By Jennelle Zajac, For Iron County Today
With the annexation not officially approved, Parowan City Council held a special meeting on Wednesday, April 23 at 6pm to continue the discussion regarding the AJM annexation agreement, specifically addressing zoning, road improvements, and park/open space requirements. The council sought to clarify outstanding questions from the previous meeting and reach consensus on key points for the agreement.
AGM Annexation Agreement Discussion
The City Manager, Dan Jessen, recapped the previous meeting, noting it had been “overwhelming” and required further clarification. He highlighted the need to discuss conceptual densities under different zoning options, particularly regarding hillside development. Dan also mentioned the need to reconcile differing legal interpretations of the annexation agreement between the city and the developer’s attorney.
Zoning Considerations
The discussion initially focused on zoning. The developer, represented by Dallas Buckner of Go Civil Engineering, expressed openness to hard zoning the area as R1 or R2, aligning with the city’s Rural Done Right initiative. This would simplify the agreement compared to the developer’s initial density-based proposal. Dan raised the issue of impact fee reimbursement, noting Parowan City currently lacks a comprehensive reimbursement mechanism except for parks.
Road Improvements and Access
The conversation shifted to road improvements, particularly concerning City View Drive. Dan emphasized the importance of this road as a major collector in the city’s transportation master plan and expressed concern that it might not be built if not addressed in the annexation agreement. He also highlighted safety concerns for pedestrians, especially during events at the nearby fairgrounds. Dallas acknowledged the challenges of forecasting the road’s cost due to the complex intersection with county roads and BLM land. The council discussed the need for cooperation between the city, county, BLM, and developer to resolve the City View Drive alignment and funding. The need for a second access road was also debated, with concerns raised about traffic congestion and safety near the Valentine Peak Sports Complex if only 200 North were used.
The council discussed various options for road improvements, including requiring both 200 North and City View Drive to be fully improved upfront, or phasing in City View Drive improvements after a certain number of lots are permitted. The council ultimately reached consensus on requiring a fully improved 200 North (with sidewalk on one side) and requiring City View Drive to be built after 80 lots are permitted. The agreement would also stipulate cooperation with the county on 100 North.
Parks and Open Space Requirements
The discussion then turned to parks and open space requirements. Dan noted the lack of specific open space requirements in Parowan City’s subdivision code and suggested adopting a methodology similar to Cedar City’s, which requires 250 square feet of open space per residential unit, with amenities required after 2,000 square feet and a cap of 3% of total subdivision acreage. Dallas questioned whether Cedar City’s code applied to non-PUD subdivisions. The council debated the merits of pocket parks versus contributing to improvements at the existing Valentine Peak Sports Complex. Concerns were raised about the long-term maintenance costs of new parks.
Water Main Connections and Water Tank
The council briefly discussed water main connections, agreeing to defer to the state and city engineers’ recommendations. Regarding the proposed water tank, the council agreed that the developer should provide the tank site, easement, and access road, but the tank itself could be built later using impact fees.
The meeting concluded with a general consensus on the key points for the annexation agreement, which would be drafted and sent to the developer’s attorney for review.