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

Others Present:  Building Official Paul Hinrichs and Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis.   Also:  Ryan Savage, Tom Williams, Troy Tanner, Marena Tanner, Judy Magleby, Kelly Magleby, Stacy Heaps, Verl Bell, Kevin Chappell, Christopher Wehrli, Teri Miles-Wehrli,  Janae Blake, Larry Blake. Tonya Baily, Sharla Chappell, Val Chappell.   

2.     MINUTES APPROVAL.  The minutes of November 5, 2008, were reviewed.  The minutes need to be changed to show that Eugene Beck was present at that meeting.  Stan Poulson motioned to approve the minutes of November 5, 2008.   Pat Hansen seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

3.     PUBLIC HEARINGS. 

            A.  ( 7:03  p.m.)  A public hearing is held for the purpose of receiving comments concerning Ellen Blackburn’s request to subdivide the property located at 275 North 300 East and 297 North 300 East (lot split).  Present are Ryan Savage, Val and Sharla Chappell, and Tonya Bailey.  Mrs. Bailey explained that when her parents moved here in 1975, they bought the home at 297 North 300 East and there was enough property to build a new home.  The new home was built on the same lot, but there was never anything done to separate the homes onto separate lots.  Each home has its own utilities.  They are selling the home at 297 North 300 East, but found out they couldn’t because it wasn’t on a separate piece of property.  Because of the way the homes are situated, the lot has been split leaving parcel 2 with 6971 square feet which is below the required 8000 square feet for the RM-11 zone.  Parcel 1 has 11,762 square feet.  The Board of Adjustment has granted a variance for parcel 2.   There being no comments from the public, the hearing closed at 7: 04 p.m.

            B.  ( 7:04 p.m.) A public hearing is held for the purpose of receiving comments concerning the possibility of amending the Richfield City Zoning code to include a definition for body piercing establishments and determine in which zones to allow such use.  Camille Demille is present.  She has previously met with both the Commission and the City Council.  What those discussions led to is that the Code could possibly be changed to allow this use in the Downtown zone provided it is secondary to a primary business and with no advertising on the outside of the building.  There being no comments from the public, the hearing closed at 7: 05 p.m. 

4.    ELLEN BLACKBURN SUBDIVISION:  After public hearing, consideration is given to the request for dividing the property at 275 North 300 East and 297 North 300 East.  Paul Hinrichs said the Ordinance would require street improvements to be installed on 300 East, but the Commission has routinely been allowing people to sign a Waiver of Improvements so if that street is improved at any time in the future, they would go along with any kind of improvement district.  The Petitioners are in agreement with that.      

Stan Chappell motioned to recommend to the City Council that approval be given for the Ellen Blackburn Subdivision with the stipulation that street improvements on 300 East can be waived upon recording a Waiver of Improvements.  The property is located at 275 North 300 East and 297 North 300 East.  Stan Poulson seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

5.    DENNIS JORGENSEN DISCUSSION:  Dennis Jorgensen was not present.  The matter was tabled. 

6.    ZONING CODE (BODY PIERCING).  After public hearing, the Commission considered recommending to the Council the possibility of amending the Code to provide a separate definition for body piercing and establish the zones where body piercing can be allowed.  Currently the Zoning Code only makes note of body piercing in connection with tattoo establishments.  Camille DeMille owns a business called Be-U Boards which is located at 118 North Main (D zone).  The issue came up when Ms. DeMille called the City office to ask what she needed to do in order to be allowed to do body piercing at her store.  She was told she would need to comply with Department of Health standards.  She has complied with the Health Department requirements, but then found out that body piercing is not allowed in this zone.  She has been trained and provides a clean and sanitary place for piercing to be done.    Paul Hinrichs said tattoo establishments are allowed in commercial zones but not in the downtown zone.  Body piercing has not been addressed as a separate topic.    

Chairman Zobell said when the Code was drafted, we didn’t want body piercing and tattooing in the Downtown area.  What has been done in other cities is that body piercing is allowed as a secondary business and not advertised on the sign, and the body piercing can only be done from the waist up.   

Ms. DeMille states one reason she decided to do body piercing is that she has so many kids who come into her store.  They have been getting it done elsewhere and have infections or kids do it themselves and hurt themselves.  She is a licensed cosmetologist and when she realized how close she was to having a license, she went ahead and got her license.  She wanted to provide a safe, hygienic atmosphere for kids to get body piercings.  She knows they will get it done one way or another, so she can at least offer a good environment where it can be done.  She will only be piercing navels and above the neck.  She said it is very sanitary and she has had a lot of positive feedback from parents.  Parents have to be present and sign for the kids to have a pirecing.  Her main business is Be-U Boards.  She isn’t interested in tattooing.  She said beauty salons can do ear piercings, but they really aren’t trained and don’t have the equipment for other piercings.  She knows there is a lot of that going on and it is unsafe, unsanitary, and can leave scarring. 

The St. George definition was reviewed and the Commission would like to see something similar to that adopted.    

Stan Poulson motioned to recommend to the City Council that the Zoning Code be changed adding the following definition:  “Body Piercing:  The creation of an opening in the body of a human being for the purpose of inserting jewelry or other decoration.  This includes, but is not limited to, piercing of a lip, tongue, nose, eyebrow, navel or breast, excluding ear piercing.  This excludes genital piercing.”  Eugene Beck seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

The second part of this question is in which zones should this be allowed and what type of advertising will be allowed.  Paul Hinrichs stated a tattoo shop would be allowed in Commercial zones so it would be appropriate to allow body piercing in Commercial zones.  However, the Commission might want to consider allowing it as a secondary use in the Downtown Zone and limit how much advertising would be allowed Downtown.  Everything that is allowed in the Downtown Zone is a C-2 use which requires approval of the Planning Commission and the City Council.    

Stan Chappell motioned to recommend that the City Council consider amending the Use Table in the Zoning Code allowing body piercing as a secondary use (C-2 use) with no exterior signage in the D Zone and allowed as a primary use in the CS and CG zones (C1- use).   It would be disallowed in the Manufacturing zones.  The motion was seconded by Steve Kunzler. The motion carried unanimously.   

7.    MORRIS PARSONS (FED-EX) PARKING AT INDUSTRIAL PARK:  Ryan Savage represented Morris Parsons.  Mr. Parsons owns a  Fed-Ex business.  He parks his Fed-Ex trucks behind Deseret Industries.  Because of the creation of 800 South and a new business being constructed there, it has become necessary for him to move his business.  He is purchasing a lot at the Industrial Park.  The lot is on the west side of Industrial Park Road and is south of Modular One.  This is a C-1 use.  They have submitted plans showing landscaping and grading.   The landscape plan appears adequate. 

There will be chain link fence along the front of it matching what is existing in the Industrial Park.  The lights will be shielded.  Mr. Savage thinks the building will be metal; however, the plan shows a masonry building.  If it is masonry, that won’t be an issue; however, if it is a metal building there will have to be certain portions of it finished with a material other than metal.  The parking area will have to be concrete or asphalt.    

Mr. Savage said Mr. Parsons would like to place one of White’s portable storage units on the property.  Paul Hinrichs advises when Mr. Parsons gets his building permit, he can move a storage unit onto the property temporarily to help him with his transition.  Mr. Savage said Mr. Parsons is being forced out of his property immediately so needs somewhere to go now. 

Eugene Beck motioned to approve the project for the Morris Parsons facility and building at the Industrial Park.  They can have a portable storage shed on the site for six months during the construction phase.  Stan Poulson seconded the motion.  The motioned carried unanimously.

8.    STEVE REGAN COMPANY REVIEW:   The matter is tabled. 

9.    ZONING CODE:  Chapter 19 – Off street Parking and Loading.

       A.  Discuss parking for state-governed developments.  At last month’s meeting there was discussion concerning parking for multiple family units (5 units or more in a building).  The Code requires 1-1/2 parking spaces per bedroom.  The requirements of 1-1/2 parking spaces per bedroom was done anticipating that some multi-family units might have students living there.  However, there are situations where a multi-family unit development is governed by a State agency with very strict guidelines preventing it from being used as anything other than family housing, sometimes for a period as long as 99 years.  In that event, 1-1/2 parking spaces per bedroom might be excessive.  However, if they were only required to provide two spaces per unit as family dwellings are required, that does not leave enough parking for visitors.  It was decided to place the matter on tonight’s agenda for further discussion.  Paul Hinrichs said when the Planning Commission discussed this at the last meeting, it seemed like a reasonable thing to reduce the parking for these types of projects, but then the issue of visitor parking came up.  He has done some research on that.  Of the city ordinances he looked at, most do not address visitor parking.  Of the communities that did address visitor parking, they required either ¼ space per unit or ½ space per unit.  There was some discussion that requiring visitor parking at ¼ space per unit would probably be sufficient. 

The City has received an application proposing construction of this type of development at the northwest corner of 530 South and College Avenue.  Because of this, many people from that neighborhood are in attendance at this meeting.  Judy Magleby asked if the requirement for parking is changed, then this type of development can never be used for student housing.  She was told that is correct based on the financing they have.  Mrs. Magleby wondered who  governs that.  She was told the State agency that finances it.  She called HUD today and they don’t have financing.  Paul Hinrichs said the agreement with HUD is for the type of project.  He doesn’t think they financed it, but they probably have an agreement with HUD that prohibits it being used for student housing.  The only time they could have any kind of student housing is where a family had a spouse or a child in the family going to the school.   Mrs. Magleby wants to know what State agency will govern it.  Chairman Zobell said rather than calling it State-governed it could be referred to as State-funded and regulated.   Chairman Zobell said it would be governed by the State of Utah because they are the ones who are subsidizing the rent for the individuals who live there.  Mrs. Magleby said the information she was given today it that this is basically financing for subsidized housing and whoever owns the property, governs it themselves.  Chairman Zobell said that would be true, but they would have to abide by the regulations of the State of Utah and HUD who provides the financing. 

Tom Williams is present as the architect for the proposed development.  He said it is managed with on an-site manager.  Subsidized housing is heavily regulated.  If they become in violation, they lose the benefits of tax credits.  It is very strict and is a 99-year agreement with heavy penalties.  They do background checks.  They don’t allow unmarried couples.  There can be no junk cars, no trailers.  Typically what they see in these apartments are single parents with kids and it helps them find a place to live and eventually go on to buy a house.  Every ground floor apartment has to comply with ADA requirements.  Others can be allowed to live there and pay the rent but they are not allowed to be unmarried couples or students.  He said they might have two cars.  Kelly Magleby said one of the neighborhood’s concerns is that if the City changes the parking requirements to be less restrictive for these types of projects, then even if the investors wanted to give up their tax credits, the facility could not  be changed to college housing because it wouldn’t comply with the City’s parking requirements for student housing.  If the college grows, it could never be used for student housing even given its close proximity to the college. 

Kevin Chappell said he has lived in low-income housing and there is never enough parking. 

Mr. Williams said they have drawn the plans allowing two parking spaces per unit with some additional parking and it makes parking come in at right around 2-1/4 spaces per unit.  It would be a sea of asphalt if they have to comply with the City’s parking ordinance as it stands now.  Some of the units have four bedrooms which would require six parking spaces per unit.  Chairman Zobell said he understands what the neighbors are saying and that is they would rather the City err on the side of being generous with parking so there would be adequate parking if it were ever changed to student housing.   

Paul Hinrichs said the parking issue could be addressed with a deed restriction stating that parking was based on multi-family housing and not student housing.  That way if it were ever converted, it would have to come back to the City for approval and removal of that deed restriction.  It could never become student housing without adequate parking.  Mrs. Magleby wonders why they would want to do that when it is so close to a college.  Mr. Williams said this is the type of business his client does.  They build these affordable housing units and they don’t convert them to student housing.    

Mrs. Magleby said she has been given the understanding that when the City Council annexed the property and gave it the RM-11 zone, the Council had been led to believe the property was being developed as student housing.  She wonders if the Council would have accepted the annexation and zoning of the property if it had realized the property was being developed as affordable housing rather than student housing.  (Council minutes from September 2007 and August 2008 reflect that the Council was aware the property was intended to be used for affordable housing.) 

Chairman Zobell directed discussion back to the parking issue and whether the Commission wants to amend the parking requirements.  The Commission needs to look at this question as a whole for Richfield City.  If this project were on the other side of the city, would it make sense to change the parking requirement, or does the Commission think that going down to two parking spaces per unit is not sufficient parking.  That is really the question before the Planning Commission. 

Paul Hinrichs said the wording “State-governed” would need to be changed to something meaning this type of housing cannot be converted to student housing or something to the effect that will have to remain family housing or non-student housing.  We would have to get with our attorney on that.  The Council can take the recommendation or not.  He reiterates that when the parking ordinance was done, we were trying to address projects that could start out as family housing but might later become student housing and then have parking problems.  The Commission didn’t take into account at that time that there are developments where it is highly unlikely for that happen because of restrictions and penalties under the type of funding they have.  

Chairman Zobell points out this property is not very walkable friendly to City services so most residents will have at least one car and probably two.   If the Commission wants to modify the parking and continue to err on the generous side of parking, then two spaces per unit is probably not enough.   Stan Poulson wondered if a tenant has recreational vehicles could those could be parked here.  Mr. Williams said if they own an RV, it can’t be stored onsite.  

Paul Hinrichs points out the way the Ordinance currently reads, if this development consisted of 4-plex buildings, then it would only be required to have two spaces per unit regardless of whether it was student housing or family housing.     

Chairman Zobell said the Commission needs to decide if they want to change the Ordinance.   If the Commission wants to change it,  then they need to come up with a number of parking spaces.  Student housing definitely needs to have 1.5 spaces per bedroom.  The question would be how to define student housing as compared to what isn’t student housing.  If the ordinance is left the way it is, it doesn’t matter whether it is student housing or not, there will be sufficient parking.  Otherwise, the Commission will have to come up with wording to differentiate between the two types of housing and how to monitor it.    

Stan Poulson motioned that the Parking Ordinance should remain as it is.  Eugene Beck seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.    

       B.  Discuss parking as applies to single family dwelling, 2-family, 3-plex, or 4-plex, and condominium dwellings.  Table 19-1 of the Zoning Code currently requires two parking spaces for a single family dwelling, 2-family, 3-plex, or 4-plex, and condominium dwellings which implies that a 4-plex would only need two parking spaces rather than two parking spaces for each unit.  The words “per dwelling unit” need to be added.    

Pat Hansen motioned that a public hearing should be set to take comments concerning amending Table 19-1 of the Zoning Code.  The Code would be changed to reflect that a single family dwelling, 2-family, 3-plex, or 4-plex, and condominium dwellings require 2 parking spaces per unit.  Stan Chappell seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.    

10.  MT. CATHERINE APARTMENTS REVIEW:  Tom Williams is present to discuss the project called Mt. Catherine Apartments which is to be located at the northwest corner of 530 South College Avenue.  The project is an affordable housing development.  Mr. Williams said he sees no point in making his presentation based on the discussion and motion concerning parking.  His plan shows 2-1/4 spaces per unit.  If the Code is not changed, then there is no reason to go forward with the presentation.  He said the development really is deed restricted through the State.  It is not student housing.  He said he could discuss it but it would be pointless since the plan as drawn does not meet the parking requirement.  He thinks it is likely his client will appeal the parking requirement.  Chris Wehrli said he would like to hear exactly what the project entails.  Chairman Zobell said in fairness to the project, the Commission would like to hear Mr. Williams.

Mr. Williams said the development is comprised of 48 units.  They have spent a lot of effort and time in designing the development.  They have had to do studies along the freeway which is why the configuration is the way it is.  They moved apartments away from the freeway so they can have distance for sound.  They have provided adequate landscaping.  There will be an on-site live-in manager.  There will be a playground.  The units range in size from two-bedroom to four-bedroom townhouses that are 1200 square feet.  They have provided fire lanes.  As far as parking, what they typically see in other jurisdictions is a requirement of two parking spots per unit.  He said in areas around Boise State University, they require one parking space per bedroom.    

Mr. Williams said they do have some nice elevations.  It is a mix of vinyl siding and stone veneer.  They chose the vinyl because of the maintenance.  Chairman Zobell cautioned Mr. Williams that with the wind here, some of the apartments that have vinyl siding need to be constantly repaired.  Mr. Williams doesn’t think that would be a deal breaker and they could do something other than vinyl.    

Mr. Williams said they do intend to do a senior development immediately to the north.  The acreage is 3.98 acres.  There will be chain link fence along the canal. 

Pat Hansen said as far as a site for apartments, it has the freeway on one side and the canal on the other side and that concerns her as a parent. 

Janae Blake wondered about accessibility.  She is concerned with the traffic at this intersection which is a 4-way stop.  Paul Hinrichs advises the traffic engineer is looking at it but we haven’t heard back from him.    

Mr. Williams said they have addressed all of the issues discussed by the DRC.  He said it comes down to the parking issue.  He reiterates this is not student housing and won’t become student housing.

Chris Wehli said he has some comments.  He will be speaking as a representative of the people who live kitty corner from the development.  They have appointed him as their spokesman.  He said as a neighborhood they met and discussed several points.  Their comments have been typed up and will be left for review but he will discuss several of the points.  The major concern is that the southwest quadrant of town has approximately 12 multi-family dwellings.   He understands that the Council and Commission have discussed at length on many occasions that apartments need to be put in other quadrants of the City.  They feel like it would be inappropriate to allow another multi-family unit in this area, regardless of what type it would be. 

This will be subsidized housing and there are negative connotations that go along with that.  In this particular area, there are homes with values that are much higher than average in the community.  There is the economic effect that low-income housing has on adjacent property values. 

Another concern is they don’t think it is appropriate to put multi-family low-income dwellings on this property when the college is so close and it could be better utilized as student housing.   The general plan for the college is for expansion and emphasis on Sevier Valley Center and the college.  Currently enrollment is down at Snow College in Ephraim but it is up at Snow College South in Richfield.  It is his understanding that the City and college would like to promote the college and make that more of a focal point in this area.  Putting low-cost houing in the middle or adjacent to that does not seem to be a wise move. 

They have talked about safety and traffic issues.  Currently there are no pedestrian walkways until the bike path which is north of the college ball fields.  There are plans to bring the bike path south.  Recently a sidewalk has been installed on 530 South, but there are no sidewalks going along College Avenue to the south.  The Rotary Park is on that road and creates an attractive nuisance.  This development will increase pedestrian traffic as well as automobile traffic.    

Another item is that south of the Rotary Park, the school district owns property and there as been talk about building a high school there which again exasperates the amount of traffic and pedestrian use.    

They are concerned with the proximity to I-70.  When some of the other lower income apartments were built in the City, they looked nice.  But now they don’t look great.  They feel like this affects marketing/advertising for the City.  They would hope that along I-70 there won’t be something constructed that becomes unkempt or disheveled looking. 

Another concern is the effect on the tax base.  This adds a strain on the already strained charitable institutions around town.  With the economy that is being experienced currently, food banks are already running low.  Adding to that burden is a concern, and specifically in this quadrant of town that is already overburdened.    

Some other negative aspects of low income housing include that large apartment complexes generally add an increase in traffic, crimes, abuse, police activity.  They are not opposed to development of this property but are opposed to this type of development in this location specifically given its proximity to their homes and families.  They don’t feel like there is really a need for low-income housing at this time.  There are vacancy signs in many of the existing apartment complexes so it doesn’t seem like there is a huge need for another 48+ units.   

They presented a petition stating opposition to the construction of the Mt. Catherine development.  The petition has roughly 100 names on it

Mr. Williams reiterated there will be live-in managers who police enforcements.  The property is zoned for apartments.  Another developer could have brought in a project for student housing and no on-site manager with 248 parking spaces.  There wouldn’t be much that could be done to deny that.  He would encourage the Commission and public to weigh that against a project like this and think about it.  They do not allow unmarried couples, unmarried roommates.  They do background checks and screen out felonies.  A convicted felon cannot live there. 

Chairman Zobell asked if Mr. Williams would provide the Commission with a copy of the application.

Steve Kunzler asked if they have done studies to see if there is a need for affordable housing in this area.  Mr. Williams said he has not done that, but apparently the State of Utah has and has said there is a need.   

Mr. Williams said it is not his client’s intention to be confrontational.  The developer is CDI who puts a project together and then sells it to a syndication for tax credits. 

Chairman Zobell encouraged the Planning Commission members to review the Zoning Code and also chapters in the General Plan which the Commission needs to be familiar with. 

11.  CONSIDER LIGHTING PLAN FOR FED-EX PROPERTY IN NEW RICHFIELD COMMERCIAL PARK:  Kimball Poulson was present to discuss the lighting plan for the Fed-Ex property located in the Richfield Commercial Park.  The plan showing the placement of lights is adequate.  Mr. Poulson asked what type of light would the Planning Commission recommend?  Chairman Zobell said it is probably not that big of an issue in that location.   Paul Hinrichs said the Ordinance states lighting should not be intrusive to other properties.  If there are complaints, then they can change the angle or baffle it. 

Steve Kunzler motioned to approve the lighting plan for the Fed-Ex property at the Richfield Commercial Park and encourage that they use the sodium, amber-toned bulbs, with the understanding that if there is a need to adjust the lights, they will shield them, based on complaints by a majority of home owners in the area.  Stan Poulson seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.    

12.  ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA.   Dennis Jorgensen will be placed on the next agenda. 

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

PASSED AND APPROVED this 7^th day of January, 2009.

/s/  Michelle Curtis

       Deputy City Recorder