COUNTY OF SEVIER 

CITY OF RICHFIELD

                                                                               At the Planning Commission

                                                                               In and For Said City

                                                                               July 1, 2009

            Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, July 1, 2009, at 7:00 p.m., Chairman Blake Zobell, presiding.

            1.    Roll Call.

            2.    Approval of Minutes.

            3.    Richfield Fire Center.  

            4.    Jeff Henderson to discuss two-lot subdivision.

            5.    Mt. Catherine Apartments to be located at the northwest

                   corner of 530 South and College Avenue (C-1 use). 

            6.    Items for Next Agenda.

            7.    Adjournment.

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

Others Present:  Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis.    Building official Paul Hinrichs was excused. 

2.    Minutes Approval.  The minutes of June 3, 2009, were reviewed.  Steve Kunzler was not in attendance at that minute and will shown as excused on the roll call.  Stan Poulson motioned to approve the minutes of June 3, 2009.   Sue Southwick seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

3.     Richfield Fire Center.  Discuss the use of Lot 2, Richfield Industrial Park, for storage purposes.  The matter was tabled because there was no one present on behalf of the Fire Center. 

4.    Jeff Henderson Subdivision.  Jeff Henderson was present to discuss a two-lot subdivision to be located at approximately 475 North 300 East.  The property is in the RM-11 zone.  Mr. Henderson originally planned to construct a double duplex on the property, but the appraisal was too low.  The cost of building the duplexes was more than the appraisal.   Therefore, Mr. Henderson would like to split the property into two lots, leaving the option open that the square footage of each lot is such that he could build a duplex on each lot.  His plan is to start with a family residence that is designed in such a way that it could be added onto or used as a duplex in the future.   He plans to build a single family residence on the front lot initially and either live in it for a couple of years or, if the money comes in that he expects, he will remodel it into a duplex and then build a duplex on the back lot. 

Each lot will be 11,502 square feet which meets the minimum square footage required to build a duplex on each lot.    

There was discussion concerning curb, gutter, asphalt, and sidewalk.  There are none of those improvements on this street nor on neighboring streets.  There is a sidewalk in front of the house just south of this property.   If he is not required to install these improvements, he will have to enter into an agreement with the City Council agreeing not to protest a special improvement district if one is created in the future. 

Chairman Zobell points out the flag lot would have to have the flagpole maintained as a driveway for the back lot.  That would have to be concrete or asphalt. The flagpole portion of the property is considered in the total square footage of the back lot.  It is 20 feet wide.

Mr. Henderson is aware of the impact fees he will be required to pay.  He understands he will also have the additional cost of running utilities to the back property.    

Mr. Henderson did state that he had planned on doing improvements because he thought that would be a City requirement; however, Paul Hinrichs had indicated there was a possibility of signing a Waiver.  He realizes the Planning Commission would need to make a recommendation to the City Council in order to allow that.    

This will be set for a public hearing next month.

5.   Mt. Catherine Apartments.  John Spendlove is present to discuss the Mt. Catherine apartments to be constructed at the northwest corner of 530 South and College Avenue (C-1 use).  Tom Williams and Doug Crowther are also present. 

Mr. Crowther said the main sticking points they have been a couple of issues such as the intersection improvements, widening of the bridge, and the box culvert that crosses over the canal.  They have come up with plans for that.  They have made phone calls to the canal company, but the canal company hasn’t really told them what a formal process would be to go through with them.  John Spendlove said in the past the canal company has had developers execute an agreement with them agreeing that the developer will restore the canal after improvements are done.    

Mr. Crowther said the one main comment they have worked on is that there was a temporary fence being shown on the north boundary of the property.  They have decided that rather than putting in a temporary fence, they would rather put in the permanent fence along the canal.  It makes more sense to do that than to build something temporary and have to tear it out later.  They hope to get going on Mt. Catherine within the next 60 to 90 days and then hopefully start Vesper Hills Senior Center.  The purpose of the temporary fence would be to keep people from going onto the property on north before it is developed, and keep small children out of the canal until it does develop.  It makes more sense to put the fence along the canal now. 

The Development Review minutes were reviewed as follows:

1. The plan shows the canal bridge being widened.  Brian Barton needs to review this to make sure this meets the latest transportation recommendation.  John Spendlove met with Brian Barton last week and he will have comments on that.  Mr. Spendlove said this is probably answered more completely in connection with no. 4. 

2.  Need to receive approval from the canal company concerning the extension of the culvert over the canal and also the street drainage.  This approval needs to be in writing.   They are in the process of receiving that approval.  The Commission needs to see something in writing showing that the canal company approves. 

 3.  On their side of 530 South, they are installing curb, gutter, and sidewalk which ends before the culvert.  Brian Barton needs to review that.  Brian Barton’s notes reflect that the proposed storm drain pipe and wing wall is acceptable as long as the canal company agrees to this discharge and discharge location.  Surface grading behind the wing walls needs to be shown on the plans to provide the property surface drainage away from and around the wing wall structures. 

4.  Woody suggested that Brian Barton look at the intersection costs and the possibility of collecting a fee now for future intersection development.  How much would that fee be?  Is the proposed intersection adequate for now?  The cost could be recovered by an area impact fee.   Mr. Spendlove said they don’t have grades, but they have a horizontal alignment for that intersection and they did a preliminary cost estimate.  The developer actually gave up a little more property at the southeast corner to better align that intersection. 

Mr. Spendlove said the real question is what improvements need to be done now with this development or what would be put off and done later.  What they are proposing is that right now they would widen the box culvert, plus they are making the improvements on the west side of 530 South in front of their property.  He thinks if they do anymore to that intersection, then the whole thing needs to be done because they need to raise the grade of the intersection.

Mr. Crowther said the amount of traffic that they are going to cause may or may not warrant the improvement of the intersection in whole.  He feels what is fair is that they do their portion of it.  A lot of the main portion of those costs is going to be putting the box culvert extension in there.

Steven Kunzler commented that there are issues at the intersection already.   This will add to those issues.  It has been looked at by the traffic engineer.  Mr. Spendlove said it is his understanding that it is below the threshold of requiring an actual traffic count at that intersection.  Tyler Hoskins, the traffic engineer, has looked at it and he has reviewed the plan for that intersection realignment.  Mr. Kunzler said he is not saying that this developer should bear anymore cost, but he wonders if now isn’t the time to when it should be constructed and done right and then have some sort of impact fee. 

Mr. Crowther said he thinks that is the main gist of what they came out of from the City Council meeting.  There just isn’t an avenue to take and be able to get an impact fee at this time.  They had even said they would pay their portion now if they wanted to do it all at once later on or something like that.  It was pretty much the feeling was that the Council really wanted them to get the bridge widened out and get their portion done.  The Council seemed like they wanted the developer to get their part done so the road wouldn’t have to be due up later on.  He said they actually talked about a round-about  but it would have literally taken people’s property so they are trying to work it out so it doesn’t take people’s land in the long run.  They reworked it so that wouldn’t be necessary anymore. 

The developer is agreeing to widen the bridge so that it is wide enough for the future realignment of that intersection.  They are adding on 23 feet to the north and 20 feet to the south. 

5.   Drainage, water, and sewer plans need to be reviewed by Brian Barton.  The plan does provide dry wells on-site.  The water line loops around the whole project and stubs out on the north at two places for the purpose of servicing the Vesper Hills project.   The water line that loops around is 8 inches.    

6.   Brian Burrows needs to approve the location and number of fire hydrants.   The buildings will be fire sprinklered.  Fire hydrants will be installed per code and Brian Burrows (Fire Chief) will have to look at that. 

7.  Sewer goes along the fire lane and stubs out at the north end.  The plan shows that sewer and water will be extended to the west property line.  They are extending the sewer and water lines to the west property line on 530 South.  Those will end just before the freeway underpass.   

8.  There needs to be some type of fence or something for traffic safety on the west side of the culvert.  It looks like a very steep drop.  Possibly need to put in a railing on the bridge.  John Spendlove said he thinks the plan is confusing because they have shown the box culvert extension and it shows the existing contours.  They will be backfilling up to the box culvert.  The plan needs to show their finish contours that slope away from the box culvert.   

9.  The plan needs use the correct typical road section for a 66-foot right-of-way.   John Spendlove said they have used the correct typical section.  They are providing a 6-foot sidewalk at the back of the curb and the planter strip is behind the back of the sidewalk rather than have a planter between the curb and sidewalk.  He said the confusion comes from the plan where it says the dimension varies.  The reason they did that is because as it goes to the east to the intersection, the planter strip narrows because the road widens to provide a center turn lane at the intersection.  They will revise their drawing and then make a note that it changes as it gets closer to the intersection.   There is not a sidewalk on the bridge.  Their property ends at the canal and they don’t feel they should be required to do the sidewalk on property that isn’t theirs.  When the entire intersection is completed, the sidewalk would be installed then.  At some time in the future it is planned the sidewalk will go across the canal. 

10.  Parking is adequate at 121 spaces which is a little more than 2-1/2 spaces per unit.

11.   Landscaping is adequate at 16%.  The developer will want to consider installing a second water meter for landscaping purposes.  Landscaping at 16% is well above the required 10%.  There are several trees planned for the west side of the development which will act as a buffer from the freeway.  Chairman Zobell said his concern would be that sometimes developments want to take occupancy during the winter and say they will put in the improvements in the spring.  By then, they have run out of money and it is difficult to get the landscaping put in.  If they want to take occupancy at a time when they can’t get landscaping done because of weather, then they need to be prepared to put up a performance bond.  They agree with this.

12.   Water meter detail needs to be updated per Public Works Director Gary Barney for the correct manufacturer model number.  Provide a new drawing showing a different type of setter.  Mr. Spendlove said the City changed the typical water meter detail about three weeks ago which is when they were in the process of finishing these plans and he wasn’t aware of that.  They will make that change and use the current standard drawing.  They will also want to install a separate water meter for irrigation.  There will be a meter directly to the west of the community building.  There is also a meter southwest of the community building and that one is noted for the irrigation connection. 

13.   Fence shown on detail 6/A1.2 shows a cedar board fence which is 6 feet tall along the canal.  It appears to meet City Ordinance as found in section 16.20 of the zoning code.  Fence will separate project from the canal.    The fence is on the east property line.  The plan shows a 6-foot cedar fence.  There had been previous discussion about requiring a masonry fence.  They really cannot afford to do that.  It is the opinion of the Commission that there isn’t anything in the Code which allows the Commission to require a masonry fence.  Chairman Zobell said he thinks there was discussion early on about requiring them to fence the west side.  There is already an existing UDOT fence and it seems if they put in another fence on the west, it will just become an alleyway for trash between the two fences.  The 6-foot cedar fence on the east side of the property is adequate. 

14.  There are two street lights shown on 530 South.  Those will have to be to City standards.  Recommend the same lights as have been used on College Avenue.   All parking lot lights and street lights will have to be approved by UDOT due to proximity of I-70.  Mr. Spendlove said the light shown on the detail sheet is the city standard for residential but now the City is recommending the same lights that were used on College Avenue which are shielded down.  They agree with that. 

15.  A preconstruction meeting is required prior to working on the site.  They agree with this. 

16.    Richfield City will hire Jones & Demille to review engineering and review costs will be reimbursed to City by the developer.  They agree with this. 

Chairman Zobell said this matter was set on the agenda to be considered for final approval.  This would be the final review before the Planning Commission and then it would go to the City Council for their final approval.  One thing that is missing is the elevation drawing.  He wouldn’t feel comfortable with passing this on to the Council without the Commission having reviewed elevations. 

Mr. Williams said he didn’t realize they needed to present that.  Chairman Zobell said the Commission needs to see if they are all stucco, all vinyl, a combination of stucco/vinyl,  and what color.  Those are concerns that the Commission agreed to do due diligence when the public hearing was held.  Anytime a building of any type comes in, the Commission reviews the elevations. 

They plan to use siding for these apartments.  Chairman Zobell reminds that there had been a discussion about the elevations some time ago and the use of vinyl was talked about at that time.  They were advised they might not want to consider vinyl in Sevier Valley because of the wind.  They were given examples of a complex in the south part of town where the siding is always blowing off the buildings.  He thought the developer said they would consider doing something other than siding.    

Mr. Crowther said they have looked at that and it is a cost issue for them.  They do projects in Wyoming and they have a project in Baton Rouge where they had a  hurricane.  There was some siding blown off during the hurricane, but it wasn’t a huge amount.  They had more roof damage than vinyl siding damage.  A lot of that depends on the install and the quality of install that goes in on these things.  The wind ratings are supposed to be upwards of 90 miles an hour.  They do inspections where they make sure it has been put on correctly. 

The Zoning Ordinance does require submittal of elevations prior to approval. 

The Commission is also hesitant to recommend approval to the Council when it seems like there are still some things that need to be done in order to comply with comments from the City’s engineer. 

Mr. Crowther said he knows he said they would look at doing something besides siding.  He said frankly it comes down to the cost of having to deal with the intersection and extending a box culvert 40 feet. 

Chairman Zobell said he knows the upfront cost would be more but having seen other vinyl products in this area, in the long-run they would be ahead. 

As far as the bridge and intersection, Mr. Crowther wonders if the Planning Commission needs to see an agreement showing it has been resolved at next month’s meeting.  He was told the Commission usually doesn’t get involved in that part of a development.  That will be up to the Council.  The Commission will just pass it forward to the Council stating that the an agreement concerning the bridge should be clarified by the Council and developer.  Mr. Crowther said he doesn’t want to come back next month and have any items that need to be discussed.  He hopes to have it complete so the Commission can just go through it and see that everything is done.

6.    Items for Next Agenda.    Mt. Catherine apartments will be placed on the agenda to consider final approval.  The Jeff Henderson subdivision will be set for public hearing.  Landscaping will be discussed at the next meeting.   

7.    Adjournment.   Adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 5^th day of August, 2009.

/s/  Michelle Curtis

      Deputy City Recorder