Minutes – 06.04.2014




                                                                                                                                          At the Planning Commission

                                                                                                                                          In and For Said City

                                                                                                                                         June 4, 2014


         Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, June 4, 2014, at 6:00 p.m., Chairman Brion Terry, presiding.


       1.     Roll Call.

       2.     Minute Approval.

       3.     Public Hearings:

               a.  Accessory Dwelling Units.

               b.  Poulson Estates Subdivision, Plat C.

       4.     Annexation: 

               a.  Consider recommendation concerning Poulson Estates Subdivision, Plat C. 

       5.     Subdivision:

               a.  Consider recommending preliminary approval of the Poulson Estates Subdivision Plat C. 

       6.     New construction:

               a.   High Country Auto new construction at 275 North Main (D zone) (C-2 use). 

       7.     Zoning Code:

               a.   Request for consideration in  amending the Zoning Code concerning outdoor displays. 

               b.   Secondary Dwelling Units

       8.    Other business.

       9.    Adjournment.


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


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


Others present:  Brayden Gardner, Bill Gardner, Robin Henrie, and Rick Harper.


 2.  Minutes Approval.  The minutes of May 7, 2014, were reviewed.  Jeff Albrecht motioned to approve the minutes of June 4, 2014.   David Mower seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.


 3.  Public Hearing

         a.  6:11:01 p.m.  Accessory Dwelling Units.  A public hearing was held to receive comments concerning changing the Zoning Code to allow accessory dwelling units in all residential zones.  BrionTerry explained that the commission has been working for several months on a change in the Zoning Code which would allow accessory dwelling units in residential zones.  Accessory dwelling units are sometimes referred to as casitas or mother-in-law quarters. 


Billy Gardner asked about whether accessory dwellings will have to be occupied by relatives of the occupants in the main home.  He was told that they wouldn’t have to be related.  Mr. Gardner wonders what would stop them from being used as rentals.  Does the City really want that?  It was explained that they will be somewhat restricted in that they can’t have separate utility meters.  The main purpose of adopting this change is that as people are living to older ages, they are needing a place to live where their families can help them.  The accessory dwelling units will have to comply with all setback requirements and yard coverage restrictions.  The lot would have to be large to fit an accessory unit.  There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed  at 6:15:45 PM.


         b.   Poulson Estates Subdivision Plat C.   6:15:42 p.m.  A public hearing was held to receive comments concerning Poulson Estates Subdivision Plat C to be developed at 1100 South and approximately 650 West to 900 West.  No comments were received.  The public hearing closed at 6:17:02 PM.


4.      Annexation.  Consideration is given to recommending that the City Council accept the application for annexation filed for Poulson Estates Subdivision, Plat C.  The property is located on 1100 South at approximately 650 West to 900 West.   Monte Turner motioned to recommend that the City Council accept the annexation plat filed for Poulson Estates Subdivision, Plat C.  Steve Kunzler seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 


5.      Subdivision:

         a.         Poulson Estates Plat C.  Braden Gardner is representing Poulson Estates.  The DRC comments were reviewed as follows:


         1.  The site plan shows sewer connecting from Indian Springs on the west side and going east all the way to the east side of the cul-de-sac lots.  Verify that there is a recorded easement between Lot 1 of Plat A, and Lot 11 of Plat B.  Mr. Gardner said he believes there is an easement through lot 11 of Plat B.  If it has not been done, he will make sure it does get done.


Mr. Gardner then diverted the discussion from the DRC notes.  He said the design for the entire property was started over a year ago when they started Plat B.  He worked on it with his engineer, Mr. Torgersen, and also Richfield’s former Zoning Administrator Paul Hinrichs.  This design is a reflection of that discussion. 


The DRC and Planning Commission have indicated a desire that instead of the cul-de-sac shown on the east end of 1100 South, the street should be stubbed so that eventually it will go all the way to 400 West.  Mr. Gardner said the challenge with running the road all the way east to 400 West is the other property owners to the east.  He has tried to work with them and they are not interested.  The LDS Church owns a triangular-shaped piece of property which is south and east of this.  He has tried to negotiate with them in trading property in order to square up both of their parcels and he has gotten nowhere.  Luxury Homes owns the property along 400 West and they feel like their property is valuable commercial property.


He said he was also told that having a road going east and west all the way to 400 West will be too long for fire issues.  He has the understanding that 100 South and 1080 South are long blocks which would actually not be approved with the current Zoning Code.  He reiterated that this was all drawn over a year ago when he did the second phase of the subdivision. 


Mr. Gardner said the other issue he has with creating a stub street is that lots 28, 29, and 30 are larger lots situated at the end of the cul-de-sac.  He has made those larger because homes on these lots will not be able to have a basement because of the sewer elevation.  If he stubs the street, he might be able to have the same number of lots, but these three lots will be smaller and the homes built on these lots would have to be very small and not have a basement.  He would rather have the cul-de-sac with the larger lots so that larger homes can be built there without a basement


Steve Kunzler said he can understand those reasons but his concern would be with the adjacent property owner.  It appears a cul-de-sac will land lock the property to the east.  Mr. Gardner said the property owner to the east is Annette Dickinson and she is a sister to the Poulson Estate.  She is aware of what is going on, and he hasn’t heard of her having an issue with it.  Mr. Gardner asked if he would be able to get Annette Dickinson to give something in writing saying that she is alright with her property being left with no access.  Mr. Gardner agreed that he will talk with her and get a letter from her. 


Mr. Gardner said there is a potential that whoever purchases lots 28 and 29 might purchase the Dickinson property behind them.  He doesn’t know if that will happen.  It is still thought that he needs to get a letter signed by Mrs. Dickinson stating that she is aware of the layout of this subdivision and how it affects her property, and she is alright with it.  David Mower said it is difficult to record things if they don’t have a grantor, a grantee, and a legal description.  It might be able to be recorded with the subdivision plat as an attachment with the letter being referenced on the front of the plat.   


In the event that the cul-de-sac remains, there was discussion about the width of the lots in the cul-de-sac.  The Zoning Code requires frontage of a minimum of 50 feet and it should be 70-feet wide at the setback line (30 feet back).  Mr. Gardner’s engineer is working on that.  This requirement is found on page 92 Section 1616.1.  


Jeff Albrecht asked about the irrigation/drainage pipe.  In the first phase there was an easement between lots 4 and 5.  Mr. Gardner said the school district owns the ground to the north and west and it is a drainage pipe for irrigation if the school district ever wants to irrigate that property.  The pipe will continue south through the subdivision.   Mr. Albrecht wondered if the easement is large enough to get in there to fix it if need be.  Mr. Gardner said it is really just for waste water.  It just collects rain water and if the school district ever develops the property, then the waste water will go away.


The irrigation ditch next to Indian Springs Subdivision will continue.  It will be in an easement the same as was provided for phase 1. 


David Mower asked about easements on lots 28 and 29.  Mr. Gardner said there will be an easement along lot 29 for the drainage to go to the retention basin.  There will be an easement between 28 and 29 for the sewer which will go east and then go north on lot 28 for sewer.  David Mower wondered how much property will those easements take away from their width?  He points out that it makes for a very narrow driveway to get into those lots.  Steve Kunzler said the narrowest easements he has seen are 12 feet.  They are generally written so that equipment can get in there.  They need to make sure the property buyer understands where the easements are. 


Steve Kunzler said 800 West is proposed as a major collector road.  The road will have to curve as it goes to the south so that it aligns with Airport Road.  It appears the curvature does not need to start with this phase of the subdivision, but will need to be curved in the next phase of development for this property.  Mr. Gardner said they have planned for that in future phases of development.    


It appears everything else is in order.  Mr. Gardner said they might change the location of the retention basin.  The Planning Commission is alright with that as long as it meets the approval of the City Engineer.  Mr. Gardner wondered if the retention basin is situated to the south of this property and then a commercial development went in there, could it get rid of the retention basin.  He was told that would be alright if they plan a way to take care of the drainage.  


Steve Kunzler motioned to recommend to the City Council that approval be given to the Poulson Estates Subdivision Plat C with the following conditions:

         1.  The frontage arcs on lots 27 thru 30 be reviewed and changed to meet

               current City ordinances.

         2.  The receipt of a written, recordable document from Annette Dickinson

               reflecting her awareness of the possibility of her property being

               land locked and stating  she has no problem with it,

         3.   Fulfill items 1 thru 11 of the Development Review comments.  Monte

               Turner seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.  


6.      New Construction

         a.         High Country Auto.   Robin Henrie and Rick Harper represented High Country Auto.  They presented plans for the construction of a new building at their existing location at 275 North Main (D zone, C-2 use).  When this building is completed, their old building will be torn down.  This proposal was originally presented and approved by the Planning Commission in 2005.  The project did not go forward at that time.  The present plan is nearly identical to the original plan.   Commission members have reviewed the DRC comments and Planning Commission minutes from 2005.  Issues concerning the irrigation ditch and street poles on 300 North were resolved when the 300 North project was completed.


A new Zoning Code has been adopted since then.  The Zoning Code has been changed since 2005 and one item that would be affected by that change is the fact that the building sits 5 feet from the property line on 300 North.  The setback should be 10 feet.  The project had been approved by adjusting the setback by conditional use permit.  There is no longer a provision in the Zoning Code allowing the adjustment of setbacks by conditional use permit. 


The other item that has changed in the Zoning Code is that landscaping requirements have been relaxed.  The current Code states that landscaping in Downtown areas is approved as required for site approval. 


They do plan to put in a 6-foot tall block fence along the south property boundary and continue along the west property boundary next to residential properties on 100 West.  It will go along Bill Toomer’s north property boundary where it will drop to 3 feet high for the Toomer’s front yard setback.


The building is shown to be set back 5 feet from the property line rather than the required 10 feet.  The building is 25 or 26 feet tall at the tallest point of the building.  Steve Kunzler said it is his opinion that the reason for the setback is to protect any homes next to the property.  High Country Auto goes the entire length of the block, so there are no homes where a reduced setback would obstruct vision.  The only problem could be with the homes across the street looking at a tall wall.  The homes across the street sit so far back, it doesn’t seem like that would be an issue. 


There was discussion about when Fresh Market was built and the effect that had on the homes across the street where they see a wall in front of their home.  It is believed this will not have the same impact because the Fresh Market building is 3/4ths of a block long where this building is nowhere close to that.  Also, if they are required to move it back another 5 feet, it won’t make a lot of difference to the homes across the street, but it will make a lot of difference to High Country’s site plan.  The impact to homes across the street is nearly the same regardless of whether they move it back another 5 feet.


There is an irrigation ditch going through the property which needs to be preserved for the Gentry home and another home on 200 North.  High Country will move the ditch to the east and pipe it. 


Drainage was discussed.  They are still working on that.  Originally it was designed for some of it to go to Main Street and some to 200 North.  They have not decided yet whether to take some to 200 North, all of the drainage to Main Street, or some of it to 300 North.  Primarily, it will all run to Main Street as it does now.  Steve Kunzler said where Main Street is a State highway, those calculations need to be looked at to make sure the storm drain is adequate.  The State will need to buy off on it.  Drainage on Main Street was designed to carry only drainage from Main Street; however, it is usually oversized, so it is probably alright.  It was pointed out this really won’t create much additional drainage other than the two lots where the homes were torn down on 300 North and 200 West. 


Parking lot lights are not shown.  They advise there will be more lighting than what they currently have as that is required by the franchise.  They will use directional lights as is required by the Zoning Code. 


The entrance off of Main Street will be almost exactly where it currently is.  They don’t want to move it any further to the south because there will be the fence and also the State Farm building which will shade the driveway and could leave ice in the winter.  Steve Kunzler wondered if there is any problem when cars leave this property and make a left turn going North onto Main Street.  High Country hasn’t noticed that being a problem.  If it is a problem, then now would be the time to resolve it.  It is thought that with the new building, most traffic will funnel on and off of 300 North. 


It appears landscaping is addressed adequately.  The plan does show a tree on the corner of Main and 300 North.  They will not put in that tree as it could obstruct the vision of traffic.


As far as exterior colors, GM dictates that color even right down to the exact color of white.  The building will be white with blue trim. 


Greg Bean motioned to recommend that the City Council approve High Country Auto’s plans for the construction of a new building at their property at 275 North Main (D zone, C-2 use), as shown on their drawings with the following recommendations:

         1.  On 300 North, the building to be placed 5 feet from the north property

              line rather than the required 10 feet.

         2.  Provide an adequate drainage plan.

         3.  Irrigation ditch going to 200 North to be preserved by moving it to the

              east and piping it.

         4.  A 6-foot tall block wall to be built along the south and west property

              lines, with the fence being lowered to 3 feet tall within the Toomer’s

              front yard setback.

         5.  Landscaping to be provided as presented, minus the tree on the corner

              of 300 North Main.

         6.  Curb, gutter, sidewalk, and paving to be completed on 100 West with the

              sidewalk transitioning to meet the sidewalk in the front of Bill Toomer’s



The motion was seconded by David Mower.  The motion carried unanimously. 



7.      Zoning Code

         a.         Outdoor Display Sales.   John Spendlove is representing a commercial business development that plans to locate in Richfield.  Their business will need an area for the outdoor display of merchandise.  Outdoor displays are prohibited in the Zoning Code.


There was discussion that there are many businesses in the City that display merchandise outdoors.  It seems that either the Zoning Code needs to be changed or the Zoning Code needs to be enforced by stopping the display of merchandise.    


After discussion, it was decided to hold a public hearing for a proposed change in the Zoning Code which would allow outdoor displays.  A change could be made on the Use Table on page 269 as follows:


            Commercial Retail Business – Community. A retail business that

            occupies a floor area of less than 80,000 square feet, a retail shopping

            facility that has at least two anchor tenants if the total number of anchor

            tenants in the shopping facility occupy a total floor area of less than 150,000

             square feet; or a grocery store that occupies a floor area of less than 30,000

             square feet.Retail Business – Community, specifically excludes all

            These businesses may or may not include sales, accessory uses, and

            service uses that typically display goods or services, or store goods or

            product in open, unenclosed areas, including but not limited to, automotive,

            truck, recreational vehicle, trailer, and manufactured home sales lots,

            repair yards, open storage areas, and all similar outside display and

            storage areas of goods, materials, equipment, and vehicles.


This description would then be designated as a conditional use in each zone.


         b.         Accessory Dwelling UnitsSteve Kunzler motioned to recommend that the City Council review and adopt the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance concerning accessory dwelling units as presented.  Jeff Albrecht seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 


8.   Other Business.  There was no other business.


9.  Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.


PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd day of July, 2014.



   /s/  Michelle Curtis

         Deputy City Recorder