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

Others Present:  Building Official Paul Hinrichs, Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis, Dave Hilderbrand, Sue Hilderbrand, Kimball Poulson, John Spendlove, and Ryan Savage.

2.     APPROVAL OF MINUTES.  The minutes of April 2, 2008, were reviewed.  Page 4, second to last paragraph the word “thfor” shall be changed to “for”.  Page 5, item 4 shall be changed reflecting that Stan Chappell made the motion rather than Blake Zobell.  Stan Chappell motioned to approve the minutes of April 2, 2008.  Sue Southwick seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.    

3.     PUBLIC HEARING ( 7:14 p.m).  Comments were received concerning a preliminary subdivision application filed by Richfield City regarding property located at approximately 2225 South 100 West to be developed as a commercial park.    The address is actually closer to 2630 South 600 West.   That would be the northwest corner of the property.  There was no public input.  The hearing closed at 7:17 p.m.

4.     PUBLIC HEARING ( 7:17 p.m.).  Comments were received concerning a proposed amendment to the General Plan and Zoning Map allowing a rezone of the property located at 230 East 600 North, said zone to be changed from the R1-10 (Residential) zone to the CS zone (Commercial Shopping).  There were no comments.  Closed at 7:17 p.m.

5.     ZONE CHANGE.   Consideration was given to approving a zone change at 230 East 600 North.  John Spendlove is representing the property owner which is Sevier School District.  This property is east of the school district office.  They purchased the lot in order to build a parking lot so they can increase their off-street parking.  When they have meetings and training at this office, a lot of vehicles have to park on the street. 

Paul Hinrichs has set out some conditions he feels should be required as follows:  1) The zone needs to be changed from RM-11 to CS.   2)  Because the parking lot is considered accessory to the office building, the two properties need to be combined by deed restriction so one could not be sold without the other.  3) Separation from the residential zone with a 6-foot high masonry fence.  4)  Street improvements on 600 North must be extended from the west property line to the east property line.  5) Drainage to be disposed of in an engineered dry well system.  6)  Area between the north property line and the south side of the proposed sidewalk must be landscaped. 

Mr. Spendlove said the District will install the masonry fence.  Chairman Zobell wondered if the District can be required to install a masonry fence along the property where the existing building is.  That would be on the west side of the School District property where the property is adjacent to a residential use.  Chairman Zobell would ask that the School District consider doing that. 

A deed restriction will be filed.

As far as landscaping, the planter strip will have mulch with a few trees.   

Drainage will be addressed.    

There was discussion about lights.  They will add another light on 600 North.  It will be east of the driveway going into the new parking lot.  There will be lights in the parking lot.  The lights will be directional so the lights shine down.    

Chairman Zobell said he would recommend the lighting plan with the number of poles be given to Paul Hinrichs for his review.  The existing parking lot lights are very bright and disturbing to the neighbors.  Those lights need to be shielded.     

Steve Kunzler wondered about the curb and gutter and where that will drain.  Mr. Spendlove said it will drain to the east.  There is a catch basin where the curb and gutter ends now.  The new curb and gutter will be 134 feet.  He doesn’t think it makes sense to put in a catch basin for that little bit of curb. 

Pat Hansen motioned that recommendation be given to the City Council that the zone should be changed from RM-11 to CS for the property located at 230 East 600 North.  The plan for lighting should be given to Paul Hinrichs for his review.  A masonry fence shall be constructed where the property abuts residential property lines.  Steve Kunzler seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.    

6.     ANNEXATION.  Consideration was given to annexation of the property located at 2630 South between 500 and 600 West.  Richfield City is developing a commercial subdivision in this area.  The entire property will eventually be annexed, but it is being done in four phases.  The City only has an option to purchase on a portion of the property, which is why the whole thing isn’t being annexed.    

Steve Kunzler motions to approve the annexation of the property located at 2630 South between 500 and 600 West as described.  Stan Chappell seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.    

7.     COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.  Kimball Poulson and Ryan Savage presented plans for development the commercial subdivision being developed by the City.  Phase I will be comprised of six lots at 2-1/2 acres each.  That is the northwest side of the property.  Phase II will be the southwest corner of the property.     

Steve Kunzler asked what will be required as far as curb and gutter and other improvements.   Paul Hinrichs said that is a difficult question.  With the Wilkinson commercial subdivision, the Council agreed to let them put in improvements as the lots were sold.  This development is difficult as far as improvements because there are so many things that are contingent on the sewer project and funding.  It is unknown how much federal funding there will be until there is a potential tenant, and there can’t be a potential tenant until the subdivision is recorded.  Mr. Poulson said depending on federal funding, the City will do as much of the improvements as can be done when funding is received.  The City will comply the Ordinance, it’s just a question of funding. 

As far as access to the individual lots, that will be from the east-west road.  The two lots on the ends will be accessed individually and the two lots in the middle will share an access in order to limit access off of that road which will be a major collector road.  There will be no backing onto that road.  There will be no parking along the streets. 

Paul Hinrichs wondered about the roads going to the south.  Those are long streets without an outlet.  Mr. Savage said when the subdivision is further developed, there will be another road going east-west that will help with that.  Mr. Savage said if the City wants to, they could do a graveled temporary cul-de-sac. 

Typically the City has property owners do curb and gutter on their side of the road and asphalt on their side plus 10 feet of the road beyond the center which is equivalent to two travel lanes and a parking lane.   Because of large trucks, the City might want to have more asphalt.

Pat Hansen asked if there would be some type of separation or fencing between the lots.  Mr. Poulson said the CC&Rs aren’t completed, but fencing would be included in that.  The City is wondering about block or brick or whether to allow a composite material.  There will be fences and those will be required to be installed by the purchaser of each lot, but all fences will be the same. 

Mr. Savage said drainage will be handled on each lot.  That will be included in the CC&Rs.  Street drainage will drain to the east on 2630 South.  Both 500 and 600 West will drain to the north.    

Mr. Poulson showed the proposed sewer plan.  The City just got the money from CIB, but the funding won’t happen until June or July.  The plan for the sewer takes in the northeast section of town and also this area.  Jones & DeMille would like to make the lift station by

Wal-Mart expandable so it can handle more.  That is part of the funding but it is a lot of money so it may or may not happen depending on how far the funding goes. 

In connection with annexing the property where the County Road Department is located, will the County required to put in improvements?  Paul Hinrichs said that was another issue the DRC had.  That road needs to be a full street going into the commercial park off of the highway.  Mr. Savage said they need to discuss with UDOT as far as a turn lane from the highway.  The road by the County building is paved but there is no curb or gutter.    

Stan Chappell motioned to give preliminary approval for the Richfield Commercial Center to be located at approximately 2630 South between 500 and 600 West with the condition that the City comply with all of the subdivision development standards and with the condition that before any construction begins, the Planning Commission will see the improvement plans.   Approval is only being given for the first phase of the subdivision.  Eugene Beck seconded the motion.  The motion carried.

8.     DAVE HILDERBRAND MAJOR HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT.  Dave Hilderbrand was present to request a Major Home Occupation Permit allowing him to conduct his business called 4-D’s Electric at his home at 139 Redview Drive (R1-10 zone).  Mr. Hilderbrand just purchased the lot next door.  He will be putting a fence across the front setback.  There is a storage trailer there that will be moved.  There is only one employee so there isn’t a lot of traffic.  There are no retail sales that should cause any problems.  Mr. Hilderbrand does not store a lot of things.  Once in a while, he might have some inventory that sits there until he installs it.  He plans to put in the fence so that type of thing could be stored behind the fence.   The fence will be 6 feet tall, chain link with slats.  It will be set back 30 feet from the front property line.  He plans to put a small storage shed on the property as well.    

Paul Hinrichs advises the building can only be allowed as an accessory building.  However, it is not an accessory building because it would be on a separate lot.  It would have to be accessory to a primary use which would be a home.  Mr. Hilderbrand would have to file a document on the two lots saying that neither lot can be sold without the other lot for purposes right now, it would be considered one lot.  If the lots are divided in the future, then the City can make sure they are divided to meet zoning.    

Blake Zobell asked about the 30 feet of vacant property in front of the fence.  Mr. Hilderbrand agreed he will put gravel or something there so that it won’t just become weeds. 

Pat Hansen wondered if any of the neighbors have an issue with the fence.  The neighbor on the north does not have a problem.  The neighbor across the road has a 6-foot fence on their property.    

Stan Chappell motioned to grant a Conditional Use Permit allowing Dave Hilderbrand to conduct his business called  4-D’s Electric at his home at 139 Redview Drive (R1-10 zone) on the condition that he comply with the nine items as set forth on the Home Occupation application and the additional that a deed restriction shall be recorded stating that neither lot can be sold without the other.  The semi-trailer will be removed.   Eugene Beck seconded the motion.  The motion carried.

9.     SIGN ORDINANCE.  The sign ordinance was discussed.  Chairman Zobell said there were a few issues brought up concerning the sign ordinance at last month’s meeting.  One was the size of signs allowed.  Some felt that 100 square feet was too restrictive.  For a reference point, the sign at JRS Repair across the street from the City Office is 96 square feet.  The State Bank of Southern Utah sign is 96 square feet.  The Orem City Ordinance allows signs on their Main Street based on frontage.  Their signs can go up to 300 square feet.  Steve Kunzler pointed out that the JRS sign looks good for that size of building but on Ogden’s Carpet, that might be too small.  It seems a sign should be based somewhat in relationship to the size of building.  That is built into the proposed ordinance.  The proposed ordinance states the following as far as sign face:  “For walls less than 50 lineal feet, 30 square feet or 10% of the wall area.  For walls longer than 50 lineal feet and located immediately adjacent to a road or street, 30 square feet plus 1 square foot for each 10 lineal feet of wall length or part thereof in excess of 50 lineal feet.”  There is also a notation that the Planning Commission can exceed these standards on any project exceeding 2 acres in size.  Chairman Zobell feels like size shouldn’t be changed unless there is a reason to do it.  It has always been at 100 feet and there hasn’t been a problem with pole signs.  The wall signs are the ones where there has been a problem, but it appears that has been addressed in the ordinance.  It does not seem necessary to bungle up the Code with something that will hardly ever have to be addressed. 

The second issue brought up last month was the request for real estate signs to be larger than 6 square feet.  The concern was that when they have a cluster of signs, it might be more than 6 square feet.  Chairman Zobell said the ERA signs on Main Street are 2.5 square feet.  The proposed Code does allow 6 square feet.   Rather than allowing two real estate signs on corner lots, a sign can be placed diagonally so it can be seen from both streets. 

The third issue is banners.  There had been discussion that there needs to be a definition for “temporary banners.”  Size, time limits, and how they are installed needs to be determined.  It seems that 30 days is reasonable.  A banner that is no larger than 80 square feet seems adequate.  Paul Hinrichs also suggests that those need to be attached to the face of the building, parallel to the face of the building, but not stretched between two poles, light posts, or pillars.   There was also discussion that a business might think it is alright to put up a temporary banner for 30 days, take it down for a few days, and then put it back up for 30 days.  It was decided the Code should state they will be allowed for 30 days in a 90-day period.  There was discussion that the intent is not to prevent someone from advertising their business or a special sale with a banner, it is to level the playing field for those who are abiding by the rules of signs so they are not being injured in their practice because another business is using a banner as a permanent sign fixture. 

The Albertsons “chicken sale” signs were discussed.  Paul Hinrichs said when the issue first came up with Albertsons, the Chamber was supposed to get together and propose a standard sign that the City would allow so they would all look the same and wouldn’t just be two posts with chicken wire.  They were supposed to bring that proposal back to the City.    

Blake Zobell read the proposals received from the Chamber.  Their proposal would include three different categories for temporary signs.  It says “Temporary signs on a need basis, placed there until a permanent sign is installed.”  Signs are costly and it seems like most businesses wouldn’t want to spend the money on a temporary sign and the temporary sign might become permanent.  The second one is “A temporary sign used for special promotions.”  That would fall under “Temporary Banners.”  The third one would be “a temporary sign on a permanent structure with the face and message of the sign changing to advertise special promotions.”  Chairman Zobell said he thinks the intent of the “Temporary Banner” would address all of these issues. 

The other thing their consultant suggests is allowing what is called a “blade sign”.  It is a sign that is mounted to the face of a building and it sticks out over the public right-of-way.  Their consultant has recommended as follows:  “Blade signs should be allowed and encouraged as a preferred sign option for Main Street.  Blade sign design recommendations should be allowed projecting over sidewalks from the face of the building.  You may even consider a specific design, color, or profiles for Main Street businesses.  Blade signs should be required in addition to owner-designed wall signs.  There may be options, but I don’t see any allowance for blade signs in this ordinance and I encourage that such requirement be adopted.  If blade signs are allowed, and especially if the City adopts specific design criteria for blade designs on Main Street, appropriate graphics should be included.” 

There was discussion that the City doesn’t want signs hanging out over the public right-of-way.  What he is requesting is that we come up with an architectural standard, picking the colors, etc.  The above was recommended by the Chamber’s consultant and the Chamber came back with what they called “projection signs.”  They want projection signs allowed and limited to 15 square feet in area with a clearance of 7 feet and a sturdy, uncluttered bracket with no requirements on specific design and color.  They should look professional and be approved by the Planning Commission with requirements from the Main Street design committee.

The other thing the Chamber wanted is to allow sandwich board signs on the sidewalks.  Paul Hinrichs said that will never happen because there is too much liability for the City if someone trips over one and gets hurt.  It is difficult to control where they are placed and sometimes they end up in the site triangle.  They can fall over on someone’s car.   Chairman Zobell said the Chamber has recommended that it have a hinge so the wind doesn’t blow it over.  The Commission does not think the sandwich-board signs should be allowed, and there is also a question about allowing the blade signs to hang over the public right-of-way from a liability standpoint.  Paul Hinrichs said from looking at pictures, blade signs were allowed at some time in the past.  Some of those things change with the personal feelings of the Council or Commissions involved and trends of the times.  If the Planning Commission and City Council want to allow those, then maybe they can come up with three or four acceptable designs with the signs being a uniform size.    

It had also been recommended that the Commission look at Orem’s Ordinance.  Paul Hinrichs and Blake Zobell have looked that over and it is their opinion that the proposed Ordinance flows better than Orem’s. 

The sign ordinance will be discussed at next month’s meeting.    

10.     ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA.  Eugene Beck was appointed as Planning Commission Chair for this year.  He declines that appointment.  Blake Zobell was appointed as Co-Chair.  He will act as chair until the end of the year. 

11.     ADJOURNMENT.   The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.

PASSED AND APPROVED on the 6^th day of August, 2008.