Present: Chair Stephen Sanders, Commissioners Anna Andregg, Michael Hinckley, Dan Howard, Allen Bice; Staff: Derek Imlay, June Jeffery, Kevin Bennett, Kyle Gubler; Public: Ray Justice, Maurine Roberts

Commissioner Joe Webb was excused.

Call To Order:  Chair Stephen Sanders at 6:00 p.m. Invocation and Pledge by Allen Bice.

Approval of Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Hinckley to approve the minutes of the February 11, 2009 meeting, second by Commissioner Andregg. Motion carried 5-0 with Sanders, Andregg, Hinckley, Bice, and Howard voting yes.
 
Approval of Agenda: Motion by Commissioner Hinckley to approve the agenda, second by Commissioner Andregg. Motion carried 5-0 with Sanders, Andregg, Hinckley, Bice, and Howard voting yes.

Reports: 
Beautification Committee: Maurine Roberts reported that the committee drove the community looking for homes that needed tender loving care. They were thrilled to see the improvements that have been made. There were only 7 locations in town where the committee took pictures. She commended June for the diplomatic letters that went out to the notified residents. She expressed thanks for the articles in the newsletter for beautification and thanked June for those as well. They discussed that planning commissioner was supportive of obtaining Christmas decorations and lighting. They will press forward with that. The committee would like to know where the trees are planted from the “Trees For Life” program. Susan Hurt will get with John Postert and report back to the committee.

Sanders wondered about seeding the old “Kent’s” property with grass. Derek stated that the water system is in. The trees that were there had been relocated to the park. It was never seeded because use of the property was not defined. Derek will look at the improvements there.

The beautification committee also appreciated of the vast improvement at the trail head at 600 North and Maurine expressed thanks to Derek who took care of that. 

Director of Operations: Derek Imlay stated that there had been progress at Gateway. Two more mobile homes moved out. It was beginning to look vacant. Mr. Wood told Kyle Gubler that everyone was out now. Wood had concerns moving the trailers because of their age. Discussion that without a HUD sticker the trailers cannot be placed anywhere in Utah except at private property. Gubler had not been able to make contact with Maverick representative. There was brief discussion about history and time frames.

Discussion that when the priority list was put together a sign ordinance amendment was not included. Imlay discussed the old commercial properties that don’t fit the ½ acre requirement. In the past there were wall issues for the required 8-foot residential-separation wall. The current wall is 6 feet and cannot be added to because footings will not support more height. Utilities don’t want another wall because their services would be affected. Ordinance was written to allow the 6-foot wall where it is pre-existing. The signs present a similar problem. Code requires a 10-foot setback from sidewalk. But in most cases, that puts the sign in the middle of parking lots. Derek would like to amend code to required a 10-foot setback from back of curb at these properties

There was discussion about whether the area needed to be by designation or applied to the whole area. When State Street was widened, the action cut all of the commercial zone out of frontage. Mention was made of the A-frame signs at Farmer’s, which are an important advertising tool. There was also brief discussion about variances and that a variance wouldn’t apply. Kevin discussed that A-frame signage can be an important element of walkable communities. There were questions about the carpet store signage. That sign is on the side property line and doesn’t cause any parking lot obstruction. It was rotated so that the front leg meets the 10-foot requirement.

The commission would like to have a field trip at 5:30 p.m.on the April 8th agenda to look at signage.

Kevin Bennett: On the desks are three ordinances prepared by Bennett. Two were brought up by the codifiers as clean-up to the “one lot subdivision”, and “one- two- family” ordinances recently passed. The other is a request from the County Treasurer’s and County Attorney’s office. There are developers who have not paid taxes on their subdivisions, they sell the property and the new owner is saddled with liens. State code allows cities to require taxes to be paid. The county entities have requested LaVerkin’s help. It is city official belief that the city should help if it isn’t a burden to do so. This would require an amendment to Title 11. The items could be reviewed at another meeting or go to public hearing at the next meeting. Commissioners supported a public hearing for the next meeting.

New Business:
Ordinance Discussion: There was brief direction that planning commission’s responsibility is not to the administrative ordinance for sexually oriented businesses (SOB), but to the land use for that type of business. The administrative ordinance excerpt in the packets was to give information to the commission as to the separation requirements already in the code.

Kevin is concerned about drawing attention to SOBs. He handed out a print from communitydefense.org – a website established to help cities regulate the businesses. They cannot be zoned out; they have 1st amendment rights until there is an actual violation of obscenity laws. By city code they cannot locate within 1,000 feet of schools, parks, residential zones, or other SOBs. A lot of cities relegate them to industrial zones, but LaVerkin doesn’t have an industrial zone and only code with a purpose statement, but no definition. If cities don’t have a place for SOB, they have to allow them “anywhere”. He suggested that commissioners look at the map, give feedback to staff with some sort of idea before putting the item back on the agenda. If an application is received and there is a pending city action, the city action has to be finished within six months. Cities have to allow a reasonable amount of land. There is a possibility that as a bedroom community with no business district, the ordinance could be defendable, but the city can’t stick its head in the sand. Commission needs to be cautious placing any further action on the agenda.

Commissioners felt that they needed to address location for SOBs and the sooner the better. Discussion included land owner rights. No matter where the use is zoned, property owners have the right to not sell or allow the use, but there is no guarantee that property won’t sell again or the use won’t change. The city can’t restrict freedom of speech.

Bennett referred to the handout. Regulation has to show stringent time, place, manner and has to be reasonable.

Commissioners don’t see any location within the current structure of the city where a site is removed from residential zoning by 1,000 feet.

Bennett informed that there is a danger in annexation or over-annexation. Zoning should be declared prior to approval. If the zone is not defined, anything can go there. He also stated that the elected officials were caught off guard by this item and the hillside ordinance discussion on the agenda. It was suggested that the commission give a report of their priorities to council or have a work meeting with them to receive direction.

Howard is concerned about “giving up a part of town”. Commission wants to improve the community. He wondered about allowing the use on the outcropping by the bridge in the resort commercial zone. Discussion that once the use is allowed in the zone, it can go anywhere in that zone. It could also affect other businesses coming to that zone.

Discussion about OSMU and OSMU-C zoning on top of hill. This property is owned by BLM, SITLA, WCWCD. Property would have to be purchased from these entities. There is no infrastructure there. Any use of the property would have to address the infrastructure. This zone has not been rewritten to address permitted uses. It could be defined under that rewrite if commission wanted to look at it.

The proposed industrial zone will be mixed with a lot of residential and a school. It is also expected to have an office and/or clean industrial park. Bennett stated that if a school is existing, the SOB would not be allowed, but if the SOB is existing, a school could be built. Howard wondered about existing businesses that are complained about as residential encroaches and so the businesses are shut down. Bennett clarified that SOBs are protected by 1st amendment rights, and are not classed the same as “nuisance” businesses.

There was brief discussion that commission would review the issue and communicate with staff before going on another agenda. June will send a map showing the OSMU-C Zone to commissioners to review. Bennett stated that the area doesn’t have to be easily available and doesn’t have to be primary land, but has to have the same opportunity to locate within available zoning. The city doesn’t have to ensure the business survival, but can’t make sure it fails. The property owners of the OSMU-C zone are government agencies that would be held to the same requirements for 1st amendment rights as the municipality.


Unfinished Business:
Ordinance Discussion: Planning Commission discussed the map for the Hillside Overlay Zone to possibly include the ledge area at the Interstate property and toward the river at 100 West and toward 480 South.

There was discussion that if property in question lay outside the designated map area there would be no requirement. Any property within the designated area, even if it were flat, would fall under the requirements. However, the ordinance states that the map designates the area, but the exact location of application would be determined when an application was received depending on slope and grade.

Derek stated that there is the capability of mapping topography with GPS/GIS.

There was discussion about the purpose of the rewrite. Bennett wondered if council supported continuing with the ordinance since it was just redone a couple of years ago. Derek believed that without council support, he would not get the approval to GPS.

Commissioners asked Ray Justice about feeling of council. Justice believes that council doesn’t want SOBs, or to open up the hillside any more than the commission does.

Discussion about a work meeting. Ray will approach council at the meeting on the 18th to determine if the meeting should be held on the 4th Wednesday of March or at the April 8th regular meeting. The proposed planning commission field trip could be postponed if it needed to be.

General Plan Update: Planning Commission postponed review of the General Plan to the next meeting.

Adjourn:  Motion by Commissioner Hinckley to adjourn, second by Commissioner Andregg. Motion carried with Sanders, Andregg, Hinckley, Bice, and Howard voting yes. 7:25 p.m.

Minutes taken by June Jeffery


Stephen Sanders,  Planning Commission Chair

 

 

Date Approved, April 8, 2009