Planning Commission Minutes

Tuesday, March 10,2009



PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ST. GEORGE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH
March 10, 2009 4:30 P.M.


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


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


1. CONSENT ITEM FINAL PLAT

Consider approval of a final plat for Sun River Phase 29 to create sixteen (16) residential lots. The site is located at 1550 West and 4900 South (on Heather Glen Drive). The representative is Rosenberg Engineering. The zone is PD-RES (Planned development Residential). Case No. 2008-FP-029.

Todd Jacobsen presented this plat. Brandon Anderson from Rosenberg is the representative. Staff asked if there were questions. None were asked.

MOTION: Commissioner Nobis made a motion to approve item #1 and authorize the chairman to sign. Motion was seconded by Commission Burks. All voted aye. Motion passes.

2. PRELIMINARY PLAT

Consider a preliminary plat request for Las Colinas Subdivision - Amended to create a phasing plan; twelve phases are proposed on 53.19 acres more or less. Located at Pioneer Road and Sugar Leo Road. The owner is SCH Properties, the applicant is Mr. Scott Hill, and the representative is Bush & Gudgell, Inc. The zone is PD-RES (Planned Development Residential). Case No. 2009-PP-002.

Senior Development Engineer Catherine Hasfurther presented this preliminary plat.
Originally there were 8 phases, now due to economics and market conditions, there will be 12 phases. There will still be a park and a trail system that runs along the Virgin River. The sewer line is installed. A power lines runs through the project is one reason they are phasing the project differently. They will now do the first 7 phases before relocating the major transmission line. They have worked this out with Dixie Escalante Power.

Catherine Hasfurther said there was a development agreement done that now needs to be amended. This will go to City Council along with the preliminary plat.

Councilwoman Shakespeare asked how wide the street would be in this development. Catherine Hasfurther stated that Pioneer Rd is 90 ft. minor arterial; everything interior will be the standard 50 ft. cross section. Arrowhead Canyon is a master plan road and is a 66 ft major collector.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson, said they already have a 50 ft. street, the set back is 25 ft. and that this project was in existence before the new implementation of 55 ft. streets. Commissioner Read asked if the private drive will disappear. Catherine Hasfurther said the private drive will stay.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth stated that he has been working with the owner on the development agreement and minor changes will be made because of the phasing change. This agreement will be addressing when the park and trail will be built and when the power lines are relocated. This agreement will be ready before the final plat goes to City Council.

MOTION: Commissioner Hullinger made a motion to approve item #2. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Burks. All voted aye. Motion passes.

3. 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.

Ray Snyder presented this project. This is for the Hillside Permit. If the applicant is allowed to do this project, there would not be any other spot on the property that is able to be developed in the future. They now have a legal description where this building will be and for the parking lot itself. The intent is to make this look like the 3 story building under construction at this time.

Under comments, Ray pointed out that on March 5th the City Council has now approved the modification of the deed restriction to allow the proposed storage building with restrictions and conditions agreed upon by the property owner. The retaining walls are part of the building itself and will be incorporated into its construction to limit excavation. The Hillside Review Board does recommend to the Planning Commission approval of this project.

Ray also mentioned that at City Council on March 5th, the mayor asked if the owners would be willing to donate the non-disturbance hillside area to the City as open space.

Joseph Farnsworth, Assistant City Attorney, stated that he received legal descriptions from Kelly. They have the draft and it should be ready within the next day or two to be recorded.

Kelly Schmutz came to the podium and said the owner stated that he was going to contact the City Manager to begin negotiations of the donation agreement. He is sure the owners will pursue this, however tonight he does not want to tie any approval to that agreement.

Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth said he would not recommend tying tonights hillside approval to the potential land donation, especially if the owners will be meeting with the City Manger to discuss the donation. He would like to wait until that donation agreement is finished, and then can be considered by the City Council

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion by recognizing that the applicant has met the conditions required by the Hillside Review Board and meets the conditions with regard to the non-disturbance areas, he moves that they recommend approval for a hillside development permit for item # 3. The motion was seconded by Commission Nobis. All voted aye. Motion passes.

4. DISCUSSION

Director Bob Nicholson reported on a proposed zoning regulation amendment for the commercial uses in the C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-4 zones.

Bob Nicholson stated that this is just a discussion item to get feedback from the Planning Commission. It will then be advertised for a public hearing two weeks from tonight on March 24th. The City Council has asked that commercial uses be looked at and recommendations made. Staff reviewed the list of permitted and conditional uses in the various Commercial zones and has recommendation regarding changes and additions to the list of uses and the site development standards. Originally part of this was to expand the C-4 zone which has occurred now; the City Council did approve the expansion of the C-4 zone which is a positive thing for the downtown area.

Some of the more significant changes staff is recommending would be that existing single family homes in commercial zones will be considered a permitted use. This code change will clearly make such reversion to residential use permitted. Under current code if they go away from residential use for 12 months, the code says they cant revert back to residential. Staff feels that if it was built as a single family home it should have the opportunity to revert back to a single family use.

Commissioner Taylor questioned that it would only be reverting to single family and not duplexes and apartments. Bob Nicholson stated that was correct and Commission Taylor then wanted to be sure there would be some definition of that included in the change.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth questioned if this would apply to only existing homes and not newly built homes. Bob Nicholson stated that was correct.

Commissioner Campbell asked if this could be a landmark site as well. Bob Nicholson said that it could, but it wouldnt have to be. Most of the landmark sites are not in commercial zones, most are in residential zones.

Bob continued with the changes regarding mini-storage units. Such use is not permitted in the C-1 or C-4 zone. This is intended to make mini-storage units more aesthetically compatible in commercial C-2 and C-3 zones and also where they are adjacent to residential zones.

Commissioner Nobis asked if there is a difference between mini-storage and storage. Bob said they may want to define this as self storage.

Mixed use buildings within the C-4 zone were also discussed. Bob Nicholson stated perhaps we need more definition of a print shop vs. a copy shop, as these lines seem to be blurring due to technology.

Animal boarding and shelters for small animals in the C 4 would change from a permitted to a non-permitted use.

The C-4 zone has zero front and side setback. They require parking to be in the rear or side of the building and not in the front of the building, unless access to side or rear is not feasible. All buildings shall be built within 10 ft. of the front property line. Bob Nicholson stated that we need to be flexible if the lot is constrained with no access to side or rear; however that should be the last resort.

A manufacturing zone is basically where they would like the mini-storage units to be located. If they are located in a commercial zone a conditional use permit is required and it is subject to the additional building design standards.

Commissioner Nobis questioned the resident manager or security guard being allowed to live on site. Bob Nicholson said it is permitted through a conditional use process. If that is in their building design, then they can construct it in the front faade which is subject to the 35 ft. height limitation in the commercial zones.

Commissioner Taylor asked about archived climate controlled storage units and as to whether that came under the same definition as the mini-storage that Bob was just describing. He thinks that climate controlled storage should not apply to that type of storage and that therefore it needs to be better defined. Bob Nicholson said this is a new trend across the country and they would separate that out from the standard mini-storage units.

Craig Harvey presented item #5, residential units above commercial/retail offices (mixed use) in the C-4 zone. Maximum density shall be determined by the City Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission. Craig said the minimum height of ground level retail/office space shall be 12 ft. floor to ceiling. He stated that this helps to segregate the commercial uses from the residential uses.

Commissioner Campbell questioned the wording of item #5 setbacks of 0 ft. to 10 ft. of the sidewalk. Commissioner Campbell said it should be saying from the property line, not sidewalk, and Craig agreed with this.

Commissioner Burks questioned # 9 regarding signs and he pointed out that in the Historic District signs should have to comply with the regulations of the historic district. This also will be looked into.

Commissioner Campbell pointed out that outside of the historic district, there are currently no design requirements.

Commissioner Taylor pointed out that if it is a mixed use, a building design review is done to determine if the designs meet the desires of the community. Commissioner Taylor also said they do exercise some architectural flair in terms of buildings around us regarding color code and they do give architectural directions on that. He would suppose then that the same thing could be done in the C-4 zone as they do anywhere else.

Commissioner Campbell agreed that they do talk about color, materials and texture in the historic district. In PDs we have the opportunity to voice concerns on materials, textures and colors. If it is legal to do it in a PD, it would be legal to do it in any of these commercial zones.

Joseph Farnsworth, Assistant City Attorney, said the reason it is legal in a PD or a building design conceptual site plan is that it is in the ordinance that states if you are going to do a PD zone, you need to come in show the City renderings and materials you will use as well as showing us the building design conceptual site plan. If the code doesnt specify that you need to bring that in, then the City cant require them to do it. If that is something that the City does want in a commercial zone, then the code would need to have similar language to what we have for the PD zone. The code does allow some flexibility in the PD Zone. The City does not want to legislate every single design aspect. However, there would need to be some standards that the City can fall back on if the City wanted to require design or color scheme standards.

Automobile lot standards were also discussed. Commissioner Nobis questioned where the 15 acre size that was not to be exceeded came from. Craig said he was taking the information from other cities.

The display pad for cars was discussed by Commissioners Nobis, Read and Burks. They thought it should be cut back from three display pads to two per 100 ft. of display frontage.

5. MINUTES

Consider approval of the Planning Commission minutes for January 27, 2009 and February 10, 2009.


Motion to approve the minutes of January 27, 2009 and February 10, 2009 with slight corrections was made by Commissioner Taylor and was seconded by Commissioner Hullinger.


Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Hullinger and seconded by Commissioner Read. The time was 5:54 p.m.