Vice Chair Murphy explained that there are five public hearing items. The following was the order in which each public hearing was heard:
1. Section 16.12.104 (4) (a) Allowing larger attached garage in residential zones, applicant, Tom Fabio
Vice Chair Murphy opened the Public Hearing.
Tom Fabio stated that this came to his attention when he wanted to enclose his utility yard and make extra garage space. Plans were presented to the Kayenta Architectural Control Committee (ACC) with elevations, etc. The ACC approved the plans and he did the neighborhood notifications. None of the neighbors had a problem with the plan. Later, he found out that the addition would make his garage 50% over the limit of the living space in the house. He’s petitioning the Commission and Council to change the ordinance to allow larger garages for homes on larger lots. If an addition is done correctly and in the same style as the house construction, it’s more preferable than having trailers or vehicles parked in the side yard or in the driveway. It makes for a neater appearance.
Kevin Rudd explained that the current Zoning Ordinance restricts attached garages to a maximum of 50% of the footprint of the primary structure. This amendment proposes that on lots that are less than one half acre it is restricted to 50% of the footprint, 60% on lots one half acre 70% on lots one acre and larger. The City Council recently amended the Zoning Ordinance with this language in reference to detached garages. This would reflect the same restriction on detached garages.
Vice Chair Murphy closed the Public Hearing.
2. Section 16.28.103 (5) (a-e) Allowing a Special Exception for relocation existing signs in public right-of-way, applicant, Michael Guisinger
Kevin Rudd reported that this amendment is about allowing a Special Exception to allow a commercial sign to overhang the public right-of-way including the sidewalk but does not extend into the street. This is regarding the existing Chevron sign at Lightfoot’s. The current sign is located to the back of the curb. The location of the sign prevents the City from placing a sidewalk along the street. The exception would allow this sign to be adjusted to where it would overhang the sidewalk but allow the sidewalk to be installed.
Vice Chair Murphy opened the Public Hearing.
Joe Guisinger represented Lightfoot’s and stated that they are looking at replacing the monument sign as it needs to be updated and in the future the City will want to put in curb, gutter and sidewalk. This would allow for it. Otherwise, the sidewalk would go through the monument sign. The sign would essentially be the same as it is now, a Chevron sign with fuel pricing.
Vice Chair Murphy closed the Public Hearing.
3. Section 16.12.103 (9) (a) Allowing storage containers on larger lots - Applicant, Steven Goeser
Kevin Rudd reported that cargo containers are prohibited for use as accessory buildings in the current Zoning Ordinance. However, there are some cargo containers located in the City that are prior to the current ordinance. This amendment is proposing that they still be restricted but an exception would allow them to be located on lots .88 acres or larger with a maximum twenty feet (20’) in length, eight feet (8’) in height, painted in earthtone colors, and located in the rear setback area with a minimum five foot (5’) setback from the property lines. This size lot (.88 acre) is the old township lots.
Vice Chair Murphy opened the Public Hearing.
Steve Goeser is the applicant and has been a resident in Ivins for forty years when there were two paved streets and 225 people. There’s been a lot of growth and throughout the years there are things we like and don’t like that go along with it. He has a .88 acre lot in the old township and one in Padre Canyon. He wants to put a storage container on each of the properties. He’s looked at Tuff Sheds and essentially they are tin sheds and fall apart after a couple of years. If he and his son buy a storage container, it would be 8’x20’ located in the rear of the property and camouflaged. Cargo containers are very sturdy, well supported storage units that have a double sealed door and a lock that cannot be tampered with or cut off. After he installed one, he found out that it is against the ordinance. He does not look at it as a container but a storage unit. The cargo container can be moved, removed from the property and resold for about the same amount that it cost. The lots are large. The container is 160’ and it would be an adequate storage shed.
Valerie Noel Ciardi lives at 966 Mesa Vista Drive in Padre Canyon Phase 1, Lot #39. She concurs with Mr. Goeser because the 2012 economy is such that we need to use our lots in a manner that we are able to store things that people use. We have many more things on an acre lot with respect to the storage and we are changing and have children. There are different needs at this time and it has to grow because of the economy and community.
Barbara Rusick lives in Padre Canyon Estates. She suggested using the Old Township Overlay and allow containers in the historic district and not in any other place in the City. There are communities that have very effective CC&R’s that probably do not have a specific caveat against containers. It might open up to a lot of areas besides Padre Canyon Estates and the historic district. If they want to keep it in the historic district, there was an ordinance enacted when there was a petition for carports. It was granted in the historic district but they were not allowed in other parts of the City.
Glenn Ravenberg lives in Padre Canyon Estates that back ups to Steven Goeser’s property. He understands Steven’s desire and is an advocate of property rights. Not too long ago there was a lot of time and energy spent arguing about box trailers, how many we could have and how they needed to be shielded, etc. He doesn’t see much difference in a box trailer and a shipping container. He doesn’t have a strong objection but it’s in the same spirit of things when we talked about box trailers being in this area as well.
Dave Hunt lives in Padre Canyon Estates and doesn’t have a strong feeling either way. The place where he worked used storage containers for the shop. It was in a business district and wasn’t critical to look nice but they stood out. There should be some provision to make sure they are properly camouflaged and cleaned because they will rust. It should be made presentable and shielded to the neighbors and not an eyesore to the community.
Vice Chair Murphy closed the Public Hearing.
4.Section 16.12.113 (5) and Appendix A Written Text - Allowing three domestic horses in Padre Canyon, applicant, Steven Weida
Kevin Rudd reported that the ordinance is located in two locations of the Zoning Ordinance. One is under Domestic Livestock and the current ordinance states that in Padre Canyon 1, 2, 3 and 4 is limited to 2 domestic horses. The amendment is proposing an exception for three domestic horses on lots one acre or larger. Appendix A is the written text for specific subdivisions within the City. The current written text for Padre Canyon states, "no more than two animals are allowed." This proposal is requesting an Exception: "Three (3) domesticated horses are allowed on one (1) acre or larger. The keeping of three domesticated horses shall preclude the keeping of any additional large animals." The interpretation is that if allowed the three would only apply to horses. They could not have 2 cows and a horse or 3 cows. This would not apply to other large animals.
Vice Chair Murphy disclosed that the Commissioners had received letters from Carl and Marjorie Solms who are opposed to the amendment, and a letter from Gary M. Oyler who is in attendance and will speak to the issue.
Gary M. Oyler lives in Padre Canyon. He does not see how Ivins can have a Zoning Ordinance that doesn’t apply to Padre Canyon. It’s difficult to find a balance of individual desires. Ivins is small and there is a lot of diversity. There are individuals that desire horses, those that are neutral and individuals that do not find it a benefit. To protect this balance and diversity we have disclosed to all prospective home buyers in Ivins that our community standard is two horses per acre. Individuals have built their home under this standard for 10-15 years. What is basis for this standard? It has been heard that one acre is quite large but he thinks it is small. One acre is approximately the surface of a football field, 90 yards by 50 yards. On a one acre in residential, there’s the house, the setbacks, three car garage, maybe a casita, pool, fencing and landscaping. There is not a lot of space left and there are also natural drainage patterns in Ivins. There have been serious floods that have come across their lots that we need to pay attention to. The wash areas cannot be built on so it limits our activities and takes up square footage. Adding one horse, there’s quantum leap in the demand for space. Additional structures are required such as stable and shelter, tack and feed area, space for grooming, shoeing and training. These are large animals on very small lots. In the stable and training area the land is denuded and not landscaped. Therefore, it is not easy to mitigate airborne dust. Contractors even have to water down the dirt when digging a foundation. Dust distributes across the neighborhood lots and neighbors with respiratory conditions are harmed. There are elimination problems. Manure and urine accumulate which create flies and insects which may be a disease problem. Ivins is in a geographical area that receives about nine inches of rainfall. Even if the property owner does a good job in cleaning up elimination, eventually the soil becomes saturated. There’s not enough rain. Guests are met at the front door by a herd of flies and offensive smells. Most of this could be eliminated on five or ten acre lots. If we could add 4-5 acres to the existing lots, the problem would be minimal but that’s not an option. Adding a second or third horse the issues multiply. Because horses are social animals, we have decided to accept as our standard two horses per acre. Some people like pride of ownership, some are neutral and some don’t want horses but they bought their property in an area with a two horse standard. We need to preserve the balance and diversity. We must keep the two horses per acre code and need to add integrity and clarity to the existing code. The letter to the Commissioners gave an illustration of how a property owner can circumvent the existing code and create a favorable position to add more horses to his stable. This is a backdoor approach and an insult to the community. Need clarity in the code because there is always going to be fiction in the system. Please preserve the diversity.
David Hunt lives in Padre Canyon Phase 1. Mr. Hunt presented a time line of problems that he has had with Mr. Weida since 2009. Horse manure was stored in a big pit when he had two horses. Complaints were made to Mr. Weida and he stated he was open to suggestions on how to get rid of it. He suggested hauling it away. It did not get done so he made a nuisance complaint to the City, and it was partially removed and some was covered up and filled in. In early summer of 2010 Mr. Weida took a petition around in Phase 1 and 2 asking for two issues: increasing garages from a limit of three to five and allow three horses. No provision to accept one or the other. In June 2010 three horses were being kept on his property which did not comply with the City code or the CC&R’s. A complaint was filed and a citation was issued, yet he continued in the violation until the Planning Commission heard the issue on August 17, 2010. The Commission recommended to Council to uphold the ordinance of allowing two horses. It was not until September 2010 that the code was enforced to reduce the three horses to two. In July 2010 after Mr. Weida got the petitions signed, he made substantial, improper, and illegal changes to the CC&R’s, copied and pasted the signatures on the petitions to the back of the CC&R’s instead of getting a vote as outlined by the CC&R’s. The document was filed with the county recorder’s office. In January 2011 the heavy rain cut ridges into the bank of the wash between their lots and exposed some of the manure that was buried and more stockpile of manure was put in the wash. He complained to Bob Flowers. The complaint took awhile to get to Mr. Rudd, but in May 2011 a notice was sent and Mr. Weida had 14 days to comply. On May15th it was partially removed and some manure covered. In November 2011, on the Harlin property next to Mr. Weida’s property the fence was moved to 80’ instead of 100’ requirement. He called enforcement and that was enforced but a couple days afterwards a new manure pile started. The manure pile started again in the back of the Harlen property. It took until January to get it cleared up. Based on this time line and reporting photos as evidence of these incidents (copies available in Ivins office), he asked the Commission to deny the amendment. Mr. Weida claims that the CC&R’s for Phase 1 and 2 were changed at the request of the property owners in July 2010. The CC&R’s were changed but not by a required vote. The outline in the CC&R’s was changed in an improper and invalid way that substantially changes the declaration and purpose of the document that disregards the purpose of maintaining property values. He questions the authority that he had to make that change in the City. There is an Architectural Review Committee that would have authority to call a vote of the residents of the community. In the last eight years, there have only been five lots that had large animals kept on them, and three are the ones Mr. Weida uses and the two lots adjacent. Mr. Wieda has continually violated the ordinance by keeping three horses on the property before it was allowed. He did that for four months in the summer of 2010. He violated the fencing setbacks, the common corral and stockpiling violations, paragraph 12 of the City Code. He hasn’t been willing to keep within the ordinance. The original intent of the code 16.12.113 (5) was read. His lot that is 1 1/4 acre does not meet the requirement of the City Code based on 1/2 acre per horse. The ordinance is to keep dust down, the odor and pests down for the neighbors and keep horses safe and have a healthy environment. To make this change to meet the request of a chronic violator takes away the protection for neighbors and horses. Next changing the ordinance to match the conditions of invalid CC&R’s would set a precedence and likely cause continually addressing recurring requests, hearings to alter codes. The Planning Commission has often stated their mission and effort to protect Ivins’ image, the property values of the owners and that is stated in their current 1988 CC&R’s with the amendment of 1991. He has had significant property value loss by the actions of having the horses near. Even when Mr. Weida has been in compliance the odor and dust is unbearable. He’s not against horses but they need to be maintained with a clean environment and protection. Please do not recommend approval to the City Council.
Glen Ravenberg lives in Padre Canyon Estates and is a professional land surveyor. He’s been a sub-divider and an advocate of subdividing for 35 years. When he developed and platted thousands of lots and subdivisions, the zoning was called RA1, A1 or small ranch but two horses per acre was standard in Davis or Weber County. This City has recognized that and held by that code. One acre is considered a big lot but putting a big animal on the lot, it’s not a big lot. An acre works well when everybody has a backyard but when it gets on a corner, one guys backyard become another guys front yard, and that’s where the conflicts occur. That’s what we have in this situation. We have an unusual lot situation in that the petitioner has a lot 1.25 acres, the largest in the subdivision. The frontage across the front is 272 feet plus or minus but the distance across the back is 94.5 feet. The average rear lot width in Padre Canyon is 120 feet. Although he has a larger lot he has a smaller backyard and Mr. Hunt deals with it. That’s a reason to stay with two horses. Going from 2 to 3 is not a big increase if we think in numbers but in percentages, it’s a 50% increase in the density on the property. He gave an example of raising the speed limit from 35 miles per hour to 50 miles per hour. We are talking similar proportions. The ordinance also calls for ten chickens but increased to 50%, there is 15 chickens. He appreciates the fact that the petitioner wants more horses but when he purchased the property the CC&R’s and City ordinance was what they were. This petition benefits one individual and the rest are not too concerned or oppose. It’s in the neighborhoods best interest and community to leave it at status quo.
Melanie Hunt lives in Padre Phase 2 and when they built they knew it was an area allowing 2 horses. Mr. Weida has created loop holes to allow 5-6 horses he’s attending on multiple lots. If this amendment passed, she was concerned that he would be attending 8 horses due to lot sizes of neighboring properties. She never complained about him owning 2 horses except when the waste has not been properly disposed of. He got easily overwhelmed with the manure from the 2 horses. With 4-5 and six at times, it has been out of control. From a waste management standpoint, the amendment should not be passed for Mr. Weida or anyone in Padre Canyon. The statistics on feces and urine produced per day: 1 horse = 51 lbs per day; 2 horses = 102 lbs per day; 3 horses = 153 lbs per day; 4-5 horses = 248 lbs. and 8 horses = 408 lbs per day; yearly 148,920 lbs per year. There is not a lot of space for that much waste, and not enough room for the horses to live in for a city setting. The ordinance states that the area and structures should be maintained in sanitary conditions so that flies, dust or odors do not disturb the health of any person or animal or create a nuisance to any adjoining property. It also talks about accumulation of waste. He cannot get rid of that much manure. She contests that the CC&R’s are invalid. People in the area do not want three horses and it was presented that they could have garages and horses and signed it. There wasn’t a vote. She asked that the current zoning be upheld and also would like the City to find a way to stop the loop holes where Mr. Weida is allowed to have an open corral between two lots. It would be nice if neighbors would wall their yards and owners have to keep horses on their own land. Having a mini horse ranch has significantly devalued her property value and quality of life.
Barbara Rusick lives in Padre Canyon Estates Phase 1 and purchased her property in 1996. Padre Canyon started around 1980. The first three phases borders Docena, Center Street, Puerto Drive, Mesa Vista Drive and Pasodo and you cannot tell where Phase 1, 2 and 3 starts and stops. There are 102 homes in three phases. Mr. Weida’s property is in the center of all three phases. What happens in any of the phases affects all phases. The written text adopted by the City Council covers all three phases. Mr. Weida amended only the CC&R’s on Phase 1 and Phase 2. Recently, he amended the CC&R’s but with a petition which may be putting everyone in jeopardy because it is now recorded as a deed restriction against our property. She’s not happy about it. Phase 3 was not consulted by Mr. Weida at all. Phase 1 has a total of 39 lots and only 18 parcels approved. So, 54% of residences in Phase 1 don’t like the increase of 3 horses. Phase 2, of which Mr. Weida is located, there are 40 lots and 31 parcels approved. In Phase 3 there are 23 lots and no one was asked. The fact is that Phase 1 disapproved it and it has the largest number of parcels over an acre. There are 8 parcels over an acre in Phase 1, five parcels in Phase 2 (Mr. Weida’s is the largest) and 1 in Phase 3, possibly three. She has a problem with the mentality of someone coming into the area, knowing it’s been two horses since the 1980’s and just wanting to change it. Everybody is content with the 2 horses but one person comes in wanting 3 horses. As far as the declaration recorded, it’s full of flaws. She explained some of the flaws in the document that was recorded. Also, she noted the document refers to the architectural control committee but there is no architectural control committee. The committee was appointed in 2002. It was not a homeowners association but a voluntary organization to determine if someone was violating the CC&R’s. We could pool our money, sue and take legal action to force people to keep up the CC&R’s. Dues were collected, they consulted an attorney, and paid for the cost of a new architectural control committee because the old one was no longer functioning. There were four on the committee but because Ron Densley was working in Arizona and Don Hansen did not have the time, Collin Harrison informally represented Padre Canyon Estates with the City as far as control. The one that the residents paid for in 2002 disbanded for different reasons. She’s very concerned that this document attaches to all the homes in Phase 1 and 2. It might be illegal. She agrees with the problems that have been stated about three horses. It’s too many. The manure piling up on the property is bad but there is also evidence on the streets of Mesa Vista. It’s not legal to not clean up after your horses.
Steve Goeser bought property in Padre Canyon in the 80’s with the understanding it was horse property, rural property and with the understanding the town would grow. It’s enjoyable to not have street lights, sidewalks and the rural atmosphere. He signed the petition stating that he would like to have three horses on the property. Since he’s listened to the meeting and heard both sides, he asked to have his name removed from the petition. He did not realize that three horses would cause such a problem on the small back acreage of the lot and didn’t realize Mr. Weida was going to use the backs of property of other homeowners. He walked the wash and doesn’t think people care for that. He doesn’t want Padre Canyon to change but wants it still classified as horse property. The CC&R’s and City ordinances need to be enforced and bring it back to two horses and have him clean up his mess.
Steve Weida lives at 63 Padre Canyon Drive. He thanked the City of Ivins for opening up the free zoning change. My request has somewhat been mischaracterized. It is to increase the number of horses allowed on lots greater than one acre. There are very few lots greater than one acre. The background of Padre Canyon is that it’s rural in nature with no sidewalks, no street lights, and large properties. There is no active homeowners association. It’s not a cookie cutter neighborhood and it has its own identity. Would approval of my request adversely impact the neighbors, Ivins City as a whole, the quality of live, property values and would it create overcrowding of the animals? The documents show four phases of the old part of Padre Canyon; the request pertains to Phase 1 and 2 which are incorporated on one set of CC&R’s. Phase 3 has their own set and Phase 4 has separate CC&R’s. There are 119 lots in four phases and out of 119 there are 23 lots one acre or larger the request would potentially affect. One lot is deeded to the City of Ivins. He didn’t just decide to amend the CC&R’s of Phases 1 and 2. In 2003 the CC&R’s of Phase 4 was amended adding three horses on lots one acre or greater. The legal work for Phase 4 was done by Daren Barney and approved by a majority vote. When he moved to Padre Canyon he talked with the people who had changed the CC&R’s in Phase 4, it was suggested it was the only way to achieve the goal of having 3 horses on a lot of one acre. First he amended the CC&R’s and requested the zoning change. In 2010 he went through the steps organizing a vote and amending the CC&R’s for Phase 1 and 2 and patterned after the document prepared by Daren Barney for Phase 4. The signatures are there and filed and there is a substantial majority. There was a comment about not contacting or amending the CC&R’s for Phase 3. He doesn’t live in Phase 3 and felt he had no standing to amend their CC&R’s. There is only one lot in Phase 3 greater than one acre. There are only six lots within 119 where horses were maintained, about 5%. The specific issue brought up is overcrowding in the proximity of people to animals. No one wants to live next door to horses. However, the problem is resolved by a zoning regulation requiring a 100’ setback of horse facilities from any residential structure. It is quite restrictive and excludes many properties in Padre Canyon from the keeping of horses. The 100’ setback rule safeguards homes from being in close proximity of homes, corrals and shelters. It is strictly but fairly enforced by the City and is more than adequate. His request does not affect the setback. Situating my horse facilities on my lot was difficult due to this requirement and his horse corrals are 100 feet from my house and from my closet neighbor which is Mr. and Mrs. Hunt. The buffer zone is more than adequate. In regards to manure, smells and flies horses are large animals and require active owner participation to minimize the flies and smells. He cleans at least once a day and frequently more often. He rents dumpsters for the removal of manure. There is adequate zoning on the practice of removing manure. In regards to the properties next door, he has two adjacent properties where his neighbor keeps horses and he does the management of the properties. On the larger lot he cleans them daily and puts the manure in a pile but it’s over an acre. He lets it dry and every three or four weeks, he drags it out with a tractor and it turns to dust and straw and it’s gone. In the summer he uses various fly control methods and spends a substantial amount of money. The bottom line is that all odors and smells cannot be eliminated but Padre Canyon is horse property. The corral practices are more than adequate to control flies, smell, and manure. In regards to property values, he disagrees. Communities that allow horses in Ivins and Washington County are few. These properties are sought after and command a premium. Padre Canyon is marketed as horse property. For most of us our home is the biggest financial asset, myself included. He would not intentionally devalue my own residence or that of my neighbors. If he adversely affects my neighbor or neighborhood I would be reducing the value of my own home. Also there is concern about the welfare of animals. The lots are sufficient and keep in mind this amendment is for the largest lots. He has large corral areas. The smallest is 24x36 and has an exercise area. Padre Canyon is in the proximity of good riding areas to get exercise for the horses. There is the Snow Canyon State Park, the Desert Reserve and the trail system around the Ivins dike and designated riding trails. As long as these are accessible Padre Canyon is an ideal horse community. His horses are exercised 3-5 days per week. Sometimes the horses do go in the street and tries to get back and clean it up the same day or the next day. The CC&R’s require shelters and no other area has this requirement. This requirement should be for the entire City. If the Commissioners have any doubt about his property, he invited the Commissioners to postpone a vote and look at the property and facilities to see if it is far enough from the neighbors. During the voting process, he talked to his neighbors at length. Most stated they liked the horses and gives them a good feeling even if they don’t want to keep horses on their property they want the right to do so. It was approved by a majority. In reference to the illegality of the amendment, he stands behind it. There has been no legal challenge. It’s been in effect since 2010 and there has been plenty of time to make any legal challenges. Most everyone that signed it would stand behind their signature. The intent of the document is clear and the people in Padre Canyon wanted and approved the keeping of horses up to 3 horses on lots greater than one acre. Not everyone agrees but we live in a place where the majority rules. He could have paraded people in support but he felt the document speaks for the people that were not at the meeting.
Vice Chair Murphy asked for an explanation about the manure in the wash that the neighbor stated was covered by dirt and you mentioned that it was hauled away.
Steve Weida explained there was a significant rain storm and there is a wash that runs beside his property. There was enormous erosion so he filled it up with manure, covered it with soil and rocks and compacted the manure. Essentially, it was filled. At the present time, he rents dumpsters and puts it in the dumpsters and wheels it out to the street. That was a temporary thing to fill up the hole.
David Hunt noted that he had photos that the 100' setback was not maintained and he did not complain about the setbacks until it was violated in November 2011. It was enforced by code enforcement. The petition was passed around in the summer of 2010 and had two separate issues. At the same time there were issues in town about where to keep motor homes, etc. Having the CC&R’s changed from three to five garages was a hot button issue in the Commission and Council. The petition had a provision to allow for five garages and to allow for 3 horses on an acre or more. There were two separate issues with no valid mechanism for an official vote because there was no way to choose one or opposed to the other. A lot of people didn’t know the document was filed and nobody saw the changed CC&R’s when signing the petition. It was copied and pasted to the CC&R’s. Section 2 addresses the garage issue and Section 18 addresses livestock and animals where it was changed to three horses. Most people would be appalled about what was changed in Section 1 regarding the purpose of the document. He read the original CC&R’s and the amended 2010 CC&R’s which he contests. It’s invalid and possibly illegal. He was disgusted about the revision and felt he removed every property owner’s protection in the revised document. The following was taken out of Section 1: "to established a general plan of improvement to enhance and protect the value of the property." The pasting of signatures does not constitute a valid vote. He contests that it is illegal, invalid and hopes that the Commission uses the same type of judgment.
Valeria Noel Ciardi is a property owner in Padre Canyon, Lot 39, Phase 1 and has .884 acres. She concurs with everything that has been said by co-owners. She does not approve of anything that Mr. Weida has done with respect to the title of the property, and it affects each and everyone and we must not only ask that it be denied but ask the Commission to make that recommendation to the City Council. When Mr. Weida came to see her in 2010, it was a quick conversation and he never showed her a document. He asked if she would approve three horses and said something about garages. She told him it was her understanding that he was allowed 2 horses yet he already had 3 horses and that the abutting neighbors have an objection. She didn’t object to him having horses. The City’s zoning states 2 horses, and the people who are most affected by this have proof of manure in the wash and that it’s going down line crossing Mesa Vista Drive, clogging areas the City has to clean out. There are also flood and fire concerns. This is a serious situation. He puts 3 horses on a lot, then takes people’s signatures and never shows them a document or a notice to have a meeting. It doesn’t have to be an architectural committee meeting. It has to be a public notice and discussed before changing things and with a majority of the people. He cannot just get signatures without a public notice or an opportunity to speak to one another and not have a vote. That is not what the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution says. He has taken property value from the Hunt’s and from me by filing a reported fraudulent document. There has been no notarization of signatures. My soon to be ex-husband, signed it but she did not and her property isn’t his parcel number. The constitution states, "with the respect to the guarantee of a trial by jury and private property to be respected." She was talking about David Hunt’s property. She gave an example of a 93 year old man signing a document that he didn’t know might get recorded and now it is a clog on everyone’s title. We must have a good record, clear marketable title and we do not have that. The Commission should tell the Council that Mr. Weida must sign something immediately before he passes away. If that were to happen, she would have a clog on her title and could not get title insurance. Mr. Weida needs to say the document is null and void. Not only are there title issues but it’s also a problem with the legal description. Amendment five says, "no person shall be held to answer to a capital or otherwise infamous crime nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." This refers to the federal government and states but it also refers to people who take other people’s property. Did anyone take a license of the people listed? He had the audacity to record the document without my review and gave no one the opportunity to review what he recorded. Each one of us in Padre Canyon should be requesting the Ivins Planning Commission to deny his petition and to enforce the violation notices he has now. She concurs with everything that Mrs. Hunt said and her investigation. She knew nothing about horses but she knows more than Mr. Weida who has manure that she can see every day. It gets into the wash which is an environmental issue. In a recent situation we were asked to give easements to the City so that they could come with tractors and clear the wash. If manure is put in the wash, he should clean it up. There are feces growing, vegetation growing, and a nuisance piling up. The City needs to enforce what it has done. She has every bit of evidence and title reference that tell the Commission that it can and should deny the amendment. Since this is earthquake area, he should also have an emergency preparedness plan for his animals because who on the emergency preparedness committee is going to pick up the horses when we are trying to help others with physical needs.
Dale Coulam indicated as far as the alleged illegality, the amendment to the CC&R’s including the notarization is not relevant to this body. The document was submitted on its face to indicate that those who signed were in favor of it. So what is relevant is the testimony heard at this Public Hearing from people who have contested that and who have said they did not see the document. They signed something else and their signatures were then attached to a document that they had never seen. That is relevant to consider. This is not a court of law to determine the legal validity of an amendment to the CC&R’s. The City does not enforce CC&R’s. In Padre Canyon, the City has actually adopted the written text as part of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission is trying to make a recommendation as far as changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Any action taken to amend the CC&R’s is a private legal matter, a private contract of those homeowners in Padre Canyon. He indicated that the homeowners might seek private counsel if they claim it is invalid or it’s been amended once it could be amended again if they do not agree with the amendment. It’s a separate issue. The Commission is considering the public testimony concerning zoning amendment as to whether or not from the City’s perspective for a zoning amendment as to whether or not from the City’s perspective for zoning regulations, which is a legislative action to determine land use, whether 3 horses should be allowed on one acre or greater. Some of the background concerning the CC&R’s is relevant but to determine the legal validity of the notaries or the document itself is for a court of law to determine.
Valeria Noel Ciardi respectfully disagreed with Mr. Coulam. The City should be requesting that Mr. Weida promptly go to the registry of deeds because that is part of the obligation of Ivins City. A title should not be interfered with and that is what has happened. She agreed the title is a private matter but the City enforces private matters everyday when the City enforces the restrictions on us through zoning. We don’t want to spend the money to hire an attorney to run after a man who the City needs to stop and tell him to take the three horses off, maybe put up a fence, take the manure out of the area and stop polluting Ivins. If he is ex-FBI, etc., he should know the statue of frauds. Does he know the forms of verification of getting CC&R’s replaced and does he know how to care for horses? No. She referred a glossary of real estate terms, read and asked about kickbacks and mentioned that they didn’t know what he said to women and children to get them to sign. It’s outrageous that the City would say it is a private matter because it is not. This is due process of law. A definition of light and air easements from real estate terms: "An easement that provides for open space in a specified area such as an owner of a building might obtain easement from an adjoining property but another building will not be erected on the property line thereby assuring him light and air that would otherwise be blocked out." Air is blocked out by three horses and constantly causing allergies. My neighbor is allergic and she signed the document because she was told he wanted horses and a ninety year old man signed it. If we can’t get title insurance, we are talking property value. Property value is in the preamble of CC&R’s and zoning. I’m not going to pay for a lawyer to do this. The Commission should tell the City Council to run to the registry and record the document null and void. Then, we would have marketable titles. Help us to have marketable titles. Also, we ask that he clean it up, put a fence up, put some trees up, pay the Hunt’s for some money for the devaluation of their house which is $75,000 less than the appraisal. It is a marketable problem.
Carol Leavitt lives at 1130 Mesa Vista Drive. She spoke with Mr. Weida and it was a lovely, cordial conversation. She heard a lot about the horse issue but did not recall anything about the garage issue. She wasn’t sure it was mentioned and wasn’t aware that it was being decided in the petition about both issues. She did sign the petition because it sounded okay. She is not adverse or excited about horses. She didn’t think it would affect her because there are no horses in her area and she doesn’t get the smell or dust. It is problematic if my signature was taken from that kind of a document where I assumed that it would be taken as a petition document, presented to the City Council and would be opened up for the appropriate due process and discussion. It is problematic if that was in fact not done. She was opposed to the notion that her signature was taken, if it was cut and pasted onto yet another document that she did not see. She found it highly reprehensible and problematic. At this point given the discussion that has ensued, she asked to remove her signature from the document. She would not support the initiative and especially in the manner of which it was taken and forwarded to the recorder.
Robin Kirker lives on 300 North. She is a professional rider and trainer of horses and lived in Ivins for ten years. Prior to moving to Ivins she trained and managed horse farms, managed million dollar hunter jumper facilities, surgery and research facilities. Her comments were related to taking care of horses on a one acre property. In the horse world, she has dealt with this a lot. When you get a rural area that is designed to have horses and facilities and new people move in, it’s a constant problem. In her opinion, on a one acre lot with a 100' setback, the differences in having 2 or 3 horses are fairly negligible. Manure still has to be cleaned, flies maintained and maintenance problems. The difference between two and three horses is not as great as everyone has made it to appear to be. Living on 300 North, she gets the smell from Hafen’s farm on a regular basis and she’s quite a distance from the farm. There are people in her neighborhood that don’t take care of them a fraction as much as Steve Weida. He does an amazing job of taking care of his horses, and it’s not from an average person but a professional horse person. Her opinion is that he takes care of them beyond most people in the area.
Barbara Rusick requested that the Commission not take the protection of the written text and zoning away from Padre Canyon. It was the first subdivision and the CC&R’s were old and their only recourse if someone violated the CC&R’s was to take them to court and sue. She’s been on the Council for eight years and the Commission for two years and it often came down to a struggle of protecting Padre Canyon, not to add new regulations. The CC&R’s were protection since we did not have a homeowners association. The 1995 Council adopted the written text, and once the new Zoning Ordinance was written and confirmed that the written text had been adopted, the committee no longer needed to function because we relied on the protection of the City and the Zoning Ordinance regarding horses, nuisances, junk cars, etc. The written text closely mirrors the CC&R’s. She asked that they not take the protections away from Phase 1, 2, and 3 where they are virtually identical to the old recorded CC&R’s and written text.
Kathy Ravenberg's concern was that although there are three lots that contain horses now, all the care, exercise, maintenance and veterinarian is all done on one lot. The dust stirred up by all the horses is on one lot.
Vice Chair Murphy closed the Public Hearing.
5. Section 16.21.118 and Table 21-2 - Changing real estate sign regulations
Kevin Rudd reported that the proposed changes are:
Project Identification signs: proposed to increase from 32 square feet to 48 square feet, increase the height of the signs to ten feet, one sign allowed per entrance, signs may be double sided, two flag poles 3’x7’ and height of 20’ allowed at project entrance and tattered flags need to be removed immediately
Off Site Signs: proposes 2 each 2’x3’ with temporary permit and requesting additional 8 each 16’x24’ signs on weekends and holidays which would be a total of ten offsite signs.
Change Size of Real Estate Signs: from 2’x2’ to 2’x3’
Addition to exempt signs: Allow one 5’ diameter helium balloon, raised to a maximum height of 100’ from 10:00 am and retrieved at the close of each sales day (allowed only on weekends, holidays, and during parade of homes)
Commission Loris inquired about Item #8 changing the size. It says 2’x3’ and in his profession the first number is the width and the second number is height. Could it be 3’ wide and 2’ tall?
Kevin Rudd stated it could be interpreted that way.
Vice Chair Murphy opened the Public Hearing.
Jon Ence represented Ence Homes distributed a packet of the proposal, (copy available at Ivins City offices). It includes some surveys and community information and mock ups of what is being proposed. They surveyed over 11,000 prospective buyers over the last five years. 50% have indicated that they were there because of identification signs, small directional signs, flags and/or large balloon. Each community showed over 50% of traffic because of signage, except Ivins Sun Crest West. In the last two years it has averaged 25% total traffic from the signage. It’s less than half of other communities. He read a letter from one of their homeowners that said they stumble upon Sun Crest West but they were glad they did and happy they purchased from Ence Homes. As traffic increases to the communities also home building increases. He provided a list of affective marketing tools they are recommending, photos of showing a comparison of a 4’x8’ sign and a 6’x8’ sign that reaches to 10’ with 2’ space below and a separate photo with a mock up flag. The flag height of 20’ is actually 18’ after two feet is buried.
Vice Chair Murphy asked him to put them in order of importance.
Jon Ence explained that what was submitted was in order of priority. The first is the balloon. Our sales agent has said the people come in because of the balloon. Especially in Ivins it helps people discover Sun Crest West because it’s off the beaten path. It can be seen from a distance. A yellow balloon is used at all Ence communities and establishes Ence’s identity.
Vice Chair Murphy referred to torn flags in some of their St. George’s communities and St. George has an ordinance to replace torn flags. How often are they replaced?
Jon Ence stated the flags last about four months and because of the economy we use them as much as possible. We just purchased new flags that are 3’x7’ which are supposed to last longer and be more durable. We try to replace them as soon as possible because it looks bad for us as well.
Commissioner Scott understood that a 2’x3’ verses a 2’x2’ sign is more common.
Jon Ence stated it is easier to purchase that size.
Commissioner Loris inquired about the maximum height of the flag pole being 20’ and burying it two feet. He asked if they were still asking for a maximum height of 20’.
Jon Ence explained that the poles are 20’ but they do vary within a foot or two.
Vice Chair Murphy asked if he was proposing two flags on Center Street and two on 400 West which is four flags.
Jon Ence stated, yes.
Commissioner Benson mentioned that this has been discussed before and the one thing that stood out before was the balloon. In the past and since this weekend there has been a balloon flying at Sun Crest West. He was having a hard time with the balloon and their lack of willingness to comply since there has been a decision to violate the current ordinance yet at the same time asking to change it.
Jon Ence stated the parade of homes is our life for potential buyers and we thought it was worth the expense if we were fined. We knew what we were doing and decided to do it because it is the only time where we have 20,000 people in town looking at homes. We haven’t done it except this weekend since a month or two when we talked.
Mark Howard explained that he had never heard of Ivins and it was by luck he saw an Ivins advertisement. He has not talked with Mr. Ence. He thinks the City would be smart to have balloons up. It catches your eye, and he has been asked to sit on an advisory committee for Ence because there are only 17 lots left. He was surprised that for every $1,000 in property taxes, the City gets less than $200. Let’s advertise it, get those 17 lots sold and get more taxes coming in, 400 West is a disgrace and it will make everybody happy. Balloons are not the most attractive thing but we had trouble finding this development. We knocked on peoples doors and asked what they thought about Ivins. The people sold us on the place. Put the balloons up, sale the lots and Sun Crest will be done and the City will benefit. For strangers Ivins is hard to find.
Jack Scott is a member of Washington County Board of Realtors and the following comments are strictly his own. There are many signs that already exist that are nonconforming in the City. Real estate signs have and always have been a big part of real estate sales. The best part is they are temporary. We all know someone who has lost their home or short sold. Please allow us to help them in any possible fashion. One of the best roads to economic revitalization is with real estate development and sales and the jobs it creates. What the City receives from the impact fees paid by the developer benefits the entire community, not just the developer. This City has done some beautiful improvements that add to the natural beauty of the area while putting people back to work. Helping to improve the infrastructure of the City, helps to preserve area for future generations and again feeding the citizens from jobs it creates. He understands some of the concerns. He had some of the same concerns as he watched the changes in this area. Being a native son of St. George and could remember counting the number of homes in Ivins on four hands. He felt the Commission would preserve the private property rights of best utilization of property by adopting the new adjustments to the sign ordinance allowing real estate developers and agents to provide for their families while putting millions of dollars back into the future of this community.
Acting Chair Murphy closed the Public Hearing.