Minutes – 1.6.21

COUNTY OF SEVIER 

CITY OF RICHFIELD

                                                                                    At the Planning Commission

                                                                                    In and For Said City

                                                                                   January 6, 2021

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

1. Roll Call.

 2. Public Hearing (6:00 p.m.)

               A.    Public hearing to receive comments concerning a proposed amendment to the

                       General Plan and zoning map for the property located at 245 East 300 North,

                       Richfield, Utah.  The application proposes a change from the RM-11 (Multi-family

                       residential) to CS (Commercial Shopping) zone.

         3.   Action on Public Hearings

               A.    Discuss recommending that the City Council approve a proposed amendment

                       to the General Plan and zoning map for the property located at 245 East 300

                       North, Richfield, Utah.  The application proposes a change from the RM-11

                       (Multi-Family Residential) to CS (Commercial Shopping) zone. 

         4.   Annexation

               A.    Consider recommending that the City Council approve the annexation of

                       property located between 300 and 400 West and between 1300 and 1400 South

                       with a designation of CG (General Commercial) zone.

         5.   Business Consideration

               A.    Consider approving plans for a business called CSS Composites to construct a

                       building on 100 East between 1100 and 1300 South (CG zone, C-1 use). 

         6.   Subdivision Plans

               A.    Review plans for phase 3 of The Links Subdivision.

         7.   Zoning Code Discussion (Density)

               A.    Eric Mainord and Greg Gagon to discuss multi-family project to be located

                       between 300 and 400 West between 1200 and 1300 South.  Discussion to include

                       creation of higher density multi-family zones.

               B.     Stacy Whitmore to discuss changing use of Apple Tree Inn to apartments.  This

                       would require a change to a multi-family zone, or changing the Use Table to

                       allow apartments in the D (Downtown) zone.  The property is 1.8 acres and the

                       proposal is for 60 apartment units which would require a higher density zone

                       than the RM-11.   

         8.   Minutes Approval

               A.    Consider approving minutes of December 2, 2020.

         9.   Other Business

       10.    Adjournment

1.  Roll Call.  Roll call was answered by Kendrick Thomas, Susan Jensen, Landon Larsen, Blaine Breinholt, and Josh Peterson.  Greg Bean was excused.   Chairman Thomas welcomed Josh Peterson as a new member of the Planning Commission, replacing Monte Turner.

City Staff Present:   Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis and Building Official Rick Robinson.    

Others present:  Scott Hyatt, Trent Brown, Matt Harmon, Danielle Peterson

2.      Public Hearing (6:07 p.m.):

         A.  Public hearing to receive comments concerning a proposed amendment to the General Plan and zoning map for the property located at 245 East 300 North, Richfield, Utah.  The application proposes a change from the RM-11 (Multi-family residential) to (CS (Commercial Shopping) zone.   

Rick Robinson said this is a vacant lot.  The lot is on a State highway and so the Petitioner would have to have permission to change it from a residential to a commercial approach.  The applicant would like to put in a store that will sell health products such as shakes and bars.

There were no public comments.  The public hearing closed 6:09. P.m. 

3.      Action on Public Hearings

         A.   Discuss recommending that the City Council approve a proposed amendment to the General Plan and zoning map for the property located at 245 East 300 North, Richfield, Utah.  The application proposes a change from the RM-11 (Multi-Family Residential) to CS

(Commercial Shopping) zone. 

The petitioner was not present.  Blaine Breinholt said he does not think it would be a good idea to change the zone to commercial because the entire block is residential.  The street is a busy street with a speed limit of 40 mph.  Josh Peterson agrees.  Landon Larsen stated there would have to be full street access.  He wonders if there is room for a vehicle to back up and get turned around in order to enter the street going forward.  Josh Peterson pointed out that currently the access to this property is shared with a home.  They would need a separate entrances.

Blaine Breinholt motioned to table this because the petitioner is not present.  Josh Peterson seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, Landon Larsen, and Susan Jensen.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously. 

4.      Annexation

         A.   Consider recommending that the city Council approve the annexation of property located between 300 and 400 West and between 1300 and 1400 South with a designation of CG (General Commercial) zone.   

Chairman Thomas explained that Jaden Gurney is proposing to put in an RV park on this property.  Mr. Gurney has been to Planning Commission and City Council.  Both bodies were in favor of allowing an RV park to be built there, annexing the property into the City, and designating it as a CG zone.  The Zoning Code was updated last month by the City Council to allow RV parks in the CG zone. 

Blaine Breinholt motioned to recommend that the City Council annex the property located between 300 and 400 West and between 1300 and 1400 South.   Landon Larsen seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, Landon Larsen, and Susan Jensen.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously. 

5.      Business Consideration

         A.  Scott Hyatt was present to discuss the construction of a commercial building which will house Fiiz Drinks.  This will be located at approximately 1200 South 100 West  (north of the newly constructed car wash).  The plans were previously reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission; however, Mr. Hyatt wants to make a change to the site plan and did not know if the Planning Commission needs to formally review it.  The building will have drive-up windows for two separate food businesses.  The original plan had a drive-up window on the west and one on the north.  He wasn’t happy with the flow of traffic.  He would like to turn the building a quarter turn and have the drive-up windows on the west and the east which will make a better traffic flow.  Other than that, there will not be any difference from what was approved.  He will come back next month if the Planning Commission wants to do a formal review. 

The Commission does not feel like he needs to come back for a formal review.  Rather, Chairman Thomas stated the DRC could look it over to determine if this change creates issues that need to be addressed. 

         B.   Consider approving plans for a business called CSS Composites to construct a building on 100 East between 1100 and 1300 South (CG zone, C-1 use). 

Trent Brown represented CSS Composites.  Rick Robinson said this has been reviewed by the DRC.  CSS has responded to almost everything.  The DRC notes, together with responses from CSS, were discussed as follows:    

            1.         Sewer and Water.  Sewer will connect to the sewer line on 1500 South.  It will

            be an 8” line.  The sewer main needs to be located in the City right-of-way.  The sewer

            line will have to be installed from 1500 South to the north boundary of this property.  

            Response:  We will relocate the proposed sewer line to the City ROW.  The sewer line

            will be extended to the north property line; however, the extension to the north property

            line is not necessary to provide service to the proposed building or future phases of this

            project.    

Discussion:  Mr. Brown said they are trying to avoid tearing up existing asphalt.  The sewer will tie in on 100 East at the south side of Wal-mart, and they will run it to the northwest corner of their property.  They will stub the pipe at the north end of the improved road so that if any development happens to the north, it can tie into it.   

            2.         Water.  Water will connect into the 12” water line which is on 100 East as

            shown on the plan.

            3.         Fire Hydrants. The plan shows two fire hydrants to be installed, one at the

            southwest corner of the property and one at the southeast corner of the portion of the

            property that is being developed at this time.   The building will have fire sprinklers. 

            Trent Brown, Sunrise Engineering, will do the flow test for the fire sprinklers. 

            Response: The fire flow was previously conducted by Sunrise Engineering.  Fire flow

            is 1455 GPM, Static Pressure 96 PSI & Residential Pressure is 88 PSI. 

            4.         Street Improvements.  The transportation plan shows 100 East as a minor

            collector which requires a 60’ right-of-way.   Developer will install street

            improvements on their side of the street plus 10’ beyond the center of the street.   Show

            the street width on the site plan.  This will need to be inspected by the City Engineer,

            Jones & DeMille, with the cost to be paid by the developer.  Improvements to be

            installed along the entire frontage of this property on 100 East.  It would be a benefit

            for the developer to install asphalt on 100 East from the south boundary of their

            property to 1300 South Street.  Response:  The 100 East roadway will be extended to

            the south property boundary.  The extension to 1300 south will not be completed as a

            part of the project.  There will be approximately 21’ of new asphalt width added to 100

            East.  The existing pavement is installed to the approximate centerline of the street.

            The existing curb returns at 1100 South and 1300 South were surveyed.  The location

            of the new curb and gutter for the project should allow for a street section in accordance

            with the City Construction Standards for a 60’ width.

            There is an existing utility pole located along the east side of 100 east towards the

            northwest corner of the property (see image below).  We are requesting permission to

            end the pavement of the roadway just south of this utility power pole.  For 100 East to

            be extended north to 1000 South street, 6 utility poles would need to be relocated.  It

            makes better sense that all poles be relocated once 100 East is extended north. 

Discussion:  Rick Robinson stated that there is a problem with 200 East in that it didn’t get annexed.  It is still in the County.  There are some issues with the width of that road and this property.  Mr. Brown said when the east side of the property develops, they will do whatever they need on 200 East to develop the road.

            Developer could create a payback agreement with other property owners for a portion

            of these improvements. 

            Typically, street improvements could be required on 200 East; however, a development

            agreement could be entered improvements on 200 East.  Response:  The developer will

            want to enter into a development agreement for the improvements along 200 East.  200

            East will be improved once the east side of the property is developed.

Discussion:  Mr. Brown said he laid out the 60-foot typical section on the west side of their property and made sure it fits with the City’s construction standards.  The additional asphalt that will be installed on the east side of the road will be about 21 feet.  The DRC request was to not only improve the road along the property, but to extend it to 1300 south.  The developer does not want to make the road improvements along frontage of property they do not own.  They plan to end it at the south end of their property. 

There is a utility pole at the northwest corner of the property and then six more going further to the north. They would like to put the curb, gutter, and sidewalk all the way to the north property boundary, but they do not want to extend the asphalt all the way to the north property boundary until the rest of the road is improved because of the necessity of moving the utility pole.  It makes sense to move this utility pole at the same time as it becomes necessary to relocate the poles that are further north.  The pole has a drop where power is buried from there to Wal-Mart.   Rocky Mountain power is doing a study.

Chairman Thomas said the DRC was concerned there would be regular truck delivery going in and out of the facility.  The north extension of 100 East will not be improved going to 1100 South.  The concern is that the road won’t hold up if there is very much traffic on it.  There needs to be some improvement of the street getting to the property.  Mr. Brown said there isn’t enough road right-of-way to complete the road going south, and it involves property owned by other parties.  Jimmy Seear, the project owner, was called and put on speaker phone.  Mr. Seear was advised about the City being concerned about the completion of the road going to the south.  Mr. Seear said  there will only be one truck a week together with traffic generated by their employees. 

Lisa White arrived. 

Mr. Brown asked if there is a plan for 1300 East to continue to the East going to the Annabella Road.  The Master Transportation Plan does show a future street going to the east. 

A lengthy discussion followed.  The Planning Commission believes it is  advisable that the road be completed joining the street from his property to 1300 South which is the north side of Wal-Mart.   If there is an area of un-finished road, it will become difficult to maintain with the extra traffic that will be generated.  Mr. Seear agrees with this, and does thinks it would be best for the road to be completed, but he does not feel he should be required to do the portion of the street that is not along his property frontage.  The Planning Commission determined that it should be required of this project because the business will cause an impact on the street; however, they feel it would only be necessary to complete the travel lanes and not be required to install curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the distance that is not their frontage. If Mr. Seear does not want to do this, he will have to discuss it with the City Council to see if they will relax the requirement or participate in the cost.  The main approach to the business will come from 1300 South.  It looks like it is about 300 feet from the south boundary of their property to 1300 South. 

As far as 200 East, a development agreement will need to be entered agreeing that they will do their share of that road when properties develop on the east side of 200 East.  In that development agreement, they would have to agree to give up their 33-foot half width and agree to help with street improvements. 

5.         Knox Box.  A knox box is recommended.  Response:  Knox boxes have been added to the architectural plans at the entry door and the

fire rise location door. 

6.         Street lights.  Install a street light 175 to 200 feet from the corner of 1100 South.  Install a street light every 350 to 400 feet going south.

(The developer pays for the street lights.   The City will enter a contract with Rocky Mountain Power with the developer reimbursing the City for

the cost.)  Response:  Street lights will be added to the Electrical Site Plan along 1100 South. 

Parking lot lights to be fully shielded, hooded, and aimed so that all direct illumination shall be confined to the property boundaries.  Lighting to

be provided in all parking areas with emphasis placed on appropriate lighting at entrances and exits.  Response:  Parking lot lights will be

designed as described above on the Electrical Drawings and Specifications.   

7.         Drainage.  Drainage is adequate as shown.  Submit sheet showing drainage calculation.  There is an irrigation ditch on the west side of

the property.  Will this be piped or is it a part of the xeriscape landscaping?

Developer needs to be aware that there are likely some French drains that cross this property. 

Response:  The plan is to relocate the ditch and leave it open so that it goes through the landscaping which will be xeriscape, with a culvert through the driveway sections.   Drainage calculations will be submitted with the permit drawings. 

Discussion:  Josh Peterson asked about drainage going from the west to the east.  He pointed out that there are issues with the drainage going across the highway.  As development has occurred from SR 120, drainage has been disrupted and it can’t get to the river like it has in the past.  Mr. Brown said on the north side of the property there is a ditch that will allow the water to go through.  They will extend the culvert and put in a junction box at the SW corner of the property so that as the road improves, all of that will still be in place.  There are no through ditch that come across on the south.  The property to the south has a ditch that going through it.    

8.         Landscaping.  Adequate as shown. 

Discussion:  Most of their landscaping area doubles as storm detention. 

9.         Geotech Report.  Provide a Geotech report.  Response: The geotechnical report will be included with the permit drawings. 

10.       Parking Spaces.  Parking is shown at 57 spaces which includes four ADA spaces.  This meets the requirement of the Zoning Code

which requires one space for each person employed during regular working hours plus one (1) space for each company-owned vehicle. 

11.       Signs.  Provide plans for signs and indicate where signs will be.  Response: The architectural building elevations show the location and

size of the building signage.  The landscape drawings called out the location of a monument sign. 

12.       Trash Enclosure.  A trash enclosure is shown at the south side of the detention basin. 

13.       Fence.  A fence is not required.

14.       Metal Building.   The Zoning Code requires that 100% of all street facing walls shall be finished with brick, stone, block, stucco, glass, or

a combination thereof.  Response: The corners of the building have a durable Aluminum Composite Metal panel.  The remainder of the

building has an insulated Metal Panel with a texture resembling stucco on the exterior surface. 

15.       Fees.  Developer to pay building permit, water and sewer impact fees, inspection fees incurred in the inspection of the soil and asphalt

for the street and improvements.

16.       Address.   Rick Robinson will get the building address from the County.

Further Discussion:  Lisa White feels like the road needs to be a hard surface going from their south boundary to 1300 South because the business will have an impact on the existing road which is roto mill.  She doesn’t think it is necessary for them finish the street going from their north boundary to 1100 South, and it would be ok to waive the asphalt requirement because of the utility pole. 

Josh Peterson suggested that street improvements be installed along the frontage of this property and then improve the street at the existing width form the south boundary to 1300 South, but not be required to put in full street improvements there.  Landon Larsen agrees there needs to be a good access to the business either from the south or the north.  It would be preferable from the south.  Blaine Breinholt would like to see the City step up and do something there.

Lisa White motioned to approve plans for CSS Composites to construct a building on 100 East between 1100 and 1300 South (CG zone, C-1 use) with conditions as set out and discussed in the DRC notes.  Also, with the condition that the roadway be tapered from the south property boundary to 1300 South, with the existing roadway width to be paved from the taper to 1300 South for the existing width of the road, a distance of approximately 300 feet.  Also, the Commission agrees that as discussed above, they will only asphalt the road to the utility pole on the north side of the property.  Blaine Breinholt seconded the motion.   Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, Landon Larsen, Lisa White, and Susan Jensen.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously. 

6.      Subdivision Plans

         A.   Review plans for phase 3 of The Links Subdivision.

Dustin Nelson was present.  He has purchased the balance of phase 3 of the Links Subdivision.  He is going to finish what was planned by Kay McIff.  Mr. McIff was doing the subdivision in phases.  Mr. Nelson plans to do the subdivision all at the same itme.  He doubts that he will sell all of in a year, but perhaps over 3 or 4 years.   He is a general contractor and will be able to do spec houses. 

The plan shows storm drains.  Mr. Nelson wondered where the storm drain ends up going.  He was told he needs to check into that with the public works department.  Chairman Thomas said he needs to make sure storm drainage is accounted for and find out where it goes after it enters the storm drain box.  We need to know where it goes after it enters the storm drain box and if it can be handled because it will generate a lot more water after the hard surface is put in. 

There was discussion  about requiring a temporary turn around at the south dead-end street.  Because it is only one lot, it is felt that a temporary turn-around won’t be necessary.  He does plan to extend the block wall along Airport Road to match what is already there. 

This will be noticed for public hearing at next month’s meeting.    

7.      Zoning Code Discussion (Density)

         A.   Eric Mainord and Greg Gagon to discuss multi-family project to be located between 300 and 400 West between 1200 and 1300 South.  Discussion to include creation of higher density multi-family zones.

Matt Harmon was present on behalf of Eric Mainord and Greg Gagon who were unable to attend.  Mr. Harmon said he was contacted by a couple of council members to see what the status of the project is.  He asked what the next step is and how can this be moved along.  They would like the City to adopt a zone allowing 24 units per acre. 

Planning Commission members had the impression that Mr. Mainord and Mr. Gagon would be coming back this evening, and that they were putting together some drawings to illustrate what a 24-unit density would look like.  The Commission would have liked to see what an actual plan of 24- or 26- unit density would actually look like.  Mr. Harmon said they have that and can get it to the Commission. Mr. Mainord and Mr. Gagon had suggested that a larger density project would likely provide amenities for their tenants. 

Chairman Thomas advised that the Planning Commission has formed a committee of three to review higher density zoning.  The committee will be meeting next week and come up with a recommendation to be given to the Planning Commission and then passed along to the City Council.  The Planning Commission and the City Council will each have to hold a public hearing in order to adopt a new zone.

Mr. Harmon said they feel like they have been here multiple times and wonder if anything is going to happen.  He was advised that the committee met in November, and wasn’t able to meet in December, but will be meeting again next week.  After meeting in November, the committee was prepared to recommend a 16-unit per acre zone. But after meeting with Mr. Mainord and Mr. Gagon, they need a 24-unit per acre zone, and so the committee agreed to go back to the drawing board in January to tie that down.  Again, after December’s meeting, the Commission had the understanding that the applicants would be returning this evening with some visuals and some suggestions as to parking, landscaping, amenities.  Part of the discussion that the Planning Commission wanted to have is what amenities could be required with higher density projects.  The Planning Commission is open to the discussion of higher density of up to 24 or 26, but needs to have a hard and fast recommendation for the City Council. 

               B.     Stacy Whitmore to discuss changing use of Apple Tree Inn to apartments.  This would require a change to a multi-family zone, or changing the Use Table to allow apartments in the D (Downtown) zone.  The property is 1.8 acres and the proposal is for 60 apartment units which would require a higher density zone than the RM-11.   

Stacy Whitmore, Judy Whitmore, and Grant Eaton were present.  Mr. Whitmore is in the process of purchasing the Apple Tree Inn.  He would like to change the use to apartments.  He would not feel good about just putting in a half fridge and a microwave and calling it an apartment.  He would go through and install refrigerators, sinks, and cabinets at a cost of about $2,000 per unit so it could be a place where people could actually live. 

Grant Eaton owns the Mountair Motel and he would also like to change the motel into apartments.

Rick Robinson said if they do much remodeling, it will require fire sprinklers.  They can paint and put in cabinets, but if they add bathrooms, kitchen sinks and upgrade electrical, then it requires a permit and will likely kick in the requirement for fire sprinklers.  He does not plan to put in stoves.   

Mrs. Whitmore said some of the rooms already have three rooms which would easily convert into one bedroom with living room and kitchen, or living room/kitchen combined with two bedrooms.  These would not just be studio apartments.  There are a lot of them that are big and could work up really nice for student housing. 

Mr. Whitmore believes that currently there are six units that are monthly rentals, but they still have nightly rentals.    

Chairman Thomas stated that doing this requires a change of the property to a multi-family zone, or a change in the use table to allow apartments in the D zone.  If the Commission were to allow apartments in the D zone, then there would have to be some stipulations.  It would be a conditional use.  Density issues would have to be looked at and it would require the adoption of a high density zone. 

Mr. Whitmore said that they could have an area with a swing set, grass, and perhaps a recreation area.  They would repaint the entire building and change the name to Cove View.

The Whitmores were advised that if the Commission decided to look at the possibility of allowing apartments in the D zone, or changing the zone for this property, the process will take some time with public hearings and public notices. 

Mrs. Whitmore said she would like to take the front area and use it for Mr. Whitmore’s paragliding business and a family gathering place.  Rick Robinson said if there is a commercial business attached, then there would have to be a fire wall separating the commercial from the residential.

There was discussion that if there is a commercial business as well as apartments, it could possibly be treated as a mixed use which is allowed in the Zoning Code.  A mixed use does not have to comply with the density requirements of a multi-family zone, but the density is driven by other requirements such as landscaping and parking. 

Zoning Official Rick Robinson said he could meet with the Whitmores on-site and see what is going to be involved in accomplishing what they want to do.  He would prefer something on paper to see exactly what they want to do so that he has something solid to work with.  As far as the Mountair, Grant Eaton said that he really does not use it as a motel now.  It is apartments. 

8.      Minutes Approval:

         A.  Consider approving minutes of December 2, 2020.  Blaine Breinholt motioned to approve the minutes of January 6, 2021.  Landon Larsen seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Blaine Breinholt, Josh Peterson, Landon Larsen, Lisa White, and Susan Jensen.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously. 

9.      Other Business.

         Danielle Peterson was present.  She had been to Planning Commission a few months ago where she was approved to conduct a dog training and daycare business at 68 South Main.  She has been looking for other places where she could locate this business and the place she has found is in the industrial park, the old forest service fire building.  They have told her they will rent it to her if the City will allow her to do her business there.  She would like to add boarding of animals to her license.  The property is in the CG (Commercial general zone), and commercial kennels are allowed in that zone.  She was too late for this to be put on this month’s agenda.  It will be placed on next month’s agenda for formal review and action.  A kennel is a C-2 use which means the Planning Commission recommends, and the City Council approves. 

10.   Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

PASSED AND APPROVED on the 3rd day of February, 2021.

/s/ Michelle Curtis

   Deputy City Recorder