Minutes – 01.08.2014

COUNTY OF SEVIER 

CITY OF RICHFIELD

                                                                                                                                                              Atthe Planning Commission

                                                                                                                                                              Inand For Said City

                                                                                                                                                              January8, 2014

             Minutesof the Richfield City PlanningCommission meeting held on Wednesday, January 8, 2014, at 6:00 p.m., Chairman Steve Kunzler, presiding.

          1.     Roll Call.

          2.     MinutesApproval.

          3.    PublicHearing.

                  StanIvie Subdivision/Lot Split at 100 North 200 East.

          4.     SubdivisionMotion:  Stan Ivie – 100 North200 East.

          5.     AcadiaBuilders:  Approve 4-plex – 100North 200 East (RM-11 Zone,

                  C-1use).

          6.     AcadiaBuilders:  Approve two 4-plexunits – 235 West 500 South (RM-11

                  Zone,C-1 use).

          7.     Richfieldof Dreams:  Consider approvingauction-type sales to be held at

                  AtRichfield of Dreams two times a month (147 North Main Street).

          8.     Casita/Mother-in-LawQuarters:  Discuss amendingZoning Code allowing

                  casitas/mother-in-lawquarters.

          9.     OtherBusiness.

        10.     Adjournment.

1.   Roll Call.  Roll call was answered by Steve Kunzler, PatHansen, Brion Terry, David Mower, Eugene Beck, Monte Turner.  Jeff Albrecht was excused. 

City Staff Present:  Zoning

Administrator Gaylen Matheson and Deputy City RecorderMichelle Curtis.    

Also Present:  DaveBurleigh, Rob Miller, Matt Harmon, and Rod Torgersen were present.

2.   Minutes Approval.  The minutes of November 6, 2013, and December4, 2013, were reviewed.   Page 3, line 9 of the December 4, 2013,minutes will be changed to read as follows: “Chairman Kunzler asked if the Code is too lenient or toorestrictive…”.  Line 12 will be changedto read as follows:  “If there aneeds to be a change and to be more…”.     Thedate on the footer needs to be changed on November’s minutes.  BrionTerry motioned to approve the minutes of November 6, 2013, and December 4, 2013,as amended.    David Mower seconded themotion.  The motion carriedunanimously. 

3.  Public Hearing.  6:11.00 p.m. Comments were received concerning Stanley D. Ivie’s request forpreliminary subdivision/lot split, regarding property located at the northwestcorner of 100 North 200 East.  There wereno comments.   The hearing was closed at 6:11:56PM

4.  Ivie Subdivision Approval.  Consideration is given to approving thesubdivision (two-lot subdivision) application filed by Stanley D. Ivie regardingproperty located at the northwest corner of 100 North 200 East.  Rod Torgersen is representing thedeveloper.  The developers have agreed tocomplete curb, gutter, sidewalk, and asphalt. 

Pat Hansen motioned torecommend that the City Council approve the Acadian Acres subdivision locatedat the northwest corner of 100 North 200 East. Eugene Beck seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.

5.   Acadia Builders – Two 4-plex units.  Discussion was held concerning a proposal fortwo 4-plex units to be located at 100 North 200 East (RM-11 zone, C-1 use).  Dave Burleigh and Rob Miller are representingthe developer.  Zoning AdministratorGaylen Matheson has provided a memo detailing items that have been completedand items that need to be completed.  Thefollowing 9 items have been completed: 

            1.  TheAcadian Builders Subdivision has been submitted and will need to be approved byRichfield City Council and recorded with the Sevier County Clerk prior toissuing building permits.  ThePlanning Commission has recommended approval to the City Council. 

            2.  Developerprovided plans for irrigation and drainage water from street right-of-ways toproperly cross the property.  Mr.Matheson said that Brion Terry had shown that there was a potential drainageproblem which will be taken care of by a swale. Mr. Terry said really the problem is the excess irrigation water.  Mr. Matheson said he and Mr. Torgerson walkedthe property and felt like the drainage problem would be the hard surfacedrainage that comes from the commercial developments to the north of this property.  Mr. Burleigh said he understands thatproperty owners are responsible to take care of drainage.  The commercial properties to the north shouldcontain their own water. He says it’s an issue where they will have to work itout and as they find out what is there and they can resolve those issues. 

Mostly this discussion is to make the developers awarethat there could be drainage problems and they may want

to have a solution for dealing with it.  Mr. Burleigh said that doesn’t impedeanything they are doing, and there are three or four solutions to thesituation.  They are providing a drainageswale along the north side of the property which will take care ofdrainage. 

            3.  Asecond driveway has been detailed for fire, utility and dwelling access to 200East

            4.  Atrash enclosure has been provided

            5.  Sixteenparking spaces 9 feet wide, 20 feet long, with a 20-foot travel space and oneaccessible parking space per building has been provided.

            6.  Adetailed landscaping plan with size and types of plants, shrubs, and trees andground cover has been provided. Mr. Burleigh said the plants will all be native species.  Trees will have a minimum caliper of 1-1/2 to2-inches.

            7.  Fireseparations between dwelling units have been provided.

            8.  Futureuse area has been updated to reflect changes in site and landscape plan.

            9.  30-footsetbacks on the front building and 25-foot setbacks on the rear building havebeen corrected on the plans

The following items need to be completed as identified bythe Development Review Committee (DRC):

            1.  Thesubdivision process needs to be completed through the Planning Commission andCity Council.  The Commissionmade a recommendation earlier in this meeting that the City Council approve thesubdivision.

            2.  Streetimprovements plans will need to be reviewed by a consulting engineer.  This is in process.

            3.  Providea detailed drainage plan to contain all drainage on-site and a storm drainageplan to channel water from the northwest corner to 200 East.  Mr. Matheson points out that Mr. Torgersonhas provided the plan showing the drainage swale.  He felt like that would be the simplest wayto address the drainage issue.  Mr.Burleigh said if it is necessary for them to provide irrigation to the house onthe corner, he thinks the easiest thing would be to pipe that.  He will have to work with Richfield City ifit becomes an issue.  This property usedirrigation before the property was split. Mr. Burleigh said they will take care of it if they have to.  They will contact the home owner to see ifthey want access to irrigation.  Theywill take care of it between neighbors.

            4.  Showa 1” water line and 4” sewer line to both unitsThis will be done.  Each building should each have its own 1”water line and 4” sewer line.  Mr. Burleighwants to go on the record stating that a 3/4’” water line is adequate.  It is recommended that they install a 1”water line.  They can discuss this withthe City engineer or City public works department.

            5.  Impactfees will be based on 8 residential units.  The developer is agreeable with this. 

            6.  Providefencing plan that meets section 1620.2. Fencing is to be installed on west and north sides of the property andon the west and north sides of the existing home.  Mr. Burleigh agrees they will meet fencingrequirements.  They plan to install a 6’wood or vinyl privacy fence.  They do notwant to do a block fence.  There isalready a fence on the north side of the property and there is a building atthe northwest corner of the property that creates a barrier. 

They do wonder why there isn’t a fence on the west sideof the property.  It seems a fence shouldhave been required when the property to the west was developed.  They do plan to place a 6’ vinyl fence aroundthe existing house on the corner of 100 North 200 East.  Chairman Kunzler advises that building is acrisis center and has been there for over 20 years, so the Commission does notknow why that wasn’t required.  They wereadvised they probably will want a fence between the two properties becausethere is a lot of activity at the crisis center. 

The Code does require a masonry fence unless theCommission finds that a different type of fence will meet the intent of theCode which is to create a buffer.  Mr.Burleigh said they would like to show the Commission a sample of what they arethinking of and then let the Commission decide at that point.  They will provide color swatches and a sampleof material before they start construction of the fence.  There is a fence on the north side of theproperty.  Mr. Terry is the neighbor onthe north and he is alright with that fence staying as is. 

            7.  Provideadequate parking lot lighting plan per section 1802.18 with down lighting.  Lighting is to illuminate parking areas andresidence sidewalks to entrances

Mr. Burleigh said they have provided lights on thebuilding that point in the right direction and will light things adequatly.  They will also cover the entry area.  They will show that on their plan and Mr.Matheson can bring that back for review.

            8.  Correctaddress on plansThe correctaddress will be placed on the plan.    

Eugene Beck motioned toapprove the construction of two 4-plex units to be located at 100 North 200East, RM zone, C1 use, with the condition that they comply with the eight itemsdiscussed and with the condition that they will provide plans for the fence tobe approved by the Planning Commission. Monte Turner seconded the motion. Those voting aye:  Monte Turner,Pat Hansen, Steve Kunzler, David Mower, and Eugene Beck.  Those voting nay:  Brion Terry. The motion carried. 

As far as the fence is concerned, they can come back toPlanning Commission or they could even e-mail it and each Commissioner canrespond individually. 

6.   Acadia Builders – 4-plex unit.  Discussion was held concerning the proposalfor a 4-plex unit to be constructed at 235 West 500 South (RM-11 zone, C-1use).   This was reviewed last month as aconcept.   The Commission was concernedabout an area referred to as “rear yard area” and felt that it needs to bedeveloped.  They have increased the grassarea in the back but still provide a gravel area where tenants could park extravehicles.  Gaylen Matheson provided amemo setting out eight items that have been addressed and five that needed tobe discussed.  The following items havebeen completed: 

            1.  Acadianbuilders has provided plans prepared by a Utah licensed engineer for streetimprovements on 500 South including curbs, gutters, sidewalks, asphalt andirrigation piping.

            2.  Adetailed drainage plan has been provided.

            3.  Civilengineering plans have been reviewed by a consulting engineer and updated.

            4.  Parkingspaces have been detailed to be 9 feet wide by 20 feet long with a 20foot widedriveway in between spaces.

            5.  Twoone hour walls have been detailed in bweteen dwelling units per building andfire codes to avoid the need for fire sprinklers.

            6.  Siteplans have been re-drawn with a usable scale.

            7.  Rear yardhas been adjusted to allow more landscaping and overflow parking.

            8.  Adumpster enclosure has been added. 

The following items need to be discussed and completed:

            1.  Updatelandscape plan to reflect changes to the site plan.  They have provided a 5-foot plantingarea.  The drive area is 20 feet wide with20-foot deep parking spaces.  Thebuilding sets back 65 feet from the street. 

            2.  Impactfees will be based on four units with a one unit credit for the former home.  Developer is agreeable with this.

            3.  Replaceold clay sewer lateral with a PVC pipe and show it on the site plan.  The developer takes issue with this.  They think the pipe in the street may stillbe clay and they don’t think it would be good to hook on to that with PVC.  They are also under the impression that theywould have to replace the line from their clean-out to the main sewerline.  They don’t agree that they shouldhave to do improvements across property that isn’t theris.  It was clarified with them that the pipe inthe street is PVC and the City will take the sewer line from their clean-out tothe main sewer line in the street. 

            4.  Submitsite-obscuring fence for Planning commission review per section 1620.6.   The proposed site-obscuring fence will bethe same as the above project.  It willbe 6 feet tall along three property lines.

            5.  Providean adequate parking lot lighting plan per section 1802.18 with downlighting.  DRC recommends one light ateach corner of the building to illuminate parking areas and residence sidewalks.  The lights will be the same as for theproject discussed above. 

As far as the recommendation for them to install a 1”water line, the developer thinks that would be very costly because the waterline is located across the street and they don’t want to cut into thestreet.  Mr. Matheson again explainedthat the City would complete its portion of that line.  They are only responsible for the line goingfrom the meter to their property.  Theyare desirous of installing 3/4” lines. The Planning Commission highly recommends 1” lines.  They will have to discuss this with publicworks and the reviewing engineer.

As far as building elevations, the buildings will bevinyl and brick.  They are still decidingon colors.  They are still debating onwhether the illustrated brick portion will be brick or stone. 

The mechanical equipment will be shielded by landscaping.  The units they have are 28” high and can behidden easily by a boxwood bush.  Theyare minimally unsightly. 

Brion Terry motioned toapprove the 4-plex unit to be located at 235 West 500 South for Acadia Buildersas discussed and with the condition that the DRC requirements are met.  David Mower seconded the motion.  The motion carried. 

7.   Richfield of Dreams.  The business owner was not present.  The matter was tabled.   

8.   Casita/Mother-in-Law Quarters.  Discussion was held concerning thepossibility of changing the Zoning Code to allow casita/mother-in-law quarters.  Commissioners have had comments from a fewresidents who would like the City to allow casitas.  Following are points of the discussion:

Eugene Beck:  Mr.Beck likes the idea of allowing a casita and believes addressing this issuewould be of benefit to the community although it would need carefulregulation.  He likes Hurricane City’sCode concerning these.  He would want tomake sure these don’t  become separaterental units.  He is less concerned with whetheror not there is a kitchen unit, than it turning into a rental.    

David Mower:  Mr.Mower thinks it would be a good thing to allow. 

Steve Kunzler/Jeff Albrecht:  Mr. Albrecht is not present, but Mr. Kunzlerhas talked with him about this.   Their discussion was that some cities allowcasitas but restrict kitchens.  They feltlike as long as the building meets setbacks and it doesn’t become a rental,they don’t have a problem with it having a kitchen.  They would be concerned with whether parkingneeds to be addressed or is already covered. The Code addresses setbacks and states how much of the property can becovered by buildings.  The Code alsolimits that there can only be one detached garage and one accessory building ona lot.  The Code also provides that thecumulative total of all detached garages and accessory buildings cannot covermore than 25% of the rear-yard area. 

Gaylen Matheson points out that section 1706 of theZoniong Code addresses accessory dwelling units. 

Pat Hansen:  Mrs.Hansen is in favor of allowing casitas and would like to allow them to have akitchen.  As far as parking, there are alot of people who own and park several cars at their property when there areonly two people living there.  She doesn’thave a problem with parking. 

Brion Terry:  Mr.Terry thinks casitas should be allowed. His only concern is whether they need a separate address.  As emergency responders respond, it changestheir approach if they know they are going somewhere that a person may beliving as opposed to an accessory building. He would like there to be some way EMS could be notified when there aremultiple dwellings.  There is discussionthat if they have a separate address, it might be easier to turn into a rentalunit.  The public safety concern needs tobe addressed in a way that it remains a single-family residence and anextension to the main dwelling. 

Monte Turner:  Mr.Turner said we are talking about allowing a place for extended family to beable to live.  He is neutral but thinksthis is a situation where there is no way the City can police it and stop itfrom becoming a rental unit.  He wondershow the City would know the difference as to whether it is being used asallowed or used as a rental.  ChairmanKunzler points out that if it were limited to one bedroom and a kitchenette,then obviously, they can’t move a whole family in there. 

Chairman Kunzler stated they shouldn’t be on separateutility connections.   The definition andconditions allowing a casita will have to be quite narrow.  There will have to be some control so itdoesn’t turn into a rental property.  TheEMS issue needs to be addressed.  He hasasked many people what they think.  Mosthave been in favor of allowing this.  Hehas a few who have said that it might create a problem for adjacentneighbors.  If somebody is trying to turnit into a rental, the City will need the tools to correct that issue. 

The Commission would like to see if the Council agreesthat this issue should be addressed in the zoning Code.  Mr. Matheson was asked to go to the CityCouncil and present this to them to see if they like this concept and want theCommission to pursue it and draft an ordinance. It should be conveyed to theCouncil that the commission has put some thought into this over the past fewmonths and has come to the conclusion that it would be a good thing toallow.  It should be brought to the council’sattention that the issues that have the Commission perplexed are the emergencyresponse aspect and preventing single-family areas from becoming multi-familyareas. 

9.  Other Business.   Brion Terrysuggested that each person of the Commission be assigned a portion of theZoning Code and study that section to become an expert on that section of theCode.  Mr. Terry was given the assignmentto break the book into sections and assignments will be given next month.   It is also suggested that once a year theCommission could come up with a list of things that they would like to seechanged.

9.   Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. 

PASSED AND APPROVED onthe 5th day of February, 2014.

/s/  Michelle Curtis

      DeputyCity Recorder