[{"_1":2,"_109":-5,"_110":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_25":26},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_27":28,"_29":30},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[31,74,85,97],{"_32":33,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":39,"_40":41,"_42":43,"_44":45,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6455597,"mediaKeyId","5826974-a6304597772b0447f68896862a85907c","parentId",5826974,"title","Council reviews draft capital improvement plan; debates chip-seal strategy, Pocketville speed devices and water upgrades","audioSeconds",3961,"startMs",59000,"endMs",4020000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5826974-a6304597772b0447f68896862a85907c&start=59&end=4020","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5826974-a6304597772b0447f68896862a85907c/thumbnail_59000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6455597/Virgin/Washington-County/Utah/Council-reviews-draft-capital-improvement-plan-debates-chip-seal-strategy-Pocketville-speed-devices-and-water-upgrades","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6455597-d05ffcacde97ee6f8aade61b73e30c5c/orig.mp4?Expires=1769926499&Signature=ohDx~xapD2B~6dSuDRlW7ZKwAGC202LRjCGFA0nGeCcDSLHncfYjrAoC1HcnaW7c5M~AvD-VdY5EipRS9lxIB9lcVhPg6CHtHmmbCWnnzPLwmk9XpJ7e~k~-XzeHbji-CgfoEP6CqHexjv6N50taeL-dnUzkgURifxSMTxN6IAqe757Q~3s~yeYP08Gx~dvM9wVzj0Mz12W5aUD9tJjMqJmRnW9pWySG0y8F~xIBTy7f3chtz9N5e611~KMjxsXilqldfATf2uG5mfYSG2c55cyxp96zt5jzbqySEZDrOSqWKnFF8aRFC9bUIdUcmc~5PLgcBk~cFRN~evVlpbF5Ow__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Virgin","date","2025-09-25T20:13:06.99Z","article","Pro Tem, substituting for the mayor, opened the work session by placing the town’s draft five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) on the agenda and asking council members to review the mayor’s recommended priority list for years 1–5.

The council spent the bulk of the meeting discussing pavement, traffic calming on Pocketville Road, water-line projects and stormwater repairs. Members repeatedly urged staff to return with documented cost estimates and a pavement-management study before committing to large chip-seal programs.

Why it matters: the CIP sets multi-year priorities that guide when the town will plan and attempt to fund projects through general-fund allocations, impact fees and grants. Several items on this draft were carried forward from last year; members emphasized that eligibility for impact fees depends on whether a project is classified as “maintenance” or “capacity/upgrade” in the town’s facility plan.

Pavement management and chip seal
Council members debated whether to keep a multi-road chip-seal program in year 1. One council member said chip seal was a “band aid” on streets with alligator cracking and subsidence and recommended deferring those streets until staff can present a pavement-management study and options such as milling and asphalt replacement. The pro tem agreed to ask public-works staff (Rod/Rob) to clarify which streets qualify for impact fees and to return with damage assessments and costs.

Pocketville Road: speed devices and heavy trucks
The council discussed replacing temporary speed bumps on Pocketville Road with permanent concrete speed tables (sometimes described as speed tables or ramp-style traffic-calming devices). Members also raised resident complaints about SunRock trucks using Pocketville Road to access a reservoir construction site; the council asked staff to contact the company and request drivers avoid the road. Council members agreed to keep the Pocketville traffic-calming project on the year‑1 list but asked staff to provide firm cost estimates and design options.

Water-system and related projects
Members confirmed that the town’s water-tank project is in progress and discussed several water-line items in the CIP: in particular, an upgrade from 8‑inch to 10‑inch main on State Route 9 to increase fire flow, and targeted replacement of aging mains in older parts of town. Council asked staff to check whether specific replacements would qualify as impact-fee-eligible capacity projects or as maintenance, and to coordinate water-line work with road resurfacing where feasible.

Stormwater and local drainage
Stormwater projects discussed included drainage work along Pocketville Road from the Bob Clark property to the wash, and recurring clogging and culvert maintenance at the Sierra Bella area. Council members questioned whether those items are capital projects or maintenance; they directed staff to verify whether the town accepted the drainage infrastructure in subdivision plats or whether the HOA/developer retains responsibility. The stormwater item scheduled for public hearing next week will be posted for public review.

Parks, pedestrian and other projects
Council kept several park and pedestrian items (playground equipment, a lower-pocket pedestrian trail, Mill Street sidewalk improvements) in years 2–5 pending completion of the town’s parks master plan and cross‑plan. Del Rio bridge-related work and a mirror installation were moved forward as separate line items to allow targeted grant applications.

BMX track and dark‑sky lighting
Council reviewed a proposal to upgrade BMX‑track lighting. Staff reported $50,000 in grant funding for lighting, with $15,000 proposed to cover dark‑sky compliant fixtures. Council agreed to keep the BMX lighting item on the CIP but noted an existing constraint: obtaining a right-of-way or power agreement with the Bureau of Land Management is required for permanent power at that location.

Next steps and follow-up
Council asked staff to return with: (1) a pavement-management study and line‑item cost estimates for year‑1 pavement proposals; (2) confirmation from the town engineer about impact-fee eligibility tied to the facility plan; (3) water‑fund and general‑fund availability, and (4) an inventory/audit of existing town lighting to assess dark‑sky compliance. Staff were asked to try to provide an interim report before the next CIP meeting and to post the stormwater public‑hearing materials online.

Ending: The council did not adopt the CIP during the work session; members left projects in place pending the requested cost, eligibility and design details, and retained flexibility to move items between years 1–5 after the follow-up reports.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Town Council Work 8 -13- 25","oneSentenceSummary","Pro Tem, substituting for the mayor, opened the work session by placing the town’s draft five-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) on the agenda and asking council members to review the mayor’s recommended priority list for years 1–5.","taxTitle","Virgin , Washington County, Utah","taxId",7486,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_32":75,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":76,"_40":77,"_42":45,"_44":78,"_46":79,"_48":80,"_50":81,"_52":82,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6455592,"Council reviews draft ordinance to add 'live‑work dwellings' and amend Title 16 commercial uses",232,4252000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5826974-a6304597772b0447f68896862a85907c&start=4020&end=4252","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5826974-a6304597772b0447f68896862a85907c/thumbnail_4020000.jpg","/articles/6455592/Virgin/Washington-County/Utah/Council-reviews-draft-ordinance-to-add-livework-dwellings-and-amend-Title-16-commercial-uses","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6455592-ee641ca940450d52f8acedaa8b9ca3ec/orig.mp4?Expires=1769926499&Signature=AqVZUVY4N74Z0mmM9K9G6Yi8sriR9cehR9BnZDy6grWZvOOVOBZgZ1svHVA4QDfHx~q7s0os20ro3Adfwjh4vstMjsGbyiEBX97620ff5tlgPca3KtRuxL99Pq0g1aSAyurh1V-bDWfc2r3b6FXuQ~gIh0XDn~lCBwJPGuCGh0zZxPKeQhiB7XQmkrWcmlabfN2ZCw7wdchuukdvh6SuXw9cOVsvYYGPWM~sHomRKdxEVcQeEGJ508xvSbzguLDlPKk0cE-X5TmImUeoI4xmLMgkMVlk0TQQKDevv3yDS8RSHEEYAT~8cLc4W3CLOxUPLo0kcy9UQwWPI~vD1K52ow__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the work session the council reviewed a revised draft ordinance to amend Title 16 zoning language to define and regulate \"live‑work dwellings\" and to remove existing references to a \"commercial application\" permitted use.

Why it matters: the proposal would change how mixed residential/commercial spaces are allowed in commercial zones and hotel‑resort zones, shifting some uses from permitted to conditional status and adding new definitions for \"live‑work dwelling\" and related terms.

What the draft does
The revised draft replaces the prior before‑and‑after formatting with a single revised document that: adds definitions for \"live‑work dwelling\" and \"live quarters\"; deletes references to \"commercial application\" as a permitted use in specified commercial chapters; and adds a conditional‑use subsection for live‑work dwellings in applicable commercial and hotel‑resort chapters. Planning‑commission recommendations were reflected in the draft, and no substantive changes to the planning commission’s language were reported at the work session.

Formatting and procedure
Council members and staff noted formatting issues in the draft (cross‑references and chapter headings) and asked staff to correct the ordinance's layout before a public hearing. The town attorney (Darlene) and staff advised that certain deleted/added lines be placed clearly in the ordinance so future readers can see the change.

Next steps
Council did not vote on the ordinance during the work session. Members asked planning and legal staff to tidy the draft's formatting, confirm cross‑references (for example, the amended chapter numbers) and prepare the item for the regular meeting agenda and public hearing.","Councilors discussed a draft ordinance that would remove a permitted \"commercial application\" use and add a conditional \"live‑work dwelling\" use in commercial and hotel/resort zones; staff and the town attorney flagged formatting edits and cross‑references.",{"_32":86,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":87,"_40":88,"_42":89,"_44":90,"_46":91,"_48":92,"_50":93,"_52":94,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":95,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":96,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6455582,"Council discusses recent 2–1 planning commission vote on zone change for Daniels property; development agreement flagged as option",443,4750000,5193000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5826974-a6304597772b0447f68896862a85907c&start=4750&end=5193","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5826974-a6304597772b0447f68896862a85907c/thumbnail_4750000.jpg","/articles/6455582/Virgin/Washington-County/Utah/Council-discusses-recent-21-planning-commission-vote-on-zone-change-for-Daniels-property-development-agreement-flagged-as-option","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6455582-beea698d8f0ff2ff3cec324beff57cd6/orig.mp4?Expires=1769926499&Signature=JIpHI47lCuWJ~0TjYhBGo~sKHCgsIMRd1O~LW5XqeQWuOMfj0AGmKOBRM4Jk1hbBb86Zwa6W8L2ypw00uofCFwkMtIGLVE4JvMIxDv~D116xrpzKa~LPyPWGzhbVex9no0qKl0BVTo5y~P1OT7HsayJ5TUOIodyL9OXu0INRw7C89JNp3pCjBeWmjTkGii44~8ROaEVI4HKN26~VYNVivAnrVRMZ4VBiTi~b4XaqEaEnwmDnbHJRxcJk7aYhR7XE1AOuYdPRAERAvzTlZ5771KYKJGa3RswstSbd8awegIv7YGpt4v0IqGTsM5pZw0K8OPCU0t~CC1iyVBJmS4s0xQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Councilors discussed a recent planning commission decision that recommended approval of a zone change related to the Daniels property by a 2–1 vote. The proposed mapping would expand commercial zoning toward a residential area along the river.

Why it matters: rezoning rural residential land to commercial affects future allowable uses, density and traffic; the council signaled caution about converting rural residential parcels away from the town’s inventory of residential land without careful public‑policy justification.

Key discussion points
The planning commission vote was 2–1 in favor of a map change that in some versions extended commercial designation more than 400 feet from the existing commercial area. Council members said the map in the packet showed a larger area than the narrow 400‑foot strip some supporters described. Several council members said they are reluctant to convert rural residential land to commercial without a development agreement that would limit commercial use to a defined area and specific terms.

Process and next steps
Council members suggested denying a broad map amendment if it removed rural residential land, and instead directing the applicant to pursue a development agreement that could legally limit commercial development to a specific parcel or frontage consistent with the council’s policy concerns. No final decision was made during the work session; staff will prepare next steps and options for council consideration at a future meeting.","Councilors reviewed a planning commission recommendation (2–1) on a zone change for the Daniels property that would expand commercial zoning; members noted the commission vote and discussed limiting commercial entitlements by development agreement rather than broad map change.",{"_32":98,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":99,"_40":100,"_42":101,"_44":102,"_46":103,"_48":104,"_50":105,"_52":106,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":107,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":108,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6455587,"Council reviews proposed ordinance to allow retrieval of 'untimely' planning items",345,4398000,4743000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5826974-a6304597772b0447f68896862a85907c&start=4398&end=4743","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5826974-a6304597772b0447f68896862a85907c/thumbnail_4398000.jpg","/articles/6455587/Virgin/Washington-County/Utah/Council-reviews-proposed-ordinance-to-allow-retrieval-of-untimely-planning-items","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6455587-96f3ea363fbd0ff32e9eec558d3e49ad/orig.mp4?Expires=1769926499&Signature=oBBY0Dtnm3z-eKYowUX3eOjAPYwJkUtC9MdDkaaYO6Vq09e3AyG3nCDMPAI-k8Ae--dDyKi-4v91wqqoIpufQmlPH-HHPfweQbOVJXRyWD7dbisUjHe-STqqOFj5YRqAhfqNd29~Pv~mmIkG8R~c7RlAPO921M5DsTfqmvoyLLyciEIrgVQT7dbpTA-WNw7TzSldvb0C30W9QX3tGmoeutZEP5M1DLaHXMlL-Uf~NTiIjzU5zGtoXZloan-9jNlmnPCGOjl1qlA8pU3VK-e0TXZmMS3LceKZeFpW0muXXAdQvS23zF65vnAWAbFP7YP9zPcghEmQh-VI0bSbvV6Y~g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Councilors reviewed a draft ordinance intended to clarify the council’s authority to retrieve matters from the planning commission when the commission has not provided a timely recommendation.

Why it matters: the change would confirm a course of action the council can use when the planning commission’s review process extends beyond expected time frames, while preserving the planning commission’s role in research and development of land‑use proposals.

Key points from the discussion
The original draft contained explicit time limits (for example, four months) after which the council could retrieve a matter; attorneys and council members expressed concern that a rigid time limit could be misused or could pressure planning staff. The council removed the strict numeric deadline from the ordinance text and retained timing guidance in the council’s rules of procedure (which define when a recommendation is “untimely” for procedural purposes).

Members emphasized the measure is discretionary: the council can decide case-by-case whether to retrieve an item from the planning commission and bring it back to the council for action. The council signaled the change is housekeeping to align the code with the council’s adopted procedures rather than to shift authority away from the planning commission.

Next steps
Staff will prepare a final ordinance draft consistent with the council’s rules of procedure and schedule it for the regular meeting and public hearing process.","Councilors discussed a housekeeping ordinance to clarify that, when provided by ordinance, the town council may retrieve land‑use proposals from the planning commission if a timely recommendation is not made; members opted to remove a strict time limit from the draft and to rely on the council's rules of procedure.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council reviews draft capital improvement plan; debates chip-seal strategy, Pocketville speed devices and water upgrades

Council reviews draft ordinance to add 'live‑work dwellings' and amend Title 16 commercial uses

Council discusses recent 2–1 planning commission vote on zone change for Daniels property; development agreement flagged as option

Council reviews proposed ordinance to allow retrieval of 'untimely' planning items