TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 14, 2024

Members Present:
Marc Christensen, Chairman & City Manager
Chris Breinholt, City Engineer
Zach LeFevre, Parks and Recreation Director—excused
Paul Fulgham, Public Works Director
Tyler Seaman, Building Inspector—excused
Sam Taylor, Landmark Design Planner
Cynthia Nelson, Deputy Recorder

Chairman Christensen called the Development Review Committee Meeting to order at 9:29 a.m. The meeting was held February 14, 2024 in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Chairman Christensen, Engineer Breinholt, Director Fulgham, Planner Taylor and Deputy Recorder Nelson were in attendance. Director LeFevre and Inspector Seaman were excused.

1. Approval of agenda:

Motion by Director Fulgham to approve the February 14, 2024 agenda. Motion seconded by Chairman Christensen. Vote: Chairman Christensen – aye, Engineer Breinholt – aye, Director Fulgham – aye, Director LeFevre – absent, Inspector Seaman – absent, Planner Taylor – aye. Motion approved.

2. Approval of minutes—January 3, 2024 & January 10, 2024

Motion by Director Fulgham to approve the minutes stated above. Motion seconded by Engineer Breinholt. Vote: Chairman Christensen – aye, Engineer Breinholt – aye, Director Fulgham – aye, Director LeFevre – absent, Inspector Seaman – absent, Planner Taylor – aye. Motion approved.

3. New Business:

a. Discussion of other home options at 283 South 100 East – James Ashby

Mr. Ashby said my property was split into a duplex years ago. It was previously approved that we could add another unit. I have a manufactured home. According to zoning regulations manufactured homes are not allowed in an area that is zoned for rentals or multi-family dwelling. The main difference between a stick-built home and a manufactured home is the underneath. They use smaller floor joists and a metal frame for transporting. Looking at the tax code for the State of Utah, you can take that mobile classification off if you surrender the title. The property then goes from personal to real. I am proposing putting that manufactured home there and changing it to have a third foundation stem wall that would support the center of the home so that the floor joists met the engineering code without the metal frame. I would then surrender the title so that it is no longer classified as a mobile home. By removing the metal frame and adding that stem wall it will never be moved again. It would be stabilized just like a stick-built home. The foundation would be set up just like a regular home with a crawlspace. The only difference is there would be a third footing right down the center. Director Fulgham said this is something for our building inspector to review. I recommend tabling this until next week when Inspector Seaman is around. He could also reach out to you.

b. Discussion of housing types for an unplatted subdivision referred to as the Envision Estates located in the vicinity of 600 West 600 North. The properties that comprise Envision Estates are parcel 05-043-0049, composed of 17.33 acres, and parcel 05-043-0092, composed of 19.41 acres. Both parcels are currently zoned from the R1-10 District which allows single-family detached housing on 10,000 square foot lots – Ben Steele & Jeff Jackson with Visionary Homes

Mr. Jackson said the old concept was 92 lots, but there has been a lot of changes in this area. We are representing owners who started down the path of potentially rezoning this to townhomes. Many townhome projects have been approved in Tremonton. We told them we are not interested in more because there are so many already. I said if you could get the City to accept small single-family detached, we would be very interested. We pitched this to former City Manager Shawn Warnke and the team. We were asked to come back with a concept showing streetscapes. I think 10,000 square foot lots have become unattainable and there are a lot of townhomes. There is, however, a missing middle housing product (4,500 to 6,000 square foot lots). These are very attractive products, but are more affordable. We have a cottage plan and single-family plan. Engineer Breinholt asked about the zero-lot line on one side. Mr. Steele said we did explore that option. It allows you to take the driveway off the front of the building and put it to the side, but then it does pose other challenges This works great if you are in a community that does not have a lot of vehicles or toys. We considered it, but ultimately decided this layout would probably be better. They reviewed the street views and setbacks.

Mr. Steele said we did not put the cottages all in one place and small single-family in another. They are intermixed, which adds variety to the project. Mr. Jackson said would we just expand our Archibald overlay into here or rezone it to a mixed use? Planner Taylor said I am concerned about the density you are proposing. The City’s Future Land Use Plan has identified this area as being 8,000 to 12,000 square foot lots. That strays from what was established. The cottage plans are essentially the same form and structure. They do not offer a ton of variety. I am concerned with having a walled feeling with all those garage doors and two-story buildings. This would not achieve much of a different feel from a townhome situation. It would be nice to see some variation in the housing forms. Engineer Breinholt said how many different house plans would you have? Mr. Jackson said typically five house plans with three elevations (15 varieties). We have two different plans intermixed here between cottages and small homes so we would end up with 10 different floor plans and three different elevations. Even though it feels and looks dense, we are at 5.4 units to the acre. We are half the density of what your typical townhome project would be. We are going to try to have them be affordable. This is a great place for another alternative housing type that is not currently offered.

Planner Taylor said I think we can handle it by an overlay. I like the idea of expanding an existing overlay. That does make it easier administratively. We have to look at the details to make sure we are not missing something. That seems like the most reasonable option. Mr. Jackson said we just need a little direction. With what we have so far, are we prepared to bring it to the Planning Commission to present the concept saying we would like to expand the Archibald overlay? Are we to the point where we could submit application for an overlay or are we still lacking details? Planner Taylor said I need to do some research. What we have here is probably the homework that needs to be done. I do not imagine there is much more. I will get back to you.

c. Discussion of update of Harvest Village – Leslie Clifton with C23 Real Estate

Mrs. Clifton was not in attendance. They will discuss this in a future meeting.

d. Discussion of annexation around 5045 West 12000 North – Bobbi Fessler and Jerianne Stevenson

Ms. Stevenson said we want to build one house. When we contacted the County, they said regulations changed and we needed to look into annexing into the City. My daughter built her house here last year. Being in the City would be easier for water. We cannot buy water from Garland anymore. We could dig a well though. Director Fulgham said that is the beauty of City water. It is always there and you do not have a pump. You would have to go through the process of meeting the requirements for annexation. Chairman Christensen said we cannot create an island with these two houses. You would have to go through the process and take this to the Planning Commission and do a public hearing. The only service we could provide as far as utilities would be water. Sewers is too far away. Director Fulgham said connection would cost a couple thousand dollars and you will have to turn over a partial share for the property that you are going to be subdividing the building on. That goes into the pool for future as we bring secondary water that way. It is part of the impact of building in Tremonton. Chairman Christensen said we have the annexation procedure checklist. Where you are going to build on the other side of that future annexation line, I do not think it is necessary to annex. The benefit would be City water. If you choose not to, the County would need a letter saying this is okay. We would reject this petition and allow you to stay in the County.

e. Walk-ins:

Brian Bollingbrook was in attendance to discuss an issue at his business (100 West 100 North), which is next to State Farm Insurance (same building—each owning half). That owner started remodeling and punched a hole through the wall on the outside. The water is draining into my land. He decided to get rid of that and instead of taking it to a storm drain, he just punched a hole in the wall so the roof drains out to our property. My wife’s family has owned this building for 50 years and have had water problems because of the way the ground slopes. It slopes to our building. I have had conversations with him. He said he would take care of it, but has not. In December Inspector Seaman looked at the elevation. They did not have a building permit to do any of the stuff they have done. I do not want water in my backyard. A rain gutter would work. Are we not going to hold these guys to the code? We took care of our problems and I want him to take care of his. Director Fulgham will take a look. Probably all we can do is write him a letter and explain he is responsibility to control the water off his property.

Developer Bradon Capener was also a walk in. He said this is basically the exact same thing as last time, but we put some real dimensions on it. Before he does all of the grading, I wanted to formalize our thoughts. I can make changes easier now than later. I have proposed we slide the building to the south a little bit to have more room to add a sidewalk to the front and additional parking. They further discussed setbacks and parking stalls. Mr. Capener said the water line is stubbed. The former developer was planning on using the sewer in the back so that was not stubbed. I might modify the landscape plan. He had a lot of grass in small areas, which sometimes is more of a headache to make look good. Maybe landscape rock with some grasses. Something that would be a little more maintainable. Chairman Christensen said send an updated landscape plan to Planner Taylor and he can provide comments. Mr. Capener said I need to get the HOA agreement. I’ll get the final version of this.

4. Comments/Reports:

Engineer Breinholt has been reviewing areas that could be serviced with a sewer lift station. I think we need to be looking at something regional. Having one here at the annexation policy boundary would be beneficial. We do not want to end up with a bunch of little lift stations everywhere. Maybe we could add another farther south, because the land is all going southwest. East is not a good location. I ran the water model and he could run off this line (eight-inch). It kind of limits the size of their homes, unless he wanted to upsize to 10-inch. This is not going to be cheap because of the sewer lift station and the distance they are from everything.

The Committee asked about a response from the Canal Company for 1200 South so they can construct the road there. Engineer Breinholt said I need to follow up. We changed the design of the bridge a bit. They are working on that. Chairman Christensen said he will work with Rocky Mountain Power to get the poles moved.

Engineer Breinholt said according to State law we have to adopt a Public Works standard for a street section that has a 32-foot asphalt width, with red curb and no parking. Our new standard for these street sections will have the curb dyed red. Part of this includes no parking signs every 200 feet. Chairman Christen said I think the standard with no on-street parking is probably the best option. Engineer Breinholt said my preference is definitely that they just continue to use the 60-foot right-of-way with 36-foot pavement. Director Fulgham added with no on-street parking, the dyed curb and signs.

5. Public comments:

It was suggested to have no parking along 400 West. They would make a note of that and take it to the Traffic Advisory Board.

6. Adjournment:

Motion by Director Fulgham to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by consensus of the Committee. The meeting adjourned at 11:31 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 24 day of April, 2024

_____________________________
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.