The meeting was called to order at
05:51 p.m. All present included
Chairman Dennis Mehr,
Commissioner Cheyne McDonald,
Commissioner Adel Murphy,
Commissioner John Reed,
and Commissioner Mike Scott.
Kevin Rudd reported that this is the first Final Plat submitted on the Posovi Subdivision Phase II. The phase consists of two (2) lots and is approximately 3.979 acres. The original Preliminary Plan was amended which reduced the number of lots in each phase significantly. The developers felt it was necessary to reduce the number of lots within each phase because of the market and the tax savings. The Technical Review Committee (TRC) reviewed the Final Plat. The plat and the two (2) roads are consistent with the Preliminary Plan which was approved by the City Council. The Final Plat complies with the Preliminary Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. The TRC recommends that the Final Plat be approved subject to the Development Agreement being approved by the City Council. The Development Agreement will specify the time periods of when the phases will be developed. The II-R1 refers to the section of road that feeds into the two (2) lots. The completion of all the roads will be covered in the Development Agreement. The Planning Commission does not get involved in the Development Agreement process.
There was no discussion or questions.
MOTION: Commissioner John Reed moved to approve a Final Plat for Posovi Subdivision Phase II-B and II-R1 located at approximately 1970 North and Uwan Drive conditioned upon the approval of the Development Agreement. Kayenta Development Inc., owner, and Lance Anderson, applicant.
SECOND: Commissioner Cheyne McDonald
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chairman Dennis Mehr |
AYE |
| Commissioner Cheyne McDonald |
AYE |
| Commissioner Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner John Reed |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
Kevin Rudd reported that this is the second Final Plat submitted for Posovi Subdivision Phase II, and these lots were part of the approved Preliminary Plan by the City Council. This parcel is zoned RE-43 (Residential Est. min. 43,000 sq ft lots) and consists of two (2) lots with approximately 3.6 acres. The Technical Review Committee (TRC) recommends approval subject to the approval of the Development Agreement.
There was no discussion or questions.
MOTION: Commissioner Adel Murphy moved to approve a Final Plat for Posovi Subdivision Phase II-I and II-R4, II-R5 located at 1970 North and Uwan Drive subject to approval of the Development Agreement. Kayenta Development Inc., owner, and Lance Anderson, applicant.
SECOND: Commissioner John Reed
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chairman Dennis Mehr |
AYE |
| Commissioner Cheyne McDonald |
AYE |
| Commissioner Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner John Reed |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
Chairman Mehr disclosed that the Commissioners had been on a field trip to visit the proposed property.
Kevin Rudd reported that the current zone is RA-5 (Agricultural, 5 acres min. lot size) and the proposed Zone Change is for RE-25 (Residential Est. 25,000 min. lot size). The Staff report provided a list of possible densities within the Low Density Residential zones. He informed both the Commissioners and the developers that the projected lot totals are not written in stone. It’s a preliminary review until a development plan comes forward. This list shows the projected maximum number of lots that could be developed.
Commissioner Reed expressed that this zoning request impacts Ivins in a great way. The Red Mountain is something we all love, and this property encompasses a portion of us. He presented an Google aerial map showing the location and disclosed that he emailed this map to the other Commissioners prior to the meeting. The map gives a vertical perspective, shows the base area and how it cuts across the slope. One small parcel was of some concern, in that; the property owner could come back and ask for similar zoning. The Commission could be setting a precedent. However, in reviewing the Sensitive Lands Map that parcel is identified as a geological hazard, and it would not have a potential to develop without some further discussions with a geologist. His first impression was how could homes be built on the parcel but every property owner has a right to develop the property absent of geological hazard or similar limiting issues. It is our responsibility as Commissioners to try and recommend boundaries for the development to ensure that it’s in harmony with Ivins’ needs, considering the property rights of the developer but also the property rights of Ivins residents. One property owner referred to spot zoning because some of the property around his parcel is zoned differently. That trigger what the Commission’s responsibility was. Should these parcels have some conformity to the surrounding zones? He read the state statute: "The legislative body may divide the territory over which it has jurisdiction into zoning districts, number shape and area that it considers appropriate to carry out the purpose of this chapter. Within those zoning districts the legislative body may regulate and restrict the erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration and repair or the use of building structures or the use of the land. The legislative body shall ensure that the regulations are uniform for each class and kind of buildings throughout each zoning district for regulations in one zone may differ from the regulations in another zone. There is no minimum area or diversity of ownership requirement for a zone designation." The key to him was that neither the site, nor zoning district, nor the number of land owners within a zoning district may be used as evidence as the illegality of a zoning district toward the invalidity of a municipal decision. Therefore, the zoning districts can be any size and in any place that the City wants. There are spot zones throughout Ivins to serve different purposes. The Land Use Map indicates the proposed area as "Open Space." Parcels cannot be zoned as "Open Space." It takes away the owners rights. However, the Zoning Map should be in harmony with the Land Use Plan when the recommendation goes forward to the City Council. There is no inherent right to rezone. The courts have upheld the rights of municipalities to have zoning equivalent to RA-20 or one lot for twenty (20) acres. This parcel has RE-25 on one side and essential zero on the other which is wilderness area. The boundary of the current zoning matches the topography of this parcel. This parcel is significantly different than the Taviawk area although portions blend in with the subdivision. It’s appropriate to pick an underlying density and let the the Sensitive Lands Overlay determined the configuration but he felt the Commission should look at the overall impact to Ivins. The process of having to assign a zone hampers us without knowing what the final configuration or development will look like. The number of lots estimated within sensitive lands would be a potential but given the area of geological hazard he failed to understand how more lots could fit at that minimum size. If the developer moved beyond that it would be in high rock fall and land slides. The Commissioners need to be aware that whatever zoning is approved, the property owner has a right to do anything that the zoning permits. The property could also change hands which is a consideration. However, he supports creative development within Ivins and an environmentally sound environment.
Commissioner Scott asked for some background on why the current Land Use Plan designates this property as Open Space instead of keeping it at the previous zone.
Judy Gubler explained that when the Land Use Plan was developed Open Space did not necessarily mean, nor could it mean, that zoning for Open Space would follow. Open Space referred to the lava, steep hillsides, and it meant there were some geographic features that the City needed to be pay attention to. When the zoning was done we ran into some problems because the question was, "What was the underlying zoning going to be." On some of the areas where lava and sensitive lands were located, the zones were established and the Land Use Plan has been adjusted to reflect those zones. Open space originally covered lava, hillsides and it was just to say there was something there. The Land Use Plan did not necessarily mean the zone was Open Space because that would be a taking. When Open Space was zoned, it was zoned RA-5 which was kind of a holding zone for a lot of the area including the lava indicating there could be some use as Low Density. The designation the owner refers to was before the Sensitive Lands Ordinance was in place.
Commissioner Scott stated that the General Plan calls for Open Space as part of the City’s goal and mentions Open Space as cluster. He asked if that was in essence an inevitable result on this property because of the sensitive lands, and will this parcel end up as clustering toward the base of the property.
Judy Gubler felt that the owners were not proposing clustering.
Kevin Rudd interprets the clustering effect in the sensitive lands ordinance as taking the density out of the sensitive lands area and cluster it in an area that is non sensitive lands. The ordinance does not allow clustering within the sensitive lands because it limits the amount of disturbance area of each lot. The ordinance tries to encourage a property owner to take his density off the sensitive lands, and cluster it on a portion of the property that would not be sensitive lands. Example: The Villas of Bellagio on Highway 91 where several acres of that area is sensitive lands and that section crosses above the 8% sensitive lands. The developer chose to leave that as open space and dedicated it to the City to receive density bonuses. This site does not have any place to take the density and cluster it. If the zone was RE-25, the minimum lot size would be 25,000 square feet. Because of the disturbance area, the developer may have to create a five (5) acre lot in order to get a large enough disturbance area. On a 15% slope only 5% of the lot can be disturbed. A 10,000 square foot building pad requires approximately 200,000 square feet which would be five (5) acres based on a 15% grade. The developer would not be able to cluster on this parcel.
Commissioner Murphy stated given the fact there are sensitive lands, slope issues and rock fall issues it appears from their visit to the property that those two (2) areas where the developer is putting the homes is about the only place where lots can be developed.
Kevin Rudd stated, "Correct." The information submitted so far indicates those areas.
Commissioner Murphy felt that the two (2) parcels furthest north appear to have access problems. There are five (5) parcels being rezoned. She asked if the top two (2) parcels are being included within the seventy (70) acres so that the developer can build more lots in that area.
Kevin Rudd felt he should not speak for the developer on why he has included those parcels with the seventy (70) acres. He suggested that the Commissioners asked the developer to explain.
Commissioner Mehr invited Lance Anderson to come forward and explained why the two (2) parcels are included in the zone change.
Lance Anderson explained that these are the only parcels that have not been zoned and that is where the seventy (70) acres start. When the water tank issue came up, we decided to think about zoning the area. As we studied these parcels to zone it left one tax identification number that wasn’t included so it was decided to ask for zoning for the entire area. It was in a holding pattern for RA-5. As John Reed stated we all love the Red Mountain, the scenery, the enclave, and as we talked about zoning and sensitive lands some of the heartburn with the way the zoning ordinance is written is that once it is zoned it creates a base density which takes away all rights for the developers to do anything else. In other zones if open space is given up it allows density bonus percentages. There are three (3) criteria’s to achieve density bonuses but within sensitive lands there are no other bonuses. Everything is based on what is approved by the City Council. RE-25 zone allows approximately 21-22 lots of which is not our intention to develop. However, it does allow a credit for a conservation easement by allowing that property to be turned over to the City. That is a way that everyone can enjoy the Red Mountain and take ownership. By zoning higher density it allows more units to be placed on the property, and the credit is based on the number of units given up by the owner. This has happen in other developments. They are looking at developing twelve (12) lots but they are also looking at ways to get the use out of the mountain because it has value. In this case, the only value is giving up the property and rights to a conservation easement deduction which amounts to about 30% based on the taxable income bracket. The Sensitive Lands Tables shows how the disturbance works. He gave the following examples of disturbance: RE-37 (14.71 lots); RE-25 (21.77 lots); RE-20 (27.21 lots); RE-15 (36.28). The deduction will be based on the number of lots zoned that is given up for conservation easement and based on the tax level. Kayenta Development still owns the basin and maybe that could become part of the conservation easement. Based on zoning it allows the owners to give up that area instead of putting it into lots.
Commissioner Reed stated that if approved at RE-25 the minimum lot size would be 25,000 square feet and essentially cannot be clustered. The ordinance was designed to allow owners to transfer rights on parcel of property but this property has no transference available. The geological constraints of this parcel are such that giving a zoning density of RE-25, the owners could not do much else with it because it cannot be developed up the hill, and there’s too much rock fall hazard. Even if they were able to put a lot up there, he didn’t feel a road could be done. After giving it considerable thought and the concern that the property could change hands, he was more comfortable with the RE-25 zoning.
Commissioner Murphy had some of the same reservations as Commissioner Reed but after seeing the area, walking the parcel and hearing from Mr. Anderson she was comfortable with the RE-25 zone request.
Commissioner Mehr agreed with the other Commissioner’s comments and felt it was good for the community and the property owner. The Sensitive Lands Ordinance helps protect the community icon, and he was okay with the proposed zone request.
MOTION: Commissioner John Reed moved to recommend to the City Council Zone Changes from RA-5 (Res. Agriculture Min. 5-Acres) to RE-25 (Res. Estates Min. 25,000 Sq Ft) located on various parcels adjoining the Taviawk Subdivisions Phase II, Phase III, Phase IV, Phase V, Phase VI, Phase VII and Summit Ridge Phase 2. Kayenta Development, Inc., owner, and Lance Anderson applicant.
SECOND: Commissioner Cheyne McDonald
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chairman Dennis Mehr |
AYE |
| Commissioner Cheyne McDonald |
AYE |
| Commissioner Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner John Reed |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
Kevin Rudd reported that the first portion of the amended document clarifies Staff’s review and approval process of Final Plats. He read Section 15.04.403, Item (4) and explained that it is critical that a lien holder’s consent appears on the Final Plat and that all lien holders be identified in the title report. On page 3, Item 2 (c) requires, "verification from the Washington County Treasurer that all taxes or special assessments payable on all property within the subdivision, including any interest and penalties thereon, have been paid in full." It is important that all fees have been paid on the plat before recorded. Page 4, Section 15.04.406, Item (8) refers to verification from Washington County Water Conservancy District that the impact fees have been satisfied. The City does not dictate the arrangement the developer/property owner makes with the Water Conservancy District. The Water Conservancy District will allow a developer/property owner to come in and sign an agreement that delays them having to come up with a large payment. The City wants to make sure the agreement or fees have been signed before recording the plat.
Page 5, 15.05.402 Street Requirements: The chart has been changed to reflect the recently amended General Plan and Transportation Master Plan which changed most of the design criteria for streets. City Engineer Chuck Gillette made these changes to bring the Subdivision Ordinance into compliance with the Transportation Master Plan updates, and it also updates the cul-de-sac, trails, and sidewalks. Staff recommends the amendments for approval.
Chairman Mehr stated that the chart was not clear on the street requirements as to what was new and what was old.
Kevin Rudd explained that in the previous plan the minimum residential right-of-way width was a standard fifty feet (50’). There is still a standard fifty foot (50’) right-of-way but now there are some alternatives such as forty-three foot (43’) and thirty-eight foot (38’) right-of-ways. The point is this chart is consistent with the Transportation Master Plan. Any changes to any plan have to be implemented into other documents such as the Subdivision Ordinance.
Chairman Mehr opened the Public Hearing.
Lance Anderson asked about the requirement to get verification from Washington County Water Conservancy District and advised that Kayenta does not have to get verification.
Kevin Rudd explained that Kayenta is not included in the water conservancy agreement because they are a private water company, and they choose not to be included in the agreement.
Lance Anderson’s was concerned about how the statement was written. They are regulated by the Public Utility Company, and he does not want to have to do something that they already have the right to do.
Kevin Rudd stated that something should probably be included about Kayenta because Staff cannot require a verification of their application since Kayenta is a not part of Ivin’s agreement with the water district.
Lance Anderson asked if the thirty-eight foot (38’) Residential Alternative road was a private road.
Kevin Rudd explained that there is a thirty-eight foot (38’) Residential Private Rural road. All the other roads listed above this road can be a private road upon request but it’s unlikely that would be requested. The only private road available is the Private Rural road.
Lance Anderson was concerned about the 15 mph speed on the thirty-eight foot (38’) roads since Kayenta roads were that width.
Judy Gubler explained that the 15 mph is for private roads.
Jerry Blair explained that Section 15.05.402 Street Requirements is taken directly from the revised Transportation Master Plan. This was worked on for about nine (9) months before forwarding to the Commission and City Council. There were areas that we felt had larger standard road widths that did not make a lot of sense, and in certain residential areas the right-of-way width could be reduced and still provide lanes for transportation, sidewalks adjacent either on one side or two sides and trails where needed. This would give developers more of the ability to play with the areas and to do more if they did not have to eat up so much right-of-way. They reviewed cul-de-sac areas and short low volume streets, primarily in upper end residential areas. The concept was to provide more freedom for development and still provide for the safety of the people. Residential private is the smallest road for rural areas and allowing a twenty-six (26’) roadway which is set by the fire department and their needs for access. That has not been violated with any of the cross sections.
Chairman Mehr closed the Public Hearing as there were no other comments.
Commissioner Reed explained that he has had the opportunity to question the water district and found they are difficult to work with. Mr. Anderson brings up a valid point. He felt that where Kayenta is not applicable it should be added to the ordinance.
Commissioner Mehr agreed that there should be language added to Section 15.04.406, Item 8 such as "as applicable."
Judy Gubler suggested "where required."
Commissioner Reed suggested that City Attorney Dale Coulam revise Item 8 to reflect the proper attorney wording.
The consensus was to have the attorney revise the language.
Commissioner Murphy suggested that the numbering in Section 15.04.403 be changed on Page 1 and 2.
The consensus was to have the document revised and continue Agenda Item E to the next scheduled meeting.
MOTION: Commissioner John Reed moved to continue the recommendation to Amend Title 15, Chapters 4 and 5 of the Ivins City Municipal Code Regarding Subdivisions Final Plats, Subdivision Design, Construction and Supplementary Regulations to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Ivins City, applicant.
SECOND: Commissioner Adel Murphy
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chairman Dennis Mehr |
AYE |
| Commissioner Cheyne McDonald |
AYE |
| Commissioner Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner John Reed |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
Kevin Rudd explained that the Commissioners will be working on the revision of the Zoning Ordinance during each meeting, and he suggested allocating a time period for the discussions.
Chairman Mehr agreed and was in favor of setting a reasonable time for the discussion. He asked if there was an expectation on the timing as to when the revision should be completed. During the work meeting, Commissioner Reed’s comments were that the Commission needs to get some early wins, take on some of the easier tasks and get some experience.
Kevin Rudd felt that it would take approximately a year. He distributed a work plan, and a copy of GouldEvans proposals were included in their packets (copies located at the Ivins City office).
Commissioner Reed asked that the PowerPoint presented at the work meeting be included in their packets to give them a starting point.
Kevin Rudd recalled that it was decided at the work meeting to work on residential zoning, then discuss the commercial zones and also discuss how flexible lots sizes work. St. George has amended their ordinance to allow flexible lots and go by density instead of specific lot sizes. Their ordinance has a notation in the residential zoning section of R-1 zones that states, "These are the units per acre that are allowed with flexible lot sizes."
Commissioner Reed suggested that they need in their packets what is current and what is being modified.
Kevin Rudd proceeded with the residential zoning explanation:
Residential - Low Density: Consider adding an RE-17.5 (17,500 sq ft min. lot size). This would have the same setbacks as RE-15 (15,000 sq ft min. lot size). There have been some comments that the City is getting too many zones.
Judy Gubler stated that part of the argument is that a developer can accomplish the same thing with RE-15 because larger lots can be developed within that zone.
Kevin Rudd explained that some developers argue that if they are pushed into RE-20 they loose two (2) lots, etc. It’s a big gap between 15,000 sq. ft. and 20,000 sq. ft.
Residential - Medium Density: Consider adding R-1-7.5 (7,500 sq ft lot sizes). If a classification goes lower than R-1-7.5, the General Plan would need to be amended. There is only 500’ feet difference between R-1-8 and R-1-7.5. There has been discussion to eliminate the R-1-8. However, the developments already zoned would have to be changed on the Zone Map. He felt it was best to leave those developments as is and go forward with the new zone if that is a recommendation. If R-1-8 was removed, another zone would need to be applied to parcels that are already zoned. The R-1-8 zones comply with the R-1-7.5 but changing the setbacks would trigger some changes. One concern with the R-1-7.5 is the setbacks. Currently, setbacks are at 25’ for the front, 10’ for the sides, and 10’ in the rear. On smaller lots the side setbacks could be reduced to 8’ on one side and 10’ on the other side. Setbacks are not driven by building code. Setbacks are aesthetic. He suggested maintaining a 25’ front setbacks and maintaining the ordinance height of 25’.
There are some properties zoned R-1-8 that are undeveloped. They discussed some of those properties, and one particular parcel may need to be zoned commercial because the Land Use Plan classification is commercial.
Commissioner Murphy asked if the setbacks on an R-1-7.5 have to be reduced. She was concerned about the two (2) zones being so close in size and wasn’t sure if it was necessary to keep both zones. She was also concerned about allowing 8’ setbacks on the sides.
Commissioner Reed’s viewpoint was that the land on the side of houses is not particularly usable land except for appearances and landscaping. It’s just space. The question is how do smaller setbacks impact the City. It allows more homes in subdivisions and it is denser.
Chairman Mehr felt that 10’ setbacks are very tight when it comes to noise from children, family and neighbors.
Kevin Rudd explained that smaller setbacks allow for a larger home to be built on the lot and more flexibility for the developers. He drew some examples.
The Commissioners also discussed disadvantages of smaller front setbacks and how overlays give more flexibility and density bonuses. Another consideration is the size of lot frontages and should they be reduced to 75’ or 72’. Currently, lot frontages are 80’.
Residential High Density: Consider R-1-5 (5,000 min sq. ft. lots) and R-2-6 (6,000 sq ft lots). Duplexes and townhomes are located in High Density and setbacks will need to be established. He will do some research on duplexes and townhomes and furnish it to the Commission.
St. George has noted in their Zoning Ordinance under residential use that churches cannot be located on a subdivision lot unless the plat shows it as a church. There are church denominations going into residential subdivisions and buying a lot and building a church on it. Ivins has had some church requests to buy subdivision lots. If a developer wants to designate a lot as a church site, then someone buying a lot will know that a church will be built. This is something to consider.
Judy Gubler suggested that Kevin Rudd formulate an outline that has the current zones, possible zones, including setbacks and lot widths, etc. for the Commissioners.
The consensus was that it would be helpful.
The changes were submitted prior to the meeting with the exception that "scribble" should be changed to "disturb."
MOTION: Commissioner Cheyne McDonald moved to approve the Ivins City Planning Commission minutes for April 14, 2009 as amended.
SECOND: Commissioner Mike Scott
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chairman Dennis Mehr |
AYE |
| Commissioner Cheyne McDonald |
AYE |
| Commissioner Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner John Reed |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |