#EM2019 – Candidate Question – Overland Sign

Question: The city council approved an Overland Sign in the City Center area. The sign has been a point of debate among the residents. How would you of voted on that issue, and why would you of voted that way?

Carolyn Love

I would not have voted to approve the Overland sign. It would have been a hard decision because the following factors support the sign. 1) The location of the sign is the entrance for this project which will include over 3,000 homes on both sides of Pony Express. 2) The approval of this project allowed for the expansion of Pony Express Parkway and future trails and landscaping along this road. 3) Pony Express was never intended to be the main entrance into Eagle Mountain. It is intended as a local main street-type road and we will be able to use it as such in the future when SR73 is developed and extended into city center. I object to the sign because of the size. I looked into other developments and was unable to find any precedent for a sign that large, even at the entrance of a community of 3,000 homes. I would have supported a sign that was about half as large and further down on the hill. I would also have wanted it to say Overland @ Eagle Mountain to avoid any confusion that motorists were entering the city of Overland.

Colby Curtis

I voted against the Overland sign as it was too big and did not meet the character of the community. Section 17.90.110(A) of city code states “Approval Process. Community entrance signage shall not be construed as an absolute right upon submission of an application and does not require the approval body to take action based upon findings of fact. At their discretion, the planning commission may recommend and the city council may approve community entrance signs along streets classified as arterials and collector roads.” This is the information I was operating under. However, upon further study of the code, I have come to the conclusion that I may have been incorrect. There is a further section of our code (that we are getting rid of) called Bonus Density Entitlements. In that section, it states “Monument signage shall not be governed by Chapter 17.80 EMMC but shall be approved by the city council upon receiving a recommendation from the planning commission prior to the development agreement being executed.” Why our code eliminates the council discretion if the developer chooses to build a monument in exchange for extra density is beyond me…but one more justification for removal of the bonus density entitlements from code. I am uncertain if this code applied to this particular monument, though I assume it did. With that being the case, I would have been in error for my vote, and apologize for that, it was a mistake and misunderstanding on my part. Despite my distaste for the Overland sign, I am required to uphold the code, and I endeavor to do so, though I believe in changing code when it is in error.

Ben Porter

I wasn’t part of the discussions so I don’t have all the information that the voting members did, so this answer will be rather general and it’s highly possible that new information could substantially change my opinion. As a general rule I don’t like to make decisions without information, but for the purposes of answering the question I’ll discuss it a bit. While I don’t personally like the sign, I don’t think it is city council’s job to impose their personal preferences on others. If the sign becomes a safety issue, then I would address it. Likewise I’m in favor of letting residents use their property the way they see fit, so long as it isn’t violating others’ rights or creating a public safety issue. The sign was/is legal. For city council to deny the sign they would have to be making decisions on personal preference, which again I don’t think is the proper role of the council.

Rich Wood

I missed the vote on this on the planning commission because I was out of town for my birthday. My two concerns with this monument was obviously its size but also its placement. The development used the ranches sign on SR 73 and Ranches Parkway as the justification for the placement. The developers for the Ranches built Ranches Parkway, whereas Overland did not build Pony Express. I would have voted against the size and placement of the monuments.

Jared Gray

The overland sign isn’t loved by many. The problem with this again is when the applicant brings request like this in to build the sign, we need reasons why they can’t do it to stop them. Infact in most situations, we have required developments to place monuments or signs. We have also set presidence in allowing these, therefore denying them is difficult. The entrance to the ranches by the Maverick has a similar if not larger entrance sign, therefore others feel they can do the same. So to fix the problem, we must make sure our code no longer allows such signs. That’s the best way to stop this in the future.

Devyn Smith

I would have voted against the Overland sign. I have heard new residents ask if the area of town is called “Overland” instead of “City Center.” I have also heard others indicate they feel like they were leaving Eagle Mountain, and entering a town called Overland as they come down Unity Pass. As the only candidate from City Center, I feel this is troubling for multiple reasons. We are one city and I want to make sure residents in City Center and the Ranches alike do not feel like they are totally separated from the other. I do not have any problems with neighborhood signs. In fact, I generally like them. However, the placement of this sign and the adjacent matching, though smaller, structure on the east side of the major arterial road are poor placement and poor judgement.