TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
JANUARY 10, 2024

Members Present:
Shawn Warnke, Chairman & City Manager
Chris Breinholt, City Engineer
Zach LeFevre, Parks and Recreation Director—excused
Paul Fulgham, Public Works Director
Lyle Vance, City Councilmember
Cynthia Nelson, Deputy Recorder

Chairman Warnke called the Development Review Committee Meeting to order at 9:34 a.m. The meeting was held January 10, 2024, in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Warnke, Engineer Breinholt, Director Fulgham, Councilmember Vance, and Deputy Recorder Nelson were in attendance. Director LeFevre was excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Director Fulgham to approve the January 10, 2024, agenda. Motion seconded by Chairman Warnke. Vote: Chairman Warnke – aye, Engineer Breinholt – aye, Director Fulgham – aye, Director LeFevre – absent. Motion approved.

2. Approval of minutes—October 11, 2023

Motion by Director Fulgham to approve the minutes of October 11, 2023. Motion seconded by Chairman Warnke. Vote: Chairman Warnke – aye, Engineer Breinholt – aye, Director Fulgham – aye, Director LeFevre – absent. Motion approved.

3. New Business:

a. Discussion of housing types for an unplatted subdivision referred to as the Envision Estates located in the vicinity of 600 West and 600 North. The properties that comprise Envision Estates are parcel 05-043-0049, composed of 17.33 acres, and parcel 05-043-0092, composed of 19.41 acres. Both parcels are currently zoned from the R1-10 District, which allows single-family detached housing on 10,000-square-foot lots. Ben Steele and Jeff Jackson from Visionary Homes, Jayson Adam, and Jeremy Scheer from Cobalt.

Mr. Adam provided a recap. We have drawn up townhomes on one parcel and left the 10,000 square foot lots on another. However, we have a different product we want to throw out, which is less dense than townhomes, but denser than 10,000 square feet. Mr. Jackson said there is the parcel strip we have been trying to get. Archibald has been a great project for us. Our single-family homes sold really fast, and we still have townhomes we are working through. That product is not as desired in this valley. As the market changed and interest rates rose, affordability has been a crunch. To come in with a bunch of 10,000 square foot lots is not meeting the demand. We are finding that there is a missing middle housing type. We are finding success in cities that have 4,500 to 6,000 square foot lots. People still want single-family homes but cannot get the price right when it is a 10,000 square foot lot. We would like to do a project in Tremonton that allows us to put 4,500 to 6,000 square foot lots. Chairman Warnke said what about amending your townhome project to include this housing product? Mr. Jackson said we have already put in improvements (water, sewer, paths, etc.). For us to go back and replace those would be costly. If we could get traction on 6,000 square foot lots, we would need to address setbacks. We would want a zero-lot line setback on one side so that we can put all the setbacks between the homes on the other side. If you stick with 10,000 square foot lots, our interest wanes because of affordability. There are so many townhomes here it is going be a bloodbath for a while. I would love to buy a hundred 6,000 square foot lots. Engineer Breinholt said how big are the homes? Mr. Scheer said they range from 1,300 up to 2,600 square feet, depending on the model. Mr. Steele said they are 32 feet wide. We have a cottage product and a small single-family. Mr. Scheer said we find success when we take two different lot sizes and blend them. It gives relief to the cookie-cutter feel and allows us to hit a different demographic. For affordability, the smaller the lot the better.

Chairman Warnke said we do overlays. The Planning Commission has been discussing smaller lots and we have spent time on our Land Use Plan. We have moved a lot of density into this area. We are just trying to have a good mix of products. Our Land Use Plan does allow for clustering. It would take a rezone. That means you just have the same number of lots and open space would become the remainder. Mr. Scheer said clustering without the ability to increase density has not proved to be a tool we have used. It ends up costing more money than just staying with the underlying zone. Mr. Jackson said if there is an appetite to write a small zone ordinance, that would be what I would push for. Then we would look at other pieces. Chairman Warnke said the Planning Commission has discussed doing this. Maybe just doing an overlay might allow us to test the product without having to write an ordinance. We also have a little more control, because then we are just experimenting with the area. I think as density increases, the elements of design and how it looks becomes more important. Mr. Jackson said when we get into rural Utah, if people have to pay $30,000 extra they want that in additional square footage not design. It becomes a real challenge. We do our best to bring as much architectural character into our homes as we can, but still do it at an affordable price. Chairman Warnke said I agree, but we need to find the sweet spot. If we are giving density up, there should be something better. Mr. Jackson said if we can get small lots, then we can create a uniform landscape across all lots with trees and shrubs. Smaller lots allow us to put in a nicer landscape package for a trade-off.

The developers discussed the options for a shared drive and adjusting setbacks for a side garage. Chairman Warnke said I would love to see you draw up what you are talking about. Mr. Adam said we are not opposed to townhomes—I just think you have an opportunity for another product type that is not here. Chairman Warnke said I agree, I would just love to see it done right. Put the concept together. Show us what you are thinking from a land design and streetscape perspective. Add some narrative about why and what the benefits are. Bring it back to this body and then we will go to the Planning Commission. We are trying to create the best outcomes for the city, which include affordability and great neighborhoods that look good and function well. I would love to see a range of different housing products and styles. I am intrigued about the zero-lot line and side loaded garages. When asked about an HOA, Mr. Jackson said we would attempt to not have an HOA. There will not be any amenities since it would be single-family. The developers would work on their proposal and bring it back to DRC. They plan to have 6,000 square foot lots, with six per acre. Director Fulgham said how you lay it out and how you start so you have multiple accesses before you get too much built will be key. You can have 30 units on one access.

b. Walk-ins: No walk-ins at this time.

4. Comments/Reports:

Director Fulgham said we did a pre-construction on Mountain View, but I have no water shares for that yet. It is in my records that they owe us. When asked if they are doing a development agreement, Chairman Warnke said it got recorded some time ago. It was recorded, but never put before the Council. They discussed the access and fee in lieu for this project, as well as water and sewer. Chairman Warnke said at some point it was recorded and they paid fee in lieu ($10,000), but I do not know anything about the financial guarantee and water shares. Director Fulgham would follow up with the developer.

The Committee then discussed Jack in the Box. Chairman Warnke said they are close to being able to make an offer. That discussion will continue at a future meeting.

Director LeFevre asked about a snowplow map for residents. We are trying to educate the public on how we do snow removal, what our goals are, and what they can expect. Our biggest roads are state roads, which we are not talking about. Director Fulgham said after we have plowed the roads, we come back and do City parking lots. Chairman Warnke said we need to be strategic so there is no confusion with the information provided.

5. Public comments: No public comments.

6. Adjournment:

Motion by Director Fulgham to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Committee. The meeting adjourned at 10:48 a.m.

The undersigned duly acting and appointed Recorder for Tremonton City Corporation hereby certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Development Review Committee Meeting held on the above referenced date. Minutes prepared by Jessica Tanner.

Dated this 14th day of February, 2024

_____________________________
Linsey Nessen, City Recorder

*Utah Code 52-4-202, (6) allows for a topic to be raised by the public and discussed by the public body even though it was not included in the agenda or advance public notice given; however, no final action will be taken.