Chairman Reed thanked the Commissioners for the work done on the Zoning Ordinance during his absence.
Before beginning the discussion on Chapter 19, Chairman Reed stated some concerns that he had regarding the Table of Uses in regards to the definition of an art studio.
Art Studio (current definition): A building or workshop area of an artist, sculptor, photographer, or similar arts professional, and which may include an area for the display or sale of paintings, sculpture, photography, or similar works or art.
There’s ambiguity in the definition in trying to define an artist. The intent of the current definition seems to be someone who paints but an artist is more encompassing. Also, the intent is to allow an artist workshop to be located in commercial neighborhood. The General Plan gives guidance to attract these types of businesses and distribute them throughout Ivins. However, metal sculptors can create a lot of noise, fumes, etc. and this definition does not address those issues. The definition refers to an artist which means singular but if a group of artists wanted to rent a space, paint, etc., since the word artist is singular it is not necessarily allowed as per the text of the ordinance.
Art Studio (proposed definition): A building studio workshop or similar area of an artist and/or artists which may include an area for the display and sale of works or art produced on the premises. Processes utilized may not create smoke, fumes or health safety hazards outside the building and may not create noise levels that exceed 68 decibels to the edge of the property. Uses limited to artist only, employment is not permitted.
The intent of not allowing employees is to limit mass production and not allow employees to produce art. The proposed definition gives more specificity and accomplishes the intent of the ordinance. An art studio is allowed in Commercial/Industrial zones as a Class IV Conditional Use. An art gallery is different from an art studio and would probably fall under retail sales. An art studio should not produce a lot of traffic.
Commissioner Benson asked if the business employed people, was noisy, etc., would it fall under Industrial/Light Manufacturing?
Chairman Reed stated yes and the City has already experienced this type of business. It is allowed and it is considered light manufacturing where things are assembled, etc. However, this is a studio space where people can produce art for sale whether it is sold on the premises or not. But the business still needs to be controlled.
Commissioner Loris asked if it is considered a studio if someone does art in the garage or home.
Chairman Reed felt that could fall under a Home Occupation Business. Those working out of the home may be considered hobbyist rather than commercial sales.
Commissioner Benson had concerns about the employment issue. He was okay with the definition with regards to the fumes, noise, etc. but an artist may want to employee an apprentice, secretary, etc. which would not increase noise, traffic, etc.
Chairman Reed felt the intent is an art studio for an individual or individuals to produce art rather than a production facility.
Dale Coulam explained that if someone was hired to answer the phone while the artist was painting or talking to a customer it would violate the restriction that is in the proposed definition. That restriction is placed on Home Occupation License which restricts anyone from having employees on the premises of the home. When a business gets to the level of employing someone, they have to find a commercial space. Under the proposed definition it would require them to find a light manufacturing industrial space. There are not many of those available under the Land Use Plan map.
Chairman Reed explained that he was trying not to expand on the current use. The current use says, "artist" which he felt means no employees. He was trying to keep anyone from employing twenty (20) people to produce art in a commercial neighborhood zone.
Dale Coulam suggested addressing it from a different angle instead of saying they cannot have an employee say, "There cannot be mass production." At some point someone will want to hire an employee to do books, answer the phone, etc. The discussion seems to be to prevent mass production. Therefore, limit them from employing people to mass produce the art, and that the art has to be produced by the artist/artists on the premises.
After further discussion Chairman Reed suggested the following verbiage to replace "employment is not permitted" to "This use doesn’t include employment of individuals to mass produce art." He still had concerns about using the verbiage "mass" but he will revise the definition and resubmit.
The Commissioners proceeded to review comments on Chapter 19 that had been submitted by Form Tomorrow and the Commissioners. Most of the comments were based on clarification of the ordinance.
Comments and suggested changes:
1. Form Tomorrow suggested changing the verbiage "shall" to "should." Shall means required and should means suggested. The Commissioners were okay with most of Form Tomorrow’s suggestions on "shall" versus "should." Anytime the word "shall" is used it should include a definitive statement of the requirement.
2. Page 2, Change to read: "Elevation and cross section drawings, photographs or other studies or models shall be required by the Zoning Administrator...............(Zoning Administrator may waive the requirements)" They noted that the development requirement is set forth for each Conditional Use Class application and Chapter 19 should refer to those chapters.
3. Page 1, Leave title as "Site Plan and Building Design Requirements"
4. Reorganize Chapter 19 to contain the following sections: Purpose, Site Plan, Building Design and Landscaping Design. Currently, these are all different subsections under Building Design and Site Requirements which is confusing. Verbiage suggested: "The specific requirements for the site plan application would depend upon the class of conditional use being applied for. Refer to Chapters 14, 15, 16 for specific requirements." There’s already a caveat in the application that the Zoning Administrator can waive the requirements at his discretion.
5. Horizontal Emphasis: Change "shall be avoided" to "should be avoided." Delete: "No vertical edge or line on a building shall be more than 1/2 the measurement of any adjacent above ground horizontal edge or line." Comment: It was agreed that massing, wall variation and total height will control horizontal emphasis.
6. Add a general statement in building design such as "standard, prototypical or other generally accepted commercial design may have to be modified to achieve........."
7. View Protection: Discussed corridors to the main entrance, buffer parking with landscaping or walkways, etc. Leave the statement as is but guidelines still need to be determined through ordinance. The Commissioners also reviewed Form Tomorrows’ design and ways to protect views by height, setbacks and modulation requirements.
8. Roof Dominance: Change "shall be avoided" to "should be avoided.
9. Combine Item (a) Horizontal Emphasis, (c) Roof Dominance and Varying Roofline Silhouettes under Building Massing as Item (v).
11. Wall Variations: Commissioner Loris and Commissioner Benson discussed concerns about the verbiage. Chairman Reed will research the verbiage in other city ordinances and send some ordinances for them to review.
Chairman Reed will revise Chapter 19 based on the discussions and resubmit to the Planning Commission. If the Commissioners have further comments, send those to the Chairman and he will include their comments within the next revision.