1.         Roll Call.

            2.         Approval of Minutes

            3.         Public Hearing:  Sign Ordinance

            4.         Annexation Review:  Levine Property

            6.         Discuss Sign Ordinance.

            7.         Discuss multi-family residential parking.

            8.         Items for Next Agenda

            9.         Adjournment

1.     ROLL CALL.  Roll Call was answered by Blake Zobell, Eugene Beck, Stan Chappell, Sue Southwick, Pat Hansen, and Stan Poulson.    Steve Kunzler was not present.

Others Present:  Building Official Paul Hinrichs, Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis, Lorraine Gregerson, and Will Peterson.

2.     MINUTES APPROVAL.  The minutes of September 3, 2008, were reviewed.  Stan Poulson motioned to approve the minutes of September 3, 2008.  Pat Hansen seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

3.     PUBLIC HEARING.  The public hearing concerning revisions to Chapter 20 of the Zoning Ordinance was placed on the agenda in error.  The matter was tabled. 

4.     ANNEXATION:  LEVINE PROPERTY.  A petition for the annexation of 49.4 acres of property was reviewed.  The Petition was filed by Joseph Levine, Fred and Jeneal Winglaar, and Darren and Lana Barney.  The parcel to be annexed is comprised of approximately 49.5 acres.  It will join the City at the corner of the northeast boundary.  There were no negative comments. 

Eugene Beck motioned to recommend to the City Council that this Petition for Annexation be accepted by the City Council.  Stan Poulson seconded the motion.  The motion carried.

5.     DESERET MEADOWS REVIEW.  Plans were reviewed for the construction of Deseret Meadows of Richfield (assisted living facility) (CS zone – P2 use).  This facility will be located at approximately 125 East 600 North.  Will Peterson reviewed the plans with the Commission.  A similar facility was proposed a few years ago and had gone through the review process with the DRC and the Planning Commission.  Mr. Peterson has received a copy of those comments and believes he has complied with everything other than he has not provided a sign plan.  The street improvements are completed.  He has provided a plan showing elevations and a site drainage plan.  They will use silt fences for dust control during construction. 

This is a short-term stay rehabilitation center.  There will be 30 beds.  People come to a facility like this after having broken bones or surgeries and can stay here for 80 to 90 days.  At that time, if they are well,  they will go home.  If they are unable to go home, they will go to a long-term facility.  The building design is basically the same as that previously reviewed, although this building will be a little nicer with a timber-framed entryway and rock. 

Parking lot lighting will be 12-foot poles with shielded lights.  There will be four of those.  The DRC recommends they should install a City street light on 600 North in accordance with City specs.  They agree to do that.    

The generator will be shielded.  It will have its own enclosure.  It actually sits in a metal shell.   Chairman Zobell said sometimes there are problems when those are close to residential areas.  They are noisy when they kick on and it is bothersome.  It would be advisable to have some type of wall around that to tone down the sound.  That would benefit their patients also. 

There is a road on the west side of the building which goes north to the parking area at the rear of the building.  It is a 24-foot road.  There are two rows of parking stalls which are 20 feet long.  The  roadway between the parking stalls is 30 feet.  On the south side there are two handicap parking stalls.  There are four parking stalls on the west side of the building.  Parking is adequate and complies with the Zoning Code.  They are providing 32 parking spaces.

They hope to start construction in February.    

Landscaping appears adequate.  Mr. Peterson said there is a huge grade difference from front to back.  That will be a little bit of an issue with rock walls.  Lin’s Supermarket is located behind them to the west.  Lin’s is actually higher than they are so they will have to have a retaining wall along the back.   

There will be two fire hydrants.  There is an existing hydrant in the front and they will install one in the back.  There is also a fire hydrant in the back of Lin’s Supermarket.

Stan Poulson motioned to approve the plans for Deseret Meadows of Richfield (a 30-bed assisted living facility), to be located at approximately 125 East 600 North with the condition that the generator is enclosed in some type of structure, either vinyl or block.   The enclosure could be L-shaped and open to the north.  Stan Chappell seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.   

The monument sign will have to be approved by Paul Hinrichs.      

6.     SIGN ORDINANCE DISCUSSION.  The proposed Sign Ordinance was discussed. 

Stan Chappell reminded that last month there was discussion concerning putting in a definition for “event”. 

Section 2015 has a heading for S1 signs, but then the body of the section refers to T1 signs.  The body of the section will be changed so that all references are to S1 signs. 

Lorraine Gregerson, representing the Chamber of Commerce, said she received comments from two business owners and those comments were included in the Commissioner’s packets.  Larry Pearson asked about billboard signs.  Billboard signs won’t be allowed other than the ones that are already existing.  The copy on those signs can be changed they can be repaired if damaged.

Mr. Pearson also wondered about the requirement for scaled drawings.  He is concerned about the cost that may be associated with that.  An applicant wouldn’t necessarily have to hire someone.  It could be drawn on graph paper.  A pole sign would have to be designed, but a wall sign or monument sign probably wouldn’t be that way.

Mrs. Gregerson said the Chamber talked about how to include community events on a banner, but they didn’t have a good idea of how to do that.  Eugene Beck said Section 2019 says the City can erect banners which overhang public property or a public right-of-way.  Because of that, if it is an event that the City is involved in, then maybe that solves the problem. 

Stan Poulson thinks businesses should be able to put something up to welcome an event to the City. Those signs are usually temporary, maybe three or four days.  Businesses need to be able to put those up whether it is for the ATV jamboree, basketball tournaments, or whatever.

Page 4, item 1.1.2. states no permit is required for Holiday signs.  That could be changed to  include events.  Perhaps “community-hosted activities and events” could be added to that. 

Fred Christensen had sent a comment that the Ordinance requires that banners have to be attached to a wall.  It is his opinion that banners don’t hang on a wall very well.  They need to be tied up with something.  The Ordinance will be worded so that banners can be placed parallel to the wall but no more than 3 feet away from the wall. 

Free-standing monument signs were looked at.  It says “48 square feet plus 1 square foot for each 3 linear feet of street frontage over 80 feet and not to exceed a maximum size of 84 square feet.”  Chairman Zobell said a Chamber member approached him and pointed out the hospital monument sign.  Is that too big, too small, or just right?  The Commission thinks that is an appropriate size.  Chairman Zobell advises it is 140 square feet.  It is 7 feet wide by 21 feet.  There is an asterisk over to the side where it says “Planning Commission may exceed these standards on any project exceeding 3 acres in size….”.  It was decided that the asterisk should apply to all categories across the page.  The asterisk will be removed so that the wording applies to all items across the page.    

Page 24 refers to the size of wall signs.  That will be changed to a maximum of 100 feet total. 

The flow charts refer to a review by the DRC.  It seems like that is an unnecessary step.  References to the DRC will be deleted.   

These changes will be made and a public hearing will be held next month and then forwarded on to the City Council.

Lorraine Gregerson wondered about the Main Street improvements and the proposed bulb-outs on the corners.  She asked if the City is going to allow A-frame signs to be placed in the bulb-outs.  Paul Hinrichs said he doesn’t think the City will ever allow those. 

Lorraine Gregerson commented that the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce feels like this is a workable ordinance and appreciates the work that has gone into it and they feel like the Planning Commission has listened to their concerns and tried to come up with solutions to those concerns. 

 7.      DISCUSSION CONCERNING MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARKING.   Paul Hinrichs discussed the Zoning Code as it pertains to family residential parking on page 134 of the zoning Ordinance.  The second item down talks about multi-family units.  That requires 1-1/2 spaces per bedroom.  It was worded like that so that if multi-family units become student housing, there will be adequate parking for students.  Even though a development is built for families, there is nothing to prevent it from becoming student housing.  Therefore, the ratio of parking spaces to bedrooms was adopted.  However, there are some scenarios where multi-housing family units can be constructed and they are governed by the State.  The State requires those units to remain multi-family housing for a long period of time (in some cases, 99 years).  If a project can prove they fall into that category where the apartment cannot become used for students, then 1-1/2 parking spaces per bedroom, is an excessive amount to require.  If there is some guarantee that a complex has to be used only for families the number of parking spaces could probably be reduced. 

There was discussion that the Commission may want to revise the Ordinance allowing the language that if multi-family units are backed up by documentation showing the complex cannot become anything other than housing for families, then the parking requirement can be relaxed to something less than 1-1/2 spaces per bedroom. 

Paul Hinrichs points out projects with that type of funding are very well managed and controlled.  There was a comment that even though most of the families living there probably have only one or two cars, they sometimes have cars parked that don’t run.  Mr. Hinrichs said that would be a zoning violation and could be dealt with under the provision of the Code.

The Commission would like to discuss this.  A public hearing will be set for next month and possibly a proposal made to the Council.    

8.      ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA.  Chairman Zobell updated the Commission regarding the Federal Express project that will be located on property next to the new commercial park.  That was discussed at Planning commission meeting on September 24^th.   The Council met Monday, September 29^th and asked Chairman Zobell to come to that meeting to report on the Commission’s recommendations.  

Federal Express challenged the Commission’s decision concerning the requirement for a block fence.  Federal Express appealed that to the City Council.  Chairman Zobell was invited to report on the Commission’s logic and theory behind it all.  He told them the biggest problem he has with the whole project is when projects are rushed, things get missed when it doesn’t go through the proper channels.  This project is moving quickly.  There can still be special meetings for quick projects that a necessary but he encouraged the City Council to make sure things go through the DRC and through the Planning Commission so that they are reviewed thoroughly.

The comment e-mailed back to the City from Fed Ex was that if Fed Ex is required to install a block fence, that would be a deal breaker.  They had been negotiating with the City for lease of the property, and Fed Ex felt like the fence had never been mentioned or suggested.  Chairman Zobell encouraged them to make sure things go through the proper channels so that promises aren’t made which then make it awkward for the Planning Commission and Council to enforce the requirements set out in the Zoning Code.    

The Council is going to let Fed Ex put up a chain link fence.  If Fed Ex exercises its options and remains there for the 15 years, then the City can require them to put in the block fence if they go beyond 15 years. 

The following will be noticed for public hearing:  The  Sign Ordinance, Multi-family residential parking, and corner setbacks in commercial zones, change side yards in the R1-8 and R1-6. 

9.      ADJOURNMENT.  The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. 

PASSED AND APPROVED on the 5^th day of November, 2008.