Planning Commission

Copy of the City of Ivins record for Planning Commission, preserved by OwnUtah.com Ivins Meetings. Official source: City of Ivins Granicus archive.

IVINS CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
July 5, 2011
435-628-0606

CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS: The meeting was called to order at 05:29 p.m. All present included Commissioner Todd Benson, Commissioner Jeffrey Loris, and Commissioner Mike Scott.

MOTION: Commissioner Todd Benson moved to nominate Commissioner Scott as Chair for this meeting.
SECOND: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.

Commissioner Todd Benson	AYE
Commissioner Jeffrey Loris	AYE
Commissioner Mike Scott	AYE
Chairman John Reed	ABSENT
Commissioner Adel Murphy	ABSENT

STAFF: City Attorney Dale Coulam, Building and Zoning Administrator Kevin Rudd, and Deputy City Recorder Martha Wilson
AUDIENCE: Angelo DiSante and Troy Dennett

A.	Acknowledgement of Quorum

Acting Chairman Scott acknowledged that there was a quorum.

B.	Flag Salute

Commissioner Benson led the Flag Salute.

C.	Invocation

Commissioner Loris led the Invocation.

D.	Disclosures

There were no disclosures or conflict of interests with this meeting.

2)	REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS (None)

3)	BUSINESS LICENSES (None)

Kevin Rudd reported that Troy Dennett’s commercial property consists of the old Hafen family home that was recently remodeled, and the adobe Post Office building that was originally built by Weston Hafen which was their home prior to building the brick home. Troy Dennett has tried to preserve the buildings since these two buildings may be the only historical buildings in Ivins. A building permit has been issued on the adobe building to renovate the structure to make an ice cream shop. The adobe building is part of Troy Dennett’s original Conditional Use Permit that was previously approved by the Commission and City Council. In addition, this body approves the sign for this business. The proposed sign (copy available at Ivins City office) is a monument type sign with adobe pillars. The Sign Ordinance requires that this type of sign tie into the design of the main structure and architecture. The ordinance allows the sign to be forty square feet (40’) but this sign will be approximately thirty-two square feet (32’). The overall size including the pillars will be sixty feet (60’) or less.
The Staff and Troy Dennett struggled with whether the sign should be on the building but since the building is so small, it was felt the monument sign would be better. Staff reports that the proposed sign does comply with the Sign Ordinance.
Commissioner Scott inquired about the height limit.
Kevin Rudd advised that the maximum height allowed for a monument sign is seven feet (7’). This sign is below that height.
Commissioner Loris inquired if the pillars would have an adobe cap or a concrete cap.
Troy Dennett explained that he has had some discussions with his contractor on how to handle the caps because any water that gets into adobe will disintegrate the blocks. He can cap the adobe pillars but his contractor has advised to use stone pillars similar to the existing sign in front of his office. If they use stone, it will be the same design as the existing sign. He asked the Commissioners to allow him to use the adobe columns or the stone columns.
Commissioner Scott asked if he used stone would he balance the colors.
Troy Dennett advised that the colors would tie into the existing monument sign. The sign for the adobe building will be located on the south side of the building.
Kevin Rudd advised that there will also be some indirect lighting that will shine on the sign. The lights will be shielded and not visible. The lighting on the sign is in compliance with the ordinance.

MOTION: Commissioner Todd Benson moved to approve the Sign Permit Application located at 185 East Center Street, Adobe Ice Box (Ice Cream Cold Treat Business). Troy Dennett, applicant
SECOND: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.

Dale Coulam reported that the City Council will be required to adopt an ordinance setting forth procedures for both the Planning Commission and the City Council. A copy of the Rosenberg’s Rules of Order Simplified Procedures was given to the Commissioners as a reference to see if the Commissioners want to stay with the Commission’s existing bylaws and procedures or make any changes. Rosenberg’s Rules of Order are less complicated and easier to follow than Robert’s Rules and Order. However, the Rosenberg’s document may need to be modified rather than adopting the document outright. For example:
1. Rosenberg’s document does not require a second on a motion. But the Commission’s existing procedures require a second, and if there is no second the motion is deemed to fail.
2. Rosenberg’s document allows multiple motions on the table at once but the Commission’s existing procedures deals with each motion when it comes up.
3. Rosenberg’s document states there is no discussion until after there’s been a motion. But the Commission’s existing procedures allows discussion to flush out issues so that the Commissioners would know what motion to make, and after a motion has been made and seconded, there can be further discussion.
The Commission’s existing bylaws, rules and procedures are how the meetings are presently conducted. He asked if the Commissioners wanted to adopt a modified version of Rosenberg’s Rules of Order or an ordinance closely related to the existing Commission’s bylaws.
Acting Chairman Scott stated that Dale Coulam pointed out three (3) of the four (4) things that he had noticed that conflicted with the existing bylaws and procedures. The other conflict was that Rosenberg’s allows any Commissioner to offer a substitute motion whereas in the Commission’s existing bylaws it’s only the original motioner that offers a substitute motion. Also, the existing procedures states that if we need additional help, the Commissioners refer to Robert’s Rules and Orders. If that is changed to Rosenberg’s Rules of Order and Procedures terminology, how would it work if the existing procedures conflict with Rosenberg’s and would the existing bylaws and procedures supersede Rosenberg’s?
Dale Coulam stated that the existing procedures would supersede. This will be flushed out more when the Council creates an ordinance.
Commissioner Benson commented that the existing bylaws were easier to read than Rosenberg’s Rules.
The consensus was that the preference was to use the existing Planning Commission’s Bylaws and Procedures along with the Rosenberg Rules and Procedures.
Dale Coulam advised that the Commissioners’ preference will be forwarded to the City Council and an ordinance will be drafted in compliance with the law. He noted that on a motion for reconsideration, the City Council passed an ordinance that laid out the procedure and that will probably be incorporated in the new ordinance. After the ordinance has been drafted, it will be brought back to the Commission for their input. He will start with the Commission’s bylaws as recommended.
The Commissioners agreed.

Acting Chairman Scott inquired if there had been any feedback from the commercial owners from the last meeting and Commissioner Benson inquired as to how many commercial owners attended the last meeting.
Acting Chairman Scott commented that there were 7-8 people in attendance but not a lot of input.
Kevin Rudd felt that there would not be much more comment until there was a rough draft of the Zoning Ordinance. When there is a draft and a public hearing set, Staff will notify the commercial property owners of the meeting. Also, prior to the next meeting a letter will be sent out showing the commercial owner’s current zoning and uses and invite them to furnish feedback to the Commission on what the owners might want to see in their zone. The letters will go out within the next couple of weeks.
Acting Chairman Scott asked if there was a simpler way to find out how a zone has changed other than reviewing the Land Use Plan and Zoning Map together and looking at it block by block.
Kevin Rudd stated that it is a matter of just looking at the two maps to determine what the uses will be. He did feel that there would not be major use changes to the commercial zones. In answer to Commissioner Benson’s question, it is a matter of renaming the zones. Several owners are in Resort Commercial but their property may end up with three categories of Resort Commercial. The Commissioners will need to determine how those definitions and uses will differ.
Commissioner Loris asked how many commercial owners are in Ivins.
Kevin Rudd stated that there are approximately twenty-one (21).
Acting Chairman Scott commented that all the Commissioners should be present before finalizing anything. But Chairman Reed will be out for awhile and he felt the Commissioners could make some progress. There are two things that need to be done to come into compliance with the General Plan and that is to define the uses and define the development standards.
Kevin Rudd suggested starting with the Neighborhood Commercial since it would be the easiest.
Commissioner Benson stated that he has struggled with the Form Tomorrow information and wasn’t sure how to process that information. There will probably be some marriage between what we have and what Form Tomorrow suggests.
Acting Chairman Scott felt that if the Commissioners have a clear understanding of what uses are in these zones, what the General Plan is suppose to have and locate where they are, it will help to define what the development standards should be in those locations.
After some further discussion, the Commissioners agreed to start with Neighborhood Commercial and verify those uses at the next meeting. The agenda item for the next meeting is to focus on defining uses for Neighborhood Commercial.

MOTION: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris moved to approve the Ivins City Planning Commission minutes for June 14, 2011.
SECOND: Commissioner Todd Benson

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.

1. Continue discussion of the Zoning Ordinance on commercial property and focus on defining uses for Neighborhood Commercial zone.

MOTION: Commissioner Todd Benson moved to adjourn
SECOND: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 5:57 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Martha S. Wilson, CMC
Deputy City Recorder