1.         ROLL CALL.  Roll Call was answered by Blake Zobell, Stan Chappell, Sue Southwick, Pat Hansen, and Steve Kunzler.  Eugene Beck was excused. 

Also Present:  Building Official Paul Hinrichs and Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis. 

Others Present:  Steve Applegate, Malcolm Nash, Lisa Cleaveland, Jerry Larsen, David Christensen, Larry Pearson, David Anderson.

2.         APPROVAL OF MINUTES.  The minutes of March 5, 2008, were reviewed.    Stan Chappell motioned to approve the minutes of March 5, 2008.  Steve Kunzler seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.    

3.         PUBLIC HEARING ( 7:06 p.m).  Comments were received concerning proposed revisions to Chapter 20 (Signs) of the Richfield City Zoning Ordinance.   

David  Christensen said he has a few concerns with the proposal.  The proposal allows for temporary signs up to 32 square feet.  They hang banners on their store for special sales.  Their building would dwarf that sign.  Most of their banners are 64 square feet.   Jerry Larsen’s signs are 80 square feet.  A sign that is 32 square feet is only 4’ x 8’ and that won’t  show up on a large building.  It would be his suggestion that the size should be larger. 

Chairman Zobell explained that the banner portion of the sign ordinance has not been addressed.  That portion was actually sent back to the Chamber of Commerce because the Planning Commission wanted input on that.  The Commission has not received input.  The Commission would like some input  from the business owners concerning banners. 

The proposed Sign Ordinance also requires that every sign requires a sign permit to be approved by the City.  Mr. Christensen said sometimes they hang up a sale sign on a whim and leave it up for a day because there is something going on in town that has drawn a lot of people to the area.  If he has to go through the red-tape of submitting a request for approval, he might lose the opportunity to do that.  Chairman Zobell said that would probably be a phone call to the City Office and it would be handled in the office by City personnel. 

There was discussion as to whether these signs fall under temporary or seasonal signs or banners.  It was explained that a temporary sign could be up for 45 days.  A seasonal sign could be up for 90 days.  Those would be for things such as the Pumpkin Patch or a Christmas tree lot.  The sale signs such as what Mr. Christensen is talking about would fall under banners.  Banners have not been addressed in the Ordinance and those do need to be addressed separately. 

Chairman Zobell said the banners that cause the problem are the ones that are put up between two stakes and then left there indefinitely and they become weathered and torn.  They don’t add to the business community at all.   The Commission would like the Ordinance to be fair for a business such as Christensen’s which uses banners appropriately.   

Jerry Larsen has a problem with the whole idea of a committee or building inspector or whoever dictating to a business what they can or can’t do.  He understands that we want Richfield to look nice, but if a business wants to put up some signs or banners and that is effective for them, then he has a hard time with not allowing them to do it.

Chairman Zobell said the City doesn’t want to say it won’t be allowed, but there need to be parameters.  Mr. Larsen said he just doesn’t want it to get to a point where you almost need a lawyer, an engineer, and a draftsman to put up a sign. 

Mr. Larsen suggests perhaps some of the businesses should be contacted individually for their input.  Lisa Cleaveland said she was part of the Chamber committee that reviewed the Sign Ordinance.  They spent hours and hours discussing it and a lot of the people didn’t go to those meetings.   She said the Chamber has e-mailed a copy of the proposed Ordinance to all of the Chamber members. 

Mr. Christensen wondered about the Ordinance saying no signage on vehicles.  Once a year for 2 hours they put  a sign in the high school parking lot advertising when the tuxedo man will be here.  He understands that signage on cars can be a problem, but they do it for only a couple of hours in a year.   Chairman Zobell said it is good to get that input.  Part of the reason this is in the Ordinance is that some of the larger cities have a problem where there are big trucks with big billboards on them and they are driven through the City and parked at different parking lots.  Our consultant advised that we should be careful about that or we could have a bunch of billboard trucks parked all over town.

Mr. Larsen said he sometimes parks an Ogden Carpet trailer with a sign on it in the parking lot to advertise a sale.  How would this affect something like that.  Steve Kunzler said part of the issue is that we don’t want those kinds of signs to be displayed indefinitely.  Chairman Zobell said it deals more with the signs that are driven on the vehicles and parked at various places. 

Mr. Larsen said he also has a large truck and he will put a banner on it with a sign saying “mattress sale.”  Chairman Zobell said these are good things to bring up.  Currently the question would be whether those fall under temporary signs or the banners.  It seems like it would be a temporary banner and perhaps there needs to be a definition for a temporary banner.  It seems like maybe the Christensen’s sales or the one or two-day event sales should be called a temporary banner.  The Commission agrees that the businesses need to be able to use those.   The Commission needs to study the banner issue and come up with language that addresses these concerns. 

The banners that people leave up every day of the year really become another permanent sign.  Those kinds of banners are no longer banners that are advertising a special event or temporary event.  They become just another onsite sign.  There needs to be a provision for temporary banners and  a time period for allowing that.  Christensen’s puts up 24-hour signs but then twice a year they put up a banner for two weeks.  Mr. Larsen said he has a carpet sale that lasts for one month and his sign is up for that long.    It was pointed out that a sale sign that is up for 30 days or longer begins to blend in and consumers ignore them.

The Commission would like to put in a provision that temporary banners would be allowed for 30 days.  The size of the banners needs to be addressed.  Mr. Larsen’s banners are at least 4’ x 20’ and Christensen’s are a minimum of 69 square feet.  The size needs to be based on the size of the building. 

Mr. Christensen said he noticed there can be no neon lights.  Although it isn’t the style at the present time, what if neon lights come back in.  Neon colors are coming back in.  Chairman Zobell reminds that the Zoning Ordinance is a living document.  It is not cut in stone and can be changed as need arises.  If the trend changes as far as neon signs, then the Ordinance could be changed. 

Mr. Larsen wonders about the reference that lighting has to be done from within.   Chairman Zobell explained that is because we don’t want a lot of exposed bulbs.  It needs to be shielded so that it doesn’t shine everywhere.  Mr. Larsen wondered if there can be a spotlight on a sign.  That is alright as long as it is shielded.  What the City is trying to avoid is flashing lights and bright lights that spread light all around. 

Mr. Larsen wanted to know if signs could be approved on an individual basis.  If someone had a sign that doesn’t fall within the Code but appears reasonable, can that be approved.  He was told no, it has to comply with the Code. 

Mr. Larsen said he would like to install a reader sign and wonders how large it could be.  He was told he could have 100 square feet per face of sign and 25 feet tall.  He wonders why the hotel signs along the freeway are taller.  It was explained that the City has an area within a certain distance of the freeway that allows for taller signs so they can be seen from the interstate.   A sign that is no taller than 25 feet is more in the line of vision.  Mr. Larsen thinks the 100 square feet is too small.

Chairman Zobell asked that the Chamber look at temporary banner signs and also at the size of signs to see if 100 square feet is not sufficient. 

Larry Pearson wondered about wall signs projecting out only 1 foot.  Chairman Zobell explained that wall signs cannot project over the public right-of-way. 

Lisa Cleaveland sells real estate.  She said that the Ordinance only allows one “For Sale” sign on a property.  She said sometimes they need more.  They might have a corner lot where they put a sign on both streets.  They have signs for the real estate company and the mortgage company.   Sometimes there is another sign for a “talking house”.  Sometimes there is an information post.  All of that would not be allowed under the Ordinance because there would be too many signs.  The Commission agrees to look at that issue. 

Larry Pearson said he has compared this ordinance with other cities.  Orem’s Ordinance is 15 pages compared to ours which is 28 pages.  He thinks it is too large. 

Stan Poulson arrived.

There was a question as to what an animated sign is?  It was explained that would be a sign with moving parts that twists and moves.  The sign at the park is a display sign or a reader board sign. 

Mr. Larsen wondered about blow-up signs?  Paul Hinrichs said it hasn’t been broken down that far.  It would be a temporary sign or it might even fall under banner.   Mr. Hinrichs advises the dancing man that was at Verizon a few weeks ago would be an animated sign and wouldn’t be allowed if the Ordinance is adopted the way it is.

There being no further comments, the public hearing closed at 7:52 p.m. 

4.         NATE SHAVER REQUEST.  Nate Shaver is requesting permission to build a fence that is taller than 6 feet.  He was not present.  Paul Hinrichs explained this house faces north.  The natural grade goes to the south.  The fence will be 6 feet on his side but about 30 inches of retaining wall which will make it 8-1/2 feet on his neighbor’s side behind him to the south. 

Steve Kunzler talked to the neighbor and the neighbor is not opposed to the fence although that was the first the neighbor had heard about the fence.  These issues would be easier to discuss if an applicant would discuss it with their neighbor before it comes here.  The neighbor said if the fence is block, then he might back fill next to it so the fence wouldn’t be as tall on his side.    

Stan Chappell motioned to approve the construction of a fence that is 8-1/2 feet tall at 376 East 1010 North with the condition that the applicant provide a letter signed by the neighbor agreeing to the fence.  Steve Kunzler seconded the motion.    

5.         REVIEW OF PLANS FOR PUMPIT.   Plans were reviewed for the construction of Steve’s Conrete Pumping (Pumpit) to be located at 1825 South Industrial Park Road.    Steve Applegate was present. 

The DRC recommendations were discussed as follows:

            1.         Street name needs to be changed to South Industrial Park Road. This has been complied with.

            2.         The landscaping shown does not meet the ordinance requirements of 10% of the lot area.  This is much more than the existing businesses have in the industrial area and the Planning Commission may consider less landscaping.   Mr. Applegate says their plan shows more landscaping than any of the other businesses in the industrial park.  If he were to provide the 10% as required by ordinance, that would be 6600 square feet of landscaping.  He would like to be able to put in landscaping that is closer to the size of landscape at the existing businesses in the industrial park. 

There will be a 10-foot side yard and proposes Santa Fe landscaping on that 10-foot setback.  That would be on the north side of the building.  He would also do some landscaping in a small island in the front of the building (west side) which would be 2400 square feet of landscaping.  He could have gravel and some trees.  Mr. Applegate was told that rather than landscaping on the north of the building where it wouldn’t be seen, it would be more aesthetic to put that on the south side of the building.  The intent of landscaping is to give some curb appeal and break up the hard scape. 

Mr. Applegate said he has a business in Parowan and he would like to establish a satellite business here but it needs to be economical for him to do so.  His business in Parowan uses 4000 to 5000 gallons of water per day and if he had to do a lot of landscaping it would use even more water.  No one wants to see someone use that kind of water.  Chairman Zobell suggested perhaps if he had gravel and some trees, that wouldn’t use a lot of water.  That could be put along the frontage on the west side of the lot.  He could use some trees or shrubs that would be low maintenance.    

The Commission agrees that the amount of landscaping should be relaxed.  If the landscaping is placed along the front of the property (west) that would be about 2600 square feet.   Mr. Applegate agrees he can live with that.  It will still be a larger amount of landscaping than the other businesses at the industrial park. 

3.         Provide off-street parking proposed number of employees and one space for visitor and for disabled persons.  Paul Hinrichs said there needs to be four paved parking spaces.  There is a requirement for parking for the proposed number of employees plus one space for a visitor and one space for disabled persons.  Mr. Applegate said he has looked at the parking at other businesses in the industrial park and some of the have paving and some of them don’t.  Chairman Zobell said those have been there for a while and none of the people on this committee were serving when those were approved and so we can’t apply the same standard.  Mr. Applegate said there will be a 20-foot apron in front of that building and that could be the parking.  The Commission agrees with that as long as it is designated for parking.  He will take the asphalt two spaces to the west and that will comply with the requirement.   

4.         Driveway approach must be paved for a distance of 50 feet from the street curb to help keep mud/soil from tracking onto street.  Mr. Applegate agrees to do this.     

5.         The exterior of the building must comply with Sectio 1722 of the ordinance.  Mr. Applegate would like to put up a metal building.   He has purchased enough block to put it partially on the west elevation.  If he has to put more block, then he will have to use a different color.  The right elevation (east side) doesn’t have any block because when they built their building in Parowan, they thought it would be plenty large, but had to add on two bays within two years.  He does not want to put block on that side so he can add to the buildings when necessary.  He feels like the building will be attractive even with the metal sides.  As far as color, it will be either off-white with brown or blue trim, or tan with white trim.  That will depend on the supplier they go with.

Chairman Zobell said the Commission would lean more towards the earth tone colors although the Commission can’t really make them do a certain color.  Mr. Applegate agrees that he likes the earth tone colors, but their company colors are white and blue and that is why they are considering that.

He doesn’t think the metal building is out of line in an industrial area.   He has looked at the other buildings in the industrial park and they are mostly all metal with a small percentage of other material. 

Sue Southwick wondered if there will be a different standard for industrial areas.  This is what is required by the Ordinance and changing the ordinance won’t really help Mr. Applegate because he is ready to get started and it would take a few months to get that accomplished.  Steve Kunzler pointed out more than half of those lots have not been developed so there is potential for those to be developed to this standard.  Stan Poulson wonders if the Commission considered the industrial park specifically when discussing metal buildings.  It was discussed in depth more in connection with the commercial areas.

The front or west elevation will have to comply with the ordinance and be finished with 100% block.  The north and south side of the building will be 35% block.  He could wrap the door and windows.  It would be recommended he use earth tones on the east side so that it doesn’t stick out so much. 

This is a C1 use so it does not go to the City Council for consideration.      

Sue Southwick motioned to approve a C1 use permit for Steve’s Concrete Pumping (Pumpit) to be located at 1825 South Industrial Park Road.  He will bring back landscaping plans showing the 10-foot wide planter strip and tree caliper and spacing, parking will be increased by two on the west, the driveway approach to be paved, the west elevation to be completed with 100% stucco or block, the south and north sides to be 35% block or stucco, buildings to be earth tone finish.   Stan Chappell seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

6.         ENVISION UTAH PROGRAM.  Malcolm Nash is present to review the Envision Utah Program.  He is extending an invitation to the Planning Commission to attend a presentation by the Envision Utah Program.  The presentation will be April 30^th at 6:30 at the Sevier Valley Center and wanted to extend the invitation to attend. 

7.         ITEMS FOR THE NEXT AGENDA.   The Sign ordinance will be reviewed next month with the Chamber’s suggestions for banners.  Another public hearing will be held in June.    

8.         ADJOURNMENT.   The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 7^th day of May, 2008.

____________________________________

            Deputy City Recorder