TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
AUGUST 4, 2021

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

Chairman Bench called the Development Review Committee Meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. The meeting was held August 4, 2021 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Bench, Engineer Breinholt, City Manager Warnke, and Deputy Recorder Nelson were in attendance. Director Fulgham and Director Christensen were excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Manager Warnke to approve the August 4, 2021 agenda. Motion seconded by Engineer Breinholt. Vote: Chairman Bench – aye, Engineer Breinholt – aye, Manager Warnke – aye. Motion approved.

2. Approval of minutes—April 21, 2021

Motion by Chairman Bench to approve the minutes of April 21, 2021. Motion seconded by Engineer Breinholt. Vote: Chairman Bench – aye, Engineer Breinholt – aye, Manager Warnke – aye. Motion approved.

3. New Business:

a. Discuss changes to construction drawings for Aspen Ridges – Ryan Rogers & Kurt Sadler

Manager Warnke asked if they would paint the curb on Rocket Road red. It is a narrow corridor (50 feet wide) so that will help. Mr. Rogers said they painted some of it the other day where the bridge is. We will see if it is all done. We have changed the phasing and will start on the next one in about a month we just want to make sure we are good. Since we are not tying into that northern piece, we want to see if we can put some storage units there for the HOA to utilize. We would then create a dead end street since we are not buying that piece above. Chairman Bench said you have to have the utilities run north and south. They need to be extended whether the road connects or not. The utilities are public and we request you extend them up. Engineer Breinholt said the utilities have to be extended, that is not optional. Manager Warnke said all services need to loop. I know you are concerned about them taking advance of your investment, but you still have to put utilities in. It provides a benefit to both developments. They do not benefit much because they have to do all the utilities north and south and make that connection. The benefit is that both residents have a continuous loop of utilities.

Mr. Rogers said as far as continuing the road we will not let them tie in. That does not make any sense for us to pay for the maintenance on this road and have their cars running through. Manager Warnke said that eventually it would be an HOA decision. I do not think they can connect to your road and have us allow that much density on the north end. However, from a neighborhood and community perspective people are going to want to connect with their neighbors and travel across. That should be the decision ultimately made by the residents and HOA. Mr. Rogers said our plan is to control the development long-term. We are keeping some of the units and want to keep the HOA going. To allow these cars to wear down the roads quicker does not make sense. It is expensive to fix roads. We are upset the owner did not give us a chance to buy it. Manager Warnke said the City bought a 30-foot corridor that unlocked a protection strip and benefitted their property so we share in your frustration. I am not inclined to grant a lot of density right now. It is a half-acre zone and I am fine with that. I envisioned having more density there and I think if there is a connection to the south it makes sense, but without that connection it does not.

Chairman Bench said even if there were a zone change, they would be limited because there is only one bridge and road access. We have seen a couple concepts with about 80 units in the 11 acres. That would be too much density with one road. I have talked to an engineer and the canal company and they want the road on the west side so it is lined up with 300 West. They would need two bridges either way. Mr. Rogers said to give them access to our private roads is not okay. Engineer Breinholt said do you really think if that road were to connect through that you would have more traffic coming south opposed to traffic going both ways? You would have people from your development going north. Mr. Rogers said sure, functionality wise it makes sense, but it’s more the principal of it. Engineer Breinholt said it seems to me traffic will go both ways. Mr. Rogers said unless your ordinance requires us to let them connect into it then we will not. Chairman Bench said they might come to you when they find out they are limited. We have not seen anything official. I am not sure the Planning Commission will want to continue multi-family. Even if it were limited to half-acre lots you are looking at one street in. I would hold off on the storage sheds for now.

Mr. Rogers said we would start on the clubhouse in the next month. We are going to start on all of these utilities in about a month or so. We will work on both phases as one utility wise and possibly for the roads. The demand for these units is insane. Engineer Breinholt said we have not approved the final construction plans. They are moving on this next phase, which means eventually we will see a plat based on that. As far as I am concerned, the only official plan is the one with everything extended to the boundary. Are we still waiting to see what happens or are we going to approve or deny a change; or where do we need to go? Chairman Bench said the only change requested was to combine the phases and if you want the storage sheds to stop the roads. Utilities are going to the end anyway.

Mr. Sadler said we buried one ditch, which has worked out well and allowed the farmer to use less water because it all gets there. He will be done using it in the spring. We will leave it in, but I do not want to do that if no one is using it. Director Fulgham said he would find out. Chairman Bench said we will see how things go. We will have more conversations with them soon. The Planning Commission is overwhelmed with a lot of density. They will try to stick to what is there. At best they could get 30 units and I am not sure that pencils out.

b. Discussion and review of final plat for Rivers Edge Development, Phase 1

They were not in attendance so it was not discussed at this time.

c. Walk-ins:*

Jeff John said I have this piece under contract to pick up (two acres) and would like to build an office building. I want to know what you require for the entire lot or how far I have to go with getting the building done. I was hoping to put an office space here at the end of this entry. I am going to move out of this building (the cabin). It is staying for now, but eventually will be tore down. It is not functional in the future, but I am not in a hurry to do that. I would have a bigger access on this road more of a through type thing and I would like to do an office space here. What are the landscaping requirements? The last thing I want to do is landscape all of this for the one building. Chairman Bench said there are minimums for everything so you need to get a site plan drawn up then we can run through that process. That would include landscaping and parking, as well as the water shares you would have to provide to the City. It is calculated one share per acre and for commercial all hard surfaces are deducted. There is no timeline when secondary will be there, but it is moving faster than we thought. The parking is based on the building’s square footage. On a business, it is one stall per 300 square feet with one handicap stall for every 25 stalls.

Mr. John said I hope to get this rented out. I own this building and will likely sell it. I have been working with Hansen’s Engineering. John Plumbing is my business. Manager Warnke said we would have to take a wait and see approach. One of the concerns I have is that the time for the City to acquire improvements is when there is a land use application. It sort of concerns me how we phase and work with the whole parcel if you are just wanting to do a portion of it because we lose the ability to have all the improvements done. We will have to see how that works out and what you are proposing. Chairman Bench said part of that might have to be a master site plan for the whole thing with phases. Mr. John said we could do a good chunk of it. To get this rented out I have to clean it up and tear some things down and get landscaping around the property. I am just not sure what has to be done. Manager Warnke said as you start master planning your project we could tell you what our master plan is for that area. With the transportation corridor we created this BR Mountain Road, which is a minor arterial and extends all the way up to here. We are working with Jay Stocking and hoping to extend it to the City limits within the next year or two. We are also working to get it there. We have the money to purchase the corridor, but are waiting for Hansen and Associates to get the survey done. There are restrictions with power poles and the alignment so we will have to work with you and whoever owns the property to get some extra right-of-way. We were hoping the log structure would be torn down and the property redeveloped because of its proximity to the right-of-way and getting the full travel lanes to have that intersection function. Engineer Breinholt said this is the existing right-of-way line. We want to extend that all the way down and that building is in the way. There are power poles on the other side so we cannot shift it. Chairman Bench said that is something we will discuss with the site plan process. Mr. John said what is your timeline on this? Manager Warnke said I would love to acquire the right-of-way. We have allowed property owners to continue the use and could work out an agreement saying the use could continue until we need it. It is dependent upon development in the area. We could do it when you are ready to tear it down and redevelop. Mr. John said that will be three to four years from now. Chairman Bench you would have to design the area with that in mind. There is a buffer from the road plus you have a setback for the building. You will design based on those setbacks for the Commercial Highway Zone. Since it is on the corner that would be a 25-foot setback from either street. On the rear it is 20 feet with 10 feet on the side.

Mr. John said the cross access easement has been done. Give me a little background on that. We saw that this was donated to Tremonton City; or is it an easement? Manager Warnke said we have a conditional right-of-way on the front. Chairman Bench said the cross access was for both parcels because UDOT makes you share and shut the others down. You will have the front area with some walkways and parking. Mr. John said I will get some stuff drawn up and see what we come up with. This is a long-term thing it is not something I am pushing.

Manager Warnke said we need more detail on the right-of-way and what that intersection looks like. If you acquire the building, does it sound reasonable if we work on acquiring that right-of-way? Mr. John said I am not sure what that looks like we would have to talk about how that works. I like anything to make the town better. The better the corner is, the better the property value would be. Chairman Bench said good traffic flow always makes a difference. There are landscaping requirements where you have to have so many trees per landscaped area, as well as some grass and bushes. We want a nice looking building, too. Manager Warnke said there would be a 15-foot landscape strip around the parameter of your frontage. If you dedicate land there is a provision in our code that allows us to relax some of those dimensional standards because you are helping accomplish a community benefit. Parking has some landscape islands based on distances and number of stalls.

4. Comments/Reports: None.

5. Public comments: No public comments.

6. Adjournment:

Motion by Chairman Bench to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Committee. The meeting adjourned at 9:55 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 1st day of December, 2021

_____________________________
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.