Kevin Rudd reported that a resident of Padre Canyon Subdivision approached the City Council about amendments that had been recorded to the association’s CC&R’s on Phases 1, 2, and 3 that allows three (3) horses on parcels larger than one acre. As a result, the City Council asked this body to review the current Zoning Ordinance for Domestic Animals. Some history and background was explained on how Padre Canyon’s written text was adopted by the City Council and how the CC&R’s differ from written text and zoning. The City does not get involved in regulating CC&R’s. A Planned Development process is different from a standard subdivision and can proposed different rules such as less restrictive setbacks, allows clustering, density, etc. A written text is created to define specifics on how a Planned Development is organized and becomes an overlay over the city’s zoning. The City regulates a development based on the written text adopted as part of the zoning for that development. In approximately 1995, residents of Padre Canyon submitted a written text that was formally approved by the City Council. The written text is similar to the CC&R’s but not exactly the same.
The issue is the keeping of horses in Padre Canyon. Padre Canyon’s CC&R’s allows a maximum of two (2) horses or two (2) large animals on any lot. The resident that approached the City Council petitioned the residents in Phase 1 and 2, amended the CC&R’s to now allow three (3) horses. The amended CC&R's were recorded with the Washington County Recorder. Staff explained to the resident that the written text and the Zoning Ordinance only allows two (2) horses, and even though the CC&R’s were amended the zoning would have to be amended to be enforced by the City. The resident felt that the application fee of $1,000 was an unfair burden that he, as an individual, should bear. He felt the written text should be automatically changed by the City.
Dale Coulam explained that both the City’s ordinances and the state statue requires a formal process to change a Land Use Ordinance which includes giving proper notice, public hearings and public deliberation before a decision is made to change a land use ordinance. The method of collecting names and changing the CC&R’s does not have any bearing on changing a Land Use Ordinance except to show the intent of the homeowners in that subdivision.
Kevin Rudd explained that a group of homeowners can amend the CC&R’s and make it more restrictive but it could still be in violation of the City ordinance. He gave some examples. The ordinance citywide is one (1) horse per half acre. There is an exception for the old township and for Padre Canyon. When the City Council adopted the 2005 Zoning Ordinance, it was felt that the old township and Padre Canyon should be able to maintain their rights to have two (2) animals even through the lots were smaller than one acre. In agriculture zones it’s one (1) large animal per half acre until five (5) acres and then no limit is regulated. The Commission needs to review the ordinance citywide to consider if it is appropriate to allow more animals on an acre lot. If the Commission feels the current ordinance doesn’t need to be amended, then report that to the City Council but if it is felt that the ordinance needs to be amended, then it will need to go through a public hearing process.
The following documents were distributed: Chapter 12: Supplementary Development Standards and resident comments (copies available at Ivins City office).
Acting Chairman Scott asked if the written text is an agreement between the Padre Canyon community and the City and has to be agreed upon by both parties. But CC&R’s can be more restrictive or less restrictive.
Dale Coulam advised that written text is adopted by the City as the zoning for that Planned Development and enforced by the City. A homeowners’ association can enforce more restrictive CC&R’s. For written text to have any validity, the City would have to go through the formal process of a public hearing and adopt the written text as the zoning for that Planned Development.
Commissioner Murphy commented that the current written text allows two (2) horses on 37,000 square feet or larger. She asked if Padre Canyon was proposing to allow three (3) horses on 37,000 square feet or larger or three (3) horses on an acre or larger. She had some concerns about allowing three (3) horses on an acre for Padre Canyon, and changing the ordinance for one subdivision of the City and not the other areas.
Kevin Rudd stated that the amended CC&R’s states that lots that are larger than one acre can have three (3) horses. Item 5 of the Zoning Ordinance deals specifically with Padre Canyon Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4. However, Phase 4 amended the CC&R’s in 1996 or 1997 to allow three (3) horses.
Commissioner Murphy noted that in Phase 4 there are ten (10) or more lots that are less than 37,000 square feet. In Phases 1, 2 and 3 the lots are larger than 37,000 square feet and approximately twenty (20) are over an acre. The concern is one section could have three (3) horses and in another section there could only be two (2) horses.
Dale Coulam explained that the ordinance can be changed for a particular area. The Commissioners should consider the keeping of horses throughout the city, and whether there are special circumstances that justify different rules for different parts of the City.
Commissioner Murphy was inclined to not change the ordinance and felt the policy of two (2) horses per acre was okay.
Commissioner Benson did not see a reason to change the Zoning Ordinance that’s in place. Some property owners don’t have CC&R’s or a board to go to and submit a petition.
Acting Chair Scott agreed and stated as a Planning Commission they didn’t see a need for making a change.
After some further discussion and clarification, the Commissioners recommended that the written text for Padre Canyon and citywide regulations regarding horses and large animals did not require any modification at this time. If the community of Padre Canyon wants to submit an application, it would go through the formal process and be heard at that time.
Kevin Rudd introduced the issue of beekeeping. Several months ago the City received a complaint from concerned citizens that a person in their community had a beehive located in the rear yard. The neighbors were concerned about the increased number of bees. There is no regulation in the Zoning Ordinance that refers to beekeeping. Chapter 33 lists the permitted uses and states, "that any use that is not specifically listed is not allowed." Therefore, beekeeping is not allowed in the city of Ivins. A courtesy letter was mailed to the property owners advising that the bees were not allowed. Information was distributed from the Taviawk Association, Salt Lake City Ordinance, Intermediate Beekeeping, and Best Management Practices for Honey Bee Colonies (copies available at Ivins City office).
Acting Chairman Scott asked if bees are not allowed in any zones including agriculture.
Kevin Rudd stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not allow bees in agriculture or residential. This is the only beehive that the City is aware of. Some of the homeowners have had some problems with the bees congregating, and one homeowner had a hummingbird feeder and had a difficult time with the bees. There are groups that are against the bees and there are groups in favor of bees.
Kevin Rudd explained that the City requested that beehive be removed because of a safety issue and until a decision has been made. He publicly thanked Terry Marten for helping remove the hive.
Dale Coulam said the Commissioner have information before them to consider whether this is a use that this body would recommend. There is information on both sides of the issue as well as the internet. The Commission may want to defer the issue until there is a full Commission.
Acting Chairman Scott asked since bees are currently prohibited in the ordinance, why is this an issue for a community dealing with the CC&R’s.
Kevin Rudd explained that the hive is located outside of the subdivision. If it was in violation of Taviawk’s CC&R’s and the property owners moved the hives ten feet out of the subdivision, the association would not have any authority to stop the beehive being there.
Acting Chairman Scott commented that since it is prohibited it doesn’t make any difference where it’s located. The City has the ability to take action. If this issue is kept on the agenda, does this tie everybody hands from regulating the current prohibited use?
Kevin Rudd stated that there was only one hive that has caused concern with residents and it has been removed. It gives this body time to make a recommendation. The question is, is beekeeping appropriate in higher density residential. Allowing bees on ten (10) acres or greater is not the issue.
The Commission agreed to discuss this issue at the next Planning Commission meeting and the information will be distributed to those members not present.