[0:00] Want to welcome everybody out to the
[0:02] planning and zoning commission meeting
[0:03] for May 6th. We'll start off the
[0:07] meeting. I've asked Commissioner Warick
[0:09] to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.
[0:11] >> I'll arise.
[0:14] » I pledge aliance to the flag of the
[0:18] United States of America
[0:20] >> and to the republic for which it stands.
[0:23] One nation under God, indivisible, with
[0:26] liberty and justice for all.
[0:31] Thank you, Shauna.
[0:34] Um, our first order of business is the
[0:38] minutes. Um, we Casey sent out the
[0:42] correct minutes later in the day. So,
[0:43] have everybody had a chance to look at
[0:44] those? Um, do I have a Has anybody
[0:48] reviewed it? And can I get a motion?
[0:50] >> I have looked at that. I'll make a
[0:51] motion we approve the minutes.
[0:54] >> Second.
[0:55] >> I have a motion to second. All in favor?
[0:57] I.
[0:57] >> Any opposed?
[0:59] So those can be recorded. Um our first
[1:04] um item of business, these are both
[1:06] public hearings, but the first one is
[1:08] the station 61 Argyle subdivision
[1:11] substation zone change.
[1:14] All right. Uh we're going to keep this
[1:16] pretty simple and straightforward. So
[1:18] this is property. I don't know if you
[1:19] recently saw the groundbreaking uh for
[1:22] the new fire station that's going to be
[1:23] going here as well as a substation
[1:25] that's uh going to be on the corner that
[1:27] southwest corner. Um as part of this the site plan was reviewed and it was
[1:34] noted that there are some parts of the
[1:36] site that are still zoned either
[1:39] residential office or uh R16 I believe.
[1:45] And so in order to proceed with that, uh
[1:48] there was a condition placed on the site
[1:49] plan approval that the entire site be uh
[1:53] reszoned to the public facility zone. So
[1:56] that's what's being uh proposed here.
[2:00] >> Okay.
[2:02] >> Questions for staff?
[2:04] >> I have a question.
[2:06] Why
[2:10] didn't Why was this not addressed
[2:12] beforehand? You've gone in there, tore
[2:14] down the buildings, you bought
[2:15] properties to and the fire station's
[2:19] going in, and now you're coming to us to
[2:22] change the zoning on it
[2:25] when you've already gone ahead and done
[2:30] a substantial amount of work.
[2:34] >> Why would the city not change the zoning
[2:37] first?
[2:40] I think that's one of the the benefits
[2:42] that it's city- owned property. It's a
[2:44] city project
[2:46] >> and the city would be the one that would
[2:48] approve the zoning. So, it was kind of
[2:50] the always the intent for that to uh be
[2:54] zoned so that they could you fire
[2:57] station.
[2:57] >> David, maybe
[2:58] >> we could double check, but I believe
[3:00] municipal services are permitted uses in
[3:03] most zones. Um, and the history of this
[3:06] is interesting because the majority of
[3:08] the fire station is on property that's
[3:10] already the public facility zone
[3:13] ability to buy additional properties as
[3:15] they became available. And in some
[3:17] cases, we were able to buy backyards of adjacent properties to kind of square
[3:23] off uh the project.
[3:26] But that was an early comment from our
[3:28] department when it first came up with
[3:30] the concept, you know, that we needed to
[3:33] do a zoning cleanup to address that.
[3:35] >> So, I guess it kind of bugs it bugs me a
[3:39] bit. Why didn't you do that in the first
[3:41] hand
[3:43] and then go ahead and do your thing?
[3:46] Because it's understood that's it's
[3:48] probably going to happen. And is the
[3:50] city just rather going to say it's
[3:52] easier to ask for forgiveness than for
[3:54] permission?
[3:56] Not that we couldn't really shut it
[3:58] down, but
[4:01] >> I think a lot of it might have to do
[4:03] with timing of the development and since
[4:05] the most of the fight,
[4:06] >> but the city had timing. They've known
[4:08] way ahead of time. They could have come
[4:10] and cleared zoning up a long time ago.
[4:13] >> Okay. All I'm saying is that the the
[4:16] timing can sometimes lead to uh an
[4:19] increase in costs and so those costs
[4:22] would be paid by the taxpayer. So the
[4:24] city's always trying to use those funds
[4:26] efficiently. And so since the city is
[4:29] the one approving it and building it and
[4:32] everything, it was all it's all the same
[4:35] group that's doing that,
[4:37] >> right? Okay. Well, sorry, but that that
[4:40] sounds a little underhanded that you
[4:42] like, oh, we're going to skirt around
[4:46] this to save us some money. Well, it's
[4:48] not saving this. It's saving the city,
[4:51] which is in turn saving the taxpayer,
[4:54] >> right?
[4:55] >> Not using those funds kind of uh
[4:57] wastefully, using it more efficiently.
[5:00] >> Okay.
[5:02] >> It doesn't seem like that big a deal to
[5:04] me. It seems like you you do something
[5:07] in good faith and then you come and
[5:08] clean up the technicalities. That's my
[5:11] personal opinion on that.
[5:16] Well, is is it in good faith when they
[5:18] do everything beforehand and then come
[5:20] up to clean it up after the fact?
[5:21] >> Well, when you look at the majority, you
[5:23] can see on the zoning map, the majority
[5:25] of it, 90% of well, 80% of it is already
[5:28] a public facility where the senior
[5:30] center was.
[5:31] >> Okay.
[5:32] >> So, it's zoned correctly. The area
[5:34] you're expressing a concern about would
[5:35] be the RORO, which allows that use, or
[5:38] the R15, which I don't know if it does
[5:41] or not.
[5:43] Yeah. Yeah. And both um RO and um R16
[5:48] uh municipal facilities required for
[5:50] local service are permitted uses.
[5:54] >> So it's really just a a cleanup of the
[5:56] map so that it matches what's there.
[5:58] >> Okay.
[5:59] >> So it was all So what you're saying is
[6:01] it's it's already permitted so it's
[6:03] legal in that area but
[6:05] >> to but it's best to change it to the
[6:08] public facilities be all. We could do it
[6:10] without the cleanup, but let's clean it
[6:12] up. So,
[6:13] >> gotcha.
[6:14] >> So,
[6:16] Oh, Dave, do you have more to say on
[6:17] that?
[6:19] >> No.
[6:20] >> On the substation, um, we have a we have
[6:24] a substation there already, right?
[6:27] There's a a substation on the property
[6:29] already that's being moved and enlarged.
[6:31] Is or is what's
[6:32] >> I just What's going on with that? Yeah.
[6:34] So, that is being uh relocated as part
[6:36] of this project to that southwest corner
[6:40] of the block
[6:41] >> just to make room for the the fire
[6:43] station or is it being enlarged or
[6:45] what's what's the reason for it being
[6:46] relocated is what I'm wondering.
[6:47] >> No. Uh both. So, it needed to be redone
[6:50] and upsized anyways for more current
[6:55] uh uses or load from the city. But um
[6:59] they in fact they wanted to do it like a
[7:01] year ago, but instead knowing the fire
[7:03] station might come. It was let's move it
[7:05] out of the way and put it more in a
[7:07] proper location instead of in the center
[7:10] of the block. So it needed to be redone.
[7:14] Um but they did move it to a better
[7:18] access even for them for the power
[7:19] department and stuff. But
[7:21] >> I was just curious about as as I was
[7:22] reviewing this. Yeah, it was both kind
[7:25] of. But
[7:25] >> and then on the I couldn't it was blurry
[7:27] on the site plan that we have exhibit
[7:30] two. Um what is what's the route like?
[7:34] Which way are the fire trucks? What are
[7:38] they going to go out onto second or they
[7:39] going to go out onto center street?
[7:41] >> They'll go out on second.
[7:43] they prefer to come out more on the
[7:47] less busy road, like more of a
[7:50] residential road, then get on to the
[7:52] major collectors. Um, current one on 400
[7:56] North, I think from what I've heard from
[7:58] them is they have a lot of trouble
[8:00] leaving that fire station because 400
[8:02] North is so busy
[8:04] >> and so they don't want to go out on
[8:06] center because once it it gets even
[8:08] busier, it creates an issue for the
[8:10] firefighters. I was just curious about
[8:12] that. In my mind, I was thinking they'd
[8:14] want to go out on a bigger road, but
[8:15] that makes sense.
[8:15] >> Yeah. Don't they all don't they exit out
[8:17] to Main Street right now? They don't
[8:19] exit onto 400,
[8:20] >> but they're saying that's a problem.
[8:22] >> Yeah, they're saying actually on Main
[8:23] Street.
[8:24] >> Main Street right there on 400 and Main
[8:26] Street. Yeah, but it's Main Street's so
[8:28] busy and Yeah. Sorry, guys. Thanks for
[8:31] correction.
[8:34] » Thanks. I was just curious about those
[8:35] things.
[8:37] >> Any other questions for staff?
[8:41] Thank you. This is a public hearing. So,
[8:43] if anybody's here to have comments on
[8:45] this topic, we'd love to hear you. Um,
[8:48] keep if you'd come up and introduce
[8:50] yourself on the microphone and keep your
[8:52] comments about 3 minutes, we'll open
[8:54] that up.
[8:56] Okay. Seeing no people, none, we'll
[9:00] close the public hearing.
[9:02] Do we have any other discussions amongst
[9:05] oursel?
[9:07] >> Seems strict to me.
[9:08] >> Okay. I would entertain a motion. Um,
[9:11] this is a
[9:15] um,
[9:18] this is recommending for approval,
[9:19] right?
[9:19] >> Mhm.
[9:20] >> Yep.
[9:20] >> I'll make the motion. I move to
[9:22] recommend approval of the proposed
[9:24] station 61 Argyle substation zone change
[9:27] based on the findings. The proposal is
[9:29] consistent with the city's general plan, land plan, use designation of
[9:32] public facilities.
[9:34] >> Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a
[9:36] second?
[9:36] >> Second.
[9:37] >> Motion second. All in favor?
[9:39] >> I.
[9:40] >> Any opposed?
[9:41] >> I
[9:42] >> nay.
[9:45] >> Okay. So, that vote will go to the uh
[9:50] council for their
[9:52] review and their meeting. Um the second
[9:55] agenda item is
[9:58] Sorry, I've lost my There it is.
[10:02] >> This is a zoning
[10:02] >> Arrowhead commercial.
[10:04] >> Yes, this is a zoning map amendment as
[10:06] well. Uh a little different in nature
[10:08] than the first one you looked at. Um
[10:10] just for orientation purposes, uh
[10:13] Arrowhead Trail, um Delmonte Road right
[10:17] here, Arrowhead Subdivision,
[10:20] um
[10:22] Sky Meadows subdivision. Uh let's go to
[10:25] the next slide.
[10:27] So on the right, you see the general
[10:29] plan anticipates a commercial use on the
[10:31] corner. The zoning reflects an existing
[10:33] commercial use um on the corner. the
[10:37] applicant. Um, unfortunately, he did
[10:38] call us this afternoon u right before
[10:41] the meeting and had a conflict and
[10:42] couldn't make it tonight. Um, but he uh
[10:45] does send his regards and would like to see a recommendation um out of the planning commission tonight even
[10:51] though he couldn't make it. Um, let's go
[10:53] to the next slide.
[10:56] This is their request. It was included
[10:58] in your packet. Uh, in a nutshell,
[11:00] there's two residential lots that are
[11:01] part of the Arrowhead subdivision um
[11:04] that they would like to absorb into the
[11:06] existing commercial corner and they have
[11:09] a number of of reasons why they feel it
[11:11] would be appropriate to do so. Um, the
[11:14] DRC did look at this request and in the
[11:16] findings the motion you'll see um the
[11:18] recommendation that the the development
[11:20] review committee um provided. Let's go
[11:23] to the next slide. So this is how this
[11:25] the preliminary plat for the subdivision
[11:27] was approved.
[11:29] Again this is Arrowhead Trail Delmani.
[11:32] Um these are all platted lots. The last
[11:35] phase is phase six which would be this
[11:38] um west part of the property. The two
[11:41] lots in question are these deep
[11:43] residential lots right here.
[11:45] >> This is the existing commercial corner.
[11:47] Let's go to the next slide. Oh
[11:48] >> Brent, hello for a second.
[11:51] >> So my understand they want to take
[11:54] a commercial lot.
[11:55] >> Wrong way.
[11:57] >> Blinding myself. The commercial lot add
[11:59] more commercial and but this commercial
[12:01] is off the main road and kind of hard to
[12:03] get to,
[12:05] >> but they want to change it from
[12:06] residential to commercial.
[12:10] >> Yeah. So,
[12:10] >> I get where you're going.
[12:12] they have had interest in the property
[12:15] and one thing that staff did recommend
[12:17] when when we get to the conditions is
[12:19] we'd still like them to pursue the
[12:21] option with you do to have approval for
[12:23] a ride in right out here. There is a
[12:25] spacing requirement from the
[12:26] intersection. Um most likely we wouldn't
[12:29] allow an access off of here because of
[12:31] the proximity of these two intersections
[12:33] and so their primary access could be
[12:35] here or if you do would allow a
[12:38] potential ride in right out at that
[12:40] location.
[12:40] >> Interesting. Okay, there's one clear on
[12:42] that.
[12:42] >> Does the
[12:43] >> I got you.
[12:44] >> These two extra properties to the
[12:46] commercial, does that increase the
[12:49] probability for you dot to allow the
[12:51] access?
[12:53] >> I would say yes in the sense that it
[12:56] Well, no.
[12:58] >> Sorry, I'll
[12:59] >> because I know they're kind of st
[13:00] they're stingy on their
[13:01] >> picture. I I'll let Josh speak to it,
[13:03] but my off-the- cuff answer would be
[13:06] your front edge isn't changing, so you
[13:09] still have the same distance to play
[13:10] with here.
[13:11] >> Okay.
[13:12] >> So, I I think it's just a matter of
[13:13] spacing.
[13:15] >> Yeah, I think you're right. U DOT's
[13:18] requirement for this road is um 660 ft
[13:24] >> access. So, I think that's about where
[13:26] they're at. But it may
[13:28] >> I think in DRC it was discussed may make
[13:31] it a little bit easier to put an access
[13:32] in there. They got some more room to
[13:34] come straight on. But
[13:39] um let's go to the next slide.
[13:43] So, this is the proposed amendment that
[13:45] they'd like to make if the zone change
[13:47] is approved by the city council is you'd
[13:50] then have two larger um more rectangular
[13:54] shaped commercial lots that they could
[13:56] work with. Um it's my understanding that
[13:59] the corner lots already purchased are
[14:01] under contract and that that purchaser
[14:04] is potentially looking at this one. Um
[14:07] and if they're not interested then um
[14:09] the applicant in did indicate they've
[14:11] got other interested parties uh in this
[14:14] potential piece here. Um let's go to the
[14:17] next slide. So once again this is the
[14:19] existing commercial the area outlined
[14:22] and highlighted in red is the additional
[14:24] just under an acre of area that they
[14:27] would like to add um to commercial to
[14:30] expand that commercial corner. So in the
[14:32] staff report uh we kind of highlighted
[14:34] it would increase the area to
[14:35] approximately 4 acres in size. We do uh
[14:39] recommend or recognize that the general
[14:41] plan um let's go to the next slide. The
[14:45] general plan does designate the
[14:46] commercial as uh excuse me the corner as
[14:50] commercial. I'll slow down. Um
[14:53] the development review committee
[14:55] recognized that uh it's an expansion of
[14:57] a conveniently located commercial area.
[15:00] Finding number three that it'll provide
[15:02] uh services to the residents of Spanish
[15:04] Fork and potentially expand the city
[15:05] sales tax base. Four, that is promotion
[15:09] of a commercial area at a major
[15:11] intersection. Um there are an arrowhead
[15:13] trail. Five, that is adequately sized to
[15:16] minimize the potential impacts on the
[15:18] residential area. And then the condition
[15:21] um this was added during um the
[15:23] discussion of access to the property.
[15:25] The development review committee did add
[15:28] this on the recommendation to you for
[15:29] your consideration and that reads that
[15:32] the applicant would basically uh do
[15:34] further research with UDOT as far as all
[15:38] potential accesses for the property
[15:40] specifically though off of uh Arrowhead
[15:43] Trail and then um at a later stage that
[15:46] could be finalized as far as cross
[15:48] access easements and placements so it
[15:50] can be enjoyed and shared by both
[15:52] properties.
[15:54] Um,
[15:56] we did advertise this for a public
[15:58] hearing. Uh, is there any questions for
[16:00] staff?
[16:01] >> I have a couple questions. First, on
[16:03] that slide, you're just on the
[16:05] conditions. What does that
[16:08] tie the applicant to do when it says
[16:10] that the applicant explore prospects of
[16:13] having access to the subject property?
[16:15] What I mean, that doesn't I don't see
[16:17] that as binding. What does that mean to
[16:19] explore? My understanding is any
[16:21] conversations we have with UD do usually
[16:24] involve the municipality as well. And so
[16:27] I think it's just a strong reminder that
[16:31] it'd be in their best interest to have
[16:32] that conversation before the city
[16:34] council meeting. Um so that can be uh
[16:37] known as to whether or not it's an
[16:39] option.
[16:40] >> Okay.
[16:40] >> I know they've had some preliminary
[16:42] discussions, but I don't know the
[16:44] process that they'll need to go through
[16:45] to get um more of a firm answer from you
[16:49] do. it's in their favor. It's beneficial
[16:51] for them if they can get it. So, they're incentivized to do that. I just
[16:55] was the terminology seemed a little
[16:56] weird to me. So,
[16:58] >> yeah, part of the debate was some
[17:00] members of the DRC felt it'd be
[17:02] appropriate to address it at the plat
[17:04] level. Uh and others felt that while
[17:07] we're at the zone change level, we might
[17:09] as well uh tackle that question.
[17:11] >> Okay. And then the other question I had
[17:13] was if you go back a couple slides to
[17:14] where we show that that one right there.
[17:16] No. So, when we went over this, I and I
[17:19] don't think this is the case. Um, these
[17:21] all these lots look like they're fairly
[17:24] good size. We've often had developers
[17:26] add in these oddshaped
[17:28] um lots to increase the lot size, the
[17:32] square footage size to get the zoning
[17:34] they want. Um, did these put them over
[17:38] when we're going through that first
[17:40] sizing of their their lots?
[17:42] >> No. And they're adequate size. Good qu a
[17:45] good I can't speak tonight. That was a
[17:47] good question. That was a catch that our
[17:49] city manager Seth Parin had as well at
[17:52] the DRC. And so after the DRC we reran
[17:55] the numbers as far as their average lot
[17:56] size for the subdivision.
[17:58] >> And uh let me find it. It's in the
[18:00] report. Um
[18:03] they were 12,34 square ft after the
[18:07] exclusion of that.
[18:08] >> What were they before?
[18:09] >> Uh higher than that, but the minimum
[18:11] they need to be is the 12,000. still
[18:12] within the still above the minimum.
[18:15] >> Yeah. I don't know if you know what size
[18:17] is this. I'm just kind of curious the
[18:19] And this is going to be an actual
[18:20] residentially.
[18:22] >> I don't think we have that exact number.
[18:24] Um let's go back a slide. One more.
[18:30] >> It's right there.
[18:31] >> Good luck.
[18:32] >> 32
[18:34] behind that on you.
[18:36] >> Looks like it's over 13,000 square feet.
[18:38] >> Okay. I see anything.
[18:39] >> Stay on that slide because I have a
[18:40] question about that. Can I Can I
[18:42] >> These are both pretty large but awkward
[18:45] shape, but this one is closer to the
[18:47] average size. They're just about a
[18:49] thousand over. Okay.
[18:50] >> So, this development's been here for a
[18:52] long time. Where did the homes start
[18:54] here and why are there not homes built
[18:56] on?
[18:57] >> So, that phase has not been recorded
[18:59] yet. Um, when they if we can go to the
[19:03] interactive map,
[19:04] >> this is new.
[19:05] >> So, when they approved the preliminary
[19:07] plat for the Arrowhead subdivision, I
[19:09] believe it had six phases. They've
[19:12] recorded phases one through five and
[19:15] phase six. Um I believe when they
[19:18] submitted both Josh and I noticed that
[19:20] they had some changes with with
[19:22] potential lines for this commercial and
[19:24] that's when the conversation started as
[19:26] far as their desire to reszone it. So
[19:28] you can see this area right here. This
[19:30] is the unplatted phase six. These are
[19:33] phases one through five. If you zoom
[19:34] out.
[19:38] Yeah. So all of this is phases one
[19:41] through five and then this unplatted
[19:44] portion remainder that's phase six that
[19:46] they would ultimately button up once
[19:48] they have a an answer on
[19:51] >> uh the zoning and a few other uh issues
[19:53] they're working through.
[19:54] >> Okay.
[19:55] >> I was oriented I was looking at this
[19:59] wrong. Okay.
[20:00] >> And it seems clear from the plan I see
[20:02] but no plan no changes to any plans for
[20:06] anything like that. No changes to the
[20:08] remainder of it. Just those two
[20:10] properties.
[20:10] >> Just those two properties. No road
[20:12] changes there.
[20:13] >> Correct.
[20:13] >> Existing.
[20:16] >> Any other questions for staff?
[20:19] >> Thank you.
[20:20] >> Thanks, Brandon.
[20:23] » Okay. So, this is also a public hearing.
[20:25] If anybody's here to uh talk on this
[20:27] subject, we'd love to hear from you.
[20:31] please state your name and go from
[20:33] there.
[20:34] >> Arlon Al and I live just to the west. my
[20:37] property borders that exact spot through
[20:40] there. And I'm not opposed to this
[20:44] change. I just want to make sure that
[20:48] we get a good fence up along there. You
[20:50] know, I have
[20:52] ditches that carry one to two feet of
[20:54] water. And I don't want, you know,
[20:57] problems with people coming over. And
[20:59] that, you know, that includes all of
[21:02] that phase six.
[21:04] I would like to see a permanent good
[21:07] fence along through there. Um, and also
[21:10] I would like to
[21:13] know for sure where that boundary is.
[21:17] Um, I know that in the past
[21:20] some of my property has been annexed
[21:23] into the city because it was recorded
[21:25] not recorded wrong but just didn't they
[21:28] didn't look close enough into the deeds.
[21:32] And so it's been surveyed incorrectly a
[21:35] couple of different times. So I just
[21:37] want to make sure all the surveying
[21:39] everything is on
[21:44] and that would be my only concern.
[21:46] >> Could could we go back to interactive
[21:48] map? Armen, which is your property if
[21:50] you can.
[21:51] >> Um, so all the way along there
[21:56] from Yep. all the way along through
[21:59] there.
[22:00] >> Okay. So it's about 1,000 ft through there.
[22:05] >> That's where the canal is, right?
[22:07] >> Yes.
[22:07] >> Right along the canal.
[22:09] >> Is the canal on yours or
[22:11] >> the canal? Both sides are on mine and
[22:15] you're outside of the city boundaries
[22:17] >> or at least
[22:18] >> Well, that's what there's about
[22:22] 15 feet of that top half, maybe 20 feet
[22:26] that got annexed into the city. And
[22:28] that's when I say just everybody didn't
[22:31] look at the correct
[22:34] um documents
[22:36] and so some of mine on that top is in
[22:40] the city but most all of it is in the
[22:43] county.
[22:44] >> Okay.
[22:46] So, um, the issue of the fence along
[22:49] commercial property, we'd require a
[22:51] masonry fence, splitting it from
[22:52] residential, a six foot high masonry
[22:55] fence. Against the rest of those
[22:57] residential lots, though, that would be
[22:59] up to the property owner or we're going
[23:00] to require the developer to run a fence
[23:03] along the boundary line. I don't
[23:05] remember how that was approved.
[23:06] >> Me neither.
[23:08] >> And see, I can't run a fence along
[23:10] there,
[23:11] >> right?
[23:12] >> Because it's an easement, a canal
[23:14] easement. So, I am trying to work
[23:16] something out with Suncor,
[23:19] you know, to even if I have to pay for
[23:22] the fence or something, maybe picking up
[23:25] a couple of feet of that property along
[23:28] through there. So, I could put a fence
[23:30] in
[23:32] >> on the rest of that or, you know, maybe
[23:34] split the difference or something with
[23:36] them.
[23:38] >> But, we have been in talks a little bit
[23:40] about it.
[23:41] >> Okay. But my concern is, you know, I
[23:44] just don't want problems with anybody
[23:47] getting hurt.
[23:48] >> Sure.
[23:49] >> It did
[23:51] have a fence. It wasn't a real good
[23:54] fence before all this started.
[23:57] >> Okay.
[23:58] >> So,
[23:59] >> Brandon, do you have a comment to make
[24:00] along about the fence?
[24:02] Oh, I was just going to say um with
[24:05] master plan developments, it's not
[24:07] uncommon to look at exterior uh property
[24:11] lines and either have uniform fencing or
[24:14] safety fencing. Um so that's something
[24:16] we can dig into the preliminary plat um
[24:20] and see what was discussed and approved
[24:22] as far as that West property. I think
[24:24] it's very reasonable to to continue
[24:26] those discussions and even if it came
[24:29] down to shared cost of fencing, it it'd
[24:30] be appropriate to have some kind of
[24:32] fencing on that west side.
[24:33] >> Great.
[24:34] >> Thanks for bringing that up.
[24:36] >> Against the commercial, there will be a
[24:37] mason for sure.
[24:38] >> Yeah. So,
[24:39] >> and then it'll be against the
[24:40] residential you are going to look into
[24:41] and get some feedback on that.
[24:43] >> Yeah. So as part of um the buffering
[24:46] from the commercial to the residential
[24:48] use, we have the setback, we have the
[24:51] landscaping and then in addition to that
[24:53] we have the masonry wall.
[24:54] >> Yeah. Okay. And then what about the uh
[24:58] the property line? That was uh Mr. Al's
[25:02] second question.
[25:04] >> Um that's one we can look into. It's interesting looking at the county
[25:08] data here. Josh, if you don't mind
[25:11] zooming in kind of right here and then
[25:14] maybe turn the zoning on. I can see what
[25:17] he's saying in that. And then go ahead
[25:20] and turn it off again. You can see the
[25:23] city line here, but then we've got
[25:24] multiple property lines. So that one is
[25:26] owned by Mr. All. What about this this
[25:29] skinny one here?
[25:30] >> That's owned by by me also.
[25:33] >> Yeah, that's another one. And then
[25:34] Sunrock starts right here.
[25:39] So there is an odd uh
[25:42] >> overlap
[25:44] >> with the with the annexation.
[25:47] >> So we we'd be happy to look into that.
[25:50] >> But anything
[25:53] between Alts property and commercial is
[25:57] going to have to have a masonry fence.
[25:59] >> Yes.
[26:00] >> Yeah.
[26:01] >> And with with the final plat um these
[26:04] issues will be confirmed. Um because the
[26:08] county will require any applicable
[26:09] property owners to sign the plat and
[26:12] both our department or our jurisdiction
[26:15] and the county both uh look at the
[26:17] boundary descriptions of the plats to
[26:19] make sure there's no gaps, overlaps,
[26:21] things of that nature. Um and so we'll
[26:24] definitely look into this and see see
[26:26] what we can do.
[26:28] >> All right.
[26:28] >> Very good. Thank you.
[26:29] >> Okay. Thanks.
[26:33] >> Anybody else?
[26:35] Okay, we'll close the public hearing.
[26:38] Um,
[26:40] anybody have any further points to
[26:42] discuss?
[26:44] >> The thing that seems awkward to me is
[26:46] turning into a residential neighborhood
[26:48] to turn into the commercial,
[26:52] but I don't know. What do you guys
[26:54] think?
[26:54] >> I think it's a better use of the
[26:55] property to go commercial than those
[26:58] lots as they're designated there.
[27:02] >> I agree with that. Visually looking at
[27:04] the size that I mean when we look at
[27:07] that property it is a strange sort of
[27:08] shape. I can see how it's uh equal to
[27:11] the other property or roughly equal to
[27:12] the other property that's development
[27:15] seems like it makes sense and like from
[27:17] a commercial perspective regardless of
[27:19] the ingress that's right along Arrowhead
[27:21] Trail that's kind of a key location. We
[27:23] add a little more commercial there. Feel
[27:25] pretty darn good about that.
[27:26] >> Yeah. Okay. I would be I'd happy to
[27:31] entertain a motion if anybody wants to
[27:32] offer one.
[27:37] » I'll make a motion that we recommend the
[27:39] approval of this commercial zone change
[27:42] based on the following findings and
[27:44] subject to the following conditions as
[27:46] listed right there.
[27:48] >> I'll second that.
[27:50] >> I have a motion to second. All in favor?
[27:52] >> I.
[27:53] >> Any opposed?
[27:55] >> Okay. Thank you. Um,
[27:59] our next item of business is uh we have
[28:03] two project signage plans. The first one
[28:05] is a Maverick convenience store.
[28:08] >> Sorry, I'm just going to steal a moment.
[28:11] Um, just wanted to publicly thank uh Ian
[28:13] as he comes up to present these next two
[28:16] items.
[28:16] >> You're still my Thunderman.
[28:18] >> Sorry, I'll sit back down.
[28:22] >> Um, Ian has worked with the city for two
[28:25] years, I believe.
[28:26] >> Yeah.
[28:27] um and some adventures in life have
[28:29] taken him to another state and so
[28:31] shortly he'll be uh leaving his
[28:33] employment with with the city and and
[28:36] heading off to Colorado. But we just
[28:37] wanted to thank Ian uh for all the
[28:40] things that he's done for uh the city
[28:42] and the community in the the short time
[28:45] that he's been with us. We've definitely
[28:46] enjoyed working with Ian and having him
[28:48] on the staff.
[28:53] emotional
[28:58] can't feel so emotional before you talk
[29:00] about something like signage, right?
[29:01] Something so exciting.
[29:04] >> Okay, so we're talking signs specific.
[29:08] We're talking project signage plans
[29:10] tonight. This is actually the first one
[29:12] I've done um since being a Spanish fork,
[29:15] so fitting that it's on my last planning
[29:17] commission. Um, so I guess just for for
[29:21] reference here, um, this is our standard
[29:25] signage code for um,
[29:28] what criteria
[29:31] um, sites
[29:33] um, the signage that a site can have um,
[29:35] without having to go through an approval
[29:37] process like this. They still have to
[29:38] make application and they're reviewed by
[29:40] staff administratively and approved. But
[29:43] um as you can see here a a to not have
[29:47] to go through a project signage plan.
[29:48] You can have a monument sign um or a
[29:52] freestanding sign and you can have one
[29:53] per street frontage. So if it has one
[29:56] street frontage, you can have one. If it
[29:58] has a corner lot, you could have one on
[29:59] each um street frontage essentially. Um
[30:02] as well as there's a few other criteria
[30:05] here like copy area and height, etc., Um, so that's just kind of the
[30:10] standard sign plan application. There's
[30:13] also wall signs, which I didn't include
[30:15] in this. If you go to the next one,
[30:17] Josh.
[30:18] So, this is the um newly approved uh
[30:22] project signage plan code. So, the idea
[30:25] with the project signage plan is it's an
[30:27] application um that a property owner can
[30:30] apply for. Um, they have to meet this
[30:33] criteria though that you see here. uh
[30:35] they have to be at least four acres in
[30:38] size um or have 50,000 uh square feet of
[30:42] building space. So, it can be multiple
[30:44] buildings. Doesn't have to be just one,
[30:45] but if they're within 400 feet of uh the
[30:49] interstate of the of an I-15 interstate
[30:53] uh interchange and the rightway right
[30:55] ofway of that interchange, which was
[30:58] fleshed out by Councilman Marshall last
[31:00] night, um then that building space
[31:03] requirement is waved. Um, but the whole
[31:06] point here being someone could apply to
[31:09] have signage that doesn't conform to the
[31:11] what we would normally just approve
[31:13] administratively or review
[31:14] administratively, I should say. Um, so
[31:17] this could be extra height, more signs,
[31:20] it could be um extra copy area,
[31:23] something like that. Uh, Canyon Creek,
[31:25] it's a popular one, lots of signage on
[31:27] Canyon Creek. They have a project
[31:29] signage plan. Um, and the idea is it
[31:31] comes to the planning commission and
[31:32] then it come goes to the the council for
[31:34] approval. If you go to the next slide.
[31:37] So, the first one we're talking about
[31:39] today is um what we're going to call the
[31:42] Maverick. It's the Maverick site here.
[31:45] Um,
[31:46] it's um in total somewhere in the
[31:50] ballpark of sevenish acres, I believe.
[31:53] Um, I might be off on that by a by a
[31:56] smidge. Um, and if you go to the next
[31:58] slide, this is what's existing on the
[32:01] site today. It's currently the car
[32:03] dealership. They have um a couple of
[32:05] freestanding signs already out there on
[32:08] the frontage that are going to be
[32:10] removed. If you go to the next slide, so
[32:14] this is their overall signage plan. So
[32:16] there's kind of chaotic. There's a lot
[32:18] of signs here. Most of these totally
[32:20] fine, conform just like normal. Um,
[32:22] wouldn't necessarily need any kind of
[32:24] project signage plan. There are just a
[32:26] couple of them that um that don't
[32:30] necessarily conform um to our our normal
[32:34] standards. Um
[32:36] it's going to be signs
[32:40] one here which if you go to the next
[32:42] slide,
[32:44] this is sign one. Um they are requesting
[32:47] 80 feet in height. The limit or the uh
[32:50] um our normal requirement is 35 feet in
[32:53] height. Um, and it has with when you
[32:56] combine all three of those signs
[32:58] together, it has about 1,200 square feet
[33:02] of copy area. Um, so that's combination
[33:05] of all of those. Um, if you go to the
[33:08] next slide, it'll look very similar, but
[33:10] this is the other sign that doesn't
[33:11] necessarily conform just from a copy
[33:13] area standpoint. It's actually only 30
[33:15] feet tall, so it is within the height
[33:17] requirement. Um, but it has
[33:21] I have the number here.
[33:24] 211 square feet of copy area. I think on
[33:27] the sheet it says 194. I did the math
[33:30] again today. It came to 211. Um so at
[33:33] least from my calculations and I'm no
[33:35] mathematician but I think it's a little
[33:36] bit over. Um but regardless that would
[33:38] be our second um freestanding sign on
[33:41] the same frontage. So that's over the
[33:43] requirement in terms of freestanding
[33:45] signs. Um and then if you go to the next
[33:48] slide, the only other one is um this
[33:51] scales sign. This is actually not on the
[33:52] frontage. It's uh kind of set back, but
[33:55] it still is another freestanding sign.
[33:57] Um it's about 21 and a half ft tall. Um
[34:01] with 108 square ft of copy area. Um so
[34:07] all in all, that's the signage that
[34:09] Maverick is proposing. That's why they
[34:11] need the project signage plan.
[34:14] >> And the overall height of that one is
[34:15] what?
[34:16] >> 21 ft. some roughly 21 feet and four and
[34:21] a half inches or something like that.
[34:23] >> But that one's not on the frontage.
[34:25] That's back within the property.
[34:26] >> Yeah, it still is um another
[34:29] freestanding sign though. So it means
[34:31] they are asking for three instead of the
[34:33] what we would allow for is one on the
[34:35] property. Um
[34:36] >> two
[34:37] >> or two because you're right, it's a
[34:39] corner. Um so this would be the the
[34:41] third one even though it's not on the
[34:43] front edge, it's set back. Um, but those
[34:47] are those are kind of the three signs.
[34:48] If you go to the next slide, I think I
[34:50] have something else. Oh, here's like a
[34:52] visual rendering. It's really hard to
[34:53] see um of what the sign would look like.
[34:56] Uh if so, if you're heading northbound,
[34:59] that's the sign there. If you're heading
[35:01] southbound, I think that's the sign
[35:03] there. Um
[35:05] so that's that's a rendering of what
[35:07] that 80 foot tall sign would look like.
[35:09] Um if you go to the next slide,
[35:11] >> a question about that. the the cat scale
[35:14] sign. I assume I mean I don't know that
[35:16] you're including this, but I I would
[35:17] assume we can't see that from
[35:19] >> Yeah, that one's only that's only 21 and
[35:21] a half ft tallish. That one is
[35:23] >> would be obscured by the height of
[35:25] >> Yeah. And even you can't see the other
[35:26] one either, I don't think, in this the
[35:28] 30 foot tall other Maverick pole sign.
[35:31] >> That's also just too short to see.
[35:33] >> So that's the only one you can see is
[35:35] that that 80 foot tall and I believe
[35:36] that's why they're requesting it. Um the
[35:38] applicants here though and they'd be
[35:39] happy to talk about kind of the the
[35:40] signage on the property. Um, if you go
[35:42] to the next slide, I don't remember if I
[35:44] have anything else. Oh. Um, so that's
[35:46] the motion. Just a simple motion, but
[35:48] um, yeah, that's what they're proposing.
[35:50] Sorry, there's a lot of numbers and
[35:51] signs there. If you go all the way back
[35:52] to the the kind of overall Yeah, that
[35:55] thing. So sign one, this is Main Street.
[35:57] Sign one, which is the 80 foot one. Sign
[36:00] two, this one is 30 feet. And then sign
[36:03] 12 is the scales one set back a little
[36:05] bit further.
[36:08] And then these are all
[36:09] >> So sign one is two signs facing
[36:13] >> northbound and southbound.
[36:14] >> It's the same sign. Yeah. Yeah. Same
[36:16] sign facing the two directions. Yeah.
[36:19] >> And then Yeah. Don't There's a lot of
[36:20] other signs here. They all meet the
[36:22] code. They all They're all totally fine.
[36:23] Just directional signs.
[36:27] >> The site map to show us where because
[36:28] didn't the first show where maybe it's
[36:32] the next one. There's existing signs on
[36:34] this property, right?
[36:35] >> Yes. Correct.
[36:36] >> Um
[36:37] >> the dealership signs. Yeah, the
[36:38] dealership signs didn't show it what
[36:40] they were in one of the that one
[36:43] existing card.
[36:44] >> How how tall are those existing signs
[36:46] that
[36:47] >> you know I actually don't have a
[36:49] measurement for those.
[36:51] >> 47 ft.
[36:56] Okay.
[37:00] So, we have two signs there that are 47
[37:02] feet existing.
[37:05] >> Are they both 47 ft? The ship sign's 47
[37:09] sign's a little bit shorter.
[37:10] >> Gotcha. Yeah, that's what I figured.
[37:12] >> And our existing sign code is the height
[37:16] is 35 ft.
[37:17] >> 35 ft for a freestanding sign. Yeah.
[37:20] And then we'll get into monument signs
[37:22] at the next one. There's not really any
[37:23] monument signs here,
[37:24] >> but this this
[37:27] gas station, Maverick, is going to be
[37:29] trying to draw people off the freeway.
[37:31] And we have an overpass right there.
[37:33] >> Yep.
[37:34] And they're taking over the whole like
[37:37] Doug Smith is going away and Naverick's
[37:39] taking over the whole
[37:42] parcel.
[37:42] >> I could have the the applicants maybe
[37:44] speak to some of those.
[37:46] >> No,
[37:47] >> not all of it.
[37:48] >> Dealings a little bit more in detail
[37:50] potentially.
[37:50] >> Thought it was part of it.
[37:53] >> Okay.
[37:53] >> One day, right?
[37:54] >> We'll ask that later.
[37:57] >> Other questions for staff? So, you're
[38:00] going to have one one sign, the big one,
[38:05] that they're going to face towards the
[38:09] freeway.
[38:11] >> Yeah. So, to draw from the freeway,
[38:13] >> my understanding is this one is going to
[38:14] be the one that's most visible from the
[38:15] freeway. This one, I don't know exactly
[38:18] what the visibility is going to look
[38:19] like. There's there's not a rendering of
[38:20] this one, I don't believe. This one will
[38:22] I think the idea is for it to be more
[38:23] local road kind of visibility on Main
[38:26] Street there. And this one, this one's
[38:28] going to be
[38:30] >> 80 feet tall.
[38:31] >> 80 feet.
[38:32] >> And then what about the other one was
[38:34] 30?
[38:34] >> Yeah. 30t tall.
[38:36] >> And that's within the codes.
[38:39] >> Yeah. So that one would wise it did, but
[38:42] not not
[38:42] >> copy size. Y had bigger. based off my
[38:46] math um which
[38:49] feel free to um correct me but I came to
[38:52] 211
[38:53] um square feet and I believe the maximum
[38:55] is 200 square feet of copy area
[38:58] >> that's what's allowed
[38:59] >> yeah so that would be that allowed
[39:01] normally to 35 height of 35 ft 200
[39:04] square feet of copy area
[39:05] >> so for comparison Canyon Creek we have
[39:08] some with very large sign what's the
[39:10] size of that just so I can
[39:13] >> so you've got a 100 foot sign a 65 foot
[39:17] sign, a 51 foot sign, and a 45 foot
[39:20] sign.
[39:20] >> Okay.
[39:21] >> Um and then they have a number of
[39:23] monument signs and other signage as well
[39:25] on site, but those are kind of the big
[39:27] >> But the main thing we want to know is
[39:28] Canyon Creek has one that's that's
[39:30] higher than the eight what's they're
[39:32] asking at the 80.
[39:33] >> Yeah. And those are very substantially I
[39:35] guess similarly adjacent to 15.
[39:37] Actually, maybe a little further off of
[39:39] 15, right?
[39:40] >> Yeah. Yeah. I think
[39:41] >> I think the tallest one is over by
[39:42] Hedro, which is kind of right by I-15
[39:45] and Highway 6,
[39:47] >> right?
[39:47] >> And then just a an additional plug, I
[39:50] don't recall who was on the planning
[39:52] commission the last time we looked at
[39:53] the project signage plan. I believe it
[39:55] was the hospital that we looked at.
[39:57] >> Yeah,
[39:58] >> I'm seeing a few heads.
[39:59] >> We looked at that Cane Creek sign also.
[40:02] >> Yeah, correct.
[40:03] >> And then Ian, before you step away,
[40:05] maybe if you don't mind, just go over
[40:07] the criteria that we're generally
[40:09] looking at. It's on the slide with the
[40:11] >> Yeah.
[40:12] >> text amendment.
[40:14] >> Go back a couple.
[40:18] » Yes. So, um, this, like I said, is a
[40:23] recommendation to the council. Um, and
[40:25] it's your job and the council's job to
[40:28] just consider the impacts uh of these
[40:30] proposed signs on surrounding property
[40:33] owners, which the Maverick site has uh a
[40:37] PDM steel to the northwest. Is it?
[40:41] >> Yeah.
[40:41] >> West. Um, it's got Main Street there
[40:44] along the east. It's got the highway
[40:47] there to the south and then it's got a
[40:49] public street to the north. Um
[40:53] uh and then just considering the the
[40:55] potential uh commerce that the proposed
[40:58] signage could create and the visibility
[41:01] from from highways. So like I said, this
[41:03] is recommendation to the council. Um
[41:06] just like all project signage plans.
[41:08] >> Uh did you say it would block some
[41:11] visibility to these signs would block
[41:14] some visibility? I don't know if they
[41:16] >> surrounding
[41:18] >> I don't think they're going to block any
[41:19] visibility from anything. Um, if you go
[41:22] to the rendering, maybe
[41:25] you can see.
[41:29] Yeah. So, that's it's really it's it's
[41:31] quite small, but this is this is the
[41:34] signage here. So, I don't I don't
[41:36] believe it's impeding anything any other
[41:37] signage or or or businesses. And then I
[41:41] think it's this one
[41:44] looking southbound.
[41:46] >> I assume there's no consideration
[41:48] airport. Obviously, if we're talking
[41:49] about the signs at Canyon Creek being
[41:51] larger here, there's no concerns from
[41:53] the airport or anything like that.
[41:54] >> Um, no, I don't I don't believe so. I do
[41:56] need to check with Christian on that.
[41:59] Um, but my understanding is is no.
[42:02] Christian's the airport manager.
[42:05] >> I'm a pilot.
[42:07] >> Oh, there you go. Perfect.
[42:08] >> That's not These aren't even close.
[42:10] Not even close on the the descent path
[42:12] on the other side is a lot higher
[42:14] anyway. You wouldn't have any FAA issues
[42:15] on this side.
[42:16] >> Just a reminder all comments if we can
[42:18] do them at the microphone so our many
[42:21] viewers at home can catch it.
[42:24] >> So
[42:26] my question would be if this is approved
[42:30] 80 foot sign there you've already
[42:31] approved 100 foot or whatever up to
[42:34] Canyan Creek. So the kind of already
[42:36] opened the floodgates here, but what if
[42:41] I don't know Humphrey Welding's across
[42:44] the street besides they want an 80 foot
[42:47] sign somebody else? Are we opening up?
[42:52] >> Totally up to your discretion.
[42:54] >> I mean because if we we allow one, we've
[42:58] already allowed some. failed another one
[43:00] and then you deny some is the city going
[43:02] to become liable.
[43:05] >> I don't believe Humphrey Welding is 4
[43:07] acres in size.
[43:10] >> No, there's there's a
[43:11] >> you're looking at 4 acre sites or
[43:12] larger.
[43:13] >> Yeah, but there there could be you're establishing a precedent,
[43:17] >> but you got PDM behind them
[43:19] >> and the way the code is written is it's
[43:21] not a it's not a a standard that is
[43:25] given. It's still at the discretion of
[43:27] the council.
[43:29] But does that open
[43:30] >> It's not given by right. It's it's it's
[43:32] okay.
[43:33] >> It's discretionary. But does that become
[43:36] a possible lawsuit to the city because
[43:40] they're allowing one
[43:42] property and not another property?
[43:46] >> I don't believe it would in the sense
[43:50] that this was discussed last night. Um,
[43:54] as far as amendments to the code, um,
[43:57] our legal team was involved in the
[43:59] review of of the code and we have not
[44:02] heard any concerns, uh, from them as far
[44:05] as having this as an option for
[44:07] qualifying sites.
[44:19] » Okay.
[44:21] >> Thank you, Ian. Of course,
[44:23] >> as always, it was very well done. You
[44:25] pulled the information out that Paul is
[44:27] trying to stump you on. You had it right
[44:28] there for you. Good job.
[44:29] >> Thank you. Thank you again.
[44:31] >> Um, did the applicant want to come up
[44:32] and address anything on this topic?
[44:37] » Good evening. My name is Rick Magnus and
[44:39] I am the consulting engineer for this
[44:42] project, this Maverick project. And a
[44:45] couple things first in the audience, I
[44:47] have uh Mr. Rich Pigot who represents
[44:50] Maverick on this on this project. I
[44:53] think you can hear some Dave Smith
[44:55] people here too which I haven't really
[44:58] met or discuss or talked to before. But
[45:00] then I also have my colleague uh Sheamus
[45:03] and once again my name is Rick Magnus
[45:05] with AWA Engineering
[45:08] 2010
[45:10] uh North Redwood Road Salt Lake City
[45:13] Utah. And if you want to know anything
[45:15] more about me you can ask. Um, so a
[45:18] couple of things. This the parcel that
[45:20] will be uh purchased by Maverick is just
[45:25] over 7 acres, 7 and a half. And then we
[45:27] are going to be um subdividing that
[45:31] property. And the property that Maverick
[45:33] sits on is just over four acres and then
[45:37] the remainder parcel be give or take
[45:39] three acres. So just to kind of give to
[45:40] you an idea of how that's going to work
[45:44] out. If am I able to move the slides or
[45:47] do you guys move the slides?
[45:50] >> Oh my don't get me near that thing.
[45:54] >> Um
[45:59] » you're still recording. So yeah, if we
[46:01] could just go back to the the front of
[46:03] this. So this is this is the this
[46:06] reflects the just over 4 acre parcel
[46:10] that will be occupied by Maverick. I
[46:13] know it's kind of faint, but here you
[46:16] have the store location. Here you have
[46:19] what's called the fourcourt. That's
[46:21] where regular passengers, pickup trucks
[46:24] kind of go. And then back here will be
[46:27] where the larger um trucks will go. And
[46:31] so you have kind of a good circulation
[46:34] pattern just off of the roadway. The
[46:37] reason why I'm showing you the site plan
[46:38] is, as Ian pointed out, there's three
[46:42] sign locations. Even though this looks
[46:44] like the little guy, he's actually the
[46:46] big guy. We just couldn't fit him there.
[46:49] And then this is the one up on the
[46:51] corner. And if we would just love to we
[46:55] we'll just have the square footage of
[46:59] the sign meet your code at 200 square
[47:02] feet. we're a little bit over like a
[47:04] 211. So, we'll just make it comply with
[47:07] codes so that we don't really have to,
[47:10] you know, you can just consider that.
[47:12] The reason why this sign is located
[47:14] here, and I know it appears it's two
[47:17] signs on one frontage, but we considered
[47:20] and what we talked about with staff is
[47:24] having the frontage actually be the I-15
[47:27] rightway that runs along there and use
[47:32] that as one of the frontages. So, right
[47:34] along here is I15 right away. So, the
[47:39] way that the
[47:41] um the text amendment was written and
[47:44] approved by your uh city council last
[47:46] night, it talks about a 400 ft distance
[47:50] from an interchange
[47:53] to I-15. So, it's right within the realm
[47:57] of the interchange where that 400 foot
[48:00] would would apply, not up and down I-15.
[48:04] If that kind of lends any um discussion
[48:08] or comfort to you, could we go to the
[48:10] next slide, please?
[48:13] Also, while we're doing that, I want to
[48:16] just I got to thank your staff. Your
[48:18] staff, you have a wonderful staff here
[48:20] at the city. I'm sorry to hear that Ian
[48:23] wants to go to Colorado, man. Maybe we
[48:25] can throw in a last minute um will I get
[48:29] deliver donuts to you every week or
[48:31] something. Maybe that'll keep you here.
[48:33] I don't know. So, this is the this is
[48:35] the signage that we're looking for the
[48:38] height increase as well as the square
[48:41] footage increase. Once again, this is up
[48:44] against I15
[48:47] and the way and the configuration of the
[48:50] interchange makes it so that the height
[48:53] is kind of a necessary thing. And I'll show you in the next slide, if you
[48:58] will.
[49:01] I'm afraid this that that shows the sign
[49:04] that we're going to put on the very
[49:05] north um the north corner so that it
[49:09] will comply with your code. So, we'll
[49:11] shave off the uh the 11 square ft uh
[49:14] calculations so that it meets your code.
[49:17] Next slide, please. This slide is
[49:20] actually located once again on the south
[49:23] basically the southwest
[49:27] corner interior well interior to the
[49:31] site. um it pro it's it's just as high
[49:36] as it's not even as high as our fuel
[49:39] canopy for the larger trucks. And all it
[49:43] does is it indicates I don't know if
[49:44] you're familiar with interstate rules
[49:47] that trucks need to that travel on the
[49:49] interstate they need to weigh themselves
[49:51] every once in a while. CAT scale is the
[49:54] largest
[49:56] worldwide as far as scale programs that
[49:59] weigh and um so that's just identifying
[50:04] the entrance to that scale that they're
[50:06] going to use. So that's something that
[50:09] um the orientation of it should not even
[50:11] affect
[50:12] uh you know I-15 travelers and it's well
[50:16] interior of the other perimeter streets.
[50:19] So I wanted to just cover that. If you
[50:21] go to the next slide. So, here's
[50:23] something I wanted to just discuss just
[50:25] a little bit. It's I I I want you to
[50:28] know that usually companies just don't
[50:30] go throw a big old sign up because they
[50:33] want to because costs per square feet as
[50:35] you increase the height become very
[50:39] expensive as you go higher and higher.
[50:42] The reason for the 80 um the 80 foot
[50:47] high sign and Ian described it very
[50:50] well. this little guy here, which you
[50:52] know, you're trying to see this as you
[50:55] are driving southbound.
[50:58] The the importance of a sign when it's
[51:01] adjacent to a rideway or a street is you
[51:05] consider the speed of the vehicles that
[51:07] are on the road, where the accesses are
[51:11] to then exit, and then are you giving
[51:14] enough distance time for a safe approach
[51:19] to exit or um to exit either side. So
[51:24] the northbound, what's interesting is
[51:26] here on the southbound, this picture is taken
[51:32] just a little bit before the the exit,
[51:35] but it's to show you that about this
[51:37] point is where a driver needs to decide,
[51:40] oh, I see the fuel changers and now I
[51:44] can make start to make my approach to be
[51:48] in the right hand lane and make that
[51:50] exit, which um
[51:53] which we also show in the plan view up
[51:56] here. Up here is where these exits are.
[52:00] I just show you the exits. I don't show
[52:01] you the distances needed to make that
[52:03] decision. Here, once again, on the
[52:06] northbound, we're showing you where the
[52:08] exit is. Much further back, almost down
[52:12] here, is where you're going to need to
[52:14] start making a decision to get on there.
[52:17] And once again, the 80 foot doesn't
[52:20] really is just giving notice that, hey,
[52:22] here's where you're going to need to
[52:23] make a decision and get and get and make
[52:26] it so you don't pass that exit. Um,
[52:31] of course, these the fuel price
[52:33] changers, they're not they don't they're
[52:35] not continuous. They just are price
[52:38] changers. They will change when fuel
[52:41] price changes. So, you may see that once
[52:44] a day, but will you notice it? Not
[52:46] really. Um, that will just be an
[52:49] identifier that there is something there
[52:52] for for them to exit off of. So, I
[52:56] wanted to explain that a little bit, why
[52:57] those photos were taken at the position
[53:00] that they were when you're looking at
[53:02] that. And of course with this concave
[53:05] inter uh interchange that you've got,
[53:08] that's why the orientation of the sign
[53:10] is kind of at a 45 degree uh so they can
[53:14] orient and reach the visibility of those
[53:18] um those vehicles that are traveling
[53:20] northbound and southbound.
[53:23] >> Great.
[53:23] >> Um and then if we go to what is the last slide. Yeah, I like I like
[53:30] this slide a lot. if you'll show that
[53:32] slide again. Yeah, I like that slide.
[53:34] So, anyway, I'm just we concur with
[53:37] staff recommendations and I'm here just
[53:41] to answer any questions that you may
[53:42] have.
[53:44] >> Does any have any questions?
[53:48] >> Thank you.
[53:54] » Now, we've heard from staff and then had
[53:56] it repeated with the applicant. Do you
[53:58] have any comments from the
[54:01] commissioners?
[54:03] >> Uh, I can see
[54:06] how you guys were talking about like
[54:08] yes, this kind of sets a precedent. So
[54:10] like we asked how tall Canyon Creek was.
[54:12] That one kind of set it. But then if
[54:14] we're like, okay,
[54:16] how tall is Canyon Creek and
[54:19] Maverick? Okay, then we can give then we
[54:24] can approve some other taller signs in
[54:26] the same kind of configuration.
[54:28] It does open the door wider. Uh I really
[54:33] I take a lot of road trips and I look
[54:35] for maverick signs
[54:38] and I like to have them tall so that I
[54:40] can see them with enough time to get
[54:41] over to move over. So I think it I I
[54:46] think it makes sense and I would
[54:47] recommend it.
[54:49] And this one, as this one does have,
[54:51] like Brandon was stating, it does have
[54:52] some criteria built into it.
[54:54] >> Yeah, I like that.
[54:55] >> And it still leaves the decision making
[54:57] in the council's hands.
[54:59] >> So, it's it's not a by right thing,
[55:01] which
[55:02] >> I like. And I and I I don't I also do
[55:06] not like broad changes um for sight
[55:08] specific problems, but this one with the
[55:11] configuration of I-15 along that area,
[55:16] the height is kind of needed for that
[55:18] area. Not kind of, it's very much needed
[55:20] for that area.
[55:22] And if the applicant changing one to
[55:24] comply, then that's a that's a good step
[55:27] forward, too.
[55:30] Um,
[55:32] I don't like the height of it. I'm fine
[55:34] with the the scale sign. It's in within
[55:36] the property and that that's like, yeah,
[55:39] necessary needed, but um
[55:43] I don't like the precedence of the
[55:45] height of the sign.
[55:48] Not that I'm against it because
[55:52] I can see the necessity for it. And
[55:55] we've got other signs throughout the
[55:57] city. I've been at other communities and
[55:59] drive through and and they don't allow
[56:03] those things. It's very nice because you
[56:05] lose that sight pollution,
[56:09] but
[56:12] we've we're way behind that here in this
[56:14] area in our county and this city. So, um
[56:21] yeah, that's all I got to say.
[56:23] >> I think I'm I'm with Sean. I like I mean
[56:26] no none of us want to go outside but I
[56:28] think it makes sense where they put it
[56:29] on the property and with I-15 it makes
[56:32] sense to me.
[56:34] >> Okay.
[56:35] >> Uh thanks everybody. Enjoy the comments.
[56:37] >> I have one other thing to say. I I mean
[56:40] going along with opens the door. Our
[56:43] very next one is
[56:45] another really tall sign proposal
[56:48] right right by it. Mhm.
[56:50] >> So, is that what we're Is that are we
[56:53] wanting to open this door? Is this
[56:55] something that we feel good with?
[57:00] » Dave, you seem like you're uncomfortable
[57:02] with
[57:03] >> I'm uncomfortable with it because but I
[57:04] think the doors
[57:06] already been pressed wide open because
[57:10] they've allowed other properties to do
[57:12] it. So, I
[57:15] you know, if it was the first one, I'd
[57:17] say no.
[57:19] um where it's already been allowed and
[57:21] we're behind the gun on this. I
[57:25] Yeah.
[57:27] Um, I do
[57:32] in my core I believe the property owner
[57:34] should be able to do what they want to
[57:35] do with their properties and stuff
[57:38] >> and
[57:42] um,
[57:43] >> as long as it doesn't impact others
[57:45] negatively, which your comment about
[57:47] sight pollution does impact.
[57:49] >> I mean, that's that's my main thing. I
[57:50] mean, because you cannot drive down I-15
[57:52] without seeing signs and
[57:55] >> billboards and whatnot and then you go
[57:58] to certain other communities and they
[58:00] don't have billboards and and it's it's nice. It's not as
[58:07] convenient because you don't know what's
[58:09] coming up all the time,
[58:12] but um we are where we're at right now.
[58:15] So,
[58:16] >> yeah,
[58:16] >> good comments.
[58:19] Um,
[58:20] so these these
[58:23] this applies probably to both the the
[58:26] topics we're going to hear about.
[58:28] Um, they both comply with the same the wordage that was put in the verbiage
[58:33] that was put into the amendment.
[58:36] Um,
[58:38] both these fall underneath those same
[58:40] criterias.
[58:40] >> The the next one you're going to see
[58:42] actually would have complied without any
[58:45] kind of amendment required. Um just the
[58:48] Maverick site was a
[58:49] >> okay
[58:51] little off.
[58:51] >> No, thank you for that clarification.
[58:54] Any other comments?
[58:57] >> I'll entertain a motion.
[59:00] I think would be
[59:06] recommending the text change for
[59:09] approval.
[59:10] >> Correct.
[59:10] >> Sorry, not the text change. Um it'd be
[59:13] the project signage plan.
[59:15] >> Oh, okay. I move to recommend approval
[59:17] of the proposed Maverick project signage
[59:20] plan. Thanks for typing that out for us.
[59:23] >> I love it when they do that. I have a
[59:24] motion. Do I have a second?
[59:26] >> Second.
[59:26] >> I have a motion to second. All in favor?
[59:28] >> I.
[59:29] >> Any oppose?
[59:31] >> Okay. Thank you.
[59:32] >> Thank you very much. Thank you.
[59:37] » Okay. Okay, sticking with the theme,
[59:40] we're up now roughly 2940 north, 200
[59:44] east. Um, this is the
[59:48] soon to be 2700 North, 2700 North
[59:51] interchange. Um, if you go to the next
[59:55] slide. So, this is the um this is the
[59:59] new proposed Doug Smith site. So you can
[1:00:02] see a theme cross over maybe from the
[1:00:05] last Maverick site to this one. Um so
[1:00:09] here they are proposing a few signs. Um
[1:00:14] same kind of criteria as before. Um so
[1:00:18] first I'll go over the the pole signs
[1:00:19] that they are proposing and then I'll
[1:00:22] touch on the monument signs because we
[1:00:24] didn't have to touch on that before.
[1:00:27] So they are Doug Smith is proposing um
[1:00:31] four freestanding pole signs um but they
[1:00:34] are a little bit shorter than um at
[1:00:36] least the tallest one we saw with
[1:00:37] Maverick. Um there are two freestanding
[1:00:40] pole signs that are proposed to be 50
[1:00:42] feet. Those are the two that are going
[1:00:46] to be along I15 there. So those are
[1:00:49] going to be 50 feet. Um one and then the
[1:00:52] other two are going to be roughly 20
[1:00:54] feet. Um I think one's 21 feet and the
[1:00:57] other's 20 feet. Um they and all of
[1:01:01] these combined and those two, sorry, are
[1:01:03] on the uh those two are on the south
[1:01:05] side here. Um which will be like a
[1:01:07] there's going to be like a axis into the
[1:01:11] property from the south there. Um
[1:01:14] respectively, these signs have copy
[1:01:17] areas of 158 square feet and 225 square
[1:01:21] ft for the bigger ones. Those are their copy areas, the ones that are on
[1:01:25] the I-15.
[1:01:27] Um, and then 42 feet and 53.5 square
[1:01:30] feet for the other ones. Um, so that's
[1:01:34] those are their um poll signs um that
[1:01:37] they're proposing. So the tallest going
[1:01:39] to be 50 and the largest copy area one
[1:01:42] is going to be have 225 square feet of
[1:01:45] copy area. Um,
[1:01:48] now let's touch on maybe the monument
[1:01:51] signs. Um so monument sign criteria um
[1:01:57] is that if we were looking at just
[1:01:58] standard code what we require is one
[1:02:01] foot high pedestal um not exceed 5t in
[1:02:05] height above the pedestal and have a
[1:02:06] copy area of 48 square feet or less. So
[1:02:10] that's the just the standard um monument
[1:02:13] sign kind of requirement that we would
[1:02:15] go off of if they someone was not
[1:02:17] proposing a project signage plan. Um,
[1:02:21] this site is proposing to have a few
[1:02:27] monument signs as well. Um, they're 11
[1:02:30] feet with a copy area of 66 ft, 10 feet
[1:02:35] with a copy area of 53 and a half square
[1:02:37] feet. Another one at 10 feet with a copy
[1:02:40] area of 32.3 ft. Um, and then 20 feet
[1:02:44] with a copy area of 48.9 square ft. Um,
[1:02:48] and those are going to be mostly up
[1:02:50] here. And then there will be one down
[1:02:53] here with the other signs. Um,
[1:02:58] so those ones are they're a little bit
[1:03:00] taller than what we would normally,
[1:03:03] you know, what we would normally say a
[1:03:04] site could have for a monument sign.
[1:03:06] Have a little bit more copy area than
[1:03:08] what we would also normally say. Um, but
[1:03:12] in general, that's what they're
[1:03:13] proposing. If you go to the next slide,
[1:03:16] um, here we have all those signs. So,
[1:03:20] the tall ones are going to be sign one
[1:03:24] and sign two. Those are the 50 foot tall
[1:03:27] signs. So, a Chevy one and a Chrysler
[1:03:30] Jeep Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram sign. Um,
[1:03:34] and then this is one of the 20 foot tall
[1:03:36] pole signs. There will be two of these,
[1:03:38] I believe, is the idea. One will be 10
[1:03:40] feet and one will be 20 feet. And then
[1:03:42] this one will be 20 feet. And this will
[1:03:44] be 10 feet. And this will be
[1:03:50] which one is sign three? Sorry, there's
[1:03:53] so many. I've been looking at a lot of
[1:03:54] sign stuff recently. That one will be 11
[1:03:58] ft.
[1:04:00] So, lot of numbers there. I really do
[1:04:03] apologize. Um,
[1:04:06] this one, like I mentioned, would have
[1:04:08] met the code before the amendment also
[1:04:10] because we require um 50,000 square feet
[1:04:14] of building space. This one, this site
[1:04:17] in general will have a combined 57,000
[1:04:20] square feet of building space roughly.
[1:04:22] Um, and it's over 9 acres, so it meets
[1:04:25] the both acreage and building space
[1:04:27] requirement. So the 400 feet to an I-15
[1:04:32] interchange right ofway is not
[1:04:34] necessarily needed for this. It would
[1:04:36] have met the requirement regardless.
[1:04:38] >> Okay. So what is over
[1:04:41] uh the which of the you gave us a whole
[1:04:44] bunch of I know I'm sorry numbers. So
[1:04:46] what makes it so they can't do this by
[1:04:48] right besides the height the two tall
[1:04:50] ones.
[1:04:51] >> Yeah, great question. Um one of them is
[1:04:53] over in copy area. I think it's sign two
[1:04:56] is 225 square feet of copy area I
[1:04:58] believe and instead of 200 precisely.
[1:05:01] >> Um and then the monument signs are um
[1:05:06] almost all of them are taller than what
[1:05:08] we would require and some of them are
[1:05:10] over in copy area by 20 or 30 square
[1:05:14] feet roughly.
[1:05:16] >> How much how much taller are they than
[1:05:17] they should be?
[1:05:18] >> Let's see which one's the I think the
[1:05:20] tallest one is 20 feet. So that would be
[1:05:24] 14 feet higher than what we would
[1:05:26] normally require because it would
[1:05:27] normally
[1:05:28] >> Which one are you 20 foot? I'm wondering
[1:05:31] if that would be more of a freestanding
[1:05:32] sign.
[1:05:33] >> I think this one,
[1:05:33] >> not a monument sign.
[1:05:34] >> I I see it as a monument sign. I
[1:05:38] >> I guess it's up to inter interpretation
[1:05:40] to a degree.
[1:05:42] Is there a is there a reason why they're
[1:05:46] needing them taller above code above
[1:05:50] what's that is a great question I would
[1:05:53] ask the the applicant maybe um I don't
[1:05:56] know if I have a a great answer to that
[1:05:58] um
[1:06:00] but visibility I would assume um
[1:06:06] >> and all those are going along
[1:06:10] they're going along well I that road. I
[1:06:12] don't know what that road number is, but
[1:06:14] the
[1:06:14] >> which one?
[1:06:15] >> The east west road on the north side of
[1:06:17] the property, right?
[1:06:18] >> 2940.
[1:06:19] >> Yeah.
[1:06:19] So, that's 2940 north. So, three
[1:06:22] of them are up there. I think they're
[1:06:23] all 10 ft in height. Let me confirm
[1:06:25] that.
[1:06:26] >> That's Yep. Those are all
[1:06:28] >> That's right at the new interchange.
[1:06:30] >> All that. So, just to the new down.
[1:06:32] >> New interchange is at the south.
[1:06:33] >> Yeah. Sorry. New interchange is right
[1:06:34] there. 29 because that's 2700 north. Um
[1:06:37] yeah, these are all going to be 10 feet
[1:06:39] tall up here.
[1:06:43] And then you do have the elevation
[1:06:45] change with the new offramp that you can
[1:06:48] see the angle coming through.
[1:06:52] >> I apologize for all the the numbers and
[1:06:54] >> it's good.
[1:06:55] >> I didn't hear Brander's comment. What
[1:06:56] were you
[1:06:57] >> Sorry, I don't have a pointer so I'm
[1:06:59] just kind of randomly gesturing but um
[1:07:03] Ian a second ago was talking about the
[1:07:06] visibility. So this is the offramp right
[1:07:09] here. So as it approaches I think
[1:07:13] they're calling it dry creek parkway
[1:07:15] interchange. So that this is the
[1:07:18] elevated point here. So you have
[1:07:20] frontage down here, frontage up here,
[1:07:22] frontage here. Um and so that's probably
[1:07:27] that's my thought as far as the
[1:07:29] increased height for that sign is just
[1:07:31] the obstruction that you're going to get
[1:07:33] with the offramp and the interchange.
[1:07:35] What is this property? There's a wedge
[1:07:37] shape right here.
[1:07:39] >> Detention basin.
[1:07:40] >> It's a retention basin.
[1:07:42] >> Yeah, owns it.
[1:07:45] >> So, we want people to focus on the
[1:07:47] beautiful new car dealerships and not on
[1:07:50] the bas. So
[1:07:53] question I guess what's
[1:07:56] how standard are these heights
[1:08:01] and areas of the signs with other
[1:08:05] communities with the other cities along
[1:08:07] the front here? Are we pretty standard
[1:08:10] and so
[1:08:12] with what you know you see in
[1:08:15] Springville, Provo, Oram
[1:08:18] or do we know? Um, I don't
[1:08:22] want to go too off on a tangent. Um,
[1:08:26] historically
[1:08:28] that changes over time. And I think
[1:08:32] something you commented about with
[1:08:33] Maverick is certain cities have certain
[1:08:36] values or things that they prioritize.
[1:08:39] Um, obviously there's many communities,
[1:08:41] especially in the Midwest, where it's
[1:08:43] very appropriate to have high, tall,
[1:08:46] visible signage. Uh, other communities
[1:08:49] value the visibility for high-profile
[1:08:52] sites like this one along I-15. Um, but
[1:08:55] I think if you were to do a poll of
[1:08:57] cities along the Wasatch front, you'd
[1:08:59] probably get a wide variety. And I would
[1:09:02] guess that our 35 foot is probably on
[1:09:04] the shorter side
[1:09:06] for many communities, but some
[1:09:08] communities over time have grad
[1:09:10] gradually shifted away from taller signs
[1:09:13] except for in what they usually look as
[1:09:16] regional commercial uh locations that
[1:09:19] the commercial there is intended to draw
[1:09:21] in uh traffic versus like a neighborhood
[1:09:24] commercial store that might be like your
[1:09:26] neighborhood Walmart where it may not
[1:09:29] necessarily need as much signage or as
[1:09:31] visible signage um for their for their
[1:09:34] business.
[1:09:35] >> Yeah, I understand that.
[1:09:44] » Do we want to hear from the applicant?
[1:09:46] Ask some of the questions about the size
[1:09:47] of the signs.
[1:09:48] >> Thanks, guys.
[1:09:53] » How are you guys tonight?
[1:09:54] >> Good.
[1:09:55] >> I'm Brandon Lundine. with Diversified
[1:09:57] Design Services, out of Murray, um, home
[1:09:59] of a lot of car dealerships. And here
[1:10:02] here's the issue with this site. We have
[1:10:04] a new offramp that comes off. And
[1:10:07] essentially, when the offramp comes off,
[1:10:09] it raises 24 ft. Our new two buildings
[1:10:12] we're putting there are only about 25 ft
[1:10:15] tall.
[1:10:17] So, you'll never see the building
[1:10:18] signage. So, we've proposed and worked
[1:10:20] with the manufacturers to put their
[1:10:22] standard 50-ft sign. The Chevrolet sign
[1:10:25] will be the farthest north in the corner
[1:10:27] and it's essentially the sign that's
[1:10:29] over here at Doug Smith now. It's the
[1:10:30] same sign. It's 47 feet. We're just
[1:10:32] going to move it over to there. So, that
[1:10:34] one's already 47. That's at Doug Smith
[1:10:36] now. And then we have another sign that
[1:10:39] will be for Chrysler, Dodge, um, and
[1:10:42] Jeep. And, uh, that sign will be just
[1:10:46] further down I-15. But by going to 50
[1:10:48] ft, what that allows is when someone's
[1:10:50] coming north, because right now if
[1:10:51] you're coming if you're heading north on
[1:10:53] I-15, you can't even see the site and
[1:10:55] you won't even know the buildings are
[1:10:56] there. Because if you come south and
[1:10:57] look for where Dolly's is, you don't
[1:10:59] even know Dolly's is there until bam,
[1:11:00] you're right there at the Ford
[1:11:01] dealership. So what we want to do is do
[1:11:03] a 50-ft sign. So that will put our top
[1:11:05] of our sign is roughly 30 foot above the
[1:11:08] finished grade at the at the over at the
[1:11:11] interchange. I'm not sure if they're
[1:11:12] going to be doing walls or sound walls
[1:11:14] or whatnot, but we wanted to get above
[1:11:16] that. So either coming north or south,
[1:11:18] you can see where the Doug Smith
[1:11:19] dealerships are. And then there's
[1:11:21] another set of of signage that Ian was
[1:11:24] talking about. As you come off the
[1:11:26] freeway, we have three 20 foot signs
[1:11:29] that would be set back behind that pond
[1:11:32] that's there. We'll have three signs
[1:11:33] there. There's one for there's one for
[1:11:35] Chevrolet. Jeep has a freestanding and
[1:11:38] then Chrysler, Dodge, and Ram are the
[1:11:40] other sign. So there's three there. And
[1:11:42] then we just per the per the
[1:11:45] recommendations of the de of the
[1:11:46] manufacturer on the north side we have
[1:11:49] three monument signs along 2950 or 2970
[1:11:52] there just as the other entrance way
[1:11:55] comes into the property.
[1:11:57] >> We essentially have a road that comes in
[1:11:59] jogs to the right jogs left and heads
[1:12:01] north and goes clear across the property
[1:12:03] and both dealerships are located right
[1:12:04] there.
[1:12:05] >> Are the signs on your south end by just
[1:12:07] over the re retention pond are they the
[1:12:10] same that would be on the north end?
[1:12:11] They're they're about 100 ft behind the
[1:12:13] pond, but they're over here in this
[1:12:14] area.
[1:12:15] >> Yeah. But are they duplicated on the
[1:12:16] north side? Is that the same signs?
[1:12:18] >> No. No, those signs not duplicated. The
[1:12:19] 320 foot signs would be right here.
[1:12:21] >> Mhm.
[1:12:22] >> So when you came off the offramp, you'd
[1:12:23] be able to look over and say, "Oh, okay.
[1:12:25] There's where the dealers are." And then
[1:12:26] we have the smaller monument signs that
[1:12:28] are up on the north end. Okay.
[1:12:29] >> That are 10 ft.
[1:12:30] >> But you're the big tall attractive signs
[1:12:34] going to be
[1:12:35] >> Yep. There's two of them.
[1:12:36] >> Two of them.
[1:12:37] >> Yep. They're two 50-footers.
[1:12:38] >> So you can see them. And there's already
[1:12:41] a 50-footer at the Doug Smith that's on
[1:12:44] the north side right now.
[1:12:45] >> It'll be the same sign that's that's
[1:12:46] over.
[1:12:47] >> And is it
[1:12:50] >> you talk about the surface area of the
[1:12:51] signs? Is it the same size? We're not
[1:12:54] making it bigger.
[1:12:55] >> It's the same sign.
[1:12:56] >> It's the exact same.
[1:12:56] >> Yeah, it'll be the same sign. And then
[1:12:58] the the one for Chrysler, Dodge, Ram,
[1:13:01] and Jeep is slightly larger because it's
[1:13:02] got four different manufacturers on it.
[1:13:04] That's why it's a little bit larger.
[1:13:06] >> But it's only at 20 ft. No, that one's that one's the one that's in
[1:13:10] the middle about right here.
[1:13:12] >> It's the second 50.
[1:13:13] >> Oh, that's the So, we got Chevrolet up
[1:13:15] here. Then we got Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep,
[1:13:17] and Ram midway down before you get to
[1:13:19] the offram.
[1:13:20] >> It's the one that Ian said was 225
[1:13:22] square ft.
[1:13:23] >> Right. Yeah, it's a little larger.
[1:13:24] >> That's why I asked that question. Yeah,
[1:13:26] that makes sense. But it's got four,
[1:13:27] >> but it's because it's separated into
[1:13:29] it's it's in reality, it's multiple
[1:13:32] signs on one post. Correct.
[1:13:34] >> It's one sign with four dealers on it.
[1:13:36] Correct. That's that's what's depicted.
[1:13:38] >> Yeah.
[1:13:39] >> Okay.
[1:13:40] >> That both answers are right.
[1:13:42] >> Yes.
[1:13:44] >> Would it fit to if we said that's got to
[1:13:46] be at 200 square feet?
[1:13:48] >> Um those are those are just the
[1:13:51] manufacturers. That's their signage. I
[1:13:53] could see if they can change it, but
[1:13:54] that's their recommended size and they
[1:13:55] have already designed for their
[1:13:57] projects. Okay.
[1:13:58] >> And then you guys were talking about
[1:13:59] other cities and whatnot. So the
[1:14:02] monument signs that we're doing the up
[1:14:04] top here. If you go through Heber, which
[1:14:06] is pretty tight on their signage stuff,
[1:14:08] that's the same signs they have in front
[1:14:10] of the car that are there. The
[1:14:11] freestanding Jeep, the freestanding
[1:14:13] >> Uhhuh.
[1:14:14] >> uh Chrysler Dodge and Ram. So it's
[1:14:16] basically the same same design package
[1:14:18] they have right there along Highway 40
[1:14:20] >> going through there.
[1:14:23] >> All right. So I
[1:14:24] >> like I said, being from Murray, I've got
[1:14:26] dealership signs all over the place and
[1:14:28] they vary all over the place. We're not
[1:14:30] trying to duplicate.
[1:14:30] >> We aren't kind of in it.
[1:14:31] >> That's why I keep bringing it up, but
[1:14:33] it's the heights. I don't, you know, the
[1:14:35] other signs 20 ft, whatever.
[1:14:38] >> One other thing we've got to contend
[1:14:39] with, too, as far as visuals, we we have
[1:14:41] the Chevrolet sign here, and then about
[1:14:43] right here, we have a 48 foot billboard
[1:14:46] sign. It's the one that's existing.
[1:14:49] >> So, we're trying to be able to see the
[1:14:52] our sign. So, you're not that's on a
[1:14:54] visual impact on both of ours either
[1:14:55] direction, south or north.
[1:14:57] So we have pretty good visual coming
[1:15:00] from coming south and it's the project
[1:15:02] because it starts down here basically at
[1:15:04] the same level as our finished floor but
[1:15:06] then as it comes up 24 ft. If you're
[1:15:09] going north you can't even really see
[1:15:10] that piece of property that's there. So
[1:15:12] we're just trying to get a visual
[1:15:14] barrier above that so people can say hey
[1:15:15] this is where I got to get off to get to
[1:15:17] the dealerships.
[1:15:21] » So
[1:15:22] >> any other questions?
[1:15:25] >> Thank you.
[1:15:25] >> Okay. Not a problem. Thank you. Thanks.
[1:15:27] >> So, my comments just to start this off
[1:15:30] is I the the
[1:15:32] >> Oh, one more. Sorry, I didn't see I
[1:15:35] >> one one comment about the 225 ft on the
[1:15:37] copy on that big sign for the the
[1:15:39] Chrysler sign, it is dictated to a point
[1:15:42] by the manufacturers. And secondly,
[1:15:44] because it's four individual signs, if
[1:15:47] we reduce that copy by 25 ft, it might
[1:15:50] not seem very significant, but because
[1:15:52] we have to fit four brands on
[1:15:54] essentially the same copy that we have
[1:15:55] to put Chev, that makes it pretty
[1:15:57] difficult if we lose some of that extra
[1:15:59] square footage on the copy. So, I'd beg
[1:16:01] you to not reduce the copy on that so
[1:16:04] that we can make sure that those brands
[1:16:06] are as visible as the Chev brand.
[1:16:08] >> Thanks.
[1:16:11] So, with the the
[1:16:14] um tall signs, I those seem to be to me
[1:16:18] they're not as big of an issue as I just
[1:16:22] don't know how we call a 20ft sign a
[1:16:23] monument sign. That seems like it's a
[1:16:26] >> it's probably that might have been my
[1:16:29] poor interpretation of looking at it.
[1:16:31] When I think of a monument sign, I think
[1:16:33] of a rectangle like that. But I could
[1:16:35] see how that's a you could call that a
[1:16:38] freestanding sign also. But then aren't
[1:16:39] we getting over the number that we'd
[1:16:41] allow per site?
[1:16:43] >> Well,
[1:16:43] >> no, because that's the whole purpose of
[1:16:45] the project signage plan.
[1:16:47] >> And so if you look at this site, you
[1:16:49] could argue they've got three frontages.
[1:16:50] So in essence, they could have three
[1:16:52] pole signs. And so in this case, you've
[1:16:55] got two potentially on
[1:16:57] >> two on, one on the south.
[1:17:00] >> Uh I heard that there were
[1:17:02] >> excuse me, three on the south and then
[1:17:04] >> yeah,
[1:17:04] >> none on the north. So that corner one
[1:17:06] you could effectively
[1:17:07] >> the three on the north are how big?
[1:17:09] >> Those are the 10 monuments.
[1:17:10] >> Still 10 feet which is over our six
[1:17:12] feet.
[1:17:13] >> Six foot. Yeah.
[1:17:13] >> Yeah.
[1:17:15] >> So we have every one of the monument
[1:17:16] signs does not comply with our current
[1:17:18] standard.
[1:17:19] >> Correct.
[1:17:21] >> And so if they're monument signs now now
[1:17:23] if the 20 foot How many of the 20
[1:17:24] footers do we have? Just the one.
[1:17:27] >> Three. All along the south.
[1:17:30] >> Yes.
[1:17:30] >> Yeah. By the retention pond. So that's
[1:17:33] we'd allow one. to the south will be the
[1:17:36] Jeep. The smaller Chevrolet is shown up
[1:17:38] in the upper left right hand corner and
[1:17:40] then a shorter version of the one on the
[1:17:44] lower.
[1:17:45] >> The shorter version of this
[1:17:46] >> and that would be the pull sign. The one
[1:17:48] next would be pulling and the one up
[1:17:49] there.
[1:17:50] >> So Brandon, is my understanding you're
[1:17:52] saying there'd be one allowed. Are you
[1:17:53] saying there's three allowed on each
[1:17:55] property line?
[1:17:56] >> No. The way the code's currently written
[1:17:58] is you get one per frontage. And so on
[1:18:01] this site, you could argue that it get
[1:18:03] has three frontages. the 2700, the 2900,
[1:18:07] and I-15. And so then the request is
[1:18:10] exactly why the project signage plan
[1:18:12] language is is an option is when they
[1:18:14] want either additional signs,
[1:18:17] larger square foot copy area, or the
[1:18:20] height. But one of the things with with
[1:18:22] the code is it does allow additional
[1:18:24] signs.
[1:18:25] >> Sure. But what we're saying is, what I'm
[1:18:27] saying is
[1:18:29] we essentially have five that are
[1:18:33] uh
[1:18:34] >> they need
[1:18:35] >> three on the south end and the two on
[1:18:36] I-15 when by by their property use they
[1:18:40] have three by right for lack of a better
[1:18:42] word.
[1:18:43] >> Page real fast.
[1:18:45] I'm just wondering if we could shorten
[1:18:47] those other 20 the 20footers on the
[1:18:48] south end and still accomplish it since
[1:18:50] the only thing between them and the
[1:18:51] freeway or the off-ramp is a retention
[1:18:54] pond which has no height to it.
[1:18:58] >> Let's go to the next slide.
[1:19:02] » Sorry, I want to see the 20footers.
[1:19:05] Sorry, Josh. That is these ones here.
[1:19:09] So that's one. So that's my
[1:19:12] understanding is there is one 10 foot
[1:19:13] and one 20 foot version of that same
[1:19:15] sign that you just pointed at. And then
[1:19:18] >> Oh yeah. And then this is 20 feet. And
[1:19:20] then this is 20 feet.
[1:19:23] >> So 20.
[1:19:24] >> Go to the next one. Can I borrow that?
[1:19:25] >> You sure can.
[1:19:26] >> Thank you. Okay. So these guys are 10.
[1:19:30] So they are over
[1:19:32] >> by four feet.
[1:19:33] Yep.
[1:19:34] >> These guys are 20. They're over by
[1:19:38] >> 14.
[1:19:38] >> Oh. Well, if we're calling them
[1:19:40] freestanding signs,
[1:19:41] >> they're not over. Yeah,
[1:19:42] >> one of them would be allowed.
[1:19:43] >> Okay. But only one of them would be
[1:19:45] allowed. Correct.
[1:19:47] >> Because then we have two more up here.
[1:19:49] >> Yeah, that's that would be my
[1:19:51] understanding.
[1:19:52] >> We kind of have five where there's it's
[1:19:56] kind of two over. Correct. Because
[1:19:59] there's three fun frontages that can
[1:20:01] have tall signs.
[1:20:02] >> Yeah, that's that's a good way of
[1:20:04] looking at it, I think. Yeah.
[1:20:05] >> Okay. Uh,
[1:20:08] I'm wondering I I'm I'm just trying
[1:20:11] throwing out ideas, but I'm wondering if
[1:20:12] there's a way to make a 20 foot high
[1:20:16] sign that has all three of those those
[1:20:19] manufact uh brands on them or
[1:20:25] I'm also wondering like what's the big
[1:20:26] deal? What's the impact or I don't know.
[1:20:29] Yeah, just just one comment too that
[1:20:32] there are two different stores to get to
[1:20:35] rather than just one. It is one
[1:20:37] location, but two stores.
[1:20:39] >> Gotcha.
[1:20:40] >> Um and then as you come down that hill
[1:20:43] on the new off-ramp and entering onto
[1:20:46] that road,
[1:20:47] the height of those signs would be at
[1:20:51] eye level because of the downgrade
[1:20:54] coming at it. If that makes sense.
[1:20:55] >> Yeah.
[1:20:58] >> Thank you.
[1:21:05] One more time.
[1:21:07] >> Yeah. Amaz unlimited.
[1:21:09] >> Do these need to be 10 ft that you said
[1:21:12] that these are 10 ft because that's the
[1:21:14] manufacturer standard and
[1:21:16] >> recommendation. They do have the
[1:21:19] recommendation is
[1:21:20] >> right. So we could ask for those to be
[1:21:23] shorter if it's if we're trying to
[1:21:25] comply if there's a not a
[1:21:28] compelling reason to h I don't know.
[1:21:34] >> So, I'm just gonna think out loud here,
[1:21:37] but if you were to
[1:21:39] you got two buildings,
[1:21:44] two different entities here, if they
[1:21:46] were to split the properties up, they
[1:21:49] would have be able to put more signage
[1:21:52] in.
[1:21:54] That's
[1:21:56] >> the way it's the way it's written versus
[1:21:57] one property. So, I think that's
[1:22:00] something we need to address. I do like,
[1:22:03] you know, these signs along here,
[1:22:08] they're more for right in front of you,
[1:22:11] not drawing traffic from long distance
[1:22:14] where these ones are to be attractive to
[1:22:18] from the freeway.
[1:22:21] So,
[1:22:23] you know,
[1:22:25] um,
[1:22:27] same with these are just they're not
[1:22:29] going to be seen from the freeway, but
[1:22:31] they're going to alert people. This is
[1:22:32] where you need to come in if you're
[1:22:34] going to Jeep, Dodge, whatever. So,
[1:22:39] you know,
[1:22:52] If we could get a concession on to put
[1:22:54] those a little bit lower, would that be
[1:22:59] >> at least two of them? That's what I
[1:23:00] would think.
[1:23:01] >> Lower two of them.
[1:23:02] >> Mhm.
[1:23:05] » For for whatever it's worth. I do the
[1:23:08] real estate for the Smiths. We have
[1:23:10] tried to solve a location problem for
[1:23:12] seven years. We tried to expand. We
[1:23:15] tried to buy some PDM steel land that
[1:23:17] went nowhere. We tried to buy the
[1:23:19] junkyard behind the dealership.
[1:23:21] I mean, I knocked on the door of the old
[1:23:23] lady down there in Nephi. That didn't go
[1:23:25] anywhere. We tried to move across the
[1:23:26] street to the north. That wasn't going
[1:23:28] to work. We tried to go across the
[1:23:30] street to the east. That didn't work.
[1:23:32] We've really tried to solve this. From a
[1:23:35] real estate standpoint, this is not an
[1:23:37] ideal site because we have to go over a
[1:23:39] creek. We have a detention basin that
[1:23:42] cut out two acres. When we first started
[1:23:45] talking to Steven Wade's group, we
[1:23:46] thought we were going to get 12 and it
[1:23:47] was going to work really well. We could
[1:23:49] have done with probably four to six foot
[1:23:51] monument signs coming down the road.
[1:23:53] That would have worked, but we don't own
[1:23:54] the frontage UD do, which puts us at a
[1:23:57] disadvantage. So, we have when people
[1:23:59] come down off of that deceleration lane
[1:24:00] and come down and start heading west,
[1:24:02] they're looking north. I mean, Brandon,
[1:24:04] what is it like a couple hundred feet?
[1:24:07] >> They're looking a couple hundred feet to
[1:24:09] see in where those signs are. If we have
[1:24:11] those signs reduced from 20 feet, the
[1:24:13] visibility options for the population to
[1:24:15] come down that street, they're not going
[1:24:17] to see us very well. We wouldn't push
[1:24:19] for an exception to the ordinance if it
[1:24:21] wasn't pretty legitimate. And people
[1:24:24] need to see those signs because they're
[1:24:25] only going to see the sign of the
[1:24:26] Chrysler building. They're not going to
[1:24:28] see the Chev building. So, u and then
[1:24:31] the manufacturers have their specific
[1:24:33] requirements. That's why we're asking
[1:24:34] for a concession. I think if we can
[1:24:37] offer a concession that would be
[1:24:39] legitimate, would really work well, I
[1:24:40] think we could reduce the height of
[1:24:42] those signs on the north side, those
[1:24:43] monuments, I think we could take those
[1:24:45] probably to 6 ft and and that would be
[1:24:47] more than sufficient. But to reduce
[1:24:49] those signs coming down looking across
[1:24:52] the pond, across the creek, 20 feet is
[1:24:55] really important to us if if hopefully I
[1:24:59] made that point. Well,
[1:25:01] >> thanks.
[1:25:06] That makes me feel better if that one
[1:25:07] side was
[1:25:10] >> agreed.
[1:25:12] I I can see I can see the good reasoning
[1:25:15] for it. I could support that.
[1:25:23] » Any other comments?
[1:25:24] >> No more.
[1:25:26] >> Um, that's all our comments. I'll
[1:25:28] entertain a motion from staff, sorry,
[1:25:30] from the commission. I don't care what
[1:25:33] staff thinks.
[1:25:35] >> We don't want a motion from staff.
[1:25:39] >> I move we recommend for approval of the
[1:25:41] proposed signage for Doug Smith Autolex
[1:25:44] >> with the
[1:25:46] >> with condition
[1:25:48] >> the lower
[1:25:50] six foot on the north
[1:25:52] >> property line
[1:25:54] >> with the six foot on the north side.
[1:25:57] >> Second motion second. All in favor? I
[1:26:00] >> I any
[1:26:02] >> opposed? Okay. Thank you.
[1:26:05] >> Thanks for the conversation.
[1:26:08] >> Thanks.
[1:26:09] >> Um
[1:26:12] anything before I motion to adjourn the
[1:26:14] meeting?
[1:26:15] >> Uh just once again a plug for next
[1:26:17] Tuesday night. Um I don't have the time
[1:26:21] in front of me. Anybody know?
[1:26:23] >> I think it said 5:30 to 8:30. 30. Uh
[1:26:26] we'll have some training by our legal
[1:26:28] council and then there will be a
[1:26:29] discussion on a proposal in the river
[1:26:32] bottoms.
[1:26:33] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:26:34] >> Just here in this room or
[1:26:35] >> dinner will be provided. I believe we're
[1:26:37] going to meet in that room.
[1:26:39] >> Yeah.
[1:26:39] >> I just one other thing is Brandon you
[1:26:42] said thanks to Ian but we I think all of
[1:26:45] us commissioners
[1:26:46] >> 100%
[1:26:47] >> we're grateful for you too and we wish
[1:26:49] you we wish you well but darn it sad
[1:26:52] you're leaving us.
[1:26:53] >> Yep. I haven't gotten to know you very
[1:26:54] well, but wish you well.
[1:26:56] >> Thank you guys. It's been a pleasure to
[1:26:57] get to know all of you. Really liked it.
[1:27:00] I love Spanish Fork. This place will
[1:27:02] stay in my heart for a long time for
[1:27:04] sure.
[1:27:05] >> Good. Thank you. Okay, our next uh topic
[1:27:08] is to adjourn the meeting. Do I have a
[1:27:10] motion on that?
[1:27:11] >> So moved.
[1:27:12] >> Second.
[1:27:13] >> Motion second. All in favor? I
[1:27:15] >> I
[1:27:16] >> Thank you.