[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.