Kevin Rudd reported that there is an existing cinder block building next to Lightfoot’s that’s been vacant for ten (10) years. The structure has been used in the past as a barbershop, hair salon and a business office by Rocky Mountain Power. Therefore, the building has an established use and the use of the building can continue as is. Staff requested that the building be painted, the roof repaired, remove weeds and gravel the parking area. If the owner expands the use such as constructing an addition, then the City would require street improvements on 200 East but until that happens it’s not required. The applicant has done most of the maintenance to the building.
Five different sign designs were submitted, but the applicant is open to the Commission’s direction. It is a wall sign and the size is based upon the size of the wall. The Sign Ordinance allows the sign to be 20% of the square footage of the wall on the building. The maximum allowed wall sign for this structure is twenty-five square feet (25’). The Sign Ordinance refers to using soft background colors, not bright colors. Staff recommends that the background area not be stark bright white but use a softer white or light tan color rather than bright white. The building is tan in color with a three foot (3’) dark band around it. A twenty-five square foot (25’) sign complies with the ordinance.
Dale Coulam stated that the ordinance would eliminate the fifth sign design that is proposed. In reference to colors, the barber pole is a logo or an insignia, and the colors should be limited to the barber pole logo. The top four designs fall within the ordinance.
Commissioner Loris was glad that the sign would be smaller than shown in the photo. Twenty-five feet (25’) equates to a 6’ x 4’ or a 5’ x 5’. The fifth sign that was proposed is too bold for residents who are living in the area and for those who drive up and down 200 East. He was in favor of the other four (4) sign designs.
Commissioner Scott asked Dale Coulam if the insignia could be red, white and blue but for the balance of the sign is Staff recommending a muted color?
Dale Coulam explained that the ordinance states, "that where the colors are part of a logo or insignia all colors incorporated in the logo are permitted in the logo only."
Vice Chair Murphy also felt that the barber pole should have the red, white and blue colors, not off whites. The building looks nice and she didn’t have a problem with the top four sign designs.
MOTION: Commissioner Mike Scott moved to approve a Sign Permit Application located at 535 South 200 East, Ivins Barber Shop, Jeff Jensen, applicant, with the selection left up to him as to any one of the top four signs, not the fifth sign, and the background being a muted color as recommended by Staff.
SECOND: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
| Vice Chair Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner Jeffrey Loris |
AYE |
| Chairman John Reed |
ABSENT |
| Commissioner Todd Benson |
ABSENT |
Commissioner Scott explained that the Commission has collected a lot of information throughout the last year on all the commercial zones. At the previous meeting, the Commissioners decided to focus on one zone beginning with Commercial Neighborhood and clarify the description for that zone, the purpose, review Table of Uses and development standards to enable the Commission to move forward until there is a full Commission present.
He distributed some photos of the areas that are currently zoned CN (Neighborhood Commercial) as well as all the locations identified by the Land Use Plan as CN (photos available at Ivins City offices). The photos indicate the current zoning and the Land Use Plan designation.
The Commissioners reviewed the photos. There are a couple of areas that are currently zoned C-1 but under the Land Use Plan the designation would be different. During a conversation with Kevin Rudd, he advised him that it doesn’t necessarily mean that they couldn’t develop as C-1 zone. He asked for some clarification about the current zones and the current Land Use Plan. As we define the zones he asked if they were moving away from the current Zoning Map and in essence is the Land Use Map becoming the Zoning Map.
Kevin Rudd stated that would be up to the City Council. The current Land Use Plan does show some property as CN zone but on the Zone Map it is zoned C-1. The Land Use Plan has been amended but unless there is a formal Zone Change, the property would stay C-1 zoning. Even though the Commissioners go through this process of establishing a new use chart if the City Council decides we are not going to change the zoning and do a Zone Change from C-1 to C-N, then the property would remain C-1.
Commissioner Scott asked if the City Council doesn’t choose to make any changes to the Zoning Map, would the property owner have the option to use either zone.
Kevin Rudd explained that they would not. The Zone Map would take precedence and regulate the use. If the property owner wanted to do a Zone Change and the Land Use Map states CN, the owners would have to stay with CN zone and be locked into that zone. They could not change it to Resort Commercial, etc.
Commissioner Scott commented that some property owners expressed concern that their current zone was going to change. He asked if their concern is valid at this point since the Commission is not discussing a rezone but defining the purpose of the zone, reviewing the Table of Uses and development standards.
Kevin Rudd felt it was not a concern at this point. In the past the City Council has not taken a hard line approach to change the zones to match the Land Use Plan. In most cases they let the property owner make the change.
He gave some examples of uses allowed in C-1 versus allowed uses in CN. C-1 may have more options available.
Commissioner Scott read the definition developed by the Commission for Neighborhood Commercial: 1. To provide convenient shopping and work locations for residents. 2 Minimize cross town travel. 3. Be pedestrian sensitive. 4. Be compatible with the scale of surrounding residential development. 5. When adjacent to or bisected by an arterial street uses maybe auto accommodating provided that they are clustered in a node as opposed to be extended along an arterial and provided that the amount of intensity as such auto related uses is limited so not to adversely impact nearby residential areas or take on the look of strip development.
He mentioned a few issues with the description. #2 refers to "minimize cross town travel." It sounds good but we still travel across town. How will commercial really develop? When we look at the locations, in some cases there is density around the property (residential, business, etc.). Those are areas to start new businesses but on other sites there is nothing but land with no consumer base. It’s not impossible but unlikely that commercial development will occur any time soon. For those two reasons "minimize cross town travel" is not valid. #3 needs definition of pedestrian sensitive. If we bring the buildings to the street, it may create some view blockage. Commissioner Benson previously pointed out that most of the orientations are looking east or west rather than north where most of the view blockage would occur. #4 The question is what is considered an arterial street. Most of the commercial property is on arterial streets. Do we need to say that? Secondly, it states not to take on the look of strip development but some of the locations are very narrow sites. How will it be anything other than strip development? If we don’t want it, how are we going to figure out a way to make it work on a narrow site? These are the issues he has with this zone.
Vice Chair Murphy commented about "minimize cross town travel." That is what the Neighborhood Commercial zone is supposed to do. But until development comes it’s hard to minimize people going out of their neighborhood for essential services.
The Commissioners reviewed each use in the Tables of Uses & Standards for CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zone (copy available at Ivins City office or the website), and Kevin Rudd gave some background and example of uses as well as clarifying some of the uses based on what is allowed and not allowed. He also explained the Class I through Class V Conditional Uses.
Kevin Rudd and the Commissioners discussed some of the uses in more detail but most of the comments focused on allowing residential living above businesses.
Kevin Rudd commented on "Dwelling Condominiums." Gould/Evans recommended allowing residential uses in the CN zone on an upper level. He asked if that would be a good use to allow an owner to build a unit or a duplex above the store and rent them out as apartments.
Commissioner Scott advised that the Commission had previously discussed allowing residential on the second level but at a smaller percentage of the first floor area so that the second level modulated to maximize views and to minimize the sense of bulk.
Commissioner Loris commented that it makes pedestrians accessible to commercial. If they live upstairs and then come down to shop, they burn less fuel and there is less travel across town which we are trying to get away from.
Vice Chair Murphy commented that a lot of the small business owners want to live above the business.
Commissioner Loris inquired about a business dwelling being accessible but yet a Child Care business is not? Do we have to define what the use of the building is before we can allow whether or not a dwelling can be placed in conjunction with the building?
Kevin Rudd explained that currently it’s a Conditional Use Permit and it would depend on the conditions placed upon it. Currently, the ordinance only allows it to be used by the owner or an employee. If the use was extended to say it could be rented out to someone, it could just be an apartment rented. That would be expanding the use and would allow a business owner that is struggling to acquire additional income.
Commissioner Scott commented that if it is defined as residential use then that’s just for housing, not for a business like a Day Care or any other type of business.
Commissioner Loris inquired to how commercial day care and preschool centers are different. It’s not allowed in CN but allowed in an accessory dwelling unit with an employee there. If the unit is downstairs with a day care center and the owner lives upstairs or vise versus is it crossing over between the two uses?
Kevin Rudd explained that child care is not allowed in CN. Gould/Evans recommended residential uses on a second level which the height limitation on CN is currently twenty-five feet (25’) which is the same as residential. The other commercial zones are thirty-five feet (35’).
Commissioner Scott explained that the commercial owners commented on having flexibility to allow higher density in mixed use and have residential use on the second level.
They also discussed Neighborhood Commercial Retail sales and that convenience stores are not allowed in CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zone because convenience stores have gas pumps but a convenience store that doesn’t sell gas could possibly fall under the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zone.
Commissioner Scott liked the idea of allowing residential on the second floor on a limited basis of the first floor. It would be different from owner occupied. He felt the first floor should be used as the business and the second floor as rental unit. It was mentioned during previous discussion to use up to 33% of the first floor to preserve the views. That seems too limited but he felt it should be less than 100% of the first floor because it forces some modulation instead of a building going straight up twenty-five feet (25’) because residential homes are behind the commercial.
Commissioner Loris asked how the City approaches the commercial business owners with regard to matching the existing residential heights and roof styles (flat roofs and pitched roofs) of the surrounding residential areas.
Kevin Rudd felt that it’s not out of place to have a flat roof next to a pitch roof. Subdivisions have different pitched roofs but the architectural style blends. When the design review is done, is when they would look at the roof pitch, etc.
The consensus was that the uses in the chart for Neighborhood Commercial fits the zone and the only thing to add was allowing the rental on the second floor and figuring out where to put it in the chart.
Kevin Rudd suggested adding the information in the Dwelling, Multiple-Family Use category. The language can be expanded to say, "as a Class IV Conditional Use and add within the CN zone the maximum amount of units and the units are required to be in the second story only with a maximum percentage."
The Commissioners agreed.
Commissioner Scott advised that the election date and the Commission meeting is September 13, 2011 instead of September 14, 2011.
Since two of the Commissioners had a conflict with the September meeting dates and would not be able to attend, it was decided to cancel the meeting.
MOTION: moved to
SECOND:
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
| Vice Chair Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner Jeffrey Loris |
AYE |
| Chairman John Reed |
ABSENT |
| Commissioner Todd Benson |
ABSENT |
CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS:
The meeting was called to order at
05:30 p.m. All present included
Commissioner Jeffery Loris,
Commissioner Mike Scott,
and Vice Chair Adel Murphy.
|
A. |
Planning Commission (None) |
|
C. |
Building & Zoning Administrator, Kevin Rudd (None) |
Dale Coulam reported that the City Council reviewed the Commission’s current bylaws and procedures and Rosenberg’s Rules and Procedures. The Council also likes what we currently follow. He’s working on an ordinance that closely follows the Commission’s bylaws. The draft will come to the Commission for their recommendation and then go to the City Council.
Discuss uses for C-1 Community Commercial zone.
Commissioner Scott will summarize what has been discussed and will take some pictures of the C-1 zones and distribute before the next meeting.
MOTION: Commissioner Mike Scott moved to adjourn
SECOND: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
| Vice Chair Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner Jeffrey Loris |
AYE |
| Chairman John Reed |
ABSENT |
| Commissioner Todd Benson |
ABSENT |
The meeting adjourned at 6:27 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Martha S. Wilson
Deputy City Recorder