Planning Commission Minutes

Tuesday, November 22,2005



CITY OF ST. GEORGE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 2005 - 5:00 p.m.


PRESENT: Chairman Gil Almquist
Commissioner Myrna Stout
Commissioner Ross Taylor
Commissioner Kim Campbell
Commissioner Ron Bracken
Commissioner Vince Clayton
Council Member Suzanne Allen
Deputy City Attorney Ron Read
Community Development Director Bob Nicholson
Planner Mark Bradley
Planner Ray Snyder
Engineer Cathy Hasfurther
Assistance City Engineer Jay Sandberg
Bonnie Crawford - Kelly Services (Recorder)

EXCUSED: Commissioner Chapin Burks
Deputy City Recorder Linda Brooks


CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Almquist stated that Final Plats (Addendum) there were none to hear this evening. Item 2A will be tabled upon the applicants request but will be read into the record. Item 4D will also not be heard this evening.

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

PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGES

A. Consider a zone change request from R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development) Commercial on 0.73 acre located southeast of the River Crest Subdivision at approximately 2400 South River Road. Mr. Jeff Adams, applicant. Case No. 2005-ZC-033

Planner Mark Bradley stated the applicant has requested that this item be tabled to the next Planning Commission meeting December 13, 2005.


PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 2005
Page Two




MOTION: Commissioner Bracken made a motion to table item A to the next Planning Commission meeting in December 2005. Commissioner Clayton seconded the motion. All voted aye.


B. Consider a zone change request from A-1 (Agricultural) to R-1-10 (Single Family Residential) on 10.81 acres located at approximately 2350 East and 2000 South. Mr. Dan Steurer, representative. Case No. 2005-ZC-034

Planner Mark Bradley said the subject site is located within the hillside overlay zone and consists of various slopes including the south-facing slope of the Schmutz hillside. The applicants request is for an R-1-10 zone. The only comment staff has would be to the property adjacent to the A-1 Wildflower Subdivision zone, whether or not R-1-10 would be appropriate where you dont have animal rights. Mark stated the roads will be worked out before they see the site developed. Mark said the request is consistent with the general plan land use map designation of low density residential (up to 4 dwelling units to the acre). South and southeast of this site is designated as rural residential (up to 2 dwelling units to the acre). A hillside development permit would be required at time of development. But the main question is what is the most appropriate zone adjacent to the A-1 zone on the south.

Dan Steurer the applicant stated there are three lots that are A-1. There were two but one has recently been divided. They would not have an objection to putting up a wall to buffer the adjacent residential A-1 zone. They would put a note on the plat indicating the lots are adjacent to agricultural lots. At the moment it is difficult to come up with a street design until they see what type of zone they can have. They have been working with staff with several ideas on where the roads should be and how they can link up with other existing roads.

Commissioner Stout asked the applicant if he would be willing to consider the possibility at the small south portion up against the A-1 zone to be zoned differently than the remainder of the project. If it were determined that the best course of action for 2000 South Street is to come over and connect to 2350 East. Dan replied that if that road goes through then any lots along there would end up being very wide and not deep lots.

Mike Hamblin a resident said he has serious concerns about the road connectivity. The residents would like to see 2350 East stay a cul-de-sac.




PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 2005
Page Three



MOTION: Commissioner Clayton made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a zone change request from A-1 (Agricultural) to R-1-10 (Single Family Residential) on 10.81 acres located at approximately 2350 East and 2000 South. Mr. Dan Steurer, representative.

Commissioner Clayton wanted to make a note stating with the stipulation that when they bring a preliminary plat that the road 2000 South does not flank these properties and some how be brought up and looped to connect that road so these A-1 properties as has been pointed out on 2070 South does not have roads on three sides.

Commissioner Bracken seconded the motion.

Chairman Almquist said another note Planning Commission may want to see the wall come back for the division between zones.

All voted aye except for Commissioner Stout who voted nay. Motion passed.

Chairman Almquist recognized the Boy Scout Troop 531.

C. Consider a zone change request from R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) to OS (Open Space) on approximately 7.40 acres and C-3 (General Commercial) to R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) on approximately 1.95 acres to clean up zoning in the Twin Lakes Resort Subdivision and the golf course area located at Red Hills Parkway (formerly Highland Drive) and Twin Lakes Road. Mr. Jim Haslem, applicant. Case No. 2005-ZC-036

Planner Mark Bradley said the applicant is cleaning up the zone to match the existing zoning for the Twin Lakes Resort Subdivision and in preparation for proposed additions to the golf course. This is a much needed clean up effort made by the applicant. Staff supports the request.

Jim Haslem the applicant said this is mostly a request from staff to clean up this area for zoning.

MOTION: Commissioner Clayton made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a zone change request from R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) to OS (Open Space) on approximately 7.40 acres and C-3 (General Commercial) to R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) on approximately 1.95 acres to clean up zoning in the Twin Lakes Resort Subdivision and the golf course area located at Red Hills Parkway (formerly Highland Drive) and Twin Lakes Road. Mr. Jim Haslem, applicant. Commissioner Bracken seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion passed.

PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 2005
Page Four



CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

A. Consider a conditional use permit request to construct a club house, driving range, two-story T Box, maintenance building, outdoor lighting, poles and netting for the redesigned/remodeled golf course formerly known as the Twin Lakes Golf Course on Red Hills Parkway located by Twin Lakes Drive. Mr. Jim Haslem, applicant. Case No. 2005-CUP-040

Planner Ray Snyder said the applicant proposed to construct Kokomo Executive Golf Course and Pro Driving Range (formerly Twin Lakes Golf Course). The project includes the construction of the golf course, driving range, club house, T-Box, maintenance building, outdoor lighting, poles and netting. Ray mentioned that the normal standards height for a safety netting is fifty feet (50'). Ray went over the parking requirements. Ray stated as far as landscaping the applicant will be required to provide street trees. The applicant must resolve to the satisfaction of each effected City Department the installation of all utilities, roadway infrastructure, and right-of-way dedication.

Ray said the issues are as follows;

1) Club House to be in OS zone.
2) Outdoor Lighting (type of lighting and ft. candles levels)
3) Maintenance Building to be in OS zone.
4) T box (climate controlled) building; tees on second floor to be safety netted as necessary. Also to be in OS zone.
5) Height of poles and netting in relationship to Red Hills Parkway and freeway.
6) Relationship of poles and netting to electrical power poles.
7) Relationship of street trees to poles and netting.
8) UDOT requirements.
9) Billboard
10) Ponds
11) Access

Jim Haslem the applicant said the driving range is a room with controlled temperature. The room is a 10 x 10 and 8 ft. high. Jim said their golf course will be in the top 10 best short golf course in America. The pro shop building will be 2,100 sq. ft. All around this building will be a putting course which customers can play on for about 45 minutes. They will also have a practice green. There will be grill restaurant attached to the pro shop. They will have 5 fountains going in. Jim said he feels they have overstated the parking requirements.


PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 2005
Page Five



Ryan Christensen said he will address the lighting issues. He said the lighting fixture has an eyebrow inside of it, and the purpose of that eyebrow is to control spills of light. The lights they are envisioning with this fixture along the roadside of the course will be shining north, this eyebrow creates a band of light rather than a circle that would go out. The light fixture itself will be tipped to about 45 degrees below the horizon. With the eyebrow on it will ensure that no light will be projected above the horizon.

Ryan passed around a sample of the netting they are proposing to use. Ryan said they cannot go higher than 10 ft. above sidewalk elevation with the netting because of the power lines overhead. What they would like to propose is to extend from the edge of the T-box cubicle, which is the hitting box, netting on both sides and the top to prevent golf balls from going over the safety net along the road.

Council Member Allen stated that their designer did mention that they need the 50 ft. along the side of the driving range. She asked the applicant to make sure that is addressed at City Council so they can see exactly what they are talking about.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to recommend to City Council approval for a conditional use permit request to construct a club house, driving range, two-story T Box, maintenance building, outdoor lighting, poles and netting for the redesigned/remodeled golf course formerly known as the Twin Lakes Golf Course on Red Hills Parkway located by Twin Lakes Drive. Mr. Jim Haslem, applicant. Commissioner Clayton seconded the motion.

DISCUSSION ON MOTION
Deputy City Attorney Ron Read said do they want to see an elevation for the T box before it gets to City Council?

Chairman Almquist said they should request a color rendering and what the actual exterior is going to represent, showing ingress and egress and showing emergency exits before the City Council.

Deputy City Attorney Ron Read said the Council will be interested in the safety issue because they are going from a 50 ft. recommendation from their designer to that 10 ft. with a tunnel. The Council will have quite a few questions regarding that tunnel and how it is going to keep golf balls from going over a 10 ft. fence when their own designer recommends a 50 ft. fence.

MOTION (continued): Commissioner Taylor amended his motion to include the items just discussed. Commissioner Clayton accepted the amendment to the motion.



PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 2005
Page Six



DISCUSSION ON MOTION
Deputy City Attorney Ron Read said in the City ordinance a fence that is not identified, which this fencing really isnt, then the Planning Commission approves the fence. Part of the Planning Commissions recommendation is that you approve the 10 ft. fence with this product.

MOTION (continued): Commissioner Taylor added that into the motion. Commissioner Clayton seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion passed.


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

B. Consider a conditional use permit request to construct a professional office building that would exceed the maximum allowable height of thirty-five feet (35') up to a proposed average roof midpoint height of forty-three feet (43') and a maximum roof peak at approximately forty-eight (48'). The property is located within a C-2 (Highway Commercial) zone at the corner of Sunset Boulevard and Daybreak Drive. Mr. Shawn Farris, representative. Case No. 2005-CUP-042

Planner Ray Snyder stated that this item was tabled from Planning Commission meeting on November 8, 2005. There was a field trip with staff and Planning Commissioners on November 15, 2005 at the site. The applicant used a balloon to demonstrate maximum building height and both Planning Commission members and residents viewed the impact from several residential lots behind the site. Ray said since that meeting staff has received a new cross-section. The applicant will be taking about 5 ft. off the top of the proposed building.

Ray said if the Planning Commission recommends approval the following conditions are suggested:

1) The building is approved with an average roof midpoint height of forty-three (43') and a maximum roof peak of forty-eight feet (48').
2) Parking shall be demonstrated to meet the zoning ordinance requirements during the site plan review process by staff (40 parking spaces are required and shall be 9' x 18' in size with 25' wide drive aisles).
3) A SPR (Site Plan Review) application along with 4 sets of plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Dept. for standard plan check review.



PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 2005
Page Seven



Traffic Conditions
1) Only one driveway is approved on Sunset Blvd. as shown in the submitted site plan and shall meet the requirements of the City Traffic Engineer and shall meet the requirements of the State of Utah (UDOT)
2) All signing and striping shall conform to the City of St. George and MUTCD standards.

Kim Campbell with Campbell and Associates stated that they lowered the roof peak and dropped the mechanical well to put the units down inside. The top of units will be flushed with the top of the mechanical well. Kim said instead of starting at the edge of the driveway and going up to the back of the building less than a 5% grade to get ADA access to the street. They changed that 4.9% down to 2% which dropped the whole building on the site.

Butch Graft a resident in Sunset Plateau is concerned about the height of the building.

MOTION: Commissioner Stout made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a conditional use permit request to construct a professional office building that would exceed the maximum allowable height of thirty-five feet (35') up to a proposed average roof midpoint height of thirty-seven feet and one inch (37'-1") and a maximum roof peak at approximately thirty-nine feet and four inches (39'-4"). The property is located within a C-2 (Highway Commercial) zone at the corner of Sunset Boulevard and Daybreak Drive. Mr. Shawn Farris, representative. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion passed.


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

C. 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 forty feet (40') and the maximum roof peak is fifty-one feet (51'). There is also a decorative clock tower steeple with a maximum peak height of eighty-four feet (84'). 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 Ray Snyder said this was last seen on September 13, 2005. At that time it was tabled to allow the applicant time to provide an elevation analysis, have traffic issues addressed, bring back an alternative clock tower, address the rear lighting, address parking issues, and address the actual height.

Ray said if the Planning Commission recommends approval the following conditions are suggested;

PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 2005
Page Eight


1) The building is approved with an average roof midpoint height of forty feet (40') and a maximum roof peak of forty-eight feet (48'). The decorative clock tower steeple is approved with a maximum peak height of eighty four feet (84'). All heights are measured from site midpoints.
2) A basement is not approved for this site.
3) Parking shall be demonstrated to meet the zoning ordinance requirements during the site plan review process by staff.
4) A SPR (Site Plan Review) application along with 4 sets of plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Dept. for standard plan check review.
5) The applicant shall comply with the hillside review board committee conditions which are; Approval of this request is subject to the hillside review boards on site discussion of August 17, 2005 and their concerns of items 1-4 (from 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 the road not to exceed 15% slope.
6) The covered parking spaces against the slope shall be installed and also serve as a protection against falling rock.

Traffic Conditions
1) The two proposed driveways; one on Bluff Street and the other on 400 North (Donlee 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 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.

Jay Sandberg City Engineer said the traffic study is model assuming that cross-access agreement could be obtained so the vehicles could come out of the site and turn left at 300 North. If there is no cross-access agreement then the model needs to be looked at and re-evaluated.

There was discussion on the access through the 3 Amigos parking lot to obtain the left-hand turn at the traffic light on 300 North.

Cameron Gunther the developer said he met with Aron Baker City Traffic Engineer and they feel it is critical for that right-in and right -out. They also met with UDOT (Scott Snow) and he has expressed to desire to continue to talk about this access. Cameron said they have met with the 3 Amigos there has to be some benefit to them as well. They have talked to them about going behind their property but engineering wise it will not work out.

PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 2005
Page Nine



Cameron said in talking with Aron Baker a concern was making a right turn in on Donlee Drive and then a left turn into their property, his concern was the backing up of vehicles trying to make that left turn. The answer to that was right-in and right-out in between and have that cross-access agreement and a left hand turn on 300 North.

Chairman Almquist stated the discussion before them tonight is for the height of the building, not the traffic. It was discussed how the height of the building also affects the traffic based on the square footage of the building and how many clients they will have for each office use. It was discussed that they may look at underground parking.

Commissioner Clayton would like to make a recommendation that this item be tabled to the next meeting. He could see himself approving this if; 1) the building would be moved back and the parking moved to the front, 2) that there be a cross-easement agreement developed between 3 Amigos and the proposed property, 3) the size of the building he doesnt have a problem if it moves back away from the road. This cannot be approved if that one traffic issue of the left hand turn is resolved which means there has to be a crossover.

Cameron Gunther said they are willing to take the wall down six feet so they are under the 35 ft. But that will affect their next item on the agenda which is the hillside.

Cameron said they are required to put in a decel-lane. Chairman Almquist said about 1/3 of frontage is your decel-lane leading up to the existing approach. Cameron said that is right.

Mr. Derrick a resident of the area said the traffic study did not address the north egress issue. He spoke about the delivery trucks to 3 Amigos and how they park in the middle of the parking lot to unload their wares.

Jay Sandberg City Engineer said that staff will deal with the access and traffic issues.

MOTION: Commissioner Clayton made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of 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 forty feet (40') and the maximum roof peak is fifty-one feet (51'). There is also a decorative clock tower steeple with a maximum peak height of eighty-four feet (84'). 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., subject to the building being placed to the rear of the property, the parking being moved to the east, more landscaping along the easterly border of the site. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. Motion passed.


PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 2005
Page Ten



DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Jay Sandberg City Engineer said the traffic study is somewhat incomplete. Staff would like to request that the Planning Commission require that the traffic study be completed.

MOTION: Commissioner Clayton added to his motion that the traffic study be completed. Commissioner Campbell seconded that addition.

Commissioner Clayton voted aye
Commissioner Bracken voted aye
Commissioner Stout voted nay
Commissioner Taylor voted nay
Commissioner Campbell voted aye
Chairman Almquist voted aye

The vote was 4 to 2 - the motion passes.


HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS

A. 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 the Hillside Review Board revisited the site on August 17, 2005 and made the following recommendations;

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.

MOTION: Commissioner Stout made a motion to recommend to City Council approval a hillside development permit for a proposed office building located at 400 North Bluff Street. Mr. Paul Ellsworth, representative for High Pointe, LLC., subject to the 4 conditions recommended by the Hillside Review Board. Commissioner Clayton seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion passed.


PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 2005
Page Eleven




B. Consider a request for a hillside development permit for a proposed single-family residential development (proposed name Tuscany Shores) located southeast of Foremaster Ridge between the new Riverside Drive extension and the Virgin River at approximately 2000 East Riverside Drive. Mr. Rich Lewis, applicant. Case No. 2005-HS-012

Planner Mark Bradley said this site came through for a zone change. The site sits along a natural terrace location. The Virgin River corridor runs along the easterly and southerly boundary of the property. The parcel is surrounded by City owned property with the exception of the northeast corner.

Mark said the Hillside Review Board met on-site on November 16, 2005 to review the proposed development and recommended approval of the plan subject to the following conditions;

1) Reduce the south roadway right-of-way from intersection to intersection from 50 ft. to 45 ft. to establish a greater rear yard setback.
2) With the roadway reduction increase the ledge setback from 30 ft to 35 ft.
3) Mitigation of the four proposed fill areas along the southerly boundary of the project within the 35 ft. ledge line setback be addressed by providing a detailed landscape plan to be reviewed by City staff. The landscape plan would include boulders to match the natural rock outcropping.
4) Reduce the building pad sizes for Lots 23 and 24 to reduce the fill within the setback area.
5) Install the orange fence (demarcation grading fence) along the 35 ft. setback line throughout the development prior to issuance of a grading permit. Areas of minimal fill within the setback area install a second fence to protect the ledge/ridge line.

Commissioner Stout asked how is the City going to protect the setback area when the owners move into that particularly lot and obtain a building permit. How will can the City be sure that the owners wont reset their boundary areas and build into that setback area.

Mark replied the final plat is where they will establish an envelope on those lots and where the building can be. If they do encroach upon that then the only other alternative, the City has is dealing with it as a code enforcement. Mark spoke on the type of fencing that could be used for this subdivision.

Rich Lewis the applicant said they would like to have fences out there for a safety issue perhaps a wrought iron fence.



PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 2005
Page Twelve



There was discussion regarding the no disturb area. Mark said the main concern is the sloping areas that people want to come out and fill additionally then what was approved with the permit. This has been addressed with the plat. Mark said they can put that additional information on the plat stating no additional fill than what has been final when this site is completed.

Chairman Almquist stated that when Hillside Review Board was on site there was a ridge line that was established. They walked it and staked it, and they determined from that point at 35 ft. back would not be filled except in a couple of places where there was natural erosion that occurred and the Hillside Review Board allowed them to place some boulders in there in the natural way so it looks and resembles the rest of the terrain there.

MOTION: Commissioner Clayton made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a request for a hillside development permit for a proposed single-family residential development (proposed name Tuscany Shores) located southeast of Foremaster Ridge between the new Riverside Drive extension and the Virgin River at approximately 2000 East Riverside Drive. Mr. Rich Lewis, applicant, with two provisions that should be noted on the plat. One is no additional fill/cut within the 35 ft. setback area from finished grade and label the area as a no build area. Commissioner Bracken seconded the motion. Commissioner Clayton added to his motion with the modification that the point at which the 35 ft. rear property line is determined is the ridge line that was agreed upon by Hillside. The un-natural filled areas that were permitted by the Hillside Review cannot be further disturbed. All the Hillside Review recommendations be included in this motion. Commissioner Bracken seconded the addition. All voted aye. Motion passed.


C. Consider a request for a hillside development permit for Tuscan Hills Phases 3 & 4 located off of Plantations Drive, west of Dixie Drive. Mr. Guy Haskell, applicant. Case No. 2005-HS-014

Planner Mark Bradley said the Hillside Review Board has broken down the recommendations into the two phases.

Mark said he will start with the recommendations for Phase 3;

1) The outlining lots (north and westerly portion of the phase) are to be lowered approximately 6 ft. to match the existing Phase 2.
2) Lot 322 be reviewed by City staff. No fill slopes to exceed 6 ft.
3) Lots 314-321 are to have no fills within the 30 ft. ridgeline.
4) No sluffing of material over the edge and have an orange fence to place prior to the grading.

PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 2005
Page Thirteen


The recommendations for Phase 4;

Approval with the changes drawn on phage 10 of 12 on the submitted plans, which makes adjustments to the proposed hillside cuts and mitigation. The hillside cut would consist of a 1:1 cut slope, faced with a stacked rock wall at a maximum height of 8 ft., with a drainage ditch above the rock wall and a 2:1 cut that would tie into the natural hillside. In some areas there would be another stacked rock wall at a maximum 4 ft. terraced behind the drainage ditch offset above the 8 ft. stacked rock wall.

MOTION: Commissioner Stout made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a request for a hillside development permit for Tuscan Hills Phases 3 & 4 located off of Plantations Drive, west of Dixie Drive. Mr. Guy Haskell, applicant, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report for phase 3 and 4 and added to that there be the orange fencing placed to mark the natural edge and there no sluffing of material beyond that. Commissioner Clayton seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion passed.


D. Consider a request for a hillside development permit associated with the Bella Vista Subdivision at Sunbrook to landscape the surrounding hillside slopes located at Sunbrook Drive and Luce Del Sol Drive. Mr. Marc Fonger, representative. Case No. 2005-HS-015

MOTION: Commissioner Bracken made a motion to table this item at the request of the applicant. Commissioner Clayton seconded the motion. All voted aye.


PRELIMINARY PLAT

Consider a preliminary plat request for Sun River St. George Phase 25 with 44 single-family detached patio home sites located on Arrowhead Canyon Drive, south of Sun River Parkway and northeast of the Atkinville Wash. Mr. Darcey Stewart, applicant. Case No. 2005-PP-057

Planner Mark Bradley said this site is adjacent to the Atkinville Wash. Mark said this is all very typical of what has been seen at Sun River. The 66 ft. public right-of-way (Arrowhead Canyon Drive) may need to be expanded to a 90 ft. public right-of-way and Sun River has agreed to improve their half of this right-of-way.

MOTION: Commissioner Clayton made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a preliminary plat request for Sun River St. George Phase 25 with 44 single-family detached patio home sites located on Arrowhead Canyon Drive, south of Sun River Parkway and northeast of the Atkinville Wash. Mr. Darcey Stewart, applicant. Commissioner Stout seconded the motion. All voted aye.


PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 2005
Page Fourteen



Chairman Almquist said item 9 on the Wall Height will be heard next. Then they will follow the rest of the agenda.

WALL HEIGHT (A)

Consider a request for a retaining wall to exceed ten (10') feet in height up to a maximum of sixteen (16') feet for Lots 126 and 127 within Bloomington Hills Phase 12 located at 2115 South and 2125 South Harmony Place. Mr. Floyd Jackson, representative. Case No. 2005-WH-004

Planner Mark Bradley presented photos of the site. Mark said the representative mentioned that the wall varies from 12 to 16 ft. The wall actually exceeds 16 ft because part of the wall buried. Mark said the main issue tonight is to have Planning Commission to consider the height over 10 ft. The property adjacent to the north belongs to the City of St. George.

Mark said staff comments are that the retaining wall needs to be done in accordance with the guidelines of the City ordinance as stated on page one of this report where retaining walls over six feet (6') tall should be stepped to form benches which can be landscaped.

Floyd Jackson the representative said he was not aware that they could not go above 10 ft. without the Planning Commissions approval. Floyd said they did not obtain a permit for this wall. It did not occur to them that they needed one. Floyd feels that if they step the wall the applicant will not have much of a backyard. There was an engineer that designed the wall and a soils engineer oversaw the building of the wall. This will be a walk-out basement home.

It was discussed on how the wall will be finished off. Floyd said they could paint the wall but their original concept was to plant greenery along the wall and in two to three years the block wall would be covered with greenery.

Chairman Almquist said he did not want to proceed with this item unless Wayne Rogers from AGEC was present. Chairman Almquist said they can proceed but he is very curious about Wayne Rogers approving this wall.

Floyd said the bottom block is buried at least 2 ft. into the ground. Floyd said the wall is build just inside the property line. The only place they went on City property is where they had to hook onto the sewer line.

Mark said the rockery wall standards were for stacked rock. When you are dealing with concrete retaining wall, it is very different. Because they can be engineered compared to the PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 2005
Page Fifteen



design for a block wall. Mark said the question is do these concrete block walls, are they considered as rock wall or as a concrete wall.

Floyd said it was treated as a concrete block retaining wall.

Commissioner Taylor felt they need to redo the wall. Go up 8 ft. and step back 4 ft. and then another 8 ft. tall. He said it still does not meet the ordinance but he would not have a problem with them at least stepping this wall back at least once.

Floyd Jackson said if the aesthetics is the problem then let them come back with some ideas. Commissioner Stout commented that the aesthetics is only part of the problem. If the Planning Commission approves this wall then they are setting a precedence for others.

Floyd said maybe this should be tabled and have Wayne Rogers from AGEC come back and defend why he had this wall engineered the way he did. The Planning Commissioners said he would not be defending what he did - he would be explaining why he did not follow the ordinance.

Ronald Parker he lives at 2152 San Juan Circle stated he is southeast of this lot. He is concerned about the aesthetics and the structure and stability of block wall.

Paul Blackmore with Rosenberg Associates said he designed the home. He said he was there when Wayne Rogers talked about the wall. Wayne Rogers did go into detail and explained what he wanted on the wall. Paul said he was there when Rosenberg Associates when they tested pits on those projects and wrote the geotech reports. The wall itself he feels is a very sound wall. He believes the issue is with the aesthetics.

Chairman Almquist read into the record the ordinance of the height of a retaining wall.

Paul Blackmore said Rosenberg Associates was under the assumption that there was a permit for this wall.

Commissioner Stout called for a question.






PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 2005
Page Sixteen




MOTION: Commissioner Stout made a motion to table this item to the next Planning Commission meeting to allow a representative from AGEC to provide information regarding soils report that have been completed on the project, to answer questions that have been raised tonight, to provide suggested solutions to compliance with the ordinance and to provide a aesthetic pleasing wall. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion.

DISCUSSION ON MOTION
Commissioner Taylor would like to go on record as saying he would not be able to support a 16 ft. tall wall. The wall needs to be benched.

All voted aye.


LOT SPLIT

Consider a request to divide a parcel of land into two parcels located at 1450 East and Foremaster Drive (700 South). Mr. David Blake, representative. Case No. 2005-LS-012

Planner Ray Snyder said the lot split is for a medical professional center. Staff felt this lot split is fairly routine. Staff recommends that the applicant shall include this site as a part of a plat with the next adjacent property when ready to divide. The rest of staff conditions are standard for a lot split. Ray said traffic engineering is requesting that the access shall be from 1450 East. Also a cross access (reciprocal access agreement) easement shall be prepared for the two lots so access can be achieved between the lots.

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 at 1450 East and Foremaster Drive (700 South). Mr. David Black, representative. Commissioner Stout seconded the motion. All voted aye.


REDUCED SETBACK (A)

Consider a reduced side yard setback in a C-2 (Highway Commercial) zone from the required ten (10') foot setback to a zero (-0-) lot line setback on the west side property line for a proposed gymnasium/activity building for the Cinnamon Hills Youth Center located at 770 East St. George Blvd. Mr. Rod Allred, representative. Case No. 2005-RS-007
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 2005
Page Seventeen


Planner Mark Bradley said the letter from the Joint Utility Committee references their review of the reduced setback to the property line. They made comment that 7.5 ft. of building is to be shifted south to be 7.5 ft. from the power line. The building height from finished floor elevation to the roof top would be 22 ft. 6 in. The wall height appears to be 14 ft. from finished floor elevation.

There was discussion if the business would have adequate parking for the new addition. Mark stated the Planning Commission could make that part of their motion.

Jim Downing representative from Cinnamon Hills said the parking they utilize now is for administrative staff is on the west side of the campus. With the expansion of the building to the west then the staff will be relocated to park elsewhere.

MOTION: Commissioner Clayton made a motion to recommend approval of a reduced side yard setback in a C-2 (Highway Commercial) zone from the required ten (10') foot setback to a zero (-0-) lot line setback on the west side property line for a proposed gymnasium/activity building for the Cinnamon Hills Youth Center located at 770 East St. George Blvd. Mr. Rod Allred, representative, having been informed that the new drawings indicate the building has been moved 8 ft. in compliance with the Joint Utilities. Commissioner Bracken seconded the motion.

DISCUSSION ON MOTION
Commissioner Stout said can this be added to the motion that this does not allow the current approved use of the west portion of this property being administrative offices only and this in no way is to be seen or implied that it gives approval for the additional students coming over and using the administrative office buildings.

MOTION (continued): Commissioner Clayton so moved to add that to the motion. Commissioner Bracken second it. All voted aye. Motion passed.


DETERMINE USE (A)

Determine whether a slot machine repair operation would be similar to uses within the C-3 (General Commercial) zone and in harmony with the intent and purpose of this zone. Mr. Ryan Garrett, applicant. Case No. 2005-DU-004

Bob Nicholson said that Ryan Garrett had to leave to attend a 9:30 p.m. meeting. Bob said there is a company that wants to relocate in a C-3 zone. Bob said the ordinance says similar uses may be approved by the Planning Commission. Staff felt alright with the proposed use provided there is no storage outside. The applicant assured staff there would be no outside storage.
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 22, 2005
Page Eighteen



MOTION: Commissioner Clayton made a motion to find this use similar with appliance repair and therefore recommend approval of a slot machine repair operation would be similar to uses within the C-3 (General Commercial) zone and in harmony with the intent and purpose of this zone. Mr. Ryan Garrett, applicant. Commissioner Bracken seconded the motion. All voted aye.


Meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m.