The Commissioners advised that several of them will not be able to attend the next scheduled Planning Commission on July 13, and there may not be a quorum to have a meeting.
The Commissioners will email their comments to Kevin Rudd, copy the comments to each Commissioner, and Vice Chair Reed will then compile all comments into one document and distribute to each Commissioner.
Kevin Rudd will forward the initial comments to Nicole McDermott at Form Tomorrow, and let her know that there will be other comments to follow along with a merge document. He will check with Form Tomorrow about scheduling the next meeting on August 31, 2010. This will give the Commissioners time to flesh out their initial comments prior to the next meeting with Form Tomorrow.
Vice Chair Reed asked if the language under the commercial section of the Zoning Ordinance should be revised to refer to Ivins Lighting Ordinance.
Kevin Rudd indicated that the Lighting Ordinance is not located in the Zoning Ordinance but in the Ivins City Municipal Code. As part of the commercial review, the Commissioners may want to review the Lighting Ordinance. A copy of the Lighting Ordinance will be sent to Commissioner Reed to review.
Kevin Rudd introduced the proposed changes for Section 1134 Cut or Filled Areas.
Line #4 states, "Any fill in the excess of two feet (2’) or any cut greater than four feet (4’) to existing grade, within twenty-five feet (25’) of the property line boundary of a subdivision, a commercial development or a multi-family development is prohibited."
Line #5 refers to, "Existing legal subdivision lots or legal lot of record which does not have an approved building pad elevation." The smaller lots on new subdivision plats have engineered pad elevations graded during the final grade which takes away any guess work of home placement. But older lots may require some fill to establish a proper height. Photos were distributed that showed the standards for International Residential Code and Building Code (a complete copy of the proposed changes and photos are available by request through Ivins City Hall). These codes state that the finished floor elevations of a home or foundation shall be 12" + 2% above the discharge point of the gutter which eliminates the issue of a property owner requesting a higher elevation. This is the standard the City uses. The proposed text states that fills shall not exceed this elevation. The Commissioners may want to add that it can’t be greater than a maximum amount.
Kevin Rudd explained a drawing of someone raising their lot four feet (4’). The maximum it could be raised within the setback area would be two feet (2’). Once the fill hit the setback area, then it could go up to the four foot (4’) which would require a step in the lot. This would keep the neighbor from having a four foot (4’) retaining wall down the property line. This is one way to mitigate the impact.
Commissioner Scott commented that the stepping would impact the side yards and rear yard.
Commissioner Benson stated that it will impact smaller lots more than the larger lots.
Kevin Rudd explained that Staff doesn’t have a problem with a developer putting in higher retaining walls on the interior property lines because potential buyers will see the retaining walls. These changes protect the older existing lots.
The Commissioners were in agreement with the above proposed changes.
Commissioner Benson referred to Line #4 and asked about allowing two feet (2’) fill but the developer cannot cut four feet (4’).
Chuck Gillette referred to the Sun Crest West Subdivision on Center Street, and explained that from a planning and aesthetic prospective the retaining wall not a bad thing. He doesn’t have a problem having more emphasis on cut than fill. The Sun Crest retaining walls are approximately four feet (4’) and it’s probably an eight foot (8’) cut. He suggested not having a cut limit.
Vice Chair Reed commented that if it fronts a street or major arterial he had no problems with a cut greater than four feet (4’). Fills are more of a problem than the cuts.
Commissioner Benson agreed with the regulation when it’s not up against the adjacent property line. He suggested changing the text to say four foot (4’) cuts on existing residential lots but allow more cut on the streets.
Kevin Rudd explained that the retaining wall regulation is no more than twelve feet (12’) of stepping and the cut would be no more than ten feet (10’). If it’s not visible from a public street then it’s not impacting except those who live there. He suggested leaving Line #5 as is and provide diagrams to be part of the ordinance. However, the language in Line #4 is blunt by saying, "no fill in excess of two feet (2’) within twenty-five feet (25’)." There’s concern about having no exceptions and what the implications might be.
The Staff and Commissioners discussed several issues such as:
1. having no exceptions for drainage could create drainage problems, require having a pump in the owner’s back yard or using expensive, difficult engineering solutions. With no exceptions or appeals, it’s a developer’s problem, and it could result in a developer doing nothing but open space.
2. how to mitigate the drainage problems by requiring a road within the parameter of the natural grade, dropping the roadway down to accommodate the drainage instead of taking a cut on the top end. Chuck Gillette referred to Line #3 that gives guidance that the roads shall be designed to match natural grade as much as practicable within design requirements with fills no greater than one (1’) foot.
3. allowing a developer to propose more fill but have the committew review it. Any exception needs to clearly identify grounds for a committee to review.
4. the impact the proposed language would have had on the development of Red Mountain Estates.
5. the visual impact of walkout basements on public roads.
6. the impact of Tenaya Sands’ large landscape buffer with a retaining wall on top. This came about because of drainage requirements.
Commissioners Scott’s expressed concerns about new constructions blocking views and adding fill could eliminate privacy for the lower homes. He also recognizes increased regulation impacts could cause undue pressure on developers and hinder new development.
Kevin Rudd agreed that it would impact the developers.
Vice Chair Reed discussed issues about abutting another residential lot and abutting public streets. He felt it’s reasonable to give more latitude when it abuts a public street for cut or for fill. His main concern is to equalize or limit the impact to preserve the property rights of all owners, those next to a subdivision and those that are building. The retaining wall ordinance defines the cut limits when abutting a public street. He did not have a problem with the buffer at Tenaya Sands. A larger buffer looks better than a smaller landscape buffer.
Commissioner Murphy commented that the elevations in Paradise Canyon off Snow Canyon Parkway were an example of homes where there are no roofs sticking up, etc.
Chuck Gillette expressed concerns about not having a drainage exception to mitigate the risk of having water coming out of the street right-of-way into an owner’s yard and the risk of property damage. Also, discussed concerns about the current City standard about handling water runoff within the right-of-way. It should be contained within the street width or maybe within the curb and gutter. The current standard may not be a big enough safety factor.
Kevin Rudd felt if there is an exception there should be a limit on the amount of fill. If fill is allowed and if the amount of fill is increased, increase the setback. Example, with two feet (2’) of fill the owner can go to the minimum setback but if more fill is added push the structure back ten feet for "x" amount of fill. If allowed to increase the fill, another way to mitigate is to measure the building height from the original level. If four feet (4’) of fill is brought in it would reduce the height of the home to twenty-one (21’) instead of building the height at the standard twenty-five feet (25’).
Vice Chair Reed felt that allowing greater latitude where it abuts public right-of-way imposes fewer burdens on a property owner. Allowing higher standards where it abuts another property owner, it preserves the rights of the property owner. It seems okay to allow the two feet (2’) fill and then move the setback back if more fill is added.
Commissioner Benson asked about the type of landscaping that would be required within the twenty-five feet.
Kevin Rudd indicated that they will always have to landscape the buffer on arterial and collectors. A 55’ road or larger will have landscape buffers and usually a six foot (6’) block wall. The twenty-five feet (25’) of someone’s back yard want be seen. Kevin asked if Commissioner Reed wanted to allow more latitude on fills that abut public right-of-ways.
Vice Chair Reed felt that was reasonable. The buffer at Tenaya Sands is acceptable. He indicated that they may want two levels of exceptions. One exception is a standard approval exception for drainage, and then the hazard exception allowing a certain amount of abutting on public streets. The four feet (4’) can be on the public street or buffer depending on the fill. If a drainage problem is created in the design of the subdivision and the 100 year flood is going to cause more flooding in the street, then that needs to be taken to the committee.
Kevin Rudd felt that exceptions on public right-of-ways should be required to increase the landscape buffer.There should be a maximum fill height established. If there is six foot (6’) of fill, it equates to a fifty foot (50’) landscape buffer, and the maximum height of the structure would be nineteen feet (19’). It works for a single story home. But where the development abuts like Sun Crest West Subdivision, he would go the two foot (2’) rule and hold their feet to the fire. If a maximum of a five foot (5’) fill is allowed when abutting a public right-of-way, it requires ten feet (10’) of additional landscape buffer for every foot it steps back. It equates to a fifty foot (50’) landscape buffer.
Commissioner Scott stated that if we are going to reduce the building height by the amount of the fill height, it’s not visually creating any net additional impact as compared to having no fill.
Kevin Rudd explained that as soon as the owner builds the fill up and puts up a fence, the people get upset. If the house could be built first and then fill added, there would be no complaints. Most people see the fill and fence and complain it’s blocking the view but when houses are built it becomes a mute point.
Vice Chair Reed commented that if you move the fence down so that the buffer from the street isn’t so great but the setbacks of the house is actually still the same, then the fence wouldn’t be as high.
Commissioner Scott felt the negative impact is that the owner doesn’t have as much privacy.
Kevin Rudd suggested establishing a maximum grade height on public roads based upon the view corridor.
Vice Chair Reed agreed that the view corridor concept is something the Commission should review.
Chuck Gillette gave several examples of fence heights in relationship to how much buffer feet is required.
Kevin Rudd noted that regardless of how much fill, there is a minimum of five foot (5’) fence for privacy. The exception will be on public roads and the TRC will be the review body.
Vice Chair Reed referred to the commercial ordinance and the view corridors and suggested coming up with a definition. If we have a defined standard that cuts across all of Ivins as far a preservation of view corridor and the geometry of what we are looking at above, it will give something to refer back to when writing the ordinance.
Kevin Rudd noted that one way to protect the view corridors is to consider the lots that are double frontage and backed onto public roads be limited as to where accessory buildings can be placed in the rear yards. An example is a detached garage being built on Center Street which is ten feet (10’) from the property line, not three feet (3’) as per the ordinance. This needs to be addressed.
Chuck Gillette and Kevin Rudd will submit a draft at the next meeting of the changes that have been discussed.