TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 28, 2023

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

Chairman Capener called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. The meeting was held March 28, 2023 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Capener, Commission Members Conrad (joined via Zoom), Dennis, Seedall, and Van Tassell, City Councilmember Archibald, and Deputy Recorder Nelson were in attendance. City Manager Warnke was excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Commission Member Dennis to approve the March 28, 2023 agenda, with the amendment to add a spot for public comment before the hearing. Motion seconded by Commission Member Seedall. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Conrad – aye, Commission Member Dennis – aye, Commission Member Seedall – aye, Commission Member Van Tassell – aye. Motion approved.

2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest:

Chairman Capener said I own the property proposed for a rezone in the public hearing. I will abstain from that vote.

3. Introduction of Raulon Van Tassell & thanking Paul Fowler for his service

Councilmember Archibald said as I considered a replacement for the Planning Commission I thought about our mission and vision, which she read through. It is very positive and when I think about that I thought about Raulon because he has that personality. She then read through a bio on him. It is great to have him and I appreciate him so much for accepting this assignment. I think he will add great dimension to the Planning Commission. I would like to thank former Commission Member Paul Fowler for his service. We will also miss former Building and Zoning Administrator Steve Bench as he is retired.

4.

a. Approval of minutes—January 31, 2023

Motion by Commission Member Conrad to approve the January 31, 2023 minutes. Motion seconded by Commission Member Dennis. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Conrad – aye, Commission Member Dennis – aye, Commission Member Seedall – aye, Commission Member Van Tassell – aye. Motion approved.

b. Public Comment:

Developer Jay Stocking said I was made aware of your design standards that are coming up and before a vote is taken, they need to be looked at again. I have developed all over Utah, Nevada, Wyoming, and Idaho, and have seen a lot of projects. I can see this really restricting future projects. We all want to have good looking projects that make Tremonton proud. Something that stuck out was that a front door shall be visible from the public street or facing the public street. That is going to limit layouts and the use of the land. You are going to have a lot of wasted space. If the key is to have affordable housing so people can live here and have nice communities, then I would say that should be taken off. There were also contradictory things. An example is the flat roof and also a 14-inch eve overhang. A lot of the modern style buildings do not have overhangs. I do not think that one has any place here. Then to spell it out as a 14-inch when most of the homes are built at 12—that is something that needs to be taken out. The fascia thickness calls out an eight-inch, but most of the homes in town have four or six. I think more discussion needs to go into this and it would be good to hold a workshop with some developers to discuss the pros and cons of what you are trying to accomplish. You do not want to do a blanket that has to change in six months. We all want the same thing—communities that look good, that last, and bring affordability. This accomplishes some of that, but it also restricts a lot. There are also issues with the wording. It says commercial quality doors, windows, and hardware, but you are talking about residential buildings not commercial. Also, the wording including pillars, gable roofs, and shed roofs, so you have to put all those things in? I think before you vote on this, let us do a workshop. I would be happy to attend, as would other developers and builders.

5. Public Hearing:

Chairman Capener called a Public Hearing to order at 5:44 p.m. to receive input on the rezone. There were six people in attendance.

a. To receive public input on proposed rezoning of property located to the rear of 771 East Main Street, Parcel 05-042-0054, the rezone would change the parcel from residential single family R1-10 to Mixed Use (MU) zone

Chairman Capener said I wish Manager Warnke was here to define it, but I can give a brief history since it is my property. We want to create overflow parking for the commercial building to the east. In visiting with Manager Warnke he said that is not technically allowed in the residential zone and has to be rezoned. Mixed-Use abuts it. I have visited with the neighbors and have come to an arrangement as long as it is done in the right way. I do not think it is a big deal to have parking in residential with commercial round it.

Shawn Jensen said I boarder the property. My main concerns are your ingresses in and out. The one on the north, is that of legal width? Chairman Capener said technically the only thing it can be used for off of the 12-foot easement is a single-family home. That is why Doctor Todd Miller is going to have his access through the north side of the commercial building and have a fire egress through the 12-foot easement on the west side. It is almost a half-acre lot. The parking for the size of the building is a bit inadequate depending on the use. Rather than bombarding the street with excess parking we would do parking there. The plan would be to add 10 stalls and a home could be built, but we have no intention of doing that. Mr. Jensen said will that be pumped out so I do not have all your drainage in my backyard as far as snow melt? Where will the snow get pushed? Chairman Capener said all of that will come as part of the design. The vision is to build it out as a parking lot. We will have to submit a drainage design that meets the code. This is just the rezone stage. Mr. Jensen said we all put a lot of money into a fence and that adds value to our property. We want that taken into consideration for how you butt up against it. Mr. Capener said the buyer will do a good job of caring for it. Fire with weeds is a bigger risk. We can introduce you once we sell it, he wants it to be nice.

Syd Fuhriman said we live next door, as far as the parking lot goes is it going to be paved? Chairman Capener said it will be whatever the City requires in the code. We have not got to that design stage yet, we wanted to make sure it was capable first. There will be two ways to get into it. There is usually a mow strip or something to border fences. Not sure what the design is, but that will all have to be addressed. Mr. Fuhriman said other than that I am good with the parking lot. As long as it is completely paved. Chairman Capener said once he has a design it would be good to meet with all of you and make sure the concerns are addressed. This would be a good connection for the area.

Teresa Sandall said I am confused about the Mixed-Use zone. I would rather it just say parking. I looked that up and it is a junk code. You can put just about anything in that. I have spoken to Doctor Miller and he does not intend on doing anything but a parking lot. He is very concerned about making sure he is a good neighbor. He does not have intentions of adding a home, he just needs the parking. I do not want anyone to burn by not being able to escape so I told him he could go through that easement on my yard, but the Mixed-Use does scare me. It opens it up to more things. Is there a way to just say a parking lot? Chairman Capener said Manager Warnke had a similar concern. I am fine with whatever I just did not want to call it commercial when nothing like that is there. I thought Mixed-Use was the only thing that would fit with what boarders it and the access limits it on what it can be.

Chairman Holmgren closed the Public Hearing at 6:02 p.m.

6. New Business:

a. Discussion and consideration of proposed rezoning of property located to the rear of 771 East Main Street, Parcel 05-042-0054, the rezone would change the parcel from residential single family R1-10 to Mixed Use (MU) zone—Sam Taylor and Mark Vlasic with Landmark Design

Chairman Capener said I am fine if we have the restriction that it can be parking and a single-family home, like it’s current use is, and any other use beyond that is not allowed. Mark Vlasic said I do not know a lot about this project, but I have talked to Manager Warnke. I think it is worth waiting for the record on what he recommends. I checked your zoning ordinance and all parking lots are required to be paved with concrete or asphalt and graded with storm drain. To paraphrase Manager Warnke’s email he does not think the Mixed-Use zone was appropriate for the same reasons that were said in the public comment. That allows too much latitude in what might go in. He feels there could be an application for a lot adjustment. The medical office building lot would basically be extended to the south into this zone being designated. Before any decisions are made the applicant could provide a quick sketch of what they have planned. It would need to meet all the parking standards and have landscaping and storm drain. If a portion remains residential, the newly configured lots would need to meet the minimum lot size for the zoning district. He hoped the Commission would recommend it stay an R1-10 zone. He recommends holding a public hearing for those comments and to table the rezoning. He would request the applicant provide a concept site plan that shows the configuration and what would be done with the portion of the property not used for parking. Once the Planning Commission and City staff review the site plan it would better determine what the feasible rezone proposal is. A rezone is a legislative decision, and it is not uncommon for the City to request a concept site plan with that. Chairman Capener said Doctor Miller does not want to buy it if it cannot be done. We should not waste thousands of dollars in design if the rezone is not sufficient. The code is the code whether it is done now or after the rezone. Is there a reason why we have to submit it all now? Mr. Vlasic said he wants to see how much of the lot would be left over and if it would make sense to do it this way—a lot line adjustment and keep the remaining R1-10, or allow the entire lot to be rezoned. This would give the Planning Commission and staff a better idea of what will be on the site.

Commission Member Seedall said public facilities are allowed under R1-10, but we do not have a definition for that, but a parking lot would fit under the idea. It is connected and would integrate two different uses between the storage units and the doctor’s office. In my eyes, if it connects the two portions and creates a use for a lot that does not have much use, it would fit. The 10 stalls and landscaping would create a buffer. It seems like a clean use for a lot that is not accessible. Mr. Vlasic said usually that is for public works—something that is of public benefit. This parking lot would be commercial and privately owned.

Councilmember Archibald said we should table this tonight because there are a lot of questions about the concept plan. This would put everyone at rest. Not that we have to spend thousands of dollars, but a concept plan helps. We need something that shows what you are planning. Commission Member Seedall said the other zone we could look at is Commercial Neighborhood. It is not as open as Mixed-Use and you have to get a condition use permits. Those that are permitted are low traffic. Chairman Capener said I do not think we care what the zone is when the vision is just parking. Commission Member Seedall said it is to limit uses in the future and protect the neighborhood. We need to put a cap on it. Commission Member Van Tassell said it is being able to retain the intent of the changes we are trying to make. The policy and ordinance should outlive all of us. The thought of really drilling down on the definition and making sure it meets the purposes now and in the future in case they change. We need to make sure it stays true to that intent. Chairman Capener said I will have him get the concept together and figure out the best solution. Commission Member Van Tassell said if it is just parking, why not go with Mixed-Use if that definition meets the requirement for what he is trying to do and pleases the neighbors? Commission Member Conrad said we should table it and get the concept plan. The parking lot is a good use for it.

Motion by Commission Member Dennis to table this item until they have a concept plan. Motion seconded by Commission Member Seedall. Vote: Chairman Capener – abstained, Commission Member Conrad – aye, Commission Member Dennis – aye, Commission Member Seedall – aye, Commission Member Van Tassell – aye. Motion approved.

b. Discussion of proposed amendments to Title I Zoning Code, Chapter 1.19 Supplementary Regulations Section 1.19.060 Residential Architectural Standards—Mark Vlasic with Landmark Design

Mr. Vlasic said I appreciate the comments prior. We can do a workshop to get this fine-tuned. We want to meet the needs of the City and make sure the projects are affordable and create a higher standard. The reason this came up was because there was concern that a lot of the projects were not meeting expectations. The intent was to try to up the game, but by no means do we want to increase the cost to the point it becomes unattainable. Chairman Capener said if they do not cost a lot then we should do anything that will make it look better. I think some of these will be dramatic and have an impact on our water conservation goals. We are making them have this big lot that faces the street so I think we need to address and make sure it is thought through. In the workshop we could find the balance between demanding esthetically pleasing landscape, perfect projects, and affordability. Meeting most of these will be easier in a Matheson style project. They are not in a budget-oriented arena, many of the four-plexes that do not have as many amenities are going to have a hard time meeting these standards. It will affect our affordable units more than it will affect the higher-end units. I also wondering about having bigger projects have a higher standard since they are capable of doing so.

Motion by Commission Member Dennis to hold a workshop on the April 25 meeting with builders. Motion seconded by Commission Member Van Tassell. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Conrad – aye, Commission Member Dennis – aye, Commission Member Seedall – aye, Commission Member Van Tassell – aye. Motion approved.

7. Planning commission comments/reports

Commission Member Van Tassell mentioned a development project in St. George with about 200 units that are affordable. The developers are doing different jobs and it could be something to look into. If we are talking about affordability, we have to look at different things. Councilmember Archibald said I appreciate the discussion tonight and the consideration of our citizens, you have been spot on.

8. Adjournment

Motion by Commission Member Dennis to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 6:45 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 9th day of May, 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.