Minutes – 07.06.2016

COUNTY OF SEVIER 
CITY OF RICHFIELD
 
 
                                                                                    At the Planning Commission
                                                                                    In and For Said City
                                                                                    July 6, 2016
 


Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, July 6, 2016, at 6:00 p.m., Chairman Brion Terry, presiding.
                 
         1.   Roll Call.
         2.   Minutes Approval:  Consider approving minutes of June 1, 2016.
         3.   Home Occupation Permit/Conditional Use
               A.  Consider approving Maigan Biederman’s application allowing her to
                      conduct a daycare business called Karing for Kids at 458 West 400 North
                      (R1-10 zone, C-1 use).
         4.   Business Development:  Review plans for an additional building to be
                      constructed at Hansen’s Collision Center at 830 South100 West
                      (CS zone, C-1 use). 
         5.   Other Business:
               A.  Devin Knaphus to discuss business use of his property located 330 East
                     200 North (RM-11 zone).
              B.  Discuss General Plan and Master Transportation Plan.
              C.  Other items.
         6.   Adjournment
 
        
 1.  Roll Call.  Roll call was answered by Brion Terry, Steve Kunzler, Greg Bean, Monte Turner, and David Mower.  Lisa White and Jeff Albrecht were excused. 
 
City Staff Present:   Zoning Administrator Gaylen Matheson and Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis.    
 
Others present:  Devin Knaphus and Maigen Biederman.
 
2.   Minutes Approval.   The minutes of June 1, 2016, were reviewed.   The following changes will be made:   Page 2, line 44:  “offset the cost of enforcement a little bit.”  Page 3, line 12:  Change “Lisa Ogden to “Lisa White.”  Page 4, line 35:  “will also be finished to serve as an access for the proposed parking lot.”   Page 5, line 2 add:  “There was discussion concerning the possibility of gating that one-way bus exit lane.” 
 
David Mower motioned to approve the minutes of June 1 2016, as amended.  Greg Bean seconded the motion.  The motion carried.  
 
3.   Home Occupation Permit/Conditional Use:   
        A.  Consideration is given to approving Maigan Biederman’s application allowing her to conduct a daycare business called Karing for Kids at 458 West 400 North.  (R1-10 zone, C-1 use.)  Ms. Biederman would like to have a daycare business in her home.  She has three children of her own and would like to be able to stay home with her kids.  She and her husband own the home. 
 
She is in the process of obtaining her state daycare license.  The home has five bedrooms.  She plans to tend five children plus her three.  She will be licensed to have eight children.   
 
She does not plan on having employees.    
 
She was asked to encourage parents to drop off the kids coming from the east so that they don’t have to park on the other side of the street causing the children to cross the street. 
 
She will have extended hours from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 or 9:00 p.m.  She does not plan on having a sign, but she was advised of the regulations concerning signs.   
 
It was explained to her that if problems arise, the Permit can be reviewed and other conditions placed or the license can even be revoked. 
 
Greg Bean motioned to approve the Conditional Use Permit allowing Maigan Biederman to conduct a business called Karing for Kids at 458 West 400 North (R1-10 zone, C-1 use).  Monte Turner seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.
        
4.      Business Development.  Plans were reviewed for the construction of an additional building to be constructed at Hansen’s Collision Center at 830 South100 West.  (CS zone, C-1 use.)  Brady Hansen, Corey Hansen, and Kim Hansen are present.  They would like to add another building to their business.  They have been painting and sandblasting in the newest building.  They would like to be able to sandblast in a different building. 
 
Their entire property consists of four lots.  They presented a proposed plan showing reconfiguration of those lots so that the new building would be on the same lot as their other buildings.  The building will be 50’x25’.   They also plan to put in a new fence along 100 West. 
 
 The reason they want to reconfigure the lots is because they know they will be required to do street improvements along the street if they build on a separate lot.  That is an excessive requirement.  They thought if they reconfigured the lots so that the building is on the same lot as their main building, and it is not along the frontage, then they wouldn’t have to develop the street. 
 
They do plan to eventually utilize all four lots.  They do not plan to sell them. 
 
The Commission doesn’t feel like they should have to go to the expense and trouble of a lot line adjustment just so they can avoid street improvements.  The City likes to see businesses succeed and doesn’t want to do anything that impedes their expansion and success.
 
They do plan to install a fence along the entire frontage of the four lots because they put some road base on some of those lots in order to use the area for parking some of the big industrial equipment they work on.
 
After a fair amount of discussion, it was decided that a lot tie agreement would be the way to handle this. 
 
Steve Kunzler motioned that Hansen’s Collision Center should enter a lot tie agreement allowing them to construct their new building for sandblasting purposes.  Also, the Hansens should work with the City to make a comprehensive plan for the future construction of 100 West Street.  The lot tie agreement will not require them to complete the road at this time.  Monte Turner seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 
 
Steve Kunzler amended the Motion to allow the Hansens to construct 6’ high chain link security fence around the perimeter of their property.  Monte Turner seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 
 
 
5.      Other Business:                
         A.  Devin Knaphus to discuss business use of his property located 330 East 200 North.  (RM-11 zone).  It has been noticed that Devin Knaphus has multiple vehicles in his backyard which gives it the appearance of a salvage yard.   Mr. Knaphus said he does build demolition derby cars.  Charles Billingsley, Zoning Enforcement Officer, sent him a letter stating that his property is in violation of the Code and telling him to remove the vehicles.   Mr. Knaphus has been doing this for about seven years and nobody has ever said anything about it.  His property is fenced all the way around.  This past weekend, he did put up a fence so that his backyard cannot be seen from the street.  This is mainly for derby use, but sometimes he does sell the cars.  If he needs to get a business license in order to do this, he will.  The number of cars ranges from having two or three cars to 20 cars.  He stacks them in a neat order. 
 
He has never had any complaints about these cars.  He has talked with his neighbors and it hasn’t bothered them.  As far as noise, he might pound on the cars.  He has asked his neighbors multiple times that if he is ever too loud, to let him know and he will stop.  He works at Mid-State Jeep and uses their shop some of the time.  The most noise he makes is using a hammer. 
 
He finds the cars on the internet and brings them here on a trailer.  He fixes them up and trades and sells.   The cars range from the 1960s to 2008.  They are all sold as derby cars.   He has one car that has been there for six years, he has some that are there for a week, or he sells them within a few weeks.  He sells anything that he doesn’t derby himself.  He enters derbys year round. 
 
One of the things that Mr. Billingsley’s letter said is that it appears to be a salvage yard because there are parts stacked along the fence.   Mr. Knaphus said he does have multiple motors stacked up.  They are stacked up neatly and covered.  He does not have parts lying around helter-skelter.  He said he has done a lot of clean up on this property.  When he moved there, there were 8-foot tall weeds back there.  He has put in gravel and keeps the weeds down.  If he is working on a car, it is normally pulled up by his house where he is stripping it, and then he puts it all in a big trailer and hauls it off.  He gets rid of anything that is glass, metal, or jagged.  In the back yard, there are a couple of motors and some tires.  Everything is covered up.    
 
There have been no complaints from neighbors.  The Commission feels like if it is creating a nuisance to the neighbors, then it should be addressed.  The Commission had the understanding that the Zoning Enforcement officer generally only addresses these problems if complaints are received and does not usually address problems unless they can be seen from the street.  As soon as he got the letter, Mr. Knaphus did put up the fence blocking the view from the street. 
 
It was pointed out that a salvage yard seems like it is a place where a car is stripped and then left for a long time.  It does not appear that this meets the definition of a salvage yard. 
 
The page attached to Mr. Billingsley’s letter lists the following items in the Ordinance that are being violated:
 
         “E.    Abandoned, inoperative, dilapidated or unsightly motor vehicles,
                  wrecked or junk cars commonly known as derby cars.
 
 
         G.     Junk such as old scrap metals, scrap copper, brass, rope, rags,
                  batteries, paper trash, rubber debris, dismantled, demolished
                  motor vehicles or parts thereof;
 
         K.     Maintenance of premises in such condition as to be detrimental
                  to public health, safety or general welfare or in such manner as
                  to constitute a public nuisance.
 
         “Any of the above conditions existing in a fenced or enclosed area are,
         nevertheless, violations.  The severity of the offenses may, however,
         depend upon the visibility of the condition from the street or from adjacent
          properties.”
 
The Commission feels like if there was an issue with noise, they should address it.  Or if there was a sight issue of being seen from the street, then the Commission would address it.  The matter came up because a City staff member noticed it on Google Earth.    Because Mr. Knaphus put up the additional fence, it seems that he has tried to address any issue that is a problem. 
 
The Commission doesn’t feel like item “K” applies here.  There have been no complaints received and it seems to be maintained in a neat and sanitary condition.  The Commission also feels like items “E” and “G” are not a problem. 
 
Mr. Knaphus was cautioned to be aware that he is in a residential area and doing a non-residential-type activity.  He needs to keep the vehicles behind the fence.  The Commission is alright with allowing him to continue this use unless there are specific issues and larger complaints to address.  He also needs to be aware that although he has favorable conditions with the neighbors right now, that could change and the City may not be able to allow it forever. 
 
The Commission does not think he should have to get a business license because this isn’t really a business but rather a hobby.
 
 
         B.  Discuss General Plan and Master Transportation Plan.  Steve Kunzler reported that he has been out to UDOT and resurrected with them the fact that they need to finish the agreement they entered with the City a few years ago in defining access breaks.  It will take some time with UDOT in finishing those access breaks.  It is important that it is worked out so that the streets intersecting with Main Street and Hwy 118 come in at the proper points.  For example, north of the hospital, there are two City streets planned that are spaced properly, but the breaks need to be formalized in the Access Control document.  The document has been developed but not processed by UDOT. 
 
The General Plan was reviewed.  Greg Bean and Lisa White have both made proposed changes to the General Plan.  Those changes were discussed and incorporated into the proposed draft.  The changes were drafted from “The Executive Summary Introduction” thru to subtitle “General Plan Review” on page i.v. 
 
         C.  Other items. Greg Bean advised that he went to part of the training meeting that was held in Central Valley and presented by Shannon Ellsworth of Rural Community Consultants.  He had asked her how much she would charge the City to review the Plan after the Commission has made changes.  She had said they could do that for maybe a few thousand dollars.  She sent Gaylen Matheson a proposal for more comprehensive involvement than that.  Mr. Bean is not sure if the City would have it in their budget to consider having her help with it.  He does recommend that at some point we try to get somebody like that to review the Plan and review it.  He thinks the Commission should go through the Plan and come up with the draft and then perhaps have her look it over for a reasonable fee.
 
 
6.  Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
 
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 7th day of September, 2016.
 
/s/  Michelle Curtis
      Deputy City Recorder