[0:00] All right, welcome everyone to our city
[0:05] planning commission meeting. We're so
[0:07] glad you're here.
[0:09] I have asked Commissioner Carol if she
[0:12] will
[0:13] lead us in the pledge of allegiance.
[0:16] >> Please join me in the pledge of
[0:17] allegiance.
[0:19] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[0:22] United States of America and to the
[0:25] republic for which it stands,
[0:27] one nation under God, indivisible, with
[0:30] liberty and justice for all.
[0:36] » Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[0:39] >> [clears throat]
[0:39] >> We
[0:41] said goodbye to our chair,
[0:44] Commissioner
[0:46] Todd Mitchell last meeting and so this
[0:49] meeting we welcome our newest
[0:52] commissioner who is
[0:56] our Spanish Fork friend, Darren
[1:00] Miller.
[1:00] >> Yes.
[1:01] >> We're glad you're here.
[1:02] >> Thank you.
[1:03] >> Okay.
[1:05] Our first item on the agenda tonight is
[1:09] the adoption of our minutes from our
[1:11] July meeting. Do I have a motion?
[1:14] >> I'll make a motion we accept the
[1:15] minutes.
[1:17] >> And a second?
[1:18] >> I'll second.
[1:20] >> All in favor?
[1:21] >> Aye.
[1:23] >> Any opposed?
[1:25] That is
[1:26] passed unanimously.
[1:29] >> [snorts]
[1:29] >> All right.
[1:30] Our next item
[1:32] is
[1:34] to consider a preliminary plat, Leland
[1:37] Meadows preliminary plat.
[1:40] And this will be a public hearing which
[1:43] I will probably need a reminder for as I
[1:47] continue to charge into
[1:51] items.
[1:52] >> Thank you, Madam Chair. What we might
[1:54] do, if it's okay with you, is I'll
[1:56] present for both
[1:57] the preliminary plat as well as the
[1:59] associated zone change and then like you
[2:01] indicated we'll hold a public hearing
[2:03] for the plat with a motion and then a
[2:05] public hearing for the zone change with
[2:07] a separate motion.
[2:09] >> Great.
[2:10] >> And all of the items tonight on your
[2:11] agenda, it looks like we do have public
[2:13] hearings for each item.
[2:15] Um and these should all be
[2:17] recommendations that you would be making
[2:19] to the city council.
[2:21] Uh thank you for being here tonight. Um
[2:23] as you mentioned this first item is a
[2:24] preliminary plat. This is for
[2:26] a proposed master plan development. Um
[2:29] we do have the
[2:31] applicant and the applicant's engineer
[2:34] uh with us. We'll invite them up in a in
[2:37] a moment to answer any questions as well
[2:40] as present additional information for
[2:42] their proposal.
[2:45] » [clears throat]
[2:46] >> This is the area that we're Oh, sorry,
[2:47] go back one slide.
[2:50] This is the area that we're looking at.
[2:52] Um
[2:53] it's in Leland.
[2:55] It stretches from uh 1700 West. You can
[2:58] see on the west boundary over to Mill
[3:01] Road. The areas that are outlined in
[3:03] yellow are the properties that are are
[3:06] participating in the the proposed
[3:08] subdivision.
[3:10] If we go to the next slide,
[3:12] um
[3:13] once again we're looking here. Um
[3:15] the zoning is shown on the left it's all
[3:17] rural rural resident residential, excuse
[3:20] me.
[3:21] Um [clears throat]
[3:21] and so hence the need for the zone
[3:24] change to apply the base zoning as well
[3:26] as the master plan development. On the
[3:29] right you can see the general plan as
[3:31] it's adopted by the city council
[3:33] um estate density and medium density uh
[3:36] residential.
[3:38] If we go to the next slide,
[3:40] this shows how the zoning would be a
[3:42] pra- applied to the property, excuse me.
[3:45] Um the portion that's along Mill Road
[3:48] would be the larger R115 lots. So those
[3:52] are lots that average 15,000 square feet
[3:55] in size.
[3:56] And then the portion over by
[3:58] 1,700 West, you can see
[4:01] um there's a master plan road that would
[4:02] ultimately curve. Um
[4:05] the
[4:06] housing product proposed around that
[4:08] area is an R16. Um
[4:11] the applicant refers to them as a garden
[4:14] home.
[4:15] They're basically single-family detached
[4:17] product that's uh on a shared drive way.
[4:21] Um
[4:22] that was something that he he proposed
[4:24] over something like a traditional
[4:26] townhome unit, which would also kind of
[4:29] fall in that similar density range.
[4:32] So, once again, we're looking
[4:33] preliminary plat as well as a zone
[4:35] change. Um total in this uh subdivision
[4:39] as shown is 206
[4:41] residential units. Um the breakdown
[4:45] You have 122 garden homes, and then 84
[4:49] uh traditional residential lots.
[4:52] Um [clears throat]
[4:53] once again, the R115, we're looking at
[4:55] an average that's over 15,000 as
[4:57] required by city code.
[4:59] Um and you've got a range of lot sizes,
[5:02] which is permitted by the master plan
[5:03] development. Um and that range is uh
[5:07] majority of the lots is 10,000 to 30,000
[5:10] square feet. And then we do have
[5:12] two larger lots. This one here
[5:16] and this one here that have existing uh
[5:19] residences on them.
[5:22] Um
[5:25] Let's go to the next slide, please.
[5:29] So, this is showing a This is a
[5:31] rendering provided by the applicant
[5:32] showing
[5:34] um
[5:34] the project. Uh part of this project
[5:38] entails a
[5:39] land swap with an Evo school district, a
[5:42] future elementary school, I believe. Um
[5:45] which is shown here.
[5:47] Um let's go to the next slide, please.
[5:52] Once again, this is uh just a close-up
[5:54] view of the plat. Um
[5:56] so the this east portion um
[6:00] the general plan calls for a density
[6:02] range of 1 to 2.5 homes per acre. These
[6:06] are typically larger lots. As proposed,
[6:09] it's 1.69 units to the acre.
[6:12] Let's go to the next slide.
[6:14] Uh this area here
[6:16] um the medium-density residential
[6:18] designation uh
[6:20] proposes four to eight homes per acre.
[6:24] And as designed, the applicant's
[6:25] proposing 5.2
[6:28] um units to the acre.
[6:31] Um let's go to the next slide, please.
[6:35] Uh this is just a phasing plan.
[6:37] Um
[6:38] it's kind of hard to read, but the first
[6:40] phase would start off of Mill Road.
[6:42] Second phase would start off of 1,700
[6:45] West, and then that two
[6:47] um would work towards the middle.
[6:49] Um
[6:50] let's go to the next slide, please.
[6:52] As required with with a master plan
[6:54] development, the applicant has to
[6:56] provide a street tree plan. What this
[6:58] basically requires is that as
[7:01] development occurs before occupancy is
[7:03] granted we either have a financial
[7:05] guarantee to install street trees or
[7:07] those street trees need to be
[7:11] um installed so that they
[7:13] uh the the goal is that they grow
[7:14] uniformly, and you have uh
[7:17] a common species called out for each
[7:18] individual street. Let's go to the next slide.
[7:27] Go ahead and go to the next slide.
[7:29] This is just showing an overall view of
[7:32] the landscaping that would be provided
[7:34] for the garden homes, and then some of
[7:36] the detention basins. Um and then this
[7:39] large area here
[7:41] um is slated to be a city park.
[7:45] Let's go to the next slide.
[7:48] >> A lot of on that city park, I assume
[7:49] that will be the city will own that that
[7:51] property will be in
[7:53] >> Yes.
[7:54] Um
[7:56] This is conceptual in nature so a lot of
[7:58] these details would get finalized with
[8:00] each individual
[8:02] final plot as it goes through in phases.
[8:05] So for instance this is a detention
[8:07] basin
[8:08] that would need to be improved before
[8:10] it's turned over to the city. Let's go
[8:11] to the next slide.
[8:14] Um this is a conceptual idea of of the
[8:16] park. Let's go to the next slide.
[8:19] Um this is the garden homes proposal.
[8:24] So you'd have in this case six units
[8:27] off of a a common drive. You'd have
[8:30] parking there within and then each of
[8:32] the
[8:33] residences
[8:35] has a two-car garage.
[8:37] Um
[8:40] Let me pull up some notes real fast.
[8:43] So this typical
[8:45] arrangement right here
[8:47] you're looking at just over 25,000
[8:49] square feet. Each of those units
[8:52] has a footprint that they can build out
[8:54] to which is 33 feet wide by 43 feet
[8:57] deep.
[8:58] Um and they can go multiple stories.
[9:01] Let's go to the next slide.
[9:03] This is showing the arrangement with
[9:05] some of the setback detail.
[9:08] There are a few of the garden homes that
[9:10] are not on the shared
[9:11] drive arrangement. You can see their
[9:13] proposed setbacks there. The 20 feet
[9:16] would allow for
[9:17] off-street parking in the driveway as
[9:19] well as the two-car garage.
[9:21] Um
[9:22] You can see the setbacks here.
[9:25] 15 feet is the requirement for a corner
[9:28] side setback.
[9:30] They're proposing 10 feet between them.
[9:33] And I think if we go back a slide
[9:36] Um yes, this one you can see kind of the
[9:39] fencing
[9:41] arrangement. You'd have a exterior fence
[9:43] and then you'd have some interior
[9:44] fencing that would kind of divide
[9:47] uh some of the common maintained areas
[9:49] out in front versus uh the areas for
[9:53] each residence to the rear.
[9:55] Let's go to the next slide, please.
[9:57] >> Right here.
[9:58] >> Oh.
[9:58] >> This parking
[10:00] guest parking, is that what I assume or
[10:01] what is this provision for?
[10:03] >> Um
[10:05] it goes towards guest parking, yes.
[10:07] >> So, the assumption is two parking spaces
[10:10] per unit within the garage?
[10:11] >> Yes.
[10:12] >> Okay. What's the situation for parking
[10:14] along this road?
[10:16] >> Uh depending on the classification,
[10:18] you'd have parking allowed on both sides
[10:20] of the street. Um with this proposal, I
[10:22] don't believe there's any proposed
[10:25] on-street parking to meet the
[10:26] requirement.
[10:28] In some cases, code allows city council
[10:30] to approve
[10:32] um a portion of the parking be met
[10:36] with on-street parking, but that is not
[10:38] what is proposed here.
[10:40] Um
[10:44] Dean, if you want to come up so we can
[10:46] catch on the microphone.
[10:47] >> Okay.
[10:49] We can ask him during his time.
[10:51] >> Okay.
[10:52] Yeah, we
[10:52] >> Then we'll ask you in its time.
[10:55] Yeah.
[10:59] » Um
[11:02] any other questions? That was a good
[11:04] question.
[11:06] >> Continue. Thanks for Let me pause you
[11:07] there.
[11:08] >> Um let's go to the next slide. These
[11:10] next few slides
[11:12] um these are
[11:15] housing uh elevations that were provided
[11:17] by the applicant.
[11:19] Um
[11:21] we also have a video fly-through that
[11:23] was provided by the applicant. We'll
[11:24] invite Dean up to walk
[11:27] um through that with you.
[11:29] Um this would be the product that would
[11:31] be in the garden homes uh cluster. Let's
[11:34] go to the next slide. Just different
[11:37] roof types, materials, colors. Next
[11:40] slide.
[11:42] Uh few more.
[11:45] Um and then the standard residential
[11:47] lots
[11:48] um in the R115.
[11:50] The notable changes
[11:53] well, not notable, but the
[11:54] slight changes, for instance, on the
[11:56] side setback, um they're proposing 7 and
[11:59] 1/2 on both sides for a total of 15 um
[12:03] versus 10 and 10.
[12:05] Um
[12:07] majority of those lots are over 100 ft
[12:09] in width and 100 ft in depth.
[12:11] Um so, we don't necessarily see that
[12:14] there would be a concern with those setback configurations. Let's
[12:18] go to the next slide.
[12:20] These are some of the
[12:22] I think this was part of the garden
[12:23] homes, but these are some of the
[12:26] um elevations provided uh that arrive
[12:28] homes would would build on the
[12:29] traditional lots. Let's go to the next
[12:31] slide.
[12:34] Two and three car garage options. With
[12:36] the master plan development, we do have
[12:38] some
[12:39] uh minor requirements as it comes to
[12:41] materials.
[12:42] Um you can see a lot of these
[12:45] are uh cement base, whether it's hardy
[12:47] board hardy board siding, stucco,
[12:50] >> [clears throat]
[12:50] >> uh brick, stone. Um there's also a roof
[12:53] pitch requirement.
[12:55] Many of those are standard in the
[12:57] development community today, but we do
[12:58] have that requirement kick in uh with the master plan development
[13:03] request, and those
[13:04] are looked at uh closely with the
[13:06] building permits. Let's go to the next
[13:08] slide.
[13:10] Here's just a few more. Uh next slide.
[13:14] One more.
[13:16] Okay, so before we uh turn the time over
[13:19] to Dean, um
[13:22] we're happy to answer any questions that
[13:23] you've gotten, and obviously Dean and uh
[13:27] his engineering team can happily answer
[13:29] any questions. You also have
[13:31] um then at that point we do have we can
[13:33] go over the recommendation from the
[13:35] development review committee.
[13:37] Um and then we would request the two
[13:39] separate public hearings with the two
[13:41] separate motions for both
[13:43] uh
[13:44] the master plan development preliminary
[13:45] plat as well as the zone change.
[13:48] Any questions for me at this time?
[13:51] >> I think I have just one and I John
[13:53] Manion Hall's not here. He'd be mad at
[13:55] me if I didn't ask about the irrigation
[13:57] cuz I know you're going to go through
[13:58] fields.
[13:59] I'm assuming we've got everything tied
[14:01] up with the other farms so that it's not
[14:02] going to be affected.
[14:04] >> That is actually something Byron be
[14:06] happy to address as well as the
[14:08] applicant.
[14:10] Yeah.
[14:11] >> Yeah, they've um
[14:13] their engineers sent us emails that
[14:15] they've gone back and forth with the
[14:16] irrigation company John Ludlow.
[14:20] Um and they've submitted to they use
[14:22] Franzin the irrigation company uses
[14:24] Franzin engineering. So they'll have
[14:26] that submittal. It's not fully designed.
[14:28] It's not approved yet until we get into
[14:30] final but they've started those
[14:32] conversations. They've met them in the
[14:33] field. They've been having talks at
[14:35] least.
[14:36] >> Okay. Thank you.
[14:39] >> I have a question. Brandon, I you sent
[14:42] us some photos of some of the
[14:45] uh garden
[14:47] home styles of when you went to visit a
[14:51] one of the developments that was in
[14:53] progress.
[14:55] And they I'm I'm wondering if you could
[14:58] put those
[14:59] is there a way for you to put those up
[15:01] cuz they looked a little bit different
[15:03] than the ones that were submitted by
[15:06] >> They do look a a little different. That
[15:07] was a project in Salem. I'd be happy to
[15:10] let Dean speak to that. Um we weren't
[15:12] familiar with the concept when he first
[15:14] presented it to staff so we asked areas
[15:17] in the valley where it's being built.
[15:19] Um the Salem was under construction. I
[15:22] apologize those pictures were taken back
[15:24] in April.
[15:25] And so it's more complete
[15:27] now if you did have a chance to drive
[15:29] by, but we just wanted to share those
[15:30] pictures
[15:32] um with you just to kind of give you an
[15:34] idea.
[15:35] These are the pictures that we're
[15:36] talking about.
[15:38] >> Yeah.
[15:38] >> again, this is in Salem,
[15:40] um
[15:41] slightly different
[15:43] arrangement. I believe these are four
[15:46] >> Yeah, and most
[15:47] >> um
[15:48] >> lay on four, but these are differently.
[15:51] These have basements.
[15:52] Um so they're just two stories.
[15:55] A little bit different layout. I really
[15:57] like the what we're going with on the
[16:00] three stories. Um and I'll go over that
[16:01] with you guys.
[16:02] >> Okay.
[16:03] >> Say what the benefit of that is.
[16:05] It's kind of what the same as our
[16:05] benefit on our town homes. We do an
[16:07] interesting thing we really like.
[16:09] >> Great. Okay.
[16:13] » Thank you. Any other questions
[16:15] >> one more. Um so there's a neat proposed
[16:17] swap with Nebo School District of lands.
[16:20] What's the status of
[16:22] >> Yes.
[16:23] >> We reached out to the school district
[16:25] and they confirmed that it is still a
[16:27] viable option.
[16:30] >> So we got the the feel good stuff, the
[16:32] worst things
[16:35] So you say viable option, does that
[16:37] means
[16:38] >> They've considered
[16:39] >> odds are it's going to happen or
[16:40] >> I can't speak for the board, but they
[16:42] definitely have had a presentation and
[16:45] discussions with the applicant.
[16:47] >> We've had
[16:48] uh regular
[16:50] conversations with
[16:52] the
[16:53] management team at the
[16:56] Nebo School District. Um we regularly
[16:59] meet with them several times a year.
[17:01] This project and its progress has come
[17:04] up repeatedly over the course of the
[17:06] past few years. As some of you know,
[17:07] this has been in the works for for quite
[17:09] a while.
[17:10] And um
[17:12] the superintendent and others have
[17:13] expressed the anticipation of the trade
[17:18] happening,
[17:19] but they don't want to go down that path
[17:23] until the project has been approved by
[17:25] Spanish Fork City. So, they I think are
[17:28] committed and invested in the concept,
[17:31] but won't take any action until the city
[17:33] has.
[17:34] >> Well, and I I ought to disclose that I
[17:36] am a member of the Nebo School Board.
[17:39] Uh
[17:39] and also say that uh I
[17:44] I've not been in any of those
[17:46] conversations that staff has had with
[17:48] city
[17:49] um and uh
[17:51] and so at those things don't usually
[17:53] come up until it's
[17:56] been until it's a lot more clo- close to
[17:59] a decision happening. The our staff vets
[18:02] uh
[18:03] vets everything really well before they
[18:05] bring it to the board. So, those are not
[18:07] things conversations that I have been
[18:09] part of.
[18:10] >> Sorry, Commissioner Woodhouse.
[18:12] Um I should have mentioned this a second
[18:13] ago, but condition for with the
[18:17] preliminary plat
[18:18] addresses, I believe, what you're the
[18:21] concern you're raising, and that is that
[18:22] the Nebo School District approves the
[18:25] proposed land swap to accommodate the
[18:26] proposed development. So, obviously, if
[18:28] they don't approve that, then this
[18:30] wouldn't move forward in the in the
[18:32] configuration that you're seeing.
[18:35] >> Right.
[18:36] Yeah, I
[18:36] >> [snorts]
[18:36] >> I read that. I was just curious why they
[18:38] would
[18:40] go through all this
[18:42] knowing that it could be tabled and not
[18:45] happen.
[18:46] If the If the
[18:47] district doesn't
[18:50] decide they don't want to do the swap,
[18:51] it's more beneficial for them to keep
[18:53] the property they have.
[18:55] >> I can share some history to that, too.
[18:57] That's
[18:57] >> Yeah. Okay.
[18:59] >> [snorts]
[19:00] >> And our understanding,
[19:01] I'm looking at our development director,
[19:03] our understanding is that we haven't
[19:05] heard any negative
[19:07] uh
[19:08] input from the school board. Obviously,
[19:11] they have to go through their process.
[19:13] Um but our understanding is that the
[19:15] swap is is beneficial to them as far as
[19:18] placement of the school.
[19:22] » All right.
[19:22] >> Any other questions? Okay, at this
[19:24] point, if uh Mr. Mann has it cued up,
[19:28] this is uh
[19:30] video that the applicant has put
[19:31] together. Dean, if you don't mind, we'll
[19:33] have you walk
[19:35] uh the planning commission and
[19:37] public through it.
[19:39] Um then at that point, if you have
[19:40] questions for the applicant or staff
[19:44] um before we dive into the the public
[19:46] hearing. Excuse me.
[19:47] >> Thank you, Brandon. Welcome.
[19:49] >> Thank you.
[19:50] >> Will you introduce yourself?
[19:51] >> new faces. I I need to get here more
[19:54] often.
[19:54] >> It's been a while.
[19:55] >> It has.
[19:55] >> Yeah. I was a newbie with last time you
[19:57] came.
[19:57] >> Yeah, yeah. It's been We've missed I
[19:59] mean bought more finished subdivisions
[20:01] these days, but
[20:03] we're excited to be developing one, so.
[20:05] >> All right, introduce yourself to us.
[20:07] >> Ingram. Um
[20:09] uh Ripe Homes, local home builder. Um
[20:12] we've done quite a few subdivisions in
[20:14] the city here. It's I'm not just saying
[20:16] this, but it is one of our if not our
[20:19] favorite city to work in. It's been
[20:22] great for us, and we've got a good
[20:23] working relationship with staff. They've
[20:25] been awesome. Um
[20:27] >> [clears throat]
[20:27] >> And actually good stuff with the
[20:29] community, too, which has been great.
[20:34] » All right. You have a presentation for
[20:36] us?
[20:36] >> Yeah, I mean you want I mean I think
[20:38] they're just going to play this. I mean
[20:39] this I think this video starts basically
[20:41] at the top
[20:42] and comes down. So this is the obviously
[20:45] the larger lots. We start larger as we
[20:47] go down, we get a little bit smaller as
[20:49] we get down to the bottom.
[20:51] Um
[20:53] you'll see that almost all of these
[20:55] homes, if not all of them are three-car
[20:57] garages. If you go through any of our
[20:58] communities,
[21:00] that's what we build. Um they can't
[21:03] People can do a two-car. We will never
[21:06] start a home that's that's a two-car. We
[21:08] always want larger lots that we can do
[21:11] the three cars on on our on our
[21:13] customizable that our niche what we do
[21:16] is a little bit different than a lot of
[21:18] builders. So, you got choices of going
[21:20] with a full custom cost plus, you know,
[21:22] you do the budgets
[21:24] grows, right? Or you can go with
[21:27] more of a production builder that
[21:30] here's your you know, 10 floor plans and
[21:32] really can't change a whole lot. You can
[21:34] pick some colors.
[21:36] We allow you do start with one of our
[21:38] floor plans. There's probably 50 of them
[21:40] at least and we've been adding new ones.
[21:42] Um
[21:44] to those you get you know, just more
[21:45] fresher elevations stuff all those are
[21:48] stuff still looks really good.
[21:49] Um but you'll see they can start with
[21:52] that. They can move any wall
[21:55] and they can grow the home by any square
[21:57] footage they want. So, but they start
[21:59] with our plan which gets them a good
[22:02] price to start with cuz it's all pre-bid
[22:05] out and you're not sending out a fresh
[22:07] bid every time. And then we just add
[22:08] whatever they've added to it. So, we're
[22:10] in between the two and we give them a
[22:12] locked-in price when we're when they're
[22:14] out of our design center. So, we're kind
[22:16] of that mid, you know, customizable.
[22:19] That's why our neighborhoods look
[22:20] distinct as far as you'll recognize when
[22:23] you go through one of our neighborhoods
[22:24] that there's a lot of variation. It's
[22:26] not you're not going to pick the same
[22:27] four homes
[22:28] that you notice as you drive through it.
[22:30] So, it's been um extremely popular. It's
[22:32] hard to do. It's really hard to keep
[22:34] your you know, it's a lot of work when
[22:36] they change all that to get all the
[22:38] estimating and bidding done um and then
[22:40] lock that price in. So, you'll notice
[22:42] that's a big deal for us and that like I
[22:45] said with that
[22:46] I would say 95% of our
[22:49] stuff we do on the standard lots that
[22:51] the larger lots we do is is three-car
[22:53] garage and and and bigger homes
[22:55] obviously.
[22:57] Um
[22:59] This you're going through kind of the
[23:00] garden home area here.
[23:03] So, some of the benefits So, our town
[23:05] home projects have been in
[23:07] I don't know if you've been through like
[23:09] Juniper or Del Monte or some of those.
[23:12] They've been an absolute hit and you'll
[23:13] notice as you drive through them that a
[23:16] lot of the
[23:17] city people that
[23:19] you'll see police cars and you know, all
[23:21] sorts of stuff in Spanish Fork. It's a It's a great product. What makes
[23:25] it a little bit different as I know
[23:26] there's probably
[23:28] you're asking about parking.
[23:30] What's different on our stuff that's
[23:32] not typical with a lot of other people
[23:34] who try to go and hit this affordable
[23:37] you know, make everything as cheap as
[23:38] possible. What we do differently is like
[23:39] our town homes
[23:41] that they're 26 ft wide. So, you've got
[23:44] your two-car garage and then you got
[23:45] this extra half car basically. So,
[23:48] people can actually store bikes and
[23:49] stuff. What that allows for them not to
[23:52] put the car on the street like you're
[23:54] talking about, right? They end up
[23:56] putting all their stuff in their garage
[23:57] and they park their cars outside. Now,
[23:59] you can't keep them from parking cars
[24:00] outside, but we give them enough room to
[24:02] do that.
[24:03] The benefit of these three-story garden
[24:05] homes we're doing is your main floor is
[24:07] all on the second floor.
[24:09] So, it opens up. You're not trying to
[24:10] squeeze all that in there with small
[24:12] rooms. You have a big great room,
[24:13] dining, kitchen is all larger cuz you're
[24:16] not taking up part of that footprint
[24:17] with the garage. What's nice about with
[24:19] the garage is all the garages
[24:22] are between 30 and 30
[24:24] um
[24:25] I think 36 ft deep or something like
[24:27] that. 30 I think our maybe even 40.
[24:31] Like
[24:32] because we we allow that garage to to
[24:34] expand all the way to the back of the
[24:35] house. We don't need any of that as far
[24:37] as living space. So, you end up with a
[24:39] garage that has tons and tons of storage
[24:42] to keep bikes, motorcycles,
[24:45] a little workshop, whatever they want.
[24:46] So, it ends up helping out with the the
[24:49] whole parking situation. Although, we do
[24:51] over park our stuff. The other benefit
[24:53] to this configuration
[24:56] is instead of having when you when you
[24:59] have this type of zoning, right? And
[25:01] you'll go drive through some of the
[25:02] neighborhoods that a typical builder
[25:03] will do,
[25:04] because that product has to be narrow
[25:06] for that, means if you're going to put a
[25:09] two-car garage in, you're a garage and
[25:11] then a little bit of house. So, when you
[25:14] drive down the road, you're seeing
[25:16] all garages.
[25:17] Um and and that's kind of that's the
[25:19] look you're going to get. Um same thing
[25:21] you know, you get that with town homes,
[25:23] too. Although, we do a lot of rear loads
[25:25] so that we can have that Del Monte and
[25:27] Juniper has you don't really drive by
[25:29] garages on those, which makes those look
[25:31] good. Um
[25:33] but as you can see, if you look at that
[25:35] just where the video stopped there,
[25:38] when you when you drive by them, now
[25:40] you're not you're in the exterior right
[25:41] here. Obviously, that that's all fenced
[25:43] in and um it's probably on a collector
[25:45] road.
[25:47] That um
[25:48] those driveways to go into a pod
[25:52] have have homes built
[25:54] the other direction. So, your driveways
[25:57] are literally
[25:59] typically over 100 to 100
[26:01] 20 30 ft apart. So, you're not having
[26:04] all these driveways there that it allows
[26:07] a lot more ease for a visitor to to have
[26:10] a to come and visit you and park on the
[26:11] street if they if they care to do that.
[26:13] We do have that extra stall inside that
[26:15] those will be assigned to each each
[26:18] person will have one assigned inside and
[26:19] then two in their garage plus that extra
[26:21] space.
[26:22] >> So, so you're saying a a total of three
[26:24] for each?
[26:24] >> Yeah, yeah. So, the outside plus the two
[26:26] inside plus the extra space inside the
[26:28] garage is I I
[26:30] honestly, that's probably one of the
[26:32] biggest deals that doesn't It's not
[26:34] required by any city, but it honestly,
[26:36] if they would people would think through
[26:38] that
[26:39] and get a little more width. I mean,
[26:40] when you can't even have to open your
[26:41] garage door, you know, your car doors or
[26:43] your truck or your car's too deep
[26:45] because it's a lot of these guys are
[26:46] doing 19 by 19.
[26:48] There's just not enough room to pull in
[26:50] and walk around your car or open your
[26:52] doors even. We give that extra room in
[26:55] there in order for you to have more room
[26:56] to to store things and put bikes and
[26:58] stuff. So,
[26:59] it
[27:00] we try to think that through. I think
[27:02] South County, especially, I'm I live
[27:04] down here.
[27:05] I mean, we're all into outdoors and you
[27:07] know, there's tons of toys and bikes and
[27:09] people are I mean, I
[27:11] if your Fit City is I know there was a
[27:13] lot of heat for that. I think you guys
[27:15] did a God it finally went through. I
[27:16] don't know if everybody else feels that
[27:18] way, but that place is packed
[27:21] at all times and it's and it's awesome,
[27:24] you know, that uh
[27:25] you know, you have those type of
[27:26] amenities and stuff in the city, but um
[27:29] >> So, what you're telling us is that in
[27:31] the garages, I can park my F-150
[27:34] >> Correct.
[27:35] >> fine.
[27:35] >> Correct.
[27:36] >> That's
[27:37] >> all the way.
[27:38] >> Right.
[27:38] >> And have room to walk around the front
[27:40] and back and probably store bikes in the
[27:41] front.
[27:42] >> Right.
[27:42] >> So, yeah, big it's a bigger deal than
[27:44] you think because if not, you're going
[27:46] to notice if you drive through a a town
[27:48] home project that is just that small box
[27:49] or homes,
[27:51] there's always cars going to be on the
[27:52] street or out parked outside because
[27:54] they have to have somewhere to put Where
[27:55] are you going to put? You're not going
[27:57] to leave your bike on the street or your
[27:58] four-wheeler or or you maybe have a
[28:00] motorcycle you ride or whatever that is.
[28:02] Um strollers, you know, different things
[28:04] like that. Where Where are you going to
[28:05] put that stuff? Here you have that
[28:07] opportunity. We think this is a good
[28:09] move up. It's a
[28:11] we can actually build these for, you
[28:12] know, just a little bit over what our
[28:14] town homes are. So, we think it's a nice
[28:17] alternative
[28:18] in this price affordability issue we're
[28:20] having right now. Everybody sees that.
[28:23] The governor obviously in the state's
[28:24] trying to figure out ways to help with
[28:26] it. Um
[28:27] people are definitely getting priced out
[28:29] of home ownership, which we hate.
[28:31] Nobody wants to see that. Home ownership
[28:32] is the the number one
[28:36] thing that's going to help a young
[28:37] person
[28:38] gain wealth and be able to retire
[28:40] someday and, you know, um to get them
[28:42] into those homes and have them be able
[28:43] to move along. This is a good middle
[28:45] point rather than going straight from a
[28:46] town home to a single family. They they
[28:49] may be only able to afford it here, but
[28:50] at least they have a full fenced
[28:51] backyard. There's no common wall, extra
[28:54] space.
[28:56] And we we think it'll And it feels big
[28:58] inside because of that main floor is all
[29:01] upstairs above the garage even too. And
[29:03] then your third floor is your bedrooms
[29:04] and stuff. So
[29:05] >> Well, what square footage are you are
[29:07] talking about for these garden homes?
[29:08] >> Anywhere from 2200 to And this doesn't
[29:12] count the garage. Obviously, the garage
[29:13] is a big portion of this, but I think
[29:15] they're around a little over 2000 would
[29:17] be the smallest, but I think they go up
[29:20] to 2800
[29:21] ft. Three and four bedroom units, all
[29:24] bigger walking closets, you know, just
[29:27] bigger bigger [clears throat] product.
[29:29] As far as um
[29:31] I think there was a question about the
[29:32] school. So So, the school the original
[29:34] the property they have right now was a
[29:36] was our property also. We We had They
[29:39] needed to
[29:41] the our Anthem West over there by the
[29:43] LDS Stake Center for the for the young
[29:45] single adults on First
[29:47] West. That's our project right there.
[29:50] We traded them for that. They that that site that was not usable
[29:55] for them because it was too close. They
[29:56] have to have a specific distance from
[29:58] their other elementary schools. And that
[30:00] one was too close to the one that's around the corner just
[30:03] around the corner right there. I can't
[30:04] remember the name of it.
[30:05] Riverview. Riverview, that's it. So,
[30:08] they
[30:09] we worked out a trade with them.
[30:11] They had that They needed They wanted
[30:13] something had access right then. So, we
[30:16] did the trade on the at the road
[30:17] frontage there. The problem is is for
[30:20] them there's a couple problems that
[30:23] the why they were on board and they're
[30:25] not
[30:26] They have to be somewhat political,
[30:27] right? They can't just say they're going
[30:29] to do something, but they they are
[30:31] definitely happy with what this layout
[30:33] is cuz it does a few things for them.
[30:35] One, it takes them off of a major major
[30:37] collector road. That that road width is that 119 ft wide?
[30:42] Or
[30:43] >> Uh 17.
[30:44] >> Is it 117?
[30:45] >> No, 1700 West.
[30:47] >> Well, yeah. The The new The one that
[30:49] Yeah, that
[30:50] >> future it'd be 108.
[30:52] >> What 108? Is that the Is that the width?
[30:53] Okay.
[30:55] So, that and it and it has to curve So,
[30:57] once we once the city determined the
[31:00] alignment of that road,
[31:02] it made it so the school really doesn't
[31:04] fit on the that That road cuts through
[31:06] the property and makes it somewhat
[31:07] unusable for the school, but also it's a
[31:09] busier road. Now, what's kind of nice is the road above it that's still going
[31:13] on is still a collector road. That road
[31:15] will eventually is supposed to get up to
[31:18] the roundabout up by ALA.
[31:20] So, it's a good access for them, but
[31:22] it's not a crazy access as far as
[31:24] busyness of a road.
[31:26] Um the other way we designed it for them
[31:27] is those future roads are set up that it
[31:30] will have roads
[31:31] on all four sides of them
[31:33] rather than having any They don't like
[31:36] having residential homes backing to it
[31:38] just be
[31:39] for that
[31:40] issue that, you know, they don't want
[31:41] kids
[31:43] bothering them or them but you know,
[31:44] that
[31:45] When you have somebody else's fence back
[31:46] there and you never know what it what's
[31:48] going to happen. A ball goes over the
[31:49] fence or whatever. That This is a a
[31:52] great layout for them and that's kind of
[31:53] why
[31:54] um as we approached them, they were It
[31:56] gives them a
[31:57] rectangle spot that fits their school.
[32:00] Um
[32:00] >> How many acres?
[32:01] >> I think it's 14 12 It maybe it's 12.
[32:04] by 14 acres.
[32:06] And there is room there too. I mean I
[32:09] mean They're not planning on selling
[32:11] anytime soon, but uh
[32:13] um
[32:14] they have I mean we're only controlling
[32:16] two sides of that, but that that size
[32:18] works for them for definitely for an
[32:20] elementary school. And I might even be
[32:22] enough for a middle school. I can't
[32:23] remember, but um
[32:25] I think it would be an elementary school
[32:26] in this area possibly.
[32:27] >> No, it's the right size for an
[32:28] elementary school.
[32:29] >> Yeah. And currently they
[32:32] the
[32:34] district's property is right here,
[32:35] right?
[32:36] >> Correct. Yeah.
[32:37] So, then that when that collector road
[32:39] to to align it went that direction
[32:43] that really kind of forced an issue with
[32:45] them that that that makes that school
[32:47] hard to place there, right? It's not a
[32:49] rectangle piece and it's
[32:51] they lose they you know, the ground that road goes right through part of it.
[32:54] So, how do they how do they get enough
[32:56] ground now to to build their school? So,
[32:59] and they they told me and I and I I
[33:02] they much rather have somebody come up
[33:04] ahead of time which we did. We
[33:05] approached them right away as far as
[33:07] hey, we're going to be doing this. What
[33:09] do you want to see here? And
[33:11] they like the pre-planning rather than
[33:13] having something just thrown at them and
[33:16] then they have to figure it out
[33:17] afterwards. This is they've been in the
[33:19] as far as the look as far as how this
[33:21] sits there and everything, they've been
[33:23] in you know, giving the input on that.
[33:25] So, we gave them a piece that really
[33:26] works for them.
[33:31] » Okay, my first question is how if we're
[33:34] looking at the low density area of this
[33:37] development, how many
[33:40] uh of the homes in this area are below
[33:44] 15,000
[33:45] square feet?
[33:47] >> Oh, man, that's a good question.
[33:49] Brandon, did you
[33:50] >> of the lots?
[33:52] >> Yeah, I've got that number. Let me
[33:53] >> And can I tell you what our what our
[33:55] thought process is on this layout? So,
[33:57] as you go up you go up the hill and there's basements up up top, right?
[34:02] As you go down you're not. Also, I I did
[34:06] some of the development across the
[34:08] Mill Road over there, Academy Park and
[34:11] Mules Inn Estates and stuff.
[34:13] Um those neighborhoods
[34:15] I I think people are pretty passionate
[34:17] about having larger homes around there.
[34:19] So, we I think
[34:21] >> [clears throat]
[34:21] >> to be a good neighbor and also for our
[34:23] own benefit to of having the bigger lots
[34:26] kind of up top where you can do
[34:27] basements um
[34:30] made a lot of sense to us to to kind of
[34:32] make that stage so it goes
[34:34] starts really big up top. You'll see
[34:36] those are some of those are half close
[34:38] to half acre lots, I think, as you get
[34:39] up to the top. And then
[34:41] um I don't know what the smallest are.
[34:43] We
[34:44] >> The smallest are I believe 10,200,
[34:48] around that range. Um 35%
[34:52] is the answer you're looking for. And
[34:53] what the code calls out is it doesn't
[34:55] specify and this was a discussion that
[34:57] was had with the city council member
[34:58] years ago and
[35:00] when some changes were made to the
[35:01] master plan development, but it it
[35:03] doesn't specify that you have to have a
[35:05] certain percentage over. Just the
[35:08] average has to exceed the base of the
[35:10] zone. And then those two large lots,
[35:13] there is criteria in city code that
[35:15] doesn't allow them to be counted 100%
[35:18] towards that calculation. It's only two
[35:20] times the base density. So in this case,
[35:22] any lots over 30,000 square feet, they
[35:24] count just as a 30,000 square foot lot
[35:27] in the calculation.
[35:30] » That's Thank you. That was my next
[35:32] question.
[35:33] I knew there was some kind of provision
[35:35] for it, but
[35:37] Okay.
[35:38] Uh
[35:40] then
[35:42] uh
[35:42] where That's a question for Brandon. Can
[35:45] you tell us about your phasing about
[35:48] >> Yeah, the reason why we're doing that
[35:50] what we're So
[35:51] we've got water coming to loop stuff.
[35:54] We've got water coming in from the top
[35:55] and other We have sewer coming in from
[35:57] the bottom.
[35:58] We also want to mix up our product. So
[36:00] we're going to start at both ends so we
[36:02] can be selling the two different totally
[36:05] different clientele, obviously, price
[36:07] points. You're You're double on
[36:10] the one as opposed to the other. So
[36:11] we'll start at the at both ends so we
[36:13] can do both, but we're also it's it's
[36:15] meant to meet in the middle as quickly
[36:17] as possible because we're going to be
[36:19] putting in improvements connecting
[36:21] everything, but we don't want to
[36:23] develop so much that we have a big debt
[36:26] um, we're doing all at once. So,
[36:29] just to kind of meet that need for
[36:31] utilities.
[36:32] >> What do you think your timeline looks
[36:33] like for those phases and just general
[36:36] timeline for the project?
[36:38] >> Oh, good question.
[36:39] >> And and I know timelines [clears throat]
[36:40] can change, but just like what are you
[36:41] thinking?
[36:42] >> So, are you far as far as
[36:45] per phase, like how or the whole project
[36:48] or
[36:48] >> How many months end to end and how many
[36:49] months per phase, yeah.
[36:51] >> Yeah, so I I would
[36:53] So, months per phase
[36:55] >> [clears throat]
[36:57] >> right now, we're we're probably
[37:00] in our single family one to two a month
[37:02] is
[37:03] we don't we're not we're not somebody
[37:05] that just goes and throws stuff up.
[37:07] We're probably, you know, hopefully
[37:09] we're maybe two to three on the other
[37:10] product
[37:11] a month. So, it depends on the size of
[37:13] the phase, but you can kind of do that
[37:14] math and, you know, typically we're
[37:18] a little less than a year per phase.
[37:19] We'd like to have the next one ready,
[37:21] asphalt down if we can hit the right
[37:23] timing of it, but we're not you're not
[37:25] going to see us as somebody going in
[37:26] there and just throwing up stuff. Um,
[37:31] we kind of take our time. It takes a
[37:32] while for people to get through our
[37:33] design process because what we let them
[37:35] do,
[37:36] um, so I would think that's probably a
[37:38] pretty good number.
[37:40] Might be a little bit slower right at
[37:41] this point. It doesn't mean it's a
[37:42] little bit of a challenging market,
[37:43] obviously. So.
[37:46] >> I
[37:48] Do what how many acres is the park
[37:50] that's in the middle between your two types of
[37:55] >> Oh, I
[37:56] >> And is it
[37:57] >> a couple things to that, too. So, I met
[37:59] with Bart on that. Um, the reason why we
[38:01] did it there and for a couple reasons,
[38:03] but
[38:04] one of the reasons is is that makes that
[38:06] park and he liked the idea that it's
[38:08] expandable.
[38:10] So, if and if and ever
[38:12] that
[38:14] road goes through, that collector road,
[38:15] that park could be expand in the future
[38:18] to be even bigger if they ever needed it
[38:20] to be.
[38:20] >> it could go it could be expanded
[38:23] >> No, it would go the that's the school it
[38:24] would go that direction, yeah.
[38:25] >> Okay.
[38:26] >> Right. If if they need I mean that
[38:28] that's somebody else's property so I
[38:30] mean
[38:30] they wouldn't be planning on taking
[38:31] anybody's property to that but
[38:33] >> But it's
[38:33] >> If they come in for development there
[38:34] would be an opportunity if it needed a
[38:36] bigger but I think it's Do you know
[38:39] Does that show on there anywhere?
[38:41] >> In the back. We can pull it up on the
[38:43] plans if you don't have it handy.
[38:45] >> to Dave. Dave,
[38:46] it's meeting time right now. We
[38:49] Do you know what the size of that
[38:50] park
[38:55] No, you weren't.
[38:55] >> Okay, while he's looking for that my
[38:57] other my next question is when you
[38:59] dedicate an area to be to the city to be a city park,
[39:05] what kind of improvement do you do and
[39:07] what kind of like equipment or those
[39:09] kind of things do you provide, amenities
[39:11] or anything? Just unimproved ground or
[39:14] >> Um it depends on the it really has not
[39:17] gotten into any discussion but I think
[39:18] it's
[39:20] >> In some cases the city purchases the raw
[39:23] ground and does the improvements
[39:25] themselves.
[39:26] Other times the cities will get parks
[39:29] dedicated to them. Other times it'll be
[39:32] detention basins, that's what we see
[39:34] most common and those do need to be
[39:36] improved so that they can function but
[39:38] then also they're not a nice or and so
[39:40] there's many different categories that
[39:42] the city gets involved in as far as
[39:44] purchase, dedication, improve, not
[39:46] improved.
[39:48] >> So that's just worked out after things
[39:51] are
[39:51] >> No, it's a discussion that takes place
[39:53] during the process with our parks and
[39:55] rec.
[39:57] Cuz they're very eager to see what they
[39:59] can program the space for if it's usable
[40:01] space, if it's meant to be open
[40:05] and so they they lean heavily into what
[40:08] it'll function as.
[40:10] >> Okay.
[40:11] Uh
[40:12] the street trees plan, so you even have
[40:14] to to a street trees plan for the large
[40:17] for this part of your for this part of
[40:19] your development as well. Oh, that's
[40:21] awesome.
[40:23] >> I think those
[40:25] am I correct I mean the homeowner has to
[40:27] put those trees in when they landscape
[40:30] their or is that something that's done
[40:31] up front on all those roads?
[40:33] >> Um so the way the program works is
[40:36] someone has to either provide a
[40:38] financial guarantee if they're not ready
[40:40] to go in or if they're ready to go in
[40:42] then they're planted per the approved
[40:44] street tree plan.
[40:46] >> Yeah, so
[40:47] and the reason why we I mean we're fine
[40:49] guarantee
[40:50] you'll notice in our communities that
[40:52] you'll have people that you know spend
[40:54] 20,000 on landscaping but then you'll have
[40:58] people that spend 150,000 on
[41:00] landscaping.
[41:01] So we we're hesitant on putting
[41:03] pigeonholing them into okay, well we
[41:05] want this they they still have to follow
[41:06] the plan with the the trees and how they
[41:08] want that but typically we want them to
[41:11] be able to incorporate that into this
[41:13] whatever their grand scheme they they
[41:15] want to do with their landscaping. So
[41:18] >> Great. Who follows up on that when
[41:20] there's that when there's that much
[41:21] flexibility which I agree with I think
[41:23] that's great but
[41:24] >> Our building department has the pleasure
[41:26] of following up on that. They coordinate
[41:28] with us.
[41:29] Most commonly the questions they hear is
[41:31] do I have to plant the specific tree
[41:33] that's called out on the plans? I'd
[41:34] rather do something exotic or fruit
[41:36] bearing which we don't want uh near
[41:39] sidewalks. Um so when they the the most
[41:43] successful time is when the homeowner is
[41:46] going to be there and there's irrigation
[41:47] available. Um some cases we do have
[41:50] Gator bags that will keep the trees
[41:52] alive
[41:53] um but that is something that our
[41:54] building department um when they're
[41:57] constructing the home that comes up
[41:59] during the construction prior to the
[42:01] occupancy being granted. Either we need
[42:03] that financial guarantee that it will be
[42:05] completed at a later date or we time it
[42:08] so that tree goes in.
[42:09] >> Okay.
[42:10] >> Yeah, so so at building permit because
[42:12] that water is available then, right?
[42:14] With the house being [clears throat]
[42:14] built, we either provide that
[42:17] guarantee or we put the trees in or they
[42:19] landscape with us, I guess, but
[42:21] typically we find most people are
[42:22] landscaping
[42:24] on their own trying to I mean, whether
[42:25] they're saving money or they're going
[42:27] exotic.
[42:29] Um they just the flexibility's been good
[42:30] for them.
[42:31] >> Okay, that's interesting.
[42:34] Uh do you have a question, Mike? You can
[42:36] like you're about to
[42:37] >> I I like your question cuz I know they
[42:38] have to have it before they can move in.
[42:40] >> Yeah.
[42:40] >> And it's I like Stein.
[42:42] Not doing crazy trees, either, so.
[42:44] >> Yeah.
[42:45] Okay, well, you have an HOA for your
[42:48] garden home area?
[42:49] >> Yeah, for sure.
[42:50] >> And but but not your lower density area?
[42:52] >> No, yeah, we we are not no HOA for that.
[42:55] We Yeah.
[42:56] >> Okay.
[42:57] >> That's not a hit with
[42:58] when you have a nice lot and you're
[43:00] like, what am I paying this for?
[43:01] >> Okay.
[43:02] >> So the the things that you would
[43:03] normally have to do would be the
[43:04] detention basin, but we're turning those
[43:06] over to the city
[43:07] >> [clears throat]
[43:07] >> as open space and they they'll handle
[43:09] that.
[43:10] >> Can you Can you show the overall plot?
[43:15] That one probably would So this right
[43:19] here
[43:20] is a working feedlot, right?
[43:23] >> I think so, yeah.
[43:24] >> Yeah, what are you going to do
[43:27] you know, cuz once these people get in,
[43:29] they're going to complain
[43:31] and pressure this guy to get out. What
[43:33] are we going to do to
[43:35] Are there any precautions taken to
[43:36] protect the existing land owners there
[43:39] and what
[43:40] >> [clears throat]
[43:40] >> How do you facilitate good
[43:42] relationships?
[43:43] >> Yeah, that's a good good question. I get
[43:44] I mean, mainly that that's
[43:46] would hit those one lots, right? I
[43:49] We really haven't had a lot of issue
[43:51] with that, but I mean, it's something we
[43:52] could address. Um
[43:54] we find that
[43:56] people know when they're going in what
[43:57] they're
[43:59] I mean, they're
[44:00] because of how we sell stuff, right?
[44:01] They're fully customizing a home,
[44:03] they're on the lot.
[44:04] They're they're amongst the pro- the the
[44:06] process. We do let them know what's
[44:09] there, obviously.
[44:11] Um that's one of the reasons why on the
[44:12] Larson piece on it, I worked with Gary
[44:14] extensively on his
[44:16] that we're providing him some benefit as
[44:18] far as some uh water and electrical so
[44:20] he can feed and water his cattle. We
[44:22] also put there we couldn't do it
[44:25] it's impossible to do every everywhere
[44:27] like this, but what we try to do is is
[44:29] figure that stuff out ahead of time. So
[44:31] we we we've surrounded Gary with all
[44:34] roads which there's no backyards of
[44:37] anybody's home and he loved that and
[44:38] we're going to help we're going to you
[44:40] know
[44:41] put put the field fence up and and uh
[44:45] and it provide him some some water cuz
[44:47] right now he hauls water to feed the the
[44:49] cows. So we're
[44:50] definitely
[44:51] um
[44:52] cognizant of there you know there's active farms there. We for sure
[44:56] know
[44:57] >> So on those those roads surrounding Gary
[45:01] um
[45:02] they're
[45:04] 100% on your property?
[45:07] >> Yes.
[45:09] >> And the city's not haven't said you got
[45:12] to
[45:13] I'm going to
[45:14] only let you put in half of the road and
[45:16] then if he ever develops he has to put
[45:18] in the other half of road. It won't be
[45:20] that.
[45:20] >> So so those are half plus, but they
[45:23] would stay that way until somebody
[45:25] develops in the future. But you still
[45:27] have
[45:28] >> So whoever if somebody if Gary ever
[45:30] developed or sold it somebody
[45:32] they would still have to build out that
[45:35] road.
[45:35] >> Correct, yeah. That the other half well
[45:37] the the extra portion of that to make it
[45:40] a full road, yeah. And then at that
[45:41] point time they can pick where their
[45:44] streets are coming in and how their layout is cuz it's kind of
[45:48] hard to do that
[45:49] until you get your design and what
[45:51] you're putting in there.
[45:52] Um and there's so much flexibility here.
[45:56] You you just don't know, right? So you
[45:58] go put something in and it may not even
[46:00] may have to be anyways. So, will those
[46:03] roads
[46:04] be able to handle directional traffic?
[46:07] >> Yes.
[46:07] >> Two different cars passing? They'll be
[46:10] wide enough as when you're finished be
[46:12] before they're built out.
[46:14] >> Yeah, Byron, what is that?
[46:16] >> Yeah, it's half plus 10.
[46:18] >> Some of them minor collector, so it's
[46:19] going to have quite a
[46:20] >> Yeah, it's going to have more than 24
[46:21] ft, but
[46:23] we require half half plus 10 of asphalt.
[46:26] So,
[46:27] you can fit two-way traffic on them. You
[46:30] just won't be able to park on the one
[46:31] side.
[46:32] >> On the side that's the gravel which
[46:33] >> Yeah.
[46:34] >> that's where the fence sits and stuff,
[46:35] too. So.
[46:40] And then you'll pipe
[46:42] the irrigation ditch along 1700 South?
[46:46] >> Yes.
[46:47] >> Cuz that's how they get their water.
[46:48] That's where the water comes from.
[46:49] >> where the water comes from. We're piping
[46:52] I That's That's a Scott question, but
[46:53] yes, whatever needs to happen, we
[46:55] definitely are doing.
[46:57] >> Okay.
[46:57] >> And we've talked to the irrigation
[46:58] company.
[47:00] >> Okay.
[47:01] All right.
[47:05] Uh does anybody have any other questions
[47:07] for our applicant? I have a couple of
[47:08] questions for city staff.
[47:11] >> I applicant maybe city staff, I'll go
[47:12] ahead and ask. So, garbage collection in
[47:15] the in the garden homes, what's the
[47:17] intended flow of that? Also,
[47:20] I guess I'll just generically ask are we
[47:22] have any concerns about
[47:24] fire access or anything like that?
[47:27] Or have we addressed those?
[47:28] >> Yeah, no, we have. As far as the
[47:30] distances and stuff, that was all part
[47:32] of the process here.
[47:34] Garbage collection is actually
[47:36] better than than most, like I said,
[47:38] because
[47:39] as you pull them out, that the driveways
[47:42] you know, it's 20 ft wide, I think. Um
[47:45] And then you have all that room, so
[47:46] people would just bring their trash cans
[47:47] out to the street. I'm That's what I
[47:50] would imagine unless they're told to do
[47:52] something different, but
[47:53] >> Directly
[47:54] the street, not the driveway.
[47:55] >> Not Yeah, exactly. Yeah.
[47:56] >> Okay.
[47:57] >> Yeah. No, you know, garbage is not going
[47:59] down the driveway. They'll they'll pull
[48:00] them out to the street. Be pretty easy
[48:02] process for them.
[48:03] >> Okay.
[48:03] And then fire, I assume, would be
[48:05] assumed not actually in the driveway,
[48:06] either, right?
[48:07] >> Correct.
[48:08] >> Okay.
[48:10] >> I have I Could we bring up the
[48:13] elevations,
[48:14] the elevation sides? I I'd particularly
[48:18] am concerned about the side elevations
[48:22] being right by the street. One thing
[48:25] that we've talked a lot about is
[48:27] things looking really nice and really
[48:29] finished when it's visible from a
[48:31] street. And I'm concerned that you have
[48:34] a lot I I actually really like the
[48:36] layout that you have for your garden
[48:38] homes, but
[48:39] I You have a lot of side elevations
[48:41] facing the street, and it looks a little
[48:43] less finished, and
[48:45] I just would love a little more um
[48:47] >> Would you like to carry that stone
[48:49] around the corner?
[48:50] >> character on those sides.
[48:54] >> Yeah.
[48:54] >> Anyway, that's my input.
[48:56] >> we tried to address the side elevations
[48:58] and provided, you know, you can see on
[49:00] the the top one it's got a pretty
[49:03] nice detail. The other good thing is is
[49:05] we're bringing those fences around, so
[49:07] that also helps break it up.
[49:09] And then it's nice that we have it's all
[49:10] landscaping. It's not driveway and
[49:12] garages, so
[49:14] I think you're going to be pleased with
[49:16] the finished product, but if there's
[49:17] suggestions of some more we can do,
[49:19] we're more than happy to look at that.
[49:21] >> Yeah, like,
[49:22] you know, like just more around here,
[49:24] wrap arounds here at the
[49:26] >> Wrap around
[49:27] >> I don't know, larger windows or or some
[49:30] kind of finishes here
[49:31] on the sides. And when Brandon sent us
[49:34] the photos of the ones from in Salem,
[49:36] could we bring those up? Is that okay?
[49:38] >> Right here, real quick. I would
[49:40] like Shauna's saying, carry that stone
[49:43] around
[49:44] the Wayne's coat around the
[49:46] to the fence.
[49:47] >> Yeah, your side elevations in these
[49:49] >> Like that's looks good.
[49:51] >> pretty decent, but the ones in the
[49:53] pictures that were haven't been quite
[49:55] finished yet. Um
[49:58] >> Yeah, and those look different now, but
[50:00] yeah, I mean um but they there's not the
[50:03] same requirement
[50:04] there than there is in Spanish. So
[50:07] >> Okay.
[50:07] >> Your staff is pretty
[50:09] Dave's pretty tough on that stuff. He's
[50:11] like
[50:11] >> We have higher standards here.
[50:14] >> You want pleasing pleasing looking home
[50:17] and neighborhood when you're driving by.
[50:19] >> Yeah, for sure.
[50:21] And and again, I think
[50:22] I I agree with all that you're saying.
[50:24] >> yeah, this that's that's just not very
[50:27] >> I I think you'll be pleased with the
[50:30] fact that
[50:32] like I said, when you're doing I I mean
[50:34] I I'm not going to name any
[50:35] subdivisions, but when you're doing
[50:37] narrow lot a standard subdivision and
[50:39] you're 30 ft wide to build a home in and
[50:42] 20 ft of that you're
[50:44] 18 ft your garage door.
[50:46] You're just all garage doors.
[50:47] >> Right.
[50:48] >> So yeah, the corner elevation's
[50:50] important. I think a lot of the things
[50:52] we're doing to break that up, the
[50:53] fencing, the landscaping. You don't have
[50:55] all the driveways, the concrete. You're
[50:58] going to have a lot of greenery along
[50:59] there along with fencing. Everything is
[51:02] fenced around it. By the way, also the
[51:04] HOA will take care of
[51:06] back is going to be doing backyards and
[51:10] >> And the whole
[51:10] >> There's no front yards, right? So
[51:12] >> The side yards there's a little bit of a
[51:14] front yard a little bit of a planter
[51:16] stuff. All that planter stuff everything
[51:18] in that pod is taken care of by the HOA.
[51:20] >> Would you
[51:22] show like the updated maybe updated
[51:25] pictures if we recommend this to the city council
[51:29] and address that specifically with them?
[51:30] Thank you.
[51:31] >> Absolutely. And we can even do some
[51:33] updates on the
[51:34] » [clears throat]
[51:34] >> elevations too. So
[51:35] >> That'd be awesome.
[51:36] >> Yeah.
[51:37] >> Thank you. Okay.
[51:40] All right, any other questions?
[51:41] >> I love Shawna's love for the side of the
[51:43] house.
[51:43] >> I do.
[51:44] >> It's something I I worry about until she
[51:45] points it out and I'm like, "God, good
[51:47] point. I love that."
[51:48] >> Just that it's from the road. You want
[51:49] it You want it to look nice from the
[51:51] >> And we want to be better than Salem,
[51:52] right?
[51:53] >> Yes. [laughter]
[51:54] >> I don't feel competitive. I love
[51:55] everybody.
[51:56] >> We We want to be better Oh, I love them.
[51:58] We just want to be better.
[51:59] >> Spanish Fork.
[52:00] >> We love Spanish Fork, too, and we're a
[52:02] little tired of Salem right now.
[52:04] That's as much as I'm going to say.
[52:06] >> [laughter]
[52:07] >> Okay.
[52:08] All right, any other uh questions or
[52:10] comments for our
[52:12] uh what for our applicant? Dean?
[52:14] >> And I'll want to come back up to you if
[52:16] you
[52:16] >> All right, thank you. Thanks so much.
[52:19] Okay, Brandon, could you bring up uh
[52:22] your You had a good slide that I wasn't
[52:24] digesting very well while you were
[52:26] presenting it, but I'd like to see
[52:28] general plan designations.
[52:31] Where it's at now, what the proposal is.
[52:34] >> Yeah,
[52:35] um
[52:36] >> Current zoning, yeah.
[52:43] » So, on the left, you can see the current
[52:45] zoning
[52:46] >> That's districts, and on the right is
[52:48] the general plan. And we This is just a
[52:51] static image. We can pull up the
[52:52] interactive map if that's helpful.
[52:55] >> Okay, so pause. All right, so right now,
[52:58] this is all rural residential.
[53:00] >> Except for a few properties along Mill
[53:03] Road.
[53:04] >> Could Oh, yes.
[53:05] >> Some down here on Arrowhead.
[53:06] >> Okay.
[53:08] And then
[53:10] this right the land use designation is
[53:13] >> That's the estate.
[53:16] >> Okay.
[53:17] >> And then this is the medium density
[53:18] along both sides [clears throat] of 1700
[53:20] West.
[53:21] >> Okay.
[53:22] So
[53:23] >> idea is that with the
[53:25] uh higher
[53:26] uh traffic volume roads, you'd have the
[53:28] higher density product.
[53:31] >> And we would like this estate density,
[53:34] which is the
[53:35] R 115.
[53:38] Uh
[53:39] closer to these to our to our friends
[53:41] who are already built up here.
[53:43] >> Correct.
[53:44] >> Okay.
[53:45] >> But then the the garden
[53:48] homes would be a different
[53:51] Are they going to be in medium?
[53:52] >> Yes.
[53:53] >> Yeah, so where are where
[53:54] >> on the west side of the project.
[53:56] >> so where do we where's this overlay?
[53:57] >> So we would have to change from the land
[53:59] use designation now.
[54:01] >> No.
[54:02] general plan modifications.
[54:05] >> The zoning is what is being requested.
[54:08] >> And I'm looking but we have we have some
[54:09] of those
[54:11] lower density estate density. Are they
[54:13] actually in the site as well?
[54:14] >> Correct. So if you go back a slide, one
[54:17] thing that plays into this is
[54:20] that realignment of the roads. So the
[54:22] idea is that your
[54:24] medium density product would follow that road.
[54:28] >> Okay, so
[54:29] this is all the lower density and that
[54:32] stays in the lower density zoning.
[54:34] >> Yes, with some of the lots up here that
[54:36] you can see on the
[54:37] >> Yeah.
[54:38] >> That's lower density as well.
[54:39] >> Lower density
[54:39] >> That's in the medium density project.
[54:41] >> residential.
[54:42] >> Yeah.
[54:43] >> Okay. So this all aligns with general
[54:47] plan designation.
[54:48] >> Yes. We we may be a little out of
[54:50] alignment though, but it's with high
[54:52] lower density.
[54:53] >> Right.
[54:54] >> Yeah.
[54:56] cuz some of that medium crosses
[54:58] over
[54:59] to what is designated
[55:01] >> And so
[55:02] >> estate.
[55:03] >> the request is to change is two things to change the the zoning
[55:08] because the current current zone is
[55:10] rural residential.
[55:11] >> Yes.
[55:12] >> And it's to change it to match the land
[55:15] use designation.
[55:18] >> and R115
[55:20] with the master plan development
[55:21] overlay. So if we go forward a slide,
[55:24] this is our zoning exhibit.
[55:26] So you've got the two different base
[55:28] zones that are proposed, the R115
[55:31] and the R16.
[55:33] >> So there's
[55:34] the R16
[55:37] that line was there.
[55:40] And this was all this state
[55:43] zoning. So, there's quite a bit that
[55:45] would have to be changed.
[55:47] >> Not necessarily because your zoning
[55:50] >> 116 to 115
[55:52] >> are precise, whereas your general plan
[55:55] designation is a visionary document, and
[55:58] so it puts forward principles that we
[56:00] want to follow. And so, for instance,
[56:02] the idea of the density
[56:04] being higher as it's clustered around
[56:06] this road
[56:09] is being followed
[56:10] with the rest of it fanning out into
[56:13] larger lots as you go east to Mill Road.
[56:17] And so, it's not intended to say,
[56:19] "Here's the general plan line right
[56:21] through here,
[56:22] you know, that's your dividing."
[56:26] » Okay.
[56:28] >> And once again, this is a
[56:29] recommendation. So, if that is something
[56:31] uh
[56:32] that you feel should be addressed or
[56:35] should be changed, you are more than
[56:36] welcome to share um those comments,
[56:39] concerns.
[56:40] Um and so,
[56:42] for instance, the recommendation that
[56:44] you have before you that was from June,
[56:46] the development review committee when
[56:48] they looked at the project um with the
[56:50] application with the applicant, excuse
[56:52] me,
[56:53] um they ultimately recommended to you
[56:57] approval for both the uh preliminary
[57:00] plat and the zone change. Um
[57:03] and in turn, you would then uh make a
[57:06] recommendation to the city council. You
[57:08] can use
[57:09] the recommendation as provided by the
[57:11] development review committee
[57:13] uh or as you see fit. You are more than
[57:15] welcome to add conditions, subtract
[57:18] conditions, modify conditions.
[57:21] Um it is it is your ability to make that
[57:23] recommendation as you see fit.
[57:25] >> Thank you. Anyone else have questions
[57:27] for Brandon?
[57:29] Okay.
[57:31] Thank you. One thing that I think that
[57:33] we don't always do and I
[57:36] in our meeting that that sometimes
[57:38] answers our questions and it takes just
[57:41] a minute, but I feel like it's
[57:43] pretty important. We do our homework,
[57:44] but I think it's good for
[57:46] um for
[57:48] I think it's good to put it on the
[57:50] public record and that is to
[57:53] read through the findings and commit
[57:54] conditions. So like So the findings were
[57:58] that the proposal is consistent with the
[58:00] city's general plan designations of
[58:02] medium density residential and estate
[58:05] doesn't it?
[58:06] Density residential. So we know that and
[58:08] that's what we just talked about. Then
[58:10] that um the proposal meets the intent of
[58:14] the master plan development overlay
[58:17] uh zoning district. And then and one
[58:20] thing to point out uh for the public is
[58:23] a master plan development overlay zoning
[58:25] district
[58:27] for instance, if it's in a lower density like estate
[58:31] density, you're supposed to have larger
[58:33] lots. So R115, if you don't do a master
[58:37] plan overlay zoning district
[58:39] development, then every lot must be 50
[58:43] the low the lowest 15,000 square feet,
[58:47] right? But if you have this um master plan development, then
[58:51] the average is 15,000 square feet and
[58:55] that allows for different sizes of lots.
[58:58] Uh
[58:59] it with if you have a big plot of land
[59:02] and it's not [clears throat]
[59:03] easily spaced, it adds for
[59:06] interesting layouts of neighborhoods and
[59:08] such. So that's that's what that's
[59:11] talking about. And then the conditions
[59:13] are like, okay, these are the things
[59:15] that we expect that we'll work out with
[59:17] the city and our applicants and that's
[59:20] that they meet the development and
[59:22] construction standards and zoning
[59:24] requirements and other applicable city
[59:26] ordinances. So,
[59:27] they have a lot of expectations from
[59:30] Spanish Fork City that the applicant
[59:32] addresses any red line review comments.
[59:34] So, [clears throat] during the review,
[59:37] they need to make sure they address
[59:38] concerns.
[59:40] That the preliminary plat approval is
[59:41] contingent upon City Council approving
[59:44] it. So, we can recommend to City
[59:46] Council, but City Council has to has to
[59:48] approve. We talked about this before
[59:51] that the Nebo School District will
[59:52] approved the would approve the land swap
[59:55] and that has to happen.
[59:58] The that the road cross-section for Mill
[1:00:01] Road be finalized and referenced in the
[1:00:03] plans. Can you tell us what that means?
[1:00:06] >> Um
[1:00:08] yes, um
[1:00:10] it this one's specifically referring to
[1:00:12] the large lot on Mill Road and
[1:00:16] the fact that there's a a trail and a
[1:00:19] park strip proposed.
[1:00:21] And so, we just wanted to finalize
[1:00:23] something Mill Road's interesting in the
[1:00:25] fact that it has different standards
[1:00:27] developed at different times. And so,
[1:00:30] engineering has actually put together a
[1:00:32] master plan for the road as far as where
[1:00:35] modifications from the regular standards
[1:00:37] might occur to accommodate other
[1:00:40] properties that have existing structures
[1:00:42] and things of that nature. But in this
[1:00:44] section for uh
[1:00:47] that portion of Mill Road, it would be
[1:00:49] our standard 10-ft trail and 8-ft park
[1:00:52] strip, I believe.
[1:00:54] >> Yeah.
[1:00:54] >> That was discussed uh after the DRC and
[1:00:56] so, it's a carryover condition that that
[1:00:59] we still have.
[1:01:00] >> Awesome.
[1:01:00] >> would have to be put on on the 4-acre
[1:01:03] piece.
[1:01:04] >> Yes.
[1:01:04] >> Where it fronts Mill Road.
[1:01:06] >> Mhm.
[1:01:07] >> It's on It's on the
[1:01:09] part that was purchased.
[1:01:11] We purchased the road with when we did
[1:01:13] the road with this. I always worried
[1:01:15] that some of the confusion happened.
[1:01:18] >> Oh, yeah. Here you're supposed to come
[1:01:19] to Yeah.
[1:01:19] >> So, a little bit of what hap- So, here's
[1:01:21] some more history. This has been going
[1:01:22] on for a long time. Um
[1:01:26] Originally, we were going to build this portion up here when it was first
[1:01:32] purchased.
[1:01:33] And at the time, there was not a sewer
[1:01:35] lift station. And so, there were there
[1:01:38] were 400 connections that you could use.
[1:01:41] There was agreement with Salem City.
[1:01:43] And a lot of those homes in Mill and
[1:01:45] Mill Haven or uh
[1:01:47] Old Mill Estates and Mill Steen and
[1:01:49] Academy Park, those all sewer to Salem
[1:01:52] and they paid Salem for their sewer.
[1:01:54] Um so, when we started looking at this
[1:01:56] and bringing it in to to be developed to
[1:01:59] look at developing it,
[1:02:01] Chris Thompson at the time, the
[1:02:02] engineer, up and Jared Johnson kind of
[1:02:05] approached me and said, "Hey, if you'll
[1:02:07] work with us, can you delay this? We'd
[1:02:09] love to get the lift station. We just
[1:02:10] don't want to send more sewer. We hate
[1:02:12] that complication of that." So, we put
[1:02:15] it on hold and tabled it and kind of
[1:02:17] helped them with that lift station and be and was patient with that. So, at
[1:02:22] that In the meantime, the road section
[1:02:26] kind of widened even more um than what
[1:02:29] it was
[1:02:30] back then. So,
[1:02:33] but you can see the the that's the
[1:02:34] purchase ground, right? So, we purchased
[1:02:36] that extra width.
[1:02:38] But it that all that stuff didn't fit in in what your current one, but we
[1:02:42] still got everything in there and that
[1:02:43] was a modification that was made, I
[1:02:45] believe, right?
[1:02:46] Byron can kind of But that's kind of the
[1:02:48] history of
[1:02:49] >> Okay.
[1:02:49] >> Hey, we we did what was at the time and
[1:02:53] you asked us to wait.
[1:02:55] We got to figure this out cuz this is we
[1:02:57] own the road width of what
[1:02:59] that standard was, which was still a
[1:03:01] collector road. And the other thing too,
[1:03:03] really quick, that the park is 3 acres.
[1:03:06] Somebody asked that.
[1:03:07] >> you.
[1:03:07] >> Then uh um it's not just the one
[1:03:10] collector road up there. There's also
[1:03:11] the there's there's two
[1:03:13] So, we're putting in two collector
[1:03:14] roads. Obviously, we fund that and over
[1:03:17] time we'll get paid back, but that's a
[1:03:19] I think that was part of the
[1:03:20] consideration of hey, there's a lot
[1:03:22] going on here and that's a that's a big
[1:03:24] road.
[1:03:25] And the other one's a collector road
[1:03:26] also coming on the other side, so.
[1:03:29] >> Awesome, thank you.
[1:03:31] Okay, and then
[1:03:34] bonds for future street improvements for
[1:03:36] the proposed lot 83.
[1:03:40] Can we
[1:03:41] What does that mean?
[1:03:43] >> Sorry.
[1:03:46] » I know this is taking time, but this
[1:03:48] feels like we're being thorough, so
[1:03:49] thank you.
[1:03:51] >> I hurt my back yesterday, so
[1:03:53] >> Uh-oh.
[1:03:53] >> It's fine.
[1:03:54] >> Up and down.
[1:03:56] >> Keep going.
[1:03:57] >> Right there.
[1:03:58] So, as this road extends,
[1:04:01] um obviously this property is not
[1:04:04] involved in the current proposal. So, in
[1:04:07] the future when this road extends, this
[1:04:09] lot 83 will then now have frontage
[1:04:12] improvements that would be expected but
[1:04:14] at that point of the being existing
[1:04:15] platted lot, the house here currently
[1:04:18] has a driveway that comes through um
[1:04:21] this way.
[1:04:22] And so we would we'd be putting aside
[1:04:25] funds so that as this road extends,
[1:04:27] those funds can be applied to the
[1:04:29] improvements along this part of the lot.
[1:04:31] >> You mean if that road extends?
[1:04:33] >> [clears throat]
[1:04:34] >> They could keep farming for as long as
[1:04:36] they want.
[1:04:38] Thanks, Brent.
[1:04:41] That's great.
[1:04:43] Okay,
[1:04:45] um
[1:04:47] that the applicant provides additional
[1:04:48] details of the proposed housing products
[1:04:50] and we discussed that a little bit.
[1:04:53] And
[1:04:56] Right.
[1:04:58] Uh
[1:05:00] the the applicant provides an updated
[1:05:01] street tree plan, detailed landscaping
[1:05:04] plan, fencing plan, details for
[1:05:06] improvements in the development, and
[1:05:08] that the applicant obtains approval from
[1:05:10] the irrigation company and we've already
[1:05:13] discussed that. Okay. Does anyone have
[1:05:15] any other comments or questions so far
[1:05:17] before we go to public comment?
[1:05:20] All right. We
[1:05:22] >> Ready for comment?
[1:05:24] >> Yep, just 1 second. All right, so we
[1:05:27] uh we are now
[1:05:30] going to open it up to public comment.
[1:05:32] That will be 3 minutes and uh and you're
[1:05:35] welcome to come make sure you introduce
[1:05:38] yourself and um we'd love to know the
[1:05:41] area of the city
[1:05:43] where you live.
[1:05:45] All righty.
[1:05:46] Thank you.
[1:05:47] >> Go.
[1:05:49] >> Okay.
[1:05:50] Pull up the land designation slide,
[1:05:52] please.
[1:05:52] >> introduce yourself, sir?
[1:05:54] >> Oh, sorry. I'm sorry. Daniel Davis. I
[1:05:55] live on Mill Road.
[1:05:56] >> Okay.
[1:05:57] >> And uh this affects me quite a bit, so
[1:06:01] um
[1:06:03] So, okay.
[1:06:05] Uh there's some conflation about uh
[1:06:08] third acre versus R6.
[1:06:11] Right in this area right here. This is
[1:06:12] the This is the dividing line,
[1:06:15] if I remember correctly. Right here for
[1:06:17] the R6. Because of wobbling lasers, this
[1:06:21] is all going to be converted to R6. This
[1:06:23] is now estate. So, half of that uh
[1:06:27] higher density is going to be asked to
[1:06:29] be changed to R6.
[1:06:31] I am in favor of sticking to estate. I
[1:06:34] have submitted to the city's uh general
[1:06:38] plan of third acre in their areas,
[1:06:40] wherever they've decided. I've decided
[1:06:42] that's the concrete over the years. I've
[1:06:43] been to many of these meetings and just
[1:06:45] stick with the general plan, you'll be
[1:06:47] all right. Uh this is going to affect me
[1:06:49] greatly because I live right here. There
[1:06:51] is a roundabout
[1:06:53] right here and it is We've had a lot of
[1:06:55] uh back and forth over the year. This is
[1:06:57] going to Man, I'm as wobbling as bad as
[1:06:59] everybody else. This is going to go
[1:07:01] through here, right?
[1:07:03] So, this affects me greatly. grow. This
[1:07:05] is I have ground here. It's in Greenbelt
[1:07:08] and I don't want to live in a
[1:07:10] subdivision and so I'm going to stay
[1:07:13] that way. Nobody has contacted me
[1:07:15] concerning irrigation issues. I irrigate
[1:07:19] this ground
[1:07:20] and it flows this way.
[1:07:23] And so
[1:07:25] I have you know, if somebody has talked
[1:07:26] to somebody I haven't talked to.
[1:07:28] Uh
[1:07:29] in the past it has ran over here but
[1:07:31] it's not been an issue cuz it just help
[1:07:32] I'll have to watch that. My main one of
[1:07:35] my main concerns is historical water.
[1:07:38] When uh subdivisions move in they find a
[1:07:40] way to drain the ground of its
[1:07:42] historical water putting it in
[1:07:44] underground avenues like sewer water
[1:07:48] culinary water secondary water. They put
[1:07:50] the pipe in and gravel around it and
[1:07:52] then they drain the whole ground and you
[1:07:53] have to put twice as much water to get
[1:07:55] keep your field green. So I I would uh
[1:07:59] strongly demand mhm state that
[1:08:04] mitigation is done such that historical
[1:08:06] water is not pulled from this hill
[1:08:08] uh
[1:08:09] or any other surrounding grounds. You
[1:08:11] want to build these houses well I don't
[1:08:12] I care. Uh
[1:08:14] so let's stick to third acre. Don't make
[1:08:16] them quarter acre houses.
[1:08:18] Uh this as far as I understand is um
[1:08:22] counts as two lots, right? Anything over
[1:08:25] 30 30,000
[1:08:28] square feet. So that's good to hear.
[1:08:30] This should not be gamed to make to put
[1:08:32] more houses in. It's nice. I got I have
[1:08:34] no problem with their arrival. They've
[1:08:36] been around. Um
[1:08:38] so then
[1:08:41] um
[1:08:44] so recalibrate that.
[1:08:46] Uh I've been around since I was a kid.
[1:08:48] This is swamp.
[1:08:50] There have been years I went down there
[1:08:51] as a kid and you'd sink down in the
[1:08:53] ground clear to your knees. You'll find
[1:08:54] cattle tracks to that uh uh
[1:08:57] to that uh
[1:08:58] that will state that. So anyway, thank
[1:09:01] you.
[1:09:02] >> Thank you, Mr. Davis.
[1:09:05] All right.
[1:09:07] Hello.
[1:09:08] >> I'm John Henderson. Um, I live just on
[1:09:11] the east side of Mill Road, about a
[1:09:13] block from the corner or so from the
[1:09:16] corner of where this is happening.
[1:09:18] Um, I I would second what Dan said as
[1:09:20] far as sticking to the master plan.
[1:09:23] We don't feel like they did that with
[1:09:24] the town homes. Though they're nice,
[1:09:27] but um we'd prefer to see that. Um I am glad
[1:09:31] to see that they're at least the garden
[1:09:33] homes, they're not they're not the
[1:09:35] connected or sharing walls.
[1:09:37] Um my our big concern really is traffic.
[1:09:41] And um
[1:09:42] what I don't know is yeah, that's great.
[1:09:44] There's a eventually there'll be a wider
[1:09:47] road there,
[1:09:48] but how long will that be? Right now,
[1:09:51] there needs to be a turn lane at Mill
[1:09:53] Road and Arrowhead
[1:09:55] because that traffic backs up. My wife
[1:09:57] says it's been backed up to our house,
[1:09:59] which is almost a half a mile.
[1:10:01] Um and so that's one of our big concerns
[1:10:05] is that traffic. It's a narrow road um
[1:10:08] and you have a lot of uh
[1:10:10] of commercial um dump trucks, not just a
[1:10:13] small dump truck like from old mill, but
[1:10:17] um
[1:10:17] the large ones. Somebody but anyway,
[1:10:19] there's quite a bit of that that goes
[1:10:21] down there. Um
[1:10:23] and so [clears throat] I'm I'm just
[1:10:24] concerned, especially if you get school
[1:10:26] goes in there,
[1:10:27] when will that be widened? How far is it
[1:10:30] only the frontage of the property that's
[1:10:32] owned that will be widened cuz that
[1:10:34] doesn't do us do us much good. Um and so
[1:10:37] that's that's our big concern there.
[1:10:39] We're going to add 200 homes. I'm not
[1:10:41] clear. It sounds like maybe this other
[1:10:44] is 1,700. Is that where the IHC
[1:10:47] >> Yes.
[1:10:47] >> is? Okay.
[1:10:48] >> The Revere.
[1:10:48] >> So so that so that will be that will go
[1:10:52] out onto there. So there will be two
[1:10:54] outlets.
[1:10:56] Um okay. That's good, but you still have
[1:11:00] um, you know, 100 homes or so or close
[1:11:02] to that uh, many will access through there and it's already
[1:11:09] um, quite quite busy.
[1:11:11] Um, and so I think that's Was there
[1:11:13] anything else?
[1:11:14] Yeah, that that's our that's our main
[1:11:15] thing. I mean,
[1:11:16] we live in a raved home um, and we like
[1:11:19] the character and the nature that
[1:11:21] they're doing like like was said
[1:11:23] um, and that, but but I would I would
[1:11:25] second Dan's concern about changing the
[1:11:28] zoning on on the garden homes um, cuz we
[1:11:31] feel like
[1:11:32] we nobody was listened to a few years
[1:11:35] ago.
[1:11:36] Uh, I think it was the biggest thing
[1:11:37] they had online. I There was I think a
[1:11:39] thousand people that got on
[1:11:42] um, and it didn't feel like anybody
[1:11:44] listened or anything and so um, the
[1:11:47] problem we had there was they were
[1:11:48] saying, "Oh, well, if it's commercial,
[1:11:50] it's going to be more traffic." I'll
[1:11:52] take more traffic because it's going to
[1:11:53] be mostly during the day. There's no
[1:11:55] traffic at night. There's no traffic on
[1:11:58] Saturday and Sunday. So, um, they can
[1:12:01] present those plans and and numbers like
[1:12:03] there's more traffic and and there could
[1:12:05] be, but
[1:12:06] we need to look at the whole picture
[1:12:07] there and uh, and and what it does
[1:12:10] there. So, anyway, that's uh, thank you
[1:12:12] for your time.
[1:12:13] >> [music]
[1:12:13] >> John, can I can I ask you one question,
[1:12:14] John?
[1:12:15] >> Yes.
[1:12:15] >> And I'll go real quick. Um,
[1:12:17] your uh,
[1:12:18] if there were traffic light here or
[1:12:20] something, is that where you're talking
[1:12:21] about it backs up quite a bit?
[1:12:23] >> Yeah.
[1:12:23] >> Well, on it's no, it's further down
[1:12:26] where it
[1:12:26] hits here Arrowhead.
[1:12:28] >> Okay, where you Oh, where you hit
[1:12:29] Arrowhead?
[1:12:29] >> Yeah.
[1:12:29] >> And so like a traffic light or widening,
[1:12:31] that's kind of what you you think would
[1:12:32] >> Well, yeah, cuz right now you're stuck
[1:12:34] there and and half of it turns right and
[1:12:38] half goes straight and a little bit
[1:12:39] turns left. And so you could a lot of
[1:12:42] times it's only one car in front of you
[1:12:44] and you have to wait through the light,
[1:12:46] but again, at certain times of the day,
[1:12:49] it's it's awful. I mean, you're waiting
[1:12:51] through a couple of light, two-three
[1:12:52] lights
[1:12:53] um
[1:12:54] to to to get through uh to just get out.
[1:12:57] And if they had a turn lane there to
[1:12:59] turn right, it would help, I think,
[1:13:02] significantly. I mean, it's still going
[1:13:03] to back up, probably, but
[1:13:06] um but that's my concern is, okay, so
[1:13:08] it's wide right there for a block, and
[1:13:10] then
[1:13:12] we have this narrow road um
[1:13:15] all the way down for almost a half mile.
[1:13:17] >> I appreciate that feedback.
[1:13:18] >> All right. Thanks, Mr. [clears throat]
[1:13:19] Henderson.
[1:13:20] Hey, who else would like to come and
[1:13:22] speak?
[1:13:35] » My name is Charles Albert. I have a
[1:13:37] property that on Mill Road, west of Mill
[1:13:39] Road in Arna
[1:13:40] No one
[1:13:42] as the old dairy farm.
[1:13:46] And the development
[1:13:48] I
[1:13:49] want to know about irrigation.
[1:13:51] If they take the irrigation away, where
[1:13:53] they put pressurized irrigation?
[1:13:58] That's what I want to know about. And
[1:13:59] while they're do if they're doing the
[1:14:01] construction, will they put a sound wall
[1:14:02] along my property line?
[1:14:05] That's what I want to know about.
[1:14:07] And also, I might want to make a
[1:14:09] comment. Years ago, the Mulsteen Ranch
[1:14:12] was Mulsteen Farm.
[1:14:14] They developed that,
[1:14:16] and they didn't want to put a
[1:14:18] retention pond in. So, they talked city
[1:14:21] council into putting gabions in there.
[1:14:23] Gabions is a big wire cage with sewer
[1:14:26] rock.
[1:14:27] And there's an entrance
[1:14:29] about every lot, and they plug up every
[1:14:32] day. They can't even consume 5 gallons
[1:14:34] of water pouring on it in 20 minutes.
[1:14:38] And you
[1:14:39] if you talked to any of the homeowners
[1:14:41] right there,
[1:14:42] it's
[1:14:44] a steady hassle to keep that cleaned up.
[1:14:48] And that's all I want to say.
[1:14:51] >> Well, thank you, Mr. Albert.
[1:14:52] >> Thanks.
[1:14:58] » All right, anyone else?
[1:15:05] Representative, you're going to come
[1:15:06] talk to us?
[1:15:09] » [laughter]
[1:15:12] » I'm always nice. Hello. So, my name is
[1:15:15] Jacquie Larson
[1:15:17] for this moment. So, I am speaking on
[1:15:19] behalf of Larson Cattle Company and Gary
[1:15:21] and Sue Larson. Our property adjoins the
[1:15:24] proposed Leyland Meadows development on
[1:15:26] three of the sides. Um so, on behalf of
[1:15:29] our family, I respectfully request that
[1:15:31] the Planning Commission recommend denial
[1:15:33] of the proposed zone change and master
[1:15:35] plan development overlay and deny the
[1:15:36] accompanying preliminary plat. I have
[1:15:38] several reasons, but I have 2 and 1/2
[1:15:39] minutes, so I'm going to go through it
[1:15:40] really fast. Um
[1:15:43] plans. So, before I adjust this
[1:15:44] substance of the application, I
[1:15:46] respectfully request that the city
[1:15:48] provide me,
[1:15:49] probably also you, and the public with
[1:15:52] the clear and legible copies of the
[1:15:53] preliminary plat and the supporting
[1:15:55] plans. Uh the copies posted with this
[1:15:57] agenda are not sufficiently readable to
[1:15:59] verify the utility locations, ownership,
[1:16:01] easements, irrigation facilities,
[1:16:03] slopes, or other details that are
[1:16:04] material material to this application.
[1:16:07] Um utility easement.
[1:16:08] So, one of the most significant issues
[1:16:10] involves utility easement across most of
[1:16:12] our property. We granted uh Dean a 35-ft
[1:16:16] wide easement at no cost so this
[1:16:18] development could proceed. In return,
[1:16:20] the agreement was that the city water
[1:16:22] and power would be brought to our
[1:16:24] property, and city staff assured us that
[1:16:27] we would be able to connect to those
[1:16:28] utilities without forfeiting our
[1:16:29] existing water rights or changing the
[1:16:31] way we irrigate our property.
[1:16:33] Um those commitments are not clearly
[1:16:35] shown or documented on the plans before
[1:16:36] you, and these obligations were not
[1:16:38] material part of or were material part
[1:16:40] of the consideration. So,
[1:16:44] the preliminary plat is not clear if
[1:16:46] they're already on there.
[1:16:48] And there is also a gap. So,
[1:16:51] for roughly the past year, I've been
[1:16:53] working on resolving a legal description
[1:16:55] of our property. There is a gap of about
[1:16:57] 25 ft from the taxing parcel line to
[1:16:59] where our historical fence line is. So,
[1:17:01] that being said, there's still
[1:17:02] approximately a 25-ft gap between the
[1:17:04] end of the current taxing parcel and
[1:17:07] where this easement ends. So, until that
[1:17:10] boundary is legally resolved, plans show
[1:17:12] the water and power in the city's
[1:17:13] commitments are documented in writing, I
[1:17:15] will not be granting the additional
[1:17:16] easement needed for this applicant or
[1:17:18] this development.
[1:17:20] One other quick thing, 55 seconds. Okay.
[1:17:22] Uh property ownership inaccuracies. So,
[1:17:24] there are also some serious
[1:17:27] concerns regarding property ownership.
[1:17:29] So, the staff recommendation includes a
[1:17:30] condition which required Nebo School
[1:17:32] District property Nebo School District
[1:17:34] to approve a prop proposed land swap to
[1:17:37] accommodate the development. However,
[1:17:39] the preliminary plat sheets 2B, 3B, and
[1:17:41] also the exhibits on the zone change
[1:17:44] appear to depict the property owned by
[1:17:46] Larson Cattle Cattle Company's and my
[1:17:48] family's property as belonging to Nebo
[1:17:50] School District. And it does not belong
[1:17:52] to them. So, it's I don't think it's a
[1:17:55] harmless labeling error. Um I was able
[1:17:57] to find the wetland delineation report
[1:18:00] that had clear
[1:18:02] plans than what were provided here and
[1:18:04] it does show Nebo School District. So,
[1:18:06] that's one other thing. Um the ditch
[1:18:08] that same property,
[1:18:09] um
[1:18:10] it contains a private irrigation ditch.
[1:18:12] It's not a company ditch. It's part of
[1:18:14] our vested water rights and Utah law
[1:18:15] requires those rights to be protected
[1:18:17] from encroachments.
[1:18:18] And
[1:18:20] things are mentioned about the general
[1:18:21] plan. One quick thing with that,
[1:18:23] Commissioner Woodhouse, you might
[1:18:24] remember this. When our family agreed to
[1:18:26] annex, we were majority of the Leland
[1:18:28] annexation area. Um the commitment made
[1:18:30] by the city and to the property owners
[1:18:33] and to this community was that
[1:18:34] development within the Leland annex area
[1:18:35] would not be denser than third acre
[1:18:38] lots. And that history is consistent
[1:18:40] with the general plan of state density
[1:18:41] which covers most of this area. So, that
[1:18:43] being said, what's before you, I would
[1:18:45] request that you deny it. We get things
[1:18:47] situated and then it comes back before
[1:18:48] you guys with actual
[1:18:50] accurate plans so that we know what
[1:18:55] the overlay is kind of being adjusted to
[1:18:57] accommodate. Thank you.
[1:19:01] >> Thank you.
[1:19:02] Jackie.
[1:19:06] Okay.
[1:19:08] Anyone else to
[1:19:10] uh anyone else to come for public
[1:19:12] comment?
[1:19:14] All right. With that, I will close we'll
[1:19:16] close public comment.
[1:19:18] Time Oh, never mind. We won't do it
[1:19:21] quite yet.
[1:19:21] >> We have more people to take up so I was
[1:19:23] going to wait and see what happens. But
[1:19:24] >> Come on up.
[1:19:25] >> I'm Clint Millstein. I live on Mill
[1:19:27] Road. Lived there for a long time.
[1:19:29] Um
[1:19:30] just want to say
[1:19:32] um one of the things that really affects
[1:19:35] this whole development is the
[1:19:36] development of the roads. You talked
[1:19:38] about your engineering study and a plan
[1:19:40] for Mill Road as well as the other roads
[1:19:42] that surround it. I really think that
[1:19:44] there needs to be a clear plan put put
[1:19:46] before everybody before we even do any
[1:19:48] of this stuff because Mill Road and the
[1:19:50] other roads
[1:19:51] are a major problem. My wife goes to,
[1:19:54] you know, on the road at 8:00 a.m. and
[1:19:57] has to sit there for 35 minutes to try
[1:19:58] to get out. ALA's backed up all the way
[1:20:00] up and down the road. It's absolutely
[1:20:03] ridiculous.
[1:20:04] Um it'd be interesting to know that can
[1:20:06] we do some kind of a study like we
[1:20:08] normally do with road studies to figure
[1:20:10] out how many cars are going up and down
[1:20:11] the road,
[1:20:13] um how many how many drivers uh 200
[1:20:15] homes are going to create going up and
[1:20:17] down those roads.
[1:20:18] Uh it's a major thing. The other thing
[1:20:20] is is we don't know for sure whether the
[1:20:22] school's going to go in or not.
[1:20:24] And having said that, these kids that
[1:20:26] live in these homes have to be able to
[1:20:28] go to school, all right? And they got to
[1:20:30] have a way to walk. Well, we know that
[1:20:31] we've got
[1:20:32] specifically with both roads that are on
[1:20:34] both corridors there,
[1:20:36] no sidewalks halfway up and down. Uh
[1:20:39] they get developed when a person comes
[1:20:42] in and develops their property. Um not
[1:20:45] at the time when the piece of property
[1:20:47] is developed across the street, and then
[1:20:50] these kids are going through the buck
[1:20:52] brushes, through the through the dirt,
[1:20:54] and everything else, the the weeds and
[1:20:56] everything else tracking that around,
[1:20:58] and it's just not a safe environment.
[1:21:00] Um so, I would highly recommend that we
[1:21:02] take a serious look at that. As Charles
[1:21:05] mentioned about I I didn't know what the
[1:21:06] name of the particular sewer system was.
[1:21:09] Thank you, Charles, for helping me with
[1:21:10] that.
[1:21:11] Uh the J-dance. I'm the guy that just
[1:21:15] this Monday I got to go out with my
[1:21:16] shovel and dig it all out all the debris
[1:21:20] out to try to get the sprinkler water
[1:21:22] and all the other water that comes down
[1:21:24] through the current ALA development to
[1:21:27] go down inside the rocks. There's snakes
[1:21:29] that go in there. There's all kinds of
[1:21:31] other things that attract them because
[1:21:32] of the water. So, please
[1:21:34] >> What are those called again?
[1:21:35] >> They you call them a J-dance, I believe
[1:21:37] it is.
[1:21:39] >> They're a basket they put under the
[1:21:41] ground instead of curb and gutter.
[1:21:42] >> Basically a cement culvert full of
[1:21:44] rocks. [clears throat]
[1:21:45] >> Yeah. Oh, got you. Okay.
[1:21:47] >> It's absolutely ridiculous. The other
[1:21:49] thing is back to the plan for me,
[1:21:51] something that's really critical for me
[1:21:53] is So, I built my home there in 1994.
[1:21:56] The city council approved my plot plan,
[1:21:59] and my house basically sits about 60 ft
[1:22:03] from the road.
[1:22:05] And if you look at the way that the road
[1:22:06] is designed, I'm very interested in the
[1:22:08] plan to see where that roadway's going
[1:22:10] to go.
[1:22:11] Um my sidewalk runs right straight into
[1:22:14] um the fire hydrant right now. That's where my house is at. So, that's
[1:22:19] not a good thing, as well as all the
[1:22:20] electrical services and everything that
[1:22:22] are underground right there.
[1:22:24] So, um
[1:22:26] I really hope that there's some kind of
[1:22:27] a plan to make sure that I don't lose
[1:22:29] any more of my frontage and those type
[1:22:31] of things so that I can at least get out
[1:22:32] on the road and drive.
[1:22:34] And I I think that's
[1:22:37] those are my main topics.
[1:22:38] >> Thanks so much, Mr. Milstein.
[1:22:40] Okay.
[1:22:42] Uh,
[1:22:43] let's see.
[1:22:45] All right. Anyone else?
[1:22:48] All right, then we'll close public
[1:22:49] comment.
[1:22:50] And
[1:22:52] uh
[1:22:54] with that, does anybody have any I we'll
[1:22:57] go through some of these concerns, ask
[1:22:59] staff, and ask [clears throat] our our
[1:23:00] applicant.
[1:23:02] Uh, do do you have anything off the top
[1:23:04] of your head, Mr. Anderson?
[1:23:07] Of those
[1:23:10] » I'm not sure that I should.
[1:23:12] Um, but uh I appreciate the different
[1:23:14] comments that have been raised relative
[1:23:16] to the [clears throat] land use map of
[1:23:18] the general plan.
[1:23:20] Um, and just maybe want to offer a
[1:23:22] little different perspective. I clearly
[1:23:24] staff, we've recommended that the
[1:23:26] project be approved with the idea that
[1:23:28] it is consistent with that map with the
[1:23:31] general plan. Um, that is somewhat
[1:23:33] subjective and that's by design.
[1:23:37] Uh, the intent often times is not
[1:23:40] to follow the line work on that map
[1:23:42] precisely
[1:23:43] when you get to the point of looking at
[1:23:44] a site specific situation like this
[1:23:47] where you actually have
[1:23:49] a detailed development proposal in front
[1:23:51] of you
[1:23:53] um, with therefore
[1:23:55] detailed lines on zoning districts. Um
[1:23:59] that being the case, I think the
[1:24:01] planning commission, you guys certainly
[1:24:03] have the latitude to view that however
[1:24:05] you think is appropriate. I appreciate
[1:24:08] that other people look at it and they
[1:24:10] uh feel like the general plan map maybe
[1:24:13] should be administered differently or considered differently, you know, in
[1:24:19] this particular context. Um
[1:24:22] that's really the only thought that I
[1:24:23] have. I was just that I think, you know,
[1:24:26] that that certainly is something for you
[1:24:28] guys to consider relative to the the
[1:24:30] zoning
[1:24:32] of the properties that we're looking at
[1:24:33] here.
[1:24:34] >> But it doesn't always go the other way.
[1:24:38] >> So,
[1:24:41] sorry.
[1:24:43] >> Yeah, let's keep it
[1:24:44] >> Wait, we do
[1:24:46] >> public comment is closed. We'll reopen
[1:24:48] it with the zone change, but if you
[1:24:50] >> for the chair to decide. So, we'll let
[1:24:51] her run the meeting.
[1:24:53] >> Right, but yeah, we we can see what
[1:24:56] you're saying. Thank you. Okay, so
[1:24:58] um, so what I'm assum- assuming Mr.
[1:25:01] [clears throat] Ingram and maybe uh,
[1:25:03] maybe I can let you speak to it, but
[1:25:06] my first question is uh, is for city staff. This road is a
[1:25:11] pre-planned road. This is what's going
[1:25:14] to be there no matter what and then so
[1:25:16] he did lower density on this side of the
[1:25:19] road and higher density on this side of
[1:25:20] the road.
[1:25:21] >> No, the
[1:25:22] >> Is that
[1:25:22] >> transportation master plan is is this
[1:25:25] 1700 West. So, this is a master planned
[1:25:28] road that
[1:25:30] in our master plan it curves kind of
[1:25:32] east to line up with the intersection on
[1:25:35] 9th South eventually in the future.
[1:25:37] >> Okay, and so then what about this road
[1:25:39] right here? That's
[1:25:40] >> This is just a residential
[1:25:43] um,
[1:25:44] road that they designed to connect
[1:25:47] the two neighborhoods.
[1:25:49] >> Designed by our applicant.
[1:25:50] >> Yeah.
[1:25:51] >> Okay.
[1:25:51] >> And so this is the other master plan
[1:25:53] road that eventually will tie in to Mill
[1:25:56] Road.
[1:25:57] >> At the
[1:25:57] >> collector
[1:25:58] >> roundabout.
[1:25:58] >> At the roundabout, yeah.
[1:25:59] >> Okay, so tell us about that, Mr. Ingram.
[1:26:01] >> So, so yeah, so
[1:26:03] two different master plan roads. Um,
[1:26:05] part of part of that shifting I can
[1:26:07] appreciate um, concern and stuff. Um,
[1:26:10] part of that shifting is
[1:26:12] we're we're putting in and we we agreed
[1:26:16] to
[1:26:18] help with this master plan road and
[1:26:20] jogging that through the middle of a
[1:26:21] property and that makes it extremely
[1:26:24] hard to develop. I mean it we're
[1:26:27] you're talking about
[1:26:29] a curved road that you've got to figure
[1:26:31] out how to put stuff on both sides of it
[1:26:32] and
[1:26:34] I think that was the between doing that
[1:26:36] one and both different collector roads.
[1:26:37] Now we pay for those
[1:26:39] eventually after years we get not all of
[1:26:42] it but a portion of that back.
[1:26:44] But I think that was the consideration
[1:26:47] when we were working originally with
[1:26:48] staff year even, you know, a few years
[1:26:50] ago that hey, you know, can this shift a
[1:26:53] little bit because we're putting in a
[1:26:55] lot of infrastructure to solve city
[1:26:58] issues and I think it's a joint
[1:27:00] partnership a lot of times to to get
[1:27:02] what the city needs along with what we
[1:27:04] what we're looking to do and desire to
[1:27:06] do. So, I think part of that is because
[1:27:08] of that um
[1:27:10] and it
[1:27:10] >> [clears throat]
[1:27:11] >> uh
[1:27:11] you know, you like I said, you've got a
[1:27:13] pretty big collector road um
[1:27:16] it's I mean it it's a total of five
[1:27:18] lanes eventually build out, right?
[1:27:20] >> Yes.
[1:27:21] >> So, it's not a it's not a small it's not
[1:27:24] a small feat for sure.
[1:27:26] So, that would probably address that.
[1:27:27] You want me to address some of the other
[1:27:28] just to help out with that?
[1:27:30] >> that'd be great.
[1:27:31] >> So, with Charles, yeah, pressurized
[1:27:33] irrigation is stubbed there um
[1:27:36] for certain um
[1:27:37] and then also those those storm tech and
[1:27:40] what it wasn't storm tech. What were
[1:27:41] those things used to be called? They're
[1:27:42] terrible. That wasn't us by the way.
[1:27:44] That was EPA and city
[1:27:47] saying hey, we we have to discharge the
[1:27:49] water immediately and this is our new
[1:27:51] system. We we built to city standards.
[1:27:53] It's not those aren't things we wanted
[1:27:54] to put in. Luckily now they've gotten
[1:27:56] rid of those cuz I hate them, too. They
[1:27:58] are nightmares cuz when you build, you
[1:28:00] don't know where your driveway and
[1:28:02] utility like you you put those in and
[1:28:04] then you're replacing them during the
[1:28:05] construction time, too. So, they were a terrible idea but that's not from us
[1:28:10] as builders. That's from what the city
[1:28:13] stand standard was and what EPA was
[1:28:15] how they wanted to discharge water for a time being. I don't know the whole
[1:28:20] history of that, but that's definitely
[1:28:21] not something we
[1:28:22] rose our hand up to do. It's more
[1:28:24] expensive than putting a a pond in or
[1:28:26] something like that. So, the new the new
[1:28:28] system is back to the ponds and that's
[1:28:30] what we have.
[1:28:31] We would rather do those all day long.
[1:28:34] Um
[1:28:35] and then
[1:28:36] um
[1:28:36] yeah, the the traffic and road widening. We are
[1:28:41] obviously widening that area. Un-
[1:28:43] unfortunately, we don't control
[1:28:44] everything else. I do think it's
[1:28:46] probably wise for the city there is an
[1:28:48] issue down at Arrowhead. That is the
[1:28:51] backup. I do think having a few more
[1:28:54] ways out when
[1:28:55] that traffic does start to back up that
[1:28:57] you can go down and hit these other
[1:28:59] collector roads cuz this is a wider I
[1:29:00] think that's a bigger road, too. Um
[1:29:03] on the very south side right here.
[1:29:06] Um and then it's I think that this road
[1:29:08] that right there.
[1:29:09] >> Yeah, we planning that.
[1:29:12] >> Wasn't that a little bit bigger, too, or
[1:29:15] >> It's a local Yeah, originally
[1:29:17] >> Anyway, so it's nice to have another
[1:29:19] access point to get somewhere if that
[1:29:22] does, but it does need I mean, there is
[1:29:23] a signal now which for safety is good
[1:29:25] down on Arrowhead, but I I will agree
[1:29:27] with everybody here. I mean, I drive
[1:29:29] there all the time. Um
[1:29:31] and uh
[1:29:32] it's just a tough situation with this
[1:29:34] you know, ALA when it gets out of maybe
[1:29:36] other times, too. I'm not sure. Um but
[1:29:38] that's more so I think getting that
[1:29:40] turning lane and stuff like that a
[1:29:41] better traffic signal timing.
[1:29:44] Cuz you can sit there for a little
[1:29:45] while. Um there's no doubt about that,
[1:29:47] but um
[1:29:48] anyways, I don't know if there was other
[1:29:50] ones I can address, but that's kind of
[1:29:51] the
[1:29:52] as far as where that line
[1:29:55] moved at that's a lot of negotiation
[1:29:56] with the city and a lot of the ask of
[1:29:59] hey, we want this collector road to go
[1:30:01] through the middle of your property. Um
[1:30:03] and it makes it really it's a big
[1:30:05] expense. I mean, that's a million-dollar
[1:30:07] road, so um
[1:30:08] it's not a cheap road to carry.
[1:30:10] But, he says I do get interest on the
[1:30:12] money, I guess.
[1:30:13] Probably not very good interest, but
[1:30:15] >> [laughter]
[1:30:16] >> Thank you.
[1:30:18] Okay.
[1:30:19] Uh let's see.
[1:30:21] Mr. Davis talked about keep you know,
[1:30:25] that you could So, what they I think what
[1:30:28] they're saying is that when they're
[1:30:30] seeing that
[1:30:32] when they're looking at the map, maybe
[1:30:33] I'll look over go over this who I see
[1:30:35] you can see, but
[1:30:36] they're saying that the line through here is really
[1:30:40] where the general plan line
[1:30:42] >> Yes.
[1:30:43] >> is.
[1:30:44] And and they're requesting to have this
[1:30:48] whole section this section be
[1:30:51] a state density like this section here.
[1:30:55] Uh we had a couple of people ask about
[1:30:57] that.
[1:30:58] Uh and
[1:31:00] you know, if you did that, it would line
[1:31:02] up
[1:31:03] you know, you could
[1:31:04] >> [clears throat]
[1:31:04] >> go along with this road right here and
[1:31:06] have Anyway, that's a possibility.
[1:31:10] Uh tell I'd love to hear about swamp
[1:31:13] area. They were saying some somewhere in
[1:31:15] here
[1:31:16] was swamp area.
[1:31:18] >> The whole bottom is.
[1:31:19] >> Okay.
[1:31:20] >> The whole bottom all the water from the
[1:31:21] hill drains down into that swamp into
[1:31:23] the bottom and it's
[1:31:24] it collect it's a swamp.
[1:31:26] >> Okay, so tell us about mitigate swamp
[1:31:28] mitigation. Hold on, Jackie.
[1:31:31] >> Jackie
[1:31:32] >> Uh Dean, can you tell us about swamp
[1:31:34] mitigation in that area?
[1:31:36] >> I don't know.
[1:31:37] >> But, she would know Jackie would know
[1:31:38] cuz it's her her land.
[1:31:40] >> Oh.
[1:31:41] Jackie would know, too. Anyway, tell
[1:31:43] us about mitigation.
[1:31:44] >> so the engineer
[1:31:45] >> to Jackie if she wants to go first.
[1:31:47] >> know if he can.
[1:31:48] >> Okay. So, I met with Dan
[1:31:50] what? 5 years ago? We did a little field
[1:31:53] trip.
[1:31:53] >> That's more like 15.
[1:31:55] >> Yeah, it's been a while. So,
[1:31:57] and I agree, there's a there's a ton of
[1:31:59] water, there's some flowing springs in
[1:32:01] there.
[1:32:02] And so first of all, there's no
[1:32:04] basements down on the lowland for
[1:32:06] obvious reasons, and we'll put utilities
[1:32:08] in.
[1:32:09] Um Dan talked about maintaining the
[1:32:11] groundwater.
[1:32:13] We're
[1:32:14] What are we? 20 25 ft below you?
[1:32:18] Right along there?
[1:32:19] >> I I don't know if the elevation is as
[1:32:20] important as flow over heavy water years
[1:32:23] like 1951.
[1:32:25] Uh other years when the whole valley
[1:32:27] flooded before there was any housing
[1:32:30] down in that low ground. At nighttime,
[1:32:32] you can look around the valley and see a
[1:32:33] bathtub line of of housing cuz the old
[1:32:36] farmers knew not to put houses down
[1:32:38] there.
[1:32:38] >> We'd have to have you come to the mic,
[1:32:39] but
[1:32:40] we get the idea.
[1:32:41] >> It's It's just
[1:32:43] Yeah. Of course.
[1:32:44] >> Yeah, all right.
[1:32:45] >> No, I was getting at that.
[1:32:45] >> Uh I grew up here. When I was a kid, we
[1:32:48] went down in that ground.
[1:32:50] Is this the public laser?
[1:32:52] We went down into this ground, and we
[1:32:54] shot ducks, and we ice skated. Some
[1:32:57] years it was so deep, the water would
[1:32:58] freeze over, and we'd ice skate down
[1:33:00] there. And it gets deep, and
[1:33:03] in during these drought years, you don't
[1:33:04] see reality. And it's not just flowing
[1:33:08] from rain, it's historical water. It
[1:33:10] follows these shelves underground. For
[1:33:12] example, if you look right
[1:33:14] about here where my uncle's house is, if
[1:33:16] you go down under there, there's a clay level that brings the water out
[1:33:22] of it, and you can see the grass
[1:33:23] growing. Right here, where this
[1:33:26] cul-de-sac's going to be, there is a
[1:33:27] currently a pond. When I was a kid, it
[1:33:29] was deep. And I have a photo from a a
[1:33:33] USGS photo from 1958
[1:33:36] that shows all the historical water. It
[1:33:38] just flows out. When I was a kid, this
[1:33:41] There was a pond here. My uncle Merrill
[1:33:43] uh dug it in 1972.
[1:33:46] And prior to that, my grandpa used to
[1:33:48] run cattle down in here, and we would go
[1:33:50] down, and you'd jump on the ground, and
[1:33:51] it would just slush just like Sorry. Uh
[1:33:54] just just quicksand. And so there's more
[1:33:57] water in this area than anybody realizes
[1:34:01] unless you've actually been down there
[1:34:03] and and messed with it as a kid. You
[1:34:04] know, I used to run down these ditches
[1:34:05] and and act and access.
[1:34:07] >> Okay. Okay.
[1:34:08] so I've been through here with
[1:34:10] several hydrogeologists and the state
[1:34:12] enforcement engineer. So how it kind of
[1:34:14] works is I'm
[1:34:15] don't know how lasers work.
[1:34:17] Okay, so right in here there's a pond
[1:34:19] that's linear. It's called Junior's
[1:34:20] Pond. There's several I want to say
[1:34:22] about 10 different water rights that are
[1:34:23] tied to that. They're not owned
[1:34:27] They're not the same as the property
[1:34:29] owner. They're different people in the
[1:34:30] area.
[1:34:31] Right around any here, it's actually
[1:34:33] peat soil. We've had cattle that have
[1:34:35] broke their legs in there before and it
[1:34:37] has methane gas and also has a high
[1:34:40] water content as well. There is a spring
[1:34:43] and a pond here. There's another pond
[1:34:45] here, here, and the other one that um
[1:34:49] Dan had just mentioned. So the way the
[1:34:51] ground works here is it's all clay down
[1:34:53] through this area. If you go across the
[1:34:56] street there, that's where the drainage
[1:34:57] district starts. But on the hillside,
[1:35:00] it's um there's a string of quicksand
[1:35:03] and gravel soil. So as people build and
[1:35:06] develop like through Spanish Fork, it
[1:35:08] acts as a sponge and will get new seeps
[1:35:10] and springs that kind of pop out in the
[1:35:11] different areas.
[1:35:12] >> Okay.
[1:35:13] >> Also that there is a water right here
[1:35:15] and the water rights here. There are
[1:35:17] four jurisdictional drains right along
[1:35:19] SR 164.
[1:35:21] Um I have been in conversations with the
[1:35:24] section chief of Army Corps of Engineers
[1:35:26] and the EPA enforcement. There is a
[1:35:28] current
[1:35:30] How do I phrase this? There's a current
[1:35:32] investigation into some other
[1:35:34] water situations of the area because all
[1:35:37] this water here that's on the surface
[1:35:39] serves as the headwaters to Bear Creek
[1:35:41] and that's a jurisdictional water.
[1:35:43] >> Okay.
[1:35:43] >> Thank you.
[1:35:45] >> Okay.
[1:35:47] All right. Dean's engineer, I forgot
[1:35:49] your name. Scott. Scott Peterson, thank
[1:35:52] you. Okay, tell us about engineering.
[1:35:54] >> Does this come better from me or from
[1:35:56] Biden?
[1:35:58] The regional
[1:35:59] studies.
[1:36:00] >> You could start.
[1:36:04] » Okay. So,
[1:36:05] this has been a big issue, right? It's an engineering issue. So, we
[1:36:11] the uh
[1:36:14] the water is high. There's a high ground
[1:36:16] water and we've we work in those.
[1:36:18] There's engineering processes to
[1:36:20] mitigate for that.
[1:36:21] There's a There's a storm drain and
[1:36:23] these will have a gravity system. So,
[1:36:25] we're collecting it in the roads. We're
[1:36:26] collecting the springs and there's even some
[1:36:29] specific areas in there that will be
[1:36:32] um excavated and monitored with spring
[1:36:35] collection over time
[1:36:37] to justify the house can be stably built
[1:36:40] in the later phases. So,
[1:36:42] there will be more more investigation
[1:36:45] done on that to to verify it in the
[1:36:47] field once we know we have some
[1:36:49] a viable project. The other thing is the easement uh
[1:36:54] that the Larsons granted us is for storm
[1:36:56] drain. It's a gravity feed system that
[1:36:58] has an exit point to convey
[1:37:00] [clears throat] that water out of there.
[1:37:02] >> And so you
[1:37:03] >> Correct.
[1:37:05] >> Okay.
[1:37:07] >> So, and I'm there's I'll touch on the
[1:37:09] regional. I've we've been at this 10
[1:37:12] years on this property and we started
[1:37:14] out with a regional study to see what to
[1:37:16] do with the water through here because
[1:37:18] as you know, it flows to the south and
[1:37:20] then it crosses and goes down through
[1:37:22] Salem and part of Payson.
[1:37:25] So, it's
[1:37:26] I guess that's the the bottom line is
[1:37:28] the utilities go in and then there's a
[1:37:30] place for the water to go in the future.
[1:37:32] The peat There is place in there with
[1:37:34] peat and and that's not suitable soil.
[1:37:36] So, the soils engineers will be doing
[1:37:39] hole inspections on every home to make
[1:37:41] sure it's suitable before we put the
[1:37:42] house in, but of course, no basements in
[1:37:45] there either. So, it'll be a shallow
[1:37:46] footing system.
[1:37:48] >> Okay.
[1:37:48] >> Is that any other questions?
[1:37:51] >> Thank you.
[1:37:52] >> Yeah, I just Can I say one more
[1:37:54] >> Sure.
[1:37:55] >> It's a matter of opinion.
[1:37:57] Uh and I'm not against the subdivision,
[1:37:59] okay? I got to know that. I just want it
[1:38:01] 30 acre and no cheating, no gaming,
[1:38:03] okay? But, the biggest thing is right
[1:38:05] here. He is right. There's a lot of
[1:38:07] water in here. This ground would be
[1:38:09] better served for Spanish Fork to make a
[1:38:12] water park sort of you know, with a
[1:38:15] walkway that goes down here cuz it's on
[1:38:17] the east side or you know, Main Street
[1:38:19] East. There's nothing on the west. You
[1:38:22] make this whole area clear down to
[1:38:23] Arrowhead Trail. I don't know. I don't
[1:38:26] know how you get the ground. But, you
[1:38:27] make that into a a cool
[1:38:30] uh nighttime where all these people that
[1:38:31] are going to be pushed in here or
[1:38:33] building here can participate and they
[1:38:35] can walk around there and enjoy the
[1:38:37] evening air uh when it's appropriate.
[1:38:40] >> Great. Thank you.
[1:38:41] Okay.
[1:38:43] Byron, what do you have to tell us?
[1:38:45] >> Yeah, just to add on to what Scott said.
[1:38:48] So,
[1:38:49] right now their plan they designed some
[1:38:51] land drains similar to what's west the
[1:38:54] drainage districts done west. These will
[1:38:56] be more ADS type pipes to collect
[1:38:59] where there's water coming out. Um
[1:39:02] they had an environmental company put
[1:39:04] together a report and that's what we
[1:39:06] reviewed and in the worst area or the
[1:39:09] wettest area that they show is actually
[1:39:11] why that park's there, too.
[1:39:14] Um so, we didn't want to put any homes
[1:39:16] where
[1:39:17] they showed where the actual spring is,
[1:39:19] but
[1:39:20] one of our conditions, too, is in phase
[1:39:22] one they're going to install all the
[1:39:25] land drains
[1:39:26] throughout the development in phase one
[1:39:28] and then we'll monitor it before the
[1:39:30] other phases come. So, if there's
[1:39:32] changes or or anything we've noticed,
[1:39:35] then we can make changes in the future
[1:39:37] phases. So, right now that's our plan.
[1:39:39] Um
[1:39:41] regionally it all goes south, and then
[1:39:43] there's existing culverts under SR 164,
[1:39:46] and that's where this will also tie into
[1:39:49] and continue to drain, and eventually it
[1:39:51] makes itself to Bear Creek, but yeah.
[1:39:54] >> Thank you.
[1:39:56] >> Are there any concerns with
[1:39:59] the existing springs down there and like
[1:40:01] the ponds and the people that own the
[1:40:02] water rights to those?
[1:40:05] >> Um
[1:40:06] >> Or do they or do we know?
[1:40:07] >> We haven't seen any water rights um
[1:40:12] for those particular springs that are
[1:40:14] different than the property owner, but
[1:40:16] as we collect them, that's one thing we
[1:40:18] want to watch. We want to get in phase
[1:40:19] one and watch [clears throat] it over
[1:40:21] the next couple years and see how it
[1:40:23] acts.
[1:40:25] » Yeah, cuz that was one of the questions
[1:40:27] about
[1:40:29] uh
[1:40:29] was about the impact to water
[1:40:33] for surrounding property owners.
[1:40:36] >> Yeah, I mean, their collection is just
[1:40:38] on this property. Um
[1:40:40] They'll work with the irrigation to
[1:40:42] continue with the irrigation company.
[1:40:44] The The company ditches will run however
[1:40:46] the irrigation company
[1:40:49] uh asks them to keep it running and and
[1:40:51] pipe, but
[1:40:53] um we don't plan on putting the pipe in
[1:40:56] anyone else's property. There's no
[1:40:59] design or desire to put it anywhere else
[1:41:01] but
[1:41:02] where this development is, so.
[1:41:04] >> Okay.
[1:41:06] Um let's see. What other questions do we
[1:41:08] have? That turn lane on Milroad and
[1:41:12] Arrowhead, we know that that's not
[1:41:14] neces- It sounds like this isn't
[1:41:15] necessarily part of this development,
[1:41:17] but sometimes things come up that
[1:41:20] >> Yeah, no, that's That's a good comment.
[1:41:22] Um
[1:41:23] Arrowhead
[1:41:24] or 164 is a UDot road, so they've just
[1:41:27] recently put that signal in, and at the
[1:41:29] time it didn't warrant a free right
[1:41:33] turn. I think it's a through and a
[1:41:35] right, and that's why you kind of have
[1:41:36] to wait to turn left, but we could
[1:41:38] definitely get back with Udot and do
[1:41:39] another warrant study on that signal and
[1:41:41] see if it warrants further criteria
[1:41:44] right hand
[1:41:46] um turn, and if it does, then we can
[1:41:47] work with them to see what we can get
[1:41:49] input.
[1:41:50] >> Great.
[1:41:50] >> I I would say that's one of my big
[1:41:52] concerns. I come the other way, so it's
[1:41:54] these guys all have to wait for me cuz
[1:41:55] I'm turning. It's messy down there. And
[1:41:57] so, it's true, we throw a bunch more
[1:41:59] homes, it's going to get worse. I think
[1:42:01] sometimes it's an afterthought, and I
[1:42:02] think we got to figure this out before.
[1:42:04] And
[1:42:06] yes, before because
[1:42:08] I know
[1:42:09] I mean, I've been in the commission for
[1:42:10] over a year now, but it's
[1:42:13] I've watched the meetings forever, and
[1:42:16] everything that goes along Mill Road,
[1:42:18] you have the same concerns that come up
[1:42:20] every time. We have the same concerns.
[1:42:22] The traffic flow,
[1:42:24] um this the road's not wide enough,
[1:42:27] where's it actually going to go, what's
[1:42:28] the right of you know, where's the curb
[1:42:30] and gutter going to go.
[1:42:32] What's
[1:42:33] and we need a turn lane at the bottom.
[1:42:35] Inside, I do think that should be
[1:42:37] addressed by the city the whole length
[1:42:38] of Mill Road from the
[1:42:40] roundabout to Arrowhead.
[1:42:43] >> Right, because I do know I I mean, can
[1:42:46] we commit you to that you're going to
[1:42:48] hop right on that at least looking at
[1:42:50] the at the at least looking at the right
[1:42:52] turn lane area.
[1:42:54] >> Yeah, that we can talk
[1:42:55] to Udot tomorrow, um and then we'll talk
[1:42:57] to them about that.
[1:42:58] >> part of our lower property taxes and and
[1:43:02] our
[1:43:03] fiscal responsibleness for the city is
[1:43:05] that
[1:43:06] uh is that developers finish roads, and
[1:43:10] the city doesn't finish roads, but
[1:43:12] that's an area where developers aren't
[1:43:14] going to be
[1:43:16] developing for a long time, but when we
[1:43:19] approve areas that that impact that
[1:43:23] undeveloped road, it seems like there
[1:43:25] ought to be a uh
[1:43:27] that there ought to be something else
[1:43:29] worked out with the city
[1:43:31] uh that can
[1:43:33] since it's impacting
[1:43:35] Is that do impact fees help with those
[1:43:37] kind of things or?
[1:43:38] >> Yeah, so the widening of these master
[1:43:40] plan roads impact fees is what pays them
[1:43:43] back over time to help get those wider
[1:43:45] roads for future traffic.
[1:43:48] Um
[1:43:49] >> And and correct me if I'm wrong, but it
[1:43:50] sounds like if we have if this is a
[1:43:52] state road and then you and you were in
[1:43:54] a study, this could be an obligation for
[1:43:56] them assuming they see that's that's
[1:43:58] warranted or is it because this is not
[1:43:59] on the state road itself? How does
[1:44:01] >> Mill Road
[1:44:01] >> that line get drawn?
[1:44:02] >> Mill Road's not a state road.
[1:44:04] >> Yeah, Mill Road is 164 your arrow head
[1:44:07] is, right?
[1:44:08] >> They tend to look at the city for
[1:44:11] widening on city streets. So, yeah, it'd
[1:44:13] be a city
[1:44:14] >> But for a turn lane, would that be city
[1:44:15] obligation as well?
[1:44:16] >> That's what they would look to, yeah, if
[1:44:18] it's warranted.
[1:44:19] >> I'd love it if there could be some kind
[1:44:21] of discussion about how to help Mill the
[1:44:25] length of Mill Road be
[1:44:28] better if we're going to add more homes
[1:44:30] that'll access that. Although
[1:44:33] Commissioner Woodhouse did bring up
[1:44:34] about how the 1700
[1:44:37] getting developed will alleviate some of
[1:44:40] the traffic on Mill Road.
[1:44:42] Is that what you're
[1:44:43] >> No, I don't think it'll affect Mill Road
[1:44:44] at all.
[1:44:45] >> Okay.
[1:44:45] >> This this development's going to a
[1:44:49] put a lot of traffic on the Mill Road.
[1:44:50] >> Yeah.
[1:44:52] >> So, we're
[1:44:53] just started re- doing our
[1:44:56] transportation master plan more
[1:44:58] holistically or more of a revamp.
[1:45:01] Um we currently have a layout of Mill
[1:45:05] Road just because
[1:45:07] the master plan cross sections changed
[1:45:08] last
[1:45:10] couple times we've looked at it and
[1:45:11] there's existing homes mostly the east
[1:45:14] side's built out. So, we've kind of
[1:45:18] what without touching that curb, what
[1:45:20] can we fit that still works and so we've
[1:45:22] started looking at that. But um
[1:45:25] I
[1:45:26] in the next 6 months or so we'll have
[1:45:29] that master plan done. We'll have actual
[1:45:31] counts.
[1:45:32] I mean it's down the road but we'll have
[1:45:34] an answer
[1:45:36] here shortly. So
[1:45:37] >> All right.
[1:45:38] That sounds like a big concern.
[1:45:40] I think it was Mr. Millstein that talked
[1:45:42] about students walking to school and
[1:45:46] that is one thing that I do have that I
[1:45:48] do know about and I do know that all the
[1:45:51] schools in the state need to have a
[1:45:53] school community council and every
[1:45:55] elementary school in the state must
[1:45:57] wait. I'm looking at you Mr. Davis but
[1:45:59] where's Mr. Millstein? There you are.
[1:46:01] Every school in the state
[1:46:04] elementary school has to have a safe
[1:46:06] walking plan. The school community
[1:46:08] council does designate that and they
[1:46:11] take that very seriously. They go
[1:46:13] through the maps and they
[1:46:15] look at what existing sidewalks are and
[1:46:17] where and so even ALA that's not part of
[1:46:20] Nebo school district but is a state funded charter school. They must
[1:46:26] have one too and so
[1:46:28] the kids that aren't walking the state
[1:46:30] the safe walking plan are not are not
[1:46:33] walking where they're supposed to and
[1:46:34] it's not always convenient to go on the
[1:46:36] safe walking plan because it's not the
[1:46:38] straight way but there is they do very
[1:46:41] much care about safe safety of the
[1:46:43] children. So
[1:46:45] let's see.
[1:46:47] Um
[1:46:49] Do we have any others that we
[1:46:52] Oh, sound wall along a property between
[1:46:55] two properties? I guess that would have
[1:46:58] to be worked out with
[1:47:00] between you and the
[1:47:03] and our applicant our developer.
[1:47:06] That's not something that we require in the city. Is that right
[1:47:10] Mr. Anderson? Tell us about
[1:47:16] » I'm going to ask maybe
[1:47:17] Scott or
[1:47:19] Dean
[1:47:20] to point out what property line we're
[1:47:21] talking about here,
[1:47:23] if it's the one I'm thinking of,
[1:47:26] » [cough]
[1:47:29] » it's uh
[1:47:31] Mr. Albert's property right here. And
[1:47:33] then there's one lot here.
[1:47:35] What we came up with with the city was
[1:47:37] we would put the wall right here because
[1:47:39] it was the back of the lot.
[1:47:42] But the front the frontage on Mr.
[1:47:44] Albert's hasn't been shown in the plans
[1:47:47] with a
[1:47:48] >> It's not shown in the plans, but that is
[1:47:50] a
[1:47:51] plan.
[1:47:52] >> There's There isn't a The plan is only
[1:47:54] to do Sorry, I'll show you over here.
[1:47:57] This this lot here because it's a rear
[1:47:59] lot.
[1:48:01] And then Charles' lot faces here, so we
[1:48:05] weren't putting it on.
[1:48:06] >> Oh.
[1:48:06] >> That That's where we ended up with the
[1:48:08] city.
[1:48:08] >> I think Mr. Albert had commented about
[1:48:11] sound wall during construction.
[1:48:13] >> Oh.
[1:48:16] » What about
[1:48:18] these lots along here?
[1:48:21] Cuz they're back of lots, too. Will they have a
[1:48:26] privacy fence along them or
[1:48:34] Yeah, that's the That's the feed lot,
[1:48:36] which
[1:48:38] I think would add value to your project,
[1:48:40] too.
[1:48:41] >> Yeah, I mean we we could do
[1:48:43] >> privacy fence along there.
[1:48:44] >> We don't have an issue with that at all.
[1:48:48] It is in
[1:48:49] Right. It's in the plan.
[1:48:51] >> [laughter]
[1:48:52] >> And I was wondering if the city requires
[1:48:53] that on the back where you're bordering
[1:48:56] >> they necessarily do. I think we just did
[1:48:58] it, right? I mean, typically it's home
[1:49:00] owners will put You got to be a little
[1:49:01] careful cuz
[1:49:03] you go put a fence up and then they want
[1:49:05] to do a different style that for their
[1:49:07] match their house, right? And
[1:49:09] you have to be a little careful with
[1:49:10] that, so. I can't think of very many
[1:49:11] situations where we haven't talked about
[1:49:14] some kind of fencing being installed at
[1:49:16] the time of development when you're next
[1:49:18] to something like that. So, usually it
[1:49:20] happens.
[1:49:21] >> Yeah.
[1:49:21] >> But I don't believe we have something in
[1:49:24] the ordinance that automatically
[1:49:25] requires it.
[1:49:27] >> Okay.
[1:49:27] >> We're okay.
[1:49:27] >> But it is in your plan, so that's great.
[1:49:30] >> I'm being told it's in the plans.
[1:49:33] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:49:34] >> Thanks.
[1:49:35] >> Thank you. I
[1:49:38] Sure. It's out of out of order, but
[1:49:42] we're just
[1:49:42] >> Just a minute.
[1:49:43] >> Just just very quickly, very quickly.
[1:49:46] >> So, one thing I still don't understand
[1:49:48] is this is like putting the cart before
[1:49:50] the horse in my book because every
[1:49:52] person that stood up here and talked
[1:49:53] about this has talked about Mill Road
[1:49:55] and the other road on the on the north
[1:49:57] side being a problem. We're willing to
[1:49:59] go put these developments in and drop
[1:50:01] them in place, and yet we haven't
[1:50:03] figured out what the solution is for
[1:50:05] those roads.
[1:50:06] I really think you owe it to the people
[1:50:08] that live there, all the people that
[1:50:10] have lived there for years and years and on that property to give us a
[1:50:13] plan about what you're going to do
[1:50:15] before the development goes in. I don't
[1:50:17] think it's one bit fair to just drop it
[1:50:19] in and then it works itself out.
[1:50:22] >> you. And you can tell that we're
[1:50:23] concerned about that, too. Appreciate
[1:50:25] that.
[1:50:27] Madam Chair, um I So, Byron, as the city
[1:50:31] transportation expert, I have some
[1:50:33] knowledge of regional transportation. Um
[1:50:36] so, I'm going to look for you for some
[1:50:37] support. Um but in my experience in
[1:50:40] planning regional transportation,
[1:50:42] the development always comes first. Um
[1:50:45] [snorts] the way we study transportation
[1:50:47] and how we move people, we do not
[1:50:49] proactively put in roads to manage
[1:50:53] possible future development.
[1:50:56] Unfortunately, we're reactive, and we
[1:50:58] rely on studies and traffic counts on
[1:51:01] the roads to invest funds in
[1:51:03] transportation.
[1:51:05] Can Can you tell me a little bit about
[1:51:07] on the city level, is it similar?
[1:51:09] >> Yeah, a
[1:51:11] Simply, we just don't have the funds to
[1:51:13] go build all the roads right now, right?
[1:51:15] So, that's why a lot of times we'll wait
[1:51:17] for development and then when there's
[1:51:19] larger roads needed, we work with them
[1:51:21] to to get the future right away what we
[1:51:23] need. Um
[1:51:24] Also, there's a lot of homes on the west
[1:51:27] side of Mill Road that probably doesn't
[1:51:29] want to sell property for a road. So, we
[1:51:31] wait till they want to develop and then
[1:51:34] we get it at that time, right?
[1:51:36] Yeah, so see
[1:51:39] >> Thank you. We We know. Thank you.
[1:51:41] >> I think we can get with you down and
[1:51:43] look and see if it's warranted and
[1:51:46] um if if a right turn lanes or either
[1:51:49] maybe it's phasing of that signal,
[1:51:51] right? Those are things we can look at
[1:51:54] and we will, but um widening the whole
[1:51:57] road along it's
[1:51:59] there just isn't the funds and and
[1:52:02] we're not going to go force people to
[1:52:03] give that right away right now, so.
[1:52:06] >> Uh thank you.
[1:52:09] Okay. Um
[1:52:12] And then
[1:52:14] I think that Uh does anyone else have
[1:52:16] any other comments?
[1:52:18] >> I do. I mean, it's we're at a sticking
[1:52:20] point, right? Because the developer's
[1:52:22] not going to pay for a road way out
[1:52:23] there.
[1:52:24] But I don't know if it's fair to throw
[1:52:26] people that are out there in a pickle
[1:52:27] because we want to develop and
[1:52:30] seems like we don't have the money to
[1:52:31] fix it, so.
[1:52:33] I don't think there's an easy answer.
[1:52:39] No, there's not and I think but I think
[1:52:41] the city has some responsibility to all
[1:52:43] the people that are there
[1:52:44] now and the people that are we're going
[1:52:46] to be bringing in to the area
[1:52:50] cuz we want them to feel safe and
[1:52:54] but you know, and I know the city's
[1:52:56] It seems to me that they we bought other
[1:52:59] roads, put in for some commercial
[1:53:02] developments and whatnot, bought the
[1:53:03] right-of-ways up to to that to bring in
[1:53:05] commercial developments. So, I think
[1:53:07] that's something
[1:53:09] the city should look at.
[1:53:11] least,
[1:53:12] you know, get a plan put a plan together
[1:53:14] of how it's going to look
[1:53:16] to give some comfort to the residents
[1:53:17] there.
[1:53:19] Also, I [snorts] another issue I have is
[1:53:23] the change
[1:53:25] in the zoning.
[1:53:27] Cuz we just approved the
[1:53:32] um
[1:53:34] general plan growth plan
[1:53:36] and that just months ago.
[1:53:37] >> Mhm.
[1:53:39] >> And one of the statements I remember
[1:53:41] being made was we want to get this in
[1:53:44] place so we can lock in our growth
[1:53:46] pattern and what we're doing for the
[1:53:48] next 5 years.
[1:53:49] And I see this a violation of that
[1:53:54] right there.
[1:53:55] That we went we went through that plan
[1:53:57] and we actually tabled it for a month to
[1:53:59] get it cleared up because there was a
[1:54:01] possible development coming and a change
[1:54:04] that we didn't want to
[1:54:06] make the plan and then have to go back
[1:54:08] and make another change right away.
[1:54:10] And so, I personally
[1:54:13] feel that that dividing line between the
[1:54:17] estate
[1:54:19] and what we have now with the
[1:54:22] um
[1:54:24] medium density,
[1:54:26] we need to stick with that line.
[1:54:29] Um because I, you know, we spent a lot
[1:54:31] of time on it. The city put a lot of
[1:54:33] effort into drawing up the plan.
[1:54:35] And
[1:54:37] technically, they knew this was coming
[1:54:39] and they should have caught it and made
[1:54:41] that change at that time or drawn this
[1:54:43] in. So,
[1:54:45] I just have a strong feeling that I
[1:54:47] don't like to see us
[1:54:49] put a plan into action
[1:54:51] and go through all the work, city
[1:54:53] council votes on it, approves it, gives
[1:54:54] it there, and then
[1:54:56] 6 months later we say, "Hey, guess what?
[1:54:59] We're going to change it and throw it
[1:55:00] all out."
[1:55:01] You know, cuz that was done
[1:55:04] and everybody should have been aware.
[1:55:06] That's my piece on it.
[1:55:08] >> Thank you.
[1:55:10] >> [clears throat]
[1:55:11] >> Any uh yes.
[1:55:12] >> a couple of comments. Um so, the staff
[1:55:14] findings and and to Dave's earlier
[1:55:16] point, it does state that this is
[1:55:18] consistent with the city's general plan
[1:55:21] uh designation of medium density in the
[1:55:22] state density.
[1:55:24] It also meets the intent of the master
[1:55:26] plan development overlay zoning
[1:55:28] district. I really like home concepts. I
[1:55:32] sit through dozens of housing uh
[1:55:35] presentations
[1:55:36] every year.
[1:55:38] And if you think about the garden home
[1:55:39] concept with the state home, it really
[1:55:42] offers members of the community to stay
[1:55:45] within their community as they're able
[1:55:47] to upsize in a home or downsize in a
[1:55:50] home based on their life needs. And so,
[1:55:53] I really I I I like this plan. Um
[1:55:57] I love the garden home concept. I like
[1:56:00] that you presented that and and not
[1:56:01] townhomes.
[1:56:02] Um I think it meshes well and and I do
[1:56:05] believe it's consistent with our general
[1:56:06] plan.
[1:56:08] >> I'll go ahead and make one comment about
[1:56:10] the general plan. The general plan is
[1:56:12] aspirational. It's not an actual zoning
[1:56:14] document or anything like that.
[1:56:16] And we're
[1:56:19] I don't know that we're even necessarily
[1:56:20] throwing that out here in this line.
[1:56:23] A lot of it is is subject to
[1:56:24] interpretation, but I but I think we can
[1:56:26] be clear. The zoning is what actually
[1:56:28] matters here. Um and that is the actual
[1:56:31] line and I think if we're talking a
[1:56:33] small amount and maybe I'm reading this
[1:56:35] line wrong, if the line is actually I'll
[1:56:38] do it the right way.
[1:56:40] Is the line here or is the line here?
[1:56:41] >> Let's Can we take a minute just to be
[1:56:43] clear about that? Yeah, so I'll ask
[1:56:46] We'll find a point of reference.
[1:56:48] >> Thank you.
[1:56:55] » So, I think if we go to the Nebo parcel
[1:56:57] corner, that might be a good one to use.
[1:57:02] » [snorts]
[1:57:04] >> Yeah, you want to
[1:57:06] >> The road to the north is
[1:57:08] a good landmark.
[1:57:09] >> Even better. Yeah, good point.
[1:57:10] >> And what's interesting is with this
[1:57:12] general plan,
[1:57:14] it was centered on 1700 West, so then
[1:57:17] the city's now asking them to
[1:57:19] deviate from
[1:57:21] >> Curve it out.
[1:57:22] >> and curve it, and so the idea with the
[1:57:23] general plan is that density would then
[1:57:26] follow that curve.
[1:57:28] >> bend down just a little, Dave?
[1:57:30] No, sorry.
[1:57:30] >> Can you Can you use an arrow when you're
[1:57:32] talking about that?
[1:57:34] Uh
[1:57:35] Okay. There's your arrow.
[1:57:39] » Do we have that on a plat, then we can
[1:57:42] compare
[1:57:42] >> a way to overlay the plat on that?
[1:57:51] » Go to the next page.
[1:57:55] Which one?
[1:57:56] There you go. See, you see the road to
[1:57:58] the north, north of 900 South.
[1:58:00] >> Yeah.
[1:58:02] So, it approximately cuts that in
[1:58:04] half.
[1:58:05] It's the line. Is that fair to say?
[1:58:07] >> right here, correct?
[1:58:09] >> right Yep, that's the line.
[1:58:11] >> Oh.
[1:58:12] >> It's basically from that road.
[1:58:13] >> Where's the arrow?
[1:58:14] >> We got too many pointers.
[1:58:15] >> [laughter]
[1:58:16] >> Okay, so right here, that's where our
[1:58:19] line is.
[1:58:20] >> Yes.
[1:58:20] >> I I'd like to I'd like to acknowledge
[1:58:23] that when those lines are drawn on a
[1:58:25] general plan map, it's general, and so
[1:58:28] really it does give leeway to move a
[1:58:31] little bit over this way or move a
[1:58:33] little bit over that way, and that's
[1:58:36] up to city council to decide. It's up to
[1:58:38] planning commission to discuss whether
[1:58:42] is it worth it to move this over because
[1:58:44] we like this Oh, thank you. That's a
[1:58:46] great picture right there.
[1:58:47] >> Perfect right there.
[1:58:48] >> Is it worth it like there's a gap here
[1:58:51] because it's a it's a general line. And
[1:58:55] we can interpret that exactly.
[1:58:57] We can also say, "You know what? That
[1:59:00] like uh
[1:59:01] you know, some of us are saying I want
[1:59:03] this line to be here." Or even like
[1:59:05] right here where that line is Road has
[1:59:07] proposed and make all of this estate
[1:59:10] density.
[1:59:11] Or we can go with what Commissioner
[1:59:13] Carroll says and she's like, "I like
[1:59:15] this, so I'm willing to
[1:59:17] blur that line over this way because
[1:59:19] this is a great product. It's a needed
[1:59:21] product. It's not a townhome. It's not a
[1:59:24] duplex. They aren't sharing walls. It
[1:59:28] you know, and so
[1:59:31] we very much can justify either way
[1:59:35] and be very honest about it. Um and and
[1:59:39] so and what I'm hearing is some of you
[1:59:41] in our audience neighbors are saying,
[1:59:43] "I'd like this part to be estate
[1:59:46] density." So, that's kind of where our
[1:59:49] decision is on this. I'd love to hear
[1:59:52] what the other commissioners
[1:59:54] um think think on this because we have
[1:59:55] to vote one way or another. So, we know
[1:59:59] what General Carroll
[2:00:01] >> [laughter]
[2:00:02] >> Commissioner Carroll, I just upgraded
[2:00:03] you.
[2:00:04] Uh
[2:00:06] where you stand on that and we know
[2:00:08] where Commissioner Woodhouse stands on
[2:00:10] that.
[2:00:12] Sure.
[2:00:14] Yes.
[2:00:15] >> So, yeah, that collector road obviously
[2:00:17] moved and that's what you're basing off
[2:00:19] of.
[2:00:20] Um the other issue is you've got the
[2:00:21] other collector road. What's What's nice
[2:00:23] about this layout is when you get in
[2:00:25] front of the school, that's a wall in a
[2:00:29] along there.
[2:00:30] Masonry wall.
[2:00:32] There's zero cars backing out on the on
[2:00:35] the that that street across from the
[2:00:36] school where you are pulling out of
[2:00:38] driveways when school buses and it's a collector road. So, you've got
[2:00:41] two collector roads you're doing this
[2:00:43] off of. That's kind of how we're looking
[2:00:45] at it that
[2:00:46] hey, this it matches well with what is
[2:00:49] there. We when you put homes directly
[2:00:52] across the street
[2:00:53] now you've got cars pulling out, you got
[2:00:56] and that's that's the entrance to the
[2:00:57] school as you can see
[2:00:59] what they're thinking in a layout. So
[2:01:01] >> And you're thinking
[2:01:02] >> I think it is good to have a masonry
[2:01:04] wall. It's a collector road
[2:01:06] >> Okay.
[2:01:06] >> where we are not having any access
[2:01:09] coming out onto that road in front of
[2:01:10] the school when you've got
[2:01:12] >> Thank you for that consideration.
[2:01:15] >> we do have I mean we did all the Mill
[2:01:18] Road subdivisions from
[2:01:20] basically from that road all the way up
[2:01:22] to ALA
[2:01:24] at least on that side it wind a bit and
[2:01:26] we there's sidewalk getting all the way
[2:01:28] up there now. We do try to
[2:01:30] development does bring that, right? As
[2:01:32] far as
[2:01:33] trying to solve those issues. I do think
[2:01:35] we have
[2:01:38] the the narrowness can sometimes be
[2:01:41] fixed with whether you allow parking on
[2:01:43] that road or not. There's still a
[2:01:46] traffic lanes going there. I think the
[2:01:48] bigger issue is that the traffic light
[2:01:51] in order for that traffic not to stack
[2:01:53] up, right? It's not
[2:01:54] >> Traffic light
[2:01:55] >> the width of the of the road. Correct.
[2:01:58] >> That that would be where the width would
[2:02:00] be important.
[2:02:00] >> That's something that
[2:02:01] >> a traffic guy, but I mean I think that's
[2:02:03] what
[2:02:03] >> And that's something that Byron says we
[2:02:05] do have control of looking at.
[2:02:07] >> Yeah, cuz you
[2:02:08] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:02:09] >> turn the issue is you can't turn right
[2:02:11] while it's a red light even though
[2:02:12] there's no cars coming because you're
[2:02:14] stuck behind somebody else.
[2:02:16] >> Thank you. Hey, I'd also like to
[2:02:17] acknowledge I we know that there's
[2:02:19] others of you here that are here for
[2:02:21] another item.
[2:02:23] Uh we apologize for the length, but it's
[2:02:24] really important to to be thorough about our vetting. So thank you. We'll
[2:02:29] be just as thorough on yours. You'll be
[2:02:31] so excited to be here till 10. I'm I'm
[2:02:33] kidding.
[2:02:34] A little.
[2:02:35] >> [laughter]
[2:02:36] >> Okay. So, all right. Uh
[2:02:39] are there any other concerns or thoughts
[2:02:44] let's talk about I guess we'll talk
[2:02:45] about one thing at a time. Where is
[2:02:47] everybody on this
[2:02:50] especially given what or including
[2:02:53] what Dean just told us about.
[2:02:56] Mike thoughts?
[2:02:59] » I still can't get over the water in the
[2:03:00] road, but I also think that sometimes
[2:03:03] we
[2:03:04] I'm saying we as commission and city
[2:03:07] give a little bit of leeway maybe too
[2:03:09] much we leeway to fit more housing in
[2:03:12] and I get why
[2:03:13] Michelle yell at me now. I get why but
[2:03:16] sometimes I I think that we need to
[2:03:19] like I don't think this is going to fix
[2:03:20] the road. That's my biggest issue. I
[2:03:22] said I really the project I don't mind
[2:03:24] and I like how they set it up and I get
[2:03:25] why they've done it but with the water
[2:03:28] in the road issue down there I I it's
[2:03:30] going to put the neighbors in in the
[2:03:33] it's it's not going to be good.
[2:03:35] So I can get the idea of the plan and I
[2:03:37] like it.
[2:03:39] But putting them any more houses right
[2:03:40] there is pretty crazy till we're ready
[2:03:42] for it.
[2:03:44] >> Okay.
[2:03:45] All right.
[2:03:46] Paul?
[2:03:48] >> My thought about at least sticking with
[2:03:50] the general plan is road alignments tend
[2:03:52] to matter more if we're changing roads,
[2:03:54] that's where we'd line things up. In my
[2:03:56] ideal world
[2:03:58] I'd like to see a grid everywhere which
[2:04:00] is not what we have like in the old part
[2:04:02] of town. I just comment on that because
[2:04:04] that actually works a lot easier with
[2:04:05] straight lines and everything like that
[2:04:06] but that's not what we have at any point
[2:04:08] here. I'm I'm I'm not as concerned about
[2:04:11] this extra section here you know sort of
[2:04:15] being added. I like the plan but to your
[2:04:17] point about the water and concerns like
[2:04:18] that
[2:04:19] it sounds like there's a lot that is
[2:04:21] going to sort of be discovered as they
[2:04:23] go through this process. Obviously the
[2:04:25] point you brought up about monitoring um
[2:04:28] you know what the water situation looks
[2:04:29] like as we go through those phases. I
[2:04:31] wouldn't necessarily hold on that. I
[2:04:32] know we can't sort everything here but I those will continue to be concerns and
[2:04:37] then, I guess I'll just generally
[2:04:38] comment on, you know, traffic. We do
[2:04:40] what we can do when we get to the
[2:04:41] development. That's just how we the
[2:04:42] finance things. But, I like the option
[2:04:45] that we have at least to
[2:04:47] I like hearing and understand and and
[2:04:49] sympathize with everyone's concern about
[2:04:51] traffic situation. And things that we do not happen in a bubble. And
[2:04:55] obviously, you know, the situation on
[2:04:57] Arrowhead and and Mill, you know, we've
[2:04:59] commented that and I think we've got
[2:05:00] some good comments and I'm glad to hear
[2:05:01] that we can talk with the state. We're
[2:05:03] doing what's what's what's necessary to
[2:05:05] get there. And we can't solve
[2:05:07] everything, but we can solve what we
[2:05:08] can. So, those are my thoughts.
[2:05:09] >> Okay.
[2:05:10] >> And we'll argue on everything.
[2:05:12] >> All right. Welcome to Planning
[2:05:13] Commissioner uh Commissioner Ryan.
[2:05:15] >> quick here what I wanted to say.
[2:05:17] Um you know, Mill Road is the elephant
[2:05:20] in the room that
[2:05:22] it's going to be tough to address. It
[2:05:24] really is. And I'd love to see it cuz I
[2:05:26] drive it a lot.
[2:05:27] I mean, I I live right above this
[2:05:30] subdivision.
[2:05:31] And I love this road right here
[2:05:35] cuz I'm hoping it'll take a lot of
[2:05:37] traffic away from my house.
[2:05:39] You know, I don't see the property above anything
[2:05:43] [snorts and clears throat] happening in
[2:05:43] there for quite a while.
[2:05:46] Um just from
[2:05:47] what I've heard.
[2:05:50] So, I don't see that's going to matter,
[2:05:52] but I do love the idea of this road
[2:05:54] and that.
[2:05:55] But, I'm also stuck on what we've what
[2:05:58] we went through months ago with the
[2:06:01] planning and zoning.
[2:06:03] on that
[2:06:04] And we approved
[2:06:06] what we approved and now like uh let's
[2:06:08] just throw that aside.
[2:06:10] You know,
[2:06:12] it's just a general idea. No, when we
[2:06:15] were told this is the way and we can
[2:06:16] hold this line. We want to we wanted to
[2:06:18] plan for the next 5 years. We it got
[2:06:21] approved. Went through the city council,
[2:06:23] everything.
[2:06:24] And so, I have a problem with that. I do see
[2:06:29] with that road coming up here that yes
[2:06:33] it could push here a bit but I would
[2:06:35] rather see
[2:06:37] a few more
[2:06:38] estate lots over here.
[2:06:41] >> [snorts]
[2:06:41] >> Um because that's what we've approved in
[2:06:44] the past. So
[2:06:47] you know, that's what we voted on and the map and the general plan.
[2:06:51] So that's my stand.
[2:06:53] >> Thank you. Okay. Um like I started to
[2:06:56] say oh, Dave, did you have something
[2:06:57] >> With some hesitation if you don't mind.
[2:06:59] >> Yes.
[2:06:59] >> So clearly you understand what the
[2:07:01] options are here tonight. You can
[2:07:03] recommend approval, denial. There are
[2:07:05] two different applications.
[2:07:06] >> Right.
[2:07:06] >> You could continue this
[2:07:08] >> Yeah.
[2:07:08] >> for further study maybe even to study
[2:07:10] how to
[2:07:11] uh
[2:07:12] potentially improve Mill Road or an
[2:07:13] intersection. Um
[2:07:16] I
[2:07:17] for Commissioner what else I really
[2:07:18] appreciate is perspective. I mean I
[2:07:20] think
[2:07:21] it's hard to argue with the line work as
[2:07:23] you might take it at face value. Again,
[2:07:26] we as staff look at a little bit
[2:07:27] differently um in terms of how the
[2:07:30] general plan might work but I you also
[2:07:33] might want to revisit the land use map
[2:07:37] for this which like we talked about even
[2:07:39] just going through the adoption process
[2:07:42] uh and finishing that up fairly recently
[2:07:44] on a
[2:07:45] big change, we expect that to happen
[2:07:47] over time. You know, that that
[2:07:49] document's pliable.
[2:07:51] Um or is intended at least to be that
[2:07:54] way. So
[2:07:56] I
[2:07:57] we do not want as staff to be
[2:07:59] recommending
[2:08:01] that things be approved that aren't
[2:08:03] consistent with the general plan or that
[2:08:05] you know, aren't perceived as being
[2:08:07] consistent with the general plan.
[2:08:09] So
[2:08:10] just that thought occurred to me as
[2:08:12] well. So if that's a value.
[2:08:14] >> Thank you.
[2:08:16] Okay.
[2:08:17] All right.
[2:08:19] No pressure on your first day.
[2:08:21] >> First day, that's exciting.
[2:08:23] >> But you know what? Would you like to
[2:08:24] give us your thoughts? It's kind of nice
[2:08:27] to have the new people to
[2:08:28] >> Yeah, they're really nice.
[2:08:30] >> Give your thoughts.
[2:08:31] >> Um yeah, this is a difficult project and I really like what Arrive has done
[2:08:36] here. And I also recognize that the
[2:08:38] general
[2:08:39] plan is just that, a general plan, kind
[2:08:41] of the spirit of the idea. And so approaching a little
[2:08:45] bit in on that estate side, I I don't have a
[2:08:48] problem with that. And I do like
[2:08:50] that these are not duplexes or townhomes
[2:08:53] or apartment buildings. I really really like that a lot. So
[2:08:58] um I I like I like what they've done
[2:09:01] there.
[2:09:02] >> Okay, thank you.
[2:09:04] All right, I have just a couple of
[2:09:06] things. One thing I haven't brought up
[2:09:08] on only just a very much little bit
[2:09:10] alluded to.
[2:09:12] I know that that that this uh master
[2:09:15] plan development is it meets technically
[2:09:18] it technically meets the requirements
[2:09:20] for a master plan development. I do not
[2:09:23] love that 35%
[2:09:25] is less than 1,500
[2:09:27] sq ft and that there are lots that are
[2:09:30] down to 10,000 sq ft. That seems like a
[2:09:33] huge cheat to me.
[2:09:35] I know that that's not I know you're not
[2:09:37] cheating, you're
[2:09:38] working within what that plan is. But to
[2:09:41] me
[2:09:42] uh that just
[2:09:44] I I would rather see
[2:09:46] um less lots and more of them go toward
[2:09:49] uh closer to the 1,500 sq ft. Um that's
[2:09:54] just me and I
[2:09:55] I've said that for 6 years. That's
[2:09:57] always how I've how I that's consistent
[2:09:59] with me.
[2:10:00] Um
[2:10:02] I too am I I also really like this
[2:10:07] development a lot. I think it's come a
[2:10:09] long way. I've been here when you've
[2:10:11] come and talked to us twice about it.
[2:10:13] >> You were on the party bus.
[2:10:14] >> I was on the party bus. You are an
[2:10:17] optimistic man.
[2:10:19] And
[2:10:21] I was on the bus, yes. We went on a
[2:10:23] field trip down to that area several
[2:10:26] years ago. Correct, we said no town
[2:10:28] homes.
[2:10:29] I really do
[2:10:31] love It was a long time ago. This is my
[2:10:33] last meeting today.
[2:10:35] Uh and uh
[2:10:37] and so
[2:10:38] but my biggest concern is that I feel like
[2:10:42] if we send something to the city council
[2:10:45] to recommend, then I think we need to
[2:10:47] make sure you're set up for big success.
[2:10:51] And I feel like you've come I feel like
[2:10:53] [clears throat] it's come a long way,
[2:10:54] but I feel like there needs to like
[2:10:56] there might need to be
[2:10:58] a little bit more work addressing how
[2:11:01] impacts to roads
[2:11:03] and um
[2:11:05] it does sound like you have a plan like
[2:11:08] you're willing to take
[2:11:10] gamble is the wrong word. Take the risk
[2:11:13] with the water and confident with the
[2:11:16] engineering on how that could work and
[2:11:19] confident put in enough that you're
[2:11:20] willing to invest that much money and
[2:11:23] there's no way you're going to build a
[2:11:24] product that's going to cause water
[2:11:26] problems for who you build it for.
[2:11:29] So
[2:11:31] I guess my biggest concern
[2:11:34] is the road too and I it there's no easy
[2:11:37] answer. I cuz I understand that about
[2:11:39] roads.
[2:11:40] Let me just address one other thing um
[2:11:42] about uh about Jackie Larson's comments.
[2:11:45] We haven't said anything about what
[2:11:47] you've said, Jackie, and we acknowledge
[2:11:50] and appreciate that you'll come and talk
[2:11:51] come and address. Um
[2:11:54] I personally feel like your concerns
[2:11:58] I I don't know. I just am someone who
[2:12:01] has confidence that
[2:12:02] the law will work, that you and the and
[2:12:06] the city and the developer will and
[2:12:09] that it'll all work out. Like no one's
[2:12:11] going to go against the law or go
[2:12:13] against what they've said. And so I'm I
[2:12:16] know that it's a huge concern for you
[2:12:18] and I completely respect that.
[2:12:21] Um
[2:12:23] but I have confidence in the in the in
[2:12:26] the process in that in the law and the
[2:12:30] legal process on that.
[2:12:32] Does anybody else have any additional
[2:12:34] comments about that?
[2:12:36] Okay. So,
[2:12:38] with that being said, I'm not even sure
[2:12:40] how this is going to turn out, but
[2:12:43] we have to take two We have to do two
[2:12:46] motions. I have to entertain two
[2:12:48] motions. Is that correct? Which do I do
[2:12:50] first?
[2:12:51] >> The zone change for this hasn't changed.
[2:12:53] >> The preliminary plats first.
[2:12:55] >> Preliminary plat. And I guess the other
[2:12:57] option is we can also move that
[2:13:01] we continue this for another month and
[2:13:04] make no recommendation.
[2:13:07] We could
[2:13:09] What are the other options?
[2:13:12] Does anybody have Okay.
[2:13:14] Should I just start off with preliminary
[2:13:16] plat? I I This is tricky. I don't know
[2:13:19] what to do.
[2:13:19] >> So,
[2:13:20] if you can make it someone can make a
[2:13:21] motion on the on the preliminary
[2:13:23] [clears throat] plat issue.
[2:13:25] >> Okay, I'll make a motion.
[2:13:26] >> All right. I move to recommend the
[2:13:29] approval of the proposed Leland Meadows
[2:13:31] subdivision preliminary plat based on
[2:13:34] the staff's findings and conditions.
[2:13:37] >> Do we have a second?
[2:13:39] >> I'll second.
[2:13:40] >> All in favor?
[2:13:43] I.
[2:13:43] >> I.
[2:13:45] >> Uh all opposed?
[2:13:46] >> I.
[2:13:48] >> Okay, so we have two against and four
[2:13:52] >> Four.
[2:13:53] So, that passes, but ought to make
[2:13:56] a note to the city council.
[2:13:58] Okay, now
[2:14:00] >> So, we've had one public hearing.
[2:14:02] And the public hearing discussed both
[2:14:04] the preliminary plat and lots of
[2:14:06] questions on the zone change, but
[2:14:07] technically we should have a public
[2:14:08] hearing on the zone change issue as
[2:14:11] well.
[2:14:11] >> Okay, especially since that's come up
[2:14:14] with how we would do that zone.
[2:14:16] >> Well, and so lots of people have already
[2:14:17] commented and so you can
[2:14:19] manage that how you want.
[2:14:20] >> Can I
[2:14:22] just ask why
[2:14:24] we approved the plat before the zoning
[2:14:27] was approved?
[2:14:28] >> There's a condition on the preliminary
[2:14:30] plat approval
[2:14:31] that the zoning be
[2:14:33] uh recommended and approved with the city council. So, if if if the
[2:14:38] city council doesn't approve the zone
[2:14:41] change then
[2:14:44] the preliminary plat can't pass.
[2:14:47] So, because of that condition, you do
[2:14:48] the preliminary plat first and then
[2:14:49] >> So, but it puts us in a tight spot cuz
[2:14:52] it's like, okay,
[2:14:53] the plat just passed
[2:14:55] but we still have to approve the zoning.
[2:14:57] >> You don't have to. You can still
[2:14:58] recommend
[2:14:58] >> That's one but
[2:14:59] >> [clears throat]
[2:15:00] >> then
[2:15:02] that's what I was torn on that. Why vote
[2:15:04] for the plat if I
[2:15:06] >> We're just recommenders. They can look
[2:15:07] to see
[2:15:08] >> Vote the other way on the zoning.
[2:15:10] It'd look like
[2:15:11] >> All right.
[2:15:12] >> a mixed Yeah, it didn't
[2:15:14] Okay.
[2:15:15] >> Okay.
[2:15:16] All right.
[2:15:16] >> [clears throat]
[2:15:17] >> So, we've also had a
[2:15:20] public Do I need to open a public
[2:15:22] hearing? Okay, I'd like to open the
[2:15:24] public hearing for the zone change.
[2:15:28] Would anyone like to come and talk
[2:15:29] particularly about our zone change?
[2:15:33] And let me say high level is that the
[2:15:36] zone change is that
[2:15:38] we go down this line.
[2:15:41] Correct? And that this line right here
[2:15:43] this area here is medium density R16 and
[2:15:49] this area here is low density R1
[2:15:54] estate density.
[2:15:57] >> 115
[2:15:58] >> R115
[2:16:04] Okay.
[2:16:04] >> Yeah.
[2:16:07] » This is one, this is the other. Okay.
[2:16:10] >> No.
[2:16:17] They all look the same color.
[2:16:18] >> houses are the one, the other's the
[2:16:20] other.
[2:16:20] >> Oh, these
[2:16:24] >> Yeah.
[2:16:24] >> Okay, they all look the same color to
[2:16:26] me.
[2:16:27] All right.
[2:16:28] >> Let's get Scott, let's get more variety
[2:16:31] in our colors.
[2:16:32] >> [laughter]
[2:16:34] » We need some red. Okay, thank you. I can
[2:16:37] see where that is now. All right.
[2:16:40] Please.
[2:16:42] >> You know my name. I'm just thinking
[2:16:44] possibilities here.
[2:16:46] This does
[2:16:47] you know, it's sort of a
[2:16:49] if you omit this from being R6
[2:16:53] it's sort of like you feel like you're
[2:16:56] it's not going to be it's not going to
[2:16:57] cash flow.
[2:16:58] The deal isn't going to cash flow to
[2:17:00] build all this in.
[2:17:01] But not necessarily because this is
[2:17:03] going to be a five lane road, it's going
[2:17:04] to hook to Center Street exit when they
[2:17:06] build it out. It's going to be a very
[2:17:08] big arterial road. It's going to drain
[2:17:11] all this one way or the other. People
[2:17:12] will go to the point of least resistance
[2:17:15] just like water.
[2:17:16] And that means this opens this ground up
[2:17:20] for something other than and the the use
[2:17:23] could be determined at that point that
[2:17:25] could that could bring a higher revenue
[2:17:27] for the developer than just R6 housing.
[2:17:32] >> Thank [snorts] you.
[2:17:32] >> to be a big big intersection.
[2:17:34] >> Right.
[2:17:35] >> It's a real opportunity.
[2:17:36] >> Thank you.
[2:17:39] Anyone else?
[2:17:42] All right, thank you. We will close
[2:17:43] public hearing. All right,
[2:17:45] uh
[2:17:46] Do is there any discussion? Okay, uh I'd
[2:17:49] entertain a motion.
[2:17:53] » I'll make a motion. I move to recommend
[2:17:55] the approval of the proposed Leland
[2:17:56] Meadow zone change based on the
[2:17:58] conditions and findings as noted.
[2:18:02] >> I second that motion.
[2:18:03] >> All all favor? Aye.
[2:18:06] All opposed?
[2:18:07] >> Aye.
[2:18:08] >> Okay, so that passes 4 to 2.
[2:18:12] All right, that'll be interesting to
[2:18:14] hear the city council's
[2:18:16] discussion about that and hopefully they
[2:18:18] won't talk about it as long as we do,
[2:18:20] but maybe they will.
[2:18:21] >> Madam Chair.
[2:18:22] >> Yes.
[2:18:23] >> Once again, just a couple of thoughts.
[2:18:27] It's not uncommon
[2:18:29] for projects to go from the planning
[2:18:31] commission to the city council,
[2:18:34] you know, from one meeting to the next.
[2:18:36] We haven't noticed
[2:18:38] this project for a public hearing with
[2:18:39] the city council yet.
[2:18:42] And it's quite possible that
[2:18:44] in fact, I certainly think that we as
[2:18:46] staff need to
[2:18:48] make sure that we've studied everything
[2:18:49] that we can and have approached UDOT and
[2:18:52] have some kind of
[2:18:54] sense for where they are and what that
[2:18:55] might look like from a timing
[2:18:57] perspective should
[2:18:59] there be a viable option to expect
[2:19:01] that intersection at Mill Road and 164
[2:19:03] to maybe be enhanced or improved or that
[2:19:05] type of a thing. So just for the sake of
[2:19:08] anybody that might be trying to track
[2:19:10] this and when it'll be on an agenda,
[2:19:12] anybody that received a notice for
[2:19:15] the hearings tonight
[2:19:16] will receive a notice again in the
[2:19:18] future. We'll get different signs put up
[2:19:21] for that and that Excuse me, we'll get
[2:19:23] different signs put up
[2:19:25] for hearings with the council as well,
[2:19:28] but I don't think that'll likely be in 2
[2:19:30] weeks. We'll
[2:19:34] I don't know when that will be, but
[2:19:36] we'll take time
[2:19:37] to
[2:19:40] >> [snorts]
[2:19:40] >> get what information we can on that. And
[2:19:42] just one other thought, and I I
[2:19:43] appreciate what Mr. Woodhouse said
[2:19:47] back in 2004, five, or six,
[2:19:50] traffic on Mill Road became an issue
[2:19:52] because of ALA.
[2:19:54] Then it was Old Mill Estates
[2:19:56] and I think Alice Engineering was
[2:19:58] involved in trying to figure out how to
[2:20:00] enhance
[2:20:01] that is widen different parts of Mill
[2:20:03] Road in the 2008-2009
[2:20:07] era. Then it was Millstein Meadows
[2:20:09] that added So, this has gone on, right?
[2:20:11] Every time there's been a new
[2:20:13] development that's come along and what
[2:20:15] Mr. Haslam said is absolutely true.
[2:20:18] They're homes that front onto Mill Road,
[2:20:21] property owners that I we typically
[2:20:23] assume don't want to be involved in road
[2:20:26] expansions and that type of a thing. Um
[2:20:30] so those expansions typically just
[2:20:32] happen when somebody's ready to change
[2:20:33] their land use.
[2:20:35] Um
[2:20:36] I
[2:20:38] So, I'm not entirely optimistic that
[2:20:40] we'll have any better information for
[2:20:42] residents or the council
[2:20:44] when this goes to the city council, but
[2:20:46] we're going to try. We're going to see
[2:20:47] what might be able to be done and you know, maybe what that
[2:20:51] looks like from a timing perspective and
[2:20:53] that sort of a thing.
[2:20:55] >> Thank you.
[2:20:56] >> Okay.
[2:20:58] All right.
[2:20:59] Our next item is the Hollow Acres
[2:21:02] commercial zone change.
[2:21:05] Who's going to present to us on that?
[2:21:13] Brandon's getting up and down again.
[2:21:15] That sore back. Hope you've got some
[2:21:16] Motrin or ibuprofen.
[2:21:17] >> I'm surprised you don't want a quick
[2:21:19] break. Um
[2:21:22] This is the
[2:21:22] >> got to we've got to get these people
[2:21:24] that have been waiting going through.
[2:21:26] >> This is No, you're right. This is the
[2:21:28] east side of town. Um just to be clear
[2:21:32] this is for the zone change only. There
[2:21:35] is no platting, there is no site plan.
[2:21:37] The images that were provided by the
[2:21:39] applicant are conceptual in nature
[2:21:42] showing how
[2:21:43] they might utilize the property that
[2:21:45] they're proposing to
[2:21:47] um rezone from
[2:21:50] uh
[2:21:50] rural residential to commercial.
[2:21:53] Um this is the part of town that we're
[2:21:55] looking at. It's a
[2:21:57] growing,
[2:21:58] uh, intersection with increased traffic
[2:22:01] volumes every year, uh, Spanish Fork
[2:22:03] Parkway
[2:22:04] and, uh, 400 North. What we're looking
[2:22:08] at is just this parcel of property that
[2:22:12] abuts, uh, Spanish Fork Parkway. This
[2:22:15] separate parcel is owned by Rocky
[2:22:17] Mountain Power and is not included, uh,
[2:22:20] in the requested zone change tonight.
[2:22:22] Um,
[2:22:23] the property is over 8 acres in size.
[2:22:26] Uh,
[2:22:27] might even be over 9 acres. Um,
[2:22:30] but what they're looking at is
[2:22:31] requesting just for the northern portion
[2:22:34] to change. So, if we go to the next
[2:22:36] slide,
[2:22:38] on the left you'll see
[2:22:40] the current zoning districts. The
[2:22:42] property, the south portion, is R112.
[2:22:46] That was changed by the City Council and
[2:22:47] Planning Commission
[2:22:49] a few years back in anticipation of
[2:22:51] doing,
[2:22:52] uh, large lot development.
[2:22:55] At the time there were some other
[2:22:56] proposals, uh, for the north half that
[2:22:59] were not, uh,
[2:23:01] modified or looked on favorably at that
[2:23:04] time. Um, so what the request is, we
[2:23:07] have the RR portion, rural residential,
[2:23:10] and then a sliver of the, um, R112
[2:23:14] portion.
[2:23:15] On the right you see the land use
[2:23:17] designation from the general plan.
[2:23:20] Uh, what it anticipates is
[2:23:23] some commercial presence there at the
[2:23:27] southeast quadrant of the intersection.
[2:23:30] And so you can see that, uh, potentially
[2:23:32] Rocky Mountain Power, if they ever sold
[2:23:34] it or if they ever develop it, um,
[2:23:36] that's something they could potentially
[2:23:38] look at, but not necessarily have to do.
[2:23:40] Um, let's go to the next slide.
[2:23:43] So, this is an image that was put
[2:23:45] together by our GIS showing, um, exactly
[2:23:47] the the proposed changes.
[2:23:50] Let's go to the next slide.
[2:23:53] So once again, this is conceptual in
[2:23:55] nature. This is not something that's
[2:23:57] been thoroughly reviewed as far as
[2:24:00] site plan approval or
[2:24:02] compliance with the codes.
[2:24:05] And so what we're looking at tonight is
[2:24:07] just this portion of the property. I
[2:24:10] appreciate that the applicant has
[2:24:11] provided
[2:24:12] an updated concept showing how
[2:24:15] the south portion could still be
[2:24:16] developed with larger lots
[2:24:19] similar to what you have to the south
[2:24:21] and to the east.
[2:24:23] And so once again, this north portion
[2:24:25] we're looking at going from RR to C2
[2:24:30] including just a small portion of the
[2:24:32] R112 to C2.
[2:24:34] Um
[2:24:37] When we look at the the general plan,
[2:24:40] the commercial designation, that's
[2:24:42] reserved for hubs of retail, dining,
[2:24:44] offices, and services that provide
[2:24:46] economic vitality and community
[2:24:48] convenience through accessible,
[2:24:50] well-designed development. Um
[2:24:53] Commercial land is highly sensitive with
[2:24:56] success often depending on visibility,
[2:24:59] access, and proximity to major
[2:25:00] transportation corridors and population
[2:25:02] centers.
[2:25:03] Um because suitable sites for commercial
[2:25:06] activity are limited, preserving these
[2:25:08] locations for commercial use is
[2:25:10] critical.
[2:25:11] Um so once again, the development review
[2:25:14] committee looked at this
[2:25:16] um
[2:25:17] in in July and recommended approval.
[2:25:20] Um
[2:25:21] and did comment to the applicant that
[2:25:24] many of the issues that may arise from
[2:25:27] the conceptual layout, those would be
[2:25:29] reviewed and addressed with the
[2:25:32] subsequent site plan and subdividing of
[2:25:34] the property that would still need to
[2:25:37] occur um
[2:25:39] if actions taken know, the zone change
[2:25:41] by the city council.
[2:25:42] Um let's go to the next slide.
[2:25:45] These next few images are just updated
[2:25:48] um information from the applicant and we
[2:25:51] do have a representative uh for the
[2:25:54] applicant here tonight. Um he can come
[2:25:56] up and speak to um these images and the
[2:26:00] views um as well as uh the property.
[2:26:04] Um if we
[2:26:07] um
[2:26:09] If you need to I did include in the
[2:26:10] staff report uh some of the potential
[2:26:13] uses that are allowable in the C-2 zone.
[2:26:18] I don't know how much detail the
[2:26:19] applicant will go to as far as um
[2:26:23] potential uses that they've identified
[2:26:24] here, but we'll let him come up and
[2:26:26] speak to that.
[2:26:27] Um this item also does have a public
[2:26:29] hearing uh aspect to it and uh this
[2:26:34] staff report and a later slide does
[2:26:36] include the recommendation by the
[2:26:38] development review committee their
[2:26:40] findings when they recommended approval
[2:26:43] uh was they felt it was uh consistent
[2:26:45] with the designation of commercial uh
[2:26:47] that the proposal will provide for
[2:26:49] commercial uses at an important and
[2:26:51] highly visible intersection
[2:26:53] and that the proposal enhances
[2:26:54] commercial uses and services in the area
[2:26:57] and that those would be conveniently
[2:26:59] located.
[2:27:01] Questions for staff at this time?
[2:27:06] » I got a question. So, conceptual we're
[2:27:09] talking zone change means conceptual but
[2:27:11] with no plans in place.
[2:27:13] What's kind of the onus to to make this
[2:27:15] change? Is it is it more to to help
[2:27:17] with, you know,
[2:27:19] pushing plans along? Just Okay.
[2:27:22] Guess I asked and answered my own
[2:27:24] question right there.
[2:27:25] >> If I remember right, too, this is power
[2:27:27] lines go right through this. So, this is
[2:27:29] going to be a difficult
[2:27:30] >> Correct. So,
[2:27:32] >> See them right
[2:27:32] >> North is on the right side of the
[2:27:34] screen. You can see the power lines um
[2:27:38] come through on an angle, um,
[2:27:40] and so, yes, this north portion, uh,
[2:27:44] does have that impact from that angle of
[2:27:46] power lines.
[2:27:49] So, certain things like structures can't
[2:27:51] be placed under it, um, but parking and
[2:27:53] other improvements can.
[2:27:56] >> And we got creative in the electric park
[2:27:57] area, and
[2:27:59] this also looks creative. I I I think
[2:28:01] there's a general hesitancy to have
[2:28:03] residents underneath here, but this, I
[2:28:06] think, is is perhaps less concerning.
[2:28:09] Let me ask a question. I know, again,
[2:28:10] we're talking conceptual here,
[2:28:13] but, uh, as we just noted with the the
[2:28:15] road development, we would expect to see
[2:28:18] improvement along here. Are we talking
[2:28:20] trail too, or something like that?
[2:28:22] >> There's a number of trails,
[2:28:24] um,
[2:28:25] a trail that would be on
[2:28:27] Let's
[2:28:27] >> Cuz there's a trail right here.
[2:28:29] And I know there's a
[2:28:30] >> Spaceway Parkway would have a trail.
[2:28:32] >> Yeah, there'd be a trail here on this
[2:28:33] side.
[2:28:35] Um, and then there's also a master plan
[2:28:37] trail that follows the,
[2:28:38] uh, power line corridor, which on their
[2:28:41] concept, uh, they propose potentially
[2:28:43] bringing it along 400 North and down.
[2:28:46] >> Okay.
[2:28:47] Very much like that. So,
[2:28:49] >> And, uh,
[2:28:50] we would expect a right turn lane onto
[2:28:52] 400 North there.
[2:28:53] >> So, it'll right turn lane.
[2:28:54] >> Yeah, we have two different concepts
[2:28:56] that our engineering department has
[2:28:57] drawn up showing how
[2:29:00] improvements can be completed to this
[2:29:02] intersection. One option, if we can skip
[2:29:04] ahead to it, it's at the very end.
[2:29:12] So, this option here would, uh,
[2:29:14] anticipate relocation of a pole, which
[2:29:16] would be costly, and this option would
[2:29:18] be a slip lane, um, that would allow the
[2:29:21] poles to remain in place for right turn
[2:29:23] movement.
[2:29:29] » [snorts]
[2:29:29] >> But, that That be
[2:29:33] up the a pole removal removal or
[2:29:36] change or that would be up to the
[2:29:38] developer, right? To put those costs.
[2:29:43] » And that's not necessarily the emphasis
[2:29:45] of tonight's request. We're looking
[2:29:48] mainly at the zoning, but we provided
[2:29:50] this for your information.
[2:29:51] >> And I do like the fact that we're
[2:29:54] putting the zoning ahead of the
[2:29:56] plat approval.
[2:29:58] >> Oh, I'll make another I mean I I know we
[2:30:00] have the Actually, I'll wait to make the
[2:30:02] discussion till later. I got some
[2:30:03] thoughts.
[2:30:04] >> If there's no other question for staff,
[2:30:06] uh Forest is here
[2:30:08] uh to represent the developing group uh
[2:30:11] as far as the request for the zone
[2:30:13] change. And then
[2:30:14] uh if there's no other questions for the
[2:30:16] applicant or I at that time, then
[2:30:18] uh public hearing would be would be
[2:30:20] next.
[2:30:22] >> Thank you.
[2:30:26] » Uh yeah, my name is Forest Gaskill. I
[2:30:28] represent the developer. Um
[2:30:32] So,
[2:30:33] um
[2:30:34] you kind of alluded to it. We
[2:30:36] generally uh
[2:30:38] we
[2:30:40] try to um
[2:30:42] make sure that a site is developable
[2:30:45] before we get too far down the road on
[2:30:47] putting a lot of time and money into
[2:30:49] drawing up the plans. We want to you
[2:30:51] know, we work with staff to make sure
[2:30:52] that we have
[2:30:53] um as much as we can provide. Um so,
[2:30:56] this is a plan based on what we
[2:30:58] typically would expect as far as
[2:31:01] uh tenant uses and then we've started
[2:31:03] working on some of the challenges
[2:31:05] um like the right turn lane and the
[2:31:07] improvements. Um we kind of sized it
[2:31:09] based on what um we felt like we needed
[2:31:13] to
[2:31:14] uh
[2:31:14] be able to afford to put in these
[2:31:16] improvements. Um that's why it doesn't
[2:31:18] quite match up exactly with um
[2:31:21] the the uh maps that were shown show the
[2:31:25] uh
[2:31:26] I guess the limits the zones.
[2:31:28] >> The general plan map.
[2:31:29] >> Yeah.
[2:31:31] Uh and
[2:31:33] we we think it it works and and there's
[2:31:36] some challenges with the power lines.
[2:31:37] We've been talking to Rockingham Power.
[2:31:39] Um
[2:31:40] I actually came down early to drive that
[2:31:43] power corridor to get a better idea of
[2:31:44] what
[2:31:45] has been built underneath. We They've
[2:31:47] given us information, but it's hard to
[2:31:50] kind of know
[2:31:51] you know, read through their
[2:31:52] requirements, understand what that means
[2:31:54] until you actually down look. So uh
[2:31:56] I've been trying to get my arms around
[2:31:58] that. But yeah, so this is kind of our attempt at fitting commercial into
[2:32:03] that power corridor.
[2:32:05] And then like I said, these are all just
[2:32:07] kind of conceptual buildings, sort of
[2:32:09] what we would expect the tenant mix to
[2:32:11] be, but we don't have any
[2:32:12] um
[2:32:13] any concrete tenants at this point.
[2:32:17] Um but yeah, I'm happy to answer any
[2:32:18] questions.
[2:32:19] >> Okay.
[2:32:21] >> Even though this is conceptual,
[2:32:23] are the individual building sizes is is that
[2:32:27] somewhat accurate?
[2:32:29] >> Yeah, so if you look at the plan, we we
[2:32:31] are kind of limited base like the the
[2:32:34] best part of this corner from retail
[2:32:36] perspective is the hard corner,
[2:32:38] but obviously there's power lines there
[2:32:40] and so we can't put buildings there. So
[2:32:41] we've tried to
[2:32:43] plan for the types of tenants we are
[2:32:45] expecting and where they would fit. So,
[2:32:47] you know, we have um like a larger
[2:32:50] building on that north end
[2:32:53] uh because we have some space there and
[2:32:55] we can park on the other side. And then
[2:32:57] we've tried to put more of the bigger um
[2:33:00] like, you know, multi-tenant buildings
[2:33:03] towards the south side where they will
[2:33:04] also fit. Uh that
[2:33:06] >> So right here larger and right here
[2:33:08] larger.
[2:33:09] >> Mhm.
[2:33:10] Exactly.
[2:33:11] >> And here.
[2:33:11] >> Yeah. And then we're trying to you know,
[2:33:13] there's some single-use tenants that um
[2:33:17] that we think will show up and we've
[2:33:18] tried to fit them in places where we're
[2:33:20] kind of tighter trying to fit in.
[2:33:22] >> Single use tenant.
[2:33:23] >> Exactly.
[2:33:24] So, even though it's conceptual, what's
[2:33:26] the possibility that those three
[2:33:29] um buildings right there
[2:33:31] um
[2:33:32] along the west side turn into one
[2:33:34] building?
[2:33:36] >> Uh the three buildings along the west
[2:33:38] Oh, turn into one?
[2:33:39] >> Yeah.
[2:33:40] >> Uh very low. We There's not a single use
[2:33:42] tenant that would have a large building
[2:33:44] like that. And for us, we've found that
[2:33:46] our um sort of
[2:33:49] preferred multi-tenant size is around 4
[2:33:53] to 6,000 sq ft. That's kind of the
[2:33:55] It's not too small, not too large. Um
[2:33:57] there's some
[2:33:58] costs
[2:33:59] uh analysis goes into that.
[2:34:01] Um so, we've done Recently, we've done
[2:34:05] um a lot of these sort of pad buildings,
[2:34:07] and they tend to be between 4 and 6,000
[2:34:09] sq ft for the uh the multi-tenant ones.
[2:34:12] >> They'll likely want to have
[2:34:15] multiple drive-thru opportunities,
[2:34:18] I would guess.
[2:34:18] >> So, that that is often times
[2:34:20] >> why the buildings get
[2:34:21] >> That's what I see.
[2:34:22] >> Yeah, that that's the nature of the
[2:34:23] market. A lot of the current tenants
[2:34:25] want drive-thrus.
[2:34:26] >> With the power lines there, have they imposed a
[2:34:30] height restriction on the buildings?
[2:34:33] >> Yes. Um on Yeah, there are
[2:34:37] uh requirements for how close we can get
[2:34:39] to the power lines. I believe we're far enough away with all
[2:34:45] these buildings that we don't have
[2:34:47] height res
[2:34:48] The the the code is going to restrict
[2:34:51] the height more than the power lines
[2:34:53] would. Um
[2:34:54] you know, our our retail buildings don't
[2:34:56] generally go that tall to where we're
[2:34:58] concerned about it, where we're outside
[2:34:59] of the power line corridor and
[2:35:01] >> So, you probably wouldn't build a
[2:35:02] two-story
[2:35:05] >> No.
[2:35:05] >> on any of those?
[2:35:06] >> No.
[2:35:09] » Uh
[2:35:09] my question is the the general plan has
[2:35:12] this area right here to to commercial.
[2:35:16] And And when we were discussing this
[2:35:19] part of that is that then it's this
[2:35:23] because the um
[2:35:25] this isn't up against neighbors where
[2:35:28] here you're in and out and you've got
[2:35:30] neighbors right across the street, too.
[2:35:32] And they're already very impacted by the
[2:35:35] high school traffic as well.
[2:35:38] So, do you do you not own this end of it
[2:35:41] over there you know?
[2:35:42] >> parcel's owned by Rocky Mountain Power
[2:35:44] and we've talked to them but it's it's
[2:35:46] Rocky Mountain Power. They they've
[2:35:49] They have told me that they have no
[2:35:50] intention of developing it or selling it
[2:35:52] or anything in the near future, so.
[2:35:54] >> Okay.
[2:35:58] All right. So, anybody else have
[2:36:00] questions here?
[2:36:01] >> Really quickly, I it's hard to tell from
[2:36:03] that this drawing
[2:36:05] but how many entrances and exits are
[2:36:07] there in this?
[2:36:08] >> Yeah, so uh we have two on uh 2550 East
[2:36:12] and then we're showing one on 400 North.
[2:36:15] Um and we've been working with staff to
[2:36:17] try to get those uh it just for the
[2:36:20] retail portion. Um obviously the
[2:36:23] residentials
[2:36:24] >> Oh, just for the Do you have an ingress
[2:36:26] here, too?
[2:36:27] >> Yeah, so we've got those two.
[2:36:29] >> Right here and right here. Oh.
[2:36:31] >> And then here, too. And then yes, on 400
[2:36:33] North. And um
[2:36:35] yeah, we've been working try to get the
[2:36:36] spacing right on that. Obviously that
[2:36:38] when we go in and put in the right turn
[2:36:41] lane design, that'll kind of affect
[2:36:42] where those end up.
[2:36:43] >> Yeah.
[2:36:44] >> And then we've also um
[2:36:45] as he talked about towards the south
[2:36:47] side of the property where there are
[2:36:48] homes across the street, we wanted to
[2:36:50] make sure that that lined up in a place
[2:36:52] where we're not going to have headlights
[2:36:53] shining into people's windows, so we
[2:36:55] tried to space that between the houses
[2:36:57] on the other side of the street.
[2:36:59] >> Thank you for considering that.
[2:37:00] >> Yeah.
[2:37:01] And also the ingress is helpful um at
[2:37:04] least from access to certain businesses.
[2:37:06] >> Mhm.
[2:37:07] >> I'm wondering if you need to have an
[2:37:09] ingress and egress right here or since
[2:37:11] this is such a small little neighborhood
[2:37:14] if they could all just flow out in and
[2:37:16] out of there.
[2:37:17] >> Cul-de-sac?
[2:37:19] >> [snorts]
[2:37:19] >> This
[2:37:20] for the residential area. Thank
[2:37:22] >> Yeah, make that a cul-de-sac, that's
[2:37:24] what you're saying.
[2:37:25] >> Right.
[2:37:27] >> Code-wise it could, yeah.
[2:37:29] >> Yeah, certainly a possibility. We've
[2:37:31] >> It's a tricky piece of property.
[2:37:33] >> I'll say this, we're we're a retail
[2:37:35] developer first and foremost, that's our um
[2:37:39] our emphasis um and so
[2:37:42] you know, we we're happy to show what we need to do on the
[2:37:45] residential side. We're not trying to
[2:37:49] ask for anything there that the city
[2:37:50] doesn't want so um
[2:37:52] any feedback we'll take into
[2:37:53] consideration and try to reflect it on our plan.
[2:37:56] >> It sounds like mostly what you've done
[2:37:58] is just kind of penciled in
[2:37:59] some things in the system.
[2:38:02] Okay.
[2:38:04] You've kind of penciled it in but yet
[2:38:05] with the power lines you're kind of
[2:38:07] locked into some of those
[2:38:09] locations, aren't you?
[2:38:11] >> Yeah.
[2:38:13] >> Am I Am I right they can't build under
[2:38:16] like nothing structural can be under the
[2:38:18] power lines and no tall trees, is that
[2:38:20] right?
[2:38:21] >> Some trees.
[2:38:22] but nothing that grows
[2:38:24] >> Nothing tall, yeah.
[2:38:25] >> Yeah, there's there's requirements um
[2:38:29] Anything that goes underneath has to
[2:38:30] have some kind of grounding um
[2:38:33] and nothing that or anything that is
[2:38:35] conductive even with
[2:38:37] certain types of coatings have to have
[2:38:39] grounding. I
[2:38:41] I'll save you the I'll spare you the
[2:38:42] details. I I've been digging through it
[2:38:44] this weekend and it's there's a lot that
[2:38:46] goes into it but yeah
[2:38:47] as of right now we're not planning on
[2:38:48] any buildings underneath it.
[2:38:50] >> Okay.
[2:38:53] All right, any other questions before we
[2:38:55] open this up to public comment?
[2:38:59] All right, thank you. Um
[2:39:01] you know, after our last uh
[2:39:04] wild uh public hearing and last whole
[2:39:07] uh,
[2:39:09] thing that we did for 2 and 1/2 hours.
[2:39:11] Uh, I just found this wonderful handy
[2:39:13] dandy paper.
[2:39:15] So, let me just tell you. I'm going to
[2:39:16] open this to public hearing, but due to
[2:39:19] time limitations, public comments will
[2:39:21] be limited to 3 minutes each. The rules
[2:39:23] of conduct are to come to the front and
[2:39:25] address the planning commission. Each
[2:39:27] person is allowed to speak only once.
[2:39:30] Clearly state your name and address for
[2:39:32] the record. The individual speaking
[2:39:34] shall give pertinent facts that have not
[2:39:36] already been stated. Please do not
[2:39:39] repeat information that's already been
[2:39:41] given.
[2:39:42] No individual is to speak from the
[2:39:44] audience unless requested to do so by
[2:39:46] the planning commission. And at no time
[2:39:48] shall there be outburst from the
[2:39:50] audience such as speaking out of turn,
[2:39:51] cheering, applause. If this occurs,
[2:39:53] individuals may be asked to leave.
[2:39:56] We did all those things this last time.
[2:39:59] So, we're going to show a good example
[2:40:01] this time. I apologize for being out of
[2:40:04] order. All right. We'll open this up to
[2:40:06] public comment for anyone that would
[2:40:08] like to come and speak.
[2:40:10] Thank you.
[2:40:11] >> Uh, my name is Benjamin Jacobson.
[2:40:14] And I don't know why this was brought up
[2:40:16] to for even consideration. There was
[2:40:18] this has been met with
[2:40:20] extreme animosity about 6 or 7 years
[2:40:23] ago. I was one of those individuals. I
[2:40:26] live across the street. The traffic is
[2:40:27] already horrible there. Okay? We're
[2:40:30] getting a grocery store with other
[2:40:32] retail going in there. Leave it at
[2:40:35] residential, single family. That's why
[2:40:37] it's always been. Leave it at single
[2:40:40] family residential. Clearly, whoever
[2:40:42] purchased this did not get the memo from
[2:40:44] the last meeting that we're not doing
[2:40:46] this. We are not doing this. Okay? I
[2:40:49] understand property owners have a right,
[2:40:51] but no, we are not doing this. We've had
[2:40:53] this discussion once. We're not doing it
[2:40:55] again. That's all I have to say. Thank
[2:40:57] you.
[2:40:57] >> Thank you.
[2:41:03] All right. anyone else?
[2:41:11] » My name is Ross Batsgard. We live at 305
[2:41:14] North Spanish Fork Parkway.
[2:41:17] >> [clears throat]
[2:41:17] >> We're one of three landowners that still
[2:41:19] face Spanish Fork Parkway.
[2:41:22] So, we know the traffic intimately. We
[2:41:24] see every car that goes along that
[2:41:25] street. Our house doesn't back up to the
[2:41:27] street behind a fence.
[2:41:29] We're right on the street.
[2:41:30] That proposal that was presented several
[2:41:32] years ago was to try to cram as many
[2:41:34] townhomes as possible on that south end
[2:41:37] because the north part was deemed
[2:41:38] non-usable. And
[2:41:40] I wasn't in favor of that at all
[2:41:42] as well. And uh
[2:41:44] it uh
[2:41:50] As somebody mentioned the height
[2:41:51] restriction,
[2:41:53] that's been a cornfield
[2:41:54] as long as we've lived up there. And
[2:41:57] could we have the buildings be no taller
[2:41:58] than a corn corn stalk?
[2:42:01] J- j- just for the feeling.
[2:42:04] No, but you know that field is got
[2:42:05] something has got to be done with that
[2:42:07] property.
[2:42:08] It's not going to be a cornfield
[2:42:09] forever.
[2:42:10] And uh we've had that traffic problem
[2:42:13] since they built the high school.
[2:42:15] Dave knows me very well. We've talked
[2:42:17] about it numerous times. That's that
[2:42:19] last sole piece of Spanish Fork Parkway
[2:42:21] that hasn't been improved. And uh
[2:42:24] this is this will resolve that problem.
[2:42:27] I don't have a problem with this. I
[2:42:29] uh those residents those homes on that
[2:42:30] side will fit right in.
[2:42:32] I I like this concept of a little
[2:42:34] neighborhood shopping area. It's not
[2:42:36] going to draw people from a regional
[2:42:38] basis. It's going to serve those
[2:42:39] hundreds and hundreds of homes that have
[2:42:41] been built up on the bench already. The
[2:42:43] traffic's there. The traffic is us
[2:42:46] uh that will drive by there and use
[2:42:47] those facilities. It's not going to pull
[2:42:49] people from from all over town and all
[2:42:51] over the county.
[2:42:52] And I like that idea in communities
[2:42:54] where they have these little
[2:42:56] commercial hubs in
[2:42:58] the neighborhood areas can fit very
[2:43:00] nicely with those areas.
[2:43:03] Um
[2:43:04] in terms of Rocky Mountain Power, when
[2:43:06] we had that last discussion number of
[2:43:07] years ago, I actually called them.
[2:43:10] And I talked to their head real estate
[2:43:11] person, and I I don't know if it's just
[2:43:13] a matter of talking to the right person
[2:43:15] or what. And he says,
[2:43:16] "I don't have any problem having that
[2:43:17] developed."
[2:43:19] And because when I looked at it back
[2:43:21] then, I saw that full 20-acre piece, if it were
[2:43:24] developed in one project, it could be so much more well designed.
[2:43:29] Uh
[2:43:30] but I'm not in control of Rocky Mountain
[2:43:32] Power. I just passed that along. We
[2:43:33] talked, and I sent him a letter, and he
[2:43:35] says, "That's a misunderstanding to
[2:43:37] think that we're not interested in being
[2:43:39] developed." They're not going to take
[2:43:40] the initiative cuz they're a big
[2:43:41] utility, and that's
[2:43:44] it wouldn't be worth their much time or
[2:43:46] effort on their part.
[2:43:47] But anyway, uh
[2:43:49] I I would just like to let people know
[2:43:51] that as probably one of three families
[2:43:54] most affected by this, uh I don't have
[2:43:56] any objection to it.
[2:43:58] >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Batsgard.
[2:44:02] Okay.
[2:44:03] All right, anyone else?
[2:44:09] » My name is My name is John Sumsion.
[2:44:12] I live in the house right here
[2:44:14] that faces Spanish Fork Parkway.
[2:44:17] Uh there are three impacts
[2:44:20] that I know of. One is
[2:44:23] noise across the street, commercial
[2:44:25] drive-thru.
[2:44:27] One is light across the street,
[2:44:30] uh shining in our windows.
[2:44:32] One is um traffic coming in and out.
[2:44:37] Um
[2:44:38] the pros for this is that um
[2:44:41] it is a beneficial land use
[2:44:44] uh at the in a very difficult
[2:44:47] location under power line.
[2:44:50] Um the con for this is that it impacts
[2:44:57] these three houses like this.
[2:44:59] The concept is
[2:45:01] um helpful.
[2:45:03] However, the
[2:45:05] where the exits and entrances are placed
[2:45:09] is probably the least amount of impact
[2:45:11] that you will have
[2:45:12] on the existing uh residences there.
[2:45:16] Um
[2:45:18] the fact that it's proposed to be
[2:45:20] developed means that this can turn into
[2:45:23] a trail.
[2:45:25] Um if it does turn into a trail
[2:45:28] and this isn't developed at the same
[2:45:30] time,
[2:45:31] um you're going to have a trail coming
[2:45:34] here
[2:45:35] going to a ditch right here, going to a
[2:45:37] trail right there.
[2:45:39] And so, I don't like the fact that it is
[2:45:42] only proposed that we turn this into
[2:45:44] commercial without any kind of cohesive
[2:45:48] um
[2:45:48] uh plan for the whole section.
[2:45:52] Uh the other thing that I do like the fact that it is a commercial use cuz I think that's
[2:45:59] probably the only use that
[2:46:01] um will end up developing this section
[2:46:04] right here.
[2:46:06] Um
[2:46:07] if it were to be developed, then you
[2:46:09] would have
[2:46:10] this is sidewalk but no curb and gutter.
[2:46:14] And there water collects right here and
[2:46:17] is splashed with the gravel onto this
[2:46:19] sidewalk
[2:46:21] every time there's a rainstorm all
[2:46:22] winter long.
[2:46:24] Uh you're probably well aware of that.
[2:46:27] Um if this were developed in one
[2:46:29] section, then
[2:46:31] a trail and sidewalk, you could gain
[2:46:34] continuity here.
[2:46:36] And you could put curb and gutter right
[2:46:38] here, and it would be a cohesive
[2:46:40] um development.
[2:46:43] Uh
[2:46:45] I am opposed to the proposal that is on
[2:46:49] the table because this is not a cohesive
[2:46:52] development and because there is no
[2:46:55] specific site plan that rides along with
[2:46:57] this zoning
[2:46:59] proposal and because of that as a
[2:47:02] resident we have no leverage in being
[2:47:05] able to have control over what site plan
[2:47:08] goes in.
[2:47:10] That's the reason I'm opposed. Otherwise
[2:47:12] I like the presentation.
[2:47:16] >> Thank you Mr. Sumption. I sure
[2:47:18] appreciate all the neighbors that are
[2:47:20] the very most impacted come and give us
[2:47:23] your your insight on that. That is
[2:47:25] great.
[2:47:27] Yes.
[2:47:28] Mrs. Badsgard.
[2:47:33] » Hi, my name is Janine Badsgard and my
[2:47:37] home faces Spanish Fork Parkway. We're
[2:47:39] one of the three.
[2:47:41] I am the one in the middle and as the
[2:47:45] basic plan that you have there
[2:47:48] right when I'm trying to come out of my
[2:47:50] driveway I'm facing all the high school
[2:47:52] traffic. It looks like you have people
[2:47:54] coming out exactly in my driveway.
[2:47:58] So now I'm going to have to face people
[2:48:00] coming this way, this way and coming
[2:48:01] straight at me. So it would be
[2:48:03] impossible for us to get out of our
[2:48:04] driveway. So I'm sure that the developer
[2:48:07] would work with that and make sure that
[2:48:11] we have a way to get out of our driveway
[2:48:14] safely and that we don't have the
[2:48:16] headlights coming straight in.
[2:48:18] I also know that there's possibility
[2:48:21] that the lights for commercial
[2:48:24] you can have ones that go straight down
[2:48:26] instead of spreading out and I would
[2:48:28] assume that that would be done.
[2:48:31] And also that concern that brother
[2:48:34] that John Sumption said. I know that
[2:48:37] when the Edge subdivision went in that
[2:48:39] there was money held aside so that when
[2:48:43] the other side of the street was
[2:48:44] developed, that we would get a curb and
[2:48:47] gutter, so we could get the water
[2:48:49] management taken care of. As it is now,
[2:48:51] there's just a sidewalk, and it's a
[2:48:53] mess, and there's no water control. So,
[2:48:56] I would assume that that would be part
[2:48:58] of that, too.
[2:48:59] And, um, I agree, it's a problematic
[2:49:02] corner, and that if there
[2:49:06] you know, you can't build a structure
[2:49:07] under those power lines, that probably
[2:49:11] the best use of that property would be
[2:49:14] commercial, where they can't build a
[2:49:16] structure too high, and mostly parking
[2:49:19] lot under the power lines. So, I don't,
[2:49:22] um,
[2:49:23] I don't oppose this development, but I
[2:49:26] would hope that the developers
[2:49:29] would really,
[2:49:31] uh, work with
[2:49:33] the neighbors right across the street,
[2:49:35] so that we could both feel good about
[2:49:38] how things go. So, that we would have
[2:49:40] some input, and and we'd be able to work
[2:49:44] closely with the developers, and not be
[2:49:45] adverse
[2:49:47] enemies.
[2:49:48] >> Thank you.
[2:49:49] Thanks, Janine.
[2:49:51] Okay.
[2:49:53] All right. Are there any other comments?
[2:49:55] Otherwise, we will close our public
[2:49:58] comment.
[2:49:59] And,
[2:50:01] all right, let's have some
[2:50:02] >> We got one more.
[2:50:03] >> One more, yes. Thank you. I'm sorry.
[2:50:05] >> No, I'm sorry. Late to the show. Hi, my
[2:50:08] name's Dana Drake, and I actually live
[2:50:12] on the other side, east of that
[2:50:14] development. I don't know how this
[2:50:15] works, but I'm all right over here.
[2:50:16] >> Okay.
[2:50:17] >> And,
[2:50:19] one thing in the last 6 years that we've
[2:50:21] lived there is that this intersection
[2:50:24] gets a lot of activity with accidents.
[2:50:27] Uh,
[2:50:28] it get the whole night sky lit up.
[2:50:31] Um,
[2:50:33] it
[2:50:34] I think the whole traffic development,
[2:50:35] you you know, on the last 2 and 1/2 hour
[2:50:38] discussion, you talked about traffic
[2:50:40] development on streets, etc.
[2:50:42] And
[2:50:43] what's going to go on through here
[2:50:45] is you get a gazillion kids for 9 months
[2:50:48] of the year all going right there to
[2:50:51] that high school. And it gets backed up,
[2:50:54] and it's not the longest turn lane. And
[2:50:56] now you're going to add commercial, and
[2:50:58] I'm not against the development of
[2:50:59] commercial, but I like the corn.
[2:51:01] The corn's really nice to look out the
[2:51:03] back window.
[2:51:04] Um
[2:51:05] and
[2:51:07] uh
[2:51:07] what you see going to are going to it's
[2:51:09] going to happen, in my opinion, is
[2:51:10] you're just going to have this cluster
[2:51:12] of commercial, kids, and then any post
[2:51:16] activities of the high school, if
[2:51:20] was it mentioned a drive-thru on every
[2:51:21] pad?
[2:51:23] I mean, I see that as a magnet for
[2:51:27] the kids just going there, hanging out,
[2:51:29] and whatever. So, late night activities
[2:51:33] going in and out of that area
[2:51:35] and affecting the residents along this
[2:51:37] area here
[2:51:38] with just lights, traffic, noise, etc.
[2:51:41] Um trash, whatever it might be, but um
[2:51:45] from my perspective,
[2:51:48] I wish the farmer would just keep
[2:51:50] growing corn.
[2:51:52] Thank you.
[2:51:54] >> Thank you, Mr. Drake.
[2:51:57] Hey.
[2:52:00] All right, anyone else for public
[2:52:02] comment?
[2:52:07] » My name's Colleen Drake. I live with
[2:52:09] this guy, and I agree with most of the
[2:52:12] comments that have been made. Um one of
[2:52:14] my concerns is as vehicles are heading
[2:52:18] south on Spanish Fork Parkway,
[2:52:22] and they pause to turn left, cuz this is
[2:52:24] just a two-lane. If they pause to turn
[2:52:26] left and are waiting for traffic to
[2:52:27] clear to do so,
[2:52:29] there's just going to be a backup of
[2:52:31] cars that may take you to the
[2:52:34] intersection.
[2:52:35] I don't have a solution for that. I just
[2:52:37] see it as a potential problem.
[2:52:40] And my question is how would that be
[2:52:42] addressed or resolved?
[2:52:44] Um it may be the same concern coming
[2:52:46] from the south, but I think the bigger
[2:52:48] concern is coming from the north and
[2:52:50] affecting that intersection.
[2:52:52] Thank you.
[2:52:52] >> Thank you, Colleen.
[2:52:55] All right. Anyone else for public
[2:52:56] comment?
[2:52:58] Thank you, everyone. We'll close public
[2:53:00] comment and we'll have a discussion.
[2:53:03] All right.
[2:53:05] Commissioners?
[2:53:08] What are your thoughts?
[2:53:10] >> [snorts]
[2:53:10] >> Comment on traffic. Lit- literally
[2:53:12] nothing happens in a vacuum. I've been
[2:53:13] here since 2008. I live down on the
[2:53:16] other side of highway six.
[2:53:18] And when we opened up Spanish Fork
[2:53:20] Parkway to allow me to have another
[2:53:22] access point to, you know, to
[2:53:24] everything else in town. This is one of
[2:53:26] my main routes that I I take quite
[2:53:29] often. And uh
[2:53:31] I was quite overjoyed that this was
[2:53:33] possible just because highway six can be
[2:53:34] a nightmare.
[2:53:36] I understand that uh traffic
[2:53:39] I've had both of my children go to Maple
[2:53:41] Mountain High School. I've been on the
[2:53:42] other side of that traffic. They've been
[2:53:44] on the other side of that traffic. That
[2:53:46] traffic situation came from the school.
[2:53:49] And both of these areas on both sides
[2:53:51] have been unimproved for quite some
[2:53:53] time. It's very similar to what we were
[2:53:54] talking about with Arrowhead and um
[2:53:57] and the Mill Road.
[2:53:59] Um
[2:54:01] Development's a difficult thing. I get
[2:54:03] that. And a lot of changes here and I I
[2:54:04] appreciate the neighbors talking very
[2:54:06] thoughtfully about uh what changes this
[2:54:08] make here makes here. They're already
[2:54:10] dealing with the traffic situation that
[2:54:12] is. Um my hope would be
[2:54:15] in addition to the zoning
[2:54:17] we do whatever we can
[2:54:19] and make a priority to be on this
[2:54:21] development for for where
[2:54:23] addressing traffic situations. I know I
[2:54:25] know we can talk through that ad
[2:54:26] nauseam.
[2:54:27] That said,
[2:54:28] I think the reality of this is this is a
[2:54:30] major corridor in town. This is a This
[2:54:32] is one of the ways we can get there. And
[2:54:33] when we at the the key thing was
[2:54:35] actually opening up that railroad
[2:54:37] crossing. And uh from my experience here
[2:54:39] on the on the planning commission,
[2:54:41] getting anything from the Union Pacific
[2:54:42] Railroad is almost like getting an act
[2:54:44] of Congress complete. Um so that is uh
[2:54:47] that's a key critical juncture here in
[2:54:50] our city. Um
[2:54:52] Looking at this, I like it. Um I
[2:54:55] actually talked with my my son who's got
[2:54:56] a lot of friends from Mapleton. Um one
[2:54:58] thing we always kind of comment is in
[2:55:01] Spanish Fork we have a lot more things
[2:55:02] than they have in Mapleton. And this
[2:55:03] area here
[2:55:05] from a commercial development
[2:55:06] perspective, I think would actually draw
[2:55:07] in individuals from Mapleton. And it's it's good for our tax base there.
[2:55:11] Now again, we'll see what size of
[2:55:12] property uh things come there. I was
[2:55:14] very close to the Small Mart. Um
[2:55:17] Initially, I was quite opposed to some
[2:55:18] of the commercial development there.
[2:55:19] is quite a bit of traffic that comes in there. But I'll tell you
[2:55:23] as a resident close to that, within
[2:55:24] walking distance, I love that I can walk
[2:55:28] to all of those things from a a
[2:55:30] commercial perspective. Having an area
[2:55:32] that's walkable, you know, like a little
[2:55:34] I I and I think I think a lot of these
[2:55:36] residents here will see something
[2:55:37] similar. So those are my thoughts.
[2:55:42] » I I think my my concern is the same as
[2:55:45] especially she mentioned trying to turn
[2:55:47] uh with no turning lane, that could be
[2:55:48] really messy unless they're going to
[2:55:49] widen that enough to put that in there.
[2:55:52] Um and then I think the curb and gutter
[2:55:54] and I think uh one point is to make sure
[2:55:56] we develop the whole thing and not only
[2:55:57] just half with the walkway, which I
[2:55:59] would think we would ask for.
[2:56:01] But that's my concerns.
[2:56:06] » Anyone?
[2:56:07] >> Okay, this uh
[2:56:09] this has actually been on my radar long
[2:56:11] before I thought I'd be sitting up here.
[2:56:13] This is my neighborhood as well. And uh
[2:56:16] I've looked at this this property with
[2:56:18] the power lines. And it it's a
[2:56:20] challenging it's a challenging plot of
[2:56:22] land.
[2:56:24] But like Mr. Ross said, eventually it's
[2:56:27] going to get developed. And
[2:56:29] if it's not commercial, then it's it's
[2:56:31] probably going to be townhouses.
[2:56:33] And and I'm definitely opposed to that.
[2:56:35] So,
[2:56:37] um
[2:56:37] as long as this doesn't get too
[2:56:39] congested, I like how you have a lot
[2:56:41] extra parking stalls than are required.
[2:56:44] And if we could work with the neighbors
[2:56:46] like with the headlights and her getting
[2:56:48] out of her driveway.
[2:56:49] Um I I'm actually I like the corn better, but I I like
[2:56:54] this project. And and I think a lot of
[2:56:56] people
[2:56:57] um
[2:56:58] in in our area right there are the ones
[2:57:01] that are going to be visiting that
[2:57:02] besides the high school.
[2:57:04] Um
[2:57:05] and so I don't
[2:57:06] you know, the traffic is horrible. It
[2:57:08] It's It's absolutely horrible. I have to
[2:57:10] time when I leave to work and when I
[2:57:11] come home based on what the high
[2:57:13] school's doing. Um
[2:57:15] but I don't think this is necessarily
[2:57:17] going to add to that other than turning
[2:57:18] in and out of there.
[2:57:20] Um but I I like this I like this
[2:57:22] project.
[2:57:24] I'd like to see a really a good plot
[2:57:26] plan.
[2:57:27] >> Daryl, I want to make one comment on
[2:57:29] what you said. Please.
[2:57:30] I I I don't [clears throat] think it's
[2:57:31] no secret. I I I like run a lot. I run
[2:57:33] around the city. I think everyone's told
[2:57:34] me they sighted me run somewhere.
[2:57:36] The biggest thing that I see from a
[2:57:38] traffic perspective when I'm running is
[2:57:41] schools. It seems like it's much more so
[2:57:44] than anything else including
[2:57:45] residential.
[2:57:47] You know when the school hours are in
[2:57:48] place and that's when the traffic
[2:57:50] happens. Canyon Road sees the same thing
[2:57:52] from the junior high. Um
[2:57:55] it's it's just when all the people are
[2:57:57] going to the same place. Everything else
[2:57:59] Oh, let's not pretend like the traffic's
[2:58:00] not bad at other times, but that's when
[2:58:02] it's exceptionally bad. So, I'll just comment that, you know,
[2:58:07] the school is the biggest thing. And the
[2:58:08] school here has been the biggest thing
[2:58:11] from a traffic perspective. So, that's
[2:58:13] >> And I'd just like to say I like the fact
[2:58:15] that we're addressing the zoning
[2:58:17] first
[2:58:19] ahead of the plat
[2:58:21] because that we're not and then
[2:58:23] you know, if we can approve that and I I
[2:58:26] believe with the
[2:58:27] best use for this is commercial with the
[2:58:29] power lines there
[2:58:30] and everything plus, you know, it'll be
[2:58:32] beneficial to the neighborhood in the
[2:58:33] long run.
[2:58:34] Um and as you design as a plat is
[2:58:38] designed, I would hope with the city
[2:58:41] that it, you know, a turning
[2:58:44] lane or something to help
[2:58:46] get around that corner to speed traffic
[2:58:48] up.
[2:58:49] You know, it might be beneficial speed
[2:58:51] things up from what they are now even
[2:58:52] with the added traffic on the commercial
[2:58:55] right there.
[2:58:56] Um and also maybe
[2:58:58] like they say, if we could get the trail
[2:59:00] in
[2:59:02] all at once.
[2:59:04] You know, while this is being designed
[2:59:06] or, you know, whatever and then and it
[2:59:08] make sure that we the
[2:59:11] entrances are addressed so they're not
[2:59:14] detrimental to the existing people
[2:59:16] across the street.
[2:59:17] Um but I like the idea of it.
[2:59:21] And you know, it is a little bit outside
[2:59:23] the general the approved general plan on
[2:59:25] the commercial but
[2:59:26] it's the best use of the property.
[2:59:30] So, I like it and you know, I'm sure
[2:59:32] it'll change as as the design goes in
[2:59:34] and the city staff gets involved.
[2:59:39] » [snorts]
[2:59:39] >> Thank you. Thanks everyone. Uh
[2:59:42] I know that we gen that when we were
[2:59:45] talking about general plan, we did this
[2:59:47] area for
[2:59:49] um for commercial for a couple of
[2:59:50] reasons. One is then
[2:59:53] if you have commercial here, then you
[2:59:55] are not and you have if you have
[2:59:57] commercial just right here and you have
[2:59:59] residential here, then it's less impact
[3:00:02] to our three friends who are sitting in
[3:00:04] these rows in front of us. That's
[3:00:05] exactly why we did that.
[3:00:08] Now that we're sitting in this meeting
[3:00:10] and and I believe that that's the that's
[3:00:12] the best way. Least impact, then you can
[3:00:15] put a masonry wall behind this right
[3:00:18] here, so it's less impact to our
[3:00:20] neighbors that are here on the front
[3:00:21] row, right?
[3:00:23] Um practically speaking though, with
[3:00:26] this being the owned plot of land and
[3:00:30] this
[3:00:31] um not being part of the same plot of
[3:00:34] ownership, I can see why
[3:00:37] this is more practical.
[3:00:39] I still am so concerned about it.
[3:00:43] Um I I too drive this all the time. I
[3:00:46] live on this side, my grandkids live
[3:00:48] down here.
[3:00:49] So, that's the way I That's the way I
[3:00:53] go.
[3:00:54] Um and
[3:00:55] um the There is one difference I was
[3:00:58] realizing, Paul, about the difference
[3:01:01] between Smart & Final Neighborhood and
[3:01:04] this commercial and these neighbors is a
[3:01:07] masonry wall.
[3:01:10] The you have a good masonry wall and
[3:01:13] foliage whatever that's called zone,
[3:01:16] right?
[3:01:17] >> Yeah, and it's actually really nice one
[3:01:18] and I'll also comment that was a huge
[3:01:20] discussion that we had. We my neighbors
[3:01:23] directly with the city and the city was
[3:01:25] exceptionally responsive to that. And
[3:01:27] that that area is
[3:01:29] actually nice. It's almost a park.
[3:01:31] >> It's beautiful.
[3:01:32] >> Yeah.
[3:01:32] >> They keep it Yeah, thank you city
[3:01:35] maintenance people who take care parks
[3:01:37] and rec. Please pass that along. It's
[3:01:39] beautifully kept.
[3:01:40] Uh and so it's it's very similar and has
[3:01:44] some of the same benefits, but also
[3:01:49] uh it you're always you're already so
[3:01:52] heavily impacted. I wish that we
[3:01:55] And it is not the job of the planning
[3:01:58] commission to maximize the finances of
[3:02:01] developers. That's Our job is to look
[3:02:03] out for
[3:02:05] um the best interest of our residents
[3:02:07] and our city.
[3:02:09] Um, and so
[3:02:12] at the same time, this would be a great
[3:02:14] little place for teenagers to come
[3:02:17] during lunch and do And so in my mind
[3:02:20] I'm thinking is there a way to do some
[3:02:23] kind of protective barriers if you're
[3:02:25] doing a drive-thru to so lights are not
[3:02:29] shining over there. Is there a way to
[3:02:32] mitigate sound? I know there's ways to
[3:02:35] mitigate the lights that are coming down
[3:02:37] because there's a great big building
[3:02:39] that's going down down over here that
[3:02:41] they've talked a whole lot about light
[3:02:43] impacts to their neighbors. And so
[3:02:47] um, that we've talked about very
[3:02:49] recently.
[3:02:50] But, um
[3:02:52] And so
[3:02:54] I'm so torn. I I appreciate that you
[3:02:57] have this little This will be a cute
[3:02:59] little development. They'll just love
[3:03:00] their neighbors. My other concern is
[3:03:03] that
[3:03:04] I think it's
[3:03:06] Sometimes good to do zoning before
[3:03:08] there's a site plan, but the other times
[3:03:12] it's concerning that there's not a site
[3:03:14] plan when you do zoning cuz that's our
[3:03:16] only bite at the apple. Once we change
[3:03:19] it to commercial
[3:03:21] um, then
[3:03:22] it doesn't ever come before planning
[3:03:24] commission again because they have the
[3:03:26] right to develop it there. And so
[3:03:28] they're meeting with our good friends in
[3:03:30] the community development office and
[3:03:33] they know and understand our city
[3:03:36] uh, and and what we'd like there, but um
[3:03:40] it's our only time to weigh in on a
[3:03:42] on what goes there.
[3:03:44] Uh
[3:03:47] And
[3:03:48] that's the hard The other hard part is
[3:03:50] when you have a high school there
[3:03:51] because high school traffic is the
[3:03:52] hardest. It's not like an elementary
[3:03:54] school or a middle school or a junior
[3:03:56] middle school where you have high
[3:03:58] traffic twice a day and the rest of the
[3:04:01] time it's pretty fine. High school is
[3:04:03] just
[3:04:04] most of the time very high impact. I
[3:04:07] mean, even in the summertime.
[3:04:09] So,
[3:04:12] I've seen a few
[3:04:13] at least two proposals for this land.
[3:04:17] I don't know where to land on
[3:04:21] my opinion on this subject, so
[3:04:23] uh
[3:04:26] Did everybody else say something on
[3:04:28] this? Any other comments on this before
[3:04:29] I entertain a motion?
[3:04:34] » One one last comment. I think it is fair
[3:04:36] It's not perfect, but it's fairly
[3:04:38] consistent with the um land use plan.
[3:04:41] We're talking a very small amount.
[3:04:43] >> And practical And it is practical with
[3:04:45] the that is one land owner.
[3:04:48] >> Yeah, and I think the comment on land
[3:04:50] use or like the the master plan doesn't say we own the
[3:04:54] whole thing and we can run everything.
[3:04:56] It's ultimately up to the the private
[3:04:58] property owners in terms of what can
[3:05:00] happen there and
[3:05:01] But again, I think this very much fits
[3:05:03] the the guidance there.
[3:05:04] >> I guess I guess I I guess I and we would
[3:05:08] all look you in the eye and say
[3:05:09] [clears throat]
[3:05:10] if we if we recommend this to the city
[3:05:13] council, that we would hope that you
[3:05:15] would definitely want to work with the
[3:05:17] neighbors so that it's a mutually
[3:05:19] beneficial
[3:05:22] uh
[3:05:23] the the least impact possible on the
[3:05:25] neighbors.
[3:05:25] >> Yeah, and
[3:05:26] one thing we say every time we come into
[3:05:28] a city is like we want to build uh
[3:05:30] something for the community. Um that's
[3:05:33] one of the benefits of being a retail
[3:05:34] developer.
[3:05:36] Um I
[3:05:37] haven't worked in Spanish Fork very
[3:05:39] much, so I I'm not as familiar with the
[3:05:41] code as I am other cities. Typically,
[3:05:44] there's headlight screening requirements
[3:05:46] for drive-throughs. There's um dark sky
[3:05:49] ordinances or or just requirements for
[3:05:51] lighting, and we're happy to meet that.
[3:05:52] We
[3:05:54] we're willing to work with the the
[3:05:55] neighbors to make sure that we're not
[3:05:58] building something that's um intrusive,
[3:06:01] that, you know, we're we're doing all
[3:06:02] the things to make sure that we're
[3:06:04] fitting into the community. That's always been um
[3:06:07] how we've done it. Uh I
[3:06:09] our company has a good reputation. I
[3:06:11] know
[3:06:12] I can say that all I want and
[3:06:14] um doesn't mean anything, but um if you
[3:06:17] go and talk to the people we've worked
[3:06:18] with, we do uh
[3:06:20] try to work with neighbors and work with
[3:06:22] the city and I I think um we have a
[3:06:24] history of uh
[3:06:26] you know, showing that we do that.
[3:06:28] >> Thank you. Appreciate that.
[3:06:30] Okay.
[3:06:31] With that, I would entertain a motion.
[3:06:37] Looking for a red
[3:06:39] slide.
[3:06:47] » I'll make a motion that we approve the
[3:06:50] proposed Hollow Acres commercial zone
[3:06:52] change be recommended for approval based
[3:06:55] on the findings listed there.
[3:06:58] >> Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have
[3:06:59] a second?
[3:07:00] >> I'll second that.
[3:07:01] >> All in favor?
[3:07:02] >> Aye.
[3:07:03] >> And all opposed?
[3:07:06] Okay, that passes unanimously.
[3:07:09] Woo, 40 minutes.
[3:07:12] Thank you, friends. We have been sitting
[3:07:15] here for 3 hours and we'd like to take a
[3:07:17] 5-minute break before we come back.
[3:07:21] Thank you.
[3:16:25] » Thank you. Um, Mr. Anderson, before we
[3:16:27] do our next our next thing, I'd like to
[3:16:30] take one moment of personal privilege,
[3:16:32] if you wouldn't mind.
[3:16:35] Is that all right?
[3:16:37] >> [laughter]
[3:16:38] >> Okay, everyone.
[3:16:39] >> Just sit sit down and enjoy this.
[3:16:42] >> All right, it's my last Planning
[3:16:43] Commission meeting, and
[3:16:46] I just have to share. I I'm just going
[3:16:48] to take 2 minutes to share, my friends.
[3:16:50] I made a list of some things I've
[3:16:52] learned as a Planning Commissioner.
[3:16:54] You ready?
[3:16:54] >> They're putting a timer on.
[3:16:55] >> [laughter]
[3:16:56] >> Yes!
[3:16:57] do it, please. No, do it. Okay, do
[3:17:00] it. All right. Number one is Here's one
[3:17:02] thing I've learned. Spanish Fork city
[3:17:04] staff are professionals. They care about
[3:17:06] our citizens and the best practices for
[3:17:09] uh in city development and services.
[3:17:11] They do the work. Thank you for doing
[3:17:13] the work.
[3:17:14] Um, people want to live in Spanish Fork
[3:17:17] uh including our own kids.
[3:17:19] So, uh that growth needs to be well
[3:17:22] planned and thoughtfully managed.
[3:17:24] Uh
[3:17:25] I'm grateful to have worked with
[3:17:27] incredible people. Like I've said, city
[3:17:29] staff, Dave Anderson, who's been patient
[3:17:31] with my questions and given me
[3:17:32] perspective and history.
[3:17:34] Uh, one of the best pieces of advice
[3:17:36] that I've gotten was something like,
[3:17:38] "Learn all you want about city planning
[3:17:40] and code. We will support We,
[3:17:42] professionals, will support you in the
[3:17:44] details." This is Dave talking to me.
[3:17:46] "You make sure you come to planning
[3:17:49] commission with your common sense and
[3:17:50] your connections to the community."
[3:17:53] That's the second best advice I've ever
[3:17:55] received and the first was to thank
[3:17:57] everyone. So, thank you all of you who
[3:17:59] come with your your your
[3:18:02] common sense and your own experience.
[3:18:04] Um, thank you to Dave and Brandon,
[3:18:06] David, Ian, Seth, Casey, Von, Byron,
[3:18:12] all our friends,
[3:18:14] uh, all our city servants, current and
[3:18:16] past. What a privilege it's been. Thank
[3:18:18] you to my fellow commissioners, both
[3:18:20] past and present. Thank you for being
[3:18:22] willing to speak up and share your
[3:18:23] insights. Tonight has been a perfect
[3:18:25] example of that. You are a model of how
[3:18:27] to have robust conversations and look at
[3:18:29] all sides of an issue. We agree and we
[3:18:31] disagree.
[3:18:33] We come to a consensus most of the time,
[3:18:34] but sometimes not, as shown tonight, and
[3:18:37] we're great friends at [snorts] the end
[3:18:38] of the meeting. And that's what we do in
[3:18:40] Spanish Fork City, no matter what social
[3:18:43] media says.
[3:18:46] It's easier to make hard decisions when
[3:18:47] you're flanked by sensible people. And I
[3:18:50] have grown a stronger backbone from this
[3:18:52] experience.
[3:18:53] Uh,
[3:18:54] there will be people who are displeased
[3:18:56] with any decisions you make.
[3:18:59] Um,
[3:19:00] as far as my planning commission
[3:19:01] friends, I think that I drove Todd
[3:19:03] Mitchell crazy for the first two years
[3:19:06] that we served together.
[3:19:08] I And thanks for tolerating me, Todd.
[3:19:11] Uh, from him I've learned to keep asking
[3:19:14] where where the city council stands on
[3:19:16] issues. If they're not interested, don't
[3:19:18] spend a lot of time on it. And don't be
[3:19:20] afraid to reach out and talk to our city
[3:19:22] council members. Uh
[3:19:24] all but one thing I also learned from
[3:19:28] Mitchell was it's not my job to make
[3:19:30] developers money. It's my job to think
[3:19:32] about what's best for the community.
[3:19:34] Thanks to John Mendenhall who reminded
[3:19:36] us that Spanish Fork has a vibrant
[3:19:38] history that we should remember when
[3:19:40] making our decisions
[3:19:42] even if meetings are longer.
[3:19:45] Thank you to Councilman Oehler who told
[3:19:47] me to ask a lot of questions.
[3:19:50] Even if it seems like everyone else
[3:19:51] knows the answer and that you think that
[3:19:53] you should know the answer.
[3:19:54] Thank you to our mayor for being willing
[3:19:57] to call a spade a spade. Listen and
[3:20:00] consider and then make the sensible
[3:20:02] choice in a very respectful way.
[3:20:04] Thank you to Joseph Joseph Ernest for
[3:20:06] telling me not to apologize for having
[3:20:08] different opinions and for being funny.
[3:20:11] Thank you Michelle for sharing your
[3:20:13] expertise
[3:20:14] and helping me think outside the box. Uh
[3:20:18] Thank you to all of you. Uh change is
[3:20:20] hard. This is one thing I've learned in
[3:20:23] Spanish on planning commission. Change
[3:20:25] is hard and there's fear that comes
[3:20:27] along with that.
[3:20:29] Uh our awesome citizens come and their
[3:20:33] standard concerns are that their home
[3:20:35] values are going to go down, that crime
[3:20:37] will increase, and that their children
[3:20:39] will be injured.
[3:20:41] Uh we care about the safety we care
[3:20:44] about our safety and our pocketbook. All
[3:20:46] of us do and it's good to think about
[3:20:49] that and also to understand that those
[3:20:51] things are vetted by our city staff each
[3:20:54] time and that before anything comes
[3:20:57] before us. They care about our safety
[3:20:59] and pocketbooks and our city.
[3:21:01] Thank you to our citizens who come and
[3:21:04] share your concerns about projects. We
[3:21:06] make better decisions when we listen,
[3:21:08] consider, discuss, and ask staff.
[3:21:11] Uh planning commissioners, do your keep
[3:21:14] doing your homework and keep asking
[3:21:15] questions, especially ask staff, how
[3:21:17] projects will impact our community
[3:21:20] and ask what we are not asking or
[3:21:22] thinking about. Be willing Be willing to
[3:21:25] change your mind and read the land use
[3:21:28] element of the general plan, not just
[3:21:30] the map, and consider it when making
[3:21:31] decisions. And thank you for the
[3:21:33] privilege of serving
[3:21:35] Spanish Fork City and with you, my
[3:21:37] friends.
[3:21:38] All right. Thank you.
[3:21:42] Okay, our next thing is
[3:21:45] title 15 amendments.
[3:21:48] >> So,
[3:21:49] I'm going to be really quick. I had an
[3:21:51] opportunity last night. Shanna came to
[3:21:52] the City Council meeting for anybody
[3:21:54] that doesn't know that.
[3:21:55] New members were appointed to the
[3:21:56] commission and the council took a couple
[3:21:59] of minutes to express some warm feelings
[3:22:01] about Shanna and her service.
[3:22:03] Shanna, couple thoughts that I had after
[3:22:04] I sat down last night. So, to be brief,
[3:22:07] one of the things I have appreciated the
[3:22:08] most about working with Shanna, and the
[3:22:09] list is long,
[3:22:11] is how you've represented the city as a community, the city as an
[3:22:16] organization, the civic,
[3:22:18] you know, entity that is the city. I
[3:22:20] think very few people have come to
[3:22:22] meetings that haven't felt like you
[3:22:24] heard them, like you cared, and like you
[3:22:26] were trying to do your best to to
[3:22:30] um
[3:22:31] to take care of them. And
[3:22:34] there's a warmth that you've exhibited
[3:22:36] in that. I think you've been a great
[3:22:38] example. You've been devout
[3:22:41] and committed and we couldn't have asked
[3:22:44] for anything more, so.
[3:22:46] Thank you.
[3:22:47] >> Thanks.
[3:22:47] for letting me take a quick
[3:22:48] minute with that.
[3:22:49] >> That's nice. Okay, title 15, here we go.
[3:22:52] >> Okay, this is really simple. I
[3:22:55] won't drag it on longer than I need to.
[3:22:58] The state code changed
[3:23:00] and has directed cities to have
[3:23:03] requirements for detached accessory
[3:23:05] dwelling units.
[3:23:07] A detached accessory dwelling unit is a
[3:23:09] second
[3:23:11] living quarters
[3:23:13] that's on the same property as the
[3:23:16] primary dwelling unit um where they
[3:23:19] don't share walls.
[3:23:21] So, it might be um a separate building
[3:23:24] in a backyard.
[3:23:26] I think frankly that's pretty much what
[3:23:27] it would have to be. It also potentially
[3:23:29] could be living space maybe over a
[3:23:31] detached garage or that type of a thing.
[3:23:34] Um
[3:23:36] Uh
[3:23:36] in any event, uh right now we require
[3:23:38] two parking spaces
[3:23:40] when that type of unit exists on a
[3:23:42] property
[3:23:44] to accommodate that particular unit.
[3:23:47] State code has now been changed to say
[3:23:51] that if
[3:23:52] those buildings
[3:23:55] have less than 650 square feet of space
[3:24:00] for that detached accessory dwelling
[3:24:02] unit cities can only require the
[3:24:05] property owner to provide
[3:24:07] >> [clears throat]
[3:24:07] >> one
[3:24:08] off-street parking space
[3:24:10] for that unit. That's what this change
[3:24:13] is about. It's really that simple. Um I
[3:24:15] included the language with the staff
[3:24:16] report
[3:24:18] that we have to match by the 1st of
[3:24:20] October.
[3:24:21] Um this would bring us into conformity
[3:24:24] with that. This is a really easy change
[3:24:26] for us because we've allowed detached
[3:24:28] accessory dwelling units for several
[3:24:30] years in a manner that but for this is
[3:24:33] consistent with this recent change to
[3:24:35] state code.
[3:24:36] I took longer even than explaining it
[3:24:38] than I intended to.
[3:24:39] >> Can we ask Can I ask one question about
[3:24:42] how many of these are in our city?
[3:24:44] >> That's a great question. Probably into
[3:24:46] the dozens, I would say.
[3:24:49] >> The majority that we see are accessory
[3:24:51] or sorry are attached or internal
[3:24:53] accessory.
[3:24:55] Uh I'd say a a dozen is probably a fair
[3:24:57] estimate.
[3:24:59] >> Okay.
[3:25:00] Thank you.
[3:25:02] All right, any other questions or
[3:25:03] comments on this?
[3:25:05] I'll I'll entertain a motion.
[3:25:07] >> Public hearing or public hearing?
[3:25:08] >> Oh, wait. Public hearing. I open this up
[3:25:09] to public hearing and remember
[3:25:12] 3 minutes.
[3:25:14] Come to the front and
[3:25:16] say your name.
[3:25:18] Speak only once.
[3:25:20] Be nice.
[3:25:23] That's pretty much it.
[3:25:25] Anyone would anyone like to comment on
[3:25:26] this?
[3:25:29] Okay, we'll close public hearing.
[3:25:32] All right, now I'd entertain a motion.
[3:25:36] » We don't have any discussion.
[3:25:38] >> Any discussion on this?
[3:25:40] >> I'll make one very brief comment.
[3:25:45] We have to be compliant. I'll probably
[3:25:47] support this because we have to be
[3:25:48] compliant.
[3:25:49] I think more parking is better. We are a
[3:25:51] community where everyone drives.
[3:25:53] As much as you know, maybe that's not
[3:25:55] the most ideal thing. So it always
[3:25:56] frustrates me when we lower these
[3:25:57] requirements, but it is what the state
[3:25:59] requires. So.
[3:26:01] >> Kind of sort of makes sense to me if
[3:26:02] it's like 650. Yeah. feet square feet
[3:26:07] >> Yeah, your parking
[3:26:09] two parking stalls are as big as the
[3:26:11] dwelling.
[3:26:12] >> Yeah.
[3:26:12] >> I guess that's true. So.
[3:26:15] >> Okay. All right, I'd entertain a motion.
[3:26:19] >> Is this a recommendation?
[3:26:20] >> Oh.
[3:26:21] >> It is.
[3:26:21] >> Oh, yes.
[3:26:25] » I'll make a motion.
[3:26:26] I move to recommend for approval the
[3:26:29] title 15 amendments in relation to
[3:26:33] accessory dwelling unit parking.
[3:26:36] >> I have a motion.
[3:26:37] >> Second.
[3:26:38] >> All in favor? [snorts]
[3:26:39] I.
[3:26:40] Any opposed?
[3:26:41] All right.
[3:26:44] That passes.
[3:26:46] That is
[3:26:48] recommended to the city council. All
[3:26:50] right.
[3:26:52] I'm so excited.
[3:26:54] This is
[3:26:55] about this next item. Our next item is a
[3:27:00] proposed title 15 amendment about data
[3:27:03] center and on on-site power generation
[3:27:06] facilities.
[3:27:07] >> I thought you were just excited to hear
[3:27:09] from the lawyer first.
[3:27:11] >> I am.
[3:27:12] >> It's favorite part. I don't think this
[3:27:13] is just as simple as the last one.
[3:27:16] Maybe not. Um,
[3:27:17] this is a proposed zoning text amendment
[3:27:20] for title 15 related to data center. So,
[3:27:24] there's a company named Volition
[3:27:25] Industries who wants to put a data
[3:27:27] center inside of Spanish Fork City in
[3:27:29] order to do that, there needs to be
[3:27:31] amendments to title 15
[3:27:34] um in order to allow them to do that.
[3:27:35] Volition's not the first data center
[3:27:37] that's tried to come into the city.
[3:27:39] They're the first company that's made it
[3:27:41] this far. The others have been deterred
[3:27:43] for one reason or another um
[3:27:46] with the process and and with their
[3:27:47] options or or
[3:27:48] what they were trying to propose. This
[3:27:51] company has um gone a little bit further
[3:27:53] with respect to all of those aspects and
[3:27:56] um they've actually prepared and
[3:27:58] submitted
[3:27:59] um
[3:28:00] proposed amendments to our code. There's
[3:28:02] three different sections where this
[3:28:04] comes. Based off of their submission, we
[3:28:06] then took their proposal and we've added
[3:28:09] through that. We went through all of
[3:28:10] those details. We looked through um what
[3:28:13] we thought made sense. And so, you can
[3:28:16] see as this is up there in front of you
[3:28:18] on the screen, anything that's there in
[3:28:20] blue is their amendment. And as we
[3:28:23] scroll through some of these amendments,
[3:28:24] you'll see the red. Those were changes
[3:28:26] that we made with respect to their
[3:28:29] proposal. So, the first thing is
[3:28:31] definitions. There's five definitions
[3:28:33] that are key when it comes to a data
[3:28:35] center um that Volition is uh
[3:28:38] recommending or proposing
[3:28:40] and that uh our code would need to
[3:28:43] change in order to allow. And we have
[3:28:45] gone through these definitions in the
[3:28:46] sorry, there's four of them and all of
[3:28:49] them are um important with respect to
[3:28:53] um what their proposal is. So,
[3:28:55] the key I mean, we've got a data center
[3:28:57] that's there um defined, but with these
[3:29:00] data centers that we're talking about,
[3:29:01] there's two um important aspects.
[3:29:04] There's this energy storage system.
[3:29:06] There's an ultra-low emission generation
[3:29:08] technology and onsite power generation
[3:29:11] facility. So, essentially, their
[3:29:13] proposal is that all of the power be
[3:29:15] generated onsite.
[3:29:17] Um that they not connect to our grid
[3:29:20] essentially at all.
[3:29:22] And so, um these these definitions are
[3:29:26] what make sure that they follow through
[3:29:28] with that, right? That they're If we
[3:29:30] allow this as they're proposing, then they wouldn't
[3:29:34] be connected to our grid for any of that
[3:29:35] data system. And then, um So, those are
[3:29:39] the definitions. Then, we move to the
[3:29:40] second section, which is the It's the
[3:29:42] light industrial zone. And of course,
[3:29:44] with zoning uses, we have permitted
[3:29:46] uses, we have conditional uses, and we
[3:29:49] have uses subject to conditions. Their
[3:29:52] proposal was that they would have a
[3:29:54] conditional use permit.
[3:29:55] Um our
[3:29:57] changes are that these would be uses
[3:29:59] subject to conditions. And that way, we
[3:30:01] outline those conditions beforehand so
[3:30:04] that they're not arbitrary and it's not
[3:30:06] um on a whim every time that somebody
[3:30:08] tries to come and do that. But, we limit
[3:30:10] those conditions to very specific
[3:30:12] things. And if they meet those
[3:30:13] conditions, then they could be allowed
[3:30:15] to have a data center inside of the
[3:30:17] city. So, there's two uses there you can
[3:30:20] see that would be subject to uses
[3:30:22] subject to conditions. That's a data
[3:30:24] center with onsite power generation
[3:30:26] facility
[3:30:27] and an onsite power generation facility
[3:30:30] that wasn't a data center. So, any kind
[3:30:33] of data center that doesn't have their
[3:30:35] own onsite power generation facility
[3:30:37] doesn't meet that definition would not
[3:30:38] be allowed inside of the city under this
[3:30:41] proposal.
[3:30:44] Any questions about that?
[3:30:46] Uses subject to conditions. And then,
[3:30:48] the third one are these regulations. And
[3:30:50] you can look through
[3:30:51] those regulations. Hopefully, you've
[3:30:53] been through some of those, but this is
[3:30:54] all related to onsite power generation
[3:30:56] facilities.
[3:30:58] It talks about the purpose.
[3:31:00] Um where these apply. It's in the I-1
[3:31:03] zone.
[3:31:04] Um the technology that's related. Um
[3:31:07] that really relates to the emission
[3:31:09] generation, the ultra-low emission
[3:31:11] generation technology.
[3:31:13] Um
[3:31:13] >> I I have a question. Is it okay?
[3:31:15] >> Sure.
[3:31:16] I may not be able to answer some of
[3:31:17] these questions may have to go to the
[3:31:19] applicant, but you can ask me and I'll
[3:31:21] tell you.
[3:31:21] >> Okay.
[3:31:23] We did specify ultra-low emissions
[3:31:25] technology. If for some reason that's
[3:31:28] not employed, do we restrict non-
[3:31:33] ultra-low [clears throat]
[3:31:34] emissions technology? I'm I'm going to
[3:31:35] be specific with something I'm thinking.
[3:31:37] If for some reason we have to they're
[3:31:39] unable to power it at the capacity
[3:31:40] they're looking at, they want to roll in
[3:31:42] a a diesel generator. Which can provide
[3:31:45] the power.
[3:31:46] Are we explicitly restricting that?
[3:31:48] >> It is excluded. If it isn't not if it is
[3:31:50] not ultra-low emission generation
[3:31:52] technology, it's not allowed.
[3:31:54] >> Okay. And so so based on basically our
[3:31:56] definition of what ultra-low, which
[3:31:58] looks like it aligns up with what uh
[3:32:00] what we're getting from uh what's in the
[3:32:02] proposal.
[3:32:03] >> Right. So based off the definition,
[3:32:04] based off of what's in our code, and
[3:32:06] it's my understanding that they're even
[3:32:07] potentially going to enter into a
[3:32:09] development agreement to agree to all of
[3:32:11] these things as well. So we'll have a
[3:32:12] contractual agreement potentially with
[3:32:15] them that if they don't follow through,
[3:32:16] we have contractual remedies that are a
[3:32:18] lot easier to enforce than
[3:32:21] um code violations, so to speak. So
[3:32:24] >> Yeah, and and I I
[3:32:24] >> I think the I understand the applicants
[3:32:26] can speak to that, but
[3:32:27] >> Well, and we'll ask about that. I I
[3:32:28] think the reason I bring that comment is
[3:32:31] there is there are all sorts of supply
[3:32:33] chain issues when it comes to data
[3:32:34] centers.
[3:32:35] And sometimes, you know,
[3:32:37] certain hardware cannot be obtained. And
[3:32:40] there's competition for that at all
[3:32:42] levels. And so that is sort of a stopgap
[3:32:45] that I think is materially different
[3:32:46] from what's being presented here. and I
[3:32:48] just want to make sure that we're we're
[3:32:49] clear on that language.
[3:32:51] >> That makes sense to me. I don't know
[3:32:52] anything about the supply chain of all
[3:32:54] of these data centers.
[3:32:55] >> Yeah, if you wonder why anything
[3:32:57] electronic is so expensive.
[3:32:59] >> Sure.
[3:32:59] It makes sense, like you said.
[3:33:01] >> Yeah.
[3:33:02] >> Um
[3:33:03] and then a few of the other things that
[3:33:04] are included in these conditions, again,
[3:33:06] electrical isolation, they're not going
[3:33:08] to be connected to the grid. Um of
[3:33:10] course,
[3:33:11] we they could choose to connect just
[3:33:13] their office and maintenance custodial
[3:33:14] staff. We added that in in case they
[3:33:17] wanted to, but everything else is for
[3:33:18] the data center
[3:33:20] um energy um production, it's completely
[3:33:22] separate from the grid. There's um
[3:33:25] conditions here related to noise,
[3:33:27] related to air quality, to related to
[3:33:29] setback screening and height,
[3:33:32] even related to the water use, waste
[3:33:33] water discharge,
[3:33:35] even once they're finished, the
[3:33:37] decommissioning, right? What happens
[3:33:38] after they're all the way done? There's
[3:33:40] um
[3:33:41] conditions here that are in force or in
[3:33:44] effective under this proposal and then
[3:33:46] everything else is based off the other
[3:33:48] codes that we have.
[3:33:49] >> ask a question?
[3:33:50] >> Sure.
[3:33:51] >> Um and I am sure that this has been
[3:33:55] asked, but on number five, with the
[3:33:58] electrical isolation, with the red
[3:34:01] text that says ordinary office
[3:34:03] maintenance custodial other portions,
[3:34:05] um is there any way to use that as a
[3:34:07] loophole to
[3:34:09] >> No, so it's my understanding that this
[3:34:10] would the city would require them to
[3:34:13] produce their system
[3:34:15] um plans and that would show a
[3:34:17] separation between the two, that there's
[3:34:19] no way there would be any kind of
[3:34:20] crossover between what the city is
[3:34:24] providing to these minimal things, the
[3:34:26] office maintenance custodial, similar
[3:34:28] portions of facility versus the data
[3:34:30] generation. And so they would have to
[3:34:31] have if they want to connect to the city
[3:34:33] grid for those things, there would be a
[3:34:34] total separation between there would be
[3:34:36] no crossover, I guess, between the two.
[3:34:38] That's my understanding what we'd
[3:34:39] require
[3:34:40] >> Thank you.
[3:34:40] >> under this code.
[3:34:42] And that way they'd be paying for city
[3:34:43] power
[3:34:45] for the limited portion if they if they
[3:34:47] wanted to do that, right?
[3:34:48] >> Okay.
[3:34:50] >> Um and then of course the last one is
[3:34:52] sort of the catch all which is um
[3:34:55] all the other all the other code
[3:34:57] sections in the city
[3:34:58] um still apply, right? And so unless it's trumped by these things. So
[3:35:02] >> Oh, one more question on the last
[3:35:04] section with waste water discharge.
[3:35:06] I know we're talking in the proposal
[3:35:07] about having a closed loop cooling
[3:35:09] system.
[3:35:10] >> Right.
[3:35:10] >> Um listen last night of of Hundex and
[3:35:12] they said you know if there's any
[3:35:13] concern, you know, there's there's
[3:35:15] certain
[3:35:16] it would not necessarily be discharged
[3:35:18] into the city water supply. Is that is
[3:35:21] that excluded here cuz it actually
[3:35:22] sounds like it's not excluded here?
[3:35:27] » So
[3:35:29] I it's my understanding based off of
[3:35:31] this code that they
[3:35:34] that it is possible that they would
[3:35:35] discharge to the public sewer system but
[3:35:37] if they did, they have to comply with
[3:35:39] the city's every other pre-treatment
[3:35:42] aspects under the code.
[3:35:43] >> So they do have So So as it's written
[3:35:45] they have the option to discharge in our sewer the the public sewer.
[3:35:49] >> Under these conditions that yes, there's
[3:35:51] not a condition that restricts so that
[3:35:53] no discharge is made into a waste
[3:35:55] >> Okay.
[3:35:58] » Um
[3:36:00] Yeah, so those are the conditions that
[3:36:03] data center would have to follow if they
[3:36:05] met all of those conditions in the
[3:36:07] proposal
[3:36:08] um and we passed this then they would be
[3:36:10] entitled to
[3:36:11] approval or that would be a permitted
[3:36:14] use inside of the I1 zone
[3:36:15] [clears throat] and in the I1 zone only.
[3:36:17] >> How would that be monitored the
[3:36:20] waste water discharge? How would we
[3:36:21] monitor that? How would the city monitor
[3:36:23] that? Is do they have a way?
[3:36:25] >> I'm not an expert in waste water
[3:36:27] management. Maybe Byron would know how
[3:36:29] we would monitor that.
[3:36:31] >> As far as flow, you'd have to
[3:36:34] put a specific
[3:36:37] flow meter in there which we typically
[3:36:39] don't do, but as far as testing and
[3:36:41] stuff
[3:36:42] the pre-treatment usually has a sampling
[3:36:44] manhole where you can go down and
[3:36:45] sample.
[3:36:46] Um so
[3:36:48] we would have the capability of
[3:36:50] taking samples as often as we felt like
[3:36:53] we wanted to.
[3:36:55] Flow, if we were extremely concerned
[3:36:57] about that, there are
[3:36:59] flow meters you can put in there. It's
[3:37:01] not typical, but
[3:37:02] um
[3:37:03] it's possible.
[3:37:06] >> You can trace
[3:37:07] illicit discharges, right? Like through
[3:37:10] the system, that type of thing. I
[3:37:11] understood that
[3:37:14] you could track somebody down if they
[3:37:15] were like if
[3:37:17] >> certain chemicals were in the water when
[3:37:19] it hit the plant.
[3:37:20] >> we go to those sampling manholes and
[3:37:21] sample them and see what's in there.
[3:37:23] Yeah.
[3:37:24] >> Okay.
[3:37:25] But to my understanding, there's not
[3:37:27] going to be a lot of discharge, right?
[3:37:31] » That's a great question to ask the
[3:37:33] applicant, I think.
[3:37:35] So.
[3:37:39] » So that's the proposal with respect to
[3:37:40] the Title 15 amendments. Are there any
[3:37:42] other
[3:37:43] question for me?
[3:37:44] >> [clears throat]
[3:37:45] >> Um I won't maybe an ex- I know you asked
[3:37:48] for the question before I didn't ask
[3:37:49] this. If you're moving from, you know,
[3:37:51] conditional use permit to, you know,
[3:37:53] basically if you you meet these
[3:37:54] conditions, that basically says this
[3:37:56] applicant, any other applicant, as long
[3:37:58] as they meet all those conditions, we
[3:37:59] wouldn't have any public hearing or
[3:38:00] anything like that. It would essentially
[3:38:02] be an administrative action, no
[3:38:04] requirement from a legislative
[3:38:06] perspective, no planning commission that
[3:38:08] would actually comment on. Is that
[3:38:09] correct?
[3:38:10] >> That's correct.
[3:38:11] Yeah.
[3:38:12] >> And why would you do that when that can
[3:38:15] uh
[3:38:16] conditional use rather than subject to
[3:38:19] conditions?
[3:38:20] >> So it's legally you're in a much better
[3:38:22] position to defend the decision when you
[3:38:26] have the conditions outlined beforehand,
[3:38:28] all set out directly like these ones
[3:38:30] are, versus having a planning commission
[3:38:34] review and come up with their conditions
[3:38:36] sort of
[3:38:37] >> arbitrarily I didn't want to say that,
[3:38:39] but yeah, arbitrarily compared to these
[3:38:41] conditions that are in place. So, it's
[3:38:43] best if we come up with the conditions
[3:38:44] beforehand, set them out just like we do
[3:38:46] in many many other instances in our
[3:38:48] code, right? We have uses subject to
[3:38:50] conditions where we set out all those
[3:38:52] conditions beforehand and we keep those
[3:38:54] conditions pretty tight. Right? In my
[3:38:56] mind, these conditions are very tight.
[3:38:58] Um and there are review of those things.
[3:39:00] We tried to keep it that way so that it
[3:39:02] would it was very limited in what could
[3:39:04] ever come in in terms of data center.
[3:39:06] But,
[3:39:07] the idea is you keep those conditions
[3:39:08] tight and defensible and so you're on a
[3:39:11] good foundation if you were ever to try
[3:39:12] to deny someone
[3:39:15] a um
[3:39:16] who is applying to put a data center in.
[3:39:18] If you have a conditional use permit and
[3:39:20] it comes before the planning commission
[3:39:22] and you come up with any kind of
[3:39:23] condition that is not defensible or is a
[3:39:26] little arbitrary,
[3:39:27] uh where you find ourselves in the
[3:39:29] middle of a lawsuit.
[3:39:30] >> Got you.
[3:39:31] >> That makes sense. I appreciate that.
[3:39:33] >> that we don't trust the planning
[3:39:34] commission at all. We do and we
[3:39:35] appreciate your input.
[3:39:36] >> But, we're not professionals.
[3:39:38] >> But, when it comes to defending
[3:39:40] that sort of foundational position,
[3:39:41] we're in a we're in a better legal
[3:39:43] position if we do uses subject to
[3:39:45] condition.
[3:39:45] >> With something like this that's I'm that
[3:39:48] sounds like it's an important thing to
[3:39:50] do.
[3:39:50] >> Well, that's what we
[3:39:51] >> I It also this these I mean, this seems
[3:39:54] like these
[3:39:55] it seems like this is really working to
[3:39:57] protect the citizens of Spanish Fork
[3:40:00] from
[3:40:03] big impacts of
[3:40:05] >> That's the goal. So, the the applicant
[3:40:06] can address the impact that he that they
[3:40:08] anticipate having better than I can, but
[3:40:11] it's our understanding based off of what
[3:40:12] we studied with respect to this data
[3:40:14] center and their proposal is that they
[3:40:15] have a very
[3:40:17] It's our understanding that the impact
[3:40:18] is quite small.
[3:40:20] There's no no effect on the grid, the
[3:40:21] power grid. The water is minimal. Um he
[3:40:25] and I can address exactly what that is.
[3:40:26] And the emissions are ultra low
[3:40:28] emissions. That's the standard that
[3:40:29] they're going to follow. So,
[3:40:31] um
[3:40:31] >> I would I would want to I'm going to ask
[3:40:33] one thing. In terms of power limits We basically said any power limit is
[3:40:37] acceptable based on on conditions. Is
[3:40:40] that correct?
[3:40:41] As long as you're off the grid.
[3:40:43] >> No, so there is a minimum actually
[3:40:45] instead of a maximum.
[3:40:46] >> A minimum of
[3:40:47] >> I want to say it's
[3:40:49] I can't remember the number. I can find
[3:40:50] it though.
[3:40:54] I think it's in red.
[3:40:57] » 50
[3:40:58] >> Generate a minimum of 50 megawatts.
[3:41:00] >> And no maximum?
[3:41:02] >> There's not a maximum listed.
[3:41:03] >> So, it could be
[3:41:05] Well, I guess I'm just answering it. It
[3:41:06] could be any size. It could be a 2
[3:41:07] gigawatt, 4 gigawatt, or whatever as
[3:41:10] long as it was off grid and over 50.
[3:41:12] >> Right.
[3:41:13] Under this current pro- proposal.
[3:41:15] >> I I will have comments later, but I
[3:41:17] think
[3:41:18] even if this is low impact, some limit
[3:41:21] is I think perhaps pertinent here. And I
[3:41:24] think that's a concern I would have. So,
[3:41:27] I'll just note that.
[3:41:28] >> And you can make as you So, then I guess
[3:41:30] next steps, if you're done with
[3:41:32] questions for me, then the applicant
[3:41:34] would come up. They need to have a
[3:41:35] public hearing.
[3:41:36] And then um you're on discussion and
[3:41:39] then make a recommendation.
[3:41:41] Whatever your recommendation is for the city council.
[3:41:44] >> Council. Okay.
[3:41:46] Thank [clears throat] you very much.
[3:41:53] » [snorts]
[3:41:58] » Quick introduction.
[3:42:00] So,
[3:42:01] maybe even a warm up. Uh first of all, I
[3:42:03] really really appreciate the work that
[3:42:06] our legal department has put into this
[3:42:09] particular issue. Uh quick high-level
[3:42:11] observation.
[3:42:13] Um that's the result of having worked uh
[3:42:16] with this particular applicant now for a
[3:42:18] number of different months and having
[3:42:20] been a part of
[3:42:21] uh
[3:42:22] research that's been done by city staff
[3:42:24] on a level that I haven't seen on any
[3:42:26] other
[3:42:27] development related
[3:42:29] type of proposal or issue before.
[3:42:33] Um
[3:42:35] and I'll just leave it at that for now,
[3:42:36] but would be happy to answer any
[3:42:37] questions you might have of me.
[3:42:39] Um
[3:42:41] from my perspective as the zoning
[3:42:42] administrator,
[3:42:45] I also really appreciate this in terms
[3:42:48] of its content, its level of
[3:42:52] specificity
[3:42:53] and detail,
[3:42:55] the fact that the different conditions
[3:42:58] that have to be met before the uses that
[3:43:00] are contemplated here can happen in
[3:43:02] Spanish Fork,
[3:43:04] um
[3:43:05] they're measurable, they can be tracked,
[3:43:08] um
[3:43:09] this is really, really, in my view,
[3:43:12] uh
[3:43:13] well-suited to consistent monitoring and
[3:43:18] administration over time.
[3:43:20] Um
[3:43:22] so, that being said, just
[3:43:25] another maybe thought on this is new zoning language.
[3:43:31] Uh Jeff Chavez is here with us tonight.
[3:43:33] He represents Volition. Uh Jeff, I'll
[3:43:36] just let you jump in, make your
[3:43:37] presentation. If you guys have
[3:43:38] questions, please don't hold back. Uh
[3:43:41] we've peppered [clears throat] Jeff with
[3:43:42] plenty. I think he's very well prepared,
[3:43:44] and if you have any questions tonight
[3:43:46] that
[3:43:47] uh anybody can answer, we certainly can
[3:43:48] track down answers
[3:43:50] to those questions.
[3:43:51] Um so, with that, thank you.
[3:43:55] >> Thank you, Dave.
[3:43:57] Good evening.
[3:43:59] Thank you for having us. Appreciate your
[3:44:01] late nights. I before I got involved in
[3:44:03] some of this, I didn't realize how long
[3:44:05] city council sometimes went, so
[3:44:08] uh
[3:44:09] appreciate the work that you do for
[3:44:10] communities.
[3:44:12] Uh I think that some background is uh
[3:44:15] appropriate, and I think it will add
[3:44:17] some context as you consider
[3:44:20] uh this proposal.
[3:44:22] Um my name is Jeff Chavez. I'm the CEO
[3:44:25] of Volition. We are a 3-year-old company
[3:44:28] kind of 20 years in the making.
[3:44:32] Um
[3:44:34] >> [clears throat]
[3:44:35] >> previously, I was CEO of a company that
[3:44:38] focused on
[3:44:40] uh water conservation, purification,
[3:44:44] and uh clean water generation.
[3:44:47] Um I worked directly with um
[3:44:50] Professor Omar Yaghi from Berkeley, who
[3:44:52] is the world's leading water
[3:44:55] purification and atmospheric water
[3:44:56] generation uh scientist in the world. I
[3:45:00] also [snorts] worked directly with uh
[3:45:01] the University of Limerick in Ireland on
[3:45:04] their uh advanced technologies around
[3:45:07] water. So,
[3:45:08] um
[3:45:09] initially, my work in water conservation
[3:45:13] and water purification,
[3:45:16] um
[3:45:18] we're going back into about 2015 or
[3:45:20] 2016.
[3:45:22] It was at that time, for the first time,
[3:45:25] that I began to become aware of the huge
[3:45:27] amounts of water that
[3:45:30] these sort of unknown, large, sprawling
[3:45:33] data centers
[3:45:35] owned by AWS and others were consuming.
[3:45:38] Um at the time, it was under the radar
[3:45:41] um
[3:45:42] because data
[3:45:44] volume was nowhere near where it is now.
[3:45:48] Um I began to understand that millions
[3:45:52] of gallons of water were evaporating
[3:45:55] monthly in these communities. So, this
[3:45:58] was my first kind of
[3:46:01] insight into a real problem problem with
[3:46:04] the way that large data centers,
[3:46:06] hyperscale data centers were being
[3:46:08] built.
[3:46:10] Shortly thereafter,
[3:46:12] I began work in renewable energy, the
[3:46:14] water transition into renewable,
[3:46:17] and began to do a lot of research and
[3:46:21] investing in renewable power generation.
[3:46:25] Wind, solar, and other types of systems.
[3:46:29] In that work,
[3:46:32] I began to get my first glimpse at the
[3:46:35] grid
[3:46:37] restraints and rapidly accelerating
[3:46:41] residential
[3:46:42] utility rates, especially in California
[3:46:45] where it it was moving at 6% a year.
[3:46:50] And we began to understand that
[3:46:53] the upgrade needed to the grid was being
[3:46:56] passed on to consumers.
[3:46:58] And we also started to recognize that
[3:47:02] there was about to be
[3:47:04] a massive increase in request to build
[3:47:07] major
[3:47:08] data centers.
[3:47:10] So, our work initially was on building
[3:47:13] microgrids, so on-site power generation
[3:47:16] systems that could help large industrial
[3:47:21] areas have power on site that would be
[3:47:24] at a lower cost than the utility
[3:47:26] and at a fixed rate so that they could
[3:47:29] have, you know, a better economic
[3:47:32] scenario and so that we could begin to
[3:47:36] create some ease off the grid by
[3:47:39] providing a kind of parallel on-site
[3:47:44] power solution.
[3:47:46] So, I think
[3:47:47] my background [clears throat] has sort
[3:47:48] of prepared me for what we're doing now
[3:47:51] because Volition was
[3:47:54] created for the purpose of solving
[3:47:58] the problems that are now really widely
[3:48:03] visible throughout the US, throughout
[3:48:05] the world.
[3:48:06] When we began 3 years ago, it was
[3:48:09] because we had realized uh that we could
[3:48:11] engineer
[3:48:13] a viable solution to the problems that
[3:48:17] large hyperscale data centers
[3:48:19] uh had created.
[3:48:23] Oh, do I have a
[3:48:30] Oh, to advance?
[3:48:31] >> Clicker.
[3:48:33] >> Oh, clicker. Sorry.
[3:48:39] That's yeah, I can you can just move it
[3:48:41] along for me.
[3:48:43] Um we'll go back one.
[3:48:46] So, um
[3:48:47] oh, thank you.
[3:48:49] Oop.
[3:48:54] So, the primary concerns with data
[3:48:56] centers that we became really aware of
[3:48:58] and now everybody is aware of and I
[3:49:00] think that's a good thing.
[3:49:02] Um
[3:49:04] it's questions around the use of
[3:49:06] electricity,
[3:49:08] water, noise, air quality,
[3:49:11] and uh we have made uh
[3:49:14] from the time that we began an
[3:49:16] initiative to be extremely transparent
[3:49:19] about those problems and how we can
[3:49:22] effectively address those problems. So,
[3:49:25] a big part of our company is um transparency
[3:49:31] and I think Spanish Fork and our
[3:49:34] approach here has
[3:49:36] um been a demonstration of how we're doing that.
[3:49:39] We began working with
[3:49:41] Spanish Fork about maybe 8 months ago um
[3:49:44] in initial conversations. Seems like
[3:49:47] this might not be going to try.
[3:49:50] I think this might be.
[3:49:52] >> Yeah, just taller.
[3:49:53] >> Yeah, so let's so let's stop here for a
[3:49:55] moment.
[3:49:56] Um to that end, we officially kind of
[3:49:59] came out into the marketplace several
[3:50:01] months ago uh and began um just a
[3:50:05] proactive communication with
[3:50:07] Utah County in particular.
[3:50:10] Um
[3:50:12] Let me give you just a quick look at
[3:50:14] some of how we're introducing ourselves
[3:50:17] and then tell you a little bit about the
[3:50:18] feedback we're beginning to get. So, I
[3:50:21] think if you click on that it'll play a
[3:50:22] very short video.
[3:50:37] » We didn't set out to build data centers.
[3:50:42] We began by looking for ways to reduce
[3:50:45] energy costs in communities across
[3:50:47] America.
[3:50:50] We realized soon after
[3:50:52] there was a better way to build data
[3:50:54] centers
[3:50:55] that worked for the community.
[3:50:58] That's our mission.
[3:51:02] We all know that there's no stopping our
[3:51:06] need for additional data. Data centers
[3:51:08] are going to be built whether we're
[3:51:09] comfortable with that or not.
[3:51:11] But growth at all costs can have a
[3:51:14] negative impact on communities.
[3:51:16] Data centers are dramatically stressing
[3:51:19] our grid. In many cases they use huge
[3:51:21] amounts of excess water and most [music]
[3:51:23] of them are not low emission.
[3:51:25] Our data centers are different.
[3:51:28] We don't require a huge amount of land
[3:51:30] and [music] most importantly we never
[3:51:32] touch the electric grid.
[3:51:33] We use no power from the local utility.
[3:51:37] Everything we build is based on our
[3:51:39] natural gas infrastructure with a fuel
[3:51:42] cell that runs with extremely low
[3:51:44] emissions.
[3:51:46] We use the same water over and over
[3:51:48] again.
[3:51:50] What's more, [music] all of the
[3:51:51] technology we use on our properties
[3:51:54] are extremely quiet.
[3:51:56] We can do this better.
[3:51:59] Giving back and sharing resources with
[3:52:01] the community is at the center of our
[3:52:03] purpose.
[3:52:04] A share of every site's revenue flows
[3:52:06] straight back into the community that
[3:52:08] hosts it.
[3:52:10] At Volition, we've made a commitment to
[3:52:13] be a good neighbor.
[3:52:16] And that's a promise we'll [music] keep.
[3:52:25] Let me go back to the slide. Um
[3:52:28] So, [clears throat]
[3:52:29] uh this has um allowed us to begin to
[3:52:32] get some feedback. Uh certainly there's
[3:52:35] a lot of feedback that's knee-jerk. Um
[3:52:38] and that's okay because these are
[3:52:41] uh real topics that we should be, you
[3:52:43] know, tackling head-on.
[3:52:45] Um in that spirit, uh prior to any final
[3:52:49] approval that could occur here in
[3:52:51] Spanish Fork, we're taking a different
[3:52:53] approach on an open house setting. We're running three of them the end of
[3:52:57] next week here at the library, 2 hours
[3:53:01] each,
[3:53:02] so that we allow for real dialogue with
[3:53:06] anybody who wants to come and have a
[3:53:08] dialogue with us or
[3:53:10] uh express their opposition. That That's
[3:53:12] fine. There won't be an argument. Uh
[3:53:14] we'll just be sharing um our engineering
[3:53:18] and our process.
[3:53:20] Um so, I think that will be informative
[3:53:22] also for the city to understand um more
[3:53:26] of the community's feedback. Our hope is
[3:53:29] that we will just have um a good
[3:53:31] opportunity to educate on what we're
[3:53:33] actually doing. Um
[3:53:36] So, let me take you through just a
[3:53:38] couple
[3:53:39] slides [clears throat] that will outline
[3:53:41] the key topics.
[3:53:43] So, when we look at a data center in
[3:53:45] Spanish Fork, um
[3:53:48] there are really five key pillars of our
[3:53:50] approach. One, that we [clears throat]
[3:53:52] genuinely bring our own power. We will
[3:53:54] never touch the grid.
[3:53:55] Um we have near zero emissions in the
[3:54:00] technology that that we utilize.
[3:54:03] Um we utilize an extremely small amount
[3:54:06] of water. And while I'll come to this,
[3:54:08] there is no uh disposal of the water at
[3:54:11] any time. So, there is there is no
[3:54:13] scenario where we are offloading
[3:54:15] [snorts]
[3:54:16] water. Um and I'll touch a little bit
[3:54:18] more on that.
[3:54:20] Uh we believe that we've identified a
[3:54:21] building where this is an extremely
[3:54:24] useful repurposing of an existing
[3:54:27] building.
[3:54:28] And we do believe that uh
[3:54:31] by being here,
[3:54:32] uh there's a meaningful economic and
[3:54:35] educational impact in the community.
[3:54:38] So, if we can go to the next slide.
[3:54:42] Um the fuel cell that we use, uh this is
[3:54:46] I'll be talking a little bit more about
[3:54:47] it.
[3:54:48] Um
[3:54:49] it uses natural gas. There is never at
[3:54:52] any time a need to connect to the grid.
[3:54:55] There will never be a future request.
[3:54:57] Our whole business is built around
[3:55:00] uh natural gas technology. Um there is
[3:55:04] no time in our scenario where we have an
[3:55:07] interest in or or a request for utility
[3:55:10] power. It's just not the way that we
[3:55:13] operate.
[3:55:14] >> Can I pause you right there? Where does
[3:55:16] your natural gas come from?
[3:55:18] >> So, our natural gas uh we purchase
[3:55:21] directly through Enbridge.
[3:55:24] And we upgrade the amount of natural gas
[3:55:28] coming in. I'll be talking also a little
[3:55:29] bit more about that specifically.
[3:55:31] >> Okay.
[3:55:32] >> Um but we upgrade the infrastructure at
[3:55:33] our cost
[3:55:35] to the property.
[3:55:36] >> Thank you.
[3:55:37] >> Um there is never a time, Paul, where we
[3:55:39] will introduce any diesel uh generators
[3:55:42] or backup. So, we build our system in a
[3:55:45] way that it has its own backup
[3:55:47] redundancy in it. So, it's called N+1.
[3:55:49] So, if we're producing X amount of
[3:55:51] power, we have on-site another [snorts]
[3:55:54] backup scenario with the same technology
[3:55:57] if something goes down.
[3:55:59] Um but our proposed uh amendment also uh
[3:56:04] precludes any use of diesel. There is no
[3:56:07] scenario where we will ever use diesel
[3:56:09] on our property.
[3:56:11] Um
[3:56:13] back just one real quick. So, I didn't
[3:56:15] realize Shauna that
[3:56:16] >> Oh, there it is.
[3:56:17] >> So, on this third point, um so,
[3:56:20] Enbridge, we negotiate our own rate with
[3:56:23] Enbridge. We've had approval now for um
[3:56:26] their engineering.
[3:56:28] Um if we move forward, they have already
[3:56:31] uh provided us with the engineering to
[3:56:33] accomplish that in about 8 months to
[3:56:35] open up the natural gas pipe so that we
[3:56:37] have all the natural gas there that we
[3:56:39] need.
[3:56:41] So, if we'll go to this um the fuel cell
[3:56:44] is dynamic um
[3:56:46] and these began uh in operation over 25
[3:56:50] years ago. They were really kind of
[3:56:52] ahead of their time. They are now um
[3:56:55] proven to the point that they are now
[3:56:58] providing a great solution for our time.
[3:57:01] Uh Bloom Energy um
[3:57:03] is really the leader
[3:57:05] uh in this um technology and effectively
[3:57:09] what occurs is that natural gas comes
[3:57:11] into the fuel cell and there's a
[3:57:13] chemical reaction that occurs. That
[3:57:15] chemical reaction produces electricity.
[3:57:18] But the natural gas is never consumed.
[3:57:20] There is no burning. There is no
[3:57:22] ignition.
[3:57:23] The byproduct is electricity and it is
[3:57:25] heat and it is a very small amount of
[3:57:28] pure water um that is produced by the
[3:57:32] system.
[3:57:33] Um
[3:57:35] There was a great question, Paul, about
[3:57:36] supply chain and Bloom is now the
[3:57:39] popular
[3:57:41] uh tool to be used
[3:57:43] um
[3:57:44] and they do have a supply chain
[3:57:47] shortage pending. Thankfully, we have a
[3:57:50] 4-5 year relationship with them. All of
[3:57:52] our inventory is already secured.
[3:57:54] Um we also have relationships with every
[3:57:57] other major fuel cell manufacturer in
[3:58:00] the world. Um there are not a lot of
[3:58:03] them, but there are four or five of
[3:58:05] them. We're also in line with them for
[3:58:08] any backup equipment that we would need.
[3:58:11] All of them meet our sustainability
[3:58:14] requirements if we were ever to have to
[3:58:16] use something other than Bloom. So,
[3:58:18] >> I'll make a comment on it. Who's
[3:58:21] and I don't I I get where you're saying
[3:58:22] you have those relationships.
[3:58:24] I know who you're competing against.
[3:58:26] Oracle
[3:58:29] who just in New Mexico
[3:58:31] April 26th switched over from their
[3:58:34] plans to do
[3:58:35] >> Yeah.
[3:58:36] >> on-grid electricity to this as a
[3:58:38] solution because New Mexico had concerns
[3:58:40] about emissions.
[3:58:42] Right right with the cell.
[3:58:44] Oracle has a deal with
[3:58:46] Anthr- or OpenAI for very large commit.
[3:58:50] In fact, if you follow Oracle stock
[3:58:52] tightly related there.
[3:58:53] >> Yeah.
[3:58:53] >> And and I'll just make this comment. I I
[3:58:56] don't speak for my employer or anything
[3:58:57] like that, but I I I am in the tech
[3:58:59] industry. I work for Adobe, but in no
[3:59:01] way do I speak for them at all.
[3:59:02] >> Yeah.
[3:59:02] >> I am intimately aware of the supply
[3:59:04] chain issues.
[3:59:05] Everybody has them.
[3:59:07] The big boys have them. You know, the
[3:59:08] little players have them.
[3:59:10] The Microsofts of the world have them.
[3:59:12] Even Elon Musk himself has them. And
[3:59:15] you're in a and you're in a realm where
[3:59:16] you're competing there. I When I say
[3:59:18] that, I'm saying you're competing in a
[3:59:19] world that is entirely changed. This is
[3:59:22] all from GPU consumption, which is
[3:59:25] entirely different than the data center
[3:59:26] problem you were talking about before.
[3:59:28] The reason why I even bring that up is I
[3:59:30] say
[3:59:32] I think you're going to run into
[3:59:33] problems. And it's not because of your
[3:59:35] ability to execute on that. It's just
[3:59:37] because this is the market and world we
[3:59:38] live in. There is such a voracious
[3:59:40] appetite for generative AI
[3:59:43] that that is a huge concern there. So,
[3:59:46] anyway, that's even why I bring that up.
[3:59:48] So, I could go on forever, but I'm sure
[3:59:50] you're intimately aware of these
[3:59:51] details.
[3:59:52] >> Yeah, these are called long-lead items,
[3:59:53] and so we have identified access to
[3:59:55] everything that we need on the property,
[3:59:57] and this
[3:59:58] uh fuel cells are already secured.
[4:00:00] Um
[4:00:01] >> Are already secured in terms of you've
[4:00:03] secured actual inventory? You have
[4:00:04] delivery dates and things like that?
[4:00:05] >> MOU security on the amount that we need
[4:00:08] and with our client who So, there's a
[4:00:10] deep history between us,
[4:00:12] Bloom, Oracle,
[4:00:14] all working together, and we just happen
[4:00:16] to thankfully have access to all the
[4:00:18] inventory that we need. We also have
[4:00:20] identified um
[4:00:22] >> So, is Oracle your client?
[4:00:24] >> Uh no, not in this property.
[4:00:28] >> the client for this Well, I think I
[4:00:29] heard yesterday An Scale, was that
[4:00:30] correct?
[4:00:31] >> Yeah, most likely An Scale.
[4:00:32] >> And are they reselling that to yet
[4:00:33] another high um like another
[4:00:35] >> Yeah, they'll have a they'll have a
[4:00:36] large brand that rents space in the facility. So, supply
[4:00:42] chain um thankfully, we have a really
[4:00:45] good handle on, and we have great
[4:00:46] relationships.
[4:00:48] Um
[4:00:49] and that all factors into our ability
[4:00:52] to, you know, to build out the project,
[4:00:55] but I think what's important is that a
[4:00:57] slowdown in supply chain does not equal
[4:01:00] a change in our engineering. It just
[4:01:02] means that where we anticipate having
[4:01:05] something done at the
[4:01:07] in the middle of 2027, it could be done
[4:01:10] in the middle of 28 if there was a major
[4:01:12] supply chain issue, but there's no
[4:01:14] switching engineering cuz this is what
[4:01:16] we This is the only way we built.
[4:01:18] >> I know we'll go back and forth on some
[4:01:19] questions. I want to catch one thing
[4:01:21] before we go forward.
[4:01:22] Low emissions, it's not zero emissions.
[4:01:25] We're still talking
[4:01:25] >> zero emissions.
[4:01:26] >> You're still talking CO2 greenhouse
[4:01:28] emissions, right?
[4:01:29] >> to that in just I'll walk you right
[4:01:30] through it. We We We're really careful
[4:01:33] to never say zero emissions because
[4:01:35] we're not.
[4:01:36] Um so, let's head to
[4:01:38] next slide.
[4:01:40] So, on emissions, um
[4:01:44] to give an idea of uh the way natural
[4:01:47] gas
[4:01:48] um operates,
[4:01:51] we end up emitting ultra-low emissions
[4:01:54] that fall below any state or municipal
[4:01:57] standard anywhere in the country.
[4:02:00] Um especially in uh in particular in
[4:02:02] California, where it's most stringent,
[4:02:05] um Bloom operates there. And um so, we
[4:02:08] meet and exceed every emission uh
[4:02:12] requirement. To give a little bit of
[4:02:14] just day-to-day context, for example, in
[4:02:17] the property that we propose to work, um
[4:02:20] our entire development will be equal to
[4:02:24] about four to five semi-trucks per year.
[4:02:26] So, if in that building,
[4:02:28] instead of data center, we just had four
[4:02:31] diesel trucks running routes, that's
[4:02:34] about the amount of emission that our
[4:02:36] entire system puts out.
[4:02:38] Um [snorts] and we've just recently
[4:02:40] received what's called the new minor
[4:02:41] source permit
[4:02:43] uh in the state of Utah. So, they have
[4:02:45] finished all of their analysis, not of
[4:02:47] the fuel cell
[4:02:49] standalone, but the cumulative
[4:02:51] construction of our project. And again,
[4:02:54] we've been approved meeting all of those
[4:02:55] standards. The next slide, I think
[4:02:58] actually gives us a little bit more
[4:02:59] details and another comparison.
[4:03:02] So, in this
[4:03:03] uh location, um
[4:03:07] you can see that um
[4:03:10] all of the key particulates and
[4:03:12] emissions, for example, if we are at
[4:03:15] five tons a year,
[4:03:18] compared to a natural gas turbine, a
[4:03:21] diesel generator, a Utah grid, average
[4:03:25] uh reciprocating engines, all of these
[4:03:27] tools that have been used on industrial
[4:03:30] facilities and on data centers all
[4:03:32] throughout the US
[4:03:34] are emitting
[4:03:35] a thousand times plus
[4:03:39] more emissions than anything that we
[4:03:40] have on site. So,
[4:03:44] um while we are not zero emission, we
[4:03:46] are ultra low emission unequivocally.
[4:03:49] >> What what time frame are we looking at?
[4:03:51] Is this a a year of emissions?
[4:03:54] >> Yeah. Yeah, per year.
[4:03:56] Next slide.
[4:04:01] Water is my background. What water is
[4:04:04] something I've always been passionate
[4:04:06] about.
[4:04:07] Um and some time ago companies like
[4:04:12] uh Trane and Carrier began to innovate
[4:04:15] and engineer just like Bloom began to
[4:04:17] innovate a better way to produce energy,
[4:04:20] the cooling
[4:04:23] companies began really innovating on how
[4:04:25] to do this better. We now, over the last
[4:04:28] 5 years, have access to a closed loop
[4:04:30] system
[4:04:31] um that means that we fill the system
[4:04:34] one time.
[4:04:36] In this property, the initial fill is
[4:04:39] 500,000 gallons. That is the same amount
[4:04:43] as two average Utah households
[4:04:47] per year. And we only do that
[4:04:49] once. We fill it once.
[4:04:52] Annually, we use 250,000 gallons
[4:04:56] uh for um
[4:05:01] a part of the process that has to do
[4:05:03] with just creating humidity in
[4:05:06] part of the technology. So, you're
[4:05:07] talking about an annual use of about one home.
[4:05:12] Um
[4:05:14] everything that we use falls
[4:05:17] far below
[4:05:18] what is currently permitted on this
[4:05:20] property. There's already a 4-in pipe
[4:05:21] we'll never touch. We will never touch
[4:05:24] the amount of water that is already
[4:05:26] allocated. We will never request any
[4:05:29] additional water rights.
[4:05:31] Um
[4:05:33] and so um
[4:05:34] this is this is a fact that is a little
[4:05:38] bit blurred in media right now because
[4:05:41] most of the conversations are
[4:05:43] referencing technologies that are
[4:05:45] totally different than this or that are
[4:05:47] much older.
[4:05:48] Um and so
[4:05:51] this is the the facts of our system. Let
[4:05:54] me give you just kind of a logical
[4:05:56] you know,
[4:05:57] uh thought on that.
[4:05:59] If we are investing huge amounts of
[4:06:01] capital to build this system
[4:06:04] but think that we could then get away
[4:06:07] with a bait and switch and say, "Well,
[4:06:08] wait a minute, we need more water."
[4:06:11] There is no scenario where we or our
[4:06:13] capital partners would ever take a risk
[4:06:16] like that. Um we have designed this so
[4:06:20] that what you see here is exactly what
[4:06:22] it what it does.
[4:06:24] Um from the standpoint of
[4:06:27] um any water being dispelled, there is not there is no scenario where
[4:06:33] we are offloading um water. The only
[4:06:37] time that we would ever offload water is
[4:06:39] if we detected through our daily
[4:06:41] monitoring
[4:06:43] that maybe there is some bacteria in our
[4:06:45] system.
[4:06:47] We can't have that because it will
[4:06:49] degradate the quality of our of our
[4:06:52] system. And so these systems are built
[4:06:54] in such a way that you're able to close
[4:06:56] off sections
[4:06:58] and when you remove water, you're
[4:07:00] pumping it
[4:07:02] into a tank.
[4:07:04] Then treating from that point, testing
[4:07:06] your water, finding out if you have to
[4:07:07] refill the whole thing or if you can
[4:07:10] update and improve that water so that
[4:07:11] you can reuse it. So I just want to do
[4:07:13] address that, you know, the questions
[4:07:15] about uh water and the technicalities
[4:07:19] even if we were in a scenario where we had to test water
[4:07:23] you know two households of water
[4:07:26] it would never be a released into
[4:07:31] the local system.
[4:07:35] >> Cass a question
[4:07:37] and I think I heard that and I think
[4:07:38] it's a it's a pretty compelling story
[4:07:39] here in terms of water consumption.
[4:07:42] I think the thing the reason you run
[4:07:43] into
[4:07:44] other issues is is similar to what you
[4:07:46] said, right? AWS in different locations
[4:07:49] water's a different situation. Could you
[4:07:51] maybe and it doesn't have to be forever
[4:07:52] but could you dive in the details of how
[4:07:54] this actually works? How is the water
[4:07:56] actually cooling the infrastructure, the
[4:07:58] servers and everything like that? Is it
[4:08:00] I mean I know you're saying a closed
[4:08:01] loop system.
[4:08:03] Give me like a
[4:08:04] >> Yeah, the short version is the short
[4:08:07] version is you think of maybe a radiator
[4:08:08] in your car.
[4:08:10] You know, so we we have
[4:08:12] water that is coming from a cooling
[4:08:14] system. So we have water moving through
[4:08:16] cooling and that cooler water then hits
[4:08:20] the computer that has been running and
[4:08:23] gets very hot and it's called [snorts]
[4:08:25] direct to chip. So the water actually
[4:08:28] flows over the chip itself.
[4:08:31] That water cools the chip
[4:08:33] and is now a warm hot water coming out
[4:08:37] the back end and it loops around, comes
[4:08:39] back through the cooling system, comes
[4:08:41] down to another, you know, several
[4:08:43] degrees cooler into the kind of into the
[4:08:45] 70s, 60s or 70s and it comes back
[4:08:48] through
[4:08:49] and and that is the literally the you
[4:08:51] know, the the very basic version of how
[4:08:55] the system
[4:08:56] flows and cools.
[4:08:58] >> Same water recycled over and over again?
[4:09:00] >> Over and over again.
[4:09:00] >> So you have to cool this water. You do
[4:09:02] that with a some sort of refrigeration
[4:09:04] device that requires energy. Is that
[4:09:06] correct?
[4:09:07] >> Yeah, so all of the power that we have
[4:09:08] on the system on the property is also
[4:09:11] powering those cooling systems by
[4:09:13] Carrier and Trane.
[4:09:15] >> Got you. What what what portion of your
[4:09:18] Let's say 250 MW facility, what portion
[4:09:21] of that is committed to
[4:09:23] cooling?
[4:09:25] >> Um
[4:09:26] >> And maybe this is too technical. I'm
[4:09:27] just kind of curious on that.
[4:09:28] >> So, that would be considered There's about 25%
[4:09:32] of all of the power you use on the
[4:09:34] facility that is called parasitic use.
[4:09:36] So, that powers
[4:09:38] IT, [snorts]
[4:09:40] powers cooling.
[4:09:41] Um so, that's That's about a rough
[4:09:43] number.
[4:09:44] >> Rough number, yeah.
[4:09:46] >> Yeah.
[4:09:47] Let's go to the building. And so, this
[4:09:49] is where we get into
[4:09:51] um the land use. So, this uh
[4:09:54] is proposed at what is
[4:09:56] known as the old Fingerhut building.
[4:09:58] Um
[4:10:00] it's a million square feet. Um and it is
[4:10:04] uh in a pretty ideal scenario where
[4:10:06] we're not
[4:10:07] requesting to, you know, buy up a bunch
[4:10:09] of land and build something new on the
[4:10:10] skyline.
[4:10:11] Um and the exterior allows us to
[4:10:16] utilize that in an efficient way with
[4:10:19] the the power that would be on site,
[4:10:21] primarily on what would be the
[4:10:25] uh east side of the property.
[4:10:29] Um so, let's go to another slide where
[4:10:31] we get into this a little bit further.
[4:10:33] This is an important
[4:10:34] um comparison about the use of this
[4:10:38] property. So,
[4:10:39] we are buying this building
[4:10:42] and
[4:10:44] um we also know that
[4:10:47] there's another company uh bidding to
[4:10:50] buy the building. Uh we won't buy the
[4:10:52] building
[4:10:53] until we know if we're moving forward
[4:10:55] together, but all of that is in place
[4:10:57] and um
[4:10:59] But of note, this building is built for
[4:11:02] distribution.
[4:11:04] It's 36 loading bays.
[4:11:06] Um for sure the other buyer would be
[4:11:10] utilizing this at its full capacity for
[4:11:13] distribution.
[4:11:14] That means 3,500 trucks a month running
[4:11:18] out of this facility.
[4:11:19] Um,
[4:11:21] massive amount of emissions coming just
[4:11:24] when we calculate those trucks running
[4:11:26] from the facility
[4:11:28] just out of Spanish Fork to the to the
[4:11:30] freeway.
[4:11:31] Um, in our case we will have, you know,
[4:11:34] 100 or 200 employees coming in and out
[4:11:36] of that building. There's no delivery,
[4:11:39] there's no heavy diesel. Um, and we are
[4:11:43] uh dramatically cleaner
[4:11:46] and quieter than uh the proposed use
[4:11:50] that will likely happen when this
[4:11:51] building sells if it's if it's not to
[4:11:53] us.
[4:11:54] So, we we think it is genuinely a
[4:11:58] uh more effective use um of this
[4:12:01] facility. If we go to the next slide,
[4:12:05] um,
[4:12:06] when we're completed in this building,
[4:12:08] uh what we have is
[4:12:11] um equipment that is extremely
[4:12:14] um quiet. What I failed to tell you
[4:12:17] about the Bloom fuel cell,
[4:12:18] um,
[4:12:19] is it's
[4:12:21] uh lack of noise. And the way to compare
[4:12:24] it is if you all remember the first time
[4:12:25] you ever had
[4:12:28] like a Tesla or a Prius
[4:12:32] pull up and it's like, "Why didn't I
[4:12:33] even hear that thing?"
[4:12:34] Um, still kind of weirds me out. When
[4:12:37] you stand near the Bloom fuel cell, it's
[4:12:40] the same thing. Um, it is
[4:12:42] uh you just don't hear a very very low
[4:12:47] um, it's not even a hum, it's just
[4:12:49] like a super quiet fan.
[4:12:52] Um, so all of the equipment is
[4:12:56] um under 65 decibels. That's
[4:13:00] conversational level.
[4:13:02] Um, as soon as you start to pull away
[4:13:04] from it,
[4:13:05] um you you drop below that.
[4:13:08] We have no
[4:13:11] light pollution.
[4:13:13] Um we have no change to the skyline with
[4:13:16] the with a new structure.
[4:13:18] And very uh uniquely,
[4:13:22] this building will house um over $4
[4:13:25] billion
[4:13:26] of
[4:13:27] um equipment
[4:13:30] that
[4:13:31] creates if we look on the next slide, um
[4:13:34] a really substantial impact uh to the
[4:13:37] community.
[4:13:39] Um what's also important to note
[4:13:42] is that we have zero request of this
[4:13:45] community.
[4:13:47] There is no request for a tax incentive.
[4:13:49] There is no request to participate in
[4:13:51] our infrastructure.
[4:13:53] Um
[4:13:54] we are making no request. Um our business model
[4:14:00] uh stands on its own. There are some
[4:14:03] federal incentives that we're able to
[4:14:05] write off in the normal course of of
[4:14:07] business.
[4:14:08] Um and we'll pay taxes in the state of
[4:14:10] Utah uh normally.
[4:14:13] >> I have a question about this, and I'm not super familiar and I may even
[4:14:16] ask staff to comment. Um
[4:14:18] whoever can comment can.
[4:14:20] If we had a different tenant, would
[4:14:22] their bill be the same for taxes?
[4:14:25] >> Um property taxes are based on property
[4:14:27] value.
[4:14:29] And it's um
[4:14:31] impossible, frankly, I think for
[4:14:35] you to be talking about these kind of
[4:14:37] values unless you're talking about
[4:14:40] I've come to know them as GPUs.
[4:14:43] A lot of them
[4:14:44] in a compact space like this.
[4:14:46] >> actual value of the capital investment
[4:14:49] is what drives tax. It was what can
[4:14:51] drive the tax. So the capital investment
[4:14:53] is going to be the servers, the
[4:14:55] infrastructure, the network switches,
[4:14:57] the so on and so forth.
[4:14:58] >> As well as the real estate itself, so
[4:15:00] you have the personal property tax and
[4:15:02] the real estate.
[4:15:03] >> And um particularly with the the
[4:15:06] personal property, you know, there's um
[4:15:09] >> And the cost of the generators?
[4:15:11] >> Uh
[4:15:12] that phrase has now left me.
[4:15:15] Um
[4:15:16] the equipment gets There's depreciation.
[4:15:18] >> Yeah.
[4:15:19] >> But with this equipment, it gets
[4:15:20] replaced so frequently.
[4:15:22] >> Well, it has to. You have about a 5-year
[4:15:23] depreciation cycle. That stuff is
[4:15:25] essentially
[4:15:27] What is ancient?
[4:15:28] >> Right.
[4:15:28] >> it gets replaced, right? So you you
[4:15:30] typically hold that value pretty
[4:15:32] strongly compared to some other types of
[4:15:33] equipment that that you might see in a
[4:15:35] situation like this. So
[4:15:38] to be candid, um
[4:15:40] this is a strong performer for a
[4:15:42] municipality in terms of revenue
[4:15:44] generation.
[4:15:46] >> Okay. Based on capital investment. Okay,
[4:15:48] thanks for that understanding. That's
[4:15:49] one thing.
[4:15:50] >> Is that the That'll be the only revenue
[4:15:52] generator is the property tax? There
[4:15:54] won't
[4:15:55] >> I In this case
[4:15:57] >> sales tax
[4:15:57] >> they won't be purchasing power. There's
[4:15:59] no sales tax. Yep, it's just property
[4:16:01] tax.
[4:16:04] On the next slide, you'll see that um
[4:16:07] you know, our our intention um is to
[4:16:10] also
[4:16:11] directly contribute
[4:16:13] uh to the community. So aside from the
[4:16:15] tax revenue, we're allocating a minimum
[4:16:18] of $500,000 a year. Probably
[4:16:21] push over over a million cuz we'll ask
[4:16:24] our tenant to contribute with us. That
[4:16:25] will be um a contribution to the
[4:16:28] community for
[4:16:30] whatever beneficial use is
[4:16:33] um is appropriate.
[4:16:35] We will be hosting ongoing uh quarterly
[4:16:40] professional training
[4:16:42] uh in the community so that we can help
[4:16:44] professionals understand how to
[4:16:45] transition if they need to or to
[4:16:48] um just step up into an IT or data
[4:16:51] center related
[4:16:53] uh career, we will provide this training
[4:16:56] to the high school level, the university
[4:17:00] level.
[4:17:01] Um there's a
[4:17:03] long history of learning and development
[4:17:04] in our executive team, and so this is
[4:17:06] something that's genuinely part
[4:17:08] um of our DNA, and um
[4:17:12] in addition to that,
[4:17:14] direct contribution on the next page on
[4:17:16] the next slide,
[4:17:18] um we proactively will be proposing
[4:17:22] um our development agreement
[4:17:25] that
[4:17:26] um
[4:17:27] holds us accountable to everything that
[4:17:29] we've discussed,
[4:17:31] our water use cap,
[4:17:33] no grid connection request at any time,
[4:17:38] a decommissioning plan that
[4:17:41] uh
[4:17:42] illustrates how we would utilize the
[4:17:44] building or decommission if there was a
[4:17:45] major economic
[4:17:47] uh change,
[4:17:49] um enforceable noise limits,
[4:17:53] um an absolute covenant for no diesel uh
[4:17:57] generation,
[4:17:59] and an annual public reporting on all of
[4:18:01] these covenants that we will make with
[4:18:04] the city of Spanish Fork.
[4:18:08] So,
[4:18:10] um
[4:18:11] w- we um
[4:18:14] we think that this is
[4:18:17] a genuine net positive to the community.
[4:18:21] We've gone to great lengths to ensure
[4:18:23] that wherever we build a data center,
[4:18:25] you know, our intention is that the city
[4:18:28] forgets or never knows that it's even
[4:18:30] there because
[4:18:32] we operate sustainably and efficiently.
[4:18:36] We would love to do this project here.
[4:18:38] Um with that said,
[4:18:40] um
[4:18:41] you know, we're looking at other places
[4:18:43] also, and we've gone as far as we can um
[4:18:47] to bring this then, you know, to the
[4:18:49] city's final decision about moving
[4:18:51] forward together or not. And we fully
[4:18:54] respect the outcome and I would say that
[4:18:57] uh, you know, our process of working
[4:18:59] with the city of Spanish Fork has been
[4:19:01] really phenomenal. Um,
[4:19:03] I live in Provo
[4:19:05] and uh, we intend to headquarter here in
[4:19:08] this building if we move forward with
[4:19:10] this project, but it's been a pleasure
[4:19:11] working with uh, the city all the way
[4:19:13] through. So, thank you.
[4:19:15] >> Can I ask you a question? Just two
[4:19:17] slides back it talked about uh, local
[4:19:21] hiring.
[4:19:22] Um, what kind of a workforce would you
[4:19:24] have on this facility?
[4:19:26] >> So, in the construction, uh, it's
[4:19:28] impossible to man this facility all
[4:19:30] locally while it's being built. You will
[4:19:32] see
[4:19:33] uh, trades on this property, you know,
[4:19:36] in excess of a thousand people.
[4:19:38] Um, we work with uh, local contractors
[4:19:42] and engineers who uh, are able to pull
[4:19:45] from the state of Utah first. So,
[4:19:48] there's a call it a 24-month window of
[4:19:50] construction. Um, the first delivery of
[4:19:53] about 25 megawatts would be scheduled
[4:19:55] for almost exactly a year from now.
[4:19:58] And then it would [snorts] build into
[4:20:00] the end of 2028.
[4:20:02] So, absolutely any tradespeople in
[4:20:06] Spanish Fork, they'll they'll have a job
[4:20:08] here for two, you know, two plus years
[4:20:10] building.
[4:20:12] Beyond that, um,
[4:20:14] we hope to employ those next ongoing
[4:20:17] call it 200 people in our building
[4:20:20] locally as much as we if we can find them here, we're going to
[4:20:26] have them work for us at Volition in
[4:20:28] that building.
[4:20:29] Um, they're good jobs. All, you know,
[4:20:31] there's nobody in the building that
[4:20:33] would be earning less than probably
[4:20:35] $85,000 a year. So, it's a it's a good
[4:20:37] industry to work in.
[4:20:39] Um, so,
[4:20:41] I don't know if that answers your
[4:20:42] question, but that's kind of how the
[4:20:43] employment path looks. And we don't make
[4:20:44] a claim to being a huge employment
[4:20:47] benefit to the community. Um a lot of
[4:20:49] data centers say that. I'm not sure why
[4:20:51] they say that, because at the end of the
[4:20:52] day, you really don't have a huge staff
[4:20:55] on on premises.
[4:20:57] >> Thank you.
[4:20:58] >> Yeah.
[4:20:58] >> So, I've got a lot of questions.
[4:21:00] >> Sure. Absolutely.
[4:21:01] >> I hope to not spend forever on this, but
[4:21:03] I want to bring up something that we
[4:21:05] that was discussed last night with the
[4:21:07] city council just kind of for
[4:21:08] perspective here.
[4:21:10] Total power consumption what I heard and
[4:21:13] back me up if this is true, maybe I
[4:21:14] heard this incorrectly. Total power
[4:21:15] consumption in the city of Spanish Fork
[4:21:17] right now, peak usage day, middle of
[4:21:19] summer, 90
[4:21:21] MW.
[4:21:22] >> Yes.
[4:21:23] >> So, you would be producing
[4:21:26] more than 2X the amount of energy that's
[4:21:28] consumed in the entire city of Spanish
[4:21:30] Fork.
[4:21:30] >> Yeah, that's right.
[4:21:31] >> And I I I
[4:21:32] the reason I want to just say that and
[4:21:34] that doesn't come from nowhere. Now,
[4:21:36] the Bloom Energy server that you're
[4:21:38] talking about, I just did a quick search
[4:21:40] here. I asked for the largest
[4:21:42] deployment of that anywhere in the
[4:21:45] world. Currently, it says and and again,
[4:21:48] this is just a search result probably
[4:21:50] generated in the very same
[4:21:51] infrastructure that you're talking about
[4:21:53] building here.
[4:21:54] We're talking 20 to 80 MW, South Korea.
[4:21:58] And this is for power um
[4:22:00] >> Well, that's just incorrect though.
[4:22:01] Bloom [snorts] has Bloom has over 500 MW
[4:22:06] running now.
[4:22:07] >> In a single site?
[4:22:09] >> Uh oh, not in a single site.
[4:22:10] >> Yeah, yeah, not in a single site.
[4:22:11] >> What is the largest single site
[4:22:13] deployment of this technology?
[4:22:15] >> their newest one well, right here at
[4:22:17] Nova.
[4:22:19] Uh Bloom and Oracle is the tenant. Bloom
[4:22:22] is running 50 MW there, right here in
[4:22:24] Utah. So, there there are large
[4:22:26] deployments of Bloom happening. Oh, and now that they have been in such
[4:22:31] demand, so Oracle, Anthropic, they're scooping up like a gigawatt of
[4:22:37] capacity.
[4:22:37] >> Right.
[4:22:38] >> Nowhere is So, 50 is the largest. Now, I
[4:22:41] Nova I looked up Nova last night. They
[4:22:43] have on-site diesel generation to to
[4:22:47] supplement what they're doing. Now, I
[4:22:48] know you're not talking about doing
[4:22:50] that.
[4:22:50] >> No, no, no, it's not the same design,
[4:22:51] but I'm saying they they have daily
[4:22:53] running bloom at that facility.
[4:22:54] >> And the reason why I say that is because
[4:22:58] power is such a difficult thing to get.
[4:23:00] I mean, that's the reason why you even
[4:23:01] came into into this industry, right?
[4:23:02] Based on the story you know, what you
[4:23:04] just told us, right?
[4:23:06] But they're adding that on. They And I
[4:23:07] believe that's in West Jordan. Is that
[4:23:09] correct?
[4:23:10] >> Yeah.
[4:23:11] >> So,
[4:23:12] to be really clear,
[4:23:14] what you're asking about doing here is
[4:23:16] something that has never been done
[4:23:18] anywhere before even using that platform
[4:23:21] at this scale on a single site. Is that
[4:23:23] correct?
[4:23:23] >> That's true.
[4:23:24] >> So, I'm just I'm just going to pause and tell you what my concern is about
[4:23:28] that. My concern is that we've written a
[4:23:31] Title 15 amendment to accommodate your plan.
[4:23:36] And the water consumption story I'm just
[4:23:38] going to say from my perspective sounds
[4:23:40] awesome, right? I you I have long
[4:23:43] showers. I probably consume well more
[4:23:44] than that average stuff in my household.
[4:23:47] The energy the energy situation though,
[4:23:49] I think is something that is very unsure
[4:23:54] in terms of of what can happen here.
[4:23:56] The CO2 emissions that you're talking
[4:23:57] about, those are real. Those may not
[4:23:59] affect our health. Those may not even be
[4:24:02] as regulated as much as we're looking at
[4:24:03] and then with the current
[4:24:04] administration, there may not be so much
[4:24:06] concern about that. But the CO2
[4:24:07] emissions that you're talking about, I
[4:24:09] did some numbers here. I'd love
[4:24:12] you know, we can say left and right
[4:24:13] what's going on, but you're talking
[4:24:15] about probably two or three X the amount
[4:24:16] of CO2 emissions that come from everyone
[4:24:18] driving cars here. Now, CO2 is different
[4:24:21] than the than the
[4:24:22] um
[4:24:23] than the NOx or the the the smog
[4:24:26] considering ones. And I will I will
[4:24:28] grant your smog emissions exceptionally
[4:24:31] low, right? So, for air quality,
[4:24:33] breathability, PM2.5,
[4:24:35] you're way better than those those cars
[4:24:37] there. But, the CO2 emissions are real.
[4:24:39] I think the political climate here in
[4:24:41] Utah's maybe not so considerate not so
[4:24:43] concerned about CO2 emissions, but CO2
[4:24:45] emissions are greenhouse gases that
[4:24:47] cause climate change.
[4:24:49] And that's absolutely something you'll
[4:24:51] you contribute to.
[4:24:52] Now, that said, and and again yeah, I
[4:24:54] don't mean it just just go in one
[4:24:56] direction.
[4:24:57] >> Am I in the right ballpark when I'm
[4:24:59] talking about the CO2 emissions are
[4:25:00] still they're still something that you
[4:25:02] do, right? And probably at a volume that
[4:25:04] would exceed the entire CO2 emissions of
[4:25:07] everyone in Spanish Fork average
[4:25:08] driving. Is that Are we I I I know you
[4:25:10] probably haven't ran that, so I know I'm
[4:25:11] putting you on the spot.
[4:25:12] >> know if you if you want to talk about
[4:25:14] it, Ryan. This is Ryan Mizzelle uh from Volition.
[4:25:17] >> Okay.
[4:25:17] >> Hello, Ryan.
[4:25:18] >> Yeah. Hi, Ryan Mizzelle, head of
[4:25:20] development. And um
[4:25:24] Okay, so
[4:25:26] >> [clears throat]
[4:25:26] >> on the max system size, just to quantify
[4:25:31] this, it's it's really about capital
[4:25:33] expenditure.
[4:25:34] >> Mhm.
[4:25:34] >> So, when [clears throat]
[4:25:35] uh a developer can come in and get
[4:25:38] approved for a diesel generator,
[4:25:41] it's much cheaper for them to uh stand
[4:25:44] that up than to put, let's say, 50 MW of
[4:25:48] Bloom.
[4:25:49] >> Now, I understand. And I understand
[4:25:51] you're not talking about diesel
[4:25:52] generators here at all. And we're
[4:25:53] talking about including that as an
[4:25:54] exclusion.
[4:25:55] >> Right, right. So, it's more on the
[4:25:58] development side of let's try to make
[4:26:00] this as cheap as possible than make this
[4:26:03] as environmentally sustainable. So, cost
[4:26:07] over um
[4:26:09] you know, pollution.
[4:26:10] >> But,
[4:26:10] >> So, on on the um CO2 uh
[4:26:15] there is no CO2 that it is uh emitted
[4:26:18] from the system. These are the uh
[4:26:21] pollutants that are shown up here. So,
[4:26:24] that's uh uh, nitrous oxide, carbon
[4:26:27] monoxide, volatile organic compounds,
[4:26:30] uh, particulate matter, and uh,
[4:26:32] sulfuric, um, dioxide.
[4:26:36] What
[4:26:37] you can you can equate these pollutants
[4:26:40] into CO2 equivalent. So,
[4:26:44] there are like multipliers to NOx or
[4:26:49] carbon monoxide to create a CO2
[4:26:51] equivalent of tonnage.
[4:26:54] So, there isn't a direct CO2 coming out.
[4:26:58] >> So, can So, can we say this is not
[4:27:00] contributing at all to greenhouse gases?
[4:27:03] >> No, no, and this is where we're
[4:27:06] What you see on the screen here is what
[4:27:08] the system will be uh, emitting into the
[4:27:12] air uh, per year.
[4:27:15] >> Could you give me a comparison from your
[4:27:16] perspective on how these emissions
[4:27:19] compare to say like
[4:27:20] emissions from something else? Let's just then values that we can talk
[4:27:23] about, right?
[4:27:24] >> do Do we have the
[4:27:25] >> I think I think the comparison is if we were running
[4:27:29] three to four trucks out of the
[4:27:30] facility, it's the same.
[4:27:32] So, of course, this is not zero
[4:27:35] emission. This isn't
[4:27:36] >> Three to four trucks of of nitrous
[4:27:38] oxide, right? Or
[4:27:39] >> No, three If we had three or four diesel
[4:27:42] trucks
[4:27:43] >> [cough]
[4:27:43] >> running in and out of that facility as a
[4:27:46] [snorts]
[4:27:47] delivery service,
[4:27:49] that's
[4:27:50] the same amount of emissions our entire
[4:27:52] system produces.
[4:27:54] >> For CO2?
[4:27:55] >> All emissions.
[4:27:57] So, th- this is something
[4:27:59] that is
[4:28:01] drastically
[4:28:02] below any anything comparable and falls
[4:28:06] below the state and local requirements.
[4:28:11] So, we're
[4:28:13] clean. This is a clean design.
[4:28:16] It's not um,
[4:28:18] zero, but it's very clean.
[4:28:21] >> So, you're telling me the CO2 would be
[4:28:23] equivalent to
[4:28:25] one or two trucks.
[4:28:27] >> Three or four trucks.
[4:28:27] And that's it.
[4:28:29] >> That's right.
[4:28:31] >> So,
[4:28:32] let's take a step back. There is a power
[4:28:34] generation facility just south of here
[4:28:36] in Payson. I think we're talking
[4:28:39] about 120 um megawatts for that, right?
[4:28:42] So, you're about twice the size of that thing's and I'm not sure on the
[4:28:45] emission detail there, but just give a
[4:28:47] sense, you're probably you're 2x that.
[4:28:50] So, I guess the whole point I'm saying
[4:28:51] is you're generating a lot of energy
[4:28:54] here
[4:28:55] >> That's right.
[4:28:55] >> that could conceivably power
[4:28:57] probably more than the entire town.
[4:28:59] Can you give me a a per house comparison
[4:29:01] to how much energy you're you're doing?
[4:29:03] I guess if we said 90 right now for all
[4:29:04] of Spanish Fork,
[4:29:05] >> more than double.
[4:29:06] We're more than double.
[4:29:08] >> So, Paul, I'm just my question I think
[4:29:10] to you is just the amount of power. I'm
[4:29:12] not sure how that
[4:29:15] matters if our system can produce that
[4:29:18] power and produce it clean.
[4:29:20] Um what I would say is that there is no
[4:29:22] other scenario in Spanish Fork that
[4:29:24] would ever accommodate, I think another
[4:29:27] building like ours. Um
[4:29:30] this is about the largest, you know,
[4:29:32] property in the in the region. If
[4:29:33] somebody came along and wanted to do
[4:29:34] this also, uh they will have a very hard
[4:29:37] time finding another location in Spanish
[4:29:39] Fork that would accommodate this and uh
[4:29:43] anytime from this point forward uh
[4:29:45] because of supply chain, they won't even
[4:29:48] have access to anything until 2028 or
[4:29:50] 2029.
[4:29:51] >> and there's not going to be a rush here
[4:29:52] in Spanish Fork.
[4:29:53] >> And I know I'll question you on the
[4:29:54] supply chain thing only because I'm
[4:29:56] going to go out for a little second
[4:29:57] here. You know, Elon Musk Musk built the
[4:29:59] Colossus data center in Tennessee. Are
[4:30:01] you familiar with how big that is
[4:30:03] in terms of energy consumption?
[4:30:04] >> Yeah, it's no comparison to us.
[4:30:06] >> It's the exact same size. It's 250 to
[4:30:08] 300 kilowatts.
[4:30:09] >> But it has no comparison to us. Totally
[4:30:11] different scale.
[4:30:11] >> In terms of its energy consumption, it
[4:30:12] has no comparison. That's right. But in
[4:30:14] terms of of power consumption, it's the
[4:30:16] same size. So, I want to talk about what
[4:30:18] that looks like. Just And this is like
[4:30:20] maybe even just to level set this and
[4:30:23] please everyone go ask these questions
[4:30:24] if they're if they're right.
[4:30:26] But, at that size
[4:30:28] the actual revenue that they bring in
[4:30:30] from an Anthropic
[4:30:31] I I think they were running their own
[4:30:34] Grok AI that wasn't necessarily popular,
[4:30:36] right? They switched over to leasing
[4:30:38] this out to Anthropic. Revenue was 1.5
[4:30:41] billion per month for this lease. Now, I
[4:30:44] The reason I bring this up is you are
[4:30:46] playing in the space that Elon Musk
[4:30:50] plays in. Elon Musk is the wealthiest
[4:30:52] person in the world. And I do not say
[4:30:54] this to be, you know, anything other
[4:30:56] than
[4:30:57] like you're competing in that space
[4:30:59] right now. There's a lot of money that
[4:31:01] drives this.
[4:31:03] Which is I mean And this is quite a
[4:31:04] challenge. I'm saying this is going to
[4:31:06] be a difficult thing to land with all of
[4:31:09] these infrastructure concerns, with all
[4:31:11] these supply constraint concerns.
[4:31:15] We give you that opening.
[4:31:17] The opening might not just be for you,
[4:31:18] right? The opening might be for whoever
[4:31:20] else wants to come in here.
[4:31:22] The other question I would have for you
[4:31:23] and you say there's supply constraint um
[4:31:26] constraints that could keep others. Are
[4:31:28] you looking at other parts of town if
[4:31:30] this were to be opened up?
[4:31:32] The reason I ask that is when I go and
[4:31:34] consume AWS services, they give me three
[4:31:36] availability zones or four availability
[4:31:38] zones or whatever they are. And what an
[4:31:40] availability zone matches to is yet
[4:31:42] another data center that is close to that data center, right? So, I
[4:31:47] can have multiple availability. Now, I
[4:31:49] get GPU consumption is different than
[4:31:50] availability zones.
[4:31:52] But,
[4:31:53] what you could say is if you were
[4:31:55] offering the Spanish Fork data center,
[4:31:57] right? The provided services, you could
[4:31:59] offer multiple availability zones which
[4:32:01] could be in other portions of the town.
[4:32:03] Is that something that's that you've
[4:32:04] considered?
[4:32:06] >> No.
[4:32:07] >> Okay. That's
[4:32:08] >> we I I'm
[4:32:10] >> But, you get what I You know what say.
[4:32:11] There is a property in Stockman Flats
[4:32:13] that could work.
[4:32:15] So we've identified another place that
[4:32:17] could potentially work on a smaller
[4:32:19] scale. So I'm not sure if that's exactly
[4:32:21] what you're asking.
[4:32:21] >> Yeah, I'm just saying it like
[4:32:22] >> We we see two locations that could work
[4:32:24] in Spanish Fork.
[4:32:25] >> And you're considering both of them just
[4:32:27] for kind of one or are you considering
[4:32:28] both of them for a sort of we do 50%
[4:32:31] here or 70% here and another 20% here?
[4:32:34] Is that Is that right?
[4:32:35] >> think we're looking at it that way. Um
[4:32:37] regardless of what else is going on the
[4:32:38] industry and Elon, those none of those
[4:32:39] things apply to us at all.
[4:32:41] >> No, no, no. I
[4:32:42] I'm going to take exception. They do
[4:32:44] apply. Yeah, go ahead.
[4:32:45] >> They don't apply to us at all
[4:32:47] in the sense that we currently have more
[4:32:49] demand than we could fill in the next 10
[4:32:52] years. So whatever whatever you want and
[4:32:54] everybody else does, it doesn't matter.
[4:32:55] We're Volition is carving out its own
[4:32:57] little niche in the in the industry. We
[4:32:58] hope to be a leader in really great
[4:33:01] design so that we're we're better output
[4:33:03] than any of those designs.
[4:33:05] But what they do and where they do it is
[4:33:07] irrelevant to us.
[4:33:08] >> I would take exception with what happens
[4:33:10] in the industry doesn't affect you. It
[4:33:11] affects all of us. The price of price of
[4:33:14] semiconductors, price of everything.
[4:33:15] >> I'm saying that for our business model
[4:33:18] and where we intend to go,
[4:33:20] those other developments
[4:33:23] we're we're not concerned about and
[4:33:25] we'll manage the supply chain and if
[4:33:27] certain things have to be delayed,
[4:33:28] they're delayed.
[4:33:29] >> What differentiates you from an Oracle?
[4:33:31] Cuz Oracle's literally trying to do the
[4:33:32] same thing right in New Mexico, right?
[4:33:34] >> Oracle is a massive software company. We
[4:33:38] are not.
[4:33:39] >> They're also a hyperscaler.
[4:33:41] >> That's right.
[4:33:41] >> And they've been doing that for a
[4:33:42] decade.
[4:33:43] >> Right, and we're not a hyperscaler.
[4:33:44] >> They're a hyperscaler like Microsoft or
[4:33:45] AWS.
[4:33:46] >> And we are not that.
[4:33:47] >> I mean, not quite at the level, right?
[4:33:48] >> Yeah, we're just a little company.
[4:33:50] >> One, how do you as a little company
[4:33:53] succeed in this? Cuz you are you are
[4:33:54] playing with all the big players.
[4:33:56] >> Yeah, we'll do fine.
[4:33:58] >> Okay, I have a question.
[4:34:00] >> This goes along with this.
[4:34:02] Um one is how many data centers do you
[4:34:05] have?
[4:34:06] I It's kind of two. How many do you
[4:34:08] have? How big are they compared to what
[4:34:10] you're proposing? And what hang-ups have
[4:34:14] you had and how have you resolved them?
[4:34:16] That's three questions, I guess.
[4:34:18] >> Yeah.
[4:34:18] So, Volition as a brand, this is the
[4:34:20] first data center as a brand.
[4:34:22] Our team [snorts] has built
[4:34:24] uh over 500 MW of data centers and our
[4:34:27] team
[4:34:28] is the same team that just finished the
[4:34:30] Nova data center here that's all the
[4:34:31] same closed-loop direct-to-chip cooling,
[4:34:35] Big Construction, Spectrum Engineering.
[4:34:37] Those are all our extended team. So, so
[4:34:41] we have a world-class team of
[4:34:43] contractors and developers
[4:34:46] um and engineers and supply chain
[4:34:49] experts. Um Hunt Electric happens to be
[4:34:51] one of the greatest
[4:34:53] uh kind of supply chain partners you can
[4:34:55] find in in the world. They're
[4:34:56] phenomenal.
[4:34:57] So, the team collectively
[4:35:00] has built hundreds of megawatts.
[4:35:03] Volition was formed exactly for this
[4:35:05] purpose only 3 years ago and it has
[4:35:07] taken us these two years or so to
[4:35:10] develop the relationships with the major
[4:35:12] brands in the industry to the point that
[4:35:14] now we have uh more backlog than we can
[4:35:18] manage because of the approach that
[4:35:19] we're taking.
[4:35:21] Um challenges
[4:35:24] this is a complicated business and uh
[4:35:27] it's funny cuz my brother owns a donut
[4:35:28] shop called Bismark Donuts in Orem and I
[4:35:31] told him I should have just got into the
[4:35:33] donut business with you.
[4:35:35] Um this is a complicated business and um
[4:35:39] so, we have to manage the relationship
[4:35:41] with a community.
[4:35:43] Um
[4:35:44] that's where it starts.
[4:35:46] Uh
[4:35:46] >> [snorts]
[4:35:46] >> then we have to manage uh the
[4:35:49] construction of a massive project.
[4:35:52] Embedded in that is supply chain and
[4:35:54] managing your schedules on when
[4:35:56] something may or may not be delayed and
[4:35:57] how that will not implode a project, but
[4:36:01] push a project out where the demand for
[4:36:05] this data space from
[4:36:07] a Google or from a Fortune 500 company
[4:36:10] that may reside in our building,
[4:36:13] they want they want the space now. And
[4:36:16] so, trying to keep them happy with the
[4:36:18] reality of a schedule is is a challenge.
[4:36:22] And to say nothing about the massive
[4:36:24] capital-E capital-intensive nature of
[4:36:27] this business. So, we work with capital
[4:36:30] partners all over the world who sit
[4:36:32] behind our design as debt and equity
[4:36:37] providers and partners
[4:36:39] in the project. So,
[4:36:42] there's a lot of moving parts. Um
[4:36:45] but we have a phenomenal team and we
[4:36:47] have great support. Um and wherever we
[4:36:51] build our first locations,
[4:36:53] uh they'll get built they'll they'll be
[4:36:54] great they'll be great facilities.
[4:36:57] >> And you have others. So,
[4:36:59] wherever you build your first location,
[4:37:01] is Spanish Fork if this is approved, Spanish Fork would
[4:37:05] be your first location or you have some
[4:37:08] others that are
[4:37:09] approved, being built, or is Spanish
[4:37:13] Fork
[4:37:13] >> There's four there's probably four
[4:37:15] others that are in initial what we would
[4:37:17] call pre
[4:37:19] >> [snorts]
[4:37:20] >> pre-engineering, pre-approval. There's
[4:37:22] San Jose, California. There's
[4:37:25] um [snorts]
[4:37:26] we're looking at a
[4:37:29] um facility in potentially in Austin,
[4:37:32] Texas.
[4:37:34] So, [snorts]
[4:37:34] we're unique in that uh a customer, for
[4:37:38] example, a public company called Akamai
[4:37:41] um is working with us on a totally
[4:37:42] different and they've said, "We're
[4:37:44] [snorts] looking for five locations."
[4:37:46] So, these are the regions. So, we're
[4:37:48] with Akamai right now. We're working on
[4:37:50] finding appropriate locations.
[4:37:53] And most of them will end up being
[4:37:55] smaller than this. They'll be in the
[4:37:56] 25-50 megawatt range on our ongoing kind
[4:38:00] of national expansion.
[4:38:03] I think over the next 5 or 6 years, uh
[4:38:05] we probably will have four
[4:38:08] >> [snorts]
[4:38:08] >> four or five locations in Utah.
[4:38:11] >> Okay.
[4:38:12] >> Jeff, uh
[4:38:13] what are what are you actually planning
[4:38:15] on putting here? Is it is it GPUs
[4:38:17] exclusively? Are you talking about maybe
[4:38:19] a more traditional
[4:38:21] >> It's all G, yeah. High-density compute.
[4:38:22] >> All high-density compute.
[4:38:23] >> Yeah.
[4:38:24] >> GPUs uh it are going to be a major component of
[4:38:27] that.
[4:38:27] >> Nvidia, yeah.
[4:38:28] >> So
[4:38:29] >> And the other thing that's of note cuz
[4:38:30] it's a topic, we we do not allow we
[4:38:33] don't do any work for the US government
[4:38:35] and we don't do any work for anybody
[4:38:37] involved in surveillance, whether they
[4:38:38] are
[4:38:39] um
[4:38:41] private or public.
[4:38:42] >> Your main your main customer that that's
[4:38:45] going to be here for this product I I'm
[4:38:47] just inferring, but are we talking
[4:38:49] Anthropic or Open AI at some point?
[4:38:53] >> Um neither of those are in play for this
[4:38:55] building now. We've had conversations,
[4:38:57] but there's no Open AI Open AI or
[4:38:59] Anthropic planning to come into this
[4:39:01] building.
[4:39:02] >> Who are you talking about? Or I don't
[4:39:03] >> I I wouldn't get into the details, I
[4:39:04] can't.
[4:39:05] >> Yeah.
[4:39:05] >> But but I can answer that.
[4:39:08] So
[4:39:09] yeah.
[4:39:10] >> Capital investment, I mean
[4:39:12] we're talking huge dollar amounts.
[4:39:14] >> Mhm.
[4:39:15] >> You have this lined up?
[4:39:16] >> Yes.
[4:39:17] >> And and who are these I don't know what
[4:39:19] you can disclose, but I'm obviously
[4:39:21] going to ask as much as I can ask on
[4:39:22] that.
[4:39:22] >> Oh, yeah.
[4:39:23] >> Cuz I mean that's what makes the
[4:39:25] I got to say it, like in this day and
[4:39:27] age, this is a race, right? This is this
[4:39:29] is a competition, it's a international
[4:39:31] competition, it's a competition between
[4:39:33] hyperscalers and everyone, and there's a
[4:39:34] lot of money that's driving this market.
[4:39:36] We literally had the highest what? Value
[4:39:39] of the Dow two or three days ago based
[4:39:42] in large part on this this sort of this
[4:39:45] I don't know if I'd call it speculation.
[4:39:47] But I mean, are you financed?
[4:39:50] >> We're cap we're capitalized. So, we have
[4:39:52] local partners, um but we work I have a
[4:39:55] long history of uh capital relationships
[4:39:57] primarily in Manhattan.
[4:40:00] So, if you know who Jefferies is,
[4:40:02] they're a major
[4:40:03] uh one of the leading bankers in the
[4:40:05] world. They are our primary uh kind of
[4:40:07] broker, our investment banker, and they
[4:40:10] take our project into a wide range of,
[4:40:15] you know, capital markets that
[4:40:17] specifically fund in the billions into
[4:40:20] data center infrastructure. So, that's
[4:40:21] how we're backed.
[4:40:24] >> I'll I'll make one comment about what
[4:40:25] you said about reaching out to the
[4:40:26] community.
[4:40:27] I don't think that Sam Altman's or the
[4:40:31] um
[4:40:32] Dario Amodei, you know, this is
[4:40:34] Anthropic and and and OpenAI's did much
[4:40:37] service towards AI as being um
[4:40:40] I don't know, from a from a public
[4:40:42] relations perspective.
[4:40:44] >> this all. [clears throat]
[4:40:45] >> And they were explicit that this is
[4:40:46] going to take away jobs, that all this
[4:40:48] automation is going to um make it so we
[4:40:50] can do all sorts of things, but the
[4:40:52] primary thing was going to was going to
[4:40:53] actually take away jobs. Um I think
[4:40:56] they've changed their tune quite a bit
[4:40:57] because I don't think that's played out
[4:40:59] particularly well for them.
[4:41:00] >> [clears throat]
[4:41:00] >> Um I guess I just want to make this
[4:41:02] comment, and and you've made this as
[4:41:04] well, and if you have any other comments
[4:41:05] on this,
[4:41:06] when we were talking about before 2022,
[4:41:09] that's really when the world changed,
[4:41:10] right? That's when we had generative AI,
[4:41:12] and that's when GPUs went from, I don't
[4:41:14] know, being video game providers and
[4:41:17] Bitcoin miners to actually providing
[4:41:19] generative AI, which is something I'm
[4:41:20] sure many of us in here have used and is
[4:41:22] really where all this value is coming
[4:41:23] from.
[4:41:25] Once that changed, the fundamental
[4:41:27] mechanics of data centers were entirely
[4:41:29] different. The power consumption, the reason why I I I think even the
[4:41:34] reason for you doing what you're doing
[4:41:35] has changed to that just because
[4:41:36] generative AI requires a lot of
[4:41:39] electricity.
[4:41:41] Um
[4:41:42] and so I think I think there can be a
[4:41:44] lot of misinformation out there,
[4:41:46] but at the same time, like you are
[4:41:49] for lack of a better term, a pioneer
[4:41:51] here.
[4:41:52] And pioneering is
[4:41:53] I would say
[4:41:55] risk, full of risk,
[4:41:57] full of unknowns. And perhaps the
[4:41:59] biggest thing I I I question, and again,
[4:42:01] I think I think you've done a great
[4:42:02] presentation here, but the biggest thing
[4:42:04] I question is the operational expertise
[4:42:06] to execute on this. That comes with
[4:42:08] time, that comes with experience, and
[4:42:10] that's something that I think even, you
[4:42:12] know, even those who have this
[4:42:13] experience can struggle with quite a
[4:42:15] bit. That's one of the concerns I have.
[4:42:17] So, sorry, I I I kind of went off on a
[4:42:18] tangent there.
[4:42:19] >> that's okay. One thing that's hard to
[4:42:20] see is that you get this little group of
[4:42:22] people coming in here. We're kind of,
[4:42:23] you know, we're
[4:42:25] off out here in Utah. We're not in the
[4:42:27] center of of so many things.
[4:42:29] Uh however, it's occurred, um our little
[4:42:31] company has happens to be at the center
[4:42:33] of
[4:42:34] all of the major companies that are
[4:42:36] involved in this industry. So, for
[4:42:37] example, um our architecture, um our
[4:42:41] design, um happens in concert with, for
[4:42:44] example, the Nvidia team. So, when you
[4:42:47] look at conversations around we're going
[4:42:50] to put 250 MW of Bloom, and nobody has
[4:42:53] done that yet. But what you do have
[4:42:55] behind that is a whole industry that has
[4:42:57] spent several years validating Bloom,
[4:43:01] testing it, its workload capacity, and
[4:43:03] you now have every company in the world
[4:43:06] puts their stamp of approval. Meaning,
[4:43:08] if you say to Nvidia, and Nvidia will be
[4:43:10] a part of our building,
[4:43:11] that we're going to build 25 MW 100%
[4:43:14] powered by Bloom, they say, "We're in."
[4:43:17] So, while this is we're one of the We
[4:43:21] were one of the earliest groups in with
[4:43:23] Bloom saying this is what we want to do.
[4:43:25] Now, there's a bunch of people doing
[4:43:26] something similar, but we were having
[4:43:28] this conversation many years ago.
[4:43:30] And so, the industry has fully validated
[4:43:35] um the fact that these fuel cells run on
[4:43:38] what we call a 59 reliability. That
[4:43:41] means that they're running
[4:43:45] of the time and they have been doing so
[4:43:49] for over 10 years in a variety of
[4:43:51] environments. So, I'm just letting you
[4:43:53] know that we have a we have a 99.999%
[4:43:54] reliability.
[4:43:55] >> if if I mean again, let's see who gets
[4:43:57] there. But what you're talking about if
[4:43:58] you could execute and deliver in a year
[4:44:00] or two, you'd be a pioneer in this.
[4:44:02] >> Well, we are.
[4:44:03] >> Absolutely. And so I'm
[4:44:05] >> No, we're we're small but we're leading
[4:44:07] in the industry. Um there is things
[4:44:09] happening that will cause our little
[4:44:11] company to be known
[4:44:13] uh worldwide. We're Fortune magazine is
[4:44:15] doing an article on us right now. So,
[4:44:17] we're kind of unknown but we're soon not
[4:44:20] going to be. Um
[4:44:21] and I think part of that is just because
[4:44:23] we we have really great partners that
[4:44:25] we're tied to so that we can execute
[4:44:27] this well. When it comes to like the
[4:44:29] long-term operation, again, that's a
[4:44:31] scenario where
[4:44:33] uh initially we we hire third parties
[4:44:36] that have been running the day in and
[4:44:38] day out monitoring of a data center, you
[4:44:40] know, for 30 years. So, anybody there's
[4:44:43] nobody who will be new or elementary at
[4:44:47] any any part of our operation.
[4:44:49] >> I want to ask one more and I could go on
[4:44:51] forever so I'll try to stop here and let
[4:44:53] the others speak. But the one question I
[4:44:55] have um that I've heard um
[4:44:58] heat. What sort of heat effect will this
[4:45:00] have? Could this change Like I like not
[4:45:03] emissions but I'm actually talking about
[4:45:05] actual heat.
[4:45:05] >> it. If you'll go beyond where it says
[4:45:08] thank you, there's an appendix.
[4:45:13] Okay. [clears throat]
[4:45:14] Um
[4:45:17] >> [cough]
[4:45:17] >> So, heat on this property with this
[4:45:20] technology is fairly
[4:45:22] uh complicated because we have
[4:45:24] >> [clears throat]
[4:45:24] >> we have um
[4:45:27] we have heat coming off of the cooling.
[4:45:30] Um
[4:45:31] we have heat coming off of the fuel
[4:45:34] cell.
[4:45:36] Um we also integrate heat capture. So,
[4:45:39] there's a whole lot of the heat that
[4:45:41] comes out of this system that never hits the atmosphere. We pull it
[4:45:45] directly back into our system as another
[4:45:47] part of our efficient design. We pull it
[4:45:50] right back into our system to actually
[4:45:52] power a portion of our cooling.
[4:45:55] So, we have a combination of a whole lot
[4:45:58] of heat capture,
[4:46:00] but even in the most extreme scenario,
[4:46:03] the modeling shows that at the facility
[4:46:06] itself, so right on property,
[4:46:09] in max capacity,
[4:46:11] the temperature on that facility could
[4:46:14] be about 5° to 6° hotter
[4:46:18] than just a quarter mile down the road.
[4:46:22] Um it is a benefit that we happen to be
[4:46:26] right where we have wind power. That
[4:46:28] wasn't by design. We just happen to find
[4:46:30] this building, but it is
[4:46:32] useful because
[4:46:34] um the wind that comes off of that
[4:46:36] canyon radically decreases this even 5°
[4:46:40] increase.
[4:46:41] Um and when you start to look at what
[4:46:44] happens
[4:46:45] uh 500 ft outside of the facility,
[4:46:48] a quarter mile, half a mile, um it's
[4:46:51] less than a quarter mile that not even a
[4:46:54] degree of additional heat
[4:46:57] in a scenario where there's like a day
[4:46:59] where there's no wind,
[4:47:02] that that's kind of the the the scenario
[4:47:04] where where it would accumulate. So, um
[4:47:07] we are well within any
[4:47:11] expected range of heat off of any type
[4:47:13] of industrial
[4:47:15] uh facility.
[4:47:17] Um
[4:47:18] So, [snorts] heat is another topic that
[4:47:20] has been widely
[4:47:23] um
[4:47:24] discussed without accuracy. To give you
[4:47:27] a comparison,
[4:47:28] >> Is there any heat that could be
[4:47:29] generated from the emissions from your
[4:47:31] power generation? Is that part of the
[4:47:33] heat equation that we're talking about?
[4:47:36] >> Yeah, I mean, the Bloom fuel cell
[4:47:38] creates heat. Yeah, that's the
[4:47:41] >> [snorts]
[4:47:42] >> Amongst other the cooling so on and so
[4:47:43] on.
[4:47:44] >> Yeah, they these have There are
[4:47:45] scenarios where right at the actual
[4:47:47] exhaust of heat, you're talking about
[4:47:49] over 400°.
[4:47:51] I mean, that's how these That's how
[4:47:52] these systems work. And and so
[4:47:55] but but in its cumulative use and you
[4:47:57] took it look at how it's used on on the
[4:47:58] property
[4:48:00] uh you're not going to see an increase
[4:48:01] of more than 5° and that is not the
[4:48:04] amount of, you know, heat that's going
[4:48:06] to in any way affect the city of Spanish
[4:48:08] Fork.
[4:48:09] >> What about a house that like mine that's
[4:48:11] a quarter mile from this facility?
[4:48:14] >> Quarter mile from the facility?
[4:48:15] >> Correct.
[4:48:16] >> Um
[4:48:17] you're looking at
[4:48:19] potentially on the worst day
[4:48:21] you you may see a degree different
[4:48:24] uh increase.
[4:48:26] Um but if there's any wind blowing,
[4:48:29] you don't have any increase. There's no
[4:48:32] increase.
[4:48:33] >> So, to be clear, it's not a zero impact.
[4:48:36] >> No, I didn't say that it was.
[4:48:37] >> Yeah. Uh even on the heat, right?
[4:48:40] >> Yeah, right. We We We're 5° hotter on
[4:48:42] our property.
[4:48:44] >> And and could even affect neighbors like
[4:48:46] you.
[4:48:46] >> Right, or Mike.
[4:48:48] My question is
[4:48:50] uh
[4:48:50] Okay, I want to go back to natural gas.
[4:48:53] >> Yeah.
[4:48:54] >> Natural gas consumption and how would
[4:48:57] does that impact uh I don't really I
[4:49:00] don't know anything about natural gas
[4:49:02] and the stores of natural gas that are
[4:49:04] available or is that a limited is that
[4:49:07] uh
[4:49:08] >> So, natural gas is widely considered a
[4:49:10] cleaner fuel.
[4:49:12] >> Right.
[4:49:13] >> so you'll see if you'll see some like
[4:49:15] fleets of buses sometimes and they say
[4:49:17] powered by natural gas.
[4:49:19] So, natural gas is widely considered as
[4:49:22] better
[4:49:23] than,
[4:49:24] you know, petroleum, better than
[4:49:27] diesel.
[4:49:27] >> Right.
[4:49:28] >> But it's still not 100% clean.
[4:49:31] Um but it is dramatically cleaner and
[4:49:34] that's why many environmentalists and
[4:49:36] many cities actively adopt things like
[4:49:40] a natural gas burning, you know, like I
[4:49:43] said, a fleet of buses or or other
[4:49:45] vehicles.
[4:49:46] >> Right. Is it a limit My question is So,
[4:49:48] I heat my home with natural gas and my
[4:49:51] hot water and etc. but And so, is
[4:49:55] natural gas a limited commodity, a
[4:49:58] limited resource?
[4:50:00] >> Yeah, natural gas um in the state of
[4:50:02] Utah
[4:50:04] um natural gas use for residences and
[4:50:08] businesses
[4:50:10] is completely and totally bifurcated
[4:50:12] from where we would draw natural gas
[4:50:15] from. So, there is there is
[4:50:17] literally not a scenario where our
[4:50:19] natural gas use could have any impact on
[4:50:23] the city of Spanish
[4:50:24] >> little closer look. So, are you pulling
[4:50:25] from a different pipe infrastructure or
[4:50:27] something or you said you will pay for
[4:50:29] the capital upgrades.
[4:50:30] >> we upgrade from a main.
[4:50:32] >> That main would still feed us here in
[4:50:34] Spanish Fork for
[4:50:35] >> Right. But you But the city has an
[4:50:37] allocated usage that is subsidized and
[4:50:40] cannot change in price.
[4:50:42] So, we that is
[4:50:45] >> So, you're still you're still affecting
[4:50:46] the actual, you know, marketplace for
[4:50:49] this.
[4:50:49] >> No, we're not. Yeah, the amount of
[4:50:50] natural gas available in US
[4:50:52] infrastructure
[4:50:54] this our use, even though it's a lot
[4:50:58] has literally no impact on market
[4:51:01] economics.
[4:51:02] >> Let's assume Bloom's power generation is
[4:51:05] very successful. As we go forward, I
[4:51:07] mean, honestly, like
[4:51:08] >> In in a decade, could there be an
[4:51:09] impact? Of course.
[4:51:10] >> Yeah, but you get where I'm going with
[4:51:12] that. I mean, honestly, like if we're if
[4:51:14] we're talking about power generation for
[4:51:16] this style, I'd want to turn and I think
[4:51:18] Dave mentioned this before, there's a
[4:51:20] the generation project in Nephi similar
[4:51:21] technology, right? Wouldn't we want to
[4:51:23] do this for everything? I think we
[4:51:24] would. And all of a sudden it might be a
[4:51:26] natural gas
[4:51:28] supply constraint instead of the
[4:51:29] electric supply.
[4:51:30] >> I would encourage you to cuz Paul, I
[4:51:32] know you dig into stuff. So, I would
[4:51:34] actually encourage you or any of you to
[4:51:36] maybe just search on this a little bit
[4:51:38] and you'll see that the
[4:51:40] when you compare the the US grid,
[4:51:43] it's age, it's strain,
[4:51:47] um the entire grid is
[4:51:50] uh a very scarce
[4:51:52] resource. And that has been an
[4:51:54] accumulation over, you know, decades.
[4:51:56] Natural gas is massively more abundant
[4:52:01] throughout the entire US.
[4:52:03] Um [snorts] there has not been, you
[4:52:05] know, a huge draw. That's why it's
[4:52:08] always been quite cheap, quite
[4:52:10] affordable.
[4:52:11] And there's so much natural gas
[4:52:12] available that it will take
[4:52:14] uh you know, a a 3X
[4:52:18] or more [snorts] increase throughout the
[4:52:20] US to begin to see what will be
[4:52:24] an incremental change in natural gas.
[4:52:26] Now, see we hedge against that and we
[4:52:28] buy our rate over, you know, um and we
[4:52:31] don't want it to go up, but um it's it
[4:52:35] doesn't move the way utility does and
[4:52:37] it's there's not a pass-through
[4:52:40] to consumers,
[4:52:42] especially in Utah,
[4:52:43] the way there is with utility power.
[4:52:47] >> So, you're going to be buying your
[4:52:48] natural gas from Enbridge months in
[4:52:51] advance. You're going to watch price and
[4:52:53] you're going to buy it.
[4:52:54] >> Yeah, we lock in.
[4:52:54] >> Way before and lock in the price way
[4:52:56] before you use it. Similar. Okay.
[4:52:58] >> Yeah.
[4:52:59] Now, what do you see
[4:53:01] say
[4:53:03] supply shortages and everything goes
[4:53:05] crazy and you can't get everything in
[4:53:08] that. What would be the downside? I
[4:53:10] mean, say we approve all this, Spanish
[4:53:12] Fork moves,
[4:53:13] you go forward, play come to Spanish
[4:53:16] Fork, go forward, and everything falls
[4:53:18] apart in a couple years. Is there a
[4:53:19] downside to Spanish Fork? Is there going
[4:53:21] to be a cost to the Spanish Fork?
[4:53:23] >> No, I don't think so. I think what
[4:53:24] you're looking at is instead of a 250 MW
[4:53:27] facility that has a $4 billion value
[4:53:30] and a $40 million tax implication,
[4:53:34] um we could be sitting with a 75 MW
[4:53:37] facility
[4:53:39] um that has $1.4 billion in value and
[4:53:43] Volition would have a whole bunch of
[4:53:45] extra space in that building that we
[4:53:46] never fully utilized. But the model for
[4:53:50] us still still pencils very well. So,
[4:53:53] the cost of the building and the
[4:53:55] potential of having it not fully
[4:53:56] occupied
[4:53:58] um is a very small line item line item
[4:54:00] on our P&L. So, even if we were sitting
[4:54:03] with a building that we didn't fully end
[4:54:04] up utilizing and we had 25, 50, or 75 MW
[4:54:07] there, it would still be a very healthy
[4:54:09] business model.
[4:54:10] >> If you were operating at
[4:54:13] 50% capacity, you're still even make a
[4:54:15] profit.
[4:54:16] >> Oh, yeah.
[4:54:18] Let me put that a different way.
[4:54:20] If I have 250 MW of capacity
[4:54:25] and that whole capacity is only running
[4:54:28] at 50%, that's not good for us.
[4:54:32] But we contract in a way that we know
[4:54:34] that we'll be the client will be moving
[4:54:37] up to 70% or more
[4:54:39] in into the facility.
[4:54:41] >> So, you're going to be contracted for
[4:54:42] 25%, another 20 to a one contractor
[4:54:47] contract, 40% to another contract as you
[4:54:50] build out. You're not going to build out
[4:54:52] 100% and then try to sell.
[4:54:54] >> Well, we know that just this client will
[4:54:58] take all of the capacity that we can
[4:55:01] provide. But what I'm getting at, Dave,
[4:55:03] is that if there was a supply chain
[4:55:04] issue and we just couldn't get the
[4:55:07] cooling and the fuel cell, then we would
[4:55:10] just our design would be halted at what
[4:55:12] we could build. So, we'd be stopped at
[4:55:15] 52 MW, 48 MW, 70 MW.
[4:55:19] And our client would be mad.
[4:55:21] >> And they wouldn't but they wouldn't be
[4:55:22] able to go anywhere because it's a
[4:55:23] supply chain and nobody else could
[4:55:25] >> there's no
[4:55:26] everybody will be in the same boat.
[4:55:30] >> Okay.
[4:55:32] So, I don't so
[4:55:34] my biggest
[4:55:35] reason for going there is just to see
[4:55:37] what if there is a risk to Spanish Fork
[4:55:39] City but you know
[4:55:42] >> Jeff
[4:55:43] >> Can I comment on that?
[4:55:44] >> Please.
[4:55:45] >> We would be very very concerned if there
[4:55:48] was a large power user even a fraction
[4:55:51] of what we're talking about here that
[4:55:52] wanted to tie into the system
[4:55:54] and have capacity in the system
[4:55:56] dedicated to it, power infrastructure
[4:55:58] dedicated to it and that type of a
[4:56:00] thing. That type of really expensive
[4:56:02] investment that does have a cost to us
[4:56:05] as a power provider.
[4:56:07] If it were that kind of a scenario we'd
[4:56:10] be looking to have financial guarantees
[4:56:12] and that type of a thing thing to
[4:56:13] protect the city
[4:56:15] as the provider of that utility.
[4:56:19] One of the things that's distinct from
[4:56:21] this group and other people that we've
[4:56:22] talked to
[4:56:24] um
[4:56:25] that we have not been able to you know
[4:56:28] really get off square one with is the
[4:56:30] idea that they don't connect to our
[4:56:33] power utility.
[4:56:35] That really removes uh
[4:56:38] as best as we've come to understand
[4:56:39] really any risk to the city for what
[4:56:42] they're talking about doing here.
[4:56:43] >> that's cuz that's what from what I've
[4:56:45] listened to tonight that's what I see. I
[4:56:47] don't see the city taking being on the
[4:56:50] hook for any risk. They're not committed
[4:56:52] to sell X power.
[4:56:54] They don't have to upgrade your power
[4:56:56] system anything. They don't have to put
[4:56:58] in a new substation.
[4:57:00] Nothing.
[4:57:00] >> Yep.
[4:57:01] Yeah, the Enbridge upgrade for example
[4:57:02] is this a $14 million expense.
[4:57:05] And that's [clears throat] our expense.
[4:57:06] >> And that's your expense through
[4:57:08] Enbridge.
[4:57:08] >> We pay Enbridge.
[4:57:09] >> Nothing to do with the city.
[4:57:10] >> We we we pay Enbridge directly for that
[4:57:13] cost of upgrade.
[4:57:17] >> Could you comment a little bit on like like you know I have colleagues and
[4:57:20] friends in Ohio and everything like
[4:57:22] that. Their rates going up. They've got
[4:57:23] data they're huge.
[4:57:24] Why is it fundamentally different like
[4:57:27] you paying for the upgrades on Enbridge
[4:57:29] whereas in other places
[4:57:32] rate payers are paying for upgrades to
[4:57:34] electrical infrastructure. Is it
[4:57:35] something I got to assume there isn't
[4:57:37] any reason why if you wanted to consume
[4:57:39] grid power you couldn't just like you
[4:57:42] know
[4:57:43] I I we can go somewhere and negotiate.
[4:57:44] Yeah.
[4:57:45] >> Yeah. So number one that's just not our
[4:57:46] model. We're not doing that.
[4:57:47] >> Yeah, I get that. But why is that the
[4:57:49] case? Just help me get it straight.
[4:57:50] >> that's the case because they got away
[4:57:52] with it for a long time. And I think
[4:57:54] it's starting to change. What what
[4:57:57] Regardless of what you feel about an
[4:57:58] administration
[4:57:59] >> Yeah.
[4:58:00] >> this change happening where the
[4:58:01] administration it's interesting cuz we
[4:58:03] were already saying it but now they're
[4:58:04] saying hey you have to bring your own
[4:58:05] power. That's a massive shift. So now
[4:58:09] even the hyperscalers are having to find
[4:58:12] ways to produce on-site power. Many of
[4:58:14] them will use natural gas.
[4:58:17] And many of them will go to a bunch of
[4:58:18] diesel. So they'll still be having big
[4:58:19] emission emissions problems.
[4:58:22] Um but this is this is changing
[4:58:26] um and utilities are getting more and
[4:58:28] more pushback about just
[4:58:30] pushing their rates through to
[4:58:33] uh the residents.
[4:58:36] So I just think they got away with it
[4:58:38] for a long long time.
[4:58:39] >> A lot of those are also asking for tax
[4:58:41] incentives and whatnot
[4:58:43] >> Yeah.
[4:58:43] >> to bring their plant in.
[4:58:45] >> Yeah, they look for every little margin
[4:58:47] that they can.
[4:58:49] Our model and my intention in this model
[4:58:51] even though for example
[4:58:53] we happen to have
[4:58:55] a federal tax incentive that lets us
[4:58:57] write off some of our power generation
[4:59:00] equipment.
[4:59:01] Um my intention always has been to make
[4:59:03] sure that our business model works
[4:59:05] without any federal or local incentives.
[4:59:08] To me, if your company can't run without
[4:59:11] incentives, you don't have a good
[4:59:13] business model. So, we get a benefit
[4:59:15] right now of a federal a little bit of a
[4:59:17] federal, you know, rebate, but our model
[4:59:20] will operate without that when when it
[4:59:22] ever, you know, changes and it's it will
[4:59:24] someday.
[4:59:26] >> Can I I ask um Oh, you go first.
[4:59:30] >> No. I'm ready to
[4:59:32] >> Okay.
[4:59:32] >> take motion here.
[4:59:33] >> Yeah, I I guess my one comment is I
[4:59:35] appreciate that Well, number one, this
[4:59:38] is a very compliant I mean, compelling
[4:59:42] business model business
[4:59:44] solution to a lot of
[4:59:47] problems.
[4:59:48] And
[4:59:50] it's really compelling and really
[4:59:51] awesome.
[4:59:53] If if it succeeds,
[4:59:55] I appreciate that we have a
[4:59:57] that there's a development agreement and
[5:00:00] a Title 15 amendment that protects
[5:00:02] Spanish Fork City and
[5:00:05] uh community, environment, etc.
[5:00:10] I think that's all I have to say.
[5:00:12] >> Yeah.
[5:00:14] I dug deep on this as as you see. I I
[5:00:17] heard that you talked to the Provo
[5:00:19] Planning Commission about this. One
[5:00:22] Provo passed an ordinance basically ban
[5:00:24] anything over 50 MW, but one thing I
[5:00:26] thought was interesting, I don't know if
[5:00:27] you can comment on this, is they all
[5:00:29] they were also proposing requiring data
[5:00:31] centers to be grid connected. What was
[5:00:34] that? And and and I know there's some
[5:00:35] connection to the Utah Municipal Power
[5:00:38] Authority, which we in Spanish Fork are
[5:00:40] What was What's the situation there?
[5:00:41] >> Well, I just think the situation is that
[5:00:43] there um
[5:00:46] the leadership of Provo just doesn't
[5:00:48] want to have a data center in Provo. You
[5:00:49] know, so they
[5:00:50] >> Why did they want to keep it grid
[5:00:51] connected? That was one thing that I
[5:00:52] think you were
[5:00:53] >> Well, because um
[5:00:55] if it's grid connected, it limits the of
[5:00:57] any real capacity to be developed in
[5:01:00] Provo. You know, Provo can't stand up
[5:01:02] anything more than maybe a few megawatts
[5:01:04] if somebody want to build a data center
[5:01:05] there. So, we had interest uh primarily
[5:01:08] just cuz we're currently based there, I
[5:01:10] live there.
[5:01:12] We identified a couple buildings that
[5:01:13] would work.
[5:01:15] They made a proposal to ban certain
[5:01:18] things. I came to the city council and
[5:01:20] made a very strong argument about why
[5:01:22] it's beneficial to Provo to look at this
[5:01:25] kind of a model.
[5:01:26] Um and between the time that I made that
[5:01:29] proposal
[5:01:31] um
[5:01:32] and the time that they came back to
[5:01:35] reconvene,
[5:01:36] we we never submitted um an actual
[5:01:40] request to build there. We identified
[5:01:42] other buildings that were more
[5:01:44] attractive. Um
[5:01:46] Stockman Flats
[5:01:48] um this building that we're
[5:01:49] contemplating, a few others that were
[5:01:51] just better locations.
[5:01:53] So, there was no reason for us to, you
[5:01:56] know, try to have a battle with Provo
[5:01:58] about doing it differently if they were
[5:02:00] not wanting that. There were many places
[5:02:02] we can go, just like this. Like we we
[5:02:03] would love to be here, but we don't have
[5:02:06] to be here. If it doesn't work out,
[5:02:07] it'll be okay. But we'll build in other
[5:02:09] places.
[5:02:09] >> main draw to Spanish Fork the building?
[5:02:11] >> It's a phenomenal building. Um
[5:02:16] » That's the rodeo.
[5:02:17] >> That's my That's my attorney. That's our
[5:02:19] corporate attorney who is a hardcore
[5:02:20] >> like, "No effort. No
[5:02:22] effort."
[5:02:22] >> thinks about is the rodeo, and then
[5:02:24] he'll sit in the back of a city meeting
[5:02:26] and just yell out the word rodeo.
[5:02:27] >> World famous now.
[5:02:28] >> Rodeo.
[5:02:30] We're very [laughter]
[5:02:30] >> Post Malone got us on the map.
[5:02:32] >> Yeah. Yes.
[5:02:32] >> All right. Okay, Paul, how are we doing?
[5:02:35] Are you ready for public hearing?
[5:02:36] >> Yeah, I'm ready to.
[5:02:37] >> Okay.
[5:02:38] >> Yeah.
[5:02:38] >> And Shauna, one thing.
[5:02:40] >> Yes.
[5:02:40] >> I appreciated the feedback. I don't know
[5:02:42] you, and uh but I commend you for the
[5:02:44] feedback that I heard yesterday and
[5:02:46] tonight on your service, and I did take
[5:02:48] note
[5:02:49] that apparently you know how to handle
[5:02:50] belligerent people in this setting and I
[5:02:52] made a promise that I would not do anything
[5:02:55] belligerent so that Shauna would not
[5:02:58] take me out.
[5:02:59] >> Thank you. Well, you did you heard a
[5:03:00] little bit of that tonight, right?
[5:03:02] >> Yes.
[5:03:03] >> [laughter]
[5:03:03] >> Well, thank you.
[5:03:04] >> Yes, thank you so much.
[5:03:06] >> much, Jeff. It's
[5:03:07] appreciate you. All right, and let me
[5:03:09] just say for the record at the beginning
[5:03:11] when I said I'm so excited, it's just I
[5:03:14] love to learn about new things. I had
[5:03:18] no agenda coming in or no preconceived
[5:03:21] ideas
[5:03:22] uh about what was being presented. So.
[5:03:27] Okay, that's just for the public record.
[5:03:31] All right. Uh we will uh have a public
[5:03:34] hearing. Uh remember 3 minutes each. Uh
[5:03:39] come to the front. Uh
[5:03:41] each person allowed to speak only once
[5:03:43] and state your name and address for the
[5:03:45] record.
[5:03:46] And all the other things.
[5:03:52] » Dan Davis.
[5:03:53] >> Hello, Dan.
[5:03:54] >> How you doing?
[5:03:55] >> Great.
[5:03:55] >> Hey, nobody you control a crowd good cuz
[5:03:58] it's really hard for an ornery person to
[5:04:01] get ornery at somebody that's smiling.
[5:04:03] >> Good. Well, I'll keep smiling.
[5:04:06] >> Okay, so first of all, is Wollesen
[5:04:09] public?
[5:04:10] Are they a public traded?
[5:04:12] Private. Okay.
[5:04:13] Well, that's something to think about,
[5:04:15] isn't it? Um Dan Davis, uh I have a I'm
[5:04:19] employed or I self-employed here. I like
[5:04:21] the idea. I think the building's a good use. Um they've
[5:04:27] solved the water problems and uh the heat sounds like the heat
[5:04:32] situation is that's one thing I had a
[5:04:33] question about was
[5:04:35] um
[5:04:36] that
[5:04:37] Spanish Fork
[5:04:39] property tax, not necessarily much else.
[5:04:43] Uh so there's a difference there than
[5:04:45] what's already there with the trucking.
[5:04:48] Um
[5:04:50] islanded should uh mean islanded
[5:04:52] forever. So, if the gas prices do change
[5:04:54] and there's some caveat that will
[5:04:57] that where they go after public uh gas,
[5:05:01] then that means uh
[5:05:03] that could be a problem. So, write into
[5:05:05] the ordinance that any future
[5:05:07] interconnection requires full public
[5:05:09] re-approval.
[5:05:10] Um third, um this is a big one.
[5:05:13] Uh space data centers are a big hit
[5:05:15] right now. Elon talks about them a lot.
[5:05:18] Uh Dyson swarm being placed right now
[5:05:20] around the earth. Orbital a company has
[5:05:23] uh filed for 100,000 orbital slots. Elon
[5:05:27] Musk is somewhere up in that area. LEO
[5:05:29] type uh satellites where they're easily
[5:05:32] exchanged after they reach their reach
[5:05:34] their life is a real serious thing.
[5:05:37] Across the country, over 120 billion in
[5:05:40] data center spending has been moved off
[5:05:42] company balance sheets in 18 months into
[5:05:45] entities specifically designed so that
[5:05:47] the parent can walk away. The Bank for
[5:05:50] Inter- I'm reading this, sorry. Bank for
[5:05:52] International Settlements, a central
[5:05:54] bank, not a just named this one as the
[5:05:57] biggest risks to global financial
[5:06:00] stability. The computers inside
[5:06:02] depreciate in 3 to 5 years.
[5:06:04] Uh
[5:06:05] it should last 30. Um Fingerhut came in
[5:06:09] offering 520 jobs, uh spent the money,
[5:06:13] then it didn't work out. So, take that
[5:06:15] into account. Um
[5:06:18] How much time have we got? Man, I can
[5:06:20] yak.
[5:06:21] Uh
[5:06:22] So, I just say take all those thing to
[5:06:24] in things into account so Spanish Fork
[5:06:26] doesn't get bit
[5:06:28] if this goes south because data centers
[5:06:30] it's kind of a shell game. Orbital data
[5:06:32] centers
[5:06:33] uh the tech will get worked out.
[5:06:35] Land-based terrestrial data centers will
[5:06:39] stay and there will be a a
[5:06:41] period until the tech reaches for
[5:06:43] orbital, but uh orbital is the is in my
[5:06:47] opinion and you know, I think it's the
[5:06:49] way to go.
[5:06:51] You know, no batteries, uh rejection
[5:06:54] into space. That tech's getting worked
[5:06:56] out. Uh the V3 rocket's already
[5:06:58] launching things and other people are
[5:07:00] launching things to prep for that and
[5:07:02] they'll pay us to dispense those
[5:07:04] satellites out and it'll become a Dyson
[5:07:06] swarm and so think about that.
[5:07:09] >> Thank you.
[5:07:09] >> Thanks.
[5:07:10] >> Appreciate that.
[5:07:14] » [clears throat]
[5:07:16] » Hi.
[5:07:17] I'm Megan um Banks. I grew up here
[5:07:21] my whole life. I actually lived right by
[5:07:24] at the mouth of the canyon, grew up
[5:07:26] right there.
[5:07:27] Um I strongly am against data centers
[5:07:30] and all of that sounded well. I think
[5:07:34] um honestly, I don't trust I don't trust
[5:07:37] it. I think it's for the rich to get
[5:07:39] richer.
[5:07:40] Um I'm a highly against for the even the
[5:07:44] small amount of environment with the
[5:07:47] heat that we have right now and all the
[5:07:49] fires going on is a very big concern for
[5:07:52] me.
[5:07:52] And um I hope there's some protests
[5:07:55] against this, honestly. So, that's what
[5:07:57] I got.
[5:07:58] Thank you. Thank you, Megan.
[5:08:07] » Uh Alan Westman, I've been a long time
[5:08:10] resident of Spanish Fork. Um
[5:08:13] and I attended the city council meeting
[5:08:15] last night, so this a lot of this
[5:08:16] presentation was familiar to me and I've
[5:08:18] um sent some questions the way of the Volition folks and appreciate their
[5:08:23] engagement. Um
[5:08:25] there is a lot that they've presented
[5:08:27] that on its face
[5:08:28] uh seems compelling
[5:08:31] uh and uh is plausible.
[5:08:34] There are some things that I have
[5:08:35] concerns about. the thermal the thermal
[5:08:38] output, the heat, is one of those um
[5:08:42] the
[5:08:44] as these computer chips consume energy,
[5:08:48] they are transforming they're doing some
[5:08:49] useful work with the electrons pushing
[5:08:51] them around in patterns in in
[5:08:53] interesting ways,
[5:08:54] but then that energy becomes heat.
[5:09:00] And almost uh there's no moving parts,
[5:09:02] there's no mechanical, you know, there's
[5:09:03] no other place for that energy to go
[5:09:05] except for heat.
[5:09:08] And although they are they talk about
[5:09:11] having heat recovery technologies that
[5:09:12] allow them to be more efficient in the
[5:09:14] amount of power they consume,
[5:09:16] that heat
[5:09:19] consumed by those chips still gets has
[5:09:21] to go somewhere.
[5:09:23] 250 MW of power
[5:09:27] translated into heat
[5:09:29] is to me not a light industrial use. And
[5:09:32] so speaking to the amendment that is before you,
[5:09:36] I feel that it is improperly sized. This
[5:09:39] should be It will and I should I should
[5:09:42] qualify that.
[5:09:43] Depending on the scale at which they
[5:09:46] operate, how many megawatts they are
[5:09:49] consuming and and and megawatts of heat
[5:09:51] that they're producing, it seems like
[5:09:54] there needs to be a threshold stated in
[5:09:57] this amendment
[5:09:59] that says this is light industrial and
[5:10:01] now this is heavy industrial.
[5:10:04] Because we're talking something on the
[5:10:06] scale of
[5:10:07] I mean it's a power plant. Flaming Gorge Dam
[5:10:10] produces 150 MW
[5:10:14] of energy.
[5:10:15] Um
[5:10:16] the Gadsby power plant in Salt Lake City
[5:10:18] on North Temple, if you're familiar with
[5:10:20] that, near the the state fairgrounds,
[5:10:22] that is 350
[5:10:24] MW. And so we're talking something in
[5:10:26] between that on that scale. That is the
[5:10:29] amount of heat that will be produced. I
[5:10:31] don't necessarily buy the
[5:10:33] um
[5:10:35] by the
[5:10:36] there will be a minimal amount of heat
[5:10:39] noticed. Um I think the heat will also
[5:10:41] be
[5:10:42] um
[5:10:43] apparent even when wind is blowing
[5:10:45] because there will be a plume of heat
[5:10:47] directed whatever direction that wind is
[5:10:49] going.
[5:10:50] So, I would urge the commission to maybe
[5:10:53] take a moment and and and
[5:10:56] ask for the legal team to go back and
[5:10:58] include some provision uh related to
[5:11:00] heat output because that to me is one of
[5:11:03] the critical emissions that is not
[5:11:04] mentioned or accounted for in this.
[5:11:07] Thank you.
[5:11:13] » Uh John Sampson.
[5:11:16] Um
[5:11:18] you said you had a lot of background and
[5:11:21] it sounds like a good niche. Why isn't
[5:11:23] everybody else going down this path?
[5:11:25] If it it
[5:11:27] to me it sounds too good to be true.
[5:11:29] If this is
[5:11:31] I I believe you
[5:11:33] and
[5:11:34] um
[5:11:35] why isn't Anthropic, OpenAI, Oracle
[5:11:38] knocking down doors, walls, buildings to
[5:11:40] get it independent of you?
[5:11:43] Um another question about finances.
[5:11:45] Hypothetical
[5:11:47] 5-year depreciation cycle.
[5:11:49] That means quick depreciation and
[5:11:51] correspondingly quick tax revenue
[5:11:53] decrease.
[5:11:55] In addition to that, is there any city
[5:11:57] revenue from purchase
[5:11:59] uh of your services?
[5:12:01] I don't know. That wasn't stated.
[5:12:04] Um how do you contain the noise
[5:12:05] pollution? What are the mechanics of that containment?
[5:12:09] What are the frequencies of the noise?
[5:12:11] Is it high-pitched? Is it low-pitched?
[5:12:14] How far does it travel?
[5:12:16] Uh the noise regulations in this thing I
[5:12:18] saw on the screen said 65 decibels at
[5:12:21] the site,
[5:12:22] 55 decibels at the nearest residence.
[5:12:25] Based on what you said, it sounds like
[5:12:27] it would be much lower. Why isn't the um
[5:12:31] the regulation
[5:12:33] um match the what you say about how much
[5:12:37] noise um
[5:12:39] correspondingly lower level of noise.
[5:12:42] You said no work for US government, no
[5:12:44] work for private or public surveillance.
[5:12:46] What about when you change your mind?
[5:12:48] What control do we have if we won't
[5:12:50] don't want that kind of workload in
[5:12:51] Spanish Fork?
[5:12:54] Uh you said the natural gas turns into
[5:12:56] water. Sounds like a great
[5:12:59] uh chemical reaction, fuel reaction.
[5:13:01] Where does that water go?
[5:13:03] Is there any benefit to using that water
[5:13:05] inside Spanish Fork for irrigation or
[5:13:08] whatever else?
[5:13:10] Um what inspection regimen do you commit
[5:13:13] to for accountability and enforcement on
[5:13:16] heat,
[5:13:17] >> [snorts]
[5:13:17] >> water,
[5:13:18] and um noise?
[5:13:24] » Thank you. Appreciate that.
[5:13:28] » I need to go take a water turn.
[5:13:31] I'll be here. Thanks. Thank you.
[5:13:34] >> My name is Rod Elm. Um I live in the
[5:13:37] neighborhood east of Larson Elementary.
[5:13:40] And I've lived here for
[5:13:43] nearly the last 20 years. But uh
[5:13:47] I came to be honoring.
[5:13:50] >> [snorts]
[5:13:50] >> I I had seen the uh
[5:13:53] um
[5:13:56] I I'd seen the post Spanish Fork made. I
[5:13:58] appreciated the transparency on that.
[5:14:01] And I noticed that 80%
[5:14:04] of the people that reacted to that were
[5:14:06] angry about it.
[5:14:08] And
[5:14:10] um I came
[5:14:13] um largely because of
[5:14:16] um so many concerns of data centers in
[5:14:20] other places.
[5:14:22] And uh
[5:14:24] I have changed my mind.
[5:14:28] Um Paul,
[5:14:30] I couldn't ask for somebody to
[5:14:33] um have asked more tough questions than
[5:14:36] you have tonight.
[5:14:37] And I can't tell you how much I
[5:14:39] appreciate you.
[5:14:41] And
[5:14:42] you didn't give an easy interview to
[5:14:45] Jeff back here.
[5:14:47] Um
[5:14:49] and uh I had a great conversation with
[5:14:51] Curtis, another one of the
[5:14:52] representatives in the hallway earlier.
[5:14:55] Um
[5:14:57] if everything is true, I'm a fan.
[5:15:00] I'm a big fan.
[5:15:02] I think they would be a great asset in
[5:15:04] Spanish Fork if everything pans out
[5:15:08] and every if everything is stays
[5:15:09] transparent.
[5:15:11] Um I love what I've seen so far.
[5:15:15] And I want that maintained.
[5:15:17] I want you to keep them to their word.
[5:15:21] And uh
[5:15:23] I will be, too.
[5:15:25] That's all I have to say.
[5:15:27] >> Thank you very much.
[5:15:31] » That's one of my principles that I
[5:15:32] learned in planning commission is be
[5:15:34] willing to listen and change your mind
[5:15:37] if you need to. Good job.
[5:15:39] Thank you.
[5:15:40] >> Hi, my name is Carla Shade. I live near
[5:15:42] Maple Mountain High School.
[5:15:44] I am not fundamentally opposed to AI
[5:15:46] data centers or any data center.
[5:15:49] Um but I would like to ask you to
[5:15:51] exercise caution as you move forward
[5:15:54] with regard to this data center and
[5:15:55] future data centers because the
[5:15:57] amendments not only apply to volition,
[5:16:00] which appears to be a dreamy data center
[5:16:02] that we all would like versus hyperscale
[5:16:06] data center. Um but
[5:16:09] our health and environment are sacred
[5:16:11] and no community should be forced to
[5:16:12] sacrifice clean air, clean water, or
[5:16:14] safe homes for a commercial enterprise.
[5:16:16] And I don't speak to the integrity of
[5:16:18] this company. We have numerous examples
[5:16:20] nationwide where promises were made and
[5:16:22] then broken. Wastewater was returned to
[5:16:25] city sewers, large buildings than
[5:16:26] planned, unauthorized energy generators,
[5:16:29] large amounts of heat released, and
[5:16:31] sound levels promised and exceeded.
[5:16:33] They made promises just like we're
[5:16:35] getting promises here today. We need a way to be able to
[5:16:41] have enforcement of guardrails.
[5:16:45] Um I appreciate the amendments that you
[5:16:46] put in in the research that you have,
[5:16:48] but I think you're right that a contract
[5:16:51] would make these things more enforceable
[5:16:54] in the future, not only for this data
[5:16:56] center, but future possible data centers
[5:16:58] as well.
[5:17:00] Um this company, as they mentioned, has
[5:17:03] no current data centers or history or a
[5:17:05] track record that we can look at. This
[5:17:07] is basically all
[5:17:09] mostly conceptual. I mean, they've done
[5:17:12] the research, they've done the
[5:17:13] engineering,
[5:17:15] but
[5:17:16] something like a community benefits
[5:17:18] agreement or contract
[5:17:20] entered into by the data center
[5:17:22] developer and Spanish Fork
[5:17:24] could ensure
[5:17:26] that the developer provides measurable,
[5:17:29] enforceable
[5:17:32] um
[5:17:33] items and guardrails for the community
[5:17:35] and our host environment. So, I would
[5:17:38] ask that you exercise caution and
[5:17:40] remember that we're not just dealing
[5:17:41] with Volition that seems to make all
[5:17:43] these promises, but then future data
[5:17:45] centers because of the right to build.
[5:17:48] Um that I would like to see measurable
[5:17:51] guardrails, enforceable guardrails in
[5:17:54] place so that we can protect our
[5:17:56] community and the resources that we all
[5:17:57] value. Thank you.
[5:17:59] >> Thank you very much.
[5:18:01] I'm writing down your words.
[5:18:05] Okay.
[5:18:06] Who would like to come speak next?
[5:18:11] All right.
[5:18:12] Seeing that there's none, we'll close
[5:18:14] our public hearing and we'll have a
[5:18:16] discussion and questions with the
[5:18:19] commission.
[5:18:21] Let's just go down the row.
[5:18:23] >> First, I want to go to lunch with Paul
[5:18:25] so he can explain to me
[5:18:26] >> Right.
[5:18:27] >> what he even said.
[5:18:29] Um I I think my biggest concern is it's
[5:18:31] just this seems to be happening so fast,
[5:18:33] which which I get, but there's just so
[5:18:35] much that I don't have a clue or
[5:18:37] understand. Um
[5:18:39] and I know we have meetings set for the
[5:18:41] public. I'd like to kind of see how they
[5:18:42] turn before I start making any promises
[5:18:45] in this.
[5:18:48] » Um
[5:18:50] I appreciate the discussion. Thanks. I I
[5:18:51] grilled you with a lot of questions and
[5:18:53] um but I think it's it's appropriate and I'll actually say for the citizens,
[5:18:57] I think we had some excellent feedback.
[5:19:00] Um
[5:19:01] if you go look at the dialogue online,
[5:19:03] um it's nowhere near uh what we heard
[5:19:06] here and I absolutely appreciate the
[5:19:08] feedback from every citizen here who
[5:19:10] spoke. Um it was um it it was good
[5:19:13] feedback. Um
[5:19:15] I guess I'll go back to what I um kind
[5:19:18] of the theme that I had here and it's not that I had a preconceived
[5:19:21] notion. I saw our agenda. I literally looked at
[5:19:24] it yesterday um after work and then I
[5:19:27] uh spent a lot of time going down the
[5:19:29] stuff and a lot of the stuff I is is
[5:19:30] stuff I'm aware of as well, but we are
[5:19:32] really been in a world that that has
[5:19:35] um
[5:19:36] unique events happening right now very
[5:19:39] much related with artificial
[5:19:40] intelligence. So, this is just directly
[5:19:42] why we're having this discussion here.
[5:19:44] Um I'm just going to say I'm I'm not
[5:19:46] inclined to support this right now.
[5:19:48] My main concern is uh
[5:19:50] this is a pioneering effort.
[5:19:53] I get that Spanish work does some very
[5:19:54] unique things here. We have SFCN, you
[5:19:57] know, our internet provider that is
[5:19:59] excellent, that's unique with everything
[5:20:01] else. We have, I would say, very much a
[5:20:04] world-class city that has put together a
[5:20:06] wonderful community here.
[5:20:08] I
[5:20:09] deeply feel like I'm not ready to
[5:20:11] experiment with something like this here
[5:20:14] in Spanish Fork.
[5:20:15] Not at this time.
[5:20:17] I get the world is changing so much. I
[5:20:19] get
[5:20:20] at some point, you know,
[5:20:23] with the rapid velocity that we're
[5:20:25] seeing with innovation and improvement,
[5:20:27] we may get efficiencies that make data
[5:20:29] centers at this point unnecessary. Or we
[5:20:32] may find, similar to the Dyson Sphere
[5:20:34] comment, which is very science fiction
[5:20:35] but also very much what we're looking at in terms
[5:20:38] of energy consumption, that that that we
[5:20:40] may, you know, continue to increase our
[5:20:42] energy consumption infinitely on into
[5:20:44] the future.
[5:20:46] With that said, I don't know that I want
[5:20:47] to experiment with that here in Spanish
[5:20:49] Fork right at this time.
[5:20:51] I will say though that,
[5:20:53] you know, if if we do pass this,
[5:20:56] um I I think the comment for some
[5:20:58] thresholds here, even around the higher
[5:21:00] threshold, would be willing and or would
[5:21:03] be pertinent um to at least consider.
[5:21:06] So, that's my thoughts.
[5:21:08] >> Thank you.
[5:21:10] Very compelling presentation. Um learned
[5:21:13] a lot. I can see the potential benefits
[5:21:16] um for the city and those that live
[5:21:19] around it, particularly some of the
[5:21:20] other uses that could be used in that
[5:21:22] building. I really appreciate Paul, your
[5:21:25] engagement and your questions um that
[5:21:27] you asked. That was That was very
[5:21:29] helpful to me. I do have a question for
[5:21:32] the city staff.
[5:21:34] With this agree this potential
[5:21:35] agreement,
[5:21:37] it was not too long ago that we were
[5:21:40] um talking about a different entity with
[5:21:42] very deep pockets that the city would
[5:21:44] have an inability to defend, pursue, um
[5:21:49] go through a legal process with an
[5:21:51] entity that
[5:21:52] has deep pockets.
[5:21:54] If if this was approved and it goes
[5:21:56] forth and there's violations for the
[5:21:59] agreement, and and we're talking
[5:22:02] huge amounts of money that most of us
[5:22:05] can't wrap our heads around.
[5:22:08] Can the city
[5:22:11] with your resources really stand up to
[5:22:14] that kind of financing?
[5:22:19] » Well, I just I thought but
[5:22:21] from a
[5:22:24] Um as we talked about from a legal
[5:22:26] perspective, it's best your remedies are
[5:22:28] a lot better if you have a contractual
[5:22:30] agreement than if it were just a code
[5:22:31] agreement. So, the fact that they were
[5:22:32] willing to enter into a development
[5:22:34] agreement makes it a lot more feasible
[5:22:36] for us to
[5:22:38] try to enforce or to take on a company
[5:22:41] of whatever size
[5:22:43] than if we just
[5:22:44] >> [cough]
[5:22:47] » Okay, thank you. And I'll also echo the
[5:22:49] sentiments. Um
[5:22:51] I I appreciate how transparent this has
[5:22:53] been. I love that you have open houses
[5:22:57] coming up. I am leaning towards I feel
[5:23:00] it's a little premature.
[5:23:02] Um I'm I'm not opposed to the project.
[5:23:05] Um but with the discussion and the
[5:23:07] points that Paul made, I feel like it's
[5:23:09] a little bit premature. Um particularly
[5:23:12] that there's there's no model. This
[5:23:13] hasn't hasn't been done before. They are
[5:23:15] pioneering. Um and I would say that uh
[5:23:19] my house is hot enough. I don't even
[5:23:21] want one extra degree temperature uh
[5:23:24] this summer.
[5:23:27] Okay.
[5:23:29] Uh
[5:23:30] I think maybe I'm a Pollyanna
[5:23:33] and
[5:23:34] I really appreciate
[5:23:37] Paul's expertise and uh and words
[5:23:41] tonight. It kind of opened my eyes a
[5:23:43] little more.
[5:23:44] Uh I appreciate I've already said that I
[5:23:48] appreciate that there will be a a contractual development agreement. I
[5:23:56] appreciate the willingness
[5:23:58] um
[5:24:00] of volition to enter into that in in
[5:24:03] good faith.
[5:24:05] Um
[5:24:06] I I too
[5:24:09] feel like if this is true and this
[5:24:11] really works, then it really could be an
[5:24:14] asset to the entire industry. Somebody
[5:24:18] has to start. It seems like what's
[5:24:21] happened here protects Spanish Fork.
[5:24:25] Uh and
[5:24:28] I'm just
[5:24:30] >> [snorts]
[5:24:30] >> I and I appreciate knowing that Spanish
[5:24:33] Fork has that there have been other data
[5:24:36] centers that have wanted to come into
[5:24:37] Spanish Fork and Spanish Fork has said,
[5:24:40] "Not here. We're not doing that here."
[5:24:42] Like they're looking to protect Spanish
[5:24:44] Fork.
[5:24:45] Um
[5:24:47] and
[5:24:49] that this is a very different thing than
[5:24:51] other data centers.
[5:24:53] Uh I appreciate how open you are and
[5:24:56] willing to
[5:24:58] just willing to have the conversations
[5:25:00] until 11:30 plus at night.
[5:25:03] Uh and have done 8 months of work
[5:25:07] already with Spanish Fork City.
[5:25:09] Um
[5:25:11] I
[5:25:12] am a supporter and I think that it I
[5:25:15] think that it would feel
[5:25:17] I think I would feel
[5:25:19] uh
[5:25:20] good about about supporting the text
[5:25:22] amendment and then letting the City
[5:25:24] Council
[5:25:25] uh
[5:25:26] continue to discuss that. I really would
[5:25:30] love it if there was a way to
[5:25:34] um really publicize these open houses
[5:25:37] because there's a lot of people that
[5:25:39] have a really bad taste in their mouth
[5:25:40] about data centers. You say that word
[5:25:42] and and and you put it on social media
[5:25:45] and you're like and everybody is like,
[5:25:47] "Heck no."
[5:25:49] And uh
[5:25:51] and I think you come and have a
[5:25:53] conversation and you keep having
[5:25:55] conversations
[5:25:57] and uh
[5:25:59] and there will be reasonable people that
[5:26:02] ask really good questions honestly
[5:26:05] and can and can see that this is not
[5:26:07] like other data centers and then
[5:26:09] make some decisions.
[5:26:12] I don't know what to say about the heat.
[5:26:15] I live right there. I work out at my
[5:26:17] house, too. We love our Spanish Fork
[5:26:20] wind at our house. It's a
[5:26:23] gale. We love it. So, I don't know what
[5:26:26] to say except for that I that I think
[5:26:28] that I would I would support Traine.
[5:26:32] » Okay. Um I want to thank Jeff. Um
[5:26:36] that was an excellent presentation. I
[5:26:38] think I'm a lot like our good friend uh
[5:26:41] Rod here who had his mind changed
[5:26:43] uh today and uh
[5:26:46] I I I'm excited about this and being a
[5:26:48] pioneer doesn't scare me.
[5:26:50] I I think this town and this city and
[5:26:51] this state was built by pioneers.
[5:26:54] Um but I I am very cautious. Um
[5:26:58] we need to have some serious
[5:26:59] transparency and that can
[5:27:02] the contract I think is going to be the kicker there.
[5:27:06] And and I appreciate your willingness to
[5:27:07] enter into that. Um I'm excited. I'm
[5:27:11] excited to see that happen.
[5:27:12] I I think this is a good thing and I
[5:27:14] think I feel like Spanish Fork is being
[5:27:17] protected on every angle that they can
[5:27:19] be protected and uh so so I'm on board.
[5:27:25] » All right. Um thank you for all the
[5:27:29] effort you put in and
[5:27:31] deal, you know, answer all the
[5:27:32] questions. That was really good
[5:27:34] presentation.
[5:27:35] Um
[5:27:38] I'm in favor.
[5:27:40] Um I look at there's many of the
[5:27:42] questions say that
[5:27:43] the heat, the effect of the heat. Okay.
[5:27:47] Um we have parking lots in this town
[5:27:49] that that increase the heat that much.
[5:27:51] Costco, Macy's, Walmart, Lowe's.
[5:27:57] All [clears throat] that up there.
[5:27:59] That whole shopping center.
[5:28:01] You know, they they increase the heat
[5:28:03] also.
[5:28:04] Um
[5:28:07] It's a new technology. It's It's
[5:28:10] exciting. I like the pioneering aspect
[5:28:12] of it.
[5:28:13] The Spanish Spanish Fork City is is not
[5:28:16] going to be on the hook for a lot of
[5:28:18] infrastructure development any at all.
[5:28:22] To my understanding, which I like.
[5:28:24] And this amendment The difference
[5:28:26] between this amendment at this time
[5:28:29] to title 15 and the one we dealt with a
[5:28:31] few months ago
[5:28:32] is that one we buried our head in the
[5:28:35] sand to give the
[5:28:37] entity coming in
[5:28:39] free reign to do what they want to do.
[5:28:41] This one we're holding them to to
[5:28:44] certain conditions, tight conditions.
[5:28:46] They're legally binding in a contract.
[5:28:49] And I like that.
[5:28:51] And so,
[5:28:52] you know, I'm for it.
[5:28:54] Um I'm not worried that it's new technology or
[5:28:58] anything. You know, this city was built
[5:29:01] by pioneers.
[5:29:03] And I'm excited for it. So, I'm in
[5:29:05] support.
[5:29:09] » All right. Any other
[5:29:11] questions for staff? Any other somebody
[5:29:15] saying you want to add any kind of
[5:29:17] >> Oh, I had one more thing I wanted to
[5:29:19] say. As far as the water consumption
[5:29:21] goes, I have a suspicion
[5:29:24] that they'll probably use as much water
[5:29:26] on their landscape
[5:29:28] the required landscaping around the
[5:29:29] building as they're actually
[5:29:32] going to use in the building as long as
[5:29:35] all these numbers are correct.
[5:29:40] » All right. Any of the concerns that have
[5:29:42] come up
[5:29:44] uh that that Dave could answer off the top of
[5:29:48] your head and then we could have
[5:29:50] Oh, and and Jeff can come and talk with
[5:29:52] us, too.
[5:29:54] Sure, come on up. Mhm.
[5:29:58] » Just real real quick, um
[5:30:01] maybe to the three of you. I appreciate
[5:30:04] um
[5:30:06] that there's some pioneering going on
[5:30:08] here, but I don't feel like I I've made
[5:30:10] it clear enough
[5:30:12] that the Bloom fuel cell
[5:30:15] has been running for over 15 years,
[5:30:19] over 500,000
[5:30:21] units in a variety of natural gas
[5:30:24] settings
[5:30:26] on properties uh all over, you know,
[5:30:29] like a whole series of Costco. Now,
[5:30:31] these are
[5:30:32] powering portions of industries. In the
[5:30:35] last 4 years, they have made a major
[5:30:39] entrance into data centers, Equinix,
[5:30:42] uh huge deployments.
[5:30:45] Now, in the last 2 years, you have over
[5:30:48] what will be 3 gigawatts of power
[5:30:52] that have been purchased now
[5:30:54] by the most dynamic
[5:30:57] um thoughtful technical companies and
[5:31:01] utilities
[5:31:02] in the world will be now simultaneous
[5:31:05] with us deploying
[5:31:08] over 5 gigawatts of power just in the
[5:31:10] next 24 months.
[5:31:13] So, that is a large large swath of
[5:31:17] investors, decision-makers,
[5:31:20] who have vetted this system
[5:31:23] for over 15 years. So, I would just I
[5:31:25] just want to just make clear
[5:31:28] that Bloom is operating in a wide range
[5:31:33] of scenarios all throughout the world.
[5:31:36] The cooling [snorts]
[5:31:38] um is not new for us. Our team just
[5:31:41] built this exact closed-loop cooling
[5:31:43] for Nvidia, for Oracle.
[5:31:45] So, I just wanted to stress that yes,
[5:31:47] we're we're pioneering in the sense that
[5:31:49] Volition happens to be the first one
[5:31:52] who has said
[5:31:54] um we don't even want to use the grid.
[5:31:56] We're just going to use all natural gas.
[5:31:59] Um natural gas
[5:32:01] the infrastructure is more than 25 times
[5:32:05] more reliable than the grid. It doesn't
[5:32:07] go down.
[5:32:08] So, we feel like uh the risk is modest
[5:32:13] in the design, and we feel like failure
[5:32:17] for for Volition would mean that for
[5:32:20] some reason
[5:32:21] we only built 25 or 40 MW out there.
[5:32:24] And you would still benefit greatly. We
[5:32:27] would have some explaining to do to our
[5:32:28] investors, but that's the risk we take.
[5:32:30] So, I just wanted to add that. And the
[5:32:32] fi- The other piece is um it is true
[5:32:35] that people are knocking down the door
[5:32:37] for us now. When I say that we're not
[5:32:39] housing OpenAI or Anthropic, that
[5:32:41] doesn't mean that we haven't had long
[5:32:42] conversations with OpenAI and Anthropic.
[5:32:45] At the end of the day, there's a
[5:32:47] financial decision to make about terms.
[5:32:49] So, we know what we can get from a term
[5:32:52] standpoint in the marketplace. So, if it
[5:32:54] if OpenAI Sam Altman wants to get us to
[5:32:57] agree to pay for him to pay us 30% less,
[5:33:00] we can say no to OpenAI because we don't
[5:33:03] need to agree to those terms. So, there
[5:33:05] is a, you know, massive line of now
[5:33:08] people who are saying we want to build
[5:33:09] our facilities this way. So, th- those
[5:33:11] are just the extra little pieces. Um I
[5:33:14] do feel like allowing the city the city
[5:33:16] council to uh consider this
[5:33:19] um
[5:33:20] is a worthwhile
[5:33:22] um support, and um I really don't think
[5:33:26] that we fall into a category of
[5:33:29] uh an experiment here. I think we've spent many years along with others
[5:33:33] doing our our due diligence on this.
[5:33:36] >> Thanks, Steph.
[5:33:38] >> Um
[5:33:39] I want to bring up one thing. Again,
[5:33:41] thanks for the additional comments
[5:33:42] there. Um
[5:33:44] if we were
[5:33:46] I still don't think I'm a yes on this,
[5:33:48] but I I did like the suggestion that was
[5:33:50] made um by Alan here
[5:33:52] for some sort of
[5:33:55] thresholds.
[5:33:57] Because right now it sounds like, you
[5:33:58] know, you could really be at any size
[5:33:59] here.
[5:34:01] I think crawling into this instead of
[5:34:04] sort of, you know, running at a at a
[5:34:05] pace is
[5:34:07] I think it's prudent. The pioneering
[5:34:09] aspect
[5:34:11] makes a lot of sense. We have a pioneer
[5:34:12] heritage here.
[5:34:14] But we also don't hear so much about the
[5:34:15] failed experiments that happen as much.
[5:34:18] And that's the concern I run to. Anyway,
[5:34:20] so I'm saying, if we can add some
[5:34:22] language, if we I don't know if there's
[5:34:24] some
[5:34:25] feeling up here that there would be any
[5:34:26] more thresholds we want to add. If
[5:34:28] that's not necessarily what we're
[5:34:29] looking at.
[5:34:31] I don't know. Is there any interest
[5:34:32] amongst this like, you know,
[5:34:34] throw out some numbers or something like
[5:34:36] this, step into this? I think I saw Dave
[5:34:38] last night you had some thresholds you
[5:34:40] were sort of considering. Was that
[5:34:42] correct or was it somewhere else?
[5:34:44] >> I you know, I've had a lot of thoughts
[5:34:46] over the course of the past few days and
[5:34:48] the several hours now that we've spent
[5:34:50] talking about this. I'm not sure that I
[5:34:51] know exactly what you're referring to.
[5:34:53] >> Yeah, I'm thinking, you know, you can
[5:34:55] build up to 250 even if that's what's
[5:34:57] being asked for. If you go beyond that
[5:34:58] or something like that. And I'm not
[5:35:00] saying this just for threshold sake or
[5:35:01] something like that, but it's like,
[5:35:04] you know,
[5:35:06] to the point that was made here,
[5:35:08] if if we sort of open this up and this
[5:35:10] is, you know, not conditional use,
[5:35:12] well, Felician may or may not succeed
[5:35:15] here, but we sort of opened us up to,
[5:35:18] you know,
[5:35:19] hyperscale, whoever comes here. Yeah,
[5:35:21] for better or for worse. But I'm saying
[5:35:23] like, do we want to have any guardrails
[5:35:25] up here?
[5:35:25] >> On if they come here, they'd be on
[5:35:28] conditions.
[5:35:29] >> Correct. I'm saying but but do the
[5:35:31] conditions do we want to say
[5:35:33] there's a maximum size you can build
[5:35:34] out?
[5:35:36] Or do we not want to say that?
[5:35:37] >> Do you mind if I
[5:35:38] just share
[5:35:40] >> Yeah, go ahead.
[5:35:40] >> perspective. I think I'll even say
[5:35:43] representing staff.
[5:35:44] >> Yeah.
[5:35:45] >> Um and I appreciate it what you said. I
[5:35:47] think it was one of the first things
[5:35:48] that you mentioned tonight about
[5:35:49] thresholds.
[5:35:51] Um we're talking about 250 MW for this
[5:35:54] project. Um and I'll take that a step
[5:35:57] further.
[5:35:59] It has not been uncommon for us over the
[5:36:01] years
[5:36:02] when we have a new idea that gets
[5:36:05] presented to the city
[5:36:07] to write
[5:36:09] law zoning language that's tailored
[5:36:11] pretty tightly
[5:36:13] to the particular
[5:36:15] details of
[5:36:17] a use or idea.
[5:36:19] >> Yeah.
[5:36:19] >> A lot of the effort that um both the
[5:36:22] applicant and our legal folks have
[5:36:24] undertaken to draft the proposal that's
[5:36:26] before the commission tonight really has
[5:36:29] been to try to say, "Hey, we're going to
[5:36:31] take this step here
[5:36:33] that
[5:36:35] uh can be undertaken if this set of
[5:36:38] really tight conditions is met." And I
[5:36:41] say really tight, that's my opinion. I
[5:36:43] think it really is a tight set of
[5:36:45] conditions.
[5:36:47] I completely appreciate the value in
[5:36:50] saying along with thou shalt not um
[5:36:55] incorporate uh
[5:36:57] you know, or otherwise um
[5:36:59] uh
[5:37:00] maintain the capacity to produce more
[5:37:03] than a certain amount of power.
[5:37:06] Um given what we're talking about here,
[5:37:08] having having that threshold
[5:37:11] included to this language to say no more
[5:37:14] than 250 MW,
[5:37:16] that certainly aligns with what I think
[5:37:18] we as staff are really trying to work
[5:37:20] with the applicant to do which is to to
[5:37:23] compartmentalize this Uh as best as we
[5:37:25] can
[5:37:27] and I appreciate what's been mentioned a
[5:37:29] few times in terms of this being a
[5:37:32] change to the city's code which does
[5:37:35] mean that potentially other people with
[5:37:38] properties in similar situations that
[5:37:39] are willing to meet the same criteria
[5:37:42] they'd be eligible to do that.
[5:37:46] But you know certainly capping it at 250
[5:37:50] that that lines up really with what
[5:37:52] we're trying to do as staff.
[5:37:56] » I I guess the other threshold I'm
[5:37:58] concerned about is heat right and so I
[5:38:01] think that I'd be willing to
[5:38:04] recommend this to city council with the
[5:38:06] caveat of considering
[5:38:11] threshold
[5:38:13] capacity and
[5:38:15] I have one more consideration about
[5:38:19] heat.
[5:38:21] I don't
[5:38:22] Are you can tell us about things that
[5:38:23] you've considered about heat.
[5:38:26] >> This is the first conversation frankly
[5:38:28] but we've really talked about heat in
[5:38:30] terms of degrees and something that's
[5:38:31] quantifiable.
[5:38:32] >> I mean 5 degrees doesn't sound like that
[5:38:34] much or even 1 degree doesn't doesn't
[5:38:37] sound like that much but it it is
[5:38:39] >> It really is and it's a real thing and
[5:38:42] I'm not familiar with data centers and
[5:38:45] more importantly you know maybe fuel
[5:38:47] cells and the kind of heat that they
[5:38:49] generate but I mean you go back 30 years
[5:38:52] and
[5:38:54] the concept of urban heat islands
[5:38:57] and how impactful they can be on
[5:38:58] communities
[5:38:59] which simply usually it's the result of
[5:39:02] a lot of asphalt.
[5:39:03] Um on shaded asphalt and that type of a
[5:39:06] thing. I I have read enough about that I know that it's certainly not
[5:39:11] uncommon and I'm just saying this to
[5:39:13] provide some perspective and
[5:39:15] Commissioner Woodhouse said it well
[5:39:17] you know you get four or five acres of
[5:39:19] asphalt and it's very likely that in a
[5:39:22] micro setting that's raising the
[5:39:24] temperature more than 5°.
[5:39:26] >> One thing I'd like to say, and I think
[5:39:28] it's pretty clear here that this would I
[5:39:29] mean, we'll see what happens, but this
[5:39:31] would be one of the the largest build
[5:39:33] here. We don't operationally know
[5:39:36] what that means. Even when we make the
[5:39:38] claims,
[5:39:39] this it's theoretical until you actually
[5:39:43] run
[5:39:44] the program.
[5:39:46] And I think with it being theoretical,
[5:39:48] it would be prudent for us to put some
[5:39:50] guardrails in place.
[5:39:52] Because I mean, as much as this is
[5:39:54] pioneering
[5:39:55] and pioneering is a a great thing,
[5:39:58] you can't understand what actually
[5:39:59] happens until you try it, until it
[5:40:03] happens, and then you see operationally
[5:40:05] what happens. That's with anything.
[5:40:07] And, you know, I I I won't claim to be
[5:40:09] an expert on on the Bloom Energy,
[5:40:11] but we're going to we're going to figure
[5:40:12] out what happens once we run at that
[5:40:14] scale.
[5:40:15] If it's not you, someone will figure it
[5:40:16] out. And when that happens, there's
[5:40:19] potentially unforeseen consequences.
[5:40:22] For us to like know what those
[5:40:23] consequences look like, the only thing I
[5:40:25] think that's helpful is
[5:40:27] put guardrails and checkpoints. If it
[5:40:29] was as simple as us coming back to a
[5:40:30] meeting saying, "Hey, 250 works great.
[5:40:33] Let's bump it up to 500 or something
[5:40:35] like that."
[5:40:37] We have another hearing like that,
[5:40:38] right?
[5:40:38] >> And come back for another text
[5:40:40] amendment.
[5:40:40] >> Well,
[5:40:41] honestly,
[5:40:43] well, let's see what happens when we
[5:40:44] actually run the experiment. I don't
[5:40:45] mean to say experiment, when we're
[5:40:46] actually operationalizing
[5:40:47] >> Got it.
[5:40:48] >> right? Like it's it's like all the
[5:40:50] traffic stuff we discussed. We can talk
[5:40:52] left and right about what it means when
[5:40:53] we approve new developments,
[5:40:55] but as soon as we get the house and the
[5:40:56] high school and all that stuff in there,
[5:40:58] we see what the traffic actually looks
[5:41:00] like and we see if our projections were
[5:41:02] real. That's when the rubber meets the
[5:41:03] road cuz that's what really happens.
[5:41:05] >> Absolutely.
[5:41:06] Um let me just point-blank
[5:41:09] adding a 250
[5:41:13] megawatt cap
[5:41:15] to the language.
[5:41:17] Is that palatable? Does that seem like
[5:41:19] that's a good step to take? That's what
[5:41:20] I'm taking or that's what I'm
[5:41:22] understanding.
[5:41:25] >> Is that palatable, Jeff?
[5:41:27] >> Couple things just operationally to
[5:41:30] consider.
[5:41:31] Um the land only requires
[5:41:34] we can only go so far on this land.
[5:41:37] >> Because of the size of land.
[5:41:38] >> Because of the size, right? You can't
[5:41:39] put gigawatt out there.
[5:41:41] is a chance in our final final
[5:41:44] engineering
[5:41:45] that we might we might not be able to
[5:41:47] power 250. It may It might turn into
[5:41:49] 180. It might turn into 160.
[5:41:52] Um the other aspect is that we have to
[5:41:55] overbuild
[5:41:57] on the on the property. So, there is a
[5:42:00] for 250 megawatts
[5:42:02] we may require a cumulative of
[5:42:05] approximately 350. So, my request
[5:42:07] because of backup power
[5:42:10] on site.
[5:42:12] Also potentially
[5:42:15] if
[5:42:16] we know Bloom works well.
[5:42:20] Um where we have risk with Bloom
[5:42:23] is if in year four
[5:42:26] their output is 10% lower than we
[5:42:30] expected it to be.
[5:42:32] There could be a scenario where we would
[5:42:34] need to increase Bloom on site to make
[5:42:37] up for any degradation. So, all I'm our
[5:42:40] request would just be
[5:42:42] that um
[5:42:43] if you put a cap, we would probably
[5:42:46] request that the cap is 500 just in case
[5:42:49] we had to
[5:42:51] add anything to make up for efficiency
[5:42:54] degradation over time.
[5:42:56] And um
[5:42:58] and there is a scenario where
[5:43:01] we actually in engineering may not even
[5:43:03] be able to produce what we're proposing
[5:43:06] here. It might be
[5:43:08] we know it to be over 150. But those are
[5:43:10] just a few things to consider from an
[5:43:12] engineering standpoint that we would if
[5:43:14] we're going to make a change, we would
[5:43:16] request that the cap would be probably
[5:43:19] 400 or so. So that any extra build up to
[5:43:25] make sure we're producing the power
[5:43:26] we're committed to producing because the
[5:43:28] fuel cell
[5:43:30] could drop off in output.
[5:43:34] That would be our That's our only
[5:43:36] request.
[5:43:36] >> And Jeff, I actually I really appreciate
[5:43:38] that comment right there. Cuz as you
[5:43:40] walk through this, you're kind of saying
[5:43:41] you're going to see some operational
[5:43:43] things over time.
[5:43:44] >> Yeah, yeah.
[5:43:44] >> And I think it really speaks to my point
[5:43:46] there.
[5:43:47] I'm no I'm I I don't think any of us
[5:43:49] really know the number, but I I
[5:43:51] appreciate you even coming back, you
[5:43:52] know,
[5:43:52] >> Yeah.
[5:43:53] >> operationally you may have to have
[5:43:54] threshold and this may be a 2x or you
[5:43:56] know,
[5:43:57] 1.8x threshold or whatever it is, right?
[5:44:00] But I But I think I think you're echoing
[5:44:01] exactly what I'm saying, you know, it's
[5:44:03] like you're going to figure it out as as
[5:44:04] Yeah.
[5:44:05] >> Yeah.
[5:44:05] >> Things you will figure out when you're
[5:44:06] running it.
[5:44:06] >> Yeah, and we support a cap. I just want
[5:44:08] to be sure there are details in the
[5:44:10] engineering that we haven't
[5:44:12] needed to get into, but that's one of
[5:44:14] them as we contemplate backup power and
[5:44:17] having space on site if there's some
[5:44:21] degradation in performance, then we will
[5:44:23] be obligated to the client to increase
[5:44:27] our ability to to stay at if the
[5:44:30] agreement is 200 MW for example.
[5:44:33] >> Is that
[5:44:35] uh Are those numbers that
[5:44:37] >> Ryan has something he has to say. Say
[5:44:39] it.
[5:44:40] >> Yeah, so there's two ways we can look at
[5:44:42] it. So there's nameplate capacity.
[5:44:45] So that's how how much um
[5:44:48] uh of potential
[5:44:51] um
[5:44:52] uh
[5:44:53] say units that are on site, but then
[5:44:56] there's the delivery of power. So any
[5:44:59] power generation facility
[5:45:01] um
[5:45:02] will have an excess amount of nameplate
[5:45:05] that then goes to what is actually
[5:45:07] going, let's say, for a
[5:45:10] grid-tied system, a power plant here in
[5:45:13] um Lakeside, right? That has a higher
[5:45:16] nameplate than what's actually being
[5:45:19] outputted every day.
[5:45:21] >> Yeah.
[5:45:21] >> So, um
[5:45:23] that's where the the numbers shift here.
[5:45:26] So, to to our customer, we're saying we
[5:45:29] will give you 250 MW worth of power, but
[5:45:33] that's going to require the redundancy
[5:45:36] and the degradation over time, so that
[5:45:39] nameplate capacity uh
[5:45:41] is what is not fixed.
[5:45:45] >> Not fixed, right. So, if you if if you
[5:45:47] gave us if we gave a buffer there,
[5:45:50] and honestly, if we look, we're
[5:45:52] we'd recommend this to the city council.
[5:45:55] We have a buffer. You guys could do some
[5:45:56] homework and figure out like if if the
[5:45:58] number makes sense. Maybe we throw in a
[5:45:59] buffer for just to recommend it, and
[5:46:01] then, you know, when the city council
[5:46:03] comes and looks at this, we've got time,
[5:46:05] there's discussions. I I don't even
[5:46:06] think it has to be set hard, but a part
[5:46:07] of me is like, [snorts] 400 sounds
[5:46:09] palatable. That might not be the right
[5:46:11] number that we even end on, that might
[5:46:13] not even make the most sense here, but
[5:46:14] we throw something out there sort of a
[5:46:15] yardstick, and then we figure out if it
[5:46:17] makes more sense.
[5:46:18] >> Yeah, I mean, I think making the point
[5:46:19] with the concept that you want a limit.
[5:46:21] You don't want the two or three gigawatt
[5:46:25] kind of thing, or you know,
[5:46:26] at least
[5:46:27] >> Well, you start somewhere.
[5:46:29] >> And I can say I Our request, if we're
[5:46:31] going to do this, our request would be
[5:46:32] 500.
[5:46:33] We don't have to go pencil much more. We
[5:46:35] know pretty much that we're
[5:46:38] going to approach We would approach 400,
[5:46:42] and I think just as a buffer,
[5:46:44] that would be our request, so that we
[5:46:46] never
[5:46:48] risk
[5:46:49] having to ask for something again.
[5:46:52] >> Although
[5:46:53] you you get like you get something
[5:46:55] approved for 400, and then
[5:46:58] you see how things go, and it's actually
[5:47:00] a really good public opportunity to come
[5:47:03] back and say,
[5:47:05] this is how things are working at
[5:47:08] Volition, and we would request to have
[5:47:11] that
[5:47:12] a Title 15 amendment to have that
[5:47:15] threshold raised because of this reason.
[5:47:17] So,
[5:47:18] in some ways it seems like it's a like
[5:47:20] it would be good to have 400, and then
[5:47:23] come back
[5:47:24] later.
[5:47:26] >> The challenge, Shauna, will just be that
[5:47:28] in pretty short order,
[5:47:29] >> Yeah.
[5:47:30] >> once we have the final specifics of the
[5:47:33] client's request, the full capacity,
[5:47:37] um
[5:47:39] will
[5:47:40] we already know that we'll have
[5:47:43] um a nameplate need on site of more than
[5:47:46] 250.
[5:47:48] We will know the final amount
[5:47:50] pretty quickly, and I'm comfortable that
[5:47:52] it's going to be south of 500. It's
[5:47:55] going to end [snorts] up somewhere in
[5:47:57] the 400s.
[5:47:59] So, I So, I'm just throwing out a number
[5:48:01] as as 500, and I we also know that
[5:48:04] property cannot support any
[5:48:07] like not a megawatt more
[5:48:11] than
[5:48:11] >> [snorts]
[5:48:12] >> It's impossible to build above
[5:48:15] 400 total megawatts
[5:48:17] of any useful backup or otherwise system
[5:48:20] on that property. Just you can't do
[5:48:21] bigger.
[5:48:22] >> Okay, that makes sense.
[5:48:23] >> But I still think it's worthwhile we are
[5:48:25] considered beyond that property, too,
[5:48:26] cuz we're opening up the world. I know
[5:48:29] you guys want to compete and be running
[5:48:30] the Yeah.
[5:48:32] You know.
[5:48:33] But like it's more than just that
[5:48:34] property. When we make these changes, I
[5:48:36] think I heard um Congressman
[5:48:38] >> But you're talking about on a site,
[5:48:40] right? So, for example,
[5:48:41] if we were successful together here, and
[5:48:43] we began to build this building,
[5:48:46] um and then we had a need, and we knew
[5:48:47] that Stockman Flats had a really ideal
[5:48:50] location where we could build 100
[5:48:53] megawatts.
[5:48:54] Would we be approved to do 100 megawatts
[5:48:57] in a separate location
[5:49:00] in addition to 250 megawatts sitting
[5:49:03] over at Canyon Logistics. Our
[5:49:05] understanding would be that
[5:49:07] um you know, or if there was a cap of
[5:49:09] some sort that would be specific to a
[5:49:12] location.
[5:49:13] >> Well, that's correct. Yeah.
[5:49:15] >> That is correct.
[5:49:15] >> Yeah. There will be no other I can
[5:49:17] assure you there's there will be no
[5:49:19] other request from our company. I think
[5:49:21] anybody in the industry to build
[5:49:22] anything larger than what we're
[5:49:24] contemplating here. There's just no
[5:49:26] scenario that works in this
[5:49:28] um
[5:49:29] you know, in this in this area
[5:49:33] and um
[5:49:35] every other building, you know, any
[5:49:37] request you would get from like a total
[5:49:39] copycat of Volition would likely be a
[5:49:42] request for a data center that's 100
[5:49:43] megawatts or less.
[5:49:45] Just based on existing
[5:49:47] buildings available.
[5:49:49] >> All right.
[5:49:50] >> But the innovation drive will come,
[5:49:51] right? If these fuel cells are wildly
[5:49:53] >> But they'll get smaller.
[5:49:54] >> Yeah.
[5:49:55] >> So, these will things will get smaller
[5:49:57] from here anyway. I'm just saying
[5:49:59] >> We got to see the future, but I think we
[5:50:01] are sticking place there. I think it's a
[5:50:02] reasonable discussion.
[5:50:03] >> Maybe and I'm I'm I really appreciate
[5:50:06] this discussion.
[5:50:07] >> Yeah, this is helpful. We tried maybe to
[5:50:09] author some adjustments here.
[5:50:11] Um another thing that we talked at least
[5:50:13] loosely as staff about
[5:50:15] um
[5:50:16] and I think this is something we can
[5:50:18] execute on. The idea that there's a
[5:50:20] quota built into Title 15. That the city
[5:50:23] shall uh you know,
[5:50:25] can approve a certain number of these
[5:50:27] types of facilities.
[5:50:28] >> We have a similar sort of I mean, I know
[5:50:30] we are not the entity here, but you
[5:50:32] know, like with the Department of
[5:50:34] Alcoholic Beverage Control, there's a
[5:50:35] quota on licenses for liquor licenses, right?
[5:50:39] >> We have a quota on pickleball courts in
[5:50:42] a certain part of the community.
[5:50:43] >> What?
[5:50:43] >> I think it's something like that. So,
[5:50:45] yeah.
[5:50:46] so it's
[5:50:48] >> Is that public knowledge?
[5:50:50] >> Um it's in the code. You bet. Yeah.
[5:50:52] >> But we we have a quota on parks, too,
[5:50:54] don't we?
[5:50:55] In terms or something like that or at
[5:50:56] least a guideline. It's more of a
[5:50:58] guideline.
[5:50:58] >> Yeah, it
[5:50:59] So if that um
[5:51:03] is helpful, I think that also aligns
[5:51:05] with the spirit
[5:51:06] >> Yeah.
[5:51:07] >> of
[5:51:08] >> Pioneer
[5:51:08] >> this proposal which is you know it
[5:51:11] through the vetting that we've done so
[5:51:12] far as staff
[5:51:14] we're really comfortable with this,
[5:51:15] frankly.
[5:51:16] >> I
[5:51:16] >> Um
[5:51:17] >> I appreciate I don't know what number
[5:51:19] should be, but I think
[5:51:22] maybe even just maybe we can even just
[5:51:24] throw a condition that we'd like you to
[5:51:25] develop what would be seem reasonable. I
[5:51:27] think the numbers we talked about here
[5:51:28] probably sound reasonable.
[5:51:30] Um and I love the quota idea, too.
[5:51:32] >> But and threshold.
[5:51:34] >> So threshold on power.
[5:51:36] >> Yeah.
[5:51:37] >> In one respect or another.
[5:51:38] >> Byron just suggested, you know, maybe
[5:51:40] it's output power, which I think, you
[5:51:42] know, it's
[5:51:43] nameplate versus actual.
[5:51:45] >> So there might be a way to to kind of
[5:51:47] get to the same point where you can make
[5:51:49] sure that you're delivering on contracts
[5:51:53] and yet
[5:51:53] >> and have enough backup on
[5:51:57] » [clears throat]
[5:51:58] >> Cuz like we said in an in an earlier
[5:52:00] conversation tonight, we want people to
[5:52:02] be set up for success.
[5:52:04] You want to
[5:52:06] you know, give them the right tools and
[5:52:08] the right chance to be able to be
[5:52:10] successful.
[5:52:10] >> But I think even at the same time
[5:52:12] protections
[5:52:13] >> Correct.
[5:52:14] >> And I I think of them as guardrails,
[5:52:16] too.
[5:52:16] >> Yeah, correct. Yeah.
[5:52:18] >> Are there so kind of focusing
[5:52:21] back to just those two things
[5:52:23] >> Yeah.
[5:52:23] >> kind of max size on power
[5:52:26] creation
[5:52:27] uh
[5:52:28] thinking through and proposing at least
[5:52:30] a number of facilities that would be
[5:52:33] allowed it maybe anywhere in the city um
[5:52:36] and I'm thinking one or two
[5:52:38] you know, out of the gate.
[5:52:40] Um are there other
[5:52:42] aspects, other metrics that
[5:52:45] >> I think just to to go back and have I I
[5:52:48] understand about heat islands. I it's
[5:52:50] probably okay, but I think to if there hasn't been a robust
[5:52:54] conversation about heat
[5:52:57] that it would be nice to have staff have
[5:53:00] a discussion about.
[5:53:00] >> Deeper dive. I think that'd be helpful
[5:53:02] for everybody.
[5:53:03] >> Yeah, for sure.
[5:53:04] >> I think so.
[5:53:04] >> Yeah.
[5:53:04] >> All right. Well, with that if there's no
[5:53:07] other
[5:53:08] >> So would we make a proposal for these
[5:53:10] sort of additions on there or do we just
[5:53:13] kind of you know, we said what it we
[5:53:14] said to you and that's
[5:53:15] >> Trust you to take them to the city
[5:53:16] council.
[5:53:17] >> I'm sure that they're listening.
[5:53:19] Hopefully at 3X speed.
[5:53:20] >> Depending on where you want to go, I'm
[5:53:21] definitely going to reiterate some
[5:53:22] things to make sure
[5:53:24] it's your recommendation to the council,
[5:53:27] not what I'm
[5:53:28] saying.
[5:53:29] >> So so we could make a proposal that we
[5:53:32] add this on to
[5:53:34] whatever we approve tonight, right?
[5:53:36] >> Yeah.
[5:53:37] Okay. Well,
[5:53:39] I would entertain a motion.
[5:53:43] » So I'll I'll make a motion to add
[5:53:47] limits
[5:53:48] to the title 15 change.
[5:53:51] I don't know the best way to word that.
[5:53:52] >> Limits on power output.
[5:53:54] >> Threshold on power.
[5:53:56] >> The power output Byron, whatever you
[5:53:58] said, that's what I want to kind of
[5:54:01] So that's that's the proposal and then
[5:54:03] also a quota.
[5:54:04] We'll start with two.
[5:54:07] And again, you know, city council if
[5:54:09] you're listening
[5:54:10] come word smith these numbers to what
[5:54:12] makes sense. I know one of them is here
[5:54:14] as well, but that's what I'd say.
[5:54:17] >> And a discussion about heat
[5:54:20] impact to the community.
[5:54:23] >> I'm I'll make a motion for that.
[5:54:25] we add that to this.
[5:54:28] >> So what are you recommending for
[5:54:29] approval with that?
[5:54:31] >> Well, here's the thing. I'm not going to
[5:54:32] recommend for approval, but I want to
[5:54:34] add that on to what we're voting.
[5:54:35] >> Okay. Does that sound strange because I
[5:54:37] know that's kind of like me having my
[5:54:38] cake and eating it, too.
[5:54:39] >> Okay, no. Okay.
[5:54:40] So,
[5:54:41] that's it that's good. So, with that
[5:54:43] [clears throat]
[5:54:43] I
[5:54:44] you've made a motion to add those to
[5:54:47] this this to title 15 amendments.
[5:54:50] I
[5:54:52] Do we have a second?
[5:54:55] » I'll second it.
[5:54:56] >> All in favor?
[5:54:58] >> All right.
[5:54:58] >> I.
[5:54:59] >> This is just adding this on to this.
[5:55:00] >> Correct.
[5:55:01] Any opposed?
[5:55:03] >> So, we're voting on just adding. We're
[5:55:04] not voting on nothing.
[5:55:06] >> We're We're voting on the thing next.
[5:55:08] >> But I will be clear. I'm planning on
[5:55:10] voting against next.
[5:55:11] >> I mean, I like what you're adding. I
[5:55:13] still think this whole thing is rushed.
[5:55:14] That's my whole problem with it.
[5:55:15] >> Yeah, that's okay. Okay. So, did we
[5:55:17] vote? All in favor for adding those
[5:55:20] things to
[5:55:22] as a discussion?
[5:55:23] >> I.
[5:55:24] >> Okay. Any opposed?
[5:55:25] >> I'll say no.
[5:55:26] >> Okay.
[5:55:28] All right. So, that passes with one uh
[5:55:31] with one
[5:55:32] dissent.
[5:55:33] >> Did you vote, Madam Chair?
[5:55:35] >> I support that, yes.
[5:55:36] >> Great. So, five
[5:55:37] >> Who was the nay vote?
[5:55:38] >> I Commissioner Woodhouse.
[5:55:40] >> Commissioner Woodhouse. Okay.
[5:55:42] Now, I would entertain a motion on the
[5:55:44] title of 15 amendment.
[5:55:49] » Okay, I'll make motion that we accept
[5:55:52] the proposed title 15 amendment data
[5:55:54] center and onsite power generation
[5:55:57] facilities.
[5:55:58] >> Recommended to the city council.
[5:55:59] >> As recommended to the city council.
[5:56:02] >> Do we have a second?
[5:56:04] Am I allowed to second?
[5:56:06] I'll second it.
[5:56:07] All in favor?
[5:56:08] >> I.
[5:56:09] >> Yes.
[5:56:10] >> All opposed?
[5:56:11] >> Nay.
[5:56:12] no.
[5:56:13] >> Okay, what happens when it's a tie?
[5:56:15] >> Uh that's not a majority vote, right?
[5:56:18] So, the motion fails, and so there's not
[5:56:20] a recommendation for approval that goes
[5:56:22] to the city council, but it still goes
[5:56:24] to the city council for their
[5:56:25] discussion. So, city council will hear
[5:56:28] what you've had to say and can consider
[5:56:29] it, but it's not a
[5:56:32] recommendation necessarily from the
[5:56:34] planning commission.
[5:56:35] >> Okay. All right. And we'll look forward
[5:56:37] to your Thank you so much, Jeff, and your team, and we'll look forward to your open
[5:56:47] houses at the Spanish Fork Library
[5:56:50] next week.
[5:56:52] Thanks so much.
[5:56:53] Uh
[5:56:54] and that's all for that item, and we
[5:56:57] have one more quick item with the
[5:56:59] planning commission, and that is we need
[5:57:01] to elect a chair and a vice chair since
[5:57:04] And you guys can leave if you want,
[5:57:06] unless you really care about who's the
[5:57:07] chair and the vice chair.
[5:57:08] >> we do that now, or do we do it when the
[5:57:10] >> Do we wait until we have the new member?
[5:57:12] >> We can do that when our new member
[5:57:13] >> I'd certainly prefer that you do it
[5:57:15] tonight, so you're ready to go next
[5:57:16] week.
[5:57:17] >> So, you have somebody
[5:57:18] for next
[5:57:18] >> a minute.
[5:57:19] >> I just have a process question.
[5:57:20] >> Process question?
[5:57:22] >> So, does this go to the city council or
[5:57:24] not?
[5:57:24] >> It goes to the city council.
[5:57:25] >> city council can still
[5:57:28] make a decision on whether it proceeds
[5:57:29] or not?
[5:57:30] >> Correct.
[5:57:30] >> Yes.
[5:57:31] Thank you guys so much.
[5:57:33] >> Thank you.
[5:57:33] >> Appreciate the discussion, Jeff.
[5:57:35] >> Okay.
[5:57:36] >> Thank you, Jeff.
[5:57:39] » Yes, you you we probably do need to have
[5:57:41] a chair and a vice chair for next time.
[5:57:44] >> You can select however you'd care to.
[5:57:46] Often times it's just nomination and
[5:57:49] >> It is Thursday.
[5:57:51] >> Right.
[5:57:52] Yes.
[5:57:54] Is there anybody I I mean, are there are
[5:57:56] there those of you that are willing to
[5:57:58] be the a chair or vice chair?
[5:58:04] » Be willing to do either.
[5:58:05] >> Okay.
[5:58:07] What about you, Paul?
[5:58:09] >> Uh willing to do either at this point.
[5:58:12] >> I'd say go by seniority.
[5:58:14] >> Oh, yeah, how is seniority? You two are
[5:58:16] the Wait, Mike.
[5:58:17] >> Mike is
[5:58:18] >> I'm what?
[5:58:19] >> Mike, are you more senior
[5:58:19] >> Are you more senior than
[5:58:21] >> It's Michelle, Mike.
[5:58:23] >> Michelle, Mike.
[5:58:24] >> I think she beat you beat me by at least
[5:58:25] a month, right?
[5:58:26] >> Michelle, might be good.
[5:58:27] >> that.
[5:58:28] >> I'll nominate Michelle.
[5:58:29] >> Michelle would be great for the
[5:58:30] chairwoman.
[5:58:32] >> All right.
[5:58:32] >> Second.
[5:58:33] >> All in favor?
[5:58:34] >> I.
[5:58:35] >> Yes.
[5:58:36] Okay, Michelle you'll be awesome.
[5:58:38] >> Mike, you're the vice chair.
[5:58:41] >> Can I vote no?
[5:58:42] >> I think you can vote no.
[5:58:43] >> You'll be out numbered.
[5:58:43] >> Like are you totally
[5:58:44] >> I'm going to support Michelle. No.
[5:58:46] >> totally opposed to being the vice chair?
[5:58:47] >> No. I will help Michelle.
[5:58:49] >> Okay.
[5:58:49] >> And you'll be chair if Michelle cannot
[5:58:51] be here.
[5:58:52] >> Okay, all in favor?
[5:58:53] >> I.
[5:58:54] >> All right, we have a chair.
[5:58:56] >> And before we leave Shauna, thank you.
[5:58:58] >> Oh, yes.
[5:58:59] >> You've been great. Thank you. Lots of
[5:59:00] years, taught me a bunch.
[5:59:01] >> my longest meeting in 4 and 1/2 years.
[5:59:04] You wanted to stretch it out.
[5:59:06] >> [laughter]
[5:59:07] >> I'll make a motion to adjourn.
[5:59:09] >> Oh.
[5:59:09] >> Second.
[5:59:10] >> All in favor?
[5:59:11] >> I.
[5:59:11] >> Yes.
[5:59:13] >> [cough]
[5:59:13] >> Midnight.
[5:59:15] >> It just couldn't be done.