Chairman Reed explained that the Council passed a resolution to allow one time per year requests for zoning text changes without fees. Any change in zoning has to go through the full process. No actions will be made at this meeting although there may be some questions to the applicants for clarification. A Public Hearing will be scheduled as required.
Steven Weida’s amendment application:
Kevin Rudd reported that this application would amend Chapter 12, Section 16.12.113 (5) and the written text in the Appendices of the Zoning Ordinance on Planned Development/Subdivisions. This refers to Padre Canyon Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4. The applicant has submitted in written form the change requested to the ordinance. The amendment would change the current maximum of two (2) horses per lot to three (3) horses on lots of one (1) acre or greater. Last year Padre Canyon’s CC&R’s were amended to allow three (3) horses on one acre or larger. Of course, that change does not side step the City ordinance that currently restricts it to two (2) horses. Both sections of the ordinance would have to be amended.
Commissioner Loris inquired if this was only for horses or for any domesticated animals.
Kevin Rudd explained that the Commission would want to clarify that in the ordinance since the application is dealing strictly with horses. In Padre Canyon text it is interpreted to allow two large animals: For example, two horses or two cows. In the appendix the written text reads not more than two animals, ten fowl, or one turkey, or a combination. Animals include horses, cows, sheep goats, excluding pigs and exotic animals. The current ordinance is not limited to just horses.
Chairman Reed mentioned that there have been several discussions about changing the ordinance to match CC&R’s.
Dale Coulam felt that wasn’t a concern because the City does not enforce CC&R’s. In this case it involves a subdivision that has both CC&R’s and is governed by the Zoning Ordinance. Technically, to be legal they would have to change both. The CC&R’s have already been changed. The request is that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow the same change.
Chairman Reed asked if this was changed, would it exempt anyone from any other zoning requirements
Dale Coulam stated, no, just the specific request to allow three (3) domesticated horses.
Kevin Rudd noted that the ordinance states, "domestic livestock may be kept in Padre Canyon subject to the following: Limited to two domestic horses." The ordinance is somewhat misleading. He interprets the two sections to mean two large animals. That needs clarification.
Chairman Reed commented that rather than discussing the need for drafting and scheduling of each applicant, we will go over them all at the end of the meeting. He thought the intent was that each applicant would be scheduled for a hearing so that the Commission would not have one very long public hearing.
Dale Coulam explained that was one of the concerns expressed by the City Council. The preference would be to consolidate as much as possible.
Chairman Reed felt that each applicant should have a fair hearing and not be inconvenience.
Kevin Rudd advised that the Commission can continue the Public Hearing to the next meeting leaving the public hearing open without incurring the costs.
Commissioner Benson inquired as to why the CC&R’s were changed. The City doesn’t have to change the ordinance to match the CC&R’s. Has the community as a whole decided to change the CC&R’s, or is there just one person coming forward with the amendment?
Dale Coulam advised that the applicant has come forward and would like to keep three (3) horses. He has a lot size that would qualify under the proposed amendment. The applicant went to the homeowners within that neighborhood and received the necessary approvals to change the CC&R’s. That has been completed and now the Zoning Ordinance has to be considered to see if three horses would be allowed.
Thomas A. Fabio amendment request:
Kevin Rudd reported that Thomas Fabio lives in the Kayenta area. He is requesting that the current ordinance be changed since it restricts the square footage of attached garages to 50% of the footprint of the primary structure. This amendment proposes to allow an increase to 75% on lots one (1) acre or larger. There was a previous application from a private citizen requesting this on detached garages. This body made a recommendation to deny the request, but the City Council approved the application and changed the ordinance up to 70% on lots one acre or larger for detached garages. Kevin Rudd explained that Thomas Fabio wants a bigger garage. The Kayenta homeowner’s association did approve the larger garage. However, the permit was denied because it was not in compliance with the ordinance.
Commissioner Loris asked if he was allowed 70%.
Kevin Rudd stated, "No" but that is what he is requesting. On an attached garage he is limited to 50% of the footprint. His request is 75%.
Commissioner Murphy asked if his property had an additional lot and if the attached garage would extend into the additional lot.
Kevin Rudd explained that the garage addition would be on the original lot. It has been combined into one lot with approximately two (2) acres.
Ence Construction amendment request:
Kevin Rudd reported that this request is about the Sign Ordinance to allow larger project identification signs which are signs put up while the project is under construction as long as they are tastefully. The sign contains contact information. The ordinance does not say how many signs are allowed. As Zoning Administrator, he allows the developer to put one sign at each project entrance and the developer decides on the location. Currently, the sign limit is 4’x8’ feet. The request increases the sign to 6’x8’.
Jon Ence clarified that the entrance sign is a temporary sign during construction. Currently, there are two signs back to back 4’X8’. A larger sign would be more visible. The request is two (2) community entrance signs 6’x8’ instead of 4’x8’.
Kevin Rudd doesn’t consider back to back signs as two signs. The height of those signs id limited to 6’. They have not asked to increase the height.
Commissioner Reed noted that there’s an additional request for off premise signs
Jon Ence explained that they asked for temporary off premise signs. They want as many as possible but will work with the City.
Commissioner Murphy noted that they are currently allowed two temporary off premise signs that are to nr taken down at night.
Jon Ence did not know if they take the real estate signs down at night.
Kevin Rudd advised that the ordinance does require off premise signs that’s in the right-of-way to be taken down at night. If it’s on the lot, it can stay there.
Jon Ence explained that they have been leaving the one on Highway 91 up at all times.
Commissioner Scott inquired about the 6’ limit on the height of the identification signs because a 6’X8’ sign would have to start at ground level.
Commissioner Loris gave an example of a 6’x8’ sign and stated the panel would have to be on the ground.
Commissioner Scott asked Ence if that is what they were requesting.
Jon Ence stated, "No" that they are looking to go eight feet tall or nine feet tall so that it’s not on the ground. They need at least a foot off the ground with an eight foot sign, 6’ wide and 8’ tall.
Commissioner Benson asked if this amendment is any different than previously discussed.
Jon Ence explained that Ence did make a request last year for a 10’x10’ sign and balloons. They were using balloons but have stopped.
Chairman Reed would feel better about changing the ordinances if we knew they were willing to comply.
Commissioner Benson suggested that Ence state in their amendment the height requirement and specifies the size they are proposing.
Kevin Rudd agreed that they need to clarify the height of the signs, proposed number of off premise signs, type/size of balloons, and clarify how many community flags per entrance. Also indicate the height and when the flags/balloons would be used.
Steven Goeser request:
Kevin Rudd reported that this is a request to amend Accessory Building Ordinance Chapter 12. Currently, it restricts using shipping containers, cargo containers, crates, boxes, trailers or similar moveable pieces of equipment or objects as an accessory building. The request is to allow a twenty (20’) cargo container on one (1) acre lots or larger or in the old township lots which are .88 acres.
Chairman Reed asked if allowed as an accessory building, could it be used as permanent dwelling unit. Also, would it have to meet building codes and go through the process?
Kevin Rudd stated, "No. It would be used just as a storage shed. Generally, a storage container is a size that would not require a building permit. The City does have a few nonconforming containers. If allowed, he suggested they be painted an earth tone color, located in rear yard and screened by six foot (6’) fence to reduce the impact. The containers should not be allowed in recorded subdivisions, maybe allowed in agricultural areas or Old Township.
Commissioner Murphy noted that the letter proposes them in Padre Canyon Estates which is a recorded subdivision.
Kevin Rudd felt it could be a problem if allowed citywide.
Commissioner Benson asked if there is any stipulation as to the number. Kevin Rudd stated that specific conditions need to be spelled out.
Mike Guisinger, Lightfoot’s, request:
Kevin Rudd reported that this is regarding the existing Chevron sign at the Lightfoot’s convenience store. It is a legal nonconforming sign, in that; it encroaches into the 200 East right-of-way. The location is in an area where the Transportation Master Plan shows a sidewalk going through there. There is no way to get a sidewalk on that side of the street unless the sign is removed. The sign has been there over a decade, around 15 years. The applicant is proposing to modify the sign to provide room for a sidewalk. The proposed sign would have a post installed away from the right-of-way and the sign would go up, above and over the sidewalk. An example is attached. After reviewing the area and with the City Attorney, the best way is to create a special exception. That way the sign could be modified, and the City would be able to install the sidewalk. If the City went in and said the sign is in the right-of-way, the City may have to replace the sign.
Chairman Reed asked if the sign would have to follow the Sign Ordinance requirements.
Kevin Rudd stated that it would not. That’s why it would go under the Special Exception.
Dale Coulam explained that there are three (3) approaches: change the sign ordinance across the board; the applicant to seek a variance but I’m not sure if that meets the requirements of a variance or; Special Exception. A Special Exception can be made for a legal non-conforming sign in a public right-of-way. They would be allowed to use an overhanging sign that does not exceed certain parameters. Mike Guisinger checked the options with Chevron as far as types of signs available in order to help the City define parameters. It doesn’t open up overhanging signs citywide.
Commissioner Loris had concerns about this happening again when the Western Corridor Parkway comes through. Is there any signage in that area that would have a nonconforming sign in this special consideration as well?
Dale Coulam stated at present we don’t have anything in the path of the corridor.
Commissioner Scott commented that it sounds like the City Council’s goal was to hear the requests all at once so the City minimizes the notification costs and yet if it takes more than one meeting it puts an inconvenience on those attending the meeting. Can one public notice state that these five items will be dealt with in the next three meetings?
Dale Coulam explained that the date, time and location need to be specified for a public hearing. In one notice, it could be scheduled out in listing the meetings but for each item there has to be a specific date, time and location. We are required to have it in the form of an ordinance to move forward. First, there would be a meeting to discuss it further. The Commission has asked for additional clarification from some of the applicants and Staff needs your direction on drafting a proposed ordinance. When it is in ordinance form, it can be published for public hearing.
Chairman Reed commented that a couple of the amendments might take longer than the others.
Commissioner Scott suggested allowing two meetings to deal with five issues.
Commissioner Murphy stated that the Special Exception is a different issue. She asked if it should be in the same public notice.
Dale Coulam advised that at this point they would just be amending the text to allow a Special Exception. Then the applicant would have to come forward with an application for Special Exception and go through that process.
The Commissioners agreed that they preferred considering the amendments in two meetings.
Commissioner Benson felt that Staff could proceed with four of them but Ence would need to furnish additional information in regards to the sign ordinance before Staff could proceed.
Kevin Rudd advised that the Chevron sign issue could take a little more time. He suggested combining the two sign issues at one meeting and the other three on another meeting.
The Commissioners agreed.
Dale Coulam suggested having one meeting for the Commissioners to review the proposed ordinances before scheduling it for publication and Public Hearing.
A draft of the ordinances will be presented on January 31, 2012 and then the Public Hearing can be scheduled.
Kevin Rudd asked if it would be appropriate for the applicants to review the draft of the ordinance to see if it states what they are requesting.
The Commissioners agreed.
Chairman Reed referred to the changes he provided, a copy of which is available by request through Ivins City Hall. The changes reflect the discussions of January 3, 2012 and some of the notations that they discussed at the previous meeting. Some definitions still need to be included on setbacks when adjoining other properties and some massing requirements.
The Commissioners discussed the following sections:
Parking access and screening of Off Street Parking:
Chairman Reed advised that there are two captions in the existing ordinance that detail the screening for off street parking that helps clarify the screening but they need to include language with more specificity. Figure 19-3 is an example but not a requirement. There should be a definition of what sort of opaqueness is required. The opaqueness at different levels is what counts. If there are walls it needs to be soften with landscaping or berming with landscaping on top, but the text should state the levels.
Comments and suggestions:
1. Screen first two feet, next two feet could be less
2. In some areas the only way to screen the parking is a six foot fence and that might not work. An example is the location at Vista School with the church next to it
3. Berm with landscaping on top is better. If there is a three or four foot berm and landscape that includes 20% view to a minimum five or six feet total it want completely hid the parking but will soften the impact of the sidewalk and parking lot
4. Low meandering wall, if done properly
5. Two foot walls with smaller fencing attached
6. Landscaping idea on top of a berm probably accomplishes it but consider that it might visually block the commercial store fronts. We don’t want that.
7. Suggested three (3’) in height for berming
8. Discussed the width of the berm. It may require different standards for Commercial Neighborhood verses larger commercial areas. Commercial Neighborhood is more restricted in space. Twelve feet (12’) gives enough room to get up and down at three foot of height. They discussed using the twelve foot option and gave examples.
9. Berming in Commercial Neighborhoods may not work. Discussed open space requirements for commercial buildings and the specific square foot requirements
Commissioner Benson read Chapter 20 that states, "off street parking areas providing 20 or more parking spaces shall provide a minimum of 15% of the total parking area as landscaped areas, etc."
Chairman Reed felt they were not coming up with any better ideas than what the ordinance already states.
Kevin Rudd explained that the current ordinance doesn’t restrict parking up to the sidewalk as long as the 20% is met in areas of the parking lot. It doesn’t set distances. It needs to set a minimal amount of landscape buffer area between the back of the sidewalk and beginning of the parking lot. Three feet (3’) doesn’t work because the bushes grow into the sidewalk. He suggested six feet (6’).
The Commissioners agreed on a minimum twelve feet (12’) with berm and six feet (6’) with wall with landscaping on both or other device showing appropriate screening up to three feet (3’).
Native Vegetation materials:
Chairman Reed felt that using "desert environment" gets the point across. Suggested using the language "should incorporate" and do not use a plant list.
Commissioner Benson mentioned that Item 6 (d) & (e) were to be combined. The paragraphs are similar.
Chairman Reed felt that if it doesn’t make a difference in interpretation in knowing what we mean with the ordinance, he was inclined to leave the ordinance as is.
Commissioner Benson agreed.
Street Scape Buffer areas:
Form Tomorrow previously stated that the section may be redundant.
Chairman Reed asked if the street scape requirements have been a problem.
Kevin Rudd stated that Staff is restrictive if it is being deeded over to the City for maintenance but if on private property we have not been restrictive and require that it meets a specific list of plants furnished by Benny Sorensen. On private property they can use any type of plants but it has to be professionally landscaped.
Chairman Reed advised that in this case we are talking about commercial developments.
Kevin Rudd stated that it is similar. Fitness Ridge, for example, the first twenty feet of their landscape buffer area is along Highway 91, and there will be a walking path and a wall. The City is more critical and restrictive along the twenty to thirty foot area. But beyond that we step back and let them do something more resort type landscaping. When a developer deeds the property over they are willing to comply with whatever the City wants. We encourage them to do desert landscaping and landscaping that thrives in southern Utah.
Commissioner Benson stated that Chapter 22 covers landscaping.
Water Features:
Comments and suggestions:
1. Require water to be recycled
2. People like water features because of sound, view and like water features at entrances
3. Conserve water by not allowing spraying in the air and having natural water falls
4. Minimize open pond area. The greater the retention surfaces the more evaporation.
5. Water features are an energy consumer and the size is a consumer
Landscape Maintenance: No changes
Site Lighting Standards: Refer to the Lighting Ordinance
Roof Dominance: Need to insert caption under Roof Dominance
Building Materials and Textures:
Item 6 (b) states "highly discouraged for use on exterior walls."
Chairman Reed asked if the language "highly discouraged" works for Kevin Rudd.
Kevin Rudd stated it gives them some direction. Some metals can be added to buildings that are very tasteful but the City doesn’t want just a metal building. Kayenta incorporated some metal in their buildings and it looked nice.
They discussed some examples of how metal buildings can be designed.
Commissioner Benson stated that "highly discouraged" may not be the right term but he wasn’t in favor of disallowing metal buildings. He suggested the following language, "the following materials may be used if detailed properly."
Commissioner Loris asked if the City has an architectural committee.
Kevin Rudd advised that the City does have a Design Committee but the City hasn’t had much to review recently. Their purpose is to do a design review. We did receive comments from the committee on Fitness Ridge’s design.
Chairman Reed felt that the ordinance meant entire buildings made of unfinished block, unfinished concrete, and metal buildings.
Kevin Rudd gave an example of the Dollar Store wanting to come in with three sides of the building being metal. He advised that they would have a hard time based on this ordinance.
Chairman Reed was inclined to leave the ordinance as is but make the language a little stronger. The metal buildings are either allowed or not allowed.
After several suggestions and examples on whether to allow metal building and how to change the text of the ordinance from "highly discouraged", Commissioner Benson suggested the following: "Entire buildings or entire facades of these following materials are disallowed."
Commissioner Murphy suggested, "All metal buildings are disallowed and then add entire buildings or entire facade from unfinished block or unfinished concrete are disallowed." There needs to be two sentences.
The Commissioners agreed to the language change.
Sloping Roofs:
Chairman Reed asked if ribbed or corrugated metal roofs, etc. should be discouraged.
Kevin Rudd advised that he has seen plans with colored metal roofing that looks okay.
Chairman Reed stated that colored roofing is okay but he felt the ordinance was talking about corrugated metal roof, a galvanized, waved roof. There may be a better term.
Commissioner Benson advised that "standing seam roof" is the term for a ribbed roof. He gave an example of how it could be used.
Commissioner Loris stated that metal roofs do well with a parapet around the outside that is 2-3 feet that protects the view of the roof itself.
Chairman Reed felt there are a lot of areas in Ivins that are higher than ground level and the roofs come into view.
Kevin Rudd mentioned that Red Mountain Spa brought a plan in that had some roofing that had a 3-4/12 pitch. Very professionally designed building but was metal roofing on some sections and flat. This text would prohibit doing this type of roof. Is that what we are after? One to twelve is almost a flat roof.
Chairman Reed was trying to allow metal roofs except the galvanized corrugated roofs which are the intent of this paragraph.
Suggested: Deleting paragraph 4. (c)(v)
Commissioner Loris mentioned that there are some new advances in metal roofing that are quite beautiful. He gave some examples.
Kevin Rudd mentioned that even painted surface metal can glare. The original ordinance does not allow the roof to glare.
Chairman Reed stated that they can define reflectivity.
Commissioner Benson mentioned that it is defined in another area of the ordinance.
Chairman Reed commented that we say we are a blue sky community but we disallow the most efficient flat roofs. The roofs have to be within two color shades of the building and it is an energy hog.
Kevin Rudd stated that if you get above the Vista Roof it is a very bright roof.
Chairman Reed stated that it could be but it’s very energy efficient problem with roofs being dark rather than white for energy efficiency as per the EPA. He felt that unless they have a consensus to strip the text he would leave the text in but we need to think about it as a community. There has been some talk that a dark roof can be made as energy efficient as a light roof. However, if you take the same measures on a light roof, it’s always going to be more energy efficient.
Commissioner Scott agrees with Chairman Reed that it’s an issue. What we are trying to deal with here is the visual impact of the roof. Visually a roof is going to have a negative impact because we are in a community where a lot of residents are uphill of others. We try to minimize the visual impact but the ecology impact we are ignoring. Is there a way to balance the two?
Commissioner Loris felt that as the homes are built out in the Palisades, the homes that are seeing this roof will be blocked out by the house across the street.
Commissioner Murphy gave an example of a home built in Entrada that was white for some time and it stuck out for miles. That’s not what we want to achieve either. It takes away from the beauty of the lava rock.
Commissioner Benson is in favor of making homes as efficient as possible but when it comes to requiring, where do we draw the line?
After further discussion, the Commissioners did not suggest any changes for Item 4. (d), (e) and (f).
Building Material Color: No changes suggested.
Chairman Reed will incorporate all changes and bring forward to the next Commission meeting.