Planning Commission Minutes

Tuesday, September 13,2005



CITY OF ST. GEORGE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005 - 5:00 p.m.


PRESENT: Chairman Gil Almquist
Commissioner Myrna Stout
Commissioner Ross Taylor
Commissioner Kim Campbell
Commissioner Vince Clayton
Commissioner Ron Bracken
Deputy City Attorney Ron Read
Community Development Director Bob Nicholson
Planner Mark Bradley
Engineer Cathy Hasfurther
Assistance City Engineer Jay Sandberg
Deputy City Recorder Linda Brooks

EXCUSED: Council Member Suzanne Allen
Planner Ray Snyder
Commissioner Chapin Burks

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Almquist called the meeting to order, welcomed those in attendance. Chairman Almquist led the flag salute.

FINAL PLATS

A. Consider approval of a final plat for The Cliffs of Snow Canyon Plat J with 13 single-family residential lots located east of Snow Canyon Parkway at approximately 3052 North. Mr. Randy Deschamps, representative. Case No. 2005-FP-063

B. Consider approval of a final plat for Primrose Pointe Subdivision Phase 2 with 30 single-family residential lots located on Arroyo Drive and 50 North Street, west of Mall Drive. Ence Homes, applicant. Case No. 2005-FP-064

C. Consider approval of a final plat for Serenity Hills with 102 single-family residential lots located at 2000 South and 2660 East. Mr. Bryce Rowley, representative. Case No. 2005-FP-041

D. Consider approval of a final plat for Dole Visa @ Sunbrook Phase 1 with 39 single-family detached patio homes located at the southeasterly area of the Sunbrook development off Luce Del Sole Drive and Alienta Drive. Sunhill Homes, applicant. Case No. 2005-FP-065
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Two



E. Consider approval of final plat for Twin Creeks at Stonebridge Phase 1 with 43 single-family residential lots located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Stardust Drive and Dixie Drive. Mr. Jeff Norton, applicant. Case No. 2005-FP-066

Planner Mark Bradley said the final plats are ready for Planning Commissions approval with authorization for Chairman to Sign. Commissioner Clayton stated he could not vote on item B due to conflict of interest.

MOTION: Commissioner Clayton made a motion to recommend approval of the final plats A, C through E that was read into the record with authorization for chairman to sign. Commissioner Bracken seconded the motion. All voted aye.


MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to recommend approval of the of the final plat B which was read into the record with authorization for chairman to sign. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. All other members of the Planning Commission voted aye. Commissioner Clayton abstained.


PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE

Consider a zone change request from R-2 (Multiple Family Residential) and C-3 (General Commercial) to PD (Planned Development) Residential on 32.89 acres located southeast of the Riverside Drive and Foremaster Drive intersection. The area is referred to as Nettas Knoll. Mr. Craig Hopkinson, representative. Case No. 2005-ZC-028

Planner Mark Bradley said this request is to re-zone existing R-2 (Multiple Family Residential) and C-3 (General Commercial) zoning to PD (Planned Development) to create a residential condominium development. The next item on this agenda, the Hillside Development Permit, also relates with this area. The site is 32.89 acres but there are hillside issues therefore making the only buildable acreage 24.89. They are proposing 198 units but with the allowed number of units per the General Plan and hillside it could only be 173 units. The site is known as Nettas Knoll. Much of the site has expansive soils. The Hillside Review Board visited the site last year on July 28, 2004 to consider a hillside development plan in preparation for a zone change.

Mark pointed out that the adjacent property zones were zoned C-3 which is undeveloped in the north, R-1-10 which is undeveloped in the east and south and to the west it is R-3 which is also undeveloped. Mark presented aerial views on slides to the board.


PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Three



Mark said the proposed access road to the site would align with Foremaster Drive and Riverside Drive intersection. The entrance lane, single access road, would consist of 35 ft. of asphalt. Each building would include a sprinkler system based on access to the site. The proposal calls for two phases. Phase 1 would consist of Buildings1-4 and Phase 2 will consist of Buildings 5-12. The units will be two to four-story. The building heights will vary along the terrain of the hillside. The highest midpoint is approximately 44 ft. and the highest rooftop height is 48 ft.

Mark indicated that the proposed building exterior material would be EFIS (Exterior Insulation Finish System) which is a type of stucco, with a reddish-brown tile roof. The building colors would have a range of earth tone hues and would vary for each building facade. The parking would consist of single car garages, trellis covered parking and open parking stalls. The plan provides two stalls per unit with at least one garage per unit. Mark continued to say that the planned residential development shall have a minimum of thirty percent landscaping for the site. Hillside Review Board recommends that their landscaping should be xeriscape with minimum water usage using desert rocks and boulders where appropriate.

Staff recommends the following comments:

1. Staff recommends the rezone request be taken in a two-step process. The first meeting should serve as a presentation, public input, and discussion. The second meeting could be an action item. Between the two meetings, the applicant and staff could workout applicable details.
2. The request is consistent with the general plan land use, with the exception of the proposed number of units. The proposed number of units is 198; the allowable number of units is 173.
3. A revised site plan layout is required based on the number of allowable dwelling units of 173 with hillside density. The slope percentages and density formula is based on the previous hillside ordinance.
4. The architectural design of the buildings (i.e., relief in the buildings heights/rooftops) and placement of structures along the hillside with the natural terrain are supportive elements of the City General Plan and Design Guidelines.
5. The Planning Commission should have a comfort level on the height of the buildings upon the knoll and where the buildings are placed on the hillside. A site visit could take place and/or a rendering of the buildings super-imposed on the hillside could be requested.
6. Subject to a hillside development permit and conditions pertaining to the permit.
7. Subject to building setback of 30 ft. from ridgeline.
8. Subject to a traffic impact study requirements.
9. Subject to working out the alignment and details (easement and/or improvements) of the Middleton Wash Trail.
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Four



10. The applicant is to provide additional landscape (xeriscape) area to meet the requirement. The landscape plans are to meet the hillside review board recommendation and be prepared by a licensed landscape architect.
11. Determine with which plans and/or buildings the various amenities are to be completed.
Commissioner Campbell asked if they could show the perimeter in relationship to the knolls. Mark said this sits right on top of the knolls.

Commissioner Taylor asked if the 4-story buildings or the 2-story buildings will be on the top side of the knolls? Mark replied he would have the developer answer that question.

Chairman Almquist asked could they separate some of the items from the zone. Mark said the language allows you to increase the height if it is part of the consideration. Everything would tie together on this particular zone.

Chairman Almquist said on item 10 of staff comments staff stated the recommendation for landscaping to be provided by a licensed landscaper architect. Chairman Almquist would add familiar with the soil and plant materials suitable for the area. Because he has seen a great deal of landscaping plans from up north and feels they have no application to be here.

Craig Hopkinson representative for applicant pointed out on the aerial map where the peak is located on the knolls.

Chairman Almquist asked if they were going to take the top of the peak off? Craig said no, they were going to bring it down to about 30 ft. on the first elevation. They dont plan on excavating as much as they previously planned.

Commissioner Clayton asked about the 45 ft. height. Craig said the architect has designed the units to fit the land. The highest midpoint is approximately 44 ft. and the highest rooftop height is 48 ft. The rooftops vary in height based on the architectural design to break up the roof silhouette view from the valley. If staff recommended that they not go above the 4-story situation then they could minimize that and stay at 3-story if they had to. They like it because it does break it up.

Commissioner Campbell said in relationship to these heights, it would be helpful if they had some sort of 3-dimension look of the buildings on top of the knolls.

Commissioner Clayton said for purposes of clarification - in the past there has been some discussion with Ence Homes and the property owners and those discussions have not proceeded to anything. He does not feel that this is conflict of interest.
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Five



Commissioner Taylor asked about the soil expansion. His concern is the use of irrigation with the soils. Are you trying to reduce the type of greenery? Craig said the soil engineers noticed
under a layer of ground on top of the knolls that there is 15 ft. of cement rock which sits right on top of the blue clay. It took 18 hours to drill through to 16 ft. of blue clay. They have tried to minimize the greenery and the trees. Craig said the drainage issue comes down naturally and away from the expansive soils. They have put a little bit of greenery in front of the units. They have tried to leave the rest of the knolls in the natural state.

Chairman Almquist said he believes the Hillside Review Board did not say - stay away from trees totally - just stay away from trees that require a great deal of watering.

Chairman Almquist said it would be effective if they took a picture from the east ridge showing the knolls and the buildings sitting on the top of the knolls.

Planner Mark Bradley said the only comment he has is that they will not be able to address this at the next Planning Commission meeting. It could probably be looked at by October 11th.

MOTION: Commissioner Stout made a motion to recommend that this item be tabled until the October 11th meeting to allow additional time for documentation as they have suggested here tonight to be presented by the applicant. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion.

Commissioner Clayton stated he will not vote on this matter until he is clear with council weather he has a conflict.

All other members of the Planning Commission voted aye. Commissioner Clayton abstained.


HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS

A. Consider a request for a hillside development permit for a proposed multiple family residential development located on the Nettas Knoll, southeast of Foremaster Drive and Riverside Drive intersection. Mr. Craig Hopkinson, representative. Case No. 2005-HS-014

Planner Mark Bradley stated this goes along with the other piece of Nettas Knoll. This request is to obtain a hillside development permit for a proposed multiple family residential development. The site is located on the hilltop of what is known as Nettas Knoll. Much of the site has expansive soils. The proposed single access (private road) to the development would extend from Foremaster Drive and Riverside Drive intersection location.

PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Six



Mark said the Hillside Review Board makes the following conditions;

1. Allow additional cuts for road access width for emergency services and identify the proposed access as a pre-disturbed area.
2. Building structures on blue clay are to be on piers.
3. Water that falls in the developed area be captured and carried to the street.
4. Landscaping shall be xeriscape with minimum water usage using desert rocks and boulders where appropriate and contain a minimum lawn area.
5. The buildings as planned will meet the required setbacks from the cuesta on the one side (southwest corner).

MOTION: Commissioner Stout made a motion to recommend that this item be tabled until the October 11th meeting to allow additional time for documentation as they have suggested here tonight to be presented by the applicant. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion.

Commissioner Clayton stated he will not vote on this matter until he is clear with council whether he has a conflict or not.

All other members of the Planning Commission voted aye. Commissioner Clayton abstained.


B. Consider a request for a hillside development permit for a proposed office building located at 400 North Bluff Street. Mr. Paul Ellsworth, representative for High Pointe, LLC. Case No. 2005-HS-010

Planner Mark Bradley said on May 19, 2004, the Hillside Review Board visited the site based on a request made by Ellsworth Paulsen Construction to borrow some soil from this site and take it to the new Hilton Hotel site. The Board determined the amount requested was not a hillside issue if they provide a letter that they are not changing stability, that they will stay away from the toe of the slope, that they will bench away from, install environmental fencing, follow all normal grading requirements, and allows staff to work with the applicant as necessary to meet the intent of the HSRB here today.

Mark continued to say that on July 21, 2005, the Hillside Review Board visited the site and tabled the request to allow the applicants geotechnical engineer time to respond to the followings items; 1) change of the hillside slope from 1/2:1 to 1/4:1, 2) rock fall mitigation, 3)



PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Seven



building setback location from existing block wall, 4) seeps as mentioned in the Klienfielder Report, and 5) requested trees to be shown on the landscape plan at the north and south ends of the project against the hillside.

Mark said the Hillside Review Board revisited the site on August 17, 2005 to address the above items mentioned at the July 28, 2005 meeting and recommends approval of the request subject to the hillside review board discussion and concerns on items 1-5 (above) with the following conditions;

1. Rock fall mitigation to match section A-A as discussed with a landing (rock fall catchment) at the base of the slope.
2. Comply with recommendation on building setback from the block retaining wall as stated in the revised geotechnical report (if closer than 25 feet to the block wall, deep piers are required).
3. Install trees on each end of the parking structure/lot adjacent to hillside to mitigate cuts.
4. Proposed access road not to exceed 15% slope.

Mark pointed out their second access but this would only be approved if UDOT makes the approval. Staff is concerned about losing the mature greenery that is already on the land.

Chairman Almquist read the conditional use permit into the record (which is the next item on the agenda). The Planning Commissioners will vote on both items as they are related.

Paul Ellsworth representative of High Pointe LLC said they are 14 ft. below the slab site. There is a comment made on the access moving it along the south side of the 3-Amigos. This ramp is right on their property line. It would be a shared access because they will cut a little bit into their parking.

Chairman Almquist said the top of the clock tower is 82 ft. Paul replied yes. Chairman Almquist said where is it relative to the ridgeline. Does it reach higher than the ridgeline. Paul said he has not researched that.

Chairman Almquist made a comment that the building is attractive but he is concerned about the height. Paul said they like the way it looks.

Commissioner Bracken said it appears you are a couple of parking spaces short. Paul said they hope to make it up on the access of 400 North.


PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Eight



Lu Fischer a local resident said her concern is the construction of the building and will there be any more of the vertical cut into the toe of the hill. She said that every time it rains that hill starts to deteriorate. Her other concern is the clock, where does that come in relationship to her property. She also hopes there are no bells in the clock tower. She said the other concern is traffic and the south entrance and ingress between 3-Amigos. Her biggest concern is the cutting into the toe of the hill.

Georg Ann Macdonald said she is concerned about her view and the lighting of the building at night. The traffic is also a concern.

Chairman Almquist said there is a deceleration lane to help view the traffic coming and also have people get out of the way so they dont block the traffic. Chairman Almquist said the top of the tower does not quite yet reach the level of Ms. Macdonalds backyard.

Chairman Almquist asked about the depth of the building. Paul said about 70 to 80 ft. long.

Martin Peterson lives on Donlee Drive and he has the same concerns as his neighbors. Martin asked about the parking stalls. The tire store used to have access out onto Bluff Street. He has the same concerns about the lights.

Willa N. Derrick said he wants to speak on the height issue. Going southbound on Bluff Street there is heavy traffic going in both lanes. There is only room for two cars turning right. He spoke about the deceleration lane - he feels they may need another deceleration lane once you pass 400 North. The Donlee Drive road often backs up to the project building which will block those who want to turn into the proposed building. He recommends the City Traffic Engineer study these concerns and come up with a solution for this project. He believes a traffic light should be looked at for this corner.

Commissioner Clayton asked if the traffic engineer has looked at this. Staff said no. Commissioner Clayton said this building except for the height can go on this site. Staff replied that is correct. Commissioner Clayton said the road could come in. So the issue here tonight is the clock tower.

Bob Nicholson stated you measure building height from top back of curb. This was measured by grade. Bob said the traffic is a Planning Commission issue.

Commissioner Clayton called a question.


PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Nine



Chairman Almquist said according to the map LL1 the contour lines shows the top of the clock tower is 40 ft. below Mrs. Macdonalds back yard. Even if the clock tower is lite it would be below 40 ft.

Chairman Almquist said rerouting 400 North might be a thought. Commissioner Clayton said he thinks the issue on traffic needs to be heard from their engineer and City Engineers.

MOTION: Commissioner Clayton said he was ready to make a motion with respect to the building on site that he moves to approve it but it has to come back before the Planning Commission with information relative to traffic with issues that can be dealt with.


DISCUSSION ON MOTION

Chairman Almquist said it would be probably be safe to say a final accurate traffic study could not be done yet and have them base their decision upon it without them knowing for sure that UDOT is going to give them that access.

Commissioner Stout said there is a direct correlation between the height of the building which eventually equates into square footage which then equates to the number of traffic or the amount of traffic that will be utilizing this building. She said the height is realistically is somewhat of an issue as well because it does end up translating into additional traffic. Where as you build a one story building it limits the square footage and limits the number of patrons who will going to this building and limits the traffic. She agrees the traffic needs to be looked at.

Commissioner Taylor said he still thinks they need to look at the issue of view. As they do the calculations they find that tower does in fact extend beyond the height of the cliff. Commissioner Stout said it is 40 ft. below the cliff. Commissioner Taylor disagreed.

There was discussion among the commissioners about the exact height of the clock tower in relation to the cliff.









PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Ten




MOTION: (continued) Commissioner Clayton made a motion to continue this item to October 11th for the purposes of clarifying height in relationship to the hill to the west and the homes above and also traffic issues that arise from roughly 30,000 or plus square feet of office space that there be information from their engineer relative to traffic. Commissioner Stout seconded the motion.

Commissioner Campbell said when they show the cross section of the hill if they would also show Bluff Street, the diamond block wall and show the pad elevation. But they need to continue all the way to the top to show the adjacent property line and identify that property line and show it to relationship to this building.

Commissioner Clayton said he wants that added to his motion. Commissioner Stout seconded that. All voted aye.


CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

A. Consider a conditional use permit request to construct an office building that would exceed the allowable thirty-five foot height limit. The proposed average roof midpoint height is thirty-seven (37') and the maximum roof peak is forty-eight feet (48'). There is also a decorative clock tower steeple with a maximum peak height of eighty-two (82'). The property is located in the C-3 (General Commercial) zone at the corner of 400 North (Donlee Drive) and Bluff Street. Mr. Paul Ellsworth, representative for High Pointe, LLC. Case No. 2005-CUP-033

Planner Mark Bradley presented a slide presentation of the site. Street trees would be required along Bluff Street. Mark said on the corner lot that you take the mid-point of each of the two streets and then you take the average of those two points.

Mark indicated that if the Planning Commission recommends approval the following conditions are suggested:

1) The building is approved with an average roof mid-point height of thirty-eight (38') and a maximum roof peak of forty eight feet (48'). The decorative clock tower steeple is approved with a maximum peak height of eighty-two feet (82').
2) The basement shall be used for an elevator pit, fire sprinkler room, mechanical equipment rooms, office storage, and a custodial area. No office area is approved in the basement.
3) The basement shall not be converted for future office use.

PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Eleven



4) Parking shall be demonstrated to meet the zoning ordinance requirements during the site plan review process by staff.
5) A SPR (Site Plan Review) application along with 4 sets of plans shall be submitted to the engineering department for standard plan check review.
6) The applicant shall comply with the hillside review board committee conditions which are; approval of this request is subject to hillside review boards on site discussion of August 17, 2005 and their concerns of items 1-4 (form the geotechnical report), the understanding that rock fall will be mitigated as section A-A as designed, will be located at the base of slope (seven foot (7') retaining wall and debris catch/maintenance accessible area), building setback if closer than 25 feet will then require deep pier construction, install trees on each end of the parking structure, mitigate the cut of road, and the face of road not to exceed 15% slope.
7) The covered parking spaces against the slope shall be installed and also serve as a protection against falling rock.

Traffic conditions are;
1) The two proposed driveways; one on Bluff Street and the other on 400 North (Donalee Drive) shall meet the requirements of the City Traffic Engineer and also that the proposed Bluff Street driveway shall meet the requirements of the State of Utah (UDOT).
2) The applicant shall work with the both agencies to reduce the potential conflicts of traffic movement between these two closely spaced driveways on Bluff Street.
3) All signing and striping shall conform to the City of St. George and MUTCD standards.

MOTION: Commissioner Clayton made a motion stating this item needs to return to Planning Commission on October 11th with an elevation analysis relative to the building showing Bluff Street, the pad elevation and the hillside behind from the top of the hill and the rear property lines of the homes that are on the top. Showing where that building comes in relation to those homes. Commissioner Stout seconded the motion.

Chairman Almquist asked for another tower rendering. Commissioner Campbell said also address how they plan on lighting the back of the building and find two more parking spaces.

Commissioner Clayton accepted that into his motion. Commissioner Stout seconded the motion. All voted aye.

Deputy City Attorney Ron Read said when it gets re-noticed lets inform the residents of the height.

PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Twelve



4) Consider a conditional use permit request a communications facility including a 50 foot pole with antennas and a 12 foot by 20 foot building to house communication equipment. The project is located on the westerly side of a 2-acre site located within the R-1-10 zone between Serenity Hills Subdivision and Stone Cliff Subdivision. Mr. Russell Bateman, applicant. Case No. 2005-CUP-030

Bob Nicholson said this site is on the back side of Schmutz Hill. It is in an R-1-10 zone. The wireless cell towers require a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Bateman has had a small cell communications facility for many years at this location prior to it being annexed into the City. When Serenity Hills subdivision was approved the City did approve the access lane between lots 98 and 99 that goes up to his site. Bob said there will not be any additional hillside cutting. Mr. Bateman is proposing a 12 x 20 equipment shelter then a 50 ft mono pole.

Bob Nicholson stated that if the conditional use permit is recommended for approval by the Planning Commission that a condition of approval be attached which details the method mitigation of scaring.

Russell Bateman the owner of the Rocky Point Communications said back in 1981 when he build on this site there was not much out there. He contacted Jim Hanes and he has had a lot of experience building on these sites. Jim suggested they pull in some soil engineers. They would have a security fence around the pole.

Chairman Almquist asked if he understood what staff said when they said no additional cuts on the hillside. Mr. Bateman said what he is proposing will not require any more cuts.

Commissioner Stout asked Mr. Bateman if there were plans to migrate the cut which is already there on the side of that road. Mr. Bateman said it will be a closed road and the only people would be the ones that would need access. Commissioner Stout wanted to know if the scarring will be reduced in relation to that road. Mr. Bateman said he would like to cover the scarring of that road. He used the road with Countys permission for 14 years. He went to his attorney and the attorney told him it would be cheaper to build a road then go to court with the City.

Chairman Almquist asked when did you first cut that road? Mr. Bateman said back in 1995. Chairman Almquist asked if he was responsible for the additional cutting that just occurred two years ago? Mr. Bateman replied he was but they moved it a little bit on his property because under a new survey it was on Serenity Hills property.

Commissioner Stout said this has surfaced as an issue because the road has been cut for some time it does not meet the Hillside requirements. At this point Mr. Bateman needs to look at how PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Thirteen



he will mitigate the scarring. Mr. Bateman said there was nothing mentioned regarding the Hillside in any of those meetings he attended.

Chairman Almquist asked staff what mitigation would they recommend. Mark Bradley said he doesnt have an answer for them tonight. Prior to the Hillside Review Board going out to the Serenity Hills there has been another cut. He is not prepared to address this tonight. Typically the Hillside Review Board would address these items when they are out on the site. Mark made a suggestion to table this until the issue is worked out with the applicant and the City.

Mr. Bateman said when this was done 10 years ago he was cut off to accessing his property. The City ignored his 14 years of accessing the County road. He was isolated. He was told that he would access the property at the lower level at his expense.

Commissioner Taylor asked if he has legal access through Serenity Hills. Mr. Bateman said he has a legal easement through lot 99 which is recorded. Commissioner Taylor said would it be just a dirt road. Mr. Bateman said it is a dirt road but it will be gated.

Bob Nicholson said what the City did was not to diminish his rights. What happen is there was not a true easement. Because if he had one the City would not tell him he could not use the access. Bob thinks what happened is they found out there was true descriptive easement. But as far as the reclamation staff could go out and work out an agreement to clean up the previous location.

Chairman Almquist said this town has been most liberal than other cities allowing people to do things on the hillside. Part of the letter that was sent to Mr. Bateman was not saying stop and desist. What it was saying, what can you do to make this look better.

Jim Ames said he is Sprint wireless operator for this town. They have a stake in this site. Mr. Bateman built this site back in 1981 and a road was made to this site. There was no hillside issues then.

Chairman Almquist said what they are talking about is the road cut that was made 2 years ago in a hillside that increased the visibility of that scar and what is Mr. Bateman going to do about it.

Jim Ames said let him offer a possible solution. One of the things that has been discussed with the new development going on is that there may be some additional access available. When that time comes they could come back and put the road back to more of its natural state. The access right now is only utilized for technicians.


PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Fourteen



Commissioner Taylor said that is a reasonable approach. It is embarrassing when there is a cut in a hill when everyone else is obeying the hillside rules. Mr. Bateman said he is not happy with the cut into the hill. He was told it would be a public access and not private. He thought he would have no problems in the 14 years he used the access.

Planner Mark Bradley said the real issue is not the access but the mitigation to the hillside ordinance. When they looked at Stone Cove there were some hillside violations and they made changes there. It is not the burden of the Hillside Review Board to address the violations as much as it is to go before the City Council to address that information. This is what took place with that particular applicant.

Mark Bradley said the applicant could come back to Hillside Review Board and tell them how he will dress it up or table it until it gets resolve.

Commissioner Stout said to staff dont you think the City Council will want to have an answer to why this hill was mitigated. They are going to be saying the bottom line is the scar needs to be mitigated. Mark said that is where the options are brought forward. These things are addressed.

Chairman Almquist said they have to play on a level playing field for everyone. Mr. Bateman has made a scar and the City Council is going to want to know what he is going to do about it. Prepare this before the staff goes before City Council because this will be brought up.

Jim Ames said it wasnt pointed out very clearly the overall vision for this project is to clean this area up. Their interest in this is to help Mr. Bateman.

Angie Adams said she is working with Mr. Bateman to have a wireless internet network in Southern Utah. She also owns lot 915 in Stone Cliff. She sent out several individuals to this area for her proposed wireless internet network and 2 of the 3 people called and said there was no road to this area. She had to describe in detail how to find that road. She doesnt feel the road is that obvious.

MOTION: Commissioner Stout made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a
conditional use permit request a communications facility including a 50 foot pole with antennas and a 12 foot by 20 foot building to house communication equipment. The project is located on the westerly side of a 2-acre site located within the R-1-10 zone between Serenity Hills Subdivision and Stone Cliff Subdivision. Mr. Russell Bateman, applicant, with the stipulation that the applicant have a plan to mitigate the hillside cut to present to City Council. Commissioner Clayton seconded the motion. All voted aye.



PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Fifteen




5) Consider a conditional use permit request to convert a previously developed property to an automobile operation for automotive brokering, auto and RV rentals, and provide automotive accessories services related to automotive sales located at the northeast corner of the intersection of 700 South and 1100 East. W.D. Auto L.L.C., applicant. Case No. 2005-CUP-031

Bob Nicholson said this site was most recently used as the E-Bay Auction. The City Ordinance states that when it was used for something else and you convert it to a car lot then it becomes a Conditional Use Permit. This was originally a single-family home. The applicant does propose to make an addition to the home in the rear for servicing. The parking ordinance requires 1 parking space for every 7 cars displayed. The service center would be 1 parking space for every 400 sq. ft. of building. Staff recommends a condition be placed on the Conditional Use Permit that restricts the site from being used as a retail business due to the lack of parking spaces. Regarding trees which are located along 1100 East, there is one which is dead which will need to be replaced. Then he would need to put in more trees and shrubs along the corner of 1100 East.

Jason Smith representing the applicant said the applicant is looking at this area as short term.

Planner Mark Bradley said Wayne Reese is the applicant for this project. Mark said the adjacent building to the east is a Family Auto Center. When you look at a site that has been converted compared to a site that is designed for the space there is no doubt it works better.

Commissioner Campbell asked do they not require colored elevations to see what this will look like. Mark replied they have shown some samples but you are right there is usually a color rendering. Commissioner Campbell said they need to solve that design and see what that will look like. Mark said they can make that part of their recommendation.

Commissioner Stout pointed out the trees in the rear of the building. Why would they need to be torn out and turned into asphalt. They need to take some of this into consideration. Dont take out the landscaping that is there unless you are planning on putting in more landscaping somewhere else on this property.

MOTION: Commissioner Bracken made a motion to table this item or until they are ready. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. All vote aye.


D. Consider a conditional use permit request to provide retail sales and outdoor display of landscape rock located within a C-3 (General Commercial) zone at 447 No. Bluff Street. Mr. Robert Rusby, applicant. Case No. 2005-CUP-034

PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Sixteen



Bob Nicholson said this is on the agenda because landscape rock sales is a conditional use. The issue before you tonight is the question of access through this property. Customers are trying to get back and forth to the traffic signal through this location. At this point the main issue would be how much of the rock material should be displayed on Bluff Street. The applicant mentioned the tire store and how they display the tires. They have moved the rock displayed and moved it to the rear. If they could limit the display then staff would not have a problem with it. There is limited parking.

Ed Mueller part owner of the AllBuild Construction said when they received their business license they were not aware that they needed a conditional use permit. In his opinion there is nothing out there on the lot that is unattractive. They have received nothing but compliments from residents. The code enforcement officer said they are satisfied with the way they have cleaned up their area. Customers have asked if he will have big trucks coming in for delivery. He doesnt have any big trucks coming in.

Commissioner Campbell said this is such a grey area - you basically have a lot of signs out front. The applicant said he feels the rocks out there are art work. Each one that is out there is for sale just as a car dealer displays his vehicles for sale. He feels that it is absolutely the same.

Rod Ence said he is the manager of the property surrounding this parcel. The property line is on the south side. The parking spaces 8 through 11 belong to the North Block Plaza Association. Also parking spaces 12 and 13. The problem he gets into is that the applicant needs to utilize the associations parking lot with fork-lifts. If they were to fence off the parking then he would not have access with him on his side. His objection is putting all the stone in the back of the applicants property and having to use their parking. The applicant doesnt really have the property to accomplish what he is doing without utilizing them. They are not giving him permission to utilize their property unless they work something out.

Chase Ence said there is retail business which is in back of these buildings. They have big piles of rocks to look at.

Chairman Almquist asked Mr. Ence if he owned the property when it was first built as a restaurant. Rod said this was developed by Jay Ence. The gas fumes ruined the restaurant building. The Tri-Valley people purchased it as part of the settlement. Chairman Almquist asked was there ever an access agreement? Rod said it was part of the Tri-Valley Association. Chairman Almquist said they would need to see if there was ever a cross parking agreement. Rod said when it was built as a restaurant it was part of the association.



PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Seventeen



Deputy City Attorney Ron Read said any agreement usually stays with the building. Chairman Almquist said he feels they would still have a right to park there. Rod said the title company could not fine anything in relation to a cross-park agreement. As far as he knows there is none.

Chairman Almquist said he sees that both parties need to work out an agreement with each other. Perhaps have AllBuild Construction help to maintain the parking lot every 4 years. Chairman Almquist said the best way is work with the client.

Martin Lestick said he purchased the property through Tri-Valley Association when it went through bankruptcy. Before he leased it there were wrecked cars parked on the side of the building and behind the building. One of the problems when you come through the parking lot there is ingress and egress out there on Bluff Street as on the other side of the property. Over the years people decided to drive through the parking lot and then through the gas station to reach the road that has a traffic light. This is dangerous. It was his decision to block the traffic with the rock designs. Martin said he had a meeting with Rod Ence and they said if they joined their association then they would not complain anymore. But they would need the driveway open so they could get through there. The Mayor came on the lot and his comment was the product was displayed nicely but how will you keep peace here. Martin said people shouldnt drive through other peoples property to get to a stop light. This is where the discussion ended. He is not sure of the answer on how to take care of this. He feels his client would have a difficult time with his business if the association put a fence up and eliminated the parking on the side of the building.

Rod Ence said on 5th North where the light is that whole access goes across his property. There is a situation here where access needs to be worked out jointly.

Commissioner Taylor asked how are they going to resolve this. Rod Ence said they could do a win-win situation. But he wants protection to being able to go through that property. Rod said they are on the same meter.

Chairman Almquist said you actually allowed two street trees to be cut down on that property. The thing is everyone needs to get along.

Ed Mueller said he is willing to work this situation out. He has abided by what the City required for him to clean up the area. He only has one pallet with rocks against his building. The most he has every had is three clients at a time. He is concerned with clients that have children and is afraid that when traffic goes through his lot there may be harmed done to the children. He is willing to work with the Ences.



PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Eighteen




MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a a conditional use permit request to provide retail sales and outdoor display of landscape rock located within a C-3 (General Commercial) zone at 447 No. Bluff Street. Mr. Robert Rusby, applicant, subject to the businesses working out the parking. He feels the rock business needs to have some kind of protection. The through traffic in front of the building be mitigated and resolved so that it doesnt put patrons at risk when they try to shop there.

Commissioner Clayton said it is his understanding the City requested that this area be opened. There is no way to the traffic light. So your motion almost begs him to violate what he is suppose to do.

Commissioner Stout said the Ences asked for that to be opened up not the City.

Commissioner Taylor said he will amend his motion to say - if it can be resolved as a safe and secure passage it can remain open.

Deputy City Attorney Ron Read made a suggestion that they table this for a month until they can work something out. Lets see if they can work out their parking issue. He needs 10 parking spots on this site - he only has 7.

Commissioner Taylor said lets table this for a month or so. Commissioner Taylor said they need to come back with something in writing. Commissioner Stout seconded the motion. All voted aye.
PRELIMINARY PLATS

A. Consider a preliminary plat request for Huntington at Stonebridge Phase 5 with 6 single-family detached patio homes located off Stonebridge Drive, west of Dixie Drive. Mr. Brian McMullin, representative. Case No. 2005-PP-035

Mark Bradley said this is west to Springfield Townhomes. This is fairly straight forward. Staff would like to see an overall number of units when they get to the final phase. Mark said staff comments are; 1) the rear setback is 25 ft. based on a 10 ft. limited common area and a 15 ft. irrigation easement (common area), which runs along the easterly side of the phase. Staff has asked the applicant to show this on the plans and 2) the overall density for the Huntington portion of the Stonebridge Planned Development will be reviewed and finalized with the last phase (future phase 6).
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Nineteen



Commissioner Stout asked what happens when they do get to phase 6 and they are already at the maximum density. Mark said he doesnt believe they will be - there are quite a few number of units that still could be there.

Chairman Almquist said is this similar to the subdivision Sun River where they were allowed 3,000 units but during that time they increased the size of the lots. Mark said he has not been able to address that issue. But he feels comfortable to move forward with this request.

Commissioner Bracken said what would happen if this phase went through and then they changed their minds and sold off the final phase and the new owners went a another direction. Mark replied it would need to tie in with the loop road on the north end and existing units.

Jason from Rosenberg Associates had nothing to add.

MOTION: Commissioner Stout made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a preliminary plat request for Huntington at Stonebridge Phase 5 with 6 single-family detached patio homes located off Stonebridge Drive, west of Dixie Drive. Mr. Brian McMullin, representative. Commissioner Bracken seconded the motion. All voted aye.


B. Consider a preliminary plat request for Escalera Phase 3 with 50 single-family residential lots located at 1900 East and approximately 1150 North. Mr. Milo McCowan, representative. Case No. 2005-PP-040

Planner Mark Bradley said what is basically different the Hillside plan had a road through that created a site distance problem. The number they are providing is disturbing less area. Mark said the subdivision layout has been modified from the approved hillside plans to address site distance. The number of lots remains the same. The designated open space area is adjusted with fairly equal proportions.

Commissioner Stout said there is only 73 ft. between these intersections is that acceptable. Mark said they have been working on this site very carefully. This is the third time they have redone this site.

MOTION: Commissioner Clayton made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a preliminary plat request for Escalera Phase 3 with 50 single-family residential lots located at 1900 East and approximately 1150 North. Mr. Milo McCowan, representative. Commissioner Bracken seconded the motion. All voted aye.


PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Twenty



B. Consider a preliminary plat request for Foremaster Ridge Phase 5 with 43 single-family residential lots located at 540 South and East Ridge Drive, west of Five Sisters Drive. Mr. Doug Rogers, applicant. Case No. 2005-PP-044

Planner Mark Bradley said this site is south of Phase 4 of this area. This ties into Five Sisters Drive. They are proposing five flag lots. The Planning Commission determines that it is not feasible. This is something Planning Commission needs to consider and have in their motion.

Mark said staff comments are;

1) Details on the street radius where East Ridge Drive and 540 South Street connect are to be finalized with construction drawings.
2) There is thirty-foot (30') setback from abrupt edge.
3) The applicant/developer would like approval to continue the stacked rock wall on top of the abrupt edge (lava rock) similar to what was approved with Foremaster Ridge Phase 3 and recently Foremaster Ridge Phase 4.

Doug Rogers with R&D Development said this will be the same as the other phases with 30 ft. setbacks. This will be kept uniform all the way down through.

MOTION: Commissioner Clayton made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a preliminary plat request for Foremaster Ridge Phase 5 with 43 single-family residential lots located at 540 South and East Ridge Drive, west of Five Sisters Drive. Mr. Doug Rogers, applicant, and found that the design regarding the two flag lots accommodates a better use to the overall site and include approval for the stack rock. Commissioner Stout seconded the motion. All voted aye.


Commissioner Campbell stepped down for the next item due to conflict of interest.

LOT SPLITS

A. Consider a request to divide a parcel of land into two parcels located on Sunset Blvd. at approximately 2100 West, west of Daybreak Drive. Mr. Shawn Farris, representative. Case No. 2005LS-009

Bob Nicholson said the location is on Sunset Blvd and zoned C-2. It is an acre in half in size. They want to split the lot. The conditions are pretty standard for the lot split. Bob indicated what staff recommends:

PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Twenty-One



1) Provide separate deeds for each created parcel.
2) In addition to the legal descriptions that appear on the R.O.S. (Record of Survey; which is filed with the County Recorder / and not recorded) provide the City a separate 8-1/2 x 11 legal descriptions for each parcel (for the case file).
3) A utilities and drainage easement shall be completed, notarized, and recorded.
4) The City Attorney Office shall review and determine if a reciprocal access agreement is required.
5) The applicant shall submit for review all legal documents to the City Attorneys Office.

Traffic Engineering conditions are:

1) The driveway on Sunset Blvd. be lined up directly across Sunset Blvd. from the Mountain American Credit Union driveway.
2) That a cross access (reciprocal access agreement) easement be prepared for the two lots so access can be achieved between the lots.
3) That the corner lots direct access be obtained on Daybreak Drive and no access will be approved on Sunset Blvd. for this corner lot.
4) If the land use changes from an office-type land use to land use with greater intensity for traffic, that the driveway on Sunset Blvd. be re-evaluated by UDOT and the City to see if it is still an appropriate location for the more intense land use.

Bob Nicholson said the applicant has agreed to the cross access.

Shawn Farris representative of the applicant said it is not right on the lot line. It would line up with the road right across the street with the credit union.

MOTION: Commissioner Stout made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a request to divide a parcel of land into two parcels located on Sunset Blvd. at approximately 2100 West, west of Daybreak Drive. Mr. Shawn Farris, representative, subject to conditions in staffs report. Commissioner Clayton seconded the motion. All voted aye.


B. Consider a request to divide a parcel of land into two parcels located at 3430 East and approximately 1880 South. Mr. Todd Abelhouzen, applicant. Case No. 2005-FS-010

Planner Mark Bradley presented an aerial photo. Mr. Abelhouzen owns the parcel and he is asking for flag lot for parcel 2. There are easements around each parcels which will be required. Mark went over staffs comments:

1) The proposed lot split is abnormal, whereas Parcel #2 would become a flag lot and Parcel #1 would abut Parcel #2 on three sides. The Planning Commission is to determine whether
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Twenty-Two



standard lots are not feasible and whether the arrangement of lots shall be such that there will be no foreseeable difficulties. Staff recommends the land be divided into two rectangle parcels, a west parcel and an east parcel.
2) On September 1, 2005, the City Council approved a request from Mr. Abelhouzen to build a home on his property with the use of a septic tank until such time he can hook on to the sewer system. He will enter into a development agreement with the City. The applicant plans to construct his home on Parcel #2.
3) With the lot split request, Parcel #1 would require a deed restriction prohibiting the issuance of a building permit until sewer service is available under the City concurrency policy. This is the same condition of approval placed on the Chuck Spilker property along 3000 East and the Bird Barn property on 2170 South.
4) The applicant is required to dedicate his portion of the street right-of-way along 3430 East and along the north boundary.
5) Improvements. Generally, the City Council has allowed individuals in the outlining areas/agricultural areas to enter into a delayed improvement agreement to relieve the burden of excess improvement requirements. This would require the City Council approval.

Todd Abelhouzen said approximately a year and half ago they purchased this property after they leased it and farmed it. The credit union wanted to make sure they were purchasing a buildable lot. So Todd ran a water line to the south of the road and put in a fire hydrant using a financial institution for his resources. About a year ago he found out that they would have to pay off the financial institution in order to build upon the parcel. The main reason for this request is to do a lot split so they can build upon part of the parcel. They ran into a problem where the County has a proposed road going along the north boundary. They didnt feel they were creating an impact by building one home almost on a 9 acre parcel which would cause them not only to deed the property for the road but do a future development agreement.

Commissioner Stout said she is not sure why he needs a flag lot because you will access your house from 3430 East. Todd said that is correct.

Chairman Almquist said is this because you will be responsible for developing the whole north section of a road during some future date. Todd replied that is correct, so I wont build my home if that is what is required of me.

Deputy City Attorney Ron Read said the City would require the north side of the road to be dedicated. Mr. Abelhouzen doesnt want to do that because it is costly.

Commissioner Clayton said why dont you want to dedicate a road there. Todd replied that he isnt ready to give up 39,000 sq. ft. for a road dedication and sign on a future development agreement to have one house on a piece of property.
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Twenty-Three



Deputy City Attorney Ron Read explained to the Planning Commission what the requirements would be for a road dedication. Planner Mark Bradley said the City is not forcing the lot split. This is an option to have a less burden on a requirement which is required on a concurrence policy.

Chairman Almquist said can he undo the lot split because he owns the whole parcel. Deputy City Attorney said he can undo it by going down the County and deeding the pieces back together.

Commissioner Stout said it was her understanding that Todd Abelhouzen would have to dedicate his portion of the right-of-way along 3430 and along the north boundary. What is the point of dedicating the property on the north boundary? She understands that is the master plan road there. Deputy City Attorney Ron Read replied it has always been there.

Commissioner Stout said she doesnt feel right to be requiring someone to do this when his intentions are to never subdivide that property. Yet the City tells him they want him to dedicate a portion of that property for a road that may or may not every exist.

Bob Nicholson said this is a requirement to agree to dedicate it at some time. Todd said even if he doesnt develop the ground he still has to give up the ground? Deputy City Attorney Ron Read said when you develop and/or when its needed - you will have to dedicate the road.

Todd said the City is asking for him to give up something that he had to pay for. The City is not sure where that road is suppose to be because of where the neighbors house is located..

Deputy City Attorney Ron Read said one of the things the City does is by the time it hits City Council the development agreement is drafted and agreed upon by all parties.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to recommend to City Council approval a request to divide a parcel of land into two parcels located at 3430 East and approximately 1880 South. Mr. Todd Abelhouzen, applicant, with the stipulation that staffs comments on items 1 through 5 with correction on item #4 to indicate the dedication of portion of the street right-of-way along 3430 East and delete the portion along the north boundary. Commissioner Clayton seconded the motion. All voted aye.


Commissioner Campbell stepped down due to conflict of interest in the next item.



PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Twenty-Four




SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATION

A. Consider a request for a site plan and building elevation approval for a proposed hotel located within a PD (Planned Development) zone at 2680 South between 60 East and 120 East, near the northeast quadrant of the of the Bloomington Interchange. Mr. Kim Campbell, representative. Case No. 2005-SPBE-009

Bob Nicholson said this basically before you tonight because it is a PD zone. They did not have site plans for each of the lots. They plan on combining three of the lots. They would either have to merge the lots or amend the plat. The other issue is the building height. The tower would be 61 ft. in height. This is north of the Trailer Sales. The City suggested they stubbed this road on the northeast corner of the subdivision so it can come out on the east side of the Trailer Sales and get out onto Brigham Road.

Bob Nicholson said staff recommends approval subject to:

1) Traffic engineers review and approve.
1) Signage will be approved under a separate permit.
2) Submit either a Lot Merge application to remove the interior lot lines, or submit an Amended Plat application.
3) Amending the site plan to meet parking requirements for hotels (resolve the parking space requirement/one space short).

Jim Wright the applicant said he feels this will be a great location. He said 120 East will be a front entrance at some time.

Commissioner Taylor said you are short on parking space. Kim Campbell said they can squeeze in one more parking spot.

Chairman Almquist asked if there would be a wall between you and lots 15 and 16? Jim Wright said he wasnt sure.







PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Twenty-Five




MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a request for a site plan and building elevation approval for a proposed hotel located within a PD (Planned Development) zone at 2680 South between 60 East and 120 East, near the northeast quadrant of the of the Bloomington Interchange. Mr. Kim Campbell, representative, subject to the comments of staff and the color change. Commissioner Clayton seconded the motion. All voted aye.


Commissioner Campbell returned to his seat on the Planning Commission board.

B. Consider a request for a site plan and building elevation approval for a proposed commercial building located at the east end of Tabernacle Street and 1100 East. The property is adjacent to Interstate 15 (I-15). Mr. and Mrs. Todd and Sandra Call, applicants. Case No. 2005-SPBE-012

Planner Mark Bradley said this is an action item for the Council. This backs up against the freeway. They have received approval to use part of the area for extra parking. They will stucco the building with the same color. In the future on the back of the west side they plan on putting up awnings. The question is should there be more offset for the rear of the building.

Planner Mark Bradley said staff recommends approval subject to; 1) Traffic engineers review and approve, 2) the dedicated portion of Tabernacle Street shall be used only for parking subject to the City of St. George, 3) signage will be approved under a separate permit, the building exterior/east elevation (facing the I-15 freeway) shall have the following treatment (as determined by the Planning Commission) and street trees on 1100 East and along the freeway frontage shall meet the City Tree ordinance requirements.

Todd Call the applicant said the east side of the building is a matter of money to when they can put up the awning. If it is approved that way and they need to do it then they will do it.

Commissioner Stout stated the City wants to obtain more of a front of the building feel from what the people are going to see driving along the freeway. Todd said which is your north and south side. It is not necessarily your east side. Commissioner Stout said it is your east side of your elevation that will be seen from the freeway.

Commissioner Clayton said what the Planning Commission is saying they need to have more features on the east side.

PLANNING COMMISSION
September 13, 2005
Page Twenty-Six



Commissioner Campbell said you see two elevations and so the east side is just as important as the other sides. They need to see more detail on the east side. Commissioner Campbell said instead of looking at a stucco face building they need to have more detail on that side of the building. Todd asked what would they like to see in there. Commissioner Campbell asked is there any function to having any additional openings to the east. Todd said no, it is all storage along the wall. Commissioner Campbell said would you agree to having the awning on there. Todd said he would.

Commissioner Taylor said wont you be putting your business name on that side. Todd replied yes they will.

Commissioner Campbell said the finished sides of the parapet should be finished. Todd replied they will be finished.

Chairman Almquist said the site plan shows some landscaping. But along the UDOT frontage there needs to be some trees. Todd said there will be trees. Todd said there would be a four foot planter strip on the UDOT side. Mark Bradley said they are required to have street trees along side of UDOT.

Commissioner Stout said what is the proposed use of the two garage doors. Todd said one he has to pull into and the other one will be an in and out bay.

Chairman Almquist said