Planning Commission Minutes

Tuesday, June 14,2005



CITY OF ST. GEORGE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005 - 5:00 p.m.


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

EXCUSED: Chairman Gil Almquist


CALL TO ORDER

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

FINAL PLATS

A. Consider approval of a final plat for Sagewood at Seven Hills Phase 2 with 32 single-family residential lots located at 1740 North and Tuweap Drive. Ence Brothers Construction, Inc., applicant. Case No. 2005-FP-033

B. Consider approval of a final plat for Sagewood at Seven Hills Phase 3 with 32 single-family residential lots located at 1660 North and Tuweap Drive. Ence Brothers Construction, Inc., applicant. Case No. 2005-FP-034

Mark Bradley said the final plats are ready for approval from Planning Commission.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of final plats 9 A and B with authorization for Chairman to sign. Commissioner Bracken seconded the motion. All voted aye.


PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005
Page Two



PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO ZONING REGULATIONS

Consider a request to amend the St. George City Code, Title 10 Zoning Regulations, Chapter 13A Hillside Development Overlay Zone to revise density and disturbance standards and to establish additional design standards. City of St. George, initiated. Case No. 2005-ZRA-002

Bob Nicholson stated this has come before the Planning Commission agenda once or twice before. Bob went over the changes to the Hillside ordinance. He said the best thing to do is walk this through page by page. Page 1 and 2 there are no changes.

Bob stated that on page 3 the slope area and density have change; (the strike-out is the old and the underlining text is the new)

Slope Dwelling Units (DU/Acre
1% - 25% 0-19% See underlying zone.
26% - 39% 20-29% 2 DU/acre, provided the units are clustered on 30% or less
of the land area within this slope category. 70% of this
slope category shall remain undisturbed. The 70% area is
based upon the overall area/development rather than per
lot. Also see subsections A1, A2, and A3 of this section.
30-39% 1 DU/10 acre, provided no more than 5% of the site is disturbed, and 95% of the site remains undisturbed.
40% plus Development is not permitted.

Bob stated that in paragraph 1. the following changes have occurred;

1. A steep slope protection bonus provides that each dwelling unit (DU) transferred from the twenty-six (26%) twenty percent (20%) to thirty nine percent (39%) slope area to areas with twenty five percent (25%) nineteen percent (19%) or less slope, either within the same parcel or to an adjacent parcel under the same ownership is entitled to a transfer bonus of 0.50 DU for each DU transferred from the twenty percent (20%) to the twenty-nine (29%) slope area, and a density transfer bonus of 1.0 DU for each DU transferred from the thirty percent (30%) to thirty-nine percent (39%) slope area. The density transfer shall be indicated on a preliminary plat. Density transfers may occur without a zone change to the receiving parcel even though the resulting lot sizes or density exceed the limits of the underlying zone.





PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005
Page Three



Paragraph 2. has a percent change;

2. Dwelling units constructed within the twenty (20%) six (26%) to thirty-nine percent (39%) slope area shall be subject to the hillside provisions contained in the community design manual.....

Bob stated there where changes on page 4 of the ordinance as follows;

On paragraph 3.

3. Nonresidential construction within the twenty 20% six (26%) to thirty nine percent (39%) slope area shall be subject to the hillside provisions contained in the community design manual, and also design review by the Hillside Review Board, Planning Commission and City Council. Only thirty percent (30%) of this the 20-29% slope category area may be disturbed. Seventy percent (70%) of this slope category is to remain undisturbed. Only ten percent (10%) of the 30-39% slope area may be disturbed.

Paragraph B. Single Family Lots:

Where more than two-thirds (2/3) of a single-family lot has a slope of twenty-five percent (25%) or less is within a particular slope category, the entire lot shall be considered as having less than twenty-five percent (25%) slope for the purpose of determine minimum lot size being within that particular slope category for the purpose of determine minimum lot size.

Bob stated that on page 4 under 10-13A-5: SLOPE AND SLOPE AREA DETERMINED: have some changes;

B. Procedure: The location of the natural fifteen percent (15%), twenty percent (20%) twenty-five percent (25%) thirty percent (30%) and forty percent (40%) slopes for the purposes of this article shall be determined using the following procedure:

Paragraph 3. changes are;

3. Determination Of Slope Areas for Density Calculations: Using eh contour maps, slopes shall be calculated in intervals no grater than forth feet (40') along profile lines. Points identified as slopes of fifteen percent (15%), twenty percent (20%), twenty-fine percent (25%) thirty percent (30%) and forty percent (40%) shall be located on the contour map and connected by a continuous line.

PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005
Page Four



10-13-A-6 Permit Required has a new sentence added which reads; Development within the Geologic Hazard Area shall be reviewed for suitable construction solutions for addressing geologic hazards (expansive soils, landslides, rock fall, etc.) but shall not be subject to density and other development restrictions related solely to the slope of the property. Also the major development on slopes has increased in excess of twenty percent 20% instead of fifteen percent 15%.

Bob said in the 20-29% they will require 2 du/acre, provided the units are clustered on 30% of less of the land area within this slope category. On the 30-39% it will be 1 du/acre, provided no more than 5% of the site is disturbed, and 95% of the site remains undisturbed.

Commissioner Clayton said it should be therefore by that definition that there has to be an HOA if there is a common area. Otherwise, who will take care of it.

Council Member Allen said the verbiage should be must or should. Bob said he feels should is probably the word they should use.

Bob showed the new overlay zone map for the Hillside area. Bob said staff hasnt had time to go out and look at the whole area they are trying to recognize.

Commissioner Clayton said the first time this came before the Planning Commission they talked about the density bonus. There needs to be a number that represents an incentive to stay away from those slopes. Maybe they should consider offering a density bonus of such nature that would make it an incentive. Bob said they have increased the density transfer in that steepest portion, the 30-39%. Commissioner Clayton said the City would want to keep buildings out of the 30-39% area.

Commissioner Stout said if she understands what is being said is that if the applicant had 5 acres within the 30-39% slope the City would be allowing them 1 unit. Bob said if they had at least 1 acre and up to 10 they would qualify for 1 unit.

Commissioner Taylor said if he can satisfy the review board that he is using appropriate techniques for construction then slope never comes into it. Bob said that is true if it is outside of the hillside overlay zone area. Commissioner Taylor said could he be in the hillside overlay zone area on a 39-40% slope and say well it is a geological hazardous area therefore if he can show appropriate strategies, which is how he reads it. Commissioner Stout said she sees it as a review process which is going to address the suitable construction solutions. The review process does not include slope and density issues.

PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005
Page Five



Bob said Sun River and Sunbrook has had slopes in some occasions that have maybe 30-40% slope but some of those areas may be in the geologic hazard areas. But under this new draft the provision wouldnt limit the slope and the density in those areas. It is not like there is no control, you have the basic zoning and planned development approval. They wouldnt be limited by slope if theyre outside the overlay zone. This is one of the significant changes to this ordinance.

Commissioner Stout said then could that verbiage be added to this paragraph to clarify that no one tries to misinterpret what the intent is with this. Couldnt it be said the slope and density still applies if the property is within the hillside overlay zone? Commissioner Taylor said or you could say, the development within the geologic hazard area outside the overlay zone. Bob said yes, that is a good suggestion.

Rick Rosenberg with Rosenberg Associates said have you covered previous areas that have been disturbed by road cuts and those type of things being also excluded from the slope calculations. He asked if that will be included into the ordinance. There are areas in these slopes that have been disturbed by utility construction, road grading or similar activities. There should be some slope analysiss on these sites. He was wondering if those areas could be clustered, to preserve them. He feels this new ordinance will limit the density in the areas where there is 30-39%. If they could look at that transfer. They are only increasing the density to one or two.

Commissioner Taylor asked if the definition of minor or major excavation apply when the slopes exceed 39%. Rick said there is a small band of hillsides that is more than 40 ft across and it usually runs parallel with the slope and it will start impacting a fairly long section. When you are on the hillside 4 ft. allowable cut is very small. Its hard to design your roads. You figure on a 10% slope. Youll have 10 ft. of fall across a 100 ft. lot. So 4 ft. of cut or fill that is eaten up very fast.

Randy Simmonson said he has had several pieces that have hillsides involved. It seems to him that the hillside ordinance is very effective right now. Commissioner Stout mentioned the steep slope protection bonus, this would provide additional units being able to be build above and beyond what the normal density would allow if someone is moving those units out of those steeper slopes. Randy said he is in all favor of that but he is having a hard time wondering why this needs to be changed.

Josh Richards said he has property which will be affected by this change. He said he is encouraged by the discussions they have had so far. On his piece of property he will lose quite a bit. However the density that is being proposed is going to knock down what he can do but with that bonus he will get some back.

PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005
Page Six



Lowry Snow on behalf of Stone Cliff Development said one of the issues that doesnt directly relate to Stone Cliff is the density transfer issue. From the developers standpoint he feels that they need to provide a real incentive. He would encourage the board if theyre after a strong preservation incentive for those slopes then they need to provide a real incentive to the developer. Rather than sell to a buyer and have him build a really large substantial home within that area its more economically feasible for him to take density transfers down below and preserve that slope. Lowry said he would encourage the board to look at the 30-39% instead of 1 per 10 acres but look at a 3 or 4-unit density transfer. On the 20-29% he would suggest increasing those densities to at least 3. Lowry said Stone Cliff development is 50% build out. He presented a site map of the area which has not been developed out. Lowry said there is only one portion which would be affected by this revision. Lowry presented slides of the area. He asked the board as part of their recommendation that they waive the application of this in respect of Stone Cliff.

Deputy City Attorney Ron Read said the only way you could waive this requirement is if the PD are somehow vested. Bob Nicholson said the PD zone is a unique zone. Bob said his view point is if the site plan is approved and vested then they can proceed with what was approved.

Commissioner Stout said she would like to see this density bonus in action. Commissioner Stout said she wants to summarize what they have talked about, they want to make sure they add a paragraph regarding previously disturbed areas, and they want to change the transfer bonus to 1 du for the 20-29% slope and 2 du to the 30-39% slope.

Commissioner Clayton said they were going to add the comment after geologic hazard areas but outside the hillside overlay zone. Commissioner Clayton said there are small pockets of 30-39% across a face and if that could be clustered that would make a lot of sense. Commissioner Stout said on page 4 paragraph 3 gives the Hillside Review Board the latitude to look at it that way. She said on page 14 change the verbiage on striking out may and putting in shall.

MOTION: Commissioner Clayton made a motion to recommend to City Council approval a request to amend the St. George City Code, Title 10 Zoning Regulations, Chapter 13A Hillside Development Overlay Zone to revise density and disturbance standards and to establish additional design standards. City of St. George, initiated, with the changes that was just enumerated. Commissioner Bracken seconded the motion. All voted aye.

Deputy City Attorney Ron Read asked if they should add Stone Cliff into the motion. Commissioner Clayton that Stone Cliff is a Planned Development and has previously received approval of it layouts would not be subject to this new ordinance and any other PDs that has received City Council approval. Commissioner Bracken seconded the addition to the motion. All voted aye.
PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005
Page Seven



PUBLIC HEARING - AMEND & EXTEND FINAL PLAT

Consider a request to amend and extend the final plat for Bloomington Ranches Phase 2 by extending Lot 27 east of the existing phase boundary and divide Lot 27 into two located at 3181 So. Nashua Road. Mr. Richard Ringwood, applicant. Case No. 2005-FP-032

Mark Bradley presented the exhibits of Bloomington Ranches. In reviewing Lot 27 there is a little knoll in this area and then Pioneer Road is on the easterly side. Several property owners before have acquired additional land. The one comment that staff provided into the report is that staff has to review the right-of-way for Pioneer Road. Because when the road was built at the time, it narrows in the vicinity of Lot 27 and 28 of the Bloomington Ranches Phase 2 subdivision due to the existing hill.

Staff is not comfortable to proceed with this change without further research determining the width of that road. But staff does recommend that the public hearing remain open and those people who made efforts to come tonight could speak on this item. A public hearing is required for this request whereas the applicant was unable to obtain 100% consent from property owners within the subdivision phase.

Staff recommends that this continue until the next meeting so staff can work out these details.

Gail Maxwell who is the chairman of the Bloomington Community Council said they feel this directly effects the neighborhood. So he would recommend if the applicant cant come in with 100% from the neighborhood then it should be questioned whether this should pass.

Dexter Reese said he lives 30 ft. from this lot. The title company did a survey about 2 months ago with existing neighbors. As far as he knows the residents in the neighborhood are against this change. This lot is in 3-tiers. In order to get 175 ft. length on this lot there will have to be a great deal of excavation. The mountain side is a buffer for the neighborhood as a sound barrier for the traffic. Commissioner Stout said if the lot split happens and they were not allowed to remove the hill would you be opposed to the lot split happening. Dexter said he would still be opposed.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to table this item until their next meeting on July 28th until they receive final results from staff and until an applicant is here to make a presentation on it. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. All voted aye.




PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005
Page Eight



PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGES

A. Consider a zone change request from A-1 (Agricultural) to R-1-12 (Single Family Residential) on 22.83 acres located at the northeast corner of the intersection of 2780 East Street and 1450 South Street. Mr. Neil Schmutz, applicant. Case No. 2005-ZC-018

Mark Bradley said this particular area is zoned A-1. The request is consistent with the General Plan and with the property to the north and west. It is also consistent with the type of zoning being established for the area. Staff does not see a problem with the request.

Randy Drummond represents the applicant. He said they agree with what staff has said.

MOTION: Commissioner Clayton made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a zone change request from A-1 (Agricultural) to R-1-12 (Single Family Residential) on 22.83 acres located at the northeast corner of the intersection of 2780 East Street and 1450 South Street. Mr. Neil Schmutz, applicant. Commissioner Burks seconded the motion. All voted aye.


B. Consider a request to amend a Planned Development Residential zone to allow recreational vehicle/vehicle pads in between the single-family detached patio homes, eliminate the privacy wall requirement between Dixie Downs Road and pads #1-3, and remove the age limitation of 55 and older within the Emerald Ridge Subdivision located at 1806 No. Dixie Downs Road. Mr. Frank Lindhardt, applicant. Case No. 2005-ZCA-020

Mark Bradley said the applicant would like to allow recreational vehicle/vehicle pads in between the single-family detached patio homes. Mark said the legal question here is whether or not the RV pads for individual use can be within the common area. Deputy City Attorney Ron Read said as long as the CC&Rs allowed the pads in the common area not in the unlimited common area. Mark said the City Fire Marshall/Deputy Fire Chief has mentioned that at a maximum, they should only be allowed pads every other unit because of the concern for access and other safety issues. He said the privacy wall between Dixie Downs Road and pads #1-3 the applicant is requesting the elimination of the required privacy wall. Staff has worked with them to allow a combination of a solid block wall and wrought iron to keep it open. The future property owners whether now or at a later date will want privacy and a noise barrier. At which time they would like a wall. The wall/fence should go in now for consistency of the development. This is why Planned Developments and/or double fronting lots require privacy walls to be completed prior to the certificate of occupancy.


PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005
Page Nine



Mark said in the applicants amended PD text it talks about using a grass crete as a driveway to the pads. Staff is not certain about the details of grass crete. This should be discussed as part of the consideration.

Commissioner Campbell asked if the Fire Marshall said anything about the concern of vehicles being parked along side of the resident. Was he concerned about a fire rating issue? Mark said he is not aware of that particular aspect of it. It was the Fire Marshalls main concern that nothing would be build between the units to cover the RV from the sun.

Bill Ronnow from Jones Waldo representing the applicant said there are three issues. Based on the restaking the site lines with regards to the wall versus fence issue. The applicant is withdrawing any request to eliminate a fence. Regards to the age of this PD it was originally approved in August 1996. As staff pointed out the property to the east has no age restriction for their development. So this development would like to proceed without any age restriction. Bill said as regard to the request on the pads what they are looking at is under the ordinance. The original plat that was approved in 1996 and the amended plat show this space between each one of the units as common area. It was common open space. In the CC&Rs that define uses for the common open space from the very beginning, RV parking has been a permitted use under those CC&Rs in that open space. In his discussions with Deputy City Attorney Ron Read there may be ambiguity there. He understood that the drawing doesnt show plats. Even with the parking space and the RV pads the open space is still at 35.8% still above the 30% minimum. As far as the fire safety question, there will be no awning or coverings that would affect those fire ratings. There is no exclusion for walls going between the two units. Bill believes the only fire issue of access is really not a significant issue. In connection with that there is another problem that develops as a matter of practice and habit. That are more cars on the street. This plan gets those vehicles off the street and out of the way. It provides a more secure situation for the homeowners.

Commissioner Clayton asked Bob Nicholson if a wall is permitted between the units. Bob replied that walls are not allowed if there isnt 16 ft. separation between the units.

Commissioner Campbell said the RV is misleading. If you have a RV between two houses at 15 ft. apart and the RV maximum width is 8 feet, you would roughly have a 2 ft. overhang of the two houses and that puts the RV 18 inches from both eaves of both houses.

Frank Lindhardt the applicant said they have this same development in Hurricane and people love it. It is very user friendly. The visibility is greatly increased. The beauty of the


PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005
Page Ten



neighborhood is improved. Homeowners like having their vehicles parked next to them. They have 15 ft. between the homes. Frank presented slides on grass crete.

Commissioner Burks asked about the area in Hurricane, do you allow people to live in the RVs. Frank Lindhardt replied no it is in their CC&Rs that this cannot be done.

Commissioner Taylor said the boards concern primarily is about the hazardous that are involved. Those buildings are fairly close. There is not a good circulation around those homes. Frank Lindhardt said he had the opportunity to meet with the Fire Marshall and he discussed this with him and his comments to him were, if it were a perfect world he would like to prohibit everyone from parking RVs or any type of vehicles in between the residents but he recognizes that there are no such restrictions. He said they were caught by surprise that this really was an issue.

Bill Ronnow said on the wall issue he would like to refer to 10-8-5 subparagraph D sub 2 of the City code where it focuses on the 16 ft. requirement as a result of a wall on a property line that separates units creating a minimum of 8 ft between the wall and unit as a side yard setback creating a 16-ft. separation. Even at 16 ft. without anything in between and restrictions of no landscaping and no parking, when one house begins to burn at 16 ft. you got problems for the house on either side. The introduction of a parking space and a RV vehicle does not create a new issue in terms with fire safety. This is why the Fire Marshall in the staff meeting did not talk about a fire rating problem but talked about an access problem.

Commissioner Clayton said he would like to have the Fire Marshall here tonight, in order to ask him the questions that are problems to the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Clayton said to Mr. Ronnow you cant say what the Fire Marshall meant stating it is not a perfect world and that an RV vehicle in this location is alright and safe. This is not what he said. He said in a perfect world he wouldnt want to have anything. So lets not extrapolate his comment to mean something that he didnt say. Bill Ronnow said nor extrapolate it to mean something that you want to conclude, that it increases a fire rating risk. Commissioner Clayton said that is not what he is talking about. According to the ordinance you need to have 16 ft. between units in order to have a wall.

Mark Bradley said in order to put anything in between the two buildings you have to have 16 ft. Bill Ronnow said that is an incorrect statement of your ordinance and let me tell you why. What that ordinance says is if there is no fence or wall then it could be a minimum of 10 ft. So your statement if it is less than 16 ft. you cant have a wall or anything in there is not correct.


PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005
Page Eleven



Bill Ronnow said he would like to finish up by saying if the issues in regards to fire safety is the result of 16 ft. and nothing in there. Then he thinks they need to look at a broader consistency issue that two buildings 16 ft. apart if one of them begins to burn it is not going to be enhanced by the absent of anything in there. The issue is the 16 ft.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor said having reviewed this item and the related comments he feels that a substantial change in terms of the original plan for the Emerald Ridge Subdivision therefore he made a motion to recommend to City Council denial of a request to amend a Planned Development Residential zone to allow recreational vehicle/vehicle pads in between the single-family detached patio homes, eliminate the privacy wall requirement between Dixie Downs Road and pads #1-3, and remove the age limitation of 55 and older within the Emerald Ridge Subdivision located at 1806 No. Dixie Downs Road. Mr. Frank Lindhardt, applicant. He recommends approved for age change and the concern for the privacy wall that apparently has been resolved. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. All voted aye.


DETERMINE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE

A. Determine whether or not a proposed road alignment for the Foremaster Ridge development expansion is a significant change to the City of St. George Road Master Plan and would require a public hearing. Mr. Doug Rogers, applicant. Case No. 2005-DSC-003

Mark Bradley said this is brought before the Planning Commission tonight to determine if a public hearing would be required. Staff recommends that it is a significant change for the following reasons. The road master plan shows a 60 ft. tie-in as well as a 50 ft. connector between the two streets. The applicant would like to build cul-de-sacs through this area eliminating the 60 ft. road.

Todd Edwards with Bush & Gudgell said when the original road alignment was determined a townhome project was planned for this area. There has always been one road shown through this area. They dont feel there is a need for two roads. They personally dont feel this is a significant change. Right now it is a 60 ft. road on both ends. They feel with the cul-de-sacs could protect those homes better than having a 60 ft. road going through with all that high speed traffic.

Commissioner Stout said you are proposing to use Crestline Drive as your connecting road into the Eastridge Subdivision. Todd replied yes.

PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005
Page Twelve



Doug Rogers with RD Development said originally this was zoned an R-1-8 and he understands a master plan road is based on the zoning. An R-1-8 zone there could be 164 lots. They are only showing 62 lots. They have reduced the density at 62%. In order to calculate what can be on that road they would have to take at least 25% of the traffic or the homes to the north and east ridge, which would be 107 lots so you would add 27 to their 62, youre still at 89 lots and according to the City plan on a 50 ft. road you can go up to 125 lots. The Citys General Plan book shows the density of 2 is very low density - they are at 1-3/4 lots per acre. The lots go up from 15,000 to 30,000 sq. ft. The other thing which is also in the General Plan on 4.8 it states making streets small enough to reduce the speed in the neighborhood.

Commissioner Taylor asked if they had the master road plan. He asked Doug to turn to page 9-14 in the book. The General Plan 22.2 Street Patterns is the thing that concerns him. It states that the City will avoid cul-de-sacs unless required by physical constraints of the land such as deep slopes. The local streets will be generally arranged and modified grid to provide multiple routes of a neighborhood and through the City diffusing traffic. Commissioner Taylor said that is his main concern. He wouldnt have a problem of thinking of a narrow street.

Doug said Foremaster Ridge is a little bit unique. You can create multi-routes but those multi-routes still have to come back to one street to get off. Doug said when you talk about cul-de-sacs and avoiding cul-de-sacs - there have been 93 cul-de-sacs recorded in the City of St. George. Doug said they have done their homework and they feel they are in compliance.

Jay Sandberg City Engineer said Dave Demas asked him to speak on their recommendation. He agrees with Doug. Their concern is cul-de-sacs in general. They are desirable to live on but whenever you put a cul-de-sac into a subdivision it forces more traffic on another street somewhere. Jay said when he sat down with Doug and looked at this they felt there was a way without sacrificing all of the lots to tie these roads together and leave a connection into the future property so they dont isolate two areas and force all of the traffic on the easterly road. The master plan is just that its a master plan. It just shows circulation and connectivity between neighborhoods. Commissioner Clayton asked what does the master road need to 60 ft. then.

Commissioner Burks left 7:30 p.m. for another appointment.

Jay said the real issue here is the circulation of traffic. Jay said staff has eliminated a lot of cul-de-sacs. It is always a battle. Jay said the decision is whether this should go on to a public hearing. Jay said he would like to see this go on to a public hearing. Jay said staff would like to see good flow in the development.


PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005
Page Thirteen



Commissioner Stout said the issue before them tonight is to determine if this is a significant change to require a public hearing.

Doug Rogers said what the City is trying to do is going totally against what they have said in the master road plan. Commissioner Stout said the question is not the quality of the project youve build, the question is - is this change a significant change. Doug said the bottom line is there has always been only one master plan road.

Commissioner Stout asked staff if there is only one master plan road that connects one side of this ridge to the other. Jay said there have been revisions over the years but it does show a 60 ft. road. He believes that the 50 ft. road is already built there. Commissioner Stout said so the master plan road shows a 60 ft. road from north to south.

Bob Nicholson said typically the master plan road doesnt show every 50 ft. road. It only shows the 60 or 66 ft. roads.

Dale Jones is a resident on the north side. He is in favor of this change. He is happy to see larger lots and create a nicer community there. He believes that it will create an asset to the neighborhood.

MOTION: Commissioner Clayton made a motion to recommend to City Council that there is not a significant change in the applicants proposal and a need for a public hearing for the proposed road alignment for the Foremaster Ridge development expansion does not need to happen. Mr. Doug Rogers, applicant. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. All voted aye.


Doug Rogers stated that he thought his preliminary plat was going to be on tonights agenda. Somehow it did not end up on the agenda. They turned the applications in at the same time.

Mark Bradley said it has been discussed up front that the road issue has to be worked out first. Second of all, the complete application was not even submitted by the deadline. Staff wants to make it clear on the record.

B. Determine whether or not a proposed alignment adjustment to a 50 ft. right-of-way master planned road in the vicinity of 2780 East and 1750 South (northeast of the Serenity Hills subdivision) is a significant change to the City of St. George Road Master Plan and would require a public hearing. Mr. Jason Tuttle, representative for the applicant. Case No. 2005-DSC-004

PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005
Page Fourteen



Jay Sandberg City Engineer said this is out in Little Valley area. There is an existing home on the parcel with some trees. The engineer has dealt with this half street and they have no desire to develop their property at this time. Jay said they would end up with a little sliver of a half road and then it would angle and come back along the toe of the slope. They are proposing to shift the road over on the master plan. Although it wont be built until this property developed in the future.

Mark Bradley said the alignment normally gets worked out as the sites develop. The shifting still meets the intent of the road master plan. The concern is the impact it may have entirely on one property owner instead of being shared by two property owners.

Jason Tuttle with Bush & Gudgell said he appreciates Jays comments. There are two main reasons why they would want to amend the road master plan. Whenever you share a road with another property owner there are cooperation issues. It is their understanding that the property owners to the east dont want to develop at this time. Jason said the other reason that they think it is a good idea to move the master plan road is that on local roads it is always best to have t-intersections - it becomes a lot safer. They dont feel this is a significant change.

Commissioner Stout commented you stated that this would be a burden to your development if you had to build the road and couldnt use it. But isnt that basically based on the design of your subdivision that would put you in a situation where you would not be using it. Jason said that is right except the reason they really cant use it is they cannot get enough asphalt. When you share a road, you are to have at least 25 ft. of asphalt. With the way the property lines are they would not be able to get enough asphalt to have two-way traffic. Commissioner Stout said why would you not be able to get enough asphalt? Jason said because the property owners to the east do not want to develop at this time and they are not willing to share the road.

Darlene Larsen the property owner to the east said they have never been contacted but their son has. They do not want to develop right now. The developer has never talked to them to what they wanted. They have had communication with the City on this issue.

Milton Larsen said the master plan road where it is now they knew where the road was when they bought the property. The only thing in moving that road at this point would be to benefit them. Their question is why is this being shifted down to them.

Commissioner Stout said if the existing master road plan were to go in, would that require you to move the feed yard. Milton replied yes.


PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005
Page Fifteen



Jason said he wants to apologize to the Larsens. Their concern about the burden being shifted to them, its generally determined that in the development of lots that the developer will pay for the frontage of the roads.

Natalie Larsen said with Serenity Cove and Serenity Hills why didnt they get together and work out the road issue. Serenity Coves issue is their problem. This is not the Larsens problem.

Todd Edwards said they are just showing the possibility of the roads - they are not saying that this is the way it should be.

Commissioner Stout said based on what Jay Sandberg says there needs to be some connectivity. Based on one road heading over to 3000 East there needs to be some other opportunities for connectivity.

Gale Larsen is opposed to the change.

MOTION: Commissioner Clayton made a motion to find that there is a significant change and a public hearing is required to discuss whether or not a proposed alignment adjustment to a 50 ft. right-of-way master planned road in the vicinity of 2780 East and 1750 South (northeast of the Serenity Hills subdivision) is a significant change to the City of St. George Road Master Plan. Mr. Jason Tuttle, representative for the applicant. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. All voted aye.


SITE PLAN & BUILDING ELEVATION

Consider approval of a site plan and building elevation for proposed home furnishings facility located east of I-15 and north of Sunland Drive at approximately 270 East. Mr. Richard Morean, representative. Case No. 2005-SPBE-003

Planner Ray Snyder introduced the item explaining the zone and a recent lot split which created this parcel. He pointed out the traffic comments from the City Traffic Engineer found in the report. He explained the purpose of why the item is before the Commission being adjacent to the Interstate. Ray went over the landscape requirements. Comments from staff report in the packet; (Conditions listed in staff report).

Council Member Suzanne Allen asked about appropriateness of a metal building. Concern was also expressed by Planning Commissioners about the view of building from Sunland Drive. Council Member Suzanne Allen mentioned that buildings facade should be improved to provide an attractive building facade as viewed from Sunland Drive.

PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005
Page Sixteen



Rich Morean with Furniture Row Company described the project and discussed the proposed facades. Each storefront is planned to have a unique appearance and have unique materials. He indicated that the roof materials would be brick red colored standing seam metal roof along with Surrey Beige metal panels. The fronts of the stores will be constructed of individual materials themes including wood, EIFS, glass, metal framing, timbers rock, etc. Dormers will highlight each of the four storefronts. They feel they have done their homework on this material. The HVAC units are in the rear of the building. Up to this point he didnt imagine that the materials being use to build this project would be an issue.

Commissioner Stout the metal sides, rear and front would be an issue. The metal roof would not be. Rich said the materials were not mentioned as an issue. They did what was requested by staff. What the Planning Commission is talking about tonight is brand-new information to him.

Commissioner Campbell said the store fronts look nice. But he does have concerns about the metal around the building. He said there is roughly 70% of the building your proposing is metal. This building will be viewed by residents and people coming into the City and will be on display. In fairness to what they have done to other buildings along the freeway and they have been required to use different materials from time to time. He would suggest they look at a different material other than metal. It is nice architecture but the metal look for this City does not work. Commissioner Stout said the landscaping is great.

Commissioner Stout said if a metal building is approved in the center part of town it opens up an area where others will require a metal building. Commissioner Bracken said usually they put the front the other way and that is why they require they do a mirror image.

Todd Edwards with Bush and Gudgell said their building is normally a rectangular metal box. He believes they have done a wonderful job.

Commissioner Campbell said he believes there should to be an attempt by all design personnel to make the architecture surround the entire building instead of the front facade and ignore the other three sides. The building is viewed by all different directions regardless on how much landscaping.

Rich Moren said did he miss something when he and his architects reviewed all the C-3 zoning classifications. Commissioner Stout said this is not about C-3 zoning, this is about I-15 exposure.



PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005
Page Seventeen



Rich said do you have a specific proposal? Very rarely do they run into this at other cities. He said they will have to make a recommendation and they will have to consider what that means to them.

Commissioner Campbell said it is the material that needs to be change. The architectural design is wonderful. Commissioner Campbell said all sides of the building needs to be made of different materials. Rich said what he hears them saying is that all four sides that have metal materials need to be covered or use a different material. Commissioner Campbell said that is right.

Council Member Allen said there will be a lot of heat from residents if this was a metal building. The board has made other businesses change their look for this area.

MOTION: Commissioner Campbell made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a site plan and building elevation for proposed home furnishings facility located east of I-15 and north of Sunland Drive at approximately 270 East. Mr. Richard Morean, representative, with recommendations of staff comments and one additional contingency that needs to be resolved and substituting of exterior building metal to a suitable material other than metal and the additional height.

Deputy City Attorney Ron Read said the word suitable needs to be defined. Commissioner Campbell said EIFS, pre-colored or painted masonry, pre-color or painted block in earthtone colors the walls not the roof. Commissioner Bracken seconded the motion. All voted aye.


PRELIMINARY PLATS

A. Consider a preliminary plat request for Shinava Subdivision at Entrada with 33 single-family residential detached patio homes and 16 commercial rental inn units located west of Snow Canyon Parkway off of Entrada Trail and Sinagua Trail. Mr. Richard Allen, representative. Case No. 2005-PP-029

Mark Bradley said the new club house is just to the east of this development. This proposed development is on a land formation referred to as the Shinava Plateau, which is west of the old and new Entrada Club House. A wash runs along the westerly portion of the toe of the plateau.

Mark said the current existing approved Planned Development Master Plan identifies a portion (5.8 acres) of the Shinava Plateau for Inn (i.e., short term use) with the majority of the plateau

PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005
Page Eighteen



as conventional residential dwelling units. Pads 1-16 are designated for the Inn units while pads 17-49 conventional residential dwelling units.

Joe Platt with Split Rock Development said the Inns are build like patio homes which will be put in a rental pool when they are not being used.

Commissioner Clayton made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a preliminary plat request for Shinava Subdivision at Entrada with 33 single-family residential detached patio homes and 16 commercial rental inn units located west of Snow Canyon Parkway off of Entrada Trail and Sinagua Trail. Mr. Richard Allen, representative. Commissioner Bracken seconded the motion.

Mark Bradley said on the elevations it shows the grade at 2,960 and the pads at 2,935 so it shows a big drop almost 30 ft. Mark doesnt know if that is a typo but it needs to get clarify before it goes to City Council. Commissioner Clayton and Commissioner Bracken accepted that addition to the motion. All voted aye.


B. Consider a preliminary plat request for Serenity Hills Phase 3 with 5 single-family residential lots located north of 2000 South at approximately 2580 East. Quality Development, applicant. Case No. 2005-PP-032

Mark Bradley said this subdivision is to create a 5 single-family residential lots. The lot sizes range from 12,637 sq. ft. to 27,087 sq. ft. including the no build area. This area received a hillside development permit by the City Council on January 20, 2005. The consideration should be subject to the proposed retaining wall height and locations being worked out with City Engineering Dept. The height would be required to meet the new rock wall standards.

Kelly Schmutz from Bush & Gudgell said he has no comments.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a preliminary plat request for Serenity Hills Phase 3 with 5 single-family residential lots located north of 2000 South at approximately 2580 East. Quality Development, applicant, with the rock walls complying with the new standards. Commissioner Clayton seconded the motion. All voted aye.





PLANNING COMMISSION
June 14, 2005
Page Nineteen



LOT SPLIT

Consider a request to divide a parcel of land into two parcels located south of the Tamarack Ridge Phase 4 subdivision, Lot 20 in the vicinity of 1400 East and 2450 South. Mr. Mendenhall, applicant. Case No. 2005-LS-003

Ray Snyder presented the parcel of land to divide into two parcels. This only involves property that is not within a recorded subdivision (the division of lots or parcels within a recorded subdivision requires an amended plat).

Ray said staff has advised the applicants that there are two options to process this request:

Option 1: The final plat, phase 6 for Tamarack Ridge was approved by the City Council on October 19, 1995, but was never recorded with the County. The approval has since expired. The plat could again be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for final plat approval. Staff supports this option.

Option 2: The applicants could submit a lot split request to the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff does not support this request.

Commissioner Clayton said this final plat that was never recorded is for just these two lots. Ray said that is correct.

Roy Mendenhall said he purchased this property. He found out the reason it was not developed is because it didnt have any sewer line to it. He plans on building on one of the lots and probably selling the other lot. It has some nice cliffs and knobs and they want to save those. He has talked to the HOA president. He states that piece of property is not part of their development or their HOA requirements. He would like to be part of the City and not the HOA group.

MOTION: Commissioner Clayton made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a request to divide a parcel of land into two parcels located south of the Tamarack Ridge Phase 4 subdivision, Lot 20 in the vicinity of 1400 East and 2450 South. Mr. Mendenhall, applicant, with staff comments. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. All voted aye.