LAVERKIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

Regular Meeting

Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 6:00 P.M.

City Council Chambers, 111 South Main Street

LaVerkin, Utah 84745

Present: Chair Stephen Sanders, Commissioner Michael Hinckley, Commissioner Joe Webb, Commissioner Anna Andregg, Alternate Allen Bice; Staff: Kevin Bennett, Derek Imlay, Debi Groves, June Jeffery; Public: Ray Justice, Maurine Roberts, Blair Gubler

Alternate Allen Bice sat in place of Commissioner Dan Howard who was not in attendance.

Call To Order: Chair Stephen Sanders 6:02 p.m., Invocation & Pledge of Allegiance- Blair Gubler

Approval of Minutes:  Motion by Commissioner Hinckley to approve the minutes of the October 8, 2008 regular meeting, second by Commissioner Webb. Motion carried 5-0 with Sanders, Andregg, Webb, Hinckley, and Bice voting yes.

Approval of Agenda: Motion by Commissioner Hinckley to approve the agenda as written, second by Commissioner Andregg. Motion carried 5-0 with Sanders, Andregg, Webb, Hinckley, and Bice voting yes.

Reports:  

Beautification Committee: Maurine Roberts reported on the November 12 committee meeting. They discussed the county beautification contest. Hurricane won the contest again this year. LaVerkin gave a good representation and is ready to start again in January. They also discussed publicity now that the Hurricane Valley Journal is out of business. The Neighborhood publication in the Spectrum has picked up the monthly page for LaVerkin news. There is a need to advertise the binnies at the school. The committee would like to see the notice on the water bill. The Christmas lighting contest will be judged on December 6^th and the word needs to get out. There was a blurb in the Neighborhood this week. They discussed the prizes for winners, but need to clear that with Doug Beecher for affordability. They expect to provide a dinner for two at Ted & Allen’s for the grand prize, and movie tickets for the remaining awards – possibly $100.00 in total cost. Maurine announced that the annual clean-up drive-around would be February 21^st. Notices would be sent to those who need improvements. The second drive around is scheduled for April 18^th to select the most improved. The first time the committee started this drive of the city, there were 60 notifications sent. Last year there were only 12.

Trails Committee: Debi Groves reported that the 3-River Trails Committee is active again. They met at the city office this last week. There is some Federal funding available to look at connecting LaVerkin to the Virgin, Springdale trails. There will be another meeting in 3 months. Karl attended this meeting. Debi visited with Lori Rose, who is the facilitator.

Director of Operations: Derek had nothing to report, but Michael questioned a wall going up on the corner of 200 North and Main, and also one across the street from his house in Zion View Estates. It appears that the walls are going up right next to the sidewalk and the set-back should be 10 feet. The Zion View concern is also building an ATV pad. Derek has met with the Zion View Estates concern and they know about the 10 foot set back. He will keep an eye on it and check on the 200 North one as well.

Public Hearings and Possible Action:

Ordinance No. 2008-: An Ordinance amending Title 11 of the LaVerkin City code (subdivision regulations), and providing for one-lot subdivisions, prohibiting derelict parcels and unimproved residual lots as the result of a subdivision of land, and deleting provisions relative to lots splits and small subdivisions; and providing an effective date.

Chair Sanders moved the meeting into a public hearing.

Kevin stated that Blair Gubler had left the meeting, but had discussed a concern with him prior to leaving. Kevin, speaking on Blair’s behalf, said that the concern involved an item that was not changed by this ordinance and rather than affecting this ordinance moving forward at this time, could be handled at a later date as a clean up. Ash Creek is interested in tightening up the language concerning the Sanitary Sewer Authority.

Chair Sanders moved the meeting out of a public hearing.

Possible Action: Allen Bice stated that he thought the ordinance was well-written and accomplished what commissioners wanted.

Motion by Commissioner Hinckley to recommend approval of the Ordinance amending Title 11 of the LaVerkin City code (subdivision regulations), and providing for one-lot subdivisions, prohibiting derelict parcels and unimproved residual lots as the result of a subdivision of land, and deleting provisions relative to lots splits and small subdivisions; and providing an effective date, second by Commissioner Webb.

Kevin raised a concern about a typo on the ordinance title “lots splits” that needs to be corrected before passing it on to council. Commissioner Webb withdrew his second so that the motion could be amended to correct the typo.

Amended Motion by Commissioner Hinckley to recommend approval of the Ordinance amending Title 11 of the LaVerkin City code (subdivision regulations), and providing for one-lot subdivisions, prohibiting derelict parcels and unimproved residual lots as the result of a subdivision of land, and deleting provisions relative to lot splits and small subdivisions; and providing an effective date, second by Commissioner Webb. Motion carried 5-0 with Sanders, Andregg, Webb, Hinckley, and Bice voting yes.

New Business:

Ordinance Discussion: Derek presented changes and additions to the detail drawings in the Standard Drawings in the LaVerkin City Code concerning drainage. Currently people cut into the sidewalk and install a 2-3” pvc pipe under the sidewalk and into the curb and gutter. The pipe is then covered with a little cement. It doesn’t take long for the cement to break up and create a tripping hazard on the sidewalk – a city liability. Derek has been looking at alternative ways to handle the drainage. He had pictures of a 4” X 4” pipe installed into the sidewalk from the down spout. The pipe is over-excavated and installed to lay even with the sidewalk, or to pour deeper concrete over it - even with the sidewalk. The pipe is more stable and there is no concrete break up. One of the pictures showed a tube into the pipe to the gutter. Derek said that one of the problems with the current practice is catching people installing without an excavation permit or bond. When the sidewalk breaks the city is liable. He would like this to be a requirement with building permits and/or subdivision installation per lot. All new development is required to take care of their drainage issues, but once the inspection is done landscaping may change what was approved. Other cities around the area require homes to have rain gutter to curb with corrugated pipe. Vintage Park was required to have drainage to the street on those homes because of the sensitive hillside and soils issues there. Most people are not aware of the bonding and excavation requirements and it leaves city staff in a “catch me if you can” process. If this installation could be required at permit or subdivision time, it would eliminate the need for people to do it later.

Anna wondered if Derek had ever seen a time when the concrete cracked the whole width of the sidewalk. There are three houses in a row on 560 W. that have issues. There was some concern that the pipe could be pulled out if it weren’t imbedded. There was discussion that there is a fastening system and concrete underneath. Concern also about possible settling, or slip hazards if water froze on it. Dimpling could possibly protect from slipping.

Discussion about the aesthetics of the pipe. City’s issue is with liability. Once the pipe is in the yard it becomes a landscape issue. Drainage is not the big issue, the current process works, chipping is the concern.

There was discussion about alternative configuration for the pipe. Rather than a 4”X 4”, a 4”X 2” would allow a thicker layer of concrete without slipping or aesthetic concerns. Discussion that thickness of the pipe would protect the integrity of the pipe against collapse. Derek will discuss those concerns with the engineer.

Stephen stated that a fiberglass grate is available that would work as catchment. Possible for subdividers to provide on low side of lots. The grate can also be retrofitted. Stephen will provide a catalog from McNichol’s for Derek to review.

Derek will bring this back for further review in December. He suggested that commissioners look at the problems at 560 W. on the east side of the road under the Andregg property.

Unfinished Business:

Meeting Schedule: When Planning Commission discussed this item last meeting, there was an assumption that City Council was going to one meeting a month during 2009. A motion was made at that time to use the week not to be used by the city council – either the 1^st or 3^rd Wednesday. City Council was only eliminating one of their meetings through November, December, and January. With the downturn in development, Planning Commission doesn’t need two meetings any more. Ray Justice stated that when he was on the commission, they held only one meeting a month until development got so busy they had to add more. There was discussion about publication of meetings and coordinating with City Council agendas. It is not difficult either way. The year dates are published at the first of the year. If it is decided that the slate of meetings needs to change an amendment may be published, or each meeting can be posted as special or work meetings. Coordination with City Council is not a problem any more since there are generally no public hearings in that meeting. If there are items that will require public hearing, those items are known ahead of time and arrangements can be made. Suggestion was made that 2^nd weeks work better when it comes to the end of the year and the holiday season.

Motion by Commissioner Webb to meet on the 2^nd Wednesday of every month with one regular meeting per month in 2009, second by Commissioner Andregg. Motion carried 5-0 with Sanders, Andregg, Webb, Hinckley, and Bice voting yes.

General Plan Update: Michael read Chapter 7 of the General Plan - Housing.

• Page 56: Third paragraph, number of units is also out of date. Final statement “Additional diversity and affordable housing units are needed in LaVerkin, including multi-family apartment and duplexes” needs to be removed.

• Page 57: Middle of the third paragraph says, “This explains that multiple-family units and single-family attached units are needed immensely in LaVerkin.” There was discussion about affordable housing and this chapter’s connection to the affordable housing plan that was done several years ago. When that study was done, LaVerkin had a lot of affordable housing, though it was substandard. The city has now removed much of the substandard housing and with it the number of affordable housing units has been decreased. The flavor of the city has been toward single-family dwellings and zoning. This statement should be removed.

There was information that a planner from Vision Dixie Ad Hoc Committee has been invited to make a presentation to City Council and Planning Commission on January 21^st.

• Page 57: 7.2 BUILDING TRENDS includes the word “considerably” several times in the first paragraph. That word should be removed each time.

• Page 58: 7.3 HOUSING DENSITY MIX uses 71% for single-family and 30% for multi-family units, which doesn’t equal 100%. Those numbers need to be adjusted.

• Page 58: Second paragraph under housing density mix states that multi-family units are capped at 4 units. Need to make sure that number matches current code. In that same paragraph infers that the philosophy in LaVerkin is that moderate or low income housing is “dispersed” through the community. Current zoning doesn’t support that. There was discussion as to whether mixed use or zoned districting was best. Putting all the multi-housing in one district can “ghettoize” an area. The city has allowed for condominiums with development agreements. Brief discussion about multi-family units used as buffering. Discussion that multi use enhances a walkable community. LaVerkin is walkable without special design. Most mixed use is loosely written so that work can be designed between the city and developer. Can appear arbitrary. This statement in the General Plan doesn’t support the current philosophy. The city rezoned a great deal of the available area to a larger, single-family zone and removed the ability for PUDs. Commission needs to decide where the flavor should be. It is possible to rezone even a single parcel to multi-dwelling. Discussion that the city approved rezoning to allow for several 4-plex units in coordination with Sunset View Estates. 

The commission will pick this Chapter of the General Plan up again at article 7.4 in December.

Adjourn: Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Andregg, second by Commissioner Hinckley. Motion carried 5-0 with Sanders, Andregg, Webb, Hinckley, and Bice voting yes.  8:10 p.m.

Minutes taken by June Jeffery

Stephen Sanders, Planning Commission Chair

Date Approved, December 10, 2008