Minutes – 7.7.2021

COUNTY OF SEVIER 

CITY OF RICHFIELD

                                                                                    At the Planning Commission

                                                                                    In and For Said City

                                                                                    July 7, 2021

         Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, July 7, 2021, at 6:00 p.m., Chairman Kendrick Thomas, presiding.

1.        Roll Call

2.         Public Hearings  6:00 p.m.

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

                        General Plan and zoning map affecting the property located at approximately

                        645 East 200 North.  The proposal is to change the zone from CS (Commercial

                        Shopping) to RM-11 (Multi-Family Residential).  (Terry Barney)

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

                        General Plan and zoning map affecting property located at approximately 500

                   South 1100 West (parcel numbers 6-14-1 and 6-14-2).  The proposal is to

                        change the zone from RM-11 (Multi-Family Residential) to RM-24 (Multi-Family

                        Residential).  (Arlie Green)

 3.        Action on Public Hearings

          A.         Consider recommending that the City Council approve a zone change at

                        approximately 645 East 200 North from CS (Commercial Shopping) to RM-11

                        (Multi-Family Residential).  (Terry Barney)

            B.         Consider recommending that the City Council approve a zone change at

                        approximately 500 South 1100 West (parcel numbers 6-14-1 and 6-14-2) from

                        RM-11 (Multi-Family Residential) to RM-24 (multi-family residential).  (Arlie

                   Green)

4.         Self-Storage Units

            A.         Review and recommend approving plans for the construction of Patriot Storage

                   Units to be located at approximately 75 East 1300 South (east of Tractor

                        Supply) (CG zone, C-2 use). 

5.         Project Review

            A.         Review and consider approving plans for the construction of an office building

                        and accessory building for the Six County Association of Governments, to be

                        located at 600 North 200 East (CS zone C-1 use).

6.         Other Business          

          A.         Morgan Shaver to discuss possibilities of snack shop at 68 South Main (D zone,

                        P-2 use).  Specific questions about using the sidewalk in front and the alley

                        north of this building for outdoor dining. 

            B.         Gary Leavitt to discuss use of old Zions Bank Building located at 100 North Main. 

                        Proposed use is for student housing which requires changes to the Zoning Code. 

                        Parking to be discussed.

            C.         Sinisha Kostich to discuss use of old church at 300 East 100 North.  Possible 

                        ideas are for a dance studio, banquets/weddings, games (bingo), art school, AA,

                        community center.  These uses would require changes to the Zoning Code.

            D.         Dustin Acord to begin discussion concerning proposed subdivision to be

                        located on a triangular piece of property located between 1600 West and Cove

                        View Road and 2100 South and 2200 South.

            E.         At City Council request, review and discuss adjusting requirements for metal

                        buildings as found in Section 1722 of the Zoning Code. 

            F.         Discuss short-term rentals.

            G.         Discuss dog kennels/boarding in commercial zones.

            H.         General Plan meeting to be held July 14, 2021, at 6:00 p.m.

7.         Minutes Approval:

            A.         Consider approving minutes of June 2, 2021.

8.          Adjournment

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

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

Others present:  Julia Jenson, Roger Barney, Terry Barney, Travis Kyhl, Brayden Gardner, Trent Brown, Dan Farley, Kinsley Jensen, Amy Myers, Morgan Shaver, Dustin Acord, Douglas Nielson, Mary Lou Nielson, Troy Poulsen, Arlie J. Green, Janae Blake, Larry Blake, and Steve Turner. 

Chairman Thomas went over guidelines for public hearings.  If someone wants to make a comment in the public hearing, they need to state their name and comments to be brief at no more than 2 minutes.  The purpose of a public hearing is to receive public comment.  It is not a forum for debating back and forth as an audience.  A public hearing is an opportunity for the public to make comments and present their thinking and reasoning as to why a proposed action would or would not be good for Richfield City. 

Chairman Thomas also explained that the Planning Commission is the recommending body in the case of land use or zoning changes and will make.  The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council.  The City Council will then hold a pubic hearing and make the final determination. 

2.         Public Hearings  6:00 p.m.

            A.         6:06 p.m.  A public hearing was held to receive comments concerning a proposed amendment to the General Plan and zoning map affecting the property located at approximately 645 East 200 North.  The proposal is to change the zone from CS (Commercial Shopping) to RM-11 (Multi-Family Residential).  (Terry Barney) 

Roger Barney and Terry Barney were present.  Roger Barney said the property is owned by their mother, and they are wanting to sell it in case they need to have resources for her care.  They believe it is unlikely that this property will be sold as a commercial property.  They chose the RM-11 zone because it is the residential zone closest to this property. 

There being no comments, the public hearing closed at 6:07 p.m. 

            B.         6:07 pm.  A public hearing to receive comments concerning a proposed amendment to the General Plan and zoning map affecting property located at approximately 500 South 1100 West (parcel numbers 6-14-1 and 6-14-2).  The proposal is to change the zone from RM-11 (Multi-Family Residential) to RM-24 (Multi-Family Residential).  (Arlie Green)

The following public comments were received:

Larry Blake:  Mr. Blake lives in the subdivision south and east of this property.  He is neither for nor against more housing in this town.  He is against this property being zoned at a higher density than what it already is.  He is concerned with crime, property values, and numbers of people.  It is already zoned RM-11.  That seemed to be alright when it was zoned that, so why can’t it stay that way.  The road behind him is practically a racetrack.  A hundred motorcycles and side-by-sides go down 530 South every day.   He thinks about 60% of them never even stop at the stop sign.  He believes there are other places in town that would be more appropriate.  He wondered how many units would be allowed.  He was told the current zoning allows for 11 units per acre.  Changing the zone would allow 24 units per acre.   

Kevin Chappell:   Mr. Chappell lives in this neighborhood as well.  He agrees 100% with Mr. Blake.  He thinks there might be a need for low-income housing.  He doesn’t really know the needs.  He knows at the location of 530 South College Avenue, no one stops at that stop sign except people who like to hear the sound of their vehicle as they come to a complete stop and then punch it to make a noise.  He believes it is a small location with only one entrance onto the property.  That seems like a recipe for trouble if there is ever a fire or other disaster.  The road crosses a canal which seems like a safety concern.   Low income housing also brings with it a lot of other problems, social issues.  This is a location where it is a long ways for people who don’t have a vehicle to get to other resources in the City.  Putting this on the edge of town does not make sense to him, especially for high density.  This is a dangerous location in his opinion. 

Steve Turner:  Mr. Turner lives in this neighborhood as well.  He said Mr. Blake and Mr. Chappell have covered all of his issues.  He has talked with different groups in the valley such as police officers, sheriff’s department, deputies, etc., and they are opposed to this.    The only group he hasn’t talked with is the drug dealers and drug addicts to see if they wanted these apartments.  Talking to the sheriff’s department and the police officers, it sounds like a proposal of changing from 11 units to 24 units per acre could bring that much more crime into the valley.  He is opposed to the proposed change. 

Arlie Green:  Mr. Green is one of the developers.  This parcel was recommended to them by the City Council and other citizens of the community.  It is designated as RM-11.  The reason they are asking for RM-24 is because of the increased cost of labor and construction.  If they can reduce their footprint, then it will help them to provide a better, nicer product.  He and his partners have built apartments in 11 states.  Most of their properties have won awards for energy efficiency, design, and being a great product.  Their intention is not to cause an influx of people moving into the valley.  The intention is to provide a residence for people who already live here.  They have done a market study on Richfield City, and there is a very large demand for apartments.   They do not plan to build it out all at once.  Most likely it would be done in two or three phases.  They probably won’t use the entire site.  They would incorporate the north end as green space because it is on a slope and it needs a lot of grading which is not feasible.

Speaking as to the risk of fire, there are currently two entrances on the site and they plan to place a third entrance.  They fully intend to comply with all regulations and laws and make this project as safe as possible.  Overall, the intention of the higher density is to help curb some of the increased costs in the development world.  It could take two years for prices to go back down, but they won’t go down to pre-covid costs.  Allowing them to build on a smaller footprint, helps reduce costs of infrastructure, curb and gutter, etc., which allows them to provide a much better product. 

This will be an affordable housing development.  It is not a section 8 project.  The average rent would be around $800.  It will not be a place where people can live rent-free.  The average income will most likely be around $35,000 to $40,000 a year.

There being no further comments, the public hearing closed at 6:19 pm. 

3.         Action on Public Hearings

            A.  Consider recommending that the City Council approve a zone change at approximately 645 East 200 North from CS (Commercial Shopping) to RM-11 (Multi-Family Residential).  (Terry Barney)

Greg Bean asked why the Barneys do not want the property to remain CS.  The Barneys said they don’t believe the property is likely to be used as commercial property and they would like it zoned so that someone can buy it and build a home or even apartments on it.  Potential buyers have been limited due to the property being in a commercial zone.    

Chairman Thomas pointed out that even though the surrounding properties are zoned commercial or manufacturing, the area has mostly residential uses.  Greg Bean said he does not like to zone islands.  He would like to see the City change the Manufacturing Zone to a residential zone on the east side of town.  Michelle Curtis advised that the City has hired a new attorney and the City should seek his advice as far as the procedure for a mass-area rezone.

Chairman Thomas thinks this makes sense to zone the Barney property so that it can be used as a residential property.  Otherwise, the property could only be sold to somebody who wants to put in some kind of a shopping business which seems unlikely.  Lisa White pointed out that even though it creates an island on the map, when you look at the existing uses around this property, it would not be an island.  The area seems to be an established residential area.   

Greg Bean suggested the property could be rezoned with the stipulation that the City rezones the surrounding properties that are zoned commercial or manufacturing.  It was felt that this property should be treated on its own merits rather than waiting for an action of the City concerning other properties.  Mr. Bean wants it in the record that the rest of the area needs to be rezoned.

Josh Peterson motioned to recommend that the City Council approve a zone change at approximately 645 East 200 North from the CS (Commercial Shopping) to RM-11 (Multi-Family Residential).  Susan Jensen seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Greg Bean, Josh Peterson, Susan Jensen, Lisa White, Blaine Breinholt, and Wes Kirshner.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously.     

            B.         Consider recommending that the City Council approve a zone change at approximately 500 South 1100 West (parcel numbers 6-14-1 and 6-14-2) from RM-11 (Multi-Family Residential) to RM-24 (Multi-Family Residential).  (Arlie Green)

Arlie Green said with the increased costs of building, and with the property being next to the canal and freeway, it is very difficult to make the project pencil out.  They will have to put in sound mitigation because of the freeway and that means thicker windows, denser insulation, and things to mitigate the noise including landscaping.  Their Intention is to cooperate with the City of Richfield to make sure they have all of the infrastructure in place to create a great product that looks good and help current residents who need something more affordable. There is a bridge across the canal on the north end which they would enlarge.  On the south side of the property, 530 South, they will have two entrances.  Their architect has drawn plans showing that a fire truck could go through the property.   

Greg Bean reminded that the purpose of this agenda item is not to review the project, but to determine if the proposed use of the land is appropriate. 

Josh Peterson asked about the configuration of the property.  There would be a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units.  There will also be a few four-bedroom units.  If the property remains RM-11, the buildings will be two levels because of the cost of construction.  The units would have to be spread out.  With an RM-24 zone, they would look at doing three-story units. 

Greg Bean asked about the street feeding the property (530 South).  It is a narrow road.  How much more development can be put on that before it has to be upgraded.  The RM-24 zone would require a traffic study.  Chairman Thomas said it is likely that the project would trigger an improvement of the road along the property and possibly the box culvert at the canal 

Janae Blake stated that every spring, when the canal is dredged, there are problems deciding where to put the sand.  Where will the sand go.  She was told that would be a decision for the City Council. 

Chairman Thomas said a lot of times there are questions about an increase in crime with these types of projects and asked what Mr. Green has seen with his developments.  Mr. Green said any time you build houses anywhere, whether it is single family through multi-family, you will have an increase in crime.  They have a management company and it is their intent that tenants cannot have a previous record which cuts down on crime.  They really have not had those issues with their other products.  He also partners with a non-profit in their development.  He has seen issues with the non-profit that does a lot of Section 8 properties.    

Mr. Green said as far as traffic, they will phase the project and would work with the City and traffic studies.  They do not intend to cause issues.  They want to create a project that is helpful to the community. 

Their first phase would most likely be 35 to 40 units.  It would not be a huge, all-of-a- sudden boom of activity.  The construction will take 2,3, or 4 years, especially with the scarcity of materials.

Steve Turner said even though they plan to phase the project, they could end up with 175 units.  Mr. Green said he promises they will not be doing that many.  The City cannot support another 175 units.  He believes they might do 100 at the most.  Mr. Turner is concerned with the increased traffic.  Mr. Green responded that would be the point of the traffic study:  to help alleviate traffic concerns as much as possible. 

Josh Peterson pointed out that 530 South is designated as a major collector.  Kevin Chappell said with the motorcycles and side-by-sides that come down the road, adding that many more cars creates a dangerous situation.  Lisa White stated perhaps

this would provide traffic calming.

Terry Barney wondered if Mr. Green and his partners are the developer or will they also be the landlord.  Mr. Green said they will own this for decades.  There were comments that rent is subsidized.  Travis Kyhl clarified that these types of developments are not subsidized.  This is the same product as Eagle View.  The government does not pay anything on their rent.  It is income based.  Mr. Green said he can’t speak as to restrictions at Eagle View, but the average wage restriction for this development will be $35,000 to $40,000.  The average income in Sevier County is $42,000 to $45,000, so wages of tenants in these apartments will not be far below the average income.

Lisa White commented that high density takes a bad rap, but it is needed in the community.  The property’s proximity to the college makes sense.  NIMBYism is real and anywhere they try to put this, it is not going to be wanted.  Blaine Breinholt pointed out that there is not a lot of student housing in the community and the college could grow if there were more housing available.  Mr. Green said this could accommodate student housing.

Greg Bean motioned to recommend that the City Council approve a zone change at approximately 500 South 100 West (parcel numbers 6-14-1 and 6-14-2) from RM-11 (Multi-Family Residential) to RM-24 (Multi-Family Residential) zone.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Greg Bean, Josh Peterson, Susan Jensen, Lisa White, and Blaine Breinholt.  Those voting nay:  Wes Kirshner.  The motion carried unanimously.     

4.         Self-Storage Units

            A.         Review and recommend approving plans for the construction of Patriot Storage Units to be located at        approximately 75 East 1300 South (east of Tractor Supply) (CG zone, C-2 use). 

Dan Farley and Trent Brown were present.  They have been working with the City Council concerning street improvements on 100 East.    

DRC minutes were reviewed as follows: 

                        1.         Sewer and Water.  This will not be hooked onto the sewer.  They will tap onto the main water line on 100 East. 

                        Confirmed.

                        2.         Fire Hydrants.  The plan shows a fire hydrant to be installed at the north side of the property. 

                        Confirmed. 

                        3.         Street Improvements.  Curb, gutter, and sidewalk are required along 1300 South as well as 100 East.  The Council indicated that it was willing to

enter into a development agreement concerning improvements on 100 East.    Details of which improvements are being delayed will need to be specified in

the development agreement. 

                        They agree that they will do the curb, gutter, and sidewalk along 1300 South.  On 100 East, they will do paving and are hoping to enter into a

development agreement with the City Council for street improvements on that side. 

                        4.         Street Light.  A street light needs to be installed at the corner of 100 East 1300 South and another one on 100 East.  In commercial areas, street lights are to

be spaced at 175 feet to 200 feet apart on alternating sides of the street.  Placement of the second light will depend on where CSS Composites will be installing the

street light on their side of the street.

                        They will add the street lights, one at the 1300 South intersection and a second street light about mid-project on 100 East.  It will sit behind where the

sidewalk will go in the future. 

                        5.         Site Drainage.  Drainage will go into the existing detention pond and shared with Tractor Supply.  Provide calculations showing drainage pond is large

enough.  Be aware of existing French drains that go through this property.  They will use the existing pond.  There are calculations for the pond on the top of the

page which confirm adequacy.

                        6.         Landscaping.  Landscape area is adequate at 13,643 square feet which is more than the required 10% of landscaping.  Specify landscape materials. 

                        Agreed. 

                        7.         Trash Enclosure.  Show where trash enclosure will be located. 

                        They do not plan to have a dumpster at this location.  Mr. Farley has learned from his other facilities that the whole community tends to dump in it. 

They will provide a few garbage cans.  They will have an access gate and it will be secure.  However, people follow tenants in when they open the gate.  You

can’t keep all people out.  The City requirement is for an enclosure if there is a dumpster.   

                        8.         Fence.  The fence is shown at 6 feet tall chain link. 

                        A 6’ chain link will go all the way around.  They plan to tie it in with the existing fence on the north. 

                        9.         Elevations.  Elevations are not shown.  The City Council has asked that the Commission review requirements for metal buildings.

                       Mr. Farley showed the brick veneer that he is looking at.  It will be red. They will provide elevation plans.

                        10.       Geotech Report.  Geotech report has been provided.

                        11.       Road Testing.  Jones and DeMille will do the test of the road materials.  The developer will be responsible to pay the cost for that. 

                        They understand the city engineer will be inspecting.

                        12.       Concrete.  Concrete needs to be Class AA (AE) 4000 psi concrete.

                         For clarification, this is for the portion of concrete that is on City property.

            13.       Fees.  Developer to pay impact fees, water connection fee, and fees incurred for outside engineering services incurred by the City.

                        Agreed. 

Chairman Thomas asked if they have checked the radius for fire trucks.  Trent Brown said he will check it to ensure that it is adequate.  Dan Farley said the lanes are all within the International Code.  He has developed another facility and the turn-arounds will be more than adequate.  His other facility actually has smaller turn-arounds and they meet Code. 

He will have approximately 350 units, a total of approximately 50,000 square feet, with a variety of unit sizes. 

Lisa White motioned to recommend approving plans for the construction of Patriot Storage Units to be located at approximately 75 East 1300 South (east of Tractor Supply), as noted, with the discussion of DRC comments, and the sample showing elevations.  Greg Bean seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, Blaine Breinholt, Wes Kirschner, Greg Bean, and Josh Peterson.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously. 

5.         Project Review

            A.         Review and consider approving plans for the construction of an office building and accessory building for the Six County Association of Governments, to be located at 600 North 100 East (CS zone C-1 use).

Travis Kyhl and Brayden Gardner were present.  As last month’s meeting, they were told that they would want to be aware that there could be an old foundation on the property.  They said they have dug several trenches and did not find a foundation. 

The DRC notes were discussed as follows:

                        1.         Separate building permit is requiredfor each building.

                        2.         General Plan.  The property is in the CS zone.  The administrative building is a conditional use.  The weatherization building is allowed under “Public

            Use” which is “a use operated exclusively by a public body, or quasi-public body, such use having the purpose of serving the public health, safety, or general welfare, and

            including but not limited to parks, recreational facilities, administrative and service offices…”.  The public use is a C-2 use.

                        3.         Sewer.  Regarding the lot on the north side of the street:  Be aware that there is a sewer line running north from southeast corner of the property to the

back corner of Intermountain Farms.  They may need to shift the proposed building further to the west or deal with the sewer line. 

                        Plan needs to show where they plan to hook into the water and sewer lines for both buildings.  There are two six-inch sewer connections on 100 East.  They

can bring the water from 100 East.

                        They are aware of the issue with the sewer and they have found where it crosses the property.  They will move the building to the west so that it isn’t

sitting on top of the line.

                        4.         Fire Hydrants.  Fire hydrants are already in place. 

                        5.         Knox Box.  Knox boxes are recommended.

                        6.         Street Light.  Install a street light at the corner of 100 East 600 North. 

                        They will put a street light on the corner.  There will also be six parking lot lights. 

                        7.         Site Drainage.  Show how drainage is retained on site.  Show calculations for storm drainage on both sides.

                        Site drainage.  They need to get the full Geotech report done before they can finish drainage plans.  There will be sumps.  They will provide that to the

           City

                        8.         Landscaping.  Landscaping is shown at 18%.

                        9.         Parking.  The main administrative building is required to have 59 stalls.  71 stalls are shown.  The weatherization building is required to have 11 stalls.  28

stalls are shown. 

                        10.       Trash Enclosures.  Trash enclosures are shown. 

                        11.       Fencing.  A fence is required on the south side of the administrative building.  The weatherization property shows an outdoor area for storage of toilets,

storage materials, etc.  This area needs to be fenced with a view-obscuring fence.  Regarding the fence on the south side of the property, going west on the

property there is a nice white vinyl fence with the corner house, then no fence, and then an old, wooden, half-way tipped over fencing.  They would like to be

able to hook onto the white vinyl and continue it to the west side of their     property.  They would also continue the fence going to the north to 600 North at

their west boundary.

                        Concerning the fence on the north property, they propose a chain link fence with slats all the way around it.  The DRC mentioned that they use that

area for storage of toilets and storage materials.  Even though it says that on the plan, they will not be storing toilets there.  The storage will be for tool

trailers and a few vehicles.

                        The slatted chain link would be on the south, west, and north of the lot.  There would be a security gate to get into the back portion of the property.  The

parking lot and landscaping would be in front of the building with the fence coming off the building, over to the side, and up the back.  Chain link is allowed

in the Zoning Code. 

                        Chairman Thomas stated that the Zoning Code provides that commercial property is to be separated from residential uses by a block wall.  However, the

Code does allow some leeway to accept something appropriate.  Chairman Thomas believes there is more privacy with block vs. vinyl.  On the south side

of the administration building, the parking lot will be used by employees.  It is felt that the purpose for the fence is to provide a buffer which would be different

in buffering from a shopping business as opposed to a business office.  It doesn’t feel like block is necessary to provide an adequate buffer between this

and the residential area behind it. 

                        In this neighborhood, Wes Kirschner owns the car wash across the street and the fence at his property is a wood and vinyl.  Stone Henge, Cedar

Canyon Senior Apartments, and the women’s shelter all have vinyl fences. 

                        12.       Fees.   Impact fees, connection fees, and building permit fees. 

                        13.       Elevations.    Elevations are shown.  The weatherization shop shows a metal finish.  The Code requires a finish other than meta for 100% of the street facing

side and 25% of the sides. 

                        They are concerned with the accessory building on the north side and the requirements concerning metal.  They would like to discuss options to dress

it up and have it match the administration building across the street.  They wondered if they could use materials similar the new Steve’s Steakhouse building which

has metal at the top and stone on the bottom.  It is a good example of how metal can be used and still look very nice.  They do want it to look nice so that it fits

with the administration building on the south lot. 

The Commission feels like the Code needs to be changed as to the requirement for metal; however, the Commission doesn’t have the ability to

waive that requirement until the Code is changed.    

                        14.       Addresses.  Rick will get street addresses from the County.

                        15.       Signage.  Signage to be approved by Rick Robinson.

                        16.       Geotech Report.  A Geotech report is required.

The administration building will face north with an entrance off of 600 North and two entrances off of 100 East.   There will be one entrance into the

accessory building. 

Lisa White motioned to approve the plans for the Six County Administration building and recommends that the City Council approve the accessory building in accordance with the DRC notes, as discussed, noting that they need to provide the drainage calculations, and a vinyl fence to be allowed on the south side of the business building.   Blaine Breinholt seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, Blaine Breinholt, Wes Kirschner, Greg Bean, and Josh Peterson.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously. 

6.         Other Business     

          A.         Morgan Shaver to discuss possibilities of snack shop at 68 South Main (D zone, P-2 use).  Specific questions about using the sidewalk in front and the alley north of this building for outdoor dining. 

Mr. Shaver is going to buy the building at 68 South Main which previously housed Cocomotive.   Mr. Shaver would like to provide outdoor seating for a restaurant.  The sidewalk slopes up to the building and isn’t really suitable for walking.  He wondered if he can use that for seating.  He was told that it is UDOT property and they can’t operate their business on UDOT property. 

Mr. Shaver said he is also looking at purchasing the building at 76 South Main and he might tear down the building so he can have outdoor seating there.  He wondered about building a platform on the sloped part of the sidewalk.  Rick Robinson advised they can’t do that.   

Mr. Shaver was told if he puts in a restaurant, he will not have to come back for approval from the Planning Commission as it is a permitted use in the the D zone.  Except that he may need to work with the building inspector.  Chairman Thomas also advised that in demolishing the old buildings, he will likely need an asbestos report done.    

            B.         Gary Leavitt to discuss use of old Zions Bank Building located at 100 North Main.  Proposed use is for student housing which requires changes to the Zoning Code.  Parking to be discussed.

Mr. Leavitt was not present.  Lisa White motioned to table the matter.  Josh Peterson seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, Blaine Breinholt, Wes Kirschner, Greg Bean, and Josh Peterson.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously. 

            C.  Sinisha Kostich to discuss use of old church at 300 East 100 North.  Possible ideas are for a dance studio, banquets/weddings, games (bingo), art school, AA, community center.  These uses would require changes to the Zoning Code.

Mr. Kostich was not present.  Lisa White motioned to table the matter.  Wes Kirschner seconded the motion.  Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, Blaine Breinholt, Wes Kirschner, Greg Bean, and Josh Peterson.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously. 

            D.         Dustin Acord to begin discussion concerning proposed subdivision to be located on a triangular piece of property located between 1600 West and Cove View Road, and 2100 South and 2200 South.

Mr. Acord is interested in purchasing the property located between 1600 West and Cove View Road, and 2100 South and 2200 South.  A subdivision was approved at this site back in 2005, but it never went forward.  He would like to use the same plan that was approved.  He is considering the possibility of this being a 55-and-older community.  These would be single-level homes, with an HOA, and possibly xeriscaping.   

He would complete the street on 1600 West with 20 feet of asphalt, curb, gutter, and all utilities.  The current owner helped to pay for the improvements that are there.  He would do the subdivision in phases.  Because of the triangular configuration of the property, the plan was drawn with several cul-de-sacs.  Cul-de-sacs create a neighborhood community.  He is thinking about running some kind of wall along Cove View Road to deaden some of the freeway noise. The cul-de-sacs with a 50-foot radius which will allow firetrucks.

Wes Kirschner advised they will have to have a CBU for mail delivery. 

Also, 1600 West street will have to be adjusted so that it enters Cove View Road at a 90-degree angle. 

Blaine Breinholt cautioned him that he needs to check the street on the south side of this property.  Mr. Breinholt believes the water for the golf course comes down that road. 

Chairman Thomas stated that it appears the Commission pretty well likes the layout of this plan.   It looks like he could possibly lose two lots in squaring of the roads.    

Because it was approved over 15 years ago, it will have to go through the review process again. 

            E.         At City Council request, review and discuss adjusting requirements for metal buildings as found in Section 1722 of the Zoning Code. 

The City Council and Planning Commission would like to review and possibly change the regulations concerning the use of metal on buildings.  There was discussion that perhaps the commercial zones should be changed to the same requirements.  It is believed that prohibiting metal was probably not intended to be against all metal, but it’s a certain type of metal look that the City doesn’t want.  Maybe the Code could be changed to say that only non-corrugated metal is allowed. There needs to be parameters and consistency.  Rick Robinson will check with other cities to see what they allow.  Greg Bean said he would do some checking and draft a proposal. 

F.         Discuss short-term rentals.

Lisa White, Josh Peterson, Michelle Curtis, and Rick Robinson met and came up with the following recommendations to be included in the Zoning Code regarding short-term rentals.  Following are their recommendations: 

                        1.         Short-term rentals to be owned only by Sevier County residents.

                        2.         Each household can only own two short-term rental properties. 

                        3.         The short-term licensure is not transferrable if the property is sold. 

                        4.         Must have a business license that is renewed yearly.

                        5.         The City to be divided into three areas and allow a cap of 5%

                                    short-term rentals per area. 

                        6.         RVs cannot be used as short-term rentals.

                        7.         Property to be used as a short-term rental at least one time per

                                    year.

The committee defined three separate areas on a map with each area allowing only 5% of houses to be used as short-term rentals.  The areas are approximate and can be adjusted so the areas have about the same number of homes. 

This proposal is not as strict as some communities, but is tighter than others.  The reason for a non-transferrable use of a short-term rentals is if the 5% cap is met, then there might be a waiting list for other houses in the City waiting to be converted to a short-term rental property.  Therefore, if a property is sold, the new owner should go to the bottom of the waiting list.   

This will be put on next month’s agenda for a public hearing.  

            G.         Discuss dog kennels/boarding in commercial zones.

Michelle Curtis has researched some communities to see where boarding of dogs is allowed.  They appear to be mostly commercial and agriculture, but without being familiar with particular City, it is difficult to tell if there is a buffer between the dog boarding and residential uses.  Greg Bean said he thinks he is against allowing it in the CS zone (Commercial Shopping).  Lisa White feels like there should be a way for there to be animal boarding.  Wes Kirschner agrees but says there are areas designated for it and that is where they need to be.  Blaine Breinholt feels like the current restrictions in the Zoning Code are good and don’t need to be changed.  It is allowed in manufacturing zones, and that is where it needs to be. 

This is the second request to allow overnight boarding in a commercial zone.  The City does have restrictions built into the Code, and although there is a need for this type of business, it needs to be in the right zone.  

It was decided not to do anything at the present time.  The Commission recornizes that there is a need, but is uncomfortable with allowing overnight boarding in downtown areas.  It might be alright to allow it in the CG (Commercial General) zone, but not the CS (Commercial Shopping ) zone.  The Code already provides that anyplace where animals are held shall be soundproofed, and that pens, cages, etc. are 100 feet from any residential structure.   Perhaps it could be allowed in other areas specifying that it is not allowed within a certain distance of noncompatible uses such as restaurants, hospital, hotels, residences. 

The Commission would like to still consider working on adjustments to the ordinance to expand where dog boarding can be allowed and possibly more restrictions when boarding dogs.  It is felt that opening it up and allowing it in CG zones might be the best way to go. 

            H.         General Plan meeting to be held July 14, 2021, at 6:00 p.m.  Because the Commission has been invited to a training meeting with the County, the General Plan meeting will be changed to the regular meeting to be held on August 4 at 6:00 p.m. 

Greg Bean said with regard to the General Plan, even though Bruce Parker has put together parts of the plan, Mr. Bean feels like the Commission needs to meet every month before regular meeting and finish the General Plan and then move on to the Zoning Code.  There was discussion that in recent training one item that was brought up is that if a use is not specifically prohibited in the Zoning Code, then it is allowed.  The Commission would like to try and add uses to the Use Table to prevent running into this problem.  There is a disclaimer at the beginning of the Use Table that states of a use is not described or on the list, then it is not allowed.   The City attorney will have to answer the question as to whether or not that is adequate, although the Commission will still want to enlarge the list on the Use Table. 

Mr. Bean does not feel like Bruce Parker is going to completely finish the General Plan and so the Commission needs to spend a couple of months going through it and work towards finalizing the General Plan.  Michelle Curtis said she believes the understanding was that Bruce Parker would see the City through to the completion of the General Plan.  She will check with Mr. Parker and see if he can attend the Planning Commission meeting next month to review the proposed General Plan.

7.         Minutes Approval:

            A.         Consider approving minutes of June 2, 2021.  Lisa White motioned to approve the minutes of June 2, 2021.  Josh Peterson seconded the motion.   Those voting aye:  Kendrick Thomas, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, Blaine Breinholt, Wes Kirschner, Greg Bean, and Josh Peterson.  Those voting nay:  None.  The motion carried unanimously. 

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

PASSED AND APPROVED on the 4th day of August, 2021.

/s/  Michelle Curtis

      Deputy City Recorder