TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 29, 2019

Members Present:
Micah Capener, Chairman
Arnold Eberhard, Commission Member—excused
Troy Forrest, Commission Member—excused
Paul Fowler, Commission Member
Ben Greener, Commission Member—excused
Brad Janssen, Commission Member
Tom Stokes, Commission Member
Bret Rohde, City Councilmember
Steve Bench, Zoning Administrator
Shawn Warnke, City Manager
Cynthia Nelson, Deputy Recorder

Chairman Capener called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:39 p.m. The meeting was held October 29, 2019 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Capener, Commission Members Fowler, Janssen, Stokes, Councilmember Rohde, Zoning Administrator Bench, Manager Warnke, and Deputy Recorder Nelson were in attendance. Commission Members Eberhard, Forrest, and Greener were excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Commission Member Stokes to approve the October 29, 2019 agenda with the addition of Manager Warnke’s presentation before the public hearing. Motion seconded by Commission Member Janssen. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Janssen – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

2. Approval of minutes—September 24, 2019

Motion by Commission Member Janssen to approve the September 24, 2019 minutes. Motion seconded by Commission Member Stokes. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Janssen – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

Manager Warnke said during the previous public hearing concerns were raised. It was questioned how this development fits into the City’s plans and how this would impact traffic and density. Rocket Road would be the frontage, which varies in width. We would like to get it to a full width collector road (66 feet). To the east is Tremont Street, which dumps into Main Street and is meant to move traffic. We just put in 600 West to make it more of a straight shot to Main Street—functioning as a collector road in between Tremont Street and Iowa String. From a transportation standpoint, this area is suited to move traffic and is a good location for density. This area is also the location of the canal rail trail—a corridor the City has worked toward acquiring. When it is built out, it will be 2.2 miles of a 10-foot wide trail. The City Council has authorized the acquisition of all, but maybe 200 feet of this corridor. We have talked to the developer about adding this segment of the canal rail trail as part of their development, which would provide another means of travel for residents in the area. The idea is to locate density along this corridor so people have alternative means of travel. We have discussed impact fee credits to have the developers construct the trail, but do not want it to feel exclusive to their area—it is for public use. They could landscape up to the trail for a finished look and we would have barriers for safety.

Manager Warnke said another concern was the proximity of this development to single-family homes. Our code requires landscape buffering for different uses. A 10-foot landscape buffer is required for multi-family to single-family. That will occur, but there are also some physical barriers and buffering that occurs by virtue of the location. The rail corridor is 100 feet and the trail corridor is 80 feet, providing more buffering than is required. We have also discussed the City’s plan for moderate-income housing. There is more and more pressure for affordable housing from the State. They mandate what cities need to do to meet their objectives, including the requirement of having a
Moderate- Income Housing Plan. We are working on updating ours, which will come to the Planning Commission soon. This type of housing would meet the needs of various incomes. They discussed the floor plans and that units would be purchase and occupied, but could potentially be rented. The square footage will range from 1,400 to 2,400 square feet. Different housing plans would allow residents to live on one floor or have a multi-level unit, which lends itself to a diverse neighborhood.

Manager Warnke said there were concerns about the school, but the simple response is cities are not responsible for schools. State legislature mandates that cities cannot adopt impact fees for the capital facilities of new schools. Although we do coordinate with the schools and work with them on sites, it is a separate issue. In my opinion, density itself is not bad. With a lot of density, there is a higher need for good design and layout to help mitigate things like quality building materials, garages for storage, and landscaping that is professionally managed. The HOA associated with this development will go a long way to make sure things are maintained over time. With density they have the ability to create amenities. Having it in close proximity to arterial roads and connectivity with other neighborhoods is important.

Manager Warnke said that originally the RM-16 zone was proposed. Although that zone allows for 16 dwelling units per acre the intent of the developer is to do 10 dwelling units per acre, but there was concern about that. It is now being proposed that it would be rezoned to RM-16 with an overlay zoning district, which means anything that is called out within the zoning district would supplement or regulate on top of the underlying zone. Right now it is zoned as RM-120. This would rezone it to a higher density and be a district that closely matches what is being proposed. We would then restrict it from there with the limit of 10 dwelling units per acre. It also talks about the type of housing materials and the proposed amenities to mitigate the density. Those include a large swimming pool, splash pad, in ground Jacuzzi, clubhouse with a 30-seat community movie theater, great room, community banquet, kitchenette, fitness center, playground, artificial turf, and oversized pavilion. It will be similar to their project in Smithfield, which would provide a housing type that would benefit Tremonton.

Chairman Capener called a Public Hearing to order at 6:05 p.m. to receive public input on an overlay zone. There were 13 people in attendance.

3. Public Hearing:

a. To receive public input on proposed Aspen Ridges Overlay zone at property located at 250 West 1200 South, limiting development to ten (10) units per acre.

Resident John Mclain, who lives on 150 West, said you answered a lot of questions with the presentation, but I think there is still a lot unanswered. What is going to happen to the end of 150 West once this project is complete? Will it be connected and increase traffic on our street? We do not want to get hurt financially and would like to keep our view to the west, but also want to be good neighbors. We already have issues with traffic on our little street with young children. Rocket Road is a busy street and we can hear and feel the traffic inside our homes. More traffic is a big concern. We would like to see more data and know what the units will sell for. Is this going to hurt or help us? You talk about affordable housing, but at the same time talk about upgraded amenities, which makes no sense. I think we need to fix the zone instead of doing overlays. It does not matter what we say, we know this project will go forward with or without our blessing. We want to be supportive, but we think there is a serious lack of information.

Manager Warnke said there are things a City cannot regulate, like if they will be owned or rented out. The intent is that they will be subdivided as individual units for purchase and occupancy. This zone we are proposing protects the homeowners more than adding a generic zone. We are addressing everything they say they are going to do that is a value to the project, neighborhood, and community. They do not have all the numbers and are guaranteeing amenities without knowing the sales price. It is as specific as possible while still allowing them to figure out that phase of it. As it relates to the roads in the complex, we are anticipating them to be private, but those are things that will occur through the subdivision process. I would love to see them continue the project all the way to 600 South. Commission Member Janssen said for the Smithfield project the price range is $230,000 for smaller units and $270,000 to $300,000 for the larger ones. Developer Ryan Rogers said we are hoping the starting units will be $160,000 to $170,000.

Resident Harvey Evans asked about maintenance. Manager Warnke said it would be done through the HOA. They will have common amenities and pays a homeowner’s association fee for that maintenance, ensuring the neighborhood looks nice. The streets are contemplated to be private; in that case maintenance and snow removal of the roads would also be the HOA’s responsibility.

Resident Lee Akin, on 150 West, asked about the total number of units. He said I think 150 units at a price point of $160,000 will affect the property value of the houses nearby. Chairman Capener said the development they did north of this was a lesser quality and ended up increasing the value of the nearby homes substantially. Developer Rogers said the homes around our other developments have had the same concerns, but those homes are much higher in value than they were when we started.

Resident Jess Udy, who lives on Century Drive, said what happened to the half-acre zoning and where are you going to get water? Tremonton says we are out of water. People do not realize how much traffic is on Rocket Road and the railroad tracks should be updated. We have gone through this zoning thing with the subdivision to the west of us and the way it was zoned there was not enough room. What will this do to our animal rights? The amenities all sound nice, but what good does that do for the people living around it? We are not getting any benefit. What will happen between the development and railroad tracks? Will there be fencing up to keep kids away from the animals? Administrator Bench said the tracks and canal would be fenced and your animal rights would remain. Manager Warnke said codes do change and there are always potential for things, but we do not foresee your rights changing.

Resident Shana Siva, 150 West, said it looks nice and I agree with the amenities, but that is 150 new families. I do not think anybody can say that will not add a ton of congestion. The area is already pretty closed in. Developments like this do change the way people view the area and having that next to us could affect people purchasing our homes or not. Chairman Capener said these are not apartments they are townhomes. They could be rented or not. Mrs. Siva said when you are looking for a home and see a bunch of those types of things it is a turn off for potential buyers. There will be an impact when you stuff that many homes between all that.

Mr. Mclain added that they should consider expanding Rocket Road and have revisions to reduce the speed limit and add a turn lane. Administrator Bench said if this does move ahead, we invite all of you to be involved as the process goes forward for the subdivision design. It will take several months to get through the process and be approved.

Mr. Akins added that a handful of people were looking forward to building their homes on the half-acre lots there. Why did that go away when there is a market for bigger lots?

Resident Jerry Buchanan said I drove over and looked at their project in Smithfield and I was impressed. There is a deputy sheriff living there and he was happy there. He said the key to the whole thing is the HOA and because of that, there is demand for those homes. If this project goes through, its success will be based on how the HOA is operated.

Resident Chris Hitesman, on 150 west, said I see it only has the exits going onto Rocket Road and I see value in making sure there is an exit on 600 South. Two exits would alleviate a lot of our concerns in making sure there is more access. All of us on 150 West are stuck to Rocket Road and have no other option.

Developer Rogers said I understand your concerns, but it typically works out. We are not going to build 150 units over night. This is a slow process. With our previous projects, this has been a great benefit, not a burden to communities. Having this in Tremonton will create tremendous value for the businesses and community.

Mrs. Siva said I agree that this would bring the moderate income housing you are looking for and will help businesses, but my argument is whether this spot, an established family neighborhood with single-family homes, is the best place for it. Have you looked at other areas? Chairman Capener said yes, we will gladly buy any property. There is just not a lot of multi-family projects anywhere.

Chairman Capener closed the Public Hearing at 6:43 p.m.

4. New Business:

a. Discussion and consideration of proposed Aspen Ridges Overlay zone at property located at 250 West 1200 South, limiting development to ten (10) units per acre.

Commission Member Stokes asked what would happen to the overlay if the project goes under. Chairman Capener said that with the overlay it is solid and would be recorded that way. Commission Member Stokes asked about water availability and said he knows people in the area who have low water pressure. Is our infrastructure big enough to add that many more homes? Chairman Capener said pressure deals with the flow. Water is allocated at the building permit not the zone. If there is no water, they will not issue the building permit. Commission Member Stokes said how much more development can we take with the water capacity we have? Should we be approving something that he maybe cannot get a building permit for? Manager Warnke said the City’s ordinances only reserves water and wastewater capacity at the time the building permits are issues. If we have capacity, we will not deny development. Commission Member Stokes said I am for the project I am just concerned on some aspects of it.

Commission Member Fowler said change is scary, but we have to accept that growth is coming. If we do not make accommodations to accept that into our community and take advantage of the growth they will build around our City and traffic will still come through our streets, but we will not be able to regulate it. They will still use our facilities, but we will not have the advantage of having them in our community. I would rather we have a say in how they develop rather than have it outside the City limits. My questions have been answered and there are a bunch of safety valves in the overlay. Commission Member Janssen said when we did the Transportation Master Plan, the level of service for Rocket Road was projected to be very low and that was with the R-120, not adding another 150 units and potentially more growth at 600 South. A big concern is that we only own part of Rocket Road. Is Elwood willing to upgrade it? We can only do as much as we can in our City limits. Manager Warnke said we are in a better position from a planning perspective. We know where the roads need to go, the size they need to be, and we are working on acquiring those critical intersections before they are developed over.

Motion by Commission Member Fowler to recommend the overlay to the City Council. Motion seconded by Commission Member Janssen. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Janssen – aye, Commission Member Stokes – nay. Motion approved by a 3-1 vote.

b. Discussion and consideration of 2020 Annual Meeting Schedule for the Planning Commission

Motion by Commission Member Stokes to approve the 2020 Annual Meeting Schedule for the Planning Commission. Motion seconded by Commission Member Janssen. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Janssen – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

5. Adjournment

Motion by Commission Member Stokes to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 7:06 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 14th day of January, 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.