CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS: The meeting was called to order at 05:30 p.m. All present included Commissioner Todd Benson, Commissioner Adel Murphy, and Commissioner Mike Scott.
STAFF: City Manager Judy Gubler, City Attorney Dale Coulam, Building and Zoning Administrator Kevin Rudd and Deputy City Recorder Martha Wilson
AUDIENCE: Lisa Rutherford, Allan Goeser, Claudette Larsen, Mayor Hart, and Lance Anderson.
A. Acknowledgement of Quorum Vice Chair Murphy acknowledged there was a quorum. Chairman Reed and Commissioner Loris were excused.
B. Flag Salute Commissioner Scott led the Flag Salute.
C. Invocation Commissioner Benson led the Invocation.
D. Disclosures There were no disclosures or conflicts of interest with this meeting agenda.
Kevin Rudd reported that the amendment was brought forward by a private resident, Allan Goeser. The proposal is to amend the ordinance to allow larger accessory buildings on larger lots. The current ordinance restricts accessory buildings to 50% of the square footage of the primary residence. The current ordinance originated in the 1990’s and was the result of several accessory buildings/detached garages that were close to double the square footage of the main residence. The Council felt these buildings were out of proportion with the primary residence and created a commercial look and feel. The proposed amendment allows up to 70% of the square footage of the primary residence’s footprint on lots one (1) acre and larger. The Technical Review Committee felt that accessory buildings do need to be limited in size. The primary use on the property is single family, and it makes sense to gauge the size by the primary residence. The 50% rule is a good standard on smaller lots but larger lots may be able to support an increase in size. 70% is still smaller than the primary residence, and if there is sufficient room, why not be able to use that extra space for accessory uses, storing RV’s, etc. The TRC recommends that accessory buildings greater than 50% of the footprint of the primary residence should have a minimum ten foot (10’) setback instead of the current requirement of three feet (3’). The Commission could recommend that it maintains the same setbacks as the primary structure. Example, if a home is in a zone that requires a fifteen foot (15’) setback, that setback would have to be maintained.
Staff felt that this proposal deserves some consideration.Vice Chair Murphy opened the Public Hearing.
Lisa Rutherford is a resident of Ivins and is concerned about the disconnect between City codes and neighborhood CC&R’s in Ivins. There are no references in the City codes to CC&R’s and the need to have approval from the architectural committee who are responsible in those neighborhoods to ensure that CC&R’s are being met. The City should be working with neighborhoods, not against neighborhoods, to ensure buildings are not being approved that go against CC&R’s. She lives in Chancel Cliffs and is aware of buildings that have been approved by the City prior to the review of the Chancel Cliffs’ architectural committee. One outbuilding has been built that visually looks bigger than the primary residence. It’s difficult for the architectural committee to stay on top of what the residents are doing unless the City is willing to aid them when applications are received. City personnel should be knowledgeable enough to know the address, subdivision and know that CC&R’s apply. This should not be a squeaky wheel getting greased issue. There should be requirements in place that proposed buildings be reviewed by the architectural control committee prior to City’s review and approval should apply to all developments that have CC&R’s. Those that buy homes in neighborhoods that have CC&R’s and buy into those requirements with the intent of protecting property values need to know that the City will stand behind and backup the neighborhoods they approve for developing by ensuring that approval is not given without prior CC&R’s review.Lance Anderson commented that if the size of the accessory building is increased on larger lots, the same setbacks for the primary structure should apply to the accessory building and be based on the current zoning setbacks.After no further response Vice Chair Murphy closed the Public Hearing.Commissioner Scott asked if CC&R’s are more restrictive than the Zoning Ordinance.
Dale Coulam explained that the City passes Zoning Ordinances that apply city-wide which sets a standard. Privately and contractually a developer can have rules that are more restrictive. The City does not enforce private CC&R’s but those can be enforced civilly. The homeowners or the homeowners association would be in a position to enforce CC&R’s. The City does not incorporate any CC&R’s into the Zoning Ordinance. Otherwise, the City would be enforcing everybody’s CC&R’s.
Commissioner Scott asked if the CC&R’s did not allow a larger percentage, would the City issue a permit.
Dale Coulam explained that the City would look to see if the plan conforms to the zoning. The homeowners’ association can stop the process or a homeowner living in that subdivision would have the right to take civil action to stop it. It is a private civil remedy, not a public remedy.
Commissioner Benson asked about the average size of a home on an acre lot.
Kevin Rudd stated that larger lots generally have a minimum 2,000 to 4,000 square feet with a three car garage that’s approximately 800 square feet. An average home is approximately 3,000 square feet.
Commissioner Benson mentioned that under the current ordinance the height restriction for an accessory building is fifteen feet (15’). It would be hard to park a fourteen foot (14’) Class A motor home in an accessory building that size.
Kevin Rudd explained that the height restriction for a detached garage is twenty feet (20’) but all other accessory buildings are limited to fifteen feet (15’). The ordinance does not clarify the footprint of a home. Therefore, he bases the square footage on the hard roofed surface area. If the roof extends out over the patio, it is included in the total square footage.
Vice Chair Murphy asked if the 70% of the primary structure would apply to both the detached garage and an accessory building.
Kevin Rudd explained that the ordinance doesn’t allow more than 25% of the rear yard in accessory buildings but on a five (5) acre lot that’s a lot of accessory buildings. The ordinance does not clarify that point. The ordinance could be interpreted as it being the total amount of all the accessory buildings. If a large garage is built, they would not be able to build other accessory buildings but they can build 10x12 sheds without a permit. This language might need to be clarified. On agriculture property the house may not be the primary use if it’s a farm and that could be challenged.
Vice Chair Murphy felt that if 70% is approved, the setbacks should match the primary building because a ten foot setback (10’) would affect the neighboring property.
Commissioner Scott asked how large a garage needs to be for a large RV.
Kevin Rudd explained that the garage requires at least a fourteen foot (14’) door. A detached garage with the twenty foot (20’) height restriction can work but they have to be creative with the roof. Large RV’s require approximately 1,000 square feet.
Commissioner Scott commented that under the 50% rule it would require a 2,000 square foot home. A smaller home restricts the ability to build an accessory building but couldn’t an addition to the home achieve the same purpose.
Kevin Rudd explained that an attached garage can be increased up to 50%.
Commissioner Scott agreed that setbacks should mirror the primary residence. Generally, a larger lot would have a larger home on it so the 50% rule would create a larger accessory building. He was not inclined to make a change but would like to understand where that’s happening. If it’s on smaller lots, it’s a moot point because it won’t solve their problems. If on larger lots, the question is why and what are their other options.
Kevin Rudd stated that people have different priorities. He gave an example of a home built by the Mayor that had an accessory building 3,000 square feet which was allowed under the 50% rule. 3,000 square feet seems like a lot but there are people who say they use every inch of it. People come into Ivins wanting to know how large they can build a "man building."
Commissioner Scott stated that an accessory building is defined as a building customary, incidental and clearly subordinate. A building at 50% would fit the description but at 70% it’s getting closer to the size of the primary structure in size. He asked if Commissioner Benson had any comments on visually or architecturally.
Commissioner Benson commented that maybe one acre lots are too small to allow 70%. He asked how many lots in Ivins are larger than an acre.
Kevin Rudd stated that the larger lots are in Kayenta and there are agricultural lots. But as far as recorded subdivisions it would be The Reserve, Padre Canyon and Kayenta. Not too many of the larger lots would be affected.
Commissioner Scott noted that some of the subdivisions have their own CC&R’s and restrictions in place. Although that’s different than how the City deals with it.
Vice Chair Murphy stated that their accessory building is half the size of their house including the garage, and she understands the need for accessory buildings but wasn’t sure they should allow more than 50% of the primary home on larger lots. If bigger lots have bigger houses, by the nature of the size of the house, they would have a bigger garage. She was not inclined to go larger than 50% of the house because it includes the garage square footage and not just the living area.
Commissioner Scott was in agreement. There could be a situation where someone has a large lot, and they totally under utilize it for the primary residence. It doesn’t give them much accessory building ability but they can add onto the house. There are still options by adding additions to the house.
Commissioner Benson stated if it’s a small home on a large lot, they have extra room to attach to the house. He was inclined not to allow the 70%.MOTION: Commissioner Todd Benson moved to recommend denial of the proposed amendment to Ivins City Code, Zoning Regulations Title 16 Chapter 12, Section 104 (4) (b), (Limitations on height, size and location of garages and other accessory building in residential zones). Allan Goeser, applicant
SECOND: Commissioner Mike Scott
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Todd Benson AYE Commissioner Adel Murphy AYE Commissioner Mike Scott AYE Chairman John Reed ABSENT Commissioner Jeffrey Loris ABSENT
A. Continue discussion of the Ivins City Zoning Ordinance and define uses on Commercial Professional and Research and Commercial with Light Manufacturing. Commissioner Scott submitted a comparison of the current Community Commercial, Commercial, Resort and added the current Industrial Zone that shows the allowed uses (copy is available at Ivins City offices). The description and purposes of the new Land Use designations are as follows:
Commercial/Light Manufacturing zone is intended to provide locations for commercial uses including the processing and fabrication of finished goods using processes that do not create noise, smoke fumes, odors, glare or health and safety hazards outside the building where the assembly, fabrication or processing takes place.
Commercial Business Park & Research zone: The business park portion may be applied to property identified for development of high quality business environment. Business parks in the district may incorporate flex space, research and development and office uses. Retail and service commercial uses are permitted but are limited in size and scope to those primary serving permitted uses of the District so these activities do not become the dominate use in the business park. The research portion is intended for research development, testing labs, educational, medical and clinical, high tech, bio tech research and bio technologies.
Vice Chair Murphy advised that Gould/Evans’ definition of uses under Commercial Industrial was light industrial as per current ordinance and it also included the (SOB) Sexually Oriented Businesses.
Commissioner Benson noted that the Industrial zone is listed in the Table of Uses. The Commercial/Light Manufacturing description almost matches verbatim the description for Light Manufacturing which is located in the Industrial zone, and it is the only zone where light manufacturing is allowed. So, to create a whole new zone just for one item in the Table of Uses seems redundant. The other uses allowed in the Industrial zone are animal hospital with outdoor holding facilities, commercial kennel, light manufacturing, and major facility of a public utility. In the Industrial zone there are only a few things that are not allowed in any other zone.
Commissioner Scott commented that the issue is that the Land Use Plan drops the idea of having an Industrial Zone.
Commissioner Benson felt that making the title Commercial/Light Manufacturing would exclude those four categories, and those categories wouldn’t be included anywhere else.
Kevin Rudd explained that there is no property currently zoned as Industrial zone even though there is a designation on the Zoning Map. Also, there is no A-20 (Agriculture District) property but it’s on the Zoning Map. If someone wanted to do light manufacturing, they would have to apply for a zone change before they could submit a site plan.
Commissioner Scott asked if the Table of Uses should be changed from Industrial to Commercial/Light Manufacturing.
Vice Chair Murphy and Commissioner Benson suggested leaving the Table of Uses as Industrial and to include the commercial/light manufacturing uses within the zone.
Commissioner Scott asked how they should address the Land Use Plan that has a designation of Commercial/Light Manufacturing.
Kevin Rudd stated that the uses in the Table of Uses do not match the Industrial zone. It is misleading. Ivins doesn’t have industrial property. It’s more commercial. The title Commercial/Light Manufacturing more truly reflects the uses. The Industrial zone gives the impression of an Industrial Park.
Commissioner Murphy asked if they need to create a use for SOB.
Commissioner Benson noted that the Table of Uses refers to Ordinance 94-27 that covers the location and the requirements.
Dale Coulam explained that the SOB business has to be designated someplace. If there is no designation, they could choose a place.
The Commissioners agreed to change the zone title from Industrial to Commercial/Light Manufacturing and include the four uses already listed in the Table of Uses.
The Commissioners discussed the Commercial Professional and Research designations, reviewed the locations on the Land Use Plan and noted that there is no Table of Uses for this designation. This designation is along Highway 91, and the property is currently zoned RA-1 (Residential Agricultural).
Vice Chair Murphy asked Staff to give them some background in regards to this designation.
Dale Coulam understood it was a designation to create a research park, attract clean businesses, create jobs and create a good environment for that type of business. An example would be like the University of Utah Research Park but not on that scale. The type of businesses where there would be some clean research and development and would attract a lot of people. The people would support restaurants, etc. The City Council felt it would be an attractive type of business to bring to the City, and those types of businesses are looking for life style locations for their employees. The Council felt the City could market that type of business.
Commissioner Scott explained that the only current use that comes close to defining this use is Professional Offices. The description and purpose also allows some retail services that support the type of space. He wasn’t sure if they could use any of the definitions that they already have. We need something in the Table of Uses that covers the research portion, lab, etc. or can lab fit within Professional Offices.
Commissioner Benson stated that currently Professional Offices are allowed in all zones as a Class IV Conditional Uses. It is not like we have not allowed professional offices. Those needs are met by current zoning and allowed in C-1 zone.
Vice Chair Murphy felt the designation was intended to be more like a campus type of setting with professional offices and a place to have lunch for the employees, etc. She asked if there was a residential component or is it strictly for professional use.
Dale Coulam did not recall this designation having a residential component but felt the campus concept fits. He gave some examples of larger research parks having sports facilities that employees use and also being offered to the public. However, this is a smaller area of land, and we can’t do all of those things. He suggested creating uses that would fit a campus style and uses that would fit a research park.
Kevin Rudd commented that if we are going to have a separate zone, create at least one use that is separate from any other use. That might well be a research park. Example, the list for the Resort zone has a variety of uses, such as retail and a variety of housing. The use could include Research Park but could also include retail, restaurants, etc. but still tie it into research.
Commissioner Scott liked the idea of a Research Park and also having Business Park and identifying the campus style.
Dale Coulam suggested having a percentage on the type of businesses so that someone doesn’t come in with a restaurant but doesn’t want to have the research. Require certain type of uses and then allow a supporting use but not allow it to dominate or take over the entire space.
Vice Chair Murphy suggested creating a zone where the research and business park has to be in place before the ancillary businesses are allowed. Get the type of businesses we are looking for in that zone first and let the other type of businesses follow.
Commissioner Benson asked if someone comes in with a research park plan, as Zoning Administrator, would you be looking at the definition under Professional Office use.
Kevin Rudd stated that he would but he would ask if there is any manufacturing and ask them to define the type of manufacturing or research to see if it was a heavier use than Professional Office.
Commissioner Benson mentioned that Professional Offices is a Class IV for all commercial uses. The thing that could limit it is if there was a fast food restaurant or deli. Those type of businesses start to control where they could go. If they wanted to add a restaurant as part of the Research Park, that would control it somewhat because it is not allowed in Commercial Neighborhood but it is allowed in C-1 (Commercial). By making this change and use, we would be saying that we only want to allow that type of research place in one portion of the City, not in the rest of the Commercial areas.
Kevin Rudd explained that it wouldn’t be the only place it could be located because the Land Use Plan can be amended to create another area, and the City Council might agree that another area may work.
Dale Coulam explained that a research park may have a section of the business that builds prototypes which would be a heavier use than Professional Office. Maybe part of the light manufacturing is incorporated into this zone. As a research park certain types of activities may be allowed to develop prototypes. So, part of the thinking could be to create a campus area that has a little heavier use but it’s in the part of the City that would support it and would not interfere with the neighboring uses and would have supporting businesses to take care of the employees.
Commissioner Benson felt that it could be different enough but would we be creating a zone for one particular type of use?
Vice Chair Murphy commented that when we create the use, the use will just be in that zone
and involves all parts of the uses. Say, it’s going to be a research park; all the ancillary uses will be included in the one use. They will not be able to pick and choose. If it’s going to have a Business Park, it will say Business Park and have the supporting businesses.
The Commissioners were in favor of having the businesses in place before allowing the ancillary use.
Vice Chair Murphy felt they should identify what type of uses would be allowed such as a deli, food type, etc.
Commissioner Scott explained that the description is broken down into two parts, the business park portion and the research portion. The business park has flex space, research and development, and office uses. Retail and service commercial uses are permitted but are limited in size and scope to those primarily serving the permitted uses so these activities do not become a dominant use in the business park. In executing the plan of the business park, individual projects will incorporate development and design elements to create a visually pleasing, transit-supportive and pedestrian-sensitive, yet auto-accommodating environment. He suggested taking this description and making it a use on the Table of Use. That zone would allow that use and the research.
Vice Chair Murphy wanted to add in the description that the major uses have to be in place before the ancillary uses are allowed. Then make a determination of how much of the space can be supporting services.
Commissioner Benson stated that the major uses need to come first and after a certain amount of the major uses are in place then the ancillary uses can be established.
Commissioner Scott will write the primary uses for the Commission to review at the next meeting, and they can work on the percentages.The Commissioners will also review Chapter 19, Design Guidelines before the next meeting and discuss it at October 4, 2011 meeting. A copy of Chapter 19 will be furnished to Jeffery Loris.
B. Consider approval of the Ivins City Planning Commission minutes for August 16, 2011. MOTION: Commissioner Mike Scott moved to approve the Ivins City Planning Commission minutes for August 16, 2011.
SECOND: Commissioner Todd Benson
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Todd Benson AYE Commissioner Adel Murphy AYE Commissioner Mike Scott AYE Chairman John Reed ABSENT Commissioner Jeffrey Loris ABSENT
A. Planning Commission (None)
B. Chairman (None)
C. Building & Zoning Administrator, Kevin Rudd Kevin Rudd reported that the Mayor approached the City Council at the last Council about updating the transportation portion of the Master Plan regarding roundabouts and to encourage roundabouts in a stronger way rather than traffic lights. Council felt like they would like to consider it. Therefore, Planning Commission needs to review the Transportation Master Plan. An amendment would be created and a public hearing will be held. This will be listed as a discussion item at the next Commission meeting in October.Commissioner Scott asked that some training materials from the booklet Certified Community Plan Seminar, Appendix A "Fourteen ways to build a better Commission" be put on the agenda for discussion on the second meeting in October. The Commission is doing most of these items but there are some that he felt they should discuss.
D. City Attorney, Dale Coulam Dale Coulam advised that on the City Council’s agenda there is an agenda item for a report by the Planning Commission. Generally, the Chair reports but if the Chair or the person chairing the meeting is unable to attend the Council meeting, the Commission needs to assign someone to report to the Council.
For this meeting Commissioner Scott will report at the next City Council meeting.
E. Items to be placed on future agendas 1. Continue discussion of the Ivins City Zoning Ordinance and review Chapter 19, Design Guidelines.
2. Discuss updating a portion of the Transportation Master Plan regarding roundabouts.
3. Discuss "Fourteen ways to build a better Commission" on October 18, 2011.
SECOND: Commissioner Mike Scott
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
Commissioner Todd Benson AYE Commissioner Adel Murphy AYE Commissioner Mike Scott AYE Chairman John Reed ABSENT Commissioner Jeffrey Loris ABSENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:37 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Martha S. Wilson, CMC
Deputy City Recorder