City Council Minutes

Thursday, July 20,2006



ST. GEORGE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 20, 2006, 4:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS

PRESENT:
Mayor Daniel McArthur
Council Member Larry Gardner
Council Member Gail Bunker
Council Member Rod Orton
Council Member Robert Whatcott
City Manager Gary Esplin
City Attorney Shawn Guzman
Deputy City Recorder Judith Mayfield

EXCUSED:
Council Member Suzanne Allen

OPENING:
Mayor McArthur called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and welcomed all present. The pledge of allegiance was led by Council Member Bunker and the invocation was offered by Council Member Gardner.

Mayor McArthur stated that he wanted to share a few bits of St. George trivia. He asked if anyone knew where the first traffic light had been located and when had it been installed. Mayor McArthur said that the City staff told him that the first light was installed at Main and St. George Boulevard some time prior to 1964. He also stated that the City has to maintain 265 miles of road, the largest park is Pioneer Park and the smallest park is College Park. He also recognized that Erastus Snow was considered the founder of St. George and explained how the City was named.

Mayor McArthur asked Debra Reeder, Art Museum Curator, to come forward and talk about the new art show at the St. George Art Museum. Ms. Reeder invited everyone to attend the Arts for the Parks exhibit that will be on display from July 21, 2006 through October. Mr. Reeder explained that the exhibit consists of 101 paintings done by 90 artists who were chosen from 1, 643 entries. Ms. Reeder also discussed being able to view paintings by Wallace Lee in the Legacy Gallery. Mayor McArthur asked Ms. Reeder to let the audience know the museum?s hours and admission costs. Ms. Reeder said that the St. George Art Museum is open 10 a.m. ? 5 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday with a $2 charge for admission.

Mayor McArthur advised that Crystal Osness, Tyler Bundy and Allison Henry were participants and winners in several Special Olympics? events held in Ames, Iowa. A representative with the group stated that medals were won in the game of Boccie Ball and in swimming. Mayor McArthur presented each of the individuals with a key to the City and congratulated them on their victories and thanked them for representing St. George.

Mayor McArthur invited any scouts in the audience to introduce themselves. Kane Wilkenson stated that he was from Troop 644 and is working on his Citizenship in the Community badge.

TABLED ITEMS:
Mayor McArthur stated that Item 5C to consider approval of a resolution raising the deposit and penalties associated with the new temporary hydrant policy amendments; Item 6H to consider approval of a commercial operating few for businesses on the airport that sublease from an FBO and do not pay a use fee to the airport; Item 6I to consider approval of an agreement with the Creekside Development HOA; Item 6K to consider approval of a land exchange with Primrose Pointe Properties LLC; and, Item 6M to consider approval of amendments to the City?s temporary hydrant meter policy were tabled from the agenda.

AWARD OF BID:
Consider award of bid for 115 electric golf carts for the Sunbrook Golf Course.

Purchasing Manager Connie Hood advised that the cost of the 115 electric golf carts is $265,908.75.

Council Member Whatcott stated he didn?t have any paperwork on the purchase and wanted to know if it was put out to bid and who got the bid.

Matt Loo, Director of Development Services, stated this is for a new lease agreement and two bids were received. One of the bids was from Yamaha and one from Intermountain Golf which represents Club Car carts. Mr. Loo said that they would like to go with Intermountain because all of the carts the City has presently are Club Cars and because they were the low bidder.

Council Member Bunker asked if the $265,000 is already in the current budget.

Mr. Loo stated that it is and he said that he actually budgeted for a little more that. He also explained that it will be amortized over 5 years at approximately $74,000 - $75,000 per year.


St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Two

Council Member Gardner asked how the trade in would work if the City went with a different vendor.

Mr. Loo stated that both of the vendor?s bids included a trade in value for the carts.

Council Member Gardner asked if the City had ever considered selling the used carts to the public.

City Manager Gary Esplin stated that the City has not done that in the past but it was something that he could look into.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Orton to award the bid to Intermountain Golf in the amount of $265,908.75.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Gardner.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

AWARD OF BID:
Consider award of bid for crushing of asphalt and concrete with rebar at the reuse center.

Purchasing Manager Connie Hood advised that 2 suppliers submitted bids for crushing at the Reuse Center. She recommended award of the bid to Progressive Contracting who was the low bidder in the amount of $45,840.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Gardner to award the bid to Progressive Contracting in the amount of $45,840.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Bunker.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

AWARD OF BID:
Consider award of bid for marathon runner shirts.

Purchasing Manager Connie Hood advised that 7 vendors submitted bids and shirt samples for the runner shirts. She explained that an evaluation rating was completed on each vendor and she recommended award of the bid to Nordic Track in the amount of $30,750.
Council Member Gardner asked if the City used Nordic Track for last year?s runner shirts.

John Bradley, Leisure Services Project Coordinator, provided Council with a sample of the shirt so they could see what kind of material would be used. He explained that the Marathon would be celebrating its 30th anniversary so they wanted to make sure the shirt was of a very good quality. He said that Nordic Track came in with the lowest bid and the highest quality material. He explained that the shirt will be offered in a variety of colors.

Mayor McArthur asked Mr. Bradley to explain how the race was opened up to other communities in the state in honor of the 30th anniversary.

Mr. Bradley explained that there were 30 openings available to communities throughout the state for them to send runners who either won local races or represented the community in some other way. He stated that the Marathon has been getting a lot of good publicity surrounding this offer.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Whatcott to award the bid to Nordic Track in the amount of $30,750.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Gardner.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

AWARD OF BID:
Consider award of bid for rental of the Dixie Center.

Purchasing Manager Connie Hood stated that the Dixie Center is the only facility that can host 20,000 guests. The request is for the rental and food items for the St. George Marathon activities.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Gardner to award the bid to the Dixie Center in the amount of $33,000.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Bunker.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

AWARD OF BID:
Consider award of bid for stone medallions for marathon awards.

Purchasing Manager Connie Hood advised that Kenworthy Signs and Monuments is the sole source supplier for this unique stone product and that the cost is the same

St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Three

as last year?s estimate. She recommended award of the bid in the amount of $45,449.25.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Bunker to award the bid to Kenworthy Signs and Monuments in the amount of $45,499.25.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Gardner.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all vote aye. The motion carried.

City Manager Gary Esplin explained that all of the monies approved to be spent for the Marathon will be covered by entrance fees for the race.

AWARD OF BID:
Consider approval of a change order for the Middleton Wash Trail.

Purchasing Manager Connie Hood stated that the change order includes an extra bond cost so the total would be $66,189.89. She stated that the change order would be to AT Asphalt.

Council Member Whatcott stated that the information he had indicated that a quote was received from Jeff Reihl Construction in the amount of $55,000.

Ms. Hood said that Jeff Reihl Construction is the contractor and AT Asphalt is the sub-contractor.

Council Member Orton stated that his information indicated a second bid was going to be presented at the council meeting.

Kent Perkins, Director of Leisure Services, explained that the contractor obtained two bids and clarified that AT Asphalt is the contractor.

City Manager Gary Esplin stated that AT Asphalt is the existing contractor on the job.
Mr. Perkins said that the contractor obtained two bids. The high one was approximately $72,000 or $75,000 with $55,000 being the low bid of the two. The $55,000 was the quote prior to the bonding cost and other related costs. Mr. Perkins stated that in working with the Corp of Engineers during the flood events, the alignment of the wash actually changed and they received approval to build the trail prior to that happening. After the flood events he said the Corp of Engineers did not want the City to build a section of the asphalt trail because of the flow lines but that they could build an alternate trail. Mr. Perkins explained that the bid is to cover the cost of a boardwalk that will be approximately 120 ft long that will connect the paved trail through a very sensitive area of the wash. Mr. Perkins stated that when the City went back to the state with the changes, the state gave the City an additional $50,000 to the $100,000 grant. He stated that the cost of the contract will be reduced because they will not be paving that section.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Whatcott to approve the change order for the Middleton Wash Trail.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Gardner.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

Mayor McArthur asked Mr. Perkins the expected completion date for the project.

Mr. Perkins stated that it would be approximately 6 weeks and that there would be a ribbon-cutting for the trail.

RESOLUTION:
Consider approval of a resolution abandoning a utility and drainage easement along Lots 81 and 82, Shadow Brook Homes Plat D Amended.

City Manager Gary Esplin explained that at the last City Council meeting there was a public hearing to allow some of the common area to be used by the two lots. He stated that this is the follow-up action to abandon the easement.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Gardner to approve the resolution abandoning a utility and drainage easement along Lots 81 and 82, Shadow Brook Homes Plat D Amended.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Orton.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:

Council Member Gardner ? aye
Council Member Bunker ? aye
Council Member Orton ? aye
Council Member Whatcott ? aye

RESOLUTION:
Consider approval of a resolution abandoning a utility and drainage easement along Lots 155, 156, 157 and 158, Legacy 8 Townhome Subdivision.


St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Four

City Manager Gary Esplin stated that this is a resolution abandoning a utility and drainage easement in order to allow a larger home to be built on 2 of the lots.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Orton to approve the resolution abandoning a utility and drainage easement along Lots 155, 156, 157 and 158, Legacy 8 Townhouse Subdivision.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Bunker.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:

Council Member Whatcott ? aye
Council Member Orton ? aye
Council Member Bunker ? aye
Council Member Gardner ? aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

RESOLUTION:
Consider approval of a resolution accepting the State Wastewater Self-Assessment Report for 2005.

City Manager Gary Esplin explained that every year the City is required to do a self-assessment. He stated that the state sends the City a report and the City analyzes how the wastewater system is working. Mr. Esplin said that even though the numbers are a little high this year because of the flooding from 2005, the City still meets and exceeds all of the requirements for the facility. Once the report is approved it will be sent to the state.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Whatcott to approve the resolution accepting the State Wastewater Self-Assessment Report for 2005.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Orton.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:

Council Member Gardner ? aye
Council Member Bunker ? aye
Council Member Orton ? aye
Council Member Whatcott ? aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

BEER LICENSE:
Consider approval of an off-premise beer license for El Tapatio Market at 988 E. Sunset Blvd. Alfredo Franco, applicant.

City Manager Gary Esplin explained that this request is for a new market and that the applicant has submitted all necessary forms and meets all necessary requirements of the ordinance.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Orton to approve the license.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Bunker.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

TABLE ITEM:
City Manager Gary Esplin stated that he had just been informed that there had been a change in Item 6B and asked that it be taken off the agenda.

INTRODUCE SCOUTS:
Mayor McArthur requested two Boy Scouts that came into the Council meeting after the opening come up and introduce themselves to the audience and repeat the Scout Law. One of the scouts stated that he was working on his Communications Badge and the other stated that he was working on his Citizenship in the Community Badge.

SET PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Bob Nicholson, Director of Community Development, advised that the Planning Commission, at its July 11, 2006 meeting, received the following requests for public hearings to be scheduled on August 17, 2006 at 5:00 p.m.

1. Consider a request for a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan and Land Use Map to change the land use designation from only commercial to business park, public facilities, high-density residential, park, light industrial, and commercial for both east and west sides of the proposed Milepost 2 I-15 interchange area. State and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), applicants.

2. Consider a request to change the zone from residential to R-1-10 to Commercial C-2 on 0.42 acres located at 951 South River Road. Virginius and Barbara Dabney, applicants.

3. Consider a request to change the zone from Mobile Home MH-6 to Planned Development Residential on 28.45 acres located west of 1100 East and north of 500 North in the area of the St. George Industrial Park. Jim Haslem, applicant.

St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Five

4. Consider a request to change the zone from Agricultural A-1 to Residential R-1-12 on 1.59 acres located on the west side of 3000 East at about 1100 South in the Washington Fields area. Larry McEntire, applicant.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Gardner to set the public hearings for all four requests for August 17, 2006 at 5:00 p.m.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Whatcott.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

FINAL PLATS:
Bob Nicholson, Director of Community Development, advised that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held on July 11, 2006, recommended approval of the following eleven final plats:

1. Bloomington Courtyard Phase 7, located at Pioneer and Brigham Road. Brandon Anderson, representative.
2. Primrose Point Phase 3, located at 1680 East and Acantilado Drive. Korey Kinder, representative.
3. Vista Del Cielo, located at 1450 South and 2630 East. Arturo Del Toro, applicant.
4. Tonaquint Hills Phase 2, located at Silicon Way and Dixie Drive. Kay Traveller, applicant.
5. Rink Estates, located at 2020 East Circle and 2800 South. Jim Raines, representative.
6. Ft. Pierce Area 1 road dedication located at River Road and Venture Drive area. Reid Pope, representative.
7. East Ridge Phase 6, located at Crestline Drive and 60 South. Scott Woolsey, representative.
8. Beehive Homes, located at Tonaquint Drive and Mesa Palms Drive. Marc Brown, representative.
9. Mesa Palms Townhouses Phase 5, located at Mesa Palms Drive and Crystal Drive. Reid Pope, representative.
10. Twin Creeks Phase 3, located at Northstar Drive and 510 N. Circle. Brandon Anderson, representative.
11. Cottam Fields, located at River Road and 2250 South. Jim Raines, representative.

Council Member Whatcott asked about the request for Vista Del Cielo. He stated that there was a question about the protection on 1450 South and whether appropriate landscaping was required.

Mr. Nicholson stated that the Council required that if there were any privacy walls they would have to be consistent. He said that the ones that had frontage would either have no walls or a consistent wall and the mandatory 10 ft. planter strip along 1450 South.
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Orton to approve the final plats with the stipulations as stated on the plan notes and authorize Mayor McArthur to sign the plats.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Bunker.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
City Planner Ray Snyder explained that this request is for Desert Hills High School located at the intersection of Desert Hills Drive and 840 East. He explained that the layout consists of three separate buildings. Mr. Snyder referred to a site plan and stated that the middle building would be for classrooms, the second building would be a gymnasium and the third would be a vocational building. Mr. Snyder said that a softball field, a baseball field and a future football field would also be part of the property. He explained that the classroom building is two-stories and 54?5? at the tallest point, the gymnasium is 36?3? at the tallest point, and the vocational building is 20?5? at the tallest point. He said that the number of students anticipated for the high school would be 1,350 with a maximum of 1,500. He said that the proposed parking proposed meets and exceeds the City standard because it meets state standards. Mr. Snyder stated that the Washington County School District and the City are working together to mitigate the manmade hillside between the Desert Hills subdivision and the south property line of the Washington County School District property. He said that the hillside mitigation also involves the related trail system and erosion protection. All lighting would be mitigated so as not to impact the adjacent residences. The mitigation would involve using the latest technology of dark sky style lighting and minimum footcandles. The Planning Commission requested a photometric plan to be submitted for staff review. Mr. Snyder stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval for the construction and development of the high school along with its associated buildings, heights, playing fields and landscaping as proposed.

Mayor McArthur asked City Manager Gary Esplin if the concerns about the trail and retaining the hillside had been taken care of.

City Manager Gary Esplin stated that the City is still working with the previous developer to get a commitment to help with the expense. He stated that the City is planning on working with the school to build the trail behind the school. He said the trail going to the east will be a significant amount of money and the City will have to wait on that one for awhile.


St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Six

Council Member Bunker stated that the City Council requested that specific lights be used for the project but that they were not allocated in the budget.

City Manager Gary Esplin stated that in the past the City has provided some lighting on a joint use basis so other community groups could use the facilities in the evenings. He said that he didn?t know if this was going to be the case in this situation.

Glen Carnahan stated that he is an Engineer with Alpha Engineering Company. He said that the school district has directed his company to provide all of the conduits and underground infrastructure to accommodate future lighting on the baseball and softball fields and tennis courts. He stated that the school district was going to light the football field. He stated that the school district has expressed an interest in continuing the relationship with the City to allow public use after hours but he said that he didn?t think the school district had budgeted for additional lights.

Council Member Orton said that it would be a shame to not have the facility available for public use in the neighborhood. He asked City Manager Esplin if the expense for the lighting could be put into the next budget year.

City Manager Esplin stated that he would look at the costs and include it in the next budget year.

Mr. Carnahan stated that the facility will take two years to construct and is anticipated opening in the fall of 2008.

Mayor McArthur asked about the night sky issue since the school hadn?t included the required lights in its budget.

Mr. Carnahan said that he would have to follow up on that issue. He stated that the majority of the site sits quite a bit lower than the surrounding subdivisions. He said that the proposed football field is 35 feet below the existing toe of the slope.

Council Member Orton asked if some residents? homes are on the same elevation as the school.

Mr. Carnahan said that there are some homes that back up to the school on the west side.

Council Member Whatcott asked if there was anything planned for the vacant ground that currently sets in front of Desert Hills Intermediate.

Mr. Carnahan stated that he cannot speak for the board but he knows that they are considering a site for a seminary building.

Council Member Whatcott asked why the proposed baseball field is facing to the west.

Mr. Carnahan stated that it is due to a grading issue with the layout of the project.

Council Member Bunker asked Mr. Carnahan to explain what the size of the retaining wall would be and how it would be constructed.

Mr. Carnahan stated that they have been working with the City engineers on the issue. He said that the existing fill slope is on City property and when they began grading the site they discovered the necessity for retaining walls. He said that there would be a series of walls that would be approximately 10 feet in height and staggered. The highest point would be 35 feet. He said that one of the things that would be accomplished with the retaining walls and the associated geogrid is the stabilization of the existing fill slope on the City property. He said that when they install the geogrid they will mitigate the slope by cutting it back to be a stable slope. He said that the walls will be offset enough to put a trail in.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Whatcott to approve the conditional use permit.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Orton.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

PUBLIC HEARING/PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Public hearing to consider approval of the preliminary plat for Bella Tuscana at Mesa Palms located at Dixie Drive and Mesa Palms Drive. Cutrell, Inc., applicant.

Kathy Hasfurther, Engineer IV, explained that this subdivision is part of the existing Mesa Palms PD zoning but that it will stand alone as far as having its own recreational area. She stated the design is for 55 single-family dwellings. Ms. Hasfurther stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval with the following staff comments: 1) the subdivision is required to have 11,000 sq. ft. of recreational area , and 2) lots 60-72 and 99-108 are being shown as walkout basement lots which will need to be built as such to reduce the wall heights within the subdivision.

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


St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Seven

Council Member Bunker asked about the size of the recreational area. She said that she couldn?t see where it was located on the plat.

Ms. Hasfurther said that was why staff stated that the area had to be 11,000 sq. ft. She said that they couldn?t tell from the plat whether the recreational areas met that requirement because the square footage was not shown.

Council Member Bunker asked if the applicant had something in place as far as what they are going to do with those areas.

Ms. Hasfurther said that she has not seen anything.

Mayor McArthur asked if the applicants were present. No one came forward.

Council Member Bunker stated that she would like to see it tabled until more information on the recreational areas and trail system to connect with the City?s trails was provided.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Bunker to table the request.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Whatcott.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman asked if a date could be set for reconsideration since it was a public hearing.

Mayor McArthur said that it would be tabled until the next official council meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING/PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Public hearing to consider approval of the preliminary plat for Villa De Colina condominiums at the southeast corner of the Foremaster Drive and Riverside Drive intersection. Ben Howell, applicant.

Kathy Hasfurther, Engineer IV, explained that this preliminary plat used to be called Foremaster Green and is located on the east side of the new Riverside Drive extension along the base of the hill. Ms. Hasfurther said that was a discrepancy regarding slope percents. She said that the hillside development plans show a 2.2:1 cut but that the preliminary plan shows a 2:1 cut. She said that both plans need to be consistent. She also stated that as part of the recommendation from the City traffic engineer, the north cul-de-sac is to extend north to eventually tie into the Netta?s Knoll entrance road that would provide access to a street traffic light. She said that they have talked to the applicant about this and the applicant is in agreement. Ms. Hasfurther said that the Planning Commission recommended approval on a 4-1 vote with the conditions that the hillside development plan and preliminary plat coincide on the hillside cut; that the old landscape plan submitted with the original hillside development permit be used along Riverside Drive and that the applicant is required to over excavate in that landscape area by 5 ft.

Tim Fry stated that he is an engineer with Premier Design & Engineering. Mr. Fry explained that the new applicant is Ben Howell and that the hillside permit was obtained by the prior applicant. He said that was the reason there was a difference between the hillside development permit and the preliminary plat. He explained that the unit types have been changed to larger units with parking underneath each unit. He went through a computer animated presentation that showed the project from different angles and heights.

Council Member Gardner asked about the sloughing on the cut.

Mr. Fry stated that the current sloughing is because the slope in at 1:1. He said that their project has the slope at a 2:1 and that the geotechnical engineer is not concerned about the possibility of sloughing with the slope at a 2:1.

Mayor McArthur asked how many units there were per building.

Mr. Fry said that there are eight units per building. He explained that there is a proposed recreational area, a pool and a club house with additional parking spaces. He described the entrance off of Riverside Drive going south and the exit from the project.

Council Member Gardner asked if the private streets in the project were lower than Riverside Drive.

Mr. Fry said that on the north end Riverside Drive is lower but on the south end it is higher.

Council Member Gardner asked about the conditional use permit.

Mr. Fry explained that the conditional use permit is for height variance.

Council Member Whatcott clarified that the height variance request is because the buildings are lower than 35 feet if the measurement is from Riverside Drive but when measured from the north end the buildings are up to 42?2? in height.

Mr. Fry stated that was correct.
St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Eight

Council Member Whatcott asked if there was a requirement coming off Riverside Drive for a deceleration lane.

Mr. Fry said there was not. He said that the traffic engineer and Tyler Hoskins discussed the need for a deceleration lane but both felt it wasn?t necessary at this time.

Rick Snyder from the City?s engineering department stated that the deceleration lane will be on the adjacent property. He clarified that the main access into the project does have a deceleration lane and the south road will also have a deceleration lane.

Ms. Hasfurther explained that in a memo from Rick Snyder regarding the Foremaster Green Traffic Impact Study, Item 3 of the required improvements states that they will dedicate enough right-of-way to accommodate right turn deceleration lanes at both project accesses.

Council Member Bunker asked if the applicant had a 3D picture that would show what the buildings would look like from the angle of Riverside Drive toward Foremaster Drive.

Mr. Fry showed a computer animation of someone driving south on Riverside Drive and entering the project on the left at the northern access.

Council Member Orton asked how wide the streets were in the project.

Mr. Fry stated that they are 25 feet with 5 foot sidewalks.

Mayor McArthur asked about the colors of the buildings.

Mr. Fry stated that the colors on the screen are more yellow than they actually will be on the buildings.

Council Member Whatcott stated that the type of presentation that is being shown is the type that the Council wants to see in order to get a good idea of how projects will look from the surrounding area.

Council Member Bunker asked if there are recreational areas in the project.

Mr. Fry stated that the center area is the major recreational area that meets the ordinance. He said that there is also another area that they may put more grass on or desert scape based on the type of soil.

Council Member Bunker asked if the south road will access Johnson Farm.
Mr. Fry stated that it would.

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

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Gardner to approve the preliminary plat and the conditional use permit for height variance.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Orton.

Council Member Whatcott asked to see a low fly over on the north end on Riverside Drive to see what the elevation would be.

Mr. Fry stated that it would take a few minutes to load up the actual model in order to show the view.

PROCLAMATION:
Mayor McArthur said that he wanted to read a Proclamation designating August 26, 2006 as Americans with Disabilities Day. He stated that he should have done this at the start of the meeting and apologized to those in the audience that he had overlooked it. Mayor McArthur presented the proclamation to a representative in the audience who thanked the Mayor.

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING/PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Mr. Fry said that the computer generation on the screen shows the building on the east side of the cul-de-sac.

Council Member Whatcott said that the view gives the impression that the street is at ground level rather than 6 feet higher.

Mr. Fry stated that it was difficult to portray the view as accurately as it would be in real life since there is 25 feet of slope.

Council Member Whatcott asked if the hillside on the north side of the end building would be cut down.

Mr. Fry said that it would have to be cut down.

Council Member Whatcott asked if the road would go through to the intersection.


St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Nine

Mr. Fry stated that the road would be stubbed to connect with the Riverside Drive and Foremaster Drive intersection.

VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

PUBLIC HEARING/ZONE CHANGE/ORDINANCE:
Public hearing to consider approval of a zone change from R-1-10 to PD Administrative & Professional Office on 3.62 acres located on the southwest corner of 1400 West and Snow Canyon Parkway. Snow Canyon Holdings, LLC, applicant.

Bob Nicholson, Director of Community Development explained that the property is presently zoned R-1-10 and that the request is for a PD with administrative and professional office uses. He said that on the City General Plan the area has been designated for some time as a neighborhood commercial center. Mr. Nicholson said that approximately one year ago the applicant requested commercial uses for retail and fast food and at that time the Council turned the request down because of the type of uses. Mr. Nicholson stated that now the applicant is requesting professional office use only. He said the site plan shows three single story buildings with varied rooflines, tile roof, with stucco and stone materials. The three buildings combined would be approximately 35,000 sq. ft. He stated that under the PD zone the ordinance requires the front 25 ft. along a public street to be landscaped. Mr. Nicholson explained that applicant?s site plan shows an average width of 25 ft. of landscaping, with some areas less than 25 ft. but other areas greater than 25 ft. as allowed by the code. He said that the traffic engineer has recommended a right-in only be allowed off Snow Canyon Parkway and a turning lane on Snow Canyon Parkway onto 1400 West. He said that on 1400 West there are two driveways with in and out possibilities. He stated that the proposal calls for monument type signs which would be located at 1400 West and Snow Canyon Parkway. The project proposes hooded lights to provide minimal lighting to protect the night sky and the applicants have recently submitted a photometric plan for review. Mr. Nicholson said that the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to the traffic engineer?s recommendation.

Mr. Greg Griffin stated that he was representing the applicant. He stated that they have tried to create a project more appropriate to the neighborhood based on information from their last request. He stated that the project is 20% to 21% over code on parking to allow for medical uses. He said that they moved the buildings back off the corner to allow for better visibility. They have lowered the roof line down several feet below code and tried to accomplish architectural detail that is uniform around all of the buildings. He stated that the site has between 3 or 4 steps down to give it a little more natural look with the lay of the land and the combination of materials is similar to the surrounding houses.

Council Member Bunker asked to clarify if the reason the buildings were moved away from the street was for safety.

Mr. Griffin explained that the buildings were moved off the corner. He stated that one of the comments that came up last time from their engineer was that because there?s not quite a 90 degree angle and if there was a little more visibility around the corner this might help safety at the intersection. He said that by having the buildings clustered closer toward the center of the property it gives more open space to the project and allows better visibility when turning right onto 1400 West from Snow Canyon Parkway westbound.

Mayor McArthur opened the public hearing.

Mr. Tom Lukow stated that he is a resident of Paradise Canyon. He stated that he had petitions with 515 signatures in opposition to changing the zoning from single-family residential to this particular project. Mr. Lukow presented the petitions and signatures to the Deputy City Recorder. He stated that single-family residences fit the area. He said that Red Cliffs Parkway meets and blends into Snow Canyon Parkway, passes down to Halfway Wash which is very close to where the proposed project will be located. He said that the area is delightful and makes the residents feel comfortable and that they do not like the concept of changing it to anything but single family homes. He stated that living next to the park is unique and that it was represented that the park will be expanded and extended sometime in the future. He stated that the proposed parking lot would be right across from play areas in the park. He stated that he thinks this is the wrong place to put this project and that it will be dangerous to his grandchildren and to other children visiting the area. Mr. Lukow said that the increased traffic flow by this project will inhibit the 40 MPH traffic that flows down through that area. He said that the residents believe this will create a bottle-neck and a problem for those who are living there. He said that neighborhood sentiment is strongly against the project. Mr. Lukow pointed out on the map the various areas that are already commercial and he explained that many of the commercial venues are within walking distance of the neighborhood. He said that residents at the Planning Commission meeting on June 13, 2006 were told the project being proposed patterns similar things in Las Vegas, Nevada. He said that he lives where he lives because he likes the residential atmosphere and doesn?t want another Las Vegas next to him. Mr. Lukow said that there appears to be ample commercial property to rent and purchase and lease on Dixie Downs Road, Sunset Boulevard and Bluff Street. He said that he wanted to pay Council Member Whatcott a compliment by reading from the minutes of October 21, 2004 which stated that Council

St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Ten

Member Whatcott said that he would like to see some projects with R-1-8 and R-1-10. He said that the developer says that they can?t put that type of development there but the property over the fence is already R-1-7, R-1-8 and R-1-6. Mr. Lukow concluded by saying that he appreciated their attention and that twenty-one months had gone by since Council Member Whatcott asked to see plans for the property.

Ms. Barbara Foust stated that she lives at 1420 West, 1370 North. She presented Mayor McArthur with a copy of letter which she then read out loud. She said the letter was written in protest of the requested re-zoning of the property at 1400 West and Snow Canyon Parkway from single family residential to PD-AP.

Mr. Curt Gordon stated that he lives on that side of town and he welcomes a nice looking project like the one proposed so that he and his family can get to services they need without having to travel through the congestion at Sunset and Bluff. He said that he would encourage the Council to support the project.

Mr. Glen Penrose stated that he is a resident of Paradise Canyon. He said that he doesn?t believe that they need another commercial property. He said that it was originally zoned residential and that it should stay that way. Mr. Penrose said that it?s a beautiful building but not in the right spot.

Mayor McArthur explained that in the overall General Plan the corner was intended to be commercial. He said that the General Plan was adopted sometime ago and that they try to update the plan every year or two. Mayor McArthur said that when property comes into the City now it comes in zoned as Mining and Grazing which is a holding zone until a plan is adopted in the General Plan. He said that when this particular area came into the City it came in as R-1-10 which was the holding zone at that time. He said that he understood why people would get a false impression of how the property was going to be used in the future unless they looked at the General Plan to see what had been approved and adopted. Mayor McArthur explained that when this property was annexed into the City it was zoned as R-1-10 but the General Plan shows that it is to be a commercially zoned corner. He said that the City is going through this process in many areas throughout the City in order to have the zoning changed to what the City intended it to be. He said that they are trying to correct deficiencies throughout the community that had been overlooked in the past. He said that the Little Valley area was an example of that process. He said that people need to look at the General Plan to see the intended zone for an area.

Mayor McArthur closed the public hearing.

Council Member Gardner stated that what would happen along that drive has been a hotly debated issue. He said that it was turned down last time because it was a commercial nature. He said that he thought that the new proposal showed good faith on the part of the applicant to be responsive to the neighbors? requests regarding the height and types of use. He said the corner is not ideal as a R-1-10 area. He said that there are only so many uses to apply to the property. He said that the property owners have the right to develop their property. Council Member Gardner said that he looks at the proposed use as better than what had been proposed in the past. He said that PD-AP doesn?t have near the traffic problems as a commercial area. He stated that he thinks it compliments that neighborhood and is very much in favor of it.

Council Member Whatcott stated that the original plan brought to the City proposed commercial use with two-story buildings, a gas station, and a bank. He explained that those were not the types of uses the City wanted for that corner. He said that the property was sold to the current applicant who came in with a plan that was all retail which still wasn?t what the City wanted because of the high vehicle turnover which would add to the congestion problem mentioned by some of the residents. Council Member Whatcott said that he agreed with Council Member Gardner that AP Professional is a good neighbor. He said that they are quiet at night and they are not there on the week-ends. He said the traffic turnover is quite small. He said that he hasn?t seen anyone come in with a proposal for residential use. He stated that this is probably because the property was bought at a commercial price and would have to have a commercial venture there for economic reasons.
Council Member Bunker said that she agrees that the project is beautiful but said that the R-1-10 is a good use of the property because it?s across the street from a City park. She said that she would like to see it retained as R-1-10 even though the General Plan has it otherwise. She said that there is plenty of commercial in that area already. She stated that the City has approved a lot of businesses on Sunset Boulevard, the top of Bluff and on Snow Canyon Parkway. She said that she thinks it is a mistake to have more of a commercial aspect on any more property on Snow Canyon.

Council Member Orton said that it?s going to be difficult to satisfy everyone. He said that the Council has reacted to the citizens very well in that they started with something that could have been very detrimental to the neighborhood and have come a long way. He said that the proposed project will make the corner very professional. He said that he thinks the project will satisfy the owners of the property and that they will be a good neighbor.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman stated that the General Plan shows the property as commercial.


St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Eleven

Council Member Bunker asked if that meant the City would have to keep it that way.

City Attorney Guzman said that a legal analysis was done and that it would be problematic for the City to change it because of the confines of the General Plan showing just that particular piece of property as commercial rather than a general area. He said that the Mayor did a good job of explaining the holding zones that have been brought into the City. He said that if you look at some of the steeper hillsides they are zoned R-1-10 even though a house couldn?t be built on them but that was the zone when it came into the City.

Council Member Bunker stated that it is misleading to a homeowner who buys property and sees adjacent property as R-1-10.

City Attorney Guzman said that the homeowner would be best advised to look at the General Plan because that shows what use the City contemplates for the area.

Mayor McArthur said that?s why the holding zone was changed to Mining and Grazing which is an open space zone.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Gardner to approve the zone change from R-1-10 to PD-AP.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Orton.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, as follows:

Council Member Gardner ? aye
Council Member Bunker ? nay
Council Member Orton ? aye
Council Member Whatcott ? aye

The motion carried.

PUBLIC HEARING/PROPOSED CAPITAL FACILITY PLANS AND IMPACT FEES:
Public hearing to receive public input on the proposed capital facility plans and impact fees on a City-wide basis.

City Manager Gary Esplin stated that this had been a culmination of many months worth of study and effort and discussion. He said that he was going to have consultants Jason Burningham and Justin Carlton make a presentation that would give the general parameters of the study and also their recommendations.

Mr. Jason Burningham stated that he wanted to go through the methodology, the basis for which they look at impact fees and what they are recommending the City consider as a new impact fee structure. He stated that impact fees are typically intended to be used to defray portions of capital infrastructure, not operation or maintenance costs. He said that the capital infrastructure is more specifically related to development. He explained that it?s the demand of development that creates new capital infrastructure that has to be created. He said that the purpose of an impact fee is a financing mechanism that allows the City to collect money and then put in capital facilities in order to serve the new development as well as to equitably distribute costs across different users within the system. He stated that impact fees could be used for culinary water, wastewater, storm water, roads and transportation, parks, electric, and public safety. Mr. Burningham stated that they are in the process of updating a Master Plan with respect to parks, open space, trails and recreation which has not been completed yet so the recommendations made in the presentation for impact fees do not include parks or recreation. He said that all impact fees are governed by a specific statute under Utah code that was put in place in 1997. He explained that the purpose of the code was to make sure that there was uniformity across communities that intended on imposing impact fees. He said that the methodology that they have used and the process that they are going through is prescribed under that particular law. Mr. Burningham said that they generally recommend that impact fees be considered at the full 100% of the maximum allowable impact fee recommended in the study. He stated that communities have the flexibility to set the impact fees at less than 100% of the recommended impact fee. He said that in the past St. George has adopted impact fees that were less than what was justified in prior studies. He explained that the concern with anything that is adopted at less than 100% of the recommended impact fee shifts a portion of the burden to current residents who have already contributed to the system. He said that the Impact Fee Ordinance allows the City to have some flexibility to deal with specific land uses that may be atypical, that don?t specifically equate to anything else that is in the community, or something that may have more demand or less demand then some of the facilities. He said that the City can look at those situations independently in order to deal with them appropriately so it would be fair and equitable to all participants.

Mr. Burningham said that for the culinary water impact fee they looked at a five year capital improvement plan that identified almost $50 million of infrastructure in order to meet the needs of the community. He stated that just under $10 million of that amount is related to new growth. He said that the recommendation for the impact fee is based on an equivalent residential user and prescribed by the size of the meter that would be provided by each development. He stated that the culinary water impact fee for the City will be going down fairly significantly because of the consolidation with the Washington County Water Conservancy District.


St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Twelve

Council Member Gardner stated that the current recommendation had been dropped by $2,000 from an earlier recommendation because of that pooling agreement.

Mr. Burningham explained that there are two components for the wastewater fee. One is a local component and the other is a regional component. He said that the total capital facilities plan for the local side is just under $30 million with $19 million related to growth. He stated that on the regional side the total capital facilities plan is $83 million with $43 million related to growth. He said that based on a fifteen year plan their recommendation for a ?? water service for a single-family dwelling unit would be just under $900 for the local impact fee and just under $1,000 for the regional fee.

Mr. Burningham stated that the storm drain capital facilities plan identified $81 million as future capital costs with $42 million growth related. Based on the fourteen year capital facility plan the impact fee for low density residential would be just under $500 and $83 per 1,000 sq. ft. for commercial.

City Manager Gary Esplin stated that the City would continue with the current practice of allowing a 50% reduction for developments that detain one-half of the storm water produced by a 10-year storm.

Mr. Burningham stated that was correct and would be part of the ordinance. He stated that most communities adopt a similar type of structure.

Mr. Burningham explained that the transportation plan is a fifteen year plan. He said that the capital facility plan is just under $300 million with half of that amount related to growth. Based on the capital facility plan a single family resident would pay just under $800 for the impact fee. He said that the last time the information on non-residential transportation impact fees was discussed with the council it was an area of concern. He said that they had gone back and looked at other comparables and other cities and the true impact. He said that they looked at different types of recent development in the City and that the variance between the actual fee imposed under the City?s old structure and the maximum allowable under the proposed structure is significant. He said that the transportation impact fee is the area of largest discrepancy. He said that the impact fees adopted previously were only adopted at 5% - 10% of the true cost of transportation for commercial activity. The amount recommended would be the full amount at 100%. He gave several examples of the difference between what the previous fees were and what the proposed fees would be.

Council Member Gardner asked if a church that had paid $4,200 previously would in the future be expected to pay $36,000.

Mr. Burningham stated that the $36,000 was based on the high end of the range determined by comparing approximately 15 cities of similar size to St. George within Utah or the western region.

Mayor McArthur said that they needed to look at the figure under the proposed fees which was $14,000.

City Manager Gary Esplin asked Mr. Burningham to explain other aspects of the transportation fee on an adjustment factor that is used to get to the calculation.

Mr. Burningham then explained the adjustment factors that have been taken into account.

Council Member Whatcott asked Mr. Burningham to explain how the factors would impact the fees for a fast food restaurant with a drive through and a convenience store. He said that the trips per unit are higher for the convenience store but the fee is less.

Mr. Burningham explained that the full details are shown in the study and that a convenience store or fast food is not the ultimate location so it is not considered a full ?trip in.? He said that each category is adjusted based on those factors. He said that all of the adjustment factors are based on trip generation data prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.

Council Member Gardner stated that there was a difference in the cost per square foot for supermarkets since the last presentation. He asked Mr. Burningham why the supermarket category had changed but some of the others stayed the same.

Mr. Burningham said that for the supermarkets they looked at the St. George community and other communities and determined the way the trip generation manuals were applying adjustment factors was probably not accurate for the community for various reasons.

Justin Carlton said that the ITE manuals have a sample size for each land use. He stated that they worked with the Public Works Department and looked at each land use when the sample sizes were particularly small. He said that if some of the sample sizes were too small they took it back to the lower range rather than the average range to be more realistic to what the City was actually experiencing.

Mr. Burningham stated that the transportation impact fees are probably the most difficult to determine perfect equity. He explained that the information they have to go on are

St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Thirteen

samples, traffic studies and generalization of patterns of traffic. He said that not all communities fit within a particular sample. He said that if an applicant comes in with their own traffic study and challenges the City?s data there is language in the ordinance that binds the City Council to take into account the additional information and to adjust the fee accordingly.

Council Member Gardner stated that ultimately the end user is going to be paying the impact fees through higher prices. He said if the impact fees are too high it prices out anyone who wants to come in with a commercial venture and drives them to the neighboring communities.

Mr. Burningham said that?s why they provided a comparable range which shows the recommended fees and that they aren?t disproportionate to other communities. He stated that the impact fees in the surrounding areas would probably be close to what the City?s would be.

Mr. Burningham explained that the fourteen year power capital facilities plan identified $180 million in infrastructure with $54 million related to growth He said that the impact fee for a single family residence with 200 amp service would be $3,445. He said that the Fire/EMS and Police capital improvement plans are the longest going out to 2030. He stated that the Fire/EMS plan identified $23.8 million in future capital and $14 million related to growth. The impact fee for a single family dwelling would be $215 and $184 per 1,000 sq. ft for commercial. He said that the police plan identified $8.8 million in future capital costs with $5.1 million related to growth. The impact fee for a single family dwelling would be just over $100 and the fee for commercial use would be $94 per 1,000 sq. ft.

City Manager Gary Esplin said that if you look at the difference between what the impact fees will generate and what the total cost will be to complete the projects discussed there is a significant amount that will need to be paid for through other revenue sources. He said that some of the monies may come from grants or regional programs but a lot of it will have to come from bringing deficiencies up. He said that impact fees can only be used for growth and not to fund existing problems. He stated that the City will have to be creative to come up with other dollars because the projects will not get done just with the impact fees.

Council Member Orton asked City Manager Esplin if he felt the recommendations for the impact fees were conservative.

City Manager Gary Esplin stated that he thought that they had done a good job in identifying the existing conditions. He said that the growth rates are defendable and that the recommendations are conservative. He stated that the impact felt on the City is because the City is a regional center. Some of the growth related issues that the City is dealing with is because of the surrounding communities.

Council Member Gardner asked if they had considered sales tax generated versus not having the sales tax. He said that there is an offsetting benefit to the City with the sales tax and asked if that was accounted for anywhere.

Mr. Burningham said that he did not know if sales tax was part of any of the formulas. He said that for the City the sales tax revenue has been used more for maintenance and operational issues.

City Manager Gary Esplin stated that a quarter cent of the sales tax goes strictly to transportation and is earmarked for capital projects. He said that the sales tax in the General Fund has not been allocated to capital projects in transportation. The sales tax that the City is generating has to go to fund services, additional police force and additional services. He said that the City is tied too much to sales tax when it comes to the balance of revenues to keep operations going. He stated that in the past the City kept the commercial fees low in order to encourage businesses to locate in St. George to generate the sales tax. He said that it kept the rate artificially low so now there is a bigger jump than there would be if the City had set the fees higher in the past.

Mr. Burningham stated that the current transportation impact fee for commercial land use was adopted at 5% of what was actually recommended in 1997. He stated that the significant change in the transportation fee is the largest increase on commercial property. Mr. Burningham explained that the final slide in the presentation showed the other cities that were used as comparisons. He said that some of the communities that were used don?t have power impact fees. He stated that some of the cities are part of a water district and don?t provide their own water or sewer. He said in terms of a single family dwelling unit the recommended impact fee would be just under $9,500. He said that the median range is between $8,700 to $8,800.

Council Member Orton asked how many of the cities listed on the comparison chart were addressing their impact fees.

Mr. Burningham said that almost all of them other than Layton and perhaps Logan are or have recently addressed impact fees.

Council Member Orton asked Mr. Burningham if he knew what the City of Herriman was doing with its impact fees.

St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Fourteen

Mr. Burningham said that they didn?t include Herriman because it is a smaller community. He said that their impact fee is closer to $15,000. He said that their park impact fee is $3,400 for a single family dwelling.

Council Member Bunker asked if Logan was low because of the factors that Mr. Burningham mentioned.

Mr. Burningham stated that their sewer is on a regional basis and they don?t charge a transportation or public safety impact fee.

Council Member Orton asked if they did a comparable list for businesses.

Mr. Burningham said they did. He said that for a 8,500 sq. ft. commercial property the fee in St. George would be $31,607 compared to $68,254 in South Jordan; $53,809 in Draper; $14,905 in Logan; $52,656 in Riverton; and $39,701 in Layton.

Council Member Gardner asked if any of the other communities listed are paying additional impact fees as the City is also with the Conservancy District. He said that the true impact includes the additional fee.

Mr. Burningham said that Riverton, Draper and South Jordan have about a $4,800 impact fee from the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District that is not included in the figures listed on the Comparable Impact Fee slide.

Council Member Orton said that no other city in the state had been impacted by growth the way St. George has. He said that the City Council needs to be very sensitive to that.

Mayor McArthur opened the public hearing.

Mr. Ed Baca stated that he is a concerned citizen. He said that the Energy Services Capital Plan is comprehensive and well done. Mr. Baca stated that he wanted to represent the interests of homeowners and residents who have paid for current and past development. He said that the issue before the council is who should pay for the growth. He asked the council to exercise their talents and wisdom in making a decision that would be the right course of action for the City in seeking all of these funds. He asked that they consider present users and residents in the issues of raising property taxes or user fees.

Council Member Gardner stated that he thinks the City needs the impact fees but he is concerned about the law of unintended consequences. He said that the City needs to be concerned about workforce housing, our children, our grandchildren, those who are in the housing market, who are anxious to have their own opportunities. He stated that St. George has been built on the heritage of pay it forward. He said the City has always built for the future and that he doesn?t think it should get to the point where the City does not feel some obligation to those who come after us. He said that he thinks the City Council has to be careful in saying that it doesn?t have any obligation to look at others who would want to live here. He said that $10,000 may be the difference in someone being able to get financing or not.

Mr. Mike Gardner stated that he is the current President of the Southern Utah Homebuilders Association. He said that SUHBA has had several constructive discussions with the City Manager and department heads regarding various financing vehicles for providing public improvements. He said that they applaud the City for exercising caution concerning any attempt to finance facilities that are not currently provided through the general fund, inter-government transfers or grants. Mr. Gardner said that it is the responsibility of the Council to consider circumstances that would justify the City charging less than the consultant?s recommended highest fee justified by the study. He said that the proposed impact fee analysis before the Council states that an inflation component is included in all capital project costs to be constructed in fiscal year 2007 and beyond. He said that SUHBA?s concern is that residents purchasing permits today will pay the same cost as those purchasing permits in ten years. He said that the dollar today represents more to current residents versus the same dollar value in ten years that will be less due to inflation factors. He said that the recent impact fee analysis prepared for the Washington County Water Conservancy District states that the fee is structured to account for the time value of money as stated in the Impact Fees Act. The impact fees are to be increased annually by 5% to account for the time value of money to ensure that the burden is equitable spread from a real cost perspective. Mr. Gardner said that there have been changes in the use of infrastructure over time that has reduced the impact of public improvements per capita. He said that water and power conservation are two excellent examples of reducing the use per capita. He said that those factors would not be reflected in historical figures to estimate future use. He said that the Southern Utah Homebuilders Association recently presented an extensive local economic impact model to the community. He stated that residential growth contributes a significant economic benefit to the community. He said that the Southern Utah Homebuilders Association proposes that the current capital facilities plan and impact fees studies be adopted at a maximum 90% of the highest fee justified by the impact fee analysis presented. He said that SUHBA also requested that the impact fee increase determined by the Council be implemented in 25% increments over a year to soften impact fee increases particularly when taking into consideration the recently passed Washington County Water Conservancy District impact fee of $4,000.

St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Fifteen

Council Member Gardner asked Mr. Burningham to respond to Mr. Mike Gardner?s reference to the 5% escalator versus another approach.

Mr. Burningham stated that they are aware that Washington County Water Conservancy District recently adopted an impact fee that started out quite a bit lower than what was justified and that will be increased 5% annually until it gets to an amount of $25,000 for one single family dwelling unit. He said that there are a couple of differences with respect to the Capital Facility Plan. He said that the Washington County Water Conservancy District is looking at a nearly $1 billion capital facility plan over thirty years. He said the major project is the Lake Powell pipeline which will come to fruition in the next seven or eight years. He stated that it was a policy decision by the Conservancy District to adopt a fee now that is only $4,400 even though what was justified under the same methodology typically used would be $10,000. He said that by increasing the fee by 5% annually it will reach $25,000 in approximately twenty-five years. Mr. Burningham stated that the Capital Facility Plan is not a document that is complete and put on the shelf. He said that the recommendation to the Council is that the plan needs to be addressed and updated for costs on a yearly basis. He said that each year the City should identify what impact fees have been collected, account for where they have been used and make certain they are being used toward the Capital Facility Plan.

Mr. Scott Hirshi stated that he is with County Economic Development. He stated that he is concerned about the commercial/industrial aspect of the proposed fees. He said that the formula used for impervious surfaces proposes that the coverage would be 90%. He stated that in his experience that is a high percentage. He explained that the paving and surface for the footprint of a building is generally less than that. He said that he is not suggesting that the figure be lowered but that it be looked at site specific. He stated that industrial projects are usually very large acreage-wise. He said that he would like each project to be looked at individually in order to determine what the impervious coverage of the acreage is and charge accordingly based on the impact figure that is recommended. He said the impact fee should be determined on the actual coverage not on a predetermined percentage of coverage. He said that a concern he has on the power impact fee is there is a cost allocated to growth for the Millcreek gas generation plant. He said that in the past generation has always been paid for in rates. He said that it appears from the study that part of the cost of that plant is now going to be covered by impact fees. He stated that he doesn?t agree with that. He said that rates should pay for generation. Mr. Hirshi stated that he did an estimate on what he believed was a fairly typical industrial facility to see what the cost difference would be. He said that it shows an increase of about 100%. He explained that it was a hypothetical project with a 100,000 sq. ft. building on ten acres of property. He said that he estimated current fees to be around $70,000 and the proposed the fees would be $144,000 if the impact fees recommended at 100% were adopted. He stated that the implementation should be done in phases and he recommended that in the case of industrial it be 10% per quarter, which would take about two and one-half years for the increase to be absorbed through the permitting process.

City Manager Gary Esplin explained that the Millcreek Plant is not intended to be used for day to day generation but only for peaking based on demands.

Director of Energy Services Phil Solomon said that the impact fee recommendation shows that only 41% of the Millcreek Plant is being allocated to growth. He said that the remainder is covered by rates. He said that they are looking at a $60 million investment in a generation facility in the Bonanza area and none of that is being allocated to impact fees because of retiring contracts that the City currently has and the fact that the plant will be a base load plant that will run 24/7. He said that through a series of analysis and computations figured that approximately 41% of the plans are attributed to growth strictly due to peaking.

Mr. Gilbert Jennings said that he represents the Ft. Pierce Industrial Park and commercial development. He said that he would like to reiterate what Mr. Hirshi said about the industrial setting. He said that the economic base in the City is out of balance. He said that the City should have an industrial/manufacturing base that is 15% of the economy and currently it is about 7%. He stated that he has been working with a company for about two years to get them to come to St. George and a conversation he had with them that day centered around the proposed impact fees. He said that the company has 120 days to conduct a feasibility study to decide whether they want to continue with the project. Mr. Jennings said that they are looking at a significant difference in impact fees when considering a 40 acre site. He said that trying to compute the proposed fee schedule is confusing. He asked that the fee schedule and explanation of how the fees are computed be looked at. He said that in the Fire Protection and Police areas it is very confusing on how to actually compute the exact calculation. Mr. Jennings stated that he took two different building permits he had paid for in the last short period of time and applied the new proposed fees. He said that he recently paid an impact fee of $30,986.50 on an industrial building permit for a 12,000 sq. ft. building. He said that the proposed fee would be $52,910. He said that the Main Street Building project that was completed in the last year had impact fees of $154,839. Mr. Jennings said that under the new fee proposal it would be $535,266. He said that if the project was starting today it would not exist. He stated that construction costs have gone up so high in the last two years that he is having a hard time getting the market place to pay the rents to get the project to happen. He stated that the ordinance and impact fee statute has a concept of proportionality. He stated that he thinks there is a problem and that he is sensitive to the cost of housing because of regulation. He asked if increasing the

St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Sixteen

commercial impact fee by 350% and the residential fee by 15% or 20% is fair. He said that if the Council increases the impact fees he would lose probably 15 prospective tenants. He said that he would probably have to drop three or four buildings that are designed and waiting for building permits. He stated that he wanted the growth and is not opposed to paying but asked the Council to help get through the interim period so they can pass the cost on to the consumer. Mr. Jennings said that he is troubled by the capital facilities plan for transportation. He said that it should be a detailed plan with a detailed budget with real justification for what the budget and dollar expenditures are considering the actual cost of the items and real timing. He said that the capital facilities plan budget looks like a wish list. He said that it goes way out in years and there are projects that have very little definition. He said that when he asked the staff how they arrived at the cost he was told it was pulled out of the air. He said that the budget is not definitive or precise enough.

Council Member Orton asked Mr. Jennings if he would give the Council the name of the staff member.

Mr. Jennings stated that he would not. He said that when he reads the budget he sees projects where everything is rounded to millions of dollars. He stated that the numbers are not based on reality and he questioned the validity of some of them. He stated that he?s not saying that something shouldn?t be done but he asked for more definitive numbers and he couldn?t get them. He said that he would like to see a process that is more public and more open and for those who are going to have to pay the cost. Mr. Jennings said that impact fees are not the only way to finance projects. He stated that it is easy compared to going through a special improvement district and having to justify a specific project. He said that he thought some of the projects could be financed in a different way and that it would have a drastic effect on the impact fees and this ordinance.

Mayor McArthur closed the public hearing.

Council Member Gardner explained that before when the City Council went with 75% of the recommended 100% impact fees, they looked at the power in particular and saw that the growth was 6% versus the increased demand which was much greater at 30% or 40%. He said that they concluded from that analysis that the existing residents were creating a lot of the new demand. He asked Mr. Burningham if there had been any consideration as to how much those types of fees are attributed to new growth versus existing.

Mr. Burningham stated that the electric facilities plan was developed based on the different types of capital projects necessitated throughout a certain horizon. He said there were several millions of dollars of cost that needed to be defrayed through the capital facilities plan. He said that what was estimated was determined by looking at the current demand on the system versus a future projected demand on the system and looking at how many growth units would fill up that additional demand. He stated that he didn?t think that any delineation was made about if any of the additional demand was created by existing users. He said that there was some rationale before that was looked at and that was why there was a discount factor that was applied. He said that in the present circumstance they took the actual demand based on current number of residents and commercial entities in the community and then used that same level of service to forecast out for a period of 15 years. He said that they didn?t increase the demand per unit. He stated that if current residents are requiring a higher level of service, this is not reflected in the capital facilities plan. He said the capital facilities plan only takes into account how many additional facilities will be needed to maintain the same level of service per unit going forward.

Council Member Orton stated that he indicated before that no city in the state of Utah has been impacted with growth the way St. George has. He said that now that the City recognizes the impact the growth will have, the City Council would not be doing its duty if it did not put the impact fee in place for the future growth. He stated that the Council has always worked well with Economic Development if there was a non-competing company that wants to come into the community that is going to generate jobs. He said that the Council can make some concessions in those types of situations.

Council Member Bunker asked if the incremental scale suggested could be considered.

Council Member Orton said that this would be delaying the inevitable. He said that if 10% per quarter were adopted, the current citizens will be paying the remaining 90% for the next quarter.

Council Member Whatcott asked Mr. Burningham to clarify the difference between the Washington County Water Conservancy District factoring and what is being proposed for the City.

Mr. Burningham stated that it was a methodology consideration and a policy decision. He said that what was originally presented to the Conservancy District was the same type of methodology used for the City. He explained that they take a capital facilities plan and look at different projects that have to be constructed to meet projected growth and demand over a period of years. He said that some of the projects may not be completed until the end of the time frame. He stated that in order to effectively finance the improvements without getting behind in the ability to pay for them, impact fees have to

St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Seventeen

be collected in order to defray the costs. He said that the Washington County Water Conservancy District looked at the original impact fee recommendation of $10,000 and decided to approach it differently. They wanted to look at some other methodology that would over the long term get the same cash flow to cover the project but put a little burden up in front and a larger burden on the back.

Mr. Burningham stated that the reason they felt that methodology was appropriate for the Washington County Water Conservancy District was due to the fact that they had some capital facilities that were drawn out over 30 to 40 years. He said that given that time frame it seemed justified for them to increase the impact fee 5% each year in order to address the cash flow. He said that for the most part the City?s capital facilities plans are over a period of five, seven, or ten years. He said that the discounting factor would not make that big of a difference with those periods of time.

Council Member Gardner stated that the City wants the cash to accomplish what needs to be done but does not want to discourage business and actually lose revenue. He said that it is a fine line and a tough debate.

Council Member Orton said that the proposed impact fees puts the City in line with the rest of the state.

City Manager Gary Esplin said that City staff has done an incredible job to keep up with the growth. He said that they have done a build-out study to determine where the roads need to be and what the infrastructure size needs to be. He stated that the projects are based on meeting the demands for services and to keep the quality of life at the current level. He said that there have been several meetings to discuss the issue and the study has been available for months for input. He said that even with the impact fees the City is hundreds of millions dollars off if it is going to try to keep the level of service at its current level. He said staff has put a lot of time and thought into the process and has not been arbitrary or capricious in arriving at the information submitted. He said that the plan meets state law and conforms to all the rules and formulas. It was done with the intention of looking out for the public to try and make it as feasible and as fair as possible for everyone.

Council Member Whatcott stated that the letter read by Mr. Mike Gardner raised a valid concern that there was not an escalation clause in the proposal so that the people paying today would be paying the same as the people paying five or ten years from now. Council Member Whatcott asked for clarification as to whether the Council could still make adjustments to the impact fees.

Mr. Burningham stated that the Council could make adjustments. He said that they recommend that the capital facility plans be reviewed and updated as needed with current costs and current growth projections. He said that every budget year it would come back to the Council and if there were major changes in the capital infrastructure or the costs of growth it would be adjusted and translated into the impact fees.

Mr. Jennings said that they are supportive but the difficulty is going through the impact of changing the fees by 350%. He said that if the impact fees had been changed a little every year it would be easier to live with because they can plan for it. He said that the Council could soften the blow by taking a different approach especially with the projects that are already in progress. He asked for the implementation on a quarterly basis to phase it in.

Mr. Steve Kemp stated that he is the principle broker for Kemp Griffin Commercial Real Estate. He said that they have several dozen leases that are currently in negotiation. He said that he would encourage the Council to take some kind of steps to deal with the issue.

Mr. Heath Snow said that he is a concerned citizen. He asked for clarification on how the City would implement the ordinance in particular to commercial development and industrial development. He asked if a commercial developer were to bring in their own independent traffic study that indicated less trips per day than quantified in the current study if the City give the developer a discount on the impact fee.

City Manager Gary Esplin stated that the ordinance mandates the City to consider the independent traffic study to determine the impact fee.

Mr. Burningham said that the proposed ordinance has a provision for adjustments. He explained that there is also a non-standard formula in the ordinance that addresses Mr. Hirschi?s concern about the impervious surface area impact fee. He said that the proposed ordinance mandates the City to look at each case where data is provided that suggests a different impact fee.

Council Member Whatcott said that it is good to know that the Council has to look at the projects on an individual basis and consider information provided by the developer.

Mr. Burningham said that there is also a provision in the ordinance that refers to the ability for public purpose to make a waiver or adjustments to the impact fees. He explained that public purpose is defined as affordable housing. He said that they could also do it for economic development purposes provided they can show that there is more benefit coming in than what is being deferred in terms of impact fees. He said that the

St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Eighteen

intent of the ordinance is to provide flexibility and analyze the true equity and what the proportionate share should be.

Mayor McArthur stated that it is important to look ahead and plan for improvements.

Mr. Gilbert Nicola said that 75% of the true cost that was arrived at four years ago is now less than 50%. He said perhaps the jump in the impact fees is so large because the City hasn?t charged enough in the past. He said that there will always be projects in progress that will be in jeopardy every time this sort of issue is faced. He said the market place dictates what needs to be done and businessmen have to adjust.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Orton to adopt the impact fee structure as presented, to make adjustments as needed and to review it annually.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Whatcott.

Council Member Bunker said that she feels positive that the City needs to have the impact fees at 100%. She said that it is difficult for the commercial projects to do it immediately. She said that she would like to see an incremental impact which would be easier. She said that 50% within a year would be decent compromise.

Council Member Gardner said that 50% now and 50% after six months would still get the City where it needs to be and would give the developers a little bit of a delay. He said that he preferred SUBHA?s recommendation of 25% quarterly.

City Manager Gary Esplin said that if action is taken tonight it needs to be determined how it will be implemented with those who are in the process. He said that in the past if a building permit had been requested, or if they had been to JUC, or if a commercial project had started in the process, the City has tried to help in those situations. He said that the Council needs to look at a cut off for projects that are in the process. He said that with the commercial jump could be phased in 50% now and 50% in six months. He said that he thinks the residential could be 100% now.

Council Member Orton said that commercial projects in the process of negotiating leases or anything that is in the pipeline and has received JUC approval prior to August 1 would be under the old fee schedule. All other commercial projects will be required to pay 50% as of August 1, 2006 and 50% on January 1, 2007.

Council Member Whatcott asked how they would define what projects were in the pipeline.

City Manager Gary Esplin said that if they had been to JUC they would have plans already developed. He said there is a record as far as sign up and dates. He said that they could do that for industrial and commercial. He said that residential should be treated differently.

AMENDED MOTION: An amended motion was made by Council Member Orton to adopt the impact fee structure as presented on residential effective July 20, 2006 for anyone who has not submitted a plan as of July 20, 2006; for commercial and industrial to adopt the impact fees at 50% effective August 1, 2006 and 50% effective January 1, 2007 for any projects that have already presented to JUC or have a code name because of being in negotiations with Economic Development; and to make adjustments as needed.

SECOND: The amended motion was seconded by Council Member Whatcott.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:

Council Member Whatcott ? aye
Council Member Orton ? aye
Council Member Bunker ? aye
Council Member Gardner ? aye

The motion passed.

Mayor McArthur declared a 5 minute break.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
Consider approval of a conditional use permit to operate a day care within residence located at the northwest corner of 200 West and 200 North Streets. Kristi Edwards, et al., applicants.

City Planner Ray Snyder explained that this item had been before the Planning Commission twice before. He said the first time it was continued to give the applicant time to provide the Planning Commission with floor plans that show the rooms used for the day care and to provide a proposal for off street parking. He stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: 1) a final fire inspection is required prior to operation and the applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions such as posting of fire escape routes, smoke alarms, etc.; 2) no drop off or pick up of children shall occur on 200 North Street; 3) a driveway shall be


St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Nineteen

installed on 200 West Street to accommodate off street parking; and 4) staff shall not issue a business license until the driveway is installed.

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

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
Consider approval of a conditional use permit to construct a three story office building with a height above 35 feet, up to a proposed height of 58'9" measured from adjacent grade at 500 South and Bluff Street. Chad Chiniquy, applicant.

City Planner Ray Snyder explained that this item was tabled at the June 13, 2006 Planning Commission meeting to give the applicant time to provide additional drawings and a photo simulation to justify the additional building height. He said on July 11, 2006 the applicant returned to the Planning Commission with a revised site plan and photo simulations of the proposed building. He said that the Planning Commission denied the request for a conditional use permit for the requested height at the July 11, 2006 meeting. Mr. Snyder stated that the applicant had the right to appeal the decision and had done so. Mr. Snyder explained that there are four colored renderings before the Council. He said that the first one shows how the city traffic engineer had requested 200 West align with the driveway. He said that another rendering is looking at the building from the interior and the next two show a perspective from behind the units. Mr. Snyder said that five affected residents spoke at the July 13, 2006 Planning Commission meeting in opposition to the building as proposed. He said their concerns were regarding traffic, access, building height, additional heat generated from a large parking lot, drainage, privacy walls and landscaping. He said that the neighbors were re-notified of the July 11, 2006 meeting. He said that the Planning Commission received two letters in opposition of the building height. Mr. Snyder stated that building height is measured from the midpoint of the roof. He said that the code requires that height is taken from the top to the back of curb at street level. He explained that this is a corner property and there is an approximately 11 ft. difference in the height from 500 South to Bluff Street. He said that the applicant wants to build a three-story building and the residents would consider a two-story building. He said that the parking appears to meet the zoning ordinance. He said that the traffic conditions were that the driveway access on 500 South shall meet the requirements of the City Traffic Engineer and all signing and striping shall conform to the City of St. George and MUTCD standards.

Mr. Chad Chiniquy stated that he is the applicant. He said that the existing building would be removed. He said that he is currently a tenant at the Ence Executive Towers at 619 Bluff, and that building is well over 60 ft. tall. He said that it is a four-story structure that is less than one block from his proposed building, it is on the same side of the street, and backs up to residential. He stated that he is going to provide more parking and landscaping than required by code. Mr. Chiniquy said that he knows of two other buildings which were granted conditional use permits based on height just a couple of blocks north. He said that the building will actually be 43 ft. high with only two parts that come up to a net of 52 ft. high.

Council Member Gardner asked what the height of the building was from Bluff.

Mr. Chiniquy stated that it is hard to say because Bluff drops down so drastically. He said that it would probably be 30-35 ft. up from Bluff. He stated that the property is zoned commercial and Bluff is a commercial street. He said that in the interest of public safety he decided to disregard accessing the property off of Bluff. He stated that the precedent has been set by the Council as far as approving conditional use permits for height variances in that area.

Mayor McArthur asked if the building would fit within the guidelines of widening Bluff Street from UDOT?s study.

Mr. Chiniquy said that in their conversations with UDOT they talked about having a traffic study but it was specific to the proposed building?s square footage and location. He said that there was never any mention of widening Bluff Street at that location.

City Manager Gary Esplin said that from St. George Boulevard to 700 the City had a necessary right of way.

Mr. Jeff Lane stated that he resides at 528 South 100 West which is just around the corner from the proposed project. He said that he would like to express appreciation to the Council for the number of times they have come before them as concerned citizens of the downtown area and in preserving the quality of life and the various projects that are there. He stated that the neighborhood is actively involved in safe neighborhood programs, they are now in a CAT program, and they regularly attend Planning Commission meetings and the Council meetings as well. He said that they appreciate that the Council has set a precedent to preserve the quality of the downtown area and making it a family friendly area. He stated that one their biggest concerns is the amount of traffic that will be generated with construction of the proposed building. He stated that their understanding is that a three-story building allows for 180 parking spaces. He said that because 500 South is a poorly designed intersection it will be difficult to move that much traffic in and out of that facility. He said that there is a steep grade on 500

St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Twenty

South. He said since there is no traffic light at 500 South, the traffic out of the proposed building would only have three options. He said that they would have to try to make a left-hand turn onto Bluff which is next to impossible because there is no light. They could access Bluff Street by making a right hand turn but he said that puts the driver at a driveway of a condominium complex. He stated that the third option would be to come out of the proposed office space on 500 South and go directly north on 200 West or make a right hand turn off of 500 South. He said that is a significant amount of traffic to be funneled through a residential neighborhood. He said residents feel the height of the building is intrusive and that the ordinance which exists now is more than adequate. He said that they are asking the Council to make sure that whoever develops that property as a commercial project has a minimal impact in a residential area.

Ms. Janette Stratton stated that she is a mother and homeowner of eleven years on 140 West 500 South. She said that 500 South is the only entrance and exit to the proposed building. She stated that her main concern in granting the conditional use permit for height is how it will increase the traffic on the neighborhood streets. She said that it will affect the safety of all of the children in the area. She said that because of the building being three stories it would have 180 parking spaces and would generate too much traffic. She stated that a two-story building there would have 120 parking spaces which would be less traffic. She stated that the Council had done a wonderful job in downtown St. George by encouraging young families to move to the downtown area. She said that this proposed project goes against what the City has worked so hard to do. She said that because of the two condo complexes on 500 South between her street and Bluff Street there is already a concern about traffic.

Mr. Garth Bundy stated that he lives directly north of the proposed building. He said that he is concerned about the intrusion on privacy and that there is a wastewater easement that goes through the property line straight south. He stated that when there is a lot of rain this is a concern across 500 South.

Council Member Gardner asked if it is remnants of an irrigation ditch or if it is just where water accumulates.

Mr. Bundy said that originally there was a street there but the City deleted the street and deeded the property back to his father who owned the property on both sides of it. He said that the City granted an excess flood water easement on the property where the street was.

Mayor McArthur stated that if a building is being built there the owner would have to take care of drainage. He said that the City is putting drainage down 100 West to collect water and take it over to Main Street.
Mr. Howard Staheli stated that he is a homeowner on the corner of 500 South and 100 West. He said that in the simulation the trees were taller than the three-story building. He said that his biggest concern is the corner coming off Bluff and the traffic hazards. He said the condominiums have two entrances but the one on Bluff is the most used one. He said that the residents in the neighborhood urge the Council to reject the request for a conditional use permit.

Ms. Joellen Lane stated that she is a street captain for 100 West and also the block captain under CAT. She stated that she was not representing CAT. She said that the neighbors have presented knowledgeable concerns. She said that they are knowledgeable because they live next door to the proposed project. She said they drive and know the streets. Ms. Lane said they are partners with the City to improve their neighborhoods. She said that the additional traffic would be a safety concern. She said that on 100 West there are approximately ten families with school age children. She said that in the block that the proposed building would be on there are thirty-one homes that will be impacted by the additional water run-off and traffic. She said that it is not just a minor residential area.

Mr. Terrence White said that his company had contracted with Mr. Chiniquy to do planning for the building. He said that the reason the ordinance states 35 ft. as a maximum height has nothing to do with traffic. He said that it has to with firefighting apparatus. He explained that the ordinance was established years ago when the height of the apparatus could reach only 35 ft. Mr. White said the City staff had already looked at the entry and exit and recommended the placement of the approach into the parking lot and Mr. Chiniquy has complied with that recommendation. The property was purchased at commercial rates and a two-story building would not cover those costs. He said they would follow the standard procedure and work with staff to make sure they take care of water generated on site. Mr. White said that the reason the Planning Commission voted against the request was to avoid further delay in the process.

Council Member Gardner asked if he was suggesting the Planning Commission wanted the applicant to appeal to the City Council to expedite the reqeust.

Mr. White said that was his understanding.

Director of Community Development Bob Nicholson explained that the original motion at the Planning Commission was to table the request. He said that the Planning Commission was not going to meet on July 25, 2006 so there was a complaint about the time delay. He said that a second motion was made to deny the request to allow the


St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Twenty One

applicant to appeal to City Council. Mr. Nicholson explained that the height requirement in the ordinance is for aesthetic issues.

Council Member Orton stated that the Council chose to keep the 35 ft. height requirement in order to have an opportunity to look at the building and see how it fits in the community. He said that he doesn?t know how the City Council can allow the height variance in one neighborhood and not in another. He said that they have set a precedent by allowing buildings a height variance if they meet specifications in the neighborhoods.
Mayor McArthur said they are dealing with a residential neighborhood and a major commercial street. He said the Council is concerned with how it looks from various angles and how it will impact the neighborhood.

City Manager Gary Esplin said traffic is an issue everywhere in the City. He said they are approaching capacity on 700 South and 100 South.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Whatcott to approve the request for the conditional use permit and to have the applicant provide landscaping that would provide acceptable screening between the property and the adjoining properties.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Orton.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion passed.
PURCHASE OF WATER:
Consider approval to purchase 24.06 acre feet of water from Linna Rosenlof.

City Manager Gary Esplin explained that this is a purchase of 24.06 acre feet of water from Linna Rosenlof at $800 per acre foot for a total cost of $19,248. He said that the sale would be conditioned on the State approval of a change application to change the point of diversion.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Gardner to approve the purchase with the condition as stated.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Orton.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

SITE PLAN/BUILDING ELEVATION:
City Planner Ray Snyder explained that this is a request for a site plan and building elevation to construct a two-story building with a parking structure located below. He said the site is located on Lot #1 of the Tonaquint Parkway Subdivision located on Dixie Drive near the intersection of Silicon Way and Dixie Drive. The property is on 1.87 acres and is zoned PD. Mr. Kim Campbell, representative. He said that the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to the following recommendations: 1) signage shall be approved under a separate permit; 2) earth tone colors and materials shall be used as represented in the colored elevation submitted June 27, 2006; 3) the maximum building height shall not exceed 41?3? as measured from the building midpoint on Dixie Drive; 4) provide a 25 ft. wide walking trail easement on the north side of the property; 5) street trees shall meet the City Tree Ordinance (8 are required on Dixie Drive); and 6) provide a photometric plan.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Whatcott to approve the request for a site plan and building elevation subject to the recommendations.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Orton.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT:
Consider approval of the Community Development Block Grant for revitalization of the Dixie Downs Park.

City Manager Gary Esplin explained that this request is to use Community Development Block Grant money in the amount of $197,000 to create a paved walking path around the perimeter of the park, install a restroom with a drinking fountain, install a pavilion, lighting and additional trees.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Gardner to approve the request.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Orton.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Consider approval of the minutes of the special City Council meeting held June 29, 2006.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Whatcott to approve the minutes as corrected.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Gardner.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

Consider approval of the minutes of the regular City Council meeting held July 6, 2006.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Whatcott to approve the minutes as corrected.

St. George City Council Minutes
July 20, 2006
Page Twenty Two

SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Orton.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION:
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Whacott to adjourn to an executive session to discuss a property sale and purchase.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Bunker.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:

Council Member Whatcott ? aye
Council Member Orton ? aye
Council Member Bunker ? aye
Council Member Gardner ? aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

RECONVENE:
MOTION: A motion to reconvene was made by Council Member Gardner.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Bunker.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye.

ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Bunker to adjourn.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Whatcott.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.




Judith Mayfield, Deputy City Recorder