Minutes – 04.01.2015

 At the Planning Commission
 In and For Said City
 April 1, 2015

Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, April 1, 2015, at 6:00 p.m., Chairman Brion Terry, presiding.
       1.     Roll Call.
       2.     Minutes Approval:  Consider approving minutes of February 4, 2015, and
               March 4, 2015.   
      3.      Central Utah Counseling:  Consider approving Central Utah Counseling
               Center’s request for a supported living facility to be located at 268 South
               100 East (C-2 use, D zone).
       4.     Brock and Kellie Buchanan:  Review and consider approving plans for an
               addition to the building located at 345 North 700 East for expansion of a
               gymnastics business (P-2 use, CS zone). 
      5.      Knight Interiors:  Review and consider approving plans for the construction
               of a  retail strip mall to be constructed at approximately 70 East 1000 South
               (C-1 use, CG zone). 
       6.     Other Business
               A.  Discuss corner lot sizes and lot frontage in RR-1 zones and other
                     changes to the Zoning Code.  Consider setting a public hearing for
                     possible amendment of the Zoning Code.
               B.  Discuss General Plan and Master Transportation Plan.
               C.  Other items.
       7.     Adjournment
 1.  Roll Call.  Roll call was answered by Brion Terry, David Mower, Steve Kunzler, Greg Bean, Pat Hansen, Monte Turner, and Jeff Albrecht.    
City Staff Present:   Zoning Administrator Gaylen Matheson and Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis.    
Others present:  Chad Williams, Brig Rees, Brock Buchanan, Kellie Buchanan, Chris Boyter. 
2.   Minutes Approval.   The minutes of February 4, 2015, and March 4, 2015, were reviewed.   March 4th, Page 7, line 37 needs to be changed to say “Big Rock” rather than “Red Rocky.”  Line 42 shall be deleted.  The roll call on March 4th needs to show that Monte Turner was in attendance at that meeting.  David Mower motioned to approve the minutes of February 4, 2014, and March 4, 2015, as amended.  Jeff Albrecht seconded the motion.  The motion carried.   
3.   Central Utah Counseling:  Chad Williams was present to request a Conditional Use Permit allowing a supported living facility to be located at 268 South 100 East (C-2 use, D zone).   Their agency is the Public Mental Health Treatment Agency for the Six County area.  He is the team leader of services for Sevier, Piute and Wayne Counties.  Their agency has three teams.  This is the only team that does not have a residential facility for some of the mentally ill that they work with.  The facility in Mt. Pleasant is housing four people from Sevier County because there are no services here.   
This agency uses the home to the north of this home.  It is used for day treatment groups.  They purchased the home in December for use as a supported living facility.  Since the purchase, they have obtained State licensing, had their fire inspection, and have complied with everything that the Department of Human Services requires.    
The home is approximately 2000 square feet.  They expect to house perhaps five people.  It is temporary housing to give people a place where they can transition, possibly from the State hospital, and then assist them to find more permanent housing.   This is not assisted living, there is not an office, and it won’t be staffed 24 hours a day.  There will be an on-call therapist to assist people 24/7 if the need arises.   The purpose of this is to help people become as independent as possible.   
David Mower wonders what happens if residents have disputes and it is unstaffed.  Mr. Williams said they will have to call the on-call person or police.  They try to teach people to work cooperatively with each other and teach them life skills that they haven’t had.  In the Mt. Pleasant home, people occasionally do get into disputes and those are usually solved with the on-call person and sometimes law enforcement.  They do have rules that they have to abide by.   
The closest residential neighbor will be around the corner.   Mr. Williams said they  own the property on the corner to the south where they are planning a separate but related project later this year.  The Richfield City yard and shop is across the street.  The one lone residential neighbor is the one at 75 East 300 South.  It is believed that home is a rental property. 
Concerning parking, most clients don’t have the resources to have a vehicle.  If they do, there is a large area of concrete driveway where they can park. 
There is no sidewalk in front of this home, but that will be part of the grant the City has obtained for improving 100 East.  
Their main office is on Main Street and these properties adjoin with backyards.  It isn’t possible to drive through, but a person can walk through there.  This is an ideal location for this type of home.  They have good oversight for their treatment.  These people are already in the community, but this is a place where they can get help.   
Some of the residents will have some income.  Most are likely on social security disability.  The Agency will help them with budgeting and managing their money.  The anticipated average stay is 90 days or less.  There is not a maximum time to stay, but it is supposed to be transitional, although there could be instances where people don’t have the resources or the ability to go somewhere else. 
Because this is a C-2 change of use, this will have to go to the City Council for approval.
Chairman Terry points out that he has inspected their other buildings and they are all very well maintained and they comply with any suggestions that are made.
Steve Kunzler motioned to recommend that the City Council give approval for the property located at 265 South 100 East owned by Central Utah Counseling Center to be used as a supported living center.  Monte Turner seconded the motion.  The motion carried. 
4.   Brock and Kellie Buchanan:  Brock and Kellie Buchanan are present to request approval of plans for the construction of an addition to the building located at 356 North 700 East.  The building is used for gymnastics lessons (P-2 use, CS zone).
Chairman Terry said the DRC has addressed this proposal and had the following six comments:
            1.         The new addition appears to meet required setbacks.
            2.         Curb, gutter, and sidewalk would be required along the front of the
                        property.  This may require reconfiguration of the parking in front of
                        the building. 
            3.         Section 1914 requires that all off-street parking areas shall be
                        surfaced with asphalt, cement, or other binder pavement and
                        permanently maintained.  It also requires a storm water drainage
                        system to be provided for all off-street parking areas. 
            4.         The Code requires that the site have 10% landscaping. 
            5.         The plan shows 20 parking spaces.  The Planning Commission will
                        have to determine if that is an adequate number.
            6.         Page 129 of the Zoning Code requires that adequate lighting shall be
                        provided in all parking areas with an emphasis placed on
                       appropriate lighting at entrances and exits. 
            NOTE:  If the Planning Commission and City Council agree to delay     improvements, they might want to consider having the Buchanans come
            in yearly to report on progress towards making these improvements. 
The Buchanans came to Planning Commission last month for a preliminary review.  They expressed their concern with the cost of installing the required improvements.  They were told to come back with a plan showing improvements being installed over a period of time.  It was pointed out that the new addition is what triggers the requirement for the improvements. 
Concerning curb, gutter, and sidewalk, Mrs. Buchanan said on 700 East there is a sidewalk to the north of their property which is in front of the Zion Way Apartments.  To the south of them there is a drain gutter.  The two don’t line up.  They would like to do a drain gutter in front of their building in order to keep parking along the front of their building (east side).   Mrs. Buchanan would propose installing sidewalk from the north property boundary going south for a distance of 24’.  They would then put in a drain gutter for the remaining distance in front of their building, lining it up with the drain gutter on the south side of them.  The sidewalk to the north of them has a parking strip with grass.  They were advised the City doesn’t encourage the planter strip. 
Normally the city engineer would show them where the sidewalk needs to be and then it would have to be built according to the City standards.  They need to show the street with a 60-foot right-of-way and align the sidewalk according to that.  A surveyor could show where the center of road is and they could measure from that. 
On the east side, cars are able to pull off of 700 East and park for the entire width of their property.  The Commission feels it would be good to break up that area with a driveway on the north end and one on the south end, having curb, gutter, and sidewalk in between.  They would lose the parking stalls along the front of the building, but it seems like this would be a safer alternative than having cars backing onto 700 East. 
When it is determined where the driveways will be, they might want to have a shared access agreement for the south driveway if it is shared with the auto repair shop.  The Buchanans said that rather than sharing a driveway with the auto repair shop, they hope to put in a cinder block fence at some time in the future. 
There is a concern about kids walking behind cars.  The Commission would like to see the installation of some sort of parking bumpers as a way to separate a walkway along the building in front of parked cars. 
Mrs. Buchanan starts classes at 3:30 and there are 12 kids in a class.  Most of the time, the only car parked there is hers.  Her classes are staggered so there are maybe 10 cars parked there at the most.  She has about 150 students. 
Mrs. Buchanan stated these improvements are going to be cost prohibitive for her.  She isn’t against making it look better.  She wants it to look nice.  But if she has to raise her prices to be able to afford to put in these improvements, she will lose kids.  This keeps kids involved and busy.  She does this for the kids.
David Mower points out that she proposes spending $2000 a year.  How much would it cost to install curb, gutter, and sidewalk and pavement?  It is thought that curb, gutter, and sidewalk would cost about $4000 for a distance of 106’.  David Mower said he thinks it is going to come down to numbers.  The Commission is probably going to be okay with giving her time, but it is a question of how much time she needs.
Chairman Terry said the Commission needs to stay with the Ordinance and be consistent with what other businesses have been required to comply with. 
Mrs. Buchanan pointed out that cars park along the front of Jorgensen’s which is a very busy road.  When Jorgensens built onto their building, they were not required to fix the parking problem along the street.  
The Commission feels if she is given a time frame in which to complete improvements, then the most important thing to be done first is the curb, gutter, and sidewalk.  That would help the drainage situation, it would keep the gravel from migrating out onto the street.  It is not felt that they would need to do the pavement from the street to the gutter at this time.  It is important to provide safety for the kids with a proper drop-off zone with curb, gutter, and sidewalk.  Identifying designated parking spots, makes it a safer area.  Creating a walkway with parking bumpers would also be desired at this time.
They need to develop a plan with a timeline that would address the other items.  The Buchanans are willing to rearrange the order of their priority list.
Chairman Terry said he worries about setting a precedent.  If they can’t get a waiver for improvements and they are forced to do all improvements at the present time, then they won’t be able to do the addition.  The safety problem won’t be solved.  Perhaps that is justification for allowing the improvements to be installed over time.   
The Planning Commission can approve this project according to the requirements in the Code, but then if they need to have additional time to do it, they will need to go the Council for that.  Page 99 of the Zoning Code states as follows:  “The Council, upon the receipt of a Commission recommendation, may provide that the installation of necessary streets, street widening and improvements, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and trails be delayed until a date certain, or provided as part of any area-wide improvement plan(s).  The timing of any improvement plan(s) shall be at the sole discretion of the council.”
The Commission would like to see curb, gutter, and sidewalk as the first item and also parking bumpers which would create a walkway between cars and the building.  They need to show those on their plan.  The Buchanans commented that the parking area has gravel and it never gets muddy. 
Jeff Albrecht motioned to approve an addition to the Big Rock Gym with the requirement that the following improvements be installed in accordance with the Zoning Code:  Curb, gutter, and sidewalk along 700 East; installation of a defined walkway area with bumpers for safety of pedestrians; hard surface for all parking areas; landscaping; and lighting.  The Commission recommends that in accordance with Section 1625, the City Council allow the improvements to be installed over a 5-year period with the requirement that curb, gutter, and sidewalk be completed along 700 East at the present time, together with a safety parking plan for drop-offs and parking bumpers to create a safe walkway area between the building and cars, and allowing a delay of the other required improvements.    
The motion was clarified that if parking spaces are eliminated in front of the building to create a drop-off zone in front, then the Commission is fine with the remaining 16 parking spaces as drawn.  Lighting would be the next important thing to address.  It may be that the lighting on the building will be sufficient.
Steve Kunzler seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 
5.   Knight Interiors.   Brig Rees presented plans for the construction of a retail building to be located at approximately 70 East 1000 South. (C-1 use, CG zone.)  The building will house Knights Interiors together with spaces for four other tenants. 
The DRC comments are discussed as follows:
 1.  The property is comprised of three lots.  These will need to be combined into
       one lot.  This will be done.
 2.  Sewer:     There is a 14” sewer line on 1000 South.  There is an 8” line that
      follows the angled property line at the southeast border of the property.  It
ties into the line at 1000 South.  Provide a recorded utility easement there.  The sewer line is shown as going towards and tying into 100 East. 
 3.  Water:  There is a 6” water line on 1000 South and a 12” line on 100 East. 
      They will connect onto 100 East.   They want to use a 1-1/2” meter.   They will tie water into the 12” line on 100 East.  Mr. Rees doesn’t think they will have to go into 1000 South at all. 
 4.  Payback Agreement .  If requested, the City would facilitate a payback
      agreement for a portion of street improvements on the east side of this
      property.  The agreement would go for a length of 10 years.   (Century Link
      owns the property across the street to the east.  City staff will contact  them
      to see if they are interested in doing improvements on their side of the street
   in conjunction with this project.)  A payback agreement was explained to Mr. Rees. He understands they will be required to install road improvements on their side of the street plus 10 feet beyond the center.  They could have a payback agreement where the property owner across the road would reimburse them for their share of the cost if they develop their property within the next 10 years.  Mr. Rees said they plan to use the centerline of the existing road.  Jeff Albrecht pointed out that as the road goes south, it may need to be shifted somewhat to accommodate the existing power poles.  They need to do a survey and show where the cross-section hits in relation to the power poles.  If that is the case, the City may have to consider giving a waiver for the setback or allow the road to be a bit narrower so that the power poles are not in the middle of the sidewalk. 
 5.  Fire hydrants.  There is a fire hydrant on the intersection of 1000 South and
     100 East.  Although this fire hydrant has recently been installed, it appears as though it might not be in the right place.   They will need to get with Public Works Director Keith Mogan to see if it might need to be moved.  Jeff Albrecht said he will review that as the engineer.
 6.  Street Improvements:  Provide a plan showing cross sections, road width
      standards, and a 15’ dedication for the street on 100 East.    The side of the
      property that fronts on 1050 South does not show sidewalk but already has
      curb and gutter.  Sidewalk wouldn’t be required because there is no sidewalk
      along the rest of the street which is already developed. 
      The site plan shows a one-way driveway at the back of the building (the
      southeasterly side of the property).    Post a sign by the building designating
      it as one-way.  At the northeast end of the driveway, post a sign showing no
      entrance.   It appears the driveway would be used as a loading zone.  It could
      be designated as such with a sign.   Regarding the driveway on 100 East,
      there is a question as to whether a larger truck coming from the north would
      be able to make a hard right turn without having to back up.   Have Jeff
      Albrecht check the turning radius of larger trucks and see if they could make
      the turn.  Developer may want to consider using the entrance on 100 East as
      an exit only or label it to be used for utility vehicles only, i.e. trash collection
      1000 South Street does have curb.  Sidewalk will need to be added.  The
      sidewalk will be next to the street.  Also install curb, gutter, sidewalk on the
      100 East side.
The street improvement shown on the last page shows cross sections drawn per City standards.   A 5-foot sidewalk is shown on 1050 South Street which is on the south side of this property.  The DRC did not think a sidewalk should be required there.  The Planning Commission is agreement with that.   
The driveway on the back of the building will be used by trucks for delivery.  That would be a one-way driveway going from southwest to northeast.  It is anticipated that some customers might use that driveway, but that is not its purpose.  It will be labeled “one-way” with the north end of it labeled “do not enter.” 
The DRC questioned if a larger passenger truck would be able to make a hard right turn from 100 East going into the parking lot.  Jeff Albrecht will check that radius.  Mr. Rees also said during construction they can have some of their large trucks use that driveway and if it is a problem, they will make the driveway wider. 
They will provide a 6’ wide sidewalk along 1000 South and 100 East. 
  7.  Knox Box.  Knox box should be installed.  They will do this. 
  8.  Street lights.  The plan shows two street lights on 1000 South.  They should
       be moved so that one of them should be installed at the intersection of 1000
       South 100 East with the other one being placed about 200 feet to the West. 
       The developer shall pay for installation of the lights.   They are in agreement
       with this. 
  9.  On-site drainage and retention.  Show on-site drainage and retention.  If they
       plan to use the drainage box on 1000 south and 100 East, they ought to
       participate in the cost that is being incurred with the development of the
       townhouse project  going in north of there.   It needs to be ensured that the
    box can handle the drainage from both of these new developments.  Mr. Rees said at this point he isn’t sure about drainage.  They need to get with public works and determine where the storm drain box will be.  They need to have some on-site drainage as well.
Mr. Rees was advised that the geotechnical report may show a really high water table.  He said the engineer wanted an approval of the project and then will go forward with the full-blown plans showing drainage. 
 10.  Landscape.  The plan shows 11% of the property as being landscaped. 
        Provide detailed landscape plan showing types and sizes of plants.  They will provide detailed landscape plan.  That can be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a later date.  It was suggested that their plan show where the fire hydrant is.
 11.  Parking.  They are providing  64 spaces which is the amount required by
       Code.  Agreed. 
 12.  Signs.   They show a sign on the front of the building.  All other business
        signs need to be approved by the City.  The developer should install and
        pay for stop signs going out of the entrances.   Agreed. 
 13.  Fence.  No fence is required.  Agreed. 
 14.  Fees.  Developer to pay sewer and water impact fees, and engineering fees
        incurred by the City.  Agreed. 
Greg Bean motioned to accept the plans for the construction of a retail strip mall to be constructed at approximately 70 East 1000 South with the stipulations that they show where the fire hydrant will be, providing a detailed landscape plan showing the location of trees, plants, etc., providing a plan showing both on-site and off-site drainage that is acceptable to the reviewing engineer, and subject to compliance with the engineer’s review and approval of the entire project.  Monte Turner seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.
6.  Other Business.   Chris Boyter is not on the agenda but is present.  He would like to construct an addition on his existing garage.  It would sit partially to the side of the home.  He has torn down a shed and would replace it with this larger garage.  The previous shed sat  right on the property line.  He said he will be improving the situation by placing the new building 3-1/2 feet from the property. 
The Code requires that an accessory garage be set 6 feet behind the back of the home.  This will intrude into the side yard.  A garage can sit to the side of the home as long as the side yard setback is maintained.  This garage will not maintain the side yard setback. 
There was a significant amount of discussion as to whether or not the Commission has the ability to allow the garage to be built.  It seems to be the general concensus of Commission members that the placement of the proposed garage doesn’t create a