TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
JULY 15, 2020

Members Present:
Steve Bench, Chairman/Zoning Administrator
Chris Breinholt, City Engineer
Marc Christensen, Community Services Director—excused
Paul Fulgham, Public Works Director
Shawn Warnke, City Manager
Cynthia Nelson, Deputy Recorder

Chairman Bench called the Development Review Committee Meeting to order at 9:04 a.m. The meeting was held July 15, 2020 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Bench, Engineer Breinholt, Director Fulgham, City Manager Warnke, and Deputy Recorder Nelson were in attendance. Director Christensen was excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Director Fulgham to approve the July 15, 2020 agenda. Motion seconded by Engineer Breinholt. Vote: Chairman Bench – aye, Engineer Breinholt – aye, Director Fulgham – aye, Manager Warnke – aye. Motion approved.

2. Approval of minutes—May 20, 2020

Motion by Engineer Breinholt to approve the minutes of May 20, 2020. Motion seconded by Chairman Bench. Vote: Chairman Bench – aye, Engineer Breinholt – aye, Director Fulgham – aye, Manager Warnke – aye. Motion approved.

3. New Business:

a. Site plan review for Banham Subdivision – Micah Capener, Brody Calder, and Max Mills.

Mr. Capener said it was originally master planned with 12 units so that is what we want to do. Our biggest issue is that if we do everything in here, it is going to make the other project look really bad and they were supposed to be planned together. If we have to meet all the requirements for setbacks and have 20 foot parking stalls, we cannot build anything here. Discussion was had on the dumpster enclosure and location. Chairman Bench read the code stating that trash enclosures shall not be located in any front or side yards, but the truck has to be able to get in and out. Mr. Capener questioned where would be the best location. It will be cinderblock and is not going to be a visual eye sore. Having a dumpster here is going to look better than 12 cans lined along this road. Manager Warnke said I agree, but your plans say they are individual cans. Mr. Capener said that is a mistake—we do not want that—this was based on the master plan for the other project. Manager Warnke said anywhere you put the dumpster on this site would violate the code so we would have to pick the lesser of the evils. Mr. Capener said we could do a smaller building, shift these two to the edge and put a playground in between the buildings. That would be the first thing you see and it would keep the kids off the road and out of the pond.

Manager Warnke said the project is over built and the standards for parking point to the fact that it is. Mr. Capener said let us call it a master plan and duplicate what they did. This is their dirt and if we improve these four stalls we have made them compliant and ours is fine. We do not want to pay to improve theirs, but we do not want a gap between it. Engineer Breinholt said a couple things are missing from what the current code requires. There needs to be a landscaping island in one of those spots. The size of the stalls does not meet our current standard. I do not think it makes sense to make them longer because it should match what is there. However, the width does need to fit the current standard. As shown, there are 54 stalls, which is what is required with two ADA stalls. You could drop one unit and open up this green space to put the garbage over here and come in compliance with the landscaping island. Mr. Capener said we could do that without losing a unit by shrinking the building. They are 77 feet wide and we are shooting for a 60 foot wide building to make up 30 feet in between there. If we have to meet all the new codes then none of this works. Director Fulgham said any master plan that is not built within the time frame of approval has to go to the new code. Mr. Capener said what we are doing will still be substantially better than what is there. Engineer Breinholt said put the dumpster in between these two buildings and then you have a straight shot in. You would lose a parking stall there, but that is better than losing a unit. Put the ADA stall there and make a hatched area wider for the garbage truck to get in and out. Mr. Capener said we would shrink this building and slide it up five feet so we have the setback. I have always visualized cobble over there, but maybe it would be better as grass with a playground in the pond. Director Fulgham said I thought that too, but it is closer to the road. You could do that if you put a fence in to create a barrier. Engineer Breinholt said I think this pond is oversized and there is standing water all the time. The pond could be shallower. You could gain some parking stalls along there, too. You would still have to have 10-foot wide stalls with these narrow isles. Chairman Bench suggested having their engineer look at the pond and redesign the parking.

When asked about the one access, Mr. Capener said UDOT told us we have to give them access through our property. They may disallow this entrance because it was not done properly. We have met with the HOA and they are not being reasonable. They want us to fix all their problems and the disparity in the HOA. Manager Warnke said the pond shows a separate owner. Engineer Breinholt said expanding that would go off your property. If you utilize some of that, you would have to work that out. Mr. Capener said if they will let us use some of the pond, we could fix the parking. We were going to label each stall so it is clear which stalls belong to each unit. We will update the 10-foot wide stalls and visit with the HOA.

When discussing the additional right-of-way for future improvement of that arterial road, Mr. Capener said our engineer called UDOT and they said they have no plans for widening it or taking additional right-of-way. Manager Warnke said if you dedicated it maybe the setback could be adjusted. We are trying to look ahead. It is an arterial road that will need to be expanded in the future and we need to plan accordingly. Engineer Breinholt said our minor arterial roads are 80 feet so that would be seven feet on your side. We could go through it and do a redesign to look at a smaller setback. Mr. Capener clarified seven feet and then we could drop the setback down to 18 feet. Engineer Breinholt said at some point the City is going to have to go out there and acquire right-of-way on both sides of the road. That road will have to carry more traffic than a two-lane highway. The 80 feet allows us to have a travel lane in each direction, a center turn lane and on-street parking. Requiring the seven feet makes the most sense to me.

When talking about the streetlight requirement, the Committee suggested a gooseneck on the power pole there. They need to have the landscaping requirements met with a certain percentage of trees and shrubs. A geo tech report is also required. Mr. Capener asked about buffering requirements. Manager Warnke said if you put the fence up, you would meet that. It typically has fencing, shrubs, and trees. Mr. Mills asked where the fence should be. There is already one on the back. Manager Warnke said it would have to be the perimeter.

Mr. Capener said we are not doing an HOA. We are going to have three different owners. Even though they plan to label each stall, Chairman Bench said it still does not give them the right to go across someone else’s property. They would need common area or cross access easements and additional notes on the plat clarifying that. Engineer Breinholt said unless there is a single HOA that owns this sewer lateral, you have to make your own connection. The sewer cannot have multiple owners. You have to have a single owner or an entity that is responsible in case something happens. In individual townhomes, each person has to have their own sewer line.

Mr. Mills asked about water shares. Director Fulgham said we have to look at the landscape plan. It is calculated on the irrigable acreage one to one. You do not have to include the basin because it is part of the old project. Engineer Breinholt clarified it is anything that is not roof or pavement. The landscape plan will tell you how many acres you have.

Mr. Capener asked if we are okay with the 12 units for the project with the pond calculation. Engineer Breinholt asked if it goes against the City’s density code. Mr. Capener said our portion of the pond was already part of the original master plan and donated. We do not want to do their side, but we are adding their four parking stalls because we do not want a gap here. By the time we do all these things we are looking at March. There are a lot of hurdles. When asked about the 10×18 island in the parking lot, Manager Warnke said from my perspective, that could work to match theirs if it helps—in the spirit of trying to make it work.

Mr. Capener said they will submit it to UDOT, redesign the whole thing, give the right-of-way, do the geo tech, get the landscape plan stamped, get the HOA documents, the pond calculations, the title report, and elevations.

b. Walk-ins: there were no walk-ins.

4. Comments/Reports: none.

5. Public comments: no public comments.

6. Adjournment:

Motion by Engineer Breinholt to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Committee. The meeting adjourned at 10:29 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 23rd day of September, 2020

_____________________________
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.