Santaquin DRC recommends Cortland Townhomes to Planning Commission with red‑line conditions

The Santaquin Development Review Committee recommended the Cortland Townhomes project at 200 North and 400 East be forwarded to the Planning Commission with conditions requiring resolution of red‑line review comments.

Staff noted the proposal had previously received preliminary approval and that the development agreement had been amended and approved by the city council; the current submittal reflects a change in housing product from apartments/condos to townhome units. Planning staff flagged that the most significant missing items in the latest packet were landscape and irrigation plans; Aspen (planning) described that omission as “our major comment from planning.”

Fire staff raised access concerns and requested three interior hydrants be added so that, if the road is shut during an incident, crews can establish water supply without being blocked by exterior‑only hydrants. “We're gonna need 3 hydrants added on the inside of this,” Ryan (Fire) said, and he recommended placing them in the parking‑island medians so they do not remove parking inventory.

Public Works asked that the road be fully restored (a 2‑inch overlay was discussed) after trenching for utilities rather than leaving patched trenches. Staff also asked the applicant to provide an updated phasing plan—the developer confirmed a three‑phase buildout—and to submit an amenities plan with the landscape set so the development meets code requirements for private‑park amenities. Administration requested architectural review of building facades consistent with nearby Helis Farms product and a masonry fence detail for the south boundary.

Staff and the applicant discussed meter sizing and storm drainage review; staff asked the applicant to verify water‑meter sizing where building counts require larger meters and said the city had not completed its final storm drain review. After staff indicated that red‑line fixes were relatively minor, a DRC member moved to recommend approval to the Planning Commission conditioned on addressing the red lines. The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote; the committee directed staff to forward the red‑line comments so the applicant can revise the submittal prior to the Planning Commission hearing.

The Planning Commission meets on the second and fourth Tuesdays; staff said they would place the revised packet on the earliest available Planning Commission agenda once the requested corrections are submitted.