Planning Commission Minutes 2-9-16 2016-03-10T12:56:18+00:00

TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 9, 2016

Members Present:
Robert Anderson, Chairman
Arnold Eberhard, Commission Member
Val Bennett, Commission Member
Troy Forrest, Commission Member
Micah Capener, Commission Member
Tom Stokes, Commission Member
Bret Rohde, City Councilmember
Steve Bench, Zoning Administrator
Linsey Nessen, Deputy Recorder

Chairman Robert Anderson called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:27 p.m. The meeting was held February 9, 2016 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Robert Anderson, Commission Member Arnold Eberhard, Commission Member Val Bennett, Commission Member Troy Forrest, Commission Member Micah Capener, Commission Member Tom Stokes, City Councilmember Bret Rohde, Zoning Administrator Steve Bench, and Deputy Recorder Linsey Nessen were in attendance. Commission Member Ben Greener was excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Commission Member Forrest to approve the February 9, 2016 agenda. Motion seconded by Commission Member Stokes. Vote: Chairman Anderson – aye, Commission Member Eberhard – aye, Commission Member Bennett – aye, Commission Member Forrest – aye, Commission Member Capener – aye, and Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

2. Approval of minutes:

Motion by Commission Member Eberhard to approve the January 26, 2016 minutes. Motion seconded by Commission Member Capener. Vote: Chairman Anderson – aye, Commission Member Eberhard – aye, Commission Member Bennett – aye, Commission Member Forrest – aye, Commission Member Capener – aye, and Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

3. Public Hearing:

Chairman Anderson opened the public hearing at 5:29 p.m. There were zero people in attendance.

a. To receive public input on rezoning a parcel of property located at 196 South 1000 West Tremonton, Utah from Rural Residential One Acre (RR-1) to Residential R1-10

Commission Member Stokes asked if this property would be considered an island. Zoning Administrator Bench stated it would not be considered an island since it is contiguous with the surrounding zoning.

Chairman Anderson closed the public hearing at 5:31 p.m.

4. New Business:

a. Discussion and consideration of approving and recommending to the City Council the rezoning of a parcel of property located at 196 South 1000 West Tremonton, Utah from Rural Residential One Acre (RR-1) to Residential R1-10

Chairman Anderson stated this property is surrounded by R1-10 zoning on the east and west and RR-1 on the north and south and clarified that if this property is rezoned to R1-10, all the animal rights on that property go away. Zoning Administrator Bench stated that was correct.

Commission Member Capener asked if Mr. Steve Batis wants to rezone the property or just see if the City is willing to rezone it because his opinion is the property value is as great or greater zoned as one acre with animal rights. Zoning Administrator Bench stated in conversations he’s had with Mr. Batis, the several buyers they’ve had look at the house don’t want the animal rights or the one acre. Several of the potential buyers haven’t wanted to purchase the shed on the property either.

Zoning Administrator Bench stated if the Planning Commission recommends this zone change to the City Council, they can hold on to it until Mr. Batis decides whether he wants to rezone or not. Chairman Anderson asked if Mr. Batis wants to go through with the zone change. Zoning Administrator Bench stated it depends on the buyer. Commission Member Eberhard stated Mr. Batis wants it open so no matter who comes along, he can do it either way. Zoning Administrator Bench stated if he doesn’t go through with the zone change this year and decides to do it next year, he will have to reapply and pay the fees again.

Commission Member Capener asked if Zoning Administrator Bench has spoke with Mr. Batis about doing R1-20 zoning instead and keeping the animal rights. Zoning Administrator Bench stated if he did that, he wouldn’t be able to split off the shed. The shed would either have to sell with the house or be sold to the neighbor to the north. If the zoning is R1-10, the shed can be split off and stay with the remainder parcel behind the home. The shed cannot remain an island of its own unless he could get the required frontage and 10,000 square feet.

Chairman Anderson asked if the neighbors were notified of this public hearing. Zoning Administrator Bench stated he spoke with Mr. Batis and he had notified the neighbors.

Motion by Commission Member Capener to approve and recommend to the City Council the rezoning of a parcel of property located at 196 South 1000 West Tremonton, Utah from Rural Residential One Acre (RR-1) to Residential R1-10 if that is what Mr. Batis desires to do. Motion seconded by Commission Member Forrest. Vote: Chairman Anderson – aye, Commission Member Eberhard – aye, Commission Member Bennett – aye, Commission Member Forrest – aye, Commission Member Capener – aye, and Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

b. Review and discussion of Sign Ordinance concerning Tremont Center LLC

Commission Member Capener declared a conflict of interest.

Zoning Administrator Bench stated there is a business that wants to build in Tremont Center on the corner that is requesting a wall sign on all four walls, a monument sign on the corner, and to be included on the Tremont Center gateway sign. According to the current City Code, a business is allowed two wall signs and to be included on the gateway sign, but no monument signs are allowed in this development.

Chairman Anderson asked which corner they want a monument sign placed at. Zoning Administrator Bench stated it would be on the corner or 400 West and Main Street. Commission Member Stokes asked if there will be two signs on the corner now. Commission Member Capener stated there is one gateway sign that has already been approved at that location and this business is requesting to have wall signs on all four walls of their building, a monument sign on the ground in front of their particular store, and to be included in the gateway sign.

Commission Member Capener stated monument signs don’t create clutter like pole signs do. Zoning Administrator Bench asked Mr. Capener how many common gateway signs have been approved. Commission Member Capener stated three common signs were approved; one on the corner and one at both entries on Main Street. Mr. Capener stated they may or may not put the third common sign in, depending which companies come to the development.

Zoning Administrator Bench stated there isn’t a lot of room for monument signs on 400 West so the discussion of monument signs is mostly concerning Main Street. Commission Member Capener stated Main Street is the perfect location for monument signs because of the landscaped canal that will open up a view corridor where there will be 100 feet of ground that can’t be built on. Zoning Administrator Bench stated there would probably only be six monument signs placed on Main Street. Commission Member Capener stated there would be six monument signs at the most. The only way there would be monument signs is if there is a national chain that comes in and builds on the corners of the development. Zoning Administrator Bench stated there may only be two monument signs then.

Commission Member Stokes asked if these signs would impede any traffic line of sight. Commission Member Capener stated it would not because these signs will be placed a ways off Main Street. Zoning Administrator Bench stated the canal will be buried and landscaped with no buildings and the property line is still behind the canal. Commission Member Bennett stated monument signs aren’t very intrusive. Zoning Administrator Bench stated the maximum height allowed for monument signs in the current Code is six feet high and a maximum size of 32 square feet. Zoning Administrator Bench asked Commission Member Capener to find out the requested size of monument sign from this business. Commission Member Capener stated he would.

Zoning Administrator Bench asked if the Code should limit the number of signs for this development. Commission Member Capener suggested allowing businesses to have a wall sign on all four walls of their building. Zoning Administrator Bench asked about the requirement on monument signs on Main Street. Commission Member Capener felt it makes sense to allow at least one monument sign for each of the corner buildings because most of the national tenants will want to be on a corner. Commission Member Capener also suggested allowing the Land Use Authority Board to be the ones to approve the signs so it doesn’t have to come to the Planning Commission every time a new business comes in. Zoning Administrator Bench agreed that would be good language to add as part of the Site Plan Approval. Somewhere in the Code it needs to state that if monument signs are allowed, no pole signs are allowed. Commission Member Capener stated they don’t want pole signs in the development either.

Commission Member Forrest recommended setting this item for a public hearing at a future meeting.

c. Review and consideration of amending the Tremonton City Transportation Master Plan – 3rd Review

Zoning Administrator Bench stated he spoke with City Engineer Chris Breinholt about Commission Member Capener’s suggestion of adding the required UDOT widths to the Transportation Master Plan. Engineer Breinholt will add those to the plan.
This item will be set for a public hearing at a future meeting.

d. Review and consideration of the Tremonton City Main Street Access Plan – 3rd Review

This item will be set for a public hearing at a future meeting.

5. Adjournment

Motion by Commission Member Stokes to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 6:15 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 Linsey Nessen.

Dated this _____day of ___________, 2016.

______________________________
Darlene S. Hess, 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.