COUNTY OF SEVIER 

CITY OF RICHFIELD

                                                                      At the Joint Meeting of

                                                                      City Council and Planning

                                                                      and Planning Commission In and

                                                                      For Said City

                                                                      January 14, 2010

            Minutes of the Richfield City City Council and Planning Commission meeting held on Thursday, January 14, 2010, at 6:00 p.m., Blake Zobell, presiding.

            1.    Roll call.

            2.    Discuss height, size, and exterior finish of garages.

                   and accessory buildings.

            3.    Discuss cargo or metal storage containers.

            4.    Discuss landscaping ordinance.

            5.    Adjournment.

1.    Roll Call.  Roll call was answered by Mayor Brad Ramsay, Dan Chidester, Richard Barnett, Kris Allred, Mike Turner, Bryan Burrows, Chairman Blake Zobell, Pat Hansen, Sue Southwick, Eugene Beck, Steve Kunzler, and Stan Chappell.  Stan Poulson was excused. 

            Others present:    Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis, Building Official Paul Hinrichs, and Dave Anderson,

2.   Discuss Height, Size, and Exterior Finish of Garages.   The Planning Commission had recommended to the City Council that changes be made to the Zoning Code as it applies to accessory buildings in residential zones.  The City Council held a public hearing concerning that recommendation.  Based on public input, the Council wanted to meet with the Commission to discuss the issues.    

Chairman Zobell explained the Code referred to both accessory buildings and accessory garages with the only difference being that automobiles are stored in accessory garages.  The Commission recommended changing the Code referring only to accessory buildings because it really does not matter what is stored inside of it. 

The Code allows the construction of an accessory building, but it can be no taller than the home.  If it is a single-story home, then the height of an accessory building is limited.  If it is a two-story home, then the height of an accessory building could be two stories.  The Commission wanted to change the Code so that an accessory building could be a certain height regardless of the height of the home; however, that height should be limited because it if it is too tall, then it encroaches on their neighbor’s right.  After a substantial amount of consideration and public hearing, the Commission recommended that 20 feet would be a sufficient height for an accessory building. 

Mayor Ramsay said the feedback the Council received at their public hearing was why not leave it the way it is.  Chairman Zobell explained that the Commission’s proposal is actually less restrictive than leaving it the way it is.  The other opinion at the Council’s public hearing was that a height of 25 feet would be better for motor home storage.  When the Commission held its public hearing, the builder who was present thought 20 feet was adequate.  In fact, he stated it would be rare to have an accessory building taller than 20 feet.  The Council would like to discuss the possibility of changing the maximum height to 25 feet. 

There was discussion that if a building has a 16-foot door, depending on the pitch of the roof, the building would be taller than 20 feet.  An RV can’t be taller than 14 feet because it wouldn’t fit under highway overpasses.  Chairman Zobell and Paul Hinrichs measured a 5^th wheel trailer and it was 11 feet with a 1-foot air condition on the top.  Steve Kunzler stopped by an RV park in St. George.  The tallest RV was 13 feet.    

Kris Allred measured his commercial buildings.  They seem very big and tall.  They are 27 to 30 feet tall.  The sides are 25 feet.  He wondered if he would want that building 3 feet off the property line at his home.  It would be like a 25-foot wall.  Would a person really want that in their back yard?    

Chairman Zobell suggests if a lot is larger, perhaps a taller building wouldn’t be out of place. 

Mayor Ramsay suggests if a building is over 20 feet, the requirement could be to set it back another foot for each additional foot over 20 feet.    

Bryan Burrows wondered why the Commission wants to change the Code.  Chairman Zobell said they wanted to change it to accommodate single-story homes allowing them to have a taller accessory building.  Mr. Burrows said the concerns he heard at the Council’s public hearing is that if the Code is too restrictive, it will hurt businesses selling their product.  Also, homeowners are worried about their private property rights.  Another issue was brought up about people who are lower income.  If they are willing to build some type of structure to store things in, and the City dictates what the façade looks like, then it becomes restrictive as to what they can build.  Chairman Zobell responded that the Code already has restrictions on building size and how much of the lot can be covered.  The Planning Commission’s proposal is less restrictive.    

Stan Poulson arrived. 

There is discussion whether it is necessary to go as tall as 25 feet.  Most people don’t need a 16-foot door.  You can’t drive a vehicle down the road that is taller than 13 feet. 

Eugene Beck reminded that this is a discussion about residential areas.  A taller door would be necessary for the parking of industrial equipment.  Why would we allow industrial equipment in residential areas?  The City spends more time telling a someone what they can and can’t do to run a daycare center, but would then turn around and allow industrial equipment to pull in and out of a residential area.    

After a lengthy discussion, it was determined a maximum height of 22 feet is sufficient.    

Paul Hinrichs said currently the Code allows for an accessory building to be one foot off the property line if there is a fire wall as long as the drainage doesn’t go onto the neighbor’s property.   He suggests deciding what the allowable height should be at the 3-foot setback.  With a wall height of 16 feet, there would be plenty of wall height to would allow for a taller door.  There was a consensus for a maximum wall height of 16 feet with a peak no taller than 22 feet. 

Bryan Burrows pointed out Section 1702 concerning public buildings and churches which states:  “. . . a building height greater than the maximum building height,required by the Zoning District in which the building is located may be allowed, provided the building is set back from required setback lines a distance of one (1) foot for each additional foot of building height above the maximum height allowed in the Zoning District. 

A consensus was reached to allow a maximum16-foot wall height with the peak having a maximum height of 22 feet.  A wall height of 0 to 10 feet could be 3 feet from the property line with the peak not exceeding 22 feet.  Wall heights from 10 to 16 feet would have to be set back 6 feet from the property line with the peak of the building not to exceed a maximum height of 22 feet.    

Larry Pearson arrived.

Next the footprint of accessory buildings was discussed.  Currently the Code does not allow accessory buildings to have a footprint larger than the footprint of the house.  It also states that the footprint cannot take more than 25% of the back yard.  Richard Barnett would like to suggest that it could be larger than the footprint of the home, but should not be any larger than 25% of the rear yard. 

There is a consensus to eliminate Section 1704 4.1 which states that the footprint of an accessory building can be no larger than the footprint of the home. 

The next item is that the Planning Commission recommended that Quonset-type buildings should be prohibited.  The Council would like that to be more descriptive as Quonset is actually a brand rather than a type of building.  Paul Hinrichs said they that type of building is called a steel-arch building.  The Commission would like to disallow round, dome-type buildings in residential areas. 

Steve Kunzler wonders about allowing these type of buildings in certain zones such as the RR-1 or larger.     

The Commission also recommended that the following addition to the Code: 

Section 1704 - 4.4.  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. 

Bryan Burrows said he has had comments from a couple of contractors, and it is his feeling that the above wording should not be adopted.  Perhaps it could say it has to be cohesive with the environment. 

Chairman Zobell read page 107 no. 8 as follows:  The architectural style, building materials and building colors of an Accessory Dwelling Unit for an Owner or Employee shall be found to be compatible and consistent with the architectural style, materials, and color of the primary building. 

Bryan Burrows points out that this says Accessory Dwelling but nothing about accessory building.  Chairman Zobell said the purpose of the Code was to set a standard.  The Council is not in favor of adopting that language for accessory buildings. 

Chairman Zobell said the Commission wants to set standards.  Dan Chidester said he doesn’t agree with telling a person if they have a red brick house, they can’t have a white accessory building in the back yard.  Mayor Ramsay said as far as subdivisions are concerned, CC&Rs will likely govern that. 

It is Sue Southwick’s opinion that small metal buildings are alright, but large ones look like  warehouses and they stand out like a sore thumb.  Mike Turner and Brian Burrows said they have both had a lot of opposition to restricting metal buildings.

Eugene Beck points out that there is a lot talk about individual property rights, but there are certain rights a person donates to the common cause when they come within the City limits.  That is the purpose of zoning regulations.  He lived for 13 years in Texas.  Texas has no zoning laws.  He soon learned to understand why people moved into developments where they had deed restrictions on lots.  Without some order, there is chaos.     

Mike Turner wondered about inserting language that accessory buildings have to be a color similar to the home. 

Steve Kunzler said the intent in not allowing metal is not so much metal, but the shiny, corrugated, galvanized look.

Chairman Zobell said the Council and Commission have an obligation to know overall what they want the City to look like, feel like, and appear.  Kris Allred said Richfield is a nice looking city and it is because there are standards.    

Mike Turner suggested stating that metal is allowed but in an appropriate color. 

It is Chairman Zobell’s opinion that we don’t want commercial-looking buildings in residential areas.  They really should be in harmony with the neighborhood.  . 

Paul Hinrichs points out these metal buildings are restricted in commercial areas.  The Code states that the requirement in commercial areas is that 100% of street-facing walls and 35% of side walls have to be finished with brick, stone, block, stucco, glass, or a combination thereof.  The City actually has a lesser standard for residential zones.    

The Commission will take this back to Planning Commission meeting for discussion and make a recommendation. 

3.   Discuss Cargo or Metal Storage Containers.   Shipping containers are prohibited in the City as stated on page 105 no. 11:  No shipping container, cargo container, shipping crate, box, trailer, or similar moveable piece of equipment or object shall be used as an accessory building.

The Council wants to discuss the possibility of allowing these in commercial zones as long as they are painted to match the building and not stacking of the containers.   They would not want them in the Downtown Zone.  

Larry Pearson of Pearson Tire said they have businesses in St. George, Provo, and Salt Lake.  All of those locations have storage containers.  St. George has the most restrictive ordinances, and even they allow storage containers.  They had to put the containers behind a fence so they can’t be seen.   

Richard Barnett said he doesn’t have a problem with them as long as they are painted, but he wouldn’t like to see them stacked.  He wouldn’t mind them in residential areas.  He thinks it is a wonderful way to use existing technology and to recycle things.  Stan Poulson said if they look half-way decent, they look better than having the junk in a yard.  Mayor Ramsay thinks if they are allowed, then they should be limited as to number of containers by conditional use.

Paul Hinrichs said he has had probably six phone calls from other states wondering how Richifeld City prohibits storage containers because they would like to do the same. 

The Council would not want to make a person put stucco or a pitched roof over it, but they should probably sit behind a fence. 

The Downtown Zone goes from 300 North to 300 South.  The Council may want to entertain the possibility of increasing the Downtown Zone. 

Bryan Burrows wondered how that applies if a business came in and wanted to employ 20 people in manufacturing and they choose to truck it out of here in containers.  That would be considered a temporary use and would be allowed even though there might be a few containers there all the time.     

Mayor Ramsay asked if there is any Zone where the Commission would feel comfortable in allowing storage containers?  The Commission said Manufacturing would be the only zone, and that would be with conditions of painting and no stacking. 

Dan Chidester thinks the allowance of storage containers could be handled on a case-by-case basis as a conditional use.  Mayor Ramsay would want rules set out before hand.   

The Commission will discuss this in the next Commission meeting. 

4.   Discuss Landscaping Ordinance.  The Landscaping Ordinance was tabled and will be discussed at another meeting.    

5.   Adjournment.  The meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm.

PASSED AND APPROVED this 3^rd day of February, 2010.

/s/ Michelle Curtis

     Deputy City Recorder