Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I have to wake up. Might take that if for Amanda. I can say something. That'll be fast. Great. That'll be great. That'll be fast. Yep. Is it popping up yet? Nope. Nope. It's going to think about it now. We need to hide. Okay, I've got it. So, no worries.

Took less time than I thought it would. You want to come over here? Got to re and stuff, but thanks though. I really, this is the second time that this has happened to me. I don't know. We kind of really need all those documents. Yeah, there's so many things. Should do you want to do you want to work on the tech while I conduct the opening stuff or do you want to wait? You can definitely you can start and I'll keep on working on this. Okay. Are we still recording? Yes. Okay. Yep.

All right. Um I'm going to go ahead and call this to order. Welcome to the planning commission for September 10th, 2025. My sincere apologies to all of you and you for the late start. Thank you for your patience. Um we've got everybody here but Lane and Amanda. And uh I'm going the vice chair Patterson has volunteered to do the prayer and the thought.

Okay. So my thought today is after it's been such a crazy day as everybody knows I was really sad about um thinking about our society. I really love people and I love how we care for each other and people usually have each other's backs and um I was very saddened today that that that was not the case with the shooting down at UVU and it just made me think, you know, love the ones you love and have people's backs, right? We're a community. Whether we're a family or whether we're a group, we're a community and we just need to have each other's backs and and be more kind and take care of one another. And that's what I have to say about that.

Do Father in heaven, we are grateful for this opportunity to be together and we thank thee for this opportunity to serve our community. We ask that thou would please be with us tonight as we discuss the agenda for this meeting. And we ask thee also to please bless the hearts of all those that are mourning. Bless and surround them with love. And we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, thank you everybody. So, we have three items on our business agenda today. Um, uh, pretty much, uh, all related, interrelated, I'm assuming. Is it going to be Miss Dis that's presenting or it's me on all three. Very good. Why don't you take it from here?

So, the first item is a public hearing item regarding the conditional use permit for gasoline service station use um as connected to the convenient store site plan proposal that we previously reviewed at the concept site plan and is also item three in your packet tonight. Um, the request specifically is located the address, just so you know, throughout all the the documents. I did get a legitimate address from the public works director is 1262 West Parish Lane. So, you will hear hear that repeated and I would ask that when you hit the address on your motions that that be the address that's noted for any motion made. So, 1262 West Say that again. 1262 West Parish Link.

So, just to note that. Um, that being said, there's two gas canopy locations on this site. There's one located on proposed building site to the north that is facing 1250 west more or less in the access point into 1250 or from 1250 west and then there's one that's more oriented towards Parish Lane. Uh both gas canopies. One is a a larger more like travel site space that allows larger vehicles to use that space in the back the northern canopy area. The one in the front is more for traditional vehicle use. the total together is 15 gasoline dispensers between all the canopies. Um and so that that was what would be expected to be constructed along with uh the rest of the site construction as the prior process moves forward. Um this is located in the parish lane gateway area as such. There are uh gateway area standards that are more applicable to the um site plan item which we'll get to but may have some limited application to a conditional use review where applicable. Um and then it is also in the legacy crossing CD area. The only reason that that is relevant is um because the the applicant group is aware of it trying the site needing to or matching into the neighborhood aesthetic and the landscaping and and you know the the environment that's already been created by previous development to the south of the site. It's again in limited aspects connected to the cup but more so on the site plan when we get to that. Um, finally, as you look at um the conditional use permit, you're you're looking at generally applicable things such as landscaping, buffering, parking, lighting, signage. You'll notice in the um the bolded comment on page two at the bottom uh I quoted code specifically that uh uh the only design construction elements to be discussed and considered for the addition of conditions to this request would be any specified or noted impacts that would require conditions to reduce or amilarate any potential health, safety and or public welfare impacts as part of the proposed service station

portion of the final site plan request for the quick trip project proposal. And the code actually has listed what types of things we're talking about. Conditions concerning use, construction, character, location, landscaping, screening, parking, hours, operation, other matter related to the purposes and objectives of title 12. Now, these need to be very very narrow in scope. They legitimately have to be something that is significantly of impact that needs to be a a condition or request to millilarate to to otherwise allow the use to go there. Um the public hearing advertisement has been issued in accordance with state and city requirement. You can see then in the the report the site plan location and the conditions of a a conditional use permit review. There's a full report there. I won't go into the details of it unless you'd like me to in more detail, but you can see there even the factors that are identified under item three. Those are the review factors. And then there's a breakdown of of all those articles and how they're addressed on page five of that report. So A through C and F are in the first one talking about suitability and harmony of the proposed site and adjacent property impact on the community safeguards to minimize this impact or D and E and H through J. And then on the next page um adequate access parking lighting fire protection vehicle circulation are in article G. Uh, a few features to note with the site plan that we we or excuse me, the CUP associated with this use um for for safety access and use. The um city through the city engineer has requested that the roundabout be installed as part of that 500 west 12 or 500 north 1250 west intersection. That's reflected. Um the the the property development team has also agreed to providing a wider um trail access along the frontage of 1250 west as part of this site. Um which will hopefully encourage safer use of pedestrian bike

etc. Um roundabout will create better circulation clearly at at 500 as part of that. So, um, other than that though, there weren't really any specific conditions that were noted to be ailarated. And you can see there there are uh five noted conditions that more are connected to uh final site plan approval, traffic management requirements, um the that it be a a conditional approval tied to the um convenience store site plan request and that they meet all applicable local, state, and federal rules and regulations. And then clearly if there's any violations then then there could be a revocation of it. So with that and then you can see the findings there under and with that I would defer to the planning commission and obviously there are multiple um documents items photos etc uh further uh evidencing what the the condition use permit request is for the site. So with that I turn it back over to planning commission you'd like to proceed.

Thank you. Um in the number one approve under sub five it talks about home occupations. I was confused about that. I might have just very likely just a simple cut. It is. Where is that at? Oh, whoops. It should just be for this conditional use permit. My my mistake in putting together. No worries. I thought I had refined all the I'm not jumping ahead. I just want to make sure that I That is That is So, it should be from the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit. Got it. Yeah. Right. Thank you. Does anybody have questions for for staff? I don't know who they're for. I have some comments. Well, I'm happy. So why don't you just let's throw them out. Let's see what you got. Whether it's for us or whether it's for Mike. Is that what we're doing right now?

Sure. Okay. So, um, under public welfare impacts, my only concern that was there in previously and there now are the kids, right, in all the apartments. Oh, across the street to the south. Yeah. Yeah. and them wanting to cross the street to go to the new um gas station, right, or the convenience store. Um I saw that U DOT has done a traffic whatever it's called. Uh the applicant actually did the traffic impact study and provided it to you do, right? Yeah. Um but we still don't have an answer back.

The their re-review hasn't been finalized. That that' probably be a better question to ask. Anyway, so I was thinking about them crossing and thinking about um all the semi were going to come down there and and backing, you know, going over. I just had a bunch of questions about that. Like the city plans on doing a roundabout. Yeah. When it as as needed or directed by the city engineer and public works at a future date. I don't know the exact future date. So, if this place goes in in a year, could it be a similar time frame or is it going to be like after that? I I don't I honestly don't know. I'm not trying to pin you.

I understand. I honestly don't know the time frame. So, what this establishes is the rideway and is part of this design that the city will have rights to develop into, but I'm not sure that this roundabout would be developed right away at the same time as this project. So, if the roundabout is not there and the trucks can't go down and round to get in, I might be I might be wrong. Am I wrong? As far as you understand, Spencer, can you say that again? Maybe. Could Could I have him come up? Yeah. Why don't we move on to the next? Am I going out of decorum? That's okay. Not a problem. Um, so what we're going to do is we'll have Who's here for the applicant? Let's just have the applicant. Yeah, that's us. Okay. You guys both want to come to the podium? Sure.

All right. Tag team, if you'll state your names, um, positions, address. Spencer Himus uh here with Galloway the engineer record. My name is Daniel Chambers. I'm here with Quick Trip. I work for Quick Trip. So So generally what I it would be a little more formal but given the breadth of this project and also all three of these we're going to do a little bit more loosey goosey sound sound okay? No, we're here. Um what my understanding is that the question Go ahead.

Yeah. So again, my understanding is the rightway would be established as shown in the drawings, but the city would initiate that process at a later date. And so the applicant group with with this site plan is accepting that alignment or that proposed roundabout design for future improvement when the city needs it. But again, I don't know if there's a different understanding from the Do you guys understand that the roundabout is not being developed at the same time and constructed at the same time as this uh development? Our understanding was that we were going to be working in coordination with the city uh and improving based upon what we put into the plans. Okay. Um so I mean that's that's been our direction so far.

Got it. So that that would be just misunderstanding on my part and and and I will defer to the applicants on this because they have had much more conversation with our city about the roundabout than I have been involved throughout. So then the roundabout is likely to go in during the development. I think our discussion was that we would get the design and uh we haven't gotten into discussions about the actual construction of it. Sure. Sure. And it wouldn't it it it it isn't their responsibility to construct the roundabout. Correct. Right. That's a city project. That's the city project.

Yeah. In fact, just across the street, just to add some context to the very nature of the question, there's already been um some um I guess you'd say rightway access that's been been acquired from the property owner across the street directly to the east for the same improvement. Yeah. the the direction that I think the vice chair is headed and I'm not I don't mean to put too many words in your mouth. Jump in here if if I'm saying it wrong is that she wants to make sure that the traffic patterns are going to be safe. Correct. Yes. Because I wonder if the roundabout is not going to be there at the same time that it's opening where those semi-truckss are going to enter. Are they going to stop on 16? Is it 1650? 1250.

1250. Are they going to stop on 1250 and wait to be able to turn to come in, thus backing up traffic here and here over the overpass? No. So, we have things figure it out in my designed in a way where the access point's going to function uh based on that roadway uh you know continuing through until the city puts that in. But there's still the access back there where trucks can turn into the space. Correct. Right. at the very north end correct but not like in the middle. Correct. Okay. Yeah. The middle the location closest to 1250 actually if you look at it has a internal island that will only allow for ride in right out. Did look at all of this but I What page you on?

It's on the site plan which is the third page of of the 89-7494 center build. You don't happen to have a a page of the PDF uh packet. And then also to help with that, we do a lot of uh wayfinding signage as well too. And so the way that we design the sites is we intend to um delineate between the auto and then any larger vehicles like that. And we do sign it that way and make sure that that everyone is aware of it too. So to help help with that traffic flow, too. So that's something that we will also do as part of our standard package. Good. And I appreciate that. But hold on one second. and and we're still waiting from uh for UD do to conduct their you know traffic control study, right?

That's one of the conditions noted in the and do we does the applicant have any understanding of of where that process is with UD do currently? Yeah. So we are in our second round of review. They've already done preliminary reviews and at this point we're just tying up kind of the loose ends uh from you know just adding comments here and there to make sure that the plans really detail what's going on but they have a good understanding of what's being proposed and uh we feel like we're in alignment there to get an approval shortly.

One thing I will note about well there's two things I will note about this site that are I guess lightly relevant here and more so as we continue discussion on the other items. The property right now obviously has had a previous um industrial use, has a cement plant, and has a lot of leftover remnants from that use on it all over the place, scattered. So, in some ways, you could argue as it sits, it is somewhat of an attractive nuisance. Plus, it's swampy with with quite a bit of identified wetland impacts to the property, and it doesn't even have any walkway across the frontage of it. So, one way to look at what has been provided is there actually are improvements of three things that are currently unsafe and detrimental to the general welfare of the public at this location

that could be improved with this development. That is something, right? Yeah, I have no doubt about that. I was impressed by a lot of things on it, but I I do have questions about some things. Are there going to be sidewalks on that side on 1250? Yeah, we have a large trail that's proposed along 1250.

It's wider than normal. It's actually a 10 foot wide asphalt trail that's required is requested by the engineer to to connect to what's already been improved on the south and that actually will continue forward all the way northward to the U dot ridge that will eventually be built and create a full systemic access along 1250 where a typical sidewalk is going to be 4 to 6 in. You're getting a much wider access way for public use along that. And another question because we don't typically bike over there, but we bike all over randomly wherever. We don't particularly like going over the overpass, but we have and we do when we just wander. Are do you know? Maybe that's a question for you. How are they going to do bike lanes or are they going to do bike lanes 1250?

They're the 1250 this trail will be wide enough to accommodate at 10 ft. It'll be very very full trail to do that. And that's what it's meant for is is pedestrian and or biking and access. Okay.

Yeah. Um from a from a comprehensive area perspective with the this may be getting a little little bit off, but I think it is relevant. Um when UD do the widening of I-15 and they do the rebuild of Parish Lane, there will actually be um pedestrian/bike accesses on both sides of Parish Lane with that redevelopment, which will be helpful and further allow for more safe access within this area as this area continues to develop. And then like I said, you'll have the bridge that will connect to Community Park on the far north end that will also be a trail access that will allow for walking and uh bicycle access up and over from um either side of the freeway back and forth. So this trail start here is very crucial because of the long-term benefits what the city's trying to accommodate to connect to that trail system on the north end and then what's going on with Parish Lane and I-15 on the south end.

Okay. I wish we could access the documentation. I did have another question under um the US Army Corps. Oh, and that's in the site plan. Just wait till the plan that's in the site plan and I will come to that back to that at the site plan. Okay. All right. Um that answers my question for this. Perfect. Thank you. Who else has questions for either staff or the applicant?

Okay. Um so, anything else you'd like to add for the conditional use? Yeah, we're um very excited to be here and um it's been a good experience working with the city and the staff and um we're very much looking forward to one of our first first new facilities here with you guys. So very excited. Thanks. Thank you. All right. So I'll bring it back to the commission. Uh for the conditional use permit, as you all know, we're looking for detrimental impacts and then if they cannot be mitigated, then it would be a harder consideration. But as mind, I just uh ask are we want to do the public hearing before you go? We are going to want to do the public hearing. I just wanted to make sure we were Thank you for the reminder.

Seven seconds.

Yeah. Yeah, they'll get seven seconds. That's for sure. I am going to pause. And I'm going to go back to the public hearing and I'm going to open it up to the public for comment and ask anybody who'd like to provide comment come to the podium. State your name and address. Seeing no takers, I'm going to close the public hearing. Thank you everybody. Um anyways, this is where I was headed. As we consider this conditional use permit, we're looking for detrimental impacts. From everything that I'm seeing, I don't have any issues with the impacts and how they've been mitigated. I'm just questioning if anybody else has any issue that they'd like to discuss on the conditional use. you identified the traffic which was one my first initial

right um potential detrimental impact in my head when I was reading through this and that is listed if you were to approve as condition two in your packet. Well, this is where I am. I'll just unless you'd like to add additional Yeah, if you want to. I I I'm totally open to it. I look at this and I and I see all of the uh guard rails, so to speak, that are being imposed on the applicant that the quote unquote detrimental impact of traffic here is not so uh detrimental as to need additional guard rails than what is already being imposed.

So, that's sort of where I'm at, right? So, um, the impact study because I think I know where you're headed with all of this, but I don't recall now because there was so much reading that I did. Um, wherever you go. Well, I think you're going to do this, but does it say in here about the Yeah. So, the applicant is required to receive traffic access management approval. And so, their access management is going to be imposed by UD do and they're the experts. far better than this. Oh, for sure. Yeah. So, I'm just like, okay, that's a great condition. That's that's that's what I was inarticulately explaining. You're great. You're a great person. Okay.

All right. Well, seeing no other, you know, jumping for the conversation, I will take a motion.

I'll make a motion. I hereby make a motion for the planning commission to approve the conditional use permit request from Galloway Engineering for gasoline service station as located on parts of parcels 06-006-000082 and 06-006-118 known as 1262 West Parish Lane for the business Quick Trip. The conditional use permit shall be subject to the following conditions of approval one through five with scratched out home occupation at the bottom of that and suggest um suggestions reasons for uh act or suggested reasons for actions findings including A through C.

Excellent. I would suggest this is pedantic. Uh also striking this the word this prior to home occupation just to make the sentence not have a remnant. No, just I accept that. Okay, very good. Friendly amendment. I have a a motion. Second. I have a motion and a second. We're going to go ahead and vote on or well any any discussion on the motion? All right. I'm going to start down here. I I I I I I Okay, so that passes unanimously. Moving on to business item number two.

I want to let you guys know that I talked to Jennifer and she is also stumped about what is going on. So it's not going to be working for the rest of this meeting. Okay. Okay. I'm sitting close then. Yeah. So I can read. No problem.

All right. Why don't we go to the landscaping waiver? Okay, let me just get to that. So on this one, uh, per CCC 12.51.050 waiver of strict compliance, there is an opportunity for the applicant to pursue, um, I guess you'd say variation or minor alterations to the requirements of landscaping standard established by city codes. Um the the applicant has submitted that request. Uh you can find that in your packet if you have access to your packet information. I apologize again for not being able to be pulled up here. There's email request submitted to us on uh September 4th. Um and that is including your packet. Uh the the key factor note in the applicant's request the proposed landscaping improvements uh shows they're planning to install 22.5% of landscaping overall for the site. Whereas in the Parish Lane Gateway area, they're only required to do 15%. So the first key point is they're providing 7.5% more landscaping to the site than is otherwise required in the Parish Lane Gateway corridor. Uh when you look at the requests that are part of the actual uh waiver of strict compliance, the first one is um there be a waiver of landscaping buffer requirement per the uh Parish Lane Gateway District. There is a requirement typically that they would do a landscaping buffer requirement right along Parish Lane. But in this case, if you were to look at the site plan, you'd see there's two very large storm drain pipes. There's 36 uh diameters that are very big, and they're right where the landscaping would otherwise want to go. So the trees have been designed to be planted immediately to the north of that and still trying to meet the spirit of that intent but unable to do so because of the the higher priority um improvements that are in the ground at that location. The

second request is per our code there is a requirement that one tree be planted for every 25 ft of public street frontage that's in our landscape ordinances as found in C12.51. Um the applicant is only applicant group is only deficient by three trees along 1250 west. They do meet it otherwise along parish lane where again they can can install that with that water line. Um they they are have articulated in their request that this is likely due to the addition of the large roundabout impact to the site that otherwise would not be impacting the site and it would be just a drive access and also um other other utilities as well as they the the trail itself could possibly be impacting it. They do further articulate that overcrowding is is not good for the long-term sustainability of the trees. And so, um, they feel like that that's an adequate request, but even beyond that, they've also noted that they would plan to plant three additional trees on the site. Um, and so for these reasons, they're requesting this waiver. Um, I provided in the packet the map of the images. Again, you know, the site now for the previous item. Um, as we look at CCC 12.51.050C 050C that outlines the the findings that are required. There's three of them and there's a a a short analysis relative to that. The first one is looking at whether or not the intent of the chapter and the provision for the waiver is authorization is preserved. Um the requested I just know the requested waiver compliance does no harm to the intent of this chapter the provisions which are landscaping otherwise in this case which the waiver is authorized. Um the granting of the waiver request does not would not result in any known or identified adverse impact on any surround properties. In fact, as as was discussed in the last item and further outlined herein, um the applicant has has worked um hard to improve the site. They're providing above and beyond

landscaping. They're still providing for as best they can these expectations were there other challenges with the road and or uh storm improvements. The only thing I noted in bold is I said staff would recommend that the planning commission request the applicant group uh update the landscaping plan to to clearly show where these three additional trees would otherwise be installed. Um and then finally as noted in in 3A um uh the let's see strict application of landcaping requirements along parish lane 1280 west could be would be argued to be unreasonable for already reason identification by the applicant. further the applicant group is planning to install at least 22.5% which I already noted um well above the requirement and so that would address the 3A and 3B I didn't feel was applicable in this specific case as it relates to the code so that that's why it didn't address 3B. So based on them seeming to to clear the findings and the test of the findings uh staff felt comfortable with the recommendation for approval of the waiver rest of strict compliance application. Um, you do have recommended motions in your packet. Again, noting that the address for the site would be 1262 Westp Parish Lane. Um, and then the findings are identified. Also, I realize now it says ABCDE. It should be ABCDEF if you were to do an approval. So, I apologize for that.

Um, and then, uh, you'll see in the packet the supporting landscaping, irrigation plan, uh, the code guidance on the waiver strict compliance in their email. So, with that, I would turn it back over and defer to the planning commission how you'd like to proceed. Excellent. So, um we're going to proceed to questions for staff. I'll start. Um my questions are, do we really need the three trees? It's it's to meet the requirement of the code. So, I guess we're in the process of I find this site rather extraordinary for a number. I I would like like I would say if the planning commission felt like that that wasn't required, I I feel like you would have discretion to Wayne. Well, here's here's where I'm headed. I'm I'm going to ask you a question. So, it's a busy site. You've got lots of trucks. You got lots of cars.

More trees are obviously going to have to be put into places where there are, you know, adequate sight triangles and sight lines. Yeah. Um I'm just curious if it's necessary. You've got this is the furthest west de development we're ever going to have. And so, yeah, it might be really nice to have the trees down there. Uh I'm just curious if it is necessary. I feel like within the the allowance of the waiver strict compliance, you have the discretion to make that determination. Okay. Um, are they running out of space for these three trees or is there going to be plenty on the west side there? I I don't know. I guess that's a I know maybe it sounds maybe it's even a little facicious. I'm sure there's space for it, but whether or not

it's really really going to be required outside of the code requiring it, sure, that's really I guess determination to make with the waiver. Okay, that that was my only question. questions. Oh, yeah. Okay. You want me to start shooting? Yeah, go ahead. Okay. Um, so I do have a question though about the drawing to the west of it between the gas station and Legacy. Are those apartments? Am I correct? So, I I talked about that briefly in the the site plan, but I can address that now. Yes. Yes, there's a conceptual rendering or an idea idea of that potentially being a use for that property as as part of the future subdivision, but that has not been identified as a for sure thing for that area. Is this part of them or is this something else?

That's something else. It was conceptually drawn in there to to just kind of show how the site could link into but not with them, not associated with them at all. That's correct. Okay. So then if that is true, having three more trees, though it's only three, but having three more trees as a buffer between semi trucks and loud noises and people coming in. Yeah. If you have a potential residential use, were it to go residential, there could be an argument for I guess those three trees potentially. True. But isn't it the development's responsibility that is coming in which means that it would be the departments that would need there would be a reverse there would re a reverse landscaping review on on in that

I agree with that in all fairness but I see where you're headed and I think you have a legitimate direction. Well, thank you. Keep going. Keep going. Thanks, Mason. Um so anyway that was my question about that that um anyway you answered it and then you had said or I had read in there that there was deficiency along parish lane in regards to the landscaping. Oh the burming is that you want to talk about the burming. There's a burming requirement that's part of parish lane gateway standards. Yeah, and originally that deficiency was identified both by the applicant and by us and the applicant group has stated that that they will be sure to include the burning in the final uh construction drawings that we provided.

But again, that could be I suppose something that could be added to any that needs to be just verify that that would be provided as part of the final landscaping plan. Okay. I suppose that could be part of their motion. Good. You know it. And then also um we are to define or rather clarify whether it's 22.5 or 30%. We have that clarification. I h I haven't uh explained that yet, but we had a DRC meeting on Monday. I would bring that up in the the site plan, but I'll bring that up now. Yeah, it's 22.5%. For sure. For sure. And so that's what's in the documentation. So that's why I took I took up under versus over to make sure we're showing at a minimum what the the improvement is over the requirement.

Okay. Yeah. All right, I'm good. Excellent. All right, we're gonna um open up to the applicant or applicants uh representatives and um I'm going to assume your names and positions haven't changed.

Correct. So, uh my question to you, well, do you want to start with anything or are we okay to jump into my question? Yeah, I just um I talked with the property owner that would be uh potentially next to us there, Spencer, and if they do any sort of residential um we were going to enter into an escro agreement that we would um put the money up for those trees in the future if they ever did any residential where you were talking about that we'll we'll make sure those trees get added if that was something you guys wanted. Well, is that something that legally can be between you two in since it's already in code or is that something that we need to

The way I look at it is if it's not part of this waiver compliance, it's going to be required. So, if you're going to grant them leniency on the three trees, it would need to be with this decision. Otherwise, they're still deficient by requirement. So, so what I I guess I'm saying is to in order to grant the lenency of the three trees, it would need to be part of this this item two right now that we're discussing. Why don't I ask my question? Do it. Okay. So, my my question was I I recognize it's a pretty busy site. Um I personally have no qualms with uh waving strict compliance. My question to you is where are you going to put those three trees?

So, I have had discussions with our landscape architect who put this plan together. Uh he said that there could be places uh similar to what you're mentioning as far as a buffer uh along the it'd be the northern and the western sides where they might be able to fit in some additional trees uh up he said up to three would be something they could work through. Um so definitely something that we were prepared to accept. So it's feasible. It's not going to impact the health of those. Correct. It it's only an issue along that frontage space due to the larger uh access point where that roundabout's at. Right. Right. Because we can't put the trees in the asphalt there. Totally.

Uh no. And we don't need more along that area. Yeah. Are you finished? I'm done. Thank you. Okay. So, you did I get it right when Mike said um you're going to be clarifying the burm on parish, right? or is that you're clarifying it when we are planning to do the burm and we were going to work with staff uh as they're working on their final review of that final and illustrate that that burm is in place. Okay. But that is is that something that we need to you you could put that in as a packet but you could include a statement about that. Okay. Okay.

Anybody else with questions for the applicant? addressed mine. I I missed what you said. What you guys were just discussing addressed my my question. Do you guys have anything else you'd like to add? All right. Thank you so much. We're going to proceed to the uh public hearing. I'm going to open up the floor to have a public hearing on this one. Dang it. [Laughter]

That's hilarious. I'm going to proceed with this public meeting and uh follow it back to the commission for discussion. Um I'll eat out I'm I'm fine with the three additional trees. I just didn't know if it was going to be too jam-packed and it apparently is not going to be. So, because I was looking at the how jammed it was on the road sides, right? Um it's going to be lovely. I mean, I want Centerville to be Tree City USA, but um yeah, I'm sure you do too, Gary. Yeah, exactly. I have no qualms with the motion as written. Uh I I think it just should add for clarifying reasons or for clarification um

about the burm. Yeah, about the burm that there needs to be that it's deficient. What kind of language? Let's craft that language before we launch into Mr. Attorney. Mr. Attorney nose goes. I need you to come up with some good legalies on this one. Um, how should it be worded? Regarding I'm not gathering where where you're going with the location of it. Exactly. It says that on Parish Lane there's deficiency in the landscaping. He said that they've talked about it, but it hasn't been We just need to make sure that that is a verified thing. Yeah. that the location is going to be approved by I guess it would probably be the city

staff would verify it meets the intent of the code for the brewing establishment along Parish Lane said okay is that something that the city engineer approves or we actually uh it would be me okay in in all honesty look at the landscaping and verify it yeah that would be my only um update and then is it as written Yeah. Does it say No, it needs to be 1262. Yeah. Is that what you're asking? Oh, what I'm asking is does it say in there um to add the additional three trees? Yeah, right there. Let me let me zoom in. Sorry.

Yeah, I I was taking issue with the trees removing it. It's It's there. We do have it on the bigger screen. Oh, wow. Okay. Can you make it a little bigger? I'm that kind of that blind even with my glasses. Okay, great. And I can give you the exact citation of where that burning is required if you just bear with me for a minute. Sure. I'm comfortable without the codeed. If you want it, I'll go ahead and make a motion with the is if that's okay. Okay. Yeah. And then

tell me if this is going to meet, you know. Uh, I'll go ahead and make a motion that we approve. Um, I hereby make a motion for the planning commission to approve the landscaping waiver of strict compliance request from Galloway Engineering for the quick trip site landscaping plan as located on parts of parcels as listed in the report known as 1262 West Parish Lane and the approved waiver elements shall be as follow. uh number one as written, number two as written, and number three that regarding the BM staff um that the applicant would need to make sure that staff uh has verified that the landscaping BM meets code.

Yes. And then the motion would include Oh, yeah. For suggested reasons A through E, including the last E, which is F. Thank you. But Also a clarification, please go back because the address is incorrect and you said as stated. Go back for the address at 126. Yep. Correct. All references to the address to be 1262. Okay, that is my motion. Then I second it. All right, I've got a motion and a second. We'll start down here. I I I I I Okay, that passes unanimously. Moving on to staff item or business item number three. it.

We're getting there. Okay. The third item. This is not a public hearing. Dang it.

Uh for Quick Trip Convenience Store, uh final site plan. This is following on the previous um concept site plan that the planning commission reviewed back on June 11th, 2025. Um the applicant is now ready to move forward with the final future or the final site plan review. This review has gone through multiple iterations of review with the um development review committee of the city which is obviously all the department heads and the departments that participate in review of of these types of projects. Um as was previously noted on the last two items, uh highlights of this improvement are a roundabout improvement at at 500 North and 1250 West. um the improvement of the trail system along 1250 West and obviously the development of the property that has otherwise been uh undeveloped at this point and had its previous development. Uh one of the noted um areas that we we'll get into in just a second is there are some waterways and and identified wetlands in the the site. And uh another item to note that has been discussed at the conceptual site plan as well as in your packet today is that uh this re requested uh final site plan work to be approved. We would request the staff that it be contingent upon the minor subdivision approval proposal by WG group. Um that is noted as a condition in the in the recommended um approval should you go that direction. Um, one element of the the approval for the uh final subdivision would be that that final subdivision be recorded and all associated bonding also be in place before any construction activities would actually start with this final site plan. So, I'll come back to that and and kind of give you some suggested wording that is not in your packet, but addresses some of that to further um strengthen that commentary. Um the uh the final site plan review and

analysis is identified on pages 3 and four for this specific item. Um and the standards approval of condition for a final site plan or per CZC121.110F. The applicant did initiate the final site plan process back on July 11th, 2025 when they paid for the application submitted the documentation. Have been working with staff since that time. Um element one which is a final site plan shall conform to its associated con conceptual site plan. The final site plan does in fact conform to what was previously uh accepted by the planning commission for the conceptual site plan and the discrepancies that time for the most part have been addressed absent things that we've now covered which is the the CUP the waiver of strict compliance and a few other lingering things that are in the checklist that I'll I'll briefly hit on in a moment. Um number two is the entire site shall be developed at one time unless a phase development plan is approved by the proving authority. There is no there is no um phasing plan desired or required for this site. Um there is as we have previously discussed some future road access connectivity to the property to the west that is going to be somewhat left available uh should the property owner um of the remainder of the parcel want to develop in the future and connect into this site. Um and then the third item is a site plan shall conform to the applicable standards set forth in this title and other applicable provisions of the centerville municipal code. Conditions may be imposed as necessary to achieve compliance with applicable code requirements. Um there are there is a list A through K of conditions that are established to um link to a a suggested approval motion or the planning commission to go that direction. If you'd like to discuss any of these in particular, we can. But I will now go over the checklist in particular um and identify just a few things that have since been either addressed or discussed at the DRC um relative to the site. Uh and these

things would also be noted as a condition. These things being checklist items that still need to be resolved um are tied to uh item eight of the conditions found under the approval uh would would address those. So, let me go over those checklist items for you and give you some updates on them. So, following our DRC meeting that we held last Monday, um question mark items have been addressed. There was one comment about fireflow testing and the determination was that the applicant group had worked with our water department to satisfy fire suppression requirements and the um uh the fire marshall that was in attendant was comfortable with that plan. So, there was some concerns about water pressures, but it sounds like we'll be working with the the applicant group to identify how best to address the water pressure to satisfy those requirements. So, that's been addressed. Um, I did note uh where there's a need to get that approval from UD do and some form of approval from Davis County Health Department. That is a condition that is explicitly outlined in your approval conditions. So, that they are aware of that. The applicants aware of that. We've covered waivers compliance. Um when we talk about the um wetlands mitigation where it says evidence of compliance with applicable federal law local state laws and regulations um they have put together as you see a request for mitigation. The property owner is aware of what's required to comply with that mitigation and we heard in the meeting that they believe the property owner believes that the mitigation requirements of the Army Corps will be addressed and improved by the end of the year. So that should satisfy and cover that requirement. That that's that's what they believe will happen. So we'll see. But but bottom line is that yeah that is is a tied in condition to um again this checklist and the requirements of the check was being met with that condition of recommended approval. Um and then moving on to the landscape we talked about the discrepancy it is 22.5%

so that will need to be adjusted on the final drawings for the site plan and landscaping to be consistent. Um they the note about the gating enclosure and coloration of screening wall to match building. Uh the applicant team has said that they will get me uh an indication an image of some kind to show that that does in fact match the building and the aesthetic of the walls. So once we get that then they'll have that in the file. So we'll verify that as staff and that is again a condition is captured by the um approval checklist or approval conditions. And then uh wall signage. I uh have discussed with the applicant that the wall signage needed to be further clarified. Provided them some code to help them to better assist me in getting me that final information. There's just two signs that seem like they're variable signage boards on both walls that have indications of food on the elevations in your packet. I just don't know what the dimensions are and I need to make sure that they are compliant with code. So again, the applicant group is aware of that and I sent that email to them either Monday or Tuesday after we met just to get further clarification. So again, that is something that can be captured with the the notion in your packet. Um there was this minor note that they needed to address and um that's it. Then finally, the um updates to the the motion um relative to the quick trip final site plan. When we talked about the link to the minor subdivision approval, if you look at uh article 9 of the or condition 9 of the approval, I just have added after where it says this includes that the final minor subdivision plat will need to be recorded in accordance with title 15 of the city municipal codes comment and associated bonding will will be accepted by the city prior to construction. So I would add that that that that probably should be added to that following our discussion with the applicant group on Monday and per direction of legal. And then also item 10 I did note where it says um development related cost

consistent with city ordinances and fee schedules. I've added comment. This includes any bonding that may be applied. So I would just suggest those agenda and with that I would defer to the planning commission how you would like to proceed at this point. Thank you. Um thank you very much Mr. Show me where in these conditions of approval it talks about the Army Corps because I didn't see that. That is so it's a catch all relative to the Centerville final site plan. Oh, I see where we're at. So, yeah, that's fine. Yeah. And that that element would be captured on page three under additional items. Thank you. And on that um one requirement about the bonding, if you could just say that that as required by the city rather than accepted.

Okay. Just to That's good. Thank you, Lisa. As required by what? As required bonding as required. Just as required by the city. By the city. I don't remember the exact language, but rather than accepted, just say required. And I can give you that new language with required if you need that. Okay.

I had a question about um it looked like the city engineer said there needs to be the subdivision plat um acceptance. I wasn't sure kind of where we were on that process or I'm glad how that plays into this.

Yeah. So, I'm glad you brought that up. So, uh that is noted in the P in the documentation the report. Uh the the property owner has actually submitted that application. That process has started um and started circulation on uh Tuesday. We received their application late last week. So, the way it'll work is the actual subdivision because it's a minor subdivision will solely be reviewed and approved as an administrative uh review by staff and then me by code as a zoning administrator would have the authority to eventually approve that subdivision were it to meet all the requirements of our city codes per the development review board review of it. So, um, what the reasoning is is as you look at the parcels right now, they're kind of these carved the ones like a carved kind of odd shape and then almost like a C-type shape, right? Um, the goal would be to create a lot that matches identical the the site plan that's found in your packet. So that then it would be a two lot subdivision and that's what the applicant has provided. So that then this matches up correctly to the lot for which this property will be developed. And so all of that is included in the motion.

Yeah. And that is found as article nine or condition nine. Okay. Great. Thank you.

All right. I'm taking it back to the applicant if anybody wants to come to the podium. I'm going to have questions. Oh, you do? Oh, okay. I thought you asked him. I didn't ask any. Oh, that's fine. All right. So, um gonna get in trouble on one of these rounds. Throw it to everyone. Good thing I really like him. It's okay. Do you want to ask questions to the applicant at this point? Um no, they're for Mike. Okay. So, well, one I do have one. Go ahead. um if that subdivision is accepted and um created on the west side.

It seemed to me when I was looking at the drawing that they would have access to cut through your parking lot. Does that not seem dangerous to you?

Um well, we had that access. That's something we worked in conjunction with our seller that they had an access point there um to be able to get any traffic that they had through there. Um we designed the location of it to be optimum to be able to allow the traffic to flow through the site um for them to have the ingress and egress there. I I will note and add that there also again this is conceptual so we need to be careful we don't have a firm development plan in place but there's also a conceptual identity of a location on the north along 1250 west for additional access point to that property so you would have one to the north and then the shared access use available through Quickrip that's the concept design for the other property if it were to be developed in the future so it's not just one access point I guess

no I I yes I see that that there are two. I just think if somebody's in a hurry to get to work or somebody's in a hurry to get home and you've got the store here and you've got the gas pumps here, it seems very dangerous to me. And that again, I defer to the

So because of that, there is a lot of traffic that does happen in between the canopy and the store. So one thing that is unique about Quick Trip is if you look at a lot of the dimensions compared to a lot of our competitors, our dimensions are significantly larger than a lot of the competitors with that intention knowing that there is more traffic. Sometimes that traffic is a little faster. So that's why we have it spaced the way that we do and designed the way that we have it um just to be able to make the safest possible um ingress and egress for the customers and the the vehicles. Is this a pattern that you have in some of your other locations? Is this tried and true?

Yes, we Yes. Yes, we have this in a lot of other uh conditions around the country where we'd have an access point in that same spot and that's what we found to be the the safest. I still have concerns about that because I just watch people at any gas station pull from the pump and then just want to get up to the convenience store to either go to the bathroom or to buy something. And with cross traffic coming through, if you're building that, you're going to have lots of people with cars, right, that are going to go through there.

Is there any way to to change that? that would somewhat depend on the uh future plans of what Wright Development has over there. Um so that would there's there is some contingent on that and what plans that they're going to do in the future and where that they would like the access points. But um as they develop it and when they develop it, I think we'd be very open to working with them. We've had a a good relationship over the past year. We meet once a month over once a month just to coordinate and make sure that everything is moving forward. And that's something that we can continue to do as they develop their property. So, as it's currently um drawn and as it will currently be built according to what you're anticipating and wanting, are you leaving that area open? Like you're not planting things right there and you're having sort of a driveway opening there that would go to just the current gravel or whatever the weeds that are there.

Correct. It would be curved and barricaded off. would be very until such time as they made their connection to it or if in the future they needed that connection moved, we would have to adjust and adjust the landscaping accordingly with it. Does that answer your question? It answers my question. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um, more questions for the applicant. Um, no, I think my rest of mine are just maybe clarify. Was it an agreement between the parties that there is that access point or is that just or is that what you're proposing so that in the event there you know the parties want that access point that's still up for discussion?

That is something that they that they had asked for and connected into the conceptual plan that they had um that that we would connect into it. Yes. From my understanding, uh, it's also something that the fire department's going to require to make sure that there's adequate access for emergency services.

Now, one one limitation, that's an interesting comment. I appreciate you bringing it up, Spencer. One limitation with the whole property is Parish Lane right there in its proximity to Legacy's off-ramp and on-ramp, right? And so UD do is pretty much putting a lock down on any access on and off of Parish Lane. Even that right turn in uh right after 1250 West into their site is one of the things that UD do's looking at pretty closely. So where I'm going is further to the west as you go. There will no be no allowable access points provided by UD do. So that then puts right development's property in a tough position because if they have to have two two access points which would be required by fire those really there really are no other options available to them for that site to meet that requirement by the fire department absent them having that connectivity into the site

because of those restrictions. That is a very good point. But to that point, you know, we just approved something where there was a U-turn, right? The the No, in the last in our last meeting. Oh, right. It wasn't a like in a residential situation. In a residential situation, residential, they would Are you talking about the porter? They actually would just go in and then Yeah. pull back out. Pull back, not turn around. They won't turn around. They'll back in and then just pull back forward. And this they couldn't because it's L-shaped where they're going. The pro. Yeah. Well, yeah, because the fire will require it's if you look at parcel two, it's much bigger than parcel one. West or north?

So, both both because it it it l it's like an upside down L or right angle. Right. Right. And you can see it. And so, actually, the way that it it wraps around the property and it's larger, it's even bigger than Yeah. It needs it needs two access points to be able to function correctly and be able to be modular enough for vehicles to move around within the site. And when you don't have access on to Parish Lane, where else are you going to put your second access point if not here? Okay. Okay. I agree.

So, you get put in a tough position. But I think some of your points about about cross traffic have some valid discussion relevancy. I'm just saying that's the reason the design is such that it is. So couldn't it then Mike or Lisa like I don't know if this is a legal question or not there's a point from parish where they can enter right just right yeah right at the end of their property right there couldn't that be could the access point be right when they went in right there instead of more in the middle so people are going less in between the convenience store and all the access points are subject to the regulation of UDOP the

are you talking about their internal to the subdivision. The their internal one again that would be between them and the property owner and what they've agreed to as far as you're talking about the connection to the property of the west that would be undeveloped. Yes. You're saying that as it's shown Sid if you can go you can go larger. You just rotated it. You're saying shift it to the south. I'll zoom in on it. So that when they come in, they can go into the complex instead of having to go through and create a traffic lane essentially in between the convenience store and the gas pump.

Where are you going to put the condos? You're going to have to put the condos behind the parking lot and then you're going to have to have access on the west side, which means you got to shave off some condos or part of the building, whatever it ends up being. So, I see what you're saying. The other the other thing I I think you have to that looks like a giant storm drain basin underground right there. And so now if you start to move into its location, I don't know if that storm drain basin would have to be relocated or if it could still have a roadway on top. It probably still could, right? Have roadway on top of it theoretically. Not to put you guys on the spot, but

we're spitballing. We're asking. I guess we're just asking. Does the driveway can it be moved closer to the south so that the thoroughfare between the convenience store and the gas station is not such a thoroughare the only thorough fair to come in?

Yes. The the short answer is yes, it can be, but ultimately um that's something that we would have to work with our our partner on um the right development team and when they were what they what they ultimately come to you with a layout, then that'll help dictate. But as as the current layout that they have, this was the optimal spot to put it to give the maximum for fire and the maximum um use of the property. So, if they come with a different plan and that needs to be moved, that is something that we're willing to work with them on. Yes.

Yeah. It seems optimal to have the most units over there and and parking associated with it. I just don't think it's very I don't think it's the wisest thing with the amount of traffic and people going in. I just watch people go in and out of particularly the competitor across the street. um they just zoom in and they zoom out. Sometimes it's like gosh dang it like you're not even paying attention. You don't want anyone to get hurt. Yeah. No, you absolutely want to try to minimize the conflict points on the side as much as you can. That's that's something that you we strive to do is to minimize that um just to create the safest experience possible in there. Yes.

And um like I said, something that is unique about Quick Trip, if you do look at the dimensions, they are very different than our competitors. We haven't found anyone that does dimensions the way that we do and we do that very very intentionally. If you look underneath our canopy, how wide and how long a lot of this stuff is. Um it is very unique only to Quick Trip. And then um all of our drive dimensions and even our parking dimensions are typically larger than most municipalities require and that's what we had just found works the best and creates the safest environment because we we don't want accidents on the site. We want everyone to have a safe experience. if you're walking through the side, if you're riding a bike or if you're driving a car.

Yes. But they're still crossing over. Sorry. But they're still crossing over from the gas pump to the convenience store in the thoroughare. We can eliminate all the conflict points. So the goal is to how can we how can we minimize it and make it as safe as possible and that's it's a very unique dimension that's from the building face to the front of the canopy is very large. And that's what we found works works the best to to try to control that. Well, thank you for explaining that. I was just going to say, isn't there some sort of signage or traffic control, you know, something or other you could put up stop sign yield from, you know, the this gas station into the future development, you know, should that need arise.

Yeah. If when it happens and if there is a problem, that's something that we can work and put up some signage and stuff if that's needed to help with that. Absolutely. We've done that before. Additional questions for the applicant. Uh, not for applicant. This may be a dumb question. Does it have to be a shared access point between the two? Like from what I'm seeing, it's going in at the quick trip for the future development. Can it not go in a little bit further to the west and just bypass entirely quick trip? You talk about the ride in off of Parish. Is that

Boston? No, there's a lot of limitations. So, they want to try to, you know, the functional area and the control. So, we have a lot of U dot restrictions on where that can go because it's so close to you see you see the box as well to the to just off of the property line. There's a big box combo box. Yeah. So, you start getting into all kinds of conflicts and challenges and the the closer you get to the on-ramp, the more UD do bristles about access. Sure. Sure. That makes sense. So, you don't want in and out right there and there's accidents. Okay. I understand. So, it's just the balance of finding that the best spot with all the constraints. Yeah. Okay. So, thank you. Anything else you'd like to add?

No, we're here for any questions that you have and um I appreciate you guys. I appreciate the questions and the opportunity to present in front of you guys. So, thank you very much. Okay, coming back to the commission for discussion. um what do you to lead out on the discussion? All right. Yeah. So, matching elements, we brought this up initially a couple months ago or whenever. Yeah. Um those matching elements, I don't know exactly what that means. We talked about signage, lights, time frames. Yeah. Consistent integrity of signage, landscaping, architectural aesthetic,

heights. Maybe not as much heights, but I think if you think about um the best I guess the best mirror for lack better we say it would be the competitor across the street. If you have a similar design aesthetic from a landscaping construction or even elevated beyond the competitor,

I feel like you're meeting the integrity and the intent of the legacy gateway area and what was previously approved for that area. And so from what's been provided, even as earlier noted on the last item, the increase of landscaping and and all the effort to in enhance the landscaping seems to show a willingness by them to do improvements. But yeah, I guess to answer your question, you're talking about your signage elements, you're talking about your overall aesthetics and your parking elements, and you're talking about your um landscaping elements. We need to be matching what's been already developed within the district area. That's right. So then is 30 feet high on the sign is that the same as the competitor?

Um it's that meets the parish lane gateway design standards for signage. The maximum height is 30 ft and so they actually are entitled to that by that that design standard. Okay. Yeah. But no no no higher than that though. That's the max cap. Okay. Um, I had a couple questions when it comes to the US Army Corps engineer things and um, in the wetlands when it's talking a couple a couple things like silt fencing and then the wetlands that are being filled. I was reading both 0.9 and 1.3. Do we have to clarify what?

So, I will say so this is what the guidance is from the public works uh, department professionals that that assist with wetlands. They said when it gets to a situation where there's a requirement of the wetlands, all we're checking is to make sure there's been an appropriate request that's been verified by the Army Corps of Engineers and as an accepted request. That that burden of of um requirement has been fulfilled and met with what's been provided to us. So, we don't get any further down into the weeds with that absent to know when the U mitigation plan has been finalized as approved and the applicant has moved forward with that mitigation. So, I guess what I'm saying is if if you're wanting to know the nitty-g gritties of how and why or anything like that. No. Yeah, we

I'm clearly wanting to know if that's something that we needed to clarify. Do because it's 0.9, it's also 1.3. I I mean, maybe it's both. I when it comes to I guess the elements of the study, we don't get into it. I guess it doesn't matter from from our perspective. Okay. The Army Corps is is showing that they've accepted it. And so that's why one of the requirements would be that we just get verification that that mitigation plan has moved forward. Okay. On I don't know if you can pull it up. I can't. But on C-Z.2 Oh, is it a document in the packet? Yeah. Let me see. Oh, it's one of the sheets of the of the site plan. Is that is that what it is?

Yeah. I just had a couple questions on that. Okay. Let me pull it up. It's actually like should be a drawing though, I think. C-0.2. Just want to make sure I know what you're referencing there. while they're trying to find it. What's your question?

So, it addresses um a truck washing area that that needs to happen, but that I didn't find that anywhere on there. And then silt fencing. So, that sounds like a swip plan to me. That's what that sounds like. So, that might be it was the page says C-0.2, too. But I I don't That might be something for the applicant group because I feel like that's a SWIP issue. Go ahead.

I believe that you're referring to the SWIP area and what they're talking about there is it's not it's a um vehicle washing so that when the vehicle any construction it's for construction activities. So when construction vehicle is there, it'll clean any dirt and silt off so it can't let leave the site. It's not and it's not a final product. Yeah. It's not a car wash. It's not a wash. No, I get that. Okay. I was just wondering, well, I didn't see it when I was looking at all of the things that it said that it needed on there. That's not something that I saw on there. So, I was just wondering where sheet C-Z2, is that what you're asking? Yeah, on that on that page where that truck wash area is. I mean, is that like something that you're going to do because I know it's necessary so that you're not cross-contaminating, especially because of the wetlands and all the other things.

Yeah. So the swift documents are living documents and when the GC is building the site ownership of that and so we will call out a lot of the elements that are needed but not specifically tell them where to put it because they they're they'll have the control and the ability to adjust that on the fly in the field and as they're moving and doing construction activities they'll have to move it several times. So if it's tied down to a plan every time inspector would come it would have to be there but if it we generally note it then it has to be there but it doesn't specifically say where where so they can they can adjust as they build. Makes sense. So we do a lot of the SWIP is is is intentionally done that way um to just allow easier construction activities.

Okay. But you will have that for sure. Yes. If it's called out on there and it it's a requirement it has to be there. Okay. Okay. All right, that thank you for explaining that. Yes, you are. That's my question. More questions. Uh just for Mike a little bit. Go ahead. So on your um points A through K. Can you pull that up? Sid. It's actually Lisa. Lisa. What? Lisa's running it. My computer is not working. Is not happening. Look, we can turn sideways. Oh, there it is. the motion. It's in my report and it would be page five of my report

right there. Yeah. Up top of page six. Okay. So, maybe it's not this point. It's the 11 points that you had. Okay. I think that's like two pages down. Is 10 I think it's 10 points. The 10 conditions. The 10 conditions that were recommended. Is that you're referencing? Maybe. Let me see. It's up there on that screen. Can you see it? Well, you have A through K somewhere. Yeah, it's right there. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. A through I and then JK on the next page. Oh, we missed the I. Is that what he said? No. No. I'm just saying that it spans pages. This starts at five. Five to six.

Okay. Um, are these listed anywhere else? They're they're replicated as conditions one through 10. Okay, show me that one. Conditions right there. Maybe.

Let me look at this for a second. Then the I had a couple questions on that, but I don't know exactly what they were. I just It's exactly right. You only have the one through 10 here. Yeah. And then you have A through K. That's right. Correct. Do you have Well, there are 11 points on A through K. No, I didn't write them specifically because I had

So K is it just says any other conditions that may be imposed by the planning commission. Yeah. So K was just kind of a catchall, right? So otherwise that would be 11. You're right. But then the the motion only contains 10 because it doesn't count for K. Okay. So that was my thing because I counted 10 and then I was 11 and it wasn't making sense to me. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. I just wanted more clarification, but you went through those things previously, but I guess to your point, I mean, the new 11 would be your prior comments about the bond requirements, right? Actually, I just attached I attached a little bit of commentary to nine and a little bit of commentary to 10.

So, it wouldn't change the number. Got it. And and then also in that um we does it talk about the status determining the final decision on the proposed access points. Does this need to be made like a condition or something? Remember this is this is just a site plan like this is just site plan. So all they need to be able to show is that oh yeah they they can comply with number one does address the Utah access management plan. That was Yeah. Yes. And Yes. Thank you. Okay. I'm done now.

Okay. Those are great questions. Lane, uh, I was curious, Mike, if we the the light study that was done, is that something that's required by the city? Like we oversee that. You mean the photometric? Yeah. It's not really required, but it is something that's added to help us better understand how the lighting is. So, we don't have any like minimum candle lights or anything. Okay. restrictions that we're not that sophisticated like some other cities that I mean it's a safety thing if you have too little candle lighted especially in parking lots and obviously that could be something that we could discuss internally as a planning commission in the future.

Yeah. No, it's fine. Um and then to your point about like the crossroad, I'm sorry I'm bringing this back up. is I mean are we allowed at some point to require maybe speed bumps or just natural barriers that just at least slow traffic down? That would have been well too late. I Yeah, I don't I don't really know how you could impose that unless you could articulate findings and evidence to justify that as a site plan condition or improvement requirement. the Ray Patterson. I mean, honestly,

yeah, I I think I think let me put this out there as it relates to that comment. Um, this commentary will be on the record, it will be available for future planning commission, whether it's the same group or or the composition changes. So, as any future development may occur on the the other parcels, we could bring forward the commentary from this meeting or or the minutes from this meeting to to redisuss or bring forward that as part of a future conceptual site plan development of the the other properties when they they may be ready to be developed. So what I guess I'm saying is everything that's been discussed here is on the record and as such could be then brought forward as further evidence for future discussion as the other site gets developed or designed.

Can you could could you amend like item number one where it says the applicant will need to receive final approval by UD do for access management plan for project including but not limited to safety measures at that access point. the the only no to to just enhance the traffic flow and safety of the you wouldn't want to link it to UD do you would actually create it as as some other alternative condition that would be driven more by the city and future site development and I'm not sure exactly what it would say and what legally you were allowed to have it say but but that's probably how you would go about doing something like that I think it would be problematic to reach back onto a private property owner once the deal's done

so you do need evidence in the record of the detrimental impact which would require analyzing the traffic and and all of that which I'm sure they've done but you know there could be problems with the other route as well because now you're conflicting the people coming in if if you move it further uh to the south but so there's pros and cons with both locations

I I I am a little hesitant in trying to unpack this or trying to get into this just simply because the applicant has motivation to make sure that things are safe. Um, accidents on their own property could come back and bite them really hard. I feel like there's enough guard rails there. So, anytime that I've experienced um trying to dictate to an applicant

uh traffic flow patterns um it hasn't worked. And that's in my experience at a a different position. So there was one where it was a gas station with a car wash and we dictated directionality that we we dictated to the applicant this is the direction your site must flow and it was not a good idea and so everything had to come back and be redone. I feel like we're getting a little bit too granular. personally. This is just my statement about the and like Lisa was saying, we really don't have the evidence to substantiate that at this point, right? Without hearing from you, do or other experts. I also just don't see that there's an ordinance to tie it to.

Right. Well, and Mike, you were saying, you know, with the development, we could have a, you know, look at that, revisit the notes or the minutes or whatever, but then that would only be applicable to the new subdivision and and how it connects to what was otherwise approved here. Uhhuh. Yeah. Okay. Any further questions from the applicant? So, because it's been loose, I mean, generally, uh, we, um, end with our discussion and then take a vote, but there's been a lot here. Is there anything you'd like to add or respond to?

No. Um, other than we'll continue to be a good neighbor and work with the rights as they develop. I mean, that's I can just give you my guarantee of that. Thank you. All right, bringing it back to the planning commission for a potential motion. Um, I will not do a motion here. Who wants to lead out? I I just have to tell you, I'm just, you know, I appreciate what you said about um as an owner, they're going to take every precaution to keep it safe that you just can't control idiots that drive through. Let's just get real. Somebody that just wants to go home or go pick up their kid or go to the bathroom or whatever it is and just not paying attention. I'm so uncomfortable with that. Um, I just feel like that there should be I know we have no evidence or whatever, but there should be something in there as a condition. I don't know what it would be. I don't know legally we can say anything, but I just as is I'm I'm uncomfortable with it. So, that's what I have to say about that. Did I make everyone uncomfortable?

No. No. I I I think we all appreciate the thoughtfulness. I It's very thoughtful. It's just you're going to have idiots no matter which configuration you have. And I don't see how this configuration is any worse than any of the other configurations that are possible on the site. Nor do I see how there's any ordinance tied to us saying in your site plan, hey, your site plan is out of compliance if you fail to do X with this type of traffic flow. Oh, I wouldn't ever want to say that. I would just But that's that's the standard, right? That's part of what we're evaluating. We aren't evaluating whether or not their site plan is a good idea. We're evaluating whether or not their site plan complies with code, right? So, I see no code to tie it to.

And Mike or Lisa, I mean, if for some reason there is a, you know, devastating issue right at that access point, couldn't the parties come to the city and or the city to do? Yeah. an amended site plan or something to say we're going to move this site access point 20 ft to the west and we might even create recommendations or encourage it. clear. We can't require them to, but you know, if there was something that was substant substantiated and now

that was what I was referencing earlier without unpacking it, but we dictated terms in a site plan and then they had to come back and fix it when they found out that you know what, this isn't working. And there's so many there there's so many better ways to do this. And then they had to go through the whole thing again for what I I view as um self-interested parties that should arrange things the way that make a lot of sense for them will likely end in the best solution for everybody involved. That's that's what I feel. and the sophisticated parties, business people, I mean they're they're spent a lot of time and money and you know consulting with these experts who are the trained professionals in this sort of you know situation. Um so they've probably done their due diligence.

Well, but did they do their due diligence just as that unit or did they do the due diligence as that unit and now we have an additional buildout? I think they've partnered, you know, I think the parties are here and um but yeah, but I think your point's still going to it's going to still have to be tested, right? See if it holds up and you'll have UD do come in and look at everything and examine if it's going to be safe. That that's condition number one, right? Yep. UD do doesn't examine that, do they? No, but but as far as the access management plan in and out of the site off of 1250 in Paris that

just off of the main street, that's it. Yeah.

And the current access point that we see is the closest they can get to the offramp on ramp. I don't I don't 100% know. I don't want to vouch one way or another, but there you go. Applicant is saying yes. Says yes. And even then, I think it's still there's still a little bit of a question whether or not you do getting me thumbs up on it at the end of the day. I'll go ahead and make a motion. I hereby make a motion for the planning commission to approve the final site plan for the property located at approximately uh

1262 West Parish Lane known as the portions of partials 06-006- 0118 and 06-006-000082 subject to the following conditions of approval 1 through 10. um with the right with follow following findings for action. We need to make a couple of amendments and we have to add maybe this is why I shouldn't have done this. No, you're good. You're good. This is good. Y I can give you the recommended language and you can say if you accept it

on the sentence in in item nine that says this includes that the final minor subdivision plat will need to be recorded in corn title 15 of the city municipal codes. I would add comma an associated ponding associated bonding that we will be required by the city prior to construction. That would be that that extension of that item. And then item 10 um where it says related costs consistent with city ordinances and fee schedules, this includes any bonding that may be applied. So items one through oh actually may be required. Is that may be may be required required. Okay. So items one through 10 with the additions Mr. Egget has made that I accept.

Good. With with the following findings with the following findings for actions A through C. All right. I have a motion on the table. I second it. I have a second on the table. Any discussions on the motion? We mostly discussed the motion. All right. I'm going to start down here. I I I

I'm gonna say nay. Okay. I I All right. Um what are we at? Five one. Okay. All right. Only because read all. The rest is all perfect. All right. Um that is everything on our business agenda. Got to go back to the first page. Thank you very much you guys. Um, stick around as long as you like. That's why they're super community development director's report.

Um, I don't have to go about it as I was coming in. What I would comment on and I think the thing that I'll comment on is I am going to a water conference tomorrow where the city administrator will be there also called prepare 60. Um, we've been invited by, uh, there the water I think it's a bunch of different water agencies throughout the state of Utah that are part of this opportunity. And so I was nominated to attend and our city manager will be there as a presenter, but they're talking about the challenges and the issues and the concerns relative to water throughout the state of Utah. And so I guess our city manager went last year and was very enlightened. He's been asked to come back as a panelist. and now he thinks it'll be healthy for me to learn as well. So once I go to that and get information, I will be sure to do a brief report to the planning commission about what I learn. But leading into that, he's also tasked me with doing a re-evaluation of 12.51, which is land use, which means it will there will be a code ordinance update that will likely be coming to the planning commission for evaluation relative to water conservation. I've already started a draft, but I need to probably go to the conference, get a better understanding of it, and then determine how that draft marries into our code to bring something forward to you that reflects better water conservation ideas. Um, there are certain standards that we were basing in water would like us to have in order to qualify for the the water rebate program that they make available if you want to flip your yard into more drought tolerant water conservation designs. So, um, that will definitely have some play in in what I work on and bring forward. He's tasked me with having that done and through the city council before the end of the year. So, that means probably in the the next maybe I probably won't be as soon as the next meeting, but the one thereafter we could definitely have some kind of a draft for you to look at and evaluate.

Doesn't Caseville have something like that? A lot of cities do. Caseville did. Last city I worked in, I had to do one. That's actually what I I modeled the the current one on, but I know there's probably some nuances that have changed since then and need to be added or specific more to Centerville and South Ais area. So, but but I defin I have had experience writing a water conservation code before. So, let's put it that way. So it's just going to be the tricky part with it now is figuring out how to integrate it correctly and alter overlap existing code so as to not break what the code already has existing but create new features to for water conservation and not kill the trees. Yeah. Yeah. The additional trees that we're adding.

Well, I mean the three you flip your string and then you stop wondering the trees. You're going to go to Quick Trip because they have three more trees over there. I actually will go there may park. So that that's all our report, but I will, like I said, I will bring um some information if you don't table it to the planning commission because I think it'll be helpful as we go into that mode of discussion to make sure we do it right. Okay, good. Excellent. Thank you. All right, on to the minutes from the prior meeting. Any suggested changes? We didn't say any neither. I don't think we've made suggested changes to the minutes in a while. Feels like years. Yeah. Which is a badge of honor. Way to go, Jennifer.

Yeah. Well done. All right. I'll accept a motion. I make a motion to accept the um minutes as written. Very good. I've got a motion. A second. Got a second. All in favor? I I. All right. That's unanimous. I'll accept a motion to close. Make a motion that we adjourn. All right. I've got a motion on the table. I second it. Got a second. And all in favor? I. We are done.