Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge? Click Here
| Start Position | |
| INVOCATION/INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHTS/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Blackburn gave an invocation. OPEN SESSION - | |
| MINUTES REVIEW AND APPROVAL:1 July21 COMMISSIONER RASMUSSEN MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE JULY21 MINUTES AS RECORDED. COMMISSIONER KNIGHTON SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR BRADY, COMMISSIONER RASMUSSEN, COMMISSIONER JENKINS, COMMISSION KNIGHTON, AND COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN VOTED AYE. THE MOTIONED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. BUSINESS ITEMS1 Discussion and Action – Bout Time Site Plan · The applicant is requesting approval of a site plan for the Bout Time Pub & Grub Sports Bar located at8 N Mill Rd Suite No.6. Parcel ID:038:0009. The Planning Commission will act to approve (or deny) the proposed application. Planner II Briam Amaya Perez introduced the applicant and described the scope of the project. There was a discussion regarding the patio size being shortened to allow for a pedestrian walkway as well as lowering the slope of the patio roof. | |
| The proposed conditions were modified from the staff report to reflect the changes requested from the Planning Commission. | |
| COMMISSIONER KNIGHTON MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE BOUT TIME SITE PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THAT THE FENCED OUTDOOR PATIO IS REDUCED TO-FEET TO ALLOW A-INCH MINIMUM WALKWAY ALONG THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE EXISTING SIDEWALK. THE FENCED PATIO CAN EXTEND TO THE NORTH UP TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE EXISTING BUILDING THERE WILL BE NO NEW CROSSWALK EXTENDING TO THE EAST FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THE APPLICANT MUST REVISE THE DESIGN THAT IS CONSISTENT IN CONCEPT WITH THE ELEVATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED ON PAPER SUCH THAT THE CANOPY OVER THE PATIO IS A LOWER SLOPE AND MATCHES THE DEPTH OF THE EXISTING EXTERIOR CANOPY THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT THE ACTUAL MATERIAL BOARD AND SITE PLAN TO STAFF TO ENSURE THAT THE COLORS TIE IN WITH THE EXISTING BUILDINGS THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE A STRATEGY THAT MAXIMIZES THE SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE OF PEDESTRIAN FLOW AROUND THE OUTDOOR SEATING AREA THE APPLICANT PAYS AN OUTSTANDING FEE AND MAKES ANY REDLINE CORRECTIONS THE APPLICANT IS SUBJECT TO ALL FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAWS COMMISSIONER JENKINS SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR BRADY, COMMISSIONER RASMUSSEN, COMMISSIONER JENKINS, COMMISSION KNIGHTON, AND COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN VOTED AYE. THE MOTIONED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.2 | |
| Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) for.34.160 &.12.060 modifying setbacks and location requirements for swimming pools. · The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing and consider proposed amendments to VZC.34.160 & VZC.12.060. (This agenda item is being postponed to the next Planning Commission Meeting on August21)3 | |
| Public Hearing – Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) for.32.230 and.38.030 Ordinance Number21-05 · Staff is recommending amendment of ZTA.32.230 wall and fence heights and ZTA.38.030 lighting poll heights to match section.36.030. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission will take appropriate action. | |
| COMMISSIONER JENKINS MOTIONED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR BRADY, COMMISSIONER RASMUSSEN, COMMISSIONER JENKINS, COMMISSION KNIGHTON, AND COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN VOTED AYE. THE MOTIONED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. | |
| COMMISSIONER KNIGHTON MOTIONED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR BRADY, COMMISSIONER RASMUSSEN, COMMISSIONER JENKINS, COMMISSION KNIGHTON, AND COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN VOTED AYE. THE MOTIONED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Assistant Public Works Director Chris Wilson mentioned his concern that the city light fixtures were too tall to fit within the-foot allowance in the ordinance. Due to this, he suggested that the ordinance be continued to the following Planning Commission to ensure we can have accurate height information. | |
| COMMISSIONER JENKINS MOTIONED TO CONTINUE THE ORDINANCE TO AUGUST21. COMMISSIONER RASMUSSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR BRADY, COMMISSIONER RASMUSSEN, COMMISSIONER JENKINS, COMMISSION KNIGHTON, AND COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN VOTED AYE. THE MOTIONED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. WORKSESSION COMMISSION MEMBERS’ REPORTS AND EX PARTE DISCUSSION DISCLOSURE | |
| City Engineer Naseem Ghandour gave a report regarding the Trailside Elementary School trail connection and the Sunset Park trail connection. ADJOURNMENT | |
| COMMISSIONER KNIGHTON MOTIONED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. COMMISSIONER RASMUSSEN SECONDED THE MOTION. ROLL CALL WENT AS FOLLOWS: CHAIR BRADY, COMMISSIONER RASMUSSEN, COMMISSIONER JENKINS, COMMISSION KNIGHTON, AND COMMISSIONER BLACKBURN VOTED AYE. THE MOTIONED CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Certified Correct On:August23 CERTIFIED BY: /s/ Cache Hancey Cache Hancey, Planning Technician |
| All right. Welcome, everybody to the Vineyard Planning Commission meeting. It is Wednesday, July 21st, 2021. It is 6:00. | 00:00:03 | |
| And we'll just get right into it, I. | 00:00:13 | |
| We'll have an invocation. | 00:00:17 | |
| And by Tim and yeah, thank you. | 00:00:20 | |
| Our Father in heaven, we're grateful for this opportunity this evening to be here in this capacity of a Planning Commission. | 00:00:26 | |
| We are grateful to be able to live in this community. We thank thee for those who have brought it to us over many years, and we | 00:00:34 | |
| pray that our decisions and deliberations tonight will be in keeping with the overall goals and objectives of this community. We | 00:00:42 | |
| are are grateful for those who are desirous to come here and as businesses and residents and in other ways. And we pray that we | 00:00:49 | |
| will be able to do what we can to help to blend in and balance. | 00:00:56 | |
| The growth of this community, we are grateful for that moisture receive Father in Heaven and we pray for more. We thou knowest of | 00:01:04 | |
| our difficult situations in this county and state and we pray for thy help in helping to bring moisture to the land. | 00:01:12 | |
| Now we are grateful to live in this free country. | 00:01:20 | |
| Where we have responsibilities and opportunities, these things we humbly pray and thank you for the name of Jesus Christ, Amen. | 00:01:23 | |
| Amen. Thank you so much, Tim. | 00:01:28 | |
| All right. | 00:01:33 | |
| So. | 00:01:36 | |
| Going to move into an open session. If you if there's any public that has any comments that they would like to make, keep it in 3 | 00:01:38 | |
| minutes, just come up here to the stand I. | 00:01:42 | |
| And yeah. | 00:01:47 | |
| Any public. | 00:01:50 | |
| No, All right. I will move into minutes for review and approval as you guys have a chance to take a look over that over the | 00:01:52 | |
| minutes. | 00:01:56 | |
| I wasn't here in the meeting, so I. | 00:02:04 | |
| Abstaining. | 00:02:06 | |
| Jeff, I did not look at that. OK, Amber, I read through them. I didn't listen to the audio. We just need to read through. | 00:02:08 | |
| Right. Yeah, yeah. Read through the minutes, the audio, but it's pretty, you know, that that happened. OK, Yes, I did read. I did | 00:02:17 | |
| read through it. So I make a motion to, what do I say, approve the minutes from July 7th, from July 7th, July 2nd. | 00:02:26 | |
| I'll second all in favor. Aye, aye. All right, moving into business Item 4.1 that about Times site plan. | 00:02:35 | |
| OK, my name is Brian Maya Perez. I serve as a city planner here. | 00:02:46 | |
| So the applicant, his name is Ryan Naylor, he's with Nichols Naylor architect and we're going to be looking at. | 00:02:52 | |
| The Bout Time Pub and Grub site plan application proposal and more specifically the the exterior extension of a dining area. | 00:03:03 | |
| So yeah, just jump right into it. So this is right here in this location is where the where the. | 00:03:15 | |
| Restaurant will be locating. The address is 568 Mill Road and it's directly West of the Megaplex Theater as you can see. | 00:03:24 | |
| So this application first started as a commercial TI, but then a site plan application was triggered due to these exterior the | 00:03:35 | |
| exterior dining element of it. So we processed that through a through a site plan application. | 00:03:41 | |
| This application is interesting because as you know this This site is. | 00:03:51 | |
| Has already been approved as a through master development development agreement. So there are elements that we won't be discussing | 00:03:55 | |
| in this because they've already been talked about and approved in a in a previous Planning Commission, but we will be talking | 00:04:01 | |
| about. | 00:04:06 | |
| That canopy and specific and kind of the effects that that canopy could that dining area can have on the surrounding environment. | 00:04:13 | |
| Umm, so as you know this area is zoned RMU and so that's to provide a mix of uses daytime and night time and it's supposed to | 00:04:22 | |
| facilitate commercial office and and potentially residential as well. | 00:04:28 | |
| So let me show you some pictures. That glare's not letting me through. My tabs are but. | 00:04:37 | |
| Show some pictures of. | 00:04:43 | |
| The proposal here. | 00:04:46 | |
| So the restaurant will be located here and this is where the the outdoor seating area is being proposed. | 00:04:49 | |
| So they're going to add about 15 tables if I'm not wrong, and that that area will measure. So the canopy is 15 feet in height, 10 | 00:05:00 | |
| inches. The length is about 55 feet one and 1/4 inch. The width is 15 feet 3 inches and it will all be enclosed by a three foot. | 00:05:13 | |
| Steel fence. | 00:05:28 | |
| It won't be. | 00:05:30 | |
| It won't be like totally enclosed or there's like walls and things. It's just a rail and then it'll you can see through it | 00:05:33 | |
| basically and then they'll be the dining tables. | 00:05:38 | |
| So we, we definitely do like when developers propose this, this sort of project because. | 00:05:45 | |
| It provides an opportunity to really engage that space to provide a lot of visual interest. | 00:05:52 | |
| And. | 00:06:00 | |
| And it really enhances the sense of human scale and provides that vibrancy that we want to see in a lot of development. We just | 00:06:00 | |
| want to make sure that. | 00:06:04 | |
| Any sort of elements that we see that could cause concerns are properly addressed and and we really do believe that that the | 00:06:10 | |
| applicant does does want to. | 00:06:16 | |
| Work towards that. And so they're here to to answer any questions that that you guys might have. | 00:06:24 | |
| Just a little bit more on the site plan. | 00:06:31 | |
| As you see. | 00:06:33 | |
| This The outdoor seating area will not allow an pedestrian flow to go on on on this sidewalk any longer. But. | 00:06:37 | |
| The applicant is maintaining fire access by providing A5 foot clearance. | 00:06:51 | |
| For pedestrians just South of the of that seating area and of course there's an alternative route through the other sidewalk | 00:06:57 | |
| facility that has been provided. | 00:07:03 | |
| They're also proposing. | 00:07:11 | |
| A so this I'm going to zoom in a little bit, this area here between the rail so this dark line around the edge is that 3 foot rail | 00:07:15 | |
| that they're proposing and there's. | 00:07:21 | |
| There's they're leaving about a 5 foot pedestrian clearance for access. They're providing an ADA ramp here that will lead into | 00:07:28 | |
| this new painted crosswalk and it will terminate here at this existing ADA aisle. | 00:07:37 | |
| In the stock report, I expressed concerns about the termination of this crosswalk at this ADA access aisle, but in speaking with. | 00:07:48 | |
| With Morgan and with George in the building department there, they don't have any concerns with that. So we can ignore those | 00:07:59 | |
| comments from the staff report regarding that. But there is a section of the code that reads that. Let me find it here. | 00:08:09 | |
| I'm just going to pull it up here in the code. | 00:08:25 | |
| Or in the. | 00:08:28 | |
| Conditions. | 00:08:30 | |
| OK. It says areas where pedestrian walkways cross driveways shall be constructed of stamped and or raised concrete or of other | 00:08:36 | |
| material and design so as to differentiate the areas of pedestrian vehicle interface. So I personally. | 00:08:44 | |
| As you can see, the other crosswalks throughout the development do meet the standard. And so that's one thing that I wanted to | 00:08:54 | |
| make sure of in this discussion is that this, this crosswalk, however it is finalized that it does meet that that requirement. So | 00:09:02 | |
| I, I would like to see something that comes a little closer to this. | 00:09:10 | |
| So that's that's my concern there. | 00:09:20 | |
| Regarding. | 00:09:24 | |
| The the materiality of the canopy itself. Let me pull up the elevation here. | 00:09:27 | |
| So, umm. | 00:09:36 | |
| The applicant has provided some visual cues, but we typically have applicants provide a, what we call materials board that | 00:09:39 | |
| actually shows the the actual elements, construction elements that are on there, the, the, the metal pieces, the, I don't know, | 00:09:45 | |
| the trimming pieces, the brick that's going to be used. So we we did not receive that from the applicant, but we did receive this, | 00:09:52 | |
| which does show some. | 00:09:58 | |
| Elements of what's being constructed here. | 00:10:06 | |
| And so pardon me. | 00:10:08 | |
| They're showing a metal roofing here that's going to be colored a charcoal Gray and they're also showing. | 00:10:11 | |
| A gauntlet, Gray steel for for the railing and a few other elements on the canopy. | 00:10:20 | |
| In in. | 00:10:28 | |
| The applicant Ryan also sent me this which provides a little bit more color. | 00:10:30 | |
| And then I also received. | 00:10:37 | |
| This picture I'm pulling up another picture. | 00:10:41 | |
| This picture of another location, I believe this is your, did you say American Fork West Jordan, a location in West Jordan that | 00:10:46 | |
| is, is designed very similarly though ours, the one that they're proposing here in Vineyard is going to be a slightly different | 00:10:52 | |
| color. It's going to be a darker Gray color, if I'm not wrong. And so this is kind of gives you a little bit more of a visual cue | 00:10:58 | |
| as to what what they're proposing. | 00:11:05 | |
| What they're doing here isn't going to have the brick wall. No, no, it won't have the brick wall. | 00:11:12 | |
| Well, but it will, it will have these footings, right? | 00:11:19 | |
| OK, OK. Just Combs. OK. | 00:11:24 | |
| All right, so just the railing then? | 00:11:27 | |
| So we, we needed to get you get your opinion, the, the Commission's opinion on, on, on the materiality and design of this. I want | 00:11:34 | |
| to make sure that the applicant is meeting all of our requirements. | 00:11:42 | |
| But. | 00:11:52 | |
| We just needed some further assistance from you guys to see if if you guys would would be alright with with this proposed design. | 00:11:53 | |
| Do you guys have any questions regarding what they're proposing? | 00:12:04 | |
| Anybody have any questions? | 00:12:10 | |
| I do. I do. | 00:12:12 | |
| First, Brian, on the site plan there was a a symbol on that plan that I assume showing up from the civil. | 00:12:14 | |
| Site Planet, that like a light fixture? That's not a light fixture or something right in that aisle for the 88 parking stall. This | 00:12:24 | |
| right here, yeah. | 00:12:28 | |
| That's not that's something underground or something, right? | 00:12:35 | |
| But it's in the wrong location. | 00:12:39 | |
| OK, OK. | 00:12:42 | |
| OK. | 00:12:44 | |
| But it's not in that spot. There's not an existing. It shows up in the plan. But the way it was built, it's not in that location. | 00:12:46 | |
| Sorry. Can you can you come to the microphone? Thank you, Ryan. | 00:12:51 | |
| And I knew you can introduce yourself. Ryan Taylor Nichols, Naylor Architects. | 00:12:57 | |
| Yeah, the I received this CAD file from the original architect for the development and. | 00:13:05 | |
| There's a difference between the way that those stalls were installed and how that is represented. The spacing slightly different, | 00:13:11 | |
| so there's no conflict with the. | 00:13:16 | |
| With the access aisle there so. | 00:13:21 | |
| OK, Yeah, we're just looking at in Google Earth. It looks like it's close, but it's not complex. So as long as that's not in | 00:13:27 | |
| conflict, obviously that would be. | 00:13:30 | |
| A problem, right? If the access ran into a light pole? | 00:13:35 | |
| OK. Yeah. I just want to ask about that. But I mean, I think otherwise for me personally is the blocking of the access along that | 00:13:41 | |
| sidewalk. | 00:13:45 | |
| I'm not. | 00:13:50 | |
| Too terribly concerned with I think the crossing is a little clunky, but I realize there's not a lot of options of other ways to | 00:13:52 | |
| do that. I think the site has enough circulation in other places around it and I think the benefit of having outdoor dining on | 00:13:59 | |
| that sidewalk is it that's a positive to have people out there and have that life on the street. So I don't have any concerns | 00:14:07 | |
| about that. What I do have concerns with and sorry if I. | 00:14:14 | |
| Away from the mic on the elevations and the way the way it looks in the plants is that it it, it really looks like it's an add-on, | 00:14:22 | |
| like it's an afterthought from the original building rather than integrating architecturally with with the existing building. | 00:14:31 | |
| Looks like something that was tacked on as a as a patio. | 00:14:40 | |
| Because. | 00:14:50 | |
| It, it's, it's pretty bare bones and then the pitch on the roof, you know, there's no other sloped roof elements on these | 00:14:51 | |
| buildings. And so it's a very foreign, it's bringing in architectural pieces. They're very foreign to the building. | 00:14:59 | |
| So my my concern is just that it's going to look like a. | 00:15:08 | |
| An afterthought and is not tying in necessarily with the rest of the development color wise. Ideally it would be nice to see what | 00:15:12 | |
| those colors look like next to the existing. However, they're both Gray, the dark Gray, and a lighter Gray, so it'll probably be | 00:15:18 | |
| fine. | 00:15:24 | |
| But I think for me that's that's my biggest concern is. | 00:15:31 | |
| It's not really tying in any way the existing building. | 00:15:35 | |
| So to address those questions, umm. | 00:15:41 | |
| So the side of that building, it's a little some challenges there. You know, we this wasn't just like. | 00:15:44 | |
| You know, we just stuck it on the side. There wasn't any thought there. You know, if you look at the top line, we were trying to | 00:15:50 | |
| line it up with the heads of the windows and then the the lower line was intended to line up with the canopy next to it. When you | 00:15:56 | |
| look at it, there's those brick Piers that go up like part of the way. So if we were to, you know, try and line it up with that | 00:16:02 | |
| main canopy there, you basically run into the, into the kind of like you have about 18 inches of that brick pier sticking up above | 00:16:08 | |
| the roof. | 00:16:14 | |
| Your comment is one that the developer brought up to us. Also he was concerned about the sloping roof. So I I have an option | 00:16:21 | |
| that's. | 00:16:26 | |
| Flatter, so it basically lines up with that entry canopy. I mean, I can give that to you if you want to see that. We'll see what | 00:16:32 | |
| that looks like. Yeah, I think that would be, that would be great. | 00:16:37 | |
| So there's version. | 00:16:46 | |
| It shows it on the side elevation. | 00:16:57 | |
| Which direction? | 00:17:02 | |
| So towards it's sloping down towards the movie theater East East. | 00:17:03 | |
| So this this space is the drive aisle. | 00:17:09 | |
| Day on, Yeah. | 00:17:15 | |
| It's more about weather. | 00:17:18 | |
| Yeah, I mean. | 00:17:27 | |
| Personally I, you know, pass these down unless you guys have the same thing we have. | 00:17:29 | |
| I think the lower lower slope I think. | 00:17:37 | |
| Personally I I would prefer that option. I think it. | 00:17:43 | |
| Even though it's not identical, you know it will have some slope. It won't look exactly like the the metal canopy that's on the | 00:17:46 | |
| corner. I think it'll be less distracting as a as a new element and that people fit in a little bit better. | 00:17:54 | |
| Does anyone else on the Commission have any comments? Another question, so the main entrance is on the north side, correct? Yeah, | 00:18:05 | |
| the the doors on the South of those exit only or how does that work? | 00:18:11 | |
| On the backside of the building, South end, Yeah, those are just be, you know, for deliveries or for backup house kind of kitchen. | 00:18:17 | |
| Yeah, OK. | 00:18:21 | |
| They're not using, there's like 3 doors or something on there that are actually going to be essentially covered up. There's only | 00:18:26 | |
| going to be 1 door that's utilized on the back. OK because I know another restaurant in that area actually uses that backside for | 00:18:33 | |
| an entry. Transcendent. The only reason I was asking is whether you want it to happen or not. People will walk around the patio in | 00:18:39 | |
| the street. Hopefully no one's driving more than 5 miles an hour anyway, but like. | 00:18:46 | |
| That will happen, I mean, whether it's designed for that or not. So I just wonder if there was back entrance. | 00:18:54 | |
| No, there's not planned on being an entrance there. | 00:19:00 | |
| It's a good point though that people might overflow. I mean the the parking stalls in the middle. | 00:19:03 | |
| Threat of that metal Dr. aisle. The angled parking is usually pretty folks and a lot of its 88 parking. So a lot of people that | 00:19:09 | |
| come to this development park behind the yeah South in that overflow that ends up being kind of the primary parking. That was part | 00:19:16 | |
| of my observation. I went over there and spent about an hour and a half today just watching. | 00:19:23 | |
| Pedestrian flow. | 00:19:31 | |
| And I took it a little sample, informal sample. There were 24 people in the course of an hour and a half who parked behind the | 00:19:34 | |
| building and walked north. Now, if I recall my numbers, 12 of them went toward the theater, so they kind of angled off toward the | 00:19:44 | |
| theater. But the other 12, about 50%, walked up that sidewalk and went into the shop, that little shopping area. | 00:19:53 | |
| Now that's just a very simple sample midday. | 00:20:04 | |
| But I'm very concerned about blocking pedestrian traffic. | 00:20:07 | |
| They're up that sidewalk. That's one of my biggest concerns is because the only place I'll have to walk in is in the street. If | 00:20:11 | |
| they continue parking behind the building and wanting to access that little part of that little, yeah, they'll have to go around. | 00:20:18 | |
| And. | 00:20:26 | |
| I'm just wondering if there aren't other options. I looked the ice cream place there has put out benches in the in the sidewalk. | 00:20:28 | |
| They look like they're movable portable benches. I understand that's not a dining area and ice cream is different than meals and | 00:20:34 | |
| and I'm wondering what would be opening up for other restaurants. The only one across the street just to the north, the umami. Is | 00:20:40 | |
| that what it's called restaurant? | 00:20:46 | |
| They have a similar situation sidewalk just to their east. | 00:20:54 | |
| And if they were to come in for a request to do such, we would be hard pressed not to allow them to do that if we went ahead and | 00:20:59 | |
| approved this one. | 00:21:03 | |
| Yep, Yep. Brian, along those lines, had this come in initially with, with the canopy there, would, would our requirements have | 00:21:08 | |
| been to have a, a walkway around it or how, how would that have worked? You know what I mean? Like if this came in fresh, | 00:21:15 | |
| nothing's there and then you're building this with a patio on it, we would require a sidewalk. Is that how that would work? I | 00:21:23 | |
| believe so. I mean, if you need to look into it a little bit more, that's right. No, but I think that's right, yeah. And. | 00:21:30 | |
| Nodding it over there, I think that's correct. | 00:21:38 | |
| So I'm just, you know, that's, that's my main. I love the idea of outside eating. I really do. I'm wondering if there aren't | 00:21:41 | |
| options though, that you could accomplish the same purpose without taking the entire sidewalk. | 00:21:48 | |
| Or if there's something that could be done in the street way right there. | 00:21:55 | |
| To allow for a little bumper zone, you know, to like you see in some neighborhoods where there's a little bumper in the street | 00:22:00 | |
| that. | 00:22:04 | |
| Blocks off another two or three feet so that people can walk there. Are you talking like a bollard? Like I'm not sure what they're | 00:22:08 | |
| called, One of those posts? No, it's not a post. It's just a concrete thing in the street that sets off a little bit of area. I | 00:22:15 | |
| don't know. That's as I looked at this. I love the concept, I really do, but I'm just wondering if there aren't some options | 00:22:23 | |
| without taking that whole. What is it? An 8 foot wide sidewalk? It's 15 feet wide. 15 feet wide. | 00:22:30 | |
| Taking that whole thing yet 15 by three to five. | 00:22:38 | |
| Without taking that whole sidewalk for eating. | 00:22:42 | |
| I mean, obviously we're trying to find the correct balance between getting comfortable tables for our, you know, our occupants and | 00:22:48 | |
| getting patio space. So the more tables we can get out there the better. And then we also have to balance that with some | 00:22:54 | |
| requirements that we have for the DABC of fencing that area. And so it has to be an enclosed area. We can't just have it, you | 00:23:01 | |
| know, more open. | 00:23:07 | |
| You know, I'm just wondering, could could 10 feet accomplish some of the same purpose without taking all 15 feet and therefore | 00:23:14 | |
| allowing three to four to five feet still for pedestrian traffic up and down the north-south corridor? Just just thoughts because | 00:23:21 | |
| I'm concerned about pedestrian access into that little mall type area there. | 00:23:28 | |
| Because most of the people I saw and I didn't notice who was parking in the angled parking lots, but those that I saw were parking | 00:23:36 | |
| behind the building on the South side and walking north. | 00:23:42 | |
| Engineering. Do you guys have any input on this? | 00:23:49 | |
| Nothing at all engineering so in regards to the requirements that the applicant needs to meet in order to for the permits for the | 00:23:57 | |
| for being able to serve there. | 00:24:02 | |
| When they attempt on what they're trying to do needs that in regards to the accessibility for the sidewalk on that it comes down | 00:24:08 | |
| to. | 00:24:12 | |
| Providing the points of access, points of access to allow people across. I mean the the complex is a shopping complex with load so | 00:24:19 | |
| low speeds and with backward lighting on that and also the intent of the what was provided here. | 00:24:29 | |
| By the applicant means the attempted purposes with the provider for the existing infrastructure and structure as well. So I mean | 00:24:39 | |
| in regards to our, our, our, excuse me, in regards to what was provided in our opinions as to what was provided me so intent. | 00:24:48 | |
| What are your feelings on like a safer buffer zone of like a walk area along there where car traffic wouldn't be, Even if it's | 00:24:59 | |
| just kind of a little bit of a shoulder there, I don't know if you want to encourage that or discourage that one. | 00:25:06 | |
| It comes down to how it's applied, but and then of course you factor in the human factor into everything on that when you start | 00:25:13 | |
| restricting the car access of on that area like on a buffer on the street pretty much where. | 00:25:21 | |
| What's going to happen is you're causing. You're putting conflict at the top of conflict on top of conflict. | 00:25:29 | |
| So if you allow the, allow that area to be again. | 00:25:34 | |
| Vehicle or traffic as is as is assigned and then you have your pedestrian access points to the north of the crosswalks to the | 00:25:41 | |
| north of it or established one in your choosing to place another investment crosswalk along the southern part. You know proper I | 00:25:48 | |
| want to say signalization, but proper assignment will allow that for there to be. | 00:25:56 | |
| A identification for pedestrian areas. So you think I'm sorry. I wish I again, in my opinion would probably meet downtown. But if | 00:26:06 | |
| you're starting to put barriers into the road. | 00:26:11 | |
| With well probably end up happening will be causing conflict for vehicle or traffic without the regards of pedestrian. | 00:26:19 | |
| So you think it was designed well enough that we can have this sort of access? | 00:26:27 | |
| Or have this sort of design and it's the traffic is slow enough and it's pedestrian friendly enough, but this would be OK. | 00:26:33 | |
| With proper signage and things and we shouldn't be adding a bunch of elements. Is that kind of what you're saying? | 00:26:41 | |
| OK, there we go. I thought you had question down so. | 00:26:50 | |
| Excuse me, Yeah. What was what's present? What's presented is that. | 00:26:55 | |
| On that I mean entry when you start adding more. | 00:26:59 | |
| More control, more devices, more barriers into the into the into vehicle error traffic tends to cause more conflicts at times. So | 00:27:04 | |
| the way that's presented me sometime in with the Aqua and again when it comes down to pedestrian safety, this is not a not a. | 00:27:14 | |
| Corridor for vehicles to get from north to South and east to West and where the vehicle air speed is, is intent to be low as well. | 00:27:25 | |
| So again, crosswalks are intended to allow safe passage for pedestrians and but. However, we all know that pedestrians shall find | 00:27:36 | |
| an easiest, shortest point or path to point A to point B. | 00:27:41 | |
| Well, but for my observation, you're still going to have people walking along the North S route, but they just won't be walking on | 00:27:48 | |
| a sidewalk. They'll be walking in the road and it is a pub. There will be alcohol served. I'm wondering about impairment of | 00:27:55 | |
| walking perhaps. I don't know if it's going to get to that point, but I'm just really concerned about the pedestrian movement | 00:28:02 | |
| North and South right there for that 55 foot stretch. | 00:28:09 | |
| And I think we need to be really thinking about what we can do to safeguard. | 00:28:17 | |
| Any potential pedestrian automobile conflict right there? And granted, cars don't drive faster usually. | 00:28:21 | |
| But I'm not sure that they obey the 5 miles an hour I didn't today. | 00:28:31 | |
| Prohibit through traffic walking through that gated area. | 00:28:37 | |
| You're saying if the gate was open and yeah, you can't do that. It's not prohibited, OK. | 00:28:42 | |
| You, you might have, you might have said this earlier, the main entrance on that north side in these three bays, where is the main | 00:28:54 | |
| entrance to the restaurant going to be? It's going to be on that North East corner, right there under northeast corner. | 00:29:01 | |
| Because what I was thinking is maybe you know if. | 00:29:11 | |
| I see your point now, Tim and I, I agree and so. | 00:29:15 | |
| I wonder if it's not better, you know, if if you could and I realize you can't move the roof canopy. You only have so much | 00:29:21 | |
| coverage with the roof canopy because the the existing canopy that's there being in conflict. So you're not gaining, you're going | 00:29:27 | |
| to lose some of your covered seating area. But if if you brought your seating area forward further north, you know, around that | 00:29:34 | |
| corner so that even some of that outdoor seating, patio seating is engaged more on that. | 00:29:41 | |
| Central promenade area and picked up more space there. I realize it's not going to be a one for one trade, but you know, I could | 00:29:49 | |
| see allowing more space up there, stretching it to the north a little bit, but picking up that. | 00:29:55 | |
| 48 inches or five feet. | 00:30:03 | |
| As a as a walkway along the curb, between the fence and the curb. | 00:30:06 | |
| It seems to be more protected on that north side. | 00:30:13 | |
| For pedestrians, because you have the angular parking, angular space and other restaurants, at least the ice cream place, that's | 00:30:17 | |
| kind of done that. They've moved outside a little bit on the South side of their building, but. | 00:30:24 | |
| I don't know if what you're still trying to accomplish, but I like that idea. | 00:30:31 | |
| So my my thoughts that I was just going to share real quick is definitely for giving up the full sidewalk. I think it's very | 00:30:40 | |
| reasonable to require the same. | 00:30:45 | |
| Crossing that are already in, just have that on the South side and I think it's just the stamped concrete, but something that ties | 00:30:51 | |
| in exactly the same as those other ones. That was like design elements I have no issues with whatsoever. | 00:30:59 | |
| I think it's great that it's coming in and I'd love to see it sooner rather than later. But yeah, the crossing is my only | 00:31:07 | |
| question. So anything we could do to discourage people walking in the street, I don't know if it's extending the railing a little | 00:31:11 | |
| further or, you know, pointing them, you know, if you if you need to go back this way across the crosswalk or go around the | 00:31:16 | |
| alleyway, I don't know what it is. But no matter what you do, I mean, I think people are going to do whatever's convenient for | 00:31:21 | |
| them, so. | 00:31:25 | |
| And to be clear, there's plenty of jaywalking going on there currently, right? Like, it's not. It's not. Yeah. It's like this is | 00:31:31 | |
| something that's never been seen over there. | 00:31:36 | |
| A couple of my comments. I agree that the crosswalk needs to match the other crosswalks. It was something that when we talked | 00:31:43 | |
| about this whole area that was kind of a particular point. Another thing if. | 00:31:49 | |
| If it gets approved where the sidewalk on that side closes, then I think that it's important that the alleyway that goes in | 00:31:56 | |
| between the two buildings. | 00:32:00 | |
| Has better lighting has, is more welcoming because it looks like an alleyway on that side right now. And if you look at it on | 00:32:04 | |
| Google Maps, there's like no lighting on that entrance there. And it just seems like you're not supposed to go in this way. If | 00:32:10 | |
| that became something where it's like, oh, this is more welcoming. This is the way your Aussies go. Like if there was some kind of | 00:32:16 | |
| design elements there, they were like, OK, this is this is obviously the way to go and more people would flow through that way. | 00:32:22 | |
| But right now it's it's very much not. | 00:32:28 | |
| There's a power box and just all the power boxes for all the buildings. There's no design elements, no lighting. So I think that | 00:32:34 | |
| if that E sidewalk was closing, then that W sidewalk alleyway needs to be much more inviting. So I think with what you're saying | 00:32:42 | |
| about, you know, that you brought up about letting us extend it a little bit further to north and let me have my client, Tim talk | 00:32:49 | |
| to him about whether or not. | 00:32:57 | |
| Fine with. | 00:33:04 | |
| You know, having a three foot walkway, I mean basically all you would need to meet ADA is a three foot wide, you know, section of | 00:33:06 | |
| sidewalk with five foot, you know, sections at each end to meet ADA. So if we move the fence over three feet I think. | 00:33:14 | |
| It's still leaving, okay. | 00:33:24 | |
| Tim, will you please introduce yourself to the microphone? Tim Ryan, owner, About Time Pub and Grab. | 00:33:27 | |
| So how about this? | 00:33:33 | |
| That, I think, ties the whole thing up with a neat bow. | 00:33:37 | |
| It's a 15 foot concrete span right now. | 00:33:40 | |
| We'll take the patio back to 12. | 00:33:47 | |
| Leaving the three foot access for pedestrians that will address this concern. | 00:33:49 | |
| Remove the crosswalk, right, And so give up on the crosswalk. It's no longer necessary because it's not replacing anything that's | 00:33:56 | |
| been taken away. You don't have to deal with lighting. | 00:34:01 | |
| Give us an approval that gives us the option to extend the patio around that corner as was suggested. Not sure we want to do that. | 00:34:09 | |
| I think there's. | 00:34:14 | |
| Complications there. There's also, there's a fire pit out there, right, that's on the corner that I don't know if we really want | 00:34:21 | |
| to work around, but at least give us the option to explore that and then perhaps leave us with the roof as proposed at our option. | 00:34:28 | |
| I will go back to the developer. I have no heartburn whether it's on an angle or flat, but it will be considerably more expensive | 00:34:36 | |
| if we're required to. | 00:34:43 | |
| Adjust the pitch, but if the developer wants to pitch that way. | 00:34:52 | |
| I'm sure he'd be happy to pay for it. | 00:34:57 | |
| To clarify, you're saying that the flatter option is considerably more expensive, It will be more expensive. I don't, I don't have | 00:34:59 | |
| a dollar amount on that yet because that was an issue that just came up with the manufacturer today and they said, Oh yeah, we can | 00:35:04 | |
| of course do that, but it's it's more. | 00:35:08 | |
| But fine. And then, you know, as far as the colors go, umm. | 00:35:14 | |
| For that part, we're planning to at this point match, there's some Gray vertical siding that's already on that. | 00:35:20 | |
| Building, you see it as you're, you know, driving down the street. It's fine. It's not our prototype color, but. | 00:35:29 | |
| This is not a space where that awning is in any way an advertisement, you know, it's on a non St. facing side and so on and so | 00:35:36 | |
| forth. But if you guys feel good about working with us on those conditions, we feel fine about it and. | 00:35:43 | |
| Wrap it up. Must get thing built. | 00:35:50 | |
| So if if we were to go north, letting them go north. | 00:35:57 | |
| How would we want to go about that kind of looking at the roof that's currently there, the fire pit that's I think it's just it's | 00:36:03 | |
| a non covered extension of the patio space, but the roof has to I think the roof there awning stops where the existing I agree | 00:36:11 | |
| with canopy is at the corner, because I think that's complicated. So we could simply continue the metal rail, right? And that's | 00:36:18 | |
| just not a rainy day space, which they have right like right now if you look. | 00:36:26 | |
| Elevation of that side, on that east side, you'll see that the railing on the ground floor goes past the covered roof portion, so | 00:36:34 | |
| there's already some portion of that patio space uncovered. | 00:36:40 | |
| Yeah, I'd be, it seems to make sense, like as long as it didn't extend any further north than the frontage of the building there, | 00:36:46 | |
| I don't see why that would cause any issue personally. Yeah, and I think that eliminates the back door concern as well. I feel | 00:36:52 | |
| much better about having a sidewalk access. Yeah. And, and for our purposes, we're going to narrow those existing. They're still | 00:36:58 | |
| showing on the old plan, but there's three entrances because that space was designed that it could be demised in the three | 00:37:04 | |
| businesses. | 00:37:10 | |
| We're going to have one main door. | 00:37:17 | |
| There and not use the back door. She's a better control point, you know, to monitor customers and if you're checking ID's and so | 00:37:19 | |
| on and so forth, it's better. | 00:37:23 | |
| Control point. | 00:37:29 | |
| OK, so not speaking for everyone here, but I think that yeah, if you do the 12 foot. | 00:37:33 | |
| A 12 foot roof leaving that 3 foot area and I think that we're fine with how it is and extending the fence at least to the front | 00:37:42 | |
| face of the building, we're fine with that as well. | 00:37:48 | |
| Right my. | 00:37:55 | |
| As long as that's not against any the the canopy doesn't can. Yeah, yeah, right. I think what Anthony said, I think we extend the | 00:37:57 | |
| patios that. | 00:38:02 | |
| Fenced off patio space, provided that we maintain, you know, pedestrian clearances and stuff like that around it, like we are on | 00:38:09 | |
| the one side. | 00:38:13 | |
| OK. | 00:38:20 | |
| Otherwise, I think I think the materials look good. | 00:38:22 | |
| It would be nice to see them, of course, but it's it's pretty basic and I think that we get a pretty solid idea of that. | 00:38:26 | |
| Any other comments? No, no. | 00:38:36 | |
| Up there now. | 00:38:41 | |
| So we won't add, I think that's, I think it's better, yeah. Then we don't have that. | 00:38:44 | |
| Brian, could we put in a condition? | 00:38:50 | |
| To have staff approve materials Board still take a look at that. | 00:38:54 | |
| Yeah, I think so. | 00:39:00 | |
| Yeah. | 00:39:07 | |
| You know, we'll get with that information. Yeah, I just wouldn't want to have to. I'm thinking of ways that we could move it | 00:39:08 | |
| forward without having to come back to this stuff. | 00:39:12 | |
| Must be provided a material works yeah to match to match existing. | 00:39:17 | |
| OK. | 00:39:24 | |
| So I know I was this particular that brought up the flat roof thing and it's not, that's not a hill I'm going to die on. And we | 00:39:27 | |
| don't have any code reason to enforce that. I I'm not sure why it would come back that much more expensive, but. | 00:39:34 | |
| You know, I would prefer the flatter roof, but that's not. | 00:39:42 | |
| If that's not going to work, I'd rather have the walkway like we're talking about too anyway, so I'm indifferent to it honestly, | 00:39:47 | |
| you know? | 00:39:52 | |
| But again, it'll just be a point of dollars at that point. We'll be giving up some dollars and seating, you know future revenue. | 00:39:59 | |
| And in this business and particularly now anywhere you can pick it up, it sure is fine. But I but if the developer chooses, you | 00:40:05 | |
| know to take in a little bit and they're great guys. | 00:40:11 | |
| But you know, they maybe. | 00:40:18 | |
| The code does call for consistency in design. So I don't think it's too outlandish in my opinion to require that it does look and | 00:40:21 | |
| match what's around it. That's exactly what the code calls for actually. Well, and a shorter going from 15 to 12 feet, I mean, the | 00:40:26 | |
| pitch is going to change probably from your, you are going to save some steel on those supports and you're going to, I mean the, | 00:40:32 | |
| the lower pitch roof your columns in the back. And I guess I'm not sure how you're attaching it with its concert to the building, | 00:40:38 | |
| but. | 00:40:44 | |
| They're a little shorter, so. | 00:40:50 | |
| There, there should be some some savings. I mean, is it going to be like a membrane and fully enclosures? It's just a metal just | 00:40:53 | |
| to shed the roof. Yeah, I'm not sure why that would come back more expensive. | 00:40:59 | |
| But umm. | 00:41:05 | |
| That's I just have to pay for it. I understand your position. I I know your position, right? | 00:41:07 | |
| This is a very small thing, but if it were inclined. | 00:41:14 | |
| And it were raining, all the rain would run down onto the pedestrians, right? It has an integrated. Yeah, that's a good point. | 00:41:18 | |
| Of that patio that happens to be 3 feet in it so when it comes down. | 00:41:32 | |
| I know I just wouldn't want to walk down there. | 00:41:39 | |
| So Tim, just so I understand because so basically this is going to be brought back to 12 feet, there's going to be a three foot | 00:41:43 | |
| clearance here to meet minimum ADA requirements. | 00:41:48 | |
| And then the the rail here is going to, is it going to wrap around this northern side of the building and then terminate somewhere | 00:41:54 | |
| within your terminate? | 00:41:59 | |
| Back you see that? | 00:42:07 | |
| There's a right right there. OK, maximum. | 00:42:10 | |
| Terminate there. | 00:42:19 | |
| It's over toward the parking. | 00:42:22 | |
| Kind of where that parking is at an angle, it's kind of in there and it would have quite a bit of clearance to us. | 00:42:27 | |
| And I'm not sure that we'll go around that corner, but we like the flexibility to do it if we get back to looking at it makes | 00:42:36 | |
| sense. | 00:42:38 | |
| Do we can move through? Do we want that minimum of three feet or? | 00:42:43 | |
| Because looking at just looking at the map. | 00:42:51 | |
| If this is kind of the access for people coming from that direction to the. | 00:42:54 | |
| Yeah, just looking, would you like me to put anything on the screen price? | 00:43:00 | |
| Sure. Yeah. If you if you could just bring up Google Maps, yeah. | 00:43:05 | |
| And kind of just show that corner. | 00:43:08 | |
| So naturally these little fire pit areas. | 00:43:24 | |
| And to be gathering places if there's waiting for any restaurants. And so I worry about if we're extending, if we're extending it | 00:43:28 | |
| out far and there's only three feet between the fence and that fire pit. And that's going to be a congestion area. Yeah. Because | 00:43:36 | |
| you can't really go around on the north side of that fire pit. It's kind of just. | 00:43:43 | |
| There, so I worry about that. | 00:43:53 | |
| Yes, yes, I worry about if the fence is coming up so close to this and that's. | 00:44:00 | |
| I don't think that we'd have a problem with just tying it back to the corner of the building. That would be great that that's fine | 00:44:05 | |
| that the. | 00:44:09 | |
| Last time I was there, somebody had hit that fire pit with a vehicle and it has a huge crack in it. So I'm not sure. I'm sure it's | 00:44:14 | |
| going to be repaired and replaced, but. | 00:44:20 | |
| To me, I'm not sure why it's there, but you can see the drain, right? | 00:44:26 | |
| Running on that sidewalk so we'll just. | 00:44:30 | |
| That's the three feet. And then even like as a future idea, not something that we're approving right now, but I think it could be | 00:44:32 | |
| cool to even have some space in that northern area dedicated to dining, adding a roof area and having some. | 00:44:40 | |
| Some space on the Northside. | 00:44:48 | |
| In the future, but not near the entrance. Just a thought though. | 00:44:51 | |
| You're saying further further West of the entrance but on that N patio like a separate? | 00:44:57 | |
| The main door will be here, next one over. | 00:45:05 | |
| There. | 00:45:11 | |
| OK. | 00:45:13 | |
| So, yeah, if you're fine with us approving it as the fence going to just that front corner, yeah, that's fine. Then I, I, I think | 00:45:15 | |
| we could prove something like that. | 00:45:20 | |
| OK, I'm just trying to. | 00:45:27 | |
| Put together all the notes of everything you've discussed. Sorry. So it was the three foot on the east side. | 00:45:28 | |
| The. | 00:45:38 | |
| No crosswalk. The fence, The lower 3 foot fence would go to the corner of the northeast the northeast corner of the building. | 00:45:40 | |
| At least looking from an east elevation, exterior elevation. | 00:45:53 | |
| That I think. I think I agree that the lower pitch. | 00:45:58 | |
| Makes more sense for this area. | 00:46:04 | |
| I would think that we should make it a requirement personally. | 00:46:09 | |
| Is there any opposition to that? | 00:46:15 | |
| All right. So you have design, consistent design consistency of the lower pitched roof. I think the lower pitch rather than the | 00:46:18 | |
| steeper pitch makes more sense for the area. | 00:46:22 | |
| And I think that's it. | 00:46:29 | |
| Then if there needs to be approval of material boards, if we don't have to come back to the Planning Commission, yeah, yeah. So I | 00:46:31 | |
| would like to say that an updated site plan and materials board needs to be provided to staff. | 00:46:38 | |
| Along with that, yeah. And then the last, the very last. | 00:46:47 | |
| Topic that I want to touch on is so nuisances with like sound, only 65 decibels are permitted at any time of day from the | 00:46:51 | |
| restaurant. So just to prevent any possible, you know, noise that is inappropriate. | 00:47:00 | |
| You know, that's a great question. | 00:47:13 | |
| Definite. Oh, maybe 70 decibels is a vacuum cleaner, right? Just restaurant noise. | 00:47:17 | |
| And so you show, I mean show fights, games, things like that inside. What will outdoors have access to that too, like outdoor | 00:47:25 | |
| screens and all that? I think so. OK here. Yeah, I think that's fine. I think it's great. I think that the intent is just | 00:47:31 | |
| essentially general restaurant noise and acceptable, right. So I don't think in our 14 locations in 12 years we've ever had an | 00:47:38 | |
| outdoor. | 00:47:44 | |
| Patio issue. I'm not concerned in this area. | 00:47:51 | |
| People are coming out of IMAX cranked up. | 00:47:55 | |
| OK, All right. Well then we probably don't need to make that a specific condition. | 00:48:01 | |
| Will there be any additional lighting on that east side where there will be typical restaurant type flight or will it be lighting | 00:48:09 | |
| towards the pedestrian passage down? | 00:48:15 | |
| Yeah, because there's lighting currently on the building on that east side. Will there be any lighting? We'll install additional | 00:48:24 | |
| lighting under the patio, which will now sounds like probably be high enough, but we'll have a lot of, lot of illumination. | 00:48:32 | |
| Bleeding out but. | 00:48:41 | |
| We'll run a course of round pendants that. | 00:48:44 | |
| OK inside but down the length of it OK. | 00:48:49 | |
| OK. | 00:48:55 | |
| Naseem and Chris, do you guys have any final comments before we try to make an attempt to get these conditions right? | 00:48:58 | |
| No, the final comments. | 00:49:10 | |
| That was the most dramatic No, I've ever. | 00:49:13 | |
| Was killing me. | 00:49:16 | |
| OK, so I might need a little help with this, so I'll try to get. I wrote down the conditions as we were talking to. You've got | 00:49:19 | |
| them, you can read them. You can read the before we make a motion. How are you feeling about this? So like the comments that we've | 00:49:27 | |
| made, does that sound good? Yeah, I feel fine with it. I just liked it. Have a building permit and. | 00:49:35 | |
| Time is money for sure. I'm a little unclear about the the elevation if we're. | 00:49:44 | |
| If we're. | 00:49:50 | |
| Being granted flexibility on the pitch of the roof yet or not, OK, I don't know. I was going to. | 00:49:52 | |
| So I'm, I mean, I'm always the designer and I prefer the flat pitch roof. And Bryce expressed his opinion. I don't know if anybody | 00:50:02 | |
| else. | 00:50:07 | |
| Do we have a number to be or you know, like I think can we put in the record, I mean these elevations that have been provided, I | 00:50:13 | |
| know they're not part of the digital submittal what you have Brian, but if they provide this? | 00:50:19 | |
| Document that matches what we're looking at now I think we could say you know with what we're looking at now on paper yeah they | 00:50:28 | |
| can be uploaded to the permit file and, and, and we could say that. | 00:50:34 | |
| It has to be consistent with the elevations because submitted to the permit file right now. I'm OK with yeah. Is that what you | 00:50:41 | |
| were saying too, Bryce? This one that's drawn up that we have in paper. Yeah, and. | 00:50:49 | |
| The pitch will be, I mean, it's going to be a little bit different than this because it's going to be 3 feet in. | 00:50:59 | |
| But the way it lines up with that side. | 00:51:06 | |
| And it'll be a little bit steeper too. If it's shorter, the pitch will be a little bit steeper just because it's shorter and so it | 00:51:12 | |
| won't have to travel that distance as much. So maybe because it's a little bit steeper, it'll be, it could potentially be cheaper. | 00:51:18 | |
| I do. I do understand that that with some roofs, specifically metal roofs, if it's below a certain pitch, then you have to do | 00:51:23 | |
| specific things to tie it down. | 00:51:28 | |
| More structure, but I don't know how much it more it could be, but if you guys are willing to pay a nickel more for a beer. | 00:51:35 | |
| Fine, we'll make it up in the long run. Cool. Yeah, yeah. And I, I don't know the percentage of what that is and but I, I think | 00:51:42 | |
| that visually it makes more sense to have it as a lower pitch kind of how it is here and I. | 00:51:51 | |
| So we're going to have. So yeah, I think we're going to does that. Is that clear enough that we want to do cool. | 00:52:03 | |
| Hey, Jeff, you ready to make a motion? | 00:52:10 | |
| Yeah, sorry. Right. And did we decide we were holding? Yeah, we're going to elevations that are provided, right. So it's different | 00:52:13 | |
| from the Salvation and I'm not sure we're going to word that because it's pulled in three feet. Yeah, because it's pulled in three | 00:52:17 | |
| feet, but. | 00:52:22 | |
| To make it, I guess it would look the same. The exterior elevation would look the same from the east side no matter what. Even if | 00:52:27 | |
| it was pulled in three feet, right, the east side exterior elevation would be the same. So I don't know how to how. | 00:52:34 | |
| The pitch, the slope of that roof will be the same. It just comes in three feet. They'll tie it in at the top. I mean, the pitcher | 00:52:47 | |
| will change because it's 3 feet in, so the pitch goes a little bit steeper, if that makes sense. | 00:52:54 | |
| Because it's in three feet more. | 00:53:01 | |
| It's the same distance going from the outside to the inside, but because it's come in the pitch gets a little bit steeper unless | 00:53:03 | |
| you raise just lift the bearing point of it up a little bit more. But that's that's been issue that I don't. | 00:53:11 | |
| From the existing right? Exactly, yes. | 00:53:21 | |
| You guys, you understand what we're wanting you to draw, so I worded just how he said it to match the existing depth of the other | 00:53:25 | |
| exterior canopy. | 00:53:30 | |
| So that's the depth of the existing exterior canopy. Yeah, so. | 00:53:39 | |
| If you're calling that depth, I guess. | 00:53:45 | |
| This, this right here, Yeah. | 00:53:48 | |
| You're saying what you see from here. Yeah. So basically you're you're east side exterior elevation would look exactly the same no | 00:53:51 | |
| matter what the pitch is. | 00:53:56 | |
| I'm going to try this then. OK, we're ready. | 00:54:03 | |
| OK, then I move to. I don't have what the item number is here. | 00:54:07 | |
| I pull that back up. | 00:54:15 | |
| I can pull up on the screen. Hey, I move to approve the site plan as requested by Ryan Nichols of Nichols Naylor Architects with | 00:54:17 | |
| the proposed conditions that the fence patio outdoor patio is reduced to 12 feet to allow a 36 inch minimum walkway along the | 00:54:25 | |
| eastern edge of the existing sidewalk. | 00:54:33 | |
| Defense Patio can extend to the north up to the northeast corner of the existing building. | 00:54:42 | |
| There will be no new crosswalk extending to the east from the southeast corner. | 00:54:51 | |
| Also, that the applicant revised the design that is consistent in concept with the elevation that have been provided on paper such | 00:54:59 | |
| that the the canopy over the patio is a lower slope and matches the depth of the existing exterior canopy. And that the applicant | 00:55:08 | |
| will submit the actual material board to staff just to ensure that the the colors tie in with the existing buildings. | 00:55:17 | |
| And a site plan. | 00:55:27 | |
| And a site plan. | 00:55:29 | |
| And then mentioning the other conditions, staff recommended conditions, Yeah, some of these normal privacy, we're basically | 00:55:31 | |
| discussing #2 and #1. | 00:55:37 | |
| So it's kind of your choice. | 00:55:44 | |
| So and that the applicant shall provide that first one as strategy. | 00:55:48 | |
| That means fire access requirements maximize the safety and convenience of pedestrian flow around the outdoor seating area, which | 00:55:53 | |
| we've addressed. | 00:55:56 | |
| Meeting all the building design requirements which would address the applicant OK areas. | 00:56:00 | |
| We're not dealing with that. The applicant pays any outstanding fees and makes any Red Line corrections, and the applicant is | 00:56:06 | |
| subject to all federal, state and local laws. | 00:56:11 | |
| OK. So just to be clear. | 00:56:18 | |
| The first four. | 00:56:24 | |
| I don't apply or have been addressed already in the previous conditions that you stated and then if you can read the the 5th and | 00:56:27 | |
| 6th one as conditions that do apply. | 00:56:32 | |
| So these conditions do apply. The applicant pays any outstanding fees and makes any red line corrections, and the applicant is | 00:56:38 | |
| subject to all federal, state and local laws. | 00:56:43 | |
| Are we happy with that? Yeah, period. I'm happy with that. | 00:56:50 | |
| We passed over the nuisance general. | 00:56:56 | |
| Which I think is the noise that way you're that's a requirement. Yeah, it's a requirement. It's a requirement already. Yeah. So | 00:57:00 | |
| that's code, code code enforcement. That can become a code enforcement issue regardless. So if we receive any complaints about it. | 00:57:07 | |
| So. All right, Do I have a second for final second? All right, Thank you, Anthony. All in favor, is this roll caller? No. All in | 00:57:14 | |
| favor. Aye. Cool. Thank you, guys. | 00:57:21 | |
| We're excited about it. It's going to be cool. | 00:57:29 | |
| Self self-interest questions when timeline. | 00:57:31 | |
| On this, it sounds like you wanted to move quickly. Do you have target dates? | 00:57:35 | |
| What will be the seating capacity or the feeding capacity of the facility? | 00:57:43 | |
| Just a guess. | 00:58:01 | |
| Michael. | 00:58:09 | |
| Awesome. Hey, good luck. Welcome to Vineyard. Thank you, guys. Thank you guys. | 00:58:11 | |
| All right. | 00:58:18 | |
| So Bryce, actually. | 00:58:22 | |
| Item 4.2 we're going to push to the next meeting, so we won't be discussing that one tonight. | 00:58:25 | |
| No, no. So we've already noticed the public service is basically a continuance of that notification and and it's okay to move it | 00:58:32 | |
| to the next one. So moving on to 4.3 then public hearing zoning text amendment for 15.32 point 230 and 15 point 38.030 ordinance | 00:58:39 | |
| #2021 dash 05. | 00:58:45 | |
| OK, sweet. | 00:58:53 | |
| So I get some notes out real quick. | 00:58:55 | |
| Thanks guys. | 00:58:58 | |
| That was a complicated one back there. Yeah, yeah. I think it's good to get it. I still would like to see more lighting in that | 00:59:01 | |
| alleyway, but yeah, yeah, yeah. So who would do that? The owner of the Yeah, the master developer. And that was my concern on that | 00:59:08 | |
| one, was that for them improving just a 10 improvement on their space, they're not going to really have any control over the | 00:59:16 | |
| applicant, you know, over that alleyway because that's on that's on the landlord. Can we put standards in for that? | 00:59:23 | |
| In general, what are they? | 00:59:33 | |
| In the future, in the future for lighting, for alleyways, yeah. And that alleyway, I think became more of a. | 00:59:37 | |
| More, yeah, more of an entrance than I think any of us were anticipating it becoming. | 00:59:48 | |
| So that's good. There's lots of traffic there, so. | 00:59:53 | |
| All right. | 00:59:58 | |
| OK, guys, Just I'm just pulling up this ordinance that we're going to be discussing. | 00:59:59 | |
| OK, so this ordinance is to. | 01:00:05 | |
| Make revisions to retaining walls and fences. That code section that treats this so just to provide you a little context, so. | 01:00:10 | |
| We're we're having a lot of residents on along the Lakeshore who are trying to. | 01:00:24 | |
| Have these retaining walls. | 01:00:31 | |
| And this is basically for the purpose of them being able to have more usable backyard space and so. | 01:00:33 | |
| Once they do get that retaining wall put on there, our code really doesn't say anything at the time. Currently to allow for a | 01:00:44 | |
| fence to be put on top of the retaining wall. Right now they have to put their fences stepped back in more into their yard, thus | 01:00:50 | |
| kind of removing an additional. | 01:00:57 | |
| Area where they can then some more of their backyard is being removed with with what the ordinance is currently in place. So this | 01:01:04 | |
| this ordinance is to help prevent that reduction in people's backyard usable backyard space and so. | 01:01:15 | |
| So I'll just read the the changes here. It says retaining wall shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Fences and walls are permitted | 01:01:25 | |
| to be located on top of a retaining wall and may contain an additional 6 feet in height and side and rear yards and 42 inches in | 01:01:32 | |
| front yards. | 01:01:40 | |
| The team wall is greater than 4 feet in height, will require a building permit, and the height is measured from the bottom of the | 01:01:47 | |
| footings to the top of the wall. | 01:01:52 | |
| So, yeah, so routine walls can't exceed 6 feet in height. They can't in the back and rear yards. They can't exceed 42 inches in | 01:01:58 | |
| the front yards. And a retaining wall that's 4 feet in height will require a building permit, and that's measured from the bottom | 01:02:05 | |
| of the footings to the top of the wall. | 01:02:12 | |
| In the back, correct in the back. | 01:02:20 | |
| Anything that's consistent with the surrounding environment as the code currently dictates. | 01:02:24 | |
| So it seems that this is basically just concerning James Bay. | 01:02:29 | |
| I mean there are a couple of other places along some of the wetlands and stuff, but but mostly James Bay. Have we gone out and | 01:02:36 | |
| measured the height of the? | 01:02:42 | |
| One, I know that there's one retaining wall that's already built there. Has that been measured? | 01:02:48 | |
| Yeah, that one I remember we have a because I assumed that most of James Bay is going to want to, if they're going to put in a | 01:02:54 | |
| retaining wall is going to want to match that. Yeah, right. And I know it's more than we're working with on that kind of that does | 01:03:02 | |
| want to match that. And we're trying to figure out some issues with it because they need to bring in some infill to prevent some | 01:03:09 | |
| water issues that would then occur on on the side of the fence that's. | 01:03:16 | |
| Closer to the trail and so this is. | 01:03:24 | |
| We are encountering that, but we're we're working on it so. | 01:03:30 | |
| The existing one is more than six feet, isn't it? | 01:03:35 | |
| Yeah. | 01:03:39 | |
| So yeah. | 01:03:46 | |
| Yeah. So it's technically not in the way of balls is separate. We're saying you have one retaining wall, then you have to step | 01:03:48 | |
| back with soil and then, then, then there's another retaining wall. So approximately total height from. | 01:03:54 | |
| The ground on the opposite side with the trailers to the top of their where they're finished grape would be would be about 10 to | 01:04:02 | |
| 12 feet depending. But again, each retaining wall is step back. So your your approximately about anywhere from 5:00 to 6:00 feet | 01:04:09 | |
| each step. And how close can the steps be? | 01:04:15 | |
| Like there's a six foot wall, then the step, then a six foot wall. Is there a required distance between those 26 foot walls? I | 01:04:23 | |
| believe it's 4 feet. Yeah. So yeah, I mean, the way the way the way it's shown is about approximately 4 feet. I mean, they're | 01:04:29 | |
| technical. The real answer would be it depends on the on the engineering designs of the closer. There are two retaining walls are | 01:04:34 | |
| together. | 01:04:40 | |
| Exactly. The weaker are the worst case scenario that you would have to be doing exactly. | 01:04:48 | |
| I know that the four foot requirement in the building foot building code requirements because 4 foot anything about four feet | 01:04:52 | |
| needs an engineer stamp on that retaining wall and so. | 01:04:58 | |
| Including the footing, Yeah, including, right, the retaining portion, yeah, is whatever's. | 01:05:05 | |
| Stopping Earth from moving right so. | 01:05:11 | |
| OK, that we'll get to a public comment portion, I guess. | 01:05:16 | |
| Recommended Google Earth, Yeah. | 01:05:19 | |
| And then the sorry David, would you mind? | 01:05:23 | |
| Oh, yeah. Let me, Hi, David. Let me open up a public hearing real quick. Do I drive a motion to make a motion that we open the | 01:05:32 | |
| public hearing? | 01:05:37 | |
| 2nd promotion. All right, all in favor, aye. | 01:05:42 | |
| Thanks. OK, so I'm looking at Google Earth. I'm looking at that corner lot on the North End of James Bangs. We're about we're at | 01:05:46 | |
| against the park there, right. So the park and I've seen that the that corner facing the corner down by the wetlands. | 01:05:55 | |
| Down as it stands down South from there it looks like there's two tiers, but you go up close with it, that's all one looks like | 01:06:06 | |
| there is that So is that because part of it it would be too high given your? | 01:06:12 | |
| Your inordinates. | 01:06:19 | |
| But it's shorter on the North End there because the trail ramps up quite a bit. | 01:06:21 | |
| Yeah, there's a short enough. My question see at the Northside is. | 01:06:27 | |
| I again, I don't know there to go to the park and and so. | 01:06:32 | |
| I'm sorry but what is the what is the height there when the two walls combined? Is that is that going to be over 4 foot? | 01:06:41 | |
| That that that might have received a variance because the the final grade was not had not yet been determined. | 01:06:49 | |
| Before they finished construction, so they had the retaining wall, but the the trail to the side wasn't yet completed and so they | 01:07:00 | |
| didn't have a final grade to go off of. And so therefore they were able to exceed that height do a variance, but the rest of any | 01:07:07 | |
| retaining wall that's approved moving forward here. | 01:07:15 | |
| Is not is. It won't be allowed to have any dirt or or surface manipulated to increase the height of that wall. So they all it's | 01:07:23 | |
| it's. | 01:07:28 | |
| That's kind of like our safety measure for preventing that. | 01:07:36 | |
| So just to. | 01:07:41 | |
| Yeah. So for the heights on, I don't know any other heights for that specific house. But since we're passing the ordinance now, if | 01:07:44 | |
| there was something that happened with that house, it would be grandfathered in. | 01:07:49 | |
| I'm just looking at all the others you've got. You have fences right up against there and we have retaining walls up there now. | 01:07:57 | |
| And I'm wondering if you might want to go, you might want to postpone this. Go, actually go out and measure them. And so you know | 01:08:02 | |
| what you've really got, because you want people to match them and make sure what you have, even if they're grandfathered in and | 01:08:07 | |
| you want to, you want me to know what they are. Just a suggestion. Yeah. | 01:08:13 | |
| And that, that was my concern too, that I was talking about that I think it makes sense to match it, but. | 01:08:19 | |
| If if you can do tears like somebody could essentially have a 24 foot tall retaining wall as long as it's tiered back. And so I | 01:08:25 | |
| think that with that that that would get rid of anybody elses concerns in this area because I don't think it's more than. | 01:08:33 | |
| And 14 feet, maybe to the very tallest. | 01:08:42 | |
| Like to ground level? | 01:08:47 | |
| Yeah, from the trail to the to the street. | 01:08:49 | |
| Yeah, I still want to skim my knuckles and ride my bicycle down there. | 01:08:54 | |
| So, yeah, yeah. | 01:08:57 | |
| Yeah. So the the visible portion of the wall can't exceed 6 feet in height nor can any dirt be manipulated altered final grade | 01:09:01 | |
| cannot be altered to specifically to increase the the height of the wall. So that that's a lot of I think it's like, so you mean | 01:09:08 | |
| pile up the dirt and then put the wall on top of the piled up dirt? Exactly, exactly so. | 01:09:16 | |
| Yeah, I don't know. I see that as the as a safety measure that would prevent. | 01:09:26 | |
| That from happening, yeah, that makes sense. | 01:09:30 | |
| And you are required to to engineering you all higher than 4 feet from footing from the bottom of the footing to the top. | 01:09:34 | |
| Yeah. And until you have to get an engineer, it's basically just you have to pay an engineer to put a stamp on it. Yeah, yeah. | 01:09:46 | |
| Make sure you use geogrid and fill it properly and that kind of stuff. Yeah, Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I learned about that the other | 01:09:50 | |
| day. | 01:09:54 | |
| All right. Thank you. Thanks, David. | 01:10:00 | |
| Yeah, things. Thanks for coming. | 01:10:03 | |
| As far as the public comment goes on this, do I close it or do I leave it open? I would close it. | 01:10:06 | |
| I think, I think you can close it now. OK. Do you have any other public? | 01:10:13 | |
| All right, don't have a motion to close the public comment, Move to close the public for second public comment. All in favor, aye. | 01:10:19 | |
| All right, so. | 01:10:23 | |
| Going back to this. | 01:10:30 | |
| So it doesn't even need to. | 01:10:43 | |
| I guess if it goes to engineering. | 01:10:45 | |
| Why would it need a building permit as well? | 01:10:48 | |
| Just to make sure that it has engineering. Cool. OK, missing you have a comment. I was gonna say because it census class wiser | 01:10:52 | |
| retaining wall and kind of falls underneath the fence and it's it's allowed to be placed onto the property line. So it falls down | 01:10:59 | |
| the building department because it's at in essence, it's tied to the to the building structure. OK. | 01:11:07 | |
| All right. | 01:11:16 | |
| So if it's above 4 feet, um. | 01:11:20 | |
| Is there any specific reason that we don't want something taller than six feet? If it's engineered already, it's going to be safe. | 01:11:24 | |
| So is there a reason why we're saying 6 feet is the maximum? Well, I think it it would be to prevent. | 01:11:31 | |
| So like, imagine you're out there on the lakefront and there's a retaining wall that's higher than six feet. It starts to then | 01:11:40 | |
| begin to create a, a, a scenario for pedestrians that isn't as inviting. And maybe they might even be like security and safety | 01:11:46 | |
| issues. When you have a wall that exceeds that height, that makes sense, especially along the trails, because stuff falling off of | 01:11:52 | |
| more than six feet can be a danger. | 01:11:59 | |
| That too cool. | 01:12:06 | |
| So that's kind of a good height. | 01:12:08 | |
| Yeah, that makes sense. | 01:12:10 | |
| Any other comments There were there were some other additions in the text as well, correct? Not just that paragraph, there was a | 01:12:11 | |
| few others. Let me go back to it. | 01:12:16 | |
| Just want to touch on all the given additions before we move forward. | 01:12:22 | |
| Where am I? | 01:12:28 | |
| It's so hard to see from back here. | 01:12:32 | |
| And then move it. | 01:12:36 | |
| That's just, oh, the board. | 01:12:39 | |
| We can't show that on our feed. OK, so we have. | 01:12:41 | |
| On page 9. Page 9. | 01:12:46 | |
| We can use it in addition to the TV. There's, there's one, let's see, it's one on page 9. | 01:12:50 | |
| We Pam and I tried earlier and. | 01:13:00 | |
| I passed it. | 01:13:03 | |
| All right, and L lighting. | 01:13:06 | |
| And then right there, license engineer, yeah. | 01:13:10 | |
| So. | 01:13:15 | |
| Other joint use of parking on adjacent. | 01:13:16 | |
| OK, sorry I'll just read it. So this is regarding joint youth parking. Other joint use of parking on a decent commercial uses to | 01:13:20 | |
| reduce total parking spaces may be allowed with a part. Wait this is. | 01:13:27 | |
| Committee, this isn't related to this. | 01:13:34 | |
| I thought that was everything that we had added. | 01:13:44 | |
| There. Yeah, there's another, there's another section, but sorry, I thought you were saying that there was something related to | 01:13:50 | |
| the retaining wall. OK, So that one in the parking, that's an addition. Just making sure that any exceptions from a parking city | 01:13:55 | |
| comes from a licensed engineer, right? | 01:14:00 | |
| Not your friend, Yeah, so. | 01:14:06 | |
| So the the other code section that we're treating here has to do with. | 01:14:11 | |
| So in section 15.38. | 01:14:18 | |
| Which is the parking and loading requirements page I believe section of the code. Sorry, there's a discrepancy with 15.36 which is | 01:14:22 | |
| the site planning and design section of the code. | 01:14:29 | |
| We had we had discussed this a couple planning commission's ago I think a month ago, 2 meetings ago where basically the the the | 01:14:36 | |
| section having to do with parking and loading is allows for a light pole to be a maximum of 25 feet in height. And then we had a | 01:14:45 | |
| discussion where the other section code allows only a 20 foot height and we had all discussed that we. | 01:14:55 | |
| Were preferring or leaning more towards the 20 foot. | 01:15:04 | |
| Height because we're trying to reduce light pollution. | 01:15:07 | |
| We are trying to avoid light from going on to adjacent residential properties that are located next to commercial uses, and so we | 01:15:14 | |
| made the correction to where those two sections of the code are consistent with each other to allow only for a maximum of 20 foot | 01:15:20 | |
| high light poles. | 01:15:26 | |
| And then? | 01:15:35 | |
| That was that was the background on that really quick. | 01:15:38 | |
| Yeah, of course, before you finalize that, we should probably make sure that our city street lights conform to that. | 01:15:41 | |
| Because I our our collector Rd. streetlights are 20 foot poles. But I'm not sure I'm pulling the standard drawing up right now. | 01:15:49 | |
| But you may want to make sure that we don't put ourselves to where we don't follow that code for that night. So wherever I'm not | 01:15:56 | |
| sure the dimension where it sits, but. | 01:16:02 | |
| The top of our to the top of our pole. | 01:16:10 | |
| Is 20 foot, but then our fixture comes out on an arm and the actual fixture sticks up a little bit higher than the pole. So you | 01:16:13 | |
| make that rule or change that in there to 20 foot, then you make all of our street light. | 01:16:21 | |
| We'll go to 21 feet. | 01:16:32 | |
| Well, if we need more time, I'm yeah, I'm fine. I don't see, I don't see the Earth continuing more the lighting. Yeah. | 01:16:39 | |
| Yeah. | 01:16:47 | |
| Chris, if we maybe then take a little more time to look at this one, make sure that. | 01:16:48 | |
| I mean, you could. | 01:16:55 | |
| Make it a bigger number. I just. | 01:16:57 | |
| Insane 20 foots not going. It's gonna make all of our city standard streetlights non conforming. Do you have the exact number | 01:16:59 | |
| right now? I have I have on the detail. I have the dimension to the top of the pole, but I don't have the dimension how much | 01:17:06 | |
| higher the fixture sits above the pole. So I can't I can't answer the question. | 01:17:13 | |
| Yeah, yeah, we can. We can. We can double check that information. | 01:17:22 | |
| Yeah. And I think this other green section. | 01:17:28 | |
| Is gone, accidentally filtered into there because this this was never meant to be addressed in this conversation. | 01:17:32 | |
| Sometimes we start code amendments in Unicode and. | 01:17:42 | |
| We forget to delete them. | 01:17:47 | |
| Because they don't, they're either not relevant anymore to be treated at that, you know, at that meeting or whatever. So that | 01:17:49 | |
| shouldn't be in there. I am, yeah. Sorry about that guys. | 01:17:54 | |
| So yeah, I guess we can move this one to the next motion. | 01:18:02 | |
| Yeah. But we could still recommend approval of the the retaining wall portion, correct? | 01:18:10 | |
| Yeah. So it's we tied this into one ordinance though, OK. | 01:18:18 | |
| Well then. | 01:18:22 | |
| Oh yeah. Gosh. | 01:18:26 | |
| Is there a reason we have to get the retaining wall? And she figured out that. | 01:18:28 | |
| Hurry for this, I guess we should do it next time for straight on. So do I have a motion to move this to push this to the next | 01:18:32 | |
| meeting? | 01:18:37 | |
| Yeah, I make a motion to continue the public hearing for this and to get the measurements from staff on our Collector Rd. | 01:18:42 | |
| lighting. I second. All in favor, Aye. All right, moving to Commission member reports. Before we go into Commission member | 01:18:49 | |
| reports, just so that I remember, let's move into staff reports first. | 01:18:56 | |
| I know he had some things. | 01:19:07 | |
| Thank you, Planning Commission. | 01:19:18 | |
| Let's see in the world engineering. | 01:19:21 | |
| I just want to follow up with the last updated Planning Commission had requested in regards to the trails on the connection. | 01:19:24 | |
| The last update on the trail, on the trail side elementary school trail, that's has been done as the trail has been connected but | 01:19:34 | |
| hasn't been officially completed. Awaiting the contractor, awaiting the contractor to finish up the landscape at the joint | 01:19:40 | |
| landscaping for final and final for the final approvals. But in essence, the project is substantially complete and is able to be | 01:19:46 | |
| used by the public on that. | 01:19:53 | |
| And then the other trail with the South, excuse me, the sunset park down on the connection. | 01:20:00 | |
| Staff is working with the developer to finalize the. | 01:20:07 | |
| Finalize the items in regards to the canal alignment, but the trail on that would be as part as part of the canal alignment and we | 01:20:13 | |
| expect that that trial will be fully connected. | 01:20:19 | |
| Within anywhere from 4, four or six months maximum depending on that one is a little bit is more complex due to the fact that the | 01:20:28 | |
| canal realignment is requires a rockery wall, you know, AKA retaining wall. | 01:20:35 | |
| Along that side as well. | 01:20:42 | |
| So it's more requires more work on the contractor side. So we expect it to be before then and the end of the calendar year that | 01:20:44 | |
| should be 100% complete on that. In addition to the to that update and update it or actually notice the Planning Commission in | 01:20:52 | |
| regards to the trail side elementary school with the trail side elementary school coming coming alive. | 01:21:00 | |
| Without coming to school here, I would say staff has requested the implemented and conducted excuse me tonight, today. | 01:21:09 | |
| Warrant study for a school zone along that area. Warren said it came back that it warranted a school zone and say staff is going | 01:21:15 | |
| to be moving forward with the City of Organs to establish a school zone. Speed limits, reduce speed limits along that area and | 01:21:24 | |
| putting the appropriate control devices as well and that would be that would be along the linear group and Vineyard Rd. | 01:21:33 | |
| Will there be additional crossing that they're put in without technically? | 01:21:42 | |
| All intersections are crossings, but yes, the staff will be placing a crosswalk, a marked crosswalk along the at the intersection | 01:21:49 | |
| of Vineyard rather than Vineyard Blueprint and then placing the appropriate control devices to identify that as a school zone. | 01:21:58 | |
| And then the warning devices for the cars approaching as well. Great. | 01:22:07 | |
| Awesome. Thank you. Anything from engineering? | 01:22:14 | |
| Public works, Public works. I mean, yeah, I don't have anything specific unless you have questions for me or anything going on. | 01:22:19 | |
| All right. Oh, actually I did. I was going to say one thing. So I know that Center Street is being. | 01:22:27 | |
| Redone and will need to be repainted. Just a suggestion on the sharrows. They're they were previously with a right tire of a | 01:22:35 | |
| vehicle would go over which would wear them out quicker. Also many cars drive as if they intend for the cyclist to only be able to | 01:22:42 | |
| ride on that right side and. | 01:22:49 | |
| They take the sharing of the lane very literally and try to share it both at the same time. So my recommendation would be, I don't | 01:22:57 | |
| know what the codes are and what you need to follow, but if you could put it in the middle, I think it the paint would last | 01:23:03 | |
| longer. And it also might indicate that if there's a bike there that that whole lane can be used by the bike just. | 01:23:09 | |
| We'll definitely take that into consideration. | 01:23:15 | |
| Ultimately, we refer to the MATCD. Yeah, Yeah. I'm not sure what those say, but if it allows for it, I would. Yeah. If it allows | 01:23:18 | |
| for us to shift it, it makes sense to get out of the wheel path. It lasts longer, it'll stay more visible. So if we can do that, | 01:23:23 | |
| we'll do that. Great. Thank you. | 01:23:28 | |
| All right, any Commission member reports or expected discussion disclosure? | 01:23:35 | |
| Nothing. All right. Do I have a motion to adjourn? | 01:23:41 | |
| I will make a motion to adjourn. I have a second. I'll second all in favor. | 01:23:47 | |
| You guys have a good night. | 01:23:54 | |
| Hey. | 01:23:57 | |
| Thank you. | 01:24:00 | |
| Oh, OK. | 01:24:04 | |
| OK, OK. We'll, we'll make that change on the July 2nd. | 01:24:07 |
* you need to log in to manage your favorites
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
Loading...
| All right. Welcome, everybody to the Vineyard Planning Commission meeting. It is Wednesday, July 21st, 2021. It is 6:00. | 00:00:03 | |
| And we'll just get right into it, I. | 00:00:13 | |
| We'll have an invocation. | 00:00:17 | |
| And by Tim and yeah, thank you. | 00:00:20 | |
| Our Father in heaven, we're grateful for this opportunity this evening to be here in this capacity of a Planning Commission. | 00:00:26 | |
| We are grateful to be able to live in this community. We thank thee for those who have brought it to us over many years, and we | 00:00:34 | |
| pray that our decisions and deliberations tonight will be in keeping with the overall goals and objectives of this community. We | 00:00:42 | |
| are are grateful for those who are desirous to come here and as businesses and residents and in other ways. And we pray that we | 00:00:49 | |
| will be able to do what we can to help to blend in and balance. | 00:00:56 | |
| The growth of this community, we are grateful for that moisture receive Father in Heaven and we pray for more. We thou knowest of | 00:01:04 | |
| our difficult situations in this county and state and we pray for thy help in helping to bring moisture to the land. | 00:01:12 | |
| Now we are grateful to live in this free country. | 00:01:20 | |
| Where we have responsibilities and opportunities, these things we humbly pray and thank you for the name of Jesus Christ, Amen. | 00:01:23 | |
| Amen. Thank you so much, Tim. | 00:01:28 | |
| All right. | 00:01:33 | |
| So. | 00:01:36 | |
| Going to move into an open session. If you if there's any public that has any comments that they would like to make, keep it in 3 | 00:01:38 | |
| minutes, just come up here to the stand I. | 00:01:42 | |
| And yeah. | 00:01:47 | |
| Any public. | 00:01:50 | |
| No, All right. I will move into minutes for review and approval as you guys have a chance to take a look over that over the | 00:01:52 | |
| minutes. | 00:01:56 | |
| I wasn't here in the meeting, so I. | 00:02:04 | |
| Abstaining. | 00:02:06 | |
| Jeff, I did not look at that. OK, Amber, I read through them. I didn't listen to the audio. We just need to read through. | 00:02:08 | |
| Right. Yeah, yeah. Read through the minutes, the audio, but it's pretty, you know, that that happened. OK, Yes, I did read. I did | 00:02:17 | |
| read through it. So I make a motion to, what do I say, approve the minutes from July 7th, from July 7th, July 2nd. | 00:02:26 | |
| I'll second all in favor. Aye, aye. All right, moving into business Item 4.1 that about Times site plan. | 00:02:35 | |
| OK, my name is Brian Maya Perez. I serve as a city planner here. | 00:02:46 | |
| So the applicant, his name is Ryan Naylor, he's with Nichols Naylor architect and we're going to be looking at. | 00:02:52 | |
| The Bout Time Pub and Grub site plan application proposal and more specifically the the exterior extension of a dining area. | 00:03:03 | |
| So yeah, just jump right into it. So this is right here in this location is where the where the. | 00:03:15 | |
| Restaurant will be locating. The address is 568 Mill Road and it's directly West of the Megaplex Theater as you can see. | 00:03:24 | |
| So this application first started as a commercial TI, but then a site plan application was triggered due to these exterior the | 00:03:35 | |
| exterior dining element of it. So we processed that through a through a site plan application. | 00:03:41 | |
| This application is interesting because as you know this This site is. | 00:03:51 | |
| Has already been approved as a through master development development agreement. So there are elements that we won't be discussing | 00:03:55 | |
| in this because they've already been talked about and approved in a in a previous Planning Commission, but we will be talking | 00:04:01 | |
| about. | 00:04:06 | |
| That canopy and specific and kind of the effects that that canopy could that dining area can have on the surrounding environment. | 00:04:13 | |
| Umm, so as you know this area is zoned RMU and so that's to provide a mix of uses daytime and night time and it's supposed to | 00:04:22 | |
| facilitate commercial office and and potentially residential as well. | 00:04:28 | |
| So let me show you some pictures. That glare's not letting me through. My tabs are but. | 00:04:37 | |
| Show some pictures of. | 00:04:43 | |
| The proposal here. | 00:04:46 | |
| So the restaurant will be located here and this is where the the outdoor seating area is being proposed. | 00:04:49 | |
| So they're going to add about 15 tables if I'm not wrong, and that that area will measure. So the canopy is 15 feet in height, 10 | 00:05:00 | |
| inches. The length is about 55 feet one and 1/4 inch. The width is 15 feet 3 inches and it will all be enclosed by a three foot. | 00:05:13 | |
| Steel fence. | 00:05:28 | |
| It won't be. | 00:05:30 | |
| It won't be like totally enclosed or there's like walls and things. It's just a rail and then it'll you can see through it | 00:05:33 | |
| basically and then they'll be the dining tables. | 00:05:38 | |
| So we, we definitely do like when developers propose this, this sort of project because. | 00:05:45 | |
| It provides an opportunity to really engage that space to provide a lot of visual interest. | 00:05:52 | |
| And. | 00:06:00 | |
| And it really enhances the sense of human scale and provides that vibrancy that we want to see in a lot of development. We just | 00:06:00 | |
| want to make sure that. | 00:06:04 | |
| Any sort of elements that we see that could cause concerns are properly addressed and and we really do believe that that the | 00:06:10 | |
| applicant does does want to. | 00:06:16 | |
| Work towards that. And so they're here to to answer any questions that that you guys might have. | 00:06:24 | |
| Just a little bit more on the site plan. | 00:06:31 | |
| As you see. | 00:06:33 | |
| This The outdoor seating area will not allow an pedestrian flow to go on on on this sidewalk any longer. But. | 00:06:37 | |
| The applicant is maintaining fire access by providing A5 foot clearance. | 00:06:51 | |
| For pedestrians just South of the of that seating area and of course there's an alternative route through the other sidewalk | 00:06:57 | |
| facility that has been provided. | 00:07:03 | |
| They're also proposing. | 00:07:11 | |
| A so this I'm going to zoom in a little bit, this area here between the rail so this dark line around the edge is that 3 foot rail | 00:07:15 | |
| that they're proposing and there's. | 00:07:21 | |
| There's they're leaving about a 5 foot pedestrian clearance for access. They're providing an ADA ramp here that will lead into | 00:07:28 | |
| this new painted crosswalk and it will terminate here at this existing ADA aisle. | 00:07:37 | |
| In the stock report, I expressed concerns about the termination of this crosswalk at this ADA access aisle, but in speaking with. | 00:07:48 | |
| With Morgan and with George in the building department there, they don't have any concerns with that. So we can ignore those | 00:07:59 | |
| comments from the staff report regarding that. But there is a section of the code that reads that. Let me find it here. | 00:08:09 | |
| I'm just going to pull it up here in the code. | 00:08:25 | |
| Or in the. | 00:08:28 | |
| Conditions. | 00:08:30 | |
| OK. It says areas where pedestrian walkways cross driveways shall be constructed of stamped and or raised concrete or of other | 00:08:36 | |
| material and design so as to differentiate the areas of pedestrian vehicle interface. So I personally. | 00:08:44 | |
| As you can see, the other crosswalks throughout the development do meet the standard. And so that's one thing that I wanted to | 00:08:54 | |
| make sure of in this discussion is that this, this crosswalk, however it is finalized that it does meet that that requirement. So | 00:09:02 | |
| I, I would like to see something that comes a little closer to this. | 00:09:10 | |
| So that's that's my concern there. | 00:09:20 | |
| Regarding. | 00:09:24 | |
| The the materiality of the canopy itself. Let me pull up the elevation here. | 00:09:27 | |
| So, umm. | 00:09:36 | |
| The applicant has provided some visual cues, but we typically have applicants provide a, what we call materials board that | 00:09:39 | |
| actually shows the the actual elements, construction elements that are on there, the, the, the metal pieces, the, I don't know, | 00:09:45 | |
| the trimming pieces, the brick that's going to be used. So we we did not receive that from the applicant, but we did receive this, | 00:09:52 | |
| which does show some. | 00:09:58 | |
| Elements of what's being constructed here. | 00:10:06 | |
| And so pardon me. | 00:10:08 | |
| They're showing a metal roofing here that's going to be colored a charcoal Gray and they're also showing. | 00:10:11 | |
| A gauntlet, Gray steel for for the railing and a few other elements on the canopy. | 00:10:20 | |
| In in. | 00:10:28 | |
| The applicant Ryan also sent me this which provides a little bit more color. | 00:10:30 | |
| And then I also received. | 00:10:37 | |
| This picture I'm pulling up another picture. | 00:10:41 | |
| This picture of another location, I believe this is your, did you say American Fork West Jordan, a location in West Jordan that | 00:10:46 | |
| is, is designed very similarly though ours, the one that they're proposing here in Vineyard is going to be a slightly different | 00:10:52 | |
| color. It's going to be a darker Gray color, if I'm not wrong. And so this is kind of gives you a little bit more of a visual cue | 00:10:58 | |
| as to what what they're proposing. | 00:11:05 | |
| What they're doing here isn't going to have the brick wall. No, no, it won't have the brick wall. | 00:11:12 | |
| Well, but it will, it will have these footings, right? | 00:11:19 | |
| OK, OK. Just Combs. OK. | 00:11:24 | |
| All right, so just the railing then? | 00:11:27 | |
| So we, we needed to get you get your opinion, the, the Commission's opinion on, on, on the materiality and design of this. I want | 00:11:34 | |
| to make sure that the applicant is meeting all of our requirements. | 00:11:42 | |
| But. | 00:11:52 | |
| We just needed some further assistance from you guys to see if if you guys would would be alright with with this proposed design. | 00:11:53 | |
| Do you guys have any questions regarding what they're proposing? | 00:12:04 | |
| Anybody have any questions? | 00:12:10 | |
| I do. I do. | 00:12:12 | |
| First, Brian, on the site plan there was a a symbol on that plan that I assume showing up from the civil. | 00:12:14 | |
| Site Planet, that like a light fixture? That's not a light fixture or something right in that aisle for the 88 parking stall. This | 00:12:24 | |
| right here, yeah. | 00:12:28 | |
| That's not that's something underground or something, right? | 00:12:35 | |
| But it's in the wrong location. | 00:12:39 | |
| OK, OK. | 00:12:42 | |
| OK. | 00:12:44 | |
| But it's not in that spot. There's not an existing. It shows up in the plan. But the way it was built, it's not in that location. | 00:12:46 | |
| Sorry. Can you can you come to the microphone? Thank you, Ryan. | 00:12:51 | |
| And I knew you can introduce yourself. Ryan Taylor Nichols, Naylor Architects. | 00:12:57 | |
| Yeah, the I received this CAD file from the original architect for the development and. | 00:13:05 | |
| There's a difference between the way that those stalls were installed and how that is represented. The spacing slightly different, | 00:13:11 | |
| so there's no conflict with the. | 00:13:16 | |
| With the access aisle there so. | 00:13:21 | |
| OK, Yeah, we're just looking at in Google Earth. It looks like it's close, but it's not complex. So as long as that's not in | 00:13:27 | |
| conflict, obviously that would be. | 00:13:30 | |
| A problem, right? If the access ran into a light pole? | 00:13:35 | |
| OK. Yeah. I just want to ask about that. But I mean, I think otherwise for me personally is the blocking of the access along that | 00:13:41 | |
| sidewalk. | 00:13:45 | |
| I'm not. | 00:13:50 | |
| Too terribly concerned with I think the crossing is a little clunky, but I realize there's not a lot of options of other ways to | 00:13:52 | |
| do that. I think the site has enough circulation in other places around it and I think the benefit of having outdoor dining on | 00:13:59 | |
| that sidewalk is it that's a positive to have people out there and have that life on the street. So I don't have any concerns | 00:14:07 | |
| about that. What I do have concerns with and sorry if I. | 00:14:14 | |
| Away from the mic on the elevations and the way the way it looks in the plants is that it it, it really looks like it's an add-on, | 00:14:22 | |
| like it's an afterthought from the original building rather than integrating architecturally with with the existing building. | 00:14:31 | |
| Looks like something that was tacked on as a as a patio. | 00:14:40 | |
| Because. | 00:14:50 | |
| It, it's, it's pretty bare bones and then the pitch on the roof, you know, there's no other sloped roof elements on these | 00:14:51 | |
| buildings. And so it's a very foreign, it's bringing in architectural pieces. They're very foreign to the building. | 00:14:59 | |
| So my my concern is just that it's going to look like a. | 00:15:08 | |
| An afterthought and is not tying in necessarily with the rest of the development color wise. Ideally it would be nice to see what | 00:15:12 | |
| those colors look like next to the existing. However, they're both Gray, the dark Gray, and a lighter Gray, so it'll probably be | 00:15:18 | |
| fine. | 00:15:24 | |
| But I think for me that's that's my biggest concern is. | 00:15:31 | |
| It's not really tying in any way the existing building. | 00:15:35 | |
| So to address those questions, umm. | 00:15:41 | |
| So the side of that building, it's a little some challenges there. You know, we this wasn't just like. | 00:15:44 | |
| You know, we just stuck it on the side. There wasn't any thought there. You know, if you look at the top line, we were trying to | 00:15:50 | |
| line it up with the heads of the windows and then the the lower line was intended to line up with the canopy next to it. When you | 00:15:56 | |
| look at it, there's those brick Piers that go up like part of the way. So if we were to, you know, try and line it up with that | 00:16:02 | |
| main canopy there, you basically run into the, into the kind of like you have about 18 inches of that brick pier sticking up above | 00:16:08 | |
| the roof. | 00:16:14 | |
| Your comment is one that the developer brought up to us. Also he was concerned about the sloping roof. So I I have an option | 00:16:21 | |
| that's. | 00:16:26 | |
| Flatter, so it basically lines up with that entry canopy. I mean, I can give that to you if you want to see that. We'll see what | 00:16:32 | |
| that looks like. Yeah, I think that would be, that would be great. | 00:16:37 | |
| So there's version. | 00:16:46 | |
| It shows it on the side elevation. | 00:16:57 | |
| Which direction? | 00:17:02 | |
| So towards it's sloping down towards the movie theater East East. | 00:17:03 | |
| So this this space is the drive aisle. | 00:17:09 | |
| Day on, Yeah. | 00:17:15 | |
| It's more about weather. | 00:17:18 | |
| Yeah, I mean. | 00:17:27 | |
| Personally I, you know, pass these down unless you guys have the same thing we have. | 00:17:29 | |
| I think the lower lower slope I think. | 00:17:37 | |
| Personally I I would prefer that option. I think it. | 00:17:43 | |
| Even though it's not identical, you know it will have some slope. It won't look exactly like the the metal canopy that's on the | 00:17:46 | |
| corner. I think it'll be less distracting as a as a new element and that people fit in a little bit better. | 00:17:54 | |
| Does anyone else on the Commission have any comments? Another question, so the main entrance is on the north side, correct? Yeah, | 00:18:05 | |
| the the doors on the South of those exit only or how does that work? | 00:18:11 | |
| On the backside of the building, South end, Yeah, those are just be, you know, for deliveries or for backup house kind of kitchen. | 00:18:17 | |
| Yeah, OK. | 00:18:21 | |
| They're not using, there's like 3 doors or something on there that are actually going to be essentially covered up. There's only | 00:18:26 | |
| going to be 1 door that's utilized on the back. OK because I know another restaurant in that area actually uses that backside for | 00:18:33 | |
| an entry. Transcendent. The only reason I was asking is whether you want it to happen or not. People will walk around the patio in | 00:18:39 | |
| the street. Hopefully no one's driving more than 5 miles an hour anyway, but like. | 00:18:46 | |
| That will happen, I mean, whether it's designed for that or not. So I just wonder if there was back entrance. | 00:18:54 | |
| No, there's not planned on being an entrance there. | 00:19:00 | |
| It's a good point though that people might overflow. I mean the the parking stalls in the middle. | 00:19:03 | |
| Threat of that metal Dr. aisle. The angled parking is usually pretty folks and a lot of its 88 parking. So a lot of people that | 00:19:09 | |
| come to this development park behind the yeah South in that overflow that ends up being kind of the primary parking. That was part | 00:19:16 | |
| of my observation. I went over there and spent about an hour and a half today just watching. | 00:19:23 | |
| Pedestrian flow. | 00:19:31 | |
| And I took it a little sample, informal sample. There were 24 people in the course of an hour and a half who parked behind the | 00:19:34 | |
| building and walked north. Now, if I recall my numbers, 12 of them went toward the theater, so they kind of angled off toward the | 00:19:44 | |
| theater. But the other 12, about 50%, walked up that sidewalk and went into the shop, that little shopping area. | 00:19:53 | |
| Now that's just a very simple sample midday. | 00:20:04 | |
| But I'm very concerned about blocking pedestrian traffic. | 00:20:07 | |
| They're up that sidewalk. That's one of my biggest concerns is because the only place I'll have to walk in is in the street. If | 00:20:11 | |
| they continue parking behind the building and wanting to access that little part of that little, yeah, they'll have to go around. | 00:20:18 | |
| And. | 00:20:26 | |
| I'm just wondering if there aren't other options. I looked the ice cream place there has put out benches in the in the sidewalk. | 00:20:28 | |
| They look like they're movable portable benches. I understand that's not a dining area and ice cream is different than meals and | 00:20:34 | |
| and I'm wondering what would be opening up for other restaurants. The only one across the street just to the north, the umami. Is | 00:20:40 | |
| that what it's called restaurant? | 00:20:46 | |
| They have a similar situation sidewalk just to their east. | 00:20:54 | |
| And if they were to come in for a request to do such, we would be hard pressed not to allow them to do that if we went ahead and | 00:20:59 | |
| approved this one. | 00:21:03 | |
| Yep, Yep. Brian, along those lines, had this come in initially with, with the canopy there, would, would our requirements have | 00:21:08 | |
| been to have a, a walkway around it or how, how would that have worked? You know what I mean? Like if this came in fresh, | 00:21:15 | |
| nothing's there and then you're building this with a patio on it, we would require a sidewalk. Is that how that would work? I | 00:21:23 | |
| believe so. I mean, if you need to look into it a little bit more, that's right. No, but I think that's right, yeah. And. | 00:21:30 | |
| Nodding it over there, I think that's correct. | 00:21:38 | |
| So I'm just, you know, that's, that's my main. I love the idea of outside eating. I really do. I'm wondering if there aren't | 00:21:41 | |
| options though, that you could accomplish the same purpose without taking the entire sidewalk. | 00:21:48 | |
| Or if there's something that could be done in the street way right there. | 00:21:55 | |
| To allow for a little bumper zone, you know, to like you see in some neighborhoods where there's a little bumper in the street | 00:22:00 | |
| that. | 00:22:04 | |
| Blocks off another two or three feet so that people can walk there. Are you talking like a bollard? Like I'm not sure what they're | 00:22:08 | |
| called, One of those posts? No, it's not a post. It's just a concrete thing in the street that sets off a little bit of area. I | 00:22:15 | |
| don't know. That's as I looked at this. I love the concept, I really do, but I'm just wondering if there aren't some options | 00:22:23 | |
| without taking that whole. What is it? An 8 foot wide sidewalk? It's 15 feet wide. 15 feet wide. | 00:22:30 | |
| Taking that whole thing yet 15 by three to five. | 00:22:38 | |
| Without taking that whole sidewalk for eating. | 00:22:42 | |
| I mean, obviously we're trying to find the correct balance between getting comfortable tables for our, you know, our occupants and | 00:22:48 | |
| getting patio space. So the more tables we can get out there the better. And then we also have to balance that with some | 00:22:54 | |
| requirements that we have for the DABC of fencing that area. And so it has to be an enclosed area. We can't just have it, you | 00:23:01 | |
| know, more open. | 00:23:07 | |
| You know, I'm just wondering, could could 10 feet accomplish some of the same purpose without taking all 15 feet and therefore | 00:23:14 | |
| allowing three to four to five feet still for pedestrian traffic up and down the north-south corridor? Just just thoughts because | 00:23:21 | |
| I'm concerned about pedestrian access into that little mall type area there. | 00:23:28 | |
| Because most of the people I saw and I didn't notice who was parking in the angled parking lots, but those that I saw were parking | 00:23:36 | |
| behind the building on the South side and walking north. | 00:23:42 | |
| Engineering. Do you guys have any input on this? | 00:23:49 | |
| Nothing at all engineering so in regards to the requirements that the applicant needs to meet in order to for the permits for the | 00:23:57 | |
| for being able to serve there. | 00:24:02 | |
| When they attempt on what they're trying to do needs that in regards to the accessibility for the sidewalk on that it comes down | 00:24:08 | |
| to. | 00:24:12 | |
| Providing the points of access, points of access to allow people across. I mean the the complex is a shopping complex with load so | 00:24:19 | |
| low speeds and with backward lighting on that and also the intent of the what was provided here. | 00:24:29 | |
| By the applicant means the attempted purposes with the provider for the existing infrastructure and structure as well. So I mean | 00:24:39 | |
| in regards to our, our, our, excuse me, in regards to what was provided in our opinions as to what was provided me so intent. | 00:24:48 | |
| What are your feelings on like a safer buffer zone of like a walk area along there where car traffic wouldn't be, Even if it's | 00:24:59 | |
| just kind of a little bit of a shoulder there, I don't know if you want to encourage that or discourage that one. | 00:25:06 | |
| It comes down to how it's applied, but and then of course you factor in the human factor into everything on that when you start | 00:25:13 | |
| restricting the car access of on that area like on a buffer on the street pretty much where. | 00:25:21 | |
| What's going to happen is you're causing. You're putting conflict at the top of conflict on top of conflict. | 00:25:29 | |
| So if you allow the, allow that area to be again. | 00:25:34 | |
| Vehicle or traffic as is as is assigned and then you have your pedestrian access points to the north of the crosswalks to the | 00:25:41 | |
| north of it or established one in your choosing to place another investment crosswalk along the southern part. You know proper I | 00:25:48 | |
| want to say signalization, but proper assignment will allow that for there to be. | 00:25:56 | |
| A identification for pedestrian areas. So you think I'm sorry. I wish I again, in my opinion would probably meet downtown. But if | 00:26:06 | |
| you're starting to put barriers into the road. | 00:26:11 | |
| With well probably end up happening will be causing conflict for vehicle or traffic without the regards of pedestrian. | 00:26:19 | |
| So you think it was designed well enough that we can have this sort of access? | 00:26:27 | |
| Or have this sort of design and it's the traffic is slow enough and it's pedestrian friendly enough, but this would be OK. | 00:26:33 | |
| With proper signage and things and we shouldn't be adding a bunch of elements. Is that kind of what you're saying? | 00:26:41 | |
| OK, there we go. I thought you had question down so. | 00:26:50 | |
| Excuse me, Yeah. What was what's present? What's presented is that. | 00:26:55 | |
| On that I mean entry when you start adding more. | 00:26:59 | |
| More control, more devices, more barriers into the into the into vehicle error traffic tends to cause more conflicts at times. So | 00:27:04 | |
| the way that's presented me sometime in with the Aqua and again when it comes down to pedestrian safety, this is not a not a. | 00:27:14 | |
| Corridor for vehicles to get from north to South and east to West and where the vehicle air speed is, is intent to be low as well. | 00:27:25 | |
| So again, crosswalks are intended to allow safe passage for pedestrians and but. However, we all know that pedestrians shall find | 00:27:36 | |
| an easiest, shortest point or path to point A to point B. | 00:27:41 | |
| Well, but for my observation, you're still going to have people walking along the North S route, but they just won't be walking on | 00:27:48 | |
| a sidewalk. They'll be walking in the road and it is a pub. There will be alcohol served. I'm wondering about impairment of | 00:27:55 | |
| walking perhaps. I don't know if it's going to get to that point, but I'm just really concerned about the pedestrian movement | 00:28:02 | |
| North and South right there for that 55 foot stretch. | 00:28:09 | |
| And I think we need to be really thinking about what we can do to safeguard. | 00:28:17 | |
| Any potential pedestrian automobile conflict right there? And granted, cars don't drive faster usually. | 00:28:21 | |
| But I'm not sure that they obey the 5 miles an hour I didn't today. | 00:28:31 | |
| Prohibit through traffic walking through that gated area. | 00:28:37 | |
| You're saying if the gate was open and yeah, you can't do that. It's not prohibited, OK. | 00:28:42 | |
| You, you might have, you might have said this earlier, the main entrance on that north side in these three bays, where is the main | 00:28:54 | |
| entrance to the restaurant going to be? It's going to be on that North East corner, right there under northeast corner. | 00:29:01 | |
| Because what I was thinking is maybe you know if. | 00:29:11 | |
| I see your point now, Tim and I, I agree and so. | 00:29:15 | |
| I wonder if it's not better, you know, if if you could and I realize you can't move the roof canopy. You only have so much | 00:29:21 | |
| coverage with the roof canopy because the the existing canopy that's there being in conflict. So you're not gaining, you're going | 00:29:27 | |
| to lose some of your covered seating area. But if if you brought your seating area forward further north, you know, around that | 00:29:34 | |
| corner so that even some of that outdoor seating, patio seating is engaged more on that. | 00:29:41 | |
| Central promenade area and picked up more space there. I realize it's not going to be a one for one trade, but you know, I could | 00:29:49 | |
| see allowing more space up there, stretching it to the north a little bit, but picking up that. | 00:29:55 | |
| 48 inches or five feet. | 00:30:03 | |
| As a as a walkway along the curb, between the fence and the curb. | 00:30:06 | |
| It seems to be more protected on that north side. | 00:30:13 | |
| For pedestrians, because you have the angular parking, angular space and other restaurants, at least the ice cream place, that's | 00:30:17 | |
| kind of done that. They've moved outside a little bit on the South side of their building, but. | 00:30:24 | |
| I don't know if what you're still trying to accomplish, but I like that idea. | 00:30:31 | |
| So my my thoughts that I was just going to share real quick is definitely for giving up the full sidewalk. I think it's very | 00:30:40 | |
| reasonable to require the same. | 00:30:45 | |
| Crossing that are already in, just have that on the South side and I think it's just the stamped concrete, but something that ties | 00:30:51 | |
| in exactly the same as those other ones. That was like design elements I have no issues with whatsoever. | 00:30:59 | |
| I think it's great that it's coming in and I'd love to see it sooner rather than later. But yeah, the crossing is my only | 00:31:07 | |
| question. So anything we could do to discourage people walking in the street, I don't know if it's extending the railing a little | 00:31:11 | |
| further or, you know, pointing them, you know, if you if you need to go back this way across the crosswalk or go around the | 00:31:16 | |
| alleyway, I don't know what it is. But no matter what you do, I mean, I think people are going to do whatever's convenient for | 00:31:21 | |
| them, so. | 00:31:25 | |
| And to be clear, there's plenty of jaywalking going on there currently, right? Like, it's not. It's not. Yeah. It's like this is | 00:31:31 | |
| something that's never been seen over there. | 00:31:36 | |
| A couple of my comments. I agree that the crosswalk needs to match the other crosswalks. It was something that when we talked | 00:31:43 | |
| about this whole area that was kind of a particular point. Another thing if. | 00:31:49 | |
| If it gets approved where the sidewalk on that side closes, then I think that it's important that the alleyway that goes in | 00:31:56 | |
| between the two buildings. | 00:32:00 | |
| Has better lighting has, is more welcoming because it looks like an alleyway on that side right now. And if you look at it on | 00:32:04 | |
| Google Maps, there's like no lighting on that entrance there. And it just seems like you're not supposed to go in this way. If | 00:32:10 | |
| that became something where it's like, oh, this is more welcoming. This is the way your Aussies go. Like if there was some kind of | 00:32:16 | |
| design elements there, they were like, OK, this is this is obviously the way to go and more people would flow through that way. | 00:32:22 | |
| But right now it's it's very much not. | 00:32:28 | |
| There's a power box and just all the power boxes for all the buildings. There's no design elements, no lighting. So I think that | 00:32:34 | |
| if that E sidewalk was closing, then that W sidewalk alleyway needs to be much more inviting. So I think with what you're saying | 00:32:42 | |
| about, you know, that you brought up about letting us extend it a little bit further to north and let me have my client, Tim talk | 00:32:49 | |
| to him about whether or not. | 00:32:57 | |
| Fine with. | 00:33:04 | |
| You know, having a three foot walkway, I mean basically all you would need to meet ADA is a three foot wide, you know, section of | 00:33:06 | |
| sidewalk with five foot, you know, sections at each end to meet ADA. So if we move the fence over three feet I think. | 00:33:14 | |
| It's still leaving, okay. | 00:33:24 | |
| Tim, will you please introduce yourself to the microphone? Tim Ryan, owner, About Time Pub and Grab. | 00:33:27 | |
| So how about this? | 00:33:33 | |
| That, I think, ties the whole thing up with a neat bow. | 00:33:37 | |
| It's a 15 foot concrete span right now. | 00:33:40 | |
| We'll take the patio back to 12. | 00:33:47 | |
| Leaving the three foot access for pedestrians that will address this concern. | 00:33:49 | |
| Remove the crosswalk, right, And so give up on the crosswalk. It's no longer necessary because it's not replacing anything that's | 00:33:56 | |
| been taken away. You don't have to deal with lighting. | 00:34:01 | |
| Give us an approval that gives us the option to extend the patio around that corner as was suggested. Not sure we want to do that. | 00:34:09 | |
| I think there's. | 00:34:14 | |
| Complications there. There's also, there's a fire pit out there, right, that's on the corner that I don't know if we really want | 00:34:21 | |
| to work around, but at least give us the option to explore that and then perhaps leave us with the roof as proposed at our option. | 00:34:28 | |
| I will go back to the developer. I have no heartburn whether it's on an angle or flat, but it will be considerably more expensive | 00:34:36 | |
| if we're required to. | 00:34:43 | |
| Adjust the pitch, but if the developer wants to pitch that way. | 00:34:52 | |
| I'm sure he'd be happy to pay for it. | 00:34:57 | |
| To clarify, you're saying that the flatter option is considerably more expensive, It will be more expensive. I don't, I don't have | 00:34:59 | |
| a dollar amount on that yet because that was an issue that just came up with the manufacturer today and they said, Oh yeah, we can | 00:35:04 | |
| of course do that, but it's it's more. | 00:35:08 | |
| But fine. And then, you know, as far as the colors go, umm. | 00:35:14 | |
| For that part, we're planning to at this point match, there's some Gray vertical siding that's already on that. | 00:35:20 | |
| Building, you see it as you're, you know, driving down the street. It's fine. It's not our prototype color, but. | 00:35:29 | |
| This is not a space where that awning is in any way an advertisement, you know, it's on a non St. facing side and so on and so | 00:35:36 | |
| forth. But if you guys feel good about working with us on those conditions, we feel fine about it and. | 00:35:43 | |
| Wrap it up. Must get thing built. | 00:35:50 | |
| So if if we were to go north, letting them go north. | 00:35:57 | |
| How would we want to go about that kind of looking at the roof that's currently there, the fire pit that's I think it's just it's | 00:36:03 | |
| a non covered extension of the patio space, but the roof has to I think the roof there awning stops where the existing I agree | 00:36:11 | |
| with canopy is at the corner, because I think that's complicated. So we could simply continue the metal rail, right? And that's | 00:36:18 | |
| just not a rainy day space, which they have right like right now if you look. | 00:36:26 | |
| Elevation of that side, on that east side, you'll see that the railing on the ground floor goes past the covered roof portion, so | 00:36:34 | |
| there's already some portion of that patio space uncovered. | 00:36:40 | |
| Yeah, I'd be, it seems to make sense, like as long as it didn't extend any further north than the frontage of the building there, | 00:36:46 | |
| I don't see why that would cause any issue personally. Yeah, and I think that eliminates the back door concern as well. I feel | 00:36:52 | |
| much better about having a sidewalk access. Yeah. And, and for our purposes, we're going to narrow those existing. They're still | 00:36:58 | |
| showing on the old plan, but there's three entrances because that space was designed that it could be demised in the three | 00:37:04 | |
| businesses. | 00:37:10 | |
| We're going to have one main door. | 00:37:17 | |
| There and not use the back door. She's a better control point, you know, to monitor customers and if you're checking ID's and so | 00:37:19 | |
| on and so forth, it's better. | 00:37:23 | |
| Control point. | 00:37:29 | |
| OK, so not speaking for everyone here, but I think that yeah, if you do the 12 foot. | 00:37:33 | |
| A 12 foot roof leaving that 3 foot area and I think that we're fine with how it is and extending the fence at least to the front | 00:37:42 | |
| face of the building, we're fine with that as well. | 00:37:48 | |
| Right my. | 00:37:55 | |
| As long as that's not against any the the canopy doesn't can. Yeah, yeah, right. I think what Anthony said, I think we extend the | 00:37:57 | |
| patios that. | 00:38:02 | |
| Fenced off patio space, provided that we maintain, you know, pedestrian clearances and stuff like that around it, like we are on | 00:38:09 | |
| the one side. | 00:38:13 | |
| OK. | 00:38:20 | |
| Otherwise, I think I think the materials look good. | 00:38:22 | |
| It would be nice to see them, of course, but it's it's pretty basic and I think that we get a pretty solid idea of that. | 00:38:26 | |
| Any other comments? No, no. | 00:38:36 | |
| Up there now. | 00:38:41 | |
| So we won't add, I think that's, I think it's better, yeah. Then we don't have that. | 00:38:44 | |
| Brian, could we put in a condition? | 00:38:50 | |
| To have staff approve materials Board still take a look at that. | 00:38:54 | |
| Yeah, I think so. | 00:39:00 | |
| Yeah. | 00:39:07 | |
| You know, we'll get with that information. Yeah, I just wouldn't want to have to. I'm thinking of ways that we could move it | 00:39:08 | |
| forward without having to come back to this stuff. | 00:39:12 | |
| Must be provided a material works yeah to match to match existing. | 00:39:17 | |
| OK. | 00:39:24 | |
| So I know I was this particular that brought up the flat roof thing and it's not, that's not a hill I'm going to die on. And we | 00:39:27 | |
| don't have any code reason to enforce that. I I'm not sure why it would come back that much more expensive, but. | 00:39:34 | |
| You know, I would prefer the flatter roof, but that's not. | 00:39:42 | |
| If that's not going to work, I'd rather have the walkway like we're talking about too anyway, so I'm indifferent to it honestly, | 00:39:47 | |
| you know? | 00:39:52 | |
| But again, it'll just be a point of dollars at that point. We'll be giving up some dollars and seating, you know future revenue. | 00:39:59 | |
| And in this business and particularly now anywhere you can pick it up, it sure is fine. But I but if the developer chooses, you | 00:40:05 | |
| know to take in a little bit and they're great guys. | 00:40:11 | |
| But you know, they maybe. | 00:40:18 | |
| The code does call for consistency in design. So I don't think it's too outlandish in my opinion to require that it does look and | 00:40:21 | |
| match what's around it. That's exactly what the code calls for actually. Well, and a shorter going from 15 to 12 feet, I mean, the | 00:40:26 | |
| pitch is going to change probably from your, you are going to save some steel on those supports and you're going to, I mean the, | 00:40:32 | |
| the lower pitch roof your columns in the back. And I guess I'm not sure how you're attaching it with its concert to the building, | 00:40:38 | |
| but. | 00:40:44 | |
| They're a little shorter, so. | 00:40:50 | |
| There, there should be some some savings. I mean, is it going to be like a membrane and fully enclosures? It's just a metal just | 00:40:53 | |
| to shed the roof. Yeah, I'm not sure why that would come back more expensive. | 00:40:59 | |
| But umm. | 00:41:05 | |
| That's I just have to pay for it. I understand your position. I I know your position, right? | 00:41:07 | |
| This is a very small thing, but if it were inclined. | 00:41:14 | |
| And it were raining, all the rain would run down onto the pedestrians, right? It has an integrated. Yeah, that's a good point. | 00:41:18 | |
| Of that patio that happens to be 3 feet in it so when it comes down. | 00:41:32 | |
| I know I just wouldn't want to walk down there. | 00:41:39 | |
| So Tim, just so I understand because so basically this is going to be brought back to 12 feet, there's going to be a three foot | 00:41:43 | |
| clearance here to meet minimum ADA requirements. | 00:41:48 | |
| And then the the rail here is going to, is it going to wrap around this northern side of the building and then terminate somewhere | 00:41:54 | |
| within your terminate? | 00:41:59 | |
| Back you see that? | 00:42:07 | |
| There's a right right there. OK, maximum. | 00:42:10 | |
| Terminate there. | 00:42:19 | |
| It's over toward the parking. | 00:42:22 | |
| Kind of where that parking is at an angle, it's kind of in there and it would have quite a bit of clearance to us. | 00:42:27 | |
| And I'm not sure that we'll go around that corner, but we like the flexibility to do it if we get back to looking at it makes | 00:42:36 | |
| sense. | 00:42:38 | |
| Do we can move through? Do we want that minimum of three feet or? | 00:42:43 | |
| Because looking at just looking at the map. | 00:42:51 | |
| If this is kind of the access for people coming from that direction to the. | 00:42:54 | |
| Yeah, just looking, would you like me to put anything on the screen price? | 00:43:00 | |
| Sure. Yeah. If you if you could just bring up Google Maps, yeah. | 00:43:05 | |
| And kind of just show that corner. | 00:43:08 | |
| So naturally these little fire pit areas. | 00:43:24 | |
| And to be gathering places if there's waiting for any restaurants. And so I worry about if we're extending, if we're extending it | 00:43:28 | |
| out far and there's only three feet between the fence and that fire pit. And that's going to be a congestion area. Yeah. Because | 00:43:36 | |
| you can't really go around on the north side of that fire pit. It's kind of just. | 00:43:43 | |
| There, so I worry about that. | 00:43:53 | |
| Yes, yes, I worry about if the fence is coming up so close to this and that's. | 00:44:00 | |
| I don't think that we'd have a problem with just tying it back to the corner of the building. That would be great that that's fine | 00:44:05 | |
| that the. | 00:44:09 | |
| Last time I was there, somebody had hit that fire pit with a vehicle and it has a huge crack in it. So I'm not sure. I'm sure it's | 00:44:14 | |
| going to be repaired and replaced, but. | 00:44:20 | |
| To me, I'm not sure why it's there, but you can see the drain, right? | 00:44:26 | |
| Running on that sidewalk so we'll just. | 00:44:30 | |
| That's the three feet. And then even like as a future idea, not something that we're approving right now, but I think it could be | 00:44:32 | |
| cool to even have some space in that northern area dedicated to dining, adding a roof area and having some. | 00:44:40 | |
| Some space on the Northside. | 00:44:48 | |
| In the future, but not near the entrance. Just a thought though. | 00:44:51 | |
| You're saying further further West of the entrance but on that N patio like a separate? | 00:44:57 | |
| The main door will be here, next one over. | 00:45:05 | |
| There. | 00:45:11 | |
| OK. | 00:45:13 | |
| So, yeah, if you're fine with us approving it as the fence going to just that front corner, yeah, that's fine. Then I, I, I think | 00:45:15 | |
| we could prove something like that. | 00:45:20 | |
| OK, I'm just trying to. | 00:45:27 | |
| Put together all the notes of everything you've discussed. Sorry. So it was the three foot on the east side. | 00:45:28 | |
| The. | 00:45:38 | |
| No crosswalk. The fence, The lower 3 foot fence would go to the corner of the northeast the northeast corner of the building. | 00:45:40 | |
| At least looking from an east elevation, exterior elevation. | 00:45:53 | |
| That I think. I think I agree that the lower pitch. | 00:45:58 | |
| Makes more sense for this area. | 00:46:04 | |
| I would think that we should make it a requirement personally. | 00:46:09 | |
| Is there any opposition to that? | 00:46:15 | |
| All right. So you have design, consistent design consistency of the lower pitched roof. I think the lower pitch rather than the | 00:46:18 | |
| steeper pitch makes more sense for the area. | 00:46:22 | |
| And I think that's it. | 00:46:29 | |
| Then if there needs to be approval of material boards, if we don't have to come back to the Planning Commission, yeah, yeah. So I | 00:46:31 | |
| would like to say that an updated site plan and materials board needs to be provided to staff. | 00:46:38 | |
| Along with that, yeah. And then the last, the very last. | 00:46:47 | |
| Topic that I want to touch on is so nuisances with like sound, only 65 decibels are permitted at any time of day from the | 00:46:51 | |
| restaurant. So just to prevent any possible, you know, noise that is inappropriate. | 00:47:00 | |
| You know, that's a great question. | 00:47:13 | |
| Definite. Oh, maybe 70 decibels is a vacuum cleaner, right? Just restaurant noise. | 00:47:17 | |
| And so you show, I mean show fights, games, things like that inside. What will outdoors have access to that too, like outdoor | 00:47:25 | |
| screens and all that? I think so. OK here. Yeah, I think that's fine. I think it's great. I think that the intent is just | 00:47:31 | |
| essentially general restaurant noise and acceptable, right. So I don't think in our 14 locations in 12 years we've ever had an | 00:47:38 | |
| outdoor. | 00:47:44 | |
| Patio issue. I'm not concerned in this area. | 00:47:51 | |
| People are coming out of IMAX cranked up. | 00:47:55 | |
| OK, All right. Well then we probably don't need to make that a specific condition. | 00:48:01 | |
| Will there be any additional lighting on that east side where there will be typical restaurant type flight or will it be lighting | 00:48:09 | |
| towards the pedestrian passage down? | 00:48:15 | |
| Yeah, because there's lighting currently on the building on that east side. Will there be any lighting? We'll install additional | 00:48:24 | |
| lighting under the patio, which will now sounds like probably be high enough, but we'll have a lot of, lot of illumination. | 00:48:32 | |
| Bleeding out but. | 00:48:41 | |
| We'll run a course of round pendants that. | 00:48:44 | |
| OK inside but down the length of it OK. | 00:48:49 | |
| OK. | 00:48:55 | |
| Naseem and Chris, do you guys have any final comments before we try to make an attempt to get these conditions right? | 00:48:58 | |
| No, the final comments. | 00:49:10 | |
| That was the most dramatic No, I've ever. | 00:49:13 | |
| Was killing me. | 00:49:16 | |
| OK, so I might need a little help with this, so I'll try to get. I wrote down the conditions as we were talking to. You've got | 00:49:19 | |
| them, you can read them. You can read the before we make a motion. How are you feeling about this? So like the comments that we've | 00:49:27 | |
| made, does that sound good? Yeah, I feel fine with it. I just liked it. Have a building permit and. | 00:49:35 | |
| Time is money for sure. I'm a little unclear about the the elevation if we're. | 00:49:44 | |
| If we're. | 00:49:50 | |
| Being granted flexibility on the pitch of the roof yet or not, OK, I don't know. I was going to. | 00:49:52 | |
| So I'm, I mean, I'm always the designer and I prefer the flat pitch roof. And Bryce expressed his opinion. I don't know if anybody | 00:50:02 | |
| else. | 00:50:07 | |
| Do we have a number to be or you know, like I think can we put in the record, I mean these elevations that have been provided, I | 00:50:13 | |
| know they're not part of the digital submittal what you have Brian, but if they provide this? | 00:50:19 | |
| Document that matches what we're looking at now I think we could say you know with what we're looking at now on paper yeah they | 00:50:28 | |
| can be uploaded to the permit file and, and, and we could say that. | 00:50:34 | |
| It has to be consistent with the elevations because submitted to the permit file right now. I'm OK with yeah. Is that what you | 00:50:41 | |
| were saying too, Bryce? This one that's drawn up that we have in paper. Yeah, and. | 00:50:49 | |
| The pitch will be, I mean, it's going to be a little bit different than this because it's going to be 3 feet in. | 00:50:59 | |
| But the way it lines up with that side. | 00:51:06 | |
| And it'll be a little bit steeper too. If it's shorter, the pitch will be a little bit steeper just because it's shorter and so it | 00:51:12 | |
| won't have to travel that distance as much. So maybe because it's a little bit steeper, it'll be, it could potentially be cheaper. | 00:51:18 | |
| I do. I do understand that that with some roofs, specifically metal roofs, if it's below a certain pitch, then you have to do | 00:51:23 | |
| specific things to tie it down. | 00:51:28 | |
| More structure, but I don't know how much it more it could be, but if you guys are willing to pay a nickel more for a beer. | 00:51:35 | |
| Fine, we'll make it up in the long run. Cool. Yeah, yeah. And I, I don't know the percentage of what that is and but I, I think | 00:51:42 | |
| that visually it makes more sense to have it as a lower pitch kind of how it is here and I. | 00:51:51 | |
| So we're going to have. So yeah, I think we're going to does that. Is that clear enough that we want to do cool. | 00:52:03 | |
| Hey, Jeff, you ready to make a motion? | 00:52:10 | |
| Yeah, sorry. Right. And did we decide we were holding? Yeah, we're going to elevations that are provided, right. So it's different | 00:52:13 | |
| from the Salvation and I'm not sure we're going to word that because it's pulled in three feet. Yeah, because it's pulled in three | 00:52:17 | |
| feet, but. | 00:52:22 | |
| To make it, I guess it would look the same. The exterior elevation would look the same from the east side no matter what. Even if | 00:52:27 | |
| it was pulled in three feet, right, the east side exterior elevation would be the same. So I don't know how to how. | 00:52:34 | |
| The pitch, the slope of that roof will be the same. It just comes in three feet. They'll tie it in at the top. I mean, the pitcher | 00:52:47 | |
| will change because it's 3 feet in, so the pitch goes a little bit steeper, if that makes sense. | 00:52:54 | |
| Because it's in three feet more. | 00:53:01 | |
| It's the same distance going from the outside to the inside, but because it's come in the pitch gets a little bit steeper unless | 00:53:03 | |
| you raise just lift the bearing point of it up a little bit more. But that's that's been issue that I don't. | 00:53:11 | |
| From the existing right? Exactly, yes. | 00:53:21 | |
| You guys, you understand what we're wanting you to draw, so I worded just how he said it to match the existing depth of the other | 00:53:25 | |
| exterior canopy. | 00:53:30 | |
| So that's the depth of the existing exterior canopy. Yeah, so. | 00:53:39 | |
| If you're calling that depth, I guess. | 00:53:45 | |
| This, this right here, Yeah. | 00:53:48 | |
| You're saying what you see from here. Yeah. So basically you're you're east side exterior elevation would look exactly the same no | 00:53:51 | |
| matter what the pitch is. | 00:53:56 | |
| I'm going to try this then. OK, we're ready. | 00:54:03 | |
| OK, then I move to. I don't have what the item number is here. | 00:54:07 | |
| I pull that back up. | 00:54:15 | |
| I can pull up on the screen. Hey, I move to approve the site plan as requested by Ryan Nichols of Nichols Naylor Architects with | 00:54:17 | |
| the proposed conditions that the fence patio outdoor patio is reduced to 12 feet to allow a 36 inch minimum walkway along the | 00:54:25 | |
| eastern edge of the existing sidewalk. | 00:54:33 | |
| Defense Patio can extend to the north up to the northeast corner of the existing building. | 00:54:42 | |
| There will be no new crosswalk extending to the east from the southeast corner. | 00:54:51 | |
| Also, that the applicant revised the design that is consistent in concept with the elevation that have been provided on paper such | 00:54:59 | |
| that the the canopy over the patio is a lower slope and matches the depth of the existing exterior canopy. And that the applicant | 00:55:08 | |
| will submit the actual material board to staff just to ensure that the the colors tie in with the existing buildings. | 00:55:17 | |
| And a site plan. | 00:55:27 | |
| And a site plan. | 00:55:29 | |
| And then mentioning the other conditions, staff recommended conditions, Yeah, some of these normal privacy, we're basically | 00:55:31 | |
| discussing #2 and #1. | 00:55:37 | |
| So it's kind of your choice. | 00:55:44 | |
| So and that the applicant shall provide that first one as strategy. | 00:55:48 | |
| That means fire access requirements maximize the safety and convenience of pedestrian flow around the outdoor seating area, which | 00:55:53 | |
| we've addressed. | 00:55:56 | |
| Meeting all the building design requirements which would address the applicant OK areas. | 00:56:00 | |
| We're not dealing with that. The applicant pays any outstanding fees and makes any Red Line corrections, and the applicant is | 00:56:06 | |
| subject to all federal, state and local laws. | 00:56:11 | |
| OK. So just to be clear. | 00:56:18 | |
| The first four. | 00:56:24 | |
| I don't apply or have been addressed already in the previous conditions that you stated and then if you can read the the 5th and | 00:56:27 | |
| 6th one as conditions that do apply. | 00:56:32 | |
| So these conditions do apply. The applicant pays any outstanding fees and makes any red line corrections, and the applicant is | 00:56:38 | |
| subject to all federal, state and local laws. | 00:56:43 | |
| Are we happy with that? Yeah, period. I'm happy with that. | 00:56:50 | |
| We passed over the nuisance general. | 00:56:56 | |
| Which I think is the noise that way you're that's a requirement. Yeah, it's a requirement. It's a requirement already. Yeah. So | 00:57:00 | |
| that's code, code code enforcement. That can become a code enforcement issue regardless. So if we receive any complaints about it. | 00:57:07 | |
| So. All right, Do I have a second for final second? All right, Thank you, Anthony. All in favor, is this roll caller? No. All in | 00:57:14 | |
| favor. Aye. Cool. Thank you, guys. | 00:57:21 | |
| We're excited about it. It's going to be cool. | 00:57:29 | |
| Self self-interest questions when timeline. | 00:57:31 | |
| On this, it sounds like you wanted to move quickly. Do you have target dates? | 00:57:35 | |
| What will be the seating capacity or the feeding capacity of the facility? | 00:57:43 | |
| Just a guess. | 00:58:01 | |
| Michael. | 00:58:09 | |
| Awesome. Hey, good luck. Welcome to Vineyard. Thank you, guys. Thank you guys. | 00:58:11 | |
| All right. | 00:58:18 | |
| So Bryce, actually. | 00:58:22 | |
| Item 4.2 we're going to push to the next meeting, so we won't be discussing that one tonight. | 00:58:25 | |
| No, no. So we've already noticed the public service is basically a continuance of that notification and and it's okay to move it | 00:58:32 | |
| to the next one. So moving on to 4.3 then public hearing zoning text amendment for 15.32 point 230 and 15 point 38.030 ordinance | 00:58:39 | |
| #2021 dash 05. | 00:58:45 | |
| OK, sweet. | 00:58:53 | |
| So I get some notes out real quick. | 00:58:55 | |
| Thanks guys. | 00:58:58 | |
| That was a complicated one back there. Yeah, yeah. I think it's good to get it. I still would like to see more lighting in that | 00:59:01 | |
| alleyway, but yeah, yeah, yeah. So who would do that? The owner of the Yeah, the master developer. And that was my concern on that | 00:59:08 | |
| one, was that for them improving just a 10 improvement on their space, they're not going to really have any control over the | 00:59:16 | |
| applicant, you know, over that alleyway because that's on that's on the landlord. Can we put standards in for that? | 00:59:23 | |
| In general, what are they? | 00:59:33 | |
| In the future, in the future for lighting, for alleyways, yeah. And that alleyway, I think became more of a. | 00:59:37 | |
| More, yeah, more of an entrance than I think any of us were anticipating it becoming. | 00:59:48 | |
| So that's good. There's lots of traffic there, so. | 00:59:53 | |
| All right. | 00:59:58 | |
| OK, guys, Just I'm just pulling up this ordinance that we're going to be discussing. | 00:59:59 | |
| OK, so this ordinance is to. | 01:00:05 | |
| Make revisions to retaining walls and fences. That code section that treats this so just to provide you a little context, so. | 01:00:10 | |
| We're we're having a lot of residents on along the Lakeshore who are trying to. | 01:00:24 | |
| Have these retaining walls. | 01:00:31 | |
| And this is basically for the purpose of them being able to have more usable backyard space and so. | 01:00:33 | |
| Once they do get that retaining wall put on there, our code really doesn't say anything at the time. Currently to allow for a | 01:00:44 | |
| fence to be put on top of the retaining wall. Right now they have to put their fences stepped back in more into their yard, thus | 01:00:50 | |
| kind of removing an additional. | 01:00:57 | |
| Area where they can then some more of their backyard is being removed with with what the ordinance is currently in place. So this | 01:01:04 | |
| this ordinance is to help prevent that reduction in people's backyard usable backyard space and so. | 01:01:15 | |
| So I'll just read the the changes here. It says retaining wall shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Fences and walls are permitted | 01:01:25 | |
| to be located on top of a retaining wall and may contain an additional 6 feet in height and side and rear yards and 42 inches in | 01:01:32 | |
| front yards. | 01:01:40 | |
| The team wall is greater than 4 feet in height, will require a building permit, and the height is measured from the bottom of the | 01:01:47 | |
| footings to the top of the wall. | 01:01:52 | |
| So, yeah, so routine walls can't exceed 6 feet in height. They can't in the back and rear yards. They can't exceed 42 inches in | 01:01:58 | |
| the front yards. And a retaining wall that's 4 feet in height will require a building permit, and that's measured from the bottom | 01:02:05 | |
| of the footings to the top of the wall. | 01:02:12 | |
| In the back, correct in the back. | 01:02:20 | |
| Anything that's consistent with the surrounding environment as the code currently dictates. | 01:02:24 | |
| So it seems that this is basically just concerning James Bay. | 01:02:29 | |
| I mean there are a couple of other places along some of the wetlands and stuff, but but mostly James Bay. Have we gone out and | 01:02:36 | |
| measured the height of the? | 01:02:42 | |
| One, I know that there's one retaining wall that's already built there. Has that been measured? | 01:02:48 | |
| Yeah, that one I remember we have a because I assumed that most of James Bay is going to want to, if they're going to put in a | 01:02:54 | |
| retaining wall is going to want to match that. Yeah, right. And I know it's more than we're working with on that kind of that does | 01:03:02 | |
| want to match that. And we're trying to figure out some issues with it because they need to bring in some infill to prevent some | 01:03:09 | |
| water issues that would then occur on on the side of the fence that's. | 01:03:16 | |
| Closer to the trail and so this is. | 01:03:24 | |
| We are encountering that, but we're we're working on it so. | 01:03:30 | |
| The existing one is more than six feet, isn't it? | 01:03:35 | |
| Yeah. | 01:03:39 | |
| So yeah. | 01:03:46 | |
| Yeah. So it's technically not in the way of balls is separate. We're saying you have one retaining wall, then you have to step | 01:03:48 | |
| back with soil and then, then, then there's another retaining wall. So approximately total height from. | 01:03:54 | |
| The ground on the opposite side with the trailers to the top of their where they're finished grape would be would be about 10 to | 01:04:02 | |
| 12 feet depending. But again, each retaining wall is step back. So your your approximately about anywhere from 5:00 to 6:00 feet | 01:04:09 | |
| each step. And how close can the steps be? | 01:04:15 | |
| Like there's a six foot wall, then the step, then a six foot wall. Is there a required distance between those 26 foot walls? I | 01:04:23 | |
| believe it's 4 feet. Yeah. So yeah, I mean, the way the way the way it's shown is about approximately 4 feet. I mean, they're | 01:04:29 | |
| technical. The real answer would be it depends on the on the engineering designs of the closer. There are two retaining walls are | 01:04:34 | |
| together. | 01:04:40 | |
| Exactly. The weaker are the worst case scenario that you would have to be doing exactly. | 01:04:48 | |
| I know that the four foot requirement in the building foot building code requirements because 4 foot anything about four feet | 01:04:52 | |
| needs an engineer stamp on that retaining wall and so. | 01:04:58 | |
| Including the footing, Yeah, including, right, the retaining portion, yeah, is whatever's. | 01:05:05 | |
| Stopping Earth from moving right so. | 01:05:11 | |
| OK, that we'll get to a public comment portion, I guess. | 01:05:16 | |
| Recommended Google Earth, Yeah. | 01:05:19 | |
| And then the sorry David, would you mind? | 01:05:23 | |
| Oh, yeah. Let me, Hi, David. Let me open up a public hearing real quick. Do I drive a motion to make a motion that we open the | 01:05:32 | |
| public hearing? | 01:05:37 | |
| 2nd promotion. All right, all in favor, aye. | 01:05:42 | |
| Thanks. OK, so I'm looking at Google Earth. I'm looking at that corner lot on the North End of James Bangs. We're about we're at | 01:05:46 | |
| against the park there, right. So the park and I've seen that the that corner facing the corner down by the wetlands. | 01:05:55 | |
| Down as it stands down South from there it looks like there's two tiers, but you go up close with it, that's all one looks like | 01:06:06 | |
| there is that So is that because part of it it would be too high given your? | 01:06:12 | |
| Your inordinates. | 01:06:19 | |
| But it's shorter on the North End there because the trail ramps up quite a bit. | 01:06:21 | |
| Yeah, there's a short enough. My question see at the Northside is. | 01:06:27 | |
| I again, I don't know there to go to the park and and so. | 01:06:32 | |
| I'm sorry but what is the what is the height there when the two walls combined? Is that is that going to be over 4 foot? | 01:06:41 | |
| That that that might have received a variance because the the final grade was not had not yet been determined. | 01:06:49 | |
| Before they finished construction, so they had the retaining wall, but the the trail to the side wasn't yet completed and so they | 01:07:00 | |
| didn't have a final grade to go off of. And so therefore they were able to exceed that height do a variance, but the rest of any | 01:07:07 | |
| retaining wall that's approved moving forward here. | 01:07:15 | |
| Is not is. It won't be allowed to have any dirt or or surface manipulated to increase the height of that wall. So they all it's | 01:07:23 | |
| it's. | 01:07:28 | |
| That's kind of like our safety measure for preventing that. | 01:07:36 | |
| So just to. | 01:07:41 | |
| Yeah. So for the heights on, I don't know any other heights for that specific house. But since we're passing the ordinance now, if | 01:07:44 | |
| there was something that happened with that house, it would be grandfathered in. | 01:07:49 | |
| I'm just looking at all the others you've got. You have fences right up against there and we have retaining walls up there now. | 01:07:57 | |
| And I'm wondering if you might want to go, you might want to postpone this. Go, actually go out and measure them. And so you know | 01:08:02 | |
| what you've really got, because you want people to match them and make sure what you have, even if they're grandfathered in and | 01:08:07 | |
| you want to, you want me to know what they are. Just a suggestion. Yeah. | 01:08:13 | |
| And that, that was my concern too, that I was talking about that I think it makes sense to match it, but. | 01:08:19 | |
| If if you can do tears like somebody could essentially have a 24 foot tall retaining wall as long as it's tiered back. And so I | 01:08:25 | |
| think that with that that that would get rid of anybody elses concerns in this area because I don't think it's more than. | 01:08:33 | |
| And 14 feet, maybe to the very tallest. | 01:08:42 | |
| Like to ground level? | 01:08:47 | |
| Yeah, from the trail to the to the street. | 01:08:49 | |
| Yeah, I still want to skim my knuckles and ride my bicycle down there. | 01:08:54 | |
| So, yeah, yeah. | 01:08:57 | |
| Yeah. So the the visible portion of the wall can't exceed 6 feet in height nor can any dirt be manipulated altered final grade | 01:09:01 | |
| cannot be altered to specifically to increase the the height of the wall. So that that's a lot of I think it's like, so you mean | 01:09:08 | |
| pile up the dirt and then put the wall on top of the piled up dirt? Exactly, exactly so. | 01:09:16 | |
| Yeah, I don't know. I see that as the as a safety measure that would prevent. | 01:09:26 | |
| That from happening, yeah, that makes sense. | 01:09:30 | |
| And you are required to to engineering you all higher than 4 feet from footing from the bottom of the footing to the top. | 01:09:34 | |
| Yeah. And until you have to get an engineer, it's basically just you have to pay an engineer to put a stamp on it. Yeah, yeah. | 01:09:46 | |
| Make sure you use geogrid and fill it properly and that kind of stuff. Yeah, Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I learned about that the other | 01:09:50 | |
| day. | 01:09:54 | |
| All right. Thank you. Thanks, David. | 01:10:00 | |
| Yeah, things. Thanks for coming. | 01:10:03 | |
| As far as the public comment goes on this, do I close it or do I leave it open? I would close it. | 01:10:06 | |
| I think, I think you can close it now. OK. Do you have any other public? | 01:10:13 | |
| All right, don't have a motion to close the public comment, Move to close the public for second public comment. All in favor, aye. | 01:10:19 | |
| All right, so. | 01:10:23 | |
| Going back to this. | 01:10:30 | |
| So it doesn't even need to. | 01:10:43 | |
| I guess if it goes to engineering. | 01:10:45 | |
| Why would it need a building permit as well? | 01:10:48 | |
| Just to make sure that it has engineering. Cool. OK, missing you have a comment. I was gonna say because it census class wiser | 01:10:52 | |
| retaining wall and kind of falls underneath the fence and it's it's allowed to be placed onto the property line. So it falls down | 01:10:59 | |
| the building department because it's at in essence, it's tied to the to the building structure. OK. | 01:11:07 | |
| All right. | 01:11:16 | |
| So if it's above 4 feet, um. | 01:11:20 | |
| Is there any specific reason that we don't want something taller than six feet? If it's engineered already, it's going to be safe. | 01:11:24 | |
| So is there a reason why we're saying 6 feet is the maximum? Well, I think it it would be to prevent. | 01:11:31 | |
| So like, imagine you're out there on the lakefront and there's a retaining wall that's higher than six feet. It starts to then | 01:11:40 | |
| begin to create a, a, a scenario for pedestrians that isn't as inviting. And maybe they might even be like security and safety | 01:11:46 | |
| issues. When you have a wall that exceeds that height, that makes sense, especially along the trails, because stuff falling off of | 01:11:52 | |
| more than six feet can be a danger. | 01:11:59 | |
| That too cool. | 01:12:06 | |
| So that's kind of a good height. | 01:12:08 | |
| Yeah, that makes sense. | 01:12:10 | |
| Any other comments There were there were some other additions in the text as well, correct? Not just that paragraph, there was a | 01:12:11 | |
| few others. Let me go back to it. | 01:12:16 | |
| Just want to touch on all the given additions before we move forward. | 01:12:22 | |
| Where am I? | 01:12:28 | |
| It's so hard to see from back here. | 01:12:32 | |