Planning Commission

Tuesday, May 10,2005
Minutes



CITY OF ST. GEORGE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 10, 2005 - 5:00 p.m.


PRESENT: Chairman Gil Almquist
Commissioner Myrna Stout
Commissioner Chapin Burks
Commissioner Ross Taylor
Commissioner Vince Clayton
Commissioner Kim Campbell
Commissioner Ron Bracken
Deputy City Attorney Ron Read
Community Develop. Director Bob Nicholson
Planner Mark Bradley
Planner Ray Snyder
City Engineer Jay Sandberg
Deputy City Recorder Linda Brooks

EXCUSED: Council Member Suzanne Allen


CALL TO ORDER

Commissioner Stout called the meeting to order, welcomed those in attendance. Commissioner Stout led the flag salute.

PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION AND ZONING REGULATIONS

Consider a request to amend the City of St. George Code, Title 11 Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 5 Improvements, Section 4 Layout of Lots (Subsection 11-5-4.C.3.a.) and Title 10 Zoning Regulations, Chapter 18 Walls, Fences, and Hedges, Section 4 Fences (paragraph C and H) to address the setback location of privacy walls from the sidewalk in order to utilize the provided 10 ft. utility easement along streets. City of St. George, initiated. Case No. 2005-SRA-001

Mark Bradley said there is a conflict in the Citys subdivision regulations and also portions of the zoning regulations. There use to be a setback of 8 ft. similar to the Sun River development for building pads where the easements were 10 ft. So there are some inconsistencies.

Mark showed a slide presentation. He explained that current setback for the wall is 4 feet from the sidewalk. This has always been a concern as far as landscaping but it is a bigger concern as far as easements. Because there is a 10 ft. easement and the utility companies are not able to
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 10, 2005
Page Two



utilize those easements. In order to utilize the easements staff suggests to have the privacy wall back 10 ft. from the sidewalk.

Commissioner Clayton said are you talking about a double frontage lot. Mark replied yes. Commissioner Clayton asked what happens to the utility easement in the back yard of a standard subdivision. Mark said generally they have a 7-1/2 ft. easement in the rear but they utilize the 10 ft. in the front most of the time.

Commissioner Campbell said why not have the regulations say the property line is back 10 ft. Commissioner Clayton said it is based on the calculation of the property.

Commissioner Taylor said is there something legally required in the 10 ft. easement? His question is why is the 10 ft. easement necessary. Could it go to 8 ft. and still be fine? Mark said he is not sure where the 10 ft. number came from.

Chairman Almquist said the reason for 10 ft. is because there are so many different utilities that go into this area and they each need there own space.

Chairman Almquist said why not say no walls or permanent structures in the 10 ft. easement. Mark said City Council recently approved where in the front yard they are actually saying no fences in the 10 ft. area unless the fences are decorative type of fence no greater than 4 ft. and it has to be 50% open.

Commissioner Campbell said some of these curb walls and in/out walls create a nice look. He would hate to see the developers penalized for being into the 10 ft. area.

Mark said double frontage lots are already being build by the developers now. The landscape and walls are to be put in during construction process. This change will be more for the new subdivisions coming in.

Mark said it would be better if the property line would be established where the easement is located for maintenance purposes. The other question the Planning Commission needs to look at is how close do you want the structures to the wall.

Commissioner Taylor asked how does this impact the corner lots? Mark said these areas are more sensitive than to others. This is something that will need to be looked at.



PLANNING COMMISSION
May 10, 2005
Page Three



MOTION: Commissioner Clayton made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a request to amend the City of St. George Code, Title 11 Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 5 Improvements, Section 4 Layout of Lots (Subsection 11-5-4.C.3.a.) and Title 10 Zoning Regulations, Chapter 18 Walls, Fences, and Hedges, Section 4 Fences (paragraph C and H) to address the setback location of privacy walls from the sidewalk in order to utilize the provided 10 ft. utility easement along streets. City of St. George, initiated, with the one change that was suggested back of sidewalk clarification. Also move to recommend when they have a double frontage lot that has a landscape strip that there has to be an HOA to provide for the perpetual care of that area. Commissioner Burks seconded the motion. All voted aye.


CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

A. Consider a request from Western Rock Products to renew a conditional use permit to operate a sand and gravel plat within the Ft. Pierce area located at 1834 East 4150 South (next to the National Guard Armory). The property is zoned M-1 (Industrial). Mr. Bob Roth, representative for Western Rock Products. Case No. 2005-CUP-017


Ray Snyder said this has come before the Planning Commission because of a letter dated March 11, 2005 which was sent to Western Rock indicating to them that their Conditional Use Permit had expired. Western Rock is requesting a permanent Conditional Use Permit. They want to be responsible citizens. Western Rock would be opposed to paving in front of the National Guard Armory. If they are required to do paving, they would request that the road be delayed to the 1st quarter of 2006. Ray presented slides of the area.

Ray said staffs recommendations would be:

1. Renew for 2 years only.
2. The 90-foot arterial road; 4150 South shall be improved to width of the right of way (45 feet) including street structural section, curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the north property line to city standards.
3. The road width shall be completed no later than (to be determined by the PC and CC)
4. Install street trees (submit a landscape plan).

Commissioner Clayton wanted to know why they shouldnt just approve the Conditional Use Permit as permanent. If they violate the conditional use then they would come before the Planning Commission again. Bob Nicholson said he doesnt believe because it is a conditional use that it means the City has total discretion and can pull it back in for review. His
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 10, 2005
Page Four



understanding is the City is suppose to numerate conditions under which that will be acceptable. Tonight they will have to numerate those conditions and have the conditions read into the record and be quite specific.

Deputy City Attorney Ron Read said they will need to see if they have to numerate each one separately or if they could have a general category which could be referred to as standards. You couldnt add additional conditions other than those in the standards. The option is take it out and not let it be in this zone. Commissioner Clayton said then where would it go. Deputy City Attorney Ron Read said it would have to go in a zone where it is allowed.

Commissioner Clayton said what you are saying is, when all the conditions the Planning Commission set on this Conditional Use Permit then no other conditions could be added if someone complained. Planning Commission would not be able to call them in on the complaints. Deputy City Attorney Ron Read said that is right. But some of those things would go through Code Enforcement.

Commissioner Stout said the Planning Commission is guided to look at the conditional use process which is the health safety aesthetics and welfare of the surrounding property owners. She asked is there not tolerances within the way that this now reads. Deputy City Attorney said you can pull the applicant in and enforce the issue but you cant pull them in and say they cant have that use any more.

Commission Burks said if the Planning Commission makes a Conditional Use Permit for two years and the applicants come back to renew the application could the Planning Commission change the conditions. Deputy City Attorney Ron Read said he doesnt believe that the Planning Commission could do that.

Commissioner Taylor said he wants to know what they can do before the board reacts on this item prematurely. Deputy City Attorney Ron Read said you need to look at someone when they come in for a Conditional Use Permit where the City does not have standards spelled out - the City cannot put any conditions on that.

Bob Rothen from Western Rock said the pond that Ray Snyder showed on the slide is actually rain water. The equipment will be removed and the area will be used as a catch basin for the rain water. They also have a dust control program. They really try to be the best citizen they can. Across the wash they have more area for rock production. They understand they can have a Conditional Use Permit for either 3 or 4 years or go for a permanent. They would like to go for a permanent. They understand if they violate any rules they could get their Conditional Use Permit pulled.

PLANNING COMMISSION
May 10, 2005
Page Five



Chairman Almquist said what the City staff is saying is as of May 1, 2005 new regulations came in to affect for Conditional Use Permits. Staff wants the Legal Department to have a chance to analysis and construct a Conditional Use Permit which may come before the Planning Commission with certain requirements.

Chairman Almquist said they may continue this item and let Western Rock continue until this is resolved.

Commissioner Burks could there be a time limit on this Conditional Use Permit.

MOTION: Commissioner Burks made a recommendation that Western Rock Products can continue the use under their Conditional Use Permit for 90 days until City Attorneys have evaluate the change in the law dealing with Conditional Use Permits. With no improvements during this time. Commissioner Clayton seconded. All voted aye.


B. Consider a request to construct a 3-story professional office building on Lot #5 of the Rim Rock Commercial Center that would exceed the allowable thirty-five (35') foot height limit up to a maximum roof ridge height of fifty-two feet ten inches (52'-10") located along the merging of 100 South and 1470 East. The property is zoned C-2 (Commercial). Mr. Brett Burgess, representative for Quality Development. Case No. 2005-CUP-018

Ray Snyder said height issue is the primary request of this item. Ray presented slides of the area. The applicants propose to construct a three-story professional office building. The applicants propose a 22,500 sq. ft. of office area, which would require 90 parking spaces. Ray said this property lays over in another type of zone. Staff recommends a zone change shall be processed to resolve the issue of portions of this property is within the R-1-10 and PD Commercial zones. Final building occupancy shall not occur until a commercial subdivision has been appropriately processed with the City of St. George.

MOTION: Commissioner Stout made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a request to construct a 3 story professional office building on Lot #5 of the Rim Rock Commercial Center that would exceed the allowable thirty-five (35') foot height limit up to a maximum roof ridge height of fifty-two feet ten inches (52'-10") located along the merging of 100 South and 1470 East. The property is zoned C-2 (Commercial). Mr. Brett Burgess, representative for Quality Development, subject to staffs recommendation. Commissioner Bracken seconded the motion. All voted aye.




PLANNING COMMISSION
May 10, 2005
Page Six



VACATE PLAT

Consider a request to vacate the Little Valley Farms Subdivision Plat located east of Little Valley Road at approximately 3450 South. Mr. Ed Burgess and Mr. Mike Signorelli, applicants. Case No. 2005-VP-001

Mark Bradley said a zone change request was made previously for a portion of this land. A portion of this subdivision is in the process of a zone change request from A-20 to RE-20. The easterly portion of the subdivision was recently annexed into the City. There is one thing that Deputy City Attorney Ron Read pointed out from their title report that they do have signatures from Ed Burgess and Mike Signorelli but apparently they need the Zions National Bank.

Deputy City Attorney Ron Read said he saw the title report today and it has a mortgage on the property from Zions Bank and if the bank did sign during the time the development was lots versus raw ground then they need to sign off on it too.

Brett Burgess said that should not be a problem they will be getting a letter from Zions Bank.

MOTION: Commissioner Clayton made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a request to vacate the Little Valley Farms Subdivision Plat located east of Little Valley Road at approximately 3450 South. Mr. Ed Burgess and Mr. Mike Signorelli, applicants, with provision that Zions Bank either sign a letter or remove them from the title report. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. All voted aye.


PRELIMINARY PLATS

A. Consider a preliminary plat request for The Views at Stone Mountain with 23 single-family lots located south of 1450 South Street and approximately 2600 East. Mr. Darren Hensley, applicant. Case No. 2005-PP-020

Mark Bradley said he has received a revised plat after the packets were sent to Planning Commission. Mark passed out a revised plat for their review. They have created a couple of flag lots. According to the City code, the Planning Commission shall specifically approve each flag lot. (Note: The flag lot recommendation came from the Hillside Review Board associated with the Hillside Development Permit request to assist in hillside preservation.) Staff is very reserved with the design of several of the north lots due to the site distance, limited access, and height of the proposed cut. When this site went through the process for a hillside development permit both staff and the Hillside Review Board was not aware of the proposed height of the cut north of Lot #2. At this point staff has not received any revised plans with the anticipation that plans will be provided prior to the Planning Commission meeting on May 10, 2005.
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 10, 2005
Page Seven



Commissioner Clayton asked about the site visibility the Planning Commission requested at the last meeting. Mark replied he will let Jason Smith reply to this question.

Jason Smith the engineer on the project said they do meet the requirements of site distance. Commissioner Clayton asked if lot 3 was a flag lot. Jason replied it is. Commissioner Clayton said this is a better situation.

Chairman Almquist asked if these were public or private streets. Jason replied the streets are public.

Commissioner Clayton asked if they have an HOA. Jason replied it is in the works.

Planning Commission questioned the access points for Lot 1 and Lot 3.

MOTION: Commissioner Clayton made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a preliminary plat request for The Views at Stone Mountain with 23 single-family lots located south of 1450 South Street and approximately 2600 East. Mr. Darren Hensley, applicant, adding there needs to be clear easements provided for lots 3 and 4 and that the driveway for lot 1 has to be at the south end and there has to be an HOA. Commissioner Burks seconded the motion.


Mark said what they are proposing is a very steep rock which will be anywhere from 22 to 25 ft. in height. Mark said they should determine how high that cut will be so the utilities will know how high they need to put their easements. Mark said the Planning Commission should acknowledge that. Commissioner Clayton asked about the cut into the rock. Mark said the cut will be sandblasted.

Commissioner Clayton made a clarification to his motion that the sandblasting they proposed last time be one of the conditions to this motion. That the cut area be low north of Lot 2 have the base of the cut off back of sidewalk as approved by staff. Commissioner Burks seconded the motion. All voted aye.


B. Consider an amended preliminary plat request for Ivie Place to be renamed to Harvest Hills along with modifications to the site layout located at 2010 East and 2450 South. Ron Jensen, applicant. Case No. 2005-PP-027

Mark Bradley said the report addresses the change of hands on this property. There is a piece of land that had a cul-de-sac in the street. Now they have cleaned up the site with the lots and removed the cul-de-sac (temporary one to the north). With the change to the name and layout. Staffs comments are:

PLANNING COMMISSION
May 10, 2005
Page Eight



1. The number of lots remains the same.
2. The subdivision boundary around Lot 1 has been adjusted with agreements made between the applicant and Glen Bundy. The adjustment improves the lot and subdivision configuration.
3. The approved grading plans from the Ivie Place preliminary plat would be the same for this plat.
4. A temporary cul-de-sac would be provided at the end of the improved 2010 East Street instead of an improved cul-de-sac type bulb out within the improved 2010 East Street. The difference is that the new applicant has made arrangements with the Bundy family to allow the turnaround whereas the previous applicant was unable to

Commissioner Stout said the existing plat showed an existing house on lot 3 is that not an existing house. Mark said they showed that because that is where the applicants home was going to be.

Deputy City Attorney Ron Read said he will need to see the turn-around easement. It cant be vacated without the Citys approval.

Ron Jensen said he has an agreement signed with Glen Bundy to the north of him regarding the easement. Deputy City Attorney Ron Read asked the applicant to get him what he has and he will look at that.

MOTION: Commissioner Stout made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of an amended preliminary plat request for Ivie Place to be renamed to Harvest Hills along with modifications to the site layout located at 2010 East and 2450 South. Ron Jensen, applicant, subject to reviewing the easement agreement between applicants and position of the cul-de-sac Commissioner Bracken seconded the motion. All voted aye.


C. Consider a preliminary plat request for The Ledges Phase 1 with 25 single-family residential lots located at east of Highway 18 at approximately 5000 North. Mr. Randy Deschamps, applicant. Case No. 2005-PP-024

D. Consider a preliminary plat request for The Ledges Phase 2 with 51 single-family residential lots located at west of Highway 18 at approximately 5000 North. Mr. Randy Deschamps, applicant. Case No. 2005-PP-016

E. Consider a preliminary plat request for The Ledges Phase 3 with 48 single-family residential lots located at east of Highway 18 at approximately 5000 North. Mr. Randy Deschamps, applicant. Case No. 2005-PP-025


PLANNING COMMISSION
May 10, 2005
Page Nine



F. Consider a preliminary plat request for The Ledges Phase 4 with 36 single-family residential lots located at west of Highway 18 at approximately 5000 North. Mr. Randy Deschamps, applicant. Case No. 2005-PP-026

The question was asked by Planning Commission if they could take all four of the preliminary plats together. Commissioner Stout brought to their attention that staff said in their comments that this should be continued until the staffs comments are provided.

The commission asked staff why the plats were on the agenda if the items are unresolved.

Mark said when a plat is requested to be put on the agenda it is his responsibly to put the item on the agenda and list the issues to be discussed.

Commissioner Stout said they understand the situation staff is in. But on the other side if there are some issues that havent been resolved then her thinking is just tabling this until this matter is resolved.

Planning Commission decided to take all four phases together. Mark Bradley presented the four phases and the recommendations for each phase.

The Ledges Phase 1
1. Staff recommends public streets throughout. However, due to the language of the text staff will understand if the developers have the right to gate a portion of the west side. This phase and all of the east side should be public streets throughout. One of the challenges is drainage from a public street into a private street or visa versa.
2. A Golf Hazard Note is required on the final plat.
3. A Golf Hazard Corridor line should be shown on the preliminary plat similar to what Sunbrook and Sun River Planned Development have provided.
4. This phase would have to be subject to the dedication of public right-of-way (90 ft. Boulevard R.O.W.)
5. Sidewalks are required on both sides of the public street. The 90 ft. cross-section only shows sidewalk on one side of the road.
6. Details on the raised median improvements and maintenance within the 90 ft. right-of-way are to be finalized and spelled out.
7. A slope analysis map is to be provided. The Ledges PD is within the hillside development overlay zone.
8. This phase should be subject to the City Traffic Engineer comments.
9. This request should be continued until the above items are provided for and/or can be addressed.
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 10, 2005
Page Ten



The Ledges Phase 2
1. This phase would have to be subject to the dedication of public right-of-way (frontage road).
2. This is the phase where there is a proposed gage. Consideration of the gate and clarification of street right-of-way type (public vs. private) should be discussed and determined. One of the challenges is drainage from a public street into private streets or visa versa.
3. A Golf Hazard Note is required on the final plat.
4. A Golf Hazard Corridor line should be shown on the preliminary plat similar to what Sunbrook and Sun River Planned Development have provided.
5. A slope analysis map is to be provided. The Ledges PD is within the hillside development overlay zone.
6. This phase should be subject to the City Traffic Engineer comments.
7. This request should be continued until the above items are provided for and/or can be addressed.

The Ledges Phase 3
1. This phase would have to be subject to the dedication of public right-of-way.
2. This phase would require public streets because there are four connectivity points from public streets. Also there would be drainage issues between flow public streets into private streets and visa versa.
3. Clarification on how the common area/open space is to be maintained and what is allowed in the buffer area.
4. Sidewalks are required on both sides of the public street. The 90 ft. cross-section only shows sidewalk on one side of the road.
5. Details on the raised median improvements and maintenance within the 90 ft. right-of-way are to be finalized and spelled out.
6. A slope analysis map is to be provided. The Ledges PD is within the hillside development overlay zone.
7. This phase should be subject to the City Traffic Engineer comments.

The Ledges Phase 4
1. This phase would be part of the proposed gated community. Consideration of the gate and clarification of street right-of-way type (public vs private) should be discussed and determined.
2. Lot frontage width. Consider the flag lots types.
3. A Golf Hazard Note is required on the final plat.
4. A Golf Hazard Corridor line should be shown on the preliminary plat similar to what Sunbrook and Sun River Planned Developments have provided.
5. A slope analysis map is to be provided. The Ledges PD is within the hillside development overlay zone.
PLANNING COMMISSION
May 10, 2005
Page Eleven



6. This phase should be subject to the City Traffic Engineer comments.
7. This request should be continued until the above items are provided for and/or can be addressed.

Commissioner Clayton said from Randys standpoint he wants to know how close they are to the slope analysis map.

Randy Deschamps passed out an outlined memo which addressed staffs concerns. Randy Deschamps said he wasnt aware that he would have to have the slope analysis submitted to staff before this meeting. It has been completed for some time now. Randy said they were not concerned about the hillside or the slope analysis until last week and saw it was an issue on the agenda.

Randy said they have received an agreement from UDOT to move forward with their plans. If they build the roundabouts at their expense then UDOT will give back 11.5 acres along the right-of-way. Many of the items staff has listed have been addressed or are almost addressed. There will be private streets in between the collective roads. Randy said the 90 ft. road in the entire project on the east side of the road will be public roads. On the west side of the road they will do private roads. He said regarding the golf hazardous corridor every lot that is adjacent to a fairway would be in that corridor and would sign a waiver of liability, trespass, and stray golf balls. The sidewalk on one side of the 90 ft. road, typically there is a sidewalk on the two sides, what they have done is taken the two sidewalks and the two sides and put them together to the increase width and meander it down to one side. If that is something the City does not want them to do then they can change back to the two sides.

Bob Nicholson said it is their understanding that all the roundabouts will go in during the first phase. Randy said that is correct.

Jay Sandberg said on the traffic study the concern Aron Baker City Traffic Engineer has is that the development really puts U-18 at its capacity. This development basically states that UDOT is taking responsibly for that because it is a UDOT highway. The City just doesnt want to be put into a position where if U-18 reaches capacity then the City would be responsible for widening or adding an additional lane to that road. That is one of the concerns that Aron Baker had as a traffic engineer. Randys memo was to address that concern the City has. Jay said he still hasnt seen a signed document from UDOT yet. Jay pointed out the different phases of the project before us tonight and pointed out the access points. As far as the private and public roads, they have a 29 ft. section that is for short low volume streets. Jay said there is a lot of work on this project.

PLANNING COMMISSION
May 10, 2005
Page Twelve



Commissioner Burks asked if the agreement between UDOT and Ledges if that would cover the Citys concerns. Jay said he hasnt had a chance to read it yet.

Commissioner Stout said the golf hazardous note should be on each final plat and the golf hazard corridor line shown on the final plat. At this point if the Planning Commission felt comfortable going forward by just saying make sure it is on the final plat before it comes back. Mark said the final plat will not show the line, it will just show the note.

Mark said typically sidewalks are on both sides. He just wants to know how to address that. Commissioner Stout said does the ordinance not require sidewalks on both sides of a pubic street. Mark said it does. Commissioner Stout said then do they have the ability to not comply with the ordinance. Bob said this is pioneering something new here. Randy said they can have the sidewalk on both sides if that is what they want.

Chairman Almquist asked if the Planning Commission can take these phases as one motion. Staff said they could.

MOTION: Commissioner Clayton made a motion to recommend to City Council approval on Item 4C The Ledges Phase 1 with 25 single-family, 4D The Ledges Phase 2 with 51 single-family, 4E The Ledges Phase 3 with 48 single-family and 4F The Ledges Phase 4 with 36 single-family with the following conditions: staff comments #2-6 be satisfy by according to staff requirements as was discussed and that they be accomplished at the appropriate time. Item 1 be satisfy with a UDOT memo of understanding signed by the applicant and UDOT relative to the handing of U-18, its widening and future development. Item 7 that there be no area within these phases that is being build in area greater than a 15% slope as represented by the applicant. The round-abouts be constructed as part of the first phase and that there be a turn-around in Phase 2 as described by staff. There be a redesign of Phase 4 road to bring about proper alignment with the other side of the street and that there be approval of sidewalk of 12 ft. wide on one side of the road of the 90 ft. in Phase 3. As clarified by the applicant that Phase 1 and 3 are public roads and Phase 2 and 4 are private roads. Commissioner Burks seconded the motion. All voted aye.


SITE PLAT AND BUILDING ELEVATION

Consider approval of a site plan and building elevation for Lot 2 of the Tonaquint Office Campus Phase 1 located at 1600 So. Dixie Drive in a Planned Development Commercial Zone. Kim Campbell, representative. Case No. 2005-SPBE-002

Commissioner Campbell stepped down due to conflict of interest.

PLANNING COMMISSION
May 10, 2005
Page Thirteen



Ray Snyder presented a site plan and building elevation review for a proposed office building. The design of the building has been shown. At this time the building materials are not known. It appears that the colored elevation the building will have colored exterior stucco of earth tones with a decorative rock treatment. The item looks very good to staff. The only comment that staff has is the building square footage is not consistent with the recorded plat and would need to be. The building should be compliant with the recorded plat.

Kim Campbell had nothing further to add.

MOTION: Commissioner Stout made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a site plan and building elevation for Lot 2 of the Tonaquint Office Campus Phase 1 located at 1600 So. Dixie Drive in a Planned Development Commercial Zone. Kim Campbell, representative, with the understanding there will need to be an amended plat to account for the square footage difference. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. All voted aye.


Commissioner Campbell, returned to his seat.

MINUTES

Consider approval of the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of April 26, 2005.

Commissioner Clayton made a motion to recommend approval of the minutes on April 26, 2005. Commissioner Bracken seconded the motion. All voted aye.