Planning Commission Minutes

Tuesday, December 8,2009



PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ST. GEORGE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH
December 8, 2009 4:00 P.M.


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


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

EXCUSED: Commissioner Chapin Burks

ABSENT: Commissioner Ron Read


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 FINAL PLAT

Consider approval of a road dedication plat for Airport Parkway & Desert Canyons Parkway Road AMENDED located on the east side of the new airport. This road runs from the Southern Parkway to the new terminal building. R&B Surveying is the representative. Case No. 2009-FP-024.

This was presented by Todd Jacobsen. The purpose for Amending this Plat is to have the County approve the portion of roadway that lies within the County. This has now been approved by the County Planning Commission.




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 Nobis made a motion to approve item # 1 and authorize the chairman to sign it. Commissioner Hullinger seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.


2. VACATE PLAT

Consider a request to vacate the existing Cornerstone subdivision plat with twenty-four (24) lots along with a portion of four (4) public roadways; 1) Seegmiller Drive, 2) 3040 East, 3) 3090 East, and 4) a future 66 ft. R/W, and along with all public utility easements, all as shown on recorded Document Number 20070056608. Case No. 2009-VP-001

Zions First National Bank is the applicant and Jay Sandberg presented this request. This is for property located at the southeast corner of 3000 East and Seegmiller Drive. The zoning is RE-12.5.

The future buyer wants the plat to be abandoned.

Staff comments are that this is a proposal to vacate public streets, right-of-ways, and/or easements located at the southeast corner of 3000 East and Seegmiller Drive, also known as Cornerstone Subdivision.

Ron Lemon is present for any questions as he is representing Zions Bank.

Commissioner Nobis mentioned that there are CCRs and the recorded water district agreement that will later need to be abandoned.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to recommend to City Council to vacate the Cornerstone subdivision plat item # 2 and to resolve the contracts that were negotiated prior. Commissioner Nobis seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.


3. BDCSP (BUILDING DESIGN CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN)

Consider a request for a BDCSP (Building Design Conceptual Site Plan) review for Fire Station No. 8. to be located at the intersection of Pioneer Road and Bluegrass Way. The applicant is the City of St George. The zoning is PD-COM (Planned Development Commercial). Case No. 2009-BDCSP-004.

Ray Snyder presented this request. An aerial view and the conceptual drawing was shown. Ray stated that there are presently seven fire districts and seven stations throughout the city. This would become the eighth station and has been proven to be needed in the South Block area near Interchange No. 2. This would be an 11,000 sq. ft. fire fighting facility. The building would also house approximately an 800 sq. ft. police substation. There would be four bays to accommodate apparatus. Each bay may be driven thru (this will allow for fire engines, ambulances, trucks, squad and command vehicles). The facility will provide offices, training areas, dormitories, garage parking, and outside parking.

The exterior CMU (concrete masonry unit) shall be sandstone manufactured by SunRoc. The metal wall panels manufactured by Morin will be colored parchment. The metal panel will be galvanized. There will also be a concrete (natural color) band in the building.

Parking required / Fire & Police; 11,746 / 250 = 47 stalls. The proposed / Fire & Police; marked stalls = 59, unmarked stalls = 27 for a total = 86.

Landscaping will be 33,021 sq. ft. (36%). Due to soil conditions (and to promote water conservation) there will be little or no grass on the site. Street trees shall meet and exceed ordinance requirements. Dry wash areas shall be installed. Perennials in drifts shall be planted. Ornamental grasses are a possibility.

Regarding lighting, the site shall be designed to be dark sky friendly and avoid any light pollution to neighbors. A photometric plan will be requested during the site plan review process. There will be three (3) cobra head street lights on the exterior by the roadway.

Access shall be off of Bluegrass Way.

The ordinance regarding a BDCSP; Chapter 8 Planned Development Zone Section 10-8-3(C) requires the submittal of a colored site development plan, a written text, colored elevations, a colored rendering, and a color and materials sample board for property proposed to be developed in a PD zone. A materials board was also displayed behind Acting Chairman Bracken and the actual proposed colors were pointed out by Ray Snyder.

Commissioner Campbell questioned the driveway in relationship to the corner as far as distance. He was told by Catherine Hasfurther that it does meet the requirements.

He also asked if there were any adjacent driveways across the street. Catherine Hasfurther answer that none are currently there, it is vacant property.

Councilwoman Shakespeare commented that it is good that there are police substations within the fire stations; this can also serve as an emergency centers for disasters.

Kevin Taylor came to the podium and said that was in their plans since Y2K. They have fire stations with back up power and they have directed the public that they can go to the local facilities and have access to emergency services. This one will have back up power that will run the entire building.

Commissioner Taylor asked how the station compares in size to the other stations around the area. He said there is a large area of growth out there and he wanted to be sure that it can handle all of the growth as it comes in.

Kevin Taylor said they tried to design the size and configuration so that in the future administrations wont have to add onto them. They anticipated possible hazard material responses along the freeway. He went on to say that the number of stations is dictated by how the insurance grades them. They have tried to strategically place this building. The insurance companys measure distances by actual road miles. There is a community down there now that needs these services.

MOTION: Commissioner Campbell made a motion to approve item # 3. Commissioner Taylor seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.

4. DETERMINE USE

Determine whether an adult daycare use is substantially similar to a permitted child day care use in a residential neighborhood; Title 3 Chapter 7 Home Occupations, Section 3-7-4 Categories of Permitted and Non-permitted Uses, 3-7-4 (B) Permitted which permits Family Day Care (for 8 children or less) and/or is substantially similar to Section 10-7A-3 Conditional; Uses, for a Child Nursery, which permits a Day Child Care (with an approved CUP for 9 children or more). Kent Humphery and Carrie Humphrey applicants, Farris & Utley attorneys at law, representative. Case No. 2009-DU-002.

This determine use was presented by Ray Snyder. He said staff is used to seeing child care centers. If there are 8 children are less, they come to the planning department under the home occupation permit for a business license and we review it with them at the staff level. This request is to see if adult senior day care is substantially similar to a permitted child day care use in a residential neighborhood.

Ordinance(s) quoted are: Title 3 Chapter 7 Home Occupations, Section 3-7-4 Categories of Permitted and Non-permitted Uses, 3-7-4 (B) Permitted which permits Family Day Care (for 8 children or less).

Title 10 Chapter 7AResidential Zones, Section 10-7A-3 Conditional; Uses, for a Child Nursery, which permits a Day Child Care (with an approved CUP for 9 children or more).

Issues include the following: Is an adult day care substantially similar to a child day care in a residential zone? If so is it a permitted use with a home occupancy permit for 8 adults or less?

Is an adult day care substantially similar to a child day care in a residential zone? If so is it a conditional use for 9 adults or more?

Does the language in Section 10-7A-3; "Child nursery" as defined in section 10-2-1 of this title. The dwelling shall be the permanent residence of the operator. The planning commission will determine the maximum number of children to be allowed depending upon specific conditions relating to the request. Parking shall be as required by the planning commission. All other requirements of the zone shall be complied with. apply to a senior day care facility? Should the dwelling be the permanent residence of the operator? Should the Planning Commission determine the maximum number of adults to be allowed depending upon specific conditions? What parking requirements should apply?

Should the zoning ordinance be amended to specifically address senior day care in single family residential zones as its own line item?

This determination will affect all single family residential zones city wide. However, the applicants are interested in operating an adult day care at 50 South 2300 East.

Ray said there is a letter attached to the report from their attorneys Farris & Utley.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth commented that the question is whether the impact on the neighborhood for a senior day care is similar to the impact of a child nursery. Therefore if the Planning Commission determines it to be so, should the code be amended to add senior day care.

Chad Utley came to the podium along with Carrie Humpherys, the applicant, and he said this is an adult day care, not an adult health day care. The adult day care that they are asking for is simply a social place where seniors who are taken care of by their families would come for respite for the caretakers and or to allow the caretakers to work outside the home. These clients ideally are the ones who are in need of friendship and stimulation in a different environment. They could be physically or cognitively challenged to a certain degree. They must be ambulatory either by use of a cane or a walker. They may be in the early stages of Alzheimers. Services such as arts and crafts, music and entertainment, gentle exercise and nutritional meals would be given.

Commissioner Taylor questioned the hours, if basically it would be from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., similar to the hours you would find in a child day care setting. The answer was that this was correct. He also wanted to specify that the resident of the home would be the care giver. Attorney Utley said that this would be operated out of their personal residence. They are residents in the home.

Commissioner Campbell asked about parking and if any of the clients would be driving. It was pointed out that there would be sufficient parking at this residence to meet the ordinance, however they do not anticipate that any of the client would be driving; they would be dropped off and picked up by their loved ones.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said that this is different than item # 5 which will not be considered by the Planning Commission tonight. Item # 4 is just looking at the ordinance.

Carrie Humphreys said she is doing this because her parents are taking care of her 90 year old and 80 year old grandmothers. The reason her parents can do this is because they can put them in a day care. These elderly are not ready to go into a medical, supervised facility however they need someone to be sure that they are supervised and fed as well as being stimulated. She said if another peer is sitting with them, the elderly will eat, otherwise they wont and this is called geriatric anorexia. She is currently in the process of getting her CNA.

Attorney Utley said there are no licensed elder day care facilities south of Richfield according to the State website.

Carrie said they will be on set schedules and there will not be traffic all day long interrupting the neighborhood.

Acting Chairman Bracken said he commends her for this.

The audience was invited to come forward.

Linda Hernkey came forward. She lives on the same street that they want to open this facility. She does believe there is a need for it. Her parents are in Tucson and she is driving down there, dealing with the same problems that she has quoted, but she does not believe that a facility in a residential neighborhood is compatible to the neighborhood. She said the neighborhood has a lot of young children that play in the streets. She said a facility such as that would bring more traffic into the neighborhood and also supplies would need to be brought into the facility. She said when you are dealing with elderly people you can never tell what might happen; you may need to call for an ambulance or some extra care. She believes there is a need for this but not on 50 South.

Robert Thurman came to the podium. He lives across the street from this house and he said it is tiny. He said traffic is bad there and there is a hill. He said there are only two parking spots in the area to park. Kids on skateboards go onto the road and never look. He said they had a day care up the street that was a mess. He had a drop off point next to him for the Colorado City fellows that were kicked out of the community. He went on to say that it took a couple of years to get rid of that and now we have a nice pleasant neighborhood and he doesnt want to see it changed.

Attorney Utley came to the podium to correct some of the issues and he said he thinks they are confused with the assisted living and the determined use. The adult day care would not be in the home on 50 South. The home it would be in is 3100 sq. ft. They are thinking about a different home. It is 12 South and 2300 East.

Carrie Humphreys said it is the home that used to have a child day care. This is up the street from where the people were talking. She went on to say that any supplies that are needed will be brought by the clients. She also said that the food will be bought when they buy their normal groceries.

Commissioner Campbell asked if a site plan was available for them to see so everyone isnt guessing where this is.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said this site plan will come later depending on whether the Planning Commission determines an adult day care is allowed in a residential zone.

Carrie Humphreys discussed the location. She said this in the middle of 2300 East and there are multiple ways people can come in. She also said that for two years a child day care had been operating in this house. She wants to limit the amount to 8 adults or less for right now unless there is a huge demand for it.

Shirley Diamond came to the podium. She lives on the other corner of this street. She said they were very much affected by the day care center. The people who came and went came around the corner speeding and were in a hurry to pick up their children. She can see a need for this, however there are a lot of little children on that street playing ball and with their skateboards. She cant see possibly how they can handle more traffic. She said now they finally have a peaceful, wonderful neighborhood like they have been wanting for a long time and they would like to keep it that way.

Geraldine Lippish came to the podium. She also lives in the neighborhood. She said this is for people to socialize in, however she wants to know who is going to determine the health of these 8 people who will be there. She wonders how much help they do need, Geraldine said if they are in the first stages of Alzheimers that can go pretty fast and they can get dangerous. She said shes heard of this although shes never been around Alzheimers patients. Shes heard enough about it that they can be a huge problem. She said this is a residential neighborhood and nice and quiet and one where they dont have any problems. She wonders who will determine the health of the people who will be in this day care.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said for this item the question before the Planning Commission is whether or not a senior day care is similar in its impact on a neighborhood use to a child nursery. If it is similar, then that determination would be a recommendation to follow it up with an ordinance. He went on to say that if you say it is not similar, then you would need to give reasons why.

Linda Hernkey came to the podium and she said if senior people are treated there like Ms. Humphreys is talking about, then the help for each one will create a parking problem, because at least six people would be helping plus the traffic coming in and out. She said her mother is beginning Alzheimers and can be a classy woman one moment and a very dangerous woman the next moment. She said you would then need to have more help to deal with those problems. She believes a facility such as this is needed in the St. George area, but she disapproves of it in a residential neighborhood.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said he wanted to clarify that this would not be for any type of treatment facility, that it is just a day care.

Robert Thurman came to the podium and he is wondering if in all fairness to the seniors that might be there, if there will be facilities for them to go to the bathroom. He is concerned about the small confined areas; he said he would hate to be stuck there in his later years.

Chad Utley came to the podium to speak about the voiced concerns. He said there will not be multiple workers at this elder day care. He believes the code does not permit that. He said it would be similar to a child day care. Mr. and Mrs. Humphreys will be running it and will be there. He thinks that was a misconception the public has. He said adult day cares are licensed by the State and they determine who can be there. The state has certain restrictions on what types of individuals can be there. There would not be individuals who would be a burden on the surrounding residents. He said one person for eight residents is all that is required through licensing.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth clarified that for home occupation, you cant have any outside staff. His recommendation to the commissioners is that if they do deem that this is similar, the cleanest and best way to do this would be a zoning amendment. It would be clear and on the books.

Commissioner Taylor said he thinks they are all sensitive to the need for this in the community. He is concerned that he sees enough differences between seniors and child day care to have then all under the same roof. He thinks there are certain things that seniors need to have in the guarantee of an ordinance that may not be there in a child care facility. He said there are health issues and health concerns for seniors that you may not have for children. He would feel uncomfortable simply saying they are the same thing because they really are not. They may operate the same hours during the day, and they may operate on a pick up and take to facility, but the things that happen within the facility need to be well defined His recommendation would be that this program would serve the community best if there were an ordinance including this kind of care on the book.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor moved that we require an ordinance describing a senior adult day care along with the child nursery ordinance with the distinctions that are necessary for adult day care that may not be necessary for child day care. Commissioner Nobis seconded the motion.

Assistant City Attorney questioned if his recommendation is that the staff draft a new ordinance. The response was yes.

All voted aye, motion passes.

5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Consider a request for a conditional use permit to establish and operate a Type 1 Assisted Living Care facility out of a single family residence for a maximum of eight (8) elderly persons. Located in Sunrise Ridge subdivision at 2321 East 50 South. The applicants are Mr. and Mrs. Humphery. The zoning is R-1-8 (Single Family Residential 8,000 square foot minimum lot size). Case No. 2009-CUP-019

Ray Snyder, Planner, read the request into the record and then he turned the floor over to Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said the Planning Commission will not be taking action on item # 5 tonight because after the agenda was printed and sent out, the legal dept. looked at it more closely and looked at state law more closely. They feel that there are two distinctions here. There is a residence for the elderly individuals which is basically a residence where elderly people live vs. an assisted living facility where there is more care that is involved. What the applicants wanted to do was have the assisted living facility. As they looked into this they realized that this would not be something that would fall in this residential facility for the elderly as a conditional use permit. This will not be heard tonight. He has spoken with their attorney and there are other options that they may explore. It may be something that we come back to in a different way. Attorney Chad Utley will confer with his clients to see what they want to do. No action will be taken tonight.

6. LOT SPLIT

Consider a lot split request to legally divide one parcel into two for property located at 1100 East Riverside Drive. The existing lot is 3.962 acres more or less. The proposed lots would be; Parcel 1 = 0.80 acres more or less and Parcel 2 = 3.16 acres more or less. The property is zoned PD-COM (Planned Development Commercial). SIMLEW L.C. and Southern Utah Surgical are the applicants. Case No. 2009-LS-003.

Ray Snyder presented this request. Ray said this has come before the commission previously. It is by the Post Office and they want to sub-divide it. There was a project approved by Planning Commission and City Council earlier for a medical facility and professional office building. By subdividing the property, the medical building would be on the one piece of property. Photos were shown of what this would look like split.

Public Utility Easements are required around both created parcels, which would run along the property lines. The City of St. George Engineering Department will review the easements prior to recording.

A lot split is the division of one parcel into two parcels and only involves property that is not within a recorded subdivision (the division of lots or parcels within a recorded subdivision requires an amended plat). This property is not within a recorded subdivision.

The process involves the following: The applicant shall attend the Planning Commission (P.C.) meeting where a recommendation will be made to the City Council. The applicant shall attend the City Council meeting that follows the P.C. for lot split action. If the lot split is approved the applicant shall sign the documents for the granting of easements.

They will need to prepare deeds for the two parcels and submit them to the City Planner to be stamped and signed as being approved. Upon the applicants signature on the documents for the granting of easements, and the City Planners stamp and signature on the deeds, the deeds may be recorded in the County Recorders office.

The applicant is responsible for meeting with the (JUC) Joint Utilities Committee.

The Ordinance: Supplementary and Qualifying Regulations Section 10-14-4 Lot Standards reads: every lot existing or intended to be created, 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.

There is no minimum property size in the PD zone. However, Section 10-8-6 does state that land coverage of all buildings shall not exceed 50%. During the site plan review process this may be verified. Parcel 1 was reviewed by the PC and CC with Case No. 2009-ZCA-008 for the proposed surgical center. Parcel 2 is vacant land with no current proposals.

Comments: Staff recommends the following standard conditions be applied:

1. Provide separate deeds for each created parcel to be recorded with the County pending City Council approval and stamped approved by Planning Staff.
2. In addition to the legal descriptions that appear on the R.O.S. (Record of Survey; which is filed with the County Recorder / and is not recorded) the applicant shall provide the city with separate 8 x 11 legal descriptions for each parcel (for the case file).
3. A utilities and drainage easement shall be completed, notarized, and recorded.
4. The applicant shall submit for review all legal documents to the City Attorneys Office.
5. All access issues shall be resolved with the City Traffic Engineer. Ray stated that Jay Sandberg said this has been addressed.

Acting Chairman Bracken asked if a building permit had been issued.

Ray said he does not believe so. A grading permit has been issued however.

Acting Chairman Bracken said his concern was parking once this lot was split.

Ray Snyder said they have reviewed the site plan. .

Commissioner Nobis asked if it was approved by the JUC. The answer was yes.

MOTION: Commissioner Hullinger made a motion to approve item # 6 and include staff comments. Commissioner Taylor seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes


7. REDUCED SETBACK

Consider the reduction of the required ten foot (10) side yard setback at the south property line to a zero foot (-0-) side yard setback. This request is to allow the conversion of an existing trash enclosure into an accessory storage building. The applicant is Mr. Joe Shumacher and the representative is Mr. Mike Fluharty. The site is located at 384 North Bluff Street. The property is C-3 (General Commercial). Case No. 2009-RS-004.

Ray Snyder presented this project, which is to provide a storage building for a childrens day care center. Dalton Smitherman is here as a representative for Mike Fluharty and he is available for questions. Staff does feel that this is a reasonable request for this site. The structure will be converted to a storage area.

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 are front Setback: 20 ft. Street Side: 20 ft. Street Side: 10 ft. Rear: 10 ft.

Proposed Setbacks are front (West / Bluff Street): N/A ,street Side: N/A, side (North) N/A., side (South): Convert trash enclosure into storage building, -0- ft., rear: (East): N/A

The applicant shall contact JUC to obtain approval and a memo that no easements are affected.

There will be no change in existing access.

The main building is occupied by several tenants. One is a childrens day care facility which was recently approved for a business license. The day care is requesting an outside storage area from the building owner. The storage building would only be 99 square feet (9 ft. x 11 ft.).

This commercial center contains retail businesses, a church, a restaurant, and a day care center. A summary chart for this center and the required parking is attached to this report.

Chapter 19 Off Street Parking Requirements, Section 10-19-5 Nonresidential Area Requirements requires the following ratios for these tenants; a day care requires one (1) parking space for each ten (10) children and one per each employee. Retail businesses require one (1) space per each 250 gross square feet. Restaurants require one (1) space per each 100 gross square feet. A church requires one space per each 35 square feet. Note that the church is typically operating when most other businesses are not.

Chapter 19 Off Street Parking Requirements, Section 10-19-5 Nonresidential Area Requirements also 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.

According to the parking calculations attached there appears to be ample parking provided and staff recently issued a business license to the day care center. The addition of a storage building will not increase parking.

The building materials will match the existing building.

This site shall meet the requirements of Chapter 25 Landscaping.

Staff supports the request of the reduced setback. Note that a reduced setback is only acted upon by the Planning Commission (no CC action required).

The enclosure was shown. The question is if it is ok to have a zero setback.

Acting Chairman Bracken asked if the run off from the roof will be contained on property or if it will run off to the neighbors property.

Dalton Smitherman, who is with the Building Department for the City of St. George, came to the podium. He is a representative for the applicant. He said the drainage will be contained on the property. The ridge line will be perpendicular to that so the drainage will be off to the sides rather than to the rear. He said they have taken into account that there will not be any soffit to the rear. They need to end right at the property line. The will be a two hour gable end on the end against the neighboring property, which happens to be a car wash. He said they have met with the fire department and they also have their blessing.

Commissioner Campbell asked if there is a retaining wall on the back property line and the response was that yes there is one on the backside. Two perpendicular walls back up to the wall.

Commissioner Campbell asked how they are handling the storage building bearing in relation to the retaining wall if they want a zero property line.

Dalton responded that there is a footing there on the two perpendicular walls for that. The bearing will be on the two perpendicular walls to the retaining wall and supported on slab. He said the building is 9ft. X 11 ft, 99 sq. feet and is used for storage of toy, tables and chairs. He said they will put a low profile roof on it.

Commissioner Taylor asked about the construction and the reply was that the primary construction will be wood but they are going to put a two hour construction on the gable end on the backside. They will put architectural three tab shingles there since they are 163 ft. backside of Bluff St. They can put a nice three tab there and compliment the building as well.

Commissioner Taylor asked Bob Nicholson if there was a limitation on 24 hour day care, because he is not aware of any 24 hour day care in the community.

Bob Nicholson said they are not staying there 24 hours; they are just open 24 hours. He said they would not be licensed for overnight care except for clients working the graveyard shift.

Commissioner Taylor just wanted to be sure they were ok with the ordinance for them to be open 24 hours.

Ray Snyder said they met with the building department and fire department. They helped with the business license because it is a permitted use in that zone. He said they were told that it would be open for a nurse who works at the hospital and has a swing shift or for a policeman on a grave yard shift, those were the examples given to him. Ray said they dont know how many will be there during those hours; they expect it will be a low number. Ray said he asked about sleeping, if that was something they wanted to endorse and the response was that during the day they have cots that they bring out for nap time and staff is there with them. They responded that this will be the same arrangement.

Councilwoman Shakespeare said that when there was a day care on Main Street the problem was the dumpsters being full of diapers. She questioned if the one dumpster could facilitate the whole building with the addition of this day care at this site.

Dalton Smitherman responded that the secondary dumpster was taken into consideration as well. There is a double dumpster on the north-west corner that would be able to handle this well. The building had been set up with three dumpsters so they figured they could eliminate one of them for a little bit of storage and still be fine.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said that to get back to the 24 hour day care issue, as Ray said a day care is permitted in a commercial zone. There is no requirement as to their hours, but if that did come to the state or citys attention he is sure that their city business license would be in jeopardy as would their state license.

Ray said they did issue the city license to do this. The shed issue came after that fact.

Commissioner Nobis wanted to clarify that they are only approving the reduced set back not the hours of operation and he was told that was correct.

MOTION: Commissioner Nobis made a motion to approve item # 7. . Commissioner Campbell seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.

8. DISCUSSION ITEM

A report and discussion of the last APA (American Planning Association) conference will be given by Planner Craig Harvey.

Craig Harvey presented information on A Better Way to Zone by Craig Elliott. There are 10 principles that were covered, however Craig highlighted only a few of them this evening.

New York City was the first to adopt Zoning Ordinances and this was in 1916. Zoning came about because of the tenement laws.

Almost every city has Euclidian based zoning which began in Euclid, Ohio. He said cities will have a problem later because of the vast amount of zoning.

He said Performance Zoning is an alternative to PUD zoning. It is based on impacts to neighbors rather than uses.

Form Based Zoning was also discussed. Zoning laws need to be static.

A better way to zone is more flexible uses, mature area standards, living with non-conformities.

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

A. Consider a zoning regulation amendment to Title 10 Zoning Regulations, Chapter 7 Residential Zones, Article B Single Family Residential Zones; Section 10-7B-2 Permitted Uses to permit the keeping of chickens and rabbits as an accessory use on lots of 10,000 square feet or larger in single family residential zones subject to limitations. City of St George applicant. Case No. 2009-ZRA-010.

Bob Nicholson, Community Development Director, presented this request for a proposed amendment to the zoning code. Staff has conducted research into other cities as to the keeping of a limited quantity of chickens and rabbits in residential zones. The Planning Commission discussed this issue on 10/27/09 and expressed general support for the concept of allowing a limited number of chickens (hens) and rabbits in single family residential zones with lots at least 10,000 sq ft or larger.

The Residential Estates Zones (RE-12.5, RE-20, etc.) and the Agricultural Zones presently allow up to 30 poultry and rabbits, and therefore can accommodate persons desiring to raise a significant number of chickens or rabbits.

The local U.S.U. Extension Agent (Vernon Parent) has provided some good information and things to consider. He was unable to attend the hearing tonight.

Because there is already opportunity to raise chickens and rabbits in the Agricultural zones and Residential Estates zones, staff would recommend that we use caution in allowing chickens and rabbits in the R-1 zones. There can be various negative impacts associated with these animals (odors, flies, rodents, noise, disposal of dead animals, disease transmission, code enforcement, etc.) and thus limiting the allowed number of animals, at least initially should be a major consideration.

Ordinance: Listed below is the DRAFT ordinance with proposed language underlined;

10-7B-2: PERMITTED USES: Single Family Zones ( R-1-6, R-1-8, R-1-10, etc)

The following uses are permitted:

Accessory uses and buildings.

Church; shall be new construction and shown on a recorded subdivision plat, or be outside of a recorded subdivision plat.

Cluster development in the R-1-40 zone as per regulations in subsection 10-7B-6F of this article.

Guesthouses.

Home gardens and fruit trees, keeping of household pets, etc., but not agricultural industry or business or the keeping of domestic animals and fowl for business purposes.

"Home occupations", as defined in section 10-2-1 of this title and prescribed in the city home occupation ordinance set forth in Title 3, Chapter 7 of this code.

Bob Nicholson read the following into the record:

Keeping of chickens (hens only) and rabbits, as an accessory use to a single-family dwelling on lots of 10,000 sq ft or larger, to produce food for the family residing on the subject property, but limited in any event to the following:
A. No roosters shall be allowed.
B. Not more than six (6) chickens (hens) and four (4) rabbits for the first ten thousand (10,000) square feet of lot area, with one (1) additional chicken or rabbit for each additional 1,000 sq ft of lot area, not to exceed a combined total of sixteen (16) chickens or rabbits on any lot, except that the maximum number of rabbits shall be ten (10) on any lot. No chickens or rabbits are allowed on lots of less than 10,000 sq ft. Newborn offspring may be excluded from the above limitations until reaching the age of four months at which time they shall be included in the number limitation.
C. The coop, pen, or cage shall be restricted to the rear or backyard of a dwelling and shall be located not less than 20 feet from any property line, unless there is a solid masonry wall or solid fence of not less than 6 feet tall along the property line, in which case no setback is required. No coop, pen, or cage shall exceed 8 feet in height nor be larger than 120 sq ft in area, except that the area of the coop, pen or cage may increase by 10 sq ft for each additional animal allowed on the lot up to 200 sq ft maximum area. All animals must be kept in an area enclosed by a fence sufficient to prohibit escape.
D. All coops, pens, and cages shall be kept clean and free from objectionable odor and waste. Waste and debris must be kept from becoming offensive or a health hazard.

Bob said this is the proposed draft taking into account comments that were made during the October Planning Commission meeting.

Roosters were excluded due to the noise issue. Universally, cities do not allow roosters. This draft was tailored as to typical ordinances and Bob said he would like us start on the side of caution.

Commissioner Campbell asked if we would be licensing the chickens with tags and
Bob said not at this point.

Commissioner Taylor said the county agent made comments that he had not taken previously into account and he thinks these comments should be considered. He said there could be an increase in neighborhoods of things that they dont like. He said he doesnt know how you pull a plug on it if it doesnt work He feels that it is kind of risky because people will get into the self sustaining idea and then later they could change their mind. He said rabbits proliferate. He said these are issues you will deal with.

Bob said there are definitely some negative impacts that could be seen, odors, etc. He said it could become an animal control issue and code enforcement issue.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said that perhaps an option is to change this from a permitted use to a conditional use, so there could be a chance to review the requests. He said the state code permits someone who has livestock on their property to slaughter the animals for their own personal use. You cant sell it however; it must be for your own personal use. The state allows it, but the questions is would the city allow it. The question also would come up as to where you would slaughter it.

Acting Chairman Bracken said a conditional use could be expensive and time consuming. He thinks it should be either permitted or not.

Commissioner Taylor said that out of ignorance, this could get out of control because the neighbor might want to have this also and not go through a conditional use process. It would then be uncontrolled

Acting Chairman Bracken said this could make a lot of people legal.

Bob said he did talk to animal control and they know that many people keep rabbits as pets and he was told that they just accept that.

The hearing was opened to the public.

Shayne Barney came to the podium. He is the neighbor of Councilman Pike. His teen age children wanted to do 4H and he wanted to be sure this could be done legally. He would like to see this done because other cities are doing it. He would like to see it done legally and with some thought. He knows a lot of people are doing this; he just wants to do it legally.

Jason Griffith came forward to the podium and said he does need amnesty because he has a rabbit. He saw 8 chickens off of Sugar Leo as he was showing a house in a residential neighborhood. He said as far as raising of meat, most people in St. George arent going to do that, so he doesnt know how great that problem would be. He said that most people would be interested in a having a few chickens. He said anywhere you have chickens is a rodent free, bug free zone. He said the proposed wording is cautious enough and it should work.

The hearing was closed.

MOTION: Commissioner Hullinger made a motion to approve item # 9A . Commissioner Campbell seconded it. A vote was taken: Commissioner Hullinger voted aye, Commissioner Campbell voted aye, Acting Chairman Bracken voted aye. Commissioner Nobis voted nay and Commissioner Taylor voted nay. Motion does not pass.

Bob Nicholson said this could go to City Council with the voting being 3 ayes and 2 nays. That would represent to the council that there are some concerns. It was agreed that this could be taken to City Council. Bob asked if there were changes to the code that should be presented and Acting Chairman Bracken stated that he thought the code looked good as written.

When asked their reasons for voting nay, Commissioner Nobis said he doesnt like the rabbit part of it. Commissioner Taylor said his concern is the health risk involved. He said he was influenced by the comments from the county agent indicating areas they should be cautious about.

B. Consider a zoning regulation amendment to the Title 10 Zoning Regulations, Chapter 5 Agricultural Zones, Section 10-5-6 Modifying Regulations to modify setbacks for accessory buildings (i.e. sea-cargo containers, gazebos, sheds, car garages, and RV garages) in all Agricultural Zones. City of St George applicant. Case No. 2009-ZRA-012.

Bob Nicholson, Community Development Director, said the objective is to require that accessory buildings in Agricultural zones meet certain setback requirements from the side and rear property lines. Also add to the code a limit to the height of such accessory buildings to eighteen (18) feet without a conditional use permit for a greater height, unless the building or structure is used for agricultural purposes, in which case the height limit is 60 feet as per section 10-5-4:B.

Currently there is a 10 minimum setback required from side and rear property lines for ALL buildings in the Agricultural zones, including small accessory buildings. In reality, many smaller accessory buildings have been located on a side or rear property line in the Agricultural zones. This amendment would allow accessory buildings up to 18 in height to have no (zero) setback from a side or rear property line if the accessory building is to the rear and 10 from the dwelling. Accessory buildings taller than 18 would require a 10 minimum setback from the side and rear property line. Buildings used for agricultural purposes are exempt from building permit requirements; however they still fall under normal setback requirements for the A zones. Thus the purpose of this code amendment is to reduce (eliminate) the side and rear setback requirements for accessory buildings up to 18 in height.

Slides were shown that were taken out in the field, showing various accessory buildings and he stated that particularly in the ag. zone with the large lots, this could work. He said it makes sense to amend the code to allow these accessory buildings to be allowed on the property line if they are less than 18 ft. in height.

The new language underlined below was read into the record.

10-5-6. Modifying Regulations:

D. Accessory Building Setbacks and Heights: Accessory buildings, including, but not limited to: gazebos, metal shipping containers, sea-cargo containers, storage sheds, detached car garages, and detached RV garages, that are located to the rear and at least ten (10) feet away from a main dwelling, may be built to the side and rear interior property lines, provided that:

1. The roof shall not project across the property line;
2. Stormwater runoff from the building shall not run onto adjacent properties;
3. All corner lots, the side yard setback on the street side yard shall be the same as the front yard setback;
4. Accessory buildings within 10 feet of a side or rear property line shall be limited to an overall height of eighteen (18) feet to roof peak as measured from the adjacent grade to highest point on the roof;
5. Accessory buildings shall require that a conditional use permit is granted for a greater height, higher than eighteen (18) feet, unless the structure meets the requirements of subsection 10-5-4(B);
6. Accessory buildings higher than eighteen (18) feet shall have a minimum ten (10) foot setback from property lines;
7. Any non-portable structure placed over a utility easement shall require written approval from the Joint Utility Commission (J.U.C.) prior to obtaining a building permit;
8. Detached garages and accessory buildings may be located in a side yard provided that it meets all required side and front yard setbacks for the zone and is at least ten (10) feet from the main dwelling.

Commissioner Campbell asked if the fire department would have a problem with this as a no setback.

Bob said no because this is an accessory building and not a dwelling unit. He said all of these must still meet the building code. The sea cargos are built to meet the building code, they are structurally sound.

Commissioner Nobis said he likes the idea of keeping the setback for a permanent building because of aesthetics and fire potential, however sea cargos usually get moved around and he said it would not need a setback.

Bob Nicholson said rather than to refer back to the foundation type, it makes more sense to refer back to the size and height of the structure.

Commissioner Campbell said perhaps square footage should be taken into consideration so someone doesnt go overboard.

Bob said a possible approach could be to say not more than 25% of the rear yard area whether it is in residential or agricultural.

Commissioner Campbell said that aesthetics comes into consideration even in an ag area and the fire issue comes into play in all areas. He said 1000 sq. ft. could be the number and that over that you would need to have a conditional use permit.

Bob Nicholson said that you could have it two points: over 1000 sq. ft. floor area or a height of over 18 ft. would need a conditional use permit.

The hearing was opened to the public.

No one responded, so the hearing was closed.

Bob said they would add that criteria to item # 5: An accessory building conditional use permit if the building is larger than 1000 sq. ft. floor area or have a height greater than 18 ft.

MOTION: Commissioner Nobis made a motion to approve item 9B with the 1000 sq. ft. floor area. Commissioner Campbell seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.


10. MINUTES

Consider approval of the Planning Commission minutes for October 13, 2009 and October 27, 2009.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to approve the minutes of October 13, 2009 and October 27, 2009. Commissioner Campbell seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.

MOTION TO ADJOUR: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Campbell seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes. The time was 6:30 p.m.