The meeting was called to order at
05:30 p.m. All present included
Chairman Dennis Mehr,
Commissioner Adel Murphy,
and Commissioner John Reed.
Kevin Rudd explained that the City Council referred Jon Ence’s comments to the Commission to review the Sign Ordinance specifically dealing with realtor signs for home sales. Jon Ence is asking that the ordinance be amended. Currently, new subdivisions are allowed a 4’x8’ project sign at each entrance and 2’x3’ signs on each lot or house for sale. The ordinance was recently amended to allow two (2) off-site signs with a temporary use permit for forty-five days. Ence Homes has a permit and renews the permit regularly. The signs are placed on 400 South and Center Street or on Highway 91. The signs can be placed in the right-of-way but not on private property.
Jon Ence represented Ence Homes and asked the Commission to allow flags, etc. to draw attention to the front of their community. Santa Clara allowed them to put up flags temporarily for one year which helped sell fifteen (15) homes. The majority of their sales are based on drive-by traffic. He specifically was asking for flags/balloons or a larger sign (8’x8’). Ence Homes’ current subdivisions are Sun Crest West and Red Mountain Estates.
Commissioner Murphy read that the purpose of the Sign Ordinance is to protect the scenic qualities of the City, to avoid unnecessary clutter, obtrusiveness and protect and enhance property values. She visited two of Ence’s subdivisions: one located off Snow Canyon Parkway that had twenty-two (22) flags; and Santa Clara’s subdivision has eleven (11) flags, several large signs, smaller directional signs on Highway 91, and a large semi trailer with the Ence’s logo. She felt this type of signage was not in the spirit of the ordinance to protect the scenery. Allowing flags at Sun Crest West would be right in front of the Red Mountain. The flags, etc. may have helped sales at the Village on the Heights but she also felt the parade home contributed to the homes sales. Sun Crest West has twenty-nine (29) homes with approximately forty-four (44) lots, and approximately twenty (20) homes and transfer of ownerships were sold in 2009 with the current signage. If the ordinance is amended, the three (3) other subdivisions around Sun Crest West would add additional signs/flags. Flags and balloons would detract from the Red Mountain.
Commissioner Reed’s philosophy is to promote harmonious commercial growth and respect the liberty of the individual property owner. He looks to the General Plan for guidance to see if there is a way to accommodate the applicant’s request within the restrictions of the General Plan. The General Plan encourages fewer, more modest signs, easily read and do not compete with each other in size or design. The General Plan defines the community’s visions for the future as: the spiritual quality of the land; magnificent landscape; open space; and a clean and serene environment. The General Plan guides us to assure that the community will have an overall consistency in character and in appearance so that no portion stands out from another even though each should have its unique identity. If home sales are being motivated by drive-by visibility, it would be natural for Santa Clara’s development to have more sales because there is more traffic, specifically driven by the Parade of Homes traffic. Mirroring an ordinance in neighboring communities would be contrary to maintaining a unique identity. Mr. Ence is asking to modify the ordinance to promote the areas and bring more growth. The General Plan states to foster orderly growth compatible with the character of community and surrounding beauty. This should apply to all community design and all community phases of development so that when we are signing subdivisions, the principles of orderly growth and protection of character of the community should apply to that as well. One resident stated that it looked like a used car lot. The banners, flags, larger community signs and a semi truck trailer, for all intense purpose is a billboard, and does not preserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape, the spiritual quality of the environment, and does not fit signage criteria as being modest. The Sign Ordinance is harmonious with the General Plan, and the request of modification would be in contrast to the goals and objectives of the General Plan. The ordinance should not be modified at this time.
Chairman Mehr commented that the Commission doesn’t want to stop home sales in the community but he felt that wasn’t the issue. In his line of business at the hospital, he has found that sometimes there are too many signs and people can’t find their way. The Commission sympathizes with Mr. Ence and wants Ence Homes to be successful in their business. But the General Plan and the Sign Ordinance best meets the needs of the community. He agreed that the ordinance should not be amended.
MOTION: Commissioner John Reed moved to recommend to the City Council not to amend the existing Sign Ordinance at this time.
SECOND: Commissioner Adel Murphy
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chairman Dennis Mehr |
AYE |
| Commissioner Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner John Reed |
AYE |
| Commissioner Todd Benson |
ABSENT |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
ABSENT |
MOTION: Commissioner John Reed moved to amend the agenda to move Agenda Item C before Item B Discuss and review Utah State Amendments to vacating, altering and amending subdivision plats.
SECOND: Commissioner Adel Murphy
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chairman Dennis Mehr |
AYE |
| Commissioner Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner John Reed |
AYE |
| Commissioner Todd Benson |
ABSENT |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
ABSENT |
Dale Coulam advised that in the last couple of years the state legislature made some changes to make it easier to vacate, alter or amend the subdivision plat after it has been recorded. The statue now provides that an application to amend a recorded plat would not require a public hearing if the petition to amend is to join two or more of the petitioner fee owner’s contiguous lots. This is the case in the Cielo Vista Subdivision. He asked if the Commission wants Staff to draft an amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance to allow this change, and then make a recommendation to the Council for their consideration. The Commissioners agreed and draft will be presented at the next meeting.
Chuck Gillette, City Engineer, stated that the City Council requested that the Commission review the ordinance on elevations of lots because there have been some questions on elevations of previous subdivisions.
Kevin Rudd referred to the Sections 15.05.302 on cuts and fills in the Subdivision Ordinance. The cuts and fills are on a subdivision site plan which is designed by a civil engineer. The Subdivision Ordinance states, "Cut and fills greater than two feet (2’) are prohibited unless it can be shown to the land use authority that cuts and fills greater than two feet (2’) within the required front yard, side yard or rear yard areas are necessary to provide storm drainage." On a large project this is difficult, and usually there are fills greater than two feet (2’) deep. The cuts and fills in the Sun Crest West Subdivision affected the adjacent subdivision of Amber Estates Subdivision. Sun Crest West begins at Center Street and extends to Amber Estates and all the water in the streets drain toward Amber Estates. The storm water on 200 South had to drain to 400 West. 200 South had to be raised which caused a fill of four feet (4’). There was an existing retaining wall and fence along the northern boundary of Amber Estates. The lots in Sun Crest West along that wall were raised approximately four feet (4’) so that the lots would drain to 200 South then to 400 West. When the project was approved, the Zoning Ordinance stated that, "any cut and fill in excess of a four foot (4’) change to existing grade within ten feet (10’) of the property line boundary of a development is prohibited, unless the adjacent property owner provides written approval." Sun Crest West plans called for another retaining wall with a ten foot (10’) separation. After a meeting with Amber Estates Homeowners Association and Ence Homes, an engineered retaining wall was built close to the Amber Estates’ wall with a rod iron fence on top. There was 4-6" space between the walls and drains were installed as well as drains in the backyards. Ence Homes agreed to a twenty-five foot building height limit on the homes measured below the existing grade level. Some homeowners in Amber felt they should be involved but all the backyards are common property. The City felt the Homeowners Association were the representatives for the subdivision.
This may have been avoided if the subdivisions had been planned all the way from Center Street to 400 South. Then provisions could have been made to run storm water through Amber Estates.
Chuck Gillette stated that Staff tries to look for the most appropriate place for road connections and try to come up with a master plan for the City as these properties develop but it’s not possible until we know the zoning, the size of the lots, the adjacent property owners agreeing, etc. A street connection through Amber Estates would have lowered 200 South by two feet (2’) which would have helped but not solved everything. All properties in the City slope at least 1% and some properties at 5%. A 1% slope has a 2.5’ height differential and a 5% slope is 12.5’. The only way to avoid this situation is to built the home below the street or build a retaining wall.
John Reed asked if it was correct that the City has tried to avoid retaining walls and restricted retaining walls to the back sections of lots and not allow retaining walls in the front.
Kevin Rudd advised that the ordinance does allow retaining walls to front the street but are restricted in height and are stepped down.
John Reed asked if the problem arises when developing a subdivision next to an existing subdivision and adding retaining walls.
Kevin Rudd stated that is correct and the other issue is the property owners’ view. Retaining the views is not possible. There are some difference between the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance that need modifications. The Subdivision Ordinance refers to maximum fills of two feet (2’) and the Zoning Ordinance refers to cuts and fills of four feet (4’) and if greater than four (4’) the neighbors need to give permission. In a larger subdivision, it’s unrealistic for a developer to have to go to every neighbor to get permission. This portion of the ordinance should refer to an individual lot when it affects the neighbor. An illustration was given. Other examples were discussed including subdivisions that have large lots with no building pads such as Padre Canyon Estates. The building code states that the finish floor should be a foot above the crown of the road. The building official can approve another method if the builder can show drainage around the house. On smaller lots this cannot be done but it can be done on larger lots such as Kayenta, Padre Canyon, etc. An example was discussed on the new home next to Barbara Rusick which is higher than the Rusick’s home. When subdivisions are built with roads and improvements without building pad heights and the lots are left all natural, the zoning official has to make the decision.
Dale Coulam stated that the conflict seems to be that there are several options but the building official is not directed one way or another. The building official has the option to see if the lot is large enough to handle drainage or the soils type is such that it would absorb the water, but the building code states it should be a foot above the crown of the road. Therefore, if the lot is big, enough plans could be submitted a foot above the crown or below the crown of the road if it handles the drainage and doesn’t runoff to the neighbors’ property. There could be several feet of fluctuation and under the current ordinance the building official doesn’t have any control, other than the builder showing adequate drainage. The smaller lots are covered under the building code.
Kevin Rudd stated that is correct. He felt the ordinance needs to be amended for clarification. He didn’t believe that the City should allow greater than four foot (4’) fills on existing lots. If an existing neighbor is going to be impacted with a fill and a retaining wall on an existing home, they should have some say about it. It’s very seldom that this much fill is required on an existing legal lot.
Chairman Mehr commented that the current ordinance addresses the four foot (4’) cut and fill and notification.
Commissioner Reed thought Kevin was saying that anything over four feet (4’) should not be allowed.
Kevin Rudd clarified that he was referring to changing an existing lot in a subdivision or a legal lot of record outside of a subdivision. During development there may be circumstances on large sites that need to be left up to the engineers. He suggested establishing a conservative amount of fill or cut for the building official to approve and anything above that requires the approval of the Technical Review Committee (TRC).
There was further discussion on what the maximum cut and fill should be on an existing lot for the building official to approve and the maximum that the TRC could approve. They discussed four feet (4’) as a maximum for TRC and two feet (2’) for the building official.
Chairman Mehr commented that we are instructed as civic citizen officials to be very clear about the way we do business in the City. To subject a developer or someone who wants to come into the community and invest in our community to have vague rules, jump through hoops, and to through the TRC becomes problematic and bureaucracy. If we are worried about the ifs, he felt the current ordinance addresses the issue. What’s wrong with the way it is written?
Kevin Rudd explained that the Subdivision Ordinance refers to two foot (2’) fills but the Zoning Ordinance talks about four foot (4’) fills. There could be a discrepancy.
Dale Coulam explained that the Subdivision Ordinance states that fill cannot exceed two feet (2’) unless it’s for drainage, and the Zoning Ordinance states fill cannot exceed four feet (4’) without the neighbor’s approval. The ordinances are not in direct conflict but could be misleading. We should allow the owner of undeveloped property the ability to make reasonable use of his land while minimizing the adverse impacts to the property rights of the owner of a neighboring developed parcel. If the Commission imposed a maximum cut and fill, the property owners could approach it on a variance application if a natural condition of the land is causing the problem. Ordinances should address most of the circumstances but there always may be a unique situation.
Chairman Mehr asked about what the TRC discusses during a review. He was concerned about subjectivity within a committee group and dictating what a property owner does with their property if they are meeting all the city ordinances.
Kevin Rudd stated that the City Engineer would review the plan for drainage, create usable area and the height.
The Commissioners and Staff discussed the responsibilities of the TRC, and Dale Coulam noted that it is made up of department heads and the City Engineer. The committee reviews public safety issues, engineering or legal questions. There’s a threshold where Kevin Rudd is comfortable making the decision but beyond that he would like to solicit the other departments.
Commissioner Reed commented that drainage issues crop up and you don’t know until it happens. Most people cannot take that under consideration and that’s where a City Engineer needs to review. What might seem to be a minor fill or retaining wall can have tremendous impact on the neighbor if you get two inches of rain within twenty minutes. It’s difficult for an ordinance to judge all the conditions on the ground. That’s what an engineer and TRC is for, to assist.
Chuck Gillette felt it was a good idea to give Kevin Rudd leeway to make an individual decision but beyond that take it to the TRC for review.
Kevin Rudd suggested visiting Amber Estates and Eagle Rock before making a recommendation.
The field trip was cancelled for that evening because of weather. The City Council will be invited to join them on a field trip at 5:30 P.M. on May 4, 2010.
|
D. |
Continue discussion of the Zoning Ordinance. |
This will be put on next Planning Commission agenda.
|
E. |
Consider approval of the Ivins City Planning Commission minutes for March 16, 2010. |
MOTION: Commissioner Adel Murphy moved to approve the Ivins City Planning Commission minutes for March 16, 2010.
SECOND: Commissioner John Reed
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chairman Dennis Mehr |
AYE |
| Commissioner Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner John Reed |
AYE |
| Commissioner Todd Benson |
ABSENT |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
ABSENT |