Kevin Rudd reported that this ordinance came about when citizens expressed their concerns to the Council about new developments and how the development can change the grade and fill of a project. There is significant impact to the neighbors when the grade is raised. The Council asked Staff and the Commission to look into amending the ordinance. Each amendment to the ordinance was read and diagrams of the amendments to cuts and fills were explained (a copy of the draft ordinance is available by request through Ivins City Hall).
Chairman Mehr opened the Public Hearing.
Lance Anderson referred to Item 4 (c) regarding the four foot (4’) intervals with the 1:1 ratio. Because of the slope in Taviawk and Shonto in Kayenta, there are large retaining walls behind the homes. One home has a twelve foot (12’) retaining wall. This amendment would be a concern in the Kayenta area because part of Kayenta’s design guidelines is to dig in to keep the heights down. Also, Item 5 (a) is a concern for other subdivision lots in regards to the code requiring twelve inches (12") above the curb. He asked where it should be measured from and if the City measures from the middle of the lot.
Kevin Rudd stated that it is measured from the middle of the lot, and he usually takes the average.
Lance Anderson commented that if it is moved to the bottom side, it will cut 2 to 2 1/2 feet out of the height of the house by putting it on the low side which still allows the house to drain to the road. It meets the code and allows the water to still get away from the house on the lower side but it puts the retaining walls on the upside instead of the downside.
Terry Marten referred to Item 6, 7 and 8 and commented that there are no changes proposed to these items. He felt the changes that had been made were going in the right direction. However, an example of a bad sight design is the Entrada Development where there is a house being framed adjacent to Snow Canyon Parkway. The height of the privacy wall does not allow privacy, and the home blocks the Snow Canyon view for people driving by. There are a number of areas in this ordinance that need clarifications or exceptions such as Item 6 (c). He agrees with the last part that the water cannot drain across a lot lower in any given lot in the subdivision and accelerated water has to be contained. Kayenta works under the premise that the water runs naturally on the site as long as the water is not accelerated from one property to another. If that is not allowed, the water will eventually accelerate to someone’s backyard. The natural vegetation and sand should absorb the water. In regards to Item 6 (b), Kayenta does not generally comply with this regulation but we do provide some access off the backside of lots if the water cannot get to the street. Some way of draining back to the streets or some level of containment or detainment is generated. A suitable way of dealing with this is a detention structure that allows run off at a more normal rate or allow it to percolate into the ground water or provide water for the desert vegetation. He asked that Item 6 (b) be re-considered. Item 7 refers to pad elevation and retaining wall for 11,000 square foot lots. This depends on how the grading plan on the lot is constructed and how the water flows. The absolute that there has to be a two foot (2’) retaining wall is not always necessary. He asked that they acknowledge that there are special conditions, or there are subdivisions like Kayenta where there should be some caveat to some of these requirements to allow them to do what they do and not grade the site and make it fit all these criteria’s.
Angelo DiSante owns Lot #41 in Amber Estates. As per Mr. DiSante request emails and photos submitted on March 29 and August 25, 2010 are attached to the minutes (copies are available at the Ivins City office). There is an elevation of lots in Sun Crest West subdivision that overlook his property along the northern retaining wall of Amber Estates. This adversely affects the property owners along the northern property line. Sun Crest West homes have only a ten foot (10’) backyard setback. He understood that the house could be extended to the setbacks and even have a patio up to the retaining wall. The photos showed how trees could present a problem with setbacks and retaining walls so close, etc. He requested that the City consider limiting the height of trees to prevent future problems. Also the plastic barrier between the walls presented a problem, and the residents felt it caused Amber Estates fences to be knocked down. This plastic barrier could cause a problem in the next phase of the development if the phase is up against the northern wall.
The current language on Site Grading and Drainage Section 16.11.134, Article 4 was removed from the amended ordinance that required a neighbor’s written approval on cuts and fills. Section 16.11.134, Article 5 (b) of the proposed amendment the TRC may be established by the Ivins City Manager but it’s not a requirement. He requested that the Commission consider giving a courtesy notice to the affected property owners if an issue goes before the TRC for review. In regards to storm water drainage and runoff, he asked what measurements determine whether it should have a retention pond, lift station, etc. Shouldn’t there be a standard in the Zoning Ordinance as it would affect this type of fill.
He suggested including a height restriction in Chapter 11 of the Zoning Ordinance for a maximum twenty-five foot (25’) building height from the natural grade when there is a high elevation of fill.
Also, how does this proposed zoning amendment affect the provisions for the overlay enhancements and incentives? It’s been a challenge to achieve fairness and balance for the property rights of the developer, a new development and the property rights of the property owner on an existing residential development. He thanked the Commission and Form Tomorrow for taking the time to amend the ordinance and mitigating the adverse impact of existing property owners.
There being no other comments, Chairman Mehr closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Reed commented that the Commission modified the ordinance as directed by Council to accommodate the fill areas. At some point in the future the Commission may need to look at the drainage requirements but he didn’t feel it should delay the cut and fill portion of the ordinance. The ordinance is mostly written based on grading the entire subdivision. If the entire subdivision is not being graded and some of it is left natural, Terry Martin’s comments make sense.
Kevin Rudd commented that when it comes to drainage, you have to use common sense. The ordinance is easy to achieve if the entire subdivision is graded to pad level. But on a large 3-4 acre lot that’s not going to be achievable. Whoever reviews the plan has to use their judgment to see that it’s not going to be possible to get the backyard to drain out. Does that mean we need to amend the ordinance in case someone gets in the position to be unreasonable? The Commission or Council could add a caveat in regards to the drainage issue brought up by Mr. Martin or an exception to deal with larger lots. However, nothing has been done that’s unreasonable since this ordinance was adopted.
Commissioner Reed referred to the four foot (4’) 1:1 ratio and commented that as long as it can be engineered, built and it has no affect outside of the property, he didn’t know why they should be concerned about it.
Commissioner Scott commented that the Commission has been trying to preserve views where possible, and minimize the obtrusiveness of any structures. He didn’t think cuts were a problem.
Commissioner Benson asked Kevin Rudd how he handled a twelve foot (12’) retaining wall.
Kevin Rudd explained that the ordinance requires retaining walls to be stepped on anything visible from the street. The home referenced by Lance Anderson is in compliance with the current ordinance and with 3-4 foot steps it would be in compliance with the proposed ordinance.
Dale Coulam quoted Section 16.11.136, "Retaining walls higher than four feet (4’) are allowed if the retaining wall is obscured by a building structure or fencing."
The following changes where suggested:
Item 5 (a) change: International Residential Code (IBC) to (IRC).
Item 5 (b) change: "to comply with the IRC" to "shall comply with the IRC"
Item 4 (c) change: Section 1136 should read Section 16.11.136
Chairman Mehr noted that Form Tomorrow is a non-profit organization that sent comments to the Commission and some of those are incorporated. The challenge has been applying the ordinance to every lot. He felt that the Commission has addressed the issues requested by Council. He asked the Commission if they wanted to address the issues brought up by Mr. Martin.
Commissioner Reed commented that Kevin Rudd gave an explanation on how he interprets the ordinance on drainage. He wasn’t sure that it was something that needed to be fixed. Everyone has concerns but no one has come up with anything better. If it’s not going to be improved upon, it probably should be moved forward.
Chairman Mehr felt it should be a concern if the ordinance is not being followed and we know there are exceptions in what’s written.
Chairman Mehr and Commissioner Reed discussed whether the ordinance should be a matter of interpretation or whether there should be exceptions written in the language of the ordinance regarding larger lot sizes when it came to drainage or should it state in the ordinance that it’s left to Staff’s interpretation.
Dale Coulam referred to Item 6 (b) that states, "it shall not be graded to an elevation lower." Kayenta leaves the lot in a natural state. Therefore, this is an exception because it doesn’t fall within the provision of the ordinance. Item 6 (c) refers to "drainage across property lines...." We have to be a little more careful with this provision because it’s not just the acceleration of water. If water flow is increased at all, there could be liability because it has been changed from its natural state. This statement is a general rule saying that water cannot be discharged onto the neighbor’s property. Engineering requires a drainage study to make sure water flows properly.
Commissioner Reed commented that the ordinance says it cannot be discharged which means if the water is there it needs to be put somewhere else.
Dale Coulam stated, generally a subdivision will discharge the water in the street. Kayenta is a different situation but Mr. Coulam felt there is an exception already built into the ordinance. This is where interpretation from Staff comes into play within the ordinance.
Commissioner Benson referred to Section 6 and advised that Form Tomorrow addressed this topic and recommended adding the sentence, "water where already present on the site in the form of natural drainages and washes that traverse a property should be to the greatest extend possible left in its natural state. These natural features should be incorporated into the overall drainage design." Commissioner Benson like this statement because it dictates that if I’m not touching the wash that’s coming through my back property, it can be left there and can cross the property line onto the next property since it already exists. However, if I’m changing that area then the water has to be taken care of.
Dale Coulam felt the statement swings to the other extreme which applies to Kayenta but now doesn’t apply to a typical subdivision when it is graded. Once it is graded the washes are gone. He was concerned with the statement, "preserve it to the greatest extent possible."
Commissioner Scott felt Item 6 (c) already addresses the issue because it says, "it may not in any case exceed that which existed prior to grading." If there was an active wash, then it could continue to be an active wash and if water was flowing across other property it could continue to flow across the other property. There are water and drainage issues to look at in the future but Item 6 (c) covers some of the issues. The goal with this amendment was to deal with grading issues, to preserve views and visual aesthetics of the community and neighboring lots. The amendment is not perfect but is an improvement. The drainage issues can be addressed in the future.
Chairman Mehr noted that the discussion addresses Terry Martin’s comments. He asked if the Commission wanted to address the comments from Angelo DiSante. Chairman Mehr commented on Mr. DiSante’s concern about the home extending into the setbacks. Any living space would still be limited to a ten foot (10’) setback from the property line. He wasn’t sure the Commission should address limiting the heights of trees or discuss the space between the two walls. He asked if the Commissioners had any further comments.
Commissioner Benson stated that if the current situation was under the new ordinance, and there was a ten foot (10’) setback with a five foot (5’) elevation change, under the new ordinance it would only allow for two feet (2’) of fill. It would probably not free up the view but it does improve the situation.
Kevin Rudd reported that Phase 3 of Sun Crest West was previously approved by the Commission but the Final Plat expired. Therefore, the ordinance requires that the developers go back through the process for re-approval. The Final Plat is the same as previously approved. This phase consists of fourteen (14) lots and is 2.869 acres. It is proposed that the retaining wall will continue on lots 64, 65, and 66. Staff will require that the gap between the walls will be four inches (4") or less. There is nothing in the ordinance that prohibits a retaining wall against Amber Estates retaining wall. The grade as it continues to the west is below four feet (4’), and under the existing ordinance it does not require neighbor’s approval. It complies with the existing ordinance to continue the fill and build the wall.
Commissioner Benson asked if the amended Site Grading and Drainage ordinance had been approved by the Council, would this phase be subject to the amended ordinance.
Dale Coulam advised that the application was prior to approval but it could become an issue for Phase 4.
MOTION: Commissioner Adel Murphy moved to approve a Final Plat for Sun Crest West Phase 3 located approximately 200 South and 330 West. Sun Crest Development Property, LLC, owner and Eric McFadden, Premier Design & Engineers, applicant.
SECOND: Commissioner Todd Benson
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chairman Dennis Mehr |
AYE |
| Commissioner Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner Todd Benson |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
| Commissioner John Reed |
AYE |