COUNTY OF SEVIER
CITY OF RICHFIELD
At the Planning Commission
In and For Said City
January 4, 2023
Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, January 4, 2023, at 6:00 p.m., Acting Chairman Josh Peterson, presiding.
2. General Plan Discussion
A. Discuss RM-24 zone. The following items to be discussed:
i. Brad Garfield to discuss 1180 South Cove View Road as an RM-11 zone and impact on this property of
RM-24 zones having 1000’ distance.
ii. Discuss suggested language provided by attorney.
iii. Discuss adding language providing that mixed uses with long-term rentals having a density meeting
RM-24 to be considered as limiting the 1000’ distance.
B. Discuss suggestions from attorney for Accessory Uses addressing support services.
3. Public Hearing (6:30 p.m.)
A. Receive comments concerning a subdivision application for Cove Junction Phase I. The property is located
west and south of Home Depot on Cove View Road. The property is zoned RM-24.
B. Receive comments concerning a subdivision application for Eagle View Subdivision. The property is located
between 1550 West and Cove View Road and between Cove View Road (2100 South) and 2200 South. The
property is zoned RM-11.
4. Action on Public Hearings
A. Consider recommending approval of a subdivision application for Cove Junction Phase I. The property is
located west and south of Home Depot on Cove View Road. The property is zoned RM-24.
B. Consider recommending approval of a subdivision application for Eagle View Subdivision. The property is
located between 1550 West and Cove View road and between Cove View Road (2100 South) and 2200 South.
The property is zoned RM-11.
5. Conditional Uses
A. Consider approving a Conditional Use Permit allowing Taylor Shiner to operate a home occupation at 208
South 100 West. This is a mobile welding business. (C1-use, R1-10 zone).
6. Development Reviews and Approvals.
A. Review and consider recommending approval of Cove Junction Phase I. The property is located west and
south of Home Depot on Cove View Road (C-2 use, RM-24 zone).
B. Consider recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit allowing the construction of a multi-family
dwelling unit called Phase 1, Cove Mountain Village, to be located on 350 West between Cove View Road and
1300 South (C-2 use, RM-24 zone).
C. Consider approving plans presented by Scott Hyatt for the construction of a retail building at the Fiiz/Pizza
Hut/Centracom location at 1186 South 100 West (C-1 use, CG zone).
D. Review Tanner Thompson’s request and consider recommending that the City Council waive the requirement
for asphalt to be located for a newly constructed home at 640 East 1170 North.
7. Minutes Approval
A. Consider approving minutes of December 7, 2022.
8. Other Business.
A. Appoint Chairman and Vice-Chairman for 2023.
9. Adjournment.
1. Roll Call. Roll call was answered by Josh Peterson, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, and Blaine Breinholt. Kendrick Thomas and Wes Kirshner were excused.
City Staff Present: Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis.
Others present: Zach Leavitt, Rowena Hulet, Will and Connie Jolley, Ray and Selena Terry, Steve Barket, Marnee and Kelly Winn, Kristie Whitaker, Scott Hyatt, Ryan Savage, Kurt Marchant, Jeff Albrecht, Adam and Devanae Robinson, Brad Garfield, Taylor and Dakota Anderson, Jared Cefalia, Larry Hansen, Tyson and Lana Hansen, Keith Mogan, Mark and Shontae Hatch.
2. General Plan Discussion
A. Discuss RM-24 zone. The following items to be discussed:
i. Brad Garfield to discuss 1180 South Cove View Road as an RM-11 zone and impact on this property of RM-24 zones having 1000’ distance. Mr. Garfield has asked that this be put off for the time being.
ii. Discuss suggested language provided by attorney. Regarding the RM-24 zone, the Commission has wanted to add language that would limit the distance between projects to no closer than 1000 feet. The following addition to the definition was suggested by the City attorney:
Multiple Residential District: The Multiple Residential Districts (RM-11 and RM-24) are provided to allow high-density multiple-family residential areas and uses. This district allows the development of townhouses, apartments and other high-density residential dwellings with provision of adequate light, air, open space, and landscaped areas. The distance between projects developed under the RM-24 zoning and density standards shall be no closer than one thousand (1000) feet. A project consists of up to [X] units or [Y] acres of property, which ever limit is reached first, and the one-thousand-foot buffer area may be developed consistent with the RM-11 zoning and density standards.
The Commission would like to see language that RM-24 or equivalent mixed-use properties shall not be allowed to be closer than 1000 feet. The Commission feels like this should be measured from the property lines and measured as a straight-line measurement “as the crow flies.”
As far as the [X] and [Y], the Commission would like to discuss this again to determine what those numbers would be. Consideration needs to be given to the possibility of someone buying ½ acre and zoning it as RM-24 just to keep anything else around them from being RM-24. Should there be a minimum and/or maximum project size set out? There was discussion that may there could be a stipulation that a property needs to be large enough for at least 12 units in order to be zoned RM-24. It seems it might be a problem to have small chunks of property take up the RM-24 zone preventing larger blocks from being zoned RM-24.
Another suggestion is requiring a minimum of 1 acre in order to be zoned RM-24.
This will be discussed next month in the General Plan section of the meeting.
Zach Leavitt asked why we want to have a limit of 1000 feet. Josh Peterson explained that we are not wanting RM-24 developments clustered in one area, but would rather have them distributed throughout the City.
iii. Discuss adding language providing that mixed uses with long-term rentals having a density meeting RM-24 to be considered as limiting the 1000’ distance. Lisa White said she would like to see added into this is the equivalent uses; i.e. RM-24 or equivalent mixed-use properties.
B. Discuss suggestions from attorney for Accessory Uses addressing support services. This item came up when the Villa 647 was discussed a few months ago. At that time, the Commission recommended approving the use of the facility for long-term rentals with the condition that they bring the building up to Code. With the funding they had received, they were required to offer some personal services for their residents such as mental health services, assistance in finding jobs etc. The Commission was of the opinion that it would be good to add a separate description in the Zoning Code for these support services.
Two options were recommended by the City attorney. Option 1 would add language to the existing “accessory use” description as follows:
“Option 1: Accessory Use: A use that is customarily incidental and subordinate to the primary use located on the same lot. May include uses that are not otherwise permitted, so long as such accessory uses are required to allow and facilitate the primary use.
The other option was to add the following:
“Option 2: Accessory Support Services: “Accessory Support Services. A type of accessory use that provides mental, occupational, behavioral, and/or social support services for residents in a primary building or buildings used solely for residential uses, such as residential facilities for elderly persons, or for persons with a disability. Does not consist of separate, stand-alone clinics or other treatment facilities.”
The Planning Commission would like to adopt option 2. A public hearing will be held next month to recommend adopting this language in the Zoning Code, allowing it to be considered as a C-1 use only in multi-family zones.
C. Discuss language allowing mail-order businesses in the retail definition of allowed uses in the Zoning Code. This will be discussed at next month’s meeting.
3. Public Hearings:
Josh Peterson advised the public that anyone wishing to speak will be allowed to make comment during this portion of the meeting. Speakers are invited to stand at the lectern, state their name, and there will be a time limit of 3 minutes. Prior to comments being taken, the developer will be invited to give a general idea as to what the development is.
A. Receive comments concerning a subdivision application for Cove Junction Phase I. The property is located west and south of Home Depot on Cove View Road. The property is zoned RM-24.
Jeff Albrecht represented the developer. The DRC recommended the name of the development be changed because there is another project with a similar name and that creates confusion for EMS when they answer emergency calls. He has sent that on to the developer for consideration. The property has been subdivided into two parcels, zoning the north parcel as CG and the south parcel as RM-24. They are now subdividing the RM-24 property because they are phasing the development. Phase 1 will consist of three 3-story units for a total of 36 units, with a club house at the south portion. They have included parking, open space, and two temporary turn-arounds. These units will be rentals.
One of the main changes from the conceptual design that was reviewed by the DRC is the sewer connection. They originally proposed connection to the sewer at the intersection on the southeast corner of Home Depot but there are issues with the canal and an overhead power line. There is a sewer line that extends through the Home Depot parking lot, and they can make it work by taking the sewer back to the north.
6:34:40 p.m. The hearing was opened to public comment. There being no public comments, the public hearing closed at 6:35 p.m.
B. Receive comments concerning a subdivision application for Eagle View Subdivision. The property is located between 1550 West and Cove View Road and between Cove View Road (2100 South) and 2200 South. The property is zoned RM-11.
Brad Garfield and Ryan Savage were present. Mr. Savage said this property has been looked at several times in the past. They have been working on these plans for the past year. It has been reviewed by the DRC. They are coordinating with the City engineer to make changes.
This project is for townhomes, twin-home ramblers, that will be sold as individual units. Each home will have a total square footage of approximately 3500 square feet with 1756 square feet on the main floor, three bedrooms, two baths, and an unfinished basement. There will be a two-car garage.
The hearing was opened for public comments at 6:38 pm.
Will Jolley. Mr. Jolley stated he was representing many of the individuals who live in the Villa Vista Estates. They weren’t aware of the meeting on January 6, 2022, where the zone for the property was changed from the R1-10 zone to the RM-11 zone. He has a concern with the process or procedure of communicating to the people in the area. Mr. Jolley asked Michelle Curtis if she follows the City Code for required noticing. He asked what is done as part of that proceeding.
Mrs. Curtis stated that she publishes notice in the Richfield Reaper two times, with the first publication at least ten days before a hearing. She also publishes on the public notice website for the State of Utah, and also on the City’s website. Mr. Jolley said he has been to The Reaper and has a copy of both Reapers before the public hearing. It was only published on December 29, 2021. The meeting was January 6, 2022. They have an issue with having only nine days’ notice in The Reaper.
Josh Peterson stated that this meeting is for discussion of the development, not the zoning. Mr. Jolley replied that they are concerned that the zone changed and he feels like procedure was not followed.
Selena Terry. Mrs. Terry is a resident of the Villa Vista Grande Subdivision. They purchased their property 13 years ago. They were aware of the zoning ordinances that governed their subdivision and the adjacent property across the street that was also zoned single-family residential. She made the following points: Their subdivision had protective covenants in place to create optimal living conditions; they believed the City would preserve the area and they would be surrounded by single-family homes that met similar requirements; the homes on east side of 1600 West are valued upwards of $750,000; the proposed subdivision on the opposite side of the street would be multi-family residents; this does not reflect good City planning. They want Richfield City to be a vibrant growing community that is welcoming to all and they hope that this means the existing residents and their interest would be as important as those wishing to develop properties.
Ray Terry. Mr. Terry believes previous applications for the development of this property have been denied due to drainage concerns; the current drainage consists of one 36” drain; access located on Cove View Road with an outlet being a 17” diameter pipe that drains onto the fairway, hole 11, of the Cove View Golf Course which would basically make the pond between the 11th and 12th holes a retention pond; the current proposal does not illustrate any plans to accommodate increased run-off generated; there will be paving of 2200 South and the creation of an access road, Eagle View Road, which includes curb and gutter, both which would flow onto 1600 West with no proposed plan for drainage; the property rises approximately 46 feet above the current street grade at 1600 West; the intersection of 1600 West and Cove View Road is a 45-degree angle which makes it difficult to see on-coming traffic; this will increase traffic.
Larry Hansen. Mr. Hansen said his concern is density. In this meeting the Commission has reviewed two multi-family developments on the south side of the City; higher density housing should be spread throughout the City; the roads are too narrow; trailers or RVs will park on the road; this puts a lot of families and people in this area, the number is astronomical in his mind; build a few twin homes and also nice single-family homes.
Connie Jolley. They are not opposed to single-family homes; why not have a buffer of single-family homes and then twin-homes, maybe some sort of mixture. She hopes the Commission will be open-minded and consider those that have lived here for 40-50 years and put a lot into their homes.
Rowena Hulet. Mrs. Hulet said she owns a lot in the existing subdivision; she is a landlord and owns 15 duplexes in the Richfield area; these look and aren’t low-income, but if you are considering getting a 3500-square foot house in the low $300,000s, that is low income in her opinion; as a landlord it would be great to buy one of these and rent it out; a person could also rent the basement and live I nthe top and it would pay for their mortgage; however, where will the extra cars park?
There being no further comments, the public hearing closed at 6:54 p.m.
4. Action on Public Hearing:
A. Consider recommending approval of a subdivision application for Cove Junction Phase I. The property is located west and south of Home Depot on Cove View Road. The property is zoned RM-24.
Mr. Albrecht said they are in the preliminary stage of the development. He has responded to the DRC comments and that has been sent to the City’s engineer. Final plans and construction drawings will be submitted later. As he mentioned in the public hearing, one of the main changes from the conceptual phase is the sewer layout which will require easements to the City for all water and sewer. The sewer line will extend along the east boundary to connect with the line at Home Depot. It will also be extended to the west and south to pick up units in the next phase of development. Drainage detention is shown at the southwest corner of this first phase.
As per DRC recommendations, they will coordinate with the post office for placement of the CBU. They will move the dumpster to the west side so it is more accessible to all units. They have matched the existing boundary line. They will obtain will-serve letters from utilities.
The project has to be phased because of funding issues. The saying is “if they build it, they will come; but if they build it and they don’t come, they won’t build more.” They have met the parking requirements. The grass area meets the RM-24 requirements. This averages out to be 19 units per acre. By the time they get to the build-out, it will be just under 24 units per acre. He will calculate the open space for phase 1. The drainage report was calculated in accordance with the City’s requirements.
Blaine Breinholt motioned to recommend approval of a subdivision application for Cove Junction Phase 1. Lisa White seconded the subdivision. Those voting aye: Josh Peterson, Blaine Breinholt, Lisa White, and Susan Jensen. Those voting nay: None. The motion carried unanimously.
B. Consider recommending approval of a subdivision application for Eagle View Subdivision. The property is located between 1550 West and Cove View road and between Cove View Road (2100 South) and 2200 South. The property is zoned RM-11.
Michelle Curtis clarified the noticing requirements that were discussed above in item 3B. The State Code changed its noticing a few year ago and it no longer requires notice to be published in the newspaper. The City has continued publishing notice as a courtesy to citizens.
In response to issues brought up in the public hearing, Mr. Savage said the drainage is shown on page C2.0. He has provided their engineer’s drainage report. The engineer developed it as one system but they are going to split it up and it will be larger than what the engineer recommended overall. There are two dry wells on either side of Eagle View Road, and there is one on the north side of 2200 South Street. On the very north, triangle corner, there will be a rip-rap open pond, similar to what is at the RV park. It will catch the drainage that comes off of Cove View road. The pond at the north corner will be about 3 feet deep. Mr. Savage said on the outside of the pond on Cove View Road there will be a block fence on the property line. The edge of the detention basin would be just inside the fence. The inside of the pond will be a fenced similar to the RV park. It will be 3 feet tall and set 30 feet back. They will meet the sight distance requirements so there will be interference with the view of traffic.
The public expressed dislike for this option. Mr. Savage said the other option is to run the water directly across the street in a concrete gutter into the drop inlet and let it go out onto the golf course, but the City doesn’t want them to do. Developers are required to retain storm water on-site. The drainage on 1600 South will go into the detention basin on the north. The street on 2200 south will be curb, gutter and asphalt to the centerline plus 10 feet. No curb and gutter on the south side of 2200 South. The water collected from the centerline of the road going to the curb and gutter will also go into a drywell system at the southeast corner. They are capturing their on-site drainage with the dry wells. He believes the drainage situation should be 90% better than what is already there.
Will Jolley said the drainage currently goes north and south. What goes south goes to the Fullmer’s farms and he wonders if the developer has approval from Fullmers? Mr. Savage said he will get that approval. It is not changing anything from what is already happening to the Fullmer’s property and will actually reduce the amount of water draining onto Fullmer’s.
Another item brought up in the public hearing was parking and trailer parking on Cove View Road. When they first started this, they wanted access off of Cove View Road for part of it because that made more sense. The County would not allow them to access Cove View Road which is the back side of the property. There will be no access to Cove View Road other than 1600 West and 2200 South which is already existing.
The internal street width is 60 feet which includes the sidewalk. That is 41 feet of actual street and parking space. This street will be dedicated to Richfield City as a public street. They will be providing two parking spaces off-street, but if vehicles park at the curb, there will still be two 12-foot travel lanes which is a wide road.
Mr. Savage said the access from Cove View Road at 1600 South comes into Cove View at a 45-degree angle. They will paint it such that it will be a 90-degree intersection. 1600 West will be a 60 right-of-way with 39 feet paved. It will be wider on the east side and narrowed on the west side to direct traffic at a 90-degree angle. There is plenty of room to allow that. They won’t allow parking on the sides of the street at this point. Mr. Savage will provide that detail. There will also be a 90-degree intersection coming in on 2200 South.
Regarding parking issues, if the properties were used as rentals. As far as using part of the dwelling as a separate rental, they would have to provide two off-street parking spaces per unit which would be difficult. The City cannot control internal accessory dwelling units per State Code; however, the residence has to be owner-occupied and they do still have to meet a parking requirement of one extra off-street parking space. Mr. Savage suggested having CC&Rs which prohibit the parking of trailers or recreational vehicles on the street.
These will be built by the developer and sold individually. He will probably landscape the front yard and then let the buyer do the back yards.
Susan Jensen reminded that the purpose of the Planning and Zoning Commission is to look at a proposal and see if it meets the Zoning Code, giving consideration to things like traffic and drainage. Once the Commission covers all of those items and determines a developer is meeting the requirements of the Code, the Commission has to approve it. The Commission cannot tell a developer what to do with their property.
The setbacks for individual building are shown as 15 feet at the back and 8 feet on the side of each building.
There is an existing sewer manhole at the south end of 1600 West street. They will drain everything into that manhole. There is plenty of fall. 1600 West Street is fairly flat going north to south.
It appears that most of the DRC issues have been answered except for the traffic numbers. If the estimated trips triggers a study, they will do the study.
Blaine Breinholt motioned to recommend approval of the subdivision application for Eagle View Subdivision located at 1600 West between Cove View Road and 2200 South contingent on meeting the DRC recommendations and the City engineer recommendations. Susan Jensen seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Josh Peterson, Blaine Breinholt, Lisa White, and Susan Jensen. The motion carried unanimously.
They have been told that they need to change the name of the Eagle View Subdivision because of the similarity of names to Eagle View townhomes. Mr. Savage said the County doesn’t have a problem with the subdivision being named this. They were told that the problem comes with confusion with the EMS system. Mr. Garfield said he will use Eagle Ridge Subdivision. It was suggested that the name should not have “Eagle” in it at all because of confusion that could be caused with the Eagle View Townhomes on 100 East. Mr. Garfield was open to any name.
5. Conditional Use Permits
A. Consider approving a Conditional Use Permit allowing Taylor Shiner to operate a home occupation at 208 South 100 West. This is a mobile welding business. (C1-use, R1-10 zone). Dakota Anderson was present with his wife. This is actually a request for a home occupation permit for Mr. Anderson rather than his wife, Taylor Shiner. Mr. Anderson has a mobile welding truck. This business will be conducted “on the road.” He won’t be doing anything at his home other than small projects. The home will be used mostly as their home office so it shouldn’t be a bother to neighbors. Perhaps a customer might come to their home to make a payment, but will be there only one client at a time. There is a driveway where customers can park. He does not plan to do this after 10 p.m. with minimal welding at his home. He might do something like hand rails in his garage. He does not need certification to do this. He has off-street parking for his welding truck.
Lisa White motioned to approve a Conditional Use Permit allowing Dakota Anderson to operate a home occupation at 208 South 100 West as presented. Blaine Breinholt seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Josh Peterson, Blaine Breinholt, Lisa White, and Susan Jensen. Those voting nay: None. The motion carried unanimously.
6. Development Reviews and Approvals
A. Review and consider recommending approval of Cove Junction Phase 1. The property is located west and south of Home Depot on Cove View Road (C-2 use, RM-24 zone).
Many details of the development were discussed above under item 4A above. These are three-story buildings. The plan doesn’t show the height, but at final approval stage, they will have the structural and architectural drawings. They agree to resolve all of the DRC and the City’s engineer’s comments. The architect is working on that. The Zoning Code allows a height of 42 feet.
Lisa White motioned to recommend approval of Cove Junction Phase 1 as presented contingent on resolution of the DRC comments, City Engineer review, and meeting all applicable codes. Susan Jensen seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Josh Peterson, Blaine Breinholt, Lisa White, and Susan Jensen.
B. Consider recommending approval of a Conditional Use Permit allowing the construction of a multi-family dwelling unit called Phase 1, Cove Mountain Village, to be located on 350 West between Cove View Road and 1300 South
Ryan Savage advised they have gone through the DRC notes. One of the major concerns was the fire truck being able to go over the canal bridge. The fire department drove their long ladder truck over the bridge at 800 South and they were able to do that without any problem. Mr. Savage said they will adjust the proposed canal box so that it is similar to the bridge at 800 South. It will actually have a flatter grade than the bridge at 800 South.
The north end of 350 West was abandoned when it was decided to angle 350 West. The developer recorded a lot-line adjustment to accommodate this. Mike Jorgensen expressed his concern about access to 350 West. Jorgensens own the property east of this property. He feels like this blocks their access. These developers will be putting in a temporary cul-de-sac where the street intersects with 350 West. Jorgensens will still have access from 1300 South. They are the only ones who need to use 350 West.
Mr. Jorgensen said years ago the plan was to line up 350 West with Franklyn Spencer Street. He thinks the City should look at this long-term to see if that makes better sense. The actual north end of 350 West won’t be demolished at this time. Mr. Savage said it could be left open as long as it doesn’t become a prescriptive easement. In order to not open up this developer for a lawsuit, it would have to be closed at least one day a year so that it doesn’t become a prescriptive easement.
UDOT has provided a letter saying they will assess the conflict of 350 West and 1300 South when there is more property development. It is possible they will do away with the “sweep” on Main Street and 1300 South which would enable the creation of a turn lane turning from 1300 South onto 350 West which will increase traffic safety.
There was significant discussion concerning the abandonment of the north portion of 350 West. This issue was decided when the lot line adjustment was approved and created a new point of access to 350 West was created.
Mr. Savage said they have adjusted sewer manholes so that the meet the City’s distance requirement of no more than 250’. However, they will have to bore under 1300 South which places the manholes at a greater distance. They can’t do anything about that.
They are waiting on the City engineer’s final review and are willing to make any changes that are required by him.
This plan is for two buildings with six units each. The driveways go between the buildings. Each apartment has a two-car garage and driveway. They are also providing off-street parking. They will need to provide a total of 30 parking spaces. Lisa White reminded them to add accessible parking. The units will be sold separately. The interior streets will be private. There will be an HOA.
Lisa White motioned to recommend approval of phase 1 of Cove Mountain Village to be located at 350 West between Cove View Road and 1300 South pending resolution of the DRC and City Engineer’s comments. Blaine Breinholt seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Josh Peterson, Blaine Breinholt, Lidsa White, and Susan Jensen. Those voting nay: None. The motion carried unanimously.
C. Consider approving plans presented by Scott Hyatt for the construction of a retail building at the Fiiz/Pizza Hut/Centracom location at 1186 South 100 West (C-1 use, CG zone).
Kurt Marchant was present with Scott Hyatt. The DRC review was discussed as follows:
1. Sewer. The sewer is currently stubbed in the parking lot near the southeast corner of the grass area. Sewer will be connected there. Utilities are already stubbed out to the proposed building site.
2. Water. Show water connection going to main line. The road will have to be dug up to tap into the water main for the new connection. The street will have to be repaired to its existing condition. There are currently three water meters which are in the asphalt. They will need to have traffic-rated lids. There is a meter barrel and service installed for the building so there won’t be any need to dig out into the street to connect to the main. Improvements are shown as going to the back of the sidewalk which is where the meters are located. They agree they will change the meter lids to traffic-rated barrels. The three that are there currently serve the existing businesses.
3. Fire Hydrants. There is a fire hydrant between Sevier Valley Oil and Larsen’s and one in front of Tractor Supply. This is adequate.
4. Knox Box. A knox box is recommended. This will be considered.
5. Northwest corner. What is the intention of the concrete pad at the northwest corner of the grass area. This is a picnic area where people can sit down and eat.
6. Driving Lane. It appears the driving lane on the east side of the property is 18.9 feet. Clarify where the driving lane is in relation to the property line. Will the planter strip be removed? The City right-of-way cannot be used for part of the driving lane. If the sidewalk on the east side is next to the driving lane, this could be a hazard for pedestrians. The drive lane does extend past the property line. They would remove the existing curb and extend the asphalt. They will put in a hard curb along the sidewalk to protect pedestrians.
The City’s policy is that businesses cannot use City property to fulfill on-site requirements.
Scott Hyatt said this is phase 2 of the original development. The question originally came in as what kind of a street was 100 East street? He said Michele Jolley had told him that the City wanted them to do a 30-foot street with no park strip. However, he did put in a park strip knowing they would perhaps need more parking spaces when they do what they are proposing now. He planned to eliminate the park strip and ask for the drive lane to go to the curb edge at the sidewalk. That still is going to be a right-of-way, but instead of it being rock, it will be asphalt. The City would still have the right-of-way, but it will be under asphalt.
Josh Peterson asked if the City needed to use their right-of-way to make a third lane on 100 East, such as a permissive two-way left turn, would this function? Mr. Marchant said the alternative would be to change the proposed parking to 30-degree angle parking and shift the building to the west. This would keep their one-way driving lane contained within their property. The width of the drive lane is 18’9. He thinks only 16’ is required for backing up.
The drive lane on the west side of the building is a singular direction lane. It serves as the drive-through for the Fiiz and Pizza Hut. Mr. Hyatt said this is why they want the angle parking at the new building so that traffic comes in, goes to the north and then goes out and doesn’t have to go around the building to get out.
7. Street Improvements. There needs to be some type of curb on the east side of the one-way driving lane to provide for drainage. Provide detail for the curb. Will the curb be separate from the sidewalk? They will provide a curb on the back side of the driving lane.
8. Street Paving. Any portion of the street that is disturbed will need to be repaired. Show details for street repair. They don’t anticipate needing to have to go into the street for any reason. All of the utilities are already stubbed.
9. Drainage. Provide drainage report. for water line. Show street repair details. Mr. Marchant had a question about the required drainage. He said it appears that drainage ordinance has requirements for two different storm events which depends on what is being designed. Phase 1 was designed a few years ago by Jones and Demille for the entire site for the 100-year storm event with phase 2 mind. They are adding a building to the site and he wonders if they need to do the second storm event which is a 10-year, 24-hour event. He was told this is a question for the City engineer. He feels like the original drainage report that was done for phase 1 included what would be going on in phase 2 as far as sizing for detention pond and underground storm drain storage. Mr. Hyatt said that he has used storm brixx so he will check with Jones and DeMille to see how much storage is available with that.
10. Landscaping. Landscaping is required to be 10% of the site. Show calculation. On site there is a total of 20,030 square of landscaping which will be reduced to 11,017 square feet. The total square footage of landscaping needs to be shown on the plan with a minimum of 10%. They were asked if the landscape in the UDOT right-of-way is considered in their landscaping. They are including that because they have to maintain it and Mr. Hyatt says they do have a maintenance agreement with the City.
11. Parking. 27 parking spaces are shown. There are 8 spaces by the existing building. Retail parking is required at 1 space per 200 square feet. The existing building is 4894 square feet which requires 25 spaces. The new building is 4277 square feet which would require 21 spaces. A total of 46 spaces are required for the site. Only 35 are shown. (These numbers do not take into account that Fiiz is a food business which requires 1 space per 100 square feet or 1 space for every four seats, whichever is less. Fiiz is 2447 square feet.)
Mr. Marchant said that the DRC comments dated July 30, 2020, regarding phase 1 development stated that 13 spaces were required for the development. Currently there are 28 spaces. The DRC stated that the requirement for this proposed building is 21 spaces. Subtracting the 13 that would be occupied by the existing building, there are 15 available for this one so they would need to add an additional six stalls to accommodate the new building.
Susan Jensen pointed out when they first built Fiiz, they didn’t have the other two businesses. Would that have added parking requirements or was parking based on the size of the building? Mr. Hyatt said it was determined by table tops rather than square footage because both Fiiz and Pizza Hut are 90% drive-through business where people don’t generally go in and sit down for a period of time. That is why only 13 spaces were required at that time. They did the parking to the north in preparation for this building.
Mr. Hyatt said there are five four-seat tables and 12 bar stools which would require 8 parking spaces for Fiiz. Pizza Hut doesn’t have table space and so table tops don’t apply, but they still have employees. Retail sales is one space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area, but Mr. Hyatt says the discussion at the time was that Pizza Hut and CentraCom are not walk-up retail businesses, but just the drive-through and that is why only 13 spaces were required. However, without counting table tops at Pizza Hut, then the parking should have been based on square footage. Mr. Hyatt said he thinks Pizza Hut is about 1200 square feet which would require 6 spaces. (The original plans would show that Pizza Hut and CentraCom as having 1830 square feet.)
The new building is 4277 square feet which requires 21 parking spaces. Mr. Hyatt said they have figured that they actually have two extra stalls as it is on the plans when both buildings and all parking are taken into consideration.
Lisa White said based on the numbers discussed it would be 8 at Fiiz, 12 at Pizza Hut and Centracom which seems excessive but would based on Code. Adding the 21 spaces required for the new building that would be 41 parking spaces needed. Mr. Hyatt said that is correct if we are changing that from what was originally allowed because he believes that only 13 spaces were required originally.
Josh Peterson said with all of the DRC comments and what is being discussed, it seems that more information is needed. We need to wait for all of the comments to be addressed and the plans updated. Mr. Hyatt said there is nothing to update. They are providing enough parking stalls unless we are changing what was already done with the original 13 required parking spaces which was plenty. He said he thinks there were only eight parking places needed for Fiiz for the table tops and then five more spaces for the rest of the building because Pizza Hut was drive-through. Susan said but then CentraCom is a new business that was added but Scott says that only added 900 square feet so that would be another four spaces which comes to a total of 12 and they were required to have 13. He wonders if we are going to change the number of parking spaces that were needed for the Fiiz building. The DRC in July of 2020 recommended 13 spaces but 23 spaces were provided. There is space in front of the Fiiz building where three more stalls could be added. He feels like the parking they are showing meets the requirements.
They do have one van accessible and one handicap parking space.
If parking is required for table tops at Fiiz and then the remainder based on square footage, that comes to 39 spaces with the new retail building. Josh Peterson said he would like to see how that is allocated. Lisa White wondered how it was determined that they need 13 spaces for the Fiiz portion and then five for the balance of the building, how was that five determined. Mr. Hyatt said he does not know.
They were told that parking on the street does not count towards satisfying the required number.
Mr. Hyatt was also informed that there have been signs placed along the street in the park strip saying “Fiiz Parking Only” and “Pizza Hut Parking Only. It appears to assign on-street parking for these businesses. Mr. Hyatt said they were placed to show that their parking lot is only for Fiiz or Pizza Hut ustomers. It is not meant to assign parking spaces on the street for each business. They have had Ace customers parking in their parking lot. He was told the signs need to be removed or placed differently to address parking in the parking lot.
Parking could be calculated at 8 spaces for Fiiz, 5 for Pizza Hut, 5 for Centracom. The new building requires 21 spaces which is 39 required. There are 28 existing spaces. They will add the 3 in front of the Fiiz building and then 8 with the new building which comes to 39. This is adequate provided the above calculations for the Fiiz building are used.
Josh Peterson said he would like to see on the plans a table that sets out how many parking spots there are for each business. Also note that this was approved in the original design to go off table-top and that is where the number comes from.
12. Signs. Signage on the new business will need to be reviewed and approved by the City.
13. Trash enclosure. Where will the trash enclosure be located. They wondered if they need a separate trash enclosure? That will likely depend on White’s.
14. Geotech. Provide updated Geotech report. A Geotech report was provided with phase 1.
15. Dust control. Developer to control dust during construction. They will put together a SWPP plan.
16. Development Agreement. Developer to enter into a Development Agreement with the City.
15. Fees. Developer to pay for engineer review fees, testing of materials for any road repairs that are necessary, sidewalks,
Developer to pay impact fees and meter.
Water impact: 1” meter = $ 8350 (1-1/2” meter = $16,701)
Sewer impact: 1” meter = $ 1295 (1-1/2” meter = $ 2,591) (Zone 2)
Police impact fee: = $ 1530
Fire impact fee: = $ 1200
1” meter = $ 440 (1-1/2” meter = $840)
The Commission has a hesitation with this plan because of the use of the City right-of-way for their business. Josh Peterson said if the City ever needs their right-of-way, they should be able to take it. Therefore, it sounds like they will have to change the angle of the parking from 45 degrees to 30 degrees to lessen the backing space. That will lose two parking spaces. Mr. Hyatt said he was told when he originally built that because the road was a minor collector, he had to give up more of his space for the City to have a right-of-way. When it was developed, he was told that Ace would develop their sidewalk and their parking. That has not been done. He is not asking to come out into the street. He made that street as wide as the City required him to do. All he is asking is that instead of a planter area, that he just has an area of asphalt. The right-of-way is still there, but the hypothetical of what if we need to widen the street to three lanes, that isn’t going to happen.
The Commission cannot give permission for them to use the right-of-way for part of their back-up space. This might be a question for the City Council.
As far as the building, Mr. Hyatt is doing a reuse and so he can’t shrink the building unless he redoes it. There was discussion that perhaps they could narrow the drive-through lane on the west side so that the building could be set further west. It might be possible to manage Pizza Hut customers in a different way to the drive-through.
The parking and right-of-way issues need to be addressed.
Lisa White motioned to table this matter pending resolution of the right-of-way access and any effect on parking. Susan Jensen seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Josh Peterson, Blaine Breinholt, Lisa White, and Susan Jensen. Those voting nay: None. The motion carried unanimously.
D. Review Tanner Thompson’s request and consider recommending that the City Council waive the requirement for asphalt to be located for a newly constructed home at 640 East 1170 North. Tanner Thompson was not present. The matter was tabled.
7. Minutes Approval
A. Consider approving minutes of December 7, 2022. Lisa White motioned to approve the minutes of December 7, 2022. Blaine Breinholt seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Josh Peterson, Blaine Breinholt, Lisa White, Susan Jensen. Those voting nay: None. The motion carried unanimously.
8. Other Business
A. Appoint Chairman and Vice-Chairman for 2023. Blaine Breinholt motioned to appointed Kendrick Thomas as the Chairman and Josh Peterson as Vice Chairman. Susan Jensen seconded the motion. Those voting aye: Josh Peterson, Blaine Breinholt, Lisa White, and Susan Jensen. Those voting nay: None. The motion carried unanimously.
9. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st day of February, 2023.
/s/ Michelle Curtis
Deputy City Recorder