TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 2023

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

Chairman Capener called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. The meeting was held June 13, 2023 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Capener, Commission Members Dennis and Van Tassell, City Councilmember Archibald, City Manager Warnke, and Deputy Recorder Nelson were in attendance. Commission Members Conrad and Seedall were excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Commission Member Dennis to approve the June 13, 2023 agenda. Motion seconded by Commission Member Van Tassell. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Conrad – absent, Commission Member Dennis – aye, Commission Member Seedall – absent, Commission Member Van Tassell – aye. Motion approved.

2. Declaration of Conflict of Interest: None.

3. Approval of minutes—No minutes to approve at this time.

Manager Warnke said they are proposing attached housing for up to 10 dwelling units per acre. This is similar to projects you have reviewed in the past (Aspen Ridges, Bear River Meadows). The current zoning is R1-10. The staff’s recommendation is to keep that current zoning. We have talked about the future Land Use Plan and based on that we feel the current land use is the appropriate zone. Here is the property owner’s application and they can speak to the issue. Our future Land Use Plan is not adopted formally, but we have been working on it and using it to guide zoning decisions. There are more dense projects to come. The Land Use Plan envisions denser developments along the rail corridor. That density of 12 dwelling units per acre will then step down to six to eight dwelling units per acre. Those will be the maximum densities allowed and they will need to meet our standards in the code. Another development adjacent to this project is currently the CD zone with attached housing. I am concerned about the transportation network. Collector roads are being planned through here connecting 1000 North and 600 North. There is only one good access to Main Street from here, which is 400 West, and I am concerned about bogging that down. We have traffic models to help guide our best estimates on how the road networks will distribute traffic. We need to be careful with 400 West and how that plays out. We are trying to deemphasize that and push traffic to 600 West, which has not been created yet. A lot of projects we have seen in the recent past have been attached housing. River’s Edge is the only one that has bigger lots. We should reserve this land for the current zoning and what the future Land Use Plan recommends (single-family, medium to low density, 10,000 square foot lots). They have a site plan showing the single-family homes and are working on accesses. They will need to work with surrounding developers to gain another access once they do more than 30 lots. The Planning Commission needs to think about what is best for the community and this neighborhood. We like different housing products and densities, but do not like to see one area of the City disproportionately receive more housing types than another. A great neighborhood has diversity. I would reaffirm the current zoning to keep it consistent with our future Land Use Plan.

Chairman Capener called a Public Hearing to order at 5:49 p.m. to receive public input on a proposed rezone. There were seven people in attendance.

4. Public Hearing:

a. To receive public input on proposed rezoning of property located in the vicinity of 600 West and 600 North. The property owner is proposing that 10.88 acres of the 17.33 acres that comprise parcel 05-043-0049 be rezoned from the R1-10 District, which allows single-family detached housing on 10,000 square foot lots, to Residential Multiple District, RM-16, with an overlay which reduces the density from 16 units per acre to 10 dwelling units an acre for the development of townhomes.

Developer Jayson Adam said the 10-foot strip to the west almost derailed this. We planned on doing 92 lots until we saw everyone around us getting the density they wanted. We decided to peel a piece off the 39 acres for higher density. We are proposing to change the zoning for 14 acers on the bottom half. That road will be a collector road, but I cannot do that as an off-site improvement since I do not own it. We could extend those to the property line. We are trying to work with that property owner. For the access going north we will work with Jay Stocking. We can make a few improvements that will work better for each of us. We would create 30 homes in Phase 1, which will give us time to get the road run through the north. We hope that would be the same timeframe for the road to the west. That would give us three accesses. If we get the density, then that would allow us to create 68 single-family homes on the north side and the south side would have 84 units of attached housing. There are a ton coming in around us so this would flow well with what is there and still allow for a big chunk of single-family homes.

The Commission discussed the road network through here. Manager Warnke said this is not the final layout. If you are inclined to consider a rezone, I want you to be aware that this is a time intensive process. That is becoming a problem with us being short-staffed. They would create a site plan that shows the layout. We would then negotiate their contribution to the City for improving park amenities through a rezone by agreement.

Chairman Capener closed the Public Hearing at 6:00 p.m.

5. New Business:

a. Discussion and consideration of proposed rezoning of property located in the vicinity of 600 West and 600 North. The property owner is proposing that 10.88 acres of the 17.33 acres that comprise parcel 05-043-0049 be rezoned from the R1-10 District, which allows single-family detached housing on 10,000 square foot lots, to Residential Multiple District, RM-16, with an overlay which reduces the density from 16 units per acre to 10 dwelling units an acre for the development of townhomes.

Manager Warnke said having too much density in one quadrant of the City is a concern. He reviewed what is planned for this area. We have a lot of attached housing and at some point, it would be nice to preserve single-family housing. Whatever you decide we will do our best to make it work. It will go to the City Council for approval as well. Commission Member Dennis said we have worked so hard on the Land Use Plan and are already wanting to change it. That is why I am torn. Manager Warnke said in the future we can consider changing and adjusting that, but I am not sure this is the one to do it on for the sole purpose of having more density. This would not help with affordable housing. Our strategies for that include accessory dwelling units and mortgage assistance. Planning is a process and we do need to be open-minded. Affordability is a big issue, but we need to build neighborhoods and create diverse housing types to represent different stages of life. Diversity is really helpful in building a good community. If it is all single-family, they will just pay their impact fees. When we lose open space and add a lot of people into a small area, we can negotiate things to offset that impact. We have gaps in our parks and inventory, including no pickleball courts. If we do rezone, they will have to make a significant contribution to that.

Councilmember Archibald said I have talked to residents in regard to this property and the number one response had to do with the school traffic on 600 North. This might influence that. Chairman Capener said what if we move the townhomes to the north to buffer the manufacturing. We want to put families closer to areas like the school. If we can put families that have that need then there are not as many cars running. They can walk to school without a huge safety factor. We need to put density in areas where it is walkable and manageable. Manager Warnke said this area would have light manufacturing, which has little impact on the surrounding uses. Sometimes they make the best neighbors. Chairman Capener said it could be worth the 42 units in density to make it where people want to be and limit traffic. I do not think 42 units makes a huge difference. I would like to see the traffic study with the accesses added and trips reduced with walkability. In exchange for the density, we encourage amenities that will benefit all residents. Our kids are going to be less excited about a $700,00 home where they have to maintain everything than a townhome that has a pool and is maintained. We do not want to price them all out. Manager Warnke said these are all reasonably debatable issues, but we also need to leave room for move ups. We have been very responsible and reactive in trying to accommodate different housing. We need to make sure there is a good mix and ensure there are opportunities for people of all housing types. Developer Stocking wants to pick up more land and increase density. I have told him the intention is to follow our future Land Use Plan. It is all still discretionary, but at some point, you have to have a public purpose behind it and at what point does it stop?

Motion by Commission Member Dennis to table the item until their next meeting. Motion seconded by Commission Member Van Tassell. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Conrad – absent, Commission Member Dennis – aye, Commission Member Seedall – absent, Commission Member Van Tassell – aye. Motion approved.

b. Discussion of preliminary plat for Saylor Townhomes – Jonathan Roberts

Manager Warnke said this is to the north of Bingham Trucking along 400 West. This is a CD zone that allows attached housing. We have to approve the preliminary plat. This has been plated as a single subdivision—Saylor Townhomes. There is a 400 West dedication that is needed to create that 66-foot collector road. It will have a center turn lane with no on-street parking and travel lanes in each direction. There will be a bike lane in each direction with an eight-foot sidewalk on the west side, which will be part of the Central Walking Trial. They have shown the elevations of the townhomes, which are nice. This project is adjacent to The Homes at Tremonton. They will have some common facilities and are working on those (secondary and storm drain). Together they will have more usable space for people to recreate in. City Engineer Chris Breinholt and myself have reviewed this thoroughly. These will be individually owned townhomes with garages in the rear.

Motion by Commission Member Dennis to recommend this to the Land Use Authority for approval. Motion seconded by Commission Member Van Tassell. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Conrad – absent, Commission Member Dennis – aye, Commission Member Seedall – absent, Commission Member Van Tassell – aye. Motion approved.

c. Draft review of Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance – Sam Taylor via Zoom

Mr. Taylor said we are handling internal and external accessory dwelling units separately since they may have different approaches. They have their own sections with lots of details. Parking is a concern. We plan to have one parking stall for a one bedroom with additional stalls needed for a two to three bedroom. There are also size requirements, as well as setback plans and a conditional use permit. Manager Warnke said Mr. Taylor and I will work on this draft further. He has done a great job in putting this draft together, but we can do the next iteration and bring it to you with highlights to discussion. The Committee agreed they need to meet certain safety standards but would need to do some wordsmithing to make it clearer, especially on accesses.

Motion by Commission Member Van Tassell to table this item for their next meeting. Motion seconded by Commission Member Dennis. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Conrad – absent, Commission Member Dennis – aye, Commission Member Seedall – absent, Commission Member Van Tassell – aye. Motion approved.

d. Review of future land use plan & associated traffic model

• Traffic analysis based on proposed future land uses
• Concept parks plan for Stokes Park, Harvest Acres Park, & Rivers Edge Park
• Potential adjustments to future land use plan

Manager Warnke said we received the report on the traffic analysis, which shows two troubled locations based on our future Land Use Plan. Those include Commerce Way, a road that is planned on the south side of I-84 that will connect to Iowa String and extend to the west side of I-84. Originally, we had it as minor arterial and they are saying it needs to be a major arterial (100-foot width). That has an easy resolution. The one that is harder to resolve is the Main Street corridor between 300 East and 400 West where the right-of-way is limited. There is a lot of traffic that will move through that corridor. At this point, there are not a lot of good alternatives for a bypass road. That got us thinking about how we can mitigate some of the land uses to generate less trips. The Institute of Traffic Engineers analyze traffic based on land use. They can estimate what trips will be generated and apply those in a more general way to some of these land uses. The next iteration for the analysis will be reducing some of the traffic associated with that trip generation. This will help us see if we can get it to a better level of service. We are doing our best in creating a plan that is sustainable. We do have some confining factors.

6. Planning commission comments/reports: None.

7. Adjournment

Motion by Commission Member Dennis to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 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 October, 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.