Minutes – 08.04.2021

COUNTY OF SEVIER 

CITY OF RICHFIELD

                                                                                    At the Planning Commission

                                                                                    In and For Said City

                                                                                   August 4, 2021

         Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, August 4, 2021, at 6:00 p.m., Chairman Kendrick Thomas, presiding.

1.         Roll Call

2.         General Plan (6:00 to 7:30 pm.)

          A.         Review proposed General Plan with planning consultant Bruce Parker.

7:30 p.m.

3.       Public Hearings  7:30 p.m.

            A.         Public hearing to receive comments concerning a proposed amendment to the General Plan and zoning map affecting the property located on

500 West between 700 and 800 South.  It is proposed to change the zone from RM-11 (Multi-Family Residential) to RM-24 (Multi-Family

Residential).            

B.         Public hearing to receive comments regarding regulations on short-term rental properties.  Items to be discussed include, but are not limited

to, ownership of   STRs, cap on number of STRs, STR ownership to be limited to two properties,  etc. 

4.         Action on Public Hearings

          A.         Consider recommending that the City Council approve a zone change at on 500 West between 700 and 800 South from RM-11 (Multi-Family

                        Residential) to RM-24 (Multi-Family Residential). 

            B.         Consider changes to be made to the Zoning Code regarding regulations to be imposed on short-term rental properties and recommendation

to the City Council. 

5.         Transportation Plan

            A.         100 West going south from Wal-Mart.  Carson DeMille to discuss changing 100 West Street from a major collector to a minor collector. 

6.         Conditional Use Permits

            A.         Consider approving Julia Jensen’s request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing her to operate a home occupation (beauty salon) at her home

at 869 North 160 West (R1-10 zone, C-1 use).

            B.         Consider approving Mario Gonzalez’  request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing him to operate a home occupation called Luigi’s Garage

Bike Shop to be located at his home at 461 Westview Drive (R1-10 zone, C-1 use). 

            C.        Consider approving Nicole Jorgensen’s request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing her to operate a home occupation called The Allure Studio

(beauty salon) at her home at 1790 South 940 West (R1-10 zone, C-1 use).            D.         Consider approving Preston Harward’s request for a

Conditional Use Permit allowing him to operate a short-term rental at 615 West 860 South (R1-6 zone, C-1 use).           

E.         Consider approving Lance and Mandy Larsen’s request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing them to operate a short-term rental at 396 West

500 North  (R1-10 zone, C-1 use). 

7.         Other Business

            A.         Morgan Shaver to discuss possibilities of a short-term rental at 68 South Main (D zone).  This would require a change to the Zoning Code

allowing short-term rentals in the Downtown area.            

B.         Sinisha Kostich to discuss use of old church at 300 East 100 North.  Possible ideas are for a dance studio, banquets/weddings, games (bingo),

art school, AA, community center.  These uses would require changes to the Zoning Code.

            C.        Danielle Peterson to discuss dog kennels/boarding in commercial zones, specifically 350 South 100 East.

            D.         Greg Bean to discuss suggestions for changes to the Zoning Code concerning metal buildings in commercial zones.

            E.         Assign Planning Commission Member to attend City Council meeting to present Planning Commission Report on August 10, 2021.

            F.          Discuss Planning Commissioner training hours.

7.         Minutes Approval:

            A.         Consider approving minutes of July 7, 2021

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

excused. 

City Staff Present:   Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis.

Others present:  Bruce Parker, Patrick Ruiz, Angie Stubbs, Amy Myers, Danielle Peterson, Preston Harward, Julia Jensen, Rob Jensen, Morgan Shaver, Ashlin Shaver, Mario Gonzalez, Mandy Larsen, Lance Larsen. 

2.         General Plan (6:00 to 7:30 pm.)

          A.         Review proposed General Plan with planning consultant Bruce Parker.  Bruce Parker was present with his assistant Patrick Ruiz.  Mr. Ruiz was a student in Mr. Parker’s Small Town and Resort Planning Class at the University of Utah.  Mr. Ruiz has been the communication link between class members, Michele Jolley, and Michelle Curtis in reviewing and creating a new General Plan for the City. 

Mr. Parker likes to look at the history of a City and see the things that were important in the past and the values that have carried forward.  Richfield has a strong pioneer heritage with the same sense of helping one another, sense of community, and assisting one another. 

The Plan that has been put together is more than a land use plan.  It should be considered by the Planning commission and City Council when they act on land use matters, and also consulted when the City is making allocations of other uses such as financial obligations, how the general funds of the City are spent, sidewalks, expanding roads, water system.  Planning is not just land use, but all those other decisions that advance the interest of every resident.    

Every time there is a decision to be made, the General Plan should be consulted.  It should be updated regularly.  As the State Legislature meets, the things they do will have some effect on the City Codes. 

An example is this year’s Senate Bill 62, Internal Accessory Dwelling Units.  Every City is required to have an ordinance in place that addresses internal accessory dwelling units as a requirement of State law.  The State is foreseeing that with continued economic development and growth of the State, the availability of affordable housing is becoming a restriction.  Mr. Parker said the proposed Plan, has those elements that support achieving State responsibilities of providing moderate to low income housing options.  

The Plan has clarity of implementation.  There is no longer a long lengthy list of goals and policy statements.  This Plan identifies those goals that need priority right now, sets out who is responsible for them, sets out a budget allocation, and a time frame in which to complete it.   

The Community Vision set out in the proposed General Plan is as follows: “Enhance the heritage and beauty of our community as a great place to live while building Richfield into a regional recreation and shopping center, encourage sustainable growth, and maintaining small-town values.”  Lisa White suggests there should be a service aspect added to the statement because the hospital serves a large regional area.  Other regional offices are the forest service, BLM, and UDOT.  “Regional service center” could be added to the statement.  The service sector also includes schools. 

The State only requires that the City address land use and transportation.  Mr. Parker said they have addressed land use.  They have addressed moderate and affordable housing which is not required but a good step to take.  They have added open space trails.  The transportation plan needs to be worked on, and he believes that should be done jointly with the traffic engineer.

Michelle Curtis pointed out that the proposal refers to districts rather than zones.  Mr. Parker said that is correct because State law refers to zoning districts.  It could say “zoning district [‘zones’].”  Also, wherever high density zones are referred to as RM-11 in the plan, “RM-24” needs to be added.  Mr. Parker points out that high density housing does not always equate to affordable.

Mr. Parker also made the point that the General Plan is not the law of the City.  The Zoning Code is the law.  He said if someone were to ask for high density residential in areas that the General Plan shows as high-density residential, it should be allowed with almost 95% certainty if you adopt the idea of having consistency between the General plan and the Zoning Code.  Someone might argue that it is not clear.  He believes that would undermine the credibility of the Zoning Ordinance.  He believes that an applicant would have a very strong argument that the General Plan led them to believe that if they applied for a certain zone in an area, it would be approved. 

When an applicant comes in requesting a zone change to something different than what is shown on the General Plan Map, then the City is in order to deny that request, particularly if the required infrastructure is not yet available to the property. 

He also reminds that when a public hearing is held, a decision does not have to be made that same evening.  It could be in the Planning Commission rules and policies that unless there is a clear reason to move forward immediately, the issue will not be decided the same night as the public hearing.  That is not for the purpose of delay, but to allow for a well-reasoned decision with findings. 

Chairman Thomas said with regard to the RM-24 zone, somebody comes with a proposal to change a certain piece of land to RM-24.  If the Commission feels like it is a good place for it, then they have recommended changing it.  If not, then it isn’t changed.  Mr. Parker said in making those zoning changes, consideration needs to be given as to whether or not infrastructure is in place to support that density.  That would be a reason to deny it and perhaps advise that the City has a capital improvements plan and improvements are planned in a year or two, so potentially an applicant could come back in a few years.  Unless the developer wants to front all of those costs.

The proposed plan states that high density residential is desirable on Main Street.    Mr. Parker said Richfield has a Main Street that many small communities would love to have.  Even some larger urban communities would like to have a center of town.  The reason they have suggested more high density is to maintain its vigor and robustness.  Potentially people could walk to the grocery store or other services they need.  Greg Bean said there would probably need to be limits on high density in the downtown zone.

Chairman Thomas said his concern is that a lot of the requests for higher density on Main Street are for the old motels.  Is there a good way to control the appearance of those so that they don’t stay run-down, old motels that just have a lot of people?  Could there be a requirement for some refreshing?  Mr. Parker said it would have to be written right into the Code and maybe even the Plan.  His experience is that very few small communities want to get into the discussion of design.  There could be some parameters in looking at the architectural effect or design of a building and its effect on the community.  Mr. Ruiz said he worked at a community where they had a downtown review board that approved aesthetics.  He will send an example of their parameters.  Mr. Parker said it can be simple but could deal with ambience or façade or its effect to an adjoining neighbor.  It doesn’t have to go too far, but there can be a few clearly directed and specific parameters. 

Mr. Ruiz said in the community where he worked, the planner created a document that had all of the stipulations of what they could do; i.e. signs, frontage, materials along frontage.  They also updated this document every five to ten years.      

Mr. Parker asked that the Commission go through the Land Use Chapter and make sure it is consistent with what the Planning Commission thinks it should say, go through the implementation standards and anything that is related directly to land use, critique, criticize, comment on each of those. 

Mr. Parker also advised that the City has to have in place the internal accessory dwelling unit ordinance by the 1st of October.  Internal accessory dwelling units are not the same thing as short-term rentals. The difference is that a short-term rental is for less than 30 days.  An internal accessory dwelling unit is longer than 30 days.  It has to be a permitted use in every zone that is residential in nature. 

Mr. Parker has been working on a revision of the Zoning Code as well.  He has e-mailed a draft of proposed revisions for several sections.  He has worked on 28 chapters of the Zoning Code, but was unable to track the changes because Word becomes unstable with that much information.   

Greg Bean had a lot of questions when the original draft of the Plan was presented.  He feels like those have mostly been answered; however, he had questioned the advisability of suggesting that an in-door recreational facility (swimming pool) should be included in the Plan because a bond election was held a few years ago and was voted down.  He had suggested that it either be stricken from the plan or at least not required.   It was pointed out that the citizens of Richfield voted in favor of the bond election at a ratio of 2:1. The election failed with the vote of the rest of the County.  Mr. Parker said they realized that as well, and so it was included in the Plan.  Mr. Bean said it’s the cost and financing that is bothersome.  There was discussion that a facility could still be sought after, and it doesn’t have to be in the form of, or as large as, the one that was being proposed.

Mr. Parker said part of that discussion can be vetted in the public hearing process.  That issue could even be pulled out and focused on.  Mr. Bean thinks that should be done because he doesn’t think the City should be obligated to do it.  If it can be done later that would be great, but he doesn’t think it should be in the Plan.  Lisa White suggests that it could be written more vaguely in the plan such as “The City will look for opportunities to provide recreational opportunities that are reasonable for the community.”  Or Mr. Parker suggests something like “Richfield City will consider other recreational opportunities as revenues, population, and upon the basis that the City continues to grow.”  Lisa White pointed out that a vote of 2:1 seems to suggest that the citizens do want something.  Mr. Ruiz said they did put it in because they noticed from multiple surveys, including one done by Utah State University, that there is a want for an indoor recreational facility.

Mr. Parker said the discussion will be in deciding what the City needs, what size, what type of facility.  Many communities start off with a smaller facility and then add to it as they grow.  Angie Stubbs asked if Mr. Parker is seeing a lot of recreational master plans included in the General Plan?  He said that typically they are often separate because they do raise policy issues.  Once a recreation plan is adopted, it could be included in the General Plan.  Mr. Parker said they have referred to recreation in the proposed General Plan.  It should be reviewed to see if it needs to be changed or expanded. 

Michelle Curtis asked Mr. Parker about rezones.  There are areas in the City that are zoned Manufacturing or Commercial.  However, some of those areas are mostly residential in nature.  There has been discussion in the past about rezoning those entire areas to residential.  She knows that if the City were to undertake rezoning those areas, a public hearing would have to be held, as well as mailing notice to every single property owner in an affected zone.   Is it possible to streamline the process?  Mr. Parker said there is not another way to do it.  Notice has to be given to every property owner. He knows the Zoning Code provides that even though a zone might be manufacturing, an existing home is an allowed used.  He remembers that when the Zoning Code was last updated, we went ahead and made existing homes an allowable use in commercial and manufacturing zones because we didn’t want to intentionally or unintentionally non-conform residences in those zones.  That would affect someone’s ability to add on, finance, etc.  Unless we want to go ahead and do those little rezones, what we have probably works.  He feels like what we have is a good way to deal with it.  Even putting them in another zone is not going to affect the rights they already have.  Greg Bean pointed out that new construction of a dwelling is not allowed in these zones.  Mr. Parker agrees and that was intentional because it was determined that commercial or industrial should be the preferred use in some of those areas.  But the zone could be changed on a case-by-case basis. 

Mr. Parker said that planning tends to quickly fall into the regulatory roles of zoning.  Hopefully the Plan will show that isn’t what planning is about.  Planning is looking in a visionary way to the future for the well-being of existing and future residents.  That is what is happening with the high-density discussion.  The residents needing it might not be here right now, but it needs to be planned for. 

Mr. Parker recognized the excellent job that Mr. Ruiz and the U of U class have done in working on this project.  He doesn’t anticipate that there will need to be a lot of wholesale revisions.  The next step in the process will be for Planning Commission members to take a look at the proposed Plan and discuss it as a Planning Commission.  It can then go to public hearing to consider recommending that the Council adopt the Plan. 

A review and discussion of the General Plan will be added to the end of the agenda for next month’s meeting. 

There was also discussion about revising the Zoning Code.  Lisa White suggested that starting with October’s meeting would be a good time when the Commission will want to spend a half hour at the beginning of every meeting to discuss and review the Zoning Code.

7:30 p.m.

3.       Public Hearings  7:30 p.m.

            A.         7:31 p.m.  A public hearing was held to receive comments concerning a proposed amendment to the General Plan and zoning map affecting the property located on 500 West between 700 and 800 South.  It is proposed to change the zone from RM-11 (Multi-Family Residential) to RM-24 (Multi-Family Residential). 

There being no public comments, the hearing closed at 7:32 p.m.

            B.         7:32 pm.  A public hearing to receive comments regarding regulations on short-term rental properties.  Items to be discussed include, but are not limited to, ownership of STRs, cap on number of STRs, STR ownership to be limited to two properties, etc. 

Kendrick Thomas stated that the Commission had appointed a committee consisting of two Commission members and staff who met and then provided recommendations on how the Zoning Code could be adjusted to limit the number of short-term rentals that could be used in Richfield city.  The reason for that is there have been other cities indicate that they are having issues because short-term rentals create shortages in availability of long-term rentals.

Danielle Peterson:  Ms. Peterson asked what is the definition of a short-term rental?  She was told short-term rentals are for 30 days or less.  Basically, using your home as a hotel such as VRBO and Airbnb.    

Following are recommendations made by the committee and reviewed by City legal counsel as follows:

            Recommendation 1:  Short term rentals to be owned only by Sevier County residents.  (Legal counsel has stated that this would not be legal.   He elaborated by saying that it would be the same type of thing as restricting a business based on race, color, or religion.  He believes it would violate both State and Federal Constitutions, equal protection clause and commerce clause.)

            Recommendation 2:  Limit ownership of short-term rentals to two properties per household.  (Legal counsel advised that this is illegal.) 

Mandy Larsen (Assistant Sevier County Attorney):  Ms. Larsen agrees that the attorney is correct.  That is not the right way to go about limiting short-term rentals. 

            Recommendation 3:  If the property is sold, it cannot be transferred to the new owner of the home. 

            Recommendation 4:  Must have a business license that is renewed yearly. 

            Recommendation 5:  The City to be divided into three areas and allow a cap of 5% short-term rentals per area.  (Comments received from legal counsel:  This would be ok until someone is denied a short-term rental because there are already too many in the area.  What is the justification for a 5% cap per area?  How are residents or the City harmed by 8% as opposed to 4%.  Without some justification, this amount will appear arbitrary.  The City Attorney further elaborated by stating that the 5% cap might be the best approach.  It could help to limit congregating of short-term rentals.  However, he feels that a study of some other information showing that a negative impact on surrounding properties would result from a high level of short-term rentals may be necessary to withstand a legal challenge.) 

            Recommendation 6:  RVs cannot be used as short-term rentals.

            Recommendation 7:  Property to be used as a short-term rental at least one time per year. 

Mario Gonzales:  Mr. Gonzales asked if anyone has seen different types of rental facilities such as the grain silo that has been turned into a home in Antimony.  Would that type of thing be allowed?   Are there limitations as to what is considered a structure?  He was told that the City doesn’t have design standards, but it would have to meet building codes.  Chairman Thomas said it would be pretty easy to deny allowing an ag building to be changed into a residential unit because there would have to be significant upgrades to meet the requirements of the existing building code.   

Morgan Shaver:  Mr. Shaver said it sounds like the City is trying to come up with ways to make certain regulations work so that they are legal.  He asked how does the Commission intend to reach this goal?  That will be discussed in the action part of the agenda.    

Jeana Ogden:  Mrs. Ogden said there is a short-term rental in Salina that also functions as a business.  The business is a gymnastics business.  She wonders if something like that would be limited as well?   Chairman Thomas said that would be a mixed-use type of business. 

There was discussion that sometimes Airbnb or VRBO are facilities such as a tree house, tents, glamping.  Is that defined in the Code?  Typically, those kinds of things would be located in a campground and there is a difference between a campground and an STR located at a residence.  There are some things in the Code already such as prohibiting any building with more than three bedrooms.  The Code does disallow RV vehicles to be used as an STR.  It also disallows the use of accessory structures. 

Jeana Ogden said she has owned an Airbnb for more than a year.  She believes that as the City grows and develops, and as culture changes, the City needs to keep up with those changes.  There is a market for Airbnb, VRBO.  Families want to go altogether and stay in one house.  Limiting STRs to a 3-bedroom house, limits the market, and there is definitely a market.  She does think from a safety standpoint, that there need to be regulations on occupancy and safety.  A lot of people in one place, things happen, whether its deck capacity or fire hazard.  That needs to be addressed.  But saying limit Airbnb because we want to control it, that is where the culture is going and so we have to be really careful.   

There being no further public comments, the public hearing closed at 7:46 p.m. 

4.         Action on Public Hearings

            A.         Consider recommending that the City Council approve a zone change at on 500 West between 700 and 800 South from RM-11 (Multi-Family Residential) to RM-24 (Multi-Family Residential.) 

Jared Cefalia was not present.  Michelle Curtis advised that the property is located by the Armstrong Apartments on 500 West and is currently zoned RM-11.  Staff reviewed a plan showing a proposal for 8 units if the property were zoned as RM-24.  Although the property meets the square footage required for 8 units, staff determined that the 8 units, as configured, was not feasible because of access issues and parking.  Mr. Cefalia still wanted to ask for the zone change because he believes he could make it work with 6 units.  The Commission wondered if Mr. Cefalia realizes that changing it to the RM-24 zone would require him to have a traffic study.

There was discussion that this creates a pretty small island of RM-24 in the RM-11 zone and the Commission is hesitant to do that. 

Josh Peterson motioned to table the issue because Mr. Cefalia is not present.  He needs to be aware of the requirement for a traffic study.  Susan Jensen seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Susan Jensen, Lisa White, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, and Greg Bean.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously.

(Of note:  The property is comprised of 19,958 square feet which would allow up to 9 units in the RM-24 zone.  As an RM-11 zone, up to 4 units could be allowed.  Also, in checking the ordinance it should be noted that the RM-24 zone requires a traffic study only for developments of 50 units or more.) 

            B.         Consider changes to be made to the Zoning Code regarding regulations to be imposed on short-term rental properties and recommendation to the City Council. 

As discussed in the public hearing, and in light of the comments from the City Attorney, should the committee go back and retool the recommendations?  Lisa White said if short-term rentals can’t be limited, then she would rather not allow them at all because we don’t want to turn into a Laverkin or Hurricane having major issues.  Greg Bean said we can’t keep STRs out.  He thinks in spite of the attorney’s comments, the City should go ahead with a 5% cap and other provisions.  Lisa White thinks it needs to be limited in some way, and realizes that we need to allow STRs, but she does not want it to cut into the availability of long-term rentals.     

Mandy Larsen suggested that the committee could meet with the City Attorney and have him be part of the discussion to see what can be done legally.  Preston Harward pointed out that an STR property does not change the residential use or character of a neighborhood.  Mandy Larsen stated that the old hotels seem to be turning into the long-term rentals.  She believes the market will regulate how many there are.  You can’t buy a $500,000 house and make the house payment renting on Airbnb.  You would be upside down every time. 

Josh Peterson said he has a friend who lives in Austin.  He has a bonus room above his garage with a small bathroom in it.  He has been renting that out as an STR and charges over $100/night.  It has been full 26 of 30 nights. It makes his house payment, property tax, and everything.

Mandy Larsen said she owns short-term rentals on Airbnb.  She has had it for over a year.  A person couldn’t pay a mortgage payment, the property tax, internet, utilities, and new sheets and towels every four months. 

Lisa White said the committee looked at a lot of other communities and one of them had a conversation back and forth setting out the pros and cons. Some of those comments were that you want to make sure that people have the opportunity to help pay their mortgage payment, this is the way of the future.  You also do not want to become a transient community, so you have to find a way to balance that.  One of the ways they did that was making sure that nobody from out of town could just come in and buy up all of the available houses and use them as STRs.  Apparently, according to our attorney, prohibiting that is not legal.  If a person were to come in from California and buy up 10 properties to use as an STR, then that cuts into the inventory for long-term rentals.  Jeana Ogden said they aren’t doing that because they can’t maintain it from California, we don’t have the workforce for that here, and it is not cost effective.  We don’t generate the kind of traffic that would create that problem.  Lisa White said but there is also future coming and she believes there will come a time when we could support that.    

Josh Peterson commented that some of those kinds of investors are ok to take a loss. 

Preston Harward said he knows that other cities do cap the numbers.  Jeana Ogden wondered if there could be an extra tax for those kinds of business licenses.

Lisa White said we don’t want to exclude local people from being able to own an STR by taxing it to the hilt.  Mandy Larsen said they do pay higher property tax on an STR. 

Chairman Thomas said that the County has put on a couple of housing summits for Planning Commissioners in the County.  One of the big concerns driving this is that as the number of STRs increases, it can raise housing costs so that there is not affordable housing in the community, and limits the number of long-term rentals that are available. 

Morgan Shaver pointed out that perhaps having an ordinance like this, as opposed to having no restrictions, would have the opposite effect and drive up the desirability of having an STR.   It might be enticing to some investors to know that the City does have regulations. 

Greg Bean reminded that this is new territory for the City, but whatever is adopted is not cast in stone and can be changed.  In checking with other communities, the one thing they have recommended is getting in front of the curve because after the fact, it is difficult to control.        

Chairman Kendrick said that at one of the housing summits they mentioned that some hotel chains will look at an area to see how saturated the market is with STRs and they won’t go there if there are too many.  He likes the suggestion of having the committee meet with the City Attorney.  The ultimate goal is to allow STRs, but not let them overtake the community.

Greg Bean motioned to table this issue.  Josh Peterson seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Susan Jensen, Lisa White, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, and Greg Bean.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously.

A meeting will be scheduled with the City Attorney.

There was a suggestion that rather than looking at number of bedrooms, perhaps address the number of occupants per bedroom.

5.         Transportation Plan

            A.         100 West going south from Wal-Mart.  Carson DeMille to discuss changing 100 West Street from a major collector to a minor collector. 

Carson Demille was not present.  As far as action to be taken in this meeting, if the Commission feels like the road designation should be changed, then a public hearing would have to be scheduled.  Chairman Thomas has knowledge of this matter.  The Smith’s apartments will be built on the west side of 100 West Street.  Jones & DeMille is on the east side of the street.  Jones & DeMille is also considering doing some improvements in addition to the building there.  The street is shown as a major collector which is a 66’ right-of-way and a lot of the Jones & DeMille property would be swallowed up by that right-of-way with street improvements.  Currently this street goes to the south and then dead-ends a little beyond Jones & DeMille.   Mr. DeMille was going to discuss that it might make more sense to change this road to a minor collector street which would have a narrower right of way.  Jones & DeMille would still have to give up 10 feet of property.    A traffic study for this area will be done with the Smith’s project. 

Blaine Breinholt motioned to table this matter until Carson DeMille can be present.  Greg Bean seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Susan Jensen, Lisa White, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, and Greg Bean.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously.

6.         Conditional Use Permits

            A.         Consider approving Julia Jenson’s request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing her to operate a home occupation (beauty salon) at her home at 869 North 160 West (R1-10

zone, C-1 use).

Julia Jenson and Rob Jenson were present.  Mrs. Jenson would like to have a beauty shop in her home.  She will not have employees.  There is plenty of parking.  She will comply with requirements for a business license.

Lisa White motioned to approve a Conditional Use Permit allowing Julia Jenson to operate a home occupation (beauty salon) at her home at 960 North 160 West.  Susan Jensen seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Susan Jensen, Lisa White, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, and Greg Bean.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously.

            B.         Consider approving Mario Gonzalez’ request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing him to operate a home occupation called Luigi’s Garage Bike Shop to be located at his home at 461 Westview Drive (R1-10 zone, C-1 use). 

Mario Gonzalez was present.  He is an avid cyclist.  He has a lot of tools and a small shed that he would like to use for maintenance of bicycles.  There would be no major overhauls, mostly tune-ups with flat repairs and brakes.  This is a way to keep his two boys busy and learning a hobby, while making a little bit of money.  He hopes for them to be able to take it over at some point. 

He will do the repairs in a small shop in the back yard which is why this is a major home occupation and reviewed as a C-1 use.  He does not expect to hire employees.  He thinks for the first year he could have as many as five customers per week.  Customers would drop off their bikes and pick them up, or he could go get the bikes.  He does not anticipate that this will create problems with the neighbors with noise.  He will wash the bikes with a garden hose in the yard.  As a side job it will be conducted in the evenings and on Saturdays. 

Lisa White motioned to approve Mario Gonzalez’ request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing him to operate a home occupation called Luigi’s Garage Bike Shop to be located at his home at 461 Westview Drive.  Greg Bean seconded the motion. Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Susan Jensen, Lisa White, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, and Greg Bean.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously.

            C.        Consider approving Nicole Jorgensen’s request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing her to operate a home occupation called The Allure Studio (beauty salon) at her home at 1790 South 940 West (R1-10 zone, C-1 use).  

Nicole Jorgensen was present.  She would like to have a beauty salon at her home.  The salon will be located in a she-shed located behind her garage.  She will have one employee.  She has adequate off-street parking for an employee plus two clients.  At most, there would be two clients there at the same time.  Her hours will be 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Lisa White motioned to approve Nicole Jorgensen’s request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing him to operate a home occupation called The Allure Studio at her home at 1790 South 940 West as presented.  Blaine Breinholt seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Susan Jensen, Lisa White, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, and Greg Bean.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously. 

            D.         Consider approving Preston Harward’s request for a Conditional Use Permit  allowing him to operate a short-term rental at 615 West 860 South (R1-6 zone, C-1 use).

Preston Harward was present.  He purchased a home in the R1-6 zone in the south part of town which is the zone where mobile homes are located.  He would like to use it as a short-term rental.  This is a double-wide mobile home.  It has three bedrooms and two baths.  There are 3 off-street parking spaces. 

Mr. Harward will need to have a fire inspection.

Lisa White motioned to approve Preston Harward’s request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing him to use the home as a short-term rental at 615 West 860 South.  Josh Peterson seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Susan Jensen, Lisa White, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, and Greg Bean.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously.

            E.         Consider approving Lance and Mandy Larsen’s request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing them to operate a short-term rental at 396 West 500 North (R1-10 zone, C-1 use). 

Lance and Mandy Larsen were present.  Susan Jensen declared a conflict of interest as Mandy Larsen is her daughter.  This home has two bedrooms and two baths.  It is a 4-bedroom home, but they will use one of the rooms as a storage room for linens, towels, cleaning supplies.  If the ordinance allowed them to have four bedrooms, they would maybe use it as a bedroom, but it still wouldn’t change the occupancy.  They can provide the required parking spaces. 

They will need to have a fire inspection. 

Lisa White made the comment that it may not always make sense to require one parking space per bedroom.

Blaine Breinholt motioned to approve Lance and Mandy Larsen’s request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing them to operate a short-term rental at 396 West 500 North.  Lisa White seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Susan Jensen, Lisa White, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, and Greg Bean.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously

7.         Other Business

            A.         Morgan Shaver to discuss possibilities of a short-term rental at 68 South Main (D zone).  This would require a change to the Zoning Code allowing short-term rentals in the Downtown area. 

Lisa White was excused.

Morgan Shaver was present.  He is considering the possibility of a studio apartment upstairs.  Parking would be behind the building.  He is thinking of purchasing 76 South Main to tear it down and create an outdoor dining area. There could be parking there.  If he does not buy the second property, then he won’t do the apartment.  He would like to see if this allowed in the Downtown.  He believes it would be a positive thing for the downtown area because it would help get foot traffic for businesses along Main Street. 

It was determined that short-term rentals are already allowed in the Downtown zone.  If he decides to do this, he would have to work with the building inspector to ensure that it meets building code, and also acquire a business license for the short-term rental. 

            B.         Sinisha Kostich to discuss use of old church at 300 East 100 North.  Possible ideas are for a dance studio, banquets/weddings, games (bingo), art school, AA, community center.  These uses would require changes to the Zoning Code. (RM-11 zone)

Sinisha Kostich was present.  He would possibly like to use this old church as a dance studio and also rent the building for weddings and receptions.  He would like it to be some type of community center.  Perhaps something similar to Knight’s Bridge Hall on 400 south. 

He would like to be able to use the old church rather than letting it fall into decay.  It has 5000 square feet of floor that could make a really nice cultural hall and social hall.  He would rent it out to people to do whatever event they want to do in there. 

Dwight Mielke said that as a church, they would have had these types of activities and so why would it not be allowed without the church being there.    Churches are allowed in this zone and that would include any activities associated with the church. However, this isn’t being used as a church and if it is being used as a business, then it would have a different feel than church-related activities. 

Blaine Breinholt wondered if a provision could be added to the Zoning Code that would allow for something like this.  Greg Bean said he would rather spot zone than allow the use in the entire zone.  The Commission doesn’t seem to have a problem with allowing this, but it is a matter of making it fit in the Zoning Code.  He could be allowed to have apartments, but he doesn’t want to change the character of the building.  There was discussion that it might fit under Educational Facility if he has dance lessons.  However, the definition for educational facility is tied to schools qualified by the State Board of Education for academic instruction or privately-owned buildings that offer a curriculum for technical or vocational training, kindergarten, elementary, secondary or higher education. 

It doesn’t qualify as a home occupation because he will not live there. 

Chairman Thomas agrees that he wouldn’t want to change the Code to allow it in the entire zone, so maybe spot zoning would be best.  If the use isn’t allowed, then eventually it might be torn down for residences.  However, it seems like the building could have some historical value. 

Mr. Kostich has considered doing apartments but would rather see it used as some type of social gathering place.

Mario Gonzalez suggested the possibility of using an overlay zone.

Mr. Kostich was told that the Planning Commission will think about this, search for options, and notify him what they find out.     

            C.        Danielle Peterson to discuss dog kennels/boarding in commercial zones, specifically 350 South 100 East (CS zone).

Danielle Peterson was present.  Josh Peterson declared a conflict because Ms. Peterson is his cousin.  Ms. Peterson has researched other cities that have overlay zones to allow dog boarding, etc. Both Sandy and pleasant Grove have overlays. 

Greg Bean said at the last meeting he felt like the Commission came to the conclusion that kennels with overnight boarding should not be allowed in commercial zones because it is problematic, even though it is realized that there is a need for this.  Ms. Peterson said this location is the best she could afford.  She has tried to find other locations through the County and hasn’t been successful with that.  The neighbors next door have been excited and supportive of this.  There is an empty lot behind the property.

Josh Peterson said there was previous discussion that this is allowed in the manufacturing zones and perhaps it could be allowed in the CG zone, but not in the CS or D zones. 

Dwight Mielke, the owner of the building, was present.  He has not received any complaints about her business since she has been there.  He said the part of the building where her business is located is isolated with a block wall because the south end of the building was added on to the building later.  It is sound-proof.  The dance/exercise studio is on the other side of the block wall.  The instructor said she hears the dogs sometimes, but she turns on the music anyway so it isn’t bothersome.   

Josh Peterson said that sound is one of the concerns.  Section 1718 of the Code talks about the sound-proofing of kennels.  Paragraph 6 of that Section requires side and rear setbacks of a minimum of 20 feet.  She can’t meet that because the building is comprised of several units.

Chairman Thomas Kendrick said the Commission is sympathetic to her, but there are a lot of things in the ordinance that she can’t meet.  An overlay could be a possibility, but that would take some time.  Ms. Peterson said there is a need for this service.    

Blaine Breinholt feels like there are too many obstacles to overcome.

Ms. Peterson was originally approved for this business to be located in the industrial park.  That turned out to be too much money and the bank would not give her a loan to make the improvements she needed to make.   

She does have dogs in the building and what she needs is to be able to increase the capacity and board overnight.  She has 15 kennels which is all she can have in this space according to the law.  She said she was approved by the Commission to board and train two to four dogs at a maximum.  She is full every week.  She would like the Commission to keep the conversation going forward about changing things so that the number could be increased, even if they could increase the board and train to five dogs.

Chairman Thomas said the Commission will need to study this a little more to see what options might be available.

            D.         Greg Bean to discuss suggestions for changes to the Zoning Code concerning metal buildings in commercial zones.

Greg Bean accepted the assignment to check into changing the Zoning Code concerning the requirements for exterior coverings on metal buildings.

He contacted Brigham City and Price City.  Brigham City is a population of 19,000.  Much like Richfield, it is a rural location with a freeway through it.  They have special requirements in their historic district and on their main thoroughfares which are 1100 South and Main Street.  The gentleman he spoke with said he would send Greg a copy of what they use.

Price City has a population of almost 9,000.  They have no written requirements.  They negotiate as they feel they need to with new businesses.  They try to match existing architecture where it makes sense, and work with people to do that.  Sometimes they meet their desires with conditional uses. 

Cedar City has an ordinance.  They say the inclusion of the following materials should be considered in the design of a commercial building:  preferred building materials are quarried stone, cultured stone, full brick veneer, composite lathe siding, Hardie Plank, and architectural concrete with recessed panels.  Colored CMU block, and architectural CMU block are excluded. 

Preferred accent materials are precast concrete, stucco, glass.  Discouraged: plain gray flat face CMU block, brick tiles, metal walls, wood or glass when used as more than for a functional purpose or as non-accent material. 

Along particular street frontages, the building materials listed above are mandatory for the front face and the first 30 feet on the side.  That only applies to Main Street and 200 North Street.  He is awaiting a call from their zoning administrator to see how they enforce this.   

Mr. Bean feels like people are behind the times as far the ability to accent things like metals with the use of various designs and textures.  Nobody really has a philosophy or treatment for these things.  He wanted input from the Commission before he tries to draft some sort of ordinance.  He found that metal buildings are discouraged most everywhere and our City is actually more liberal.    

Blaine Breinholt offered his opinion that the buildings in the industrial park look good, but the storage unit that was required to put an end cap with a brick or stone façade doesn’t look as good. 

Angie Stubbs wondered if there could be regulations concerning metal along Main Street in order to maintain the aesthetic look that is here.  Greg Bean said perhaps something similar to Cedar’s which would apply to Main Street, 1300 South, and also east 300 North. 

Chairman Thomas agrees with perhaps trying to guide aesthetics along the main thoroughfares and be a little more liberating off the main track.  Greg Bean wonders why Cedar City likes block and stone so much?  Chairman Thomas said because it provides a monumental, stately, and timeless look.  He has seen metal used in such a way that it looks really good by using different colorings, etc.  He has seen a lot of metal buildings done structurally and then skinned with something nice.  They can put eves on them to give a more classical building look than just a straight roof with straight walls.    

Josh Peterson suggests that the required percentage of coverage needs to be adjusted.

Blaine Breinholt pointed out that when the ordinance was adopted, there probably weren’t options for the better-looking metal.  

There was also discussion that perhaps there needs to be a committee that looks at aesthetics, especially for Main Street.  Chairman Thomas said it is not unreasonable to have someone provide a 3-D rendering. 

Greg Bean said he will go ahead and move his proposal to the next step. 

            E.         Assign Planning Commission Member to attend City Council meeting to present Planning Commission Report on August 10, 2021.  Chairman Thomas will represent the Planning Commission at City Council on August 10, 2021. 

            F.          Discuss Planning Commissioner training hours.  In order to track training hours, Commissioners reported their attendance at training meetings as follows:  Greg Bean and Josh Peterson attended the two housing summit meetings and the County’s planning commissioner training at the County.  Blaine Breinholt and Susan Jensen attended the County’s planning commissioner training.  Kendrick Thomas and Lisa White attended one housing summit and the County planning Commission training.  Wes Kirschner attended one housing summit. 

7.         Minutes Approval:

            A.         Consider approving minutes of July 7, 2021.   Blaine Breinholt motioned to approve the minutes of July 7, 2021.  Susan Jensen seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Susan Jensen, Lisa White, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, and Greg Bean.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously

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

PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st day of September, 2021.

/s/ Michelle Curtis

   Deputy City Recorder