COUNTY OF SEVIER

                                             CITY OF RICHFIELD

 1.   ROLL CALL

1.     ROLL CALL.  Roll Call was answered by Blake Zobell, Steve Kunzler, Pat Hansen, Stan Poulson, Eugene Beck, Sue Southwick, and Stan Chappell.

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

Also present:  Tom Williams, Doug Crowther, John Spendlove, Dr. Lonnie Collingsworth, Tom Rose, Carol Breinholt, Brayden Gardner. 

2.     MINUTES APPROVAL.  The minutes of December 10, 2008, were reviewed.  Stan Chappell motioned to approve the minutes of December 10, 2008.  Stan Poulson seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

3.   PUBLIC HEARING  (7:03:24 p.m.)

        a.  Receive comments concerning a preliminary subdivision application filed by Community Development, Inc., regarding property located at the northwest corner of 530 South and College Avenue, to be known as the Mt. Catherine Subdivision.  There being no public comments, the hearing closed at 7:03:55 p.m.

4.  SUBDIVISION:  Consideration is given to the application filed by Community Development, Inc., regarding property located at the northwest corner of 530 South and College Avenue, to be known as the Mt.Catherine Subdivision.  CDI is represented by Doug Crowther, Tom Williams, and John Spendlove.  Mr. Crowther is with Castle Creek Construction and will be overseeing the actual construction phase.  They would like to divide the parcels into two pieces.  The property consists of approximately 6.951 acres.  They would like to do two projects.  One would be an affordable housing complex of 48 units located on the south portion of the property.  Located on the north end of the property would be a 25-unit senior complex.  By dividing the lot, that would allow them to proceed with the affordable housing project   

Chairman Zobell notes that the main entrance goes along the west side of the property with a fire lane on the east side of the property.  The road on the west will be the main road that services both parcels.  Chairman Zobell wonders if that will be deeded to the City or kept as a private road?  Mr. Crowther said they plan to keep that as a private dirve.  They would do a shared access use agreement between the two parcels.   Paul Hinrichs advises the width of the road is wide enough for City standards from curb-to-curb with no parking on the west side of the street.  The DRC recommended that the street should be deeded to the City.  Paul Hinrichs said the Subdivision Ordinance requires frontage on a public street so it will have to be deeded to the City; however, Mr. Crowther pointed out that Section 805.5 of the Richfield City Zoning Code states as follows:

            All residential lots in developments shall front on a public street, or

            on a private street approved by the Commission and the Council of

            the City.

Mr. Crowther said one of the main reasons they would be the amount of space they have and trying to comply with parking and other requirements.  If they are required to provide 1-1/2 parking spaces per bedroom, then they would like to have a rolled curb that would be adjacent to the road.  Paul Hinrichs said if the street becomes a City street, the curb would probably have to be square rather than rolled.

The developer will not be required to do a sidewalk along College Avenue.  Eventually the bike trail will go along there. 

Stan Chappell is concerned about the maintenance of a private road and people living there who will call the City and expect the street to be maintained.  Chairman Zobell said the people might call the City, but the City would simply tell them it isn’t our road.    If the road is not turned over to the City, then maintenance will have to be done by the property owner.  If it is deeded to the City, then the City would be responsible for maintaining the road and snow removal. 

Steve Kunzler said rolled curb does not separate pedestrian and vehicle traffic very well.  It would be more like a driveway and parking lot than a City street.  He wouldn’t have any concerns about rolled curb if it is just their development because they can take care of their own traffic.  The concern he has is trying to move vehicles from the front to the back of the property.  As a private drive, there isn’t the control that a city street has with a defined curb and gutter.    As far as maintenance is concerned, it would be better for the City not to have to maintain but realistically, will it become a City road in 10 or 15 years? 

Mr. Crowther said If it remains a private road and falls into disrepair, they could lose their funding.  Some of the inspection standards they have to meet will be accessibility and safe passage.  That is first and foremost in their focus.  They will inspect a certain percent of the interior of the units.  A lot of the focus will be accessibility standards and safe passage through the development, especially in the rules for a handicap person.  The handicap requirements are followed very stringently.    

Eugene Beck said it appears to him that the value of the back property is diminished if it appears you have to drive through the parking lot of one property to get to another property.  Mr. Crowther said there will be a separation where there is an aisle of landscaping running the length of that entire street.  The street should be wide enough for two vehicles to go through very comfortably.  It has the same width requirements that a City street does. 

Mr. Beck wondered about the increased hazard with parking stalls along the roadway that could back out onto the road.  Stan Poulson wonders about kids being there with fast moving cars on that street.  Mr. Crowther said they can do things such as speed bumps to control speed so that won’t be a problem.    

There is room for a fire truck drive in and go all the way around the development.  The fire lane has been provided on the east side of the development in response to the DRC’s recommendations.  The turn radius is adequate for the large fire truck.      

Mr. Hinrichs said we haven’t seen a detailed site plan showing parking spaces at 1-1/2 per bedroom.  He wonders if the road remains a private road and becomes narrower, will they be able to meet the required parking.  Mr. Crowther said they have not finalized plans with parking because they wanted to wait and see if the ordinance will be amended allowing them to provide two spaces per unit. 

Mr. Crowther reiterated as far as the road being private, they do have State inspections as well as USDA inspections.  It is a two-lane drive aisle that will go through and there is also the additional egress on the east side of property.  Conceivably it could be set up as two one-way drives.  There are a lot of options. 

Chairman Zobell called for a motion.  The action to be taken on this item iis purely to approve the subdivision of the property.  The site development will be reviewed separately.     

Steve Kunzler motioned to recommend that the City Council approve the subdivision application filed by Community Development, Inc., regarding property located at the northwest corner of 530 South and College Avenue, to be known as the Mt. Catherine Subdivision.  The subdivision to be approved with the street on the west remaining a private street, provided they can show adequate traffic flow.  Sue Southwick seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

5.     HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT:  Consider approving request of Melissa Davis and Dr. Lonnie Collingsworth allowing them to conduct a business called Sono-Stat Solutions at 1752 South 820 West (R1-10 zone).    Dr. Collingsworth was present.  Sono-Stat is a national staffing company but they also have a mobile company for low-cost health screening in the community.  Sono-Stat provides medical staffing for radiology, ultrasound techs, x-ray techs and sometimes radiologists throughout the nation.  Their mobile unit is something they will be implementing here in the next year.  They will travel to people for medical screenings that a doctor orders such as ultrasounds for obstetrics, abdominal, heart, vascular.  He is certified in all of those things.

They do want to be able to function out of the office in their home where they could do ultrasounds.  Particularly, they will be doing obstectrics.  They do 4D ultrasound for expecting mothers.  They want to do that in their home and eventually open an office here in Richfield.  At the current time, it is more economical for them to do this out of their home.  He thinks that might happen within a year.  At this point, he anticipates seeing one to four patients a week, so traffic will be minimal.   Chairman Zobell said even if every OB that is delivered at hospital went to him to have a 4D ultrasound, it would amount to less than one a day.  There were 275 deliveries at the hospital last year. 

He does have room to park the van at his home.  The van will be about 25 feet long.  If it becomes a problem, he has property in Monroe where he could park the van.     

Dr. Collingsworth said he only charges $55.  He can do pre-screening and he has a few doctors who send patients to him for that.  They will send them to him to be checked because a lot of people don’t get tests done because they can’t afford it.  He isn’t trying to compete with the hospital.  Sometimes a person will come to him and he can at least tell them if they need further investigation or something that needs to be checked out.  That is what a pre-screen is all about, to maintain the health issue.

Chairman Zobell points out most of this will be done offsite with a few customers coming to the home.  It won’t be any different than a photographer or a hair salon as far as traffic that is created.    

Stan Poulson motioned to approve a Home Occupation Permit allowing Sono-Stat Solutions to conduct business at 1752 South 820 West with the condition that if it comes to a point where traffic becomes an issue, the business will be moved to a commercial area.  The van to be parked off-street.  Eugene Beck seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.    

Chairman Zobell reminded that Conditional Use Permits are allowed with the understanding that the purpose is to maintain the residential tone of a neighborhood and if there is too much traffic created in the neighborhood, the Conditional Use Permit can be reviewed and revoked. 

6.      ROSE CHIROPRACTIC:  Tom Rose is present to discuss the construction of an addition to his building located at 489 North Main (Rose Chiropractic) (CS zone).  Dr. Rose said he has purchased a piece of equipment that will be exclusive to the area between Provo and Cedar.  It is called a spinal decompression table and it has necessitated him building some extra space onto his office to accommodate that.  He would like to be permitted to build a 12x12 room on the southwest corner of his office.  It actually squares up the back of the building.  He will be able to maintain adequate parking.  It won’t intrude into any parking.  There is adequate landscaping. 

Pat Hansen motioned to approve the addition to Rose Chiropractic building at 489 North Main.  Stan Chappell seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.   

7.     DENNIS JORGENSEN DISCUSSION:  The matter was tabled. 

8.     DISCUSS CHAPTER 19 – OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING:  Discuss visitor parking in multi-family developments (including all housing structures larger than a single family residence).  Chairman Zobell explains this is part of the discussion that was held last month.  As the ordinance currently reads, it could be interpreted that a duplex, 3-plex, or 4-plex requires only two spaces.  It was decided the Code needs to be changed to show that any dwelling unit over a single residential home needs two parking spaces per dwelling unit.  The question has been brought up as to whether those units need to have some extra parking for visitors. 

Paul Hinrichs said when the Commission started talking about the different levels of parking spaces for residential units, it brought up the visitor parking issue.  The cities that do require visitor parking require ¼ to ½ space per unit for visitor parking.  Chairman Zobell said it doesn’t seem like the City has had a problem in the past with visitor parking and his philosophy would be why fix something that isn’t broken. 

Braden Gardner owns apartments.  He said his units have two spaces per unit and he has had three phone calls today from his tenants complaining about someone else parking in their spot and them not having anywhere to park. 

Paul Hinrichs points out it might be more critical on a smaller property than it is on a larger property.  Carole Breinholt manages several properties in town.  She said they are tight as far as parking.  They have just enough parking for their residents.  There is not a lot of visitor parking.  At the senior properties, there are not a lot of cars because the senior people do not have vehicles.  When her apartments are full, the parking is tight.  Glenbrook has 24 units with 29 parking stalls.  She also has a building with 3 parking spaces for four units.  Her units do have some vacancies.  That is not because there are too many rentals available on the market but because of income limits.

Braden Gardner’s rentals are full almost continually. 

Steve Kunzler points out the Armstrong apartments always have people parking on the street.  Mrs. Breinholt said there is not extra parking there.  They do own a vacant lot next to that where they invite people to park.  Most families have two vehicles and sometimes three.    Armstrong has 24 units with 27 parking spots. 

Braden Gardner’s apartments have two parking spaces per unit.  He has a complex with 16 units.  Mr. Gardner said he does lose some parking when he has to move the snow around.    

Steve Kunzler commented it is almost like parking is so specific to each development. 

Chairman Zobell said maybe it really is a developer’s responsibility.  The City can regulate everything to the nth degree or put some ownership on the people who build the buildings.  Steve Kunzler said he agrees with that unless the overflow ends up on the City streets or parking on curb lines or sidewalks.  Chairman Zobell said he just can’t see there has been a huge problem in the City with parking at apartments.  Braden Gardner said he does have problems with his apartments not having enough parking and gets complaints all the time.  That is with having two parking spaces per unit.  Mr. Gardner said if he were to develop another apartment building, he would voluntarily put in more parking to save getting complaints from his tenants. 

Stan Poulson said his opinion is that everybody knows there will be visitors and there should be places for them to park.  They shouldn’t have to park a half a block away, out on the street, where you have to worry about someone hitting into or vandalizing your car.  Chairman Zobell points out that a single family residence is required to have only two parking spots and they have visitors also.

As far as apartments, some of that is a management issue.  If an apartment complex provides three parking spaces per unit and a person moves in who has four cars, then they will have to park one of their cars somewhere else.  That should be policed by apartment management. 

Chairman Zobell maintains that a developer should forecast and anticipate visitors and do their development accordingly.  He asks if a 3-bedroom apartment is required to have 5-1/2 spaces per unit and now we decide to require another ¼ space, are we going to make them have six spaces or lessen required 5-1/2 spaces per unit? 

Chairman Zobell called for a motion and said if there is not motion, then the matter will be tabled. 

Stan Chappell said most of the time people come in asking for a reduction in the parking requirement.  Steve Kunzler said that is partly because of the cost.   He wonders what the Planning Commission’s role is as far as its responsibility to ensure a developer provides enough parking.  Stan Poulson thinks the Commission’s role is to make sure that if a development is large enough, then they ought to have enough spaces for visitor parking.

Braden Gardner said his complexes all have two spaces per unit and if ¼ space per unit was required, that would be enough and that isn’t asking very much. 

Mr. Crawford said in his experience developing throughout three states, most cities require two spaces per unit plus just a fraction above that to provide visitor parking.  He said a lot of jurisdictions will address things like senior housing or assisted living care very specifically.  Those are usually quite reduced and then they graduate up from there depending on the use.  

Stan Poulson motioned the parking Ordinance should be amended requiring an extra ¼ parking space per unit for visitor parking.  This shall be required for apartment units of over 5 units.  A 4-plex or anything smaller will be required to have two spaces per unit.  Anything larger than a 4-plex will be required to have 1-1/2 parking spaces per bedroom plus ¼ parking space per unit for visitor parking.  Sue Southwick seconded the motion.  Those in favor:  Stan Poulson, Stan Chappell, Sue Southwick, Pat Hansen, Eugene Beck, Steve Kunzler.  Those voting against:  Blake Zobell. 

There was discussion that this change won’t affect the Mt. Catherine development because they have already filed an application. 

Sue Southwick asked Mrs. Breinholt Carole about her vacancy rate.  Mrs. Breinholt said for the past five years they have been running at least eight vacancies at a time.  She has 24 units.  There are a lot of factors for the reason why that is.  They operate under a Section 8, HUD subsidy rental assistance.  They have to meet the income limits of Sevier County.  If a person makes $8.50 an hour, they wouldn’t qualify to live there because they make too much money.  There are criminal and credit background checks.  She says because so many people have a drug history, they turn down renters 50 to 1.  The drug history goes back 15 years.  A sex offender can never rent from her.  Then because of the economy, a lot of people are living at home with parents.  People think of affordable housing as free.  It is not.  Affordable housing is based on income.  In Richfield conventional housing is very affordable but even at that, people have a struggle. 

The Mt. Catherine development will actually fall somewhere between Mrs. Breinholt’s low-income housing and conventional rentals, although it will be in competition more with conventional rentals.  The Mt. Catherine rents will graduate according to income levels.  They will also have to meet the credit and criminal background checks.

9.     ITEMS FOR NEXT AGENDA.   Dennis Jorgensen.  Parking Ordinance.

10.  ADJOURNMENT.  The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 4^th day of February, 2009.

/s/  Michelle Curtis, Deputy City Recorder