Minutes – 11.3.2021

COUNTY OF SEVIER 

CITY OF RICHFIELD

                                                                                    At the Planning Commission

                                                                                    In and For Said City

                                                                                    November 3, 2021

         Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, November 3, 2021, at 6:00 p.m., Chairman Kendrick Thomas, presiding.

1.      Roll Call

2.      General Plan Discussion

3.      6:30 p.m.  Public Hearings

         A.   Receive comments concerning a proposed amendment to the Zoning Code 

               adding the following definition to Table 31-1, Table of Uses for Residential

               Zoning Districts:

               “Reception Hall, Reception Center (converted):  A facility for the holding of

               events including but not limited to weddings, wedding receptions, community

               meetings and group gatherings.  Must be converted from a building that exists

               or has historically been permitted and used as a church and as a conforming

               use.”                                                     

         B.   Receive comments concerning an application filed by Brad Garfield requesting a

               zone change at 1180 South Cove View Road, zone to be changed from the CS

               zone to the RM-24 zone. 

4.      Action on Public Hearings

         A.   Consider whether or not to recommend that the City Council change the Zoning

               Code adding the following definition to Table 31-1, Table of Uses for Residential

               Zoning Districts:

               “Reception Hall, Reception Center (converted):  A facility for the holding of

               events including but not limited to weddings, wedding receptions, community

               meetings and group gatherings.  Must be converted from a building that exists

               or has historically been permitted and used as a church and as a conforming

               use.” 

         B.   Consider whether or not to recommend that the City Council approve a request

               for zone change at 1180 South Cove View Road, zone to be changed from the CS

               zone to the RM-24 zone. 

         C.  Consider recommendation to be given to the City Council concerning parking

               requirements in the RM-11 and RM-24 zones.

5.      Conditional Use Permits:

         A.   Amelia Walls to request a Conditional Use Permit allowing Elite Achievability to

               conduct business at 310 south 100 East (CS zone, C-1 use). 

         B.   Brad Garfield/Blue Investment Group.  Discuss multi-family use proposed for

               the property located at 1180 South Cove View Road.  (This will be a C-2 use if the

               zone is changed to RM-24.)   Discuss recommendation to be given to the City

               Council. 

6.      Annexation

         A.   Consider recommending that the City Council accept the annexation of property

               as requested by 4-Star LLC on 1500 South 100 West, to be zoned RM-24

               (property is part of the proposed apartment project of Smith’s).  

 7.     Concept Plan Discussion:

         A.   Eric Mainord to discuss updated concept plan for apartment project to be

               located between 350 West and 400 West, and 1300 South and Cove View Road. 

8.      Other Business:

         A.   Greg Bean to discuss suggestions for changes to the Zoning Code concerning

               metal buildings in commercial zones.

         B.   Discuss Short-term Rentals. 

9.      Minutes Approval:

         A.  Consider approving minutes of October 6, 2021. 

10.     Adjournment

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

City Staff Present:   Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis. 

Others present:  Karly Freeborn, Eric Mainord, Greg Gagon, Amy Myers, Ann Valae.  Brad Garfield,

2.      General Plan Discussion

Chairman Thomas said there are a few items to discuss, RM-24 locations, metal buildings, and the proposed General Plan.

Metal Buildings:  Greg Bean has suggested the following as far as design standards and the use of metal:

         Commercial Building Appearance Design Standards

         The City of Richfield desires commercial building architectural design that residents and

         visitors will find appealing but also not be an undue burden on business within the City. In

         order to maintain a respectable character on main thoroughfares within the City, the

         following is required:

         All new or remodeled facade construction within a city block (or 500′) of the right of way

         limits of the following City streets:

         Main Street, including extending state highways within City limits 300 North, including

         extending state highways within City limits 1300 South, from State Highway 114 to I-70 shall

         meet the following appearance design guidelines:

         1.       All sides of a commercial building that are visible from any public street or adjacent

                  residential  zone shall include at least one (1) of the following exterior finishing

                  materials on at least thirty percent of their surfaces:  masonry, decorative wood,

                  stone, cinder block, decorative metal panels, masonite, or other exterior finishing

                  that is approved as part of the project plan.

         2.       Unfinished concrete, plywood, corrugated metal siding and vinyl siding are

                  discouraged finishes for commercial buildings.

         3.      Where feasible, building setbacks should be varied.

         4.       Within the downtown historic commercial area, new or remodeled buildings shall

                  be designed so as to contribute to and not detract from the historic  characteristics

                  of the area.

         5.      Exterior building designs shall be reviewed as part of the project plan by the City

                  Development Review Committee and the City Planning Commission and approved

                  by the City Council.

Chairman Thomas explained the proposal is to apply the above regulations on the main thoroughfares as suggested by Mr. Bean.  Those thoroughfares would be 1300 South, Main Street, and 300 North.  

Chairman Thomas points out that some of the discouraged materials can be used in an attractive way.  Those materials could be addressed with the following language:

         Discouraged finishes will not be allowed unless approved by the City

         Development Review Committee and Planning Commission.  Discouraged

         finishes may be permitted based on the aesthetic characteristics, curb appeal,

         and congruence with surrounding architectural properties of the proposed

         building design.   A 3-Dimensional, colored rendering of the proposed building

         and site shall be submitted to the Development Review committee and Planning

         Commission in order to be considered for approval. 

Discussion as follows:

  •    Masonite will be deleted from the approved list.  It is not used anymore and is not a good material.
  •    Highway 114 needs to be changed to SR118. 
  •    City Council needs to make the decision as to whether the Planning Commission or Council is the approving body. 
  •    Requirement for 3-D rendering.  Will that receive some push-back.  As an alternate could they show a rendering with examples of materials or is there another option to get that same feel
  •    If they are using approved material, a 3-D rendering would not be necessary.  If using materials on the discourage list, then provide a 3-D rendering. 
  •    Maybe have options other than 3-D rendering such as colored elevations or equivalent as approved by the Planning Commission so that applicants have options but still get the same end result.
  •    Item no. 3, “building setbacks should be varied” can be deleted because Section 18 of the Zoning Code states:  Long, unbroken building wall surfaces shall be avoided and building walls longer than 30 feet shall be relieved with variations of wall planes or overhangs that create shadow areas and add visual interest, varying rooflines, and creating shadow relief with the use of recesses and projections.”    
  •    Thoroughfares:  Change to 300 North going east from 100 West.  Add 100 East from 500 South to 600 North. 
  •    If a material is not listed as allowed, then it will be considered as though it is on the discouraged materials list. 

General Plan Update.  to be discussed, City Manager Michele Jolley had asked for the Commission’s opinion regarding the update to the General Plan.  She received some recommendations from Rural Community Consultants (RCC) as to how the General Plan should look.  She is wondering if the Commission recommends that the City should go forward with the update that the Commission has been reviewing over past months, or start over with Rural Community Consultants. 

Chairman Thomas disclosed a conflict in that RCC is affiliated with his office of Jones & DeMille. 

Lisa Ogden feels like the Commission already discussed some of the items that were pointed out in the communication from RCC.  She doesn’t think the current state of their proposal is valuable.  There are parts and pieces that might be valuable.  The future land use zone map needs to be updated.  Transportation/circulation elements needs to be included.  The City’s annexation policy needs to be added, as well as reference to the Airport.  The Commission had already discussed those things last month.  It would be worth reviewing it again after the updates to the proposal have been integrated by Bruce Parker’s team. 

Josh Peterson said he would like to see specific recommendations as to what RCC thinks needs to be changed.  He would also like to see the updated revisions from Bruce Parker. 

It is Lisa Ogden’s opinion that the implementation section included in the draft of the Plan is more than a list of quotes from a survey as was suggested by RCC.  The matrix in the implementation section is useful.   

Chairman Thomas will send Commissioners a copy of a General Plan that has been created by RCC for comparison against the Plan they have been working on.    

Josh Peterson advised that the City needs to reach out to Andrea Olsen with UDOT for assistance with the Transportation Plan.  

RM-24 Zone.  Concerning Mr. Bean’s proposal for regulations in the RM-24 zone, it states that all RM-24 zoning approvals within the City limits shall be limited to a total of 25% of the total number of existing housing units.  Is 25% too much?  There is also question about the language in the proposed item 1 that talks about limiting growth in one area until other areas catch up with it.  The language could be written more clearly.

Chairman Thomas said feels like a future land use map would guide this because it will show the areas of the City that could be a good place for RM-24.  As a proposal comes in for rezone, if it falls in an areas designated as RM-24 on the future land use map, then it could be approved.  The land use map should guide and approvals also based on available infrastructure. 

3.      Public Hearings:  (6:30 p.m.)   

         A.  6:31 p.m.  Receive comments concerning a proposed amendment to the Zoning Code adding the following definition to Table 31-1, Table of Uses for Residential Zoning Districts:

                  “Reception Hall, Reception Center (converted):  A facility for the holding of

                  events including but not limited to weddings, wedding receptions,

                  community meetings and group gatherings.  Must be converted from a

                  building that exists or has historically been permitted and used as a church

                  and as a conforming use.” 

Chairman Thomas explained that this request came about because of a proposed use for the old church building on 100 North 300 East. 

Amy Meyers said the proposal states it must be converted from a building that has been used as a church.  She asked what if someone wanted to use another building for this use.  Chairman Thomas replied that at this time the intent would be to limit it just to existing church buildings.  Generally commercial uses are not allowed in the residential zones; however, a former church would likely have parking spaces available.  This would not allow for a person to convert a garage for this use.   

The public hearing closed at 6:35 pm.

         B.     6:35 p.m.  Receive comments concerning an application filed by Brad Garfield requesting a zone change at 1180 South Cove View Road, zone to be changed from the CS zone to the RM-24 zone. 

Chairman Thomas explained that this property is the old Topsfield Lodge.  The proposal is to convert it to a higher density residential zone to allow for apartments. 

There being no public comments, the public hearing closed at 6:37 p.m. 

3.      Action on Public Hearings

         A.       Consider whether or not to recommend that the City Council change the Zoning Code adding the following definition to Table 31-1, Table of Uses for Residential Zoning Districts:

                  “Reception Hall, Reception Center (converted):  A facility for the holding of

                  events including but not limited to weddings, wedding receptions, community

                  meetings and group gatherings.  Must be converted from a building that exists

                  or has historically been permitted and used as a church and as a conforming

                  use.” 

Blaine Breinholt motioned to recommend to the City Council that the Zoning Code be amended to insert the definition as set out above, the use to be allowed as a C-1 use.  Lisa Ogden seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Blaine Breinholt, Susan Jensen, Wes Kirschner, Josh Peterson, and Lisa White.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously. 

         B.      Consider whether or not to recommend that the City Council approve a request for zone change at 1180 South Cove View Road, zone to be changed from the CS zone to the RM-24 zone. 

Brad Garfield, property owner, and Carly Freeborn as the property manager were present.  This building has been used previously as a motel and a church used it as a non-profit short-term stay for people needing assistance.

Mr. Garfield said they want to turn this into monthly rentals.  They have been trying to fix it up as they can.  The property consists of 2.35 acres.  There will be 19 rooms.  There will be one 2-bedroom, four 1-bedroom, and 14 studio apartments. 

With its current configuration, it could fit in the RM-11; however, Mr. Garfield wanted to ask for the RM-24 because at some point he wants to build apartments behind the building on the north side.

Josh Peterson said he would be more comfortable zoning it RM-11 and then if Mr. Garfield decides to add more apartments at a later time, he could ask for a change to the RM-24 zone at that time.  The property immediately north of this was recently changed to RM-24.  Based on acreage, he could have 64 units in the RM-24 and 29 units in the RM-11 zone.  If he does something with more than 50 units, he would be required to do a traffic study. 

Lisa White wondered how this ties in with the new ordinance that has been adopted regarding extended stay motels.  Mrs. Freeborn said they are not trying to function as a motel in any capacity.  There will be no nightly rentals.  They will be leased out monthly, with credit checks and background checks.  They will put in kitchens and wondered about the specifications for that.  They were told they will need to check with the County Building Inspector.  Mr. Garfield will contact the building inspector and arrange a meeting.

Ultimately Mr. Garfield would like to build 4-plexes on some of it and then tear down parts of the old building it as people move out.   

Lisa White motioned to recommend that the City council approve a change of zone at 1180 South Cove View road from the CS zone to the RM-11 zone.  Blaine Breinholt seconded the motion.   Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Blaine Breinholt, Susan Jensen, Wes Kirschner, Josh Peterson, and Lisa White.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously. 

         C.      Consider recommendation to be given to the City Council concerning parking requirements in the RM-11 and RM-24 zones.

Josh Peterson has done some homework regarding this.  The concern had been raised that the parking between RM-11 and RM-24 doesn’t match up.  The RM-11 requires 1.5 parking stalls per bedroom.  The RM-24 requires 1.5 parking stalls per units and 2.5 parking stalls for two- and three-bedroom units.  His calculations show that 11 units each having three bedrooms in the RM-11 zone, would require 49.5 parking spaces.  The same facility in the RM-24 zone would only require 27.5 parking spaces. 

There was discussion as to how the current RM-11 parking lots are functioning and should the RM-24 be increased to the RM-11 standard.  Blaine Breinholt said he sees a lot of parking spaces that are taken by trailers and side-by-sides.  The Cambridge Apartments on west Center does not have a lot of parking spaces, but yet the parking lot Is not full.  A comment was made in last month’s meeting that it seems like the more parking spaces available, the more junk accumulates.    

There was a question as to whether a different standard should apply to student housing.    

Greg Gagon and Eric Mainord were present.  Mr. Gagon said they are working with Snow College to provide 140 beds for students.  When their project is discussed, they will want to address parking.   Looking at a facility having 3-bedroom units generally makes you think it is most likely a family with a few kids.  They probably need two parking stalls and maybe another stall for a visitor.  However, requiring 1.5 spaces per bedroom would require 4.5 parking stalls per unit.  How many families renting apartments need 4.5 parking stalls?  That would be onerous for a developer. 

Mr. Gagon said the college is asking them to provide .5 parking spaces per bed which he doesn’t think is appropriate.  Looking at Provo with BYU and UVU, they require .75 per bed which is more appropriate.  With their project, they will propose a .7 parking spaces per bedroom.  Student housing should be measured differently from the RM-11 and RM-24. 

The Commission feels it is appropriate to change the parking requirements for the RM-11 zone to the same as that required for the RM-24.  Student housing should be addressed differently.  In order to qualify for the parking requirements for schools, a developer would have to show that they have a contract with a school or college.  Parking at .7 per bed seems reasonable. 

Parking for student housing will be addressed at a later time.

Lisa White motioned to recommend that the City Council approve that the parking requirements for the RM-11 zone be changed to match that of the RM-24 zone.  Susan Jensen seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Blaine Breinholt, Susan Jensen, Wes Kirschner, Josh Peterson, and Lisa White.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously. 

5.      Conditional Use Permits:

         A.   Amelia Walls to request a Conditional Use Permit allowing Elite Achievability to conduct business at 310 south 100 East (CS zone, C-1 use). 

Brittney Morris represented Amelia Wells.  This was discussed at last month’s meeting.   This is a program for special needs adults.  It is a day program where they have social interaction and are out in the community.   

Lisa White motioned to approve a Conditional Use Permit allowing Elite Achievability to conduct business at 310 South 100 East.  Josh Peterson seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Blaine Breinholt, Susan Jensen, Wes Kirschner, Josh Peterson, and Lisa White.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously

         B.   Brad Garfield/Blue Investment Group.  Discuss proposed multi-family use proposed for the property located at 1180 South Cove View road.  (This will be a C-2 use if the zone is changed to RM-24.)   Discuss recommendation to be given to the City Council. 

In light of the Commission’s discussion above recommending a change of this zone to the RM-11, the DRC notes concerning the property’s use for monthly rentals was reviewed as follows:

            1.         Building Inspection.  Mr. Garfield needs to contact Jason Mackelprang, acting City

                        building inspector, to ensure that building codes are met.  A building permit will need to

                        be purchased if that is required.  (435) 893-0420. 

            Discussion:  Mr. Garfield will contact the building inspector tomorrow.    

            2.         Parking.  The facility will have 20 one-bedroom units.  Under the RM-24 zone that

                        requires 30 parking spaces.  The plan, as provided, shows 40 parking spaces. Provide

                        plan showing actual dimensions of parking spaces.

                        Parking lot requires asphalt, concrete, or other binding pavement.

            Discussion:    As discussed above there are actually four 1-bedroom units, 14 studios, and one 2-bedroom.  As they remodel, there may end up being less units.  In the earlier public hearing, the Commission is recommending that parking requirements in the RM-11 zone be changed to match that required in the RM-24 zone.  Without the change, 30 spaces are required.  With the change, 29.5 parking spaces would be required.  The plan shows 40 parking spaces. 

Mr. Garfield wondered about asphalt.  Is that the entire parking lot or just the parking?  He was told there should be pavement anywhere that cars drive.  He said maybe he can increase landscaping areas so there isn’t such a wide driving space. 

            3.         Street Improvements.  Curb, gutter, sidewalk:  Install sidewalk on Cove View Road.

                        Also install curb and gutter along Cove View Road.  These improvements to be

                        reviewed and inspected by the City Engineer.

                        400 West:   The DRC feels like it would be appropriate to install curb, gutter, and                         sidewalk along that side at the time the north side of the property is developed

            Discussion:  Josh Peterson asked about the requirement for curb and gutter on Cove View road when the elevation is not set to the north.  Mrs. Freeborn also mentioned the problems they have with drainage coming from 400 West.  With the heavy rain this past summer, drainage ran onto their property and into the old restaurant kitchen and the old dining room nearest 400 West.

Blaine Breinholt wonders about establishing curb, gutter, and sidewalk.  The elevation is almost flat and there have always been problems with drainage along Cove View Road.  .

There was discussion that the City needs to get involved with the City Engineer to see what is feasible for Cove View Road.  The Commission questions having this facility install that now.  Perhaps those improvements should be waived until then.  Waivers have to be approved by the City Council. The water coming down 400 West also needs to be looked at.

It needs to be surveyed and a design showing what the grades should be.  Mrs. Freeborn asked if there is a possibility of the improvements on Cove View Road being waived until a later time because they ultimately plan on tearing down this building and building 4-plexes.  The Commission does think it makes sense to waive that until a later time, but the City Council will have to decide that.    

         4.   Drainage.  Show how drainage will be maintained on site, to be reviewed and approved by

               the City Engineer.

         Discussion:  Chairman Thomas explained that drainage that originates on this site has to be retained on-site in a catch basin.

         5.   Landscaping.  Landscaping to be maintained. 

         Discussion:  They will maintain the landscaping.  They have plenty of area for landscaping where the old swimming pool was located and also a strip between the street and the parking lot. 

         6.   Building Elevations.   Discuss materials to be used for exterior finish.

         Discussion:  They have put on a new roof.  They are working on the soffit and fascia.  The building is white siding.  There is no missing siding.  They are repairing the windows.

         7.  Signage.  If a sign is installed, it needs to approved by the City and a build permit purchased.

         Discussion:  Mr. Garfield does not plan to have a sign.

         8.  Engineer Fees.  All engineer fees to be paid for by the developers.

         Discussion:  Agrees to pay any engineer fees incurred in project reviews.

Chairman Thomas summarized the discussion that the Commission is recommending the zone to be changed to the RM-11 zone.  The Commission cannot waive the requirement for street improvements, but recommends that the Council waive the requirement pending a drainage study of the whole area so that it can be evaluated.  The property owner needs to get with the building inspector.

Josh Peterson motioned to recommend that the City Council change the zone to RM-11, approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit as a C2 use to allow a multi-family use (month-to-month rentals) as discussed in the DRC notes, and recommending that the Council consider waiving street improvements to a later time after a drainage study for the area has been completed.  Lisa White seconded the motion.   Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Blaine Breinholt, Susan Jensen, Wes Kirschner, Josh Peterson, and Lisa White.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously

6.      Annexation

         A.   Consider recommending that the City Council accept the annexation of property as requested by 4-Star LLC on 1500 South 100 West, to be zoned RM-24 (property is part of the proposed apartment project of Smith’s).  

This property is located south of the strip mall by Wal-Mart and across the street to the west from Jones & DeMille.  It will be part of the Smith’s Apartments project for which Phase I has been approved.

Lisa White motioned to recommend that the City Council accept 4-Star LLC’s application for annexation.  Josh Peterson seconded the motion.    Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Blaine Breinholt, Susan Jensen, Wes Kirschner, Josh Peterson, and Lisa White.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously.

 7.     Concept Plan Discussion:

         A.   Eric Mainord to discuss updated concept plan for apartment project to be located between 350 West and 400 West, and 1300 South and Cove View Road. 

Greg Gagon and Eric Mainord were present.  This project has been discussed in several meetings over the past year.  They have been approached by Snow College asking them to partner in providing 30 to 60 beds for next school year.  Mr. Gagon and Mr. Mainord have planned for 140 to accommodate students over the next five years.

This part of the complex would consist of 24 units having six beds each.  The buildings will be a vanilla finish, typical floor plan, 3-story, with eight units on each floor. 

In order to accommodate this, they have purchased a piece of property that is .8 of an acre that will be incorporated into their project.  It is east of the original property.  This will help make the original triangular piece more manageable for the family units they will build.    

The draft, as drawn, represents just shy of .7 parking stalls per bed.  The parking is more than Snow College was requesting, but they feel like this number makes more sense.

One of the things they are considering is rather than utilizing 350 West, they would rather tie their development into Cove View Road in two places.   Where 350 West meets Cove View Road currently, it would be difficult to make the road perpendicular going into Cove View.  They have drawn the road coming across the canal from Cove View at a point further south.  The road would angle southeast until it meets 350 West and end in a cull-de-sac.  They do not plan to continue 350 West all the way south to 1300 South Street.  This would be a City street that would dead-end for the time being.  However, the cul-de-sac is situated such that it would be access for the Jorgensen property on the east side of the road when that develops. They would like to ask that 350 West street be vacated.    

They will plan to take the sewer south and punch under 1300 South and connect at 1500 South.  They know they will have to re-route a portion of the water line that is under 350 West. 

Since meeting with the Planning Commission last month, the have met with the Mayor and City Manager Michele Jolley.  They also met with Dennis Jorgensen who owns the balance of the property on the east side of 350 West.  They proposed this idea to him.  He was mostly agreeable, but concerned about losing the access point from 1300 South.  If he puts a car dealership on this corner, he would like access onto 1300 South.   Mr. Gagon and Mainord feel like 350 West 1300 South will never be a through intersection and there will never be a light there.  It would likely become a right-turn in and a right-turn out which creates a bad situation because of the accelerating traffic coming from Main Street.  

They have engaged traffic engineer Ryan Hales.  His report will be forthcoming.  It will detail the commercial side and their side as well. 

They are looking for a soft answer that the parking requirements are acceptable and that subject to final review of a traffic analysis, the 350 West could be vacated.  If the Commission is not on board with these ideas, then they need to go back to the drawing board and start over.    

Josh Peterson said he had been discussing this with his supervisor at UDOT.  It was suggested that there might be a possibility of taking out the sweep that turns from Main Street onto 1300 South.  Traffic would have to go to the stop light and then turn onto 1300 South.  This would create the right-hand turn that is needed to go onto 350 West and eliminate the hazard of the accelerating traffic coming from the sweep. 

Mr. Gagon said he thinks this would work either way, either eliminating the sweep or with them not utilizing 350 West.  What they have proposed works well for them.  They don’t want to get caught up in the master transportation plan.  It feels like it is something that could spiral into a bigger issue. 

At a minimum they realize that even if their project ends with the cul-de-sac, they will still have to maintain 350 West as an access from 1300 South.  The sewer and water rights-of-way would be under that road. 

Snow College will sign a 15-year lease.  If it looks like this proposal is something they could pursue, they would like to get going with Snow College.  If this is unacceptable to the City, they would like know that now.  If the City wants to vacate the sweep going onto 1300 South at some point, that is fine.  They don’t want to get tied up in that. 

Josh Peterson said he likes the lay-out.  He thinks they could do the 350 West realignment so that the development can move forward.  UDOT and the City need to decide what is going to happen with 350 West coming off of 1300 South.  They would have to maintain it, but the City could waive the requirement for street improvements for now for that portion of 350 West.  The Commission likes this idea.  The City Council would have to approve it, but for the time-being they could do the street improvements from Cove View Road through the cul-de-sac they have shown. 

If they are going to start with student housing, then the Commission needs to go forward with a public hearing to discuss parking stalls for student housing.

They are planning 24 units with 6 beds each.  Currently the parking requirement for 24 units would be 60 spaces at 2.5 spaces per unit.  With 144 beds at .7 spaces per bed, they would need 100 spaces.

A public hearing will be set for next month to discuss adjusting the Code to designate the required number of parking spaces for student housing suggesting .7 spaces per bed.

Chairman Thomas said as this area of town develops, he is concerned about pedestrian traffic going to Wal-Mart, etc.  The City needs to be conscious of that.  Josh Peterson said UDOT does have a program for safe sidewalks with a 75-25 match if qualified.    

They will plan to start with the student housing portion and then let the market drive development of the property going to the southwest with the family units.  Those will be built in phases.  They are thinking they will condominiumize each separate building.  They have started the soils report and the traffic analysis.

8.      Other Business:

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

This item was discussed above under the General Plan discussion.

         B.   Discuss Short-term Rentals.  Josh Peterson reached out to Six County.  They created and sent him a one-page document that cited four articles with a quote from each article.  He was hoping there would be more direction it.  Even with what they provided. it shows that short-term rentals need to be controlled.  He feels that the Commission needs to move forward and approve the short-term rental ordinance, having three zones and capping each zone at 5% of the total residences, and then figure this out as we go.  Basically, the ordinance should have everything that the City attorney said could be put in.   If the City wants to only allow two per household, then a study would have to be done in order to implement that. 

Michelle Curtis will send data to Chairman Thomas with addresses of each residence and then they can calculate how many are in each area in order to create the area boundaries and balance it out. 

Michelle Curtis will put together the parts of the proposal that could possibly be adopted. 

As far as justification, Laverkin lowered their allowed number to 7-1/2%.  They had to have a good reason to do that.  That can be used as an example.  The table that has been created is a good starting place for justification.  Also, we can use the newspaper articles about other communities concerning this issue.  What has been done to this point is a good start in justifying the numbers that we have come up with. 

Washington County is trying to fight VRBO’s there.  We will start collecting these articles for back up. 

9.      Minutes Approval:

         A.  Consider approving minutes of October 6, 2021.    Blaine Breinholt motioned to approve the minutes of October 6, 2021.  Susan Jensen seconded the motion.    Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Blaine Breinholt, Susan Jensen, Wes Kirschner, Josh Peterson, and Lisa White.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously.

10.     Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. 

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

/s/ Michelle Curtis

      Deputy City Recorder