[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: