TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 6, 2023

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

Chairman Warnke called the Development Review Committee Meeting to order at 9:36 a.m. The meeting was held December 6, 2023, in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Warnke, Engineer Breinholt, Director Fulgham, Councilmember Archibald, and Deputy Recorder Nelson were in attendance. Director LeFevre was excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Director Fulgham to approve the December 6, 2023, 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 – August 17, 2023, August 30, 2023, & September 13, 2023

Motion by Director Fulgham to approve the minutes stated above. 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 and review of 2024 annual meeting schedule

Motion by Chairman Warnke to approve the annual meeting schedule. Motion seconded by Director Fulgham. Vote: Chairman Warnke – aye, Engineer Breinholt – aye, Director Fulgham – aye, Director LeFevre – absent. Motion approved.

b. Continuation of discussion and review of proposed site plan for Jack in the Box – David Werts, Legacy Real Estate Investments joined via Zoom

Mr. Werts said we have worked with Jack in the Box for about nine months on the former Denny’s site on Main Street. We are close to being able to move forward, but UDOT is requiring a deceleration lane. Originally, they said up to 100 feet. Jack in the Box told me UDOT wants it all the way to the freeway exit. That will be a significant expense. This deal is about to die because they cannot afford to build a deceleration lane. I have dealt with UDOT and had a lot of success when cities communicate with them. That is why I am reaching out to Tremonton. Director Fulgham said all we can do is reach out to the director and see if they are willing to work with you. Chairman Warnke said your traffic impact study did talk about an additional lane or some kind of enhancement on Main Street. We need to see what that study says. Engineer Breinholt said all the way to the freeway does seem extreme. Deceleration lanes are not meant for stacking, they are meant for getting people off the road. It is based on the speed of the road and the deceleration length needed. 100 feet is pretty short. I would like to talk to the director and see what he is asking for. Mr. Werts said what is prompting the need for this extended deceleration now? Engineer Breinholt said the fact that there is not one and the change of use, that is just the way it works. Chairman Warnke said the recommendation in the key findings says an eastbound right turn deceleration lane is warranted at the SR-102 intersection. A wider shoulder exists and is used by right turn lanes in both the east and westbound directions without specific right turn lanes. The following deceleration ingress lane is warranted for project access. Due to the proximity of the interchange at I-84, a full-length deceleration lane would not fit and would need to be shortened if installed. Mr. Werts said Jack in the Box has 10 days left in our agreement before they have to make a decision to move forward or not. Any feedback you can give would be fantastic.

c. Discussion of manufactured home at 283 South 100 East – James Ashby

Mr. Ashby reviewed his plans and elevation. This is the overlay of my existing home. Zoning in this area is already multi-family dwelling. My existing home has been split into a duplex. Based on my property size, I could add one more unit. My shop is crumbling so I would tear it down and add a manufactured home (16×56) and put that property to use. I am looking for approval to put this manufactured home in that location. He reviewed details about the home and how it would meet elevation and parking standards.

Chairman Warnke said we need to visit with the attorney so I cannot give you a definitive answer today. This is an RM8 zone, which does not allow manufactured homes. However, the State code says manufactured homes may not be excluded from any land use zone or area in which a single-family residence would be permitted if it complies with local ordinances and codes. For that reason, we need to visit with him. There are some architectural standards in our ordinances as it relates to this. They recently added State code that prohibited those standards. I need to sort through that.

The Commission discussed the driveway, as well as curb and gutter. They also talked about drainage. Director Fulgham said if this allows a building, I think we can work with the drive. You would have to put a meter in for it. It is never going to be subdivided so the sewer probably can be tied together. It is owned by one owner. They could use the common sewer line and tie into the existing one. You would need to put in a meter and pay an impact fee for that new facility. Chairman Warnke said the building permit would be based on meeting the standards. I will draft something up for our attorney and get clarity before following up.

d. Discussion of the River Valley Phase 9 Preliminary Plat – Garth Day, Sierra Homebuilders, LLC

Mr. Day said Phase 9 was big, about 130 units. We are going to parcel it off into five or six phases. Chairman Warnke and I have gone through the agreement. There are some utilities that will go in BR Mountain Road, but I do not know that it serves anybody to pave it any further than it is currently. This particular piece is just two buildings and is on an existing street. We felt this was an easy one to get going because we do not have many public improvements. The road has been dedicated and built. We will put a temporary dumpster pad in. Chairman Warnke said the temporary dumpster pad concerns me. It looks like it is in the right-of-way. Engineer Breinholt said it is in a terrible place. That needs to be put in a good spot. Chairman Warnke said we try to prevent garbage trucks backing onto City streets. There is a code in our ordinance about where dumpsters are located. Mr. Day said he would work on moving the dumpster. I will have to have them lay it out. What if we just move it to the back since it is going to be temporary. Then when I get to these other phases, we will move it to where it is supposed to be.

When asked about parking, Chairman Warnke said 26 stalls for 12 units is not enough. I always feel like these sites are a little tight. Engineer Breinholt said that is what this other parking lot is for, to make up for those stalls. Chairman Warnke said the site is a little overbuilt and I think the parking is a symptom of that. I would love to see one less unit and then the dumpster would fit at the end.

The Committee reviewed setbacks and storm drainage in the area, as well as water and sewer laterals. Mr. Day said I can build temporary parking over here instead of a temporary dumpster. Chairman Warnke said I think we are close. Mr. Day said let me fix some of these things. I will be back in front of you next week.

e. Discussion and review of a concept plan to extend the Aspen Ridge development on Parcel No. 05-186-0058 consisting of 10.94 acres which is zoned the Bear River Meadows Overlay Zone and possible amendments to the Bear River Meadows Overlay Zone and Bear River Meadows Zoning Development Agreement – Ryan Rogers and Dominic Rogers with Northridge Development

Mr. Rogers said we have the land under contract. They have gone through the process, and we are trying to get some of the items amended. Our buildings are not going to match theirs. This layout shows the buildings facing the road. The Committee discussed the layout and flow of the proposed subdivision.

Mr. Rogers said we are going to be using the current amenities, so it makes no sense for us to pay $1,500 a unit. We could discuss constructing and paying for the rest of the trail. Obviously, we have a different building design and are going to use Aspen Ridges. You had in the development agreement that there were only two car garages. We have two and one car garages. There will be two parking stalls in front of each garage. In the agreement, it said five-foot landscape strips between units, and there is no way we can do a strip in between an attached unit. We have to modify that because the driveways are combined. We basically just want to continue Aspen Ridges. Our recommendation is we would pay for the canal trail, the fencing, and the mow strip. Chairman Warnke said would you do that from 600 South all the way down to Rocket Road? Mr. Rogers said we could. Chairman Warnke said as long as there is capacity within your existing amenities this could work. Mr. Rogers said in other projects we have had a lot more units and have not had any issues with capacity. Chairman Warnke said what you are proposing has merit and if you can meet halfway by doing the trail that gives the City a lot of value. Mr. Rogers said it helps the project too since it would be easier access to go to school. If you work with us on waiving the fee, we could do the additional trail. Chairman Warnke said that sounds reasonable, we just need to take it through the process and see if others agree. This is zoning by contract. We have to rezone the property and go through the public hearing process. I’ll send you the original copy of the zoning ordinance and you can strike through and underline to change it. The next Planning Commission meeting will be January 12. Write up some kind of narrative about why you think there is capacity within the existing amenities. Look at the surveyor review and make sure we have the ability to construct the trail without permission from the canal company. I will take those to the Planning Commission.

f. Walk-ins:

Marsha Menlove was in attendance to discuss Bear River Manor, her development that converted the old nursing home into studio and one-bedroom apartments. Chairman Warnke said I will take a look at the engineer’s estimate. With this I can finish the development agreement. There were a few things I needed in the list that referenced the engineer’s estimate, which is in the development agreement. Ms. Menlove said I will write a check and pay the fees. Chairman Warnke said we got the signed documents, which will accompany the CC&Rs. We have received water shares and will reimburse you once you install the secondary water line for the upsize. Ms. Menlove said we have a wait list for these units. Rent starts at $600 and goes up to $1,000 a month. Engineer Breinholt said there is one address for the whole site. It is on the plan. Ms. Menlove agreed to add that to the building or on a sign (416 North 600 West). Chairman Warnke said give me the plat and I will get you the development agreement and an invoice. You will need to sign it and have it notarized. The bank and mayor will do the same. Send me the electronic copy for the development agreement.

4. Comments/Reports:

Director Fulgham said once we have the go-ahead from the City Council, we will continue acquiring water shares. I assume we will discuss a budget for that. Ridley’s has complained about their trucks not being able to park when people park there. Maybe we can add no overnight parking, but I will look at that. I have not seen any documents on Service Area 4 yet.

5. Public comments: No public comments.

6. Adjournment:

Motion by Chairman Warnke to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Committee. The meeting adjourned at 11:50 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 24th day of January, 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.