TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 25, 2019
Members Present:
Micah Capener, Chairman
Val Bennett, Commission Member
Arnold Eberhard, Commission Member
Troy Forrest, Commission Member—via phone
Ben Greener, Commission Member—excused
Brad Janssen, Commission Member—excused
Tom Stokes, Commission Member
Bret Rohde, City Councilmember
Steve Bench, Zoning Administrator
Cynthia Nelson, Deputy Recorder
Acting Chairman Stokes called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:38 p.m. The meeting was held June 25, 2019 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Capener (arrived at 5:51 p.m.), Acting Chairman Stokes, Commission Members Bennett, Eberhard, and Forrest (via phone), City Councilmember Rohde, Zoning Administrator Bench, and Deputy Recorder Nelson were in attendance.
1. Approval of agenda:
Motion by Commission Member Bennett to approve the June 25, 2019 agenda. Motion seconded by Commission Member Eberhard. Vote: Acting Chairman Stokes – aye, Commission Member Bennett – aye, Commission Member Eberhard – aye, Commission Member Forrest – aye. Motion approved.
2. Approval of minutes—May 28, 2019
Motion by Commission Member Eberhard to approve the May 28, 2019 minutes. Motion seconded by Commission Member Bennett. Vote: Commission Member Bennett – aye, Commission Member Eberhard – aye, Commission Member Forrest – aye. Motion approved. Acting Chairman Stokes abstained.
Acting Chairman Stokes called a Public Hearing to order at 5:39 p.m. to gain public input on a rezone. There was one person in attendance.
3. Public Hearing:
a. To receive public input regarding proposed rezoning of property located in the area of 489 West 600 South which includes Heritage Park Subdivision and an adjoining parcel of property currently zoned Residential Multiple District (RM-8) and proposed to change to Residential Multiple District RM-16 and a proposed zoning code amendment to Title I Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 1.19 Supplementary Regulations adding Drive-through window and Stacking Lane regulations
Administrator Bench said the six units to the east do not fit the RM-18 so every time they try to sell a building the banks want a letter. They are legal
non-conforming, but if we make them RM-16, they will be a conforming use. Matt Ritter has purchased property and wants to provide a different housing product. He plans to build two four-plex units, but with a new design. Two units will face the north street and two units will face the south street with more of a home look and a garage. Mr. Ritter said there would be two four-plexes that look like a duplex from the street. Administrator Bench said they are going to be narrow and long, but will meet the setbacks of 25 feet from each street. They will have side property plus a spot of grass in front of each with their own driveway. Commission Member Bennett confirmed the buildings now there are too dense to meet the RM-8 (eight units per acre). Acting Chairman Stokes asked how big is the lot? Administrator Bench said just shy of half an acre.
There were no public comments. Acting Chairman Stokes closed the Public Hearing at 5:46 p.m. He then called a Public Hearing to order at 5:46 p.m. to gain public input on a rezone code amendment. There was one person in attendance.
Administrator Bench said this deals with vehicle stacking in a single line to a business. He gave examples of Soda Fixx, Tremonton Pharmacy, and Ridley’s future pharmacy drive-up. We have not had anything in the past we just winged it and allowed these. We decided we needed to get something in the book. I searched around to see what other cities are doing. This proposal is very similar to Logan and Brigham. Acting Chairman Stokes said why do we have a stacking regulation? Why is it not just a regulation about impeding traffic and stacking beyond that point? Administrator Bench said this would be the minimum space they need to provide. For a bank the minimum they provide is one vehicle at the window and two behind that. A drive thru for a restaurant is a little bigger. Commission Member Bennett said would you want to change the self-service carwash from one to at least two vehicles? Administrator Bench said the only thing I reduced on here from what Brigham City and Logan have was the drive thru for restaurants from eight to six vehicles. We do not have to copy them, but zoning codes and subdivision codes always duplicate from town to town.
There were no public comments. Acting Chairman Stokes closed the Public Hearing at 5:51 p.m.
4. New Business:
a. Discussion and consideration of proposed rezoning of property located in the area of 489 West 600 South which includes Heritage Park Subdivision and an adjoining parcel of property currently zoned Residential Multiple District (RM-8) and proposed to change to Residential Multiple District RM-16 and a proposed zoning code amendment to Title I Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 1.19 Supplementary Regulations adding Drive-through window and Stacking Lane regulations
Motion by Commission Member Eberhard to recommend the rezone as proposed to the City Council. Motion seconded by Commission Member Bennett. Vote: Commission Member Bennett – aye, Commission Member Eberhard – aye, Commission Member Forrest – aye, Acting Chairman Stokes – aye. Motion approved. Chairman Capener – abstained.
Commission Member Bennett said I think the self-serving carwashes should be a couple of vehicles I do not think one is enough. It should be two there and four for automatic carwashes. That is the only change I could see. Councilmember Rohde said does this address drive-thru stacking and where we put them? Administrator Bench said it talks about location—only on the rear or non-facing street side, away from single-family and those types of dwellings. It would be good to discuss idling cars and corner lots. It seems like other cities have made exceptions for restaurants stacking onto the Main Street view. Chairman Capener said if we do something like this, we are saying we do not want businesses with a drive thru. There are so many rules and to stack six cars in a restaurant is hard. That is 120 feet and you would have to run a circle somewhere that is not a road. I do not like it at all. They cannot meet this. Administrator Bench said I reduced it from eight to six. That is what Logan and Brigham City had for a restaurant. Chairman Capener said we already cannot get restaurants in here and then we are going to add strict restrictions on them, plus that is more expensive. Administrator Bench said we do not have the population for them. We have researched that, but most restaurants plan on adding that in their site plan. Councilmember Rohde said what if we take out the line that says it cannot face the main road? Chairman Capener said I do not think there is any way to get that amount of stacking if you do not face the road. They would have to take it around the building. Councilmember Rohde said they should be able to stack six cars and figure it out. Administrator Bench said they would stripe their parking lot as their stacking lane. As long as it is private and they can delineate where it is and stripe it then it works. I do not disagree that we need to accommodate and attract businesses.
Councilmember Rohde said we have to have something in place to make sure we have an outlet with the one ways—something that prevents future problems. The Commission talked about different businesses that are currently using City owned alleys instead of private property for their drive thru. Councilmember Rohde said is this ordinance going to give them the right to do that and is it okay? Chairman Capener said you cannot stack anything on a public street. It is not allowed it has to be private. Ridley’s and Tremonton Pharmacy would not be allowed if they were to come in for a new permit. Under this it would not have been allowed. Administrator Bench said no obstruction shall occur in a public right-of-way. Councilmember Rohde said I think the thing with Ridleys is going to work, but I get concerned that as the City grows we need to make sure we are taking care of it and not blocking access for everyone’s parking and deliveries. Chairman Capener said are you saying it is going to work or you are not okay with it and we need to change the code? Councilmember Rohde said personally I am not okay with it, but I am willing to work with them. Commission Member Eberhard said is that policy going to fly in the future with somebody else? Councilmember Rohde said that is my question. Do we need something in place that protects other businesses so they can come in with a drive thru or they cannot? We need to make it very specific. On City streets they should not be able to put a drive thru and stop traffic yet we allow it even though it breaks the law. So do we need to change our ordinance to allow stopping traffic on public alleys? Commission Member Eberhard said we should not allow that. Chairman Capener said I think we need to do everything we can to support the businesses. Commission Member Stokes said even in public right-of-ways? What is the difference between an alley and a main street then? An alley is not different it is still public property. Chairman Capener said if we say you cannot use that as a drive thru you devalue the buildings, and the businesses, and remove the ability to use that space. Administrator Bench said the original designs of the buildings on the alleys were not designed for a drive thru. Commission Member Stokes said the alleys are worthless they are not for traffic flow. Councilmember Rohde said we need some language in there that says they can use it on a City owned property unless it causes some kind of jeopardy to the local businesses. Administrator Bench said that is in the other ordinance the Council will have to address. Councilmember Rohde said remove the street side on that all together. Administrator Bench said I do not have a problem with that. We could eliminate 1 and 2 and leave 3, the part about the single-family dwelling. Commission Member Stokes said let us strike 1 and 2 under drive thru structures, but leave 3. For restaurant we will decrease the stacking to four vehicles, and we will take the automatic carwash and self-service down to two vehicles. Administrator Bench said we would make the change in the verbiage in the revised ordinances—that is where the law is about blocking traffic. In here it says you do not block a public right-of-way. If they change that, we can come back and put a footnote in there to see the ordinance about the alleys.
Motion by Commission Member Bennett to send their recommendations to the City Council. Motion seconded by Commission Member Eberhard. Vote: Chairman Capener – aye, Commission Member Bennett – aye, Commission Member Eberhard – aye, Commission Member Forrest – aye, Acting Chairman Stokes – aye. Motion approved.
5. Adjournment
Motion by Commission Member Bennett to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Board. The meeting adjourned at 6:13 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 9th day of July, 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.