NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 26, 2021 AT 7:00 P.M. ELECTRONIC MEETING
In light of health concerns with the COVID-19 pandemic and the recent Executive Order by Governor Herbert, this meeting will be held electronically. To view the meeting go to
https://www.springville.org/agendas-minutes/and select the Zoom Meeting link.
The Commissioners will meet for a briefing of the regular session agenda items at 7:00 p.m. This will be a public meeting; however, no testimony will be heard, and no action will be taken on the agenda items. The regular session will follow immediately after the briefing meeting.
The agenda will be as follows: Call to Order
• Approval of the Agenda
• Approval of Minutes: January 12, 2021 Consent Agenda
The Consent Agenda includes items that are administrative actions where no additional discussion is needed. When approved, the recommendations in the staff reports become the action of the Commission. A call for objection or comment will be made on the consent agenda items. If there is any opposition or comment, the item will be taken off the consent agenda and put on the regular administrative session meeting agenda for discussion. If there are no objections or comments, the item(s) will pass without further consideration
Legislative Session — Public Hearing
1. Matt and Amy Bowman seeking amendments to Springville Code 11-6-130 (6) Protection of Creek Corridors, to add provisions permitting the construction of private bridges in such corridors (Continued from December 22, 2020).
2. Mike Camberlango seeking to amend the Official Zoning Map from the R1-15 Single-Family Residential Zone to the R1-10 Single-Family Residential Zone on a five-acre parcel located at 1162 W Center Street.
Administrative Session Adjournment
THIS AGENDA SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH A MINIMUM OF 24-HOURS NOTICE
This meeting was noticed in compliance with Utah Code 52-4-202 on January 21, 2021. Agendas and minutes are accessible through the Springville City website at www.springville.org/agendas-minutes. Planning Commission meeting agendas are available through the Utah Public Meeting Notice website at www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html. Email subscriptions to Utah Public Meeting Notices are available through their website.
Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: January 12, 2021 Page 1 of 4
1
2
MINUTES
3
Planning Commission
4
Work Session
5
Tuesday, January 12, 2021
6
7
8
IN ATTENDANCE
9
10
Commissioners:
Chair Brad Mertz, Genevieve Baker, Frank Young,
11
Karen Ellingson, Michael Farrer, Rod Parker and Kay Heaps
12
13
City Staff:
Josh Yost, Community Development Director
14
Laura Thompson, City Planner
15
Heather Bakker, Executive Assistant
16
17
City Council:
Matt Packard
18
19
20
CALL TO ORDER
21
22
Chair Mertz called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
23
24
25
DISCUSSION OF AGENDA
26
27
Chair Mertz asked if there were any corrections to the agenda. There were no
28
corrections to the agenda.
29
30
31
DISCUSSION OF MINUTES
32
December 22, 2020
33
34
Chair Mertz asked if there were any corrections to the minutes. The corrections to the
35
minutes were emailed.
36
37
38
CONSENT AGENDA
39
40
1. Chris Clyde seeking plat amendment approval for Hazel’s Orchard, Plat B,
41
combining two lots at 1994 E Canyon Road in the R1-10 Single-Family
42
Residential Zone.
43
44
2. Trevor Sharp seeking plat amendment approval for Spring Pointe Retail Center,
45
Plat J located at 2178 W 500 N in the HC-Highway Commercial Zone.
46
47
3. Steve Birt seeking subdivision and site plan approval for Better Body Foods
48
located at 583 S 2600 W in the HC-Highway Commercial Zone.
49
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
50
51
No items
52
53
ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION
54
55
No items
56
57
58
With nothing further to discuss, Commissioner Baker moved to adjourn the meeting.
59
Commissioner Farrer seconded the motion. The vote to adjourn the meeting was
60
unanimous.
61
62
Chair Mertz adjourned the meeting at 7:04 p.m.
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
Approved Date: Draft Minutes Date of Meeting: January 12, 2021 Page 3 of 4
MINUTES
99
Planning Commission
100
Regular Session
101
Tuesday, January 12, 2021
102
103
104
IN ATTENDANCE
105
106
Commissioners:
Chair Brad Mertz, Genevieve Baker, Frank Young,
107
Karen Ellingson, Michael Farrer Rod Parker and Kay Heaps
108
109
City Staff:
Josh Yost, Community Development Director
110
Laura Thompson, City Planner
111
Heather Bakker, Executive Assistant
112
113
City Council:
Matt Packard
114
115
116
CALL TO ORDER
117
118
Chair Mertz called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
119
120
121
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
122
123
Commissioner Young moved to approve the agenda as written. Commissioner Ellingson
124
seconded the motion. The vote to approve the agenda was unanimous.
125
126
127
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
128
December 21, 2020
129
130
Commissioner Farrer moved to approve the December 21, 2020 minutes with emailed
131
corrections. Commissioner Baker seconded the motion. The vote to approve the
132
meeting minutes was unanimous.
133
134
135
CONSENT AGENDA
136
137
1. Chris Clyde seeking plat amendment approval for Hazel’s Orchard, Plat B,
138
combining two lots at 1994 E Canyon Road in the R1-10 Single-Family
139
Residential Zone.
140
141
2. Trevor Sharp seeking plat amendment approval for Spring Pointe Retail Center,
142
Plat J located at 2178 W 500 N in the HC-Highway Commercial Zone.
143
144
3. Steve Birt seeking subdivision and site plan approval for Better Body Foods
145
located at 583 S 2600 W in the HC-Highway Commercial Zone.
146
147
148
Commissioner Baker moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Heaps
149
seconded the motion. The vote to approve the Consent Agenda was unanimous.
150
151
152
LEGISLATIVE SESSION:
153
154
No Items
155
156
ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION
157
158
No Items
159
160
161
With nothing further to discuss, Commissioner Young moved to adjourn the meeting.
162
Commissioner Parker seconded the motion.
163
164
Chair Mertz adjourned the meeting at 7:11 p.m.
165
1 Petitioner: Matt and Amy Bowman
On December 22, 2020, the Planning Commission continued this item until January 26, 2021, with direction to staff to do the following:
• Meet with the applicants to see if the applicants and staff could agree to ordinance provisions that would address staff’s safety concerns;
• Include in the ordinance several provisions the Planning Commission would like to see in the ordinance; and
• Provide an opportunity for the Planning Commission to hear directly from the public works director regarding safety issues surrounding bridges across Hobble Creek.
The proposed ordinance includes provisions that the applicants and staff have discussed. The provisions attempt to reduce the risk of building bridges as much as possible.
The remainder of this report will discuss the provisions in the proposed ordinance. Planning Commission Provisions
The following provisions are the provisions that staff have included in the proposed ordinance based on the Planning Commission’s discussions.
• A private bridge may only be 10 feet wide. This provision allows for pedestrians and small equipment to cross a bridge but is not wide enough for vehicle crossing. • Maintain the 20-foot easement. The ordinance includes this provision so that the
purposes for the 20-foot easement may continue to be met. At least two Planning Commissioners want to see a recreation trail by the river where possible.
• Owner must be responsible for any flood damage caused by the bridge. The ordinance makes this a requirement and requires a property owner to sign an indemnification agreement.
• Make sure that any bridge is not poorly built. Under the proposed ordinance, any bridge must go through the building permit and floodplain permit processes. • Narrow locations where bridges are allowed. The proposed ordinance only allows
bridges in the R-15, on the boarder of Springville and Mapleton, and on properties with at least 0.75 acres. The purpose behind this provision is to reduce help limit
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
January 26, 2020 Agenda Item 1 TO: Planning Commission MembersFROM: John Penrod – City Attorney
RE: Matt and Amy Bowman seeking amendments to Springville Code 11-6-130 (6) Protection of Creek Corridors, to add provisions permitting the
the number of homes within the area where the bridge might flood. Also, limiting bridges to locations where one side of the bridge is in Mapleton not only reduces possible flooding issues in Springville subdivisions, it also reduces overall potential flooding of homes because the Mapleton side of Hobble Creek is mostly open fields with very little potential for development.
Provisions to Help Reduce Flooding Hazards
Staff included most of the following proposed ordinance provisions to help mitigate flooding hazards. The provisions have been discussed with the Bowmans. The Bowmans have demonstrated a willingness to do what they can to reduce flooding concerns, including to follow the below provisions.
• Springville property must have a higher elevation than the Mapleton property. This provision was included so that if debris or other circumstances associated with the bridge causes water to spill out of the creek, the water would initially spill over into the Mapleton side onto fields and away from homes.
• A bridge must be two feet higher than the 100-year flood elevation with no items hung from the bridge. This provision will not remove all flooding risk due to possible debris build up on the bridge but will reduce flooding based on higher bridge elevations.
• A bridge owner provides a maintenance plan. This provision encompasses what is in the applicants’ proposed ordinance. It includes the requirements to have legal access to the bridge for heavy equipment, keep the creek near and around the bridge clear of debris, and remove the bridge should ownership change. In order to make sure that the plan is maintained over time, staff, after consulting with the applicants, added the provision that should it appear that the maintenance plan cannot be met, the city and owner will meet to discuss the plan. The bridge may have to be removed if the maintenance plan is not possible to implement. • Flash flooding. The owner must either remove the bridge during a flash flood
warning or have heavy equipment on standby to remove debris during a flash flooding warning.
• Streamgage to address high flows. The proposed ordinance requires the owner to install a streamgage to monitor the creek’s high flows. If the cubic feet per second reaches 850 cfs, the owner would have either remove the bridge until flows come down or have heavy equipment on standby to remove debris until flows come down. This provision would be very helpful to ensure risk is reduced. However, at the time this report is written, staff is still reviewing the details for installing a streamgage.
• Removal of bridge. The bridge would have to be removed should it cause any flooding, the property owner moves or the ordinance requirements are not met. It is impossible to remove all risk associated with a bridge across Hobble Creek. However, the proposed ordinance is to try to mitigate the risk as much as possible.
Proposed Ordinance
A property owner may construct and maintain one private walking bridge on their property(ies) that crosses Hobble Creek as long as the owner meets the following requirements:
a. The bridge must connect two properties owned by the same property owner, one of which is located in Springville City (the “Springville Property”) and the other property located in Mapleton City (the “Mapleton Property”);
b. The owner’s Springville Property must be in the R-15 zone;
c. The two properties that are connected by the bridge must each consist of an area of at least 0.75 acres;
d. The entire distance of the creek’s bank along the owner’s Springville Property must be higher in elevation than the creek’s bank of the owner’s Mapleton Property;
e. The owner shall follow the City’s building permit and flood permit processes and obtain all necessary approvals before commencing construction of the bridge; f. The bridge shall not be any wider than ten feet, measured at the widest point of
the bridge structure;
g. In the event that the bridge is to be located within a recreation and maintenance easement, the owner shall provide Springville City with a 20-foot-wide easement in a form acceptable to the City engineer that connects the recreation and maintenance easement around the bridge and along the entire owner’s property to ensure that the recreation and maintenance easement will still meet the purposes for the easement;
h. The bridge shall be engineered and installed to ensure that the bottom of the bridge (meaning the lowest point of any portion of the bridge above the creek) is two feet above the 100-year base flood elevation and any improvements
associated with the bridge, including, without limitation, piers and/or abutments, are permanently located outside of the channel of the creek and the 100-year flood elevation;
i. The owner shall not hang any item on the bridge that would hang below the lowest portion of the bridge above the creek;
j. The owner shall be responsible for all flood damage caused by or related to the bridge and shall sign a hold harmless and indemnification agreement that indemnifies the City from any and all claims, which agreement must be in a form acceptable to the City and runs with the property;
k. The owner must provide the City with a written maintenance plan (the “Maintenance Plan”) that ensures the owner will:
i. have the legal right to access the bridge from both sides of Hobble Creek at any and all times with heavy equipment to clear debris and/or
temporarily remove the bridge;
ii. keep the creek corridor near and around the bridge clear of debris; iii. meet the requirements of this ordinance; and
iv. remove the bridge should ownership change or any of the requirements of this Section are no longer met;
l. In the event that it appears to the City that the Maintenance Plan provided by the owner in subsection k cannot be carried out, the owner shall meet with the City and the owner must do one of the following: demonstrate that the Maintenance Plan still works, change the Maintenance Plan to meet the requirements of subsection k, or remove the bridge;
m. The owner shall remove the bridge within 24 hours of or have heavy equipment on standby (meaning located on the owner’ s property or within 20 minutes of the
owner’s property) to remove debris from the bridge during a flash flood warning for the Hobble Creek area issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Weather Service or any other State or Federal agencies;
n. Prior to installing the bridge, the owner shall install a streamgage upstream of the bridge in Hobble Creek that meets the standards of the United States Geological Survey and measures and monitors the flows in Hobble Creek, and when the streamgage measures the flow in Hobble Creek at higher than 850 cubic feet per second, the owner shall remove the bridge within 24 hours and until the flow falls below 650 cubic feet per second or have heavy equipment on standby (meaning located on the owner’ s property or within 20 minutes of the owner’s property) to remove debris from the bridge until the flow falls below 650 cubic feet per second; and
Attachments
• Planning Commission - February 25, 2020 o Staff Report
o Proposed Ordinance o Minutes
• City Council – May 5, 2020 o Staff Report
o Minutes
• Planning Commission – December 22, 2020 o Staff Report
Petitioner: Springville City Summary of Issues
Should the following amendments to Springville City’s Code regarding the protection of creek corridors be made?
• Define “creek” as any natural stream or waterway in Springville – Dry Creek, Hobble Creek, Spring Creek.
• Remove the requirement to obtain City Council approval to work on property abutting a creek.
• Limit the definition of “structure” for purposes of the 50-foot setback to buildings and other structures that require a building permit.
• Allow for private bridges across a creek. Background
Recently residents living near Hobble Creek built a home and purchased property on the opposite side of Hobble Creek. These same residents have now filed a building permit to build a bridge across Hobble Creek. The City’s current ordinance does not allow for any buildings or structures to be built within 50 feet of a creek. The City Council has directed staff to draft an ordinance that would allow for a private bridge to be built over Hobble Creek for the Planning Commission and City Council’s consideration. The attached draft ordinance language is to allow for a bridge to be built across a creek and cleans up some of the language in Section 11-6-130.
Analysis
Current Ordinance. The current Section 11-6-130 of the Springville City Code protects creek corridors by doing the following:
• Requires a 20-foot recreation, access and maintenance easement along each side of the creek.
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item # February 25, 2020 February 21, 2020TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: John Penrod
RE: Consideration of amending Sections 11-6-130 of the Springville City Code regarding the protection of creek corridors.
2
• Does not allow for any structure or improvement to be constructed on the property, including the placement of concrete, without firs obtaining permission from the City Council.
• Does not allow any building or structure to be built within 50-feet of the creek.
• Requires approval from the State to do any stream alteration type work on the creek. Proposed Ordinance. The proposed ordinance amends the current ordinance language by doing the following:
• Removes the requirement for development on property abutting the creek to be approved by the City Council. A property owner abutting a creek who wants to do any development will have to meet State and City requirements and approvals. The listed work that will need approvals, if required by the State and City, include:
(i) Divert, fill in, line, or cover the natural course of any creek. (ii) Install or build any improvements or structures.
(iii) Dump or permit the dumping of any garbage or other refuse.
(iv) Cut, grub or remove any trees or other natural vegetation, remove any stone or earth, or otherwise disturb the natural state of the area.
• A structure, which is defined as any building or other project that requires a building permit, must be set back from the creek 50 feet. To compare our 50-foot setback to our neighbor city Provo, Provo requires a 100-foot setback.
• The recreation and maintenance easement is still required.
• The only structure that is allowed to be within the 50-foot setback is a private bridge. The owner who wants to install the bridge must meet the following requirements:
(i)The owner shall follow the building permit process and obtain a building permit before commencing the construction of the private bridge.
(ii) The owner must own a lot or parcel totaling at least 5,000 square feet of property on both sides of the creek where the bridge is going to be constructed.
(iii) The bridge shall not be any wider than ten feet (10”).
(iv) In the event that the bridge is to be located within a recreation and maintenance
easement, the owner shall provide Springville City with a 20-foot wide easement that connects the recreation and maintenance easement around the bridge to ensure that the recreation and maintenance easement will still meet the purposes for the easement and in a manner
acceptable to the City engineer.
(v) The bridge shall be engineered to ensure that the bottom of the bridge deck is two feet above the 100-year base flood elevation.
Recommended Motion
Move to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Section 11-6-130 the Springville City Code regarding the protection of creek corridors.
11-6-130 Protection of Creek Corridors.
(1) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is intended to promote, preserve, and enhance the important hydrologic, biological, ecological, aesthetic, recreational, and educational functions that creek corridors provide the City of Springville.
(2) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section only, the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations shall have the below meaning.
“Creek” means any natural stream or natural waterway within Springville City and includes, but is not limited to, Dry Creek, Hobble Creek and Spring Creek.
“Recreation and Maintenance Easement” means a twenty-foot (20’) wide public recreation, access and maintenance easement of no greater than three percent (3%) cross-slope located on each side of the banks of any creek.
“Structure” means a building or something that is built, framed, erected, constructed, installed or placed on the ground for which a building permit is required pursuant to any building code or local, state or federal law or regulation.
(32) At the time of development, a twenty foot (20') wide public access and maintenance easement of no greater than three percent (3%) cross-slope shall be required on each side of the banks of any creek corridor in Springville Citythe developer of any property abutting a creek shall provide Springville with a recreation and maintenance easement. The recreation and maintenance easement shall provide
adequate space for a ten footten-foot (10') trail with five foot (5') wide sides shoulders for maintenance of the waterway and trail recreation use. Maintenance of the trail may include the use of motor vehicles. The Recreation use of the trail shall The trail may also be used for transportation and recreational purposes,, include, but not limited to, bicycling, jogging, walking sightseeing and other recreational use . Where the recreation and maintenance easement exceeds ten percent (10%) of the parcel of property owned by an owner or where any appropriate legal balancing test requires, Springville City will either forego the easement requirement or pay just compensation for the easement.
(4a) Creek Corridor Development Work. Without prior written consent of the Mayor upon approval of the City Council,tThe owner of property abutting any creek in Springville shall notobtain all necessary approvals and follow all requirements of the State of Utah, including, without limitation, all Division of
Water Rights Stream Alteration Program requirements, and all approvals and requirements of Springville City for any of the following listed activities:
(i) Divert, fill in, line, or cover the natural course of any creek.
(ii) Install or build any improvements or structures. Erect any structure or improvement, including, but not limited to, buildings, fences, bridges, and parking lots
(iii) Dump or permit the dumping of any garbage or other refuse.
(iv) Cut, grub or remove any trees or other natural vegetation, remove any stone or earth, or otherwise disturb the natural state of the area.
(53) All buildings and structures, except bridges across a creek that meet the requirements of
subsection (6), shall be set back at least fifty feet (50') from the bank of the nearest creekside’s edge to the structure at the point where the bank edge begins to meet a three percent (3%) cross-slope of the twenty foot (20') easement required along creek corridors. Additionally, waterway requirements of the Utah State Division of Water Rights shall be met and a letter provided by the Division stating any requirements.
(Amended by Ord. No. 36-2006, 12/05/2006)
(4) For the purpose of this Section, creek corridors shall not include ditches that are commonly known to be irrigation ditches that do not contribute to the preservation and enhancement of fisheries or wildlife. (6) Private Bridges. A property owner who desires to build a private bridge across a creek shall meet the following requirements:
(i) The owner shall follow the building permit process and obtain a building permit before commencing the construction of the private bridge.
(ii) The owner must own a lot or parcel totaling at least 5,000 square feet of property on both sides of the creek where the bridge is going to be constructed.
maintenance easement around the bridge to ensure that the recreation and maintenance easement will still meet the purposes for the easement and in a manner acceptable to the City engineer.
(v) The bridge shall be engineered to ensure that the bottom of the bridge deck is two feet above the 100-year base flood elevation.
MINUTES
Planning Commission
Regular Session
Tuesday, February 25, 2020
IN ATTENDANCE
Commissioners Present: Chairman Frank Young, Genevieve Baker, Karen Ellingson,
and Michael Farrer
Commissioners Excused: Michael Clay, Carl Clyde and Brad Mertz
City Staff:
Josh Yost, Community Development Director
Laura Thompson, City Planner
Heather Bakker, Executive Assistant
Jeff Anderson, City Engineer
John Penrod, City Attorney
City Council:
Matt Packard
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Young called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Commissioner Baker moved to approve the agenda as written. Commissioner Ellingson
seconded the motion. The vote to approve the agenda was unanimous.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
No minutes
CONSENT AGENDA
1. ACC Ventures, LLC, seeking a recommendation to vacate the Art City Center
Condo Plat located at 79 W 900 N in the CC-Community Commercial Zone.
Commissioner Ellingson moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Farrer
seconded the motion. The vote to approve the Consent Agenda was unanimous.
Approved Date: April 14, 2020 Date of Meeting: February 25, 2020 Page 4 of 11
LEGISLATIVE SESSION:
1. Springville City seeking a recommendation for the Springville Transportation
Master Plan, which includes the IFFP-Impact Fee Facilities Plan and
IFA-Impact Fee Analysis.
City Engineer Jeff Anderson presented. He explained the Impact Fee Facilities Plan
and how steps were taken to follow the requirements and measures taken to
implement an impact fee. He also explained levels of service that are used to
measure traffic scenarios and the ways to keep traffic flowing with increasing
population. He spoke of creating another North/South option to travel as an
alternate to the freeway. In order to make this happen, there needs to be a new
impact fee implemented to help pay for the necessary road improvements. The
impact fee will be assessed to new development.
Chairman Young asked if traffic was at service Level D, would something be done to
improve traffic. Mr. Anderson said that if traffic increases to create a level lower than
D, then we are required to bring it back up to the Level D standard. He explained it is
justifiable and economically responsible to maintain Level of Service D.
Commissioner Ellingson asked about cost levels between Levels C & D. Mr.
Anderson said that was not analyzed. Level D is the standard with other cities, the
county and UDOT. If so directed, it could be looked into. He explained that the best
relief for 400 South is to develop 1600 South, get the interchange in and get some of
the pass-through traffic on other arterial roads.
Commissioner Baker asked if we are limited by UDOT owned roads. Mr.Anderson
said yes, and he explained that UDOT is held to the same standards, including Level
of Service D. Some of UDOT’s jurisdiction is from Main Street on 400 South to the
freeway.
Mr. Anderson explained that some areas in Springville are in the F range. Since this
report, he explained the road has been restriped and widened to 400 E making it five
lanes and that has improved the Level of Service to C or D.
Commissioner Baker then asked since this improvement went to about 400 East,
what about the section that hasn’t been widened and does that have a bottleneck
effect. Mr. Anderson answered that from 800 E to 400 E is where we are seeing it.
On March 17
th, staff will be submitting final plans for a concept report for
improvements on the 800 S 800 E intersection to align the road and make that more
attractive as an East/West connector. Engineering is looking to do improvements
and make 800 South a through road to help take some of the load off of 400 South.
Commissioner Ellingson asked if improvements will be made to the Mapleton split.
Mr. Anderson stated that is state controlled. It is in Phase One to be reconstructed
and redone, which will be in the next one to ten years. Springville City can work on
River Bottom Road, but we are at the will of UDOT to complete the other portion.
Commissioner Baker asked if the intent is that 400 East would be the connector
between 400 South and 800 South. Mr. Anderson answered that 400 East would be
one connection point and also 800 East through Brookside and down to 800 South
could be developed as a connector. Brookside is in a residential area, but the road
widths would facilitate it. Commissioner Baker pointed out that the road doesn’t
widen between 400 East and 800 East. Mr. Anderson confirmed that is the case.
Mr. Anderson continued and explained that if no improvements were made now,
then in 2040 intersections fail and 400 South becomes very congested. All the routes
in and out of town become congested during peak hours. He explained ways the City
is working on to be proactive to make sure traffic stays manageable. The focus is on
1200 West. The City is applying for $6 million from the MAG TIP program to fund
improvements from to 550 North up to SR 77. If funded, in the next 4-5 years, there
could be a two lane section funded from SR-77 to Spanish Fork and create a North
South corridor through the middle of Springville.
Commissioner Baker asked what the plan is to alleviate Main Street North-South. Mr.
Anderson said that it is to get people to 400 E and 1200 W, as other options. And
ultimately in the 2050 Transplan which includes a five lane road West of freeway and
a five lane facility on 1200 W. That would give good North-South options.
Commissioner Ellingson asked about estimated time frame on the road that goes
next to Community Park. Mr. Anderson clarified that to be the extension of 400
North. Currently the City is applying for grant money for flood protection. New
FEMA flood maps are coming out in June. There are 250 homes are being put into
the flood plain and that is not the direction desired with floodplain development. So
grant applications are being submitted to look at levy’s as well as containing the
flood waters and possibly rehabbing Hobble Creek. At that time, the plan would be to
look at getting a levy and a road right adjacent to that levy, acquiring the property
and letting development take it from there. Staff are working with property owners
there, primarily on the flood protection side of things currently.
Commissioner Ellingson asked what it means for the railroad crossing. Mr. Anderson
explained that it is at grade. With that development it would require gates and lights,
as well as a divided median as you approach. Discussions include it eventually
becoming a quiet zone. His hope is that they put that in place and do a quiet zone
from Spanish Fork Canyon to Provo. Quiet zone means they would not sound horns
at each crossing. Staff are working with the railroad to get that done.
Mr. Anderson explained the computation of the impact fee, which comes to $1562,
an increase of 15% over the current impact fee. The fee is based on a 5:00 p.m.
peak hour trip. A single family home would pay about one half of that fee, based on
the trip generation model, making it about $750. Recommendation from staff is to
enact the entire impact fee. The fee is evaluated continually, looking at fee collected
and compared to what is being projected. Then fee corrections are made about
every 2-3 years.
Commissioner Ellingson asked how is this fee compared to other cities. Mr.
Anderson said that the aim is to be the middle. Our impact fee, even with the 15%
increase, won’t be the highest, but it also won’t be the lowest. Chairman Young
asked if there would be enough money to help solve any problems. Mr. Anderson
Approved Date: April 14, 2020 Date of Meeting: February 25, 2020 Page 6 of 11
feels this is a justifiable amount that can be applied to building out the West side and
alleviate some of the bottlenecks.
Commissioner Baker asked what makes something impact fee eligible. Mr. Anderson
explained that it is based on new trips being generated. The model used looks at the
zoning and development to see what fits the area best, taking into account whether it
is commercial or residential. The model looks at ways traffic will go to get through
that area, including areas where it gets may become congested.
Chairman Young asked if the list of projects presented is prioritized. Mr. Anderson
said that this is just a list. Staff met internally and made this list of IFFP Projects. If
the Planning Commission wants to look at a prioritized list, one could be created and
presented.
Chairman Young asked if there had been any public comment on the report and Mr.
Anderson stated that as of yet, there had been none. Commissioner Farrer asked
when this was submitted for public comment. Mr. Anderson stated it was posted 10
days prior to this public hearing on all the websites. If recommended for approval
here, it will go to City Council on March 17
th.
Chairman Young opened the public hearing at 7:29 p.m.
Karen Effidiba
450 S 100 E
Springville, UT 84663
Ms. Effidiba is in favor of the impact fee increase. She complimented staff and
Planning Commissioners for spending time and being thorough to get this
accomplished. She is in favor of keeping the grid system and feels it is reasonable
to increase fee required per household. She believes the people that live here need
to pay for the road infrastructure that is being put in place.
Commissioner Farrer moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Baker
seconded the motion. The vote to close hearing was unanimous. The public hearing
was closed at 7:31 p.m.
Commissioner Farrer moved to recommend approval of the updated Transportation
Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) and Impact Fee Analysis (IFA) of the adopted
Springville Transportation Master Plan. Commissioner Baker seconded the motion. The
vote to approve the Legislative Session item was unanimous.
2. Springville City seeking a recommendation for proposed amendments to
Springville City Code, Section 11-6-130 Protection of Creek Corridors.
City Attorney, John Penrod presented. He explained that there has been a request for a
bridge to be built across Hobble Creek, in the area of Pebble Creek Drive. Currently the
ordinance does not allow anything to be built 50 feet of the Creek. City Council
discussed this request in December and they want to move forward with an ordinance.
Mr. Penrod read the current ordinance. First approval is needed to build a bridge, and
you must meet the 50-foot setback. This is because of flooding. Provo’s setback is 100
feet.
Our ordinance defines a structure as that which is framed, erected, constructed, or
placed upon the ground. With this definition, concrete could be considered a structure.
This is concerning because that could mean concrete is a structure. The following
improvements around the creek would be considered a structure under our current
ordinance: a playground, cement pad with tables, rock retaining wall, and fire pits to
name a few.
Mr. Penrod showed two private bridges in the community and they are at the end of
Whitney Lane. One was built long before our ordinance was in place and the other was
built by the Federal Government which provides them access to their infrastructure. The
City had little say in respect to that bridge being constructed. Chairman Young asked
who owns the creek. Mr. Penrod said that there is some dispute between the Federal
government and then State on ownership. In the Utah State statute, it says that
waterways, like Hobble Creek, are owned by the State per Utah Code. We use the
State statute language to define ownership.
A Stream Alteration Permit is done with the Water Rights Division of the State and is
required to do any work within 30 feet of a waterway, like Hobble Creek. In the
application review, the State doesn’t look at any engineering. It just looks at whether it
will allow the water rights that are downstream to continue, if it allows recreational rights
someone might have in place to continue and wildlife. They do recognize high flows.
Mr. Penrod contacted them and confirmed they do not look at engineering. There is a
dual system of jurisdiction with city and state.
Mr. Penrod asked council what can be done to allow a property owner to have a bridge
and still meet the city requirements. Staff suggests to require an additional easement
along the creek and around the bridge for maintenance and recreation, word the
ordinance to allow a bridge within 50 feet of the bank and don not allow vacation of the
easement. If no other solution is found, keep the easement in place for a future trail.
Council asked for staff to come back with an ordinance to allow the bridge.
Concerns of the current ordinance include definition of structure, flooding, which is
always the biggest concern, because when it is within 50 feet, problems arise,
recreation and maintenance easement, and no private bridges are allowed.
This proposal edits the structure definition to ‘for which a building permit is required’. At
that point it will be considered a structure.
In regards to the Creek corridor development, the ordinance will add ‘Install or build any
improvements or structure.’ Anything that would come within 30 feet would need to
obtain a permit from the state.
Commissioner Baker asked with that wording with structures, will we have issues with
alteration definition. Mr. Penrod said this would become the new definition.
The ordinance adds ‘all buildings and sheds of any size and all structures’. Any
structure less than 200 square feet does not require a building permit, except bridges
Approved Date: April 14, 2020 Date of Meeting: February 25, 2020 Page 8 of 11
across a creek that meet the requirements of subsection 6. Shall be setback 50 feet
from the nearest creek’s edge.
Mr. Penrod discussed flooding concerns. Employees and private property are put in
danger when the 50-foot easement is not in place.
Mr. Penrod also pointed out that the creek is on the Mapleton Springville Border, so
there is the question of jurisdiction when building a bridge across the creek.
Subsection 6 states the following for a property owner who desires to build a bridge
across a creek shall meet the following requirements: The owner must obtain a building
permit. And the owner must own lot or parcel totaling at least 5,000 square feet of
property on both sides of the creek where the bridge is going to be constructed.
Commissioner Baker asked if there are lot size or frontage requirements. Mr. Penrod
said the ordinance doesn’t specify that. They just have to have own 5,000 square feet
on both sides on for the bridge.
Commissioner Ellingson asked if we would work with Mapleton for easements or access
points. Mr. Penrod said that Mapleton thinks this is a Springville issue.
Commissioner Baker asked how far the structures would have to be from the creek. Mr.
Penrod said he would have to look it up.
The bridge would not be any wider than 10 feet, more of a walking bridge, if the owner
would have to have a 20-foot easement around the easement to connect to the
maintenance and recreation easement. It must be engineered so the bottom of the
bridge deck is two feet above the 100-year base flood elevation. The owner responsible
for all flood damage. Commissioner Baker asked if they have to clear debris that gets
caught on their bridge. Mr. Penrod said that the creek is owned by the State. The
county has some responsibility when it comes to flooding. There is nothing that states
the City is obligated to help. We have government immunity when we try and help with
flooding situations. The City gets called when things of these nature happen.
Commissioner Ellingson asked about construction materials used for the bridge. Mr.
Penrod said it has to get a building permit and meet the requirements, as well as the
APWA standards must be followed.
The definition of creek has been changed to mean ‘any natural stream or natural
waterway’ which would include Dry Creek, Hobble Creek and Spring Creek. He shared
the example of a property owner that applied to the State and were given the Stream
Alteration Permit. Their plan is to put a pipe in the ground, cover with dirt and then put
jersey barriers to keep the dirt in place. The engineer then questioned what the State is
allowing. The State is concerned with high flows, but not flooding issues. They don’t look
at engineering standards. So it would be part of the City requirements to look at the
engineering standards.
Matt Bowman
2120 Pebble Creek Drive
Springville, UT 84663
Mr. Bowman thanked Mr. Penrod and Director Yost for their work. He is in full support
what they are doing.
Karen Effidiba
450 S 100 E
Springville, UT 84663
Ms. Effidiba appreciates the time taken to look at this. She likes the building permit
requirement being put in place. She suggests increasing the bridge height a little bit
more than the 100-year base flood elevation because there have been problems in
Nephi area recently. There is a push to have a path by the creek and on private
property. If there is a bridge, she wonders where the path will go. She believes there
needs to be provisions so people can’t get on private property.
Katie Lewis
2020 Pebble Creek
Springville, UT 84663
Ms. Lewis asked if the City allows someone to build a bridge, does the easement stay.
She wants the easement to go away. She doesn’t want a public path behind her home.
Mr. Penrod showed the easement drawing again. As part of the new ordinance, the
yellow represents the current easement and the red represents where the easement
would have to be given around where the bridge is located.
Ms. Lewis was invited to come to the microphone by Chairman Young. She expressed
concern because she thought the easement went through the entire way of the creek.
Mr. Penrod stated that the only reason this one house is on the diagram is because it
was brought up in December. He stated that the easement goes along the backyards of
all the homes bordering the creek. Chairman Young stated that the easement is there, it
just hasn’t been developed. Mr. Penrod added that there is a transportation committee
looking at trails now. The City is looking at the easements and where to put recreation
trails.
Commissioner Baker explained that the easement will still be there, and extend around
the base of the bridge, if there is one. Ms. Lewis asked whether or not the bridge is built,
the city is still planning on putting a path. Commissioner Baker explained that it doesn’t
take away from the easement, it will add more of an easement around the base of the
bridge. The path will still be there. Commission Farrer stated that City may not build a
path, the easement is just there. Ms. Lewis clarified the bridge doesn’t affect the
easement at all. The Commissioners confirmed that is the case.
Wendy Merrick
2006 Pebble Creek Drive
Springville, UT 84663
Approved Date: April 14, 2020 Date of Meeting: February 25, 2020 Page 10 of 11
Ms. Merrick asked if the easement is on the Springville side of the bridge, does that
mean people can use his bridge. Director Yost stated that the easement goes around
the bridge. Chairman Young said that the bridge might have a sign that it is private
property. Ms. Merrick asked how you would stop kids and teenagers from using the
bridge. Mr. Bowman stated that he would have a locked gate. Ms. Merrick stated that
when she purchased her home, she was told that the city has relinquished their rights to
the easement. She obtained a fence permit that was approved and installed on the
easement. Commissioner Ellingson stated that a fence 6 feet and under is allowed on
an easement. Mr.Penrod said the easement is still there, dedicated to the public for use
of the public for a trail. A trail could still be put there.
Ms. Merrick asked if the bridge was approved, is it more likely that the easement would
become a trail. Mr. Penrod stated that there will be more trail discussion later. We are
here to discuss whether or not to change 11-6-130. Commissioner Ellingson suggested
contacting the Parks and Rec department and the Active Transportation Committee.
Chairman Young closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ellingson moved to close the
public hearing. Commissioner Baker seconded the motion. The public hearing was
closed at 8:06 p.m.
Commissioner Baker asked if there is any information on bridge height. Mr. Penrod said
he looked at Provo River and Spanish Fork‘s River and other than bridges for driveways
I haven’t seen a private owned bridge.
Commissioner Farrer asked about the 100-year flood, what is he normal flow. Mr.
Penrod said the only concern our Public Works department has is the March-May
events where, within days, the water is at the bridge height.
Commissioner Farrer moved to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance
amending Section 11-6-130 the Springville City Code regarding the protection of creek
corridors
.Commissioner Baker asked to clarify the changes. Mr. Penrod reviewed them again.
They include changing the definition of structure, changed the second subsection to say
applicants don’t have to go to city council for approval as long as they have met the
requirements with the State and the City. The language was changed to say that you
cannot have a building or shed of any size without a building permit, except for bridges
within the 50-foot easement. The definition of creek to include Dry Creek, Hobble Creek
and Spring Creek. The final change is allowing private bridges if these conditions are
met.
Commissioner Baker seconded the motion. The vote to approve the Legislative Session
item was unanimous.
ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION
No Items
Chairman Young asked about when the Air BNB will be discussed again. Director Yost
said it will be some time before that happens.
With nothing further to discuss, Commissioner Baker moved to adjourn the meeting.
Commissioner Farrer seconded the motion. The vote to adjourn the meeting was
unanimous.
REGULAR AGENDA SPRINGVILLE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 05, 2020 AT 7:00 P.M. ELECTRONIC MEETING
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING - THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH A MINIMUM OF 24-HOURS NOTICE– POSTED 04/30/2020 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City will make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Recorder at (801) 489-2700 at least three business days prior to the meeting.
Meetings of the Springville City Council may be conducted by electronic means pursuant to Utah Code Annotated Section 52-4-207. In such circumstances, contact will be established and maintained by telephone or other electronic means and the meeting will be conducted pursuant to Springville City Municipal Code 2-4-102(4) regarding electronic meetings. s/s - Kim Crane, CMC, City Recorder
Page 1 of 2
Notice is hereby given that the Springville City Council will hold their regularly scheduled City Council meeting virtually. Please check the Springville City Website at www.springville.org for a link to participate and/or view the meeting. As per Governor Herbert executive order 2020-5, there will be no anchor location and a quorum will be present electronically.
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF THE MEETING’S AGENDA
MAYOR’S COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENT
Public Comment is held at the discretion of the Mayor. Written comments can be submitted via email to
kcrane@springville.org and they will be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting and added to the public record. Oral comments may be requested by submitting the form found at https://www.springville.org/agendas-minutes/ by 5:00 pm on the day of the meeting. If the Mayor takes public comment on an item, you will be called on during the meeting and your microphone will be tuned on by the meeting moderator for the time period indicated. CONSENT AGENDA
The Consent Agenda consists of items that are administrative actions where no additional discussion is needed. When approved, the recommendations in the staff reports become the action of the Council. The Agenda provides an opportunity for public comment. If after the public comment the Council removes an item from the consent agenda for discussion, the item will keep its agenda number and will be added to the regular agenda for discussion, unless placed otherwise by the Council.
1.
Approval of minutes for the regular meeting held on April 07, 20202.
Approval of the Mayor’s appointments of Karen Ellingson and Carrie Bennett to the Active Transportation Ad Hoc Committee3.
Approval of a proclamation for the 2020 high school graduating class REGULAR AGENDA4.
Consideration of an Ordinance for Creek Corridor Preservation – John Penrod, Assistant City Administrator/City Attorney5.
Consideration of a Resolution and Agreement between Springville City and Evans Legacy Development and Jamie Evans – John Penrod, Assistant City Administrator/City Attorney6.
Consideration of a Resolution regarding the Springville City Tentative Budget for Fiscal Year2020/2021, and a request to schedule a Public Hearing date and time for formal adoption of the Final Budget – Bruce Riddle, Assistant City Administrator/Finance Director
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING - THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITH A MINIMUM OF 24-HOURS NOTICE– POSTED 04/03/2020 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City will make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Recorder at (801) 489-2700 at least three business days prior to the meeting.
Meetings of the Springville City Council may be conducted by electronic means pursuant to Utah Code Annotated Section 52-4-207. In such circumstances, contact will be established and maintained by telephone or other electronic means and the meeting will be conducted DISCUSSION/CITY BUSINESS
7.
Mayor, Council and Administrative Reports ADJOURNMENTS T A F F R E P O R T
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
DATE:
April 30, 2020
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
John Penrod, City Attorney
Cari Thomsen, Paralegal
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING SECTIONS 11-6-130 OF THE
SPRINGVILLE CITY CODE REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF
CREEK CORRIDORS.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS
Planning Commission’s Recommended Motion:
Motion to approve Ordinance No. ___A that amends Section 11-6-130 of the Springville
City Code regarding the protection of creek corridors.
City Staff’s Recommended Motion:
Motion to approve Ordinance No. ___B that amends Section 11-6-130 of the Springville
City Code regarding the protection of creek corridors.
[If the Council decides that they want to approve Staff’s recommended motion, the
Council may approve Ordinance B without a recommendation on the revisions in
Ordinance B from the Planning Commission. Pursuant to Section 10-9a-502 of the Utah
Code a City Council may decide to make “any revisions” to the land use regulation that
was recommended by the Planning Commission. However, even though Council may
approve Ordinance B if it so chooses, the Council could also direct the Planning
Commission to consider Ordinance B in a public hearing to allow anyone to address
Ordinance B and obtain Planning Commission’s recommendation on the revisions in
Ordinance B.]
BACKGROUND
Prior to December 2019, a resident purchased property in Mapleton City directly across
Hobble Creek from the resident’s property in Springville. The resident submitted plans
to the State’s Water Rights Division to obtain a Stream Alteration Permit to allow the
resident to build a private bridge across Hobble Creek from the resident’s Springville
property to the resident’s Mapleton property. As part of the Stream Alteration Permit
program, the State provided the resident’s submittal to the City for comment. That was
the first time the City was made aware of the resident’s desire to build a private bridge.
The resident then approached the City, desiring the City to approve the building of the
private bridge. Under the City’s current ordinance, such a bridge may not be built. The
current ordinance states as follows:
(2) (a) Without prior written consent of the Mayor upon approval of the
City Council, the owner of property abutting any creek in Springville shall
not:
. . .
(ii) Erect any structure or improvement, including, but not limited to,
buildings, fences, bridges, and parking lots.
. . .
(3) All buildings and structures shall be set back at least fifty feet (50’)
from the creekside edge . . . along creek corridors.
The ordinance does allow for bridges to be built on a resident’s property with the
permission of the City Council. However, the bridge may not be within 50 feet of the
creek side edge of a creek corridor.
After several internal discussions amongst the staff and a few discussions with the
resident, in December 2019, the staff made a recommendation to the Council to take the
following steps:
•
Consider amending the ordinance to allow a bridge within 50 feet of the creek
corridor.
•
Require an additional easement to accommodate the recreational and
maintenance easement around the bridge, as long as the ordinance is amended.
•
Don’t vacate the easement unless an alternative solution is determined.
In December, the Council directed staff to start this approach.
In February 2020, Staff presented the proposed Ordinance No. ____A to the Planning
Commission for the Commission’s consideration. At that time, staff was uneasy about
having a private bridge behind homes, causing potential flooding issues for several
residents within the area and no access for heavy equipment to help alleviate flooding
when it occurs. However, staff did recommend the ordinance change to the
Commission with several requirements to try and mitigate potential flooding damage
from a private bridge. The Commission approved recommending the ordinance change
with a 4-0 vote. Three commissioners were absent from the meeting.
bridges along creek corridors. After further discussions regarding creek corridors and
private bridges, Staff now recommendations against allowing private bridges. During
flooding events and high water, the public works department regularly has to clear out
debris buildup at the location of bridges to allow water to flow and not flood surrounding
properties. If there are private bridges during the flood event, the force of water
pressure acting on debris buildup on the private bridges has the potential to not only
flood surrounding properties but to also remove the private bridge from its banks, which
will cause flooding issues for Springville residents beyond the area of the property
where the private bridge is located.
As part of this report, there are two proposed ordinances: Ordinance No. ___A, which is
the ordinance recommended by the planning commission with a few adjustments
(“Ordinance A”) and Ordinance No. ___B, which is the ordinance recommended by staff
(“Ordinance B”). The below highlight what both ordinances amend.
Both ordinances amend the following definitions:
•
“Creek” means any natural stream or natural waterway within Springville City and
includes, but is not limited to, Dry Creek, Hobble Creek and Spring Creek. This
definition helps to clarify which waterways fall under the ordinance.
•
“Structure” means a building or something that is built, framed, erected,
constructed, installed or placed on the ground for which a building permit is
required pursuant to any building code or local, state or federal law or regulation.
The significance of this change is that it helps current improvements previously
not allowed within the 50-foot setback to come within compliance.
Ordinance A allows for bridges as long as the following requirements are met:
(i) The owner shall follow the building permit process and obtain a building permit before commencing the construction of the private bridge.
(ii) The owner must own a lot or parcel totaling at least 5,000 square feet of property on both sides of the creek where the bridge is going to be constructed.
(iii) The bridge shall not be any wider than ten feet (10”).
(iv) In the event that the bridge is to be located within a recreation and maintenance easement, the owner shall provide Springville City with a 20-foot wide easement that connects the recreation and maintenance easement around the bridge to ensure that the recreation and maintenance easement will still meet the purposes for the easement and in a manner acceptable to the City engineer.
(v) The bridge shall be engineered and installed to ensure that the bottom of the bridge (meaning the lowest point of any portion of the bridge above the creek) is two feet above the 100-year base flood elevation and any improvements associated with the bridge,
including, without limitation, piers and/or abutments, are located outside of the channel of the creek and the 100-year flood elevation.
(vi) The owner shall be responsible for all flood damage caused by or related to the bridge.
