City Council Minutes

Thursday, June 20,2002



ST. GEORGE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 20, 2002, 4:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS

PRESENT:
Mayor Daniel McArthur
Council Member Suzanne Allen
Council Member Sharon Isom
Council Member Rod Orton
Council Member Bob Whatcott
Council Member Larry Gardner
City Attorney Jonathan Wright
City Recorder Gay Cragun

EXCUSED:
City Manager Gary Esplin

OPENING:
Mayor McArthur called the meeting to order and welcomed all present. The flag salute was led by Council Member Rod Orton and the invocation was offered by Council Member Suzanne Allen.

Mayor McArthur advised that the City's water conservation program is working. Today's savings were 7% over last year at this time, and the City has seen less usage this year even with growth. The City has turned off its water features and is asking the same of others who have large water features.

Mayor McArthur advised that turn arrows for 100 and 700 South River Road will be installed next week. The City Council previously approved construction of the roundabout at Tabernacle and Main.

ORDINANCE:
Consider approval an ordinance amending Section 5-1-34 of the St. George City Code relating to gun repair as a home occupation category.

City Attorney Jonathan Wright advised that in response to the Council's directive, an amendment to the ordinance has been prepared allowing gun repair as a home occupation. A federal license must be obtained and the amount of firearms on site at any time for repair is limited to five.

Council Member Orton commented that limiting the number to five may not be practical, as more may accumulate as the business owner waits for the gun owners to pick them up.

City Attorney Jonathan Wright replied that the limitation on number was suggested by the applicant, and the ordinance relates to a home occupation as opposed to a commercial business in any event.

Council Member Whatcott stated he liked Bountiful's requirement that the Police Department perform a background check on the applicant before issuance of the business license. He suggested that the Fire Department also perform an on-site inspection.

City Attorney Jonathan Wright replied that the Fire Department normally does not inspect home occupations, but will do so when the Business License Officer makes such a request.

Mayor McArthur commented that an inspection would be important for the safety of the neighborhood.

Council Member Orton made a motion to approve the ordinance with a limit of 20 firearms on site at one time for repair, and subject to a criminal background check by the Police Department, on-site inspection of the premises by the Fire Department, and an ATF license. The motion was seconded by Council Member Isom. Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:



St. George City Council Minutes
June 20, 2002
Page Two

Council Member Orton - aye
Council Member Isom - aye
Council Member Allen - aye
Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Gardner - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

RESOLUTION/SALE OF CITY PROPERTY:
Consider approval of a resolution authorizing sale of City-owned property adjacent to the Southgate Golf Course. Gary Gardner, applicant.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson explained that the City received a request from Gary Gardner for purchase or lease of approximately 3,395 sq. ft. of property to the rear of his home on Lot 33 in the Southgate Hills Subdivision. The City in the past has sold fringe property around its golf courses for $1 a sq. ft. Letters were sent to surrounding property owners notifying them of this request. Photos of the site were distributed.

Council Member Orton inquired if the area would be improved and landscaped once it was purchased or leased.

Mayor McArthur replied that the property owner would be responsible for maintenance of the property.

Mr. Nicholson advised the home is under construction and is just about ready for occupancy, however, the applicant has been told not to occupy the home until this issue is resolved.

Gary Gardner, applicant, explained that the day he took out his building permit he inquired of the City what was required to fill in the back of his lot. He was told to see Dave Terry. Dave Terry told him to make sure the fill was sloped and covered with rock to prevent erosion, and he therefore proceeded in that manner. However, during construction he received a red tag from a building inspector who said a neighbor had complained his view was being blocked. He contacted the City Attorney to discuss his options, and was advised his options consisted of removing the fill or requesting permission to purchase the property. He advised a petition had been signed by 24 of his neighbors who have no complaints about the fill. He inquired about the option of a long term lease, or suggested the City can grant anyone permission to put dirt on its property and build a home, just as long as it is in writing.

City Attorney Jonathan Wright replied that the City could not allow anyone to take control of its property for free, as it has to get fair market value for the property, and Mr. Gardner has encroached onto City property. Mr. Wright explained that Mr. Gardner extended his lot by 3,000 feet in order to create a backyard, and if the City granted approval of his request, it would have to do so for the next person also.

Mr. Gardner explained it was not his intent to cause problems, but there were several others who encroached on the golf course area, and he failed to understand why it is fair for one person to encroach and not another.

City Attorney Jonathan Wright replied he would like to know who the property owners are who are encroaching onto City property, as they clearly cannot take over City property without paying for it.

W. R. Lobato, owner of Lot 29 in Southgate Hills, distributed photos of the site, and explained the rock used by Mr. Gardner consisted of rubble and debris which was excavated to build his basement. He stated the rubble was not in harmony with the neighborhood, and he is the only one who will be directly affected by the decision of the City Council. He stated that if the Council granted Mr. Gardner's request, it would have to do so for the next person too.

St. George City Council Minutes
June 20, 2002
Page Three

Mr. Nicholson explained that Mr. Terry gave Mr. Gardner permission to temporarily use the land until his home was completed, and the building inspector asked him to remove the dirt prior to occupancy.

Council Member Gardner inquired if the issue concerned appearance rather than distance and height.

Mr. Lobato replied that it was an imposition of space, implied or otherwise. However, he would not be unreasonable and would consent to what has been allowed in the neighborhood. He stated that real estate was not selling and all the help possible was needed to sell homes, and this is an impact on the sale of his home.

Mr. Gardner stated that his home is 7,860 sq. ft. and that its cost had a greater impact on the value of Mr. Lobato's home than a small amount of dirt. If the lot between his home and Mr. Lobato's is filled and a retaining wall built, Mr. Lobato will not even be able to see the rock. Further, Mr. Lobato's home was for sale long before he began construction of his home, and its lack of sale has nothing to do with the back of his home, nor has it devalued Mr. Lobato's home. He stated he was anxious for a resolution so he could move into his home. He had $48,000 in additional costs to compensate for the blue clay and expansive soils, and would appreciate anything the City could do to help financially.

Mayor McArthur commented the question was the encroachment onto City property.

City Attorney Jonathan Wright advised that Dave Terry did not give Mr. Gardner permission to use the property, and building department staff all told Mr. Gardner he could not push the excavated dirt onto City property and that it would have to be removed. This is why there has not been an occupancy permit. He advised he also filed a notice of encroachment with the County Recorder.

Council Member Gardner commented it appeared from the pictures that the fill consists of an unsightly layered slope and deserved more consideration. He suggested Mr. Gardner be given the option to remove the dirt and comply, or the property sold or leased to him with the condition that the area be properly landscaped and terraced to blend into the neighborhood.

Council Member Orton agreed with Council Member Gardner, and commented that if the City is going to start selling property along the golf course in this area, it had better come up with a plan for the entire area. If the property is purchased, it should be improved to City standards to be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Gardner will not see his rock retaining wall, but the neighbors will, and he stated he hoped it was not the finished product and would blend in.

Mr. Gardner commented he wanted the wall to look more natural, and the pictures were deceiving.

Council Member Orton suggested a site visit.

A site visit was scheduled for 7:00 a.m. the following morning, June 21, and this item was continued until then. A final decision will be made by the City Council at its meeting of July 11.

SET PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Associate Planner Mark Bradley advised that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held June 11, 2002, recommended the following items be scheduled for public hearings to be held July 18, 2002 at 5:00 p.m.:

(1) A zone change from R-1-10 to AP on 4.16 acres located on the northeast corner of 280 North Mall Drive. Brad Stucki, applicant.


St. George City Council Minutes
June 20, 2002
Page Four

(2) A zone change from RE-37.5 to RE-20 on 4.62 acres located at 750 North 1250 West. Brad Griffiths, agent.
(3) An amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 17, Planned Development, regarding residential side and rear yard setbacks, and Chapter 24, Definitions, for basement, story, and story above grade.

A motion was made by Council Member Isom and seconded by Council Member Allen to set the public hearings as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, as follows:

Council Member Isom - aye
Council Member Allen - aye
Council Member Gardner - aye
Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Orton - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Associate Planner Mark Bradley explained that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held June 11, 2002, recommended approval of the preliminary plat for Tonaquint PD Commercial Center Phase II with four lots located on 1600 South off of Dixie Drive. The four lots within the subdivision are Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 east of the new building along Dixie Drive which is Lot 1 in Phase I of the Tonaquint PD Commercial Center. Each of the proposed lots are less than half the size of Lot 1 in Phase I. There is an irrigation drainage channel which runs through Lot 5 that is in the process of being resolved. The Planning Commission recommends approval. Kay Traveller is the applicant.

A motion was made by Council Member Gardner and seconded by Council Member Orton to approve the preliminary plat. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, as follows:

Council Member Gardner - aye
Council Member Orton - aye
Council Member Allen - aye
Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Isom - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

FINAL PLAT:
Associate Planner Mark Bradley explained that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held June 11, 2002, recommended approval of the final plat for Coral Desert Subdivision with three lots located at 1450 East Foremaster Drive. The west portion of 1450 East will be dedicated along with the plat. David Blake is the applicant.

A motion was made by Council Member Gardner and seconded by Council Member Whatcott to approve the final plat and authorize the Mayor to sign it. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, as follows:

Council Member Gardner - aye
Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Orton - aye
Council Member Isom - aye
Council Member Allen - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

CLARIFICATION OF HEIGHT:
Associate Planner Mark Bradley advised that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held June 11, 2002, discussed a height clarification of the proposed Senior Citizens Center at 200 North on 200 West. Height to the cupola will be

St. George City Council Minutes
June 20, 2002
Page Five

48 feet, with the main portion of the building at 35 feet. The main issues discussed were parking, neighborhood impacts, and existing trees. The clarification is whether the City Council understood the height to be higher than 35 feet. The Planning Commission understood it to be part of the approval. Randy Smith is the agent.

A motion was made by Council Member Allen and seconded by Council Member Orton to approve the height of the cupola on the new Senior Citizens Center to 48'. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, as follows:

Council Member Allen - aye
Council Member Orton -aye
Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Gardner -aye
Council Member Isom - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
Consider a request for approval of a conditional use permit to consider an increase in the height of an office building up to 50 feet at the highest point with most of the building at 44'2" located on the northwest corner of 1100 East 700 South. Larry Belliston, applicant.

Associate Planner Mark Bradley explained that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held June 11, 2002, recommended approval of a conditional use permit for an increase in height for an office building up to 50 feet at the highest point with most of the building at 44 feet two inches. The office building will be located on the northwest corner of 1000 East 700 South. The Planning Commission's two main areas of concern were: (1) the building height in reference to the location within the community, with specific comparisons to the freeway; and (2) traffic impacts on 700 South. The applicant satisfied the height concern with photos taken from different angles and will submit a traffic impact study per the City's Traffic Engineer. The applicant will need to comply with the mitigations to address impacts of the projects. The St. George Medical Park at 736 South 900 East was approved for a 40 foot height. The actual height according to the approved set of building plans shows a height of 38.5 feet. The Coral Desert Health Facility on Foremaster Drive was approved for a height of up to 43 feet to the top of the parapet wall and 52 feet to the top of the entrance arch. The new IHC hospital was approved for a height of 96 feet to the highest point of the structure.

A motion to approve the conditional use permit was made by Council Member Orton and seconded by Council Member Allen. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, as follows:

Council Member Orton - aye
Council Member Allen - aye
Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Isom - aye
Council Member Gardner - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
Consider a request for approval of a conditional use permit to convert an existing business to a used car sales facility at 1135 East 700 South. Paul Proctor, applicant.

Associate Planner Mark Bradley explained that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held June 11, 2002, recommended approval on a four to three vote subject to: (1) a letter of indemnity agreement with a condition that the conditional use permit will expire when there is a change of lessee or owner; and (2) the site will be improved to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements,

St. George City Council Minutes
June 20, 2002
Page Six

such as street trees, paved parking, and display areas. There are serious drainage issues at the site, and mitigation will require an elevation raise of two feet or more. In order to use the site without extensive engineering, the applicant has proposed to sign an agreement holding the City harmless from any liability of potential flooding on the property. The City Attorney has drafted a letter of indemnity for signature. Fence will also have to be reinstalled at the north property line.

A motion was made by Council Member Allen and seconded by Council Member Orton to approve the conditional use permit subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, as follows:

Council Member Allen - aye
Council Member Orton - aye
Council Member Isom - aye
Council Member Gardner - aye
Council Member Whatcott - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
Consider a request for approval of a conditional use permit for a mental health/drug and alcohol counseling facility located in a C-3 zone at 561 E. Tabernacle. Russell and Leslie Talbot, applicants.

Associate Planner Mark Bradley explained that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held June 11, 2002, recommended approval. The applicants provided a detailed letter explaining the proposed hours of operation, counseling background, etc. The daytime hours will be for individual counseling and the evening hours for group counseling. As shown on the site plan, the only proposed changes to the site would be the request to extend the driveway bridge and establishment of a sign. This building has been used for both commercial and residential. The main concern is the parking for the group counseling sessions in the evening. The applicants advise that most of the group will not be driving. The applicant would like to use a metal plate to extend the driveway bridge instead of using concrete.

A motion was made by Council Member Whatcott and seconded by Council Member Gardner to approve the request with the requirement that the driveway bridge be extended permanently with concrete, rather than with a metal plate. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, as follows:

Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Gardner - aye
Council Member Allen - aye
Council Member Isom - aye
Council Member Orton - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
Consider a request for approval of a conditional use permit to increase the height of an accessory building up to 25 feet located at 716 Traveller Terrace. Kay Traveller, applicant.

Associate Planner Mark Bradley explained that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held June 11, 2002, recommended approval. The building is proposed to be a detached garage/accessory building, and was originally proposed as a two story accessory building. It was addressed, however, as a single story building due to requirements in the supplementary chapter of the Zoning Ordinance: "No accessory building shall be erected to a height greater than one story or 15 feet unless recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council as a conditional use permit (Section 15-4). The applicant requests approval of a two story building instead of one story.

St. George City Council Minutes
June 20, 2002
Page Seven

Kay Traveller, applicant, explained the accessory building would be located 20'-30' from the nearest property line.

City Attorney Jonathan Wright advised that the Zoning Ordinance does not allow two stories, and simply refers to height, not stories. An accessory building cannot be higher than one story or 15' without a conditional use permit, but cannot be two stories in any event.

Mr. Traveller advised the accessory building will be a garage with a storage and hobby room on the second floor.

Mr. Wright advised the accessory building would have to be open to the rafters, with no second story rooms. The City Council can grant a conditional use permit for any height, but not for two stories.

Council Member Gardner inquired why the Zoning Ordinance did not provide for flexibility to change the number of stories as well as the height with a conditional use permit.

City Attorney Jonathan Wright replied that if one exception was allowed, they would all have to be allowed.

Mr. Traveller commented that there are a number of accessory buildings in town with a mother-in-law room above the garage.

City Attorney Jonathan Wright replied that the ordinance allowed them in the past, but was amended to prohibit them.

A motion was made by Council Member Whatcott and seconded by Council Member Isom to approve the conditional use permit for a one story accessory building up to 25 feet in height. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, as follows:

Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Isom - aye
Council Member Orton - aye
Council Member Gardner - aye
Council Member Allen - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

ANNOUNCEMENT RE DARTS FUNDING:
Mayor McArthur announced that anyone present to make comments concerning funding of the DARTS system as part of the City's budget adoption would be welcome to make them, but the City Council would not authorize any expenditures for this system until a later time. The City Council just recently received a study of the DARTS system done by a consultant and has not had time to digest the information. The City's annual budget will be adopted at this meeting, as required by law, with funds left in place for the DARTS system, but this decision will be made at another City Council meeting in July.

PUBLIC HEARING/ANNEXATION ORDINANCE:
Public hearing to consider a petition for annexation of approximately 14.571 acres located in the Little Valley area of the City.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson explained that the City previously received a request from Gary Milne to annex approximately 14.57 acres along 3430 East at about 2100 South to the City of St. George. No protests were received. The Planning Commission recommends zoning of A-1.

Mayor McArthur opened the public hearing. There being no public comments, he closed the public hearing and called for a motion.




St. George City Council Minutes
June 20, 2002
Page Eight

A motion was made by Council Member Whatcott and seconded by Council Member Isom to approve, by ordinance, the Milne Addition to the City of St. George. Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:

Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Isom - aye
Council Member Orton - aye
Council Member Gardner - aye
Council Member Allen - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

PUBLIC HEARING/ZONE CHANGE/ORDINANCE:
Public hearing to consider a request for a zone change from R-1-10 Single Family Residential to AP Administrative Professional Office for property located at approximately 115 South Mall Drive. Rocky Mountain Corporation and Kent Heideman, applicants.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson explained this item should follow adoption of the General Plan, as it is not consistent with the current General Plan adopted in 1995.

Mayor McArthur advised that the public hearing on the General Plan would be held, but a decision by the City Council on this particular issue would be continued until the next meeting.

Mr. Nicholson advised that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the zone change and the Amended General Plan.

PUBLIC HEARING/IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE/ORDINANCE:
Public hearing to receive input regarding adoption of the City of St. George impact fee schedule.

Water and Power Director Wayne McArthur distributed discussion guidelines. With regard to water, he recommended impact fees in an amount up to 75% of the maximum allowed, from $1,600 ERU to $2,250 for a 3/4" meter or ERU. The maximum allowable by law was established as a compromise between the Alpha Study and Kemp Study. 80% of the maximum allowable would be $2,400, 85% would be $2,550, 90% would be $2,700, and 100% would be $3,000. Comparisons with impact fees charged by Hurricane, Ivins, Santa Clara and Washington puts the City below all of these cities, and well below some of them. With regard to power impact fees, the proposed rate increase is based on a three year pro forma cash flow analysis and an increase to $2,265 for a 200 amp panel is recommended, up from $1,500. However, the City is considering entering into a long term contract for power with one supplier, and if this works out, it might affect the proposed power impact fee.

Council Member Gardner inquired if it would be best to hold off on any increase to the power impact fees until it is determined whether or not the City will enter into a long term contract for power.

Mr. McArthur replied that there were still too many unknowns, and recommended that the City Council consider the impact fee increase now, and if the agreement is entered into, the impact fees can be reviewed at that time.
He advised that the Power Department was losing $200,000 to $300,000 per month, and the impact fee increase is needed now for revenue.

Mayor McArthur inquired if setting impact fees at 75% of the maximum would pay for capital improvements.

Mr. McArthur replied that there are only certain ways impact fees can be used. They cannot be used to improve the level of service, but they can be used to buy into the system.


St. George City Council Minutes
June 20, 2002
Page Nine

Council Member Orton advised that 80% of the maximum power impact fee would be $2,420, 85% would be $2,570, 90% would be $2,720, and 100% would be $3,020.

Mr. McArthur advised that the recommendation from the Water and Power Board is that power impact fees be set at 75% of the maximum.

Council Member Gardner commented that the Alpha and Kemp studies referenced power impact fees according to amp size, but the discussion now is about ERUs.

Mr. McArthur clarified that a 200 amp panel is residential, and if a larger panel is put in, the impact fee will be based on the incremental amount of power drawn through that size of panel.

Mayor McArthur explained that if the City sets impact fees at 100% of the maximum allowed, it could be challenged in court.

City Attorney Jonathan Wright clarified that 100% of the impact fee would be paid, which is 75% of the study.

Mayor McArthur opened the public hearing.

Lucille Boren inquired why the City was issuing permits for new homes during a time of drought. She inquired if owners of single family residences had to pay impact fees. She was advised that everyone who builds a new home pays impact fees.

Mayor McArthur clarified that if someone buys a used home, there are no impact fees due the City, but anyone building a new home will pay impact fees. Historically, PUDs have paid less impact fees than single family residences.

Ms. Boren inquired if golf courses paid impact fees.

Mayor McArthur replied that any connection to the system requires an impact fee.

Ms. Boren explained that she is on a limited income and cannot afford certain prescriptions because of rising expenses.

Mayor McArthur explained that culinary water is not used to water the City's golf courses, and in many cases golf courses are watered by well water.

Ms. Boren inquired why the well water could not be used for culinary purposes.

Mayor McArthur replied that the water was not culinary quality.

Ms. Boren inquired if the City was going to continue to allow new housing developments, as this does not provide the City with more water or power.

Mayor McArthur replied this was the purpose of impact fees.

Tyler Nelson, representing the AOPC, congratulated the Mayor and Council on the City's Water Efficient Landscape Guide, and reported she had heard landscapers were not in favor of it as their reputations depended on the grass looking great. She also expressed appreciation to the Wastewater Department for inspecting sewer systems in PUDs and advised that ten have been accepted so far. She explained that the AOPC currently has 80 association members and represents 6,000 homes. With regard to impact fees, someone has to pick up the actual cost of supplying infrastructure for all the new development, and impact fees charged to developers and homebuilders help pay for part of the cost to supply this infrastructure. She inquired why the City was only considering increasing water and power impact fees, when real infrastructure costs affect streets, fire protection, police protection and schools. She explained

St. George City Council Minutes
June 20, 2002
Page Ten

that the difference between real sustainable growth and artificial growth is that sustainable growth pays for itself. The current growth rate of 7.5% results in a 100% increase in the resources needed to rebuild infrastructure every 10 years. This is not sustainable growth and real costs are just now beginning to roll in. The current water and power impact fees are far below the cost of furnishing resources, and ratepayers are picking up almost half the cost of supplying water and power to new structures. The water impact fee is currently $1,600 when the actual cost is $2,800. The new proposed impact fee will only cover $500 of this $1,200 difference. The City is proposing that it is fair for ratepayers to subsidize builders into the future, and if growth has been good for everyone, why is it costing ratepayers $1,200 for each new home built in the last two years. The proposed impact fees fall way short of covering the actual cost. The current power impact fee is $1,500, when the actual cost is $3,200. This $1,700 difference again means each new home, even after the proposed increase of $900, leaves ratepayers with another $800 not paid for by new development. If growth is good, then why is it costing ratepayers $1,700 for power for each new home built? If growth is good for everyone, then why has it been costing ratepayers a combined total of $3,300 for each new home built in the last two years just to supply water and power? In summary, growth that is sustainable pays its own way, and water and power ratepayers in St. George should not be forced to subsidize excessive growth so that a few men can make a fortune. She recommended that all impact fees be raised, and to a level to pay the cost of future development. She further suggested that the City inspect new PUD developments to assure requirements are met, instead of allowing them to avoid costs by putting in one meter to serve 28-35 homes.

Council Member Gardner commented that the community's growth rate was about 3%.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson advised that the City's growth rate is now between 4% and 5%, but varies from year to year based on the number of building permits issued.

Council Member Gardner commented that the demand on the system is partly created by the purchase of new electronic appliances, etc. by current residents, which makes more demand on the system, and it is not just new growth which impacts the system.

Gil Nicola asked the mayor to repeat the amount of savings achieved in water and power over the last year.

Mayor McArthur replied that the figures he had are for water only, and currently today's water savings are 8% over last year at this time. In months previous this amount has been as high as 18%.

Mr. Nicola inquired about savings in power.

Water and Power Director Wayne McArthur replied that the City was currently running 12%+ over last year at this time.

Mr. Nicola commented he did not believe the City was going to meet power supply demands with the increased demand on the system. He inquired if there was any yearly discussion about adjusting impact fees since 1995.

Mayor McArthur replied that any adjustment to impact fees must be based on a study of the capital facilities plan, and this will be reviewed every five years.

Mr. Nicola commented that it seemed appropriate to make a review a great deal more often than has been done in the past, and growth should be paying more of its own way, and this should not be put on the ratepayer.

Council Member Gardner commented that the Water and Power Department walks a fine line, and while conservation may be good in some respects, if no one is using the water or power, the City still has to pay for it. He commented

St. George City Council Minutes
June 20, 2002
Page Eleven

there was adequate water and power but everyone should be wise in their use. If everyone cuts back, the City will go into the hole, and in fact some cities have had to raise rates because conservation had been so successful the cities could not meet their bond payments.

Mr. Nicola commented that while he has never made the argument that growth was not important, he felt subsidized growth is not something the City should be doing.

Joe Caby commented that ten years ago some citizens were fighting for 3% growth and were defeated. 3% then was a lot less than today.

Jim Thorley inquired about the increased percentage in power over the last 10-15 years.

Water and Power Director Wayne McArthur replied that rates were increased in 1991, and then again this year. This years power rate increase was 40%.

Mr. Thorley challenged Ms. Nelson's figures and her statement that existing residents are subsidizing new residents. He commented that by law all impact fees can do is pay for the impact new homes have on the system. He inquired of Ms. Nelson where she obtained her figures.

Ms. Nelson replied she obtained her figures from the City's own study.

Mr. Thorley inquired if the City's cost for water for each new home was truly $2,250.

Mr. McArthur replied that the City's cost was actually $3,000 for water for each new home, and this $3,000 includes the cost of infrastructure needed.

Mr. Thorley inquired if $3,000 was the City's present cost, or future cost. He commented his power bill has not gone up other than the 40% increase, and has not even kept up with the cost of living over the last 20 years.

Council Member Gardner commented that last year the City grew 3%, yet water use went up by 6%-7%, which means that existing residents were using twice as much.

Mr. Thorley commented they should then pay twice as much.

Council Member Gardner commented in that scenario, new growth subsidized existing residents.

Ms. Nelson inquired about the need to build new water tanks.

Council Member Gardner replied that part of the water tank is devoted to water for existing citizens who want to plant more grass, as well as for new residents.
It is not fair for existing people to pay for total growth, nor is it fair for new growth to subsidize existing residents.

Mr. Thorley commented that a true environmentalist is one whom has already built his home.

Ms. Nelson commented there were currently 1,200 homes for sale in St. George.

Mr. Thorley commented that he did not like to see the attitude that now we're here, let's sock it to everybody who comes.

Council Member Gardner commented that residents of St. George have access to some of the cheapest power rates in the state.

Mr. Nicola commented that a footnote to the City's Water Development Impact Fee Study says that state law allows existing residential to subsidize new

St. George City Council Minutes
June 20, 2002
Page Twelve

development, but new development cannot subsidize existing residents. Existing residents will subsidize new development if impact fees are set lower than the maximum allowed. He advised that when he inquired why impact fees were set at 75% in 1995, he was advised it was because staff recommended it. He inquired of the City Council if staff recommended impact fees be set at 50%, would they accept that? He commented that impact fees must have been set at 75% for some reason, and that reason was probably to stimulate growth. The question is how much growth do we have infrastructure for.

Mayor McArthur advised that the building trade in St. George supports impact fees because it realizes the importance of providing infrastructure.

Council Member Allen commented that the 75% figure was not just pulled out of the air, as the City commissioned studies from professionals across the country and held many meetings on the matter. A lot of consideration was given to this figure, and it was arrived at after a lot of compromise and discussion.

Paul Carter, a member of the AOPC, expressed concern that the Power Department was experiencing a deficit of $200,000 to $300,000 each month. He stated he hoped the Mayor and Council would take into consideration this deficit, as the City cannot operate in a deficit. If this means raising impact fees, then it should do so to continue to provide the quality of life currently enjoyed in St. George.

Mayor McArthur advised that by law, impact fees cannot be used to get the City out of a deficit, but with a combination of rates and impact fees, it is trying to reach its goal of a 18%-20% reserve.

Lucille Boren inquired if the City considered using reclaimed water for irrigating lawns.

Mayor McArthur replied that this was currently in the works, and next year the City will build its reuse facility to treat waste water and use it to water its golf courses.

Jim Guard commented he was not sure the comparison of St. George's impact fees to other cities' impact fees was meaningful, as this implies competing for growth with surrounding communities. The City should not compete with low impact fees, but with low rates and better infrastructure.

There being no further public comment, Mayor McArthur closed the public hearing.

Council Member Gardner commented that it was important to understand that raising impact fees will make a difference whether a young family can build a home or not.

Council Member Whatcott commented that the City has been examining this issue for a year, and it came down to the City breaking down the next ten years into three phases. With that in mind, it began calculating water and power impact fees and rates, recognizing that they would have to be raised. He expressed concern that the Power Department was running in a deficit every month, and if this continues, both impact fees and rates will have to be looked at. If impact fees are raised and rates lowered, revenue does not come in as quickly. Impact fees come incrementally with the need to build, and they cannot be depended on. If they are raised too high, there is no construction, and therefore no money to pay bills. Hence the 75% rule came into effect, and while this is not a magic number, it is close, and something has to happen to meet the City's objectives of the next ten years. He made a motion to increase the water impact fee to $2,250 and the power impact fee to $2,265, which is 75% of the maximum impact fee allowed, and that it be looked at seriously over the next year to be addressed again in short order, if need be.


St. George City Council Minutes
June 20, 2002
Page Thirteen

The motion was seconded by Council Member Gardner, who noted how proactive the Water and Power Departments have been. He commented that even in a drought no one has had to go without water, as the water is there, and a pressurized pump will be coming on line within a week to solve some of the pressure problems in the southern end of the City. He stated that the citizens of St. George have lived on the principle of pay it forward, as all did not earn or pay for what is enjoyed today but someone in an earlier generation sacrificed and paid the price to make it easier for us today, and he hoped we would make it easier for those who come in the future.

Mayor McArthur suggested July 1 as an implementation date for the impact fee increase, except for three companies who have been working with Washington County Economic Development, and he recommended their implementation date be August 1.

City Attorney Jonathan Wright clarified that whether or not a contract has been signed or not was not relevant. The building permit will have to be purchased by July 1 in order to take advantage of the present impact fees.

Council Member Whatcott expressed concern that extending the deadline too far into the future would result in a huge influx of permits.

Mayor McArthur commented that the problem with signed contracts is that they can be postdated.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson recommended July 1 as the implementation date for the new impact fees, as his office is already inundated by permits.

Kevin Ence took issue with the City allowing the three large companies until August 1 to obtain their building permit, when he would only have 10 days to obtain his permits. He stated he had 10 contracts pending, and the increased impact fees would have a significant bearing on them. He suggested allowing everyone until August 1 to obtain their building permits with the existing impact fees.

Mayor McArthur explained that the City has been negotiating with the three companies for three years, and this was the reason he recommended an additional extension of time for them. Additionally, the increased fees may make a difference whether they come to St. George or not.

Mr. Ence requested 30 days before the impact fees were increased for anyone.

Council Member Orton commented he hated to extend the date 35 to 40 days, other than for the three large companies who have been working with Washington County Economic Development.

Council Member Isom commented she felt the extension should be given to all.

Council Member Gardner requested clarification that a building permit would have to actually be taken out.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson replied that the building permit would have to be taken out. He expressed concern about a 40 day extension, as City staff experienced a nightmare in the past when it approved a long extension period. He suggested allowing ten days.

Vince Clayton advised he had ten contracts which had already been negotiated, and this additional increase will cost $33,800 if not all are started within a ten day period.

Council Member Whatcott replied to Mr. Clayton that he was on the Planning Commission and was aware that the impact fees were being increased. He suggested a compromise of 15 days.

St. George City Council Minutes
June 20, 2002
Page Fourteen

Carol Sapp, Southern Utah Homebuilders Association, commented that allowing until July 15 was a fair compromise.

Tyler Nelson commented that the City announced months ago that the impact fees were going to be raised, and Santa Clara recently raised their impact fees and made them retroactive to September. They also charged 80% of the maximum allowed. She stated it was hard for her to see the Council please the developers the minute they say something. She commented for the City to allow an additional 15 days was incredible.

Council Member Orton commented it was not unreasonable to allow 15 extra days.

Carol Sapp stated today's action could not be compared with 1985 when a developer could buy 50 building permits without plans. The process now is not a quick one, and developers are simply asking for time to bring in their plans and pull their permits. She advised she has been informing members for some time that this increase was coming, but has not been able to give them an amount. She stated she did not feel there would be a run on permits, and the extra 15 days simply gives developers time to get in. Now that they know what the fees are going to be, they can tell their customers. She expressed concern for first time homebuyers, as some will not be able to afford the $1,500 increase.

Council Member Whatcott commented that whether the extension is 15 or 60 days, there will still be some first time homebuyers who cannot qualify for a home.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson commented that in the last 30 days the number of permits requested has doubled.

Council Member Whatcott added to his motion that implementation of the new impact fees would take place on July 15.

City Attorney Jonathan Wright clarified that building permits pulled on or after July 15 will be assessed the new impact fee.

Council Member Whatcott continued to say that July 12 would be the last day to purchase building permits under the existing impact fee schedule. Additionally, the three companies working with Washington County Economic Development will have until August 1 to purchase building permits under the existing impact fee schedule. The amended motion was seconded by Council Member Gardner.

Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:

Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Gardner - aye
Council Member Orton - aye
Council Member Allen - aye
Council Member Isom - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

Council Member Whatcott commented that the recent rate increase and impact fee increase should meet the City's goals for the next ten years. If not, they will be addressed again shortly.

Mayor McArthur commented that other impact fees might also be addressed. He then called for a five minute break.

PUBLIC HEARING/GENERAL PLAN AND LAND USE MAP/ORDINANCE:
Public hearing to consider approval of the updated General Plan and Land Use Map for the City of St. George.
St. George City Council Minutes
June 20, 2002
Page Fifteen

Mayor McArthur advised that action from this public hearing would be continued until July 11 for a decision in order to give a downtown group time to make a presentation on that date.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson advised that updating the General Plan has been in the process for 18 months to two years, and a number of work meetings have been spent on it. The plan is all about growth and how to manage it. Four neighborhood meetings were held to gather input, and then the Planning Commission held two public hearings. It is estimated the City will grow 4% a year, which translates to 2,000 people per year. It is estimated that St. George will have a population of 100,000 in the year 2020. The purpose of the General Plan is to be a guide for land use decisions and to identify growth areas. He then reviewed the Land Use Map. The Land Use Map is intended to be general, and it is City policy to update the General Plan every five years to evaluate trends and educate the public and reconfirm and modify the City's objectives. He then reviewed high points on the Land Use Map. The Ledges area on the General Plan calls for the area to be low density residential, one to four units per acre, with proposed neighborhood commercial and mixed residential. The Planning Commission was not informed of the Washington County Boundary Commission's recommendation of March, 2000 that if the City
annexed The Ledges, they strongly recommended that zoning adjacent to Winchester Hills be a minimum of one acre lots or compatible with the lots presently existing there. There is an issue of trying to create an appropriate buffer adjacent to Winchester Hills. Present zoning is Mining and Grazing. The General Plan for the South Block area contains a refined version of what was planned for in 1995 which was highly conceptual. The City now knows the location of the southern corridor and the new airport, and has Leucadia's proposal. A detailed land use plan will be developed before the City moves forward with any zoning in this area. The central City area, historically, was designated as medium density which means four to nine homes per acre. There are existing R-1 zones, and the proposed General Plan calls for protecting the existing R-1 zones for the most part. There is one block of R-1 which would benefit from new investment. The entire area is 95% built out. A neighborhood committee has done considerable research and will make a presentation at the July 11 meeting. City staff supports their recommendation with downzoning in the future because of the demand for college student housing. There is not too much change in the east area of the City, but one change is proposed for a professional office zone for a mortuary on Mall Drive. The current plan shows this area as low density residential. Other than this change, there is very little change in the General Plan from the 1995 version. Another area is the Little Valley/Washington Fields area which has been the most difficult to develop a consensus for what the residents support and property owners want. The area is shown as low density residential, one to four homes per acre, and is similar to the General Plan of 1995. He questioned if there should be more land set aside for rural residential. For a specific area in Little Valley, the General Plan adopted in 1995 calls for up to one unit per acre, but the current General Plan proposes up to two units per acre in this same specific area. This would be an increase in density. He clarified that a designation of Very Low Density Residential contains up to one dwelling unit per acre. Low Density Residential is one to four units per acre, and Medium Density Residential is five to nine units per acre.

Council Member Orton commented that with regard to Little Valley, it was his understanding that the City Council previously agreed to protect agricultural areas at up to two units per acre, but the proposed General Plan indicates up to four units per acre.

Council Member Whatcott commented that the R-1-20 zoning designation should be moved to Very Low Density Residential.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson advised that the General Plan indicates up to one dwelling unit per acre is considered Very Low Density Residential, and Agricultural zones allow up to one dwelling unit per acre, with a suggestion for up to two. This would be RE-20.

St. George City Council Minutes
June 20, 2002
Page Sixteen

Mayor McArthur commented that Washington City's zoning in this area is R-1-10.

Council Member Allen advised that Washington City is currently having discussions about this zoning.

Council Member Whatcott commented the City may be taking too broad a stroke in saying that Low Density Residential includes densities from R-1-8 to R-1-20, as that was part of the problem in the Little Valley area. He suggested more detail was needed. He commented that R-1-8 and R-1-20 zoning are drastically different.

Mr. Nicholson replied that it was up to the Planning Commission and City Council to decide appropriate densities.

Mayor McArthur commented he felt the designations may be too broad, as RE-20 is a lot different than R-1-8.

Council Member Gardner inquired how general was general, and when an applicant comes in for specific zoning is perhaps the time to address the specific nature of it.

Mayor McArthur commented it came down to animals in residential zones, and perhaps RE-12 on down should be in one classification, and from there on up in another.

Council Member Whatcott commented that most RE-12 developments do not allow animals. He commented the proposed General Plan for the Little Valley area seemed to be the opposite of what the Council discussed, instead of creating a buffer.

Council Member Orton commented that the City Council previously made a determination to try and protect the Little Valley area.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson advised that the proposed General Plan shows an expansion of the Ft. Pearce industrial area, and should see fairly significant expansion over the next few years.

Council Member Gardner commented that all Council Members own homes and properties in the area and therefore all are impacted by the General Plan. He was advised that he did not have to declare a conflict of interest because if all the Council did so, there would be no one left to discuss the issues. However, he excused himself from the discussion dealing with The Ledges.

Mayor McArthur opened the public hearing but advised that it would be continued until July 11 for a presentation from the downtown committee.

Alan Gardner requested that the area designated as high density residential around Harmons north of 700 South up 1000 East be designated as commercial.
This area adjoins commercial zoning now, and the property was abandoned several years ago.

Natalie Larson, a resident of Little Valley, commented there needed to be an area for everyone. She commented during the SID proceedings, Brent Gardner commented there would be an equestrian trail in the area, but the large animal owners have been boxed in by large developments. She suggested that Seegmiller Park would be a great place for equestrian trails. She inquired if the City Council was talking about large animals or large lots, and this needs to be addressed. She commented there are a lot of corrals on 3000 East, and she hoped it would be left that way. She inquired how property could be obtained for an equestrian trail system now.

Mayor McArthur replied that equestrian trails would have to be included on a plat map and shown as part of a development.

St. George City Council Minutes
June 20, 2002
Page Seventeen

Ms. Larson inquired if the City could include in the General Plan an equestrian trail system throughout the Little Valley area.

Mayor McArthur replied there would have to be cooperation from property owners, as trails are usually voluntary.

Ms. Larson commented that there will always be people with large animals in the Little Valley area, and an area for them needs to be stipulated.

Council Member Orton commented that if there is a market for subdivisions with equestrian trails and somewhere for the trails to go, they will be built, but it would be hard for the City to step in and do that.

Ms. Larson commented that as development continues in the Little Valley area, she hoped the City Council would take a close look at the area and consider the large animal owners, livestock owners, and hay growers, as part of the area belongs to them too.

Barbara Shiloh stated that she liked the idea of developing some kind of an area for equestrian trails or access in the Winchester Hills area. She stated there were many large animals in Winchester Hills, and inquired about the possibility of a buffer zone as recommended by the Washington County Boundary Commission.

Marvin Fuller, a resident of Winchester Hills, explained that his property is adjacent to the newly annexed City property, and the proposed general plan designation leaves the door open to a change in density immediately to his rear property line which would result in significant adverse impacts to his property. He expressed concern that storm water from adjacent sloping properties, if four to five homes per acre were built, would result in significant damage to his property. Other negative aspects of increased density include noise, loss of wildlife, and a decrease in property values if the character of the neighborhood is changed. He requested that the Amended General Plan be amended to show a minimum of one acre lots adjacent to the eastern property line as recommended by the Washington County Boundary Commission. This recommendation, if implemented, would provide compatible density along the border area and would provide a pleasing transition to the first access road, and major density transition could then take place across that road.

Mayor McArthur advised that drainage was not a part of the General Plan, but would have to be addressed by development.

Mr. Fuller commented if a buffer zone of low density one acre lots were designated along the boundary of Winchester Hills, this would mitigate all of the major adverse impacts to adjacent property owners.

Don Ruesch, a resident of Winchester Hills, expressed concern that residents of Winchester Hills are not residents of the City and therefore have little say. He commented that the recommendation of the Washington County Boundary Commission with regard to a buffer zone would resolve many of the concerns of Winchester Hills residents, as many of the residents feel they have a right to claim their backyards should not be abutting three to four homes per acre. He inquired who paid the cost of infrastructure and where the facilities would come from to serve new residents of the annexed area. He inquired if the City recently purchased a well.

Mayor McArthur replied that infrastructure will be provided when development occurs, including sewer, roads, and rights-of-way. However, this does not pertain to the General Plan.

Mr. Ruesch inquired where the water would come from to serve this newly annexed area.

Mayor McArthur replied that this had nothing to do with the General Plan.

St. George City Council Minutes
June 20, 2002
Page Eighteen

Council Member Whatcott commented if the developers do not have a source, they will not build.

Mr. Ruesch inquired about power to serve the newly annexed area.

Mayor McArthur replied that impact fees and rates will pay for the power.

Mr. Ruesch expressed concern about the proposed density.

Darlene Larsen explained she was a non-profit cattle-raiser in the Little Valley area, and she wants the area to remain as it is. She expressed hope that the General Plan would make provisions for that and not force her out of business. She commented that no amount of money would make up for the fun times she has had chasing pigs, etc., and she hoped the City would make room for this use in the General Plan. She commented that people who moved to the Little Valley and Winchester Hills areas have a right to know what is going to come in around them, and the General Plan should be more specific so they do not have to worry about housing developments and if their area will be different than what they already have. She commented that those who want to raise animals should have the opportunity to do so.

Mayor McArthur agreed that people want to know what is going to come in around them and that their property values will not be diminished. He commented he has heard the City Council say the General Plan needs more definition.

Bob Moyes, a resident of Winchester Hills, questioned the alignment of the Ledges annexation, and commented that the recommendation of the Washington County Boundary Commission was to zone the annexed property contiguous to Winchester Hills the same as Winchester Hills.

Mayor McArthur agreed that the Washington County Boundary Commission strongly recommended this, and that the Council will consider it.

Mr. Moyes stated that negotiations were under way to purchase the Tolman Wells, and those wells were deeper than either of Winchester Hills' wells. He inquired what would happen if the Tolman Wells drew down the water supply.
He stated that Winchester Hills' water supply should be protected in some way.

Mayor McArthur replied that the State Engineer is looking at this issue.

Mr. Moyes commented that it has been mentioned that low density residential zoning contains a maximum of four homes per acre, yet R-1-7 zoning allows one residential unit per 7,000 sq. ft.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson replied that this will be corrected, and R-1-7 zoning will be moved to Medium Density Residential.

John Moore, a resident of Winchester Hills, expressed concern about the proposed density in the area, aesthetics, and traffic. He stated that lower density meant less traffic.

Jim McArthur suggested that Tabernacle Street be made an arterial street and given the same status as 100 South. The daily traffic count on Tabernacle is 3,000 cars a day, and on 100 South it is 11,000 cars a d