[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6581613,"mediaKeyId","3090984-31a6f10533cc720e6ea68447297845bb","parentId",3090984,"title","Work session: Wildflower Village Plan 5 draws questions on building heights, grading and office‑warehouse uses","audioSeconds",2224,"startMs",6055700,"endMs",8280418,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3090984-31a6f10533cc720e6ea68447297845bb&start=6055&end=8280","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3090984-31a6f10533cc720e6ea68447297845bb/thumbnail_6055700.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6581613/Saratoga-Springs/Utah-County/Utah/Work-session-Wildflower-Village-Plan-5-draws-questions-on-building-heights-grading-and-officewarehouse-uses","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6581613-2ac7c19d287ace364bcd838dc7dc8fd7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770438001&Signature=m0paTeQ9Ol~0ajRNMtSPXun-0HwCgvv32bPaI9qdwkAshCtU8cH3CINgi89D1hYCwrywkeyAD7hD~6x50OUV7FObQ4gInagZMjuJKa9f88BSmKR0s7PUQr~qsbvlHCrIYFxf5q1K-QvtI4KIa5tqV4fKT4unGxtsNkW5wyUc5wLWhUzq5zZh-MBsO7b1vpGe-uBWL9~AECqmvzhmg-1PhtH0ry02peMnHLqUl~Dc2iObskaFeWH-sBvs6AZcnNt0SL0P0seNzVioI~eUe~wTnim-Tv~T9dWizFOP9x4zowHmrQXnr8WCtLkDXRhBAUFa~Ewsh4Kc0LashX76j6wVqw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Saratoga Springs","date","2025-04-23T03:17:55.207Z","article","The Saratoga Springs City Council held a work session on April 20 to review Wildflower Village Plan 5 and the broader Wildflower/Fourth community plan amendments. The session focused on site grading, building heights and the amount and siting of office‑warehouse (OW)/heavy commercial uses within the village plans.

The applicant team (DAI and development partners) presented a substantially revised Village Plan 5, describing a 58‑acre area with new building footprints and revised architecture. The developer said previous larger proposals had been reduced and that the current plan narrows the footprint and adds prescriptive façade and material language. Staff and the developer said the materials and colors were changed to reduce visual contrast with the foothills and that landscape buffers had been intensified in key viewpoints.

Council members and residents in attendance pressed the developer on several points: the visibility of large, multi‑tenanted industrial buildings from surrounding neighborhoods and downtown vantage points; the grading plan that requires substantial cut/fill (staff reported cut sections as high as ~24.5 feet and average fill of ~17.6 feet in places); a 65‑foot overall elevation change across the site; and how the proposal counts drainage channels and detention basins when calculating ‘‘developable acreage.’'

The developer proposed language to limit large single‑tenant fulfillment/distribution operations: restricting the largest buildings to two tenants where possible and limiting a single tenant to a percentage of any one building (the applicant proposed 75% as a trigger), and including prohibitions on cross‑dock heavy distribution prototypes (multiple‑sided dock configurations). Leasing and local market experts in the meeting said demand for flexible, suburban industrial buildings had picked up after a low period; they characterized likely tenants as light manufacturing, assembly, small‑scale warehousing, and niche manufacturing rather than high‑volume distribution.

Councilmembers urged several changes and follow‑ups: (1) better, enforceable façade and corner architectural treatments in the village plan so tall buildings are not visually dominant; (2) clearer mapping and acreage accounting for sensitive lands (30%+ slopes, drainage corridors and detention basins) and any exception requests; (3) a limit or cap on additional OW/HC acreage across the broader community plan (some councilmembers suggested no additional OW beyond what is now proposed and asked that Village Plan 6 not increase office‑warehouse acreage); and (4) more detailed cross‑sections and camera views that show how the proposed buildings would appear from major vantage points (Redwood Road, downtown and adjacent neighborhoods), without relying on mature tree renderings to hide massing.

Staff and the applicant agreed to return with revised materials, including: precise acreage breakdowns showing how much land is being counted as developable versus sensitive/drainage land; expanded, enforceable architectural standards for visible elevations and building corners; clearer limits on single‑user occupancy for the largest buildings (staff to analyze or propose alternatives to the 75% threshold); and additional photo‑montages and cross sections from key public vantage points. The applicant said it had reduced earlier square footage requests and would provide updated exhibits and a proposed suite of conditions.

Councilmembers emphasized the need for traffic analysis and mitigation, timing for roadway infrastructure, and consideration of school impacts. No final action was taken during the work session; staff and the developer will return with revised materials before any vote.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Meeting 4.22.25","oneSentenceSummary","At a work session the Saratoga Springs council and the Wildflower developer discussed Village Plan 5; councilmembers raised concerns about grading, building heights, visibility from public vantage points, and the amount and siting of office‑warehouse uses.","taxTitle","Saratoga Springs, Utah County, Utah","taxId",4713,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6581618,"City reports low bids on Mountain View Corridor widening; staff to move forward under purchasing policy",100,3633345,3733422,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3090984-31a6f10533cc720e6ea68447297845bb&start=3633&end=3733","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3090984-31a6f10533cc720e6ea68447297845bb/thumbnail_3633345.jpg","/articles/6581618/Saratoga-Springs/Utah-County/Utah/City-reports-low-bids-on-Mountain-View-Corridor-widening-staff-to-move-forward-under-purchasing-policy","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6581618-481d072085eedd7919d0a10d675d2e0f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770438001&Signature=QfWbBkA2UL3pbOVOigg6CZ0CtMvqWXRFpVTFjNK5VyAw4xrRp2PfBavfddhj-KLrNwtf~w0L7T9KF0v7FybuoFDoxerFyEonjusOsfkIAKAOFAUwW4p-IJZJVgN6VxX3QcClWHoUmfnMDWEFE9h3X6KmLl1wlAm~8YhsMFdqv2Bw7na~qNFpoFt1RxIBAmcJUOXh2O~cR7rkq4OXaC4ZR~W2Z3oqskDEZnCr9ATlf9a3px1urWYY~q-Aa8ZxUUYNkZjZQRqgBMz00pNQKjysU5pJYmwJKGCRiy6yXOVsFzpq65gdnisOPNKUnnshxCNyz7roCyUOhHJqjoUTYF9bKA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City staff reported to the Saratoga Springs City Council on April 20 that bids for the Mountain View Corridor widening and the 400 North intersection realignment came in substantially lower than earlier estimates, creating additional funding flexibility to pursue other unfunded segments.

Staff said three bids were opened: a low bid at approximately $3.01 million (Landmark Excavation), and other bids roughly $3.04 million and $3.06 million. Earlier planning had estimated the project might cost $5–$6 million with a $1 million portion for the intersection; the lower bids leave near‑term funds available for additional corridor segments depending on award and external grant/loan decisions.

Staff told the council the contractor low bid does not include the signal equipment cost; the city plans to procure the signal poles and equipment through the state warehouse at discounted rates and pay for those items outside of the general construction contract. Staff said the project already has a budgeted line (GL 334765) with $3.5 million appropriated, enabling award under the purchasing policy. Councilmembers asked about schedule, and staff said a contractual completion target for the contract is August 8 — an objective timed to be completed before schools start — and that change orders could affect that date.

Council and staff also discussed corridor preservation funding (MAG corridor preservation) and the potential to secure right of way for future full freeway buildout. Staff noted gaps to the north and south that would need easements; council suggested pursuing corridor preservation funding to secure contiguous right of way. Staff asked council if they had objections to moving ahead with awarding the contract; the council directed staff to proceed to avoid delaying the project.

Staff said the widening will create a five‑lane section (two lanes each way plus center turn lane) and realign and signalize the intersection at 400 North to improve school walking routes and reduce delays. The low bid was from Landmark Excavation, which also worked on the cemetery project, and staff said all bidders were reputable.

","Saratoga Springs received low bids for the Mountain View Corridor widening and signalization project; the low bidder was Landmark Excavation. Staff said they will proceed with contract award under the city’s purchasing policy and aim to complete work by Aug. 8 before school starts.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6581623,"Council amends Title 19 to add trampoline parks and bounce houses, narrows zones and tweaks definition",446,3140454,3586565,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3090984-31a6f10533cc720e6ea68447297845bb&start=3140&end=3586","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3090984-31a6f10533cc720e6ea68447297845bb/thumbnail_3140454.jpg","/articles/6581623/Saratoga-Springs/Utah-County/Utah/Council-amends-Title-19-to-add-trampoline-parks-and-bounce-houses-narrows-zones-and-tweaks-definition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6581623-f2b267d3bf4364168ae848032635dd13/orig.mp4?Expires=1770438001&Signature=ADcrm0osZeseWd~DhWPsUkqPBYrX1h7x8p3A6s8QY2P4y4mEs4wv32QDSN35GpcN5md2mk1jZKhuBOKbQEqz0WgLyZekYXFvcm7-NuwTu3aWg6PsgFJP-J9idbjDn6WsDr5-1qkH8VZ6zjIsFHRcPfFzlbjDV0aNf914uH8u13fleCAe3iKrOileChC9eiJRKJr1rbFhTChQfoQxBvsw~LC1J3O~IlOMdlgui2mGIcLnbYsFwjEOHqjZZ~bEb8SK2vwJs4~Gp2demtV1j8riQbrMkXvrN3ruuo7gjemdLTTlifPtmr8qOAGXxZNAUAH~TWncrLdr78rg5CAl5uX~AA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs City Council on April 20 adopted amendments to Title 19 of the city’s Land Development Code to add definitions and parking standards for trampoline courts, trampoline parks and bounce houses, and to specify where those uses are permitted.

Planning staff explained the changes were prompted by recent inquiries from operators and by an as‑built exception granted for a trampoline court in North Shore. The ordinance adds definitions for “bounce house,” “trampoline court” and “trampoline park,” establishes a parking standard of one stall per 400 square feet (roughly 2.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet) and lists permitted zoning districts. Councilmembers debated the wording of the bounce‑house definition; Councilmember Comber questioned why the definition said “especially used by children” and urged broader, less prescriptive language; councilmembers agreed to remove that phrase.

Councilman Macomber moved to approve Business Item 2 with staff findings and conditions and with two additional changes: (1) remove regional commercial and business park zones from the list of permitted zones for these uses; and (2) change the bounce‑house definition to “a springy inflatable structure used for recreational jumping for a fee.” Councilman Carn seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Council members discussed where trampoline parks and bounce houses should be allowed and whether those uses are desirable near retail corridors. Councilman Carn noted concerns about siting such uses in commercial zones where the city prefers retail that generates sales tax; Councilman Macomber and others suggested leaving industrial or light‑industrial zones as primary locations. Staff suggested the added parking ratio provides a buffer over the single past parking determination and will reduce ad‑hoc parking exceptions.

The ordinance change directs staff to update use tables and the code text accordingly and will apply to future land‑use applications. No specific operator application was before the council; the amendments are intended to eliminate repetitive parking determinations and clarify allowed locations.

","The council adopted changes to Title 19 (land development code) to define and regulate trampoline courts, trampoline parks and bounce houses, removing the proposed allowance in regional commercial and business park zones and simplifying the bounce‑house definition.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6581627,"Council approves major amendment to Viviano community and village plan with conditions",1646,1481390,3128076,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3090984-31a6f10533cc720e6ea68447297845bb&start=1481&end=3128","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3090984-31a6f10533cc720e6ea68447297845bb/thumbnail_1481390.jpg","/articles/6581627/Saratoga-Springs/Utah-County/Utah/Council-approves-major-amendment-to-Viviano-community-and-village-plan-with-conditions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6581627-755824ca5b09e949f04baf10c32c3db1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770438001&Signature=ljN-FfY5k11z41NwWIPTfMlUOdfTCDKytv~8rP8op11QtlI5Ya-SuBR4j6hMzfinAWQzJlCGl0ta9pMzcvquudCft3FSEGl~BkXsqC~flJajYeRIN65mCsZR1ok2WzTpexntoSg9fz15Xmj1BkGsur2~WQCl2OOjdWhQgKANWSXbSs2CIFWhcwGiJV2NpD9t1rzlHv7Kq965pOnoGxvJpBZgrBWrPjiNLUytMKPBATYhFNwptj0k0reaFvaKzjSAU7~s3DIG~e~qCwFwmjxEHDJYB0gUPIirAMEQB62uTR~KfwHbNU0E1odbM7ZiLNxvLwQ6HsE2CnGKcarvTeWHuw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs City Council on April 20 approved a major amendment to the Viviano community and village plan, adopting Ordinance 25‑28 and finding the applicant’s revised lotting plan, building elevations, parking layout and materials acceptable with staff conditions.

City planning staff told the council the amendment aligns the village plan with recent building permits and site‑level design changes the developer had already proposed during construction. Staff said the revision reduces the overall single‑family lot count by two, reorganizes attached single‑family/duplex footprints and slightly reduces the townhome footprint while improving building articulation and exterior materials. The developer attached the former pool house to the clubhouse and clarified color palettes and material prescriptive language so staff can match building permits to the village plan at permit review.

Key technical changes summarized by staff and the developer included: a loss of two single‑family lots (57 to 55), an increase in one‑bedroom multifamily units from 10 to 46 and a reduction in two‑bedroom units (86 to 50) with a corresponding adjustment in parking requirements; a revised phasing plan and detailed building numbering; interior vinyl fencing retained and Trex shadow‑box fencing proposed along perimeter streets (Kings Canyon Road and South Road), with precast concrete walls along Pony Express; consolidation of pool house and clubhouse into a single maintenance building; and clarified façade requirements for buildings facing main roads. Staff noted the developer increased on‑site parking in several product types to address earlier concerns.

During council discussion members asked about sightlines, sidewalk/roadway phasing and timing for an intersection signal at Schoolhouse (now Kings Canyon) and Pony Express. The developer’s representative said the clubhouse substantial completion target is Jan. 1 (year given in packet) and first occupancies were expected in July or August of the construction year; staff said the Schoolhouse/Pony Express signal is included in phase 1 construction and they will try to have the intersection signal installed before schools start. Council members emphasized that final occupancy timelines and the signal schedule should be coordinated with inspections and that staff should report back on the signal schedule.

Councilmember Karn moved and Councilwoman Barton seconded approval of Business Item 1 (Viviano community and village plan major amendment; Ordinance 25‑28), “with any staff findings and conditions in the packet.” The motion passed unanimously.

The developer also asked for a limited exception related to townhome material/color where rear elevations face each other; staff said the application specified a mix of materials (stucco and hardy trim) and that some exceptions were necessary for rear elevations facing one another. Staff will return with final plans that incorporate the prescriptive façade language into enforceable permit checks.

Clarifying details provided during the hearing included specific parking stall counts, a breakdown of unit type changes, and a sign cost estimate for street changes. The council requested staff to provide a final construction schedule, the complete traffic/occupancy phasing plan and a firm target date for the intersection signal and to verify that the clubhouse and pool permits are tied to phased occupancy timing.

","The council unanimously approved a major amendment to the Viviano community and village plan (Ordinance 25‑28), accepting revised lotting, elevations, parking and fencing while noting several follow‑ups for staff and the developer.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6581630,"Council denies Buckhorn Bath Avenue name change after staff survey shows majority opposition",650,823310,1473661,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3090984-31a6f10533cc720e6ea68447297845bb&start=823&end=1473","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3090984-31a6f10533cc720e6ea68447297845bb/thumbnail_823310.jpg","/articles/6581630/Saratoga-Springs/Utah-County/Utah/Council-denies-Buckhorn-Bath-Avenue-name-change-after-staff-survey-shows-majority-opposition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6581630-f58aa15e58cd156b0e0deeac7ec99edb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770438001&Signature=C6IuPZbte1KzMh~HsBWtNCR4xWacLCp5TorMk4kG6r-URAdhXd8QbCx6vvqf6ajOdRgQu8RBCWoLgjwxynqwRzDkMUMLyzN24bxuy6fi2cpPz2jtJcx~sVnJIvbtMv2R0K5mdaJb6ERSGvqs-tfeB5IWhSxVsm5vc~S6nFK-N83ZBKetIoSpmOEF7WchH-3oyU0lbGdfwKl8TZTXrQBhEVpqowoFqyJbMHJIuIanBE3J1bryaf4ednwikXSR2By52rKZtWlDs2s8y-xVPp~18IBRJVfU6aF0K2hW2kVAjC5JZmtyFL9lrHpLJGdCq3N7RvqBEIRHQc~x9DnG1vhwMQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Saratoga Springs City Council on April 20 unanimously denied a petition to change the name of Buckhorn Bath Avenue, after staff and applicant surveys found more neighbors opposed the proposal than supported it.

City staff told the council they had re‑surveyed the street by knocking on doors and distributing tags. Staff said 18 of the 27 residences on the street responded to the city’s survey; of those, six were in favor and 12 opposed. The applicant, Michael McKay, submitted a separate survey he said he had distributed personally; he told the council his earlier survey showed different proportions but acknowledged the city’s follow‑up found a majority opposed.

Counsel and staff said the city had offered three options: approval, denial or continuance. Council discussion focused on standardizing the survey process and on whether petitioners should be required to use city‑specified formats for future name‑change petitions. Councilman Wheldon praised staff’s outreach and recommended codifying a city‑approved petition and survey method so future results are comparable.

Councilmember Wheldon moved to deny the proposed street name change; Councilman Wadman seconded. During roll call the council recorded unanimous support for denial. The motion was recorded as denying the proposed name change “as currently stated on the agenda, including the staff findings and conditions listed.”

Councilmembers and staff noted some technical inconsistencies between the applicant’s survey and the city survey and said those inconsistencies reinforced the need for a standardized process. Staff also said, and council agreed, that applicants who win an approved name change must pay for replacement signs; staff provided an estimate of about $300–$400 per sign for the three signs that would have required replacement in this case.

The council asked staff to draft a code amendment to require petitioners to use a city‑specified survey process and to consider a fee to cover staff time for administration of resident surveys and notification.

Votes at a glance: The council’s motion to deny the proposed street‑name change passed unanimously.

","The Saratoga Springs City Council unanimously denied a resident-led request to rename Buckhorn Bath Avenue after staff door‑to‑door and applicant surveys showed a majority of responding neighbors opposed the change.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Work session: Wildflower Village Plan 5 draws questions on building heights, grading and office‑warehouse uses

City reports low bids on Mountain View Corridor widening; staff to move forward under purchasing policy

Council amends Title 19 to add trampoline parks and bounce houses, narrows zones and tweaks definition

Council approves major amendment to Viviano community and village plan with conditions

Council denies Buckhorn Bath Avenue name change after staff survey shows majority opposition