September 1, 2010 City Council Minutes

Minutes of the Payson City Council Meeting held Wednesday, September 01, 2010 at 6:00 p.m.

Mayor Rick Moore presiding.

ROLL CALL: Mayor Rick Moore; Councilmembers: Brad Daley, Kim Hancock, Mike Hardy, and Scott Phillips; City Manager Rich Nelson, City Attorney Dave Tuckett, and City Recorder Jeanette Curtis. Councilmember Ford excused.

PRAYER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Shane Hamblin led the Pledge of Allegiance and Dylan Spencer said the opening prayer.

SWEARING IN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBER

Judge Dahlquist Administered the Oath of Office to new Board of Adjustment Member Bob Provstgaard.

CONSENT AGENDA

MOTION by Councilmember Daley to approve the Consent Agenda consisting of Approval of August 4, 2010 City Council Minutes, Approval of August 18, 2010 City Council Minutes, Approval of August 24, 2010 City Council Minutes, Approval of July 2010 Disbursements, Approval of Resolution #09-01-10-A Adopting the Payson City Bail Schedule Dealing with Local Ordinances, and Resolution #09-01-10-B Approval of the First Amended And Restated Interlocal Cooperative Agreement (UIA). Motion seconded by Councilmember Phillips. Voting aye: Councilmembers: Daley, Hancock, Hardy, and Phillips. Motion carries.

PUBLIC FORUM

Ted Fitzgerald, Payson Resident said he has spent three hours cleaning up the city streets in front of his home, he is proposing that a volunteer program be expanded to allow volunteers to be trained and spray for weeds around town.

Superintendent White stated that you have to be licensed to spray on public property.

Dawn Yates is a Certified Day Care provider. She has called around to see the number of children other cities allow and they follow the State allotment, which is 18. She wondered why Payson City only allowed eight, and she would like to see if this could be changed.

COUNCIL AND STAFF REPORTS

Manager Nelson reported the following items:

·  We are organizing some projects in the water and parks area and want to take advantage of what volunteers did at Hollow Park, so we want to seed the park and put in sprinklers.

·  We haven’t updated the General Plan for a long time. Our City Planner has made arrangements through BYU to get some interns to help us get it updated. With that, we need to do a survey of the residents. In order to get the information out, we will need about $1,500, which is not budgeted for.

Superintendent Crump presented the UAMPS audit which will be filed in the City Recorder’s office. Payson City received the Smart Energy Innovation Award from UAMPS for the Street Light project we are doing and presented that plaque to the Council.

Planner Spencer said we are looking at having the General Plan survey on line September 9th and a flyer will be sent out in the Utility Bills. We are going to try to get residents involved in the future of Payson.

Superintendent White reported that we have depleted the canyon water supply, so we just have the natural flow from the canyon, and canal. We have cut the City usage down considerably, and encourage residents to slow down water usage also.

He also said the crews are busy getting ready for the Onion Days Celebration.

Councilmember Phillips thanked Recreation Director Teemant for taking the reins and making the Car Show happen.

Recreation Director Teemant said we are still down 8-10% on pool revenue which equates to about $24,000.

He reported on the activities for Onion Days and said there are many new things that haven’t been held in previous years.

Councilmember Daley said the Council received a Parade Route and detour map and he explained the new detour.

He also reported that the storm drain project is going to go over budget because of unexpected repairs. We need to make sure we don’t cut out repair money in next year’s budget.

Mayor Moore reported on the “Book It for Life Walk”, and said it was a great event and was well put together.

As he went around the City today, everything looks good for the celebration and he is excited about all of the new events.

Councilmember Daley presented attendance certificates to scouts in attendance.

Manager Nelson presented Payson City Service Awards to:

Karl Teemant, Recreation Director 15 years

Trinidad Zavala, Parks Maintenance 15 years

Cheryl Hobbs, Utility Billing Manager 15 years

Troy Paxton, Power Plant Operator 10 years

Mimi Sandoval, Police Officer 5 years

Phil Christensen, Animal Control Officer 5 years

APPOINTMENT OF LIBRARY BOARD MEMBERS

MOTION by Councilmember Daley to approve Sherry Thayne and Lavdee Huff as new Library Board Members. Motion seconded by Councilmember Hardy. Motion carries.

PUBLIC HEARING – SPRINGSIDE MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

MOTION by Councilmember Hancock to open the public hearing to receive public input regarding Springside Meadows Development. Motion seconded by Councilmember Hardy. Motion carries.

The public hearing opened at 6:40 p.m.

Planner Spencer presented the following staff report:

The Springside Meadows Planned Residential Development is located generally east of State Route 198 and west of the Highline Canal between approximately 1700 South and 2000 South. The development includes about eighty-five (85) acres and is anticipated to have a wide variety of housing styles, trails and parks, and other public facilities. The property was included in the Mower Addition Annexation which was approved by the City Council on December 19, 2001 and recorded on January 13, 2003 in the office of the Utah County Recorder. In addition to the requirements of the land use ordinances of Payson City, development within the boundaries of the Mower Addition Annexation is controlled by the terms of a specific plan and annexation agreement.

The specific plan includes properties from both the Mower Annexation and the Nebo-Smart Annexation. The property has an underlying zoning designation of R-1-A, Residential-Agriculture, but is anticipated that the property will be developed by implementing the provisions of the specific plan. The project configuration identified in the specific plan was designed to accommodate distinct neighborhoods which would provide a variety of housing options and styles ranging from multi-family dwellings to larger homes on large building lots. The specific plan allows for a range of densities, beginning at 327 dwelling units (base) and increasing to 448 dwelling units if the maximum density increase is achieved. The specific plan and annexation agreement anticipates various enhancements to be incorporated into the development regardless of the overall density and also provides suggestions for amenities that may be eligible for a density increase.

On October 18, 2006, the City Council approved the preliminary layout of the Springside Meadows development, consisting of five (5) neighborhoods containing a total of 413 dwelling units and various amenities to attain the additional units above the base density. At the request of the applicant, Salisbury Homes, a slight variation in the normal approval process was considered by the City Council. Rather than requiring the applicant to complete all project engineering, road plan and profiles and other construction details at the time of preliminary plan approval, these requirements were delayed until Final Plat approval. In order to ensure that all other regulations of the development ordinances of Payson City, including the Design Guidelines and Standard Specifications, would be satisfied, a development agreement was prepared for the project and approved by the City Council.

As a result of the current economic conditions and changes in the housing market, the applicant, Salisbury Homes, is requesting approval to redesign the project to decrease the number of units and alter the style of housing units in the Springside Meadows development. For instance, the applicant would like to introduce a short-frontage product to replace the multi-family structures and garden homes in Neighborhoods 2 and 3. Overall, the applicant is requesting approval of 347 dwelling units, with an overall density of 4.05 units per acre. Because the revised number of units in the development is markedly different, it follows that the amenity package proposed for the applicant for a density bonus has changed significantly.

Similar to the request in 2006, the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary layout and a development agreement from the City Council. The agreement will ensure engineering and construction details are addressed in conjunction with Final Plat approval. Prior to approval of the Final Plat, the applicant will be required to complete several tasks including, but not limited to, the preparation of construction drawings, transfer of adequate water to serve the development, integration of all obligations of the Specific Plans and Annexation Agreement, and satisfaction of all requirements of the Payson City development ordinances.

As with any development proposal, it is important to involve the public in the planning process. Specifically in this instance, the project incorporated many suggestions from the public. Because the configuration of the Springside Meadows development has changed considerably, a public hearing has been scheduled to allow residents to express their views regarding the proposal. The public hearing has been properly noticed and courtesy notices have been mailed to the appropriate property owners.

Analysis

The applicant is requesting preliminary layout approval of the redesign of the Springside Meadows development. In an effort to assist the City Council in the decision making process, staff has prepared a list of relevant factors for consideration. In addition, the project designer, LEI Consulting Engineers and Surveyors, has compiled information regarding the previously approved layout of the development in comparison with the proposed modifications to the project. The proposal of the applicant is attached hereto for your consideration.

The basis of a Planned Residential Development (PRD) is, in the simplest terms, an increase in density or a more flexible layout in exchange for amenities that improve the quality of the development and City as a whole. Therefore, a request to modify a PRD has a more comprehensive impact than simply reviewing new ideas or different amenities proposed by the applicant. For example, presume an applicant has agreed to provide park space and a trail linking the new park to other parks in the City. Elimination of the park, even if the applicant is willing to reduce density, may not be in the best interest of the community because the more comprehensive objective of having a linked park system throughout the City could be jeopardized. Therefore, the City Council should review the proposal of the applicant based on its own merits and not simply as a comparison with the 2006 plan.

In this instance, portions of the development are relatively the same, but the applicant is requesting approval of a new layout, new amenity package, and other new considerations. The City Council will need to determine if the proposed development is consistent with the expectations of the adopted specific plan, annexation agreement, and the development ordinances of Payson City. It must be clarified that a PRD is a legislative decision of the City Council. The City Council is not obligated to approve PRD or any proposed amendment to a PRD. Conversely, the applicant is not obligated to develop the property as a PRD and is eligible to submit a development applicant that is consistent with the provisions of the underlying zone and the other applicable regulations of the development ordinances. Obviously, a PRD is a negotiated agreement to develop the land in a manner that benefits both the applicant through additional density and/or flexibility, and the City through the provision of amenities that improve the development or the City as a whole.

Staff Considerations

In short, the development is proposed to be modified by reducing the number of dwellings from 413 to 347 units, eliminating the multi-family product, consolidating the parks and open space areas, and combining Neighborhoods 2 and 3 to accommodate a new type of development pattern and housing product. The applicant is requesting twenty (20) additional dwelling units above the base density allowed by the specific plan. As previously mentioned, the loss of density has significantly impacted the overall amenity package for the development.

A request for increased density is a legislative action of the City Council and the City Council is not obligated to approve the request. In essence, the applicant is requesting approval of a Planned Residential Development (PRD) in which increased density may be allowed in exchange for amenities that enhance the development and/or community. The applicant is tasked with the responsibility to convince the Planning Commission and City Council that the alternative layout and amenity package is preferable to a traditional subdivision layout utilizing the minimum standards of the underlying zone (R-1-A). If the applicant is unable or unwilling to satisfy the regulations of the specific plan and annexation agreement, the applicant is eligible to develop the property consistent with the regulations of the underlying zone.

The applicant is suggesting certain amenities in exchange for twenty (20) additional dwelling units. The City Council may determine the types of amenities should be altered or the proposed amenities do not warrant the bonus being sought. Moreover, the City Council must determine if the modifications will impact the more global community considerations as anticipated in the original development agreement and specific plan.

Some, but certainly not all, of the items to be considered include:

·  Reduction of neighborhoods. The approved layout contains five (5) neighborhoods consisting of distinct residential areas designed to provide a variety of housing opportunities. The applicant is proposing to combine Neighborhoods 2 & 3 to accommodate a short-frontage product. The City Council will need to determine if the proposed development and the housing product is consistent with the intent of the specific plan.

·  Introduction of short-frontage product. The applicant is proposing to introduce a short-frontage product that includes single family detached dwellings on deep parcels with narrow frontage (50’ or less). In accordance with Section 6.1 of the specific plan and annexation agreement, the applicant must receive approval of the housing elevations, materials, colors, and sizes of the dwelling units. At a minimum, architectural features must be incorporated on the front and rear elevations of the double frontage lots in Neighborhoods 2 and 3.

·  Waiver of recreational vehicle parking. The Subdivision Ordinance requires parking areas for recreational vehicles for developments containing more than twenty (20) units. The City Council may modify or waive this requirement in accordance with Section 20.10.4.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance.