Minutes – 03.04.2015

Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, March 4, 2015, at 6:00 p.m., Chairman Brion Terry, presiding.
 
       1.     Roll Call.
       2.     Public Hearing:
               Receive comments concerning subdivision application filed by Jared Jensen
               requesting a lot split at 561 South Main. 
      3.      Jared Jensen:  Consider recommending approval of Jared Jensen’s request
               for a lot split at 561 South main. 
      4.      Costa Vida:  Review final plans.
      5.      Eagle View Townhomes:  Review and consider recommending approval 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 corner lot sizes and lot frontage in RR-1 zone and consider
                    setting a public hearing for possible amendment to the Zoning code.
               B.  Discuss General Plan and Master Transportation Plan. 
       7.     Adjournment. 
 
 
 1.  Roll Call.  Roll call was answered by Brion Terry, David Mower, Steve Kunzler, Monte Turner, and Jeff Albrecht.  Greg Bean and Pat Hansen 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, Brady Hansen and Lindsay Hansen. 
 
2.   Public Hearing.   6:12:45 PM  A public hearing was held to receive comments concerning a subdivision application filed by Jared Jensen requesting a lot split at 561 South Main. There were no comments.  The hearing closed at 6:13:27 PM.
 
3.   Subdivision Application:  Jared Jensen is present to request a lot split for his property located at 561 South Main.  Mr.Jensen said the lot line will be 91 feet from the north boundary going south.  There is a curb cut that is partially closed with landscaping.  He will open that up so there is a wider driveway entrance to be used by JRS and LaGringa’s Restaurant.  The owner of LaGringa would like to buy the property from Mr. Jensen. 
 
Chairman Terry said it seems there were questions about having enough parking when Big Bones Restaurant went in there and they used some of the parking next to JRS.  Mr. Jensen said he thinks that they were required to have 11 to 13 spaces and his proposed plan shows that amount of parking.    
 
Because of the shared access, Mr. Jensen does not plan to put in a fence.  They will know where the boundaries are.There are no shared utilities. 
 
Monte Turner asked what if LaGringa’s was sold and the new owner wanted to install a fence, how would that affect JRS’s access.  Mr. Jensen said he could always cut more curb out and create an access.  He also has an access on the south end of his property.   Mr. Jensen said there will be a good 15 to 20 feet from the JRS building to the property line.   
 
Steve Kunzler said he has a shared access agreement that he could give to Mr. Jensen.  It could be recorded so that the shared access would never be an issue. 
 
Steve Kunzler pointed out that this is the only section of Main Street that doesn’t have sidewalk.  Mr. Jensen said he does keep the cars parked back so it is not next to the landscaping, thus creating a walkway.   One reason he doesn’t want to put in a sidewalk at the present time is because where this is the site of an old gas station.  The EPA has been monitoring the site and may come in, clean it up, and redo all of the surface.  Mr. Jensen said they did install sidewalk in front of the restaurant at the time that Big Bones went in there. 
 
Steve Kunzler motioned to recommend approval of the subdivision (lot split) for Jared Jensen (JRS Repair) at 561 South Main on the condition that a commercial driveway access agreement is entered between Mr. Jensen and the new property owner.  Jeff Albrecht seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 
 
 
4.   Costa Vida Review:  Plans for Costa Vida have been reviewed and approved in August of 2014 with the requirement that they provide landscaping plans for approval.  Since that time, it was determined that there is a planned turning lane on South Technology Drive on the west side of their property.  Gaylen Matheson said that is being worked out and the design of the actual intersection is almost ready.  Costa Vida will have a bid for the turning lane, and then if the City Council can come up with the funds for that, the turning lane can be done in conjunction with the construction of their restaurant
 
The proposed landscaping was reviewed.  It consists of rock, perennial shrubs, and trees.  It will cover 26% of their property
 
The landscape plan meets the approval of the Commission. 
 
 
5.   Eagle View Townhomes.    David Clarke, Paul Durr, Robin Hansen, and Travis Kyhl are present to the discuss the proposed construction of Eagle View Townhomes to be located at 100 East 100 south (RM-11 zone, C-2 use).  This is a subsidized housing project.  They have reviewed the DRC and engineer comments and have responded. 
 
David Clarke said they feel like their plan meets the City’s ordinances.  At last month’s meeting, they suggested they might need a variance for front-yard setbacks.  Their plan has changed so that a setback variance is not necessary.   They are willing to put in public improvements per City standards.   They do want this to be a nice neighborhood and not be a multi-story big apartment complex.    They have provided photographs of some of their other projects which are similar to this development.  The interior road will be 42’ wide with a 25’ setback on the interior.  The fire lane is proposed at 37’ wide. They will dedicate easements for the water and sewer and also an easement for the other utilities.   Even though this is not a subdivision, the Subdivision Ordinance allows a 35’ minimum road with Planning Commission and City Council approval.   Mr. Clarke said these are really not even private streets, but driveway accesses through this single piece of property. 
 
Mr. Clarke said that the DRC seemed to be hung up on item 3 with the width of the road and fire lane.  Chairman Terry said the DRC spent a lot of time discussing the width of the road which is Eagle View Drive.  That is the street where the Subdivision Ordinance says it could be allowed to be 35’ wide.  The Transportation Plan sets a private street at 50’ wide.  They have met in the middle at 42’
 
Mr.  Clarke said since this will all be private and there is no right-of-way, they are taking their measurement from the back of sidewalk.  Their roadway goes from sidewalk to sidewalk.   The paving section is actually 1 foot wider because they are using a narrower modified slope curb.  Instead of the 2-1/2’ curb, it is a 2’ curb.  The back of the curb is at the same place.  They are actually widening the pavement by one foot. 
 
Steve Kunzler at said last month’s meeting there was discussion about different road lay-outs for the project and he was surprised that this came back with basically the same layout.  He was hoping it would come back with some changes, particularly concerning Eagle View  Drive ending as a stub street.  Travis Kyhl said they did try to create a different layout, but they lost some of the units.  They need to keep the same number of units because their financing is based on that number. 
 
The following points were brought out:
*        The plan shows driveways along 100 East Street.  Steve Kunzler points out that the streets and driveways in these types of developments are usually on the inside of the development.  There will be 16 driveways backing out onto 100 East within a distance of 600+ feet.   Jeff Albrecht points out there are minor collectors all over town that have driveway accesses, but the difference is that typically there would be 5 accesses within the distance of a block and this will have driveways within the distance of 1-1/2 blocks. 
 
*        Units facing 100 East show driveways for one car per unit.  The Zoning Code states that each dwelling should have off-street parking for two cars, situated in such a way that one car does not have to be moved in order to move the other car.  Also, those spaces are to be on-site which could be interpreted to mean spaces at each unit rather scattered throughout the complex.  While the plan does provide the required number of parking spaces, the extra spaces are located some distance away from these units and it isn’t thought to be likely that visitors or extras cars will park there.  It is believed most of those will be parked on 100 East.  With so many driveways spaced so closely together, the clear view area will be compromised for cars backing out of driveways onto 100 East. 
 
*        Mr. Clarke wonders how much traffic there will be on 100 East?  This is a residential development.  The property on the other side of the street is zoned commercial.  It will have be a 25-mph speed zone.  The 66-foot road cross section allows for on-street parking. 
 
*        They were concerned with putting a 36’ driveway in front of the units on 100 East because that causes more vehicles to back out onto the street.  It will also take some of the landscaping space.  Would the City rather have landscaping or concrete? 
 
*        If the plan were changed so that units are accessed from interior streets, they would have to install a block fence along 100 East.  They wanted to keep the feel of this being a nice residential area, rather than a blocked-off. ugly apartment complex. 
 
*        They can add 3’ on each side of the driveways to get the side-by-side parking.  It was suggested they could use different color or type of edged border on the driveway for curb appeal since landscaping will be lost. 
*        Discussed painting the curb red on 100 East.  The Commission does not think that is necessary. 
 
After the above discussion it was agreed that parking will be changed on 100 East so that each unit has a side-by-side parking space for two cars at each dwelling. 
 
The interior private streets were then discussed as follows:
 
*        A stub street creates problems for garbage collection.  They will require tenants in those buildings to take their trash containers to the corner on collection day. They will make a recessed area in the curb where the cans be placed without interfering with traffic on the fire lane.
 
*        DRC comment no. 4 requested that buildings 6, 7, and 8 show a 20’ setback from the fire lane.  Their response is that this is a fire access lane and not really a street, therefore they are proposing 11’ setbacks on the fire lane.  Mr. Clarke said this is a private street, 37’ from back-of-curb to back-of-curb.  This is agreeable with the Commission as the clear view area will be maintained.
 
*        The City and the developer should be clear as to who will bear the expense of repairs to utilities that are located in private streets.  It is thought that the City would repair any sewer or water lines, with the developer then being responsible to repair asphalt. 
 
*        These cannot be sold as individual units because of its status as affordable units.  They will have to be maintained at that for 99 years.  It cannot become student housing.  It is not 100% affordable as they will be able to rent out three or four units at market value. 
 
*        They will use a 1” water meter for building and perhaps two meters for the 4-plexes. 
 
*        There will be an on-site property manager.
 
*        All interior streets will be marked red for “no parking” along the streets. 
 
*        As the City’s reviewing engineer, Jeff Albrecht advises they need to provide a grading plan and address storm drainage between the units and how it will get into the drainage pond.  As far as street drainage, there is a catch basin on the northwest corner of 100 East 1000 South.  He wonders where that drains to?  They need to look into that with public works.    
 
*        Brady Hansen asked about the street improvements.  He was told the developer will finish their half of the road to the center plus 10 feet.  On the south, the asphalt will be almost at the sidewalk of the Soda Run property.  That sidewalk is high and Mr. Hansen wonders how they will deal with that.  Mr. Clarke said by the time they put in the required fill and asphalt, the curb won’t be as high as it looks.  The asphalt will be about 3 feet from the curb.  They won’t try to match the sidewalk because it doesn’t seem like it was put in right.    
 
*        There is an irrigation ditch on the north side of their property that will be piped. 
 
*        It is felt that when this goes to the City Council, they need to figure out a way to that the 100 East can continue all the way to 800 South.  It would be best for traffic  to go to 800 South so that it enters Main Street at a controlled intersection.  It would also be important to get the road finished all the way to the intersection at 1000 South. 
 
*        The developer would like to have a payback agreement in place in the event that another property does use improvements they have put in. 
 
*        The tax office located immediately south of this property has been contacted by City Administrator Matt Creamer. 
 
*        They will put in a knox box. 
 
*        A street light is shown at the property line of their property and Jensen’s Tax Service.  It would be best to have that street light placed 200 feet from the intersection of 1000 South.  They will pay for that installation and then the City will pay the street light bill after that.  The lights on the garages are photocells that stay on all the time.  They wonder about street lights on the private road? If they put those in, will the City pay the power bill for them as well?  It is thought that the City wouldn’t pay for lights within the development, but they could bring that up with the Council. 
 
 
Jeff Albrecht motions to recommend approval for the construction of Eagle View Townhomes contingent upon satisfying the comments of the DRC dated February 24, 2015, with the exception of the fire lane being allowed at a width of 37 feet,  based upon the above discussed, and that all applicable engineering comments are resolved.  
 
Discussion on the motion:  The City is in need of a project like this, and it is a good project, and he would like the City to look at the Ordinance and see that it is more clear as to intent.  He struggles with the lay-out of the plan and the streets going through it.  He feels like they have tried to comply with the ordinance and maybe the ordinance is not clear. 
 
The motion is amended to add that on 100 East, the plans will be changed to show a driveway width that will accommodate two cars per unit to be parked side-by-side.  David Mower seconded the motion.  The motion carried with the following votes:
         AYE:  David Mower, Jeff Albrecht, Brion Terry, and Monte Turner
         NAY:  Steve Kunzler.
The motion carried. 
 
This will be placed on the City Council agenda for next week.  Jeff Albrecht and Brion Terry will represent the Commission at that meeting. 
 
6.  Other Business. 
         A.  Discuss corner lot sizes and lot frontage in RR-1 zones and consider setting a public hearing for possible amendment of the Zoning Code.   Chairman Terry it was brought to his attention that the Zoning Code requires that corner lots in subdivisions should be 20% larger than the other lots and that the frontage of the property shall be 200 feet.  This language is probably not necessary for subdivisions in zones with larger requirements for acreage.   
 
There was that the Code could be changed so that those issues for zones larger than R1-10 would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 
 
The Commission would like to study the Code and see if there are other changes that need to be made in regard to these zones, particularly on Tables 31-1 and 31-3 need to be reviewed.
 
Another tweak that needs to be made in the Code is the section on parking where it 2 parking spaces are required for single-family, duplex, 3-plexes, and 4-plexes.  That should be clarified to require 2 parking spaces per unit. 
 
Steve Kunzler would like to see the Code changed to address the issue of stub roads, whether they are private or public.
 
Next month the Commission will be reviewing a proposed addition to the Big Rock Gym on 700 East.  The number of parking spaces will need to be determined.  It was  decided that parking for an educational facility could be applied in this instance where it says the parking is to be as required and approved by the land use of authority depending on the nature and type of facility.
 
         B.  Discuss General Plan and master Transportation Plan.   Greg Bean has worked on another section of the General Plan and his notes are included.
 
         C.  Other Items.  Richfield Storage had called the office.  These storage units are located south of the block plant and west of the airport.  Last July, they received approval for the construction of buildings.  They had planned on finishing those with 100% block but have changed their mind due to cost.  They would like the back of the buildings to be siding.  The way the buildings will sit, the back of them will be on the north.  That would be the left side of the buildings when facing them from the road.  They were told that even though it is the back of their buildings, it would be considered the side because of the visibility from the road.  The Code requires that sides shall be covered in at least 20% of the same material as street-facing side.  The Commission agrees with this.
 
7.  Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
 
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1^st day of April, 2015.
 
/s/  Michelle Curtis
       Deputy City Recorder