Kevin Rudd reported that the subdivision is zoned R-1-10 (Residential Single Family (min. lot size 10,000 sq. ft.) If this was a conventional subdivision, each lot would be 10,000 square feet. However, the Zoning Ordinance has an alternative subdivision which is a Subdivision Enhancement Overlay District. By providing additional amenities within the project the developer can qualify for additional density bonuses. This project provides a public park which is the bulk of the amenity. The developer is requesting the full density bonus of 25%. The base density for this project is forty-four (44) units/homes, and with the 25% density bonus it allows fifty-five (55) units/homes. If the developers achieve the full density bonus, it allows eleven (11) additional homes. The proposal is for single family homes, with lot sizes varying from 5,500 to 8,000 square feet, the maximum height is twenty-five feet (25’), and rear setbacks is ten feet (10’). The setbacks are the same as Heritage Estates. But with smaller lots the homes will be closer to the rear property line than the homes in Heritage Estates. The roads will be public roads. There will be four phases (see map available at the City Offices for phase locations). The park will be completed during Phase 3 and the dog park will be completed with Phase 4. A timeframe for completion of the phases has not been submitted. The City Council may require a Development Agreement to establish a timeline for the phases.
Chairman Mehr inquired if there was a similar subdivision in Ivins that would mirror this plan in terms of density.
Kevin Rudd stated that Red Mountain and Anthem Estates are similar. Anthem Estates has more open space between the lots. Having the open space consolidated in this project provides a usable park for the area. The Parks Director feels this is an excellent location for a small park for the City. The landscape plan shows the park, a full soccer field, parking, pavilion, playground equipment, pickle ball court and a dog park. The homes, when built, will be completely landscaped, front and back. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the homes are landscaped.
Chairman Mehr asked if the park would be donated to the City and completely finished or donated as an empty lot. Also, would there be a cost to the City?
Kevin Rudd stated that the developer will donate the property. The design specifications for the park will be by agreement. Improvements to the park will be done with Phase 3, and recovery of all or a portion of park improvements costs will be impact fee credits to developer. The park impact fees will pay for the improvement. The park will be dedicated on the final plat and maintained by the City. The credits for impact fee will be a City Council decision. The developer is donating the park, improving the park and proposing to use the impact fees from the fifty-five (55) homes for construction of the park.
Commissioner Murphy asked if the developer is asking the City to waive the park impact fees. According to the developer’s proposal, it states credits but also mentions waiving the fees.
Kevin Rudd felt that the City Council would be cautious with this agreement on how the money would be handled. Also, there will be landscape buffer walls. The City owns an eight-five foot (85’) right-of-way on the north side of the project for the future Western Corridor. The architectural style of the homes is southwest Tuscany with tile roof and stucco. The square footage proposed is 1,200 to 2,500 (samples available at the City offices).
Commissioner Reed stated that the major impact is on Heritage Estates.
Chairman Mehr opened the Public Hearing.
Marcus Christensen read their letter submitted to the Planning Commission (complete copy located at Ivins City offices). They felt this subdivision is out of character with the area because of the high-density housing being built right up against the lot lines of existing homes with minimum clearance. They purchased in Heritage Estates because it was not a high-density housing development. The high-density housing will devalue the existing properties tremendously, both financially and in many other ways. They knew the property would be developed but was hopeful that development would be reasonably consistent with the other properties in the area. The homes are right up against our back fence, right in our faces, obliterating privacy, reducing property values, blocking views and changing the comfortable feeling of the neighborhood. They asked the Planning Commission to encourage the developer to go back to the drawing board with a plan more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. It would be a tragic shame to ruin a pleasant neighborhood in the pursuit of profits. Also, expressed concerns about having a dog park because dog owners do not clean up after their dogs. They asked for reasonable setbacks in the rear yards so that the home will not back up to their fence.
Chuck Walrath lives in Heritage and agrees that the parking for a soccer field is insufficient for two teams and supporters. There is already a sewage system in place and sewer pipes in the soccer field. He asked how it ties in with the existing sewage system.
Kevin Rudd explained that most likely the existing sewage system will be abandoned and a new water and sewer system installed.
Chuck Walrath stated that if 4-8 homes were removed from the plan, it would increase the size of the lots and be more acceptable to the neighborhood.
Stacy Young represented The QRS Group. The layout has the same number of homes against Heritage Estates along the shared property line. There are thirteen (13) homes on either side of the fence. The intent of the layout is to mass the residential development into one area of the project and mass the open space. The open space is for the entire community. If the layout was R-1-10 designation, the setbacks would not change. The homes would be just as close to the back property line, and two story homes would be well within that scope of zoning designation. This is a sensitive layout, and the property is 6-8 feet below the Heritage Estates. The dog park will have separate fencing for larger and smaller dogs. There will be facilities provided to clean up after the dogs.
In regards to the park impact fees, the developers have discussed establishing an escrow account so that when it comes time to build the park the funds will be there. Regarding the maximum density bonus, the full park is a unique amenity and is categorically superior and different from generic open space. It is more usable and not typically provided in other subdivisions. The layout has good access and circulations. The previous plan included fifty-three (53) lots but the roads were more curvilinear and the open space was more chopped up. This is a more convenient useful layout. The consistency in design will be assured through the CC&R’s with a single home builder.
Dave Arndt lives in Heritage and was concerned about the twenty-five (25’) foot height limit. He asked that the height be restricted to the height of the existing homes in Heritage.
Dave Krakowiak is a retired firefighter from Washington State and has lived in Ivins three (3) years. This property is a natural depression. When it rains, all the water and rain collects on this property. In the spring, summer and fall the property owner on the west side waters 24 hours 7 days a week, and the water goes underneath the road and comes into this property where the soccer field will be located. The field will not be of much use as it will be wet and marshy. In another area the water forms a lake. The concern is how the water problem will be handled since this is a wetland area. The vegetation is also different in this area which allows wildlife on this property. He asked if fill dirt will be brought in to address the water problem. He was also concerned about the height and density. Also, the the density with a block wall is a nightmare for firefighters. He asked if the developer would take the park impact fees and tell the City what to do with them.
Kevin Rudd explained that there will be storm drain systems to catch the water coming across the road. The water will go in the 400 East storm drain. It is proposed to be done through gravity feed.
Bryant Edginton lives in Heritage and his concern is that the homes are so close together. He lived in Red Mountain subdivision for ten (10) years and moved to Heritage three (3) years ago. The Red Mountain development started out with homeowners but then turned into mostly rentals. With the homes close together he feared that they will turn into rental lots instead of single family home lots. There are enough parks in Ivins. With parks comes crime and people hanging out after hours.
Dave Krakowiak asked if lights would be in the park at night around the soccer field.
Kevin Rudd stated that there are no lights proposed.
Chuck Waldrup stated that they paid extra for the view of the Red Mountain and was assured there would be no high homes below us. They put high homes below us which didn’t take the view away, but they planted trees which now obscure the mountains. Trees can easily exceed twenty-five feet (25’) and cause further loss of views.
Chairman Mehr closed the Public Hearing.
Kevin Rudd explained the three (3) categories available for density bonuses:
1. Open Space - Maximum density incentive available is 10% bonus
2. Consistency in Design Elements - Maximum density incentive available is 5% density bonus.
3. Convenience in Layout, Variety of Lot Sizes, and Unique Subdivision Features - Maximum Density Incentive available is 10% density bonus (Density Bonus form located at Ivins City offices)
The developer’s proposed open space qualifies for the 10% density bonus. The Commissioners need to determine if the project qualifies for additional density percentage. The Subdivision Enhancement Overlay District (SEO) allows for flexibility. It is not restricted by lot sizes. It’s about density. The R-1-10 zoning is 10,000 square foot lots but the SEO application allows for a variety of lot sizes.
Commissioner Benson asked if the subdivision complied with the Zoning Ordinance, except for density, with reference to height restrictions, setbacks, road widths, etc.
Kevin Rudd stated that the SEO allows the developers to request the setbacks. The project proposes a five foot (5’) side setback which is the minimum required for fire codes. The setbacks for R-1-10 zone are: 25’ front setback, 10’ side setbacks and 10’ rear setbacks. The maximum height allowed is twenty-five feet (25’) and the rear setbacks is ten feet (10’) not fifteen feet (15’).
Commissioner Reed mentioned that the base elevation is 6-8 feet below Heritage Estates which would reduce the total elevation of the homes behind Heritage Estates.
Kevin Rudd clarified that the development is probably 4-5 feet lower in elevation.
Commissioner Benson stated that if they are restricting the side setbacks to a total of fifteen feet (15’) between the homes, there is only a difference of sixty feet (60’) from the standard setbacks.
Kevin Rudd explained that the lot widths are approximately twenty feet (20’) smaller than Heritage Estates. The zoning in Heritage is R-1-8, and the setbacks are the same.
Commissioner Reed compared the narrative on convenience of layout, variety of lot sizes and unique subdivision features with the SEO ordinance. The ordinance says the lot sizes should vary. The narrative says while variety of lot sizes are somewhat limited by the size and shape of the parcel, there will be an attractive variety of house sizes and layouts within a generally consistent architectural theme. It sounds nice but the ordinance doesn’t give an exception. The question is there enough variety in lot sizes to meet the requirement of the ordinance to allow the 10% density bonus. The other items listed in the narrative match the ordinance.
Commissioner Benson also questioned the creativity of the plan to qualify.
Commissioner Scott felt there was some variation in the southeast corner since two lots were significantly larger but the other lots are consistently similar.
Commissioner Benson stated that the developer mentioned using a single builder to achieve consistency in architectural design. The concern is what happens if the first builder disappears, and the next builder is not consistent. CC&R’s should control the architectural theme to keep the consistency.
Kevin Rudd mentioned that there should be CC&R’s but a Development Agreement spells out the designs and other details.
Chairman Mehr asked if the developer would qualify for the Open Space density bonus if the dog park was removed. If the dog park is eliminated, the homes could shift to give more space next to Heritage Estates and then put the density next to the proposed highway.
Kevin Rudd explained that the developer needs all the open space including the dog park to qualify for the Open Space density bonus.
Commissioner Benson felt the dog park was one of the better amenities. He gave some suggestions on moving the dog park near the future highway.
The Commissioners discussed the limited number of parking spaces for the park and dog park. They had concerns about people parking on the streets during soccer games.
Kevin Rudd didn’t think there was a required limit for parking spaces for a park. There could be overflow parking during a soccer game.
Commissioner Scott felt the Design Elements could be handled through the Development Agreement. The 5% could be subject to the review of the CC&R’s by the Planning Commission. However, the Commission doesn’t have the CC&R’s at this time.
Judy Gubler suggested including the key components such as heights and setbacks under Consistency in Design Elements. Then address the neighbor’s concerns along the south boundary. That could be the Commission’s recommendation to the City Council. Then the developer could work with that recommendation to see what they can come up with. List the height and setbacks specifically and have general statement that it’s controlled through CC&R’s and the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement goes with the land and can be the controlling factor.
Kevin Rudd explained that the SEO gives flexibility to the developer and also flexibility to the Commission. The Commission can make a recommendation for reduce height and could increase the setbacks along the southern boundary of Heritage Estates.
Chairman Mehr questioned the need for a dog park and asked if the dog park were taken out would the percentage of density bonus for Open Space be reduced to 8% or 9%. This would increase the side setbacks between the homes along the Heritage Estates boundaries.
Commissioners Reed explained two ways to design a community. He felt the dog park will probably get more usage than the soccer field. The rear setbacks fit within the zoning. It would be nice to have larger rear setbacks but that’s the way the Zoning Ordinance is written. It’s a fact of property being developed next to another development.
Judy Gubler explained that the soccer field and dog park were ideas from Staff. The developer listened and came back with the proposal. The City is looking at the community needs. There is a dog park on 600 West approximately 1000 North but it doesn’t have grass, and the City gets a lot of requests for a dog park with grass.
Commissioner Reed felt there was some consistency in Design Elements. A height limitation could be added and it would not be a burden on the rights of the property owner. The main issue is size and lot variation. This plan doesn’t meet the maximum 10% requirement for variety of lot sizes.
Commissioner Murphy commented that the ordinance says unique subdivision features. If the park is taken out for the Open Space, where is the unique feature to give it the full 10%?
Commissioner Scott felt there are three (3) items to look at in this section. The third one is incorporating unique features and amenities for the benefit of the subdivision. The question is does Open Space meet that criteria as a unique feature. He felt it did. The other two items are more troubling which is the layout and variation of lot sizes. There is some variation and it technically meets the requirement. But he didn’t think it met the vision of what is meant by variation and lot sizes. The first item is to provide creative and extraordinary design layout which are strong terms. He did not see that in the design layout. Also, does the Open Space meet the third requirement or should there be other features or amenities within the subdivision.
Commissioner Reed stated it’s the enhancement to the Open Space. The enhancements are nice but the City is picking up most of the tab. He doesn’t see it being strong enough for the 10%.
Commissioner Benson stated that if they allowed 8%, there would be a total of fifty-two homes, a loss of three homes on each of the rows in the subdivision. If one house was taken out of every row, there would be twenty feet (20’) between each home.
Commissioner Scott stated instead of requiring how many houses, address the side setbacks on the south side by Heritage Estates. By changing the side setbacks it would create more lot size variations.
Commissioner Reed felt that it would cause more density within the subdivision.
After further discussions on whether there was variation of lots, side setbacks, rear setbacks, height limitations, and density issues, the consensus was:
Open Space: The developer met the criteria for open space by providing the park, the dog park, soccer field and the other amenities. The maximum density of 10% was allowed.
Consistency in Design Elements: The Development Agreement and the CC&R’s would control the consistency in design and the height limitation was changed to twenty-two fee (22’). The Commissioners felt that the height change would not burden the developer and would reduce the elevation of the homes next to Heritage Estates. The maximum density of 5% was allowed.
Convenience in Layout, Variety of Lot Sizes and Unique Subdivision Features: It was felt the plan did not meet the extraordinary design layout but met some of the variation in lot sizes. However, it did not meet the intent of the ordinance for extraordinary design layout. One of the main issues was the density on the south boundary next to Heritage Estates. There were concerns about the side setbacks. The rear setbacks fit the zoning requirements. The unique features are the park and the enhancements to the park. The Commissioners suggested a maximum density of 6% and felt the reduction in density should be applied to the lots on the south side.
MOTION: Commissioner John Reed moved to amend agenda and move Item 5C ahead of the current discussion and then continue discussion of 4B.
SECOND: Commissioner Michael Scott
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chairman Dennis Mehr |
AYE |
| Commissioner Todd Benson |
AYE |
| Commissioner Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner John Reed |
AYE |
| Commissioner Michael Scott |
AYE |
There was discussion prior to the final vote. Commissioner Benson stated that the motion needed to be amended to include the Development Agreement and CC&R's. The following motion is the amended motion.
MOTION: moved to
SECOND:
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chairman Dennis Mehr |
AYE |
| Commissioner Todd Benson |
AYE |
| Commissioner Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner John Reed |
AYE |
| Commissioner Michael Scott |
AYE |