[0:00] Okay. Can you hear me?

[0:01] >> We can hear you.

[0:03] >> Okay, great.

[0:08] » Hello.

[0:13] » What am I showing on my There we go.

[0:16] Sorry.

[0:19] [clears throat]

[0:21] » Okay.

[0:24] We welcome everybody to uh planning

[0:28] commission.

[0:29] Uh today is Tuesday, May 5th, and we're

[0:33] here at city hall.

[0:35] And uh let's do a little roll call vote.

[0:41] Um, here on planning commission we have

[0:45] Troy Slade, Michelle Shurmer, John

[0:47] McCay, myself, Jeff Davis, Greg

[0:51] Butterfield, and online we have Alan

[0:53] McDonald.

[0:55] And absent night is Suz Wetenberg

[0:58] apparently. Right. From the city, we

[1:01] have Heidi Smith and Jason I can't

[1:06] remember. Jason Jud and Marl Fox in the

[1:09] back taking notes. And we want to

[1:11] welcome our newest member of the city.

[1:16] Uh Kaden Lion is our new city planner.

[1:18] So we welcome you here today.

[1:22] >> Thank you. Um let's go ahead and get

[1:25] started. Um Greg, would you mind

[1:27] offering a word of prayer and then we'll

[1:30] have the pledge of allegiance by Troy

[1:33] Slade.

[1:35] Our

[1:36] dear kind heavenly father, we come

[1:38] before thee this wonderful night and

[1:39] give thee thanks for the moisture that

[1:41] we've received in this beautiful city

[1:42] alpine where we have the opportunity to

[1:44] live at this time. We're grateful for

[1:47] all the members of our city and would

[1:49] pray and ask that thy spirit might be

[1:51] with us tonight that we might be able to

[1:52] have clean minds and bright intellects

[1:54] so we might be able to discuss things

[1:55] that are in the best interest of all of

[1:57] our citizens. And we give thee thanks

[2:00] once again for all that we have. And we

[2:02] say this thanking thee for our country

[2:04] and our freedoms. And we say this in the

[2:05] name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

[2:07] >> Amen.

[2:08] >> Okay everybody, please rise and follow

[2:11] me in the pledge.

[2:13] >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the

[2:15] United States of America and to the

[2:18] republic for which it stands. One nation

[2:21] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[2:24] justice for all.

[2:30] Okay. Um Kaden, we again we welcome you.

[2:34] Um do you want to just take uh a minute

[2:37] to introduce yourself

[2:39] um to the planning commission?

[2:42] >> Yeah, thank you. So good to meet you

[2:45] all. I hope to meet you all more

[2:46] personally as the the days go on. But

[2:49] yeah, I'm Kaden Lion. I'm from West

[2:51] Jordan. I was previously with Wasatch

[2:53] County as a planner there and just happy

[2:56] to be here.

[2:58] >> Okay. Very nice.

[3:00] >> What?

[3:02] >> Yeah. Yeah. I was going to say him and

[3:04] he and Jed traded places.

[3:06] >> And do you go by Kaden or Kade? Which do

[3:08] you like? Kaden. All right.

[3:13] >> Okay. Um

[3:15] uh next item. Kaden. We uh there's

[3:19] reports and presentations. It says none.

[3:21] Is there any update to that? We usually

[3:25] turn the time over to you in case you

[3:26] have information.

[3:29] Um,

[3:30] >> not there is no update to that. No.

[3:32] >> Okay. Okay. Okay. Well, with that, we

[3:36] will go on to our first item of uh of

[3:39] the meeting. So, uh, Kaden, if you want

[3:43] to introduce that to us uh, and then we

[3:47] can have a discussion.

[3:50] >> All right. And yeah, thanks for being

[3:51] here. I know we've had some time off uh

[3:54] since you guys have last been here. Um

[3:56] and today it's only one item. So

[3:57] hopefully that's a good way to roll back

[3:59] into the swing of things. But yeah, so

[4:03] our item today is the review of the

[4:05] Alpine Fire Station edition slashreodel.

[4:09] Um as as you know, the Alpine Fire

[4:12] Station just sits here on the same city

[4:13] block as City Hall. And you all probably

[4:17] know about the fire station and this

[4:19] remodel a lot more than I do um since

[4:21] you've been around here and and seen it.

[4:24] Um but the reason for this update is

[4:27] just the city the station is in need of

[4:29] updating to meet current needs. So, this

[4:32] new design proposes mo um modernizing

[4:35] and expanding the original operational

[4:37] capacity and converts the existing

[4:40] structure into a functioning community

[4:42] center that supports civic gatherings,

[4:44] events, and public activities. So, as

[4:47] you can see on your packet up there, um

[4:49] the key architectural elements include

[4:51] the addition, uh which we will see on

[4:54] the site plan coming up here, what that

[4:55] looks like, the conversion to the

[4:57] community center of the current

[4:59] building, and then the preservation of

[5:01] the existing apparatus bay. Um the we've

[5:06] been working with the design team on

[5:08] this. They've been very sensitive to the

[5:10] historic downtown character and wanting

[5:12] to create a project and an element that

[5:15] really satisfies the community and meets

[5:18] all the historic downtown uh design

[5:20] guidelines. So, um I know you guys are

[5:24] trained on those and feel free to

[5:25] provide comment on those if you if you

[5:27] see fit. Um but yeah, I would I would

[5:31] say that they are doing a good job at

[5:33] blending the existing and new

[5:35] architectural forms in their design.

[5:37] um they have respect for the context of

[5:39] being here next to city hall and they're

[5:42] hoping to do it in such a way that

[5:44] blends with a potentially future

[5:46] sculpture garden here as well for the

[5:48] landscape plan. [snorts] Um the use of

[5:51] materials is p primarily stucco but also

[5:55] faux wood and a brick veneer. We'll see

[5:58] that in the upcoming images.

[6:00] Um the main thing I would like the

[6:02] council to to focus on is that the

[6:05] landscaping plan is not here today. Um

[6:07] just to keep that in mind because as

[6:10] they note here it's it will be completed

[6:12] through a city-led effort. So they plan

[6:15] to engage and the city council actually

[6:17] had a presentation just last week um to

[6:20] have a landscape designer for that

[6:22] sculpture garden and comprehensive

[6:24] design area right outside here. Um so uh

[6:29] that is something that as staff we we

[6:32] believe that they should submit that

[6:34] before um before the installation of

[6:36] landscaping and we recommended that as a

[6:38] condition of approval.

[6:40] Um as far as anything else, I think

[6:43] that's that's basically the gist of

[6:45] this. I don't know if any of the

[6:47] commissioners have any questions up to

[6:49] this point. Um, we can start looking at

[6:51] the design if you would like,

[6:54] but if anyone has any questions, feel

[6:56] free to to jump in whenever.

[7:00] So, like I said, yeah, we would

[7:02] recommend sending a positive

[7:03] recommendation to the city council

[7:05] regarding the fire station addition and

[7:07] remodel subject to the condition of a

[7:09] landscape plan being provided before

[7:11] landscaping is installed.

[7:15] » I'm It says who designed it, right?

[7:17] Yeah, Babcock Design is the name of the company.

[7:20] >> You're like an architect firm.

[7:22] >> Yes, architecture firm. Yeah,

[7:26] >> we can see that down here. If we scroll

[7:28] down, this is quite large.

[7:33] Zoom out a little bit.

[7:39] So, here's the 3D rendering of the fire

[7:42] station. Let me scroll down so you can

[7:45] see both those at the same time.

[7:49] And yeah, there were really Jason and I

[7:52] did a comprehensive review of this

[7:53] project. Um,

[7:56] overall we feel like it meets the the

[7:58] design guidelines for the for the

[8:01] historic downtown. Like I said earlier

[8:03] and 311 of the code, also meets the BC

[8:07] business commercial uh requirements of

[8:09] the code. Um, there were really minor

[8:12] things that we could probably contact

[8:14] the the designer uh as they pursue a

[8:17] building permit to fix, but overall

[8:20] everything seems to be in order.

[8:24] >> Question on the faux wood. Is that

[8:25] actual wood that's veneer that's not

[8:27] going to last long or is it more the

[8:30] Trex type wood that is some kind of

[8:33] other composite?

[8:34] >> So, we have samples here to to send

[8:37] around. I'll just hand them over to you

[8:39] right now. That was the only one that I

[8:40] couldn't tell what it was going to look

[8:41] like.

[8:46] » So that's the faux wood right there.

[8:51] » So yeah, we're sending around the brick

[8:53] kind of style. Um the faux wood material

[8:56] and then the the roof will be asphalt

[8:59] shingles, but also a small portion of

[9:01] the roof will be metal. Correct.

[9:04] >> Yes.

[9:05] >> And that's what's also shown there. I

[9:07] don't think they provided the sample of

[9:09] the stucco material that they're going

[9:11] to use, but Shane, this Shane Sorenson,

[9:13] the city administrator, did mention to

[9:14] us that it will be completely updated

[9:17] stucco material

[9:23] » and the the fascia and sophet will be

[9:25] that that metal color as well right

[9:28] here.

[9:28] >> Yes.

[9:32] And and what what portion? I know there

[9:34] is some metal on the roof, but because

[9:37] of cost, they're like, "We can't do the

[9:39] whole thing metal." Right.

[9:41] >> Right. Do you want to show them?

[9:44] >> There is a roof plan. It's kind of hard

[9:46] to see which is which, but we think we

[9:48] can show you.

[9:57] Just going to scroll down here. This is

[9:59] a large plan set

[10:04] [snorts]

[10:08] here.

[10:16] » Yeah, because is faux wood allowed in

[10:18] the current Gateway Historic District

[10:20] guidelines? It is,

[10:22] >> but probably not in the revised

[10:26] >> the revised guidelines.

[10:28] I'm not aware of the difference.

[10:29] >> They're still in the process. All of

[10:31] that.

[10:32] >> Oh, you're talking about the the main

[10:33] street gateway plan. Yeah, that is still

[10:35] in the process. That is true. So, we are

[10:37] basing this project based on the

[10:39] historic gateway guidelines that

[10:41] currently exist

[10:42] >> because we we turned down a faux wood,

[10:44] but it was a metal faux wood.

[10:47] >> Yeah. Who was

[10:48] >> on that

[10:49] >> fence?

[10:49] >> That building.

[10:51] >> That empty lot building.

[10:53] >> Where is it? Is this it?

[10:54] >> Yeah. For the

[10:56] >> across from the Okay.

[10:57] >> Yep.

[10:59] >> Yeah, we did.

[11:02] >> Here's the roof plan. Um, it's not the

[11:04] clearest drawing, but this material,

[11:08] this lined material here is the metal.

[11:10] So on this door entrance right here,

[11:12] this portico and then over here in this

[11:15] entrance area, then the rest is asphalt

[11:18] shingles.

[11:20] >> With other people, [snorts]

[11:22] >> does it feel like the city should

[11:23] >> I mean, but then we I remember we had a

[11:25] discussion about being open to new

[11:28] materials that look like that. I bet but [clears throat]

[11:31] we never

[11:32] >> That is the block.

[11:36] » The mason masonry block.

[11:39] >> Yeah. The facade should have three

[11:42] different materials.

[11:45] >> Can you bring the elevation back up?

[11:48] >> Yeah. One second. I was wondering how

[11:50] accurate the colors were.

[11:52] >> So the whole roof is shingled except for

[11:54] this metal corrugated right here.

[11:57] >> It's like what?

[12:01] » Yeah.

[12:09] That shows

[12:12] a 2022.

[12:14] >> You're trying to see where do you have

[12:15] the

[12:19] » little this little guy.

[12:25] » So, what's that?

[12:27] >> That's what

[12:29] >> that's the question.

[12:30] >> Oh, that one.

[12:35] Is this the pathway?

[12:38] >> Hey, Jeff.

[12:39] >> Yeah. Alan,

[12:41] >> uh, can I ask a brief question of Kaden?

[12:43] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[12:44] >> Do we know the on the exterior the

[12:47] elevation the percent coverage of brick

[12:51] versus deco versus the faux wood?

[12:55] because I would echo uh Troy and

[12:57] Michelle's comments just to the extent

[12:59] that uh in the revised Gateway Historic

[13:02] District, we're looking for a lot more

[13:05] uh red brick uh less deco. I think we're

[13:09] getting away from any faux wood

[13:11] materials and we might think about uh

[13:14] adjusting the external materials used to

[13:18] include more brick subject to whatever

[13:22] budget and costing we've already done.

[13:27] >> Thank Yeah, thank you for that comment.

[13:30] >> Is the faux wood and the veneer brick

[13:32] comparable in price? Do we know?

[13:36] >> I don't we know that. No, we don't know

[13:38] that. No.

[13:40] >> Was if you could just swap out all the

[13:42] wood for brick. I don't you know, is

[13:44] that about the same ballpark?

[13:48] >> Yeah. Hey, Michelle, I'm thinking for

[13:51] example of I think it's the new

[13:53] >> is it the new Cedar Hills Fire

[13:56] Department that is almost all brick.

[13:58] >> It is completely brick.

[13:59] >> Really, really beautiful. And I think

[14:01] that's something I think that's an

[14:03] aesthetic we'll be looking for. Even

[14:05] their remodel of their fire station up

[14:07] on Canyon Road is mostly brick. They've

[14:11] left some of the stucco, I believe, but

[14:14] because they remodeling their second

[14:16] fire station.

[14:19] >> I'm very sensitive to the budget and

[14:22] what's already been allocated and

[14:24] budgeted for the project. Uh but to the

[14:27] extent possible, um I think we would

[14:29] look for more brick coverage.

[14:37] Yeah, I'd be fine with I mean I

[14:39] understand the stuckco because it's

[14:41] already there existing a lot of you know

[14:44] the original building and that will save

[14:46] money to keep it. But if we could swap

[14:49] out the wood for brick, I think that

[14:51] will go a long way for when we start

[14:54] making people on Main Street follow

[14:56] these new guidelines that they don't

[14:58] say, "Well, but the city, look what they

[15:01] did."

[15:01] >> For sure. For sure.

[15:04] Alan, there's only one spot where it

[15:06] looks like you might not be able to do

[15:07] brick, but you could certainly

[15:09] substitute

[15:10] where the faux wood is above the garage

[15:13] doors and make that stuckco and this

[15:16] could be brick. Uh the entrance way.

[15:20] >> I don't know. It's easier to look at it

[15:21] here. We've got a colored chart that's

[15:24] >> if you guys want to look at this.

[15:27] >> So, this one looks like it would be

[15:28] hard.

[15:30] You could put brick up there.

[15:32] >> You could c That one that could all be

[15:34] brick

[15:35] or these pillars could go up higher here

[15:37] and that could just be stuff going

[15:40] >> for you. Alan, they're looking at a

[15:41] print out that

[15:43] >> on page. It's kind of that page we're on

[15:45] right now on the screen, right?

[15:47] >> Yeah, it's the same page.

[15:48] >> Yeah,

[15:48] >> the same page.

[15:52] » I don't know you want to put

[15:53] >> because this is because this is all this

[15:55] is all brick, right?

[15:56] >> This could be brick. And this is already

[16:01] >> that can all be brick.

[16:02] >> Yeah,

[16:05] >> that's actually

[16:11] » this. We're saying get rid of get rid of

[16:13] wood

[16:20] » on the screen. It's stuckco.

[16:22] >> Yeah.

[16:23] >> To me, that's

[16:24] >> that's the back side.

[16:26] >> The front side.

[16:29] It's the opposite side where the fire

[16:32] station

[16:33] >> when you're ready

[16:38] when you guys want to go on again.

[16:40] >> Yeah. Thank you.

[16:50] » Okay. What's the difference in the cost?

[16:53] I mean, when we were going through the

[16:54] they had all the parts listed out and it

[16:56] was hard if you're not a construction

[16:57] person to know all the different parts

[16:58] and stuff.

[16:59] >> What's the cost for faux wood versus

[17:02] brick?

[17:03] >> Stuckle I'm assuming would be less than

[17:04] faux wood, but do you have costs on

[17:06] those per square footage or something?

[17:08] >> I don't know if we were ever provided

[17:10] those by the applicant.

[17:14] Um I I would go along with you and say I

[17:17] believe that is why their main material

[17:19] is stuckco because it is cheaper and

[17:22] they are allowed to do that in the

[17:24] current historic gateway design

[17:25] guidelines but I don't think they ever

[17:28] provided us a cost estimate of all this.

[17:30] >> Yeah. I mean, I listened to at least

[17:32] one, if not two, city council meetings

[17:34] on this and they debated, you know, on

[17:38] the funding for this for like like a

[17:41] couple of hours, you know, and [clears throat]

[17:45] you know, obviously the cost is an issue

[17:49] and and they don't know, you know, what

[17:51] the exact numbers are going to be. They

[17:53] basically say, okay, here's our budget

[17:55] and here's our here's our budget and

[17:57] here's our contingency. Now, we're gonna

[17:59] send this out to bid. You know, if you

[18:02] approve this, then they're gonna send

[18:05] that out to bid and they're gonna get

[18:06] those bids back. You know, so they kind

[18:09] of have a ballpark, but they don't know

[18:11] exactly. So, asking the question of

[18:13] like, what's the difference? We don't

[18:15] know yet.

[18:17] >> So,

[18:17] >> and that's not that's not what we're

[18:18] being asked, right? No, we're being

[18:20] asked to render a decision on the

[18:22] design.

[18:22] >> Yes. And I and I really and I do really

[18:25] think

[18:25] >> I I think we ought to be agnostic. cost.

[18:29] >> Yes, I that and I completely agree,

[18:32] John. I think I think really our role is

[18:36] to look forward into, you know, we've

[18:40] spent several months and actually a

[18:43] couple of years on the Gateway historic

[18:46] and and and and what we want it to look

[18:49] like. And so, you know, if we're coming

[18:52] down to a to a recommendation of, you

[18:57] know, no stucco or less stucco, very

[19:00] minimum stucco and and more brick, you

[19:03] know, I think that that's, you know,

[19:07] that's our role as a commission to to

[19:09] say, hey, this is what we're thinking

[19:13] our our Gateway Historic is going to

[19:15] look like. And I can't remember who said

[19:17] it, but you know, this is going to be uh

[19:20] the first you know that's going to

[19:23] replicate what we want what the citizens

[19:25] have provided feedback for what we've

[19:28] spent all this effort in and so you know

[19:31] as a model [laughter]

[19:34] I I don't think what I don't think what we want is to

[19:41] like John was saying you know like oh

[19:43] well budget-wise we should allow this

[19:45] and then all a sudden becomes a well

[19:47] look what the city did look what the

[19:49] firehouse house, you know, I I want

[19:50] that. Well, you can't have that. So, I

[19:52] think we want to avoid that for the

[19:55] future, you know, and so the the

[19:58] budgeting obviously is not our purview.

[20:01] It's not our responsibility. Our

[20:03] responsibility is from a planning

[20:06] standpoint and adherence to not just

[20:11] >> right today, you know, May 5th, but

[20:14] >> what what it's going to what we want it

[20:16] to look like for the next you know, few

[20:20] decades.

[20:21] >> Hey, Jeff.

[20:22] >> Yeah, Alan.

[20:24] >> Yeah. Yeah. 100% on what you and John

[20:26] said. And I mean, you know, there's been

[20:28] a number of us that have been involved

[20:29] with this for six, seven, eight, nine

[20:31] years. And I I mean, I just think the

[20:34] faux wood is an absolute non-starter.

[20:37] And then it's just a a mix of as much

[20:40] brick as we can get. I understand maybe

[20:42] some existing stucco and and two things.

[20:46] I think you nailed it with then how does

[20:49] that [clears throat] work with the

[20:50] budgeting and the cost that's a uh you

[20:53] know mayor and city council and uh you

[20:57] know administrative folks within the

[20:59] city that's their purview to figure that

[21:01] out what the materials are that would

[21:03] meet budget and also meet the design

[21:05] guidelines that that we're recommending

[21:08] and then I think what you were referring

[21:10] to is Michelle's comments earlier which

[21:12] I 100% agree with that these this is one

[21:15] of the first buildings going in and um I

[21:19] think we need to meet our own

[21:21] expectations, our own guidelines. As

[21:23] Michelle said, it's tough to expect

[21:25] other people to follow when we as a city

[21:27] do not.

[21:28] >> Yeah. Yeah. I I I agree, Alan. And

[21:31] again, just to reiterate, uh our role is

[21:35] blank and and and we should make a

[21:38] recommendation that is consistent with

[21:41] what our role is. So,

[21:46] Um,

[21:48] so remind me

[21:53] the faux wood is is really not being

[21:56] considered for the future gate gateway

[22:01] standard material standards. I can't I

[22:04] mean I didn't review that before

[22:06] tonight, you know, but

[22:08] >> I remember we had

[22:09] >> No, it's it's not. We were looking at uh

[22:13] essentially red brick and kind of that

[22:15] Midwest prairie style um rectangular

[22:21] black framed windows

[22:23] >> and then some stucco as well would be

[22:27] permissible. I don't think we were

[22:29] looking at any trex type sighting,

[22:33] decking,

[22:36] uh, faux wood, anything like that in

[22:39] the, uh, recommendations that we've been

[22:43] through over the last weeks and months

[22:45] and really years.

[22:47] >> Um, just so you know, the process hasn't

[22:51] gotten to that point at the city

[22:52] council. So, at that's the the

[22:55] communication issue. Sure. So, I would

[22:57] encourage you to communicate that with

[22:59] your motion or whatever you do at the

[23:01] end of this.

[23:02] >> Yeah, that's a good point.

[23:02] >> And make sure that you're going to to

[23:04] incorporate because when they get to

[23:06] that point in city council and they

[23:08] consider what you guys had said in your

[23:11] meeting, it should be noted.

[23:13] >> Yes. And even the even the plan from the

[23:22] » the the plan that was developed by the

[23:25] grant people. What are we

[23:27] >> main street?

[23:29] Yeah. The even in that one before we

[23:31] modified it, this still wouldn't have

[23:33] fit because it was 20%

[23:37] >> minimum and this is more than 20%

[23:40] uh can be an alternate material. Even

[23:43] the recommendation from the the firm,

[23:47] uh, this would still fail that one.

[23:51] >> Where is this?

[23:51] >> We never got an answer. We don't know.

[23:54] >> Do we don't know where where this goes,

[23:58] Alan? I'm holding up some like

[24:03] rock thing.

[24:06] >> Yeah.

[24:10] some mookie.

[24:13] This plan that Jason's looking at wasn't

[24:15] included in their massive packet we have

[24:17] here, but I think that is where it shows

[24:20] the

[24:22] that material.

[24:26] » This little granite piece,

[24:28] >> correct? Yeah.

[24:29] >> Yeah. Because it's brick and stone,

[24:32] right? So, stone is part of

[24:35] our design standards.

[24:38] I thought there might have been some

[24:39] corner stones as part of the design.

[24:42] >> Some coins or something,

[24:43] >> but there's not.

[24:44] >> Yeah.

[24:44] >> Okay.

[24:46] >> That doesn't look like Is that a real

[24:47] stone or is that just concrete?

[24:49] >> Right.

[24:50] >> So, it looks like it's um like CMU block

[24:54] a diff not just the standard gray. It's

[24:57] a different color. And there is one

[24:59] little line on here that says CMU block.

[25:02] Um where exactly that is on the plan, I

[25:06] don't know. It's not on the thing, but

[25:08] >> a lot of that's so little it was hard to

[25:09] see for sure.

[25:11] >> But that's what it looks like. It is.

[25:37] » [snorts]

[25:41] » What does motion look like?

[26:06] Okay, I think

[26:10] >> yeah, I mean it it does, you know, the

[26:13] faux wood obviously we can see where

[26:16] that goes, but we don't know where this

[26:18] is. So, it's kind of hard for us to go.

[26:21] You know what I would hate to happen is

[26:23] like we don't mention it or we don't,

[26:26] you know, and it gets on there and like,

[26:28] well, it got way got past planning

[26:30] commission. We're like, well, we didn't

[26:31] even know where that was supposed to go.

[26:33] [laughter]

[26:34] >> Yeah. Hey, hey, Jeff. You know, and

[26:36] commission, we're kind of in a weird

[26:38] place because this is coming to us in

[26:41] the interim between when we've looked at

[26:44] the uh

[26:48] report that was generated for us, for

[26:50] lack of a better term, the master plan,

[26:52] >> it's not really the master plan, but

[26:53] whatever, right? The but the grant got

[26:55] us the recommendations.

[26:56] >> Yeah.

[26:57] >> And we looked at that extensively

[26:59] >> and exhaustively and then we made

[27:02] certain recommendations, right? remember

[27:04] we took that kind of chapter by chapter.

[27:06] >> Yeah.

[27:06] >> And we made recommendations to the city

[27:08] council on that portion and it just

[27:10] sounds like they haven't yet taken it

[27:12] up. But I don't think we can do more

[27:14] today than like than be consistent with

[27:19] the recommendations that for materials

[27:21] in the Gateway Historic District that we

[27:23] made uh with respect to review of that

[27:26] grant plan. Um, and I think that's what

[27:30] our recommendation today should be for

[27:33] materials consistent with what we

[27:35] recommended to the city council. Now,

[27:38] they haven't yet taken that up. Perhaps

[27:40] they'll want to expand more or less the

[27:42] materials pallet that we recommended.

[27:44] But I think all we can do is be

[27:46] consistent, which is something that we

[27:48] just have not had in the past.

[27:50] >> Yes. Yeah. And I think as as clear as we

[27:55] can be

[27:57] on, you know, I'm just reviewing

[28:00] uh because it was our last planning

[28:04] commission that that those design

[28:07] standards

[28:09] that we wrote, right, that we provided

[28:12] that that feedback.

[28:14] So I don't want to shortcut the whole

[28:19] presentation. There's lots of other

[28:20] stuff to look at. Are you recommending Allan that uh maybe denial

[28:26] because we don't have that we're in that

[28:28] gap or being more specific to approve

[28:31] and then just spell out all the

[28:34] specifics relative to the historic

[28:36] district material and those kinds of

[28:38] things?

[28:44] Well, I guess Greg, I would just say

[28:47] more the latter because

[28:50] um

[28:52] there's been so much work and effort

[28:54] that's gone into

[28:56] architectural design and um

[29:01] the community center, upgrading the

[29:05] actual facilities for the fire

[29:06] department. bring the building, you

[29:09] know, into the the 21st century and

[29:11] beyond, you know, for the next 50 years.

[29:13] So, I don't know that all of that is

[29:15] necessarily in our purview. There's

[29:17] already been so much work done on it.

[29:19] Um, I think for the most part what

[29:22] really would be incumbent on us, I mean,

[29:24] correct me if I'm wrong, is is just how

[29:28] will this building impact and fit into

[29:33] and become a part of and maybe even a

[29:35] cornerstone for the Gateway Historic

[29:37] District going forward and the

[29:39] architectural details and look that that

[29:41] we're seeking.

[29:43] >> Yeah. So, I probably uh didn't

[29:46] communicate that clearly. I'm not saying

[29:47] deny the process. It's just

[29:50] pause or deny approving the proposal

[29:52] today until you get some more definitive

[29:55] stuff, I guess.

[29:58] >> Okay.

[30:02] » Can I

[30:02] >> Well, with respect to that, Greg, I

[30:04] Yeah, I don't know if there's any I

[30:06] mean, look, I would be fine with that. I

[30:08] don't Maybe Kaden has some insights. um

[30:12] or Jason, I don't know if there's any

[30:14] particular timeline associated with this

[30:17] where we need to go ahead and move this

[30:19] uh forward to the city council for the

[30:22] next phase. Um I'm just not sure what

[30:25] part of the project really requires our

[30:28] input except for its consistency with

[30:31] the Gateway Historic District guidelines

[30:34] that we are

[30:36] seeking to implement.

[30:39] >> Okay. I um I'm reading [clears throat]

[30:41] over the notes of the last planning

[30:44] commission where I was absent.

[30:47] And here's the motion

[30:50] that says Michelle Shurmer moved to

[30:52] recommend tableabling the Main Street

[30:54] corridor gateway

[30:57] historic design standards until future

[31:00] comp compilation with the following

[31:02] conditions. One, the building style be

[31:05] considered for our gateway historic

[31:07] district as Utah historic traditional

[31:11] and two remove secondary materials

[31:15] totally from the design plan. Materials

[31:18] that will be allowed for construction on

[31:21] Main Street would be red brick, wood,

[31:25] and black framed windows.

[31:31] So, so that seems to go against contrary

[31:35] to what we've discussed tonight on the

[31:39] faux wood.

[31:41] Is it just because it's fake wood and

[31:44] not real wood? Is that the Is that the

[31:46] issue or

[31:48] are we saying something different than

[31:51] what you guys discussed

[31:53] back in March?

[31:56] Well, my recollection on that, Jeff, uh,

[31:59] and you can, you know, be interested to

[32:02] see what Michelle or others recall is

[32:04] that we were thinking about wood as far

[32:07] as some, you know, look, I'm not an

[32:09] architect, but, um, as you would have

[32:12] some perhaps some support beams, uh,

[32:16] with with

[32:17] metal like with medical canopy or metal

[32:20] canopies, whatever you call those types

[32:22] of, um, you know, like like dormer

[32:26] windows or or metal, you know, metal. I

[32:30] keep saying wood. Sorry, wood.

[32:32] >> Timber frame, I think, is what you're

[32:34] looking for.

[32:34] >> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Timber. Yeah, there

[32:36] you go. Okay.

[32:37] >> Timber frame supporting architectural

[32:40] design elements. Okay. that you might

[32:42] find in a, you know, if you went up and

[32:44] down, for example, old histo, you know,

[32:47] historic uh Heber or other places where

[32:52] you see those types of of real wood um

[32:56] design elements

[32:59] >> consistent with prairie or Utah

[33:02] traditional or whatever we kind of

[33:04] wanted to call that historical red brick

[33:08] Utah look. Okay. So, we can't

[33:12] necessarily go back and modify those

[33:15] minutes. I guess we could,

[33:18] but maybe in our motion today, we

[33:22] clarify

[33:24] the use of wood

[33:28] from an ar from an architectural

[33:30] standpoint and not oh, red book, red

[33:33] brick, wood, and black framed windows

[33:37] because I read if I'm reading that then

[33:40] I'm like, well, then what's the problem

[33:42] with with this wood here?

[33:45] think it's fault.

[33:46] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and again, so

[33:49] that that was my question to Allan to

[33:51] begin with was, is it just the fact that

[33:54] it was fake wood rather than real wood?

[33:58] So I I remember we did have a

[34:01] conversation about

[34:03] um you know because new technologies

[34:05] come out, new wood type things come out

[34:08] and it sort of to kind of keep open to

[34:10] those but we never really

[34:13] >> said how we were going to do that. And

[34:16] the current code says innovative

[34:20] applications for these non-conforming

[34:24] materials could be considered. Um I just don't like it. I mean what we're

[34:30] trying to avoid is prefab looking. Um

[34:35] and this could be vinyl as easily as it

[34:37] could be a composite material.

[34:38] >> Yes. Yes. Yes.

[34:42] >> And so it just it just isn't the

[34:44] aesthetic we're looking for.

[34:45] Okay. So, we have up on the screen from

[34:49] directly from the um

[34:53] design guidelines that we've already

[34:56] talked about. The use of stone, brick,

[34:59] wood, or stucco is encouraged for use as

[35:02] a primary exterior material.

[35:06] Innovative use of materials that mimic

[35:09] the primary exterior materials may be

[35:12] considered.

[35:16] We considered it and we said no.

[35:19] >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, exactly. You know, and

[35:21] so

[35:23] um

[35:26] yeah, I don't know. I mean,

[35:30] I believe, correct me if I'm wrong,

[35:32] Kaden. Uh, and you may not know, but uh,

[35:37] the city council will go through another

[35:39] meeting where they will look at our

[35:40] recommendations

[35:42] that will go back to the designers for

[35:46] one final

[35:49] uh, revision.

[35:50] Does that come back to us for final

[35:55] approval and recommendations to the city

[35:58] council for adoption?

[36:01] So from what I understand today would be

[36:04] to approve the site plan as is.

[36:07] >> No, I'm talking about the I'm talking

[36:09] about the gateway.

[36:11] >> Oh, the gateway small area plan for Main

[36:14] Street. Is that what you're talking

[36:15] about?

[36:15] >> Yeah. Does that come back to us after

[36:17] this last revision that we're we're

[36:20] going to send that city council is going

[36:22] to take our recommendations?

[36:25] They've done part of that. They're going

[36:27] to take all of that. They're going to

[36:29] give that to those people. They will

[36:31] make those changes and then it'll come

[36:34] back for adoption. Does that come back

[36:36] to us for final

[36:41] >> recommendation?

[36:42] >> From Yeah, I I think at this point it

[36:45] stays in the hands of the city council

[36:47] from what I understand.

[36:48] >> Okay.

[36:49] >> Um they are taking obviously into

[36:50] consideration all the recommendations

[36:52] the planning commission made.

[36:53] >> Okay.

[36:54] um and they will send it back to the

[36:57] consultant for one final update.

[36:59] >> Okay.

[36:59] >> And then they will see that final update

[37:02] and adopt us. Okay. That that was my

[37:04] question.

[37:05] >> So Jeff,

[37:06] >> yes, Alan,

[37:07] >> do we know then

[37:10] one of our options would be and I think

[37:11] perhaps Greg brought this up. One of our

[37:14] options would be to table

[37:17] uh our ultimate recommendation on this

[37:19] to the city council until city council

[37:23] reviews our small area plan revisions

[37:27] and recommendations. And then once they

[37:30] consider the small area plan and the

[37:33] recommendations and revisions that we

[37:34] made um and we then have more concrete

[37:39] guidance on that. Is it would it be

[37:42] worthwhile to then review this

[37:45] uh particular agenda item after we get a

[37:50] little more uh guidance from the city

[37:52] council or is this something that uh you

[37:55] know needs to move from planning

[37:58] commission onto city council right away?

[38:01] That I just don't know.

[38:03] >> Yeah. Yeah. I I I guess if it's that the

[38:07] city will make final recommendations

[38:10] next week on the 12th and it comes back

[38:12] to us on the 19th,

[38:14] maybe that's okay.

[38:17] So, from what I understand, and I'm new

[38:19] in this process as well, but I think

[38:21] this is trying to be pushed along as

[38:23] quickly as possible.

[38:24] >> Yeah. Um, and just as a reminder, I love

[38:29] the small area plan from what I've I've

[38:31] looked into it so far and think it's

[38:34] awesome to always consider that because

[38:36] that is our future going in here in

[38:37] Alpine hopefully, fingers crossed. But

[38:40] the applicant did submit this

[38:42] application based on the guidelines that

[38:44] are currently existing and so to require

[38:47] those guidelines would be against code

[38:50] as of right now.

[38:52] So just to keep that in mind.

[38:58] » Yeah. But the but the applicant is

[39:00] basically the city.

[39:02] >> Oh well on the pet on the petition it

[39:04] says Babcock.

[39:06] >> It's architect or whatever.

[39:07] >> Yeah. It's the architectural

[39:09] >> city.

[39:10] >> Yes.

[39:10] >> Yeah.

[39:10] >> He works for the city. Yeah.

[39:12] >> Yeah.

[39:13] I don't I'm sorry Kaden. I don't I

[39:17] don't think that's the criteria for

[39:19] recommendation.

[39:21] Yeah,

[39:22] >> I I I think we can't be at this juncture

[39:25] and not u

[39:28] >> at least

[39:29] do our best to incorporate the things

[39:33] that we've already recommended in that

[39:34] plan.

[39:36] >> Well, that's a fair comment. I I was

[39:38] just bringing that up saying the

[39:39] applicant submitted this based on what

[39:42] the current requirements are

[39:44] >> and so the planning commission is open

[39:46] to whatever they want to consider. They

[39:47] missed they whole design was based on

[39:50] our current ordinance

[39:51] >> and and that was a bad move.

[39:55] >> Yeah. For us planning commission.

[39:58] >> Yeah. And and you know we can't fault

[40:00] the architect or Babcock that is what they've had to work with. But that

[40:05] whole process is in flux. We we have a

[40:08] grant and we have this small area plan

[40:10] and then once we have that small area

[40:12] plan finalized. It's not a binding

[40:14] document but the next thing we will do

[40:16] is work on our gateway historic district

[40:19] design guidelines to bring it it much

[40:22] more in compliance with the

[40:23] recommendations that we have um

[40:27] considered at length in that small area

[40:31] plan. Right.

[40:31] >> Yeah. And I just I just can't echo

[40:34] strongly enough the comments that have

[40:35] been made, you know, that that started

[40:37] by Michelle that like like there's a lot

[40:40] of money going to this building. It's

[40:42] going to be, you know, a flagship city

[40:43] building for the next 50 years, if the

[40:46] last one is any indication.

[40:48] >> Um and it should set the standard for

[40:51] what we want the rest of Main Street

[40:54] historic district to look like going

[40:56] forward.

[40:57] >> I agree. So, um, yeah, I I I think

[41:00] we're, you know, we measure twice and

[41:02] cut once on this one.

[41:03] >> Yeah,

[41:03] >> that was my question. Do you deny it

[41:05] until some of the stuff gets flushed out

[41:07] or do you try to motion to approve it

[41:10] and then identify all the stuff that

[41:12] we've talked?

[41:12] >> Yeah. Well, my understanding, Greg, is

[41:14] if we deny it doesn't come back to us.

[41:19] >> That's just a recommendation that we

[41:21] deny, you know, and

[41:23] >> want to deny the fire station. Do we

[41:24] want to have a motion that identifies

[41:28] all the stuff we've talked about. Are we

[41:30] capable of doing that tonight or do we

[41:32] postpone it until the the small area

[41:36] planhistoric district material plan is

[41:38] finalized by the city council to then

[41:41] make sure that when we spend all the

[41:43] money it's the corner of Alpine. It's

[41:45] next to the building that it's Alpine

[41:49] residents are going to say, "Yeah, this

[41:51] fits what I wanted and it's not going to

[41:53] be bunch of frustrated citizens."

[41:55] >> Yeah. So that that's why I pose the

[41:57] question if the city can

[42:02] provide

[42:03] their

[42:05] stamp of approval next week and it comes

[42:08] back to us,

[42:10] we can make a decision.

[42:13] So I I think that's the question is can we make a recommendation

[42:20] today not knowing

[42:23] the city could could totally you know

[42:27] not totally but in part disregard

[42:31] >> disregard our recommendation. My my

[42:34] sense is the way their meetings have

[42:36] been running at city council, they'll

[42:38] never have time to review the small area

[42:41] plan.

[42:43] >> We did do the first part.

[42:45] >> Yeah. Okay.

[42:46] >> This last time.

[42:46] >> Yeah.

[42:47] >> So, what's what's the cadence on the

[42:49] rest of it?

[42:50] >> There will at least be two to four more

[42:54] reviews of that plan before sending back

[42:56] to the consultant. Yeah.

[42:57] >> In a couple months. To be honest, the

[43:00] part that was discussed was the least

[43:02] controversial themes.

[43:04] >> Yes.

[43:04] >> And so it's hard to estimate the time

[43:07] that will be involved.

[43:08] >> Yeah. And so it put it puts us as a

[43:10] planning commission

[43:12] in in a in a bind because

[43:16] we've discussed at at length over the

[43:19] last several months and and we've made

[43:22] recommendations. Now, we're at a point

[43:24] where we're being asked to approve

[43:26] something that we don't feel

[43:29] >> meets the future

[43:33] guidelines that we that we as a planning

[43:35] commission are going to hold our gateway

[43:38] historic to.

[43:39] >> Right.

[43:41] >> So,

[43:43] it does

[43:44] >> be it does put it does put us in in a

[43:47] bind. So, I guess we could

[43:49] >> I think we can make a motion with

[43:50] conditions. Yeah. Just incorporate.

[43:52] That's the most efficient.

[43:54] >> Yeah, I agree with that, John.

[43:56] >> All right. Who's going to do that?

[43:58] >> Well, yeah, because you can also fail it

[44:01] on number two.

[44:02] >> Any

[44:04] >> Okay. Is there Is there any other

[44:07] design stuff? We've only talked about

[44:09] the faux wood and the stucco. Is there

[44:13] any other aspects

[44:15] of the design of the community center

[44:18] andor firehouse

[44:22] » that we want to include in this motion?

[44:25] >> Jeff, can I just add one thing real

[44:27] quick? I did find where the CMU block

[44:30] is.

[44:31] >> That'll be on the interior. Like they're

[44:33] making the building of that, but you'll

[44:35] see that on the interior.

[44:37] >> Okay.

[44:37] >> So, I don't care. So, outside you won't

[44:39] see it. It's just the inside.

[44:40] >> Okay. Okay. Those firefighters are going

[44:43] to have to deal with it. It's durable.

[44:45] [clears throat]

[44:46] >> Yeah.

[44:48] >> So, is is there any in your review this

[44:54] last few days, is there anything other

[44:56] than what we've discussed that you want

[44:59] that anybody any commissioner wants to

[45:01] bring up

[45:03] with regards to the style

[45:08] or the material or the colors?

[45:12] I my only thought is if we're making a

[45:15] big deal about black frame windows, do

[45:18] we want to make sure that the door

[45:20] frames and the garage doors are also

[45:24] black?

[45:27] >> That's I had that thought as well.

[45:29] >> Is it all going to be smoky glass?

[45:30] >> Yeah, but the frame in the in the

[45:32] illustration, they're using aluminum

[45:34] framing for the for the uh

[45:38] >> I mean architectural I mean it it's kind

[45:41] of boring. I think I think I think some

[45:43] elements could really, you know,

[45:48] >> some some

[45:50] timbers or some

[45:52] >> Yeah, I think doors are probably black.

[45:55] >> Kind of hang up the Yeah. awning type

[45:57] things.

[45:57] >> These I don't know if

[46:00] some dimension or something, but

[46:03] >> consistency.

[46:05] >> Yeah. If you want to be on the record,

[46:07] you got to talk to the mic. [laughter]

[46:10] >> I'm thinking that the garage doors being

[46:11] black would add more interest to the

[46:12] design. Just my opinion.

[46:18] » Okay. So, color

[46:21] materials.

[46:22] >> Well, color and just some maybe some

[46:23] elements like uh um I mean we we

[46:26] required uh like Alpine Fitness to have

[46:29] those what do you call them? Awnings.

[46:32] those awnings kind of thing or some

[46:34] timbers or something like that to add

[46:35] some more some dimension to it maybe or

[46:39] I don't know that's just me personally

[46:41] but it looks pretty vanilla [laughter]

[46:48] » we are talking about sighting

[46:55] » but

[46:57] yeah I I would probably reiterate what

[46:59] Michelle said that you you know, our

[47:02] neighboring cities have updated and it

[47:06] looks really nice.

[47:08] >> I I think it's as simple as making it

[47:10] all brick.

[47:10] >> And we're talk and this is a 50year

[47:14] >> 50-year deal.

[47:16] >> Advertised over 50 years.

[47:17] >> Yeah,

[47:18] >> it's not a big deal.

[47:22] » That's our image. I mean, it's

[47:24] >> Yeah,

[47:25] >> I think it's kind of a big deal.

[47:29] Okay.

[47:33] So, we have one more thing for you to

[47:35] consider. Um, the parking lot. So,

[47:37] Kaden's going to go over that.

[47:39] >> Okay. Thank you. And this is all part of

[47:41] one motion.

[47:42] >> Okay.

[47:45] >> So, you can see the site plan on your

[47:47] screen right now. Um, the parking lot or

[47:49] the major parking lot at least is on

[47:51] that uh northwest corner of the site.

[47:56] And we were told that there was

[47:59] discussion about the number of spaces in

[48:01] the code. It's up to the discretion of

[48:03] the of the approving body to determine

[48:07] how many spaces they would need for a

[48:08] building like this. We were told that was already approved as is right

[48:11] now the number of stalls here. Um but

[48:15] one part of the code does say that a

[48:19] parking lot in the setback is not

[48:21] allowed and so this is clearly not

[48:24] meeting that code. There is an exception

[48:26] to that that's granted that can be

[48:28] legislated by the city council on the

[48:30] recommendation from the planning

[48:32] commission to allow it in the site it is

[48:34] now.

[48:36] Um and I'll show that right now in our

[48:39] code. It's right here 324060

[48:43] location of off- streetet parking.

[48:46] And so those are the four criteria if

[48:48] you want to read through those that you

[48:51] feel they would have to meet in order to

[48:53] have the exception here. Um

[48:57] again I wasn't in all the meetings and

[48:58] so I know this has been discussed at

[49:00] length and I think this is the parking

[49:02] lot where it is right now has been seen

[49:04] as being the location for the ideal spot

[49:07] for this parking lot. Um, so I think

[49:11] there might be some expectation there

[49:12] that it's fine as is, but according to

[49:15] our code, these are the criteria they

[49:17] would have to meet to have that there.

[49:18] >> So, so go back to the map again and

[49:21] explain why this doesn't meet code.

[49:26] >> So, first on this, before I go back to

[49:27] the map, it says right here, no portion

[49:29] of the that back area adjacent to a

[49:31] street shall be used for off- streetet

[49:33] parking. Okay. So, the part so basically

[49:37] in in my terms, there are stalls that

[49:41] are too close to the road or or

[49:44] sidewalk.

[49:45] >> I think the parking lot in general, not

[49:48] even just the stalls, but just Yeah. So,

[49:50] probably um this uh backup area, these

[49:54] stalls here are the main issues. So,

[49:58] yes.

[49:58] >> Right. Um on 100 North the setback is a

[50:03] lot larger than on Maine. Is any of them

[50:06] in compliance?

[50:09] » We would have to measure. I don't know

[50:11] actually the exact measurement of the

[50:13] setback there. Um,

[50:15] >> yeah. I'm I I like this better than when

[50:19] the front of the car goes into the

[50:21] setback

[50:22] >> because that we see that with Burgess

[50:25] Orchards and it it looks a little

[50:27] dangerous with those cars coming right

[50:29] up tight to the sidewalk

[50:31] >> that all you have is the wheel stop. So,

[50:34] this one being sideways to it, right?

[50:36] The stalls are parallel to main instead

[50:39] of perpendicular. And so I find that to

[50:42] be a a safer design if you're in the

[50:45] setback.

[50:46] >> Yeah, I would agree.

[50:50] » And and obviously what we're trying to

[50:52] do is we're trying to get the sufficient

[50:55] number of parking spaces, right, for the

[51:00] >> maximizing

[51:00] >> for the for the community center, right?

[51:03] Yeah, I would say as much as possible,

[51:05] but um like I did say before, I think

[51:08] that number has been confirmed as

[51:10] adequate.

[51:11] >> Okay.

[51:12] >> Um obviously, if there's any

[51:13] recommendations from the planning

[51:14] commission to up or lower that,

[51:17] >> how many are how many are proposed in

[51:19] that?

[51:22] >> Let's go back to the site.

[51:41] So, it looks like there's 30 in this

[51:42] area.

[51:43] >> Okay.

[51:46] >> And nine in this area. And there's two

[51:48] ADA parking parking stalls in both

[51:51] parking areas.

[51:52] >> I think the nine

[51:54] >> the nine areas reserved for the

[51:56] firefighters.

[51:57] >> That's correct. Yeah. Sorry. That is

[51:58] correct.

[51:58] >> So they are reserving those nine only.

[52:01] Even though that's for the fire station,

[52:02] you still have to have

[52:05] ADU parking

[52:07] on those nine. You've got two that are

[52:10] handicapped accessessible.

[52:11] >> I think every 25 stalls needs one.

[52:15] >> Needs one.

[52:16] >> And so everything over that needs two. I

[52:18] don't know if they just decided to

[52:19] locate it over in that area.

[52:21] >> So are we encouraging or not

[52:24] encouraging? If you go if you were to go

[52:26] to the community center, can you park in

[52:30] the

[52:31] parking reserve for the firemen

[52:35] >> or not?

[52:35] >> I suppose you could.

[52:37] >> Are they going to allow I mean the

[52:38] sidewalks connect?

[52:40] >> Yeah.

[52:41] >> But is it going to be

[52:44] labeled firemen only?

[52:47] >> Not in our review. I haven't seen any

[52:49] signs that would say that they're

[52:50] restricted. Um, but

[52:53] >> so this is a good one. Kaden, can you go

[52:56] over just a little bit? These red lines,

[52:58] if you look, it's labeled number five,

[53:00] which says

[53:02] accessible route to public ways.

[53:05] >> Yeah, the the red line is showing the

[53:08] continuous sidewalk.

[53:09] >> I think it they will be able to use

[53:11] those. The others will probably always

[53:13] have firefighters in them.

[53:14] >> Yeah,

[53:15] >> because they're here 247. Yeah.

[53:17] >> Um, so they can use, it's my assumption

[53:20] that they can use those.

[53:25] » Okay. So, so scroll back.

[53:31] So, what's the difference? Oh, so it's 8

[53:37] feet and then in that little section

[53:39] it's like less than eight feet. Probably

[53:41] six feet, right? So, six feet from the sidewalk and then but the north

[53:48] side is plenty. So, the north side

[53:51] works. The north side works everywhere,

[53:53] right?

[53:54] >> The main street side, right?

[53:55] >> It's just the main street side.

[54:02] » Sorry to interrupt again. So, I just got

[54:04] a text from Shane saying that that will

[54:07] not be public parking.

[54:10] >> Oh, okay.

[54:11] >> Over on that side. Okay. Okay.

[54:15] Thanks, Shane.

[54:18] [snorts]

[54:20] Okay. So, I mean, if we look at the code

[54:23] to me, those four

[54:26] uh are met. Is there is there any does

[54:31] the do the other commissioners

[54:34] concur with that? Is there anything that

[54:37] I'm missing in those four

[54:40] exceptions that

[54:43] it doesn't get met

[54:57] say that we find that it meets the

[54:59] exception requirements.

[55:03] » Okay.

[55:07] » [snorts]

[55:10] » Um, are there any

[55:14] recommendations

[55:17] that we want to impose

[55:19] as additional conditions for this?

[55:24] >> Okay.

[55:25] >> Can you bring up the sample motions

[55:27] again?

[55:31] » You had you had what you wanted to be

[55:34] included in that, right? In terms of a

[55:37] >> Yes.

[55:38] >> an additional requirement.

[55:42] » Blow it up a little bit.

[55:47] There we go.

[56:02] Okay. Okay. So, site plan, does a site

[56:05] plan approval even bring these design

[56:08] elements into play?

[56:13] So, as I've been learning the code here,

[56:16] it seems like

[56:18] the planning commission is supposed to

[56:20] take into consideration the design

[56:22] elements as they review the site plan.

[56:25] >> Um, and so I would say yes overall. Um

[56:30] but that also could

[56:31] >> that's not a vehicle to bring it back to

[56:32] us after.

[56:33] >> Correct.

[56:34] >> Yeah.

[56:35] >> That was my point from before.

[56:37] >> Yeah.

[56:40] >> Because I'm I'm getting the feeling this

[56:42] is our this is our one chance.

[56:46] So you just wanted [clears throat] the

[56:47] condition of having uh

[56:51] delay the landscaping plan until the

[56:54] garden the sculpture garden is

[56:57] >> that would be staff's recommendation. Um

[56:59] but obviously the parking could be

[57:02] something that al could be considered by

[57:04] the planning commission as well.

[57:15] » [snorts]

[57:15] >> discussions or is someone ready to make

[57:18] a

[57:20] >> somebody

[57:21] >> recommendation?

[57:25] I'm just looking at John. [laughter]

[57:28] >> I didn't write a thing down. So, I'll make a motion, but you guys are

[57:30] going to have to chip in here.

[57:32] >> Okay,

[57:32] >> Greg, you you took a bunch of notes.

[57:34] >> You got the notes. You make notes.

[57:35] >> I've got some notes on things we've

[57:37] talked about that we'd like to change.

[57:39] I've got more brick, no full wood, the

[57:43] small plan or the historic plan

[57:46] compliant with that. Uh wait for the

[57:49] landscaping and then I think we came to

[57:52] an agreement that parking is fine. There

[57:55] doesn't need to be an exception or

[57:56] eliminating the parking stalls.

[57:58] >> We can make parking can go into the

[58:01] setback.

[58:02] >> Those are the things that I took notes

[58:03] on.

[58:04] >> Okay.

[58:04] >> That we've discussed.

[58:06] >> Yeah. Basically, we're approving the

[58:08] exception for the for the parking lot.

[58:11] >> Yes.

[58:12] >> Based on that it meets those four

[58:14] criteria in our current code.

[58:16] >> Yes.

[58:18] >> Anything that you had, Alan, outside of

[58:21] those five items,

[58:28] » are you there, Alan?

[58:30] >> Maybe on mute.

[58:34] » Uh, can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear

[58:36] you now.

[58:37] >> Okay. Yeah. Sorry, I'm kind sitting here

[58:39] on my phone trying to process

[58:40] everything. Uh, no, I don't have

[58:41] anything else. I think that, uh, covers

[58:44] everything we discussed.

[58:45] >> Okay. Thanks, buddy.

[58:52] » Go for it.

[58:53] >> All right. I'm going to give it a shot

[58:55] here. I move to recommend the approval

[58:58] of the proposed site plan for the

[59:00] construction of the Alpine Fire Station,

[59:02] the additionary model,

[59:04] uh, with the following recommendations.

[59:07] >> Conditions, excuse me.

[59:11] That we are consistent with the small

[59:16] area plan with regards to exteriors,

[59:22] which means that we do not have faux

[59:24] wood

[59:28] We have as much brick as possible.

[59:34] We

[59:36] would suggest

[59:39] that

[59:40] uh it's subject to

[59:44] the condition of a landscape plan being

[59:46] provided before the landscaping is

[59:48] installed

[59:50] and that we meet the criteria

[59:53] uh for Is it a conditional use of the

[59:57] parking?

[59:57] >> Just an exception.

[59:58] >> An exception

[1:00:00] >> on the setbacks

[1:00:00] >> to the setbacks on the parking based off

[1:00:03] the four criteria in the ordinance that

[1:00:05] we have reviewed.

[1:00:06] >> Okay. We have a motion by Greg

[1:00:08] Butterfield. Do we have a

[1:00:09] >> Is this anything?

[1:00:10] >> Do we have a second?

[1:00:13] >> Did John want to add the black window?

[1:00:15] >> Well, we need a second.

[1:00:17] >> We need a second first.

[1:00:18] >> I want to add those two.

[1:00:20] >> Okay.

[1:00:21] >> I'm not finished, Mara.

[1:00:22] >> Okay.

[1:00:22] >> That we use

[1:00:26] the dark

[1:00:30] aluminum

[1:00:32] siding that's used on the windows, on

[1:00:34] the door frames, and on the big garage

[1:00:37] doors. Same color, similar material,

[1:00:41] uh to make sure there's consistency

[1:00:42] through out the exterior of the

[1:00:45] building.

[1:00:45] >> Okay. Okay. We have a motion by Greg

[1:00:48] Butterfield. Do we have a second on his

[1:00:50] motion?

[1:00:50] >> I'll second it. A second by John McCay.

[1:00:54] Okay. [snorts] Any discussions on the

[1:00:56] motion?

[1:01:02] I mean,

[1:01:04] I think it's still vanilla. [laughter]

[1:01:06] >> What?

[1:01:07] >> I think it still looks vanilla. I I

[1:01:09] would like to see some architectural

[1:01:10] elements in some awnings or some

[1:01:13] something like that, but I don't know.

[1:01:14] That's not I mean, just a suggestion.

[1:01:17] And I don't know if anybody else feels

[1:01:19] strongly about that or not, but

[1:01:23] doesn't have to be.

[1:01:26] Just throwing it out there.

[1:01:27] >> Using brick and getting rid of the wood

[1:01:30] dressing up a lot.

[1:01:31] >> Go a long way.

[1:01:34] Okay. Any other discussions?

[1:01:38] Okay. If not,

[1:01:41] uh, let's proceed with a vote. All those

[1:01:43] in favor of Greg's motion say I.

[1:01:48] >> I.

[1:01:51] >> Any opposed?

[1:01:53] Motion carries unanimously.

[1:01:57] » Okay.

[1:01:58] Next item. Kerman.

[1:02:04] So that was our only action item. Um I

[1:02:08] don't think we have anything for the

[1:02:09] communication section of the agenda

[1:02:11] either. So I think we can move on to the

[1:02:13] approval of the planning commission

[1:02:14] minutes from March 31st.

[1:02:16] >> Okay. So going back to communications,

[1:02:18] we will have a

[1:02:21] uh planning commission in two weeks.

[1:02:28] » Yes or no?

[1:02:30] On the 19th.

[1:02:32] >> Yes.

[1:02:33] >> Okay. Do we know what items are? Do we

[1:02:36] have an idea of what items are coming?

[1:02:39] >> Well, I said yes. I guess it is based on

[1:02:42] the applicants that we are working with

[1:02:44] to get their full submitts in. Um I

[1:02:47] think there's a chance it could be three

[1:02:50] items. It could it also could be none I

[1:02:52] guess but we will be in communication.

[1:02:55] >> Okay.

[1:03:00] Okay. Any other questions or or

[1:03:04] communication from the planning

[1:03:06] commission members to staff?

[1:03:10] Okay. Okay. Uh moving on to the next

[1:03:14] last item, approval planning commission

[1:03:16] minutes. Uh hopefully everyone took uh

[1:03:20] some time to review those. Uh any

[1:03:22] comments or additions

[1:03:26] uh to those minutes and if not I will

[1:03:29] take

[1:03:30] >> this is our chance to revise them for

[1:03:32] the uh wood.

[1:03:34] >> Oh the wood.

[1:03:37] Well, but just

[1:03:39] >> but we got to just approve what we

[1:03:41] talked about though, right?

[1:03:45] » We can we can clarify that we have a

[1:03:49] body

[1:03:49] >> by wood. We we intended it to mean

[1:03:53] timber timber frame,

[1:03:54] >> right?

[1:03:55] >> Wood materials.

[1:03:56] >> Yeah. There's nothing there's nothing

[1:03:58] that says, "Oh, you can't make any

[1:04:00] changes. That's what we're here to do."

[1:04:04] So,

[1:04:05] >> I mean, evidently, it wasn't clear.

[1:04:07] Yeah. Okay. So, do you w to uh you want

[1:04:10] to scroll down, Kaden, to that page,

[1:04:14] which is kind of the very end of the

[1:04:17] those minutes. It's right before the

[1:04:20] recommendation.

[1:04:39] Yeah, I think it was the first.

[1:04:43] So, yeah, it's after the it's it's past

[1:04:47] this.

[1:04:51] I think it's the last

[1:04:54] one.

[1:05:05] Yeah, it's that one. So, go go go up go

[1:05:09] up right here. Okay. Right here. So,

[1:05:12] here's the motion that Michelle made.

[1:05:16] Um the building style or moved to

[1:05:20] tableabling the main state main street

[1:05:22] corridor gateway historic design

[1:05:24] standards.

[1:05:27] And that this is why I asked is this

[1:05:29] coming back to us because we tabled it.

[1:05:34] Um

[1:05:36] this kind of implies that we are going

[1:05:39] to have one more

[1:05:42] >> and we did on March 31st.

[1:05:45] >> This is the March.

[1:05:46] 3.

[1:05:49] >> Oh.

[1:05:49] >> And then March 31st we approved.

[1:05:54] >> Isn't this the

[1:05:55] >> Yes. So remember that each of the four

[1:05:58] sessions were tabled and then there was

[1:06:00] a final approval of the combined.

[1:06:03] >> Yeah. So they they're just including

[1:06:08] previous motions.

[1:06:10] >> So I think if you're clarifying here, it

[1:06:12] could also be clarified in the summary

[1:06:14] one that was done. So I would probably

[1:06:16] stipulate that if I were

[1:06:18] >> So these these minutes we're approving

[1:06:20] as the March 3rd minutes

[1:06:22] >> 31st.

[1:06:24] You're looking

[1:06:31] higher or lower.

[1:06:33] >> Oh, okay.

[1:06:35] It's my bad.

[1:06:43] » Yeah, I was just hunting to see if we

[1:06:45] had the other minutes as well, but it

[1:06:46] looks like we only have the March 3rd

[1:06:48] included in this packet.

[1:06:49] >> Oh, well, that's the first thing we need

[1:06:51] to do.

[1:06:52] Oh, how how are we because we're

[1:06:54] approving the March 31st minutes,

[1:06:56] correct?

[1:06:58] >> Correct. Yes.

[1:07:00] >> Which we don't have here.

[1:07:01] >> Which we don't have. [laughter]

[1:07:04] >> So, let's table that.

[1:07:08] I'll make a I'll make a motion that we

[1:07:11] table approving the minutes for March

[1:07:13] 31st because they're not represented in

[1:07:16] the materials and that

[1:07:21] a summary of all of our previously

[1:07:24] tabled recommendations from the

[1:07:27] um

[1:07:29] small area plan be assembled and

[1:07:32] included as part of the approved

[1:07:34] minutes.

[1:07:36] Great. We have a motion by John McCay.

[1:07:40] Do I have a second?

[1:07:43] >> I'll second it.

[1:07:44] >> A second by Troy Slade. Any discussions

[1:07:47] on that?

[1:07:50] So then that would come back to us on

[1:07:53] the

[1:07:55] 19th.

[1:07:56] >> Correct.

[1:07:57] >> Yes, it would come back on the March May

[1:07:59] 19th.

[1:08:00] >> Okay. Okay. Uh,

[1:08:04] » great. Great. Okay. So, with no

[1:08:09] discussions, I let's take a a vote. All

[1:08:13] those in favor of tableabling the

[1:08:16] approval of the minutes from March 31st

[1:08:18] say I

[1:08:19] >> I.

[1:08:22] >> Any opposed?

[1:08:24] Okay. Motion carries. We will approve

[1:08:26] both of those minutes at our next

[1:08:29] planning commission which would include

[1:08:32] a revision of our recommendations

[1:08:36] uh that we made on the 31st.

[1:08:39] Okay.

[1:08:42] Um that being everything and we

[1:08:46] don't have anybody here else

[1:08:50] um I will take a motion to adjurnn.

[1:08:57] Move to adjurnn.

[1:08:58] >> A motion by John McKay to adjurnn. Do I

[1:09:00] have a second?

[1:09:01] >> I'll second it.

[1:09:02] >> Michelle with a second. All those in

[1:09:04] favor say I.

[1:09:05] >> I.

[1:09:06] >> Any opposed?

[1:09:08] >> Okay. Motion carries. Meeting adjourned.

[1:09:11] >> We didn't need to have a public Mary uh

[1:09:13] hearing for the site plan, did we?

[1:09:15] >> No, that was not required. The

[1:09:18] commercial site plan doesn't require a

[1:09:19] public hearing.

[1:09:29] But again,

5.5.26 Planning Commission

Transcript