CITY OF RICHFIELD
At the Planning Commission
In and For Said City
April 1, 2009
Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, April 1, 2009, at 7:00 p.m., Chairman Blake Zobell, presiding.
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Public Hearing: Sign Ordinance
4. Aron’s Rents freestanding pole sign.
5. Jason and Brandi Olsen fence.
6. Steve Tak tattoo business at 716 S Cove View Road
7. Central Utah Food Sharing building construction at
2050 S Industrial Park Road (MG zone).
8. Sign Ordinance: discuss definition for secondary
9. Discuss banner signs.
10. Discuss standards for sidewalk sales.
11. Discuss transient businesses.
12. Items for next agenda.
1. Roll Call. Roll Call was answered by Blake Zobell, Steve Kunzler, Pat Hansen, Sue Southwick, Eugene Beck, Stan Poulson, and Stan Chappell.
City Staff Present: Building Official Paul Hinrichs and Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis. Others Present: Craig Conder, Roene Shaw, Lorraine Gregerson, Jordan Shumway, Randy Christensen, Troy Christensen, Jerry Larsen, Mike Turner, Krish Turner, Stan Jones, and Tish Jones.
2. Minutes Approval. The minutes of March 4, 2009, were reviewed. Stan Chappell motioned to approve the minutes of March 4, 2009. Sue Southwick seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
3. Public Hearing: Sign Ordinance. A public hearing is held for the purpose of receiving comments on revisions to Chapter 20 (Signs) of the Richfield City Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to creating a definition for secondary signs to be attached to a building and used to advertise and promote products, services, or brands. It is proposed these signs be allowed to be no larger than 24 inches x 12 feet and limited to a maximum of four signs per side on no more than two sides of a building.
Chairman Zobell advises the purpose of the public hearing is to discuss secondary signs, not to open up the entire Sign Ordinance for revision. The Commission realizes that businesses need to be able to advertise the products, brands, or services they offer. This would allow more signage on a building in the form of lettering that could be attached to a building. These letters would not be illuminated but could be some sort of lettering or painted on the building.
Randy Christensen wonders why the signs would not be allowed to be illuminated. Chairman Zobell said the Commission would like to increase the amount of signage allowed without adding clutter. It would be keeping in line with the “less is more” theme.
Mike Turner thinks consideration needs to be given to the location of a business. The Downtown Zone has buildings close to or even connected to one another. That is a different setting than a building standing in a larger lot such as Big O, JB’s, or Mike’s Auto.
Chairman Zobell said there are so many differences in businesses and locations, the Commission is trying to make something that will be workable for the majority. Randy Christensen would like to see something that would be based on signs being a certain number of square feet per the size of the building.
Currently the Ordinance allows two signs on a building that total of no more than 100 square feet unless the site is larger than 2 acres. This change to the Ordinance would increase the number of signs allowed. Chairman Zobell used the example of Aron’s Rents. They would like to have their big sign and then smaller lettering above the windows such as “computers,” “electronics,” “furniture,” “appliances.” As the ordinance currently reads, those signs above the windows would not be allowed. They would only be able to have the Aron’s Rents sign. The Commission thinks that is too restrictive and proposes increasing the signage that can be put on the wall of a building for the purpose of advertising products, services, or brands.
Chairman Zobell closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
4. Aron’s Rents. The applicant is requesting a freestanding pole sign on their site that is shared with Autozone at 770 South Main Street. Because the site is over 2 acres, a second pole sign can be approved. The pole will be 24 feet high. Paul Hinrichs will need to see an engineered design to determine that the pole is strong enough.
Stan Chappell motioned to approve a freestanding pole sign for Aron’s Rents at 770 South Main Street, upon receipt of an engineered design plan showing the pole is adequate. Stan Poulson seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
5. Jason and Brandi Olsen Request. Jason and Brandi Olsen are requesting approval for an eight-foot high fence in the rear yard of their home at 364 E 1010 N (R1-10 zone). There is a difference of elevation between their rear yard and the home to the south of them. The fence will be six feet high on their side and eight feet high on the south side of the fence. This can be approved by the Planning Commission under Section 1620.1.4 of the Zoning Code.
Sue Southwick motioned to approve an 8-foot high fence in the rear yard of Jason and Brandi Olsen’s home at 364 East 1010 North (R1-10 zone), in accordance with Section 1620.1.4 of the Zoning Code. Eugene Beck seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
6. Steve Tak Request. Steve Tak is proposing a tattoo business to be located at 716 South Cove View Road (CS zone). A tattoo business can be allowed as a C-1 use in this zone. The property has previously been used by a number of businesses. There are nine existing parking spaces.
Eugene Beck motioned to approve Steve Tak’s request for a tattoo business to be located at 716 South Cove View Road (CS zone). Stan Chappell seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
7. Central Utah Food Sharing. Central Utah Food Sharing proposes to construct a building at 2050 South Industrial Park Road (MG zone). Craig Conder and Roene Shaw are representing Central Utah Food Sharing. The building plan sent out to Commission members does not comply with Section 1722 of the Zoning Code as it the building is metal. Mr. Conder agrees they will change the plan showing the east face being finished with stucco and stucco brick. The south and north sides will be at least 35% stucco or stucco brick. They plan for this to go out to bid around the first week of June with construction beginning towards the end of June or first of July.
The concept plan is alright but they need to come back to the Commission and plans showing the revised elevation and also detailed landscaping.
8. Sign Ordinance. Consider recommending to the City Council that the Sign Ordinance be changed providing a definition for secondary signs. It is proposed the Sign Ordinance be changed to include a definition for secondary signs. That would be described as a sign used to advertise a brand, service, or product. These signs would be lettering applied to the building face, either painted or attached, but not in illuminated boxes, with each sign being no larger than 24 inches x 12 feet. The Use Table would be changed showing that a business is allowed to have four signs per side on no more than two sides of a building.
There was discussion as to whether or not these signs can be illuminated. It was decided that they will not be allowed to be illuminated.
Stan Poulson motioned that a recommendation be made to the Council that the Sign Ordinance should be revised to allow secondary signs and the Use Table amended to allow a maximum of four signs per side on no more than two sides of a building. The definition of a secondary sign is a sign used to advertise a brand, service, or product, lettering to be applied to the building face, either painted or attached, but not in illuminated boxes. Each sign to be no larger than 24 inches x 12 feet. Eugene Beck seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Mike Turner asked who can come to the Planning Commission and ask that the Sign Ordinance be revisited because he thinks there are several business owners that would like to see some changes. Steven Kunzler said the Sign Ordinance was adopted in January. The Commission has been working on it for several years. However, the role of the Planning Commission is to try and do what the business community wants within reason. If there is something that is really glaring and there were several business people who come in, then it would be obvious that might have to be addressed at that time. There is no way that this thing could ever be closed if there is one person here and there who comes in with something they are unhappy with. That is why the Commission tried to get the Chamber and business owners involved as much as possible in the revision of the Sign Ordinance. If it is obvious there is something wrong that has been overlooked, that just doesn’t fit, then we need to be made aware of it and try to adjust it. But to be fair to the Commission, we need to be able to move on.
Mr. Turner asked if as an organized Chamber they came and wanted certain issues addressed, then the Commission would be willing to listen? Mr. Kunzler said if they came in again and there was a good reason behind it, then the Commission would listen to that. The Commission is here trying to do what is right.
9. Discussion Concerning Banner Signs. At last month’s Planning Commission meeting, Dennis Jorgensen asked the Commission to review banner signs. The Sign Ordinance only allows banners that are parallel to and attached to a building. The Commission was directed to consider over the past month whether or not this should be relaxed. The Sign Ordinance has only been in place since January and it seems like it is working well as far as banners are concerned.
There is language that states banners can be used to promote community events. It is clarified that those are allowed but they do have to be attached to a building.
Randy Christensen asked why the City does not allow banners. Chairman Zobell explained that banners were becoming a nuisance in the City because every owner was not maintaining them. There were some that blocked the site triangle. They became tattered and unsightly. The Sign Ordinance allows them to be placed on the side of the building for no longer than 30 days. The Commission feels comfortable with this requirement and does not want to change this portion of the Sign Ordinance at this time.
10. Discussion Concerning Standards for Sidewalk Sales. Paul Hinrichs wanted to discuss possible regulation for sidewalk sales. Mike Turner he has heard a lot of comments about this and what he has heard is that people like sidewalk sales. Chairman Zobell said we don’t want to stop them or eliminate them but what constitutes a sidewalk sale? Is merchandise on the sidewalk every day of the week a sidewalk sale? It is a concensus of those attending that the answer to that is no. Stan Jones said a sidewalk sale souldn’t be everyday, but they need to be able to have a sidewalk sale on weekends sometimes to get rid of seasonal merchandise or to have a special sale. He said his wife owns Bella Moon and a few weeks ago she had a sidewalk sale and she had more sales in that one week than all the sales combined for the other three weeks of the months.
Stan Poulson said the question was brought up because there is no definition for a sidewalk sale. Is it something that the whole town does at the same time or can each business have a sidewalk sale whenever they want to?
Randy Christensen said what he sees is that the Downtown area usually has sidewalk sales in conjunction with one another. His business is a few blocks down the street and they do sidewalk sales for an anniversary sale or a company-wide sale, etc.
Lorraine Gregerson said Christensen’s have a sidewalk sale and when the other businesses around them know Christensen’s are doing it, then they do it too. When you see a sidewalk sale downtown, it is usually because Christensen’s is having one and the other businesses decide to join.
Eugene Beck owns Hallmark and he said they used to do their sidewalk sale whenever Christensen’s had one, but they found out that was too often for them. It seemed to dilute it out.
Stan Jones said Christensen’s also has the advantage of being able to have a sidewalk sale in the back parking lot. Randy Christensen said it depends on the merchandise. Christensen’s has seasonal items to clear out, but he doesn’t like to see a second-hand store put their merchandise on the sidewalk every day when it is just the same stuff all the time.
Chairman Zobell said if he understands what is being expressed, there isn’t a huge problem with sidewalk sales right now but we do need to make sure that if businesses have a sidewalk sale, and it is going to intrude on keeping a passageway on the sidewalk, then there probably needs to be something that says they have permission and that they agree to keep the walkway open. Other than that, it doesn’t sound like there needs to be provisions regulating sidewalk sales. Pat Hansen doesn’t think the City needs to dictate when a business can have a sidewalk sale. Chairman Zobell agrees with that.
Stan Jones said he wanted a sidewalk sale a few weeks ago and the City told him they couldn’t have a sidewalk sale. Paul Hinrichs said there are ordinances that say what sidewalks are to be used for and that is for pedestrian traffic. He thinks that what has happened is that businesses have just had their sidewalk sales and there was no sanction by the City. The City wants to make some guidelines. We don’t want to prohibit them but sidewalks are supposed to be for pedestrian use. There is a question of the City liability if someone is hurt or a vehicle damaged because of a sidewalk sale.
The Commission reviewed the memo from Paul Hinrichs which set out issues to be considered in regulating sidewalk sale:
1. These sales should be a part of a business community event and limited to a fixed number of sales events per year. The Commission doesn’t think it needs to be orchestrated as a community event so the answer is no. But it shouldn’t be a 365-day a year event. It was decided that they shouldn’t be limited to a fixed number of sales events per year.
2. Sales events should be approved by the City Council. The Commission doesn’t think these should have to come in for approval every single time. They might decide to have a sale just because the weather is beautiful and they shouldn’t have to wait for the City Council to meet and approve it. There is discussion that maybe there could be some guideline that the City Council is comfortable with and that businesses know what those standards are.
3. A time limit for sales should be established. Chairman Zobell said if merchandise is out on the street for three weeks straight, is that really a sale? After driving by everyday for several days, as a consumer you tune it out because it all blends in with everything else. It would not be unusual for a business to hold a sidewalk sale on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. It was decided sidewalk sales should be limited to three days with the exception of a holiday weekend when it can be extended another 24 hours.
4. The liability for the City should be investigated. Chairman Zobell would like an opinion from the City Attorney. If there is a problem, then perhaps there can be an agreement with the business that the City isn’t liable. Maybe there could be something like a one-time waiver that is signed and on file stating that the City isn’t liable for any damages incurred because of a sidewalk sale.
5. A clear walkway for pedestrians needs to be defined. Chairman Zobell thinks there should be a defined walkway. That could be maybe a 4-foot passage or whatever would be compliant with ADA. Stan Jones wondered if anyone has ever complained that they can’t get through the sidewalk because of a sidewalk sale?
Stan Poulson motioned that a recommendation be made to the Council concerning sidewalk sales: (1) Sidewalk sales do not have to be part of a community-planned event; (2) sidewalk sales do not have to be approved by the City Council; (3) the time limit for a sidewalk sale is three (3) days unless it is a holiday weekend and then it can go into Monday; (4) question of liability to be investigated and possibly have waivers signed and kept on file stating the City is not liable for damages incurred because of a sidewalk sale; (5) a clear walkway to be established in compliance with ADA if the City Attorney agrees that meeting the ADA standard is sufficient; (6) merchandise to be taken off the sidewalk at the close of business every day. Pat Hansen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
(Note: Sears leaves lawnmowers out all night, but the chain them up. That is on their own property so that would not be regulated by this recommendation.)
Chairman Zobell said if all of these six stipulations are met, and if the City Attorney feels good with these regulations, then this matter should be sent on to the City Council so it doesn’t have to come back to the Commission and delay it another month.
11. Discussion Concerning Transient Businesses. Transient businesses were discussed at last month’s meeting. City Recorder Michele Jolley has suggested a change that could be made in the Municipal Code. There is a definition in there for transient merchants. Mrs. Jolley thinks that could be changed to a temporary business and then those could be regulated by allowing them to conduct business for a certain number of days. After that time period has lapsed, the business could be charged the fee for another business license. Currently they are only charged $125.00 per calendar year and there is no limit as to how many times they can come to town selling. That is the same amount as the downtown businesses pay. At last month’s meeting there was a suggestion that they be charged a lot more, but that cannot be done because it would be discriminatory.
Steve Kunzler said he has had four or five calls from people who are concerned about transient businesses being able to come to town and be on a corner for three or four weeks. There is a transient merchant currently parked in a parking lot and staying in a motor home. He has been there for a few weeks now. A few weeks before that, there was a rug sales man who had rugs set up for several days. It clutters Main Street. Sometimes they are in the site triangle.
Paul Hinrichs thinks there should be a limit to being here, maybe a week or something. Randy Christensen points out they set out their merchandise much like it is a sidewalk sale. The Commission wants to limit sidewalk sales to three days with an extra day on a holiday weekend. The transient merchant should be held to the same standard as local merchants. Chairman Zobell said in that event, they could come back every week and set up for three days. It needs to be set up so they have to apply for and pay for a license every time they come.
A farmer’s market type of business would fall under seasonal business. There really are not that many temporary businesses in the City so a transient business could fall under that category easily. The time limit for temporary businesses is probably too long.
The Commission would like an opinion from the City Attorney to see if a transient business can be dealt with as a temporary business and charged a certain amount of money and then have the business license good for a certain number of days. The Commission thinks a temporary business license expiring after one week is a reasonable amount of time.
There was also discussion about transient merchants placing their merchandise within the site triangle. That is enforceable under the current Ordinance. The signs they display are also an issue. Usually they are in violation of the Sign Ordinance. They would need to place their banners in a frame sign.
It has also been noticed that some of the transient merchants set up a mobile home or trailer and live in it for several days while they are here. Does that comply with the Zoning Code?
12. Other Business. Mike Turner asked about the bike path that is going to be completed along the canal by the cemetery. The plan is to do complete the bike path without a fence. Mr. Turner wondered if consideration would be given to asking businesses to donate a section of fence in exchange for being able to place a sign for advertisement. He was told that would be a question for the City Council.
Kimball Poulson presented proposed CC&Rs for the Business Park. This has been reviewed by City Attorney Richard Chamberlain. Mr. Poulson would like the Planning Commission to review this over the next month and then discuss it at next month’s meeting. The City Council has asked for the Commission’s input. Mr. Poulson recommends they give particular attention beginning at page 5 and start at Article IV. He points out page 10 letter (f) addressing landscaping. That would require a change to the ordinance as they are suggesting a smaller amount of landscaping than what is required in the Zoning Code. The ad hoc committee that helped to develop the CC&Rs felt like the landscaping requirement in the Zoning Code was too much for the business park.
Chairman Zobell asked Commission members to look this over. If they have any comments or suggestions, they are to let Michelle Curtis know by April 15th.
13. Items for Next Agenda. Transient businesses, Richfield Business Park CC&Rs, Central Utah Food Sharing landscape and elevation plans, discussion concerning landscaping in M zone.
14. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 6th day of May, 2009.
/s/ Michelle Curtis
Deputy City Recorder