Planning Commission Minutes

Tuesday, August 14,2007



CITY OF ST. GEORGE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 2007 - 4:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Chairman Gil Almquist
Commissioner Ron Bracken
Commissioner Julie Hullinger
Commissioner Ross Taylor
Council Member Gail Bunker
Commissioner Mike Nobis
Commissioner Kim Campbell
Commissioner Chapin Burks

CITY STAFF: Community Development Director Bob Nicholson
Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston
Planner Ray Snyder
Engineer Cathy Hasfurther
Engineer Jay Sandberg
Deputy City Recorder Linda Brooks


CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Almquist called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance. Chairman Almquist led the flag salute.

CONSENT ITEMS - FINAL PLATS

A. Consider approval of a final plat for Escalera Estates Phase 1; a two (2) lot single-family residential subdivision located at 1900 East and Middleton Drive. Mr. Brandon Anderson, representative. The zoning is RE-12.5. Case No. 2006-FP-106

B. Consider approval of a final plat for Escalera Estates Phase 2; a four (4) lot single-family residential subdivision located at 1900 East and Middleton Drive. Mr. Brandon Anderson, representative. The zoning is RE-12.5. Case No. 2006-FP-107

C. Consider approval of a final plat for Escalera Estates Phase 3; a two (2) lot single-family residential subdivision located at 1900 East and Middleton Drive. Mr. Brandon Anderson, representative. The zoning is RE-12.5. Case No. 2006-FP-108

Chairman Almquist read the final plats into the record as one item.

MOTION: Commissioner Burks made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of final plats 1A through C and authorize chairman to sign. Commissioner Nobis seconded the motion. All voted aye.
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 2007
Page Two


PRELIMINARY PLAT

Consider a preliminary plat request for Montecito Town Homes on 0.73 acres (31,806 sq. ft.). There are 8 units existing on the site (2 buildings with 4 units in each). Located at the west side of the intersection of Valley View Drive and Indian Hills Drive. Mr. and Mrs. Bergel, applicants. Bush and Gudgell Inc., representative. The zoning is R-3 (Multiple Family). This is a conversion of existing apartments into townhomes. Case No. 2007- PP-010

Senior Project Engineer Cathy Hasfurther pointed out that the name Montecito Townhomes will be changed to Montecito Condos. Cathy said these units are located on Indian Hills Drive and Valley View Drive. The applicant will need to build a 6 ft. privacy wall along the rear of their property to separate their units from an R-1-10 single-family subdivision. This proposed plan is to create a subdivision with 8 existing multi-family units. This is an existing apartment complex with 8 units and 2 buildings. The applicants desire to subdivide for individual ownerships. The construction drawings were approved in 2003 and the current site does not reflect those drawings. The following are staff comments;

1. Landscaping along the private drive should conform to the construction drawings and preliminary plat, which is required to meet the 30% landscaping minimum required by the ordinance.
2. The dumpster enclosure is required to have a sight obscuring gate as shown on the construction drawings and per ordinance.
3. The site is adjacent to a single-family zone (R-1-10) in the rear, which requires a 6 ft. solid fence.
4. Given that these are existing units, in order to ensure compliance with the above requirements, the approval/recordation of the final plat should be subject to the completion of the above requirements.
5. A Homeowners Association should be established to ensure maintenance of drives and landscaping.

Commissioner Bracken asked if the units have been inspected and upgraded to meet all the building requirements for condos. The question is do they have the fire wall that needs to be between units.

Heather Tebbs with Bush & Gudgell asked if there is another inspection other than the inspection that is done for the Certificate of Occupancy? Commissioner Bracken said there should be an inspection to make sure that there are double walls between the units. Heather said the plans she has shows the double wall. She did not personally visit there but she did see the walls on the plans. The Citys Fire Department said the walls are there and should be appropriate. Heather said the applicant always intended to have these apartments turned into condos so she had the fire walls put in for that very reason.

PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 2007
Page Three


Commissioner Nobis asked about the parking. Heather replied the parking stalls are numbered to correlate to the units. There is one covered parking space and one uncovered. The plans also show one handicapped parking slot.

Mr. Barry Carlson the attorney for Bergels said during the process of construction the walls would have shown up during the construction drawings process. The reality is they are dealing with the buildings and not the building codes. All the issues of landscaping, parking and fire walls have all been dealt with during the Certificate of Occupancy.

Mr. Carlson said the preliminary plat shows some landscape strips. The landscape strip is outside of the walls and not inside of the walls. In order to have the landscape exposed to this development they would have to force the neighbors to tear down the walls and move the walls back 2 ft. and then re-landscape. They will have the dumpsters covered. They are requesting not to build the privacy wall along the back. If Planning Commission asks for the privacy walls, then they would ask if they could place a bond so they could have up to 12 months to build the separation walls.

Commissioner Taylor said when Snowfield Estates asked for a change in their zoning to align their zones with the road that went through about a year half ago. Has this always been an R-1-10 zone for Snowfield or has this been part of that change in zone? If this had not been R-1-10 at the time, this project was developed then they would not have needed the privacy wall at that time to be put up. Bob Nicholson said the code states that the burden falls on the multi-family units to have the privacy wall up when they are next to a single-family zone.

Commissioner Nobis asked if the landscaping had to be on the outside of the wall or inside the wall. Mr. Carlson the attorney said the ordinance does not state where the landscaping needs to be located. He pointed out that the wall is about 2-3 ft. inside the property line and the landscaped part of the land is other side of the property owners.

Cathy Hasfurther said the wall is not shown on the plans. It just shows an area where the landscaping is located. Staff had no idea there was a wall there.

Commissioner Bracken said townhomes do need to have double walls with the four sheets of sheet rock so his question is do residential condos have to have double walls or is it just sheet rock. Cathy replied she can verify that with Kevin Taylor, Deputy City Fire Marshall to make sure they are up to code.

Commissioner Bracken pointed out that the Planning Commissioners were the body that is suppose to have the answers to some of these questions that have been brought up tonight before this item moves forward to City Council. Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said she agrees PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 2007
Page Four


with Commissioner Brackens statement. These items should be agreed upon before this item moves forward.

Heather Tebbs said between the foundation of the wall and the drive there is an 1" or 2" and at the widest spot would be 8". This would make it very difficult to put in landscaping in such an area along the walls. Heather spoke on the driveway access for the adjacent single-family lots on the south and north side of the entrance to the condos.

Chairman Almquist asked Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston that this was advertised as townhomes instead of condos - is that a problem. Paula replied there would be a public hearing at the City Council level and that could be corrected before the notices go out at that time.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a preliminary plat request for Montecito Townhomes on 0.73 acres (31,806 sq. ft.). There are 8 units existing on the site (2 buildings with 4 units in each). Located at the west side of the intersection of Valley View Drive and Indian Hills Drive. Mr. and Mrs. Bergel, applicants. Bush and Gudgell Inc., representative. The zoning is R-3 (Multiple Family). This is a conversion of existing apartments into townhomes, subject to these items; 1)that it meets the fire code and building code of double walls that could be done by inspection by the Fire Department but it needs to be confirmed so the units can be owned by individually ownership, 2) the garage doors need to be established, 3) the privacy wall is required by a multi-family unit and should be included for condition for approval, and 4) establish a Homeowners Association and 5) include staffs comments. These issues should be resolve before this goes to City Council. Commissioner Bracken seconded the motion. All voted aye.


LOT SPLITS

A. Consider a lot split request to divide one parcel into two for property located at approximately 150 North, 900 East. The proposed lot split would result in Parcel No. 1 being 1.20 acres and Parcel 2 being 2.87 acres. The property is zoned C-2 (Highway Commercial). The owner is S.W.A.C. East, LCC by Stephen Wade. The engineers are Rosenberg and Associates. Mr. Brandon Anderson is the contact. This is for the State Liquor Store project. Case No. 2007-LS-004

Planner Ray Snyder said this request is made to accommodate a State Liquor Store project. The total acreage for this area is 4.08 acres. The proposed lot split which make Parcel 1 for 1.20 acres (52,380 sq. ft.) and Parcel 2 will be 2.87 acres (125,160 sq. ft.). Ray said the public utility easements are required around both created parcels. This property is not within a recorded subdivision. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions;

PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 2007
Page Five


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 is noted recorded) provide the city a separate 8-1/2 x 11 legal description for each parcel (for the case file).
3. A utilities and drainage easement shall be completed, notarized, and recorded.
4. The applicant shall submit for review all legal documents to the City Attorneys Office.
Traffic Engineering Conditions
1. All access issues shall be resolved with the City Traffic Engineer.

MOTION: Commissioner Campbell made a motion to recommend to City Council approval with staff comments for a lot split request to divide one parcel into two for property located at approximately 150 North, 900 East. The proposed lot split would result in Parcel No. 1 being 1.20 acres and Parcel 2 being 2.87 acres. The property is zoned C-2 (Highway Commercial). The owner is S.W.A.C. East, LCC by Stephen Wade. The engineers are Rosenberg and Associates. Mr. Brandon Anderson is the contact. This is for the State Liquor Store project. Commissioner Hullinger seconded the motion. All voted aye.


B. Consider a lot split request to divide one parcel into two for property located at approximately 3430 East south of 2000 South. The proposed lot split would result in Parcel No. 1 being 3.927 acres and Parcel 2 being 3.948 acres. The property is zoned A-1 (Agricultural). The owner is Mr. Dustin Moore. The surveyor is Bundy Surveying Incorporated. The request is made to accommodate a single-family home construction. Case No. 2007-LS-005

Planner Ray Snyder said this request is made to accommodate a single family home. The proposed lot split for Parcel 1 would be 3.927 acres and for Parcel 2 - 3.948 acres. This property is not located in a recorded subdivision. Staff recommends approval with the following standard conditions;

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 is noted recorded) provide the city a separate 8-1/2 x 11 legal description for each parcel (for the case file).
3. A utilities and drainage easement shall be completed, notarized, and recorded.
4. The applicant shall submit for review all legal documents to the City Attorneys Office.
5. Approval for septic tank by City Council is required.

Traffic Engineering Conditions
1. All access issues shall be resolved with the City Traffic Engineer.
2. Install standard street improvements (curb, gutter, etc.).

PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 2007
Page Six


Commissioner Nobis asked about the easements if they need to be abandoned and put in another place. Staff replied no.

MOTION: Commissioner Hullinger made a motion to recommend to City Council approval with staff comments for a lot split request to divide one parcel into two for property located at approximately 3430 East south of 2000 South. The proposed lot split would result in Parcel No. 1 being 3.927 acres and Parcel 2 being 3.948 acres. The property is zoned A-1 (Agricultural). The owner is Mr. Dustin Moore. The surveyor is Bundy Surveying Incorporated. The request is made to accommodate a single-family home construction. Commissioner Nobis seconded the motion. All voted aye.


Chairman Almquist asked the Boy Scout Troup1688 in the Green Springs area of Washington to introduced themselves.

Chairman Almquist moved to the public hearings and will return to the other items on the agenda after the public hearings are heard.

ZONE CHANGES - PUBLIC HEARING (5:00 P.M.)

A. Consider a zone change request from Ivory Homes, Mr. Colin Wright representative, to rezone approximately 79 acres from OS (Open Space) to PD (Planned Development) on land that is contiguous to and southwest of the existing Hidden Valley Master Plan and consider a request to amend the existing PD zoning on approximately 585 acres of the Hidden Valley Master Plan. The amendment to the existing Master Plan consists of the realignment of Hidden Valley Road, the removal of a school site, the addition of a church site, the addition of an RV site, the relocation of a club house, and the renumbering of several P.A. (Planned Areas). Case No. 2007-ZCA-017

Planner Ray Snyder said this request is to revise the PD Text and graphics for Hidden Valley Master Plan. Ray spoke on the change to the PD in the year 2000. Ray pointed out the new locations for the amendment. The requests are as follows;

1. To rezone approximately 79 acres from OS (Open Space) to PD (Planned Development) that is contiguous and southwest of the existing Hidden Valley Master Plan.
2. To amend the existing PD zoning on approximately 585 acres of the Hidden Valley Master Plan to:
a) Realign the roadway (Hidden Valley Road)
b) Add church site
c) Remove school site
d) Add RV storage site
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 2007
Page Seven


e) Relocate Club House
f) Remove P.A. (Planning Area) 2.5 thru 2.7 and 3.1 thru 3.8
g) Add new location for P.A. 3.1 thru 3.9
h) Add new P.A. 5.1 & 5.2 (SITLA 79 acres)

Staff comments are as follows;

1. The requests are consistent with the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential.
2. The realignment of Hidden Valley Drive is supported by staff.
3. The number of dwelling units has increased by 90, but this is reflected in the addition of P.A. 5.1 and 5.2 which staff supports.
4. The applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission the design for future P.A.s, the Club House, and the RV storage area at the August 14, 2007 meeting or return in the future with a BDCSP application at future meetings for separate approval.
5. As required by City ordinance a hillside review shall be required for any proposed hillside development over 20%.
6. The street radius in P.A. 4.1 and 5.1 shall be to the satisfaction of the City Traffic engineer and meet City street design standards.

Ray said he did have a phone call from the Washington School District and they were concerned about the school site being removed.

Colin Wright applicant said about a year ago they had about 80 acres for a new location for schools. But the district said they did not want a site there. Then last Thursday he heard from the school district they want an elementary school there. He will return to the school discussion once it is determined if they want a school there or not.

Colin spoke on the changes and the reasons behind the changes.

Tom Vincent said they have been very good neighbors. His concern is the trail system to the west side he has not seen any plans for that trail system being there anymore. There is no sidewalk on that side and their mailboxes are on that side. He would like to see the trail system being reconsidered.

Colin Wright said he met with Milly Cockerill from the Citys Park Department and Ray Snyder and Collin would like to help out with that sidewalk issue but he would like to work together with the City and try to get this done. It would be hard for Ivory Homes to bear that whole expense so they would need some help from the City to accomplish that task.


PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 2007
Page Eight



MOTION: Commissioner Bracken made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a zone change request from Ivory Homes, Mr. Colin Wright representative, to rezone approximately 79 acres from OS (Open Space) to PD (Planned Development) on land that is contiguous to and southwest of the existing Hidden Valley Master Plan and consider a request to amend the existing PD zoning on approximately 585 acres of the Hidden Valley Master Plan. The amendment to the existing Master Plan consists of the realignment of Hidden Valley Road, the removal of a school site, the addition of a church site, the addition of an RV site, the relocation of a club house, and the renumbering of several P.A. (Planned Areas), with staff comments and the understanding the City Parks Department and others will work together on the trail system getting down to the parks. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. All voted aye.


BDCSP (Building Design Conceptual Site Plan) and BUILDING HEIGHT approval

Consider a building design and conceptual site plan (BDCSP) to construct a new 150,000 sq. ft. seven level medical out-patient facility. The height proposed will exceed 35 feet. The project IHC DRMC Outpatient Pavillion. The owner is IHC Hospitals, Inc. The site is located behind the existing hospital on River Road and is accessible by East Medical Center Drive and/or Foremaster Drive. Case No. 2007-BDCSP-001

Planner Ray Snyder said the applicants attended a Planning Staff Review meeting on April 17, 2007. They brought in a building design and conceptual site plan to construct approximately a 150,000 sq. ft. (Note: A provision is shown for a future expansion to this proposed building on the north side of 4 levels at 85,680 sq. ft. and an outside obstacle course is also proposed). IHC is proposing to meet the demands of outpatient volumes which are near hospital capacity. This request will allow expansion of physical therapy and rehabilitation programs. Significant needed medial office space will also be provided. Ray presented the list of services this facility would provide;

1) balance/neurological rehabilitation,
2) occupational hand therapy;
3) occupational/physical therapy pediatric program;
4) speech therapy;
5) sports medicine;
6) caf;
7) life flight team sleeping quarters;
8) executive physicals area;
9) comprehensive spine program;

PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 2007
Page Nine


10) MRI/Ultrasound/X-Ray imaging;
11) operating rooms;
12) PACU;
13) Endoscopy;
14) recovery;
15) physician office space.

Ray said the building is proposed to have seven levels consisting of a parking level, lower level, first floor, second floor, third floor, fourth floor and mechanical level. The building will be located behind the existing hospital on River Road. The project would be accessible by East Medical Center Drive and/or Foremaster Drive.

Ray stated the applicant presents the maximum roof peak which would be 80 ft. above the first floor level. The maximum roof peak would be 94.66 ft. above the lower level and 106.66 ft. above the parking level (lowest level). The existing hospital is 96 ft.

Ray pointed out the parking requirements. The hospital section requires two (2) parking spaces for each bed. The office section requires one (1) parking space for each 250 gross square feet of office area. This project is a clinic and not a hospital (no beds). The applicant is proposing the following;

1) 49 stalls inside parking level of building
2) 66 handicap spaces
3) 474 outside parking spaces
TOTAL of 589 spaces

The applicant has submitted a traffic report and it is presently under first review with the City Traffic Engineer. It is anticipated there will be impacts to the local area due to the project size. The City will require participation in improvements for mitigating any impacts.

Ray pointed out that between the existing hospital and this site is Rim Rock Wash. The applicant proposes to re-sculpture Rim Rock Wash into a landscape feature which would include a foot bridge. Staff has asked the applicant to preserve the natural look and to convey flood waters effectively. Staff advised the applicant that Federal/State permitting may be required to re-grade the wash/wetlands area. A drainage study will be required. Staff encouraged the applicant to keep the building away from the wash and place parking between the wash and the building; however, the applicant has elected not to follow that advice.

Ray said a photometric plan is required. A pole lighting shall be of a dark sky style with no lens protruding below the side perimeter of the fixture.

PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 2007
Page Ten


Staff recommends approval with the suggested conditions;

1. The building shall not exceed 80 feet from the first floor level.
2. The building colors and materials shall be per submitted to Planning Commission meeting of August 14, 2007 and match the Exterior Materials Narrative.
3. A photometric plan shall be submitted with plan check.
4. Pole lighting shall be of a dark sky style with no lens protruding below the side perimeter of the fixture.
5. The light levels are to be verified by a light meter prior to occupancy by staff.
6. All heating and cooling equipment will be concealed from public view.
7. Signage shall be under separate permit
8. The applicant shall meet all City Traffic engineering conditions as determined during the plan review process.
9. The tamarisk shall be removed and native desert landscaping shall be installed per approved landscaping plan.
10. The applicant is responsible to contact and process permitting with the Army Corp of Engineers any changes in Rim Rock Wash.
11. A FEMA letter of Map revision will be completed and submitted to the City as evidence of compliance.
12. A drainage study shall be provided and revised to the satisfaction of the City Engineering Dept.
13. The applicant is encouraged to consider a redesign to keep the building away from the wash by placing parking between the wash and the building.

Commissioner Campbell asked what the height would be from the street to the building compared to the hospital. Planner Ray Snyder said he would have to have the representatives answer this question.

Commissioner Taylor said he is concerned about the Rim Rock Wash. There was a storm a few days ago do you know how the water flowed in that wash area. Jay Sandberg said some of the flow that occurred was because the flow for the 100-year flood is 1,050 CFS. He said the Rim Rock Wash is not a flood plain area but it is being mapped by FEMA. FEMA decided they want it to be a flood plain.

Commissioner Campbell said the future flood plain map are they subject to that in the future. Jay said the map has been reviewed by the City and is ready to submit to FEMA.




PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 2007
Page Eleven


Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston asked if they received a photo simulation for this area showing how the building fits into the surrounding area of at least 500 ft.. Ray said they dont. They dont have a fly by computer generated for a 3D like a wire frame. They only have the photo simulation where they have shown the buildings. Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said she is concern because it does not show it in relationship to the area and the ordinance states its relationship to nearby ridges, hills, and buildings in those areas. Bob Nicholson replied that part is in the Conditional Use. The height for this building is not a Conditional Use in a PD zone. The height is just approved by Planning Commission.

Todd Tienery the architect on the project said the building will be licensed as a hospital on the first three floors. The top two floors are physicians spaces. They had already zoned the site anticipating that another portion of the hospital would need to be built. They dont have a timeline for this project or for the rest of the expansion of the property. They are looking to restructuring the wash area. They are trying to keep it in a natural setting. The height is a difficult issue. The land slopes which makes it difficult. They are trying to make the best use of the site. They are also looking to have a rehab floor that could tie into the hospital. They feel this is the best location for this project. Looking south from the street to the building the height of that would be 100 ft. He said that would be the penthouse. The penthouse is a little bit higher than the rest of the building.

Commissioner Campbell said if it is 100 ft. from the back of curb dead center on this building then you are saying that it is greater than that dead center on the hospital on the top. Mark Babit with Great Basin Engineering said on the south wing of the hospital it is roughly 35 or 36 and the curve to that point is down to a 26 - 32. The hospital will be taller. The finished floor is around 105 ft. to the top.

Russ Heath lives on the west side of the project. The road is only two lanes. He is concerned about making left turns and holding up traffic. He feels they should add another lane.

Commissioner Bracken said he is concern about the height of the street to the beginning of the first floor. Chairman Almquist asked if from back of curb would be a little bit higher. The applicant said they are looking for water retention in that area. The floor of the first floor is higher by 6 ft than back of curb.

Commissioner Nobis asked what happens if they put beds on the first two floors how would that change the parking. Mrs. Terri Kane said their intent is for outpatient - they have no intention to put beds in this building. The services for this building are all ambulatory patients

Commissioner Campbell said this is a tall building and compared to other buildings it has no relationship in this documentation to the hospital, the bluff and to the street. It would be nice if PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 2007
Page Twelve


they could see what this looks like at the intersection of River Road and Foremaster Ridge looking back to the east and/or a profile with a cross section going up Foremaster Ridge showing River Road, hospital height, showing the new building height and the cliff height and how they relate to each other. They are looking at such an extreme height he feels it should be looked at through a photo simulation looking to the east at the intersection of River Road and Foremaster. Maybe a cross deck section study directly going up Foremaster Ridge going North. This is a site plan and the building elevation review and he sees that the colors are similar to the hospital but it would be nice if they had more darker colors.

Chairman Almquist asked Commissioner Campbell are those things you mentioned addressable to keep this moving forward. What are you suggesting? Commissioner Campbell said those were just his opinions so maybe they should have a motion to see if everyone supports it.

Commissioner Nobis said he felt they should ask for it and said he would like to see it. Commissioner Bracken said he felt it wouldnt make any difference to him. He said he didnt need to see it. Commissioner Burks said since this is a conceptual request for them to approve this goes to City Council as a conceptual also. Commissioner Bracken said yes.

Chairman Almquist felt this was one of the most detailed conceptual that they have ever had. The reality is this would not change his opinion.

Commissioner Taylor said there are some things he likes of the location. He felt the people up on Foremaster Ridge would see this as a less imposing structure. He likes the design and used the property well.

Commissioner Bracken wanted to ask staff if they had any concerns about the underground parking being under water at any point. Jay Sandberg said as long as the map is revised otherwise they would have to move it 1 ft. above elevation. The lowest opening would be well above the wash and above the road.











PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 2007
Page Thirteen



MOTION: Commissioner Campbell made a motion to deny until they have further information or the applicant can request this item to be tabled and come back with additional information.

Commissioner Burks asked if this is denied cant the applicant appeal to City Council? Chairman Almquist said that is correct.

MOTION (2ND motion): Commissioner Campbell said if the applicant will not table this then he will make a motion to deny and the causes are; 1)Planning Commission needs to see a rendering with some darker colors on the building, 2) a profile going up Foremaster Ridge looking to the north showing the relationship of the hospital to this building to the bluff. The photo rendering looking to the northeast he is convinced that it may not show what he thinks
it might show so therefore the section is probably sufficient. They have asked all other applicants to show the relationship of buildings to other buildings - this applicant is no different.

Motion dies due to lack of second.

MOTION: Commissioner Burks made a motion to recommend to City Council approval and to have the two items ready that Commissioner Campbell has asked for ready for City Council. Commissioner Hullinger seconded. Commissioner Burks would also like to add to his motion if they would add beds they would have to come back to Planning Commission for approval and staff comments and exclude item 13. Commissioner Hullinger accepted that in the motion. All voted aye.
B. Consider a zone change request from RCC (Residential Central City) to PD-COM (Planned Development Commercial) on 1.20 acres. The proposed project is the construction of a 2 story office building with administrative and professional office uses. The location is 200 North Street at 165 West. The applicant is Mr. David Richens. Case No. 2007-ZC-018

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson presented this request is for a zone change from RCC to PD Commercial. Bob said the uses they are proposing are as follows;

Staff comments are as follows;

1. Proposal is for a 2-story office building with administrative and professional office uses. 20,592 sq. ft. total floor area on 2 levels.
2. 83 parking spaces required; site plan shows 85 spaces.

PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 2007
Page Fourteen


3. Staff feels the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land uses (Porters Nursing Home, rental property and Hughes Law Office to east, C-3 zone to south).
4. Building design and materials (brick) has a historic character and blends well with the Downtown Historic District architecture.
5. If approved, the PD Zone requires the approved site plan and building elevation drawings to be followed or the zone is null and voided.
6. A letter from the Downtown Enhancement Committee (Gloria Shakespeare, chair) is enclosed endorsing the proposed project.

Commissioner Campbell asked what type of materials they are using on the building. Bob believed it was brick. Greg Mathis the agent for the applicant said they are proposing a old style
of sandstone brick and a small portion of grey stucco, to break up the brick and the white painted wood balconies and hand rail wood. The shingles will be clay or a concrete composite of grey color to match the historic look. There was a discussion on using wood versus stucco.

MOTION: Commissioner Campbell made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a zone change request from RCC (Residential Central City) to PD-COM (Planned Development Commercial) on 1.20 acres. The proposed project is the construction of a 2 story office building with administrative and professional office uses. The location is 200 North Street at 165 West. The applicant is Mr. David Richens, and include staff comments and include landscape plan. Commissioner Burks seconded the motion. All voted aye.


Commissioner Campbell stepped down due to conflict of interest on this next item.

ZONING REGULATIONS AMENDMENT - PUBLIC HEARING 5:00 P.M.

Consider a zoning regulation amendment to Title 10, Chapter 8 Planned Development Section 10-8-7 Mixed Use Development Standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Change Section 10-8-7 (D) regarding the minimum amount of residential floor area from 51% for 3-story buildings to a lesser amount depending on the number of stories in a building. Mr. Neil Glauser, applicant. Case No. 2007-ZC-011

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson presented this item. Bob said the applicant has asked for a change in the code. This deals with the Chapter 8, Section 7.D Mixed-Use Development Standards. Bob read the ordinance into the record. For buildings with 3 or more stories at least 51% of the total building floor area shall be used for residents.

Bob stated this has been on the books since 2006 for about a year and a half. He said the current language is a little bit awkward in that on mixed use building they anticipate that at least the top floor would be residential. Bob read the applicants proposed language to change the code. For PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 2007
Page Fifteen


buildings with 2 or 4 stories approximately 40% of total floor area shall be used for residential use and approximately 30% of the total floor in a 3-story building shall be used for residential use or otherwise approved by City Council upon recommendation from the Planning Commission.

Bob said as staff has looked at it, they have just simplified the language a little bit and here is another approach. As a minimum requirement the upper floor shall be used for residential use.
Commissioner Burks said the applicant proposed is basically 40% of the total floor area shall be residential. If you go to the one that is an alternative - if it is 4 stories then only 25% will be residential use as a minimum. Bob said that would be the minimum or it could be more.

Bob said this applies for vertical mixed use because they already have in the code if you are talking side by side buildings then it is a little bit different.

Commissioner Taylor said rather than having this specific amount residential or a specific amount commercial he felt it would be wise to say, lets do that which has the least intrusion. He said if the building is going into a residential zone then the residential part of the building should be a higher percentage or if it is going into a commercial zone then it should be lesser residential.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston asked Commissioner Taylor when you say if it is in a residential zone, are you talking about the other zones surrounding this? Because this will be a PD zone of its own. So if you are surrounded by 3 different zones how would you go about weighing that? Commissioner Taylor said in that case it should be 50-50.

Neil Glauser the applicant agrees with staff. Mixed use has not been brought into St. George yet. The commercial is whats going to drive the mixed-use. This is an architectural issue.

Kim Campbell the architect said the efficiency is not so great when you start dealing with stacking commercial retail. This particular ordinance is to take care of numerous situations that will be coming up in this City. It has to be able to work for all situations. He feels the percentage concept does not work to well. There has to be some language in that about discretion and some maximums and some minimums.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said Planning Commission needs some sort of standards that you are basing your approval on. It is a legistrative action so it can be fairly loose but it also approving the standards for that zone. Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said in this particular code section it also says that further use mixed developments combining both commercial and


PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 2007
Page Sixteen


residential uses within the same building are generally intended to be located within the urban core area or part of a larger commercial project. She said so what Planning Commission may want to do is define the urban core area or what larger commercial project means.

Commissioner Hullinger left the meeting at 7:20 p.m.

Commissioner Bracken said they need to go by floors instead of percentages. It will not work with percentages.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said one of the other conditions in Section G states that the main floor needs to be commercial unless approved by the City Council.

Dean Williams lives in Meadowcreek and is a member of HOA for this subdivision. Should the City code be amended to approximately 30% of a 3-story building? The application is to achieve a blend into residential zones. The change from the applicant affects all the residents in St. George. The applicant, Blue Mountain, acquired the property with full knowledge of the requirements in the R-1-10. Thousands of residents will be affected by this zone change. This is spot zoning. This application should be denied. There has been no research on this issue and on the finding facts. This proposed amendment would completely destroy the R-1-10 zone and would set a precedent to the City of St. George. It is the Planning Commissions responsibility to make sure that Low-Density residential zones are protected.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said this is an application to amend the ordinance and they have the right to hear this and they have not withdrawn their application.

Jerry Campbell said he is concerned with this ordinance and he ask for this to be denied this evening. He does agree that the 51% does make it difficult to work with. In the City code it states those mixed use developments are generally intended in part of an urban core area or a large area.

Dave VanLoten spoke on the design of the twin towers of Salt Lake City. This was in the heart of the City. This request is not in the heart of the City. He is against this idea for multi-use building.
Ryan Blacken said he thinks there needs to be a careful study of intrusion. This cant be approved and it has to be denied.

Chairman Almquist thanked the residents for their point of views. Chairman Almquist asked for any final comments.




PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 2007
Page Seventeen



MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion stating he finds there is a conflict between the proposed amendment and the other standards that relate to mixed-use requiring that only the first floor be used for commercial. Since that standard is in place, this is in conflict with that standard. Commissioner Taylor moved that they deny the change until it is resolved with the other standards that are in the definition of mixed-use. Commissioner Nobis seconded the motion.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Commissioner Bracken asked Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston if she agreed with that.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston replied that is one way to handle it the other way is to go the opposite and correct what the problem is tonight. So that recommendation goes forward and is dealt with now. But that is up to the Planning Commission.

Chairman Almquist said maybe Commissioner Taylor needs to tell us what the conflict is between what Deputy City Attorney Houston read and the initially readings from Section 7
Commissioner Taylor said Deputy City Attorney Houstons description on the mixed-use development standard indicates that commercial can only be on the first floor. This amendment would allow additional commercial but it still by definition would be restricted to only the first floor. They have not received a recommendation to change that so he doesnt think that they should write that amendment this evening. He feels it should be studied out and brought back to look at so that whatever changes they make today are also in harmony with the original definition.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said they could strike the exact language here and leave H as being the one that determines what has to be on each floor or the City Council determines it.

Commissioner Nobis said even though H has not been advertised. Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said none of it was advertised except saying that it was going to be changed. It was pointed out that it did say D on the public notice.

Chairman Almquist asked for a vote on the last motion.

MOTION: Commissioner Bracken and Commissioner Burks voted nay. Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner Nobis voted aye. Motion fails.

2ND MOTION: Commissioner Burks made a motion to table and to have staff bring back language to solve this and bring it back to the next Planning Commission meeting. No second. Motion dies.

PLANNING COMMISSION
August 14, 2007
Page Eighteen




3rd MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to strike Section 10-8-7D from the Mixed-Use section, and go with 10-8-7H. Commissioner Bracken seconded the motion.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston suggested not all because you still want your height limit of 45 ft. unless approved. So she would suggest only striking the last part.

3rd MOTION: (continued) Commissioner Taylor amended his motion to the first sentence should be included and all the rest should be deleted. Commissioner Bracken seconded that. All voted aye.


MINUTES

Consider approval of the Planning Commission minutes for May 8, 2007, May 22, 2007, June 12, 2007 and June 26, 2007.

Minutes were approved with minor corrections.