TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
JULY 16, 2025
Members Present:
Jeff Seedall, Chairman & City Planner
Chris Breinholt, City Engineer
Bill Cobabe, City Manager
Zach LeFevre, Parks and Recreation Director—excused
Carl Mackley, Public Works Director
Andrew Beecher, Assistant Public Works Director
Tiffany Lannefeld, Deputy Recorder

Chairman Seedall called the Development Review Committee Meeting to order at 9:41 a.m. The meeting was held July 16, 2025 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Seedall, Manager Cobabe, Engineer Breinholt, Director Mackley, Assistant Director Beecher, and Deputy Recorder Lannefeld were in attendance. Director LeFevre was excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Chairman Seedall to approve the July 16, 2025 agenda. Motion seconded by Manager Cobabe. Vote: Chairman Seedall – yes, Manager Cobabe – yes, Engineer Breinholt – yes, Director Mackley – yes, Director Beecher – yes, Director LeFevre – absent. Motion approved.

2. Approval of minutes— May 21, 2025 & June 4, 2025

Motion by Manager Cobabe to approve the minutes stated above. Motion seconded by Director Mackley. Vote: Chairman Seedall – yes, Manager Cobabe – yes, Engineer Breinholt – yes, Director Mackley – yes, Director Beecher – yes, Director LeFevre – absent. Motion approved.

3. New Business:

a. Discussion and consideration of River Valley PUD—Garth Day

Mr. Day said for the future phases we would like to use the City’s new PUD ordinance to move forward. We have a development agreement regarding the BR Mountain Road that requires City participation (66% City, 33% developer). When we did River Valley 8, we completed a portion of that road, which will end here for the foreseeable future. It just goes to nowhere until the City finalizes their potion. We are focusing on River Valley 10. I am ready to submit a preliminary for that phase with the flexibility of the PUD. That would not change the density because that is already tied up with the previous development agreement. Chairman Seedall said the development agreement is being finalized. Once we approve the preliminary, we will get into the final part of Phase 10. In that timing, we will wrap up the development agreement for all the PUD.

When discussing layout and setbacks, Mr. Day said these were turned sideways like Phase 9, but I think it makes a better product if we front them onto the road. That does shrink the setback but having them face the road is a little more neighborhood friendly and looks better. This pushes them closer to BR Mountain Road for multiple phases and gives us more open space in the center. Design-wise, being able to have the flexibility of the PUD makes for a better product. The Committee further reviewed the setbacks. Mr. Day said having the rear-loaded product, it does not make sense to have a large front setback because the driveways are at the back. In a single family, that helps make nice, big yards and is practical for parking. Chairman Seedall said with the PUD ordinance, we are trying to go away from some of the inconsistencies that the past administration used with overlays. We want to standardize what setbacks are and how densities work with based zoning. Mr. Day elected to use the PUD to help with the setbacks and have more flexibility to get the units in that they have been planning on.

Mr. Day said one change we have made in all our multi-family is having single meters for buildings. We do one meter for every 16 units. The downside is it becomes the HOA’s responsibility to pay the water bill. All the units get shutoff if not, but we felt like having less infrastructure is the better route. Engineer Breinholt said I would like to see a site plan for Phase 10 to show how you plan to terminate things. Mr. Day said these ditches are going to be piped. We will pipe them to that area and will put them all into an easement. The storm drain itself, handles everything from the canal this way. There will be some temporary ponds. The City purchased this property and will create a regional detention basin, so everything is going to end up there. Temporaries will work until that regional basin gets built.

Motion by Manager Cobabe to approve the preliminary as outlined with the stipulation that the development agreement is prepared and ready for final approval. Motion seconded by Director Mackley. Vote: Chairman Seedall – yes, Manager Cobabe – yes, Engineer Breinholt – yes, Director Mackley – yes, Director Beecher – yes, Director LeFevre – absent. Motion approved.

b. Discussion and consideration of Aspen Grove Site Plan—Jared Lish Rupp Trucking

Chairman Seedall said Aspen Grove is over the RV park next to J Brian’s. They have one of the parcels on the west and want to expand with a storage area. This would allow people to leave their RVs there. They are hoping to put a privacy fence and parking stalls (23) on the gravel. This was the plan they provided. J Brian’s was able to somehow quick claim deed the canal, which landlocked them from having access to a public driveway. One of the things they submitted was an allowed access easement over the private property into their site. There would be access from the north, but there is also an access from the west. Manager Cobabe said my preference would be that they access only from the north and shut the other two down completely. Chairman Seedall said I expressed that idea, but he said he did not know if people could make that turn on a narrow lane. Engineer Breinholt said the bigger struggle will be for UDOT to approve that. With a change of use, they will want to review and comment on that. They will require some sort of cross access to the east. I think a landscape plan would also be required, along with lighting, signage and utility plans. We need all those things in more detail, but I think they should start with UDOT.

Motion by Manager Cobabe to table this item until they have more information. Motion seconded by Director Mackley. Vote: Chairman Seedall – yes, Manager Cobabe – yes, Engineer Breinholt – yes, Director Mackley – yes, Director Beecher – yes, Director LeFevre – absent. Motion approved.

c. Discussion of Clover Fields Concept Plan—Keith Russell Ensign Engineering

Mr. Russell said this is just east of 1000 West and south of Main Street. In 2012 it is shown on the Clover Fields Phase 1 and two plats as a future phase of Clover Fields. Our proposal is for 40-foot frontages with homes that would be in the category of more affordable housing. This could open the road all the way over to 1000 West. It also makes homes accessible to the public right-of-way. Utilities are pretty straightforward. The road will drain to the east. We have a yard drain system in the back of all the homes that will make its way east. There would be a retention pond in front of the existing house and then we would punch the water into a storm drain system. Engineer Breinholt said Public Works standards require a cul-de-sac if it is permanent. Chairman Seedall said we are hoping it will punch through eventually. Engineer Breinholt said there is a house in the way. I do not think that it is realistic to plan that way. That was supposed to go here until that house was built. Chairman Seedall said that house was built after they decided not to run the road through. This is just a concept plan. The hard part with the cul-de-sac is how wide the radius has to be. Manager Cobabe said I do not love that cul-de-sac layout. This looks a lot better. What kind of flexibility do we have in the standards? Engineer Breinholt said it does not allow for this. The way the standards are it is a cul-de-sac. That is tough for maintenance. We do not want big trucks backing through this. You run the risk of backing into somebody or something. I also do not love detention ponds on private property unless there is an HOA established to take care of them. They become a weed patch and garbage dump, or property owners fill them in. What options would a private lane give you? Chairman Seedall said we looked at some concepts. It would limit the number of units, and we were worried about how to transition a public road into a private lane that is a dead end. I liked the idea of letting this road go through and tying into 1000 West. Engineer Breinholt said Public Works standards call for roads to be terminated with cul-de-sacs unless it is a temporary stub for future expansion. There is already a house and shop there. It is developed, I cannot reasonably say that road is going to go through. We are left with an odd situation that is inconvenient. Chairman Seedall said maybe you could try to have a stub road through the existing driveway for a connection. There is an alley there. It is landlocked. The only public access is the one road in. A cul-de-sac does make sense. Engineer Breinholt said in my opinion this is an odd location for development. Director Mackley said I understand the want to improve this, but I fully agree with Engineer Breinholt. There is a reason why it has not been developed. It is a problem.

After discussing private lanes and utilities, Chairman Seedall said with a private lane, he does not need a cul-de-sac, he can do what fits. We just need to delineate where the City’s responsibility stops on 110 South. Mr. Russell said if we do a cul-de-sac that is 120 feet in diameter, we would lose three lots. Engineer Breinholt said that road was abandoned by the City because of this situation. It was not going to go through. If Public Works does not have to go up there for snow removal or garbage pickup it could work. If they have to then it is a hazard. If it is a private lane and they are managing their own stuff, then it is really just about emergency services being able to get there and turn around. I think the City ordinance only allows four to six homes on a private drive. Director Mackley said it is a bad idea to make that a City road unless it goes all the way through.

When asked about lot sizes, Chairman Seedall said it is R1-10. We are looking at the single-family transition overlay zone. On a two-acre piece, R1-10 would allow six lots. That would be less with a cul-de-sac. The Committee spent time reviewing potential layouts and options. Mr. Russell said these lots might be tighter and more compact, but that allows the lots to cost less and have homes be more affordable. It is a better option than buying a townhome. They would have a home with their own yard. I will go back and rework stuff to the south. Engineer Breinholt said if the intention is to make it a public road, that road section would be a 56-foot right-of-way with no on-street parking. You also need a five-foot sidewalk. Chairman Seedall said if we get the right-of-way and roads figured out, I am comfortable with this being in the transition overlay zone. The Committee agreed to meet for more discussion during their August 6 meeting.

d. Walk-ins: There were no walk-ins.

4. Comments/Reports:

Manager Cobabe said they need to do better in discussing projects and making sure they have a point person for information going to the public. They also need to ensure they are up to speed so when questions do come their way they are prepared with consistent information. We do not really have a point person who is shepherding the project at Midland Square. Let us copy everyone on everything going on in the City. You can filter out things you do not need to respond to. We all need to know what is going on. Director Mackley said it could be useful to have a weekly coordination meeting. Engineer Breinholt said I keep Wednesday mornings open with this meeting—we could have our coordination meeting after DRC. Director Mackley said things get segmented and compartmentalized, which I do not like. Everyone should know everything that is going on as much as possible or when necessary for us to be beneficial. Everyone gets asked questions.

Manager Cobabe said we also need to do a better job keeping the City Council informed of what is going on. Chairman Seedall that is going to devolve a lot to you in your role as Development Director. Maybe it is just a matter of getting the DRC minutes and agendas to the Council for their review. That way they have been given the information. I do not want them to get caught flat-footed. No one likes that, but especially councils when they have to make decisions. The more we can keep them in the loop the better. If they really are curious and want to know more, they can come to these meetings. Chairman Seedall said the Councilmembers should have a department or two they oversee so when we get into budget discussions and going through capital improvements one of them already knows why departments are asking for that need. The Council should be able to answer some of their own questions. They also suggested having a Councilmember attend DRC meetings to help the Council stay in the know.

5. Public comments: No public comments.

6. Adjournment:

Motion by Chairman Seedall to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Committee. The meeting adjourned at 11:20 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 _____day of ___________, 2025

_____________________________
Cynthia Nelson, 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.