COUNTY OF SEVIER
CITY OF RICHFIELD
 
At the Planning Commission In and For Said City
February 6, 2019

Minutes of the Richfield City Planning Commission meeting held on Wednesday, February 6, 2019, at 6:00 p.m., Chairman Brion Terry, presiding.

1. Roll Call.

2. Minutes Approval: Consider approving minutes of January 2, 2019.

3. Citizen Request: Gordon Robison to discuss boundary fencing between his property and adjacent commercial property.

4. Home Occupation Permits:

    A. Yard Evolutions: Consider approving Tyson Thompson’s application for a Home Occupation
Permit which would allow him to conduct a business called Yard Evolutions, LLC, at his home at 44
North 100 East. (D zone, C-1 use)
 
    B. The Salty Paw: Consider approving Shalene Stevens’ application for a Home Occupation Permit which would allow her to conduct a business called The Salty Paw at her home at 904 West 570 South. (R1-10 zone, C-1 use)

    C. Kid’s Cottage Preschool: Consider approving Jessica Clark’s application for a Home Occupation Permit allowing her to conduct a business called Kid’s Cottage Preschool at her home located at 670 North 500 East. (R1-10 zone, C-1 use)

5. Conditional Use Permit:
    Consider approving a Conditional Use Application filed by Kendrick Thomas, allowing the construction of a 3-unit dwelling unit to be located at the northeast corner of 200 West 600 South. (RM-11 zone, C-1 use)

6. Commercial Business: Review concept plans for a U-Haul/self storage business to be located at
    1092 South Highway 118 (K-mart building). A self storage business would require changes to the Zoning Code. (CS zone)

7. Other Business:

8. Adjournment .

1. Roll Call. Roll call was answered by Brion Terry, Monte Turner, Greg Bean, David Mower, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, and Blaine Breinholt.
 
City Staff Present: Deputy City Recorder Michelle Curtis.
 
Others present: Brad Ling, Shalene Stevens, Sydnee Stevens, Kendrick Thomas, Gordon Robison, Matt Munson, Jessica Clarke, Tyler Olsen, Tyson Thompson.
 
2. Minutes Approval. The minutes of January 2, 2019, were reviewed. Lisa White motioned to approve the minutes of January 2, 2019. David Mower seconded the motion. The motion carried.
 
3. Citizen Request: Gordon Robison to discuss boundary fencing between his property and adjacent commercial property. Gordon Robison was present with his attorney Matt Munson. Mr. Munson represented Gordon Robison and his wife, Holly, in a lawsuit against Mountain Utah Family Medical Clinic (hereafter Clinic). The Robison’s home sits to the west of the Clinic with a portion of their backyard sharing a property line with the Clinic. The Robisons live at 870 North 100 West. The Clinic is located at 820 North Main.
 
Mr. Munson offered the following explanation:

When the Robisons bought their property, the legal description and all of the closing documents reflected that the property was comprised of .8 acre. A vinyl fence had been put in by the prior owner of the home. The fence sits back a distance from the rear property line because the previous owner did not want to landscape the entire property.
 
When Robisons bought the home, they liked the fact that there was property behind the fence because they things that they could park there. After they moved in, a dispute arose. The Robisons were approached by the Clinic saying the Clinic had purchased the property behind Robison’s fence prior to Robisons purchasing the home. Construction of the Clinic is discussed in Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 2012, and October 2, 2013. It was represented to the Planning Commission that the Clinic anticipated purchasing some of the property which they would use for parking. Mr. Munson claims they went so far as to say that they would deduct storage spaces, closets, etc., from the square footage in order to lessen the number of required parking spaces.
The Clinic filed a lawsuit against the Robisons claiming that the Clinic owned the piece of property behind the Robison’s vinyl fence. This went to trial at the end of 2017 and Mr. and Mrs. Robison prevailed. They are the rightful, legal, and lawful owners of that property.
At issue now is the fact that there is still just a vinyl fence. The Clinic owners had petitioned the Planning Commission stating they would own the property and asked that the vinyl fence suffice. Mr. Munson believes the Zoning Code requires that where a commercial zone abuts a residential zone, a block wall is required. The Planning Commission stated at that time that if the Clinic purchased the property, they would not require a block wall to be constructed.
Mr. Robison has erected a chain link fence to separate the properties and the chain link fence has been backed into and posts pulled out. He has repaired it many times, but it doesn’t work to keep people off of his property.
 
Mr. Munson feels like the Commission was hoodwinked because the Clinic came to the Commission and said they were going to purchase the other property and have the vinyl fence. The Clinic does not own that property and it is Mr. Munson’s opinion that the Commission allowed to use white vinyl fence rather than build a block wall so long as they acquired the property.
Mr. Munson feels like the Robisons are well within their rights to insist that there be a block wall separating their property from the commercially zoned property.
He thinks the Commission should and can require the block wall as required under section 1620 of the Zoning Code, 5.1.1, which states that commercial and industrial developments having a common line with property used for residential purposes shall require the construction of a site obscuring masonry fence with a minimum height of 6 feet measuring from the commercial side.
 
DISCUSSION:
 
Greg Bean asked if they are requesting a block wall from this property all the way to the street? Mr. Munson indicated on the map that the Robison property does not go all the way to the street which is 900 North. However, they have purchased a small piece of property from Faron Reed and the Clinic should be responsible to put a block wall along the border of the Clinic property and the portion which was purchased from Mr. Reed.
 
Mr. Munson also pulled the building permit and the inspection report and it indicated at least as of last year, there still had not been an occupancy permit issued. The Court ruling came out in the spring of 2018. At the time of the ruling, there still hadn’t been an occupancy permit. Mr. Robison said that as of the night before the trial, they still did not have an occupancy permit nor passed a final building inspection, yet they were operating out of that Clinic. He said he knows in Cedar City there would be heavy sanctions for occupying a building without an occupancy permit.
David Mower asked about the litigation. There was a Decree issued by the Court which has not been appealed. Mr. Mower asked what do Mr. Robison and Mr. Munson want the Planning Commission to do? Mr. Munson thinks it is fair that the Planning Commission should contact the owners of the Clinic and tell them that they didn’t reapproach the Commission as they had indicated they were going to do if they didn’t purchase the property, and because that property is not owned by them, they need to install a block fence.

In the trial, Judge Lee felt the lawsuit the plaintiff brought claiming that they own the property was brought in bad faith. Mr. Mower will look at the Findings of Fact. He said that no one is representing the Clinic at this meeting. Mr. Munson said the Planning Commission needs to tell the Clinic that they are not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinances of the City of Richfield. The Planning Commission should give direction to the owners of the Clinic that they are required to construct a masonry fence within a certain amount of time in order to be consistent with the provisions and ordinances of the City. He also believes the occupancy permit is an issue that needs to be addressed. In Cedar City if someone is operating a business without an occupancy permit, there are penalties and sanctions that are technically imposed by the City.
 
Mr. Mower said he suspects that if the Clinic partners were here, they would want to dispute some of the things that are being said. If the Commission has them come back, do the Robisons and Mr. Munson want to come back at the same time? Mr. Munson stated they would like to be here.
Chairman Terry wondered if this should go through an appeal process. Greg Bean stated he feels like the request is that the Commission follow the decision that was made five years ago. In other words, the Clinic needs to come back and the Commission needs to tell them that they need to comply with the requirements of the zone they are in based on the stipulations that were given at the time. But first, he feels that it needs to be taken under advisement and verify the claims of these gentlemen, then require the Clinic occupants to come in and show cause as to why the zoning requirements shouldn’t be enforced on them.
 
Lisa White states that the decision made five years ago was to allow them to comply with the zoning requirements given the modification in Section 1620.6 which allows a fence requirement to be modified if the proposed fence provides an adequate buffer to the adjoining residential zone, the fence will not detract from the uses, and the proposed fence will shield the residential use. Mrs. White feels like this would be an amendment because the decision five years ago was that this was a justifiable modification that was built into the Zoning Code. Mr. Bean feels like the property purchase was part of that stipulation and if that hasn’t been met, then the foundation that the adjustment was based upon falls apart.
 
Chairman Terry said he really likes the suggestion that it be taken under advisement and invite the other party back.
 
Mr. Munson said Mr. Robison wants his property to be shielded similar to the other properties that are around him. Mr. Robison said he has put up panels and they have been tipped over and hit. The Clinic has pulled out fence posts. He has had “no trespassing” signs there and they get ripped off. He hangs the signs up and they are there for a month or two, and then he has to go buy new signs.
Mr. Munson thinks it is a good idea for the Commission to take this under advisement, and he can understand that the Clinic is not here to address this. If they can show a reason why they ought to be able to get around it, then he would welcome that discussion.
 
David Mower motioned to table the matter and consider consulting with the City Attorney or another attorney for guidance as to how to go forth and review this matter again next month.
Greg Bean made a motion to amend the motion to state that the matter should be tabled pending fact finding by City personnel and placing this item on the next agenda to keep tabs on it, and p
ending those findings, take action in enforcing the ordinance.
 
Discussion on the motion: Lisa White feels like the motion needs to be reworded because the amended motion suggests an anticipated outcome. The motion should state that an appropriate action shall be taken based on fact finding.
 
The motion and amended motion failed for lack of a second.
 
Greg Bean motioned to table this matter while City personnel researches the claims that have been made with further action to be taken based on those findings, and placing this item on next month’s agenda. Monte Turner seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Those voting aye: Brion Terry, Monte Turner, Greg Bean, David Mower, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, and Blaine Breinholt. Those voting nay: None.
 
Monte Turner asked about the occupancy permit and whether that is a Planning Commission matter? Mr. Munson said no, but he wanted the Commission to be aware of it. Greg Bean stated that it will be mentioned in the minutes of this meeting, so he doesn’t know if it will cause some action by the City. Mr. Munson said they will address that in the proper way. Michelle Curtis stated that it should not be difficult for them to get an occupancy permit because the items listed on the last inspection can be easily resolved. Mr. Munson said he is not so sure about that because he believes the parking is going to be an issue.
 
4. Home Occupation Permits:
    Chairman Terry explained that when a person fills out an application to do business out of a residence, the application comes before the Planning Commission so that the Commission can review the plans and sometimes the Commission puts conditions on those.
 
    A. Yard Evolutions: Consider approving Tyson Thompson’s application for a Home Occupation Permit which would allow him to conduct a business called Yard Evolutions, LLC, at his home at 44 North 100 East. (D zone, C-1 use). Tyson Thompson said he has purchased John Pappas’ business which was called In the Green. Mr. Thompson has done everything required for state licensing. He lives at 44 North 100 East. There is adequate undercover parking for his truck in back of the home. There is also an out building that is enclosed and will be locked and used strictly for the storage of the chemicals that he will use.
 
As far as the business conducted at this site, he will park the truck, fill it with water, and perhaps a customer who comes by occasionally to drop off a payment. He will be mixing chemicals. He does have a license for restricted use chemicals. Most of the chemicals that he will be using come in 2-1/2 gallon containers. He will measure the chemical, pour it into the tank, and then add water.
The chemicals are herbicides, pesticides, insecticides, and fertilizer. Greg Bean wondered if there would be vapors from those chemicals that might affect the neighbors. Mr. Thompson said no because the chemicals will only be stored in the containers they are purchased in and then open containers will be placed in plastic containment totes in the case it chemical happens to leak from a container, it will be contained in the plastic pan underneath it. Mr. Bean asked if there was a wind and the spray gets all over his truck, what would he do about that? Mr. Thompson said the State license does not allow for spraying when there is wind due to the drift. This is regulated on the chemical label and he has to follow that and if the State has any regulations beyond that, he has to follow that. He does not plan to do anything different than what Mr. Pappas has been doing with this business. Mr. Pappas has had a City business license for many years. The main focus of the business is lawn fertilizing. That also allows him to treat for grubs and other insects in the yard. He will not be doing anything inside of the home.
 
Mr. Thompson has talked with his neighbors. The neighbor to the south is a massage therapy business. The neighbor to the north has a business license at his home for selling fireworks and has a sandblasting business licensed there. Neither one of them had a concern with this business. He has checked with other neighbors to the south and west and they don’t have any objection.
There will be no employees.
 
Lisa White motioned to approve Tyson Thompson’s application for a Home Occupation Permit allowing him to conduct a business called Yard Evolutions, LLC, at his home at 44 North 100 East. (D zone, C-1 use). Blaine Breinholt seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Those voting aye: Brion Terry, Monte Turner, Greg Bean, David Mower, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, and Blaine Breinholt. Those voting nay: None.
 
     B. The Salty Paw: Consider approving Shalene Stevens’ application for a Home Occupation Permit which would allow her to conduct a business called The Salty Paw at her home at 904 West 570 South. (R1-10 zone, C-1 use). This is a dog grooming business. Business hours are 9 a.m. 5 p.m. She would groom maybe four dogs a day. She will only have one client at a time. Some people own more than one dog and so they might bring them together and they both stay until they are finished, but then the owner comes to pick up the dogs. She does not plan for dogs to stay there beyond their appointment. She will not board dogs. Customers pull into her driveway to drop the dog off. She will not have employees.
 
David Mower explained that in recent months the Planning Commission reviewed a dog grooming business where there were neighbors complaining about waste water disposal from dog grooming, dog hair, parking problems, etc.
Mrs. Stevens said her basement is set up so that everything drains into the sewer. The hair clippings go in the trash. She bags the hair before putting it in the garbage can. The animals are never in her yard. They don’t run free in her yard or neighborhood. They don’t use the bathroom in her yard.
 
David Mower advised that based on the complaints discussed with the other dog grooming business, she ought to have a way of keeping track of when a dog comes and goes, date and time, because people had complained about dogs being there too long. Mrs. Stevens said dogs will not be on her property after hours.
 
She does not plan to have a sign, but was told that she could have a sign that is 2 square feet in the window of the home.
 
David Mower motioned to approve Shalene Stevens’ application for a Home Occupation Permit which would allow her to conduct a business called The Salty Paw at her home at 904 West 570 South (R1-10 zone, C-1) with the condition that she is provided with a written list of requirements that were given to the other dog grooming business. Lisa White seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Those voting aye: Brion Terry, Monte Turner, Greg Bean, David Mower, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, and Blaine Breinholt. Those voting nay: None.
 
     C. Kid’s Cottage Preschool: Consider approving Jessica Clark’s application for a Home Occupation Permit allowing her to conduct a business called Kid’s Cottage Preschool at her home located at 670 North 500 East. (R1-10 zone, C-1 use). Mrs. Clark was given a Home Occupation Permit for this business within the past year, but she has since moved to a new location. Her business has not changed. There are nine students enrolled, but usually only seven come. They range in age from 3-1/2 to 5 years of age. The parents come to pick up their children within 3 to 5 minutes after the end of preschool.
 
She teaches preschool from 1 to 3:30 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays. This is a good time because the school buses have already been through the neighborhood at this time. The front of the home does not have a fence. The children play in the back yard which is fenced.
 
She does not have any employees. Her mother helps her out on occasion if she is doing something big and needs an extra hand.
 
When the children come to school, most of their parents park their car, take their kids to the door, and take them downstairs into the classroom. At the end of the school day, she waits on the front porch or inside until their parents come.
 
David Mower motioned to approve Jessica Clark’s application for a Home Occupation Permit allowing her to conduct a business called Kid’s Cottage Preschool at her home located at 670 North 500 East. (R1-10 zone, C-1 use), based on the same conditions as those placed at her last location. Greg Bean seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Those voting aye: Brion Terry, Monte Turner, Greg Bean, David Mower, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, and Blaine Breinholt. Those voting nay: None.
 
5. Conditional Use Permit: Consider approving a Conditional Use Application filed by Kendrick Thomas, allowing the construction of a 3-unit dwelling unit to be located at the northeast corner of 200 West 600 South. (RM-11 zone, C-1 use). Tyler Olsen and Kendrick Thomas were present. The DRC comments were reviewed as follows:
 
                1. Sewer and Water Connections. They will use the existing connections on 600 South
                   for one of the units. They will put in two new sewer connections and two new water
                   connections on 200 West for the other two units. They will need to pay impact fees
                   and connections as follows:
                                                       2 water impact fees:     $  7,374.00
                                                       2 sewer impact fees:    $    916.00
                                                       2 water connections:    $ 4,520.00
                                                       2 sewer connections:   $ 3,300.00
                                                                                                $ 16,110.00
 
                2. Fire Hydrant. There is a fire hydrant across the street.
                3. Street Improvements. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, and asphalt will need to be installed 
                    along both 200 West and 600 South. The plan is drawn as showing a planter strip 
                    on 600 South which will adjoin and existing sidewalk and planter strip. Discussion: 
                    They don’t have any issues with the street improvements. Mr. Thomas said on the south,
                    they felt that it would be better to match the sidewalk and planter strip that is further
                    down the street. The Commission is in agreement with this.
                4. Landscaping. Trees and bushes are shown on 600 South. Ensure that the trees and
                    shrubs do not interfere with the sight triangle. Discussion: The Commission  feels like it
                    would be better to not have trees in the planter strip. The applicants agree with this.
                5. Parking. Driveways should be wide enough that two vehicles can park side-by- side.  
                    Discussion: The driveway is wide enough for side-by-side parking.
                6. Fencing. The plans show installation of a 6-foot vinyl fence on the east side of the 
                    property. Will the fence on the north side be replaced? Discussion: The fence on the
                    north side is not in bad shape. They prefer to leave it, but they will talk with their
                    neighbor and see if they would like it replaced. The fence on the east is really bad and
                    so they will replace it. That neighbor on the east is willing to go in half on the fence.
                    Lisa White asked about the outside finish of the building. Mr. Thomas said they hadn’t
                    really thought about it, but they could vary the center apartment to provide some
                    contrast. This is not a requirement, but a suggestion.
 
They would like to sell these as townhouse units. That will require them to provide a plat and a notice of public hearing will have to be published in the newspaper. They will each own their front and back yard with a property line that goes through the common wall. There will be a 6-foot right-of-way on the southeast side of the property so that the middle property has access to their back yard.
 
Monte Turner asked if there will be an HOA? They have not thought about that. There was a lot of discussion regarding this, and they would be encouraged to look into an HOA because of repairs that may be needed in the future, i.e. having a common roof. They said they will have to do some research and see how that is typically handled. The City does not require an HOA, but it would be highly recommended.
 
Greg Bean motioned to approve the Conditional Use Application filed by Kendrick Thomas and Tyler Olsen, provided the stipulations on the DRC notes are met and exploring the suggestions regarding the management of townhomes. Blaine Breinholt seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Those voting aye: Brion Terry, Monte Turner, Greg Bean, David Mower, Lisa White, Susan Jensen, and Blaine Breinholt. Those voting nay: None.
 
If they convert these apartments into townhomes, it will need to go through the subdivision process and notice of the public hearing published in the newspaper. This will be set on next month’s agenda for a public hearing to convert this to townhomes.
 
6. Commercial Business: Review concept plans for a U-Haul/self storage business to be located at 1092 South Highway 118 (K-mart building). A self storage business would require changes to the Zoning Code. (CS zone).  Brad Ling was present. He stated they currently have the K-Mart property under contract. Their intention is to utilize the entire building for a U-Haul moving, storage, hitch installation, accessories, and box retail facility. The current zone does not allow for self storage units. This is a near 90,000 square foot building.
 
Chairman Terry pointed out that the City has two commercial zones which are General Commercial (CG) and Commercial Shopping (CS). Self storage units are allowed in the CG zone but not in the CS zone. This property is located in the CS zone. The Code does not have a definition for indoor storage. One option would be to create a definition for indoor storage and allow it in the CS zone. This would not allow the outdoor storage units. But part of what Mr. Ling is proposing is for also the outdoor storage.
 
Mr. Ling said their main component would be the indoor storage. The building would be able to accommodate 400-500 storage rooms on the inside with 5000 square feet of retail. With the inside storage, they will provide at least one access point to the inside of the building. It usually would have sliding doors that open automatically. There are carts on which the customer loads their belongings to take it inside the building to their unit. The advantage to a consumer is that the units are climate controlled. They maintain all of the heating and air conditioning. It is very secure. The units would be individually alarmed and have cameras.
 
They would like to have some outside storage for customers who need larger units. The outdoor
storage units are modular units that don’t sit on a foundation. They are pre-formed boxes that are placed side to side to side and then sheeted so they have the appearance of a complete facility. Those would sit somewhere in the parking lot. They would be double stacked so there would be doors on each side and perhaps two or three rows of units. The boxes are made out of aluminum. They actually take existing U-Haul truck boxes from trucks that aren’t viable to drive anymore.
Chairman Terry said he has a concern with the outdoor storage. The City doesn’t allow portable storage. Mr. Ling said the units won’t be moved once they are set down. In the event something changes, they can be moved, but they don’t intend to move them. The buildings will comply with building codes and specs. In fact, they usually exceed most building codes.
 
The Commission discussed that if the Code is changed to allow it in the CS zone, then it affects the entire CS zone which would allow storage units along Main Street except the area between 300 North to 300 South.
 
Mr. Ling said not being allowed to have outdoor storage might near the level of being a deal breaker. He said he does have some challenges. They have made a good offer on the building. The dollar per square foot that he can generate off of renting a storage room is not nearly as high in Richfield as it is in a lot of other markets. The addition of those 20 or 40 outdoor units drives the overall revenue of the facility up enough to make it a profitable situation. His board of directors will ultimately look at the spread sheet and see if it pencils out. He doesn’t anticipate adding more outdoor units because if he gets too many, even though he has a large parking lot, it will start to appear crowded and he doesn’t want that.
 
He has a high standard and the building will probably look better than K-Mart did even in its prime and a lot better than how it currently looks. They will image it up and step up the appeal of the facility. They attempt to keep it in a retail kind of look. They are a service business, but they will present themselves as though they are a retail business.
 
The rental trucks and trailers would be parked in the parking lot more to the north and west of McDonald’s. He parked at the property today and noticed that a lot of traffic goes through this parking lot. He does not intend to block that off. As far as parking lot repairs, he will repair what needs to be fixed.
 
The Commission has some hesitation in changing the Code to allow the self storage units in the CS zone because then it would allow them along a good portion of Main Street and the City loses a prime retail area.
 
Lisa White pointed out that looking at the Zoning map, across the street from this property is zoned CG. All of the other big-box stores, i.e. Larsen’s, Wal-Mart, Tractor Supply, are located in the CG zone. Maybe it does make sense to go ahead and rezone this property to the CG zone. She was initially opposed to allowing the outdoor storage area, but all of the other big box stores are located in the CG zone which would allow this, so why not allow it for a building that would gain occupancy which would be of benefit to the City. This building has been empty for several years now and it doesn’t seem likely that it is going to become a retail business.
 
It seems to make sense to rezone this to the CG zone because it is not creating an island, and it is  not allowing this big box retail building to do something that the other already-existing big box retail businesses would not be allowed to do. It would be revitalizing the community in that area.
 
There is some concern as to how storage containers will look right here. Mr. Lind said they just become an extension of their facility. They don’t intend them to jump out and look like something ugly. He has several of these facilities in other places.
 
He thinks they would have 10 to 12 employees and he generally starts employees at $11 or $12/hour for a part-time employee. There would be a general manager possibly earning $45,000 to $50,000 per year. He intends to hire locally.
 
Mr. Lind will put in an application asking that the property be rezoned from CS to CG. The Commission will have a public hearing on this at next month’s meeting on March 6th.
 
7. Other Business: There was no other business.
 
8. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
 
PASSED AND APPROVED on the 6th day of March, 2019.
 
/s/  Michelle Curtis
        Deputy City Recorder

Richfield City Corp

75 East Center

435.896.6439