TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 10, 2022

Members Present:
Micah Capener, Chairman
Jordan Conrad, Commission Member
Penni Dennis, Commission Member—excused
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 5:32 p.m. The meeting was held May 10, 2022 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Capener, Commission Members Conrad, Fowler, Sorensen, City Councilmember Rohde (left at 6:58), Zoning Administrator Bench, Manager Warnke, and Deputy Recorder Nelson were in attendance. Commission Member Dennis was excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Commission Member Fowler to approve the May 10, 2022 agenda with the suggestion of moving items 4. c and 4. b up before talking about item 4. a. Motion seconded by Commission Member Sorensen. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Conrad – aye, Commission Member Dennis – absent, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Sorensen – aye. Motion approved.

2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest: None.

3. Approval of minutes—March 22, 2022

Motion by Commission Member Fowler to approve the March 22, 2022 minutes, with a correction on page 2, changing it from Chairman Bench to Administrator Bench. Motion seconded by Commission Member Conrad. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Conrad – aye, Commission Member Dennis – absent, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Sorensen – aye. Motion approved.

The following items were discussed out of order.

4. New Business:

a. Discussion of sections 2 and 3 of Draft Integrated Land Use Plan – Sam Taylor, Landmark Design (joining electronically)

Commission Member Sorensen said a lot of this is in the County, but we are saying what zoning we want when we have no say until it is annexed. Commission Member Fowler said when it is going to be developed other entities are made aware of it. The County still has control, but they can see our future plan. Commission Member Sorensen said right, but if it is in the County, they do not need to come to the City to get it approved. Manager Warnke said State code requires the County to notify cities of a subdivision or development that is within their declared annexation area. We would have an opportunity to provide comments at that point. I have reached out to the County Commission because our Land Use Plan correlates with our Transportation Plan. We are working with them on Commerce Way, which is the bypass road. We are coordinating that joint application to get corridor preservation funds and acquire that right-of-way.

Commission Member Conrad asked about the different zonings and their explanation. In the single-family residential medium to high density. It says six to eight units per acre then in the medium to low density it uses square footage, while in the single-family low density it goes to one third to half an acre. Should we make it all the same? Manager Warnke said this is a land use plan not a zoning ordinance so sometimes it is meant to be more general so there is flexibility in the interpretation and application of it. That is ultimately done through the code. Having dwelling units per acre does not define lot size and allows for different product types, which is advantageous to meet different stages of life. It is more appropriate to use square footage for lot size and that becomes a defining characteristic. Higher density can see all sorts of housing types, but be capped by the number of dwelling units per acre.

Manager Warnke said there has been some discussion about adding density south of Main Street and the quadrant between I-15 and Iowa String. We would make sure the transportation corridors are sufficient and have negotiated land for a collector road next to Stotz Equipment. That would be 66 feet and would flare out at the intersection to provide greater turning movements. There is not a great collector road going east to west on 600 South—that dies into private lanes. I would love to acquire a collector road there, but we would have to negotiate with several different property owners so it does become more cumbersome.

Manager Warnke said we want to make sure we get good, usable open space. Chairman Capener said I do not see how it works in the real world. Commission Member Fowler said there were some concepts like a conservation development where the density is shoved in a corner with a large open space, which sounds cool, but how would we implement that? In listening to comments from citizens, we all want to see the alfalfa field in the middle of downtown, but we also realize that is not a reality. How do we mitigate that and get that feel? Chairman Capener said Lyle Holmgren did this exact thing when he developed those homes on top and then created the conservation easement down by the river bottoms with the walking trail. Manager Warnke said we are trying to identify lands we want to conserve. State code allows for a transfer of density, which is a good tool. A city can identify what open spaces are important to the community and define that character in order to have them preserved. Areas like the river bottoms and Salt Creek, and maybe there is even a significant agricultural piece. Barns and those types of areas could also be important landmarks. After identifying what we want to preserve, the idea is that the density that would have been assigned to that area can be transferred to another property. You essentially sell the development rights. For a conservation subdivision to work you need large tracks of land—the larger the better so you can master plan where the density goes and where the open space is. Through the budgeting process we asked to budget funds that would allow Landmark to continue to update our zoning ordinance. They have put together a punch list of things that need to be addressed for our zoning ordinance in order to enact these policies. One of those amendments would be a conservation subdivision. We need to be careful that the end results meet our objectives. Some communities have missed the mark. They have low quality open space or the open space is small and almost becomes a nuisance strip. The end goal is to provide public access and benefit to some of these great defining features.

In further discussing Chapter 3 Parks and Open Space, Manager Warnke said these things cost money and the public needs to be willing to invest in open space. The easiest thing to do is to negotiate through the development process. It takes a conservative effort. We have to identify that this is an important amenity for the community and we have to be willing to invest in it. There are taxes that citizens can vote on depending how willing they are to have open scape be a part of Tremonton and the legacy of the defining characteristic. Commission Member Fowler said the process is educational for the public. Do we want this enough to have an increased tax? Councilmember Rohde said I like the idea of standardizing some of these agreements because with River’s Edge the cons were apparent, to the public it makes it looks like the City Council is taking money under the table. If we had standardized agreements that would mitigate that. Manager Warnke said the agreement we negotiated with Rivers Edge really helped the City. They were willing to do it because of density, really no other reason would they obligate themselves to do everything they did. It is easier to do things with open space and park amenities, but what we do not always know are the infrastructure improvements. We do reimburse developers for the extra capacity, but without that agreement the City would have to bond. The developers are using their money at their own risk. We have done some good agreements. I would like to revisit our annexation plan and identify what improvements we need for land to be annexed and to provide services to them. When we know that and have engineering estimates it sort of becomes the spring board for negotiation. We have more leverage when they are annexing.

Trail corridors is another one we should conserve and we have done that to some degree said Manager Warnke. It is beneficial to have a trail that is more transportation oriented, through the urban part of the City. Those will have a lot of value as the City continues to develop. We are developing this one along 1000 North in sections, which shifts from the north to the south side of the road. Councilmember Rohde said the hospital would partner with you if it was by their place. Chairman Capener said we could present a park plan to the public and say this is what we want to do to give a shot in the arm from a park perspective. Then we could see if people would be fine paying more taxes for it. That could help us increase the level of service and allow us to exact more from new residents. If people understood that if we all join together and put in a really good plan not only can we get the parks, but as more people move in, we will have more money to make better parks. This would solve some of the open space issues we have. Manager Warnke said we would need to increase our level of service because impact fees only perpetuate the same level of service into the future. To do something like that would take an infusion of money. Chairman Capener said as you bring in parks not only do we increase our want to live here, but we also have the availability to bring in tournaments. We need those types of facilities. Our businesses would all be benefited. We would have more demand because of the increased park service. Councilmembers Rohde said we have worked on branding and Tremonton is the connection to everywhere else. That would fit right in with it. This is a connection hub. Chairman Capener said we need a really cool plan to sell that would meet the City’s deficiencies with a price tag so we can figure out how to fund it.

Manager Warnke said trails are really important and have different hierarchy that add value. With all the development we have we are starting to see more impact fees available. When doing 50 to 100 building lots a year you do not really accumulate the amount of money needed to do a project. We have also been successfully getting grants from the State. We will spend some impact fees for land acquisition, but as we continue to develop that will really give us money to do it. I wish there was a better west/east trail system. When corridors and trails are uninterrupted with conflict like curb cuts or street crossings, they become the ideal trail scenario. We have done that with the central trail ensuring a larger segment where there are no other vehicle conflicts. There are lots of ways to expand and the more access points you have the more value there is. We have such a great canal system and in time that could be developed over or enclosed and became a great trail corridor. That will happen as water becomes more of a precious resource. Chairman Capener suggested they look into what it would cost to get those trails finalized, as well as donation options.

The Commission also talked about the importance of view corridors. The BR Mountain vantage point has not been entitled to development, but we did have someone who would want to do a large master plan there. Most of the hillside has been approved for development in some form. Our hills are a defining characteristic. A mountain bike park has been discussed, which tends to be a good spot on that mountain side. The Commission agreed to continue this discussion at the next meeting.

b. Discussion and consideration of preliminary review for subdivision at 800 N
2300 W – Mike Alvord, Mac Builders

When asked about the utility easements, Mr. Alvord said we will move the lines out to the street. These are zoned R1-8 currently. Manager Warnke said the lots have been reconfigured. One of the comments I have is to show the building envelope so we can see the setback and buildable area. This is a preliminary plat for your review and approval of the configurations. The zoning was rezoned a year or so ago.

Motion by Commission Member Conrad to submit it for approval to the DRC as updated. Motion seconded by Commission Member Fowler. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Conrad – aye, Commission Member Dennis – absent, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Sorensen – aye. Motion approved.

c. Discussion and consideration of preliminary review for two lot subdivision at
2189 W 1000 N – Lynn Martineau

The Commission asked about the boundaries. Mr. Martineau said lot 1 is the current existing home with the fence. That is where the property line is drawn. Lot 2 will include the out buildings—the two garages and a barn, as well as the access on the west. That is wide enough for fire access if needed. We want to keep our buildings with lot 2 and build a smaller home on the east side of the existing home. There is an access off 1000 North on the west for the farm buildings. Curb and gutter are already there. Manager Warnke said we exact frontage improvements with subdivisions, but where there is an existing lot, we could not exact those since there is no new impact for lot 1. The impact would just be for lot 2 and we would exact those improvements. For a sidewalk we would take a fee in lieu since it can be hard to incrementally build out sections. I plan to talk to Public Works Director Paul Fulgham about the long-term plan for this area. We currently have an eight-foot sidewalk on the north side of that road, but not on the southside where these lots are located. It would be nice to have a four-foot sidewalk on the south side. During DRC I will work that out with him. Commission Member Fowler said they need clarification on if they are going to pay that fee or not. I would feel better passing it if that consideration is a part of it. Manager Warnke said we will have a development agreement to finalize the approval.

Motion by Commission Member Fowler that we send it back to the DRC with the consideration that the assessment for the sidewalk fee in lieu will be part of that approval and the standard agreements as far as the water and other things the DRC needs to make. Motion seconded by Commission Member Conrad. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Conrad – aye, Commission Member Dennis – absent, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Sorensen – aye. Motion approved.

5. Adjournment

Motion by Commission Member Sorensen to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 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 28th day of June, 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.