City Council Minutes

Thursday, December 19,2002



ST. GEORGE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 19, 2002, 4:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS

PRESENT:
Mayor Daniel McArthur
Council Member Suzanne Allen
Council Member Rod Orton
Council Member Bob Whatcott
Council Member Larry Gardner
City Manager Gary Esplin
City Attorney Shawn Guzman
City Recorder Gay Cragun

EXCUSED:
Council Member Sharon Isom

OPENING:
Mayor McArthur called the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance. The pledge of allegiance was led by John Willie and the invocation was offered by Mona Given.

Mayor McArthur wished citizens of St. George a merry Christmas and thanked City employees who do a tremendous job for the City.

UPDATE ON SENIOR GAMES:
Mona Given thanked City Council members for their support of the Senior Games. She advised there were 6,457 participants this year in 86 sporting events at 92 venue sites using 2,000 volunteers. All 50 states were represented as well as 46 foreign countries. The Senior Games provided over $30 million dollars in economic impact this year.

Mayor McArthur announced that a ground breaking was held yesterday for the Main Street Plaza. The project will hopefully begin in January. The City is going to be a partner in construction of a parking structure containing 469 parking stalls. The City will use of a majority of these stalls after hours and on weekends. This will be made possible through use of Redevelopment Agency funds.

ITEMS TABLED:
City Manager Gary Esplin advised that the report from the Board of Equalization for SIDs 99-1 and 99-3 and the corresponding assessment ordinances would not be considered at this meeting. They will be rescheduled for the City Council meeting of January 23.

CONSENT CALENDAR:
Consider approval of the financial statement for November, 2002.

City Manager Gary Esplin advised that all expenditures were made within guidelines adopted as part of the budget, and the Electric Fund is better now than in previous months.

A motion was made by Council Member Orton and seconded by Council Member Whatcott to approve the financial statement as presented. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

BID OPENING:
Consider award of bid for the purchase of a 1500 GPM pumper truck for the Fire Department.

Purchasing Agent Sue Swensen advised that three manufacturer representatives were contacted, but only one bid was received from Ross Equipment for a Pierce truck. After discounts were offered for prepayment, and addition of a better suspension system, the recommended amount is $355,840.

Fire Chief Robert Stoker commented this pumper truck is similar to the one purchased two years ago. The same specs were used. The bid price, taking advantage of the discounts and upgraded suspension system, is still under the original bid price of $357,869. He explained that the Pierce truck may be more money, but when other makes have been purchased, they have fallen short of expectations. This will be the fifth Pierce truck the Fire Department has purchased. The truck will be built from the ground up to specifications.

A motion was made by Council Member Orton and seconded by Council Member Allen to award the bid to Ross Equipment in the amount of $357,869. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

St. George City Council Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page Two

Chief Stoker advised that the truck will take six to seven months to build, and is tentatively scheduled for delivery in June, 2003.

AWARD OF BID:
Consider award of bid for well drilling services.

Purchasing Agent Sue Swensen advised that two bids were received:

Anzalone Well Serv. $916,600
Gardner Bros. Drilling $613,299

She recommended award to the low bidder, Gardner Drilling, in the amount of $613,299.

A motion was made by Council Member Whatcott and seconded by Council Member Gardner to award the bid to the low bidder, Gardner Drilling, in the amount of $613,299. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

RESOLUTION:
Consider adoption of a resolution appointing two Board Members to the
Employee Appeal Board.

City Manager Gary Esplin explained that under State law a public entity is required to have an appeal board made up of three members who are employees, and two members from the governing body. The appointment of members from the governing body should be done each year.

Mayor McArthur recommended that Council Members Bob Whatcott and Rod Orton be appointed to the Employee Appeal Board. A motion was made by Council Member Gardner and seconded by Council Member Allen to approve a resolution appointing Rod Orton and Bob Whatcott to the Employee Appeal Board. Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

RESOLUTION:
Consider adoption of a resolution of the City Council of the City of St. George, Utah (?Participant?) approving the form of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement; authorizing the execution and delivery of said Interlocal Cooperation Agreement; providing for the publication of a notice of public hearing authorizing the holding of a public hearing; and related matters.

City Manager Gary Esplin explained that this item could be combined with item number six under staff reports to consider adoption of an interlocal cooperation agreement for operation of the OK Foundation with the City acting as a conduit for tax free bonds for the acquisition of the facility.

Kent Norton, President of the OK Foundation, introduced Vaughn Pulsipher who represents the firm for ongoing management of the facility; Karen Brown, manager of the Meadows Retirement Community; Wade Mitchell, Associate Junior Partner to Mr. Pulsipher; and Jason Burningham, financial advisor to the City. Mr. Norton explained that the OK Foundation is a charity for charities, with proposed package benefits and services for existing childrens? charities. He proposed to take advantage of resources in a 501(c)(3) which will allow the City to issue tax exempt bonds for purchase and operation of three assisted living centers, one of which is in St. George. He explained that the foundation could have made application to the Utah Housing Corp. in order to act as the issuer, or Salt Lake County could have been approached, but the largest of the three facilities is located in St. George, and therefore St. George was selected to be the conduit issuer and Salt Lake County will participate by way of an interlocal cooperation agreement. There will be no change to the present service offered at the Meadows except considerable improvements as result of the additional capital which will be brought to the project. It is the foundation?s intent to make the facility even nicer than it currently is, and rates will not increase. The IRS requires the setting aside of funds to see to it that anyone who currently lives there will be able to live out their lives there, even if their families exhaust their ability to pay. Part of the charitable function is to see to it that they are taken care of in the facility, or can adequately be cared for there as opposed to a higher level of care facility. The City will have no liability or recourse, as holders of the bonds will look solely to the operation of the property. As the property comes off the tax rolls the City would legitimately have a concern about the effect, and OK Foundation proposes to replace those funds. For example, if taxes were $10 and $3 of that went to local schools, OK Foundation will make a contribution to the School District and work closely with them and their needs. If the School District would have used the money to buy computers, and if OK

St. George City Council Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page Three

Foundation could get computers donated to the School District, OK Foundation would then use the cash for other needs. If the School District prefers to receive the cash, OK Foundation would simply give them the cash in terms of what they would have lost in the tax base. This would be the same for the needs at the City level - OK Foundations proposes to make the City whole as far as these dollars are concerned.

Mayor McArthur inquired of Mr. Norton if the City or School District will have to apply for the funds, or if their portions will come automatically to them.

Mr. Norton advised he would like it reflected in the minutes that this is OK Foundation?s commitment, and the funds will go to the City and School District without having to be asked for or applied for. However, the entities will need to work closely in terms of what this will be.

Council Member Orton inquired if OK Foundation would make every entity affected whole, or just the School District and City.

City Manager Gary Esplin advised that the County and library are part of the current tax bill.

Mr. Norton replied he did not claim to know what the breakdown was, but he suspected some on the list are not as closely related to Operation Kids as the examples cited. However, OK Foundation would be taking on the obligation to address every single item, and there are a number of things that Operation Kids would address regardless of this kind of financing and to the extent they were receiving funds as a result of coming off the tax rolls.

Council Member Orton inquired if this project would jeopardize a portion of tax funds which would go to the County or library.

City Manager Gary Esplin replied that Mr. Norton explained they would do whatever is required of them, and the City Council could make this a requirement of issuance of the bonds. The City Council could require them to hold everyone harmless from losing any tax revenue.

Mr. Norton asked that the City Council take into consideration that as a result of the property being taken over by a non-profit organization, other good things happen for the City which would be a substantive benefit to the City. He asked that they not be held strictly accountable for the entire amount.

Jason Burningham explained that in terms of the magnitude of the tax breakdown, 60%-65% is the School District. On an annual tax bill of $34,000, $20,000 is for the School District, $5,000-$6,000 is for the City, and $8,000 is for the County. Other small amounts are for special districts, but the lion?s share is for the three entities. The foundation is indicating in good faith that they would put toward the City, County, and School District a donation or amount of money, and hold the City harmless. Although the County has not been specifically addressed, the foundation did know the School District and City were concerned.

City Manager Gary Esplin inquired of Mr. Burningham how the City could be assured that every 501(c)(3) organization will not ask the City for tax exempt status in order to further their own arrangements. He inquired if there were guidelines established.

Mr. Burningham advised that he would put together some guidelines, and perhaps even an application. There would be consideration for the type of benefit provided to the community.

Council Member Whatcott commented that a positive factor is that a non-profit entity which owns building or land is exempt from property tax, but in this case the non-profit entity is making the City whole by providing the tax payment to the City for as long as and until the bonds are paid off.

Mayor McArthur inquired if there would be a review process in case a company who received tax-free financing through the City buys resort property for instance, or a houseboat in Lake Powell.

Mr. Burningham advised that guidelines will be submitted to the City, including the method and ultimate purchase of bonds by a sophisticated buyer as this type of bond is not as secure as an AAA bond. Another thing to be looked at is whether or not the management fee is high. In this case it is actually below market.


St. George City Council Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page Four

Kent Norton explained that although new, this sort of thing has been done a lot elsewhere in the country, and the IRS has been involved considerably in structuring the standards in terms of the 501(c)(3) and the reasonableness of management fees.

Council Member Gardner inquired what would happen if the City Council voted to deny the request and if there would still be opportunity for the applicant to pursue the idea up north.

Mr. Burningham replied that the applicant is asking for approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement which puts two government agencies together and allows one to go forward. Because of the location of the projects, it is mandatory that both communities ratify and adopt the interlocal agreement. This agreement is an integral part in meeting deadlines for financing within the next 45-50 days. If the resolution is not adopted, Operation Kids would have to abandon the Meadows project and look at the other two in Salt Lake County.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman inquired as to the methods to accomplish making the taxing entities whole. He also inquired if language would be incorporated in the interlocal agreement or bylaws, or in another agreement.

Mr. Burningham advised he would defer to bond counsel to develop a separate agreement indicating what Operation Kids is willing to do and what the City is willing to do. He stated he was not sure Mr. Guzman?s request could be incorporated in the interlocal agreement. He stated he felt this would be better handled between the company and the City through a separate agreement.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman stated he would like to see the language as soon as possible.

Council Member Orton inquired where the City stood in the line of priority, and if the Meadows would have to be profitable and receive a return before the City was made whole.

Mr. Norton replied that his first priority is the bondholders. The foundation is committing to making contributions from the revenues of the property, even if this compromises their benefit.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman commented that this was not in the interlocal agreement. He suggested an agreement be entered into to pay what would be received in lieu of taxes, since the City could not place a tax lien on the property.

City Manager Gary Esplin advised that the City would not have any lien on the bond, just the credibility of the company.

Mr. Burningham advised that the company would first have to take care of operation and maintenance of the facility and to service its debt. But before any funds were given to any charitable programs, the commitment would be first to the City, School District, etc. He agreed that this would need to be done as a separate agreement.

Mr. Norton commented for the record that for the life of ownership, this would be at the top of the list of any benefits that would be accomplished by revenues of the property because this is the commitment made in order to get approval in the first place.

Council Member Gardner commented that he was disappointed with how much money is consumed by operation of charitable organizations, and he liked the creative way to take care of overhead expenses and allow all donated funds to get to the charities.

Council Member Orton inquired how many cities turn down or approve this type of conduit for bonding.

Mr. Burningham replied that typically in Utah it is used in a lot of different cases. 501(c)(3)s are different than IRBs because of their non-profit status and types of benefits provided. They typically have not been turned down.

Vaughn Pulsipher commented that since 1998 they have never been turned down in Minnesota, Texas, or Colorado.

City Manager Gary Esplin commented that tonight?s action includes approving the interlocal agreement which does not facilitate the actual issuance of the bonds. The Council will have an opportunity to decide if this is the way to go and could back out.
St. George City Council Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page Five

Between now and then criteria will be developed and put in place before the final process approval.

Mr. Burningham advised that a public hearing to be held January 9 will allow the ball to move forward.

Shawn Guzman commented he wanted to review the guidelines before the January 9 meeting. He requested direction as to which taxing entities should be included in the agreement.

A motion was made by Council Member Gardner to approve the resolution and agreement with the idea with that the guidelines would be reviewed before the next meeting.

City Manager Gary Esplin commented that Mr. Gardner?s motion should also include setting a public hearing for January 9 and providing the applicable notices.

Council Member Gardner advised he would include this in his motion, and also that the entities mentioned - the School District, City and County - be included in the agreement. He stated that at a minimum he was most concerned about the School District and City.

The motion was seconded by Council Member Orton with inclusion of the County in the agreement.

City Manager Gary Esplin advised that at this point the parties did not need to be identified, and the action needed is just for approval of the resolution.

Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

TABLE PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Mayor McArthur advised that items 3B and 3C would be tabled from the agenda and scheduled for the next meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING/AMEND PD ZONE/ORDINANCE:
Public hearing to consider amending the PD Residential zone for Cotton Manor Townhomes located on the southwest corner of 2450 East 350 North.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson explained that the PD Residential zone was originally approved in 1986 and since then has been amended a few times. PUD requirements require submittal of a site plan and elevation drawings, and are timed in unless a change is approved. The applicant would like to change the design of the units for the balance of the project. There are 71 units on 10.5 acres. The applicant proposes to change the design of the homes to make them more southwest, change the roof pitch, and change the landscaping. The Planning Commission recommended approval subject to (a) submittal of a landscape plan, which the applicant has done; (b) a minimum of 200 sq. ft. in the front yard area; (c) the next eight homes along this area be similar to those in the existing Phase 4; and (d) that the project remain as one project with one association. If the project is divided into two separate projects, there are issues with what to do with some of the interconnecting streets. The amenity package in Phase 1 has a tennis court and pool which was originally paid for by Phase 1 of the project. All homeowners would pay for the maintenance. If the projects separate, then each project would have to stand alone in meeting zoning requirements, etc.

Gary Kuhlmann, representing the applicant, advised that the landscaping plan meets requirements, and the requirement for construction of the eight units along 2450 East has been agreed to. With regard to the number of associations, there will be two to three, not one or two. The open space as it stands alone meets the requirements.

Council Member Gardner inquired if the project were divided, if both halves would meet the requirements.

Mr. Kuhlmann replied that he did not know about the existing project, but the proposed project would. He then explained the history of the existing project. He explained his client acquired the property and wants to develop it, but the units as constructed in prior phases will not sell. His client wants to change the architectural style and install xeriscape landscaping. The Planning Commission preferred to have grass and his client agreed to meet the requirements for at least 200 sq. ft. of grass and one tree in the front yard area. The eight lot construction concession was made by his client as part of the negotiations to come to terms with the homeowner?s association. His client

St. George City Council Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page Six

recognizes that it is better to have one association, but the City cannot force them to be a part of it as this is a private property issue. He advised it was his understanding that the Planning Commission?s approval was subject to the landscaping and an attempt to try and incorporate as a single homeowner?s association - not a requirement to incorporate into one association, as the City does not have the power to do this and cannot require private parties to enter into contracts. The issue of a single or two associations is not an issue of public safety, health or welfare and cannot be a requirement. With regard to roads and utilities, the roads are private in a PUD. The existing project will have to amend its PUD in order to close the roads. When the PUD was created easements and rights-of-way were granted to the City, and to block off the roads will significantly inhibit emergency access. The issue of whether someone can cross someone else?s private road is a private issue.

City Manager Gary Esplin explained that the only issue to be decided is the amendment to the PD zone. The City Council cannot require the applicant to become part of the present association before he can develop his property as this would deny him his right to develop his property.

Mr. Kuhlmann advised that as far as closing off roads, this would hinder the City?s ability to maintain anything that belongs to it. He commented it made sense to work together, and his client has tried.

Mayor McArthur opened the public hearing.

Bruce Frodsham explained that he lives in the Cotton Manor PUD and was the original project manager. He advised that he has worked with Mr. Kuhlmann throughout the process and was in favor of one association and made a proposal to Mr. Kuhlmann and his client, but they did not accept the terms. The project was originally approved on the master plan to be built as one project, and the fees of existing owners for the amenities would then go down as they were being paid by more people. The rights of the homeowners are also being impacted greatly by the architectural design change, and there is a possibility that if the applicant does not join the association, roads will be closed off between the projects. If there are two associations the roads can work separately as there is no place where emergency vehicles would have a problem. The new project will impact current property owners with regard to property values, traffic flow, impact on amenities, etc. He stated that while he was in favor of one association, the terms still needed to be worked out.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman inquired of Mr. Frodsham if there were currently two associations. He was advised there were.

Rick Lewis, a homeowner in Cotton Manor, expressed concern with the new project. He stated the problem with the new project joining the association has been with the fee structure. The new project proposes to pay fees of only $50 per month, and the fees would have to be doubled in order to make it work for everyone. The current homeowners paid for the amenities and the new project should have to buy some of the product. He stated he was not opposed to the new project joining the association, but it would have to be equitable.

Rhett Farr, a homeowner adjacent to the Cotton Acres property, presented a petition signed by 85 people in opposition to the proposed hodge podge development and amendment of the Cotton Manor PUD.

Mr. Kuhlmann advised that the $50 fee is proposed to increase after one year based on what the board says. He stated the last thing the City Council wanted to do was get in the middle of negotiating association fees and mediating those disputes. Mr. Kuhlmann again explained that his client has made a concession to construct eight units in a similar manner to the adjacent phase, and it is reasonable to change an architectural style to match the market. The proposed style fits in, is not a detriment to the public, and his client is still willing to talk about one association, but it is not right to make this mandatory.

Mr. Frodsham advised that Cotton Manor was still amenable to working out the issue.

Mr. Kuhlmann explained that the proposed $50 association fee is not a marketing ploy, but because of financial constraints it was determined to be a reasonable amount to cover costs for that period of time to allow the development to get going.

Council Member Whatcott commented that anytime a PUD comes to the Council, it gives the Council an opportunity to see exactly what is going to be built. He expressed


St. George City Council Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page Seven

concern that the plan indicates the final lot configuration may vary by 15%, and this needed to be addressed.

Mr. Kuhlmann replied that Todd Edwards is the engineer and it remains to be resolved what the exact configuration will be on the final plat. His client is aware that if a unit is added the plat would have to amended.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson advised that this note should not be on the plan, and there should be 71 units only and no flexibility.

Mr. Kuhlmann advised he had no problem removing that paragraph.

Rick Lewis commented that the proposed $50 association fee was a marketing ploy. The current association objects to the proposed fee, and they should be the ones determining the fees and how they are spent.

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

Council Member Orton inquired if the City Council denied the request, if the project could still be finished as originally approved and with one association.

Mayor McArthur commented that the request is to amend the PUD. If the amendment is denied, the project remains the same.

Mr. Kuhlmann stated that the PUD had nothing to do with the association.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman commented that the request could fall under requirements for the health, public safety and welfare of the public, but those concerns would have to be articulated, and he did not know if staff was ready to do so.

Mr. Kuhlmann commented this would violate the Constitution, and the City could not infringe upon the private right to contract.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman advised that a PUD does require an association, and the City Council could look at that association. If the City Council has concerns about the flow of the roadways, staff will need to take a look at this and reasons for wanting to maintain access.

Mr. Kuhlmann advised that the current project could not close off a road without receiving permission from the City, and the City could then determine the effects on the public safety, health and welfare. He commented that closing of roads had nothing to do with the request at hand, and is not an issue before the Council. Those concerns will come later.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman advised that the Mayor indicates the City Council wants to address the concerns up front so that it is not faced with a road closure which then creates problems.

Council Member Whatcott inquired if amendment of a PUD gives the applicant a right to set up another association. If the Council denies the request and the project continues as presently exists, would it be a part of the current association.

Mr. Kuhlmann advised that this land is not part of the Cotton Manor PUD, but is part of the overall master plan.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson explained that the proposed project is not part of a current PUD association, but is a part of the PUD zoning and master plan project.

Mr. Kuhlmann explained that an association is not required to be created as part of the PUD zone, as that comes with platting. He again explained that the proposed amendment was not part of the PUD association, but is a part of the PUD zone. He stated that even if this request was denied, it would not solve the issue of a separate PUD. If his client develops under the original plan, he could still create his own association. He again stated that his client agrees that one association makes sense.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson stated that the City would have to look at the plan, as there will be more issues if there are two projects and gated roadways.



St. George City Council Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page Eight

Mr. Kuhlmann advised that the City Council could not rule on the gate issue tonight as no public hearing for such an issue was advertised.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman advised that if the City Council did not feel comfortable making a decision because it does not have all the answers from staff, it can postpone a decision until the next meeting. It appears the only issue is with the associations, and he did not know if the City should be taking a stance on it.

City Manager Gary Esplin clarified that the City Council can approve the PUD amendment if it feels the style change, density, and landscaping meets requirements consistent with the existing zoning. When the plat comes in then the applicant can explain how they will handle other outstanding issues. If at that time the project does not meet the needs and requirements of the City, the plat would not have to be approved. If the applicant wants to proceed knowing that there will be issues with the plat when it comes in, then they are taking a risk of proceeding with the next stage. Tonight?s decision should be based on whether the amendment to the zone is consistent with the development already there and warrants an amendment to the zone. He inquired if the proposed amendment contained a higher density than the original development.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson replied that it did not.

Mr. Esplin commented in that event, the issue appears to be aesthetics and access between the properties, and the City Council has the right to make these determinations before the next plat is approved.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson advised that the matter cannot move forward until the issue of gating and culdesacs is resolved.

Gary Kuhlmann responded that there is not a request to gate any roadways before the City Council.

Council Member Gardner commented that the proposed buildings blend with the present project and do not diminish their value. He made a motion to approve the request to amend the PUD.

Council Member Whatcott commented that if the City Council approves this request and the original PUD decided to amend their PUD and gate the roads, this would force Mr. Kuhlmann?s client to request an amended PUD because the roadways would be changed. He commented that the matter should be resolved before approval of the amended PUD.

City Manager Gary Esplin replied that the City would then risk the claim that it did not act in a timely manner within proper guidelines. If the City Council approves the request, the matter is put back in the applicant?s court and he will have to work it out or the plat will not be approved. Therefore, there would be no liability on the City Council that it unduly delayed the process, and puts the ball back in control of the homeowner?s association.

Council Member Whatcott commented that if one street gets blocked off or changed to a cul-de-sac, the matter will have to be brought back in to the City Council.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman advised that the matter will first have to be addressed by the Planning Commission and then the City Council.

Council Member Orton seconded the motion to approve the request.

Council Member Whatcott inquired if the motion included the stipulation that the paragraph referring to a 15% variance in lot configuration be deleted from the plan, and subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission.

Council Member Allen suggested that the recommendation from the Planning Commission that the projects function as one homeowner?s association be removed from the motion.

Council Member Orton commented he agreed with the recommendations made by Council Members Whatcott and Allen.

Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.



St. George City Council Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page Nine

PUBLIC HEARING/AMEND GENERAL PLAN/ORDINANCE:
Public hearing to consider amending the General Plan Land Use Map to designate the southeast corner of Valley View Drive and Indian Hills Drive from medium to high density residential.

This item was tabled.

PUBLIC HEARING/ZONE CHANGE/ORDINANCE:
Public hearing to consider changing the zone from R-1-10 to PD Residential for a 12 unit townhome project on .99 acre located on the southeast corner of Valley View Drive and Indian Hills Drive.

This item was tabled.

PUBLIC HEARING/ZONE CHANGE/ORDINANCE:
Public hearing to consider changing the zone from Open Space to R-1-10 on 12.63 acres located in the southwest part of Bloomington in the Bloomington Lane Subdivision area between Paiute Road and 1550 West.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson explained that the subject property is surrounded by R-1-10 and RE-12.5 zoning, and the request is consistent with the General Plan. The Planning Commission recommends approval.

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

A motion was made by Council Member Whatcott and seconded by Council Member Orton to approve the zone change by ordinance. Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

PUBLIC HEARING/AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE:
Public hearing to consider amending parking requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance to require parking spaces for restaurants with outdoor seating, and to prohibit the parking of vehicles on front lawn areas in residential zones.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson explained there are two recommended changes to the Zoning Ordinance dealing with parking. The first is to require one parking space for every 100 sq. ft. of outdoor seating area at restaurants, and the other is to prohibit the parking of vehicles on front lawn areas in residential zones.

Mayor McArthur opened the public hearing.

Gloria Shakespeare, a representative of the Neighborhood Committee, advised that many cars parking are parking on front lawns and there is currently no law on the books to prohibit this.

A motion was made by Council Member Allen and seconded by Council Member Gardner to continue the public hearing until the next City Council meeting due to the fact that the corresponding ordinance was inadvertently left off the agenda. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

ORDINANCE:
Consider adoption of an assessment ordinance confirming the assessment rolls and levying an assessment against certain properties in the City of St. George, Utah Special Improvement District 99-1, Washington County, Utah for the purpose of constructing a sewer outfall line within a portion of the municipality and other related improvements and all other miscellaneous work necessary to complete the improvements in a proper and workmanlike manner; and related matters.

This item was tabled.

ORDINANCE:
Consider adoption of an assessment ordinance confirming the
assessment rolls and levying an assessment against certain properties in the City of St. George, Utah Special Improvement District 99-3, Washington County, Utah for the purpose of constructing a sewer outfall line within a portion of the municipality and other related improvements and all other


St. George City Council Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page Ten

miscellaneous work necessary to complete the improvements in a proper and workmanlike manner; and related matters.

This item was tabled.

SET PUBLIC HEARINGS:.
Associate Planner Mark Bradley advised that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held December 10, 2002, recommended that public hearings be scheduled for January 9, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. to consider (a) an amendment to the Zoning ordinance to include a new chapter, Chapter 14A, in the Zoning Ordinance to establish an R-1 Conservation Zone to encourage conservation of existing single family housing by limiting the use of a given lot or parcel to the legal use existing on January 1, 2003; (b) a zone change from R-1-10 and Open Space to PD Residential on 12.73 acres located north of Bloomington Country Club Phase 7 between Los Padres Drive and Kolob Drive; (c) a zone change from R-1-10 to PD Commercial for an athletic and rehabilitation center on five acres located east of River Road on 1450 South Street; and (d) a zone change from R-3 to R-1 Conservation for a downtown City block (Plat B, Block 30) located between 300 and 400 South and 400 and 500 East.

A motion was made by Council Member Orton and seconded by Council Member Whatcott to set the public hearings as recommended by the Planning Commission.

Mayor McArthur suggested that the public hearings to consider the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to include a new chapter, and the zone change from R-3 to R-1 be scheduled instead for the January 23, 2003 City Council meeting.

A motion was made by Council Member Orton and seconded by Council Member Whatcott to schedule the public hearings for zone changes from R-1-10 and Open Space to PD Residential for property located north of Bloomington Country Club Phase 7, and from R-1-10 to PD Commercial for an athletic center on property located est of River Road on 1450 South for January 9 at 5:00 p.m., and the public hearings for amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to create a new Chapter 14A, and a zone change from R-3 to R-1 for a downtown City block for January 23, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

FINAL PLATS;
Associate Planner Mark Bradley advised that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held December 10, 2002, recommended approval of the following final plats: (a) Copper Hills Phase II subject to a 30 foot site restriction area for Lot 30 along 270 South die to the site distance at the intersection with the curvature of the road; (b) Silver Creek Townhomes Phase IV; (c) a road dedication plat for Commerce Drive Extension in the Ft. Pearce Industrial Park west of River Road; (d) a road dedication plat for a portion of 4310 South Street in the Ft. Pearce Industrial Park west of River Road; and (e) a road dedication plat for 950 East Street in the Ft. Pearce Industrial Park between Commerce Drive and 4310 South Street west of River Road.

A motion was made by Council Member Allen and seconded by Council Member Orton to approve the final plats subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission and authorize the Mayor to sign the plats. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

VACATE AND AMEND FINAL PLAT:
Associate Planner Mark Bradley advised that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held December 10, 2002, recommended approval to vacate the Pine View Commercial Center Subdivision plat and to amend the final plat. The request is to vacate parcels that no longer need to be in the commercial center and to adjust lots for future uses.

A motion was made by Council Member Gardner and seconded by Council Member Whatcott to vacate and amend the final plat as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

PRELIMINARY PLATS:
Associate Planner Mark Bradley advised that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held December 10, 2002, recommended approval of the preliminary plats for (a) Hawk Hollow Phase 2; and (b) Royal Creek Subdivision with the stipulation that Lots 3 and 4 may require deeper rear yard setbacks depending upon receiving flood plain information due to the location of the lots in relation to the box culvert.



St. George City Council Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page Eleven

A motion was made by Council Member Whatcott and seconded by Council Member Orton to approve the preliminary plats subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
Consider a request for approval of a conditional use permit for expansion of the City Fleet Services building. City of St. George, applicant.

Associate Planner Mark Bradley explained that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held December 10, 2002, recommended approval of a conditional use permit for an addition to the existing City fleet building located at 931 E. Skyline Drive for three new bays on the north and to expand the parts area on the west.

A motion was made by Council Member Gardner and seconded by Council Member Allen to approve the conditional use permit. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
Consider a request for approval of a conditional use permit for a new County library on Sunset Blvd. Washington County, applicant.

Associate Planner Mark Bradley advised that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held December 10, 2002, recommended approval of a conditional use permit for a new Washington County Library Branch to be located on the northwest corner of Sunset Blvd. and Lava Flow Drive, subject to the following conditions:

(A) Future parking, when applicable, is required to be located to the west of the proposed building site to preserve the visible lava field;

(B) Eliminate the trail going through the lava rocks from the sidewalk along Sunset Blvd. up through the parking lot to preserve the lava rocks and to enhance pedestrian safety by not enticing children to go through the parking lots;

(C) Street trees meet the City?s Shade Tree Ordinance.

There was discussion at the Planning Commission meeting concerning the branch name. Apparently the County has made a commitment to Santa Clara that the branch would be called the ?Santa Clara Branch? but City staff feels the name ?Snow Canyon Branch? would be more appropriate.

John Willie, representing Washington County, advised that a groundbreaking will be held December 30 at 1:00 p.m. on site. The County is still considering the name ?Santa Clara Branch? because Santa Clara donated property at another site for the library.

A motion was made by Council Member Orton and seconded by Council Member Whatcott to approve the conditional use permit subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and asking the County to reconsider the name of the branch. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT:
Consider approval of a professional services agreement for power resource planning with Deseret Generation and Transmission.

City Manager Gary Esplin advised that staff recommends that the City enter into an agreement for power resource planning assistance. DG&T has already helped the City significantly in this regard, and a formal agreement is desired.

A motion was made by Council Member Whatcott and seconded by Council Member Orton to approve the agreement. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

POWER SALES AGREEMENT:
Consider approval of a power sales agreement with Deseret Generation and Transmission.

City Manager Gary Esplin advised that staff recommends approval of the agreement as additional energy will be needed in January.




St. George City Council Minutes
December 19, 2002
Page Twelve

A power point presentation was then made by Curt Winterfeld, representing DG&T.

Energy Services Director Phil Solomon explained that there are a few modifications to the contract, but none are substantial.

A motion was made by Council Member Whatcott and seconded by Council Member Orton to approve the contract subject to review by the City Attorney. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

Energy Services Director Phil Solomon then explained the process used by the City to purchase power, and he introduced City employee Laurie Mangum.

ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION:
A motion to adjourn to an executive session to discuss property purchase and personnel issues was made by Council Member Allen and seconded by Council Member Orton. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

RECONVENE:
A motion to reconvene was made by Council Member Allen and seconded by Council Member Whatcott. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

DISCUSSION RE REQUEST BY EVA DEAN HUNT:
City Manager Gary Esplin explained that the City received a request to allow Ms. Eva Dean Hunt to refinance her home and increase the associated debt. Ms. Hunt received an impact fee deferral for the home when she built, so the City?s ability to collect that deferral may be affected by allowing additional debt to be increased. It was felt that because the amount of impact fees deferred was so small compared to the debt of the home, the additional amount being borrowed would not materially affect the City?s position.

A motion was made by Council Member Gardner and seconded by Council Member Orton to approve Ms. Hunt?s request. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

UPDATE ON DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS:
City Manager Gary Esplin advised that in order to better accommodate the development process, Planning staff and JUC meetings will be reversed, with Planning staff meeting now held on Tuesdays at 8:30 a.m. and JUC at 10:00 a.m.

The meeting then adjourned.



_______________________________
Gay Cragun, City Recorder