LAVERKIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

Regular Meeting

Wednesday, December 10, 2008, 6:00 P.M.

City Council Chambers, 111 South Main Street

LaVerkin, Utah 84745

Present: Chair Stephen Sanders, Commissioner Michael Hinckley, Commissioner Anna Andregg; Staff: Kevin Bennett, Derek Imlay, June Jeffery; Public: Ray Justice

Commissioners Joe Webb and Dan Howard, and Alternate Allen Bice, were not in attendance.

Call To Order: Chair Stephen Sanders 6:00 p.m., Invocation & Pledge of Allegiance- Derek Imlay

Approval of Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Andregg to approve the minutes of the November 12, 2008 regular meeting, second by Commissioner Hinckley. Motion carried 3-0 with Sanders, Andregg, and Hinckley voting yes.

Approval of Agenda: Motion by Commissioner Andregg to approve the agenda as written, second by Commissioner Hinckley. Motion carried 3-0 with Sanders, Andregg, and Hinckley voting yes.

Reports:  

Beautification Committee: June reported that the Beautification Committee did a holiday lighting contest drive around last week. Winners of the several awards are being notified and the information is being sent to the press. Kudos were given to the committee for their dedicated service. There was brief discussion concerning the effectiveness of the recycling program.

Director of Operations: Derek reported on the yard walls that were discussed at the last commission meeting. The wall at 200 N. Main is complete and meets regulations. It is only 2 blocks high and has been capped. The wall near Hinckley’s home at 700 N. Main is finished and is within the regulations.

Derek reported that he had been in contact with Rosenberg Engineering concerning the Maverick store. They are still moving forward. They have been held up by UDOT concerning a turning lane, which has necessitated reconfiguring the sidewalk there.

Tom Wood has begun the process to go before Board of Adjustment for an administrative appeal to the City Council decision last month upholding the time frame for the contract/development agreement signed by Tom earlier this year. There was discussion about the viability of the application – even though the decision was a land use directive, it is a contract. Staff believes if the application is completed, Wood should be allowed the opportunity to exhaust his options before going to district court. The move date for the trailer park is January 19^th. Supposedly all the residents have been given notice to evacuate by that date any way.

Staff is interested in planning commission goal setting for next year. Writing ordinances has been lifted off Kevin and given to June to formulate the beginning stages. As the ordinances come together Kevin will review them, then they will be brought to planning commission for recommendation to council. There were a lot of ordinances that staff was working on before the downsizing. Derek and June will prioritize those and others, and would like to include any direction from planning commission into that list. It would be good if the commissioners could give feedback as soon as possible to help format that list for the next meeting. There was discussion that there should be no financial consequences to the suggestions. The down time is a good time to address issues that may need to be adjusted so that when development picks back up the city is on track to pick back up. There are items dealing with drainage and specs that will need some engineering, but there are other items like affordable housing and the hillside ordinance that can be addressed now. Planning commissioners stated that the hillside ordinance is their top priority.

There were questions about the Bob Stevens’ property clean up. He has moved all the front vehicles on the 95 S. property. He has a year from October 1, 2008 to clean up everything else on both properties. There was discussion about the time frames.

New Business:

Ordinance Discussion: Planning commissioners discussed changes to Title 10 correcting dwelling designations to match designations as called out by the International Building and International Residential Codes. Kevin stated that several months ago the codifiers asked about the use of “two-family” and “duplex” in the code. There was no definition for “duplex” and the terms appeared to be used synonymously. As Kevin looked at the code, he found that “one-family” and “single-family” were used the same way. Though this issue is not as big as the “duplex” designation, the International Codes use “one- and two-family” designations. In law, the same words are used unless there is a different meaning expected. There should then be a definition to explain the separate meaning. Kevin had created a document showing all the places where “single-family”, “one-family”, “duplex”, and “two-family” were used in the code. June went through the document and created the draft ordinance, which was given to the commissioners, showing the changes correcting “single-family” and “duplex”. Kevin expressed that if there is a reason why those designations shouldn’t change there should be definitions written as to their particular meaning. He also supported that if city code uses the terms that are used by the International Codes, which the city has adopted, correlating between the several codes is easier.

Discussion that duplex is a limited application, but two-family is broader and flows with the International Codes. There was discussion about the allowance for two-family dwellings in the R-1-10 zone. The allowance was written for a specific problem that came up in the past. If the city wants to continue the allowance for two-family residences within the zone, no changes should be made. But if the direction is to discontinue that allowance, the ordinance can be changed so that in the future the non-compliant use has to change to meet the new code. There was discussion about making the zoning designation R-2-10, what that designation would connote, renting basements or building mother-in-law apartments.

Derek reminded that the commission looked into mother-in-law apartments some time ago. International Code allows that type of apartment with a separate kitchen and bathroom as long as there is a common connection between the main home and the apartment. According to law, family is able to live with you in whatever arrangement. Proving family relationship is not the business of the city. Definition of family by federal standards is anyone related by blood or marriage plus 2. This may be an ordinance to bring back in 2009 for review. The 16,000 sq. ft. allowance should not change with this writing.

There was discussion concerning the last phrase in 10-6-A-1, “The regulations are intended to prohibit those uses that would be harmful to a ‘single-family’ neighborhood.” If the word “single” is changed to “one” it may not make sense, or create a different understanding. Neighborhoods may have more than “one-family”. Suggested to say “these neighborhoods” since the first line of the paragraph states the purpose of the zoning is “to provide appropriate locations where low density, single (one)-family residential neighborhoods may be established, maintained and protected”. The paragraph should be reviewed.

There is also a spelling error in 10-6B-5-G in current code, “accessory”, that is being cleaned up with this writing.

June will make the outlined changes and bring the ordinance back for review in January with a public hearing projected to the February meeting.

Unfinished Business:

General Plan Update: Planning Commission left off last meeting with chapter 7 article 4 on Housing. Sanders would like to postpone reviewing the remainder of the article until more of the commissioners are in attendance. It was recognized that this chapter of the General Plan uses “single-family” designations. It is expected that the chapter on zoning would have also used those designations. June will go through the two chapters and highlight that verbiage for review at the next meeting.

Adjourn: Motion by Commissioner Andregg to adjourn, second by Commissioner Hinckley. Motion carried 3-0 with Sanders, Andregg, and Hinckley voting yes.  6:44 p.m.

Minutes taken by June Jeffery

Planning Commission Chair, Stephen Sanders

Date Approved, January 14, 2009