The meeting was called to order at
05:29 p.m. All present included
Commissioner Dennis Mehr,
Commissioner Todd Benson,
and Commissioner Michael Scott.
Commissioner Mehr acknowledged that the Commission received Form Tomorrow’s comments on Staff’s proposed amendments. Form Tomorrow also included a copy of Chapter 15B Grading Standards from the City of Springdale for review (copies available at Ivins City offices).
Commissioner Scott referred to Form Tomorrow’s comment to consider using a 3:1 slope. He asked for additional information about a 3:1 slope and asked if it made sense and if it was practical.
Kevin Rudd explained that a 2:1 slope is considered the steepest slope without requiring some type of retainage. In engineering a 2:1 slope is used as a rule of thumb.
Example: A 1:1 slope is a 45% angle, 2:1 slope is 33% angle and 3:1 would be less.
Commissioner Benson explained that a 2:1 slope is self staining and is considered stable. In the Springdale’s Grading Standards, 10-15B-7 Cut and Fill Requirements, Item B it states, "The toe of any fill slope over four feet (4’) in height shall be placed no closer to any lot line than a distance equal to the height of the fill slope. The area between the lot line and the toe of the fill slope shall be revegetated with desert seed mix and drought tolerant, low water use vegetation in conformance with Section 10-15B-8 of this chapter." He liked the fact that if the slope is steeper than four 4’, it can’t be put right on the property line. This is similar to Staff’s proposed amendment that limits the height of the fill based on the distance from the property line. Example: A 5’ slope requires 5’ from property line. It incentivizes the developer to minimize the slope and allows the lots to be bigger. This would help keep the grading down at the property line. Also, Form Tomorrow suggested including standards for cuts and limitation on cuts. His recommendation was to consider incorporating those comments into the proposed amendment. Cuts were previously discussed during another meeting but the cut limitations are not included in the last amendment. He felt that the Commissioners’ previous discussions had been going in the right direction.
Kevin Rudd and Commissioner Benson illustrated Springdale’s Ordinance on Grading Standards showing the distance required from the property line based on the height of the slope. The Commissioners discussed several slope options that included 2:1 slopes, 3:1 slopes, etc. The 3:1 slope works in theory but creates an area in the backyard that’s not functional, and could create drainage problems. Several scenarios were discussed on how a slope and the distance from the property line could affect the lot.
Commissioner Scott liked the Springdale approach because it seems more variable and flexible but this creates a space that has no value. The Springdale approach and Staff’s proposal works to protect the adjacent property but what damage does it do to the potential development. We don’t want to discourage development. It needs to be compatible with the neighbors without destroying the value of the property for a developer or future homeowners. Is there a value in the Springdale’s approach of having a 3:1 slope as compared to the proposed amendment that allows a distance of forty-five feet (45’) from the property line then the fill goes up.
Commissioner Benson stated that it depends on what they do with the slope. Springdale requires the slope to be revegetated back to its natural state. A builder could be given an option of having walkout basements or not. The lots would have to be deeper on the end lots to accommodate a forty-five foot setback but if they do walkout basements, they could have the option of the setback being closer.
Springdale gives five (5) different options to stabilize the slopes: 3:1 slope - requires planting; 3:1 - 2:1 has to be stabilized with vegetation and if steeper it has to have riprap material or if steeper it has to have rock walls, and the steepest requires engineering. But it doesn’t say anything about changing the distance from the property line. The wall will be the same no matter how it’s done whether it slopes 3:1 or a stack wall, the total wall still starts at the same place and it’s limited at ten feet (10’). Example: If the distance is ten feet (10’) from the property line, there could be a ten foot (10’) retaining wall if engineered properly. Five feet back and if engineered properly, there could be a five foot (5’) wall. That’s just an option but if the option of sloping is used the slope doesn’t have to be engineered.
Kevin Rudd explained that a 3:1 slope would lessen the impact for the neighbor but if a builder comes in a develops the cheapest way, it leaves the owner trying to decide what to do with his backyard. The first thing a homeowner will want to do is pour a retaining wall to have usable space but they would not be able to. Springdale’s Ordinance 10-15B-5A refers to the FR zone, grading and associated disturbance shall be limited to an area extending no more than the great of either twenty feet (20’) from any point of a proposed structure or ten feet (10’) from any point of a patio, driveway, etc. However, it also says, grading limits will be determined on a site by site basis as part of the preapplication conference and site inspection. The common sense process is looking at it site by site and massaging it to make it work but it may not work for a developer.
Commissioner Benson stated that Section 4 of Staff’s proposed amendment gives the developer options. The interior lots could be stepped under this option, and the developer could adjust the stepping of the lots in the subdivision. This would incentivize the developer to have one big lot on the end of the subdivision or it would incentivize them to make more stepping inside the development.
Kevin Rudd mentioned that the current ordinance allows a maximum stepping of five foot (5’). If there is a fill, it has to be stepped.
Commissioner Benson stated that the rule of thumb is if the retaining or stepping is kept less than four feet (4’), it doesn’t have to be engineered. It’s easier to accomplish a three foot (3’) step than a five foot (5’) step.
Kevin Rudd illustrated the maximum distance allowed under Staff’s proposed amendment which is a forty-five foot (45’) setback from the property line. The Commissioners discussed at length the effects that distance would have in a subdivision.
After illustrating slopes, setbacks, stepping and fills, the Commissioners made the following recommendations regarding Form Tomorrow’s comments 1-8:
Section 1: "Be sure that drawing requirements (contour interval, etc) are enumerated somewhere in the application process." (incorporate this comment in the amendment)
Section 2: (strike this comment) The Commissioners felt the slope should be left as 2:1 slope instead of considering 3:1.
Section 3: (strike this comment)
Section 4: "Consider making a standard for cut. The way you are regulating fills is very effective in light of the town’s "givens and druthers" expressed in previous meetings. To the unimaginative, this will incentivize cuts. I would suggest maximum unbroken cut slope of 4’, to encourage stair stepping, and a separation for cuts - that cuts do not accumulate on the top side of a property, creating an eyesore." Commissioner Benson suggested including a minimum 1:1 ratio between cuts. Example: 4’ cut then have a minimum 4’ before the next cut. (incorporate these comments into the amendment)
Section 5: "Consider amending to include some limitation on cut." (incorporate this comment in the amendment)
Section 6: (strike this comment)
Section 8: (strike this comment)
Staff will incorporate the above mentioned comments into the proposed amendment. The Commission will then review the draft before setting a public hearing.
Commissioner Benson reviewed Form Tomorrow’s previous submittal on commercial uses, and he liked their design. But had some questions for them regarding "Build-to-Line" or "Build-to Zone," and how the primary entrance is defined. The entrance can be done with architecture such as using a trellis, covering, etc. There is a five foot (5’) setback limit. Are they saying that there’s only a five foot overhang or covering? An entrance cannot just have a blank wall with a door on it because people will not know it’s the entrance. The parking is located on the back side and most people would think that’s where the entrance is. It may mean that the rest of the building may need to set back but that pulls the building further away from the road. He wants to see how Form Tomorrow envisions this design.
After some discussion on how to communicate with Form Tomorrow, it was suggested that Commissioner Benson email Form Tomorrow with his questions, and he could email the responses to the Commissioners but any discussions need to be held in a public meeting.
Kevin Rudd advised that Form Tomorrow is waiting for the Commissioners comments before going to the next step. If any of the other Commissioners have comments, they need to forward them to Form Tomorrow.
Chairman Mehr and Commissioner Scott had no additional questions for Form Tomorrow.
Chairman Mehr noted that Martha Wilson will listen to the recording to clarify Commissioner Murphy’s comments.
MOTION: Commissioner Todd Benson moved to approve the Ivins City Planning Commission minutes for October 5, 2010 with the potential amendment to clarify Commissioner Murphy's comment..
SECOND: Commissioner Michael Scott
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Commissioner Dennis Mehr |
AYE |
| Commissioner Todd Benson |
AYE |
| Commissioner Michael Scott |
AYE |
| Commissioner Adel Murphy |
ABSENT |
| Commissioner John Reed |
ABSENT |