Planning Commission Minutes

Tuesday, February 26,2008



CITY OF ST. GEORGE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 26, 2008 4:00 p.m.


PRESENT: Acting Chairman Ron Bracken
Council Member Gloria Shakespeare
Commissioner Kim Campbell
Commissioner Ross Taylor
Commissioner Mike Nobis
Commissioner Chapin Burks
Commissioner Ron Read
Commissioner Julie Hullinger

CITY STAFF: Community Development Director Bob Nicholson
Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth
Planner Ray Snyder
Engineer Cathy Hasfurther
City Surveyor Larry Bundy
City Project Manager Todd Jacobson
Engineer Jay Sandberg
Substitute Recorder Teri Forbes

EXCUSED: Deputy City Recorder Linda Brooks

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

CONSENT ITEMS FINAL PLATS

A. Consider approval of an amended final plat for Bloomington Knolls Townhomes Phase 2. This is for the addition of two proposed town home units (74 and 75 located at approximately 1050 East on the south side of Brigham Road. Mr. Reid Pope, representative. Case No. 2007-FP-063.

Project Manager, Todd Jacobson presented the staff report. Units 74 and 75 were proposed to be constructed on the existing tennis court site. Staff recommended approval of the plat.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of an amended final plat for Bloomington Knolls Townhomes Phase 2. This is for the addition of two proposed town home units (74 and 75 located at approximately 1050 East on the south side of Brigham Road and authorize Chairman to sign. Commissioner Hullinger seconded the motion. All vote in favor of the motion.

B. Consider approval of an amended final plat for Creekside Homes. This is for elimination of lots 40, 41, 42, 43 which have been conveyed to the City of St. George. The associated limited common areas and a portion of the common recreation area will also be deeded to the city. The site is located at approximately 351 South Valley View Drive. Mr. Larry Bundy, representative. Case No. 2007-FPA-022.

City Surveyor Larry Bundy presented the staff report and stated that the matter was continued from a previous meeting. All issues had since been resolved.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth stated that the request was due to flooding that occurred previously. What was proposed would rectify the situation. The HOA granted approval. Larry Bundy commented that the City asked that the plat be amended.

Commissioner Nobis asked if the easement had been recorded. Larry confirmed that the document had been recorded.

MOTION: Commissioner Hullinger made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of an amended final plat for Creekside Homes. This is for elimination of lots 40, 41, 42, 43 which have been conveyed to the City of St. George. The associated limited common areas and a portion of the common recreation area will also be deeded to the city. The site is located at approximately 351 South Valley View Drive and authorizes the Chairman to sign. Commissioner Burks seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion.

PRELIMINARY PLATS

A. Consider a preliminary plat request for Whisper Ridge Phase 3 with 8 single-family lots located approximately at the end of Indian Trail Road. Mr. Cary Blake, applicant. Case No. 2008-PP-002.

Assistant City Engineer Jay Sandberg presented the staff report and identified the location of the Whisper Ridge subdivision. Progress made on the subdivision was described. Proposed changes were presented. Proposed rock walls on the site were reviewed.

Commissioner Nobis asked about the soils. Many had mentioned blue clay and asked if there had been problems in previous phases. Jay stated that there were no problems that he was aware of. The area was identified as an ancient landslide. The City was taking a second look at the site with regard to safety. He had met with the developer on the site who was working closely with AGCDP and realized there were potential problems with the soil. He explained that the area was stable; however, care must be taken to avoid doing anything that would start the landslide process over again. All that had been taken into consideration by staff.

Jay said staff has request that the developer reexamine the geotechnical investigation to make sure all recommendations are being complied with. A temporary turn-around should be provided. The high point of the subdivision was identified on the site map. The purpose of the large lot was to accommodate a potential homeowner who was interested in a view lot.

Commissioner Taylor asked about the rock wall and if there were any areas that would challenge the ordinance. Jay stated that there were not. Good rock wall building materials would be used.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to recommend to City Council approval a preliminary plat request for Whisper Ridge Phase 3 with 8 single-family lots located approximately at the end of Indian Trail Road subject to staff comments. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. All voted in favor.

B. Consider a preliminary plat request for Silkwood at Meadow Valley Farms with 98 single-family lots located at approximately 3300 South Little Valley Road. Mr. Sean Glathar, representative. Case No. 2008-PP-006.

Assistant City Engineer Jay Sandberg presented the staff report and stated that the property was located off of Little Valley Road. The subdivision was changed to R-1-10 with the condition that there is a development agreement.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth stated that the agreement was near completion. There were a few issues still to be resolved. Staff recommended approval once the agreement is fully executed and signed. There were some landscape areas to be maintained by the homeowners association and count toward the 15% open space. An equestrian trail buffer was also proposed between Little Valley Ranches and the subdivision. Maintenance issues were discussed.

Staff had some concern with the proposed park area. The developer proposed landscaping that would provide good visibility. Other proposed changes were identified. Timing issues were discussed. Mr. Farnsworth stated that the development agreement did not address timing. He clarified that the proposed park would be an HOA park rather than a City park.

Commissioner Taylor asked about the necessity of cul-de-sacs in the subdivision. Jay stated that staffs preference was for T intersections and the cul-de-sacs were kept to a minimum. Commissioner Taylor stated that the General Plan discourages cul-de-sacs in most cases. He wondered if that was being relaxed. He wanted to continue to honor the integrity of the General Plan. Jay stated that that was being done.

Commissioner Nobis asked for clarification of what would be maintained by the City and the HOA. Jay specified the areas are to be maintained by the City. It was clarified that the equestrian trail itself would be maintained by the City. Commissioner Nobis asked about enforcement. Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth stated that there were areas throughout the City that are maintained by the City. What was proposed was no different. Overtime staff felt that the equestrian trails would evolve.

MOTION: Commissioner Nobis made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a preliminary plat request for Silkwood at Meadow Valley Farms with 98 single-family lots located at approximately 3300 South Little Valley Road and include staff comments, specifically execution of the development agreement. Commissioner Burks seconded the motion. All voted in favor.

C. Consider a preliminary plat request for Towne Storage St. George No. 1 with 2 commercial lots located approximately 2000 East Riverside Drive adjacent to Middleton Wash. Mr. Jason Tuttle, representative. Case No. 2008-PP-004.

Assistant City Engineer Jay Sandberg presented the staff report and stated that a FEMA flood plain covers nearly the entire proposed site. The map was in the process of being updated. The subdivision was dependant upon the map being updated. Staffs main concern was with a City trail on the west side of the Middleton Wash. It was recommended that the developer pay special attention to that area.

Staff recommended conditions; 1) a flood plain development permit be granted by the City Engineer prior to construction drawings being approved, and 2) Middleton Wash is landscaped adjacent to the City Trail with natural erosion protection as recommended by the City General Plan.

MOTION: Commissioner Campbell made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a preliminary plat request for Towne Storage St. George No. 1 with 2 commercial lots located approximately 2000 East Riverside Drive adjacent to Middleton Wash subject to staff comments. Commissioner Burks seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion.


D. Consider a preliminary plat request for Sage Meadows with 91 single-family lots located adjacent to and west of 3000 East at approximately 2000 South. Mr. Eric McFadden, representative. Case No. 2008-PP-003.

Assistant City Engineer Jay Sandberg presented the staff report and stated that a development agreement was in process. Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth stated that the development agreement specified that the park would be dedicated to the City within the first phase of the project but dedicated in the second phase. Additional signatures were still needed. Once obtained, the matter would proceed to the City Council.

Jay specified improvements that would be required of the developers;

1) 15% of the site is open space to be improved as a public park.
2) There will be an enhanced landscape area along 3000 East outside of the park area.
3) Full improvements will be required along 3000 East including asphalt, sidewalk/trail, drainage improvements, street lights, etc.
4) The irrigation ditch will need to be piped, and receive canal company approval for piping and relocation.
5) The roadways that connect to Fieldstone Estates will need to match Fieldstone Estates currently approved preliminary plat alignment unless the developers can execute an agreement with the Fieldstone Estates developers to move the roadway.
6) The driveways for Lot 9 and 10 will be restricted to stay away from the intersection.

The adjoining development was willing to modify the location of their road to align with the proposed subdivision. The developer was aware of that and was spelled out in the development agreement. Fieldstone was in the process of amending their plat. It was clarified that Fieldstone was in the preliminary plat stage. Both projects would leave the low, marshy area untouched.

Commissioner Nobis asked about the parking requirement for the park. Jay responded that it was proposed as a small neighborhood park and the applicants would be required to address the parking. No parking requirements were spelled out for parks.

Commissioner Burks asked how far away Lots 9 and 10 would have to stay from the intersection. Jay stated that there was a City requirement that would address that.

Commissioner Taylor addressed Lots 1 and 2 and asked about fill. Jay stated that both would have walk out basements with a small retaining wall. The contours of the property were described.

MOTION: Commissioner Burks made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a preliminary plat request for Sage Meadows with 91 single-family lots located adjacent to and west of 3000 East at approximately 2000 South including the six staff comments and execution of the development agreement. Commissioner Hullinger seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion.

BDCSP (BUILDING DESIGN CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN)

Consider a building design and conceptual site plan (BDCSP) to construct a commercial shopping center with four (4) buildings. The total aggregate footprint for all buildings would be approximately 25,760 square feet. The first phase building would serve as an auto parts retail business. The first phase project name is Carquest. The owner is Mr. Ivan Cannon. The representative is Pope Engineering. Located at the intersection of Sunset Boulevard and 2100 West Street. The zoning is C-3 (General Commercial). Case No. 2008-BDCSP-001.

Planner Ray Snyder stated that the above matter was asked to be withdrawn by the applicant. He explained that projects are discussed prior to meetings by staff. The property was identified on the plat map. Concerns with the project were identified. The applicant requested the matter be withdrawn to allow them to make necessary revisions.



CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Consider a request for a conditional use permit to establish and operate a Child Family Support Facility (Respite). Ms. Christine Nelson and Ms. Laura Bartschi applicants, The property is located at 310 West Street and 200 North Street. The zoning is Residential Central City (RCC). Case No. 2008-CUP-002.

Planner Ray Snyder presented the staff report and gave background on the project. The proposed staff conditions were reviewed.

The request was to operate a child family support facility in the RCC zone. The applicants wanted to pursue a conditional use permit on the proposed property. Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth explained that the conditional use permit could not be acted on until Item 7 is addressed.

Ray presented a Power Point presentation and stated that the original request came through in 2007. The proposed language to be added to the definition of Child Family Support Facility was presented. Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth remarked that similar language was added to the multi-family zone previously. The language change would affect all potential conditional use permits in future for this particular zone.

Christine Nelson the applicant stated that the requirement was five to six children per staff member. The ground was limited and the only way to provide additional staff would be to obtain more money from other grants. The initial grant would allow for only one staff members.

Commissioner Read asked whether the parking requirements would have to be met for eight children. Ray said that the parking interpretation would have to be made by the Planning Commission. Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth stated that the matter could be addressed if the conditional use permit is approved. The possibility of parking in the front setback was mentioned.

Commissioner Taylors understanding was that the use would not be residential in nature. Staff was expected to be on duty 24 hours per day. Ms. Nelson stated that initially the site would be operated from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Within four to six months they would hope to operate longer hours.

Commissioner Taylor asked what the advantage would be to the operation compared to foster care. Ms. Nelson stated that parents or grandparents could be given a break for 72 hour periods when necessary. The facility would also be set up to assist various agencies and the community.

Commissioner Taylor identified the challenge of dealing with children from dysfunctional homes and not being able to deal with one person or facility. Ms. Nelson did not disagree but thought that having multiple staff was most likely the least of the worries of the children who will utilize the facility. In the community she saw a number of grandparents raising grandchildren. Many needed a break.

Acting Chairman Bracken opened the public hearing.

Robert Johnson Program Director for DCFS, saw the proposal as a great opportunity to subsidize the shelter home. He hoped it would provide a way to maintain sibling relationships. He viewed it also as an opportunity for the community and to keep children safe while parents address a crisis. The age group would be 0 to 11. They were seeing problems with very difficult children aged 9 to 11. They often were more difficult to place with families. The facility would provide a way for them to serve those types of children.

Paul Marshall a crisis center worker stated that they served as a service center for ungovernable children who cant be admitted to the detention center. When younger children are mixed with older children who have committed crimes, there are serious issues. He thought the facility would be beneficial to the community.

Paul Blackmore commented that he and his wife had been foster parents. He stated that many children have special needs and it was extremely valuable for foster parents to take a break and regroup. He thought the proposed facility would have a very positive benefit. Facilities like the one proposed were typically very structured and had a positive influence.

There were no further public comments. The public hearing was closed.

Ms. Nelson described the activities that would take place at the facility. Licensing requirements were described. Presently at the Southwest Center they served 100 children. Generally, the workers attended Dixie College.

Commissioner Taylor asked about saturation issues. Ray stated that Planning Commission might want to determine a radius and have it plotted on a map and how close they feel is reasonable.

Ms. Nelson commented that the first home that was chosen was lost because the process took so long. She then obtained a map to look at zoning. In considering the request, she asked that the Commission consider that she had pay an engineering to do two sets of plans as well as other expenses and a great deal of time on her part. As an applicant, the process had been long and expensive.

Commissioner Hullinger did not view the facility as any different as large families that might live on her street.

MOTION: Commissioner Hullinger made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a request for a conditional use permit to establish and operate a Child Family Support Facility (Respite). The property is located at 310 West Street and 200 North Street. The zoning is Residential Central City (RCC). Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion.

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING

Consider an amendment to the City General Plan Land Use Map. The existing land use designation is LDR (Low Density Residential up to 4 du/a.). The requested land use designation is MDR (Medium Density Residential up to 9 du/ac). The area encompasses approximately 87.46 acres. The applicant is Wright Homes, Ltd. The project is Cottam Fields Mr. Derek Wright, representative. The site is located at about 2000 South River Road on the east side of River Road. Case No. 2007-GPA-006.

Community Development Director, Bob Nicholson, presented the staff report and stated that the above two items would be addressed together. It was a request to amend the City General Plan. He explained that if item number five was not supported, then item number six would be moot. Mr. Nicholson reported that the total site was 87 acres in size; 37 acres of which were located on steep slopes and not developable. The current zoning of the property was single-family R-1-10, which would translate into 164 homes with a few benefiting from the steep slope protection bonus. The Citys General Plan for the property translated into 198 homes including the steep slope protection transfer bonus. Traffic issues were discussed. Mr. Nicholson suggested the Commission take a site visit to see the back portion of certain lots. Renderings of the various proposed homes were displayed.

Bob stated the following staff comments;

1. The applicants are proposing disturbance on slopes above 20% on the hillside and will be required to go to the Hillside Review Board.
2. A third access to the traffic signal at Ft. Pierce Drive and River Road should be constructed in conjunction with Phase 2 or before the first 100 units are constructed. A temporary access to the Cottam Fields Subdivision prior to the project exceeding 50 units is being proposed. This connection should become permanent when the property between the two developments is developed. With the three proposed connections, the traffic for the development will be adequately served.
3. The applicants have provided a preliminary utility study, which indicated that the site will have sufficient utilities for the increase in density.

Paul Peterson was present on behalf of Wright Homes. Two neighborhood meetings were held previously where feedback was received. In response, they tried to address and implement the suggestions received from citizens. At the second meeting, many could see the proposed changes such as the reduction to the number of proposed lots. Mr. Peterson stated that many developments tout themselves as being affordable. He viewed that in many cases as an excuse to be low quality. Alternatively, they wanted their product to be attainable while maintaining high quality. Architectural issues were addressed.

Mr. Peterson stated that one concern identified by neighbors had to do with rentals. They did not want the area to become an area for nightly rentals. He stated that they would not be allowed. In addition, they did not want the area to be a high turnover investment area. The rental would be limited to 35% throughout the community and enforced and monitored by the HOA. Investor buyers would be limited by requiring certain time periods. They wanted the project to be one that would have a positive effect on the community.

The exterior of buildings would be of the highest quality. The intent was to maintain the community in good repair and appearance. Slope issues were discussed. Mr. Peterson identified the adjoining property owners. They tried to keep the impact minimal while still providing a benefit to the community. Open space areas were described. At least 68.8 of the 87 acres would be left as open space. The site plan was displayed.

Mr. Peterson stated that at the second neighborhood meeting they agreed to construct detached units adjacent to the adjoining community. The site plan was referred to. The developers agreed to do one level homes next to the adjacent homes. They also left the area next to the foothills undisturbed. The neighbors did not want a trail that would connect to the Boulders. The developers agreed to work with staff on the development of a park within the project. Other community amenities to be offered were described.

The renderings were displayed. Mr. Peterson explained that mansion homes would be one large home to be used by more than one person. The largest units in the mansion homes would be on the end units. The individual units were described. The terrace homes would feature single-level living. The rendering of single-family homes was displayed.

The Cottam family gave a statement read by Chris Pickler, Dixie Cottams daughter. She reported that her parents purchased the property from Ms. Picklers grandfather. As her parents aged they sold off some of the property. They had lived for a long time without any neighbors. Ms. Picklers father died recently and her mother who was in her 80s found it difficult to manage the farm. Her mother decided to sell the farm and most of her cattle but she had specific criteria. She wanted a say on the property and attainable housing and green space. She also wanted a fair price and an honest developer who would work with she and her neighbors. They knew it was difficult for many neighbors to have development in their backyard. She explained that it was difficult for the family to see the farm go. The family would continue to be neighbors to the development. Her mother found Wright Homes who had been honest and fair with her. She asked that the Planning Commission approve the proposed development.

Commissioner Campbell asked for a visual of the backside of the units. Mr. Peterson stated that the rear side of the homes would have a two-car garage at the base and there would be some variation.

The public hearing was opened.

Gary Watts a homeowner in the Boulders, remarked that he lived adjacent to the property. He stated that some changes were made as a result of the neighborhood meetings. He stated that the marketing focus was as second homes. He was opposed because of how the proposal would affect the community. He considered it as being bad for the neighborhood. He thought the proposal was contrary to principles of quality planning. He stated that the proposed Citys General Plan change was never addressed at the neighborhood meetings. He did not think the general plan should be changed for the benefit of one developer. He did not view the development as an effort to provide workforce housing or continue the efforts of Vision Dixie. The intent was to sell smaller, less expensive homes. The effort was to increase income at the expense of the neighborhood. Wright Homes focus was to serve the interests of snowbirds. The proposal would not improve the neighborhood and would be an intrusion in the middle of a single-planned area. He hoped the Cottams could sell their property but was not in favor of the proposal. He encouraged the developer to come back with a single-family home plan.

James Neal a 1400 East resident stated that the project would impact anyone who travels River Road and compete for any of the intersections. It was expected that the project would generate an additional 700 cars on River Road. Traffic issues were raised. She was not in favor of the additional traffic the project will bring.

Joan Hickman identified herself as the President of the Boulders Homeowners Association and was present to speak on the homeowners associations behalf. They were opposed to the rezoning of the Cottam property because of the negative impact it will have on the area and the precedence it will set for high-density development. In the Boulders many homes were rented out or were vacant. She was aware of situations where the idea of homes having multiple owners was occurring. She was concerned about the integrity of their properties and did not want the integrity of the home values to be in jeopardy. Ms. Hickman voiced her opposition to the rezoning of the Cottam property.

An unidentified resident thought Wright Homes had been considerate and willing to compromise. She did not think those qualities were easy to find in developers. As a result of comments received, they made changes to the original plans, which she applauded. Her biggest concern pertained to infrastructure issues and realized that additional traffic would be added to the area. She wanted to preserve the safety of the residents.

Mr. Noble a nearby resident viewed the proposed homes as rabbit hutches rather than mansions. He encouraged the Commission to deny the request and go back to low-density housing.

Mr. Baer a nearby property expressed opposition to the proposal. To this point, every development had been in harmony with the general plan. The present plan was divisive to the homeowners. The cost of the property was such that if the zoning is not changed the development could not be pursued. He believed the developers had integrity but did not believe the homes were truly affordable and were instead marketed as second homes. He thought the reason for the plan was to make up for the property owners poor timing in selling their property.

Blaine Embley asked about the emergency access to the back of the proposed homes. He was concerned that the development would generate a great deal more traffic. Fire safety issues were addressed. He wondered how the homes could be accessed in the event of a fire. He suggested instead that lower density development be proposed. He thought the Cottam property was beautiful and should be maintained without clustering it and increasing the amount of traffic dramatically. Mr. Peterson described the access behind the homes, which would be the necessary width. Mr. Emery doubted that with the width proposed, the homes could not be accessed by emergency vehicles.

Kit Vowels a Quail Valley Estates resident felt that he lived in a nice neighborhood with nice people. He questioned the developers ability to give discounts to certain people. With the amenities he thought what they were selling was more like a resort community. He did not want to see several families from Salt Lake investing in a unit.

James Bayles commented that there was pressure in the City to increase density since low-density housing was not sustainable because of the water situation. He was concerned that if rejected a future developer would propose even higher density. He congratulated Wright Homes for the proposed open space that would be viable to the homeowners.

The public hearing was closed.

Mr. Peterson commented rear elevations were not provided as they were not required by staff. He attempted to contact every neighbor who attended the first neighborhood meeting. He realized there was the potential for snowbirds to purchase the units. Their intent was to offer homes with appeal. Nightly rentals would not be allowed. The largest age demographic in Utah was identified as 25 to 34. There would be regulations to maintain the integrity of the project.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth suggested the Commission set out specific conditions they want adhered to if the project is approved tonight. Because the general plan amendment and zone change is a legislative change, the standard was whether it is in the Citys best interest and a reasonable request. There were no specific factors to be considered. The Commissions role was to make a recommendation to be forwarded to the City Council. The reasonable standard was determined to be the best interest of the city.

Commissioner Read asked Mr. Peterson how the proposed development would have a positive impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Peterson commented that a lot of open space would be included in the project. The traffic concerns were addressed. They had spared to expense in trying to develop a quality project. CC&Rs and a homeowners association would be in place to preserve the integrity of the project. He reported that an agreement with the Jones was in place and provided to staff.

Commissioner Read recommended there be a site visit particularly during peak traffic hours. Mr. Nicholson stated that the main purpose in taking a field trip would be to look at the lots proposed near the toe of the slope. Traffic was a difficult issue and a major concern. With or without the proposed project, River Road continued to get busier because of surrounding development. The various options available to the Commission were described. Regardless of the recommendation made by the Commission, the applicant would have the option of going forward to the City Council.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to recommend to City Council denial to the change of the Citys General Plan for the Cottam Fields. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion.

Commissioner Hullinger was excused from the remainder of the meeting at 7:00 p.m.

ZONE CHANGE REQUESTS PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. Consider a zone change from R-1-10 (single-family residential 10,000 square foot minimum lot size) to PD RES (Planned Development Residential) on approximately 87.46 acres. The applicant is Wright Homes Ltd. The project is Cottam Fields Mr. Derek Wright, representative. The site is located at about 2000 South River Road on the east side of River Road. Case No. 2007-ZC-006.

Because of the previous motion, the above item was moot.

The applicants formally withdrew their rezone request.

B. Consider a zone change request for an amended PD commercial zone on 2.256 acres (previously approved for a storage facility) located at approximately 1100 East between 200 South and 300 South adjacent to the I-15 freeway. The project is for a three-story hotel called the Sleep Inn. The applicant/owner is Mr. Ray Barton/Globe Land Development. Mr. Paul Blackmore, representative. Case No. 2008-ZCA-005.

Planner Ray Snyder presented the staff report and stated that the proposal was for a zone change for a Sleep Inn Motel. The location of the proposed site was identified. Renderings of the proposed project were presented. Written comments were received which were presented to the Commission Members. The proposed motel would contain 80 rooms with 83 parking spaces proposed. A traffic study was not required because of the traffic that was expected to be generated. The zoning of the property was commercial. Traffic issues were discussed. Staff felt that the proposed use would be less intense than others than could be developed. Mr. Nicholson stated that previously there was a storage unit facility operated on the site. It was clarified that no traffic signal was proposed.

Paul Blackmore was present on behalf of the applicant. He thought the proposed use was an appropriate use for the site given the location and nearby commercial and other uses.

The public hearing was opened.

Don Williams of La Paloma had a major concern was with access and parking. He reported that there had been problems with cars parking along 300 South for longer than is allowed. Sleep Inn was a budget hotel and during peak times there would be traffic 24 hours per day. He did not want to add more traffic to an already busy area. He felt strongly that the area was not appropriate for a hotel. Parking lot lighting concerns were raised. A storage facility would primarily be open during the day but there would be no signage or lighting requirement associated with it. His concern was for his 54 units. He did not foresee a traffic light in the area because there were others in close proximity.

Brenda Bostwick the association president of La Palomar, agreed that there would be traffic problems. Since Sky West added on the traffic had increased. Her home would be in very close proximity to the proposed building. She was concerned about the increased potential for crime in the area. Traffic would also be disturbing to the residents. She did not want the proposed structure to decrease their property values.

Ralph Ritchie identified himself as the Mesas association president. He gathered over 60 signatures on a petition and spoke with 30 people on the phone. The residents were concerned about safety, parking, and traffic. The residents expressed opposition to the proposed zone change.

Another petition was submitted from La Palomar containing over 50 signatures.

Vern Bernard a Mesa resident, stated that when he purchased his home he was told that everyone around them would be residential and a golf course.

Cynthia Evanston a nearby resident did not want to have a motel in the middle of a residential neighborhood. She thought the proposed location would be difficult for guests to find and did not make sense. The only advantage would be visibility from the freeway. The additional traffic was of concern to her. She hoped to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.

Mike Kelly a nearby property owner was concerned that his line of sight would be completely blocked by the proposed building. He expressed opposition to the proposal.

Valoris Rasband, 12-year La Palomar resident, stated that she lived across the cul-de-sac from the entrance from the motel. She estimated that there were 203 units in that small area. She did not think there was adequate room for the proposed motel. She submitted a petition containing more than 30 names.

The applicant, Ray Barton, stated that traffic had never been a problem with the hotels they had built. If traffic was a problem, the City would have required a traffic study. In response to a concern raised, he stated that semi-truck drivers rarely rent rooms. He stated that traffic lights would not shine into the neighbors windows because of a retaining wall that would be constructed. He could see no negative aspects of the proposal. He had a lot of experience in the motel development business and stated that they planned to install more landscaping and parking than the city requires. He stated that the facility would be a benefit to the community. With regard to lighting, it would be six feet off the ground around the perimeter of the property. It was noted that the tower was required by the franchise but the height was negotiable. The site would site on average 18 feet below the freeway.

Lighting issues were discussed. Commissioner Campbell asked how the heating/cooling units would be camouflaged. Mr. Blackmore stated that they could be located on the roof or on the backside of the building if it was the desire of the Commission.

In response to concerns raised by the neighbors, Mr. Nicholson asked the applicant if they had considered locating the building closer to the freeway with the parking lot between the building and the neighbors. Paul Blackmore stated that they had proposed just the opposite to reduce the noise from the freeway into the facility. He stated that as proposed, the building would create a buffer for the neighbors.

It seemed to Commissioner Taylor that the noise from the air conditioning units would be a nuisance to the neighbors.

In response to a question raised, Mr. Barton stated that there would be no weekly rates. Noise issues were identified. He stated that the air conditioning units would only be on in the evening hours. He did not expect that the air conditioning units would generate nearly as much noise as the freeway.

The public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Campbell believed the request did not fit in the area. Because of the proximity of the site to residential it did not work.

MOTION: Commissioner Campbell made a motion to recommend to City Council denial for the zone change request for Sleep Inn. Commissioner Nobis seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion.

C. Consider a zone change from R-1-10 (single-family residential 10,000 square foot minimum lot size) to C-3 (General Commercial) on 0.62 acres located at approximately 2860 East Street and 750 North Street. This is Lot 11 of the Pine View Commercial Center Subdivision Amended. Case No. 2008-ZCA-004

Mr. Nicholson presented the staff report and stated that the request was to correct an error in that the site was surrounded by commercial but the property remained zoned R-1-10.

The public hearing was opened.

Steve Cumming, the applicant, stated that the rezone of the property was overlooked. He asked that it be rezoned.

The public hearing was closed.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a zone change from R-1-10 (single-family residential 10,000 square foot minimum lot size) to C-3 (General Commercial) on 0.62 acres located at approximately 2860 East Street and 750 North Street. This is Lot 11 of the Pine View Commercial Center Subdivision Amended. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion.


ZONING REGULATION AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING

Consider a zoning regulation amendment to the City Zoning Regulations, Title 10, Chapter 7 Residential Zones Article F Residential Central City (RCC) Zone, Section 10-7F-2 Permitted, Conditional Uses, or Accessory Uses, to incorporate Child Family Support Facility (Respite) as a conditional use permit. Ms. Christine Nelson and Ms. Laura Bartschi applicants. Case No. 2008-ZCA-002

Planner Ray Snyder stated this zoning regulation amendment is in conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit (Item 4) which Planning Commission approved.

MOTION: Commissioner Read made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of the Zoning Regulation Amendment to Chapter 7 Residential Zones Article F. Commissioner Hullinger seconded the motion. All voted in favor of the motion.

STREET VACATION

Consider a street vacation for a portion of 200 West Street. From approximately 50 North to Tabernacle. This is for development of the new 5th District Court building and site.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson presented the staff report and stated that the issue had been properly noticed and there had been no protests.

The public hearing was opened. There were no public comments.

The public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Nobis asked why streets continued to be abandoned downtown. Bob stated that in this case it was absolutely necessary to accommodate the courthouse. It was noted that the street had basically been blocked off for years because of West Elementary. Road vacation issues were discussed.

Commissioner Campbell recused himself from the discussion due to a conflict.

MOTION: Commissioner Read made a motion to recommend to City Council approval of a street vacation for a portion of 200 West Street from approximately 50 North to Tabernacle. This is for development of the new 5th District Court building and site.
Commissioner Burks seconded the motion. Vote on motion:

MOTION: Commissioner Burks made a motion to recommend to City Council denial. Commissioner Nobis seconded the motion. Vote on motion:

Commissioner Burks-Aye Commissioner Nobis-Aye
Commissioner Read-Nay Acting Chairman Bracken-Aye
Commissioner Taylor-Aye Commissioner Campbell-Abstained
The motion passed 4-to-1.