Minutes – 02.04.2015

COUNTY OF SEVIER 
CITY OF RICHFIELD

 
                                                                                    At the Planning Commission
                                                                                    In and For Said City
                                                                                    February 4, 2015
 

Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, February 4, 2015, at 6:00 p.m., Chairman Brion Terry, presiding.
 
       1.     Roll Call.
       2.     Minute Approval
       3.     JRS Repair:  Review and consider approving request for approval of the
               construction of an addition to the building at 70 West Center Street (D zone,
               C-1 use). 
       4.     Red Rock Gym.  Discuss plans for the expansion of Red Rock Gym at 300
               North 700 East (P2 use).
       5.     Eagle View Townhomes.   Discuss preliminary concept for the
               construction of Eagle View Townhomes to be located at 100 East 1000
               South (RM-11 zone, C-2 use). 
       6.     Other Business.
               A.  Discuss General Plan and Master Transportation Plan.
               B.  Other items.
       7.     Adjournment.
 
  1.  Roll Call.  Roll call was answered by Brion Terry, Greg Bean, David Mower, Steve Kunzler, and Pat Hansen.  Monte Turner and Jeff Albrecht were excused. 
 
City Staff Present:   Zoning Administrator Gaylen Matheson and Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis.    
 
Others present:  David Clarke, Travis Kyhl, Greg Wagner, Robin Hansen, Paul Durr, Jared Jensen, Brock Buchanan, and Brig Rees.
 
2.  Minute Approval.  Minutes of January 7, 2015, were reviewed.  Greg Bean pointed out that item no. 6, page 4, it states that Greg Bean made a motion and also seconded the motion.  That needs to be changed to show that Steve Kunzler made the motion and Greg Bean seconded the motion.  David Mower motioned to approve the minutes of January 7, 2015, as amended.  Greg Bean seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 
 
 
3.  JRS Repair.   Jared Jensen is present to discuss plans for an addition to the JRS
building at 70 West Center Street (D zone, C-1 use).    He has provided a rough draft of his proposal.  Mr. Jensen’s business property is divided into three lots.  He plans to combine those into one.  That would be easier for tax purposes.
 
Mr. Jensen said this addition will leave about 5 feet between the eves of his building and Mitch Peterson’s office to the east.   He will also put in a chain link fence.  Gaylen Matheson advises the building should sit at least 3 feet from the property line unless he has a 3-hour wall and fire sprinklers.  Mr. Jensen would like to build as close to the property line as they possibly can.  He will bring in detailed drawings with the building permit.    
 
The front of the new addition will be stepped back a few feet from the existing building so that it isn’t just a long straight wall.  The exterior will be finished similarly to the existing building.   Parking spaces will be behind the building.  The cars currently parked behind the fence on the east side of the building will be inside of the new addition.  Mr. Jensen said they don’t use a lot of parking on the front.  Currently there is a double line of parking.  He will lose one line of parking.  Steve Kunzler’s concern would be that the vehicles that park in front of the building can park without being on the sidewalk.  Mr. Jensen said parking will basically stay the same. The new building will have a garage door, but people could park on either side of the door.  He said there is also a lot of room in the back where they can park.  There are still two to three parking spots in front, along the west side of the building, and all the way around.  He has not had any issues with parking. 
 
The existing curb will not change.    
 
Steve Kunzler motioned to approve a request for a building addition for JRS Repair at 70 East Center Street, provided he meets the setback code on the east side of the building which is to maintain a minimum of 3 feet from the property line or meet fire code.  On the front of the building, which faces Center Street, the addition of the building shall maintain a front-yard set-back which is no less than the current set-back of the existing building.  Greg Bean seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.
 
 
4.  Red Rock Gym.  Plans are discussed for an addition to the building at 300 North 700 East for Red Rock Gym. (CS zone, P2 use).   Brock Buchanan said they would like to purchase both the building on the corner of 300 North 700 East and also the building at 345 North 700 East.  Mrs. Buchanan teaches gymnastics at 345 North.  She also uses a portion of the building at 300 North which is also occupied by Jim’s Auto.  Their proposal is to purchase both buildings and build an addition onto the east side of the building at 300 North.  If they are unable to buy both buildings, an alternative plan is to build onto the west side of the building at 345 North.
 
Chairman Terry explained this should have gone to the DRC before coming to Planning Commission.  The Buchanans may have to comply with improvement standards which would have been suggested at the DRC level.  Those improvements would include asphalt, curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, etc.  As far as improvements, Steve Kunzler said the Planning Commission would have to require those improvements.  The Council might enter into a Waiver of Improvements.  Or the petitioners could provide a plan showing improvements being installed over a period of time. 
 
The properties consist of three parcels.  If they are able to purchase all of it, they will combine the lots so there are only two lots.  Chairman Terry asked if there are EPA concerns since the building at 300 North was formerly a gas station.  Mr. Buchanan said he thinks it has been cleaned up.  The property at 345 North has been cleaned up but is still tagged. 
 
Greg Bean wonders about parking needs where they will have a larger business establishment.  How many clients do they expect that will need to park cars there?   Mr. Buchanan said there is parking available all the way around the buildings.  They don’t have all of their students at the same time.  They alternate throughout the day with classes set at different times. 
 
Mr. Buchanan was reminded that currently both properties are on one water meter and one sewer connection.  If they buy only one of the buildings, he will want to make sure there are separate connections. 
 
5.  Eagle View Townhomes.  Preliminary concept is discussed for the Eagle View Townhomes to be located at 100 East between 800 and 1000 South.   They are represented by Greg Wagner, Dave Clarke, Travis Kyle, Robin Hansen, and Paul Durr.
 
Gaylen Matheson said before the developer does all of their engineering, they would like clarification as to exactly where the road needs to go on 100 East.  This is an affordable housing project that the developer has received funding for.  During a site visit, they noticed there are some issues that need to be looked at.    
 
Their plans show where the curb, gutter, and sidewalk should be located.  Usually developers are required to develop the street plus 10 feet past the center.  This street is a minor collector which would have a right-of-way width of 60’.  That would require that 15’ be taken from the property on each side of the road.  If the road is developed in this manner, it appears that on the east side of the road there is a power line with  five or six poles that will end up being in the sidewalk.  However, on the west side of the road, the radius for the curb and gutter is already established at a few locations along 100 East.  It appears those have not taken into account the widening of this road.    
 
Another issue is that if 15’ is taken out of each side of the road, it doesn’t leave much room for parking at the tax office located on the corner of 100 East 1000 South. 
 
The following ideas were discussed:
*        The road should be developed so that the 15’ is taken from both sides of the road.  Changing to underground power might be an option that would solve the problem with power poles. 
 
*        The entire 30’ could be taken from the west side of the road with the property owners on the east reimbursing those property owners in some manner such as paying for a larger percentage of the cost of the road. 
 
      Steve Kunzler said 100 East is designated as a minor collector and it needs to stay a minor collector because of the number of units proposed.  Developing it at a lesser width is probably not an option.  He thinks it is important that 100 East be developed all the way to 800 South.  This developer does not own the property going north all the way to 800 South.  Mr. Kunzler thinks it would be best to encourage traffic from this development to go to 800 South where there is a street light on Main Street.   That would most likely require that the City finish the balance of 100 East going to the north. 
 
*        If the road is developed with taking 15 feet from each side of the road, it won’t affect the curb at Soda Run at this time because this developer will only do to the centerline plus 10 feet.  The Soda Run curb seems high compared to where the grade would be to make that intersection work. The developer wonders if they will be required to develop to the intersection on 1000 South even though it is not their frontage. 
 
*        The City has been put on notice that the tax office wants to be notified when anything is developed in this area that will affect them.  City Administrator Matthew Creamer will be contacting them. 
 
*        Brig Rees is present on behalf of the property owner of the southwest corner of the intersection at 100 East 1000 South where they have plans to construct a strip mall.  If the extra footage is taken out of the west side of the road, that will have a negative impact on their property.
 
*        David Mower wondered if there will be a public hearing concerning this property.  This does not require a public hearing.  The public is always welcome to come to Planning Commission meetings at any time because it is a public meeting.  Sometimes the City has had neighborhood meetings, but providing addresses for adjacent property owners would be left up to the developer. 
 
After the above discussion, David Clarke wondered if it would be alright for them to do the road as proposed, which would be taking 15’ out of each side of the street.  That would define where the road will go and matched the perpetual centerline that has always been there.  Going to the south in the future, the road can be skewed a little bit in order to make it fit in the future. 
 
David Clarke asked if it would be possible to receive a waiver for front-yard setbacks.  They would request that the front-yard setbacks be reduced from 30’ to 25’.  The Commission thinks there would be no problem with allowing a reduced setback since there are no other properties developed in this area with an established set-back line.  Also, it is contiguous to a commercial zone where the required front-yard setback is 25 feet. 
 
The developer stated they would like to dedicate the north-south street to the City.  It is labeled as Eagle View Drive.   They have drawn the private street to the City’s standard of 50 feet which is 30 feet of pavement.  This street does end as a stub street at the north side of the property.  They also show a narrower private street for use as a fire access going east-west from 100 East to Eagle View Drive.    There was discussion that it would be better to have a temporary turn-around area on the north end rather than a stub street.  A stub street makes it difficult for snow removal, garbage pick up, and traffic turning around.  There was discussion that they could place the fire lane along the north side of the property and that would do away with the stub street.  David Clarke said they generally set a road so that it can be accessed on either side.  Also, placed as shown puts it further away from 800 South intersection which is safer. 
 
The developer needs to present their preliminary plan to the DRC.    
 
They may want to go to the City Council and see if they are willing to go along with the 25’ front-yard setback.
 
Steve Kunzler reiterated that he is uncomfortable with the dead-end street/stub street and the issues associated with that. 
 
 
6.  Other Business
         A.  Discuss General Plan and master Transportation Plan.  Gaylen Matheson gave Commission members a large transportation plan map which shows proposed future roads.  Power lines were discussed.  It seems as the City is expanding beyond the current City limits, the power poles are ending up in the sidewalks and other awkward places.  Greg Bean said underline power may be possible in some instances.  Rocky Mountain Power will estimate that cost free of charge. 
 
Greg Bean has reviewed the introduction pages in the General Plan and has set out some suggested corrections.  He wonders if the City base map needs to be updated.  He is sure that the existing boundary has changed even if the future boundary hasn’t.  A community-wide clean-up is referenced in the General Plan and he wonders if the City does that or if they want to start that.  It also refers to a tree plan and a program where there is a yard of the week.   
 
It was suggested that he look at the elements that deal with roads and transportation and then maybe the Commission can start redesigning the transportation map. 
 
Brion Terry mentioned  there are no areas designated as historical preservation areas.  He wonders about assigning that zone to the north end of Main Street on the north side of the freeway. 
 
         B.  Other Items.   There were no other items.
 
7.  Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
 
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st day of April, 2015.

 /s/  Michelle Curtis
        Deputy City Recorder