TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 12, 2023
Members Present:
Micah Capener, Chairman—excused
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
Cynthia Nelson, Deputy Recorder
Co-Chairman Dennis called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. The meeting was held September 12, 2023 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Co-Chairman Dennis, Commission Members Conrad, Seedall and Van Tassell, City Councilmember Archibald, City Manager Warnke, and Deputy Recorder Nelson were in attendance. Chairman Capener was excused.
1. Approval of agenda:
Motion by Commission Member Van Tassell to approve the September 12, 2023 agenda. Motion seconded by Commission Member Seedall. Vote: Chairman Capener – Absent, Co-Chairman Dennis – aye, Commission Member Conrad – aye, Commission Member Seedall – aye, 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
Co-Chairman Dennis called a Public Hearing to order at 5:35 p.m. to consider amending a zoning district. There were four people in attendance.
4. Public Hearing:
a. To receive public input on amending zoning district regulations relating to the
Rivers Edge Overlay Zone (REOZ) and the Rivers Edge Pre-Annexation and Master Development Agreement to accommodate the recordation of a Rivers Edge – Phase 1A, which would allow the recordation of 14 building lots and complete the missing three hundred (300) feet of 775 East from approximately 193 North to 287 North
There were no public comments. Co-Chairman Dennis closed the Public Hearing at 5:35 p.m.
5. New Business:
a. Discussion and consideration of advising the City Council regarding amendments to zoning district regulations relating to the Rivers Edge Overlay Zone (REOZ) and the Rivers Edge Pre-Annexation and Master Development Agreement to accommodate the recordation of a Rivers Edge – Phase 1A, which would allow the recordation of 14 building lots and complete the missing three hundred (300) feet of 775 East from approximately 193 North to 287 North
Manager Warnke said we adopted the River’s Edge overlay zone and development agreement. This zoning by agreement is very specific about obligations that the developer has to do before they record. They were required to build the secondary water system and pump station with about 80 lots. They are now proposing something the neighborhood wants, which is developing a missing section of 775 East. This is 300 feet of missing improvements. This would help remedy that issue. It would be beneficial to modify the agreement and allow them to record 14 building lots. The win for the developers is that they could record and sell those lots. The benefit to the community is that we get the road completed. This makes a lot of sense to move forward with this amendment. City staff recommends sending this to the City Council for approval.
Councilmember Archibald said we have had many phone calls asking when that road is going in. Originally, Phase 1 was much larger. Mr. Porter said I agree this is an ideal situation. We are trying to get this in because we realize this is negatively impacting the City by having a dirt road there. There are water valves sticking out of the ground, as well as a sewer and storm drain manhole. It is private property, but people are driving through it like a public street. We are trying to scale down from 70 lots to 14. We would love to get this in this construction season. We will connect this road and then head west with 14 lots.
Motion by Commission Member Seedall to approve and send to the City Council. Motion seconded by Commission Member Van Tassell. Vote: Chairman Capener – absent, Co-Chairman Dennis – aye, Commission Member Conrad – aye, Commission Member Seedall – aye, Commission Member Van Tassell – aye. Motion approved.
b. Discussion and consideration of approving a major home occupation business for “A Littles Place,” an in-home childcare Brylee Jacobson-Norris
Manager Warnke said the applicant has been working on this and we are ready for consideration. Home occupations are divided into two classifications—minor and major. City staff can approve minor home businesses, but the Planning Commission does the approval for major home businesses. What triggers a major occupation for this proposed home business is the number of children that will be at the daycare. Six or less is minor. Childcare and preschool have specific criteria, which is found in our supplementary chapter of the land use code. The number of children would be capped at 12, including the caregivers’ own children. She can also have one employee. Next, we are looking at zoning and trying to keep the residential character of a neighborhood and not negatively impact adjoining residences. Mrs. Jacobsen-Norris said we let the kids go out one to two times a day, and it is usually at 10 or 11 and three to four—depending on weather. We would stay out there anywhere from 20 to about 45 minutes. Manager Warnke said that dovetails nicely into the fourth requirement, which is a play yard location, which they do have and is fenced. The State also has regulations and does inspections. The fire department did an inspection as well. Onsite parking could be an issue. As we contemplate accessory dwelling units, this is an issue. For multi-family projects every dwelling unit has to have 2.25 spaces. The intent of the decimal point is to create off-street parking for guests. There is the driveway and a two-car garage. This is a conversation we are going to continue to have. In this case, her employee lives on site. Another parking spot is required for those dropping children off. They plan to have designated times and to space those out.
Mrs. Jacobsen-Norris said there is such a need for daycares. We want to be a part of the solution because there is a demand. We have a waiting list of 30 people. I would hope that one day we could consider going up to 16 children. The State has approved me for 16. We have to have at least two staff members, which we have. Manager Warnke said City staff plans to discuss these standards and see if we should adjust them. It is good to follow with State standards so there is no confusion or conflicting standards. Commission Member Seedall said I would approve 16 children to stay consistent with State Code and with it being such a need in Tremonton, if City staff agrees. Manager Warnke said when there are prescribed standards, we follow those, but that is good to know you are open to the conversation as we tune up that ordinance.
Motion by Commission Member Van Tassell to approve the home business. Motion seconded by Commission Member Seedall. Vote: Chairman Capener – absent, Co-Chairman Dennis – aye, Commission Member Conrad – aye, Commission Member Seedall – aye, Commission Member Van Tassell – aye. Motion approved.
c. Discussion and consideration of reviewing the draft accessory dwelling unit ordinance
Manager Warnke said we hope this is near a final draft. Mr. Taylor and I have gone back and forth. I need to coordinate some of the utility issues with our engineer, public works director and billing clerk. We would then advertise and hold a public hearing. Mr. Taylor said we have really got it where it is easy to follow. Anyone reading through this should be able to find what they are looking for. We have revamped the application process. It is more modern and consistent with other ordinances for the requirements. We have been through the other sections of the ordinances and updated definitions and tables.
Mr. Taylor said tonight we may want to discuss size limits of a detached accessory unit. Previously we limited the maximum size to 600 square feet. In this draft, it is increased to 800 square feet. Another question would be impact fees and which dwelling units should be assessed or not. Manager Warnke said since internal accessory dwelling units do not change the footprint there seems to be no impact. A detached unit would add to it and is increasing the impact. We could charge an impact fee there. The hard part is determining what that looks like. Should that be less than a full residential unit? A single-family impact is higher than the multi-family and so it is conceivable that this should be a little bit less than a multi-family attached. That is an issue as it relates to impact fees. One of the strategies to facilitate affordable housing is to encourage accessory dwelling units so we could waive the impact fees as incentive. We have used some of our affordable housing funds to pay for impact fees in the past. Commission Member Seedall said what difference does it make if it is attached or detached? You are using the same service lines for both. You are putting the same amount of people in one building or in a building and a half. You do not say your impact fee is more because you have four people in the house and they only have two. Manager Warnke said if it is an existing home, the idea is they paid for the impact fees already. There is no new impact on the system because they are existing. Co-Chairman Dennis said when you add a structure or accessory dwelling unit, you are increasing the value of your home. It would be nice to collect more impact fees, but I think it would be a logistics nightmare. Manager Warnke said impact fees are an exaction, which are allowed by law under certain conditions. It has to be associated with the approval of a permit and be a legitimate governmental service. The code defines what we can charge impact fees for and that is based on rough proportionality.
When asked about setbacks Mr. Taylor said we are treating a detached ADU as an accessory structure. Those City Code setbacks are written and allow for narrower setbacks at the side and back property lines as long as there are no windows or entrances off that structure. Commission Member Seedall said we have had discussions on matching the existing architecture. These should look cleaner than a tough shed. Manager Warnke said the State has backed away from allowing cities to regulate architecture as it relates to single-family detached. We are still allowed to do that with multi-family. There is still a lot of time to make adjustments. That is what the public hearing is meant to do and help us gain thoughts and ideas.
Motion by Commission Member Seedall to setup a public hearing. Motion seconded by Commission Member Van Tassell. Vote: Chairman Capener – absent, Co-Chairman Dennis – aye, Commission Member Conrad – aye, Commission Member Seedall – aye, Commission Member Van Tassell – aye. Motion approved.
d. Discussion and consideration of advising the governing body of Tremonton City’s Rural Communities Opportunity Grant (RCOG)
- Ratifying the Annual Report 22 submitted to the Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity
- Reviewing the Request for Proposals for an Urban Designer
Manager Warnke said the City got a grant for $405,000 to tune up Midland Square. The overall arching objective is to change Midland Square from a park to a plaza to accommodate public gatherings. We would add a stage area, bathrooms and power pedestals. This is an economic development grant and our pitch is that this can be a gathering center for downtown Main Street. Plazas are meant to bring people in. We are working on getting an urban designer involved. I will provide an annual report and the State wants the Planning Commission involved. We want the urban designer to help us get the overall look of what that stage and restrooms might look like, and help us with our site plan. Our engineer would then put together the construction documents based upon that conceptual analysis. Mr. Taylor would then help us revamp our landscaping associated with construction. We would need a certified landscape architect and stamp of approval. There are no plans to change the memorial or bell tower. We would certainly welcome community involvement and participation. Our Public Works crew would help with a lot of things, too.
6. Planning commission comments/reports:
Councilmember Archibald said Christmas is coming and the Planning Commission usually gets together at Maddox for dinner. We could set that up for Tuesday, December 12. When asked about staying local they said they could go to the Grille or JC’s Country Diner or look into having it catered.
7. Adjournment
Motion by Commission Member Van Tassell to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 7:08 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 _____day of ___________, 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.