COUNTY OF SEVIER 

CITY OF RICHFIELD

                                                                               At the Planning Commission

                                                                               In and For Said City

                                                                               September 2, 2009

            Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, September 2, 2009, at 7:00 p.m., Chairman Blake Zobell, presiding.

            1.    Roll Call.

            2.    Approval of Minutes.

            3.    Richfield City Business Park.

            4.    Cameron Pearson Request.

            5.    Central Utah Food Sharing  Off-site Sign.

            6.    Wayne Washburn Request.

            7.    Discussion Concerning Screening of Recreational Vehicles.

            8.    Discussion Concerning Wind Energy Systems.

            9.    Discussion Concerning Landscaping.

            10.  Adjourment.

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

            Others present:    Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis, Building official Paul Hinrichs

2.    Minutes  Approval.   Pat Hansen motioned to approve the minutes of August 5, 2009.  Sue Southwick seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

3.     Richfield City Business Park.  Kimball Poulson was present to discuss the Richfield City Business Park.  Mr. Poulson explained that the second phase of the business park has been revised as was discussed at last month’s meeting.  Originally the second phase was going to be the development of the lots going east to west.  That has been revised with the second phase being the balance of the lots going north to south.  Fed Ex is located at the very south end of these parcels but not within the business park.  Phase II will have six lots.  There will be curb and gutter but no sidewalk.  By the end of summer or early fall, the street will have asphalt.  The utilities are already in.  At the current time, none of the lots will be fenced. 

Mr. Poulson explained that the City wasn’t able to get the funding it was hoping for.  He would like the Commission to consider a few things.  One of the things he thinks could be a problem is that if he does find a tenant, it could take four to six months for them to go through the City’s approval process.  He wonders if there is anything the City could do to speed that along?  Mr. Poulson has been working with a builder who said he would be willing to build a building that could be made available for someone to lease.  It would help the City with marketing to be able to say there could be a 50,000 square foot building up in 4 to 6 months.  He doesn’t want anything to slow them down in the process.  He would like the Planning Commission to consider the possibility of pre-approving a building of 100,000 square feet or something up to that point.  They could pre-approve that building so that it could go on any of those lots and then when a company is ready to come, the building could start right away and wouldn’t have to wait for another meeting with the Planning Commission.  The builder could do all of the drawings for the Planning Commission except that the building might end up being smaller or larger than what has been preapproved. 

Mr. Poulson would like the Planning Commission to be thinking about this and see if there are any stumbling blocks to doing this. 

Chairman Zobell said he thinks it would be fine to pre-approve a building.  Mr. Poulson said the CC&Rs would dictate what can and can’t happen there.  As long as the building is placed in the property setback, it would be alright.  Mr. Poulson said if the economy comes back, a building might be built even before someone is ready to come and that might entice them. 

Chairman Zobell said a building could be pre-approved, but they would still have to come in with their plan to show the exterior.  They would have to come in for final approval for parking spaces, asphalt, etc.  They could probably do their site prep, but they would really need to come to the next available Planning Commission meeting for approval of their final plan.  If they aren’t required to do that, it would be like signing a blank check.  He doesn’t think the Commission can rubber stamp the whole project and say they never have to come in. 

Paul Hinrichs points out that if a building is preapproved for 100,000 square feet and was changed to 50,000 square feet, it will take more time to change the plan architecturally than to go through the Planning Commission process. 

Mr. Poulson said if the Commission could do what it can to help these projects go through quickly, he would appreciate it.  Chairman Zobell said if he brings in some pre-drawn plans, it  could be approved as long as it complies with the CC&Rs, and then they could come in to the very next Planning Commission for final approval.  .  

Mr. Hinrichs asked when will the sidewalk be going in?  Mr. Poulson is not sure at this point.  It might be when someone is ready to move in there.  Chairman Zobell points out there would have to be a sidewalk installed before a business can take occupancy.  Mr. Poulson said when a lot it purchased and a building started, they will put the sidewalk in at that time.

Eugene Beck asked about the entrances from the street on the north of the business park.  Mr. Poulson said the entrances will go between the lots so there will be minimized access points with only three entrances for all of them. 

Mr. Poulson said he will go ahead and have plans drawn up for a 100,000 square foot building and bring it in for preapproval. 

4.    Cameron Pearson Request.  Sarah Pearson was present to request approval to add up to 3 feet of  lattice on top of the fence at the rear property line at 400 West 600 North.  Mrs. Pearson said the City recently completed a bike path which runs next to their back yard.  Because of the grade of the bike path, people on the bike path can see down into their back yard.  People can see into their living room.  They have no privacy at all.  They would like to build their fence up to at least 9 feet along the back and even a couple of feet on the sides so that their yard is not so visible walking down the path.  They installed a new wood 6-foot fence this past spring before they knew the bike path was going in there.  She said the existing fence is only a few inches above the bike path.  They have not yet decided what they are going to use to make the fence taller, but they want approval to make it taller.  Paul Hinrichs said something can be figured out to brace the fence and make it strong enough, but something really does need to be done.  From the bike path, a person looks down into their backyard.  The bike path is being used a lot. 

Chairman Zobell agrees something needs to be done to give them some privacy but he doesn’t think making the fence 3 feet taller will make any difference as far as privacy goes.

Stan Chappell walked the path tonight and he thinks something needs to be done, but he agrees that 3 feet is not going to be enough to give them any privacy.  Chairman Zobell wondered how much space is between the fence and the path.  Mrs. Pearson said probably three or four feet.  There was discussion that another fence whould be built within that 3 or 4 feet.  There was discussion that the area between the two fences would then become a trash catcher. 

Mrs. Pearson said there are probably a dozen or more homes that are affected. 

Steve Kunzler motioned to allow the Pearsons to have a fence that is up to 9 feet tall for their property located at 400 West 600 North, across the back of their property.  Eugene Beck seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

5.    Central Utah Food Sharing.   Consider request of Central Utah Food Sharing for permission to place an off-site sign on south main Street.  The purpose of the sign is for fundraising.

Larry Lloyd represented Central Utah Food Sharing.  Mr. Lloyd stated their existing facility is too small so they are building a new facility in the industrial park.  They are hoping to be awarded a CIB grant which will help them immensely with funding.  They are also requesting help from the community for fund raising.

They are hoping to solarize the building and, if they get the funds for that, they will be back in for permission to put in a small wind generator. 

They are trying to raise money for an industrial kitchen.  They will also have a garden.  The other thing they are raising this money is to put in a dry pack.  The LDS church has a dry pack, but there really isn’t one for the community.  There is enough room in the building where they could put in a really good dry pack for the community.  They need money to pay to install plumbing for watering the garden and the industrial kitchen where canning can be done.  The theme is to help people become self-sufficient. 

They printed up and passed out vouchers for donations and have raised about $2600 so far.  He said the problem is that unless people are reminded and have it right in front of them, they forget.  What they would like to do is get permission to put up a sign that looks like a thermometer where they could keep track of the funds raised.  The sign would be 2” x 12” wood that is 15 feet tall, painted black, and every $10,000 would have a red stripe with 3-inch reflector numbers.  At the very top it says “Food Bank” painted red and it says “$125,000”.  So the goal from the community plus grants is $125,000.  They would like to place the sign at Jerry Larsen’s property in front of Larsen’s Ace Hardware.    

Mr. Lloyd said if it isn’t on Main Street, nobody will see it.  If they put at the existing food bank, people won’t see it.  He thinks it will make a difference of $40,000 to $50,000.  He anticipates the sign being up for possibly 10 months.  He thinks if people see it and drive past it all the time, it will remind them to donate.  The food bank can be used by the community at large.

Mr. Lloyd said if they are allowed to put the sign up and it becomes a problem, it would be easy to take it down. 

The sign will not reflect sponsorship of any other business.  It might not be up as long as 10 months as they get grants and earn money. If they don’t reach their goal, the sign will come down anyway. The food bank is non-profit so it really isn’t advertising for a business. 

Paul Hinrichs said as far as complying with the ordinance, it is an offsite sign so that is one issue.  Under “exempt signs” there is a category for “public necessity sign”.  There is also “community events, posters, and announcements.”  Even though it is off-site, it isn’t being used for advertising a business. 

Steven Kunzler said his concern would be if this is approved, there needs to be something concerning the mounting, the size, and location being approved by the Buidling Inspector.  He would worry about wires coming down and maybe kids running into them, or blocking the vision triangle on Main Street.  It would need to comply with some safety aspects. 

It was suggested he could just put a 16’ 4x4 post in the ground and mount the sign on it to stabilize it.  It would need to be reviewed by Paul Hinrichs to make sure there aren’t any issues with safety. . 

Mr. Lloyd asked if they can put up a flagpole.  He was told the City doesn’t regulate that.

Mr. Hinrichs said someone called about the kitchen a while back.  He wonders if this is a kitchen where food is prepared and then taken away or are people going to go there to eat?  Mr. Lloyd said they can’t go there to eat because there will not be enough room for that.   Mr. Hinrichs said someone had asked him about it being a soup kitchen and that wouldn’t be allowed.  Mr. Lloyd said they considered that, but their Board cancelled that idea.  He would love to do a soup kitchen, but this wouldn’t be the place for that. 

As far as Mr. Lloyd’s comment concerning the possibility of installing a wind generator, he was advised that is currently prohibited in the Zoning Code.  Solar panels would be allowed.   

Steve Kunzler motioned to give permission to the Centarl Utah Food Sharing to place a temporary off-site sign on south Main Street for the purpose of tracking the amount of money raised for Central Utah Food Sharing.   The sign cannot be up longer than 12 months.  The placement and mounting will be approved by Richfield City Building Inspector Paul Hinrichs.  The sign will be placed on Jerry Larsen’s property in front of Larsen’s Ace Hardware.  It will be call a “community event sign” as set out on page 30 of the Sign Ordinance.  Stan Chappell seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.    

6.    Wayne Washburn Request.  Wayne Washburn was not present.  The matter was tabled.

7.    Discuss Section 1723.1 of the Zoning Code.  Section 1723.1 of the zoning code states that recreational vehicles may be parked next to a home but shall be screened with suitable screening material.  Paul Hinrichs said the Code is not clear as to the height of the screen.  If a motor home is 12 feet tall, it would be hard to screen it with a 6-foot tall fence.  Chairman Zobell points out that is adequate to screen some boats, 4-wheeler trailers, or utility trailers. 

There was discussion about whether this is an ordinance that is unenforceable because so many people have these things and they aren’t screened.   Chairman Zobell said it is enforced on a complaint basis.  If the City receives a complaint, then it has a tool to use to clean it up or make it look better. 

Mike Seng is present and would like to speak to this matter.  He said this matter came up because of his situation.  He said his father passed away and he ended up with an RV.  He never intended to have an RV.  His parents traveled and lived in the RV.  Since his father passed away, his mother has been trying to sell the RV, but she hasn’t been able to do that in this economy.  He called the City office to see what the requirement was to park this next to his house and if there were setback issues.  There really weren’t any issues until he parked it next to his house and his neighbor complained that it was blocking her view.  The RV is next to his house, so the only view it is blocking is the view of the side of his house.  His neighbor just doesn’t like the way that it looks and thinks it is detrimental to her property value for curb appeal.  She asked him to move it.  He told her he is not going to pay to store it somewhere else.  He thinks it is more secure next to his house and he is allowed to do that.  She came to the City and asked what the requirements are and it does say that the motor home needs to be screened from the street.  However, a 6-foot fence will not obscure it from the street and it won’t make any difference to his neighbor’s view if he does screen it along the front.  There is a 6-foot block wall between the two homes. 

Mr. Seng has driven around the City and has seen how many trailers and boats are not obscured from the street but because his neighbor complains, he will have to do a screen?    

Chairman Zobell said he can park the RV there, but if the neighbor complains to the City,  then he will have to screen it.  The intent of the ordinance is that the screen should be 6 feet tall.  The Code states that it would have to be screened with a wall, fence, gate, landscaping, or other suitable screening material.  The Code does not specify that it is 6 feet, but that is the intent of the Code as that is the height allowed for fences. 

Mr. Seng said he really feels like this is a City Code that is not being enforced.  Chairman Zobell said it is being enforced on a complaint basis.  Mr. Seng wondered if there have been any complaints because an RV wasn’t screened.  This has been the only instance where the City has heard a discussion about this, although the neighbor has not formally complained. 

It is the feeling of the Commission that they don’t want to take this requirement out of the Code because then the City might not have the avenue to screen a backyard when it needs to be screened.  . 

8.    Wind Energy Systems.   Paul Hinrichs explained that the City has had a couple of inquiries concerning the home windmill electrical systems.  Wind generation is not specifically addressed in the Zoning Code so it is disallowed.  He has received ordinances from various areas around the State.  They vary quite a bit.  As windmills become more popular, the City might have to address it at some point.  Stan Poulson wondered how much noise they make? Steve Kunzler said he has stopped and listened and it seems to him that they make quite a lot of noise.  Paul Hinrichs said if they are allowed, there could end up being one on every lot. 

It isn’t referred to in the code, so they won’t be allowed unless the Commission wants to specifically address them and state that they are prohibited. 

The Commission would rather leave the ordinance the way it is and then deny any requests that come in because they aren’t allowed.  If someone really wants a windmill, they can come in and request a change to the ordinance and it can be reviewed at that time. 

9.    Discuss Landscaping Provisions in the Zoning Code.  This item is on the agenda because Commission members remember when the Zoning Code was being revised, there was a whole section devoted to landscaping.  The final Zoning Code ended up not having a separate section for landscaping but rather some minimal guidelines.  Several Commission members remember there was a whole section devoted to landscaping and a few members think they still have a copy of that section. They were asked to bring that to next month’s meeting so it can be discussed.  There is a landscaping provision in the Municipal Code.  Technically, that conflicts with what is in the Zoning Code.  There had been discussion about including a provision for developments that are completed in the winter months and allowing them a certain time-frame after winter in which to complete the landscaping requirement.  The Municipal Code does include a provision concerning landscaping in parking lots.  That is included in the Municipal Code and it has not been rescinded.  It probably needs to be put into the Zoning Ordinance and taken out of the Municipal Code.

The Commission is still certain that there was a draft of landscaping that is more than the two pages in the Municipal Code.  Again, Planning commission members are invited to look through their things and if they can find an earlier draft of a landscaping ordinance, please bring it to next month’s meeting. 

10.  Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.

PASSED AND APPROVED on the 7^th day of October, 2009.

/s/  Michelle Curtis

     Deputy City Recorder