Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

to review the agenda yes okay i'll accept the motion it's approval i'll make the motion that we approved and seconded that we approved the agenda for today all those in favor say yes yes that's why i don't know if they can hear us we cannot hear you

try to unmute them test how long would this have to be i wonder if it was picking it up secondarily so i'm going to try to chat with them see if they can i'll just i'll join the zoom link apologies everyone i just sent mike a message to see it said can you hear us

I mean, ultimately, it would only matter in this moment when you're voting.

Right.

Because if they're up present, we would want them to vote or officially abstain.

OK, he's not responding. Let me see if Karen will. It'll bring feedback so it's gonna do an echo here No, cuz that's what happens

Ask if they heard that. Because if they heard that, we could potentially... Oh, she said it's working now.

Oh, okay. But she probably heard me.

It's probably because she heard you.

Ask her if she can hear my voice. Can you hear her?

Yeah. Yeah.

So it's just our system that's not working then?

Yep. It's happened before.

But we could potentially... Could we mute the computer and unmute me?

No, because the whole system for the web, YouTube, and everything.

I wonder if it was away from the mic.

OK, if I turn down my volume, then.

Hello, can you hear me?

Oh, we've got Micah. Yeah, we've got Micah.

Can you hear us?

Now can you hear us? Yes.

But it's totally online. Can we mute the TV? I heard you for a second too. Where are the speakers? I have no idea. Yeah, I can hear you guys just fine.

Micah, can you hear me right now? Maybe it's just me then. You can only hear me when I unmute my mic.

Where are the speakers coming from?

I don't know.

Yeah, but it's her laptop that is picking up the audio. Right, but if we can mute the audio going out to this, then the only audio input is what's going on. If we mute the audio, they're going to mess up the YouTube. It's going to mess up the YouTube.

We can't mess with anything here.

It must be this.

okay they can listen well i guess they can't they can't they can't listen they could watch youtube can they listen on youtube oh that's a good idea micah said he could hear so i think it was this test tell them tell them to link to the youtube

Karen says go to YouTube and I said submit your votes through chat and Zoom. Karen said will do.

We'll try this.

And then just tell them that we're waiting for their vote on approving the agenda.

Karen's on YouTube, but I haven't heard from Micah, but neither one of them voted yet.

Is there anything else?

Okay, Karen, if you can hear us, give us your vote. She said yes. There we go.

That's pretty good. And waiting for Micah.

Micah?

You're welcome, Karen.

Trying.

Honestly, thank you for having the effort to link on.

It's the exact same work to get on the other end.

Showing up.

So we might need to if he's not going to respond.

We could do that.

He could pop in at any time.

Does everyone have to vote to move on?

No, but he would need to say abstain or we just record the procedure completely for all those considered present. Can't just roll over people.

Do you guys remember?

Is he on YouTube?

Micah, are you on YouTube?

Look at the chat, Micah. Yes, we have started.

We are waiting on you to approve the agenda.

Oh, yes, I approve. There we go.

Perfect. Thank you.

Now I can hear you. And you're not on YouTube? No, should I be on YouTube? No, you're great. However you have it working, keep doing that. We've worked through a different route for Karen. But we're all here. Excellent. OK, so all present. Yeah, all, let's see. The motion passes that we approve the agenda. Okay, now declaration of conflicts of interest. Does anyone have a conflict of interest that you can declare or would declare? Seeing none, we'll move to point four. Public meeting and public hearings. Presentation by Jeremy Lance.

Planner.

You want me to go through the whole text of the agenda original.

Planner two.

Okay.

Point A, Buchanan Estates Rezone.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Item 4A on the agenda is the Buchanan Estates Rezone application 26.015, The applicant, Tyler Farr, is in the audience tonight, Mr. Chair, as the representative of Stagg Investments LLC. The project location is approximately at the terminus of North 1650 West. The date of the application coming in recently at May 15 of this year with the parcel number identified on the screen before you in the packet and the current zoning being a split zone designation currently between a smaller pocket of RM16 in the southwest corner of the lot, with R110 being the zone present on the remainder of the lot. The general plan designation, specifically from the future land use map of the 2023 integrated land use code, has this as single family residential with a more low to medium density character. With the acreage totaling 36.29 acres, And the request brought before you tonight is to amend the existing split zone designation on approximately 36.29 acre parcel by extending the northern boundary of the existing approximately 3.57 acre portion of property northward to the northern property boundary. Mr. Chair, at this point, I'll invite the applicants to join staff here with us. So we, and you can actually sit right here. So a little bit of context. We had a meeting about a month ago. We got a good sense of what the applicant was hoping for following rezone procedure for submittal of an application, collecting a fee, and having the notices sent out per state and local codes. The only thing we missed on was the optimal understanding of what the applicant was hoping to do in this request as stated tonight. doesn't exactly get that point across. And so kind of looking to go back to the drawing board, this would be another situation where tabling might be a good tool, where with the applicants and what he's hoping to do and staff advising on the best way on how to achieve that goal, whether or not it gets approved by the legislative process, it's just we want to always cross posture applicants well to have the version of the request that makes the most sense. If we're changing any part of the request, then we would have to re-notice and have the neighbors have a complete understanding of what's coming before the Planning Commission. That would be the reasoning that staff would recommend tabling this item, where again, we're bringing it back at a later Planning Commission meeting in a different form. But I wanted to, Jeremy, Tyler, if you had anything to add.

Nope, I agree with Jeremy. The development that we're proposing, i think i was here christine right didn't i yeah about two months ago about two months ago yeah yeah and uh i think we showed you our concept there um it's not as cut and dry um we're trying to do a diverse community that can hit multiple different markets different needs and so working with jeremy we're just trying to find the right zoning that fits the with the city that will also accomplish what our goals would be. And so I'd recommend tabling it too, because we came up with something that with our concept hasn't changed, but with what we were asking for, it hasn't quite worked. And so I'd recommend to table it also. So when we do present it, it's correct the first time that I don't have to come back here and waste your time again.

Perfect. I'll make the motion to table it indefinitely.

It's been moved. that we table this point, this business indefinitely, though we, is this considered part of the public hearing? We'll have to wait until they change the request, yeah. Because there's, do we, I think.

Are you interested to hold a public hearing for this request?

I'm happy to hear any feedback if there is any here.

So let's hold on that motion just for a second while people are here, because there are people in attendance. That's true. We'll accomplish the role of is there any any comment any to close the public meeting and open the public hearing so if anybody does want to get right yeah so yeah we're closing yeah sorry we're we're going to close the presentation portion and open the public hearing yeah okay we've never done that before but i'll make a motion to close the public meeting and open the public hearing for the canada state's revo three minutes moved and seconded can i second that yeah okay okay uh all those in favor of closing the presentation portion yes yes yes micah yes and karen looks like oh i heard something motion passes okay open the public hearing portion is that where you want to hear from us if you yeah if you have any comments or as a resident i want to see a concept and say your name please my name is brent wilson i live in it used to be called fairview

subdivision but now i understand it's buchanan estates um as a resident i was never notified of a name change but also i just want to see a concept because we want to see what's coming into our neighborhood and i understand we're just here to find out information so I'm just here to get information. Find out what's going to be coming down the road in the future. Because if it's 1,500 apartments, no, I will fight it. And I know most of the residents there will. But a combination of something sounds good. And we're open to it. We're open-minded. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you.

Yes. I'll make a motion to open, close the public hearing and open the public meeting for Buchanan Estates.

I'll second it.

And move and I'll second it. Then we close the public hearing. All those in favor?

Aye. Yes. Yes.

Yes. The motion passes.

so we don't need to really deliberate because we're just tabling it.

And the deliberation, I think, is going to be the concept plan showing.

Yeah, if I could speak to the public comments. Yeah. Simply note the process for a legislative action is that we look at the character of the zone research request. Does it fit? Do we want to put industrial in a place where it doesn't fit? Do we want to consider the general plan at this point? Those are the questions that come up at this point. But then the next stage would be concept. And then we could look at how many townhomes could fit. Is it too many? Is it tacky? Does it not fit with the, you know, what was rezoned to? That question comes later. So that's just more of a process question. And I'm talking about the applicant right now. I'll give him more information. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will make a motion to table Buchanan State's rezone indefinitely.

Second. It's been moved and seconded that we table Buchanan State's rezone indefinitely. Does anybody here say yes?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Karen, welcome. No, thanks. Thank you. Those opposed say no.

No.

But the motion passes. So the Tremont City Rezone 4B. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Do we have a motion to bring this forward? If you want to, Matt. No, no, Mr. Chair. Item 4B is the Tremont City Rezone. It's application 26.012. The applicant is yours truly, Mr. Vice Chair, Jeremy Lyons, Tremont City Planner, bringing this on behalf of the Tremont City Corporation, this application. The project location being 400 North, 2000 West, with the date of the application being recently May 13, 2026. The process numbers are identified on the staff report for you, with the current zoning being Manufacturing and Distribution, abbreviated MD slash V, business part portion. And then the general plan designation has this area, again, from the 2023 integrated land use plan, future land use map. It's industrial slash manufacturing, The applicable acreage is 19.12 acres, and the request for tonight, Mr. Chair, is to request to rezone approximately 19.12 acres of property from the MDB zone to Highway Commercial, which is the CH zone. Simply enough, this is the city hoping to accomplish a sale. It was agreed upon. previously that the buyer which is to do retail on this property which MDV does not allow but highway commercial does so the city's doing a rezone prior to the sale and it's been recently determined through the process for disposition of real property and is determined at the DRC that who has the power to call a real property PRC commented significant real property. The city hopes to accomplish the sale with this retail . That's my presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, thank you.

So discussion, that's also part of this point.

So this is currently by the hospital.

So just north of those new storage units, right? Well, one in 2000, right? Yeah. Not 23. So it's over.

It's not that big. So the new tire store, you got the new tire store.

Yeah, it's right by Ron Keller, yes.

So right where Ron Keller is, there's some storage units, and then I think it's the next one.

There's some ponds or something, some retention ponds.

It's described in the staff report. It's on a separate parcel. It's right adjacent. You see where the blue line ends and in between the highway? Between the freeway or between that? Right here.

you've got the parcel right here right and then there's the retention contact here between the freeways separate parcels so those won't be disturbed at all yeah this is um this is ron keller tire right right there this is the car wash right and the car washing we're asking where the school

about the pond okay so we we need to breeze on this in order to sell it this is yes but it matches matches what's below it and it's by the highway so nobody wants to live there it's not like it's like that

yeah and it's not zone residential mostly mostly okay well it would create a kind of an island because the two parcels the one by pacific corp and the one with the storage units are both mdb which would then kind of be by themselves it looks like is that correct are we rezoning all of it we're rezoning the entirety of the subject property

But as was discussed, the highway commercial zoning is present to the west and south nearby, at least in the nearby fashion.

Well, the south parcels, I just pulled up the zoning map, and the south parcels are MDB because the storage units are not allowed in the commercial highway zone.

But it's relatively close. It's relatively near to it. And then the other parcels to the west are also highway commercial too.

So the gap between 2,000 and 2,300 are... Oh, yeah, yeah. Right, that's west, right? Yeah, you're right. The west is... All of that is already CH. Yes.

Yeah, here's a second. Having the request that's coming nearby, maybe not necessarily adjacent, is still a decently strong argument. And so, again, those details are in the staff report. What I'm talking about, Mr. Chair, is on page two of the staff report, there are findings that if you wanted to include in your motion, you could use these findings or come up with your own as a commission.

And I'll read them, Mr. Chair, for the sake of the record. The suggested findings from staff are, One, that the proposed amendment is consistent with existing commercial land use findings in the area. Two, that the highway commercial CH zoning is adjacent to CH zoning across the street and to the south. Three, that the property has appropriate access due to its location adjacent to Interstate 15 and North 2000 West. And four, that the property is suitable for CH zoning. Due to minimal physical constraints and no identified environmental limitations.

Any further discussion on this point?

Do you know what the buyer wants to do with it? All we know is that they want to do retail, which is not allowed in MD&P. It is allowed in high recursion. That is interesting. The city's looking to do here, Mr. Chair, is to avoid contract zoning. We're doing something cleaner. The city's putting forth an application on their own volition. It's rezoning the property. Once it's rezoned, the sale will be accomplished at that point. So we avoid any contract zoning, which is good.

Let me accept a motion to move over here. So we need to, I guess we're going to do the later, okay. Yep. Sounds good.

I will make a motion to close the public meeting and open the public hearing for Tremonton City Rezone.

So it's been moved that we close the meeting and open the public hearing. Second. It's been seconded. All those in favor, yes.

Yes.

Yes. yes yes motion passes yeah okay hearing portion i'd like to hear from those in attendance all right i didn't know what the rules are so that's why i'm asking two three

As part of the Tremont West MPI, when we heard about this, I sent out a survey and I have 75 people that are on the list for emails. I got five responses as of 9 o'clock this morning or 10 o'clock this morning. The question was asked, are you in favor of Tremont rezoning the property to make it a retail property? And of those who responded, 60% said yes, 40% were undecided. The main reason people were undecided is because they don't have a clue what this is about and understanding what's going on and how this process works. And so it's part of helping us to educate but the comments we got to one comment was i agree that tremont really needs to have more retail business that will be able to support the projected growth over the next few years and i believe that's really going to be a strong case for this the other one comment is i'd like to know more what the public plans on the property would developers be slapping up more town homes that will eventually turn into slums which is not going to happen because it's retail but would it be developing something more productive and beneficial for the people of our community which is direction that you're needing so based off of that and again trying to figure out how this system is working in the mpi and trying to get results and information um based off of this results it appears that from our neighbors less than 10 percent who who were uh who i sent this to responded um we don't have a real problem or issue with it and we support it if you want to at least let you know that's concerning this It would be nice to get, eventually, a copy of the staff report. Wouldn't it be nice to have a copy of that to send out to the MPI when we're asked to look at and review things? Just give us just a little bit here. That's all I got was, what's going on with this piece of property? We're going to rezone it to what? And I had to make some phone calls because I had no idea what CA students stood for. So anyway, that's just a suggestion, and that will be an ongoing suggestion as we develop

I'm Amanda Jones. I'm in the West neighborhood MPI, and I am fully supportive of this. I am glad that it's being provided freeway. Basically, you know, you've got industrial, retail or manufacturing and I appreciate that it's going along with the plan or the thank you the general end use plan so I am all for it I came because I want to yeah give my input so yes we are for it thank you so much for going along the thank you the land use

Excellent. Don't mean to put words in your mouth. Oh no, it's good. Okay. I will accept the motion to close the public hearing.

I will make a motion to close the public hearing, the Tremonton City Rezone, and open the public meeting for consideration and discussion.

consideration and decision of this Piedmont City Rezone. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Motion passes. Okay, consideration and decision. Any further deliberation from the commission?

Is there a reason that the manufacturing distribution in business parks is not accepted in retail?

It's just not permitted in the land use table, so it's a non-starter.

Is there a reason for that?

I couldn't speak to the history.

I mean, is that a potential change?

I guess from the way I look at it, it's like, why would they not allow retail?

Especially if it's a warehouse, then you just have retail outside of the warehouse.

Not knowing all the streets, but I would say it would be to help the city plan areas where they have industrial and then they have retail so that you don't have like an industrial warehouse right next to a grocery store. And so where you're having, because you can have manufacturing, you can have different things that are not as compatible. And so it kind of keeps the zoning so that cities can operate and have different areas for different

different uh operations and so that manufacturers are a lot of noisy retail right next to it yeah because they think of like costco and logan right like there's costco which is a big warehouse right but then right next to it it's got like those other warehouses which also have some retail spaces in the lobbies so that was why i wondered if that was the potential to look into that like i feel like costco is a grocery store it is a warehouse technically but it's usually surrounded by an acre like 10 acres of parking lots yeah yeah yeah but then i just mean like to have those bigger buildings like that that are warehouses, I shouldn't have that.

Yeah, we have different types of manufacturing zoning codes, and so that would address some of those things, like there are different levels of manufacturing, I guess you could say, that would be, we have three different manufacturing zones, and so we could look more into that code and see if that would be more applicable. But definitely, that's why you see your resident or your retail and your manufacturing depending on what type of manufacturing zone it is. Okay. But as of right now, our manufacturing zones do not allow for retail.

Would there be any reason for the current manufacturing that is present to conflict with what we're trying to change for retail, for example? I think, Like Micah was saying, a little bit of an island scenario. Do we already have, oh no, you were saying that it's CH. The surrounding area is already commercial. Highway commercial. Never mind. Yeah, right now it's... Keep going. One more. There you go. MD-B is the pink, CH is the... you've got highway commercial all the way on the other on the other side and then down to the south of that too but yeah i think that never mind so it's actually more it's actually more uniform to that okay add it backwards okay i will accept a motion on the

I move we forward a positive recommendation to the City Council of the Tremont City Rezone, application number 26.012, changing 19.12 acres of property from MD

b to ch based on the findings listed in the staff report dated june the 26th it's been moved is there a second i'll say sorry it's been moved and seconded that we moved uh or that we forwarded positive recommendations to the council of the true modern city of rezone application number 26.012 changing 19.12 acres of property from MDE-B to CH based on the findings listed in the staff report dated June 9th, 2026. All those in favor say yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. All right, motion passes.

Mr. Chair, item 4C is the repeal of the lot splits chapter in our code. And we're looking to repeal the chapter in its entirety. So staff, in having an application kind of ready to receive a request to split lots, was looking into the standards in Chapter 2.07. on how to actually accomplish a lot splits. What the ordinance is essentially talking about is that you have a parcel, which is not a lot in a subdivision. It's a different thing. Parcel, and that you're using the framework from the subdivision chapter to create smaller parcels. The inherent issue with that is that using, or is that any division of parcels to create smaller parcels is illegal. way to take a parcel and to create smaller divisions is to use the subdivision process. The subdivision process has existed in Utah since I would say the 20s was the earliest form of subdivision. 1925. Just to be clear. We are. chair so the Tremont City ordinance that adopted subdivision comprehensively was probably as far as I can tell at least in the 60s that's the earliest code where I could find it I'm still doing my research okay so again we're using a process to divide lots but the result is smaller parcels historically there's a system called meets and bounds and that's where you take the legal description of the property and draw lines and then you have a new legal description of two separate parcels doing so again has been outlawed and subdivision is the way to divide parcels further and so staff recommends a repeal of this chapter to avoid any division of parcels into smaller parcels and the recommended and state appointed method of subdivisions as it's outlined in our code can just move forward whenever we get a request to split parcels staff's recommendation would be to follow the subdivision ordinance um otherwise uh that's it any of my time mr chair available for questions thank you okay that seems pretty straightforward the discussion any thoughts in uh

the chat room.

I think it's also straightforward. I don't have a problem with it at all. And I think it's actually better.

This is just an older system method that persists in our code today and doesn't quite fit.

And we already have a process for subdividing partials. And so instead of having two processes, we just need to have the one.

the language of the uh of chapter 207 says um if there's any ambiguity in this section refer to the subdivision section anyway it's excusing itself it's strange all right okay well i think this chapter was contemplated to be more of an ag split say you have you know two acres and you want to split off your acre in the back so you can finance it differently it's not necessarily a buildable parcel but so is there a way that a farmer can take a 50 acre or a 20 acre or a 10 acre parcel and split it without subdividing it if it's not a buildable parcel without if we repeal this that makes sense they would approach the office of the county recorder

And the county recorder would yield a mylar sheet of paper that has two signatures, one of the box of the county recorder and one of the city zoning administrator. It's a different process and it's pulled straight out of state statute. It was instituted very recently, if I'm not mistaken, after the 2025 session and went into effect in January of this year, again, if I'm not mistaken. What I want to clearly distinguish is between the parcel boundary adjustment system, which changes lines between two parcels. That can be done in a much more simple process than subdivision requires. But what we're talking about is dividing property under very specific statutes that our code isn't equipped to talk about. You can pull right out of state statute to accomplish that. with the key caveat that it's not creating development potential like the subdivision ordinance would do.

So the current state policy code allows for separation, like Michael was saying here, that doesn't fall under something. Exactly.

So by eliminating this, we're just eliminating a workaround potentially.

Not a very good workaround.

Yeah, but like something that someone could use technically. So it's just cleaning up our

If it's not part of state code, either technically it's in conflict.

Yes. Yeah.

So, yeah. Anyway, okay.

Do you accept a motion to- Yes, I will accept a motion. I'll make a motion to close the public meeting for the repeal of law splits and open the public hearing.

It's been moved. and seconded and we closed the staff for the public meeting for the staff presentation and commission discussion related to river killing law splits chapter two open public hearing oh yes all in favor yes yes yes yes

lane welding and again representing tremont west mpi this came to us on the 2nd of june again the same statement that we sent out 75 emails so it was all one on all three of these items And again, only five people responded, so as you look at the numbers there, you can say one said person said yes, one person said no, and three people said I don't know. I'm undecided. And I think a lot of it has to do with that most of us don't have a clue what this is about. When we got the statement that we're going to do this lot, we're going to get rid of this lot, I sent out a copy linked to the code so that everybody could read it. And again, I think it's enough confusion that people didn't know what it was about and what it was going to do. Hearing what's being said in the staff report would have been helpful to have a copy of that to send out to people so they can have a chance to review it and actually give some intelligent comment. But they did get two comments. There is no evidence or there is no evaluation on why Tremont wants to code again lack of understanding and not knowing the code but trying to understand and get some knowledge the second one is if you can split your own lot and still be within the zoning requirement of that lot i believe you should be able to do that i think that should still be allowed with what we're doing here by deleting this and so based off of that in the mpi at least for the west district Five citizens have responded. I think we're kind of saying that we're undecided on this one, and we really don't have a big opinion one way or the other. So that's all I got, unless you have a question for me. Okay, thank you.

Okay. Any further comments from the public here? I'd say no.

I'll make a motion to close the public hearing and open the public meeting for the repeal of law splits.

So moved and seconded that we close the public hearing and open the public meeting for the consideration and decision of repealing the law splits. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Opposed? The motion passes. Did everybody say yes? Okay. Any further deliberation after the public hearing? Any other thoughts come up?

Okay.

Seeing none, I'll take the motion for the repeal of the Chapter 2.07, Lost Woods in its entirety. I'm sorry.

you go i can't find it i move we recommend the city council uh of their appeal chapter 2.07 of the city true mountain city code in its entirety based on the findings list in the random dated june 1926. it's been moved that we

second do this i seconded that we recommend that the approval of the city council of the repeal of chapter 2.07 of the tremont city code in its entirety based on the findings listed in the memorandum dated june 9th 2026 those in favor say yes yes yes yes yes motion passes

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Item 4D is the repeal of the PUD overlay. It's a request to repeal Chapter 1.33, Planned Unit Development, PUD in its entirety. This comes in response with a directive from the City Council to bring this repeal forward. Along with Christine and I, both having been here for a combined total of a few months have already seen frustration from our applicants and how the ordinance is laid out and how our predecessors and us currently are expected to bring a PUD forward to have an applicant apply for it have it go through the review process and similarly come to the planning commission the system built into the PUD ordinance is inherently confused One example is that it is an unfortunate blend of administrative and legislative processes in one application. Where that becomes problematic is that the development review committee, the DRC, is the body that grants the bonus density. The reason that's problematic is because granting any density or in other words changing any entitlements can only be done so by the legislative process we just heard two rezone items tonight where they were looking to change their entitlements those applicants they followed the rezone application and they're coming for the planning commission for a recommendation and the city council for approval but where you have the pud ordinance that reports that an applicant is in itself problematic this having been reviewed by uh again directed to staff by the city council having been reviewed by the city attorney who when things go awry and lawsuits arise is the office you know and where such suits would would fall in his court um and so wanting to get ahead of any potential litigation and any confusing ordinance that that's in its uh Well, I was just saying, in what it's trying to do, doesn't stick the landing. And so instead of a, how can I say, a comprehensive rewrite of this ordinance, would recommend repeal of this entire chapter.

One of the other confusing things is even though it gives the DRC the ability to grant the bonus entity, it still clearly has to go through the legislative process to apply for the PUD overlay. So there's a lot of cost involvements. And this is one thing that I found very, very frustrating on the city side and developer side is because they're trying to appease an administrative duty with the DRC and get their bonus entity set, which requires a lot more engineering plans and different things. And they're bringing forth preliminary plat plans for us that they haven't got the overlay yet. And so it's, as I've been reading through it, I do believe it was a step in the right direction in standardizing our overlays. I feel like that was a step for Tremont to go in the right direction. We're wanting to now make that an even better product. Like we want to be able to put forth something that is more, like you said, more defensible, but also to separate legislative and administrative to save the city time and money and to save the developers time and money. And so that the residents know Where, because they are involved in the entitlement process. And so with that, because if it changes from the zoning, the current zoning, then residents have a play in that too. And we will be able to be more efficient as a staff if we are able to tackle those three things before we move into any administrative decisions. And where the code blends the administrative and legislative, it's trying to run too many things at the same time. If that makes sense. So.

So what. Oh, go ahead. What happens if we eliminate the UD?

The current residents or the current applicants, they still get to use it. I mean, like for the next person that applies. They will have to use it. We just fall back on our base zoning that we have, and we fall back onto just our regular zoning we have. And if the city council did give us a mandate or asked us to propose a product that would help with more master plan developments, and that's something that we are currently working on.

so we're repealing this before we actually have a plan to move forward yes well not the moment we have a plan we just won't have the the actual order the the code placed ordinance yeah it's just falls back on regular zoning yeah so your your zoning changes would all it would go back to what we were doing before so then for the time being assuming that we have other plans to or at least we make the decision to reintroduce the principles of this PUD later.

Wasn't the problem before, though, that we had so many overlay zones that it just became almost like I can choose who I want to have a higher density because I'm deciding on the overlay zone. So then it's not as consistent, right? So if we're going to fall back on this, shouldn't we set some boundaries or something?

Yeah, the boundaries would be the current zoning and not instituting overlays. So we wouldn't have any overlays?

They wouldn't be accepting applications for the change of the zoning.

As an applicant, not for PVs, as an applicant, they can present as something, but you as a legislative branch, that's your decision to decide if you want to accept an overlay or not. But we wouldn't have it in our zoning title. that right yes yeah so that would be but the mandate we got from the city council was to repeal and then we're going to replace it and that's what we're we're still working on the replacing part but if we when we repeal it it gives us a time there will be a time but the time where we just rely on strict zoning so what's what's the purpose of repealing it first so that we don't have more applications come in with a zoning type that's not

But even if they come in, we can still say, no, they still have to be approved by the city council. That is true. So why take this away just to fall back on something that isn't realistic when we're going to be like, I absolutely understand. And that was something that I really heavily looked into on this of like, why, why, what's the purpose of VV, right? Like what, what are we trying to accomplish? I'm saying, I understand. Like I did that. Like I really looked into that. Right. but something that I came up with from a lot of other cities is that rather than saying, Oh yeah, if you do, if you do these things, then you can have this bonus density or whatever. We just say, no, this is what it is. Right. Like, and in the code, we can say, if you want to build a road here, you need to have two access points rather than saying, Oh, if we have these bonus density and these other things, like we can just put it into code and we can just make a stricter code. Like, we don't have any like real, what did I have it? What is it called? The like standards for like design, because that's in our PUD, but it's not in anything else in the code. So why are we repealing that? And then we're gonna lose all of those design standards that we would have with the PUD, right? Just to say, oh, we're just repealing it because we don't like that people can say, this is what they wanna do.

The reason we're repealing it isn't because we don't like what they can say. It's because of the inherent cause of the code itself.

So then let's redo our code before we repeal it. Okay. That's a good point. I just don't understand the point of repealing it and saying, like, then we're going to lose anyone who wants to submit an application.

You want the safety net built before we pull it.

Yes. Yes, I say safety net, and then if it's something we need to do, let's push it, let's go.

Maintain what you want in new code before we strip.

Exactly, yeah. If we have things that we need in new code, like our last meeting, we literally just tabled everything. Like, let's go, let's work on new code. Let's build a new code for it then, rather than just saying, oh, we're just going to repeal this because we don't like it, and then we're going to fall back on nothing.

And to be... a little on board, not that I care one way or the other on the, having the framework, but literally. What was I gonna say?

I forgot.

Hey, Roland, are we doing the discussion now or are we just?

Yeah, we have both.

So we discussed it a little bit and then we had public hearing and then we had more discussion with.

But we haven't had the public hearing on this one, right? Correct. Shouldn't we close the presentation, do the public hearing, and then do the discussion?

It's on both. We can discuss before and after.

Okay.

Did you have more to say there for the on the motion? Yep. We cannot hear you. Something happened to your signal, I guess.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

I just say yes, I have more to say, but I can just do it after the public hearing. Oh, we closed the public hearing.

We haven't had the public hearing yet. Yeah, we haven't had the public hearing yet on this. That's why I'm asking.

How many of these are we going to have?

That's hard.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Make a motion to close the public meeting and open the public hearing for the EUV open life appeal.

It's been moved. Second. And seconded that we close the public meeting for the request of repeal chapter 1.33 in its entirety and move to the public hearing.

Motion.

Yes. All those in favor say yes.

Yes.

Yes.

I know there's a lot of interest here in town to eliminate PUDs because of the flexibility that it seems to give developers beyond the zoning that's already in the code for that area. so i you know i know this isn't a question and answer period but i would i would question you know it was mentioned that the developers that currently have things in the pipeline this won't affect but there are developers who have put stuff into the pipeline that we tabled that the pud was not approved on yet so i'm kind of curious of you know what status that puts them in not that i want to but I understand that the general public doesn't want a PUD, really. They don't like PUDs because of that flexibility. Yet, I think we have a responsibility to the developers that have been through this process for the last six months to a year to see that they have an opportunity to move forward or to start over. some concerns I have.

Thank you. I don't know if this is helpful or not, but I'm trying to do what you do. I just don't need any special treat. That's all. Lane Wilding, and this is the third

survey item that we sent out relative to the deletion of the PUD. And this one actually for the five people, there wasn't a one dissenting vote or undecided. They all said, yes, we support this and believe that would be our best interest as residents. A couple of comments that we got. One is I'm of the opinion that Tremont should only be allowing developers to build to the zoning of the master plan. I will be very interested to see what Tremont I would hope that we, the residents, will get to have some input into the future process. And I believe that is going to happen. But I would sincerely hope that we would have some input into this future process. The second comment is, I think a repeal would give more time for thoughtful consideration of how this might affect our infrastructure and other factors. So those are the two comments that I got relative to the repeal of the PUD. My personal opinion, I think this is a good thing based off of what I've learned over the last six months as I've been involved with Tremont in learning about process and flow of things. Seems to be a lot of concern that the developers believe that they can have an open book basically to put in whatever kind of density they want relative to wherever they want to build as long as they meet the PUD code. And we've seen that as there's been a lot and the Valley Vista subdivision, and also the ones down on the south side of town. There have been a lot of concerns about the density and the growth and so on. And we're concerned about having the ability to have such high density without really having an opportunity to discuss it and to follow what we believe would be the general plan. And the general plan was done a long time ago. and it needs to be revised i understand that's going to happen but again just understanding where we're at my opinion is i believe that repealing this is in a good step and it allows us to say this is the current density you want to do something different we're going to have to go through the zoning process and actually bring it through as a zone change to design change so that's my comments relative to the npi wish i'd have more people respond but again five is better than none so um if you're getting getting questions for me okay i appreciate it thank you make the motion to close the public hearing and open the public meeting for the repeal of the uv overlay i moved

second and seconded now we close the public hearing and open the public meeting with a deliberation motion and vote at the repeal pv or like those in favor say yes yes yes yes yes motion passes okay mr chair um staff can address some of the questions from the public hearing can we can we petition the chair to address that question sure

Okay, the question was brought up as to whether it would affect the developers. This is not going to affect any developers that have put forth any application or on their entire project. So even if they're going from a rezone to a P&D overlay, they will still be able to do that. This is all, this is only going to affect applications that have not been seen in our office ever.

brand new brand new application after the repeal yeah is accomplished yeah um furthermore the the projects that were referenced are actually perfect case studies as to the pitfalls of the current ordinance um they they were preliminary plot applications uh that came before you the reason that it's problematic that those those three applications were and they were following the advice of staff they submitted preliminary applications and they were debating with staff the amount of lots that they could have but that was before bonus density was granted and then preliminary plan as discussed in the last meeting does best the configuration of lots and so you have this true cart before the horse you don't have an overlay you don't have a development agreement and yet we're investing how many lots they could have based on on whether they may or may not get bonus density that's kind of the inherent issue another thing is if an applicant in the that has r1 zoning if they wanted to utilize this pd tool they have to get they have to get a rezone from rr1 to one of the zones that it that accepts the pd overlay or that that could that could pass to the pd over the code um and so then they have to get that rezoned first they have to go through the entire legislative process to get a reason then they have to go through the legislative process to get the overlay and then they have a preliminary plot application that says the bonus debt that journey is quite cumbersome. Revealing this code would remove any sort of confusing framework that staff is trying to follow. And again, we go back to the base zoning. It's clean, it's subdivision. We work on a new tool that brings, we hope, one legislative step where you define entitlements, you have a bonus debt city, but we would hope that that the power to negotiate things like improvements, parks, open space, parking, things like that, are discussed in one step that can then, in a subsequent administrative step, be plotted. That's the goal of staff with the future ordinance. Plotted, yes. With the preliminary plot first,

good point so if we repealed this and tomorrow i came in with a hundred acres and it was zoned what's the zone that's not part of that is for the bb um so r110 okay which is one every ten acres what is that ten thousand square feet okay yeah and i wanted to build some apartments and some big houses with acre lots, right? What would I have to rezone it at to have any apartments? The R18? You'd have to rezone it to RM8. So I'd have to rezone it to RM8 to have some apartments. If I did that, how many apartments could I build in that 100 acres? Depends. Eight units per acre. Yeah, eight units per acre. So eight apartments. 100 divided by eight. So I could have that whole hundred acres into apartments because I'd have to rezone it to that RMA.

We don't have eight units per apartment though. So it would be like eight townhouses. You know what I mean? Or you could have one to four and then four to two stories.

that's what i'm saying is that whole hundred acres because we rezoned it to that rm8 that whole hundred acres i could now turn into town or apartments rather than having a hundred acres into the part of eight yeah that's that's what the reasoning does it allows that kind of building on that ground so is that really what we want like if someone comes in say that that doesn't work but that's what i'm saying if like then we have to approve zoning or apartments, or we don't have to, but if they just want to do some of it as apartments and some of it as townhouses or- Then that's what you say, subdivide, right? So then they're still having to subdivide their property through the subdivision. Correct. So they have to go through that whole legislative process to subdivide it. And then they have to go through and do the same thing with the overlay or with the regular zones, right? Correct. making it easier for developers or for administration or is it just the fear of the pud that is causing people to want to get rid of this well this gives the citizens an opportunity when you change zoning to be a participant they get a voice in it when you're changing zoning but we still would have to change zoning even for a pv so you wouldn't change the zoning but there would be there would be a your case is that it's not changing anything we would have to change the zoning from r110 to rma right but then if we change that zoning to our from r110 to rma then i can say oh well now you've already changed my zoning i can build apartments on all of this hundred acres and that only if you didn't subdivide it well if you if you did break it out and you said

you're manually doing it instead of automatically triggering via entitlements, then you did get permission to subdivide, assuming you did get permission to subdivide, then it's only that piece that you can rezone. You can't rezone the entire 100 acres without another process of going through it. So it's still the same amount of work. But that would mean you would have to go and say, in fact, I don't want to do

10 r110 i want to do the whole thing in rm8 then we would be able to decide is that something that the city wants no and then most people would be like no yeah you can't you're not doing that so if they're coming in saying this is why we want like i just want some apartments and i want the rest to be this and we zone it saying okay yeah so you can do some apartments mixed throughout this like they can still go and change their plan once we've rezoned it and there's no pud then they can do whatever the heck they want on that 100 acres. So then it leaves us with no backup, right? But if we have the PUD, then we're saying, okay, yeah, you can rezone this to R18 or whatever, right? And then you can get, well, I'm saying if you do the PUD, then you can get that bonus density to have some apartments, but you still have the rest of it. I agree that it's not, like the PUD is not the end-all solution. Absolutely not. But I think it saves us until we can have those standards put in place. And I would say if we keep it in there and say, okay, we have until August 1st to have a new code in place and then repeal the PUD, then that's going to put pressure on our staff and us to create that code that is strict enough and clear enough for the citizens to read and understand to then move forward and say, okay, now August 1st, We've got this new code in place. We've voted on it. It's good to go. Otherwise, we're just going to repeal it and then be like, oh, yeah, we need to do that new code somewhere down the line. But then it never happens.

No, it's a tough priority for staff, and the city council wants a better code institute. It just takes time to draft a whole new PUD type or new zoning type or whatever with this mixed... residential use in mind and all of that. So I do want to let you know that that is on staff's highest priority to bring a new zone forward. We wouldn't want to bring anything shoddy, so we want to do a good job. We want to compare with other jurisdictions that implement PUD or other types and find a good system that works for Tremont in addressing the heart of your question.

Yeah, so I would like to just add I've probably already spent 20 hours reading different codes to find something that is going to be good for Tremont and for the future development that's coming in. So it is on the staff side priority. It is not going to be something that's just put on. That's what I read when I go to bed at night. And I've been talking to other, I've been getting input from developers, from different people that are turning Like this is, it's not, it's not something like, it's not that we're presenting just refill this and maybe we'll come up with a plan. There's been a significant amount of effort put in trying to figure out a replacement.

And to the first point that you brought up, of the applicants that went to the last planning commission meeting and every item was tabled, every single one of them have submitted a legislative application to pursue a PUD overlay. And so nobody gets flushed out just because of a recommendation from tonight's hearing. And then a subsequent hearing at the city council, you gotta plan in time for referenda, which is 15 days per the state statute. So let's say June 16 is the city council, let's say it's approved there. Then again, that ordinance doesn't go live for 15 days. So again, let's say an applicant that's listening to this hearing and they want a PUD under this, how it's laid out here, they have about a month to do so. Just saying.

I just know I come from the corporate background of if we don't put a deadline on it, it's not going to happen. And I get it. I understand public employees. I get it. But I also want to have transparency with the city and with our people to say like we're not just appealing this just to appeal it because it's scary but we have a plan in place and this is the deadline for when it's going to be done and then we're going to have these stricter standards that are going to create more understanding rather than just saying oh we're just getting rid of it because we only make a recommendation oh yeah absolutely

well yeah and that's I guess part of my question Christine and Jeremy so you mentioned the city council did they make a motion that said that they wanted us to repeal this when they're the deciding body like so did they make a motion or did one of the council members talk to you so I was in a work session on May 19 and we discussed uh several ordinances and the beauty was the one that we devoted the most time to and then uh we looked at repealing it first and then we

We discussed a new tool, we gave a brief presentation on that, and we're currently drafting that. So again, first step repeal, let's get rid of the wide open access to someone to file suit. Let's close that hole first, and then let's bring forth a more effective tool to bring something like the P&D, but better, forward. So that's kind of where we're at.

Well, I guess I'm trying to understand what big gaping hole is open. I mean, the attorney signed off on this just a couple of months ago. What legal ramifications are different now with the PUD the way it is versus the unfair, not transparent overlay process that we had, which is why we did this.

There's a section at the very end on the application process and the approval process. The approval process references code that is purely administrative in nature. And so it references like section 2.07. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it references administrative, but then the application, they kind of contradict each other. the application process on how they actually apply for the PUD overlay is a legislative. And so you have two different, you have the approval process and the application process that don't really mesh together. That's my answer. So can we just adjust that part? That was the original intent. That was the original intent was to adjust that part. And I was working on that with the attorney. And the attorney found that and he helped me. I don't know why there's a change. I really don't. I don't know why it was better from the attorney from there. Now, I wasn't there when it was approved, but that was the original intent was just to change and make those align. But then when we revisited some other zoning types, the attorney very much supported us in introducing a new zoning type instead of an overlay. And so then it would simplify a lot of different processes in the rezoning because they would actually just rezone to a new rezoning type, which is different than an overlay. And so he was very supportive of that process, but the original intent was to rewrite the PUD until we got digging into it more, drafting a few copies, realizing this isn't quite what we want. And then it's like, you know what, let's, the PUD was a good idea to standardize stuff, but let's get something that's even better.

So if we, is that already in place then?

Yep.

What?

you mentioned the attorney talked about a new zone a new zone no that's that's that's what we're that's what we're drafting yeah so that's what i would like to have before we appeal this because i don't want to appeal it just because we have pressure from city council or i don't want to even make a motion to it's like that just feels really political to me

And I guess the other piece of it is the way I talk to Brett, talk to the attorney, we talk to everybody that's basically saying you can't give them additional density above the original zone without legislative approval. But there's no way that this is just going to like a bunch of stuff that just going to sneak through. I mean, they all basically the same thing as the overlay. Everything requires legislative approval anyway, whether we do the overlay or whether we do the PVD, it requires legislative approval, which is somewhat what we wanted in good. And we never wanted it for the R 120 and the R R one zones, because those are the rural ones that are on the outskirts. This was meant to be a downtown kind of, you know, more urban, you know, style where you could potentially bring in a bunch of, and it has to be a big parcel. You have to have all the points and open space. And so to me, like you said, I think, yeah, we need the new proposed code, but we also need the city council or all of this to come up with, how are we going to get the things? The reason why we did this, which was we wanted to get parks and trails and open space and preserve all of these things that we want.

You're muted. He muted himself.

Sorry, my face muted me. We wanted to get all of those things. And because the city can't afford to put in the park, they can't afford to put in all these things that really increase the quality of life. So yeah, I really think we definitely need some we should just make a modification and change the wording of it. But the way I understood it and the way the attorney and Brett and everybody explained it to me was it still requires legislative approval. So it's not like there's a gaping hole anywhere.

The city council still has to approve any PUD.

It's just they have at least a point system playing field that everybody can have the same rules.

Yeah, so you're right. And we, and, but we're just trying to just improve and the, the repeal just takes time. And then we, and whatever you decide is we're open to where I'm not going to disagree with you on any of those things.

One idea that I had found from another code was that having like, if you want those infrastructure things, right, those parks, those open spaces. and this might be part of the new zone that you're looking at is to add that as like a trigger of like, if you want to have this much density, then like, as part of our code, you have to have this much park space or negotiation element. Is that what you're saying? Not even negotiation. Like it's what it is. Like if you want to have apartments, you have to have this much. And I think we do have some of that in our apartment code of like so much green space around the apartments or whatever, but like, Those were some things. And then we're not negotiating on units and how many units we can fit. But then it's like, if you want to have this much density or this many townhouses, you have to have a park. You have to have a trail system. You have to have, kind of like we do with the retention basins or the detention basins, right? That's all part of the code. That's all part of the requirements. So then we just do that with open space as well, rather than saying it's a bonus density or whatever. just including that as part of our code and having that be strict requirements. Cause that's then, you know what I mean? If you have this much density on this zone that you have, whatever, then you're going to have to have this much infrastructure added or, you know what I mean? We just require that of the developers from the beginning, rather than having the PUD in place. But I don't think that we can eliminate the PUD until we have that in place. Otherwise we're not going to have any negotiation. It's just going to put bad blood between any developers or anybody that's wanting to come to Tremonton if they're just saying, well, now I can't do anything.

I disagree. I think any developer that wants to come and do something will work with you. They'll find a way to build what they want to build in Tremonton. And I want to support the citizens. And everyone I've talked to that's mentioned this stuff to me does not want PUDs in our town. They want something different. They don't like what's happened in the past. They don't like it at all. so that's man what do you talk what's happened in the past what are you talking about well just just the proposals of putting apartments up where where uh r112 stuff is that that kind of stuff people don't like that people don't like the departments over by the amount of apartments but the town has to go by the hospital i get complaints about that all the time and i was part of the accepting that with you well yeah yeah those are fantastic those are fantastic no they're not fantastic you haven't been over there you water the water getting watered trees are dying it's not fantastic it's okay you know it's stuff that can be worked through but it's far from fantastic i think it's i think it's great it's brought an incredible amount of incredible people

that needed to be able to afford a home of that stage. And I understand. I agree with you on that.

I've got a stepdaughter that lives over there. And I go over there all the time and take care of stuff. But it's just not the perfect situation. And we've got a lot of that in this town.

And that's exactly the scenario is we essentially put it together is we can't discriminate based on how much people make. We want to have a place for everyone. And this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with apartments. this is a pd ordinance that allows them to do it the way they want and they can get a little higher density it doesn't necessarily mean apartments it doesn't show you mean it could mean twin homes it could mean i mean a million different things i i know i've said all these things before mike i didn't know that exactly exactly and i also support the citizens and they're they're not liking how this is turning out we can still have we can still have smaller homes and smaller lots and stuff

and give me an example of what hasn't turned out that's what i'm getting at is what what are they so mad about we have never done one they what i hear those two proposals up on the hill stirred up a big hornet's nest people don't like these things up there i'm not saying they're not good for everywhere but it's got to be a better control and the public's got to be better represented on what goes where And this system right now does not do that.

Are those proposals for... Yeah, we haven't even seen any of that stuff.

There hasn't been a proposal made on that one yet.

No, they just sent in their applications for the PUD where they legislated on that.

we haven't even seen it right i mean it's not approved yeah well we've seen the preliminary one three we've seen the lot we know they want a specific zone but there's not been any overlays i bet though if we polled people who live in the new townhouses who've been built in the last five or ten years they would be all very supportive of having more things like more houses like that that are affordable because people want to come to tremont And they want affordable housing. And so maybe the people who live in homes who have expensive big lots and all of those things might not want more people. But now that our city is growing, there are more people who live in those smaller houses, who live in those smaller townhouses. And they just have kids and they can't come to these things and they don't know that they are being misrepresented by the loud minority.

Well, that's the point, the minority.

The loud minority is the people who don't want more townhouses in Tremont.

Well, they're still a minority, right?

Yeah. Majority. I'm sorry. I'm here majority, and you're saying minority. No. I'm sorry. Excuse me. That's what I'm saying. Just because people are loud and tend to come to these things and say this is what they want doesn't mean that that's the majority. If I go to my softball game in a half an hour, I bet half of those parents would be happy to have more kids in Tremont to play softball with their kids. they want more competitive sports and things like that and we have to have more people in our age group to have that and if they understood that and they had the time to be able to come to these things and understand and have their voice heard i'm sure that it would be a louder more people would be able to say their feelings um perfect you're good so good good points each we're all an iconic emotion

i move we recommend denial of the city council to repeal chapter 1.33 of the tremont city code in its entirety with the follow-up with the following findings the findings is we don't have we can just fix the code we have and uh you know fix the few things that are ambiguous or whatever that the attorney approved a few months ago i'm sure we can fix it so that's my motion i second it it's been moved and seconded that we um

deny request to repeal chapter 1.33 in its entirety with the submitted findings those in favor say yes yes yes no no supposedly no no no so the motion fails to deny

I make a recommendation that we approve this.

So you move that we recommend to the city council a request to repeal chapter 1.33 in its entirety. Correct. I second. It's been moved and seconded. Those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No.

No.

Motion passes.

We're done? Public comments? No, we already did that.

Oh, yeah, yeah, we did that.

0.5.

Any public comments? I understand the concerns, I believe, relative to the PUDs, and I appreciate the discussion that you guys have had.

I understand that there are some issues that need to be worked with, and I would suggest you give the city or somebody a deadline on how to get to where we need to be address your concerns Andrea that we need to have something in place and if this is going to get repealed then we probably should do something as quickly as we can rather than slower so I would suggest as a council but maybe you as a commission member you should instruct and make a deadline for the city

We just approved it, so we don't care.

It's been repealed. I understand it's been repealed. At least we requested that. Right, you requested the repeal.

However, you can make the request that they have a deadline for the replacement.

I think that our staff is on it. I think they are on it. I think they have a sense of urgency.

I would also agree with that and the fact that, like, My view of it was that we are giving a deadline to have it done as fast as possible by repealing, is my feel. And I also understand what you're saying, Andrea, but I think it can go both ways. And I know that our staff is on top of getting something new in hand.

Hi, I'm Anna Jones. I do want you to know, Andrea, I do live in town homes. I do represent. I'm one of those people. With this, I understand where Ben is coming from. There has been a lot of growth in areas that were not part of the master plan. And I believe that's where the concern is, is that these PUDs have been putting in stuff in the areas that were not meant to be that more dense area. But when I came to the planning commission meeting, I believe, a few weeks or a month ago where everyone came up and talked about the master plan that's the only thing that um or that's the thing that i think we need to do is do have this increased population areas but responsibly just so that they're not going into the outskirts where it wasn't planned for but within um because yeah i can't afford a home i cannot afford a home right now and so that's why i have a town hall um but within a good area to where it's more within the community rather than on the outskirts and i do agree with yeah let's do let's try and set a deadline to get something else in place so that we do have that safety net so we have what we need so that we can have that responsible growth in the right places thank you thank you public comment

I see none, we'll do 0.6. What are we considering business? Staff has a business to report. Okay.

I have an email from Mayor Roddy. It's a memorandum to the Tremont City Council and the Tremont Planning Commission, which staff was directed to read to the commission in its entirety, and I'll do so now. Dated May 28, 2026. subject reminder use of personal devices during public meetings we're sharing this together as a we're sharing this together as a friendly reminder of what Utah law already asks of us all when we serve on a public body nothing here is new and nothing here is aimed at any one person we just want to make sure we're all on the same page the short version When we're sitting at the dais, council, or commission, our phones, tablets, and laptops are fine for looking up agenda packets, city code, a map, or a fact that helps us to do the work in front of us. What they can't be used for is anything that moves the meeting off the record. What the law requires. Under Utah's Open and Public Meetings Act, Utah Code Title 52, Chapter 4, all deliberation among members of a public body has to happen out loud in the open where both the public and the recording That means during a meeting we don't first text message or text message or email any or another member of the same body about anything on the agenda or anything that could come before us. Two, use group chats, Zoom chats, or any side channel among members. Third, communicate with outside parties, applicants, developers, family with an interest, anyone about how we're going to vote or what's being said. Under Utah's government records and The Government's Records Access and Management Act, that's GRAMMA, Title 63G, Chapter 2. Anything we type or text on any device, city-issued or personal, about city business is a public record. That includes texts to staff, notes typed on a phone, and messages we might later delete. Deletion does not erase the record. It can make things worse. What's fine? First, looking at the packet materials code map, or facts relative to what is being discussed. Two, brief personal communication that has nothing to do with city business. Third, taking notes. What we're asking of each other, that we hold ourselves and each other to the standard the law already sets. If a question comes up about whether something was okay, the right move is to ask Dalton, the city attorney. That's what he's here for. We appreciate the work each of you does for Tremont, and we appreciate your care and getting the strength. Mayor Brett Rohde, Dalton Smoot, City Attorney.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

That's it? That's it. Any other questions for Seth?

Yeah, do you have any questions for us?

Is there any effort to educate the public on the function of what PUDs are, what we're trying to do with them? Because I think there is a discrepancy. or disconnect between the functional purpose of a PUD that we are trying to accomplish and the public perception of what we have done in the past and what is going on. Because just as a general note, PUDs, as far as how it's been done before the last six to eight months, Everything was piece by piece exactly what it is set at right now without the PUD. Or with an overlay. We would negotiate specific overlays and that's going back to what you're seeing right now that is in development. That's where those come from is the actual removal of the PUD. So we're back to where we were just so everybody gets where we're sitting so i understand the concerns of the citizens but i wonder how much is being is able to be communicated when you get five people ran through your email hopefully they all read them i hope so you know um but kind of what andrea was saying there is a a more active participation from the people who are most adamant and concerned but i'm not certain they see the full spectrum of what's happened and what's going on. So that's, if there's communication, that's my question.

There was the first probably three months of the MPI, we just discussed the PUD to teach the citizens what it was and how it was implemented. And those discussions went very well. And they were still against it. They just need to understand it. It wasn't a for or against. It was just an educational kind of focus group. There wasn't any opinion. This is just how it was. There wasn't any for or against. The repeal just came, and the only time we did bring it up at the last MPI meeting, we went over the staff report. Staff will do better at getting the information out. It was unclear on staff on when we should get the information out in the packets, and we're still trying to figure out logistics on getting making sure that they have the right time at the right time but we haven't there hasn't been a huge education to the public on the repeal process except for the noticing and then the last mpi meeting that's what we discussed it i just have one comment too on the mpi meetings have been nice

I know it causes things to be spaced out, but for the citizens to see what topics are going to be discussed, and those discussed in their meetings, so they're a bit more educated. We just found out about these a week ago.

Yeah, we have discussed in staff, to get some information out, when there's a legislative item that needs to come up, that's when the public really needs to know. And so when there's notices that go with it, we're going to start having the MPI help us notice like fill envelopes because they'll have to mail out the envelopes and then they will get a little brief heads up at the MPI meeting before it's noticed so then there's a little bit more time and for them to know what's coming up on the agenda anytime we have a publicly noticed item it will be on the agenda for the next MPI meeting and so they will they will whatever district is meeting that day part of that agenda will be whatever's being publicly noticed, whether it's in their district or out of their district, just so that they can have some information before coming to. And that was the one thing we didn't do was get the staff reports out to the NPI heads so that they had more context if they didn't come to the meeting. And that's just on us to make sure that we get those things done.

Thank you. An additional point, I think, to help with your concern, Andrea. Is it possible that we, I mean I'm sure it is, we can choose to accept or not an application based on specific criteria? Is that correct or can anybody just apply?

We don't have any by right. We will be guiding them towards those standards.

So here's that follow-up. I don't plan on voting to approve or accept any proposals until we have something to replace what we just repealed. Does that make sense? That means we bookend before the next applicant. That has to be resolved. Does that make sense? Fair.

Okay.

Fair. What do you guys think, Karen, Micah?

The reason why they have repealed it is because they don't want this code anymore. They're not going to bring it back. So don't kid yourself, Roland. They're not bringing it back. We'll see. Yes, we will. OK. Take a motion to adjourn.

I move. And I second.

All those in favor, say yes.