1. ROLL CALL. Roll Call was answered by Roger Bird, Stan Poulson, Stan Chappell, Eugene Beck, and Dan Chidester. Sue Southwick was excused.

Also Present: Larry Lunnen and Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. The minutes of November 7, 2007, were reviewed. Stan Chappell was concerned about item 9 regarding the Tom Bogh professional building. That property is being split and he was concerned that the proper procedure is followed in doing so. He wonders if that should be brought back to the Commission. They will be required to install a fence along the back property boundary where it is next to residential properties. There was discussion as to whether this is a lot line adjustment or creating a subdivision and whether or not it is something the Planning Commission should deal with. If it is a lot line adjustment, that is not something the Planning Commission deals with. Having Mr. Bogh come back to the Planning Commission would be primarily to discuss a fence along the property line.

3. PUBLIC HEARING. Comments were received concerning an application filed by Jorgensen Honda requesting that the Richfield City Zoning Ordinance be amended allowing outdoor motorcycle/bicycle tracks in the CS (Commercial Shopping) zone.

Mike Jorgensen explained that this property is located across the street east of Jorgensen Honda. It is on the other side of the canal and north of K-Mart. The entrance into the track is from the north side of K-Mart which is property owned by K-mart. The track is enclosed by a fence so that a person can’t ride their motorcycle down the canal bank or into the street. Jorgensen’s have actually had a small track behind their store but most people didn’t realize it was there because it was out of sight. Because they are doing some new construction, they moved the track across the street.

There being no comments from the public, the public hearing was closed.

4. ZONING ORDINANCE. After public hearing, the Commission discussed Jorgensen Honda’s request that the Zoning Ordinance be amended allowing an outdoor motorcycle/bicycle track in the CS zone (Commercial Shopping). The only access to this property is through property owned by K-Mart.

Chairman Zobell arrived.

Stan Poulson said the question becomes, if the Code is changed to allow them to continue this in the CS zone, would the City want to allow this type of activity for other properties located in the CS zone. There is a question as to liability if someone gets hurt. Mr. Jorgensen said anyone can use the track and they don’t sign any kind of agreement or waiver to do so.

On Page 231 of the Zoning Code, outdoor recreation uses are allowed by conditional use in the CG, MD and MG zones; however, outdoor motorcycle tracks are specifically excluded. Chairman Zobell said if it is thought this activity should be allowed somewhere in the City, then perhaps the property should be rezoned to CG and then put conditions on it. It doesn’t seem like the City would want to allow outdoor tracks in a Commercial Shopping zone. Dan Chidester thinks that is splitting hairs. It doesn’t seem much different to allow this in the General Commercial zone as opposed to the Commercial Shopping zone.

Mr. Jorgensen said it really is not a big deal to Jorgensens’ one way or the other. They can easily take it out and it is not a problem. The liability issue has concerned him also. If it is a lot of hassle changing the Code to allow this use, then he doesn’t think it is worth it for that little track. If it can work easily, then he would like to have it considered.

 

 

5. WINTER QUARTERS CONDOMINIUMS REVIEW. Greg Brown was present. This matter was reviewed at last month’s meeting and is being considered for final approval. Since that time, the developer has decided to provide 4-1/2 parking spaces per unit. Phase one of the project will consist of construction of four buildings and the required parking area for those. That would be 48 units and 216 parking stalls. The balance of the parking will be completed with the buildings in phases 2, 3, and 4. The developer will need to be sure to provide adequate parking with each phase of development.

Larry Lunnen said he discussed the project with Paul Hinrichs and Mr. Hinrichs told Mr. Lunnen that the developer had accommodated every concern he had.

Roger Bird asked about the retention pond that was to be situated on the east end of the property but will now be a parking area. Mr. Brown said the retention pond will still be located on the east but it will be smaller and deeper. Mr. Brown thinks it will be 5 or 6 feet deep. It will be grass. There was discussion as to whether or not that needs to be fenced. Mr. Brown said it will slope down gradually. Chairman Zobell pointed out that Home Depot has a retention pond on their site. After one rainstorm, it filled up and stayed full of water. Home Depot immediately installed a fence around it. A fence needs to be considered and is more pertinent in this situation because the property is surrounded by a residential area and schools. Mr. Brown said it will be sized according to whatever is recommended by the engineers. The drainage from the parking area will run into the retention pond. Mr. Brown said they could possibly look at putting sumps in the parking lot to take some of the pressure off the drain.

There will be a light in each one of the islands in the parking lot. The City’s lighting standards will be followed. The lights need to be shown on the plan.

Mr. Brown said street improvements on 650 West Street will be done as a part of phase 1. That will include curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of the street.

As far as landscaping, there will be a combination of shrubs and trees along the north boundary. On the south side there will be grass. There will be grass and trees on the east end. The retention basin will be grass. There will be no sidewalk along the north side. Landscaping on the other side of College Avenue will be shrubs and gravel with a concrete curb. There is some grass there as well. That will be completed in conjunction with building 8 which is phase 5. It could be several years before that is completed. Mr. Brown said because there is so much cost involved with developing phase 1, it is really hard to put that in before the last phase when the homeowners’ association will be functioning and could participate in that. Chairman Zobell cautions them to be careful of planting shrubs that will grow and obstruct the sight triangle for traffic. It looks like there are a lot of trees on the site, but none on the north side. It is suggested it might be nice to eliminate a few shrubs and put in trees for variation.

There will be a fence around the perimeter of the property. Code requires masonry fencing, but the Commission has stated it can be some type of compound material.

Eugene Beck wondered if the Commission can make requirements as far as appearance and maintenance of the property that remains vacant. Mr. Lunnen said the City now has a Code Enforcement Officer so maintenance can be enforced if the property becomes unsightly or a public nuisance.

They would like to start construction as soon as possible. The annexation needs to be completed before a building permit can be issued.

Roger Bird asked about phase 5. The retention pond will be installed with the first phase. The parking area that isn’t done in phase 1 will be dirt so will the landscaping of the retention pond be done with phase 5 or phase 1? Mr. Brown thinks they could hydroseed the pond although the trees probably wouldn’t go in until phase 5. Chairman Zobell said it wouldn’t be hard to put the trees in at the same time as the grass. The trees will have to go in anyway, so they might as well plant the trees now and let them start growing. The landscaping that will be installed with phase 1 will easily comply with the 10% requirement for the entire project. Larry Lunnen wonders if there is a potential that the trees and grass could be damaged as the other phases of the project are completed. Mr. Brown thinks the best thing would be to put the grass in initially for dust control and erosion, and then put the trees in later on.

There was discussion as to whether or not there will be curb along the north property line. Mr. Brown said that part of the parking won’t be completed until a later phase, so the curb won’t be there until that time. A private road will go through there but not the curb. Chairman Zobell would encourage them to put the curb in all at once rather than piecemeal. Mr. Brown feels like this is a private road and the curb shouldn’t be required. He also mentioned there are two owners: Jed Memmott will own phase 1 and then Richard Davis will own the other phases. Mr. Memmott will not want to pay for Mr. Davis’ portion. Mr. Brown doesn’t feel like the Commission can require it all to be done at the present time.

If the property is divided into two separate parcels with Mr. Davis retaining one parcel and Mr. Memmott retaining the balance of the property, then it becomes a subdivision and it might not meet density. Mr. Brown points out that Mr. Davis can retain ownership of the entire piece but it can be built in phases. He can also sell off the individual units and those can be purchased by Mr. Memmott.

The plot plan looks like the property is being retained as two separate parcels. The property has to remain as a whole. Mr. Brown said it will be recorded with a legal description for the entire parcel and then there will be a legal description for each single individual unit.

Larry Lunnen said the density was approved in the agreement with Mr. Davis and preliminary approval was given based upon the entire acreage. If it is split, then density changes and that could put a kink in the whole project. Density is based upon the whole piece of property so if it suddenly becomes two pieces of property instead of one, the question of density comes back into play and it would have to go through the whole process again.

Larry Lunnen said the question that raised concern for him is when Mr. Brown said something about Jed owning one side and Richard owning the other. If that is the case, then it is two separate pieces of property instead of one. Mr. Brown said he will be selling phase one. Mr. Memmott said it sounds misleading, but Mr. Davis does own the entire property. Mr. Memmott is basically coming in as a buyer and buying the units. He thinks the site plan appears that way because it is showing phase 1.

There is further discussion about curb and gutter and whether or not it should be required. Mr. Brown said it really comes back to the fact that he doesn’t have the authority to commit Mr. Davis to putting that in. Mr. Brown said if the curb is required, then it won’t even touch the road because the area in between the road and curb is going to be future parking. Blake Zobell said if they get in the curb, gutter, planter strip, landscaping, and fence, then it is going to make it look like a finished project even though it is being phased on the interior part of the project.

The lighting plan should meet City standards and can be reviewed by Paul Hinrichs.

6. CHANGE DATE FOR MEETING. The next Planning Commission meeting will be held on January 9, 2008, rather than January 2, 2008.

7. SIGN ORDINANCE DISCUSSION. The draft of the Sign Ordinance was discussed. Larry Lunnen advises the plan for the Sign Ordinance was to review it and then any changes the Planning Commission wants will be transmitted to Bruce Parker. Bruce Parker will then insert those changes and send it back. A public hearing will be set and a copy of the proposed Sign Ordinance given to the Chamber of Commerce with the date of the public hearing so they know they can come to the public hearing and request anything that they want to request. The Chamber has reviewed it previously and perhaps about 30% of their changes have been incorporated. He would suspect that there will be a lot of input from the Chamber at the public hearing.

It was suggested that each Commission member needs to review the Ordinance and then the changes will be forwarded to Bruce Parker.

Page 6 talks about the number of copies to be provided. Eight copies of the site plan seems excessive and that should be revised. In other places, 14 copies are required which is excessive.

Page 7 paragraph 3 should be 45 days rather than 90 days. There should be a section for seasonal signs which are allowed for 90 days.

T1 on page 7 is not consistent with T1 on page 3.

There is a question concerning the description of wall signs. It would be helpful to have illustrations of the different types of signs.

There was discussion concerning the size of signs on page 12 and the height of signs located next to the freeway. Where are banners and tent-type signs addressed?

The Commission would like to study this at next month’s meeting before asking Bruce Parker to meet with them. A public hearing will be set for a later date.

8. DISCUSSION CONCERNING RM-11 ZONE. There was discussion that it might be appropriate to rezone to RM-11 areas where there are older homes with large yards. Chairman Zobell said Bruce Parker recommended that the General Plan should be reviewed and amended in order to create areas for RM-11 zone.

9. ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA. Tom Bogh will be asked to come to Planning Commission. The sign ordinance will be studied.

10. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

 

 

____________________________________