The meeting was called to order at
05:30 p.m. All present included
Chair Jeffrey Loris,
Commissioner Lance Anderson,
Commissioner Adel Murphy,
Commissioner Mike Scott,
and Commissioner Bryan Pack.
Commissioner Anderson recused himself on Agenda Item 5 (A)
There were no other disclosures or conflicts of interest with this meeting's agenda.
Chair Loris announced that there are two Public Hearings tonight. Any comments for the General Plan Amendment for Coyote Gulch will have to be made during the City Council Public Hearing since the Planning Commission's Public Hearing is closed. Everyone is welcome to stay and listen to that discussion. There are two other Public Hearings on the agenda.
Kevin Rudd reported that this parcel is currently vacant. The Ence's commercial center is across the street. The zoning is C-1 (Community Commercial), and it has been zoned that for over 20 years. Family Dollar Store recently acquired the property and submitted the application for a Conditional Use Permit. The building is located on the south end of the property, and it is a little over 8,000 sq. ft. The building has been located as close as possible to 200 East out of respect to the residential property owners. The ordinance allows the building to be within ten feet (10') of the property line. The building will be thirty feet (30') away from the existing residents and twenty-two feet (22') from the other property line. Landscaping will be across the back of building and along the side. The islands in the parking area will also be landscaped.
Chair Loris inquired if there would be a trench loading area where they drive down.
Kevin Rudd stated, "No." There will be a couple of 3' man doors on the side of the building where a delivery truck will pull up and load into the building. The front of the building will be stucco with stone accents along the bottom. It is a metal building but it will have a stucco finish with parapets on the side and the middle section of the building extends forward two feet (2'). It complies with the ordinance which requires a wall variation. The colors, materials and wall plane meet the City's Design Guidelines. The side that faces 200 East will be stucco, has parapets and the middle section also extends two feet (2') from the other two wall planes. A landscape buffer will soften the wall. The east side is where deliveries will be made. There is no parapet on this side and the doors will be painted earthtone to blend with the stucco color. The parapets will also be earthtone to blend with the stucco. The roof drains to the east, and it has a gutter system. The air conditioners are located in the rear on a concrete pad and screened with a four foot (4') stucco wall. The rear faces the south.
The signage will be on the corner of 400 South 200 East in the landscape area. The sign meets the size restrictions of a monument sign. It has the colored brick that blends with the building. The sign over the top of the building complies with the City's ordinance.
Chair Loris inquired about lighting on the sign.
Kevin Rudd stated the proposed sign is lit from within.
Commissioner Anderson asked if there has been a time set for it to be lit at night.
Kevin Rudd stated the exterior lights are on a timer system. The Commissioners could add the time as a condition. The ordinance does require that the lighting be turned off 30 minutes after the building closes but it does allow for minimal security lighting.
Commissioner Anderson inquired about the business hours.
Commissioner Murphy stated the hours are from 9:00 am - 9:00 pm. She asked if the sign on the front is luminous.
Kevin Rudd stated "Yes." It has desert landscaping with rock. The rear of the building will be visible from 200 East. Therefore, Staff felt it was a good idea to leave it open to keep kids from hanging out in that area. They will have to raise the grade on the south end approximately five feet (5') above the natural grade. There will be inlets in the parking lot to take the storm drain water to 200 East. At this point, there has not been a comprehensive storm drain study. If it can be taken down 200 East, it will but if it requires onsite drainage in the study, there may have to be some onsite retention which could be underground. This is addressed in the list of conditions.
Commissioner Anderson referred to the site being five foot (5') above the road at the south end. What would be the total height of the building from the road?
Kevin Rudd stated the building is twenty feet (20') to the lower parapet and the height is twenty-three feet (23') to the highest parapet. The south could be approximately twenty-eight feet (28'). Commercial zoning allows thirty-five feet (35'). This would be lower than allowed by the ordinance. The profile shows leaving the six foot (6') precast wall, propose a retaining wall of three feet (3') and slope it back into the landscaping. The finish grade will be approximately four feet (4'). The ordinance requires a commercial building to have a six foot (6') colored masonery wall around it but we do have the existing fences. Staff suggested they work with the residents on the fencing. The TRC did not want to create an ally way because of fencing. Some material samples were displayed. The TRC discussed extending the retaining wall and placing an additional five foot (5') masonry wall on top of the wall at the back. It causes the owner to have an extremely tall wall (approx. 9') on the back of the property line.
Commissioner Anderson commented it would be nice if they could move that wall back so the property owner could maintain it and not have that large wall behind it.
Kevin Rudd commented that developers prefer not to go on other property owners' property because of the possibility of damaging something which could cause some negotiation. One option is to work with the property owners on the existing walls and extend the wall higher. To the north there is a chain link and a wood fence, and they are going to remove those and put in a new block wall. It would require them to put in a small retaining wall for the parking lot. Otherwise, it would be a two wall situation by placing a retaining wall and a wall on top of that. If they did use the existing fences, the wall would be stained to match the new fence. The Evan's property is a precast fence that cannot be extended. It's over twenty years old and shows signs of cracking and splitting.
Chair Loris commented that the foundation should not sit on the other foundation.
Chair Loris opened the Public Hearing.
Brad Osburn lives at 450 S 250 E and inquired about the grading of the loading area. Is it going to be the same elevation as the building finish grade?
Kevin Rudd stated it will be slightly lower than the building for drainage. The loading area will slope away at a minimal grade back to the east to get to the storm drain.
Brad Osburn asked if it will be filled between the building and on the east property line and is that roughly the building grade? And is that all the way back to the dumpsters?
Kevin Rudd stated, "Yes."
Brad Osburn asked if the north east corner of the loading area would be roughly three feet (3').
Kevin Rudd stated, "Yes, roughly 3-4 feet.
Brad Osburn commented that 2' north of his north property line it looks like there is a light of some kind and also down along the Davis property there was another light. How tall would those lighting fixtures be?
Kevin Rudd stated that the maximum height of parking lot lighting is fourteen feet (14'). Currently, he does not know the actual height.
Brad Osburn asked if it would be reasonable to put some restrictions on it. Also, he was concerned about the security lighting on the east side of the building.
Kevin Rudd explained that the lighting would have to be faced away from his property. The lighting fixtures are night sky friendly, and the ones on the eastern property line are pointed back to the west. The security lighting would be shielded and facing straight down.
Brad Osburn asked if the wall is six foot (6') above the building grade. He also commented that the fence at the back of the building could be as high as eleven feet (11') from existing grade based on a six foot (6') wall and a five foot (5') grade.
Kevin Rudd stated that the ordinance states six feet (6') but Staff has discussed that if the property owner does not want such an imposing wall it could be negotiated with the developer. The City cannot require them to put higher than a six foot (6') wall.
Chair Loris commented that the worse case could be ten feet (10') at the south corner.
Kevin Rudd stated it could be 9-10' tall with the six foot (6') wall on the southeast corner.
Brad Osburn owns Lot #3 and he does not object to using and staining the existing wall or if for aesthetic purposes it looks like the Davis' wall will have to be raised and extended that would be fine. The other concern is mainly the light that's approximately two foot (2') of his property line and it shining into his home. If that is indeed pointed down and away from his property, he's good.
Shannon Davis lives at 460 S 250 E and stated he has the same comments. He was concerned about building his wall up five feet (5').
Kevin Rudd explained the applicant would have to put a retaining wall up against the wall, and it will have to be negotiated with you if you wanted them to extend your fence. If not, there would have to be a retaining wall and another wall on top of the retaining wall which would leave a gap between the two fences. However, there would be no soil against your fence.
Shannon Davis prefers that they extend his wall up as long as they matched it. The fence was built with the same concrete that was used on the Dixie Drive interchange so it was built to go 9-10' but at that time it could not go higher because of the ordinances. Because of the elevation of the back dock, we don't want people looking into the backyard. He was okay with working with them to extend the wall.
Lesley Ferguson lives at 420 S 250 E and spoke on behalf of her parents. Everything has been addressed and her parents just want a six foot (6') wall. This property has a chain link fence. She asked what the plans were for taking the fence down.
Kevin Rudd explained that has to be negotiated with the developer as far as obtaining permission. When they get to that point, the developer will contact your parents and decide on whether to remove the fence or put their fence up against it.
Marie Hansen lives at 270 E 400 S. She did not understand why we need a Family Dollar when there is one four (4) miles down the road. What happens to the building when the business goes flat? The other dollar stores' parking lot is not very full when she goes to Lin's grocery store. We have talked to all our residents and no one patronizes Family Dollar. She also expressed concern with the noise and the trucks delivering the goods at 5:00 am or is there some regulation?
Chair Loris closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Anderson's two concerns were lighting. He inquired if there could be restrictions put on deliveries.
Dale Coulam explained that the City cannot say no to the Family Dollar Store coming in because it's an allowed use for that zoning. But we can impose conditions to mitigate against adverse consequences such as noise. That is a question for the applicant as far as time of deliveries. In reference to lighting, that is addressed in the ordinance. The comments regarding the walls have already been addressed in the written list of conditions, in that, it was always optional to negotiate with the owners to extend the wall or not. Family Dollar could say they just want to build the wall on their property and just comply with the ordinance. If it is negotiated with the neighbors to extend the existing wall, it needs to be stained to match. That needs to be identified in the motion since it is not in the list of conditions.
Commissioner Anderson commented that the residents want the walls extended and the chain link fence replaced to a block wall.
Commissioner Murphy asked what other restrictions besides the delivery times we should place on the Family Dollar Store.
Chair Loris commented that commercial buildings cannot start a generator or compressor before 7:00 am. If construction can start at 7:00 am deliveries could start at the same time.
Greg Wall works for Leading Tech Development a sister company to T&N Properties, applicant. Delivers are only taken during business hours because they need people to unload. They reserve the right to change the hours but generally it is from 9:00 am - 9:00 pm. The distribution center is in St. George and they generally receive about two trucks per week. It's usually a tractor trailer approximately 53' long. The goal is to minimize lighting. The light poles are 14' which is standard and are night sky compliant. Lights shine down to the area below it. In reference to timing the signs are on a photo cell so signs will turn on after the sun goes down. The lights on the building are controlled by computerized system and it can be programmed in accordance with the ordinance. The security lights are LED wall packs and point downward. We want to work with the neighbors. As far as fencing and adding blocks rather than building another wall we will work with the existing neighbors and have minimal inconvenience to the neighbors.
Commissioner Anderson inquired about the dumpsters.
Greg Wall stated that the owner will hire a local waste management company. Family Dollar does not control the dumpsters other than choosing a local company.
Dale Coulam inquired about the owners' name being T&N Ivins LLC and the applicant being T&N Properties LLC.
Greg Wall explained that T&N Properties is the parent company to T&N Ivins LLC. They create a separate LLC for each project. T&N Properties LLC is the developer and owner and Leading Tech Development is the construction/management arm.
He referred to the List of Conditions and stated the 1st page is standard conditions and they will comply. He inquired about Section 6 that refers to credits for impact fees.
Dale Coulam advised those are specific to the project conditions. In this case there is an option for them to do some offsite improvements and get credit against impact fees. This would be curb and gutter type improvements and paving.
Greg Wall stated Item #1 is okay. In Item #2 they want to do that option. Bob Platt has been working with the City Engineer on the off-site improvements. Their thoughts are to bid out the project and award the best bidder and then deduct that actual amount from the amount paid in street impact fees.
Dale Coulam commented that their Civil Engineer brought up that option in lieu of on-site detention and noted they could do some improvements to 200 East. He felt the curb and gutter could handle a lot of the drainage. The system that is there now is old and has to be replaced or it is nonexistent before it gets to Lightfoot's. For that option the curb, gutter and paving would have to extend to Lightfoots so the water will stay in the curb and gutter. We reserve the right that there might still be a need for some detention in the full drainage study. If it is not required by the drainage study and they do the improvement, they would save the cost of detention and get a credit for the off-site improvements.
Greg Wall stated that the reason they chose that option is because there is not room for a surface detention pond and it would require a sump under the parking lot which is more difficult and costly. The engineer is designing something so that it will not require it. On the Perimeter Walls, if the adjoining residents did not want to go to the full six feet (6') would that be acceptable or do we have to go to the full six feet (6')?
Dale Coulam stated that the City would require at least five feet (5') but the last foot is negotiable. Six foot (6') is going to be the maximum height on the Family Dollar Store, but if it is okay with the adjoining property to have a nine foot (9') wall on their side, they can agree to that under the ordinances. That leaves a foot to work with.
Greg Wall referred to Item #5 Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk and stated the applicant understands that but the question is that the same case as the curb and gutter extending down to Lightfoot's and would there be a credit against the impact fees.
Dale Coulam stated they are not putting in sidewalk. The curb and gutter is already addressed in Item #2 under Off-site Improvements and it has to match. Are you asking about improvement adjacent to the project and if there is a credit?
Greg Wall stated, "Yes."
Dale Coulam stated that they would have to look to see if it was included in the impact study. If it is called out in the study it would be paid for by impact fee, the answer would be yes. If it was to be put in by development as an unimproved piece of property, the answer would be no.
Greg Wall inquired as to what the dollar amount is for impact fees.
Kevin Rudd stated that has not been done but it could be done within the next week or so.
Greg Wall stated that most of the rest of the questions dealt with credits on impact fees. We are willing and capable to do some of the items such as paving, and we want it done as it will make the property more functional. From the initial budget the impact fees were quiet high and we did not want to pay both the impact fee and the cost for paving. If there is a credit from the impact fee towards the paving, they are okay with it. They don't want to pay for both the work and the impact fee.
Chair Loris asked if they were planning on removing the chain link fence and replacing it with a wall or building a wall next to the existing fence.
Greg Wall stated if they want to keep the fence they could build on their side of the fence or they could work with them on removing it. The excavators will be there, and it might make it easier to remove the fence instead of doing it themselves. They will meet with them to accommodate what they would like. On Item #8, he wanted to clarify that it's only the hinged doors that the color is to match. The front doors are commercial sliding doors that will not be painted. On Item #9, the roof supplier has a tan color that will work. On Item #7, he asked which power pole is it.
Dale Coulam stated it is on the northwest corner of 400 South and 200 East.
Greg Wall asked that the location be changed in the conditions. Also, they redesigned the entrance so they want have to remove the guy wire on that pole since it is a deadend pole at the end of the line.
Commissioner Anderson asked about the roof color.
Greg Wall stated Gaff Everguard TPO is a membrane roof system, 60 mil. The roof supplier can get any of the colors. The tan reflects the heat from the sun.
Commissioner Anderson advised that the dark brown works well.
Dale Coulam noted that the color described is similar to the VA Center's roof. The ordinance states an earthtone color.
Dale Coulam clarified comments and the amendments to the List of Conditions:
1. change the document to reflect the relationship between the two entities that one is the parent company.
2. even though the applicant has identified the option they want the existing written text is okay.
3. on the perimeter walls we need to add if agreeable with adjoining owners to the east and south, it could be a five foot (5') minimum wall and if they build on an existing wall it should be stained to match the color of the block wall.
4. specify the credits for improvements to 200 East and look at 400 South because it depends on the designation of the road. We will look at the Street Impact Fee study, and if they were to be paid by impact fees, then they would be given a credit for improvements that abut their property as well. If it was to be paid for by the developer, then "no" there will not be a credit. We will specify if it is on-site as well as off-site improvements.
5. item #7, insert the correct location.
6. the glass doors do not have to be painted.
7. deliveries and dumpster will be done during business hours.
The lighting is covered under the lighting ordinance. These are the changes that will be made to the conditions as it moves forward to the City Council.
MOTION: Commissioner Bryan Pack moved to recommend approval of a Proposed Class V Conditional Use Permit for a Retail Store (Family Dollar Store) located on the southeast corner of 400 South and 200 East, Parcel #I-SB-76-A, T & N Ivins LLC, owners/applicant subject to the changes noted by Dale Coulam and incorporating the changes into the written List of Conditions as amended.
SECOND: Commissioner Mike Scott
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chair Jeffrey Loris |
AYE |
| Commissioner Lance Anderson |
AYE |
| Commissioner Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
| Commissioner Bryan Pack |
ABSENT |
Kevin Rudd reported this is an expansion of an existing building that has been owned by different businesses. Most recently it was the Eisenhauer Market. Troy Dennett came in almost a year ago about expanding the existing Adobe Icebox, but it was difficult to provide a drive through because of the close location to the roundabout. Troy acquired the property and decided to remodel the existing building which has been vacant for a long time. It will cleanup and existing building in that area. The proposed hours of operation are 11:00 am-10:00 pm. In the future they may consider opening for breakfast. The building will keep the existing roof, but they will do some pop outs on the walls, stucco the walls with stone accents, and put a light weight tile on the existing roof which will be consistent with the existing historical Hafen'shome. The front and the side of the building would be extended to allow for some rest rooms. The parking lot is on the north and they will exit out the existing approach. The landscaping will be desert type. There is existing sewer and water but they will have to install a grease trap. The south side of the building will have the drive up window, and the entrance is on the north side. This plan is in compliance with the wall requirements and the modifications in the roof. Samples of the stucco, stone and roofing material were displayed.
Commissioner Anderson asked if it was the existing elevation with flat tiles.
Kevin Rudd stated "Correct." A floor plan was displayed even though it was not required with a condition use permit. Also, there will be bollard lighting similar to the lighting along the City paths.
Chair Loris opened the Public Hearing and there being no comments the Public Hearing was closed.
Commissioner Anderson inquired if the bollard lighting is throughout the parking lot.
Kevin Rudd stated, "Yes."
Commissioner Murphy inquired if there was any larger lighting such as the fourteen foot (14') poles and inquired about signage.
Troy Dennett explained that they intend to move the existing sign at the Icebox to this location.
Chair Loris stated that there is about 2-2 1/2' drop where Eisenhaur's foundation is now and your existing driveway. The drive through appears that it will need to be elevated. Other than a six inch (6") curb is there going to be anything to keep vehicles from coming around there too fast.
Troy Dennett stated that they have two lanes proposed next to the building and they will be elevated. They plan on going down eight inches from the existing foundation and put in the drive. It leaves approximately a foot and we will use a six inch (6") curb to keep people in that lane. There is a drive that wraps around for through traffic and there will be approximately a foot drop. The existing driveway will slope out. There's approximately a six inch (6") curb on one side and a buffer going down about a foot. He will make sure a truck can get through.
Commissioner Pack asked what his plans were for the existing Icebox location?
Troy Dennett stated they will vacate it and open it up for some sort of retail space.
Commissioner Anderson stated it appears he has addressed the traffic concerns.
Commissioner Murphy stated the building looks good.
Dale Coulam noted there is no written list of conditions because most of this already exists and is already covered by ordinances or other health regulations. The only condition he suggested was that it be built consistent with the materials that were presented.
MOTION: Commissioner Bryan Pack moved to approve an Amended Class IV Conditional Use on a proposed renovation to Hafen's Nursery Building/Eisenhauer Market into a fast food restaurant located at 27 North 200 East, T J Ventures, LLC, owner, and Troy Dennett, applicant, subject to the condition that construction will be consistent with the materials that has been presented tonight.
SECOND: Commissioner Adel Murphy
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chair Jeffrey Loris |
AYE |
| Commissioner Lance Anderson |
AYE |
| Commissioner Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
| Commissioner Bryan Pack |
AYE |
Commissioner Anderson excused himself to the audience.
Dale Coulam explained that the application is the same. At the Public Hearing, it was suggedted that the Planning Commission may want to reduce the size of the land use change. The applicant is not required to provide a plan at this time but to appease some of the residents, he provided a concept plan. At this level there is nothing that binds the applicant to that plan. It shows what could be done if the size of the bubble area was reduced. The applicant made it clear at the Public Hearing that the application stands for the full area. If the Commissioners were to reduce it, the applicant has shown a minimal size that would work for his purposes and still give a buffer to the residents. It's a land use application, and it's the Commission's vision as far as making a recommendation to the City Council and then it's their vision when making the final decision. The previous meeting ended on the note with Judge Shumate suggesting they meet with Terry Marten to see if they could come up with something that would be agreeable. It appears the parties have done that but the application has not been amended. On the Land Use application it could be approved as applied for, recommend a modification, or recommend denial.
Chair Loris explained that in the previous meeting there was a picture displayed showing an overlay with a bubble. He distributed a colored map that has a black line showing the boundary of Commercial Resort, it shows the river/wash to the culvert, and the existing commercial. He wanted to see how the existing zoning map sits over the commercial area. He explained where the buildings were located in Coyote Gulch including the new buildings. On the west side behind the houses it is already zoned Commercial Resort. So this area can be used in this application. The area they are trying to extend is to the north. It's approximately 4.2 acres. Inside the loop of the Coyote Gulch, they have used almost all the commercial area. On the west side of the road they have quite a bit of commercial and to the south side of Kwavasa they have an area of commercial. The Land Use bubble comes way south down Kwavasa Drive. They have maxed out in some areas, but they do have area to the west. Some of these houses that are residential, regardless of what they want or don't want, it's within the Kayenta Development, and they are able to use this area as Commercial Resort regardless of what the decision is tonight.
Kevin Rudd advised that they did receive approval along the western boundary to build some studio type housing in the future similar to an existing live-in studio. The resident could live there but have an attached studio to run his business, etc.
Chair Loris has heard a lot of comments against the Land Use Amendment and asked what the Commission's vision was.
Commissioner Pack stated it's a difficult question when building something in people's backyards. Not in my backyard comes up a lot. The fact that we already have this Commercial Resort and the zoning, the question seems to have already been answered. We are talking about potentially expanding the use, and we are not looking at specific plans in general. He was in favor of the amendment knowing that we still have some control over what goes on in Coyote Gulch with the Conditional Use Permits that have to be obtained in the future. He's okay with modifying it with what the developer feels is sufficient. It could be scaled back and he would be in favor of it.
Commissioner Scott felt the revised plan/scaled back version does help minimize the impact to the residential. Although we are increasing the amount of Commercial Resort as pointed out some of this is already zoned Commercial Resort that is impacting existing homes but it's already zoned Commercial Resort. The expansion still has an impact but less impact especially because it has been cut back. He was in favor of the revised smaller plan.
Commissioner Murphy was also in favor of the revised smaller plan. She appreciates the buffer between residential and commercial. We have said in Mixed Use there has to be a buffer when there is commercial abutting residential. She listened to the comments on the tape about traffic and noise but a lot of it is not dealt with at this forum. That will be addressed during the Conditional Use Permit Application. She doesn't have a problem with the smaller parcel and felt it makes sense in the area. We had a meeting on the cultural center and had a rousing applauses and everybody wanted it. This will help support it. There were comments about people making noise and coming at night and staying up at all hours. One person commented that the people coming are like the people that live there and love the area. The smaller plan is less imposing and there still some Low Density Residential above this area. If they choose to develop, it looks like there could be six houses up above the commercial. She is in favor of the amended version.
Commissioner Scott listened to the tapes and they were concerned about the traffic but this plan improves the traffic situation. There were also comments about flooding and water. He asked if that was being dealt with by the City.
Kevin Rudd stated that they are currently working with the property owners in regards to the wash and retention basins.
Chair Loris commented if the area stays Low Density Residential and we don't approve any of that change, we have the commercial bubble that extends down by the tennis courts and other commercial elements that have access to the Coyote Gulch area. Then why introduce this area to be Commercial Resort or that application when we have these smaller areas and the entire bubble across the intersection to be used for the Commercial Resort?
Commissioner Pack commented that the developer wants to go north and our role is to mitigate some of the impact at the latter stage of the process. Generally, he is in favor of land owners to use their land as they want and consistent with the vision of what's going on whether it's north or south.
Commissioner Scott commented although the proposed building could change over time but he liked the synergy with all the arts concentrated. It's a nice pocket to itself instead of spreading it out, crossing the street and separating it.
Commissioner Murphy stated that we talk about walk-ability and it's a cohesive unit this way.
Chair Loris commented these are points to bring up not that he wants to go against it. The developer wants to go north but if it is denied he will look at another spot to go. He brought these points up because they were brought up in the public hearing. He's in favor of developing the area to the north. It's a good use of the land and it's an area for a lot of flooding issues to lower areas and with development they would have to do a lot of improvements to make sure that is taken care of. He doesn't like the entire area as Commercial Resort but does like the smaller section. He was originally looking at 40 units but he has cut it down to 32 units. The land owners to the west are already bordering commercial.
Dale Coulam asked if the consensus is a motion to approve a land use change as modified from 7.67 acres to approximately 4.2 acres immediately north of the Coyote Gulch area.
Chair Loris stated that the four Commissioners are in favor of supporting that recommended change.
Commissioner Pack commented if the question is what's the Commission's or individual Commissioner's vision is, he felt this matches how he sees this area because of the commercial that is already there. If that is the question, then he is in favor of the amended plan of 4.2 acres.
Chair Loris noted that there was a report done by many professionals such as civil engineers, political owners, Washington County and Five Counties in the southern area and they decided what was best for the Washington County and Five Counties as a whole. The majority of aid would come because of the closeness of residential to marketing retail and arts. If they could walk, it could reduce carbon footprint and travel short distances. They would enjoy life better rather than try to living in high rises and travel long distances by car to get to entertainment, etc. This small area north of the Coyote Gulch would do really well to make sure that vision happens in this small community. We would benefit greatly to have short areas to walk to. It's a good idea and matches the vision of Ivins and entire southern corridor of Utah.
Dale Coulam stated that from what he has heard the recommendation would be to approve the General Plan Amendment from Low Density to Commercial Resort and modified from 7.67 acres to approximately 4.2 acres.
MOTION: Commissioner Bryan Pack moved to recommend a Proposed General Plan Amendment to change the Land Use Plan from Low Density Residential to Commercial Resort located adjacent to and north of the Coyote Gulch Commercial Area in the Kayenta Development (Parcels I-7-1-25-3200, 3201, 3202 approximately 7.67 acres) with the modification that we are dealing with the 4.2 acres opposed to the 7.67 acres.
SECOND: Commissioner Mike Scott
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chair Jeffrey Loris |
AYE |
| Commissioner Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
| Commissioner Bryan Pack |
AYE |
| Commissioner Lance Anderson |
RECUSE |
After some discussion with the Commissioners, it was suggested to table this and move it to a future agenda.
MOTION: Commissioner Lance Anderson moved to table a recommendation on Proposed amendments to Chapters 18 (Multi-Family Design Guidelines) and 19 (Site Plan and Building Design Requirements) of the Ivins City Zoning Ordinance (Title 16). Ivins City, applicant
SECOND: Commissioner Mike Scott
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chair Jeffrey Loris |
AYE |
| Commissioner Lance Anderson |
AYE |
| Commissioner Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
| Commissioner Bryan Pack |
AYE |
MOTION: Commissioner Bryan Pack moved to approve the Ivins City Planning Commission minutes for September 16, 2014
SECOND: Commissioner Mike Scott
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chair Jeffrey Loris |
AYE |
| Commissioner Lance Anderson |
AYE |
| Commissioner Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
| Commissioner Bryan Pack |
AYE |