[0:00] Yeah.

[0:08] Don't touch the microphone.

[0:11] Thank you.

[0:13] All right. We will get the DRC

[0:17] started for Tuesday, July 14th at 10:00

[0:22] a.m.

[0:24] We'll jump right into the agenda. First

[0:27] item of business is a review of a proposed subdivision.

[0:33] This is the final application for the

[0:35] 130 South subdivision,

[0:38] specifically related to lot one

[0:41] of of the site of the overall

[0:44] subdivision.

[0:46] Preliminary approval was granted by the

[0:48] planning commission and this is DRC's

[0:51] review of the the final application,

[0:53] specifically for

[0:55] the first phase or lot one.

[0:59] Historically, this is we reviewed it.

[1:02] is anticipated that a a church

[1:05] chapel will be built on this lot.

[1:07] However, site plan application will come

[1:10] later for that specific for that

[1:12] specific building. This is related

[1:15] only for the subdivision itself.

[1:17] And so

[1:20] Again, this is final application. DRC is

[1:22] the final

[1:23] review and approval body for this.

[1:26] And so again, some options for this

[1:28] would be

[1:30] approval, approval conditions, or table

[1:33] depending on what what we find as we go

[1:35] through the DRC.

[1:36] So, with that,

[1:38] go around the DRC with any comments, starting with

[1:42] Aspen with planning.

[1:44] >> Planning has no comments.

[1:45] >> Okay.

[1:47] Randy, is building?

[1:48] >> I remember citing an address to this,

[1:50] but I don't see it on there. So, we'll

[1:51] have to find out what that is. And

[1:54] >> Okay.

[1:54] >> Make sure we get it on the plat.

[1:57] >> Okay.

[1:58] >> Other than that, nothing.

[2:00] >> Sounds good.

[2:02] Jason Calloway, Public Works.

[2:05] Just uh the entrance exit on 130 South

[2:09] there.

[2:11] Pretty

[2:13] >> Oh, as So, that'll be on site plan. So,

[2:16] you're talking about the If you remember

[2:18] from the from the original one, it

[2:20] showed that this is a proposed access

[2:22] >> Yeah.

[2:23] >> location for the the site.

[2:26] [clears throat]

[2:26] So, they'll have two on there, one

[2:28] coming in the roadway for 200 South

[2:32] >> Yeah.

[2:32] >> uh is supposed to be done [snorts] with

[2:33] this development um with the the church

[2:37] building going in. And then they'd have

[2:39] us another access would be here off of

[2:41] 130 South and through 200 South.

[2:43] >> Yeah. It's pretty steep. It's right

[2:45] there on that corner.

[2:46] >> It is, yep.

[2:47] >> Does it will it meet our code?

[2:49] >> It [clears throat] does it does meet our

[2:50] code in distance-wise.

[2:52] >> Between

[2:53] >> As far as

[2:53] >> between an interchange and an entrance

[2:56] into it.

[2:57] >> Okay.

[2:58] >> [snorts]

[2:58] >> That was just one of my concerns as far

[3:00] as

[3:00] >> Yeah, people sliding down. I think

[3:02] >> snow plow and

[3:03] >> Yeah.

[3:04] >> See

[3:04] >> uh

[3:06] >> Police may have had the same same

[3:07] comments or concerns on there.

[3:09] >> Yeah, I was I was going to make the same

[3:10] comment. I know that it meets code, but

[3:13] uh

[3:13] I don't really love that location as far

[3:15] as public safety coming up and down that

[3:17] 130 cuz it is a grade on that road and

[3:20] that corner.

[3:21] And if I remember right, and I think I

[3:23] talked to you about it, it is right at

[3:25] that 150 point. It is like

[3:27] >> It's right at the edge.

[3:28] >> Barely

[3:28] >> That's correct.

[3:29] >> meeting code.

[3:30] >> That is correct.

[3:31] And so, there are some things that we

[3:33] could work with them on the site plan on

[3:34] potentially how we could level that out

[3:37] a little bit on the site.

[3:39] >> If we Yeah, level it

[3:40] >> level it out, that would help. So, those

[3:41] are things we we can bring with them

[3:43] during the uh site plan review on there.

[3:46] >> Okay. All right. Other than that, I

[3:48] don't have any.

[3:49] >> Okay.

[3:50] Mike, anything else? Please.

[3:53] >> I'm going to hit rewind and play. I have

[3:56] the same comment, um, the single point

[3:59] access and egress as well, but I wasn't

[4:02] aware of the, uh, second access on 130.

[4:06] >> Mhm.

[4:10] » Okay.

[4:11] Um,

[4:12] anything else, Alan?

[4:14] >> No.

[4:15] >> Jason?

[4:16] >> I don't really have much to add.

[4:18] >> Okay.

[4:19] Um, just go through any, um, couple

[4:23] quick comments from from engineering.

[4:26] Um, just with the the closures on this,

[4:30] the uh, this is a storm drain easement

[4:32] related to the storm drain for the

[4:35] cul-de-sac. They do have an easement

[4:37] here, but we are missing a call on on

[4:40] that easement length there.

[4:43] Other than that, I believe, if I talked

[4:46] about that access,

[4:49] I believe that was it.

[4:51] >> [snorts]

[4:54] » Yes.

[4:56] So, those are all the comments related

[4:58] to it.

[4:59] Um, there's any any other thoughts or

[5:01] questions or comments, then

[5:04] we'd look for a motion.

[5:08] >> I'll make a motion to approve the 130

[5:10] South Church Subdivision with the

[5:11] condition that all red lines be

[5:13] addressed.

[5:14] >> Okay.

[5:15] Got a motion. Is there a second?

[5:17] >> Second.

[5:18] >> Seconded by Randy.

[5:20] >> [snorts]

[5:20] >> Any discussion on the motion?

[5:23] Hearing none, we'll go to vote. All in

[5:24] favor, please say I.

[5:26] >> I.

[5:27] >> Are there any opposed?

[5:28] Okay. Motion passed. Uh, work on getting

[5:31] these comments over and

[5:33] >> That's great.

[5:34] >> uh, get them addressed.

[5:35] >> Thank you so much.

[5:35] >> we can [snorts]

[5:36] work towards uh, recordation. So,

[5:39] >> Sounds good. Thank you.

[5:39] >> Thank you.

[5:42] All right, the next item on the agenda

[5:44] is review of a another, uh, this is a

[5:47] two lot subdivision

[5:49] proposed let me go

[5:54] Um this is over off of Highland Drive

[5:57] and 120

[6:00] East. Uh Apple Orchard Hills Elementary is

[6:05] located right here.

[6:07] Um

[6:08] and then this is a a

[6:10] piece of property that's um supposed to

[6:13] in the future we'll see it again site

[6:15] plan application will need to come

[6:16] forward on this one as well but um

[6:20] and they're proposing to put uh storage

[6:22] units on there.

[6:23] Um however this is a strictly review of

[6:26] the uh subdivision itself.

[6:29] Um site plan will be addressed and taken

[6:31] care of in the future application.

[6:34] Um it's beneficial and it can be helpful

[6:37] uh to kind of see how it all lays out um

[6:41] for the subdivision itself so we can

[6:43] have some context to it. However there

[6:45] will be some uh there will need to be

[6:47] some changes up for the subdivision

[6:49] application just so that the site plan's

[6:51] not as prominent once it's as it goes

[6:53] through the subdivision application.

[6:56] So

[6:57] um

[6:59] with that

[7:00] we'll

[7:01] go around the DRC with any

[7:05] um I'll back up. This is a preliminary

[7:07] application for subdivision. So the DRC

[7:10] is a

[7:11] uh

[7:12] recommending body. We would recommend if

[7:14] um

[7:15] couple of applications one it could be a

[7:17] couple of actions uh application could

[7:20] be forwarded to the planning commission

[7:22] with either a positive

[7:24] we'll just forward it to the planning

[7:26] commission with any comments that need

[7:27] to be addressed um or to table the

[7:30] application. Depending on what what uh

[7:33] DRC feels we need to

[7:36] Uh with that we'll go around the DRC.

[7:38] Start with Aspen.

[7:39] >> Um we need a density table to be

[7:41] included displaying the zoning and then

[7:45] like the building area requirements and

[7:47] different things like that. And then on

[7:49] the plat it's no longer the city council

[7:52] that approves a subdivision, it's the

[7:54] planning commission. So, if you'll just

[7:55] update that signature block.

[7:58] Um, and then just an extra reminder with

[8:01] like the site plan needing a separate

[8:02] application, all the retaining walls

[8:04] will also need a separate building

[8:06] permit.

[8:09] I think that's everything.

[8:10] >> Okay, one thing that I'll just cover

[8:12] real quick on the plat, um,

[8:15] because there's

[8:16] uh

[8:18] the subdivision there are there's a

[8:20] property here that's owned by a separate

[8:23] uh separate entity. Uh

[8:25] some this this lot here

[8:27] um, needs is

[8:30] a separate ownership. So, their

[8:32] signatures will need to be on

[8:34] coordination with them. Will need to be

[8:36] uh completed. Also, it is highly

[8:38] recommended that you have a separate

[8:40] notary acknowledgement for that property

[8:43] owner. Cuz sometimes trying to either

[8:46] unless all all property owners are get

[8:49] together at the same time, which can be

[8:53] uh

[8:54] black bear term, it can be a chore to

[8:56] try to get to get done. Um, it's

[8:58] recommended that you have a separate

[9:00] notary acknowledgement just because it's

[9:01] easier if they take it and go to get

[9:03] their have a notary and then someone

[9:05] else can go and move around there. Just

[9:07] as a a recommendation there.

[9:11] Um, okay. Randy?

[9:13] >> Yes.

[9:14] I seem to remember that we did address

[9:16] it on this at one point too, but I don't

[9:18] see it, but this is

[9:20] >> This is preliminary. Probably was done

[9:22] This is a

[9:23] This isn't first time an application

[9:25] like this has come through with this

[9:26] particular property. So.

[9:28] >> So, we'll catch it. Make sure we get it

[9:29] before finals.

[9:31] Other than that, I don't have anything

[9:32] else.

[9:33] >> Okay.

[9:34] Jason with public works?

[9:36] >> You know, had a note on there about

[9:37] Summit Creek Irrigation. That's my

[9:39] biggest concern is they have a lot of

[9:41] infrastructure in this area.

[9:43] I just need to make sure that they're aware of what's going on and get

[9:47] their buy-off on

[9:50] what they're doing with this

[9:51] subdivision. So, I I don't know if

[9:53] they've looked at it or

[9:56] >> Yeah.

[9:56] >> Or if that comes at the site plan.

[9:58] >> Well, that there are some things they'll

[10:00] probably need done sooner than later

[10:02] just because

[10:04] they would be piping

[10:06] this

[10:07] uh the section from one of their

[10:09] diversion boxes

[10:11] down and through the across the roadway

[10:14] and through the property. So, it would

[10:16] need be accommodated with with the

[10:18] subdivision just because there is some

[10:21] parts that are impacted related to that.

[10:24] And and yes, there is

[10:26] there's multiple private irrigation

[10:28] lines that run through. The applicant's

[10:30] aware of those.

[10:31] Um and for any piping of the existing uh

[10:35] channel, that would need to be signed up

[10:37] by Summit Creek cuz it's their facility.

[10:39] >> Okay. And there is some pipes in here

[10:41] that are not shown that that is Summit

[10:43] Creek. So,

[10:44] I think that needs to be kind of

[10:46] updated.

[10:47] >> That is correct.

[10:49] >> So, that's that's my concern. But,

[10:52] other than that, I'm good.

[10:53] >> Okay.

[10:56] » One on this one on the the new road that

[10:59] it would have to go in.

[11:00] I don't

[11:02] know what that road is off the top of my

[11:03] >> Uh this is First East. 100 East.

[11:06] >> So, it along that, I guess it would be

[11:08] the west side of that road, that is

[11:10] going to be sidewalk to attach to the

[11:13] existing on the other side of that

[11:14] field, right?

[11:15] >> Yes. So, per our standard street street

[11:18] cross-section does require sidewalk on

[11:20] both sides. And they are showing those improvements on both sides.

[11:24] >> Yeah.

[11:25] >> Um it does deviate slightly from the

[11:28] south end as it makes north just because

[11:30] just to tie into that sidewalk there.

[11:33] >> All right. I was just making sure for

[11:34] safe school route type stuff, but I have

[11:37] no other issues.

[11:38] >> And there [snorts] is sidewalk that runs

[11:41] along um

[11:43] back to the curb and then once it

[11:44] reaches where the irrigation structures

[11:46] are at, it's proposed to install that

[11:48] sidewalk back closer to the fence line.

[11:51] >> All right.

[11:53] » Okay. Alan?

[11:55] Fire?

[11:56] >> Yep. Mine were more related to the

[11:59] square footage of building and uh

[12:02] hydrants and the number of hydrants for

[12:06] the uh the buildings that that are laid

[12:08] out there. So.

[12:12] » Um uh which is get great information.

[12:15] We'll still supply it to the applicant

[12:17] so he has it. The couple of things that

[12:19] do want to make sure it covers the fire

[12:21] hydrants related to especially those

[12:23] along the frontage road.

[12:25] Um

[12:27] say cuz I think

[12:29] uh right now there's a measurement here

[12:31] from the existing fire hydrant

[12:33] uh to where there are potentially be one

[12:35] located about a block or so.

[12:38] Um

[12:40] uh again we may [snorts] I don't know if

[12:41] it's we would be able to put one here at

[12:43] this intersection cuz there's another

[12:45] one further to the

[12:47] guess this would be further east. Um

[12:50] along 610.

[12:51] Um

[12:52] but we would at least at least make sure

[12:55] we're meeting our spacing of maximum

[12:57] distance of

[12:59] 250 ft I think

[13:01] >> Yeah.

[13:01] >> between fire hydrants. So making sure

[13:03] we're meeting that. So

[13:05] anticipate another hydrant would be

[13:06] needed along this side as well as

[13:10] um there's one located here, but making

[13:12] sure we're again meeting that distance

[13:13] requirements.

[13:15] >> [snorts]

[13:16] >> Yeah, that was my primary concern the

[13:18] big red truck and in the event of a

[13:20] fire. So looking at spacing and that.

[13:25] >> the site.

[13:26] There is some showing on there, yes.

[13:31] And they do need to add some more.

[13:35] Okay, anything else, Alan?

[13:37] >> No.

[13:38] >> Okay.

[13:39] Jason?

[13:40] >> Yeah, I I just I want to emphasize, and

[13:42] I think it's important to state, this is

[13:43] a subdivision review. And I think it's

[13:46] great that you show some of the plans

[13:47] that you have for the site plan.

[13:49] Uh but there's going to be a lot of

[13:51] comments that that uh

[13:53] are probably going to be more suited for

[13:55] the site plan process. So, this is just

[13:57] the subdivision, and so

[13:59] and and with this particular particular

[14:00] property, we've seen five, six

[14:02] iterations of of something on this site.

[14:05] Uh

[14:08] I'm always careful to get too far ahead

[14:09] of ourselves with with what your site

[14:12] plan

[14:13] plans are.

[14:14] Um so, I think it's important for the

[14:16] DRC, this is just subdivision at this

[14:18] point, that that all the buildings and

[14:20] stuff like there I I feel like should be

[14:22] removed from the subdivision plan, but I

[14:24] think for purposes of coordinating and

[14:26] discussing your plans with the property,

[14:29] I think it is helpful, cuz obviously

[14:30] there's some things that can be

[14:31] addressed in the subdivision process,

[14:33] and particularly the infrastructure

[14:35] improvements that can help with your

[14:36] future site plan. But, you've kind of

[14:38] got the drawing where we've got this all

[14:40] mushed together of site plan

[14:42] improvements and subdivision. This is

[14:44] just the subdivision process, so I just

[14:46] wanted to emphasize that. Um

[14:49] we've obviously got a lot of redlines,

[14:50] we'll go through here in a second. Just

[14:51] a couple points I want to uh to maybe uh focus on or or highlight

[14:58] is the the property that uh I think you

[15:02] showed to be dedicated to the city

[15:03] that's on this the Let's see, where's

[15:05] the key?

[15:06] >> This is This is the right It's on the

[15:07] bottom side of this this this

[15:09] >> This is east. So, east.

[15:11] >> So, the east side of 100 the future the new 100 east connection.

[15:16] Uh you've got the trail there. I think

[15:17] we we need to see something there with how that's going to to improved. I

[15:20] don't think we want to inherit or have

[15:22] dedicated the city uh just a weed patch

[15:24] with a sidewalk through it. What what

[15:26] are the improvements that you're going

[15:27] to do there? I know there's a lot of

[15:29] utilities and infrastructure in there

[15:30] and and we've already kind of thought of

[15:32] our public works structure that probably

[15:34] no trees, but you know, xeriscape,

[15:36] rocks, boulders, maybe some shrubs,

[15:40] things like that. But yeah, that's

[15:42] dedicated to the city. We don't want to

[15:44] dedicate have it dedicated just as a

[15:45] another weed patch liability for for us

[15:48] to need to take care of. Um

[15:52] and then let's see.

[15:56] Can't think of the of the other thought

[15:57] that I had. But we'll we'll go through

[15:58] all the red lines. So I'll I'll I'll let

[16:00] you take that, John, and and I'll

[16:01] comment as needed.

[16:02] >> Okay.

[16:04] Um I think

[16:06] So one thing that does need to be

[16:08] addressed and and brought up is right

[16:10] now this is shown property alignment

[16:14] doesn't necessarily match what's

[16:17] actually

[16:18] recorded at the county. So it's

[16:21] anticipated that

[16:22] there will be some right of way vacation

[16:25] needed and dedicated and deeded to the

[16:28] property just to clean up that alignment

[16:31] in relationship to that so that it

[16:33] actually matches

[16:35] the alignment of road and sidewalk as it makes its way up through there. So

[16:40] that's something we'll need to

[16:41] coordinate and work our way through is

[16:43] to make sure that

[16:45] property is is appropriately

[16:48] deeded and and um

[16:51] to the to the property owner on there to

[16:52] get that cleaned up and done. And then

[16:55] again, that can be, you know,

[16:56] consideration for the additional right

[16:58] of way that's being dedicated to the

[17:00] city between the roadway and the the

[17:03] school district property there.

[17:08] Um let's see here.

[17:10] Addressing we've already talked about

[17:12] that.

[17:14] Sorry, I'll try not to make you guys

[17:15] carsick by going through these comments

[17:17] really quick.

[17:20] Um one item that we just need to confirm

[17:24] or to have provided is this measurements

[17:28] from the back of the building to the

[17:29] property line. By scaling it off,

[17:33] we're really close to the 25-ft

[17:34] requirement, but just to

[17:37] I mean, we're

[17:38] according to these measurements, we're 6

[17:40] in difference.

[17:41] I don't necessarily see that as a major

[17:43] concern, but we just need those

[17:45] distances shown on the plans so that we

[17:48] know that exact distance from the home

[17:50] to the back property line.

[17:52] >> So,

[17:53] can I come up to the

[17:54] >> Yeah.

[17:55] So, if you'll come up to that just for

[17:56] the microphone one. Thank you.

[17:59] Just say your name for the minutes,

[18:00] please.

[18:01] >> Yeah, um Norm Avery for the developer

[18:04] here. So,

[18:05] >> [clears throat]

[18:05] >> um

[18:06] on that area right there, yeah, we will

[18:08] make sure we look at that again, but

[18:09] there we have traded some property with

[18:13] that owner so that we meet the

[18:14] requirement on the 25-ft.

[18:16] >> Great.

[18:17] >> And that will be shown. We'll We'll

[18:18] double-check that and make sure it

[18:19] works.

[18:20] >> Yeah, just make sure I mean, we're

[18:22] within 6 in,

[18:23] but we just just to make sure it's clear

[18:25] just so we're meet that 25-ft away.

[18:27] >> Okay. Yeah, so.

[18:30] >> Um

[18:34] And one other item that we want to

[18:35] talked about is um

[18:38] with the previous project that was done

[18:41] to re-align Highland Drive as it went

[18:42] towards Canyon Road.

[18:44] Um

[18:45] there had been discussion with previous

[18:47] developers about the trail improvements

[18:49] that were done. Um that will probably

[18:52] continue to have on there just

[18:54] um

[18:55] cuz there was some trail improvements

[18:56] with anticipation of a reimbursement

[18:58] from previous developer. And we just

[19:01] like to continue those conversations

[19:03] with potential for that.

[19:07] Um

[19:10] one

[19:12] item here that we just want to kind of

[19:14] point out. There's a retention basin

[19:16] shown at the top of this

[19:18] the hill here. It's probably better to

[19:20] pull up the grading plan, but um there

[19:23] is quite a steep grade difference

[19:25] between the top of the property and the

[19:29] existing roadway.

[19:30] Um

[19:31] if a retention pond is placed right

[19:34] there on that that hill, it could

[19:36] present uh problems with piping with

[19:39] that that retention basin failing. So,

[19:42] uh it may be required to maybe find a

[19:45] better location for that that basin.

[19:47] >> And just maybe to reiterate uh to

[19:49] emphasize that, you know, a few years

[19:51] ago when we had some really high water,

[19:53] we saw water coming out of the side of

[19:55] that slope. So,

[19:57] uh it's a it's a very real concern and yeah, we would don't want to see any

[20:01] sort of failure of that slope and

[20:03] impacting Highland Drive.

[20:07] » Um

[20:09] And then, let's see, just a couple quick

[20:12] comments um

[20:13] on the alignment. StormTech chambers,

[20:16] there does need to be a 5-ft separation

[20:18] from the back of curb to where that

[20:19] infiltration gallery is.

[20:21] Um if that does

[20:23] impact into the property property, then

[20:26] we would need an easement for that for

[20:29] the city for those

[20:31] for that. So, that's the same comment

[20:33] all the way down through.

[20:35] Um it's also shown that you're including

[20:38] combo boxes on there. Those aren't

[20:40] allowed by our specifications. Uh

[20:42] separate inlet box from a manhole would

[20:44] need to be installed on those.

[20:49] Um additionally, um

[20:53] there it is a as said with previous

[20:56] applications, there was kind of a an

[20:58] unknown or discrepancy between the two

[21:00] property lines here. And so, basically

[21:03] just written confirmation of that has been resolved and worked out

[21:08] with the neighboring property.

[21:12] Those are the same comments from storm

[21:14] drain on the other sheet. I believe that

[21:18] these are all related to the site plan

[21:19] through here.

[21:26] One note while I'm going through this

[21:27] real quick is that

[21:29] um comments

[21:31] uh we're still doing the review of this

[21:33] the provided geotech report and storm

[21:35] drain report. We'll get those comments

[21:37] to you once we've got those finished up.

[21:43] Um

[21:44] And again, yep, retaining wall building

[21:47] permits.

[21:49] Okay, I believe that was it.

[21:55] Okay.

[21:56] Um

[21:57] any other thoughts or comments from DRC?

[22:02] If not, I would would look for a motion

[22:04] on this.

[22:10] » There's a there's a lot of red lines on

[22:12] this and a lot of information we still

[22:13] need, so I make a motion to table this

[22:15] uh subdivision preliminary subdivision

[22:17] application.

[22:18] >> Okay.

[22:19] >> I'll second it, Jim.

[22:20] >> Yeah, the motion and a second. Any

[22:22] discussion on the motion?

[22:24] Seeing none, we'll go to vote. All in

[22:26] favor, please say aye.

[22:27] >> Aye.

[22:28] >> Any [clears throat] opposed?

[22:30] Okay, motion passes. Application's been

[22:32] tabled. We'll work on getting these over

[22:34] to you. Norm, work through these

[22:35] comments and once we've got them

[22:37] addressed, we can bring it back to DRC.

[22:38] So

[22:39] thank you.

[22:42] Hey, the next item on the agenda is a

[22:45] um

[22:46] post trap a child at play sign located

[22:49] at 300 West 300 North.

[22:52] Um this was a request that

[22:57] uh

[22:59] came from the city council.

[23:01] Uh council member Adcock uh requested

[23:04] that the DRC look at this um

[23:08] at a proposed uh child at play sign.

[23:13] I'm working on pulling up a map for it.

[23:15] Sorry, I didn't have it up earlier.

[23:20] At this at this intersection here to put

[23:23] a Again, this is a a one-way street, so

[23:25] a children at play sign would be

[23:28] requested to be

[23:30] placed on the the east side of the road

[23:32] as it works its way to the north.

[23:34] Um

[23:36] just some

[23:37] uh

[23:38] some recommendations are uh guidance is

[23:41] given by the

[23:43] um or direction, I should say, that's

[23:44] given by the Manual on Uniform Traffic

[23:47] Control Devices or MUTCD. Say that one

[23:51] 10 times fast, Mike.

[23:52] >> Yeah.

[23:53] >> [laughter]

[23:54] >> Um child at play signs are only

[23:58] recommended at either parks or schools.

[24:03] Um they're not recommended for any other

[24:05] locations. Um

[24:07] for

[24:09] multiple reasons. Um

[24:11] one is conditions change.

[24:14] And so, tracking that is is is not

[24:17] possible to track that. Um

[24:20] also uh

[24:23] they are they create sign fatigue. A lot

[24:26] of times you keep throwing a bunch of

[24:27] signs at they ends up being most people

[24:31] end up ignoring them. So, per the MUTCD uh guidelines that are

[24:37] listed, my recommendation is that we

[24:39] wouldn't put a sign up here for that

[24:42] reason.

[24:43] But, I'll go around the DRC if there's

[24:45] any other thoughts or comments in

[24:47] regards to that. Aspen?

[24:49] >> I don't have anything.

[24:51] >> Hey, Randy?

[24:52] >> Nothing.

[24:53] >> Jason?

[24:54] >> Yeah, I'm I'm the same with you, John.

[24:56] The street I live on, there was a child

[24:57] at play sign. Well, there's no children

[24:59] that live on my street anymore. They've

[25:00] all grown up. So, yeah, so it's just a

[25:03] sign there that's

[25:05] there now.

[25:05] >> They won't come back and put everyone

[25:07] through it.

[25:07] >> No.

[25:09] That's all the comment I have. I

[25:10] wouldn't recommend one, either.

[25:11] >> Okay.

[25:12] Mike?

[25:13] >> Um same thing you guys said. I think

[25:15] that there's a standard uh for a reason.

[25:18] Um and I think it's slippery slope if we

[25:20] just start throwing them in all over the

[25:22] place and then they get ignored. So,

[25:24] I would also say that it's not a good

[25:26] idea.

[25:26] >> Okay.

[25:27] Alan?

[25:28] >> I don't have any. I have no input on it.

[25:31] >> Okay.

[25:32] Jason?

[25:32] >> I agree with Mike. I was going to say

[25:33] the same thing. This is I mean, our

[25:35] whole community's full of children and

[25:37] this sets of kind of a precedent for

[25:39] putting children at play signs on every

[25:40] corner of the city. So,

[25:42] uh

[25:43] yeah, for all the other reasons that you

[25:44] said, I I would agree.

[25:46] >> Okay.

[25:48] So, with that, I'd look for a motion.

[25:51] >> John, I make a motion that we deny the

[25:54] child at play sign request at 300 North

[25:56] 300 West.

[25:58] >> I have a motion. Is there a second?

[26:00] >> I'll second that.

[26:01] >> Okay, by Alan.

[26:03] All in favor, please say aye.

[26:04] >> Aye.

[26:05] >> Any opposed?

[26:06] Okay. Motion passes.

[26:09] Uh the next one is

[26:12] uh

[26:13] this is a

[26:14] an application received uh a little

[26:15] while ago.

[26:17] Um but, it is

[26:20] um

[26:22] it was a request to stripe Highland

[26:24] Drive. Um

[26:26] and we've done a few traffic studies on

[26:28] this on this location to try to get a

[26:31] uh an idea of the of the general speeds

[26:34] and the speed limit on there.

[26:36] Um and the amount of trips per day and

[26:39] the average speed that happens on there.

[26:41] One thing to note, this is this roadway

[26:43] is actually a 30 30 mph road.

[26:47] Um it changes from 25 to 30 right here

[26:50] at 130 South is where that road

[26:53] transitions to the 30 mph speed limit.

[26:55] So,

[26:56] um with that, from the study we did, the

[26:59] average speed on that was 36 mph.

[27:02] Um

[27:04] and um

[27:07] and we're getting about 4,100 trips per

[27:09] day, vehicles a day on that on that

[27:12] roadway.

[27:13] Um

[27:14] then

[27:16] I'll refer back to the MUTCD is that

[27:18] typically once you start reaching the

[27:21] 6,500 is when most traffic

[27:24] uh control is starts to be required.

[27:27] >> Will

[27:28] John, will you take a step back? What's the proposal for this?

[27:32] >> you. The proposal is to stripe to do a

[27:36] to stripe the road. So, two fog lines

[27:38] and center center dividing line. Whether

[27:40] that be double line or

[27:44] uh dash lines or or anything through

[27:46] there. So,

[27:51] um so with that,

[27:54] any other thoughts or we roll around the

[27:56] DRC for comments? Aspen, you got any?

[27:59] >> Is there any harm in providing the

[28:01] striping? Is it like a sign fatigue

[28:03] situation or

[28:05] >> Uh it ends up being long-term

[28:06] maintenance is really kind of the cost

[28:08] and then long-term maintenance is what

[28:09] comes with with striping on there.

[28:11] >> Okay.

[28:13] >> So,

[28:14] >> that's my only question.

[28:15] >> Okay.

[28:16] Randy?

[28:17] >> Nothing. I don't see a reason for it.

[28:20] >> Okay.

[28:22] Jason?

[28:24] >> I know we this has come up before and we

[28:25] have done some things. We have installed

[28:27] delineators along the on the west side

[28:30] of Highland Drive and that that was one

[28:33] of the main concerns is people not being

[28:35] able to see the edge of the road.

[28:37] But other than that,

[28:38] it is a long-term maintenance issue like

[28:41] that we don't meet the

[28:43] trips per day

[28:44] as far as the code goes. So, [snorts] I

[28:47] would recommend that we wouldn't stripe

[28:48] that at this time.

[28:50] >> Okay.

[28:52] Mike?

[28:53] >> Um kind of along the same thing Jason

[28:55] said. Uh I go back to the you know,

[28:57] they're standards for a reason.

[29:00] Um we don't meet that standard and the

[29:02] speed just isn't egregious enough to use

[29:05] speed as a justification, I don't think.

[29:08] Um but the long-term maintenance is a

[29:10] nightmare

[29:11] and the delineator posts are kind of

[29:13] more of a long-term not a whole lot

[29:15] maintenance to them. So, I think we've

[29:16] done what we can by and mitigated cost

[29:18] where we can

[29:20] um with trying to help people feel like

[29:22] it's a better

[29:24] fix, but I don't see any reason why it's

[29:26] necessary.

[29:27] >> Okay.

[29:28] A quick question I and you may not have

[29:31] the answer and I and I don't expect it,

[29:33] but have we had much accidents along

[29:36] this roadway? I'm not aware of of any,

[29:39] but that doesn't mean

[29:41] there hasn't been.

[29:41] >> Off the top of my head, you know, we we

[29:44] really don't have very many accidents.

[29:46] If anything, it's like at an

[29:47] intersection where somebody blew a stop

[29:48] sign on 130 or something or

[29:52] but no, there's really not very many

[29:54] accidents and and

[29:56] I wouldn't I would dare say there's very

[29:59] few if any accidents that are caused

[30:01] because of lack of striping.

[30:04] >> Okay.

[30:04] Sounds good. You know, we do we do

[30:06] stripe from the the light on Main Street

[30:10] up to 130 South

[30:12] and then also the corner

[30:14] where the corner starts to Canyon Road

[30:16] is all striped also, so

[30:19] those are the areas where

[30:21] the corners are are you know, we have

[30:24] put in some and we will continue to

[30:26] stripe those as a maintenance item, so

[30:29] the rest of it's just a long

[30:30] straightaway.

[30:31] >> Yep. I was just going to say those those

[30:33] two bookends of of this road are are S

[30:36] curves, so I think that striping is

[30:38] maybe a little more justified and

[30:39] helpful.

[30:40] >> [snorts]

[30:41] >> The the other thing note, I think is

[30:43] that that that intersection from Main to

[30:46] 130 is likely going to change in the

[30:49] near future.

[30:50] >> That is correct.

[30:51] >> So,

[30:52] >> Yes.

[30:52] >> that will change.

[30:53] >> Yep.

[30:55] >> Okay.

[30:57] Alan?

[30:57] >> Yeah, uh risk-benefit profile. I don't

[31:00] see a huge benefit in striping it,

[31:03] especially with Highland in the the

[31:07] geographical layout of Highland changing

[31:10] in the near future. I think it's

[31:12] probably something we should look at

[31:14] maybe addressing later.

[31:16] >> Okay.

[31:18] Jason?

[31:19] >> I certainly think it'd be a nice-to-have

[31:21] thing, but again, our our objective here

[31:23] is to look at it objectively and what's

[31:25] the standard and what's what's the way

[31:27] we look at it. So, if there's if it's

[31:28] not justified to have the striping

[31:30] there, I I mean, the bigger concern I

[31:32] have on that road in traveling that road

[31:34] is sometimes the shoulders will get bit

[31:36] Our public works does a really good job

[31:38] of keeping those shoulders, you know, uh

[31:41] up to protect the asphalt, but also so

[31:43] that,

[31:44] you know, cars aren't aren't just going

[31:46] off the asphalt and, you know, hitting

[31:48] dips or or, you know, screwing up their

[31:50] alignment or something like that. So, I

[31:52] think for purposes of what the DRC looks

[31:55] at, I think the standard doesn't doesn't

[31:56] justify having striping and and because

[31:59] of the the other reasons that are

[32:00] stated, I I I think that we would deny

[32:02] this one as well.

[32:06] » So, um couple of things that that we can

[32:10] say keep in mind is that as again,

[32:12] things change and as as things change,

[32:15] if if it's [snorts]

[32:17] um could be determined at a later point

[32:19] that we need to stripe it or that it'd

[32:21] be more beneficial to do so, then then

[32:24] something we could do, but anyway, with

[32:26] that being said, I'd

[32:27] look for a motion for this

[32:30] uh

[32:31] specific item.

[32:36] » I'd make a motion that we deny the

[32:38] striping on Highland Drive at this time.

[32:42] >> I'll motion is there a second?

[32:44] >> I'll second.

[32:45] >> Second by Mike.

[32:46] Um

[32:48] With that, all in favor, please say I.

[32:51] >> I.

[32:52] >> Any opposed? Okay, motion passes.

[32:55] On that, so the next item on the agenda

[32:58] is the approval of the June 23rd DRC

[33:01] meeting minutes.

[33:03] Are there any comments? I'll look for a

[33:04] motion to approve those.

[33:09] » I'll make a motion to approve the

[33:10] minutes from July 20th.

[33:12] >> 23rd.

[33:14] >> Okay.

[33:15] >> Second.

[33:16] by Randy. All in favor, please

[33:18] say I.

[33:19] >> I.

[33:20] >> Any opposed? Okay, motion passes.

[33:23] And there's nothing else for the DRC.

[33:25] I'll look for a motion to adjourn.

[33:26] >> Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we

[33:28] adjourn this meeting.

[33:30] >> And we are adjourned.

Santaquin City Development Review Committee Meeting - July 14, 2026

Transcript