Planning Commission Minutes

Tuesday, June 9,2009



PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ST. GEORGE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH
June 9, 2009 4:00 P.M.


PRESENT: Acting Chairman Ron Bracken
Commissioner Ross Taylor
Commissioner Chapin Burks
Commissioner Kim Campbell
Commissioner Ron Read

CITY STAFF: Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth
Community Development Director Bob Nicholson
Planner II Ray Snyder
Planner I Craig Harvey
Development Services Manager Jay Sandberg
Project Manager Todd Jacobsen
Secretary Gail Williams

EXCUSED: Commissioner Julie Hullinger
Commissioner Michael Nobis
Councilwoman Gloria Shakespeare

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

Consider approval of a final plat for Red Cliffs Park, phase 2 with ten (10) lots. Located at approximately 1200 North and 2050 East in a PD Residential zone. Mr. Bob Hermandson of Bush and Gudgell is representative. Case No. 2009-FP-001.

Project Manager Todd Jacobsen presented this final plat. The zoning on this is PD.

MOTION: Commissioner Campbell made a motion to approve item #1 and authorize the chairman sign it. Commissioner Burks seconded the motion. All voted aye, motion passes.

2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT



Consider a request for a conditional use permit for a group home for the elderly in a R-1-8 zone. The subject property is located at 3039 Birch Circle. The applicant is Mrs. Lucia Cooper. Case No. 2009-CUP-010.

Craig Harvey presented this conditional use request. Slides were shown and the parking capacity was presented. Craig stated the applicant will be required to have a state license and a city business license. This is in Bloomington Hills South subdivision, the zoning is R-1-8. The General Plan is LDR,low density residential.

The applicant proposes to operate a Type I Assisted Living Care in a single family residence. The applicant is proposing to have a maximum of five (5) elderly persons. State rule R432-6 requires that there is a minimum of two persons to have a Type I Assisted Living Facility for elderly persons or disabled persons in a residence.
The hours would be 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a week. The applicant has adequate parking (2 spaces) for her residence and will not have full-time staff. The parking ordinance (St. George City Code 10-19-5) requires that she has one (1) additional parking space per three beds. If she is to have a maximum of 5 elderly persons then she will be required to have an additional two (2) parking spaces. They do have a driveway that goes around the home. They do have space for two cars in the front. It is paved and outside of the front setback. They do have space for one or two more cars in the back. That is also paved. On the adjacent properties there are single family residential homes, there is a vacant lot to her south and west and on the other side is River Road.

Ordinance: Title 10, Chapter 7 Article B Single Family Residential Zones, Section 10-7B-2 Conditional Uses reads: Residential facility for the elderly, provided it meets the following criteria:
A. Conforms to all applicable health, safety, zoning and building codes;
B. Is capable of use as a residential facility for elderly persons without structural or landscaping alterations that would change the structure's residential character;
C. Is occupied on a twenty four (24) hour per day basis by eight (8) or fewer elderly persons in a family type arrangement;
D. Is not occupied by any person who is being treated for alcoholism or drug abuse;
E. Placement is on a strictly voluntary basis and not a part of, or in lieu of, confinement, rehabilitation or treatment in a correctional institution;
F. Is not located within three-fourths (3/4) mile of another existing residential facility for elderly persons or residential facility for persons with a disability;
G. Is owned by one of the residents or by an immediate family member of one of the residents, or is a facility for which the title has been placed in trust for a resident; and
H. Is not operated as a "business" as defined in section 3-1-3 of this code; provided, that any fee charged for food or for actual and necessary costs of operation and maintenance of the facility shall not by themselves cause it to be considered a business.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth clarified that the applicant must obtain a business license because it is a business in the sense that the residents would pay for room and board. However it is not a business as defined in the City Code because it is not for profit.

Commissioner Read asked Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth how he is going to remedy the conflict.

Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth said it would be remedied by definition.

A floor plan of the home was shown as well as her evacuation plan. Bedrooms 1, 2 and 3 will be used. Her property is xeroscaped with a low maintenances landscape.

Craig said he has not received negative comments regarding this facility except one from a neighbor, Mrs. Donna Cain at 3028 Birch Circle. She didnt have an issue with the facility itself but she is did feel that the xeroscape on the property may pose a fire hazard. It is something she would like the Planning Commission to consider. Craig mentioned that the fire marshal will look at the property and make that determination.

Comments:
The Applicant previously operated an elderly care facility in her home from 1990 to 1995 (see attached minutes from the March 20, 1990 Planning Commission hearing). Mrs. Cooper has now reapplied to the City and under the current ordinance she is required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for such a facility.

Staff has not received any opposition to this request (as of the time of this writing). If the Planning Commission recommends approval, staff suggests the following conditions:

1. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions; such as the posting of fire escape routes, smoke alarms, etc. Note: Lighted exit signs are required by the State.

2. Staff recommends to the Planning Commission to set the maximum number of elderly persons at five (5) persons for this residential assisted living facility for the elderly.

Craig Harvey went over the findings outlined in City Code 10-17-7.

Craig stated that Mrs. Cooper is here for any questions.

Acting Chairman Bracken clarified that it is five residents in addition to the owners.

Craig also stated that the applicant has adequate parking, which is 2 spaces for a residence, and she will not be having a full time staff. The parking ordinance 10-19-5 requires that she have one additional parking space per 3 beds. If she has a maximum of 5 elderly persons, she would only be required to have two additional parking spaces.

Commissioner Read asked if she has to occupy the residence under this licensing that she is getting or if she could have full time care there but not occupy the home.

Craig Harvey responded that she would have to occupy the residence and that is required by state law and our ordinance.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth wanted to clarify the business provision under City Code. A business is defined under section 3-1-3 as a for profit enterprise. City Code 10-7B-2 H states that the assisted living facility cannot be a business as defined in 3-1-3, so the assisted living facility can be a non profit enterprise. A non profit enterprise would still require a business license which is in compliance with the state law. Therefore the City ordinance does not conflict with State law. The intent of this is that it would be not for profit.

Commissioner Burks had a question for our attorney. He asked if they could condition a conditional use permit to the point that said if we approve it and they run it and then for some reason they choose later not to run it, then the conditional use permit goes away at that time.

Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth said for a CUP, if they do not commence operation within a year period of approval of the CUP then it would not run with the land. If the conditions were to change, then the conditional use permit would no longer be valid.

Commissioner Taylor said that ordinance 10-17-11 states that a CUP shall expire after one year if the permitted activity has not commenced or if construction has not begun.

Bob Nicholson, Community Development Director, stated the one year time is a reasonable time period. If they suspend it and dont operate it for a year, you could make it a condition that it would expire at that point. He said typically they do run with the land as long as its the very same operation, limited to 5 individuals; however he said it would be reasonable that if it was suspended for a period of a year, then they would have to file for a new application.

Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth said that is not something that is necessarily addressed in our ordinance. To his knowledge that is not something that has been placed on a conditional use permit in the past. He is not sure you can put expiration on it.

Lucia Cooper, the applicant, came to the microphone and said the state requires that she renews the license every year at the same time and she assumes that the city would have that same rule.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth explained that she would need to renew her business license, but as far as the conditional use permit, if she is approved tonight and also at City Council, she would not need to come back to renew it.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor said that seeing that the applicant appears to have met the conditions required under the findings of the conditional use permit, he moves that they recommend approval for this conditional use permit to a maximum of 5 elderly persons in addition to the residents of the home and that they comply with all their requirements of state and city and maintain their business as appropriately they should. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Read. All voted aye, motion passes.


3. ZONING REGULATION AMENDMENT modification

Consider a modification to a previously recommended zoning amendment regarding the requirement for guest parking in residential developments. Title 10 Zoning Regulations, Chapter 19 Off Street Parking Requirements Section 10-19-4 Residential Area Requirements and also Sections 10-7C-7 (Multiple Family Residential Zone) and Section 10-8-5 (Planned Development Residential Zone) to add a requirement for guest parking. Case No. 2009-ZRA-005.
(Note: proposed modification to ordinance recommended by Planning Commission on 5/26/09)

This is scheduled to go before City Council in approx. 10 days.

The standard off-street parking requirement in the city is 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit.

There is a provision in the code (10-19-4:A.3) that allows the Planning Commission to reduce the parking ratio to 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit for projects with more than 50 units where the applicant can show that 2 spaces per d.u. is an excessive amount.

Staff has researched what other cities require in terms of parking for residential developments and find that 2 spaces per d.u. is the standard with some cities requiring guest parking in addition to the 2 spaces per unit.

The typical guest parking requirement is 1 guest parking space per 4 dwelling units, but some require more and some less. The need for guest parking spaces is mainly evident in developments with private streets due to the narrower street width and typically higher density associated with such projects. The narrower street width accommodates less on-street parking, than a wider public street. Based on the situation in St George with numerous developments using private streets, and the tourist nature of the community, staff is recommending a guest parking ratio of 1 space per 3 dwelling units for all housing developments which have a density of 6 du/acre or more. The previous draft has been modified to delete the phrase located on a private street because upon further consideration staff feels that this phrase will add confusion because many projects with private streets also have public road frontage and that guest parking requirements should apply to all medium & high density housing projects regardless of whether the street is public or private.

Further need for guest parking spaces is the fact that many garages are used to store household belongings rather than to park a car, and also the number of accessory vehicles (boats, trailers, ATVS, etc) which add to the overall parking needs.

Proposed Language: (See Draft Below) New language added is underlined.

10-19-4: A.4 ; also 10-7C-7:O ; also 10-8-5:E (new section) Guest Parking: For housing projects with a density of 6 dwelling units per acre or more there shall be provided guest parking spaces in the amount of one guest parking space per three dwelling units. The guest parking spaces shall be located on-premise and within 200 of the dwelling unit it is intended to serve.

Bob Nicholson, Community Development Director stated that previously it said for housing projects located on a private street with a density. This is now removed and this is scheduled for a public hearing with City Council in about 10 days. He wanted to bring this issue back to be sure the commissioners were in agreement with this and perhaps make a motion to approve the modified language.

Commissioner Read questioned Bob Nicholson, Community Development Director, about the 200 ft. of the dwelling requirement.

Bob Nicholson said this applies to medium and high density projects. The trigger is that it has to have 6 units per acre or more. The guest parking will then have to be within 200 ft. of one of those units. It may force them to break it up and have guest parking scattered throughout the project, which would be preferable. If you have guest parking 600 ft. away it wouldnt be very effective.

Commissioner Campbell asked the distance for the regular parking within the unit and Bob Nicholson responded that it is 400 ft. Bob said 200 ft. is a workable range for a developer and it still in a reasonable number.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said that in section 10-19-4, it talks about the number of spaces and for student housing it has to be no more than 100 ft. away and for all other residential dwelling no more than 400 ft. away.

MOTION: Commissioner Campbell made a motion to approve item # 3 and move it on the City Council. Commissioner Burks seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.

4. ZONE CHANGE REQUEST PUBLIC HEARING (5:00 P.M.)

A. Consider a request for an amendment to a portion of an existing PD-COM (Planned Development Commercial) zone. The amended area consists of 3.962 acres. The amendment will change the layout, design, and use of the property. The site is generally located on Riverside Drive (west of the adjacent United States Post Office). The applicant is SIMLEW LLC, Mr. Rich Lewis. Rosenberg Associates is the representative. Case No. 2009-ZCA-008.

This was presented by Ray Snyder. Slides were shown of the location of this project.

Previously in 1997 the site layout was approved for eight (8) individual commercial buildings and for a specific elevation design style. That layout was never developed. (Applicant refers to this as Alt. A)

Recently on Dec 4, 2008, a layout change was approved by the City Council (2008-ZCA-022) for two (2) buildings; a 25,000 square foot care facility and a future 11,750 square foot (footprint) building. The elevations design was also changed from those previously approved. The list of permitted uses was approved to include a long term health care facility and an Alzheimers care facility. (Applicant refers to this as Alt. B)

Since the last approval in 2008, the applicant has determined that he would like to have another alternative option for five individual buildings considered for approval. (Applicant refers to this as Alt. C)

It is proposed to construct five (5) buildings on site;
Building #1: One story with a walkout basement. 4,750 sq. ft. on each level with a total of 9,500 sq. ft.
Building #2: Two story, 5,000 sq. ft. on each level with a total of 10,000 sq. ft.
Building #3: Two story, 5,000 sq. ft. on each level with a total of 10,000 sq. ft.
Building #4: Two story, 5,000 sq. ft. on each level with a total of 10,000 sq. ft.
Building #5: Three story building, 5,000 sq. ft. on each level with a total of 15,000 sq. ft.

Ray Snyder went over the landscape standards required.

Comments:

1. Staff believes that a zone change should supersede a previous zone change and that there should not be three alternatives. It is recommended that the approval be only for the 2009 layout (Applicant refers to as Alt. C). Ray said that alternatives have not come up in the past.

Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth stated that the PD zone requirements are that they have a colored site development plan presented and that the plan needs to be specific, which is the nature of the PD zone.

2. There is no proposed change in the previously approved use list for this PD (no change since 2008 additions).

3. The Planning Commission recommends approval to the City Council for the amended PD-COM zone change of a five building configuration.

4. Elevations, design, and colors shall match the submittal presented to the Planning Commission on June 9, 2009.

5. Mitigate any Erosion Hazard Boundary per City Ordinance (coordinate with Development Services and City Engineering).

6. If an easement for the trail system does not presently exist then the applicant shall provide one to the satisfaction of the City (Note: The applicant has agreed to resolve this as required).

7. A SPR (site plan review) application shall be submitted to Development Services for processing. It shall include a site plan, landscape plan, grading plan, cross sections, erosion control plan, and other details as deemed applicable by staff.

8. The applicant shall provide a photometric plan.

9. All standard conditions apply (parking, setbacks, etc.).

Acting Chairman Bracken asked if the square footage had changed from this time to the last time.

Ray Snyder answered that it has increased by 10 more feet than the prior submittal.

Acting Chairman Bracken also asked Ray if he checked the parking and if he found it to work.

Ray stated that it appears to work.

The hearing was opened and the applicant was involved to come forward first.

Rob Read with Rosenberg Associates came forward for the applicant. He said the care center, if it were to happen, would be as they have detailed it here and they wanted to keep that opportunity available depending on how things worked out. They did not want to have to go through the process every time a building changed slightly.

Rob had Ray reshow the slides. The current one story building with a walk out basement is their greatest concern .Rob said that it will look like a one story in the front but will be a two story in the back. The intent is to have all of the buildings have this type of architecture, colors and look. The roof tops of all of the buildings would be similar in height. They also said that the 3 story building would be a good fit with the height of the post office next door. The available parking would accommodate that three story building.

Acting Chairman Bracken asked if the care center was off the table at this point.

Rob replied that yes, at this time it is off the table, but they still want the ability to do it if it comes back.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth suggested that if that is what the owner wants to do then legally the route to take would be to get the zone approval today for the five buildings. If later on they decide they want to have the care center, when they could come in with the final plat, and at the same time amend the zone change.

Bob Nicholson, Community Development Director, mentioned that the ordinance states that if there is a significant change, it comes back. If it is not a significant change, then it goes forward.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said his impression is that they cant approve A and B, they have to approve this particular one. He said it would be contrary to what the ordinance requires.

Commissioner Read mentioned that Bob Nicholson would be able to decide on his part if there was a significant change that needed to be looked at.

The floor was opened for comments.

John Ploeger came to the podium. He lives across the street from these buildings. His concern is the 228 parking spaces, and if they were ever filled up, would make it difficult to get onto Riverside Dr. He doesnt see how this would easily happen and he asked if this was a discussion for today. He said it would open up hazardous situations.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said this is a something that the Planning Commission could discuss today. The 228 parking spaces is part of the proposal.

Acting Chairman Ron Bracken asked Jay Sandberg if traffic had been addressed.

City Planner Ray Snyder said this was given to Jay Sandberg and there had not been concerns.

John Ploeger said there arent that many cars trying to get out on the west sides, but later on if you even had 150 cars, it would be very difficult to get out of the parking lot around 4:30 or 5:00 p.m. John went on to say that now getting out onto Riverside Dr. between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. can be a challenge. He said that would divert traffic onto 11th East to 9 South. Parking and traffic usage of that road will make it a very difficult corner and people will be sorry that they ever approved this building.

Acting Chairman Bracken said he noticed that the driveway coming out of there doesnt line up with the street, so they couldnt put a stop light there that would work very well either. He said he doesnt know if that needs to be looked at by traffic engineers.

Mr. Ploeger said that is a real challenge and he is concerned about it.

Ray Snyder mentioned that the mayor recently let the public know about other improvements for Riverside Drive and River Rd. with additional property that has been bought and they are creating an additional turning lane there. They are aware that it is a very difficult intersection.

Commissioner Burks clarified that it is a turning lane going right off Riverside Dr. onto River Road.

Rob Read said that to help with the traffic and circulation onto Riverside Dr. there is a existing right turn lane to enter into the facility and once in the there you do have the option to go up through McArthur Landing and exit onto Riverside Dr. there or onto River Rd. on the opposite side. There is alternate access to the site.

Commissioner Burks had a question regarding alt C and if it was for the 5 units only.

Ray Snyder said yes, that is correct.

Acting Chairman Bracken said that is what they will be looking at tonight only.

Commissioner Taylor questioned if it would be possible to align the entrance of this with the access street going up to the residential area there, with a possibility down the road of controlling the intersection. It looks like it would be possible to rearrange it to get a straight through intersection there.

Jay Sandberg said right now the existing driveway is what is approved. There has been an issue with this, because you are on the inside of the curve, not having good site distance. The circulation alleviates the problem. Eventually, a median could be put in and limit left turns in and out. He said it will be almost impossible to turn left out of this complex eventually. Jay said you need to have 1200 to 1500 ft. for a signal and this would not be possible. He said there is cross access.

John Ploeger said that on 11th East and Riverside Dr. on the NE corner of that intersection is a 10 ft. high solid wall that you cannot see past. He said this is a high traffic situation that needs to be looked at very carefully.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor moved to recommend approval of the zone change with the staff comments to be included that this zone change supersedes all previous zone changes and that we will be looking at this only; if they want to make some adjustment to it they will need to come back for review, unless it is considered by the staff to be insignificant as allowed by City code.

DISCUSSION: Commissioner Burks asked if insignificant includes the care center. He would think if they were going to build the care center instead of those two buildings, they would need to come back.

Commissioner Taylor said that one of the things that it does is change the impact the traffic, because the care center would have less traffic impact than the other buildings would have, so he could see that would be a significant change. Commissioner Taylor said he would support an amendment that the care center would need to be reviewed again.

Bob Nicholson said the care center was one of their potential approved uses. That was based on the list of uses theyve got for the potential use of the site. If they were taking the two buildings and the same floor area, that would not be a significant change. If they are adding on and its a much larger building, then that would be a significant change.

Commissioner Taylor said he would like to leave his original motion, that the staff could determine if there is a significant change, because if it goes to the care center, then that reduces some of the issues that would be of concern. It would be a beneficial change as far as the traffic patterns are concerned.

MOTION SECONDED: Commissioner Campbell seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes


B. Consider a zone change request from OS (Open Space) to A-1 (Agricultural 40,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size). The area consists of approximately 3.94 acres. The site is located at 660 West Man-O-War in Bloomington. The applicants are Mr. & Mrs. Young. Rosenberg Associates is the representative. Case No. 2009-ZC-006.

This request was presented by Craig Harvey. The City General Plan recommends that land within the 100-yr floodplain remain in Open Space zoning. This parcel is outside of the 100 year flood plain, but it is still within the 500 year flood plain and within the erosion hazard boundary. The Engineer, Rosenberg Associates, is providing Erosion Hazard recommendations of how erosion mitigation could be accomplished. If Planning Commission recommends approval, Staff recommends the following restrictions:

(1) Only one dwelling
(2) Require the applicant to sign a flood hazard waiver to be kept on file with the
City;
(3) No fill on the site except where the dwelling will be located;
(4) The dwelling must be located on the eastern side of the property;
(5) The driveway must be aligned with the Bloomington Park east driveway/entrance.

Jay Sandberg presented information contained in a Technical Memo prepared by Rick Rosenberg, Rosenberg Associates. The Memo contained recommendations for mitigation of the flood and erosion hazard if the Zone Change is approved by the City Council.

Jay Sandberg commented that this property has been flooded recently and has a history of flooding. Neighbors and staff have concerns on the potential for flooding. After the flooding in 2005, the City and the Corp of Engineers spent a million dollars as an emergency project to dredge the river and underneath the bridge. Soon after the dredging, FEMA remapped the river. Because of the dredging, the flood plain constricted. Also, because there has not been a flood since the 1966 flood happened, the 100-year flow, based on mathematics has been reduced, which also helped shrink the flood plain area. From the time the river was mapped until now, the river is filling with sand and vegetation, and it is likely the floodplain will expand It is not likely that the city will spend this amount of money again to dredge the river and underneath the bridge.

Jay said the property is within the river meander area which is a hazard area.

Jay also commented that the property was master planned open space prior to the FEMA floodplain maps being adopted and was part of the overall open space that was part of the Bloomington Community plan when annexed by the City.

Acting Chairman Bracken asked if being approved for only one dwelling unit should be looked into.

Jay said that was one of the suggestions made in the report.

Commissioner Taylor said they just approved the Baneberry project on the other side of the river with similar flood plain and meander hazards, and asked what the difference would be on this project.

Jay said the Baneberry area is one of the widest areas of the river and flooding would be shallow. That is not the case with this property.

Commissioner Taylor asked about flood insurance. He wanted to know if flood insurance would be available to homeowners in this parcel if allowed to build.

Jay said that anyone can purchase flood insurance, however, for property outside of the 100 year flood plan, the rates would be less.

The question was asked if a restriction of allowing only one dwelling as recommended by Rosenberg Associates Memo could be enforced based on the zoning. Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said you cant restrict it to just one unit, unless the parcel size being rezoned is reduced.

Commissioner Taylor questioned the no fill restriction. Jay said that is one recommendation from Rosenberg.

The hearing was opened to the public.

Rick Rosenberg, Rosenberg Associates, came to the podium and said he can address this question. He said the applicant only wants one dwelling on this lot. He has no intention to build more than a single unit. Mr. Young lives in a nearby home and he would like to sell one of his properties and build a smaller home with stables on this property.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said the way he sees to do this is with a deed restriction.

Rick Rosenberg discussed his recommendations contained in his Memo to Jay Sandberg. He said that he has seen this area flooded twice. He said the river has been cleaned out now and is good now. Flood plain maps tell us today it is outside the 100-year floodplain, however, 10 years from now it could be different. The flood in 2005 that happened was not a 100 year event. Engineering wise, Rick Rosenberg said that he could mitigate the erosion on this new home better than on existing homes. He said there are always risks of damage from floods when you build near a river.

Commissioner Taylor asked if a lot split could happen and a portion remain as open space. Rick Rosenberg said a lot line split could be done easily and he clarified this with the applicant Ken Young who was in the audience. They saw no problem doing this.

Acting Chairman Bracken asked if it could it be passed tonight stating that only the east portion of the parcel would be rezoned, with the west portion remaining open space.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said a concern would be with one parcel having two zones. If you want to designate one area for the home, then there ought to be a lot split. Instead there should be a lot split done. The other option is to zone it all A-1 with a deed restriction. He then questioned if it is all one parcel.

Rick Rosenberg stated that there are two tax ID numbers.

Ken Young said he would like to sit the house back further from Man-O-War to avoid the traffic.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworths stated that his recommendation would be to table it until they find out where they want to put the house, find out what lot line adjustment, lot split etc. would need to take place and then go from there.

Rick said he would like to hear additional comments from the public hearing and then he would like to table it and bring it back in a little different form.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth stated the Planning Commission has a couple of options if they choose to take action tonight. One would be to disapprove it or approve it with a deed restriction. If there are two parcels you would need the deed restriction on both parcels.

Bob Nicholson, Community Development Director, said another option would be to carve out a 37,500 sq. ft. parcel on the east portion, adjacent to the other RE 37.5 zoned property and have it RE 37.5.

Bob also mentioned the Bloomington Master Plan of the 1970s. It had open space to give the community a certain feel and look. One issue the city struggled with was the Bloomington Golf Course with open space view corridors. After 5 rezone requests, the city said no more. It had been planned open space and the council at that time felt the open space zoning should remain.

Ken Young came forward to the podium to comment that he was here during the 2005 flood. He had purchased the land in the 1998. Tamarisk was everywhere. He had to raise his Sugar Leo home elevation 34 inches. He fought it but was glad he did after the flood of 2005. It is not his intent to impact the area or make drastic changes.

The public hearing was closed.

MOTION: Commissioner Burks recommended that it be tabled until the next meeting. Commissioner Taylor seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.

C. Consider a zone change request from OS (Open Space) to R-1-10 (Single Family Residential 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size. The area consists of 0.42 acres. The site is located at approximately 1090 West Baneberry Drive, adjacent to Bloomington Gardens Subdivision. The applicant is Mr. Blaine Webber and Silverbow LC and Rosenberg Associates is the representative. Case No. 2009-ZC-007.

This was presented by Craig Harvey and slides were shown.

This parcel was included in the Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) that removed the property (Blackberry Court, Phase 2) from the 100 year flood plain.

The property to the south and east of this parcel was part of an approved zone change (case # 2008-ZC-023, see the attached Action Summary). In the hearings, some concerns were raised concerning a leftover parcel which was part of the zone change and this parcel. The concerns were that this parcel would become a weed patch or it would not be maintained because it was not part of the development. The applicant is asking for the zone change so this parcel can be incorporated into the Blackberry Court Phase 2 development.

Staff recommends approval.

Craig said the applicant is here.

The public hearing was opened and no one came forward so the hearing was closed.

MOTION: Commissioner Campbell made a motion to approve item 4 C. Commissioner Taylor seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.

MOTION TO AJOURN: The motion was made by Commissioner Taylor and seconded by Commissioner Campbell. The time was 6:25 p.m.