Minutes – 04.02.2014



                                                                                                                                                      Atthe Planning Commission

                                                                                                                                                      Inand For Said City

                                                                                                                                                      April 2 2014


         Minutesof the Richfield City PlanningCommission meeting held on Wednesday, April 2, 2014, at 6:00 p.m., Chairman Brion Terry, presiding.

       1.     RollCall.

       2.     Minute Approval.

       3.     Zoning Code Discussion:

               a.  Casitas/Mother-in-Law Quarters.

               b.  Sign Ordinance.

       4.    Other business.

       5.   Adjournment.

 1.  Roll Call.  Roll call was answered by Steve Kunzler, PatHansen, Brion Terry, Greg Bean, Monte Turner, David Mower, and Jeff Albrecht.  

City Staff Present:   ZoningAdministrator Gaylen Matheson and Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis.    

 2.  Minutes Approval.  The minutes of March 5, 2014, were reviewed.  SteveKunzler motioned to approve the minutes of March 5, 2014.  Monte Turner seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.

 3.  Zoning Code Discussion

         A.  Casitas/Mother-in-Law Quarters.  Two months ago Commission members were giventhe assignment to review ordinances from different cities and see how they dealwith casitas.     

Brion Terry looked at Santaquin’sOrdinance.  Their ordinance was veryrelaxed and any type of a mother-in-law quarter or casita is allowed as long asit meets other requirements.  They allowaccessory apartments in any residential zone with a maximum of one.  There are parking requirements.  There can be a maximum of two utility metersper lot.  They have to meet buildingcodes.  In order to preserve thesingle-family residential appearance, the building cannot have a separateentrance at the front of the building or the side of the building facing thestreet where the sole purpose of the entrance is to provide access to theaccessory apartment.  An accessoryapartment approved in an existing structure may use existing entrances. 

Pat Hansen reviewed Ephraim’sCode.  Ephraim allows a second unit inall zones.  Anyone who has a second unitis considered a business and they have to get a business license for it.  They can get an exemption from the businesslicense if it is used for a family member.    

Heber City does not allow living orsleeping quarters in any building other than the main residentialbuilding.    

Jeff Albrecht looked at Kanab’sordinance and they allow guest houses in every residential zone.  They are very lenient.  The only restriction is that the squarefootage of the garage or guest house cannot be larger than 50% of the area ofthe main floor of the primary residence. 

There is discussion that theCommission wouldn’t want to allow these in every zone.  The Code limits to 25% the amount of the rearyard that can be covered with accessory buildings.  There was also discussion about requiring abusiness license for an accessory dwelling unit.  However, that would create multi-familyhousing throughout the City. 

One question is if there is a detacheddwelling behind the home, how will emergency services be able to find them ifthey don’t have a separate address.  Isthere a way to have these buildings flagged as accessory dwellings if someonecalls for emergency services.  BrionTerry said if the fire department goes to a fire, they treat it different if itlooks like a garage as opposed to a building where people are living.   

The Zoning Code does allow accessorydwelling units in the RR-5 zone and the F zone. Note:  There are not any areas intown that are zoned RR-5, and the F zone requires a minimum of 160 acres. 

Monte Turner points out that if theCommission leans towards allowing accessory dwelling units only if they areattached, then the Code doesn’t need to be changed.  All a person would have to do is get abuilding permit to build onto their house. Typically in the past, the building inspector will not issue a buildingpermit for a home addition if there is a kitchen in it.  The Commission would need to clarify whetheror not they want to allow second kitchens in homes. 

Nephi City has a provision in theirCode which addresses secondary kitchens. Some of the requirements are as follows:

         1.         Thedwelling shall have only one front entrance.

         2.         Thedwelling shall have only one address.

         3.        An interior access shall be maintained to all parts of the home. 

                     This requirement is to assurethat an accessory unit, apartment

                     or second dwelling unit is not created.  For example, there shall

                     be no keyed locks, deadbolt locks, or other manner of limiting or

                     restricting access from thesecond kitchen to the remainder of the


         4.         Thehome shall have no more than one electric meter. 

         5.         Asecond kitchen may exist only as part of the primary structure and

                     may not be installed in anaccessory or “out” building

                     . . .

         7.         Theproperty owner must execute a written covenant, provided by

                     the city, which declaresthat the home will not be converted into

                     two (2) or more unitswithout specific approval of the city.  .. .  

         8.         Oncea second kitchen is approved, both present and future owners

                     of the property must limituse of the single-family residence to one

                     family only, thus notallowing renters or boarders.

                     .. .

There is still the concern about thesebecoming rental units.  The St. Georgeordinance specifies a size of no less than 150 square feet and no larger than400 square feet.  Limiting the size mightdiscourage these from becoming rentals.  Another option might be allowing only a small kitchenette.    

If these are allowed, it is doubtfulthere would be a large number of these throughout the City. 

It was suggested to use Nephi’sordinance and St. George’s as a model and then specify a square foot maximumand use language that it can’t be rented separately.  It is felt that the following issues shouldbe addressed:  Narrow down to maximumbuilding size, allow as a detached building, no second utility meter, accessorydwelling cannot be used as a rental, and a separate address for the accessoryunit. 

As to whether or not a second kitchenis allowed in a home addition, the Planning Commission needs to give directionto the building inspector and it may need to be specified in the Zoning Code.  Building Inspector Gaylen Matheson said hewould still require that there is a door from the house into the unit so thatit is not all by itself or else then it becomes a duplex. 

Greg Bean wondered about having arestriction of non-immediate family members occupancies.  Steve Kunzler said he thinks size wouldcontrol the number of people. 

Steve Kunzler suggested that thissection could be prefaced with language setting out the intent for allowingaccessory dwelling units. 

David Mower will create a rough draftsetting forth these ideas.  The AccessoryDwelling Unit provisions in the Code could be tweaked on page 105.    

These would be allowed as C1 uses inresidential areas.

         B.  Sign Ordinance.  In recent months the Commission has discussedwhether to revise the Sign Ordinance so that wind sail banners can beallowed.  Commissioner Pat Hansen presenteda proposal for language to be inserted in the Sign Ordinance which would allowwind sail banners.  Rather than doing amajor overhaul of the Sign Ordinance, it seemed that an easy way to deal withit would be to insert a definition for wind sail/double-sided vertical signsand then provide specific regulations.  Aproposed definition would be as follows:

                     Wind Sail Banner/Double-Sided vertical Sign:  The wind sail

                     banner/double-sided vertical sign is acustom-made flag or banner

                     madeof fabric or non-rigid material that utilizes a horizontal arm

                     orframe which creates a large sail-shaped graphic area for


There would be language added in thesection titled “Specific Regulations by Sign Type.”  On page 159, after “Window Signs”, thefollowing would be inserted: 

         Wind Sail Banner/Double Sided VerticalSign:

                     1.      Windsail banners/double sided vertical signs shall not

                              requirea sign permit. 

                     2.     Shall be securely anchored soas not to create a hazard to

                              pedestriansor automobiles. 

                     3.     Shall not be placed in the sitetriangle or the public right-of-way.

                     4.     Shall not be placed on the roofof any building.

                     5.     Shall be maintained in a neatand attractive condition.

                     6.     Shall be limited to no morethan two (2) signs per place of


There was discussion as to whether tolimit signs by size and height.  It seemslike most of these types of signs are similar in size so it is felt that doesn’tneed to be addressed.  They couldn’t bevery tall because they wouldn’t stand with the they are built.  If it appears that size or height is becominga problem, it can be addressed at a later time. 

Pat Hansen said she also wonderedabout adding a provision which would allow inflatable balloons.  It was discussed at the last meeting anddecided not to address it this time because there hasn’t been anyone trying touse them.  Then last weekend one of thebusinesses was using an inflatable balloon for advertising.  It has only been there on a couple ofSaturdays.  If the Commission wants toallow balloons, then the same type of language could be inserted in the Code.

David Mower asked how do businessesknow what they are allowed to do as far as signage.  Steve Kunzler said the Chamber of Commerceneeds to be educated.  At the time theSign Ordinance was adopted, the Chamber was somewhat involved and their inputwas invited.  Also, whenever a new businesscomes, they are advised that before they put up any type of signage to contactthe Zoning Administrator to ensure their signs  comply with the ordinance.  It was suggested perhaps a notice could besent with business license renewals reminding them to always check beforeputting up signs.

The Sign Ordinance has a definitionfor balloons and they are not allowed. However, they could be allowed with some regulations.

David Mower points out that referringto a balloon sign sounds like a balloon that hangs in the air, but what isbeing discussed is something that air is blown into and then it isanimated.  The Sign Ordinance provides adefinition for balloon sign as follows: “Any sign that is any lighter-than-air or gas-filled balloon attached bymeans of a rope or tether to a definite or fixed location.”  There is not a definition for “inflatable”signs.  It was decided that in additionto saying “lighter-than-air”, the definition should include the word“inflatable.” 

There was discussion as to whether ornot an inflatable sign would violate the section of prohibited signs onpage.  Under definitions, “Balloon Sign”could be changed to read “Balloon sign/Inflatable sign.” 

The following language would then beinserted on page 154 under Specific Regulations:

         1.         Balloonsigns/inflatable signs shall not require a sign permit.

         2.         Shallbe securely anchored so as not to create a hazard to pedestrians or


         3.        Shall not be placed in the sitetriangle or public right-of-way. 

         4.        Shallnot be placed on the roof of any building.

         5.         Shallbe maintained in a neat and attractive condition.

         6.         Shallbe limited to no more than two (2) balloon signs/inflatable signs

                    per place of business. 

         7.         Shall be displayed for no more than 30days per calendar year.

David Mower points out that“Prohibited Signs” on page 148, no.4, prohibits all signs having pulsating,animated or moving parts, rotating or simulating movement by any means offluttering, spinning or reflection devices, or that emits sounds.  Greg Bean suggests either taking that out orelse add the following to no. 4:  WindSail Banners/Double-Sided Vertical Signs, and Balloon Signs/Inflatable Signs areexcluded from this provision.  

The Commission would like to presentthese ideas to the City Council before having a public hearing.  Brion Terry and Pat Hansen will present theseideas to the City Council on April 22nd

SteveKunzler recommended that the City Council review the proposed definitions andstandards to be applied to wind sail banners/double-sided vertical signs, andballoon signs/inflatable signs.  GregBean seconded the motion.  The motioncarried unanimously. 

4.   OtherBusiness

5. Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m.

Passedand approved on the 7th day of May, 2014.

/s/  Michelle Curtis

      DeputyCity Recorder