Minutes – 12.03.2014

COUNTY OF SEVIER 
CITY OF RICHFIELD

 
                                                                                    At the Planning Commission
                                                                                    In and For Said City
                                                                                    December 3, 2014
 

         Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, December 3, 2014, at 6:00 p.m., Chairman Steve Kunzler , presiding.
 
       1.     Roll Call.
       2.     Jim’s Auto Master/Jim Keele.  Review Conditional Use Permit.
       3.     Subdivision Application.  Discuss Corey Winkel’s application for Cove
               View Estates Subdivision to be located at 500 East 1200 North.
       4.     Other Business
               A.  Gaylen Matheson to discuss County properties situated in the
                     Cooperative Agreement area.
               B.  Discuss Planning Commissioner terms.
               C.  Set time to meet with City Council to discuss general planning items
                    (possibly Tuesday, January 20, 2015). 
               D.  Other Items. 
       5.     Adjournment.
 
 1.  Roll Call.  Roll call was answered by Brion Terry, Greg Bean, David Mower, Monte Turner, and Pat Hansen. Jeff Albrecht and Steve Kunzler were excused.   
 
City Staff Present:   Zoning Administrator Gaylen Matheson and Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis.    
 
Others present:  Corey Winkel, Kirk Christensen, and Dorianne Christensen. 
 
2.  Jim’s Auto Master/Jim Keele.  Jim’s Auto Master is on the agenda for review of his Conditional Use Permit which was issued in August.  Mr. Keele is not present.  Greg Bean said he feels like Mr. Keele has a lot of cars parked there, but they are parked neatly and it appears that even though he is not yet compliant, he is making an effort.    Monte Turner agrees that the appearance of the site has improved.  Pat Hansen agrees that it has improved, but could it be better?
 
The Commission feels that Mr. Keele really needs to come back and give a report.  The Commission would like to tell him he needs to report and if he doesn’t come back to next month’s Commission meeting, his Conditional Use Permit will be revoked. 
 
 
David Mower moved to revoke Jim Keele’s Conditioal Use Permit on January 7, 2015, unless Mr. Keele comes to the meeting and shows a good reason that it shouldn’t be revoked, assuming that he doesn’t have a good reason (such a medical condition)  that he wasn’t here to this meeting.  Greg Bean seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 
 
Mr. Keele had been told that he could have 15 vehicles.  There are more vehicles now than what was there last month.  It is up to 30 vehicles.  Pat Hansen asks would are some things the Commission could do to encourage him and help him?  Is there a business resource that could consult with him?  There are other repair shops that do a substantial amount of business, but the cars don’t stay there forever and create an unsightly appearance.    
 
3.    Corey Winkel Subdivision.   Corey Winkel is present for preliminary review of his application for Cove View Estates Subdivision.  In response to the DRC comments, Mr. Winkel said he is concerned that the DRC recommends that sewer manholes should be required at a distance of 250 to 300 feet.  He knows the reason that is recommended is because the sewer jetter truck has 250 or 275 feet of hose.  The City feels like they can’t reach the blockage if it is a distance of more than 300 feet, and so it would be advantageous for them to put these only 250 feet apart.  The State regulation is for spacing of no more than 400 feet apart.   He said the main sewer line that he is going to hook onto has manholes spaced at 400 feet apart.  That was installed by the City.  The County is installing sewer manholes on 1500 South and those manholes are 400 feet apart.  He doesn’t like that the City would require him to put manholes at 250 to 300 feet apart, but then installs them at 400 feet apart when the City does the project.  He was told that is a discussion for the City Council to address. 
 
Mr. Winkel said it is costing him $120,000 to put sewer in.  If he is required to put in four or five more manholes, they are $5000 each.  With regard to the sewer machine with 250 feet hose, it doesn’t matter which direction it goes after it is put in the hole.  It is his opinion that in reality the sewer truck can go 500 feet because it can go up the line from the manhole or it can go down the line from the manhole. 
 
Mr. Winkel also believes that the new plastic sewer line that is being used does not plug.  The problems the City has with sewer lines is with the old cast iron lines.  He spoke with a plumbing supplier who laughed that the City is concerned that plugs will occur with the plastic pipe.  He wonders if it is a printed City ordinance that requires manholes to be placed 250 feet apart.  He was told that it is in the City Standards.  The City can be more restrictive than the State. 
 
David Mower wondered where are the Standards?  It was explained that those are the Construction Standards that have been adopted by the City.  Jones and DeMille helps to create those and update them as the need arises.  They can be found online on Jones and DeMille’s website. 
 
Monte Turner said where it is in the City Standard, the Commission can’t just overturn that requirement.  The Council would need to determine that. 
 
The manholes in the east portion of the sewer line are placed at the appropriate distance.  It is the manholes in this phase of the subdivision that would need to be changed.  Mr. Winkel said it would be difficult to change those because they are shown in places where it is logical that there will be intersections 30 years from now.  An extra manhole would have to be put in between the ones shown.
 
Greg Bean wondered how long the Standards have been in effect?   It is thought that the Standard was set in accordance with how far the City’s equipment will reach.  Mr. Winkel claims that the City does use its own machine, but very often they sub-let to a company that comes in with a machine that is capable of 1000 feet. 
 
Mr. Winkel also explained that the equipment the City uses is due to be replaced sometime and he is certain that the City will go to a larger machine that can go a longer distance.  There was some discussion that because there are only a few manholes that are out of compliance, it could be recommended to the City Council that they review changing the standard or just giving approval on it.
 
Greg Bean said he would feel more comfortable if he knew a little bit of history such as how many times a year does the City use the equipment to clean out a sewer line, etc.  Mr. Winkel said he thinks more important than that is where does the jetter have to be used.  Have they had to clean out the new plastic pipes?  Mr. Bean would also like to know the capability of the equipment.  Even the though the Commission only recommends, the City Council has to make the decision as to whether or not to go along with the Commission.  He wouldn’t want to set Mr. Winkel up for failure with the Council.  It would be good to have a little bit more background so that the Commission understands how the Council feels about this and why.  He feels like we’re flying blind. 
 
Mr. Bean wonders if we could get the City Engineer to make a recommendation on this as to whether the City’s equipment would be capable of cleaning out a plastic line at 400 feet. 
 
Chairman Terry said he knows when the Commission sends a recommendation to the City Council, the Council will want a Commissioner there to explain the Commission’s reasoning.  He suggests assigning a Commissioner to talk with Gary Barney and talk with the engineer and get these questions answered and then go to the City Council meeting to back up why the Commission is recommending whatever they decide. 
 
Greg Bean said he would also want to know the status of the condition of the equipment that the City has and how much longer it is going to last.  If the City will have to replace it in the near future, then perhaps this is a moot point. 
 
David Mower said he is curious to know the history of the Standards, how long they have been in effect and where he can find the State Standards.  He would be happy to take on that project.  Greg Bean said he will talk with Public Works Director Gary Barney. 
 
The DRC comments were reviewed as follows:
 
1.  Sewer Availability.  The sewer will hook onto the sewer trunk line located east of the City limits.  Sewer is shown ending at approximately the middle of lots 1 and 2.  The sewer needs to be stubbed to the property line at 500 East on the west side of the subdivision and, if at all possible, a manhole be placed there.  There may need to be more manholes added to accommodate the City’s spacing standard of no more than 250 to 300 feet apart.  Show cast iron monuments for sewer cleanouts.   The sewer line needs to be stubbed to the property line at 500 East on the west side of the subdivision.  The City always requires sewer and water lines to be taken to the furthest point of the property.  Mr. Winkel feels like the City should pay the extra cost of taking the line the extra 100 feet from the manhole to the property line at 500 East.  He was told he would have to negotiate that with the City Council. 
 
2.  Water.  The water line is shown as going to the north boundary of the property on the west side of 500 East.  Water will connect to the main water line at the corner of North by Northeast Subdivision on 500 East.  The City and Mr. Winkel will each pay 50% of what an 8” water line would cost, and then the City will pay 100% of the cost to upgrade the line to 12”.    Mr. Winkel said the costs that he presented to the City did not include the additional 200 feet of taking the water line all the way to the north boundary of the property.  If he is required to do that, then the City needs to be aware that the cost estimate will go up for the City’s share as well.  He questions the requirement of running it all the way to the north boundary.  He wonders if we want to spend more of the City’s money in order to take it up there?  Again, that is something that the City Council will have to decide.  He had planned on only taking the water to the driveway of his property.  He isn’t opposed to it, but it will cost the City more than he presented to them.    
 
3.  Sewer and water connections are alright as shown.  This is alright. 
 
4.  Fire Hydrants.  The plan shows three fire hydrants:  one is on the west side of 500 East, one between lots 1 and 4, and one at the east side of lot 8.    The plan actually shows four fire hydrants. 
 
5.  Street improvements.  A temporary cul-de-sac is shown at the east end of the subdivision.
 
A restriction should be placed on the recorded plat showing that lots 1 and 2 cannot have from 500 East because it is designated as a major collector.  Therefore, the setback lines on lots1 and 2 need to be drawn to reflect corner setback
requirements. 
 
Ensure that the right-of-way for 500 East Street is preserved at a 66’ width as 500 East Street is shown on the Master Transportation Plan as a major collector. 
 
There are no street improvements shown on 500 East along lots 1 and 2.  Typically, the ordinance requires the installation of those improvements.  The Commission and Council could consider allowing the developer to enter a Waiver of Improvements and possibly requiring the waiver to be attached to all eight lots as a deed restriction so that in the event improvements are installed at a later time, the full cost of those improvements will be borne by all of the lots rather than only lot 1 and 2. 
 
Sidewalks going east and west in the subdivision are shown with the sidewalk next to the curb.  With this style of sidewalk, the road right-of-way can be adjusted to a width of 60’ rather than 66’.  (See City standards.)
 
Mr. Winkel said it is his intention that all of the homes will face north or south and not face 500 East.  Regarding 500 East being designed as a major collector with a 66’ width right-of-way, he wonders what the City wants him to do?  Each lot turns out to be exactly 1 acre.  If he deeds the City that extra 9 or 10 feet, then that changes.  If he were to give the City a 10-foot easement would that suffice?  The easement would be recorded on their deed so that if the street is developed to 66’, there is an easement for that.  However, Mr. Winkel assures the Commission that a major collector street at 66’ wide is something that is never going to happen.  He has measured every bit of 500 East.  There are so many things sitting in the proposed right-of-way.  The right-of-way is currently 48 feet wide.  For the City to take 11 feet off of each side, it would  take in almost 2000 feet of cement ditch, 4000 or 5000 feet of buried 15” secondary water line, a lot of landscaping, and block or brick fences.  The expense to the City makes it seem that it will never happen.  He doesn’t know how the City would ever be able to afford that. 
 
Greg Bean commented that the City would have to be a lot larger town than it is currently; however, he has seen things like that happen in larger towns.  Gaylen Matheson pointed out that in the 60’s St. George was almost exactly the size of Richfield.  Sunset Blvd. going to Santa Clara would have been a rural road much like 500 East and now it is a 100’ wide right-of-way.    

Mr. Winkel asked again if it is alright to do an easement on those lots and make sure those two lots are setback 40 feet.  Would that suffice for solving the problem on 500 East?  Greg Bean asked what does an easement give the right to do?  Does it allow putting in a street like that?  Mr. Winkel said, it would have to be worded to allow that.  Mr. Winkel said the curb, gutter, and sidewalk expense across those two lots would be borne by all eight landowners, not just the two that have frontage on 500 East. 
 
David Mower points out if Mr. Winkel gives an easement to the City, then the City can use it any time they want to.  It is Mr. Winkel’s opinion that the chance is about .0001% that whoever buys those two lots will have to deal with the City on widening the street.  He says that the City doesn’t have an easement from any property owners on 500 East and so the City will have to condemn and purchase the property for the right-of-way because it is currently in the County. 
 
Chairman Terry said he understands that what Mr. Winkel is saying is that he hopes to handle the easement or right-of-way in such a way as to retain the lot size of 1 acre.
 
6.  Mr. Winkel has indicated there may be a prospective buyer who is interested in purchasing lot 7.  The buyer would also like to purchase a few acres next to lot 7, part of the parcel to the east, for the use of animals.  Section 1703.1 states:   “… accessory uses shall only be authorized concurrently with, or subsequent to, the establishment of a primary building or primary use.”  Animal rights are an accessory use; therefore, the property would have to be combined into one parcel and animals placed only after a home is constructed.  Mr. Winkel may want to consider revising this plat to reflect the larger lot; otherwise, the property will have to go through a subdivision process or possibly a lot-line adjustment to combine the parcels.  
 
Mr. Winkel said he does have a buyer who wants to buy lot 7 plus two more acres east of it.  He was told that will have to be shown as one lot on the plat.  Mr. Winkel wonders if he will have to turn over more water shares to include the extra acreage.  That is a question for Michele Jolley or the City Council.  He said he also has someone who might be interested in a few more acres next to lot 8.  Therefore, the subdivision plat needs to be revised to reflect that.
 
 
   7.  Street signs.  Stop sign and address sign should be on separate poles.    Developer to pay for street signs and address signs.   Agreeable.
 
8 .  Street Lights.  Show street light locations.  One street light to be placed at the intersection and from there spaced every 200 to 250 feet at the nearest property line, on alternating sides of the street.  These are to be installed and paid for by the developer.   Agreeable. 
 
9.  Site drainage.  Site drainage will have to be addressed with the next phase of the subdivision showing retention of water.    Agreeable
 
10.  Offsite drainage/irrigation.  Show piping of existing irrigation and retainage.  Agreeable.
 
11.  Developer needs to consider providing north/south street with the development of the next phase of the subdivision.  Agreeable.
 
12.  Developer to pay for engineering review fees.   Agreeable. 
 
In summary, it appears that the plat map is going to change to reflect the larger lot sizes for lot 7 and lot 8; therefore, this will have to come back to Planning commission next month to review the actual proposed plat. 
 
Mr. Winkel was asked what he will do with the extension of curb and gutter when he adds the additional acreage to lots 7 and 8.  Will he take the temporary cul-de-sac to the east side of the additional acreage.  Mr. Winkel said they will have the access to the extra acreage only from within their own lot and not from the street.  The question is asked then who will put in those street improvements all the way to the east of the subdivision if they aren’t done at the present time.  Mr. Winkel said that would be in his agreement with the landowner.  He doesn’t know if that matters to the City because if his kids in 30 years from now want to extend that street, then we will require curb, gutter, and asphalt down the whole thing.  It was pointed out that it is likely that his kids won’t own the lots.  Mr. Winkel said he wll have an agreement any purchasers that will say that whatever expense is incurred in front of those additional lots will be taken care by each lot owner paying 25% of their frontage and then his kids paying the balance.    
 
David Mower motioned to table this matter because the plat map needs to be revised and there is further research that needs to be done.  Greg Bean seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.
 
Mr. Winkel was reminded that animal rights are allowed only as an accessory use to a residence.  Therefore, a home would have to be constructed before the property can be used for  animals.
 
Mr. Winkel said he would like to go to City council next week to discuss the issue concerning sewer manholes.
 
 
4.    Other Business
         A.  County properties/Cooperative Agreement area.  Gaylen Matheson was given the assignment to see how many County properties around Richfield might have been developed in the area of the Master Transportation Plan over the last two years.  He spoke with the County Zoning Administrator, Larry Hansen.  Mr. Hansen said that everyone has to go through him.  If they are building in the County and not in a municipality, then they check their plans with the nearest City for a courtesy check.  It does sound like Tristan DeMille’s home did not come to the City as far as a courtesy check.  It was checked by Mr. Hansen to make sure that it wasn’t on a master planned road.  When those come to the City, it is to see if the City wants to annex them.  The process has been that if they want to build in the County, then they have to go to the City to see if the City wants to annex the property.
 
Homes being built in the County still come to the City even if they aren’t in the master planned roads.   Supposedly, if the City expressed a desire to annex a property, then the County would not issue a building permit.
 
It appears that DeMille’s is the only home being built that did not go through that process.  However, it does not interfere with the Master Transportation Plan and it could not have been annexed because it is not contiguous to the City limits.
 
         B.  Discuss Planning Commission terms:   Pat Hansen’s and Steve Kunzler’s terms expire at the end of the month.  They have not completed three complete terms because they both completed unexpired terms of previous commissioners.  Pat Hansen said she is willing to stay on for another term.  Steve Kunzler is not present.  Michelle Curtis will contact him.    
 
         C.   Set meeting with City Council.  The Council would like to meet with the  Commission to review some general planning issues.  They would like to meet on January 20, 2015.  Updating the General Plan and Master Transportation Plan could be discussed.  The Commission may want to discuss the possibility of doing a City-wide survey to help with an update of the General Plan. The meeting will be under the direction of the Mayor; however, Commissioners should being thinking of things they would like to discuss.    
 
One of the items causing concern is the Master Transportation Plan and how the developments to the east and the north play into that.  Corey Winkel’s subdivision plan does not provide for north-south roads and it seems like there need to be intersecting roads.  Those kinds of things ought to be known now before further planning of the subdivision. 
 
There was discussion concerning Mr. Winkel’s subdivision and the streets that are proposed there. Some of the concerns are that it appears eventually there will be a road going to the east that is more than 1000 feet long.  That creates safety concerns as far as emergency response, garbage trucks, etc.  It is also seems this is setting the future of the streets that will tie the City with property to the northeast and it needs to be carefully reviewed. 
 
The issue of the Master Transportation Plan is something that needs to be discussed with the City Council.  It was pointed out that there could be other subdivisions come in for approval that wouldn’t have near the impact as the development of Mr. Winkel’s subdivision.
 
 
         D.  Other Items. Kirk Chrisetnsen and Dorianne Christensen are present.  No action can be taken because this matter is not on the agenda.  Mr. Christensen grew up on the east side of Center Street.  He would like to build a home there by his parents home which is east of 700 East.  The property is zoned MD which does not allow the construction of a home.  He wonders if it would be possible to do a zone change for the property. 
 
Kathy Christensen is present.  She is also an owner of property on the east side of the canal.  She said everything east of the canal over to the Glenwood Road will never be Manufacturing.  It is all family homes and farms.  It is thought that the property was originally zoned Manufacturing because this is where the railroad went through. 
 
Mr. Christensen’s proposal would be to change the zone on the property owned by his father, Brad Christensen.  Kathy Christensen would be agreeable to having her property rezoned as well. 
 
There was discussion as to whether or not they would need to let White Sanitation know their plans. 
 
The Christensens also wonder what the requirements would be for them as far as street improvements.   It is likely those would be waived.  It was determined that the Master Transportation Plan shows east-west collector streets are proposed at 200 South and 100 North.  There are currently two homes in this area on the east side of the canal.  The access to the properties would be by private lanes. 
 
There was discussion that it would be difficult to get the fire truck over the canal bridge to these homes.  Kathy Christensen said they can get the fire truck down there, because it has been there before. 
 
Chairman Terry brought up the question as to what happens if in the future someone else does develop this.  Kathy Christensen said if they were to develop this property, they would run the east-west street from 100 North.   She also said that if someone ever wanted to take Center Street through to the east, it couldn’t happen because it would go through the middle of her house.
 
Mr. Christensen said he would try to build his house away from anywhere that it looks like it could be in the middle of a street if streets were to go through at a future time. 
 
They were advised that the process for a zone change would be to hold a public hearing at both the Planning Commission and City Council.  The process takes a few months to complete.    
 
Kathy Christensen said she would consider rezoning hers along with Kirk Christensen.  However, if someone else wanted to build on her parcel, she would have to subdivide in order to put another home on the property.   Gaylen Matheson said if they were to zone it RM-11, then she could put more than one home on her
property.  The caution would be that someone could put an apartment complex on the property if it were zoned RM-11.  They will want to consider that. 
          
9.  Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at 8:45  p.m.
 
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 7th day of January, 2015.
 
/s/  Michelle Curtis
       Deputy City Recorder