Acting Chair Scott distributed some photos of the C-1 (Community Commercial) zone and a summary list from the Table of Uses of the Community Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial (copies available at Ivins City office). The summary list comparedthe uses allowed in the two zones. The Community Commercial definition was read: Community Commercial is intended to provide locations for commercial uses that will provide a broader array and scope of good services and employment opportunities than the Commercial Neighborhood District for nearby residential areas and employment centers within and without Ivins. The site design of developments within the Community Commercial District shall accommodate a free flow of pedestrian and bicycles traveling to the destinations from the nearby neighborhoods and from within the district but the district is expected to be predominantly auto oriented. Permitted commercial uses are allowed without restriction throughout the district.
He noted that the Land Use Plan limits the locations for Community Commercial, and the designations are located along Highway 91. However, the current Zone Map shows C-1 in a number of locations throughout the City. Although the Land Use Plan has changed the uses in different locations, the current zoning takes precedence even if the Commission changes some of the uses. It’s only if a property owner comes in and asks for a rezone that it would change to the use on the Land Use Plan.
Kevin Rudd stated that he was correct. However, the City Council could decide to change the Zoning Map to match the Land Use Plan with a recommendation from this body. An example of how it could affect a property zoned C-1: The Lightfoot convenience store is zoned C-1. If the zoning was changed to CN, the use would be a legal non-conforming use which would limit expansion of his project.
Vice Chair Murphy arrived at 5:37 P.M. and advised that she had no conflicts of interest.
Commissioner Benson asked for clarification about Commercial Day Care/Preschool Center versus Day Care in their home. Does this refer to a separate building facility and not located in a residential? Also, what is the reason for allowing it in C-1 and not CN?
Kevin Rudd explained that this use is not referring to a home day care and is not operated in a residential structure. It’s probably not allowed in CN because of the impact to neighbors. Thehe use is not conducive to residential such as noise, traffic, etc.
Dale Coulam explained that Home Occupation Day Care falls under the Home Occupation Business License. There are limitations such as the number of children allowed and it can only be operated by family members in the home. They cannot have an employee. If there is an employee or larger numbers of children, the option would be a commercial day care facility which requires the business to be located in a C-1 zone.
Commissioner Benson noted that the Commissioners discussed at the last meeting to change the Dwelling, Multiple-Family use category to allow a mixed use component. It is not allowed on the use chart under CN or C-1 and is not on the summary list.
Commissioner Scott explained that the category was left off the summary list.
Dale Coulam asked if the previous discussion was about Accessory Dwelling Unit which only allows an owner or employee to occupy an attached or detached unit, and the Commissioners discussed expanding that use.
Vice Chair Murphy thought that they discussed that it would be okay if it was on the second floor of the unit but we weren’t looking to allow it for anybody other than an owner or employee as an accessory unit.
Commissioner Scott stated that the Accessory Dwelling use category is one unit that can be attached or detached for the owner or employee to use. That’s already an existing use. We discussed changing the category Dwelling, Multiple Family use to allow the second floor of commercial property to be residential. But he questioned the definition of the Dwelling, Multiple Family use because it is defined as a building containing three or more dwelling units. The Accessory Dwelling use category allows one dwelling unit and the Multiple Family category use is three units. There could be a situation where a small commercial building could only fit two residential units on top. So, is it appropriate to put this use in Dwelling Multiple Family or should it be somewhere else or change Dwelling Multiple Family to be two or more units.
Kevin Rudd stated that generally two units are duplex. In zoning for residential there is single family, duplex and anything above that is multi family. It’s a good question. If only multiple family is allowed, would it restrict it to three or more units? If only two units could be on top, would that restrict it from happening?
Commissioner Scott asked if the Commissioners wanted to allow only one unit on top of the commercial building and should they allow the unit to be rented out to a resident in Ivins, not just the owner of the building or employee. We envisioned it to be a mixed use opportunity, but it’s a different use than the Accessory Dwelling use.
Kevin Rudd felt they could create another use category that deals with this situation.
Vice Chair Murphy felt it was better to put it in its own category.
Commissioner Benson asked if it should be part of the Neighborhood Commercial retail sales and services. He could envision it happening in a mixed use retail shop, etc.
Kevin Rudd mentioned that there are medical/dental clinics, offices etc. that it could fall within.
Vice Chair Murphy noted that there are several categories where there could be a dwelling above the business.
The consensus was that it would be better to have a separate use category.
The Commissioners reviewed and compared the uses on the Table of Uses for Community Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial zones that were allowed and those not allowed.
Commissioner Loris asked if an education facility was the same thing as a commercial day care. He referred to an existing daycare/preschool on 400 West that has a separate dwelling unit for the business. He inquired as to how that falls into the Zoning Ordinance.
Kevin Rudd advised that it’s Gary Blake’s property. He has a Conditional Use and a Home Occupation license. It’s a residential zone that allows casitas and home day care. The casita is being used as a home day care.
The Commissioners continued the review but did not make any further changes to the uses other than the mixed use dwelling above the business. Commissioner Scott will define the use for the mixed use dwelling. They discussed whether it should be allowed in Community Commercial zone or Neighborhood Commercial zone.
Commissioner Benson felt they should decide what the purpose is for allowing the mixed use. Is it to create a pedestrian friendly community? By allowing residential above the commercial business it’s blending the two uses. Whereas, Community Commercial is where the main commercial businesses will be located and maybe it doesn’t need to be there.
Commissioner Loris felt the category fit better in the Neighborhood Commercial.
Commissioner Scott noted that under the current Land Use Plan most of the Community Commercial is located on Highway 91 but under the current Zone Map there is still Community Commercial allowed in other areas unless the City Council rezoned.
Vice Chair Murphy could see it allowed in Community Neighborhood but it could be viable in Community Commercial.
Kevin Rudd noted that Gould/Evans did not recommend residential in Community Commercial zone. They looked at it as strictly commercial. Also, the current Zoning Ordinance does not allow residential in Community Commercial.
It was decided that the new category will be located in Commercial Neighborhood.
Vice Chair Murphy mentioned that there has been discussion about having too many zones and a lot of overlay between them. The Commission is having a hard time defining and making the uses different. She asked if the Commission is expected to come up with uses in all the zones on the Land Use Plan or is it possible to go back and find out what the idea was behind these zones.
Kevin Rudd stated that is the dilemma the Commission is facing. In the Gould/Evans’ recommendations, some of the big difference in these zones is the residential components. When reading the recommendations for the Resort Village and Resort Town Center, the difference is in the residential components in the amount of residential. The Town Center for example is where we only allow public buildings and City Hall. The name implies that there needs to be uses to make it the town center. The ten (10) acre parcel for the City Hall is not going to be there which changes things.
Commissioner Scott initially felt there were too many zones and there still may be. But in looking at the differences of how parcels of land are treated in the current zoning versus the Land Use Plan, there is a very clear shift. Community Commercial is being consolidated in one specific area. The uses need to be defined and as we review the uses we should be able to see if there are real differences. The Professional and Research may be the most problematic. As we define the purpose for the zone, we will see what added value they bring to the table. If someone’s parcel is zoned different from the Land Use, the owners have a right to ask for a rezone. Since there are not definitions for all the zones, is it a problem if someone wanted to rezone today?
Dale Coulam stated that it creates a dilemma, in that, there is a use defined without a zone defined. The Land Use Plan is not a regulating document but a guiding document. The Zoning Map is the regulating document. The City would be limited to what uses the Zoning Map allows. The City would have to see if the use fits in the current zoning. If there is no other zoning district created yet, then we would have to fit it into one of our existing zones and, if different, the owner would have to ask for a Zone Change.
Kevin Rudd mentioned that there maybe a couple of different resort uses on the Land Use Plan. The Commission might see the Resort zone as a single zone or maybe they see two zones within Resort. If there are indeed distinctions sufficient to justify the different zones, create those and define them. If the Commissioners don’t see that this resort use differs from the other resort use, the recommendation would be to say that the Land Use Plan needs to be amended to say Resort and then define the zone. The exercise of trying to find the distinctions may help flush out the resort uses.
The Commission will focus on defining uses for Commercial Resort and Resort Mixed Use Village designations at the next meeting.
Commissioner Scott asked if Staff had received any response from the property owners.
Kevin Rudd advised that he had not received any response from the letters that were mailed three weeks ago. The property owners probably will not comment until there is a rough draft and public hearing.