CITY OF RICHFIELD

                                                               At the Planning Commission

                                                               In and For Said City

                                                               March 4, 2009

            Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, March 4, 2009, at 7:00 p.m., Chairman Blake Zobell, presiding.

1.    Roll Call

2.    Approval of Minutes 

3.    Review and consider recommending approval of an

       Annexation Petition filed by Tooter Ogden. 

4.    Review and consider approving Holiday Inn signage.

5.    Consider approving plans for patio to be built at the Detour

       Lounge at 900 South Cove View Road.

6.    Dennis Jorgensen to discuss use of room addition.

7.    Discuss Sign Ordinance as it pertains to secondary wall signs.

8.    Discuss establishing standards for transient businesses.

9.    Discuss standards for sidewalk sales.

10.  Items for next agenda. 

11. Adjournment.

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

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

2.   Minutes Approval.  The minutes of February 4, 2009, were reviewed.  Stan Poulson motioned to approve the minutes of February 4, 2009.  Steve Kunzler seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

3.   Review and consider recommending approval of an Annexation Petition filed by Tooter Ogden.     Consideration is given to recommending approval of an Annexation Petition filed by Tooter Ogden for property located at approximately 750 North and 700 East.   The property is contiguous to the City limits. 

Steve Kunzler motioned to recommend to the City Council that they approve Tooter Ogden’s Annexation Petition concerning property located at approximately 750 North 700 East as described on the Annexation Petition.   Pat Hansen seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

4.  Review and consider approving Holiday Inn signage.  Holiday Inn is requesting three wall signs.  Paul Hinrichs advises the Holiday Inn site is over 2 acres.  The Sign Ordinance allows only two wall signs; however, if the site is larger than 2 acres, the Planning Commission can approve additional signs.  This is a matter of procedure if the Commission members are all in agreement that Holiday Inn should be allowed to have three wall signs.  He also advises the hotel is not doing the pole sign shown on the plan.

Pat Hansen motioned to approve three wall signs for the Holiday Inn on North Main.   Sue Southwick seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.

5.  Consider approving patio to be built at the Detour Lounge at 900 South Cove View Road.  Dave Kunz was present to discuss plans to construct a patio at the back (southwest) corner of the building.  He would like to put up a 5-foot block wall.  There would then be chain link or some kind of trellis on top of the wall up to a height of 8 feet.  There will be a metal roof over the top so that it is enclosed.  A person won’t be able to get in there from the outside, but it will be open to the air.  He said customers who smoke go outside and smoke right out the door and block traffic.  He would like to have a place for them to go.  There will be no access from the outside.  They will have to go through the building in order to get out to the patio.  

Stan Chappell said he is concerned about someone being inside of there and not being able to get out, although he can understand why they don’t want people coming in that door.  It sounds like the patio is alright if it meets Code and doesn’t need to have an emergency door with an alarm on it.  Paul Hinrichs said there is a door that is close on the inside of the building that goes out and that will keep them within the Code.  There are three exit doors out of the main building.    

Sue Southwick motioned to approve the construction of a patio to be built at the Detour Lounge at 900 South Cove View Road.  Steve Kunzler seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.    

6.  Dennis Jorgensen Discussion.   Dennis Jorgensen was invited to Planning commission to clarify the intended use of the two-story room addition currently under construction  at his home at 1245 West 1650 South. 

Mr. Jorgensen said he is confused as to why he should have to appear before the Commission.  Mr. Hinrichs said it is basically because he and members of the Planning Commission and City Council have heard all kinds of stories about the addition.  They have heard that it is going to be an athletic club or an aerobics studio.  When the contractor came in for the building permit, he told Mr. Hinrichs it was a family gathering place.  As the addition nears completion, it does appear that it is some type of fitness facility.  Mr. Hinrichs would just like to put the rumors to rest as to what Mr. Jorgensen’s plans are.

Chairman Zobell said if Mr. Jorgensen is to have some type of business there, then he needs to go through the process for a Home Occupation Permit and business license. 

Mr. Jorgensen said they haven’t planned to do a home occupation business yet.  The addition is not going to be a public facility.  He doesn’t want it to be a public facility.  He doesn’t want people in his house.    

Chairman Zobell said he thinks one reason for the confusion is that the Jorgensens had gone through the approval process for the construction of a fitness center near the golf couse.  That has not gone forward and then shortly thereafter, everyone saw the big building at his home and wondered if he was just planning to move the fitness studio over to his home instead.   Mr. Jorgensen said the other project hasn’t stopped completely.  He is still planning on doing that, but just not at the present time.

Mr. Jorgensen asked what he would be allowed to do if he decided he wanted to do something like that.  What are the rules?  Mr. Hinrichs told him he couldn’t have any employees and he couldn’t have any type of business that would disrupt the neighborhood.  (It was later corrected that he can have one employee, but that would make it a major home occupation rather than a minor home occupation.)  Mr. Hinrichs said there are a lot of home-based businesses around, most of which are just offices where they use their home for a mailing address.  Mr. Jorgensen made the comment that he knows of dance studios in town that operate in garages and he wonders if the City is alright with that?  When he goes to dance recitals, it seems like there are two or thee hundred students, so he doubts they go to classes only two or three students at a time.    

Chairman Zobell said there are a number of things he could do and those are all in the use table.  The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is so that a person can show what they are doing and then the Commission can let that person know what conditions are allowed.  That way, if the City receives complaints, the applicant can come back to the Planning Commission to see how a problem can be corrected.  If a person begins conducting a home occupation without a Conditional Use Permit and then the neighbors complain, the only solution is to tell them to cease operating the business.  This is just an avenue to work things through. 

Mr. Jorgensen asked if he needs a permit for his employees from the store or his family to use the room.  He doesn’t need a permit for that.  If he decides to do personal training or aerobics classes, then he needs a permit.     

Mr. Jorgensen said to put the rumors to rest, he is not opening a commercial facility at his home.  That is not his intent.  If he decides to do something along that line, he will get a conditional use permit. 

7.   Discuss Sign Ordinance as it pertains to secondary wall signs:  Chairman Zobell said there may be something the Commission should think about.  What brought this up was Aron’s Rents which is coming in.  It has the main Aron’s Rents sign on the building, but then their plan showed 18” letters above their windows which say “Electronics,” “Computers,” “Furniture,” “Appliances.”  Under the current ordinance, those wouldn’t be allowed.  If they put an awning over those windows, then they could attach the letters to the awnings or even put the lettering on the windows.  He would like to open that up to discussion.  It might be one of those things that was overlooked when the Sign Ordinance was adopted.  It seems like there isn’t a lot of difference between putting letters on the window, an awning, or the building.  The Commission might want to put some restrictions on how much lettering and how large the letters are going to be so letters aren‘t tattooed over the whole building.  This type of sign could fall under a definition called “secondary signage.” 

Stan Chappell commented that you would think a business owner will want their building to be attractive.  Would they really stick letters all over?  Won’t they be conscientious about how the customer perceives them?  The Commission needs to be careful and try not to micromanage the development of a business.  Most developers will make their business or building attractive for the type of customer they wants to bring in.  Maybe they need to be given some leeway.

Chairman Zobell agrees the City should help businesses have every economic ability to be successful.  But to leave it wide open for a business owner’s interpretation of what is attractive and good for their business could be a little bit dangerous.  While the Commission and most businessmen understand what is good advertising, a person might think another business seems to be doing better than theirs, so they think if they put up twice as many signs it will help.  There should be some reasonable parameter; otherwise, it leaves the door totally wide open.

Stan Poulson arrived. 

Steve Kunzler said it seems like the majority of complaints about signs in the past  had more to do with the temporary signs and banners.  There really aren’t any buildings where the sign that is affixed to the building is too obtrusive. 

Chairman Zobell said he can understand why a business would want signs that would falled under the category called “secondary signs.  For instance, Ogden’s has their main big sign, but they might want people to know they carry the Maytag brand or Whirlpool brand.  If they asked for a permit to put those extra letters on the building, that would not permitted.  It seems like that is really tying their hands.  People need to be able to know what is in the store.  They need to be able to advertise without taking up the whole store front.  Most business owners realize more does not always mean better.  If there is too much there, the message gets lost in the clutter.  It doesn’t make sense they would be allowed to put letters on the window but not on the building.  He would rather see lettering on the building rather than on the window because it can take up the whole window.  As far having lettering on awnings, the awnings look great for the first five years, but then they get weathered and they don’t always get replaced.    

Dennis Jorgensen asked if it could be based on committee approval or is that too open?  Chairman Zobell said that would be fine if it was always the same group of people on a committee.  But it becomes a problem when there is a committee that is more liberal, and then the next one is more restrictive.  Then someone comes back and wants to know why someone else got to do something.  There really need to be parameters.

Mr. Jorgensen talked about a banner he put up and was told to take down.  He thinks there are banners all over town that are hanging on poles.  His banner did not detract and was not in disrepair, but he had to take it down.  All he was trying to do is bring tax dollars into town.  He got a letter from Charles Billingsley, Zoning Enforcement Officer.   Mr. Hinrichs explained there was such a problem with banners before and that is why the Sign Ordinance was written the way it is concerning banners.  There were banners everywhere and they were in the site triangle and really a problem.   Before the Sign Ordinance was adopted, there were so many banners around town that weren’t take care of or maintained.  They were tied off inappropriately. 

There was discussion as to whether or not there is something that could be changed in the Ordinance concerning banners.  Chairman Zobell made the comment that in Orem, they take their banner to the City Office and it is stamped with a date.  They can leave it up for 30 days.  They then have a “banner policeman” who goes around and checks the dates and if it has been up longer than 30 days, he just takes it down. 

The question was asked whether or not it is allowed for the school to put a banner advertising a dance or activity on a school bus and parking the bus it in a parking lot.  Mr. Hinrichs said that is allowed under temporary signs for temporary events.  They can only be up for a very short amount of time.  Again, the banners were prohibited in order to control banners staying up after they are tattered, blowing in the wind, or being located in the site triangle.   Mr. Jorgensen said as a businessman, he needs to be able to advertise items he has.

Chairman Zobell suggests that we fix the secondary signage now, and he asks the Planning Commission to look at banners and discuss that at a later meeting.  Currently banners are allowed to be attached parallel to a wall of the main building of the business, but no more than 3 feet from the wall, not exceed 20% of the wall area where the sign is attached, not be used on the same wall as a wall sign, or other banner sign unless the combined area of all signs is less than 20% of the wall area to the which the signs are attached, not be attached to or between telephone poles, fences, fence pole, utility poles, public or private light poles, trees, vehicles or any other apparatus other than the building wall, and not be placed on the roof of any building, must be maintained in a need and attractive condition, and shall be displayed no longer than 30 days. 

Chairman Zobell said the purpose of the Planning Commission and the Code is to set a standard so that everyone has an equal business advantage.  This Sign Ordinance was rewritten because the previous Sign Ordinance was so restrictive and the Commission was  having to violate the Code in order to allow the signs that are in the City. 

There was discussion that there could be a definition for “secondary wall sign” which advertises a product, brand, or service.  The Commission needs to decide whether to limit the size and square footage of that type of sign.  There could also be language inserted under wall signs that says “total square footage allowed for wall sign does not include secondary wall sign.”   It was decided that these letters can be no taller than 24”. 

A secondary sign would be a sign that is secondary to the main business name.  The secondary sign would advertise their services, products, or brands.  These would be allowed in addition to the 100 square feet allowed for wall signage.  They could be allowed to have a total of six of these signs with each sign being no longer than 12 feet.

A secondary wall sign would be a sign advertising product, service, or brand which is secondary and in addition to the main signage of the business.

Pat Hansen motioned that a public hearing should be held to receive comments concerning amending the Sign Ordinance to create a definition for secondary signs.  The purpose of a secondary sign shall be to advertise and promote products, services, or brands.  These signs can be no taller than 24” and no more than four of these signs on a building.  These signs can be no longer than 12 feet.   Steve Kunzler seconded the motion. 

Discussion on the motion followed:  Chairman Zobell asked what if someone like Big O comes.  They have entrances to three bays on two sides of their building.  What if they want lettering over each one of those entrances?  They really have three fronts on that building, so which side of the building would be allowed to have secondary signs?  The signs advertise their services.  If someone’s business has two business fronts, they’ve paid dearly for that property.  Will they be allowed to use that or will they be told no?  Another example is Aron’s Rents which will be backing on Cove View Road.  Would they be allowed to have letters on two sides of the building?  It was decided to limit secondary signs to four signs on each of two sides of a building.  That would allow a total of eight secondary signs.

The motion is amended to say that the definition of a secondary sign is a sign that advertises product, brand, or service, with a  maximum of four secondary signs per side on no more than two sides of the building, and each sign no longer than 12 feet.  The motion carried unanimously.

Banner signs will be discussed at next month’s meeting.

8.   Discuss establishing standards for transient businesses.  Paul Hinrichs said this is something that has been in the back of his mind for a long time.  The City cannot disallow transient business licenses.  Mr. Hinrichs thinks the City probably should have some standards.  The merchandise is placed in the site triangle.  We wouldn’t allow a building to be placed there, so why would we let them place product there for a week?  Mr. Hinrichs has discussed this with the Mayor and the Mayor agreed that he should bring this up with the Commission.    

Transient businesses do have to get business licenses.  Mr. Hinrichs said he is always after them for their signs.  It seems like they ought to have to meet the City’s Zoning Ordinances.  They should have to maintain the setback so there isn’t a display of merchandise right against the sidewalk.  They put signs up that are on the right-of-way or hang them on the light post.  Even though these are transient businesses, they should meet the same ordinances our local businesses have to meet.  One salesman pulled his motor home next to the merchandise and was actually living there on the property.  He also had a giant balloon there.  It doesn’t seem like it improves Richfield.    

Chairman Zobell asked if those people pay sales tax?  The City does collect sales tax from them.  The business license permit for them is $125.00 per year which is the same as a local downtown business.  Mr. Jorgensen suggests the City make the permit a higher amount.  As a business owner, he doesn’t like that he pays property tax while a transient merchant contributes nothing to the community.  He asked if the City can’t base the transient business license fee on a percentage of their sales. 

The City Attorney and Michele Jolley, City Recorder, will be consulted to see if there is any way to charge more for transient business licenses.  The Commission wouldn’t want it to affect the produce salesmen.  Perhaps there could be a category for agriculture or farmer’s market.    

A transient business license is good for one year and a vendor can come back as many times as they want.  The City used to require them to get finger printed and bonded, but stopped doing that as it was deemed discriminatory. 

Steve Kunzler asked if anybody has asked what other cities do to deal with transient merchants.  City Recorder Michele Jolley and Terianne Hill handle business licensing for the City and would have to answer that question.  They go to training regularly and are well-schooled in business licensing procedures. 

Chairman Zobell would like to discuss this at the next Planning Commission meeting and clear up these other things:  What length of time can they do business, setbacks, whether they can be allowed to live onsite, site triangles.  Those are the issues he sees.  Mr. Hinrichs said we wouldn’t let someone live in their trailer while they are building a house so why would we let the transient businesses do so?  The business license is good for the whole year and they can come in any time and sell.  If possible, the Commission would like to be able to limit how many days they are here and maybe set a maximum number of days per year. 

9.  Discuss standards for sidewalk sales.  Paul Hinrichs wanted to discuss the possibility of setting standards for sidewalk sales.  He said there is no problem with what happens when Christensen’s and Gary’s Shoes do their sidewalk sale a couple of times a year.  However, there are small businesses on Main Street who want to display their merchandise on the sidewalk almost everyday.  When the City tries to get them to move it off, they say “it’s a sidewalk sale.”   The City needs to establish what a sidewalk sale is and limit it as a community function rather than an individual business function. 

There are also a couple of safety issues because the sidewalk should be kept open for pedestrians.  There should be a standard for how big a walkway should be left.  That is a minor issue.  The main issue is to establish a sidewalk sale as a community event, and maybe allow two to four a year.  If businesses want to have a sidewalk sale, then that’s when they do it.  They don’t do it just any day they decide to.  The Municipal Code and State Code state that the sidewalk is for pedestrian use and not for display of merchandise.

If the City adopts something like this then if a business just decided to do a sidewalk sale all by itself, they wouldn’t be able to do that.  It would be a violation of the Ordinance.  Technically, anytime there is a sidewalk sale, it is violating the Ordinance and Paul would like to legitimize what they do.  He doesn’t want to disallow it, but wants to control it somehow so that we don’t have sidewalk sales every day of the year.

The Commission would like to work with the Chamber and come up with something reasonable.  The Chamber will be contacted.

10.   Little Stars Daycare.  The Commission reviewed an application filed by Debra Lee Willis for a Home Occupation Permit allowing her to conduct a business called Little Starz Daycare at her home at 280 South 100 West.  (R1-10 zone.)  She has had a fire inspection.  Paul Hinrichs will advise her that she needs to have the certifications required by the State for her State Daycare License.  He will also let her know the conditions for signage which can be no larger than 2 square feet in the window of the home and traffic flow.  Mr. Hinrichs said they sign a form that advises them of all of the conditions. 

Pat Hansen said she understands that State licensing for daycares has become so stringent that some daycare providers are not get State licensed.  The City does not issue a business license until a provider shows proof that they have their State license.  The City does not monitor their State certification.  That is the State’s function. 

Stan Poulson motioned to approve a Home Occupation Permit allowing Debra Lee Willis to conduct a business called Little Starz Daycare at her home at 280 South 100 West (R1-10 zone).  Sue Southwick seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.    

11.   Items for Next Agenda.   A public hearing will be set for the Sign Ordinance to discuss secondary signs.  The following items will be set on the agenda for discussion:  banners, transient businesses, and sidewalk sales.   

12.  Adjournment.   The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 1^st day of April, 2009.

/s/  Michelle Curtis

      Deputy City Recorder