COUNTY OF SEVIER
CITY OF RICHFIELD
At the Planning Commission
In and For Said City
April 21, 2022
1. Roll Call
2. General Plan
A. Discuss draft revision to General Plan.
1. Roll Call. Roll call was answered by Greg Bean, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, Blaine Breinholt, Wes Kirschner, and Josh Peterson. Chairman Kendrick Thomas was present via Zoom.
City Staff Present: Michelle Curtis
Others Present: Bruce Parker, Patrick Ruiz, and Jacob Black via Zoom
2. General Plan:
A. Discuss draft revision to General Plan.
Bruce Parker and Patrick Ruiz were present. They have been in the process of revising the General Plan. Mr. Parker said he appreciates the comments he has received from the Commissioners and suggested revisions proposed by Lisa White. He wants to especially cover the Future Land Use Map, and Mr. Ruiz needs clarification on some of the suggested revisions.
Mr. Parker said when the Commission feels like it is in its final form, it will hold a public hearing on the document and it will be subject to changes. The City Council will then have a public hearing and it could also be revised at that point. He would like provide to provide final document so that it can go to public hearing. The changes are mostly editorial in nature.
Patrick Ruiz has updated the map based on the edits that were sent to him. Most of the changes had to do with the 300 North commercial corridor. The following was discussed concerning the map:
- The area on the East side of town that is shown as Manufacturing should changed to Commercial.
- Anything already in the City bounds needs to be shown on the map.
- It is felt like anything without the City limits needs to be included on the map.
- The south portion of the proposed map does not line up with the underlying map.
- The area around the freeway is not colored. It needs to be changed so that green and yellow colors touch.
- A parcel by the golf course has been annexed into the City. That should be shown.
- The detention basin will not show a color but will be labeled “detention basin”.
- Airport will be left commercial and cemetery left residential.
Mr. Parker mentioned that anything that happens with the County does not interfere with anything the City has planned. He was told that there is a buffer zone where the County sends any development to the City if it is within 600 feet of the City.
Mr. Parker said revisions can still be made, but this will be the map that will be included in the General Plan for the public hearing.
The General Plan itself was then discussed. There were some places where Mr. Ruiz wanted clarification as to the suggested revisions that were sent to them.
- Pictures of sporting events have been included in the draft. The commission would like to see photos of other things such as “A Field of Stars” and 4th of July events, Christmas tree lane. Lisa White will follow up with pictures. Other suggested pictures are: a picture of one of the new developments such as the south interchange; picture of one of the parks which could have a picture of a sporting or even the park on the 4th of July; airport; ATV jamboree; bike trails.
- Put citations and references with pictures.
- Move the picture on the Moderate Income Housing Section to the demographics or introduction section.
- Regarding demographics, use a map of Utah with a star where Richfield located. It show I-15, I-17, Salt Lake, and St. George.
- Pull the demographics out of the text and represent it in a graphic.
- Remove the graphic representing people.
Mr. Parker said he believes this plan will be one of the best plans in Central Utah. He said when we get to the goal portion, we don’t need volumes of goals and policies because that is self-defeating. We need to have specific goals and that is better than having a list that can never be accomplished.
- Under Land Use there was a notation for historic preservation. Lisa White said it really has to do more with maintaining existing character and maybe not so much the historic character. We want to maintain and increase the vibrancy of downtown and part of that is the history.
- Reference and pictures of mountain bike trails. Carson DeMille would be the contact person for that.
- Page 27 has a caption stating “Multi-use trail following old irrigation canal”. The canal is active and in use and so “old” could be deleted.
- Page 27 “Richfield must communicate …”. The word “must” should be deleted and express that Richfield is a facilitates access.
- The map showing Level of service for open space could show the forestry area on the west side of the freeway as a different color of green and title it Forest Service property. They will also adjust the opacity.
- Conversation bubbles with community comments are too bold. They will be toned down so they don’t overpower the page.
Parks, Rec & Open Space:
- The graph will be changed so that it is ordered lowest to highest or highest to lowest.
- Create a Y-axis graph and reorder the graph so that it makes more sense.
- Designation for city-controlled open space and a designation for open space controlled by other entities.
- Show schools on these maps without the buffer space.
- Make mention that Richfield does have an indoor pool along with residents having a desire for an indoor recreation center as reflected in the surveys that were done.
Moderate Income Housing
Richfield is not required to have this section, but it is so important at the State level, it is an appropriate and proactive step to include it. The 2019 data is shown in the Plan and updated numbers are not out yet. Mr. Ruiz believes 2021 will be coming out in the next few months. Vacancy numbers are probably much lower than what is shown. Bruce said short-term rentals are dramatically shifting housing stock throughout the State. Typically, a short-term rental will show up as a vacancy. Bruce advises we need to continue to monitor as he has seen many communities where nearly half of their housing stock is now short-term rental. The City has already adopted a short-term rental ordinance limiting STRs which is capped at 5% of the total housing in Richfield.
IADUs have been addressed and the Commission is in the process of discussing external ADUs. They will provide a graphic which shows the IADU and another one showing an external ADU. The conversation bubble on this page says “I would like to see more affordable housing for children who were born and raised in Richfield.” The Commission feels like that is an exclusionary statement and so it needs to be removed.
Mr. Parker said the Plan does say that the City could require dwelling units to be inspected by the City, the City’s building official, the fire chief, and Central Utah Public Health to ensure habitability. Is that going to be done for all dwelling units or are we just focusing on affordable housing which comes across exclusionary. Mr. Parker believes that it should be deferred only to the building inspector and the fire chief. These are Code issues and it should say that all dwellings are required to meet necessary codes as adopted.
Mr. Parker said they can have this ready for us by May 15th so that we can move forward to the public hearing process. He recommends that the Commission does not take any action on the General Plan the evening of the public hearing because the purpose of that is to receive comments and then have an opportunity to think about it and see how all of those comments fit. It would then come back to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission for a discussion about what revisions need to be made. Waiting after comments have been made gives the perception that every comment is valuable and will considered.
The Commission would like to see the revised draft before the public hearing.
Mr. Parker said as part of the implementation plan, it could say something like the City is very supportive of providing adequate and affordable housing for all segments of the population. There will be a series of zones that allow for a range of high to low density and we expect the higher density residential to provide the most opportunity for affordable housing.
The implementations table has been started but when we have the public hearing, that will be the way to activate the Plan through a regular review process and also the commitment of the City Council to budget various things and provide resources to do things like improve the trail, fix the canal, whatever it is. There is a schedule and they have identified potentially a general cost and who should be responsible for implementing that action. That is what makes the General Plan come alive or it will just sit.
As far as the Annexation Policy, it does not have to be included in the General Plan. It has not been included in this update but they will have a reference to other policies.
3. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 4th day of May, 2022.
/s/ Michelle Curtis
Deputy City Recorder