[0:00] Did you make sure that my phone had a

[0:02] previous DRC meeting

[0:04] regular invite?

[0:06] >> I think that invite came from you

[0:07] originally.

[0:08] >> Oh, is it?

[0:09] I see.

[0:10] We'll look at it and see.

[0:12] >> We're live.

[0:12] >> Okay. Thank you.

[0:15] All right.

[0:17] It is

[0:19] July 28th. We'll get the the DRC meeting

[0:23] started. Um it is 10:00 a.m.

[0:27] So, with that, we'll jump right into the

[0:30] agenda.

[0:32] >> [clears throat]

[0:32] >> The first

[0:33] is the first four items on the agenda

[0:36] are

[0:37] uh the individual phases for the Bella

[0:39] Vista subdivision.

[0:42] Um

[0:43] this is a development that is located on

[0:45] the west side of 400 East. Um

[0:49] located on basically an old orchard

[0:52] that's that um

[0:55] has been north of the fruit processing plant and the cold

[0:59] storage that's over on 4th East. So,

[1:02] um the proposed on this, they are

[1:05] requesting final approval for all four

[1:08] phases

[1:11] uh the development. Um so, we will need

[1:13] to act individually

[1:15] um on each of these these phases.

[1:18] Um in regards to that. So, my

[1:22] um

[1:23] my after reviewing these and looking at

[1:26] them, I think we'll do the cuz a lot of

[1:29] the comments that are related to the

[1:31] first phase

[1:32] do apply to the other three phases. Um

[1:37] after reviewing the redline

[1:38] [clears throat] comments that are

[1:39] already on here. So, I think in in

[1:42] interest of of time

[1:45] and to um

[1:48] and as [snorts] I said, most of these

[1:49] comments will be provided to the

[1:51] applicant um after the meeting um

[1:54] so we can go over specific items as

[1:58] needed, but I think we can cover most of

[2:00] them

[2:02] in relationship to

[2:05] as we go

[2:06] all the comments will apply. So

[2:09] um

[2:11] with that just to kind of give

[2:13] a brief kind of breakdown of it

[2:15] there are four phases associated. Let me

[2:19] bring this one up cuz I think it might

[2:21] be quicker and easier to see that.

[2:24] So phase one is located up on the far

[2:28] north side of it. If you recall a couple

[2:32] months ago

[2:33] um

[2:34] there was a request to break phase one

[2:38] into two phases.

[2:41] Um the first phase 1B I believe if if I

[2:44] remember correctly as it was entitled um

[2:47] was these eight lots on this

[2:51] intersection around this this area. The

[2:54] remaining phase 1A

[2:56] it was the remaining of those. That was

[2:59] an applicant that did go through and was

[3:01] approved by the DRC.

[3:04] Um since then they've consolidated those

[3:07] two phases into one.

[3:09] Um and

[3:12] um

[3:13] because of and

[3:15] which they are able to do

[3:17] um there just have to be uh a

[3:20] notification

[3:21] um provided uh to the planning

[3:24] commission uh later on and um

[3:29] >> and the city council.

[3:30] >> And to the city council as well.

[3:32] >> send them both, yeah.

[3:32] >> So you check with Brett.

[3:34] >> Okay.

[3:35] So just as a

[3:37] uh uh

[3:38] notice on there they can do that without

[3:40] any any issue procedurally with the DRC

[3:43] or with final approval. So

[3:45] um just kind of a a heads up on that

[3:47] one.

[3:49] Um

[3:51] again phase two would be this next area

[3:54] over here.

[3:55] Um

[3:57] and then phase three and four

[4:00] um associated with that. There are some

[4:02] infrastructure heavier infrastructure

[4:04] lifts that would need to happen with

[4:06] phase three with existing sewer

[4:08] that would need to be taken care of.

[4:10] That would be

[4:12] um

[4:13] handled again into construction and then

[4:14] phase four is located out along uh 400

[4:18] East.

[4:20] So, with that um

[4:23] I'll go around the DRC with any

[4:25] thoughts, comments, or questions related

[4:26] to these

[4:28] and uh we'll proceed with that. So,

[4:30] starting with Randy with building.

[4:35] » Do you want just phase one? Well, I I've

[4:37] gone through all all the phases and then

[4:40] uh adjusted some of the

[4:42] addresses and tried to match what they

[4:44] had best I could, but also making sure

[4:47] it matched our grid best as possible.

[4:49] So,

[4:50] there are separate sheets for each of

[4:51] those addressing lists.

[4:53] >> Okay.

[4:54] Sounds good.

[4:55] Thank you.

[4:56] Martin, do you have anything?

[4:57] >> Um some of mine may have may apply to

[4:59] kind of to all of them. Um but

[5:02] >> If there's specific ones, we can cover

[5:03] them. We just will need to make sure

[5:05] we're

[5:06] uh each each phase has its own separate

[5:08] motion.

[5:09] >> Okay, yeah, no problem. So, um obviously

[5:11] the written notice that you discussed

[5:13] um cover sheets need to be updated. They

[5:15] have uh preliminary uh still

[5:18] uh listed.

[5:20] Um we'll need to have

[5:22] I'll skip over that. We'll need to have

[5:24] no notary blocks

[5:26] um

[5:26] provided.

[5:28] Remove city council.

[5:30] Um

[5:32] I believe we have a signature block.

[5:35] >> Yeah, there's a signature block for city

[5:38] council on all the plats, which city

[5:40] council's no longer uh

[5:43] do no longer sign subdivision plats.

[5:46] >> Yeah, I think it should just have

[5:47] planning commission.

[5:49] >> Correct.

[5:50] >> Okay.

[5:52] Um and then

[5:54] in our kind of pre-DRC meeting we talked

[5:57] about 400 400 East and so that is on the

[6:00] trail plan.

[6:02] >> Yes, there is a um the

[6:04] >> I don't know if we want to indicate that

[6:06] or anything like that, but

[6:08] >> Yeah, so that applies more to phase

[6:10] four. As if there is in our parks master

[6:13] plan, there is an anticipated trail that

[6:16] runs along an east-west connection um

[6:20] approximately this location.

[6:22] >> And then I went back and I um I I talked with Aspen and

[6:26] recalculated the the the widths. I

[6:28] brought up concern about the 95 ft not

[6:31] being reflected on both property lines

[6:33] for uh corner lots.

[6:35] Their measurement just wasn't including

[6:37] the curves.

[6:39] And so I was just taking the center, the

[6:40] straight line. And so I went back and calculated those. So we should be

[6:44] fine on that. the dimensions.

[6:45] >> That's it.

[6:47] >> Okay.

[6:47] >> Sounds good.

[6:49] Jason, public works.

[6:51] >> Yeah, I I know there's a lot of red

[6:52] lines on this and there will be from

[6:54] engineering also, but uh my my biggest

[6:57] concern with this is is probably phase

[6:59] three when we do the sewer realignment.

[7:02] We're going to have to have, you know,

[7:04] some good coordination between

[7:06] the city, the contractor and

[7:08] uh

[7:09] a plan submitted on how they're going to

[7:11] do that and and I think we need some,

[7:14] you know, we'll have to buy off on that

[7:15] plan when that gets to that point in

[7:17] phase three.

[7:19] And I know also there's a comment on 400

[7:21] East.

[7:22] The road's not in

[7:24] very good shape and we'd like to

[7:26] participate as we move forward with

[7:27] these phases and uh probably and and

[7:30] overlay that road so that we have a good

[7:32] surface

[7:33] moving forward.

[7:35] >> Okay.

[7:36] >> Other than that, I'll just refer to the

[7:39] >> The red line comments.

[7:40] >> okay.

[7:40] thank you.

[7:41] >> Thank you.

[7:42] Mike, if you please.

[7:44] >> Um everything

[7:46] on [clears throat] our end looked good

[7:47] other than the red lines that I'm I

[7:49] imagine you'll address at the end. So.

[7:52] >> Okay.

[7:53] Jason, you have anything you want to

[7:55] bring up?

[7:55] >> up just go can comment as we go through

[7:57] redlines.

[7:58] >> Okay.

[8:00] Um so as I mentioned before and I think

[8:02] the applicant did join us, Andy Flam is

[8:05] the applicant.

[8:06] Um he did jump on the Zoom meeting with

[8:09] us, so he's he's available.

[8:11] Um

[8:13] but just a lot of these as I mentioned

[8:16] before, a lot of the comments that apply

[8:18] to the first phase typically will apply

[8:20] to the remaining phases. So I'll just

[8:22] kind of keep that in mind. We'll we'll

[8:24] try to go through them.

[8:26] Um

[8:27] on there. So a couple comments that are

[8:30] pretty consistent with the plat. Again,

[8:33] it's already been mentioned the the

[8:34] signature block. Um double closures need

[8:37] to be double-checked on all the

[8:39] subdivision. Make sure boundary

[8:40] descriptions close appropriately as well

[8:43] as uh each parcels. We've already

[8:46] mentioned

[8:47] uh note clean up. A lot of them call

[8:49] preliminary plat when this is actually

[8:51] final.

[8:53] Um

[8:55] as I mentioned before, there's a lot of

[8:56] closures that need to be uh reworked on

[8:59] the parcels.

[9:00] This uh is those that need to be

[9:02] addressed before it's uh recorded.

[9:05] Um

[9:07] just as a note, part of the uh

[9:09] discussion, part of our city code is

[9:13] that double frontage lots

[9:15] um

[9:16] are discouraged. Um but again,

[9:19] everything that backs on the 400 East

[9:22] is there. Um does have double frontage.

[9:26] On the plat, it does show a

[9:28] um no access on there, but as discussed

[9:31] for preliminary, um fences will be

[9:34] needed there.

[9:35] Um and uh detail of that fence will need

[9:37] to be provided.

[9:39] >> John?

[9:40] >> Maybe a question for for Morgan, and I

[9:43] know Askins in the audience, did we do

[9:45] we look at that code and see if that's a

[9:47] requirement? Now, I I know we talked

[9:48] about potentially amendment that

[9:50] happened in the past.

[9:57] » Okay, I

[9:57] >> we'll have to look at that.

[9:58] >> it it could be a requirement. I know

[10:00] that there was maybe some amendment in

[10:01] the past little bit that that looked at

[10:03] that, and I know you have it noted on

[10:05] there to provide the fence details, but

[10:07] we just want to make sure that that

[10:09] it's understood what that fence is going

[10:11] to be, and and whether it's a

[10:13] requirement or not. I mean,

[10:15] if if we don't if it's not a

[10:16] requirement, then it comes into play

[10:18] whether we allow double frontage lots. I

[10:20] think we've we've kind of agreed that a

[10:22] double frontage lot will work there if

[10:24] there's a fence that that creates that

[10:26] barrier between

[10:28] a relatively busier road.

[10:30] >> Yep.

[10:30] >> Or what will be a little busier road in

[10:34] those lots.

[10:34] >> It is It is a busy road now. It's a one

[10:37] of the main haul routes for semi trucks.

[10:39] >> Okay. I just just wondered if if there

[10:41] was an update on on on that particular

[10:44] point.

[10:45] >> Yeah, we'll make sure that comments on

[10:46] there before the the uh, is updated

[10:49] before the red lines get sent out.

[10:52] >> We're we're happy to go through our code

[10:54] and see if there's a any fence

[10:55] requirements up Anything else with

[10:57] double [cough] frontage lots.

[10:59] >> Okay.

[11:01] Um,

[11:02] couple of things here just for

[11:04] legibility. Because the plan set is

[11:06] specific for phase one. Um,

[11:10] we need to make sure that we kind of

[11:12] zoom in, make it little more easier to

[11:15] understand for both staff and the

[11:17] contractor when they come out to to

[11:19] start building the the subdivision.

[11:23] Um,

[11:24] couple of notes are pretty standard

[11:26] throughout regarding easements that are

[11:28] needed for turnarounds. There's one

[11:31] located here in phase one that's on

[11:34] uh Nibel School District property for

[11:37] the east end of Royal Land Drive.

[11:40] There's another one

[11:42] located [clears throat] down on the

[11:44] phase three

[11:46] uh that includes uh turnaround on private property

[11:51] um for the end of I can't remember what

[11:53] the name of the street is, but right in

[11:54] this location.

[11:56] There's a uh turnaround that will need

[11:58] to be there. And those because they're

[12:00] not within the subdivision boundaries,

[12:02] separate

[12:04] uh written easements need to be recorded

[12:06] on each of those properties.

[12:11] Uh similar comment as before.

[12:18] I'm going to move that.

[12:22] Uh again, just note for construction

[12:24] valves, again, that's similar comment to

[12:26] the rest of them.

[12:31] Uh couple notes just on this on the

[12:34] sewer. If it's

[12:36] if these sewer lines are installed and

[12:39] constructed uh with phase one before

[12:42] these two phases are constructed, we

[12:44] will need separate

[12:46] uh recordable easements for the sewer

[12:48] line the sewer mains that runs down

[12:50] through there.

[12:53] I have one other main note to some of

[12:55] the line types used in the colors make

[12:58] legibility the plans difficult. So,

[13:02] we'll need to update the the color

[13:04] scheme um for those

[13:07] for these plans.

[13:11] Let's see.

[13:14] Uh storm water comments,

[13:17] um

[13:18] >> [snorts]

[13:19] >> one thing that's with the proposed storm

[13:21] water

[13:22] uh

[13:23] retention basins that are infiltration

[13:25] galleries that are being installed is

[13:28] that many of them do span over

[13:31] driveways.

[13:32] And so a detail will need to be provided

[13:34] on how what structure is needed on top

[13:37] of those to prevent failure. Like when a

[13:40] cement truck goes drives over them,

[13:42] we've had that we've experienced that in

[13:44] other developments where this type of

[13:47] methodology was used and those

[13:51] uh

[13:52] collapsed as a part of that.

[13:54] Also need to be taken into consideration

[13:56] utility crossings across each one of

[13:58] those uh infiltration galleries.

[14:02] There will be PI and sewer that cross

[14:04] over them.

[14:05] >> Um we when you get a minute if um we um

[14:08] we were able to find the the code

[14:09] section on the double frontage lots.

[14:11] >> Okay. So when you're ready.

[14:13] Okay.

[14:14] Um we'll come back to that in just I

[14:16] think we've gone through most of them.

[14:19] Again,

[14:25] if you want to go through that Morgan

[14:27] real quick while I

[14:28] >> Yeah, no problem. Yeah, so the code

[14:30] requires that double frontage lots that

[14:32] there be

[14:34] So when double frontage lots occur on

[14:37] traffic arterials,

[14:39] um masonry style fencing shall be

[14:42] required along one of the frontages as

[14:43] determined by the DRC. Fencing will be a

[14:45] subdivision improvement required prior

[14:47] to issuance of a building permit.

[14:50] And so that's something that we can um

[14:52] add as a condition on that road.

[14:57] » Okay. Um

[15:02] I believe that was I think if I remember

[15:04] correctly, we had one more.

[15:13] Again with the storm drain,

[15:15] um making sure we have

[15:18] uh appropriate

[15:19] cleanout related to our meets our

[15:22] specifications.

[15:24] Um

[15:28] Let's see. I think phase two is kind of

[15:30] in the same boat. I don't know if it's

[15:32] we need to go over each one of those

[15:34] line items cuz again, very a lot of the

[15:36] same comments are associated with this

[15:39] phase as with phase one.

[15:41] Phase three, uh this is kind of to

[15:45] um

[15:46] your [snorts] point, Jason. This is

[15:47] where the sewer line

[15:50] gets Currently, we have a sewer line

[15:52] extends from 4th East and then flows

[15:55] roughly back of these lots and then cuts

[15:58] over to the west and and connects into

[16:00] 200 East.

[16:02] Um

[16:03] that is going to be realigned and moved

[16:06] um into the roadway until it connects

[16:09] within the roadway and then they'll the

[16:11] line will follow the same

[16:13] alignment as as current.

[16:15] So, that's the one

[16:17] that line takes

[16:19] all most of the flows from Main Street

[16:23] north on the east side of of I-15.

[16:26] So, that is a very full and busy line.

[16:30] Bypass pumping may be needed at the

[16:32] tie-in to to get that go through.

[16:34] >> Yeah, I I just don't see how how they're

[16:36] going to do it without doing some type

[16:37] of bypass pumping.

[16:39] >> Correct. For a minute.

[16:40] >> And with the flow that we're having

[16:41] through there as well. So,

[16:44] Um one comment uh that fire had and

[16:48] wanted to to bring up and to kind of

[16:50] discuss.

[16:51] Um

[16:53] Their concern was that

[16:56] with the current accesses you'd have one

[16:58] access here at uh 610 North, then

[17:02] another 530.

[17:04] Um

[17:06] But, also if you include

[17:10] all of these phases within phase two as

[17:12] well, that could be potentially only

[17:14] point of ingress and egress for those.

[17:17] Now, our city code

[17:20] does state that

[17:22] two points of connection are what

[17:24] required for for development. And to And

[17:27] phase three does technically meet that

[17:30] with

[17:31] 510 North here.

[17:33] Sorry, 5

[17:34] 530 North, apologize. And 610 North,

[17:37] they would have those two points.

[17:39] Um

[17:40] and then the another point of access

[17:43] would be the continuation up on this

[17:45] road and then onto 770 North. Um but

[17:49] that was their concern that they'd

[17:51] expressed the desire to potentially put

[17:54] some sort of

[17:56] um

[17:57] access over to 4th East at the end of

[17:59] this road here, the extension of 530

[18:02] North as it may through there.

[18:04] Um just to help with with any of that.

[18:08] If phase four and phase three are

[18:09] constructed together, then

[18:11] that wouldn't necessarily need to be an

[18:13] issue.

[18:14] And my understanding is that may be a

[18:16] process that the developer could go

[18:17] through, but if phase three itself was

[18:20] built, that would be something [snorts]

[18:22] that they would the fire department

[18:23] would request just to help with the emergency access to the site.

[18:28] >> John, in addition to that, for from the

[18:31] police perspective, uh

[18:34] when they do construct that when they do

[18:36] phase three, if they would put that

[18:37] through, it would really help with

[18:39] construction traffic for phase four.

[18:41] If they would put that in first, so not

[18:43] everybody's coming down 200 East for

[18:44] construction.

[18:45] >> That's a an excellent point. Thank you.

[18:48] So, okay, we'll add that comment onto

[18:50] there.

[18:51] Before we send that out.

[18:56] Um let's see.

[18:58] I believe Again, the rest of the

[19:00] comments are are the same. I'll run

[19:03] through these real quick.

[19:07] Yeah, there there is still quite a bit

[19:09] of clean up and everything needed for

[19:11] each of these these plats. As you've

[19:14] seen, there's been comments on all of the plats relating to front edge enclosures related to

[19:22] that. So.

[19:27] Um yeah, the same comment there from

[19:29] fire.

[19:36] Yeah, clean up on

[19:38] plans. There

[19:39] appears to be a a block that

[19:43] from that was still printed with

[19:45] AutoCAD, so that needs to be cleaned up.

[19:52] Construction valve comments.

[19:54] Um

[19:57] comments on sewer line easement, the

[19:58] existing one that's there.

[20:03] And again, comments on the infiltration

[20:05] galleries, still the same ones through

[20:06] that.

[20:16] And that was just on that one, just

[20:17] clean up

[20:20] on that plan set.

[20:26] » [cough]

[20:30] » Then for phase four,

[20:33] >> [snorts]

[20:34] >> again, similar comments.

[20:40] Yeah, regarding signatures, who's on

[20:42] there, closure comments.

[21:12] » It's a street light comment, basically

[21:15] uh discussion to alternate sides of the

[21:16] street lights are on as you go down the

[21:18] roads.

[21:28] And the rest are details, so

[21:31] I believe that's all of them.

[21:32] >> Also, one other comment is with the

[21:34] addressing, there's a couple of streets

[21:36] that were mislabeled. And then one that

[21:38] I added up happened to change because of

[21:40] the numbering, so

[21:42] >> Okay.

[21:42] >> Those are also on that addressing sheet.

[21:44] >> addressing sheet, yeah.

[21:45] >> Okay, thank you.

[21:47] Okay, any other comments, thoughts, or

[21:50] questions on these on these phases of

[21:54] the Bella Vista development?

[22:00] Seeing none, uh I would look for for a

[22:03] motion, again, each uh there will need

[22:06] to be separate motions

[22:08] uh

[22:09] for all four phases of this.

[22:11] >> John, am I am I able to uh

[22:14] >> Yeah, go ahead.

[22:14] >> address one thing before you make a

[22:15] motion?

[22:16] >> Go ahead, Andy.

[22:17] >> All right, thanks. Yeah, this is Andy

[22:19] Flamm, applicant. Um

[22:21] thank you guys for catching all the

[22:22] mistakes in there. There's quite a few

[22:24] things that need to be double-checked

[22:26] and uh fixed, so appreciate you calling

[22:28] all those out. We'll We'll get on those.

[22:30] Um one

[22:32] the only question I really had, well, I

[22:34] guess I have two. One, the school

[22:36] the turnaround easement for the school

[22:38] district, I believe that's in the city's

[22:40] possession. I haven't received

[22:42] confirmation from Megan Wilson if

[22:45] that was recorded or not, but I believe

[22:46] she has that.

[22:48] And then the other one to the south on

[22:49] uh Kim Stratton's property, I believe

[22:51] that one's already recorded.

[22:53] Uh just

[22:54] a note of that.

[22:56] Um

[22:57] and then on the fencing, uh I believe

[22:59] last year when we got preliminary plat

[23:00] approval, uh fencing at that time was

[23:03] not required on double fronted lots.

[23:06] We agreed to put in a vinyl fence. I

[23:09] believe that's on the record. Was that

[23:13] masonry fence a recent requirement? Cuz

[23:15] I don't believe that was there last year

[23:16] when we got approved.

[23:17] >> No, I I I don't know if there is a

[23:19] masonry fence requirement. And and

[23:21] you're probably right. We talked about

[23:22] that that your application might have

[23:24] been in before there was any sort of

[23:25] amendment to require fencing on double

[23:28] frontage lots. So, that what you're

[23:30] saying sounds familiar to me and and

[23:32] what I remember, but just wanted to

[23:34] verify and and make sure that we hadn't

[23:36] missed something there. I don't even know if we have a masonry

[23:40] fence requirement for things like that.

[23:41] So, Oh, we do?

[23:43] >> We do. Yeah, it's it's on the double

[23:44] frontage subsection.

[23:46] >> Okay, so we'll we'll double-check that.

[23:49] Like I say, our staff had a good memory

[23:52] that we did do something with that, but

[23:53] I think you might be right and we'll

[23:55] verify that that your application might

[23:58] have been before that amendment and

[23:59] therefore what had been discussed before

[24:01] with with a vinyl fence and and that sort of thing

[24:05] I think would would still apply to your

[24:06] project.

[24:07] >> Okay. All right, thanks Jason. That's

[24:09] that was the only thing I needed to

[24:11] address other than going back and doing

[24:13] all the redlines. So, thank you.

[24:17] » Okay.

[24:18] >> [snorts]

[24:18] >> Anything else?

[24:20] Okay. Then I'll look for a motion

[24:22] on these ones.

[24:24] >> John

[24:25] I'll I'll maybe try and make this

[24:26] easier.

[24:28] I'll make a motion that that we table

[24:30] each phase of the development pending

[24:32] the redline comments be addressed.

[24:34] So,

[24:35] um

[24:37] Yeah, I guess we have to do them all in

[24:39] separate motions. So,

[24:41] let's just start with phase one.

[24:42] Motion to table phase one.

[24:44] >> I've got a motion to table phase one. Is

[24:46] there a second?

[24:47] >> I'll second it.

[24:48] >> Seconded by Mike. All in favor, please

[24:50] say aye.

[24:51] >> Aye.

[24:52] >> Any opposed?

[24:53] >> Okay. John, I'll make a motion to table

[24:55] phase two.

[24:57] >> I'll second it.

[24:58] >> Seconded by Mike. All in favor to table,

[25:01] please say I.

[25:02] >> I.

[25:02] >> Any opposed?

[25:04] John, I'll make a motion to table phase

[25:05] three.

[25:07] >> I'll second it.

[25:08] >> Got a motion and second. All in favor to

[25:11] table phase three, please say I.

[25:12] >> I.

[25:13] >> Any opposed? John, I'll make a motion to

[25:15] table phase four.

[25:17] >> I'll second it.

[25:17] >> Seconded by Mike. All in favor to table

[25:19] phase four, please say I.

[25:21] >> I.

[25:22] >> Any opposed?

[25:23] >> Thought we'd make that a lot easier for

[25:24] going to have the consistent and

[25:26] Anyways, now we appreciate

[25:29] the work that's being made on this,

[25:30] Andy. Obviously, we're just a little bit

[25:32] more information before we can we can

[25:34] approve this, namely confirmation of the

[25:36] easements and that sort of thing.

[25:38] If Megan's showing me a thumbs up, so it

[25:40] looks like you you have done what you

[25:41] need to there, but with some of the

[25:43] other things that were talked about, we

[25:44] just need to have for a final approval,

[25:46] we just need to have a little bit more

[25:48] buttoned up to to have this ready to go.

[25:51] >> For sure. Yeah, there's a lot of things

[25:52] on there. That's that's totally

[25:53] understandable.

[25:56] >> Okay, sounds good. Thank you.

[25:59] >> Uh one uh one more question on water

[26:02] rights. Actually, you know what? I'll

[26:03] handle this with an email, John.

[26:05] >> Yeah, just give me a call. We can we can

[26:06] talk water rights, Andy. So.

[26:08] >> Okay. All right, thank you.

[26:10] >> Thank you.

[26:14] Okay, the

[26:16] um

[26:17] let's see. Uh Andy's the only one that

[26:19] was on

[26:21] Zoom, so um

[26:23] Liv, are you the traffic control?

[26:25] >> Yes, I'm on my phone.

[26:26] >> Okay.

[26:27] >> [laughter]

[26:28] >> So, I just was getting ready to close

[26:30] the the Zoom, so make it a little

[26:33] easier on that one, so.

[26:40] All right. Okay, the next item on the

[26:42] agenda

[26:44] is a request for a a deaf child at play

[26:48] sign

[26:49] um

[26:50] located up here on 260

[26:53] uh West um up here in the Orchards

[26:55] development.

[26:56] Get off of there.

[26:58] Between

[27:00] uh uh

[27:01] Rayburn Lane and Ginger Gold Road.

[27:04] Um this is a It says a request for deaf child in the area sign um in

[27:11] regards to that. So,

[27:13] similar to other applicants that we've

[27:16] other applications received for these types of sign whether it be deaf

[27:20] child in play um you know

[27:24] uh children playing in the area, child

[27:26] at play in the area type type signage.

[27:28] We we review and look at what they call

[27:31] the MUTCD

[27:33] or the municipal uniform traffic control device

[27:39] guideline. It's a national guideline and

[27:42] that sets standard nationwide standards

[27:45] for locations of stop signs, locations

[27:48] of um

[27:50] really any kind of traffic control

[27:52] device from speed bumps to stop signs to

[27:55] traffic signals to length of turning

[27:58] pockets and and everything on there.

[28:00] [snorts]

[28:01] So, it creates a very standardized

[28:03] travel network in that system.

[28:06] Um part of and in that MUTCD document

[28:12] when it talks about specifically

[28:15] um child at play signs and deaf child in

[28:17] area signs, they are not approved signs

[28:21] in the in that document.

[28:24] Um as such, they're not encouraged to be

[28:27] installed or constructed

[28:29] um for

[28:31] uh multiple reasons. Um it's not those

[28:34] are

[28:35] uh signs that create logistical problems

[28:38] with uh maintenance, also with um what

[28:42] we call sign [snorts] fatigue. When a

[28:43] lot of people see a bunch of signs out,

[28:46] they tend to not pay attention to them.

[28:48] Um

[28:50] you see that in a lot of different locations and in relationship

[28:54] to that. So, part of this review that

[28:56] we've done is we've looked at this. We

[28:58] do review that that document and see

[29:02] what its recommendations are and

[29:04] [snorts] as a not approved sign on there

[29:07] for engineering side of things, um it's

[29:10] not a recommendation for my side to to

[29:12] install those. So, uh and to install

[29:15] this specific sign, too.

[29:17] So, but with that, we'll go around the

[29:19] DRC with any comments or thoughts you

[29:21] may have in regards to this application.

[29:25] So, starting with Randy.

[29:26] >> Is that something that could be done by

[29:28] an individual or do they have to have

[29:30] that approved through the city if they

[29:31] wanted to do it on their own?

[29:33] >> If they want to install a sign within

[29:35] the city right-of-way for that, um

[29:38] that doesn't it's that's actually on

[29:40] city property and city right-of-way, so

[29:42] it would need to be

[29:43] um approved by the city to do so.

[29:47] >> I don't have anything else.

[29:48] >> Okay.

[29:50] Morgan?

[29:51] >> Um

[29:52] yeah, I I guess my my fear is that I

[29:54] think at first there it would bring some

[29:57] driver awareness, um and you would

[30:00] as a driver, you know, you'd be kind of

[30:02] warned that the

[30:04] um

[30:06] you know, that that maybe um there could

[30:08] be a conflict. I'm not sure it would

[30:11] reduce speeds, and I I am concerned,

[30:13] too, that over time it it it's just like

[30:16] another sign and people aren't going to pay attention to it and

[30:19] that that sign fatigue thing is is real,

[30:22] and so I

[30:23] um yeah, that's that that's that's my

[30:25] concern. I'd like to see kind of

[30:28] if um those signs do affect drive driver

[30:32] behavior. I think if we had something

[30:34] that showed kind of some facts that you

[30:37] when they you do install the signs, the

[30:39] streets become safer. I think it's um

[30:42] not not not very very likely. I think if

[30:45] I could see something like that, I'd be

[30:46] more apt to to to vote and and approving

[30:50] that.

[30:50] >> Okay.

[30:52] >> [snorts]

[30:52] >> Jason Cowell, public works.

[30:54] >> Some of the things I've seen over the

[30:56] years when we install these signs is

[30:58] that people move,

[31:00] uh sell their house. We don't know this.

[31:02] We we install the sign

[31:04] and [snorts] then

[31:06] we find out 10 15 years down the road

[31:08] that the the the applicant doesn't even

[31:11] live in that house anymore. Um

[31:14] some other things, the sign fatigue. Uh

[31:18] It is a maintenance It is a maintenance

[31:19] issue, but you know, I would

[31:23] I'd like to hear from the applicant if

[31:25] she has anything to say. [clears throat]

[31:26] >> going to give give her an opportunity

[31:28] after we went through ours.

[31:29] >> Okay. That'd be That'd be good, but

[31:31] those those are my concerns that that I

[31:33] have and it's you know, I'm you know,

[31:36] Morgan brought up a good point. If

[31:37] there's something out there that, you

[31:39] know, can

[31:41] you know, sway us in a different

[31:43] direction, I'd love to love to see that.

[31:46] You know, if there's a study or a white

[31:47] paper or something there that's

[31:49] >> [cough and clears throat]

[31:49] >> you know, installing these signs will

[31:51] make a difference.

[31:53] >> [snorts]

[31:53] >> I Yeah, I'd

[31:55] entertain that for sure. So.

[31:58] >> Mike.

[31:59] >> Well, I'm usually the one that's an

[32:01] anti-sign guy. You guys know this.

[32:06] And you bringing her in here obviously

[32:07] isn't helping my decision like

[32:11] » [laughter]

[32:12] >> Um but I

[32:15] from a police perspective,

[32:17] you know, there are special

[32:19] circumstances sometimes. And usually I

[32:22] might if there's a standard, we go by

[32:24] the standard, but I don't know how old

[32:26] she is. She's pretty little.

[32:27] There are some added uh I think dangers

[32:31] to having a deaf child that can't hear

[32:33] traffic coming.

[32:35] Um can't hear a vehicle if it's honking,

[32:38] can't

[32:39] And and I don't I understand. I don't

[32:42] know what the signage cost. I don't know

[32:43] what the maintenance on one would be.

[32:46] Um, obviously we got to take that into

[32:47] account, but if it's a pretty minimal

[32:50] cost, I think having a young child like

[32:52] this in a populated neighborhood, I

[32:55] don't know what the traffic's huge, but

[32:56] even if you stop that one teenage

[32:58] driver, one speeder, or something that

[33:00] does give recognition, even if it's for

[33:02] a year, you know, and let this let this

[33:06] child get a little bit older where maybe

[33:07] they understand and are able to go

[33:09] through the motions of being taught

[33:11] through sign language and stuff that,

[33:12] hey, we don't go on the road, we don't

[33:14] But when they're young like this, I

[33:15] think it does add a enhanced danger and

[33:20] I don't know, depending on the cost, I I

[33:22] think it would be worth maybe

[33:24] entertaining.

[33:25] Okay.

[33:26] Jason?

[33:27] >> Can you remind me of the exact location

[33:30] of where this is proposed?

[33:31] >> So, the the address, let's say this is

[33:33] 260 West

[33:35] >> Okay.

[33:35] >> Um, so it would be

[33:37] um, for this is

[33:39] really there need to be two signs

[33:40] related to this.

[33:42] >> So, kind of on the north end and

[33:43] >> from the north and from the south.

[33:44] >> So,

[33:46] Yeah, I think I echo a lot of the

[33:47] comments that have been made. Uh,

[33:50] I I want I want our, you know, residents

[33:53] to to understand that we're sensitive

[33:55] these types of things.

[33:57] Uh, I was just sitting here thinking and uh, you know, maybe the the the, you

[34:01] know, deaf child at play sign that some

[34:03] people see, maybe that's not the answer.

[34:05] Maybe there's some other things that we

[34:07] could do. Uh,

[34:08] I reason I asked wanted to see where

[34:10] it's at is, you know, this is a pretty

[34:12] localized road. You know, maybe there's

[34:14] some sort of effort that we can do and we have tools. We do it for

[34:18] notifying residents of sub-subdivisions

[34:20] and re-zones and stuff like that. We're

[34:21] we'd be happy to to work with you on

[34:23] maybe we could do a mailer to you know,

[34:26] I don't think anybody's going to drive

[34:28] down that street uh, very much unless

[34:30] they live there. We could we could do a

[34:31] mailer to inform people about that. Uh I

[34:34] know sometimes people on their own will

[34:36] have those little like,

[34:38] you know, small child-looking signs that

[34:40] say slow down. I mean, I see those all

[34:42] the time with people that that feel like

[34:44] people speed through their neighborhood

[34:45] and you know, I don't know if they make

[34:47] that much of a difference or not. Um but

[34:49] if if there's something like that that

[34:50] can be done to to help you. The other

[34:53] thing that we that concerns me is is,

[34:56] you know, it looks like your child's

[34:57] fairly young, but sometimes it it

[34:58] creates a false sense of security that

[35:00] if there's a sign that, you know, the

[35:02] child feels like, "Oh, I'm I'm I'm

[35:04] protected by this sign." Um and and

[35:07] sometimes those signs

[35:09] are either not even seen with sign

[35:12] fatigue or or things like that, but um

[35:15] maybe maybe a sign's not the answer, uh

[35:17] but maybe there's something,

[35:19] you know, kind of creative that we can

[35:21] do. I don't I don't want to just tell

[35:22] the applicant no, cuz I think we are

[35:24] sensitive to your concerns, but maybe

[35:26] there is some sort of a mailer we can do

[35:28] on an annual basis or something uh that

[35:31] notifies people uh in a reasonable area

[35:34] that that uh

[35:37] cuz like I say,

[35:38] uh

[35:39] yeah, you're going to have some through

[35:40] traffic occasionally, but 90% of the

[35:42] traffic that's going to go through there

[35:44] are probably people who live in and

[35:46] around that area, and if we we do some

[35:48] sort of a mailer, maybe that's the the

[35:49] better way to do it and

[35:51] instead of having a sign that disappears

[35:53] behind, you know, landscaping and all

[35:55] the other signs that, you know, people

[35:57] will will kind of overlook. So,

[36:00] that's kind of my thought. I I tended to

[36:02] not, you know, I see that the challenges

[36:04] with more signs and kind of what's been

[36:06] expressed, but I also wanted to maybe

[36:08] bring a uh proactive idea forward that maybe can can replace the sign.

[36:15] >> Yeah. You want to take a minute

[36:18] and share any thoughts you may have on

[36:22] it?

[36:23] >> Um

[36:23] >> And if you could put give us your name,

[36:25] please, for the minutes.

[36:26] >> Oh, I'm Haley.

[36:27] >> Okay.

[36:28] >> This is Sage.

[36:29] Um

[36:31] Yeah, the problem with

[36:34] our street is we have a few people that will speed

[36:39] down that road. I don't know if they're

[36:41] residents or not, but they do go quick.

[36:44] And then we have a lot of big

[36:45] construction trucks that go right

[36:47] through there. Right now, I know that

[36:49] won't be forever, but

[36:51] um

[36:53] Yeah, she even with her implants on,

[36:55] she's still moderate to severe hearing

[36:57] loss.

[36:58] And if she doesn't have them on, she

[36:59] can't hear anything, so she couldn't

[37:01] hear a car honking, she couldn't hear

[37:04] I mean, she couldn't hear a sonic boom.

[37:05] Like

[37:08] We keep a close eye on her, but for me

[37:10] as a mother, it would be much more

[37:14] comforting knowing there's something

[37:17] that tells people that maybe they glance

[37:19] over and see it, tells them

[37:22] to slow down or know that, you know, my

[37:24] child can't hear you if she happened to

[37:27] get out to the road, heaven forbid. Um

[37:30] if there is something

[37:32] that's more reasonable like

[37:37] I mean, I don't know if a speed trap is

[37:39] a reasonable thing to put up, but

[37:40] something or a speed bump so that people

[37:43] have to slow down.

[37:47] I'm open to things like that, but

[37:53] Yeah, I just care about the safety of my

[37:55] child, and when she is so young, she

[37:58] doesn't understand things,

[38:01] there's only so much I can do.

[38:02] >> Mhm.

[38:05] But what do you think of the some of the

[38:07] ideas of a letter or things like that? I

[38:09] know it's not the physical permanent

[38:11] thing that's there that

[38:13] >> Well, yeah, that's the concern. There's

[38:14] a lot of new Well, they're building that

[38:16] development right there. Tons of new

[38:18] homes and stuff. You're going to get new

[38:20] people, new drivers that

[38:21] >> Right.

[38:22] >> won't get that

[38:23] letter.

[38:24] >> Well, like I say, if if it's something

[38:25] that I know it's something that and and

[38:28] I you know,

[38:29] it'd be something that'd be nice to have

[38:30] you help us remember, but on a on a

[38:33] annual semi-annual basis, like I say, we

[38:35] could probably uh

[38:38] try and help facilitate some sort of a

[38:40] letter that goes out to reminds people.

[38:42] I Based on the comment that you said, I

[38:43] know today

[38:45] we can probably make a call to the

[38:47] contractors that are doing that work and

[38:49] that may be driving heavy trucks through

[38:51] there and make them put them on notice

[38:53] of that cuz that's that's that's

[38:55] relatively easy to do and hopefully

[38:57] it'll it'll, you know,

[38:59] >> [clears throat]

[38:59] >> filter through the to all the

[39:01] subcontractors and stuff like that, but

[39:03] you know, I think we're happy to do

[39:04] that. Um

[39:06] but I don't know. Like I say, I know

[39:08] that, you know, speed bumps is a is

[39:10] another uh very difficult thing. We

[39:12] don't I think we have maybe one or two

[39:14] speed bumps and those are speed bumps

[39:17] are hard when you when you have to do

[39:18] snow removal.

[39:19] >> Right.

[39:20] >> It just makes it really difficult. It's

[39:22] hard on your plows if the drivers forget

[39:24] that

[39:25] they're not they're they're there.

[39:27] Sometimes speed bumps can make things

[39:28] more dangerous cuz if a plow driver hits

[39:30] it and they forget it's there or not,

[39:32] you know, it'll pull the the snow plow

[39:34] off into someone's yard, so uh it's it's

[39:38] uh there's different challenges for

[39:39] those things like that, but

[39:40] >> I can appreciate that. It just is the

[39:42] speed that worries me.

[39:44] >> Right, right.

[39:45] And I think particularly if there's any,

[39:47] you know, extenuating circumstances of

[39:49] someone who's going particularly fast,

[39:52] you know, I think a little quick call

[39:52] and I'm sure the police department would

[39:54] be

[39:54] >> I was going to say, get with me after.

[39:56] I'll get you on my email. Send me your

[39:57] address and and I'm more than willing to

[40:00] bring the trailer down that we can

[40:02] actually monitor speed and put a sign up

[40:04] there temporarily that even says that

[40:06] there's a deaf child in the area.

[40:09] And then as it becomes a problem, we can

[40:10] bring it back down. We'll leave it for a

[40:11] week or two and

[40:13] >> Okay.

[40:13] >> and gather some of the speed data and traffic data and then we can

[40:17] actually put that sign out, and it will

[40:19] actually flash across it that there's a

[40:21] deaf child in the area to slow down.

[40:24] Um and see how that goes, maybe as a

[40:26] trial, and see if it helps or if it

[40:27] doesn't help or

[40:30] Um like I said, I I I feel for you. You

[40:32] know, I've I've had experience with

[40:33] people or with kids with the same thing,

[40:36] and it is challenging. So, I want to

[40:38] help where I can.

[40:39] >> I think that's a that's a really good

[40:40] idea. Um

[40:42] cuz I the the things that I read about

[40:44] just putting up like um a deaf child at

[40:47] play sign is that people see it for a

[40:50] week, and then it goes away. But, I

[40:51] think if if it is something where we

[40:53] brought something that's a temporary

[40:55] portable speed limit sign or something

[40:56] that has a message on it, we take it

[40:58] away. If we see the speeds come back up,

[41:00] we could bring it back out cuz I think

[41:02] that would have that would alert people

[41:03] at least in that short term without

[41:04] having to do like

[41:05] >> Well, and it's a bright orange, and it

[41:06] flashes, and so they'll they'll I think

[41:08] it'll bring more attention. We can even

[41:10] make it look like it's going to give

[41:11] them a ticket, so

[41:12] >> Okay.

[41:12] >> It won't, but it'll make them think it

[41:14] is. Initially, we we we use a tool. It's a it's public. We can even show you

[41:18] how to use the tool, but we can

[41:20] really easily,

[41:22] you know, in whatever area get all the

[41:24] addresses and and have this mailing

[41:26] list, and and that makes makes that

[41:29] uh

[41:30] >> So, it'd be possible to do both?

[41:31] >> Sure.

[41:32] >> Yeah.

[41:33] >> Like I say, uh

[41:34] you know, obviously it's a little

[41:35] trickier if you're on more of a

[41:37] thoroughfare and and and uh you know,

[41:39] there's a lot of people outside of the

[41:40] neighborhood that are driving on it.

[41:41] But, this this is a lot more localized

[41:43] that you'll probably catch 90% of the

[41:46] people that drive on your road by doing

[41:48] something like a mailer or so. And we we

[41:50] don't have to do just your street, we

[41:51] could even do Bradburn and and kind of

[41:54] that whole area over there just to to

[41:57] people you know, we we could do that

[41:58] annually, semi-annually, um

[42:01] and uh like I say, I think I think it'd

[42:03] be helpful if if you kind of

[42:05] work with us and and we can show you the

[42:07] tools and and help to try and and you

[42:10] know,

[42:11] put something on city letterhead that

[42:13] does it so it doesn't feel like it's

[42:14] just, you know, coming from somebody but

[42:16] it's it's got a little bit more

[42:18] umph behind it with the city's

[42:19] letterhead. So,

[42:21] that's something that you're you're open

[42:22] to. I think I think that'd be something

[42:23] we'd be happy to to help out with and kind of the other things. I just

[42:27] don't think that a permanent sign is

[42:29] necessarily the answer

[42:32] for the reasons, you know, the false

[42:33] sense of security, the the sign fatigue

[42:35] and everything else that that comes with

[42:37] that. Um

[42:38] and and I think we say that from a

[42:41] standpoint of we want your child to be

[42:43] safe as well. The last thing you want to

[42:44] do is put a sign up and and and have it

[42:47] create those unintended consequences.

[42:51] >> Okay.

[42:51] >> Active is always better than passive.

[42:53] A sign like that is a very passive

[42:59] form of traffic control which a speed limit sign, yeah, it's

[43:04] there but unless there's some sort of

[43:06] active enforcement or some sort of that,

[43:09] it's just a sign that people see. And if

[43:11] they won't get caught doing anything, it

[43:13] doesn't doesn't change [snorts]

[43:15] anything. I think an active approach

[43:17] probably is a better approach in this

[43:18] situation.

[43:20] >> That's fine. That would help me. That

[43:21] would reassure me. I'm great with that.

[43:24] >> Great.

[43:25] Okay. So, with that

[43:27] >> Thank you for coming. Yeah.

[43:28] >> Yes.

[43:30] >> Yeah, we usually don't we usually don't

[43:31] see the applicant so when they when they

[43:33] bring these in. So, I really appreciate

[43:35] you coming and showing up and let us

[43:37] letting us

[43:38] know what you

[43:39] your feelings.

[43:40] >> Thank you.

[43:41] >> I second that that comment by Jason and

[43:43] I'll make a motion.

[43:45] >> All right.

[43:46] >> I'll make a motion that we deny the the

[43:48] request for a deaf child at play sign

[43:51] but that we make some proactive efforts

[43:54] and and and work with the

[43:57] resident to provide some notification

[44:00] letters for people who live in that

[44:03] neighborhood and that we we make some

[44:05] efforts in the police department to to

[44:06] do some uh

[44:09] notification efforts through a speed

[44:11] sign and and that sort of a thing and and

[44:15] uh

[44:16] and this is it's something that that we

[44:18] could look at in the future as needed.

[44:20] >> Okay.

[44:21] >> I'll second that, Joe.

[44:22] >> Second by Mike.

[44:24] Any other discussion [snorts] on the

[44:25] motion?

[44:27] Now, all in favor, please say aye.

[44:29] >> Aye.

[44:30] >> Any opposed? Okay, motion passes.

[44:33] >> So

[44:33] >> Yeah.

[44:34] >> We'll coordinate with you after after

[44:36] the meeting. We got one other item to go over. Thank you.

[44:40] Um last item on the agenda is review and

[44:43] approval of the minutes from July 14th,

[44:46] the DRC meeting.

[44:47] Are there any comments on that? I'd look

[44:49] for a motion.

[44:50] >> Motion to approve July 14th, 2026

[44:53] meeting minutes.

[44:55] >> Got a motion?

[44:55] >> I'll second it.

[44:56] >> Second by Jason.

[44:58] All in favor, please say aye.

[45:00] >> Aye.

[45:01] >> Any opposed?

[45:02] Okay, minutes are approved.

[45:05] There's not anything else needed for the

[45:07] DRC. I'd look for a motion to adjourn.

[45:09] >> Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to

[45:10] adjourn.

[45:11] >> We heard Joe.

Santaquin City Development Review Committee Meeting - July 28, 2026

Transcript