[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,