Planning Commission Minutes 3-22-16 2016-11-01T09:54:46+00:00

TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
PLANNING COMMISSION
March 22, 2016

Members Present:
Ben Greener, Commission Member
Arnold Eberhard, Commission Member
Micah Capener, Chairman Pro Tem
Tom Stokes, Commission Member
Bret Rohde, City Councilmember
Steve Bench, Zoning Administrator
Darlene Hess, Recorder

Chairman Pro Tem Micah Capener called the Planning Commission Meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. The meeting was held March 22, 2016 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Pro Tem Micah Capener, Commission Member Ben Greener, Commission Member Arnold Eberhard, Commission Member Tom Stokes, City Councilmember Bret Rohde, Building and Zoning Administrator Steve Bench, and Recorder Darlene S. Hess were in attendance. Chairman Pro Tem Capener excused the following from the meeting: Chairman Robert Anderson and Commission Members Val Bennett and Troy Forrest.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Commission Member Stokes to approve the March 22, 2016 agenda. Motion seconded by Commission Member Greener. Vote: Chairman Pro Tem Capener – aye, Commission Member Eberhard – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

2. Public Hearing(s):

Chairman Pro Tem Capener informed the audience that the Planning Commission has five public hearings to discuss this evening. He called the public hearings to order at 5:32 p.m. with seven people in attendance.

a. To receive public input on amending the Tremonton City Transportation Master Plan

Administrator Bench told the Commission that the Transportation Master Plan shows where the City would like the roads to be installed as things develop. Commission Member Greener commented that it also includes the stop signs and

Administrator Bench reported it also includes stoplights and tracks locations for future use. Mr. Bench said some of this information could be years before it actually is implemented. This is something that we put together so that UDOT knows we have it in place. It gets things in place so we do not have a lot of red tape to get around when things develop.

Chairman Pro Tem Capener asked if there is anything new implemented in the plan. Mr. Bench told the Commission that all the red lined information has been updated that the Commission has discussed in the past.

Chairman Pro Tem Capener closed the first public hearing at 5:33 p.m.

Chairman Pro Tem Capener opened the second public hearing at 5:34 p.m.

b. To receive public input on amending Chapter 1.08 Commercial and Industrial Districts and Chapter 1.09 Mix Use Districts to allow Porte-Cochére’s, Portico’s or similar structures to extend within the building yard setback as approved through a site plan approval

Commission Member Stokes asked why the Planning Commission was having a
Public Hearing on this item as the Commission had not discussed the issue. Mr. Bench informed Commission Member Stokes that the Planning Commission can hold the hearing and discuss the issue at that time.

Mr. Bench informed the Commission that the City has a business coming in that the land size doesn’t put everything behind the setback. As he and the City Manager looked at the issue, the carport used in place of a portico or Porte-Cochere, will be twenty feet back from the property line. Mr. Bench informed the Commission that this change will be for all parties not just for this business.

Commissioner Stokes commented that porticos can be good sized with large posts and sometimes you cannot see around them. Mr. Bench told the Commission that this carport would be attached to the building and open on three sides. The front and two sides have to remain open. As the Building Official, he did not see a problem with putting it in the code for commercial use with businesses getting site plan approval. It would not be for residential use.

Chair Pro Tem Capener stated that the carport would be in the setback limit. Mr. Bench commented that this was correct.

The new owners were in attendance and informed the Commission that they had new elevations to show them. Mr. Bench told the Commission that there are very few buildings with this type of portico and he reminded the Commission that they were not here to discuss this building, they were here to discuss the Portico/Porte-Cochere in a public hearing. He could see in the future where we will need this information in the code for future businesses.

Lora Burrell, a new business owner, stated that this portico is designated for a covered drive through basically for a pickup/drop off area. For this specific area, it provides a dry area for residents so they will not slip and fall. It will not block the view as there will be no parking allowed.

Chairman Pro Tem Capener closed the second public hearing closed at 5:35 p.m.

Chairman Pro Tem Capener opened the third public hearing at 5:36 p.m.

c. To receive public input on a proposed zone change to property located in the area of 690 West 1200 South and containing 6.7 acres the proposal is to change from an RR-1 one acre lots to R1-10 quarter acre lots

Chairman Pro Tem Capener commented that this is the piece of ground that Chad Merrill owns and Mr. Bench stated that Brent Kirkham as the developer was here to discuss the item.

The Commission discussed the area. Mr. Bench told the audience that these lots are decent sized lots. They are just under 14,000 square feet with the minimum around 10,000 square feet.

Chairman Pro Tem Capener asked if there were any comments from the audience. Jim Robinson told the Commission that his property butts up against this property. The property owners in this area do not have any objection with the construction and proposed rezoning. Mr. Robison informed the Commission there are eleven houses in this area and we received approval from nine of them to provide an access lane like an alleyways there are in other parts of the City. When asked what the purpose of the alley was for, Mr. Robinson stated that it was for access into the back of their property to park RVs, etc. No one is willing to provide any costs. Commissioner Stokes asked if they would provide any land. Mr. Robinson stated that they probably would not.

Brent Kirkham commented that if the alley was constructed, the land would be dedicated to the City for them to maintenance. Building and Zoning Administrator Bench told the audience that the City does not have any utilities in that area; therefore, there is no reason for the City to be responsible for the alleyway. Mr. Kirkham commented that if the City instructed him to put in an alleyway, the City would be responsible for it.

Commission Member Greener told the audience that he lived on an alley and people drive up and down it and people walk up and down it. His family was responsible for the upkeep and they did not like it.

Mr. Robinson told the Commission that several people who signed up for the alley were not willing to provide any costs so they understand the City’s stance on this issue.

Mr. Bench said that when the City was built in 1903, there were alleyways put into the planning. They met their intention; however, without utilities, etc. in new alleyways, the City is not interested in maintaining them. We have sewer running down some of the alleyways; however, if the City could we would get rid of them. Mr. Bench told Mr. Robinson that it is a good thing when citizens get involved in what is going on. We appreciate your interest.

Mr. Bench commented that it would be a pretty good expense if the developer put in an alleyway. It would probably be required to have asphalt and would be an expense to the developer to install. If you can work something out with the developer that is great but the City would not be willing to take on the costs. Mr. Robinson said that some people like the alleyway because it opens up their property and others said they did not like it. Mr. Bench told Mr. Robinson that the City will talk about it through the process.

Mr. Kirkham told the Commission that Dr. Merrill had called him and asked if he would develop this area. He did not want apartments or smaller homes and he wanted to avoid rentals. He wanted something that would be an upgrade to the area as far as the size.

Chairman Pro Tem Capener closed the third public hearing at 5:42 p.m.

Chairman Pro Tem Capener opened the fourth public hearing at 5:43 p.m.

d. To receive public input on amending Chapter 1.16 Overlay Zones, Tremont Center Mixed Use Overlay Zone by adding General Retail as a permitted use

Administrator Bench told the Commission that this is where the City Staff messed up. We put everything in the overlay zones we could think of; however, we missed general retail which auto parts and dollar stores fall under.

Chairman Pro Tem Capener stated that he needs to proclaim a conflict of interest
on this item. He encouraged other Commission members to speak up on the issue. Commissioner Stokes commented that this should have been in the code.

Chairman Pro Tem Capener called for comments from the Commission or audience.
Being none, he closed the fourth public hearing 5:44 p.m.

Chairman Pro Tem Capener opened the fifth public hearing at 5:45 p.m.

e. To receive public input on amending Chapter 1.07 Residential Zone Districts, Chapter 1.08 Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts, Chapter 1.09 Mixed Use Zone District and associated definitions adding to said chapters Assisted Living Facilities as a conditional use

Chairman Pro Tem Capener declared a conflict of interest.

Administrator Bench told the Commission that this is another item we need to add to the code. We have in the code residential facility for elderly persons which are in both the commercial and residential code. To me it sounds like a catch all; however, when you get down to the definition of assisted living and care facility, it does not fit in the code. The code we currently have in the book is a facility or housing in the neighborhood that is a not for profit. It is like me being the elderly person and opening up a few rooms for the elderly to come live in my home. There is a different definition for assisted living, care center and memory care.

Mr. Bench told the Commission that they are not changing the code because we have a new business moving in. As outlined now in the code, we lumped everything together. This change will add Assisted Living Facilities as a conditional use in all of the zones. The Commission discussed the needed to have a discussion on where Assisted Living Facility could be located.

Discussion followed on mechanical equipment being located where the noise is not a problem. For example, Mr. Bench discussed a church facility where equipment is hung on the side of a building. For neighboring residents, landscaping would be placed so as assisted living residents are not looking out into the backyard of residents on decks having a party. A tree could be placed in this type of location. We discussed this with the new business so they are aware of the information. We will take the appropriate steps so this will not be a concern at least with this business.

Chairman Pro Tem Capener called for discussion from the Commission and audience. Being none, he closed the fifth public hearing 5:53 p.m. Administrator Bench informed the Commission that he needed a motion to move the items to the City Council.

Motion by Commission Member Eberhard to recommend to the City Council for approval all items discussed in the public hearings. Second by Commission Member Stokes. Vote: Commission Member Greener – aye, Commission Member Eberhard – aye, Commission Member Stokes – aye, Chairman Pro Tem Capener – aye. Motion approved.

3. New Business:

a. Discussion and consideration of preliminary plat approval for Tremont Center Phase 3 – Micah Capener
Chairman Pro Tem Capener declared a conflict of interest on item a. It was discussed that as long as he proclaims a conflict he can vote on the issue.

The Commission discussed the map shown to them of the area. Mr. Capener told the Commission that each line is a different lot with six lots included. Mr. Capener informed the Commission that they are burying the canal and they need this approved so they can get things going for the buildings. Administrator Bench told the Commission that the red lines are the lots for Phase 3. He told the Commission that it was more cost effective to do six lots than to do each one separately.

Administrator Bench told the Commission that the Land Use Authority Board is reviewing Auto Zone right now and they have retail in lot 4 – some type of retail. Councilmember Rohde asked Mr. Capener if they have restaurants in the plan. Mr. Capener told the Commission that Lot 5 and 6 are both restaurants. We have been working on this plan for a couple of years now. Lot 8 will be the hardware store.

Chairman Pro Tem Capener asked if there was any discussion. Being none, he called for a motion.

Motion to approve the preliminary plat approval for Tremont Center Phase 3 and recommend this item be sent to the Land Use Authority Board for a final review by Commission Member Greener. Motion seconded by Commission Member Stokes. Vote: Commission Member Eberhard – aye, Chairman Pro Tem Member Capener – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, and Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

b. Discussion concerning the number of building lots within a development prior to the requirement of a second access

Chairman Pro Tem Capener declared a conflict of interest on this item also.

Administrator Bench read the current code – a subdivision with greater than thirty building lots may be required to have a second access road into the development prior to the recordation of the subdivision. The Planning Commission shall determine the need of additional access roads based on density traffic patterns, development location natural land settings, and the general plan. Mr. Bench told the Commission that Mr. Capener has an annexation going on right now that annexes a portion of the property that has been in the County forever. He is looking at half acre zoning or R1-20 zoning which will be a minimum of 20,000 square feet or bigger. The road would go north to south from 1200 South to 600 South. The outlay of cost would be big right now for an access.

Commission Stokes commented that the original Century Drive on about 1000 South has a stub to go across the railroad tracks. Is the City just going to abandon the stubs? Administrator Bench told the Commission that more than likely that is what will happen. The railroad’s current policy is if you add a crossing, you have to take away a crossing. They only allow so many. Chairman Pro Tem Capener commented that Manager Warnke said that the railroad told him that if you add a crossing you have to take away two crossings.

Mr. Capener informed the Commission that the reason we are talking about this issue is the City is trying to purchase some property for a trail. He told the Commission that he will work with that but as part of the agreement; we want to determine the number of homes that need to be built before an additional access needs to be installed. He informed the Commission that Tremont Pines which is the subdivision just above this one was allowed 44 units until the next access had to be installed. We want all things to be fair so we want the same number of units to be considered. Administrator Bench corrected Mr. Capener by stating that it was 48 units. Mr. Capener replied that what the vision details is how many units can be installed before an additional access needs to be installed. Ultimately, we will have to install a bridge on the north end. We need to get as many units installed as we can to fund the bridge for the access.

Commission Member Stokes told the Commission that he has a concern. If you build in the south part of the subdivision, how will residents walk to the Stake Center without walking in the road? Mr. Capener told the Commission that when the walking trail is built, it will solve this issue. Administrator Bench informed the Commission that on the north side of the road, they will build sidewalks to the canal. The sidewalk will go across most of that area.

Mr. Capener told the Commission that it is up to them to decide how many homes need to be built before the additional access is required. He just wanted to get the same consideration as other subdivisions have received. Mr. Bench told the Commission that Tremonton Pines can build 48 units but when the 49th is built, they have to install another access.

Motion by Commission Member Greener to approve 45 units be built within this subdivision prior to the requirement of a second access. Second by Commission Member Stokes. Vote: Vote: Commission Member Eberhard – aye, Chairman Pro Tem Member Capener – aye, Commission Member Greener – aye, and Commission Member Stokes – aye. Motion approved.

4. Adjournment

Motion by Commission Member Stokes to adjourn the meeting. Second by Commission Member Greener the meeting adjourned at 6:14 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.

Dated this _____day of ___________, 2016.

______________________________
Darlene S. Hess, 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.