Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

forum. So, regardless of what happens in four minutes, we're start this thing and Royce, I don't know if you heard the plan. We're going to do a 10 15 minute meeting tops. Colin's going to take 10 minutes. We're at 30. Michaela's gonna turn off my microphone at 9 minutes and 59 seconds. Time has already started. Not expecting any discussion at all tonight, huh? I I'm it's it's not that I'm not expecting any discussion. I'm expecting no discussion.

Well, you can have the discussion about should that sign be 50t tall 48t tall and then someone will say how about 45 that see everybody feels the same way. Stop pushing our monitors down. Can't see it. I'm covering it up. Right. I'm sitting here like I'm supposed to have good posture, but I can't really do that when I'm looking down like this. Right. Same here.

So, it's it's it's hard. So what you got to do is you got to basically lift it really really firmly. So look triangle side.

Whoever's pushing them down has a much easier time of knowing getting them down than we do at getting back up.

All right, let's see. So, Scott and Oh, and Dylan back. I was kind of expecting some tonight. It's like right like it might be a fun one.

Yeah. Right. 61 of these end. Yeah. Go ahead and talk to the people who started the uh the fire at the old factory.

Then you can talk to me about history. Close this. didn't make you guys sweat today. Why? Because of the heat. No, because usually I'm coming in a minute before it starts. Oh, as long as we got a quorum, we're good. James, did you see the email earlier? Yes. Yes.

Gage, thank you.

It's We're recording then.

All right, it's 6 o'clock. Let's go ahead and uh bring to order the Syracuse Planning Commission meeting of May 5th, 2026. Um tonight we will have a um thought or would you mind Commissioner Garner? Uh Commissioner Garner will give a thought or uh invocation and then we will have a pledge of allegiance uh led by Commissioner N. Our beloved heavenly father, as we gathered together today, Father, we pray that thy spirit will be with us, that we'll do those things which will be beneficial to our city, that will be open-minded to those things that help us to achieve success in this community. Father, we pray for um all that we need in moisture and stuff for this part of our community. And we say these things humbly in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. All right. Uh we will for the minutes uh for our work session and regular meeting for April uh 7th, 2026. Uh we'll take a unless there's any notations or updates that we need to be made. We'll take a motion to adopt those minutes. Chair, I didn't see any corrections that needed to be made. So I'll make a motion that we accept the meeting regular meeting and work session of April 7th, 2026. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? A second. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Mo uh minutes are adopted for that meeting. We'll now move on to the uh public comment uh section of our meeting tonight. There's an opportunity for the public to address the planning commission for items that are not on the agenda tonight. If you have items that are uh if you have qu comments that are slated for a public hearing, we would ask that you would hold those until that time. Otherwise, we'll we'll open up public comment. Please keep your comments to three minutes or fewer. If when you get up to the mic, you state your name and address for the record. Timothy Woodard. I live in Clinton, 1203 West, 2560 123 North, 2560 West. Sorry about that. Clinton, Utah 84015. Um, I have a two-part plan to build a travel plaza over on 2000 West and 193. Um, I know there's very limited truck parking, if any, in the Freeport area, which would go to surf that directly. Um, it's kind of a big plan. kind of might take a decade or so to get the dream accomplished, but uh it would also involve possibly building a another arena football team uh with a hotel surrounding the stadium, uh some restaurants, a truck repair center, and then the second part of that is Diamond Ranch out by Analopee Island would go to support that travel plaza. Um, and that is currently zoned A1 and A5.

Um, and I think it could stay that way. Um, the only thing I was planning on doing was like horse boarding and dog boarding. Um, maybe some wedding venues, a bed and breakfast type thing. Um, but my biggest uh obstacle I think is the zoning right there on 2000 West and uh 193. I just need to make sure it's general use or general commercial. Um, so I can encompass all those things there. Um, and that's it. Okay. Thank you.

Do we have any other item? Anybody else that has a public comment at this time? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public comment and we will move on to the next item. Uh, public hearing for a reszone request by Alex Fleshman for a reasonable property located at 2900 West 1700 South.

Good evening. Uh, we have an application like you said for a proposed reszone. Current zoning is A1. proposed is general commercial. Uh there has been some recent agenda items on the city council uh concerning this. There's a a signed um between us and Hawking Development uh to bring the city some commercial development. Um this is actually city-owned and so essentially we're in in in a simple term, we're under contract to to sell to this group as long as they do certain things. Um, and this is uh kind of like a housekeeping item to get the zoning in preparation for uh a commercial subdivision and some site plans for each individual user. Uh, city council looked at this um their last meeting and then what's needed tonight is a recommendation and public hearing from planning commission and then forward it back to city council for the final action. Okay. Um, this is this item is slated for public hearing. So, anybody who has uh some comments or uh comments or questions about this particular item, the floor will be open for you. Please, again, as with public comment, keep your uh comments to three minutes before us. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public hearing. We'll bring it back to commission for questions. Uh do we have the applicant in the room? I'm here with a development, but I think

isn't the city the technical applicant? Uh, so I think the uh the applicant on paper uh it's Alex uh Flehman. Is that ringing a bell? I think it's through your engineer a did it or AWA. Thank you. Um, so yeah, he's he's the developer. The uh engineer who applied is not here and that's fine. Um, for the commission, if you'd like to come forward, any of the commissioners have questions for you about the development or anything like that, we can do that. This is specifically regarding the zoning change, isn't it? Yeah.

You state your name and Yeah. Kendall Hawkins 1076 East 1010 North in ORM Utah. Awesome. Thank you. I mean I don't have any comments but I always feel like it's fair to make sure commissioners all have a chance to ask any questions about the particular item. I don't have any regarding the zoning. No. Okay. None either. So we're just, you know, glad that you're willing to do that. Yeah. So are we. All right. Cool. Thank you for Thank you.

Of course. Um any questions for city staff on this? Otherwise, I'll take a motion and be reminded that this is a recommendation or um whichever direction with whatever your motion is. Uh slated recommendation for city council. Chair, I'll make a motion then. Um, I'll make a motion that um we approve this reszone request and to general commercial um for recommended forward to the city council for their approval. Okay, we have a motion for for this item. We have a second.

I'll second. All right, we have a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion pass. I'll just note that I was not here for the discussion, but I had no questions and and in favor had no so was not fair. Thank you, Commissioner. Sure. All right. Um, moving on to the next item, public hearing for a text amendment proposed amendment to city code that would increase uh signage height and size allowances.

Okay. Uh hopefully you guys have had a chance to read the packet on this one. Uh this is also in relation to the same site as they're kind of getting things up and running. Uh these national tenants that um rely on the traffic from the freeway, which is a big driver, um have also identified the need for some signage that might be a little bit taller than what our ordinance allows because of the freeway. Uh uh you can see here a proposed signage package. Um kind of the main focus has been getting this big tall sign in. Our current ordinance would only allow a 25 ft sign, but what's proposed is 50 ft. Um, our ordinance also would not allow a signage area as big as this. So, this one's 500 square ft. I think our ordinance is uh 300 max. So, the height and the square footage um would need to be allowed to be a little bit larger. I've included some potential red line language if if we were I guess the first step is you know do you want to recommend to city council to try to accommodate this and then the second part of it is if yes um what kind of language would you recommend? Um the the goal with some of this language is to kind of reluctantly allow a space for it under a certain circumstance. Um we don't want big tall signs throughout the city cuz signs are needed for business, but they also can um add kind of visual clutter, uh light pollution, um you know, things like that. and but they can also be an attractive part of a development that that matches the

building architecture and things like that too. So in this proposed language, it's it's essentially the same language as what's already allowed for a multi-tenant pole or pylon, but we would add essentially a new type of sign. It's a freeway sign since we hadn't had a freeway before. This is kind of new territory for us. And so the the proposal would be allow would be to allow these signs to be up to 50 ft and and um 500 ft, but it would also maintain the same standards as the other ones with requiring some masonry. Um one other thing is no portion of the sign may be illuminated. This would just be to since it's already a big sign, you know, we would propose not to have additional lighting. Um, especially with Analope Island and trying to be good neighbors to them as the International Dark Sky Park. Um, also no electronic message signs being such a large elevated sign like that. I believe what's proposed is a rear lit C cabinet. So I think for this particular sign it wouldn't cause any problem. Um also we want to make sure it's it's an actual multi-tenant sign. Um and then we already require a minimum distance between signs so they're not too close together. Uh the other one is um let's see how many feet apart. 150 ft. So this essentially just doubles it. So we say three uh 300 ft. There it is. 300. And then adjacent to private property or public rideway. The other one actually you can be next to

the public rideway. Um where this is proposed on their site wouldn't you know this would be okay. And then the feet from the property line is in the event that it's not likely, but if wind were to blow it down, it wouldn't cross property lines. Um, and then again, we're just kind of creating a circle around what they're proposing. uh if they're going to have a big sign, we want them to to join forces with the businesses and it should be a large enough development, at least five tenant advertising spaces. And of course, if they close, we don't want a big prominent sign to be displaying a sign for a closed business for too long. Um the bottom of the sign is a little bit higher than the other one cuz it's so much taller. So uh and of course we want it to be only in general commercial because these other tenant signs this other multi-tenant polar pyland sign could be located in other zones like office or um then it would also limit it to off- premise freeway signs or limit make sure that because we do actually allow signage for businesses within Syracuse to have a sign away from their actual place of business, which is slightly different than a billboard. A billboard can be anybody and they don't own the sign, but an off- premise. Uh, I think this is an old relic of when there was a sign from RC Willies that was located on 3000 West. It's about a mile or two away from their store that and it's just a small little thing, but but

yeah, we do have already in in here a an off- premise advertising sign and the max you can go is 32 ft. So, we just want to make sure that it's not that cuz we don't want other businesses not on this development and they're going to own this sign anyway and probably wouldn't allow other businesses there anyway. It's almost a moot point, but and then like I said, we were trying to create a narrow scope of this uh to make sure we have some protection, but also other sites in the city there. There's not a lot of um elevated freeway locations. And so this this may only be be valid, you know, maybe one or two other other places. So yeah, questions. Do you like this language? You hate it? Did we get past even maybe we haven't discussed whether or not we even want to entertain this. Um, city council did discuss it. I think they're open to to discuss this. Um, that's why it arrived on this agenda, but yeah, I'm here for questions.

Well, this is open for public hearing, so we'll do that. It's also a public hearing. Yes. Go ahead. Uh, open public hearing on this item. you have in the audience. If you have questions, concerns, comments about this particular um order of business, please step forward.

I just have a comment. I think I believe in change and growth and Syracuse is booming. Um so, anything that would help uh promote business industry, I think should be approved. Hello, Shane Croin, 2353 South, 3585 West in Syracuse. Um, I just wanted to mention I like the idea of making this a narrow option for only specific areas along the freeway. Um, and I I really like the idea that they've proposed on page 14 with that back lit sign, so you don't have a lot of white lit up signs. And I'd even go a step further and and make those monument signs around the development that same type of sign. So, cuz if you get a lot of those signs with the white lit sign around, it's going to light up that place down there. But and and I think it'll even detract from the new Syracuse signs off of the freeway cuz those are basically backlit type signs, too. So to keep that same type of atmosphere, I' I'd say make all the signs around these type of areas that backlit type. Um whether it needs to be 50 feet, I'm I'm not 100% sure. I know traveling down that road northbound towards that analopee exit, I can see the the top five feet of the U DOT uh street lights. Um so I don't know how that correlates, but um maybe it can come down a few feet, but I definitely like the idea of that back lit type sign. So that's it. Thanks, Shane. Thank you, Shane. Appreciate it.

Sorry, I was actually inquiring about his question about that. Um, do we know on that? Anybody other comments? Sorry. I came just for this.

So, I am Victoria Lloyd. I'm on 1526 South 2750 West. So, my I look right out at this all day every day at Mr. Car Wash. So, I um don't think it's necessary to have it that tall because this is not an interstate. These are local people on here. They're going to know that there's a Chick-fil-A there. These are national, like you said, national brands. Um they're going to know that it's there. They're not going to need that signage there. So, um that's my opinion and I don't think it needs to be so tall. Thanks. Thank you.

Any other public comments? just in speaking with these tenants and deal making with them. They're used to this is pretty standard typical highway signage heightwise and um this company who drafted this is a first draft for us but this allied group I think if you they attached a letter to this kind of explaining with even the the sightelines from the the interstate just um they do a lot of studies whether it's yesco or allied or these guys um but anyways the the the the crucial tenants that we need here in order to to get the land they they need. This is kind of a need for them um to have that visibility and signage. So, it's an important part to our deals that we're working on. And um otherwise, I mean, I think we can be pretty uh flexible in terms of, you know, how they're lit and shaped and, you know, so it's a harmonious look for the whole center. That's that's a main goal of ours as well. But the height is important to get that 50 ft. That's just kind of a and dealing with the Dardans of the world. It's they definitely know what they get everywhere USA and they know what's important to them and signage is definitely one of those things. So otherwise I'm here to answer any questions but um you just got to get Oh, got it. Any other comments? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public hearing and we'll bring it back to um we probably will have a couple questions. Um I'm going to direct a question over guys.

Do you guys know offhand um what the standard height of uh those street lights are? I just did a I just did for it and said it said anywhere from like 70 to 100 based on whether they're freeway lights whatnot. Uh if only we had like some sort of traffic engineer with a PhD that like memorizes ASHTTO standards, they may be in luck. Well, the 70T are the ones that are in the middle. So typically the offramps are either 40 or 50 feet for U DOT.

Okay. So it would need be close to that. the the ones that are on here are not even 40 ft. So the our it would be a little bit taller than our off-ramp lights. I think those are 35 or 40. So Scott, does the I'm assuming that the height makes a difference to I being able to make a decision to safely exit is if I see this very next slide. The height of it affects

Yeah. And you can you can see from that exit uh you know that exit diagram is that at certain speeds they want it to be a certain height so that you can make that decision in enough time. Um you know you don't realize how big traffic signals are but they're four feet tall just the the red, yellow and green and they just don't appear because they're that high up. 50 feet feels tall. I mean that's taller than most of our houses uh around here. So it's going to feel if you you're standing next to it very tall but from the freeway it's not going to it will feel smaller because of this the scale and the distance but yeah there is enough they do want enough time to make that decision. Um yeah, whether they whether it can really be seen from at 30 feet tall or 25 ft tall is uh you'd have to go out and measure it exactly.

So a couple things that we also do have to take into account on this as well is eventually uh currently right now the freeway goes another what mile and a half mile to the end until it hits 193. eventually it's going to go all the way through and we're going to have traffic that is going to be going back and forth and it's not going to be like okay we're getting we're getting close to Syracuse this is our you know this is our end stop we're going to become a major through point and you know I as much as I do like not having uh signage around I I recall Noah did a a training with us a couple years ago ago um and showed us a picture of a was that from the 80s?

I think it was Roy.

Yeah. Yeah. I don't want I grew up in I don't want our city looking like I love Roy. I don't want our city looking like main street. So, um I think as long as the the verbiage is uh clear and I think that the verbiage that we that's been that that was been added does make it clear that it has to be matching. It can't be it can't be an isol. Um, the other thing I think I would ask is is there any I couldn't really see is there any verbiage specifically states what um where a freeway multi-tenant pole or pylon sign would be allowed like how within how far of a exit how far within of a freeway

there there is one that's 200 feet within the interchange and that was actually a question because If Costco wanted to put up a sign, they may be within 200 feet of the interchange. No, we measured. So, yeah. I mean, is that is in there, right? Within Okay. 200 feet of the pavement elevator. Okay. Cool. Cool. I just We're going through it quick enough and I just wanted to make sure that I didn't miss. So, all all good questions for sure.

Royce, one other question. We talked about, you know, the back lighting and illumination. I do like that we want to be conscientious of, you know, light and how bright it is. Um, do we need any verbiage or anything that says that it, you know, doesn't shine onto the freeway or, you know, for drivers and or is that just covered with that? No. Within this same ordinance, there is some, if you notice, the title of the the ordinance is sign and lighting regulations. I think we're already covered by some of these other things that talk about light staying on site and things like that.

Right. That was just one of the concerns when I was going through this. Yeah. As far as the map goes, uh here's approximately 200 feet. So, you can see it wouldn't it wouldn't reach on to Costco. They've already submitted their sign. It's a 25 foot tall sign, but they also have a giant warehouse that they've got. They have signs on the side of a warehouse that you're gonna see us.

Yeah. So, they have the benefit of having a giant facade that they can place. Our sign ordinance is based off of the square footage of the building, 15% of the principal and five% of the secondary. So, I mean 15% of the side of Costco. I mean, they they have so much signage allowance that they could I don't think that they were too worried about the height in their circumstance. The only other place in the city that you know has to be zone general commercial and within 200 ft. You know there might be some a sign here. Uh this is where pickle ball kingdom but again they have a giant building proposed as well that they can just plaster a sign on the side of that too. So

that that location would not be interchange though. So would that exclude it or would it be uh It's a good question. What What does it say? Does it say say 200 interchangement of the elevated freeway interchange and then that that would also 200 feet with the interchange where you just drew not 200 ft. That's 200 ft of the ramp the interchange actual cross street.

Well, that's a problem being too close. Well, we might need to amend this to be a little bit more precise if we I was assuming that a ramp was part of an interchange, but if we wanted to say add the words ramp and interchange or if we wanted to loosen up to allow any elevated portion, I guess this would not be considered an interchange. It would just be considered an elevated bridge. So, you're right. This I don't think this would count. Uh, this I think is elevated and and would probably count if there's some commercial development maybe over here, but I don't think that's within maybe the only one it would be somewhere over here is within 200 ft. But it's it's a little bit uh difficult to say exactly because at what point does it start being elevated? If it's just normal ground level, I don't think that that they could put it over here for example.

I I'm welcome to any ideas. So I would actually ask you from your expertise on that. Would RAM based on what you said a second ago? I'm guessing not that brown would not speak up would be part of the interchange but you could you could say freeway ramp but I could see a lot of loopholes with the the ramp. Oh, we'll just move it 10 ft to the slightly elevated part and then you got this giant sign in your face as soon as you're getting off on the ramp rather than kind of where it's intended to be closer it back closer to the business. Yeah,

I think precision is important. Well, we value your expertise. So, do they they have to put in when they put in their site plan where they want to sign, it goes through a a review. Is that I mean, is there language that we can put it so that it has to be kind of that makes sense? So, it's vague enough to say it needs it needs approval, but it needs to be, you know,

it does have the language shall not constitute a traffic hazard or they shall not create a traffic hazard. That's a little loose up for interpretation. Ideally, when you have administrative review, there's not a lot of wiggle room. We we want to make sure we have a way of interpreting the ordinance accurately when we're reviewing a conditional use permit for a sign. Well, we we run into the the problem of somebody saying, "Well, by the letter of the law, according to what you have written, um I am legally entitled to put sign." Yeah. And so I don't want that. I don't think anybody wants that.

And it does have to be on general commercial and it has to be in it has to be more than 60 feet from an adjacent propert. So, you know, as as it kind of squeezes down, it eventually, you know, for that case, it would be close to an adjacent property that it would start to you you couldn't, right? So, the ramp may be continuing further, but the other properties would start to up. Could we add some kind of language that says after, you know, after the ramp begins 200 feet, 300 feet, whatever, you know, it can't be within

so many feet of where the ramp freeway freeway gore is the term you're looking for. That sure can't can't be within 200 I mean 200 feet of the freeway gore but it can be on the freeway ramp adjacent to a freeway ramp but farther than 200 200 feet from the gore. Yeah, which is where it separates from the freeway. Great. Wait, so 200 feet away? 200 feet doesn't have from here. So, but within 200 feet of the ramp,

it 200 feet within 200 feet of the ramp, but it can't be within the gore. That's that's where the freeway ramp separates from the freeway. Did you say gore? G r to me gore is all the unnecessary billboards and signs by the freeway. All the gory details saying is basically from right where it splits, right? We we would need some kind of verbiage to say within so many or without so many feet of the gore engineer. So this is a gore right there. Yeah, that's the gore point. The gore point. So 200 feet from there. We can't have we're not going to have any signs. I mean they

something like that. Yeah, maybe we would need to go further just a little bit. Yeah. I mean, with the size of those signs, that's You know what I mean? I mean, I feel like they'd push it as they're going to take whatever space we give them. I feel exactly. I I want those. Yeah. I mean I actually and and and what was what was what's in the packet on the design I think I think is going to work but we want to make sure that any future developments and especially this development is within what we think our city council and if we can make it as clear as possible it just helps.

Yeah. Essentially, what we're allowing an extra height allowance for is when there's an elevated freeway blocking people's view. Right. Right. I mean, are we really worried about it being near the gore point? Is there an impact to being too close to that?

I I think is what we want is maybe just some clarification of where we're measuring from. 200 feet from what? 200 feet from an elevated freeway. Is that starting from from right there or is it starting from the ramp? Maybe we just include the word elevated uh interchange including ramps or something. the entrance to Well, if we Sorry, if we do some kind of verbiage that says um elevated uh elevated freeway counts as so many feet of elevation,

you could say a grade separated crossing, which would allow both the inner, you know, where there's ramps and there's no ramps because then the undercrossings of where the pickle ball kingdom is, that would be a great separated cross. Yeah, you could instead of elevated freeway interchange, you could call it a great separated crossing, but that would expand the scope of this to maybe another location. Yeah, it would allow at the at the pickle ball union, but again, I don't like that. You do or don't? I don't. Okay.

Think of like trailside park. you're out there walking your dog in nature and bam, here's a giant sign to get a cheeseburger. Like to me, that just totally takes away from the green space experience. The last thing I want is sure to allow more points of access to have additional signs. I think we need to have very specific location. Yeah, keep interchangement. It does. We do also have the the specific verbiage in there um about multi-tenant and the minimum amount of tenants that require to be able to to have such a sign which means it's going to be a certain parcel size to be able to accommodate that many tenants. Right.

Exactly. which so again I mean if the pickle ball business ends up you know wheeling and dealing with all of their neighbors and everything then sure but we're talking that would have to be I don't know I I don't know exactly how many businesses we're going to have in that particular lot area but I I'd like it just at the end

I think I think uh interchange is is better I just uh it's a fine line between painting yourself in a corner with language where you have to have a fight on everything that goes through but also having enough guidance so that you're kind of discouraging some, you know, unnecessary pushing around too. But um I I feel like we're going the right direction here. I just I don't know in my mind I could see signs like well we want to get to the customer first. We want to get in front of that other sign. So we're trying to get to the very front of that ramp or the very front of our uh available options. And maybe that's just me being paranoid, but well, we don't want we don't want to become what we were talking about, right?

That's enough because they'd have to has to be general commercial and you can only have one per side. So that Yeah, we don't have enough freeway general commercial frontage. Yeah. To or incidents where we have multiple in a row. Isn't the 193 crossing partially in Syracuse and isn't partially some general commercial in that area would be available under this uh option would apply a little bit further north. Future plan, right? Yeah. And we do have some general commercial up there.

I think I Yeah, I think our Where's the Syracuse side? Isn't it like just right a little bit further south? And I think a precedent would happen there with whatever West Point decides to do, too. like we start throwing all these signs up there pretty soon. That whole area is going to just be full. There's actually a piece up here that's us too on the other side of the freeway.

Um I do have a quick question and I I would love to ask you know and have that addressed but I am curious has the has the thought been requested about doing a one-time variance for this particular thing? So a variance you have to like prove a hardship and I don't know if they would necessarily but there there is kind of like a one-time approval kind of thing like a development agreement that would be yeah there we we could um but it seemed like the more straightforward would be to incorporate into ordinance but that's also an option too. If you wanted to recommend that to city council you could. I think where we're at right now, I do like the direction we're going like Blake said, but at the interchange at beginning of the ramp, I don't know if we even have to include anything with ramp, but as long as we've got it just at the interchanges, I think that's going to cover what we're asking. In all honesty, I mean, I think you could be somewhat specific with if you only want this to be the only one in the entire city, you could I don't know. Have you ever seen a GPS coordinate in an ordinance,

but So, probably not illegal. I'm looking at our attorney, Colin. That' be a no. I mean, I don't I I I think I think the verbiage as it is is good. Um, I do have a little bit of a concern with it being on the interchange. Uh, I mean, this particular one, I worry that this one would fall without that because we're talking about the interchange, which of course is is where the actual intersections happen. But if if everyone is good with with with the verbage interchange,

what if we just add two words including ramps behind the word interchange? Would that help? Yeah. Pavement of an elevated freeway interchange ramp. Yeah. And then it's a recommendation to the city. But then your edge of payment is you've been measuring from the edge of the freeway. So then if you do put the ramp then that that pushes it out to where they can they're going to measure it much closer. So we don't need to necessarily have 200 feet. We could say 100 ft. Is there a reason why we're going from edge pavement instead of center line? Is that for a traffic hazard issue or

just easier something? We have to pick something to measure from. Plus, nobody wants to go in the middle of the off. Yeah, you got to be quick. Yeah, I think you would need at least 180 to get to where get outside of the rideway. They are proposing their sign if we were trying to make way for this sign. So, a good number is rounding up to 200. Um, you know, 300 puts you way out or like you can see here's 400 all the way out to the Costco. That's 900. No, please. No,

I think I think I think 200 is a good is a good distance. Um, they're proposing. So, I'm assuming that that's the mark location site for what they're thinking. Yeah, if you look at there's a driveway right there is pretty well straight across right in here. If I'm reading their map right, I think the rendering is wrong. The rendering puts the sign out here in the Bureau of Reclamation land, right? But where they've shown it on the map is out here. Okay. And the the direction of the sign is going to be facing. We have that. I didn't see

probably two-sided is my guess. I don't think we have that level of detail. They are limited on square footage of the building. So, um, yeah, I would think it's just probably facing the, uh, the offramp is or I don't know. It's a good question because I Yeah, I think like you, I was thinking it's a two-sided beer side for sure. Probably a two-sided and they probably have enough allowance based off of the square footage of their structures.

Okay. Um, I I do want to address a couple comments that I had now that we've kind of got that sorted out. Um, I'm not a fan of the height of the sign. Uh, personally, I feel like the whole experience that Syracuse is trying to create is a destination for Analopee Island, is a city distinct, not typical suburb that you find anywhere else. Uh to me that really detracts from it having a Jordan Landing style giant side at the main primary entryway to the city. Analopee is where everybody's going to come if they're going to Analopee Island. 2000 is primarily commuters the way I see it. People that actually come to town to go to Analopee Island are going to go on Analopee Drive. And to me, you've got these beautiful monument signs. You got these things that are kind of getting you in that that vibe to go out to Analopee Island and experience it. and we're like, "Oh, Chick-fil-A." Um, people navigate using their phones. We're not we're not looking for billboards. That's not how we're or signs. That's not how we're choosing where we go to eat these days. To me, having it be 50 feet tall is is moot. You drive on Interstate F uh on the Interstate 15, you can't see the In-N-Out sign. In-N-Out is not struggling for business. Tell you that. uh either north or south, you have no idea in and outs there until you're you're already right past it or you've already exited. Uh so to me, the the height of the sign is completely irrelevant and would make no difference for a national brand like Chick-fil-A that has all the business that that they need. There's going to be lines out there regardless. So, so to me that the height is unnecessarily unnecessarily tall and kind of goes against the in my mind what the vision is of what we're trying to do with with Syracuse.

Great point. you have a idea on height that you are are

I don't have any problem with the standard height that we have as written. Um the sign as rendered is is nice and I appreciate the attention to detail and making it look like a nice classy professional sign and not just something thrown up with a logo on it and I appreciate that. Uh, but I I think that a a 50- foot tall sign is completely unnecessary in my mind. Like I I don't I don't make a last minute decision when I'm coming through Syracuse of all places of, oh, Chick-fil-A, I better pull over, right? I mean, you're you're either going to come here to eat or you're not. So, to me, that the sign is just not really going to make any difference on the amount of customers they get. I think they'll be fine. That being said, I approve of all the language that we're going through and I have no problem with a sign in general. Just not not like that. Not too high, not that conspicuous.

Again, we do have the developer in um it sounded like you had some comments and some concerns. So, you want to come back up? Um we can ask some questions from the commission to address. Uh so it sounded like a few moments ago you were kind of mentioning how this is kind of like a deal breaker almost on that.

Yeah. So, signage, access, visibility, these are key deal points that all these national brands depend on and they know their brand better than all of us. And there's there's there's just studies on the visibility of your business. So this is in their mind, in our mind, kind of very much in line with what you get with highway signage kind of not anywhere USA, but any anywhere, you know, Utah. But

and I understand the the code doesn't accommodate for it because this is a new road, right? So I can appreciate your, you know, narrowing the scope to carve out something very limited. I think that's smart, more supportive of that. But the 50 ft is really important to these national brands. It is. It's in our It's in our uh LOIs and leases. It's it's a talking point on all these calls when we're talking to Darden and Chick-fil-A and everyone else that we're really excited about getting here at the center. So that um I know it's a large sign package we came in with, but the 50 ft is the most important deal point for us landing these tenants that want to come do business in here and a lot of sales tax and uh just open as strongly as they can. I think it's um it's it's reasonable. It's what we're asking for. Um and again I can we use Allied but we use Yesco a lot. So we see a lot of these studies where they they actually drive the road. They market you know the visibility because one of you mentioned earlier you know the important thing is someone traveling north on that road they have to make a decision to pull off there that that that sign should be should be visible to that. So,

I don't know if there's any questions or I would be curious to see those studies about the uh traffic and business they do with and without with more signage if that equals more sales.

For example, uh the Analopee location of Chick-fil-A, you don't even know it's there until you get there. The drive-thru is horrendous. The parking lot is so bad that I I just drive right by and don't even go there because it's such a bad experience. people in my experience in my life, you look at the phone, you follow the GPS, it doesn't matter what the signs say. Um, so I would be curious to see if they what those studies are that compare a 50-ft sign compared to a 25 ft sign and see what that difference is in their sales. Also, uh, Utah restaurants, there's lines. Like you open a new location, there's lines. word gets around.

Any other questions for the Thank you. Thanks. All right. Um, we've we've kind of gone both directions on this, I think, but as far as discussion, whatnot. Um, unless there's further comments, we can take a motion. I I would say uh just before we take a motion, I like everything we discussed with the the language and everything, but I I do not care for the 50 foot sign portion of that. This is a recommendation recommendation city council.

City council. Uh and so I guess the recommendation could be a change to the height or I'm not.

Yeah, I agree that there's, you know, restaurants, we we use our phones, we type in, I want to go to Chick-fil-A, and it'll take you there. Um, and that even though it will get punched through, it's not going to be the major trekking corridor. You know, we're we're going to be mostly residential people of Syracuse and Roy and West Point that are going to be traveling this roadway and they're going to know where they are, where these restaurants are. And they might might have the sign be a little bit more visible. They see them a few more times, just say, "Oh, yeah, that's there." But we also have other attractants that they're going to see it anyway. they're going to come to Costco and that's when they they'll notice it and say, "Oh yeah, there's a development over there. There's Chick-fil-A. There's Olive Garden." Uh, so I'm inclined to saying that a 50 foot tall isn't necessary to drive business from the freeway just because of the nature. It's it's not I5. We're not It's not a trucking route

where truckers are going to be pulling off. Um, well, I guess it would be if do we need the recommendation for this signage or is the current signage enough that they could provide because they if they do a 20 foot high sign, you know, do they just need more square footage? Because then at 20 foot high five 25 foot high in order to get enough on there you're going to be basically touching the ground if they're only if they're 5 foot tall each and we have need to have some that that's where I'm like okay I agree 50 foot may be too high but we still need to get enough you know enough have enough real estate for them to put signs on there right maybe there's compromise with the square footage that they could go more laterally and not have to say have the same dimensions or uh you know maybe it could be a little higher since it's by the freeway but yeah in my mind 50 ft is just I think the problems you're going to come up against on that on top of on top of you know kind of what the developer mentioned that these are kind of these are kind of their red line options you know these are their these are their yeah these are theirs right here. Um, I'm not saying that that's that should be driving our decision or anything like that, but we do need to take into account that uh if they are going to be going uh broader up to 500 square ft kind of to what Scott mentioning, if we start going too low, you're completely defeating the point of having three, which completely defeats the point of any of this herbage at all. So

that's true. Either we have a freeway sign or we don't have a freeway. We either have an ordinance for it or we have we don't. It's normal signage then, right? And so if if we have a situation where like this they are in need of a freeway sign, either we either have the ordinance or we do not. And that's kind of what we really have to decide uh on this on our recommendation of city council. That's a good good point.

We can we can we can quibble about you know 49 ft 50 ft 500 square foot uh coverage or all of that and that's fine. And in the end that's going to go to city council and they're going to be the ones that are going to be you know set the final ordinance. But again, it's just coming down. Either we need a a a freeway sign or we don't need a freeway sign. I personally I think we need it. I agree with you. I made this comment earlier, especially if changes. I just think if we limit it to where it could be if you know takes alleviates some of your concerns like out pickler

because I do not want it along the nature trail and all that. The last thing I I mean I've said at the beginning I do not want us look like city that's that's the absolute worst thing I can think of of our city end up looking like. But basically what we have to decide is do we need the ordinance or do we not need the the the uh the motion for recommendation should reflect that

food for thought where this is going to be the primary access for people from outer town to come to Syracuse. This is going to be their impression, right? So, you pull off the exit, there's a monument, Syracuse or whatever, but they're they're already hungry for Chick-fil-A, which is great for business, but I don't know. Is that is that what Oh, that go to the exit with the Chick-fil-A. Then go out to the island,

right? Then go to the island if you got time. Make sure you get your waffle fries, right? Um, so it's just Yeah, I wish there was a way to kind of meld those a little bit so it wasn't so kind of ostentatious. this is Chick-fil-A town versus we've got services here for you. Please spend your money here, but we've got other things to offer as well. And I guess I don't have an answer for that, but to me that's that's what I see. You're going down this nice westside kind of scenic wetlands. I commute on it regularly and it's very pleasant, enjoyable commute and then just be smacked with this like fast food sign to break up that kind of experience is not my favorite. But I understand the need for driving the business and the uh the tax base there for sure

and I I think those are I think those are very valid concerns. Um I would mention just a couple quick things on that. Um number one I don't know for sure and Scott you may you may have this as far as like the west corridor continuing northward. It's from what I understand kind of kind of a rude city. It's not really going to be on the west side of the city. Right through the middle, correct? They are doing a study right now for the fourth phase of where it'll go, but eventually it will connect back to I up

go right by the Wheeler Bay.

Right. So, I mean, we're looking at this the way that it's going. If it continues that way, we will be kind of the last stop where it is kind of that that beautiful, you know, wetland uh view. Um the one other thing that I would I would also caution us to to remember um I've been I've been a Syracuse resident for 12 years. I you know I think most most here been at least that longer in Texas. Uh we have seen a lot of turnaround on a lot of our businesses especially restaurants um due to um some negative comments from from the city and whatnot. And that's, you know, that's neither here nor there. But I I wonder if I don't know. I I I I'm clearly I lean towards needing a free sign obviously in in this kind of scenario, but I wonder if maybe those kind of things are going to help longevity, keep the businesses in place. Um I worry that we we've seen a fair amount of turnaround on some of our other businesses. Um, and I I would not want to see that for something like this, in a business park like this, especially for our primary. You're getting off of our freeway and you're now seeing a big Chick-fil-A because they up in the left. I don't think that's going to happen. I'm I'm being extremely hyperbolic, but if if the Costco wasn't going to be there, I would see your point. But that's going to bring as many people to Syracuse as animal does, and that's fairly So,

okay, we'll take a motion.

Hey, okay, I'll I'll jump in then. Um, I'm going to make a motion that we do um forward a recommendation to the city council for approval of the um um this

ordinance as presented to us today. Um with the language changes that we've made during our discussion and um you know, we'll let this stay in the hands of those elected officials to work this out. And um I do respect all of the comments that have been made here today. I think we've had a great discussion and recom and also appreciate the feedback we've received from the developer and citizens and I that's why I'm mindful of how bright it is, where it's illuminating to and that we're very cautious of how we do it. But I do think we have the opportunity to do it right and to affect even future development along this corridor. So I do re make a recommendation to the city council for approval. Thank you Garner. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll sec I'll second Nelson. Um based on uh based on the conversation tonight, I think it would be best if we uh did a um by person. I don't know the exact roll call vote on this. Um so we have a motion. We have a second. We'll do a roll call vote. Uh Commissioner G

I. Commissioner Sh. Nay. Commissioner. Nay. Hi. And I will vote. Return. The motion will pass 32. Um, does that form and everything does that mean?

I don't think that works. Yeah, I didn't think so. I think we I I think we have to be at four or have four or more to pass, right? So, we need to even recommendations. Okay. Okay. Um so that's that this is where we're at. Would that be a a motion to table then until we can have a our a complete commission here? That might be what we have to do right now, right? That would be a legitimate option. What would be our other option at that point? I I don't know that there is.

Uh two people will have to go out in the parking lot and resolve their difficulties. All right, let's go. Okay. Um I I we either table or continue discussion, right? to get to one way or the other, but your specific date. I I I think that Commissioner Baker's uh point is fair that we uh have the full commission here um to be able to to meet that recommendation at that time. Um so, and what do we do if we come with the same numbers next meeting

and have the same issue? Obviously, we can't do this forever, but maybe maybe table until a specific date and have that be the hard date to proceed or not. Uh if so, keep it keep in mind we are making a recommendation to city council.

All of the verbiage uh finalizing and all of that will will in the end be uh decided uh with the city council of the mayor. Um, so if we wanted to uh reward the recommendation that we could then come to a consensus as a commission um for at least four of us to vote for um that and come to a compromise. Um, keeping in mind that city council may look at our recommendation and go, "Yeah, we're not I think it's relevant for the city council to understand that we had a discussion as well and that it wasn't unanimous and they would see that."

Oh, absolutely. We have conversation amongst them regardless. Absolutely. And I and by the way, this is this is one and I'll probably bring this up during our commission reports, but this is one of my favorite parts of of planning commission is when we don't voluntary on a particular thing, we can come to a compromise and a situation. So, we either table it, revoke

and potentially uh run into the problem of same thing happening in a future meeting. Um I think that that is probably not the best way to go. best way in my opinion is for us to come to a compromise on verbiage or the recommendation for city council. So I think that a lot of that comes back um chairman is to your point about whether we want a freeway ordinance or not. To me that seems to be the crux of the conversation, right? Like if we can agree on that and that would determine a lot of these other variables. Yeah. Is that that's what assessment

you do want to I I think that I think that is accurate because it it reflects what I said earlier and I about it. Hi. Um yeah, Mr. Chair, I'll point out that I mean to to your point, um we don't have to dial down the exact language here, right?

Um but yeah, you could make a recommendation that you are in agreement that some sort of freeway signage ordinance should exist, but couldn't quite dis like agree on the exact specifics. Would it and for for the two descending opinions, um would the verbiage in the motion reflecting kind of what Noah was saying just now that rather than recommending approval based on uh on the language written uh recommend approval uh based on further discussion and uh addressing many of the concerns that we have brought up.

Would that would that would that suffice? I I think that the the big concern is the the feel for what we want, right?

To me to me it is that completely changes all of a sudden we're in, you know, West Valley or wherever else. It's just generic suburbia, USA, no identity. You could be anywhere where we have something special here. Most cities do not have a state park at their doorstep. Most cities do not have a lot to really make themselves stand out. We have a rare opportunity with that. It would be in my mind a shame to to do that and not obviously one sign is not going to do that. Um it'd be interesting to kind of think about hypothetically what would be the worst case scenario at that intersection. like what could the mass density of signs at different corners look like if it got out of hand with this ordinance? There's I mean there's a school, there's residential, so it couldn't get too crazy, which is good. We wouldn't have it on all sides. It wouldn't be

and it's limited to lots. So, I think we've got some language that keeps things under control to a certain level. And I agree with you there too, Blake, because I think it was good that in the proposal sign that it's all on one sign that we don't have five different signs. It's just one sign that's saying here's the businesses in this interchange. Right. Um sorry Scott a moment ago before was talking. Could you repeat exactly what you said a moment ago? Just say that again. the feel for the freeway and you know as they're as they're well coming to Syracuse you know because I commute on the West Davis corridor and it's 16 miles and there's not a sign

it's beautiful all the way and hawks my wife comments very often she's like I just love driving on this freeway because I can see you know and it's like that that really struck a cord like yeah I don't want to mess it up but there there are other interchanges and they other cities will have that's that's where I start weighing it is that they will probably if when they get developed go to commercial right off the interchanges and will they be doing that but we're we are being developed and if we set the precedence uh of let's put up these big signs then the whole thing is going to get

what what about this what if um since this is like a prime sign location what if we had incorporated some kind of like Analopee Island signage or something as part of that. So, we're promoting the city and the area and not just the restaurants. Would something like that change the as part of the sign that it needs to

Would that change part of the the feel of it? It's not just being a place to stop and get a quick bite. Be more of a we're a just kind of brainstorming here. Would that change anything? I would I like the idea, but I would also u beg the question number to city staff and attorney if that is something that we could do within the ordinance for a business. I do have some concerns when we start saying to anyone your sign must include this language or that language. I would want to look at that further, but I'll just tell you that that my gut reaction is it could be troublesome. Yeah. Yeah.

Fair. And I like the idea, but you know, legally, you know, we we're still bound by law. It's their sign on their property as long as they're following the aesthetics that have been laid down by the code. Yes, I understand that. Yeah. I think it it's fair game to have some theming, colors, materials to a certain extent, but but yeah, we have to avoid any free speech issues and content the signs we have to Another thought I had is um a lot of exits will have a services sign, right? Like say it's a blue sign these restaurants ahead

and it's after you're exiting it tells you everything you need to know mile and a half to Chick-fil-A or whatever it is, right? Exit 13. Yeah. Isn't that adequate? Right. I mean, to me, I don't need a 8 foot tall sign for a restaurant to change my mind. Yeah. And that the studies are probably on I-15 and truck routes where they probably do drum up because there's enough of that type of traffic that they are saying, "Oh, I'm I'm on a road trip. I'm going to pull over the next, you know, the next exit that has some kind of food. I'm gonna

I'll make a decision then. You know, that's what we what we do. And I there's just not that many road trippers that are going to be here. But, you know, I keep going back to the number of cuz we the verbiage does say that there's they have to include enough space for five, which then makes the sign quite large. Is it almost you know toying with the you know can we limit it to three you know so then they have to pick what's their anchor store you know because it's I don't think that the hotel needs to have a big sign because if you you're not just going to think oh I'm going to stop here

you're going to pick the hotel based on your Google search you know Uh and so then they h they do have to vibe to say two anchor stores is or two stores have their signs up there and they pay the premium for that and it's not just you're in this development so you have a sign. Um that that might be some language that helps keep it it could get shorter so that you know and they want to be at the top. You know, Chick-fil-A and Olive Garden want to be those top positions, but if you were at that bottom position, you're only 30 feet above anyway, right?

And we could just chop the top off and say, "Now you now you have you you've got your signage, but it's not going to be as tall. It's not going to be as daunting. You know, it it's still a freeway. We're still driving on a freeway and an interchange." Um, and so I I I would be a ch I would be a a yes on something like that. to reduce the sign size would allow us to shorten it a little bit, give priority access, visibility to some of those tenants without being such a um a prominent it it I mean it'd be like a landmark, right? It's the only sign you see for miles and miles and miles. Yeah.

It the actual ordinance as we've it's proposed to us does not specify how many tenants. It specifies as a size, but it doesn't specify a minimum of five. Correct. I thought I saw five. I thought I read that. Yeah, I'll highlight it here.

And so that's one thing that I do like. I mean, I I can I I hear what you're saying, especially, you know, miles and then boom, one and only sign. Um and while I you know we've we've talked about president many many times u over the last few years sh um I don't necessarily want to be the president for turning this into the commercial corridor um but I wonder for example Um, if you So, are you all familiar with where Rock Creek Park is?

Yeah. On 700 South. On 700 South and then just west of town. Yes. It's that right there. So, right across the street from that is West Point. Um, and from what I understand, I don't know the exact details of what their development plan is for that, but from what I understand, they're doing a miniature Farmington station right there.

To that point, West Point will do whatever West Point is going to do. They have the right to do that. Um, that's going to be a big commercial interchange area that's going to be right smack dab in the middle of of all that. So, you know, one of the problems with worrying about setting precedent is it's also we're kind of the first ones to dealing with this because we do have the cost. We do have business, we do have the commercial, we do have the the location to be able to support the the businesses that want to move it in. and you know kind of counter precedent. Do we want to set the counter precedent that we're not businessfriendly?

Well, I think there's a difference between being anti- business and protecting your community. Absolutely 100% agree. I'm just saying like perspective,

right? I I grew up in a in kind of a head in the sand small city in Idaho that was afraid of traffic lights, was afraid of any business. the uh it took the the high school I I went to, they had six different bonds fail to expand it and they're still same portables there that I graduated with just because no similar idea though. So my point is is that all these people that have been there for 50 years, change equals bad, growth equals bad, right? So, you don't want to be that and just see tax base leave, see potential employers leave and all that, but you also don't want to be cover your eyes and hold out your hand for the the money, right? We'll take anything from anybody any how we can get it.

And I think there's a way to walk that, too. I I believe that Costco was a massive win and it has enough gravity by itself that people will come to that in that area regardless of what is at that West Point retail. I think they'll in my mind they will probably focus on a different experience. Um maybe they'll have a Sam's Club. I don't know. But even if they do, that's a different group of people that shop there than than Costco. Like I to me that's that's nice and it's a good thing for the the area. But I I don't know. I guess I'm not too worried about it. And I I'd hate to I' last thing I want to do is drive Chick-fil-A away. But it seems it seems odd to me that they would be so strict about that of all things, especially when we're going to have such high traffic volume on the interchange by the Costco. Like all you got to do is just stand out there with a a chicken sandwich in your hand and you're going to make money. Let me let me add years ago um Kmart wanted to build a store in Jackson, Wyoming. And Jackson has a very strong design criteria. And Kmart screamed and shouted and threatened to sue and yelled and yelled and yelled and said, "We're going to leave. We're not, you know, we're not going to do this." Well, it's been years because I think Kmart's gone out of business. But that store complied with Jackson's design requirements. And I'm sure it didn't. I mean, I've shot I shopped there when it was still a store. Even, you know, it was mostly wood and stone. It was a whole different look for Kmart. Even the red lettering was was a subdued red. So, I I mean, not that we we want to I'm I'm leaning

I think we need the ordinance, but I think we can look at the height because I'm I'm beginning to feel like the height is probably for me that's the that's the negative to it because I really do want to protect what we've got here. And if and if and if these national chains can't see that and They got their head in the sand if they can't see the fact that Costco is going to be driving the driving the traffic, not this one sign. You know that I I I'm I'm I'm leaning more towards protecting what we have here.

So in our in our verbiage, we say that it shall not exceed this height. Is there a it's 45 feet something you guys can say it shall not exceed? I'm talking to these two in in my mind rather than that height restriction. I'm I'm more interested in the sign size. I think u that's that's a a better angle. It makes it a lot less obtrusive while still offering priority to a couple businesses. It makes the retail space kind of prioritized and focused. Um, yeah. And I I obviously don't want it 50 feet high, but I think there's a way to kind of play with those the square footage and the size. What would you recommend to city council?

I wish I wish we could like we almost need a field trip. I want to stand on the highway and like look around, but

so maybe we can kind of do a little bit of a virtual thing. Um, and I have these I have these questions for uh city staff perhaps. We know um comparable freeway signs um for example I know and I don't want to use this as an example because I definitely want to look like Analope I15 portal but the the Lita in uh sign I'm guessing that that we know how tall that one is because I know that one that one always is the one that draws my eye because how tall is

well I before Before we came in here, I got a Google Earth. That's what I did. I just drove down I-15. It's like I you would have no idea In-N-Out was there, for instance. You can't There's like a hotel that you would don't even notice that it's it's like a Marriott or something at Fairfield. I think there's there's a bunch of stuff, right? They've got that whole strip of restaurants by the convention center and all that. You have no idea it's there unless you take the exit or you're following your GPS, right? So, that's that that's kind of what I'm wondering. Like, what are we in and out? Doesn't

What's What's the height? Yeah. What's the height of that linking tent? They've got a sign, but like I I don't feel like you I I meet family there and like you just don't Yeah, that that lint is a big sign. That one really stands out, but uh probably 60 to 70 is my guess. So, you have to clear the bottom of that sign, the three-way sign is between 17 and 20 feet and then the height of that is 8 feet. So the top of that is about 30 feet. I mean, you're you're skewed. Yeah, there's perspective at play here. It's definitely taller than 30 feet.

Just the top of the freeway. Top of the freeway design. Yeah, it's taller than Yeah. While you guys have been talking, we've been kind of poking around a similar exercise with Street View and even like AI Google search and you know like the standalone McDonald's ones that are like a freeway kind of thing. Those are upwards of 100 feet. They're huge. You know, this one I think this Yeah, that's they're they're really tall.

Check out the bies in Texas. So, I would I would say what they're proposing is probably shorter than than this particular sign. Um 50 ft. We we looked at the Jordan Landing sign. I would say that's probably 60 or 70 ft as well. So, 50 ft is a lot taller than anything. I mean, it's doubled in everything in the city, but it's not the tallest. Is the elevation of that interstate similar to what West Davis is off of the surface streets?

Because I think that's what we're looking at too is you're right ahead can see it from miles away. You can see the sign. We're you know you're at an elevation and I see it as I'm coming up that hill. I mean to me you could you could chop 10 15 feet off that sign and still get just as much recognition as that one has. Yeah. And this this food actually isn't elevated either,

right? And so what we're looking at is we're actually looking to kind of reverse that. Um while I agree with what you're saying, especially maybe in our situation, you're you don't see that sign from the from the freeway per se, especially going the other direction. It's when you get off the crew is what is when you see that sign because because of the way that we're talking talking elevated uh overpass versus uh an elevated uh underpass for for the for the city traffic. Um if you want to see the biggest sign around this is this is the one to look at. This the Traverse Mountain one. Have you guys seen that one?

Oh yeah. That one also has the That's what Vegas. We We have an ordinance that doesn't allow the or the wording doesn't allow the electronic sign, too. Right. I I would wage that the economic impact of the outlets at Traverse Mountain are just a little bit more than this parcel that we're discussing. Um where is this guy? This point of the mountain. Sorry, I don't mean to get us off track. I guess I guess the point is like this is for sure what we don't want, but what they're proposing is probably not the craziest thing out there. How tall is that? Oh, 1 million feet.

Uh I I don't know. 200 I I don't know. 150. Let's go with that. We're talking about a third of that. So, as far as, you know, if we had more time, I could compile a list and say like, okay, here's here's the the high range, 150, the low range is down here. I I mean, without doing having more time, I would I would say that the 50 foot is probably somewhere in the average range of the kind of multi-tenant. I mean, like you you have a good point. This is not the outlets at Traverse Mountain, but but again, we're not we're not talking about this major regional economic shopping center. We're talking about like the whole restaurants, right? Right.

Yeah. The signage should reflect the the scale of the of the development that it's advertising. So maybe maybe the next uh motion is to be us to table that. And we I hate to do this to you, Noah, but maybe we do need to have a more visual what we would be looking at. And I uh even if it's you just make one that looks the only Okay, here's where we're looking at from that freeway point. This is where 50 ft would be.

Yeah. And and I could I could ask the um signage consultant. I'm sure they do this all the time. Allied Sign probably could put together a visual graphic to scale of showing like all of them on the same plane to kind of give us an an idea since we don't deal with this all the time. I mean, I personally for me and this just where I'm at, I would be I would be perfectly satisfied with just seeing examples, real world examples of what uh of what we already are up against uh and those kind of things. Yeah.

If possible, it'd be nice to have analog cities to Syracuse as much as possible, too, because we're not I mean, we're not trying to be Lehi either, right? I mean, I I think it puts us in a little bit different situation in some of these places. We don't want to be the Analopee exit. We don't want to be Roy. Like, it'd be nice to find a city that had a similar situation that's just got a few amenities, but we're not trying to be this huge commercial area.

And you know, speaking to the five, I mean, if there are five We're increasing the square footage, right? We we can they can go up to 500 square feet or is it 300? 500. So at five businesses, that's 100 square feet per business. If we do limit that, they can still say keep the same square footage per sign that they would have got. Is that lower? Would be both sides total or 500 on one side. It does not define that. probably each side.

I I think we're I think we're in the exact same position that we were a few minutes ago, but I think we have a little bit more information. Um if you all feel that we need to table it so that we can have a little bit more of a visual representation uh for a later date, then fine. I don't think that tableling for the purposes of making sure that we have a full commission because we we may be up against the same thing at future meeting. So I don't think that's realistic to expect. Um however um yeah we do we definitely need a motion for something in order toward

chairman. Can I make a motion that we table this and tell and ask the staff to prepare some graphics so we can get an idea of what what a 50-foot sign is going to look like here. Whether that comes from the staff or whether that comes from the sign u company. Yeah, I I agree. And I would note, you know, as you as you pull this up, I just noticed they're only showing 17 foot two clearance from the bottom sign, but the wordage requires 20. Yeah, that's a good point. It might be unintended consequence.

Yeah. Okay. We have a motion from Commissioner Neielson. Do we have a second to uh table this pending that information? Second. Okay. Um, we will do a roll call vote again. Mr. Hson, I Mr. Sh. I n to table it. That's what we're table it. I

uh I will also vote I to table. So that will be four in in affirmation. That will we will table this until we can get that information. All right. Okay, I'm just getting us back to up here real quick. Okay, now we will move on to item number six. Discussion motion for final plat application for final.

All right, you guys ready for another hour discussion? I'm just kidding. I won't do that to you. Um, so final plat this one we uh saw just recently I believe last meeting. So, uh, it's had a pretty quick turnaround because the essentially the preliminary plot that they submitted, they had a lot of final plat information in there already. So, they were pretty much ready to go. Uh, just compromises the entire uh, subdivision, the preliminary plat area. So, this will will take care of the whole subdivision. Um, so we are we're working on getting the uh development agreement signed currently, but we do have the information that's in there. So, this has been reviewed in accordance with both the city code and the development agreement complies with both. Um, so let's see. Um, and we did have I know there was some question brought up uh in the previous meeting about the neighbors both here and here where they had those temporary turnarounds that were required as part of the development for the that subdivision. Uh we we have worked with those property owners. Uh they're they're in talks with public works and and uh with the developer and making sure that we get those roads straightened out. um we get asphalt removed as needed, that kind of thing. Fortunately, uh property lines don't have to be amended or anything for those folks. So, they technically own I guess that part of the street. It's it's kind of a different way of development we don't do anymore, but um that that has been addressed. So, I I can't remember who brought that up, but um but other than that, uh well, I guess including that, everything here is good to go. We would recommend approval. Okay, this is just a discussion motion for us. So, comments, concerns for the web, we'll take it away.

Grateful that the right away lines were already straightened out. So, there we go. That was that was my concern.

Discuss this. Good. Now that the house in front of that is gone, I'd like to greater view of the tree, the lone tree. There you go.

I'll make a motion. Thank you, Commissioner Baker. I move the planning commission approve the request of Taylor Anderson for final plot final plat excuse me for loan free subdivision at 963 South 2000 West on 13.395 acres in the R3 zone. Thank you Commissioner Baker. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes. Take a motion to adjourn to work session. So moved. We have a motion. All in favor? I

oppose. All right, we're in work session. Um, uh, city council leaison, you did mention that he does not have any new information for us. So, thank you. Dave, we appreciate your time. Unless you have something that you want to add brought up from the meeting. Okay. Hey, I'll say it was counsel, but

I I I do want to say that I really admire the level of discussion that just took place. Uh I came in with an opinion and my opinion was moved. Um the I try to come in with an open mind whenever we have a public hearing because I want to represent the constituency rightfully, but there were a lot of concerns that were brought up that I didn't even realize that I share. And I'm just want to say thank you for your hard work. really appreciate it. Means a lot to me.

Thank you. Nothing to report from city council. Um your recommendations are taken pretty heavily and we we do take them into discussion and I think we followed all the recommendations that were given to us last time um that we moved on from our long work meeting. Thank you very Thank you for being here and hanging out with us. Thank you. Appreciate it. City attorney Oh. Tomorrow, real quiet.

Tomorrow is the day that uh legislation goes into effect for almost all of the bills that were passed by the legislature. One of those is proposition betting. And it says these proposition bets are illegal under Utah's gambling statute. So, if you want to bet whether or not the planning commission would be out by 6:30 this evening, you can still make that bet on your phone for another several hours. You would have lost. You would have lost. Not a good bet. Going into the meeting, it seemed like a pretty good idea. Can I ask about one of them? You saw that item that we were not getting out of here at 6:30.

Do you do you and maybe this is go to the commissioner reports, but uh there is a new law about the micromobility and does that conflict with our own laws, state or city laws that with the state laws because now they can legally um have a certificate in order to write it if they're under a certain age. if they're between 12 and 16, they can ride class three um ebikes

ebikes, but our city ordinance says they they they can with the an adult. So, I I think that there is some little bit of a clash in the laws and I think I would recommend we review that.

Thank you. Um, we are in the process of reviewing the new state law on ebikes and ecooters and all sorts of e-mobile transportation devices. Uh, you've been watching the news at all lately. You've probably seen some police departments across the state have had uh public meetings, thrown up the big posters, this is what you can and cannot do. I'm not sure we're going to go to that effect, but yes, we are looking at that now. Um, and we will be making necessary revisions. Thanks. You have to do that every single time uh state decides to do what they do. We do.

I was uh nearly run over by an e scooter out here in our back parking lot the other night and I tried to slow the kids down and they just waved at me because they thought I was waving at them and then they kept going and ran right out into the street on 2000 West. You were waving with I was waving like this. They were waving like that. There were two of them on the scooter and the kid in the back said, "Stop." Because the first kid just shot right out in the street. Fortunately, no car was coming. That would have been the end of them. And they weren't wearing helmets. So, I saw three teenagers by the junior high going up 193, but none of them wearing helmets and all on the same ebike. Yeah.

When did they get home? Get off my

Well, I'll try to make this relatively quick and painless. Um, we've been talking a lot about restaurants tonight. I am proud to tell you that one of the hottest food franchises in in America is considering coming not only opening a restaurant here in Syracuse City, but moving their national headquarters to Syracuse City along with their prime flagship location. And here they are. All I have to do is figure out how to advance the slide. Stinkies fish and chips, home of the squid burger and the world's best chum nuggets.

So, I have a question for you. You don't do closed meetings, but let's assume for a few moments that the planning commission members received some information about Stinkies, which is not yet public. They're coming to S. They're coming to Syracuse. And based on that information, you want to go out and buy 10,000 shares of stinky stock. Can you do that ethically? Definitely not.

Definitely not ethically. A planning commission member shall not disclose or improperly use non-public information acquired in the course of official duties to substantially benefit the member's personal economic interests or secure special privileges or exemptions for herself or others. So, can a planning commission member vote to approve Stinky only if Stinkies gives him or her free fish for life? You're lucky because you're going to see just how good their fish looks here in a minute. And no, you can't do that. A planning commission member shall not use the member's position to substantially benefit the self-economic interests of the member or others. Can a planning commission member get a job at Stinkies as their chief location officer and then represent Stinkies before the planning commission?

If you haven't seen a pattern yet, the answer is almost always no. All right. Can a planning commissioner Oh, did that one already. Can a planning commissioner solicit $100,000 from Stinkies as a grant to the Syracuse Arts Council while Stinkies has applications pending before the planning commission?

Nope. Cannot solicit, accept, take, or receive a gift of substantial value after approval. Now you've approved them and your job is done. Can a planning commissioner who voted to approve accept a $10,000 gift of fishnuggets? But the decision's already made. You haven't got anything left to do. We didn't know. Avoid the mere uh appear appearance of

all right. You can't and that's the key here. You can't accept a gift of substantial value if it would appear to a reasonable person that somehow that had some influence in your decision or the action that you've taken. Still no. What? And what's the substantial value that has the We'll get We're two slides away. All right. got. Can the planning commission member accept the $10,000 worth of chuck of chum nuggets before the planning commission votes on the application? No. Do you think I'm going to throw a yes question in here anywhere just to see if you're listening?

Nope. Can't do that either. What if it's only $49 worth of chum nuggets? That's always a good answer.

But here's the answer to the question that Scott raised. You can accept an occasional non-puniary gift of less than $50. I remember years and years ago when the Utah Jazz and maybe even before them, the Utah Stars, right, used to play in the Salt Palace, that little round arena, and front row tickets because my mom took me to a playoff game when the Utah Stars were there. Uh, front row tickets were probably 30 or 40 bucks. Now, front row tickets to a Jazz game in the Delta Center, probably 800 to a,000 to,200 or more or more. Okay. Um, look at the front row of a Jazz game and see who's sitting there on the front row and you'll see the governor and the speaker of the house and developers. And you know who you won't see?

Planning commissioners. Planning Commission members because they know better. That's correct. You can receive a public award in recognition of your service. So, if someone wants to come in and say, "Thank you for your 15 years of service on the planning commission, and here's a nice little plaque and a $49 gift certificate to Chick-fil-A or Thoods. You can take that.

You can borrow money. You can't borrow money at a substantially discounted interest rate, but you can get the same six and a half percent mortgage that the rest of us can get. If some bank wants to come to Syracuse and put up a thing and says we'll give you a 2% mortgage on your house right now, can't take it. And finally, you can accept political campaign contributions, although that doesn't apply to you because you're not elected. Okay. Can a planning commission member accept money from Stinkies for assisting Stinkies with its application before the planning commission? What if it's only $49.99? Still no.

Okay. You cannot receive compensation for assisting anyone with anything before the planning commission. And now let's talk about disclosure. So that was what you can and can't do. And the answer is always you can't do it. Um, here's what you have to disclose. You have to disclose if you're an officer, director, agent, employee, or owner of a business entity that is regulated by the city. And an ownership means more than 10% ownership. You have to disclose if you will participate in or receive compensation as a result of a transaction between your business and the city. And you have to disclose if you have a personal interest or investment that creates a conflict of interest. When do you have to disclose? First, when you're appointed to the planning commission. Second, every January, the city recorder will send you a little form to fill out, and you update that form and get it back. Third, if you see something on the agenda that may cause a conflict of interest for you, you have to disclose it at least 10 days before the meeting. And finally, you have to disclose it again in the meeting. If you do all of those things, then you won't have to worry about committing a felony or a misdemeanor. You won't have to worry about the decision of the planning commission being overturned by a civil court. And you won't have to worry about getting removed from office, although some nights that might sound pretty good. Moral of the story is if somebody from Stinkies walks up to you and offers you this stinky, smelly, rotten fish and you look at it and you say, "It doesn't smell right. It doesn't look right. It doesn't feel right. Simply don't eat the fish and you won't get in trouble." And that is the end of your ethics presentation.

It's one of the better ones I've ever seen. One of the better ones I've ever smelled. You did a good job. I wish all levels of government got the same ethics training as you've just provided with us. That's wonderful. All right. I did learn something. I did not know it was 10 days prior. That was that's agenda is not ready 10 days. That's usually if you're So if you only get the agenda six days prior and you notice it, it's time to disclose. You don't get to say, "Oh, the 10-day deadline has passed. I don't have to do it." and I'd get out of this thing and put you back. That's probably the best I can do.

Upcoming agenda items. Okay. So, let's see. We've we've had some general plan stuff that we need to get through and I just it's taking its time, but we might see this stuff. Uh there's a water amendment we might see in June. Um so, uh projectwise, we've got a few that are just waiting right now. Um I know I've I've talked about them in the past a little bit. Uh let's see where we at. Uh down here off of uh 27002000. We just have uh a couple of uh there's like a dance studio down here. Uh Rocky Mountain Tumbling as well. Waiting on those. We're also still waiting on the Sim City project down here. Um but once we get those, we'll bring those in. We have a site plan for Holiday Oil at the corner there and also a subdivision plat for them. Uh commercial subdivision plat also still waiting. Got some updated plans today. Um next meeting uh Earthworks for those of you that remember that one uh over here. So they're they're they're here. They're currently built uh just waiting to occupy it. They changed their architecture uh after the approval. So they need to get reapproved. Um we will see that one in the next meeting. Uh, Enbridge Gas also has a facility. It's kind of a pretty pretty basic just down here off of the corner of 3,2700. We're going to take a look at that one in the next meeting as well. Um, let's see. Got our freeway signage thing. Uh,

see here. Yeah. So, next meeting also we're planning on bringing this uh this property here that we did the reszone and preliminary platform uh commons at Glen Eagle. It's a commercial subdivision. And then we also have a reszone. Oh, no. We did the reszone request tonight. See, um, we have some bookkeeping changes. Uh, the states change things so you can have political signs out in park strips. So, we're going to change that.

They are allowed now. Yep. So, uh, coming up, I guess in the fall, I see a lot more signs out, I would imagine. That's recent legislation that takes effect tomorrow as well. And basically it says they can put political signs in the park strips with the permission of the adjacent land owner. Yeah. Um speaking of can I put a 50 foot tall political sign in my only if you're advertising mosquito killing.

Fortunately we do have limitations on signage size I guess. Um let's see. Oh, and we did receive an application. So, for this this property that we were talking about with the signage, they they applied for a subdivision plot. So, we'll be looking at the preliminary uh at some point here soon. And that's all we have for now.

Commissioner reports. Uh only thing I had of of note was the recent uh to-do in Boxelder County just made me acutely aware of how important our job is to be aware of not just our personal feelings but how we're affecting our entire community at large and hopefully we're doing it in a transparent open way that uh best represents who we're serving.

I agree. I also want to add I serve on the planning comm excuse me the architectural review committee. Thank you. Got that figured out finally. Um but they are this group is very serious about their responsibilities and they they scrutinize site plans down to well what if little Tommy's riding his bike right here? You know, how are we going to protect him? And so I've been impressed with their their diligence. Um, just wanted to pass that on. So,

I also just want to reiterate kind of what I said earlier. This this disagreement that we've had tonight is one of my favorite things about being on the planning commission. Um, it does give us the opportunity to have our mind changed. And both of you shifted a little bit on that. I still have my opinion on on the freeway sign and all that, but I like Gabe said earlier, my mind has been has been opened and moved. And I want to say also that we're civil with each other. We don't yell, we don't wretches stuff. I mean, we can we can throw down if we want to.

Following up on all that, let me just throw in this. It is rarely helpful to say, "For hell's sakes, grow up." Thank you. Or calm down. Calm down. Oh, you got it. That's never I caught that reference. All right. Um, make a motion to adjourn. Oh, come on. I'll make a motion that we adjourn session. Stay a while. I'll second. Have a motion. All in favor?