west point city council notice & agenda mayor · west point city council notice & agenda...

WEST POINT CITY COUNCIL NOTICE & AGENDA

West Point City Hall 3200 West 300 North

West Point City, UT 84015

September 5, 2017

ADMINISTRATIVE SESSION

6:00 pm (Board Room)

1. Discussion Regarding an Agreement for the Ditch Maintenance on John Diamond’s Property – Mr. Boyd Davis

2. Discussion Regarding a Quit Claim Deed from Ken Strong to West Point City – Mr. Boyd Davis

3. Discussion Regarding the Oleson Fields Subdivision – Mr. Boyd Davis

4. Discussion Regarding Designating the West Davis Highway as a Scenic Byway – Mr. Boyd Davis

GENERAL SESSION

7:00 PM (Council Chamber)

1. Call to Order

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Prayer (Please contact the City Recorder to request meeting participation by offering a prayer or inspirational thought)

4. Communications and Disclosures from City Council and Mayor

5. Communications from Staff

6. Citizen Comment Follow‐Up – Mr. Kyle Laws

7. Citizen Comment (If you wish to make comment to the Council, please use the podium and clearly state your name and address, keeping your

comments to a maximum of 2 ½ minutes. Please do not repeat positions already stated. Public comment is a time for the Council to receive new

information and perspectives)

8. Youth Council Update

9. Consideration of Approval of Minutes from the August 15, 2017 City Council Meeting

10. Consideration of Final Approval for the Amended Plat for the Hazelwood Estates Subdivision – Mr. Boyd Davis

a. Public Hearing

b. Action

11. Consideration of Approval of a Water Purchase for the Hazelwood Estates Subdivision Amended Lot 29 and 30 – Mr. Boyd

Davis

12. Consideration of Approval of Ordinance No. 09‐05‐2017A, Rezoning Property at 100 N 2000 W from A‐40 to R‐5 – Mr. Boyd Davis a. Public Hearing b. Action

13. Consideration of Approval of Ordinance No. 09‐05‐2017B, Amending Section 17.25.080 of the West Point City Code Modifying Land Use Regulations for Accessory Buildings – Mr. Boyd Davis a. Public Hearing b. Action

14. Consideration of Approval of Resolution No. 09‐05‐2017A, Accepting a Quit Claim Deed from Kenneth and Verona Strong – Mr. Boyd Davis

15. Motion to Adjourn General Session

Posted this 31st Day of August, 2017 ___________________________________ CASEY ARNOLD, CITY RECORDER If you plan to attend this meeting and, due to disability, will need assistance in understanding or participating therein, please notify the City at least twenty‐four (24) hours prior to the meeting and we will seek to provide assistance.

Mayor Erik Craythorne

Council Gary Petersen, Mayor Pro Tem

Jerry Chatterton Andy Dawson

R. Kent Henderson Jeff Turner

City Manager

Kyle Laws

West Point City Council 1 September 5, 2017

carnold

Typewritten Text

page 5

carnold

Typewritten Text

page 13

carnold

Typewritten Text

page 19

carnold

Typewritten Text

page 22

carnold

Typewritten Text

page 24

carnold

Typewritten Text

page 40

carnold

Typewritten Text

page 40

carnold

Typewritten Text

carnold

Typewritten Text

page 42

carnold

Typewritten Text

page 46

carnold

Typewritten Text

page 15

Date: 9/19/2017

Administrative Session – 6:00 pm

1. Fourth of July Wrap‐Up – Mrs. Jolene Kap 2. Discussion Regarding the Reconstruction of 650 N – Mr.

Boyd Davis 3. Discussion Regarding Cary Hamblin’s Conditional Use

Permit – Mr. Boyd Davis

General Session – 7:00 pm

1. Citizen Comment Follow‐up – Mr. Kyle Laws

2. Consideration of Resolution No. 09‐19‐2017A, Approval

of an Agreement with Property Owner John Diamond

Regarding Ditch Maintenance – Mr. Boyd Davis

Date: 10/3/2017


1. Code Enforcement Update




3. Consideration of an Appeal of the Conditional Use Permit

Application for Cary Hamblin – Mr. Boyd Davis

Date: 10/17/2017




Date: 11/7/2017


1. Quarterly Financial Report – Mr. Ryan Harvey




FUTURE ITEMS

Administrative Session

1. Discussion of Street Light Replacement – Mr. Kyle Laws

2. Discussion Regarding Updating the Code Enforcement

Policy – Mr. Boyd Davis

3. Building Rental Fees & Policy – Mr. Kyle Laws

4. Discussion of Pheasant Creek Property/Park – Mr. Kyle

Laws

5. Consideration of Approval of the Payback Agreement for

the Homewood Subdivision – Mr. Boyd Davis

6. Consideration of Final Approval of the Mackay

Subdivision– Mr. Boyd Davis

7. Consideration of Approval of Release of Warranty for

Bartholomew Lane Phase 2 – Mr. Boyd Davis

General Session

1. Consideration of Final Approval for the Removal of an Abandoned Home at 4096 W 1300 N – Mr. Boyd Davis

CDRA

1. Resolution Amending the Interlocal Agreement Between

the CDRA of West Point and West Point City – Mr. Randy

Sant

TENTATIVE UPCOMING ITEMS


January 2 New Year’s Day-Closed

3 City Council-7pm 9 Senior Lunch-11:30am 12 Planning Commission-7pm 16 Martin Luther King Day-Closed 17 City Council-7pm 20-21 Council Retreat 26 Planning Commission-7pm

February 7 City Council-7pm

8 Council/Staff Lunch-11:30am 9 Planning Commission-7pm 13 Senior Lunch-11:30am

20 Presidents Day-Closed 21 City Council-7pm 23 Planning Commission-7pm March 7 City Council-7pm 9 Planning Commission-7pm

20 Senior Lunch-11:30am 21 City Council-7pm

23 Planning Commission-7pm April 4 City Council-7pm 13 Planning Commission-7pm

15 Easter Egg Hunt-10am 17 Senior Lunch-11:30am

18 City Council-7pm 27 Planning Commission-7pm

May 2 City Council-7pm 4 Cemetery Cleaning 10 Council/Staff Lunch-11:30am 11 Planning Commission-7pm

13 Take Pride Day 15 Senior Lunch-11:30am 16 City Council-7pm 19 Movie in the Park-7pm 25 Planning Commission-7pm

29 Memorial Day-Closed June 6 City Council-7pm 8 Planning Commission-7pm

10 Miss West Point Pageant SHS-7pm 19 Senior Lunch-11:30am 20 City Council-7pm 22 Planning Commission-7pm 23 Movie in the Park-7pm

July

4 Independence Day-Closed 13 Planning Commission-7pm

17 Senior Lunch 11:30am 18 City Council-7pm 24 Pioneer Day-Closed

27 Planning Commission-7pm 28 Movie in the Park-7pm

August 1 City Council-7pm 3 Summer Party-5:30pm

10 Planning Commission-7pm 11 Movie in the Park-7pm

15 City Council-7pm 18 Senior Dinner-5:00pm 24 Planning Commission-7pm September

4 Labor Day-Closed 5 City Council-7pm

14 Planning Commission-7pm 18 Senior Lunch-11:30am

19 City Council-7pm 28 Planning Commission-7pm October

3 City Council-7pm 5 Cemetery Cleaning 9 All Employee Training-Closed 12 Planning Commission-7pm 16 Senior Lunch-11:30am 17 City Council-7pm 20 Halloween Carnival-7pm

25 Council/Staff Lunch-11:30am 26 Planning Commission-7pm

November 7 Election Day 9 Planning Commission-7pm

10 Veteran's Day-Closed 11 Flags on Veteran's Graves YC 20 Senior Lunch-11:30am 21 City Council-7pm 23-24 Thanksgiving-Closed December 1 Christmas Party-7pm

4 City Hall Lighting Ceremony-6:00 pm 5 City Council-7pm 6 Cemetery Lighting Vigil-7pm

14 Planning Commission-7pm 18 Senior Lunch-11:30am

19 City Council-7pm 22 Cemetery Luminary-4pm 25-26 Christmas-Closed


Subject: Agreement with John Diamond Author: Boyd Davis Department: Community Development Date: September 5, 2017

Background

The Craythorne Homestead Subdivision was recently approved by the City and the project is under

construction. At the pre-construction meeting, John Diamond raised a concern that had not been

considered earlier. The land drain system that is planned as part of the subdivision will discharge

into a natural channel that flows across John’s property. He is concerned about the maintenance of

the channel and has asked that the City consider entering into an agreement.

Analysis

Upon completing the construction of the subdivision, and after the proper warranty period, the City

will become the owner of the land drain and will assume all maintenance responsibilities. It seems

reasonable that the City would do routine maintenance on the land drain pipe and the natural

channel that the pipe discharges into.

An agreement has been drafted for your consideration (see attached). It is a simple agreement

stating that the City would maintain the channel to repair any damage caused by water from the

land drain.

Recommendation

No action required. This is for discussion only.

Significant Impacts

None

Attachments

Agreement

City Council Staff Report


AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF AN OPEN DITCH

ON PROPERTY OWNED BY DIAMOND RANCHES LLC IN DAVIS COUNTY, UTAH

This agreement is made and entered into this ___ day of _________, 20__ by and

between WEST POINT CITY, a political subdivision of the State of Utah, which shall be called

the “CITY” in this agreement, DIAMOND RANCHES, LLC a Utah Corporation of 3269 WEST

1800 NORTH, Clinton, Utah, which shall be called “DIAMOND” in this agreement.

This agreement is made and entered into by and between the parties based upon the

following recitals:

RECITALS

A. West City has granted approval for a subdivision known as “Craythorne

Homestead Ph. 1”.

B. The developer of said subdivision intends to install a land drain system that will

serve the lot owners of the subdivision. See Exhibit B

C. The land drain flows to the west of the subdivision eventually discharging into a

natural channel that crosses Diamond’s property.

D. Diamond is concerned about the water flowing across their property and the

potential for flooding due to lack of maintenance of the channel.

E. Upon recording the plat and after proper construction, inspection, and warranty,

West Point City will become the owner of said land drain system and will assume

all maintenance responsibilities.

F. The developer has agreed to do some initial maintenance of the channel prior to

the construction of homes in the subdivision.

G. The City is willing to enter into an agreement to accept long term maintenance of

the channel for any damage directly related to water flowing from the land drain

system.

H. There are other waters, other than the land drain system, that enter the drainage

channel.

I. The parties named herein mutually desire to reach an agreement that will detail

the long term maintenance of the channel.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the promises, covenants and conditions

set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration it is mutually agreed between the parties

as follows:


AGREEMENT

1. The City agrees that upon recording the plat and after construction, inspection, and after

the warranty period has concluded, the City will accept ownership of the land drain system

and assume maintenance responsibilities.

2. The City agrees to inspect the natural channel on a routine basis to determine the condition

of the channel.

3. Diamond agrees to give timely notification of any damage or deterioration of the channel

that is caused by the water discharged from the land drain system.

4. The City agrees to maintain the channel on a routine basis, or as requested by Diamond

and after proper inspection.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed in

duplicate, each of which shall be deemed an original, on the dates indicated by the signatures of

the respective parties.

WEST POINT CITY

By:_____________________________________

Mayor Pro-Temp

ATTEST:

_____________________________________

City Recorder

DIAMOND RANCHES, LLC

By:______________________________________

ATTEST:

_____________________________________


STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. COUNTY OF DAVIS ) On the _____ day of __________, 20___, personally appeared before me

________________________ and ________________________, who being by me duly sworn did say, each

for himself and herself that they, the said __________________ is the Mayor Pro-Temp of West

Point City, Davis County, State of Utah and that she, the said ____________________, is the City

Recorder of West Point City, and that the within and foregoing instrument was signed on

behalf of the said West Point City by authority of the City Council of West Point City and said

___________________ and ___________________, each duly acknowledged to me that the said West

Point City executed the same and that the seal affixed is the seal of the said West Point City.

_________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC (SEAL)

STATE OF UTAH )

( ss.

COUNTY OF DAVIS )

On the ______ day of ________, 20___ personally appeared before me

_________________________, the signer of the foregoing Agreement on behalf of DIAMOND

RANCHES, LLC, who duly acknowledge to me that he executed the same.

_____________________________

NOTARY PUBLIC

(SEAL)


Exhibit A


Subject: Quit Claim Deed – Ken Strong Author: Boyd Davis Department: Community Development Date: September 5, 2017

Background

Ken Strong owns a 1 foot holding strip along his property located at 3425 W 550 N. The holding

strip was put into place when the Sky West subdivision was developed many years ago. Ken Strong

purchased the holding strip from the previous owners to gain access to his property. His property

is being developed as the KenneVic Subdivision. Ken would like to dedicate the holding strip to the

City.

Analysis

The property that will be transferred to the City is shown on the attached map. A quit claim deed

has been prepared which has been reviewed by the City attorney and found to be acceptable.

Before the quit claim can be recorded it must be accepted by the City and the deed must be signed

by the Mayor.

It should be noted that there are no taxes owed on the property. The property lies within the road

right-of-way and no taxes have been assessed to the property.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the City Council accept the property and authorize the Mayor to sign the

quit claim deed.

Significant Impacts

None

Attachments

Resolution 09-05-2017A

Quit Claim Deed

Map



RESOLUTION NO. 09-05-2017A

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM KENNETH AND

VERONA STRONG

WHEREAS, KENNETH AND VERONA STRONG are the owners of real property identified as

Davis County parcel ID 14-265-0020; and

WHEREAS, KENNETH AND VERONA STRONG desire to transfer the right-of-way property

to West Point City; and

WHEREAS, a quit claim deed and a legal description of the right-of-way property have been

prepared; and

WHEREAS, the West Point City Council has reviewed said quit claim deed and finds it

acceptable to the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND AND ORDERED, by the City Council

of West Point City as follows:

1. West Point City hereby accepts the right-of-way property described in the quit claim deed

2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said quit claim deed.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th Day of September, 2017.

WEST POINT CITY, A Municipal Corporation

By:____________________________________

Erik Craythorne, Mayor

ATTEST:

_________________________________________

Casey Arnold, City Recorder


When Recorded Mail to: WEST POINT CITY 3200 WEST 300 NORTH WEST POINT CITY, UTAH 84015

QUIT CLAIM DEED

KENNETH & VERONA STRONG, owners of Davis County Parcel 14-265-0020, GRANTOR, HEREBY QUITS CLAIM to WEST POINT CITY. For the sum of ONE DOLLAR AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION The following tract of land in Davis County, State of Utah:

A part of the southeast Quarter of Section 32, Township 5 North, Range 2 West, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, U.S. Survey in Davis County, Utah: HOLDING STRIP AS DEFINED BY THE PLAT OF SKY WEST ESTATES SUB NO 2, RECORDED 10/21/1998 AS E# 1450181 BK 2377 PG 278. CONT. 0.0162 ACRES

Witness the hands of said Grantor, this ____ day of __________, 20__.

______________________________________ Kenneth Strong

______________________________________ Verona Strong


STATE OF UTAH )

: ss. (Individual)

COUNTY OF _____________ )

On this_______ day of ______________________, 20___, personally appeared

before me

________________________, the signer(s) of the foregoing instrument, who duly

acknowledged to

me that he/she/they executed the same.

_______________________________________

Notary Public

Accepted by West Point City on this __________ Day of __________, 20__ By_____________________________________ Mayor Erik Craythorne Attested by West Point City Recorder on this ___________ Day of __________, 20__ By_____________________________________ Casey Arnold, West Point City Recorder West Point City Seal


Subject: Oleson Fields Subdivision Author: Boyd Davis Department: Community Development Date: September 5, 2017

Background

The proposed Oleson Fields Subdivision is located on the southwest corner of 3000 W and 800 N.

The property was recently rezoned and approved as a PVFD overlay zone. The final plans have

been prepared and are being reviewed by the Planning Commission. They will consider it for

approval at their next meeting.

Analysis

Staff has reviewed the plans and has found that there are a few significant items that are yet to be

completed or addressed. Below is a short list of the items:

There is a sliver parcel of property between the Oleson Fields Subdivision and the Wise

Country Meadows Subdivision to the South. This must be resolved.

There is a drop off on the west end of the proposed street that will drain directly onto Glen

Wades property. This must be addressed.

A landscaping plan must be submitted for the strip along 3000 West.

They must get approval letters from D&W and the Fire District.

They plan to use the existing detention pond and make it deeper. They must submit a

landscaping plan for the pond.

The lots drain to the rear yard. They must install a yard drain system or raise the lots.

Recommendation

No action necessary. This is for discussion only.

Significant Impacts

None

Attachments

Plat



Subject: Scenic Byway Author: Boyd Davis Department: Community Development Date: September 5, 2017

Background

Staff was contacted by Syracuse City with a request to join their efforts to designate the West Davis

Highway as a scenic byway in order to prohibit billboard signs along the future highway. Syracuse

will take the lead and is simply asking for political and financial support.

Analysis

In order to obtain a scenic byway designation a study must be done. Syracuse is planning to hire a

consultant to do the study and estimates that it will cost about $30,000. This would be split

amongst the participating cities (I believe there are 6 cities). In addition, they will need a resolution

from the City Council in support of the scenic byway.

I asked if there could be any unintended consequences of creating the byway, such as a restriction

on truck traffic or lowered speed limits. So far, there does not appear to be any such restriction.

Also, if there is a specific area where you would like to have billboards, such as near an interchange,

that area could be left out of the scenic byway. It is also possible to remove an area from the byway

in the future, if necessary, without much difficulty.

Recommendation

No action required. This is for discussion only.

Significant Impacts

None

Attachments

None



West Point City Council Meeting 3200 West 300 North

West Point City, UT 84015 August 15, 2017

Administrative Session 6:00 pm – Board Room

Minutes for the West Point City Council Administrative Session held at West Point City Hall, 3200 West 300 North, West Point City, Utah 84015 on August 15, 2017 at 6:00 pm with Mayor Erik Craythorne presiding. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Erik Craythorne, Council Member Gary Petersen, Council Member Kent Henderson, Council Member Jeff Turner, Council Member Andy Dawson, and Council Member Jerry Chatterton EXCUSED: None CITY EMPLOYEES PRESENT: Kyle Laws, City Manager; Boyd Davis, Assistant City Manager; Paul Rochell, Public Works Director; Ryan Harvey, Administrative Services Director; and Casey Arnold, City Recorder. EXCUSED: None VISITORS: Rob Ortega and Brian Vincent

1. Discussion Regarding the Property Tax Rate for the 2017 Taxable Year for West Point City – Mr. Ryan Harvey

Mr. Harvey stated that changes to the FY2018 have been discussed in depth in previous meetings, however there are three items that may cause significant amendments to the FY2018 Budget later in the fiscal year. The first would be the cemetery expansion project, park improvement costs, and equipment purchases. Mr. Laws stated that the equipment purchase would be for a brand new CAT loader for $140,000. One year after the purchase, the dealer will exchange the loader for a new one, as well as give the City a check for $5,000. Even with the dealer buying it back and exchanging it with a new one for more than the original purchase price, the dealer can sell the used loader and still make money on the transaction. In regards to the Property Tax Rate, the Council has discussed several different options for determining the 2017 rate. Mr. Harvey summarized those options as follows:

Proposed Rate Reason % Change (Certified) Projected Revenue

.000984 Maintain 2016 Rate 9.1% $452,182

.000945 Salary and Benefits 4.8% $434,260

.000921 CPI 2.1% $423,231

.000902 Certified Rate 0% $414,500

The Council has discussed basing the Rate on the need for increases in Capital Projects. The added revenue would help to complete the list of Capital Projects that are currently unfunded or need additional funding to complete. Mayor Craythorne asked the Council to consider and discuss the different options. Council Member Chatterton stated that in looking at the different rates and their projected revenues, he would be in favor in approving the rate of

Mayor

Erik Craythorne

Council

Gary Petersen, Mayor Pro Tem

Jerry Chatterton

Andy Dawson

R. Kent Henderson

Jeffrey Turner

City Manager

Kyle Laws


.000945, which is about right in between the 2016 Rate and the Certified Rate. Council Member Petersen commented that he spoke with Reed Child, a resident that will most likely be making a comment during the public hearing, who had compared the increases in the tax rate to the wage increases given to government employees and government retirees. Council Member Petersen stated that although Mr. Reed’s argument that the City’s increase should not be more than a resident’s increase, the City has to consider what is best for the entire City and not just one resident’s situation. Council Member Turner agreed and commented that the City must consider what it needs in order to offer the best services to all of its residents. The Council discussed how some residents’ property taxes actually went down in 2016, and so while some residents’ taxes may increase in 2017, that won’t be the case throughout the entire City. The Council also discussed how there are some Capital Projects that need to be done but do not have the funding to be completed, and how completing those projects benefit the City and increase the quality of life. Council Member Chatterton, who is in favor of the Rate of .000945, remarked that the City is still trying to determine how the new commercial properties will affect the budget and until that is more accurately known, the City needs to make sure it has adequate funding for projects the City needs. Council Member Dawson stated that he is also in favor of a rate between the Certified Rate and the 2016 Rate; the City “needs to make hay while the sun shines.” Council Member Henderson was also in agreeance of a rate in between, and liked the idea of a 4.8% increase based on salary and benefits (.000945). He felt that the City’s Staff are the reason West Point is the great City that it is, and we need to be able to attract and retain good employees. Council Member Turner was also in favor of approving either .000945 or .000921 as the Rate, and Council Member Petersen was also in favor of the rate of .000945. Mayor Craythorne stated that the Council must approve a rate after the public hearing in tonight’s General Session, but commented that it did not seem that any of the Council Members were in favor of maintaining the 2016 Rate or accepting the Certified Rate and were leaning towards a rate in the middle.

2. Discussion Regarding a Rezone for the Apartments at The Point – Mr. Boyd Davis Mr. Davis stated that this rezone is for an application submitted by Wright Development for apartments on the property directly west of Del Taco. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the rezone, and there were no comments. Notices for the public hearing were sent, as required, to property owners within 300 ft. of the property. A sign was also placed on the property noticing the public hearing. This item will be placed on the agenda for the next City Council Meeting with a public hearing before consideration of approval. Council Member Henderson inquired as to how many units are planned as part of the development, and Mayor Craythorne believed that they were planning on 108 units, and Mr. Davis noted that the zoning would allow for 20 units per acre. Council Member Chatterton asked if using that property for apartments would take away from commercial development. The Mayor felt that while the apartments due use up the real estate space available, the apartments would actually attract more businesses and there is still room available for them. The Council agreed with that.

3. Discussion Regarding the Bannock Subdivision and Related Property – Mr. Kyle Laws (This item was discussed at the end of the Administrative Session) Mayor Craythorne stated that a citizen comment was received by a developer of the Bannock Subdivision, Jared Yeates, regarding concerns about a park requirement that was given when the first phase of the subdivision was approved. The Council directed Staff to present a history of the property and the details surrounding this subdivision for discussion on how to proceed. Mr. Laws stated that the Bannock Subdivision is located at 625 S 4500 W. In his review of the minutes when Phase 1 was approved in 2004, the developer was allowed to cluster the lots and reduce the lot size in exchange for a future four-acre park to be built in the future second phase. Mr. Yeates does not wish to build the park, and instead wants to deed the park property to the Council. Before Phase 2 can be approved, the park details must be worked out. Mr. Laws noted that Mr. Yeates has met with Staff several times over the past 10+ years to discuss the park, which conversations led to no resolution. In the City Council minutes of that meeting, Council Member Erik Craythorne stated that “the problem that he saw with


the proposed park was the location and access…a dead end of a subdivision in the surrounding development would facilitate more access.” Mr. Laws stated that there is currently no access to the designated park area, but with the Cold Springs Road currently being built, there will be access once it is complete. It was suggested at that meeting that the property could be used in the future for a police station, public works building, rodeo ground, etc. A comment was made in the minutes that the property is a “good piece of land…if Mr. Yeates was willing to deed it over to the City, we should take it.” The Mayor at that time stated that the “area is open space and we could do what we wanted with it; we can’t plan what we will do it with it – we have no idea what is going to happen down there in the next ten years.” The Council approved Phase 1 without settling the park details, as the park would not be a part of phase 1. However, when the phase 1 plat was recorded, the future phase 2 plat was also on the back of the plat and designates the four-acre parcel as “open space to be dedicated to West Point City.” That future phase 2 plat was not actually part of the recorded plat of phase 1, but was shown to indicate what was discussed and intended. At the time phase 1 was recorded, the lot size requirement for this zone was 20,000 sq. ft. However, the developers were allowed to cluster the lots to roughly 12,000 sq. ft. in exchange for setting aside this four-acre open space. Mayor Craythorne asked what phase 2 would look like in the scenario that the City deeded back this parcel to Bannock. Mr. Davis stated that they would not be able to continue developing the property with 12,000 sq. ft. lots, but that the current requirement for this zone of 18,000 sq. ft. lots would apply. They would still have the option to apply for PVFD zoning. Mr. Laws stated that Staff sees three different options for the City in this situation: require the developers to deed the property to the City, trade the property for another similar property within the City, or buy the property from the City. Council Member Petersen and Council Member Chatterton both stated that they are not willing to “let this property go”; the conversations and agreement regarding the park are well documented and the intent is clear. Council Member Dawson stated that the developers were already given the smaller lot sizes in phase 1, which were developed, and so the agreement to set aside this property needs to be upheld by the developers. Council Member Petersen inquired as to whether this particular piece of property is where the City would actually want a park. The Council was in agreeance that it is not the most ideal place and so would be open to trading it with another piece of property that the developer would purchase for such or for another parcel within the Subdivision. Mr. Laws noted that the minutes of meetings discussing the park do state that once the properties around this subdivision are developed, there may be a better place for a park and that it could always be moved. Council Member Chatterton stated that the ideal scenario would be to be to trade the property for a better place for a new public works building. Mayor Craythorne stated that he would like to ensure that the City be able to choose the property it would trade for and not have the developers “doing the shopping for the City” and decide where the new property would be. Mr. Laws also noted that when phase 1 was approved, all voted in favor of approval except for Council Member Petersen, who at that time stated that “the City did not want developers choosing where the City had its parks…this property wasn’t a place where they City wanted a park.” Council Member Petersen stated that he still agreed with the comment he made at that meeting. He continued to state that properties across the City are not valued the same and it would be difficult to find another property to trade for it; if the City sold the property to the developers, the money should be set aside to help fund another property for a park or City building. The Mayor commented that with Cold Springs Road being developed and utilities being put in, this property would be more valuable as residential lots than it would be as a park. The Mayor continued, stating that the City could find and purchase property in another area of the City that would be more suitable for its needs for less and sell this property to the developer as residential and at a higher price – “more bang for our buck.” The Council agreed and Staff will follow-up with the developers to let them know the Council’s thoughts on the matter.

4. Discussion Regarding a Proposed Amendment to the Code for the Setbacks for Accessory Buildings – Mr. Boyd Davis Mr. Davis stated that Chris Singleton requested to have the City Code regulating the setbacks of accessory buildings on corner lots reviewed. Mr. Singleton is building a home on the southwest corner of 1300 N and 5000 W and would like to build a detached garage in the back corner of their lot. The current Code requires that the garage be set back 30 ft. from the side property line because it is a corner lot. 1300 N is currently a dirt road and is a 66’ wide City-owned public right-of-way. The Planning Commission has reviewed the request and looked at other structures throughout the City, and are proposing the following language for the Council to consider:


Accessory buildings on corner lots shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the street side property line when a driveway accesses the street from the rear or side yard. If no access is desired from the rear or side yard the minimum setback up to 5 feet will then be allowed.

Mr. Davis confirmed that Mr. Singleton is not proposing to access the garage from 1300 N, only from 5000 W. Brian Vincent, Planning Commission Chair, commented that the Code currently states that accessory building setbacks are 30’ and primary dwellings are 20’. Council Member Petersen inquired as to where the proposed 5’ setback would be measured from, and Mr. Davis stated that it would be from the side line of the property. The Council was concerned that 5’ would not be wide enough when considering a neighboring driveway. Mr. Laws asked Mr. Davis if there is an existing corner lot with an accessory building with a 5’ setback. Mr. Davis showed an example to the Council of a garage that is in non-compliance and has a little over 1’ setback. In looking at the example, the Council agreed that a 5’ setback would still not be enough. The Mayor commented that 1300 N is currently an open ditch, but it will be a road sometime in the future and Mr. Singleton or the new owner may want to have a second access at that point and that will be an issue. Council Member Dawson stated that the current requirement of 30’ is too high, and felt that it should be a 20’ setback requirement like the house. Mayor Craythorne remarked that at the time he built his garage, the setback was 20’. After it was built, his neighbor complained and the setback was changed to 30’. Council Member Petersen asked if there was a way to look at this particular lot and his situation, and issue a variance. Mr. Davis stated that variances can only be given in situations where there are hardships and no other alternative. With that, Council Member Petersen stated that the Council has to look into the future: 1300 N will eventually be a road and allowing a garage with a 5’ setback now will cause problems at that time. Mr. Vincent informed the Council that the Commission does not want any accesses onto 1300 N and instead wanted all homes to be accessed from an internal road into a development; the backs of the homes would be along 1300 N. The Council was in favor of that. With that in mind, this proposed setback would be okay in this situation, but the Council was hesitant to change the Code for the entire City. The Council felt that reducing the setback to a 20’ minimum from 30’ for accessory buildings was appropriate, but with no reduced minimum setback allowed for access conditions. Mr. Davis stated that Staff will draft an ordinance reflecting such for consideration of approval at the next City Council Meeting.

5. Discussion Regarding a Proposed Amended Plat for the Hazelwood Subdivision – Mr. Boyd Davis The Hazelwood Subdivision is located at approximately 750 N and 2100 W. The owners of Lot 20 (on the corner of 750 N and 2150 W) have submitted an application to amend the plat to split their lot into two lots. Lot 20 is over a half-acre, providing more than adequate property to create a new lot. Mr. Davis explained that the owners have received approvals from all of the utility companies and satisfied the secondary water requirement. Mr. Davis confirmed for the Council that all necessary setbacks would be met, and there were no additional questions or concerns voiced on the item. The amendment will be noticed for public hearing and consideration of approval at the next City Council Meeting.

The Administrative Session adjourned.


West Point City Council Meeting 3200 West 300 North

West Point City, UT 84015 August 15, 2017

General Session 7:00 pm – Council Room

Minutes for the West Point City Council General Session held at the West Point City Hall, 3200 West 300 North, West Point City, Utah 84015 on August 15, 2017 at approximately 7:00 pm with Mayor Craythorne presiding. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT – Mayor Erik Craythorne, Council Member Gary Petersen, Member Kent Henderson, Council Member Jeff Turner, Council Member Andy Dawson, and Council Member Jerry Chatterton EXCUSED – None CITY EMPLOYEES PRESENT – Kyle Laws, City Manager; Boyd Davis, Assistant City Manager; Paul Rochell, Public Works Director; Ryan Harvey, Administrative Services Director; and Casey Arnold, City Recorder. EXCUSED – None VISITORS PRESENT – Rock and Laurie Hendry, Ken Sessions, Bill Clapp, Kent Singleton, Doyle Olsen, Parker Allen, Cody Allen, Rick Jensen, Karen Harder, Martin Harder, Gayle Bennington, Marcus Murdock, Roger Hughes, Patty and Jeff Flint, Reed Child, Rob Ortega, Rod Carter, Dan Johnston, Randy Jeffries, and Rex Harris

1. Call to Order – Mayor Craythorne welcomed those in attendance.

2. Pledge of Allegiance – Repeated by all

3. Prayer – Given by Council Member Dawson

4. Communications and Disclosures from City Council and Mayor

Council Member Henderson – no comment

Council Member Turner – no comment

Council Member Petersen – no comment

Council Member Dawson – The North Davis Sewer District’s sewer realignment project at 470 N and 2000 W is set

to begin on August 21, 2017. The first pre-construction meeting was on August 1, 2017 and the contractors have

been informing surrounding residents about the impacts of the project. As a board member, Council Member

Dawson stated that he would keep the Council updated on the status of the project as it progresses.

Council Member Chatterton – As a board member of the Mosquito Abatement District Davis, Council Member

Chatterton wished to inform those in attendance that in each of the District’s six test stations placed from the

Foxborough area up to 1800 N 5000 W in West Point, mosquitos tested positive for the West Nile Virus. He urged

residents to adequately protect themselves and their families; no cases of human infection have been reported, but

the virus is out there.

Mayor Craythorne – no comment

Mayor

Erik Craythorne

Council

Gary Petersen, Mayor Pro Tem

Jerry Chatterton

Andy Dawson

R. Kent Henderson

Jeffrey Turner

City Manager

Kyle Laws


5. Communications from Staff

(This comment was received after Item 13)

Mr. Laws stated that the Angel of Hope Statue that has been being fundraised for is currently being constructed and

nearing completion. The Dedication Ceremony will be held at the cemetery on September 7, 2017 at 7 PM. The

Statue is a memorial in remembrance of children that have passed away.

6. Citizen Comment Follow-Up

None

7. Citizen Comment Gayle Bennington: 445 N 3000 W – Mrs. Bennington asked if there was anything the City could do about the speeding on 3000 W. She stated that she has had cars pass her on the right or left when she is going the speed limit. It doesn’t matter what time it is; she watches cars speed past her house all day. As for the round-a-bouts, Mrs. Bennington feels that the tire tracks on the soft curbs in the middle are from cars speeding around them and not staying on the road. She stated that she does not allow her grandchildren to ride her bikes on the roads or sidewalks because she does not feel it is safe with the speed that the cars pass by. Doyle Olsen: 2920 W 300 N – Mr. Olsen stated that he has two concerns he would like the Council to hear. His first concern is the sound of the motorcycles driving past on 300 N. He has a hard time even hearing his television when certain motorcycles pass his house, and feels that the noise ordinance is being violated. He would like the City to put a warning in the newsletter that there will be extra patrolling of the area and citations issued. Mr. Olsen’s second concern are the weeds on the property between his home and his neighbor’s barn (owned by Jeff Flint). The weeds are in serious violation of City Code; the problem has been easily fixed in the past by Mr. Flint turning his horses out onto the pasture, and he would like a friendly reminder sent to Mr. Flint to get the weeds taken care of.

8. Update on the West Davis Corridor Final Environmental Impact Statement – Randy Jeffries of the Utah Department of Transportation Mayor Craythorne introduced Randy Jeffries of UDOT, and stated that Mr. Jeffries has been working on this EIS for over 7 years. Mr. Jeffries thanked the Council for letting him present the final EIS, and noted that it is not a final decision for the West Davis Corridor placement, but it is does represent UDOT’s and Federal Highways’ proposal. A public comment period is open through the end of August, and welcomed those attending to make a comment on the project’s website. Mr. Jeffries presented a short video presenting the EIS, which is also available on the project website. UDOT and Federal Highways will review the public comments received and prepare responses to those comments and then reach a final decision. Mr. Jeffries stated that the Record of Decision of the environmental process will be submitted and approved this fall. Construction funding of $610 million will be available in 2020, and construction years for this phase, extending from Farmington to SR193, will be from 2020 to 2022. Mr. Jeffries also noted that in conjunction with the extension of the Corridor, the Emigration Trail will also be extended. The project will start from the south and head north; there will be a full-service interchange at Antelope Drive and move from a four-lane highway to a two lane-highway past that point. The latest traffic study shows that only two lanes after this point are needed, which is different than the original plan. Should four lanes be needed in the future, they can be constructed parallel with what will be the existing highway and will not affect traffic at that time. All the irrigation users, schedules, water share quantities, etc., will not be affected by the highway. Mr. Jeffries stressed that farming will not be affected by the highway; UDOT is prepared to do what it needs to ensure that landowners have their same amount of water and has been working with Weber Basin Water and the Davis


and Weber Counties Canal Company to make sure of such.

Mr. Jeffries continued explaining the route of the highway via an interactive map projected for viewing at the

meeting (snapshot shown below) and explained that the highway will go over the top of 700 S; Council Member

Petersen asked if the plan was to actually connect here to SR193. Mr. Jeffries confirmed that 700 S, just south of

Schneiter’s Bluff Golf Course, is where SR193 is proposed to be extended; it is currently being extended to 3000 W

and should be open by the end of the year, but the plan is to continue extending SR193 and as the Corridor will run

diagonally south of the Golf Course, it will intersect once that extension of SR193 past 3000 W is complete and be a

future interchange at that point. Mr. Jeffries stated that UDOT would actually prefer that the West Davis Corridor

project and the SR193 project are completed together so that there can be a T-intersection at SR193 and be the

stopping point for this phase, but that is not currently funded for in this project. Mayor Craythorne and the Council

agreed that the City would like the extension of SR193 past 3000 W be completed in conjunction with the Highway.

Mr. Jeffries agreed with that and felt that an intersection at this point would be a better stopping point for this

phase, but restated that it is not currently funded and would take considerable efforts to design and be approved.

He continued to state that the public comment period is still open until the end of August, and as all comments

made will be considered, it may be a good idea for the City to raise this suggestion with the West Davis Corridor

project officials.

Due to wetlands right along the bluff in West Point, the Corridor will eventually jog quite a bit farther west before

crossing 300 N to avoid disturbing those areas. Mr. Jeffries stated that in an effort to keep the Corridor “low”, the

engineers have designed to have the local roads in each city pass over the highway. However, at most of the points

in West Point where the highway will meet an existing road, such as 300 N, several homes would have to be

relocated in order to have to access to those roads. To keep resident impact as low as possible the highway will

cross over in those situations.


For information purposes, Mr. Jeffries explained the tentative plan for the next phase; the Corridor will continue

north, cross over 800 N, and then angle east where it will cross over 1300 N and meet 1800 N at roughly 4000 W.

The Mayor noted that “it is anybody’s guess” when this phase will begin and be completed as it still needs funding

and designed. Mr. Jeffries agreed, but stated that UDOT is still preserving and purchasing land for the long-term

Corridor project up into Weber County.

The Council thanked Mr. Jeffries for his presentation and for the good, working relationship that he has created and

maintained with the City. Mr. Jeffries commented that he also appreciates the City, and looks forward to working

with them throughout the construction of this process. He would also be available after the meeting if any of the

residents attending would like to make any comments or discuss their questions.

Council Member Petersen stated that the City needs to communicate with UDOT the desire to have SR193 extended

past 3000 W to the point the Corridor will intersect at 700 S. The Mayor agreed and directed Staff to draft an official

request from the City indicating this, which the entire Council will sign in approval.

9. Consideration of Approval of the Minutes from the August 1, 2017 City Council Meeting

Council Member Dawson motioned to approve the minutes from the August 1, 2017 City Council Meeting

Council Member Chatterton seconded the motion

The Council unanimously agreed

10. Consideration of Resolution No. 08-15-2017A, Adoption of the Property Tax Rate for the 2017 Taxable Year for

West Point City – Mr. Ryan Harvey

Mayor Craythorne stated that the Property Tax Rate for 2017 has been heavily discussed in previous meetings, and

it is now time for the Council to approve the rate.

Mr. Harvey stated that each year, Davis County issues the Certified Tax Rate for the City, which is a rate based on

the City receiving the same amount of revenue as the previous year, plus new growth; as property values go up, the

Certified Tax Rate will go down to compensate. If the City wants to adopt a rate different than the Certified Rate,

they must go through the Truth in Taxation process, noticing the residents about the potential tax rate increase and

the public hearing dates for residents to comment on the issue. In discussions with the Council, a few situations

were discussed for basing the tax rate on (below). Mr. Harvey stated that these proposed rates are just for

examples, but the Council can adopt a rate not listed.

Proposed Rate Reason % Change (Certified) Projected Revenue

.000984 Maintain 2016 Rate 9.1% $452,182

.000945 Salary and Benefits 4.8% $434,260

.000921 CPI 2.1% $423,231

.000902 Certified Rate 0% $414,500

Mayor Craythorne thanked Mr. Harvey and opened the item for public comment.

a. Public Hearing


Reed Child – 4674 W 650 N: Mr. Child addressed his concerns with raising the tax, and specifically wanted to differ

with the percent of change on the CPI that Mr. Harvey stated. Mr. Child stated that his cost of living raise is tied

directly to the CPI, and his raise was only 0.3%, not the 2.1% stated by Mr. Harvey. The year before, Mr. Child

stated that his raise was 0% the year. Mr. Child had discussed his concerns with Council Member Petersen, whom

Mr. Child stated “agreed with his calculations.” In the last five years, Mr. Child said his property taxes have

increased 43%. He said that he hears the argument that its “not just the residents whose taxes have increased, it

includes the City and other entities as well.” However, Mr. Child stated that if you break down the City’s increase it

is 44%, and the Fire District’s increase is 34%. His house is “the same house – in the last five years, I have got new

carpet in my front room…and I am now paying several hundred dollars more in taxes for the same house.” The

value of his home, Mr. Child went on to state, is supposed to be compensated by the Certified Tax Rate, which is

not doing its job anyways. He stated that if his home value goes up, the Certified Rate should go down so that his

taxes remain the same. When the property values increase, he feels that the City raises the rate so that their

revenue is increased. His source of revenue, Mr. Child explained, is his retirement income. Federal employees’

cost of living raises average out to less than 1% each year, over the last five years. Mr. Child also analyzed the

federal government’s wage survey increases over the last five years, which averages out to about .5% each year.

Using this data, Federal employees’ incomes have increased about 5% over the last five years. Mr. Child stated that

“he doesn’t have any more to give…he can’t raise taxes to fit his budget like the City can.” To be able to pay the

increase in taxes, he “has to start going without and choose what he can spend his money on.” Mr. Child feels that

it is not sustainable, and it is not right. He stated that he can’t pay 9 times more than what he is making. Mr. Child

did note that it is not just the City raising rates; the North Davis Sewer District has increased their rates over 55%

over the last four years. Mr. Child stated that if the Council does decide to increase the taxes, he wouldn’t care

about a 1% increase, but he can’t pay almost nine times what he is making - “it’s not right and the Council should

not feel right about it either.” Mr. Child stated that he was “amused” that when he was at a City Council property

tax meeting, it was decided to have a 5% tax increase, and the Mayor later in the meeting talked about the surplus

the City had from that year and what capital improvement projects it was able to do. He understands that projects

“are nice, but it is not sustainable.” Mr. Child stated that his taxes, if the Council maintains the 2016 rate, will go up

about 15% because of his increased home value. Even if the Certified Rate is approved, his taxes will still increase

by about 6%.

Rick Jensen – 942 N 4500 W: Mr. Jensen stated that he also opposes a property tax increase, and agreed with the

points made by Mr. Child in his comment.

Rob Ortega – 3816 W 520 N: Mr. Ortega stated that he is in favor of maintaining the rate. He knows that may not

be a popular opinion, but feels that if the City does not do small increases over a period of time to complete the

capital projects it needs to do, it will have to impose large increases in a single year to deal with inflation and rising

costs of completing these projects. Mr. Ortega has spoken with some of his neighbors who also support this view

point. Mr. Ortega stated that if the City maintains the rate it averages out to about $11.00 a year increase for an

average sized home in the City. “I don’t think that one extra dollar a month will change my life significantly,” Mr.

Ortega stated, “whereas an extra $37,000 for the City really could in a capital project.” Mr. Ortega stated that he

understands the opposing viewpoints, and his property taxes will increase, but that is due to the County’s

increased valuation of his home and that is an issue he has to object to with the County. He would like the Council

to approve a rate that is good for the City, and avoid a rate that becomes dangerous in the City.

Roger Hughes – 677 N 5000 W: Mr. Hughes stated that he definitely opposes the amount of the property tax

increase. While he understands that there are needs for the City, inflation and everything else, but believe that

the proposed rate of .000984 is too high.


Martin Harder – 349 N 3000 W: At his primary residence, Mr. Harder stated that two years ago his property tax

increased by $500, and this year’s tax statement shows another $140 increase. In the last ten years, he has paid

somewhere around $27,000 in taxes. He would advise the City to “ease up as much as they possibly can.”

No other residents came forward to comment on the Property Tax Rate for 2017.

Council Member Petersen motioned to close the Public Hearing

Council Member Henderson seconded the motion


b. Action

Mayor Craythorne stated that if the 2016 rate was maintained, it would increase taxes for an average sized home

about $11 per year. The Mayor also commented that in his understanding, the City has increased the tax rate

above the Certified Rate one time in the last five years. He continued to note that because the Certified Rate is

calculated based on averages, there are both increases and decreases in County home valuations throughout the

City.

Council Member Petersen commented that he appreciated Mr. Child’s time in meeting with him the previous

night. He would like to validate the frustrations they discussed with the tax system; the system deals with a

valuation of each home, but the City deals with the valuation of the City as a whole. It is frustrating, he stated,

when a resident’s home value is increasing at a faster rate than other homes, resulting in an average rate that

becomes disproportional for individual residents. The City does have to live within those means.

The Mayor also noted that residents are able to contest their home values with the County, which he believes the

deadline to do that is sometime in September; he has known of residents who contested and were able to have

their home valuation decreased.

Council Member Dawson expressed that as a Council, they do understand the impacts that rate increases have on

residents. If the City maintains the rate, it is about a 9% increase, and that in no way reflects the 42% increase that

Mr. Child stated he has. If the Certified Rate is approved, he went on to say, that property taxes for a resident will

still increase if their home value has increased. The Council has discussed the rate impacts from many different

views, but also has to take into consideration the fees that the City must pay for certain services. For example, the

Davis County Sherriff’s Office is increasing the cost for the City’s coverage quite significantly each year –

somewhere in the neighborhood of $40,000 to $50,000 each year. Similarly, insurance rates for City employees is

increasing, and the list goes on. If the Certified Rate is approved, there are less funds available to deal with these

increased costs. Council Member Dawson wished to “stay ahead of the curve” in order to maintain the necessary

services the City provides to residents.

(Though the public hearing period was closed, Mayor Craythorne allowed the following citizen comment)

Rod Carter – 358 N 4500 W: Mr. Carter stated that he has gone to Davis County three separate years to contest his

property valuation. The second year, he was able to get the County to send an appraiser to his property and the

appraiser valued his property at the same amount. Mr. Carter appealed to the County Commissioner, who he said

told him that the valuation “was ridiculous” and Mr. Carter was able to get a different, independent appraiser that


valued his home at “several thousand dollars less.” The next year, Mr. Carter had to go through the same process

again because of the County’s over-valuation. His home was again valued by a private appraiser at several

thousand dollars less. The next year, Mr. Carter said that once again, the County valuation of his home had gone

“right back up.” Mr. Carter expressed his frustration to the County at having to hire an independent appraiser

three separate years just to have his home property valued. He says he was told that “we don’t have to look to

those appraisals. We can do anything we want.” Mr. Carter wants the City to help end this “ridiculous situation.”

Council Member Petersen stated that it would be a good idea to look into how the County considers private

appraisals when determining property valuations.

Council Member Turner commented that for several years, West Point has not had quite the growth rate that

other cities in the County have had and we have been bearing more of the County tax burden. Now, development

is growing and property values in West Point are increasing while some other cities are decreasing, and so some of

the burden is shifting.

Council Member Chatterton also noted that the City invests into its employees to keep them well trained, certified,

and highly qualified; last year, for example, the Public Works Department was given an award for the best water

service in the State. Though it does require significant funding, one of the things that keeps West Point such a

smooth-running city is that retaining quality employees by investing in them and providing competitive benefits is

a high priority. Council Member Chatterton also wanted to remind the public that the Mayor and Council are

residents as well – they must also pay taxes and are affected by the property tax rate.

Council Member Henderson stated that he agrees and understands much of what has been said by both residents

and the Council. He is not in favor of maintaining the 2016 rate of .000984, nor in favor of accepting the Certified

Tax Rate of .000902; he would like to choose a rate in between. Council Member Henderson proposed a property

tax rate of .000945.

There was no further discussion by the Council.

Council Member Henderson motioned to approve Resolution No. 05-15-2017A, Adoption of the Property Tax Rate

of .000945 for the 2017 Taxable Year for West Point City

Council Member Turner seconded the motion


11. Consideration of Ordinance No. 08-15-2017A, Adoption of the FY2018 Final Budget for West Point City and All

Related Agencies – Mr. Ryan Harvey

Mr. Harvey stated that the FY2018 Tentative Budget was adopted in June, and now that the Truth in Taxation

process is complete and the Property Tax Rate has been approved, the final budget must be adopted. There are a

few changes to the budget since the tentative budget was adopted, and Mr. Harvey explained what those changes

are:

Abandoned Property - $15,000

In June, the Council discussed an existing home located at 4096 W 1300 N that has been abandoned for many years

and is in very poor condition. There have been complaints submitted about the unsafe nature of the structure. The

property owners have been contacted and because of legal issues with the trust that owns the land, they are unable


to remove the house. The City Attorney has suggested that we enter into an agreement with the owners to have the

City remove the house and put a lien on the property. The owners have not committed to this option, but are open

to the idea. Staff suggests budgeting $15,000 for this project.

Upgrade City Software - $4,000

The current financial software that the city uses is Caselle Clarity. Caselle informed the City that as of December

2017, they will no longer be updating this version of Caselle; as a result, all of their customers will need to move to

their new web-based version of the software called Caselle Connect. This change will increase the cost to the City

from $7,980 to $11,970, split between funds.

4th of July Fireworks - $3,000

At the meeting on August 1, 2017, the Council discussed increasing the fireworks budget by $3,000. Currently the

City is spending $16,000 on fireworks for the 4th of July. Increasing the budget by $3,000 will increase the number

of shots from 4,000 to approximately 5,000.

Capital Projects

All of the Capital Project accounts were updated as of June 30, 2017. There are a few projects may need additional

funding in order to be completed. As we go through the bidding process in the coming months we will know if this is

the case. Those projects are:

Cemetery Expansion: Additional funding from Class C and General Fund Surplus

Park Expansion: Additional funding from General Fund Surplus

Equipment Purchase: to obtain a loader, funding from Class C, Water Fund, and Waste Fund

The Mayor noted that the City has been operating under the Tentative Budget since July 1st, which is a public

document available at City Hall and on the City’s website. He then opened the public comment period.

a. Public Hearing

Doyle Olsen – 2920 W 300 N: Mr. Olsen, in reference to the fireworks, stated that he “could do with about half” of

what it was this year, and that would save money from the budget.

Reed Child – 4674 W 650 N: Mr. Child asked for clarification on the tax rate that was approved, and the Mayor

stated that the rate was .000945. Mr. Harvey informed Mr. Child that this rate is a 4.8% increase from the Certified

Tax Rate, and results in about $11,000 additional revenue.

Mayor Craythorne remarked that some residents are just now hearing about and commenting on the details of the

budget, but the budget has been discussed in depth at previous meetings and open for public comment, and “the

seats were empty.” Now the City has reached the final step of the budget process and holding the final hearing,

and comments are just now being received. He encouraged residents to involve themselves earlier in the process

so that their concerns can be adequately addressed before the meeting wherein the budget is approved.

Council Member Dawson motioned to close the Public Hearing

Council Member Petersen seconded the motion


b. Action


Council Member Petersen motioned to approve Ordinance No. 08-15-2017A including the Property Tax Rate of

.000945



Roll Call Vote

Council Member Henderson – Aye

Council Member Turner – Aye

Council Member Petersen – Aye

Council Member Dawson – Aye

Council Member Chatterton – Aye

Mayor Craythorne thanked Staff and Council for their careful consideration of the City’s budget and property tax

rate, as it is one of the most important responsibilities that they have as officials of the City.

12. Consideration of Ordinance No. 08-15-2017B, Regarding a Rezone of the Zaugg Property Located at 2900 W 550 N

from A-40 and R-2 to R-3 (Applicant: Craythorne Development) – Mr. Boyd Davis

*Mayor Craythorne disclosed that he is a developer of the properties involved in both this item and the next.

Though he is not required to and does not even have a vote as Mayor, he recused himself to sit in the audience as

a resident. Mayor Pro Tem Petersen presided over the meeting at this time*

Mr. Davis stated that the Zaugg property is currently one large property, but will be considered as two separate

parcels. Craythorne Development has submitted an application to rezone the property at 2900 W 550 N (just west

of West Point Jr. High). The Zaugg Family has submitted a similar application to rezone the part of the property that

is located at 464 N 3000 W. Both properties are requesting the R-3 zone, which requires a minimum lot size of

11,000 sq. ft. The General Plan designates these properties as R-3 and so the requests are consistent with the

General Plan, except for a small part of the property on 3000 W that the General Plan designates as commercial.

The surrounding area is all residential, and so Staff is recommending approval of both of the applications.

Mayor Pro Tem Petersen thanked Mr. Davis and opened the public comment period.

a. Public Hearing

Gayle Bennington – 445 N 3000 W: Mrs. Bennington lives right across from the Zaugg property on 3000 W. Mrs.

Bennington stated that “a little over two weeks ago, this very Council approved an R-2 Zone. What happened?

Was that just said to get us to go home? At the end of the meeting, you said R-2 would be fine and it was voted on

and approved…now two weeks later a different zone is being approved?” Mr. Davis stated that Mrs. Bennington

must be referring to the previous Planning Commission’s meeting and not a City Council meeting. Mrs. Bennington

inquired as to what had changed from the Planning Commission’s approval of R-2. Mr. Davis informed the Council

that the Planning Commission did vote to recommend approval of the applications to rezone the properties to R-3.

Mr. Laws also noted that while the Planning Commission does hold a public hearing and take a vote on rezone

requests, what they approve is a recommendation to the City Council and not a final decision. Mrs. Bennington

continued with her comment, stating that her property is over ¾ of an acre. While she understands that property


that size is hard to find anymore, she feels that “we are forgetting about quality of life” and that she would “not

like to walk out her door and have her neighbor’s fence ten feet from her house…children aren’t even able to play

in their yards on these size lots.” Mrs. Bennington stated that people gather at her house and comment “what they

wouldn’t give to have this kind of room.” However, smaller and smaller lots are being approved as acceptable.

Mrs. Bennington reaffirmed that she believed that the Planning Commission approved an R-2 zone and left the

meeting with that belief. Council Member Dawson asked if she was at the Planning Commission when they voted

to approve the recommendation, and Mrs. Bennington stated that she was unable to attend but that her husband

was there and made a comment during their public hearing. Mrs. Bennington stated that her husband came home

and told her that “at least they had approved the R-2 zone as it should be.” Mrs. Bennington inquired as to

whether the plans for the subdivision were drawn yet, and Council Member Petersen informed her that the

Council, by law, is only allowed to consider the rezone application at this time, and is not allowed to take any

subdivision plans into consideration when doing so. Mrs. Bennington felt that she had a right to know what the

plans for the development look like so that she knows “what she is approving” with this rezone. Council Member

Petersen stated that the development will officially be presented to the Council in later meetings, and the process

for subdivision approval is quite cumbersome.

Rod Carter – 358 N 4500 W: Mr. Carter is concerned about lots that are under ¼ an acre; he believes that people

like to have RV’s, trailers, etc., and there is no place to put them on these size lots and they will end up parked on

the streets. These lots, Mr. Carter continued, are too small for people to store the things that they need; his

property is ½ acre, and he “cannot imagine” only having half of that space for his things. The only advantage

gained by the smaller lots is to the developer. Additionally, Mr. Carter raised his concerns about the capacity of

the City’s water system and if it will be able to handle all of the additional homes. As a final remark, Mr. Carter

stated that the lots are too small for “anything practical to keep the City clean and decent” and agrees with the

comments made by Mrs. Bennington.

Erik Craythorne – 2596 W 550 N: As a developer of the property, Mr. Craythorne wished to clarify that the

subdivision plats have been submitted to the City, and the average lot size is 16,000 sq. ft. Council Member

Henderson noted to the public that this is an average; not all lot sizes will be 16,000 sq. ft.).

Brian Vincent – 4916 W 100 N: Mr. Vincent stated that he has the opportunity to be serving on the Planning

Commission and wished to comment to the public that the Planning Commission holds multiple meetings to

discuss the future plans for the City. Residents are “invited and begged to come” and share their input. The

General Plan was open for public comment for several months; a website was created, public hearings were held,

etc., and the “seats are empty.” The Planning Commission does its best to do what is best for the City, and this

rezone is right in line with what the General Plan dictates. Mr. Vincent stated that he does understand that when

an application is actually received is the time when it becomes real to residents and invokes “passion”, but he

would “love to see that same passion” at the time the General Plan for the City is considered.

Council Member Petersen wanted to reaffirm that this request is for a rezone and the Council is “literally not

allowed” to take any subdivision plans into consideration of this rezone request. However, since Staff has now

received the subdivision application and plat, the subdivision will come before the Council for approval in the near

future and residents are welcome to inspect them if they wish to do so.

Ken Sessions – 4682 W 175 N: As a “newcomer” to West Point, Mr. Sessions stated that his home, on ¼ acre, is

exactly what he and his wife were looking for. He understands that not everybody would prefer this lot size, but it

is “perfect” for his family and these are adequate sized lots for some people.


Karen Harder – 349 N 3000 W: Mrs. Harder is concerned about the increased traffic and speeding on 3000 W that

she believes this subdivision will cause; she does not want 3000 W to turn into a busy road like 2000 W. The round-

a-bouts on 3000 W do not help with the speeding, and Mrs. Harder believes traffic will head west out of the

subdivision and the problem will just get worse. Council Member Dawson commented later in the meeting on Mrs.

Harder and stated that he believes most traffic will come out of the subdivision onto 550 N and head east.

Jeff Flint – 370 N 3000 W: Mr. Flint’s property adjoins the property being discussed, and would like to know how

many homes will be on the pasture south of the Zaugg home. Mr. Davis confirmed that this smaller piece is large

enough for two homes.

Council Member Henderson motioned to close the Public Hearing



b. Action

Council Member Chatterton mentioned that the traffic on 3000 W does increase farther down south, so he does

understand her concern, especially with the extension of SR193 to 3000 W. However, he stated that traffic

traditionally will head east. He believes that residents will avoid 3000 W as 2000 W will be a wider road.

Council Member Turner motioned to approve Ordinance No. 08-15-2017B

Council Member Dawson seconded the motion


Roll Call Vote






13. Consideration of Ordinance No. 08-15-2017C, Regarding a Rezone of the Zaugg Property Located at 464 N 3000 W

from R-2 to R-3 (Application: Wilford and Elva Zaugg Family Trust) – Mr. Boyd Davis

Council Member Petersen stated that this is the smaller piece discussed in the previous meeting, and asked Staff if

there was any additional information that needed to be discussed. Mr. Davis stated that the plan is for one home to

be built on this piece, and needs to be rezoned from an R-2 to an R-3 to meet the frontage requirements.

a. Public Hearing

No comments

Council Member Chatterton motioned to close the Public Hearing




b. Action

Council Member Dawson motioned to approve Ordinance No. 08-15-2017C

Council Member Turner seconded the motion


Roll Call Vote






*Mayor Craythorne returned to preside over the remainder of the meeting*

14. Motion to Adjourn General Session

Council Member Chatterton motioned to adjourn the General Session



______ _ _ September 5th, 2017 MAYOR ERIK CRAYTHORNE ___ ________ September 5th, 2017 CASEY ARNOLD, CITY RECORDER


Subject: Amended Plat – Hazelwood Subdivision Author: Boyd Davis Department: Community Development Date: September 5, 2017

Background

The owners of lot 20 of the Hazelwood subdivision have submitted an application to amend the plat

to split their lot into two lots. The current lot is over a half acre and there is plenty of room to

create an additional lot. The lot is located on the corner of 750 N and 2150 W.

Analysis

The owners have contacted all of the utility companies for approval to connect utilities to the new

lot. They have also satisfied the secondary water requirement; however, they will need to purchase

water from the City to satisfy the culinary water requirement. The cost of the water would be $960.

(0.253 acres x $3800)

The required notices have been sent and a public hearing has been set.

Recommendation

Staff recommends approval of the Hazelwood Estates Amended Lot 29 and 30.

Staff also recommends approval of a water purchase for $960.

Significant Impacts

None

Attachments

Plat



Subject: Rezone – Apartments – 100 N 2000 W Author: Boyd Davis Department: Community Development Date: September 5, 2017

Background

Wright Development has submitted an application to rezone approximately 5 acres from A-40

(agriculture) to R-5 (multifamily). Their intent is to build an apartment complex next to the Smith’s

Marketplace development. The R-5 zone was recently amended, as part of the General Plan update,

to allow 20 units per acre in multiple-family units. This is the first request for the new zone since

the update.

Analysis

The property is located at 100 N 2000 W, just to the west of the Del Taco restaurant. The request

for the R-5 zone is consistent with the General Plan.

The Planning Commission held a public

hearing on August 10th and recommends

approval of the rezone request. It is now

the Council’s turn to review the request

and hold a public hearing.

The notices of the public hearing were sent

out, but keep in mind that the notices were

only sent to properties within 300 ft. of the

project. There were not many residents

within that distance.

Recommendation

Staff recommends approval of ordinance

09-05-2017A.

Significant Impacts

None

Attachments

Ordinance 09-05-2017A



ORDINANCE NO. 09-05-2017A

AN ORDINANCE REZONING A CERTAIN

PORTION OF WEST POINT CITY FROM

A-40 to R-5

WHEREAS, the West Point City Council for and on behalf of West Point City, State of

Utah (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) has determined to rezone certain property; and

WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly held and the interested parties were given an

opportunity to be heard; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered said rezone; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council, after due consideration of said rezone, has concluded that

it is in the best interest of the City and the inhabitants thereof that said rezone be adopted;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF WEST

POINT CITY, UTAH as follows:

Section One:

That the subject property as shown on the current West Point City Zoning Map shall be

and the same is hereby rezoned and the Zoning Map amended by removing the hereinafter

described real property from a West Point City A-40 zone and placing the same in a West Point

City R-5 zone.

Legal Description:

A part of the northeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 4 North, Range 2 West, Salt Lake

Base and Meridian, U.S. Survey in Davis County, Utah:

ALL OF LOT 8, THE POINT, RECORDED 8/4/2015 AS E# 2884784 BK 6322 PG

1437.

CONT. 5.44100 ACRES.

Section Two: ORDINANCES TO CONFORM WITH AMENDMENTS

The West Point City Director of Community Development is hereby authorized and

directed to make all necessary changes to the West Point City Code and Zoning Map to bring them


into conformity with the changes adopted by this Ordinance.

Section Three: Severability

In the event that any provision of this Ordinance is declared invalid for any reason, the

remaining provisions shall remain in effect.

Section Four: Effective Date

This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage and adoption and publication

of a summary as required by law.

DATED this ___ day of ____________, 20__.

WEST POINT CITY, a Municipal Corporation

By:

Erik Craythorne

Mayor

[SEAL]

VOTING:

Jerry Chatterton Yea Nay ___

Andy Dawson Yea Nay ___

Kent Henderson Yea Nay ___

Gary L. Petersen Yea Nay ___

Jeff Turner Yea Nay ___

ATTEST:

______________________________

Casey Arnold

City Recorder


Subject: Setbacks for Accessory Buildings Author: Boyd Davis Department: Community Development Date: September 5, 2017

Background

The Planning Commission received a request to review the code regulating the setbacks of

accessory buildings on a corner lot. The Singleton family is building a home on the southwest

corner of 1300 N and 5000 W and would like to put a detached garage in the back corner of their

lot, but the current code requires that the garage be setback 30 ft from the side property line

because it is a corner lot. They have requested that the City consider changing that requirement.

Analysis

Although the Singleton’s lot is technically a corner lot, it does not appear to be because the side

street, 1300 North, has not been improved yet. The code still would require a 30 ft setback. The

Planning Commission and staff have been reviewing the request and have also looked at other

structures throughout the city. After review, the Planning Commission has proposed the following

language for the Council to consider:

Accessory buildings on corner lots shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the street side

property line when a driveway accesses the street from the rear or side yard. If no access is

desired from the rear or side yard the minimum setback up to 5 feet will then be allowed.

However, at the last Council Meeting, it was concluded that 20 ft would be acceptable but that 5 ft

would not be. The attached ordinance is written to allow a 20 ft. setback only.

The Planning Commission would like to have additional time to review their recommendation and

provide additional information to the Council. The Council may choose to adopt the ordinance as

written or table the ordinance and allow the Planning Commission additional time.

Recommendation

Staff recommends approval of ordinance 09-05-2017B

Significant Impacts

None

Attachments

Ordinance 09-05-2017B



ORDINANCE NO. 09-05-2017B

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING WEST POINT

CITY CODE SECTION 17.25.080 MODIFYING

LAND USE REGULATIONS FOR

ACCESSORY BUILDINGS

WHEREAS, the West Point City Council for and on behalf of West Point City, State of

Utah (hereinafter referred to as the “City”) has determined to amend Section 17.25.080 of the West

Point City Code, and

WHEREAS, a public hearing was duly held and the interested parties were given an

opportunity to be heard; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered said amendments; and,

WHEREAS, the City Council, after due consideration of said amendments, has concluded

that it is in the best interest of the City and the inhabitants thereof that said amendments be adopted;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF WEST

POINT CITY, UTAH as follows:

Section One: Adoption of New Provisions in section 17.25.080

The category named “ACCESSORY STRUCTURES/USES” of section 17.25.080 “Zone

regulations chart” shall be changed to read as follows. The remainder of the table shall remain

unchanged. (Strike through text indicates text being removed from the code, and underlined text

indicates new additions).

ACCESSORY STRUCTURES/USES3

Minimum Front Yard3 – – – – – – – 25' 25' 25' 25' 50'

Minimum Side Yard (Interior)3 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 10'

Minimum Side Yard (Street) Corner Lot 30'

20’

30'

20’

30'

20’

30'

20’

30'

20’

30'

20’

30'

20’

0' 0' 0' 0' 0'

Arterial Street Corner Lot3 30'

20’

30'

20’

30'

20’

30'

20’

30'

20’

30'

20’

30'

20’

0' 0' 0' 0' 0'


Minimum Rear Yard3 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1' 1'

Distance between Accessory and Principal Structures3

Same Lot 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' – – – – –

Adjacent Lot 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' – – – – –

Section Two: Ordinances to conform with amendments

The West Point City Director of Community Development is hereby authorized and directed to

make all necessary changes to the West Point City Code to bring the text into conformity with the

changes adopted by this Ordinance.

Section Three: Severability

In the event that any provision of this Ordinance is declared invalid for any reason, the

remaining provisions shall remain in effect.

Section Four: Effective Date

This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon passage and adoption and publication of a

summary as required by law.

DATED this ___ day of ____________, 20__.

WEST POINT CITY, a Municipal Corporation

By:

Erik Craythorne

Mayor

ATTEST:

______________________________

Casey Arnold

City Recorder


west point city council notice & agenda mayor · west point city council notice & agenda...

Documents