CITY OF RICHFIELD CITY
SEVIER COUNTY, UTAH
At the Planning Commission
In and For Said City
April 19, 2017
Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, April 19, 2017, at 6:00 p.m. Chairman Brion Terry, presiding.
- Roll Call.
- Public Hearing:
Receive public comments concerning standards required in the MD zone.
Specifically consider development standards for landscaping, sidewalks, parking surface,
and finish materials for exterior of buildings.
- Zoning Code:
Consider making recommendations to the City Council amending the Zoning
Code as it applies to development standards in the MD zones. Discussion to
include modification to requirements for landscaping, sidewalks, parking
surface, and finish materials for exterior of buildings.
- General Plan:
Review and discuss modifications to be made to the General Plan.
1. Roll Call: Roll call was answered by Brion Terry, David Mower, Greg Bean, Lisa White, and Steve Kunzler. Jeff Albrecht and Monte Turner were excused.
2. Public Hearing (6:08 p.m.):
A public hearing was opened to receive comments from the public concerning development standards required in the MD zone.
Brayden Gardner was present. He is a local real estate agent. The City Council hired him about a year ago to market the Business Park property. He wanted to go over some of the issues that he has noted in the CC&Rs. The Commission will consider revising the Zoning Code, but the Zoning Code and the CC&Rs ought to be somewhat compatible. He believes that Zoning Code is actually more restrictive than the CC&Rs. Usually, CC&Rs would be more restrictive.
Item 10 in the CC&Rs, Front Lot Line. It states that any property line facing a designated street shall be considered as a front lot line. He thinks there should be an exception on a corner lot when it comes to landscaping and also contrasting material on the side of the building. He believes on a metal building, the contrasting finish material should only be required on the front of the building, not both street-facing sides. He feels that requiring both sides could be cost prohibitive.
Permitted Uses. The goal is to attract new businesses. He would like to see that include attracting businesses that are already in town that would like to move to the Business Park. The gentleman who came to Planning Commission last month would fall under that category. It won’t necessarily create any new jobs, but it would free up some other areas for new businesses. There are a handful of other businesses that he has approached about moving and thinks changing the wording would open some doors.
Building Exterior. With regard to the contrasting material on the building exterior, it is his belief that having a maximum area of 25 to 35% on the front of the building is adequate. Coverage of 50% is cost-prohibitive.
Lot Size. The CC&Rs require a minimum lot size of 1 acre. He suggests allowing a minimum of 1/2 acre. The plat is currently drawn with 1-acre lots. Certain businesses could get by with 1/2 acre minimum. That will be a City Council issue. The Zoning Code does not require a minimum acreage of 1 acre.
Landscaping: His personal opinion is that requiring landscaping at 5% across the board is excessive. For a half-acre lot, that is not terrible. It would be a mow strip in the front with a little extra depth. If someone is looking at purchasing 7 or 10 acres, then 5% is a lot of landscaping. A 7-acre parcel would require 1/3rd acre of landscaping. Chairman Terry advised that the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that it be changed to 2% of the property or 2500 square feet, whichever is less.
Enforcement: The CC&Rs state that if there is a conflict between the CC&Rs and the Zoning Code, then the more restrictive is followed. He thinks the Code and the CC&Rs should be the same. He doesn’t think the CC&Rs are even necessary.
Chairman Terry said the four items that the Planning Commission recommended to the Council are as follows: 1) The front of the building, the exterior material to be changed to 30% of just the front with no limitations on the side. 2) Eliminate the requirement for sidewalks. 3) Change landscaping to 2500 square feet of 2%, whichever is less, and 4) relax the requirement for an asphalt or concrete surface behind the building. This hard surface would only be required for the public parking areas. The Commission would like to broaden the definition of the scope of what a hard surface would be such as compacted gravel.
There was discussion that as far as the hard surface, it needs to be done right and there does need to be some standard. Grades need to be checked. The areas that are in view from a City street need to be maintained at a certain standard. It does need to be done in such a way that it doesn’t become cost prohibitive. It will have to be well maintained and not create a mess on the City street.
The public hearing closed at 6:35 p.m.
3. Zoning Code: Consider making recommendations to the City Council amending the Zoning
Code as it applies to development standards in the MD zones.
Lisa White wonders if it is worth keeping the CC&Rs if the Zoning Code sets forth the standards that are desired. Then there would only be one place to look instead of two places. If the two are compatible, then it seems like the CC&Rs are unnecessary. There should be CC&Rs only if there needs to be additional strictness. In this case, it seems that the Zoning Code is more restrictive. When there are CC&Rs, a person should be able to rely on its standards and not have to go to the Zoning Code.
There had been discussion at the last meeting to rezone the MD zone which is in the southeast part of the City so that these less restrictive standards don’t affect the contiguous residential neighborhood. It was suggested that there could be an MD zone and an MD-1 or MD-2 zone, changing the Business Park to the MD-1 or MD-2 zone and having these changes apply only to that zone rather than rezoning the entire MD area in the southeast part of town.
Lisa White motioned that a recommendation be made to the City Council that the Zoning Code be changed as it applies to the development standards in the MD zone: (1) The front street-facing wall for metal buildings located in the M-D zone shall have an area of thirty (30%) percent finished with brick, stone, block, stucco, glass, or a combination thereof (see Section 1722.1 of the Zoning Code); (2) Landscaping to be required at two (2%) percent of the property or 2500 square feet, whichever is less; (3) Hard surface requirements to require paved surface in public areas and not to be required for the entire lot, with some standards required in keeping the City street clear of debris and mud; (4) Eliminate the requirement for sidewalks. Greg Bean seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Those voting yea: Brion Terry, David Mower, Greg Bean, Jeff Albrecht, and Lisa White. Those voting nay: None.
The Commission also recommends that the CC&Rs be changed to match the Zoning Code and for the council to consider allowing property to be ½ acre in size rather than 1 acre.
4. General Plan: Review and discuss modifications to be made to the General Plan.
The General Plan was studied and recommended changes discussed.
5. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 3rd day of May, 2017.
/s/ Michelle Curtis