Planning Commission Minutes

Tuesday, January 27,2009



PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ST. GEORGE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH
January 27, 2009 4:00 P.M.


PRESENT: Acting Chairman Ron Bracken
Commissioner Kim Campbell
Commissioner Ross Taylor
Commissioner Julie Hullinger
Commissioner Ron Read

CITY STAFF: Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth
Community Development Director Bob Nicholson
Planner II Ray Snyder
Planner I Craig Harvey
Engineer Jay Sandberg
Senior Development Engineer Catherine Hasfurther
Secretary Gail Williams

EXCUSED: Commissioner Mike Nobis
Commissioner Chapin Burks


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


1. CONSENT ITEM FINAL PLAT

NONE

2. PRELIMINARY PLAT

Consider a preliminary plat request for 900 South Commercial Subdivision to create two lots; Lot 1 would be 1.41 acres and Lot 2 would be 2.59 acres. Located on 900 South Street (east of River Road). The owner is Blue Mountain Holding, the applicant is Mr. Jeff Morby, and the representative is Bush and Gudgel. Case No. 2009-PP-001.

Senior Development Engineer Catherine Hasfurther presented this request. This request will be to create one commercial lot and one residential lot. They also will be merging several lots into one big lot, calling it lot #2. A portion of lot # 2 sits with in the current flood plain. Since all the work done by FEMA, Catherine Hasfurther knows that our current map is slightly off. The latest map should show that the flood plain cuts a corner of lot #2. When lot # 2 comes in it will need to be looked at for flooding. Lot #1 is zoned PD-AP and lot #2 will stay R-1-10.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth pointed out to the Commissioners that all votes tonight must be unanimous because they have only a quorum of four.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor moved to recommend approval of preliminary plat item #2. He sees no comments that need to be attached to it as it appears to be in order. Motion seconded by Commissioner Read based on it being consistent with what they did when they came in July to get the zone changes. It is consistent with what they told the Commissioners they were going to do. All voted aye. Motion passes.

3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

A. Consider a request for a conditional use permit to establish and operate Dixie Igloo Ice Centre a proposed ice skating rink to be located at 3146 East Deseret Drive. The applicants are Mr. David Stanley and Mr. James Mitchell. The zoning is M-2 (Industrial). Case No. 2009-CUP-003.

Ray Snyder presented this request. They would like to have an NHL regulation ice sheet, locker rooms, lobby and all the features and concessions. This is the same location the Commissioners recently approved for a tire recycling facility. The real estate agent stated that the tire recycling is not materializing at that location.

Examples were shown as to what the inside of the building would look like. There are 75 existing parking spaces on sight. Staff does not see that the number of spaces could increase. Dixie Igloo Centre would like to start with one rink and add another at a later date if this venture is successful. At one time a go cart business was located here.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth stated that per 10-19-5, non residential area requirements for parking, skating, ice or roller, is listed and it says one parking space is needed for each 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Mr. Farnsworth questioned the gross floor space and then calculated that 73.9 parking spots would be needed. Mr. Farnsworth also pointed out that the ordinance allows the Planning Commission to make a reasonable recommendation to the City Council based on several factors outlined at the end of 10-19-5.

Mr. David Stanley came to the podium and stated that they would be occupying approximately half of the 53,800 sq. ft. of the building. He would prefer that parking be looked at as the occupancy level and not the square footage area. Mr. Stanley sees high traffic time during the open skating and league time frame, which would be in the evenings. Church groups, community groups, school groups would be using the open skating time. The whole building would be leased by Dixie Igloo Centre per the anticipated agreement with the landlord. This has not yet been solidified.

Commissioner Read asked if adjacent parking could also be available. Bob Nicholson , Community Development Director stated that in the evening a lot of cars could be accommodated on the street.

Reminder was given by Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth to consider noise, dust, odors, aesthetics, safety, traffic, height, hours of operation, saturation/spacing, character and purpose of the zone and public health.

MOTION: Commissioner Read recommended approval to council for this Conditional Use Permit. The conditions would be those set forth by staff on page 2 and in looking at the general factors of noise, dust, odors, aesthetics, safety, traffic, height, he finds no conflicts with any of any of those. One specific finding for the record that where the Planning Commission has the ability to consider parking requirements outside of the 300 sq. ft. based on the language that Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth pointed out, Commissioner Read wants to make a finding that the Planning Commission is looking at the gross area described as the playing surface itself and find 58 spaces are required for the playing surface and for the rest of the facility which the applicants are actually using, not counting the ice plant itself or any vacant space, the proposal is required to have 17 more spaces on a ratio of 1 to every 600 sq. ft. That would match his 75 required spaces. A request for the second ice surface would not be granted unless some additional parking requirements are met, so that is specifically excluded from the motion. Motion seconded by Commissioner Taylor. All voted ayes. Motion passes.


B. Consider a request for a conditional use permit to construct two (2) three-story (3) buildings with a common elevator that would exceed thirty-five feet in height. The project is called the Wilkinson Office Complex. The mid roof height would be approximately fifty-four feet (54) high. Located at 200 West Tabernacle. The applicants are Mr. Randy Wilkinson and Mr. Scott Wilkinson. The zoning is C-3 (General Commercial). Case No. 2009-CUP-002.

Commissioner Campbell is excusing himself due to a conflict of interest on this item.

Ray Snyder, Planner, will discuss item 3B and item 4 together, as they are the same location, but he pointed out that a separate motion will need to be made for both of these items.

Ray Snyder presented graphics of this project. The ordinance itself requires that when you measure a height for a building like this that you measure from the peak down to the eave and then find a midpoint. The building is really 54 ft. high to the midpoint. The ordinance limits the height of a building to 35 feet, unless a Conditional Use Permit comes before the Planning Commission and City Council.

They would like to remove the old Wilkinson Electrical buildings and construct these two story buildings. Across the street is the new State Courthouse which is under construction. This courthouse has a height of 65 ft. to the peak of the roof, 51 ft. down to the eave, and an ornamental bell tower goes to a height of 84 ft. The 5th District Court is a state project. There is a hierarchy of city, county, state, federal. The state gave us the opportunity to look at what they are proposing, but we didnt, and cant, do a conditional use permit on that. The state is building that building.

Phase one is being proposed tonight. The owner is Dixie Sun Ventures, LLC and the applicants are Mr. Randy Wilkinson and Mr. Scott Wilkinson. Kim Campbell, architect, is the representative. This is a commercial building in a C-3 commercial zone. If a C-4 zone is approved later, they would need to design it to meet the setbacks that would accommodate a C-4. The CUP is about the height of the building only. The actual height on this is 54 ft. as measured by the code.

Letters were received from Mark and Wendy Speener and family as being supportive of this project. However, she was approached by neighbors asking her to protest this for height variance, public vs. private building, too much office space and damaging to the center of the community. The Speeners added their supportive comments to all of the above neighbors issues. An email from Bob and Grace Kodweis was received asking that no exceptions in height be made and a letter by Velma Tew, protesting this project and saying she wants it to stay a historic home district. A letter asking for a vote against the project as it is currently designed was signed by Mary Kozlowski, John Vought and Bill Nix. They feel that the building is out of scale for the neighborhood and that the location is in a historical residential neighborhood. The highlights of these letters were read into the record.

A video fly by was shown which also showed the underground parking area. The trees will be full sized. A reminder was given by Ray Snyder that there will need to be two separate motions for this project, one for the height and the other for the site.

Randy Wilkinson, applicant, came to the podium. The two white buildings on the corner are existing and have a different owner. They made contact with the owners to try to organize a meeting to see if it is possible from their parking to make access to the new proposed buildings parking. Building C and D would be of similar building materials. Building D he sees as a possible restaurant which would be about 4,500 to 4,900 sq. ft. They took it into consideration to determine the number of stalls needed for parking so that it accommodates 1 stall for every 100 sq. ft. that a restaurant would require. This would be a single story building. Building C is anticipated to be about 12,000 sq. ft. and would be two stories with 6,000 sq. ft. per floor. The landscaping and the required parking have been made to accommodate the potential future building.

Commissioner Taylor mentioned the concern of the neighbors with the privacy issue due to the large building behind them. He questions if anything could be done to minimize the invasion of the privacy from the height of these buildings. He would like them to be sensitive to the privacy of the residents behind them.

Mr. Wilkinson stated that they have tried to keep the buildings as far north as possible to mitigate this as much as possible. An attractive new wall will be built on the south side. The landscaping trees could also help with screening for the neighbors. Mr. Wilkinson stated that perhaps Building C could also be turned and trees planted along the back lot lines.

Acting Chairman Ron Bracken invited members of the audience to comment concerning this project.

The first speaker from the audience was Ralph Lamoreaux who lives at 220 West 100 South. He is concerned with privacy in the back yards. He wondered if the trees couldnt be closer to the buildings rather than right in their back yard. He has two mulberry trees and already has lots of leaves to rake. If the trees are on their back line they would also block their view of what remains of the red hill. If the trees were closer to the east building that would block the view from the office into their back yards. He is also concerned about the traffic in the area. He has counted numerous times the cars going east and west on 100 South. From 7 or 8 in the morning until 6 p.m. weekdays, 500 cars an hour pass his house going east and west. Commissioner Read clarified that he would like the trees to be closer to the building and Mr. Lamoreaux said that was correct.

The second speaker was Diane Tew. They own some property just across the street from the remaining residential on the map. She has some questions. When they built on their property they had to contain all the water. She wondered if they were containing the water so it wasnt impacting the water flowing on 200 West and 300 West which is already a serious problem for people that live down those streets. She also stated that the City of St. George made a big deal not long ago about preserving this single family residential area and took the R- 2 zoning away from a bunch of people that were planning on it for years and it was already R-2. Now with all the commercial it seems like there is a really mixed message. She also wondered if the building height could be lowered so it would be one story shorter.

Luanne Harris came to the podium and said she owns the property next to Steve Moody. She also has the distinction of having the only home that sits back into the back of the block, so her two story house would be very close to that area. She likes the idea of shifting the building around, so there would be more room to have a few more trees. She also has pets and people motivate them to bark which would be distracting to the neighbors and she doesnt want that. She also wondered what the hours of business will be and how late they can anticipate having people parking there. She thinks the design is beautiful and she loves the fact that it is up in that corner, but she does have issues of her house being that close to the parking lot and having access for people being able to scale her fence.

David Lundberg lives on 2nd north right next to the Senior Citizen Center. When they put in the new Senior Citizen Center, they put in a cinder block wall that was red colored. His house is a historic home, 1878, wood framed, and the historic feel was ruined by the cinderblock wall. He is concerned about the new wall being put in, especially next to the residential and he would suggest that it not be cinderblock in any form and that it be something more amiable to the historic nature of the houses in that area.

Alan Tew came to the podium and he owns property on 100 South. He has concerns about water. He has seen many homes and basements flooded along there. He can almost count every time a building was built up north of them that there would be more water going down the street due to runoff. He is also concerned about the height and he used to be able to see the red hill and with the hall of injustice there, he wont be able to see it. If they (courthouse) dont need permits, does that mean that we will supply them with water and electricity and city services? What really concerns him is that the current zoning is residential and why are we changing the zoning for all of these things? He would like to stick with the zones we have if we really want residential, then they should leave it residential and have low roofs rather than extend everything up.

Acting Chairman Ron Bracken asked if staff would like to make comments concerning the water and zoning.

Engineer Jay Sandberg came to the podium and said that a project like this is required to do a detailed drainage study and they are required to detain on site the increase in run off. The site plan does show a detention area if you look closely. They are planning for that and have shown it on the plan. He also mentioned that the Courthouse that is under construction was required to do a very extensive drainage plan. They have detention on site and also a storm drain that runs east and ties into the Citys storm drain.

Planner Ray Snyder stated that the corner property is a commercial zone. There is an item on the agenda tonight about changing some of the downtown area to a C-4 and other properties that are acquired by the Wilkinsons could be affected by a zone change, but what they are looking at tonight is already commercial.

John Vought came to the podium. He lives on 1st South. His concerns were listed in the letter so he will not repeat those. He is concerned that the scale of living in a semi rural atmosphere in the middle of the city is a great privilege. He wanted to appear and identify himself with the views of his neighbors.

Acting Chairman Ron Bracken reminded the applicant that they are short on members here today and that it will take all 4 votes to pass. If they would like to delay this until the next meeting when there might be more commissioners here to vote, they are welcome to do so. If they want to continue on with the vote at this time they are also welcome to do that. Mr. Wilkinson said to proceed today.

Joseph Farnsworth, Assistant City Attorney gave a reminder that for the conditional use permit, they should go through the findings when making the motion.

Acting Chairman Ron Bracken pointed out that this will be handled in two different votes, one as item 3B motion and another motion as item #4.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor said regarding 3B, conditional use for height, he moves to recommend to City Council approval for the conditional use permit based on the findings that the buildings are not in conflict with the surrounding area but very similar to the new courthouse building that is being completed, that the design of the buildings shows a continuity of design from the traditional Dixie Center area. The height as stated in the building is acceptable. The concern that he would have would be with regard to the public health issue that the storm water detention be designed so that the neighbors do not have a problem of additional storm water coming as a result of the construction of these buildings and that significant effort is made to shield or screen the backyards of the neighbors from the view of the office building. As discussed, the planting of screen trees is probably the best approach. Those are the two issues that he would feel should be included.

DISCUSSION: A question arose from Commissioner Read asking if in addition Commissioner Taylor will go with staff conditions as stated on page 2. Commissioner Taylor then added the staff conditions as stated on page 2. Commissioner Read then asked if he had any issues on the standard conditions that he wanted to address other than staff comments. Commissioner Taylor replied that his additional concern on findings was with the storm water detention under public health. He asked if Commissioner Read had other issues that he felt should be included. Commissioner Read said the one that came to his attention due to Ms. Harris bringing it up was the hours of operation. Commissioner Read is assuming that there are no CCRs that restrict hours, but he asked Mr. Wilkinson if the general office hours would he be from 7:00 A.M.-6 PM. Mr. Wilkinson said that would be correct.

MOTION was seconded by Commissioner Read. All voted aye. Motion passes.

4. BDCSP (BUILDING DESIGN CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN)

Consider a request for a BDCSP (building design conceptual site plan review) for the first phase of the proposed Wilkinson Office Complex proposed to be located at 200 West Tabernacle. The applicants are Mr. Randy Wilkinson and Mr. Scott Wilkinson. The zoning is C-3 (General Commercial). Case No. 2009-BDCSP-001.

MOTION: Commissioner Read proposed that they recommend approval with the conditions which they noted: all driveways shall line up, and Building C shall be turned or moved north to accommodate a landscaping strip along the back of the adjacent two homes, the applicant shall focus landscaping on large trees that screen and do less emphasis at the back of the adjacent wall on anything of height, to give the neighbors as much site retention as they can possibly have up to the red hill and not have to deal with the leaves issues. The focus shall be on the landscape strips and on telephone easement a line of trees that would screen three or four of the properties from both of those large buildings. Based on the site plan and the pictures theyve seen, those types of materials would be consistent and that the storm water detention be consistent with the city code. Motion seconded by Commissioner Hullinger. All voted aye. Motion passes.

5. WIRELESS MASTER PLAN

Consider a request for an amendment to add two more locations to the Wireless Development Master Plan for Verizon Wireless network. The representative is Technologies Associates International Corporation. Case No. 2009-WMP-001.

Ray Snyder presented this plan. This is to add two new sites. One is Winchester Hills/Ledges and the second site is in the Ft. Pierce Industrial Park vicinity.

The applicant representative is Ms. Connie Misket. They would like minimal impact to be aesthetically pleasing in the neighborhoods. The tower in Ft. Pierce would be mounted directly on the side of the water tank and will not exceed the tank height. The equipment shelter will be within the fenced in area. The Winchester Hills/Ledges may be a pole in the 60 ft. range, in which case they would apply for a conditional use permit. Today they are only approving the sites.

MOTION: Commissioner Campbell made a motion to approve item 5. Commissioner Read seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion passes.

6. HILLSIDE PERMIT

Consider a request for a hillside development permit for the construction of a two-story storage building. The site is on approximately 3.84 acres. The building site footprint is 4,000 square feet. The owner is Paydirt Properties, LLC, the applicant is Mr. Jason Vowell, and Brown Consulting is the representative. The property is presently zoned C-3 (General Commercial) with a deed restriction. Hillside Permit Case No. 2008-HS-011.
(Pending City Council determination on January 22, 2009)

The Planning Commission tabled this item pending City Council determination of the deed restriction.


7. ZONE CHANGE REQUESTS PUBLIC HEARINGS (5:00 P.M.)

A. Consider a zone change from R-1-8 (Single Family Residential 8,000 square foot minimum lot size) to PD-RES (Planned Development Residential) on approximately 24.66 acres. The project is Palomar Assisted Living. The applicant is P&L 777, LLC and Mr. Rick Wood is the representative. The site is located at approximately 1980 East Riverside Drive. Case No. 2009-ZC-001.

Planner Craig Harvey presented the project. This project was heard at the last Planning Commission meeting on January 13th and it was tabled for more information There were three issues they needed to resolve. Trail access needed to be resolved as well as to provide more information regarding the building height in relation to the rockery walls on Riverside Drive. A photo simulation with cross sections also was needed and this they have now provided. Acting Chairman Bracken asked if they were able to remove the telephone poles and wires. Craig Harvey stated no, but he noticed that they are not shown on this photo simulation. Acting Chairman Bracken said it would have been good to see them in relationship to the height. Craig Harvey stated that if the Commission feels that it is a necessary thing for the zone change to go forward, then they could request that. Acting Chairman Bracken stated that if the project went to City Council, it would be nice for them to have it. Craig said it could be made part of the condition.

The new proposed site plan was shown. The applicant rotated the buildings off of Riverside Drive and put the narrower portions fronting the highway. The parking is now in the front. Staff feels that this is a better option and is more pleasing to look at, and as a site, it seems to work better. The buildings were actually moved back from the walls, so they are not nearly as imposing from Riverside Dr. as previously shown in the last presentation.

Trail access has now been eliminated by the applicant. There will be no access to the regional trail. A public park will be across the street on the west side and the applicant feels that this will be adequate. A traffic impact study could be a condition of approval if they feel that one is necessary. Traffic Department feels that as long as the use stays residential then a traffic impact study wont be required at this time.

Commissioner Taylor is questioning the recreational area and if the 1.12 acres of recreational space is designated in this project. He wondered if there was a conflict between the ordinance and what is shown to them. He said the ordinance is for 10.85 K, which is for a PD for family residential. He wonders if we dont have a recreational description for assisted living. Craig Harvey said there is not a description in the ordinance for assisted living on the amount of recreation required. He said because of the type of development and the units proposed, it would fall under the family type ordinance. Commissioner Taylor asked if they have the 1.12 acres. Craig said the applicant can address that. Bob Nicholson, Community Development Director stated that this 1.12 acres does not have to be all in one area. It can be broken up into numerous areas. He then thinks they can meet the 1.12 acres given the green space in between the units. Bob Nicholson stated that as long as it isnt in the front set back and the buildings have a minimum width of 20 feet, you could count that. They should therefore be able to meet that. Commissioner Taylor then withdrew his concern.

The public meeting was opened up to the public and Douglas Pierce came to the podium. His family has owned the property for many generations. Not many years ago, they joined with the Kiwanis Club to provide a park for the City which nothing has been happened in the last four to five years. The whole property is almost surrounded by property given to the city with the intent to have a recreational property. They also gave the City Of St.George the property to put in Riverside Drive.

Commissioner Campbell is concerned about the light stucco color scheme. He thinks the scheme is quite light against the surrounding hillsides and the backdrop of the scenic mountains. He doesnt like the high contrast and would like the scheme to be darkened up to blend in more with the background and anchor the buildings to the ground. Darker colors could help with the height aspect also. Mr. Rick Wood came to the podium and said that would pose a problem with the design of the project and he said if it were to be darkened it would go back to that medieval comment that was made at the last commission meeting a few weeks ago. It would look like a medieval castle and that is a look they dont want. He would consider matching the color scheme to compliment the red hills in Zion Canyon and the hills out that way.

MOTION: Commissioner Campbell made a motion and proposes that they approve item 7A and in the approval he would suggest that some of the colors in this particular project, especially the top and bottom stucco colors, be darkened somewhat to better blend into the hillside. He is not asking for black colors or for dark grey to give it a medieval look as discussed, but he is asking them to work on the three values and see if they can darken at least two of the three to work with each other in a family of colors.

DISCUSSION: Commissioner Taylor asked if they have resolved effectively the concern they may have had with the close proximity to the power lines and is the movement of the condo set back far enough that this is no longer an issue. Craig stated yes that staff feels that moving the condos back and rearranging them on the site minimizes the ominous look it had before on Riverside Dr. Commissioner Read asked if staff is comfortable on parking with the 1.22 based on the standard of care. Staff responded that they are comfortable with the number of parking spaces. He asked if staff is comfortable with the curb and gutter and sidewalk. Staff responded that this was covered on the plat and the applicant is comfortable with that. The question of privacy gates was brought up and the response was that they are now taken out of the plan. Commissioner Read also asked about the deceleration lanes and if staff was comfortable with that. Craig said the applicant agreed to meet the traffic standards and traffic stated that they would be required to put in a center lane on Riverside Drive. This will be included. Acting Chairman Ron Bracken wanted to clarify with Commissioner Campbell if the colors to be put on was a suggestion and not a requirement. Commissioner Campbell said that was correct.

MOTION was seconded by Commissioner Taylor. All voted aye. Motion passes.

B. Consider a zone change from C-3 (General Commercial) and R-2 (Multiple Family) zones to C-4 (Central Business district Commercial Zone) which will expand the downtown district Expansion. Case No. 2009-ZC-002.

Commissioner Campbell noted that he has a conflict with this and he will stay because it is indirect.

Bob Nicholson, Community Development Director presented the city initiated zone change. This would involve 50 acres in this area. Approximately 300 letters were sent to the property owners and neighbors within this zone change area and property owners within 500 feet of it. The purpose is to allow for the type of uses typical of a central business district as well as to prohibit those uses not typical of a central business district. The C-4 zone is a much more neighborhood friendly zone. The C-4 zone has setbacks typical of a central business district which allows buildings to be located on the front property line rather than requiring a 20 ft. front setback. The new State Courthouse will be a major new anchor for the downtown area. It does take in some currently residential property.

He received a few calls and only one letter. The letter came from Mr. Dennis Hogan and he strongly supports the rezone.

Tony Romney came to the podium he has property at 2nd West and the Boulevard. He asked about the impact on the existing businesses as they are operating. Acting Chairman Ron Bracken said that they are grandfathered in, but that no new ones that dont fit could come in. Bob Nicholson said they could become non-conforming if the use that is happening there is not allowed in the C-4 zone. In most likelihood, most of these uses going on in this area are permitted in the C-4 zone.

Roy Brown came to the podium. He owns an antique store on 1 West 55 North and he wanted to be sure that he understood the previous answer. Acting Chairman Bracken said he would be ok to continue with his business indefinitely as long as he stays where he is, doesnt expand and continues his business, he is fine. Joseph Farnsworth, Assistant City Attorney, saw nothing in the list as an antique store, but it is a commercial use so he did not see why it would be prohibited from a C-4 zone. Mr. Farnsworth later clarified that a pawn shop/second hand store is a prohibited use in C-4. Antique stores are a type of second hand store and would be prohibited in the C-4 zone. However, the antique shop may continue as a legal unconforming use until there is a one year period of vacancy, per City Code. .

Jan Parke, Turn Community Services, came to the podium. They own property on 334 W Tabernacle. They are a non profit and do adult day care and serve people with disabilities. She wanted to be sure they also would be grandfathered in also. She stated that they also rented a third property for expansion to another suite. She wanted to be sure that this was ok. These are day programs that are being offered. Bob Nicholson thinks that would fall under counseling as a permitted use. If it is day use only it would be considered a permitted use in the C-4 zone.

Jim Coleman came to the podium with questions for clarification on setbacks. A
C-4 zone does not have a setback requirement was the answer given by Bob Nicholson. Mr. Colemans personal current use is a pottery store. As long as a use is continuous, it can remain per Joseph Farnsworth, Assistant City Attorney. This is in 10-16-6. The use stops, they would need to come back for zoning approval as the stop use period is a year.

Mr. Coleman feels that this re-zone is a positive step and he will support the Commissioners.

MOTION: Commissioner Hullinger made a motion to approve item 7B and include the staff comments. Commissioner Campbell seconded it. All voted aye. Motion passes.

DISCUSSIONS

A. Planner Craig Harvey will give a presentation on the Cache Valley Plan. The Cache Valley Plan was developed to provide a planning foundation for the Cache Valley 2020 Vision Committee. The Plan worked through several scenarios showing how the projected population growth can be accommodated without sacrificing critical agricultural lands for development.

In November Craig and Bob Nicholson attended the Utah American Planning Association Conference for the Utah Chapter. One plan they discussed was the Cache Valley Plan. This is one of the few areas in the state that has prime agricultural land, wet lands and alot of great view sheds. Utah State did this study to help accommodate future projected growth. They looked at hazards in the Valley such as wetlands, floodplans, fault zones, fire zones and surface water. They also looked at working lands such as dairies, gravel pits, prime farmland and agricultural land. Developable land was also looked at.

Some conclusions were that growth was inevitable so smart planning is needed. Use of planning tools can help with smart planning. Conservation easements, transfer of development rights, purchasing of development rights and impact fees, incentive zoning and land trusts would all be helpful.

Joseph Farnsworth, Assistance City Attorney, stated that in St. George some conservation easements have been set aside and part of the reimbursement for the developers is that they get a tax break.

B. Director Bob Nicholson will report on the parking requirements for a youth facility.

Time was spent by Bob trying to find the parking requirements. Red Rock Canyons School was approved Jan 2001 and the thick file showed many issues, but there was no discussion on parking. Partly that could be due to the change from a hotel and restaurant to a youth facility. They were approved for 128 as the limit and they have 67 spaces that Fred Tapalian counted.

The Cinnamon Hills School, across on the south side, had a lot of discuss about parking. Mark Bradley spent quite a lot of time on the parking issues, because they were expanding and they had to buy a separate lot behind the McDonalds restaurant and devoted it to parking. They also added parking back where they are building the new gym. Bob has been in touch with and playing phone tag with Rod who is helping his father-in-law Jack Williams. Therefore we can not totally tell you how the parking requirement was worked out for Cinnamon Hills.

He sees no problem with the deli going in near the Red Rock Canyon School..

9. COUNCIL WORKSHOP

A. The Planning Commission will attend the City Council workshop on January 29, 2009 when the Little Valley Master Plan is discussed.

B. The Planning Commission will attend the City Council workshop on January 29, 2009 when the RCC (Residential Central City) zoning amendments are discussed.

C. The Planning Commission will attend the City Council workshop on January 29, 2009 when the alternate TND public street cross-section with 55 ft. public right-of-way and a reduced setback to a front porch amendment in the PD zone is to be discussed.

Motion to dismiss was made by Commissioner Taylor and seconded by Commissioner Hullinger. All voted aye. Motion passed. The time was 7:06 p.m.