MINUTES of a Regular
Planning Commission Meeting
Vineyard City Council Chambers
125 South Main Street, Vineyard, Utah
November 6, 2024, at 6:00 PM
________________
ATTENDENCE:
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Chris Bramwell; Vice-Chair Bryce Brady; Nathan Steele; Graden Ostler; Natalie Harbin; Brad Fagg; abstained from voting.
STAFF PRESENT: Cache Hancey, Senior Planner; Morgan Brim, Community Development Director; Naseem Ghandour, City Engineer and Public Works Director; Patrick James, Assistant City Engineer; Anthony Fletcher, Planner; and Rachel Stevens; Planner (attended online).
OTHERS PRESENT: Daria Evans, Brian Russell, Carl Johnson, and Russell Evans.
1. Play >> CALL TO ORDER/INVOCATION/INSPIRATIONAL THOUGHT/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Chris Bramwell started the meeting at 6:00pm. Commissioner Nathan Steele led the invocation and pledge of allegiance.
2. Play >> PUBLIC COMMENTS PC
Resident Daria Evans wanted to know if she could make a comment on the work session.
Chair Bramwell suggested planning on having comments during the work session.
3. Play >> CONSENT ITEMS
3.1. Approval of the October 2nd, 2024 Planning Commission Draft Minutes
3.2. Approval of the October 16th, 2024 Planning Commission Draft Minutes
Play >> Motion: VICE-CHAIR BRYCE BRADY MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AT 6:02PM. COMMISSIONER NATALIE HARBIN SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR: BRAMWELL, BRADY, STEELE, OSTLER, AND HARBIN. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS.
Senior Planner Cache Hancey discussed how many we could have sitting as commissioners. The sitting members were clarified: Chair Bramwell, Vice-Chair Brady and Commissioners Nathan Steele, Graden Ostler, and Natalie Harbin.
4. Play >> BUSINESS ITEMS
4.3. Play >> Minor Site Plan Amendment and Conditional Use Permit - Burger King - 614 N Mill Road
Planner Rachel Stevens presented the minor site plan amendment for Burger King. She included the existing conditions and the previously improved site plan. She also presented the proposed site plan and described the change for a double drive entrance. Planner Stevens presented the elevations and landscaping.
Play >> Planner Stevens provided recommended approval with the included conditions: the applicant shall install a minimum of 3 bicycle racks to meet the requirements as indicated in Vineyard Zoning Code 15.38.030.2(b)(ii) – Bicycle Rack General Requirement, all ADA ramps are a maximum of 8.33%, the applicant receives a land disturbance permit, a drive-thru queuing analysis is approved by the City Engineer, one parking stall is designated as a “park and wait” stall, the applicant pays any outstanding fees and makes any redline corrections as may come up during the Planning Commission meeting, and the applicant is subject to all federal, state, and local laws.
Play >> Chair Bramwell asked for clarification.
Planner Stevens described the park and wait stall.
Play >> Commissioner Steele asked about the recommendation and clarified that it was not on the proposed site plan.
Planner Stevens said yes, it would be a condition of approval.
Play >> Commissioner Harbin asked where were they proposing to put the stall.
Planner Stevens provided the location on the Site Plan.
Play >> Commissioner Steele asked if they still satisfy the parking requirements with the park and wait.
Planner Stevens asked for Senior Planner Hancey’s response.
Senior Planner Hancey said yes. He added that it is also a conditional use permit.
There were no public comments.
Play >> Motion: VICE-CHAIR BRADY MOVED TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS AS LISTED AT 6:08PM. COMMISSIONER HARBIN SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR VOTED YES: BRAMWELL, BRADY, STEELE, OSTLER, AND HARBIN. THE VOTE CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4.4. Play >> Minor Site Plan Amendment - Wendy's 145 S Geneva Road
Senior Planner Hancey presented the Wendy’s Site Plan and some background for landscaping. He discussed the request and included a water line that impedes tree requirements. He discussed this conversation.
Play >> Senior Planner Hancey noted that staff recommends approval of the minor site plan amendment with the following conditions: all fees are paid and redline corrections are made prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, and, determined by the city engineer, any tree that is located too close to the water line must be moved.
Vice-Chair Brady asked if there is a way of specifying larger plants instead of trees.
Play >> Public Works Director and City Engineer Naseem Ghandour noted the public works concern is deep roots. He noted that shrubbery without the deep roots it should be fine.
Senior Planner Hancey noted we could figure out wording of a condition.
Director Ghandour suggested language.
Play >> Community Development Director Morgan Brim vocalized a preference for trees and that the applicant could work with the public works director.
Vice-Chair Brady agreed that trees should be included as much as possible.
Discussion about the water line ensued.
Play >> Chair Bramwell asked if it was a water main or service for the development.
Staff Engineer Patrick James said it services the development.
Chair Bramwell asked if this will be an issue for all of the properties along Geneva.
Engineer James said that the waterline runs up to the Northern line of the property
Senior Planner Hancey provided a map for visual aid.
Chair Bramwell noted that the northern section will have the same issue.
Play >> Senior Planner Hancey acknowledged conversation about the landscaping with the applicant.
Play >> Commissioner Steele commented that this is an issue is because they are trying to open soon. He asked if we expect the landscaping to be installed before the Certificate of Occupancy with the winter weather.
Senior Planner Hancey described the bonding process.
The item was opened to public comments.
Play >> The applicant representing Dominion Engineering noted the reason behind this. He noted that Steve Pruitt could add one or two more trees in the back to meet the requirements.
Senior Planner Hancey added language for a condition to still require the six (6) trees but that they could be deeper in the development if needed based on the city engineer.
Vice-Chair Brady noted that he would still want six (6) of something in the front.
Senior Planner Hancey provided a language suggestion.
Play >> Motion: VICE-CHAIR BRADY MOTIONED TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONDITIONS PRESENTED AS WELL AS THE CONDITION DISCUSSED OF WORKING WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FOR PLACEMENT OF TREES AT 6:20PM. COMMISSIONER STEELE SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR: BRAMWELL, BRADY, STEELE, OSTLER, AND HARBIN. THE VOTE WAS UNANIMOUS.
5. Play >> WORK SESSION
5.5. Zoning Code Overhaul - Building Design and Site Standards
Play >> Senior Planner Hancey provided a background and discussed the process.
Play >> Planner Stevens presented the site planning and building design requirements. She included the purpose of the proposed changes: create standards that are quantitative and remove subjective language.
Planner Stevens introduced changes for the design standards. These changes included keep language for design standards which are required and use the verb “shall”, and remove language defining “design guidelines” which use the verb should.
Play >> Planner Stevens addressed the Subdivision: Project Features section. The change would require at least two subdivision and project features. a list of features provided included, but is not limited to: project entry features, public art pieces, streetscape designs, pedestrian and biking facilities and trails. She noted in the presentation that project features are approved by the Planning Commission. Another change highlighted for this section was to remove language for “View protection and building massing” which are addressed later in the text.
Play >> Planner Stevens moved to present the Coherent Building Design changes which included: requirements shall apply to facades facing a street, rather than all facades; horizontal façade variation required on building greater than 100’ through pop outs, surface pattern, etc.; varying roofline is required at every 50’; all buildings shall have at least one recess/ projection and every 100’; and all building should have at least two architectural details.
Play >> Vice-Chair Brady asked why we are getting rid of all sides and just doing sides facing the street.
Planner Stevens noted the original intent to reduce the burden on developers. She asked about language and preference.
Commissioner Steele noted that he felt it was important to have a standard for all sides but that you should also be able to call out where the front is.
Director Brim referenced Draper’s code.
Discussion ensued.
Play >> Planner Stevens introduced the proposed change to the Building Additions and Accessory Buildings and Structures: defines a minor site plan amendment as any addition or accessory structure that is less than 15% or less than 7,500 square feet. She included another proposed change to have a different standard including that minor site plans for Multi-family and Mixed-Use accessory structures are defined as less than 10% or less than 7,500 square feet.
Play >> Commissioner Steele asked about the completion process of a minor site plan amendment.
Planner Sevens noted that it goes to the planning commission and outlines the major changes.
Play >> Planner Stevens presented Mechanical Equipment, Building Location, and Pedestrian Scale. The proposed changes highlighted included mechanical equipment shall be the same color as the building, provides a list of requirements for one main building entrance- each building must have 3 (prominent feature, differing materials/ color, pedestrian amenities, or increased landscaping), and buildings greater than 20’ in height shall be built at a pedestrian scale and use at least 1 design element in the base.
Play >> Planner Stevens included the Building Materials, Color, and Finishes section. The proposed changes were: all building shall be at least 60% primary material, added additional approved primary materials and secondary materials, color elevations shall be required, remove language stating that all buildings should be “subdued earth tones and muted colors”, accent colors shall be less than 5%, and bright, glossy, and fluorescent colors are prohibited.
Commissioner Steele appreciated removing the muted colors.
Play >> Planner Stevens reviewed the Subdivision and Site Design layout, and Site Access proposed changes: add language that pad buildings shall be designed in a compatible architectural style and constructed with similar materials, and to add language that drive-thru aisles shall follow Section 15.34.190 (Drive Aisles).
Play >> Commissioner Steele asked if the section for Drive-thru aisles was discussed in the last work session on the Zoning Code Text Amendment.
Planner Stevens confirmed.
Play >> Planner Stevens included the proposed changes to the section of Views and Landscaping Design Standards: a view corridor analysis may be required by the City Planner, remove language concerning landscape buffers, add language that all landscape developments shall include a landscape accessory, and add language that all site plans shall follow Landscaping Design Standards in Section 15.40.080.
Commissioner Steele asked if there needs to be more direction to the first suggested change.
Discussion ensued.
Play >> Vice-Chair Brady asked if there was a reason we are getting rid of the language for the landscape buffers.
Planner Stevens responded in saying it conflicted with the landscaping design standards and to reference it to where it goes into depth.
Play >> Director Brim noted that they took some good notes.
Commissioner Steele asked about landscape accessories. He noted that he thinks all developments seemed all encompassing. He requested to understand the intent.
Planner Stevens noted that all developments were intended. She asked if we wanted to reduce that.
Director Brim asked if it was for new development.
Discussion about language ensued.
Play >> Chair Bramwell opened up for public comments.
Play >> Ms. Evans Play >> expressed that she was sad to see a section go. She noted that she wanted Vineyard to have character. She also expressed agreement to Commissioner Steele’s about the view corridor analysis.
Play >> Chair Bramwell asked Ms. Evans what the fair balance was between the views and new development.
Ms. Evans said she did not only want to see the top. She pointed out that on the trail, people can only see the condos. She noted that she wanted Vineyard to stay beautiful.
Play >> Senior Planner Hancey reminded that this does not apply to the Special Purpose Zoning Districts.
Ms. Evans stressed this for the rest of Vineyard as well.
Chair Bramwell asked if this would apply to the Geneva Road Development.
Play >> Senior Planner Hancey noted that the code said to revert to the main zoning code. We could put clear reference in.
Chair Bramwell called out the major areas of new development: East/ West side of the tracks where this will not apply.
Ms. Evans asked if it would apply to the Forge.
Senior Planner Hancey responded in saying no.
Director Brim highlighted the areas that it will apply.
Play >> Director Brim gave a background to the district regulations.
Senior Planner Hancey pulled up zoning districts map.
Play >> Commissioner Steele noted that Ms. Evans brought up good points he agreed with. He noted that you need emotional language to understand the spirit that the law is written. He added that the most appropriate spot for this is in the purpose section. He encouraged to have language that embraces the agricultural and rural history of Vineyard and different type of architectural styles.
Director Brim noted that we need to be object and that we do need standards.
Discussion ensued.
There were no more comments.
6. Play >> STAFF, COMMISSION, AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
Play >> Commissioner Steele requested for the presentations to be incorporated into the agenda for reference. He stressed this for transparency and preparedness.
Director Brim discussed timelines.
Play >> Vice-Chair Brady noticed that Amber Rasmussen retired and thanked her for her public service.
Play >> Senior Planner Hancey provided an update and information on providing the commissioners with emails.
Commissioner Steele asked if it was Microsoft based.
Senior Planner Hancey said it is outlook.
Chair Bramwell asked if he had sent that email out.
Senior Planner Hancey said he has not yet.
7. Play >> ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:55pm.
MINUTES CERTIFIED COMPLETE ON: December 18th, 2024
CERTIFIED
(NOTICED) BY: 
Madison Reed, Planning Technician
