Minutes – 07.06.2022

COUNTY OF SEVIER 

CITY OF RICHFIELD

                                                                                    At the Planning Commission

                                                                                    In and For Said City

                                                                                                                                                            July 6, 2022

Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, July 6, 2022, at 6:00 p.m., Chairman Kendrick Thomas, presiding.

1.       Roll Call

2.      General Plan Discussion      

          A.         Setbacks in residential zones.

            B.         Discuss Casitas.

            C.         Discuss revised General Plan.

            D.         Landscaping requirements (i.e. water and landscape restrictions).

3.         6:30 p.m.  Public Hearings

            A.         Receive comments concerning a subdivision application (lot split) filed by

                        Kirk and Maridon Rappleye.  The request is for a lot split at 126 North 500 East. 

                        (RM-11 zone).

            B.         Receive comments concerning a subdivision application filed by TOK

                        Development.  The property is located on 1080 South and approximately 900

                        West (a portion of parcel 1-7-100).

            C.         Receive comments concerning an amendment to the hotel/motel/extended

                        stay ordinance.

            D.         Receive comments concerning a proposed request filed by Jacob Black and

                        Bryan Nay affecting the property located at approximately 1000 North 300

                        West (parcels no. 1-1-10 and 1-1-11).  The proposal is to change the zone from

                        R1-10 (single-family residential) to R1-6 (single-family residential).

4.         Action on Public Hearing

            A.         Consider recommending approval of a subdivision application (lot split) filed by

                        Kirk and Maridon Rappleye concerning the property located at 126 North 500

                        East.  (RM-11 zone).

            B.         Consider recommending approval of a subdivision application filed by TOK

                        Development.  The property is located on 1080 South and approximately 900

                         West (a portion of parcel 1-7-100).

            C.         Consider recommending approval of a proposed amendment to the          

                        hotel/motel/extended stay ordinance.

            D.         Consider recommending approval of a proposed request filed by Jacob Black

                        and Bryan Nay affecting the property located at approximately 1000 North 300

                        West (parcels no. 1-1-10 and 1-1-11).  The proposal is to change the zone from

                        R1-10 (single-family residential) to R1-6 (single-family residential).

5.         Conditional Use Permits

            A.         Consider approving Ashley Gates request for a conditional use permit allowing

                        her to operate a business called Ashley’s Daycare at 259 West Center.  (R1-10

                        zone, C-1 use.)

            B.         Consider approving Shad and Chalise Petersen’s request for a conditional use

                        permit allowing them to operate a business that manufactures photography

                        props and a photo office/studio to be located in an existing building at 1830

                        South Industrial Road.   (MG zone, C-1 use). 

            C.         Consider approving Seth Robertson’s request for a conditional use permit

                         allowing him to operate a short-term rental property at 75 East 500 North

                        (CS zone, C-1 use). 

            D.         Consider approving Austin and McKenzie Jorgensen’s request for a conditional

                        use permit allowing them to operate an Airbnb business at their home at 326

                        North 200 West (R1-10 zone, C-1 use).

            E.       Consider approving Jacob Robertson’s request for a conditional use permit

                   allowing him to conduct a daycare business to be located at 460 North Main. 

                   (CS zone, C-2 use).

6.         Development Concept and Annexation:

          A.         Consider recommending approval of an annexation petition filed by Utah Land

                        Solutions, said property being located at approximately 200 East 1400 North.

            B.         Review concept plan of Utah Land Solutions concerning property located at 200

                        East 1400 North.

7.         Minutes Approval:

            A.         Consider approving minutes of May 4, 2022. 

8.         Other Business

9.          Adjournment

1.  Roll Call.  Roll call was answered by Kendrick Thomas, Greg Bean Lisa White, Susan Jensen, Wes Kirschner, Blaine Breinholt, and Josh Peterson.

City Staff Present:  Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis.

Others Present:   Lynn Wright, George Ann Forest Waters, Ryan Hodgson, Joel Bringhurst, Jason and Jackie Jackman, Jeff Hodgson, Mark Gulrud, Travis Jensen, Greg Jensen, Melissa Worley, Seth Robertson, McKenzie Jorgensen, Daryl Hodgson, Jake Black, Adam Albrecht, Joe Betar, Mario Gonzales, Ken Thomas, Pat Betar, Richard Chamberlain, Vanez Butler.  

2.         General Plan Discussion      

          A.         Setbacks in residential zones.  This has been discussed in the last few meetings.   The proposal is to reduce the front yard setback in residential zones to 20 feet.  It needs to be determined which residential zones this will apply to and whether or not this will apply only to new subdivisions.   The discussion has also included requiring that corner lots have a 30-foot setback on one street side, with the second street side being allowed at a 20-foot setback which is what is currently allowed.  Garages to be setback 25 feet.  Porches allowed at a 15-foot setback.  

There was discussion to consider adopting an ordinance allowing these reduced set-backs in zones R1-6, R1-8, and R1-10 and allow it in established areas of town as well as new subdivisions. 

There was discussion to consider applying this to the RM-11 and RM-24 because they are high-density housing and this would help a developer maximize its property.  Michelle Curtis pointed out that in the RM-24 zone buildings are likely to be two or three stories tall, and a shorter setback could be even more intrusive to a single-family home located across the street from it. 

            B.         Discuss Casitas.  A proposed draft was reviewed which includes language from the Zoning Codes of a few different cities as well as technical questions.

It was decided that an accessory dwelling unit should be 6 feet behind the main home which is the same as required for a detached garage.  The proposal does state that the rear setback could be reduced to match the side setbacks which would be 8 feet on the rear.  The following language from St. George’s Code will be used: 

            “A guesthouse shall only be permitted on a lot containing an area of ten

            thousand (10,000) square feet or larger which has an existing owner-occupied

            single-family dwelling unit, or where a building permit has been issued and

            construction is in process for the single-family dwelling unit.”

The Commission is of the opinion that this could be a P-1 use rather than a conditional use. 

The Commission also likes the language from St. George that states:

            “ A guesthouse or casita shall be used only by the occupants of the primary

            dwelling or their non-paying guests.  Short-term rental of a guesthouse or

            casita is not permitted.  The guesthouse or casita shall not be leased or rented

            independent of the main dwelling.  A deed restriction in a form approved by the

            City prohibiting the lease or rental shall be recorded against the deed by the

            property owner prior to occupancy of the structure.  Proof that such deed

            restriction has been recorded shall be provided to the zoning administrator prior

            to issuance of a building permit for the casita or guesthouse.”

This will be set for public hearing next month. 

            C.         Discuss revised General Plan.   The Planning Commission has received a final draft of the General Plan for review.  This will be placed for review at next month’s meeting. 

            D.         Landscaping requirements (i.e. water and landscape restrictions).   This will be discussed at a future meeting. 

3.         6:30 p.m.  Public Hearings

Chairman Thomas stated that there are a lot of people present this evening wishing to be heard.  He explained that the public hearing portion allows the public to make comments.  The Commission will hold all of the public hearings and will then go through and take action on each item.  The last item on the agenda is related to a proposed development to be located north of the hospital.  It is on the agenda to recommend that the City Council accept the annexation petition and to present a very early concept plan for the property.  It is not a public hearing.  However, the Commission is interested in the public’s comments and thoughts, and will allow some comments.    

Chairman Thomas advises that the public meeting is not a debate forum and comments are not to address anybody because it easily becomes a public debate or a yelling match which is inappropriate.  Those wishing to make comments are asked to come to the microphone, state their name, and keep their comments brief.    

            A.         6:30 p.m.  Receive comments concerning a subdivision application (lot split) filed by Kirk and Maridon Rappleye.  The request is for a lot split at 126 North 500 East.  Maridon Rappleye was present.  They would like to split their lot into two parcels.  Each lot will comply with the minimum lot size of 8000 square feet. 

There being no public comments, the public hearing closed at 6:30:47 p.m. 

            B.         6:31: 25 p.m.  Receive comments concerning a subdivision application filed by TOK Development.  The property is located on 1080 South and approximately 900 West (a portion of parcel 1-7-100)

Shontae Hatch: She passed out copies of deeds and CCRs for the Indian Springs Subdivision where she lives.  The property being proposed for development was going to be part of their subdivision 30 years ago.  Her documents show a map of the proposed subdivision showing 19 lots.  It is her opinion that in 1999, six of the lots were removed from the subdivision.  She feels like that required a majority vote of all of the property owners and that didn’t happen.  The CCRs refer to 19 lots.  The six lots that were removed are now the TOK development property. 

The CCRs refer to lots 1 thru 19.  The CCRs also state that the subdivision is for single dwelling residents only.  However, only phase 1 of the subdivision was completed.  There has been some question as to the CCRs being null and void but it states that they are valid for 40 years and they renew 10 years after that. 

She does not understand how this development can be allowed when they are not  single-family homes.  Michelle Curtis explained that the City does not enforce CCRs or get involved with CCRs in any way.  Usually, CC&Rs go away because the developer is no longer around to enforce them, and there is no homeowner’s association to enforce them.   Mrs. Hatch wants to enforce the CCRs, and she has several neighbors here with her.  She can’t find anyone who can explain to her why the second Warranty Deed was done in 1999 without a majority vote.  She feels like they are trapped.  They can’t go forth legally in doing anything, but she doesn’t know how the City can allow someone else to go forward.  How can the City decide over the top of them what is right for their own subdivision.  Michelle Curtis stated that phase 2 of the subdivision was never recorded.  The City cannot enforce CCRs.

Ms. Hatch is asking that the City cease and desist this project because she does not believe it is legal.  Michelle Curtis said the zone was changed to allow multi-family a year ago. 

Ms. Hatch believes this project will decrease their home values dramatically.  It brings high rises and rentals in the neighborhood that they never agreed to when they originally bought the property and did the CCRs. 

George Ann Forest Waters:  She lives in front of the proposed condos.  She has been there for three years and loves her home.  Now she is looking for a new home.  This is not what she was told was doing to happen when she bought three years ago.

Jason Jackman:   He also lives in this neighborhood.  He hears an excuse that the City can’t enforce it.  When they moved in 13, 14 years ago, this was never even a consideration that they would have this in their back yard.  The value to their home will instantly decrease.  There will be issues with call-outs for crime.  A lot of these housing areas bring in certain situations.  He doesn’t want that literally in his back yard.  He asks the Commission consider what it is doing to the people who have been there for a long time.  He wants the City to enforce it.  They don’t want that in their neighborhood.    

Lynn Wright:  He lives in the neighborhood.  They have been there for two years.  He agrees with what has been said.  It is going to depreciate the property having in their back yard.  He is afraid of what is going to happen if this proceeds.  They were not told this was going to happen with that property when they purchased the property.  They were had the understanding that it was going to be single-family units. 

Jackie Jackman:  She lives in the neighborhood.  She agrees with all of the above comments.   The roads in this area will not support the amount of traffic this will bring to the neighborhood.  With all of the talk of growing Sevier County, the people already here need to be protected as well.  When the City considers bringing in a lot of new people, it hurts the natural resources in the area.

There being no further comments, the public hearing closed at 6:48 p.m.      

            C.         6:48 p.m.   Receive comments concerning an amendment to the hotel/motel/extended stay ordinance.  Michelle Curtis explained that the proposed ordinance addresses some technicalities.  It states that the rooms shall be cleaned regularly to comply with public health codes, the Utah Fit Premises Act . . ..   It inserts language that the Chief of Police may require, as set forth herein.   It also creates a paragraph where the Chief of Police shall notify the manager at least 24 hours in advance of a request to inspect.  If the manager does not grant the request, then the Chief of Police may issue an administrative subpoena requiring the manager to make the records available within 24 hours, or the Chief of Police may obtain a warrant.  prior to issuance.  Administrative subpoenas shall be reviewed and approved by the city attorney. 

There being no public comments, the public hearing closed at 6:50 p.m. 

            D.         6:50 p.m.  Receive comments concerning a proposed request filed by Jacob Black and Bryan Nay affecting the property located at approximately 1000 North 300 West

(parcels no. 1-1-10 and 1-1-11).  The proposal is to change the zone form R1-10 (single-family residential) to R1-6 (single-family residential).

Joe Betar:   The zoning map was placed on the screen.  He pointed out that there are currently two places in the City that are zoned R1-6.  The R1-6 parcel that is shown as the condos at the Centennial Park.  Those are high-density housing.  His understanding is that there was a waiver or a variance of the existing zone which allowed that to happened.  It was known as a Planned Unit Development.  He wonders if it was zoned R1-6, how was it possible that it ended up with a less than desirable outcome.  He said if this property is R1-6, will it be a repeat of the high density of the Centennial Park area.  Michelle Curtis advised it was considered a PUD.  The current City Code does not have a provision allowing PUDs. 

The only other section where Richfield has the R1-6 zone is where the trailer court is located.  It currently consists of double-wide mobile homes, extremely small, and poorly-maintained manufactured houses on lots that are so small that there isn’t any room for a driveway or garage which forces all of the vehicles into the street.  It is a dramatic contrast with “McIff” which is what the area of town next to this property is commonly called. 

He wonders about the fire code.  Chairman Thomas said the Commission will deal with that in the next part of the agenda.  Mr. Betar said not knowing what the fire code resolution is, dramatically affects the nature of the public comment.    

His next issue is the issue of fundamental fairness.  Several neighbors were interested in purchasing that parcel basing computations of the number of lots that would be allowed in the existing zone of R1-10.  Changing the zone after the fact materially affects the value of the property and it is unfair to those who decided not to purchase it based on the existing zone. 

He understands 35 lots are proposed which will create a lot of traffic going on one little street.

He would like to come to a compromise.  In his opinion, R1-6 is too small.  However, he believes R1-8 strikes a balance between the desire of the people wishing to develop property.  It is also a positive idea in terms of perhaps building homes that aren’t so expensive that nobody, including his boys, can afford to buy.  It somewhat lowers the amount of traffic.  It would be a middle ground as far as their safety concerns. 

If he had bought the property and asked for the R1-8, he thinks there is a high probability that it would have been approved. Therefore, he doesn’t think the fairness issue is as onerous to those who were interested in buying the property.    

Vanez Butler:  She lives two houses down from the entrance to this property.  Last month she came and talked about the traffic and the impact on that feeder road which was developed for what is existing there now.  She moved back here 14 years ago.   She lived in a community that experienced rapid growth.  She knows what the R1-6 housing was where she lived.  She believes it is very inappropriate to put 35 houses there.  She is concerned about the people who will live there.  There is only one way in and one way out.   If an emergency happened, she doesn’t know how a fire truck could get in there and the people get out.  It is a safety issue for the people who will live there.  It is zoned R1-10. It was purchased at R1-10.  It needs to remain R1-10.    

Max Anderson:  The proposed draft map shows 38 lots.  He said the neighbors have already talked about the traffic going in and out on 300 West and Westview Drive, and the safety of children.  The only thing kids can play on is the fence because there won’t be enough yard.  He is adamantly opposed to lots that are 6000 square feet.  People in this neighborhood purchased their homes with the understanding that it was R1-10 and they expect it to stay that way. 

Richard Chamberlain:  He said if the proposed streets were something to brag about, they would have included the width on the plan.  He assumes it is not a very wide street.

The traffic study should have been made available to the Commission for review before this public hearing.  He does not know who prepared it, but when he has had the opportunity to draft an ordinance for a city where it has required professional services like an engineer, he always put in there that the engineer will be hired by the City, someone other than the engineers for the developer, but the developer has to pay for it.  That way the City gets a study that is probably a little bit overkill because the engineers are hired to take the City’s interest at heart.  He doesn’t know who prepared their study, but it shouldn’t be done by the developers’ engineers.  Josh Peterson said the engineering firm who did the study was Hales Engineering.  He works with this firm daily at his job with UDOT.  UDOT hires Hales Engineering more than any other firm to do these same traffic studies.   Mr. Chamberlain wonders what presumptions were made as far as peak traffic.   The Planning Commission needs to see it. 

He doesn’t know if any one has considered how contradictory this petition is to traditional planning because when a developer comes to the City, the street wideness needs to be looked at, how big do the water lines and sewer lines need to be.  This is an area of town that has been developed by a developer based on an assumption that there would not be anymore than the existing number of homes.  He said the water lines would have been determined based on the maximum.  The streets would have been determined based on the type of anticipated traffic.  This flies directly in the face of traditional city planning.  Changing this zone would be setting a terrible precedence. 

Pat Betar:  She asked if the traffic study was made available to the general public for review before this meeting.  Chairman Thomas clarified that the purpose of the public hearing is to discuss if this zone change is appropriate for that area.  With that, the purpose is not necessarily to scrutinize and get into all of the detail of what the development is.  It is not appropriate to get into the fine details at this point. 

She would be interested to hear from the chief of police and fire department as to what their feelings are if there are that many homes in that area.  She has heard from some of them that it is a concern as it is a bottleneck.  This a safety issue needs to be taken into consideration. 

There being no further comments, the public hearing closed at 7:12 p.m.

4.         Action on Public Hearing

            A.         Consider recommending approval of a subdivision application (lot split) filed by Kirk and Maridon Rappleye concerning the property located at 126 North 500 East.  (RM-11 zone).   

Lisa White motioned to recommend that the City Council approve the subdivision application (lot split) filed by Kirk and Maridon Rappleye concerning the property located at 126 North 500 East.  Wes Kirschner seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.  Those voting aye:  Lisa White, Susan Jensen, Kendrick Thomas, Wes Kirschner, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, and Greg Bean.  Those voting nay:  None. 

            B.         Consider recommending approval of a subdivision application filed by TOK Development.  The property is located on 1080 South and approximately 900 West (a portion of parcel 1-7-100).  Ken Thomas represented the developer.  Chairman Thomas recused himself as he is one of the developers.  He explained when there is a conflict in a public setting, the individual with the conflict is required to state the conflict.  Legally, they are still allowed to vote on the proposed action.    

Tonight the discussion is for the second phase of the subdivision.  They have already been approved for the first two buildings which will have four units.  This is the next phase.   They did go through the public hearing process for the zone change last year, and that was approved by the City Council.  The road will be completed as each phase is completed.  Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 were already approved.  The discussion tonight is for approval of lots 5, 6, 7, and 8. 

The homes will have a common wall and be on their own lots.  Lisa White said she feels it is important to note the difference between high-density housing and townhomes.  She wouldn’t consider RM-11 townhomes as high density.  This is not a high-rise condominium complex.  Ken Thomas said the units will be two-story, about 1700 square feet, not including the basement.  There will be 700-800 square feet on the main floor.  They are three-bedroom, two-bathroom units with the unfinished basement.  It includes a two-car garage.  The separate units will be sold, so it is not an apartment style building.

Lisa White said she has no issues with it.  She hears the concerns about property values lowering, but she doesn’t think that is the case.  She believes that is a supposition assuming these are going to be high-density apartment buildings but they are single-family townhomes which is a very different thing. 

Greg Bean said he understands the concern with the CCRs or the lack thereof, but the City is not bound to address those.  The City has no basis to enforce CCRs. 

Mark Hatch said there is a lot of stuff that happened and there is a lot of paper work that is not there.  If residents of the subdivision cannot do anything, then neither can this developer.  Susan Jensen said that will probably have to be brought up in a court of law between attorneys.  That is something the Planning Commission cannot resolve.

Mr. Hatch said he wonders about the 150 units that are being built and have no purpose and the other project going behind Black Bear Diner.  How much welfare do we want to put in this town.  That is where we are headed.  Are we going to fill it with people who are welfare or are we going to build houses.

Susan Jensen said she doesn’t believe that every person who lives in an apartment or townhome is on welfare.  Mr. Hatch wonders how many move in here because of that.  He was advised that this project is not government-subsidized.  That is a whole separate issue than what we are discussing with this project. 

Rich Persons asked couldn’t this be tabled to give these people time to research it.  Chairman Thomas said the Commission could table it if they so choose. 

The Hatches feel like the original deed included all of phases 1 and 2.  They think the second deed removed phase 2 and they should have been allowed to vote.  The developer did not have the majority.  Lisa White advised again that the City is not responsible for CCRs.  The City deals with the Zoning Code.  Josh Peterson said the zone change has happened already and the matter on the agenda tonight is to approve a subdivision. 

Josh Peterson motioned to recommend that the City Council approve a subdivision application filed by TOK Development at 1080 South and approximately 900 West (a portion of parcel 1-7-100).  Blaine Breinholt seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Greg Bean, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, and Wes Kirschner.  Those voting nay:  None.  Those abstaining:  Kendrick Thomas.  (See recording at 1:25:38)

The public was told that this would be on the City Council agenda for July 26, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. 

            C.         Consider recommending approval of a proposed amendment to the hotel/motel/extended stay ordinance.

Lisa White motioned to recommend approving the proposed amendment to the ordinance pertaining to hotels/motels/extended stays.  Susan Jensen seconded the motion. Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Greg Bean, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, and Wes Kirschner.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously.

            D.         Consider recommending approval of a proposed request filed by Jacob Black and Bryan Nay affecting the property located at approximately 1000 North 300 West (parcels no. 1-1-10 and 1-1-11).  The proposal is to change the zone from R1-10 (single-family residential) to R1-6 (single-family residential).

Jacob black and Adam Albrecht were present.  Mr. Black said they were here a few months ago requesting a zone change to RM-11.  They had a meeting with the City Council and there were a lot of concerns that had been discussed at Planning Commission, primarily unit count and impact on traffic.   At the Council meeting they had changed their concept from 98 units to 71 units.  The Council didn’t vote on it and tabled it.

The developers hired Hales Engineering to conduct a traffic study.  They are a renowned third-party firm from up north.  Hales was given the number of 71 units which was used in their analyzation.  (This newest concept shows 38 lots.)   He has a record trail showing that he made it clear that the concern was concerning the traffic going south on 300 West and not just going east to Main Street.  They were told to look at the Pahvant Elementary, and look at peak hours that included people going to work, as well as dropping off kids.    

Coming from the traffic engineer, they say that the existing condition came in at level- of-service A and would continue to operate as a level-of-service A with this project at 71 units.  The delay at the intersection is anticipated to increase by less than 1 second per vehicle with the project coming in.  No mitigation measures were needed or recommended.  They grade traffic on a level-of-service A thru F.  A, B, and C often being acceptable.  D and F require mitigation such as road widening.  The existing 19 homes are a level-of-service A and with the 71 units added to it, it also came back as a level-of-service A.  However, they are now proposing only 38 units.     

They submitted that, they found out more information on the fire code.  They had several conversations with the Mayor, the City Attorney, and worked with State fire authorities looking into this.  The section in the Code that references 30 units (no more than 30 units being allowed on a single access) is D106 and D107 which is in the appendix D and not in the main body.  There is a section in the appendix that states the provisions contained in the appendix are not mandatory unless specifically referenced in the adopting ordinance or legislation of the jurisdiction. 

The State of Utah has adopted the 2018 Fire Code but they have not included the appendix.  They are meant as guidelines.   It was found that when the City passed Ordinance 2022-14 earlier in March which included many international codes, the International Fire Code was not a part of that. 

They did decide to go with a single-family residential zone which is in line with what the neighbors might want.  Their concept plan now shows single-family detached homes at a lower density.  They are proposing the R1-6 which allows an affordable product of single-family homes with 2-car garages, yards, and driveways.  There will be no dead-end cul-de-sacs. There will be a park and access for the City to get through to the drainage area to the north of the property.

The street will be proposed at 53 feet which includes a 5-foot sidewalk, 2-1/2-foot curb and gutter, asphalt for parallel parking on both sides, and two travel lanes in the center.

He presented pictures of possible homes that could be placed on these lots.  It is not a PUD.  These are single-family detached homes.  The square footage of the homes will vary, one to three bedrooms, no basements, single level or two-story.  He points out that there are the two R1-6 zones that were referred to in the public hearing, but there is another R1-6 zone that is located on the east side of the golf course.  With the discussion that Commission has been having about reducing front-yard set-back requirements, the homes could be larger or have larger back yards. 

They don’t plan to develop the top 3 acres because of the ditch on the north and also power lines.  They won’t do any improvements there. 

Blaine Breinholt said the City is looking for smaller lots because that is what kids can afford these days.  Between the freeway and a drainage basin is not a great spot for dream homes.  Lisa White agrees this is not the ideal place for forever homes.  The concerns from the last meeting had to do with single access.  The traffic study has put that to rest.  Greg Bean points out that the City public works department will have the final say as to whether the sewer and water lines are adequate. 

Josh Peterson expressed appreciation to the developers for putting in due diligence and bringing better information rather than assumptions. 

Lisa White motioned to recommend the City Council approve Jacob Black and Bryan Nay’s request for a zone change from R1-10 to R1-6 as presented.  Blaine Breinholt seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Greg Bean, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, and Wes Kirschner.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously.

Mr. Albrecht stated they would be open to entering into a development agreement 

5.         Conditional Use Permits

            A.         Consider approving Ashley Gates request for a conditional use permit allowing her to operate a business called Ashley’s Daycare at 259 West Center.  (R1-10 zone, C-1 use.)

Ashley Gates was not present.  The matter was tabled and will be placed on the agenda for September. 

            B.         Consider approving Shad and Chalise Petersen’s request for a conditional use permit allowing them to operate a business that manufactures photography props and a photo office/studio to be located in an existing building at 1830 South Industrial Road.   (MG zone, C-1 use).   The Petersens were not able to be present, but have discussed this with Chairman Thomas.  This business was approved earlier this year when they were planning on constructing a building in the business park.  This is an existing building.  The same parking requirements would apply.  They were required to provide 8 parking spaces.  This location as 18 parking spaces which is more than adequate for what they are requesting. 

Greg Bean motioned to approve Shad and Chalise Petersen’s request for a conditional use permit allowing them to operate a business that manufactures photography props and a photo office/studio to be located in an existing building at 1830 South Industrial Road .  Josh Peterson seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Greg Bean, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, and Wes Kirschner.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously.

            C.         Consider approving Seth Robertson’s request for a conditional use permit  allowing him to operate a short-term rental property at 75 East 500 North   (CS zone, C-1 use).

Mr. Robertson said their basement has two beds, two baths.  There is a kitchen and a separate entrance.  They have put in another drive aisle for parking for the short-term rental.  The rental would be confined to the basement.  He was told they need two off-street parking spaces which they have that.  They have had an inspection by the fire marshal. 

Blaine Breinholt motioned to approve Seth Robertson’s request for a conditional use permit allowing him to operate a short-term rental property at 75 East 500 North.  Lisa white seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Greg Bean, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, and Wes Kirschner.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously.

            D.         Consider approving Austin and McKenzie Jorgensen’s request for a conditional use permit allowing them to operate an Airbnb business at their home at 326 North 200 West (R1-10 zone, C-1 use).   Mrs. Jorgensen said they would like to use their basement for the Airbnb.  There would be one to two bedrooms with a refrigerator and microwave.  They do have two off-street parking spaces.  They have had their fire inspection.   It was explained if they have one bedroom, they need one parking space, and if there are two bedrooms, they need two spaces. 

Greg Bean motioned to approve Austin and McKenzie Jorgensen’s request for a conditional use permit allowing them to operate an Airbnb business at their home at 326 North 200 West.  Blaine Breinholt seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Greg Bean, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, and Wes Kirschner.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously.

            E.         Consider approving Jacob Robertson’s request for a conditional use permit allowing him to conduct a daycare business to be located at 460 North Main.  (CS zone, C-2 use).  Mr. Robertson was not present.  The matter was tabled. 

6.         Development Concept and Annexation:

          A.         Consider recommending approval of an annexation petition filed by Utah Land Solutions, said property being located at approximately 200 East 1400 North.

            AND

            B.         Review concept plan of Utah Land Solutions concerning property located at 200 East 1400 North.

Chairman Thomas advised that this is not a public hearing for an annexation request.  This body gives a recommendation to the Council.  The Commission has also been asked to provide the Council a recommendation for the zone of the property that is annexed.  He invited the developer to speak.  Public comments will be allowed even though this is not a public hearing.

Daryl Hodgson, Ryan Hodgson, Jeff Hodgson, and Joel Bringhurst (Urban Design (Group)  were present.    

A plat of the annexation was shown on the screen.  They are proposing a combination of uses.  They are looking at master-planning the area.  It would develop the whole area as a sustainable, life-style area that offers zones and products that support one another. They have provided very early concept plans which show a mix of commercial and multi-family residential (CG, RM-24, and RM11).  The idea is that it is a center and a place.

The retail/commercial zones are shown along the streets so they can be successful.  They envision a mix of commercial uses such a hotel, RV park, restaurants (sit-down-style and drive-through) small retail, small medical/dental-type offices.    

They have met with City staff and the Mayor several times to discuss what Richfield City needs.   There is a severe housing shortage here.  When they spoke with the Mayor, he has said there are businesses that would like to locate to the area but there is no housing for them.  When they talked with the college, they would like to bring 2000 new students in the next five years.  There is no housing for students, no housing for faculty, no housing for staff.  The Ephraim campus at Snow College is maxed out and as they grow, they are going to focus on Richfield. 

Most of the property shown as commercial property is already in the City and zoned as CG.  Chairman Thomas believes there is some concern with housing density.  Would they consider some single-family rather than all high-density?  Mr. Hodgson said they could consider that.  They have included some lower-density twin homes.  The back of the property is next to the canal and does not affect any existing single-family residential.  There is no government subsidization.

Access to the property was discussed.  They overlaid the City’s Master Transportation Plan.  Access would come off of Main Street, Flying J Drive, and 500 East.  The plan shows some round-abouts.   As far as commercial, they don’t know what would be in there, but they can provide a space where a business could come.  High-density housing is at the core.  They need the density to survive. 

Josh Peterson said he is the UDOT access manager, and they need to meet with him. 

Greg Bean said they will end up including some green space but the development isn’t to that point yet.   He said he would propose the CG zone and some high-density is alright, but he thinks the part against the canal could be a lower density such as R1-6 or R1-8. 

Phasing will depend a lot on the sewer design and feasibility in making it happen. The sewer connection will likely be south of the site by going through the IHC property.      

Chairman Thomas opened the meeting up to public comment. 

Rich Persons:  The City needs growth, but it needs to be quality, sustainable growth.  We don’t need to open the whole door all at one time.  He wonders why they haven’t included the triangular property by Main Street and Flying J.   The developers have tried to contact that property owner and he doesn’t return their calls.   Mr. Persons does have concerns about this type of development taking place with such large aspirations.  We need good, sustainable growth that doesn’t create numerous apartments.  He wonders about all of this high-density housing.  Where are all of these people going to work?    

Mark Hatch:  He believes that with high density, we need to have a rule set that these housing units cannot become low-income housing after so many years.  If we are going to build our community the right way, the apartments have to be used in the right way.  Nobody is going to live in an apartment for very long.  The goal is that you would live there and then build a house.  We are creating all of this welfare.  There needs to be a built-in rule that at some point they can’t become government-subsidized.  He feels the biggest problem in this valley is that we are overrun.  As a religious group we have been taught to take care of people and it has almost hurt us because we just let a lot of trash in. 

Michelle Curtis said every year the State Legislature implements more laws that address low-income housing and cities are required to allow low-income housing.  Chairman Thomas reiterated that the State Legislature has taken moves to put requirements on cities to provide affordable housing.  Mr. Hatch said isn’t that all attached to funding?  Josh Peterson said that is not correct.  These are land use laws, and when the legislature passes a land use law, then all governments in the State have to abide by that.

Rich Rollins:  His dad has a piece of ground on 500 East which is across the canal from this property.  He asks if it is the Planning Commission’s job to steer these kinds of things.  Susan Jensen said that isn’t the Commission’s job.  The Commission looks at the Zoning Code to apply the ordinances.  It’s the City Council’s job to guide the heart of Richfield City.  Mr. Rollins thinks this looks like the Day Break development and that is a mess.  Mr. Hodgson said that Day Break is a huge scale.

Mr. Bringhurst said he is a planner and his job is to look and decide what they can do by using the General Plan, the Transportation Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance.  They are playing by a set of rules.  What he keeps hearing is that the people in this room don’t like the rules. 

Mr. Rollins wonders how many people would live here?  Mr. Bringhurst said they are not to that point yet.  They are only at the stage of annexing.  This is a very early concept plan that will be fine-tuned.  Mr. Rollins thinks this might be alright if it took 20 years to build, but he thinks it will be completed within five years. 

Mr. Rollins is worried about sewer and water.  He was told the engineers would have to determine if this proposal works. 

Mr. Rollins said if this concept gets approved by everybody before they even know where things are going to be and it is not even publicized, when does the public talk about it. Michelle Curtis explained that every agenda is published on-line and it is up to the public to go on-line if they are interested. 

Mr.Hodgson pointed out that not everybody wants to move into a big single-family home.  People are moving from the Wasatch Front south, from St. George north.   Demographics are changing, home designs are changing, style of living is changing.  Not everybody wants a big yard to take care of.  High-density housing uses less water than agriculture.  Lisa White pointed out that high-density housing uses less water than a lot of single-family homes with half an acre of turf. 

Mr. Rollins said having grown up in St. George and seeing the mess they have down there, and living 25 years on the Wasatch Front and seeing that mess, he understands why people want to live here.  Michelle Curtis stated that this development has addressed two of the streets shown on the Master Transportation Plan.  Many times developers come in and see where traffic corridors are planned and argue against it. 

Lisa White said today the question is about the annexation.  Mr. Rollins said so the developer is being given the green light to build housing for 10,000 people?  He was told even if the zone is approved, they will have to come in for approval for any plans, and the zone could change at their request.  Mr. Hodgson said when Mr. Rollins talks about 10,000 people, that is unfair.  It is not 10,000 people, and saying that doesn’t help the conversation.  It is inflammatory.  They are talking about 120 units, not 10,000 people.

Lisa White said regarding comments about St. George and up north, part of their problem is that it wasn’t planned out ahead of time.  A development like this is not going to happen in a year, but having a plan for how it’s going to be developed helps us control what it is when it finally is developed.  Sometimes the problems with growth happen because it is planned piecemeal rather than comprehensively.

Rich Persons:  He wants the developers to recognize the importance of protection for the public in regard to the canal.  He lived by a canal and saw two children drown in it.  Mr. Hodgson is very aware of the canal.  He lived by a canal and almost drowned ni it when he was a child.  Safety is important to him.  

Randi Deem:   She is a local business owner.  She doesn’t know how big Richfield wants to be or become.  She is concerned about local businesses and other businesses.  If you don’t buy local, bye local.  The mom and pop stores are going way.  On the flip side, she realizes that bringing more people in, brings more shoppers.  If Walgreens came, what would that do to local pharmacies?  Wal-Mart hurt them a lot.  She is concerned about water.  It is a precious resource that is quickly dwindling.  We all need to be careful with it.  The developer commented that agriculture takes up more water, and that makes her fired up.  She grew up in an agricultural family, we live in an agricultural community, and we see a lot of fields, farms, and orchards going away.  Where does our food come from?  That is part of the vision that needs to be considered. 

She agrees with a lot of the things that have been expressed tonight.  It is a great concern how fast we are growing.  We are all trying to live and work together and it needs to be a good positive thing.  Our transient population is growing by leaps and bounds and she sees it every single day on Main Street and in her shop.  It is hard for her to say classes of people, but that is the way it is.  There are classes of people and we need to help and serve, but not make it a way of life from generation to generation.  She understands, and it is complicated.  As far as zoning, we need a little more information before these decisions are made. 

Chairman Thomas said in the process of the City determining what its policies and ordinances are on land use, if anyone is concerned with a proposal and they come at this stage of the game, they’re a little too late because zoning areas are determined at the time of adopting the General Plan.  He knows that there are some concerns with the RV park or the self storage units.  That zone is already in place and those are permitted uses in that zone.  The City can’t stop it.  They can put some reasonable conditions on it.  The City does not have control over what a property owner puts there as long as it is allowed in the ordinance.  The ordinance is written and determined through the General Plan process.  That is the stage where the public needs to come and be involved.  That is when we determine what is appropriate in different areas of town.  That is the stage when the public can have the most influence in controlling where and how growth happens. 

Daryl Hodgson said they are not wanting to destroy Richfield.  They are annexing the small piece of property across the canal.  They want to build a home on it.  They want to build the RV park and Ryan Hodgson wants to move here to run it.  They do not want to bulldoze their way through.  It is about density and there does have to be a certain amount of density to make this work.  With I-70 there is a lot of potential here.  You can’t limit growth, but you can help shape it.

Maridon Crofts:  After so much talk about having bad neighbors, she points out that you can have a bad neighbor anywhere you live.  Progress is needed.  Kids are not finding places to live.  They can’t afford to buy.  If something happened to her husband, she would want a place like to move into because she would not want to take care of her large yard.  Not everybody can afford a 10-acre farm with a huge lawn. 

Nate Young:  He thinks it would be prudent to zone it at a lower density and then rezone it as needed.  He is not opposed to this.   He owns the Subway across the street from this property. There are pros and cons.  It would be great for his business, but the con would be maybe other businesses coming in. He doesn’t have a problem with that.  He thinks the growth should be controlled and that would be by having low density and then change the zoning as it starts to build up.  He thanked the developers for putting this together and showing concept plans. 

Chairman Thomas said it would be possible to recommend with the annexation that the Council consider zoning it the RR-1 zone, the lowest density zone that it would automatically default to if they don’t choose a zone.  The strategy behind that is that it would force a public hearing process at the Planning Commission level that wouldn’t  happen if the City Council approved the zones as requested with the annexation petition.      

Basically these gentleman have taken our City’s General Plan and followed what it shows that the City wants to happen.  That is why he stated earlier that if they are opposed to what is happening here, they are a step too late in the process.  The public needs to attend when the General Plan is being discussed and formed. 

Josh Peterson motioned to recommend that the Council accept the annexation Petition filed Utah Land Solutions with the zone of R1-10 (knowing that it will be adjusted later) affecting property located at approximately 200 East 1400 North.  Lisa White seconded the motion. Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Greg Bean, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, and Wes Kirschner.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously.

7.         Minutes Approval:  The minutes of May 4, 2022, were reviewed.  Lisa White suggested inserting on page 15 that the Commission’s only issue was the single access.  On page 18 there was discussion that there should be signs on the Lions Park stating that overnight parking is not allowed.   Blaine Breinholt motioned to approve the minutes of May 4, 2022, as amended.  Josh Peterson seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Greg Bean, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, and Wes Kirschner.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously.

8.         Other Business.  There was no other business. 

9.         Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

PASSED AND APPROVED on the 3rd day of August, 2022.

/s/ Michelle Curtis

       Deputy City Recorder