[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.