Planning Commission Agenda



PLANNING COMMISSIONCITY OF ST. GEORGEWASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAHApril 14, 2009 4:00 P.M.PRESENT: Acting Chairman Ron Bracken Council Member Gloria Shakespeare Commissioner Ross Taylor Commissioner Kim Campbell Commissioner Mike NobisCommissioner Julie HullingerCommissioner Ron ReadCommissioner Chapin BurksCITY STAFF: Assistant City Attorney Joseph FarnsworthCommunity Development Director Bob NicholsonPlanner II Ray SnyderPlanner I Craig Harvey Project Manager Todd JacobsenSecretary Gail WilliamsCall to OrderFlag Salute1. CONSENT ITEM FINAL PLATS A. Consider approval of a final plat for Snowfield Estates Amended to adjust the common interior lot line of residential Lots 33 A and 33B. The site is located at the 1420 West and 110 South. The applicant is Mr. Dan Hoopes and the representative is Alpha Engineering. The zone is R-2 (Multiple Family). Case No. 2009-FP-002.This consent item was presented by Project Manager Todd Jacobsen. Todd said there is a small change on items 1 A and 1 B. It will now be combined as item # 1. He said they had been amending the plat by only amending the lots that were changing. The county didnt like that, so they are going back to amending the entire plat. Item # 1 will be for Snowfield Estates Amended # 2. This is for an approval of an amended residential subdivision plat. Scott Woolsey with Alpha Engineering and Mitzie Rogers, one of the owners of the lots is here to represent the request.The property is located in the Snowfield Estates subdivision, on the west side of Valley View Drive at approximately 1420 West and 110 South. The zone is R-2. The purpose for amending this plat is to adjust the lot lines between lots 33 A & B, 35 A & B, 36 A & B, 41 A & B and 44 A & B. Todd said this does meet all of the ordinances, so staff recommends approval of this plat. B. Consider approval of a final plat for Snowfield Estates Amended to adjust the common interior lot line of residential Lots 35 A and 35B and 36A and 36B, 41A & 41B, 44A &44B.. The site is located at the 1420 West and 110 South. The applicant is Mr. Dan Hoopes and the representative is Alpha Engineering. The zone is R-2 (Multiple Family). Case No. 2009-FP-003.MOTION: Commissioner Campbell made a motion to approve item # 1 Motion was seconded by Commissioner Taylor. All voted aye, motion passes. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS A. Consider a request for a conditional use permit to construct a detached accessory garage that would exceed the fifteen (15) feet height limit for pitched roof garage. The property is located at 1067 South 1080 West in the Brookfield Estates Subdivision. The applicants are Mr. and Mrs. Lonnie Clove. The zoning is R-1-10 (Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet minimum lot size). Case No. 2009-CUP-005. This request was presented by Craig Harvey. The property is located in Brookfield Estates subdivision. The zoning is R-1-10.An aerial view, site plan and floor plan were shown. Craig said that the ordinance says detached garages and accessory buildings shall be limited to an overall height of fifteen feet for pitched roofs and twelve feet for flat roofs, as measured from adjacent grade to highest point of roof, unless a conditional use permit is granted for a greater height. . This particular structure will exceed fifteen ft. in height; it will be approximately 19 ft., thus necessitating the purpose of this conditional use permit request. The structure will be located sixteen ft. from the primary home, five feet from the side yard property line and ten feet from the rear property line.The applicants garage will match the existing home in finish materials and design. Staff recommends approval. Commissioner Nobis asked about comment # 1, which says 5 ft. from the side yard property line. He said there is a 7.5 ft. easement that runs along the side. He wanted to know the purpose for letting the applicant build on that. Craig said we do allow accessory buildings and garage to build into the setbacks. Depending on the height of the wall adjacent to the property line, they can be built up to zero feet on the side and back. Commissioner Nobis said he understands the setback, but isnt the easement a whole different issue? He said that typically you cant build in an easement.Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said that if they are allowed to build on an easement, if for any reason the City or a public utility entity with whom the City has a franchise agreement, needed to exercise the easement, then if a structure was on it, it may cause damage to the structure if they had to fix a line or build a line there. It would be a risk the property owner takes in building a home in the easement. Craig said that according to the ordinance isnt clear if it can be built on an easement or not, just that it can be built to the property line. Normally JUC has to review these anyway and JUC would issue a letter stating if it was ok to build in an easement. Commissioner Taylor is still concerned about the issue of building with the easement. The response was that the action by the commissioners would be subject to the letter from JUC. Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said that tonight the issue is whether or not they are allowed to build that height and if they get the approval they can take it to the next step in applying for the building permit. The process for the building permit includes having JUC review it. If JUC says it cant work, then they cant get the building permit. Mr. Clove came to the podium. He knew there was an easement across the back, but he did not know about the one on the side. He said it is not critical at 5 ft. or 7.5 feet where he builds it, he can move it. If he goes to JUC and they are fine with 5 ft. he will do that, if not and he has to move it 2.5 ft, he can do that. The only reason he is asking for the variance on the height is so it will match his home. He wants it to look like it fits in. Commissioner Taylor wanted to be sure that this did not exceed the roof line of the house, the answer was definitely not. He is using the same pitch on the garage that they used on the house. MOTION: Commissioner Burks recommends approval of a conditional use permit for item # 2A, finding that it meets all necessary requirements, and subject to a letter concerning the easement. Motion seconded by Commissioner Hullinger. All voted aye, motion passes.B. Consider a request for a conditional use permit to allow construction of a detached accessory garage that would exceed the twelve (12) feet height limit for a shed style (flat roofs) garage. The property is located at 1610 W. Rose Garden Lane in the Green Valley Subdivision. The applicants are Mr. and Mrs. Danton Wetzel. The zoning is R-1-10 (Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet minimum lot size). Case No. 2009-CUP-006. Craig Harvey presented this request. This structure, located in the Green Valley subdivision, will exceed twelve feet in height for a shed style roof. The proposed building height is approximately fifteen feet for this single story building. Photos were shown of the property itself, elevations and the floor plan. The garage that he is here for, was begun construction around 2006, however some issues came up with the applicant, and he was unable to finish construction. He stopped construction and at some point came in to apply for a new building permit and he was red tagged for being over the height that is allowed for this style of garage. The structure is taller than the allowed 12 feet due to the applicant building a parapet wall above the top line of the roof. What makes this request unique is that there is a stairway that leads up to a sundeck. Craig said that what exceeds the height limitation is the parapet wall. The wall from the height to the top of the wall is actually 14 ft. 10 inches. It is a solid parapet wall. This garage was originally permitted in error because Dalton Smitherman did not realize that it was a solid parapet wall and he mistook it for a railing. Most of the structure was already built before the applicant was red tagged by the building department. A code enforcement action was also initiated for the violation and the applicant appealed to the Mayor for a waiver. The Mayor granted a waiver of the CUP application fee. Craig said that is why the applicant is here tonight. The structure will be located twenty four feet from his house, ten feet from the side property line and eight feet from the rear property line.At the time the staff report was done, he had not received any complaints regarding the property. However, yesterday an email was received from the backyard property owner, Michele Thieme. She is opposed to allowing the CUP on this structure and would actually like it to be torn completely down. Under J in findings, Craig Harvey wrote that flat roof garages with parapets are a bit unusual for this area, but it is not outside of the character of the zone.Commissioner Campbell further clarified that without the observation deck, the Planning Commission would not be here tonight. Craig said that was correct, without the parapet it would not have been an issue. Commissioner Taylor wanted to clarify that a railing would be permitted but that a parapet wall would not. Craig said a parapet wall becomes the structure, the railing isnt part of the structure the way the building dept. defines it. Commissioner Read asked the height without the parapet. Craig said it would be about 10 ft. 11 inches. The applicant, Danton Wetzel, came to the podium. Commissioner Campbell asked why the observation deck is needed. He went on to say that if this is approved tonight, we will be approving it because its got an observation deck on it, otherwise the project wouldnt be here. That is the uniqueness of it. Mr. Wetzel said that is true. It is a sundeck that was planned up there. When they first planned building a garage, they wanted storage on top of the garage. He was told that they had to stay under fifteen feet, which didnt give enough storage that you could walk into, so he decided to change it and build a sundeck up there. They applied for a permit and the plans were approved as such, apparently a mistake was made on the Citys part to approve it at that height. He said he is within his approved plans. Now something has come up that it should not have been approved to begin with. Now to tear it down after having gone to quite a bit of expense to build it up to begin with, he has stairs to a sundeck that need to be torn down and he then has additional expense by now adding railings and this wasnt even considered at the beginning of this project. Commissioner Campbell asked what he means by railings. Commissioner Campbell said he already has the railing up there. Mr. Wetzel said the railing around the top of the building. He doesnt want his grandchildren up there running around and being able to run off the top of the building. Commissioner Campbell said he has brought the parapet up, which takes care of being the railing. Acting Chairman Bracken said that (parapet) is what makes it illegal.He was told he cannot have a solid parapet wall for a railing. Commissioner Campbell said that was not true. Commissioner Taylor said the problem is the parapet wall adds to the height of the building and the railing would not. The railing would be legal but the parapet is not. The way the ordinance is written, a parapet wall is counted into the height of the wall, and a railing would not be. This is where the difference lies. Councilwoman Shakespeare asked that when we allow flat roofs with a sundeck built on top that are so close to another persons property line and the neighbors concern is that people are looking into their backyard, where does the neighbors effect come into play?Ray Snyder said the ordinance says you cant go over a certain height; we dont have the authority as staff to approve anything over 12 ft. for a flat roof or 15 ft. for any kind of a pitch roof, so it has to come first come before Planning Commission to see if the Commission support it or not. In terms of something being so obtrusive to a neighbor, typically theyve looked at the flat wall and the higher the wall, they step it off a distance from the property line to try to make it not so opposing. This is the first time weve had something with a sunroof or a deck on top of it. If it was open and railing, it is debatable because we would still look at the overall height and the railing would soften it. Perhaps openings and windows would be a compromise. The Planning Commission still has the right to approve or disapprove it. Councilwoman Shakespeare said with garages, the reason they let them get built so close to the property line is because they are usually not obtrusive to the neighbors privacy. If you put a sundeck on top of it this is so close to the property line, youve put living quarters that close. It changes the whole personality of the garage and what it does to the neighbors. It is the neighbors that see the wall go higher and higher and it blocks them in. This has the two elements that concern her; how much more the height is going to add to the neighbors back yard and also the privacy issue with having a sundeck up there so close to the property line. Acting Chairman Bracken said the sundeck appears to be totally legal to stay there, we have no authority to take it off, but do you want a sundeck that is open or a sundeck that is closed? He stated that is basically what we are here to look at tonight. Ray Snyder said what theyve typically encountered in these is a garage can be single story only, that way we dont have two story and they dont build another room inside of it. But this is a whole different element, now we are talking about putting it on the roof. Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said what we are looking at tonight is the height of the building, what are the negative impacts of this increased height and can the applicant overcome those negative impacts. If the applicant cant overcome them to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission, then the application should be denied, if he can overcome them, then it should be approved. Commissioner Hullinger said that if you have a pitched room, you are not going to have people standing on it looking down into a backyard. If you have a flat roof, everyone is standing there looking into the backyard. Commissioner Taylor said that with this being a separate auxiliary building, it gives us a little different view of the situation. Lets imagine that instead of this being a sundeck at 12 ft. high, its a balcony on the back of a house that is at least 12 ft. high and only 10 ft. from the property line. That would be every bit as intrusive, so the issue of intrusiveness doesnt bear a lot weight, because we often see homes with balconies at 12 ft. high that are overlooking a yard within 10 or 12 feet from the property line. He is not sure the obtrusiveness issue is unique; he thinks its kind of typical.Commissioner Campbell said it could be a two story home with a balcony, which could be 25 ft. high, 10 ft. from the back property line, or 8 ft. from the side property line, with a balcony up 10-12 ft. with an open railing or a closed railing whatever. Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth asked Ray Snyder what the setback would be for a house, between the back property line and the house.Craig Harvey responded that it would be 10 ft. which is the normal building setback for the rear yard. Commissioner Read asked what the railing height would be to meet code.Commissioner Campbell responded that it would be 42 inches.Acting Chairman Bracken said it appears that is what they have in this situation. Craig Harvey stated that Ray made a suggestion that if the Planning Commission is having some doubts or questions, they should table this and make a site visit and rehear this in 2 weeks. This is an option prior to approval or denial.MOTION: Commissioner Taylor said in his opinion the only obvious objection to this is the intrusiveness. The use of a sundeck above a garage is not unusual, it happens quite often. He doesnt think the neighbors concern with intrusiveness is unique enough, because there are all kinds of situation that would be every bit as obtrusive that are just standard within code. His thoughts are, are we going to ask him to take down a parapet wall and put up a railing, or are we going to say the parapet is every bit as functional and would look just as good as a railing would. He is inclined to go along with the idea that the parapet wall is functional and looks fine. Along that line he moves that they honor the conditional use and accept it as a parapet wall. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Read All voted aye, motion passes. C. Consider a request for a conditional use permit to operate a landscape rock yard. Located at 1145 West Sunset Boulevard. The applicant is Star Nursery and the representative is Mr. Paul Blackmore. The zoning is C-3 (General Commercial). Case No. 2009-CUP-007.Ray presented a visual of this request to add a landscape rock sales yard to an existing plant nursery business. The applicant wishes to have storage for rock material and proposes to install a trailer, a scale to weigh the material and individual rock bins for different materials. He will have the applicant discuss the trailer, Ray envisions it as an office. The scale will be next to the office. They have paved the property back there was asphalt. There is an existing 6 ft. block wall on the west and south property lines and encompasses this request. The hours of operation will be from approximately 7 am to 6 pm.Ray took a tour of the site and walked around. This request would be behind the Mattress Store and you would not see it from the street if it is approved. A neighboring rock business is to the west of it. This entire site has a 6 ft. masonry block wall all along the west side and all along the southern wall. A scale has been brought to the site; however it is not installed at this time. The trailer will be behind it. He saw no evidence of a trailer at this time. Ray said that the zone is C-3 and that Ordinance 10-10-2 Permitted Uses requires a conditional use permit for a landscape rock sales yard. They would far exceed any setbacks. The question would be there is an existing block wall on the west and south side, so if you are butting up these Geneva block bins, is this considered a structure in the setback. He thinks the answer is no but that is dependent on how the Planning Commission feels and reacts to it. The existing retail business parking is currently provided. During site plan review they will need to demonstrate that parking spaces will be provided for the trailer office area and that the site meets the City parking ordinance. Ray said the applicant can expound on this. Ray said that under his comments, the applicant will need to demonstrate during site plan review that landscaping meets the requirements of Chapter 25 of the City Zoning Ordinance. He thinks that most of the front is landscaped, but they will want to look at it on the site plan and see if there are any issues with that. The applicant shall install an overhead irrigation system and that it is timed to turn on periodically during the day to control dust and aide in cleanliness of the operation. This was taken from their narrative, as they have voluntarily said they will do this. Under findings, dust, it states will comply with local, state and federal air quality. The trailer shall meet IBC (International Building Code) requirements; process a building permit with the Building Department. The applicant can elaborate on the need for that. Ingress and egress of trucks shall comply with standard requirements of the Traffic Engineering Dept. Ray put that in because he had a call from a council member who was questioning how trucks could get in and out of there. Staff looks at it that Sunset is an arterial road and it should be designed to handle truck traffic anyway. If there is an issue with stacking or staging, the engineers would need to look at that. The applicant can respond to this. City Creek Wash underground piping and related easement shall comply with the requirements of the City Development Services Dept. When Ray did the walk through he could see that it is totally underground already. If there is an issue, he would expect that the engineers would address that. It looks to him like this is mitigated. Applicant shall provide a sump to drain to prevent discharge into City Creek.Commissioner Campbell asked to see on the photo shown what the proximity is to adjacent residential people on the back. He was shown that looking south there is a residence. Commissioner Nobis said it is on the other side of the wash.Commissioner Campbell asked roughly how many feet away the house would be.Commissioner Nobis said it would be about 50-60 feet away and Ray said he tended to agree with that, although he did not go to the other side to measure the distance. There is also another residence off to the left in the photo. Commissioner Nobis asked about the Geneva Block wall bins to hold the rocks, if it was engineered in a way to retain the rock so it doesnt move. Ray said the applicant can address this.Paul Blackmore, with Blackrock Engineering, came to the podium. He said that regarding loading against the walls, concrete blocks will be put along the existing wall as well, so he is not worried about loading the wall. He has never seen the engineering on that wall, so rather than guessing if it is strong enough, if rock is going to be stored against the wall, they will put the concrete blocks along there as well. The concrete blocks can easily hold the loads up to 6 ft. in height. If you look at the existing pictures, the landscape is not stacked that high. Commissioner Nobis is concerned about the pressure on the wall once the rocks are being loaded. Paul Blackmore said what they will do is put block parallel to the wall, with a gap, with the idea that they will not be pushing that block. Commissioner Campbell asked about hours of operation and the noise from loaders.Paul said it would be the same as the existing Star Nursery site, 8am-6 pm. Commissioner Campbell also asked if back up alarms would be used on the front end loaders. Paul Blackmore said that front end loaders will be used and it is similar to what is happening currently at Rowland Stone. Back up alarms are required and will be running during business hours. The scale is for this site only. They will bring in the truck and way it prior to loading the rock. The rock is sold per weight. They will fill it with rock and then weight it again. The difference is the amount of rock being purchased. The scale is low to the ground. This project has been modeled to match their Vegas operation. Clark County has a very strict dust control ordinance that they have set this operation up to follow that. It should be a good example for any future facilities her in St. George. Commissioner Nobis asked why bring in a scale when you can loaders that have a scale in their buckets and then they could utilize the room saved. Paul said it would be nice to utilize the space, but they have the scale and dont have the loaders with the special attachments. Star Nursery is using the equipment they have. This is to compliment the landscaping that they are already doing. It is not necessarily high volume and worrying about getting vehicles in and out. They are more concerned about providing a full service. It is essentially trying to explain the existing facility they have. Keena Tanner from Star Nursery came to the podium and stated that the scales in those bucket are not certified by Weights and Measures of the State of Utah. That is why they cannot be used; they have to actually have a physical scale. Those buckets are not recognized as a form of weights and measurements to be resold or wholesale. Paul said this is a site for residential patrons. Paul Blackmore talked to the building dept. about the trailer and they will be following the 2006 IBC.Commissioner Nobis asked about the dust factor.Paul said the way it is set up in Vegas the sprinklers can be used intermittently or by manually as need arises. All of the pit areas and the loading areas will have sprinklers on them to control dust.Acting Chairman Bracken asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on this subject.Stephen Prince came to the podium. He owns the property directly south of the Star Nursery wall. His home is 10 ft. from the block wall. It is quite close. His other concern is the hours of operation. He said they stated the hours of operation would be between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.; he has heard the backup alarms at 6:30 a.m. on a Saturday. He has only heard it once in the month he has lived in the area. For the most part, they dont start operation before 7 a.m., but the backup alarms can be disconcerting when you are trying to sleep on a Saturday. That is the concern that he would have with this operation as well as the dust issue. Paul said the operation hours officially are 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. They are asking for permission to operate from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Keena Tanner, from Star Nursery, said they will not doing anything that they are not currently doing. She added that they are open Sundays seasonally as well. Their hours of operation are 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., however there are about 30-40 minutes of preparation prior to business opening at 8:00 a.m. and during spring madness they might be unloading and putting away flowers in the evening, but usually it would be no later than 7 p.m. that all of their staff would be checked out and out of the store. Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said he is not aware of any requirement that says when they can operate. If there is excessive noise or odd hours, that is something that can be addressed through the Code Enforcement Program. Commissioner Burks asked about the safety of hauling stones on this busy street. Paul said they would come under the same safety rules that Rowland Stone would be following. They expect people to have a safe vehicle with proper free board. The loads are not put over the freeboard. Highway safety will not be violated. Piles are not allowed to be coned up high. Highway laws control what can be done. Loads are usually covered. It would be no different than the existing Rowland Stone. The roads are relatively flat there; they can accelerate relatively well, so it should be a relatively safe situation.Commissioner Read asked Ray if he had additional parking requirements because of the expansion. He asked if, for a nursery, besides the trailer parking is there additional parking for the extra space they are now utilizing. He wondered if it was square footage or how the parking is reviewed. Ray said that he had looked at the parking for the trailer. He had not looked at the paved area. He believes it will meet the parking requirement and not be an issue will check on this and it will be looked at during the site plan review. Commissioner Read said he is sure it will be caught in review, but he wants the applicants to know there may be additional parking requirements. He would like them to know before they get too into it that some of the space they plan to use for bins may be needed for parking.MOTION: Commissioner Read moved to recommend approval of this CUP subject to comments from staff. One specific comment that Ray requested is that the bins are not deemed structural and bringing in Pauls requirement that if they are stacking the rock up to the back ones, that they do have the space and that they are not pushed up against the back wall so there are no block wall issues or else the block wall is beefed up. The other comments on the trailer meeting Internalal Building Code, trucks complying with the standards, the underground piping and sump pump, parking, landscaping meeting requirements of Chapter 25, and dust, noise and odors as stated, using the sprinklers as stated and the hours of operation to be from 8 to 6 pm. He asked if they (Star Nursery) could accommodate the backhoes and forklifts not starting before 7 am. Kenna Tanner said they could accommodate that. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Nobis. A vote was taken. Commissioner Read voted aye, Commissioner Nobis voted aye, Commissioner Hullinger voted aye, Commissioner Campbell voted aye, Commissioner Taylor voted aye, Acting Chairman Ron Bracken voted aye. Commissioner Burks voted nay. Motion passes with six to one.Acting Chairman Bracken noticed scouts were present and he invited them to come forward to be recognized. They are from Troop 1762 came for the Citizenship in the Community, Communication Merit badge and Duty to God requirement. They all introduced themselves and were welcomed to stay as long as they want. D. Consider a request for a conditional use permit to change roof heights with the proposed remodeling of the exterior of an existing hotel; which includes the construction of covered stairwells, new facade, new colors, and the new roof heights. The maximum roof ridge height would be approximately forty-eight feet (48). The project is for Days Inn Hotel. Located at 150 North 1000 East (northeast corner of Highland Drive and 1000 East). The applicant is Days Inn. The zoning is C-2 (Highway Commercial). Case No. 2009-CUP-008.Ray Snyder presented this project, Days Inn Hotel, which consists of six separate buildings; five of which are three story buildings and one is a two story building. The buildings at ground level are attached by stairways and a narrow passage between the building and are referred to as the North Building and South Building. For recreation there is a swimming pool and Jacuzzi on site. The applicant proposes to remodel the exterior of the existing hotel building which will include the construction of covered stairwells, new faade, new colors and a new roof height. A maximum roof height of approximately 48 ft. to the ridge top is proposed. There will be hip roofs roofs and pyramid hip roofs constructed above the stairway enclosures.Ray said this will be a nice upgrade and it appears to meet all the required setbacks. A CUP is required for buildings over 35 ft. in height. This project is an extensive remodel with new structures added and building heights that will exceed 35 ft. There are approximately two acres on this site. The ground floor of the buildings is approximately 14,000 sq. ft. and there is approximately 36,000 total square feet in the hotel (all floor levels). There are 85 rooms; no new rooms will be added. There are 87 existing parking spaces on site. There are 85 rooms plus 2 spaces for management. The parking requirement is met. The applicant intends to resurface the existing parking lot.Slides were shown. All exterior building sides will be updated. The existing old wood shingled materials will be removed and replaced with new synthetic stucco in light, medium and dark tones. Stain grade wood will be placed at the proposed decorative corbels. There will be hip roofs and pyramid hip roofs constructed above the stairway enclosures. The majority of the hotel rooms will have flat roofs, but there will be some hip roofs interspersed. All sloped hip roofs will have lightweight architectural concrete roof tile installed. The building faade articulation will include a vertical variation in the buildings. Architectural relief will be created by variations in color, texture, pop-outs and projections. This new design will provide new visual interest.Ray said he will be anxious to see how the Planning Commission feels about this; to him it seems like a major upgrade. The only thing he did notice is that there isnt any synthetic or cultured stone on the bottom and he didnt know if that was important to the Commission or not. No change in landscaping is proposed.Staff comments are that this will upgrade the existing deteriorated hotel and be an enhancement to the city. It appears to meet parking, setbacks and design standards the City requires. It will be more visually appealing from St. George Blvd. and the freeway corridor. They have voluntarily come forward to do this. It is a CUP because of the height, but because this is a CUP you have the opportunity to look at all of these other issues. Commissioner Read asked about signs. Ray said that signs would be a separate permit and that they will to come in to get a sign permit. Ray said the conditional use permit does not allow them to look at signs and he tries to be specific that they are not approving signs on a CUP. Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth said that if there are any existing code violations such as a sign, then that would be grounds to not approve it until they remedy that code violation. He said other than that, they would need to come in for their sign permit for what they are proposing. Ray Snyder asked if the Commission is aware of any particular violations. The answer was no.Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said you would not approve any signs but if there is a violation of any kinds, sign, landscape, code or zoning violation, then you could say we cant approve whatever it is you are doing until you fix that problem. Ray said the landscaping will need to be looked at when they come in with their civil plans. They have mature landscaping there; if there are other requirements with Chapter 25, then staff will have to look at that. Councilwoman Shakespeare questioned if this is the time aesthetically that the City could request stone or anything like that to be added onto the building. Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth said that is something that could be addressed. He said that the issue is what are the negative impacts that are caused by their increasing the height of the building. One of the issues that can be looked at is aesthetic. Has the increased height of the building made the aesthetics of the building better, worse or the same and if there are negative impacts, what could they do to overcome those negative impacts. He doesnt know if there is much lattitude to dictate every single thing they would need to do, but you can say what are the negative impacts and how can they reasonably mitigate them. If they can show that they can reasonable mitigate them, then we have to approve it. Greg Mathis came to the podium as the representative of Days Inn. He said the height of the existing elevator tower is actually 52 ft. so they are dropping the overall height down 2 ft. Greg said the existing roof of the elevator is the highest point you can see. That will be dropping 2 ft. Greg also said that from the flat parapet to the peak of the hips is 8 ft. higher. It is currently 22 ft. and will be going to 30 ft.Greg said they debated using some stone, but this is an existing structure. They are rebuilding the balconies to update to the seismic code but they were concerned about adding too much vertical weight up the existing walls with the stone, without knowing what kind of structure is there. Commissioner Campbell asked if any of the stucco had any tinges or hints of pink to them. The answer was no. Acting Chairman Bracken asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak. No one came forward. MOTION: Commissioner Campbell made a motion to approve item 2 D. Motion seconded by Commissioner Nobis. All voted aye, motion passes. 3. REDUCED SETBACK Consider the reduction of the required side yard setback of ten feet (10) located at the north property line to approximately a five foot (5 +/-) side yard setback to match the existing building to accommodate proposed additions on the west and east sides. Also consider the reduction of the required side yard setback of ten feet (10) located at the south property line to a zero foot (-0-) side yard setback. This request is to allow the construction of an expanded shop area and the addition of office area. The project is Dixie Auto Body addition and remodel. MRW Design Assoc. Inc. is the representative. The site is located at 515 North 1400 East. The property is zoned M-1 (Industrial). Case No. 2009-RS-001.Ray Snyder presented Dixie Auto Bodys request. Photos of the location were shown. They have outgrown their existing building and site improvements. They wish to add on to the existing building and refurbish the site. The building improvements include 4,250 sq. feet of new shop area and 1,905 square feet of office space. They are requesting setbacks on the north side yard and the south side yard. They are going to the property line in the rear, but the M-1 zone allows them to do that. They would also like to put in a solid block wall. They want to upgrade the looks of the site and the aesthetics so you wouldnt see the cars in the back. What you should see in the future is just the cars of the customers in the front. In the front they want to go 10 ft. Side yard setbacks in the M-1 zone may be reduced or eliminated where the Planning Commission determines such setbacks are unnecessary. The maximum building height shall not exceed twenty five feet. The building material will be of masonry block construction with a red roof on the shop and red accents on the office building.Parking requirements are one space for each 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area= 29 spaces. The total square footage is 11,721. Ten parking spaces are proposed inside the secure storage area. Twelve parking spaces are proposed in the front business area (outside of any fenced area). Ten spaces are proposed inside the property (behind solid wall). A total of thirty two spaces are available on site. It looks tight on the site, but it does indeed work per Ray. Vehicles they were working on inside the building were not considered by staff. Staff worked with them on the location of the driveways. Location has changed, but Development Services in particular felt that be moved further from the intersection. They felt that this layout works well.Staffs concern would be that the office area only be used for the automotive business and not leased to unrelated office businesses in a manufacturing zone. Ray does not believe that is there intent. He believes that it is only administrative for on site.Jeff Mathis with MRW came to the podium and asked if there were any questions for him. He said that Ray covered all of the issues and the pointed that they had wanted to make. He stated that this is an auto painting and repair business. He also responded that they do not do engine work there. MOTION: Commissioner Nobis made a motion to approve item # 3 along with the staff comments, especially that the office area be used for the automotive business and not leased for unrelated office businesses in a manufacturing zone. .Motion seconded by Commissioner Burks. All voted aye. Motion passes. 4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING (5:00 P.M.)Consider a general plan amendment from LDR (Low Density Residential) to COM (Commercial) on approximately two (2) acres. The area is located approximately at 1690 East Red Hills Parkway in Middleton. The Zoning is RE-12.5 (Residential Estates 12,500 square feet minimum lot size). The proposed area includes 1656 East 700 North; 658 North 1700 East; and 695 North 1700 East. Case No. 2009-GPA-001.Craig Harvey presented this request. Mr. Guy Jardine and Mr. Kevin Wilkinson are the applicants. This involves four parcels and approximately two acres. When the staff report was written, there were letters pending from two property owners, one at 1656 East 700 North St. permission letter to allow this happen on their property and also from the property owner at 1658 North 1700 East. He has received a letter from the property owner at 1656 East, and he passed that letter to the Commissioners, but he has not heard from the other property owner, so that one will have to be left out from the General Plan Amendment today. The applicants are requesting a general plan amendment for a commercial designation, to allow commercial activities to take place on the parcel, more particular parcel # 1. Mr. Jardine came into planning staff review on January 29, 2009 and proposed a commercial project for the corner property which is parcel # 1. He owns a company that sells solar power equipment and would like to set up a sales office and a solar panel demonstration area, to show what the solar panels can do. To do this, the planning staff recommended that the property would have to be zoned C-2 (General Commercial) or PD-COM (Planned Development Commercial). Before the area can be zoned commercial, amending the General Plan is required. Commissioner Read asked if it was advertised with the two additional parcels included. Craig stated that yes we did advertise it that way.Staff comments are that the General Plan land use map is a guide for zoning decisions and zoning request which are not consistent with the General Plan require a G.P. amendment prior to considering the zoning request. Craig explained that the General Plan review is a chance to see how the subject property fits into the overall area and see what potential ripple effects would be from altering the proposed land use. We take a macro-view of the request rather than the micro-view typical of zoning requests. The applicant has provided a short narrative. Craig said he could not confirm with the County Tax Assessor, that taxing the property is commercial, however Mr. Jardine has said that it is that way. Craig Harvey originally recommended three options; however he has now added a fourth option. After looking at the map, he did include his parcel to be included; however the Planning Commission can determine which parcels they want to have the General Plan changed on or not. Craig stated that regarding Parcel # 3, with the address of 658 North 1700 East, we have not received permission from him to do this change, but it was included in the advertisement for the General Plan Amendment.Option 1 is to approve the GPA for all four parcels, which is approximately 2.0 acres. Option 2 is to approve the GPA for just parcels 1 & 3, which is 1.7 acres. Option 3 is to approve the GPA for parcel 1 only, which is 1.45 acres. The applicant, Guy Jardine, came to the podium.Commissioner Read asked if he had any contact with the neighbor across the street. Guy Jardine said that he actually was going to be here tonight with him, however he called and said he didnt know if he could make it because he is an installer of satellite dishes and had a customer he had to take care of. His concern is if his taxes would increase. Mr. Jardine did not want to be the person to tell him if it did or didnt, because he didnt feel that it was appropriate of him to try to convince him of that. Mr. Jardine did however tell him that he would pay the fees to change the General Plan. He is conducive to it; he just wants the Commissioner to tell him it doesnt make that much of a difference. That is why he hasnt sent a letter. It was mentioned that if he has not sent a letter and he has concerns that he could be left out.Mr. Jardine said he prefers to leave him in because it is an expensive venture for him. Commissioner Read asked if Mr. Miller could bring him to the City Council meeting to let the council know his feelings on this.Acting Chairman Bracken said that just because it was stated in the plan, it doesnt necessarily mean they can get the zone either. The floor was open to the public. No one came forward.Discussion was opened for the commissioners. Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth asked the commissioners to be specific on what ever option they choose in the motion, if it is item 1, 2, 3, or 4.MOTION: Commissioner Nobis made a motion to approve option #1, which includes all four parcels, which is approximately two acres. Commissioner Burks seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion passes.5. MINUTESConsider approval of the Planning Commission minutes for March 10, 2009.MOTION: Commissioner Burks made a motion to approve the minutes as written.Motion seconded by Commissioner Campbell. All voted aye. Motion passes. Motion to dismiss was made by Commissioner Taylor and seconded by Commissioner Read. The time was 5:40 pm.