Planning Commission Agenda

Tuesday, July 28,2009



PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ST. GEORGE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH
July 28, 2009 4:00 P.M.


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



CITY STAFF: Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth
Planner II Ray Snyder
Planner I Craig Harvey
Development Services Manager Jay Sandberg
Senior Development Engineer Catherine Hasfurther
Project Manager Todd Jacobsen
Secretary Gail Williams

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 120 East Street roadway dedication located just east of the Flying J Truck Stop, I-15 Exit No. 4, at approximately 120 East and 2800 South.

This request was presented by Todd Jacobsen. The zoning for this is OS. This roadway will help to alleviate the traffic issues. Half of the roadway is on Bryce Christensens property and the other half of the roadway is on BLM land.

All aspects of this final plat were carefully looked at and reviewed by Planning Department Staff, Development Services Department staff and Legal Department staff and it meets all of the preliminary plats conditions and approvals.

Commissioner Nobis asked why it is only this portion of the roadway being done rather than the whole roadway from north to south.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth stated that Dave Demas is working on this with the BLM.

Jay Sandberg said it is his understanding that the BLM doesnt dedicate roads, they grant right of ways. He stated that after this road is built, the BLM will grant the right of way to turn it over to the City. It is part of the negotiation process.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to approve item 1A and authorize the chairman to sign. Commissioner Hullinger seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.


2. PRELIMINARY PLATS

A. Consider a preliminary plat request for Hidden Valley Community Subdivision - Church & School sites to create two (2) Lots; Lot 1 would be for a proposed school and would be 12.59 acres. Lot 2 would be for a proposed church and would be 5.15 acres. The total property is 17.74 acres. Located west of the intersection of Hidden Valley Drive and Athens Drive. The zoning is PD-RES (Planned Development Residential). The owner is SITLA, the applicant is Ivory Homes, the representative is Mr. Tyler Meyers, and the engineer is Bush & Gudgell Inc. Case No. 2009-PP-005.

Jay Sandberg presented this request. The purpose of this preliminary plat is to facilitate the sale of property to Washington County School District for a new elementary school site. There are no immediate plans to build the school, however, the district is moving forward with the purchase of the property. The overall Master Plan for the Hidden Valley Planned Development was amended by the planning commission earlier this year (April 23, 2009) to facilitate the preliminary plat.

Road A will be constructed to a width of 28 feet and then when the residential development to the west is constructed a median will be built.

Leisure Services/Park Planning has requested that a development agreement with the property owners be completed to address maintenance of the trail and open space that runs along the southerly boundary of this property.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to recommend approval item 2A preliminary plat as defined with no restrictions. Commissioner Campbell seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.

B. Consider a preliminary plat request to amend Tonaquint Terrace at Southgate to remove two lots and reconfigure the roadway to accommodate a proposed church site. Located at approximately 1200 West 2500 South (west of Tonaquint Drive). The owner is Quality Development and SITLA, Mr. Brett Burgess is the representative, and the engineer is Bush & Gudgell Inc. Case No. 2009-PP-006.

Jay Sandberg presented this request. He stated that the original preliminary plat was approved September 2, 2004. The original plat contained 169 lots. The amended plat will contain 167 lots. In the area where the church is located, 3 lots are being removed. An additional lot is being added by adjusting the remaining 17 lots west of the site to 18 lots.

The roadway alignment of the subdivision is being adjusted. 1060 East will terminate in a cul-de-sac with a driveway accessing the proposed church site. 1200 West will T with Collina Drive. Collina Drive will terminate with a cul-de-sac to accommodate the proposed church site.

Water Services indicated that there may be an issue with water pressure in the upper south west portion of the development. Further analysis indicates that water pressure and flow are adequate and meet minimum city requirements for pressure and fire flow.

MOTION: Commissioner Hullinger made a motion to approve item 2B. Commissioner Taylor seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.


3. HILLSIDE PERMIT

Consider a request for a hillside development permit for Tonaquint Drive - LDS Church. The site is on 3.44 acres (149,705 sq. ft.). The site is located on the west side of Tonaquint Drive at approximately 2500 South. The site is also south of the Tonaquint Terrace Subdivision. The applicant is the LDS Church, the representative is Mr. Dennis Patten, architect of P.C. Architects, Inc., and the engineer is Brown Consulting Engineers. The property is zoned R-1-40 (Single Family Residential 40,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size. Hillside Permit Case No. 2009-HS-002.

Ray Snyder presented this request. Photos were shown as well as a site plan.
Ray said the applicant will present more information about the site.

Ray went over the staff report. He said the Hillside Board was comfortable with the request, but they would like to have the concrete retaining walls color tinted to blend with the native rock color.

Hillside Cut; The cuts along the west boundary will range from zero feet (0) to sixteen feet (16). The hillside ordinance states that The height of any cut or fill shall not exceed ten feet (10') when measured vertically from the finished grade to the intersection of the slope with the natural undisturbed ground. The combined height of cuts and fills shall not exceed twenty feet (20') unless otherwise approved by the hillside review board. This approval is subject to incorporating retaining, terracing and landscaping or other approved techniques for stabilizing cuts and fills.

Concrete Retaining Walls; The plans show a seven foot (7) to seven and a half foot (7.5) retaining wall along the west property line, approximately a two foot (2) to five foot (5) concrete retaining wall between levels of parking on the west side of the building, and a six foot (6) concrete retaining wall on the north side of the church between Tonaquint Drive and the cul-de-sac.

Wall Design:
Design of the walls will be provided during submittal of construction drawings.

Geotechnical Report; The applicant shall follow the recommendations of the geotechnical letter and report.

Drainage Report; The drainage improvements shall be installed as shown on the plan and discussed in the report.

Temporary Fencing; Orange fencing shall be installed to indicate limits of disturbance.
The HSRB recommends approval with the condition that the concrete retaining walls be color tinted to blend in with the natural rock color of the immediate vicinity.

Todd Robinson came to the podium and stated that he works with Dennis Patten. He stated that one retaining wall is four foot and in the back of the property are two retaining walls are six feet.

He said the cul-de-sac is not a dead end, it is a cul-de-sac that accesses the road from two directions.

Commissioner Taylor asked about the power poles. Todd stated that it may have moved 6 inches.

Chairwoman Shakespeare asked if blue clay is on this site. She was told that this particular site doesnt have blue clay.

Commissioner Read asked if the church will be visible from down in Bloomington.

Ray said it is a ward building and it will be 28 ft. to the peak of the roof and the steeple will be on top of that.

Commissioner Read stated that he would like to have this issue looked into.

Catherine Hasfurther said they should not be able to see this from Bloomington. She said you may be able to see the tip of the steeple.

Ray asked if a cross section would be needed before it goes on to City Council.

Todd Robinson said he would provide that before the August 6th City Council if that is what is needed.

MOTION: Commissioner Read made a motion to recommend approval to City Council of the Hillside Permit for the church site at Tonaquint Terrace, on Tonaquint Drive subject to the recommendation of Hillside for the concrete retaining walls be color tinted to blend in with the natural rock as well as following the drainage report, geotech report and the wall design set forth in the comments. A cross section shall be provided for the City Council meeting. Commissioner Nobis seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.

4. 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 2304 East 2190 South, in Lot 28 of the Greystone Estates Subdivision. The applicant is Mr. Jerry Bilanzich. The representative is Mr. Dennis Miller. The zoning is R-1-10 (Single-Family Residential 10,000 square feet minimum lot size). Case No. 2009-CUP-014.

This request was presented by Craig Harvey. He stated that one neighbor did call in to object to the location of the garage. They felt that it might block an adjacent neighbors view. The proposed height for the garage is approximately twenty-five feet (25) to the top of ridge. The structure will be located thirty-six feet (36) from the primary structure, five feet (5) from the side yard property line, and twelve feet (12) from the rear property line. The applicants garage will match the existing home in finish materials and design. Staff recommends approval.

Craig stated that the applicant is present and available for questions.

Commissioner Nobis said he sees a 5 ft. property line separation to the garage and he stated that we reserve a 7 1/2 ft. easement.

Craig said the JUC would have to approve this request and could give them a letter that the location is ok.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth stated that the applicant does need to be aware that they are running the risk of having to replace the structure itself if we allow them to build in an easement and we would need to put something in there. They would have to replace the structure themselves if the City had to exercise their easement rights.

Commissioner Nobis said they may need to rewrite this issue and determine what supersedes, the set back or the easement.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said this should be looked at by JUC.

The applicant said that JUC has already approved this.

Planner Craig Harvey said the applicant could be asked to move it 2 1/2 ft. as a condition of this permit.

Jerry Bilanzich said it would be fine with him to move it 2 ft. if that is what they want.

Commissioner Campbell clarified that there would be no living space in this building now or in the future and the applicant stated that was correct.

Carl Waldvogel came to the podium and he lives at 2276 Greystone and he questioned the height of the building and why they are not concerned about the 25 ft. height of this building. He bought his lot because he could see all of Little Valley from his backyard. It is a great place to sit and enjoy the neighborhood. He is concerned about this height. He said today is the first time he saw this structure and he asked why 8 more feet of space is being built than would be needed for an RV garage. This roof is what he will be looking at from his backyard.

Commissioner Read said he is a property rights guy and doesnt feel that we need to restrict this applicant to the 7 feet. because the Commissioners have approved 5 ft. and less prior to this request. Commissioner Read asked that the ordinances be dealt with rather than to have this particular applicant suffer the consequences.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to approve item 4A. The findings have only two or three areas of concern and the applicant has adequately mitigated any areas of concern. The character of the garage is consistent; the 25 ft. in height is not a specific burden at that point so he moves to recommend approval for the conditional use permit. Commissioner Campbell seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.

Acting Chairman Bracken mentioned that for the applicants sake, they need to be aware that they should get the letter from JUC if they are going to build it at 5 ft. and to hang onto it in case there is a problem in the future so they can protect themselves.

B. Consider a request for a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a short pour concrete batch plant and portable cement mixer rentals. The business would be called Cart-A-Crete. The property is located at 630 Red Rock Road in the old industrial area. The applicant is Mr. Glen Bishop. The zoning is M-1 (Industrial). Case No. 2009-CUP-013.

Ray Snyder presented this request and photos were shown. Prior to this request the site was occupied by Wild Coyote Foods.

Section 10-11-2 requires a conditional use permit for concrete or asphalt mixing and batching plants. Staff proposes that a short pour batch plant is less intensive than a full sized concrete batch plant.

The office / building is approximately 800 square feet. Regarding parking, Section 10-19-5 requires 1 space per every 250 square feet of office space. 800 / 250 = 3.2 spaces required. It appears there will be ample space for customer parking, employee, and short pour trailer parking.

An existing two way driveway on Industrial Blvd is proposed for access.

The building is an existing one and it is not being added on to. Because it is not an expansion landscaping improvements are not required per the Landscape Ordinance. The surrounding uses are industrial in nature.

The maximum height allowed in the M1 zone is s 35 feet. The dry mix material dispenser is approximately twenty feet (20) in height.

In addition to the standard conditions, the following are proposed;
1. Inspection is required by the Building Department and approved prior to occupancy of the business.
2. If the use intensifies the Planning Commission and City Council shall revaluate the conditional use permit.
3. Maintain clear site area at corner for traffic safety at intersection.
4. Process a NPDES permit and storm water prevention plan (do not discharge cleaning to city drains).

Staff recommends approval with conditions and Ray Snyder discussed the findings.

Ray Snyder said the applicant Glen Bishop is here tonight and is available for any questions.

Commissioner Read questioned the landscape ordinance.

Commissioner Burks questioned the location of the other concrete batch plant already approved.

The applicant, Glen Bishop came to the podium to answer questions.

Commissioner Campbell asked how many mixers there will be and the response was 4 or 5 of them, depending on the amount of their business.

Commissioner Campbell asked the silo height and the response was that Glen believes it to be approximately 25 ft. high.

Commissioner Taylor asked how the supplies will be stored and where they will be stored. He also asked if they will be covered.

Glen Bishop said that the powder will be stored in the silo behind the building where it will be contained at all times. The sand and gravel will be put into bins next to the existing metal building. This will not be covered as they will need access for a dump truck to deliver these supplies. It will be added into the hoppers as needed.

Commissioner Campbell stated it is a small space and he wanted to clarify that the mixers will not be parked on the road.

Glen said the mixers will be parked behind a locked gate at night.

Commissioner Taylor questioned the cleaning of the mixers and was told that they are supposed to be washed prior to coming back, however they do have a gravel area that can be used if need be so that it will be contained.

MOTION: Commissioner Campbell made a motion to approve item 4 B incorporating also the conditions noted by staff 1-4 and that the project does not violate A-K of the findings. Commissioner Burks seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.

5. DETERMINE USE

Determine whether an indoor archery range is a permitted use within the C-3 (General Commercial) zone and is in harmony with the intent and purpose of the zone; Section 10-10-2 Permitted Uses. Case No. 2009-DU-001.

Ray Snyder presented this request and showed photos of the site as well as a floor plan. He said the fire department will need to review this as will the building department. Ray stated that his understanding is that one person will shoot and once they are finished the next person will come up to use this range to shoot.

Previously on February 28, 2006, the Planning Commission determined that an indoor gun shooting range would require a conditional use permit in the C-3 (General Commercial) zone (Ref. case No. 2006-DU-001 & 2006-ZRA-003)

Although this request may be similar in many respects to a gun range a major difference is that there will not be a sound level issue with the shooting of arrows.

An indoor archery range is not a listed use in the commercial zones. However, in Section 10-10-2 Permitted Uses there is listed Indoor entertainment activities such as paintball, miniature golf, arcade.

The issues involved are: Is an indoor archery range similar to an indoor entertainment activity? Should it be listed as a specific item? Should it be a permitted use or a conditional use permit?

The C-3 (General Commercial) zone is the proper zone for this use and staff recommends that this use be considered as a permitted use similar to paintball or miniature golf, since there is no negative land use impacts associated with indoor archery.

This site does not appear capable of supporting special events. Ray Snyder had talked to the fire department and it comes down to the fact that this building is for retail use.

Ray Snyder stated that the applicants are here tonight.

Commissioner Read asked what requirements are in place for a general archery range that is not nationally certified.

Tom Jazwieckit, the applicant, came to the podium. He is the owner of the Bargain Hut and he explained that they will need to have it approved by the National Field Archery Association because they will be the Jazwieckits insurance carrier. He has spoken to the director of the Utah NFAA and a local person named Dallas Smith will come in to consult regarding the safety requirements. He is authorized by the NFAA to approve the range. They wish to be approved by the NFAA, so they would not be looking at other private insurances which would be available. He said their intent would be to eventually had a league so they could then qualify for national tournaments. He said they do understand that the fire department put the limit of 25 people at a time.

Commissioner Burks asked the hours of operation. The reply was that they are currently open from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., but if they later were able to have a league it would run no later than 9:00 p.m.

Commissioner Nobis questioned the construction of the wall being built to separate it from the store. The response was that it would be 4X8 panels with plywood on each side, to basically deflect. This is what Bass Pro Shops in Las Vegas uses.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said this motion tonight is to see if this is comparable to the uses Ray mentioned this evening, considering the safety issues of archery vs. paintball.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor stated he recognizes the advantage in the comments of Commissioner Read, that by using a CUP it gives an opportunity as a community to determine the number of such facilities that may be available in the community because of the requirement of a CUP. He thinks the dangers are rather minimal compared with that of firearms because of the possibility of ricochet or rebound being minimized and the fact that these people want to comply with the national organization is a positive; however if we made it a permitted others would be able to establish such a range without the intent to comply, so he does believe the CUP concept gives some advantage as a community to determine the numbers and the conditions under which these kinds of things might develop. In harmony with that, he moves to approve this as a conditional use permit.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth interceded that we cannot approve this as a conditional use permit.

Commissioner Taylor corrected his motion to not consider it as a permitted use, but that it does require additional permitting and is not a permitted use for this zone under the current ordinance, as would other kinds of things that were recreational activities.

Commissioner Hullinger seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.

6. DISCUSSION ITEM

Determine whether the demolition and rebuilding of an existing McDonalds on St George Blvd may require less parking spaces than the standard parking ratio due to crediting vehicle stacking. Section 10-19-5. Case No. 2009-DI-006

Ray Snyder presented this discussion item and photos were shown. Ray stated that the new site plan as presented would be deficient in parking.

The applicant wishes to discuss Section 10-19-5 that states; Notwithstanding all provisions of this section, the Planning Commission shall take into account in each instance of nonresidential parking the type of development, use, location, adjoining uses and possible future uses in setting parking requirements, and it shall recommend to the city council a requirement of the number of spaces that it deems reasonable necessary in each instance for all employees, business vehicles and equipment, customers, clients and patients of such nonresidential property.

The site is located at the southwest corner of St George Blvd and 800 East. The address
is 798 E St George Blvd. The zoning is C-2 (Highway Commercial)

The existing building is 4,510 square feet / 100 = 45 spaces required.
There are 36 spaces on site and 9 spaces on the adjacent parking lot of Cinnamon Hills (for employees) for a total of 45.

The proposed building is 430 SF larger at 4,940 square feet / 100 = 49 spaces required. The applicant proposes 34 spaces on site which would be 15 short. The 9 off-site spaces could not be counted unless a shared parking agreement was provided that demonstrated that Cinnamon Hills had extra spaces to provide. Ray said the applicant has not be able to do that.

Analysis: The applicant has broken down the floor plan as follows; 1) office area = 134 SF, 2) Freezer and Dry Storage = 814 SF, 3) Bathroom = 322 SF, 4) Kitchen and Support = 962 SF, 5) Dining and Service Area = 1,823 SF, and 6) Play Area = 810 SF

The new building total gross square footage = 4,865 SF

If the play area (810 SF) and office (134) were removed then restaurant parking might be 4,865 3,921 SF / 100 = 39 spaces. If the office were evaluated as 134 SF / 250 = 0.53 spaces then the total spaces required would be 39.53 = 40 spaces required.

This item was discussed at the June 30, 2009 PSR (Planning Staff Review) meeting. The following key issues were discussed;

1. The applicant inquired if the stacking / staging of cars waiting in line for the drive thru could be given credit for parking spaces. The argument in support of this is that 70% of their business is drive-thru. Staff takes the position that the parking standard requires parking spaces for gross building square footage only and does not mention any allowance for crediting for drive-thru. Historically no other restaurants have been calculated for drive thru and precedence would be established if this were approved.

2. Staff entertained the thought that the play area square footage could be removed from the parking calculations. This has not been done before, but could be considered as a possibility.

3. Staff would support removing the office area from 1:100 calculation and allowing a 1:250 to be used.

4. 49 spaces are needed on site and 15 spaces would be deficient, or if the play area is not counted and the office is calculated at 1:250 then 40 spaces are needed and the site would then be deficient 9 spaces

5. Calculating for a restaurant is based on gross square footage per code. Kitchens, restrooms, hallways, and freezers are all counted in the calculation and not separated out.

6. Two dual drive-thru lanes and menu boards are proposed. Ray said they would like to have that, however if they had only one perhaps they could pick up some parking spaces.

7. Staff has concerns for the proximity of exiting onto 800 East Street in relationship to the intersection, it would be more ideal to move it further south.

8. According to the Fire Department a fire suppression system is required.

9. Staff recommended that the applicant design a smaller building with less square footage, move the building 4 to 5 feet, add a detention basin, and provide a floor plan showing square footage of areas (so the play area could be considered).

10. The applicant chooses to discuss the parking requirements with the PC.

Farley Eskelson, with Dominion Engineering, came to the podium. He stated that Steve Jenkins, with McDonalds Corporation, is also present.

Mr. Eskelson said that McDonalds is looking to update older restaurants. The incline existing is treacherous so they would like to get rid of that. They wanted to meet with the Planning Commission to discuss parking in order to see if they could move forward with their plans or not. When they met with staff the play area and office space were discussed. He understands that freezer area is also counted in the gross floor area. He stated that in the approval process for banks the drive thorough was used and cars going through were used as additional parking. He said that with 70% of the business going through the drive throughs and having double drive throughs, you can pull them through and get them in and out quicker.

Mr. Eskelson said the way this site is, with the slope, with the width, with the length, he cant configure it differently without using the existing drive through which is treacherous. They will keep the landscape to the west intact because they are mature, pretty trees. Mr. Eskelson said that this parking is the best they can do and they need to know if they are able to go forward with this project.

Commissioner Read asked how they are getting rid of the incline.

Farley said they have lowered the front of the play place down lower. They have taken the original parking at the play place out so the building can be set a little lower. There is going to be a 2 feet wall along 800 East with an 11 foot sidewalk from the back of the curb to the wall. There will be a sharper incline going through the ordering, looking to the east you will be sitting on the slope and when you finish ordering you will be coming up an incline to the back of the building and it will level off to go through the two windows.

Commissioner Read asked if Cinnamon Hills had been approached for a shared parking agreement.

Steve Jenkins with McDonalds stated that Cinnamon Hills has been approached, however they were the former owner but when he sold the franchise he neglected to point out that he had allowed the 9 parking stalls that had been available previously to be rented to other people.

Commissioner Read asked the amount of noon time workers present and the answer was 12 employees at peak times.

Steve Jenkins said that because of the challenging drive through many people choose to go in, order at the counter and then get back in their car and leave. He said the drive through now is a safety issue.

Acting Chairman Bracken asked if there was any way to count parking in the stacked positioning.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth stated that his recommendation is that you cant count it; nothing in the ordinance allows for counting stacking as parking spaces. Additionally, he feels that it would set precedence for any other restaurant.

Farley mentioned that when he met with staff it was discussed about the bank using some stalls for their drive through. He also stated that the amount of business that goes through the drive should be a consideration. He also stated that in the ordinance it discusses the Planning Commission looking at each non residential uses to determine whether there is enough parking or not. This is his reasoning for coming before the Commissioners to discuss this.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth stated that he does not know anything about a bank drive through situation that Mr. Eskelson is referring to, nor does Ray Snyder.

Ray stated that he does not recall that being discussed and that there is nothing in our code for banks.

Commissioner Taylor asked why the size they are asking for is quite critical if 70% of their business is done through the drive through. He asked if they ever fill the dining room entirely.

Steve Jenkins stated that the only time the dining room is filled entirely is at lunchtime. He said the reason they are restricted for the size of the restaurant is because 70% of their business goes through the drive through; to facilitate that they need adequate product. Slides were shown of the freezer, cooler and shelving storage of the product. He said if you get 3 people back there it is crowded.

Acting Chairman Bracken asked if the freezer area could be counted as storage, because that is what it is.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth stated that as far as he knows this has not ever been a consideration for any other typical drive through restaurant. It has always been the gross area of a restaurant regardless of the lay out and his legal concern is that this does set precedence.

Steve Jenkins stated that the majority of municipalities that they approach count the parking by seating capacity.

Commissioner Campbell stated that he thinks the cooler could be considered equipment rather than part of the building.

Commissioner Taylor said he thinks that what the Planning Commission and City Council tries to do is to recognize the needs of the community members as they drive into a parking lot and drive into a business. They dont want to go into a situation where the parking lot is crowded and they need to take the last space or wait for someone to pull out before they can. We have had that problem with a few businesses and that problem existed because they gave ground in a few places and then you have overcrowded situations and everyone suffers. He asked if they have looked at every possible arrangement of the building on the property. They may even ask if they need to seat that many people.

Councilwoman Shakespeare said she was in a McDonalds in New York where the dining was upstairs. She asked if they considered a second story dining idea for some of the customers and some of the dining on the first floor and it could open some land space for parking.

Acting Chairman Bracken said the problem came about because originally when it came about there were nine additional parking spaces that went with this building. As time went along the buyer found that they didnt need those spaces and made an arrangement to lease them to Cinnamon Hills instead. That was not looked at when McDonalds was done and they were short nine spaces.

Steve Jensen said the prior owner is the owner of Cinnamon Hills. He sold just the McDonalds franchise and didnt tell anybody about the nine spots that he gave away that were not his to give away. Steve also said they tried 5 different layouts to accomplish their goal.

Commissioner Campbell asked that since 70% of their business is through the drive through, why cant they reduce the size of the building in the play and seating area?

Farley said if they take the play place out it would be 810 sq. ft. but we are not counting it now, so that would not give them enough space.

Ray said staff was trying to be helpful and asked if the playing area could not be counted. He said typically the parking is one per 100 as gross floor for a restaurant.

Commissioner Nobis mentioned that the majority of customers would have children in the play area and would be using the parking spaces.

Commissioner Read mentioned that he thinks there is a difference between the all sit down restaurants and the ones that the majority of business is done through the drive through. The City should look at it more and factors that would allow stacking in a drive through situation and distinguish the two restaurants.

Commissioner Campbell said the play place could be a play area and not be counted if the dining part of it was taken out.

Steve Jenkins said they need seating to accommodate the mother with a young child climbing and another child in her lap.

Farley stated that McDonalds has numbers showing that a double drive through and stacking is for convenience to get in. All has been calculated. The double drive through gets them in and gets them out. That is their business and that is what they know.

Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth said his caution to the Planning Commission is that this does set a precedence and it should be taken into account.

Acting Chairman Bracken said it should also be taken into account that they are building a smaller building in totality from what they had before and in his estimation the City was a little bit responsible for allowing those nine spaces to be taken away from this.

Commissioner Nobis is questioning the total square footage of the new footprint vs. the old footprint. He said the new building is slightly bigger.

Farley stated that was correct; the new building is slightly bigger. He said he has tried all things and is still unable to get the required number of parking spaces and accomplish what he needs to accomplish.

Steve Jenkins said the usable seating capacity is reduced with the new building, however the footprint is larger. He asked them to consider that they are a quick service restaurant.

Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth said that if we did not count the storage area we would be making an exception for this restaurant. Legally, he does not think that is the right course of action. Perhaps the best thing to do is to change it to a difference between sit down restaurants and fast food restaurants. Tonight the question before the Planning Commission is whether or not you should count the drive through spots as part of their parking towards the parking requirement. If you do count it, how many do you count? The determination tonight is whether or not to count the stalls and to what extent.

Commissioner Read said that Section 10-19-5 gives the Planning Commission the option to reduce the number by looking at the circumstances. He thinks they are asking to be reduced to 35 spaces due to their unique situation.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said the commissioners can recommend to City Council the number of spaces it deems reasonably necessary.

Ray Snyder pointed that that they would need to determine the 34 existing spaces.

Commissioner Campbell asked about the area that the freezer would be in and if part of the play area were removed, how much square footage would that be? They calculated that 10 less parking spaces would be needed using those calculations.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said that if they do feel comfortable making recommendations for a different number, state the specific reasons and findings why this site for this McDonalds restaurant is different, what makes this one unique.

MOTION: Commissioner Read made a motion to recommend the applicant to come back to the next Planning Commission meeting and have the City notice it up for all considerations that can be considered under Section 10-19-5 and bring it back to the Commissioners. Commissioner Burks seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.

Ray Snyder clarified with Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth that they need to come back to the next planning commission meeting if they have everything prepared in time and that there is no requirement under the code that a public hearing will be needed.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth stated that is correct.

7. PD ZONE AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING (5:00 P.M.)

Consider a request to modify the list of approved uses for the Sunbrook Ranch PD Commercial zone located at 415 South Dixie Drive by adding dances for the general public to the list of allowed uses. Ms. Andrea Riggs, applicant. Case No. 2008-ZC-017. (Note: This item was tabled at the June 23, 200 and July 14, 2009, Planning Commission meeting.)

Craig Harvey presented this request and mentioned that this item has been tabled at two previous PC meetings to allow for a site visit on June 30th at 7:00 p.m. to see the facility and listen to the sound levels proposed for the dances. It was also tabled for a legal opinion on a temporary zoning action.

The request is to consider a request to modify the list of approved uses for the Sunbrook Ranch PD Commercial zone located at 415 S. Dixie Drive by adding dances for the general public to the list of allowed uses.

On Sept 4, 2008, the City Council approved a zone change for this property from M-2 (Manufacturing) to PD-COM (Planned Development Commercial) and PD-RES (Planned Development Residential) for the 17.35 acre property. A variety of residential and commercial uses were approved for the property including indoor soccer, retail shops, fitness and wellness facilities, call center, assisted and independent senior living units, and other uses. The applicant, Ms. Andrea Riggs, has a business license to do dance lessons, dance instruction and operate a fitness business at this location. She would now like approval to also have dances in the evening open to the public 2-3 nights per week. The dances would have a different focus, such as, Over 40s night, Country/Line Dancing night, 80s night, Singles night, and Disco night. The applicant requests approval to stay open until 11:30 pm for the dance nights, and fitness classes held 3 nights/ week (already permitted under the PD Zone) would run until 10 pm.

Since this was not part of the original request or approval this proposed additional use requires approval from the City Council, upon a recommendation from the Planning Commission.

Property owners within 500 of the subject property have been notified of this public hearing so if the neighbors have concerns they have been invited to both the PC and CC hearings on this request. This PD zone amendment has also been noticed in the newspaper for 10 days prior to the public hearing.

Issues:
1. Neighborhood compatibility
Dances, if not adequately supervised with appropriate security can be a source of excessive noise and loitering late into the night. The applicant states she will have the necessary security for any weekend event which is geared toward younger groups. Also, the applicant has abandoned the idea of having some music outside, and now agrees to limit music to indoors.
2. Parking
The property has been approved for a variety of uses although at present there are very few up and running. The indoor soccer has begun and is approved for nightly soccer. The dance assembly area is approximately 4,900 sq ft which could accommodate a large number of persons.(capacity cannot exceed 950 under the Fire Dept occupancy limits). However under the city Parking standards, there must be at least one parking space for every 3.5 persons. Therefore an occupancy limit of 950persons would require 271 parking spaces. Therefore the PC should recommend a maximum capacity limit based on facility size (ie, 4,900 sq ft) and the available number of paved parking spaces. There are 280 parking spaces on the premises.
3. Security
The applicant should agree to provide security when such is deemed necessary by the St George Police Dept.
4. Fire Code Requirements
Any approval should be subject to meeting the fire code requirements as set forth by Kevin Taylor, Fire Marshall. The applicant has summarized those requirements in her Addendum.
5. The applicant has taken steps to address noise, parking, fire code, and security issues. A representative from the Police Dept (Captain Rich Farnsworth) addressed security concerns at the last PC meeting. See the applicants Addendum #2 dated July 8, 2009 for her revised dance proposal.
6. The Assistant City Attorney (Joseph Farnsworth) has issued an opinion that zoning cannot be temporary for this request, and voluntary time restrictions offered by the applicant are not suitable because it amounts to a temporary zoning action.
7. At the last PC meeting it was mentioned that the city Public Dance Hall ordinance makes it unlawful for noise to be heard beyond 100 from the premises where the sound originates. Therefore the city can rely on this ordinance to address noise concerns( see Ordinance 3-2A-4 attached).
8. A 6 solid fence or wall is required adjacent to the residential
properties on the north and south sides. Such a wall presently exists along most of the property line, however there are a couple of gaps on the south (or east) side near the driveway, and when cars exit the property at night the headlights shine into the residential property. The commercial property owner (Marv Blosch) has been made aware of this problem and has agreed to correct it.

The public hearing was opened.

Andrea Riggs, the applicant came to the podium. She said being open on weekends until 11:30 p.m. is a big deal to her. She discussed this with a few neighbors and they had made suggestions. She said the opportunity for her and for her business is at this facility and this facility only. She said this is a retirement community here; however it is also a college community and has high school students here. She believes the Commissioners understand her intentions.

Connie Hauser came to the podium. She said she attends the Zumba classes and stated that it has been a lot of fun for her. When she heard about the dance club, she was excited. She is a resident of Sunbrook, the parent of four teenaged children and she feels that the children here need something to do. She always feels that a dance club gives adults such as her something to do also. She feels that it presents a good option for people.

Ms. Hutchens came to the podium. She works for the Learning Center for Families and said that she feels this is great to have a place to go to de-stress for a night. She feels that they need something like this on this end of town.

Fred Tucker said he represents a small portion of the college age students in this community. He thinks the city needs a program like this to the City and feels that it will be a positive influence in the area and will people something different to do.

The public hearing was closed to the public.

Commissioner Read asked how to add in the restrictions or conditions that had been discussed.

Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth said that if the Planning Commission does decide that they do want to recommend approval to the City Council, it would be by amending the PD text to include this as a permitted use with the following conditions and outlining the ones considered appropriate. The findings should say why this PD zone is suited for this use, whereas other PD zones in other parts of the City may not be as uniquely suited for this use. That would help protect the City from future applicants coming in where the site may not work well.

Commissioner Burks mentioned security and the need to have it available when all events are taking place, not just the dancing part of it.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth mentioned Code 3-2A-4 and that it mentions security being in place for public dance halls. The City Code also has requirements that state they must be over 21 years old and they cant have a criminal history in the previous 2 years or during the course of employment. As far as whether or not tonight you can mandate the security for the other uses there, that is not an issue before the Planning Commission tonight.

Commissioner Taylor wonders if some other alternative that could restrain the days and hours of the week.

Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth said you could amend the PD text of the ordinance of this particular application to show that their situation is unique and give specific findings as to why. You need to be as specific as possible.

MOTION: Commissioner Hullinger made a motion to amend the PD text for the following reasons: the proximity of the neighbors, that they walked the perimeter and the distance is more than the 100 ft. in the dance club ordinance, the client is willing to provide security, and the dance club will be closed at 9:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and Friday and Sat closing at 11:30 p.m., With those findings she makes a motion to amend the PD text.

DISCUSSION: Commissioner Nobis mentioned the need to address the parking, limiting the number of people, that it needs to meet the fire codes and they need to have a special event permit for the weekends.

Commissioner Hullinger said that she accepts that.

Commissioner Nobis said he has come up with 270 parking spaces if you have the 950 people that were discussed.

Commissioner Taylor asked if she was ok with the hours of operation and the answer was yes. Today Ms Riggs offered to have the hours be Monday through Thursday until 9:30 p.m. and Friday and Saturday until 11:30 p.m. It will be closed on Sunday.

Commissioner Nobis questioned if she mentioned security and Commissioner Hullinger said yes she did, the applicant is willing to provide security.

Commissioner Read stated he would like to see in there that based on what Captain Farnsworth told them last time that she can provide private security for up to 100 people, after 100 people she needs to go to public security based on whatever Captain Farnsworth recommends, you need to follow the ordinance for the distance and the decibels, the doors being closed need to be stated specifically, specifically stating, so there are no issues, the policy board being up that no alcohol, a dress code, once they leave they pay to reenter, the outside security with a 15 minute restriction, one someone comes out the dance hall they are gone and not out in the parking lot the rest of the night. He thinks they need something that at the end of the music at 11:30, music shuts down and doesnt keep playing and security has the parking lot cleared by midnight. He also thinks they need further restriction on the number of people even though parking lets you go up to 950, he thinks thats too many in that location there which is between two subdivisions. Even though fire code and parking would let them go to 950 people, he thinks that is too many.

Commissioner Hullinger asked if he thought 500 people was reasonable.

Commissioner Read asked the applicant how many she was expecting.

Andrea Riggs responded that 500 would be plenty.

Commissioner Read said the City would allow a special events permit anytime you need it because they can approve specifics, but any outside event live band and any time you expect over 500 people would require a special events permit.

Commissioner Hullinger said she accepts all of that in her motion.

MOTION SECONDED: Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. All voted aye, motion passes.


Ms. Riggs came to the podium to explain her conversation with the police officer. Ms. Riggs said he stated that a sign should be up saying the rules, that there is a dress code, no gang affiliated representation, not being able to reenter, once you are out you are out and you have to pay to get back in, if you are sitting out in the parking lot then basically you will be kicked out. If there was a problem, he wanted to be notified, for example if someone came drunk, he would want to be notified of the potential situation. She said they are happy to do whatever they need to do.

FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION: Commissioner Read questioned Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth about being more restrictive so there is no precedent setting down the road. He wondering if they could add in that it has been commercial use for 50 years with Moore Business Forms there, so we dont have a new development being able to come in adjacent to neighbors, whereas this one has already been established as some kind of use that is not conducive to the neighborhood already.

Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth stated that would be a great finding to make to make sure this approval was site specific.

Commissioner Read mentioned that he added it after the fact.

Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth said that he can say it was one of the reasons why he made that motion.

Commissioner Read said an industrial zone then, with the uses being the uses that are there.

Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth said to make it clear you can say not in residential for the past 30 some years that its been commercial or industrial or non residential use.

Commissioner Read said on the dress code normal decency; lewdness provisions if anything revealing of a sexual nature you can take care of with the police anyway.


8. PUBLIC HEARING ON REVISED ANNEXATION POLICY PLAN (5:00 P.M.)

Ray Snyder presented this policy plan and pointed out the process for adopting the revised annexation plan. Ray said he is not aware of any comments being received.

The Acting Chairman opened the public hearing and invited all to come forward.

No one came forward.

MOTION: Commissioner Nobis made a motion to approve the revised annexation plan as designated by item # 8. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Taylor. All voted aye, motion passes.

9. ZONING REGULATION AMENDMENT (5:00 P.M.)

A. A discussion of a proposal to provide provisions for Short-term Rentals by modifying Title 10 Zoning Regulations, Chapter 14 Supplementary and Qualifying Regulations, Section 10-14-22 Short Term Leases of Residential Properties; by changing Section 10-14-22-E Residential Lease, Short Term, Prohibited to provide for exceptions to allow short term rentals. Case No. 2009-DI-004.

Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth presented this proposed code amendment, which is to allow short-term rentals where appropriate and where the transient nature of the occupants does not create a negative impact to the residential neighborhood. Protect residential neighborhoods and property values by promoting quiet, stable neighborhoods and limiting the commercial, transient nature created by short-term rentals.

Short-term rental means the use, occupancy, rent or lease of a residential property or a portion thereof, for remuneration for a period of 30 days or less.

Short-term rentals are presently allowed in commercial zones (ie, hotels), Bed & Breakfast Inns in Landmark sites, in a Resort Overlay Zone, and in specific areas of certain Planned Development projects which have short-term rentals approved as one of the PD zone uses. The Planned Development Residential projects with short term rentals include Las Palmas & Sports Village at Green Valley, Entrada, Sun River, and Sunbrook has a hotel site approved but not yet built. Also, there are a limited number (approx 10) of condo units in the Bloomington Gardens area which were leased through Holiday Resort Realty and was deemed an allowed use as part of the Bloomington area annexation to the city in 1982.

1. In PD Residential Zones with at least 100 dwelling units, short-term rental units could be allowed under two (2) options; 1) First would be the large PD projects which have an 18 hole regulation golf course and which designate a specific area or phase to be used for short term rentals, similar to the Entrada project which has a certain area designated for short-term rentals, 2) The second option is for smaller projects (with at least 100 dwelling units) where short term rentals could be approved if 100 % written approvals were obtained from existing property owners within the project. The existing PD Residential projects with short-term rentals as an approved use are all larger projects with a golf course as part of their amenity package (except Green Valley). The combined requirement of 100 dwelling units and either 100 % written consents from property owners, or having an 18-hole golf course will limit the number of residential projects seeking city approval to allow short-term rentals.

2. Another option is to require all projects with multiple short term rentals to meet the requirements of the Resort Overlay Zone, i.e, (1) a golf course or access to an adjacent golf course, (2) a swimming pool and at least 6 tennis courts, (3) an on-site manager, (4) substantial visitor parking. Also, should there be some flexibility to substitute another amenity in lieu of the 6 tennis courts?

3. Where single-family homes are proposed for short-term rental use the minimum requirements include a lot size of two acres and frontage on a collector or arterial street, plus written approval from property owners within 300 of the rental home.



Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth said there are some provisions that he feels would be more appropriate to place in the business section of the code so some of these may need a little more work. This is brought before the Planning Commission tonight to review and discuss.

The public hearing was opened for anyone wanting to comment.

No one came forward.

Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth said his recommendation for a motion would be to table it for more revision before it goes on to City Council.

MOTION: Commissioner Read made a motion to recommend this go to City Council with the suggested changes mentioned. Motion seconded by Commissioner Campbell. All voted aye.

Motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Nobis. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Burks. The time was 7:17 p.m.