Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues review of Zion Regional Medical Center development agreement, asks for tiered heights and setbacks
Summary
The Hurricane City Council continued consideration of a development agreement that would let Zion Regional Medical Center build medical structures up to 85 feet, limiting the height exception to medical uses and proposing a sunset on the entitlement; council asked the developer to propose tiered heights and a setback from SR‑9 and continued the item to June 19 for revisions.
The Hurricane City Council on a motion continued consideration of a development agreement with Zion Regional Medical Center after members pressed the applicant for clearer limits on where 85‑foot buildings could go and for a shorter permit horizon.
Staff explained the draft agreement would allow ‘‘medical buildings’’ — hospital towers, medical office buildings, cancer center and rehabilitation buildings and clinics — to reach up to 85 feet, prohibit conversion of those tall medical buildings to nonmedical uses, and grant no other entitlements. The draft runs with the land and included a ten‑year expiration unless a medical building permit is pulled.
Developer representatives and the project civil engineer described the site as a multi‑phase medical campus: phase 1 is the hospital and a later phase would include a bed tower and medical office buildings. The developer said flexibility is important at this preliminary stage but acknowledged parking and utility constraints will shape where taller buildings can be placed.
Several council members said they would support 85 feet for the hospital tower but not necessarily across the whole parcel. Council members proposed a tiered approach — examples discussed in the meeting included 85 feet for the hospital tower, 65 feet for nearby medical office buildings, and lower limits (50–35 feet) for other buildings — and asked staff to write setback language to keep the tallest structures away from SR‑9. One councilmember suggested a 200‑foot buffer from SR‑9 for reduced heights.
On the timing of the entitlement, multiple council members said 10 years felt too long and expressed support for shortening the sunset to five years. The applicant said it is willing to work on a shorter horizon and to return with a site‑specific tiering and setback proposal.
Action: the council voted to continue the item to the June 19 meeting and asked the applicant to return with explicit setback and tiered‑height language that can be incorporated into the development agreement. The motion to continue was recorded as moved by Drew and seconded by councilman Aleman/Preet and was approved in the meeting record.
Next steps: staff and the developer will draft language reflecting the tiered heights and a SR‑9 setback, and the council will revisit the development agreement at its next meeting on June 19.
