Planning Commission Minutes

Tuesday, August 11,2009



PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ST. GEORGE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH
August 11, 2009 4:00 P.M.


PRESENT: Acting Chairman Ron Bracken
Councilwoman Gloria Shakespeare
Commissioner Ross Taylor
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
Business License Manager Laura Woolsey
Project Manager Todd Jacobsen
Secretary Gail Williams

EXCUSED: Commissioner Chapin Burks
Community Development Director Bob Nicholson


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 ITEMS FINAL PLATS

A. Consider approval of a final plat for Las Colinas Phase 1 with seven (7) single family lots. Located at Pioneer Road and Las Colinas Drive in the PD (Planned Development) zone. Bush and Gudgell is the representative. Case No. 2009-FP-005.

Todd Jacobsen, Project Manager, presented these two plats, phase one and phase two of Las Colinas. Phase one has seven lots. The park will be dedicated with phase one.

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 plat conditions and approvals.


B. Consider approval of a final plat for Las Colinas Phase 2 with twelve (12) single family lots. Located west of Pioneer Road on Cielita Drive and Las Colinas Drive in the PD (Planned Development) zone. Bush and Gudgell is the representative. Case No. 2009-FP-006.

Todd says this phase has 12 single family lots. 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 plat conditions and approvals.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to recommend approval of final plats items # 1 A and 1 B and authorize the Chairman to sign it. Commissioner Campbell seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.


2. PARKING REQUESTS

A. Determine whether the demolition and rebuilding of an existing McDonalds on St George Blvd may be permitted with less parking spaces than the standard parking ratio based upon unusual conditions or circumstances unique to the specific site that may be considered in accordance with the last paragraph of Section 10-19-5 which begins as Notwithstanding all provisions of this section Case No. 2009-PRKG-001.

Ray Snyder said this is a different case than they heard before as it has been totally rewritten. The site is located at the southwest corner of St George Blvd and 800 East Street. The address is 798 E St George Blvd. The new site plan will be deficient in parking.

Parking Existing
The existing building has a basement and a main floor level;
1. The basement (storage) is approximately 1,800 square feet / 100 = 18 spaces
2. The main floor level is 4,510 square feet / 100 = 45 spaces.
3. Per code 63 spaces should be on site.
4. There are 45 spaces on site.
5. The site is deficient 18 spaces.
6. The previous owner sold land to the south to Cinnamon Hills. Prior to the loss of this property McDonalds had 9 spaces for employees on this south parking lot.

Proposed
The proposed new building would be single level only (no basement).
1. The main floor would be 4,940 square feet / 100 = 49 spaces required.
2. Two menu boards (dual order points) with one delivery point are proposed.
3. Only 34 spaces can be provided on site with new layout
4. The site would be deficient by 15 spaces.

Analysis: The existing building is non-conforming for parking.

The proposed replacement building will be 1,370 square feet less in size.

The new building would require 14 less spaces than the present building.

The floor plan has been broken down 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
6. Play Area = 810 SF

If the Play Area (810 SF) and the office area (134 SF) were removed from calculating restaurant parking, then 4,940 944 = 3,996 SF / 100 = 39.96 = 40 spaces required for food service.

If the office area were evaluated as 134 SF / 250 = 0.53 spaces then the total spaces required would be 39.96 + 0.53 = 40.49 = 41 spaces required.

Therefore if the PC & CC concurs; instead of 49 spaces being required for the gross building square footage only 41 spaces would be required. The result would be a total of 7 spaces deficient. This compared to the existing non-conforming deficiency of 18 spaces with the construction of a new building of reduced square footage of only 7 spaces would be an improvement.

Acting Chairman Bracken asked about the freezer space. Ray mentioned that in the past the freezer storage was counted for the Maverick project and they had to put in a parking space for that. Ray said he is trying to be fair and consistent across the board.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said that in order to not count freezer space or storage space it would require an ordinance because this is how we deal with every restaurant in town.

Acting Chairman Bracken asked if at this point they have the authority to look at this space and perhaps determine that they do not need the full requirement of parking and vote in that direction or do we have to go with what the law says.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth pointed out the Ordinance Section 10-19-5 regulating parking requirements.

There are 136 seats in the existing building. The new design would accommodate approximately 106 seats (77%) which is a 23% reduction.

Ordinance: Chapter 19 Off Street Parking Requirements, Section 10-19-5 in the final paragraph of this section 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.

Ordinance: Chapter 16 Non-Conforming Buildings and Uses, Section 10-16-3 Additions, Enlargements, and Moving
A. A building or structure occupied by a nonconforming use or a building or structure which is nonconforming in any way including height, area, yard, landscaping, or parking regulations shall not be added to, remodeled or enlarged in any manner or moved to another location, where such addition, remodel, enlargement or relocation would also be nonconforming. Additions, remodels, or enlargements which are minor may be approved by the city manager or designee if a determination is made that the change will not increase the negative impact of the nonconformity. All other changes must first obtain a recommendation for approval from the planning commission and approval from the city council. In approving such request, it must be determined that the proposed change does not impose any unreasonable burden upon the lands located in the vicinity of the nonconforming use or structure and that the negative impact of the nonconformity is not increased.
Comments: This existing McDonalds has been located on this site since August 31, 1974 (35 years).

The proposed McDonalds design is called Forever Young and the new design is intended to speed up customers in the drive thru.

The play place would be smaller and would house the newest design in toys.

McDonalds is a QSR (Quick Service Restaurant); meaning that people go to the restaurant to get food and eat it, but do not stay as long as a traditional sit down restaurant. Many customers are in and out in less than 15 minutes.
Determinations:
Staff suggests the following determinations in support of the demolition and replacement of the McDonalds restaurant;
1. Regarding Chapter 19 Off Street Parking Requirements, Section 10-19-5; The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the provision of 34 parking spaces on site are deemed necessary and reasonable to effectively serve the restaurant without detrimental effects to the community due to parking because the existing restaurant per code is presently deficient 18 spaces and the upgrade of the site will result in a reduced total of 7 spaces deficient (if the CC concurs that the play area may be removed from parking calculations and the office area may be calculated at 1:250), the redesign will improve public safety by eliminating an existing unsafe vehicle ramp condition, improve vehicle efficiency through the site by the creation of two menu order points, one pick up point, reduced seating (23% reduction), and result in a building with less square footage (22% reduction). Consideration has also been given for the maximum number of employees on shift, percentage of customers using drive-thru, any business vehicles, equipment, and customers in making this recommendation for 34 parking spaces being reasonable and adequate in this particular situation.

2. Regarding Chapter 16 Non-Conforming Buildings and Uses, Section 10-16-3 Additions, Enlargements, and Moving; The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the proposed change does not impose any unreasonable burden upon the lands located in the vicinity of the nonconforming use or structure and that the negative impact of the nonconformity is not increased because the operation and efficiency of the restaurant as a neighbor to other businesses will be improved, circulation and resultant traffic by neighboring businesses will be improved, presently deficient spaces will be decreased, public safety will increase by eliminating an existing unsafe vehicle ramp condition, improved vehicle efficiency on site will benefit neighbors, and a more attractive neighboring building will be constructed.

Ray said that the applicant is present tonight and will answer any questions.
Farley Eskelson came to the podium. He said Steve Jenkins was not able to come this evening. He reinforced that McDonalds is currently reducing the number of seating for the new restaurant by 30 seats. He pointed out that 70% of the business is through the drive through.
Chairwoman Shakespeare asked if the employee numbers would be less. Farleys reply was that it would be the same due to the good, loyal employees they currently have.
Commissioner Nobis asked about the seating in the play area. He thinks the play structure should be counted but not the seating area in it.
Mr. Eskelson said they had counted the play area seats in the current building as well as in the new proposed building.
Acting Chairman Bracken said the question is the direction they are going with the building; if they are making it a better situation than what was there before. He said it appears that they are making it better because of driving in and out there are less traffic problems because of the height elevations that they are trying to compensate for and there is less seating capacity. He also does not feel that they will create a hardship on other surrounding businesses and the problem is already there to start with too. He doesnt feel that they need to calculate percentages, they need to look at giving a variance in this particular case and let them go forward or not.
Commissioner Read said he agrees with Acting Chairman Bracken that it should be approved by staff comments and the improvements that less size is more safety and they have less of a percentage now. They are improving it for neighbors. He also does not want to give them credit for office or playground, that it should be determined on other factors.
MOTION: Commissioner Taylor said that in looking at the statistics and data from the staff, it looks like a 23% reduction in seating; where we currently have 45 spaces which have adequately served the area, if we take a 22% reduction in building square ft. of those and we reduce it by 11 spaces to 34. If we were to reduce the parking in proportion to the reduction of the restaurant area, it would be a reasonable choice to make. This doesnt impose a burden on any of the surrounding businesses. He therefore recommends that we go with that criteria and the staff comment included with regard to the surrounding area not being impacted and recommend 34 spaces on the basis of a reduction of the total number of seats in the restaurant area.
DISCUSSION: Ray Snyder asked about page 4 comment # 1. Ray asked if he wanted to use that language and scratch out about office and play area.
Commissioner Taylor responded in the affirmative to remove the line about play area and office and to use the rest of the language; (Regarding Chapter 19 Off Street Parking Requirements, Section 10-19-5; The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the provision of 34 parking spaces on site are deemed necessary and reasonable to effectively serve the restaurant without detrimental effects to the community due to parking because, the existing restaurant per code is presently deficient 18 spaces and the upgrade of the site will result in a reduced deficiency total of 15 spaces, the redesign will improve public safety by eliminating an existing unsafe vehicle ramp condition, it will improve vehicle efficiency through the site by the creation of two menu order points, one pick up point, reduced seating (23% reduction), and result in a building with less square footage (22% reduction). Consideration has also been given for the maximum number of employees on shift, percentage of customers using drive-thru, any business vehicles, equipment, and customers in making this recommendation for 34 parking spaces being reasonable and adequate in this particular situation.
Regarding Chapter 16 Non-Conforming Buildings and Uses, Section 10-16-3 Additions, Enlargements, and Moving; The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the proposed change does not impose any unreasonable burden upon the lands located in the vicinity of the nonconforming use or structure and that the negative impact of the nonconformity is not increased because the operation and efficiency of the restaurant as a neighbor to other businesses will be improved, circulation and resultant traffic by neighboring businesses will be improved, presently deficient spaces will be decreased, public safety will increase by eliminating an existing unsafe vehicle ramp condition, improved vehicle efficiency on site will benefit neighbors, and a more attractive neighboring building will be constructed ).
Ray also asked if before the motion, he could bring up one other point for the record. An email was sent to the applicant and he wants them to be aware of it. The Planning Commission doesnt have any action or authority over this unless Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth says otherwise, but Ray wanted it on the record. On the wall behind the commissioners are two aerials. This is a sign issue. From the on ramp to the freeway, our code has height limits unless you are within 1500 ft. They are not within 1500 ft. of the freeway. The applicant needs to be aware that if the sign is non conforming, if they tear down McDonalds and rebuild it, then their sign will have to conform with the standard. They may need to put in a smaller sign. Ray said he wanted to get this into the minutes.
Acting Chairman Bracken said you may need to add to the recommendation that they need to conform to the current sign ordinance.
Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said the sign issue would not need to be addressed in the motion because what we are specifically looking at is the parking requirements. If there are sign issues, that can be dealt with through the sign board and the city sign ordinance. He also wants to point out that it would be wise for the Planning Commission to know that because you are allowing this for a restaurant, he doesnt think there would be any other type of restaurant that would have a more intense use, if McDonalds were to move from this location, then any other restaurant would be able to use this same number of parking. This should be considered in the motion that by allowing the reduction of the parking here it would also allow another restaurant of a similar use to come in and use the same parking. It would be wise to distinguish this specific situation , why this location, this use, why the Planning Commission feels it is acceptable to use this with decreased parking where as another fast food restaurant were to come in somewhere else in the city, if they met the same requirements they would be able to use a similar reduction.
Commissioner Read said the main one there is that we have one already nonconforming so it limits it to any other nonconforming out there. With this one being on the corner and no adjacent parking, most of the restaurants out there have some flow next to their adjacent parking, with the improvements to the safety of the ramp, that distinguishes it from everything in town. It limits it dramatically.
MOTION SECONDED: Commissioner Read seconded Commissioner Taylors motion but clarified that it is to no way infer any approval of the non conforming sign, that they will have to take care of that per regulations. All voted aye, motion passes.
Commissioner Nobis made a comment after the motion and he said he thinks after this McDonalds case, that they will need to revisit our parking requirements in general and how we calculate parking.
Ray Snyder said we can do some research on this and bring back comparisons.
Commissioner Nobis said his point is it more based on use not size.
Commissioner Campbell said if there was more detail in the ordinance that talks about seating area vs. service area it could solve a lot. He doesnt think we should ever call a walk-in cooler a room; it is a piece of kitchen equipment. He doesnt think we should include a play area as part of a room either. He thinks then we could have more reasonable parking counts.
Commissioner Taylor said too much parking can be a detriment to the community if we get too much parking and becomes a big heat sink. He feels that customer occupancy of the building should be considered.
Commissioner Campbell thinks the new landscape ordinance helps with the heat sink too.
Ray said that he and Craig will look into this on the internet for other cities and discuss this with Bob Nicholson once he is back in the office.
B. Determine whether a shared parking agreement between Billar Las Mirlas (a pool hall located within the Sunburst Shopping Center) and the Sunburst Shopping Center for use of the parking lot spaces on Saturday evenings for events such as Quinceaneras (15 year old birthday parties) is in harmony with the guidelines listed in Section 10-19-9 Optional Provisions of the Zoning ordinance. Case No. 2009-PRKG-002.

This was presented by Ray Snyder and an aerial view of Sunburst Plaza was shown. The issue is that Billar Las Mirlas, in the Sunburst Shopping Center, would like to lease out their facility to groups to hold parties, etc. They would have Quinceaneras on Saturdays. The hours would be from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. on Saturday evenings. The applicant anticipates 50 75 people. It is anticipated that on Saturdays during the hours of 6 pm to 1 am the parking spaces in the center would be vacant from other businesses. If it is reasonable to estimate that 2-3 people may arrive per vehicle then 25 38 spaces may be required. There are 87 spaces in the center. Approval by the Planning Commission would be required. The zoning is C-3.

Ordinance: Section 10-19-9 Optional Provisions
A. Shared Facilities: Shared parking facilities may be used jointly with parking facilities for other uses when operations are not normally conducted during the same hours, or when peak uses vary. Ray said that this would end with the Planning Commission and would not need to go on to City Council.
B. Requests; Guidelines: Requests for shared parking are subject to the approval of the planning commission. Requests shall be subject to the following guidelines:
1. Sufficient evidence shall be presented to show that there will be no substantial conflict in the periods of peak demand of uses for which the joint use is proposed.
2. The number of parking stalls which may be credited against the requirements for the uses involved will not exceed the number of spaces that may normally be required for any one of the uses sharing the parking.
3. Parking facilities should not be located farther than two hundred fifty feet (250') from any use proposing to use such parking and should be contiguous to the businesses sharing the lot.
4. A written agreement shall be executed by all parties concerned assuring the continued availability of shared parking facilities in the event that one of the uses shall be sold or otherwise change ownership or management. (1998 Document 6-9)
Comments:
1. The Fire Department will inspect and determine compliance with applicable Fire Codes for group assemblies. They will not get a business license until the Fire Department has done this inspection.

2. The Building Department will inspect and determine compliance with applicable Building Codes for group assemblies.

3. Provide evidence that there will be no conflict in the periods of peak demand of uses.

4. The number of parking stalls which may be credited against the requirements for the uses involved will not exceed the number of spaces that may normally be required for any one of the uses sharing the parking.

5. Parking facilities shall not be located farther than two hundred fifty feet (250') from any use proposing to use such parking and should be contiguous to the businesses sharing the lot.

6. A written agreement shall be executed by all parties concerned assuring the continued availability of shared parking facilities in the event that one of the uses shall be sold or otherwise change ownership or management. (1998 Document 6-9)

7. Clarify what other types of parties or events might also be proposed.

Ray also went through the attachments in the Planning Commission report. The letter from Skyler Lawrence, Sunburst Management, was read to give a history of the pool hall and how they have leased the space for over a year and recently expanded into a new location, moving from one suite to another and detailing how they would like to lease out for Quinceaneras.

Commissioner Read asked if the ownership of the entire mall was one person.

Ray Snyder said that he believes so, it is all under the management of Sunburst, every suite is just leased.

Laura Woolsey, the City Business License Officer, came to the podium. Her only concern for approval was the alcohol issue and the landlord as well as the tenant renting the facility agreed that their lease with the individuals leasing the property for events will include that no alcohol will be served there and they will conform to those regulations. She said that as far as security goes, for special events, because they are private parties, there is no other type of requirement from the city.

Ms. Woolsey was asked to explain the Quinceanera. She said it is a Spanish, Catholic tradition where the individual comes of age and has what is similar to a 16 year olds Cotillion. They have a ceremony in the Catholic Church generally, attended by parents and generally a dance is held at a reception center. It is similar to a wedding and is a big event and a big deal to the Hispanic family and the young lady coming of age. It is a religious ceremony with the event at the end where there are parents, grandparents and invited guests that have been a part of the young ladys life.

Chairwoman Shakespeare questioned if that was the only type of event to take place there and Laura said that was her understanding from the applicant. She said they would need to define what type of events he was planning on leasing the facility to, such a birthday parties. Laura said anytime an individual comes in and requests to hold a dance there, that individual will need to come in compliance with the business license regulation for a dance hall, which would require approval from City Council. Those types of events, a dance, a concert, would require the applicant coming in for a special events license for that event to be held there. Laura would require the fire department to go back in to re-inspect the facility, the police department would need to give approval and the City Council would need to give approval.

Councilwoman Shakespeare questioned curfew and Laura referred this to Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth who said that if they are with a parent this is fine. It is when the minor is by himself. The City curfew is between midnight and five a.m. that they cant be out by themselves. If they are with a parent, guardian or other responsible adult that is authorized by the parent to have custody of the minor child, they can be out past those hours.

Ms. Woolsey said if he subleases to a business coming in making a profit, not just a private party, then it would be different. She said tonight this is for a shared parking agreement.

Laura Woolsey said she will look at the contract and how it is stated with the Arts facility, as they also dealt with Quinceaneras. She will look at the hours, so we are on the same page for everyone.

Commissioner Read is concerned with how we are addressing this with the shared parking. His understanding was that with shared parking you have adjacent uses and normally separate properties owned by separate individuals. Here we have one shopping mall, all owned by the same thing, the parking requirements are all based on square footage of the whole thing. Commissioner Read told Ray that he calculated 72 spaces and they have 87, so they have enough spaces for the whole thing, but what happens when 10 of these little businesses go out and each one of those decides that they want to stay open past 6:00 p.m. on Saturday nights. There will be no one who comes to tell the Planning Commission about this because usually we have the adjacent property owners saying youre using my parking when Im supposed to be using it. Here you have the same owners. Commissioner Read is questioning if this is a shared parking or just a use determination. Because of the use of this property after 6:00, all of the other properties have to close by 6:00 p.m. To him this is a use determination.

Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth said there would need to be some type of written agreement recorded for this land. He said code doesnt address property ownership which in this case is the same, one parcel with one owner.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth stated the legal department has not seen any type of legal agreement regarding this and that needs to be done before any type of approval can be issued.

Ray said that the options tonight would be to table it or condition it subject to approval by the legal department.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth asked if the applicant is here tonight.

No one appeared to be here and Ray stated he does call people to remind them. He said this is the first time hes had a meeting where so many did not show up.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworths recommendation then would be to table it to allow them to come in to address the written agreement and talk to them about their leases because there may be some issues they would like to bring up.

Commissioner Taylor questioned the broadness of the other special parties that were mentioned in the narrative vs. what was presented today. He thinks it would be good to have the applicant firm up their intent and spell it out specifically because it would impact the shopping center heavily if they went to some other kind of thing.

MOTION: Commissioner Hullinger made a motion to table this item. Commissioner Read seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.

3. REDUCED SETBACK

Consider the reduction of two (2) required side yard setbacks. The first would be the reduction of the required ten foot (10) setback at the south property line to a one foot (1) side yard setback. The second would be the reduction of the required ten foot (10) setback at the north property line to a variable setback of one foot (1) to five feet (5). This request is to allow the expansion of a car dealership. The project is Findlay Hyundai. Findlay Hyundai is the applicant and Rosenberg and Associates is the representative. The site is located at 1405 South Sunland Drive. The property is C-3 (General Commercial). Case No. 2009-RS-003.

Ray Snyder presented this project. This expansion involves a car dealership. In the Ordinance Title 10 Zoning Regulations, Chapter 10 Commercial Zones Section 10-10-4 Area, Setback, and Height requirements.* Note: Side and rear yard setbacks in the C-2 and C-3 zones may be reduced or eliminated where the Planning Commission determines such setback is unnecessary.

Required Setbacks: Front Setback: 20 ft.
Street Side: 20 ft.
Street Side: 10 ft.
Rear: 10 ft.

Proposed Setbacks: Front (West / Sunland Drive): N/A
Street Side: N/A
Side (North) Addition to existing building, varies 1 ft. to 5 ft.
Side (South): Addition to existing building, 1 ft.
Rear: (East): N/A

The applicant shall contact JUC to obtain approval and a memo that no easements are affected. Ray said the applicant is aware of that and he will let them address that when they come up to the podium.

The existing dealership building is one story and has a show room. The existing total square footage is 4,800 sq. ft. The expansion would add 1,800 sq. ft. for a total of 6,600 sq. ft. The shop / service area existing square footage is 4,400 sq. ft. The expansion would add 2,000 sq. ft. for a total of 6,400 sq. ft.

Ray showed slides of the project including the site plan. He said they do have room to expand.

Chapter 19 Off Street Parking Requirements, Section 10-19-5 Nonresidential Area Requirements requires one (1) space for each seven (7) displayed vehicles + 2 for management. It appears there is room for approximately 100 vehicles to be displayed on site. There are approximately 27 spaces behind the showroom building. The applicant can comment upon where designated customer parking spaces will be on site. There appears to be ample parking provided.

Chapter 19 Off Street Parking Requirements, Section 10-19-5 Nonresidential Area Requirements requires one (1) parking space for each 400 sq. ft. of gross floor area for automotive supply and repair. For 6,400 / 400 = 16 spaces required. It appears there will be ample parking to accommodate the service center on this site because there will be ten (10) bays and thirteen parking spaces along the rear property line.

Chapter 19 Off Street Parking Requirements, Section 10-19-5 Nonresidential Area Requirements 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 requirement, and it shall recommend to the city council a requirement of that number of spaces that it deems reasonably necessary in each instance for all employees, business vehicles and equipment, customers, clients and patients of such nonresidential property.

The building materials will match the existing building. This site shall meet the requirements of Chapter 25 Landscaping. Staff has talked to them about this in Planning Staff Review. Staff supports the request of the reduced setbacks. A reduced setback is only acted upon by the Planning Commission. Ray said no council action would be required.

The applicant is aware that they need to show a 54 diameter minimum pipe for detention as well as the easement for the catch basin shown on the plans. He also went over the Planning Staff Review meeting and comments by staff at that meeting.

Ray stated that the applicants representatives, Shawn and Mike Robinson with Rosenberg Associates, are here for any questioning.

Mike and Shawn Robinson came to the podium. Mike stated that the applicant owns both sites. They will master plan around this reduced setback so that it all basically works together. Site distance was discussed to help traffic flow due to the radius at the site. They are master planning dealerships for sites next to them. All of these sites will basically work together and flow through. Any negative impacts would only involve what they are currently developing.

Detention was addressed by Mike Robinson. Currently it is an above ground detention in the parking lot, it is designed to back the water up. Because they are extending the building, it eliminates approximately half of the detention previously approved for there. They will re-route the water. A storm drain is right behind their property, but the property is the best access for the storm drain. They will bring their storm drain along side and drop it into a catch basin. They will use large pipes to do that. Shawn Robinson said that a sewer easement will go to 25 ft. and give them access to upgrade the line at a later date. They have no future plans for the other two dealerships to put anything into that easement. They are in the process of going to their surveyors to get it dedicated.

Ray Snyder said that they must have 15 ft. of landscaping in the front and they are aware of this. This is to comply with Chapter 25 landscaping. Interior they must have 5% landscaping.

Ray Snyder said a shared driveway will be put in later.

MOTION: Commissioner Nobis made a motion to approve item # 3, with the following stipulations about the detention and the 54 in. pipe Ray talked about so that they continue with the catch basin, landscape compliance with the frontage and also the interior. Commissioner Taylor seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.

Discussion: Commissioner Read asked if a deceleration lane should be added into the motion pursuant to what Development Services requires. Mike Robinson said he would hate to see that included as it may not be the best solution for this area, they still have to do the studies.

Ray said Jay Sandberg and the Traffic Engineer will have to look at that. Ray said ultimately they will be doing a site plan review.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said a deceleration lane is not necessary to determine a reduced setback.

VOTING: All voted aye, motion passes.

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

Consider a zoning regulation amendment to the City Zoning Regulations, Title 10 Zoning Regulations, Chapter 10 Commercial Zones, Section 10-10-2 Permitted Uses to add under the section Amusement centers, recreation and entertainment facilities, including the following and similar uses; an in-door shooting range and an in-door archery range both as a conditional use permit in the C-2 (Highway Commercial) and C-3 (General Commercial) zones only. City of St George applicant. Case No. 2009-ZRA- 009.

This zoning regulation amendment was presented by Ray Snyder. He said that back in the year 2006 a request to require Indoor Shooting Ranges have a conditional use permit was recommended for approval to the City Council by the Planning Commission. (Ref. case No. 2006-DU-001 & 2006-ZRA-003). Staff has learned that for some reason this particular item was never codified.

Recently a discussion item came before the Planning Commission to determine if an Indoor Archery Range would be a permitted use in the C-3 zone. The PC determined this was not a permitted use but, encouraged the matter to be considered in the future as a conditional use permit (CUP).

This request is to re-visit the issue of the indoor shooting range and to address the new issue of an indoor archery range.

If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation for amending the zoning ordinance then this matter would proceed on to the City Council to set the date on August 20th for a public hearing to be heard at the September 3rd CC meeting.

The proposal is to add indoor archery range and indoor shooting range as a conditional use in C-2 and C-3.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said his comment is to make the motion include a definition of types of shooting ranges specific in order to distinguish it from indoor firearm shooting ranges.

Commissioner Taylor asked where a high velocity air rifle, such as a pellet gun, comes in to play.

Commissioner Nobis said that firearms are described as the velocity that comes out of the barrel, rather than how its produced.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said it may be good to table this to look at how other cities address this issue of an indoor firearm range, what kind of ranges they have.

MOTION: Commissioner Hullinger made a motion to table this. Commissioner Taylor seconded it.

Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth said we do need to open this hearing for the public since it was advertized.

The hearing was opened to the public.

Brandon Machuta came to the podium to say he was asked by the owners of Bargain Hunters to run this archery range. He has been an avid archery hunter and has been involved in archery since he was 14 years old. He has been to many indoor archery ranges across the State of Utah. He is going to a special class in Tucson AZ to become a certified archery instructor through PSE Archery.

Commissioner Nobis said there is a distinction between firearms and archery.

Commissioner Read asked if we really need to table this for a definition if we are saying basically anything that doesnt fit into the entertainment activity can be done here. The entertainment one is permitted and we want anything over that to be conditional.

Commissioner Taylor thinks it can be written to define that tonight. He thinks the issue is simply a definition of what will be put in the firearm category. It looks to him like it is anything that would not be legal out on the street would then be legal in the firing range. For example you cant legally have a BB gun out on the street nor a gas powered rifle, so these would all follow into the range of those things which could be legal in a firing range. He also asked if it would be limited to caliber size.

Assistant City Attorney Farnsworth said technically under the definition of what fire arm is now, a bazooka would be considered that as an action upon explosive.

Cheryl Jazwieckit, owner of the Bargain Hunter, came to the podium. She was not sure why they were talking about the gun part when she is here for the indoor archery. She wanted the commissioners to be sure that they will not be having firearms.

Planner Ray Snyder and Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth explained that this zoning regulation amendment was for the entire City.


MOTION: Commissioner Hullinger made a recommendation to approve indoor archery and send the firearms back to staff to revisit. Commissioner Nobis seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.



MOTION: Commissioner Nobis made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Read seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.


The time was 5: 46 p.m.