Minutes 5.06.2009
COUNTY OF SEVIER
CITY OF RICHFIELD
At the Planning Commission
In and For Said City
May 6, 2009
Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, May 6, 2009, at 7:00 p.m., Chairman Blake Zobell, presiding.
1. Roll Call.
2. Approval of Minutes.
3. Consider Approval of CC&Rs for the Business Park.
4. Consider Approving Application filed by Lori Hendrickson for The Cottage Preschool & Daycare.
5. Consider Approving Application filed by Jack Simmons for a major home occupation permit.
6. Review plans for Central Utah Food Sharing building to be located at 2050 South Industrial Park Road.
7. Consider Application filed by Morris Parsons for a truck facility to be located at 2190 South Industrial Park Road.
8. Discuss LandscapeSign Ordinance for M zone.
9. Discuss Non-conforming uses located in Commercial or Manufacturing zones.
10. Items for Next Agenda.
11. Adjournment.
1. Roll Call. Roll Call was answered by Blake Zobell, Steve Kunzler, Pat Hansen, Sue Southwick, Eugene Beck, and Stan Chappell.
Others Present: Building Official Paul Hinrichs and Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis.
Also Present: Don Naser and Lori Hendrickson
2. Minutes Approval. The minutes of April 1, 2009, were reviewed. Sue Southwick motioned to approve the minutes of April 1, 2009. Eugene seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
3. Proposed CC&Rs for the Richfield City Business Park. Kimball Poulson was present to discuss the proposed CC&Rs for the Richfield City Business Park. He points out that Article VI(f) requires 5% of the property to be maintained as landscaped area. The Zoning Code requires 10% of the property to the landscaped; however, there is discussion that a public hearing will be held to consider amending the Ordinance to require only 5% landscaping in manufacturing zones.
There was discussion concerning landscaping on page 9. It states that native vegetation can be used. There could be some question as to what native vegetation is. That might be sage brush or even weeds. The Commission would suggest striking “native vegetation” and inserting “xeriscape” in its place. Paul Hinrichs points out that it also says setback areas shall be landscaped. By referring to setback areas that would include front, side, and back setbacks. That would requirement a development to have more than 5% or maybe even more than 10% landscaping. Wording could be inserted stating that the setback areas will need to be landscaped but they are only required to do 5% landscaping.
Stan Poulson motioned to recommend to the Council that the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Richfield City Business Park should be adopted with a change being made to the landscaping portion by striking “native vegetation” and replacing that with “xeriscape” and landscaping to be done in the setback areas for a minimum of 5% but not required to exceed 5%. Trees to be a minimum caliper of 2”. The motion was seconded by Steve Kunzler. The motion carried unanimously.
4. Lori Hendrickson Application. Lori Hendrickson is requesting a Conditional Use Permit allowing her to conduct a business called The Cottage Preschool & Daycare to be located at 425 North Main (CS zone – P2 Use). She is opening a daycare pre-school with her mother. They plan to open on June 1st. They are working with the State in order to get licensed. The building is owned by Chet Thompson and she will get a letter from him stating that he is aware of the business and he has no problem with it.
Ms. Hendrickson will be living there in the basement. With her and her mother working, they can up to 16 children. They plan to do 24-hour daycare at the present time, with a preschool starting in the fall. They would probably have more than one employee because she and her mother wouldn’t be able to handle it all with 24-hour daycare.
They would also like to be able to use the sign where there has been a sign before. There are lights on the grass that shine on the sign. It would be on a timer. It would be a simple sign that says “The Cottage Daycare and Preschool” and list their hours, 24 hours, and a phone number.
The property is in the Commercial Zone and so this would be a C2 permit.
The back yard has a fence. They plan to put up a chain link fence down the south side of the property and a wood fence to the house on the other side, probably a white picket fence that is 4 feet tall. That is the only thing the State requires.
They have to have 45 square feet per child and they can only have 16 kids under the Family Group license. She has two children so the maximum she could have is 18 children. Chairman Zobell said what he would be worried about is a way to keep kids from spilling out the front door and onto Main Street. Most kids don’t live on Main Street so she needs some safety measures to make sure the front door has an alarm on it or something. She said the State doesn’t require that, but if the City wants to require that, she will do it. She said the door will be locked at all times. They are thinking of having clients use the rear entrance. She said there is a handicap ramp in the back and there is a larger room in the back which they actually plan on using for the pre-school. The entry will be in the back instead of the front. The premises do have to be State inspected.
Chairman Zobell recommends that she have an alarm on the door so that if a child opens it and leaves, she will hear it. There are inexpensive ones where if the door opens, it will go off. Where she is putting that many kids right on Main Street, it would be better to be safe.
Stan Poulson arrived.
Paul Hinrichs asked about the children being tended 24 hours a day. He said we have never had one like that and we really don’t have that under the description for child care. They are all less than 24 hours. He didn’t realize she was planning on 24-hour care and that brings up some building code issues for the children to sleep there overnight. Anytime there is a commercial use where someone is sleeping overnight, the building has to be fire sprinkled. As far as residences, anything over the size of a duplex has to be fire sprinklered. He said they will have to look at that.
Ms. Hendrickson said she does not know how many children would actually be staying over. Not all people have a 9 to 5 job and need overnight care for their children.
Mr. Hinrichs said if they don’t plan to have 24-hour care, then that can be dealt with if she decides to do overnight care. He wonders where it falls under the Zoning Code because there isn’t anything that says 24-hour care. The definitions in the Code were set up to be similar to the State definitions. Mr. Hinrichs feels like if the children can sleep overnight, then it will have to be fire sprinklered.
Chairman Zobell said if a person is going to have children all night long and they will be asleep and also the caregiver asleep, then fire sprinkling would be wise. She said the State requires her to be within ear shot. With her State license, she has to have fire drills three times a year and she has to have a plan available for the parents that shows what would happen in case of fire.
Chairman Zobell advises the application can be approved now if she isn’t having children there overnight. She won’t be able to do the overnight care until the fire sprinkling issue is resolved.
Sue Southwick motioned that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that approval be given for a Conditional Use Permit allowing Lori Hendrickson to conduct a day care business called The Cottage Preschool & Daycare to be located at 425 North Main (CS Zone – C2 use) with the condition that all laws, rules, and requirements of the State of Utah are met and with the condition that a monitoring device will be placed on the front door. Stan Chappell seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
This matter will be placed on the agenda for the City Council’s next meeting on Tuesday, May 12, 2009.
5. Jack Simmons Application. Jack Simmons was not present. The matter was tabled.
6. Central Utah Food Sharing. Don Naser is present to discuss plans for the construction of a building for Central Utah Food Sharing at 2050 South Industrial Park Road (MG zone – C-1 use). The concept was reviewed last month but the Commission needed to see a more detailed landscaping plan and revised elevations.
The building will be stucco or stucco brick with metal roofing. The plan does not show what the west elevation will be but under the Zoning Code it could be metal.
The plan shows a gravel driveway that goes around the building. Chairman Zobell wondered about the gravel base if the fire department had to get behind the building. Stan Poulson said if it was wet in the spring, it might be hard to get a fire truck back there, but it probably won’t be a problem. That area is for loading and unloading, so they will have to keep it graveled adequately.
Stan Poulson motioned to approve the construction of a building for Central Utah Food Sharing to be located at 2050 South Industrial park Road (MG zone – C-1 use). Eugene Beck seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
7. Morris Parsons Truck Facility. Consider approving plans for a truck facility owned by Morris Parsons to be located at 2190 South Industrial Park Road (MG zone – C-1 use). Paul Hinrichs said this is the business where Fed-Ex trucks were parked where the new Auto Zone is now located. There will be a maintenance building at the northwest corner of the lot. It will be 1200 square feet with stucco on the front and 35% stucco on the north and south sides. The landscape area is 6680 square feet which is 10% of the lot. The parking area next to the building will be concrete with the balance of the lot being covered with gravel. There will be 5 parking spaces plus a handicap space. The plan meets parking and landscaping requirements. The property will be used as a truck parking lot where they park to transfer trailers and drivers. The driveway entrance will be gravel.
Eugene Beck motioned to approve plans for the Morris Parsons truck facility to be located at 2190 South Industrial Park Road (MG zone – C-1 use). Steve Kunzler seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
8. Landscape Requirements for the M Zone. Landscape requirements for the M zone were discussed. It is felt that requiring 10% of the site for landscaping is more than is necessary. The properties in the industrial zones are huge and requiring 10% landscaping on 4 acres could become a real maintenance problem.
Eugene motioned that a public hearing should be held to discuss a proposal to change the Zoning Code requiring only 5% of the site to be landscaped in the manufacturing zones. Stan Chappell seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
This will be set for public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting to be held on June 3rd.
There was discussion that Commission members feel like landscaping has been left out of the Zoning Code. It is addressed under development standards and in the use tables. It seems like there was going to be a whole section on landscaping and it should have said something about if it was winter, a developer could wait to do landscaping until weather permits up to 30 days after the first of April and also requiring a performance bond.
9. Discuss Non-Conforming Uses Located in Commercial or Manufacturing Zones. Consideration is given to reinstating a provision similar to the prior Zoning Code which allows a non-conforming use to be enlarged upon issuance of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. This relates particularly to homes that are situated in those zones. The way the Zoning Code now stands, homes that are located in zones other than residential cannot be expanded upon. There are many homes located in those zones and if any of those wanted to put an addition on their house, they wouldn’t be able to do that. On the other hand, the theory is that you don’t want non-conforming uses to expand because hopefully they eventually go away and become commercial. However, a lot of these homes are in areas where it is unlikely to be developed commercially. Paul Hinrichs asked what if a vacant piece of property is zoned commercial but is surrounded by houses, should they be allowed to build a new home? The Zoning Code of 1992 had a provision that a building or structure occupied by a non-conforming use . . . may be added to or enlarged or moved to a new location on the lot upon issuance of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission after public hearing.
Stan Poulson motioned that a public hearing should be set to discuss legal non-conforming uses and the possibility of allowing expansion of those. Sue Southwick seconded the motion. The motion carried.
10. Items for Next Agenda. Landscaping and expansion of non-conforming uses will be noticed for public hearing for next month.
11. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 8:35.
Passed and approved on the 3rd day of June, 2009.
/s/ Michelle Curtis
Deputy City Recorder