Planning Commission Minutes

Tuesday, March 23,2010



PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ST. GEORGE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH
March 23, 2010 5:00 P.M.

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

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

ABSENT: Commissioner Kim Campbell
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 Sun River Phases 33 & 34 to create twenty-one (21) single family residential lots on 5.85 acres with Phase 33 and to create eighteen (18) single family residential lots on 5.06 acres with Phase 34. Both phases would be located on Whitestone Drive near Grapevine Drive in Sun River. The zoning is PD (Planned Development). The owner and applicant is Sun River. The representative is Rosenberg and Associates. Case No. 2010-PP-003.

Jay Sandberg presented this request. This is located south of Angel Arch Dr. A photo was shown of the area. Access is from English Ivy Drive and Grapevine Drive. The current zoning is PD (Planned Development). The General Plan shows this LDR (Low Density Residential 4 du/ac).

Staff comments are that this subdivision includes single family lots with private streets. Several moderately high walls (4-6) will be built along boundary property lines as the property slopes from east to west. No walls are constructed within building pads or set-back areas. Whitestone Drive will extend to the west in a future phase.

The memo from the Parks Department was included in the packet and Jay stated that they have satisfied Laura Taylors questions.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to recommend approval for preliminary plat item 1. Commissioner Nobis seconded the motion.

DISCUSSION: Commissioner Read asked what the completion percentage is of the Sun River project.

Jay clarified that this was regarding the 4.2 acres and he then stated that there is an agreement in place and it depends on when the City wants to move forward with the park. Jay stated that # 3 in the memo is under SITLAs control and not Sun Rivers.
Laura Taylor will be meeting with SITLA to clarify this.

VOTING: All voted aye, motion passes.

2. FINAL PLAT

Consider approval of a final plat for Findley Auto Center a four (4) lot commercial subdivision. Located at 1400 South Sunland Drive. The property is zoned C-3 (General Commercial). Rosenberg Associates is the representative. Case No. 2009-FP-028.

Jay Sandberg presented this request. He stated that 3 of the lots are developed and one lot is undeveloped. There are drainage easements along the easterly boundary. The City requests that they show all of this on a final plat.

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.

This Final Plat is ready for Planning Commissions consideration for approval.

Commissioner Read asked if the sewer issue is resolved now and Jays response is that it is.

Commissioner Nobis asked about the owner dedication; he said the name does not appear within it. He wanted to be sure that the final actually has that in it under the owners dedication.

MOTION: Commissioner Hullinger made a motion to approve item #2, subject to the wording of the owner dedication and authorize the Chairman to sign it. Commissioner Nobis seconded the motion. All voted aye, motion passes.

3. ZONING REGULATION AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING (5:00 P.M.)

Consider a zoning regulation amendment to Title 10 Zoning Regulations, Chapter 11 manufacturing Zones, Section 10-11-2 Uses, to add language to allow sales and repair of RVs and boats in the M-2 zone. Mr. Rick Loghry applicant. Case No. 2010-ZRA-008.

Ray Snyder presented this request and gave the Planning Commission some background regarding this request. Mr. Loghry and the property owner attended a PSR (Planning Staff Review) meeting on February 16, 2010. At that time staff discouraged the applicant from pursuing a zoning regulation amendment to permit RV and boat sales in any M-2 industrial zone. The applicant seeks an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow a commercial business at 260 N 3050 E.

Staff comments include the following:

The change would apply to all M-2 property.

The Millcreek Industrial Park was developed without sidewalk in front of the industrial properties. Sidewalks are a typical requirement in front of commercial zones.

The City has limited industrial property in comparison to the available commercial property in the community. The purpose of the M-2 zone is to provide light manufacturing and fabrication of goods (see 10-11-1 (B).

Ray stated the applicant is available for questions.

Acting Chairman Bracken opened the hearing to the public.

John Walter, with NAI Commercial real estate, came to the podium. He said he and Rick have worked together for a substantial amount of time to try and find a location for Rick to relocate his business. It is difficult to find other locations to start his RV Sales business. John stated that Rick is interested in expanding in the St. George area in an area where he can grown his business. John said the vacancy rate now for industrial space for this type of building is now over 25% and for the M-2 zone it is 28%. There is an inventory available and the use proposed should fit within this zone.

Larry Scott, the property owner, came to the podium to give a history and background of this location. In 1993 they purchased the property from the City and it seemed like an ideal location for manufacturing and he had a manufacturing business at that time. There was little traffic on 3050 East and it was no problem if a semi had to back up to access their loading dock. 1994 they built a building designed for manufacturing with a bridge crane built within the structure. This property has been on the market for a year and a half and no one from manufacturing has approached him about renting the place. This vacancy has put a hardship on him and his wife. They just did some landscaping on the frontage and an unimproved portion of the property as was suggested by Bob Nicholson. Larry said he doesnt think this building is desirable any longer as is so he is asking them to approve the zoning code change.

No one else came forward, so the hearing was closed.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston made some comments. She reminded the commissioners that this is a request to amend the language and uses in the zone. We do have economy issues and many people are having a hard time out there, but that is not a factor that should weigh in to the decision on whether or not this is an appropriate use in this zone. It may be a time to look whether this whole area needs to be rezoned to commercial if it really doesnt fit manufacturing anymore. That may be something that needs to be considered. She said changing the uses in the manufacturing zone is a different issue. This usage does not meet the definition of what our purpose is for a manufacturing zone. That zone is for the light manufacturing and fabrication of goods and it is not for retail sales, including repairs and RVs. That brings in foot traffic, children and people that we have no sidewalks for and no accommodations for. This presents liability issues for the City. We need to look at those compatibility issues on the uses that are allowed into this zone.

Commissioner Read said he has comments after looking at how the ordinance is structured. He said weve got several other similar type usages such as building materials sales, construction sales, farm sales, rental equipment, landscape rock sales etc and they are permitted in the M-1 but they all are not permitted in M-2. He said if anything, he would go along with rezoning a portion of that area to an M1 and make this RV a permitted use in that to go along with other similar uses in M1, but that may not be appropriate to the M2 itself.

Commissioner Taylor said the nature of that area has changed significantly with the opening up of traffic. He stated that traffic is an issue that makes it a little bit difficult to continue thinking of this as a manufacturing area. Moving manufacturing traffic around through that area is a bit of a challenge anyway. He questioned modifying the usage somewhat so traffic is not such a challenge. He stated that, on the other hand, we do have people in there that are doing manufacturing and want to maintain the manufacturing identity of that area. He would not like to see the whole area rezoned, but perhaps they should look at some spots in it as Commissioner Read described.

John Walters came back to the podium. He said most of the uses in that area have other permitted uses such as a telemarketing center. He also said that a child day care shows under a conditional use, so he knows they have made some modifications or exceptions for that area. He said he is not sure if they are in the M1 or M 2 zone, but he knows that they have allowed go cart racing and Jumping Jacks for kids.

The planners interjected that go cart racing and Jumping Jacks are located in the M-2 zone.

John said maybe in the discussion, whether an entire change or transformation takes place in the M2 zone or not, if that is something the Planning Commission decides to review or investigate further, maybe in the meantime a use that is not completely different than some of the other uses in there, such as RV sales, may be a conditional use that they could be allowed to at least work in that zone during a time that a greater change for the M2 zone is looked at.

Acting Chairman Bracken said that from what he is hearing it sounds like there are concerns in changing the zoning regulation because it affects all of those. It appears that this needs to be looked at from a little different angle and either look at it as a conditional use for this piece or look at rezoning a portion of it. It sounds like that may take some time to put that together. He said what we are looking at today is changing the zoning regulation and not the other two items.

Commissioner Nobis asked if we have the option to table this and go back to try to determine the uses and try to determine the best uses for the future of that area, since we are changing the whole M-2 zone.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston stated it could be tabled only if the applicant consents to it. She said otherwise you have to have a decision within 30 days.

Commissioner Nobis said one of his reservations is that he doesnt like to see conditional use for it, because when someone comes up with a plan like they have there is a lot of time, sweat and money involved. Commissioner Nobis went on to say that if we could get to the consensus where it is either permitted or not permitted, that is what he would prefer. He feels that they need to look at redoing the whole area because there are some spots that you could consider as M2 and some as M1.

Acting Chairman Bracken asked if this is the only M-2 area we have in town.

Bob Nicholson, Community Development Director responded that this is the only M2 area.

Commissioner Nobis asked the applicants feeling on tabling this until the next Planning and Zoning Meeting or as long as it takes to look at it and determine the areas.

Mr. Rick Loghry said if we can do it within 2 weeks .He said half of the season is already gone. He would like to get in and get going as soon as he can. He anticipates having five or six employees. If he has to wait longer very much longer, it would put him down to a slower start.

Acting Chairman Bracken asked if this could be done within two weeks assuming we have a meeting in two weeks.

Ray Snyder said there are two items and staff would be more supportive towards a zone change along that area. M1 seems more logical, but it would involve agreement of the other property owners along there. He said in terms of this zoning regulation amendment, staff needs more direction as to what you expect to happen in those two weeks. He said for us to go out and document each use, he would like to have more direction and get legals opinion also.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said if the applicant is not willing to consent, then you would need to make a vote as to whether you approve or deny. Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston wanted to point out that on their argument on the uses that are there in the M2, there are none that are similar to what they are doing. Tool design and repair is the closest, but that is manufacturing with repair as a part of that. She went on to say that the rest of that is in the M1 zone. The telemarketing is not the public coming in; it is a business that is being run there so you dont have customers coming with their children and other people coming in and out of there. It is the same as other businesses.

MOTION: Commissioner Nobis made a motion regarding item # 3 to deny the request. Commissioner Taylor seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.


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

A. Consider a zone change request for The Commons at Little Valley from the A-1 (Agricultural 40,000 square foot minimum lot size) and RE-20 (Residential Estates 20,000 square foot minimum lot size) to PD-RES (Planned Development Residential) zone. The area consists of approximately 14.68 acres. The site is located on 3000 South (Horsemans Park Road) and Little Valley Road. Bush & Gudgell is the representative. Case No. 2010-ZC-002.

Bob Nicholson presented this request by giving some background. In 2008 a similar rezone request was considered by the City for this property. That request was denied by the City Council due to various concerns including having private streets rather than public streets in the project. The revised project has public streets and private alley ways to the garages, and also a public street connecting to Horsemans Park Drive near the center of the development providing much better access than previously proposed. This project encompasses 14.58 acres and is located on 3000 South (Horseman Park Road) and Little Valley Road. The site is east of 2350 East Street (& the Little Valley Elementary School). This site is across the street from the new Sunrise Intermediate School.

Photos were shown of the location.

The current zone(s) are A-1 (Agriculture 1 acre minimum) and RE-20 (Residential Estates 20,000 square foot minimum).

The General Plan is for M/HD (Medium-High Density, 7-10 du/acre) and MD (Medium Density 4-7 du/acre) according to the Little Valley General Plan adopted 3/1/07, which recognized that land near parks and schools was an appropriate area to accommodate increased density. Adjacent zones include the following:

North: RE-12.5 & RE-20 (Intermediate School)
West: A-1 (Little Valley Elementary School)
South: RE-20
East: A-1

Bob stated that plan was not popular with everyone at that time. A lot of people did not agree with the plan that was adopted in 2007. We had public hearings and the Council at that time approved it, in spite of objections, thinking that was good planning. Since then a committee was formed (Little Valley Committee) to see if there was some major compromise and the committee was as divided as the community at large is.

Photos of the first plan were shown. The current plan behind Commissioner Taylor was discussed. Bob stated that this project includes 88 units, with a density of 6.0 du / ac (88 / 14.58 = 6.0). Open Space is 6.53 acres (45%).

Regarding Density Bonus: Title 10 Chapter 13 Article E Density Bonus applies to this zone request. The subject property is located within the Density Bonus Overlay Zone which covers most of the south one-third of the City and includes all of the Little Valley area. Under the program, additional density is achieved through the provision of parks, trails and open space.

Density Factors include the following:

Factor 1: Provide land; a minimum of 15% of the developable area must be set aside for parks, trails, or other open space in order to achieve a 25% density increase over the base of 2 du/acre. The applicant states that 2.99 acres (21% of the site) has been provided for this purpose and these photos were shown.

Factor 2: Park improvements; the developer must improve the private park areas to achieve an additional 25% bonus increase. The applicant plans to make all the improvements to the private park areas.

Factor 3: Additional enhancements; such as 1) additional or enhanced park amenities, or 2) additional or enhanced landscaping within the street right-of-way, or 3) attainable housing, or 4) provide land for civic uses such as fire station, etc, or 5) provide additional land area above the 15% minimum required. Compliance with one or more of these Third Factors results in an additional 15% (or 65% above the base) density increase. The applicant will dedicate and improve to city standards a 10 wide public trail that runs along Horseman Park Drive (3000 South). This area is in addition to the 21% land area provided for park and courtyard amenities.

To achieve the density proposed by the applicant (i.e., 6.0 du/acre) the applicant must demonstrate the following;

1. Comply with the Little Valley General Plan Land Use designations.
Response: This project does comply with the General Plan land use designations of MHD (7 10 DU) and MDR (4 7 DU).

2. Demonstrate that the three factors under the Density Bonus Overlay Zone are met.
Response: This project complies with the three (3) density bonus factors. The base density is 2 DU/AC. With the 3 factors an increase of 65% or 3.3 DU/AC is achievable.

3. Demonstrate that superior design has been provided (In order to increase the density above 3.3 the applicant must show superior design) See the applicants narrative on Superior Design.
Response: If superior design for the project and housing units is provided then the density of the MHD and MDR are achievable per Section 10-13E-4 (D); Medium or high density development, as defined in the city general plan, must have superior architectural design for all proposed dwelling units, as determined by the city council, upon recommendation from the planning commission. (Ord. 2008-02-009, 2-7-2008)

Photos were shown and Bob said that the applicant will later comment. Bob said that the green courts, private park and community garden do provide a more innovative project design than typically seen. Also the attainable housing element near the two schools should help teachers and young families find affordable homes.

The overall style proposed is called a Craftsman or Prairie Style home. The 88 detached single family homes will be one and two story homes with earth toned synthetic stucco and stone accent exteriors. Most of the homes are accessed by 20or 25wide private alleys and no driveways are proposed on Horseman Park Drive (3000 South) across from the intermediate school. The homes along the south property line are deeper lots with detached garages in the rear yard area with driveways accessing the public street. The green court or courtyard units are patterned after similar homes in the Day Break project in South Jordan, Utah according to the applicant. The applicant has provided a separate narrative describing the layout and architecture of the project.

Homes along Horseman Park Drive will face a central green common area. There are four (4) common areas proposed along Horseman Park Drive with 9 homes surrounding the common area. Homes along the interior public street will have a narrow front setback in a typical traditional or new-urbanist neighborhood design. Homes must have a front porch and be elevated at least 18 above the sidewalk grade.

There would be a small private park proposed along the east side of the project near Little Valley Road. This park will be improved by the developer and maintained by the HOA. Due to the large community park just to the northwest of this site, the applicant has relayed that a tot lot was felt to be most appropriate for this location. There is also a small reading park adjacent to lots 46 and 47. There is also a Community Garden area planned for the southeast portion of the project.

Twenty five feet (25) and twenty foot (20) wide private alley ways are proposed to serve most of the homes in the project. The alleys include a five foot (5) setback to the garage.

With the exception of the alley ways which are private and will be maintained by the HOA, all other streets are public and will have city maintenance provided typical of public streets.

The design of this project eliminates privacy walls along Horseman Park Drive (3000 South). However a six foot masonry wall is required along the south property line.

The applicant is negotiating with the City to purchase approximately 2 acres next to the Little Valley Elementary School and the property is currently shown as part of the overall project.

According to the site plan there will be forty-six (46) guest parking spaces proposed throughout the project to accommodate guests. A Community Garden is proposed as part of the amenity package for residents within the project.

A HOA (Home Owners Association) will be required. The HOA will be responsible for maintaining all common areas and also restricting the parking of vehicles in the proposed alleys. The applicant submitted a development agreement and it is being reviewed by the City Legal Department.

Commissioner Taylor wanted to clarify that they are two car garages, and Bob Nicholson responded that was correct.

Regarding Equestrian Separation: In the Little Valley Sub Area Plan Policy #10 Buffer for Equestrian Subdivisions located on page 10 reads: Developments adjacent to the identified equestrian subdivisions shall provide a buffer zone that may include: road ROW, open space, equestrian / multi-use trails (see designations on Sub area Plan), and / or be developed at a density of no greater than 1.25 dus / acre. A minimum of 100 ft. separation is recommended between the existing equestrian subdivision property line and the nearest new residential structure. Property within a trail or open space easement dedicated for public use may be considered as part of the open space requirement. The 100 foot buffer refers to identified equestrian subdivisions and does not refer to scattered properties where horses may now exist.

In the Little Valley Sub Area Plan Policy #21 Existing Agricultural Conditions located on page 11 reads: It is recognized that there are many agricultural operations existing in the Little Valley Washington Fields area and new residents should realize that certain farm related conditions such as odors, farm equipment on the road and occasional irrigation run-off are considered normal and acceptable conditions. The right to farm is considered inherent in the Plan area and agricultural operations should not be forced out due to nuisance complaints about odors or similar agricultural side effects.

Commissioner Taylor asked where the 55 ft. public street will end. Bob clarified that it ends at the property line at this time and that there will be no access from the south. Bob said that is common practice in new subdivision.

The residents who spoke in opposition to the project in 2008 voiced concerns about potential conflicts with current residents who have large animals and about the changing nature of the Little Valley area in general. The Little Valley Sub-Area Plan describes the reasons for the changing land use patterns in the area and the Planning Commission may want to re-read that section of the Plan.

More photos of the area were shown.

Bob turned the meeting over to the applicant.

Jim Raines, Bush and Gudgell came to the podium and gave a history of the property. In 2006, Bonneville Builders came to them to discuss Fredonia Estates. They designed the subdivision and did the preliminary plat, submitted it to the City, Planning Commission and City Council. Bonneville Builders were asked not to proceed at that time due to the sub-area plan for Little Valley was being worked on. Bonneville Builders then waited for the sub- area plan. Bonneville Builders also worked with Vision Dixie. Jim said it is important to remember that this is a single family development. He said it should not be compared to an R-1-10 subdivision, because that is not what the General Plan directed Bonneville Builders to build. They came in with their plan. The neighbors came in and did not agree with the decision that City Council made. A committee was formed and now they have been at this for four years. They have designed the project numerous times. If you look at the old plan from 2008 and then compare it to the new plan, a circulation the City wanted was provided, the roads became public, and the lots across from the school now front the school. John from Bonneville Builders has taken up every recommendation by the City and they have modified their plans and have gone extra steps.

John Fleming with Bonneville Builders came to the podium. He thanked Jim
Raines for the historical background. John said this was four years in the making and is now a better project than was presented before. Vision Dixie principles were used. He cant think of anything that they were suggested that they did not incorporate in this plan and that he went beyond the requirements. The density always comes up so he did an animation and all is to scale. A video was shown. He said there are many comparisons to Daybreak and these ideas have been adapted across the United States. John stated that he was involved in issues of urban sprawl 30 years ago.

John stated that all of the parking will be in the rear of the homes, so the family living takes place in the front of the homes. All of the homes have private patios.

John discussed superior architecture. He said this could have been townhomes and instead they went to single family homes at 6 homes per acre. He feels that this project is responsible planning allowing easy walking pedestrian access. He said it is smart, efficient land planning and complies with Vision Dixie. It is consistent with forward thinking planning throughout the United States and is what the General Plan and the Little Valley sub area Plan suggested.

Commissioner Taylor said from the design, he feels the market is primarily to the younger age group. He asked what kind of accommodation is made for boats, 4 wheelers, etc, since they would not all fit in a two car garage.

John responded that the market sector will be a younger market, however frequently seniors move in due to the security and he feels that perhaps 25% of the community will be seniors. He said only the homes with a driveway would have room to park a boat.

Acting Chairman Bracken opened the hearing to the public after giving a small intro to what we are looking for and mentioned to please have no public clamor and to give us information that we havent heard before.

Paul Gooch came to the podium. He said what is missing is that the neighbors were not taken into the equation. He said most are not here to argue against the type of development that he is doing, what they are arguing against where its going. Paul mentioned that they had their meeting about the Master Plan and the argument made over and over again is what right do we have to tell him who owns the property how he can develop. Paul said he wanted to take them back a few moments early when they listened to the prior request for RV business in his property and the Commissioners denied him due to the concern of the contiguous property owners and the type of use that was there, whether or not you had the blessing of the contiguous property owners. He said Vision Dixie has been invoked over and over again in this process and again tonight. He said if we are going to use that as a standard, then you cant forget one of the principles in Vision Dixie is to preserve some of our agricultural use. He went on to say that there is nowhere left; you are driving a stake into the heart of the last corner of this City where you can preserve some agricultural use. The argument that they have is that it is not compatible. He said John is a nice guy, but he will be building the development and then leave and the community is left with the aftermath.

Paul Iverson came to the podium. He said the committee did meet and there was one thing that everyone agreed on 100%. That was that there needs to be an ordinance, not a little deal on the plat, an actual ordinance that protects the rights of the agricultural use that says you cant complain about dust, mud, etc. He said this was 100% and no where did he see anyone disagree with that. He asked where it is and how does that process get started.

Acting Chairman Bracken asked Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston where we are on that and she responded that she didnt know if they are working on it or not; that it has not come to her.

Acting Chairman Bracken asked Bob Nicholson, Community Development Director, where we are on the ordinance to add these provisions about odors. H said Craig has prepared a draft.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said that now that they said that, Joseph is working on that because there were some changes for agriculture protection in the state law and he was doing the comparison on those.

Acting Chairman Bracken said then that should go forward.

Paul said the RE zone that Jim McArthur is in has a 50 ft. setback requirement that says he cant have a corral within 50 ft. of a dwelling. Paul said if they build houses within 10 ft. of him, who is breaking the ordinance?

Bob said this is a provision in the RE zone.

Paul questioned if this limited his abilities to have animals and Bob responded no and Acting Chairman Bracken said he would be grandfathered in.

Paul said Daybreak is being talked about and this is thousands of acres and is different from what we have here. Daybreak was a huge project and not 14 acres. Paul said he is hoping that the reason City Council denied this was because there was a petition with over 800 signatures gathered by a half dozen people on the spur of the moment. He hopes that the Commissioners will take into consideration the citizens and what the citizens want, not special interest groups and not City staff. He said the City government should be working for the citizens and not the other way around.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said looking at the code, it states no building or structure housing animals shall be constructed closer than 50 ft. to a dwelling unit. So they can build homes there without violating the ordinance but once those homes are built you wouldnt be able to build additional animal structures or runs within 50 ft. of those homes.

Paul said the citizens oppose the Master Plan and he asked if the people who are for the Master Plan sent emails like he was told they did, could those emails be seen by the public. He said this is just a thought.

Jim Raines came to the podium to clarify that when Fredonia applied it paid the fees and was approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council tabled the project. It was a conscious decision; it was a decision by the City to not move the large lots forward.

Jim McArthur came to the podium. He owns the property adjacent to the property they are talking about developing. He said the road that they are talking about going through there will cut through his property. He has horses and cows and likes the lifestyle he has. He doesnt want to deal with a situation where this development would cause him to change his lifestyle or a successor if he ever did sell his house. He doesnt plan to do this but he doesnt want something grandfathered working for a piece of property that he owns and has owned for some time. He said he wants them to know first that he is not putting a road through, so dont be holding your breath because it would be bad for them. He asked about the proposed commercial zone, if that is for the airport? He doesnt want commercial out there.

Acting Chairman Bracken stated that there are possible commercial spots for that in the future.

Jim McArthur said that they enjoy the lifestyle they have and that is why they live there. He does not want to fear the liability from a child being hurt .He said if one of the smaller children get under his horses or into one of his cow pens, it isnt worth a life. This whole thing is not worth a life. He said horses and cows are unpredictable. He sees that as a possible liability to him and he doesnt want to be put in a position that a life could be affected. He said children are fast even when you keep an eye on them and he does not want this liability. He said the Commissioners could change that from happening by their vote tonight, because it is not worth a life.

Lonnie Clark came to the podium. She is a Little Valley resident and she said this is like Ground Hog day with the same thing over and over again by slamming urban dwellers right up against animals. Her observation is that mankind has spent time trying to stay with themselves and smashing different lifestyles together will just result in tragedy and someone being pushed out. She is afraid that one group, the one she belongs to, will be pushed out of Little Valley. She thinks we are witnessing the collapse of our nation, if not civilization. In 2-5 years we will look back at this meeting and be stupidified about their silliness in carving up Little Valley. She said do we think people will be coming in droves to buy up this subdivision. She said the need for a community garden idea is the only thing they got right. She said the Commissioners need to help the people of this area hit the ground running in the very hard times that are coming.

Tiffany Harris came to the podium. She is a Little Valley Resident. Her children raise three pigs and two lambs and they do not recognize a 100 ft. buffer zone. She said animals do get out, no matter how great you are at keeping your animals in. This is not compatible to the neighbors. This is a potential harm. Her children recognize what to do when animals band together, but you are putting a population next to agriculture that maybe does not understand the rules of agriculture and what could possibly happen.

Kerry Bradley came to the podium. They have recently moved here from Whittier California. That city was built up with a bunch of houses and he always felt like he was in a cage there. There were fights at school and along the streets and no one could get along together. He said if we build this stuff over their agricultural land, that problem will arise as well. Kids at his school like to see the landscape and the agriculture and if they build this stuff, he knows that they too will start to feel bonded. He hopes theses homes wont be built right away, because he enjoys being here and it wouldnt be right to move from one place that is all populated to another place that starts to be populated again because that is the main reason they came to live here.

Lorenzo Lot came to the podium. He lives on Little Valley Road across from the park. He said one of his concerns is that all of the lots on the side of the road where he is drain into his property. He said we have a 24 inch culvert that goes under that road and he asked how they will take care of all of that run off water. He stated that his next concern is how will they handle the transmission lines that run right through the middle of that property over there? How will you get access to it if something happens to it? He said the community looks great, but not the mix with what they have out there. He said many comments were made, and he has lived on a farm most of his life, and you cant mix that type of dwellings and population with any type of animals out there. Someone is going to get hurt and it all starts right here.

Greg Wagner came to the podium. He just heard about t his meeting and said he is a little disappointed. He has participated in the process four years or so, and on numerous occasions he has been asked to put his name and email address down so we could help provide input in these discussions. No one he talked to in the neighborhood who has also put their name down has ever received notice about any prior planning or meetings of that sort. He said he finds this frustrating that they are asked for their input and they are kind of ignored. He is a developer of affordable housing and has developed 16 sub-divisions over the last 12 years, in Iron County, Washington County and Mohave County Az . He said what he develops is affordable housing, but it doesnt look feel like this does. He said he feels like he is in a box when he looks at the design. He said his projects are also 6 units per acre, so he is a little bit concerned about the design of that and how it feels when you walk onto his property vs. what you are seeing here. He thinks there is a need for this type of housing, and it is what he builds and it is his livelihood, but he doesnt think this is the right spot. He knows there is a lot of places downtown where you can find a two acre parcel in the middle of town. He said what if he brought his horse, bought that property and fed the horse a certain type of food to kill the flies and has no smell, what would the neighbors do and would they have a problem with that? He doesnt think this is the right spot. Parks and walking trails have been discussed tonight. He hasnt seen parks or walking trails that are maintained by a home owners association that really looks that great. He knows the City takes care of their parks. He said where you have the tenants maintain the parks it looks terrible, so they have taken over maintaining the parks to ensure that they look good. His question is where you have two schools so close and 30-40 acres of ball diamonds and parks and schools, why not get rid of the parks in this development and spread those houses out more, give a less dense feel, provide for more parking and set those houses back from the street. Peoples toys are a constant battle and it is almost impossible to get people to park to cars in their garage because they use half of it for storage. He asked if anyone is aware of a development built like this in town. Acting Chairman Bracken responded that this was the first one. Greg went on to say that he was in a similar one in Washington City and he said it is a nightmare trying to find a parking spot; a lot of the people have trucks. He asked how deep these garages are, the depth and the width. The response was 24-26 ft. deep, that he doesnt have the design in front of him. Greg said that was an important question because he has been through so many properties that the garages are so short that you cant fit cars in that people drive; that you cant fit a standard pickup truck in that garage because its not big enough, so where are you going to park it? Greg suggested getting rid of the alleys, you could pull the houses back closer to each other, get them off the street and its going to feel more open. He said he was just talking to the PTA President of Little Valley Elementary School. They have two portable classrooms already and his question is with this kind of density and younger families, what are the plans for the future for the schools to house these children? Are we going to have to have more portables for classrooms, will sizes increase?

Heidi Ludwig came to the podium. She has been a resident of Little Valley for 2 years and said the reason we moved to Little Valley was because they looked every place in St. George to house their horses and there is no other place in St. George to house your animals. They moved from Star Valley Wyoming, so obviously we love our horses and want them with us. One thing she has not heard anybody talk about is the children. If you put in a development like this you will inevitably get an influx of children. This means you will also get an influx of teenagers, which means you will get an influx of cars and where will they park these cars? She said he has 44 extra parking spots for visitors. She said she has many friends her age with teenagers and they get $500 cars and they need a place to park. She said dont talk about the toys, talk about the cars that they will be driving. Children will be crossing those streets. Once the developer pulls out the junk will come in the garage and the cars will go on the streets and inevitably a child will get killed and who is going to take responsibility for that happening. The children have a right to play and be safe. No matter how hard you try, you are not going to keep them off of the streets. Theres a beautiful park across the street and balls are going to come rolling out. The more cars you get, the more danger there is and in a complex like this it is going to happen. She knows families that are affected by having dead children because of it. She said there is responsibility on the families and she understands that, but you are asking for this to happen by putting a project like this there. She said no where in St. George do you guys give farmers any room. She said we have it here and you want to take it away from us. It was brought up that I could not take her horses into St. George and ask them to rezone, but there is no way you would do that for her. She can say 100% positively that you will not rezone in the middle of an organization like that and let her bring her horses, and yet you want to take this away from us. She asks, begs for them, to please consider that before you do that to us. We need some place to live and this is the only place you have given us.

Dan Clark, a Little Valley resident, came to the podium. He said looking at the plans, he has seen no internal lighting, street lights and things like that. He also asked if a traffic study has been done on this project.

Jim Raines responded that the preliminary traffic study required for the zone change has been done. A more detailed traffic study will be done as it moves to subdivision.

Dan Clark said you should deny this, because where is the street light going to go? He said you are talking about 88 units, how many people are going to live in there and they havent done a proper traffic study to determine the flow of the people internally. He said they havent done their due diligence on that part of it, so he would say to deny that. He said also you see all these people here and he asked how many live in Little Valley and object to this development. He asked if he could have them stand up just to give a representation. He said so there you have it, his motion is denied and he asked if anyone is to second it. He said there need to be a better study done on this before it gets approved. He said there has to be street lights put in place on Little Valley Road to accommodate the traffic flow.

Mindy Suttner, a Little Valley resident came to the podium. She said she lives right across the street from this proposed subdivision. She said she would like to say to Mr. Fleming that this looks good and she can tell he has put a lot of effort, time and money into this, but unfortunately she feels like its putting a whale shark in a farm pond, it doesnt belongs there. A few concerns for her are the parks right across from this subdivision and the cement pond across from the subdivision. She said it would take a whole lot more security than is there now to keep little children out of it. She sees that as a big liability for the City. The feed lot next door has not been mentioned. She said this is an operating enterprise. She said with 88 units and a lot of kids, they will be all over that place. Mindy stated that this looks like a great product, but is in the wrong place and will be a liability for the City.

John Jones came to the podium. He lives in Little Valley and Mindy is his neighbor. He said that 20 families live on 20 acres and you are going 88 families right next to those people and they will be complaining about their lifestyle of animals and smells and stuff like that. He said he has been here for six years coming to these meetings. Theyve talked about buffer zones and stuff and they were going to have quarter acre lots and half acre lots and all of that. Theyre going right up to bare nothing. It is a great plan and it has a place, but he has people asking him if he has any lots available next to them for horse property, they want to move out there because they need to have more space for the horses and they are just going to phase out everything out there. It should be horse property out there, but theyre going to be shut out and be a used to be. People will drive out there and say this is where people used to have their horses. He said you can go out to Dixie Downs and the race way is no longer there. He said there needs to be a place for this. He said where is he going to move to? When he was looking for a house, he wasnt looking at living next to an apartment complex or small housing. He has lived in those places and they are around town. He moved out there looking for horse property and some area and he moved out because there was more area around him that was zoned even bigger than his property. He said he wishes he had big pockets because he would buy up all of the property around him and just save it the way it is, but he cant afford that. He knows everyone is entitled to make a living and develop their property, but this big a jump from what it is zoned now to what they want to have. He knows it is in the planning stages, but this is way too big of a jump and it shouldnt be an option to have a subdivision like this especially in St. George. He would imagine that they would not want to have this subdivision next to them. No one that can afford better than this is going to live there. He said low income housing is not for Little Valley.

The hearing was closed to the public.

Commissioner Taylor said he listened carefully to the comments this evening and heard different issue that came up that he hadnt thought about earlier. Mr. Wagner pointed out the project that he had been involved in building and he made a comment that stuck in his mind. He said that the streets were supposed to be taken care of by the tenants, but they werent. Commissioner Taylor said that being the case he would have concern about that. If the price is low enough that an investor can buy it and use it as a rental, he doesnt see that as the original intent of the project. Mr. Fleming talked about Daybreak and he has visited that project and really likes it. Commissioner Taylor sees two significant differences between Daybreak and this project in Little Valley. One is the size of the project and the other is the amenities that go with it. He asked what they are going to do to provide for storage of accessories. Daybreak does that. Daybreak is reclaimed property from a mining operation by Kennecott Copper Mine. Little Valley is an existing agricultural area. The prior use of the property differs considerably. He wanted to assure the people speaking that they did get heard tonight by him and that there are a couple of issues that concern him. Commissioner Taylor expressed that the story of the pigs that got loose are important issues. Jim McArthur talked about the risk that he is taking by having people next door to him with small children and what will happen to his liabilities. He said he has too much emotion to make a motion tonight. He would like to folks to know that what they shared with him tonight makes a difference in his mind as to how he sees the project. He said the project is well designed and shows good architecture and good design. He just wishes it was on a mining landfill somewhere.

Commissioner Read said they have all heard the people and have heard them throughout, but that Council in dealing with this has led us in a direction that the developer thought this is what we need to do to get approved. He said they need to look at it from their perspective, that we are stuck with ordinances etc, that if a project comes in and meets those elements, we dont have options because we are not a public opinion body. They make recommendations based on what is presented meeting the ordinances. He said we have all heard you and he doesnt discount it at all, but he wants them to realize that they need to look at the history of how they got to this project and the ordinances that are in front of them.

Acting Chairman Bracken said he does believe that this project does meet all of the obligations and everything that the City required. He said the overall Plan has indicated that this is what should be on this piece of property. He said they are a recommending body to look at the ordinances brought before them. It is the City Council where much of the comments made tonight need to be voiced because they are the ones to take this into consideration more so than we would here.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said they are asking for the density bonus and there are three factors in that. She said the first two are clearly spelled out in the code regarding what is allowed. The 3rd one is broader and allows you more discretion in looking at whether or not what they are proposing meets that requirement to allow for extra density there. She said they are proposing the 31 extra feet of landscaping with enhanced landscaping in that area and the trail in the area along 3000 South. She said that would be a specific factor for them to determine whether or not you believe that is enough to qualify as the 3rd factor to be granted the bonus density. She said on the land itself, it was discussed with staff and some of the factors were the number of houses on the alley and the traffic that would generate. She said the ordinance talks about private streets and limits the number of houses allowed. These streets front on 3000 and 2350 and have the alley on the back so it doesnt really fit in our ordinance the way its written, but that is an issue for them to look at and decide if there are too many houses on that long a road, is it a concern for them where the road doesnt go through, there are no provisions cul-de-sacs and hammerheads, which if it were a private road would be required. This is why they went with the public streets and added those streets in, to improve the circulation there. She said those are factors that they need to look at as well. She said some things mentioned by staff such as UPS delivering packages and having to back out should be considered along with the other factors as you are looking to approve or not approve this request. She said this is a zone change and is a legislative act and you have more discretion in making this decision as to whether you recommend approval or not.

MOTION: Commissioner Taylor moved to deny the request for the zone change for The Commons at Little Valley, item 4 A. Commissioner Hullinger seconded it.

VOTING: Two voted aye, Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner Hullinger. The three nays were Commissioner Read, Commissioner Nobis and Acting Chairman Bracken. Motion failed.

Acting Chairman Bracken said we need four votes in order for this to pass. He said it would not pass because of that. He said they have the option to go to City Council, with or without the blessing. He said we could look for a new motion, but he doesnt know if it will change much.

MOTION: Commissioner Nobis made a motion to approve item 4A. Commissioner Read seconded the motion.

VOTING: Commissioner Read aye, Commissioner Nobis aye, Acting Chairman Bracken aye, Commissioner Taylor nay, and Commissioner Hullinger nay. Motion failed.

Acting Chairman Bracken said they are at the same situation. He said they can take it to City Council.

B. Consider a zone change request to rezone all of Block 30, Plat B from R-1-C (R-1 Conservation) to RCC (Residential Central City). The area consists of approximately 6.2 acres. Located between 300 South and 400 South Streets and between 400 East and 500 East Streets. Mr. and Mrs. Nicks applicants. McNeil Engineering representative. Case No. 2010-ZC-003.

Craig Harvey presented this request. He stated that the purpose of the zone change request is to change Block 30 to RCC to better conform to the adjacent zoning. This is the only block zoned R-1-C. Additionally, Mr. Nicks would like to build a duplex on his property and the current R-1-C zoning does not allow new multi-family units to be built. RCC zoning would permit a duplex on his property with a Conditional Use Permit. Staff recommends approval.

Photos were shown as well as a comparison of the R-1-C zone to the RCC Zone. Craig stated that the General Plan shows medium density residential which allows 5-9 dwelling units per acre, which is typical of most of the RCC zone. Mr. and Mrs. Nicks came into the office and it was mentioned that they would need to get consent of the property owners. They managed to get 55% of the property owners, which equates to 20 property owners. They signed a petition for the change. Craig said the purpose for the change is also to make block 30 conform to the adjacent zoning, the RCC. Mr. Nicks would like to build a duplex on the property and the current R-1-C does not allow a new multi-family unit to be built. RCC zoning would permit a duplex on his property if he submits a conditional use permit and goes through the architectural standards that are required by the RCC zone.

Mr. Clay Tolbert from McNeil Engineering came to the podium. The reason for doing this is that the Nicks own a vacant piece of property and they would like to build a duplex on it. By changing the zone they would have more flexibility to do this.

Commissioner Nobis asked Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston how one landowner can petition in behalf of all land owners in the block to rezone their property.

Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said State Law allows it. The applicant has the right to make the petition and they all have the right to appeal and to state their opinion on whether it should or should not be approved. Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston said even if it is approved, their property rights continue as they are; they become a legal non-conforming use at that point. It does not force them to change what they are doing with their property.

Commissioner Nobis clarified that anything new they did would have to comply with the new zoning and Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston stated that was correct.

Commissioner Taylor questioned when you ask for zone changes on a property dont you have to get the majority of the landowners where the zone change occurs or can one person push a change for an entire group of people?

Clay Tolbert said that they do have a petition was signed by 55 % of the owners.

Commissioner Taylor said that is less than half of the total owners. He thought that they are probably looking at 55% of the residents but many of those residents are in units that are owned by one owner/landlord.

Craig Harvey stated that he verified the names on the properties and there are six or seven parcels that are owned by one owner only.

Acting Chairman Bracken opened the hearing to the public.

Darlene Larson came to the podium. She said the Nicks came to her home first for the petition. She said their story is appealing and heart wrenching. They bought the home, are now in over their heads, and they say that the only way out is to build this double unit. Several years ago the housing around them for sale turned into college housing. She said we went to the City and they were the ones that encouraged them to do this particular zone. Her block approved this. The Nicks bought the lot with the R-1-C zone and they were aware of the zone when they bought it, but their comment was that zones are made to be changed. Darlene stated that she feels bad for them and for the many other people in the town that are upside down on their homes, but she wants to fight for her block. They feel strongly about their block and it is their neighborhood. Some of them have been there over 40 years and want to preserve their neighborhood. She brought two letters with her that she will present and there are four people on the block who have changed their minds, plus they are gathering the rest of the signatures. Once the people on the block realized it could be done on any pieces of property on their block, they started changing their mind. They dont want more multiple housing. She hopes that the Nicks can do something with their property and she is sorry that it turned out the way it did. She said she cant imagine buying a home not checking it out first and realizing that it cant be restored. They didnt know that ahead of time and it is tragedy that they didnt check and realize that the foundation was falling apart and that it was full of asbestos and couldnt be restored. She feels bad about that. She would like to ask the Commissioners to consider not changing their zone and letting them keep their neighborhood as it is. They have enough property on which they could build a duplex but they said no, they dont want another duplex on this block, we want single family houses and want their block protected.

Commissioner Taylor asked if Craig could put a copy of the chart in their packets onto the screen and the response was yes. Commissioner Taylor said he thinks they need to understand that you have to have 10,000 sq. ft. to build a duplex. Craig explained that current single family homes on the block cannot be converted to a duplex. Commissioner Taylor went on to say that if you look at those lots, only one other one would have more than 10,000 sq. ft. He said the residents need to understand that. He said even if the zone change occurs it would only affect two possible lots on that block.

Commissioner Nobis asked if a home was demolished could it be rebuilt as a duplex and the Craigs answer was they came in for a conditional use permit and if their lot is at least 10,000 sq. ft., yes they could.

Candace Lewis came to the podium. She lives at 332 S 500 East and she says she has a pretty big lot. Acting Chairman Bracken said that is the other lot we just discussed. She said this would affect her and she said that she pays dearly every month for her house and she would like every right that she has coming to her. She said she thinks that they are the only block in St. George with that color on the zoning map. She asked what makes them so special. She said that is not consistent at all. She said this is really about duplexes. She said if her house burned down, maybe she would like to have a duplex. Maybe shed be in a mother-in-law situation. She loves her house, her block and her neighbors and she doesnt want to cause contention. She said she doesnt know the applicants other than her signing the petition and she feels for them and thinks that they should have the right to put it in. She said it is a lovely design, a good lot and has two accesses. She thinks it makes good sense to infill downtown and not put subdivisions out in the country. She thinks this is good planning. She bought in 2005 and she wants to hold the value on her property. She said it is evident that the applicants made every effort to sell and have lost value that they could have had with that right. They have reduced and reduced the price and have had a huge sign on their property almost as long as she lived there and it wont sell. She would appreciate it if they would be consistent and change them back where they belong. She would like to submit that if people are changing their minds, its because theyre getting notes taped on their front door. She said she signed the petition knowing full well what she was signing and what she was doing.

Dick Warner came to the podium. He is one of the condo owners in the Temple Townhome Condos, and when the petition first came around, his name could be one of the first ones putting his name on it approving it because he saw no reason for a duplex to be built in the area. They did not tell him that when they change the zoning in here, this would include the entire block. He said if they had told him he would not have signed it. He rescinds his name from there. He said it does effect everyone that is in that block. He feels that this is a one family dwelling and it should defiantly stay that way. He encourages the Council to disapprove of the change of the zoning and keep it as single family dwellings. He said when you plant one seed you will get many after. When you look down the road six, seven years and the owners of the duplex decide to move, this will become another rental and we have enough rentals in that area right now and we dont need to add more. He wants them to vote against the changing of the zoning and keep it as a one family dwelling.

Jim Nicks came to the podium. He said when they took this petition around we explained to each and every individual what they were doing. He said we did not misrepresent anything to anyone. Mr. Warners name is not on the petition because he was not available at that time. His son was visiting him, however his wife did sign the petition because she thought it was a provident use of the property. Mr. Nicks said when they bought the property, they didnt investigate it as thoroughly as they should have and they take full responsibility for that, but they dealt with a person who had deep ties to the community and they thought he could be trusted, and they are ending up paying the price for it. Mr. Nicks said they would like to be able to put a duplex on the property; they have family that they hope would be able to move into that with them. He said they have a daughter that is divorced with her children and they would like to provide that shelter for her because of her situation. He said with construction costs being what they are today, finding comparable properties in the neighborhood that would support an appraisal of what it would cost to build a single family home on that property would not happen. Right now they would need to let the land lie fallow for that period of time and it costs them several hundreds of dollars a year in taxes and maintenance to keep the weeds down which the City requires and which they comply with. He said he is sorry that people have decided to change their minds. He said they went over the letter with them asking if they would like to sign because we would like to have the block changed. He said this was recommended to them by the planning people because they thought it would be a more efficient use of it since this is the only block in the City with this restrictive zoning.
Their whole intent was to be able to provide a better dwelling on the property than fallow ground because that is not doing anyones property value any good.

Acting Chairman Bracken closed the hearing.

Commissioner Read said to him it is clear what we need to do. He doesnt think there has been any misrepresentation done, but based on people changing their mind he is not sure they have the percentage under Utah law to move the petition forward, so his suggestion