CC Minutes 2/20/13

ayson City Council Minutes February 20, 2013



February 20, 2013 City Council Minutes

Minutes of the Payson City Council Meeting held at the Payson City Center, 439 West Utah Avenue, Payson, Utah on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 6:00 p.m.

MOTION by Councilmember Ford to appoint Councilmember Phillips as Mayor Pro-tem. Motion seconded by Councilmember Hardy. Motion carries.

Mayor Pro-tem Phillips presiding.

Prayer offered by Jacob Etheridge and Pledge of Allegiance led by Bridger Fowden.

ROLL CALL: Councilmembers: JoLynn Ford, Kim Hancock (entered the meeting at 6:55 p.m.), Mike Hardy, Scott Phillips, and Larry Skinner; City Manager Dave Tuckett, City Attorney Mark Sorenson, and City Recorder Jeanette Wineteer. Mayor Rick Moore excused.

MOTION by Councilmember Hardy to approve the Consent Agenda consisting of: approval of the February 6, 2013 City Council Minutes; a Resolution Authorizing Payson City’s South Utah Valley Municipal Water Association (“SUVMWA”) Director to Represent to SUVMWA that the Chairman or Vice Chairman of SUVMWA be Authorized to Execute an Application for Permanent Change of Point of Diversion, on Certain Water Rights Held on Behalf of SUVMWA, for the Future Beneficial Use by the Public; a Resolution Amending Payson City Fee Schedule to Reflect Fees Charged for Shut off of Utility Services; and a Contract with Zions Bank for City Financial Advisor Services. Motion seconded by Councilmember Skinner. Motion carries

Recreation Director Karl Teemant reported on recreation activities wrapping up:

  •   Men’s Basketball, Youth League Basketball

  •   Women’s volley ball with one more invitational tournament cohosted with Spanish Fork. He said that registrations starting include:

  •   Baseball

  •   Indoor footsall

  •   Maybe a women’s basketball league.

    He reported that Janean Dean has been hired as the Events Coordinator and she will be starting soon.

    Manager Tuckett stated that it will be a busy summer:

  •   He has met to try to get a committee together for the Tour of Utah and we are still looking for volunteers.

  •   He said they have also met regarding the Country Concert (June 8th) and hopefully an artist will be

    announced next week.

  •   The Veterans are sponsoring a golf tournament in April to raise funds for the veteran’s facility that plans to

    open Memorial Day.

    Councilmember Skinner said his business gets requests for donations from other communities and they are willing to donate. He presented a sample of these requests to Manager Tuckett for request ideas.

    Councilmember Hardy reported on the Chamber of Commerce Installation Banquet that was held last week.

    Councilmember Ford reported that the Library Board held their quarterly meeting; they discussed repairing stucco and a possible canopy over the breezeway. Manager Tuckett said he would let the Facilities Manager know that the stucco needs repair.

    Councilmember Phillips asked that it be reported in the newsletter that we know we are having a high number of potholes because of the severe weather and we will repair them as fast we can.


February 20, 2013 City Council Minutes

Councilmember Ford presented attendance certificates to scouts in attendance: Parker Syddall, Coleman Jacklin, Talin Mortensen, Zac Earley, Joe Cooper, Riley Davenport, Caleb Vance, Rocwell Edwards, Keaton Reynolds, Zane Jolley, Bawen Bishop, Jacob Etheridge, T-Rex Larsen, TJ Berg, Rock Syddall, Bridger Fowden, McKade Bowcut, Justin Daley, Tegan Mortensen, Jake Cooper.

MOTION by Councilmember Hardy to open the public hearing to receive input regarding Amendments to Title 19 and Title 20. Motion seconded by Councilmember Ford. Motion carries.

Public hearing opened at 6:20 p.m.

Planner Spencer presented the following staff report:
On occasion, changes in development practices, new land use goals of the City Council or other appropriate circumstances result in the need to update or revise the development ordinances of the City. Staff generally compiles several potential amendments until a pressing issue arises at which time the proposed amendments are prepared for review by the Planning Commission and City Council. In this instance, the proposed ordinance amendments are limited to staff suggestions and do not involve any land use application.

Often referred as the development ordinances, Title 19, Zoning Ordinance and Title 20, Subdivision Ordinance were adopted by the City Council as implementation tools to achieve the goals outlined in the Payson City General Plan. These land use and development regulations identify appropriate locations for various uses of land, establish proper construction standards, and provide procedures to manage growth and development. Implementation of these standards will ensure the desirable aspects of existing development are protected and the overall vision of the community is realized. While it is important for the regulations to be consistent and stable, it is equally important to review the regulations on a regular basis to ensure that the contents will accomplish the desired outcome in a constantly changing development environment.


The authority for municipalities to adopt ordinances to guide development can be found in §10-9a Utah Code Annotated. Development ordinances are also influenced by federal laws and case law. It is the role of staff to ensure that any proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of state and federal statute and all levels of case law. That said, despite the many laws and provisions that guide the creation of development ordinances, the City Council is granted a great deal of deference to enact development regulations tailored specifically for our community. The following list of ordinance amendments is proposed for consideration by the City Council.

Title 19, Zoning Ordinance

  1. Chapter 19.15, Signs and Outdoor Advertising – The sign committee has concluded their review of the sign ordinance and is requesting approval of the proposed amendments from the City Council. The content and format of the sign ordinance has changed significantly and a review of the entire ordinance is necessary.

  2. Section, Page 19-21 – Staff is proposing to clarify the lot area requirements in the A-5, Agriculture Zone.

  3. Section, Page 19-83 – Staff is requesting the Planning Commission and City Council consider removing the option for a second caretaker dwelling for storage unit projects. It should be noted that the Planning Commission’s recommendation suggested modification of this amendment.

  4. Chapter 19.8, Page 19-155 – It is proposed the landscaping requirements in the commercial and industrial zones be amended.

  5. Section 19.9.10, Page 19-160 – The zoning requirements for utility buildings and structures are addressed in Appendix A; therefore, this section may be removed from the Zoning Ordinance.

  6. Section 19.9.15, Pages 19-162-163 – To ensure consistent regulations, staff is proposing to combine the provisions of this section and those outlined in Chapter 19.11, Temporary Uses (see #7 below).

  7. Chapter 19.11, Pages 19-167-168 – Minor amendments are proposed to this chapter, including the exclusion of Sections 19.11.6 and 19.11.7 which were included in Chapter 19.9, Supplementary Provisions (see #6 above).

  8. Chapter 19.16, Pages 19-209-211 – Staff is proposing minor amendments to the Home Occupation regulations of the City.



February 20, 2013 City Council Minutes
9. Chapter 19.26, Page 19-245 – It is proposed the procedures for zoning appeals be expanded.

Appendix A of the Zoning Ordinance

1. Staff is proposing to expand the land use classifications in the commercial and industrial zones in the City.

The Planning Commission recommended the uses proposed in the S-1 Zone be delayed until a comprehensive review of the land uses in the zone is completed.

Title 20, Subdivision Ordinance

  1. Section 20.9.1, Page 20-6 – Minor amendments are necessary to ensure constancy with the regulations of Utah Code.

  2. Chapter 20.10, Pages 20-7-9 – Staff is suggesting the Planning Commission and City Council consider alternate setbacks in Planned Residential Developments. Other minor amendments are proposed as well.

  3. Section 20.10.11, Page 20-16 – The setback requirements for Planned Residential Developments have been

    addressed in Section; therefore, the reference to setbacks in this section is no longer needed.

  4. Section 20.30.4, Page 20-53 – Staff is proposing to clarify the performance guarantee requirements for new



The City Council, following a public hearing to receive public input, will need to determine if the proposed amendments are consistent with the land use goals and objectives of Payson City. The City Council will need to approve, amend and approve, or deny the proposed amendments to the development ordinances of the Payson City Municipal Code.

On February 13, 2013, the Planning Commission, following a public hearing, recommended the City Council approve the proposed amendments to Title 19, Zoning Ordinance and Title 20, Subdivision Ordinance with the following modifications:
Any request for a second caretaker dwelling for a storage unit business must include office space for the storage unit business.

A decision on the uses proposed in the S-1 Zone should be delayed until a comprehensive review of the land uses in the zone is completed.

Councilmember Hardy said we liberalized that S-1 Zone and now it sounds like we want to go back. Planner Spencer agreed and said that since it has been liberalized we haven’t seen a lot of activity.

Manager Tuckett reported that a sign committee has met and worked on the amendments for the sign ordinance for quite a while to loosen this up a little. He explained the primary changes:

  •   Condensed ordinance (from 24 to 17 pages)

  •   Restructured ordinance

  •   Promotional signs (previously adopted by city council)

  •   Project signs

  •   Wall signs for multi-tenant projects

  •   Window signs

  •   Wall signs (allowing multiple signs)

    Receiving no public comment MOTION by Councilmember Skinner to close the public hearing. Motion seconded by Councilmember Hardy. Motion carries.

    Public hearing closed at 6:37 p.m.

    Councilmember Hardy stated that he sits on the committee and they have been working on this for about three years. He feels they have made some good changes and there is still work to be done, especially with offsite problems. He recommends approval.

    MOTION by Councilmember Skinner to approve Ordinances #02-20-13-A, An Ordinance Amending Title 19, Payson City Zoning Ordinance and Ordinance #02-20-13-B, An Ordinance Amending Title 20, Payson City



February 20, 2013 City Council Minutes

Subdivision Ordinance, to include staff conditions and recommendations with the decision on the uses proposed in the S-1 Zone delayed until a comprehensive review of the land uses in the zone is completed, and authorize Mayor Pro-tem Phillips to sign. Motion seconded by Councilmember Hardy. Motion carries.

MOTION by Councilmember Ford to suspend the agenda and allow Mayor Pro-tem Phillips to move at his discretion. Motion seconded by Councilmember Hardy. Motion carries.

Planner Spencer explained that Dean Ingram and Dave Scoville, developers of the Hidden Grove Estates Planned Residential Development (PRD), would like to present some solutions to the concerns identified by members of the City Council and residents of the development regarding proposed modifications to the original development approval. The City Council has discussed the proposed modifications at previous meetings: December 19, 2012 and January 2, 2013. The applicants are requesting the City Council provide direction on the following modifications:

  •   Redesign of layout to accommodate building lots rather than building pads.

  •   Conversion of the existing clubhouse into a single family dwelling.

  •   Dedication of the common area along Peteetneet Creek to Payson City.

  •   Modification of the land use transition methods between the project and Gary’s Meat (slaughter house).

  •   Amendments to the development agreement to modify housing product and amenity package.

    Staff has discussed the proposed changes with the applicant and has identified some issues that will need to be addressed during the review process. The applicants are requesting direction from the City Council on these issues before additional time and money is dedicated to the project.

    Councilmember Hancock entered the meeting at 6:55 p.m.

    Councilmember Ford listed her concerns:

  •   City not having manpower or resources to take care of parks we have now.

  •   We have many parks we cannot afford to finish.

  •   We really need a park on the northeast side of town.

  •   These look like private pocket parks (realistically who would use these parks other than the homeowners)

    Planner Spencer agreed that staff really needs to look closely at the amenities that were provided for the density they received.

    Superintendent Mark Hyland said he sees this park as a nature park without much maintenance.

    Jed McClellan said the parks and trails are mainly used by regular citizens, so he would prefer it turned over to the City and have the trail fenced.

    Councilmember Ford worries that in a few years everyone will come back and want swing sets and turf in the park.

    Nate Allred agrees with everything the developers are doing, and likes the idea of the fence. The fact there is a lot of use on the trail is a concern.

    Caprice Bona said she doesn’t want a fence and doesn’t want it to be segmented up because the lots are very small. There are also issues with sprinkling systems, landscaping etc. because they were put in by the developer and would need to be cut up if fences are installed. If lots are approved, she wondered how the covenants would be enforced or if the CC&R’s would have to be revised because they don’t allow fences. She would rather see it all maintained by the homeowners association because it is in their back yards and they can control it.

    She wondered if the pictures presented met the CC&R standards. Dave Scoville (developer) said that they were going to have to amend the CC&R’s because they don’t own those house plans.


February 20, 2013 City Council Minutes

Mr. Scoville said they have been trying to get the homeowners opinions to try to do what is best for the community and feel that everyone is onboard with what they want to do except for Mrs. Bona. There are 35 total proposed lots in the subdivision with 29 remaining to be built or sold.

Councilmember Ford asked about the multiple HOA’s. Mr. Scoville said that if this goes to individual lots, they could have the HOA’s or several HOA’s in certain areas and he explained his ideas.

Engineer Robbins said with a road that doesn’t meet the standard there has to be an HOA to maintain it. Planner Spencer said they have to have RV parking and cannot eliminate the storage.

Councilmember Hancock wondered about the range of prices for those homes. Mr. Scoville felt they would be approximately $225,000 and above.

Councilmember Ford wondered about a combination of pads and lots. Planner Spencer said they have not explored that yet.

Mr. Scoville said he didn’t want to install amenities and then re-stall amenities because they are being vandalized in the process.

Planner Spencer asked for direction on the following proposed modifications:

  •   Redesign to accommodate building lots rather than building pads

  •   Conversion of existing clubhouse into single family dwelling

  •   Dedication of common area along Peteetneet Creek to Payson City

  •   Modify land use transition methods between the project and Gary’s Meat (storage and RV parking)

  •   Amend development agreement to modify housing product and amenity package

    Councilmember Hancock said that every spring we attend the ICSC conference and they tell us rooftops are needed to land new businesses. He said we only talk about rooftops but another part of that need is to increase the median income for the whole community. If you are going to raise median income you need lots that are significantly worth more than others. This was intended to be a gem of a development, and at this point they have not shown how any of these changes benefit Payson.

    Councilmember Skinner agreed that this is potentially a showplace for our community. If he had his preference he would decrease density rather than increase it.

    Manager Tuckett noted that there is an approved subdivision and the developers can build what is approved, we cannot require bigger, larger houses. Planner Spencer stated that we can make sure what they are offering is in the development agreement.

    Mr. Scoville said they are not changing any of the requirements and felt that their standard will be higher than what is required in the CC&R’s. He noted that a single lot is worth more than a pad and the square footage will not be changed.

    Councilmember Skinner said he is not concerned about more square footage, but is concerned that the product built has quality today and also 30 years from today. He also wants to make sure that the existing resident’s expectations are met with what they bought into.

    Caprice Bona wondered how many complaints the City had received so far and Manager Tuckett wasn’t aware of any. She said when she bought her property she knew people would be on the trail. She thought that if lots were approved they could put up fences, take down trees etc., and the CC&R’s limit some things.

    Planner Spencer said she has noted the concern for the trees and wanting to keep as much of the vegetation as possible.


February 20, 2013 City Council Minutes

Parks Department Head Tracy Zobell agrees that our expectations for the common area are a native park with no turf.

Councilmember Hancock responded:
1. He has a problem with fences, therefore he doesn’t want lots.
2. He has no problem with converting the club house, but doesn’t want more density. 3. He agrees with the dedication of the area along Peteetneet Creek.
4. The RV park is needed.
5. He is ok with talking about the amenity package.

Councilmember Ford agreed with some of these ideas.

Councilmember Hardy said he is not there yet on the lot issue; he can see advantages to both sides.

Reece Stringer felt fencing along the trail way would be ok if it were rot iron or ornamental. He also felt the storage units could be taken away and put in on the lots, but install a wall as a buffer but he is concerned about losing the RV parking.

Planner Spencer said she would work with the applicant and the homeowners to get something written for approval of the Council.

Planner Spencer and Park Superintendent Hyland presented a Memorial Park Master Plan.

Planner Spencer said staff would like to know what other information the Council would like in order to make a decision.

Councilmember Skinner said that the Council is elected to represent citizens but they are not experts on any of these things. He felt that staff should come with suggestions rather than ask us for direction.

Manager Tuckett said in the current budget we have budgeted $897,548 for the 930 West project and will be used, in the current fiscal year but it is not enough to finish the project. We need an additional $749,939 in the next budget year. In order to bid out the whole project he would like a commitment from the Council that this additional amount would be committed in the next fiscal year budget.

MOTION by Councilmember Phillips to bid the project and put the amount in the budget to be adopted. Motion seconded by Councilmember Hardy. Motion carries.

Manager Tuckett reminded the Council of the budget retreat on March 4th at 4 p.m. and said one of the things he would like the Council to consider is to budget to transfer some funds from General Fund Balance into the Internal Revolving Loan fund to be used for internal loans for capital equipment. Some of the needs for this would cover a fire truck, a 10 wheeler for streets, and a bob tail for parks.

Consensus of the Council was to look into this, but also debt reduction is a priority.

Planner Spencer said staff is proposing regulations for the keeping of animals in the A-5-H, Annexation Holding Zone. These regulations are necessary to more clearly define existing and future animal uses in newly annexed areas and to mitigate, to the extent possible, any potential animal related nuisances. In addition to the new Chapter 6.06, staff is recommending various grammatical and formatting changes.

MOTION by Councilmember Skinner to approve Ordinance #02-20-13-C, Amending Title 6, Animal Control Ordinance to Include Regulations for the Keeping of Animals in the A-5-H, Annexation Holding Zone. Motion seconded by Councilmember Hardy. Motion carries.


February 20, 2013 City Council Minutes

Attorney Sorenson felt this is a formula to shift away from using debt to pay for Operations and Maintenance to Assessment of Operational Expenses “OpEx”.

Councilmember Hardy said they are asking for us to pay the short fall for their operating expenses. When it was sold to us they would be making enough to pay them and it would not cost the member-cities.

Manager Tuckett said they originally wanted to borrow $60Million but did it in phases and only borrowed $10Million. Now they said we are covering the $20Million bond payment and some of the operation but don’t have enough to fulfill the full 5 year plan. With an audit they are using bond money to cover operating expenses, so City Managers of the UTOPIA member cities said we want to not use bond money to cover short fall and came up with this formula.

Councilmember Hardy asked what it gains Payson by doing this; it will be an additional $150K every year. He doesn’t see it changing the way they work for Payson City.

Discussion was held regarding what cities participate in UIA.

Manager Tuckett believes the product is good, but when it comes down to it, he doesn’t believe we can absorb the $12K a month, whether we want to or are able to participate. They claim we are 85% built out but no one believes we are.

MOTION by Councilmember Hardy to deny participation in this round of assessments with the idea that there may be other things that we can do to provide non-monitory or in-kind contributions, and we would like more information or find out what the legal ramifications are if they default.

Councilmember Hancock would like that information before voting. Motion seconded by Councilmember Skinner. Motion carries.

ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION – To Discuss the Character or Competence of an Individual MOTION by Councilmember Hardy. Motion seconded by Councilmember Ford. Motion carries.

Council adjourned to Closed Session at 9:46 p.m.

Council reconvened and MOTION by Councilmember Skinner to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilmember Ford. Motion carries.

Council adjourned at 10:14 p.m.


Please enter your name.
Please enter a subject.
Please enter a valid phone number.
Please enter a message.