Thursday, September 30,2004
ST. GEORGE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 30,2004, 4:00 P.M.
ADMINISTRATION CONFERENCE ROOM
Mayor Daniel McArthur
Council Member Larry Gardner
Council Member Rod Orton
Council Member Suzanne Allen
Council Member Gail Bunker
Council Member Bob Whatcott
City Manager Gary Esplin
City Attorney Shawn Guzman
City Recorder Gay Cragun
The dedication of Blake Park was held on site. The meeting then reconvened at the City Office.
Mayor McArthur called the meeting to order and welcomed all present. The invocation was offered by Reverend Alex Wilkey and the pledge of allegiance was led by Mayor McArthur.
DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE PD ZONE AND RELATED CONCEPTS:
Community Development Director Bob Nicholson distributed a memorandum concerning the two PD zone issues raised at the City Council meeting on September 23.
PRESENTATION FROM HUNTSMAN WORLD SENIOR GAMES:
Kathy Thayne and Mona Given, representing the Huntsman World Senior Games, announced that there will be around 8,000 participants this year. She presented the Mayor and Council with jackets and invited them to the opening ceremony October 5 at 7:00 p.m. at Hansen Stadium.
DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE PD ZONE AND RELATED CONCEPTS:
Community Development Director Bob Nicholson reviewed the memo which he distributed earlier in the meeting. He explained that Ken Miller, representing the applicant in a zone change request from A-1 to PD Residential at 3000 East and 2450 South which was discussed and tabled from the City Council meeting on September 23, 2004, would like to request RE-12.5 zoning instead of PD zoning. They will preserve the open space for the equestrian center through a deed restriction and development agreement. He explained that some large PD projects have provided detail, while some have not.
Mayor McArthur commented that the Entrada and Stonecliff PDs are different from the project proposed in the Little Valley area, as the residents of Little Valley have certain expectations that must be met.
City Manager Gary Esplin commented that the City?s main intent in the Little Valley area has been with regard to density, as opposed to style. With regard to the proposed project, he felt use of a PD in this instance convolutes the intent of a PD because custom homes would be allowed, and the intent of a PD is so the neighborhood can see what they will be getting. However, the proposed project fits in well from a conceptual standpoint. The City certainly does not expect to see every house which will be built in a large project. The City does, however, want to see details in a higher density project, such as a townhome development.
Council Member Whatcott arrived.
Council Member Orton commented he felt the proposed project did not fit a PD zone.
Community Development Director Bob Nicholson commented that based on the applicant?s desire for flexibility, the project did not fit a PD zone.
Ken Miller, representing the applicant, advised that architectural restrictions would be placed on the project.
Council Member Allen explained that the reason the Planning Commission preferred the project come in as a PD was because of concern expressed by the neighborhood about what the project would look like. The Planning Commission takes PDs seriously, and they have had a lot of discussion on why a PD zone was created. That reason is so a neighborhood can see what they are going to get.
City Manager Gary Esplin explained that originally the PD zone was not created for huge projects, but for development of the middle of blocks in the downtown area. The PD was created to allow flexibility in development of the interior blocks, and then it was expanded as a planning concept for large projects such as Sunbrook, etc.
Council Member Gardner commented that if the City is not careful, it has the ability to make a PD cumbersome and imposing, and he did not want to look at every elevation and was comfortable with an example of a typical style which would be used. He stated he did not want to get into detail management, and staff should not be burdened with this responsibility; only the overall theme of the project should be required. A PD offers opportunity for clustering to provide open space, and the PD zone has been working nicely in this effort, and he would hate to see the City get hung up in requiring exact elevations of every unit and miss the intent of what the City was trying to accomplish when it created the PD zone.
City Attorney Shawn Guzman explained that in applying PD zones, the City some times wants to use them as enforcement tools. The City does not have standing to enforce CC&Rs, and with a PD, the City can take action. Some times PD designation is critical because of the topography of a project, and relying on CC&RS to accomplish this same purpose would not work.
Mayor McArthur commented that the PD zone offers flexibility to be specific when needed.
City Attorney Shawn Guzman agreed that the City?s current PD ordinance provides great flexibility to do this, and provides the Planning Commission the opportunity at the time an application comes in to suggest that perhaps different options should be looked at.
Council Member Whatcott commented that if the City wants to manage what direction it was taking, it should zone everything a PD for control. The City must be careful in how it balances use of a PD zone so that it does not go too far on either side of the issue.
Council Member Allen advised that the Planning Commission sees a PD as requiring elevations, colors, a landscape plan, etc., and this has worked well. The ordinance says that a plot plan, elevation and drawings ?may? be prepared as necessary. Perhaps the ordinance should say that a plot plan, elevation and drawings ?shall? be prepared so that the neighborhood can see whether or not the project will fit into the area, rather than leaving it discretionary.
Council Member Orton commented that perhaps the City was caught up in trying to fix something that was not broken. The proposed project, in his opinion, did not fit the criteria for a PD.
An unidentified man commented that there will continue to be unique settings which lend themselves to PDs.
Community Development Director Bob Nicholson commented that when a developer brings in a plan which clusters lots and provides open space and amenities, the question is how can the City make sure that the amenities are put in. The answer is to use a development agreement with a PD to provide more enforcement.
John Ames suggested that when amenities are proposed as part of a PD, the developer should bond for funds to do the amenities with a timeline to have them completed.
Mark Bradley, Associate Planner, explained that because there were many unresolved issues with the proposed project, such as trails, wetlands, walls, open space, etc., the Planning Commission felt it would be more appropriate for the project to be a PD, which the applicant was willing to do.
Ken Miller explained that he has now reapplied for a RE-12.5 zone with a development agreement.
Community Development Director Bob Nicholson explained that the development agreement should lay out phasing for when the amenities will come on line, as well as a good description of the amenities, fencing, equestrian trails, completion dates, etc.
City Manager Gary Esplin commented it appeared the City Council would like to continue with the ordinance as presently written. There is flexibility within the ordinance to have the Planning Commission and City Council make recommendations and require higher density or multi-family unit projects to present elevations as has been done in the past. Commercial PD projects will be required to have elevations, and the City has never deviated from this requirement.
Mayor McArthur suggested that the PD ordinance be left as is.
Community Development Director Bob Nicholson inquired if actual photos which show the detail of a project would be acceptable instead of renderings.
It was the consensus of the City Council that photos would be acceptable as long as the required details of the project could be seen.
DISCUSSION ON THE HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF FENCES AND WALLS ON CORNER LOTS:
Community Development Director Bob Nicholson distributed copies of the current and proposed code on corner lot requirements and reviewed it. He then showed slides of actual violations throughout the City.
City Manager Gary Esplin commented that the City has tried not to be bureaucratic in the past, but fence permits should now be required in order to make sure utilities are not buried under block and rock walls as well as to stop other violations. It may be burdensome, but it should be done.
City Attorney Shawn Guzman suggested that the new regulations could be distributed to every licensed fencing contractor and developer to help get the word out. With regard to present violations, the City must use the ordinance in effect at the time the wall was built for enforcement purposes. The City can, however, require compliance now for those walls and fences which are safety violations.
Council Member Orton commented to John Ames that his fence is a safety hazard as cars pulling out of his driveway are blinded by the fence built to the sidewalk.
City Attorney Shawn Guzman advised that Mr. Ames? fence does not meet current City Code. The City can require compliance because of health and safety concerns.
Associate Planner Mark Bradley suggested that the City could require that all swimming pools be built in the actual rear yard.
Enforcement Officer Brad Young advised Mr. Ames how he could bring his wall into compliance. He offered to meet with Mr. Ames to explain his options.
City Manager Gary Esplin suggested that a public hearing be held on the matter.
Jim Painter suggested that some fences are climbable, and this poses a danger to small children when there is a swimming pool. He stated he would like to see the City adopt an ordinance requiring a safer fence, or a second fence around swimming pools to protect small children.
City Manager Gary Esplin advised that the matter would be scheduled for the next City Council meeting.
DISCUSSION CONCERNING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE:
Community Development Director Bob Nicholson distributed a handout entitled ?City Sign Regulations, Issues and Suggested Changes.? He explained that the City has designated certain streets as ?monument sign only? streets, and the Sign Review Committee recommends that an additional seven street be included in this designation, as follows: Blackridge Drive, Tabernacle Street, 100 South, 700 South and Foremaster Drive, Young Street, Red Hills Parkway, and U-18 north of 1250 North Street. The Sign Review Committee also feels this issue qualifies as a pending ordinance because recommendations have been made to the City Council.
Enforcement Officer Brad Young advised that monument sign restrictions also apply to PD Commercial zones as well.
Community Development Director Bob Nicholson commented that this was true, unless a different type of sign was included in the PD package. All signs which presently exist would be allowed to remain until there was a significant change to the sign.
The City Council suggested that several other streets be designated as ?monument sign only? streets, as follows: Main Street from Tabernacle to Bluff, 200 East, 400 East, and 700 East.
City Manager Gary Esplin advised that the matter would be scheduled on an upcoming City Council agenda for discussion.
Mayor McArthur invited a Scout in the audience to introduce himself.
ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION:
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Gardner to adjourn to an executive session to discuss a property purchase.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Allen.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:
Council Member Gardner -aye
Council Member Allen - aye
Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Orton - aye
Council Member Bunker - aye
The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.
MOTION: A motion was reconvene was made by Council Member Allen.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Whatcott.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.
A brief discussion was held on the timing of an announcement concerning the downtown project.
Council Member Allen advised that the Planning Commission would like to let the City Council know that it opposes roads on steep slopes.
A brief discussion was held on the use of a motorized vehicle known as a segway on City sidewalks and trails.
Council Member Orton suggested that the City commission Lyman Hafen to write a history of St. George in celebration of its 150th birthday in 2011.
The meeting then adjourned.
Gay Cragun, City Recorder