Chairman Hart noted that the Commission had received a written statement from Brent Beesley with Blackrock Land Company, LLC. and asked that the Commissioners to review the letter.
Commissioner Mendenhall disclosed that she was friends with Mr. Beesley but it would not influence her opinion.
Chuck Gillette introduced Aron Baker with Horrocks Engineering who was the consultant throughout the revision process of the Ivins Transportation Master Plan. After some discussions with Shan Gubler, Terry Marten and Lance Anderson and based on some good feedback and commentaries, he was proposing some modifications to the plan which is represented in a memo that he distributed. The proposed modifications to the figures were explained during Aron Baker’s presentation.
Aron Baker is an engineer with Horrocks Engineering. The company has worked on this project since March. He presented a Power Point on some of the changes to the document (available at the Ivins office). Ivins had a comprehensive master plan that was done a few years ago but with the high growth and changes the document needed updating. The master plan was reviewed and updated based on the Land Use changes which, in turn, affect traffic flows. The topics discussed were:
1. General Plan Road Classification Map: A model was developed to look at the traffic trends along with the land use changes to develop the 2028 Traffic Volume Map. Based on the size of the street and the history of land development, this map determines the volume of traffic and whether the roads can handle the traffic (see attached maps available at the Ivins office)
Chuck Gillette referred to the maps and advised that the these modifications included Kwavasa Drive, 400 West Street from Center Street to 450 North, Taviawk Drive (400 West) from 450 North to Wintook Drive, Kayenta connection to Old Highway 91 east of Kayenta Parkway, adjustment of 450 North between 450 North and Paiute Drive, 400 South from the Western Corridor Arterial to 1550 East, and 800 West. (see details of the proposed modification in Mr. Gillette’s memo).
Shan Gubler had concerns about the 1550 East’s future road connection. Shan Gubler’s master plan that was reviewed showed more curve in the road because of the elevation of going up and over the lava flows and because of the number of curves to classify as a residential road instead of a fifty foot (50’) wide minor collector. A note has also been added to clarify Kwavasa Drive (see memo). The figures will be changed to reflect the changes discussed in the memo.
2. Trail and Bike Lanes Map (Figure 8): The proposed bike lanes will have stripes on the asphalt where bikes can travel. There will be some revisions to Figure 8 in reference to Paiute Drive alignment, Sage Drive to follow West Lake Drive west of Kayenta Parkway and 450 North (see memo).
3. Roundabouts: There was a meeting with the residents and twelve (12) responded to the question regarding roundabouts versus signal lights, and eight (8) out of (12) written responses preferred the roundabouts. There were some concerns about yield signs, not for themselves but for others driving through the signs. There were other residents at the meeting that expressed their views on this subject. A roundabout is being considered at Tuacahn and Center. There will need to be a realignment of roads coming from Tuacahn Drive. The one advantage to roundabouts is that there are no red and green lights twenty-four (24) hours a day, and roundabouts have a constant flow of traffic. The cost of roundabouts is approximately $200,000 to $400,000 per location versus $140,000 to $180,000 for a traffic signal.
4. Capital Facilities Plan: A list of projects that need to be accomplished in the next five (5) years, ten (10) years and twenty (20) years (see PowerPoint Presentation). The zones on the map refer to employment and population. The projects are based on revenue that comes in from taxes and impact fees, etc. When development goes down, impact fees go down. There may not be enough revenue coming in but there is funding available to help with road projects from the state and federal levels if a city has a plan in place.
5. Street Cross-section: The streets have to be matched to the use being proposed. The typical cross-sections are: Residential (50’ & 42’), Residential Major Collectors (55’), Major Arterial (66’), Minor Collector Puerto Drive (60’), Minor Collector (60’), Minor Arterial Center Street (85’), Minor Arterial Western Corridor (90’) and Major Arterial Old Highway 91 (3-lane & 5-lane 100’). He explained the size of each cross-sections, landscape buffer, sidewalks, and bike trails that would be included in each cross-section.
Puerto Drive is a wide street with two (2) lanes and a lot of pavement. The lanes will be striped with shoulders on each side that will allow parked vehicles. A shared use path on the east side is proposed separated by an asphalt curb. The curb would separate parked cars and the shared path. The shoulders could be used for biking.
Chairman Hart asked why the shared use path couldn’t be located behind the concrete curb.
Aron Baker stated that there is not enough right-of-way. It usually requires ten feet (10’) for a two-way path.
Chairman Hart asked why isn’t the curb moved over to where the asphalt curb is and put the right-of way behind it.
Aron Baker stated because of cost. This is a $141,000 project and it would take $15,000 to take out the asphalt and then put in the curb and gutter.
Commissioner Mendenhall recalled that during previous discussions that Commissioner Blair suggested putting medians down the center of Puerto Drive to calm traffic.
Kevin Rudd stated that it was discussed extensively but it was decided that it would be diffcult for residents to get across the road with a planter in the middle.
Aron Baker stated that medians on residential roads don’t marry very well.
Commissioner Mendenhall expressed how dangerous Puerto Drive is because people drive it like a speedway. They don’t drive with the curves but take the center and shortest route and go straight. It’s difficult to pull out of the driveways, and there are a number of children that live on this street. There have been several discussions regarding the calming of traffic on Puerto Drive.
Aron Baker stated that the side parking does help by giving the driver an enclosed feeling to keep a driver from speeding. Also, with the parking next to narrower lanes which is eleven feet (11’) calms traffic.
Commissioner Mendenhall expressed concern about parked cars on the side of the street because of children having a tendency to dart in an out of parked cars. It’s a dangerous street to start out with and putting parked cars adds to the danger.
Aron Baker mentioned that Center Street is a Major Arterial with eighty-five feet (85’) of asphalt which is smaller than most arterials. The two-way travel lanes are narrower with ten feet (10’) and has a ten foot (10’) median with a bike lane on both sides. The bike lanes allow the continual connectivity to other areas and the bikes can stay on the road.
Commissioner Reed questioned the size of a standard bike lane.
Aron Baker stated that the standard is five feet (5’), and this is four feet (4’) with a 2.5’ gutter.
Commissioner Reed thought the standard was five feet (5’) or four feet (4’) with no curb. He felt four feet (4’) was sufficient.
Aron Baker continued his presentation and mentioned that there are two (2) cross-sections for Old Highway 91. One road section shows three (3) lanes and one with five (5) lanes for future growth.
Chuck Gillette commented on the rural street cross-section. They are allowing an option to move a portion of the thirty foot (30’) landscape buffer into the median. This will be for Kwavasa Drive from Center Street to Kayenta Parkway to allow the developer more flexibility in creating a larger landscape median. The rural street recommendation allows the west side of the City not have curb and gutter. The original plan required a twenty-eight foot (28’) road even in the rural cross-section area. The reason was to have a twenty-eight foot (28’) road with two feet gravel shoulders to get a thirty-two foot (32’) wide drivable surface. That allows cars to park on both sides and still allow for two-way traffic. The fire code appendices requires that if we have roads less than thirty-two feet (32’) then the roads have to be signed on one side "No Parking." To avoid the "No Parking" signs we suggested the standard of twenty-eight feet (28’) pavement with two foot (2’) gravel shoulders. Terry Marten and Lance Anderson had issues with that and agreed to put up "No Parking" signs throughout their development. Therefore, it allows a developer to have twenty-six feet (26’) of pavement with 18" shoulders with the condition that the parking signs are put up as per the fire code. Also, on roadside drainage instead of having a minimum width of rock line channel he is recommending that it be modified to indicated the hydrology, and the hydro logics will determined the rock line channel.
Chairman Hart asked if the Commission would get the changes documented before this agenda items goes to the City Council.
Chuck Gillette advised that it could be moved to the City Council along with the memo but it’s up to the Commission.
Chairman Hart opened the Public Hearing.
Brian Chadez is associated with BlackRock Company LLC. He referred to the letter BlackRock sent to the Planning Commission and Figure 3 of the presentation. BlackRock owns approximately sixty (60) acres on the west side of the roundabout at The Reserves and the property borders Snow Canyon Parkway. The difference between this area and other areas of the City is that there are roads and established residents. There hasn’t been any work done on the sixty (60) acres, and Mr. Gubler owns some of the property. BlackRock is working with him. At the present time, they do not know what will be developed. There have been several discussions but there are no existing plans for the sixty (60) acres that was recently purchased. The company is sensitive to a major lava flow within the property because it is a major wash, and the map shows some significant conservation easements that were granted to consider the natural beauty. It will take careful planning and it will be dictated by what the market will support. There have been discussions of a second golf course and large estate lots which will require very little traffic. He requested that the City be flexible since development is unplanned and uncertain. Focusing on roads for this area is premature. However, the company does support the western section of the northern Western Corridor. It may even make sense to have some chip and seal to jump start that road.
Chairman Hart asked if and when a development plans are submitted will the roads be adjusted to fit what will be built.
Chuck Gillette stated that was correct. The memo states that the proposed location is not required but the connection is required.
Brad Chadez stated that it depends on how the property is utilized such as a second golf course. It may not even need a road or be appropriate if it was a conservation easement.
Dave Glenn stated if the road is shown on the map now and a golf course does come in, an application can be submitted to abandon the road on the master plan.
Terry Marten stated that he and Lance Anderson worked on the Transportation Plan and felt good about the plan. However, we did request that the roads in Kayenta area be reduced from thirty-two feet (32’) to twenty-nine (29’) feet which includes the shoulders. The reason for the request is we don’t want to encourage parking on the roads in Kayenta but construction and event situations would be allowed to park on one side of the road. He will ask the homeowners association to have construction workers place cones up during the construction period.
Dara A. Tancredi stated that she owns a home in Ivins but her main residence is in Entrada. She was opposed to having the 1550 East road on the map at this time. Roads are stubborn to get rid of and it is extremely premature. The road goes through the western end of Entrada then it goes through Santa Clara. Her backyard would face this road. She and the neighbors are concerned about showing a road when there is no plan. She asked them to be sensitive to their request and not promise to Santa Clara that there would be a connection. The Western Corridor would serve the area very well.
Chuck Gillette explained that 1550 East had been in the Transportation Master Plan for some time, there has been an agreement with Santa Clara that a road connection be provided in that area. It is on Ivin’s master plan but Santa Clara does not have it on their master plan. However, St. George shows it on their master plan. This area is part of the Entrada Subdivision. There has been significant opposition to the road from SplitRock and Entrada Subdivision. The master plan from Shan Gubler showed a connection. Therefore, we feel this connection should be on the map. The St. George City Engineer has been a big proponent of keeping some sort of connectivity from the roundabout to Pioneer Parkway. There is some connectivity on the Shan Gublers’ master plan although it is pretty sinuous and may not be enough connectivity. It’s probably more of a St. George and Santa Clara issue than Ivins as long as Ivins gets some kind of connection. Santa Clara and St. George can work out the rest. The road doesn’t have to be straight and in the exact location. It’s about connectivity. (see memo, Item 1 (a) (i)
Shan Gubler referred to the 1550 East road that stubs into the Santa Clara border. He also has concerns with it being on the master plan because it might prompt St. George to try and fulfill the road’s destiny. The road dumps into the Entrada master plan which is a closed development and the connectivity that we all want but if the developer is not careful they jeopardize the use and utilization of their land. He is not trying to cut off the connectivity but he wasn’t sure if it is wise to give St. George a potential grab of that road to nowhere or not. With it on the plan it gives St. George the reason to believe that we are going right through the heart of the golf holes if there was a golf course there. Once it's on the map St. George may expect Ivins to fulfill its destiny. He understands the connectivity issue and that Ivins says that it could be adjusted but wasn’t sure it should be shown on the map.
Dave Glenn explained that this road has been on the old master plan and the regional master plan for years. Mr. Gubler anticipates his master plan will require some connectivity and eventually tie into Santa Clara and Snow Canyon. His plan bypasses the entire Entrada development. The position of the road would be determined based on the plans submitted.
Chairman Hart commented that the property is no larger than other areas that show no road. Any plan brought forward would have to show suitable connectivity anyway.
Dave Glenn explained that the owner is the same on both sides of the border. It would be different if there were different owners when it comes to submitting a master plan. It’s just like utilities. Ivins will stop serving at the border and it would be the same with roads.
Commissioner Reed asked if it would be an issue to move the location of the road.
Dave Glenn felt that it would not.
Chairman Hart asked what the reference is in the past that causes Staff to say that St. George is counting on this right-of-way.
Shan Gubler wasn’t sure St George was counting on this particular road as much as they are for connectivity like the rest of us. We need connectivity and we have the connectivity in the plans but it’s a little further west. Connectivity will be provided but not as shown on the map. It would help if St. George did not force the development of that road. He was requesting flexibility as to where the road needs to go according to plans submitted so that St. George would not try and force the issue to connect because it’s on the map. He preferred that it not be on the map because it shows false premises of the location.
Chairman Hart closed the Public Hearing. He asked that the changes be made before forwarding this to the City Council.
Chairman Hart questioned how this road would be dealt with if Entrada expands to the west and the land becomes a private road in a gated development of Entrada. The City might need to have a statement that would allow some type of connectivity accessible to the public.
Chuck Gillette was not in favor of taking the road off the map. The Planning Commission can make a recommendation but it’s up to the City Council to make the decision. Staff prefers keeping the road on the map rather than using some type of language. Ivins has tried to be cooperative with St. George. If there is no connection, it will cause more traffic onto other roads. There is going to be a problem with Pioneer Parkway even though Santa Clara is planning five (5) lanes but St. George is not. St. George is just trying to get more connectivity. Staff’s recommendation is to leave the road on the map in some location.
Chairman Hart preferred that the corrections be made as proposed to the map and submitted at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Mehr agreed.
Commissioner Reed suggested that the right-of-way be checked on West Lake before adding the trail.
Commissioner Mendenhall asked if the north/south road was the road that was being discussed or did it included the east/west minor collector.
Shan Gubler stated that the east/west road has also been an issue of discussion. In his master plan, there are east/west roads but not in the same alignment. There is also a north/south road but not on the same alignment.
Commissioner Mendenhall asked if everyone was of the same opinion as in Mr. Beesley’s letter that asks Ivins to defer setting the location of any major or minor collector or other roads in the area bounded by the Snow Canyon Parkway, the Western Corridor and Pioneer Parkway. The request is for the property to be void of any roads on the Transportation Master Plan at this point in time.
Shan Gubler stated that it would be the wisest thing to do until there was a plan for the area even though we know connectivity needs to be there to serve everyone’s needs.
Chairman Hart felt that there should be a compromise between the land owner and the City.
Commissioner Reed questioned the uses of residential roads when commercial is added. Would arterials or minor collector be used?
Chuck Gillette stated that the Transportation Master Plan has verbiage on commercial uses but there are no cross-sections.
Chairman Hart commented that a commercial development can be located on at least one side of a residential road.
Chuck Gillette referred to Page 59; Commercial Local roads share the same cross-section with Minor Collectors, but with a Traffic Index of 10.
Chairman Hart asked if any thought had been given to one bicycle lane on one side of Center Street since the road is narrow.
Commissioner Reed stated that the law says that bikers have to ride in the same direction as traffic.
Chuck Gillette stated that the shared paths provides for off-street biking as well as bike lanes on both sides. It is an important corridor for recreation moving back and forth between the Snow Canyon State Park area and the development of the core center of Ivins and to develop more recreation at the base of the Red Mountain. The bike lanes and shared path help prevent crossing the traffic.
Chairman Hart asked if they were comfortable with the lane width.
Chuck Gillette stated that he was not entirely but the lane width does calm traffic and is a little safer.
Chairman Hart questioned the removal of a cross-section for private roads that was narrower with a sidewalk and parking on the side. It states that private roads have to be built in accordance with public road cross-sections. He questioned the need to do that. There are types of developments where a narrow road has worked well. That option is not there because it says a minimum of a fifty-foot (50’) right-of-way.
Chuck Gillette stated that the minimum right-of-way is forty-two feet (42’). The private road was always a less expensive road to build, and they don’t want the developer to use it as a means to build. Its two feet (2’) wider. Once the homeowners association realizes the maintenance cost of the roads, etc. the associations come to the City requesting that the City take the roads back but the roads are not built to City standards. Therefore, the homeowners’ association is stuck. Many of the taxpayers feel they are paying for the roads twice. It seems reasonable that private roads meet the City’s standards. If there was a desire to go private it would be for other reasons than just the fact that it’s less expensive to build a private road.
Commissioner Mehr asked to be excused at 7:10 PM. He felt the Commission should not make a recommendation to move the agenda item forward but continue the discussion at the next Planning Commission meeting to give time to digest the materials and to review the revisions.
Chairman Hart asked if the rural street section would be rewritten to reflect the agreement with Terry Marten.
Chuck Gillette stated that it would.
Chairman Hart referred to the second paragraph of Page 61 regarding cul-de-sacs. He was opposed to the sentence as written for the same reasons he objected to the cul-de-sac ordinance. The cu-de-sac ordinance has been revised. He proposed that the sentence be stricken or rewritten. It should be written so that it is not in opposition to cul-de-sacs existence.
Chuck Gillette felt that it could be rewritten.
Chairman Hart commented that it appears that all the cross-sections have a standard highback curb.
Chuck Gillette explained that it was not the intent. The Residential Standard A and B indicate a modified curb. It states in a note that a highback curb may be necessary if required by the drainage study. All collector roads show highback curbs. A modified curb tends to be a mountable curb.
Chairman Hart referred to Page 71 and asked if the required sight distances are standards.
Chuck Gillette stated that was taken from another city’s standard. He will review residential standard further.
Aron Baker explained that the sight distance is actually more than 300’ on 30 mile streets or faster. There are streets that don’t comply.
Chairman Hart referred to Page 72, "When two or more accesses serve adjacent single-family residential property, the minimum distance between the nearest points of the two accesses shall be at least 20 feet." He felt twenty feet (20’) of separation seemed excessive.
Chuck Gillette agreed that it seemed unreasonable. He will review that minimum distance further before it comes back to the Commission.
Chairman Hart noted that the Capital Facilities Plan and the impact fees are based on five (5), ten (10), and twenty (20) year projects. Since there are only 4-5 permits per month compared to previous years 15-20 per month, are we to assume that this is based on the eventual need and the 5 year plan could become the 10 year plan, etc. or does this mandate how the projects are planned.
Chuck Gillette explained that the plan/projects are reviewed every five (5) years. The Public Works Department updates there plan every year but we have a five (5) year cycle that they plan to stick to for master planning. Mr. Gillette advised that he will not be at the January 6, 2009 meeting but will have the changes submitted.
Chairman Hart explained that the issues were the two (2) roads that have been contested and how they would be represented on the plan. The statement was made that it is hard to remove the roads but it is also hard to get them if the need arises if there is conflict with the property owners. His position was that access needs to be provided north, south, east and west. If the alignments are flexible, it may help that the road is moved further west.
Commissioner Mendenhall’s position was that both the roads should be removed. She did not see a reason to put something on the plan when we do not know what the plan is. It’s all low density residential. She understood the issue of connectivity but most developers would come forward with the connectivity in their plan.
Chuck Gillette explained that when Shan Gubler’s master plan was reviewed it showed roads up and through the lava rock but it did not show connectivity at 400 South. He felt it would have been beneficial but the City could not require the connection because it was not shown on the Transportation Master Plan. It is very important to have the connectivity even if it becomes conservation space or ended up as a road stub because the area never developed.
Kevin Rudd did not see a reason to move the 1515 East road to the west if there was not an approved plan to the west. However, there is an approved plan with St. George.
Chuck Gillette stated that he wouldn’t mind moving it to the west because Santa Clara has approved Shan Gubler’s master plan. The road would line up with his master plan. If St. George had an issue with the way Santa Clara approved the plan, it would be an issue between Santa Clara and St. George.
Commissioner Mendenhall asked if there could be verbiage included. She didn’t understand aligning something that doesn’t have a plan.
Chuck Gillette explained that Staff’s recommendation is to leave the road on the plan and have some verbiage that there is flexibility. The road is not being aligned but shown as connectivity.
Commissioner Reed’s position was that the City has to plan for the future whether or not something is planned or not. The roadways need to be indicated and reserved for financial reasons, etc. It’s important for anyone who is looking to develop a parcel to know what the City expects.
Chuck Gillette explained that in order for the City to do good planning and to know if the Transportation model is going to work is that we show a connection on the plan; we rely on that connection in order to determine what the classifications are for the roads that are existing. If the roads do not go in, it changes the classifications. At some point the City needs to know what the connectivity is.
Commissioner Mendenhall inquired about what happens with the road if a golf course goes in.
Chairman Hart explained that if a golf course or some other low density use goes in that doesn’t require the road size, the developer will propose a plan that amends the road. If the roads are taken off the plan, the plans will have to come in for review and the developer will have to demonstrate what the traffic is, and the City will require roads and connectivity regardless.
Commissioner Mendenhall felt that if the road was taken off the developers have to come in with a plan and show connectivity and if it’s left on they can change it. That doesn’t seem to be an argument for connectivity.
Chuck Gillette stated if the road is taken off it gives the developer an advantage over Staff to be able to request connectivity. The City looses some control.
Dale Coulam stated from a legal point of view, the City cannot require the road unless it’s on the master plan. From a legal perspective there is a need to show the road on the plan. It can be changed how it is reflected on the map, and a note to clarify that it’s not an exact location. But he felt that the City has to show the connection for planning purposes. Staff is only recommending the very minimum connection.
Commissioner Reed felt the road should be shifted to match Shan Gubler’s plan.
Dave Glenn stated that if a golf course is proposed or something comes in that the road is not necessary it’s not a big process to remove the road.
Commissioner Mendenhall also had a concern with Puerto Drive.
Commissioner Reed felt that the cross-section for Puerto Drive would work once the road was striped.
Dave Glen mentioned that the road has been recently restriped and it has reduced the speed.
The Commissioner discussed the curbing, sidewalks, shared paths and stripping of Puerto Drive.
The Commissioners were in agreement that changes be submitted at the next Planning Commission meeting. In addition, it was suggested that the Transportation Plan be sent to Commissioner Jerry Blair for him to review since his expertise is in this field and have him submit his comments.
MOTION: Commissioner Lesley Mendenhall moved to table approval of the proposed amendment to the Ivins Transportation Master Plan and Roadway Plan, Figure 3 Arterial and Collector Road Map of the General Plan. Ivins City, applicant.
SECOND: Commissioner John Reed
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chairman Chris Hart |
AYE |
| Commissioner Lesley Mendenhall |
AYE |
| Commissioner John Reed |
AYE |
| Commissioner Jerry Blair |
ABSENT |
| Commissioner Dennis Mehr |
ABSENT |