St. George


Planning Commission

Tuesday, September 25,2007
Minutes



CITY OF ST. GEORGE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH
PLANNING COMMISSION
September 25, 2007 - 4:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Chairman Gil Almquist
Commissioner Ron Bracken
Commissioner Ross Taylor
Council Member Gail Bunker
Commissioner Mike Nobis
Commissioner Chapin Burks
Commissioner Kim Campbell (arrived at 5:15 p.m.)

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

EXCUSED: Commissioner Julie Hullinger


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 Sunrise Ridge Phase 4 on 2.02 acres (87,991 sq. ft.). 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). Case No. 2007-FP-049

B. Consider approval of a final plat for Pelican Hills Condominiums Phase 2 on 5.96 acres (259,618 sq. ft.). This will have seven (7) two-story buildings with eight (8) units per building (56 units total). The zoning is PD (Planned Development). The site is located at Dixie Dr. and approximately 900 South. Mr. Brandon Anderson, representative. Case No. 2007-FP-027

C. Consider approval of a final plat for Mirage Estates Phase 4 on 0.815 acres (35,502 sq. ft.). This is a three lot subdivision (Lots 69-71) located in Southgate at the intersection of Sir Monte Drive and 2025 South Circle. The zoning is R-3 (Multiple Family). Bella Viaggio Subdivision, L.C., owner, Mrs. Nadine Graves, representative. Case No. 2005-FP-101
(Note: Previously approved but not recorded within 18 months and has expired).

PLANNING COMMISSION
September 25, 2007
Page Two


D. Consider a final 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-FP-033

MOTION: Commissioner Burks made a motion to recommend to City Council approval for the final plats A through D read into record and authorize Chairman to sign. Commissioner Nobis seconded the motion. All voted aye.


LOT FRONTAGE UPON A PRIVATE STREET

Consider a request to build a home with the lot frontage upon a private street located off of Little Valley Road and north of 3580 South St. (in Little Valley and north of Little Valley Ranch Estates subdivision). Mr. Cameron Cutler, applicant. Case No. 2007-FP-002

Planner Ray Snyder stated this request is to build a home with the lot frontage upon a private street. The property owner would have access to his parcel by a 25 ft. access and utility easement. Ray pointed out Section 10-14-3 on lot standards.

Deputy City Recorder Paula Houston asked if there was a copy of the easement? Cameron Cutler said it is in the packet which City staff has. Ray said he will see that Legal gets a copy.

Cameron explained how the property was put into a trust for the family to build upon. Right now Cameron will be the first of three siblings to build on the property.

MOTION: Commissioner Burks made a motion to recommend approval of a request to build a home with the lot frontage upon a private street located off of Little Valley Road and north of 3580 South St. (in Little Valley and north of Little Valley Ranch Estates subdivision) subject to having a copy of the easement to City’s Legal Department with legal approving it. Mr. Cameron Cutler, applicant. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. All voted aye.


BDCSP (Building Design Conceptual Site Plan)

Consider a building design and conceptual site plan (BDCSP) to construct a self storage facility consisting two buildings; Building “A” would be 74,400 sq. ft. and Building “B” would be 2,950 sq. ft. The proposed height of Building “A” would be three stories at thirty-three feet (33'-0") and Building “B” would be one story at ten feet six inches (10'-6"). The PLANNING COMMISSION
September 25, 2007
Page Three


proposed project name is “Towne Storage.” The owner is Mr. Burke Bradshaw. The site is located at approximately 2000 East Riverside Drive and is adjacent to the Middleton Wash. The zoning is C-3 (General Commercial). Case No. 2007-BDCSP-002.

Note: This item was continued from the August 28, 2007, Planning Commission meeting.

Planner Ray Snyder said at last meeting Commissioner Campbell had numerous questions on the architecture of the building including the color rendering. Ray presented the color rendering of the buildings and a sample board of the exterior material use.

Commissioner Nobis asked was there any discussion on changing the color of the doors? Ray said they are still requesting green doors as they did on August 28th meeting.

Burt Bradshaw applicant said the green doors blend really well with what other colors they have for design. Burt explained what materials will be used on the building.

Commissioner Taylor said he is not liking the green doors as the other Planner Commissioners.

Chairman Almquist made some suggestion to the green doors. Burt said he would not have a problem with changing the color of the doors.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston pointed out that the colors shall be subdue earth tones with others being limited to the trim.

Council Member Bunker said she felt the yellow should also be more subdued than what is being shown.

Burt said the landscaping will be whatever the City ordinance states it needs to be.












PLANNING COMMISSION
September 25, 2007
Page Four



MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to recommend to City Council approval with a building design and conceptual site plan (BDCSP) to construct a self storage facility consisting two buildings; Building “A” would be 74,400 sq. ft. and Building “B” would be 2,950 sq. ft. The proposed height of Building “A” would be three stories at thirty-three feet (33'-0") and Building “B” would be one story at ten feet six inches (10'-6"). The proposed project name is “Towne Storage.” The owner is Mr. Burke Bradshaw. The site is located at approximately 2000 East Riverside Drive and is adjacent to the Middleton Wash. The zoning is C-3 (General Commercial), subject to staff comments, except comment #3 shall be amended that the colors and materials shall comply with City code standards and the doors will be a lighter or earthtone color or will support the earthtone colors. Staff will support the color rendering before this item goes before City Council. Also, bring a board of materials that will be used for the building to City Council. Commissioner Bracken seconded the motion. All voted aye.


Planner Ray Snyder did a short presentation on the Utah Leagues of Cities and Towns held in Salt Lake City on September 12 through 14, 2007.

ZONE CHANGE - PUBLIC HEARING 5:00 P.M.

Consider a zone change request from R-1-10 (Single Family Residential) to PD Commercial (Planned Development Commercial) on 3.90 acres. Located at 1300 East and 900 South. Blue Mountain Holding, applicant. Mr. Neil Glauser, representative. Case No. 2007-ZC-013

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson presented this item. He said this is a rehearing for a request that came to Planning Commission on June 12, 2007. After much discussion Planning Commission recommended approval. When it came to Planning Commission, City staff missed a criterial code. The code was Paragraph H (Section 10-8-7) which states that 51% of the total floor area shall be for residential use. Before this went to City Council staff informed the applicant that it was not a valid application under that code. It was then that it was decided that the code should go to Planning Commission and City Council to amend the code to eliminate the 51% residential floor area for a requirement, because it conflicted with another provision in the code. The applicant is back for a rehearing for the same request.

Bob pointed out that letters were sent within the 500 ft. radius on September 13, 2007. The Public Notice was published in the Spectrum on September 14, 2007. Bob explained the mailing labels were provided by a title company. There are a number of letters that were returned to the City for various reasons.


PLANNING COMMISSION
September 25, 2007
Page Five


Bob said this project is for 3.9 acres and is currently zoned R-1-10. The applicant is requesting PD Commercial. Bob presented photo simulations. Bob stated they are proposing to construct three buildings. The first two floors would be office use and the top floors would be residential units. There would be a total of 4 condo’s in each building.

Bob said based on the office floor space there are 277 parking spaces (4 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.) and 2 parking spaces per residential unit would come to 24 parking spaces. This would be a total of 301 parking spaces.

Bob said the mixed-use code was adopted in January 2006. This is the City’s first application to the new mixed-use code. The land coverage of 25% of the parcel area has to be in landscaping and they are showing 26%. He said the density of the project is low compared to what it can be. Building height for mixed-use building cannot exceed 45 ft. unless a greater height is approved as part of the Planned Development zone. Bob said they are requesting 57 ft. Bob pointed out that there is a minimum of ground floor glass, which is 40% of non-reflective glass, they are exceeding that. The upper floor area above the ground floor area should be used as residential dwellings unless otherwise approved by City Council after considering the recommendation from the Planning Commission. Bob pointed out to Planning Commission that during their deliberations they would have to discuss the use of the upper floors.

Bob spoke on the term “within the urban core area” He said generally that refers to the central city area. This is a judgement call whether this is in the central city area.

Commissioner Campbell stepped down when he arrived as he is the architect on the project.

Neil Glauser the applicant said this came before the Planning Commission in June 2007 and was approved. He feels this would be a great project.

Kim Campbell the architect said the building height is documented on the documents. When you read the ordinance and look at it line by line mixing the project between residential and office use is a blend that is fairly subjective. The City has adopted mixed use and would like to promote that throughout the community. He said traffic difference between residential and office seems to be .7 trips per 1,000 for residential and the office was 1.4 trips.

Jim Raines said traffic is an emotional issue. Jim said they look at two peak periods 7- 9 AM and 4-6 PM when they conduct a traffic study. The turning movement is what they project from. The traffic that this building will bring can be handled by the roads in the area. He said they do not overload the intersections.


PLANNING COMMISSION
September 25, 2007
Page Six


Craig Morley said he is here to address the diminished value of the adjacent property. There is always a concern when something new comes into an existing development and what that will do to their property values. The overall appearance and look of the project plays a roll in this. He feels that this will not bring any diminishing value to their property. There is not the impact that neighbors have feared.

Chairman Almquist opened the public hearing at 5:44 p.m.

Jean Wrapple a resident has concern that the buildings are large for the area. She feels the traffic is going to be infected in her area. She mentioned other projects coming into their area and how these new developments will impact the traffic.

Bryce Wrapple said he has concerns with the height of the building and also the views that will be blocked are issues for the neighbors.

Jerry Campbell said the inter-core portion needs a definition. The one that looms is inner city. He is not against mixed use but he feels it needs to be applied as a benefit to the City. He talked about spot zoning.

Robert Paxton said his concern is the traffic. He feels the zoning regulation needs to be re-looked at. He spoke on the traffic report stating it would be approximately 930 vehicles per day on a typical weekday.

Commissioner Bracken asked the City’s Legal Department to explain any legalities that Planning Commissioner’s may need to be aware of.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman said he could answer that. He pointed out that the same standards that can be considered by City Council are also the same for Planning Commission, there is no difference. The law is the same for both.

Dean Williams said he agreed with the others that have spoken on the issues of this project. He feels the applicant has not proven the burden of proof and therefore the application should be denied.

Commissioner Bracken has called for a question. He would like to close the public hearing. Chairman Almquist asked for a vote. Commissioner Burks voted aye, Commissioner Taylor voted aye, Commissioner Bracken voted aye, Commissioner Nobis voted nay, Chairman Almquist voted nay. Chairman Almquist said the public hearing will continue.


PLANNING COMMISSION
September 25, 2007
Page Seven


George Miller said when he was going to buy his home he consulted the City’s Master Plan. The area he was interested in was zoned R-1-10 and he then made a decision to buy his home. The height is unacceptable. He spoke on the parking. He is against this project.

Sandra Call said she is speaking on behalf of her parents (Norman & Eileen Blake). They own the property that is being surrounded by this proposed development. This would be very devastating to them if they had to relocate. She is against the development. Please vote against this petition.

Darwin Whitaker named off names of subdivisions that do not approve the attempt to change the zone on this property.

Russ Heath questioned about the lights in these buildings.

The public hearing was closed at 7:10 p.m.

Neil Glauser replied to some of the concerns. He spoke on the views. In the core of the city north on River Rd we have restaurants, entertainment, and retail in close vicinity. This is not spot zoning because of the proximity to another professional office and to River Road. He feels a residential use in Planned Development zone would still generate traffic to this area. Regarding established rights of owners, we also have rights. Could it be built elsewhere?, yes, but this is an ideal location. There are different types of commercial. This is a professional office use with a mixed use of long term residences. In St. George hotels are short term examples. Do you want short term or long term? This area would allow residents to be close to other residential neighbors. He gave examples of other areas where mixed use will also make sense in the future. Neighboring Meadowcreek is not a low density residential but it is a medium density residential. Regarding the 5 ac.; Blue Mountain owns the 3. 9 and adjacent property which will exceed 5 acres. There is not a mistake in parking, but if there was we would comply with parking ordinance requirements. Blue Mountain is the one being victimized. Sorry to hear traffic is cutting through. Will do what we can to soften the impact on Blake Home (wall, landscape, etc.).

Jim Raines with Bush and Gudgell said they are applying for a Planned Development not R-1-10. This is not going to be spot zoning. He explained what the surrounding zones are around this parcel. The General Plan is MDR (Medium Density Residential) and they are easily under it. Jim said they meet the parking requirements.

Commissioner Nobis asked Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston in looking at the ordinance under Section 10-8-7 J which talks about mixed-use. “Mixed-use developments are not intended for small parcels unless adjacent to an existing mixed-use development therefore the minimum PLANNING COMMISSION
September 25, 2007
Page Eight


lot or parcel size for mixed-use is 5 acres and exception may be approved by the City Council where the City Council determines of the proposed mixed-use development or less than 5 acres is compatible which integrates in the surrounding area harmonize manner. Commissioner Nobis said his question is, it doesn’t say anything in the ordinance that allows the Planning Commission to do that, can they do that?

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston replied that was an issue that they talked about before and that needs some clarification. Because it does not clearly state that Planning Commission will make that determination. However, if you go back to other code section 10-10-8 on “Other Requirements” it says the Planning Commission shall also forward any recommendations for approval, disapproval or modifications a Planned Development request as reviewed by them to the City Council. She said that applies to this whole chapter. So she believes that Planning Commission can make its recommendation but ultimately it is City Council that will have to decide that.

Council Member Bunker said she still feels that this is wrong location for this project. She feels that River Road should not be taken as an urban core. This just doesn’t make sense. She feels they are making an island of the residents around it.

Commissioner Taylor asked are you aware of the current ordinance for mixed-use that allows only the first floor for commercial and the other floors above that for residential. Yet your project tonight ignores that and he would like to know why.

Neil Glauser replied that at the end of that paragraph it also states the Planning Commission and City Council can approve an exception. Commissioner Taylor said in other words you would like us to look at this as an exception. Neil replied yes.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said she would like to clarify before Planning Commission makes a motion. On this one you are going to need to have findings on each and every one of the provisions in the code and why you are making your findings the way you are.











PLANNING COMMISSION
September 25, 2007
Page Nine



MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to deny the request for this zone change. His findings are on item A, B and C there are no conflicts with the code. On item D they have a conflict with the code because the building height is greater than 45 ft. and he does not believe there is justification for making that exception. On items E & F finds no conflict with the code, item G the ground floor use could be used for office/retail/restaurant he finds no conflict, on item H he does find conflict with the code in that the upper floors should be residential and does not find justification in making an exception to that. On items I and J he does not find conflict. He does have concerns that this mixed-use does not integrate properly in the surrounding area, and is not in harmony with neighborhood. The urban core has not been clearly defined, but this area would not be a proper extension of an urban core. Commissioner Nobis seconded the motion.

Commissioner Taylor voted aye Commissioner Burks voted aye
Commissioner Nobis voted aye Commissioner Bracken voted nay

The vote is 3 to 1 because they need four votes therefore it does not pass. Chairman Almquist asked for another motion or a revised motion.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
City Attorney Shawn Guzman asked Chairman Almquist for a five minute break to confer with his Deputy City Attorney. Chairman Almquist said that request during a motion decision to verify the results of the motion vote would be allowed if there is no descenting vote.

Chairman Almquist said there are several reasons for the vote that he will cast at this time. One of which is that Blue Mountain has the ability to appeal to the City Council on any actions taken by the Planning Commission. He feels there will not be another motion forthcoming and therefore Blue Mountain’s ability to appeal would likely be left to them anyway because of that lack of action. Secondly there are some significant sections of the code which deal with specifically allowing in spite of Section 10-10-8 to allow Planning Commission to make recommendation to City Council but which would in this case be more clarified if the sections given to them in the code provisions requiring mixed-use in acreage would be allowed to be clarified by City Council before them in a more direct fashion instead of coming through the four headings of that same chapter. Secondly the Robert rules of order concerning of voting of a Chairman do not overlap exactly with State code and State code allows for Chairman to vote in other instances other than to break a tie. Chairman Almquist said he votes in favor of the motion under these circumstances and allow this to go forward on an appeal to City Council or to come back as reconfigured in another way for that holding by the applicant. Therefore, the motion passes 4 to 1.

PLANNING COMMISSION
September 25, 2007
Page Ten


ZONING REGULATION AMENDMENT - PUBLIC HEARING (5:00 P.M.)

A. Consider a zoning regulation amendment to amend the St. George City Code, Title 10 Zoning Regulations, Chapter 10 “Commercial Zones”, Section 10-10-5(I) “Special Provisions” design review and approval process for commercial buildings with a ground floor (footprint) area of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet or more to include the review of cumulative commercial buildings with ground floor (footprint) square footage of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet or more. City of St. George, applicant. Case No. 2007-ZRA-012

Planner Ray Snyder said to Chairman Almquist that he would like to take the two zoning regulation amendments together. Chairman Almquist read Item B into the record.

B. Consider a zoning regulation amendment to amend the St. George City Code, Title 10: Zoning Regulations, Chapter 9: Administrative and Professional Office Zone (AP) by adding Section 10-9-7 Special Provisions, for review of buildings with a ground floor (footprint) over twenty thousands (20,000) square feet and to include the review of cumulative commercial buildings with ground floor (footprint) square footage of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet or more. City of St. George, applicant. Case No. 2007-ZRA-003

Planner Ray Snyder presented the first item which is regarding commercial property. He went over the revision to the new language on Chapter 10 Commercial zones. Ray said this revision allows to look at the footprint area of 20,000 sq. ft. building or a site with a cumulative ground floor sq. ft. of 20,000 sq. ft. or more. They are also adding a three dimensional (3D) rendering for review. The City Council will review the building design and conceptual site plan.

Commissioner Taylor when they use the word cumulative it almost suggests that it could be a period of time. He feels aggregate would be a better word to use instead of cumulative or does it make a difference legally.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said it does make a difference and those are issues that she has discussed with staff and wanted to bring up with Planning Commission here to determine what is your intent to accomplish here. If you have a new building that comes onto a site that is already developed and they have two buildings and if that building is smaller but the overall project is going to be over the 20,000 sq. ft. - do you want to be able to review that and to make sure what the whole look and the impact is going to be. If you don’t want to look at those that are just adding to what has already been approved and existing, it would be worded different.

Planner Ray Snyder they are trying to add more language to this text so when they meet with an architect staff can say they need to meet these requirements.

PLANNING COMMISSION
September 25, 2007
Page Eleven


Planner Ray Snyder went on to the next item which was B. He said this item was tabled in May 2007. The section would be totally new in AP ordinance for 10-9-7 for Special Provisions. It is the same language as the one for Commercial Zones.

There was continued discussion and rewording the ordinance.

MOTION: Commissioner Burks made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a zoning regulation amendment to amend the St. George City Code, Title 10 Zoning Regulations, Chapter 10 “Commercial Zones”, Section 10-10-5(I) “Special Provisions” design review and approval process for commercial buildings with a ground floor (footprint) area of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet or more to include the review of cumulative commercial buildings with ground floor (footprint) square footage of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet or more. City of St. George, applicant. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. All voted aye.


MOTION: Commissioner Burks made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a zoning regulation amendment to amend the St. George City Code, Title 10: Zoning Regulations, Chapter 9: Administrative and Professional Office Zone (AP) by adding Section 10-9-7 Special Provisions, for review of buildings with a ground floor (footprint) over twenty thousands (20,000) square feet and to include the review of cumulative commercial buildings with ground floor (footprint) square footage of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet or more. City of St. George, applicant. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. All voted aye.

Meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m.