Development Review Committee Minutes 7-17-192019-08-14T09:29:03-06:00

TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
JULY 17, 2019

Members Present:
Steve Bench, Chairman/Zoning Administrator
Chris Breinholt, City Engineer
Marc Christensen, Community Services Director—excused
Paul Fulgham, Public Works Director
Shawn Warnke, City Manager
Jeff Reese, City Councilmember
Cynthia Nelson, Deputy Recorder

Chairman Bench called the Development Review Committee Meeting to order at 9:01 a.m. The meeting was held July 17, 2019 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Steve Bench, Engineer Chris Breinholt, Director Paul Fulgham, City Manager Shawn Warnke (left at 10:09 a.m.), Councilmember Reese, and Deputy Recorder Cynthia Nelson were in attendance. Director Christensen was excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Director Fulgham to approve the July 17, 2019 agenda.
Motion seconded by Administrator Bench. Vote: Chairman Bench – aye, Engineer Breinholt – aye, Director Fulgham – aye, Manager Warnke – aye. Motion approved.

2.
Approval of minutes—June 26, 2019

Motion by Director Fulgham to approve the minutes of June 26, 2019.
Motion seconded by Engineer Breinholt. Vote: Chairman Bench – aye, Engineer Breinholt – aye, Director Fulgham – aye, Manager Warnke – aye. Motion approved.

3. New Business:

a. Concept Review for Greystone Subdivision at 360 East Main – Casey Mitchell

Administrator Bench asked why he is dividing this parcel. Mr. Mitchell said Mr. Paul Campbell expressed interest in purchasing it and since I have started the process, I decided to finish it and have future options. Director Fulgham said I do not know how UDOT will deal with an access to it. You might have to have a cross access. Mr. Mitchell said when I bought the property six years ago they were fine with the process and wanted me to do a traffic study, but I was not ready for that investment. Administrator Bench said we have to have confirmation from them that they would allow it before we could record. Mr. Mitchell said he potentially could use Mr. Campbell’s existing drive to access the property. I am aware of UDOT and if they were to require a traffic study, I would ask Mr. Campbell for a right-of-way off his access. Manager Warnke said other potential issues are utilities and getting access for laterals. UDOT repaved Main Street and have a moratorium of cutting the road for two years. Where would you get water and sewer? Director Fulgham said he could access water in the park strip. For sewer he would have to bore across main to get to the other side. It is in the shoulder area not UDOT’s road.

Manager Warnke brought up the Malad River Trail and the City’s intent to secure a trail corridor throughout the City, including along the Malad River. He said acquiring the corridor is an incremental process of getting right-of-ways through people’s property. Mr. Mitchell said he has two right-of-ways that run along the river near the Best storage unit, and Kent’s parking lot. If you want to do something like that on the east side of the river they would need to be moved to accommodate that, but it is doable. Mr. Mitchell said he is open to having that conversation with the other parties involved.

Engineer Breinholt said it sounds like you have no immediate plans to develop this. We typically require sewer and water services when lots are created. Commercial has a different size of demand depending on development. Does the City code allow for that to happen when the site plan is approved and not at the time of subdivision? Administrator Bench said they could adjust the language for water and sewer on the plan that is recorded. Mr. Mitchell said it is a mixed-use area and wondered if apartments would be acceptable or if the City had any particular needs. Does the City allow for cross connection from existing lines from adjacent properties? Director Fulgham said no you have to have your own service lateral to your property.

Manager Warnke asked about elevation. Mr. Mitchell said there is a retaining wall in the back, but in the front, there is an 18-inch variation between his pavement and the grass. It would not take much to modify that. I maintain that section of the retaining wall. There is another easement for utilities in that section that services his and my property, along with the homes back there. Manager Warnke said that as far as uses I could not foresee a problem with any use that fits within the zoning category. You might think about how it interfaces with layout. Mr. Mitchell said it does seem logical to do apartments. It would mirror what the neighbor has. Manager Warnke said are you looking to subdivide the property now? Mr. Mitchell said we are negotiating the price so I have options down the road, but I would like to subdivide it now whether he purchases or not. They addressed utilities and Director Fulgham said I would not want to see them stubbed into the property until you know what is going to develop and the actual use. We do not want something that is too big or small for its use. Is there a way to record it with that stipulation as part of the building permit? Engineer Breinholt said the only reason the City started requiring that is to protect people from buying home lots that do not have services. We could do a development agreement and site plan with utilities there just not stubbed. This is just a concept. Manager Warnke said if you do a residential development, there are impact fees for parks. Sometimes when someone dedicates a right-of-way or land, they get impact fee credit against what they would otherwise owe for their portion. Does it make sense to figure out where it would be? Mr. Mitchell said there is pavement there it would just be a matter of widening that area and adding a barrier between traffic in the parking lot.

Administrator Bench said he would email a preliminary review application so they could proceed to the next step—preliminary approval. The Committee would email their comments for his engineer and surveyor to review.

b.
Site Plan Discussion for Crump Reese Motors—Jeff Reese

Councilmember Reese confirmed the power poles that cross the site would remain in the sales lot, not public parking. He said it would cost over half a million, he would love to bury it but not for that price. Manager Warnke asked if it makes sense to have a drive approach where the wall is for the motel? We could talk to them about taking it down. Engineer Breinholt said that was in the original plan, but we had trouble making contact. Manager Warnke said we did not want to affect their property in a negative way. This gives them the option. Director Fulgham said if not then we could do a curb cut approach for future and all they have to do is take the fence down and pour the concrete for the approach. Manager Warnke would follow up with them, while Director Fulgham would talk to Excavator Mr. Blaine Rupp and the concrete crew.

Manager Warnke said the dumpsters have been taken care of, but the code says it cannot be chain link. Engineer Breinholt said it is not a requirement, but the asphalt section for the garbage truck will get destroyed as it pulls in and out of there. Councilmember Reese said it has held up so far, but I see your point. We do not want to see it fall apart. Manager Warnke said the same is true with that corridor through the center, but we do not necessarily require it. Engineer Breinholt said this is heavier asphalt. With emergency access and those vehicles, we have to verify it is capable. This is capable it just could break up the asphalt. Councilmember Reese said the corridor change for the emergency vehicle access (four-inch asphalt) increased the cost significantly. Engineer Breinholt said you have to have an access that will support those heavy trucks. Gravel could, but it has to be a thicker section. I do not think they have to go to four-inch asphalt. The code does require a geotech report with asphalt design. This is not my spec I did not tell them what to do, but it needs to support emergency vehicles. It is a commercial site and needs to have public access. Manager Warnke asked about designating an area to facilitate delivery and unloading of vehicles so it is clear. There is already road here and that is where you are going to load and resurface the top. Engineer Breinholt said this heavier section came from that comment for vehicle deliveries and emergency access. We did not specify a pavement section and you do not need to go four-inches. He suggested going with Mr. Rupp’s recommendation of three-inches of asphalt with a heavier base section.

Manager Warnke said that for the backup distance it makes sense for it to be wider (40 feet). Director Fulgham said I do not mind wider approaches as long as the water flows to the gutter. That approach could line up with all your bays to make in and out easier for traffic with more places to move. Councilmember Reese said we will go as wide as you will let us. Engineer Breinholt said I think it is better if they can back straight out and not have to maneuver. My only concern is making sure employees maneuver in here and not back into the street. Administrator Bench read the code and what it allows. Director Fulgham said that is a permissible curb, just adjusting the radius to help a vehicle to make the turn.

Administrator Bench said we have gone through everything with the exception of landscaping. Councilmember Reese said do you need a certified architect to do this? Administrator Bench said that according to the code it needs to have a stamp from a landscape architect. Engineer Breinholt said the State code allows a professional engineer to stamp the landscape plan, but the City’s code is more restrictive because a landscape plan is incidental to a project. Councilmember Reese said he has a grandson who has done landscape design for several areas, but is not certified. Manager Warnke said they could use him as a resource by allowing him to draw it and have it reviewed and stamped by a landscape architect. Councilmember Reese asked what is required as far as trees and bushes when they intend xeriscape. Administrator Bench said we do not have an issue with xeriscape, but there are trees required based on the footage (13,000 square feet equates to about 10 trees, 15% shrub and flowers, and 15% turf. Councilmember Reese asked about water shares, which would be .31 of a share, which would be purchased and turned over not a fee in lieu. Director Fulgham said they have to pay the certificate fee too. If you have a whole share and want to sell the remainder then the City would buy it.

Engineer Breinholt confirmed that the geotechnical report and the traffic impact study have been officially waived. He also has notes about signage plans. Do you have UDOT’s approval for the drive approach? Councilmember Reese said yes and would send over a copy of the letter. Engineer Breinholt said other than that the plans look great. They did a good job to finish it out. Director Fulgham said secondary water would be easy to connect to before they patch up the road. It could go in the park strip area near the basin. Councilmember Reese asked about landscaping for the basin. Director Fulgham said something appealing for their residential neighbors. You could do xeriscape up to and around it. Engineer Breinholt said grass is easier to maintain. He moved to approve the site plan with the updated garbage enclosure and the understanding that they are going to widen the driveway to match the bays. The landscape plan also has to be stamped as part of the site plan.

Motion by Engineer Breinholt to approve the site plan with the discussed changes.
Motion seconded by Director Fulgham. Vote: Chairman Bench – aye, Engineer Breinholt – aye, Director Fulgham – aye, and Manager Warnke – aye. Motion approved.

c. Walk ins:*

Developer and Councilmember Lyle Holmgren was in attendance to talk about phase five of his development, which was approved in 2017. Although it has expired, he is ready to pursue and finish that. Mr. Holmgren said our engineering is done we just need to bond. He asked about storm drains and potential options to minimize pipe. Could we just flow into the gutters here and go north? There are boxes in the intersection. I wonder if we could flow water to them. Engineer Breinholt said I would have to go back and look at that. Administrator Bench said we did the final approval we just need to review it and say if it is still good or not. It has not been recorded and we could bring it up to the current standards. We need the copy of the escrow account, water shares, and updates for Engineer Breinholt, including the contractor’s estimate. I will start throwing together a development agreement. There appears to be at least one streetlight at the intersection. Print up a new recordable plat for the signatures and let us make sure all the notes and dates are on it. We will pick up where we left off and do the final once we have that. We will do another final approval and have the dates reflect so it is not two years old.

Mr. Holmgren suggested selling the City the remaining water shares on the undeveloped 38 acres. It would then be rented from the City until it is needed upon development. I would have to get it approved by the City attorney, but it might be a good idea. Director Fulgham said it is no different than us holding shares and giving them to the canal company for their lease pool. This way we have the shares tied up for development and can lease them out for what we want until we are ready to develop.

4. Comments/Reports: none.

5. Public comments: Comments limited to five minutes.

No public comments.

6. Adjournment:

Motion by Engineer Breinholt to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Committee. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.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 Development Review Committee Meeting held on the above referenced date. Minutes prepared by Jessica Tanner.

Dated this 14th day of August, 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.