The Commissioners discussed the following zone designations:
R-1-7.5 (Single Family Res. 7,500 min. sq. ft.):
Minimum Lot Size: 7,500 square feet
Minimum Lot Width: 75’
Kevin Rudd explained that the minimum lot width for R-1-8 (Single Family Res. 8,000 min. sq. ft.) is eighty feet (80’). The old township allows seventy-two and a half feet (72.5’), and he did not recommend going below that width. The question is should it be left at eighty feet (80’) or should it be changed. To achieve an eighty foot (80’) width it requires a depth of one hundred feet (100’) for R-1-8.
Commissioner Reed felt eighty feet (80’) starts to dictate the size of the house. He suggested seventy-five feet (75’).
Commissioner Murphy stated that St. George uses seventy feet (70’) on R-1-8 zones which are small. She also suggested seventy-five feet (75’).
The consensus was to use seventy-five feet (75’) for the width.
Minimum Corner Lot Width: 85’ (10’ wider than minimum lot width)
Kevin Rudd suggested increasing the width of corner lots under this designation. Sometimes it is hard to get a home to fit on corner lots because of the setbacks. People with corner lots realize that they cannot get the size building pad they want and will ask for variance. When allowing smaller lot sizes in a development, it’s best to increase the lot sizes for corner lots.
Commissioner Reed pointed out that by increasing the corner lot size, the lot would be larger than 7,500 square feet. However, larger lots could be in this zone.
Kevin Rudd stated, "Correct." When reviewing the smaller lots, they should review the setbacks to see what size building pad could be allowed.
Commissioner Scott asked if Kevin Rudd was suggesting a seventy-five foot (75’) width and adding another ten feet (10’) for a corner lot. That would allow an extra 1,000 feet to a corner lot. It makes sense and it doesn’t increase the lot size too dramatically.
Kevin Rudd stated, "Correct."
Minimum Front setbacks: 25’
Kevin Rudd stated that the current front setback is twenty-five feet (25’). The advantage of a twenty foot (20’) setback allows a larger building pad. The disadvantage is longer cars and trucks stick out into the sidewalk and make it tight. It’s common to have a twenty foot (20’) setback with smaller lots.
The Commissioners were in favor of twenty-five foot (25’) setbacks.
Minimum Side setback: 8’ and 10’ with zero lot line provision
Kevin Rudd noted that the sides could be 8’ and 10’ setbacks instead of 10’ and 10’ setbacks on the side setbacks
Chairman Mehr was not in favor of 8’ and 10’ setbacks. A concern could be large vehicle accessing the backyard or fire access.
Commissioner Reed advised that the fire access has to do with getting the hose around the building.
Commissioner Scott asked if only five feet (5’) setback is required.
Kevin Rudd explained that the building code allows five feet (5’) before it requires fire resistant structures. If fire walls are used, setbacks can be zero lot line. Wider setbacks also allows parking the boat, camper etc. on the side of the house. Some city ordinances are allowing zero lot line on one side with 15-18 feet on the other side. It gives property owners a larger side yard for recreational vehicles, etc. Ivins has a lot of recreational vehicles, and residents try to store the RV’s in the side yard.
Commissioner McDonald asked if a zero lot line option would allow homes to be together on the property line.
Some examples were discussed on variable side setbacks totaling 18-20’ with allowing five feet (5’) between the homes, etc. It was noted that most subdivisions have consistency once the development starts.
Commissioner McDonald stated that it would help with parking RV’s because some homes cannot get anything parked beside their homes.
Kevin Rudd advised that it creates issues with fencing which may lend to open type development.
Chairman Mehr asked if setbacks are solely aesthetics.
Kevin Rudd explained that setbacks are not a safety issue. If buildings are closer, there has to be other safety standards within the building.
Chairman Mehr felt that ten feet (10’) is not enough room to put a storage shed for lawn mowers, garden box, etc.
Commissioner Scott suggested variable setbacks such as side yards being eighteen feet (18’) with nine feet (9’) on each side or combine eighteen feet (18’) on one side but have a minimum required separation.
Kevin Rudd stated that variables do work. Red Rock Canyon has a zero lot line provision and has houses closer than ten feet (10’) of the property line. If setbacks are reduced, they still need to maintain twenty feet (20’) between the homes.
Commissioner Reed was in favor of giving more flexibility rather dictating what the subdivision should look like.
Chairman Mehr was also not in favor of a cookie cutter look, but the concern is when the developer is gone, the honeymoon is over and people have to live there. The question is there privacy, room to store a boat, plant a garden, have a shed, etc?
Commissioner Reed felt that one large usable side yard is better than two side yards and gives more flexibility. Buying a piece of property should be investigated, and there are different requirements and comfort levels for people. Houses can be moved around within subdivisions as long as they maintain some separation and aesthetics. Subdivisions geared to families may have different parking requirements than fifty-five (55) and over.
Commissioner Scott asked about homes being built where both sides were built on the property line. Are there ways of keeping that from happening?
Kevin Rudd advised that if the Commissioners allowed this type of setbacks, the Final Plat for smaller subdivisions should show the exact location of the building pads. There would be no question of how the houses would be laid out.
Commissioner Scott stated given that he was for maximum flexibility as long as they can ensure "x" number of feet between the houses.
Kevin Rudd suggested minimum side setback of 8’ and 10’ however the minimum distance between any home is eighteen feet (18’) or zero lot line is permitted as long as there is a minimum of eighteen feet (18’) between the structures. This would need to be indicated on the recorder plat.
The Commissioners discussed at length what setbacks could be allowed for accessory buildings with a zero lot line subdivision. Several scenarios were discussed.
Kevin Rudd explained that most builders would build the home five foot (5’) from the property line because of the building code. If it was a total zero lot line, the house would not be able to have windows. The zero lot line provision could be controversial. He mentioned that Citadel Subdivision and Red Rock Canyon had the zero lot line provision where they could reduce the setback as long the distance between the home was maintained.
Commissioner McDonald stated that some subdivisions already have the 8’ and 10’ setbacks. Therefore, the Commissioners would not be changing anything.
Commissioner Reed was in favor of giving flexibility to keep from have all the subdivisions look the same.
Commissioner Mehr was concerned about allowing smaller side setbacks.
Commissioner McDonald stated that he could see Commissioner Mehr’s concern, but he could also see this type of subdivision looking the same as other subdivisions. If a subdivision starts out being developed the same, then it would probably continue with the same setbacks and design.
Commissioner Murphy stated that the whole subdivision doesn’t have to be the same. A developer can change the setbacks within the subdivision which gives it diversity within the subdivision. A person purchasing the lots could choose the setbacks that suit their purpose.
The side setbacks were set at 8’ and 10’.
Minimum Rear setback: 10’
Kevin Rudd recommended ten feet (10’) for the smaller lots.
The consensus was they were in favor of the ten foot (10’) rear setbacks.
Permitted (allowed) Uses and Conditional Uses:
The Commissioners reviewed the permitted uses and conditional uses for R-1-8 zone. The same permitted uses and conditional uses will be allowed for R-1-7.5.
Modifying Regulations:
1. Minimum 2 car garage is required.
Commissioner Murphy mentioned that there was discussion at the previous meeting as to whether there was a need for both the R-1-8 and R-1-7.5 zones or should the R-1-8 be removed. She asked if there were any R-1-8 parcels that need to be developed.
Kevin Rudd stated that the only reason to keep the R-1-8 zoning is to have it on the map. All R-1-8 zones could be changed to R-1-7.5 zoning because the parcels would fall within that zone. It’s only a 500 square foot difference.
Chairman Mehr advised that there are some that are undeveloped and one parcel that was discussed could be commercial.
Commissioner Murphy suggested that the recommendation to City Council should be to remove the R-1-8 zone and replace it with R-1-7.5 zone.
After further discussion, the consensus was to review all the zones before making the recommendation.
R-1-5 (Single Family Res. minimum 5,000 sq. ft.)
Minimum Lot Size: 5,000
Minimum Lot Width: 60’
Minimum Corner Lot Width: 70’
Kevin Rudd stated that the question is, "Is a 5,000 square foot lot going to create a sufficient building pad?" The example (see attached) showed a sixty foot (60’) width and eighty-three feet (83’) depth with setbacks: sides 10’ and 8’, front 20’ and rear 8’. This allows a building pad of 1,826 square feet which would be the maximum and 400 square foot garage. This zone is designated as high density residential and is an alternative to multi-housing. This zone would be for detached homes. He suggested that the modifying regulations should require housing plans during the subdivision approval, minimum front yard landscaping and housing design be consistent.
Commissioner Reed stated that this is essentially a planned development. This is a tool to have smaller lots and smaller homes for snowbirds, etc. It should be a high end tool and be controlled to keep the development nice.
Kevin Rudd asked if the Commissioners wanted to limit this type of zone to single story and twenty-five feet (25’) in height.
Commissioner Reed felt that they should avoid the twenty-five foot (25’) height.
Commissioner Scott asked how these setbacks compare with the patio developments in Entrada.
Kevin Rudd stated that there are five foot (5’) setbacks in The Reserve. It is driven by the building code. The builders don’t want to put in special doors and construction.
The Commissioners were okay with the widths.
They discussed allowing accessory buildings, and the fact that accessory building requirements are already established. The building department doesn’t put any restrictions on small portable sheds. A detached garage would probably not be allowed on these lots because there is a 25% rule on accessory buildings in the backyard.
Commissioner Reed felt that small accessory buildings in this zone, if allowed, should be in the rear and not in the side yard. He felt this type of zoning would not require storing yard equipment, etc. It’s a high density development and doesn’t have the same needs. Allowing accessory building would change the architectural integrity of the development. He didn’t see the need to allow accessory buildings.
Commissioner McDonald gave an example of the retirement homes in St. George and every backyard has an accessory building which takes up 80-90% of the backyard.
Commissioner Murphy agreed with the setbacks but wasn’t sure about disallowing accessory buildings.
The following was designated:
Minimum Front setback: 20’
Minimum Side setback: 8’ and 10’
Minimum Rear setback: 10’
Permitted (allowed) Uses: Allow small accessory buildings in the rear.
Conditional Uses: Not discussed.
Modifying Regulations:
1. Minimum 2 car garage is required
2. Require front and side landscaping during subdivision approval and be installed prior to certificate of occupancy.
3. House plans and approved at the time of subdivision approval and consistency in house design.
4. Single story with maximum height.
5. Minimum 1,300 square foot homes.
R-2-6000 Duplex/Twin Home
Minimum Lot Size: 6000’
Minimum Lot Width: 70’
Minimum Corner Lot Width: 80’
Kevin Rudd stated that a 6,000 square foot lot may not be large enough for these types of structures. The example (see attached) allows 1,030 square feet per unit. It creates a small two bedroom home. The current ordinance for a duplex requires a 12,000 square foot lot which is large. The Commissioners might consider R-2-8000 which would make each lot 4,000 square feet. He also suggested requiring a minimum square footage on both the R-1-5 and R-2-8000.
The Commissioners set 1,300 square feet for a minimum square footage for the R-1-5 and continue the discussion for the R-2.
Commissioner Scott stated that an 8,000 square feet lot for the duplex/twin home would be approximately 1,300 square feet. If we are requiring 1,300 for the single family home (R-1-5), why are we requiring a duplex/twin home to be the same size?
Kevin Rudd advised not to limit the R-2 zone to single story. It’s a good opportunity to build two-story twin homes. He gave an example of Elaine Brinkerholf’s townhomes and how nice the homes turned out. He suggested a maximum height of twenty-five feet (25’) and to allow two-story buildings.
Commissioner Scott stated that a two-story building with a 6,000 square foot lot would be sufficient. It would allow a 2,000 square foot home.
Chairman Mehr felt their discussion was the intent to build a two-story, not to choose to build a two-story.
Commissioner Scott stated if the buyer wanted 2,000 square feet, it would drive them to a two-story.
Kevin Rudd researched R-2 zones, and he did not find any R-2’s below 6,000 square feet. However, there were several at 8,000 square foot lots.
Chairman Mehr stated that if two-story is not required then it should be R-2-8000.
Commissioner McDonald agreed.
Commissioner Reed suggested an R-2-6000 with a minimum unit size and dictate a two-story or R-2-6000. There’s a perception that larger nicer homes drives in nicer people.
Chairman Mehr’s had a different perception, in that, people raise their families, kids go off to school and come back to Ivins. There are no affordable homes that have 4-5 bedrooms for a family such as his.
Commissioner Reed felt that the City could allow larger homes but it doesn’t have to be dictated.
Chairman Mehr felt that Ivins is dictating two (2) and three (3) bedroom homes at 1,300 square feet and the larger homes for families do not exist. There isn’t much affordable housing for families. The City doesn’t want a bunch of match box homes.
They continued discussions on appearance, quality and what is driven by the market.
Commissioner Murphy felt that there is a market for 1,000 square foot homes. She wasn’t sure it should be dictated as two-story with a minimum 1,000 square but she had a problem with a 1,000 square foot twin home.
The consensus was to stay with the R-2-6,000 zone.
Kevin Rudd advised that the current R-M zone has a minimum single family 1,000 square feet, and the Multi-Housing ordinance requires a minimum of 900 square feet.
The following was set for the R-2-6000 zone:
Minimum Front setbacks: 20’
Minimum Side setbacks: 10’
Minimum Rear setbacks: 10’
Modifying Regulations:
1. Minimum 2 car garage is required.
2. Minimum 900 square feet.
3. Maximum height of 25’ and two-story.
4. Architectural design of homes approved during subdivision approval.
5. Require landscaping plan during subdivision approval and installed prior to certificate of occupancy.