Kevin Rudd prepared a draft ordinance from the information received at the last meeting on four of the requests and Dale Coulam drafted the last amendment. He contacted most of the applicants to make sure the draft prepared was what they wanted.
Each amendment was reviewed as follows:
Steve Goeser request to allow cargo containers
This amendment makes an exception to allow one cargo container on lots within the City that are .88 acres or larger. These are in the old township lots. Steve Goeser has requested that we remove Item #4 of the draft that states, "be screened by 6’ fence." This will be removed from the draft before the public hearing. He was okay with the maximum length of twenty feet (20’), painting the container with a color that blends, and locating it in the rear setback away from the property lines.
Chairman Reed felt the intent was to add into the ordinance what the applicants requested and then the Commissioners will make their comments and any modifications during the public hearing.
Kevin Rudd felt the draft ordinance would go forward to the City Council in this form and if the Commissioners had comments those comments would be attached but felt the intent is not to rewrite the applicant’s requests.
Dale Coulam clarified that Staff is establishing a form for an ordinance that can be available for a public hearing. The Chairman is saying that we are going to present it for public comment pretty much in the form that the applicant has requested. When it goes to public hearing, it will be what the applicant has requested. Based upon the comments received at the public hearing and further discussion, the Commissioners may make some further recommended changes before making their recommendation to the City Council.
Chairman Reed stated that the only thing free is the application. Outside of that it should follow the same discussion and procedures as any other application. The Commissioners would modify it and make a recommendation as the Commissioners see fit.
Dale Coulam suggested sending the original draft of the applicants’ requests along with the Commission’s recommendation to the Council so that they could review both documents.
Thomas A. Fabio amendment to allow larger attached garage
Kevin Rudd reported that Tom Fabio is a resident of Kayenta and his request is to allow larger attached garages. Originally, the amendment was for 75% increase. After speaking with him, he decided to reduce it to 70% and match what was recently approved by the City Council which related to detached garages. This amendment mirrors the recent ordinance amendment based on less than 1/2 acre it is 50% of the footprint of the home, 1/2 acre to one acre is 60%, and one acre and larger is 70%. The applicant was okay with the way this amendment is written.
Steven Weida’s amendment on domestic livestock in Padre Canyon
Kevin Rudd reported that this amendment relates to Padre Canyon Phase 1, 2, 3 and 4. The draft was written based on discussion from the last Commission meeting and the draft was forwarded to Steve Weida. He requested that the amendment be modified to allowing horses only. He was concerned about the way it was written because it would allow people to have three cows, three sheep, etc. and that was not his intent. Those types of animals would be limited to two. The only three domestic animals allowed would be three horses. Steven Weida submitted a written request of what he wanted in the amendment. The draft will be modified to reflect his changes.
Ence Construction amendment request that the Sign Ordinance be changed.
Kevin Rudd reported that this would amend the signage for subdivisions. Ence asked that the maximum project sign width be increased from 6’ to 8’ and the height from 6’ to 10’. Also, included: "One sign allowed per entrance of the project." Signs may be double sided. Two flag poles with 3’X7’ flags and a maximum height of 20’ is allowed per project entrance (torn for tattered flags shall be replaced immediately)." On real estate signs the current ordinance allows two off site signs 2’x2’, and Ence requested it be changed to 2’x3’ and also allow eight additional signs. This would be a total of ten signs being allowed on weekends and holidays. The additional signs would be 16"x24". Ence advised that the 2’x3’ signs are more economical than the 2’x2’ signs. The following text was also added: "One 5’ diameter helium balloon, raised to a maximum height of 100’ from 10:00 a.m. and retrieved at the close of each sales day (allowed only on weekends, holidays, and during parade of homes)." They could have a balloon less than 5’. Also, item (8) was changed to 2’x3’.
Mike Guisinger, Lightfoot’s request is to amend the existing signage
Dale Coulam reported that the Commissioners previously discussed the option to use a Special Exception. A Special Exception would not open this up citywide. This only involves a Special Exception to be made where there is a legal nonconforming sign located currently within the public right-of-way. The draft specifies the limitations. The applicant has reviewed the language and is agreeable with it.
After discussing when the amendments should be published, the Commissioners decided it would be in the best interest of the public to schedule the public hearing on February 28, 2012. All the amendments will be heard in one meeting to save taxpayers but if necessary it could be moved into two meetings.
Dale Coulam explained that the way the ordinance is currently drafted the amendments are all in one ordinance but as the Chairman calls for public comment different sections could be taken out of order to move things along.
Chairman Reed displayed the revisions from the previous meeting and discussed the following:
(2) Building Location:
(c) Streets Trails, Parking: The integration of walkable entrance ways and site plans allow for and provide interconnecting streets, walkways, trails and parking areas. His concept has been that the parking lot landscaping should include a pedestrian path to the commercial area entrance. But as Council Member McDonald mentioned everybody wants to park by the front door. No one likes to walk across the parking lot. The questions are, "How do we define what distance it should be from the front entrance without taking away from the entrance? Can we require a landscape walkway area that has a driveway across it? What’s practical? If the building is larger and longitudinally, do we need more than one walkway? They referred to Chapter 20, Section 16.20.108 Required Parking Area Landscaping and reviewed the Figure 20-2.
The following are some of their comments:
1. Set up the pedestrian walkway from the street or sidewalk to the building and center it on the middle of the building. It is ideal for people on either side of the walkway to use instead of wandering through the parking lot.
2. Just state that they have to provide a pedestrian walkway from the public right-of-way to the main entrance or to the individual building. It also provides handicap accessibility without going through the parking lot.
3. It should be walkable and inviting. In the past pedestrians have been shoved to one side of the project rather than making an entrance that is attractive. It should be an attractive feature and doesn’t interfere with commerce.
4. If the building is on a corner, then pushing it to the edge would be better. Discussed Walgreen’s in St. George.
5. Use a ratio of the building length to determine the distance from the building. If it’s a long building, it gives a little more flexibility in the middle. If it’s a short building, it defines it down where it needs to go. The language should say, "approximate distance to the entrance." The handicap entrance could tie into the walkable pedestrian entrance.
6. It’s a good idea to make it a requirement.
Chairman Reed stated if it’s a requirement it is not an ownership requirement, it becomes part of the landscape requirement so that it doesn’t detract from their buildable property or parking lot area that there’s no financial penalty for requiring it.
Commissioner Scott noted that if a developer is required to provide a dedicated walkway space from the street to the building, it will take up space no matter where we put it. If the developer decides to put it on the lot line rather than in the middle he still has to allow for 3-4 feet and that would take away from some parking. If required to put it in the middle, is the developer losing anything extra by saying the City doesn’t want it on the edge but in the middle. He doesn’t see that the developer is losing anything because they have to provide 4’X100’ anyway. It eats up "x" amount of parking no matter where it is put.
Chairman Reed’s intent is that the sidewalk be included in the landscape requirement so that it’s not taking away from any of the parking lot area or buildable area.
Commissioner Scott felt that by requiring it to be driven off the main building entrance, etc. doesn’t hurt the developer or the development compared to putting it on the edge. He likes the idea of giving it some flexibility, not right at the center, or maybe 20% on either side.
7. Give the developer credit if they landscape the walkway so it’s not just sidewalk. If they get an incentive, it will be nicer.
Chairman Reed felt that it has to have landscape and at least a three foot (3’) buffer on each side but we could come up with some type of incentive.
8. Put a cover or arbor over it as an incentive.
Chairman Reed will come up with some language by the next meeting.
(6) (c) Parking Lot Landscaping changed to read: Minimum off street parking areas shall be screened or buffered by landscaped areas and/or screening walls consisting of a twelve foot (12’) wide berm which may be reduced to six feet (6’) with inclusion of wall or device. Include diagram.
(6) (d) Landscape Materials: delete "where appropriate"
(6) (e) Native Vegetation Materials: no changes
(6) (g) Streetscape Buffer Areas:
They discussed if there was any difference between the Parking Lot Landscaping and Streetscape Buffer Areas in commercial projects. Section (ii), (iii) and (iv) seem to be redundant. Suggested changing (i) to: Be designed to provide the public with an open view of Ivins’ scenic vistas.
Chairman Reed asked Kevin Rudd if the City has streetscapes on any commercial properties.
Kevin Rudd stated that in most cases commercial projects will retain landscaping. The ordinance currently states if the project fronts the street, then they maintain the landscaping.
Chairman Reed asked if that becomes the streetscape buffer or the parking lot landscaping. Should the streetscape buffers be changed to say, "should be consistent with the requirements of the parking lot landscaping?" The Commissioners were okay with the comment.
Delete: (ii), (iii) (iv)
Commissioner Murphy asked if there were issues with (h) Walls, Fences and Other Visual Barriers.
Chairman Reed felt they should leave (h) but he will combine Parking Lot Landscaping and Streetscape Buffer Areas.
(6) (j) Water Features: Chairman Reed will check other cities on conservation of water features.
Site Lighting Standards: to comply with Lighting Ordinance.
(d) Building Massing: "add captions" Commissioner Benson will sketch some captions on massing that matches Ivins’ specifications of the ordinance. Also, need to address height standards.
(g) Mechanical Equipment:
Suggested language: Mechanical screens shall consist of hard exterior surface that matches or compliments the adjacent building surfaces in an inner layer of acrostics installation with a minimum sound transfer coefficient STC of 30. Standard specs for a wall for multifamily is 45-50.
Commissioner Benson noted that the typical construction for mechanical is a block wall.
Chairman Reed stated that a block wall won't be on top of the building but a block wall would manage a STC 30 with no problem. The problem with a block wall it reflects the sound back into the building and bounces back and forth and eventually comes out. The block wall would have to be softened with non reflective acoustical surface to keep from it bouncing back.
Commissioner Benson noted that a metal stud wall with both sides with drywall would measure 38-40. Actually 30 would be fairly easy to accomplish with a block wall.
Chairman Reed stated that exterior sound panels would work.
2) Building Scale: Delete section
4) Building Materials: This was reworded to disallow metal buildings and only allow unfinished block, unfinished concrete as far as they are architectural accents.
(b) Light Reflective Value (LRV): LRV is between 7 and 38. LRV is already specified in the current ordinance and it is very low. Chairman Reed felt they should not be concerned about the glare with metal roofs since it is already covered in the ordinance. Also, finishes over 38 are already disallowed. The Building Color can rule everything else. The Commissioners were in agreement.
Chairman Reed noted that the ordinance also disallows false fronts on buildings. He will make the revisions discussed and send edited Chapter 19 to the Commissioners.