 00:55:40 | |
| the freeway faster so. | 00:55:45 | |
| OK. Do we have any more questions from Commission or the public? | 00:55:54 | |
| OK. Thank you so much for coming and presenting those. It's really good to know Foresight. | 00:56:02 | |
| I loved it. The scene of engineering. | 00:56:09 | |
| OK. | 00:56:14 | |
| With that, we can move on to Item 6, Commission members, reports and ex parte discussion and disclosure. | 00:56:18 | |
| We got anything guys? No, nothing exciting. How about staff? I do have something. Bryce isn't here though, so I mean, it's a | 00:56:27 | |
| disappointing news. I spoke with Postal Service about a drop off. | 00:56:33 | |
| They pretty much said no updates. They said it's going through the process, whatever that means. But they, I mean he remembered my | 00:56:41 | |
| name, so at least. | 00:56:45 | |
| Yeah, at least that they're thinking about us. At least you know you're haunting him, so yeah. Yeah. | 00:56:51 | |
| So he asked if there were a lot of people asking me about it. So the more people that do ask me about it, the more honest I can | 00:56:58 | |
| answer that question as well. All right, you can add me to your list, OK? | 00:57:04 | |
| Might not be a bad idea but yeah so I'll keep working closely with the Postal Service to get that going. So but yeah he he did say | 00:57:12 | |
| it's going through the process and they've dropped it off here at the city building so. | 00:57:20 | |
| OK. Anybody else? | 00:57:29 | |
| Then this meeting is adjourned. Have a great night, everybody. Thanks for coming. | 00:57:33 | |
| So. | 00:57:42 | |
| So. | 00:57:46 |