Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Commission Minutes 11/14/2017

Tuesday, November 14,2017



PLANNING COMMISSION

CITY OF ST. GEORGE

WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH

November 14, 2017

 

 

PRESENT:    Commissioner Summer Barry

Commissioner Don Buehner

Chair Nathan Fisher

Commissioner Dannielle Larkin

Commissioner Roger Nelson

Commissioner David Brager

Commissioner Todd Staheli

 

CITY STAFF: Assistant Public Works Director Wes Jenkins

                        Planning Manager John Willis

                        Planner II Ray Snyder

                        Assistant City Attorney Victoria Hales

                        Development Office Supervisor Genna Singh

 

EXCUSED:  Commissioner Todd Staheli

 

Chair Fisher called the meeting to order at 5:04 pm.

Commissioner Buehner led the flag salute.

 

John Willis noted that the Green Valley general plan amendment and the 1400 East Riverside general plan amendment will not be heard tonight and will be noticed prior to being heard.

 

1.                  ZONE CHANGES (ZC) (Public Hearings)

 

A.    Consider a zone change from R-1-10 (Single Family Residential 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) to PD-R (Planned Development Residential) on approx. 1.2 acres to accommodate nineteen (19) dwelling units. The project is generally located between Riverside Drive and the Virgin River south of the current terminus of 2450 East Street and is called “Redhawk.” The applicant is Bach Homes and the representative is Mr. Nick Mason. Case No. 2017-ZCA-035 (Staff – John Willis)

 

John Willis presented the following:

 

The current zoning on the property is R-1-10.  It is adjacent to Greyhawk.  The general plan was changed a few years ago to HDR 16-22 units per acre.  The applicant’s proposal is within that HDR range.  The applicant is proposing 19 detached units with the 3’ separation that was recently approved.  The units will face Dinosaur Crossing rather than having a wall and landscaping.  Staff does prefer that option. The other units will face the interior.  They meet the guest parking and required parking standards in the code.  They also meet ordinance for landscaping.  The amenity allotment also meets ordinance, because this will be an expansion of Greyhawk so they will also have access to the amenities there.  That access will need to be part of the motion as a permanent requirement.  This request is also for short term rentals.  Short term rentals would only be permitted in this proposal of 19 units.  Between Greyhawk and this proposal they meet the required unit count and amenity requirement.  Ownership, they must acquire the property and they have consent of the developer so they are the applicant. 

Councilman Bowcutt noted that the distance from the proposal and existing project would not be greater.

John Willis said that an elevation of 41’ is part of this request as well.  The proposal is for 3-story units.  There are 3 and 4 bedroom units proposed.

Councilman Bowcutt asked where the garages are and parking.

John Willis answered that the units have 2-car garages and guest parking is provided.

Chair Fisher asked how the two developers would connect.

John Willis said there would be vehicular access behind the units that front Dinosaur Crossing Drive. There will be a slight modification to Greyhawk to accommodate that access.  Again, the proposed height is to be addressed.  This development should also have permanent access to the use of the amenity in Greyhawk.  The short term rentals in Redhawk depend on that amenity.

 

Victoria Hales asked if the short term rental request is for the 19 units only.

John Willis said that is accurate.

 

Nick Mason, Bach Homes had no additional comments.

Councilman Bowcutt asked if the decision to add this area was because of the ordinance change.

Nick Mason said it is.  I’ve seen a product with that separation work for another developer and wanted to utilize that in this area as well. 

Commissioner Buehner asked for clarification on what building is 41’.

Nick Mason said that 11 of the 19 units would use the higher elevation.  Units 12-19 will be under the 35’.

Chair Fisher asked if the style of 12-19 will be the same.

Nick Mason said they will all match the materials board and elevations.

 

Chair Fisher opened the public hearing.

 

Chair Fisher closed the public hearing.

 

Commissioner Barry asked if Greyhawk is short term rental.

Chair Fisher said they are not. 

 

MOTION: Commissioner Buehner made a motion to recommend approval of Redhawk and include staff’s recommendations and comments 1-5 that specifically address the necessity of permanent access to Greyhawk’s amenities for short term rentals which is limited to the 19 Redhawk units only, and the height limitation of 41’ for 11 of the 19 units. 

SECOND: Commissioner Larkin

AYES (6)

Commissioner Barry

Commissioner Buehner

Chair Fisher

Commissioner Larkin

Commissioner Nelson

Commissioner Brager

NAYS (0)

Motion carries.

 

B.     Consider a zone change from OS (Open Space) to C-2 (Highway Commercial) on approximately 7.2 acres (on 2 parcels). The owners are Mr. Christensen and Mr. Covey and the representative is Mr. Kent Provstgaard. The property is located along the east side of the freeway and north of the existing electrical substation, and is called “Christensen Freeway.” Case No. 2017-ZC-034 (Staff – John Willis)

 

John Willis presented the following:

This property went through a general plan amendment earlier this year from OS to COM.  It is located north of the substation and consists of two parcels.  The current zoning is OS.  There are proposed master plan roads in the area.  The request is for C-2.

 

Commissioner Larkin asked what can be done on the property prior to the road being developed.

Victoria Hales noted that as part of this development the applicant and city have agreed to a development agreement with terms acceptable to the city.  No building or development is permitted on the property until the roadway and utilities are developed.  One billboard total is all that is allowed on the two parcels.  This agreement will need to be recorded on both properties.

Chair Fisher noted that this is not a PD so any property owner can utilize the C-2 zoning and all permitted uses in that zoning classification. 

Victoria Hales added that this is in your broad discretion.  You can recommend approval of the requested zone change, you can modify the request, or deny the request.

Commissioner Barry asked if this is by the Bear Claw Poppy land.

John Willis said that is in the area. 

Commissioner Larkin asked if a billboard can be put in any commercial zone and what our highway frontage is zoned.

John Willis said a billboard can go in any commercial zone if it meets requirements.  The highway frontage is mainly C-2.  If you are within 200’ of the I-15 ROW a building design would need to come to this body for approval.  The use would be approved.  The applicant did not want a PD-C because they don’t have building elevations for the site.

Dannielle Larkin asked if staff feels C-2 is appropriate.

John Willis said that C-2 is appropriate along the highway.  Any building design will have to come back for approval in the future.

Councilman Bowcutt asked if there is a timeline on the frontage road.

John Willis said there is not.  This area will eventually connect to Southblock and connect to Pioneer.

Commissioner Brager asked if it is premature to make this C-2 when this is the entrance to our city.  There are many unknowns here.

Councilman Bowcutt did note that the property doesn’t make sense as residential.

Commissioner Nelson asked if the zone change is necessary for a billboard.

John Willis said yes.

Commissioner Larkin said we’re getting the same result as a PD-C with the freeway proximity so I am comfortable with it.

Bryce Christensen came forward with no comments regarding the proposal.

 

Chair Fisher opened the public hearing.

 

Chair Fisher closed the public hearing.

 

 

MOTION: Commissioner Larkin made a motion to recommend approval to C-2 adopting staff comments regarding the development agreement, only 1 billboard is permitted total, and no buildings or development may be built until the roadways and utilities are developed.

SECOND: Commissioner Nelson

AYES (6)

Commissioner Barry

Commissioner Buehner

Chair Fisher

Commissioner Larkin

Commissioner Nelson

Commissioner Brager

NAYS (0)

Motion carries.

 

2.                  ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT (ZCA)  (Public Hearing)

 

Consider a zone change amendment in the PD-R (Planned Development Residential) zone to develop a townhouse and duplex development in the Desert Canyons project area called “Desert Bluff at Desert Canyons” Located approx. 900 feet east of the intersection of Desert Canyons Parkway and Rim Runner Drive along Desert Canyons Parkway between Desert Canyons Parkway and the Southern Parkway. The owner is Desert Canyons Development, Inc. and the representative is Mr. Curt Gordon. Case No. 2017-ZCA-028 (Staff – John Willis)

 

John Willis presented the following:

This is part of the Desert Canyons Development.  This is in their PD-12 area which is described as 12 units per acre.  Their proposal does meet that approval.  This request is for approval of their elevations and site layout.  Based on the recent code change, they revised their project to utilize the 3’ separation for detached units.  They are below their 12 unit per acre allotment.  They are utilizing a trail area as their recreation area.  They are proposing a tot lot, playground, and barbeque area.  There is also a master plan trail in this area that the city will maintain. The applicant will be required to maintain the landscape strip.  There will need to be a 6’ wall and landscape strip.  They meet the parking requirements as the units have 2-car garages.  All the units will be under 35’ in height. 

 

Commissioner Larkin asked what will be used for the wood slats.

John Willis said the applicant will address.

 

Victoria Hales clarified that the applicant will maintain the interior trail, and parks will maintain the master planned trail.

John Willis said that is accurate.  The trail they maintain is part of their own amenity.

Chair Fisher asked if the trails connect.

John Willis said their trail will connect to the main trail system.  Along with this development they are proposing a rock sign of 48 square feet.  The amenity area must be built prior to 50% of the units being constructed.  The privacy wall and landscaping must be provided along the Parkway.  Dedication of the developer’s trail should be removed, and they are required to maintain the trail along the wash as their amenity. 

Councilman Bowcutt said to the west there is housing.  Will this area be on the same plain?

John Willis said this proposal is lower than the existing by approximately 20’.  The slope will remain as open space area. 

Commissioner Nelson asked if there’s a bridge in the proposal.

John Willis said none of the project is in the floodplain.

 

Stacy Young said the paneling is hardie board and I do not have it with me tonight.  The builder is proposing that the garages are all one door and not two door.

Commissioner Buehner noted the materials board and elevations don’t match.

Commissioner Larkin agreed as the elevations have a lot of color variation.

Councilman Bowcutt noted that there could be a condition that the material’s board match the elevations prior to council.

Commissioner Buehner said he would support a motion that favors the picture elevations rather than the board, as presented, and they need to update the board.

Chair Fisher asked if there is stucco and Spanish tile roof.

Stacy Young said there is stucco and concrete tile.

John Willis noted that the materials board is from the initial submittal and not the updated request for detached units.

 

Chair Fisher opened the public hearing.

 

H John Windish said we closed escrow on October 31st and I heard about this on a facebook group.  We came out here to live, because it was open and single family.  I don’t need higher density right by me.  We have a nice community out there.  There are no other accommodations out there like schools, commercial, or churches.  Higher density means lower priced housing and more homelessness.

Kyle Lorenz said we just purchased in this area as well.  We tried to do our due diligence on what was going to be developed in this area.  Our realtor said the open hillside would go down to the level of the church.  I just paid a lot-premium for a viewshed and that viewshed will be gone if this proposal goes up. My concern is that we can’t get information from the builders as to what is going on.  We want to know what level these will be built at.  There’s a haul road cut in there for material.  The proposal would be right in my view.

Chair Fisher explained that the zoning PD-12 already existed there.  We’re not changing the density approval.  Tonight we’re looking at if this type of development as laid out is appropriate in this area.  We cannot prevent a property owner from developing if their proposal meets ordinance. 

Ryan Day said this was a shock to all of us.  The realtor and excavation company told us everything but multifamily.

Ryan Day continued that we chose this area, because it was open, and a higher density here hurts our plans.  Zoning for schools isn’t here.  My children have to cross Southern Parkway with the construction vehicles and this will add to the traffic.  The school district won’t put a bus stop on our side of the street until next year if we request it.  This should be closer to the freeway rather than by the single family homes.  What is the notification process for this?  No one in our area got notification of this request. 

Victoria Hales noted that a notice of 500’ is sent out as a courtesy.  We also put notice in the paper and on city and state websites.

John Willis added that notices are based on county record so if county record hasn’t been updated you would not be notified.

Ryan Day added that this is a cute proposal but doesn’t match what we have out here.  The development should mesh with our community. 

Brandon Brotwater said the one garage proposal rather than two is preferable. 

Sterling Coons asked if this is long term only or if short term rental is allowed.

Chair Fisher said if rented it has to be 30 days, not short term.

Dave Kline said he moved out to Desert Canyons to get away from the town.  The houses are spread apart and this isn’t anything like what we have and want.  This proposal will drop the value of our houses.  This makes it feels like we’re in the middle of town.

Nadine Coons asked what colors are going to be used.  The proposal looks very different from what is out there.  “A” stands out a lot more than “B-E”. 

Stacy Young said he will gather this feedback to take back to the team over this project.  I will pass along that communication can be better in this area, so the neighbors know what is going on.  The best go to source is the city and the master plan that has been approved by the city.  Schools, churches, and commercial development all require the rooftops to be there first and that is what we are working on. 

Councilman Bowcutt said the material board with a lot of colors would be best so that the houses have a variety to choose from.

Commissioner Nelson noted that transitions between bigger lots to smaller or commercial is something that the planning commission works on but it will never be perfect.

Michelle Anderson said she is opposed to the higher density in this area.  We moved out here because of the open space.  I understand master plans change but I am opposed.  There is a steep slope there.  There is a 2’ flat area then a steep slope.  There’s confusion there because of that.  Watershed and tumbleweeds is a big issue in this area.  Where it says open space is a steep slope. 

Chair Fisher noted that construction drawings will have to be submitted to staff for review.  There are laws that do not allow a property to undermine a neighboring property.  The zoning was already established for this density.  They are presenting 7 units per acre and are approved for up to 12. 

April Litkey said we do not want this project here.  When you come out to Desert Canyons there is a different feeling here, and I invite you to come experience it.

Chad Charlesworth asked who the builder for this project will be.

Stacy Young said that has not been determined.

Chad Charlesworth said the infrastructure is not there.  The school bus situation has been brought up and is a problem.  Adding 194 more units to a busy road with no crosswalk needs to be addressed.  This project will ruin a good thing.  It doesn’t fit the area. 

Erica Kline asked if single family homes can be built there or does it have to be more dense.

Chair Fisher said it can be anything up to 12 units per acre. 

Samata Charlesworth asked when full disclosure of who is building is given and who gives it.

Chair Fisher said the city can give you land use information.  The developer does not have to disclose its choice of builder and the city cannot control that. 

Brandon Brotwater asked if there is an intention to go more dense than 7 units an acre. And, he’d be glad if the developer didn’t choose 12 units an acre.

Chair Fisher said this approval of 7 units per acre would be the maximum with this approval.

 

Chair Fisher closed the public hearing.

 

Commissioner Nelson said he likes that the proposal is for 7 units and acre rather than the maximum of 12. 

Commissioner Larkin said the theme from the residents seemed to be misinformation.  I would encourage you to look at the area master plan for Desert Canyons.  There is a lot of development coming your way and it would be best to be informed. 

Commissioner Brager asked if there is anything we can do in regards to infrastructure.  The added density to a single road is a concern.

John Willis said as they continue to develop, Desert Canyons Parkway will loop and connect.  The roadway will be built as development occurs.  Roadways are built by developers as needed and not by taxpayers prior to development.

Commissioner Buehner expressed concern about not having a materials board present tonight that reflects the proposal.  I don’t want recommendations without materials boards to become commonplace.

Commissioner Nelson said the flipside is that the 7 units is a good option and denial of that may result in a proposal of 12 units an acre. 

John Willis said the applicant is willing to table the item in order to provide a materials board.

Chair Fisher noted the willingness to table and explained the commission does not have to do so and can consider the item as presented.  If we have sufficient information we should move the item forward.

John Willis noted that multi-family is typically all encompassing but for single family it is not.

Commissioner Larkin explained the hardie board, shingles, and colors are missing.  If we go over the elements that we like and include that in a motion I would feel comfortable.  I don’t like the dormers that are just hanging but do like the transition there, so it isn’t just hanging.  I also like the shutters and other interest pieces.  I didn’t like the vast space with the tiny windows. 

Commissioner Barry said a roof pitch that is less steep could help mitigate the elevation. 

Commissioner Buehner said if the item is going to change wildly prior to council I don’t feel good about that.  I also want to see the elevations as single door garages as stated rather than two door garages as shown in half of the elevation views.  I do like the elevations and think it is a good look here. 

 

MOTION: Commissioner Buehner made a motion to recommend approval of the proposal for Desert Bluff.  We accept staff comments 1-7 and eliminate comment 8 as the HOA is to maintain the trail by the wash.  We accept the elevations as the look and feel of the project and the applicant is to provide a revised materials board to match the elevations as presented tonight. We also understand that the garage doors will be one larger door rather than 2 doors. 

SECOND: Commissioner Nelson

AYES (6)

Commissioner Barry

Commissioner Buehner

Chair Fisher

Commissioner Larkin

Commissioner Nelson

Commissioner Brager

NAYS (0)

Motion carries.

 

3.                  HILLSIDE PERMIT (HS)

 

Consider a request for a Hillside Development Permit to allow for the development of an extension of Hidden Valley Drive in the Ivory Homes Master Plan area. The representative is Mr. Bob Hermandson. Case No. 2017-HS-003 (Staff - Ray Snyder)

 

Ray Snyder presented the following:

The roadway would be against three parcels.  This does back the Bear Claw Poppy reserve.  The request is for the hillside for the roadway only.  It does have an area of severe hillside that would be disturbed for the roadway.  The integrity of the slope was reviewed by hillside.  According to the geotechnical report the material is stable enough to have a slope of 1:1.  They can make it appear like the hill is terminating naturally.  The proposal is for the roadway.  The hillside review board recommended approval.  The little hill can be removed but the larger hill that abuts the Bear Claw Poppy cannot be disturbed. 

Commissioner Barry asked where the road goes.

Ray Snyder said it will connect to the frontage road along I-15. 

Victoria Hales asked if the retaining walls will be needed.

Wes Jenkins explained that the material is such that a stable slope can be cut rather than a retaining wall.  In construction if that becomes a problem the walls will be needed and will need to match the surrounding colors. The slope of .5:1 will have some unraveling and a sluff area. 

Ray Snyder reviewed the draft motion:

This hillside permit is approved by the City Council subject to the applicant’s redesign of the roadway which does not require the use of installing and coloring retaining walls, that the ROW limits shall be as staked on the site, that the developer will follow the geotechnical recommendations to install a swale and drainage system (in an area a minimum of 10 feet wide). Be it known that the Hillside Review Board, Planning Commission, and the City Council find that the small isolated mounds, hills, and ravines can be removed as requested and that they are considered to be insignificant. Note that the large hill directly behind cannot be removed and shall be mitigated to comply with the hillside ordinance. The applicant has provided to staff revised plans as a result of field staking and a site inspection by staff. 

 

MOTION: Commissioner Barry made a motion to recommend approval of the Hillside Development Permit and adopting staff comments and the draft motion.

SECOND: Commissioner Larkin

AYES (6)

Commissioner Barry

Commissioner Buehner

Chair Fisher

Commissioner Larkin

Commissioner Nelson

Commissioner Brager

NAYS (0)

Motion carries.

4.                  FINAL PLATS (FP)

 

A.    Consider a thirteen (13) lot residential final subdivision plat for “Aspen Estates Phase 5” located on the west side of 3210 East Street (approx. 3010 South). The property is zoned R-1-10 (Single Family Residential 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size). The representative is Mr. Bread Petersen, Development Solutions. Case No. 2017-FP-088 (Staff – Wes Jenkins)

 

Wes Jenkins presented the item with no comments.

 

MOTION: Commissioner Brager made a motion to recommend approval and authorize chair to sign.

SECOND: Commissioner Nelson

AYES (6)

Commissioner Barry

Commissioner Buehner

Chair Fisher

Commissioner Larkin

Commissioner Nelson

Commissioner Brager

NAYS (0)

Motion carries.

 

 

B.     Consider a twelve (12) lot residential final subdivision plat for “Rosewood Estates Phase 1” located on the east side of 3210 East Street (at approx. 2970 South). The property is zoned R-1-8 (Single Family Residential 8,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size). The representative is Mr. Bread Petersen, Development Solutions. Case No. 2017-FP-079 (Staff – Wes Jenkins)

 

Wes Jenkins presented the item with no comments.

 

MOTION: Commissioner Nelson made a motion to recommend approval and authorize chair to sign.

SECOND: Commissioner Barry

AYES (6)

Commissioner Barry

Commissioner Buehner

Chair Fisher

Commissioner Larkin

Commissioner Nelson

Commissioner Brager

NAYS (0)

Motion carries.

 

 

C.     Consider a twelve (12) lot residential final subdivision plat for “Rosewood Estates Phase 2” located on the east side of 3210 East Street (at approx. 3010 South). The property is zoned R-1-8 (Single Family Residential 8,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size). The representative is Mr. Bread Petersen, Development Solutions. Case No. 2017-FP-080 (Staff – Wes Jenkins)

 

Wes Jenkins presented the item with no comments.

 

MOTION: Commissioner Larkin made a motion to recommend approval and authorize chair to sign.

SECOND: Commissioner Nelson

AYES (6)

Commissioner Barry

Commissioner Buehner

Chair Fisher

Commissioner Larkin

Commissioner Nelson

Commissioner Brager

NAYS (0)

Motion carries.

 

 

D.    Consider a thirteen (13) lot residential final subdivision plat for “Rosewood Estates Phase 3” located on the east side of 3210 East Street at 3050 South Street. The property is zoned R-1-8 (Single Family Residential 8,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size). The representative is Mr. Bread Petersen, Development Solutions. Case No. 2017-FP-081 (Staff – Wes Jenkins)

Wes Jenkins presented the item with no comments.

 

MOTION: Commissioner Buehner made a motion to recommend approval and authorize chair to sign.

SECOND: Commissioner Brager

AYES (6)

Commissioner Barry

Commissioner Buehner

Chair Fisher

Commissioner Larkin

Commissioner Nelson

Commissioner Brager

NAYS (0)

Motion carries.

 

 

E.     Consider a fifteen (15) lot residential final subdivision plat for “Rosewood Estates Phase 4” located on the east side of 3300 East Street at 3050 South Street. The property is zoned R-1-8 (Single Family Residential 8,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size). The representative is Mr. Bread Petersen, Development Solutions. Case No. 2017-FP-082 (Staff – Wes Jenkins)

 

Wes Jenkins presented the item with no comments.

 

MOTION: Commissioner Barry made a motion to recommend approval and authorize chair to sign.

SECOND: Commissioner Nelson

AYES (6)

Commissioner Barry

Commissioner Buehner

Chair Fisher

Commissioner Larkin

Commissioner Nelson

Commissioner Brager

NAYS (0)

Motion carries.

 

 

5.                  PRELIMINARY PLATS (PP)

 

A.    Consider a forty-two (42) lot residential preliminary plat subdivision for “Desert Crossing” located between Rimrunner drive and Broken Mesa Drive in the Desert Canyons development. The property is zoned PD-R (Planned Development Residential) and R-1-10 (Single Family Residential 10,000 square foot lot sizes).  The applicant is Development Solutions Group, Inc. and the representative is Mr. Ken Miller. Case No. 2017-PP-027 (Staff - Wes Jenkins)

 

Wes Jenkins presented the item and noted there are modifications to the request.  The property is 14.35 acres.  There are two zones in this preliminary plat: R-1-10 and PD-8.  The R-1-10 is 10.95 acres and the PD-8 is 3.5 acres.  The density in the PD-8 is 2.06 units per acre and the R-1-10 is 3.2 dwelling units per acres. The plat has two zones but no property has split zoning.  Lot size averaging is being requested in the R-1-10.

Victoria Hales asked what property is being used for lot size averaging.

Wes Jenkins said the PD-8 meets the density allotment.  The R-1-10 meets the lot size averaging requirements.  There are walkout basements on some of the lots.  There will be an erosion plan needed for the slope.  The road has been up-sized to a 55’ road.  The open space will be left in their ownership for now.  They are working on deeding it to the city, and we’re working on getting a trail to the park space. 

Commissioner Buehner asked how small the lot sizes are in the averaging.

Wes Jenkins said there is a range of lot sizes. 

Commissioner Buehner said it appears the lots are quite large as you go north.  It feels like they crammed in extra lots and did so by shoving unusable land onto other lots.

Wes Jenkins said lot size averaging allows for a variety of homes and price points.  The averaging is also controlled by the density. 

Victoria Hales noted that the code says the averaging is to be interspersed. 

Commissioner Buehner said it’s really an R-1-8.

Commissioner Brager added that if that hillside wasn’t there they wouldn’t be able to request this.

Wes Jenkins said the slope on the west will be in a different subdivision. 

John Willis clarified that counting the slope is seen all the time.  With a subdivision of this size it is hard to disperse the lots. 

Stacy Young said in the end the neighborhood feels the same.  If there’s no flexibility you have 30-40’ between homes of side yard that isn’t valuable. 

Victoria Hales asked what the open space is, and what is planned there.

Wes Jenkins said they have been working with the parks department.  For now it will remain in their ownership and be maintained by the developer.  The property line will be at the top of slope in order to mitigate potential issues between neighbors.

 

 

MOTION: Commissioner Larkin made a motion to recommend approval and accept the lot size averaging.

SECOND: Commissioner Nelson

AYES (6)

Commissioner Barry

Commissioner Buehner

Chair Fisher

Commissioner Larkin

Commissioner Nelson

Commissioner Brager

NAYS (0)

Motion carries.

 

B.     Consider a twenty-seven (27) lot residential preliminary plat subdivision for “Ventana Ridge” located at  approximately the southeast corner of the intersection of 2450 South and River Road. The property is zoned R-1-10 (Single Family Residential 10,000 square foot lot sizes.  The applicant is Desert Investment Group and the representative is Mr. Jared Madsen. Case No. 2017-PP-024 (Staff - Wes Jenkins)

 

This item has been pulled from the agenda.

 

Chair Fisher invited the boy scout troop 1696 to come forward.

 

6.                  CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS – November 2, 2017

 

Public Hearings

1. GPA - Twin Lakes - approved

2. GPA – Southern Hills - approved

3. ZC – Bloomington Country Club - approved

4. ZC – West Creek Commercial Lot 2 (existing dental office) - approved

5. ZCA - Paparazzi  - approved

 

CUP

1. 3909 S 2510 E – Garage - approved

2. Dixie Power – Hill 2 Sub Station - approved

 

ADJOURN

 

MOTION: Commissioner Nelson made a motion to adjourn.

SECOND: Commissioner Brager.

Meeting adjourned at 7:30 pm.