Planning Commission Minutes

Tuesday, January 12,2010



PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ST. GEORGE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH
January 12, 2010 5:00 P.M.


PRESENT: Acting Chairman Ron Bracken
Councilman Ben Nickle
Commissioner Kim Campbell
Commissioner Ross Taylor
Commissioner Ron Read
Commissioner Mike Nobis
Commissioner Julie Hullinger


CITY STAFF: Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston
Planner II Ray Snyder
Planner Craig Harvey
Development Services Manager Jay Sandberg
Secretary Gail Williams

EXCUSED: Community Development Director Bob Nicholson
Commissioner Chapin Burks

CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chairman Ron Bracken called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance. Acting Chairman Ron Bracken led the flag salute.

1. CONSENT ITEM PRELIMINARY PLAT

Consider a preliminary plat request for Tonaquint Commercial Condominiums to create individually owned commercial units A-1 thru A-21. The owner and applicant is Tonaquint Hills Development Inc. and the representative is L.R. Pope Engineering. Case No. 2009-PP-008.

This request was presented by Jay Sandberg. It contains 2.515 acres, located at 1487 South Silicon Way. The current zoning is PD (Planned Development) and on the General Plan it shows as COM (Commercial)

This phase of the development has been constructed. The purpose of this plat is to condominiumize the existing building.

Parks Planning Division has asked that all common landscape areas be completed and maintained by the association. All fire and building codes in relation to condominiums must be met.

Commissioner Taylor asked how the applicant feels about the parks proposal that the landscaping area is to be maintained by the association and if that is an issue.

Ried Pope, representative, came to the podium. He said the round about is a public street and the other landscape areas are all common areas and are under the owners association. These are all business properties.

Commissioner Campbell asked if there is a conflict due to him doing the original building.

Acting Chairman Bracken said there is no conflict as he is not involved with the project at this time.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to approve item # 1 to condominiumize the properties described herein including the staff comments. Commissioner Campbell seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.

2. CONSENT ITEM FINAL PLAT

Consider approval of the Ledges Phase 11 subdivision with forty (40) residential lots. Located west of SR-18 and south of Silver Cloud Drive at approximately 4800 North and 2100 West (Ledges Development). Mr. Randy Deschamps, representative. Case No. 2010-FP-001.
Note: previous 2008 approval expired on 8/7/09

Jay Sandberg, Development Services Manager, came to the podium to say that this is taken off of the agenda for tonight. There were some items that had not been taken care of, so we will probably see it on the next agenda.

3. LOT SPLIT

Ray Snyder presented the request to consider a lot split request to legally divide one parcel into two for property located at 415 South Dixie Drive. The existing lot is 17.35 acres (755,766 square feet). The proposed parcels would be; Parcel 1 = 11.30 acres (492,228 square feet) and Parcel 2 = 6.05 acres (263,538 square feet). The property is zoned PD (Planned Development). The owner is MBA Properties LLC, Mr. Marv Blosch representative. Case No. 2010-LS-001.

Ray Snyder stated that this is the old Moore Business Forms site. It is a commercial site and in 2008 the zoning was changed to a PD.

Ray said what they are trying to do is establish two lots. They will need to meet with the JUC, which is the Joint Utilities Committee.



Ray read from Supplementary and Qualifying Regulations Section 10-4-4 Lot Standards that every lot existing or intended shall have such area, width and depth as is required by this title for the district in which it is located and shall have its required frontage upon a dedicated or publicly approved street or right of way unless a private street or right of way has been approved by the Planning Commission. Ray said there is no minimum size in PD. There is an existing building on that site. If the property is to be split, the property in the back is vacant. Their long range goal is to have assisted living in that area.

Ray said we have taken in a lot split application from them. He said what has come to the attention today is that this is a PD zone and it may be more appropriate to do a Zone Change Amendment, which would create two properties. Ray asked Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston to speak on this issue.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston explained that just today she was assigned to do the Planning Commission. She said that is the reason for the late changes in this request. She went on to say that in looking at this particular property she discovered this was a PD zone, and when you look at the code it specifically says that any amendments to that development plan that they are required to submit when it is originally turned in and approved, the color diagram, the text language that has been given to you, all of those documents, are part of and approved in that plan. Any change, amendment or modification to it has to be done through that amendment process rather than as a lot split.

She said this is the first thing that is incorrect and that it needs to be denied, dismissed or withdrawn at this point and brought back to the Planning Commission as an amendment to that plan. She stated that there are a number of things that she doesnt feel have been addressed today that are addressed in that PD text; things like setback, parking, landscaping and maintenance and all of those issues that would deal with that roadway.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston went on to say that the second part of that is that our ordinance does not allow you to have a lot that doesnt front on a street. A flag lot is the only way that you can get frontage on this particular lot for them to have that in the back there. Those are issues that need to be looked at and addressed. For those reasons she feels that it is inappropriate for it to go forward at this point; those issues need to be addressed before the approval is made so that all of the facts are in front of them and you know that everything has been considered and theyve had an opportunity to review those facts in making a decision on how to proceed.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said that in all fairness to the applicant, he has heard nothing of these issues prior to this.

Kurt Kramer, representing the owners, came to the podium.



Acting Chairman Bracken asked if, in light of what he has heard tonight, he would like to withdraw this request and have it brought back again. The response was yes, Mr. Kramer said it would be an appropriate action to withdraw it right now and that they will bring it back later.

Acting Chairman Bracken asked if they could use the same fee to bring this back to the Commission.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said yes they can and they will work with him to be sure it gets done that way.

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

A. Consider a zoning regulation amendment to Title 10 Zoning Regulations, Chapter 11 Manufacturing Zones, Section 10-11-2 Uses to permit indoor archery in the M-1 zone. City of St George applicant. Case No. 2010-ZRA-002.

Ray Snyder presented this request. The applicant is TNT Archery, Inc., Mr. Terry Beck. He has searched for existing buildings capable of accommodating both an indoor archery range and sales of archery equipment (bows and arrows, etc). The applicant has found a suitable building located on 3050 East Drive in an M-1 zone, and requests that the M-1 zoning regulations be amended to allow for an indoor archery range and archery sales. The M-2 zone which is more restrictive than the M-1 zone currently allows for recreational enterprises (indoor go-cart track, climbing walls, etc) but the M-1 zone does not provide for such uses. The request is to specifically allow an indoor archery range and archery sales as a permitted use.

The Requested Ordinance Change (10-11-2) is to add Indoor Archery Range and Archery Retail Sales as a permitted use in the M-1 zone.

Ray read the issues into the record and they are as follows:

1. The indoor archery range will likely be a rather low traffic generator due to the specialty nature of the use. There is not a specific parking requirement listed in the code for an archery range, but it would be similar to the parking requirement for a golf driving range which is one space per tee, or a bowling alley which is 5 spaces per alley. Perhaps one space per shooting alley plus, one space per 250 sq ft of sales area would be a reasonable parking requirement.

2. An indoor archery range is a quiet use and therefore would not pose noise problems to neighboring property. Safety issues relating to the operation of the range are separate from zoning and land use issues. Staff is supportive of the requested code amendment to allow for an indoor shooting range in an M-1 (or M-2) zone.


Ray said this applicant is looking at a particular location; however this request is to change the zoning citywide for this zone.

The applicant, Terry Beck, with T & T Archery came to the podium. He said he has operated an archery business in Santa Clara for 12 years. He said they are planning to expand on the business and have an indoor range. The building they are looking at is the H & E Equipment Building and it would be an ideal building for an indoor range. It is big enough and safety concerns are covered because the shooting range is completely separate from the retail sales.

Curtis Sprague came to the podium also and said there is a half acre lot to the rear of this building, so any parking that is not out front could also be accommodated in the rear of the building.

Commissioner Taylor asked about this lot and what the surface of it is.

Curtis said a portion of this is paved and the other portion is gravel.

Commissioner Taylor said that at this time recreational enterprises as a category only occurs in the M-2 zone and he asked if that was correct.

Ray Snyders response was yes, that is correct.

Commissioner Taylor wondered why recreational enterprises as a category is not included in the M-1 zone. He feels that many recreational enterprises are not incompatible with manufacturing operations.

Ray stated that this request is asking for the one line only, that of indoor archery.

Commissioner Nobis said he thought this issue was dealt with previously with the old Fish and Fir Building.

Ray responded that this was zoned commercial. He said the applicant has looked at that building and they found it lacking.

Curtis Sprague said the building only had a 20 yard. Shot straight in. They are looking at 35 to 40 yard shots so people dont get bored and to provide more entertainment. Terry Beck said this will be 3 D ranges with a mannequin of animals and have trees there to help you feel like you are in the outdoors. There will be tree type shooting for the hunters.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston commented that they should remember the purpose of the M-1 zone as they make their decision and she read these into the record. She said the purpose and intent in creating that zone was for the purpose of the manufacturing side of things. She said they need to weigh what the purpose is and if there is a reason to keep

it separate or if that purpose doesnt exist anymore for keeping it separate. She also mentioned that bringing citizens into this area will result in more traffic issues that could create a potential danger to them. She said to weigh these thoughts as they make a decision to see if it appropriate and compatible with that area.

Commissioner Read had a question as to staff comments for the sales aspect and their intent. He said he doesnt like the sales as an independent line item in conjunction with the archery range. He said it could open the door for any retail sales coming in.

Ray Snyder commented that he has done the majority of the work in the industrial areas. He said they have always discouraged people to not have retail in the manufacturing zones. However he has talked to the city attorney in the past as to whether the retails sales are incidental, such as 10% of the site, if that would be looked at differently. He said he met with Bob Nicholson, Community Development Director and discussed this. Bob felt that if this was a small part it would be supportive. Ray said he would ask the applicant what he envisions.

Ron felt that separate line items were what made him question the distinction. He suggests it as one item rather than two lines, so it is definitely associated with the shooting range.

Terry Beck said the whole idea is to expand the archery sales and to give people a reason to come and see him the months that hunts are not going on. He said as far as traffic, the biggest time they would have 30 or 40 people at 9:00 p.m. or later and that this should not affect any of the businesses down there because they are closed down at that time.

Commissioner Read asked how many alleys they would be having and the answer was somewhere around 20 alleys.

Commissioner Read asked if they would then have parking spaces for 60 vehicles.

Curtis said he counted half of the building parking spots, because the building is divided in half, and there are 30 spots there. With the half acre in back being partially paved, there would be that portion.. He said like Terry mentioned, if the other buildings are closed, there is ample parking. A tile company is next door and they do their sales out of there also. The where house in back encompasses 6000 sq. ft. and the retail part will be 1500 ft. He said there is a substantial difference in size between the two.

Commissioner Taylor said there may not be that capability of large facilities in the commercial zones for this type of business. He thinks this is an area that needs to be looked at a little bit.

Cutis said they looked at a number of buildings in the commercial zones where this is a possibility for indoor archery and they have found that none of those buildings were


adequate to provide the shootings lanes that give people enough room so that they dont get bored.

Terry Beck stated that they looked at the existing indoor archery building but it would take too much build out to do down there to make it accommodating for them.

The meeting was opened to the public.

Travis Barney came forward to say he is here to support Terry in this request. He said there is no where in town for them to enjoy their sport. He said as bad economy is, he is trying to support the city, so you need to look at that.

The hearing was closed when no one else came forward.

Commissioner Read asked if we should be looking at this as a conditional use. He said the mentioned use by Commissioner Taylor for the M-2 zone has it as a conditional use. He said that might make this request more favorable.

Commissioner Nobis said he tends to agree with the conditional use suggestion. If another applicant has the same idea but exactly opposite of the 90 % shooting range and 10 % retail came forward they would all have a different opinion. With the shooting range 90 % and the retail 10% and you have adequate parking and they are running it at night with the stipulation that different businesses are closed then this makes sense. If you flip it and we get a different applicant with different hours, it could be a parking mess. Commissioner Nobis said he thinks what the applicant said is true, that there is a need for this here. He said make it a conditional use in the M-1 zone like it is in the M-2 zone. There would be the same compatibility issues in the M-2 zone. He doesnt feel that we should totally exclude it based on the retail aspect. We should look at how it fits within the overall scheme.

Councilman Nickle said he doesnt think this is totally incompatible. He said he is not a voting member, he is a member of the City Council, but we are hungry for business in this community and we need it badly to keep St. George growing and employed. If we could go with a conditional use for this to protect ourselves from any other commercial enterprises that try to change the zoning in the area, it is probably an aspect we should look at. He thinks the council would probably look favorably on that.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said if they are going with a conditional use, to be sure the record is clear that these are the ones we already said, and if there are other conditions that we spell out what those conditions are.

Commissioner Taylor said in order to do a conditional use permit we need to show findings and describe them in some fair detail. He said the question before us today is for a permitted use. His proposal is to table this and give the applicant an opportunity to


come back to request a conditional use. The findings could be available and then we would be acting on something that is more clearly before us.

Ray asked legal if because this was advertised as a regulation amendment and as a permitted use, would it need to be re-advertised or could the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that instead of a permitted use, it go forward recommended to them as a conditional use permit?

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said it doesnt have to be tabled. The Planning Commission can go forward with their recommendation. It came forward as a request for a permitted use, but they can recommend something different from what is requested without going back through the whole process. She went on to say it depends if they want more information on what those conditions should be or if they feel that it is enough given the code section we already have in place for conditional uses that spell out what those conditional are. They can rely on what is already in the code if they are comfortable with that at this time.

Commissioner Nobis said the list under the conditional use is pretty comprehensive of what they look we look at such as noise and lighting. Commissioner Nobis read these findings into the record.

Commissioner Read said if they could, he would like to add one additional one, which is the percentage of retail vs. the shooting range area; that no more than of the total area of the building could be used for retail.

Terry Beck said the store he is at now is 500 sq. ft. and that is all of the retail that he would need. He would not be able to fill that huge area of the new building with retail. He doesnt see that happening.

Ray Snyder said the rule of thumb for staff was always using the 90-10 ratio for retail sales. They want to be sure that it is a very small portion of the building being used for retail sales. He said this seems to work. Ray said he is concerned that Commissioner Reads 25% would be a little high.

Commissioner Taylor said if this 10 % ratio is compatible with the manufacturing zone, then that should be a good number to stay with.

Terry Beck came back to the podium and he explained how the building is set up now, the 10% dimensions could work for him.

Ray Snyder explained that if the Planning Commission were to recommend this move forward to City Council, the council would set a date on January 21st and it would be discussed during the first meeting in Feb.

MOTION: Commissioner Nobis made a motion to have this as a conditional use in the M-1 zone and that they add staff findings 1 and 2.

DISCUSSION: Commissioner Taylor asked if the findings would be included.

Commissioner Nobis said in his mind when he says conditional use that is part of the regulation in 10-17-7, items A-K.

Commissioner Taylor asked if he was specifying the percentage of retail.

Commissioner Nobis said the 10% retail part should be added.

MOTION CONTINUED: Commissioner Hullinger seconded the motion.

DISCUSSION: Ray Snyder questioned Commissioner Reads earlier comment about indoor archery range and retail.

Acting Chairman Bracken said to add with .

Commissioner Nobis said to specify the 10 % vs. the 90 %.

MOTION CONTINUED: Acting Chairman Bracken said there is a motion and a second. A vote was asked requested. All voted aye, motion passes.


B. Consider a zoning regulation amendment to Title 10 Zoning Regulations, Chapter 11 Manufacturing Zones, Section 10-11-2 Uses to permit charter school in the M-2 zone. Millcreek Associates LLC is the applicant, Mr. Hank Isaksen representative. Case No. 2010-ZRA-004.

Ray Snyder presented this zoning regulation amendment. The George Washington Academy is a charter school presently located at 2277 South on 3000 East (Little Valley area). The school presently has an enrollment of approximately 500 students, but has been approved by the State for an additional 500 + students.

The George Washington Charter School administrators have been searching for a means to house these additional students and have considered expanding their current location on 3000 East, and also have searched for existing buildings in other areas which could be retrofitted in a timely manner to accommodate the potential increase in enrollment.

Presently the School has proposed to locate in a large vacant building in the Millcreek Industrial Park which is zoned Manufacturing (M-2). The present zoning regulations do not allow schools in the M-2 zone and the applicants are requesting that the code be amended to allow for charter schools in the M-2 zone.



The Requested Ordinance change (10-11-2) is to add Charter School as a permitted use in the M-2 zone.

Ray said that the school has come into the Planning Staff Review meetings several times looking at other options. He said keeping this in mind at the bottom of the report under issues, staff sees the following issues:

1. Schools are a noise sensitive use and industrial parks allow for manufacturing operations, such as truss plants, which can generate significant noise levels due to air guns, and other equipment. Also, large diesel trucks can generate noise as they warm up and move about in the truck terminal areas. A school in an industrial park may be an invitation for incompatible uses and conflicts over noise levels.

2. All of the students attending the George Washington Academy are dropped off by parents as there is no bus system for the students, although there is car-pooling. 500 students locating in the Millcreek Industrial Park will generate significant traffic levels during the morning and afternoon periods as parents drop off and pick up their children. If 500 students were to attend a charter school in the industrial park, this would mean there could be approximately 300 or more cars in the morning and afternoon peak times dropping off and picking up students. To avoid cars stacking in the public street there should be on-site stacking distance adequate to handle the potential demand. The applicant should demonstrate that their proposed site can accommodate the traffic and car stacking demand. Ray said we do not have a detailed response to that.

3. The above traffic and car stacking issue suggests that a charter school may best be considered on a Conditional Use basis rather than as Permitted Use. A Conditional Use would allow conditions to be imposed on the use to make it compatible for its particular location. The code amendment would apply to all M-2 zoned areas (currently only Millcreek Industrial Park) but if the use is approved as a Permitted Use then the opportunity to place conditions on the use is diminished.

The City Traffic Engineer, Cameron Cutler, wrote a memorandum that was read into the record.

Ray Snyder said the applicant does have the right to have this presented, just like the previous applicant did. Staff had talked with them and in this particular situation had tried to discourage them, but they do have the right to come before the Planning Commission to make their proposal. Staff does not support this request but the facts do need to be presented to the Planning Commission. Staff is concerned about an industrial area for a school. Ray said George Washington School did come to the Planning Staff Review today as to the expansion of the 3050 East location. He said we are not sure what their plans are at this moment.

Acting Chairman Bracken asked if this could work with a conditional use like the prior request.

Ray said if the Planning Commission supports changing the zone, staff would want to encourage it to be a conditional use permit and not just as a permitted use. He said this is a different animal than an archery range and the time periods are different. He said the question is if this is a zone is appropriate for a school.

The applicant was invited to come forward.

Hank Isaksen, owner of the building, and Kevin Abraham, Business Administrator for the school, came to the podium. Hank said Wal-Mart had been in the building for 7 years and they have had a hard time filling this space. He said they could financially use their building easier than building a new school. He said they understand all of the issues. They are not as concerned about the noise as much as the staff is.

Kevin Abraham said the school started about 3 years ago and the school is now full to capacity at 500 students. They approached the state school board last year for expansion and they are authorized to add an additional 550 students, starting this next school year.
They need to find a facility that could house the additional students. The existing location ran into traffic and cost issues. They looked at the Moore Business Forms building as well as others, but they were not working out for them. The size of this building is more than double the size of the existing school. It is built in such a way that they could make it work and it would involve of the cost of adding onto the current location. He said they need to have a facility ready to go within the next 7 months or they will lose their opportunity to expand. He questioned if the portables at the current school would be safer than using the manufacturing building. He said this requested location would be self contained. The car count at the current facility is 170 vehicles. He said the manufacturing zone could handle this traffic. He said he doesnt see children walking back and forth to the facility in the manufacturing zone.

Mr. Isaksen said they can handle the onsite parking requirements. He said they can get 85 parking spaces there by rearranging it with angled stalls and they can put additional stall where the loading docks are. There would meet the onsite parking requirements.

Commissioner Nobis asked what their long term intent was.

Mr. Abraham said this is K- 8th grade, at this location it would build out at 500-550 student and they would still keep the other location for the other 500 students. He said this option for now make financial sense.

Commissioner Read asked how long it would take to recoup the cost as he assumed they would stay for that length of time. The response was 10 years.

Commissioner Hollinger said she has a concern about the traffic due to it being a busy street. She said there are a lot of accidents and its hard to get across.

Commissioner Read asked what their hours are.

Mr. Abraham said that 8:10-2:45 would be the hours they would be in session.

Commissioner Nobis discussed the memo from Cameron Cutler, traffic engineer. It was questioned what the cost of a traffic signal would be.

Jay Sandberg said possibly they would have to pay 100 % of the cost of $250,000.
.
Ray Snyder said the decision at this time is for the ordinance change itself.

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

Commissioner Read asked if there is a particular reason we are limiting this to a charter school and not also including a public or private school. He doesnt see anything special about a charter school except the funding. He knows we are just here for the charter school today.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston commented that the purpose of this zone is for manufacturing zone. She thinks in this instance there is no compatibility at all for school children in a manufacturing zone. She said obviously there are considerations to weigh in making that determination. She said there are liability issues to take into consideration. She said when you put a school in, the city becomes responsible for sidewalks, guards, stops lights, infrastructure and systems in place for the schools, but the school does not have to participate in all of them and the city will be responsible for. She said where this particular school is located right now she knows that many of the students do walk or ride bikes. The city has had a lot of complaints and calls on those. They have had a request from the school for a crossing guard because they know the students are riding bikes and walking. You will also be having that in the manufacturing zone, like you do where they are located right now. Deputy City Attorney Houston said these are significant things that need to be considered in deciding to allow this in the manufacturing zone. She said you need to stay focused on if a school is compatible in manufacturing zones anywhere. She said other people later running this school may find a noise disturbance and we have to deal with those issues and complaints when this is put in this zone. She said we have to deal with those issues when they come in and there will be significant complaints if you put school children into that manufacturing zone. She said businesses have these noise elements and smell elements which is why this zone was created for manufacturing. Three people complaining can file their complaints on their own under state law and city ordinances and they would have to be dealt with.

Commissioner Taylor said he sees a manufacturing zone less compatible for people who want to manufacture and we need to be conscious of our responsibility to the manufacturing quarter of the community as well as to the other citizens. He sees this as a difficult fit for a school to be in a manufacturing zone and find any element of compatibility.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor followed up his point of view with a recommendation that this amendment to the zoning regulation for charter schools item 4 B be denial of this request. Commissioner Hullinger seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.

5. MINUTES

Consider approval of the Planning Commission minutes for December 8, 2009.

MOTION: Commissioner Hullinger made a motion to approve the minutes of December 8, 2009. Commissioner Taylor seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.


MOTION TO ADJOURN: Commissioner Nobis made a motion to adjourn. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Read. The time was 6:28 p.m.