LAVERKIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA

Regular Meeting

Wednesday, December 9, 2009, 6:00 P.M.

City Council Chambers, 111 South Main Street

LaVerkin, Utah 84745

I.      Call To Order: Chair Stephen Sanders, Invocation by Invitation; Pledge of Allegiance

II.      Approval of Minutes: Commission may approve the minutes of the October 14, 2009 regular meeting.

III.      Approval of Agenda:

IV.      Reports: Beautification Committee, Economic Development Committee, Trails Committee, Director of Operations - will present updates on meetings and activities.

V.      Public Hearings and Possible Action:

A1.   Ordinance 2009-12: Ordinance amending the LaVerkin City General Plan.

A2.   Possible Action: Planning Commission may recommend approval of Ordinance 2009-12 amending the LaVerkin General Plan

B1.   Ordinance 2009-13: An Ordinance amending the zoning map for the City of LaVerkin. Proposed rezone for property located at 195 W. 500 N. from Retail Commercial to General Commercial.

B2.    Possible Action: Planning Commission may recommend approval of Ordinance 2009-13 amending the zoning map for the City of LaVerkin for proposed rezone of property located at 195 W. 500 N. from Retail Commercial to General Commercial.

VI.      New Business:

A. Ordinance Amendment: Brent Peterson is requesting review and possible amendment of LaVerkin City Code 10-7 allowing exceptions due to narrow approach and safety issues to city street widths.

VII.      Unfinished Business:

A. Hillside Ordinance: Planning Commission may review the hillside ordinance.

VIII.      Adjourn:

In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations (including auxiliary communicative aids and services) during this meeting should notify June Jeffery, City Recorder, (435) 635-2581, at least 48 hours in advance.

Certificate of Posting

The undersigned City Recorder does hereby certify that the agenda was sent to each member of the governing body, sent to the Spectrum newspaper,  posted on the State website at http://pmn.utah.gov, posted on the LaVerkin City website at www.laverkin.org

and in the following public places within LaVerkin City limits on this December 4, 2009.

These public places being: 1) LaVerkin City office building 111 S. Main; 2) LaVerkin City office building 435 N. Main;

June Jeffery, CMC

City Recorder

LAVERKIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

Regular Meeting

Wednesday, December 9, 2009, 6:00 P.M.

City Council Chambers, 111 South Main Street

LaVerkin, Utah 84745

Present: Chair Stephen Sanders, Commissioners Anna Andregg, Michael Hinckley, Allen Bice; Staff: Kevin Bennett, June Jeffery, Kyle Gubler; Public: Ray Justice, Laura and Bart Penrod, Brent and Loretta Peterson

Commissioner Michael Hinckley arrived late; Commissioners Joe Webb, Dan Howard, and Robert Holland were not in attendance.

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

Approval of Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Andregg to approve the minutes of the October 14, 2009 regular meeting, second by Commissioner Bice. Motion carried 3-0 with Sanders, Andregg, and Bice voting yes.

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

Reports:

Beautification Committee: Sanders appreciated the Christmas decoration installed over State Street.

Kyle Gubler reported for the committee. Representatives of the committee met with City Council last meeting to discuss the community garden. The Council approved the ground and water. The garden will be located on the old Kent's trailer park area south of Wanlass Park. It will be an area about 100' x 150'.

The committee will be driving around to judge Christmas lights on December 12. There will be prizes in several categories.

They are planning a spring State Street clean up that will be advertised at that time.

Director of Operations: Derek Imlay had some family concerns and was not able to attend this meeting. Commissioners wondered about the Maverick sign. Gubler informed that the business has no plans for 2010.

Public Hearings and Possible Action:

Ordinance: Ordinance amending the LaVerkin City General Plan. There have been a few updates as different eyes have reviewed the Plan. Sanders asked June Jeffery to explain those updates.

• Pages 16 & 25 had an incorrect page designation for the map.
• Page 27 had a deletion that had not been removed.
• Page 38 described Main Street as needing streetscaping. This is the way it reads in the current Plan. Staff believed that it was meant to be "State" Street, but would leave that to the Commission.
• Page 39 said that the city would become a member of the Tree City program. The city is a current member and verbiage should be "will continue membership in".
• There are references to Appendix G in the Plan. Appendix G is where the moderate-income housing plan is to "be inserted". There has never been anything officially inserted. The Planning Commission and the City Council approved a moderate-income housing report in May of 2009. It was suggested by the attorney that the ordinance reflect the acceptance of that report as the moderate income housing requirement in Appendix G.

Chair Sanders moved the meeting to a public hearing.

There was no public comment.

Chair Sanders closed the public hearing.

Bice recommended that the changes be included in the Plan. Bennett asked about the insertion of "State" Street on page 38. Commission agreed that State Street landscaping and improvement was the intention of the Plan.

Jeffery stated that when the ordinance was written, it was intended to be approved in 2009. The motion should reflect that the ordinance is to be numbered in 2010 as that is when it will be put before City Council.

Action: Motion by Commissioner Bice to recommend approval of an ordinance to be numbered in 2010, to amend the LaVerkin General Plan with the recommended changes that 1) Pages 16 & 25 correct the page designation for the map; 2) Page 27 remove the deletion that had not been removed; 3) Page 38 describe State Street as needing streetscaping; 4) Page 39 would state that the city "will continue membership in" the Tree City program; and to accept the May 20, 2009 Moderate Income Housing Report as adopted by the LaVerkin City Council as the moderate income housing requirement in Appendix G. Second by Commissioner Andregg. Motion carried 3-0 with Sanders, Andregg, and Bice voting yes.

Ordinance: An Ordinance amending the zoning map for the City of LaVerkin. Proposed rezone for property located at 195 W. 500 N. from Retail Commercial to General Commercial.

Chair Sanders moved the meeting into a public hearing.

There was no public comment.

Chair Sanders closed the public hearing.

Action: Motion by Commissioner Bice to recommend approval of an ordinance to be numbered in 2010, amending the zoning map for the City of LaVerkin to rezone property located at 195 W. 500 N. from Retail Commercial to General Commercial. Second by Commissioner Andregg. Motion carried 3-0 with Sanders, Andregg, and Bice voting yes.

New Business:

Ordinance Amendment: Brent Peterson requested review and possible amendment of LaVerkin City Code 10-7 allowing road-width exceptions due to narrow approach and safety issues. Peterson wondered if a full quorum would be at the meeting in order to hear this item. This meeting is only a review, there will be no action taken. This body will form a recommendation to go to City Council.

Peterson gave handouts with pictures of the street, showing parking and widening concerns. There was also a petition signed by homeowners on 480 S., a list of suggestions to work the ordinance around, as well as an ordinance from Springdale.

There was discussion that the entrance from State Street into 480 S. is about 33' wide from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk. It is not possible to widen that entrance because of existing conditions. There are safety issues on the street - cars on the street need to swerve in order to miss parked cars. LaVerkin City Code 10-7-11 discusses "hour-glassing" and that the city public works director can give direction to prevent the condition. Petersons wondered if this would apply to their needs.

Page 2 of the handout shows a hill that exists to the east of the Peterson property. The changing width and movement of the road create a hazard for parked vehicles. They would like to see a straight, 33' road and believe that if part of the road is 33' and part is 50' there will be additional safety concerns.

The homeowners on the south side of the street have already dedicated property to the city for a future 50' roadway. Peterson felt that they are not affected by this road width like he is because of their residential use versus his commercial use and need for parking.

Sanders referred to minutes from a Board of Adjustment meeting in 2002 where variance was given for set-back. There was brief discussion that the minutes are not clear whether the set-back variance was for the front of the property or for the side as well. That Board decision doesn't have bearing on this request.

Andregg stated that the road is privately owned property. Loretta Peterson referred to a petition in the handout that all neighbors but the mayor had signed. They don't want a wide road. She believed that the commission could address only the portion of the road that fronts their property at this time and allow for the road to widen further where the corridor would allow it. Sanders stated that if the road is left narrow, he would like to see it 33' the whole way.

There was discussion about the hour-glassing provision in the City Code. Bennett stated that the Code says that 50' is the rule -"shall"- and the provision for hour-glassing is "may" and would be dependent on review.

Bice discussed that his home was the first one built on 500 N. At that time the road was a narrow, dirt road. That original road would not do any more. He is interested in planning for the future so that the city doesn't "shoot themselves in the foot" by allowing something that will limit the use "down the road" as development could increase. There was discussion about residential versus commercial growth. Where the road connects at State Street is not going to change. The road could be a collector street in the future and would be a convenient place to enter State Street.

Mrs. Peterson restated that for safety, the width of the road should stay 33' until such point it is far enough down the road that it could widen and prevent hour-glassing. Mr. Peterson described the road as similar to a pop bottle, where the lip is narrow, but then widens.

He then went on to discuss Springdale streets. They allow 22', 28' and 32' wide street and invite the world - thousands of people. Their arterial streets are 50'.

(Michael Hinckley arrived.)

Bice felt that Springdale couldn't grow like LaVerkin could. The narrow streets are difficult to maneuver - he has had to back up to allow another car to pass. Peterson shot back that people stop in Springdale and shoot through LaVerkin. There was brief discussion that residential growth is different from commercial growth. References were made to Ken Anderson's possible zip-line development in Pah Tempe.

Discussion turned to curb/gutter and sidewalk requirements. Curb and gutter are expected on both sides of 480 S., but Petersons see sidewalk only on the south side where there is adequate parking. The north side will need to be off-street parking only with no sidewalk. They will use the second building that they own on the street for front, off-street parking as well. Without slat parking, they will lose half of their parking slots. They believe that keeping the street at 33' would protect their ability to park on the north side.

The landowners on the south side of the street have already dedicated property in anticipation of the 50' road. Discussion from Peterson that the current metes and bounds of the properties on this road are "all over the place". Everyone on the street has signed the petition except the mayor.

The driving force for this issue is the desire to use the building that Petersons currently own on the corner of State and 480 S. Otherwise, there would be no issues at this time. Peterson is trying to sell the building and the limited parking is an issue for just about any commercial use in the zone. There was discussion that parking is on the street now. If an ordinance is written it will affect what happens on this road in "20 years". Bice doesn't want to narrow the options by changing the ordinance.

Bennett discussed the purpose of this appearance before the Commission. Petersons went to Board of Adjustment with a concern for a special situation that exists with their property and were sent to Planning Commission to see if the commission would entertain the idea to amend the ordinance to grant an exception for streets with the same concerns. Possibly going back to a 43' street or other change.

There was discussion about granting a business license without enough parking. Bennett discussed that the only thing grandfathered would be the building. There was more discussion that the property would be sellable if the back building was taken out. There was further discussion that required parking was based on the size of the building and the type of use.

Mrs. Peterson had reviewed the General Plan and read the items that she found applicable to the concern:

• More Economic Development with an emphasis on tourism
• Downtown revitalization and increasing the tax base
• Safe atmosphere for citizens and visitors
• Preserving elements of rural heritage
• Fostering diversity and flexibility that is responsive to the economic market and sensitive to the needs of the citizens.
• Encouraging the attraction, retention, and development of business and industry that give LaVerkin economic viability.

They would like to see a quaint - safe street.

Kyle Gubler said that Derek Imlay had said that even with the narrow street there would not be enough parking to make this building viable. Peterson stated that any business in the building would have to meet the requirements. There may not be enough parking, but he doesn't want the city to take away more. They have reduced the price and are trying to sell in order to avoid a short sale, by December 31. They don't believe the city has been flexible or fair.

Bice stated that he loves the street right now, but the commissioners must look to the future. Sanders stated that an ordinance would also apply to other streets.

Mr. Peterson stated that other places know how to handle thousands of cars and encourage something that works. He then went on to describe LaVerkin as trashy and unattractive, stating that the city has thrown up obstacles all over. He was very emotional.

He suggested cities like Boston, Branson and others where there are narrow streets and they don't suffer from parking.

Sanders asked Bennett where the commissioners "go from here". Bennett said that the applicant was directed to come to this body, and to provide other city's ordinances to see if Planning Commission saw the changes as good for the city, and then to give direction as to their vision - to the staff. Commission has heard the applicant information and now needs to decide if they should continue with an ordinance to refer to the City Council or to deny entertainment of the requested change.

Sanders liked the possibility of an exception. There are several streets around town that have similar concerns. Discussion that there are three exceptions already allowed in Code - flag lots, one way streets, and private streets. There was discussion that hour-glassing is not an exception. There was much discussion as to the definition of hour-glassing.

Jeffery discussed that a very narrow ordinance was written to allow development at the end of Center Street on the old Terry West property. It was removed at the same time the 43' street provision was taken out. It was geared toward residential use and geographic limits.

There was discussion from commissioners that the whole street should be looked at. There is a narrow entrance, historically the right-of-way has gone through private property. Private drives are not allowed, pedestrian traffic will increase on the commercial side of the street. Mr. Peterson interrupted the commissioners' discussion and was directed by Chair Sanders to sit and let Planning Commission do their work.

Sanders would like to see the width at 33' for the whole street and directed staff to write something to allow the 33' width based on what exists there now. He felt that there are other streets like 200 S. that needed to be part of the vision of the narrow street. Gubler wanted to make sure that the ordinance didn't provide developers a way to take advantage of the city with narrow street allowance. There was staff suggestion to look at all the streets where this ordinance should apply and create something with the common concerns from those streets.

Discussion that the property owners on this street don't want it widened, and that property has been dedicated to the city for a 50' street.

There was a question about hour-glassing and the provision in the Code. Jeffery explained that the allowance was put in when new subdivision projects had to connect to existing developments with narrow streets - such as Pheasant Glen - there needed to be an allowance to widen from the narrow, existing streets to the required 50' width in the new development. It was meant for an entire development, not for one building.

If any exemption is given now it will be grandfathered and will create the same concern as this in the future.

There was brief discussion about the possibility of a one-way street. The street is currently private property and the only other way out would be along 100 W. to 300 S. That would be very inconvenient for the current property owners.

Peterson stated that 33' is not extremely narrow and is wide enough for two cars to pass. Staff stated that the fire department requires a 26' travel surface for emergency access.

Mrs. Peterson referred to suggestions for the ordinance that she put together.

• 30 of asphalt
• One side curb and gutter
• No longer than 600' in length
• No on-street parking - posted
• 50' radius turnaround or other exit
• Geography or utility lines block widening
• Must pass staff and engineering review and approval.

She had made a statement for hour-glassing but didn't see that it applied any more.

There was discussion about UDOT restrictions into property and limiting those accesses. The rules don't apply to city streets in the same way that they do to private property access.

There was a lot of concern about those property owners who have already dedicated land to the 50' street.

Discussion as to whether to make a 3^rd class for streets or an exception. The 3^rd class for streets would apply everywhere, the exception could be narrowly applied. Ray Justice inserted that this particular entrance has constraints and there is no way to make it wider. Bennett informed that the State Legislature took away the ability to allow for special exceptions a couple of years ago - those items would go before Board of Adjustments. This would have to be permitted with conditions so there could be no judgment call. Sanders said this is already an established width and would encroach on buildings and houses if widened. Jeffery informed that when a building permit is taken out, the home builder is required to give up property or pay for improvements to property, to provide for future widening of the road when it happens.

Commission gave direction to staff to develop an ordinance with an exception to fit this street - with an existing entrance where the width is already set.

Unfinished Business:

Hillside Ordinance: Planning Commission did not review the hillside ordinance.

Adjourn:  Motion by Commissioner Andregg to adjourn, second by Commissioner Hinckley. Motion carried unanimously 4-0 with Hinckley, Bice, Sanders, and Andregg voting yes.  7:28 p.m.

Minutes taken by June Jeffery

Planning Commission Chair, Stephen Sanders

Date Approved - January 13, 2010