[0:00] Welcome everyone to the March 31st uh

[0:03] planning commission meeting for the city

[0:06] of Alpine.

[0:08] We uh recognize planning commissioners

[0:11] that are with us. Troy Slade, Michelle

[0:13] Schumer, myself, John McCay,

[0:17] >> and Suz Wittenberg. We have uh

[0:23] Jason Jud, our city engineer, and Heidi

[0:25] Smith. What do we call you, Heidi?

[0:28] a failure today. Commun I believe your

[0:31] title officially is communications.

[0:33] >> Yes, [laughter]

[0:34] it is.

[0:35] >> Good.

[0:36] >> I'm glad we got that covered.

[0:38] >> Yeah, we've got a we've hired our new

[0:40] planners, so I will not be here much

[0:42] longer.

[0:42] >> Join joining us by Zoom is Alan

[0:45] McDonald. He's our chair, but he will be

[0:48] uh joining us as a participating as a a

[0:51] voting commission member.

[0:54] Uh and Ryan Robinson is also on Zoom

[0:59] with us. We welcome all those that are

[1:03] spending time with us out of their

[1:05] evening. Uh we appreciate your

[1:07] attendance. Um

[1:10] and we'll get started with an opening

[1:13] prayer by Suz Wittenberg and a pledge of

[1:16] allegiance by uh

[1:20] Michelle Schumer.

[1:22] Our

[1:25] father in heaven, as we come before thee

[1:26] this evening, we're very grateful to be

[1:28] here as a planning commission and with

[1:30] our citizens of this great city. We're

[1:32] very grateful that we have the

[1:33] opportunity to meet and discuss things

[1:37] today and we pray for thy spirit that we

[1:39] will do that in a very cordial and a

[1:40] very kind manner. We're so grateful for

[1:43] our city staff and the work that they

[1:45] put in as as well as our city council

[1:47] people. We're very thankful, Father, for

[1:49] the favorable circumstances that we live

[1:51] under. We pray that we will live

[1:52] gratefully. We will be good neighbors

[1:55] and we will live um to better other

[1:58] people's lives as well. We're grateful

[2:00] for this association that we have and we

[2:02] pray that thy spirit will will be with

[2:04] us this evening. We pray this prayer in

[2:06] gratitude and in the name of Jesus

[2:07] Christ. Amen.

[2:08] >> Amen.

[2:12] stand

[2:17] to the flag of the United States of

[2:20] America and to the republic for which it

[2:23] stands. One nation under God,

[2:26] indivisible with liberty and justice for

[2:29] all.

[2:33] » I don't know what it is. I'm gonna try

[2:35] and figure that out.

[2:39] » All right.

[2:41] Do you have any reports or

[2:42] presentations?

[2:45] » No, not that I'm aware of.

[2:47] >> Okay,

[2:49] then we'll move into our first uh action

[2:52] item, discussion item. Uh

[2:55] we have before us approval for the

[2:58] reconstruction of a non-conforming

[3:00] building located at 480 East 100 South.

[3:04] You want to introduce that for us, Ryan?

[3:08] >> Yes. Can you guys hear me? Stay still.

[3:10] >> You can turn your volume up just a tad.

[3:12] That would be great.

[3:13] >> And I'm going to need to turn mine up.

[3:15] >> I think it's his that needs.

[3:16] >> Okay.

[3:20] » I always give my best work when no one

[3:21] can hear me. So, if that's the case, let

[3:23] me know and we can we can pause.

[3:25] >> You're sounding 5x5 now.

[3:28] >> Okay. So this one, this one, and Jason,

[3:31] jump in if I I misrepresent anything on

[3:34] this, but basically what this is is the

[3:37] applicant purchased this property at 480

[3:39] East 100 South. There's a home in a

[3:41] couple of accessory buildings on the

[3:43] property that have been have been torred

[3:45] down. They want to build a new home. Um

[3:48] the the city code that's referenced

[3:50] there for non-conforming building. Um so basically this my understanding is

[3:55] this is a non-conforming

[3:57] uh lot because it's less than it's 8,150

[4:02] square ft with 80 ft of frontage in the

[4:04] TR10,000 zone. So in the TR10,000 zone

[4:07] you'd have to have a 10,000 foot minimum

[4:09] lot with with at least 90 ft of

[4:11] frontage. Um so this this would be a

[4:14] non-conforming lot um in that in that uh

[4:19] in that zone. So, the city code gives us

[4:22] the ability

[4:24] to enlarge. You can see in this next in

[4:26] the section that's highlighted there,

[4:28] you can enlarge or reconstruct a

[4:30] non-conforming building um with you know

[4:33] with with certain conditions is part of

[4:35] that. Um so this is just part of the

[4:39] process that they have to go through. Um

[4:41] you can see that they uh with these one

[4:44] through four they need to you know with

[4:46] the with a recommendation that you guys

[4:48] make to the council would have to meet

[4:50] those one through four um and and the

[4:54] requirement there. So and then you guys

[4:56] can recommend u conditions that would

[4:59] help you know mitigate some of those

[5:00] issues that are that are a part of that.

[5:03] Um

[5:05] so there's there's that side of it. Uh

[5:10] let's see. So the new site plan should

[5:13] be included

[5:15] in here as well. So you can you can kind

[5:17] of see what that looks like. Um but

[5:20] there's no no public hearing required on

[5:22] this. Um,

[5:25] and then the our the recommendation from

[5:27] staff is to to make a recommendation to

[5:30] city council to uh

[5:34] approve this or allow it to be

[5:35] reconstructed as as part of that uh as

[5:38] part of this process. Jason, is there

[5:40] anything I missed on that or anything

[5:41] that we brought up to speed on?

[5:44] >> No, it's it that sounds good.

[5:47] >> I'm quickly going to just see if I I'm

[5:50] the problem.

[5:54] So that's all I have as far as staff

[5:56] report side on my end. Happy to take any

[6:00] questions or anything we can do on that.

[6:02] So thanks.

[6:04] >> Thank you Ryan. Does anybody have any

[6:06] questions?

[6:14] » Can I get some just the specs on the

[6:16] height of the house?

[6:19] Was

[6:24] that a question for me, Sue? Sorry, I

[6:25] couldn't really hear you.

[6:26] >> If you know it, Ryan, I was just curious

[6:28] about the height of the home. I couldn't

[6:29] find that in the specs.

[6:32] >> Yeah. So, so they would still have to

[6:34] meet, my understanding is they're only

[6:36] asking for like legal non-conforming

[6:39] because of the lot size. It would still

[6:41] have to meet all the requirements for

[6:43] setbacks and height that we have in

[6:45] place. So, from the average finish grade

[6:47] to the midpoint of the roof couldn't

[6:48] exceed 35 ft. Um, and with as is part of

[6:52] this, if you guys approve this, they'll

[6:54] still have to go through the building

[6:55] permit process where where Jason and and

[6:59] staff will will look at that um to make

[7:02] sure that that all that's being

[7:03] followed.

[7:04] >> So, that we're just looking at the other

[7:06] preliminary stuff. Okay. Thank you,

[7:08] Ryan.

[7:13] I understand the applicant is here with

[7:15] us tonight. Do they want to say

[7:17] anything? You want to speak to this or

[7:19] you get

[7:21] >> Please pass us. [laughter]

[7:25] » Okay. We'll see what we can do about

[7:27] that. All right. Any other questions?

[7:32] >> If Yeah.

[7:34] So I would roll us back to the uh

[7:37] requirements to be able

[7:39] >> on the the original page or

[7:41] >> just those four are those five

[7:43] >> the four the four requirements that are

[7:46] required

[7:47] >> page

[7:47] >> and I would I would suggest that whoever

[7:49] makes the motion

[7:51] >> reference on the staff reportage

[7:55] >> okay this one

[7:56] >> yep pull it up just a bit

[7:59] >> go up one more yeah I'm watch on YouTube

[8:02] so I apologize if I'm delayed made. But

[8:04] yeah, go up one more.

[8:07] >> Is that what you mean, Ryan?

[8:08] >> That one right there.

[8:09] >> Right there.

[8:09] >> Yep. Yep.

[8:12] >> Okay. If there's no more discussion on

[8:13] this, I'm ready for a motion.

[8:20] » Can you I mean, I can make a motion. I

[8:23] don't have any questions. It fits

[8:24] everything. So, it's a great looking

[8:28] plan, by the way.

[8:33] Yeah. Can we can you scroll up to the

[8:35] motion if you guys don't?

[8:37] >> Of course I can. Look at me go. [snorts]

[8:40] >> I did something right. I mean,

[8:46] » did you have a question?

[8:55] » Yeah. So, you felt like everything was

[8:57] in place.

[8:59] >> Okay. It's not subject to it's more of a

[9:01] Yeah.

[9:02] >> If you speak, make sure you're on the

[9:04] record.

[9:05] >> I mean, you can talk to each other, but

[9:06] if you're talking, make sure you

[9:08] >> on the record. Make sure you're by your

[9:10] mics because

[9:11] >> I'll make a motion.

[9:12] >> There we go.

[9:13] >> Um, I move to recommend approval of the

[9:16] proposed site plan for reconstructing

[9:18] the home at 480 East 100 South to the

[9:21] city council as per the submitted site

[9:24] plan.

[9:28] Okay,

[9:29] >> we have a motion. Is there a second?

[9:42] » You want to submit your findings?

[9:45] Um, I mean, as I read through it, it

[9:48] fits the requirements

[9:51] um for

[9:55] rebuilding it on the non-conforming lot.

[10:03] Is there something just

[10:06] >> I'll second it?

[10:06] >> Yeah. Okay, we have a motion. We have a

[10:09] second. All in favor? I

[10:13] >> I oppose.

[10:17] >> Alan, did you vote?

[10:20] >> Uh, yeah. I said I I think, but I can

[10:22] hardly hear any of you. It's a bunch of

[10:24] mumbling and I I've got no cameras. I

[10:27] can't see your agenda. I'm not sure why

[10:29] nothing's showing up on the Zoom screen.

[10:33] >> Okay, hold on. Maybe we have video.

[10:36] >> All right, Mara. The motion carried with

[10:41] five in favor and none

[10:47] Okay, moving on to the next item.

[10:50] We've got a public hearing [snorts] for

[10:52] the Three Falls Plat

[10:54] amendment plat.

[11:00] » So, Ryan, do you want to take us through

[11:01] the public or the Three Falls Plat

[11:04] amended plat?

[11:07] >> Yes. So, it looks like Oh, let me pull

[11:10] up my There it is. Right there. So, this

[11:13] looks like there's some land swap

[11:14] between these three lots up in Three

[11:16] Falls. Um, it looks like uh some some

[11:21] fence was built across the property line

[11:23] that probably shouldn't have been and

[11:24] they just need to swap some property uh

[11:27] with with the public open space uh some

[11:30] of the three Paul's HOA and then this private property owner that they

[11:34] need to do some land swapping there. Uh

[11:37] a requirement is if we uh any

[11:39] modification or disposal of public open

[11:42] space. Um and then it looks like these

[11:44] will also have more than five side uh

[11:46] five-sided lots which requires our

[11:49] definition of a lot is no more than five

[11:51] sides. But if there's if there you can

[11:54] have more than five sides. It just needs

[11:56] an exception or recommendation from the

[11:58] planning commission and approval from

[11:59] city council for an exception to those

[12:02] five-sided lots. Um, so it looks like

[12:05] that's the that's the background of

[12:07] this. Uh, let me see, Heidi, if you go

[12:10] down to

[12:13] uh there's a there's a sheet or a page

[12:16] that shows kind of the lots in question.

[12:18] If you want to maybe scroll down a

[12:19] little bit.

[12:22] >> Is that it?

[12:25] » Uh, it's not showing any changes on my

[12:28] side. I'm still showing that. Yeah, keep

[12:30] going down.

[12:31] Keep going. Keep going.

[12:35] >> I think it's

[12:37] >> So, those are the lots. Yeah, this one

[12:38] right there. You maybe want to

[12:40] >> back it up a little bit. Yeah, you can

[12:41] kind of see

[12:43] >> uh lots 47, 48, and 49. Then the the

[12:47] proposed land swap that would that would

[12:50] go into place with those. So, basically,

[12:52] we need a we need a recommendation for

[12:54] the land swap of of public property and

[12:57] then a recommendation on the more than

[13:01] five-sided lot exception that we have in

[13:04] our code that allows that to happen. Um,

[13:07] I don't know, Jason might know more

[13:09] about this one than I do. I don't know

[13:10] much more than what's what's in the

[13:12] staff report on this one, but um you can

[13:16] kind of see on the staff report there,

[13:17] there's a proposal slash request slash

[13:20] request

[13:21] Um, so that's that's kind of what

[13:23] they're asking for there. So the swap of

[13:27] the open space, the public open space to

[13:29] the owner. Um, yeah, you can see one

[13:32] through five there. I'm not going to

[13:33] read through them, but um that there

[13:37] this is kind of a kind of a confusing

[13:39] one. So if anyone has any questions or

[13:40] anything, I'd be happy to go over that.

[13:42] But it looks like, if I read this right,

[13:44] we do need a public hearing because we

[13:46] are disposing of of doing this land swap

[13:49] that includes public property.

[13:51] >> Um, so any any questions or anything on

[13:53] that or Jason, do you anything I missed

[13:55] or anything you want to touch on more?

[13:57] >> So, we'll see how this goes.

[14:00] >> Try talk over here.

[14:01] >> Wow.

[14:03] Um, one thing the commission needs to

[14:06] know on this, um, the engineer got back

[14:08] to us late on one item that we were

[14:11] checking on this. Um, within the city,

[14:16] you can't have,

[14:18] we've got percentages here. I'm trying

[14:20] to get this through in my brain. Um, you

[14:22] can't have a lot with more than 15% of

[14:26] the lot with a slope greater than 25%.

[14:30] So this if you can look the green

[14:33] hatched area up there that

[14:37] when this is all combined it will be

[14:40] over that 15%.

[14:43] So staff recommendation actually is to

[14:45] deny it at this time or table it until

[14:48] we can get that worked out.

[14:51] Um the fivesided lot we staff

[14:55] recommendation is okay on that but to

[15:00] make that happen everything else needs

[15:02] to happen so we should excuse me should

[15:04] probably table that as well if I can

[15:07] give that recommendation.

[15:13] Okay, let's let's just chunk this down.

[15:16] The

[15:20] » the fence in question is in that aqua

[15:24] blue area, right?

[15:26] >> No, it's up at the top

[15:28] >> in the green

[15:29] >> 47

[15:30] >> dashed area like the the two lines

[15:33] together.

[15:34] >> The darker Yeah,

[15:36] >> the darker green. Okay.

[15:38] >> Yep. It's across the top of that. And

[15:40] it's that little section that's causing

[15:42] the the slope issue.

[15:43] >> Okay.

[15:45] >> Other than that, it's fine.

[15:50] » Where's 48?

[15:52] >> It's gone because that little wording.

[15:56] >> So 48 was right here.

[15:58] >> 47.

[15:59] >> Okay. That's really tiny.

[16:01] >> Yeah.

[16:02] >> So are we combining 48 and 47?

[16:04] >> Yes.

[16:04] >> Okay. I assumed it had to be there, but

[16:08] >> and that and that becomes the issue with

[16:11] the multiple or multiple sides over

[16:13] five.

[16:14] >> So, no, that's this one works because

[16:16] this is all frontage.

[16:18] >> So, this only has the one, two, three

[16:20] sides or it's this one here that has

[16:23] one, two, three, four, five, six, seven

[16:26] sides.

[16:27] >> These are all being combined into one

[16:29] lot.

[16:29] >> No, these are one lot or this is one lot

[16:32] 47. And this is one lot 49.

[16:35] >> Okay. So, why do we care about 49?

[16:39] >> To make the land swap.

[16:40] >> Oh, that's where the

[16:42] >> So, they're taking this as part of this

[16:44] lot and then the swaps down here.

[16:46] >> I see.

[16:50] Okay.

[16:52] So, there's not a home on this property

[16:54] right now.

[16:54] >> There's a home on 47 right now.

[16:57] >> Okay.

[16:58] So, what happens when you

[17:01] have a

[17:05] The issue is that we can't turn

[17:07] a legal lot into a non-conforming law.

[17:11] >> Correct.

[17:13] >> And that happens because the slopes,

[17:15] >> correct,

[17:16] >> are beyond limits.

[17:19] Okay.

[17:22] Do we have anybody from the uh

[17:26] >> if you want to speak to this come come

[17:27] to the uh podium and

[17:30] >> state your name

[17:32] >> if it's not on

[17:33] >> hello state your name and

[17:35] >> there's a little button on it

[17:37] >> where you live

[17:37] >> I think I think it's on

[17:38] >> it's at the base you get it

[17:40] >> oh it was on

[17:41] >> yeah Steve Sorenson I'm the lot owner

[17:44] >> so I guess I have a question the the

[17:47] slope area is it is it the one in

[17:50] question on adjacent to lot 47 or is it

[17:53] the one down in 49?

[17:57] >> It's on 47. It's this little area right

[18:00] up here.

[18:01] >> Okay. So, it's

[18:02] >> so these all these lots were fine. It's

[18:05] the slope on this one is just so steep

[18:08] it pushes the whole lot together over

[18:10] that 15%.

[18:12] >> So, the question is, is it 15% when the

[18:15] two are combined? Because that's what

[18:16] we're proposing.

[18:17] >> It's when all of them are combined

[18:19] >> really. So the 6.2

[18:21] acres, it's more than 15% that slope.

[18:25] >> So originally they were right near 15%

[18:28] to begin with. 47 48 they were like

[18:31] 14.5%.

[18:33] >> Mhm.

[18:33] >> So adding this up here just really

[18:35] pushed it over.

[18:37] >> Okay. I guess I just helped me

[18:40] understand that our home is built. The

[18:42] lots are fenced. We're done. Like and

[18:45] it's so steep you can't do anything with

[18:47] it. And I'm and I'm wondering

[18:51] I'm trying to understand what what would

[18:53] be solved by tableabling it.

[18:56] >> Well, it doesn't meet our code.

[18:58] >> Okay.

[18:58] >> It just we can't we can't approve

[19:00] anything that doesn't meet code.

[19:03] >> I mean, at this juncture, anything

[19:04] that's that doesn't meet code, the

[19:06] planning commission has to recommend

[19:08] denial.

[19:09] >> Yeah.

[19:09] >> It still goes to city council. Okay.

[19:12] >> It just comes with a planning commission

[19:14] recommendation for denial and they can

[19:16] do whatever they want. So, we just need

[19:18] to go back and try to find a way.

[19:20] >> Well, correct me if I'm wrong, though.

[19:23] Um, what we're doing here is because

[19:27] we're swapping lots or public open

[19:30] space, that's why it's a planning

[19:32] commission.

[19:33] >> It's not that this isn't allowed. If if

[19:36] this

[19:38] >> we weren't swapping land or public open

[19:41] space, it wouldn't have needed to come

[19:42] to planning commission.

[19:44] >> Staff where just a staff decision? Yes,

[19:49] » Ryan. Is that correct me if I'm wrong

[19:51] there.

[19:52] >> Right. Right. And then I think in the

[19:54] staff report it talked about there being

[19:55] a five-sided lotsided

[19:58] law issue too. So our code says a lot is

[20:01] five sides or less and that meets some

[20:03] other standards. Um so if that's the

[20:05] case, if this creates a lot with more

[20:07] than five sides, it would need to it

[20:09] would also need to come through planning

[20:10] commission as well.

[20:11] >> Correct. And that's the lot down here.

[20:13] That's lot 49.

[20:16] Okay.

[20:17] >> Is it or is it

[20:21] » you're swapping out the top green,

[20:23] right?

[20:24] >> Yes.

[20:25] >> That adds two more sides to those slots.

[20:29] >> So, when you're doing the five-sided

[20:31] lot, you don't count any frontage.

[20:34] >> And this is all frontage on here.

[20:39] >> So, you don't count any of that. It's

[20:41] >> this lot up here will only have

[20:42] technically have three sides.

[20:44] >> Three sides. It's this lot down here. It

[20:46] had more than five sides, but because

[20:48] we're creating one with more than five

[20:50] sides, it has to be it has to come to

[20:52] planning commission.

[20:58] » So, what's what's the what are solutions

[21:01] for the grade issue?

[21:05] I don't honestly I don't know if there

[21:07] is one

[21:10] » and the engineer told me they're going

[21:12] to look into it more to they may have to

[21:14] go out and survey it more. It's just

[21:16] from what we have to date that it

[21:18] doesn't meet that.

[21:19] >> So is that what we're waiting for the

[21:21] survey or what's

[21:24] >> we needed? So we reached out to them a

[21:26] week ago and they just got us stuff

[21:29] today. So we're just seeing it now.

[21:33] Um, but they said they could go out and

[21:35] reserve it if if needs be.

[21:37] >> So, you're just trying to be safe, like

[21:40] make sure it's okay.

[21:41] >> From from all data now, it doesn't work.

[21:44] >> So, it moves from 14 and a half% grade

[21:46] to close

[21:48] >> 24

[21:50] >> overall.

[21:52] That's just between 47 and 48.

[21:55] >> That's with the whole lot combined.

[21:57] >> Yeah.

[22:01] So, what are you recommending from the

[22:04] staff's perspective?

[22:05] >> I think we need to table it for now

[22:07] until we can get this all worked out.

[22:09] And it may come back and it may not work

[22:11] at all

[22:16] » or it comes back and it's great.

[22:19] >> Okay. Well,

[22:20] >> okay.

[22:21] >> I guess I can't do I can't can't do

[22:23] anything about it at this point. So, all

[22:24] right. Got you. So unless they

[22:29] >> was that our public hearing. We didn't

[22:30] open a public hearing.

[22:31] >> Anybody else?

[22:34] >> We will open this item up for a public

[22:35] hearing. Does anybody want to speak to

[22:37] it?

[22:40] » Oh, well,

[22:42] [laughter] I'll be

[22:44] >> your name and your street you live on.

[22:46] >> The reason that this is actually

[22:48] >> What's your name?

[22:48] >> Oh, Will Jones 7 El Court. Um, the

[22:51] reason this is actually here before you

[22:53] is because in the process of doing this,

[22:56] the open space that you have that is in

[22:58] the dark green is where the slope

[23:00] problems come in. And what happened by

[23:02] accident that got fenced into his lot.

[23:05] Well, you don't want that area anyway. I

[23:08] mean, that's it's steep enough that it's

[23:11] taking a 14% lot and putting it into the

[23:14] 20 plus deal. So, it's a piece of ground

[23:17] that's not important. and creating a

[23:20] fifth site is I I can't I'm my numbers I

[23:24] can't quite figure out how it's creating

[23:26] five because they're giving away

[23:29] >> we we established that it's not creating

[23:31] a five-sided lot

[23:32] >> on 50 49 49 it is still

[23:36] >> 49

[23:36] >> on 49 and I don't know how it is because

[23:39] we're giving away ground that would have

[23:41] made it that but now it's just got one

[23:43] line and then there so that to me that's

[23:45] four

[23:46] >> one

[23:47] >> so

[23:49] if you can see the the mouse. There's

[23:51] one line, two, three, four, and there's

[23:55] a little one here, five, and then this

[23:56] one is six.

[23:58] >> I took that all as one. Okay. So, that

[24:02] lot pre-exists as a five plus lot

[24:05] already. And and actually, we haven't

[24:07] added any more. We're not adding more

[24:09] sides to it. Right.

[24:11] >> Correct. But because it is more than

[24:13] that, it needs approval. Everything in

[24:16] Three Falls is more than five sides due

[24:18] to the size of the lots. This is a large

[24:20] lot and due to the slope, we had to keep

[24:22] the slopes out of them. And so

[24:24] therefore, you end up with a little bit

[24:25] more sides trying not to create the

[24:28] slope issue. That's that's why the lines

[24:30] are so jagged. So, um, and just a quick

[24:33] thing on the slope. I think we can work

[24:35] something on there. I think what

[24:37] happens, and we found this over and

[24:38] over, they do it from a system. They do

[24:40] it from a satellite, shoot it. I think

[24:42] when we go out and survey it that we'll

[24:44] be able to come back to you with a good

[24:46] thing that particular piece that's

[24:49] covered that's we're giving you you

[24:51] can't even see it and that's where we

[24:53] find the biggest discrepancy and so when

[24:55] he says he's going to go shoot a tople

[24:57] Jason that's what we'll do.

[24:58] >> Okay. Yeah. We'll shoot a topple on it

[24:59] and I think we'll do an actual instead

[25:02] of just a supposed. Okay.

[25:04] >> That sounds

[25:04] >> so I think you'll see us again.

[25:06] >> Okay. Thanks. Well,

[25:07] >> thanks. Well,

[25:09] >> anybody else want to speak to this?

[25:11] >> All right. Let's uh have a motion on

[25:14] that.

[25:15] >> You bring those up.

[25:16] >> You know, you can push the you can use

[25:18] gavl because you're official.

[25:24] » Too far. Too far.

[25:26] Is there a motion on this one?

[25:28] >> We need a motion to table.

[25:36] » Sorry, we're looking for the motion. I'm

[25:38] not seeing the motion here.

[25:41] I've got somebody want to do it. I've

[25:43] got it printed out here.

[25:47] » Okay. It's not in a box.

[25:49] >> Yeah.

[25:50] >> But you get to read it without the box.

[25:54] >> I I'll make a motion.

[25:56] >> I move to recommend that the proposed

[25:58] three falls plat subdivision be tabled

[26:01] based upon the following. um an

[26:03] engineers report to make sure that the

[26:06] um will fall within the city code that

[26:08] no more than 15% of the lot can be

[26:11] greater than a 25% slope. And to also

[26:14] make sure that in the land swap process

[26:18] that the city is at least getting even

[26:21] or winning in the process of um of that

[26:25] land swap that we're getting better,

[26:28] more usable land for the city out of the

[26:30] deal.

[26:34] I don't know if that's the right way to

[26:36] word it.

[26:37] >> Yeah, we might want to try that one

[26:38] again. [laughter]

[26:42] » Not so rambly.

[26:43] >> No, it's the the issue is the overall

[26:46] grade is greater than 15%.

[26:49] >> Well, no more than 15% of the lot

[26:54] can be greater than a 25% slope, right?

[26:57] >> That's the city code.

[26:58] >> Okay. I'm sorry.

[27:01] That's what you said, Ry.

[27:05] >> Okay.

[27:07] >> That's what she said. Second.

[27:08] >> So, yeah, I'll second it.

[27:12] [clears throat]

[27:21] Sorry. If I you got to go to the mic or

[27:23] else you won't be heard. [snorts]

[27:28] » I I think all she's saying is um you

[27:31] you'd ask, you know, if we're going to

[27:32] do a land swap, the city has to come out

[27:34] better, which they are. They're getting

[27:35] more land than we're giving up. We're

[27:38] giving up the city's ending up with more

[27:41] land in the end. So, it's it's better

[27:43] for the city. It's more usable land.

[27:45] It's flat land. It's adjacent to the

[27:47] retention pond. So that part's

[27:49] >> should be good for the city. I think the

[27:52] issue in question is just simply the

[27:54] slope percentage.

[27:56] >> Correct. Okay.

[27:58] >> Thanks.

[28:05] Modify your motion or let us stand.

[28:06] >> Let's stand.

[28:07] >> Okay.

[28:08] >> All right. We have a a motion by

[28:10] Michelle Schumer, a second by Troy

[28:12] Slade. Any discussion on the motion?

[28:17] If not,

[28:18] all in favor say I.

[28:20] >> I.

[28:22] >> Any oppose.

[28:24] Allan, was that an I from you?

[28:27] >> He's muted.

[28:29] >> Allan. [snorts]

[28:31] >> For the record, Allan voted I.

[28:35] >> All right,

[28:38] moving on. We have a public hearing for

[28:40] Smooth Canyon Plat B.

[28:45] Hey, before we jump into that too,

[28:46] Heidi, could you maybe turn up the

[28:48] volume a little bit? Uh, those of us in

[28:50] Zoomland are having a hard time

[28:53] hearing some of the discussion.

[28:54] >> The problem is Ryan, my my machine

[28:57] wasn't working when I came in, so we're

[28:59] doing it through a computer. So, we've

[29:01] got it. We'll turn up some more, but at

[29:03] the same time, unfortunately, it's it's

[29:05] kind of rough. We don't have a Zoom room

[29:07] going. So, that's part of the that's why

[29:09] you don't have video. So, I apologize.

[29:11] >> No, that's okay. I'm following along on

[29:13] YouTube, so that's that's good. Uh,

[29:16] okay. No, that'll work.

[29:17] >> We're we're just getting feedback here

[29:19] in the room when they turn the volume

[29:21] up.

[29:22] >> Oh, fair fair. Okay, no worries then.

[29:26] Um, accidentally closed on my packet, so

[29:29] it's pulling back up.

[29:32] So, it looks like this is for

[29:33] preliminary uh subdivision phase of

[29:36] Smooth Canyon Plat B. Those of you that

[29:39] have been here for a while, um we've had a couple renditions of this go

[29:44] through um

[29:47] uh for your guys' review here. This is

[29:49] the first subdivision that we've done

[29:51] that's actually works with the state's

[29:54] new requirements for subdivision review.

[29:57] So on the preliminary, if you remember,

[29:58] the city council no longer looks at u

[30:02] subdivision plats anymore. It's it's

[30:04] purely administrative. Well, unless

[30:06] there's a reason or something involved,

[30:07] which there isn't in this case, but this

[30:10] is for Smooth Canyon subdivision phase

[30:12] 2. It's got 23 lots on about 13 a little

[30:15] over 13.84

[30:17] acres. Uh it's in the TR or CR 20,000

[30:21] zone. And it looks like every lot, the

[30:23] smallest lot we had in this one was just

[30:25] over 20,000 square feet. 20,7 square ft

[30:30] is the smallest lot size in this one.

[30:33] What you're looking at on is the

[30:34] planning commission is really just the

[30:36] planning size. Does it meet

[30:38] lot size? Does it meet frontage

[30:40] requirements? Does it meet, you know,

[30:41] the use uh does it require trails? Does

[30:46] it meet the general plan master or the

[30:48] master plan m the transportation master

[30:51] plan maps in this and and just just

[30:54] things like that. When it goes, you guys

[30:56] will uh you guys are the approving body

[30:58] on preliminary plans. uh it'll move to

[31:01] final which is just purely

[31:03] administrative. If you remember how we

[31:05] did ours in this review, the

[31:08] administrative side is um or the the

[31:12] final PL is is the engineering stuff

[31:14] that they look at. So Jason and Shane

[31:17] will be involved heavily on that side.

[31:20] Um so this looks like it meets

[31:22] everything. If you look at the um I'm

[31:26] not live again. Hold on. Let me catch

[31:28] up. If you go look at the Heidi, if you

[31:29] scroll down a couple pages to the uh

[31:32] plat that's been submitted with this um

[31:35] it it's not showing this phase is not

[31:38] connected at all to Highland does not go

[31:40] through the Highland side. If they ever

[31:42] do develop at a later phase, that's

[31:44] something that they'll we'll have to

[31:46] review at that time

[31:49] um as part of that. But looks like it's

[31:51] two entrances and exits, ingress,

[31:53] egress. Um so we're we're not concerned

[31:56] that way.

[31:58] And again, streets aren't

[32:00] going uh to the south there on the

[32:02] highland side, but that'll be in a

[32:04] future phase if it if [music] it goes

[32:05] through at all. Uh if I remember

[32:07] correctly, last time this went through,

[32:09] that was kind of the concerns that we

[32:11] had of that that connection going

[32:12] through and what that looks like. So, uh

[32:15] we we won't have to worry about that

[32:17] discussion tonight is it'll come into a

[32:19] later phase. Um but yeah, from a

[32:22] planning side, it looks like it meets

[32:23] all the requirements on their end. Uh if

[32:26] you remember as well, we decided

[32:28] with the preliminary plan review, we

[32:31] decided not to require a public hearing

[32:33] on these. We felt like it was a little

[32:35] disingenuous to say, uh, yeah, we'll you

[32:39] can come and, you know, we we'll hear

[32:41] all your thoughts, but if it meets the

[32:42] code, we still have to apply uh we still

[32:44] have to approve it anyway. Where this

[32:46] one has come through a couple times and

[32:48] it's had some changes in the past. Um, I

[32:50] spoke with Shane about this uh end of

[32:52] last week, but we are going to do a

[32:54] public hearing on this just because like

[32:56] I said, it's it's been it's been changed

[32:58] and updated a few times and we've seen

[33:00] this one before, but that's why we

[33:02] didn't do public hearings uh in the

[33:05] past. If it meets or we didn't require

[33:07] it in this phase, if it meets the the

[33:10] planning side of the of the code on

[33:11] these, then we it needs to be approved

[33:13] as an administrative item. Uh, any

[33:17] questions or anything else I can help

[33:18] with that?

[33:20] So Ryan, I have a really quick question.

[33:22] When we've looked at this before, you

[33:24] know, we had a lot of a lot of push back

[33:27] from the Highland side. So this will

[33:28] still you'll still go up you'll go up um

[33:33] call High Bench. You'll go up High Bench

[33:35] past the church

[33:36] >> and this will be the right next to the

[33:38] field kind of by the soccer field.

[33:40] >> That's the soccer field right there.

[33:42] >> So yeah. So the next plot though where

[33:45] when you're talking about Highland being

[33:47] involved will that that road's never

[33:49] going to connect right is that right Ken

[33:53] the road going into

[33:53] >> Highland will have to be yeah Ken if Ken

[33:55] I thought I saw Ken there on Ken here we

[33:58] could talk there he can kind of discuss

[34:00] that but uh in a later phase it more

[34:04] than likely would connect. I don't I

[34:05] don't it it seems kind of if Highland

[34:08] stepped it to that point, it it kind of

[34:11] seems like they were planning for that

[34:12] to be connected one day as well. Um but

[34:15] that's something at a future phase that

[34:17] can be discussed and kind of looked at

[34:18] is is if if that connection can go, you

[34:21] know, if that's something that works for

[34:23] both parties to have that connection go

[34:25] through.

[34:25] >> So all the traffic comes back down High

[34:27] Venge,

[34:28] >> right?

[34:29] >> As is proposed right now. Yeah.

[34:32] to go.

[34:34] >> Okay. But that So is the next plot that

[34:37] we that's just passed is that going to

[34:39] is that in Highland or is is that still

[34:41] a pattern? So that's still a pattern.

[34:43] That's still part of that.

[34:44] >> Okay.

[34:45] >> You're on right now. It looks like if if

[34:47] I'm not behind that the empty fields

[34:49] there on the is the alpine side once you

[34:51] get south that that's goes into

[34:53] Highland.

[34:54] >> Okay.

[34:56] So my question is the same. Well,

[34:58] so all the traffic comes in here and

[35:00] then it just comes back down either

[35:01] Highbench or out Healey, right, Ken?

[35:06] >> Yeah, that's that's what it looks like

[35:07] from

[35:07] >> You remember how

[35:09] Highland that little home those homes up

[35:11] there, they don't want that road

[35:12] through. Is that changed?

[35:16] >> I wasn't here when

[35:17] >> whatever the action was at that time, we

[35:20] disregarded their

[35:21] >> concerns.

[35:23] >> But it can't get to this anyway. That

[35:26] doesn't

[35:27] Make sure you're talking in the mics

[35:29] because they're having a hard time

[35:30] hearing you.

[35:30] >> Okay.

[35:31] >> Thank you.

[35:33] >> Did you hear me, Ryan?

[35:35] >> I got I got my question answered.

[35:37] >> S was just asking what the status is of

[35:39] the Highlands City of Highlands concerns

[35:42] and their citizens. But in this in this

[35:45] particular phase, it's not relevant. So,

[35:47] I don't think we need to [clears throat]

[35:48] consider it.

[35:50] >> Okay. Any

[35:52] >> and if you

[35:52] >> any questions before we open a public

[35:54] hearing? Does

[35:55] >> the developer is here? If you've got

[35:56] questions for him, we might invite him

[35:58] to come up and speak.

[35:59] >> Does the developer is there's these two

[36:02] empty lots have different names, owners

[36:06] names. Is the developer

[36:08] own these other two lots? Any of them?

[36:11] Do we know

[36:13] >> he he's here? We'll we'll have him speak

[36:15] public.

[36:16] >> Okay. I'm just curious if they're just

[36:17] parceling it.

[36:18] >> Yeah. All right.

[36:21] Let's uh open the public hearing. Anyone

[36:25] that would like to speak to this, please

[36:26] come to the podium and state your name

[36:29] and location. And

[36:30] >> uh I can actually say Kenberg, 1018

[36:34] North Deer Crest Lane. I usually don't

[36:37] tell my address because I'm not in the

[36:38] city that I'm

[36:40] >> You don't have to anymore.

[36:41] >> Sorry,

[36:41] >> Mara. Take

[36:42] >> recent development.

[36:43] >> That's okay. You can make my house

[36:45] anytime you want. [laughter]

[36:46] Um, yes, the entire parcel is uh

[36:52] controlled by my client. They just are

[36:55] vested in different names.

[36:56] >> They just got it under different names.

[36:57] Okay.

[36:57] >> Yep. And uh

[37:01] Susie, the second phase or plat phase

[37:05] three would almost just be a mirror of

[37:07] this one

[37:08] >> just further to the south. I can see it

[37:10] from I went up and looked at it down

[37:11] from up high and so I know how it's laid

[37:14] out but I just know that road right

[37:15] there is just going to be always a

[37:17] source of

[37:18] >> traffic so you know.

[37:19] >> Yep.

[37:21] >> Okay.

[37:21] >> Any other questions for me?

[37:25] » Thank you.

[37:26] >> I have one question. Have you had any

[37:27] further discussions with the city of

[37:29] Highland on

[37:30] >> I know that the last time we did it,

[37:32] Highland did a study with UD do on a big

[37:35] road going down through now central Utah

[37:38] has bought the gravel pit and so

[37:43] >> that's remember how there were

[37:45] >> gone away and um I think we'll just meet

[37:50] Alpine City's transportation master plan

[37:53] that says you connect the road. So

[37:55] >> yeah. Okay.

[37:56] Thank you.

[37:57] >> Thanks, Ken.

[37:58] >> Um, [clears throat] wow.

[38:00] >> All right. Anybody else like to speak to

[38:02] this?

[38:04] >> If not, we'll close the public hearing

[38:08] >> and bring it back to the commission for

[38:11] discussion.

[38:13] >> I I will you bring that up and and

[38:16] staff.

[38:16] >> Which one? At the beginning.

[38:18] >> We're going to probably need a motion

[38:19] here, but will you just bring up the

[38:21] staff report on that?

[38:24] The only thing that seemed undecided was

[38:26] the water

[38:28] with the the fire suppression systems is

[38:32] but that's nothing we need to worry

[38:33] about.

[38:34] >> What do you think about that?

[38:37] >> We will work with them on just sizing

[38:40] and if it needs sprinklers or not. Like

[38:41] we're we're still kind of in the process

[38:43] of working through that, but we don't

[38:45] see we're not too concerned about what's

[38:48] there.

[38:49] >> Is there a specific page you want to

[38:51] look at?

[38:52] um [snorts]

[38:54] probably the motions page, but uh before

[38:56] we get there, did did we have a report

[38:58] from Lone Peak Fire on this?

[39:01] >> Yes. And they he was okay with it.

[39:03] >> Okay.

[39:04] >> They were they didn't have any concerns.

[39:07] >> Okay.

[39:15] » Did we have a public

[39:18] hearing?

[39:18] >> We closed the public hearing. We're

[39:20] ready for a motion. if you'll bring us

[39:22] to that page.

[39:26] » Again, no box.

[39:27] >> Okay.

[39:28] >> But I know you can adapt.

[39:30] >> Are you ready?

[39:32] I move to approve the approve the

[39:34] preliminary application of Smooth Canyon

[39:36] phase 2 as proposed.

[39:38] >> Okay. We have a motion to approve by Suz

[39:40] Whittenberg. Second.

[39:43] >> I'll second it.

[39:44] >> Second by Troy Slade. Any discussion on

[39:47] the motion?

[39:50] If not, we'll vote. All in favor say I.

[39:54] >> I.

[39:55] >> Any opposed?

[39:56] It's unanimous.

[40:00] Uh, motion passes.

[40:04] Okay, we're just moving right along

[40:06] here. I thought we'd be here all night.

[40:08] >> Yeah. Well, there's still time.

[40:09] >> We still got the the main event.

[40:11] >> Don't jinx it.

[40:12] >> The main thing is the main thing, and

[40:14] that's Main Street, right?

[40:18] » Okay.

[40:21] Um, for those that haven't been

[40:23] following this as

[40:25] closely as others, let me just give a

[40:27] little history lesson here. Actually,

[40:28] Ryan, why don't you give us the history

[40:30] lesson?

[40:30] >> Yeah, Ryan.

[40:32] >> No, that's great. Yeah. So, if any of

[40:34] you guys remember, um, we were awarded a

[40:38] grant a little over a year ago to create

[40:40] a they call it a small area plan. Um but what our small small area plan

[40:45] encompasses is Main Street and the

[40:48] Gateway Corridors. So Westfield, Alpine

[40:51] Highway, Canyon Crest were included in

[40:54] that as well. Um it's a little over a

[40:57] 100page document. So it's but there's a

[41:00] lot of great pictures in there, too. Um

[41:02] what what we did with this is we had a

[41:04] couple open houses. We we hired a

[41:06] consultant um to to help with this. They

[41:10] came multiple times. Um did some open

[41:13] houses try to get as much feedback. We

[41:14] did a lot of surveys. Um try to get some

[41:17] feedback and and some communications

[41:20] from the from the residents as far as

[41:22] what we what this area should look like.

[41:25] Um what's what's difficult in most most

[41:27] communities when they're first developed

[41:30] um they kind of they develop a main

[41:32] street and those are kind of the

[41:33] standards and and things that are that

[41:35] are selected there. I think Alpine over

[41:37] the last 10 years has been trying to get

[41:39] those standards up to date. So, we kind

[41:41] of have some uniform building areas and

[41:44] standards that we're we're working

[41:46] towards as we as as things develop on

[41:48] Main Street. So, this is just a step in

[41:50] that direction to try to do that. They

[41:52] covered a a whole a bunch of different

[41:56] items in this in this study that we did.

[41:59] Um the planning commission instead of we

[42:01] held for the public hearing I think it

[42:02] was back in November

[42:04] on this draft version of it. What the

[42:07] planning commission wanted to do was

[42:08] take it piece by piece and kind of go

[42:10] over these different chapters and

[42:12] different hearings and make some s uh

[42:14] make some recommendations to update it

[42:17] uh as part of part of this review. So

[42:20] there was a couple I think there was

[42:21] four chapters that we spent most of this

[42:24] time on um

[42:26] and you guys made recommendations. If

[42:28] you go to the staff report on this um

[42:31] there are we we in the background we hit

[42:34] all those motions that you guys made.

[42:35] Obviously the motion every time was to

[42:37] table this is and then we're going to

[42:39] bring it together. um planning

[42:41] commission was going to consider all

[42:43] these and then make a motion to the

[42:45] planning or the city council how to move

[42:48] forward with the consulting firm that we

[42:50] selected. We get three rounds of edits

[42:52] that they will do as part of their

[42:54] contract. Edit one, we had a steering

[42:56] committee that uh the majority of the

[42:58] city council or we had council members

[43:00] on it, not a majority of them, but we

[43:02] had council members on it reviewing that

[43:06] and residents uh as well have been have

[43:08] been part of that uh review. So, we did

[43:10] one round of edits there. Once you guys

[43:13] make a recommendation, I'll take that

[43:14] those motions and those changes, send it

[43:16] to the consultant. They will make those

[43:19] changes and then we'll send it to city

[43:21] council. City Council will also look at

[43:23] it, probably make some edits, and then

[43:25] we'll get one final round of of review

[43:27] for them uh to look at it that way. So,

[43:29] that's why we don't have all these

[43:30] changes in this draft right right now.

[43:33] Um that's the kind of the process that

[43:35] we're going for on this. I really want

[43:37] to emphasize this point and kind of

[43:38] point it out. This is just a visioning

[43:40] document.

[43:41] So, it's meant to be a planning tool to

[43:44] help the city over the duration of this

[43:46] plan say this is kind of we've done some

[43:48] study, we've done our homework, and this

[43:50] is the direction that we see that we as

[43:52] a community want to go. If this is not

[43:55] written in code or on stone tablets or

[43:57] anything like that, it can be changed or

[44:00] amended or or different things. It's

[44:02] just meant to be a guiding and a

[44:03] visioning document for the for you guys

[44:05] as the planning commission. And then

[44:07] when it goes when when things along

[44:09] those main street and gateway corridors

[44:11] go to the city council, it's meant to be

[44:13] a visioning tool for them as well. Um,

[44:16] so just because there's zoning maps and

[44:18] different not zoning, uh, what do we

[44:20] call them? Character areas in this plan

[44:24] where we kind of identify, hey, this is

[44:26] kind of what we generally like to see in

[44:27] this area. It's not changing zoning.

[44:30] It's not changing code or anything like

[44:31] that. It's just saying, hey, this is

[44:33] kind of what we want to see in this

[44:35] area. So when things come before the

[44:37] planning commission that fall on these

[44:39] just just to you obviously this when

[44:40] they go to city council as well but when

[44:43] they fall to the planning commission for

[44:45] a zone change or a code amendment or

[44:47] different things like that you guys have

[44:49] this tool to say well we actually

[44:50] envision that area being used for this

[44:52] type of uses and this type of things uh

[44:56] to help you help you make those

[44:58] decisions. Again, not written in stone.

[45:00] So, something comes up that really fits

[45:02] and there's a lot of, you know, hey, we

[45:04] think this would be a good thing for

[45:04] Alpine. Just because it doesn't fit in

[45:07] this doesn't mean you can't do it. Um,

[45:10] let's see. Is there anything else I

[45:12] missed or any other questions? So,

[45:13] again, we we've had a public hearing

[45:14] before. Uh, obviously, we're going to

[45:16] have another one tonight to kind of hit

[45:17] on or just to get more more public

[45:20] feedback. Uh, our hope is that the

[45:22] planning commission will will take

[45:23] those, make a motion and a

[45:25] recommendation to move on uh to the city

[45:28] council. so they can they can start

[45:30] their review of this as well. Um, we got

[45:34] this grant through Mountainland

[45:35] Association of Governments MAG. So,

[45:37] we're we're glad that they were able to

[45:39] help fund part of this. There's a Yeah.

[45:42] Anyway, I'll I'll stop there. Happy to

[45:45] take any questions or anything I can uh

[45:46] help answer with that.

[45:49] So Heidi,

[45:50] >> yeah,

[45:52] >> Heidi, do we have all of our

[45:54] recommendations from all four meetings

[45:57] here or just

[45:57] >> So you can see right here, she's

[45:59] compiled them kind of in bullet form

[46:01] >> even from our last meeting.

[46:04] >> Yeah. Sorry, I did I broke my own rule.

[46:06] Um, yeah. So you can see each one of

[46:09] these is a compilation. Actually, it was

[46:11] Ryan. Ryan, was that you can speak to

[46:14] this, too?

[46:14] >> Yep. We just took we just took the

[46:16] motions from the last uh the last

[46:18] sections that we had and we we compiled

[46:20] them there. So in in part of your motion

[46:22] obviously you would want to include

[46:23] these. So you can just as part of your

[46:25] motion you can in say uh including the

[46:28] previous motions made at past city

[46:31] council meetings as uh recorded in this

[46:33] in the st in the staff report or however

[46:36] you want to word it, whatever works. But

[46:38] um yeah, we we definitely want to

[46:40] highlight those and include those in any

[46:41] motion you made to the city council.

[46:44] This is also the time that if you feel

[46:46] like they weren't representative what of

[46:48] what you were saying, it's the time to

[46:49] also edit them because they're not as

[46:51] final minutes. They're just tabled. All

[46:54] right.

[46:55] >> Right. [snorts]

[46:57] » Okay. So, how would you suggest that we

[47:01] run the public hearing? Do we want to

[47:03] review our recommendations first and let

[47:06] those assembled here? kind of get a feel

[47:08] for what we're recommending to be

[47:10] changed from the plan before we get into

[47:12] a discussion.

[47:15] >> Yeah, that might be help. And for my two

[47:17] cents, John, and feel free to, you know,

[47:19] take it for what it's worth, but that

[47:20] might be helpful just so the public kind

[47:22] of knows these are the things we've

[47:23] discussed and we've talked about. Um,

[47:26] just so they're not, well, did you think

[47:27] about this? Well, yeah, we had talked

[47:29] about it and that's why this motion is

[47:30] Yeah.

[47:31] >> is the way that it is. So, that might be

[47:33] helpful, but however you want to proceed

[47:34] is will be great.

[47:37] Okay, Heidi, is that the beginning of

[47:40] it? The

[47:41] >> Yeah, Troy. Troy Slade.

[47:44] >> Oh, sorry. There you go. Do you want me

[47:45] to make it bigger?

[47:47] >> I can read it.

[47:48] >> Yes.

[47:50] >> Yeah, that's actually good. So,

[47:51] everybody else in the room can see it.

[47:53] >> I don't want to make it secret. So,

[47:55] >> yeah.

[47:55] >> Okay.

[47:57] So, these are the uh

[47:58] recommendations that we have uh come up

[48:01] with over the course of several of our

[48:03] planning commission meetings. Uh if you

[48:06] want more detail on what the plan is,

[48:09] it's found on the city's website. Um,

[48:12] but we went through it on a line by line

[48:16] basis and just came up with a few things

[48:18] that we thought would be uh would

[48:21] enhance the plan.

[48:23] So, there was language in there that

[48:26] said uh map priority view corridors

[48:31] and we suggested replacing any language

[48:34] like that and replacing or to strike

[48:37] that language and to uh replace it with

[48:40] preserve open space and agricultural

[48:42] views along Alpine Highway.

[48:45] Um,

[48:46] second item on that CA category was to

[48:52] uh

[48:53] this is getting really in the weeds,

[48:56] >> how we're going to implement things

[49:03] to go to that page.

[49:04] >> Priority.

[49:05] >> No, that would require me to

[49:07] >> to skip back and forth.

[49:09] >> Yeah.

[49:11] So, this one is is uh mainly talking

[49:14] about the traffic. Um,

[49:17] and the plan recommended a mini

[49:20] roundabout

[49:22] between the current roundabout and um

[49:27] Montville Mountainville Academy. So, we

[49:31] suggested removing that roundabout and

[49:35] to also remove the language that asked

[49:38] for a raised median.

[49:40] uh to create a turning lane uh at the

[49:44] school.

[49:46] So, I think that's that covers that.

[49:49] Scroll up a little bit.

[49:51] We we recommended reducing uh the speed

[49:54] limit on Main Street to 25

[49:58] to

[50:00] create a temporary no left turn during

[50:03] school drop off and pickup.

[50:06] Um, use temporary ballards instead of

[50:09] permanent median for traffic safety.

[50:13] Uh, this is kind of repeating that

[50:15] again. No roundabout. We got that twice.

[50:18] Do you want to remove that?

[50:26] Item four is the same thing as item

[50:28] three

[50:30] from the previous meeting.

[50:36] We also suggested lowering the speed

[50:38] limit Canyon Crest to 35 30 miles an

[50:41] hour before adding other traffic calming

[50:44] measures

[50:45] um and to create a priority on creating

[50:49] a roundabout at Ridge Drive and Canyon

[50:51] Crest and to work with UD do to lower

[50:54] the speed on Alpine Highway.

[50:57] And scroll down.

[51:01] Um this one's a little complicated. This

[51:03] had to do with the gateway of the south

[51:05] uh west part. South we call it southwest

[51:08] gateway. What we call that

[51:12] >> south I think just the south gateway.

[51:18] » So basically the Bangoder property the

[51:20] big the big hayfield. Um

[51:23] the the vision behind that is to

[51:27] um the plan called for a mixeduse

[51:29] development in that area and we we're

[51:33] recommending to limit it to just

[51:34] residential with no commercial uh

[51:37] development there and to bring that

[51:40] residential status all the way up to

[51:43] um

[51:46] the Alpine Art Center

[51:49] and then go into the commercial area

[51:52] from there. Um

[51:55] because the Bangador area or Bangador

[51:59] property

[52:00] um sits lower than the highway, uh we

[52:04] want to preserve the views looking down

[52:06] into that area to create open space. And

[52:10] part of that is is to have a nice

[52:12] landscaped

[52:13] um sidewalk

[52:16] uh linear park along the road. Uh

[52:20] keeping any visual impairments away.

[52:25] Uh and again, language that's not

[52:29] consistent with residential development

[52:31] be deleted from the character areas of

[52:33] the field.

[52:36] Okay.

[52:40] Scroll up. Are we Are we done?

[52:46] » Or did you mean down?

[52:48] >> Uh,

[52:49] >> down probably.

[52:50] >> Yeah, down. Yeah.

[52:51] >> Sorry, it's down on my computer. My bad.

[52:54] >> I I think we've gone too far.

[52:55] >> Do you want What would you like? Tell me

[52:58] when.

[53:02] Hey, John, did you touch on the historic

[53:04] district design guidelines that were

[53:06] discussed

[53:07] >> in the last meeting? No, I don't think

[53:09] it made it to this at the very top.

[53:11] Okay, we we didn't start there.

[53:14] >> Oh, the this one.

[53:16] >> Yeah.

[53:21] » Okay. So, we we made a a few

[53:23] recommendations with regard to the

[53:25] design standards for the Gateway

[53:28] Historic District.

[53:31] Um,

[53:33] and

[53:35] while it may not sound meaningful, just

[53:39] creating a uh

[53:42] visioning statement that we define the

[53:46] architecture as Utah historic

[53:48] traditional

[53:50] and that secondary materials be removed

[53:52] limiting

[53:53] uh allowed materials to red brick, wood,

[53:56] black frame windows.

[54:00] Um,

[54:02] that's really all we're

[54:06] >> I'm sorry.

[54:06] >> I think that go back to where we

[54:08] started.

[54:12] [snorts]

[54:14] >> I think that covers it.

[54:15] >> I think that is Yeah, we had

[54:19] those are the different section. The

[54:20] only one

[54:22] >> the only one that's not summarized is

[54:24] that one that was the chart that said

[54:26] when do you imp implement. So really

[54:28] there wasn't anything that was except

[54:30] for cleaning up language that already

[54:31] matches this I think. Yeah.

[54:33] >> So um yeah that's all of the

[54:35] >> we changing any priorities on the on the

[54:37] plan.

[54:38] >> All right. So with that as a as a

[54:40] pretext we will open a public hearing

[54:42] and invite anyone that would like to

[54:43] speak to this to come forward. State

[54:46] your name uh where you where you live.

[54:49] Just tell us that you're an Alpine

[54:50] resident is adequate and uh tell us what

[54:54] you think.

[54:58] » Don't be shy.

[55:01] >> First come, first serve.

[55:06] » And just because half of the people are

[55:08] on Zoom, you're doing it, but make sure

[55:09] everybody speaks right into the

[55:11] microphone. Okay. April Cooper, 1136

[55:15] Birch Circle. Um, I own a house on Main

[55:20] Street and I am very interested in this

[55:24] plan, but there's a couple things that I

[55:26] wanted to mention. [clears throat]

[55:28] Um, typically years ago when people

[55:31] would have their house maybe like 30 or

[55:34] 35 ft back off a road, they would have a

[55:37] driveway in the front or maybe even a

[55:39] garage that they would pull into. And I

[55:42] feel like you guys are designing it to

[55:45] put the parking in the back, which I

[55:47] think is great. Um, I grew up in a place

[55:49] called Georgetown, and we had a lot of

[55:51] town houses and beautiful architecture

[55:53] right up on the street. My dad's a

[55:55] graduate of Georgetown. I spent many

[55:56] years there. Um, so I like that idea of

[56:00] having the real estate on a main street

[56:02] closer to the street, but right now like

[56:06] on your town center you have a 15 foot

[56:08] setback, but when you get to the main

[56:10] street mixed use, you have 20 foot. And

[56:13] like on these small lots, if you go 20

[56:15] ft back and you want parking behind, it

[56:18] leaves the building envelope so small

[56:21] that I can't figure out enough square

[56:23] footage to do anything to make anything

[56:26] pencil. And I know it's not your guys'

[56:28] job to make something pencil, but like

[56:31] if we can't, then it'll just stay the

[56:34] little old house that it is forever

[56:36] because can't make anything work. Also,

[56:40] I have talked to I've gone to the DRC

[56:43] meetings and told them my vision, what I

[56:47] would like, and I don't know if Alpine

[56:49] residents would like it or not like it,

[56:51] and so I'm just kind of willing to wait.

[56:53] Um, I would love to do a mixed juice

[56:56] where um, if anyone's ever been to like

[56:59] maybe like Caputo's market in Holiday,

[57:01] like a little sandwich deli market,

[57:04] maybe even a barber shop or an ice cream

[57:06] shop and some housing above, like a

[57:09] townhouse for

[57:11] a 25-year-old that can't afford a house

[57:14] in Alpine yet. Maybe some there's a

[57:16] little bit of affordable housing above

[57:18] it, but from what I understand, like

[57:20] where the hidden hidden gem is in the

[57:22] house behind it, that you allow

[57:24] commercial and residential on the same

[57:26] lot right now if they're in separate

[57:28] buildings, but you won't allow them in

[57:30] the same building. And I am waiting

[57:33] until you allow them in the same

[57:36] building. Um, okay. I think that's all I

[57:39] can Oh, yeah. No, and then one more

[57:41] thing. As you turn the corn Okay, sorry.

[57:45] I'm going to try to be quick here and

[57:46] see if I can get my thoughts. I think if

[57:48] you push something close to a sidewalk

[57:51] and a curb that it needs to have a lot

[57:53] of appeal. So, if you had like a

[57:55] peticery or a bakery or some little um

[57:58] tables out there like in France where

[58:00] people are sitting and they're eating

[58:02] their quasant and their breakfast,

[58:04] that's great. So, you need to have doors

[58:07] and windows and be able to have like a

[58:09] retail something where somebody can walk

[58:10] in as you turn the corner. And I see the

[58:14] plans that people have been bringing for

[58:16] the storage units. It makes sense to me

[58:19] that if you're entering from behind and there's not a lot and it's not

[58:24] consumer friendly on the front, push

[58:27] them way back and only allow things

[58:29] close that are very consumer friendly

[58:32] and easy to get in and out of.

[58:34] >> Okay. Thank you for time.

[58:35] >> Thank you.

[58:37] >> We didn't actually say anything, but

[58:39] normally these are three minutes. Is

[58:41] that what you want to go with?

[58:42] >> That's fine. Okay.

[58:44] >> Yeah. When you hear the bell ring,

[58:45] that's your time's up.

[58:47] >> You get 10 seconds and then Yeah, it's a

[58:49] warning and then it's and

[58:50] [clears throat] then the mic turns off.

[58:52] So,

[58:52] >> and the floor opens up.

[58:55] >> Sounds mean. [laughter]

[59:03] » All right. Next.

[59:05] >> Anybody else?

[59:12] Hi, I'm Laura Cop. Um, I ha

[59:16] Okay, let's talk about

[59:19] um Cascade Avenue.

[59:23] We have an amazing view.

[59:26] Is that going to be blocked at some

[59:28] point?

[59:34] » Like the farm field right there?

[59:36] >> Michelle,

[59:37] >> are you talking the So there's the

[59:41] >> microphone. Your

[59:41] >> mic. Okay.

[59:42] >> Sorry. Um are you talking about the

[59:45] alalfa field behind you? Yes. Are you

[59:47] the new neighbor?

[59:48] >> Yes.

[59:48] >> Okay.

[59:49] >> Hello. [laughter]

[59:50] >> Hello.

[59:51] >> Um if you go to

[59:55] Heidi,

[59:56] >> go to the plan with the colors. The

[1:00:00] crayon plan.

[1:00:01] >> Go to the crayon page. [gasps] I think

[1:00:05] that will be the easiest way to show

[1:00:08] what we've decided on this along with

[1:00:11] the steering committee. So, or go to the

[1:00:13] Yeah. The or the big one in the middle

[1:00:19] » because Oh, is this it? No.

[1:00:21] >> No. Keep going down.

[1:00:23] >> Keep going down to the big

[1:00:26] >> I'm confused by the crayon column.

[1:00:28] >> I know. I don't know what that means.

[1:00:32] um

[1:00:33] >> this one.

[1:00:34] >> Okay.

[1:00:34] So, in the original

[1:00:38] um document, there were three plans.

[1:00:40] This one came out, but this really

[1:00:42] wasn't the plan that was most popular

[1:00:44] amongst the Alpine people, right? And

[1:00:47] but when it came out of a steering

[1:00:50] committee, the the plan became instead

[1:00:54] of mixeduse commercial residential in

[1:00:56] the orange, which is the field to the

[1:00:59] roundabout behind you, it was decided

[1:01:03] out of the steering committee and then

[1:01:05] as well out of the planning commission

[1:01:07] that this would remain blue. So the plan

[1:01:10] is in in the master plan it is that the

[1:01:15] field to the ball field at the church

[1:01:18] would remain

[1:01:20] right now it is CR40. It's a 1 acre and

[1:01:24] it will remain residential, but it will

[1:01:27] most likely drop down to like TR 10,000.

[1:01:31] But as of right now, it is planned to be

[1:01:34] residential, not residential commercial,

[1:01:37] >> which means the height of the building

[1:01:40] is how tall?

[1:01:41] >> 30 feet is a max.

[1:01:42] >> Yeah. It doesn't change the height

[1:01:44] regardless of

[1:01:45] >> regardless of what? No matter what,

[1:01:46] >> no matter what the plan is.

[1:01:48] >> 30.

[1:01:49] >> What?

[1:01:50] >> 30 or 35? 30. 30, isn't it?

[1:01:53] >> What's the max? 35.

[1:01:56] >> 35.

[1:01:56] >> Okay.

[1:01:57] >> With the grade, it's all based on the

[1:01:59] grade, but if they're if they're um most

[1:02:03] of the field is flat and so it would

[1:02:06] that would be the grade level. So, it

[1:02:08] would be 35 ft from their grade level.

[1:02:10] >> Okay.

[1:02:12] >> Thank you.

[1:02:17] » Did that help? Sorry. There's the church

[1:02:20] owns it. We don't [snorts] know what's

[1:02:21] going to go on there.

[1:02:23] >> State your name.

[1:02:24] >> Anna Lisa Thomas. I own the property

[1:02:27] straight across from the city building,

[1:02:30] 17 North Main Street.

[1:02:32] >> Um, I have similar feelings with Main

[1:02:35] Street. I would love for it to be

[1:02:36] walkable. Um, there's quite a few people

[1:02:39] that have purchased property on Main

[1:02:41] Street so that we can turn it into a

[1:02:43] really cute Main Street. Um, I also

[1:02:47] agree that we should have the setbacks

[1:02:48] at 15 ft. Um, again, so it's just closer

[1:02:53] to Main Street. I'm in the mixed. I

[1:02:55] start mixed right where my property is.

[1:02:59] And then, um,

[1:03:02] a big thing for me is not just doing

[1:03:04] retail, but also having

[1:03:07] an apartment or a townhouse above it. My

[1:03:10] [clears throat] concern is that

[1:03:13] we don't know if retail space

[1:03:16] um alone can support itself. So, if we

[1:03:22] can have another source of income to

[1:03:25] help create this look that we're trying

[1:03:28] for Main Street and really give it like

[1:03:30] a cute European downtown look with, you

[1:03:34] know, bakeries,

[1:03:36] little shops like that. I think we need

[1:03:39] the support from a town home or

[1:03:43] something about it.

[1:03:44] >> And I think this plan that's been

[1:03:45] presented

[1:03:47] reflects that idea.

[1:03:48] >> Okay, great.

[1:03:49] >> Um, again, this is a visioning document.

[1:03:52] It's it it helps guide our decisions as

[1:03:55] we make changes perhaps to ordinances on

[1:03:57] setbacks and that sort of thing. So,

[1:04:00] we've heard that and that would be a

[1:04:01] different uh discussion at a different

[1:04:04] time,

[1:04:05] >> but uh good feedback. Appreciate it.

[1:04:07] >> Thank you.

[1:04:18] » Other one.

[1:04:19] >> Go.

[1:04:20] >> My [clears throat] name is Katherine

[1:04:21] Johnston. I live at 1296 Oakwood Circle.

[1:04:25] I have talked to some of the people in

[1:04:27] Alpine and their concerns somewhat about

[1:04:30] the purple factory. What are your plans

[1:04:33] for that?

[1:04:35] Do you have plans for it?

[1:04:38] >> Well, it's privately owned

[1:04:39] >> and so uh whatever uh the uh

[1:04:46] highest and best use of the owners have

[1:04:49] will present it. We we have seen a

[1:04:51] concept by the by developers that want

[1:04:55] to create condominium garages for

[1:05:00] high-end

[1:05:02] uh

[1:05:03] storage of collectible cars and that

[1:05:05] sort of thing. Um and

[1:05:08] >> are the houses not big enough to store

[1:05:10] things there? Now,

[1:05:11] >> you know, it it addresses another issue

[1:05:14] that we face in the city and that's

[1:05:16] these these outrageous garages that

[1:05:18] people build. Uhhuh.

[1:05:19] >> And so it actually meets a need there.

[1:05:21] But anyway, yeah, um it will be

[1:05:24] consistent whatever happens there with

[1:05:26] our new design guidelines.

[1:05:28] >> So will that be open to public hearing

[1:05:31] for people to participate into? I mean,

[1:05:35] we need to um there are a lot of

[1:05:38] concerns. There are just

[1:05:41] >> Alpine is there no better vision for

[1:05:44] that area?

[1:05:46] It's a pretty ugly building that stands

[1:05:48] there right now.

[1:05:49] >> Oh, it's a very ugly [laughter]

[1:05:50] building.

[1:05:51] >> So, we're looking to improve the

[1:05:52] aesthetics here for sure.

[1:05:54] >> Well, have you considered innovative

[1:05:57] students at the university that they can

[1:05:59] come and take a look at this and maybe

[1:06:01] make some proposals to the city that

[1:06:04] might give us different ideas or

[1:06:06] different

[1:06:07] >> Again, it's privately owned. So,

[1:06:10] >> I that's

[1:06:12] >> okay. Who owns it?

[1:06:14] >> Purple.

[1:06:15] >> Oh. Oh, Pierces. No. Yes. Okay.

[1:06:18] [clears throat]

[1:06:18] >> Okay.

[1:06:19] >> Yeah. [laughter]

[1:06:20] >> Right now.

[1:06:21] >> Okay.

[1:06:21] >> It's been to the city council once

[1:06:24] >> last Tuesday and so it's sitting in

[1:06:27] their court right now.

[1:06:29] >> So that would be the proper place to

[1:06:32] >> contact your city council members and

[1:06:35] have chats with them.

[1:06:37] >> Okay.

[1:06:37] >> Um because it's in it's in their it's in

[1:06:42] the city council realm right now, not

[1:06:43] our realm. Right. Okay.

[1:06:46] >> As long as it meets historic guidelines.

[1:06:48] >> Thank you.

[1:06:57] » Hi.

[1:06:58] >> My name is Liz. I live in uh Canyon

[1:07:00] Crest.

[1:07:01] >> Sorry.

[1:07:03] >> Thank you. [laughter]

[1:07:04] >> Sorry about that. Um I don't know what

[1:07:06] page you have, but in the my cell phone,

[1:07:09] page number 86. Would you be able to

[1:07:11] explain that page, please? and

[1:07:15] um explain the print, the width on

[1:07:18] Canyon Crest

[1:07:21] and the details behind it.

[1:07:22] >> Is looking up. Is this the one you mean

[1:07:25] or the page?

[1:07:27] >> Okay.

[1:07:29] >> It says

[1:07:44] Um just just if I can jump in. I I think

[1:07:47] this is one of the choices that they proposed. This is not necessarily

[1:07:52] one you recommended,

[1:07:53] >> but this is one that they proposed which

[1:07:56] is a T. Um you did not support this. You

[1:07:59] were more leaning towards the

[1:08:01] roundabout. Um but this is a proposed

[1:08:05] one of the options that they gave. If

[1:08:07] you look on other pages, they had other

[1:08:09] proposals as well.

[1:08:11] >> Correct. So um I was looking to the

[1:08:13] picture where this shows the width

[1:08:16] >> right there with the three cars and the

[1:08:18] pedestrian.

[1:08:19] >> Oh, this right. So,

[1:08:21] >> let's make this bigger and see if it

[1:08:22] helps. [snorts]

[1:08:24] >> Not really.

[1:08:25] Sorry. I

[1:08:26] >> I think what they're just trying to show

[1:08:28] is that we want to have bike paths. We

[1:08:30] want to have sidewalks that are

[1:08:32] walkable. Um, and three three lanes, two

[1:08:37] one one each direction and a turn lane.

[1:08:39] I mean it's a pretty narrow road as it

[1:08:42] is right now. So you guys how you plan

[1:08:45] to do that?

[1:08:46] >> Which which section

[1:08:48] >> which section [clears throat]

[1:08:49] >> are you are you talking the

[1:08:51] >> intersection

[1:08:51] >> part near Ridge down by Healey. Which

[1:08:54] part are you talking about?

[1:08:56] >> Healey Carli Avenue.

[1:08:58] >> Yeah. Um the one proposal as you come

[1:09:03] around the bend is to remove the

[1:09:06] sidewalk and that rock and push the

[1:09:08] sidewalk closer to the white fence to

[1:09:11] have some widening there as you're

[1:09:13] coming as you're beginning your

[1:09:15] southbound around the corner. I mean if

[1:09:18] we starting in the city roundabout so

[1:09:20] widening it there and then as you get

[1:09:23] >> you mean from Haley to Carl Avenue.

[1:09:25] >> No I'm talking the roundabout to ridge.

[1:09:28] >> Okay. They would widen the bend. Oops.

[1:09:30] Sorry. And then further down they um by

[1:09:36] Healey is to make a comuse path that

[1:09:40] would be bike pedestrian friendly um and

[1:09:45] take and a bike lane down there on the

[1:09:48] >> So you would do all that with just with

[1:09:50] the sidewalk.

[1:09:51] >> I guess my question is how the space

[1:09:53] where you getting it from?

[1:09:56] Uh the engineers are telling us where

[1:09:59] that space is because there's house.

[1:10:01] >> Again, we're not we're not creating a

[1:10:03] detailed plan here with this this

[1:10:05] document. It's it's the ideal

[1:10:07] >> their thoughts

[1:10:08] >> and and uh how that comes to pass. I

[1:10:12] don't we don't know.

[1:10:12] >> I guess I'm not the only resident there.

[1:10:15] So um is a it worries us because there's

[1:10:19] a lot of houses along Canyon Crest.

[1:10:21] >> Are you one that back up to it?

[1:10:23] >> So that's why I'm asking. backing up to

[1:10:25] the fence.

[1:10:26] >> Right. So that's why I'm asking where is

[1:10:28] the space coming from because

[1:10:31] >> direct question houses. Yeah.

[1:10:33] >> Is that going to be affected?

[1:10:34] >> Um I've been told that no land will be

[1:10:37] requisitioned.

[1:10:38] >> Okay. For the widening.

[1:10:39] >> Okay.

[1:10:39] >> Is that is that the answer you wanted?

[1:10:41] >> Yeah. Okay.

[1:10:42] >> Thank you.

[1:10:45] >> But

[1:10:48] got her off. I don't know. [laughter]

[1:10:50] >> It satisfied her. My sick name, Carl N.

[1:10:54] I live next door to Brent Rumbler.

[1:10:56] >> Okay.

[1:10:57] >> And your picture, your house is in the

[1:10:59] document.

[1:11:00] >> My house is right there in the document.

[1:11:01] [laughter]

[1:11:02] So, I'm very interested in that. By the

[1:11:04] way, for the record, I support doing a

[1:11:06] roundabout. I work in my yard a lot.

[1:11:09] About once a week, I hear a crash out

[1:11:11] there because that intersection is just

[1:11:14] terrible.

[1:11:14] >> Yeah.

[1:11:16] >> And so, that would slow the traffic

[1:11:18] down. But I have lots of questions. I

[1:11:20] know this is not a detailed plan. Uh

[1:11:23] you'll notice in that diagram there's a

[1:11:25] big piece of bare earth out there and

[1:11:28] I've always thought that I would putting

[1:11:30] in that space. But part of the the

[1:11:33] discussion here is a standard for wood

[1:11:36] and brick and all that stuff that really

[1:11:39] wouldn't match the back side of my home

[1:11:41] which is stucco. The front side's brick

[1:11:43] and

[1:11:44] >> you're you're not in the historic

[1:11:45] >> you're not in historic

[1:11:46] >> which I'm not gonna be imp impacted that

[1:11:49] way.

[1:11:49] >> A homeowner can outside of the historic

[1:11:52] district can do what they want

[1:11:53] >> as long as it gets past you guys. Right.

[1:11:55] As long as you meet your setback

[1:11:56] >> as long as it meets setback and height,

[1:11:58] >> right? [laughter] So the question I also

[1:12:01] have is that fence that runs along

[1:12:03] therely vinyl fence,

[1:12:06] but I don't think it matches exactly the

[1:12:08] look you're going for. And I'm wondering

[1:12:10] if any of that improvement would be part

[1:12:13] of this project. I don't even know if I

[1:12:15] own it or the city owns it. I've never

[1:12:18] been able to get a straight answer.

[1:12:19] >> Really?

[1:12:19] >> So, you didn't put it in

[1:12:21] >> Oh, no. No. Uh, it was pre-existing,

[1:12:23] trust me.

[1:12:24] >> It was I'm assuming it was put in by the

[1:12:26] Debbies when they developed that land.

[1:12:29] >> That's my guess, too. But again, it

[1:12:30] doesn't really answer the question.

[1:12:32] >> Yeah. No. Of who owns it.

[1:12:34] >> Correct. I I've had to repair it

[1:12:36] multiple times

[1:12:38] >> just to make sure that I didn't have,

[1:12:40] you know, gaping holes in it at my

[1:12:42] expense, but I don't know if I can do

[1:12:44] anything. In fact, I took the risk of

[1:12:46] putting a gate in it so I could have

[1:12:48] easier access in and out, but I didn't

[1:12:51] know if that was technically legal. I

[1:12:53] just did it. So, anyway, it's one of

[1:12:57] those things.

[1:12:57] >> Don't tell him.

[1:12:58] >> J Jason's your man right over there.

[1:13:00] Yeah, Jason's the guy that put that

[1:13:02] lovely uh sign up out behind mine that

[1:13:06] eventually got moved. Thank you very

[1:13:08] much.

[1:13:08] >> Say it got moved.

[1:13:09] >> It got moved. My wife's very happy about

[1:13:12] that. [laughter]

[1:13:13] Anyway, as we go further in this

[1:13:15] process, I'd like to see more detailed

[1:13:17] plans on that

[1:13:19] >> and make some suggestions about let's

[1:13:21] make sure that this really goes for the

[1:13:23] effect for Alpine. If we have a grant,

[1:13:26] let's do this thing the right way and

[1:13:28] >> yeah,

[1:13:29] >> let me know how,

[1:13:32] >> you know, we can be more involved in

[1:13:33] that. Thank you very much.

[1:13:34] >> Thank you.

[1:13:35] >> Keep your eye on the schedule, the

[1:13:37] meeting schedule.

[1:13:39] So,

[1:13:40] >> ask input.

[1:13:41] >> Yeah,

[1:13:44] >> not not to interject here, but this this

[1:13:46] plan will not impact like design

[1:13:48] standards and stuff [snorts] will not

[1:13:51] impact residential uses. This is only

[1:13:53] for commercial

[1:13:56] uh uses like that. So So any any

[1:14:00] residential wouldn't wouldn't be a part

[1:14:02] of this. I don't know if that helps at

[1:14:03] all, but I I kind of get the feeling

[1:14:05] that there are some concerns about how

[1:14:06] to affect residential

[1:14:08] properties in this area. These these

[1:14:10] design standards, they they can apply to

[1:14:12] the to residential. So hopefully that

[1:14:14] helps.

[1:14:20] » Any others?

[1:14:27] Gary Gary Cooper Birch circle. So what

[1:14:30] does this document do? Does it change

[1:14:32] any current zoning? Is it a precursor to

[1:14:36] >> it's a visioning document and it it

[1:14:39] helps us when projects come before us

[1:14:42] that require resoning. We'll say, "Does

[1:14:45] this is this consistent with our

[1:14:48] >> vision?"

[1:14:49] >> Our vision for specifically the the

[1:14:52] gateway areas as people come and go from

[1:14:56] the city. Um, and in the main historic

[1:14:59] main street are the three things that

[1:15:01] we're talking about here.

[1:15:03] >> As a planning commission, have you guys

[1:15:04] talked about things you'd like to see

[1:15:06] come?

[1:15:10] [sighs]

[1:15:10] >> Well, we had we've had questionnaires.

[1:15:12] We had really big like houses.

[1:15:16] >> We we we've had citizen feedback

[1:15:19] >> input for sure.

[1:15:20] >> But you're you're asking if if we have

[1:15:23] put anything out to the community or the property owners saying this is what

[1:15:27] we'd like to see see you do to with your

[1:15:29] property. We don't do that. No.

[1:15:31] >> Okay. I And I think you the two ladies

[1:15:35] covered the setback thing to make it

[1:15:37] work. I know when I purchased the old

[1:15:39] house across the street that's an

[1:15:42] eyesore and and I haven't done anything

[1:15:44] to change the eyesore um is I told Shane

[1:15:49] when I said I just want you to know I I

[1:15:51] purchased this house and as soon as the

[1:15:53] neighbors want to get on board and make

[1:15:55] our comm make our main street look

[1:15:58] better I'm on board and I I think that

[1:16:01] setback will if it allows people to get

[1:16:04] things to pencil I think we'll see

[1:16:05] progress.

[1:16:06] >> Yeah. I I I've heard from several of the

[1:16:10] property owners on Main Street that all

[1:16:12] have a similar idea. I think you just

[1:16:15] need to get together and come up with

[1:16:17] what your ideal is

[1:16:19] >> to rally

[1:16:19] >> and and bring it to us and what changes

[1:16:23] we need to make to ordinances or uh to

[1:16:25] allow something like that to happen. I

[1:16:27] think you'll find us to be

[1:16:29] accommodative.

[1:16:30] >> Okay. Because I think it's time. I mean,

[1:16:32] I'm not one to come here and ask for

[1:16:34] reszoning and make a lot of changes. I

[1:16:36] just want to change it now. I'm on board

[1:16:38] when we have a plan. This is sounds like

[1:16:40] it might be the first step

[1:16:42] >> towards a real good thing for for

[1:16:44] everyone for our community. So the only

[1:16:47] thing that the only concern again was,

[1:16:49] you know, set back so we can get parking

[1:16:50] and have room and make it happen. Thank

[1:16:53] you.

[1:16:53] >> Thank you,

[1:16:54] >> Ryan.

[1:16:58] » Yep.

[1:16:59] >> There's a city council committee working

[1:17:02] on this. Is that right?

[1:17:04] >> Yeah. So there's um they appointed a

[1:17:07] couple. So uh the mayor's been heavily

[1:17:10] involved with it. Uh when we first

[1:17:12] started this, Jessica's council member

[1:17:14] Jessica Smeuan was was over the main

[1:17:16] street stuff. So she's been heavily

[1:17:17] involved. Chrissy Hanaman's been heavily

[1:17:19] involved. Uh she's over Main Street now

[1:17:22] or she was when we were doing this. Um

[1:17:25] Brett Rumler's been really involved in

[1:17:26] this as well. U C Councilman Rumler. Um,

[1:17:30] and then Andy Spencer is a is a resident

[1:17:32] that's been been heavily involved. We've

[1:17:35] also had several as part of these

[1:17:37] hearing committee or uh open houses that

[1:17:39] we had, we had several uh meetings with groups of residents u that played

[1:17:45] an impact in this too. And they they've

[1:17:47] had some that contribute here and there,

[1:17:48] but not as heavily as those that I've previously mentioned. [snorts]

[1:17:52] >> Okay.

[1:17:53] >> Things are in motion. It it's it sounds

[1:17:55] like we have critical mass of property

[1:17:57] owners that are ready to do something.

[1:18:00] So, we ought to we ought to get them

[1:18:02] together and come up with a plan. It's

[1:18:04] kind of exciting.

[1:18:05] >> Yeah. And part of this the last open

[1:18:07] house we had, I can't remember what we

[1:18:08] called the committee, but we we had a

[1:18:10] lot of them show up. We invited as many

[1:18:13] on Main Street that we knew that owned,

[1:18:15] you know, a good good amount. um we

[1:18:17] invited them and and a good majority did

[1:18:19] show up and did uh give us their

[1:18:21] feedback or send somebody in their place

[1:18:23] to kind of help give feedback and kind

[1:18:24] of hear what's going on.

[1:18:26] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:18:28] Anybody else?

[1:18:32] » Sure.

[1:18:34] >> Sorry.

[1:18:36] Damn.

[1:18:39] » What will be the next meeting about

[1:18:41] this? And is it possible to let us know

[1:18:46] like in a little in advance because the

[1:18:49] sign went up on Monday about this I

[1:18:51] think or Tuesday.

[1:18:53] >> I think there's been I think we've

[1:18:55] actually had it noticed quite a bit. But

[1:18:57] if there are ways we can

[1:18:59] >> Well, Heidi posts that right.

[1:19:00] >> Yeah. um it did go up last week, but the problem is that we had a weird April

[1:19:06] because we actually don't have a meeting

[1:19:08] next week or the following one and so

[1:19:11] they ended up moving it to today because

[1:19:14] they didn't want to wait till May. So

[1:19:16] unfortunately that is what happened

[1:19:18] here. That said, this is not the final

[1:19:20] moment. These now go to city council and

[1:19:23] then there'll be a whole another round

[1:19:25] of the discussions and the way to get

[1:19:27] input and all of those things. So, I

[1:19:29] would urge you to do one two things.

[1:19:32] One, watch Facebook and and I'll follow

[1:19:35] us on Facebook so you're very aware of

[1:19:37] what's going on or Instagram, whatever

[1:19:39] your favorite is. Um, you can also do

[1:19:42] Twitter. Um, the other one is to go out

[1:19:46] online on our website and there is a

[1:19:48] link where you can put in your comments

[1:19:50] and so they will get that which Yeah.

[1:19:54] And so um you know she can write it and

[1:19:57] you can also come to the other ones but

[1:19:59] if you follow us on Facebook then you'll

[1:20:00] know about all the meetings because and

[1:20:03] then of course the news line for all of

[1:20:04] those that prefer in writing in writing.

[1:20:06] So that's where it is.

[1:20:07] >> So any idea when will be the next

[1:20:09] meeting about this?

[1:20:10] >> Um Ryan do you have any idea how long it

[1:20:13] will take? I mean it depends on if

[1:20:14] >> come back to planning commission. So the

[1:20:16] next [clears throat] planning commission

[1:20:17] city council

[1:20:18] >> city council but we try really hard to

[1:20:19] get word out.

[1:20:20] >> Okay.

[1:20:21] >> Yeah we do. And then the other thing is

[1:20:23] it depends on if city council wants to

[1:20:24] break it up like you guys did. So that

[1:20:27] could be a fiveweek process again

[1:20:30] depending on what they do.

[1:20:31] >> Sounds good.

[1:20:31] >> All right.

[1:20:32] >> Thank you so much. Thanks for being so

[1:20:34] interesting.

[1:20:34] >> Heidi is city council meeting.

[1:20:36] >> You answer that perfect, Heidi. That's

[1:20:37] exactly what I was going to say. So good

[1:20:39] work.

[1:20:40] >> And city council I don't know when

[1:20:42] they're going to start this but they

[1:20:44] didn't have the same date conflicts. So

[1:20:46] they will be meeting twice this month.

[1:20:48] So

[1:20:48] >> twice.

[1:20:57] Hi. Hi, John Nash, Alpine Resident. I've

[1:21:01] talked plenty of times here. Um, so main

[1:21:05] questions I have and comments, I guess.

[1:21:09] One, the comment section online, like

[1:21:11] the little portal, it's not very robust

[1:21:16] for actually making comments. that was

[1:21:17] like I've I've gone and looked at it and

[1:21:19] made comment there and was like tell us

[1:21:22] how you like this plan but then it's not

[1:21:26] really in a way to actually provide real

[1:21:29] feedback on it. So be wondering if

[1:21:31] there's any way to improve that. Um the

[1:21:35] other kind of comments I've had I'm you

[1:21:38] know all for an idea of improving

[1:21:40] Alpine. Um, I'm wondering what's still

[1:21:43] being done about traffic coming into

[1:21:46] town and the idea of adding more

[1:21:48] business or traffic coming into town

[1:21:52] while we still have existing traffic

[1:21:54] problems causes me angst. Um especially

[1:21:57] because we're talking about our main

[1:21:59] corridor into town and as I'm sitting

[1:22:02] here I'm hearing cars go back and forth,

[1:22:05] you know, kind of non-stop. And so

[1:22:07] adding additional traffic into town

[1:22:10] causes me some concern and what I'd like

[1:22:13] to know what's going to be done about

[1:22:14] that. And then additionally, parking in

[1:22:18] town. Again, if we're adding businesses,

[1:22:21] I'm sure most of you have seen there's a

[1:22:23] handful of businesses here that have

[1:22:25] parking lots. Um, but anytime there's

[1:22:28] either a pumpkin patch, let's say, or

[1:22:31] you know, pumpkins, that whole thing

[1:22:32] gets clobbed up real quick. So, if we

[1:22:35] have other businesses, boutiques,

[1:22:36] whatever in town, where people parking

[1:22:40] because there's only limited street

[1:22:42] surface space, but if we're having a

[1:22:43] bike lane and a a walking area and a

[1:22:46] sidewalk and and a this and you know,

[1:22:49] three lanes and

[1:22:51] where people parking um because then

[1:22:54] that the option is I guess you're now

[1:22:56] parking in someone's driveway that lives

[1:22:58] around town. You're parking in the

[1:23:00] neighborhoods around town, which living

[1:23:02] in this area is not very pleasant when

[1:23:05] you're trying to come through and just

[1:23:07] get home and you're trying not to run

[1:23:08] over a kid who's darting out. And if we

[1:23:11] having businesses and other boutiques,

[1:23:13] which you know, yeah, it'd be great to

[1:23:15] have somewhere to eat, but um if if

[1:23:18] someone is again lots of traffic, what are we doing as far as you know,

[1:23:23] safety and all that goes? um with again

[1:23:26] as much influx and outfllex as we'll

[1:23:28] probably be having,

[1:23:30] you know, because of the additional

[1:23:32] business. I mean, right now it's

[1:23:33] primarily residential, so there's a

[1:23:36] concern there. Um, you know, my kids are

[1:23:39] out here pretty regularly. Um, I'm out

[1:23:41] here with my dog pretty regularly and

[1:23:43] even at night, 10 o'clock at night, I'm

[1:23:45] walking down and there's cars driving

[1:23:47] down Main Street and, you know, making

[1:23:49] sure, you know, we're just being safe

[1:23:52] drive walking around. So, that would be

[1:23:56] my main concerns. I'd love to hear kind

[1:23:57] of impact or or thoughts on how that's

[1:24:00] going to be addressed going forward with

[1:24:01] this whole plan. It doesn't seem like

[1:24:03] it's really

[1:24:05] been heavily addressed other than, hey,

[1:24:07] we got this idea, we're this. So

[1:24:11] >> yeah, it the plan does address some of

[1:24:14] those concerns. Uh and specifically the

[1:24:17] planning commission has recommended

[1:24:18] several cons items as I mentioned

[1:24:21] reducing the speed limits uh on our on

[1:24:24] our uh gateways. Um

[1:24:26] >> microphone it's on. I'm just not

[1:24:29] speaking into it.

[1:24:30] >> Um so I appreciate your comments and as

[1:24:34] always that that is safety is a concern

[1:24:36] for us.

[1:24:37] >> Okay.

[1:24:38] And just to add to your first comment,

[1:24:40] if you have suggestions how to um

[1:24:42] improve the form for form, email me and

[1:24:44] I can make it's just been universal

[1:24:46] since the very beginning. So, we've kept

[1:24:47] it consistent, but we can improve it.

[1:24:49] There's that's not hard.

[1:24:51] >> And I think that's what the 15oot

[1:24:53] setback's trying to do also is to create

[1:24:55] some of the back parking right behind

[1:24:59] pull the pull the commercial a little

[1:25:01] bit forward

[1:25:04] >> so that some of that parking can be

[1:25:06] behind. I know they've talked about

[1:25:09] closing one side of the road to parking.

[1:25:12] That was recommended. I don't know. We

[1:25:15] didn't recom talk about that, but

[1:25:17] >> any progress?

[1:25:18] >> I don't know what how that's going

[1:25:20] forward.

[1:25:24] » All right. Any other public comments?

[1:25:29] >> One really fast question. What is the

[1:25:32] setback requirement on a back lot?

[1:25:34] Because I back up. microphone.

[1:25:35] >> What is the setback requirement on the

[1:25:38] back of my lot as I back up to Canest?

[1:25:41] Is it the standard 20 ft? Is that going

[1:25:43] to be maintained?

[1:25:46] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:25:51] » Okay. If there's no more comments, we'll

[1:25:54] close the public hearing,

[1:25:56] bring the uh

[1:25:59] agenda item back to the commission for

[1:26:01] discussion. This one.

[1:26:04] This has a box.

[1:26:07] [laughter]

[1:26:08] >> You overachiever.

[1:26:10] >> Not me. Tell Ryan.

[1:26:12] >> Okay,

[1:26:14] >> there you go. That's the right way.

[1:26:15] Right.

[1:26:15] >> So, I guess my question to the

[1:26:18] commission is how do we feel about

[1:26:21] >> the collection of recommendations that

[1:26:23] we're making? Are they complete? Are

[1:26:25] they adequate? Is there anything that

[1:26:28] you've heard that we need to change or

[1:26:29] add or comment on?

[1:26:32] >> [snorts]

[1:26:33] >> Do we address the setback that that's

[1:26:36] been brought up in this meeting?

[1:26:38] >> I I think that's an ordinance issue. I

[1:26:40] mean, we've

[1:26:41] >> more of a we've already talked the plan

[1:26:44] addresses a

[1:26:45] >> right

[1:26:45] >> mixed use commercial

[1:26:48] >> and and it addresses bringing the uh the

[1:26:52] buildings closer to the street,

[1:26:54] >> right? But we would we would need to go

[1:26:56] into changing ordinances to make that

[1:26:58] effectual

[1:27:00] [snorts]

[1:27:00] >> which is not part of this.

[1:27:01] >> But that's but the document does give us

[1:27:03] that latitude.

[1:27:04] >> Right.

[1:27:07] >> I I feel like we've went over things.

[1:27:09] >> Turn it on. Your mic.

[1:27:11] >> My mic is on. I just will put my mouth

[1:27:13] right here.

[1:27:14] >> There you go.

[1:27:14] >> Okay.

[1:27:16] No, I feel like we've uh been pretty

[1:27:19] thorough about breaking it up. I like

[1:27:20] the way we approached it. Um, you know,

[1:27:24] and discussed everything. I feel like I

[1:27:27] feel like

[1:27:29] we've been pretty complete,

[1:27:33] you know, in our review of the things

[1:27:34] that we're

[1:27:36] >> we're responsible for.

[1:27:38] We I mean, we didn't review the whole

[1:27:40] thing, but we're not responsible, you

[1:27:41] know, I mean, for the whole thing. So,

[1:27:43] >> yeah.

[1:27:45] >> I'm anxious to get it to city council to

[1:27:47] see what because they're going to want

[1:27:49] to add to some things and

[1:27:51] >> add in that are you know important and I

[1:27:53] loved the feedback from our citizens.

[1:27:59] » I [laughter] said I loved the input from

[1:28:00] the citizens.

[1:28:02] >> I am the microphone nag. Sorry.

[1:28:05] >> Seriously, I'm scared of you now.

[1:28:06] [laughter]

[1:28:07] >> All right, Alan, have you listened into

[1:28:09] all of this?

[1:28:13] » Yes. Can you hear me?

[1:28:14] >> I can hear you. Great.

[1:28:16] >> Yeah. I I mean, like Ryan, I I can't see

[1:28:19] visually anything. I've had to toggle

[1:28:22] from from uh basically the Zoom call

[1:28:27] over to the YouTube

[1:28:31] uh broadcast which is about

[1:28:35] 15 20 seconds behind and then back over

[1:28:38] to the the Google doc for the agenda. So

[1:28:43] little difficult and frankly I can hear

[1:28:45] everybody at the comes to the podium

[1:28:47] very clearly. Uh and Ryan and I have

[1:28:50] been discussing a little bit offline

[1:28:51] that we just can't hardly hear a thing

[1:28:54] that uh the planning commission is

[1:28:55] saying through their microphone. So for

[1:28:58] whatever reason tonight the technology

[1:28:59] has been uh really really difficult but

[1:29:04] trying to follow. Yes.

[1:29:05] >> Okay. Well I think we're at the juncture

[1:29:08] where we're ready to receive a motion.

[1:29:12] >> Okay. on the uh

[1:29:15] Gateway and

[1:29:17] uh Main Street.

[1:29:20] >> Okay. Well, um I'm happy to to make an

[1:29:22] attempt at a motion um even though it's

[1:29:25] a a little hard remotely, but quick

[1:29:29] question for Ryan. I I see the motion

[1:29:32] that is that is in the box as Heidi has

[1:29:34] referenced it. Um did you mention that

[1:29:37] there was you know any kind of a need to

[1:29:40] incorporate into a motion uh anything

[1:29:43] other than the revisions and the

[1:29:44] direction uh provided by the planning

[1:29:47] commission?

[1:29:48] >> Um I would I would just include all the

[1:29:50] motions that you've made that are

[1:29:51] included in the staff report as part of

[1:29:53] that. I just went through your last

[1:29:55] meetings and and took all those motions

[1:29:57] and put them together just so all that's

[1:29:59] included into one u one clean easy to use motion. And so I would just recommend including those

[1:30:06] as as part of your final motion tonight.

[1:30:10] >> Okay.

[1:30:10] >> By by reference, not not

[1:30:14] >> specifically in detail.

[1:30:17] >> All right, John, if you feel like it's

[1:30:18] time, I'll take a stab at it.

[1:30:20] >> Go for it.

[1:30:22] Uh, I move to recommend approval of the

[1:30:25] proposed Main Street and Gateway

[1:30:28] Corridor master plan draft

[1:30:32] incorporating the revisions and

[1:30:34] direction previously provided by the

[1:30:36] planning commission. uh as contained in

[1:30:40] the uh motions that have been prepared

[1:30:44] for us in the staff reports that are a

[1:30:48] part of the record that we have reviewed

[1:30:52] tonight.

[1:30:55] » All right.

[1:30:57] Motion by Allen. Is there a second?

[1:31:00] >> I'll second it.

[1:31:01] >> Troy Slade seconds the motion. Any

[1:31:03] discussion on the motion?

[1:31:10] Yeah. No discussion. We'll vote on it.

[1:31:14] All in favor say I.

[1:31:16] >> I.

[1:31:18] All against say nay.

[1:31:22] The motion carries unanimously

[1:31:29] and we will move on.

[1:31:32] Communications. Do we have

[1:31:33] communications?

[1:31:41] Ryan,

[1:31:46] » sorry guys, I was muted. No, I don't I

[1:31:48] don't have anything. Um, I've been told

[1:31:50] the uh new I can't see anybody, but uh I think they've been calling it the

[1:31:56] upgrade starts started today. So exced

[1:32:04] today. So his name is Kaden Lang. He is

[1:32:07] the new and improved Ryan.

[1:32:10] >> Um no, he'll never replace Ryan. Um

[1:32:15] anyway, he started today. He wasn't able

[1:32:17] to come tonight, but he'll be here

[1:32:19] future. He'll be phasing me out and him

[1:32:22] in, so that'll be good.

[1:32:24] >> And um

[1:32:26] >> I'm glad to know his name. Like I said,

[1:32:27] I' I've just been calling him the

[1:32:29] upgrade or the improvement. [laughter]

[1:32:30] So Ken Ken will work, too. But no, he's

[1:32:32] been great. He's been reaching out and

[1:32:34] I'm excited for you guys to get to work

[1:32:35] with him. I think that'll be a I think

[1:32:36] he'll be really good. So excited for

[1:32:38] that. And just thank you for all the

[1:32:39] work you've done on this main street

[1:32:40] plan. I know it's it's it's not perfect

[1:32:43] and it's, you know, there's there's

[1:32:44] still work to be done, but I think you

[1:32:46] guys have done a fantastic job in

[1:32:48] reviewing it and getting it ready to

[1:32:49] recommend to the council. So, thanks for

[1:32:51] all your hard work on that.

[1:32:52] >> We're gonna miss you, Ryan.

[1:32:54] >> Thank you, Ryan.

[1:32:55] >> Oh, no. You guys are great. Yeah. And

[1:32:57] yeah, reach out. I'm happy to happy to

[1:32:59] discuss and whatever I can do to help.

[1:33:01] So don't don't hesitate to reach out.

[1:33:03] >> Okay.

[1:33:04] >> Thank you.

[1:33:05] >> Great.

[1:33:06] >> All right.

[1:33:07] >> What's his last name? Heidi Lane.

[1:33:09] >> Lane.

[1:33:10] >> Oh, Lane.

[1:33:10] >> Yeah.

[1:33:11] >> Just L E.

[1:33:12] >> L A N E like the small street.

[1:33:16] >> Small street.

[1:33:17] >> All right. Has anyone reviewed the

[1:33:19] minutes? Ready to make a motion on

[1:33:22] >> I did not read them this time.

[1:33:25] Yes.

[1:33:26] >> Oh, Troy, there's one part that I was

[1:33:30] talking to Heidi about. Um, that

[1:33:32] probably should not be included because

[1:33:34] it's more of her her notes. Correct,

[1:33:36] Heidi?

[1:33:37] >> Yeah, I'll just Thanks, Troy. I asked

[1:33:39] him just to kind of let you on page I

[1:33:42] just printed it out. Sorry. Sorry, Alan.

[1:33:45] There's a section that I had um can uh

[1:33:49] city council needed the the permit the

[1:33:51] unc the conditional use permit text but

[1:33:55] it hadn't been approved yet. So I just

[1:33:57] took an excerpt and and had it for city

[1:34:00] council just so they were aware before

[1:34:02] these were approved. I gave them to Mara

[1:34:04] to um so we could work together on

[1:34:07] getting the verbiage together.

[1:34:08] Unfortunately got left in. So it needs

[1:34:10] to not where that line starts is the

[1:34:13] section that I did that is not part of

[1:34:15] the minutes. It's just what I I notated

[1:34:18] from the the the video. So what I would

[1:34:20] just suggest and I gave you a piece of

[1:34:22] paper is to take the motion verbiage

[1:34:24] that John did, put it at the beginning

[1:34:27] of the italics where Mara

[1:34:30] made the changes and then delete the

[1:34:33] section that was just my word document

[1:34:34] that I stuck in there. So, I just wanted

[1:34:36] to make them accurate that there's

[1:34:38] another line on the next page. I mean, I

[1:34:40] can go to it. Um, you'll see that it's

[1:34:44] just stuck in there and there's no

[1:34:46] reason for it because I just there's it

[1:34:49] doesn't make sense. Actually, it needs

[1:34:51] to catch up. Sorry, it's not going. But,

[1:34:52] so there's just it's it's just clearly a

[1:34:54] line

[1:34:57] and it um

[1:34:59] >> does that make sense? It just got in

[1:35:01] there. Ryan uh Ryan took it before Mara

[1:35:05] had taken it out. So that's all it was um it just inadvertently got in

[1:35:10] there

[1:35:12] if that makes sense.

[1:35:15] >> Trying to find it. Sorry. I

[1:35:17] >> maybe just say

[1:35:20] >> it was kind of towards the beginning,

[1:35:21] wasn't it?

[1:35:22] >> Yeah.

[1:35:26] [snorts]

[1:35:26] >> Okay. So this is where the line is at

[1:35:28] the bottom and up to the top. Like I

[1:35:30] said, I it just says excerpt of draft

[1:35:32] because I just took it out. I put it in

[1:35:34] so that the city council could see it

[1:35:36] before these were approved and then

[1:35:39] unfortunately be when we went to press

[1:35:42] it wasn't taken out.

[1:35:42] >> Oh, it's just those two lines.

[1:35:44] >> Well, it's just down between that line

[1:35:45] and that. So, all I did was transcribe

[1:35:48] the the YouTube video for them and

[1:35:52] unfortunately it just got left in. It

[1:35:54] did. That's not part of the minutes. So,

[1:35:56] all I wanted to do is make sure you guys

[1:35:58] knew that it needed to come out and

[1:35:59] because you can't I couldn't take it out

[1:36:01] before you guys got the minute since you

[1:36:03] already got the the minutes. Um, I had

[1:36:06] to wait and let you know. So, if Mara

[1:36:08] and I take that out, is that good? Are

[1:36:10] you okay with that?

[1:36:12] Since it's not part of the minutes, it's

[1:36:14] me. It's a document I stuck in.

[1:36:19] » Yeah,

[1:36:21] >> you're you're making the motion to

[1:36:22] approve.

[1:36:23] >> Um, yeah. How Let's see. So, how how

[1:36:26] would it how we say

[1:36:28] >> if you're okay with it, Mara and I will

[1:36:30] work on taking that out and just

[1:36:32] incorporating it into the above just to

[1:36:34] make the it flow. But I didn't want to

[1:36:36] take it out because like I said, it's on

[1:36:37] the record like this and I and I don't I

[1:36:39] can't edit it without approval if that

[1:36:42] makes sense.

[1:36:43] >> Right.

[1:36:44] >> So, we need to make a motion to remove

[1:36:51] line 32 33

[1:36:54] >> all the way to 9 through

[1:36:56] >> 39

[1:36:57] >> 16 on the next page

[1:36:59] >> through

[1:37:02] >> page

[1:37:04] >> 31 of the other page, right?

[1:37:06] >> Yeah.

[1:37:06] >> Tell me.

[1:37:07] >> Okay.

[1:37:09] >> Are these pages numbered?

[1:37:11] >> They aren't here. That's difficulty. But

[1:37:14] anyway, those

[1:37:14] >> page

[1:37:16] >> what page? I mean,

[1:37:17] >> can you give me

[1:37:18] >> Oh, it's on page four on here. It looks

[1:37:21] like the page four and five. Oh, these

[1:37:23] are the same thing I'm looking at.

[1:37:24] >> Yeah, you got doubles.

[1:37:25] >> Oh, I got doubles. I'm like confused.

[1:37:27] Okay. So, [snorts]

[1:37:30] >> okay. Not to make it a mess, but

[1:37:31] basically all I need is the permission

[1:37:33] to edit that out and make it a smooth

[1:37:37] transition. Not changing any of the

[1:37:39] verbiage or meaning of the the minutes

[1:37:42] that Mara did.

[1:37:43] >> Okay. [snorts] Absolutely.

[1:37:45] >> You ready, Troy?

[1:37:46] >> Is that Is that fair?

[1:37:47] >> Well, I was until you said

[1:37:48] >> until I messed it up. Sorry, Troy. I'll

[1:37:50] just

[1:37:50] >> No, I'm just kidding.

[1:37:53] So wouldn't it be easier just to say to

[1:37:55] delete these lines 32 33 and then 39

[1:37:59] through

[1:38:01] >> what? 39 through

[1:38:03] >> just say as discussed

[1:38:06] >> because you know

[1:38:06] >> that work.

[1:38:07] >> Yeah, that'll work.

[1:38:09] >> It's on the record. So

[1:38:11] >> okay, I'll make the motion then a motion

[1:38:13] to approve the minutes from what meeting

[1:38:16] is this?

[1:38:17] >> March 5th.

[1:38:22] um

[1:38:24] with uh the

[1:38:25] >> Wait a minute. March 3rd.

[1:38:27] >> Okay. March 3rd, 2026.

[1:38:31] Um

[1:38:33] with the

[1:38:35] >> edits perhaps

[1:38:36] >> edits that

[1:38:38] Heidi has recommended and we have

[1:38:41] discussed.

[1:38:46] » I'll second it.

[1:38:47] >> Okay. Motion to approve.

[1:38:50] by Troy Slade, seconded by Michelle

[1:38:53] Shurmer.

[1:38:56] Uh, all in favor?

[1:38:58] >> I [snorts]

[1:39:00] >> I.

[1:39:01] >> Any opposed?

[1:39:03] Motion carries.

[1:39:05] Motion to adjourn.

[1:39:08] >> I'll make that. I make a motion that we

[1:39:11] adjourn this meeting.

[1:39:12] >> S Whittenberg

[1:39:13] >> 7:51

[1:39:15] p.m.

[1:39:16] >> Motions to adjourn. Any seconds on that?

[1:39:19] seconded.

[1:39:20] >> Michelle Schumer seconds it. All in

[1:39:22] favor? I

[1:39:29] » my apologies again for the Zoom room. Um

[1:39:31] >> Oh, man. That was

[1:39:32] >> a little crazy. I'm sorry you had to

[1:39:33] deal with that.

[1:39:34] >> That's a Yeah, that's stressful.

3.31.2026 Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript