TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 10, 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
Bill Cobabe, City Manager—excused
Tiffany Lannefeld, Deputy Recorder

Chairman Capener called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. The meeting was held September 10, 2024 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Capener, Commission Members Miller, Thompson, Van Tassell (arrived 5:36 p.m.). City Councilmember Rohde, and Deputy Recorder Lannefeld were in attendance. Also in attendance was City Planner Jeff Seedall. Commission Member Grover and Manager Cobabe were excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Commission Member Miller to approve the September 10, 2024 agenda. Motion seconded by Commission Member Thompson. Vote: Chairman Capener – yes, Commission Member Grover – absent, Commission Member Miller – yes, Commission Member Thompson – yes, Commission Member Van Tassell – absent. Motion approved.

2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest: None.

3. Public Comments: None.

4. Approval of minutes—August 13, 2024 & August 27, 2024

Motion by Commission Member Thompson to approve the minutes stated above. 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 – absent. Motion approved.

Chairman Capener called a Public Hearing to order at 5:35 p.m. to receive input on the sign permit. There was one person in attendance.

5. Public Hearing:
a. To receive public input on amending Chapter 1.27 Sign Permit

There were no public comments. Chairman Capener closed the Public Hearing at 5:35 p.m.

6. New Business:

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

Planner Seedall said this goes over Councilmember Jeff Hoedt’s sign changes. Councilmember Rohde said it is just tightening up the code for election signs. We wanted to make sure they are not in park strips. We also added that any City employee can remove an illegal sign versus it only being an officer. Planner Seedall said this addresses distance behind the curb and allows things to be more enforceable and not obstructions. This is to create clear designation on where they can be. Councilmember Rohde said they can only be a certain height and square footage (4×4 foot max). Resident Connie Archibald said Manager Cobabe said a banner is not a sign. This is only for signs not banners. Planner Seedall said we struck out public right-of-way. That can be a hard on Main Street where we have zero setbacks. We are saying public property or the distance behind the curb.

Chairman Capener said a lot of times, people do not even ask to put up their signs, they just throw them up. Councilmember Rohde said is there a fine or what do we do if they break the rule? Maybe we need a better definition on what a sign is. Chairman Capener said what is the real problem here? Planner Seedall said I think the struggle is having so many in places they should not be. All we are trying to do is get the public to put signs in their own property and not in public spots and limit the sizing. Chairman Capener said you are going to force that problem on the private property owners. Maybe we ought to add that permission needs to be granted from the property owner. Are we giving the property owner the right to remove the sign if they did not get permission since the City is only going to enforce the public right-of-way. We either have to go granular and dial it in, or we need to be pretty basic.

Commission Member Miller said it says a maximum of five signs may be placed on any parcel of property. Would the City enforce that if somebody puts 10 signs on private property? Planner Seedall said that comes down to the parcel. Chairman Capener said sure, but does the City have the right to remove them? Councilmember Rohde said and then which one do they remove? Chairman Capener said this is why you have to quantify all that. If it is not clear, it is ambiguous. If the homeowner puts the sign out, I do not see any problems with it. It is a problem in the commercial properties, which is where most of the signs end up. If we are going to address anything, those are the ones we should address. Maybe we bring in Councilmember Hoedt and tell him some of these ideas or questions. Mrs. Archibald said this is not brand new, there has always been an ordinance. This is not that much different than what is currently in place. Commission Member Miller said it really only limits the location and size. Planner Seedall said we added the sentence about the distance behind the curb to help quantify what the public right-of-way is. The hard part is a lot of people do not ask the City about the sign ordinance. They just go out and start putting things in places. The point is just being able to have something quantifiable. The most significant change is that any employee can enforce this code. I can bring up these issues with Councilmember Hoedt and see what his feedback is.

Motion by Commission Member Van Tassell to table this item. 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 this is the direction I would like the City to move instead of the overlay zones. This has developers starting at the same point. We have tried to add flexibility. If they want to change the base zoning for more density, they have to go through the rezoning process, which will let us vet that out a bit more. This will be the basis where developers start and creates a better paper trail for developments. This will be our standard overlay zone going forward. The General Land Use Plan will still guide how the City grows. It will hopefully make the overlay zone process a bit more standardized. When asked about the setbacks and requirements, Planner Seedall said it will push you to go up instead of out, which is the direction our developments need to go—away from the attached and more stacked. It is not economical for a City to keep going out. We need to start going up. Our code says all setbacks are approved by the site plan application, which is subjective. We will work on trying to word it so it can be flexible. This is the first step. This is going to be the blueprint for our larger developments. Councilmember Rohde said this is a good start. I like the idea of standardizing so that everyone starts on the same foundation. Chairman Capener said if we are already doing an overlay and development agreement, and each property is unique—it cannot take every property and unique feature of every property and handle them in a standardized way. Planner Seedall said we do not know how all these overlays came about. When the former City Manager left, all that information went with him. We have the development agreement, but we do not have a track record of how that development agreement came about. This is the start to changing that. When a developer comes in, we would slide this across the desk and tell them this is where we start. This is the base zoning. This is how you get your bonus density, and we will get the granular stuff in a development agreement. Councilmember Rohde said we want to get away from development agreements as much as possible because it looks dishonest. Chairman Capener said but this is not doing that. That is where I thought we were going. Here are the standards you have to meet. We are not doing overlays or development agreements. We are going to put it in the code to allow them to do flexible things and still go dense. This does not change anything. It still requires an overlay and development agreement, which means every single one will be unique. Planner Seedall said but we will understand how they got there. Chairman Capener said this is worse because then you have a paper trail and a legal basis to sue. None of these developments were allowed under the code. The City said we allow it if you do these things, which are not required in the code, but they do them voluntarily in exchange for bonus density. There was not any legal basis or problem with that because what they were asking for was not allowed. Planner Seedall said I would like to get to the point that the development agreement is simply outlining their fee schedule, what they have agreed to as a preliminary approval and very basic things, so we do not have to have everything written out in the development agreement. This PUD will push the City into safer areas legally than continuing to have everything be a development agreement. This is the first draft, mark this up. I would like to see it approved by the end of the year.

7. Planning commission comments/reports:

Planner Seedall said the Box Elder County Summit is on September 25, in Brigham City from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Let us know if you plan to attend.

8. Adjournment

Motion by Commission Member Van Tassell to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 6:56 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.