Planning Commission Minutes

Tuesday, August 28,2007



ST. GEORGE CITY
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 28, 2007- 4:00 P.M.

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

CITY STAFF: Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston
Community Development Director Bob Nicholson
Planner Ray Snyder
Planner John Willis
Engineer Cathy Hasfurther
Project Manager Todd Jacobsen
Deputy City Recorder Miriam Palma

EXCUSED: Deputy City Recorder Linda Brooks


CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Almquist called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and welcomed those present. He acknowledged that a quorum of Planning Commissioners and a City Legal Advisor were present.

CONSENT ITEMS - FINAL PLATS

A. Consider approval of a final plat for Curly Hollow Road Dedication Plat. Located near the new Intermediate School; on Tonaquint Drive at 2000 South. Mr. Shad Hall, representative. Case No. 2007-FP-026

B. Consider approval of a final plat for River Road Extension located at River Road from Ft. Pierce Industrial Park to the proposed Southern Corridor (to the UT/AZ State Line). Mr. Rob Reid, representative. Case No. 2007-FP-036

C. Consider approval of a final plat for Creekside Homes 2nd Amendment. Located at Valley View Drive and East of the Santa Clara River. The zoning is PD-RES (Planned Development Residential). Mr. Larry Bundy, representative. Case No. 2007-FPA-022

D. Consider approval of The Villas at Hidden Valley Amended and Extended final plat. The plat consists of four single family lots and a 16 unit subdivision (duplexes & triplexes). The site is located at the intersection Price Hills Drive and Desert Hills Drive. The
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 28, 2007
Page Two



purpose is to modify the boundary line along the southwest portion of the common area and Lot #20. The zoning is PD-RES (Planned Development Residential). Mr. Colin Wright, representative. Case No. 2007-FAP-035

Todd Jacobsen introduced these items. He told Commission Members that items 1a and1b can be considered together as they are both Road Dedications.

Following a short discussion, Chairman Almquist called for further questions, comments or
discussion. Hearing none, he called for a motion on items 1a and 1b.


Todd Jacobsen stated on the final plat Creekside Homes 2nd Amendment that staff again recommends continuation until such time as requested information has been received. The Commission agreed and the item was continued.

Todd Jacobsen said on The Villas at Hidden Valley Amended this request is to extend the common area and also part of lot #20 to match a block wall that was previously built. He told the Commissioners that the existing easements will be abandoned and new easements with be put into place.

Chairman Almquist called for questions or comments from staff or public. Hearing none, he called for a motion.

PRELIMINARY PLAT

Consider a preliminary plat request for Sunrise Ridge Phase 4 on 2.02 acres. This is a 7 lot residential subdivision. Located at 2370 East and 50 South. Mr. Gorm Klungervick, applicant. The zoning is R-1-8 (Single Family Residential 8,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size). Case No. 2007-PP-013


PLANNING COMMISSION
August 28, 2007
Page Three


Senior Project Engineer Cathy Hasfurther explained that the entire project was approved and construction on three phases was completed between 1995 and 2001. However, Phase 4 was never built. Due to the long time span between approval and construction, staff felt it should be reassessed. She noted that no changes had been made.

Chairman Almquist called for questions and comments from the Commission or the public. Hearing none, he called for a motion.

PARKING

Consider a request to determine the appropriate number of parking spaces for Valor Hall a private school without utilizing a shared parking agreement. The school is located at 631 South 1100 East (adjacent to the 1100 East Park). The representatives are Ms. Tena Raleigh, Director and Ms. Jamie Wilson, Principal. Case No. 2007-SHP-001


Planner Ray Snyder explained that Valor Hall has applied to expand their facilities to include a multi-purpose room and another bathroom. When this item came to the Planning Commission in June of this year, it was approved with the provision that a shared parking agreement be signed with Harmon=s Grocery Store. The plan is being returned tonight due to the fact that, although Harmon=s is willing to sign an agreement, it cannot be recorded because they do not own the property on which their building sits. With a rearrangement of a trash container and handicap ramp, they would be able to get 15 parking spaces, but 16 are required. He further stated that except for being short one parking space, the parking stalls and the travel corridor do meet City specifications.

Ray said if the Planning Commission decides that parking is sufficient then staff recommends the following conditions;

1. The Planning Commission determines that the standard of parking for a public school does not apply to Valor Hall due to the maximum class size of 14 students (approximately of Washington County School District).
2. The applicant shall not increase the number of teachers or personnel.
3. The applicant shall not increase the number of students.
4. During the site plan review process it shall be demonstrated that parking meets the zoning ordinance requirements of 9 x 18 in size with 25 wide drive aisles.
5. A SPR (Site Plan Review) application along with 4 sets of plans shall be submitted to the Engineer Dept. for standard plan check review.

PLANNING COMMISSION
August 28, 2007
Page Four


Traffic Conditions
1. Meet the requirements of the City Traffic Engineer.
2. All signing and striping shall conform to the City of St. George and MUTCD standards.

Laurie Puchlik, mother of child attending Valor Hall, spoke in favor of the item and asked that the Planning Commission approve the parking plan. She stated that she had never seen any parking problems.

Commissioners questioned if the City had received complaints about parking? Ray Snyder said they have not.

Jaime Wilson, Principal, told the Commissioners that class sizes will remain the same, this renovation is simply to add more space for the existing student body.

Commissioners stated that they did not wish to keep the school from expanding, but wondered about the legality of approving either too few parking spaces or a shared-parking agreement that cannot be recorded.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston told Commission Members that the problem is if the parking plan is approved, it becomes a permanent use for the property.

Commissioner Burks asked if the parking plan could be a conditional use. Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said it could under the general exception for nonresidential parking with expiration when the agreement with Harmon=s terminates in any way

Following a lengthy discussion, Chairman Almquist called for a motion.

PLANNING COMMISSION
August 28, 2007
Page Five


CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Consider a request for a conditional use permit to construct a single story detached metal garage/storage/workshop that would exceed the allowable height of fifteen feet. The proposed accessory structure would be approximately twenty-feet (20-0) high to the roof peak. The property is located at 233 South 100 West. The property is in the RCC (Residential Central City) zone. Mr. Ed Braithwaite, applicant. Case No. 2007-CUP-016

Planner Ray Snyder introduced this item and explained that the subject property is in an RCC zone which allows for building of a detached workshop as long as it does not exceed a height of 15 feet or cover more than 25% of the rear yard.


With regard to this application, he brought the following comments before them regarding this request:

1. It is for both a building height and wall height variance.
2. It is for a metal building which will not match the existing home.
3. What guarantee is there that it the old home is removed that this will not be an accessory building on vacant lot.
4. Is a 2,000 sq. ft. metal building considered a residential garage?
5. The lot is long and deep and the applicant proposes putting the building at the far end.
6. If approved, the maximum height shall not exceed 20 ft.
7. The vertical wall is 15' 8" and the applicant is asking for approval of a wall higher than 10'.
8. The north setback should be ten feet minimum
9. The owner lives in the Boulders and will not be a resident at this site. Is the proposed building for the residence in the RCC zone or is it an offsite storage facility for the owner?
10. A letter was received from John Jacobs, a neighbor to the north, regarding a drainage concern.

Kay Heaton a neighbor on the north side of the property said he has concerns regarding the location of the building. He receives television and internet from SkyView, transmitted from Webb Hill. He felt that the height could interfere with reception if it were in wrong place. He wondered if the old home would be remodeled or torn down and whether a new home would be built for a rental property or if it would just be a storage area. Does the applicant intend to fence the property? In the process of cleaning the property, the applicant removed a drainage ditch, which was on the neighbors property that has been used for years to conduct flood water. He concluded by saying he would not object to the building at the proposed location as long as the building itself is used for parking and storage and not the entire lot.

PLANNING COMMISSION
August 28, 2007
Page Six


At this point, Mrs. Braithwaite arrived to speak for her husband, the applicant. She explained that Mr. Cleery, the building designer, was not here, but she would try to answer questions. She said they bought the property to remodel the home and rent it, but flash flooding had ruined the basement and they had decided to tear it down and rebuild a rental home. As the lot is so deep they decided to build a storage/garage at the back. She said they would use the building for their storage and may allow the tenant to use some of it.

Commissioner Campbell questioned what the outside finish would be. She did not know, but thought it would be metal.

Commissioner Taylor questioned the size of the building and asked why it would need to be 20 ft. tall. She said it would accommodate their RV. He explained that the reason behind this statute was to ensure that outbuildings are attractive and compatible with the neighborhoods. He asked when the proposed demolition of the home would be done. She did not know.

At this point, the item was moved down the agenda, with the hope that Mr. Cleery would arrive to answer Commission questions.

BUILDING DESIGN CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN

Consider a building design and conceptual site plan (BDCSP) to construct a self-storage facility consisting of two buildings. Building A would be 74,400 square feet, three stories with a height of 33 feet. Building B would be 2,950 sq. ft., one story, at a height of 10 foot 6 inches. The proposed project name is Towne Storage. The project is located at 2000 East Riverside Dr. adjacent to the Middleton Wash. Zoning is C-3. Burke Bradshaw, owner.


Planner Ray Snyder introduced this item and directed the Commissions attention to the narrative in their agenda packet. He said this would be a climate-controlled storage site and that the reason for this request is that the footprint of the building exceeds 20,000 square feet. He informed them that a rendering of the outside and material colors and samples were posted.

Staff comments and concerns were as follows:
1. Building will not exceed the 35 foot height allowable by statute.
2. Staff is concerned that the metal doors on west and east sides of the building are visible from Riverside Drive.
3. Color samples are posted.
4. A photometric plan shall be submitted with the plan check.
5. Pole lighting shall be of a Adark sky@ variety.
6. Light levels will be verified by a light meter prior to occupancy.
7. All heating and cooling equipment will be concealed from view.
8. Signage shall be under a separate permit
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 28, 2007
Page Seven


9. Applicant shall meet all traffic engineering conditions as determined during plan review.
10. Applicant is responsible to obtain all applicable permits associated with building near a wash (e.g., FEMA, Army Corp of Engineers, etc.).
11. A FEMA Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be completed and submitted to the city as evidence of compliance.
12. Drainage study shall be provided and revised to the satisfaction of the City Engineering Department.
13. A Flood Plain Development Permit shall be processed through the City Engineering Office.

Planner Ray Snyder told the group that another storage facility has been approved in that area. The other storage facility contains less than 20,000 sq. ft., and, therefore, did not come to the Planning Commission.

Burke Bradshaw, representative, came to the podium to answer questions. He said this is a new self-storage concept which will focus on high-end storage of equipment and supplies that may be sensitive to temperature, dust, etc

A lengthy discussion ensued in which Commission Members discussed the materials, colors and style of the building, location and look of roll-up doors, etc. They did not feel that the pictures and samples provided gave enough detail to make a decision. They stressed the fact that the City is trying to get away from the Abig box@ look of unbroken expanses and little architectural interest. They gave the representative some guidance as to the look they were seeking.

Hearing no further discussion, Chairman Almquist called for a motion.

Planner Ray Snyder notified the representative that additional information must be submitted by September 4th in order to get on the September 11th agenda.

Chairman Almquist returned to the Conditional Use Permit

At this point in the meeting, Chairman Almquist asked if Mr. Cleery had arrived to continue the discussion of the conditional use permit for an outbuilding to be built at 233 South 100 West. He had not, but the Commission elected to finish the discussion.


A lengthy discussion ensued in which the Commissioner felt they could not take action on this item without further information.

PLANNING COMMISSION
August 28, 2007
Page Eight


Mrs. Braithwaite requested that the item be tabled until the September 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting or whenever the additional information was available.

ZONE CHANGE

A. Consider a zone change request from R-1-8 (Single Family Residential 8,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to PD-RES (Planned Development Residential) on 0.49 acres. The project is Park Central Townhomes Phase 2. Located at 550 East 300 South. The applicant is the Leon Jennings Family Trust. The representative is Mr. Steve Jennings. Case No. 2007-ZC-002

Planner John Willis introduced this item indicating that the applicant is proposing to incorporate property from the rear yards of bordering homes in the Park Central Townhome development to build two more townhomes. He reminded the Commissioners that this request was previously denied on February 27, 2007. Since that time, an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding PD Zones has been approved to allow greater densities if the proposed development:

1. Is considered an infill development where the surrounding land is already developed
2. The proposed dwellings are platted for individual ownership of the dwelling units
3. The density and building scale of the proposed units are similar in scale to an adjoining developed parcel or is considered in scale with surrounding area and fits harmoniously into the neighborhood as determined by the City Council.

Mansfield Jennings came to the podium to answer questions from the Commission. He indicated that the Park Central Townhomes have a Home Owners Association into which the proposed townhouse would be incorporated. He said the construction would be the same type as the existing construction. Access has been acquired. The new acquisition will have at least 35% landscaping.

Commissioner Taylor addressed the group noting that when this ordinance was amended, he felt that it gave Council the authority to set aside zoning standards. He was uncomfortable with the amendment and felt it should be used cautiously or risk the possibility of breaking the public trust.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholsen also felt the amended ordinance should be used carefully, but felt in this case that as the property is landlocked and basically unusable, this would seem a natural way to get use from it. He felt it is a well-thought-out development and would be an asset to the neighborhood. He reminded Commissioner Members that any property PLANNING COMMISSION
August 28, 2007
Page Nine


applying for a zone change using the amended ordinance, would still need to meet the three requirements discussed above.

Janet Moen, a neighbor, came to the podium and expressed her opinion that in 2002, when the original petition was signed against this zone change, that neighbors were wary of being inundated by renters in their residential neighborhood. Since that time many of the neighbors have reconsidered and wish they had not signed the petition as they are unable to sell their back property.


Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston felt that Commissioner Taylor=s comments were helpful and reminded the group that this is not a way to ignore zoning, but a way for applicants to apply for a zone change in unique areas. She said that this is still is a legislative act and should be taken very seriously as should all zone changes. The Planning Commission is charged with deciding whether or not a zone change is a good fit with the neighborhood and good for the city at large. Because it is a density change, any motion made will need to have text stating exactly what is included and what conditions are being imposed.

Charlene Vale, also a neighbor, came to the podium to inquire whether there will be another entrance built to ensure safety of the residents. Staff indicated that the single access falls within the fire code regulations. After an explanation from Mr. Jennings, she was assured and approved the change.

The Commissioners engaged in a lengthy discussion regarding access through the development, building materials, landscaping and neighborhood opinions. They asked Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston if all legal requirements had been met. She indicated they had been met based on the text presented to staff.

Hearing no further questions or comments, Chairman Almquist called for motion.




PLANNING COMMISSION
August 28, 2007
Page Ten


B. Consider a zone change request from RCC (Residential Central City) to C-3 (General Commercial) on 0.17 acres. Location of former Bluff Street Chiropractic office. Located at 594 West 400 North. Mr. and Mrs. Callister, applicants. Mr. Robert Hermandson, Bush & Gudgell, Inc. representative. Case No. 2007-ZC-019

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson presented this item. He said that this site has been used as Chiropractic office for 30 years. There is a small house on the north that is zoned C-3 Commercial, a driveway to an LDS Church is on the west, Sinclair Gas Station on the south and residential on the east. In order to renovate this house for commercial use, they would need to meet current building codes, provide six off-street parking spaces and a privacy wall to separate the residential from commercial.

Staff comments are as follows;

1. This location is the former Bluff Street Chiropractic office.
2. There is an existing 1,452 sq. ft. single family residential structure on the site.
3. Applicant shall submit plans to Building and Fire Departments for a tenant improvement (to bring structure up to commercial standards).
4. No garage exists (no covered parking).
5. Six parking spaces are required (1,452/250); however it appears that only 2 parking spaces exist. Note: before a business license may be issued the applicant shall demonstrate by a site plan how parking will be met.
6. Staff feels the proposed commercial use is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The subject property is surrounded on 3 sides by commercial C-3 zoning.
7. A privacy wall will be required to be installed to separate commercial property from single family residential property.

Jerry Yeager, representative, came to the podium to answer Commission questions. He indicated that, through a misunderstanding, Mr. Callister thought his property was zoned commercial and has been conducting his chiropractic business at that site for 30 years.

Martin Lustig, who has made an offer on the property, came to the podium. He indicated that he does not know what he wants to use it for, but felt that maybe an administrative-type use such as doctor=s office, real estate, or architect or engineers office. He did think the trees on the Bluff side will have to come down to make room for parking. He felt that the area behind the building on the north, can be paved and be a drive through. He plans to keep the building as is for now and just improve the outside. He inquired about the privacy wall and was told that it would need to be put in as a condition of the zone change and would need to be at least six feet in height.



PLANNING COMMISSION
August 28, 2007
Page Eleven


The Commission discussed the proposed plans and cautioned Martin Lustig that the trees he plans to remove may be City trees, he would need to check with the Parks Department before removing them.

ZONING REGULATION AMENDMENT

Consider a zoning regulation amendment to add Acar wash auto and manual@ as a permitted use in Title 10, Chapter 10 ACommercial Zones@, Section 10-10-2 APermitted Uses@ in the C-1 (neighborhood convenience commercial) zone. Presently a car wash requires a conditional use permit in the C-2, C-3 and C-4 zones and is not allowed in the C-1 zone. Jeff Morby, applicant. Case No. 2007-ZRA-010

Jeff Morby, representative, indicated that for the last two years the owners have been trying to find an appropriate use for this corner. The biggest problem is the shape and size of the property. They feel that a car wash, with a well landscaped streetside, would an appropriate use and would clean up that corner.

Chairman Almquist asked if anyone had come to speak to this item. There was none. He called for questions from the Commissioners.

Commissioner Taylor asked why car washes are excluded in the C-1 zone. He asked if there are inherent problems.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said that the ordinance excludes businesses with traffic that originates outside the neighborhood (such as furniture stores, auto sales, car washes). These use are also typically not allowed in C-1 zones because of the possibility of providing odor, dust, etc. in the residential areas.

Chairman Almquist noticed that this is a small property that does not have any better uses and wondered if the property should be rezoned rather than amending the ordinance.

The Commission engaged in a lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of rezoning as opposed to an ordinance amendment and the problems of noise, dust, etc. from a car wash.
PLANNING COMMISSION
August 28, 2007
Page Twelve


Jeff Morby indicated that the automatic portion of the car wash would be at the rear of the property in order to reduce the possibility of noise pollution in the neighborhood.

Commissioner Taylor questioned whether or not the ordinance could be amended to add car washes in a C-1 zone as a conditional use rather than a permitted use, which would give the Commission and Council more control of individual situations.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston stated that is an option and could be done at this meeting.


The Commission discussed car washes in general and following that discussion Chairman Almquist called for a motion.

MINOR SUBDIVISION (Record of Survey)

Consider approval of an amended Minor Subdivision (Record of Survey) consisting of 3 lots in the Sunset Corner Development located at the corner of Sunset Blvd. and Bluff Street. Steve Jennings, representative. Case No. 2007-MS-001

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson stated that the purpose of this request is to facilitate subdividing of the overall parcel into separate lots. Under Utah State Code a plat exemption may be granted if a minor subdivision consists of 10 or fewer lots on an existing street. A Record of Survey (as named in Utah code) or Minor Subdivision (city code) had previously been submitted, but the plat was not recorded. The original plat contained five lots, tonight the applicant would like approval to divide lot #5 into three lots. This would still meet the requirement of 10 or fewer lots. He stated that utility easements must be recorded separately.

Mansfield Jennings came to the podium to answer questions. He stated that the reason for this request is purely financial. It must be done in order for the owner to convert the financing from a construction loan to a long-term mortgage. Some of the buildings need to be refinanced.

PLANNING COMMISSION
August 28, 2007
Page Thirteen


Hearing no call for discussion, Chairman Almquist called for a motion.


HILLSIDE PERMIT

Consider a request for a Hillside Permit for lots 5-8 of Primrose Pointe Phase, 3. The properties are located on Arroyo Drive, Korey Kinder, applicant. Zoning is R-1-10 (single family residential 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size). Case No. 2007-HS-004


Planner Ray Snyder presented the item. He stated that during a Hillside Review Board meeting in March, Primrose Point, Phases 2 and 3, were presented for a Hillside Permit. At that time only Phase 2 was approved and sent forward to the Planning Commission and on to City Council for approval. Phase 3 denied, but was again presented in July to the Hillside Review Board. At that time the item was tabled for further information. Phase 3 was again presented to the Hillside Review Board on August 22 and approved for submission to the Planning Commission with the following provisions:

1. There will be no encroachment into the UAMPS power easement.
2. A rock facing may occur (not for retainage)
3. The developer shall install trees against the hillside per revised plan.

Following the discussion, Chairman Almquist called for a motion.




PLANNING COMMISSION
August 28, 2007
Page Fourteen


NEXT MEETING

A discussion was undertaken regarding the next Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Almquist took a poll and found that only the City legal counsel would be attending the League of Cities and Towns meeting. It was decided to go ahead with the September 11, 2007 meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman Almquist called for at motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:50 p.m.