Minutes – 11.06.2013



                                                                                                                                     Atthe Planning Commission

                                                                                                                                      Inand For Said City

                                                                                                                                      November 6, 2013

            Minutesof the Richfield City PlanningCommission meeting held on Wednesday, November 6, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., Chairman Steve Kunzler, presiding.

          1.     RollCall.

          2.     Approval of Minutes.

          3.    Public Hearing:  Receive comments concerning a proposedamendment to

                  thewater share requirement of the Annexation Policy of the General Plan for

                  Richfield City.

          4.    GeneralPlan:  Consider motion concerningproposed amendment to the water

                  sharerequirement of the Annexation Policy of the General Plan for Richfield


          5.    Tooter Ogden/Ideal Acres Subdivision:  Concept discussion for subdivision to be

                  locatedat approximately 700 North 750 East.

         6.     BradyHansen:  Review improvement plans for theconstruction of Hansen

                  Collision Center to be located at the southwestcorner of 800 South 100 West

                  (C2use, CS zone).

          7.    Casita/Mother-in-Law Quarters:  Rocky Ross to discuss possible amendment to


         8.   Other Business. 

         9.   Adjournment.

1.   Roll Call.  Roll call was answered by Steve Kunzler, PatHansen, Brion Terry, David Mower, Eugene Beck, and Jeff Albrecht.  Monte Turner was excused. 

City Staff Present: City Administrator Matthew Creamer, Zoning Administrator Paul Hinrichsand Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis.   

Also Present:  TooterOgden, Karl Rasmussen, and Steven Woolsey. 

2.   Minutes Approval.  The minutes of October 2, 2013, were reviewed. It was notedthat Dr. Pope may need to be reminded that if he decides he wants to do anon-hard surface for additional parking area, it will need the approval of theCity Council.  Eugene Beck motioned to approve the minutes of October 2, 2013.  Brion Terry seconded the motion. The motioncarried unanimously. 

3.   PublicHearing  6:09:32 PM.   A hearing was held toreceive comments concerning a proposed amendment to the water share requirementof the Annexation Policy of the General Plan for Richfield City. 

City Administrator Matt Creamer said there has been arequirement for water shares to be surrendered to the City at the time of propertyannexation.  It has been 1 share of waterper acre of annexed ground.  The CityCouncil felt this should be addressed because a share of Richfield Irrigation isnot equal to a share of Sevier Valley Canal which is not equal to a share of PiuteIrrigation.  They felt like it needs tobe equalized.  The proposal he brought tothe Commission a month ago proposed accepting 1 share of Richfield Irrigation orPiute Irrigation and 2 shares of Sevier Valley Canal.  That was based on the appraised values ofthose particular shares.  As they havehad further discussion over the past month, they felt like the appraised valueis really not a good measuring stick as it really has nothing to do with thecost of the shares but rather the amount of water that is delivered. 

He provided a spreadsheet of an eight-year average ofdeliverance of water.  The spread sheet coversa ten-year time period, but they excluded two years that appeared to be ananomaly and skewed the numbers.   

They found that even though the cost per share ofirrigation water varies, the delivery is a lot closer than what was thought.  Based on an 8-year average and the deliveriesthat have come through, the proposal would be for 1 share of Richfield Irrigation,1.4 shares of Sevier Valley Canal, or 1.2 shares of Piute Irrigation. 

Public comments were received. 

Tooter Ogden said Russell Anderson has been involved withwater for years and has kept records.  Overa 10-year period, Piute delivered 2.48 acre feet and Sevier Valley delivered2.70 of water.   Those 10 years are from2003 to 2012.  Mr. Creamer said those arethe same years used in the analysis he shared, but they did drop the two yearsthat seemed so unusual.

Mr. Ogden said he is also concerned that there are onlyso many shares for irrigation purposes. Most farms have 1 share of water per 1 acre of ground.  If they have to turn over more than 1 share,then they will have to buy shares from someone which takes water off of anotherfarm leaving a deficit for irrigation purposes. He also wonders if a person doesn’t have the required number of sharesrequired, will the City accept a cash value for the deficit.

David Mower asked how Mr. Ogden knows that most farmers have1 share per acre.  Mr. Ogden said heknows that from his own experience and Russell Anderson would be able to verifythat.  There are a lot of farms that don’thave a full share per acre. 

Mr. Mower stated that an acre foot of water is not ameasure of flow, but a measure of quantity. Mr. Ogden stated it is about 325,000 gallons of water per acre foot.  Mr. Mower asked how much does the Cityneed?  Mr. Creamer said the engineershave gone through the computations as to how much is used inside of a home andhow much for outside uses.  Thatcalculation yields about .9 acre feet for each residence or ERU.  Therefore, if a new subdivision has a dozenlots, it would need 10 or 11 acre feet of water.  Mr. Mower wondered if it would be possible tomake the water to be transferred to the City equal to the number of lots times.9 acre feet.  Mr. Creamer said thatwould be one way of doing.  That actuallyworks out to a very large number and would eliminate the need to charge anyimpact fee with building permit requests. The City is trying to balance those things so it doesn’t all fall on eitherthe developer or the home builder. 

Mr. Creamer said the City collects surface water rightsbut the ultimate need when a new development comes in is for undergroundwater.  To convert surface rights tounderground rights is a difficult process. It always shows a large amount of shrinkage because when the State Engineerlooks at those, he views surface water for irrigation as going through thefields and then returning a large share of it back into the canals and riversystem.  Once used by the City, it goesthrough the City and to a retainment pond and it gets some evaporation so thereis not nearly the return.   Converting 3-acre feet from surface tounderground becomes probably about 1.5 feet. 

Chairman Kunzler wondered if the City could accept moneyrather than shares.  Mr. Creamer saidthat is an option.   They have discussedeverything from cash payment, to water shares, to requiring submission of undergroundwater rights.  The submission ofunderground water rights would be the ideal thing, but it would be such atime-consuming process for a developer to convert surface rights to undergroundbefore annexation.   

The City uses surface rights for the Rotary Park, SnowCollege, Lions Park, golf course, and the cemetery because they sit along thecanal and the City can pump water out of the canal.  They can use the “dirty” water to irrigateall of that green space rather than using “clean” water.  But as time goes on, the City will need moreclean water.  There is probably 6 to 10years of growth with the underground rights that the City owns.  If the City continues growing at the presentrate, it will need to be able to convert water to underground or purchaseunderground rights. 

Mr. Ogden said the City owns about 3/4ths of Cottonwood whichruns in the spring until about the 1st of July.  He suggests that the City could gravity feedthat to water the cemetery and the Pahvant Elementary School.  He also proposed this several years ago.  He knows State Representative Kay McIff isworking to get that transferred to an underground right.  Mr. Ogden feels like the City couldconsidering utilizing a little more of that water. 

Mr. Creamer will pass these concerns along to the CityCouncil.   

Mr. Mower said in the proposed Policy 10, the last lineused the word “underground” as an adjective. If that is left out, would it make any difference so that it reads or“equivalent water rights acceptable to the City.”  It doesn’t seem to make a lot of differencebut it would give more flexibility.  Mr.Creamer said the City is in the beginning stages of trying to convert some ofthe Cottonwood water ownership and see what it can get in usable undergroundwater.  If the language were changed,then when the equivalency of Cottonwood is established, it wouldn’t requireanother annexation amendment to allow the acceptance of Cottonwood water. 

The public hearing was closed at 6:39:15PM.

4.  General Plan. After public hearing, a motion is considered concerning a proposedamendment to the water share requirement of the Annexation Policy of theGeneral Plan for Richfield City. Chairman Kunzler points out that the City has used the same set of data thatMr. Ogden used except that the City has eliminated two years.  Brion Terry wondered if the City looked atany other 10-year periods.  Mr. Creamersaid they felt like 10 years was a fair consideration and that the City hadmade a good faith attempt to be as accurate and fair as possible.

Mr. Mower asked if it says somewhere how many shares haveto be transferred to the City with annexation. Mr. Creamer said the existing Policy 10 is worded almost identical tothe proposal except that it says it will accept 1 share of Sevier Valley,Richfield, and Piute, and it also has a note in there to accept 2 shares ofCottonwood.  About six months ago, the Counciladopted a motion that until they can quantify the value of Cottonwood water,they will not accept Cottonwood water. This language is located in the Annexation Policy of the GeneralPlan. 

Mr. Albrecht said there was discussion last month that ifa landowner didn’t have sufficient water rights, could the City accept cashvalue.  It sounded like that might be aproblem.  Mr. Creamer said the City hashad differing opinions from different attorneys.  The Utah League of Cities and Towns has saidthat if a cash equivalent is accepted, it would become an impact fee whichfalls under a different part of the law than an exaction.  The City attorney and some other attorneys feltlike there really wasn’t a difference so Mr. Creamer isn’t sure how to answerthat question.  Technically, the City couldforget about water shares and say there is a developer impact fee and a buildingpermit impact fee and together they total the amount the City can legallyrequire for water rights.  Mr. Albrechtsaid it is his opinion that it would be good for the City to acquire all thewater rights they can.  The City ought toget the maximum amount of water rights it can get and then perhaps accept cashfor the balance.

Mr. Mower wonders about the shares the City accepts andif the water just sits in the canal.  Mr.Creamer said the City uses the water it needs out of the canals.  Some years it uses close to what is owned.  Other years, quite a bit of water is left inthe system.  Mr. Mower said so when aperson turns on their water, it comes from one of the City’s water storage tankswhich is coming from underground water shares. Mr. Creamer said the City already owns those underground rights;however, 10 years from now, the City will have reached the point where the StateEngineer will say the City is pumping the amount of water it owns and the Citywill have to find more underground rights or exchange overground rights tounderground. 

Chairman Kunzler said if you look at a 10-year period oftime and there are two abnormal years in it, who’s to say that the 10-yearperiod of time before that didn’t have some abnormal years.  Mr. Terry would like the City to look at alonger period of time to average the water delivered. 

Jeff Albrecht motionedthat a recommendation be made to the City Council that it accepts the method ofcalculating the water share delivery system on a 20-year period rather than a10-year period, having the ability to throw out data that skews theresults.  It is also recommended that thelast line of proposed Policy 10 be changed as follows:  “or equivalent underground rightsacceptable to the City.” It is also recommended that the City Council explorethe avenue of accepting a cash equivalent once the developer has given all ofthe water shares he can give.  DavidMower seconded the motion.  The motioncarried unanimously. 

5.   Tooter Ogden/Ideal Acres Subdivision.  Tooter Ogden presented plans for a conceptdiscussion for a proposed subdivision to be located at approximately 800 Northand 700 to 750 East.   There are a few major concerns.  A power line on the east border of theproperty conflicts with the placement of street improvements.  The power lines aren’t  regular distribution lines.  They are $60,000 a pole making it difficultto move them.  Mr. Ogden is suggestingthat the street be shifted 7.5 feet to the east to avoid relocation of thepower line and additional property would be required for street dedication fromthe property owners on the east side of 750 East.  If the shifting of the street is approved, PaulHinrichs is suggesting that it is the responsibility of the applicant toacquire this additional right-of-way for the entire length of all phases ofIdeal Acres.  There is also an existingstreet right-of-way at 700 East 700 North. The Petitioner would like to vacate that.  The second major item is the bridge on 700North 750 East.  As far as width andangle, it is not adequate for the increased traffic that this subdivision couldplace on it. 

Following are points of the discussion:

Chairman Kunzler said he thought access would be off of 700East Street.  He wondered why they wouldmove the access to 750 East which is an unimproved road.  Using 750 East also makes it necessary to addressthe bridge at 750 East.  Carl Rasmussen,Mr. Ogden’s engineer, said the reason is because the lowest point for the sewermanhole is at 700 North and 700 East. They picked the low spot and theneverything will run to that.  It is theclosest sewer line that is feasible.

Mr. Ogden said he doesn’t own the property at 700 East700 North where the street right-of-way is shown.  That is owned by his family.  If he were to put in 700 East, he would haveto install a bridge over the Cottonwood Wash. His family can do what they want with their property, but he doubts theyare going to put in a bridge just for the three lots they might havethere.  Mr. Ogden says he does not ownthat property and his development sits behind it.  Even if the City does not vacate the street,Mr. Ogden is not going to build a road there.     

Chairman Kunzler said he is sure Mr. Ogden feels like theCity has responsibility for the bridge on 750 East.  There really does need to be an improvementto the bridge.  He is alright with theroad right-of-way being vacated at 700 East, but then he has concerns with thesafety of the intersection at 750 East. Mr. Rasmussen suggests that perhaps the City needs to look at thatbridge on the master plan for improvement. Impact fees could be assessed to developers for property north of thereand then that could be allocated to pay for the improvement of the bridge. 

Chairman Kunzler said it is the Commission’s role to recommenditems that need to be addressed.  As faras who is responsible for fixing the bridge, Mr. Ogden would need to negotiatethat with the City Council.  But it wouldbe the Commission’s recommendation that it does need to be fixed and that nowis the time for the bridge to be addressed. 

Mr. Ogden said if he is required to fix the bridge, hewonders how he would recoup his cost from that. 

Mr. Hinrichs points out that the reason the bridge needsto be addressed at the present time is because of the impact of this development.  This development will be putting more trafficon it.  As each phase of the developmentis completed, it will have more and more impact. 

Mr. Rasmussen said in working with other communities, theydon’t require developers to take care of existing deficiencies.  Street impact fees are used for that.  He said that if Mr. Ogden is required toimprove the bridge, then all property owners to the north of that will benefitfrom it.  The bridge will still be ownedby the City.  To be fair, the City oughtto correct the deficiency. 

Mr. Mower is concerned about the sewer line going acrosslot #2.  What if a house is built overthe top of the sewer line and then the sewer fails.  Mr. Rasmussen said there would be a sewereasement on the property so a home couldn’t be built over it.  They have drawn how a house would sit on thatlot without encroaching into the easement. 

The plan was reviewed showing how these proposed roadstie into existing roads.  Jeff Ogden ownsportions of this property and the Commission would like to know that Jeff Ogdenis on board with the lay-out of streets and how it affects his property.  Mr. Hinrichs suggests that Tooter Ogdenshould provide a copy of the plan that has been signed by Jeff Ogden showingthat he agrees with Tooter Ogden’s proposed road plans and that it doesn’tinterfere with anything that Jeff Ogden might want to do

Mr. Albrecht referred to 750 East Street, the road eastof the subdivision.  There is a problemwith the location of the power lines. Mr. Hinrichs has suggested that because it will be difficult to move thepower lines, the road will have to be shifted to the east requiring  additional property from the adjacentproperty owners in order to meet the right-of-way width.  Mr. Ogden said he has contacted adjacentproperty owners and they agree with that. The Commission wouldn’t want it to become the responsibility of the Cityto get the additional footage at a later time. Mr. Ogden said he can get letters stating that the property owners willgive rights-of-way to the City as they develop their properties.  Mr. Albrecht said the entire right-of-way needsto be dedicated at this time.  

Mr. Rasmussen drew a diagram showing the 750 East streetright-of-way line.  If there wasn’t the obstacleof the power line, then they could take equal portions off of each side of theroad.  However, the power transmissionline creates a real problem.  They aren’tregular distribution lines.  They are$60,000 a pole making it difficult to move them. 

For this first phase, Mr. Ogden would have to develop hisside of the road plus 10 feet beyond the centerline.  That would put it a foot into the otherperson’s fence.  A right-of-way should besecured for the whole distance of this property.    

There was further discussion concerning the MasterTransportation Plan.  It shows 750 Eastas being a future minor collector.  Therewas discussion about the possibility of shifting that minor collector to either700 East or 800 East.  750 East Streetcould be kept as a walking path or a bike path between this property and theproperties on the east side of the lane. If this option is utilized, they would go ahead and develop the streetat 700 East and install a bridge over the Cottonwood Wash.  It seems this would be a good solution tosolving the problem of the bridge at 750 East and would not require theacquisition of the additional width of property for the right-of-way.

Mr. Ogden and Mr. Rasmussen will re-work their plan andmeet with the City Council to see if the Council sees a possibility of shiftingthe minor collector road. 

Mr. Rasmussen wondered about storm drainage and if theCity requires detention.  Paul Hinrichssaid it can run into the Cottonwood wash.  

6.    Brady Hansen/Hansen Collision Repair.   PaulHinrichs showed the site plan Hansen Collision. This was approved at last month’s meeting but the Commission wanted tosee finalized, formal plans for the project. Mr. Hinrichs said this plan is an accurate plan but then Mr. Hansenasked him about the on-site detention of drainage.  Mr. Hansen didn’t like that and wanted it tobe done differently.   Mr. Hinrichs saidhe will make sure that before a permit is issued, the Commission sees the finalplans. 

7.     Casita/Mother-in-Law Quarter. Thiswill be put on next month’s agenda.    

8.     Other Business.   Planning Commission terms were discussed.  The following terms are up:  Brion Terry, Monte, Turner, and Eugene Beck.  This is the end of Mr. Beck’s third termwhich is the maximum amount of time a Commissioner can serve.  Mr. Terry and Mr. Turner both completed the unfinishedterms of previous Commission members and are both agreeable to staying on foranother term. 

9.   Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. 

PASSED AND APPROVED onthe 8th day of January, 2014.

/s/  Michelle Curtis

      DeputyCity Recorder