Kevin Rudd explained that the O.R.E. Subdivision was originally owned by Shan Gubler. This property has been sold to a new owner. When the plan was originally submitted, there was talk about putting in time share condominium units on this site. The new owner has no plans for the property at this time, and has no desire to develop the property to the current plan. Staff has reviewed the application, and none of the improvements have been installed. The only process lacking was a Final Plat being recorded. Staff recommends abandoning the roads to allow the new owner to come forward with a plan to develop this property.
Chairman Hart opened the Public Hearing and with no response closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Mendenhall arrived at 5:37 P.M. and stated that she had no conflicts of interest.
The Commissioners had no comments or questions.
MOTION: Commissioner Dennis Mehr moved to recommend vacating the O.R.E. Site Subdivision in its entirety and its dedicated streets located at approximately 1500 East on the south side of Snow Canyon Parkway at the roundabout. BlackRock Land Company, LLC, owner.
SECOND: Commissioner John Reed
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chairman Chris Hart |
AYE |
| Commissioner Dennis Mehr |
AYE |
| Commissioner Lesley Mendenhall |
AYE |
| Commissioner John Reed |
AYE |
| Commissioner Jerry Blair |
ABSENT |
The subdivision is zoned RE-15 (Residential Estate, 15,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) and consists of 4.272 acres with nine (9) lots.
Kevin Rudd reported that the Cielo Vista Subdivision has all the improvements installed. The subdivision only lacks recording. Because of the hard financial times this subdivision went into foreclosure and the Final Plat expired. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that the subdivision approval process start over. Staff recommends approval.
Chairman Hart opened the Public Hearing.
Craig Robinson asked the location of the subdivision.
Kevin Rudd stated approximately 400 West and 200 South.
Craig Robinson inquired about the asphalt sidewalks versus the fact that most subdivision have concrete sidewalks.
Kevin Rudd explained that it is part of the bike path system. It is wider than most concrete sidewalks. Sidewalks are approximately four feet (4’), and this path is approximately eight feet (8’).
Chairman Hart closed the Public Hearing.
There were no comments or questions.
MOTION: Commissioner John Reed moved to recommend approval of a Preliminary Plan for Cielo Vista Subdivision located approximately 400 West and 200 South. Douglas Youngberg Investments, Inc, applicant.
SECOND: Commissioner Dennis Mehr
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chairman Chris Hart |
AYE |
| Commissioner Dennis Mehr |
AYE |
| Commissioner Lesley Mendenhall |
AYE |
| Commissioner John Reed |
AYE |
| Commissioner Jerry Blair |
ABSENT |
Kevin Rudd explained that several months ago Staff came before the Planning Commission to discuss the possibility of creating Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines standards. Several cities have come up with standards so that the City has a little more control on how the development is built and how it's placed. The Planning Commission has been working on the guidelines for several months.
Chairman Hart opened the Public Hearing and with no response closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Reed was concerned about the language on "Open Space." He gave an example of building multi-housing for retirement in Kayenta where the open space would be left natural. He felt that could not be done based on how the ordinance is written. There is an area in Kayenta that is owned by different owners and some of the area could be developed commercial and multi-family units. The ordinance is designed more toward the family aspect.
Chairman Hart explained that the same kind of conflict exists here that exists with the roads, that is, Kayenta is asking for a variation from the standard throughout the City. The burden would fall on Kayenta to demonstrate that the space being provided as open space is usable.
Commissioner Reed felt that it could not be proved because it would have to fall under Design Criteria for Usable Open Space (i - ix). Natural spaces are not included as usable space unless it falls under density bonus.
Chairman Hart suggested changing the language to state, "Usable Open Space may include the following:"
Commissioner Mehr referred to "Design Incentives (ii) and (iii)." Category "B" refers to sports courts and Category "C" refers to basketball court. The intent reflects the Commission’s discussions but someone could come back and say isn’t a basketball court a sports court and request a higher density percentage. He felt it should be clarified.
Kevin Rudd commented that sports court is a multi-use type facility that has a lot more to it than just a basketball court and that was why the two (2) were separated. A basketball court is a hoop with a small concrete area.
Commissioner Mehr suggested changing the language to "multi-use sports court."
After some discussion about the cost of basketball and tennis courts, the consensus was to leave sports courts in Category "B" but change the wording to "multi-use sports courts."
Chairman Hart suggested some additional changes and then referred to the maximum building length which is indicated as one hundred twenty feet (120’) for mult-family residential building. He previously distributed examples to the Commissioners on multi-family buildings that were less than one hundred feet (100’) in width. If we want to contain the mass of the buildings, we may want to change the maximum back to one hundred feet (100’) with twenty (20) parking spaces as proposed by Commissioner Blair. The parking area would be the maximum width of the building.
Kevin Rudd commented that one hundred feet (100’) is not very long. There are many homes over one hundred feet (100’) long. One hundred twenty feet (120’) is not excessive. Several of the ordinances that were reviewed showed multi-family building at one hundred fifty feet (150’).
The consensus was to leave the width as stated.
The following changes were made to the document:
1. Page 2, 16.18.102 Item 2 (C) Design Criteria for Usable Open Space to read: "Usable Open Space may include the following:"
2. Page 3, 16.18.102 Item 3 Design Incentives (b, ii) was changed to read: "multi-use sports court" and (ii) "thirty percent to twenty percent" and (iii) "fifteen percent to ten percent."
3. Page 3, 16.18.103 Site Layout and Development Pattern. Change to read "It is the intent"
4. Page 6, 16.18.106 Building Materials Item (3) (a) Change to read: "Approved visible roofing" and "Disapproved visible roofing."
5. Page 7, 16.18.107 Landscape Change to read: "Landscaping is a visible indicator of quality development and shall be an integral part of every multi-family project, not merely located in leftover portions of the site."
6. Page 8, 16.18.110 Equipment and Service Area Screening Item 1 (a) Change to read: "shall be oriented toward rear or interior service corridors."
MOTION: Commissioner John Reed moved to recommend amending Title 16 of the Ivins City Code to add a Chapter entitled "Multi-Family Residential Design Guidelines and Standards" as modified by the discussions. Ivins City, applicant.
SECOND: Commissioner Lesley Mendenhall
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chairman Chris Hart |
AYE |
| Commissioner Dennis Mehr |
AYE |
| Commissioner Lesley Mendenhall |
AYE |
| Commissioner John Reed |
AYE |
| Commissioner Jerry Blair |
ABSENT |
Dave Glenn reported that all the comments from the previous Public Hearing meeting have been incorporated and included in the Commissioners’ packets. Chuck Gillette included a memo stating the changes to the document (copy available at the City office.)
1. A 38’ Cross-section has been added based on comments from Chairman Hart that there was no private street cross-section. This will be a public street with a sidewalk on one side of the road but still meets the minimum asphalt widths that’s required on all public streets in residential zones.
2. Figure 1 reflects the change on the 1550 East connection. This is just a connection and doesn’t show the exact alignment. The north/south road was also shifted to the west. If a development or golf course comes in, the City would like to see some type of connection.
3. There is a fifty foot (50’) right-of-way on West Lake Drive.
4. Commissioner Blair did send comments in regarding the proposed changes and those comments have been incorporated.
5. Grammar and typo changes on page 27, 3.1.2.1
Dave Glenn explained that the traffic volume determines where a thirty-eight foot (38’) residential cross-section would be used versus a forty-three foot (43’) residential cross-section. It also gives Staff flexibility if the development was to meet the 200 vehicles per day or less, or it might be an area joining a commercial development, etc. The developers have the option to do traffic a study, and Staff could take that into consideration.
Chairman Hart referred to rural street cross-section and asked what happens when the volume increases. Are all the cross-sections indicated on the master plan or is there some amended size requirement that should be included when a sufficient number of lots are carried onto a collector street.
Dave Glenn stated that the main routes are identified in the rural area. There is nothing included that requires a larger cross-section for residential when the traffic volume increases but the pedestrian facilities are addressed, in that, sidewalks and trails are not required when traffic studies show that a road has a volume of less than 200 vehicles per day (approximately 20 dwelling units). Most rural streets without a connecting route, such as Kayenta, would have twenty (20) homes or less.
Chairman Hart asked if a situation occurred where the volume was above twenty (20) residents being served by a street, would the asphalt change based on five hundred (500) vehicles.
Dave Glenn stated that the asphalt would be the same on the 38’ - 50’ foot cross-sections. On the rural roads a volume over 200 vehicles would have a trail on one side or as identified in the Trails Master Plan.
Chairman Hart asked if above five hundred (500) vehicles, would a collector street be designed.
Dave Glenn stated that a traffic analysis map was done to show those roads and that is how the streets have been categorized. The traffic analysis was presented during Aron Baker’s presentation.
Chairman Hart referred to Page 30, Section 3.1.3 The Central Core of Ivins. This reference seems out of place in this ordinance. It refers to the history of the town center. He felt they should simply make reference to the fact that the town center is shown on the master plan. It doesn’t need a lot of history. Indicate that it’s shown and that we have to plan for future traffic on 200 East and Center Street accordingly.
Dale Coulam explained that the reference could be included either way. This is an element of the General Plan so it could contain language much like language found in the General Plan or it could be more technical and then refer to the language in the General Plan.
After some discussion the consensus of the Commission was to leave the language as written.
Chairman Hart referred to Page 72, paragraph one, change language to read: "When two or more accesses serve a single-family residential property, the minimum distance between the nearest points of the two accesses shall be at least twelve feet (12’)."
Chairman Hart referred to Table 8 Access Driveway Widths. A twenty foot (20’) driveway is not enough for a two-car garage and twenty-seven feet (27’) is not enough for a three-car garage but these widths are considered minimum. The narrowest two-car garage door with a 2.4" panels is 20.8" in width. The driveway needs to be wider by a foot or two. Two 9’ or 10’ single garage doors with the with 2.4’ panels is approximately 27’ to 28’ in width. The widths in the table are inadequate and are in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance. A three-car garage could add up to forty feet (40’). Of course, the City doesn’t want to have commercial access widths with fifty foot (50’) curb cut. If the table is to remain in the document, he recommended that reasonable widths be reflected or remove the table and the sentence prior to the table.
Dave Glenn referred to the notes that allow the widths to be determined on a case-by-case basis if warranted.
Dale Coulam explained that if the standard is always going to be a deviation then there is a problem. The note could say if there is a unique situation it would be considered on a case-by-case basis, but if the standard is off it should be addressed so that the widths meet the majority of the situations.
Chairman Hart gave examples of how the new parking ordinances for RV’s, etc. would affect homeowners parking in the driveways and along the side of their homes. It’s difficult to park along the side of the home with a twenty-five foot (25’) curb cut.
Commissioner Reed commented that this is a Transportation Master Plan, and he felt driveway widths should be addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. A master plan should provide guidance more than specifics. He felt the table should be removed and widths of driveways be specified in the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman Hart felt the curb cut is what should be addressed. He was okay with setting a maximum curb cut width.
Kevin Rudd stated that the current Zoning Ordinance states that the maximum width of a driveway is twenty feet (20’). Throughout the City, that is not the case. Twenty feet (20’) is not wide enough for the driveway. The Zoning Ordinance does need to be revised to reflect a more realistic width. This document might be a place to suggest some reasonable widths that would be more functional. This document is suggesting twenty-seven feet (27’).
Dale Coulam explained that it would be reasonable to address the curb cut in the Transportation Master Plan since it references right-of-ways and the specific driveway width should be addressed in the Zoning Ordinance.
After further discussion about allowing a forty foot (40’) curb cut, the Commissioners agreed to delete "Table 8 and the paragraph prior to the table and include a sentence that the maximum combined curb cut would not exceed forty feet (40’)."
Commissioner Reed requested that Page 61, Paragraph 2 be changed to read: "Pedestrian and bicycle traffic shall be incorporated in the planning and design of all developed streets." His position was that it is something that should be done, not just considered.
Commissioner Mehr felt that the beauty of the Transportation Master Plan is that it gives the City flexibility to promote bike paths, roundabouts, etc. but not to tie our hands to say that we have to put pedestrian and bicycle paths in.
Commissioner Reed explained that the statement meant that we cannot design something where there is no pedestrian or bicycle crossing. It doesn’t mean a bicycle path has to be put in. It means to provide access for pedestrians and bicycles.
The Commissioners agreed with the change.
MOTION: Commissioner John Reed moved to recommend 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 as modified by the discussions. Ivins City, applicant.
SECOND: Commissioner Lesley Mendenhall
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chairman Chris Hart |
AYE |
| Commissioner Dennis Mehr |
AYE |
| Commissioner Lesley Mendenhall |
AYE |
| Commissioner John Reed |
AYE |
| Commissioner Jerry Blair |
ABSENT |