[0:01] Okay, we are live.
[0:04] » Okay, uh we would like to welcome
[0:06] everybody to the Alpine City Planning
[0:08] Commission meeting on this uh Tuesday,
[0:10] June 16th, 2026. The meeting is being
[0:13] held live at City Hall, 20 North Main
[0:15] Street, Alpine, Utah.
[0:17] Uh we are also uh
[0:19] casting live on YouTube if anybody would
[0:22] like to tune in.
[0:24] So, uh welcome everybody. We appreciate
[0:26] all those that are here. Uh also
[0:28] appreciate the representatives of the
[0:30] city that we have here with us, Marla
[0:31] Fox, Caden Lyon, and Jason Judd.
[0:35] Uh and also like to recognize all the
[0:37] members of the Planning Commission we
[0:39] have. Uh Jeff Davis, Sue Wittenberg,
[0:42] Greg Greg Butterfield, myself Alan
[0:44] McDonald.
[0:45] I've got John McKay, Michelle Shermer,
[0:47] and Troy Slade.
[0:49] Uh so, with that, uh let's go ahead and
[0:52] begin the meeting with an opening prayer
[0:54] that will be given to us by
[0:56] uh Greg Butterfield, followed by the
[0:58] Pledge of Allegiance, uh which will be
[0:59] led by John McKay.
[1:04] » Our dear kind heavenly Father, we come
[1:06] before thee on this beautiful Tuesday
[1:07] night and give thee thanks for all our
[1:09] many blessings. Heavenly Father, we're
[1:10] grateful for the opportunity we have to
[1:12] live in Alpine, for all our wonderful
[1:13] family and friends that we are
[1:14] surrounded with. At this time, we would
[1:16] invite thy spirit to be with us. Bless
[1:18] us that our minds might be sharp, that
[1:19] we might be able to have open hearts
[1:21] that will be civil, that we will be able
[1:23] to talk about those things that are in
[1:24] the best interest of all
[1:26] the Alpine citizens, that we might be
[1:28] able to be faithful to our stewardship,
[1:30] that we might be able to do the things
[1:31] that thou would have us to do. And we
[1:33] say this and give thee thanks once again
[1:35] for all our many blessings, and we say
[1:36] this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
[1:38] >> Amen.
[1:42] » Please rise and join me in the Pledge of
[1:43] Allegiance.
[1:45] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[1:47] United States of America, and to the
[1:50] republic for which it stands, one nation
[1:53] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[1:56] justice for all.
[1:59] » Okay, thank you
[2:02] Greg and John, much appreciated. All
[2:05] right, let's jump right into reports and
[2:06] presentations.
[2:08] The agenda notes that there are none.
[2:10] Caden, is that still the case?
[2:12] >> That is the case, yes.
[2:13] >> Okay.
[2:13] Then we will jump right into action
[2:17] items and discussion items. And Caden,
[2:19] it's my understanding that item number
[2:21] one, review of the 512 commercial site
[2:23] plan has been pulled.
[2:25] >> That's correct. So, it will just have to
[2:26] be postponed to a future meeting as a
[2:28] motion.
[2:29] >> All right.
[2:30] Oh, we do need a motion to actually
[2:32] postpone that, even if it's been pulled?
[2:34] >> That's what I've been told. So,
[2:37] >> Okay.
[2:37] >> I don't think
[2:37] >> we've ever done that before, but that
[2:39] should be an easy motion. Anybody like
[2:40] to make a make a motion?
[2:42] >> I'll make a motion.
[2:43] >> [laughter]
[2:44] >> Let her ride.
[2:45] >> Hi. Oh, turn mic. Hi.
[2:49] We remove actually
[2:50] >> sorry, we still can't hear you.
[2:52] >> Here we go.
[2:54] I move that we remove item A, our action
[2:57] item number A of the 5.12
[3:01] commercial site plan.
[3:02] >> Okay, we have a motion by Sue
[3:03] Wittenberg. Do we have a second?
[3:04] >> Second it.
[3:06] >> Okay, we have a second by Jeff Davis.
[3:08] All in favor?
[3:09] >> Aye.
[3:10] >> Okay.
[3:11] Item number one has been removed and
[3:13] will be postponed for future date and
[3:16] time
[3:18] to be determined.
[3:19] All right, just one quick comment.
[3:22] Caden, I don't believe that any of the
[3:23] action items require a public hearing,
[3:25] correct?
[3:25] >> No, no, they do not.
[3:27] >> Okay.
[3:28] All right, let's dive right into action
[3:31] item B, then, which will be review of
[3:33] Long Range Shooters of Utah commercial
[3:35] site plan. Caden, could you introduce
[3:37] that for us?
[3:39] >> All right, thank you.
[3:41] So, this is a commercial site plan
[3:44] proposed off of 200 North and Main
[3:46] Street in Alpine. It's called the Long
[3:47] Range Shooters of Utah.
[3:49] The building is proposed to be a space
[3:52] for a small retail gun shop, a
[3:55] warehouse, a space for an office, and a
[3:56] space to film content in for the shop.
[4:00] It will also include a one-bedroom
[4:01] apartment above the office area.
[4:04] Um, so the applicant has provided a site
[4:06] plan that meets the requirements of the
[4:07] business commercial zone and the Gateway
[4:09] Historic Zone.
[4:10] There's a few adjustments that needed to
[4:12] be made to the materials per potentially
[4:15] uh to make them
[4:16] uh in line with the Gateway Historic
[4:18] Design Guidelines.
[4:20] Uh, the parking requirements were met.
[4:22] Uh, it was determined that 3.5 stalls
[4:24] were needed per the 1,000 square feet.
[4:27] Uh, the building's about 1,600.
[4:29] Uh, and that includes the two spots in
[4:31] inside the building for the apartment
[4:33] above.
[4:34] There uh is a requirement that the
[4:37] one-bedroom apartment above be
[4:39] owner-occupied, which the applicant is
[4:41] aware of
[4:42] and is determined to comply with.
[4:45] And uh there is also there was an
[4:48] adjustment to the site plan that they
[4:50] added a 10-ft public utility easement
[4:53] along the front property line, and so
[4:54] that should also be met uh as well as
[4:56] the other sections in uh in code four of
[5:00] DCA.
[5:02] So, that is the proposed site, kind of
[5:04] the vicinity map, really just right
[5:07] here, kind of around the corner from us.
[5:09] >> [snorts]
[5:10] >> And so, I'll just jump right into the
[5:12] staff recommendation. After our review
[5:14] of all these codes, we would recommend
[5:16] that the Planning Commission consider
[5:17] sending a positive recommendation
[5:20] to the [snorts] City Council for the
[5:21] proposed site plan for the new Long
[5:23] Range Shooters of Utah Commercial Site
[5:24] Plan
[5:25] based on the condition that all exterior materials uh be met
[5:30] for the Gateway Historic Design
[5:32] Guidelines.
[5:33] So, I'll just jump right into the plan
[5:35] now.
[5:38] So, as I just said, we we feel as staff
[5:40] that they did meet the code requirements
[5:42] for this type of plan.
[5:45] There's another vicinity map.
[5:48] Make it a little bit smaller.
[5:53] Jump here to the site plan.
[5:57] So, they are they have the seven spots
[6:01] parking stalls outside the building and
[6:03] then there's two more proposed for
[6:04] inside the the building for the
[6:06] apartment.
[6:08] Utilities are met. The landscaping plan
[6:10] was reviewed and determined to be
[6:11] compliant with the landscaping
[6:13] requirements of 314 in the code.
[6:17] You can see it right there.
[6:21] And let's see. Let's jump to the
[6:23] elevations.
[6:28] So, here's the elevations
[6:30] and the proposed materials for the
[6:32] exterior of the building.
[6:35] See, there's a lot of stucco here on the
[6:37] north elevation.
[6:39] ACM panels proposed here on the south
[6:41] elevation.
[6:45] And then the applicant informed me that
[6:47] this is I don't think it's labeled, but
[6:49] it is brick a brick material.
[6:53] And I believe this is continued stucco.
[6:59] And you can see the exterior entrance to
[7:00] the upper part of the building. I
[7:02] believe that's for the accessory
[7:04] apartment.
[7:07] Lighting plan also was submitted.
[7:10] >> Hey, Gabe, real quick, before we leave
[7:13] the exterior materials, could you go
[7:16] back? I just had a question.
[7:19] And
[7:19] I on my way and I did see a gentleman
[7:21] carrying a brick, so
[7:23] >> Yeah, they they they did want to present
[7:25] the the exterior materials.
[7:27] >> We'll get to that in a second.
[7:28] Excellent. Thank you. We're hoping it
[7:29] wasn't meant for you.
[7:31] >> [laughter]
[7:33] >> Um okay, what what are ACM panels?
[7:36] And is that are you going to show us on
[7:38] the the rendering?
[7:39] >> Yeah, I'm not 100% sure. I'm sure the
[7:41] applicant could address that question
[7:42] more directly.
[7:44] Here is the rendering.
[7:48] » Do you want me Do I Do I need to come up
[7:49] to explain what those are?
[7:51] >> Uh yeah, we'll we'll have a we'll we'll finish with Cayden. He'll
[7:55] introduce, we'll go through everything,
[7:56] and then we'll have you come up if
[7:58] that'll be okay, and and we might have
[8:00] some questions for you. Thank you.
[8:03] >> [snorts]
[8:03] >> Yep, so here's the rendering. This is
[8:05] the I believe the garage entrance to the
[8:07] warehouse here,
[8:09] uh pedestrian entrance here.
[8:12] And I believe that's it for me. Um and
[8:15] then we just have the lighting specs.
[8:17] >> Continuing after this.
[8:18] >> So, okay, if I'm just looking at this
[8:20] rendering then, there's, you know, some
[8:21] cars that are put in there, a little
[8:23] white pickup truck, and maybe a little
[8:24] 4Runner or something next to it. And
[8:26] that material right in front of that, is that
[8:29] Do you know what that is? And if not,
[8:31] Cayden, that's fine. We can
[8:32] >> I believe that is the ACM. That's my
[8:34] understanding, but the applicant can
[8:36] clarify if it's not.
[8:39] >> Okay.
[8:40] All right. Anything else, Cayden, as you
[8:41] were going through?
[8:43] >> That is it for me and for for staff.
[8:47] >> Okay. Um we can
[8:49] >> [clears throat]
[8:49] >> Do anybody have any questions for Cayden
[8:51] before we
[8:53] chat with the applicant?
[8:55] Okay. I might have some questions, so if
[8:59] uh Is there a representative of Long
[9:01] Range Shoot uh commercial site plan
[9:03] here?
[9:04] Okay.
[9:06] >> [clears throat]
[9:06] >> If you could, just tell us your name and
[9:08] >> Uh Rick Christensen, owner of the Bend N
[9:10] Build Construction.
[9:11] >> Rick, could you turn on the microphone?
[9:13] It's back behind the
[9:15] Uh it's on the mic itself. There's a
[9:17] little button on there at the very
[9:19] bottom of the base.
[9:20] >> Yeah, there you go.
[9:22] >> Is that better?
[9:23] >> Yeah.
[9:25] Is that on? Okay.
[9:26] >> Yeah, it is. Okay, Rick, so So, I think
[9:28] that the question we would have for you
[9:30] is we just, you know, as you're aware,
[9:31] that the building sits in the Gateway
[9:33] Historic District, and you're aware of
[9:34] those guidelines.
[9:36] Um just to refresh you briefly, design
[9:39] standards, the use of stone, brick,
[9:41] wood, or stucco is encouraged for use as
[9:43] a primary exterior materials.
[9:46] Um
[9:47] So, Kaden's let us know that I think for
[9:48] the most part the plans comply with
[9:51] setbacks and there was a public utility
[9:53] easement that that you've taken into
[9:55] consideration, etc.
[9:56] So, I think some of the questions we'd
[9:57] have for you just really are exterior
[10:00] building materials.
[10:01] >> Okay.
[10:02] So, that the ACM panels which we're
[10:03] proposing, that's a metal panel that is
[10:08] really flat and it's got a gap lines
[10:10] around it. It's folded, it's lasered.
[10:13] It's really sharp looking.
[10:14] Um
[10:16] We would like to use that. That's their
[10:17] hope. So, [snorts]
[10:20] um
[10:23] I don't know how else to explain it
[10:24] besides that. I mean, you can make the
[10:26] panels any size you want, so it fits in
[10:28] between the windows.
[10:30] You know, so all the windows will have
[10:31] It almost looks like a recessed panel
[10:34] when you put it up.
[10:36] Um what are those lines?
[10:38] um
[10:41] where the panels are seamed or are they
[10:44] Yeah, so engraved some sort some way or
[10:48] Yeah, so it's totally completely sealed.
[10:50] So, the panels come, they overlap each
[10:52] other, so the water can't penetrate any
[10:54] of that metal.
[10:55] Works really well. It's used a lot in
[10:57] commercial upper end commercial
[10:59] buildings.
[11:03] I think
[11:04] What's it made out of, brick?
[11:06] >> It's just metal. It's like a So, it's
[11:07] going to be a black matte black like
[11:10] finish.
[11:11] Um If you could compare it to the color
[11:13] of a
[11:14] black metal roof, you know, that that's
[11:17] kind of what the color would be.
[11:19] >> And you can fabricate those so that you
[11:21] can have vertical or you can do all
[11:23] kinds of shapes.
[11:24] >> Yes, you can do whatever shapes, bigger,
[11:26] smaller, you know what I mean? So, you
[11:27] have some design.
[11:28] >> The stripe is where it's all part of the
[11:30] panel. That's what keeps [clears throat]
[11:31] it and then
[11:32] >> Yes, comes back out. Yeah, it's So,
[11:34] it's, you know, kind of like the front
[11:36] of your desk here a little bit, but the
[11:38] panels come out and the the, you know,
[11:41] the skinny part goes back in.
[11:45] » And those vertical windows, are those um
[11:48] I mean they're they're they look like
[11:49] they look rectangular. Are those
[11:50] black-framed windows? They they they
[11:52] look dark. Yes, which I mean they look nice.
[11:55] Um
[11:57] Okay.
[11:58] Um oh
[12:00] One thing I was going to ask you,
[12:00] Cayden, is is I'm not aware that there's
[12:03] any issue with the the the retail use a
[12:06] gun shop is a permitted use
[12:08] in in Alpine in the Gateway Historic
[12:10] District, etc. I don't know. I'm just
[12:12] >> Yeah, so
[12:14] >> That's a great question. I actually
[12:15] don't think the code mentions at all
[12:18] guns specifically, and so this was taken
[12:20] as a retail use, which is permitted in
[12:22] the BC zone.
[12:24] And is what it will be along with the
[12:25] other amenities the other things they
[12:27] will need to be able to do that retail
[12:28] use.
[12:29] So, that's how it was determined as the land use classification.
[12:34] >> All right. Yeah, I just wanted to make
[12:34] sure the use was a permitted use. It's
[12:37] pretty just been here on this commission
[12:39] for a while. This was the first gun shop
[12:41] we had, so welcome to town.
[12:43] >> To kind of tag along on Alan's question
[12:45] there, I mean, I don't know
[12:47] [clears throat] if this is anything
[12:49] I- and if it was a public school,
[12:50] probably be a
[12:52] an issue, maybe. There's that little
[12:53] private school across the street. Is
[12:55] that I mean, is that is that any kind of
[12:57] an issue or
[12:59] >> That's You mean You mean kitty-corner?
[13:01] >> Mhm.
[13:02] >> No, across the street. That little
[13:03] preschool daycare.
[13:04] >> Oh, yeah. That's right.
[13:06] Okay.
[13:06] >> Yeah, there's a preschool and daycare
[13:08] right there.
[13:11] It's the Utah code.
[13:12] >> I I just didn't know if there's a code
[13:14] or
[13:15] anything.
[13:16] >> Yes, sir.
[13:17] >> So, we met with
[13:18] >> Want to see Yeah, could we could we get
[13:19] your name?
[13:19] >> Yeah, Bryce Bergin. I'm the owner and
[13:21] founder of LRSO Long Range Shooting in
[13:23] Utah.
[13:24] So, when we met with Ryan previously, he
[13:26] contacted the city attorney. He did his
[13:27] research, gave us the approval that
[13:29] there was no law state federal or
[13:31] otherwise that would preclude preclude
[13:33] us from having a gun shop there. I think
[13:35] it's also important to note that this is
[13:36] not a typical gun shop. We do very very
[13:39] low volume, very high-end products. So,
[13:42] this isn't going to be an open door
[13:43] anybody can walk in where they want to
[13:45] pick up a handgun. It's exclusively
[13:46] precision rifles
[13:48] for long-range shooting and optics and
[13:50] things like that. So, it's more or less
[13:51] going to be more appointment only than
[13:53] it is going to be open hours where
[13:54] people can walk in and walk out. So,
[13:56] currently I do that business in my home.
[13:58] It's a home-based FFL.
[14:00] >> Do you know a guy named Clint Adams?
[14:02] >> You know Clint Adams? Big dude.
[14:03] >> Clint is my cousin.
[14:05] He got all He got He got all the size. I don't know what happened there. It's
[14:09] um
[14:09] >> He killed the bear with a pickax.
[14:11] >> Yes, he did.
[14:13] I was going to ask you I was going to
[14:14] chat with you about that afterwards, but
[14:15] you did bring that up. It's quite the
[14:16] story. If you ever look at Utah man
[14:19] bears ice ax in grizzly bear's back,
[14:22] you'll find my cousin. My cousin's name.
[14:24] But, um Okay. So, uh um it just it just
[14:28] might be worth thinking about in in a
[14:30] motion on this that it could that a
[14:32] condition is that um
[14:35] the proposed use is consistent with all,
[14:38] you know,
[14:39] local, state, and federal laws. Sounds
[14:41] like it probably is, but I just it's worth It was a good question. Okay.
[14:47] Um
[14:48] Okay. Then,
[14:50] what do we need to know about the
[14:52] apartment or the accessory? Uh
[14:56] >> So, our objective there was really just
[14:57] >> Bryce, sorry. Could you turn on your
[14:58] mic? Sorry.
[15:02] » Better?
[15:03] So, our goal there was just to maximize
[15:04] the use of the space. We also have kids
[15:06] that are 14, 15, 16. I expect them to
[15:09] probably, you know, get married in the
[15:10] next 6, 8, 7 years, something like that,
[15:12] and need a place to live, and I'd love
[15:14] to have my kids help me run my business
[15:16] and live there and
[15:16] >> So, you're not going to stick your 14,
[15:18] 15-year-olds in there cuz that would be
[15:19] a dream. I was just saying, "What a
[15:20] great idea."
[15:21] >> like to, depending on the day.
[15:23] >> Yeah. Okay. So, you have no issue with
[15:26] the the requirement that it be
[15:27] owner-occupied.
[15:29] >> No.
[15:29] >> Okay.
[15:30] Um probably likewise a a something to
[15:33] consider for a condition.
[15:34] >> What's the square footage up there?
[15:36] In the apartment?
[15:38] Like 700?
[15:39] >> Yeah.
[15:39] >> 700 square feet. It's a one-bedroom,
[15:41] one-bath with a kitchen.
[15:44] » Very likely going to be used for
[15:45] storage, too, if there's not a family
[15:47] member living there, so it's more or
[15:49] less we have the room, how do we
[15:50] maximize the space and put something
[15:51] that could be useful.
[15:53] >> Um okay. So,
[15:56] I would say the only thing I can think
[15:57] of is that we are constrained somewhat
[15:59] by well, not somewhat, we are our our
[16:03] the
[16:04] arbiters, I suppose, not interpreters,
[16:06] but the the gatekeepers of the Gateway
[16:08] Historic District. Um I think my only
[16:11] concern and something that we'll need to
[16:12] chat about is the use of the metal
[16:16] siding, I guess, for lack of better
[16:18] term, and how that is consistent with I
[16:20] mean, I think it looks good, and you
[16:22] know, we're definitely looking for a
[16:23] more traditional looks with the brick.
[16:25] We've got a lot of brick. We like the
[16:26] windows. Um one thing we'll have to just
[16:28] discuss is
[16:30] the use of that um
[16:33] is that correct to call it metal siding?
[16:35] >> Yeah.
[16:35] >> Called ACM panels.
[16:37] >> Is ACM panels?
[16:37] >> Aluminum composite material.
[16:40] >> Oh.
[16:48] » Yes. Yes.
[16:50] Is it the
[16:51] Helman Hue, the the old car wash, and I
[16:53] think the new gym?
[16:56] It's very popular. Hospitals use it a
[16:58] lot.
[16:59] >> [clears throat]
[16:59] >> And you might remember we
[17:02] >> Is that what's on there, building?
[17:03] >> Yes.
[17:04] >> Yeah. Okay.
[17:06] All right.
[17:07] >> You might remember we came and presented
[17:09] a kind of a preliminary thing about a
[17:10] year ago, and we wanted to do a lot of
[17:12] that, and you more or less said that
[17:14] we'd like to see more natural materials,
[17:16] and so that's why we've come back to the
[17:17] drawing board and done a lot more brick
[17:20] and
[17:20] >> Yeah. Yeah, it's a great difference.
[17:21] Looks nice.
[17:23] >> meet in the middle and make that happen.
[17:25] >> Okay. Anybody have further questions for
[17:28] uh Rick or Bryce?
[17:30] >> So, it's really not retail. You're not
[17:31] selling a lot of guns and stuff.
[17:33] >> I hate guns.
[17:34] >> No.
[17:34] >> Low volume.
[17:35] >> They are They are selling guns.
[17:37] >> We are We are selling
[17:38] >> Yeah, but
[17:39] >> All right. So, tell me the
[17:41] I know my or a really cool rifle or
[17:44] versus a handgun.
[17:45] >> Sure. So, the the primary business is
[17:47] actually a shooting school. So, we're a
[17:49] world-renowned provider of shooting
[17:51] training. So, people come from all over
[17:53] the world to Utah. We teach the classes
[17:54] in Price at a range down there. But we
[17:57] have a massive social media following,
[17:58] and so people follow us for that and
[18:01] then come out and take classes from us.
[18:02] We bring a lot of business to the city
[18:04] of Price, Utah, and and hopefully to
[18:06] Alpine, too. But when students come out
[18:09] and take the class and they like what
[18:10] rental rifles they use and like the
[18:12] things we offer, then they'll want to
[18:13] order it. Usually, we're shipping that
[18:15] out across the country just to another
[18:17] FFL somewhere else. But obviously, we do
[18:19] get a lot of people from Utah, and
[18:20] they'll want to come and pick them up.
[18:22] But there's not a gun range, and then
[18:23] there's nothing It's just them
[18:24] [clears throat] coming and picking up
[18:26] the rifle and and leaving with it.
[18:27] >> I mean, the classroom,
[18:29] no glass cabinets with guns all
[18:31] displayed.
[18:32] >> I mean, there'll definitely be guns
[18:33] displayed. I mean, it is a retail shop.
[18:35] That is the intention is to sell the
[18:37] firearms, but again, it's not going to
[18:39] be a
[18:40] open you
[18:40] >> pawn shop.
[18:41] >> Yeah, it's not a pawn shop by any
[18:43] stretch. Yeah, generally, our rifles are
[18:44] going to be Someone's going to walk out
[18:46] of there spending five to twenty
[18:47] thousand dollars on a setup.
[18:49] So, it's it's not
[18:51] run-of-the-mill. Anybody strolls in
[18:53] there and says, "I want to pick
[18:53] something up." It's very much an Alpine
[18:55] level type
[18:57] purchase.
[19:01] » Okay. Any further questions for the
[19:03] applicants? Okay. Thank you, gentlemen.
[19:04] Appreciate it.
[19:05] >> Thank you.
[19:07] >> Um okay. Does anybody have any follow-up
[19:09] questions for Cayden?
[19:11] If not, let's go ahead and open for
[19:13] discussion.
[19:17] » Well, I think it looks good.
[19:18] >> Okay.
[19:19] >> It's kind of good.
[19:22] » You You You really cannot hear you on on
[19:25] YouTube.
[19:26] >> YouTube.
[19:27] >> Yeah.
[19:27] >> It looks really good.
[19:29] >> Okay.
[19:30] >> [laughter]
[19:30] >> Thank you, Sue's.
[19:31] You don't necessarily love the product,
[19:33] but you like the building.
[19:34] >> Well, I can see if it if it's functional
[19:38] like in resist probably resist rust. I
[19:40] mean, I'm sure this is a new
[19:43] metal that's being fabricated for
[19:44] weather and and stuff like that.
[19:46] Probably really
[19:47] >> Yeah.
[19:47] >> much better than
[19:48] >> Yeah, and and
[19:49] >> some of the things that are out there, I
[19:51] think even stucco, but that's just a
[19:53] personal opinion. I just think it looks
[19:54] so good with the brick in the dark. But,
[19:57] um we were pretty picky about those materials we kind of settled on. But, this is in
[20:03] other places.
[20:05] So, we have to remember that, too.
[20:06] >> This is what?
[20:07] >> It is in other places.
[20:08] >> On Main Street?
[20:09] >> Yeah. On Main Street.
[20:11] >> Yeah, and and it's also true as we've
[20:13] looked at a lot of the more kind of
[20:15] I mean, traditional materials in a
[20:17] modern building, a lot of them do
[20:19] incorporate the
[20:20] >> Mhm.
[20:20] >> um
[20:22] the the a aluminum ACM, aluminum
[20:24] composite material. You know what? The
[20:26] acronym makes sense if I know what it
[20:28] stands for. So, all right, the ACM
[20:29] material. I mean, it is in a lot of the
[20:31] newer buildings using traditional red
[20:33] brick and awnings and other things that
[20:35] we've looked at that we, you know, think
[20:37] would look good in the future. So,
[20:39] >> um Okay. Thank you, Sue's.
[20:41] >> Mhm.
[20:42] >> So, just confirming there's not a
[20:43] shooting range in the building? It's
[20:45] just retail.
[20:46] >> It's too long range.
[20:48] >> The building's not big enough.
[20:49] >> The building wouldn't last very long.
[20:51] >> Yeah, I was going to say that.
[20:52] >> That's what I learned in that school. I
[20:53] learned about [laughter] guns. Learned
[20:54] about that. That's cool.
[20:57] >> I I have a question about the rendering
[20:58] here. The
[21:01] lengthwise road is actually 200 North.
[21:04] Is that right?
[21:04] >> Yes.
[21:05] >> Yeah.
[21:06] >> That's correct. Yeah.
[21:08] >> So, in the renderings for
[21:10] >> pretty accurate with the colors and
[21:12] everything. It's Okay.
[21:14] >> Looks good.
[21:14] >> Yeah, as you come up Main Street to 200
[21:16] North, turn left. I I John, you drove right past it, I
[21:20] think, cuz I pulled it I I turned right right after you. So, we drove
[21:23] right past it. Right next to the kind of
[21:25] the cabin on the corner.
[21:27] Or the the cabin type home on the
[21:28] corner.
[21:29] >> Oh.
[21:30] >> [laughter]
[21:34] » Oh, oh, you're going to have some Okay.
[21:36] I just wanted to I thought you
[21:38] >> Um yeah, I I don't want to put words in
[21:41] the applicant's mouth, but with respect
[21:42] to traffic concerns, I think it's very
[21:45] low volume.
[21:46] Probably
[21:48] I don't know if it's quite appointment
[21:49] only, but almost appointment only sales.
[21:52] Um I I I don't I would just
[21:57] I mean, I suppose we could have the
[21:58] applicants come up and and um
[22:01] address the traffic issue. Your thoughts
[22:02] on traffic?
[22:06] It is worth asking the question.
[22:08] >> Yeah, absolutely. So,
[22:10] I should have looked up the numbers
[22:11] before I came down here, but I would say
[22:12] in a given month
[22:14] I might have a dozen people come by,
[22:17] if that. Um
[22:19] and they're there for
[22:20] usually for 15 minutes to pick something
[22:22] up, sometimes longer to chat about
[22:24] things. So, yeah, I mean, traffic is
[22:26] shouldn't be a concern. I'm doing this
[22:28] out of my cul-de-sac in my home right
[22:30] now, and my neighbors have no complaints
[22:32] or issues with it. So, my goal is not to
[22:34] have a huge high volume. If anything,
[22:36] I'd like online to be the prominent side
[22:38] of it. I don't want to be there all day
[22:39] long. I do software sales, and I teach
[22:41] people how to shoot long range. I I
[22:43] really don't want to sit there all the
[22:45] time. It's really
[22:46] >> Well, I know my cousin's a talker. If he
[22:47] shows up, he will be there all day long
[22:49] with you.
[22:49] >> That's fine. It's just
[22:51] >> Okay.
[22:53] >> As far as the parking, the sidewalk, are
[22:55] you that whole area will be open to the
[22:58] street?
[22:59] >> I I that's the idea.
[23:01] >> There won't be any buffer. The parking
[23:03] lot will dump completely onto the street
[23:06] and the sidewalk will end for that full
[23:07] span.
[23:10] » That is how it's designed right now,
[23:13] because the parking is just in the front
[23:14] right there. So, the sidewalk will go
[23:16] through.
[23:18] But, you know, yeah. But, it will be
[23:20] just connected to the street.
[23:23] >> Well, if you go back to the last
[23:24] rendering, it ends
[23:26] >> It had a little
[23:27] >> in a circle.
[23:29] >> median the strip, but I don't think
[23:31] that's
[23:32] >> It will have to end in a in a low down,
[23:34] right? A walk down? What do you call
[23:36] that? A ramp?
[23:36] >> Yes. Yes. A ramp. Yes.
[23:38] >> It will really end in a ramp.
[23:38] >> Yes.
[23:39] >> Not this rendering here.
[23:41] >> Yeah, that's probably not.
[23:43] >> Both sides will be ramped.
[23:44] >> Uh yeah, so the sidewalk from the
[23:47] driveway side would just ramp down into
[23:49] the asphalt there. And that little
[23:51] pinnacle comes out right there, and
[23:53] that's kind of showed on the you know,
[23:55] where that would be tied together right
[23:57] there.
[24:00] So, both sidewalks will ramp down into
[24:03] that parking.
[24:06] » [clears throat]
[24:06] >> Yeah, if I under- stand the site plan
[24:08] correctly, Commissioner, I think it's
[24:09] pretty similar to our parking out here
[24:11] in front of City Hall.
[24:13] I think that's how it will be.
[24:17] » So, no sidewalk.
[24:21] Do we have a sidewalk out here? I can't
[24:22] even remember right now.
[24:23] >> No.
[24:24] >> With the sidewalk though, so better than
[24:26] we have out here.
[24:31] » I'm I'm hearing two two different things
[24:33] here. You're saying no sidewalk,
[24:36] that it's ramping down on both sides
[24:37] going into the parking lot.
[24:39] Or you're going to carry a sidewalk
[24:40] across?
[24:41] >> Well, so the sidewalk over there right
[24:44] now, there is a curve
[24:46] that goes, you know, to to the sidewalk.
[24:49] >> Yeah.
[24:49] >> But, to access the parking lot, we would
[24:51] have to cut that.
[24:53] You know, and make it uh uh,
[24:55] approach, if you want to say
[24:57] >> city hall
[24:59] has a concrete sidewalk that you
[25:02] walk and drive over, right?
[25:04] >> Yeah. So, that's what I was thinking.
[25:06] >> You were thinking concrete all the way
[25:09] in front of the asphalt.
[25:11] >> Yeah. So, you'd come up the ramp over
[25:13] just kind of like a normal driveway.
[25:14] You'd come up over the ramp onto the
[25:17] cross the sidewalk and into the parking
[25:18] lot. But, that sidewalk with the back
[25:21] side of the parking lot would be the
[25:22] same level as the sidewalk.
[25:25] >> That's fine.
[25:25] >> Cuz it is There is a curb, yeah. You
[25:27] know, from the sidewalk to the road, so.
[25:29] >> Got it.
[25:31] Okay.
[25:37] thank you.
[25:39] Appreciate it.
[25:42] Okay, further discussion, concerns?
[25:45] Questions?
[25:46] >> I mean,
[25:47] here's my concern.
[25:50] And that is what are we going to do with
[25:52] the site plan?
[25:54] And what are we going to allow and what
[25:56] are we not going to allow? So, this
[25:58] clearly is not something that we've
[26:01] considered
[26:02] even though it exists. So, are we going
[26:05] to change the site plan and stick to
[26:07] that or or what? So, that's my question.
[26:13] » I'm sorry, we hadn't considered what?
[26:15] Siding, is that what you're saying?
[26:16] >> No, the the the site plan, the what
[26:19] we've been talking about for the last
[26:20] year
[26:22] on materials.
[26:23] ACM is not listed.
[26:26] >> No, it's not.
[26:26] >> Yeah.
[26:27] And it and and especially the last month
[26:33] we've had these discussions over and
[26:34] over again about what we want. Now, we
[26:37] could say, "Oh, it's on 200 North. It's
[26:40] off of Main Street, so we're not going
[26:43] to consider it." But,
[26:45] that's that's an option, right?
[26:47] >> Well, it's actually on Main Street.
[26:48] Alpine Fitness Center is made out of the
[26:50] same things.
[26:51] >> That's correct, but this is not on Main Street. This is on 200 North.
[26:56] It's just off of Main Street by one
[26:58] house.
[26:59] >> But it's still Gateway Historic
[27:01] District.
[27:03] >> I think so.
[27:04] >> Correct.
[27:04] >> I I don't I don't know how far east or
[27:08] far or how far west
[27:10] that Gateway Historic goes.
[27:13] >> I believe it goes a few properties
[27:15] further
[27:16] >> What What's What's a few?
[27:17] >> from this one?
[27:17] >> Two, three, tens?
[27:19] >> No.
[27:20] I think max three.
[27:22] >> Three?
[27:22] >> Yeah. Might be less.
[27:24] >> Okay. Well, we need to know.
[27:26] >> Yeah.
[27:26] >> And
[27:27] >> Well, it would be allowable anyway.
[27:30] Long as it's in the commercial district.
[27:32] >> You're saying two different things.
[27:32] >> Yes.
[27:34] >> You're saying that it's not part of the
[27:35] commercial district ACM?
[27:37] With the site plan, the new historic
[27:39] gateway.
[27:40] >> Me?
[27:41] >> Yeah.
[27:41] >> Yes, correct. That is That is not been
[27:43] something that we have considered in the
[27:45] last year.
[27:46] >> True.
[27:47] >> Okay. That's That's where I'm saying we have a dilemma. We continue to have a
[27:52] dilemma.
[27:53] So
[27:54] >> Yeah, so I think So, let me just just
[27:56] summarize what you're saying is that I
[27:57] think we're all going to agree that this site plan in front of us is within
[28:02] the Gateway Historic District.
[28:04] >> I I want to ask I Okay.
[28:06] >> It is.
[28:07] >> Correct.
[28:07] >> Okay.
[28:07] >> Correct, Hayden?
[28:09] >> Yes.
[28:09] >> It is. All right.
[28:10] >> Okay.
[28:10] >> So, it is subject to the
[28:14] design standards.
[28:15] Right? Of the Gateway Historic District
[28:17] Design Guidelines.
[28:18] >> Yes.
[28:20] >> We do state that the use of stone,
[28:22] brick, wood, or stucco is encouraged for
[28:24] use as a primary exterior material.
[28:28] We do not have that We do not have a
[28:30] within those design standards
[28:32] ACM or metal siding.
[28:35] It is also true that projects from the
[28:38] past, including
[28:41] the fitness center,
[28:43] um
[28:44] >> [clears throat]
[28:45] >> do have some version of
[28:48] some form of a of a metal siding,
[28:50] whether it's ACM or whatever type of
[28:52] metal siding.
[28:53] >> Correct.
[28:55] >> [clears throat]
[28:57] >> So, all those things are true.
[28:59] >> And again, it's the it's the dilemma.
[29:02] >> It's We're not ex- The guidelines do not
[29:05] specify these are the only materials.
[29:07] >> Right. We we can't approve them.
[29:08] >> They're the primary materials, and it
[29:10] further states that other alternatives
[29:12] >> Correct.
[29:15] >> Right.
[29:15] >> Well, let's say you have okay. So, under
[29:17] the current guidelines, right?
[29:18] Innovative use of other materials that
[29:21] mimic the primary exterior materials
[29:24] listed may be considered, okay?
[29:27] >> Which this does not.
[29:28] >> Which does not, right? Because we do not
[29:30] have a primary primary material that is
[29:32] metal.
[29:33] >> Correct.
[29:34] >> Okay. So, Jeff's correct about that. I
[29:36] would also say, right? Or I know
[29:39] for example, we had a
[29:43] application in front of us just a couple
[29:45] of weeks ago
[29:46] >> Yep.
[29:47] >> where we were discouraging the use of
[29:50] for example that was painted ceramic
[29:53] siding, right? Which is
[29:58] not anywhere delineated in the design
[30:00] standards.
[30:00] >> Correct.
[30:01] >> Um and also we were
[30:04] um
[30:05] >> [clears throat]
[30:06] >> not enthusiastic about
[30:09] faux wood siding or synthetic wood
[30:11] siding, right? Even though
[30:13] you know, that that's under bullet point
[30:15] B or second bullet point, innovative use
[30:18] of other materials that mimic the
[30:19] primary exterior materials like wood
[30:23] listed may be considered. So,
[30:26] >> [clears throat and cough]
[30:27] >> Jeff is not wrong when he indicates that
[30:29] there is nothing in our gateway historic
[30:32] district design standards that allow
[30:34] the proposed ACM material.
[30:37] >> But it's not
[30:39] Would you consider it a primary
[30:40] material? Cuz I mean, the brick is like
[30:42] 2/3 or 3/4 of the building.
[30:45] >> Brick is not 3/4 of the building. Put it
[30:47] Put up the thing again.
[30:48] >> Stucco and the brick it is.
[30:49] >> Yeah, okay.
[30:50] Yes.
[30:52] >> I don't know.
[30:53] >> So, that's my question.
[30:56] I have one for you.
[30:57] >> Well, yeah.
[30:58] >> mimic versus complement?
[31:00] >> I'm sorry?
[31:01] >> It really complements those those things
[31:03] we have put in. I think it complements
[31:06] it, but mimic it's
[31:08] >> I'm not saying that this is not
[31:09] beautiful. That's not what I'm saying.
[31:12] we are continue to have an
[31:15] issue
[31:17] as a planning commission.
[31:19] And it's like what are we What standard
[31:21] are we going to have in the main in the
[31:23] Gateway Historic District?
[31:26] And this This is not what we've talked about the last year.
[31:31] So, I'm like, okay, are we going to Are
[31:32] we going to start the discussions all
[31:34] over?
[31:36] Or not?
[31:40] I mean that That's the struggle. And
[31:42] then and then and then we have City
[31:44] Council and I'm sure there's the City
[31:46] Council members that are listening
[31:48] tonight. And we we've gone round and
[31:50] round this last 6 weeks with the fire
[31:53] station.
[31:55] And And so, I'm like, okay, well, what
[31:57] are we going to do? Is this beautiful?
[31:59] Yes, it's beautiful.
[32:02] And And And do we want to take a poll of
[32:05] the whole city and go, is this what we want? Well, that's what
[32:09] we've been working on for 2 years.
[32:11] This is not
[32:13] This In my understanding, this is not
[32:16] what all of the money and time and
[32:18] effort has come to say, this is what we
[32:21] want
[32:22] Main Street to look like.
[32:25] Is it beautiful? Yeah, but that's But
[32:27] that's not, you know, and you can go,
[32:28] well, what about Alpine Fitness? Yeah,
[32:30] well, that happened before we started
[32:33] this 3-year or 2 and 1/2 year process.
[32:37] >> It was it was approved with the same
[32:39] design guidelines that we're looking at
[32:41] today, which is all we can do.
[32:43] >> Right.
[32:44] Yeah.
[32:44] >> And and we're still waiting for the
[32:47] >> I I I agree.
[32:47] >> small
[32:50] >> put into ordinance what we want.
[32:52] >> Yeah, I agree.
[32:53] >> know why you're dying on your hill here.
[32:56] >> Because because it's like
[33:01] in my opinion, we're like, "Okay, we're
[33:05] just going to keep going down down this
[33:07] path
[33:08] against what we've tried to work through
[33:12] the last 2 and 1/2 years." That's what
[33:14] I'm That's And And we did that with the
[33:18] fire station.
[33:21] And, you know, and one could argue that
[33:23] what we ended up with number two was
[33:26] worse than what we started with.
[33:28] You could argue that.
[33:31] But, again, we were trying and we spent
[33:33] so much effort
[33:35] to say, "Okay, we want to we want this
[33:39] look, you know?" And we've given this
[33:41] name of Utah historic. Well, that this
[33:44] definitely is not Utah historic.
[33:47] It
[33:47] unless someone wants to redefine Utah
[33:50] historic for me. All right? So, I'm not
[33:53] saying it's not beautiful.
[33:56] But,
[33:58] you know, we'll we could just throw out
[34:01] every all the effort and just say,
[34:03] "Okay, we want stuff that looks like
[34:05] Alpine Fitness Center and this building.
[34:07] That's what we want on Main Street." We
[34:09] could do that. But, that go to me that
[34:11] goes against
[34:12] all of the effort that's happened in the
[34:15] last 2 and 1/2 years.
[34:17] >> So, um just so so a little additional
[34:19] color, and this is again the fire
[34:22] station's a bit of anomaly for for
[34:25] reasons that that we kind of know,
[34:27] right? For example, planning commission
[34:30] came in came in front of us late in the
[34:32] game.
[34:33] And you know, we won't say much more
[34:35] about that.
[34:36] And [clears throat] we also know we're
[34:38] kind of in a transition from the current
[34:40] guidelines which
[34:42] we need to apply.
[34:44] And
[34:46] future
[34:47] recommendations that we have discussed.
[34:50] For example, last time that that I think
[34:52] you weren't at I think you were out of
[34:53] town for the last meeting.
[34:55] So um
[34:57] during the just
[34:59] communications portion, right? I took
[35:01] about 15 minutes and just had a little
[35:03] discussion [clears throat] over
[35:05] you know
[35:06] what do we want buildings to look like
[35:08] in the future, right? Again, to
[35:10] understand that right right now we're
[35:11] applying current guidelines.
[35:13] We're in the process of working on
[35:16] future architectural guidelines for the
[35:19] Gateway Historic District. Um
[35:22] I brought pictures and showed examples
[35:24] of
[35:25] buildings that we thought were
[35:27] attractive. For example, down in in
[35:30] Pleasant Grove along the whatever that
[35:32] new drive is all the way down to
[35:35] Yeah, North North County Boulevard.
[35:38] Um
[35:38] those red brick buildings with black
[35:40] accents, some you know, what do you call
[35:42] them, John? Concrete lintels or whatever
[35:45] with with black metal overhangs, timber
[35:48] supports, dark
[35:51] fixtures that come out of the building.
[35:52] Very nice looking, right?
[35:54] And
[35:58] just the name that we have come up with
[36:00] is you know, perhaps not you Utah
[36:02] traditional Utah historic. We're still
[36:04] working on that, right? So in other
[36:06] words, it's not going to necessarily
[36:07] look like a building that's 100 years
[36:09] old, but a
[36:11] bit of a modern interpretation of with
[36:13] those types of materials, right? Red
[36:15] brick,
[36:16] black framed rectangular windows,
[36:19] some metal accents, overhangs,
[36:22] those types of things with then you
[36:24] know, again, so of the architectural
[36:27] um
[36:31] accents that that we've talked about.
[36:34] Um which
[36:36] um
[36:37] this building
[36:39] But we have but one thing we haven't
[36:40] really talked about is this metal
[36:42] siding, right? Is that something that
[36:44] you know, it's it has happened in Alpine in the
[36:48] past.
[36:49] It's not necessarily in the current
[36:51] architectural guidelines. It may or may
[36:54] not be
[36:56] I would say it wouldn't be out of
[36:58] character if
[37:00] we ended up with
[37:02] amendments to the small area plan that
[37:03] we have proposed and then we took those
[37:05] amendments and implemented them as we
[37:08] amended the guidelines and then
[37:10] recommended to city council, right? So,
[37:13] but that's a give-and-take process. I
[37:15] don't know where that's ending up
[37:16] either, right? It's
[37:18] you know
[37:20] forward-looking Utah traditional if I
[37:22] don't I don't we you know, we're still
[37:24] what we're still struggling with all
[37:25] that. But but what we do you know, what
[37:27] we do have is what's right in front of
[37:28] us. So, um
[37:31] I guess it comes down to just a
[37:34] of
[37:36] >> personal preference?
[37:37] >> Well, not really personal preference
[37:39] because I I you know, I mean I mean I'm
[37:40] not I'm I'm not insensitive to what
[37:42] you're saying, right? I mean we talk
[37:43] about stone, brick, wood, or stucco.
[37:45] >> One thing that really
[37:47] was illuminating to me in our meeting on
[37:50] Wednesday
[37:51] >> Yeah.
[37:51] >> afternoon
[37:53] uh Chrissy Haneman
[37:55] said or I I I I threw something out. I
[37:57] said, we ought to create a table
[38:00] uh of all the kinds of little
[38:01] embellishments that we're looking for.
[38:04] >> Mhm.
[38:04] >> And we don't want every building to look
[38:06] the same.
[38:07] But if if
[38:09] each
[38:11] project that comes along can
[38:14] create a scoreboard
[38:16] of or scorecard
[38:19] where they get 10 points by selecting
[38:22] certain elements. We can even
[38:25] put different point values on the
[38:26] elements.
[38:28] >> So that we have
[38:29] consistent elements presenting
[38:31] themselves, but they're not all looking
[38:33] the same. We're not trying to create a
[38:34] bunch of bungalows.
[38:35] >> Sure. Sure.
[38:36] >> Um and as I look at at what's before us,
[38:40] we have several of those kinds of
[38:42] elements. We've got uh can you pull the
[38:44] rendering back up?
[38:50] So we've we've got this
[38:52] uh
[38:53] canopy over the
[38:55] uh garage
[38:57] with some supporting decorative
[38:59] elements. What's this vertical black
[39:00] thing? Is that a light fixture?
[39:02] >> That would be where the placement of the
[39:05] sign is going.
[39:07] >> Okay. It's a vertical sign. Okay.
[39:10] got it.
[39:12] All right.
[39:13] We've got the black windows,
[39:15] uh
[39:16] the vertical kind of framing on the
[39:18] windows.
[39:20] The We've got the black garage door,
[39:22] which is also kind of in that same
[39:24] historical look. So I would score this
[39:26] if we had this hypothetical table that
[39:29] we were scoring from, I could throw
[39:32] three to four elements that qualify
[39:35] under this
[39:36] traditional Utah traditional
[39:39] style.
[39:40] And and I would I would say that passes.
[39:44] If we if we end up in that kind of a
[39:46] framework.
[39:47] >> Sure. And then would the would Did you
[39:50] guys also talk about like, "Okay, and
[39:52] then there's an
[39:54] a second table that's like, we're not
[39:57] going to have these things."
[39:58] >> Yeah.
[39:59] >> Okay.
[40:00] >> Yeah.
[40:02] » You know, whatever those are. I mean,
[40:03] I'm
[40:04] >> Yeah, I mean, this this is all, you
[40:05] know, not even wet clay, but it's
[40:08] >> Yeah.
[40:09] >> I
[40:12] » You go ahead. You go.
[40:13] >> I just think that the
[40:16] large flat roof mixed in with the ACM
[40:19] panels is what's throwing it to very
[40:21] modern
[40:23] more warehouse look.
[40:25] I think it's that combo. If we go back
[40:26] to our design standards, there's really
[40:29] no flat roof completely flat like this
[40:33] that that doesn't have any kind of
[40:37] uh variation change grade you know in
[40:40] elevation
[40:42] in those pictures on our Gateway
[40:44] Historic District.
[40:46] >> Is Is the roof elevated it looks like
[40:48] where the glass is?
[40:49] >> Yeah, so that's all flat.
[40:50] >> It did it is like a standard
[40:52] >> That's a shed roof.
[40:53] >> It's a shed to the back slants.
[40:55] >> So the flat roof is above the brick
[40:57] above the garage door and above the
[41:00] apartment area that's kind of that
[41:01] recessed area.
[41:02] >> Yeah, but it slants.
[41:03] >> Everything else is a big slope with big
[41:06] overhangs.
[41:07] >> Yeah, it's slanting away to the back of
[41:08] the property instead of gabeling or
[41:12] >> But that is an element.
[41:13] >> elevation
[41:14] >> Um
[41:15] >> It's a very modern element.
[41:17] >> But we talked about
[41:19] potential criteria as we revise the
[41:22] ordinance to create relief from the in
[41:25] the facade showing different set you
[41:28] know
[41:29] forward back kinds of
[41:31] >> Gives it dimension.
[41:32] >> Yeah, and and this accomplishes that as
[41:35] well.
[41:37] >> The reason for the flat roof was to try
[41:39] to keep the height of that building
[41:41] down over that brick because if that
[41:43] would have been a roof
[41:45] then we're up a lot higher at that
[41:47] point.
[41:47] >> Remember the height.
[41:49] >> Uh that's the tallest point right there
[41:52] is that's about 21 ft
[41:56] >> And by the time you put a peak on that
[41:57] that'd be
[42:00] I mean if you listen to city council you
[42:03] know
[42:04] Nick Geraci's warehouse is facing the
[42:06] same questions.
[42:09] Yeah, we we tabled it last week.
[42:11] >> Yeah.
[42:12] >> Uh
[42:13] and they realized it's a bigger project,
[42:15] bring it back to something that would
[42:17] be compliant.
[42:18] >> Yeah. And again, beautiful. I
[42:21] you know, Nick's not going to Nick Nick
[42:23] will put forth something that's
[42:25] beautiful.
[42:26] But again, it comes back to my question
[42:28] of what do we want?
[42:31] I mean, we're going to be held
[42:33] responsible for decisions. And I mean,
[42:35] ultimately, it's City Council. So, we
[42:37] could make a recommendation and then
[42:39] City Council go, "Ah, no. We're we're
[42:41] going to we're not going to do it or
[42:43] we're going to do it." You know, they end up getting to have the last
[42:47] say.
[42:48] But I think we as a commission
[42:51] really need really need to try to be
[42:54] united in what we want this
[42:59] Main Street corridor to look like.
[43:02] >> Jeff, you're right. We've we've taken
[43:04] years years years to come up with a
[43:06] standard.
[43:07] >> Right. Right. You Yeah, you got to talk.
[43:09] No, you cannot hear your I you cannot
[43:11] hear yourself on YouTube.
[43:12] >> So, we've taken years to come up with a
[43:14] standard. I I I really love what you're
[43:16] saying because we've it's nice to have something that's like here's what we take into
[43:23] consideration with all of these
[43:24] different things. With these different
[43:26] buildings coming in.
[43:27] So, I get what you're saying. Do we
[43:29] throw a lot of that out just because we,
[43:31] you know, the standard really has been
[43:33] established after a lot of work.
[43:39] So, I get what you're saying, but I can
[43:41] all
[43:42] I also see that being something we
[43:44] probably didn't consider as being a very
[43:46] weather tight element in our climate.
[43:52] And it does look good with what we've
[43:53] talked about.
[43:54] >> Okay, so hypothetical for you, right? Um
[43:57] >> [clears throat]
[43:59] >> we we had the 512
[44:03] project that was supposed to be that was
[44:05] supposed to be here tonight that was
[44:06] pulled. And it has or had elements of uh
[44:11] painted ceramic siding, which obviously
[44:13] we don't have any here in the
[44:15] guidelines. And also had um faux wood,
[44:19] >> Fake wood.
[44:20] >> which is probably a a little closer, at
[44:22] least in our guidelines, but we also you
[44:25] know, discourage that as it was also
[44:27] discussion piece in the fireplace I mean
[44:29] the fireplace the fire station, right?
[44:31] So,
[44:33] I I mean, to to Jeff's
[44:36] comment just about consistency in
[44:39] applying the guidelines,
[44:41] I mean, hey, that that's so I
[44:43] acknowledge you know, recognize the
[44:44] problem. But so,
[44:46] Jeff, just a just as a for example, if
[44:48] you looked at this rendering right here
[44:50] and you took out the, you know, I'm not
[44:52] necessarily asking you to be an
[44:53] architect, but apply the guidelines, uh
[44:56] what would you replace the ACM with?
[44:58] Stucco?
[45:00] Stone?
[45:01] >> Don't do stucco.
[45:02] >> More brick?
[45:03] >> Probably brick.
[45:04] >> All brick?
[45:06] >> That's probably what I would do.
[45:09] Because the brick goes more to
[45:15] the look that we've kind of tried to
[45:18] get.
[45:20] >> If you put brick in the main area where
[45:21] you have the two windows, but you kept
[45:23] the ACM, which is the aluminum framing
[45:25] that's kind of framing out the windows,
[45:27] would you have a problem with that?
[45:28] >> No, I would not have a problem with
[45:29] that.
[45:31] >> The the recommendation being what?
[45:33] Say again.
[45:34] >> The area that's in the middle between
[45:36] the garage and uh retail shop, if that
[45:40] ACM was brick,
[45:42] the question was, would you be fine with
[45:44] the ACM that's surrounding the main
[45:46] windows on the right-hand side of this
[45:49] picture?
[45:50] And the answer was, no, I'd be fine with
[45:52] it.
[45:56] » I'd probably be more comfortable with
[45:57] that personally trying to be consistent
[45:59] with our guidelines.
[46:00] >> You what?
[46:01] >> I would I would be more comfortable with
[46:02] that recommendation
[46:04] >> Yeah.
[46:04] >> that that Greg put out there. I would
[46:08] It it's
[46:10] Look, it's
[46:12] tasteful and it's attractive as it as
[46:15] the rendering. It's not terribly
[46:17] consistent with our guidelines and it
[46:20] >> It's so close.
[46:21] >> makes it very difficult 2 weeks from now
[46:24] or 3 weeks from now when we have another
[46:26] applicant before us
[46:28] and we are
[46:30] not consistently applying guidelines.
[46:32] So, I I think I'm
[46:35] with probably with just personally with
[46:37] Greg and Jeff on that that if that
[46:39] little area
[46:40] uh were
[46:41] brick as well instead of ACM
[46:44] um and the rest of the project were you
[46:46] know as the as shown in the rendering, I
[46:49] think that's more consistent with our
[46:51] guidelines.
[46:52] >> I would agree.
[46:52] >> Cute little awning above there.
[46:56] » Please.
[46:56] >> Sure, please.
[46:57] Help us out of this quagmire.
[46:59] >> So, so when I designed it, the reason I
[47:02] went to the ACM is cuz around the
[47:04] windows
[47:05] So, our first thought we were going to
[47:06] use like a black wood siding.
[47:10] And
[47:11] but I didn't like the little tiny pieces
[47:13] going around the windows.
[47:15] So, we could put black vertical siding
[47:18] [snorts] in that center section. It'll
[47:20] keep the same look
[47:22] but it would be a wood siding. Not a not
[47:25] a faux wood, a real, you know, cedar
[47:28] wood siding that's stained black.
[47:30] And then we could keep the ACM around
[47:32] the windows because it's just the way it
[47:34] basically looks like a whole commercial
[47:35] storefront
[47:37] right there with the metal windows.
[47:39] And that would stick kind of into the
[47:43] your guidelines.
[47:45] I think if we do brick, I my opinion
[47:48] designing is that just going to look
[47:49] like a
[47:50] >> It's heavy.
[47:50] >> It's not going to look as good.
[47:52] >> Is Is that
[47:53] >> I like it broken up.
[47:54] >> Is that cedar siding what's on Mondella?
[47:59] There's a
[48:00] small amount of on Mondella that has the
[48:04] I don't know what the wood is though.
[48:06] It's the wood that has the little piece
[48:08] in between it.
[48:09] >> Well, that's a board and batten. That's
[48:10] board and batten. I've got a sample of
[48:12] the black siding in my truck that I
[48:14] forgot to bring in. If you give me a
[48:15] minute, I'll run out there and bring it
[48:17] in.
[48:17] >> I think Mondella has some board and
[48:19] batten in in the upper
[48:23] kind of upper eve area.
[48:24] >> What the point he's making is if he puts
[48:26] wood in there that it does meet the
[48:27] city's historic standard.
[48:29] >> It does.
[48:29] >> Does
[48:30] >> Okay.
[48:31] >> Does is the wood as durable? I mean,
[48:34] cuz I see a lot of
[48:35] you know, siding things that
[48:37] look pretty bad if you don't maintain
[48:39] them.
[48:39] >> Well.
[48:40] >> That's that's an argument that ACM is a great product. I own a company
[48:46] that fabricates ACM and I think it's a
[48:49] great product. All I can say.
[48:50] >> And and and it may be it may be a
[48:53] material that we consider future for the
[48:56] future, but it is
[48:59] not a material currently in our
[49:00] guidelines.
[49:01] >> Being consistent is a big deal right
[49:04] now. Jeff, you're right.
[49:06] What's going on?
[49:08] >> Where are you thinking
[49:10] Michelle on Mondella?
[49:13] >> As I drove past it tonight,
[49:17] there's some
[49:19] I just saw it.
[49:20] >> I mean, it's basically stucco and stone.
[49:23] >> See that top layer where there's black.
[49:25] >> Oh, on at the very Well, on the roof?
[49:28] >> Near the roof.
[49:29] There's black up there.
[49:31] >> What at the very top of the chimney?
[49:33] >> Yeah, near the the top. Well, everyone
[49:35] has a different look. It was on an
[49:37] interior one.
[49:39] You've got a swing into the
[49:44] Are you on the
[49:45] >> Yeah, I'm just looking at it.
[49:46] >> Yeah.
[49:48] >> I'll say nothing and won't say anymore,
[49:49] but as I just listened, and ACM is not
[49:52] on the excluded list unless I missed
[49:54] that. I heard an excluded list and I did
[49:56] not hear ACM.
[50:00] » We didn't know about it.
[50:03] Let me see that.
[50:05] >> Yeah, we don't really have an excluded
[50:07] list.
[50:07] >> Yeah, there isn't I was just cuz there
[50:08] really isn't an excluded list. It just
[50:11] says
[50:11] >> future ordinances.
[50:12] >> Yeah, yeah.
[50:13] >> It has a primary setback rate and then
[50:16] Yeah, I mean we redesigned the entire
[50:17] building based on the last meeting we
[50:19] had where the same material was shot
[50:21] down then as well. So, we pretty much
[50:23] went from
[50:24] flip-flopped, right? We've gone all
[50:26] brick even though that wasn't
[50:27] necessarily what we wanted, you know,
[50:28] brick and stucco with just a little bit
[50:30] of what we wanted. The other comment I
[50:32] would make is you mentioned the
[50:34] buildings down on Pleasant Run Boulevard
[50:36] and down towards the play at the town
[50:37] that very that same look. Also, over by
[50:40] the Walmart in Cedar Hills. That's
[50:41] exactly what we had.
[50:42] >> ACM.
[50:43] >> Inspiration.
[50:44] >> That was literally the inspiration
[50:45] photos we sent. So, we're literally
[50:46] trying to go for that very traditional
[50:48] red brick, old glass look with just
[50:51] a touch of
[50:53] modern to make it look like a new
[50:54] building and not an old
[50:56] brick fortress.
[50:57] >> Right.
[50:58] >> Meant to have a beautiful aesthetic
[50:59] value that it really fits with the
[51:01] aesthetic of Alpine. It's a beautiful
[51:03] high-end community.
[51:05] So, how was that then?
[51:10] » I don't think that even
[51:14] » Mhm?
[51:14] >> I don't know what we're going to do for
[51:15] now.
[51:20] Okay.
[51:30] » Mr. Chairman, does the code say that it
[51:32] can assimilate an approved material?
[51:35] Because ACM, I believe, can have
[51:37] multiple exterior
[51:40] looks. So, you can get ACM so it looks
[51:42] like wood.
[51:43] >> Yeah, they showed us that a year ago.
[51:45] They brought in the ACM that looked like
[51:47] wood. I remember we
[51:49] >> Oh, that's right. That was
[51:51] >> We said no.
[51:52] to the
[51:53] >> It wasn't It wasn't attractive. It It
[51:54] looked like siding.
[51:55] >> It Yeah.
[52:11] » What are you circling?
[52:13] >> [laughter]
[52:15] >> Underline.
[52:17] >> Exclamation mark.
[52:19] >> Yeah.
[52:19] >> Highlighter.
[52:21] >> If I could make one more comment, I
[52:23] mean, we need to do
[52:25] vertical wood paneling,
[52:27] I think it was looking exactly like the
[52:29] ACM. It just wear out and fade and
[52:32] >> The maintenance.
[52:33] >> maintenance, whereas
[52:34] >> Oh, sure.
[52:35] >> It's true.
[52:40] » That's kind of 20-year guarantee stain
[52:42] on
[52:43] the stuff.
[52:45] That is That is solid wood.
[52:46] >> Yeah.
[52:48] there is a maintenance problem.
[52:50] I hate maintenance.
[52:51] >> good.
[52:51] >> Does it smell The ACM doesn't smell like
[52:53] that.
[52:54] >> [laughter]
[52:55] >> Smells like Is that treated wood?
[52:56] >> Like a hamster cage.
[52:58] >> That's actually two pieces of southern
[52:59] pine that doesn't have knots. It's
[53:02] grade one, so
[53:05] Yeah.
[53:09] What?
[53:10] >> We're checking these out for you.
[53:11] >> Oh.
[53:15] » Thanks a lot.
[53:21] » You want to see this?
[53:22] >> Yeah.
[53:23] >> You want to touch it?
[53:24] >> I see I Yeah, it's awesome. It's just a
[53:26] lot of maintenance.
[53:28] Sorry, Jeff, but I see that as
[53:29] maintenance.
[53:32] Thank you.
[53:33] >> me to take it off your hands?
[53:34] >> Yeah.
[53:35] >> Thanks for bring Thanks for bringing
[53:37] that.
[53:37] >> out back.
[53:38] Not getting hit. I know.
[53:41] Oh.
[53:41] >> [laughter]
[53:42] >> And then, sorry from the traffic
[53:45] tonight.
[53:47] » Okay.
[53:48] Yep, go ahead.
[53:50] >> Stand in front of the first row.
[53:53] >> I held that vertically.
[53:55] >> I get it right there.
[53:58] » So you see that little bit of help.
[54:00] On the vertical side.
[54:02] >> That looks to me
[54:04] like the ACM will
[54:06] >> Yeah.
[54:07] that's similar to that.
[54:08] >> You can make the ACM gaps bigger or
[54:10] smaller.
[54:11] You can make the gaps whatever you want.
[54:14] >> I don't think you're going to tell a
[54:15] difference.
[54:16] >> Not from a distance. You won't tell
[54:18] anything.
[54:18] >> But then again, if
[54:20] you know, it's the letter of the law,
[54:21] then I mean, maybe we should you know.
[54:24] Well, okay. Two things are true, right?
[54:26] Let me go through guidelines real quick.
[54:28] Cuz this is
[54:31] what we're doing our best to apply.
[54:33] >> Yeah.
[54:34] >> Guidelines, new developments should
[54:37] mimic details of older buildings,
[54:40] use similar materials,
[54:42] make mundane uses look good, include
[54:44] design features on blank walls, okay?
[54:47] So, those are guidelines as to new
[54:49] developments.
[54:52] >> [clears throat]
[54:56] » And then, as we've stated,
[54:58] um
[54:59] >> [clears throat]
[54:59] >> again, these guidelines predate us, but
[55:01] they are what we do our best to
[55:03] interpret.
[55:04] The use of stone, brick, wood, or stucco
[55:06] is encouraged, as circled by my friend
[55:10] Mr. Butterfield,
[55:11] is encouraged for use as the primary
[55:13] exterior material.
[55:15] Innovative use of other materials that
[55:17] mimic the primary exterior materials
[55:19] listed may be considered.
[55:25] » Okay, when those were given to us,
[55:27] this ACM probably wasn't on the market.
[55:31] So, we're going backwards as far as that
[55:33] goes with
[55:34] maintenance and all those different
[55:35] things that are such a positive. Jeff,
[55:38] do you agree?
[55:39] >> I would I would agree.
[55:40] >> So, the look to me
[55:43] is the same, what we're going for,
[55:45] but it's something that's going to be so
[55:47] much weather better for weather, sun,
[55:50] everything. No Nobody wants painted wood
[55:52] on their commercial building.
[55:55] I don't know. That's just me. And we're
[55:56] trying so hard to honor that and to be
[55:58] true to it, but if we're looking at
[56:00] something that wasn't even on the market
[56:02] when that was written,
[56:04] >> And I
[56:04] >> we're just like going backwards.
[56:07] But,
[56:08] >> I agree with Sue's
[56:09] >> I want to have that what you're saying.
[56:11] We got
[56:11] >> Yeah, I mean, we There seems like
[56:13] there's two issues. There There's a
[56:15] material thing, right? And so, on the
[56:17] material side,
[56:19] I I'm really not against going, "Oh,
[56:22] okay.
[56:23] Maybe ACM is
[56:27] a material that we can that we can accept."
[56:33] We can We could do that. You know, we
[56:35] could make a recommendation and and say
[56:37] we want to we That That's That's one of
[56:41] the issues. Is Is ACM going to be an
[56:44] approved material, right?
[56:48] Or not. But, the But, the And the second
[56:51] is
[56:52] okay, is this Is this the look that we
[56:56] want?
[56:58] So, that's That's That's what I'm
[57:00] getting at here. There's two things.
[57:02] Material
[57:03] and is this the look?
[57:05] >> Does this look too modern to you?
[57:07] >> [clears throat]
[57:07] >> Is that what you're Cuz those look a lot
[57:09] like the pictures we looked at last
[57:11] week.
[57:11] >> Yeah. It It does It does look modern.
[57:14] >> bugging you?
[57:15] >> It's not that it's bugging me.
[57:17] What's bugging me is
[57:21] can we Can we come together as a
[57:24] commission
[57:26] and say this is the look that we want?
[57:30] Maybe this is the look. Maybe Maybe the
[57:32] look is Alpine Fitness and this.
[57:36] But I don't I don't think that that's
[57:40] what the community has asked for.
[57:44] So that's that's what I'm saying and and
[57:47] I could be wrong, you know, could be
[57:49] you know, uh six to one.
[57:52] And that yep, six people say, "Yep, this
[57:54] is the look that the community has asked
[57:57] for. So we're overriding you, Jeff."
[57:59] >> think if I zoom in with something
[58:01] similar, say somebody builds right here
[58:03] and they see
[58:03] >> Well, I know what's I I know what's next
[58:05] to it. What's next to it? Right next door is the is the Pan's
[58:11] Cabin.
[58:12] Which is not any quarter close to this.
[58:15] >> Yeah, but that's totally residential.
[58:17] That's kind of This is commercial,
[58:18] that's residential.
[58:19] >> Well, you you have you have residential
[58:21] on both sides.
[58:22] >> Yeah, you do.
[58:23] >> But they're zoned commercial.
[58:25] >> Yes, I I agree. Yeah, I agree.
[58:28] >> But yeah, what's hard is you're not
[58:29] seeing in this picture the real life
[58:32] image. It's been left off what's to the
[58:34] right and the left of it.
[58:35] >> Yeah.
[58:35] >> They've shown, you know, 20 ft of grass.
[58:38] Well, that's not correct.
[58:40] >> Yeah.
[58:40] >> This is a 10 and a 20-ft setback with
[58:42] the home right really pretty pretty
[58:44] tight.
[58:45] >> Yeah.
[58:45] >> And so it's hard to see the whole view
[58:47] because we're given this memorialized
[58:51] [snorts]
[58:51] view.
[58:52] >> True.
[58:53] >> Yeah.
[58:57] So you know, so again, it's this
[59:00] I I I hope we can, you know, and and
[59:03] Allen already said, you know, they I
[59:06] wasn't here, you know, at our last
[59:08] meeting, but you went over pictures and pictures. And so does does
[59:13] this match what
[59:17] you guys talked about or not?
[59:19] >> If this Planning Commission and the City
[59:24] Council were to adopt and use a lot of
[59:28] the the pictures in the more
[59:29] contemporary red brick buildings uh
[59:33] going in up and down the the North Utah
[59:36] County corridor.
[59:38] This would fit
[59:40] >> Okay.
[59:40] >> with those.
[59:41] >> Okay.
[59:42] >> Yeah.
[59:43] And even things that could be same
[59:45] material.
[59:46] >> I mean if you Yeah, if you look at the
[59:47] Cedar Hills fire station, if you look at
[59:49] the the the red brick buildings that
[59:50] have gone in and in and around you know,
[59:53] right there by the um shiny shell cars
[59:55] or whatever. It's just south of just
[59:57] south of uh
[1:00:00] um
[1:00:01] Walmart. And we also looked at those
[1:00:03] Ezra Lee condominium buildings that are
[1:00:06] just they're on the roundabout just
[1:00:08] behind the Walmart. Uh we look at those
[1:00:11] which this would be quite consistent
[1:00:13] with.
[1:00:14] And then again, we talked about the uh
[1:00:16] um
[1:00:16] the buildings as you get down, you know,
[1:00:18] on the right side as you're headed
[1:00:19] south, a lot of those red brick
[1:00:21] buildings with a lot of the black fascia
[1:00:24] canopies
[1:00:25] uh broken up with, you know, I I I had
[1:00:27] to look what kind of dark materials it
[1:00:28] is, but some kind of dark material.
[1:00:31] >> Uh sure.
[1:00:32] >> That's the new police department in
[1:00:34] Lehi.
[1:00:35] Downtown Lehi brand new building.
[1:00:37] There's multiple uses in there, but
[1:00:39] I got a terrible picture. You can tell
[1:00:42] it's from the video we talked to y'all
[1:00:43] about last Saturday.
[1:00:44] That right there is probably exactly
[1:00:46] what the police
[1:00:47] So, do you think that would do you think
[1:00:48] that would work?
[1:00:49] Like you can blend with that is all I'm
[1:00:51] saying.
[1:00:52] >> Yeah.
[1:00:53] >> What do you think about Jeff?
[1:00:54] >> I don't know.
[1:00:55] >> Okay. I think we've I think we know the
[1:00:57] issues then. Um
[1:00:59] does does any further discussion or does
[1:01:01] anybody want to make a motion? Let's
[1:01:02] just see where we are as a commission.
[1:01:04] >> Yeah, let's let's see.
[1:01:05] >> Yeah.
[1:01:06] I I am.
[1:01:07] >> But that could go with that, right? Like
[1:01:09] you
[1:01:10] those could go
[1:01:11] >> I kind of like not adding ACM to our
[1:01:15] recommended primary materials list
[1:01:17] because then that kind of gives us the
[1:01:19] option that we have now.
[1:01:21] We have the option to sure, sprinkle it
[1:01:23] in there or whatever, right? I think,
[1:01:25] but
[1:01:26] anyway,
[1:01:27] just to kind of address I don't think
[1:01:28] >> Sure.
[1:01:29] >> adding it as
[1:01:30] >> I I think that's a good point, Troy.
[1:01:32] >> Maybe.
[1:01:34] » Ready for a motion?
[1:01:36] >> I am.
[1:01:38] >> Well, we are.
[1:01:39] >> All right, I'd like to move that we
[1:01:42] approve to the city council of the
[1:01:44] proposed site plan for the new Long
[1:01:46] Range Shooters of Utah commercial
[1:01:48] building
[1:01:49] with the following conditions or
[1:01:51] recommendations. Number one, that the
[1:01:53] city make sure that
[1:01:55] uh
[1:01:56] from a legal standpoint or statute
[1:01:58] standpoint, city state laws allowing
[1:02:00] guns to be sold uh near residences or
[1:02:05] the school
[1:02:07] that we ask that the builder and the
[1:02:10] owner
[1:02:11] make sure that we're compliant with the
[1:02:14] uh sidewalks, so that there is a
[1:02:16] sidewalk prior to going into the parking
[1:02:19] lot.
[1:02:21] And to get us to a point where we are
[1:02:25] sh-
[1:02:26] minding the gap relative to uh ACM not
[1:02:29] yet being approved that in the center
[1:02:32] section from where the garage is and the
[1:02:34] retail store is, instead of having ACM,
[1:02:37] which is metal, not approved yet, not on
[1:02:39] the list, that we use the wood that is
[1:02:43] stained the same color as the ACM metal
[1:02:46] that goes around the windows on the
[1:02:48] retail side.
[1:02:52] » Okay, we have a motion by Greg
[1:02:54] Butterfield. Do we have a second?
[1:03:03] Okay.
[1:03:04] Uh we have no second then, so the motion
[1:03:08] fails.
[1:03:09] Uh what is the reason that that there is
[1:03:11] no second on the motion?
[1:03:13] Is it the Is it the discussion over the
[1:03:16] wood versus the ACM?
[1:03:18] >> Yeah.
[1:03:18] >> Mhm.
[1:03:19] >> Okay.
[1:03:20] Then
[1:03:21] >> Well, I'll second.
[1:03:22] >> Okay.
[1:03:22] >> I'll second this motion.
[1:03:24] >> Okay. So, we have a a belated second by
[1:03:27] Michelle Shermer. Okay.
[1:03:29] Um that's right. All right. Any
[1:03:30] discussion on the motion?
[1:03:33] >> And do you need to have them say
[1:03:35] anything about the 10-ft easement?
[1:03:39] PUE
[1:03:44] » That is on the current site plan.
[1:03:47] It's
[1:03:49] So, I think that the applicant has met
[1:03:51] that requirement.
[1:03:54] Let me pull it back up.
[1:03:55] >> Yeah, that was my understanding uh
[1:03:57] Marla. It indicates that um
[1:04:00] Let's see.
[1:04:02] Have also been evaluated and affirmed
[1:04:03] compliance as long as there is a 10-ft
[1:04:06] PUE along the front property line.
[1:04:10] >> Yep.
[1:04:11] >> So,
[1:04:12] K, that's already confirmed in the
[1:04:14] planner or does it need to be a
[1:04:15] condition?
[1:04:16] >> No, that is there already.
[1:04:17] >> Okay. All right.
[1:04:18] >> Thank you.
[1:04:20] >> Okay. Um we have a motion and a second.
[1:04:22] Discussion on the motion?
[1:04:32] Okay.
[1:04:33] Uh
[1:04:34] shall we go ahead and vote?
[1:04:37] All right. All in favor, I.
[1:04:39] >> I.
[1:04:41] >> Okay, we have an I from Greg Butterfield
[1:04:43] and an I from Michelle Shermer. Um
[1:04:46] did I get them all?
[1:04:47] Okay. All opposed?
[1:04:49] >> Nay.
[1:04:51] >> Okay, motion fails.
[1:04:53] Um
[1:04:54] all right, then we'll need to entertain
[1:04:56] a second motion.
[1:04:58] And I'm going to assume that the basis
[1:05:00] for the nays is the requirement to the
[1:05:03] condition that the painted wood
[1:05:06] be used instead of the ACM.
[1:05:09] Is that
[1:05:10] fair from the nays?
[1:05:13] >> The other way around, right?
[1:05:14] >> way around.
[1:05:15] >> What did I say?
[1:05:16] >> would be used instead of the
[1:05:17] >> ACM.
[1:05:18] >> wood, right?
[1:05:18] >> Yeah.
[1:05:19] >> That's what he said.
[1:05:20] >> That's what I said. No, I said the
[1:05:21] motion failed because the nays, right?
[1:05:23] >> I thought you got to I don't know.
[1:05:25] >> Did I say that wrong?
[1:05:26] >> No, we're you're great.
[1:05:27] >> You said it right.
[1:05:27] >> Okay.
[1:05:28] >> you wrong.
[1:05:28] >> That's what I heard.
[1:05:29] >> Okay.
[1:05:29] >> I'll make a motion.
[1:05:30] >> I just want to clarify the issue so
[1:05:31] we're not sitting here all night, you
[1:05:33] know,
[1:05:33] >> Crazy, I'm sorry.
[1:05:34] >> you know, shooting blind on motions. And
[1:05:36] all right. John?
[1:05:38] >> I I move to recommend approval to City
[1:05:40] Council of the proposed site plan for
[1:05:41] the new Long Range Shooters of Utah
[1:05:44] commercial building finding
[1:05:47] that the exterior materials
[1:05:51] substantially comply with the historic
[1:05:54] gateway district requirements
[1:05:57] and specifically that the ACM material
[1:06:01] mimics um
[1:06:05] the treatment of a wood
[1:06:08] uh
[1:06:08] cl- cladding
[1:06:10] and that it is compliant with
[1:06:13] the historical
[1:06:15] historic district design guidelines.
[1:06:18] We further recommend that
[1:06:21] the um
[1:06:23] apron leading into the parking lot
[1:06:26] uh
[1:06:27] be clearly identified and integrated
[1:06:30] with the sidewalk
[1:06:31] that the city confirm that there are no
[1:06:36] local, state, or federal uh
[1:06:40] ordinances or laws that uh prohibit the
[1:06:42] sale of firearms uh
[1:06:46] adjacent to residential and or um school
[1:06:51] buildings.
[1:06:53] >> Okay. Have a motion by John McAtee. Do
[1:06:55] we have a second?
[1:06:55] >> I'll second it.
[1:06:56] >> Okay, second by Troy Slade. Discussion
[1:06:58] on the motion.
[1:07:02] Okay. All in favor, I.
[1:07:03] >> I.
[1:07:05] Any opposed?
[1:07:06] >> Nay.
[1:07:07] >> Okay.
[1:07:08] So, we have eyes from Troy Slade, John
[1:07:11] McKay, Alan McDonald, Greg Butterfield,
[1:07:14] and Sue Wittenberg. We have nays from
[1:07:16] Jeff Davis and Michelle Shermer. Is that
[1:07:19] accurate?
[1:07:20] >> Yeah.
[1:07:20] >> Okay. Motion passes five to two if I can
[1:07:23] do my math. Okay. Thank you.
[1:07:27] Can we jump into
[1:07:33] action item C?
[1:07:36] » All right. Thank you, Commissioner.
[1:07:42] All right. So, this is a item for a
[1:07:45] preliminary plat approval
[1:07:48] for the Page Senior Housing Plat A.
[1:07:51] This is The applicant is Patterson Homes
[1:07:54] and the location is 242-243
[1:07:57] East Red Pine Drive.
[1:08:00] This is in the senior housing overlay
[1:08:01] zone.
[1:08:04] And it is an acreage of 3.23 acres.
[1:08:08] There are 20 lots.
[1:08:10] Each lot is 0.06 acres.
[1:08:13] And the request is that the preliminary
[1:08:15] plan be approved.
[1:08:19] The Planning Commission is the land use
[1:08:22] authority for this item.
[1:08:24] And then the final plat will be a city
[1:08:26] staff approval if if the preliminary
[1:08:27] plat is approved.
[1:08:31] So, uh the Page Senior Housing
[1:08:34] Preliminary is on a approximately one
[1:08:35] and a half separate parcels of land,
[1:08:37] both owned by Patterson. There are stub
[1:08:39] road connections on the south side of
[1:08:40] the parcel along Red Pine Drive.
[1:08:44] The parcel already went through a
[1:08:45] rezoning process with the city. I
[1:08:47] believe the commissioner saw that uh
[1:08:49] sometime in the past.
[1:08:51] Uh and that's what is allowing this
[1:08:53] development today.
[1:08:56] The parcel abouts a senior housing
[1:08:58] project River Meadows The River Meadows
[1:09:00] PRD to the east.
[1:09:03] Here's the vicinity map. You can see the
[1:09:04] parcel there.
[1:09:06] The roundabout is right here in the
[1:09:07] bottom left corner.
[1:09:09] Just to get an idea of where that is.
[1:09:12] So, there is no minimum lot size for
[1:09:15] lots in the senior housing overlay zone.
[1:09:17] Um there's just a minimum acreage of two
[1:09:20] and a maximum of six for a senior
[1:09:22] housing project
[1:09:24] with only eight units allowed per acre.
[1:09:26] So, this project meets that requirement.
[1:09:29] Uh it does allow as well the senior
[1:09:31] housing overlay zone does allow as well
[1:09:32] for two twin homes attached to be
[1:09:36] in the zone.
[1:09:37] Um
[1:09:39] for the use, uh
[1:09:41] like I just mentioned, that it is for 20
[1:09:44] twin twin homes.
[1:09:47] Uh there's a proposed private trail
[1:09:49] along Dry Creek uh according to our
[1:09:52] current master trail plan map.
[1:09:54] So, uh discussing with staff, Shane
[1:09:57] Sorensen, city administrator, there are
[1:09:59] some
[1:10:00] potential constraints for the exact
[1:10:02] location of the trail.
[1:10:04] And so, uh it might have to be relocated
[1:10:07] to somewhere else
[1:10:09] uh between Red Pine Drive and 100 South.
[1:10:12] And so, that should be determined before
[1:10:14] the final plat is approved.
[1:10:16] The parking requirements are met for
[1:10:18] each unit. I know the commissioners are
[1:10:20] aware of the
[1:10:22] uh requirements that parking cannot be
[1:10:25] in the
[1:10:26] uh in the setback area cuz we've talked
[1:10:29] about that on a former project. And so,
[1:10:32] there are some stalls that encroach into
[1:10:34] that setback from what I can from what
[1:10:36] staff could see.
[1:10:38] Uh but they're not stalls for the
[1:10:40] individual units. They're just
[1:10:41] additional visitor type stalls that are
[1:10:44] on the site plan.
[1:10:46] So, um that will have to be addressed or
[1:10:49] given permission by the commissioners.
[1:10:52] Um there's no amount of additional
[1:10:54] required spaces that are required for a
[1:10:57] project like this, that's determined by
[1:10:59] you as the commissioners.
[1:11:02] Um and then the only other thing would
[1:11:03] just be that the developer will need to
[1:11:06] work with the Alpine Irrigation Company
[1:11:07] to satisfy the city's water share
[1:11:10] requirements
[1:11:11] and will need to be met before the final
[1:11:13] plat can be recorded.
[1:11:15] And also in the senior housing overlay
[1:11:17] zone, a developer's agreement is
[1:11:18] required. And so the applicant will have
[1:11:21] to enter into that with the city council
[1:11:23] before the final plat can be approved.
[1:11:26] Um these comments down here from the
[1:11:28] city engineer, if you have any questions
[1:11:30] for him, please feel free to bring them
[1:11:31] up. I'm just going to jump them for now.
[1:11:34] He answered everyone really well and and
[1:11:37] can answer any questions you might have.
[1:11:39] So the findings for this for this
[1:11:41] proposal is that it complies with the
[1:11:44] zoning ordinances of the business
[1:11:45] commercial zone and the senior housing
[1:11:47] overlay zone.
[1:11:49] All of the new construction that's being
[1:11:51] proposed is outside of the flood flood
[1:11:53] zone
[1:11:55] and there are no exceptions required for
[1:11:58] this to be approved. So the staff would
[1:12:00] recommend the Planning Commission
[1:12:02] uh make a motion to approve the proposed
[1:12:04] preliminary plat for the Page Senior
[1:12:06] Housing A Subdivision
[1:12:08] just with the conditions that the trail
[1:12:10] location be determined before final plat
[1:12:12] approval, developer's agreement be
[1:12:14] entered into before that approval and
[1:12:17] the additional parking spaces be
[1:12:18] adjusted before that final plat approval
[1:12:21] as well. And if there's any
[1:12:23] uh minor redlines on the plat that they
[1:12:24] be corrected. I know there is one that I
[1:12:26] think with the two projects the
[1:12:28] developers doing, they might have
[1:12:29] mistaken a number or something like
[1:12:31] that, but just very minor redlines that
[1:12:33] need to be made.
[1:12:36] All right, so let's jump in and look at
[1:12:38] it unless there's any questions as of
[1:12:40] right now.
[1:12:41] >> I have a quick question on the trail trail
[1:12:44] constraints.
[1:12:45] >> Okay.
[1:12:46] >> What
[1:12:49] On those trail constraints
[1:12:51] Yeah, bring will you bring that up cuz
[1:12:53] that's a wonderful addition to have
[1:12:56] there. Are you Will you give me the
[1:12:58] coordinates of that?
[1:13:02] » Sorry, the coordinates whose?
[1:13:03] >> Yeah, it's so it's Dry Creek. So, the
[1:13:06] Dry Creek Trail, just tell me
[1:13:10] that is coming across that crosses over
[1:13:13] Main Street. And then it So, how do I'm
[1:13:15] just wondering how you're going to
[1:13:17] connect those across the road like that.
[1:13:19] Anyway, we don't want to talk about it
[1:13:20] right now. I just think the trail should
[1:13:22] certain certainly be there. There'll be
[1:13:24] people that will really want to use
[1:13:25] that.
[1:13:26] >> Yeah, and that that is a great question.
[1:13:28] It is an open discussion right now. Um
[1:13:31] Shane Sorensen, city administrator, was
[1:13:32] thinking
[1:13:33] >> Let's wait on it. I'm sorry. Let's wait
[1:13:35] till you have information.
[1:13:36] >> Mhm. It could be something along the
[1:13:37] sidewalk, up the up the private lane,
[1:13:40] and then along the trail, or something
[1:13:41] like that, but that's something that
[1:13:43] needs to be determined. Yeah.
[1:13:44] >> Got it. Is there current access right
[1:13:46] now as a trail through there, or is it
[1:13:49] just a right-of-way that people have
[1:13:50] been taking?
[1:13:52] Cuz people talk people came to a
[1:13:57] public hearing and talked about the
[1:13:58] trail, but is it official, or is it just
[1:14:02] a deer trail?
[1:14:02] >> my understanding is there's a proposed
[1:14:04] private trail that is supposed to go on
[1:14:07] there according to our master trail plan
[1:14:08] map.
[1:14:09] >> And in the past, there's not a current
[1:14:12] official trail there.
[1:14:14] >> That's correct. That's my understanding,
[1:14:16] yeah.
[1:14:22] » Is it Is this the first time we've seen
[1:14:24] the plans of the houses?
[1:14:26] >> Yes.
[1:14:27] >> Okay, so they weren't presented to us
[1:14:28] earlier in the meeting. Okay, cuz I was
[1:14:31] surprised that they were two-story.
[1:14:34] >> Yeah, we can take a look at those. Let
[1:14:35] me pull up the elevations. Um
[1:14:38] So, yeah, here is the site plan.
[1:14:42] Jump to this. Here's a proposed floor
[1:14:45] plan for those units.
[1:14:49] And then
[1:14:54] let's see.
[1:14:59] Let's jump to the elevations. So, these
[1:15:00] are the proposed elevations for the
[1:15:02] units.
[1:15:04] >> Cuz if I can remember right, it seems
[1:15:06] like the first time they presented it, was like they were supposed to be
[1:15:09] just like the houses that were kind of
[1:15:10] built there, but maybe I'm
[1:15:13] I don't know. Do you guys remember that?
[1:15:15] >> twin homes next door
[1:15:15] >> Yeah, like like the
[1:15:16] >> They don't have a
[1:15:17] >> Like the single family homes that were
[1:15:19] down there existing.
[1:15:21] Yeah, so that's kind of
[1:15:24] surprise, but
[1:15:29] guess it's zoned for that, so.
[1:15:34] » Do we have that elevation?
[1:15:36] And are both styles being
[1:15:39] built?
[1:15:41] We have two different frontages. Are
[1:15:43] both styles being built?
[1:15:44] >> One's front and back.
[1:15:47] >> Yeah, there's the front elevation and
[1:15:48] the rear.
[1:15:50] >> Yeah, but but if you keep going down,
[1:15:51] there's another set.
[1:15:54] There's another option. So, I was
[1:15:56] confused.
[1:15:57] Is it
[1:15:59] or
[1:16:00] like this one where the two garages both
[1:16:02] have symmetrical peaks versus
[1:16:05] asymmetrical peaks?
[1:16:07] >> Yeah, that's a great question we can ask
[1:16:08] the applicant. Um, I'm guessing they put
[1:16:10] two different styles in and then one
[1:16:13] will be determined as the
[1:16:14] >> So, they're going to do both. They're
[1:16:17] These are your two options.
[1:16:18] >> I guess I'm not 100% sure, but we can we
[1:16:20] can ask the applicant. That is a good
[1:16:22] question.
[1:16:22] >> Yeah.
[1:16:26] » So, do you want to know the elevation?
[1:16:29] Do you have that measurement?
[1:16:30] >> Caden?
[1:16:30] >> Yeah.
[1:16:37] » Commissioner, are you asking about the
[1:16:38] elevation of the site itself or
[1:16:40] >> Just want to know the elevation of the
[1:16:42] house.
[1:16:42] >> How high is it?
[1:16:45] The height of the house, I guess.
[1:16:49] Yeah, I'd be under 30, I'm sure.
[1:16:52] I'm curious how high it is.
[1:16:55] >> Yeah, Troy, it seemed to me originally
[1:16:56] there was just at least in the rendering
[1:16:58] they were um
[1:17:00] one stories. These look like maybe
[1:17:02] they're maximizing the the space and
[1:17:04] making them two stories, but I think
[1:17:06] that's
[1:17:07] >> Yeah.
[1:17:07] >> I I either way as long as they meet
[1:17:09] height restrictions, right? I don't
[1:17:11] think there's
[1:17:12] I'm I'm I'm not sure I see an issue
[1:17:13] there.
[1:17:14] >> Yeah.
[1:17:15] >> And we can ask about that. I don't think
[1:17:16] we received a a set height restriction
[1:17:20] on the on the twin homes.
[1:17:25] » Yeah.
[1:17:26] yeah, they're yeah.
[1:17:28] >> I don't remember them wanting us to tie
[1:17:30] it in with the other homes because that's a a whole
[1:17:33] different development on that Redpine
[1:17:35] Drive. This is back in its own little
[1:17:38] it's kind of private in there.
[1:17:40] >> Uh, they're just across the fence.
[1:17:41] >> Yeah.
[1:17:42] >> They share but not but they don't share
[1:17:44] >> They're going to share a driveway in the
[1:17:46] back.
[1:17:47] >> Oh, in the very back.
[1:17:48] >> Where the house is currently.
[1:17:49] >> Okay, cuz the one on Redpine they would
[1:17:51] >> Well, they're joining their HOA.
[1:17:53] >> I know that and their HOA
[1:17:54] >> So
[1:17:55] >> It's it's a wonderful little thing they
[1:17:56] got going on over there.
[1:17:57] >> Yeah.
[1:17:59] >> It is. It's been great.
[1:18:01] >> So, let me show you real quick. So, the
[1:18:02] parking I was mentioning, I think some
[1:18:04] of
[1:18:05] a few of these lots, maybe this one on
[1:18:07] the end here and these ones at the the
[1:18:09] front near the right-of-way of the
[1:18:10] development might be in the setback.
[1:18:12] >> Mhm.
[1:18:13] >> And so, they'll have to receive
[1:18:15] uh
[1:18:16] an exception from the commissioners if
[1:18:18] you'd like to grant that or be
[1:18:20] rearranged.
[1:18:22] >> Tonight?
[1:18:23] That exception needs to be granted
[1:18:24] tonight?
[1:18:25] >> Correct.
[1:18:34] But, Cayden, real quick just for
[1:18:36] clarification, these are um kind of
[1:18:40] bonus visitor parking places. They're
[1:18:43] not required
[1:18:45] for
[1:18:47] They're not required to meet the the
[1:18:48] minimum number of parking
[1:18:49] >> Each unit require is required to have
[1:18:51] two spaces and
[1:18:54] each one of each unit should be meeting
[1:18:56] that requirement.
[1:18:58] And then any additional parking the
[1:19:00] senior housing overlay zone says that
[1:19:02] the planning commission can determine
[1:19:03] how much extra parking
[1:19:05] >> they might need.
[1:19:05] >> So an exception isn't required to get
[1:19:08] the minimum parking.
[1:19:10] >> Right. They're They already are meeting
[1:19:11] the minimum requirement of number of
[1:19:13] stalls. It's just the location of it.
[1:19:16] And the setback.
[1:19:17] >> So so the setbacks are going to be
[1:19:20] encroached on by the pavilion
[1:19:24] and all
[1:19:26] four parking spot or all four
[1:19:29] How many How many stalls do we have in
[1:19:31] the front on the south side?
[1:19:33] >> Is it where the lines are? It looks like
[1:19:34] you
[1:19:35] >> It's like you have five stalls here.
[1:19:36] Yeah.
[1:19:37] Two and three.
[1:19:38] >> But you're losing two out front and two
[1:19:41] on the back. Is that that
[1:19:43] straight line is that where the requirement is? So you'd lose one.
[1:19:49] >> Yeah, so this
[1:19:50] >> You know what I'm saying?
[1:19:50] >> This one might actually be okay because
[1:19:53] it really just depends on the back
[1:19:54] property line and I think that actually
[1:19:56] might be out of the setback here.
[1:20:00] Um this line doesn't call out the
[1:20:03] setback, but I so I'm not sure if that's
[1:20:05] what that is. I think it might be.
[1:20:08] So
[1:20:09] but the back property line is right here
[1:20:11] through Dry Creek.
[1:20:14] So if it's outside of that 20-ft
[1:20:17] setback, then that one actually might be
[1:20:19] okay. It's more of these front ones that
[1:20:20] are looks like they're encroaching.
[1:20:22] >> Do we know like Red Pine Circle
[1:20:25] is red lined on one side. You're not
[1:20:28] supposed to park on it because of the
[1:20:30] fire engines. Is that the same thing for
[1:20:32] Page Lane? Is its width
[1:20:35] too narrow
[1:20:37] for park for
[1:20:38] curb side parking?
[1:20:40] Do we know?
[1:20:41] >> I am not aware of that.
[1:20:43] >> Cuz
[1:20:43] >> Yeah, I don't think you I don't think
[1:20:45] you could have
[1:20:47] parking in front of those houses.
[1:20:49] >> Yeah, like on like on Red Pine Circle.
[1:20:52] >> Yes. Yeah, same.
[1:20:54] >> because of the fire engine.
[1:20:58] So, they do need these visitor parking.
[1:21:01] Um I think it's essential.
[1:21:04] I just don't like the front ones in the
[1:21:06] setback. Yeah, the back ones don't
[1:21:09] bother me, but the front ones
[1:21:11] >> Same.
[1:21:12] >> Yeah.
[1:21:13] >> Look, cuz that's all those neighbors in
[1:21:15] there. What about that?
[1:21:16] >> What?
[1:21:16] >> That's right in the middle of that
[1:21:17] neighborhood, too. I get that. I totally
[1:21:19] agree. Michelle.
[1:21:21] >> If my memory's correct, when we had the
[1:21:23] open meeting,
[1:21:24] the neighbors did ask for a concession
[1:21:27] also from a sign standpoint. And so,
[1:21:30] I don't know if that was brought up, but
[1:21:31] the parking stalls where you enter and
[1:21:34] the signage there, making sure that that
[1:21:35] looked consistent or they were
[1:21:37] opinionated about what happens there.
[1:21:40] >> that.
[1:21:43] » That's a good comment, and I do think
[1:21:44] it's this one stall right here that is
[1:21:46] encroaching into the side setback as
[1:21:49] well.
[1:21:51] Okay.
[1:21:54] » And then they connected with the
[1:21:56] existing space for safety, right? So,
[1:21:58] ambulance and fire truck.
[1:22:00] >> Correct.
[1:22:02] >> But that existing will be used full-time
[1:22:05] or just for emergency purposes?
[1:22:09] The back connector.
[1:22:12] >> Uh so, there is no proposed
[1:22:14] >> No, I meant in the back there.
[1:22:16] >> off Red Pine Circle.
[1:22:18] >> [clears throat]
[1:22:18] >> Where the home is currently, that
[1:22:20] >> did the rezoning, it was it was to be
[1:22:22] left open.
[1:22:22] >> It was to be left open permanently.
[1:22:24] >> Yeah, I believe so. Yes.
[1:22:26] >> Yep.
[1:22:36] » Okay, the bananas.
[1:22:42] All right, Kaden, did you get any did I
[1:22:44] know we interrupt you a couple times
[1:22:46] with questions. Did you get through
[1:22:47] everything?
[1:22:48] >> I think that should be all for my side.
[1:22:49] Yes.
[1:22:51] » Okay, um
[1:22:55] besides the issues already raised, any
[1:22:56] further questions from Kaden on the
[1:22:59] introduction of the action item?
[1:23:07] Okay.
[1:23:08] Uh any discussion?
[1:23:12] Uh do we have a petitioner here, Kaden?
[1:23:15] >> Yes, the applicant is here.
[1:23:16] >> Okay, sure, love to.
[1:23:20] » [snorts]
[1:23:22] >> Good evening.
[1:23:23] Ross Welch, uh representing Patterson
[1:23:26] Homes.
[1:23:27] So, I want to clarify a couple things.
[1:23:29] So,
[1:23:30] the standard plan of these homes is to
[1:23:34] be one level.
[1:23:35] Um
[1:23:37] the dormers and other things are just
[1:23:39] for aesthetics,
[1:23:41] but there is an option if they want to
[1:23:43] put a bonus room up there, we can access
[1:23:46] it at that point.
[1:23:48] Um
[1:23:49] we originally, when we came in and
[1:23:51] sought the rezone, had a site plan that
[1:23:53] was part of that. And if you recall, it
[1:23:56] had 24 units in that site plan. We've
[1:23:59] reduced this down to 20 units.
[1:24:01] Um the reason is because we couldn't get
[1:24:04] a floor plan that we liked for this
[1:24:07] marketplace.
[1:24:08] Uh one thing we realized in the one next
[1:24:10] door is that the footprint's a little
[1:24:12] too small. And so, we reduced this down
[1:24:15] by four units so that we could make the
[1:24:17] footprints larger. Uh the each of these
[1:24:20] on the main floor will be close to 1950
[1:24:23] square feet with one bedroom. So, it
[1:24:25] gives nice usable space. And then the
[1:24:29] basement area uh
[1:24:31] to use as well.
[1:24:33] Um yes, as far as trails go, that is a
[1:24:36] consideration. We're we're fine to put a
[1:24:38] trail wherever, but currently there's
[1:24:40] not anything we're connecting and
[1:24:42] accessing. And so, that's why that's
[1:24:45] there. Uh
[1:24:46] parking
[1:24:49] we appreciate any parking we can get. Uh
[1:24:52] we think it's useful and beneficial.
[1:24:54] The
[1:24:56] connection with the existing River
[1:24:58] Meadows 55 and older community
[1:25:00] uh I I sit on the board of that group,
[1:25:04] and there was concern about the traffic
[1:25:06] flow coming. And I said, "I'm not sure I
[1:25:09] know of anybody who would want to turn
[1:25:12] to then turn to then go down to the road
[1:25:15] to get out."
[1:25:17] People are just going to go down the
[1:25:18] street and get out. It's there for in
[1:25:20] case of an emergency, something gets
[1:25:22] blocked, we have an access. Just like in
[1:25:25] the existing River Meadows utilizes the
[1:25:27] assisted living parking lot to get out.
[1:25:30] So,
[1:25:31] >> So, you assume most of the ingress
[1:25:32] egress is off of Red Pine?
[1:25:34] >> Yes. Yeah. It's a direct shot, so I
[1:25:36] assume everybody's going to go straight.
[1:25:40] Um
[1:25:41] and
[1:25:43] yes.
[1:25:44] So, that just wanted to give that kind
[1:25:45] of background and and where we're at.
[1:25:47] Any other questions you may have?
[1:25:49] >> So, do you know where your your property
[1:25:51] line is on the back?
[1:25:56] » Well, I
[1:25:57] could adjust it cuz I own the property
[1:25:59] to the north. So, I can make it wherever
[1:26:01] I need it to be.
[1:26:02] >> Okay, well, that takes care of those
[1:26:03] ones then anyway, right?
[1:26:04] >> So, that take care of a problem by
[1:26:06] moving over 5 ft, then I don't have a
[1:26:08] problem with setback on the parking.
[1:26:09] >> Yeah.
[1:26:10] >> I like that.
[1:26:11] >> So, do you own Dry Creek? Is or is that
[1:26:15] >> We don't.
[1:26:16] >> city property?
[1:26:17] >> It's
[1:26:17] >> No, it's it's a waterway and so the waterway
[1:26:22] you have your property line, but I don't
[1:26:24] control the creek, obviously.
[1:26:26] >> Right, but up to the up to the bed?
[1:26:29] Or where is
[1:26:30] >> adjoining property that you own.
[1:26:31] >> To the adjoining property goes all the
[1:26:32] way through.
[1:26:33] >> All the way through.
[1:26:34] >> Right.
[1:26:38] » Okay, well that's
[1:26:39] that any issues of
[1:26:43] granting an exception for parking on the
[1:26:45] rear stalls
[1:26:47] we ought not make a
[1:26:49] an exception for.
[1:26:52] We just make it compliant.
[1:26:54] The front, I don't know. What are your
[1:26:55] thoughts on the front stalls?
[1:26:57] >> Well,
[1:26:59] help me understand your concerns with
[1:27:01] the parking in the in that area. What have been the issues you've seen by
[1:27:05] being in that area?
[1:27:09] » On the front?
[1:27:10] >> Yeah.
[1:27:11] >> It's just the setback issue.
[1:27:13] >> But what what what by the setback
[1:27:15] meaning what does that cause?
[1:27:17] >> we have guidelines that you have to
[1:27:20] have structures set back so many feet
[1:27:23] from the street.
[1:27:26] >> Right.
[1:27:27] And that that asphalt is considered a
[1:27:29] structure then or
[1:27:31] >> It's part of the setback. Yeah, I mean
[1:27:33] we have the same issue right right here
[1:27:35] on the corner that we had to talk about
[1:27:37] the setbacks for the parking that's come
[1:27:39] by station.
[1:27:40] >> Just just because normally you're going
[1:27:42] to have an aesthetic, right? Where
[1:27:43] there's a setback and it's typically
[1:27:44] landscape. There's trees or grass or
[1:27:47] bushes or something in that setback so
[1:27:49] it's an aesthetic where we
[1:27:50] typically like the the the
[1:27:53] that area to be landscaped and then
[1:27:56] um
[1:27:57] parking and
[1:27:58] buildings etc. You know, not encroach in
[1:28:00] that setback and it's a it's an
[1:28:02] aesthetic issue.
[1:28:03] >> there's a park strip area, but then
[1:28:05] you're saying you'd prefer to have grass
[1:28:07] there instead of the
[1:28:09] Got it.
[1:28:10] >> And also there was just some of the
[1:28:11] neighbors that across right directly
[1:28:13] across the street.
[1:28:14] >> Uh-huh.
[1:28:14] >> They had contacted them and that was one
[1:28:16] of the things Greg was referring to too
[1:28:18] with the signage and stuff. It just
[1:28:20] feels
[1:28:21] for them,
[1:28:22] you know, just have parked cars out
[1:28:24] there and even though it's been like
[1:28:25] that little junkyard
[1:28:27] >> Well, no. I'm I'm humored by that cuz I live there
[1:28:31] and that red pine is a parking lot for
[1:28:33] that home across the street. But anyway,
[1:28:35] >> I know.
[1:28:36] >> [laughter]
[1:28:36] >> Yeah.
[1:28:38] >> But yeah, okay.
[1:28:39] >> But there just was some talk about that.
[1:28:41] Do you remember?
[1:28:43] >> So we're we're in that I mean we're talking
[1:28:45] about two parking spots, right?
[1:28:49] » Maybe about
[1:28:50] >> There's at least
[1:28:54] I mean I if that line that runs through
[1:28:57] there is the setback line, I'm just
[1:28:59] there's one, two, three, four, five five
[1:29:01] spots so it impact two.
[1:29:03] >> Yeah, this here is the setback line
[1:29:04] right here.
[1:29:05] >> Oh, okay. Okay. I'm it's a different
[1:29:07] one.
[1:29:08] >> All five of those are in the setback.
[1:29:12] Yeah, just to add on to what the
[1:29:13] commissioner is saying, it's just also
[1:29:15] it's just a requirement if if the
[1:29:17] parking lots are in the setback, they
[1:29:19] have to give an exception to it. Yeah.
[1:29:23] Let me let me show it right here.
[1:29:27] So it says no portion of the setback
[1:29:28] area adjacent to a street shall be used
[1:29:30] for off-street parking.
[1:29:31] >> Okay.
[1:29:35] Well, that's pretty cut and dry.
[1:29:37] >> Yeah. Yeah, that's that's
[1:29:39] >> Well, John, we can make it more vague if
[1:29:40] we need to.
[1:29:41] >> [laughter]
[1:29:45] » We don't like to go there.
[1:29:46] >> Okay. All right. I'm good. I'm good.
[1:29:53] Okay.
[1:29:54] Anybody have any further questions for
[1:29:56] Ross?
[1:29:57] >> Um yeah, may this is probably this is
[1:30:00] probably just mostly for my personal
[1:30:02] information.
[1:30:04] Uh
[1:30:05] Caleb's Caleb read has some information
[1:30:07] about uh water.
[1:30:09] >> Yes.
[1:30:10] >> So, this is in Alpine. So, why is there water shares that have to
[1:30:17] because
[1:30:18] that is separate now? Is that's all
[1:30:21] >> I think it's
[1:30:22] I think it relates more that the density
[1:30:24] has changed here with the overlay and so
[1:30:27] more water is needed. Possibly that's
[1:30:28] the issue.
[1:30:29] >> is that is that what the issue is,
[1:30:31] Jason?
[1:30:32] >> And we have a lot of water banked with
[1:30:35] the city, so it's not an issue for us.
[1:30:36] >> Okay. Okay. So, you're So, Patterson is
[1:30:39] just going to trade whatever that
[1:30:42] density is and say, "Okay, we're going
[1:30:44] to make up for it by giving the city X
[1:30:46] amount of shares."
[1:30:47] >> Right.
[1:30:48] >> Okay. Okay. Cuz I I don't believe we've
[1:30:52] faced that at least my time on the
[1:30:54] commission where where that was an
[1:30:56] issue.
[1:30:57] >> Every development that comes into the
[1:30:59] city, [clears throat] if these were all
[1:31:00] single-family homes, they would still
[1:31:02] have to bring water in.
[1:31:04] >> Okay.
[1:31:04] >> Any development that comes into the city
[1:31:06] does.
[1:31:07] >> But typically
[1:31:10] that's already It's part of that, you
[1:31:12] know,
[1:31:13] uh
[1:31:14] I mean, it
[1:31:15] the people that had the the land before
[1:31:18] already had water, and so
[1:31:21] >> Not always.
[1:31:23] >> Okay, not always.
[1:31:23] >> There There are times It depends on the
[1:31:25] landowner. It depends on the landowner,
[1:31:26] but in this case
[1:31:29] they needed to get water rights through
[1:31:30] the city.
[1:31:31] >> Okay.
[1:31:36] Any further questions for us?
[1:31:38] >> So, is that is that damaging if we uh
[1:31:41] can't give you the parking lots on the
[1:31:43] street?
[1:31:47] » What What did you ask, John?
[1:31:48] >> If it was damaging to the project by not
[1:31:51] being able to grant
[1:31:53] >> Yeah, or or or since Ross
[1:31:55] since they own the property to the
[1:31:57] north, could always pick those slide the
[1:31:59] whole thing.
[1:32:00] >> That That way
[1:32:03] bear with me here.
[1:32:04] >> Oh, yeah. we got a creek in the way.
[1:32:06] >> [laughter]
[1:32:08] >> Okay. Thank you, Ross.
[1:32:10] >> Thank you.
[1:32:13] » Okay.
[1:32:15] >> Are are
[1:32:16] is there is there a requirement on the
[1:32:19] park on the number of spaces? There's
[1:32:21] not, right?
[1:32:23] >> By ordinance, but it just they aren't
[1:32:25] covering for visitors really, except for
[1:32:27] these back parking stalls.
[1:32:28] >> Yeah, but they're
[1:32:29] >> It's a convenience issue, but they don't
[1:32:31] need those stalls on Red Pine to meet
[1:32:33] their minimum parking requirements.
[1:32:35] >> Okay.
[1:32:37] >> [snorts]
[1:32:39] >> Okay.
[1:32:40] Um,
[1:32:41] just just couple guidelines remember
[1:32:43] that I think
[1:32:44] Kate and Craig will find wrong, but this
[1:32:46] is where the land use authority on this,
[1:32:48] so we are just making a motion. It's not a recommendation that
[1:32:53] goes to City Council.
[1:32:55] Okay, just a point of order for the
[1:32:57] motion.
[1:32:57] >> Moving to approve.
[1:32:59] >> Yep.
[1:33:02] » All right, any discussion or is anybody
[1:33:04] >> So so we have parking slash
[1:33:08] >> Well, I think we've got under the staff
[1:33:09] recommendations that the trail location
[1:33:11] needs to be determined before final plat
[1:33:13] approval.
[1:33:14] >> Okay.
[1:33:15] >> Um, that the developer's agreement be
[1:33:17] entered into with the city before final
[1:33:19] plat approval, and then probably uh
[1:33:21] depending on on how the motion goes with
[1:33:23] the parking spaces, there there would
[1:33:27] need to be an exception
[1:33:29] to the off-street parking requirement
[1:33:32] if you're going to allow those five
[1:33:33] spaces on Red Pine.
[1:33:39] » I just have a quick question for Ross.
[1:33:40] How many of the lots have sold? You
[1:33:42] don't have to come up, I'm just curious.
[1:33:44] Has that been have they mostly sold out?
[1:33:47] >> No, we haven't started to market yet cuz
[1:33:49] we
[1:33:50] first need to get a plan approved. And
[1:33:52] then once we have that
[1:33:54] >> Smart of you.
[1:33:55] >> Yeah.
[1:33:56] And then we have to get it developed.
[1:33:57] And then point.
[1:33:58] >> The way the market is
[1:33:59] >> Just remind Sue that we have an
[1:34:01] emoluments clause and she is not able
[1:34:03] to, you know, make a condition here that
[1:34:05] you give her a call about a sale.
[1:34:08] >> Sorry.
[1:34:09] >> Don't start.
[1:34:10] >> Are on your two options of the design, are you using both or are
[1:34:15] you choosing one?
[1:34:16] Your
[1:34:17] >> The girl in the
[1:34:17] >> Yeah.
[1:34:18] >> Well, the back is different, too, on
[1:34:20] each of them.
[1:34:21] >> We are debating. We kind of like to have
[1:34:24] some uh
[1:34:25] >> I need some units.
[1:34:26] >> variety so it's not totally homogeneous.
[1:34:29] So, it does make it easier to figure out
[1:34:31] which one's your unit if you
[1:34:33] >> Yeah.
[1:34:34] You come home a little tired.
[1:34:37] So, you are using both?
[1:34:39] >> Yeah. And
[1:34:40] >> Okay. Yes.
[1:34:43] » Okay. Any further discussion?
[1:34:54] Anybody like to make a motion? I'd
[1:34:55] entertain one.
[1:35:07] » What what's this What's the developer's
[1:35:10] agreement to be entered into with the
[1:35:13] city? What what What What agreement are
[1:35:15] we talking about here?
[1:35:16] >> So, yeah, per the senior housing overlay
[1:35:18] zone requirements, it is required that
[1:35:21] the developer enter into an enter into a
[1:35:23] developer's agreement. I
[1:35:24] >> Oh.
[1:35:25] >> development agreement, I think is
[1:35:26] same thing.
[1:35:27] >> Just for the senior overlay.
[1:35:29] >> Correct. Yes.
[1:35:30] >> Okay. That Yeah, but that that it's that
[1:35:34] and only that.
[1:35:35] >> Correct.
[1:35:36] >> Okay. Yep.
[1:35:38] >> What?
[1:35:38] >> It's good, Jeff.
[1:35:40] >> Uh what We got a little powwow over
[1:35:42] here.
[1:35:46] » Caden, can you pull up the uh off-street
[1:35:49] parking requirement?
[1:35:52] And and what are the criteria to grant
[1:35:54] an exception if any?
[1:35:57] » Yes, it's right here in 324-060.
[1:36:01] It's the same one we've looked at
[1:36:02] before. These four criteria.
[1:36:15] » Okay, so this
[1:36:15] >> There's There's There's nothing about
[1:36:17] number.
[1:36:18] >> Is that what you're looking for, John?
[1:36:19] >> no.
[1:36:20] Two things. First, we can't grant that.
[1:36:23] It has to be
[1:36:24] approved by the city council.
[1:36:30] » What What's the exception that we're
[1:36:31] looking for? The setback?
[1:36:33] >> To to to put parking in the setback.
[1:36:36] >> Yeah.
[1:36:38] So, is but is our land use authority
[1:36:42] isn't one of the options is to
[1:36:46] eliminate
[1:36:48] I mean, I guess if we eliminate the
[1:36:50] front ones, we still have that one stall
[1:36:54] in the back that is partially
[1:36:56] encroaching.
[1:36:56] >> he can uh
[1:36:58] move
[1:36:59] >> Okay.
[1:37:00] >> He can he can move that property line to
[1:37:02] be com-
[1:37:03] >> Okay.
[1:37:06] » So, it's just the front.
[1:37:08] >> Yeah.
[1:37:08] >> But But I think Kadner Kadner said it or
[1:37:11] John said it that again, no portion of
[1:37:13] the setback area adjacent to a street
[1:37:15] shall be used for off-street parking.
[1:37:16] Exceptions to the off-street parking
[1:37:18] location requirement may be approved by
[1:37:21] the city council after recommendation.
[1:37:23] So,
[1:37:24] I would I would assume if we were so
[1:37:25] inclined to we
[1:37:28] would would we have would we because we're not sending
[1:37:34] I mean, we're we're approving or not
[1:37:36] approving. But if there were a setback,
[1:37:39] that would have to I mean, per
[1:37:41] ordinance, that's got to go to city
[1:37:42] council.
[1:37:43] >> Yeah.
[1:37:43] >> Just say
[1:37:45] ignorance on our part,
[1:37:47] Let's take them off.
[1:37:49] >> Okay.
[1:37:50] >> Here is our mistake.
[1:37:51] >> All right. Very good.
[1:37:54] Makes it easy. Thank you.
[1:37:55] >> Oh.
[1:37:56] >> We got our sandwiches over here.
[1:37:57] >> Sure.
[1:37:59] >> You don't have to come up. Just Chase
[1:38:01] eating.
[1:38:02] >> No, we don't It's not a public hearing,
[1:38:03] but we certainly don't don't want
[1:38:05] somebody not be
[1:38:06] Excuse me.
[1:38:07] Oh, [laughter] okay. Oh, got you.
[1:38:10] Oh, okay. I was going to All
[1:38:13] Oh, all right.
[1:38:15] >> That That is a good point though. I
[1:38:17] think it might be something we have to
[1:38:18] clean up in the code because you are the
[1:38:20] land use authority. So, I'm not sure why
[1:38:22] it would have to go to the city council.
[1:38:24] >> Yeah, I don't even Yeah, I was thinking
[1:38:25] how would it How does that even work?
[1:38:27] So,
[1:38:28] yeah. You might You might mention that
[1:38:31] to the city attorney.
[1:38:32] >> Yeah, but this is This is a general
[1:38:35] ordinance
[1:38:36] uh street parking. So, it's not we're
[1:38:39] dealing with a specific land use case.
[1:38:42] This is more gen- At least in my my
[1:38:45] understanding, Alan, this is more
[1:38:46] general
[1:38:48] uh off-street parking.
[1:38:51] Yeah.
[1:38:51] >> Okay. Well, I think it's a moot issue
[1:38:53] because it's it sounds like it's not an
[1:38:54] issue. Okay?
[1:38:56] All right.
[1:38:58] Good clarification. Anybody interested
[1:38:59] in making a motion?
[1:39:00] >> Okay.
[1:39:02] I I'll I'll I'll make a motion.
[1:39:05] Um I move to approve the preliminary
[1:39:07] applic- application of the
[1:39:10] Page Senior Housing Plat A as proposed
[1:39:14] with the following conditions that the
[1:39:17] trail location be determined before
[1:39:19] final plat approval.
[1:39:22] And the developer's agreement be entered
[1:39:25] into the city before final plat
[1:39:27] approval.
[1:39:29] And the
[1:39:31] and that the additional parking spaces
[1:39:33] in the back be adjusted to meet DCA 3.24
[1:39:40] before final plat approval.
[1:39:43] And the parking spaces in the front be
[1:39:47] removed from the final design.
[1:39:50] >> [snorts]
[1:39:50] >> Okay, we have a a motion by Jeff Davis.
[1:39:53] Do we have a second?
[1:39:54] >> I'll second it.
[1:39:55] >> Okay, second by Sue Wittenberg.
[1:39:56] Discussion on the motion.
[1:39:58] >> We don't need to address the other stall
[1:40:00] on the other side of the property.
[1:40:02] >> Do you get he'll just take care of that?
[1:40:03] >> Well, well, he
[1:40:05] Yeah, I think he he did mention it in
[1:40:07] the motion.
[1:40:08] >> did you Okay, didn't Okay. All right.
[1:40:10] >> Do we have to keep the minor thing in
[1:40:11] the [clears throat]
[1:40:12] the minor red lines?
[1:40:15] Does that have to be in there?
[1:40:16] >> What's that?
[1:40:17] >> The minor red lines that continue down
[1:40:19] the creek.
[1:40:21] >> Oh, oh, the last one. Any minor red
[1:40:23] lines?
[1:40:25] Oh.
[1:40:27] I don't think you
[1:40:29] Caleb, did you discuss any minor red
[1:40:32] lines in your presentation?
[1:40:34] >> So,
[1:40:35] >> I don't recall.
[1:40:37] >> I think there was just one correction on
[1:40:39] the plat that that the number was just
[1:40:42] incorrect.
[1:40:43] >> Okay.
[1:40:43] >> So, that's that's the reason that's on
[1:40:45] there.
[1:40:45] >> Yeah, that is minor.
[1:40:46] >> Okay.
[1:40:48] All right. So, we have a motion and a
[1:40:50] second. Discussion?
[1:40:54] Okay. All in favor, I? I. Any opposed?
[1:40:58] Okay, motion passes unanimously.
[1:41:01] All right,
[1:41:02] um
[1:41:03] Caden, not Caleb.
[1:41:05] >> Caden.
[1:41:06] >> Okay.
[1:41:07] My mistake.
[1:41:09] >> Um
[1:41:11] >> [clears throat]
[1:41:11] >> Sue, I thought you would enjoy me
[1:41:13] reminding Jeff that he misnamed Caden.
[1:41:17] That was for you. That was for your
[1:41:18] benefit. Okay, you're welcome.
[1:41:20] >> So, you can [snorts] poke him next to you there.
[1:41:22] >> I I know better.
[1:41:23] >> Okay, let's
[1:41:24] uh
[1:41:25] Caden, if you could introduce the final
[1:41:28] action item for us, please.
[1:41:30] >> Thank you, Jeff.
[1:41:31] >> And don't worry about that, Jeff, cuz
[1:41:32] Don Quigley has called me Caleb multiple
[1:41:34] times as well, so.
[1:41:36] >> Don't tell him that.
[1:41:37] >> get it right. It's only Katie.
[1:41:38] >> It's a common common thing I've I'm used
[1:41:40] to.
[1:41:40] >> Thanks for coming tonight.
[1:41:48] » All right. So, this final item is
[1:41:50] related to the senior housing project.
[1:41:57] It is the other part of the property uh
[1:42:01] of Mr. Roswell's property um
[1:42:04] uh on the north side. So, the applicant
[1:42:07] again is Patterson Homes.
[1:42:09] This is 242 East 100 South. So, coming
[1:42:11] off 100 South there.
[1:42:13] This is the TR-10,000 zone.
[1:42:17] The remaining acreage after the approval
[1:42:20] of the senior housing, if it gets
[1:42:21] approved, would be 1.53 acres. And so,
[1:42:24] the proposal is to use that remaining
[1:42:26] acreage for three lots
[1:42:28] between 0.23 and 0.62 acres
[1:42:32] for that uh for that remaining acreage.
[1:42:36] So, it's on half a parcel of land owned
[1:42:39] by should be Mr. Welch here, but I put
[1:42:40] Patterson. Um there are stubbed road connections on the north side of
[1:42:44] the parcel.
[1:42:45] to the south that went
[1:42:47] through the rezoning of the senior
[1:42:48] housing as we've just discussed.
[1:42:50] So, the
[1:42:52] applicant is working with the
[1:42:53] neighboring parcel to the west to allow
[1:42:55] for a new cul-de-sac on this property
[1:42:57] that we will look at briefly.
[1:43:01] Um so, here's the vicinity map. You can
[1:43:03] see it's that top part of the same same
[1:43:06] parcel here.
[1:43:08] Um the lot width there's no minimum lot
[1:43:10] size for lots
[1:43:12] uh
[1:43:13] Oh.
[1:43:15] That might not have been updated.
[1:43:17] Apologies for that. I was still talking
[1:43:18] about the senior housing.
[1:43:20] Um
[1:43:22] Am I on the right one?
[1:43:23] >> Yeah, you are.
[1:43:24] >> Oh.
[1:43:27] Okay, I guess that didn't get updated.
[1:43:28] Sorry about that.
[1:43:30] Um but basically yeah, the lot
[1:43:32] uh the use is what we've already
[1:43:33] discussed. The trail would be the same
[1:43:35] situation as the as the last one.
[1:43:38] Um, the main concern on this one would
[1:43:40] be the roads. Um, so the proposed
[1:43:43] cul-de-sac for these three lots is only
[1:43:45] meeting half the requirements um, for
[1:43:47] the cul-de-sac development. Uh, and
[1:43:50] that's because it's what's on the uh, at
[1:43:53] the proposed change of property. So, um,
[1:43:58] we I think, uh, we're assuming that they
[1:44:01] the applicant is
[1:44:03] assuming that the neighboring property
[1:44:04] will take on the responsibility of
[1:44:06] finishing out the full width
[1:44:07] requirements when it develops, if it
[1:44:09] does.
[1:44:10] So, the applicant and neighboring parcel
[1:44:12] need to go through an exchange of
[1:44:13] property or receiving approval on the
[1:44:14] boundary line adjustment for the
[1:44:16] possibility of the cul-de-sac. Uh, when
[1:44:19] doing the adjustment, staff recommends
[1:44:20] that the boundary adjusted meet the
[1:44:22] right-of-way requirements of cul-de-sacs
[1:44:24] in the code.
[1:44:25] Um, because if it's not, then it will be
[1:44:27] have to be re- readjusted later through
[1:44:29] a plat amendment.
[1:44:31] So, that was the the main thing we
[1:44:33] noticed there.
[1:44:34] And then, just the other is the same as
[1:44:36] the the last one, provide Alpine
[1:44:38] irrigation water shares to satisfy the city's water requirements.
[1:44:42] >> So, so, Kaden, just a quick question on
[1:44:44] that and and just pardon my ignorance,
[1:44:46] but, um, this isn't a cart before the
[1:44:49] horse situation. I mean, shouldn't, for
[1:44:51] example,
[1:44:52] should that already take place with the
[1:44:54] neighbor before this comes to us or
[1:44:57] it just seems odd that we're kind of
[1:45:00] making the the Mhm. I mean,
[1:45:04] >> Yeah, I think it could be done that way
[1:45:07] because this is preliminary plat plat
[1:45:09] approval and this applicant's been
[1:45:10] waiting for a long time to get this in
[1:45:12] front of you. We determined that it
[1:45:13] would be fine to to bring this to you
[1:45:15] that's to see the plan. Um, but
[1:45:18] obviously, it couldn't be done without
[1:45:20] that boundary line adjustment.
[1:45:22] >> So, so, you're bringing it you're
[1:45:23] bringing it before us, but it is a
[1:45:25] condition.
[1:45:25] >> Yeah.
[1:45:27] >> Correct.
[1:45:27] >> I think that's
[1:45:30] >> Ross, you have a comment?
[1:45:31] >> Mhm.
[1:45:32] I think we're good.
[1:45:34] Take your time.
[1:45:35] >> Should we go ahead and and if go ahead
[1:45:37] and finish your your presentation?
[1:45:38] >> Yeah, and I know the applicant has
[1:45:40] talked to us
[1:45:40] >> on that one.
[1:45:41] >> Yeah, the applicant has talked to us
[1:45:42] about that they've already been in
[1:45:44] contact with the neighboring property
[1:45:45] and that they're working to do that.
[1:45:48] Um
[1:45:50] and so
[1:45:51] because of that as well, we determined
[1:45:53] that it would be fine to come as as a
[1:45:54] preliminary approval today.
[1:45:57] So, just to finish this up, yeah, the
[1:45:59] findings would be that it complies with
[1:46:02] the TR 10,000 zone. Um the all the new
[1:46:05] building footprints that are proposed do
[1:46:07] not include areas of floodway.
[1:46:09] Um they may include areas of the flood
[1:46:11] zone and require additional approval
[1:46:14] from from FEMA and that this should be a
[1:46:16] note on the plat.
[1:46:18] Um and it meets all requirements of the exception to the ordinance as
[1:46:23] long as they are able to do that
[1:46:25] boundary line adjustment.
[1:46:27] So, our full recommendation would be to
[1:46:29] approve the preliminary plan with the
[1:46:32] conditions that the trail be determined
[1:46:33] as the last one that the same as the
[1:46:35] last
[1:46:36] application. A boundary adjustment be
[1:46:38] completed between the applicant and the
[1:46:40] neighboring property that allows the
[1:46:41] full size of the right away before final
[1:46:43] plat approval.
[1:46:45] The plat includes a plat note dedicating
[1:46:47] the proposed public streets to Alpine
[1:46:48] City.
[1:46:49] The plat includes a plat note that says
[1:46:51] that any building footprints in the
[1:46:52] flood zone require additional approval
[1:46:54] from FEMA.
[1:46:57] » Okay, can you just clear something up
[1:46:58] for me, too? Then, on the lot width,
[1:47:01] area, and shape, there was a mistake in
[1:47:03] our packet cuz you
[1:47:05] indicate here there's no minimum lot
[1:47:07] size for lots in the senior housing
[1:47:09] overlay
[1:47:10] zone. So, this is not this So, each of
[1:47:14] these lots, there's what, three?
[1:47:16] >> Three.
[1:47:16] >> Okay. Yes, and they all do meet the lot
[1:47:18] width requirements.
[1:47:20] >> my I see that one's 10,000 and change.
[1:47:22] 10,000.
[1:47:22] >> Yeah, sorry. I guess in the in the
[1:47:24] shuffle of putting this packet together
[1:47:25] that
[1:47:25] >> And and the other two are okay.
[1:47:27] >> Yes, they do all meet the lot right with
[1:47:29] requirements here alongside the
[1:47:31] cul-de-sac right away.
[1:47:33] Yep.
[1:47:34] >> Yeah, and and before we next month when
[1:47:37] we approve all of this,
[1:47:40] probably ought to fix fix that. So
[1:47:42] >> Yeah.
[1:47:44] That will be updated.
[1:47:48] Right, so
[1:47:50] let me just show So this is the Let me
[1:47:52] jump to actually the plat. This is one
[1:47:54] of the pages in the plat packet.
[1:47:56] Let me go to the actual plat.
[1:48:06] Maybe that's a little too small.
[1:48:09] So here's the actual plat.
[1:48:12] Um this is only three lots. A minor
[1:48:15] subdivision in our code allows for three
[1:48:17] lots or less to be just city staff
[1:48:19] approval.
[1:48:20] But because of the new cul-de-sac
[1:48:22] proposed, that's why it's coming before
[1:48:24] you today.
[1:48:25] >> Okay.
[1:48:27] Yeah, I was wondering why that was the
[1:48:29] case. So great.
[1:48:31] So it's just because of that cul-de-sac.
[1:48:33] >> Correct. And what I was discussing in
[1:48:35] the packet above is um a cul-de-sac
[1:48:38] requires a 60-ft
[1:48:41] uh radius, so 120 across the entirety of
[1:48:44] the turnaround.
[1:48:44] >> Yeah.
[1:48:46] >> And so we noticed they're maybe a maybe
[1:48:48] a little short here.
[1:48:49] Um the right-of-way distance here should be
[1:48:53] 54 ft. They have 27 on this side, so
[1:48:56] that meets that half, but then it's
[1:48:57] obviously too short on this side.
[1:49:00] Again, that's probably because they're
[1:49:01] expecting that when this southern
[1:49:03] property or
[1:49:05] to them the western property develops
[1:49:07] that they'll they'll finish out that
[1:49:09] right-of-way.
[1:49:10] But because they'll need to do that
[1:49:11] boundary line adjustment anyway to
[1:49:13] adjust this bold property line,
[1:49:16] the staff recommends that they just do
[1:49:18] it according to the right-of-way
[1:49:20] requirements for a cul-de-sac at that
[1:49:21] time. If that makes sense.
[1:49:23] >> Well, at that at that time. Okay.
[1:49:28] And is that just a vacant lot right now
[1:49:29] or just dirt? There's not a home or
[1:49:31] anything in there that needs to be
[1:49:32] adjusted with the current owner?
[1:49:36] >> The property to the west are you talking
[1:49:37] about, Commissioner?
[1:49:38] >> Where you
[1:49:39] the south side or the bottom side of the
[1:49:42] cul-de-sac.
[1:49:43] >> Yeah, I believe so. Yeah,
[1:49:45] the up There is a home there. Okay.
[1:49:52] » Yeah, there there is a home back there.
[1:49:57] » And I believe that's all I have. If you
[1:49:59] have any other questions, feel free to
[1:50:02] let me know.
[1:50:03] Okay.
[1:50:05] >> So, I go down to page
[1:50:07] 83. Is that 83?
[1:50:10] 84. Is that where it's showing the home?
[1:50:14] » What I was trying to find out if it
[1:50:17] put them out of compliance in any way.
[1:50:20] It's back further.
[1:50:21] >> Yeah, it's back it's back four.
[1:50:24] >> And you can see these dash lines here.
[1:50:25] These are
[1:50:27] potential opportunities for this
[1:50:29] property owner to subdivide in the
[1:50:30] future. Yeah.
[1:50:34] » Maintaining that front distance, right?
[1:50:40] » Yeah, that's right.
[1:50:41] >> Yeah.
[1:50:43] It's pretty small on that cul-de-sac.
[1:50:46] Does it Does that meet Does that meet
[1:50:48] their requirements on that big parcel?
[1:50:53] In the cul-de-sac, that little front.
[1:50:55] Not that one, keep going or that. Yeah,
[1:50:57] keep going all the way. That one right
[1:50:59] there.
[1:51:00] Is that Is that big enough?
[1:51:05] On the Yeah, right there.
[1:51:09] » That's a good question. I'm not sure. We
[1:51:11] haven't investigated [clears throat]
[1:51:12] fully the
[1:51:13] this proposal cuz it's still again it's
[1:51:15] in
[1:51:16] hasn't been a
[1:51:18] proposed at all as an application.
[1:51:21] » Yeah, um
[1:51:24] Can Berg at the required front yard setback, it
[1:51:29] meets the 90 ft.
[1:51:30] >> Oh, it does. Okay, that's 90 ft. Okay.
[1:51:32] >> On the cul-de-sac, you don't measure
[1:51:34] right at the cul-de-sac. You measure at
[1:51:35] the at the setback. So, that's why it
[1:51:37] widens out.
[1:51:38] >> Okay. Okay.
[1:51:41] >> And then we we show the right of way
[1:51:43] line or our proposed plat boundary
[1:51:47] um
[1:51:48] behind the curb and gutter. So, you have
[1:51:51] all the street improvements for the
[1:51:53] cul-de-sac. We have just not
[1:51:57] proposed building the sidewalk
[1:52:00] >> Sure.
[1:52:01] >> there along the adjoining property
[1:52:03] owners side.
[1:52:03] >> Sure.
[1:52:04] >> Yeah.
[1:52:05] >> Okay.
[1:52:06] >> For this point, that was kind of what we
[1:52:08] negotiated
[1:52:10] with the property owner. So, you can
[1:52:11] make the cul-de-sac functions, the
[1:52:13] roadway functions.
[1:52:15] If you go to back to that first page,
[1:52:17] that's why we drew in the proposed
[1:52:20] sidewalk.
[1:52:21] >> Okay.
[1:52:21] >> You know, so you can see that it ends at
[1:52:23] the end of the
[1:52:23] >> Okay, sure.
[1:52:24] >> 103.
[1:52:25] >> Yeah.
[1:52:26] >> And then we show the the trail
[1:52:28] portion there along
[1:52:31] 101 and 102 being full.
[1:52:33] >> Okay.
[1:52:34] >> You know, there's no planter there. It's
[1:52:35] just all sidewalk.
[1:52:36] >> Yeah. Okay.
[1:52:37] >> So, regardless of what happens with the
[1:52:39] adjoining property
[1:52:42] >> There's no half weird cul-de-sac.
[1:52:45] >> It'll be fully
[1:52:47] 60 ft 120 ft diameter
[1:52:50] on the on the
[1:52:51] >> The right of way will not be We we were
[1:52:53] short on the right of way there, but the roadway asphalt will
[1:53:01] The cul-de-sac will function. He the
[1:53:04] adjoining property owner, as you can see
[1:53:06] on the grading plan,
[1:53:08] we were also negotiated a grading
[1:53:10] easement for him. He didn't want
[1:53:14] He wanted to maintain as much of his
[1:53:16] property
[1:53:18] without impacts that he's using right
[1:53:21] now.
[1:53:21] >> Sure.
[1:53:22] >> And so we started the grading
[1:53:24] on the back of the curve instead of
[1:53:26] another
[1:53:27] 10 ft into his property to construct the
[1:53:31] sidewalk.
[1:53:31] >> Okay.
[1:53:32] >> That was his concern. That was a
[1:53:34] concession that he asked and
[1:53:36] that's what we're proposing.
[1:53:37] >> Okay.
[1:53:39] Can I interject here, Ken? Um can you
[1:53:42] just So
[1:53:44] property lines are a foot behind
[1:53:46] sidewalk.
[1:53:47] So if they ever do develop this, they're
[1:53:49] going to have to come in and do a plat
[1:53:51] amendment and change all that anyway. So
[1:53:54] why not do it right now?
[1:53:55] >> when they develop, they will have to
[1:53:57] dedicate the rest of that right-of-way
[1:54:00] when they dedicate their lots
[1:54:03] as well.
[1:54:05] >> So they'll
[1:54:05] >> So they have to do a subdivision
[1:54:07] >> plat map
[1:54:08] >> anyway.
[1:54:09] >> Yeah.
[1:54:10] >> So they'll have a pub they'll have their small portion
[1:54:14] of a public road
[1:54:16] dedication that we do the sidewalk.
[1:54:18] >> Okay.
[1:54:18] >> Would that Would that work, Jason?
[1:54:20] >> It yes, it it will.
[1:54:22] >> Yeah.
[1:54:22] >> It we just figured why not do it now.
[1:54:25] >> And we proposed that but that was part
[1:54:27] of his uh I want to maintain as much of
[1:54:32] my property
[1:54:34] as as he has it.
[1:54:35] >> Okay.
[1:54:36] >> Yeah, that's fine.
[1:54:40] » Okay.
[1:54:40] >> And just to clarify, this is a straight
[1:54:42] line right now.
[1:54:44] >> Yeah.
[1:54:45] >> And so that's why the whole boundary
[1:54:46] line adjustment topic has been brought
[1:54:48] up that they need to adjust that
[1:54:50] boundary or else if they do get approval
[1:54:52] for this,
[1:54:56] I mean, this property will have an
[1:54:57] adjusted boundary without any
[1:54:59] improvements and so
[1:55:00] >> it doesn't work.
[1:55:01] >> Yeah.
[1:55:01] >> Right.
[1:55:03] >> Okay.
[1:55:07] Um
[1:55:09] Uh
[1:55:10] Jason, Cayden, anything else?
[1:55:12] On this?
[1:55:14] Okay.
[1:55:15] Um does anybody have any further
[1:55:17] questions for Ken or Ross before we
[1:55:20] discuss?
[1:55:25] » I don't care if you don't have a
[1:55:26] question, I got a comment.
[1:55:27] >> So, [laughter]
[1:55:28] Ross Welch again.
[1:55:31] I love the idea that this could be Ross
[1:55:33] Welch's property. Unfortunately, I am
[1:55:35] not in that financial situation.
[1:55:38] >> So,
[1:55:39] >> Cayden, I just represent Patterson
[1:55:40] Homes.
[1:55:41] And um
[1:55:43] on this project,
[1:55:45] I would love to say we have a written
[1:55:47] agreement. We have a verbal agreement.
[1:55:50] We're getting it done in writing.
[1:55:52] There's been a land swap done. The
[1:55:55] existing land owner to our west realizes
[1:55:58] the benefit that's happening that in the
[1:56:00] future could easily be subdivided in
[1:56:02] three and five. We will stub utilities
[1:56:05] to That's part of the arrangement. We'll
[1:56:06] stub utilities to the three.
[1:56:08] That's why we kind of diagram them out.
[1:56:11] Uh but in the interim, he preferred not
[1:56:14] to have a sidewalk because he doesn't
[1:56:16] want that public. We are putting a
[1:56:18] privacy fence along there to
[1:56:21] help him maintain his privacy for
[1:56:24] to that point he decides to subdivide.
[1:56:27] So, I just wanted to clarify that.
[1:56:29] >> Okay.
[1:56:30] >> Yeah, I'm guessing we'll we'll we'll
[1:56:32] just make comments in our motion, right?
[1:56:43] Yeah.
[1:56:44] >> Well,
[1:56:44] >> Yeah, I I mean I suppose it's a it's a
[1:56:46] timing issue where there there's
[1:56:49] conditions and requirements that we put
[1:56:51] on the approval.
[1:56:53] >> Yeah, exactly.
[1:56:54] >> they're ultimately not able to work
[1:56:55] those out, then
[1:56:56] >> Yeah.
[1:56:57] >> there is no
[1:56:57] >> what I'm saying. it doesn't go forward.
[1:56:59] >> Yeah.
[1:57:01] Staff has done a [snorts] good job
[1:57:02] identifying
[1:57:03] >> Yeah, I think so.
[1:57:03] >> I agree.
[1:57:05] >> Okay.
[1:57:06] Um
[1:57:06] any further questions, discussion
[1:57:08] points, clarifications?
[1:57:12] » Mr. Landowner's hesitancy again about
[1:57:15] signing it off, why don't you have
[1:57:17] something
[1:57:18] in writing?
[1:57:19] What's his hesitancy?
[1:57:21] >> Because because Ross apparently isn't
[1:57:23] doing a very good job getting any
[1:57:25] signatures on the piece of paper, so
[1:57:27] Sue's thanks for really nailing him on
[1:57:29] that.
[1:57:30] >> No, I just sometimes, you know, you
[1:57:33] don't want to be sorry.
[1:57:35] >> [laughter]
[1:57:43] >> Oh, we Oh, we like we like to blame Will
[1:57:44] for everything, for sure.
[1:57:47] Okay.
[1:57:47] >> Okay, I'm just saying. I'm I'm old
[1:57:50] school.
[1:57:50] >> Sue's always gets right to the heart of
[1:57:52] the matter.
[1:57:53] >> I do.
[1:57:54] Want to see it done right.
[1:57:55] >> Okay.
[1:57:56] Um
[1:57:56] >> That's just me.
[1:57:58] >> Sue, do you got a motion for us then?
[1:58:00] >> Come on.
[1:58:01] >> Okay.
[1:58:02] >> I'm not going to do one.
[1:58:03] >> Any other brave soul?
[1:58:05] >> Greg, you got one?
[1:58:06] >> I already done one and it failed.
[1:58:08] >> [laughter]
[1:58:08] >> Oh, come on. Come on.
[1:58:12] Hey, there's no There's no hard feelings
[1:58:15] here.
[1:58:15] >> [laughter]
[1:58:18] » We've all been there.
[1:58:20] >> [laughter]
[1:58:20] >> Left stranded.
[1:58:21] >> Yeah, except Sue's.
[1:58:23] >> Page, can you bring the motions up,
[1:58:24] please?
[1:58:25] >> I'm going [clears throat] to throw up.
[1:58:29] » But to answer your question, worst case
[1:58:30] scenario, he just doesn't get it
[1:58:31] approved.
[1:58:32] >> Yeah.
[1:58:33] >> Not subdivided.
[1:58:35] >> That's right.
[1:58:37] >> Yeah, and that's that's why we can put
[1:58:39] that those stipulations in the motion.
[1:58:42] >> [snorts]
[1:58:42] >> Get it in writing.
[1:58:44] >> There you go.
[1:58:45] >> Go for it.
[1:58:46] >> You're the one who's asking.
[1:58:47] >> [clears throat]
[1:58:51] » All right, I move to approve the
[1:58:53] preliminary application of of the Page
[1:58:55] Court Plat A
[1:58:57] with the following conditions:
[1:58:59] the trail location be determined before
[1:59:01] final plat approval.
[1:59:05] >> Marla, did you get that?
[1:59:08] » Sorry, I'll do it again.
[1:59:10] Uh I move to approve the preliminary
[1:59:12] application of the Page Court Plat A
[1:59:15] subject to the following conditions:
[1:59:16] that the trail location be determined
[1:59:18] before final plat approval,
[1:59:21] a boundary adjustment be completed
[1:59:22] between the applicant and the
[1:59:24] neighboring property that allows the
[1:59:25] full size of the right-of-way before
[1:59:28] final plat approval,
[1:59:30] the plat includes a plat note dedicated
[1:59:34] uh
[1:59:37] » Sorry, dedicating
[1:59:38] >> dedicating the proposed public street to
[1:59:41] Alpine City, that the plat and final
[1:59:45] and finally that the plat
[1:59:47] includes a plat note that says that any
[1:59:50] building footprints into the flood zone
[1:59:53] um what's AE?
[1:59:58] » That's just a type of flood zone that
[2:00:00] this would be in.
[2:00:02] >> into flood zone AE require additional
[2:00:05] approval from FEMA.
[2:00:07] >> Yeah.
[2:00:12] » Okay, um
[2:00:14] okay, did we get everything in that
[2:00:16] I wasn't sure if there's anything that
[2:00:17] came up in discussion that wasn't on the
[2:00:21] proposal. Okay, we have a motion by John
[2:00:25] McKnight. Do we have a second?
[2:00:26] >> Yeah, I'll second it.
[2:00:27] >> Second from Jeff Davis. Discussion on
[2:00:29] the motion.
[2:00:32] All in favor, I.
[2:00:33] >> I.
[2:00:34] >> Any opposed?
[2:00:35] >> I got one.
[2:00:36] >> We want to go home, Ross.
[2:00:37] >> I do, too.
[2:00:39] When somebody says I, you just kind of
[2:00:40] >> You just sit down.
[2:00:41] >> I know, but the motion had one
[2:00:45] I can't comply with,
[2:00:46] >> Okay.
[2:00:47] >> Which is the full right-of-way at
[2:00:50] recording of the plat or final plat. I
[2:00:53] can give you a full road.
[2:00:56] But I can't give the right-of-way on the
[2:00:58] neighbor's property for the sidewalk.
[2:01:00] Right?
[2:01:01] >> I don't think we're asking I don't think
[2:01:03] we're
[2:01:03] >> Well, that's you said a full
[2:01:04] right-of-way.
[2:01:06] So, just as long as we say it's the
[2:01:09] >> Oh, that that Okay, yeah, you're you're right. So, we we would have to we
[2:01:14] you'd probably have to
[2:01:15] amend amend that.
[2:01:18] So, so So,
[2:01:19] >> So,
[2:01:20] >> if I can jump in, sorry. I think the
[2:01:21] intent is to say that the boundary
[2:01:24] adjustment allow for the full size of
[2:01:26] the right-of-way.
[2:01:28] Not that the applicant has to complete
[2:01:29] the full right-of-way.
[2:01:30] >> No.
[2:01:32] The boundary is for
[2:01:34] the full road access,
[2:01:37] which is all we need to comply with.
[2:01:39] We're not giving the city it's part of
[2:01:42] the
[2:01:43] Yeah, we're doing basically the
[2:01:45] requirement of a
[2:01:47] road
[2:01:49] asphalt.
[2:01:50] Yeah.
[2:01:51] >> Curb curb and gutter, right?
[2:01:53] >> Yes.
[2:01:54] >> For the three new homes, and then it's
[2:01:56] up to the personal owner of the property
[2:01:58] now to get
[2:01:59] the other stuff approved.
[2:02:00] >> Well, it it'll be curb and gutter for
[2:02:01] all six lots.
[2:02:03] >> Yes.
[2:02:04] Right now. I mean, when you when you
[2:02:06] build
[2:02:09] » So, that's my concern. It'd be great if
[2:02:11] he was here.
[2:02:12] >> But the right-of-way goes into the
[2:02:14] median strip for the sidewalk.
[2:02:16] >> Yeah.
[2:02:16] >> And that's what they're not
[2:02:19] >> They they they want to make sure they're
[2:02:20] not held to that.
[2:02:22] Yeah, I agree. So, it seems to me like
[2:02:24] we have to make a
[2:02:26] an amendment to the motion.
[2:02:31] » I just wish the land owner the land
[2:02:33] owner was here.
[2:02:35] Just so
[2:02:35] >> Okay. So, let me think through Robert's
[2:02:38] Rules here, damn it.
[2:02:40] Um
[2:02:41] okay. [clears throat] So, we've got a
[2:02:42] motion.
[2:02:44] >> It was seconded by Jeff Davis.
[2:02:47] >> Yep.
[2:02:48] >> Um, then upon discussion, it appears
[2:02:50] that there needs to be, um,
[2:02:53] an amendment.
[2:02:54] >> voted on it.
[2:02:56] >> [laughter]
[2:02:56] >> Uh, what's that?
[2:02:57] >> You forgot that we actually voted on it.
[2:02:58] >> Yeah, um,
[2:03:00] >> [clears throat]
[2:03:00] >> Never done that.
[2:03:01] >> Well, we didn't quite get through the
[2:03:02] vote. So,
[2:03:04] >> It what It didn't get counted.
[2:03:05] >> No, no. So, um,
[2:03:07] >> rescind that vote.
[2:03:08] >> Yeah, so we will rescind the vote
[2:03:10] because the vote was not completed
[2:03:12] because there was an objection to the
[2:03:15] marriage
[2:03:17] from the cheap seats. So,
[2:03:20] um, okay. So, let's just assume that
[2:03:22] we've got a motion and
[2:03:25] uh, a second, and then in in discussion,
[2:03:29] uh, there arose an issue with the
[2:03:32] language of the right-of-way. So, um,
[2:03:35] >> [clears throat]
[2:03:36] >> Jeff, are you okay with us taking with
[2:03:40] John taking a moment and amending the
[2:03:42] motion with respect to the right-of-way
[2:03:45] language?
[2:03:46] >> Yes.
[2:03:46] >> Okay.
[2:03:47] Um, John, do you understand the
[2:03:49] objection and do you have language that
[2:03:51] would that would likewise accommodate
[2:03:53] the concerns of the city?
[2:03:56] To amend your motion with respect to the
[2:03:58] right-of-way.
[2:04:05] Or, Caden, could you suggest language
[2:04:08] that accommodates the city?
[2:04:09] >> than a little the right-of-way as shown
[2:04:12] on that plat, right? That shows the
[2:04:14] right-of-way of the property
[2:04:17] right there.
[2:04:19] That That That adjustment is done in
[2:04:22] accordance with this exhibit type thing.
[2:04:25] >> Okay, what what what page are we on?
[2:04:28] >> 92.
[2:04:29] okay.
[2:04:32] So, bring bring the, uh,
[2:04:35] motion.
[2:04:36] There we go, okay.
[2:04:39] so [snorts] we are amending
[2:04:42] our uh
[2:04:43] approval
[2:04:45] just just to say that
[2:04:48] the boundary adjustment to be completed
[2:04:50] between the applicant and the
[2:04:51] neighboring property
[2:04:53] shall reflect
[2:04:56] that
[2:04:58] right of way shown
[2:05:00] on page 92
[2:05:04] of the in the uh
[2:05:06] meeting packet.
[2:05:10] » Sure.
[2:05:10] >> Uh okay, Jeff, do you accept the
[2:05:13] uh amendment?
[2:05:14] >> Yeah, it's it's not specific, but we can
[2:05:17] go off of that and the language is
[2:05:19] there, so yes, that's fine.
[2:05:21] >> Okay, we have a motion by John McKay, an
[2:05:23] amended motion by John McKay, and a
[2:05:25] second by Jeff Davis. Any discussion?
[2:05:31] » Do we know the landowner? Can we know
[2:05:33] the landowner's name?
[2:05:35] >> Well, it's on there, it's on the
[2:05:36] >> owned by the Devys.
[2:05:38] >> Last name was Devy, I think. It's still
[2:05:39] owned by the Devys.
[2:05:40] >> Is it What is Which Devy is it?
[2:05:45] » Well, Ryan Devy lives there. His dad,
[2:05:48] Lee Devy
[2:05:49] >> Yeah.
[2:05:49] >> It's his estate. It's Lee's estate.
[2:05:54] And Lee's
[2:05:55] passed away.
[2:05:55] >> Yeah.
[2:05:58] So, Ryan lives there.
[2:06:00] And so it's part of the estate.
[2:06:01] >> not Does he own it?
[2:06:03] >> No.
[2:06:03] it's
[2:06:04] >> He doesn't own it, though.
[2:06:05] >> Yeah, the family the estate, it's the
[2:06:07] trust.
[2:06:11] » So, basically we're saying they've got
[2:06:12] to get all that in writing.
[2:06:14] >> Yeah.
[2:06:14] >> That's kind of what we're saying.
[2:06:15] >> How old's Ryan?
[2:06:18] Oh, really? How old is he?
[2:06:19] >> [laughter]
[2:06:19] >> How old is he?
[2:06:20] >> Yeah.
[2:06:21] >> Uh I would guess I'm around 47,
[2:06:24] maybe.
[2:06:28] » Is the concern it's in a family trust,
[2:06:30] it's not going to ever be approved, and
[2:06:32] it's going to be ugly without it being
[2:06:33] finished with sidewalk.
[2:06:35] >> trust could get sideways with each other
[2:06:37] about stuff?
[2:06:37] >> Right, but if but
[2:06:39] >> get
[2:06:39] >> But but but I think the whole point is
[2:06:41] that I mean
[2:06:42] ultimately
[2:06:44] Pattersons and Ross will work with
[2:06:47] the owners
[2:06:49] and and to come to accommodation, or
[2:06:51] they won't. And in the case that they
[2:06:53] don't, then they don't meet the
[2:06:54] conditions, then the project doesn't go
[2:06:56] forward.
[2:06:57] >> Exactly.
[2:06:57] >> It's merely preliminary plat approval
[2:06:59] subject to these conditions.
[2:07:00] >> why he's hesitant.
[2:07:02] If that's all been talked about.
[2:07:04] >> Well, no, it's just it's
[2:07:07] >> What? What is it?
[2:07:09] >> Uh may
[2:07:10] >> [laughter]
[2:07:11] >> All right, so I'll
[2:07:12] >> Is that I mean, is that relevant to our our our motion?
[2:07:15] >> sure. Do you want me to put this on the
[2:07:16] record?
[2:07:17] >> Not really.
[2:07:17] >> I don't understand why.
[2:07:18] >> I I don't know. I don't think we need
[2:07:19] to. I don't think we need to.
[2:07:21] >> Don't we just need a written
[2:07:23] thing?
[2:07:23] >> No, I I mean I mean I think I think it's
[2:07:25] between the applicant and the the the
[2:07:28] landowner, and and not not
[2:07:30] >> Not us.
[2:07:31] >> Yeah, not us.
[2:07:32] >> It's not my fight.
[2:07:33] >> Okay, we have a
[2:07:35] amended motion
[2:07:36] and a second on the motion. Any
[2:07:39] discussion?
[2:07:41] Okay, all in favor, I. I.
[2:07:44] Any opposed?
[2:07:45] Okay, motion passes unanimously.
[2:07:48] Okay, thanks to all concerned.
[2:07:50] We appreciate it.
[2:07:54] Okay,
[2:07:55] we are down to communications. Anybody
[2:07:58] have a have communications to bring
[2:07:59] before the commission?
[2:08:02] >> The only thing I was going to say
[2:08:05] and you know, Spencer this is
[2:08:08] for Spencer's benefit, but Utah code
[2:08:12] specifically states that cities cannot
[2:08:17] pass
[2:08:18] ordinances that disallow the sale of guns.
[2:08:24] So, we couldn't as a city go, "Uh, we do
[2:08:28] not allow that."
[2:08:29] That's actually illegal.
[2:08:31] >> Yeah.
[2:08:32] I I think the only issue was
[2:08:34] is there some type of ordinance about
[2:08:36] the sale of guns within a certain number
[2:08:38] of feet of a preschool or Okay.
[2:08:41] >> There's not There's not at the state
[2:08:42] level.
[2:08:44] Alpine doesn't have it. There isn't at a
[2:08:46] state level. And there's not at a
[2:08:47] federal level,
[2:08:49] either. So, it at all three levels that that does not exist.
[2:08:53] >> Okay. Thank you, counselor.
[2:08:54] >> So, and I and I only bring it up because
[2:08:56] people called me prior to this meeting
[2:08:59] very concerned.
[2:09:01] So,
[2:09:02] um so, you know,
[2:09:05] the commissioner should know that by
[2:09:07] state law, we cannot do that.
[2:09:09] >> Okay.
[2:09:10] That's actually a very good
[2:09:11] clarification. Thank you.
[2:09:13] >> Oh, and one more thing, if you want.
[2:09:14] >> I would I would love one more thing.
[2:09:17] >> On on the on the flood plain,
[2:09:20] the the AE the E's the engineered. So,
[2:09:23] it's actually been engineered. So, to
[2:09:26] check, you know, for that for that flood
[2:09:29] plain.
[2:09:29] >> Okay.
[2:09:30] >> So,
[2:09:30] >> it is actually it's very awesome that we
[2:09:33] have one of the premier water experts
[2:09:35] sitting on our commission, actually. It
[2:09:37] is very helpful. Thank you, Jeff. We do
[2:09:38] appreciate that, actually.
[2:09:39] >> Tomorrow night's meeting, we should all
[2:09:40] go to that. Because we should tell Russ
[2:09:42] we don't have any water.
[2:09:43] >> You could You could come, yeah. Yeah,
[2:09:45] come to our water meeting tomorrow
[2:09:47] night.
[2:09:47] >> All right. Further communications.
[2:09:49] >> So, just one more thing. I've got a lot
[2:09:50] of stuff going in my neighborhood with
[2:09:52] that the just off of
[2:09:55] As you go down at at the end of Thinking
[2:09:58] North, Bob's Mountain Drive, that's all
[2:10:00] going to go now into those subdivisions.
[2:10:02] Remember when we had all that
[2:10:03] discussion?
[2:10:04] I just looked at the new plan, and I I
[2:10:07] have so many people calling me about
[2:10:08] this. I can't even go on the trails
[2:10:10] without being stopped. I I mean, it's
[2:10:11] just a concern. I just think we need to
[2:10:14] maybe make sure we revisit just like
[2:10:17] when when we moved there, we had to give
[2:10:20] up so much like a big chunk of our yard,
[2:10:23] because it's on a trail. So, they're
[2:10:25] trying to reroute with this new with
[2:10:27] this new developer,
[2:10:29] and they need to be sure that they when
[2:10:31] somebody's on a city trail, they have to
[2:10:33] be able to give some space. And I just
[2:10:35] haven't I want to find out who I've
[2:10:37] talked to Breezy, but who else is Maybe
[2:10:39] Marla can help me, but that probably
[2:10:41] should be given to this developer.
[2:10:43] >> If Marla's on, she might have heard you.
[2:10:45] >> Yeah. Well, I've been talking to her
[2:10:47] this week about it anyway, because
[2:10:48] they're trying to I have so many people
[2:10:50] that are so sick about what's happening
[2:10:52] to the trails up there. So, technically,
[2:10:55] they did post a sign that said you're
[2:10:57] now entering private property. They've
[2:10:58] been kind of let us cut through, but
[2:10:59] that's the only access that the people
[2:11:01] on that side of the town can get over to
[2:11:04] Lambert Park. So, if they're going to
[2:11:06] they said, "Oh, we're putting a road in
[2:11:07] along the little ditch." But the people if
[2:11:10] they're buttoning up against that, they
[2:11:12] have to give like everybody else has to
[2:11:14] a city trail, and I don't think that's
[2:11:16] known right now, cuz the developer
[2:11:17] [snorts]
[2:11:18] kind of changed the the way
[2:11:21] So, anyway, if we who should I really
[2:11:24] talk to about that? I said, "I'm going
[2:11:26] to talk to my little friends here and
[2:11:27] see."
[2:11:28] >> Well, um I I I I don't exactly know. I
[2:11:31] mean, I I
[2:11:32] >> There's our trail here.
[2:11:33] >> It hasn't come before us, but I would
[2:11:34] think that it was if you talked to Will
[2:11:36] Jones or Breezy Anson.
[2:11:37] >> And they got the authority to
[2:11:40] >> Well, I think they have a lot of the
[2:11:41] information for you on that. It's not
[2:11:44] anything that that's It's not anything
[2:11:45] come before us, nothing I know about.
[2:11:47] >> them your email. You're welcome.
[2:11:50] No, but you'll probably That's helpful.
[2:11:52] Um anyway, just that's just
[2:11:54] >> K- Kayden, you have a thought that if uh
[2:11:55] who who would be the contact person at
[2:11:57] the city if there's any questions about
[2:11:59] trails?
[2:11:59] >> and for me and Shane.
[2:12:01] >> Okay.
[2:12:02] Thanks for Thanks for
[2:12:03] >> Let the record reflect that if anybody
[2:12:05] has issues or questions about a trail in
[2:12:08] Alpine City that currently the people to
[2:12:10] talk to are Shane Sorenson and or Kayden
[2:12:13] Lyon.
[2:12:15] Or Sue Wittenberg.
[2:12:15] >> That's right.
[2:12:16] >> When they see her on the trail.
[2:12:17] >> Apparently, that's who they're talking
[2:12:18] to.
[2:12:19] >> All right. Any
[2:12:19] >> further communications?
[2:12:22] >> Our next [clears throat] planning
[2:12:22] commission is on July 7th. Or yes.
[2:12:26] >> That's correct.
[2:12:27] >> Okay. So we have minutes that
[2:12:28] [clears throat] we need to and I think
[2:12:29] we've got several meetings worth of
[2:12:31] minutes that we need to approve. So has
[2:12:34] anybody gone through those minutes and
[2:12:35] prepared to make a motion?
[2:12:37] >> year's last week's or last two weeks of
[2:12:39] >> Okay. Well, do we need to go through
[2:12:40] these one at a time? Why don't we Why
[2:12:41] don't we do them one at a time? Let's
[2:12:42] first go through the minutes of March
[2:12:44] 31st, 20 26.
[2:12:47] And um has somebody reviewed those
[2:12:49] minutes for accuracy and can we have a
[2:12:51] motion on those minutes from March 31st,
[2:12:54] 2025?
[2:12:55] >> I move to approve the minutes from the
[2:12:57] planning commission meeting held on
[2:12:58] March 31st, 2026 as written.
[2:13:03] >> Oh. Okay. Oh, yeah. Sorry. I didn't have
[2:13:05] my glasses on. My bad. That is 2026.
[2:13:07] Okay. We have a motion to approve the
[2:13:09] minutes of March 31st, 2026. Do we have
[2:13:12] a second?
[2:13:13] >> I'll second it.
[2:13:13] >> Okay. All in favor?
[2:13:15] >> I agree.
[2:13:15] >> I.
[2:13:16] >> Sorry. Let the record reflect that
[2:13:17] Michelle
[2:13:18] seconded that motion. Okay. Uh next we
[2:13:21] have minutes from June 2nd, 2026. Has
[2:13:23] anybody reviewed those minutes and would
[2:13:25] they like to make a motion?
[2:13:27] >> I move that those are accurate from June
[2:13:28] 2nd, 2026.
[2:13:30] >> Okay. We have a motion to approve the
[2:13:31] minutes from June 2nd, 2026 by Sue's
[2:13:33] Wittenberg. Do we have a second?
[2:13:35] >> I'll yeah.
[2:13:36] >> Second by John McKay. All in favor?
[2:13:39] I.
[2:13:40] Uh finally we have minutes from June
[2:13:42] 3rd,
[2:13:43] 2026.
[2:13:44] >> I don't know if that was yesterday or
[2:13:46] last
[2:13:47] >> It was the
[2:13:47] very next day.
[2:13:49] >> This was the special work session.
[2:13:51] >> Yes.
[2:13:51] >> Okay. So
[2:13:52] >> this coming to the planning commission
[2:13:54] and not city council?
[2:13:56] >> Because it was a joint work session.
[2:13:58] It's going to both planning commission
[2:14:00] and city council.
[2:14:01] >> Okay.
[2:14:02] >> Oh.
[2:14:05] Yeah.
[2:14:05] >> Oh, this was the Wednesday meeting.
[2:14:06] Okay. Well, then that would have That
[2:14:08] would That motion would probably need to
[2:14:09] come from either you or John then.
[2:14:11] >> Yes.
[2:14:12] >> I make a motion to approve the minutes
[2:14:14] from June 3rd, 2026.
[2:14:16] >> Okay, we have a motion from Michelle
[2:14:17] Shermer to approve the minutes of June
[2:14:19] 3rd, 2026. Do we have a second?
[2:14:21] >> Second.
[2:14:22] by John McKay. All in favor?
[2:14:24] >> Aye.
[2:14:25] Any opposed?
[2:14:27] Okay. I have motion to adjourn.
[2:14:29] >> I'll do the motion to adjourn.
[2:14:33] >> So moved by Jeff, seconded I think by
[2:14:36] Greg. All in favor? Aye.
[2:14:38] >> Aye.
[2:14:40] >> Meeting adjourned. Thank you.
[2:15:21] » It's a little crazy actually.
[2:15:24] Yeah, I'm going to smack you upside the
[2:15:29] » How much more discussion
[2:15:32] words coming out
[2:15:36] 4 years
[2:15:45] » I dropped it off.
[2:15:46] >> Oh.
[2:15:50] » No, I think I think it's
[2:16:06] » It's going to be ours.
[2:16:07] >> I told you
[2:16:12] It's a lot.
[2:16:23] Please.
[2:16:48] That's it.
[2:16:54] I see it. I see it.
[2:17:01] Yeah.
[2:17:05] I'm sorry.
[2:17:07] I know.
[2:17:13] I told you.
[2:17:18] I know.
[2:17:30] That's what I know.
[2:17:38] This is the one.
[2:17:39] >> Okay, so I don't
[2:17:41] >> Other than it
[2:17:43] » No, I'm like okay.
[2:17:47] » That's what we tried to
[2:17:48] This is the one.
[2:17:50] >> He already
[2:17:50] >> I know.
[2:17:51] >> Jake has a
[2:17:52] >> I know.
[2:17:53] >> World play.
[2:17:56] I don't know what
[2:17:58] That's all
[2:17:59] just I know.
[2:18:40] Thank you.