[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.