TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 22, 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
Shawn Warnke, City Manager
Cynthia Nelson, Deputy Recorder

Chairman Capener called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. The meeting was held March 22, 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, Manager Warnke, and Deputy Recorder Nelson were in attendance.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Commission Member Sorensen to approve the March 22, 2022 agenda. 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.

2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest: None.

3. Approval of minutes—January 25, 2022 & February 8, 2022

Motion by Commission Member Dennis to approve the January 25, 2022 & February 8, 2022 minutes. 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.

4. Public Hearing:

Chairman Capener called a Public Hearing to order at 5:34 p.m. to consider amending zoning in the area stated below. There were seven people in attendance.

a. To receive public input on amending the Tremonton City Zoning for parcel 05-186-0058 located at 300 West 600 South containing 10.94 acres more or less. Proposed to be rezoned from Residential District R1-20 to an underlying zone district of Residential Multiple District RM-16 and an overlay zone district Bear River Meadows Overlay Zone.

Manager Warnke provided a presentation on what is being proposed for the Bear River Meadows project. The zoning would change to RM-16 with an overlay district. Aspen Ridge is just south of this development and would be similar. These developers have worked with the adjoining property owners on an agreement for connectivity through each other’s developments on their private roads. The utilities are public. Those in Aspen Ridge can travel north and residents of Bear River Meadow could travel south to Rocket Road. A couple layouts have been discussed, but this one has more of a free-flowing movement. Administrator Bench clarified that they would have about 110 units. A couple buildings are causing issues, but the developers are working on adjusting the plan. The road system will not change, but the buildings will be tweaked a bit. Manager Warnke said if they lost four units that would drop the density down to 9.6 dwelling units per acre. We propose eliminating the parking right at the entrance because there is plenty elsewhere. We want to keep this clear and free from conflict. They will not have a robust package of onsite amenities, but rather will make contributions to augment the City’s park system. There is also the central trail, which is about three miles long and would provide connection between this subdivision to a park. They would pay impact fees, which pay for future facilities and increase capacity. They will pay their proportionate share to keep the same level of service. What is different is they would pay a $1,500 contribution for each unit. That could be used to improve existing park systems. They will also dedicate water shares to help irrigate the green space. Onsite amenities include a large playground (constructed at 75% completion), trees and park benches, as well as access to the central trail.

Manager Warnke said it is being proposed that the intersection of this development would line up with 300 West. The trail would have the ability to move people so we want it to be a free-flowing alignment, which is accomplished here. They will provide a bridge and accommodate what is needed for the 10-foot-wide trail. They would be dedicating the property that is needed in order to extend it. They would also pay a fee in lieu for the trail ($19 per linear foot). We own the property, but have to work with the canal company since they claim an easement across there. Developers would also install a four-foot-high fence along the trail corridor to separate private property. He then explained how the intersection would function. We want to make sure that those going straight or turning left will not block the right-hand turn lane onto 600 South and going to Tremont Street. They would still have access when a train is present. This is some of the landscaping that would occur within the project. The developers would take on the responsibly for landscaping and providing water shares for the frontage on 600 South. We want to break up the elevations and have landscaping between each unit. As 600 South narrows down, it is a choke point where people will slow down. They provided a letter from their engineer showing the level of service, specifically to the intersection at 300 West and 600 South, which shows a level of service 6. I still want to talk to the transportation engineer and get his verification, but he feels there are no issues. The trail will be an alternative form of transportation, which helps with all this density.

Manager Warnke said we are still working from the 2002 General Plan and will discuss the future Land Use Plan. All the different plans are available online for your review. The Planning Commission would be recommending approval. We drafted this ordinance in part based on the previous Planning Commission discussion. I understood you wanted us to move forward with drafting an ordinance and addressing some of these issues. There are a few things to finalize with the layout. This is an opportunity for you to review and feel comfortable, if you do not, you can come back and address those issues. It is half-acre zoning currently so they are asking for more density and in return are providing amenities. We do not want the density to overrun or undermine the development. We want it to function well. The Council would have the final approval.

Resident Jared Berry said I live along 600 South located across the canal. When the first proposal came out there was a road that would tee off on 600 South, which was one of my concerns. I was worried about backing out since our policies prohibit backing into an intersection, but it sounds like that plan will not be coming back. This is the new layout? Manager Warnke said the canal company prefers one access and the location has shifted to line up with the existing intersection. They will have trees along the canal and will figure out the appropriate planting plan for that frontage. Mr. Berry said 300 South is a one-way street during school and it gets crazy. There are cars parked all along the roads waiting to pick up kids. With extra traffic coming through that is another concern I have. I do not know if there are crosswalks that will be implemented.

The Commission asked where the trail comes through. Manager Warnke said on the south side of the canal then crosses with the road at 600 South. It would then cross the railroad tracks and continue north. The group discussed setbacks and things that could be done to make it look like individual buildings rather than one giant building.

Chairman Capener closed the Public Hearing at 6:19 p.m.

5. New Business:

a. Discussion and consideration of recommending amendment to the Tremonton City Zoning for parcel 05-186-0058 located at 300 West 600 South containing 10.94 acres more or less. Proposed to be rezoned from Residential District R1-20 to an underlying zone district of Residential Multiple District RM-16 and an overlay zone district Bear River Meadows Overlay Zone.

When asked about the road, Manager Warnke said I will send you our current Transportation Plan that talks about different traffic levels. They have done traffic counts there. I would like to have them look at the model and see how these units function. It shows a current count of 1,500 for the average annual daily traffic and functions at a level of service A. When asked when the connection to the south would be completed, Manager Warnke said the development to the south still has two phases left. Traffic, like water, finds the path of least resistance and people will change their behaviors to avoid congestion. We are trying to plan so we mitigate congestion as much as possible. Chairman Capener said those three projects would be a fair amount of that school eventually, which would reduce some of that traffic over time. The Commission continued to talk about possible issues with the school and the existing road connections and widths.

Manager Warnke said with this type of density the public will be more receptive if we can create quality neighborhoods that look nice. We want to look at and improve the aesthetics all around the City. Our Land Use Plan looked at a visual preference survey and people liked trees along the streets. Those things help breakup the corridor and screen it. Commission Member Fowler said spacing does part of that, too. Those trees have a lot of space and there are setbacks without being littered with cars all over the place. It is great to have a two-car garage, but if they have four cars where do they park? The developer explained that each unit would have a two-car garage, plus two parking spots in the driveway. We have additional parking for guests so there will be no need to park on the street. Manager Warnke said I do not always think driveways function as long-term parking because people need to back out. I tend to think they have two stalls in their garage and the requirement is 2.25 parking stalls per unit so you would need 26 extra parking stalls, which you have.

Commission Member Fowler asked Manager Warnke to explain how these developers would contribute to existing parks. Manager Warnke said we would have more flexibility with their $1,500 per unit contribution ($165,000 total). That could be used for future facilities or to improve our existing parks. Residents have voiced a need and desire for more trails. They will contribute by dedicating right-of-way for that trail and also dedicating the cost of the trail. That money is something we can use for any park improvements. Residents would like to rehabilitate some of our existing parks instead of creating new ones, but we need to do both. Commission Member Fowler then asked about fencing. Manager Warnke said that is not currently in our construction standards along the railroad, but a fencing type would be up for your consideration. We could continue the fencing type used in Aspen Ridge. They did 18 inches of concrete underneath to help maintain the weeds.

The Commission asked if the layout would attempt to fit 110 units or eliminate some of the buildings? Administrator Bench said this is still with the 110, the road network would be the same and they would adjust the buildings a bit to see if they could keep as many as possible, but could lose one or two. Commission Member Conrad said I would be more inclined if they lost a couple at the end. Manager Warnke said we negotiated some of the improvements based on density. I feel they have maxed it out. Having them drop the density to 9.6 feels more comfortable as far as how I see the layout and function. Chairman Capener said we have the canal and tracks to create some buffer and affordable housing that is close to the school and already fits with the neighboring stuff to the south. I think it works in this situation. Commission Member Fowler said there are a lot of limitations because this is a unique piece of property. You have the railroad, canal, and high density on one side. It takes a great deal of creativity to use this space and connect that all together. There is not going to be a perfect solution that solves everything. Manager Warnke said we are trying to get the layout formalized, along with the density and make sure it functions well. I think it works at 9.6 units per acre.

Commission Member Fowler said we are correct to recommend the zoning, but it is contingent on some of these things being put in place. I like the idea of taking out the extra units. We need to give it good thought before we change it. Chairman Capener said the way the City’s code is designed it is not financially feasible for big lots. That is what everybody wants, but the code is setup so that we have sidewalk, curb, and gutter, and big roads with all these setbacks. These things are not conducive to huge lots and that is why no one is doing it. Commission Member Fowler said there are lots of big lots going in just not in the middle of town because of the way we are setting things up. There are hundreds of homes being built on half acre lots. Chairman Capener said everywhere else, just not in Tremonton. Commission Member Fowler said I am not saying it has to be big lots, I think with everything we have been through when we go to dramatically change the zoning of a neighborhood it is pause for discussion. That is why we are here to hash it out. If we really want to change this and are prepared to answer to our neighbors as to why we increased the density of this neighborhood then we can. Chairman Capener said we have to create affordable housing and what better location can you think of? Commission Member Fowler said I cannot argue that, what else would we put here, but I also look at the number of units and apartments we are building under affordable housing versus housing and it is way slanted. I think we are going to regret that later because we are getting too many. Chairman Capener said this is where all our kids are going to be living because they cannot afford anything else. It is nice and thought out, they will love it. Their kids can walk to school and they can afford it. We are preserving the agriculture land by taking pieces like this that are really hard to farm in the middle of town and creating a situation where we can create housing that is affordable, but not your traditional four-plex style. Commission Member Fowler said I am not that impressed with the elevations. I believe we are building too many of what we call affordable housing, rentals or townhomes and we will regret it at one point. The scale is tipped. The family size is growing and people are going back to buying and building a traditional home that they can afford. The family size is increasing and people are looking for a place they can live with some space around them. In that plan it said that Brigham City has eight acres per thousand residents and we are sitting around four. In my eyes, in a community where everyone is saying give me open space and preserve that open field, we need to increase that feel and not go with the status quo or diminish it. Money cannot replace the open space. Manager Warnke said some of that money could be used to purchase additional open space. The future Land Use Plan talks about conservation subdivisions, which is something we should look at, but there are a lot of components to that. When we have more density, the idea is that there are amenities to mitigate it. The only thing that is different here is that rather than doing those amenities onsite, which comes with an added cost to their residents to maintain those, they are making a contribution to the City. The City would have more resources to improve parks and things for the general public not just a group. The tradeoff is they do not have those ongoing costs. I like the proposal because it is a win for everyone involved.

Commission Member Fowler said a year or two ago when BRAG was here, they pushed affordable housing. She said the one thing we are not building enough of are the upper end homes, which is something we lack. The acreage does not tell the true portion because you are putting 10 or 20 units an acre. Chairman Capener said affordable housing has multiple meanings, but in the apartment world it is tax subsidized. I guess this would qualify for that because it is the cheapest housing. I brought up the acreage because the vision is we have to grow no matter what, but we have different options of the way we grow. We can put 110 homes on 10 acres or take those same 110 and put small homes on 300 acres. We could put the density in specific calculated areas between tracks and canals, and close proximities to places. Commission Member Fowler said I agree, but that is part of my frustration, we are putting apartments and townhouses everywhere. Chairman Capener said years ago most anyone could afford a normal home. Right now, 90% are priced out of all the homes. We have to build this going forward because it is the only thing the residents in our area, with our incomes, can afford. If we do not do multi-family, our kids will not have a place to live. Luckily, the City thought about this six to seven years ago and we have projects in the works, otherwise it would be even more of an emergency. Commission Member Fowler said I know several subdivisions that are selling and building 100% in that price bracket on half acre and third acre lots. They are not having any trouble selling. The demographics in Tremonton that supports we are overbuilding this type is that we are attracting a younger and younger group of people. That says we are not underbuilding we are over building because we are getting where we have just all the new kids starting out. We are not attracting the middle group. They will eventually want to move out of these little homes and into something bigger and we are not building those.

Manager Warnke said the City is obligated to provide affordable housing and that is an evolving situation and a state requirement that will be looked at closely. I agree we need to have housing diversity in the City. This Land Use Plan is the opportunity to provide some of those options. A Land Use Plan is advisory. It is there to advise you, the City Council, and planning staff on what the land uses are, but those can change and developments can be approved that are not consistent with that zoning. This is what we are talking about, the opportunity to scrutinize the plan. Commission Member Fowler said you have to have something that is pulling that middle group in or you will wake up in a few years and have a City full of the lowest income people in the lowest type of housing. We are focused too much on affordable housing. In the past we have built too much and now we have perhaps thousands of units in progress that have been approved waiting for permit or build out versus a few hundred homes. We are vastly outbuilding this type of housing. I feel like we should be in the business of some debate here and getting these ideas and things out and learning from each other. Are there any other objections or things you think should be addressed? In spite of my feelings on higher density housing I have looked at what you can put in here and this is about as good as it can get. I am grateful for the conversation we had today.

Motion by Commission Member Sorensen to approve and recommend the following to the City Council. They would approve changing the zoning from R1-20 to RM-16 with a maximum of 9.61 units per acre. They would also like the elevations improved and to ensure the fencing is consistent with the subdivision to the south. Motion seconded by Commission Member Fowler. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Conrad – aye, Commission Member Dennis – nay, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Sorensen – aye. Motion approved by a 4-1 vote.

b. Discussion and review of amendments to Land Use Codes

Motion by Commission Member Conrad to table item 5. b. until the next meeting. 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.

c. Discussion of sections 1 & 2 of Draft Integrated Land Use Plan – Sam Taylor, Landmark Design (joining electronically)

Chairman Capener said is it possible to update the numbers in the plan with what has really happened? It seems like all the numbers in here are a year or two old. We need to add our recent projects so it is not old data. Manager Warnke said we will take a look. The market can change between a concept plan versus actual growth. Chairman Capener said it would be great to bullet point what building permits have been pulled and where that gets us today and where is that going to be so we get the plan right. That would let us know where we need to focus our vision of land use availability. We need to have it updated so we are not planning on yesterday’s data, otherwise the future is going to be drastically different. Commission Member Dennis said we have approved a lot within the past two years. Chairman Capener said it would be great to know what we have already coming or under construction. This is all the stuff that is approved and planned, but not yet built. Manager Warnke said things change so quickly so a good starting point would be to show what is zoned and what is entitled. It is hard to show things in progress because they move so quickly and become outdated. It is a snapshot in time. Commission Member Fowler said I agree mostly, but we need to know how many are hanging out there. I do not know how we properly plan without seeing that. Chairman Capener said we need to know what is going to be developed and where we need to go from there. Commission Member Dennis said I agree because if our goal is 60 acres of multi-family and we are already at 59, but this says 52 then we will be over that in the end. Chairman Capener said it would be great to see where we are, how many we have approved, and what we feel like the future requirement would be for the City. That way we can make sure the zones are going to match future requirements. Manager Warnke said trends and population projections help us look at what the historical past has been and we will adjust this plan as we go forward. Chairman Capener said the plan is drastically different if it is 5% instead of 2% over a 30-year run. It would be great to know that we have added x number of units this year and are going to add x number of units next year, and based on that we can see, even during our growth period, we are going to be at x. The whole plan would shift if we are going to have 50,000 residents in the next five years versus 9,000. Manager Warnke said I am not sure how it would change. We are saying what the land use is going to be and the struggle is how do we keep up with the facilities. I do not think that changes the land use. It changes the capital facilities plan and how quick we go through these facilities needed to service the development. We should look at this land use as how we generally want the City to be built out.

The Commission agreed to continue this conversation in their next meeting.

6. Adjournment

Motion by Commission Member Sorensen to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 7:53 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 10th day of May, 2022.

______________________________
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.