[0:04] Thank you.

[0:05] >> Goodbye.

[0:11] » It's nice to see you.

[0:12] >> Thank you.

[0:14] All right, let's get the

[0:17] August 25th DRC started.

[0:20] Um it is

[0:21] 10:30 a.m.

[0:23] Uh

[0:24] we'll dive right in.

[0:26] Just looking at it.

[0:28] >> Let me turn my mic on. Um

[0:32] we have the applicant here for Apple

[0:34] Hollow B5

[0:36] for that that review. Um so if there's

[0:39] any concerns with the DRC, we may move

[0:42] that one up on the agenda just to

[0:44] >> Let's do

[0:44] >> consideration for him. So.

[0:47] Okay.

[0:48] So for the Orchards B3, this is or say B

[0:53] um

[0:54] final phase for the Orchards

[0:57] uh phase B. So this is located on the

[1:01] west side of Center Street. It's the

[1:03] last uh bank of town homes that um would

[1:08] be constructed within this this

[1:10] development. It includes the

[1:12] construction of Ginger Gold Road from

[1:15] uh and the completion of that roadway

[1:17] and those improvements along there.

[1:20] Um

[1:21] this is a a final approval um for this.

[1:25] >> It is actually final cuz it did receive

[1:27] preliminary. Preliminary.

[1:28] >> The agenda did I just noticed that did

[1:31] say preliminary, but it is a final plan

[1:33] review for this specific application.

[1:36] So DRC is the approval body for the

[1:38] final final approval on there.

[1:42] Um

[1:45] so with that, let me get the right plan

[1:48] set pulled up.

[1:50] So um again, this is

[1:53] um

[1:55] yeah, so it is this section here that's

[1:58] shown

[1:59] along the north side. It's the the last

[2:01] bank of townhomes and does connect 260

[2:04] West over to 90 90 West as as part of

[2:09] the development. It is

[2:12] on it just so where where those roadways

[2:14] are constructed a

[2:16] uh

[2:18] will be constructed a public to the city

[2:20] standards and specifications because it

[2:22] is a it will be a public road. And there

[2:25] are not many private roadways on there.

[2:27] >> Hey John, can you remind me on that

[2:28] connection to 90 West? Does it take out

[2:31] those existing parking stalls or do they

[2:33] remain?

[2:34] >> Yes, so

[2:35] >> out a couple of them. Okay.

[2:36] >> can see in there it removes those ones

[2:38] and they are putting two

[2:40] uh two new ones back.

[2:41] >> and then other ones along the the

[2:42] roadway there. Okay. Great. Thank you.

[2:46] >> Um

[2:48] So with that, we'll that introduction, I

[2:50] will go around the DRC with any comments

[2:52] or questions that that we may have on

[2:54] it. We're starting with Morgan with

[2:56] community development.

[2:57] >> Uh thank you. So we need to have uh so

[3:00] we need to install commercial grade weed

[3:01] barrier um fabric.

[3:04] And then also a data table that shows at

[3:08] least 30% of the of the site will be

[3:10] landscaped and of that 30% 50% shall be

[3:14] of live plant material. So that needs to

[3:16] be reflected in the table.

[3:18] >> Yeah. So we'll pull up the landscaping

[3:20] plans on that here real quick.

[3:29] There we go.

[3:30] So you're talking about the the fabric

[3:33] through here and

[3:34] as it's So anywhere that has the cobble

[3:37] as shown needs that that weed barrier

[3:40] fabric.

[3:41] Okay.

[3:43] >> It's not in the notes already?

[3:48] » Um we'll need to verify. I don't believe

[3:52] it is.

[3:53] So, yeah, just a addition to the note on

[3:56] there would be be adequate.

[3:58] >> And yeah, the other was the the the

[4:00] table for the 30% coverage for

[4:04] landscaping and then of the 30% 50%

[4:07] being of live plant material.

[4:12] » And you just want to see that in a table

[4:13] format.

[4:14] >> Mhm.

[4:14] >> Okay.

[4:15] And that's 50% live plant material at

[4:17] maturity, right?

[4:18] >> Yep.

[4:19] >> It's not at at inception.

[4:21] >> Right.

[4:24] » Okay. Anything else?

[4:25] >> Yep, that's it.

[4:27] >> Randy, with building?

[4:28] >> I did not go through the address you

[4:30] know on this because it said it was

[4:31] preliminary, so I will do that and we

[4:33] can get that sent off to you.

[4:35] >> Okay. Sounds good. Thank you.

[4:38] Jason, public works?

[4:40] >> Just adding that PI drain that we talked

[4:43] about yesterday.

[4:44] >> Yep.

[4:44] >> And then making sure that the manholes

[4:48] and that are for the crossings that go

[4:51] to the WRF

[4:52] all of those are shown and and where

[4:55] they're at on the plans we did they

[4:57] weren't covered. I think you had a

[4:58] comment on the lines also, so

[5:00] >> Right. Yep.

[5:00] >> And and then noted to be protected in

[5:02] place, right?

[5:03] >> Yes. Yes.

[5:04] >> Yes.

[5:04] >> Yep.

[5:05] >> So, what that is is approximately this

[5:08] location we've got the

[5:11] um

[5:11] our city facilities that get our uh,

[5:14] from our lift station, Center Street

[5:16] lift station um we've got an 18-in line

[5:20] that runs through there and then heads

[5:22] north across the railroad tracks. Um

[5:25] those need to be shown and noted

[5:26] protected in place for um for when a

[5:29] contractor does come online there where

[5:31] those those are in place.

[5:34] >> So, John, they probably ought to show

[5:35] the new lines and the existing lines

[5:37] that were done with the

[5:39] ULS pipeline, right? They did some

[5:41] reconfiguration. Is that shown here in

[5:43] the green and purple or is that not?

[5:45] >> No, these these lines

[5:46] >> you need

[5:47] >> them with the with the GIS to have them

[5:49] show that on there?

[5:49] >> Yes.

[5:50] >> Okay.

[5:50] >> Yep, we will.

[5:51] >> Just more than anything for the

[5:53] contractor to to protect those. That's

[5:56] Those are lines that we don't want to

[5:57] hit.

[5:58] >> Yeah.

[5:58] >> We don't want to find them the hard way.

[6:00] >> No.

[6:01] Um on that same note, um

[6:05] there is now with the Central Utah

[6:08] pipeline being through there, um you

[6:11] will need to work on with Central Utah

[6:14] [snorts] Water Conservancy District to

[6:15] get a encroachment permit for that. Um

[6:21] uh because that line is in there and

[6:23] it's um it's in operation. I from come

[6:28] >> that from me.

[6:30] >> Yes, we'll need to get that um

[6:32] >> Well, they had to get it from me to put

[6:34] their line in, didn't they?

[6:35] >> Correct, yes. But

[6:36] >> But but now it's in turn we get to go

[6:38] back and visit with them about having an

[6:39] encroachment permit within their

[6:41] existing easement.

[6:42] >> Correct. Yes. Now it just goes around.

[6:45] So,

[6:46] >> constructed these years ago, no?

[6:48] >> [laughter]

[6:49] >> So, but then just uh also something to

[6:52] indicate, you know, for the contractor

[6:54] when they do come in,

[6:56] um

[6:56] that that line is there. Uh it would be

[6:59] could be impacted by it. The fact that

[7:01] you're not putting any utilities over

[7:03] the top of it um simplifies that

[7:07] process. So.

[7:12] Okay, Jason, any other comments?

[7:15] >> we're good.

[7:16] >> Okay.

[7:17] Mike, police?

[7:18] >> We've got nothing on this one.

[7:20] >> Okay. Norm?

[7:21] >> So, John, can you go back to the

[7:22] original sheet, the first sheet in there

[7:24] that shows the B I think it's B2

[7:27] improvements, the the landscaping right

[7:30] there.

[7:30] Is is that all done in the in the phase

[7:33] next to it? Is that the the top lot and

[7:36] the other stuff? Is that all

[7:37] constructed?

[7:38] >> This is not yet constructed. Is there

[7:40] the units are still

[7:42] These units are still under

[7:44] construction.

[7:45] >> And so as far as the development is

[7:47] concerned development agreement is

[7:48] concerned, they would need to have those

[7:49] done

[7:51] or and or bonded for, right, in order to

[7:53] get to get CFOs in there as far as that

[7:55] goes.

[7:56] >> Yeah.

[7:56] >> And and is it the plan to get those

[7:58] constructed this year

[8:01] this this construction season?

[8:03] >> Uh I got a little Do you want me to go

[8:05] up there?

[8:05] >> Yeah, that'd be great. Good job, thank

[8:06] you.

[8:08] Oh, sorry about that.

[8:10] We should have brought the microphone to

[8:11] you.

[8:12] >> [laughter]

[8:14] >> So,

[8:15] uh John Caldwell for Beer Homes. Um we

[8:18] have a little elevation issue going on

[8:20] right there. I don't know if any of you

[8:21] guys have looked at it, but it from like

[8:24] that 10-plex and those six-plexes the

[8:26] six-plex and I believe that's a five, it

[8:28] drops off quite a bit. Um looking at the

[8:31] future road that's going in, that road

[8:33] actually sinks down instead of you know,

[8:36] that first road that we just put in at

[8:37] the 10-plex

[8:39] uh driveway space, that road actually

[8:40] climbs, crowns in the middle and goes

[8:42] back down. The next road down, I can't

[8:45] tell the numbers on it, but yeah, that

[8:47] road That one actually slopes down the

[8:50] whole way. So

[8:52] >> northeast.

[8:53] >> Yeah, so we're going to have some major

[8:54] elevation changes between

[8:56] those that I don't think was accounted

[8:58] for as far as that part goes. So,

[9:03] my thinking is is we need to get that road in and put those build lift

[9:07] those buildings up in elevation so that

[9:08] we can

[9:09] flatten that area out for the park cuz

[9:12] right now, if you go back there, it's a

[9:13] pretty good slope.

[9:15] So,

[9:16] I don't know

[9:18] we could build up the ground and

[9:21] just, you know, slope it off hard to

[9:23] that next phase to get that landscaping

[9:25] in.

[9:26] But I kind of need to get that road in

[9:29] and

[9:30] kind of building into

[9:31] >> to clarify, so are you talking about the the 960 North

[9:35] is going to have to be different from

[9:37] what's designed or you just need to the

[9:39] material there to go into the park area.

[9:42] Is that what you're you're talking about

[9:43] the X that you got to excavation you got

[9:45] to do to get the road built?

[9:46] >> Right.

[9:47] >> that stuff into the to the

[9:49] playground area. Is that what you're

[9:51] talking about?

[9:51] >> Yeah, I got to figure out those that

[9:53] there's just a big slope. So, I got to

[9:55] figure out the elevations and then in

[9:56] order to do that kind of need that road

[9:57] in to see how much it's going to change.

[10:00] >> But not changing the slopes of the road

[10:02] and storm drain and all that kind of

[10:04] stuff you're talking about about using

[10:05] the material from there.

[10:06] >> Correct.

[10:07] >> Okay.

[10:07] >> It's doable. It's just uh

[10:09] that's why we haven't uh especially

[10:11] where it's really tight between the

[10:12] Tenplex and that next you know, that

[10:14] little sliver area right there. That's

[10:17] pretty steep. Um which there's no

[10:18] playground it can be um right there. But

[10:21] as we go towards the playground and

[10:22] stuff, I just need to get that yeah,

[10:24] leveled out and then figure out where my

[10:26] slope is down to that next phase. So,

[10:28] that's kind of what we've been waiting

[10:29] on and we got to get the buildings in.

[10:31] >> And I'm not trying to convolute the two.

[10:33] I'm just want to make sure that you're

[10:35] aware that for CMOs that you've got to

[10:36] have that stuff taken care of.

[10:38] >> Yeah.

[10:38] >> Um I did have another thing on this. Do

[10:40] we have or do we need

[10:43] Jason and John a PI or a culinary

[10:46] connection on the north side of Ginger

[10:47] Gold Road?

[10:50] >> No, we've got

[10:51] >> There's no light plant material going in

[10:53] over there as far as the trail section.

[10:56] >> There are there are

[10:58] Yeah, there are some some

[11:01] uh

[11:02] basically zero scape uh zero scape. I

[11:05] never get those two

[11:07] the right way. But there are some

[11:09] plantings across there. Um but I believe

[11:12] we've already got a PI connection

[11:15] on to the north side of the road to be

[11:17] able to tie on to and serve those.

[11:20] >> Yeah, the the one I know about is on

[11:22] Ginger Gold Ginger Gold and Center

[11:24] Street.

[11:26] Clear down there.

[11:26] >> That's kind of a long way. So, I'm just

[11:28] I'm going to encourage you from

[11:30] engineering and public works to look at

[11:32] it and if we need a PI connection there,

[11:34] let's get a PI connection on the north

[11:36] side of the road there so we don't have

[11:37] to run 1,000 ft of line to be able to

[11:39] water some trees.

[11:40] >> Okay.

[11:41] >> Yep.

[11:42] >> That's that's all I have from what I

[11:44] reviewed.

[11:45] >> Okay.

[11:47] Um

[11:49] So, this note is just kind of what we

[11:51] talked about before. Um

[11:54] just coordination with the Central Utah

[11:57] for that

[11:59] um for that easement and any

[12:00] encroachment into there.

[12:04] Um

[12:06] And we've already kind of Basically,

[12:08] that existing easement will also need to

[12:10] be indicated on the plat.

[12:12] Uh couple comments on the boundary

[12:14] description just to verify. It seems

[12:17] like

[12:18] there may just be a a swap number or

[12:20] something

[12:21] on the boundary [snorts] description.

[12:23] And then just an update on the

[12:24] legislative body. Uh city council's no

[12:27] longer the the signers on that. It's the

[12:29] planning commission chair that does

[12:31] that.

[12:38] Uh cover sheet there.

[12:45] Then we'll need one on the say the south

[12:49] side. There's uh we're missing a PI

[12:51] connection down through here.

[12:53] Um We already discussed the

[12:55] >> And maybe on that note to just check and

[12:57] make sure that to add a one on the north side of Ginger Gold as

[13:00] well.

[13:03] So, this this project is doing the trail

[13:05] segment, right? You're doing the trail

[13:06] segment, the landscaping,

[13:08] >> [clears throat]

[13:08] >> trees, whatever that happens to be,

[13:10] right? And we just need to make sure

[13:11] we've got water there and we don't have

[13:13] to go

[13:15] three blocks.

[13:15] >> Yep.

[13:17] >> Do we have street lighting that also

[13:19] goes down that, right? That would be

[13:21] opposite that could be on that north

[13:23] side.

[13:23] >> That's correct.

[13:24] >> We just probably want to make sure we,

[13:26] you know, get that connection close to

[13:29] a street light where we can pull power.

[13:30] >> Yep.

[13:31] >> Okay.

[13:35] » Um then just a note here um for the

[13:38] storm drain line that goes between units

[13:40] 79 and 80 uh just on the plat we'll need

[13:43] to have a an easement for that storm

[13:45] drain line.

[13:49] Landscape and we've talked about the grading plan.

[13:55] I believe there's any other

[13:56] Those are just continuations on there.

[13:59] Um

[14:04] Then just down here uh we will need to

[14:07] get a PI drain installed on the

[14:09] irrigation line that will drain into

[14:12] manhole of the curbing lot blocks there

[14:14] to allow us to drain our system. That's

[14:16] just a a 2-in uh

[14:19] poly line with a social drain and and saddle.

[14:27] And then for construction side of things

[14:30] putting in a construction valve at the

[14:31] face [cough and clears throat] line um

[14:33] cuz I'm sure your contractor is not

[14:36] going to want to test

[14:38] what line has already been installed. So

[14:44] » So John, is that drain for the new PI

[14:47] line? There's no PI line there now,

[14:48] right? They're going to bring

[14:50] and connect from both sides on

[14:51] Gingergold, right? So that's the drain

[14:53] for Okay.

[14:54] >> Yeah, so between 90 West and 260 West um

[14:58] there's not a PI line there.

[15:00] >> Great.

[15:03] » Uh

[15:04] cross sections, I believe that was it.

[15:12] Yep, that that's it. So any other

[15:15] comments, thoughts on the

[15:19] on

[15:21] Orchards B3?

[15:26] If not, I would look for a motion.

[15:29] >> John, I'll make a motion to approve

[15:31] conditionally that the red lines are met

[15:34] uh as we've discussed here and

[15:35] identified and at Randy adding his

[15:38] addressing back into it.

[15:39] >> Okay.

[15:41] Motion? Is there a second?

[15:42] >> Second.

[15:43] >> Seconded by Jason.

[15:45] Any comments on the motion?

[15:48] Seeing none, we'll go to vote. All in

[15:50] favor, please say aye.

[15:51] >> Aye.

[15:52] >> Any opposed?

[15:53] Okay, motion passes. It's approved.

[15:55] We'll get these comments over to you,

[15:57] John, and we'll work through those. So.

[16:01] Okay, the next item on the agenda, um

[16:06] again, we do have some folks on Zoom.

[16:09] We've got Andy Flamm has joined us on

[16:10] Zoom, so I would

[16:12] recommend moving Bella Vista, this phase

[16:14] of Bella Vista up. If there's any

[16:16] concerns, we'll go with that.

[16:19] Okay.

[16:20] Um

[16:22] So, the Bella Vista development is new

[16:25] residential development uh located along

[16:28] 400 East on the west side of 400 East as

[16:32] the the

[16:34] uh vacant ground between 400 East and

[16:37] the Bella Vista, sorry, the Stratton

[16:40] Metals development and previous

[16:43] development that's along 200 East.

[16:45] Um [snorts]

[16:46] these are they've got four phases

[16:49] um for

[16:51] uh review today. Um we did review this

[16:55] uh previously and this is a resubmittal

[16:57] to address those those comments related

[16:59] to this.

[17:00] Um again, there's four phases related to

[17:03] the overall development.

[17:05] Um

[17:06] One item that I will uh kind of

[17:10] I guess on a uh

[17:13] more

[17:14] project-wide

[17:16] uh

[17:17] look at it.

[17:18] Um, from our report one of our comments

[17:21] that we did give last

[17:23] uh, DRC was a comment about the

[17:26] extension of 5 6 530 North and

[17:30] connecting it all the way over to 400

[17:32] East.

[17:33] Um,

[17:35] that comment came they took the comment

[17:37] and basically included that road

[17:38] construction all within phase three.

[17:42] Um, which I believe is something that the city supports on that because

[17:47] it it does create some more east-west

[17:49] connectivity through there. Gives

[17:51] emergency access access out to there

[17:53] with multiple connection points.

[17:56] Um, however, with the way they propose

[17:57] to do it is that does do a change of the

[18:01] phasing plan that we have.

[18:03] And so, um,

[18:05] which is a DRC level approval that we

[18:10] could do. We do have to just inform the

[18:13] council and planning commission of any

[18:15] changes that the DRC does approve.

[18:18] However, with that being said, it it

[18:20] does need to be included on a as an

[18:22] actual action item on the the DRC.

[18:26] And so, that wasn't done.

[18:30] Um,

[18:30] but as a as a part of that as we review

[18:33] some of these, there's potential that we

[18:34] can approve other phases

[18:37] to allow that to continue move forward,

[18:40] but the that change phase three and four

[18:43] would need to

[18:45] be um,

[18:46] brought in as an action item by the DRC.

[18:48] So, just

[18:49] >> [snorts]

[18:49] >> as a kind of note as we work our way

[18:52] through these these four plats that that is the case and um, what we'd have

[18:57] to do with that change the phase three

[18:58] and four.

[19:01] So, uh, with that

[19:04] um,

[19:06] again, the DRC is the overall final

[19:08] approval for the final application.

[19:10] So, we can do our motions accordingly

[19:13] with that.

[19:14] Uh so, with that introduction, we'll go

[19:16] around with any comments that Again,

[19:19] these are four different action items.

[19:21] If there's specific items on each of the

[19:22] phase that want to be discussed or

[19:24] brought up, we're welcome to do that as

[19:26] we as we discuss this this project. So,

[19:30] Morgan.

[19:31] >> Uh we have no no comments on the on any

[19:33] of the phases.

[19:34] >> Okay.

[19:36] Randy.

[19:37] >> I have submitted to you some redline

[19:39] changes as far as addressing, but that

[19:42] will be provided to you and there are

[19:43] some on each of the plats.

[19:45] >> Okay.

[19:46] Sounds good.

[19:48] Jason.

[19:49] >> Just just a comment on the on the

[19:52] phasing. I know we talked about it

[19:53] yesterday as far as doing phase one and

[19:56] phase four

[19:57] so that we could finish 200 East, but I

[20:01] don't know if that's something that can

[20:02] be done or something that the contract

[20:04] we can work with the contractor on.

[20:06] >> So, it'd be a coordination with with how

[20:10] they want to develop the project. We can

[20:11] request and they don't They don't neces

[20:15] Excuse me. They don't necessarily need

[20:16] to do it in chronological like 1 2 3 4.

[20:21] Um

[20:21] things they do have to that we do have

[20:23] to keep in mind is circulation, utility

[20:25] circulation as well as traffic

[20:27] circulation on how they phase those.

[20:30] Um

[20:31] >> Yeah, I I just know 400 East is in

[20:33] pretty rough shape and we need to get in

[20:35] there and do something with that. And it

[20:37] would be good to do that at the same

[20:38] time they were doing these phases and we

[20:41] could get a lot of it knocked out if

[20:43] phase one and phase four were kind of

[20:45] done at the same time.

[20:46] >> Yep.

[20:47] >> But that's not [snorts] really up to us.

[20:48] That's up to the contractor.

[20:50] >> Right. And the developer on there. We

[20:52] have They have included a note that they

[20:54] do want to discuss that we

[20:56] do recognize 4th East as a project and

[20:59] that we're looking at uh working on that

[21:02] road as well and would like to

[21:03] coordinate that work to be done on

[21:06] there.

[21:06] >> Okay.

[21:07] >> Um the developers were aware of the

[21:09] applicants aware of it and we'll work

[21:12] with the the applicant and the future

[21:15] builder on this to to help

[21:18] make sure that's done appropriately and

[21:21] we can do it right.

[21:22] >> Okay. So

[21:23] >> And not have a whole bunch of road cuts

[21:24] on

[21:25] >> new road. Yeah, that's I don't want to

[21:26] comment a new road and then have a whole

[21:28] bunch of new road cuts in it. Just just

[21:29] soon do the whole new road at one time.

[21:31] >> Yep.

[21:32] >> Okay.

[21:33] >> So yeah, there's we I have had that

[21:34] conversation with the applicant uh to

[21:36] bring that up and and again if

[21:39] well if it would work that they can do

[21:41] phase one and four at the same time to minimize that then I think that's

[21:45] something we can work through with.

[21:47] >> Okay. That's you know other than some of

[21:49] the other comments we can go through

[21:51] that with the engineering comments. So

[21:52] >> Yep.

[21:53] >> Okay. Thank you.

[21:54] >> Thanks Jason.

[21:55] Mike.

[21:55] >> Do you do you mind if I comment now or

[21:57] do you want me to wait on that?

[21:58] >> Go ahead Andy.

[22:00] >> I was just going to say if if that's the

[22:02] case

[22:04] I think we could probably accommodate

[22:05] that but it would make our change that

[22:08] we just changed to phase three having

[22:10] that road connect through.

[22:12] We would probably want to uh

[22:14] >> Go the other

[22:14] >> do it the way we had it originally with

[22:16] >> Correct.

[22:17] >> that road

[22:18] uh 400 East connecting through the south

[22:20] side of the subdivision.

[22:22] >> Yep.

[22:23] >> So just something to be aware of.

[22:25] >> Okay.

[22:26] >> Do you know timing on that Andy? Do you

[22:29] know what your timing is?

[22:31] >> I don't. We're working with the buyer

[22:32] that we'd probably start I know they had

[22:35] planned on doing phase as one and two

[22:37] simultaneously this winter.

[22:40] Um

[22:41] that I I don't want to speak on their

[22:42] behalf but that was their plan. I think

[22:44] they could I could talk to them today

[22:46] and get an answer for you on maybe doing

[22:48] one and four at the same time instead.

[22:51] And I think that probably would

[22:52] that would be fine.

[22:54] As long as I haven't looked at the

[22:57] uh sewer and everything to make sure

[22:59] that it would would work with our

[23:00] current design but

[23:02] if it does I don't think it'd be a

[23:03] problem.

[23:04] >> I think the sewer would

[23:07] may have a little bit impact. But I

[23:10] think that roadway within phase four

[23:12] does connect straight up here to phase

[23:16] one and flows north. It's within

[23:19] the the eastern side of Sorry, the

[23:21] western side of that where our sewer

[23:23] lines uh

[23:25] kind of jog around a little bit.

[23:33] Uh phase four

[23:35] sewer all just heads directly north.

[23:38] >> Okay, yeah, if that's not an engineering

[23:40] issue, then I'll talk to him. I don't I

[23:41] don't think that'll be a problem.

[23:44] >> Yeah.

[23:45] So, it just Yeah, just extends down here

[23:47] to do is that. Again, phasing-wise,

[23:50] um

[23:51] the the biggest thing would be

[23:53] connectivity on on that. So,

[23:57] um

[23:58] cuz that would adjust where this roadway

[24:00] stubs out now versus Correct, yeah.

[24:04] is where that would kick in. Now, it is

[24:06] possible that that it doesn't

[24:08] necessarily need to be included that

[24:10] roadway

[24:12] Yeah, dedication of that roadway would

[24:13] have to work on a little bit there, too.

[24:15] So.

[24:17] >> Yeah, um I'll I can let you know later

[24:20] today. I know that's not conducive to

[24:21] making a motion today, but um

[24:24] I think there's some flexibility there

[24:26] to accommodate that request. So, I'll

[24:28] just be mindful of that, I guess.

[24:29] [snorts]

[24:31] » Okay.

[24:32] >> Sorry to interrupt. Thank you.

[24:34] >> No, thanks, Andy. Appreciate it.

[24:37] Mike.

[24:38] >> Um

[24:40] I wasn't able to make it to the meeting

[24:41] yesterday, but did we decide on fencing

[24:43] Morgan what that needed to be on the

[24:45] >> So, they do have a note there for the

[24:48] construction of a of a fence along 400

[24:50] East along the back of those those

[24:52] properties.

[24:53] >> Okay.

[24:54] >> So, that all front along 400 East. So,

[24:56] the double frontage along 4th East.

[24:58] >> Okay.

[24:59] And then, also just to like he said, if

[25:01] they're going to do one and four,

[25:03] obviously it makes sense not to push

[25:04] that road through cuz those other homes

[25:07] wouldn't be in yet, so.

[25:08] >> Yep.

[25:09] >> Um but other than that, no. I've got

[25:11] nothing.

[25:12] >> Okay.

[25:13] Norm?

[25:15] >> Yeah, just a a note on phase one. And I

[25:19] think And you're probably aware of this,

[25:21] but we've had I have had some discussion

[25:24] with the school district recently about

[25:26] that

[25:27] parcel number 29042

[25:30] 0020, which is just kind of the

[25:32] connection that we need for Royal Land

[25:34] Drive to 400 East. They're working on

[25:36] that right now and and uh

[25:39] hopefully we can get that they can get

[25:41] that done and we can build that road all

[25:42] the way through there. That would be

[25:43] really really good.

[25:45] >> [snorts]

[25:47] >> Yeah, that would be great. I've been

[25:47] helping facilitate that with our dream,

[25:50] the school district, the appraisers. Um

[25:53] so, if that changes, we would just not

[25:55] need to abandon the turnaround design

[25:57] and punch that road through.

[25:58] >> Yeah, that would be great. We we'd

[25:59] obviously need design on that and then

[26:02] an adjustment to the plat, but I think

[26:04] that's something we could obviously very

[26:06] well accommodate to be able to get that

[26:07] road through there.

[26:10] >> All right, sounds good.

[26:14] » Okay.

[26:15] Um

[26:18] let's see. There's really not a whole

[26:19] lot of additional comments, mostly just

[26:22] on these

[26:23] on the the phases.

[26:25] Um some of addressing and and where uh

[26:29] where it would be anticipated driveways

[26:31] would be. So, this is 770

[26:35] uh north, which is basically between

[26:38] this one, Royal Land Drive. There'll be

[26:41] a few

[26:43] kind of major roadways I think that'll

[26:44] be heading east-west and connecting uh

[26:47] with this with this with these phases

[26:50] going in, especially phase one.

[26:52] Um there's really only one other

[26:55] road on the south end at 530 south, 530

[26:58] north that we'd be dealing with.

[27:01] But um to help it would be

[27:04] to help traffic flow through there and

[27:06] not have people backing out on the road.

[27:08] Um

[27:09] and to I guess minimize that as much as

[27:11] we can, some of these corner lots would

[27:13] be requested those would just front on

[27:15] to the side streets versus on the 770.

[27:19] Um we do have addressing on there, but

[27:21] um

[27:22] so we can that would need to be adjusted

[27:23] and done on there for for those.

[27:26] As it goes out uh to help traffic flow.

[27:31] Um I believe that was

[27:36] those were the main comments we had.

[27:39] Those that comment kind of again holds

[27:41] true for

[27:42] um some of these lots down here further to the south.

[27:47] >> John,

[27:49] is this showing the existing

[27:53] » It does, yeah.

[27:56] >> It looked like it

[27:58] they're asking for a new line.

[28:01] >> Yeah, cuz this uh that's one.

[28:04] That's correct. Yes, thank you for that.

[28:06] So this line here was installed

[28:09] oh

[28:11] when did we build in Stratton Meadows or

[28:13] Stratton Acres?

[28:14] >> Oh man.

[28:15] >> Oh, four years ago in that two two or

[28:17] three years ago.

[28:18] Um that line was installed from 200 east

[28:21] all the way down and there's a fire line

[28:23] that does extend up here to the the

[28:25] school district's animal lab. So that is

[28:27] an existing pipeline that would not need

[28:30] to be installed uh with this development.

[28:37] » Thanks, Keith.

[28:41] » Yeah, I believe

[28:43] >> John, what what are those what's that

[28:44] comment right there? Don't we have some

[28:45] comments on the Yeah, the storm tech

[28:47] stuff?

[28:48] >> So, this is

[28:50] This comment's in specific to the

[28:53] protection of

[28:55] the proposed storm drain lines that or

[28:57] storm drain infiltration galleries,

[29:00] which are located throughout the

[29:01] development. Um

[29:04] one of the comments that was given

[29:05] previously was how are these

[29:08] infiltration galleries going to be

[29:10] protected

[29:11] uh after installation and during

[29:13] construction of the homes um

[29:16] and afterwards. Um they did provide a

[29:19] detail

[29:22] on that. It was right here.

[29:25] Um basically the

[29:27] thought was to burm up over the top of

[29:29] those

[29:30] um prior to and that's

[29:33] and this would be um

[29:36] either with the

[29:39] um after the before the side sidewalk

[29:42] and road base were installed over that

[29:44] to help protect it. Um

[29:48] the There are some that would protect

[29:50] it, prevent people from driving over it,

[29:52] but when you go to start building

[29:55] homes and sidewalks are in, etc., that's

[29:58] when we've seen those our tanks be

[30:00] damaged during that construction period.

[30:03] And so, I guess the request on here is

[30:06] just to you know, kind of flesh that

[30:08] out, provide more of a narrative on the

[30:10] proposed protection of those our tanks.

[30:14] Um

[30:15] one recommendation is that there could

[30:17] be a different uh infiltration system be

[30:21] done versus an our tank.

[30:23] Um

[30:24] that would

[30:26] more resist a a load or a concrete truck

[30:29] from collapsing those those infiltration

[30:32] galleries.

[30:33] >> Yeah, Andy, we've had

[30:36] >> a lot of people that have designed with

[30:37] these our tanks and at the end of the

[30:39] day, the contractors

[30:41] can't protect them, they get broken,

[30:43] etc. and they move to other methods.

[30:45] That's what John's talking about. We

[30:47] would encourage you to look at maybe a

[30:48] StormTech that are already structural

[30:50] and you don't have to build the

[30:51] structure up around the tanks and that

[30:53] kind of stuff.

[30:54] Due to cost and constructability and

[30:56] longevity, those ART tanks are just not

[30:58] working out well for the city or for the

[31:01] contractors.

[31:03] >> Yeah, we'll uh look at some alternatives

[31:05] and provide some.

[31:07] >> As as a note, that uh while an ART tank

[31:10] may be shown on your plans and such, it

[31:13] is possible to request um

[31:16] you know, if you do land on a different

[31:19] system to do that, um

[31:21] you can coordinate with engineering on

[31:23] that to modify or uh adjust those.

[31:27] >> Okay.

[31:28] >> After uh

[31:28] >> And you prefer StormTech uh StormTech,

[31:30] you said?

[31:30] >> We have seen those those have been

[31:32] successful in the past for us

[31:35] um on those.

[31:35] >> Okay.

[31:37] >> Didn't they use those in the They used

[31:39] that in the first

[31:40] development, right? Over there? Yes.

[31:43] The other phases within Stratton Meadows

[31:44] and Stratton Acres, I think.

[31:46] >> Again, with a change in the middle of

[31:48] the process because they were just

[31:50] struggling with the ART tanks and the

[31:51] cost and the constructability and stuff.

[31:54] So, yeah, that's

[31:55] kind of why we're leading towards that.

[31:57] >> Yep.

[31:58] Uh okay. Yeah, that's fine.

[32:01] » Okay, I believe that was I think with

[32:05] phase one. Phase two, there weren't any

[32:08] additional comments.

[32:11] Um

[32:15] I'll try to run through these real

[32:16] quick.

[32:19] Don't believe there's any additional

[32:20] comments on phase two.

[32:26] Phase three.

[32:40] » I don't believe there's any additional

[32:41] comments there either.

[32:47] Then phase four

[32:50] uh again just the comment about

[32:52] addressing there and on those those two.

[32:55] So

[32:56] >> So John, I have a question on the the I

[32:58] just saw you run across the sewer

[33:01] easements that are going to be

[33:02] eliminated, but also

[33:05] doesn't doesn't if phase one and four or

[33:07] at least phase four if that's

[33:10] constructed first, don't they need

[33:11] offsite sewer to be able to handle?

[33:13] >> Again, phase phase three is where

[33:18] those that realignment of that pipeline

[33:21] of the sewer line, that's when that kicks in to be done.

[33:25] >> But but phase four standing on its own,

[33:27] there's no connectivity to utilities or

[33:29] sewer or anything of that nature.

[33:31] >> So within to phase one, there would be

[33:34] >> If phase one is constructed before phase

[33:36] four, yes.

[33:37] >> That's correct.

[33:38] >> But if it's not, then you have

[33:40] So just need to be mindful of that Andy

[33:42] as well to make sure that that

[33:44] as the phasing goes along, it doesn't

[33:47] necessarily have to phase one, two,

[33:48] three, and four, but if you don't, then

[33:50] there's other ramifications that

[33:52] potentially could be there that might be

[33:54] an issue.

[33:55] >> Yes.

[33:56] >> Yeah. Yeah, understood.

[34:01] » Okay.

[34:03] Um

[34:04] I believe that's it.

[34:05] >> Is there any other comments, thoughts

[34:08] on these phases?

[34:15] If not, I would would look for a motion.

[34:19] >> Do we need motion for each one

[34:21] separately?

[34:22] >> We would need a motion for each one

[34:23] separately, yes.

[34:26] >> Can you go back to the agenda, John?

[34:28] Please.

[34:31] So the the the three and four because of

[34:34] the potential change and the unknown

[34:35] nature of where we're going to do that

[34:37] road and the phasing and all that kind

[34:38] of stuff,

[34:40] how does that that if if if we change

[34:43] the road either direction where 530

[34:45] north or whatever it is gets punched

[34:47] through all the way from 4th East to 200

[34:49] East or whether whether it's four or

[34:52] three,

[34:53] that that necessitates a minor change

[34:55] that would have to come back to the DRC,

[34:57] correct? On these three and four.

[34:59] >> For three and four. One and two, there's

[35:00] no changes on the approved phasing plan

[35:03] uh

[35:04] from what's been approved. And so, phase

[35:07] one and two

[35:08] could be but could be approved or um

[35:11] receive final approval. Phase three and

[35:13] four because of that unknown there would

[35:15] probably need to be tabled. But, we

[35:17] could do one and two without any could

[35:19] >> To then come back for that minor change.

[35:21] >> That's correct.

[35:22] >> For whichever minor change it is, right?

[35:24] One way or the other.

[35:25] >> Well, if they don't punch the road

[35:27] through, then there wouldn't be any need

[35:29] to change that to have that be a DRC

[35:32] action item for the city.

[35:33] >> really there's really two aspects to

[35:35] this three and four. One is if three is

[35:37] done the way that it's currently

[35:39] submitted, it would need a minor change

[35:41] and it would provide connectivity for

[35:43] the city, for the residents to get all

[35:45] the way through from 200 to to 400 East.

[35:48] >> Yes, and also during construction as

[35:50] well.

[35:50] >> But, phase four and phase one are

[35:52] beneficial to be able to pave and and

[35:55] have us

[35:56] be able to have a completed road out on

[35:57] 400 East. So, there's a there's a given

[36:00] take there. So, um

[36:02] maybe [snorts] maybe we as staff need to

[36:03] figure out a a

[36:05] recommended path

[36:07] to to try and figure that out and and

[36:10] give that back to Andy and his team to

[36:12] try and

[36:13] uh I I again, I in my estimation just

[36:17] the the short time that I've had to

[36:18] think about it, I think that that's the

[36:20] 530 north would be better to punch that

[36:22] through and then when phase four comes

[36:24] along, we deal with 400 East.

[36:27] But, that would be my my estimation. It

[36:29] would be nice to have both, but you're

[36:31] not going to get both at the same time,

[36:33] I don't think.

[36:34] >> Correct.

[36:35] >> So I make a motion to conditionally

[36:37] approve plat A, sorry, Apple Hollow,

[36:40] sorry, Bella Vista

[36:42] phase one final

[36:44] with conditions that redlines are

[36:46] addressed.

[36:47] >> Okay.

[36:48] Got a motion. Is there a second?

[36:49] >> Second.

[36:50] by Randy.

[36:52] Any discussion?

[36:55] All in favor, please say I.

[36:56] >> I.

[36:57] >> Any opposed? Okay, motion passes.

[36:59] >> So So Andy, I want to make sure that

[37:01] you're clear on that. Conditional means

[37:03] that you got to meet the conditions.

[37:04] It's not finally approved. You got to

[37:06] meet the conditions, but we feel like

[37:08] it's

[37:08] >> Yeah, I get it. We got to address all

[37:09] the redlines, resubmit.

[37:10] >> It's close, but you're not there yet. So

[37:12] I make it the same motion on Bella Vista

[37:14] phase two

[37:16] for final approval conditional with

[37:18] redlines being addressed.

[37:19] >> Okay.

[37:20] Is there a second?

[37:22] >> Second.

[37:23] by Randy.

[37:25] Any discussion?

[37:27] All in favor, please say I.

[37:29] >> I.

[37:30] >> Motion passes.

[37:32] >> Make a motion to table Bella Vista phase

[37:34] three final to come back for that minor

[37:37] change.

[37:38] >> Okay.

[37:39] Is there a second?

[37:40] >> Second.

[37:40] by Randy.

[37:42] All in favor,

[37:43] please say I.

[37:44] >> I.

[37:45] >> Any opposed?

[37:47] Okay.

[37:48] >> Same motion for Bella Vista phase four.

[37:51] >> Okay.

[37:51] >> Second.

[37:52] by Randy.

[37:54] All in favor, please say I.

[37:56] >> I.

[37:57] >> Any opposed?

[37:58] Okay, motion passes.

[38:00] So

[38:01] We'll get these Andy and I'll I'll reach

[38:03] out to Andy and we can talk through

[38:05] that. So

[38:06] >> Yeah, sounds good. Thank you, everyone.

[38:08] >> Thank you.

[38:11] Okay, the last item on the agenda is a

[38:15] site plan review of proposed [snorts]

[38:19] uh

[38:20] retail site. This is located on Main

[38:24] Street on the northeast corner of Main

[38:27] Street and 300 West.

[38:29] Um

[38:31] If you recall, there was an old home, a

[38:34] couple of homes that had been

[38:35] constructed on this this parcel

[38:38] that have been demolished. Um they did

[38:41] receive a demolition permit for for that

[38:44] work and it was completed accordance

[38:46] with with city code.

[38:49] Um so with that, they are proposing a

[38:52] basically an overall six-unit commercial

[38:55] site with five individual

[38:59] kind of

[39:00] retail sites on retail

[39:04] units on the north side of the

[39:06] development with the smaller proposed

[39:08] building on the the southern half of the lot.

[39:13] Um

[39:14] This again, this is a site plan

[39:16] application. It is reviewed and DRC is

[39:19] the final approval body for this

[39:22] application.

[39:23] So with that, we'll go around the DRC

[39:25] [snorts] with any thoughts or comments.

[39:27] >> Start with Morgan.

[39:28] >> Great, thank you, Chair.

[39:29] Um so

[39:31] starting really with kind of the cover

[39:33] sheet, they indicate that 35 spaces are

[39:36] provided. We've counted several times,

[39:38] we keep coming to 33, so they'll need to

[39:40] change that now. Um and then they

[39:44] indicate that only 32 are required. Um

[39:49] 33 are required unless they provide us a

[39:51] table that breaks down the square

[39:53] footage of the buildings a little bit

[39:54] more in the past. Um we have deducted

[39:57] bathroom

[39:58] >> Morgan, can you speak in the microphone

[39:59] right here?

[40:00] >> Yeah, sure.

[40:01] Um so it in a

[40:03] We'll need a breakdown of the square

[40:05] footage if they want it to go for some

[40:06] sort of

[40:08] reduction in the square footage that's a

[40:10] part of that calculation, but right now

[40:12] 33 spaces are are required.

[40:16] >> 33 or 35?

[40:17] >> Um 33 spaces are required.

[40:19] >> Okay. They listed 35 are provided.

[40:23] >> Oh, got you. Okay.

[40:24] >> 33 are provided. So, they're right at

[40:26] the number.

[40:27] >> Understood.

[40:28] >> Yep.

[40:29] Um the street side setback needs to be

[40:32] 10 ft. They're very close. So, most

[40:34] likely they'd have to shrink the

[40:35] building a little bit, but they would

[40:37] need to

[40:37] uh meet the minimum 10 ft.

[40:40] Um uh queuing for the drive-throughs is

[40:45] 80 ft and that's measured from the

[40:46] drive-through window to the beginning of

[40:49] the queuing lane.

[40:51] Um so, those do look like they're short.

[40:53] They'll need to provide that dimension

[40:56] from the drive-through window to the

[40:57] beginning of the queuing lane to to show

[40:59] that they meet the full 80 ft. And then

[41:02] something of note um

[41:05] it looks like most likely they're going

[41:06] to have to adjust their site

[41:09] um

[41:09] at some level. When they if they do um

[41:14] the queuing like so the stacking area of

[41:16] the drive-through cannot be between the

[41:19] building and the front property line.

[41:21] And so, they they don't show that now.

[41:23] They just show the exiting portion of

[41:25] the lane. They don't show the queuing

[41:26] portion of the lane. But when they do um

[41:29] make those modifications just for the applicant is aware do not put the

[41:33] queuing um

[41:35] or the you know, the stacking

[41:37] portion of the lane in the front

[41:39] setback. That's that's essentially what

[41:40] it's calling out.

[41:42] Um I believe Oh, um on the cover sheet

[41:45] as well, there are several mentions of

[41:47] Orem that'll need to be changed to

[41:50] Santaquin.

[41:52] >> Thank you.

[41:52] >> Yep.

[41:53] >> You.

[41:54] >> So, Morgan, I have a question on the

[41:55] parking.

[41:56] Um building use

[41:58] tenant use could determine or could

[42:01] require more parking depending on what

[42:03] they put in there, the square footage,

[42:05] the use, that kind of thing. So, I just

[42:06] want to caution the applicant to make

[42:08] sure that they have they don't build too

[42:10] much building and don't have enough

[42:11] parking for X Y Z use that they may have

[42:14] tried to put in there at some point in

[42:15] the future. So

[42:16] >> Yeah, that that's a great point.

[42:18] >> That that has been something that we've

[42:19] dealt with in Santaquin before where

[42:21] they're really tight on the parking and

[42:22] then all of a sudden they don't have

[42:23] enough because they want to bring in a

[42:25] use that requires more parking. So I

[42:27] would just caution on that.

[42:28] >> That's a great point. We're using right

[42:29] now just so that the applicant knows

[42:30] that just the general retail only use

[42:32] category. So if they put office or

[42:34] medical in in one of those then that could change the

[42:38] that the parking requirement.

[42:40] >> But it sounds like this parking's going

[42:41] to have to be rearranged anyway to meet

[42:43] those stacking requirements for the

[42:46] drive-throughs, correct?

[42:47] >> Yeah, most likely. They they'd have to

[42:49] do some modifications to the site.

[42:54] » Okay.

[42:55] Randy?

[42:56] >> Uh nothing at this point.

[42:57] >> Okay.

[42:58] Jason?

[43:00] >> I didn't see a PI meter.

[43:02] on the plans and

[43:04] there is one that's actually on 300

[43:06] West. I That's just a general location.

[43:09] We can provide that location to them. We

[43:11] should have a shot on this.

[43:12] >> Yep.

[43:13] >> But it is it is there. That's and it's a

[43:15] 1-in service. So

[43:17] >> More than adequate to serve the

[43:19] landscaping on the site.

[43:21] >> Yep. And

[43:22] the other thing, I think there's a

[43:24] discussion about the master, you know,

[43:26] maybe changing from a

[43:29] uh individual meters to a master meter.

[43:31] I don't know if we can do that in a in a

[43:35] commercial space.

[43:37] >> And say I think there's a couple options

[43:39] we could do. One master meter that

[43:41] probably be ideal. But there isn't

[43:43] necessarily commercial wise within our

[43:45] standards or code that requires that

[43:47] commercial site

[43:49] have a master meter. Uh for residential,

[43:53] uh for anything over three units or more does require a

[43:57] master meter. But commercial wise, we

[44:00] don't have that requirement.

[44:02] However, with that said, I believe

[44:04] there's a a a more economical pathways

[44:07] forward for how they would stub uh

[44:10] into this, you know,

[44:11] single 6-in line coming off of the the

[44:14] main and stubbing it in, and then

[44:16] putting a manifold with different meters

[44:18] off of that, um or putting a master

[44:21] meter in, etc. There's a couple

[44:23] different options that we can work with

[44:25] the applicant on to address that to make

[44:27] it so we don't have a string of

[44:30] 1-in meters all spaced a foot apart on

[44:33] it off of the

[44:35] >> [clears throat]

[44:35] >> a main line. Cuz there are some

[44:37] uh concerns by tapping into the main

[44:39] line that close to each other on there.

[44:43] >> And it's just a lot of 1-in lines

[44:45] running across the road, and you could

[44:46] do it with with one.

[44:48] >> And uh

[44:49] longevity-wise for the city, and also I

[44:52] believe for the site it'd be beneficial

[44:54] to do that. And a lot less excavation

[44:57] work to to put a single line in versus

[45:00] uh

[45:01] a whole bunch more.

[45:02] >> Yeah, one saddle instead of five.

[45:04] There's a Yeah.

[45:05] >> Yeah.

[45:07] >> And then, yeah, that's that's about all

[45:09] my comments.

[45:10] >> Okay.

[45:11] >> Mike?

[45:13] >> Just a couple of uh

[45:14] just a reminder that road coming on 300

[45:17] West is one-way. It would be nice to

[45:18] have a right-turn-only sign exiting that

[45:21] north

[45:23] exit.

[45:24] >> Mhm.

[45:25] >> So that we don't have a whole bunch of

[45:27] traffic trying to come southbound on 300

[45:30] West.

[45:31] Um also on the landscape plan it does

[45:34] show there's a pretty large tree right

[45:36] there close to that exit, which is going

[45:38] to mess with the site uh exiting that.

[45:42] This

[45:43] the site line.

[45:46] So I would like to see that tree not be

[45:48] there.

[45:50] >> And the And the one on Main Street?

[45:53] >> There Yeah, there's a few that are in

[45:55] the site triangle

[45:56] >> kind of a little bit farther away, so I

[45:57] don't I would like to see a site

[45:59] triangle on both those entrances and

[46:00] exits. so

[46:03] >> Yes.

[46:04] I'm trying to see where that went.

[46:09] site lighting

[46:12] There it is.

[46:14] That's irrigation.

[46:21] Yes, but there were a few trees that

[46:22] were located

[46:26] Oh, right there.

[46:28] Yeah, so there's this tree here, this

[46:30] one here,

[46:31] um and down on this corner.

[46:35] >> I don't know that I worry as much about

[46:37] the one down on 3rd West on that round

[46:39] cuz it is a one-way street, so nobody

[46:41] should be turning left out of there.

[46:44] >> Mhm.

[46:44] >> In theory. They do, but in theory they

[46:46] shouldn't be.

[46:47] Self-correcting, I guess.

[46:52] » So, on that they are going to be uh this

[46:55] roadway

[46:57] uh with the they are going to line up

[46:58] with the existing curb, gutter, and

[47:00] sidewalk further to the north that were

[47:03] uh installed with Evergreen Townhomes

[47:06] development. So, this roadway will be

[47:08] wider than it is currently because they

[47:10] will tie into that and and improve the

[47:12] whole frontage along that along 300

[47:15] West.

[47:16] So, it does extend the width of that

[47:18] road.

[47:18] >> But, it still will only be one-way,

[47:20] correct? We're not changing that.

[47:21] >> that is the current

[47:22] >> as I know, anyway.

[47:23] >> That's I say that's a higher discussion

[47:25] what the DRC has at this point. So,

[47:27] >> That's what I'm saying. If it is going

[47:29] to stay one-way, I would like to see a

[47:30] right turn sign put in cuz as people

[47:32] come to shop or whatever, this is going

[47:34] to be

[47:35] I don't really want them exiting going

[47:36] the wrong way.

[47:37] >> We would need to do something similar to

[47:39] what the townhomes that are across the

[47:40] street where we'd have to install a sign

[47:42] that indicates right turn only.

[47:44] >> Yes.

[47:45] >> And

[47:46] left Yeah.

[47:47] >> And for right turn

[47:48] >> left and right turn only signs, make

[47:50] sure you get it handed the right way,

[47:51] so.

[47:52] >> But, in the future if we widen this

[47:54] road, could we move the one-way down to

[47:57] >> That is a potential.

[47:58] >> 100 North.

[47:58] >> That would be a discussion that would

[47:59] need to be held with the city council.

[48:01] >> Okay.

[48:01] >> On that.

[48:02] >> I mean

[48:03] >> [clears throat]

[48:05] >> Yeah.

[48:06] There's a lot of There's a lot of people

[48:08] live right there, so

[48:09] >> Yes, there is.

[48:12] » Okay. Anything else, Mike?

[48:14] >> No, thank you.

[48:15] >> Okay.

[48:16] Norm?

[48:17] >> Just what I've already talked about with

[48:20] not building too much building and not

[48:21] having a parking, but also I would also

[48:23] recommend that they might want to look

[48:25] at just bringing a fire line over a 6-in

[48:27] or an 8-in from 300 West to service,

[48:30] like we've talked about with one master

[48:32] meter, they break down a manifold after

[48:34] a connection to a main line, and that

[48:36] way if they ever do decide to put

[48:38] something in there as far as a

[48:40] you know, some type of a of a

[48:44] facility that needs to have sprinklers,

[48:46] then they have a line already in there.

[48:47] We don't have to go dig up the road. So,

[48:49] that might be something to consider as

[48:51] part of that discussion with the water

[48:54] service to the buildings. I know right

[48:56] now they're saying it's not going to be

[48:58] required, and that's fine as long as it

[49:00] stays retail, but if they get to some

[49:02] you know, use again that hasn't been

[49:04] identified that they want to put in

[49:05] there and they need a fire line, then

[49:07] they're going to go cut up the road, so

[49:09] >> Correct.

[49:09] >> I think it'd be a beneficial to have

[49:11] that be part of our discussion.

[49:13] >> Yes.

[49:13] >> And then just you know, I still There's

[49:16] still a lot of work to be done with

[49:17] this, but I think it's it's looking

[49:19] good, so

[49:22] » Okay.

[49:23] Um

[49:24] I'll just kind of see if I can um

[49:27] say Morgan's already covered that, the

[49:28] parking related to those.

[49:31] Um

[49:33] >> [clears throat]

[49:34] >> One other item that needs to be kind of

[49:37] discussed and gone through is that

[49:40] coordination will be needed with UDOT

[49:42] for the existing driver approaches that are currently to the site. There's

[49:47] two of them that extend onto

[49:51] uh old parcel

[49:53] um

[49:54] from Main Street.

[49:55] Um because it's my understanding that

[49:58] due to the change of use for the site,

[50:01] um UDOT is going to require

[50:04] uh adjustments to access on here. And so

[50:07] they do need to coordinate with UDOT on

[50:09] those drive approaches to to be in

[50:11] conformance with UDOT's requirements.

[50:16] Um so I think we've already covered most

[50:19] of those comments there. One thing that

[50:22] I will point out that hasn't necessarily

[50:23] been discussed is the the access

[50:27] width um as currently shown is 24 ft

[50:30] wide.

[50:31] Fire code does require those to be 26

[50:34] uh for this.

[50:36] Um and that is specifically for the

[50:39] eastern road as you get north of the the

[50:42] proposed building and the northern

[50:44] access that goes out to 300 West. Uh

[50:47] those do need to be 26-ft wide in in

[50:50] width.

[50:56] Uh I've talked queuing. I've talked

[50:59] about that one.

[51:02] Going the wrong way.

[51:03] Um

[51:06] The other item is um is location of the

[51:10] sewer laterals. There does need to be a

[51:12] maintain a minimum of 10-ft separation.

[51:14] That's horizontal separation between the

[51:17] sewer lateral and the water lines.

[51:25] Again, that's these measurements here

[51:27] are just to show the the designed width

[51:30] of the of the new asphalt. That's from

[51:33] lip of lip of gutter lip of gutter. So

[51:35] it does widen

[51:37] uh that roadway considerably as you go

[51:39] down through here.

[51:41] There are some additional comments on

[51:43] the storm drain report that need to be

[51:44] addressed as well and those will be

[51:45] provided with these red lines.

[51:51] I believe that

[51:54] Oh, there's the comments on the trees.

[51:57] Finally found it.

[52:01] And we've already got that, the table

[52:03] for the live plant materials.

[52:07] I believe that's it.

[52:08] >> And then John, I did This is Morgan.

[52:12] I didn't mention in my parking comments

[52:14] the length of the stalls in the center

[52:17] of the site, so the ones that aren't

[52:18] overlapping landscaping are required to

[52:22] maintain a minimum length of 20 ft.

[52:24] They're showing at 18 ft. So if they

[52:26] overlap landscaping like the boundary

[52:27] ones, then they can go to 18 ft.

[52:31] So that that would add another 4 ft

[52:33] overall for the center stalls.

[52:35] >> [snorts]

[52:35] >> So yeah, so that's these ones along the building here. That's a 10-ft

[52:39] separation from the building to the

[52:41] parking stall and as well up here.

[52:44] There's enough landscaping that this

[52:46] these one the southern parking stalls

[52:50] and the northern parking stalls can

[52:51] remain as they are. However, there is

[52:54] still 4 ft additional

[52:57] uh depth that needs to be provided for

[52:58] these parking stalls in the middle.

[53:01] >> And John, did you talk about the 26

[53:03] versus 24 ft?

[53:05] >> I did, yes.

[53:05] >> With Okay. Is that face-to-face on the

[53:08] curbs?

[53:09] >> It would be face-to-face on the curbs.

[53:12] Um one other another item on there is

[53:15] just for the proposal or the shown cross

[53:17] connection.

[53:19] Uh an agreement would be needed between

[53:21] the two properties to permit that allow

[53:25] for that uh connection. It does improve

[53:28] circulation quite a bit. It would also

[53:30] allow a um a Main Street

[53:35] access for the new site to be able to

[53:38] access on the Main Street. Granted, it

[53:40] is further to the east, but

[53:42] um

[53:43] so there are benefits to be able to do

[53:44] that,

[53:45] but it would require that cross

[53:47] connection agreement.

[53:52] Okay, any other comments or thoughts?

[53:55] >> I have a question.

[53:57] >> Sure.

[53:58] >> Uh the radius on Main Street

[54:02] that we're going to tie into

[54:04] it's narrower there than it's going to

[54:06] tie into the north. Would that affect

[54:08] your two-way

[54:10] traffic?

[54:11] >> With 45 ft of asphalt, uh it wouldn't.

[54:14] >> Well, there is 45

[54:15] >> There's 45 of the throat, yeah.

[54:17] >> is not on the property.

[54:19] Is that

[54:24] » Is that not sure the

[54:27] We say it's not on the property line?

[54:29] >> I don't know what you're meaning by

[54:31] that. The dark line is the property

[54:32] line.

[54:33] >> Correct, yes.

[54:34] >> So, on that radius,

[54:36] >> So, they would be tying into the

[54:38] existing that's there. And that's a

[54:39] 40-ft wide throat.

[54:41] >> Yeah, John, the the the Main Street

[54:43] project took us around the PC or PT on

[54:46] that curve, right? So, it's it's got its

[54:48] starting point already, and they would

[54:49] not be redoing the curve

[54:52] for what we already do with Main Street.

[54:53] It would just go straight between the

[54:55] two, and if I remember correctly,

[54:56] hopefully we got it and

[54:58] right.

[54:59] >> [cough]

[55:00] [clears throat]

[55:01] >> Yes. So, it does it does as you do go

[55:04] from south to north, it does widen a

[55:06] little bit, but that's because again,

[55:08] this has been installed uh that was

[55:12] installed with the Main Street widening.

[55:14] That's correct, yes.

[55:17] but yes, we did do that. It is the

[55:20] 40-ft wide through there.

[55:24] Thank you.

[55:27] Okay, any other thoughts or comments?

[55:31] Seeing none, I say look for a motion on

[55:33] the on the site plan application.

[55:36] >> There's still a lot to be done here, so

[55:37] I would make a motion to table them.

[55:39] >> Okay.

[55:40] Motion to table.

[55:41] >> I'll second.

[55:42] >> Second by Mike.

[55:44] Any discussion on the motion?

[55:47] All in favor, please say I.

[55:49] >> I.

[55:49] >> Any opposed?

[55:51] Okay. The most The application is

[55:53] tabled. [clears throat] So.

[55:55] Okay.

[55:57] Um the next item on the agenda is the

[55:59] meeting minutes from the August 11th DRC

[56:03] meeting.

[56:04] Sorry. Any comments on there? Look for a

[56:06] motion.

[56:09] » I motion to approve the August 11th,

[56:11] 2026

[56:13] meeting minutes.

[56:15] >> I'll second it.

[56:16] >> Second by Jason.

[56:18] All in favor, please say I.

[56:20] >> I.

[56:21] >> Any opposed?

[56:23] Okay.

[56:24] Um those minutes are approved. And if

[56:26] there's not anything else needs to be

[56:27] brought for the DRC, I'll look for a

[56:29] motion to adjourn.

[56:29] >> So moved.

[56:31] >> Okay. We are adjourned at 10:

Santaquin City Development Review Committee Meeting - August 25, 2026

Transcript