TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 14, 2018

Members Present:
Micah Capener, Chairman
Val Bennett, Commission Member—excused
Arnold Eberhard, Commission Member
Troy Forrest, Commission Member—excused
Ben Greener, Commission Member
Brad Janssen, Commission Member
Tom Stokes, Commission Member
Bret Rohde, City Councilmember
Steve Bench, Zoning Administrator
Cynthia Nelson, Deputy Recorder

Chairman Capener called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. The meeting was held August 14, 2018 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Capener, Commission Members Eberhard, Greener, Janssen (arrived at 5:33 p.m.), Stokes, City Councilmember Rohde, Zoning Administrator Bench, and Deputy Recorder Nelson were in attendance. Commission Members Bennett and Forrest were excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Commission Member Stokes to approve the August 14, 2018 agenda. Motion seconded by Commission Member Greener. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Eberhard – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

2. Approval of minutes—June 12, 2018

Motion by Commission Member Greener to approve the June 12, 2018 minutes. Motion seconded by Commission Member Eberhard. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Eberhard – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

3. New Business:

a. Discussion and consideration of a code amendment limiting the number of homes on one access – Tyler Grange

Resident Tyler Grange told the Commission he drove by the subdivision behind Buttars Tractors, which has 29 lots and 11 four-plexes on one access. He said we cannot change the past so let us look at the future. What do we want Tremonton to be like? The code says 30 lots may require a second access, but resident Karli Palmer said we feel like the word may is gray and it should be black and white. A new phase got approved in our neighborhood (Holmgren East) that is going to put it at 47 lots and we get all the traffic. We have lots of kids out playing and it is frustrating. Brigham City’s code does not say may it says shall. We are suggesting we change may to shall so it is black and white and does not allow some people to get away with things. Mr. Grange said I believe the gray areas lead toward a corruptive nature. If we say all developers are required to have this then in the future we will have that needed safety. I came here for the Planning Commission to make that recommendation from may to shall to the City Council.

Chairman Capener said what do you feel that changes if that were approved? Ms. Palmer said it does not change our situation now, but it would change it in the future for other people. Mr. Grange said when the other phase is added the second road will go through and connect the park trailhead with another access. Right now we have 47 lots plus the park. The Buttars subdivision does not have a park so we feel it is a different situation. In the future it would change that for our neighborhood. I talked with Mayor Roger Fridal and developer Lyle Holmgren who said it was about money. Ms. Palmer said that is frustrating to us. Phase 8 is where the money is, not 6, which would have opened that access had they done phase 6 first. Chairman Capener said at the end of the day it all develops out the same way. Is it really that much of a difference between the second access with ten less homes? Ms. Palmer said yes, have you seen the traffic that passes there daily. Chairman Capener said eventually construction will be done. Irrespective of the development or the second access the traffic is still there. Ms. Palmer said if that road were open the traffic would be dispersed better. Chairman Capener said the collector road is what solves the problem ultimately. Commission Member Eberhard brought up a development by the canal that was not allowed to develop further until they had another access. The maximum in that situation was 44 lots. Ms. Palmer said then why does the ordinance say 30? Chairman Capener said for these types of instances, the City is requiring three accesses here with the collector road into the neighboring property. Sometimes in the lay of the land it does not make sense to put that all in right away. Ms. Palmer said but it would have made more sense to put in phase 6. Chairman Capener said at the end of the day it will be developed out. The may allows us to get from here to there. Ms. Palmer said it is just frustrating to hear this is where the money is when it looks like it would make more sense to put in phase 6 first.

Councilmember Rohde said we have public access to the trail now, which adds to that traffic. Maybe in future codes we ought to discuss if we are adding a park or something that will drive more traffic up through there. If that collector road is not in by the time we get going with that trail that could add traffic. Chairman Capener said with Buttars Tractors for example, that road going through is a long ways off. In your case it maybe makes sense, in their case, if we limited it to 30 homes they could not have done a lot of stuff. Commission Member Stokes said there has to be a limit—you cannot say we can continue, continue, continue and then they get to the last 10 feet and they put in it. Ms. Palmer said I understand if we were 35, but we are at 47 with a public park. They keep saying it will be in soon enough, but what if the market crashes next year? Then it is not going in for ten years. Our kids want to go out and play and it is hard to let them because we have 30 to 40 semis pass our house a day. There is a mess and it is a huge safety concern. Chairman Capener said the hard part for me is that every situation is a little different. I like the word may because it let’s the Land Use Board say how we get there. It has to be a little flexible. Ms. Palmer said is 47 lots a little flexible? Chairman Capener said it should be way more than that in my mind because they have to have three accesses. Ms. Palmer said why can we not say just do phase 6? Chairman Capener said in his case it makes sense to do that, but in some of the others cases it does not. Ms. Palmer said I get that, but it is something you guys approved. Chairman Capener said if we put shall it applies to everybody, not just Mr. Holmgren’s subdivision. I think putting a number on each individual space makes sense. Councilmember Rohde said what could we have done as a Planning Commission in the first place to address this issue? That is something we can look into. It would have been nice to know when we were talking about the subdivision what the variables were and letting the public know.

Commission Member Stokes said if we change it to shall can we just approve a variance when it comes around? Administrator Bench said a variance is very specific and has to be a really unique situation. Commission Member Stokes said if a developer knows they can only develop 39 lots then they can calculate their pay back based on that. Chairman Capener said Mr. Holmgren already put the second one in and it all connects, eventually. Ms. Palmer said yes, but it should have been done first. Chairman Capener said if you own 40 acres how many homes do you want to be able to build before you make a second access? Commission Member Greener said you want as many as you can that is financial, but that is why we have things in the code. Mr. Grange said codes are there to keep us safe and to be followed. Chairman Capener said the safety is the same whether we do it now or later. Commission Member Stokes said no it is not. Commission Member Greener said you could have ten years between it. Ms. Palmer said it is not constant traffic as it would be divided and dispersed. Councilmember Rohde asked if they could collect more data and compare codes with Brigham City and the County. Administrator Bench told them to do their homework and hold a public hearing during their next meeting on August 28.

b. Discussion of Stokes Warner Sign Overlay

Administrator Bench said they requested a 75-foot tall sign. The two things that did not meet the code were a tall pole sign and multiple wall signs with their brands on the building. We thought it would be better to do a Stokes Warner sign standard like we did with the Tremont Center than to open it up to the whole zone. A tall pole sign is not in the code and is limited to 36-feet. The idea would be to put in Chapter 16 the overlay zone for Stokes Warner to give them a 75-foot pole sign and additional wall signs.

Commission Member Stokes said why do they need one so high? Truckers know where they are going. An engineering firm got this and read our code, but what part of our code did they not understand? Now they want a variance. They should not draw it until they ask. Administrator Bench said that is a standard sign for Warner Trucks. Chairman Capener said I do not want to punish a company who is spending $6 million. Commission Member Eberhard said yeah, but they should have done their homework and know what is expected. Chairman Capener said they do, but they want something different. Is our code crazy restrictive or are they asking for something beyond what they should? My opinion is if someone is willing to spend $6 million then we should give them any sign they want. Commission Members Eberhard and Greener did not agree. Commission Member Greener said we have people who live in that area too and that is a big, lighted sign. I am not a fan of big signs. Administrator Bench said in the commercial highway zone west of I-15 signs can be 90 feet high. This one is industrial. Councilmember Rohde said could we open up a zone along that freeway corridor that allows for taller signs? Commission Member Greener said if it were by 2000 there is no issue because it is commercial on both sides, but this is by residential. Commission Member Eberhard said those residents will look over the valley and see this glowing sign. I think we have to restrict it. Commission Member Greener said it is 40 feet wide, which is huge. The Commission agreed they were okay with the others signs, but not the tall one and a public hearing should be held to get more input. Commission Member Janssen said if we give an exception then any development that goes in behind the hospital will also want that. I think we should not allow exceptions. They should have looked at the code and proposed an alternative if we did not approve the massive sign. Councilmember Rohde said if a big business comes in bringing a lot of jobs and their standard requires a big sign, then do we not allow them? Chairman Capener said it depends on which company it is. At least people by the freeway who would use that, but we do not want it in a residential area. Commission Member Greener said that changes with growth. It could be residential and then become commercial.

c. Discussion of amending zoning code to allow tattoo establishments

Councilmember Rohde said they came to City Council and talked to us. Commission Member Eberhard said we have had trouble with all of them in the past. I do not know why we should entertain anymore. Administrator Bench said the code does not allow them right now because of the issues we have had. Chairman Capener said do we have to allow everyone somewhere—we cannot discriminate. Do we have to allow a spot for them? Administrator Bench said no, the state law addresses SOBs (sexual oriented businesses) under that law. They have the process to appeal and that is the reason it is on here. Commission Member Stokes said what does the City attorney say? Are we going to get sued if we do not amend it? Councilmember Rohde said we asked our lawyer about not allowing that variance and if would we be in trouble and he said no. Commission Member Greener said let us do the public hearing for more input. The reality is about 30% of our citizens have tattoos—it is not taboo. They brought up micro-blading at hair salons, but Administrator Bench said makeup tattoos are allowed. Councilmember Rohde asked about their intended location. Although they have not picked one, Chairman Capener said they have asked him about a couple potential spots. Administrator Bench said they are willing to go anywhere the City will put them. Chairman Capener said I want to treat them fairly and give them an opportunity. Just because we had another person offend does not mean we can discriminate. Administrator Bench said they have the right to go through the process and that is why we are taking them through that. Commission Member Stokes said we would be amending the code this time because it is not currently allowed.

TRAFFIC ADVISORY BOARD

4. Business:

a. Discussion and consideration of adding a “Children at Play” sign on 100 South from 100 West to 200 West – per request of resident

b. Discussion and consideration of adding a “Deaf/Blind Child” sign at 100 West 457 North – per request of resident

Items a. and b. were discussed together. Administrator Bench said across from the fire station there are three houses and some apartments. A resident there has requested these signs. Commission Member Greener said I understand the Deaf/Blind Child sign more than the Child at Play sign. Commission Member Janssen said to me it makes sense where there is that transition between the stores and residential. Chairman Capener said does the City pay for those? Administrator Bench said yes, our ordinance states that it should come before the Traffic and Advisory Board. Chairman Capener said I do not think it hurts anybody. Commission Member Greener said I just do not want to do them everywhere. What is this sign going to tell people if they already know the speed limit? Administrator Bench said it would make the resident feel better. Chairman Capener said do we make them pay for it? Administrator Bench said no one else has, it is tax money. These requests do not come up very often. Commission Member Stokes suggested they talk to the resident who will have this sign placed in their mow strip. The Commission agreed to approve both signs after talking to the residents and seeing if they are okay with the signs, then they will proceed.

Motion by Commission Member Greener to approve the signs with the conditions discussed. Motion seconded by Commission Member Stokes. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Eberhard – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Janssen – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

5. Adjournment

Motion by Chairman Capener to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 6:25 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 28th day of August, 2018.

______________________________
Linsey Nessen, 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.