Planning Commission

Copy of the City of Ivins record for Planning Commission, preserved by OwnUtah.com Ivins Meetings. Official source: City of Ivins Granicus archive.

IVINS CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
June 1, 2010
435-628-0606

CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS: The meeting was called to order at 05:30 p.m. All present included Chairman Dennis Mehr, Commissioner Todd Benson, Commissioner Adel Murphy, and Commissioner John Reed.

Staff: City Manager Judy Gubler, Building & Zoning Administrator Kevin Rudd, and Deputy City Recorder.
Audience: Angelo DiSante, Lynnette Miller, Peter Stempel, Nicole McDermott, David Whitehead, Mayor Chris Hart, and Lance Anderson.

A.	Acknowledgement of Quorum

Chairman Mehr acknowledged there was a quorum and that Commissioner Mike Scott was excused.

B.	Flag Salute

Commissioner Reed led the flag Salute.

C.	Invocation

Chairman Mehr led the Invocation.

D.	Disclosures

There were no disclosures or conflicts of interest with this meeting’s agenda.

Kevin Rudd submitted the Technical Review Report (copy available at the Ivins City office). The Concept Plan is identical to the original final Preliminary Plan, and the applicant is proposing to complete the subdivision as per the original Development Agreement. The most significant change is the new transportation standards for Highway 91 which requires a sidewalk on the south side in the landscape buffer area. The landscape plan will be submitted with the Preliminary Plan. The original landscape plan was not followed and was new approved. The plan will be desert landscaping along Highway 91. The developer will get the improvements in up Final Plat approval. In answer to Commissioner Benson’s question, Kevin Rudd explained that the City Council reviewed the amendment on sidewalk design at their last meeting but it has been tabled for further discussion. On the north side of Highway 91 there will be a ten foot (10’) multi-use/bike trail that will be a straight path.
Commissioner Reed inquired about the timing of the landscaping and the clean up since it has been abandoned.
Kevin Rudd explained that a landscape plan will be submitted with the Preliminary Plan. The original landscape plan was not followed and was never approved. The plan will be desert landscaping along Highway 91. The developer will get the improvements upon Final approval.
Commissioner Benson stated that the Commission had previously discussed the ordinance on meandering sidewalks. He asked if the intent of meandering is something that is not uniform, and if there was a description that the Commission could recommend.
Kevin Rudd stated that the City Council reviewed the amendment on sidewalk design at their last meeting but it has been tabled for further discussion. On the north side of Highway 91 there will be a ten foot (10’) multi use/bike trail that will be a straight path.

Kevin Rudd reported that the application is complete, and the applicant has obtained a state license for a day care. The home has been inspected and approved by Public Safety. Staff recommends approval.
Chairman Mehr inquired as to how many children will be at the day care.
Jennifer Tidwell stated that she would have six children.

MOTION: Commissioner John Reed moved to approve a Home Occupation Business License Application for My Lucky Stars Day Care located at 155 West 200 North. Jennifer Tidwell, applicant.
SECOND: Commissioner Todd Benson

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.

Kevin Rudd reported that the Home Occupation Business application is for a taxi service and operates out of Virginia Hill’s home. The municipal code requires that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council. The vehicles are licensed, there has been a background check, and a letter from Public Safety Director Robert Flowers that states the requirements have been met. Staff recommends approval.
Chairman Mehr inquired as to why the Commission has to make a recommendation to the City Council on this Home Occupation instead of approving the application.
Kevin Rudd explained that this license falls under a different Ivins City Ordinance that regulates this type of business. The applicants will be the drivers, and there will be no employees or customers coming to the home.
Commissioner Murphy commented that the application states two vehicles/trailers "open for more." She asked what this statement meant.
The Commissioners felt it was referring to future growth.
Kevin Rudd stated that the Home Occupation License Ordinance limits a maximum number of two (2) vehicles per business. This could be clarified in the recommendation.
Commissioner Reed mentioned that the application requires providing pictures of vehicles and their location which are not included with the application.
Kevin Rudd explained that Virginia Hill has a large lot with plenty of room to park the vehicles. The application states the vehicles will be stored in the driveway.
Commissioner Murphy noted that it’s a long flag lot.

MOTION: Commissioner Todd Benson moved to recommend approval of a Home Occupation Business License Application for Southern Transportation located at 261 West 325 North. Virginia Hill and Debra Fullmer, applicants with the stipulation of a maximum of two vehicles.
SECOND: Commissioner Adel Murphy

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.

4)	PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ITEMS (None)

Peter Stempel and Nichole McDermott with Form Tomorrow submitted revised copies of Chapter 19 (copy available at Ivins City office), and diagrams for Commercial Neighborhood and Community Commercial (copies available at Ivins City). The diagrams are examples for the Commissioners to review and furnish some feedback.
Nichole McDermott explained each diagram noting the proposed setbacks, landscaping and parking. The current ordinance’s setbacks in Neighborhood Commercial are larger than Form Tomorrow’s proposed setbacks. Examples #1 and #2 (less than acre) are designed based on "build to line (BTL)" setback which brings the buildings closer to the street. The plan showed the step to heights, slope lines and that residential is allowed above the commercial. Landscaping is proposed at 30% on lots less than an acre. On lots less than an acre the largest building proposed for Neighborhood Commercial is 6,000 square feet with two-stories. Example #3 illustrates a lot size of two (2) acres with a 40% landscaping requirement based on BTL. BTL prevents the parking lot from intervening between the building and the street and eliminates strip designs. The buildings help screen the parking. In this design landscaping becomes very important.
Community Commercial Example #1 was based on twenty (20) acres with smaller buildings to the front to block the larger buildings. A public trail is included in the development and multi family residential is included with shared parking at the back of the development. Landscaping is proposed at 40%. The proposed percentage of landscaping varies with the lot size. Smaller lots would have less landscaping.
Peter Stempel gave some examples on allowing and not allowing projecting eaves and shadow lines in the setbacks areas. If not allowed in the setbacks, it incentivizes the developer not to have eaves on the building.  However, if two foot (2’) eaves are allowed in the setbacks, it incentivizes the developer to have eaves. Some towns count porches and trellises against building square footage but this incentivizes builders not to build porches and trellises. These are things to consider in the ordinances. It’s better to have lighter, leaner set of ordinances that is designed to be more effective than having multiple ordinances that squashes creativity.
Mayor Hart expressed how important the backdrop of the mountain is to Ivins and that it’s a major part of the concepts in the General Plan. The open space between the buildings is nice but he felt the setback should not be to the back of sidewalk. There should be some sort of landscape requirement. He suggested sliding everything back twenty to twenty-five feet and carry the geometry to the sidewalk to give the pedestrian a sense of view beyond the building. He had concerns about pulling the buildings up to the street and not having a sense of landscaping. He suggested using a thirty degree (30%) angle and instead of referencing it solely with the front edge of the building reference it to the sidewalk, say five foot above the sidewalk.
Peter Stempel felt a view could be worked out working with the geometry. The view concept gives a clear structure to put around the whole ordinance. It makes it simple to explain. Chapter 19 is about view preservation but it’s vague about what the view is. Is it to be able to see the bare sense of the Red Mountain or what is the key definers of view because anything can be a view? He suggested defining "view" and gave some examples of building heights and the impact of heights on the Red Mountain.
Mayor Hart stated that the view goes beyond just looking at the mountain.  It’s the idea of buffering buildings with some landscaping to still have a sense of desert. It reduces the sense of mass.
Peter Stempel explained that the goal for the Commission is basic standards such as setbacks, building sizes and landscape requirements which are three of the five components that shape the way buildings impact. The other big standards are height and grading. He felt the Mayor would prefer to see a commercial building set at the ground or nestled in the ground rather than treat the ground as it falls. The Commission can do the best job on these standards but if someone comes in with fifteen feet (15’) of landfill none of the other stuff matters. The height envelope preserves the view. He felt that Form Tomorrow could implement the changes in the model.
Commissioner Mehr asked if the buildings close to the road are the store fronts or the back of the buildings. The back of block walls is not what we want.
Peter Stempel explained that the store front entrances would be a required distance from the primary street.
Commissioner Reed agreed with having landscape between the street and the building but he was concerned about the landscape buffer becoming parking.
Commissioner Benson explained that the Mayor’s example of using the thirty degree angle of the height of a fifteen foot (15’) building is only about twenty feet (20’).
Peter Stempel stated that it’s important to keep in mind not to make small lots undevelopable.
Nichole McDermott stated that the current ordinance doesn’t allow parking to be in the front setbacks.
Kevin Rudd explained that the current ordinance does allow parking in the front but it has to be buffered with landscaping. Sometimes buffering doesn’t work well.
Peter Stempel also suggested that the Commissioners review and clarify the landscape language such as having a list of required plants and if a developer wants to add something different require them to come before the Planning Commission. Also, include percentages and minimum requirements.  Review the basic streetscape standards, be clear with standards and look at continuity for the City regarding landscaping, etc.
At the next meeting Form Tomorrow will submit a height calculation document and revise the diagrams, and submit an outline on a way to approach grading. He asked that the Commissioners review Chapter 19 and email their comments.

Kevin Rudd explained that a developer comes in with a subdivision plan and then submits a grading plan which has to do with getting water and storm drains to the development. On the Sun Crest West subdivision at one end the grading was approximately four feet (4’) higher than the subdivision next to it with a high retaining wall. The neighbors were not happy when the lots next to them were four feet (4’) higher than the native grade. The City Council asked the Planning Commission to review our grading ordinance to see if it needed to be amended.
Commissioner Reed stated that the Subdivision Ordinance refers to grading occurring within the subdivision and sets a minimum limit instead of saying what happens at the boundary. If you are at or within two feet (2’) below the neighbors and everything has to drain to the street, the developer needs to solve it within their subdivision rather than it be governed by the ordinance. The City needs to control what occurs at the boundaries much more so than what happens inside the subdivision because people can buy what they want to within a given subdivision. The lots at the north end of the Sun Crest West Subdivision have a retaining wall 10-12 feet. If that’s acceptable at the boundary of the subdivision for the people within the subdivision, then at some point that can happen inside the subdivision as well as long as what is occurring at the edges of the subdivision doesn’t do that.
Commissioner Murphy stated it mitigates the affect on the neighboring lot in that case. She agreed with what he was saying about buying a lot in the subdivision and you know what you get. However, some of the people in Sun Crest West are already looking through the wall at Red Mountain. The City can do better.
Commissioner Reed felt the boundaries should be controlled and not so much in the subdivision. Give a little more leeway of what’s occurring which would fall within staff. Then, if it doesn’t fit the description of the ordinance, it goes to the City Council.
Peter Stempel stated that in conventional subdivisions the motivation of the developer is to maximize the yield which tends to minimize the creativity. The developer will develop with as little as disturbance to achieve the yield. Offer some flexibility if native grade can be achieved on the perimeter of the subdivision. Allow a 5% bonus or allow them to shrink the lot and achieve native grade with a buffer on an extra lot.
Kevin Rudd stated that he favors overall density instead of lot sizes. He gave an example of a 7,500 lot size zoning, figure the lot sizes, give flexibility but have a strict grading plan.
Commissioner Reed felt that the developer has to meet the density standard regardless, and however they need to solve it in the subdivision is fine.
The Commissioners continued a lengthy discussion on how developers develop the lots, cut and fills, boundary heights, elevations of pads, slopes, and retaining walls.
Lance Anderson gave input on how developers end up creating flat pads.
Peter Stempel suggested stating that the building pad elevation shall not deviate by more than "X" number of feet instead of regulating retaining walls, cut and fills, etc. The big issue seems to be that a developer wants to flatten the site to make a lot of flat pads, and you are talking gravity, slope the pad or whatever then the development ends up with the retaining walls. If the ordinance says the building pad elevations shall not be more than "X" from native grade that gives a range. Then the pads are not elevated twelve feet (12’). It would incentivize the developer to step the pads with the ground.
Commissioner Benson mentioned that it might now be reasonable to create such unique pad conditions that each house would have to be designed differently. If engineered properly, there could be twenty (20) different designs.
The Commissioners felt there should be more designs in a subdivision than just one.
Commissioner Mehr referred to Paradise Canyon in Saint George and asked if that was a good example of cut and fills and was the ordinance driving that type of subdivision or were the developers just nice.
The Commissioners felt it was both.
Commissioner Reed commented that the Commission should review that type of subdivision and see what drives it rather than trying to say this is the maximum cut and fill within a lot. We need to find a way to make it more compatible with the existing grade and buffer it with the existing lines instead of limiting it to two-four elevations, etc.
Kevin Rudd suggested getting with the City Engineer Chuck Gillette and come back with some ideas.

MOTION: Commissioner Adel Murphy moved to approve the Ivins City Planning Commission Minutes for May 18, 2010.
SECOND: Commissioner John Reed

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.

Chairman Mehr reported that the City Council did not approve the amendment to the Real Estate Temporary Sign Ordinance.
Commissioner Reed mentioned that Council Rusick’s remarks were that the Commission felt pressured to come back to the Council with something other than what the Commission’s initial recommendation was. It points out the fact that the Planning Commission’s initial recommendation was a good recommendation.
Commissioner Murphy agreed. The Commission felt that if the City Council was going to pass a temporary amendment to the Sign Ordinance the Commission felt it should be watered down.
Chairman Mehr stated that he looked at the amendment as being temporary but was pleased with the outcome.
Chairman Mehr inquired about the ice cream truck that goes around the neighbor and if it has a business license. He had concerns because of his experience when living in southern California, and the ice cream vendors were more interested in selling other things to children.
Commissioner Murphy mentioned that there was an agenda item that came before the City Council about an ice cream truck and a business license but she didn’t know the outcome.
There was some discussion, and the Commissioners inquired as to why that agenda item did not come before the Planning Commission.
It was mentioned that the business license ordinance was amended and not all licenses come before the Commission.

The Commissioners discussed the future agenda dates, and the following Commissioners will be absent:
Chairman Mehr - June 29 and July 13
Commissioner Reed - June 15
Commissioner Murphy - July 13
The Commissioners suggested communicating with Form Tomorrow by email.

MOTION: Commissioner Adel Murphy moved to adjourn
SECOND: Commissioner John Reed

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 7:26 P.M.

Chairman Dennis Mehr	AYE
Commissioner Todd Benson	AYE
Commissioner Adel Murphy	AYE
Commissioner John Reed	AYE
Commissioner Mike Scott	ABSENT