TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 10, 2019

Members Present:
Micah Capener, Chairman
Arnold Eberhard, Commission Member
Troy Forrest, Commission Member—excused
Paul Fowler, Commission Member
Ben Greener, Commission Member
Brad Janssen, Commission Member—excused
Tom Stokes, Commission Member
Lyle Vance, City Councilmember
Steve Bench, Zoning Administrator
Shawn Warnke, City Manager
Cynthia Nelson, Deputy Recorder

Chairman Capener called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. The meeting was held September 10, 2019 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Capener, Commission Members Eberhard, Fowler, Greener, Stokes, City Councilmember Vance, Zoning Administrator Bench, City Manager Warnke, and Deputy Recorder Nelson were in attendance. Commission Members Greener and Janssen were excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Commission Member Greener to approve the September 10, 2019 agenda with corrections to the address on items 3. a and 4. a (East instead of West). Motion seconded by Commission Member Eberhard. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Eberhard – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

2. Approval of minutes—no minutes to approve at this time.

3. Public Hearing:

a. To receive public input regarding proposed rezoning of property known as the Randy S. Archibald property located South/East of 1000 North 1000 East. The proposed zoning would change from Residential RR-1, R1-20, R1-10, and R1-8 to Mixed Use (MU) zone

Project Manager Bryce Goodin with Visionary Homes explained how they plan to layout the Mixed-Use project, which would include an active adult community and single-family homes with different size lots. It would tie into the existing stubbed roads and have a buffer against the current homes to the south. The townhomes would be in the northwest corner of the project. In the next step we would look at open space and make sure we have a nice subdivision that conforms to all the ordinances.

Chairman Capener called the Public Hearing to order at 5:33 p.m. to receive public input on this rezone. There were 24 people in attendance.

Resident David Lefors, who lives in Archibald Estates, asked what the purpose is of this multi-purpose zoning. Mr. Goodin said the Mixed-Use zone allows us to put all of these housing products in here. It would all be residential, we do not do commercial. There are multiple zones on it right now and we want to put one uniform zone across the parcel we control. That would allow us to design it as we see fit rather than be restricted. They talked about the lot sizes (6,000-8,000 square feet) and required setbacks. Mr. Lefors said it makes me nervous when someone says they have to have it zoned for multi-purpose, which means commercial, but we are not going to do commercial and asked why we need to rezone it if you are not going to do commercial. We have lots of commercial north of there and I do not think it needs to come south. Archibald Estates is a nice community. I am opposed to townhomes, apartments, and commercial.

Resident Paul Clayburn said our home is along the south road of this property and asked if the developer will meet the requirements of storm water drain. Right now when the farmer waters that corn field, my sump pump runs every half hour for a couple of days. I am concerned that there is a place for that water to go.

Chairman Capener closed the Public Hearing at 5:42 p.m. and called a Public Hearing to order at 5:43 p.m. to receive public input on another rezone. There were 26 people in attendance.

b. To receive public input regarding proposed rezoning of property located at 220 West 1200 South containing 15.4 acres currently zoned Residential Half Acre (R1-20) and proposed rezone would be Residential Multiple (RM-16)

Mr. Ryan Rogers with Northridge Development said we did a similar project in Smithfield with luxury multi-family homes. They are different from standard apartments and townhomes. They are up to 2,400 square feet and feel more like living in a home in a residential community. Amenities would include a swimming pool and spa, clubhouse, playground, splash pad, fitness center, and theater room in the basement. These are very popular and more affordable than a standard house. This is a very nice project that will add great value to the community. There would be about 150 units (10 an acre). The end units would be one-level with a basement and then there would be townhomes in the middle with multiple garages. Chairman Capener declared a conflict of interest, saying I am working on the transaction so I will not be voting.
Resident Jerry Buchanan asked why they are asking for RM-16 when they say they are going to build 10 units per acre. That worries me because things can change. This is a proposed plan not a definite one. Chairman Capener said the next one down is RM-8. No other would meet the 10 units per acre besides the RM-16. Mr. Buchanan said they could change it and put 16 units per acre for 246 residencies, which could mean about 493 people. That land is currently zoned for half-acre lots and that is only 30 residents. I have seen a lot of things change once they are approved so I am opposed to this. It will add negatives we have to live with. I propose we leave the zoning at half-acre lots.

Resident John Mclain said everyone who lives in our neighborhood has children and we are constantly barking at people coming down that road too fast. There is a lot of traffic that passes there. This looks like a nightmare. If you add townhomes and apartments, we plan to get out of there while our property is still worth something. We are extremely opposed. It will block our view of the mountains toward the west. We are concerned about the changes in infrastructure pushing the population in our area and asked what is going to happen versus what they say will happen. Have any studies been done by the City or county to say whether this is a good fit for a rural community? I am all for progress, but this seems like a nightmare.

Resident Dallin Chase said research shows that on average the decrease in property value is about 13% when you bring in a lot of renters. This does look like a good setup, but that is a substantial amount of money on a home. I am opposed.

Resident Melissa Archibald said I have concerns from an educational standpoint. I teach at McKinley Elementary and I do not know how many children this would bring in, but the school is currently at 90% capacity, not including the 60 preschool children. There is not one empty classroom. We do not have the capacity to absorb more. Being zoned for residential is much more stable and would help the school with good, stable families. The school has a program called Friday Friends because we have so many kids who are worried about where their next meal is coming from and we send food home to 50 families every Friday. Even though this is more upscale, I am still concerned about what this would do to our school. Also our City is struggling with water and usage. I am at the end of the line and struggle with water pressure. Where we are in serious dilemma with water, why would we want to put a huge area like this at the end of the line that has problems?

Resident Lee Akin said I was one of the original homes there and the last couple years we have filled that street up. I do not know why you would want to build apartments between houses to the west and ours to the east. It will really affect property values and that area is not suited for 100 more families. I am opposed. The City put in a new street on the west end of town north of McDonalds. There are a lot of apartments there so why not just zone that area and keep developments like that in one area and have single-family homes where they are already built.

Resident Elton Garza said I have been here for 10 years and have been waiting for the half-acre lots so I could build a home there. I agree with everyone. What Mrs. Archibald said should kill this. Where are you going to put the kids? I am opposed and looking because I do not feel like we are going to be able to stop you.

Resident Brett Archibald said if the RM-16 is the closest zone we have then why not create a new zone for this that would be equal to what they are proposing? Why would you not consider creating a new zone that would actually fit this? My fear is the same as everyone else—this is the idea they are presenting, but it would be zoned and could progress however they see fit. I am opposed to that many units being built in that area for the same reasons that have been expressed, but my greater fear is that even more are built. Who will hold them accountable if it is zoned for 16 units?

Developer John Losee said that land was zoned for fifth-acre lot homes before it was zoned for half-acre lots. That would have been 80 homes in that same little spot with that many yards to be maintained, but something like this gets managed by an HOA. People take care of them and they are a nice place to live. If all we ever build are single-family homes, we are excluding a piece of the market. It is expensive to build a single-family home. In looking at the needs of the City, we would welcome something like this—nicer, newer housing that is more affordable and looks nice.

Mr. Lefors said do you plan on doing any kind of study or will it be a fast track to building? Will there be more opportunities to talk about this? Chairman Capener said there would be plenty of other opportunities. Before they can get financing, studies will have to be done, but regardless of that study, the owner can do what he wants with his property. Mr. Lefors said the City is borrowing money to get secondary in and trying to keep up with the infrastructure to support more residents. I love neighbors, but it would be nice to make sure this would be a good fit. That seems like a small chunk of land for that many units.

Chairman Capener closed the Public Hearing at 6:08 p.m.

4. New Business:

a. Discussion and consideration of proposed rezoning of property known as the Randy S. Archibald property located South/East of 1000 North 1000 East. The proposed zoning would change from Residential RR-1, R1-20, R1-10, and R1-8 to Mixed Use (MU) zone

Commission Member Stokes asked why not just change the borders, then we do not have to take it to a multi-use zone and why do we have to do multi-use versus segregating it so the people know what is there when they buy in that zone. Commission Member Greener agreed saying just zone each one of those areas for what they are proposing. Then that is what they have and there is no way to put something else in later. Everyone knows upfront and it does not change. Commission Member Eberhard said the trend is to go to smaller homes because of pricing and I think we should be accommodating to those people. Commission Member Fowler said development is going to come if not in this area it will go in another area of town. There are a bunch of catch 22s and it is hard to tell someone what to do with their land. However, I do not like ambiguity. I do not have a lot of trust with just “trust us.”

Chairman Capener asked if a zone could be approved subject to a site plan approval or X number of units. Manager Warnke said this is a legislative decision, but the Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council. They would decide what the best interest is for the City factoring all the different issues. It is typical to do development agreements with a subdivision and site plan. At this point, it is very conceptual what they are planning to do. There will be changes as they refine their plan and develop out. It is nice to build some flexibility into the agreement while still addressing the concerns the Planning Commission and City Council would have, but it can always be amended. We can lock down some of the amenities they have discussed that would mitigate the density. This is more preferable than having a lot of individual zones for each development. Entering into an agreement would make it clear what the plan and commitments would be for this decision. Commission Member Stokes asked if that takes the Planning Commission out of it and we would never hear back. Manager Warnke said this is a chance for you to review and make your recommendation. If it looks fine, with the exception of formalizing the upper bounds of the density or the development scope, then you can make that recommendation to limit it through this development agreement. It could come back to the Planning Commission if what is formalized is different than your recommendation—you could put that as a caveat. City Council is a public meeting and all are welcome to attend and make comments. Commission Member Stokes said he errors on the conservative side and will vote against keeping it an RM-16.

Chairman Capener said it does not fit in individual zones and it does not fit Mixed-Use either because of the commercial component, but asked if it could be controlled at the development agreement level. I would hate to make them do a ton of work if it will not work. From the developer side, it is hard to put all the estimations together when you do not have a vision of where you are going. Manager Warnke said if finalized, it would be fairly easy to do an agreement. Councilmember Vance said with a developer agreement, we can monitor that as long as the developer is there. If the property is sold off to someone else, then we do not have an agreement with the next person. Manager Warnke said I think development agreements can be binding if recorded through the County Recorder’s office. The agreement would talk about successors and interest, binding them to the same terms as long as it is recorded and addressed that way. Chairman Capener asked if a foreclosure would wipe that out, which is something they will look into.

Mr. Goodin suggested a deed restriction on the property that does not allow commercial. This could help alleviate some of the concern and would be recorded on the property itself. We have a rough design, but there is still a lot of work to nail down. We will have to come back through for preliminary and final approvals. We want it zoned so we can move forward and put the actual design together. Manager Warnke said a rezone is a legislative decision. Once we have the zoning, then it becomes an administrative decision to make sure it is in compliance with the code.

Commission Member Fowler said I think it needs to be tabled and we need to discuss developing a tool to handle this. We need to have a Mixed-Use residential only zone or something different. Manager Warnke said I recommend we do what we have done for the Christensen’s on the hill with an overlay. We would come in with an overlay district, pick a zone that fits the project best and put restrictions in place. We could continue this public hearing and not have to advertise a new one. If you made that motion then Administrator Bench would write the ordinance for it.

Motion by Commission Member Stokes to table the item and extend the public hearing to the next meeting. Motion seconded by Commission Member Fowler. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Eberhard – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

b. Discussion and consideration of proposed rezoning of property located at 220 West 1200 South containing 15.4 acres currently zoned Residential Half Acre (R1-20) and proposed rezone would be Residential Multiple (RM-16)

Chairman Capener said one advantage here is the tracks and canal as a buffer. They did the Tremonton Pines development directly north of here and the actual number was 92 units or 10 per acre and because of the canal and separation, we do not see the 13% value loss. Commission Member Stokes said I think it is too high of a density. Commission Member Greener said that is a lot of traffic to put on Rocket Road. Commission Member Stokes said RM-16 is wide open. I move we recommend to disapprove of the RM-16, which allows apartments. Manager Warnke said the City Council could make some modifications and then bring it back to the Planning Commission.

Chairman Capener asked about the legislature making adjustments to require and penalize cities if they do not have affordable housing. Manager Warnke said there were some changes to the State Code as it relates to affordable housing. We are updating our Affordable Housing Plan and the RDA entered into an agreement with BRAG for that. Everyone is required to have a plan and report their progress to the State on how they are meeting those objectives. There is some flexibility on how we meet them. Chairman Capener said we are fine to approve duplexes and four-plexes, but they are really hard to manage. The higher the density, the better the project, because then they can afford to have onsite folks making sure it is a nice project. If not here, where are we going to put this type of project that has a buffer like the tracks and canal.

Motion by Commission Member Stokes to recommend to the City Council to disapprove of this rezone and leave it as is. Motion seconded by Commission Member Greener. Vote: Commission Member Eberhard – aye, Commission Member Fowler – nay, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved by a 3-1 vote. Chairman Capener declared a conflict of interest and abstained from voting.

c. Discussion zones for storage units

d. Discussion of zoning code amendments

The Commission talked about items c. and d. together. Administrator Bench said 1.19 has two sections, self-storage and commercial outdoor storage. Definitions were added to Chapter 3. In 1.19.90 a supplementary regulation would be self-service storage facilities and 95 would be the commercial outdoor storage. This is a starting point. Manager Warnke said there are definitions and new terms based on land uses. Chapter 8 identifies which zones and each storage type is listed. It is being proposed as a conditional use. The discussion about allowing it in the Commercial Highway is within your purview. What is drafted is not permitted. It would be a prohibited use within that zone. This is reasonable and debatable. For Commercial Highway, read the purposes of the zoning districts, that is a good guide so we do not lose the vision of what they are trying to accomplish. That vision or purpose statement does not include storage units. I think they are more industrial—warehouse on a smaller scale for individuals. We have to be careful because MD-B is more business park campus. The actual standards, which are the supplementary regulations, would be a conditional use. This would also have a site plan review for anything that is commercial, industrial, institutional, or multi-family. There would be a site plan and conditional use review. According to our conditional use chapter, any land use application that requires a site plan is approved by the DRC according to these standards. They talked about prohibited and allowed uses or requirements such as lighting, screening, fencing, setbacks, parking, and landscaping.

Manager Warnke said the next section with commercial outdoor storage talks about the location minimizing the impact. They are only allowed in Commercial General Zones. Businesses within that zone do not necessarily have a lot of outdoor storage requirement. He read that definition. This is a supplementary regulation as it relates to outdoor storage within that zone. Outdoor storage is allowed in MD-B, MD and MG. Heavy industrial allows for more noise. The intent is not to screen commercial outdoor storage in retail operations that have seasonal items outdoor. Chairman Capener asked if we need to rezone some property to fit the MD-B. By approving this we either need to add some heavy manufacturing zones or we are saying we do not want storage in the City. Manager Warnke said you can rezone property, but we are talking more broadly. There is quite a bit zoned in the City as MD-B. Commission Member Greener said when I think of Commercial Highway I think of businesses where you buy stuff. Administrator Bench said that is the idea; there is going to be more Commercial Highway zoned close to Main Street (150 feet before leading into the MD-B). Manager Warnke said it is almost a two-step process. We need to take a look at the zoning district, the purpose and vision of those districts, and decide if that land use fits in that district. Step two would be taking a look at applications for rezone if a landowner wants to rezone the property. We would see if that zoning district makes sense within that location based on transportation corridors, surrounding land uses and future land uses.

Administrator Bench said this is just review and discussion. It has to go to a public hearing. Study this and come back with recommendations and changes. I will set the public hearing for a future Planning Commission meeting. Councilmember Vance asked if we are pulling these stipulations from other cities. Administrator Bench said we have reviewed other towns and cities to see what they do.

For item d., Administrator Bench discussed a few bullet points in the subdivision chapter, which talks about the utility easements around each parcel of property. We want to eliminate those except the front 15 feet where all the utilities are going. They are not running down the sides of properties anymore. If we need an easement in the future for some unknown reason, we will gain that. The 1.19 supplemental section talks about the Traffic Advisory Board and changing that from the Planning Commission to another day and time with the police chief and several other staff members.

Administrator Bench said when we did the RV Park ordinance, the RV park developer did not want tents. My thought is to strike that and let the parks do what they think is necessary so the City is not blamed when issues arise. The park should regulate that. There is also an amendment to the annexation Chapter 34, which talks about making sure that when there is an annexation, the County is notified about the agriculture protection and the County does their due diligence to remove that. Also there is a line that talks about it being in the City’s best interest to annex an entire property not just a portion. It could be at the City Council’s discretion if they want to pick and choose because of an unusual circumstance then they could. Page 4 says Tremonton City generally favors annexing entire parcels of property rather than a portion.

5. Adjournment

Motion by Commission Member Stokes to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 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 22nd day of October, 2019.

______________________________
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.