Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Our statement is out of order. We'll talk about proving that he's been moved. Is there a second? Okay, saying no second on the approval of the agenda. Mr.

Chair, should we add a section for public comment on the agenda since it wasn't included on this one?

I'm a little confused. So do you want to add before you approve? So we don't want to approve the agenda as it sits because then we can't add anything.

So we would amend the agenda to what? so you're asking for a motion and a second yes the moment of that motion correct but he hasn't stated fully what he's a uh public comment section right up between three and four okay general public comment section it's before we get into the business okay it's been moved that we added a public comment section after the approval of the minutes and before the public meetings and public hearings It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor of adding the public comments between point three and four, please say yes. Yes. Yes. Those opposed? Okay, motion passes. Now, an approval of the agenda.

I would accept a motion to approve the agenda as amended. All motion that we approve it as amended.

It's been moved and seconded that we approve the agenda.

Second.

All those in favor say yes.

Yes.

Motion passes. All right, point two, declaration of conflict of interest. Anyone have? None. None. Okay. So I'll move ahead to point three. approval of the minutes june 9th 2026. we accept a motion to do that or i motion to improve the minutes of june 9th 2026. okay it's been moved is there a second also and seconded that we approve the minutes of june 9th 2026. those in favor say yes yes yes motion passes oh you're right we should have added that in mike thank you we will have public comments opening the public comments close name as always and mr chairman

Commissioners, Lane Welding, I appreciate your adding a section in there for public comment. I do have a comment, and this is just a personal observation relative to how we're doing business, and I would like to make an observation. I have some charts put together. If I look at, Most of the staff reports, they included a notice in there that says that they are compliant, that they have sent out a meeting notice 10 days prior to, and it's been published in the Tremont for the code. And as I read the code, one of the things I have noticed that they're very compliant, we're very compliant with the notice of the date, time, and place of the public hearing. and then if you'll notice in the chart there in the yellow information and it says and other relevant information associated with the hearing shall be posted on the city website and the utah public notice website at least 10 days prior to the hearing and also i was saying there says 24 hour notice of the public hearing shall be posted on the website city website on the utah public most website and i appreciate a comment i got earlier today from stephanie relative to the 24 meant by something that we do considerably earlier i says then we probably ought to change this so it doesn't say 24 hours we should probably reword this so it says something a little different because i looked at 24 hours and a very liberal person i expected to see something yesterday relative to this commissioner meeting today but i did not if you go to the next chart my question is what is relevant information and i may not be saying that correctly but Per the law dictionary that I found, it says it's any data, fact, or detail that directly applies to a specific problem, situation, or decision. It can treat this meaningful to the understanding of the topic, aids in finding a solution, and helps distinguish the essential from the trivial. So I believe the staff reports that the staff prepares Relative to each of the things that are going to be presented today and in the future have that data They contain the important facts the data the details on exactly what the change is going to be and I would propose that those staff reports in order to be compliant with this code that they be included in that ten-day notice and that we have an opportunity to review those. We have an opportunity for good public comment and debate. We have the opportunity to have interchange and discussion versus us coming here and having three minutes to state our position and you guys get to decide what we're going to do without having good interchange and good discussion and so on. So I would make a recommendation that in the future for the Planning Commission, that all future discussions that require public hearing or public comment meet the requirements that the staff report be included in that 10-day notification and if it doesn't come in the 10 days then we push it off and wait for another two weeks until your next planning commission that would be my recommendation and i really believe it would help improve the dialogue and communication as we gather information and we try to work together as a community to come up with solutions. So I appreciate your time, thank you.

What's that?

That's good input.

From your guys' standpoint, how hard would that be to implement?

Right now, currently, what we've, and I think this is a great discussion and I appreciate the comments. But what our plan moving forward is that we had to anticipate is we actually give a 14-day notice. Minimum is 10, but we give a 14-day notice for public hearings. Our code, I think state code is 14, and then our code says 10, so there's a little ambiguity there. So we adhere to the state code and we give a 14-day public notice. That gives a two-week window. That two-week window, a lot of things can change in the staff report, and so currently our trajectory is we want the staff report done by seven days before, which is really close to the 10 days, and the seven days before is when we give you the staff report the week before, and then we also give it to the MPI at the same time. We're willing to chat and talk about it, but currently staff does not have the timeframe to get those reports done that early, at that 14-day window. It's going to be laborious for staff to get that done, As we grow our staff department and as we grow in our capabilities, that would be a great practice. So we still need to discuss it, and I think it's a great on-board conversation. I think it's a great idea, but right now we were feeling like we were doing well at getting the staff reports out at the seven-day mark in SOAP. So it's open for discussion, and we're open to ideas. But I do think it's a good idea and a good principle to implement. Whether or not it's practical or not, we are working on that.

And think about that public notice as the first introduction of the project to the public. So we meet the noticing requirements by the notice that does get sent out. It talks about the date, time, place, and all of that.

It does give more than just the date, time, and place. We say what they're being zoned to. We say... you know, what the proposed change is going to be.

Yes. So minimal amount of information on what I would call a public information handout. So it's just a one-pager little sheet that gets posted here at the city. Then the next step, staff reports, detailed reports, preparation for the meeting that hopefully not hitting all of the beats that were hit in the staff report. Hopefully this can engender a new discussion based on preparation is the intent of this document. So I was just telling members before the meeting, you wanna tell them what you're gonna tell them, and then you tell them, and then you tell them what you told them. So it's kind of like, it's just, there's multiple instances for someone who's admittedly hawk-eyed, right? For members of the public who are watching every step of the process, they'll get a lot of information, intent is to cast the net pretty wide i think that's inherent to the process can that staff report be added to the website once it's produced that's that's that's that's actually a good point because we had with the agenda as a as a link well in in due time yes and so i understand the rollout of a new website um tiffany's that august

It's supposed to be this month.

Well, at some point we'll get a new website, and I think the individual departments will have a bit more control. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. That's something we already discussed. Yes. The fact that you might bring it up is great. We're already thinking about that.

I think that that would actually solve a lot of problems because I think Lane's point that he has that I talked to him with that I really agree with is he gets an email and he has the public notice, but it would be so nice to have some way for the public and not just people who go to the MBI to have access to the staff report. And I think that's a great, great, great way that we should be moving forward. But if we had our website, we could hit that seven, 10-day mark, you know, because the two-week mark, it's too hard for us to send it out the same notice. But we could hit that seven, 10-day mark with the staff reports. And then at the NPI, they would have had a chance to look at it and then be able to discuss it. We are always a moving forward practice. Anything that's publicly noticed here at the, planning commission meeting, we are discussing it the week before at MPI. Except for this one. Except for what? Except for this one. Because we canceled the MPI.

That's right. Well, the MPI report did not come out until Thursday. Okay.

Before we have more, Elaine, let's have those guys. Is there anyone else that would like to submit a public comment?

Okay. Go back to what you did. Let me try it again.

I'm sorry. I'm still learning the process. Yeah, that's all right. So we're trying to have a dialogue and discussion. And like I say, this particular time, the staff reports did not come out until Thursday. That's when Christine emailed me a copy of the staff reports for this meeting. And I'm going like, how can I have, as an MPI leader, get my MPI together to even have any reasonable discussion relative to what this is going to be about. Yes, I had a list of what was on the agenda, but I have no idea what this clarification of this document is or the men in these chapters about the fencing. Okay. I didn't know what those were about. Yeah, I was talking about fencing, but I had no idea what it was going to be. And there's something in the fencing one that really irritates me that I would like to have a discussion about and I'll bring it up when we get to the fencing part. But again, it's just this part of and communicating clearly so that we know what the change is as an MPI or as a community we all look at it and say yeah we like it or no we don't but we can have an intelligent discussion or debate or sit around in a room and have a discussion eyeball eyeball rather than have to go through a very formal process and iron out some of the differences and get some of the questions answered before we ever

It sounds like there's some intention to do that. Yes, I agree, and I wholeheartedly support that.

One other thing I was thinking of is, do you see that people, do you find that people come regularly to the MPI meetings, or are there new people that show up on any given occasion?

I would say it's mostly the regulars, because we're not going out actively recruiting more people for the MPI.

And if it's not in your backyard, people aren't going to be up there trying to push in.

maybe because i do think that the staff has done a wonderful job of trying to make that effort it sounds like and i think um but there is an important point to be made about keeping the flywheel moving as it relates to mpi and community discussion and outreach you don't want to leave that water stagnant you want the water to be flowing so that it stays clean and the conversation continues if you have that momentum so i think there is something to be said about what you're talking about but i'm wondering if there's maybe a way to organize those meetings in such a way that in in a need for filler which i don't i hate to say that because it's not that's not the intent of these groups we want it to be an active group that is always about the about the business but if there's something that we could say, like this is our default week, cancel the meeting, right? We have holidays, we have these other things that come up. There's regular instances where planning commission is not happening, but you want to keep that fire going. What do you do in those circumstances? That's a good question.

I know for tomorrow's MPI meeting that I'm responsible for, there's nothing coming from the city, and I hate to have a meeting just to have a meeting. Okay. And I think communication and flow of information is wonderful. And I'll send out a note tonight to the 75 people that I have on my distribution list and say, we're not going to have our API meeting this week because we have nothing new to discuss because we've already discussed what we would have discussed. We're discussing right now tonight. So again, thank you for considering and listening and trying as a community to actually make this work, which is what I'm really after is a

community is to is to make this work and get the information to the people as quickly as we can thank you a quick idea though and not to say I mean not that we ever need to have an errands of grievances but if you ever did you know say we don't have anything to talk about tonight is there something that is really bothering you that we could bring to the table tonight and discuss you know like like book club but you know what I mean like the city club like um You know, and you can obviously cancel meetings, but I'm just saying that when you have nothing else to talk about, it might not be a bad idea to ask somebody to bring things forward that we could address in the future.

A staff might plan to be here even if we have nothing to discuss just for that reason alone.

All right. Appreciate that. Thank you for the comment.

Can I say one thing? I think moving forward with the website, that would really help. And then we could have a place to upload the staff reports, and then that would be I think that's the best.

It gives us more coverage. It gives people a chance to get the reports early.

Well, and it might even reduce some of Tiffany's workload where she doesn't have to send everything via email. Drafting emails and putting all the pieces together. It's like, it's just here. You can go and find it. It's always there.

Okay. Appreciate it. Thanks.

All right. Finishing with public comments, unless there's You sure? You got something to say? I can tell. I can tell. Really? Go ahead. Come on up.

William Pickett. And the one comment I have is with your new website and adding all the things that the city does to that website would certainly help those of us that are at the bottom of the food chain have a chance of looking up what the items are and maybe doing a little bit of research on it before the meeting occurs so that's that's pretty much my feeling on that In my view, it's a point we should go forward on right away. And it's not terribly easy for me to come. You don't care about my thing, but I have a terminal disease that has no cure at this point. and so when i come out it's an effort yeah i would like to see what you're doing in these meetings you know because i live here in town i guess that's about it thank you thank you thank you comment for staff i assume that once we get the website up and running and post these things

code so they can go all the way as deep as they want to go we would love to do that and in fact to respond we're actively looking for an intern to help with a lot of the stuff too so that we have time to make sure that they are done and not missed um and they're able to be able to get them paid or unpaid it's paid yeah i thought i'd ask for a friend

okay thank you everyone move to well i should say i will i'll accept a motion to begin the public meetings and public hearings we have to end public comment first we uh i moved to start the public meetings and public hearings it's been moved Is there a second? I'll second it. And seconded that we open public meetings and public hearings. Presented by Jeremy Lance, City Planner. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So item 5A, again, planning staff is assisting, or community development staff is assisting with bringing this adoption of the Tremonton Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan. We don't have Zoom working, do we? on so then president mr. chair is director with fever from parts and rest department and then mr. Sam Taylor of landmark design was was present last time he's present visually this time hopefully so yeah I just wanted to show this item to the director but first how about I just give a simple summary of the last meeting on June 23rd the Planning Commission did hear this item, heard an extensive presentation from staff. There's a few points that the Planning Commission touched on. Discussion about levels of service, of course at different levels, presented in the plan. There's the discussion around the need for an indoor recreation center in addition to outdoor parks. And there's clarification from city staff, particularly the director that we were talking about, that the city's level of service cannot be increased until existing park projects are completed. And please tell me if I misrepresented the conversation. As previously allocated, funding must first be expended or must be spent for current improvements. Staff also clarified that impact fees are tied to growth-related capital improvements and have limitations on how they may be used. Staff further noted that providing both outdoor park amenities and indoor park recreation facilities reflects industry best practices by accommodating a wider variety of recreational activities and sports, and that the plan identifies the approach while discussing potential funding strategies for future facilities. The discussion encapsulated in a directive from the Planning Commission for Parks and Rec staff to bring forward some kind of priority list for what parks are going to be coming out that I believe takes the form of the Capital Improvement Plan. Please correct me if I'm wrong. And Director Fegers prepared with that documentation tonight. But I'll deal with the rest of my time, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Can I make a comment, Mr. Chair? I do want to say that the staff report was sent out to the MPI, and it was late. It was on Thursday before the MPI. And there were two staff reports prepared with a link. One of the links had the old version of the – we had some comments made. from length and they were addressed by SAM. I may have unintentionally sent out the old staff report that had the wrong link to the NCI. So there's a different staff report that had the updated link. So we have two versions of the plan. One that was presented and then an updated version you should have received the updated version, because Jeremy sent that one out to you. When I uploaded the staff report, I might have inadvertently uploaded the wrong one. I have not had time to check that, though. So just so that you know, that could have been a clerical error on our part. Does that make sense? Yeah, I don't think you did. I don't know. Well, I think you guys got the correct version, but the MPI might have got the old version. I just wanted to say that.

You said that.

because jeremy sent you that one right yeah and he was in the reports i just didn't know where to i just i just think that i did the wrong one okay thank you um so we're doing it this way right around closing it via motion and

entry and doing the opening the public comment the public hearing has already been held for this item once that provision is met then you kind of turns to public comment so this could just be regular public comment for this item if you prefer to do it that way but you do not you're not required to hold an additional public hearing for the site since that was fulfilled

So are we going to listen to Zach? Is that what we're thinking?

So the staff presentation and commission discussion? Yeah, with my portion.

Yeah. So after last meeting, Sam went and he addressed a lot of the comments that were made. Some of those, as we talked about, were clerical and updating. some numbers within the presentation and the document itself. Another thing that was asked was a priority list. And as I had mentioned that the priority list was in the back of the document. So what I wasn't realizing was that The document also included the appendix, and so everyone was looking at the back of the appendix and not the document itself. So I believe Sam has broken out the appendix from the document itself as it was sent over so that we can have the – so you can see those priority lists. Also, at the very beginning of the presentation and the document, it does have top priorities for every section. So it has the top priorities for parks, top priorities for trails, top priorities for open space. And a lot of those also include policies and different things. So we believe that setting a top five per se isn't recommended for financial situations. We leave that up to the council for those to make those decisions. but we do have a capital improvement plan and capital projects that we do have listed down a lot of different things that the parks need. And then we work with the council to update those year by year as the finances allow. So Sam is on board also. Do you have anything to add to the changes that were made Sam and from the comments?

No, I think we obviously address everything that's clerical in nature or an error with a number or a calculation.

There was some discussion had last week or last time I met regarding the population projection. And after discussing it with the rest of the city staff, we agreed to carry on with the numbers as they're currently represented as that is the most accurate population projection data we have access to. And otherwise all comments have been responded to in the returned draft copy. And the only other change that we made in addition to that is there were a couple of items out of order in the implementation matrix that we corrected in order of their priority.

But everything else, yeah, I think you have it in front of you.

We've broken this appendix off separately to assist with readability. And I think that sums it up.

and commission uh again this is a a general overview plan it's a high level client um guiding document that is supposed to be a living document also so as um needs arise and and show and population increases when we get better data then that's times that we go and amend the plan and update it right so so uh right now the best information that's available is what's included in the document itself what's the is there a required process for for those amendments and changes do you have to go through the commission council to make any changes um this is an entire update of the from the 2011 plan to the 2023 land use plan and then this breaks that portion out so this is an entire update If it's just a, unless it's an entire update, I'm not sure. You guys know?

How about the difference between updates that shift language or intent versus minor Scrivener stuff? So there has been some discussion about catching some typos and other things like that. That could just happen really at any time, but anything that goes back to change the plan should probably go back to the plan.

Like change the plan of a scope or something like that.

because it doesn't count.

Okay, I think that makes sense. Just so that you know, we will, moving forward, depending on what you decide to do, we will still make sure that the updated copy gets out to the public so they have time to look at it before it goes before the council.

unless there's anything else you can see because that is that was an error in our part and we will make sure to get this out to the public okay okay honestly i'm going on trust with this one okay you can see i read every page of that and i mean as far as like my my My concerns would be along the lines of changing it if there are changes to what is there. That way if people are constantly reviewing it and it's available to them, we know if anything has changed from that here. So that if questions arise in the public, then we can address those. Zach's come to us and we talked about that exact change and this is what happened and why.

So in the future, if the Public Works Department updates their sewer future plans, right, and they get better numbers, then we can also add and update those numbers within the plan. And that's something I believe we would bring to you for that. If it's something to add into the appendix or something like that, that's probably something that would just be added in the appendix.

Might I suggest that with additional iterations that we somehow use a different title so that when we download them, they don't all get commingled into, you know, which one is this is the most recent one. Usually you put a date on it. Yeah, there is a date. I mean, it's 26 underscore 0709, but I have two of them that I've downloaded with that date, and I can't see them making the full name. So just, I mean, my suggestion is just make sure when we upload those that they have a unique name that includes a date and version number or something so that we can make sure we're looking at the most recent one.

Yeah, and in the future as this gets uploaded and put up to vote, it's going to be, so the bigger updates are going to happen three to five years, right? And that's when it'll change the entire dates and years and and all that information will be updated. So there won't be hopefully any confusion between versions.

Okay, as long as there's some way for us to know that there's been a modification and what the modification was. I mean, if it's a minor modification that doesn't change the plan per se, you know, that's just something that's been done with the budgeting or something else like you mentioned,

accept a motion to close staff presentation commission discussion and open the public comments i'll make a motion to close the staff presentation commission that we closed staff presentation commission discussion is it is there a second second and second all those in favor say yes yes yes motion passes um so we can add public comments sounds like I took a lot of time to review this document, several days, made a lot of comments.

i get the planning notice for this meeting the staff report i click on the link to the staff report it takes me back to the old no evidence that anything had been addressed and i'm going like seriously we're bringing it back to this meeting and it's not been addressed none of my comments and now i'm hearing that i guess it has been addressed which i figured it had been but again Only have what I have. I didn't have the update. So I put something together and said hey, I don't have the update Part of my questions are you know, we spent a lot of money for this master plan this update and Why did we just not go ahead and just update the trim on the grade language plan? It seems like a lot of the document became Into this new master plan came from that one and I'm going to ask the question. I Now that we have, if we accept this one and we move forward with it, what are we going to do with section three and appendix D and appendix E of the Tremont integrated land use plan? Do you not need to have some paperwork or something in place that stops the use of those? Do we need a statement at the beginning of this new master plan that says this supersedes what's been done in the past? Again, not having the new document, I have no idea or no way of knowing if that's actually taking place. Again, I think personally that you need to have two pieces of paper running concurrently. If you have a new master plan that you're going to approve and put into order, you need to have something in place to change or to stop the use of the other or to keep the sections out of the other documents so that there's no confusion. We don't have multiple documents and people go, well, which one should I be using? I don't know. So a statement at the beginning of the new master plan would say this supersedes what was done per the tree-mountain integrated land use plan would be great. But I think we need to have at least two pieces of paper to justify this change, one for the new and one to do something with the old.

Interestingly enough, I ran into this a lot in NASA, and what we finally ended up doing was you keep the name of the document, and on there you put the version, and this version supersedes all other versions. And then you have to make sure that the pieces in the old document that you want in the new document are put in the new document. But on the front right-hand side, they would put, you know, that this document supersedes. And then you wouldn't be looking for a different document. So the way I looked at it and looked at it over there was, anytime you can make it easier for you to find and for me to find i'm all for easy without any reference to superseding or what level of of the version this is uh you know you're kind of hanging out there in the work in the wind and one other suggestion that occurs to me along that same line anytime you have a minor revision to the document and anything is a minor revision that does not change the intent or the basic underlying functions then if that name stays the same if you're doing things like I heard mentioning well water power sewer makes changes to theirs it should be reflected as a minor change in this document but it does not affect the version okay thank you that's william pickett right yes okay okay accept the motion close public comments and begin consideration and decision i motion to close public comments and open consideration and decision of

parks and Charleston open spaces master plan it's been moved second second and second close public comments and open the consideration decision of the Chimon parks and rec master plan all those in favor say yes yes yes motion passes I address the question for staff please okay so based on what has been said is there any concern or understanding of

we need to do anything to make those two documents work together that he's describing no we can work with the version that was intended it was sent to the planning commission on thursday circulated and will be so circulated to the city council actually within 24 hours so we'll make sure the correct link gets out there's no confusion there i really like the idea of the version or name of the document date whatever we'll make that clear that's really confusing

Does the appendices, the parts that were left out, does that feel like that has any bearing on us passing this tonight? No, I wouldn't say so. Okay.

So, we'll send the motions for a follow-up on the staff report on the page four. I would accept a motion for recommendation or denial. One more comment.

what they were saying I would like to motion to recommend this for approval I knew we recommend approvals as the council the adoption of the 2026 Tremont parks trails and open space master plan based on the findings listed in the memorandum dated July 14th 2026

based on staff's confidence that those things are getting taken care of i second that right and seconded that we recommend approval to the city council the adoption of the 2026 tree mountain parks trails and open space master plan based on the findings listed in memorandum dated july 14th of 2026. those in favor say yes yes yes motion or any opposed All right, thank you, Zach.

We appreciate it. Thank you. And thank you, Sam.

And thank you, Sam.

Yeah, thank you, Sam.

Have a good night.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, item 5B of tonight's agenda is the rezone code text amendment. It's a request to amend chapter 1.31.020 Forms, or form and contents of required documents of the Tremont City Code to clarify the application requirements for obtaining a rezone in Tremont City. So this amendment aims to simplify. There are a few provisions that, if not struck still present in our code, the City and our staff are in a little bit of trouble with this date. make sure that processes are clear for applicant and we're not requiring things that we shouldn't and we are requiring things that we should. So when it comes to the changes, there are three changes, or rather strikethroughs in three separate sections. So 1.31.20, I'll go in order. B, which talks about the written statement, includes a strikethrough from the word included in the, let's see, second sentence, all the way through to the end of that section. The intent here is that, yes, a written statement should absolutely be required, but the beats that they should be hitting in their narrative should be things like, well, they can look on the future land use map and see if it gels with that document. They should be looking at the general plan and making the argument based on that. They should be looking at the zoning map and seeing if the zoning that they're requesting is adjacent or really close by, establishes a flow, follows good planning principles, those sorts of things. If they want to signal where they can, but I would recommend having language in our code that ties them down to things that, how would you put it, Christine?

That may or may not change. The things that they want is intent, and Zoning changes shouldn't be made off of the intent of the landowner, because the landowner could change hands, and they could be changed, and when we're asking them in code to ask us what their intent is, then the state might say we're requiring too much of our applicants. And yeah, you could go down that alley. So we definitely want a written narration. We want it written, but we want it based on good planning principles, not off of intent, because intent can be skewed, modified. It could be used to manipulate the council. It could be used for anything. There are lots of different reasons why we don't want to have code asking for the intent.

So they're making a positive affirmation based on what's already in the code.

Yeah, and they're looking at our land use plan. They're looking at our land use code and they're looking at what we have and is it good planning principles. And then you as a council and us as a staff can say, is this a good thing for this area? regardless of what the intent is, because we need to be zoning and planning of the city on good planning principles.

So then C, the strikes through for C, really is just, I don't think there's anything nefarious or malicious here that needs to be struck. I think it's more just the fact that C is just unnecessary. Staff can drop a map using the official zoning map. We know that we have the skills to do that, to ask our applicants to do that as well. little strange um and so and and the intent of the review is to really get to the the the heart of what the applicant's asking we just went through an example with the mechanic rezone but the first time we noticed it we actually didn't understand when we were getting to noticing public noticing for we didn't have a proper understanding what their request truly was after we clarified then uh we kind of went back and and we do kind of sample maps and all of that brought it back with a new request D is the one I don't like the most about the code. It's the concept plan. We are asking for a concept plan for a rezone. That's engineering. That's real money spent. I view that as highly problematic. We should be asking the applicants to provide physical characteristics of the site, including geological information. through USGS data or hiring a geologist. I'm just saying. Fault lines, general soil data, contours, that's engineering. And then if required, and then there we go. The important word is if. So I'd rather strike this requirement. This one makes me uncomfortable.

So in essence, it simplifies it but doesn't take any of the teeth.

No, we have a pretty robust application software.

Yeah, our application software already asks some questions that we feel like we need to have the information for staff to make determinations. This is code language. Yeah, code language is something that we have to make sure that we're following state guidelines with that, too.

But this code language is requiring extra than what we feel like we should require.

Yeah, I enjoy the fact that we're doing this because I felt like there has been some sympathy for the amount of money that people have already spent in this situation based on what they think our decision might be, and I don't want to be tied to that, so I'd love to not have to deal with that.

It leaves the door wide open for an applicant to come up with a really strong argument on their own, not based on the things that we're asking for, but people can be kind of ingenuity and creativity and rather not tie that down in specific ways just allow the process to happen organically.

So this is saying we just want a written statement.

Yeah, the city's general plan or other planning documents cast the net wide enough

pretty easy to tell they can pull our first master plan they can pull they can pull our transportation plan they can pull any of those things but using them off of the city's plan and then it goes back to to what is the city planning for this right so we know what our plans are we should be able to pass this or we should be able to make decisions yeah based on what they've already got you're you're relying on the the plan not their intensity plan yeah so it's good plan to stick to the plan yeah yeah yeah how does this so how many times sorry uh How many times does the plan get set aside and you focus on the unintended? That's where we want to get away from, yeah.

Yeah, this is, I mean it kind of, to me it's all dependent on what part of the process this, like the development committee meets, sits down and gets the agreement together with the developer i guess where i'm where i'm trying to piece this in is the the intent of what we were trying to do with the pud again like i know i know it seems right it seems good to me that you know i'm not requiring a bunch up front makes it easier to to get the work done going forward and having a plan i really agree with that they can review that if it fits. But I feel like a rezone, a request for a rezone, typically is already requesting something different for a reason. And so they're... They're asking to change the plan a little. Right, we're already saying we're going to change the master plan. We already want to change what we're looking at. So, yeah. if there's anything that we can do to guide that process in code, the less we have to fine-tooth comb every deal that comes across, every request or reason.

Yeah, so maybe from experience, i've given a lot of reports on results to the council but perhaps i haven't given a lot of reports to the council on results that just fail because when they talk to staff we can show them the plans and we can say hey the temperature of the community doesn't really like this particular product or not this particular area and then a person doesn't even apply so reasons should always be case by cases but there's a review built into the process that just happens organically with staff and we can bring up those things

And also this is different than, a rezone is different than like a PUD overlay or something like that. And so this would be, the PUD overlay will require a lot more and that's up to the applicant to decide which route they want to go because the PUD overlay is alternating things. Hopefully the future land use plan will have room for growth. So there will be areas that even if it is a change, it's within the general flow of the land use plan. So you might have Rural residential or you are 110 that in the future land that accounts for girl says these are areas that could be resumed to Higher density. These are lower densities or however it is sometimes a change and some change might not be Contradictory of the zone. It might be go right in flow with it. Especially as we come up with annexations and things like that.

So You know, I think what what I'm thinking is that some of the stuff that we've already approved or is like a huge swing from where we've thought we were as far as like when we're rezoning and how we're rezoning huge, right? But I'm hoping that in the future, once we have the code and this is a little bit more open, that yes, they'll say no to a lot of people before they even get to us. And two, when we do approve something, it'll be something that's very within like one step away from where we already were on the plan, right? Does that make sense? Not two steps or three steps away, just tiny bit. But we won't be in that meeting to decide.

or to hear what that was. That's because every reason should be a case-by-case basis. It shouldn't be, oh, my neighbor got a resale, now I want a resale. Right.

What do you mean you won't be in that meeting?

I'm saying the reasons that a developer will say no will be presented by staff, not a collaboration agreement between the city as a planning commission, per se, and the developer which is kind of housing it would still need to be like only if there's a change only if there's a change right if they are conforming with the current zoning or i mean with the master plan if their request conforms with the master plan then chances are we won't see it it'll go through and we won't see it every reason is going to happen

right but if there is no reason but if there's no reason they're falling in the plan so i guess the example i want to use is the overlook yeah if they had approached you and said we want to rezone the overlook and we look at the master plan and see that it's currently set for this type of housing that's already there yeah not what they're proposing it may not it may have been rejected they may have said we don't want to do it then because you you want it to conform with the master plan and we want to if the master plan is for half acre lots yes yes and they want to go in and put rezone it yes to put in r18 yeah then you would say well that doesn't fit the master plan and that doesn't fit the temperatures the neighborhood what the people there want And so they would probably turn around and say, well, maybe we won't do it then.

That would be their decision, yeah.

And so it circumvents all of this that we've been through for the last six months, which even includes actually getting the temperature.

Yeah, totally.

Yeah, all that practice. Some clarification though, our general plan, Christine and I dug deep and we're operating on the basis that there are two types of general plan. There are discretionary general plans and there are mandated general plans. The difference between the two is that a discretionary plan is a policy guide and the city council doesn't have to follow it, but it's good practice to follow it and it'll guide a lot of decisions. A mandated general plan is actually a lot like code. When you change your city ordinance in your code, you have to change your mandated general plan at the same time. Christine and I dug a deep dive. We tried to figure out which type it was. We determined that the general plan adopted in 2002 is a discretionary general plan. So again, it's a policy guide, guides decisions, but it's not binding. The council doesn't have to follow it. So that leaves some wiggle room for some decisions for a developer that shoots a really good shot and all of that. What's the 2023 plan? So yeah, again, the 2002 general plan

discretionary yeah but that would make more sense if we were a high growth area right because and i'm not saying that we we definitely have got the temperature that we are we like to stay at not a high growth area but i do feel like we're we're not only getting pressure from whatever jobs are coming in and whatever growth is happening from outside our states but also our own governor in a certain respect so

it would make sense just like workable wise to continue to have discretionary right yes yes we have a plan in place and we're following it we have the you you might know that we have the udot grant to update our general plan that is much needed and will yield a brand new general plan after 25 years so even with the general plan being changed it being discretionary our code we are still requiring them to amend

general plan with his own change so when they have his own change they will they're still a general plan amendment really good policy yes yeah and don't worry well my question remains who gets to hear the developers still us not if they don't change it

well they might not even purchase the land I mean you can go back that far if they're scared that like if they don't get to use land the way they might want to they may not buy that land that's not well this is a problem I've seen over the years is

a developer buy a piece of ground, knowing that it's whatever, then he immediately comes in and wants to change it. Runs it through us, runs it through the council, and where's our master plan?

Why don't we stick into a plan so we know what our city wants to look like? So now if they approach and say, we're considering buying this property, and they look and see what the zoning is and what the master plan says, and they go, you know, do we want to go through all these hoops necessary to make this proposal or not? Right. They might look at a different area of the city and say, that's already zoned for what I'd like to do, so maybe I'll make an offer on that. So it sounds like, I mean, I think it still gives developers a flexibility to work within the system that we have.

And I hope that in the future, I mean, I feel like in the past few years, we probably have given in a little bit more than most of the community would have liked without the general plan being what we really, really wanted. And hopefully as we set precedents going forward, we'll also not have the same types of problems or people that think that they could potentially just push us into what we don't want.

Right. That's been the evolution of this whole process from the last year, basically.

Yeah, and I'd like to manage.

It's been several years.

Okay, so what I'm hearing is that we want it to be a discretionary plan. Yes. It needs to be flexible. Right, but I mean, it's part of this conversation and evolution of what we're trying to accomplish. We do want it to be an evolutionary plan, or not, a discretionary plan.

that focuses on the general plan. And on a case-by-case basis, it can be considered to make it different.

And we're updating the general plan with a grant that we got.

That will help. Give us a little better guideline. We got this. Okay.

Do we need to go through Chapter 11?

Yes.

I think it's the same section.

Tell them what you're going to tell them.

Tell them what you're going to tell them.

Well, all right. So in my staff report, I lay out the staff analysis. Then I'll give you a turning briefing. And then in the proposed text, it's just the new text. Then in the final exhibit of the report, I'll give it in the context of the attack code. That will be built forward.

There we go. I would like to motion to read it.

Sorry about that. Okay, I accept the motion to end the staff presentation and commission discussion over the public hearing for rezone code text amendment.

I motion to end the staff presentation Commission discussion and open public hearing.

So it's been seconded. Those in favor say yes. Yes. Opposed? Motion passes. Okay.

The eye contact.

I can do that too. Okay. And he's showing us what we need to have.

I don't know why print these off if you didn't get them tomorrow. Sorry.

Normally you ask me to bring a conference.

Sorry. It's all right. It's the same thing. I just put it on one page so it's easy to see. Blaine Wilding and I have a comment about this The first one is that you said this was a response to the City Council on the 19th of May. I have been looking for the minutes for the 19th of May meeting, and I don't know if I can read it on the website, so I don't know if this actually happened at the City Council meeting or where it happened or how you managed to get the instructions to go do this assignment. i went to the city website and i can make this don't exist out there i'm just that's that's a snip from the page they're just not there but i do have a couple comments relative to this uh rezoning part of this i agree uh with statement number b however i still think he ought to keep the first sentence in the third sentence i think the second sentence of that statement should be deleted I believe that it's important that we know the why a person wants to rezone and what evidence they have that rezoning is the right thing to do. I don't think we should just say, yeah, you can rezone and not have them tell us why and what evidence they have that this is going to be, especially if it's going to be changing the integrated land use plan. Just to change the zoning without an explanation and the trade-offs, I believe as a citizen will always be met with resentment. it's nice to know what the trade-offs are you're coming to me and you want to be rezoning okay what do you want to diesel why do you want to resolve well i want to get higher density well what what benefit is there to me as a citizen that if i give you the higher density that you're going to give us some benefit in return you give it a blank statement here it says yeah you can resolve and we don't have no idea what you're going to give us in response to that result come on i think we should be able to have some knowledge and they should be willing to share with us What benefits do we expect to get back to citizens? It feels a lot easier to swallow if they're gonna say, well, we're gonna build a two, five acre park so we get it in writing. The second one, on the maps, I think it should stay. Frequently when we get a staff report or other reports, they talk about the map and they give you, we're going to rezone this piece of property and they give you a number, 05-XXX-XXX. and you go to some website trying to find it it would be much easier if they included a map with this rezoning operation so that we don't have to try to figure out where to go find it i actually have been able to find it because i now have a link to the box solar county web map that identifies all of these parcels of property with that zero five dash xx that's xxx number and so i can go find them But it would really be nice to have a map that would actually just show it so I don't have to spend the time to go figure it out. And on the last part, D, I agree with it. I wholeheartedly agree that the developer really doesn't need to show us about where the fault lines are. And the contour lines are every two feet, which I think is absolutely crazy. So that's my point. Again, I'm looking at it with my binoculars. And I think without having some justification and reason why every zone has to take place the answer should always be no one more i'm with you i've got you you spend the time to come you get a doc okay william pickett on rezoning anywhere in

corporate boundaries for higher density housing if that's what they want to do it should be in flatlands again I point to what happened in the Palisades they had zoning on the hillside that was r4 and little properties right next door to each other they all burn and putting higher density housing on any of the hillsides you're going to run the risk of fire as we have had fires this year mostly caused by lightning but this is still a problem and staying within the boundaries of your map or zoning is always a good fallback for you from being pressured by somebody else. And I've seen in other communities where that pressure has come in the way of financials. We don't want that here. So I think that's about all I have to say. Keep up the good work.

I'm glad you're here and not the 400 that would tell us we were wrong. I appreciate that.

So my thought was, and you can address this too, and maybe this is what you were going to say. Do we need to close the public hearing?

Yeah.

Okay, go ahead. I will accept a motion to close the public hearing and open the consideration. A motion to close the public hearing. And open. And open the consideration of the discussion. Yeah.

I second the motion.

It's been moved and seconded that we close the public hearing on the rezone code text amendment and open the consideration and decision portion. Those in favor say yes. Yes. Those opposed? Motion passes, 639.

If I can address the council. Please do. The comment about wanting to know why the developer, I totally agree, and wanting to know what we get in exchange. That's what we call contractual zoning, where we make kind of contracts. The only way the city is able to engage in that kind of dialogue with a developer is through tools like a PV, a PC zone, an overlay. Those are things where those back and forth, what are we gonna get out of it, it has to be produced in the development agreement. And so that does apply very much for contractual zoning. With hard zoning, as a city, we can't require them to tell us what we're gonna get or enter into any kind of contractual zoning.

So I just wanted to clarify that.

And we are talking about just hard rezones, not, your contract, not your other tools and other options available to the cities where they are able to make different types of suggestions on how they will benefit the city in exchange for other things like density. Those are other tools that we would bring forth that do require a development agreement and much more. That you're working on. Yes, yes, which we're working on.

I really like how this focuses on the city's general plan and documents approved by the city council because they're the elected officials they're the ones that really can be booted if they've probably been behind it yeah it just puts the focus well yeah except for now yeah this can be but we're not elected though right absolutely just saying get it out there and i've said this before i'll just restate it i know every time

I need three or four times to get it, so I'm appreciating this. Keep going. Tell us what you told us. I know. So the applicant doesn't have to say anything. So they can write a statement and they can hit the points, but beyond that, they're not required, and that's not state practice. That's not in any jurisdiction to require much more than what we're reporting tonight. So obviously, applicants say something of their own volition. They save the day and then their reason gets approved. I've seen applicants absolutely shoot themselves in the foot by what they say. So rather not hold down people like that and not require it.

It's like your child coming to you.

Go ahead.

Don't you think? It's like your child coming to you and saying, I want to do something and then they give you the explanation and that really either helps them or hurts them. We should just do it on logic alone, right?

I like what Christine said because there was a lengthy discussion about this at our last meeting that basically says, you know, we want some guarantees somewhere at some point along the way, and it's not in this particular. I think that's what I just realized.

Yeah. So I am willing to accept a motion.

I move we recommend approval of the City Council of the Rezone Code Text Amendment amending section 1.31.020-form and contents of required documents of the Tremont City Code by amending subsection B to simply code or simplify code language to strike Subsection C and D completely based on the findings listed in the Memorandum dated July 14, 2026.

I second the motion. Been moved and seconded. Now we recommend approval to the City Council of the rezone code text amendment amending section 1.39.020 form and contents of required documents of the Tremont City Code by amending subsection B to simplify code language to strike subsection C and D completely based on the findings listed in the memorandum dated july 14 2026 all those in favor yes yes yes yes i suppose you know motion passes missing my gavel from last time it's nowhere to be found um okay sister c i need to find c is the fencing protection

So request to amend chapters 1.03, section K, private covenants clarified. This amendment replaces broad language regarding CCRs with neutral elements or neutral language directing property owners to review applicable recorded covenants for their neighborhoods for fence installation. And so again, this amendment hopes to streamline, improve consistency, reduce ambiguity, and enforcement and align standards

for fencing with established planning and engineering practices thank you mr chair thank you i read through this earlier it all made sense are we ready for discussion or we have public first you can can we discuss here You can't really guess here, yeah. On the side obscuring definition, what does substantially mean? What percentage of visibility through the fence is required to be substantially visible? That's a good question. We may need to define that a little more clearly. I mean, obviously you used some examples. Chain link fence is pretty obvious, but what about slatted fences? I mean, is it 50%, 30%?

I'm used to 75% open for things like, not chain link, vinyl.

Vinyl slats on that. So maybe that needs to just be tightened a little bit or at least defined. On A, in 18.040 on the property owner's land um does that mean within a string's width of their property boundary does it mean an inch does it mean six inches is there a requirement of how far within the property owner land that fence needs to be sentence shall not encroach I mean, so if it's adjacent, so as long as it's within the exact boundary, is that what you're saying?

Yeah. And you could see the language that struck there was that they must hire a surveyor. That's like saying if you're going to walk, you must put one foot in front of the other.

I'm just going back to my personal experience. The original survey of our lots had a piece of rebar stuck in each corner and i was able to run straight between the rebars and made sure my fence was within that string i didn't try to put it any farther away from that string than just within the spring yeah the intent of this section was to i mean it's basically standard practice to either go off of those monuments or if they're destroyed

using whatever, hire a surveyor. But we're just removing the city's requirement that they hire a surveyor. They should hire a surveyor.

That's best practice. His question, though, is about the position of the fence.

Is the property owner going to look at this and say, where do I need to put my fence? Then they should hire a surveyor if they have the question. When it says installed on the property owner's land, that'd be a quarter inch on his property how far within his land boundary does the fence have to be is there any requirement as long as it's as long as it's not on the other not encroaching on the other property okay yeah all right that answered my question on that one what about property orders that buy the fence together but right down the property line

not on one or the other it's right on the property line there's agreements for those sorts of things and then those should be recorded and when property owners sell that falls back on those agreements so basically this just removes the city somehow being responsible for a survey right yeah they should still hire a survey which is our requirement for them to hire a survey right now okay on e utility all utility boxes

Okay, there are different sizes of utility boxes out there. I mean, for example, Frontier has an eight by eight utility box. Rocky Mountain Power has a three by four foot box in some instances. Others are buried. Do the buried ones also need to have that area around the buried ones? um you would know about very ones because of the flat because of the cover that's over in your yard for example in Harris subdivision all of the utilities for underground and so there are boxes along the within the property boundary where there was that power access is does that three foot clear space Yeah, that would say all. Any utility box.

Another advantage of a applicant hiring a surveyor and submitting a permit to kind of check for those things.

And there isn't any indication that this would be retroactive, right, for people who already...

There's grandfathering that kind of talks about that. Who knows? Would it take care of the fencing permits moving forward?

And I think it's somewhat addressed in F. if there's a problem because someone put their fence too close to the utility box and the utility has to remove the fence to have access to their box then it's up to the property owner to replace the fence and then abide by i assume e which is the three foot requirement if it hadn't been previously is that like yeah clear understanding for me okay uh and then on k on these covenant, these neighborhoods with covenants, who administers those?

I think that's a perfect question. So the language of K that is structured was just awkward enough that really what's being stated is that, well, no. The standard practice for HOAs is that jurisdictions will require that they get put in in certain subdivisions or locations or PDs or whatever. the jurisdiction will require that they get put in. After that, it's the HOA's responsibility to govern, so it turns from a city matter to a civil issue. Meaning, cities just require that they get put in, HOAs are responsible for their maintenance and all of that, all of the enforcement, not some of it.

Okay, and the reason I think of this one is when we lived in Payson, our HOA, had an agreement for no fences in backyards. They wanted the whole area quite open for play. And then I just went back there last month and there's fences all over.

So the person called the city and asked us to take them down, we'd say call your HOA.

and then that has been a change of the HOA governance and then they can they're able to change different things because it's the homeowners association and they can change their they hold their meetings and take their so that's where the it wouldn't come from the city yeah that's where the administration of the yeah becomes is under the HOA yeah so enforcement does that also mean i've never been in HOA does that mean that homeowners association right but as far as the enforcement

The HOA will have a committee, right? Neighbors that get together and say, okay, you're going to be the president of the HOA. You're going to go around and make sure everybody... You're going to be the HOA Nazi and have to go around and tell people that they can't fly their American flag because that's not in the HOA.

I commit now on record. I want to inform the council HOAs will be coming to you when PUDs and overlays come because they're going to be providing public amenities for their residents.

that are not going to be maintained by the city. And if they are not maintained by the city, they have to be with, you need to have to have a maintaining body.

So we have current PUDs. The Overlook has a HOA.

Well, there's an HOA over here. Usually it's with multifamily housing when they have a common area that needs to be taken care of. that needs to be governed by somebody. And when it's a private entity, then we are required as a city to make sure that the developer sets up that governing body. Because we will not be providing the services for that.

No removal on private streets, private drives going right up to the parking areas of town homes.

I find that interesting that it can be considered private and public. So the public can tax it. If an HOA could eliminate, if we could like, you can't tax this entity, wow, then I would be all in favor.

I mean, we're saying- You mean like a little non-America?

I'm just saying, we were the United States of America at one time. Just saying. Decide our own taxes.

I would like to move that we close the staff presentation and open the public hearing for the fencing codex amendment. Second.

I move and second it that we close staff presentation and commission discussion and open the public hearing for fencing codex amendment. Those in favor say yes. Yes. Opposed? Motion passes.

um i do have some comments relative to

part of this i don't have any real issues with the rest of it my property is in that picture there on the front page i have currently two tree mountain water main lines running through my property and i am a little strongly disagree that i should be the one responsible to repair the fans and repair my yard once tremont picks it up am i responsible for the one to cover back over the water mains And I know that there have been some water mains up on the hill that come right through here that have been having issues that have had leaks that have been dug up and patched or replaced. And I am anticipating that Tremonton will continue to grow and that they're gonna leak and eventually I believe that they're gonna be wanting to dig up my property and replace those water mains either with new ones or bigger ones. So I am a bit concerned that Tremonton City has now got a blank check basically to come into my place, rip down my fence and destroy my landscaping to replace their water mains and they are not on foot to do anything about trying to fix it or repair it. I think of myself if I were a citizen and I did that to my neighbor, what would they say? I'm sorry, Mr. Walling, you have done this. You must pay. You must fix it. And if I refuse, I would be dragged into court and there would be court finding against me and I would be forced to pay it. I would be forced to fix it or there'd be a leak against my property. I believe that with those water mains going through my property, if Tremonton feels they need to assess me or have me fix it once they dig my property up and tear my fence down, i should start charging you tremont city a thousand dollars a year for right of way to use my property to run your water mains through my property so that i have some funds to fix the property or fix the property when you're done tearing it up and tearing my face down i'm not sure that'll work very well but i still think that i'll be able to do that i would recommend that we probably make a motion to postpone this until we can figure out what makes the most sense here again being a neighbor kind of makes you wonder tremont's trying to be a good neighbor i appreciate that i currently live in the county this is county property i don't think i want to be annexed if tremont feels they want to go through and dig up my property and not do anything about trying to bring it back to the state it was before so i think we need to think about this and think about what is the right thing to do here What makes the most sense? I understand Tremont doesn't want to be on the hook to pay to fix something that they tore down or they destroyed. Yet on the other hand, I don't think I as a resident, if I'm trying to meet the city code to make my place look nice and keep from getting fined because I don't have the landscaping done and I will be asked to do the landscaping and keep the landscaping up, then I think we should be able to do something to some degree over here. Anyway, it kind of makes you wonder, What kind of neighbor would I really be if I did this? So thank you. You're up.

We're glad you came.

Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you. Hopefully I will be able to come more frequently. One of the things You live on the other side, and I live on the west side. Think of where we are.

You live in the annexed community of Tremonton. I live in the county.

Okay. Yeah, so it's interesting. We got annexed into Tremonton, and we are still paying taxes on garland cemetery because that area is in the garland cemetery district so i get stuck and i get stuck anyways you better plan on being married in garland i already bought plots over here ask garland for a reimbursement yeah good luck with that one so the boxes that they put in the ground the one that we've got that's in our lawn inside the sidewalk is for the networking but when the network came in to put it into my house the installers had no idea it was down there on the south end of my property so they went up to the box on the north end of the property and they drilled through my grass all the way down broke one of the water lines which they fixed and brought it in the back of the house over there so you know it's a lot of this stuff is the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing and i don't find this out until we try and do something um as far as fences my neighbor to the south has got a triangle piece of property and she's got really nice wrought iron fence all the way around And I like that as far as HOAs, the area that I live in is supposedly under an HOA. When we bought the property, I got a piece of paper saying that. And so then I went looking for these people that were in charge. They were nowhere in the city to be found and there still is. So, but whenever you transfer property. the whatever those restrictions are that came with it are still brought out and we're forced to do stuff with it so it's it's crazy all right thank you thank you okay i think that's about enough all right

motion to close the public comments and start the consideration of decision and seconded and open the consideration decision section for the fencing code and the text amendment favor say yes yes yes motion passes so we just address what common practices would be with the utilities tearing things up I in my in my experience we've always had the utility companies replace whatever I put everything back as I mean that seems like common practice to me I would assume that if Tremont needed to use the water they would also try to do the same thing I mean that is the common practice I know that's not necessarily what we're talking about in Coder Room today but you know Rocky Mountain Power comes into the big truck and tears up your grass and picks it I mean it might not be 100% but I think

and level it and sand it. It just doesn't seem fair.

We run the water line through the property, in Lane's case, and if something happens, we tear down this fence and say sorry. It just doesn't seem... Everybody at Tremont benefits from the water line. It seems like we would restore it to a reasonable condition that it was founded in.

The Doctrine of Easements has been around a long time, and... those easements are made are part of development agreement with the city right I mean the city especially if there's underground utilities which most everything is a new development there has to be access the landowner the homeowner still owns the land but the easement is you're required to give access that's just part of the agreement well a homeowner has the choice not to put anything on that easement also that's not fair here he's got a field or something he wants a fence on there no i'm i you know i agree with you because i've got a fence over an easement but uh and i've got fruit trees growing on an easement you know so i mean debate the other side of this statement

i'm not against europe you know i'm just saying you know there's it's one of those things how do you fight government on something like that that is under the issue um yeah easements are kind of like it looks like your property but there's something well it is your property but it is your first city has a right to the right water right that's it so and a good neighbor would take care of what he

removed to fix this water line regardless of what this language says that may exist they may work with property owners they may give notice that's all like good practice but with governments they don't have to and so again what is the definition of an easement that you work with when you establish these easements what is the understanding of the of an easement what are the limitations the legalities so that you have a definition

i would just be interested i mean it's neither here nor there i don't think i was discussing the easements if you don't mind i'll i can take some of this one discussing easements with our engineer there's public utility easements and that used that used to there there is some discretion on what is included in a public utility easement whether it's drainage where the stormwater and it's it's it's all encompassing and there's a utility easements i don't know all the definitions of that our engineers are the ones that usually deal with those um all the definitions of what different utilities and so the ones we usually see are the public utility easements it's basically a blanket a blanket for anything that's a public public good like it could be sewer water drainage anything and this to the benefit of the landowner also I mean that because their utilities come through there yeah and it's recorded at the time of the law is recorded so when a lot is recorded part of our review is to make sure all those easements are are made and so when they purchase the house they should be informed if there's any easements in their property and that's but that's not in our capacity doing that, that's the title company, the real estate company, they're supposed to be the ones that are disclosing that information to the homeowner. And I can read the definition, just for the benefit of the discussion.

Easement, and this is from 1.03.005 definition. That portion of a lot or lots reserved for present or future use by a person or agency other than the legal owner of said property or properties, the easement may be for use on, under, or above said lot.

so if we're looking at the definition of what we're trying to change on f though um just for you know clarity's sake i think i mean if you if you take out that but retaining wall shall not well that would make sense don't build a retaining wall they're not going to fix a retaining wall um and i think that's very helpful for the city like you know like that hopefully we all know that easement's there maybe whatever fencing we decide It won't be super destructive if somebody has to come in and use it. You know what I mean? Like, you know, we had a slapped fence that came apart fairly easily, vinyl, you know, so that people could eat, and then that could be put back. So, you know, for me, it's not a, this F language doesn't, it doesn't make things work.

some from this is uslawexplained.com let's talk about maintenance and repair obligations this component defines who is responsible for keeping the easement good work in order the utility utility duty the dominant state which is the utility is generally responsible for maintaining its own equipment the transformer fails it's their job to fix it they also have a duty to repair damage they caused to the property during their work instead of reseeding the lawn their truck tore up then it goes on homeowners responsibilities you know remove snow mowing weeding you know all other general things so that's an explanation from us law explained on on the easements okay so i think i think the city has an obligation to restore property okay you go to your lawyer and ask but once again i think that needs to be addressed okay more legally I mean, just a simple search, that's all I found.

Okay. Okay. So the proposed change increases the understanding quite a bit from what it was. Yeah.

I mean, so the things that we have in front of us then are to maintain the language as it's written. Or modify it. Or amend the language, which as it is right now, Your proponent of the city, the same utility provider, shall be responsible.

It says it's duty, and that's their duty to do it.

Or we could have the lawyers look at it too and say, that's a good move. Would we like to put in, you know, to a certain extent of understanding they need to maintain this?

well i think can i clarify it seems like the fences within the utilities may be removed or modified as necessary for utility access that's something that's clear that's good that's good and then it's the next one that we need clarification who the responsible party is and it would be worth from what i'm hearing worth um talking to dalton about that and bringing it back to the council yeah um i did want to bring up one additional thing that i talked to you earlier about that's uh item i

India material There is the wording is masonry is the suggested type of fans My question is masonry I mean shouldn't that also indicate what other materials can be used I mean, yeah, that's an interesting question because I mean earlier in the code we're mentioning I want a castle wall earlier it was talked to it mentioned some examples such as chain link and etc so I think material a lot to be a little more than just masonry if we're going to go back to this anyway we might go with that okay I mean that's just the type that does

We're going back and we are revisiting F and I. Correct?

Is there any other that you want us to revisit before we move back?

thank you okay i would like to move the recommendation for approval with corrections is that the one we should do here okay i move that we recommend approval that city council of the fencing code text amendment adding a new definition to chapters 1.03.005 definitions and amending section 1.18. zero four zero general fencing provisions of the tremont city code to clarify the standards for erecting fences within the tremont city limits based on the findings listed in the memorandum dated july 14 2026 and with the following addition additional corrections section f with a consultation to legal or restoration of property as the duty of the city or utility and item i india

suggesting additional materials that are acceptable for fences yeah perfect it's been moved and seconded that we recommend approval to the city council the fencing code text amendment adding a new definition of chapter 1.03.005 definitions and amending section 1.18.040 general fencing provisions of the Tremont City Code to clarify the standards for erecting fences within the Tremont City limits. Based on the findings listed in the memorandum dated July 14, 2026, and with the following additional corrections. Section F, following a consultation with council about replacement. Who is in charge of replacement? Who is obligated to replace? And Section I, about fencing materials. Those in favor, say yes. Yes. Opposed? Motion passes, 7-17.

Yeah, I can do this one. Just a couple.

Okay.

Okay.

I think you're good.

any business I have a couple business thing okay um one thing actually one of these I won't go over to let me do but I want to give you a heads up for the next planning commission meeting we are we are going to be presenting two overlays so I wanted to you know that the heritage country overlay is scheduled as a PUD overlay with the first PUD overlay you have seen and we are still we are planning on and this is this is still planning on noticing by this Thursday for that. And then you can expect a staff report for that at least seven days prior, which we'll get it out too soon as we can. It'll be next Tuesday. It'll be next Tuesday. And then also for the Cloverfields, they have an overlay that they're bringing that key threshold so that they're- They came to you as a plat and they put the brace on.

They submitted an application, not for a PUD overlay, for an overlay. So that's a little different approach. Gosh, their application was kind of right along the other. It's been more than a year. And so, yes, the PUD overlay code was recently repealed. They wouldn't have even made the minimum threshold for acreage for PUD overlay. So they are going to come to ask for an adoption of an overlay. It's called the SRFT. Yeah, the single-family residential transition overlay zone. For a little bit of context, that's interesting because it predates PUDs, this overlay type, but it's called a SFRTO zone. It's not a zone like the R112 or the R18. It's not mentioned in there. It's only mentioned in the overlay chapter. So the confusing part that I hope to give you a little bit of the elevator pitch for tonight is that the SFRTO language says in that code of the overlay chapter, it says you can apply to receive an SFRTO openly. an applicant could. So they're invoking that code, and we're gonna bring it forward. Again, that was just a way for overlays to be brought to the council before it was applied to the Envision Estates subdivision, and that was their overlay, was the SFRTO overlay. So this applicant is hoping to invoke that code to create their own SFRTO zone. It's a little confusing, so my report will be detailed.

just for benefit cloverfield which area is that um it's an essential district it's the one that has a um dead end and then you require one that's on about ninth west and first south yeah and what is the other one it's heritage country that's a puny overlay it's in on iowa street it's the one down with the newly annexed um area of town

So it's something we haven't seen before.

You saw the annexation and those re-zones, but you have not seen the overlay yet. The overlay is what they're wanting to see, the overlay is what they're applying for. It's actually that purple parcel down there, that's that one. And then there's, and it's also the white parcel that doesn't have a zoning type on it. Nope, one more. Yep, that one. that is that one right there so it's those two those zoning that just needs to be updated to reflect those results yeah it was and that was r110 should be the zone for that well yeah we feel probably that's right you probably need the ordinance where that was on so so that might we you will probably have um a full house just for one um okay but in in kind of the spirit of rezones anybody could approach the council to ask for anything yeah

So this is using a system that predates PDE overlays. It is kind of defunct, but it does contain language in that chapter that says you can ask for the same thing. It's strange language, I would say. And so they're invoking that language and asking for it. Commission will review and provide a recommendation.

It hasn't been rescinded obviously is there any concern that we might need to consider?

It's in addition to state's overlay and almost we had a really hard time trying to decide how to apply it and we talked to Dalton and different entities and it comes down to he's an applicant and he can apply and you guys decide.

The staff doesn't wish to gatekeep. It's so long since they applied. And we looked at like, can they even apply for this? The answer is yes, they can apply. But the SFRTO zone establishes no clear guidelines on how to receive the same thing. It just says you can apply for an SFRTO zone. That's it.

Well, I think, speaking for myself, I'm very empathetic to their situation because it's been going on so long and they've made a great effort to comply with whatever we need to ask them to do.

We are just trying to make sure they have a solid foundation and bringing it forward to the Planning Commission in the best form.

Even if our advice is that the idea is not very good and it's not going to work, an applicant can always shoot. legislative items. So we just, our explanation to the applicant was like, we don't see how to bring this forward. We just see that there's language for it. What we advised them to do was to take the SFRTO's own code and call it their own, the Cloverfield overlay. And so... You've got to hand it to them to be able to knock it out. Honestly, yeah. But that's actually the very nature of an overlay is it's then coming up with their own code the city has to decide if the city council has to decide if they agree that's where nobody should go in the terms of the development legal exchange so it's just a little sneak peek for you i suppose one more actually i'm going to do one more thing a suggestion was brought before us uh actually jeremy brought before me just before the meeting that we have a little table put up with our cards business cards

for us, and then also an email for you guys. We were going to work with Les Olson to get a public email, and I want to do a feedback on this, that says that it's like planningcommission at Tremontandcity.gov, and then when somebody from the public clicks on that or uses that email, it will shoot to each one of your individual emails. Is that something you would like us to set up so that we can have that public, and then they can contact you without having to reveal your personal emails? Would that be okay?

I didn't know we had access to the city's- No, you wouldn't have access to it. How would we get it?

It would be a forwarding service.

It would be a forwarding service.

You would forward it from there to our- Yeah, so then you don't have access to it, but we would have a government email that the public can email and you can all- And then it would disseminate to us. Yes, and then that would help with the MPI wants to get in contact with you guys. They don't have to go through me. to get to you they can access you guys the public directly okay so we will get working on that if you want and then you can even have a card planning commission or something or contact information for the public to have okay we will move forward with that i would like to motion that we adjourn and move

Yes. Thank you. Thank you for the meeting.