COUNTY OF SEVIER  
CITY OF RICHFIELD
 
At the Planning Commission
In and For Said City 
July 5, 2017
 
 
Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, July 5, 2017, at 6:00 p.m., Chairman Brion Terry, presiding.
 
1.   Roll Call
2.   Minutes Approval:  Consider approving minutes of June 7, 2017
3.   Conditional Uses:
      A.  Consider approving a Conditional Use Permit allowing New Life Recovery 
           to operate an adult drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility located at 1180 
           South Cove View Road (old Topsfield lodge property ) (C-1 use, CS 
           zone).
      B.  Consider approving the Jorgensen’s request for approval of the 
            construction of buildings to be used as a shop, trailer repair, and storage 
            building at their property at 980 South Cove View Road (C-1 use, CS 
            zone).  
4.   Subdivision:
      Review and discuss Tooter Ogden’s concept plan for Ideal Acres Subdivision
      to be located in the northeast area of the City. 
5.   Zoning Code:
      Discuss VRBO and Bed and Breakfasts to be located in residential zones, 
      and conditions that could be imposed if they are allowed.
6.   Other Business  
7.   Adjournment   
 
 
 1.  Roll Call.  Roll call was answered by Brion Terry, Steve Kunzler, Jeff Albrecht, Monte Turner, David Mower.  Greg Bean was excused.    
 
City Staff Present:   Zoning Administrator Gaylen Matheson and Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis.    
 
Others present:  Tooter Ogden, Stewart Shaver, Craig Conder, Mike Jorgensen.
 
2.   Minutes Approval.   The minutes of June 7, 2017, were reviewed.   David Mower motioned to approve the minutes of June 7, 2017.  Steve Kunzler  seconded the motion.  The motion carried.  Those voting aye:  Brion Terry, Steve Kunzler, Jeff Albrecht, Monte Turner, David Mower, and Lisa White.  Those voting nay:  None.  
 
Commission member Lisa White arrived.  
 
3.   Conditional Use:
      A.  New Life Recovery:  Consideration is given to approving a Conditional Use Permit allowing New Life Recovery to operate an adult drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility located at 1180 South Cove View Road (old Topsfield Lodge property ) (C-1 use, CS zone).  Stewart Shaver represented the Petitioner.  
 
Mr. Shaver read comments that were provided by the developer.  New Life Recovery plans to lease the building located at 1180 South Cove View Road.   It will be an adult drug and alcohol rehabilitation center.  They intend to treat those from the local area.  Because incarceration has very little affect on addicts, a new paradigm is now being pushed and that is toward treatment.  
 
They plan to have both in-patient and out-patient services.  Services will include therapy for the individual, groups, and family members.  Life skills will be taught.   Room and board will be available to in-patient residents.  They will live at the recovery center for a certain amount of time.  Time is determined on a resident’s ability to pay and also their progression within the program.  In-patient is so important because there will always be someone there to talk with.  The facility will have staff available 24/7.  
 
In the beginning, there will be licensed social workers to treat all residents.  In the future New Life Recovery will also contract with psychologists and psychiatrists.  This will give residents the best chance for a long-lasting recovery that they will not receive being in jail or prison.  
 
The goals of New Life Recovery are to rehabilitate the resident, reintroduce them their family structure where they can contribute rather than take, and help get as many possible addicts off the streets of Richfield and surrounding areas.  
 
The building is owned by Kiran Patel.  New Life Recovery will lease the property from him.  This is a new venture.  David Owen and Ferron Taylor will be co-owners.  It is not associated with other “New Lifes” that are found on the internet.
 
It is felt that the use can be allowed under Residential Facility for Persons with a Disability as a C-1 use.    
 
Notes from the Development Review Committee indicate that street improvements on Cove View Road cannot be required because there is a narrow strip of property owned by Rick and Jay Anderton.  The strip lies between this property and the street.  The strip of property is 40 feet wide on the south end and 15 feet on the north end.  It is not a buildable property.  
 
The DRC has also recommended accepting a waiver of improvements for the back portion of this property along 400 West.
 
Recently the property to the north was split into two lots.  They weren’t required to do street improvements on Cove View Road and they signed a Waiver.  The Waiver was entered because the whole roadway would have needed to be designed and lifted.  That would be the same justification here although there would be a question as to whether this property owner or the Andertons would need to sign the Waiver.    
 
There is concern as to whether they really have access to this property.  The driveways to this property cross the Anderton property in two places.  Mr. Shaver said the Andertons have not tried to inhibit access.  He spoke with City Attorney Richard Chamberlain and Mr. Chamberlain said the Andertons could not stop ingress and egress because it has been there so long.    
 
David Mower asked why the Commission is reviewing this when the property owner is not present.  Mr. Shaver said he represents both the property owner and the proposed lessee.  
 
The Commission feels like that before going forward with this project, the property needs to be surveyed to see exactly what is owner by this property owner and what is owned by the Andertons.  It is possible that some of the Anderton property is actually within the street right-of-way.  This property owner ought to approach Andertons one more time to see if they are willing to sell this strip for a reasonable price.
 
Mr. Shaver said if the project is approved, they plan to remodel the building in stages. A hard surface would be required for the parking lot.  It would be hard to go from the paved street, across the Andertons’ gravel strip, and then to the paved parking lot.  Mr. Shaver said if it turns out that this owner is able to purchase the property from Andertons, then the problem will be solved.  
 
Mr. Shaver advises they are waiting for the State people to come and inspect.  He suspects that the State will have them remodel the building to a greater extent than they had hoped.  Gaylen Matheson said that the building code will kick in some things for that kind of occupancy.    
 
Mr. Shaver asked what is the definition of a hard surface that is referred to by the DRC?  He was told that is asphalt or concrete.
 
It is recommended that they get a survey so that they know exactly where the Andertons own.    
 
David Mower motioned to table the issue.  Monte Turner seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.  Those voting aye:  Brion Terry, Steve Kunzler, Jeff Albrecht, Monte Turner, David Mower, and Lisa White.  Those voting nay:  None.  
 
 
B.  Jorgensen Honda Addition.   Mike and Dennis Jorgensen are asking for approval of the construction of buildings to be used as a shop, a trailer repair shop, and storage building at their property at 980 South Cove View Road (C-1 use, CS zone).  Mike Jorgensen and Craig Conder were present.  These buildings will be constructed towards the northwest end of the existing building.  
 
Brion Terry pointed out that in looking at the surrounding properties, he is concerned about access to properties behind the Jorgensen property.  It looks like those properties, which are currently farm fields, could become landlocked without careful planning.  He has a concern that if this new addition extends too far to the west, then it would inhibit 300 West from being able to extend south through there.  
 
Craig Conder expressed his opinion that the properties wouldn’t truly be landlocked.  If the properties are ever developed, they could be accessed from 800 South or possibly 400 West and it could have cul-de-sacs.  
 
It was suggested that Jorgensens visit with the property owner behind them and see what thoughts they might have as to how they would develop roads through their property if to decide to develop at a future time. 
 
Mike Jorgensen said he is willing to listen to suggestions, but the property they are developing is Jorgensen’s, not the neighbors.  He isn’t sure that access to adjoining property should be placed on him.  There was discussion that if a street isn’t on the Master Transportation Plan, then the City really can’t force the issue.   
 
Mike Jorgensen said he agrees it would be a good idea to talk with the neighbor and let him know what Jorgensens plan to do.  Depending on what the neighbor has in mind, that could change his options and what he might want to do.  
 
Craig Conder explained the site plan.  The addition is parallel to the existing shop.  The offices will be moved out of the existing structure and into the front part of the new addition.  That will stop the traffic pattern that currently goes through the alleyway between existing building and the old county building which is used as a show room.  
The old county building will remain and a breezeway will be built between it and the existing building.  
 
As the new addition goes toward the west, it will need to be set off from the property line a distance of 10 feet.  At the rear, the very back should be 20 feet from the property line. 
 
The two new buildings are separated where there will be a cement culvert drain line for water to drain to the water collection box on the south side and the dry sump area on the north side.  
 
The east end of the new building will be cinder block and rock with the second building being metal siding.  A portion of the metal building will be for storage and a trailer repair shop.  
 
Freight trucks will enter from the north side of the old county building to go to the back portion of the property.  
 
They are working with Rocky Mountain Power for underground power to service the new buildings.  There will be security lighting.  It will be gated and closed off at night.  
 
Parking was addressed.  Will this expansion free up some parking so that cars parking at the bowling alley can slide over and not be parked so close to the road.  If they could incorporate some parking on the north of their building, perhaps they could have parallel parking along the front.  Mike Jorgensen said this addition will improve their employee parking and also free up some public parking areas.    
 
A good percentage of the surface will be asphalted.  There is gravel that is very solid, but they will pave most of it. 
 
Mr. Jorgensen said he will visit with the neighbor and then come back to Planning Commission to report.  Their plan will also show the amount of parking that will be paved and show the placement of downcast lighting.  
 
Lisa White motioned to table Jorgensens’ request pending more information and details.  Jeff Albrecht seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.   Those voting aye:  Brion Terry, Steve Kunzler, Jeff Albrecht, Monte Turner, David Mower, and Lisa White.  Those voting nay:  None.  
 
4.   Ideal Acres Subdivision.  Tooter Ogden requested that the Commission review a  concept  plan for the development of Ideal Acres Subdivision to be located in the northeast area of the City.  This project was reviewed in 2013.  His first proposal at that time showed accessing the subdivision from 750 East Street.  It was felt that the bridge located at 700 North 750 East had an awkward angle to it and was not adequate to handle the excess traffic that would be created by a subdivision.  Therefore, the plan was revised with the subdivision being accessed from 700 East Street.  That would have required the installation of a culvert to cross the Cottonwood Wash.  There had been discussion about possibly vacating 750 East Street.  
 
Since that time, the County has replaced the bridge and also asphalted a portion of 750 East Street.  Because of this, Mr. Ogden would like to see if his original plan is now acceptable.  He would like vacate the 700 East Street easement and use 750 East as the access for this subdivision.   With the vacation of 700 East Street, he would provide a utility easement for sewer to cross south under the wash to join the sewer on 700 East.  
 
Also previously discussed is the placement of an existing power line that runs along 750 East.  Mr. Ogden said his proposal will place the power poles in the mow strips along the frontage
 
The concept plan shows that only the east portion of 800 North will be developed with the first phase of the subdivision.  The west end will not be developed as it ties in to 600 East; however, it is somewhat of a roughed-in road that could be road based so that there could be a way to get out of the subdivision if the east end were blocked.  
 
The plan also shows a street going to the north (approximately 675 East).  There would need to be a temporary gravel turn-around at the end of that street.   
 
750 East should be a 60-foot cross section.  The Thalmans have built a home across the street from this subdivision and have already deeded their portion for the street right of way.  Chairman Terry reminds that Tim Christensen’s major concern was that Tooter would not be able to give up 15 feet on his side for the road right-of-way because of the power line, and so Mr. Christensen would have to give up more than his share for the road.  Mr. Ogden said he will buy the remainder portion that he needs from Tim Christensen.  The power poles cannot  be moved.  He has been told it would cost him more than $100,000 to move a pole.  
 
As far as a time-frame for doing the subdivision, if he can get some direction as to what the Commission will approve, he can go forward.  
 
This subdivision plan leaves a piece of property between the south side of the subdivision and the Cottonwood Wash.  Mr. Ogden was asked how that property would be accessed in the future?  He responded that if he ever develops that property, he will plan to pipe the Cottonwood Wash or see if the City will join in that.  
 
The concept shows a 40-acre parcel of property and the way that it could be subdivided.  Mr. Ogden does not own the entire parcel.  Half of it is owned by his cousin Jeff Ogden.  Jeff Ogden has seen the plan and agrees that the way it is plotted is a good plan, but he is not interested in pursuing subdivision of his property at this time.  
 
It appears this concept is going to be acceptable.  Mr. Ogden will go forward with  a preliminary plan to be considered by the Planning Commission.  Mr. Ogden was told that the subdivision will have to be published in the newspaper so he needs to turn in his documents about three weeks before Planning Commission meeting.  
 5.  Zoning Code:  
A.  Discuss VRBO and Bed and Breakfasts to be located in residential zones, and conditions that could be imposed if they are allowed.  
 
Chairman Terry reminded that last month the Commission was approached by a resident asked about turning her home into a VRBO and allowing people to stay at her home while her children are there.  It is not addressed anywhere in the Zoning Code or Ordinances.  He has discussed this with the City Council since last month’s meeting.  The Council thinks it would be a good thing to address.  This will be put on next month’s agenda.  It will require a public hearing.  There was discussion that this could be allowed under home occupations as a C-1 use so that the Planning Commission would be able to placed conditions on a proposed VRBO.  Some of the issues to be discussed would be parking, noise, and occupancy numbers.   
 
6.   Other Business:
      A. Austin and Rosaline Spencer were present.  They said property next to their home is a rental property.  They would like to have some privacy in their back yard; therefore, they would like to build a fence taller than 6 feet high.  This can be allowed by the Planning Commission.  The property slopes in the back yard.  They have a 6-foot high fence, but when they do a patio, the neighbors will be able to see right down into their yard.   
 
The Commission does believe this can be approved.  It will be put on the agenda for next month’s meeting.  The Spencers were asked to bring a letter from the next door property owner saying that they agree with the taller fence being built.   The fence will be 8 feet tall. 
 
     B.  The next Planning commission meeting will be held on July 19th at 7:00 p.m. to go over proposed changes to the General Plan
 
     C.  There was no other business.  
 
7.  Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at 8:55
 
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 6th day of September, 2017.
 
/s/  Michelle Curtis
      Deputy City Recorder
 
 

Richfield City Corp

75 East Center

435.896.6439