[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.

Planning Commission | August 5, 2026

Transcript