TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 24, 2024
Members Present:
Micah Capener, Chairman
Kaden Grover, Commission Member—excused
Andrea Miller, Commission Member
Mark Thompson, Commission Member
Raulon Van Tassell, Commission Member
Bret Rohde, City Councilmember
Jeff Seedall, City Planner
Bill Cobabe, City Manager
Tiffany Lannefeld, Deputy Recorder-excused
Linsey Nessen, Assistant City Manager

Chairman Capener called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:39 p.m. The meeting was held September 24, 2024 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Capener, Commission Members Miller, Thompson (arrived 5:42 p.m.), and Van Tassell, City Councilmember Rohde, City Manager Cobabe, City Planner Seedall, and Deputy Recorder Nessen were in attendance. Also in attendance were Officer Greg Horspool, Councilmember Jeff Hoedt and Main Street Manager Sara Mohrman. Commission Member Grover was excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Commission Member Miller to approve the September 24, 2024 agenda. Motion seconded by Commission Member Van Tassell. Vote: Chairman Capener – yes, Commission Member Grover – absent, Commission Member Miller – yes, Commission Member Thompson – absent, Commission Member Van Tassell – yes. Motion approved.

2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest: None.

3. Public Comments: None.

4. New Business:

a. Discussion and consideration of updates to Chapter 1.27 Sign Permit

Planner Seedall said we tabled this from last meeting since there were points of confusion. Councilmember Hoedt is here to answer questions. We would like to get a recommendation to the Council tonight, if possible. Manager Cobabe said the sign code is for all signs. The revisions we are proposing are limited to item number N under section 127.050. These are for signs that are allowed without a permit. What we are adding is for signs during election periods. We are limiting political signs to places that are not on public property. It has been suggested that we add the phrase right-of-way or property or attached to any utility poles. Signs shall be placed behind the sidewalk when present or ten feet behind the edge of the pavement or curb and gutter. When asked about areas along Main Street, Planner Seedall said UDOT requests no temporary or political signs within their right-of-way. There is also not ten feet of pavement and visibility. I would like to add that these signs may not be within UDOT right-of-way. Manager Cobabe said if we say on public right-of-way, that covers UDOT as well. We are looking to expand beyond and include any public right-of-way or property. Property that is owned by the City is covered by what we have written here. By calling it public right-of-way that would include drainage easements and all kinds of things where the City has interest in the property. The problem is that it is not clear where signs may be placed. The hope is that by providing additional clarification, we can avoid problems with people locating their signs on public property. They are better on private property.

Councilmember Hoedt explained there have been many violations and it is difficult to enforce. A change he likes is that City employees would be able to remove signs that are in violation. He said the City will hold it for a period of time so that the candidate can get the sign back and post it legally. This allows for quick enforcement and education to comply with the law. Chairman Capener said all this is going to do is force all these signs on private owners. Manager Cobabe said private property owners can exclude people from their property. If it is not allowed, then they can throw it away or pursue littering. It is trickier when it is public property. Per our code, public right-of-way is not clearly defined. That is why we went to the word property. That is also why we added the language about signs being placed behind the sidewalk or 10 feet behind the edge of the pavement or curb and gutter. This is trying to clear things up. On private property candidates need to go get permission from the owner. Planner Seedall said there is also a maximum of five signs per parcel. There are larger commercial spaces. Is that five signs per individual or five per parcel? When we start talking commercial spaces, it does not make sense to limit that. Councilmember Rohde said can we really limit how many signs they want to put on their private property? Chairman Capener said I do not want all the property owners to be burdened dealing with it. They do not ask permission. This is just pushed on us. Do you feel like these changes are going to help individuals meet the law or is this just going to make it more complicated and difficult to enforce? Councilmember Hoedt said I think it will help.

The Commission also talked about size requirements for signs and the difference between a banner. Manager Cobabe said there are several different types of signs that are spelled out here. The on-premise temporary sign is a non-permanent sign erected, affixed and maintained on the premises and may be displayed for no more than 30 consecutive days in any three-month period. It says, the purposes of temporary signs are for grand openings, going out of business, special promotions. Temporary signs shall not be placed in or over a public right-of-way. They shall be firmly secured to a building or ground. Under subsection N, we have a stricter definition during an election period for political signs. The stricter regulation governs that. Political signs are limited to 16 square feet and no more than four feet in height. It does not include banners. If they want a banner, they need a temporary sign permit. A political sign cannot be on City property. We are not governing what is on the signs. They can put whatever they want on the signs. Commission Member Miller said I like that this is not saying you cannot have signs on your private property. It is just saying, if you want to have a sign, this is where you need to have it, and this is the size it needs to be.

Councilmember Rohde said Councilmember Hoedt has been looking at our ordinances and questioning, do we need to deregulate a bit? It has brought to light several needed changes with the ordinance. The Commission continued to debate how this could solve the problems, Councilmember Hoedt said what I am asking for is one direction or another. If the Commission feels the current ordinances and signage violations are not a problem, then let us repeal it and get rid of it. Do not have a law in the books that we do not plan to enforce. Manager Cobabe said this is a specifically defined question of, does this and these proposed changes help clarify it or not? It was not intended to be a very philosophical conversation about how we should enforce it.

Officer Horspool said opening up the enforcement aspect to the entire City municipality will help us enforce this. Chairman Capener said I think we need to define it all out so it is clear enough that a five-year-old could read it and understand it. I want to make sure it is really clear. When someone runs for office, you hand them a sheet and it says, this is what you can do and this is where you can put it. If you put it in the wrong place without permission, you are going to be punished. It needs to be less ambiguous. We could throw around some additional language tweaks and bring it back for review. We should see if somebody else has already figured out how to apply this in a way that is fair but defined. Manager Cobabe said these things are all a work in progress. Anything we put in place can be redone whenever it does not feel right. Chairman Capener said I would suggestion tabling this. We have identified at least 10 ways someone could read this wrong the way it is written. We have to tweak it. We are trying to identify the potential issues that someone is going to have when they read this

Motion by Commission Member Van Tassell to table this until their next meeting. Motion seconded by Commission Member Miller. Vote: Chairman Capener – yes, Commission Member Grover – absent, Commission Member Miller – yes, Commission Member Thompson – yes, Commission Member Van Tassell – yes. Motion approved.

b. Discussion of updates to Chapter 1.33 Planned Unit Development (PUD)

Planner Seedall said I put the clarification that one side needs to be at least 10 feet. I also changed the building height to 46, which is 10 feet taller than our current residential zone. I hope that allows for more vertical housing. The more urban area of Main Street should have a taller limit. Manager Cobabe said a master development agreement allows for this kind of conversation, but we need to be careful about how strict we are in the code itself. State codes say you cannot regulate architectural standards in the code. It must be in the development agreement. These are things that are the base minimum standards. These conversations are important but should be a part of the development agreement. Planner Seedall said I will look at amending the definition for the total building height. We also went through and adjusted the bonus density table. I am hoping to promote more vertical building and have more open space. We want to be both water and space efficient. We added offsite recreational amenities. If developers want to help with our existing parks instead of doing their own, they could get bonus density by adding amenities to our parks. Manager Cobabe said in my experience, what developers crave more than anything else in this process is predictability. Planner Seedall said this gives every developer, no matter who they are, the same starting line and some creativity on what the City would like to see in a development for extra density. Manager Cobabe said I like to have everything front loaded at preliminary plat. Everything is laid out to start pushing dirt. The construction documents are approved. Everything is good to go and that is when the vesting starts. Planner Seedall said the other inclusion I added is a density bonus for senior housing that you can get 10% additional units for any deed restricted housing that is less than 1,000 square feet. A huge absence in the market is houses that you can downsize into that are affordable. They do not have a huge amount of lawn to maintain. This could push developers to have clustered 55 plus communities that have nice open space. Manager Cobabe said some question marks with regard to this is who does the enforcement on the deed restrictions, since cities do not enforce them. We have to find an entity that will help us with that. We may have to partner with some other housing authority.

The Commission continued further discussion on parking, traffic studies, geo tech and more. They also discussed outdoor amenities that could be used for specific developments or all residents and how that would be enforced or maintained. Manager Cobabe said open space is there, but the next development over is outside the HOA. Even though it is the closest park, they cannot go and play there because there is an HOA. We want to avoid this. The public is paying for it because developers are getting density bonuses in consideration of putting in these additional open spaces. They put in the open space, and we require that to be open to the public. They can fence off the pool and sports courts, but open space needs to be for public use.

Manager Cobabe said we want to see open space that is usable, not just whatever is left over. We want usable open space, that is beautiful. Planner Seedall said these are just to have discussion points of what clustered multi-family looks like or actually planned open space. Every city has its own version of this code.

5. Planning Commission comments/reports: None.

6. Adjournment

Motion by Commission Member Thompson to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m.

The undersigned duly acting and appointed Recorder for Tremonton City Corporation hereby certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Planning Commission held on the above referenced date. Minutes were prepared by Jessica Tanner.

Dated this _____day of ___________, 2024.

______________________________
Cynthia Nelson, CITY RECORDER

*Utah Code 52-4-202, (6) allows for a topic to be raised by the public and discussed by the public body even though it was not included in the agenda or advance public notice given; however, no final action will be taken.