TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 11, 2024
Members Present:
Micah Capener, Chairman
Penni Dennis, Commission Member—excused
Kaden Grover, Commission Member—via Zoom
Mark Thompson, Commission Member—via Zoom
Raulon Van Tassell, Commission Member
Bret Rohde, City Councilmember—excused
Jeff Seedall, City Planner
Sam Taylor, Landmark Design Planner—via Zoom
Cynthia Nelson, Deputy Recorder

Chairman Capener called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. The meeting was held June 11, 2024 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Capener, Commission Members Grover (via Zoom), Thompson (via Zoom), Van Tassell, City Planner Seedall, Design Planner Taylor (via Zoom), and Deputy Recorder Nelson were in attendance. Commission Member Dennis and City Councilmember Rohde were excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Commission Member Thompson to approve the June 11, 2024 agenda. Motion seconded by Commission Member Van Tassell. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Dennis – absent, Commission Member Grover – aye, Commission Member Thompson – aye, Commission Member Van Tassell – aye. Motion approved.

2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest

Chairman Capener said I have a potential conflict with Aspen Ridges. I have marketed the properties.

3. Public Comments: None

4. Approval of minutes—May 14, 2024

Motion by Commission Member Van Tassell to approve the May 14, 2024 minutes. Motion seconded by Commission Members Grover and Thompson. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Dennis – absent, Commission Member Grover – aye, Commission Member Thompson – aye, Commission Member Van Tassell – aye. Motion approved.

Chairman Capener called a Public Hearing to order at 5:35 p.m. to discuss the proposed annexation. There were seven people in attendance.

5. Public Hearing:

a. To receive public input on proposed Calder annexation of real property (Tax ID Nos. 05-079-0006). The applicant has discussed a mixed-residential use for the parcel which can only be achieved by the approval of an overlay zone. Property is located on the north side of 10000 North adjacent to the railroad tracks.

Laura Calder said I thought it would be helpful to recognize the purpose of this annexation request. This property could be developed because of property rights. This annexation is just determining which code the property is developed to. It is currently in the County. Will it be developed to County code or City guidelines. The County passed new regulation that neighboring properties request annexation within a certain proximity of City limits. The County is looking for better development and services since they do not offer sewer and fire. Developed in the County requires septic tanks. It is much more expensive for a developer to develop in City limits because they have the burden of paying for infrastructure, but it is the best thing. We are being better stewards of land and water by using better technologies offered through the City. These people will be paying taxes and doing their part. The City should see more of these requests because of this new regulation. We believe it is important to do things the right way. Numbers are not emotional. There is either water or there is not, there is sewer or there is not. We have spoken to Public Works Director, Paul Fulgham, and he has provided us with charts and data with explanation. He said we have the capacity for the development. City Engineer, Chris Breinholt, agrees. The plans we are looking at doing in this area are part of the Tremonton Master Plan already. It is the same zoning that Tremonton has wanted to see in the area. We have taken time to discuss annexation with the neighboring properties. They are currently in the County on septic tanks, and some have had issues. Many are grateful and hopeful for the sewer to come through. Developing to a higher standard with sewer systems, pressurized secondary water systems, and more is better for the community.

Chairman Capener closed the Public Hearing at 5:38 p.m.

6. New Business:

a. Discussion and consideration of proposed Calder annexation of real property (Tax ID Nos. 05-079-0006). The applicant has discussed a mixed-residential use for the parcel which can only be achieved by the approval of an overlay zone. Property is located on the north side of 10000 North adjacent to the railroad tracks.

Planner Seedall said the Council has accepted the application permit and as the land use authority, the Planning Commission will review and recommend what the zoning is. City Council would make final acceptance next week. This will have a zone with an overlay approach once the development starts. Overlay zones normally come with their own specifications and development agreements. The overlay zone will likely be this parcel and another one. There is still a lot to vet through. The General Plan suggests R1-10 and three units an acre, which is what the Calder’s have designed their concept plans around. We had an annexation meeting with some of the neighbors, who received that density pretty well. This hinges on a lot of moving pieces. Utilities are the driving force behind this development. There will need to be lift stations, but those are moving targets. We are trying to understand how far south we can make this.

Planner Seedall said they are looking at having a sizable stormwater pond and basin, and park space. The mixed residential would allow them to put a few townhomes to meet the density while permitting the open space necessary for storm drain and a pocket park. The pond would be pretty centered. It would start with some larger lots against the acre and a half lots and then as you move closer to the railroad tracks there would be some townhomes. It permits having open space for the retention area and walking paths and greenery. The townhomes will have an HOA. You would made a recommendation to the City Council, who would do the final approval. Our future land use area goes to 9600 North.

Motion by Commission Member Van Tassell to recommend to the Council to approve the annexation of the Calder development as R1-10 zone. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Dennis – absent, Commission Member Grover – aye, Commission Member Thompson – aye, Commission Member Van Tassell – aye. Motion approved.

b. Discussion and consideration of Preliminary Plat for Aspen Ridges North

Planner Seedall said Aspen Ridges has finalized their preliminary plat through the DRC. Per State code, this will be the last legislative decision for Aspen Ridges North before going through the final plat process with the DRC. There will be 102 units, which is well under the RM-16 overlay. They have approval from the canal company for the bridge. We are working on the development agreement and will have that finalized for final plat. The clubhouse amenities that the other development has will now serve this area, too. They have agreed to construct the walking trail from Rocket Road to 600 South. For utilities, the City will help pay for upsizing on public infrastructure. Utilities will go from Rocket Road to 600 South. These are all front-loaded units like the Aspen Ridges development with two-car garages. They also have some offsite parking stalls.

Motion by Commission Member Van Tassell to accept the preliminary plat for Aspen Ridges North and recommend it to DRC. Motion seconded by Commission Member Grover. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Dennis – absent, Commission Member Grover – aye, Commission Member Thompson – aye, Commission Member Van Tassell – aye. Motion approved.

c. Discussion and consideration of Preliminary Plat for Envision Estates

Planner Seedall said same story with this one. Visionary worked through the preliminary plat for Envision Estates, which has single-family residential with an overlay zone. There are 204 units. They ended up reconfiguring some of the roadways to help with traffic. They have already started working on some of the phasing design. They are hoping to break ground this fall so they can start going vertical this winter. There will not be an HOA. Because of its proximity to the park in Archibald Estates, Jeanie Stevens, and North Park, impact fees will be used to benefit existing parks. This will be a simple single-family housing development.

Motion by Commission Member Van Tassell to accept the preliminary plat for Vision Estates and recommend it to the DRC. Motion seconded by Commission Member Thompson. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Dennis – absent, Commission Member Grover – aye, Commission Member Thompson – aye, Member Commission Member Van Tassell – aye. Motion approved.

d. Discussion of water conservation plan

The Commission was asked to further review the plan. Planner Seedall said the water conservation plan is something Design Planner Taylor and his team have been working on. There is good background information and a breakdown of how water is being used by Tremonton and the impact of growth. There are also measures and actions we are hoping the City can review. These will be our main talking points next meeting. Once passed, we want to work through items for water conservation—anything from water usage to landscaping to educational courses the city can provide. Look through this with a fine-tooth comb.

The Commission and staff reviewed some of these elements. Planner Seedall said our public works director has ballparked that for every house that goes on secondary water, there is capacity for two more homes in Tremonton for culinary. That is how impactful it has been to get that system implemented. There is still a good portion of the City that does not have it yet. Changes in the landscape ordinance will likely add more water wise elements.

This discussion will continue at a future meeting.

7. Planning commission comments/reports: None.

8. Adjournment

Motion by Commission Member Van Tassell to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 6:13 p.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 Planning Commission held on the above referenced date. Minutes were prepared by Jessica Tanner.

Dated this 23rd day of July, 2024.

______________________________
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.