Vice Chairman Reed explained that the Commission was tasked to integrate the zones in the General Plan into the current Zoning Ordinance. The Commission also felt there was a need to take a fresh look at the ordinance and see if it could be enhanced. The Commission’s goals were:
1. To maintain the integrity and coherence of the current ordinance but clarify it, build upon it and condense it but not to rewrite the ordinance. Clarification makes it easier for the developers to understand what can be built and what cannot be built in Ivins. It removes grey areas, conditional language, etc.
2. To make the ordinance more attractive to developers, make it easier to build in Ivins and to attract businesses for the commercial zones.
There’s not going to be any big box businesses in Ivins. If Ivins depends on local residents for sales tax revenue, it will not be as beneficial to Ivins in generating revenue as attracting business people from outside St. George to come in and shop. The resort businesses have been developed and attract people outside of Ivins and outside the state. People in these resorts want to shop in Ivins. Another strong base is the performing arts such as Tuacahn and Coyote Gulch Theatre. This model has been successful in a number of resort areas. It is more of an arts founding model where people are invited to come because of unique art shops and galleries. Instead of big boxes, there has to be unique shopping opportunities to draw people to Ivins. The commercial areas need to be preserved so that businesses of that type can flourish. The current ordinances controls uses but more importantly it is controlling the application of the uses. The facilities need to be regulated in such a manner so that the use does not spill out in neighborhoods, does not create a nuisance and maintains a neighborhood in an attractive manner. The setbacks and commercial uses need to be contained within the area, and at the same time allow commercial uses a lot of flexibility within the space as long as their activities do not include exterior to that space.
The Commissioners looked at making the commercial areas attractive, walkable areas and bikeable but still have sufficient parking, good streetscape views and preserve the views of Ivins.
Kevin Rudd explained that Form Tomorrow focused on how the commercial could be developed, the building setbacks, and suggested amendments to Chapter 19 Site Design and not as much on types of commercial zones.
Council Member McDonald asked if Form Tomorrow felt Ivins had too many commercial zones.
Kevin Rudd stated that Form Tomorrow suggested creating zones that are different enough to justify the zone.
Vice Chairman Reed explained that Form Tomorrow was proposing overlays which could be done. There could be the commercial neighborhood, resort zone and a larger commercial zone with two or three overlays. The new Land Use Map has seven (7) zones. The Commission did define distinct definitions for each zone.
The Commission members and City Council members reviewed the zone definitions, changes to Chapter 19 and the drawings submitted by Form Tomorrow on Neighborhood Commercial 1, Neighborhood Commercial 2, Neighborhood Commercial 2.1, Community Commercial, Resort Commercial, and Business Park (copies available at Ivins City office).
Commissioner Benson commented that some of the information received from Form Tomorrow is great and would help developers come into the community. Should the next step be to review the information line by line, etc. and also should the proposed drawings be included before sending this forward to the City Council.
Kevin Rudd expressed that the Commissioners should start working on Form Tomorrow’s suggested changes and incorporate them into Chapter 19 Site Design of the Zoning Ordinance. The drawings are good and would be helpful to the developers and should be included. Also, the changes in the language such as "shall" and "shall not" should be included.
Vice Chairman Reed felt that if the Commissioners were in agreement with all the comments in Chapter 19, the comments could be merged into one document.
Commissioner Scott asked for input from the Council members about the direction the Commission is going. Is narrowing the zones down and simplifying a good idea from the City Council’s prospective? Secondly, the focus has been on community, the aesthetics, the views and the community impact of the new zones. Are we missing something from the developers prospective? Are we adding a layer of cost complexity as a result of creating something that is aesthetically right? Have we gone too far off in one direction or have we maintained a balance?
Commissioner Benson commented that we don’t want to make it so complicated for the developer that they cannot envision what the City wants.
Vice Chairman Reed agreed that it needs to be simplified and not complicated. The current ordinance leaves a lot of things open. The drawings and basic models make it easy for someone to say they can design it this way by putting the parking lot here, etc.
Mayor Hart explained that typically, commercial properties are sold based on frontage because of the utilities, etc. that are contained in the street. Requiring potential developers to place the parking on the side of the building compounds the amount of frontage that needs to be purchased. It’s not necessarily the wrong idea but there are cost impacts to that approach. The Mayor had one fundamental concern about Form Tomorrow’s recommendations, and it has to do with preservations or maintaining view access. Form Tomorrow’s concept is having pedestrian friendly store fronts closer to the street but Council is wrestling with another ordinance that we have been working on for many months that is about this very issue. The General Plan and the origins of the General Plan dates back many years and many discussions have been held regarding maintenance of access to views. Form Tomorrow did some geometry but the view angles are calculated from the opposite side of the street. The Council is struggling with the ordinance on elevations, grading and drainage and how that concept in the General Plan can be translated into ordinance form. He gave an example of a European village in Italy that he considered as pedestrian and bicycle friendly but he did not think we were doing that with this plan. We don’t want a massive parking lot and cars against the street for everyone to look at while driving by. It’s easier to mass a six foot (6’) car than a thirty-five foot (35’) building. Form Tomorrow’s design of massing of the buildings, the restrictions on the second levels, the percentage of the main floor that they could cover is all very good. He asked if there is a creative way to allow some parking with massive burns even if it means diverting the trails so the access is by the buildings but the view of someone driving or walking curbside can have some sense of the backdrop behind the buildings.
On the Community Commercial diagram, the Mayor felt that the buildings should be moved back from the street. If the Town Center begins to develop according to these illustrations, there would be complaints with twenty-five to thirty-five foot building close to the street. The geometry remains applicable but the reference should be from the other side of the street. The General Plan also states to have a rural flavor in the City.
Council Member McDonald commented that buildings close to the street give a catastrophic feeling more than a building setback from the street.
Commissioner Reed explained that originally Form Tomorrow had a typical streescape view, and we said no we don’t want that.
Mayor Hart stated that this design comes from the New Urban background which is a philosophy of urban planning. It’s legitimate in many ways. The previous group that did the commercial analysis was great but it doesn’t fit Ivins.
Commissioner Reed asked if the Mayor was good with the Neighborhood Commercial drawing and asked if they should work on the view site lines from the sidewalk for Commercial Community.
Mayor Hart explained that commercial developers want the most cost effective way to build. To get an idea of how they develop go look at what they do. We don’t want to make it too difficult for someone to come and develop but we are not necessarily at the top of anybody’s list. If developers can’t do it in a standard fashion, we will loose some opportunities. In regards to a side parking lot, if someone is looking at putting a building on a commercial pad, they are not looking at doubling the size of the pad to obtain a parking lot and landscaping. People want to see landscaping, the backdrop and a building nestled in when driving down the street. He asked if that precludes there being any parking in front of the building. Buildout is approximately 30,000 or more and he doesn’t see Ivins having a Home Depot or Super Wal-Mart. There will probably be intermediate size businesses or possibly attract research industries or high tech facilities. Those are much larger buildings but it fits into the General Plan. The Town Center will probably consist of a grocery store, smaller building, professional, banks, etc. He’s completely in agreement with the resort concept. There are a quarter of a million people that come to Tuacahn, and there’s not a place to eat. It is inevitable to attract lodging and restaurants. Those kinds of businesses will locate in the corridors. The struggle is balancing between easiest, cheapest or whatever for a developer to do and that which the City is willing to accept. There might be some areas that haven’t been fully explored in terms of positioning parking. If there’s some sort of landscape slope requirement from the street, we would not be looking directly into the headlights of the cars.
Commissioner Benson stated that it may be a balance of priorities. Form Tomorrow’s New Urbanism design with buildings closer to the street holds the streetscape to allow a more walkable bicycle friendly environment. They may have put that as the number one priority and the view as a second priority. Maybe we are concentrating too much on the walkable community and should be more focused on the view. A parking lot in the front suggests bringing a car so that’s why it’s on the side or put it in the back which makes sense but maybe it needs to be rebalanced.
Commissioner Reed stated that there could be a parking lot in front but people don’t need to feel they have to ride their bicycle or walk through a parking lot in order to get to the main entrance of the building.
Mayor Hart commented that’s the idea of the trail loop going back in. Another dynamic is the bigger the building the more parking required. Most buildings only require a single lane two bay parking. That can easily be massed in front of the building and would achieve the objective to place the building back to have a site line across the top of the building. An example is a grocery store that would want parking in the front. The question is can the parking be massed and still make it pedestrian and bicycle friendly by drawing a sidewalk all the way through it.
They discussed how the parking and walkablity would work in Neighborhood Commercial.
Council Member McDonald stated that we are talking about a main entrance and a secondary entrance. From a business standpoint it creates another problem and that’s securing two entrances. Having a primary entrance and having people park around the back doesn’t work from a business prospective. Walking distance from the car is a huge deal to a lot of people. They don’t want to walk very far yet we are trying to make it pedestrian friendly. It is appreciated but at the same time think about how the business is going to make it work for them. The way to make it work is to have a second entrance.
Kevin Rudd explained that with the parking lots no the sides of the buildings, the pedestrians would not necessarily have to walk through the parking lot to get to the store. The sidewalk would be in front of the building. The Tri Mart or Ence’s complex is an exampl of walking through the parking lot to get to a store. It’s not necessarily bad but Form Tomorrow is saying there’s a way around that.
Commissioner Murphy felt that Form Tomorrow’s idea was to walk in to the market without walking through the parking lot.
Commissioner Benson commented that if there is parking to the side or the back, it requires two entrances.
Council Member Roberts had concerns about businesses being able to survive because they depend on time. He was also concerned about enough room for parking and the one way traffic.
Kevin Rudd felt that if the time is taken to plan it, it can be designed to accomplish both for cars and pedestrians.
The Mayor gave an example of Costco’s entrance that’s on a corner. It makes it easier and more accessible to more people, and it puts the parking on two sides of the building. Form Tomorrow didn’t have that specified in the diagram for Community Commercial but there was one drawing that showed that option. By putting the entrance on the corner it would not double the frontage that a developer would have to purchase. It would set the building back one parking length on two sides.
Kevin Rudd noted that one thing he liked about Form Tomorrow’s plan was that it specified the amount of land required, and it is very generous on the amount of land for buffers. Twenty-five feet (25’) is allowed for buffers for Neighborhood Commercial and up to forty feet (40’) on Community Commercial.
Council Member McDonald expressed that the design has to be balanced for convenience. The favorite parking space is at the front door. Both sides of a design have to be balanced.
The Commissioners and Council Members continued discussions on how the Community Commercial could be designed with two sides of parking, corner entrances, and setbacks.
Because of time constraints the Commissioners decided to continue the discussion at the next Planning Commission’s meeting.