|
Services & Resources
 City Forms and
Applications
Job Opportunities
Utility Information
Pay Utilities Online
City Departments
Building & Safety Division
Code Enforcement
New Development
Fire Department
Legal Services
Leisure Services
Parks Maintenance
Police Department
More...
City Council
Agendas & Minutes
Mayor Dan McArthur
Council Members
Public Transportation
Conservation
|
|
Community Development
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ST. GEORGE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH
May 26, 2009 5:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Acting Chairman Ron Bracken
Councilwoman Gloria Shakespeare
Commissioner Ross Taylor
Commissioner Chapin Burks
Commissioner Michael Nobis
Commissioner Kim Campbell
CITY STAFF: Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth
Community Development Director Bob Nicholson
Planner II Ray Snyder
Planner I Craig Harvey
Intern Tiana Larsen
ABSENT: Commissioner Ron Read
Commissioner Julie Hullinger
EXCUSED: Secretary Gail Williams
CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chairman Bracken called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance. Acting Chairman Bracken led the flag salute.
1. ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT – PUBLIC HEARING (5:00 P.M.)
Consider a zoning amendment to amend the St. George City Code, Title 10 Zoning Regulations, Chapter 11 Manufacturing Zones Section 10-11-4 “Special Provisions” specifically Section 10-11-4 (A) “Storage Enclosed” to allow chain link with slats for enclosing storage in certain situations. Case No. 2009-ZRA-004.
Ray Snyder presented this project. Ray commented that previously this was a discussion item before the Planning Commission (Case No. 20090-DI-002). As result it is now brought back as a zoning amendment proposal in a formal advertised public hearing. Recommendations made previously by the Planning Commission have been incorporated into the staff report.
Ray said that staff recommends a change in the staff report recommendation of a minimum of 200 LF (linear feet) of solid fencing be changed to 300 LF. This is recommended because on May 26th staff conducted a phone survey of three local masonry contractors and three chain link fence companies to obtain typical comparable fence installation costs. Staff discovered that a six foot colored masonry wall was typically $40.00 LF for labor and material while a six foot chain link fence (no slats) was typically $14.00 LF. Thus a 200 LF solid wall was approximately $8,000.00 vs. $2,800.00 for chain link (without slats). In conclusion staff determined that for the total site development costs of industrial sites that the more aesthetic solid wall was not an unreasonable requirement.
Commissioner Campbell inquired why the code change was being recommended. He felt that the quality required thus far is more in line with what the City wants aesthetically. He also commented that chain link with wooden slats should not be permitted due to the deterioration of material in a harsh desert environment. He described the difference between straight grading of land versus rolling and the aesthetic impact on fencing with slats inserted.
Planner Ray Snyder stated that it has always been a contested issue, but in today’s economy it seems to be more of an issue of contention.
Commissioner Campbell stated that the majority of industrial developments have complied and that the city should not be catering to the minority who do not wish to conform. River road in particular will be a future gateway entry to the city and should be presentable and not look like Las Vegas industrial properties.
Ray Snyder stated that staff concurs, however the zoning code has been difficult to administer for the last six years. Staff has strived to apply a reasonable interpretation. During administrative plan review the spirit of the code for screening has been applied by requiring solid walls on street frontage, but large properties have been permitted to install open chain link on the rear and side property lines. This change in the code will formalize the precedents established to date and help staff.
Commissioner Nobis discussed the possibility of requiring more landscaping adjacent to areas where chain link might be permitted. He also inquired as to the implementation of more restrictive CC&R’s in industrial areas.
Attorney Joseph Farnsworth informed the commission that the City cannot follow CC&R’s. To do so would not be treating all uniformly and fairly. Also consider the fact that if CC&R’s expire do we want codes contingent upon them? That would not be the best course of action.
Commissioner Nobis expressed that he was not saying to have different codes, but for different industrial parks he agreed they could be more restrictive.
Attorney Farnsworth added that this could create the potential that sub-zones might occur and would not be desirable.
Commissioner Campbell pointed out that the difference between Ft Pierce and Millcreek is that Ft Pierce will be a gateway while Millcreek is not.
Councilwoman Shakespeare inquired why some storage was higher than the fencing? Was that not permitted?
Director Bob Nicholson replied that it is not permitted, but that is a code enforcement issue. Bob asked if there was a consensus by the commission that solid screening should be required on streets. Does the commission want to consider a break in material after 300 LF?
Commissioner Nobis said no, let them show burden of proof.
Bob asked if all streets should have solid fencing or wall. Could after 300 LF the commission and council approve alternate designs?
Commissioner Nobis gave examples of successful designs in industrial parks in Las Vegas.
Bob questioned if the commission should be approached after 300 LF for approval?
Commission Taylor raised the question if there was anything unique about River road, 3050 east, or interior streets?
Bob answered that there were not many with more than 300 LF of street frontage.
Commissioner Nobis asked about movable gates.
Attorney Farnsworth discussed the draft language stating that gates should be “see through”. This should be clarified to state that gates are not required to have slats, but may be wrought iron.
Commissioner Campbell said that the options could be chain link, chain with slats, wrought iron, solid, or perforated metal.
Acting Chairman Bracken asked if there was public comment. Seeing none the public comment period was closed. He then asked if the commission was ready for a motion?
MOTION: Commissioner Campbell made a motion to approve with the following stipulations; 1) no wooden slats, 2) change minimum solid LF to 300, 3) Any proposal for open fencing beyond 300 LF shall come before the PC, and 4) if a developer desires a movable gate that it may be chain link, chain with slats, wrought iron, solid, or perforated metal. Commissioner Chapin seconded the motion. All voted aye, motion passes.
(Note: This item was discussed for 50 minutes)
2. ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT – PUBLIC HEARING (5:00 P.M.)
Consider a zoning amendment to amend the St George City Code, Title 10 Zoning Regulations, Chapter 19 “Off Street Parking Requirements” Section 10-19-4 “Residential Area Requirements” and also Sections 10-7C-7 (Multiple Family Residential Zone) and Section 10-8-5 (Planned Development Residential Zone) to add a requirement for guest parking. Case No. 2009-ZRA-005.
Director Bob Nicholson presented the proposed amendment to establish guest parking requirements. He mentioned that the problem seems to occur primarily on private streets. This code amendment will not address or try to solve parking issues on old existing projects. This code will add to the parking requirements of multiple-family and planned development developments.
Commissioner Taylor asked about the new sentence proposed for Section 10-19-11 regarding senior citizens.
Commissioner Nobis mentioned that Sun River is an over 55 community.
Bob suggested that perhaps the language could be changed to say assisted living instead of senior housing.
Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth said that it might be called Residential Family for the Elderly like the code section in residential.
Bob replied or perhaps both could be used.
Attorney Farnsworth suggested that a minimum parking requirement be included.
Director Nicholson explained the existing requirements in Chapter 19 for parking.
Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth read nursing home requirements.
Director Nicholson continued that this was not the intent. Maybe that second paragraph needs to be scratched in its entirety. I was thinking more of low occupancy. Housing built for one person. In those cases applicant could demonstrate that a 1:2 ratio was excessive. Medium and High Density seem to be the problem. Generally all of Sun River falls under 6 dwelling units per acre. Discussed examples of developments such as Monterey, Waiela Falls. Problems with Blackrock. Sienna Park approximately 13.5 dwelling units per acre. The code now requires a minimum 20 ft. setback to a garage.
Acting Chairman Bracken opened the public hearing.
Scott Mc Call (representing Sun River) spoke; Maybe in 5 phases of Sun River has the density exceeded 5 du/ac. We do not have a parking problem in Sun River. Also I think Blackrock is more like 7 du/ac?
Director Bob Nicholson acknowledged that Sun River did not seem to have a parking problem. Blackrock is actually 6.4 du/ac.
Acting Chairman Bracken seeing no other public present closed the public hearing.
Bob asked if the second paragraph could be eliminated.
Commissioner Taylor said that this should address strictly guest parking. It should be uniform throughout the project. It would be reasonable to drop the second paragraph.
Director Nicholson reminded the commissioners that they have the authority to grant a reduced parking ratio when over 50 dwelling units can demonstrate that 1:2 is excessive. Cowboy Partners (never developed) asked for less than 2 spaces per unit. The threshold is 50. In Section 10-19-11…for uses not specifically identified the PC may determine by nearest comparable. The problem is that presently there is no nearest comparable. None is listed above that section of the code. Unless we have listed there is no flexibility.
Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth recommended that the new guest parking ordinance should be placed in Section 10-19-4, residential area requirements.
Director Nicholson acknowledged that that would work. To take out single and put in low occupancy.
Councilwoman Shakespeare poised the question if a ratio of 1:3 was adequate for guest parking.
Ron Bracken responded that it depends upon the number of units.
Michael Nobis commented that it depends upon the project.
Ron Bracken said you cannot do a broad across the board requirement.
Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth said that meeting the parking requirements may be a self created hardship due to the proposed density of a projector other factors. .
Gloria asked if we can equate to density. The higher the density the more the guest parking required.
Bob answered that 1:3 was selected by staff after researching what other cities have selected.
Commissioner Taylor inquired if it was based on private streets or right of way.
Bob responded that yes, just private streets. They are typically narrower than public streets.
Commissioner Taylor asked if there is no guest parking required on public streets?
Bob answered that is correct.
Commissioner Taylor said no compromise; 1:3 on all private streets?
Director Nicholson suggested that it might be best to simply delete the second paragraph for now.
Acting Chairman Bracken asked if there was a motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to approve the amendment, but to strike out the second paragraph. Commissioner Nobis seconded the motion. All voted aye, motion passes.
(Note: This item was discussed for 20 minutes)
3. ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT – PUBLIC HEARING (5:00 P.M.)
Consider a zoning amendment to amend the St George City Code, Title 10 Zoning Regulations, Chapter 10 “Commercial Zones”, Section 10-10-2 “Permitted Uses” to delete “landscape rock sales yard” as a conditional use in the C-3 (General Commercial) zone and to add “landscape rock sales yard” as a permitted use to Section 10-11-2 “Uses” in Chapter 11 “Manufacturing Zones.” Case No 2009-ZRA-006.
Director Bob Nicholson presented this item. He stated that it is the result of a recent action by the City Council to approve a CUP for Star Nursery. Several council members felt it should be removed as a CUP from the commercial section of the code.
Acting Chairman Bracken opened the public hearing. Seeing no public present for comment the public hearing was closed. He then asked for a motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Nobis made a motion to approve item 1 C.
Commissioner Taylor asked if he could first present a question. Would this also apply to feed and seed stores? What if grain dropped is an issue? Does it mean any type of residue?
Councilwomen Shakespeare felt that some stores like Lowes are not a problem. However, with a CUP requirement the council has their feet held to the fire. Other council members feel the same. If an applicant meets all of the conditions and findings then it must be approved. Traffic was felt to be a future issue, but today we can only judge by current traffic flow. Many on the council believe that by removing the use as a CUP it simply will not be allowed in the commercial zones.
Acting Chairman Bracken asked if everyone was now ready for a motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Nobis made a motion to approve. Commissioner Burks seconded the motion. All voted aye, motion passes.
(Note: This item was discussed for 10 minutes)
Motion: Commissioner Burks made a motion to approve the minutes of April 14, 2009, April 28, 2009 and May 12, 2009. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Campbell. All voted aye, motion passes.
MOTION TO ADJOURN was made by Commissioner Burks and was seconded by Commissioner Nobis. All voted aye. The time was 6:20 p.m. |
|
|
|
Sunbrook |
SG. Golf Club
Red Hills |
Southgate
Junior Assoc. of Golf
Weather Information
|
|
