TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 13, 2022

Members Present:
Micah Capener, Chairman
Jordan Conrad, Commission Member
Penni Dennis, Commission Member
Paul Fowler, Commission Member
Layne Sorensen, Commission Member
Bret Rohde, City Councilmember
Steve Bench, Zoning Administrator
Cynthia Nelson, Deputy Recorder

Chairman Capener called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. The meeting was held December 13, 2022 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Capener, Commission Members Conrad, Dennis, Fowler, Sorensen, City Councilmember Rohde, Zoning Administrator Bench, and Deputy Recorder Nelson were in attendance.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Commission Member Sorensen to approve the December 13, 2022 agenda. Motion seconded by Commission Members Fowler and Conrad. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Conrad – aye, Commission Member Dennis – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Sorensen – aye. Motion approved.

2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest:

Chairman Capener and Commission Member Fowler both have businesses downtown in the CD zone in relation to the building height issue.

3. Approval of minutes – September 27, 2022 & October 11, 2022

Motion by Commission Member Conrad to approve the minutes stated above. Motion seconded by Commission Member Fowler. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Conrad – aye, Commission Member Dennis – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Sorensen – aye. Motion approved.

4. Public Hearing:

Chairman Capener called a Public Hearing to order at 5:34 p.m. to receive public input on the item below. There were two people in attendance.

a. To receive public input on proposed amendments to the General Public Works Construction Standards and Specifications-Standard Drawings Appendix “A” that include re-numbering and indexing of drawings, and adding or amending the following sheets, SS3, SS4, SS5 Typical Sewer Lift Station; G5 Ornamental Fence Detail; G8 Trail Detail

Resident Jeffrey Seedall, who is a civil engineer, said he moved to Tremonton a year ago and has an interest in joining the Planning Commission in the future. He is in attendance to get familiar with what is happening in Tremonton.

Chairman Capener closed the Public Hearing at 5:37 p.m.

5. New Business:

a. Discussion and consideration of proposed amendments to the General Public Works Construction Standards and Specifications-Standard Drawings Appendix “A” that include re-numbering and indexing of drawings, and adding or amending the following sheets, SS3, SS4, SS5 Typical Sewer Lift Station; G5 Ornamental Fence Detail; G8 Trail Detail.

Administrator Bench said this is a fairly typical standard for what our Public Works would want if one was installed. We do not currently have a detail for a pump lift station, this is new. The City does not have any pump lift stations yet. These will be approved on a case-by-case basis. Things will change overtime and it needs to be fluid and have some flex.

Motion by Commission Member Sorensen to send this back to the City Council for approval. Motion seconded by Commission Member Conrad. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Conrad – aye, Commission Member Dennis – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Sorensen – aye. Motion approved.

b. Discussion and consideration of approving 2023 annual meeting schedule

Motion by Commission Member Sorensen to approve the 2023 annual meeting schedule. Motion seconded by Commission Member Fowler. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Conrad – aye, Commission Member Dennis – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Sorensen – aye. Motion approved.

c. Discussion of final review of Integrated Land Use Plan – Sam Taylor, Landmark Design (joining electronically)

Mr. Taylor said I sent a copy to City Manager Shawn Warnke on Friday of the final. We will get the Commission a copy, too. This was discussed this summer and then tabled until we could get more information. This summarizes what changes have been made chapter by chapter, which is based on your comments. In Chapter 1 we updated the demographics to 2021 data for a clearer image of where things are. The median age of the community has changed—it is getting older. People are aging and there has been an influx of people moving in. Otherwise, the numbers are pretty much the same. In Chapter 2 we included recent developments, but that is a moving target. The future land use maps were also updated. We increased the residential density from a low to a medium density for the area between the Iowa String interchange and Main Street. There was also discussion of adjusting the description of a medium/high single-family residential area to have some flexibility for increasing densities if needed. Lastly, in Chapter 2 we removed the new shed from BR Mountain.

Mr. Taylor said the biggest part of this discussion is do we have enough set aside for multi-family or do we have too much? It helps to review the Moderate Income Housing Plan because that has additional data from the assessor. These numbers are not 100% precise, but give us an idea. It was identified there are 606 existing multi-family units. Looking ahead five years there is a shortage of about 1,000 moderate income housing units. The land use map estimates 91 acres for multi-family existing (with some being undeveloped). The future land use map calls for an additional 159 acres of multi-family in a 10-to-20-year period. Density would be 12 to 20 units per acre. The 68 additional acres should be sufficient. We do have the description to help with density in the future and there could be a mix of housing types in a development. Not much has changed to the future Land Use Plan. The biggest is the triangle area. In Chapter 3 we increased the future level of service for parks and trails from 4.5 to 5.5. At this point we are ready to send it on to the City Council to be adopted. Chairman Capener asked that they have the final revised copy to review one last time before approval.

Mr. Taylor then gave a five-year overview of City accomplishments (2018-2022) related to the Land Use Plan. For Transportation Projects the City had $1 million in grant funds. An additional four acres of land was preserved for future transportation corridors. The Central Trail is marching along with nearly $300,000 in developer contributions, as well as some acreage, fencing, asphalt and trail construction. There is also water shares and zoning agreements with 26 shares being deeded for existing and future development. Cash contribution from developers for parks in addition to impact fees was $632,500. Open space acquired within the last five years is 28.369 acres (for trails, parks, and storm drain basins). Those three parks will bump that level of service up and are a huge addition to the City parks system. Commission Member Fowler said I like it. We have had a lot of debate about open space, parks, and all these things and it is nice to see they have moved in a positive direction. The Commission thanked him Mr. Taylor his time.

Motion by Commission Member Fowler to table this item until they have had a chance to review the plan. Motion seconded by Commission Member Conrad. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Conrad – aye, Commission Member Dennis – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Sorensen – aye. Motion approved.

d. Continuation of tabled item: proposed amendments to the Zoning Code Chapter 1.08 Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts that the maximum height of all residential buildings be three (3) stories or thirty-six feet

Chairman Capener said I have talked to Manager Warnke in more depth and we are fine with it just not in some of the downtown areas. My thought is, if we are going to disallow it in one area, we allow it in another so it is somewhere. Sometimes we pull stuff out without any requirement and then we never get it put back in and then it is a political hot potato. Manager Warnke’s goal is to make downtown walkable, but I think as part of that we need to increase the density in the downtown area. That helps our visual appearance and increases the business traffic without increasing vehicle traffic. Commission Member Fowler said we liked the idea of limiting the height in the downtown area. The overwhelming input we have from people is trying to keep open space and the rural feel. We have areas we can go bigger on the outside. Everyone liked it with one exception being the height on the flagpole. We did not like the idea of limiting that. Chairman Capener said why would we want to put a seven-story building on the outskirts of town, that is not walkable. We want density in the downtown area where we have the utilities and roads to accommodate it. Commission Member Fowler said our downtown was built with a very small Main Street so it is hard to accommodate extra people and cars. The overwhelming response is to keep the area looking like a small town. Keeping the old look and building height down is a good thing. People like that. We are talking about keeping the height in line with what we have. Commission Member Dennis said parking has always been a hot topic on Main Street so why are we trying to add to that? Chairman Capener said unless we fix it, it is only going to get worse. It is not better unless we put new things with parking garages and cool stuff like all the cities around us are doing. Commission Member Fowler said we do not want to be like every city. Let us keep downtown nice. There are other places to put it. In keeping with what people have asked us to do, I have to support the maximum height of three stories and 36 feet. Chairman Capener said we are doing what is best for the City. What do we want the City to look like and what will encourage sales tax and commercial? Commission Member Fowler said a high-rise is the wrong vision for Tremonton. We have spent all this time and money on surveys asking people what is the vision for this town. You are right that our job is to make the best decision for the City, but part of our job includes listening to the people and creating a vision on what people would like to have here. It does not mean it dictates every decision. This is a simple one, it is keeping the downtown and the character similar to what it has. It does not prevent people from putting things in or new development, but it does go into keeping that vision and the historic district. Commission Member Conrad said we are talking about the Commercial District, which goes further than that. It is most of Main Street. It needs to be walkable to downtown. Commission Member Dennis said things are changing and developers are trying to find ways to develop more for less. Chairman Capener said it is critical to have density near the downtown area; that is what will drive people there. It would be fantastic to add some salt and pepper to downtown that is not going to destroy the historic nature. Commission Member Sorensen said there are mostly residential and businesses on Main Street. I would suggest moving it further to the west. That area would become walkable to the resources there.

Motion by Commission Member Fowler to table this discussion until another meeting when they have more details. Motion seconded by Commission Member Sorensen. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Conrad – aye, Commission Member Dennis – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Sorensen – aye. Motion approved.

6. Planning commission comments/reports: None.

7. Adjournment

Motion by Commission Member Sorensen to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 7:03 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 31st day of January, 2023.

______________________________
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.