Minutes – 10.02.2013

                                                           COUNTY OF SEVIER

                                                           CITY OF RICHFIELD

                                                                                                     At the Planning Commission

                                                                                                     in and for said City

                                                                                                     October 2, 2013 


          

            Minutesof the Richfield City PlanningCommission meeting held on Wednesday, October 2, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., Chairman SteveKunzler, presiding.

          1.     RollCall.

          2.     Approval of Minutes.

          3.    JRAT Games:  Petition for JRAT Games to be located at 310South 100 East

                (C1 use, CS zone). 

         4.   Dr. David Pope:  Discuss requiredfence at Mountain Utah Family Medical

                Clinic at 879 North Main Street.

          5.   Brady Hansen:  Petition forapproval of Hansen Collision Centerto be located  

                at the southwest corner of 100West 800 South.  (C2 use, CS zone).   

          6.    General Plan:  Annexation policy concerning water shares.

         7.   Jeremy Baldwin:  Addition to MainStreet Perk located at 380 south Main

                (C2 use, CS zone). 

        8.    Sevier Medical Center:  Proposed signage. 

         9.   Other Business. 

      10.    Adjournment.

1.   Roll Call.  Roll call was answered by Steve Kunzler, PatHansen, Brion Terry, Monte Turner, David Mower, Eugene Beck, and Jeff Albrecht. 

City Staff Present: Zoning Administrator Paul Hinrichs and Deputy City Recorder MichelleCurtis.    

Also Present:  BradyHansen, Lindsay Hansen, Michael Hansen, Kim Hansen, Kevin Crimin, Jake Robertson,Aaron Torrance, David Pope, Nikki Anderson Baldwin.

2.   Minutes Approval.  The minutes of September 4, 2013, were reviewed.  DavidMower motioned to approve theminutes of September 4, 2013.  Jeff Albrecht   secondedthe motion. The motion carried unanimously. 

3.   JRATGames.    Jacob Robertson and Aaron Torrance arepresent.  They would lilke to open abusiness called JRAT Games at 320 South 100 East, CS zone, C1 use.  This will be a place to play table-top gamessuch as Monopoly, Pokemon, Magic: The Gathering, Apples to Apples, etc.  They feel like kids in the area need a placelike this.  The nearest location for thistype of shop is 150 miles away.  They holdbig tournaments and it would be nice for kids to be able to stay here forthat.    

Paul Hinrichs said this is a C-1 use.  Mr. Hinrichs typically approves a business ifit is a similar retail business as the previous occupant.  However, because this is a different type ofbusiness, he thought the Planning Commission needed to review it.  This will be located in the retail stripcenter located on 100 East. 

As far as operating hours, they hope to attract a varietyof kids.  If curfew is at 10:00 and theyhave younger kids in there, then at 9:30 they will start to tell kids it’s timeto wrap it up.  As far as adultcustomers, they could stay.  They plan toclose around 11:00 or 11:30 on both weekends and week days.    

There won’t be a pay-to-play fee.  There will be a retail side where they sell games.  They are aiming for this to be a safe placefor kids to hang out without cost.  Theydon’t plan on having food other than perhaps a fridge with drinks and amicrowave for something like a burrito.

The space is around 1000 square feet.  They could fit about 40 people in there for atournament.  There is a restroom. 

As far as parking is concerned, it is thought the otherbusinesses at this building are closed during the hours when this business wouldbe most busy.  If parking becomes aproblem, the matter could be readdressed.

Brion Terry motioned toapprove the proposed business called JRAT Games to be located 320 South 100East, C1 use, CS zone.  Monte Turnerseconded the motion.  The motion carried.    

4.     David Pope.  Dr. Pope has constructed a new medicalclinic, Mountain Family Medical, at 879 North Main.  At the time the building was approved, therewas a requirement that Dr. Pope have a block fence constructed along the west boundaryof the property.  Since that time, he isconsidering purchasing a portion of property to the west of this which is ownedby Dastrups.  That property already has avinyl fence.  The property would be usedfor employee parking and the dumpser.  Dr.Pope would like the Planning Commission to consider waiving the requirement fora block fence since there is already a 6’ tall vinyl fence that would separatethe two properties.   He is requestingthe elimination for approximately 36 lineal feet of fence.    

Chairman Kunzler said he feels the Ordinance requiring ablock fence is to protect the adjacent residential property owner from acommercial-type business.  After lookngat this situation he wonders if requiring a block fence is necessary sincethere is an existing vinyl fence. 

Paul Hinrichs also discussed the triangular-shaped lotthat is west of the north side of Dr. Pope’s property.  When Dr. Pope’s project was approved, therewas no requirement for a block fence between the two properties because theywere both zoned commercial; however, since that time, the City has sold thetriangular piece of property and it has been rezoned to residential.  It is thought that it would be unfair torequire Dr. Pope to install a block fence along that portion because when hestarted the project, the property was zoned commercial.  

If Dr. Pope does purchase a portion of the Dastrupproperty and change the zone to commercial, there is a question as to whetherhe would need to install a block fence along the north boundary of the propertybetween it and the triangular property. Dr. Pope may also be interested in purchasing a portion of thetriangular piece from the Reids in order to give him better access to theDastrup portion.

Chairman Kunzler said his question would be justificationfor relaxing the requirement for a block fence. The requirement can be relaxed as set out on page 97, Section 1620 ofthe Zoning Code states as follows:

                5.1.1. Commercial and industrial developments … having a common line

               with property used for residentialpurposes shall require the construction

               of asite-obscuring masonry fence with a minimum height of six (6) feet

                measuring from the commercial side;

            …

            6.   Modification of Fence Requirement.  For all fences required in sections

            5.1and  5.2, the planning commission maymodify the height of the fence

            and/orapprove a fence constructed of materials other than masonry if it makes

            thefollowing findings:

           

                 6.1. The proposed fence provides an adequate buffer for the adjoining

                residentialzone.

                 6.2. The appearance of the fence will not detract from uses in theresidential

                zone.

                 

                                                                                                     

               6.2.  The proposed fence will shieldthe residential use form noise, storage,

                traffic,or any other characteristic of commercial or professional office uses      

                thatare incompatible with residential uses.

It appears there is justification not to require theinstallation of a block fence because there is an existing fence that providesan adequate buffer for the adjoining residential zone and it will not detractfrom uses in the residential zone. 

Paul Hinrichs said the parking area would have to be ahard surface and the property would have to be rezoned to commercial in orderto use it for parking.  The parking willbe limited to employee-type parking.  Dr.Pope’s current employee parking is a non-hard surface with gravel.  If this is only used for employees, could hebe allowed to not have a non-hard surface? Chairman Kunzler said he has looked at the businesses in the industrialpark and most of those do have some paved parking for patrons, but a lot ofthem have their employees park on a non-hard surface.  After looking at those places, he isn’t soconcerned with the hard pavement being an issue.  Eugene Beck stated that he is comfortablewith the existing vinyl fence and also making a recommendation that Dr. Pope beallowed to have a non-hard surface for employee parking.   

It appears there are many variables to this question asfar as if Dr. Pope actually purchases property from the Dastrups and if hedecides to purchase property from Mr. Reid. If he knows that the Commission is willing to waive the masonry fence,then perhaps he can move forward with plans as to exactly what he wants to doand then the Commission can act it.  Hehasn’t actually talked with Mr. Reid yet. 

Chairman Kunzler suggest if the Commission gives Dr. Popean idea of what they are going to require of him, then that would give himenough room to go and try to work it out with the property owners and bring backa plan.  If Dr. Pope decides to purchasethe property, it would be good for him to come back and make sure everything istaken care of before he finalizes the purchase.

Pat Hansen motioned thatMountain Family Medical building (Dr. David Pope) will not be required toinstall the 36 linear feet of block fence as this modification is allowed underSection 1620 of the Zoning Code.  MonteTurner seconded the motion.  The motioncarried unanimously.   

Jeff Albrecht motionedthat if the residential property is purchased and rezoned commercial for thepurpose of employee parking, it is recommended that a non-hard surface be approvedby the City Council with the condition that proper drainage is maintained.  Eugene Beck seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

5.     Brady Hansen/Hansen Collision Repair.  Brady Hansen and Michael Hansen are present.They are proposing the construction of Hansen Collision Center to be located atthe southwest corner of 800 South 100 West. (C2 use, CS zone).  The plans donot show this, but they do realize that both street-facing sides of thebuilding will have to be finished 100% in masonry.   Both the north side and the east side of thebuilding will be two-tone stucco. 

Paul Hinrichs comments that the Development ReviewCommittee (DRC) felt the side of the building facing Cove View Road is next tothe canal and should not have to comply with the requirement of being finishedin 100% masonry because it meets the intent of the ordinance.   Commission members are in agreement withthat.  Brady Hansen said the canalactually borders their property, but they will want it to look good so theywill put in dry landscaping similar to Aaron’s Rentals.  They were advised they need to discuss that withthe canal company.  The corner of theirbuilding will be 20 feet from the canal and 10 feet from the propertyline. 

As far as parking spots, they have complied with theparking requirements.  There will bepavement.  They will meet the roadrequirements of 27-1/2 feet of asphalt, 30” curb and gutter, 6-foot sidewalk,and 4-foot utility space.  That is theirhalf of the road plus 10 feet beyond the center.  This will protect a 60-foot width for a minorcollector.  They will develop 100 West Streetalong the parcel they are developing which is a length of 350 feet.  The entire property is approximately 4.5acres comprised of two parcels. This project will cover more than one parcel,so they will do a boundary line adjustment so that it fits on one parcel.   They are developing about 2 acres of theproperty. 

Jeff Albrecht wondered about the drainage study and if itneeds to be completed before the Council reviews and approves this.  Paul Hinrichs said they need that as well asstreet design before they start building.

There is an irrigation ditch through the property whichthey will pipe.  Chairman Kunzler advisesthey need to make sure they install the correct size of pipe.  Paul Hinrichs said that will be addressed withthe street improvements and drainage, and reviewed by the City engineer.

So as far as requirements for drainage and improvements,that will all be reviewed by the city engineer. However, Paul Hinrichs advises the Commission could make a motion toapprove the site plan with the exception that the Planning Commission wants tosee an improvement plan and a drainage plan before any work starts.  Chairman Kunzler said the Commission doesn’twant to delay their project, but wants the chance to make sure that another setof eyes have looked at it. 

Monte Turner motioned torecommend that the City Council approve the site plan for Hansen CollisionCenter to be located at the southwest corner of 800 South 100 West. 

Discussion on the motion:

David Mower had a question on the motion.  There has been some discussion about how PlanningCommission looks at the drainage and improvement plans before the City Councildoes.  The motion seems to say that is goingto be skipped over. 

Jeff Albrecht said he would almost definitely want all ofthe engineering done before any building permit is issued because it couldaffect building elevations.  PaulHinrichs said it wouldn’t necessarily have to be done before a permit is issued,but it would have to be done before the work starts. 

Paul Hinrichs said normally the Commission has a completeapplication, but if it doesn’t have a complete application, it has been done incrementally.  The Hansens said they will have fullyengineered plans in the next few weeks. 

Chairman Kunzler suggests the Planning Commission couldapprove the site plan and then can review the engineering plans inNovember. 

David Mower seconded themotion.  The motion carried unanimously.

6.     General Plan.   CityAdministrator Matt Creamer was present to discuss the annexation policy in theGeneral Plan.   The Council asked him tocome to Planning Commission to discuss a concern they have with Policy 10 inthe annexation policies of the General Plan. Policy 10 requires water rights to be supplied to the City when adeveloper or individual requests annexation. In the past, it has been a formula where a person submitted one (1)water share per acre of ground being annexed, assuming that all water sharesare equal; however, they are not equal. 

The Council and engineers have been doing quite a lot ofwork with water rights and feel like they have a good handle on differences in valueof the various canal companies and differences in delivered water per share.  The Richfield Canal and Piute Irrigation bothA and B shares deliver almost twice as much water as Sevier Valley, and theircost per share is about twice what Sevier Valley’s is. 

It is proposed that Policy 10 be kept fairly straightforward and simple but equalize those water shares by requiring two (2) sharesper acre annexed of Sevier Valley or one (1)  share per acre annexed of Richfield or Piute.

It is proposed that Cottonwood not be referenced.  A few months ago the City Council passed amotion it will not accept Cottonwood water until such time as thetransferability and quantity issues related to that can be betterestablished.  The City is working to dothat.  The Council has a strong feelingthat at least with Richfield, Piute, and Sevier Valley Canals, they are watershares that can be used with the City irrigation system on the parks, cemetery,and golf course.  The City now ownsalmost 40% of the Cottonwood Irrigation Company with no potential for any use ofit at this point in time.  Until thattime when it could be used either for surface use or able to be transferred tounderground use, it doesn’t seem to be in the City’s best interest to acceptmore of it. 

As far as accepting cash in place of water shares, thathas been discussed.  Jody Hoffman, anattorney who works with the Utah League of Cities and Towns, says allowing acash equivalent could be interpreted as an impact fee. 

David Mower asked how fractional acres would be dealtwith.  Matt Creamer said the City hasaccepted fractional shares and they have also rounded up.  Language will need to be included clarifyinghow fractional acres will be dealt with. 

A public hearing will be set for the next PlanningCommission meeting.

7.     Jeremy Baldwin.   NikkiAnderson Baldwin is present for Jeremy Baldwin. They are the owners of the Main Street Perk which is located at 380South Main.  This is a small buildingthat sits in the parking lot of Ogden’s Carpet. They are proposing a 383-square-foot addition to the existing192-square-foot building.  The additionwill include a drive-up window for ordering, storage, prep area, and abathroom.  The building is already hookedinto the sewer.  At the present time, theyhave permission to use the restrooms in Ogden’s Carpet.  The existing building is not on afoundation.  It is movable.  The addition will also be movable.

Chairman Kunzler asked about setbacks.  Paul Hinrichs advises the building can be 10feet from the property line.   It willmatch the setback of the existing building. The new addition will be on the east side of the existing building.  It sits back an adequate distance from theintersection. 

The new building will sit closer to the ground, but itwill still be movable.  The landowner isJerry Larsen and they have a rental agreement with him.  Mr. Larsen recently redid the parking areaand had it painted and striped with a drive-through area for this business andalso some parking spots.  It isrecommended they provide a letter from Mr. Larsen stating that he approves thisaddition.   

The exterior finish of the building will tie in with theexisting building.  It will be tied inwith the roof so that it doesn’t look like two shacks sitting side by side.

David Mower motioned torecommend that the Council approve an addition to the Main Street Perk located at380 South Main with the condition that they provide a letter of approval from thelandlord.  Monte Turner seconded themotion.  The motion carriedunanimously. 

8.     Sevier Medical Center Plans have been received for proposed signagefor the new hospital addition.  Paul Hinrichssaid this is a large building on 7+ acres. The Sign Ordinance permits the Planning Commission to allow signs whichexceed its standards on any project exceeding two (2) acres in size. 

The existing sign will remain on the corner of 1000 NorthMain.  There is a proposal for a polesign that is 12 feet tall.  It will be situatedat the main entrance.  There will be a monumentsign at the emergency room entrance which will be 7’6” tall.   They willbe placing 202 square feet of wall signs on the south elevation and 362 squarefeet of signs on the north elevation. 

The only concern the Planning Commission has is to ensurethat the signs meet the site triangle requirements. 

Jeff Albrecht motionedto approve the proposed signage for the Sevier Medical Center.  Pat Hansen seconded the motion.  The motion carried. 

9.     Other Business.  There was further discussion concerningthe process of reviewing project applications. The following points were brought out:

Chairman Kunzler said in approving site plans, theCommission needs to see the actual plan with all of the information.  Even with a detailed plan set, it is veryeasy to skip over things.  The more eyesthat see it, the less chance there is for errors or omissions. 

Michelle Curtis pointed out that sometimes an applicantwants to see the Planning Commission before they have gone to the expense ofengineered drawings.  The applicant needsto be made aware that if they want to do that, it will probably prolong theapproval process and they will have to come back to Planning Commission forapproval after they have a complete set of plans.

Jeff Albrecht said in working as an engineer when he hasgone before Commissions for approvals, they first go in for preliminary plat andsite plan for approval.  Then they go backthe next month with their final plat to get that approved, and then bring inthe construction drawings for approval. They have had to go in at least three times for Planning andZoning.  That was the process forapproval in Richfield until the current Zoning Code was adopted in 2007.  Perhaps the Code needs to be reviewed andchanged so that there is a process where there is a concept review, preliminaryreview, and then a final review. 

When the Code is followed exactly, a Petition would bereviewed by the DRC and then the petitioner would finalize their engineereddrawings according to the DRC review.  Itwould then come to Planning Commission for approval. 

Monte Turner stated it would be good if a Petitioner istold right from the beginning that if they want to come to Planning Commissionbefore they complete their plans, then they need to be aware that they are probablygoing to have to go to Planning Commission at least twice.  If they know that in the beginning, then theywill know to expect that it will take a longer amount of time to getapproval.  When we do something in hastebecause someone has a tight schedule, that is when we get in trouble.  The Commission wouldn’t necessarily get intothe fine details, but could see that it has been reviewed by an engineer. 

Chairman Kunzler said he doesn’t want to expand theCommission’s role, but he wants it to be efficient so it can do its role.    

Paul Hinrichs feels like the Code was adopted treating itas though we have in-office staff, including an engineer, where these thingscan be reviewed quickly. 

Eugene Beck suggested that perhaps the Commission shouldmeet with the DRC and go over procedures, especially given the fact that PaulHinrichs will be retiring and the Commission will miss his expertise.  It was also suggested that the Planning Chairand the City Administrator could meet and go over a few things. 

10.   Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. 

PASSED AND APPROVED onthe 6th day of November, 2013.

/s/ Michelle Curtis

     DeputyCity Recorder