Planning Commission Minutes

Tuesday, April 13,2010



PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ST. GEORGE
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH
April 13, 2010 5:00 P.M.

PRESENT: Acting Chairman Ron Bracken Councilman Ben Nickle
Commissioner Ross Taylor
Commissioner Mike Nobis
Commissioner Ron Read
Commissioner Chapin Burks


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

ABSENT: Commissioner Kim Campbell
Commissioner Julie Hullinger

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. EASEMENT ABANDONMENT / LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT

Consider a request for approval of an easement abandonment and a lot line adjustment within a recorded subdivision. Lot 32 of Artesia Terrace and Lot 7 of Augustus Point. Located at 1619 North Artesia Drive. Rosenberg Associates representative. Case No. 2010-LLA-004.

Project Manager Todd Jacobsen presented this request. He stated that the purpose of this Easement Abandonment/Lot Line Adjustment is;

The current owners of each Lot want to square up their property, right now they are skewed (almost in the shape of a triangle)
A new easement will be given along the location of the adjusted lot line

All aspects of this Easement Abandonment/Lot Line Adjustment were carefully looked at, reviewed and approved by J.U.C., Planning Department staff, Development Services Department staff, and Legal Department staff and it meets all of the conditions and approvals.

This Easement Abandonment/Lot Line Adjustment is ready for Planning Commissions consideration for approval.

MOTION: Commissioner Nobis made a motion to approve item # 1. Commissioner Burks seconded the motion. All voted aye, motion passes.

2. CONSENT ITEM FINAL PLAT

Consider approval of an agricultural subdivision final plat for Springs Pasture. Located west of the Springs estates subdivision, east of the Virgin River, and north of 1450 South in the OS (Open Space) zone. Mr. Brandon Anderson, Rosenberg Associates, is the representative. Case No. 2010-FP-002.

Project Manager Todd Jacobsen presented this request. The purpose of this Subdivision is to give individual owners ownership of the parcels as laid out and shown on the plat. The current ownership is under an association and everyone wants private ownership as individuals, not as an association. The owners also know and understand that these parcels are for livestock only, and not for residential purposes. Access is granted to all parcels along the easterly boundary of this subdivision as shown.

This property just went through a zone change. The ownership would like to break this into eight parcels, so that each owner has his own parcel and they are aware of the restrictions of the OS zoning.

All aspects of this Final Plat was carefully looked at, reviewed and approved by J.U.C., Planning Department staff, Development Services Department staff, and Legal Department staff and it meets all of the conditions and approvals.

This Easement Abandonment/Lot Line Adjustment is ready for Planning Commissions consideration for approval.

MOTION: Commissioner Nobis made a motion to approve item #2 and authorize the chairman to sign. Commissioner Taylor seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.

3. LOT SPLIT

Consider permission to split a 5.469 acre parcel into four large residential lots for Wells Acres. Three lots will be approximately 40,000 square feet

each and one will be approximately 85,000 square feet. The property is located at the southwest corner of 2000 South Street and 3430 East Street. The zoning is A-1 (Agricultural 40,000 square foot minimum lot size). The
owner and applicant is Mr. Travis Wells. The representative is Mr. Randy Freston II. The surveyor is Mr. Roger Bundy. Case No. 20109-LS-002.

Development Services Manager Jay Sandberg presented this request. He stated that the applicant is building a home on the larger lot and they want to further subdivide their property into three one acre parcels. Jay said because the code allows lots to be split, this is really an exemption for plats less than ten lots. A lot split is the division of one parcel into ten or less parcels and only involves property that is not within a recorded subdivision. This property is not within a recorded subdivision. They are required to dedicate the roads that are future Master Plan roads, fully improve the frontage where the house they are building is on the larger lot, sign a delayed improvement agreement for the other lots until such time as a building permit is obtained and they waive their right to oppose a special improvement district. He said typically if improvements are going in around them, they would be given notice and be asked to put those improvements in. They will need their plans to be approved by the JUC.

Jay said this is a hybrid; it is a cross between a subdivision and only issuing one building permit on the parcel. Jay said we have done four of these in the area over the past three or four years. He said it seems to work out well for the applicant and the City.

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.

The applicant shall prepare deeds for the four 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. Development Services requires that the owner execute and record a delay improvement agreement for each parcel, and dedicate the adjacent master-planned roadways (2000 South Street and 3430 East Street). Utility plans (JUC) for the parcels are also required.

The applicant has met and received approval from the Joint Utilities Committee (JUC).

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.



MOTION: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to approve item #3 lot split with the staff comments included in the motion. Commissioner Nobis seconded the motion. All voted aye, motion passes.

4. REDUCED SETBACK

Consider the reduction of the required side yard setback of ten feet (10) located along the east property line to a zero foot (-0-) side yard setback. This request is to allow the construction of an additional service bay for an automotive tire store. The project is Sunrise Tire addition and remodel. Mr. Travis Graff is the representative. The site is located at 390 North Red Cliffs Drive. The property is zoned C-2 (Highway Commercial). Case No. 2010-RS-001.

Ray Snyder presented this request and photos were shown. Ray stated that they would like to have a fifth bay at their existing location. It would be right at the property line, which is why you have that odd shape. The existing main building is 5,054.7 square feet.

Chapter 19 Off Street Parking Requirements, Section 10-19-5 Nonresidential Area Requirements requires the following ratio for the automotive repair and supply category; one (1) parking space for each 400 square feet of gross floor area. The total square footage would be 6,078.7/400 = 15 spaces required. The site plan indicates 28 parking spaces on site plus there will be one space for each of the bays which is another 5 spaces (28+5 = 33). There is also an un-stripped parking area at the north end of the property. It appears there is adequate parking on site.

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.

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. A reduced setback is only acted upon by the Planning Commission (no CC action required).

Ray said the applicant is present for any questions they may have.

Commissioner Nobis asked if the applicant has gone to the JUC at this point.


Jay Sandberg said that as a matter of practice, we always take set back requests through the JUC. There are no utility conflicts there and he went on to say that there are no hillside cuttings.

Commissioner Taylor questioned if there would be adequate drainage from the toe of the slope and does it drain anywhere besides where the business it.

Travis said the addition will be sitting on concrete that already exists there. The drainage will remain the same. The drainage from the north side will need to drain around the front of the building and the drainage from the back does drain to the west. The building should not affect drainage anymore than what is currently there does.

MOTION: Commissioner Nobis made a motion to approve item # 4. Commissioner Burks seconded it. All voted aye, motion passes.

5. WIRELESS MASTER PLAN

Consider a request for a Wireless Development Master Plan. The applicant is Desert Canyons Development. Mr. Curt Gordon is the representative. The location of three sites is proposed. Case No. 2010-WMP-001.

Ray Snyder presented this request. He showed the locations on the map behind the Commissioners as well as showing photos. He said these are conceptual areas. Ray said the applicant will later elaborate. Ray explained that this is a two step process.

Site #1; Located in the south part of the city between the Replacement Airport and the Arizona border. Its approximately 2.5 miles south of the Replacement Airport terminal. The property is about one acre (1 ac.) in size and is situated on a knoll part way up the north aspect of Little Black Mountain. The elevation is approximately 3150 feet while Little Black Mountain rises an additional 350 feet to its peak elevation of 3500 feet. The site is visually mitigated by the backdrop of Little Black Mountain.

Site #2; Located on Meadow Farms property in Little Valley near the Replacement Airport. The site parallels the air traffic pattern of the new airport. It is about one-half acre (1/2 ac.) in size. This site is critical for providing a wireless relay to Site #1. In addition it would provide wireless service to the Replacement Airport and surrounding development areas. The site is on the ridge at an elevation of approximately 2970 feet. Airport ridge rises an additional 104 feet to its peak. The site is visually mitigated by the backdrop of Airport ridge which is about 100 feet higher than the base of Site #2.

Site #3; Located on the Tonaquint ridge property which is located on the ridge between Bloomington and Tonaquint Valley at an elevation of approximately 2920 feet. It is about one-half acre (1/2 ac.) in size.

Ray went over the proposed:

Site #1; This site could contain several wireless communication facilities varying in height from fifty feet (50) to one hundred feet (100). Wireless service providers would co-locate. Access would be provided directly from the Southern Parkway on an existing two-track service road which goes to the top of Little Black Mountain. The existing service road would be extended approximately 2,000 feet. A water tank is also planned near site #1 and would share the service road. The site is relatively flat requiring minimal grading. This site would require a relay site and site #2 would be that relay site.

Site #2; This site could contain several wireless facilities varying in height from fifty feet (50) to one hundred feet (100). Wireless service providers would co-locate. Access is provided from Banded Hills Drive, the roadway that provides access to the General Aviation side of the Replacement Airport. The proposed site will require some grading. The access road would be constructed as a gravel road to minimize disturbance.

Site #3; This site could contain several wireless facilities varying in height from fifty feet (50) to one hundred feet (100). Wireless service providers would co-locate. Access is through the Tonaquint Ridge Planned Development and would utilize an existing two-track road to the area. Minimal grading is proposed.

Ray stated that the zoning is:

1. R-1-10 (under the Desert Canyons Master Plan)
2. ASBP (Airport Zoning)
3. R-1-40

Title 10, Section 22 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities, Section 10-22-3 (A) Required: A site location development master plan shall be submitted by each company desiring placement of wireless telecommunication facilities. The development master plan shall be submitted and accepted by the Planning Commission prior to the processing of any permits for permitted or conditional use locations.

Title 10, Section 22 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities, Section 10-22-3 (B) Future Amendments: Future amendments of a significant nature to each companys development master plan shall be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to approval of additional facility location. The development master plan shall show approximate locations of future facilities, and provide specific locations when possible, but are not required to detail the specific type (i.e., pole, roof, wall mount) of facility. The Community Development Director shall determine whether changes in the development master plan are significant enough to require Planning Commission review.

Title 10, Section 22 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities, Section 10-22-3 (C) Facility Types: Monopole With Antennas And Antenna Support Structures: The maximum visible width of antennas and antenna mounting structures on a monopole shall not exceed eight feet (8') in height or thirteen feet (13') in width as viewed looking directly at the monopole at the same elevation as the antennas and antenna mounting

structure (see figure 3 attached to the ordinance codified herein and on file in the city office). No such antenna shall be located within one hundred fifty feet (150') of a residential zone unless approved by the planning commission. (1998 Document 26-5; amd. 2003 Code)

The applicant has provided a descriptive three page narrative describing the proposal. The city maintains a Master Plan for each wireless company in the Community Development Department.

This applicant requests permission to establish three (3) independent sites on a proposed new Master Plan for Desert Canyons Development. It is proposed that the three sites would eventually be occupied by more than one tower on each site and that multiple users (co-located) would be on each tower. The goal is to increase coverage of wireless services. The tower(s) conceptually proposed would be steel monopole(s) varying from 50 feet to 100 feet high. Equipment shelter buildings for each client would be required on the site(s). A separate application (CUP) shall be submitted for specific site(s) as required by Section 10-22-5 of the Zoning Ordinance. Appropriate permitting including conditional use permits, hillside permits, and FAA (Federal Aviation Administrative) clearances will be completed before plans for the site are finalized. Note that the maximum tower height permitted by code with an approved CUP is 100 ft. per Section 10-22-7.

Ray said that the Site #3 most concerns staff regarding visibility. Ray pointed out that a Wireless Master Plan only comes before the Planning Commission, not the
City Council.

Staff comments include the following:

The city maintains a Master Plan for each wireless company in the Community Development Department.

This applicant requests permission to establish three (3) independent sites on a proposed new Master Plan for Desert Canyons Development.

It is proposed that the three sites would eventually be occupied by more than one tower on each site and that multiple users (co-located) would be on each tower.

The goal is to increase coverage of wireless services.

The tower(s) conceptually proposed would be steel monopole(s) varying from 50 feet to 100 feet high.

Equipment shelter buildings for each client would be required on the site(s).



A separate application (CUP) shall be submitted for specific site(s) as required by Section 10-22-5 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Appropriate permitting including conditional use permits, hillside permits, and FAA (Federal Aviation Administrative) clearances will be completed before plans for the site are finalized.

Note that the maximum tower height permitted by code with an approved CUP is 100 ft. per Section 10-22-7.

Curt Gordon, applicant, came to the podium. He stated he is with Desert Canyons and he added that their Desert Canyons Master Plan is entitled for 6700 units and there is no cell service out there right now, so in addition to serving the airport, it would provide service to their zoned Master Plan area. He explained that punchbowl labeled on the drawings does mean that there is no service. He would appreciate their support and he is here for any questions they may have.

Commissioner Read asked about the Site # 3 Tonaquint area site and Curt responded that this would help with service in Sun River. He said there are five major carriers and up to nine carriers in the area that could use service, so you allow four carriers on one pole and there are just not enough structures to carry all of the providers that are out there. He said this site is not as important to them, but they felt that they wanted to include it if there was potential to utilize that.

Commissioner Read asked if the site could be pushed back from the ridge at the Tonaquint location, still get service and reduce visibility.

Curt said that would be on their specific site plan and they could talk about that.

Commissioner Burks questioned if there is a maximum number of carriers on each of these sites and Curt said he would expect it would be two. He said there are five major carriers right now and the City allows only four to be located on one tower. They are trying to accommodate five to nine, so they would need to have two towers. He said a second tower would only have to be high enough to accommodate as many carriers as they could fit. The second tower would not be as high as the first tower on a location. He said you would probably end up with a 100 ft. tower and then a 60 ft. tower.

Commissioner Taylor mentioned the Little Black Mountain site and the fact that it is the site of some interesting petroglyphs. He asked how the use of that mountain would impact that and if he aware of the petroglyphs that surround that mountain.

Curt responded that they are aware of them. He said on the south side of the mountain is the BLM park and trail heads and you would not be able to see the tower from that site. You can only see the tower when you get on the north side of Little Black Mountain.


Commissioner Taylor asked if there are petrogryphs or areas on interest on the north side. Curt responded that there are a few minor ones that they have actually taken action to protect. They are set aside and there will be parks around those areas.

MOTION: Commissioner Read made a motion to approve this. For clarification he would like site # 3 to be moved back from the hill so that it is not visible from Bloomington. He would not like them to come back after spending money to plan everything for a certain site on the hill face and come back and want them to approve it right there because he already spent a bunch of money. He said that may even help with additional locations out in the Green Valley area. Commissioner Burks seconded the motion. All voted aye, motion passes.

6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Consider a request to permit an open gym as a conditional use under the Recreational Enterprise category in Section 10-11-2 in the M-2 zone at the Millcreek Industrial Park. The business would be called eXtreme Combat. Case No, 2010-CUP-001.

Ray Snyder stated that the applicant came in to staff a few hours ago and asked that this be withdrawn. This may come back in a few months, however for now it is not feasible for the applicant to pursue it.

7. ZONE CHANGE REQUESTS PUBLIC HEARINGS (5:00 P.M.)

A. Consider a zone change request to rezone all of Block 30, Plat B, St George Survey 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.
(Note: This item was tabled at the March 23, 2010 PC meeting)

Craig Harvey presented this request. This had been tabled the last Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Read had requested that a new petition be sent around that was City approved and a copy of the petition has been included in this staff report. There was a section on the petition that they could sign for or against this request.

Craig stated that Deputy City Attorney Paula Houston did look into this and there is no requirement in the State Law that says they have to have a majority of the residents on the block to sign a petition to say yea. Craig said it can be initiated by one individual for a zone changes. He went on to say that the only time a petition is required is when there is a referendum or some similar action that affects a larger area.

Acting Chairman Bracken said it looks like there are 38 residents and they have 16 yes.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said that to elaborate further on this, it is correct what Craig said. The petition is something that can be considered by the Planning Commission. How much weight you want to give it is up to them, but it is not anything that is required by law.

Acting Chairman Bracken said we need to be aware that we do not have fifty percent of the votes here at this point.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth suggests that they can give it whatever weight they would like to; the standard for this type of thing is what is in the best interest of the City and is it a reasonable request.

Craig stated that City staff does support this change. He also said the applicant is here if there are any questions.

Acting Chairman Bracken invited the applicant to come forward.

James Nicks came to the podium and introduced himself.

Commissioner Nobis had a question regarding the owner of 317 S. and if this is Mrs. Larson who was here last time. He asked if white on the chart means neither yes nor no.

James Nicks stated that she would not sign the petition. She had been involved in the original zoning change to the R-1-C zoning and she perhaps had remorse after the last meeting and she chose not to come tonight or was here momentarily at least, but she is not here now. She stated to him that she was neither here nor there at that point. He said they gave her to opportunity to sign against the petition, which they knew she was against it, but she chose not to do that at that point. Based on that, she didnt want to influence any of the other people because of her stature on the block also.

Commissioner Burks wanted to know about the white blocks on the graph meaning no response and he wanted to know if the people did not respond for any specific reason.

Mr. Nicks said Larsons owned one or two up there (317 & 412). Those are family properties that had been there quite a while. He said 495 E decided that she would not sign at that point due to the letter that was around after their last time of taking it around. They were able to get Candace Stewart to sign this time. Mr. Neuman at 423 was not able to be caught at home. 438, 436 and 476 E 300 S had no one at home when he went by and he did go by several times. He said he knows the lady at 362 is against it, however after checking multiple times; he was not able to make contact with her to sign the petition either. The one at 400 E that changed is because the wife said yes and the husband said no. The one that is in the townhouses there, the wife said yes and the husband said no, he is the one that expressed his desires last time also. The lady on 300 E changed her mind; there is a building going in next to her, a garage and shop, and she is



thinking its a monstrosity and decided that she doesnt want to support any changes on the block at that point.

Commissioner Taylor said that he knows that Mr. Nicks and his wife signed this and he asked if they are separate property owners.

Mr. Nicks responded that no, they are together, it is just that there is also one other couple that signed on there that are buying the property as a contract for deed, so it is recorded under another owner, so they signed that they are for it. It is the same thing with them, they are together and the property is together.

Craig mentioned that Sharon James, the one that they werent able to get the signature for, did submit a letter that she was against it and Constance Stewart who has the property just next to that and did sign the petition did send in her letter and both of these are included in the packet.

The hearing was opened to the public.

Candy Lewis from 332 S 500 E came to the podium, saying that she is back. She said is passionate about land use rights, so please forgive her if she gets all shook up. She has been shaking her head for five years about this, wondering why their block is so special and why the special zoning. She thought it doesnt matter, but it does matter because it has really put the Nicks in a bad position. She feels bad for them. It has cost the Nicks a lot to time, money and stress and that it is time to fix it. She said it clearly is inconsistent with the rest of downtown and as long as no one complained she can see why it was left this way, but it is clear there is a good reason to fix it. She said what bothers her most about this zoning is that it takes away the Nicks right to come in and ask for a conditional use permit. They should enjoy the same rights as everyone else living down town. She said there is no reason that they cant even ask, if there is a reason their duplex shouldnt go there, then you would deny it. They arent even given a right to the process. She said that is what bothers her a lot about this zoning and is probably why it was abandoned before it went any further.

The hearing was closed to the public when no one else came forward

Acting Chairman Bracken asked legal if they do put a duplex there, do they have to have it brought up to standards.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said if it is new construction, they need to bring it up to standards.

Acting Chairman Bracken asked about architectural standards needing to be looked at and Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said there are requirements within the


RCC zone. It is one of the more restrictive residential zones in the City. He went on to say that Bob or Craig could comment on this more, being Planners.

Commissioner Taylor asked Bob to clarify something. He thinks that in the RCC zone, if the property is over 10,000 ft., they can build a duplex and if the property is over 12,000 sq. ft. they can have a triplex and that multiple housing goes up from there. He asked if this was correct.

Community Development Director Bob Nicholson said that the RRC zone requires 10,000 sq. ft. for a duplex and other density based on the General Plan designation and these blocks and most of the old part of town, but not all, but a good share, is medium density, which is technically up to nine units per acre. The RCC zone does have design standards for all housing, duplex included and greater. Bob said there are even design standards for single family. He added that there are definitely some in place for the multi-family.

Commissioner Taylor went on to say that the idea that there are only four lots on the block that could be duplex lots, it is possible that by merge you could get quite a few more multiple family units on the block. Commissioner Taylor wanted to be sure that statement was correct, that if they merged two lots they could build a four-plex or something of that nature.

Bob said some of those are already built, obviously. He thinks its pretty limited to the amount of development that could occur on this block and that some of you know the history of this. It was part of the down zoning from about ten years ago, when Gloria Shakespeare was the chairperson that helped initiate this down zoning. Some of the blocks were zoned R-2, R-3. This block was the only one zoned R-1-C. When it was taken to other areas, there was a resistance from property owners saying no, that eliminates some possibilities that they didnt think was fair. The committee then came back and created the RCC zone which was put in place for most of the old parts.

Commissioner Taylor asked how we missed this block and Bobs response was this was the first one zoned R-1-C and as the idea of taking it to another block came forward, there was some resistance. R-1-C is effectively an R-1-8 single family only zone. Some of those property owners that had R-2 or R-3, said no that was taking away their property rights.

MOTION: Commissioner Burks made a motion to recommend approval of item #7A, a zone change. Commissioner Nobis seconded the motion.

VOTING: Commissioner Burks, aye, Commissioner Nobis aye, Commissioner Read aye, Acting Chairman Bracken aye, Commissioner Taylor nay.

Motion passes. 4 ayes, one nay.


B. Consider a zone change request on a portion of parcel SG-6-3-14-410 (also known as Lot 5A) in Bloomington from the OS (Open Space) zone to the R-1-10 (Single family Residential 10,000 square foot minimum lot size). Located at 1443 Fairway Road. Mr. Paul Linford applicant. Case No. 2010-ZC-005.

Craig Harvey presented this request. He stated that the purpose of the zone change request is to change a portion of the applicants lot from Open Space to R-1-10, so the applicant can build a structure on that portion of his lot. The applicant is asking to change the entire OS zoned portion to R-1-10; however the applicant is also willing to accept just rezoning 30 feet of the OS portion. Photos were shown by Craig.

The Planning Commission has two options to consider if recommending approval:

OPTION #1: Rezone the entire Open Space portion of the lot to R-1-10.

OPTION #2: Rezone only approximately 30 feet of the OS portion to R-1-10 as indicated on the survey exhibit as the Alternate Zone Change Area

A graphic was shown of the proposed structure from an aerial view as an optional zone change. There is a 30 ft. drainage easement on the property. Craig stated that Mr. Linford cannot build on the drainage easement at all.

Craig said there is a difference of grade on the property, so the structure would not be more than six feet above ground, would not even be viewable from the street and would not obstruct views from the adjacent residences.

Commissioner Burks said that a number of years ago, Bloomington Country Club owned a lot of property that they sold off. Commissioner Burks asked if this was one of the pieces of property.

Craig responded that yes this was one of those lots. There were two lots, 5A and 5B, that four owners before Mr. Linford came in to legally merge the lots together to make it into one lot. The owner prior to Mr. Linford built the home on the property and as you can see the home itself takes up almost all of the entire lot, the buildable area, which doesnt allow for any additional structures, such as a shed or a gazebo. These are things that the other residents in Bloomington could enjoy, but he is not able to, at no fault of the applicant.

Commissioner Burks said at the time the Country Club sold that, Bloomington town council passed architectural controls. He said when the Country Club sold these properties, they did not include them in that area. He asked if this has been done at any point.



Craig responded that to his knowledge it has not been done and Mr. Linford said that the Bloomington CCRs do not apply to his property. Craig said that from the research he has done, he has not found that the CCRs apply to this property.

Commissioner Nobis said he thought a deed restriction was placed on a lot by the Country Club saying you could not build a structure in the open space.

Craig said there were two other lots that had that a deed restriction placed on the lot by the Country Club. This property does not have any such easement on the deed that he could find. Craig said he had Lonnie Bowler, at the City, look into this on this lot and they could not find any no-build restriction on this lot specifically. He thinks it is because it was two different lots at one time that were merged and when they were merged the City or the Country Club didnt place a restriction on them because they were two separate lots and now they are just one lot.

Bob Nicholson came to the podium and said years ago eight lots came for approval and only three lots got approval. The other lots were denied based on the input they received. Bob stated that this was one of the three lots that did get the zone change.

The hearing was opened to the public.

John Lowney from 3350 Fairway Rd came to the podium to say he has a concern on this turning into R-1-10. He said that this has been a green zone for 20 years. He questioned if Mr. Linford wanted to turn this into R-1-10, which is almost 13,000 sq. ft.

Craig responded that was correct.

Mr. Lowney said then he could easily build a residence there.

Craig replied Mr. Linford could not build another home on the property; you would only be able to have one house on the property.

John asked what if he wanted to split the property because that is his concern. He said Mr. Johnson and Mr. Hill are concerned about their view. He went on to say that Mr. Linford had them sign some sort of a petition and he knows that Mr. Johnson was confused because he thought they were putting in something like a park like setting. Mr. Lowney said perhaps he was confused. Mr. Lowney said he doesnt think it would be wise to rezone that whole area to R-1-1. He said at the very most, he would think you would let him do a little bit close to his house and let him build a garage or whatever he is going to put there. He went on to say that there is an area now on which apparently this building is going to go because it looks like it has already been excavated for a building. Mr. Lowney said he also talked to Theresa who is the General Manager of the Country Club and she told him that a letter was not received by her. He asked if the Bloomington Country Club was not considered to be within 500 ft. of this request.


A representative from the Bloomington Country Club was present in the audience and he stated that a letter had been received.

John Lowney said that Mr. Linford already has a three car garage. A large trailer is always parked in the driveway and there are several pick up trucks. He built a slab on the west side of his building and is storing a camper shell is there now. His comments are that it would be very short sited to turn this whole area to R-1-10. He said he can see four or five years down the road that someone else takes this property over and they find a way to divide the property and they stick a house up there. He thinks there was a reason they zoned this Open Space at one time and we should respect what they were trying to do 20 years ago. He said as far as he is concerned there are plenty of storage rentals in St. George and Washington County and if he wanted to store recreational vehicles he would find one of those instead of disturbing the neighbors.

No one else came forward, so the hearing was closed and Acting Chairman Bracken asked if there were any comments or questions from the Commissioners.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth commented that if the Commissioners are inclined to rezone all of that area to R-1-10, due to the fact that there is a drainage easement you would make that part of any zone change so that it would remain a no build zone. He questioned if this was not a flood plain.

Craig Harvey responded that he did not know that answer and Jay Sandberg answered that it was not a flood plain.

Paul Linford came to the podium and said that he appreciates this opportunity. He said Mr. Lowney spoke of Mr. Johnson, his neighbor across the street. Paul said he has taken him over to his house to see exactly what he is doing and he was pleased with it. Paul said he could put up a four foot or six foot fence across there and that would block their view, but he is not doing that. Mr. Johnsons view is not obstructed from his position. He knows of no ones view that will be obstructed. Paul Linford went on to say that with regards to the camper shell down by the side of his house that is just temporary while he uses his pick up truck to get repairs on it. It is hurting no one but him because it is in his way right now. He said the trailer in his front yard will be stored somewhere else once he is finished reconfiguring the shelving in it. It is not something permanent and so far he has not had any complaints. He has had comments on the landscaping that they are doing and all of that area south of the structure will be desert landscape and as far as he knows Mr. Hanks, his neighbor is right up there against the golf course and he has a little piece of property. Mr. Linford said what is the difference, his house or another house there. He said obviously they cannot build another house there; it would devalue that whole property for anyone to do that. There is an easement there that would restrict the size of the lots. He said this is just inconsistent with the rest of the lots in the area.

Commissioner Burks asked if he would be in agreeable to option B, with the 30 ft.


Mr. Linford said yes, he would be agreeable to it, but it would be nice to have the whole thing since he is spending the money to landscape it, water it, take are of it and make it a nice aesthetic view.

Commissioner Nobis said he sees there is option #1 and option # 2 and he questioned since the structure will only overlap into the Open Space parcel 2-4 ft. why cant we just rezone the part that is going to overlap instead of 30 ft. or the whole thing?

Bob Nicholson said there would be a side yard setback problem if that were done. The side yard set back should be in the R-1-10, not in Open Space. They would need 8 ft. for the side yard. A dwelling can not be built into the open space zone.

Commissioner Taylor stated that a small portion of the house is currently sitting in the OS zone, so we would be resolving that problem too.

Acting Chairman Bracken asked if the 30 ft. in option 2 would be enough and it was determined that they would need at least 51 ft.

Paul said when they put in a retaining wall it had to be moved 1 ft. to avoid hitting a water line, so this is now 13 ft from the house.

Commissioner Read asked Bob Nicholson if they need to have 10 ft. in the side yard.

Bob said under definition of a lot it says the parcel of land comprising a lot for development purposes under this may include additional land from any zone other than OS. Open Space property added parcel shall not be considered as part of the lot for determination of setbacks. You cannot build up to the OS zone and say my space is in the open space area.

Craig stated that Ried Pope drew up the description and Craig feels that it is right as it is listed in the plan. He said it would need to be extended out more to meet that requirement. Craig said the notice that went to the newspaper and was sent to the neighbors said a portion of the open space lot, so it is whatever you determine the distance can be. It doesnt have to be just one of these two; it can be something else too.

Assistant City Attorney Joseph Farnsworth said the Planning Commission can always make a recommendation to City Council to recommend approval with this modification or subject to these changes, and then the City Council can say yea or nay to that or change it themselves.








MOTION: Commissioner Read made a motion to approve the zone change based on the dimensions of 13 ft. that Mr. Linford said he has poured already on the pad rather than the 12 ft. on the plan, the 24 plus ft. that he needs for the building itself, the 8 ft. side yard and the 4 ft. that encroaches or whatever the amount is that it encroaches already, just the bare minimum to meet those dimensions. If Mr. Popes legal description already encompasses this we will use that legal and if he needs to add onto it, he adds whatever is appropriate to get the side yard. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. All voted aye, motion passes.

MOTION TO ADJOURN: Commissioner Taylor made a motion to adjourn. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Read. All voted aye, motion passes. The time was 6: 30 p.m.