TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 24, 2019

Members Present:
Micah Capener, Chairman
Arnold Eberhard, Commission Member—excused
Troy Forrest, Commission Member
Paul Fowler, Commission Member
Ben Greener, Commission Member
Brad Janssen, Commission Member
Tom Stokes, Commission Member
Bret Rohde, City Councilmember
Steve Bench, Zoning Administrator
Shawn Warnke, City Manager
Linsey Nessen, City Recorder

Chairman Capener called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. The meeting was held September 24, 2019 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Capener, Commission Members Forrest, Fowler, Greener, Janssen, Stokes, City Councilmember Rohde (left at 7:03 p.m.), Zoning Administrator Bench, Manger Warnke (arrived at 5:36 p.m. and left at 7:19 p.m.), and Recorder Nessen were in attendance. Commission Member Eberhard was excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Commission Member Greener to approve the September 24, 2019 agenda. Motion seconded by Commission Member Janssen. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Forrest – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Janssen – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

2. Approval of minutes—August 27, 2019

Motion by Commission Member Greener to approve the August 27, 2019 minutes. Motion seconded by Commission Member Janssen. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Forrest – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Janssen – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

Chairman Capener called a Public Hearing to order at 5:37 p.m. to receive input on proposed amendments. There were nine people in attendance.

3. Public Hearing:

a. To receive public input on proposed amendments to the Tremonton City Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance that include in Chapter 1.03 Definitions, adding definitions for self-storage units and outdoor storage. Chapter 1.08 Commercial and Industrial Zone, adding self-storage and outdoor storage to the use table. Chapter 1.19 Supplementary Regulations, adding self-storage and outdoor storage standards and regulations. Section 1.19.070 deleting the requirement that tent camping in an RV Park is not permitted. Chapter 1.04 Land Use and Appeal Authorities removing the Planning Commission as the Traffic Advisory Board. Chapter 1.34 Annexations, amending the procedures concerning protection areas and general guidelines. Subdivision Ordinance Section 2.06.085 amending the requirement of public utility easements, and adding a drawing to the Tremonton City Standard Drawing Appendix A, concerning dumpster enclosures.

Administrator Bench said we would go over it all, but the big question last meeting was about storage units, specifically on the west end of town. If we add them to the MDB zone, we will have to rezone the area and allow storage as a conditional use. This talks about entry setbacks and a seven-foot block wall. Developer John Losee said the block wall seems a bit excessive. I understand what you are trying to do, but part of the reason we do not want a wall is for security. It goes beyond just the cost of a block wall. It is in all of our best interest to have something you can see through. I think you should let the owner of the property decide what type of fencing to install. Commission Member Stokes said you are saying not to have a standard? Developer Jay Stocking said what if you did a multiple-choice fence. Administrator Bench said this is only across the front and down the sides a bit—the majority could be chain link. Manager Warnke said as we looked at the zoning districts and increasing this use within them, we looked at the purpose statement for those districts and tried to create development standards that harmonized within that. Maybe a different fencing type would help us strike the balance. Something like rod iron that is see-through, but could still dress it up.

Mr. Stocking said that in looks there is not much of a difference between storage facilities and commercial buildings. Manager Warnke said storage units have the appearance of an industrial building. That is why they are a good fit for that zoning without other requirements. If we start bringing them into other zoning districts, their purpose is different and it requires some treatment to the front yard. Mr. Stocking said I think there is a way we can create a happy medium. I do not want to create a fortress—a block wall is not inviting to a neighborhood either. Manager Warnke suggested the rod iron combined with masonry pillars.

Chairman Capener questioned the line about interior access lanes being maintained and free from storage to provide adequate access and fire protection. Manager Warnke clarified that it does not allow storage junk to accumulate in the lane. The Commission agreed the wording was fine.

Administrator Bench said there would be a 40-foot setback for the gate so a truck and trailer could safely pull off the road. That could be tweaked with the site plan. There would be some landscaping in the front and storm drain. Mr. Losee said 40 feet is a little excessive. Manager Warnke said that is only two parking stalls so a truck and trailer could fit. Mr. Stocking said he would not want to do 40 feet of landscaping out front. Administrator Bench said it could be 30 feet with the gate back another 10 feet. Commission Member Stokes said the setbacks ought to be equal to what is in those zones. Mr. Stocking said I do not have a problem with the gate being 40 feet back, but not for the fence. That could be 20 feet and that would be plenty of landscape. Manager Warnke said that does not seem like enough. We are talking about changing and allowing a use within a zoning district that has different objectives. Landscaping can help screen and make it compatible. It gives an opportunity to screen and beautify the area, and mitigate the impact. In my mind, storage units look more industrial.

Chairman Capener requested a copy of the drawing for the dumpster enclosures. Manager Warnke said this would make it easier to have developers include it in their drawings to ensure it meets the City standards. When talking about removing the Planning Commission as the Traffic Advisory Board, Administrator Bench said by having staff do the day-to-day stuff they can get things done in a timely manner, but more important things will still come to the Planning Commission for their review. We feel the Police Chief, City Engineer, and Public Works Director can handle the little things.

Chairman Capener closed the Public Hearing at 6:05 p.m.

The following items were discussed out of order.

4. New Business:

a. Discussion of Overlay Zoning at 220 West 1200 South containing 15.4 acres

Manager Warnke said the Planning Commission held a public hearing and concerns were expressed, including density and if this development was a good fit. I think it is a good use. There are single-family homes on either side of the proposed development. Our code does require a 10-foot buffer between multi-family and single-family and there is already a good buffer with the canal and railroad corridors. It does give quite a bit of separation between those two residential uses. There is also a 20-foot trail corridor planned on the east side from 1200 South to 600 South. From a transportation perspective, this is a good location. Rocket Road is a minor arterial road and Tremont Street is a major arterial. The streets will extend north and will be private because they do not meet City standards. We have talked with Sadler Construction about picking up the parcel going north to connect that up to 600 South, which is a collector road. This fits well as far as distributing traffic. The trail corridor we are working on acquiring runs through the center of town along the canal and rail corridor, which will be constructed over time. It is important to put more density adjacent to that trail. They have a nice development in Smithfield that is well maintained. This will give us a different housing product in the City with nice amenities. We did draft an overlay zone as RM-16, but the developer is representing less than that. This draft ordinance puts the limitations in there, along with the requirements they are representing for amenities.

Administrator Bench said he would get it on the agenda for another public hearing. Commission Member Stokes confirmed that the overlay ensures it would come back to the Planning Commission if the developer does not proceed as designed. They will also see the preliminary plans. Manager Warnke said the City does not need to rezone it. We just want to make sure there is some certainty as far as what is developed, but it is hard for the developer to know all the details. There are some broad parameters with flexibly built in. It would cap the density and define the amenities. Ryan Rogers, from Sadler Construction, said it has been a great benefit to Smithfield and I think it is a great project for your City. This gives people an alternative and a more affordable starter home with less maintenance. It also brings in a diversity of people.

b. Discussion and consideration on to proposed amendments to the Tremonton City Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance that include in Chapter 1.03 Definitions, adding definitions for self-storage units and outdoor storage. Chapter 1.08 Commercial and Industrial Zone, adding self-storage and outdoor storage to the use table. Chapter 1.19 Supplementary Regulations, adding self-storage and outdoor storage standards and regulations. Section 1.19.070 deleting the requirement that tent camping in an RV Park is not permitted. Chapter 1.04 Land Use and Appeal Authorities removing the Planning Commission as the Traffic Advisory Board. Chapter 1.34 Annexations, amending the procedures concerning protection areas and general guidelines. Subdivision Ordinance Section 2.06.085 amending the requirement of public utility easements, and adding a drawing to the Tremonton City Standard Drawing Appendix A, concerning dumpster enclosures.

The Commission discussed different setbacks and fencing requirements. Chairman Capener said seven feet on the fencing is excessive. I would want people to see in there with rod iron on the front and chain link on the rest. Commission Member Janssen said the seven-foot solid fence to buffer the building and then a landscape buffer to buffer the fence is redundant. I think a 25-foot setback is enough and then another 35 feet to the buildings for 60 feet total. I do not think it needs to be solid. If we could do it dressier on the front and then chain link on the sides then I agree with that.

The Commission brought up the section about impound-yards but agreed to table that for now. Commission Member Janssen asked what is non-motorized storage? It says it cannot exceed the height of the screened wall or fence, what does that entail? Administrator Bench clarified that would be stacking pallets and other things high, not RVs or boats. The Commission agreed a six-foot fence would be adequate if it was decorative on the front. That could be further discussed at the site plan. Setbacks would be the same as the rest of the zone it is in. The gate would be far enough back (40 feet) that a vehicle and trailer could clear the road.

Motion by Commission Member Stokes to recommend this to the City Council with the discussed changes. Motion seconded by Commission Member Greener. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Forrest – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Janssen – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

Motion by Commission Member Stokes to recommend to the City Council to rezone this as MDB. Motion seconded by Commission Member Janssen. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Forrest – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Janssen – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

Motion by Commission Member Greener to remove that tent camping is or is not allowed in an RV Park from the City’s ordinance and let the owners regulate that. Motion seconded by Commission Member Stokes. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Forrest – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Janssen – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

When talking about Ag Protection, Administrator Bench said this ensures those annexing in understand they have to go through the process with the County. Manager Warnke added that in order to proceed forward they have to take it out of the Ag Protection since there are limitations in the State Code about how the City can zone the property. This formalizes that and requires the County Commission to review it within 90 days of being annexed. It was brought up that there are more protection areas besides Ag and that some owners may want to keep those protections, but still be annexed in. The Commission decided to table it until more discussion could be had.

Motion by Commission Member Stokes to table the annexation. Motion seconded by Commission Member Greener. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Forrest – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Janssen – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

Motion by Commission Member Stokes to add the drawing for the dumpster enclosures. Motion seconded by Commission Member Janssen. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Forrest – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Janssen – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

Administrator Bench said the City Engineer and Public Works Director recommended changing the public utility easements. Since all utilizes go in the front, they would leave the 15-foot easement there and eliminate the side and back easements for subdivisions. Those that are already recorded will continue to exist. If the City ever needed one they would go out and get that easement.

Motion by Commission Member Stokes to move this forward to the City Council. Motion seconded by Commission Member Greener. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Forrest – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Janssen – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

c. Discussion and consideration of overlay zone for Randy S. Archibald’s property located southeast of 1000 North 1000 West

Administrator Bench talked about the different housing products (single-family, retirement patio, and townhomes) and confirmed there will be no commercial. They want to limit the townhomes to a certain number whether they sell good or not. If they are not doing well, they want to do more single-family homes, which would lower the density. Commission Member Stokes wanted to know how they would buffer against the existing homes in Archibald Estates. Administrator Bench said that behind those homes they would have larger lot with an identical style home. They plan on no greater than seven units an acre. There are no plans to do stacked so we could take the multi-family stacked out. Chairman Capener said a 20-foot setback is tight. Developer Bryce Goodin said it would be a 20-foot setback, plus the sidewalk and park strip so it is closer to 30 feet.

Motion by Commission Member Stokes to send this to the City Council as is, but striking the permitted use on multi-family stacked. Motion seconded by Commission Member Greener. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Forrest – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Janssen – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

d. Discussion and consideration of Preliminary Review for River Valley 4-plex

Administrator Bench said the current recorded plat shows adding lots 3, 4,
and 7 into the newer configuration for a better layout. It is still a multi-family subdivision. Chairman Capener said I wish all the parking was accessed from the street and you had more green-scape and less pavement. That is how the code reads, but I do not agree with it. Administrator Bench said it is surrounded by green space, giving it more appeal. Those buildings are back 25 feet from the street and that will be grass with a few trees. There is some drainage in the area that will be piped.

Motion by Commission Member Janssen to approve the preliminary and recommend it to the Development Review Committee. Motion seconded by Commission Member Stokes. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Forrest – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Janssen – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

e. Discussion and consideration of Preliminary Review for Greystone Systems Subdivision

Administrator Bench said the three-quarter acre parcel zoned by Greystone is still in Mixed Use (MU). The owner had second thoughts, but spent the money so he decided to go through with the process. It is still an available lot. It needs some work right now with the access on Main Street with UDOT. There is a 30-foot access easement going through there that would access it. That is a great idea rather than having so many driveways on Main Street.

Motion by Commission Member Greener to approve the preliminary. Motion seconded by Commission Member Janssen. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Forrest – aye, Commission Member Fowler – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Janssen – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

5. Adjournment

Motion by Commission Member Stokes to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 7:22 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 29th 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.