Minutes – 05.06.2015

At the Planning Commission
In and For Said City
May 6, 2015

Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, April 1, 2015, at 6:00 p.m., Co-Chairman Steve Kunzler, presiding.
       1.     Roll Call.
       2.     Minutes Approval:  Consider approving minutes of April 1, 2015.   
      3.      Central Utah Counseling:  Consider approving Central Utah Counseling
               Center’s request for construction of a residential facility to be located at the
               northwest corner of 100 East 300 South (C-2 use, D zone). 
       4.     Chris Boyter:  Consider approving request for expansion of a non-
               conforming use allowing the construct of an addition to a garage at 395 West
               300 South. 
       5.     Jeff Teeples:  Consider approving major home occupation permit for Jeff
               Teeples to conduct an autobody business at 245 E 100 N (RM-11 zone, C-1
      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 Greg Bean, David Mower, Steve Kunzler,  Monte Turner, and Jeff Albrecht.    Brion Terry and Pat Hansen were excused. 
City Staff Present:   Zoning Administrator Gaylen Matheson and Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis.    
Others present:  Curtis Miner, Chad Williams, Brian Whipple, Farrel Marx, Tim Christensen, Tucker Boyter. 
2.   Minutes Approval.   The minutes of April 1, 2015, were reviewed.  The following changes will be made:  Page  1, line 25, “Greg Bean” will be deleted.  Page 4, line 3, “llighting” will be changed to “lighting”.  Page 4, line 7, “In” will be changed to “in”.   Page 7, line 9, “He” will be changed to “Mr. Rees”.  Page 7, line 17 “him” will be changed to “Mr. Rees”.  Page 9, lines 26 and 27 will be deleted.  Greg Bean motioned to approve the minutes of April 1, 2015, as amended.  Jeff Albrecht seconded the motion.  The motion carried.   
3.   Central Utah Counseling:  Brian Whipple, Chad Williams, Farrel Marx, and Curtis Miner represented Central Utah Counseling Center.  They presented plans for the construction of a residential facility to be located at the northwest corner of 100 East 300 South (C-2 use, D zone).  Last month they received approval for a supported living facility to be located in the existing home at 268 South 100 East.  The proposed construction will be south of that property. 
Mr. Whipple explained that Central Utah Counseling provides mental health and substance abuse services for the Six-County area.  They have residential facilities in Juab and Sanpete Counties.  They have wanted to have a facility here in Sevier County for years and they actually purchased this property probably 15 years ago.   They were able to receive CIB funding this year.  They will be constructing an 8-bed facility.   This is the same type of facility as was approved last month, where it isn’t staffed 24 hours a day, but there is an on-call person.  This is for short-term transitioning although sometimes that turns into a longer term, even a number of years.   If they require a higher level of care, then they are placed in an in-patient facility. 
Looking at the physical location of all of their services, this plan will bring the services together creating a sort of campus where the residential homes on 100 East will be connected to the main office which is on Main Street.  There will be walkways from the back of the homes to their main building on Main Street and utilization of the interior of the block with a  parking area and patio/sitting area. 
The DRC comments were reviewed as follows: 
1.   The four lots owned by CUCC will be combined into one lot.  They are not planning to combine the four lots.  Because this new construction encroaches across the property line, they will combine this lot with the home property that was approved last month. 
2.    Setbacks.  The setbacks are shown at 24.3’ from 300 South Street and 20’ from 100 East.  The Zoning Code states that setbacks in the D zone are “as required for site plan approval.”  Agreed. 
3.    Utilities.  All utilities are available at this site.   A 4” sewer line is shown.  Because this home will have 8 bedrooms and 9 bathrooms, it is recommended that a 6” sewer line would be better.   They will review this with their mechanical engineer and civil engineer. They asked if this is a recommendation or a requirement.  It was explained that it is a recommendation, but they should seriously consider it.  They will review and resolve this with the Public Works Director, the reviewing engineer, and their engineers. 
4.    Street Improvements.  Street improvements are already installed on 300 South.  On 100 East, the plan shows sidewalk, curb, and gutter together with planter strips.  The City does not encourage planter strips.   The developer should coordinate with Jones & DeMille to ensure that their improvements align with what will be done with the 100 East street improvement project that goes from Center Street to 300 South.  They have discussed this with the City Administrator.  Central Utah Counseling’s contractor will install the street improvements at the time of their construction.  They have agreed to pay for half of the cost.  They will eliminate the planter strip as drawn on their plan and coordinate with Jones & DeMille so that these improvements match the proposed 100 East project. 
5.   Drainage.  The plan shows on-site drainage.  It also shows drainage going into the gutter at the southeast corner of the property. 
Developer needs to determine if their property will be affected by irrigation coming from the properties to the north.  They may need to make plans to handle any overflow coming from neighboring properties. 
7.  Lighting.  Show adequate lighting plan for entire campus.  They will install a new street light to be located mid-block on 100 East.  As far as the interior lighting, that will be shown on their electrical site plan.  They will also place a street light on the interior of the block and then some ground-level lights for the parking lot.  The lights will be fully shielded. 
8.   Landscaping.  The amount of landscaping is adequate as shown.  Provide a detailed landscaping plan showing types and sizes of plants for Planning Commission review.  They plan to utilize some of the nicer existing trees and create a sitting area on the interior of the block. 
9.    Parking.  They are increasing parking by 14 stalls which seems adequate.  This type of facility would require one parking space for each four residents and one for each two employees during regular hours.   There will be five residents in the home approved last month and then 8 beds in this facility.  There are 15 to 18 employees during the day.  They have provided approximately 40 parking stalls on the site which is adequate.  Mr. Miner points out that they could have created a parking area next to the street, but they felt it would be more attractive to utilize the interior part of the block for parking.  In addition, there is also a parking pad located behind the Valley Community Church.  Central Utah Counseling paid for that.  Their employees park there during the week and the Church uses it on weekends. 
10.  Dumpster.  If a dumpster will be used, show location and plans for privacy.  The dumpster will be on the west side of the home and will sit behind a screen. 
11.  Fence.  A fence is required between this property and the home west on 300 South.  That is shown on the plan with a fence at 6’ tall and transitioning to a 4’ private fence.  If the fence is solid, the transition can be 3’ tall, or a non-solid fence at 4’t all.  It appears there is a chain link fence behind the home on 300 South and the developer plans to leave that but construct a 6’ Simtek privacy fence next to it.  Suggest considering removing the chain link fence rather than having the two fences next to each other.    Fence is also required on the north side of the property .  This is shown on the plan.  There is an existing fence.  Will the continuation of the fence match the existing fence?   
Regarding the fence behind the home on 300 South, they found that the existing fence is 1 foot onto the neighbor’s property; therefore, when they put up the privacy fence, they will put it on the property line.  The neighbor will then have the option of removing the chain link fence if they want to. 
The fence will be a Simtek fence which looks like precast concrete but is made out of composite plastic material.  It is very solid.  They will remove the existing chain link fence on 100 East .  They plan to keep their activity area on the northwest side of the new home in order to keep it away from the street and help maintain a residential look to the street.
12.   Elevation  and Mechanical Equipment.   Elevation shows the building as being brick and stucco.  Show location of mechanical equipment situated where they will be least intrusive in terms of noise, appearance, and odors, together with suitable screening treatments.   Agreed. 
Greg Bean motioned to recommend approval of the proposal for the construction of a residential facility as discussed above with the condition that the following items be addressed:  (1)  The two lots will be combined into one; (2)  They will review and resolve the recommendation concerning a 4-inch vs. a 6-inch sewer connection with City personnel and engineers.  (3) Street improvements to be completed as discussed above and in coordination with Jones & DeMille to ensure that improvements match the proposed 100 East project.  Monte turner seconded the motion.  The motion carried. 
4.   Chris Boyter:  Tucker Boyter is representing his father Chris Boyter in requesting permission to build on to an accessory garage located at 395 West 300 South.  This is being considered as an expansion of a non-conforming use. 
Chris Boyter was present at last month’s meeting, although action was not taken at that time as it was not on the agenda.  Mr. Boyter has torn down a smaller shed and would like to replace it with a larger garage that is attached to an existing garage.  The new addition would sit partially to the side of the home.  The Zoning Code allows a garage to sit to the side of the home as long as it maintains the 8’ sideyard setback.  Mr. Boyter’s garage will be 3.5’ from the property line.  The garage that was torn down sat right on the property line.
This has been discussed with City Attorney Richard Chamberlain.  While it is generally the desire that non-conforming uses eventually disappear, he did seem to think the Commission could  approve this as an expansion of a non-conforming use as allowed in the Zoning Code. 
It is the general consensus of the Commission that the expansion should be allowed.  The concern would be with the precedent that this sets.  Is there a chance that others might have an issue with this or want to do something similar?   One answer to this is that not every property has an existing non-conforming use, so the question is unlikely to come up often. 
The expansion might be justified because it doesn’t hinder the view of neighboring parcels.  Also, there is a cinder block fence between this property and the neighboring property that is probably 6 feet tall.  It does not seem that this expansion is any more of an intrusion than the previously existing shed.   It seems this is an improvement to what was there. 
Jeff Albrecht motioned to approve Chris Boyter’s request for expansion of a non-conforming use, allowing him to construct an addition to his garage at 395 West 300 South, based on the opinion that this improves the previous condition where the shed was sitting on the property line and will now be 3.5’ from the property line, it will not interfere with the view of surrounding parcels, contingent that it doesn’t exceed the setbacks shown on the drawing presented, and the City Attorney opined that this would be acceptable.  And the property owner cannot use this approval as a basis to expand any other non-conforming uses on his property.  David Mower seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 
5.   Jeff Teeples.   Jeff Teeples was not present.  This matter was tabled. 
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.   A public hearing will be set for next month’s meeting.  The Commission has discussed this and is considering changing the Code so that subdivisions created in the RR-1 zone and larger will not be required to have corner lots that are 20% larger than the rest of the lots in a subdivision.
         B.  Discuss General Plan and Master Transportation Plan.   Steve Kunzler has been reviewing the Master Transportation Plan.  He will study it a little further and then bring it to the group for discussion. 
         C.  Other Items.   There were no other items to be discussed. 
7.  Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 3rd day of June, 2015.
/s/  Michelle Curtis
       Deputy City Recorder