COUNTY OF SEVIER 

CITY OF RICHFIELD

                                                                 At the Planning Commission

                                                                 In and For Said City

                                                                June 3, 2009

            Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, June 3, 2009, at 7:00 p.m., Chairman Blake Zobell, presiding.

1.    Roll Call.

2.    Approval of Minutes.

3.    Public Hearing:  Receive comments concerning a proposal to revise the Zoning Code as it pertains to legal non-conforming uses.

4.    Public Hearing:  Receive comments concerning a revision to the Use Table in the Zoning Code.  The proposal is to reduce the landscaping requirements in the Manufacturing Zones (MD and MG zones) from 10% of the total site to 5% of the total site.

5.    Discuss Legal non-conforming uses.

6.    Discuss landscaping requirements in the MD and MG zones.

7.    Items for Next Agenda.

8.    Adjournment.

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

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

2.    Minutes Approval.  The minutes of May 6, 2009, were reviewed.  Sue Southwick motioned to approve the minutes of May 6, 2009.  Eugene Beck seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

3.    Public Hearing.  ( 7:06 p.m.)  Receive comments concerning a proposal to revise the Zoning Code as it pertains to legal non-conforming uses.  Consideration will be given to inserting a provision in the Zoning Code which allows a legal non-conforming use to be enlarged upon issuance of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission.   

Chairman Zobell explained this is something that was allowed in the Zoning Code of 1992 but was deleted from the Zoning Code recently adopted in August of 2007.  It was the opinion of the City’s consultant that it would be the hope that a non-conforming use does not go on forever and so the provision allowing expansion was taken out of the Zoning Code.  However, within the City there are many homes located in commercial and manufacturing zones.  Under the Zoning Code, those homes would never be able to be remodeled with some type of addition or even a garage or carport.  It doesn’t seem likely that some of those areas will actually become predominantly commercial for a very long time.  Therefore, the Commission would like to discuss the possibility of allowing non-conforming homes to be improved or added upon.

There being no public comments, the public hearing closed at 7: 07 p.m.

4.    Public Hearing.  ( 7:14:10 p.m.)   Receive comments concerning a revision to the Use Table in the zoning Code.  The proposal is to reduce the landscaping requirements in the Manufacturing zones (MD and MG zones) from 10% of the total site to 5% of the total site.  There being no public comments, the public hearing closed at 7:14:17 p.m.

5.    Legal Non-Conforming Uses.  After public hearing, the Commission discussed whether or not to recommend that the Council give consideration to amending the Zoning Code inserting a provision which would allow a legal non-conforming use to be enlarged.  The Zoning Code of 1992 allowed expansion or enlargement of a non-conforming use upon issuance of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission.   

Paul Hinrichs said this isn’t a question that comes up often and it can be changed or left the way it is depending on what the Commission thinks.  However, it seems like it will be many years, if ever, before these areas of town become commercial or manufacturing and it might be wise to allow non-conforming uses to be expanded or enlarged so they don’t become a problem because they aren’t kept up.    

The consultant for the Zoning Code had recommended that generally it is desired for non-conforming uses to go away; however, this does affect several homes located in commercial and manufacturing areas which really are mostly being used as residences.  If there were frequent requests, the Commission would probably want to consider rezoning some of these areas to residential.

The Commission thinks it would be alright to allow expansion of these uses and would like to adopt the language in the Code of 1992, but they don’t want to have a public hearing.     

Stan Poulson motioned that recommendation be given to the City Council that the Zoning Code be amended to include the language from section 5.2.2 of the 1992 Land Use Management Act as follows:  “A building or structure occupied by a non-conforming use or a building or structure non-conforming as to height, area, or yard regulations may be added to or enlarged or moved to a new location on the lot upon issuance of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. “  Eugene Beck seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

6.    Landscaping Requirements in Manufacturing Zones.   After public hearing, the Commission discussed the proposal to reduce landscaping requirements in the Manufacturing zones (MD and MG zones) from 10% of the total site to 5% of the total site. 

There was discussion that it has been recommended that the CC&R’s for the new Richfield Business Park will require 5% landscaping.  There is discussion that 5% landscaping is probably not a burden but will still look decent.  Stan Poulson said he has had people tell him that perhaps even 5% landscaping is too much landscaping for an industrial area. 

Sue Southwick motioned that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council that the Zoning Code be revised as it pertains to landscaping in the MD and MG zones requiring 5% of the total site to be landscaped rather than 10%.  Eugene Beck seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.   

7.    Items for Next Agenda.  Landscaping chapter, particularly wording that allows a developer to wait to install landscaping until weather permits.  Check with the City Attorney to see how that can be done and if a developer would be required to put up a bond in order to do that.    

8.  Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at 7:17 p.m.

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

/s/ Michelle Curtis 

     Deputy City Recorder