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

Others Present:  Building Official Paul Hinrichs, Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis

2.     MINUTES APPROVAL.  The minutes of September 24, 2008, and October 1, 2008, were reviewed.  Pat Hansen motioned to approve the minutes of   September 24, 2008, and October 1, 2008.  Steve Kunzler seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

3.     PUBLIC HEARINGS. 

            A.  ( 7:03:00 p.m.)  A public hearing was held to receive comments concerning revisions to Chapter 20 of the Richfield City Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to signs.  There being no comments, the public hearing closed at 7: 03:37.

            B.  ( 7:03:38)  A public hearing was held to receive comments concerning revisions to the Zoning Code changing required side yards in the R1-6 and R1-8 zones to 8 feet for all uses in those zones.  It was explained this is being done as a housekeeping matter in order to keep side yards consistent.  The public hearing closed at 7:04:05.

            C.  ( 7:04:06)  A public hearing was held to receive comments concerning a proposed amendment to the zoning Code as it pertains to setbacks for corner lots in commercial zones.  This is another housekeeping issue.  Corner lot setbacks are addressed in residential zones and it is felt it should be addressed for commercial zones as well.  It is proposed that corner lots should have a setback of 25 feet from one street and 10 feet from the second street.  As far as determining which street is the front will have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.  The public hearing closed at 7:05:31.

            D.  ( 7:05:32)  A public hearing was held to receive comments concerning a proposed amendment to the Zoning Code (Chapter 19 – Off-street Parking and Loading).  It is explained that this discussion concerns the parking requirement for student housing versus a project that cannot become student housing and is monitored by a State agency.  When the Zoning Ordinance was adopted in August 2007, it was trying to address apartments that might later be converted to student housing and create a parking problem.  The Code requires 1.5 parking spaces per bedroom.  However, if a project is done with certain State funding, it can never become student housing and 1.5 parking spaces per bedroom is too restrictive.  If a developer can prove the project can never be anything more than family housing, then it would be advisable to require an amount of parking that is reasonable for families.  

There is also an issue where the Code only requires two parking spaces for single family dwelling, 2-family, 3-plex, or 4-plex, and condominium dwellings.  The code needs to specify that the requirement is for two parking spaces per dwelling unit. 

The public hearing closed at 7:09:35.   

4.    WILLOW CREEK CONDOMINIUM:  Consider Approving Plat for Buildings 5–8.  Jed Memmott presented the plat for buildings 5-8.  Paul Hinrichs advises the buildings are being done in different phases, but the condominium subdivision is being done in two phases.   The subdivision plat for the first four buildings has been approved and this is completing the project and approving the plat for buildings 5-8.  Jones and DeMille has looked at the technical aspects and Attorney Richard Chamberlain has signed it so this is pretty routine. Nothing has changed as far as the plat.

There was some discussion concerning the detention pond.  Watching how Home Depot’s detention pond has water in it a majority of the time, the developer needs to be conscious of that being a potential problem and the possibility that the detention pond may need to be fenced because of its proximity to school and residential areas.     

Stan Poulson motioned to approve the subdivision plat for Willow Creek Condominiums for buildings 5–8.  Eugene Beck seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

5.    DISCUSS BODY PIERCING.   Consideration is given as to whether body piercing should be addressed as a separate use in the Zoning Code and whether it should be allowed in the Downtown zone.  Camille DeMille and Steve Boronow were present.  They own a business called Be-U Boards at 118 North Main.  Back in the spring, Ms. DeMille decided she would like to be able to do body piercing at the shop because she knows kids want that.  Some of the places they go are not sanitary and they end up with infections because of it.  Sometimes kids do it themselves.  She wanted to be able to offer a clean and healthy environment for kids.  She said she called the City office in spring sometime and was directed to the Health Department.  She went to the Health Department and they came to the store and told her what needed to be done in order to comply with health regulations.  They spent money to create an area in their store where they could do body piercing in compliance with health regulations.  Ms. DeMille has a cosmetology license and went through the process to be licensed for body piercing. 

They did not realize a body piercing establishment is against the City Code because when they asked the City about it, they were referred to the Health Department, leading them to believe it would be alright as long as they complied with Health Department regulations.  This was brought to their attention when a tattoo artist wanted to do tattoos under her license.  She does not want that.  When she realized body piercing wasn’t an allowed use, she contacted the City.  The current Code indicates that tattoo parlors may include body piercing.  Ms. DeMille feels like there is a lot of gray area there.  She believes tattooing and body piercing should be treated as two separate issues and looked at separately.    

Ms. DeMille has only the most up-to-date, state of art piercing equipment.  She only does piercings from the waist up.  She does belly buttons and facial piercings.  She saw a demand for it and a need for it.  She has aftercare.  If someone is younger than 18, their parent must be there, even for an ear piercing.  They can’t fax or call it in.  Their legal guardian has to be present.  That is a State law. 

Ms. DeMille said body piercing is going to be done regardless and she wants to provide a safe environment for it.  Her business will be inspected quarterly to make sure things are clean and hygienic.  Her machines will be checked.  This business is a secondary business to Be-U Boards.  It is in the back of the store.  She doesn’t promote the piercing or try to entice kids to have a piercing.  It is very discrete and professional.  It is very clean.    

It was pointed out that beauty shops do ear and facial piercings.  Ms. DeMille said she is aware of a shop that does navel piercings with a gun and that is unsanitary. 

It appears body piercing should be treated as a separate issue in the Code and not lumped with tattoos.  It is almost like body piercing was mentioned in connection with tattoos as an afterthought.  The other question is whether it should be allowed in the Downtown zone?

Ms. DeMille hopes the Commission will consider allowing body piercing in the Downtown zone as that is where her store is located.  It is clean and healthy.  She doesn’t pierce genitals and would be more than happy to sign anything saying she won’t do that. 

Paul Hinrichs said St. George allows body piercing above the waist as a secondary use.   It also defines body piercing as anything other than ears.  That would require there to be primary business that is a viable, legitimate business that is attractive and productive to the zone where it is located.  There could be restriction on what type of signage and advertising would be allowed.  By making it a secondary use, they could advertise the primary business without the secondary business added on the sign.  Ms. DeMille said she does have a small sign in the window for ear piercing and then in the store she has signs saying body piercing.   The Commission does not regulate inside signs.  Ms. DeMille said she doesn’t want it to appear trashy because she doesn’t want it to deter from the main business.  She does advertise on fliers and in the phone book.  The Commission does not regulate that.

Paul Hinrichs said these changes don’t happen overnight so it would be alright to continue what she is doing until it goes through the process.  The City won’t shut her down while the Commission and Council have time to review this matter and decide how it should be dealt with in the Ordinance. 

Paul Hinrichs said we can come up with some suggested ordinance definitions, having it be a secondary use, limiting the size of advertising to the public on the outside of the building.  The Commission might want to consider allowing tattooing only as a secondary use. 

Ms. DeMille said she really didn’t plan on doing piercings but she has so many kids come in her shop and they are having piercings done and being hurt or risking their health in the process.  She feels like she can offer a safe alternative by being property trained, licensed, and complying with Health Department regulations.  Ms. DeMille said she takes extra precautions like having a Hepatitis B shot, etc.  Mr. Boronow said the positive thing he hears from parents about  piercing versus tattooing is that it is a phase kids go through and then when they are done with it, they pull the ring out and all they have left is a little dot. 

This will be set for public hearing next month.  It will then go to the City Council for public hearing and final approval. 

Because of the Thanksgiving Holiday, the next Planning Commission will be held December 10^th rather than December 3^rd.   

6.    MAGLEBY MORTUARY:  Discuss proposed carport.  Magleby Mortuary would like to put a carport along the north side of their garage at approximately 151 West Center.  This is actually the same carport that was along the side of Ideal Dairy.  The Ideal Dairy building has been torn down and Magleby’s want to attach the carport to their garage which sits into the lot further than the Ideal Dairy building sat.  This will allow them to park their vehicles out of the weather.

Pat Hansen motioned to approve Magleby Mortuary’s request to place a carport along the north side of their garage at approximately 151 West Center.  Steve Kunzler seconded the motion.  Stan Poulson declared a conflict of interest.  The motion passed unanimously. 

7.   ZONING CODE:  Sign Ordinance.   Stan Poulson motioned to recommend to the City Council that they accept the revisions for Signs - Chapter 20 of the Richfield City Zoning Ordinance.  Steve Kunzler seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.    

8.    ZONING CODE:  Side Yards in the R1-6 and R1-8 zones.  The Zoning Code requires side yards of  8 feet for Single Family and 20 feet for all other uses in the R1-8 and RM-11 zones.  The R1-10 zone had a similar requirement and that was revised a few months ago; however, notice had not been published including these other two zones so they were not changed at that time.  Proper notice has now been given. 

Eugene Beck motioned to recommend to the City Council that the Zoning Code be revised concerning side yard requirements in zones R1-8 and RM-11.  The required side yard should be 8 feet for all uses in zones R1-8 and RM-11.  Stan Poulson seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.    

9.    ZONING CODE:  Setbacks for corner lots located in commercial zones.  When the Zoning Code was adopted in August 2007, there was no reference or guideline as to setbacks for corner lots in commercial zones. 

Steve Kunzler motioned to recommend to the City Council that a change be made to the Zoning Code specifying corner lot setbacks in commercial zones can be allowed to be 10 feet and 25 feet on the street sides of the lot.  Pat Hansen seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.    

10.  ZONING CODE:  Chapter 19 – Off-street Parking and Loading.  The Planning Commission has previously held discussion that the chapter concerning Off-Street Parking and Loading needs some changes.  The Code specifies that Multiple Family Units (5 units or more in a building) are required to have 1-1/2 parking spaces per bedroom.  This was done anticipating that some multi-family units might have students living there.  However, there are situations where a multi-family unit development is governed by a State Agency with very strict guidelines that units cannot be used as anything other than family housing, sometimes for a period as long as 99 years.  In that event, 1-1/2 parking spaces per bedroom would be excessive.  There has been discussion that two spaces per unit could be the requirement; however, it is felt there should be some extra parking required for visitor parking.  The number of extra spaces is the question.

This matter is tabled until next month.  The commission would like to look at language for visitor parking.  This will be discussed next month but not be set for public hearing.        

11.   OTHER ITEMS.  As an information item, Paul Hinrichs advised he received a call concerning a house that will be used for a full-time Catholic Priest.  They would like to place a cross on the home.  Mr. Hinrichs told them that would be alright because it is a religious symbol. 

12.  ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA.   Revisions to Off-Street Parking and public hearing concerning body piercing. 

13.  ADJOURNMENT.  The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. 

PASSED AND APPROVED December 10, 2008.

/s/  Michelle Curtis

      Deputy City Recorder