TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 12, 2023

Members Present:
Micah Capener, Chairman—excused
Penni Dennis, Commission Member—excused
Jeffrey Seedall, Commission Member
Raulon Van Tassell, Commission Member
Mark Thompson, Commission Member
Connie Archibald, City Councilmember
Shawn Warnke, City Manager
Cynthia Nelson, Deputy Recorder

Co-Chairman Seedall called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:36 p.m. The meeting was held December 12, 2023, in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Co-Chairman Seedall, Commission Members Van Tassell, and Thompson, City Councilmember Archibald, City Manager Warnke, and Deputy Recorder Nelson were in attendance. Chairman Capener and Commission Member Dennis were excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Commission Member Thompson to approve the December 12, 2023, agenda. Motion seconded by Commission Member Van Tassell. Vote: Chairman Capener – absent, Co-Chairman Seedall – aye, Commission Member Dennis – absent, Commission Member Van Tassell – aye, Commission Member Thompson – aye. Motion approved.

2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest: None.

3. Public Comments: None.

4. Approval of minutes—October 10, 2023

Motion by Commission Member Van Tassell to approve the October 10, 2023, minutes. Motion seconded by Commission Member Thompson. Vote: Chairman Capener – absent, Co-Chairman Seedall – aye, Commission Member Dennis – absent, Commission Member Van Tassell – aye, Commission Member Thompson – aye. Motion approved.

5. New Business:

a. Discussion and overview of proposed amendments to the moderate-income housing strategies contained in the Tremonton City & Tremonton City RDA 2022 Moderate Income Housing Plan—Sam Taylor

Mr. Taylor said these are the three strategies we selected for the 2022 Income Housing Plan. This shows the progress that has been made. Manager Warnke said shortly after we submitted our annual report to the State, we realized some of these strategies are beyond our control and require us to work with partners. That puts us in a precarious situation as far as complying. With this upcoming legislative session, affordable housing is going to be a big issue. For strategy B, we are in compliance, but I am not sure we are going to be in compliance next year. The State has made it very clear that we need to comply or there are penalties. Strategy B has had limited to no success. We have contemplated projects, but they need a willing partner. Strategy E, creating an accessory dwelling unit ordinance, has been sent to the Council. It was well received and straightforward. Mr. Taylor said strategy N is implementing a mortgage assistance program. Once again there are challenges with relying on a partner.

Mr. Taylor said there are potential updates to this plan, either replacing completed strategies or selecting ones that might be easier to accomplish. We have selected a few for your consideration. Strategy J is to implement zoning incentives for moderate income units and new developments. This would involve modifying the zoning ordinance and could add a number of incentives. Manager Warnke said that could include bonus densities, parking standard deductions and flexible setbacks. Mr. Taylor said strategy R is to eliminate impact fees for ADUs. It currently requires impact fees for detached accessories. This would be the next step to breakdown some of the barriers for constructing ADUs. Manager Warnke said as a Planning Commission, you would make a recommendation and the Council would focus on the financing and if they want to replace those with RDA funds or just eliminate it. This one is easy to implement and provides some synergy with other strategies. Mr. Taylor said the third strategy is to create or allow reducing regulations related to multi-family homes, compatible in scale and form with detached and residential dwellings and located within residential zones. This would adjust ordinances to allow for missing middle housing. We would rewrite the ordinance. That could be a strategy to bring affordable housing into single-family neighborhoods without changing the character. To do this we would have to require careful crafting of design guidelines. There is a strategy that discusses rehabilitation of housing stock. We can definitely look into that to utilize what you are already doing. Manager Warnke said we can use that strategy year after year. I would certainly recommend that be one of the strategies, rehabilitating our housing stock, since we have a good partner and program established. There is a balance between complying with the State and making our best effort. We have limited resources from a planning staff as we search for a planner so we need to be realistic. First, we need to make sure we comply. I would also suggest the impact fees, because that is easy and compliments what we have already done. We have to report to the State by August 1. We still have a timeline that we need to define and implement those. The timeline on some of these could be short because they are easier to implement. We do not necessarily need to craft the ordinance ahead of adopting the strategy. Councilmember Archibald said we have discussed eliminating impact fees, implementing zone incentives, and working on Phase 7 for improving our current housing. Would those work? Manager Warnke said in talking to the State administrator, she seemed to think they would. We have done overlays and negotiated on an individual basis. It is easier to administer when you have an ordinance that is defined. The developers like it, too, because it gives more certainty and shortens the process. It would be a good step. Whatever strategies you say you are going to do; they are going to hold you to. We are anticipating the State will want three.

After discussion, Mr. Taylor said it sounds like we have some good headway on the impact fee strategy, the rehabilitating of our housing marking, which is already going on, and potentially designing incentives. We can craft a draft for how those might be implemented and bring it back for discussion. Manager Warnke said if there is a little bit of breathing room, we could craft some ordinances. Maybe we adopt these two and report what we did with the ADU and then we are in compliance for another year. We would regroup and see what the legislature does. It sounds like we have the green light from the Commission to draft based upon two of those strategies at this point.

Motion by Commission Member Seedall to approve changing the ADU impact fees, looking into phase seven, and picking a third strategy at the early meetings next year. Motion seconded by Commission Member Van Tassell. Vote: Chairman Capener – absent, Co-Chairman Seedall – aye, Commission Member Dennis – absent, Commission Member Van Tassell – aye, Commission Member Thompson – aye. Motion approved.

b. Discussion and overview of necessary amendments to the City’s Land Use Code, including but not limited to Land Use Authorities and the process and procedures associated with the subdivision of land to be compliant with the requirements of SB 174 requirements (Utah Code) Mark Vlasic Landmark Design

Manager Warnke said we reached out to Landmark Design to help us with a Senate bill that occurred with the last legislative session. The deadline for implementation is February 1, 2024. This will help make the subdivision process more streamlined. We already are a bit more streamlined than other cities, primarily because we have the Development Review Committee, which is comprised of staff as the land use authority for subdivisions. The preliminary plat has been under the Planning Commissions purview, but most of the work has been done by the DRC.

Mr. Vlasic said Senate Bill 174 was adopted in May in an attempt to make it more streamlined and perhaps produce more affordable housing. The idea is that if the requirements are met, it has to be approved. The administrative nature of the application is clearer. To meet the requirements of State code, we have to have that adopted by February 1. The review process has been streamlined and is very similar to what Tremonton has in place. A lot of communities had a three-step process rather than two. That slowed the process. The new approach is to have a preliminary subdivision application review followed by the final. They put some specific timeframes on this. The preliminary review has to be done within 15 business days after receiving a complete application. Once that has taken place and receives approval, it is forwarded as a final application. The process has 20 business days to do the review and make a decision whether to approve or deny it. Public comment could be different. According to the new legislation, there can be one public hearing, but only during the preliminary subdivision. The legal perspective on this is that this is an administrative decision. A public hearing could confuse the issue because a public hearing infers that there could be public clamor, but this is administrative. If they meet the requirements you have to approve it. Most of the legal leaders are recommending we do not have a public hearing. We are still in the process of writing this. The preliminary stage is to make sure they provide all the drawings. You would not go into the same level of detail as you do on a final application. That has to happen within 15 days. When you get to the final review process, you can have no more than four cycles. They submit the drawings and you make your comments. You tell them what changes need to happen and that is the first cycle. There are up to four rounds of review. The applicant and City are not required to go any further than that. The decision has to be made after the fourth review. Staff will need to get their red lines in and do a very accurate and thorough first review. If the applicant responds and staff finds something they missed at the first stage, they are not allowed to bring it up. Whoever is doing the official review, it has to be very thorough at the first stage. If the applicant is slow to respond, that does not count in the 20 days. It is stopped until staff receives it again. The appeal process is now a two-step process rather than one. Anything that has to do with engineering or public improvements will first be reviewed by a three-person panel. All others will go through the standard appeal process that is already established in each community. Since this is a legislative change, you have to hold a public hearing and then make a recommendation to the Council. The purpose of this tonight is to give you a briefing and incorporate ideas you might have for the draft.

Manager Warnke said the biggest change I have identified and would propose is that the Planning Commission would not review and approve preliminary plats. That would be done by the DRC. DRC would become the land use authority for those applications. The final plat has always been done by the DRC, it would just make this a little more streamlined and concise. This separates the workload and meets more specifically what the State is trying to achieve. As it relates to affordable housing—the shortage of housing is driving up costs. This is another attempt by the State to expedite the production of housing.

Motion by Co-Chairman Seedall to approve this with delivery of the draft prior to the January 9 meeting and to advertise for a public hearing. Motion seconded by Commission Member Van Tassell. Vote: Chairman Capener – absent, Co-Chairman Seedall – aye, Commission Member Dennis – absent, Commission Member Van Tassell – aye, Commission Member Thompson – aye, Motion approved.

c. Discussion and consideration of advising the City Council on the Tremonton City Rural Communities Opportunity Grant, including but not limited to the recommendation of the Midland Square Improvements Final Concept Plan

Manager Warnke said we have received a grant, which requires the Planning Commissions involvement. The grant is for improvements to Midland Square. We would transition that from a public park to a plaza to facilitate gatherings. If we can get people downtown by providing amenities and programming, then there is the ability for them to frequent our businesses. We engaged an urban designer and landscape architect to put together concept plans. Those will be given to our engineer, who will turn them into construction documents. We have until December 31, 2024, to complete construction. We do need to move quickly. This is the current draft. There is a working committee in addition to the Planning Commission that is providing comments. We are proposing a stage and restrooms at the back of the site. While Midland Square is beautiful, it is not very functional for gatherings. What we are trying to accomplish with this new layout is to have the site flat so we can utilize the whole square. We are trying to create a sense of arrival with those arches. In this proposal, the clock would be reduced to a freestanding clock. I suggested moving that to the corner of 100 West, not at the center. There are porch swings and we are trying to do a water feature to attract people. There will be festival lighting. We want an open concept to some degree so the area can be used for our Farmer’s Market. However, we also need design and landscaping to create a sense of enclosure. The alley would be for tables and chairs.

Councilmember Archibald said the Veterans Memorial will remain—it is at the heart of our City. Commission Member Thompson suggested adding awnings to the east to provide shade. Manager Warnke said shade and umbrellas could certainly be a part of that. I wonder if we need to add a few more trees along that edge and continue further south to help define the space from where automobiles and pedestrians are. We want to have some kind of physical barrier, and trees can accomplish that in time. They discussed the water feature and power boxes for booths and where would be the best location for food trucks.

Manager Warnke said to summarize, I think you are generally okay with what we discussed, which was removing streetlights and some of the barriers, creating a bit more open space, maybe a flush water feature, moving the clock tower to the corner, adding a few more trees, moving the food trucks to the street and some flexibility with seating, dining and shade. If we get more trees the need for umbrellas is going to disappear. We would need to plant them and give them time to grow, and the space will become better and better as it matures.

d. Discussion of rezoning parcel 05-186-0058 comprised of approximately 10.94 acres from the Bear River Meadows Overlay Zone to the Aspen Ridges Overlay Zone and the adoption of a new zoning development agreement associated with the Aspen Ridges Overlay Zone

Manager Warnke said we crafted a zoning district to fit a specific site plan with specific circumstances. Aspen Ridges to the south had private amenities, but this developer was proposing they make a contribution in addition to impact fees of $1,500 for public amenities. That land has since switched hands. Those who created Aspen Ridges will be developing it. They would like to eliminate that $1,500 contribution per unit and allow this development to become part of Aspen Ridges. Those units would then have access to the clubhouse. What they are proposing to do, as a public amenity, is to construct a trail from Rocket Road all the way to 600 North (10-foot-wide asphalt trail on City property). They will propose specific amendments to the zoning ordinance, which will come before the Planning Commission for consideration. You would hold a public hearing and then make a recommendation on proposed changes and forward that to the City Council for their consideration. It really is just replicating what has already been done on the south side and continuing that same type of development. Their amenities would not be public, but we would get the trail, which will be accessible to everybody.

e. Discussion of the current-term and near-term Planning Commission projects

This item was discussed previously, and the Commission knows where they are headed with different plans in the works.

6. Planning commission comments/reports: None.

7. Adjournment

Motion by Co-Chairman Seedall to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 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 27th day of February, 2024.

______________________________
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.