Minutes Price City Planning and Zoning
Price City Hall 6:00 P.M.

September 7, 1999





John Angotti, Chairman
Larry Bruno, Vice-Chairman
Alfred Richens
Laurel Marinos
Penny Sampinos
Francis Duzenack, Zoning Administrator
Carolyn Vogrinec, Secretary
Richard Tatton, Councilman
Gary Lyon
Joe Piccolo, Councilman
Lyle Bauer, Cemetery Supervisor
Excused: Alfred Richens
Others Present:
Tom Mannschreck
Wendy mcCourt
Carolyn Tamllos
Marjorie A. Jones
R. L. Krompel
JoAnn Richey
Richard Richey


I.     MINUTES OF AUGUST 23, 1999

There were no corrections or additions and Gary Lyon made a motion to approve the Minutes of August 23, 1999 as read. Larry Bruno seconded and the motion carried.


There were no corrections or additions and Larry Bruno made a motion to approve the Minutes of August 26, 1999, Special Planning and Zoning Meeting, as read. Penny Sampinos seconded and the motion carried.


575 EAST 200 SOUTH

Wendy McCourt indicated no sign would be needed or inventory kept on hand. There were no concerns and Larry Bruno moved to forward a favorable recommendation to Price City Council for the Home Occupied Business - Office Use Only - for B & D Enterprises. Alfred Richens seconded and the motion carried.



Ms. Baradell was unable to attend and her assistant, Marjorie A. Jones made the presentation. When asked how long the temporary storage container would remain on the property, Ms. Jones indicated that, hopefully, it would be no longer than the upcoming spring, but the owner would like to have the variance for a year. Mr. Piccolo said the container sits out in front of the restaurant on the curb and is being used to store restaurant furnishings to be used at a later date. He asked if it could be stored off-site. Ms. Jones told the Commission they were unsure as to when they would be needing the furnishings. They may install the them in the existing store. The owner wanted the variance because the trailer has to come from several hundred miles away. Mr. Piccolo indicated he feels these items can be stored off-site in a local storage shed. Ms. Jones said originally they had planned to remodel the existing store, but they are now looking at relocating the business in a new building with a big play land. If it takes too much time to rebuild, they will use the new furniture and remodel the existing lobby, however, if they can build a new store by spring time, they will move the furnishings to the new store. The existing store will be closed and demolished. Mr. Piccolo is concerned that a new precedent will be set by allowing the storage container to set up in front of a business on Main Street. In addition, it adds to the obstruction of visibility. Larry Bruno indicated he would rather see the furnishings installed in a storage unit. Alfred Richens also expressed concern for winter snow removal. Mr. Piccolo asked if there was another location on the property where the storage contained could be moved. Ms. Jones indicated that perhaps the area directly behind their building, in between their building and the trash area could be used, however, it would be inconvenient for the truck deliveries. Joe Piccolo asked if it is a roll-off type container and, if so, there are vehicles in the area which, with the owners permission, can move the container and the owner would not have to travel a long distance in order to do the job. Mr. Piccolo recommended McDonalds Restaurant look at the other options before the Commission comes to a decision on this issue. Vern Jones asked if the plan was to purchase another site and construct a new building on the site. Ms. Jones indicated that would be the ideal goal, but if this plan cannot be negotiated, there is the possibility of demolishing the existing building and rebuilding on another section of the same lot, farther away from the gully. However, that would mean McDonalds would close for three months and all of their employees would be out of work. Mr. Jones suggested another option, saying, if you find another site for construction, you would be able to move the trailer onto the construction site. Ms. Jones agreed that this would be a viable option and indicated the owner is in negotiation for property at this time. Joe Piccolo suggested that since the trailer is already sitting there, the Commission table this action and have Ms. Jones do some research on the matter and return with either an additional request or other alternatives. Joe Piccolo then made a motion that this matter be tabled for further consideration for a period of 30 days, allowing Ms. Jones to make other recommendations to this Commission. Laurel Marinos seconded and the motion carried.


Both Ms. Richey and Ms. Tamllos appeared before the Commission to explain the nature of their business. They submitted an application for a 2' x 4' sign, but would like to go with a larger 3' x 9' fascia sign instead. Francis Duzenack indicated he had not yet seen the actual building plans and will review those soon. As far as the location and sign of this business, everything appears to be to code. There were no concerns and Gary Lyon moved to forward a favorable recommendation to Price City Council for the Conditional Use Permit - Business and Sign - for Beautopia Hair Studio. Larry Bruno seconded and the motion carried.


Rick Krompel appeared representing Papa Murphy's Pizza. Chairman John Angotti told Mr. Krompel that he had received a letter from Price City Attorney Nick Sampinos regarding the Price River Water Improvement District minimum standards for commercial sewer connections. These standards include the requirement of a six inch (6") sewer lateral and sampling manhole to be installed at the new Papa Murphy's building at 704 East Main in Price. In turn, Mr. Krompel provided a letter from his attorney, Joane Pappas White, stating their position on this matter. Copies of this letter were made and distributed to Commission Members. Because this information was just made available to Commission Members, it was suggested this matter be tabled. Gary Lyon made a motion to table this issue for a period of two weeks. Penny Sampinos seconded and the motion carried.



Councilman Richard Tatton made the presentation for this item as Mr. Sonntag was unable to attend. He gave a background of the Terrace Hills Park and presented a map showing the new master plan. This plan includes a hiking trail system, an amphitheater in the bowl shaped area, a skate park and parking lot. The Carbon County School District has requested an easement for sewer so they can sewer the lower baseball and football fields and have water active dressing rooms in that area. Also included, but on the wish list, may be a softball field. The school district may be able to participate in this project. There has been talk about piping the wash in order to get more green space - the wash is beginning to erode and go back to its' natural path. Vern Jones is working on a project to help enclose the canal into a pressurized irrigation water system and plans are to put a trail system over the canal. The lower area, shown on the map and dropping back to the wash, will serve as a retention basis for the 100 year flood plain.



Councilman Richard Tatton and Parks and Cemetery Supervisor Lyle Bauer made the presentation for the Terrace Hills Skate Park. Price City Engineer Gary Sonntag, Lyle Bauer and Suda Merriman visited three skate parks within the state and made a video of each park. Lyle Bauer narrated the videos which were taken at Farmington, Tooele and Provo. He explained construction requires about 20 acres with excavation of about 4 feet; the hole is filled with road base, compacted and the ramps and burms are shaped out of the road base material. Concrete is formed over the road base. There are steps for quick and easy access in case of an emergency. They are open from daylight to dark so there is an automatic curfew and helps with vandalism. The parks are well signed for liability reasons. The issue of liability was addressed and it appears there would not be a problem. Gary Lyon asked how long these parks have been in use. Lyle indicated that Tooele was the newest and best constructed park.. Alfred Richens asked concerning the cost. Mr. Bauer explained these parks had enlisted the help of community volunteers and businesses. The construction costs without the contributions would have put the cost at around $80,000.00, but with the help of the community, it was decreased considerably.. They also included skaters on their committee and a high school student built a model of the park. There is much demand from our local children as they have been chased from various places in town and are looking for a place to skate. Alfred Richens asked if there would be adequate parking and Mr. Tatton indicated the parking as it is now would be adequate because the age group attracted is 11 to 15 years of age. The children are usually dropped of or skate to the park. A committee, including three children from the junior high school, met last spring and began working in this direction. They will have these same three children and two or three more for input when it comes to the design stage to see what the young people want. If everything is approved, they hope to have it open by July of 2000.

Joe Piccolo complimented the Price City Parks Department for bringing these types of plans before the Commission. He sees it as an initiative for other departments to follow. Mr. Tatton indicated one of the reasons they are here is to get into the process with Planning and Zoning so they can receive suggestions, make certain all the bases are touched and put the Building Department on alert so they will be able to do the necessary inspections. They do not want to just skip by because it is a Price City entity. There were no questions or concerns and Larry Bruno moved to grant a Conditional Use Permit - Concept - for the Terrace Hills Master Plan and Skate Park. Gary Lyon seconded and the motion carried.


(Mr. Mannschreck appeared before the Price City Planning and Zoning Commission concerning the above and the minutes concerning this issue were transcribed verbatim per the request of Planning and Zoning Administrator Francis Duzenack.)

Tom Mannschreck: "Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Tom Mannschreck. My business address is 415 West Idaho in Boise. With me tonight is Barbara Moulton from our office. Since the Conceptual Approval we received in mid-August, we have done, I think, a great deal of work with City Staff. They were kind enough to meet with us on August 26, all department heads - fire, water, sewer, building, planning and zoning and public works. We listened to the City's concerns and discussed in some detail, at this meeting last time, relative to working on what is really a pre-existing ingress and egress issue in terms of north-south traffic in this part of town. We looked at a lot of different ideas and the City Staff was extremely receptive to looking at this a couple of different ways. We are here tonight with a proposal. Mr. Leautaud has just seen it, so I will offer a couple of different comments relative to what you're looking at. Our request tonight would be to go forward and, hopefully, receive clearance on Preliminary Approval; come back before this group on the 20th, with what I hope are just one or two issues for Final and before the City Council and still try to start production this fall. I think most of the issues, correct me if I'm wrong, Vern and Francis, will resolve at the, what I would call, technical review meeting."

"A couple of different proposals were put forth, relative to our participation and Mr. Leautaud's participation, in helping to get this traffic issue resolved. You may recall this is the site plan we presented at the last meeting - single ingress and egress was the movement around here. The Fire Chief, I think is satisfied with the emergency vehicle turn-around procedures we put in here. Basically, I'll summarize what was probably a two hour meeting. There are a couple of different ways to make north and south work in this part of town. I think that everyone agrees that just a straight shot, which shows on sort of the Conceptual Street Plan, doesn't work. It goes through someone's house; it intersects Fausett Lane way too far to the east and everyone concurs that Fausett Lane is going to be a challenge to try to get wide enough for any vehicular traffic. So the further to the west this north-south traffic stream can intersect Fausett Lane, the better for all concerned. We talked about, initially, you recall that 300 South is presently being reconstructed with Carbon County Housing Authority CDBG money. Our site sits here. We had talked about coming to the east end of our site, going directly south along the property line, that was the discussion we had at this meeting last month, and then, a couple of different things, as you continue to go straight south, you have the problem of intersecting Fausett Lane too far to the east and you also end up running through somebody's house or back yard down here. Fortunately, Mr. Leautaud owns all this property in here with the exception of"

Chairman John Angotti: "Where's down here"

Tom Mannschreck: "Down here would be further to the south and let me find the- , I would think in your materials here there's an over-all site plan that looks something - something like this, does it not? This is Fausett Lane down here, this is County Road, this is correct, isn't it Francis? I think the Commissioners are looking for a bigger picture of the overall area to see how the street will change. Does everyone have the materials?"

Everyone is trying to locate the material showing the street plan - paper rattling combined with multiple conversations makes it difficult to determine what is being said at this point.

Francis Duzenack: "No, we don't have that plan in here. The very last sheet shows the street plan and that kind of gives you a better idea.."

Tom Mannschreck: "See the one where there is a circle on the site. This plan, which is the last sheet in your packet - our property sits, let me kind of orient you here, if I can - our property - yours is highlighted in yellow. It sits right here and I think there is kind of a little cloud around it. If you hold yours like this, you will be looking at the same thing you're seeing on this. This map, I believe, Francis, is kind of a Conceptual Street Plan that the City put together."

Francis Duzenack: "It's the City's Master Plan for future roads"

Tom Mannschreck: "As shown on this plan, the north-south road as I call it, we go generally speaking, on our east property line - if it went directly south, it runs into a very nice red brick house. Francis Duzenack: Mert Robb owns the home. There are three homes there. One belongs to Frandsen, the one in the middle belongs to Mert Robb and the one on the east side of the lot belongs to Dal Hansen."

Tom Mannschreck: "It's essentially where Fausett Lane kind of dead-ends into the hill; it actually turns south on another street, the name of which I can't remember."

Francis Duzenack: "Wells Lane - 1750 East - it's a fairly new street that the City did in the last two or three years. It hasn't been very long ago - it was improved somewhat and paved. Eventually we hope to get that road connected clear down to 1000 South, but the predicament right now is to get some sort of traffic link from 300 South to 500 South or Fausett Lane."

Tom Mannschreck: "Going back to this map, if the line was straight, it, I think, has two problems. Number 1 - it goes through somebody's house and Number 2 - Fausett Lane, which is the way you shove traffic back to the west. There you have a right-of-way problem, a set-back problem, utility poles and I think that's going to be a fairly expensive street for someone to try to get up to standards to take whatever the perception is of this traffic flow and get it back out on the main road. So it's logical, and Mr. Sonntag and others came up with an idea of rather than doing this, making this intersection further back to the west. Mr. Leautaud owns all this property, so you would intersect Fausett Lane closer to the main road and a smaller portion of Fausett Lane would then need to be improved, utilities moved and all these sorts of things. You would still accomplish this north-south circulation the City Staff believes is necessary. So consistent with that, we talked about two general ways to get traffic from 300 south, which now dead-ends, back down to the south. One way is to come directly, and this was the discussion we had at this meeting last time, to make our site 30 feet deeper on the east-west border. We will dedicate 30 feet and Mr. Leautaud will presumably dedicate 30 feet and we would have a right-of-way on this property line. The discussion at this Commission Meeting last month, as I recall, it didn't go any further than this particular piece right here."

Chairman John Angotti: "What is that piece?"

Tom Mannschreck: "This is our site and this is the additional ground Mr. Leautaud owns and we're showing the very conceptual basically single family subdivision which gives a road moving the direction the Staff asked us to move - one of the two options, basically. I'll proceed to outline those if I can. When we left this meeting last month, the discussion pretty much centered around the road, around the property line and then, in some fashion, improving some or all of that for some distance toward the south, presumably with Mr. Leautaud's participation. There was really no discussion, at least that I can recall, about what we do when we get to here and that would be subject to future development or some other form of development. At the technical review meeting, there was a consideration coming down on our east property line, coming back down our south property line and doing something - let's go back again to that map that you've got - doing something and come back this direction again to get the Fausett closer to the main road. It works in terms of moving cars north and south. The issues that we raise as the developer and long-term owner of this property, which is a family community apartment, is that we're not excited about having a road that may someday carry a volume traffic. I don't think right now that it's going to, but someday it might. We would have a public road on 1-2-3 sides of a family apartment complex. I would prefer very strongly not to do that, so City Staff - we took a field trip to the site and what you see tonight both on the easel and in front of you is again a very preliminary, we're not representing this as a preliminary plat - it's basically a lot-layout, which accomplishes the traffic circulation which Staff asked us to work with, gives Mr. Leautaud a reasonable number of lots to develop and absorb the infrastructure costs in some way, shape or form, accomplishes our desire to try to keep City streets to the extent we can offer as many of our property lines as we can; and also, just let me touch on this issue very briefly, you recall this L-shaped parcel as a piece of ground that we're going to probably give to Carbon County Housing Authority for - to do some single family homes. There was some consideration, I don't believe at this Commission Meeting, but as Staff, regarding land locking this parcel. Well, it's not land locked because Carbon County Housing owns this piece of ground anyway and she's got access through property that she already owns to a City Street. But if we did something like this, we can probably provide access, her intention is to do two or three homes - Crownpoint type homes in here, we could provide access back this direction rather than through the apartment complex. I want to be very careful in pointing out that Mr. Leautaud is here tonight and is not at all bashful about speaking for himself. He has not said "Yeah, this is good. Let's go with it." What we are presenting, I think is two options and City Staff has just recently seen this, too. Two options to accomplish the north-south traffic and keep our application going forward and allow for some development on this property. The concern, I'm not speaking for Jack, but if the street comes like this, you end up with some very long deep lots in here and, I'm not a single family subdivider - I don't know whether that's a good or a bad thing to do. This layout is really quite a bit more efficient."

Joe Piccolo: "Right off the bat and I wonder if you might explain to me. We're already dealing with the fact that the farthest apartment complex is 710 feet from the primary ingress. If we come from 300 South and travel through your complex, to the end, we have 710 feet. The Land Development Code is pretty explicit about how far a dead-end street can be from a primary road, as far as emergency vehicles are concerned."

Tom Mannschreck: "My recollection was when we discussed that last month that I was mistaken - the 600 feet issue was the length of 300 South and we weren't concerned about the interior. I will only say, correct me if I'm wrong, but we discussed that in detail in the Staff Meeting and the Fire Chief was - this is the emergency vehicle turn-around - this is not a private street. This is no more a private street than the driving lanes of Wal-Mart."

Joe Piccolo: "But the Fire Chief accepted?"

Tom Mannschreck: "I don't like speaking for people that aren't here, but -."

Joe Piccolo: "That's one concern I have and one I need an answer for. I guess another one would be how are we dealing with drainage?"

Tom Mannschreck: "I have submitted working permit ready grading and drainage plans to the City and Mr. Sonntag has had a very good dialog with our project engineer on that."

Joe Piccolo: "Okay. I guess my concern is that I don't see where your project is going to do anything but drain the water off on somebody else. I don't know where it's going to go."

Tom Mannschreck: "That's incorrect, Mr. Piccolo. We - the plans that are drawn and the calculations that have been submitted - the incremental post development flow is retained on site for retention and detention."

Francis Duzenack: "There is also a drainage ditch that crosses to the west."

Tom Mannschreck: "These are the detention basins."

Joe Piccolo: "Okay, they're on site. One suggestion concerning the plan. When you have the cul-de-sac here, what is the purpose of the roads going out?"

Tom Mannschreck: "I have no idea."

Joe Piccolo: "It seems to me that it would put curb and gutter on the back side of both lots. Are those your lots, Jack?"

Tom Mannschreck: "Those are the lots that will be given to Carbon County Housing Authority and I see no useful purpose."

Joe Piccolo: "I don't either. I think that should be closed in."

Tom Mannschreck: "I think we should re-do this again. It's not, and I don't mean to be disrespectful, our obligation to Carbon County Housing Authority, to donate them land and provide them with utilities to the lot line. If we can do something that facilitates access here, that's terrific for them, but that is over and above our arrangement with Carbon County. So I would say, Mr. Piccolo, that these two streets are superfluous."

Joe Piccolo: "They should be closed."

Tom Mannschreck: "I agree."

Joe Piccolo: "The only thing that I can see that would create a problem is that I guess this is going to become 500 South - is that right?"

Francis Duzenack: "Approximately 400 South."

Joe Piccolo: "400 South developing back into that property adjacent to - is that developed? It's not too far from the highway anyway. How much property is there between the highway and the edge of Lot #18? Four Acres?"

Jack Leautaud: "Four Acres"

Joe Piccolo: "Four Acres. Potential development might take place and if it did you'd have some really deep lots."

Plans were reviewed and discussion was held at length on the drainage, possible development by Jack Leautaud and plans for roadways. Because of multiple conversations at one time, it was difficult to establish individual comments.

Joe Piccolo: "Is this a long term for you, Jack, as far as development goes for these lots or is it fairly short term?"

Jack Leautaud: "As soon as you will lend me some money."

Joe Piccolo: "I don't think you'll have any problems getting money."

John Angotti: "Are you planning to develop those lots up by the canal?"

Jack Leautaud: "Yes. In fact, that's where I'm going to build my house - up in there."

John Angotti: "I think I'll be your neighbor."

Jack Leautaud: "Get some money. Money talks, John."

John Angotti: "When they cover the canal."

Joe Piccolo: " I don't see any problem in having some temporary situation until Jack gets his streets developed and his project along. I'm still not sold that we don't need a second way in and out of that project for emergency vehicles. I'm not really sold on that idea."

Vern Jones: "Let me reflect for you a concern that was given to me by Public Safety people. They would like to see some way of getting out of there because, their fear is what is going to happen is that you're going to have a first responder, which is the Fire Department, go half way into that development; right behind him is going to be two Police Cars and right behind them is going to be an ambulance. So getting those vehicles out of there is what they're looking for."

John Angotti: "And right behind those will be everybody in town."

Vern Jones: "Right. See the dilemma that they're showing."

Tom Mannschreck: "I understand. These are very common apartment related development issues and I understand what you're saying, I respect what you're saying and our issue is that we very very strongly feel for security and project safety reasons in terms of our management and ownership, we want a single access, we want to expand in this decision. We discussed that with you last month. The secondary access issue, on apartment complexes this size, we have not generally been required to do that because the SBA's National Fire Protection" (?) (Remainder of sentence not decipherable)

Joe Piccolo: "Is this a 48 unit?"

Tom Mannschreck: "Yes sir, that's correct."

Joe Piccolo: "Do we have in our Land Development Code access required for certain units?"

Francis Duzenack: "It's pretty much a Conditional Use Permit - they have to have access to public street, but it doesn't give you a specific number. We have specific numbers for parking spaces - that sort of thing."

Joe Piccolo: "Help me understand a little bit about this emergency turnaround. How would that be governed? What's to say I don't pull in there and decide I want to park there so nobody will scratch my vehicle."

Tom Mannschreck: "Your car will be towed away in less than half of an hour. Barbara does a lot of our property management. Even though she looks calm and sedate back there, when people do things like that, she gets very upset. We are strict, we are uniform and we're unwavering - your car is towed. We been assigned to do whatever the Fire Department asks us to do - whether it's a red curb, a no parking sign, or if they ask for a chain across. We've done some or all of those things depending on what the fire marshall requests."

Joe Piccolo: "What would you guys say to someone who doesn't care whether they have someone who parks there?"

Tom Mannschreck: "Well, Number 1, we are required in our covenants with Utah Price City Planning and Zoning Tom Mannschreck continued: "Housing Finance Authority on this for 99 years. And so all of the provisions relative to the affordability of the rents and things like that are recorded as a covenant against the property just like covenants in subdivisions - for 99 years. If we sold those covenants relative to housing that comes with the property, we could similarly, and we have done this in a number of different cities wherever special conditions of approval that the City is very concerned about, you can make those a condition of continued occupancy. So, if on this issue, if we sold, for whatever reason in 10 years and we sold to somebody who said "You know, I don't care - let the paint rub off" - and somebody from the City came out and saw that and said "Fine, you've got 10 days to fix it or we'll pull your occupancy certification."

Joe Piccolo: "That can be attached to or similar to attaching it to the deed of the property?"

Tom Mannschreck: "Sure. "A fair question and that's one way of solving it."

Joe Piccolo: "On Planned Unit Developments, I've seen some conditions and variances made where they can be attached to the Conditional Use Permits and deeded to the property so it has to be transferred for darn sure. I don't know, well, Jack, do you have any comments on this project that you would like to add?"

Jack Leautaud: "I think it looks pretty good if we can get the road in decent where it's supposed to go. I don't have a problem."

Vern Jones: "Is this basically how you want to develop the property, Jack?"

Jack Leautaud: "Yeah, it's close. It's going to come probably 125 feet from that Frandsen house right in the middle of that field and then it's going to go up half of it and then it's going to dodge off to the east. It's close."

Francis Duzenack: "This road will not go down and come out by Travis's place? It's kind of where this one is headed."

Jack Leautaud: "No. I know, but it's going to take off and you know where we talked, the middle of that field down by Mert's and it's going to come off and then it's going to go straight south. That's the way it's going to go. That way there will be two turns in it and then there will be no speeders. You can't speed on it.

Tom Mannschreck: "This lot- layout is very preliminary and wasn't designed to show this Commission that this is the way the lots are configured. What we wanted to show you is another alternative to accomplish Staff's desire to get traffic north and south in this part of town; accomplish my desire to try to get that second public street off of our property and then, what I'm deeply concerned about is making Mr. Leautaud a lot of money. So if we do it this way, we can put some extra lots in there on this side of the road. The road is over here and the lots are very deep and they may or may not have that much more value. But this does work. Whether there are this many lots on this side, I guess would be open for further discussion, including this piece of the road that shows - just as Mr. Piccolo pointed out here, this should go away. There's no reason for this piece to be right in here to be around. This would be a larger lot. Those are things that Jack and I need to work out. What I would ask the Commission tonight is if there is any other issues or concerns and could we address those?"

Larry Bruno: "I guess those are the ones at the last meeting. I read the minutes and they talked about the Development Agreement for the road to go onto the property and this is the time this agreement would be in place. We'll bank on that road being there, but we really don't have a mechanism to make that happen right now with this development. Unless Mr. Leautaud is willing to commit something in writing to that effect. We've missed that window of opportunity to have this Development Agreement in place - unless we draw it up again and at some future date when this comes in and then drop it when the road is actually done."

Tom Mannschreck: "I have a suggestion in that regard and it is not an issue that we haven't dealt with in the past. If Mr. Leautaud and I can come up with sort of a joint proposal, if the road is here or moves a little bit, what we would ask the Commission to do is to let our Conditional Use go forward and let us put maybe some sort of a time window in getting this road in - two years ?"

Joe Piccolo: " I wish Planning and Zoning was all that easy that you could force people into a can and make sure they're going to stay there. It would seem to me and I hate to contradict or appear arbitrary to what you're saying, Larry. I agree with you to some extent, but it would appear to me that we have reached a mutual agreement between the property owners that are adjacent for a through road from north to south, which is what the City has wanted there for years. And at this point, I think, it seems to me, that Mr. Leautaud is planning on developing this property in the near future in this manner. Lots may be bigger or may be smaller, may be 10 or may be 40, might be affordable housing, might be just like yours. That's irregardless. But the point of the matter is that the north to south road has been established; through traffic is going to take place, water drainage is not going to be a continual problem back on to Leautaud's property from this man and I think that's really the only review this Commission needs to view at this point. The road along the side of this property line was somewhat a heavy responsibility for the little bit of development he was going to get and would benefit only 4 or 5 lots on that side. So I appreciate that point. I think you've done well. I think the concerns that we have here are for public safety for the people who rent there and for the safety of the fire fighters that go in and out - that's going to be a problem. That's why I asked Mr. Leautaud how long he intended on not starting his project. It looks to me like it will be an advantage for Mr. Leautaud to start this project along the north side, if I'm not turned around, because we have water, sewer and road there already. But if he starts in there with 150 feet of road and sells lots off, it would naturally create the flow of that road going the right direction and it will be his cheapest investment, rather than the other end by your house. It's a long way away to get the road in there - I don't know."

Francis Duzenack: "There is one other issue - that mentioned water line. We really need to get a loop line down to Fausett Lane. The fire flow at the hydrants out there, I understand, drop dramatically. Kent went out and said he had 60 pounds static pressure on the hydrant and when he did the flow test, it dropped clear to 18 pounds. It's a dead end line and a loop line to Fausett Lane would solve that problem. Everybody out there will have better water service, fire access - the whole nine yards."

Tom Mannschreck: "It's not likely the loop line will go in until the road connected all the way back to Fausett Lane."

Francis Duzenack: "The water line and the road really need to go in at the same time your project goes in."

Tom Mannschreck: "Clear to Fausett Lane? Clear to Fausett Lane?"

Francis Duzenack: "Yes. We're adding more use and it was Staff's intention and the Planning Commission's desire as I understood from the minutes of the last meeting."

Tom Mannschreck: "This is very, very, very" -

Joe Piccolo: "He wanted to put the road in to the edge of his egress. I didn't ever suggest that he should go up through to Jack's."

Francis Duzenack: "What I'm suggesting is that they work with Jack and schedule this thing so that it all comes together. That way, Jack can bring his road and water line in and they can tie on there, then they bring the water line down to his property line as we talked in the last meeting."

Joe Piccolo: "Well, that might not be - would you be willing to spend some money to loop the water line a little bit, I mean not to put in a road here"-

Tom Mannschreck: "I wish I had brought my civil engineer with me. Sir, this is, is - I think we have come up with a solution, a multi-phase solution, to get traffic connected north to south. What I'm not anxious to do and what I don't think you would ask a subdivider to do, is doing Phases 1-2-3-4-5. Which may be what this involves by the time it gets clear back down to Fausett - to do all the roads, all the sewer, all the water and all the infrastructure for the first five phases just to do the first phase. And that's really, Francis, with all due respect, what you are asking us to do."

Francis Duzenack: "Jack and I talked about doing a basic roadway without curb and gutter improvements and all that sort of thing in place until he brings his lot development up through there. But what I suggested to Jack was to consider putting the street through there with possibly a 24 foot strip of pavement and then the balance of that development could happen subject to conditional use at the time the lots are developed. But that way, the road would be roughed in and at least the center section would be surfaced. And that way, the line can come up from Fausett Lane, tie into the line from 300 South and we would have the loop system and an access road, although it would not be totally improved. The total improvement wouldn't come until actual lot development - when Jack puts his lots together."

Tom Mannschreck: "I think if Mr. Leautaud is willing to have that discussion with the City, I think it is beneficial for all concerned, but I would prefer to not do is not make that discussion even the piece or the result of our Conditional Approval. When we were here last time, we talked about improving this piece of this Tom Mannschreck, continued: "property and then allowing us to go forward.

We 've come back and done not only that, but, I think, more."

Joe Piccolo: "I could never understand the water line issue for public safety - being able to put out the fire if you needed to and I'm not sure I know of the measurements that were taken. I don't see a functional use to put a 24 foot piece of pavement in the middle of the property before development starts. I think that will be harmful. I personally feel that would be harmful rather than helpful."

Tom Mannschreck: "We won't be floating our Occupancy Permits without adequate fire flow, so if there are some issues - If we need to do a small internal loop or something like that on our development to get fire flow, then we'll have to do that to get those building permits and occupancy permits, but that does not involve running the water clear down to Fausett Lane and it shouldn't. We understand, and I hope it's implicit, that we know that we have to have fire flows which are probably 1500 gallons ongoing to this size of construction and there are a number of ways to accomplish that."

Joe Piccolo: "I guess that's a good suggestion. Maybe those ways need to be suggested back to this Commission before Final Approval is made. That's one thing we ought to work on. How it gets done is between all you guys that want to develop."

Tom Mannschreck: "I would agree that adequate fire flow is ? 1500 gallons a minute. We will need to collectively figure out a way to do that in order to get building permits and occupancy permits. While I begin at the risk at repeating myself, I'd like to now say that the only way to do that is to loop the water system all the way down to Fausett Lane, otherwise, we can't get out building permits."

Joe Piccolo: "However, it would be my suggestion that if you are going to spend $20,000.00 to make an internal loop, that you might consider putting some of this money toward the water line that would extend down the road to Fausett Lane and make that same loop, rather than tucking it all inside the development. Let's take a realistic view of it - $20,000.00 would go farther."

Tom Mannschreck: "Mr. Piccolo, I know what you're saying. We will look at the global issue relative to what the City's requesting on some pre-existing problems relative to what we're asking for on our development and relative to what Mr. Tom Mannschreck continued: "Leautaud may do on his single family subdivision. If we can participate on a revenue neutral basis, then it's good for the property that's just not for developing."

Joe Piccolo: "You"re after Preliminary Approval here - right?"

Tom Mannschreck: "Do you have any other comments from any other reviewing agencies?"

Vern Jones: "I took the liberty of contacting PRWID to find out their view on this project. They have not received any information from you, other than the initial request. So they have your plan and they are reviewing it. The electrical company, which is Utah Power & Light, has told me, not in writing, but verbally that there is power at 300 South sufficient to power up your subdivision. But I have not heard anything on gas or how you are going to service gas nor telephone into the area."

Tom Mannschreck: "Obviously there is telephone service in the area and I don't know where the gas line is, but we can certainly get back and answer the rest of those questions. Those are technical things that we can and will get the information to this Commission. We have to do that by the next meeting. I guess what I would ask for, at the risk of being presumptuous, is to move forward with approval tonight and come back on the 20th , I think is your next meeting, with a Final and I think, maybe I can summerize, we've got a couple of issues. Mr. Leautaud has conceptually said this looks like a pretty good place to put the road. Again, he just saw this plan as you did and he and I may discuss it and he may say "I'd rather have it here and have deeper lots." That is really nothing more - that doesn't affect any internal balance on our side, doesn't affect our drainage, doesn't affect our grading, anything like that. That will affect the shape, size and configuration"

Larry Bruno: " Won't it affect that 30 feet for the right-of-way or will the road go somewhere else and you'll put it there anyway?"

Tom Mannschreck: "That 30 feet will simply come down here."

Larry Bruno: "And you're going to share that with Mr. Leautaud?"

Tom Mannschreck: "Yeah. He and I need to huddle on that and we're happy to do so and we'll get that resolved very very quickly. If a revised site plan is due, we can get that back well before the review time for the September 20th Meeting and we can go on in that direction and this one may very well work, with a couple of minor changes suggested by Mr. Piccolo and others. So we will ask for permission to move forward on that basis and hope to have something that is acceptable to the City, work on the gas and the other technical issues that Vern correctly brings up, then Mr. Leautaud and I can stand up and say, yes, this works for both of us and bring that to you on the 20th for Final Approval, so I still have a ghost of a chance of getting in the ground this fall."

Larry Bruno: "I like this plan sharing the street, but I still strongly feel that if there is not something more solid than "Yeah, it looks good", come Final Approval, we need to have a Development Agreement that we can abandon and this needs to be in place, in my mind, before we give a Final, unless there is something real concrete that it's going to go on." We've missed that opportunity once that's gone and if we decide never to do that, for whatever reason, it's gone."

Tom Mannschreck: "I think we can present to you a couple of ways to solve the problem. You do have an opportunity and, if I were you, I would not let it slip away. But I think we can present to you, next time, a couple of alternatives that will satisfy the City. Let us have some flexibility to move forward and satisfy the City that if it unravels, you can come back and point the finger at me and say "get it done"

Larry Bruno: "That sounds good."

John Angotti: "Are there any other concerns from this Commission?"

Joe Piccolo: "Are you still going to try to stay on your time line?"

Tom Mannschreck: "Yes, sir."

Joe Piccolo: "So Preliminary Approval will give him permission then to start moving dirt? Is that correct, Francis?"

Francis Duzenack: "No. We'd need to go to Final before we actually get into dirt work. The Land Development Code requires that all of these questions on power, gas, phone and all that, in fact all those letters were supposed have been submitted as part of the preliminary submittals, that say "yes, they can service the areas." I'm going to obtain the letters from the City because we'll more than likely be providing the water and sewer services there. A preliminary site plan was supposed to have been here prior to this meeting. We haven't seen anything other than this just tonight, so there has been no review whatsoever on any of that. Some of these things need to be made part of the motion, if you decide to give them Preliminary, that these things are addressed as quickly as possible. At least, until the Staff has some time to review these things. Having these plans show up at the meeting show up at the meeting doesn't do us much good."

Tom Mannschreck: "Francis, I appreciate that. I'm sorry."

Francis Duzenack: "The original plans that you submitted is not what you're planning to build, so we're kind - these are not a lot of "

Tom Mannschreck: "What I'm presenting to Staff and to the Commission, are two, I think, two viable alternatives to solve the direction that Staff has given us and the direction that Commission has given us. I apologize that we just got them, so it is not my intent at all tonight to say "here it is, why don't you approve it". Give us some direction and let us have some flexibility to work with Jack. We will get back to you and we'll dot the i's and cross the t's. We may present two site plans to the Commission and see which one you'll like. But we'll give you ample time and we're not asking you or Vern or anybody in the City to say "yes, this looks fine. Go ahead and run with it." We understand there are technical issues to work out. I think we have been responsive on that part, but we will get you the information you need to advise Commission of any concerns that you might have, which I suspect, there won't be any by the time we get done."

Joe Piccolo: "I guess you're still going to have to help me. I must be a little simple minded, but what do you want from this Commission?"

Tom Mannschreck: "We would like Preliminary Approval of the site plan that's" -

Joe Piccolo: "That's been presented tonight?"

Tom Mannschreck: "You tell me how we need to get the Final on the 20th. If you give me approval of the plan that's before you, acknowledging in the minutes that you have a conceptual second - I won't use that word - you've got a second plan that we can bring back with all of the final plan, i's dotted and t's crossed, for the 20th, then that's my request because that's the only way I'll get in the ground this fall. The easiest thing to do is to approve the Preliminary that's in your submittal package."

Gary Lyon: "Francis, does this give Staff enough time to go over this?"

Francis Duzenack: "If we had the plans today, I would say, possibly we can - we usually try to get those things reviewed and on the agenda within 10 days."

Chairman John Angotti: "How long would you need, Francis?"

Francis Duzenack: "Our Land Development Code does allow us a 30 day window, if we need it. But we do try to accommodate everybody with a 10 day turnaround, but we need, at the very minimum, that 10 days, which gives us about 3 days to get this thing together."

Joe Piccolo: "As one on this Commission, I would like you to feel that you're dealing with some friendly people that want to see you succeed with this project, but if it comes to Final Approval and you don't have things in place, it will be completely the opposite. I really don't want to hinder your project - I don't know how the rest of this Commission feels - I think you're working hard to make things take place as we have requested you to do and I see that you have some cooperation from existing land owners. I don't see what advantage you will have by having Preliminary Approval, but I don't have a problem saying that's fine. We'll give you that approval - I don't see what advantage you'll have at this point."

Tom Mannschreck: "Would you let us come back on the 20th for Preliminary and Final?"

Joe Piccolo: "One thing that might be done right now is to review exactly what is needed. We need letters from those utility managers, so that we don't miss anything because I'd like to see you get the project going, too. Okay? Let's just quickly review that. I think that might be more advantageous to you than saying"

Joe Piccolo continued: "Okay - you got Preliminary and you come back next time and you forgot this. Staff and Commission, please help with this - let's go through them one at a time. We have letters from utility providers that must be on file. We have to have a concrete site plan that can be reviewed no less than 3 days from now so Staff has 10 days to look at it. What else does Staff need? I have a couple of my own."

Vern Jones: "I'm a little sure on one of the issues so one of the things I would like you to do is determine if there is a water flow problem and, if so, what you"re going to do about it."

Tom Mannschreck: "Can your civil engineer get the incremental flow data - can I get the flow data right away? If I call tomorrow and ask for it, can I get right away?"

Vern Jones: "I'm not sure about the construction on that project that's out there. We'd like to give you the best information we can which we have to flow those fire hydrants up on the east side. We'll get it to you as quickly as we can."

Gary Lyon: "We want to give Staff ample opportunity too" -

Tom Mannschreck: "This was, at the risk of repeating myself, this was not foisted on anybody at the last hour - "aying here it is - let's run with it." It's simply another way of looking at solving the problem, but I think it's better for all concerned. Here's pictures on the wall - tell me which one you like."

Chairman John Angotti: "Are there any other concerns?"

Joe Piccolo: "We're 700 feet from the ingress. We need to consult with Mr. Sampinos and make sure we can issue a Conditional Use Permit in arbitration to what the book says because the book is clear about it."

Francis Duzenack: "It is pretty clear that we will not have any dead-end streets that exceed 600 feet."

Tom Mannschreck: "It's not a dead-end street."

Joe Piccolo: "It doesn't go through - I don't know. I don't want to get stuck on legal interpretation. All I want to do is to make sure those guys are safe. So as far as that emergency turn-around goes and the deeding of it and passing from ownership, I'd like to see how that's going to be handled in black and white - no exceptions and I'd like Nick to help out on this, if you will Francis."

Francis Duzenack: "I'm sure I can get with him tomorrow."

Joe Piccolo: "Then coordinate with Mr. Thomas and let him know what our decision is here because that's critical to this project."

Francis Duzenack: "Yes, it is."

Gary Lyon: "Francis, have you even had a chance to count the parking spaces to see if they were within compliance?"

Francis Duzenack: "I did go through and as I recall, there was adequate parking spaces on site. The actual site, where the buildings are sited, there are some setback issues. If the street comes down the east property line, then the buildings will have to shift a little bit because of a setback. I believe they have 10 feet now, but they need 25 feet."

Joe Piccolo: "But that one doesn't have a problem."

Francis Duzenack: "That one doesn't have a problem because now we're faced with the sideyard setback. I think we'll be okay."

Tom Mannschreck: "That was based on the interpretation that every street would have a front yard."

Francis Duzenack: "Right. There will be a front yard if the street ends up on that east property line. And so, it's a matter of juggling the buildings a bit. Now you can move a little closer"-

Tom Mannschreck: "It's a very unusual interpretation to have multiple front yards for setback purposes - that's what you've done, isn't it?"

Francis Duzenack: "Yes." That's in our Land Development Code - lots that front on public streets will have two front yards."

Joe Piccolo: "Are there any other issues that we've missed that have to be addressed for Final Approval?"

Chairman Angotti: "I have 5 down."

Tom Mannschreck: "Will serve letters; site plan; fire flow, emergency turn-around; and setbacks if the street is adjacent to our east property line."

Francis Duzenack: "And if they can get with Jack and work this road and water line thing out, it would be wonderful."

Gary Lyon: "Is that one of the five, working out the road situation with Mr. Leautaud?"

Joe Piccolo: "No."

Tom Mannschreck: "That would be six."

Joe Piccolo: "I don't know if we can - can we legally force two developers to work together like that? I mean it's nice to have the opportunity to both work with each other, but I don't know. I think each project needs to be handled separately, not to inflict wounds on one developer from another. I don't agree with that."

Gary Lyon: "But if they're willing to do that."

Joe Piccolo: "Well, and I think that's nice. That's all one thing. But I don't think the Commission should say "you need to go work this out with somebody else." At this particular point, I think that's unfair for both of them."

Tom Mannschreck: "My understanding of what this Commission is saying is that, for our project, look, let's forget these ? and we have these other issues resolved - fire flow, etc. etc. For our project to go forward, you're asking for a road on the east side of our property."

Joe Piccolo: "I don't understand that way, but I do understand where you're coming from. Your project has to stand alone."

Tom Mannschreck: "What is the Commission asking for in terms of our contribution to the north-south access?"

Joe Piccolo: "If Jack dies tomorrow, no offense, but if Jack dies tomorrow, this project has to stand alone, that's what I'm saying. It's nice and fine that this will fit so well with the development that Mr. Leautaud is going to make around it. That's great! But his project should stand alone as well as yours. I think that's important."

Larry Bruno: "I think that someone needs to be there to finish that road if it doesn't. That's got to be in place regardless of what happens."

Joe Piccolo: "I see that - that's fine. What we asked them to do in the first place was ask them to put a road from 300 South to the second ingress and that's it."

Tom Mannschreck: "That's it."

Joe Piccolo: "That's where it stood to start with."

Larry Bruno: "I would think we would want to go the length of the property."

Joe Piccolo: "For what use? The point was that the Developmental Agreement would include paving, sidewalk, curb and gutter when that opportunity presented itself. So that if Mr. Leautaud was not going to develop, they could still have an angle to cut over and get away from running right into those houses just south of the property."

Tom Mannschreck: "Mr. Piccolo, that's what I'm going to suggest, so you know that I'm not being cute or anything, what I will suggest to the Commission is an alternate in the Development Agreement - for whatever reason we end up with a joint effort here, we ourselves and Mr. Leautaud, and for whatever reason the road that is on Mr. Leautaud's property doesn't go through in, I say two years - whether that's a good number or a bad number, that would be my proposal. At the end of two years, the road isn't in, you then give me 6 months to do what Mr. Piccolo suggested and come back and put this road in here. Don't pull my occupancy permits, put me on notice and give me 6 months and as the second way of solving our portion of the issue, give us six months to build the road."

Joe Piccolo: "That's workable."

Larry Bruno: "And that's all I'm after."

Tom Mannschreck: "You've protected the public interest, you have seized the opportunity that you have to help solve this problem. You've given us a couple different ways to do that, which is hopefully acceptable to you."

Gary Lyon: "I really like that word seized."

Chairman Angotti: "Okay, are there any other concerns? Is that it? Then we are voting on a Preliminary Approval and I am looking for a motion."

Joe Piccolo: "I move that we give Preliminary Approval to this project subject to the six (6) contingent requests previously discussed - I don't really care to repeat them."

Carolyn Vogrinec: " I would like you to go over them again, so I can be sure I have them all correctly."

Tom Mannschreck: "I thought that was with the Fire Chief."

Joe Piccolo: "I think it's our obligation to consult with the Price City Attorney. If you would let that read that the emergency turn-around could sufficiently be used on a 700 foot dead-end street."

Joe Piccolo: "Leave the attorney part out because that's just Staff."

Tom Mannschreck: "Can I note that I disagree that it is a dead-end street."

Joe Piccolo: "I don't want to get legal about it - where does it go?"

Tom Mannschreck: "It goes the same place the driveway at Safeway runs."

Joe Piccolo: "There's two places to get in and out of the driveway at Safeways.

There's only one out of yours. That's okay - I don't want to argue about it, I just want to try to help you to get that to work. At this point, it doesn't fit the Code. Okay, we got stuck on emergency turn-around."

Joe Piccolo: "That the north to south road, along the east property line, would be built within two years if the Leautaud Project failed to develop. That's only 5 - what happened to the other one?"

Tom Mannschreck: "The other one is the setback issue relative to if the road is on the east property line, the setbacks on these buildings need to be massaged to meet the double front yard."

Gary Lyon: "Yes."

Chairman Angotti: "Is there anything else?"

Francis Duzenack: "One other thing I wanted to mention that hasn't come up in any of our discussions anywhere. There is an irrigation ditch along the south property line and I don't know how your development is going to impact that. The people below that and to the west use that ditch for water, so you would need to make sure that ditch doesn't get cut off."

Chairman Angotti: There is a motion and we need a second."

Alfred Richens: "I'll second."

Chairman Angotti: "All those in favor."

(All in favor) (Opposed None)

"So carried and good luck."


     Nothing to report

There was no further business at this time and the meeting adjourned at 7:40 P.M.