COUNTY OF SEVIER 

CITY OF RICHFIELD

                                                                               At the Planning Commission

                                                                               In and For Said City

                                                                               November 4, 2009

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

            1.    Roll Call

            2.    Approval of Minutes

            3.    Public Hearing

            4.    Richfield Fire Center

            5.    Motion for Recommendation Concerning Accessory Garages

            6.    Landscaping Discussion

            7.    Windmills Discussion

            8.    Planning Commission Terms of Office

            9.    Adjournment.

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

            Others present:    Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis and Building official Paul Hinrichs

2.    Minutes  Approval.   The minutes of October 7, 2009, were reviewed.  On page 4, paragraph 5, the word “andscaping” will be changed to “landscaping.”  Stan Chappell motioned to approve the minutes of October 7, 2009, as corrected.  Stan Poulson seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

3.  Public Hearing (7:06:18 p.m.).  A public hearing was held to receive comments concerning a proposed amendment to the Richfield City Land Use Management Code as it pertains to Section 1704 concerning garages and other accessory buildings located in residential zones.  It is proposed that language be inserted which requires garage exteriors to be of a similar nature and in harmony with the existing homes in the neighborhood, and prohibiting the construction of galvanized steel or Quonset-type buildings.

There were no comments from the public.  The public hearing closed at 7:06:51 PM.

4.    Richfield Fire Center.  Kim Soper  and Tandy Bolling represented the Richfield Fire Center.  They would like to use Lot 2 of the Richfield Industrial Park for storage purposes.   The BLM owns the two lots next to the Fire Center.  The long-term intent of purchasing those lots was to build a fire center and dispatch center, house engines, and a few other things there.  They are still looking to acquire money to build those units.  There are plans that have been developed when they have money for that.  The lots have been vacant with weeds on them and they don’t look good.  They would like to use at least the lot next to the Center. 

They have cleared the weeds on that lot and have put down gravel and base to make it look better.  With the Planning Commission’s concurrence, they would like to use the lot for storage.  They want to build a fence.  In the past, they have parked trailers and a few vans there during the summers.  They would like to put up a 6-foot security fence.   The State would also like to put up some metal frame sheds so they could park the trailers under those.  Those sheds would be temporary until permanent facilities can be built.  He does understand the fence will have to meet setbacks. 

Mr. Soper anticipates it could be as long as 10 years before they are able to build permanent facilities.  It could be sooner if they get some of the stimulus money.    

Paul Hinrichs said because the property is owned by the federal government, they really don’t have to get approval from the City.  They came in to discuss this because they wanted to be good neighbors.  At 6 feet high, the fence would have to be 25 feet off the property line.  There would have to be landscaping of 5% of the property which would be between the fence and the curb.  The landscape could be xeriscape.   Mr. Hinrichs suggests when they set up parking spaces, they need to make those so that vehicles don’t back out onto the street. 

Mr. Hinrichs advises as far as the metal frame sheds, they will have to comply with setbacks but otherwise, they don’t even require a building permit.  Those setbacks are 10 feet on the sides and 20 feet from the back of the property.

Chairman Zobell suggests planting trees along the frontage and placing decorative gravel.  That would match the other businesses out there and soften the look. 

Mr. Soper said if they put permanent buildings on the property, they probably won’t build a fence.

Mr. Soper asked if the landscaping needs to be along the curb or by the fence.  He was told the Code doesn’t really state that.  They might want to have a parking strip.  Chairman Zobell said he would recommend they have curb, landscaping, parking, and then the fence.  That would look more uniform with the rest of the Industrial Park.  They probably wouldn’t want to plant the trees further back and then end up having to tear out mature trees when they build the permanent structures.  It is recommended they plant trees with a 1-1/2 inch caliper.   

This is a C1 use. 

Stan Poulson motioned that the Richfield Fire Center should be allowed to use Lot 2 of the Richfield Industrial Park for storage purposes with the condition that they comply with setbacks and install 5% landscaping.  The fence will be setback 25 feet from the front property line.  Sue Southwick seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.    

5.    Zoning Code Amendment.  After public hearing, the Commission discussed amending Section 1704 of the Zoning Code concerning garages and other accessory buildings located in residential zones.

Section 1704, paragraph 2 on page 106 was discussed.  This paragraph allows one attached and one detached garage.  After discussion, it was decided that there haven’t been any problems with this paragraph so it will not be changed. 

Section 1704, Paragraphs 1.1 and 3.1 were discussed.  These paragraphs state that the maximum height for all garages and accessory structures shall be the same height as the primary structure existing on the lot or parcel.  There was discussion that this paragraph could preclude someone from building an accessory building that is tall enough to park an RV in it.  There should be a height limit, but the allowed height of a garage or accessory building should not be tied to the height of the house.  The way these paragraphs are written, a taller house could have a taller garage or accessory building. 

Stan Poulson motioned that paragraphs 1.1 and 3.1 on page 106 should be changed to read “The maximum height of a garage or accessory building shall be no taller than 20 feet.”  Sue Southwick seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously with Steve Kunzler voting nay.  (Mr. Kunzler agrees with allowing a smaller profile home to have accessory buildings or garages taller than the home with a maximum height of 20 feet.  However, he would like to allow a taller home to have a taller garage or accessory building.)  

The Commission also recommends that in sections 1703 and 1704, rather than referring to both garages and accessory buildings, only the term “accessory building” should be used.  The definition of an accessory building is “a building incidental and clearly subordinate to the primary building.”  The definition of a garage is “an accessory building used for the storage of motor vehicles.”  The Commission does not think it is necessary to make a distinction between “garage” and “accessory building”. 

Section 4 was then discussed.  The Commission would like to insert language concerning the exterior siding of accessory buildings.  It is recommended the following paragraphs be added to section 1704.4 on page 106 of the Zoning Code: 

                        The exterior finish material of accessory buildings shall

                        be in harmony with existing homes in the neighborhood and

                        shall be constructed of materials such as wood, brick, stone,

                        stucco, siding, or a combination thereof.   

                        Prohibited Accessory Buildings:  Quonset hut type buildings. 

Stan Chappell motioned that paragraphs 4.4 and 4.5, as discussed above, should be added to Section 1704 of the Zoning Code.  Steve Kunzler seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously. 

The above recommendation for changes to Section 1704 of the Zoning Code will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration. 

6.  Landscaping Discussion. The Commission would like to consider adding a chapter to the Zoning Code that addresses landscaping.  It was pointed out that the Zoning Code deals with landscaping on pages 129 and 130.  Also, copies of several pages of Orem’s Zoning Code dealing with landscaping were given to Commission members. Chairman Zobell said he thinks it would be good to add a requirement for landscape bonding.  Orem’s ordinance states:

            “The installation of all landscaping is required prior to the issuance

             of a temporary or a final certificate of occupancy.  If the project is

             completed, except for landscaping, between October 15 and March

             15 the developer may post with the city a cash bond in an amount

             determined by the City to guarantee the proper installation of all

             required landscaping and landscaping features.”

Paul Hinrichs points out that the Table for Development Standards needs to be amended showing that landscaping is required in the RM-11 zone when multi-family units are being constructed.    

Landscaping will be put on the agenda for next month. 

7.  Windmill Discussion.  Windmills are not addressed in the Zoning Code.  It is the consensus of the Planning Commission that windmills should not be allowed anywhere within the City.  The Zoning Code could be amended to refer to windmills and reflect that they are disallowed.  If the zoning Code is not amended, then windmills are disallowed because they are not referred to.  The first page of the Table of Uses states “Any use that is not identified in the Table of Uses is hereby determined to be a Prohibited Use within Richfield City.”  It was decided not to change the Zoning Code at the present time.  If the City receives numerous requests for the installation of windmills, the Code can be reviewed at that time. 

8.    Planning Commission Terms of Office.  Stan Chappell’s and Blake Zobell’s terms expire at the end of December.  Mr. Chappell is willing to serve for another term which would be his third term.  Chairman Zobell would be willing to serve for another year.  He has served to full terms plus two years of the unfinished term of Larry Lunnen.  

The Commission would like Blake Zobell to act as Chairman next year with Eugene Beck as Vice-Chairman.  Stan Poulson motioned to appoint Blake Zobell as Chairman of the Planning Commission for 2010 with Eugene Beck acting as Vice-Chairman.  Steve Kunzler seconded the motion.  The motion carried unanimously.   

9.  Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2^nd day of December, 2009.

/s/  Michelle Curtis

     Deputy City Recorder