1.         Roll Call.

            2.         Approval of Minutes

            3.         Public Hearing:  Sign Ordinance

            4.         Gayle and Karen Eyre Request

            7.         Discuss corner setbacks in non-residential zones.

            8.         Discuss Sign Ordinance and consider motion.

            9.         Items for Next Agenda

            10.       Adjournment

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

Others Present:  Building Official Paul Hinrichs, Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis, Katie Tolbert, Lisa Cleaveland, Joe Maestas, Lorraine Gregerson, Jerry Larsen, Curt Spencer. 

2.     MINUTES APPROVAL.  The minutes of August 6, 2008, were reviewed.  Item no. 5 on page 1 needs to be deleted and the outline renumbered.  Sue Southwick motioned to approve the minutes of August 6, 2008, as amended.  Stan Chappell seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

3.     PUBLIC HEARING.  ( 7:07 p.m.)  A public hearing was held to receive comments concerning revisions to Chapter 20 of the Richfield City Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to signs.  There are members of the Chamber of Commerce present to discuss this issue; however, they didn’t realize the meeting was tonight and have not had a chance to read the draft which is 38 pages long.  Therefore, this will be discussed in more detail and questions answers under item 8 below.      

4.     GAYLE AND KAREN EYRE.  The Eyres were not present.  This matter was tabled. 

5.     KATIE TOLBERT – KIOSK BUSINESS.  Katie Tolbert was present to discuss plans for a kiosk business to be located at the southeast corner of 400 South Main (in front of Ogden’s Carpet) (CS zone).  Ms. Tolbert plans to sell specialty drinks at the kiosk.  The building will be 10’ x 16 ‘.  The walls are 8-1/2 feet tall.  It is yellow with white trim.  On the front there will be an 8’x4’ porch with awnings.  The roof is pitched. 

The building will sit 81 feet back from Main Street.  She would like the building to sit 10 feet from the curb on the south side.  The Zoning Code states that setbacks in commercial zones shall be 25 feet in the front with 10 feet on the sides.  There is no reference to corner lots.  Ms. Tolbert wants the 10-foot setback on the south for safety reasons because she will have tables on the east side and doesn’t want cars to be able to drive around from the south.  The sidewalk is 6 feet wide.  Paul Hinrichs suggests the south side could be considered more of a side yard rather than requiring two front yard setbacks since the building will sit back 81 feet and won’t interfere with the safety triangle.  Because of the 6-foot sidewalk and curb, the building will still sit a good 25 feet from the curb on the south side.    

Originally, the Planning Commission had approved the kiosk on the northeast corner of this block.  Ms. Tolbert had to change that plan because it would have been a sublease from NAPA.  When they tried to get permission from the large corporation in Texas, it just didn’t work out.  It turns out this corner will be more convenient as it will be easier for her to hook onto sewer and water.  Because the building will be there longer than 60 days, the Health Department is requiring her to do that even though it building won’t be physically attached to the ground. 

Ms. Tolbert has arranged for White’s Painting to stripe a drive-through which will be a length of 120 feet.  The driveway enters from Main Street, goes south a short distance, then west, and then exits on 400 South.  Jerry Larsen, the owner of Ogden’s Carpet and lessor of the property, wanted the drive-through situated in such a way that people will face his building while they are parked in the drive-through. 

The drawing shows the driveway going parallel right next to the sidewalk on the Main Street side.  The driveway should not be right next to the sidewalk as it could create a safety issue.  It will be set 10 feet back away from the sidewalk that runs north-south because there should be a buffer between the sidewalk and the drive-through approach.  That would be safer and easier for traffic. 

Landscaping was discussed.  It was pointed out there is a pole on the south corner that has a small area of dirt.  Landscaping could be put on that corner.  It could be xeriscape.  Ms. Tolbert said there will be pots around the building and hanging pots on the porch.    

Steve Kunzler motioned to recommend to the city Council that approval be given for the layout for Katie’s Cup providing that the drive-through striping be moved 10 feet to the west for traffic flow, landscaping on the corner, and potted plants.  The sewer connection issue will be worked out with the City.  Sue Southwick seconded the motion.  The motion carried.   

6.     CHRIS FORYSTH – AUTO ZONE DEVELOPMENT.  Chris Forsyth was not present to request approval of landscaping plans and setbacks for the Auto Zone/Aron’s Rents project at 800 South Hwy 118.  (CS zone).  This will be discussed at the end of the agenda.

7.      DISCUSS CORNER SETBACKS IN NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONES.   There was discussion concerning corner setbacks in non-residential zones.  In residential zones, the Zoning Code allows corner lots to have a 30-foot setback on one street and a 20-foot setback on the other street.  However, in commercial zones, the Code requires a front yard setback of 25 feet and side yard setbacks of 10 feet.  There is no discussion concerning corner lots in non-residential zones.  Stan Poulson expressed his opinion that the site triangle is what is important.   Stan Chappell thinks there should be some consideration given to the business that would be sitting behind a building that has a smaller setback on one side on a corner.   Paul Hinrichs advises the site triangle doesn’t pose a problem because setbacks are measured from the property line and usually the property line is set back from the curb and sidewalk.  If a business is required to be set back 25 feet along one street and then 10 feet on the other street, the site triangle is maintained. 

8.      DISCUSS AMENDED SIGN ORDINANCE.    Lorraine Gregerson advises the Chamber had spent a lot of time studying and reviewing a previous draft of the Sign Ordinance.  They gave written recommendations to the Commission.  Because she just received this new draft, she is trying to remember what some of those thoughts were and wonders if any of those ideas have been incorporated into this draft. 

Chairman Zobell gave an update of what changes have been made in this draft.  This draft does look drastically different from the last draft because the Commission adopted the comment from one of the business owners that the previous draft was too large and cumbersome and suggested it should look something more like Orem City’s Sign Ordinance.  The Commission took that recommendation and drafted the Ordinance accordingly. 

The Commission also gave consideration to suggestions concerning banners and inserted a definition for temporary banners and addressed the size of those and the duration those can be hung.  Other than that, the main body has stayed intact.  It has just been formatted differently.  As far as sign dimensions, those stayed the same as the first draft.  Paul Hinrichs advises that the Chamber’s recommendation was that signs should be almost double in size, but the Commission has left the sizes the same except for larger projects which allow more wall signs.  The maximum height for pole signs has been changed from 35 feet to 25 feet.  Also addressed was allowing more pole signs on large projects consisting of 2 acres or more and signs in the freeway overlay zone can be taller.  Those are the major changes since the last review.      

Mrs. Gregerson wanted to know if banners advertising something like a one-day sale will be required to get a permit.  The answer to that is no.  Jerry Larsen wondered what the difference is between a temporary sign and a banner?  Chairman Zobell explained a new category was created for banners so that a banner doesn’t require an application or permit but it can still be regulated in the sense that if it has been up too long, is tattered and worn, or stretched between two buildings, it can be required to be taken down.  Banners can only be on the face of the building.      

Lorraine Gregerson asked about blade signs.  Those will be allowed as long as they don’t project into the public right-of-way.  As an example, the signs at Expressions by Design are legal because that building is recessed.  On another building, those wouldn’t be legal.  The City doesn’t want to take the liability of having someone hurt by a sign in the public right-of-way.

Jerry Larsen wondered about the size of banners?  Page 15 states a banner is not to exceed 20% of the wall area to which it is attached.  Mr. Larsen points out the ATV Jamboree will be in town in the next few weeks.  His store does not sit right on the street so he would like to put a banner in the front part of his parking lot that says “Welcome ATV Jamboree.”  He was told a sign like that could only be on the building.  Curt Spencer pointed out that some businesses are putting banners on poles.  They have to be attached to a building.  Mr. Larsen thinks that eliminates the possibility of doing some really good advertising.  Steve Kunzler said on certain properties it might not be a problem to allow that, but the Commission tried to make this manageable and if the Code starts to spell out every little thing that is or isn’t allowed, then it becomes too cumbersome.  Jerry Larsen wondered if there couldn’t be a provision that there could be exceptions and the Commission will look at those on a case-by-case basis for exceptions to the rule.  He was told that is what the Commission is trying to get away from is making people have to come in for permits.  It needs to be standardized so it is fair for everyone. 

Pat Hansen wonders if there could be some wording which would allow exceptions for banners during times of special events such as the ATV Jamboree.  Perhaps that could be inserted where there is a provision for Holiday signs (page 16 and 17) that allows signs for national, state, or local holidays.  Maybe that could be changed to say “local holidays or events.”  There was discussion concerning that, but there is always some group who would want exceptions for their special events and where do you draw the line?  Lisa Cleaveland points out as the Travel Council brings in more and more events, those people do need to be made to feel welcome.  Perhaps it could be based on the size of the event.  Pat Hansen points out the State Fire Convention will be held here next year and there should be some way to have signs welcoming them.    

Sue Southwick suggests maybe “events” could be added on page 13 where it defines “ Holiday (seasonal) sign.”   That definition includes farmer’s markets, and Christmas tree lots.  It could include “events.”  Curt Spencer suggests “events” could be spelled out because some might construe a special summer sale as an event.  Maybe it could be specified as a community event.  A definition could be added for a “community event sign.”  Paul Hinrichs suggests specifically naming the ATV Jamboree.  Pat Hansen points out there are many other things that come to the community such as state basketball tournaments, volleyball, etc.  We want those events here and should welcome them. 

Chairman Zobell said the Ordinance doesn’t say they can’t put banners up, but just limits where they can put them.  Sometimes businesses put these signs up in the site triangle.  It creates a public safety hazard.  This doesn’t prevent businesses from putting banners up, but regulates where they can put them up.

Paul Hinrichs said on page 13 he isn’t quite sure how to specify that for certain events, the banner section doesn’t apply.   Steve Kunzler said the City needs to do everything it can to help businesses advertise, but the line has to be drawn as to what is acceptable and what isn’t.  How can the enforcer of the ordinance ever keep up with it if the Ordinance is not clear and easy to follow?  The line of what is acceptable has to be defined.

Chairman Zobell asked that the Commission and Chamber look over the draft carefully.  He thinks the Chamber will probably see that it is reasonable.  The Commission has considered it carefully and wants to help businesses.  The Commission doesn’t want to put Sign Central out of business.  It doesn’t want to endanger the public, and it doesn’t want to overburden the Zoning Administrator with enforcement issues.  He asks that everybody study the draft and if they have comments or changes, please get those back to Michelle Curtis by September 25^th.     

Curt Spencer commended the Commission and thinks they have done a great job with the draft.  He can see that it was a large job.  Of course there will be some controversy over things like banners, but he understands the reasoning and that somehow it has to be enforced.  Jerry Larsen also appreciates what has been done and appreciates that the Commission has not rammed it down the business owners’ throats and has listened to their comments and worked on it.

(The sign ordinance needs to clarify that signs must be parallel to the wall and attached to the structure of the building.) 

6. (con’t.)    AUTO ZONE SITE PLAN.   Auto Zone will be located on 800 South Hwy 118.  The building is located 10 feet from the curb on both 800 South and Main Street.  The building faces north.  After discussing the issue it was decided the building will have to be set back from Main Street 25 feet.  The setback on the 800 south will be alright if it is 10 feet from the property line because the site triangle will be preserved.  Main Street will be considered the frontage.   

9.      ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA.  The Sign Ordinance will be placed on the agenda next month for discussion.  It was pointed out that the final decision is going to have to be made on the Sign Ordinance and then the City will have to stick with it.  It could go on forever being picked apart.   A public hearing will be set concerning corner setbacks.

10.     ADJOURNMENT.  The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1^ST day of October, 2008.