The meeting was called to order at
05:30 p.m. All present included
Chairman John Reed,
Commissioner Todd Benson,
Commissioner Jeffrey Loris,
Commissioner Adel Murphy,
and Commissioner Mike Scott.
Kevin Rudd reported that the subdivision is located on the west side of Main Street between 200 South and 400 South. The parcel is approximately 3.63 acres and the application is for a fifteen (15) lot subdivision. The zoning is R-1-10. The application includes a Subdivision Enhancement Overlay (SEO) which allows for the applicant to qualify for a density bonus.
The formula for the density bonus is according to the Ivins Zoning Ordinance.
The base density is 12.67 lots and in order to achieve fifteen (15) lots, it requires a 19% bonus. The narrative explains justification for the density bonus. There are three (3) categories where the Commission can recommend a density bonus.
1. Open Space The applicant is required to provide a minimum of 10% improved open space. Anything provided beyond 10%, they qualify for a 1% density bonus per percent of open space. This plan proposes to provide 14% open space which qualifies for a 4% density bonus in this category. This bonus is primarily for the construction of the park area. After completion, it will be dedicated to the City and become a public park.
2. Consistency and Design Elements The applicant is requesting a 5% bonus. The maximum bonus allowed for this category is 5%.
3. Convenience of Layout, Variety of Lot Sizes, Unique Subdivision Features The applicant is requesting a 10% density bonus. 10% is the maximum allowed.
The Technical Review Committee (TRC) reviewed the application and the requested density bonus. The applicant also provided an alternative Preliminary Plan that shows the project developed without the park. That conventional plan shows fourteen (14) lots that would comply with its current zoning. If the density bonus was applied with this density, the applicant would only need 8% to achieve the extra lot. However, when we follow the ordinance formula, they would require the 19%. The Commission will need to follow the formula and recommend to the Council the 19% required by the Zoning Ordinance to achieve fifteen (15) lots. TRC felt the Commission should also consider the alternative plan as it makes its density bonus recommendation. The Parks and Recreation Director reviewed this park and felt this would be a good place for a small public park and would be a benefit to the City.
Chairman Reed asked if the base density is the 12.67 lots and the alternate Preliminary Plan is fourteen (14) lots, is the alternate plan without any density bonus. There seems to be a disparity.
Dale Coulam explained that the formula makes some assumptions. It assumes that the developer gives up to the City land for public roads. In this case, it abuts Main Street but the right-of-way is already owned by the City. The developers do not own the land to give up nor are they required to give up any land for Main Street. When applying the formula, it gives a false base density. It gives 12.67 because there is not the extra land that is assumed being dedicated for the right-of-way for Main Street. Within the R-1-10 zoning district, the developer is allowed to build fourteen (14) conventional lots. They don’t need the density bonus and are not required to put in any extra amenities such as the public park.
Kevin Rudd reported that the SEO Preliminary Plan shows where the public park is located. 300 South is a future road that will connect to 100 West and tie into 200 East. Most of the lots are more than 7,500 square feet.
Under the alternative Preliminary Plan the fourteen (14) lots with the road in the same place would be 10,000 square foot lots which comply with the zoning. The SEO Preliminary Plan shows the public park with a sidewalk around it, playground equipment, picnic area, and open space for children to play. The narrative explains the elevations of the homes, styles, consistent architecture, approximately 1,500 sq. ft., two car garage, and most will have a bonus area above the home.
Chairman Reed opened the Public Hearing.
Art Dixon lives at 232 South Main adjacent to the property on the north end of the project. During the previous review of a proposed subdivision he and his wife were opposed for two reasons. This plan shows lot sizes of 6,700 square feet which is considerably less than the zoning requirement of R-1-10 (10,000 minimum sq ft). It does not conform to the City ordinance. When he bought property, he had to rely on the City ordinances to be followed in order to preserve my values and rights. He opposes the park because it is a breeding ground for illegal activities. There are three parks within a four block radius of this project. He requested that a block fence be built around the project similar to the homes Color Country Community built on 100 West. That project looks good and he congratulated the developer. He feels strongly that the Commission and Council have a lawful duty to protect his property rights and values. If this SEO project is approved he intends to turn it into a social media event. He distributed his concerns.
Jason Wheeler represented Color Country Community Housing and stated that the smallest lot is 7,900 - 8,000
Mindy Ronburger was in favor of the fourteen (14) lot subdivision instead of the fifteen (15) and the park. She was concerned that over time the park may become a slum area. They already have Unity Park and another park very close. She was concerned about the future of the neighborhood. She also questioned why these types of homes are being built in this area. They seemed to be all clustered together in one area. It would be wise to spread them throughout the community instead in one general area. The homeowners are working hard on these homes, and she appreciates that they look like nice homes. But in the future (10-15 years) some of these people will outgrow the homes and move on, and then what type of people will occupy the homes? Is there a quota that the City needs to meet with this type of housing? Has the City met that quota?
Kerry Haut felt that the park would be a maintenance issue for the City. It’s a taxpayer’s burden and the Commission should consider that.
Jason Wheeler with Color Country Community Housing thanked the City Staff, Commission and everyone that came out for the hearing. When they started considering this development, he felt the same as some of the citizens that there is a big concentration of these homes in one area. Therefore, he wanted to do something more unique and try to maintain diversity so that this is not a repetition of 100 West. 100 West is nice but does not need to be repeated. That’s the reason the park was proposed. There is no financial benefit to do the fifteen (15) lots with the park as opposed to the fourteen (14) lots. Any extra money received from selling lot #15 would be put into developing the park. They envisioned breaking up Main Street so that there wouldn’t be fourteen (14) homes one after another. It’s actually more work to try and develop the park so if the City doesn’t want it, it’s okay with Color Country. The hope was to give something back to Ivins because Ivins has been very welcoming to the self-help program. Many of the homes built are just as nice as any home built in Ivins. There’s no reason to argue that they would be lower income people. The homes are large, have very good finishes, and some of the best energy efficient homes. The homes on 800 South have structural insulated panels and has a HERS rating of less than 50% which means the homes use less than 50% the amount of energy of a typical code built home. The homeowners’ furnaces have not been turned on all winter long. This development will not be detrimental any more than any other developer that’s marketing to a market rate person. They want to keep Ivins City and the people happy who live here because they are grateful for the chance to build in Ivins and the families feel welcomed.
McKenzie Hansen lives on the corner of Main Street and 200 South. Her back windows look into the field and she loves the view. But the drawings of the homes are beautiful and so is the development on 100 West. She agrees with Art Dixon about having a block wall. Privacy is everything and he is older. He takes a lot of pride in his property. There is a driveway to the back of her house and it should be blocked for the safety of children and him too. She asked if there would be sidewalks. This is their second home and they plan to retire in it. Their first home was a starter home in Summit Ridge. Neighborhoods do age but they were well taken care of. She feels they will get the right people in these homes and it will be a positive experience.
Jenny Johnson recommended that the subdivision be kept at fourteen (14) larger lots at 10,000 square feet per lot as opposed to the fifteen (15) lots. It will affect us a lot. It makes a big difference when homes are very close together and our neighborhood does not have that except for 100 West.
Bill Barnum owns the property bordering the back of this project. He’s mainly concerned about having small lots and an apartment type situation. He requested a block wall because the owners would not want a barbed wire fence behind their home. 300 South will be a major help because it keeps his property from being deadlocked.
David Hunt is opposed to the idea of the City maintaining the park. The City can save money by not granting the density bonus for the park. The City will be better off and the neighbors will be happier.
Chairman Reed closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Benson asked if the the driveway on the north end of this subdivision was an access easement to the other lots and would the easement stay intact.
Kevin Rudd advised that it was part of Art Dixon’s flag lot and it will remain there.
Commissioner Loris advised that everyone except Mrs. Johnson has a 10,000 square foot lot. Mrs. Johnson’s lot is 13,000 square feet. If the Commission proposes the plan with 10,000 square foot lots, it would be the same size lots as the neighboring lots and have the same approximate values.
Chairman Reed inquired about sidewalks.
Kevin Rudd explained that there will be sidewalks along the frontage of Main Street and along 300 South which dead ends. Also, meandering sidewalks are required.
Commissioner Scott inquired about density bonuses and what has been done in the past in regards to Convenience, Layout and Variety of Lot Sizes and Unique Subdivision Features. Do we have any direction?
Chairman Reed stated, "No," that is up to the Commissioners. It has been left flexible to allow creative ideas. In the past a formula or table has been discussed but it forces developers inside a box. The Commission has to evaluate the creative ideas and decide the value. We are not guided or bound by previous decisions.
Commissioner Benson inquired about requiring the developer to furnish a block wall.
Kevin Rudd clarified that the ordinance only requires a block wall between two properties when commercial abuts to residential. Some developers do build walls in subdivisions but it is not a requirement.
Dale Coulam commented that if Color Country had offered the wall as one of the elements for the density bonus, it could be considered for a density bonus. The City cannot require the block wall on the conventional subdivision that has fourteen (14) lots.
Kevin Rudd commented that if Color Country has it in their budget they build block walls. However, they wait to see if the project will have any budget monies left. The wall has not been offered, and they evidently are not ready to commit to a wall.
It was mentioned that it could be one of the unique features if offered, and it could be an option in the Commission’s recommendation but it’s not offered in the application.
Commissioner Benson commented that he lives close to a pocket park and it took some time to get it built but everybody loves it. The park would be an amenity to the City even though there are maintenance fees. But if the majority of the citizens don’t want the park, that’s something to consider.
Commissioner Loris inquired about the maintenance cost of a park.
Kevin Rudd could not comment on the cost but the Parks and Recreation Director’s attitude was that small pocket parks take the pressure off the larger parks. Ultimately, the Council has to decide if it is a good location and the cost.
Commissioner Murphy could see the benefit of the park but the developer is not excited about it and the citizens are not excited, and there’s no way to get fifteen (15) lots without the park.
Kevin Rudd noted that he felt the developer was correct when he stated they would not make money on receiving a bonus of one lot. They will break even but they felt the park would provide an amenity to the City. The extra lot affords them to build the park.
Chairman Reed felt the City has a responsibility to provide quality urban planning. Urban planning consists of open spaces, parks and infrastructure that can be utilized a number of ways. It does cost the City but would our City cost less as a tax base if we had no parks whatsoever, yes it would. But would it be as desirable, no. Pocket parks provide gathering places for the neighbors and provide a neighborhood feel. There are other parks in the area but most people drive to those parks. There are no parks in the area to walk to with your toddler, etc. This is good urban planning. He knows of no substantial bases that pocket parks attract crime but this could be checked out by the Director of Public Safety. It is the City’s governing body's responsibility to protect the rights of the existing property owners and he agrees their rights should be protected. However, he has not found any evidence where a lot differentiation this small in size affects the assessed value of another piece of property. Cities cannot control the quality of what an owner wants to build. Color Country is building quality homes, and the assessed value is typical to a house of similar square footage elsewhere in Ivins. If the assessed value is the same, then the homes are not going to go to lower income housing any more so than similar sized homes. Whether they are built by an owner or a contractor, what is important is whether or not they are built well. He was in favor of the SEO because the goal of the General Plan is to make the community a more walkable type community. The fifteen (15) lots and the park will provide a neighborhood where people get to know each other. He feels this is valuable.
Commissioner Scott liked what Color County has developed, what they stand for and the idea of a park. It is a good amenity for the community. There are issues to maintaining a park and potential crime issues. However, he struggled with the different bonuses allowed and how to get there. The open space automatically gets 4%, Consistency and Design could make a reasonable argument that entitles them to the full 5% because it requires consistency in the subdivision theme such as architectural building styles, materials, colors, etc. He struggled with the third incentive, Convenience and Layout, Variety of Lot Sizes and unique subdivision features. There is a variety of lot sizes but minimal variation in lot sizes, and he didn’t consider that a variety. There’s creative and extraordinary design layout, etc. and what they are developing is good but doesn’t see the maximum 10%. Does this plan justify the maximum? The developer needs this to achieve the fifteen (15) lots. That’s the reason he asked the question what kind of things have been allowed before for a maximum incentive.
Chairman Reed felt the unique features are front porches, walkability and meeting the neighborhood which is not typical of what is being built. This plan is somewhat like an old town neighborhood.
Commissioner Scott felt it was nice features but wasn’t sure it qualified for the maximum benefit. Should they get half credit or the full credit?
Commissioner Benson also agreed that the variety of lot sizes and unique layout hasn’t been done. If they are looking at the new urban look and feel such as front porches, activate the street, get people walking, park, etc. which is the old urban planning, there were avenues to the back and garages were not on the front of the houses but in the rear. That’s how he envisioned unique features and layouts. He agreed with Commissioner Scott and without the SEO it goes back to the proposed fourteen (14) lot plan without the park.
Commissioner Loris also felt it comes down to whether the City wants the park or not. The citizens who spoke stated they do not want the park.
Commissioner Scott felt the park wasn’t the issue. It’s allowing the maximum 10% under the third category. He was concerned about setting precedence by giving the full 10%.
Commissioner Loris felt Commissioner Scott made a good point and agreed that it doesn’t meet the full 10% on the third category.
Commissioner Murphy also agreed with Commissioner Scott about the 10%. Their text states the unique features are the front porches and the park. She’s concerned about setting a precedent of giving full 10%. She agrees with the front porch concept and people stay in their houses too much but did not feel 10% should be allowed.
After further discussions, most of the Commissioners agreed that they struggled with allowing the maximum 10% on variety of lot sizes and unique features.
Chairman Reed felt as a Commissioner he should approve or encourage projects that are good planning for the City unless it has a significant negative impact to the property rights of the existing owners. He felt that the SEO plan improves Ivins.
Dale Coulam explained that the motion options. One could be to approve the Preliminary Plan with the SEO allowing the 19% bonus. If the Commission feels they cannot reach the 19% and don’t want to approve the SEO, then the motion would be to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plan with SEO and approve the alternative Preliminary Plan with the fourteen (14) conventional lots.
MOTION: Commissioner Todd Benson moved to disapprove the lots with the Subdivision Enhancement Overlay and recommend approval of the conventional subdivision with the fourteen (14) lots.
SECOND: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris
VOTE: The motion carried.
| Commissioner Todd Benson |
AYE |
| Commissioner Jeffrey Loris |
AYE |
| Commissioner Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
| Chairman John Reed |
NAY |