City Council Minutes

Thursday, October 18,2007



ST. GEORGE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 18, 2007, 4:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS

PRESENT:
Mayor Daniel McArthur
Council Member Rod Orton
Council Member Bob Whatcott
Council Member Larry Gardner
Council Member Gail Bunker
Council Member Suzanne Allen
City Manager Gary Esplin
Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston
City Recorder Gay Cragun

OPENING:
Mayor McArthur called the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance. He then led the pledge of allegiance. The invocation was offered by Pastor Jimi Keston.

TABLE ITEMS:
Mayor McArthur advised there were several items to be tabled: Item 3E, a public hearing to consider approval of a preliminary plat for The Villages at Twin Lakes Phase 1 with 47 units on 7.07 acres located at Twin Lakes Drive and 700 North; and a conditional use for a car wash (this item was not scheduled on this agenda).

INTRODUCTION OF SCOUTS:
Mayor McArthur invited several Scouts in the audience to introduce themselves.

FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
Consider approval of the financial statement for September, 2007.

City Manager Gary Esplin advised that the sales tax received for the first quarter of the fiscal year was less than estimated. It was only up 2% over last year and staff budgeted using 4%. Staff will monitor the situation and make adjustments if necessary. Building permits and planning fees are behind as well which are major revenue sources. However, expenditures are running less than normal for this time of year. Golf course fees are down 6% from last year because of the overseeding project in September, but he anticipated that revenue from fees would catch up. He explained that staff was normally conservative with revenue estimates. Sales tax revenue has been very healthy the last four years and staff thought 4% was a conservative estimate. Building is slowing down and purchases for those new homes are slowing down as well. If the trend continues, adjustments will be made.

Council Member Orton commented that staff has done a tremendous job in projecting revenues and expenditures as part of the budgeting process.

City Manager Gary Esplin commented that with regard to property taxes, the City has not raised its share of property taxes since the recreation bond was approved by the voters in 1996. The State took a portion of the sales tax off food but the City was able to move its portion of point of sales tax for the transportation fund up to .30% to make up the difference.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Orton to approve the financial statement as presented.
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 concrete and asphalt rubble crushing at the Reuse Center.

Purchasing Manager Connie Hood recommended award of a yearly blanket for crushing at the reuse center to JP Excavating in the amount of $60,000. She explained that they submitted the low bid of $49,900.56, but based on bid quantities, staff recommends the amount of $60,000 for the year.


St. George City Council Minutes
October 18, 2007
Page Two

Council Member Whatcott commented that the bid numbers did not jive with what was being presented. Progressive?s bid is cheaper per ton on asphalt rubble yet is double the amount bid by JP Excavating.

Ms. Hood explained that JP was less on the second item and had mobilization and testing fees as an additional item while Progressive had mobilization and testing fees included in their bid. She explained that the bottom line was used on the per ton cost, and JP Excavating is locked in to the per ton price of $5.50 per ton for concrete crushing and $7.00 per ton for asphalt rubble.

Council Member Orton stated he felt clarification was needed before the bid was awarded.

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

AWARD OF BID:
Consider approval of a professional services agreement for the Skyline to Green Valley 138 kV transmission line project.

Purchasing Manager Connie Hood explained that the agreement with JBR Environmental will include biological monitoring, foundation installation and attendance at meetings, in the amount of $103,350.

Energy Services Director Phil Solomon explained that the transmission line will go through the habitat area on the Red Hill and has to be done in a short period of time during the sleeping time of the tortoise. Even though the tortoise are sleeping, there must be someone there at all times while drilling of the deep foundations is being done to make sure the tortoise are not harmed. There are many phases to the project and many tasks. The cost of seed for revegetation was estimated to be around $4,000, but the bid came in at $20,000. Construction bids will be on the next City Council agenda, but will probably be double what is expected, as steel prices have doubled, etc. The project is over budget, but other capital projects which were planned for this year will not be done so this project can be completed.

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

TABLE ITEM:
City Manager Gary Esplin advised that Item 4D to consider approval of an ordinance changing the zone from A-1 to R-1-10 on 28.27 acres located at 2000 South on 3000 East and consider approval of a development agreement for a density bonus, Judd Palmer, applicant, was tabled from the agenda as the parties are still working out details of the development agreement.

RESOLUTION:
Consider approval of a resolution declaring the intention of the City of St. George, Utah, to issue industrial revenue bonds to be used for the acquisition and/or construction of a manufacturing facility including equipment and related facilities for Young Electric Sign Company, or any related company (the ?Project?); authorizing the issuance and sale of such bonds in the principal amount of not to exceed $6,000,000; establishing conditions which must be met at or prior to the issuance of the revenue bonds; providing for the reimbursement from the proceeds of such bonds of expenditures for the project; providing for a public hearing and for publication of a notice of the public hearing; and related matters.

City Manager Gary Esplin stated he was happy to report that YESCO is building a new manufacturing facility in the Ft. Pierce Industrial Park and the City has been working with them on incentives through the EDA. YESCO has secured an allotment of industrial revenue bonds from the State which allows them to issue a tax free financing option. The full
St. George City Council Minutes
October 18, 2007
Page Three

obligation rests with YESCO and is based on their current credit and there is no liability on the part of the City. He recommended approval.

Ray Draper, manager of YESCO, advised they will build a 56,000 sq. ft. manufacturing facility on River Road that will employ over 150 employees in the first phase. They expect to build the second phase within three years. Most of the signs manufactured will be sent to Las Vegas and throughout the world through the Las Vegas division. YESCO?s current site is almost five acres which they will keep and lease. The new building will be beautiful and YESCO is spending $6,000,000 for the facility. Wages will be fairly nice also.

City Manager Gary Esplin explained that the City lends itself to the name of the industrial revenue bonds which gives them tax status. The bonds are issued on the credit of the company requesting the IRB bond. In the past IRB bonds could be used for almost anything, including retail, but has now been narrowed strictly to value added manufacturing. The amount each state is allowed to issue has also been capped. Each year the State gets a certain allotment and they take applications. This year he stated he did not think there was any allotment left, but YESCO was able to obtain some. Blaine Carlton is the bond attorney. If YESCO defaults on the bonds, GE is buying the bonds and their recourse is against YESCO, and not the City.

Mayor McArthur explained that a value added business is one which brings in raw manufacturing produce which is then shipped out and not consumed here.

Mr. Draper commented that YESCO was founded in Ogden in 1920. Their corporate office is in Salt Lake City. It is a private company owned by the Young family. He stated he has been with them for 26 years.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Gardner to approve the resolution.
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 Orton - aye
Council Member Allen - aye
Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Bunker - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

Mr. Draper stated he knew three of the City Council members? terms of office expired soon, and he thanked them, personally and professionally, for what they have done for the City.

SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT:
Consider approval of a special event permit for an outdoor tent sale. Furniture Row, applicant.

City Manager Gary Esplin stated the applicants would like to hold a tent sale in their parking lot October 12-31.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Allen to approve the special event permit.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Bunker.

Business License Officer Laura Woolsey advised there have been no problems with the applicant?s tent sales in the past and no complaints have been received. The Fire Marshall will inspect the tent, and they have adequate parking.

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

SET PUBLIC HEARING:
Community Development Director Bob Nicholson advised that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held October 9, 2007, recommended that public hearings be scheduled for November 1 at 5:00 p.m. to consider a zone change from A-1 to PD Commercial on 49.302

St. George City Council Minutes
October 18, 2007
Page Four

acres located at 1870 East between the Ft. Pierce Wash and Horseman?s Park. Bryce Christensen is the applicant.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Gardner to set the public hearing as recommended by the Planning Commission.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Allen.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

FINAL PLATS:
Community Development Director Bob Nicholson explained that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held October 9, 2007, recommended approval of the following final plats: (1) a road dedication plat for the construction of Ft. Pierce Area 3 from 1630 East to 4500 South; (2) a road dedication plat for the construction of Arrowhead Canyon Drive at Sun River ParKway and 1300 West; (3) Santa Maria at Sunbrook Phase 4 located at Sunbrook Drive and Plantations Drive; and (4) Bluffs Phase 2 located at 250 West and 1100 South.

Mayor McArthur advised that all the plats were unanimously recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.

Mr. Nicholson advised that all the final plats are the same as the preliminary plats.

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

CDBG SUB-RECIPIENT AGREEMENTS:
Consider approval of CDBG sub-recipient agreements.

City Manager Gary Esplin advised that the City has been designated as a CDBG entitlement city and every year receives a certain amount of money based on how much is allocated at the federal level. In the past the City has used other entities to help administer the program and qualify people for use of the funds. In reviewing the first year?s audit with HUD, they impressed on the City the need to have more formal agreement with sub-recipients to make sure they conform to the guidelines and that the applicants meet all requirements. The City has changed its agreement and patterned it after HUD?s recommendations and those with other cities. The agreements are with Color Country Community Housing who administers the down payment assistance program, and with Western Regional Non-Profit Housing Corp to acquire the Jefferson Park Apartments and keep the project as low income housing.

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

CHANGE ORDER:
Consider approval of a change order for paving for the 100 West storm drain project.

City Manager Gary Esplin explained that the City is completing the 100 West storm drain to 600 South which connects to the main storm drain in Main Street. The original project did not include paving of the entire street, but it is recommended that the entire width of the street be repaved. The cost also reflects adjusting some of the manhole covers in the new sections of pavement. Now that this storm drain is done, there is a problem on 600 South where the drain needs to be fixed so there are no standing water issues. He recommended extension of the store drain there to the large drainage channel which runs behind K-Mart. The amount of the change order is $371,256. There are funds in the transportation fund to pay for some of the paving, as well as funds in the drainage impact fund. The property owners realize it will take longer to complete the project, but they indicate a willingness to withstand it a while longer.

Mayor McArthur advised that this was discussed in a meeting with the neighborhood, and he received many compliments on the contractor, Trade West. These improvements will go a long way toward making the neighborhood feel better about the project.

St. George City Council Minutes
October 18, 2007
Page Five

Council Member Allen inquired if using transportation funds to complete this project would put other projects on hold.

City Manager Gary Esplin replied that it would not because interest earned on the transportation fund was being used.

Public Works Director Larry Bulloch advised that the funds needed are in the existing project budget and funds will not need to be shifted from anywhere else.

Mayor McArthur advised that at the neighborhood meeting he asked the engineer about extending the drainage on 200 South.

Cameron Cutler, project engineer, advised that after the discussion he got the cost to upsize the pipe to 36" from the contractor and take it further to the west to pick up more drainage. A change order was done for $5,995. Because of the low cost, staff went ahead and approved the change order. The completion date for the project is estimated to be January 10 depending on the speed of the contractor.

City Manager Gary Esplin commented that the weather would also be a factor. He said that in the worst case scenario, the storm drain is hooked up, and there would just be some pavement issues to deal with.

Mr. Cutler advised that there was a reduction in cost to the extension of the line to the canal behind K-Mart in the amount of $10,000, for a total project cost of $361,755.05.

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

PUBLIC HEARING/PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Public hearing to consider approval of a preliminary plat for Mountain Cove Subdivision with one twinhome on .347 acre located on the corner of 950 South and 250 West Street. Jared Lund, applicant.

Mayor McArthur advised that he would like to limit each presenter to five minutes, and limit the responses from the audience depending on how many there were.

City Planner John Willis explained that the project is accessed by a 50 foot public street. The project is already in the process of being built. The applicant then requested to subdivide so that the units could be sold individually.

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

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

City Manager Gary Esplin explained that there is a question from the audience why this project has already begun and the preliminary plat is being approved after the fact. The project is located in an R-3 zone and the applicant can build duplexes without coming to the City Council. The difference now is that he wants to sell the units individually.

PUBLIC HEARING/PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Public hearing to consider approval of a preliminary plat for River Hollow Phase 5 with three single family lots on 1.6 acres located at 2580 East 1190 South. Skylar Lawrence, applicant.

City Planner John Willis explained the project contains a 50' public street. The project is an extension of River Hollow Phase 4. The Planning Commission recommends approval with


St. George City Council Minutes
October 18, 2007
Page Six

the stipulation that the erosion hazard boundary is met and no homes are built within that zone. The plat indicates this.

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

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Whatcott to approve the preliminary plat.
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 a preliminary plat for The Cliffs at Snow Canyon Plat M with one lot on .63 acre located at 3052 North Snow Canyon Parkway. Newt Andrus, applicant.

City Planner John Willis explained that the project is within The Cliffs of Snow Canyon plat. Zoning is PD Residential. This one lot was held out of the original plat because of privately owned property in the vicinity which was purchased from SITLA. The property was going to be donated to the City, but no formal agreement was ever executed. The owner of the property has been negotiating with The Cliffs for utility and street access. The Planning Commission recommends approval subject to The Cliffs providing utility and unimproved street access.

Mayor McArthur opened the public hearing.

Alan Mackleprang requested more information on what is proposed by the owner of the property.

Mayor McArthur replied that this is a one lot subdivision.

City Manager Gary Esplin advised the lot is located in a wash and the applicant wants to protect his rights and put in one more lot.

Mr. Mackleprang stated there is an easement for a road into a proposed new subdivision.

Mr. Willis replied that the property Mr. Mackleprang is inquiring about is a parcel of land that this plat is providing access to, but is not part of this plat or subdivision.

Mr. Mackleprang advised that he lives next door to this new lot and does not understand why there has to be an easement into an area that is supposed to remain desert tortoise habitat. A road will open the door for more development into what he thought was habitat. He stated he also spoke for other homeowners in The Cliffs who all thought their project was the end of the building in the area.

Newt Andrus, applicant, advised the ten acre parcel shown on Mr. Mackleprang?s map is land owned by Mrs. Dean which was purchased from SITLA. He explained that he also leases property in the area from SITLA and under an agreement with them is mandated to have all the property platted by the end of February, 2008, thus this request. Staff has always maintained that they will not approve the lot without access to the ten acre parcel. Whether or not Mrs. Dean decides to build one lot or multiple lots, they were asked to provide an easement so she can have access to her property when and if she decides to build or subdivide her property. This one new lot sets aside 27' for access and utility easement to the ten acre parcel. There was an understanding at one time that this land would be donated to the City or HCP. He explained that he was just trying to meet his obligation to SITLA.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston commented that when the project was originally laid out, it was the City?s understanding that the ten acre parcel was going to be donated and would not be used for the subdivision, so the project was approved without giving access to the back ten acre parcel. The City found out that SITLA did not have a contract stating the owners would donate the ten acre parcel, so there is no way to enforce the agreement, as it was just a verbal agreement to donate the land. The new owners do not want to

St. George City Council Minutes
October 18, 2007
Page Seven

donate the land at this time. Under State law the City is required to make sure the owners have access to a public roadway, assuming they can even meet the standards. There is a question whether the land is even developable.

Council Member Whatcott commented that a 27' roadway is not wide enough for a public street to serve a potential subdivision on the ten acre parcel.

Ms. Houston replied that it would have to be a private lane. 27' was as wide as the applicant could go in order to leave a buildable lot.

John Willis advised that the streets in The Cliffs are private.

City Manager Gary Esplin commented that there should be some comfort to the existing residents to know that based on City standards, he did not ever remember a ten acre subdivision being developed with a private lane, and in order to do so there would have to be significant changes to the City?s current program.

Ms. Houston advised all the lots would have to be flag lots. The ordinance allows for only four homes off a flag lot.

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

Council Member Gardner commented that while he could understand the neighbors? concerns, under State law an access must be provided, and the owners of the ten acre parcel also have property rights.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Gardner to approve the preliminary plat.
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 a preliminary plat for Wailea Falls Phase 4 with 32 dwelling units located next to Wailea Falls Phase 2 in the Stonebridge development west of Dixie Drive. Brian McMullen, applicant.

City Planner John Willis explained the project is within a PD zone and has private streets. Lots are being held out to be included in Phase 5. Erosion control and a connection to Santa Clara are tied to Phase 5. No lots in Phase 4 are within the erosion hazard boundary. The Planning Commission recommends approval.

Council Member Whatcott commented that this phase will create a numerous amount of single family homes. He stated he thought when the applicant reached a certain number of homes he had to finish the second access.

Mr. Willis advised there are 23 homes in Phase 5.

Council Member Whatcott inquired why the second access had not been built.

Jay Sandberg replied that the applicants biggest hurdle is that he does not own the property. This is a private lane through the Frei property and is located in Santa Clara. As this project was being discussed, the applicant decided to pull out 23 lots and proposes to finish the second access in Phase 5. This will give him time to work on it and erosion control improvements. In the PD approval the second access was a significant issue and the way it was presented and approved, the applicant understood he was only required to do what he could do on the property he owned. It was made clear to him that the City was serious about getting the second access into Santa Clara, and that it be part of Phase 5. He advised there are 32 homes proposed in Phase 4. The project will consist of 100 homes with these 32 units.

Council Member Whatcott commented that this does not seem to follow City ordinances.



St. George City Council Minutes
October 18, 2007
Page Eight

City Manager Gary Esplin advised that when the last phase was approved, emergency access for fire trucks was discussed, and the applicant said there would be a second access in the next phase as well as the rest of the improvements.

Mayor McArthur commented it was also his understanding that a second access was required.

City Manager Gary Esplin stated this is what the residents are concerned about.

Jay Sandberg stated there is emergency access down the unpaved lane, but it cannot be used by residents.

City Manager Gary Esplin said at the time of the last phase approval, there was discussion about doing a chip seal or some sort of hard surface to allow the fire trucks to get in. Allowing more units will compound the same problem and will not solve the fire safety issue and circulation issue.

Mayor McArthur opened the public hearing.

Jerry Miller, a resident of Wailea Falls, advised he attended a meeting with Brian McMullen two weeks ago and was told there would be a secondary access from Santa Clara. He specifically said there would only be construction equipment on their street for two weeks.

Jason Smith, Rosenberg Associates, said the applicant is working on the second access, but it hasn?t been taken care of yet. Phase 5 will also include erosion protection, and the applicant plans to bring Phase 5 in after things have been worked out. The applicant still needs permission from the property owner for the second access.

Mayor McArthur commented that in the meeting with residents, Mr. McMullen told the residents he would only use the main entrance off Countrty Lane for construction access for a couple of weeks.

Mr. Smith replied that this is the plan, but he did not know if it had been worked out.

Council Member Whatcott commented that the request for preliminary plat approval appeared to be premature until the second access is secured. He expressed concern that if an agreement is not worked out now, the applicant will use Country Lane to continue this phase, and is not fulfilling the City?s requirement to have the second access built.

City Manager Gary Esplin commented that there has always been a plan for a second access, and at some point the City must require it, otherwise the property owner can say ?no?, there will never be a second access, and entire project will be built with one access. For emergency use and circulation this should be dealt with by the applicant prior to preliminary plat approval.

MOTION: A motion to continue the public hearing was made by Council Member Whatcott.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Allen.

Mayor McArthur advised the matter would be continued until the second access was worked out.

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

PUBLIC HEARING/PRELIMINARY PLAT:
Public hearing to consider approval of a preliminary plat for The Villages at Twin Lakes Phase 1 with 47 units on 7.07 acres located at Twin Lakes Drive and 700 North. Twin Lakes A La Mode LLC, Jason Draper, representative.

This item was tabled.




St. George City Council Minutes
October 18, 2007
Page Nine

PUBLIC HEARING/ZONE CHANGE/ORDINANCE:
Public hearing to consider a zone change from R-1-10 to PD Commercial on 3.9 acres located at approximately 1300 East on 900 South. Neil Glauser, applicant.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson showed exhibits of the site, building elevations, and a photo simulation of the site. He advised that the General Plan identifies the area as medium density residential. Concerns were expressed at the Planning Commission meeting that not everyone received a letter about the zone change, and the City?s policy of notifying everyone within 500 feet of the zone change was explained to them. Mailing labels are supplied by a title company according to the tax rolls.

Mayor McArthur advised the City does so as a courtesy, but it is not a requirement.

Mr. Nicholson explained that the project consists of three buildings, each three stories, with a proposed office use on the first two floors and residential condos on the third floors. There are four fairly large condo units in each building for a total of 12. Square footage for the proposed office use is just shy of 70,000 sq. ft. and there is a total of 34,690 sq. ft. in the residential condos. This request is the first for mixed use since the City amended the Code in January, 2006. Two buildings will be 45' high and a third will be 57' measured to the midpoint of the sloping roof. The project meets parking requirements. 301 spaces are required, and some of them will be underneath the buildings. The Code requires 40% of the ground floor facade be glass, and they exceed this requirement. The Code requires a minimum size of five acres, but the City Council can approve a smaller parcel where it fits harmoniously with the surrounding area. The project is adjacent to an office building to the west and wraps around a single family home. Nearby residents are opposed to the project. It meets minimum landscaping requirements of 25%. The Planning Commission spent three hours on the issue on September 25 and recommended denial for three reasons: (1) they felt the height was too tall for the surrounding area, (2) they did not feel there was justification to have two floors of office space as opposed to two floors of residential use, and (3) they didn?t feel the project integrated into the surrounding area and was not part of the urban core. Urban core is not defined in the Code, but it clearly is the central downtown area, but how far it extends is the issue.

Council Member Whatcott inquired as to the height to the very highest point of the roof.

Mr. Nicholson replied it is close to 59' or 60'.

An unidentified man stated that the architect said the foundation height level compared with the street by Norm Blake will raise the building about five to six feet.

Mr. Nicholson clarified that the City Code says a sloping roof shall be measured at the midpoint.

Neil Glauser, representing the applicant, Blue Mountain Group, advised he would ask the architect, Kim Campbell, to discuss the height of the building, the engineer, Jim Raines, to address traffic, and a professional appraiser, Craig Morley, to address the valuation of homes. With regard to the urban core, he suggested there was more than one in St. George, and that they can change locations. He displayed aerial photos of the area and stated that since 1995 there has been very little or no significant residential building in the area. Over the last 12 years commercial has been incorporated all the way up and down River Road.

Kim Campbell stated the height to the very to top the roof would not make a lot of difference, but he did not know the exact height. He guessed it was one to two feet higher. The design is a PD design that requires a lot of thought in design and in relationship to adjacent properties. The PD zone gives everyone an opportunity to design build the environment. Height, colors, masse, setbacks, distance from adjacent property, etc. all have to be taken into account. Nothing has been built against the property line. The middle and right buildings are located 245' away from the nearest Meadowcreek home. There is 75'-80' from the left building over to the other double loaded parking lot. Colors are indigenous. There is a large amount of parking underneath the buildings which is compatible and should be part of any design in the City. The City is interested in mixed use developments and this can be taken advantage of in different areas in town. He commented

St. George City Council Minutes
October 18, 2007
Page Ten

there were urban cores all over town, with the idea of a residential portion so residents can work in the buildings which saves traffic.

Council Member Gardner inquired as to the distance between the building on the right to the Blake property.

Mr. Campbell replied it was 75'- 80'. The entryway into the project is across from the stake center.

Jim Raines, Bush and Gudgell Engineering, advised they commissioned a traffic study and the bottom line is the study looked at a.m. and p.m. peak impacts. It does not look at traffic throughout the entire day. The study concluded that the roads are adequate to handle the traffic in the area and there will be no significant delay. The study suggested the driveway be moved to line up with the church driveway to discourage traffic. A vast majority of traffic will use the signal at 900 South. He stated they did not want to encourage people to drive through the nearby residential areas, so they lined the driveway up with the church across the street. He complimented the City on its efforts to build the Mall Drive bridge and the extension of 3000 South to meet traffic needs in the area. He stated this project meets all traffic standards.

Council Member Allen inquired about the road behind the project and under the hill.

Mr. Raines replied the road will be across the wash, but there has been no discussion about it. There will be connectivity through a master planned trail along the Rim Rock Wash. He stated that mixed use was good use.

Craig Morley advised that with regard to adjoining neighbors? property values, studies on light commercial/mixed use show there is no adverse effect on existing property values. He stated that compared with similar age, size and quality of projects, he did not see a sign of reduction in value that could be tied directly to the impact of a commercial building.

Jerry Campbell stated he was against the development. The City Code says that a mixed use development is to be located in the urban core (which is not defined) and that it should be part of a larger commercial project. In this instance there is no larger commercial project. The area is residential. The Whatcott building does not qualify as part of a larger commercial project. The project does not fit the City Code and should be denied for two reasons. The applicant said he plans on selling the units to the people who work in the building. Mr. Campbell stated the applicant could not guarantee that this would happen. He stated he was amazed the architect did not know the height of the building. He stated that spot zoning was another area difficult to define, but the courts have said that a zoning amendment is invalid if not in accordance with the master plan and singles out for use a classification different from the surrounding area for the benefit of a property owner to the detriment of others. When Meadowcreek residents purchased their homes, they looked at the master plan and expected the City to protect them. He requested the City Council deny the request.

Russ Heath, a resident of Meadow Creek, stated there were five reasons to deny the request: traffic, private roads, pedestrians and handicapped people trying to cross the street, parking, and church functions. He stated that all traffic that comes out of the bank goes through Meadowcreek because they cannot make a right hand turn. He stated they get in excess of 40 cars a day on their private roads. He clarified that when cars come from the east and make a left turn, they completely block the entrance into Meadowcreek. There is only 135' between the driveways. People with electric carts go across the road. He inquired how the City Council would like lights shining into their front rooms, and stated the pond would reflect light from the street lights and illuminate all the homes around the pond.

Dean Williams, a resident of Meadowcreek, stated he owns two homes in Meadowcreek and has lived there for 12 years. He is a retired attorney from Idaho who did criminal and civil work for a county attorney there. He stated he had a conference with City Attorney Shawn Guzman and reviewed the laws he proposed to present and Mr. Guzman is in harmony with his thoughts. He explained the purpose of the zoning law and zones, and stated the regulations are intended to prohibit those uses harmful to a single family neighborhood. This is the promise the City made to 10,000 residents who have complied with the law and

St. George City Council Minutes
October 18, 2007
Page Eleven

invested in their homes to live out their retirement years in a pleasant family environment. Every residence has been maintained by the residents, and it is the City Council?s duty to protect established low density single family units, and the law requires that the City must keep its part of the agreement. The applicant is requesting to change the density requirement of the zone, and a precedent will be established and every zone would be subject to the same encroachment. Mixed use developments are not intended for small
parcels unless next to an existing mixed use development. He stated the applicant has not met all requirements and has omitted parking.

Michael Marsden, a resident of Meadowcreek, expressed concern with traffic. He stated Meadowcreek is an age-restricted development and its residents have deteriorating eyesight and slow reactivity. There has been an increase in road traffic along Foremaster since the hospital and other commercial buildings were built. Residents like to sit on their patios and enjoy the weather, but they can hear sirens and road traffic. If approved, this area will become more like Las Vegas and less like St. George. He expressed concern that the project will bring commercial renters into the area and change the residential area to commercial. The height of the buildings will affect the skyline. Zoning allows a buyer to know what he is buying into. He asked the City council to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny the request.

Jean Raffely advised that she represented 42 single family homes within 500 feet at 1015 South River Road, the New England Townhomes. She stated the huge buildings would affect property values because they would be looking at the back of the buildings. Commercial buildings will draw more traffic to this already busy area of town. Studies done did not take into account the impact that will be felt as a result of the proposed new development one block south at the corner of 1450 South which will have a grocery store, a bank and new subdivision. There will also be a new school two to three blocks to the west. This needs to be addressed. She stated she felt this was a prime example of spot zoning.

Beth Holdaway commented that she has lived in Meadowcreek for six years. She stated there is a huge difference in mixed use zoning when residential is added to a commercial building on land originally zoned commercial vs. adding commercial to residential on land zoned for residential. Putting commercial in the middle of a residential area will continue to inflict commercial creep into residential neighborhoods. The question is if the Council will entertain the idea now to allow construction of commercial buildings on vacant residential lots, which seems to be a dangerous precedent. She stated that what seemed to be happening was the developer proposes a residential component to a commercial building in the hopes of being able to build on residential land. This is smoke and mirrors. A review of the proposed use of property in this area shows it does not comply with existing ordinances. She stated she hoped the Council realized its response could set a dangerous precedent that will create problems throughout the entire City.

Elaine Pilkington, a resident of New England Townhomes, stated the project was not appropriate for the area and not in keeping with the City?s ordinances. The Planning Commission recommended denial. The project area is surrounded by single family homes, and even though the residents are older, they are no less viable as citizens. The project is not in keeping with the City?s guidelines, is too tall, and the ratio of residential to office has to be 51%, not 30%, and this does not meet City guidelines. A recreation area is also required and acreage requirements are not met. The only exception allowed to this is if it were to integrate into an existing mixed use. If the guidelines are not followed, in essence there are none, and the City will give into whoever has the greater sway.

Norman Blake advised he lives at 1350 East 900 South and he hoped the project would not receive approval because he did not want to move again. He stated he hoped the City Council would protect its citizens. He advised he has lived at this address for 27 years.

Darwin Whittaker, a resident of Meadowcreek, advised that residents of several nearby subdivisions do not approve of this attempt to change the zoning on this property. The project proposed by Blue Mountain Group is worthwhile, but this is not the place for it. He complimented the City on its guidelines, and advised that the proposed project violates seven of those guidelines. He then read from the zoning code. He stated he was relying on the City Council to protect the citizens of St. George.


St. George City Council Minutes
October 18, 2007
Page Twelve

George Mueller, a resident of Meadowcreek, stated he did not want to see this type of development go in for the reasons already heard. He asked the City Council to please keep the public safe since all the other commercial buildings in the area, including the hospital, have increased traffic through Meadowcreek significantly at the detriment of its residents. He stated that any developer will have to take into consideration people who will not use the prescribed route and a lot of them will take shortcuts. He asked the City Council to please keep this in mind when making a decision.

Mayor McArthur advised he would ask the City?s traffic engineer to take a look at the traffic through Meadowcreek, although this is an issue apart from the requested zone change.

Bryce Raffely, a resident of the New England Townhomes, stated that one point not brought up is the height of the building. The Great Wall of China is only 35' high. He stated he is a surveyor, and if a shot is taken from the Blakes and over the land, the building will be anywhere from five to ten feet higher from the top of the foundation, so another five to ten feet has to be added to the height of the building from ground level. Behind the building will be three major residential areas, none of which will be able to see Pine Valley Mountain again. The windmills on River Road are20' high - the height of the buildings will be triple this height. Meadowcreek residents will lose much of their view of the mountains to the south.

Brian Blackham, a real estate broker, stated that without any question locating commercial next to residential will affect property values. He stated he was not against the project or the concept, but it needs to be located in a commercial area or in the urban core in order not to set a precedent throughout the City. Other projects like this have failed when they have tried to put commercial buildings as a pimple in residential areas. He strongly recommended learning from this so that it can be done right and build the City without commercial creep or spot zoning. He stated that a lot of people would be adversely affected, and he requested that the zone change be denied.

Bruce Neiderhauser advised that the project would not contain any retail but would be strictly office space. The buildings and parking lot would be vacant at night, similar to the Social Security office. He stated he walked the area and proposed that the urban core has changed. Walking distance to the post office, banks, and grocery store are all within eight to nine minutes. There will be twelve dwelling units on four acres, well under any density these residents live in. They live in medium density residential. Their project zoning was changed from R-1-10 to PD. Traffic on 700 South is not pertinent to this project, as traffic will use the light at 900 South to access the project.

Mayor McArthur called for a brief break. At the conclusion of the break, the meeting continued.

Council Member Allen commented that when Meadowcreek was built, the project was granted a zone change from R-1-10 to PD. Further, good neighborhood commercial such as Harmon?s is what takes traffic off other roads within the City.

Mayor McArthur commented that his father owns property by the new school on Riverside Drive, and when this property was annexed into the City it was brought in under R-1-10 zoning to act as a holding zone. Because this practice has caused some problems, the City now brings property in under Mining and Grazing zoning to act as the holding zone.

Dean Williams commented that the City Council did not have to follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission if in its opinion the changes are an improvement in the public interest. He stated he has heard nothing from Blue Mountain that would show this project is an improvement to the area or in the public?s interest. The neighbors are all in agreement with the Planning Commission who recommended this petition be denied.

Neil Glauser, applicant, commented that when this project was heard by the Planning Commission in June, they approved it, and then for some reason they were forced into taking it back to the Planning Commission.

Mayor McArthur replied that the project did not meet the City?s guidelines at that time.

Mr. Glauser advised the guidelines were changed and the ordinance amended.

St. George City Council Minutes
October 18, 2007
Page Thirteen

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston advised that the project did not meet the minimum requirements so it was sent back to the Planning Commission, and a conflict in the ordinance on the number of residential units required was amended.

Council Member Allen inquired why it was heard by the Planning Commission the first time.

Ms. Houston replied staff did not realize the project didn?t meet minimum requirements or there was a conflict in the ordinance until it was already through the Planning Commission.

Council Member Orton inquired if the issue came up after the Planning Commission approved it.

Mr. Glauser replied that the issue came up after the Planning Commission approved it.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston clarified that the issue came up after it was approved by the Planning Commission. She advised that she did some research after the meeting and discovered the conflict.

Neil Glauser inquired if the neighbors in the area were really being harmed. He stated that they have been living with commercial buildings in their area for the last 12 years, and it will continue to be that way as no more residential units will be built in the area. The new bridge on Mall Drive will relieve traffic issues. The Council has also talked about 700 South and problems there and ways to remedy them. He stated he felt the traffic issues would be taken care of shortly.

Dean Williams commented that the amendment to the PD zone does not apply to the R-1-10 zone. He stated the area in which these residents live is not a commercial area, as there are over 1000 homes in the area.

Elaine Pilkington commented that if the project did not pass before, why would it pass now. She requested clarification on height, acreage, recreation, etc.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston replied that the ordinance amendment is available on the City?s website and eliminated the 51% floor area requirement for residential use and provided that floors above the ground floor shall be used for residential dwellings unless otherwise approved by the City Council.

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

Council Member Bunker commented that she has been looking at this project for several week since it first came to the Planning Commission, and has listened to both sides as well. She has analyzed it from every position by asking what is the Council?s vision for mixed use and if this proposed mixed use is located within the urban core and who benefits from these three buildings. The City Council has seen some marvelous projects where mixed use has been used in metropolitan blighted areas and changed them dramatically. A mixed use development transforms a community and makes it walkable and provides a place where people can live and work in the same building. However, this project is not establishing a walkable neighborhood, as it already exists. Residents of Meadowcreek and nearby subdivisions can already walk to the grocery store and bank. She stated she did not realize there were only four dwelling units on the top of each building, and in her mind this does not work for mixed use. With regard to the urban core, this project is not located on River Road, it is located on 900 South and is surrounded by homes. The area is a residential core, not an urban core. With regard to who will benefit from the project, the people who live in the penthouses will benefit. There might be some services that will benefit the existing residents, but the services will probably be duplicates of those already available. She stated in her mind the project just did not pass muster and is not what the City Council has envisioned for mixed use. She stated it would not be right to do this to the Blakes, as this is not what government is for and smacks of big bully government to this one homeowner, if no one else. She apologized to the developers, investors and architect of the project, and stated that while it was beautiful, when all was said and done, she would hate for the citizens of St. George to look at this project in ten years and say ?whoops, we really goofed.? She stated she felt this project was trying to fit a square peg in a round hole and


St. George City Council Minutes
October 18, 2007
Page Fourteen

did not work. The Planning Commission also had second thoughts the second time around, and for those reasons, she did not feel this is the right place for this kind of development.

Council Member Gardner commented that issues such as these are emotionally charged due to differences of opinions and perspective. It is not a friendship issue but is an issue of what fits and feels right. There are arguments to debate between what is the public right and private property rights, and there is room to consider the application as a legitimate use in the area. He stated that he lives over the wall and 60' away from a massive AP use building and it has been a great neighbor, and better than some of the other uses could have been. He stated he saw the proposed project area as an urban core as there is commercial all the way up River Road. He felt the area would be alright for an AP use, and better with a mixed use. He stated he felt the proposed project was not a threat to the neighborhood, although Norm and Eileen Blake have a legitimate complaint or concern. However, he felt there was enough distance between the Blake?s and the building to soften the effect.

Council Member Allen commented that she came to the meeting with her mind not made up. She stated it was a difficult decision for her as she has friends on both sides of the issue, but she has to make up her mind on what is best for the community. She stated she loved the idea of commercial in a neighborhood and loved the diversity of people in a neighborhood. She stated the proposed buildings will be rather large. However, if the buildings are not built, she inquired what would be built there. She stated it would not be R-1-10 homes as the land is too expensive, but if homes were built they would most likely be two story and block the view. Apartments or something similar would add more traffic to the area, and either way, there will be traffic. The City does need, however, to make sure that traffic stops going through the Meadowcreek development.

Council Member Orton commented that he was not sure what the highest and best use for the property is, but it is not a R-1-10 subdivision. He stated he felt problems in the area have been created by an increase in traffic and congestion which is already there. He stated it would be narrowminded and shortsighted if a decision was made based on River Road. When residents in this area built and bought their homes, there was no traffic congestion on River Road. He stated he did not think the property should be zoned for a residential neighborhood and that it lends itself more to a mixed use. However, the buildings are massive, but they fit in the area more than residential.

Council Member Whatcott commented that while he agreed with most of what has been said, he did not see the area as a residential neighborhood in the future. He realized that most of the people living there are opposed to commercial, but the proposed project is an AP project, not commercial. AP is a good neighbor and quiet on nights and weekends, and traffic is much less than retail. People go there for a specific reason, therefore traffic numbers are smaller. The buildings are good looking, but his concern was with the size of the buildings. The General Plan identifies the area as medium density residential, and it was mentioned that the property is too expensive to develop as R-1-10. The big picture is what is the best use while at the same time protecting citizens? rights. He stated he was not sure they had the answer tonight and he still wanted to think about it longer. An AP development would be a good neighbor and would not adversely affect property values and he did not think it would hurt the neighborhood. If there are problems with people using the Meadowcreek streets, this has nothing to do with the project at hand. The City Council must look at 900 South, and there is a street light there for residents to use. He stated he did not see the project as a bad neighbor, but his concern was with the large buildings and their height. His largest concern was for the Blakes as he would hate to see their home surrounded on three sides by something not in conformity with how they live, and he was not sure putting in a three story building was the right direction to go. He stated he would like to see a compromise with an opportunity to do what the developers want with adjustments made by both sides.

Mayor McArthur commented that the property was zoned R-1-10 as a holding zone and is in actuality a medium density zone. The size and height of the buildings are a concern to him and he feels the urban core is mid-town and not River Road. He stated he did not feel there were multiple urban cores and the massive size of the buildings do not fit into a neighborhood.



St. George City Council Minutes
October 18, 2007
Page Fifteen

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston commented that Mr. Williams brought up a lot of law on R-1-10 zoning, and although applicable, the question is whether the zoning should be changed as a legislative act to a different zone which would allow for PD commercial with a mixed use. The City Council must weight if this is in the best interests of the City and is appropriate. If the City Council does change the zone, it needs to make sure the zone change complies with the code and as set out which specifically requires a minimum parcel of five acres. There is an exception for less acreage, but the City Council must make specific findings on why it is going with less and specifically find that the zone change is compatible and integrates and is harmonious with the surrounding area.

Council Member Whatcott commented that Blue Mountain Holdings owns the building in the corner which consists of over 1.2 acres. He inquired if the wall were knocked down and the parking integrated, if that could be counted toward the five acres needed.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston responded that it could not be included because it was not applied for that way. The existing use also has to be mixed use development. There is also the urban core issue and what the intent of the City Council was when they adopted this language. She stated that discussion was needed on what the intent was and then why the City Council believes this is part of the urban core would have to be included in any findings.

Mayor McArthur inquired why a five acre minimum was specified.

City Manager Gary Esplin replied he did not think the project location was part of the urban core. He stated at the time the language was adopted, the City Council talked about the urban core being the downtown and part of new development. The reason for five acres was in trying to create a community in an area where there might be new development. The proposed project area is walkable right now and there is housing in the area. The City?s intent was to create an opportunity and use the downtown. He stated he did not remember the urban core being intended for outside the downtown area. He stated he did not envision a project like this being built on 300 South and 500 East, for example.

Council Member Bunker commented she would not be opposed to this project if it were being built on River Road, but it is being built in a residential area.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Bunker to deny the request based on the fact that the property is not five acres, does not comply with the laws established for mixed use, the buildings are too high and massive, and the Planning Commission recommended denial.

The motion died for lack of a second.

Council Member Allen inquired of members of the audience what they saw happening on the property.

George Mueller commented that the people who bought the property knew it was zoned R-1-10.

Council Member Allen explained that R-1-10 zoning was just a holding zone.

Mr. Mueller replied that the property is still zoned R-1-10. He stated he was not against development, as some was good, but this project does not appear to be right for the property.

Council Member Allen inquired of Mr. Mueller if he saw single family homes there, or offices.

Mr. Mueller replied that he saw single family homes there. With regard to the expense of the property, the applicants knew what the property was zoned when they purchased it.

Council Member Allen replied that financial position did not make a difference. If the applicant put single family homes on the property, they would probably be two stories.

Mr. Mueller replied that two story homes would be better than buildings 57' tall.

St. George City Council Minutes
October 18, 2007
Page Sixteen

Council Member Allen inquired if a two story office building would be objectionable.

Mr. Mueller replied that he believed single family homes similar to what existed now in the area would be best.

Council Member Allen inquired of Mr. Mueller if he liked the office building on the corner or the church.

Mr. Mueller replied they were both there when he moved there, and the office building is only two stories and 35' high. The proposed buildings are almost twice as high and a disservice to the people who live around there.

Dean Williams commented that apartments would not be allowed in that zone, and clustered development would not be allowed in that zone without a separate hearing.

City Manager Gary Esplin commented that the real issue is that the master plan shows the property as medium density residential. To say it is R-1-10 is not correct. The applicant has every right to ask for medium density zoning - up to nine units per acre. This is what the master plan allows and what is anticipated. To say it is going to be R-1-10 is not reasonable. In his mind the property could be medium density or a PD zone. The question is if the applicant meets the zoning ordinance amendment with regard to acreage, type of uses, height and neighborhood compatibility.

Mayor McArthur advised that the applicant has the right to request a master plan amendment.

City Manager Gary Esplin stated he did not know of a master plan that had not been amended.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston read the criteria required. She advised that the five acre issue is separate from the urban core issue.

Council Member Orton commented he would hate to see the applicants have to wait a full year before they could request another zone change. The residents need to understand that the zoning is not R-1-10. The applicants can build a minimum of 35-36 two story homes or condos in medium density zoning, and they would not be near the neighbor some type of AP office complex would be. He stated he hated to put the whole thing on hold for a year by denying it, but he did not think this massive of a mixed use would pass. He stated he would like to see the issue postponed. He stated there were problems in the area that needed to be solved, and if people are using Meadowcreek?s roads, perhaps speed bumps could be installed. If the roads are private, however, Meadowcreek should solve the problem. He again stated he did not think two story 35' high condos would be the highest and best use for the property. He stated that perhaps the request should be denied with the City allowing the applicants to them apply for something else with waiver of the one year waiting period and fee.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston commented that the applicants would not have to wait a year if they came back with a substantial change such as less density.

Council Member Whatcott inquired if lowering the units to two stories would constitute a substantial change.

Ms. Houston replied that it would.

Council Member Allen commented that perhaps the developer should be asked what their wishes are and if they are willing to work with the neighborhood or compromise.

Mayor McArthur replied that it is up to the City Council to protect the neighborhood.

Council Member Allen replied that while this was true, a compromise works best.

Council Member Whatcott commented that while he agreed a compromise was best, the law is the law.

St. George City Council Minutes
October 18, 2007
Page Seventeen

Council Member Gardner commented that the ordinance gives the City Council an opportunity to make an exception with regard to the acreage required.

Council Member Whatcott commented that he has been on River Road on a daily basis for the last twelve years, and it is not an urban core. It is not a walkable area. The downtown area is the urban core.

Council Member Bunker commented that the City Council can only change the acreage requirement if the project is compatible with the neighborhood, and compatibility is residential, regardless of what it is zoned.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston advised that the City Council must decide if the project is compatible with the neighborhood and is in the urban core or part of a larger commercial project.

Council Member Gardner inquired if the zone change could be granted without approving the project.

City Manager Gary Esplin replied that it could not, as PD approval requires approval of the exact project.

Council Member Gardner commented that adjusting the size of the buildings would make it feel more compatible, and that is an option.

City Manager Gary Esplin replied in this event it would have to go back to the Planning Commission, as a PD zone requires a blueprint of what is being proposed. A better alternative would be to deny the request and waive the fees and time period for coming back to the City Council to see if the applicants can work something out that everyone feels better about. The neighbors have to compromise too. The applicants can put nine units per acre on the property with just as much detrimental effect.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Gardner to approve the zone change as requested.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston advised that Council Member Gardner needed to make findings on all the issues.

AMENDED MOTION: Council Member Gardner amended his motion to approve the zone change based on inclusion of the AP project on the corner, finding that the project is harmonious with the adjacent River Road, and becomes an appropriate commercial area.

The motion died for lack of a second.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Allen to deny the request on the basis that the project did not meet the five acre minimum requirement, is not located within the urban core, and due to the size of the buildings. Further, fees are waived for resubmittal as well as the time frame for rehearing if the Planning Commission finds there has been a significant change.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Bunker.

City Manager Gary Esplin clarified the motion is to deny the request and allow the applicant to come back for rehearing without fee if there has been a significant change.

Council Member Allen agreed this was her motion, including the provision the matter be reheard in a timely manner.

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

Council Member Allen - aye
Council Member Bunker - aye

St. George City Council Minutes
October 18, 2007
Page Eighteen

Council Member Orton - aye
Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Gardner - no

The motion carried.

Mayor McArthur called for a break. Upon conclusion of the break, the meeting resumed.

PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE:
Public hearing to consider an amendment to Title 10, Chapter 9, St. George City Code, to add a provision requiring design review for commercial projects with an aggregate or total ground floor area of 20,000 sq. ft. or more in the Administrative and Professional Office zone.

And

Public hearing to consider an amendment to Title 10, Chapter 10, St. George City Code, to add a provision that the design review process applies to commercial

projects with an aggregate ground floor area of 20,000 sq. ft. or more in commercial zones.

City Planner Ray Snyder explained that the Planning Commission requested that staff bring the language and recommendation to the City Council, not only to look at the footprint, but on the entire project site if the buildings add up to more than 20,000 sq. ft. the Council would have the opportunity to review the site plan and elevations and require 3D renderings. The Planning Commission also felt stronger language was needed more specific to the facade. This applies to both the AP and Commercial zones.

Council Member Bunker suggested that a materials board be required.

Mr. Snyder said this would be added.

Council Member Gardner commented that while the intention is good for control and protection, his concern is that the City gets caught in the unintended consequence of being over-reaching as a city government and creates more bureaucracy and workload for staff and burdensome processes that are troublesome while trying to micro-design projects of this size.

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

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Bunker to approve the ordinances as written with the requirement for a materials board.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Allen.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:

Council Member Bunker - aye
Council Member Allen - aye
Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Orton - aye
Council Member Gardner - no

The motion carried.

Council Member Whatcott commented that while he agreed with Council Member Gardner, he felt this was a step in the right direction in order to get a handle on large projects.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Consider approval of the minutes of the City Council work meeting held September 27, 2007.



St. George City Council Minutes
October 18, 2007
Page Nineteen

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Gardner to approve the minutes as amended.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Bunker.
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 October 4, 2007.

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

ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION:
MOTION: A motion to adjourn to an executive session to discuss reasonably imminent litigation was made by Council Member Gardner.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Allen.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:

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

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

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

DISCUSSION RE SALARY PLAN:
City Manager Gary Esplin recommended that the City use cities with a population of 25,000 and over for its salary plan comparison. The City Council instructed Mr. Esplin to go forward with the plan as presented and schedule a budget opening for the funding of the amount in excess of the existing budgeted amount.

The meeting then adjourned.



_________________________________
Gay Cragun, City Recorder