Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, thanks.

All right, we're at 6 o'clock.

Are you good? All right, we'll go ahead and bring the planning commission meeting of May 19, 2026 to order. We'll have an invocation by Commissioner Nielsen and then a pledge of allegiance led by Commissioner Thomas.

Our dear Heavenly Father, we, a few of the children come before thee this evening, grateful for this opportunity we have to serve the fellow citizens of our community. We ask for thy blessing to be upon us, that we might be listened to the concerns and the issues that arise, and that we might be guided to the best solution for our city. These blessings we ask, come lay in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ. Amen.

I pledge allegiance 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, Commissioner Nielsen and Commissioner Thomas. We will... Move to adopt the regular meeting and work session meeting. Minutes from our meeting. On May 5th, barring any changes or updates from any one of the commission will take a motion to adopt those minutes.

Having reviewed it, I want to say they did a very good job of synopsis of the entire meeting.

So I have no changes.

Move to adopt the meeting minutes.

Motion and a second. All right. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? All right. Meeting minutes are adopted. We will move on to the public comment section of the meeting. This is an opportunity for the public to address the planning commission for any items that are not slated for a public hearing. If you have comments or concerns for anything that is not on agendas tonight that does not have a public hearing or that does have a public hearing, we would request that you save those during this public hearing. Otherwise, if you have a public comment for the Planning Commission, we invite you to step forward and please limit your comments to three minutes or less.

I have a question first. So you guys were discussing the signage thing last week. You guys talked and an idea popped in my head, but I couldn't comment. So can I comment on that now?

That's what the public comment is available for right now.

Timothy, what would you do? I came up with an idea to maybe compromise that signage. Allow the 50 feet, but if it's going to be lighted, maybe not be so bright. Allow so many lumens so it's not so much of a light pollution. Like I say. Yeah.

Again, if you'd state your name and address for the record.

Chris Giuliano. Full address? 1425 Prestwick Drive, Syracuse. I've been here 14 years. Seen lots of change. Very similar to the last gentleman's comments. The signage from the research I've done. My understanding is the plan was to backlight it anyway. So... To me, I'm in support of it. I mean, 45, 50 feet, what I read, I look at the building, the golf course building they put up, that's 45 feet right next to the freeway. They're going to extend the freeway. We need to have people that are coming down the freeway see what we have to offer so they stop. And I've seen how much we've grown. I think I heard somebody say we're at 40,000 people in Syracuse. So when we moved in, there was 16, somewhere between 12 and 16,000 people. So I appreciate the growth of the business. And so I'm in support of the signage as long as it's done properly, that the coloring doesn't look tacky, doesn't look like a tacky strip mall as long as it's backlit and clean. Like I said, not too bright to add light pollution to the area. I think it would be great. We need to make sure people know what's there off the freeway. I mean, they're not going to miss the Costco. They're not going to miss the recreation center, the buildings right up there. You can't plainly see them. And so the top of the freeway, I don't think it's that much of a detriment to the visual from the freeway.

Thank you.

Sounds like signage is a popular thing. My name is Randy Hicks, 3898 Turnberry Drive, Syracuse, Utah. We built out here about 26 years ago, and there was a lot fewer people out here. 100 birds, basically, on the land that my house is on. So it's changed since the 80s, since I was out here playing around. As much as I enjoyed... what Syracuse looked like a quarter century ago and beyond. You also will see that when people see a good thing, they want to be a part of it. And Syracuse is an amazing place with great people that have made it what it is today. With that comes development and businesses. And You know, I'd like to be able to hear cows instead of mufflers at times, but I understand that we need to have the infrastructure to be able to support the individuals that have moved out here over the years. I would like it to where we don't have to go to the I-15 corridor to be able to buy goods and to be able to enjoy a meal. And with that, I think that we need to do things that are going to make the businesses that come out be successful. And I don't see that the signage to be able to go to the realm of 50 feet would be an eyesore by any means. I think that we help to be able to make these businesses successful and, you know, help make a tax base out here that we can do some good things for the city. So I'm in support of that. Thank you.

My name is Thomas Arnold, 3922 Salton Circle. About this signage thing, initially I'm against it. And the reason why I'm initially against it is I grew up in Salt Lake in Rose Park, and I saw a lot of the stuff happening out there, and I don't want this place to necessarily become like that, especially with what it is now. However... Over this weekend, I've been giving it some thought. A good friend of mine in the neighborhood that I'm in, he passed away just a couple years ago. Excuse me. It's a little sentimental to me. His name is Robert Palmer. He's been out here 30-plus years. I don't know exactly. He passed away about a week and a half after West Davis Corridor came in, and he had a pleasure of, after it opened up, to ride with his grandson and granddaughters. And he said about West Davis corridor, this is going to be great. Guy who's been out here a long time saw that the change that was happening, and I want to be able to make sure that that's being said because even though, yes, initially I'm kind of against the sign, it's what we need to be able to make ourselves bigger, better, and be able to make a good impression. This corridor is going to continue on. We're going to have a lot more traffic coming through. we've got the opportunity of not only the Walmart, but now with Costco there. I'm just going to reiterate again, just what Robert Palmer said. This is going to be good.

Thank you.

Do we have anybody online that is wanting to make a comment? And then if I have some comments that have come in through email, this may be the appropriate time to do that. I I do feel like that it's appropriate for people who have voice to be able to be heard. Most of you on the Commission, I believe, received this email, this is from john Lloyd and i'm just going to go ahead and read the email from him. He did say, I'm unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting tonight, but I have a few questions and comments on the proposed change to assign ordinance that is on the meeting agenda. I'm against any change to the city sign ordinance. I think that the current ordinance serves our city well, enhances the look and feel of the city's commercial areas, and can continue to do so without changes to allow larger, taller signs adjacent to the freeway. Apart from the negative aesthetic impact that taller signs may make to the city, and the Antelope Drive interchange as a gateway to Antelope Island, my primary concern about the proposed sign is lighting. We live on 2750 West, opposite from Syracuse Landing on the east side of West Davis Corridor. We're about a quarter mile from it, but when Mr. Wash, Mr. Car Wash opened, their LED lights were so bright that they illuminate our entire bedroom at night. He did attach a photo for the commission to be able to view. For most of the last year, a portion of those lights have been broken and flicker on and off all night. The prospect of a much larger sign even closer to the home is a concern. Language of the proposed ordinance is slightly confusing to me. It states that no portion of the sign structure may be illuminated, but from the documents provided by the sign company, it's clear that the illuminated sign is proposed. If illumination of the sign is going to be allowed, As it seems to be the case, I would suggest including language in the ordinance that limits illumination of the 50-foot sign to individually lit channel letters as the rendering show without illumination on the entire background of the sign. Again, I personally oppose any change to the ordinance, but if the change is going to be adopted, I would advocate for stricter limitations on the elimination of the taller sign. Then the email from Darden Restaurant threatening to reconsider locating Syracuse if the amended sign ordinance is not passed seems to be in particular bad faith. I'm not sure that all things being equal, any developer slash operator would want As large a sign as possible, but the Olive Garden restaurant in Layton has managed to stay in operation for over 30 years in a location nearly identical to the proposed Syracuse restaurant adjacent to an elevated highway overpass that blocks a direct view from the opposite approach with no raised or piling signs at all, let alone a 50-foot sign to bring in impulse visits from travelers on the adjacent freeway. Signed, John Lloyd at 1526 South, 2750 West. I also did receive an email from a Brian Jeffs on this. And he wrote, after learning about the proposed commercial development near the northwest corner of Antelope and the West Davis Highway, I would have no problem with a tall sign being installed showing the business occupants in the area. I understand that the Syracuse City Council will be discussing this soon. Commission, and I would be in favor of having the sign approved. Brian Chefs at 3923 Saunton Circle. If there are no other comments for this, we will, or any other comments in general, we'll go ahead and close public comment. And we will move on with our agenda for the night and move on to item number four, public hearing for a site plan request by Questar Gas Company. Bella?

We actually have Royce online that will make the presentation. He'll just unmute himself and I'll be his assistant in toggling through.

Yes. Can everybody hear me, by the way?

We can hear you.

Okay, great. Let's see. The screen share doesn't come on up for some reason.

Royce, I can pull up the packet if that's helpful.

Oh, yeah, that would be great if you wouldn't mind. We can all follow through. I guess both of the items that I have tonight should be pretty straightforward. Pipes. Cool, huh? Let's see. Is this the page you want? I'm not seeing it. The zoom just has the image of the camera, what the camera sees.

How about now?

Oh, there we go. Got it. Okay. so thanks um so what this is is uh it's just a standard gas facility they they have i guess pressure regulation and and so on they need to maintain there's a uh as part of the larger system that goes throughout the city and they they're working on um there's a high pressure gas pipe going down 3000 this will also help facilitate so um Anyway, so not not an occupied structure it's not something that's really going to be visited very often either but. In bridge gas has been courteous and providing some some extra landscaping and decorative walls and things and also making the structure look a little nicer than kind of the standard. metal shed that we've seen in the past. So. It does meet all the setback requirements. So being in the R1 zone, it's got a 25 foot setback that the six foot fence ends at that setback to accommodate our fencing requirements. And then they have some landscaping that they're proposing to install there on the north side. So there is some discussion though that has come up recently as actually as a result of the Dutch Bros discussion from a few weeks back. where we want to address potentially in a code change here coming up that we would like to define a site area as the extents of an existing parcel. And so the parcel lines here that Noah's pulling up, you can see it's a much larger area. This site is only about the eastern quarter or so of that parcel there on the southeast corner. in an attempt to try and make things a little more clear moving forward so we don't have portions of parcels that are left undeveloped. The mayor and city council have asked us to look at potentially amending the code to require a subdivision plat like in a situation like this before we get to the site plan. So anyway, We would recommend the Planning Commission look at either, it wouldn't necessarily be a condition of approval because the code doesn't clearly define it as a legal requirement that site equals the extent of the parcel. But that we would recommend that this property be subdivided for a couple of reasons, partially to just make the site clear like that site area clear, but then also to deal with right-of-way dedication so there isn't an issue with that in the future. So, again, it's not a legal requirement. It would be something that essentially the planning commission would be recommending to the applicant. But I just wanted to make sure I brought that up so that you're aware. But I guess also... We are limited in terms of what we can and can't regulate with these types of uses. There has to be what's called a rational nexus for what we do in terms of the benefits that they're obtaining from the improvements, the benefits the city is obtaining from the improvements, and sort of meeting in the middle. Usually a site plan, you'll see, for example, a paved parking lot and on-site detention for that parking lot and and things like that, that's not something that's required here because this is kind of in between a standard sort of commercial site plan, industrial site plan, and maybe like a school type situation where we regulate very little. So again, they've been gracious in providing the improvements that are shown here. And so based on what's been provided, what we can regulate, we would recommend approval of the site plan. And that's all I have.

Thank you, Royce. This item is slated for public hearing. So if you have any comments regarding this particular item, please go ahead and step forward and limit your comments to three minutes or less. Anybody online? No?

Nobody's raising their hand. Their engineer is online, Robert. If you did have questions, any engineering questions, things like that, he's available.

Perfect. Thank you. All right. Seeing none for public hearing, we'll go ahead and close public hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion and questions for developer slash engineer and things like that.

Is the applicant here?

Well, the applicant's Enbridge Gas, so he's the representative.

That's Robert. And did you want to come down to the microphone? Yeah, at the very least, just give it on the record.

I'm Kevin Mulvey. I'm representing Enbridge Gas as a property agent.

Rachel Jentsch, representing engineering with Enbridge Gas.

Okay, perfect. I personally think that everything looks pretty straightforward on this.

I had a question. So the eight-foot fence, the eight-foot concrete, the depiction here looks like it's going to be cinder block. Is that the facing that's going to be outward, or is there a different view than that cinder block face?

The expectation is that that would be outward, this precast design, and it would be painted.

Can we have a different design than the cinder block, if it's just a panel?

Yeah, I think so. And Robert, you're online. You have some other standards.

Yeah, you can make it look like rock. You can do multiple different types. So, I mean, that can be set. You know, if you have a look that you're looking for, then... Yeah, we can that can be accommodated.

I prefer something that little less industrial, little less industrial, but not cinder block wall. And then also with that eight foot wall, as it's going around, you know, the property to the east is a church and they have a chain link fence. You're leaving about a foot and a half to two feet between them. Between that property line and yours, you're going to keep... It says to keep that. What would be... I just worry about weeds and things just growing in between there. And, you know, because you've got two fences right next to each other, that there's enough of a gap that... garbage and weeds can get between i don't know if there's something if we can get like flat work between just four inch concrete or something that would yeah or i think we could even just extend our like the gravel and weed barrier outside of the fence and just go up into our property line okay and is that in the front too that weed barrier because i noticed that you know we've got the trees which are great love the landscaping but then there's The 10 foot from the pipe, will that have the weed barrier in the rock as well? It says 10 feet of space required between gas lines and vegetation. That space right there, what is the plan for the landscaping?

Yeah, I'm going to defer that question to Robert.

Yeah, so that would be like decorative rock. We can't put any vegetation over the gas pipelines or anything. So yeah, all of that, we can clarify that so it's clear because you're right, it's not exactly clear, but

yeah that would be decorative rock okay those are my those are my questions and i just want to say you know what i know it wasn't required but thank you for making this look nice you know for the church on the citizens room absolutely

I have a question about what's the plan for the remainder of the parcel for the West?

Generally, sometimes we're required to buy a piece of property. They won't sell us just a little bit. So in this case, we'll use it at staging area, and then we'll clean it up, and I'm sure we'll surplus it at one point. And so whether at that point it becomes subdivided or what, but, yeah, we don't plan to hang on to it. Gotcha. Okay.

I know there was at some point a discussion on rectifier going in this area, but that design hasn't even been initiated. I don't know if that'll happen, but even then, after it's in place, it doesn't take up much space. We'd probably be able to even fit it inside of our station.

Any other questions?

And since we have the engineering, the storm drain there, is it? Is there agreement to just dump it into the Bennett Farms on the north side, or what, where's the storm drain going? Is it, because it's not connecting to a, it doesn't look like it's connecting to a system. Yeah, it's going in that drainage ditch that's there.

Yep.

That there's a great on that side, or because you have a catch basin in, in the facility than one in the curb and gutter. Right. And then a flooded in section of the street to the, to the farm. So if that farm ever gets developed, I guess, would they be required to accept your runoff?

Correct. Yeah, that's what we had discussed with the city engineer, Brian Bloman, at the time. It's very similar to what's done with the church to the east. They're doing the same exact thing.

Oh, okay. Bennett Farms is at least, there's an agreement there or something that if they were to sell, they know they have to accept all of that.

I believe it's an open ditch right there. And so they'll be required to pipe it at some point. Our city engineer is also online if we wanted to ask him.

If there's a ditch that does clarify, at least there's some kind of use direction for that water.

Oh, yeah.

So at some point this property will develop and then they'd be required to bury that ditch and then that'd become a storm drain facility.

That's perfect. That's where I just didn't know if it was just going into the farm and extra water.

Cool. Any other questions from the commission?

I'm just curious if there's an emergency response plan or if that's something that's required for this type of infrastructure in a residential area. So if there was to be, it's an unmanned unit. So if there was to be any damage to what's there, and then an overflow of gas at the location, is there a plan for that?

So Enbridge, like as a whole, we have our continuity plan and emergency response. So it would just be following what our system is for the company as a whole. And we always have engineers and operations on call to cover any kind of emergency situation.

All right, well, thank you, thank you all right discussion from the Commission and. Take a motion if. ready to do so.

I think there's some great points brought up, I think we should probably clarify about the facade of that wall it's something that's a little bit more specific. in terms of a loss that X. Yeah.

I mean, that would be, that would have to be a request, correct? That would not be able to be a requirement to change that based on the site plan.

Yeah. It sounds like they're willing to work with us. Oh, sorry, Royce. Go ahead.

No, you're right. No. Yep.

Okay.

And then perhaps a request that they, I don't know if it's the, the architectural committee's list of approves, architectural facades needs to be on the options or whatever. But I think the idea to kind of pretty that up a little bit.

This commercial, yeah.

Sounds like we got a couple of good strong opinions about it. Take a motion.

All right, well, I move the Planning Commission to approve the request of Enbridge Gas Company for approval of a gas infrastructure facility site plan at 2955 West 2700 South on 23 acres of the R1 zone.

With a request for the wall?

And the gravel irrigation, yeah.

With a request that they work with our team for the gravel and for the aesthetics of the wall.

Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. Second, all in favor. Any opposed motion passes. Moving on to number five. We have a public hearing and for revised site plan. That's what you're Jeremy Bingham for revision of earthworks site plan at approximately 1472 West 300 South.

So this one ended up being kind of a formality. There's been a lot of a lot of back and forth just trying to make sure we have everything nailed down. It was originally approved by the Planning Commission a couple of years ago, and the applicant moved forward with building the building, and I guess through a series of working with different architects and builders and material availability and so on, they ended up putting something different on the building. They came to talk to us about it. We went back and forth trying to figure out what exactly was on there and how much of each material and so on and so forth. So this is the culmination of a lot of discussion. So basically what was built or what currently exists now has been converted here into the drawings that you see there. And so they have all their square footages and everything. I made sure everything was scaled so I could verify and measure and double check Um, and it's all good. So they, they, uh, fortunately meet the requirements of the code. Um, so what is built is, uh, where it's different than what was approved though. That's why we're back here to discuss it because, um, even though it does meet the requirements of the code, it's significantly different enough that they needed to change the approval, uh, to make sure that everything was official. So, um, kind of a rubber stamp, I suppose, but, uh, That's, again, because it does happen to meet the code. So no changes were made to the exterior improvements. So this is like any of the site plan portion where they had the parking lot, the detention basin, any of the storage materials in the back, fencing, any of that kind of stuff. There is a change to the exterior signage on the building here, but that's shown and meets the requirements of the code. So anyway, so this approval wouldn't affect what's on the ground. It just changes the architecture materials what's on the building. So again, I recommend approval because it does meet the ordinance. And I think is there anything else I'm missing? I believe that is it.

All right. This item is, again, also slated for public hearing. If you have any comments, questions about this particular item, invite you to step forward and keep your comments three minutes or less. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close public hearing. We'll open it back up to the commission. It does appear that Jeremy Bingham is on the call. If anybody has any questions for Mr. Bingham, we can address those.

I have a question rice and know do we can we be shown what was approved and how different.

yeah I mean we can we could pull up the previous approval, I mean it's there are some differences in color the the form of the building is the same. Pretty much everything is the same it's just a difference in colors and material basically they they had some darker sort of grays and things that were previously approved. This actually, maybe ironically, because what was previously approved was sort of a departure from what's out there color-wise and in terms of the overall design. Getting back to these more earth tone colors, this is actually more compliant with what's existing out there, the school and chairs and the car wash and such. Thank you. I don't know if it's, that'll do. Okay.

I was, I was on the commission when we, when, when this got approved and yeah, it was, I do recall in particular. Any other questions, comments from the commission? If not, we'll take a motion.

I move the Planning Commission approve the request of Jeremy Bingham for approval of a site plan amendment for the Earthworks project at 1472 West 300 South on one acre in the NS zone.

Second.

We have a motion. We have a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Moving on to item number six. We have a public hearing for preliminary flat request by Brent Neal for approval of preliminary prep for holiday oil at approximately 2000 West 2700 South.

All right, so this one, because we do have an application also for the holiday oil itself on lot one as proposed here. Like I mentioned before, with the gas facility, we're trying to move things into getting a plot approved and having the lot lines established before we bring the site plan forward. So this is an attempt at that. To be our first time kind of moving into that space so. What shown here, though, essentially just takes in the last remaining unsubdivided corner there on the southwest corner 2700 South and 2000 West and I am now realizing was looking at that needs to say 2000 not 2200 West, so I will have them fix that. But. Other than that, what's shown here will create two additional commercial lots. It's in the commercial zone, the general commercial zone, in addition to the holiday oil property. One thing that is required in our architectural review committee code is that any new subdivision in a commercial industrial office zone needs to have a design pattern book. And so they've provided that. There really aren't any rules in our code for what needs to be in there necessarily, but it's like a general guideline for what the buildings are supposed to look like, the materials and colors. We want it to be consistent so we don't end up with like a patchwork of totally different projects. So what they've proposed here is essentially that they want to see the other lots look similar in appearance and overall form and color materials to the holiday oil. So that's what's proposed. Again, we don't really have codes that regulate how that's supposed to look. So it's kind of a voluntary thing that they set up for themselves. But when we get site plan applications for lots two and three, we will be referring to this not necessarily as a strict zoning document, but it's it's definitely going to influence those decisions. So if something comes in that's drastically different, we're gonna be referring back to this and make sure that it is compliant. But again, so that would essentially meet our requirements because we don't really have much, if any. And then like I said, I need to have them change that two to a zero on the plot itself. and we get addressing figured out before they get the plat printed. But with those in mind, we'd recommend approval of the plat as everything else meets the requirements of the code.

Thank you.

That's all.

All right. This item also is open for public hearing. Again, if you have any comments for this particular item, please make them and keep them to three minutes or less. Seeing nobody online, nobody in the audience, we'll close public hearing, bring it back to commission.

And just as a clarification on that 2000 West, that's set back for our full build-out of 2000 West when it goes to...

It is, yeah. When we bring the site plan in, actually, we'll be able to see some detail there. 2,700 south will be improved to its full width, as shown. 2,000 west there, though, there's a section, and our city engineer has recommended that they don't quite widen it all the way yet, but that they'll dedicate the area and then leave an improved portion of a really wide park strip. I believe it's over 20 feet wide. Um, just to control traffic for now, until we go forward in the future and, uh, decide to widen the street.

And then you'll fix that address.

Yes, I'll be sure that's taken care of.

And I think we need to does that need to be included in the motion.

If you'd like to, I have a note here. I'll, I'll take care of it either way.

We'll take a motion.

I'll make a motion.

Thank you. Commissioner Baker.

I move the planning commission approve the request of. Brent Neil for approval of preliminary plat called holiday oil Syracuse at 2000 West. 2700 South on 5.779 acres. In the GC zone. Do I need to comment on the change of the address or is that good? If you'd like, it's up to you. With the reminder to update the appropriate street address on the flat to 2000 West.

We have a motion. We have a second.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Moving on to item number seven discussion of motion for a final plot application by Rick Peterson for the approval of the final plot for commons at Len Eagle approximately 3400 West.

So this one is because it's commercial, even though it's under 10 lots, we have like a preliminary and final plot. So what was submitted with the preliminary plot essentially met the requirements of the final plot application. So This is just going through the ordinance and making sure that everything's taken care of. The property is rezoned. The preliminary plot's been approved. And what's shown, there was a discussion for those that recall when we went through the preliminary plot about like a corner, a curb section that was shown that was incongruent. That's been taken care of. That was really the only outstanding issue from the preliminary plot, which was essentially in a final platform. So what is shown here does meet all the requirements of the code. And I know they've been itching to go, so they'd like to get moving on getting this recorded so they can get going with some site plans. So yeah, we would recommend approval.

Okay. Back to the Commission.

This is just final five.

So discussion. Otherwise, we'll take a motion.

i'll make a motion thank you i'll make a motion that we accept the application by rick peterson for the approval of the final plat for the commons at glen eagle approximately 3 400 west 1700 south project comprises approximately 5.24 acres in the gc zone if you have a motion do we have a second second all in favor aye aye any opposed

motion passes moving on to item number eight uh discussion of motion for the text amendment proposed amendment to the city code that would increase signage height and size allowances get your gloves on boys

Okay. So since we discussed this last time, uh, I did try to make a few small changes to reflect our discussion. Um, mainly the minimum distance between the ground, 17 feet, um, The distance is measured from the edge of payment from a ramp. We know we talked about that a lot. There's been a lot of discussion about the structure of the signage being lit. I think the intent there was, they gave us kind of a couple choices of options. It was the preference of, I guess the same end goal is always the same of trying to reduce the light pollution. So we were trying to say that the preferred option would be to not have any lighting on the structure itself and just reserve that to the signage face. Uh, but some of the discussion that we've heard from the comments might be recommending to, instead of allow a internally lit cabinet to only limit this to like a, a channel light, um, which is something that we can discuss, um, among other things. But other than that, I think that pretty well summarizes the changes to the ordinance. You can see here the language is still here. I'll turn it back to you, Mr. Chair, for debate and discussion.

A couple of quick things before we do go in, do you want to remind us all that this is a recommendation. To city council, because the council will be making final decision on that. So, anything that we do while they, while they do have and do listen. For recommendations and what we can stuff this is a recommendation city council. I think we all have some fair amount of comments or concerns that we have for this particular ordinance. So we'll just go ahead and open it up and hear arguments.

And Noah, will you just go down one page? Just the other way, sorry. Up. Up, yeah. Just where it's showing the freeway.

To the rendering?

Yeah, we're almost there. Sorry. Right there. Right there's fine. So after our last meeting, I think a lot of us have driven around, looked at signage, looked at different things in the city. And it was brought up that even the building, the reception center at the golf course is 45 feet in height. And I think, if I'm correct, the top of the light posts along Antelope Drive are also 40 to 45 feet. And when you're driving, you can barely see the top of those light posts when you're on the freeway. And so five feet is just right above where you're going to see that off the freeway. So I really took a lot of time to really study this and look at how it looks to people traveling.

I think and I appreciate the updates there. The height was brought up, but the wordage in there, I keep wondering why we have five as the required number that needs to be there, because it does say that shall be five. Don't know why we need that many, especially in that development, whether there will be all five. It could be up to five or something there. And then along... I don't want signs just sitting there empty if they're not going to sit there. And then if... Part of the wording, it does say that there's no... off-site freeway signs but would that preclude another business that's not in that development to advertise on one of those signs if there's five up there would they you know it's not do they have to be in that development to be part of that sign and that's where i'm saying maybe it doesn't need to be as you know the height is one thing but then also is as big that

Sure. Yeah, I can attempt to answer that. So one of the goals is to avoid having too many signs. So the idea of the joint multi-tenant sign is that they work together and we reduce the amount of visual clutter. We also want to reduce the amount of light pollution. So by making them combine makes it so they can't get their own sign. Whether or not there's five or three, I guess it depends on how many, what's the right number for the number of businesses in that particular development. I know that we're trying to make this a narrow scope based off of what they're proposing. And so the reason why it says a number of spots would be five is because there are five on this proposed. So we're just trying to make it only applicable to this and very similar type scenarios. But I get your, I understand the point too, that, you know, five requiring five would also increase the signage rate. uh, square footage that's up there and there might be some blank signage spots. Uh, I think that the, with the tenants that they're attracting, it'll be full. Um, but that's up to you. I think we want to avoid, um, like we said, having, um, just like signs for one business or two businesses, the ideas to consolidate them.

I think the, and we did discuss that last time, the minimum is so that, you know, at the interchange, just a little bit further south that we're not going to have. You know, a business that says, okay, well, we got. 2, 3 of us together, we wanted to build 1 of these times too. It's important. So. Having the 5 minimum does open that up. We could. I'm assuming we could require as part of the ordinance that the only people allowed to advertise on said sign are in said business park.

Yeah, it says that already. So an off-premise versus on-premise is really what we're looking at. So a business anywhere in the city couldn't just come and pay money to be on here, right?

And then they do also want to build a stipulation in there as well, uh, regarding, uh. Requirements that if a business does close that they require it to. They came inside within, which I think is also a good. I think they have it for a bit.

sorry commissioner biker you had you were to make a comment no i i i was interrupting i apologize i i was just agreeing we don't want to come up with a de facto billboard by a lot of other businesses that aren't in the vicinity to essentially rent out that space but it sounds like it's been addressed yeah this last little piece where it says off-premise freeway signs are not allowed perfect so and i i want to be careful about our our language on that um

Off-premise freeway signs. Okay, so I'm just trying to think of this from a logistics standpoint from another business, saying that would have to basically say, that would be implied in that, that only the business park at that particular location would be able to take that.

Yeah, we actually do have a provision in here That's that we do allow off premise signs. But they are limited to Syracuse businesses. And there's a size. Let's see. Right here. Yeah, they can't be larger than 32 square feet, so it's relatively small. I think this is a relic of when R.C. Willey had a little sign located on the corner of 3000 West and Antelope, and that was not an on-premise sign. That was, I don't know, two miles away from their store.

Yeah, that was over on 1000.

I think they did have a couple of them, didn't they? Yeah, I think that's what this is from.

Would it be possible for us to add verbiage to tighten that up just a tad? Because I agree with that, that we definitely do not want another business being able to come in and. Utilize an existing or an existing freeway sign. For their business, if they're not part of that, so I don't know exactly what that would entail. But I wouldn't want to leave that open to. On somebody else's part.

We could just propose to strike this whole thing, number two. Would that be tightening up by destroying it?

I don't have a problem with that.

I mean, maybe we don't. It does kind of open up a little bit of a Pandora's box because a billboard is an off-premise sign. They're just a lot bigger. And then where we're regulating, we're favoring essentially Syracuse businesses versus other outside businesses. I know that the First Amendment laws are strict and we don't necessarily want to get in the business of regulating content of signage based off of whether or not they're one of our businesses or other businesses. So it may just be a good idea to just not allow an off-premise sign altogether.

Noah, can I hop in for just a sec with that? I'll see if I can find it in my email and forward it out to the commission. We have a great summary from our attorney about recent changes to the billboard codes in the state. So But yeah, one of the things that he discusses is that we can very clearly regulate on and off premise. So I guess it just determines on what you want to determine to be a premise. We could do a subdivision, a commercial subdivision area, or you could say just on the site that the business is located. But you'd want to define premise specifically because if you leave it open to just on premise and off premise, then And there isn't a clarification about what that means specifically. It's open to interpretation potentially. I think that's great.

Yeah, I'm all for tightening up that. We don't want to get into any muddy waters legally, and we definitely also don't want people taking advantage of loophole. We can add verbiage and some kind of tightening up. That'd be great.

Yeah, I would recommend just deleting two, and then we can add a definition for what is a premises. I would say a premises is a parcel or a subdivision.

That would be great. I think that would be a good recommendation.

Just tie it in with the new lock.

Or do we just change to define the off-premise? Because number three is kind of defining what on-premises is.

And we might have to expand that to what Royce was saying with the new legislation.

Yeah, I can defer to our attorney. If you just want to direct us to add some sort of definition of premises, I'm sure I'm not pronouncing it right. Premises. We do have a definition section already. We can just add that in there.

Great.

No, let me ask, are there any other parcels along the corridor that we could potentially get signage like this on, or is it really going to be confined to this one project?

It might be right here, potentially. Okay. But we did discuss these other ones. These are interchanges or they're not, they don't have any ramps. So they wouldn't qualify. And someday I'm up by the golf course. They're if it's, yeah, they're, these are all zoned residentially. So I don't know. West Point may have to deal with their signage ordinance on that side.

What's the minimum distance to the property line from the 50-foot sign? It says 60, yeah.

The idea there is if it fell over, it would not cross property line plus a little bit if, I don't know, if a big sign falls over, it's probably going to break apart or scatter things.

The rendering that you showed, it shows basically a steel pole, but the code now specifies different types of material being required. So would that change with the new...

So yeah, this rendering... would not meet the ordinance. So we would require them to add something on there to meet the ordinance.

Great.

Unless you guys weren't worried about that.

No, I don't think that just a plain bowl should be allowed.

I want to make a couple of additional comments. Just as other people have mentioned driving, and I did discuss a little bit of some of the things that I've done over the last two weeks, different chat GPT renderings and things like that to get an idea of what we're looking at. My wife and I, my wife is actually driving down to Kaysville mid last week, and she was passing a few different Landmarks getting an idea of what this might look like, you know, how might how might fit in past the globe farm side of those that are kind of run off freeway. And just kind of notice that their height is right around somewhere between 40 and. Also, when we're driving down there, we, we do notice that there is obviously all cell towers that are run along there. Those at minimum are like 125 feet tall. So we're talking worth a double on those. So we're not, we're not talking it's going to be, you know, it's, it's not a sky rise on these kind of situations. And so that was another thing. One other thing that And commissioner shape brought this up and sort of commissioner banker last time. Driving along the West Davis corridor, you've got this beautiful view and I absolutely love being able to see the wetlands and everything. Out there 1 of my favorite things is when we drive at night when my wife and I are our family and driving at night. And we look out West and it's just dark. There's no light pollution up there, nothing along those lines. It's just absolutely beautiful out there. But one thing that we did notice is that as soon as we crossed the Syracuse line, we no longer had what I saw. Now, we still saw it. We still see that beautiful view that's in the sunset and all that. But it's how in Syracuse, that direction. I didn't, it just kind of hit me. I'm like, we're already up against not the wetlands directly west of the West Davis corridor. I'm not saying that that's any excuse for us to not keep it nice, but we're already seeing the expansion of what Syracuse is going to be out there. I think one other point, and I do have a question for Noah and Rice that was brought up that I want to ask about. But before I do, there was one other point that was brought up, and that is we're talking about raising the floor, basically. And I hope I get this comment as close to a can as I recall. We're talking about raising the floor at the elevated The elevated freeway portion goes up how many feet about 30 feet in the air that or 35 feet. Somewhere in there, but we're talking about an extra 20. Anywhere between 20 and 15 feet taller. Then what the freeway goes up and that's standard for the rest of our city. Yeah, in the, uh, in our city boundaries. Um. And so, you know, I certainly, I'm certainly receptive to any other comments on and concerns about that. But, you know, I think if we're talking about a difference of 20 feet above, you know, the ground level where the freeway is, we're not really. we're not really outside the bounds of what we're used to seeing when we're driving along our streets and roads. And this being as far off the beaten path of Antelope Drive, it's going to be kind of along that line. Noah, there was one concern that I have that is this going to conflict with the scenic byways restrictions that the UDOT and the state has set in place for West Davis Port?

No. This is an on-premise sign, so those signage regulations are within the purview of the city. Billboards, however, are regulated at a state level, and the scenic byways do not allow billboards. What is proposed is not a billboard. Okay. Yeah, we'll require them to provide the specifications of the lighting and try to mitigate. I mean, it will be lighted. It will have impacts. But we do in Syracuse try to make an effort to reduce our night sky pollution.

So that night illuminated rendering that they've got, is that what's anticipated? So it's just the coloring. The whole sign itself is not lit up, but it's just going to be basically the letters that they can... That's what they've provided us.

Yeah, this is what they're proposing.

Is that... explicit in the language? I don't know what that is. Yeah, how do we put it so that it's a...

Yeah, the goal is what they're asking for is an ordinance that allows them to do this. So we could craft something. The goal is to craft something that allows them to do this and nothing more and see if that's acceptable by the city.

Because this could be the intent, right? Like they're going to come in and say this, but we have two more exits. And somebody else can come in and read it differently. And they're going to say, well, your ordinance only says...

is this much and so we're going to put up a big bright white backlit sign yeah so i i think it is a good idea to require the channel or limit it to channel and not a backlit cabinet and if you want we can add that into the language this past weekend was the great salt lake bird festival which i was uh

Happy to be involved in. And many of the field trips and locations are based right around Syracuse. Farmington Bay, Antelope Island, the Causeway, all around here. And it's such a gem to have people come here. I met people from Colorado, from New York, from all over the place that were coming here to be here. I'm not anti-business. I want people to come here and spend money. However, there is something special and unique about Syracuse that makes us different from all the other suburbs and communities around us. And I just want to make sure that we retain that and don't just become just a generic suburb. The West Davis corridor is not Interstate 15. To me, to view them as the same is disingenuous. People are not driving cross-country on the West Davis Corridor and, oh, look, a Chick-fil-A. That's not how people operate. If they're coming to Chick-fil-A, it's because they're probably already going to Costco. They're already going off to go to Temple. They're already going to Antelope Island. They're already doing something. They're already in town. I don't see how the sign is really going to drive a whole lot of business. So I'm not sure we even need a dedicated freeway sign ordinance.

I have to concur. I go back to that example I mentioned last time about Jackson Hole setting their own, excuse me, Jackson, not the ski resort, the city of Jackson, setting their own limits according to their own style. And I don't think that's hurt them as far as any businesses. I know there was a comment made last time by the developer or somebody representing them that these businesses may choose to go elsewhere if they don't have a 50-foot sign and I don't know. I don't believe that that would be the thing that would change their mind. But I'm feeling that I want to keep things as they are. Keep the uniqueness that we have.

I think it's important to say that I do want to grow the commercial base, but I don't think that we have to just surrender who we are to a specific business. I feel like this... is such a unique spot. We don't have a lot of commercial intersections of such power. And just to choose a couple businesses that are going to represent the city because we've only got a couple spots, it seems a little, it's almost like response for Biden's businesses is kind of what it feels like to me. Because there aren't any other signs around. We don't see anything else. And then, you know, Syracuse brought to you by all of our major players. I want to look like that.

Yeah.

I would agree with those points. And I agree with the idea of making it a little more prominent, but 50 feet feels excessive. When you look at some of these other cities, I know there are some 50 foot signs if you head north on the 15. But even down towards Salt Lake, West Valley City, some of those areas are limited to 35 feet, which seems reasonable. it gets you up, it gets you around the same height as the rest of the lighting that you're seeing around the city, but it's not exaggerated like a 50-foot sign is.

So are you proposing to have shorter than 50 feet?

I would say as is. I would be against it, but I would be open to... 35 foot for a center where you're limited by the size of the property. And so, uh, if you can. Keep it 35 feet, but only for multi tenant signs. Then I think that's an approach that would fit the city a little bit better than.

But 1 of the problems that you will have with that would be counter to that is is that. A 35-foot sign is only going to be approximately about five feet above the freeway line. Will not meet this requirement. Right.

Yeah, 100%. And I think I echo your sentiment in that you're on this freeway, specifically in this area, and the type of travelers you're going to have through here. everybody's got Apple maps and they, for the most part, know where they're going. And for the amount of customers that you may draw to the site by going to 50 feet, I don't think it's worth giving up what you'd be giving up that site.

I don't think that there's been a Chick-fil-A across the street from a Costco in America that has ended up on the pickup for the lack of customers. that happening. I would be willing to compromise and look at some stuff. Commissioner, you mentioned the cell phone towers and there are taller things like that, but they don't have a 400 square foot sign on the side of them, right? I guess that would be something that I might look at as well as if we could reduce the visual square footage, I guess, that would occupy.

And I definitely love the idea and the recommendation that was brought up about making a social media chat. Because, A, I did have a lot of discussion with a lot of different people the last couple weeks about this. And one of the concerns that was brought up multiple times Is the light is the lighting issue? Uh, John, uh, John Lloyd brought it up in the, in the email that I ran earlier. Um, I agree, especially with, um. I really think that we wouldn't want to tighten our ordinance on. Business lighting, to be honest, because I do see a lot of like the Mr car wash. It's pretty garish light at times. Um, there, there are some. loose restriction or two loose restrictions in my opinion when it comes to that. And so I love the idea of us saying you have to keep it to channel lit. You know, I would personally maybe even say, you know, with the restriction of it being, I mean, I think this goes with the channel lit, if a sign has to go down. That is blue as well. It's black. Yeah, like it's, there's nothing for at least, you know, very minimal. To Commissioner Nielsen's comment, I, while I agree, I love, I do love this. We're not, we're not, we're, you know, we're not going to We don't have the same poll that way. I don't necessarily mean to think of that negates that we shouldn't be able to say what we do with our city, because we should be able to say that. But we also do have to keep that in mind, that Park City is Park City for a reason. Park City can say, your sign can't be taller than a toddler for a reason, because they're going to poll the ski resorts. They're going to poll the tourism there. We do have a big tourist goal with Antelope Island. We had over a million people, I believe it was in 2024, visit Antelope Island. And we do have a very large goal for them. And that is awesome. And we do want to keep that. I think if we tighten these restrictions on the sign to basically fit something that fits within what we want in the city, I think that that's a compromise that we should be able to cover.

The lighting is critical, number one, no matter which way we go. That's got to be addressed. If anybody's been down in Antelope by the Bird Brothers sign, I don't know what I'm talking about. Oh, yes. I feel like I had to put my sunglasses on when I drive by.

To that point, actually, as part of this over the last two weeks, and I'm glad you brought that up because I was driving down again and thought about that exact signage that's right there and thought to myself, Whatever we do decide, it has to be infinitely less than what is happening at locations like that. So I think if we have an illumination requirement, like I said, channel lighting, if we can even tighten it up to even restrict how bright that channel lighting can be, I think that that would definitely be a plus. I think we're all in agreement about the lighting issue. Yes?

yeah yeah okay then i i feel like the lighting issue as long as we're we're in agreement there we can we can move on to other points and just for the criteria maybe the we'd have was brought up the maximum number of lumens but i think uh would be the the luminance would be considered that it Because at a certain distance, we're going to have it further and further away, it's going to get darker. And so it's not necessarily the lumens, but it's how the luminance. So there can be some analysis done to it. calculate that.

I think we're agreeing on two parts. The channel lighting and how bright we want that to be. That's an obvious for all of us.

And also on-site premise. Right. And I think the verbiage that we talked about. So those two things.

I made this point earlier that I do want it visible. I understand a lot of people are using GPS and other things, but I do think it's good for us to be able to advertise and we're not that hard. Love the freeway.

I think Noah or Royce brought it up that the signage for freeway signs, and I know we're not talking I-15, but we're going to use that as an example. Those are the big green signs that are merely for directional purposes, sit at 35 feet above the freeway. So we're talking 20 feet above the freeway for a visually appealing sign. appealing i i will you i will put that in quotes and you can't it's really not a huge of a sign right i just want to bring it real quick too that i even though the west davis i just said even though the west davis corridor is not

i-15 it still is a huge opportunity for syracuse for growth and development and i don't want something like a sign ordinance to give syracuse reputation of being anti-business or or you know detracting um other businesses wanting to you know come here i don't want that to be a reputation of ours i should be within reason yes but um i think this is within reason okay

We've talked about base enhancements, the term I've used, something other than just a big pole going into the ground. I think that ought to be part of the discussion, that there needs to be something besides just whether it's a stone base or a brick base or something that... ties it in right there.

I mean, if you remember, then there's a couple of points. Thank you. The sign for Syracuse Theater before it had to be moved, it was fairly tall. I didn't love the marquee system on there, but that was still fairly tall. I think that was above 35 feet.

On that one as well, and that was quite tall.

The other thing that we all need to take into account on this is that. They still will have to come with a site plan and we will still have to approve. The signage at that time. That will still come across the planning commission for us to assess and say. You don't like that you would like to have. We still have, we still have final say in the site.

And it's back to your first statement too. It's a record.

Yep, and this portion is recommendation.

And I think, and I don't mean to throw any more ranches into it, but the maximum signage is 450 square feet in area per site, but that's over five signs. Is there a way to represent, you know, kind of all businesses should be represented equally? You know, this rendering does do that. We've got each movement 90 square feet. I don't want one at 400 square feet and then four more at 10. We've all seen signs like that.

I look terrible.

Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Hey, all right. Um,

I feel like we, we have, we have some consensus on few things, verbiage requirements would be in the, in the motion to basically change any. Anything that is opposed in the, in the packet. But if. Do you all feel ready to?

I've got one last question. Do we have any idea of freeway signage actually on the freeway? And if that's going to happen through UDOT? So we're worried. One of the points is that motorists that aren't aware of what may be around. But if we get UDOT signage with the multi-tenant signage before the exits, then that kind of negates that point. And so I'm curious if anybody knows what the plan is for development moving through this area on UDOT's end.

My understanding is that you can work through UDOT Region 1 to get those types of signs installed. I've never done it before, but I'm sure it's a reasonable process. You are dealing with a government entity, so it's probably not extremely fast, but I'm sure it's possible.

They do have a specific person at UDOT who does all of their freeway signages. That is her main job. That is all she does.

It's anecdotal, but in my experience, if I'm not using my phone to navigate and I just want to pull up and get a bite, I look at those signs and say, okay, well, good enough. I'm not just, oh, there's something down there.

I'm not rubbing it all over the place. And while I agree with you, I do use those signs. There have been times where I've been driving through and, for example, going down through Cedar City, we're on our way down to St. George, they make a stop in Cedar City. I certainly do not want some signs to be cut down in that area. But it has come useful where I've gone, oh, there's the McDonald's one there, or, oh, there's Burger King, or... Is it talking about the blue signs?

Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah, those are privately owned. Those are not through UDOT, actually.

Which would mean that they would be restricted for the... Yeah. Okay. So more than likely, we would never see those on... Uh, on the road. So. Okay. All right.

What about the.

The commissioner's point about the. The size of the layout. The size.

The equal each face be the same size.

Right. Equal. Equal representation.

There is. Love the idea of that. Are we venturing into First Amendment co-stepping? By basically saying that your sign has to include this.

Not a First Amendment issue, in my opinion, but it would be one. I guess what I would suggest is that you say they all have approximately the same number of square feet. I mean, maybe the proposal will come in two vertical rectangles at the top followed by horizontal rectangles at the bottom, or are you talking all horizontal rectangles or all vertical rectangles? Do you really want to get that specific?

I was thinking all horizontal or the same size, equal distance.

Uniformity, so you don't just have...

Similar to the drawing.

I see what you're saying. You don't want one big one and four little ones that are one foot tall across the bottom. I get that.

We have the target I've seen. They like their square. Then they may want a certain size next to another one. Then another business have the same square footage.

It must be a square business.

Yeah.

Well, not only that, but we've all seen, we've all seen science target. He's a perfect example. I know I, I'm, I got a buddy of mine who has a business up in the Learfield and he's gone through the, I actually spoke to him about this cause he lives in Syracuse. And he was telling me the history that he had with his side and the thousand dollars that he put in for his. And I see that, all of these strip mall locations, all basically the same size. He's actually got two of them. He's renting out two of the spaces in the strip mall. And you've got one big banner one for the top of them. And then they start breaking into smaller banners below. And I agree. We certainly don't want anything like that. All right. I guess I have another question.

So the rendering that we're seeing, I don't want to, make it look like we're designing the code around this rendering. But the rendering that we're seeing is 450 square feet. And it looks like it needs not just a cantilever, it actually needs external support. If you were to keep it at the 300 square foot, but allow the increased height, would you need that type of support structure?

You're talking about this gray pole? I don't know.

I'm just curious if really the intent is we want people to see what we have to offer. Do we really need a 90 square foot sign for each business or do we just need an increased height? So I feel like that's.

Yeah, that's a good point. We increased it up to 500 and then we pared it down just a little bit to match the 450 as proposed. And then we added the words per side to be clear that it could be double-sided. But the other multi-tenant pole sign, I think, what is it, 350? It's what it was before. So we are allowing height and increased size. If we didn't want to do that, that would be good to talk about now.

So right now it's 300 so that would be going up by 150 and I just don't see what a massive sign has to offer. I can understand increased height, but maybe the science makes it himself.

You do need to take into account that you're going to be trying to see this from a 65 mile an hour road versus a 45 mile an hour collector or arterial road. And so You know, driving at those speeds, you're, I mean, we certainly have, we've all been in that situation where we look up and we see the signs that they come into view proportionally for the speed that you're driving. If we I don't necessarily hate the idea of restricting the size a little bit, but are we going to restrict it to the point that it's not possible for individuals driving? And eventually this, it was brought up, eventually this highway is going to go through, we are going to have commuters going through, and that includes people on their way home. You know, hi honey, what do you want for dinner? I don't know what's on the way. Oh, there's Chick-fil-A. You want me to pull over? I still have time enough to be able to pull over and grab it.

That northbound exit is going to be about a quarter mile away from where the sign is at. In order to see that, you do need a substantial size. Right now, I think they're only saying it's six feet tall, which is not a Not a huge sign.

Right. Not from that distance.

Yeah. It is if you were standing next to it.

Oh, yeah. Noah Royce brought it up last time. If you stand next to a traffic light, it's this tall. Off the ground. Versus, you see it from down there, it looks this big. You know, we really do have to take that. We got to take perspective into perspective. All right. Again, if we have further comments, we definitely want to make it known, but otherwise let's take a motion. We have a whole committee here. I think we can put this to rest and then send the recommendation on to the council.

Can we get to a strict lighting? language in here, or is that a difference?

Absolutely. I think that requesting that as part of the recommendation for City Council to take under advisement is not only within our purview, but I think that's great.

With the Antelope Island being kind of our key draw, you look at dark skies, you look at bird migration, you look at all these things that actually bring people here. Last thing you want to do is mess that up. Right. I think about Park City and they had, you know, if they were intentionally melting their skull. You don't want to, you don't want to actively destroy the millions of people so that you get more chicken sandwiches. So I think we need to be very specific about I don't, I don't know enough about the terminology, but the channel lighting and the intensity of the lights and the temperature of the light flaps so you're not losing the lights and all of the natural stuff going on.

And I think that's kind of what Commissioner Shea was talking about. Not that I know of. Okay.

Well, Mr. Chair, I also just had one point of clarification and it's a little strange because sometimes we do see the signage included in site plans. signage is not necessarily required to be included and they can do their signage afterward. They just need to go through like a staff level conditional use permit process. So it is possible if they decide to move forward and unfortunately it happens a lot where if I make a comment about a sign that's going to change things and cause issues, I'll just remove their signage from their site plan and then deal with it later at the building permit process or the building permit stage. So So just so you're aware, it's not necessarily something that the Planning Commission will have the end-all, solve-all. But it could be if you wanted to include something like that in here.

Well, that's what I'm saying. Like, if we want to include that in the ordinance, we should be able to include that in the ordinance if we can. Say, you can't do that. Not with a freeway. Not with a freeway sign. I mean, we've only got one. Two, not three, two. Because that one that's off of 2,000, or not 2,000, that's off of 2,700. That's not an interchange. So they can't put one there. And the next one further south.

It's 193.

Maybe. Well, and maybe north. So maybe three. But again, that's also going to land in West Point's Purdue area as well.

So, I mean, that's a double-edged sword. I don't think you're going to get... if you make a mistake, you're not going to be multiplied a hundred times, but on the other side, like make it count because that is valuable property. You don't want to have some big clearing problem that you're just going to be sacked by. And I think, I think we're going down the right road to make this as, as much as possible, but yeah, Yeah, I just think we need to be very specific about the lighting. And I like the idea of long B11s. We did not look at it.

So let's just go through this bullet point by bullet point. Lighting for the recommendation. if you choose to to go this direction it's obviously up to you but if we choose to go this direction lighting is an essential uh restriction also to require that a site plan would be required to have their signage included in the site plan and come past planning commission again for approval for freeway for this specific work yes um I think we also need to include the verbiage that we discussed with Noah regarding item number two on the ordinance to strike off premise items completely and define what the premise needs. I think if we include all that point, And include that in the recommendation and the size equal equal representation equal representation. So, five points. So, again, it's whoever makes the whoever makes the motion will will need to Feel free Commissioner Garner. All right. Let's take a motion.

Okay. Chair, I'll make a motion that we have a, we'll make a motion to amend the city code that will increase the signage height and size allowances as written here for us up to 50 feet, that we will have lighting that will include channel lighting and Look at the luminous will have site plan to include the signage as part of a site plan will have a requirement that the sign has to be on site and the businesses have to be on site premises and then equal size on the Advertising of each block.

Does everyone we have a motion. We have a second or any recommendations.

Maybe equal sizes would be equal square footage.

Equal square footage. Okay.

You had also mentioned striking that definition of off-premise sign in number two. Did you want to include that at all?

I'll include that. That will strike number two of the definition of on-site.

And you did specifically say to define on-premise.

Correct.

Okay.

There's a buildable. It would be different orientation, right?

Equal.

Well, equals, right. Then how it's configured would be different, right? I want it to be equal. Equal.

Dimension symmetrical.

Right. Symmetrical. Right. Symmetrical. Yeah. So I want it to be symmetrical equal that each site looks exactly the same. That would be my. Okay.

I'll add that. Okay. We don't want any rhombuses or refloating amoeba forms.

So that's my motion. So that's my motion. All right. We have a motion. Do we have a second?

And did I catch that this is, you said that it's a recommendation to the city council.

It's just okay. All of that. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

Okay. We will do this by roll call. Commissioner Cama?

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Two, item number nine, discussion and motion. Potential amendment to require recycling at apartment multi-family housing. Commissioner Merchant, I will get there, I promise. It's going to be a record. I actually do want that in writing on the minutes next time. Chairperson forgets.

Okay. Recycling and apartments. Good job, by the way, everybody. Hopefully we have enough energy to continue on here. These next agenda items. City Council recently talked about this and is forwarding to you all. Apartments in the city do not recycle. uh because variety of reasons but mostly space and the fact that sometimes they get full of other non-recyclables uh so there's there's some concerns there um The city obviously has a contract for waste hauling through Robinson Waste, but it does not include commercial or multifamily. And so there's a couple of ways to look at this. One thing within our purview as the Planning Commission, we can control the standards for new construction. So if there's a new apartment building, we could say we want X, Y, and Z for any trash enclosure. So let's talk some trash. So here in the red, proposed is something I put together that might solve some problems that we're seeing and provide space. Did some research as far as the amount of space that's commonly provided in a dumpster. Half of a cubic yard for recycling is essentially the same as a hundred gallon, 90, a hundred gallon can that you get in residential. So this would require the same capacity per household in an apartment versus a house. Maybe that's overkill or not, but that's kind of what I came up with. So I didn't change the standard. Okay. We also want them clearly labeled. We don't want them by a trash enclosure by a property line or dwelling. And we don't want them to be too far from people so they are less likely to use them. And then we want to require them to haul the actual recyclables to a recycling facility and not just thrown in the garbage. Um, and then also the city hauler, it's not part of the city that we just want them to continue doing it through their private contract. We already do have some standards in our ordinance. I've included in here. If you read through them, it basically says that all commercial and multifamily developments are required to have a masonry trash enclosure with a gate and surrounded by landscaping. And that's something that we already check with all new, um, site plans uh one one thing that's a little bit so there's a there's a townhome project that is over by smith's they they did not provide for a shared trash enclosure they just relied on the city cans and so their townhomes and they don't have much of a driveway and they have garages No, this is the MXD over by the liquor store McDonald's. And so they were already a little tight on space with the garages and lack of driveways, but then they're on city cans. And so they have they had the standard can, but then we implemented a recycling program. So now they have two cans per unit plus no driveway and probably a garage full of junk. So that means that there's nowhere to park and the cans are just kind of in a way. So I think having some sort of requirement that if it's a mixed-use development that can't go through the city contract, you can't get the city cans in the future, you've got to plan for a shared dumpster in that circumstance. Okay. which would have, they would have had to plan a little bit differently. And I think in hindsight, that would have been made it better. These now for sale. So this other one that you were referring to is actually a four cell town home product, and it's not in the mixed use. And so those guys could get cans and they, those came after we amended the ordinance requiring the 20 foot driveway. So they do have a little bit more space in their lower density. So I think that'll be okay over there. Yeah. So in the red here is what you see is proposed. This is the first time you're reading it, so we didn't want to rush you too much. So we can bring this back if you like it or if you have any suggestions, I can make those changes and then there'll be a similar item since it's an ordinance we'd be forwarding on to city council.

Reminder, thank you, Noah. Reminder, this is also a recommendation situation. Also, to clarify, this will be for future development sites. Obviously, we could not reverse engineer and impose these on flip sites.

Yeah, and that's kind of the second half of it. City Council is going to talk about... So we have a whole other chapter that's outside of Chapter 10. It's Chapter 4, and it's all of our trash hauling and stuff. We can implement certain policies maybe about when the city cans. We could maybe say that if it's a rental or something, rental community, we're not going to offer cans, but... They need trash to removal as well. It's important.

I definitely love our recycle program. I didn't at first, but I've come to really like it. I have two black cans. I'm going to be switching to probably getting two blue cans, just going to one black. I'll save money every month by doing it. I'll be helping because we'll be having recycling coming up, going to the right facility.

We fill our recycling can faster than we fill our trash can. Yes. And just with Amazon boxes and all the odds and ends.

Mm-hmm. Um, 1 thing that I did also want to add is. That horrible mixed use. I come from a time on plan commission where we fought. To get that to where it is now, I would have had tighter if we could have, but happy where it at least. And so I think as our mixed use development is required right now. Hopefully, we will never have to deal with this. Hopefully, this will not be an issue that we will ever have to see again. But if we do, it would be a good idea to require and allow this.

Reading through it, a question about it where it says the residential unit shall not exceed 300 feet from a trash enclosure. Is that correct? Any unit shall not be more than 300 feet. And can we get, I think some specification there would be good to say every unit or all units shall be no more than 300 feet. That way they're breaking them up because with our development here, They put one and they could say, well, it's within 300 feet of a residential unit. And so somebody that's on the other side of the development would have to walk all the way across it. And so I don't know if there's I mean, there's limitations in the container size. we don't want them like stacked in a row on one side or they they do it in a big circle and then yeah garbage right in the middle say you're within 300 feet yeah that was the only wording that i was like well yeah we could word smith that so you're recommending saying all residential units Yeah, no matter where, any residential unit would only have to walk no more than 300 feet to get to. Having lived in an apartment where I was a little farther from a trash can than another one, I thought, I wish I was, you know, every time I took the trash out, I wish I was the closer unit.

I would like to include as part of that vertical travel as well. Should we be, God forbid, we have a situation with three stories of apartments, vertical travel of distance as well.

As long as I don't have to have a 3D model just to check the...

I mean, I don't want to get ridiculous on that, but, you know, somebody that has, you know, that's up here, but, you know, this person is within it, but then, yeah, like I said...

I was also curious about... Make it convenient for our residents. Do we need to specify, like, residential doors so you're not getting some weird corner and they're still walking around to get to it? Well, depending on the configuration of a complex... From the entrance, from the entrance. Yeah, I can see a world where somebody's pointed a weird direction, but they're back in the corner and they still have to go around the complex or...

Yeah, so not necessarily a straight line because they would do that as the bird flies, but it would be more of as a path of travel. Right.

Something like that. Plus, you know, any additional type of restrictions we make for this that we can legally make that might disenfranchise somebody wanting to build an apartment. All the better for me too.

I'd like to bring up and maybe talk about the note where it says enclosures shall not be closer than 10 feet to property lines. I feel like that can really restrict the type of site plan that you could be working with on a multifamily. And maybe instead of that, it's if you're against property line, do you use material like CMU or something like that? But it just seems odd to limit trash to not be. I know at my house, I've got the trash area is against property law.

Would our landscaping ordinance require, I mean, kind of cover that already?

That depends on what's next door. If it's next to another single-family residential, they're already going to have to do 15 feet of landscaping, and dumpsters aren't allowed in that. But yeah, say it's an apartment complex next to an industrial building or something, maybe it's not that big a deal to have it closer than 10 feet. Yeah. We have the buffer ordinance for our landscaping, and that just depends on what's next door.

So what I'm saying is if it's residential, that would be when we would have a concern, and then that code would come into effect, whereas if it was commercial, I guess it wouldn't come into effect.

Yeah, maybe it's a moot point. We can just remove it because we already have the buffer ordinance.

Good idea.

Cause I wouldn't mind two commercial properties putting their dumpsters back to back. Yeah. You know, it was like, yeah, we don't need to have 20.

I'm sure the commercial garbage wouldn't mind that either. Yeah.

I mean, they'd have to might come or they come side to side.

Yeah.

Right.

Yeah. No, this is good input. We can, we can remove that.

Less is more.

Good point.

All right. Burbage discussion made. Do we have a motion? I'd make one motion. A recommendation, right? A motion for recommendation. The city council for potential updates.

I'll go ahead and do this. I'll make a motion that we do the amendment to require recycling at apartment multifamily housing, a recommendation to the city council, and that also that we'll take out the closer than 10 feet to the property lines or dwellings.

And that all residential units?

All residential units.

Would be within 300 feet? Within 300 feet. Okay.

of their entrance would we want to keep the dwellings portion so they're not putting it close to some unlucky unit in the development that's kind of what i was thinking that the the 10 foot so the property line just take that part out or just say 10 feet to dwellings yeah that would be because because when you were saying i'm like i get your point but I mean, buffer zones from other dwellings, but then what about within their own site? Right. So, yeah.

Throw it out the window into the dumpster.

No, I'm looking to you for just guidance.

Yeah, I think you could say all residential units shall not exceed 300 feet from a trash enclosure measured as a pedestrian would travel. Period.

Yes. We'll add to that. Carry a bag.

All right. So that motion with those additional items.

Correct. With the linear part and to dwellings.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Awesome. Let's move on to item number 10, discussion motion for text amendment for potential amendment to commercial development standards regarding the definition of site.

Okay. Royce hit on this earlier today. When we review a site plan, usually you think a site extends to the property boundary. But we've seen recently that that could be argued that it's just the extent of what they want to disturb. And, um, I think for logistical reasons, we don't want them to improve just a portion of us of a lot, because then what happens with the rest of it? Is it just weeds or, you know, so we had Dutch brothers. I mean, we've seen three examples recently, the holiday oil Dutch brothers, and now the, the, um, gas facility, um, I mean, it's pretty common for them to say, I don't want to deal with the subdivision. It takes extra time. But I think it's the right thing to do to make sure that what they're improving matches what their property boundaries are. So I think we can add a simple sentence that says... For purposes of site planning, a site shall extend to recorded lot boundaries. And maybe there's a better way of wordsmithing it that our attorney could look at, but that's the intent.

I wanted to give a perfect example of this. As you drive out Antelope Drive and you go past Doral, on the left, that whole subdivision of houses, Beautiful houses. They have this nice vinyl fence and everything. And 10 feet of weeds. And every, I think it's been every three to five years or so, somebody will go out and cut them all down and get rid of them. But in the interim... you've got a forest of needs. And so I think something like this is perfect for what we need. Dutch Bros is a perfect example of what we saw. That was specifically discussed when we were talking about Dutch Bros. That leftover portion of that lot is going to do what? What are we going to do with it? We discussed it tonight. Yes, exactly.

And I think your verbiage is fine. I think it's just simple.

I mean, if Colin wants to heighten it up at all, then by all means, but I think that that looks good too.

Agreed.

Make a motion.

Chairman, I make a motion. Chairman, I make a motion that we, this is not a recommendation.

This is a, this would be a recommendation.

That, that that the planning commission make a recommendation to amend the definition of site as it's contained in the commercial development standards.

We have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Moving on. All right. We'll take a motion to adjourn to work session.

Move to adjourn.

Motion second.

Second.

All in favor? All right. We are in work. We are adjourned and we are into work session. We'll move on to Department of Business. City Council, do you have anything on the board?

Thank you.

Thank you, Wade. Appreciate it. Also, to your point that you made last week, I really appreciate your comments after the discussion that we had regarding the sign. So thank you. City Attorney.

I'd like you to revisit the sign ordinance. Yes. I would like... Did you see the mayor fire me on his way out the door? Just a quick comment, nothing important. We actually looked when we moved up here from Tooele, we looked at some of the big apartment complexes, Aria and Arlo, and others in and around the area. We decided to buy a single family home instead, but they do now have trash valets in the larger complexes. It's part of the package. If you're in an apartment in a nice new complex like that, chances are very good all you have to do is set your two cans right outside your entry door. and somebody comes along and picks those up and takes them and dumps them and brings your cans back. I didn't know if you knew that. So the 300 feet, you might be interfering with someone's exercise routine, but I'm still in favor of it. That's all I've got.

Thank you, Colin. All right, discussion items for upcoming agenda items.

You can take that now if you want. Oh, go ahead, Royce. Unless you want to go for it.

No, I just wanted to see if you could see it.

Okay. So let's see. We've got the three items that we're still waiting on. I've got SimCity and Premier Dance and Rocky Mountain Tumbling all down in Westlake Landing. We don't have any updates on those, but hopefully we'll have something soon. The Rocky Mountain Wellness Project that's just west of City Hall. We're getting close. We did have an ARC meeting last week. Had some great input. always appreciate the work that they do. But we're currently working with the applicant on some details on the site and trying to nail things down. But hopefully we'll have that one for you soon as well. I mentioned we've got the holiday oil site plan. In working on that plat, I still have some unresolved comments on the site plan, which hopefully be able to address the city code before we get to the point where that site plan goes through. But either way, they're working on the plan at the same time, so we should be good. Let's see, a lot of this stuff we have knocked out tonight, which is great. We have, let's see, we've received a couple of applications, the Falcon landing subdivision that we saw recently. They've applied for both of the final phases. We're just waiting for some resubmittals on that. Should have that soon, hopefully. We also have some bookkeeping updates that we will be bringing forward from legislative work this year, stuff that we need to clean up in our codes to align with the state. And I believe we do also have a ordinance amendment coming up, looking at town center development standards. So we're still kind of wordsmithing to figuring out what that's gonna be, but we should also see that one soon. And that is all we have for now.

Thank you, Royce. Commissioner reports.

No reports, but just a comment. And I think it was mentioned, but I do appreciate that we do have healthy discussions on items and that we are able to be civil with each other and really discuss needs. And I respect that a lot.

And the comments, I keep going back and forth. Great comments, and that's changed my perception as well.

I've asked that all week. Like every day, every 10 minutes.

I want to echo it. I said it last week. We're here for a reason. I really enjoy when we have the option, the opportunity for us to get a little spirited and have vastly different opinions on things. And be able to come to a good consensus because. You know, as I said, last week, my mind was changed on a couple of points. Um, I, I may know, I may know, you know, I didn't hide it. I'm, I'm pro sign, but I definitely think that a lot of the things that, uh, that we discussed needed to happen. That we had last time and tonight. I also just want to make a point. Um, I don't think that this gets stated off enough. I do want to go on the record. I do appreciate that our public shows up. And it shows that our citizens of the city are engaged and that they want . So I want to thank our public for showing up to our meetings to make their comments heard. Any other comments for tonight's missionaries? All right. We'll take a motion to adjourn then.

So moved.

All in favor? Aye. Are there any opposed? Thank you. We're adjourned.