The Council heard the Public Hearings in the following order and after the Public Hearings were heard, discussed each issue in the same order:
1) Chapter 28, Section 16.28.103 allowing a Special Exception for relocation of existing signs in the public right-of-way;
2) Chapter 12, Section 16.12.104(4a) regarding larger attached garages in residential zones;
3) Chapter 12, Section 16.12.103(9) regarding storage containers on large lots;
4) Chapter 21, Section 16.21.118 and Table 21-2 regarding changing the real estate sign regulations;
5) Chapter 12, Section 16.12.113(5) and Appendix A Written regarding three domestic horses in Padre Canyon
Mayor Hart thanked those who spoke at the Planning Commission Public Hearings and appreciated the tone that was taken at that meeting. He reminded those in attendance that they are present with their neighbors, friends and fellow residents of the community.
1) Chapter 28, Section 16.28.103 allowing a Special Exception for relocation of existing signs in the public right-of-way: Kevin Rudd indicated this item deals with an existing sign that is at Lightfoots convenience store where the sign is within the City right-of-way and abuts the curb, which prevents the City from installing a sidewalk. The best way to resolve this issue is through a Special Exception that would allow the sign to be modified to a sign that is up above and overhangs the right-of-way. Mayor Hart opened the Public Hearing. There being no comments, Mayor Hart moved onto the next Public Hearing item.
2) Chapter 12, Section 16.12.104(4a) regarding larger attached garages in residential zones: Kevin Rudd stated this request came from a Kayenta resident who would like to build an attached garage that is larger than what is currently allowed. The City Council recently amended the zoning ordinance related to detached garages and this amendment would mirror those changes. Mayor Hart opened the Public Hearing. There being no comments, Mayor Hart moved onto the next Public Hearing item.
3) Chapter 12, Section 16.12.103(9) regarding storage containers on large lots: Kevin Rudd indicated Steven Goeser has requested the ordinance be amended to allow storage containers as accessory buildings with mitigating factors such as a maximum of twenty feet (20’) in length and eight feet (8’) in height, painted an earth tone color and located in the rear setback area with a minimum five foot (5’) set back from property lines. Storage containers are currently prohibited by ordinance although there are some storage containers in the City that existed prior to the current ordinance. The Planning Commission has recommended denying this amendment. Mayor Hart opened the Public Hearing. Steven Goeser stated he has two pieces of property in Ivins that are an acre in size and he would like to place a storage container or building on those lots. He has looked into other storage options and prefers the storage containers because of the way they are built and indicated they would be placed discretely on the property and he would screen them with siding and paint if they could be seen. He doubts if the ordinance was passed, that property owners in the Historic Township or in Padre Canyon will be running out and obtaining storage containers. It would primarily benefit him or maybe someone else. Barbara Rusick of 1078 E. Mesa Vista Drive spoke in opposition to this amendment indicating there are 51 lots in Padre Canyon that storage containers could be placed on and they would block views. She suggested they could be allowed in the Historic District. Lisa Rutherford of 173 N. Painted Hills Drive indicated she lives in a neighborhood with CC&R’s (covenants, conditions and restrictions) and has seen those limits pushed. Valerie Noel Ciardi of 966 E. Mesa Vista Drive and Glen Ravenberg of 1026 E. Anillo Court spoke in support of this amendment based on the storage containers being screened and having similar materials and architectures as the main structure. There being no further comments, Mayor Hart moved onto the next Public Hearing item.
4) Chapter 21, Section 16.21.118 and Table 21-2 regarding changing the real estate sign regulations: Kevin Rudd stated the applicant is requesting a balloon and flags be utilized, the temporary community identification sign be increased to the size of 48 square feet and that the height be increased from eight feet (8’) to ten feet (10’).
Mayor Hart opened the Public Hearing. Jon Ence with Ence Homes provided analysis information and a priority list to the City Council. A copy is available by request through Ivins City Hall. Mr. Ence indicated that only four percent (4%) or 15 people found Sun Crest using the internet. The analysis information indicatesd age makes a difference with 67% of the foot traffic to Ence’ model homes were ages 50 or older. The majority of the foot traffic is passersby who found their development by driving around which illustrates the importance of increasing the visibility of their communities by larger signage at the entrances, flags and a balloon. Mr. Ence referred to the priority list options and stated of those options, the most preferred option under item 1 is option 1 which allows one five foot (5’) diameter balloon per new home community raised to the height of 100 feet from 10am that is retrieved at the close of the sales day, and flown on weekends, holidays and during the parade of homes. Regarding item 2, Ence Homes is requesting to place 2, 3x7 flags raised to the height of 20 feet at each entrance of the community. Torn or tattered flags will be replaced immediately by the owner. Regarding item 3, Ence Homes is requesting to replace two (2), 4x8 temporary community identification signs with two (2), 6x8 signs that stand two feet (2’) off the ground or at a total height of ten feet (10’). The Planning Commission approved one (1) double sided sign per entrance at a size of 6x8 with a maximum height of eight feet (8’) but that would put the sign on the ground. He requested that be raised by two feet (2’) to get the sign off of the ground to prevent the sign from getting dirty and allow landscaping and shrubbery under the sign giving the sign a finished look. Mr. Ence provided a copy of sign comparisons to illustrate what a ten foot (10’) sign would look like. A copy of the comparisons is available by request through Ivins City Hall. Regarding item 4, Ence Homes requested to use eight (8) additional 16"x24" temporary off-premise directional signage to be used on weekends and holidays. The Planning Commission recommended allowing two (2) 2’x3’ off site signs with a temporary permit and Mr. Ence indicated Ence Homes is agreeable with that recommendation. Glen Ravenberg of 1026 E. Anillo Court, Valerie Noel Ciardi of 966 E. Mesa Vista Drive and Lisa Rutherford of 173 N. Painted Hills Drive expressed concerns with where the signs would be placed; if the signs would be allowed in the public right-of-ways and roundabouts; public safety concerns relating to being a safety hazard, distraction or obstructing visibility and; how Ivins would look. Steve Davis with the Southern Utah Home Builder Association indicated the signs would not be placed in the public right-of-way nor would they be a safety hazard, distraction or affect visibility and clarified that the current ordinance states where signs are allowed. Kevin Rudd clarified the City allows small off site signage that is 2x2 in size and a permit can be obtained for two (2) of those in the City’s right-of-way. Roundabouts are off limits and if the City feels there is a safety or sight problem, they’re asked to move them. If they are placed on private property, the property owner would need to consent or it would not be allowed. There being no further comments, Mayor Hart moved onto the next Public Hearing item.
5) Chapter 12, Section 16.12.113(5) and Appendix A Written Text regarding three domestic horses in Padre Canyon: Kevin Rudd indicated the proposal is to increase domestic livestock in Padre Canyon Estates phases one (1) through four (4) from two (2) domestic horses to three (3) domestic horses on lots one (1) acre or larger. The Planning Commission has recommended denial of this amendment. Council Member Elwell stated not much is required for a lot line adjustment and inquired if there were any lots in Padre Canyon Estates that could be adjusted. Kevin Rudd indicated a lot line adjustment is possible. Council Member Densley inquired about the City adopting Padre Canyon Estates CC&R’s (covenants, conditions and restrictions). Mayor Hart clarified that the City doesn’t adopt CC&R’s. The City adopted the Written Text for that project as part of Ivins zoning ordinance. The CC&R’s are a non-issue as far as the City Council is concerned. He requested if there was someone who was the designated spokesman for the pros and cons of this issue, and that would be appreciated. The point of a public hearing is to provide factual information to assist the Council to make a prudent decision and if possible he requested that the same information not be repeated again and again and that comments be held to not more than 5 minutes. The applicant Steven Weida of 63 S. Padre Canyon Drive stated his request is to limit the number of horses from two (2) horses to three (3) horses for lots greater than one (1) acre. He and his family moved to Ivins in August 2004 and moved to Padre Canyon Estates because of the ability to keep horses and the rural nature of the area. He has two (2) daughters that are involved in 4-H and indicated horses are an excellent teaching tool for kids. When he met with the City to make this change, he was told that he would need to go through a zone change and change the CC&R’s so he started with the CC&R’s. Padre Canyon Estates Phases one (1) and two (2) have the same CC&R’s and phases three (3) and four (4) have different CC&R’s. There are twenty-three (23) lots in Padre Canyon Estates that are greater than one (1) acre, with one of those being owned by Ivins City. Currently there are five (5) lots out of 119 lots where the owners have horses on those lots. Phase four (4) had their CC&R’s amended to allow for more horses. Attorney Daren Barney who was then the Mayor, handled the legal work that amended those CC&R’s. Mr. Weida referred to four (4) elements for the City Council to consider: 1) Welfare of the people; 2) Animals; 3) Property values and; 4) Sentiment within the community. He indicated the minimum setback requirements for horses, corrals, enclosures and the like would not change if this amendment was approved. The natural problems with smells and flies are eliminated by keeping the property clean and he cleans the corrals at least once a day. He referred to manure management and stated the Ivins City Park and Recreation Department has agreed to take manure on a periodic basis for fertilizer. Regarding the welfare of the animals, the sizes of his corrals are large and more than adequate and each animal has it’s own shelter. There are no set standards for corral size and he would not be opposed to the imposition of minimal standards city wide. Regarding property values, Padre Canyon Estates has been designated as a horse property since it was first developed. Perspective horse property buyers will pay a premium to maintain their animals on their property. Regarding sentiment in the community, that is best expressed by the fact that Mr. Weida amended their CC&R’s that allow for the keeping of three (3) horses on lots greater than an acre. Mr. Weida referred to a letter from Attorney Greg B. Walker stating that in his legal opinion, the process Mr. Weida followed to amend the CC&R’s for Padre Canyon Estates phases one (1) and two (2) were valid and enforceable. Mayor Hart opened the Public Hearing for this item. The following spoke in support of amending the ordinance to allow three (3) domestic horses on lots that are one (1) acre or larger, indicating they purchased their property because it was horse property and although some owners do not have horses, they wanted that option and having a horse property increases the value of their property. They stated Mr. Weida’s horse area is immaculate, well taken care of, the corrals are more than adequate and there is no odor or fly problem: Cindy Tate, Phase 4; Larry Newell, Phase 1; Rachelle Ehlert, Phase 3; Cynthia Hutchison, Kayenta; George Felt, Phase 1; Jim Hatzidakis, Phase 2; Ellis Harlin, Phase 1; Diana Tamasick, Phase 2 and; Kimberly Davis, trainer/handler for a large number of animals. The following spoke in opposition to the amendment, stating they knew their property was horse property when they purchased it and have no problem with the current restriction of two (2) horses; there is no compelling reason to allow more than two (2) horses; opinions differ regarding property values; there have been issues with manure and smell; the amendment to the CC&R’s was done improperly, contains several errors and should be null and void; one (1) acre is not a lot of land when there is a home, yard and area for horses; Mr. Weida has been a chronic violator of the law and; Mr. Weida has found a way to keep three (3) horses on or near his lot without a zone change, by utilizing the adjacent lot: David Hunt, Phase 1; Keith Nielsen, Phase 1; Gary Oyler, Phase 1; Melanie Hunt, Phase 1; Glen Ravenberg, Phase 1; Valerie Noel Ciardi, Phase 1; Carol Leavitt, Phase 1 and Barbara Rusick, Phase 1. There being no further comments, Mayor Hart closed the Public Hearing. The City Council meeting was in recess from 8:00 p.m.-8:10 p.m.
The Mayor and City Council discussed the following Public Hearing items:
1) Chapter 28, Section 16.28.103 allowing a Special Exception for relocation of existing signs in the public right-of-way:
Council Member McDonald indicated he spoke with Mike Guisinger and Mr. Guisinger indicated to him that he is fine with whatever the City Council recommends. The Mayor and other Council Members agreed with the Planning Commissions recommendations.*
2) Chapter 12, Section 16.12.104(4a) regarding larger attached garages in residential zones:
The Mayor and other Council Members agreed with the Planning Commissions recommendations.*
3) Chapter 12, Section 16.12.103(9) regarding storage containers on large lots:
Council Member Elwell and Council Member Mendenhall agreed with the Planning Commissions recommendations. Council Member Elwell stated the containers are made of high gauged steel and are designed to transport items overseas, roll off and stack on ships. They have poor ventilation and are an eye sore. They would be a safety issue and any number of health situations could arise from that type of apparatus being in a back yard. It would be a health, safety and welfare problem for the City to allow storage containers. Council Member Mendenhall agreed with a lot of Council Member Elwell’s statements but suggested as an alternative to allow storage containers in the Historic Township area only. Council Member Roberts and Council Member Densley disagreed with the Planning Commission’s recommendations and supported storage containers being allowed if they are concealed. Council Member McDonald stated he doesn’t have a problem with storage containers being allowed. Council Member Roberts indicated that comments at the Planning Commission regarding the storage containers being unsightly or ugly are a difference of opinion. Property owners have the right to chose what is in their yard. Trampolines and swimming pools are safety hazards. A well maintained container is no different than a well maintained out building and the Washington County School District uses storage containers where there are many children around the containers. They are also used by church groups in a modified way to house girls’ camp. A storage container is located across the street from the Police Department and the majority of people do not know it’s there and it isn’t negatively affecting anyone because it isn’t seen. Council Member Densley isn’t sure about allowing storage containers that are twenty feet (20’) long but indicated they are available in shorter lengths. He also has no problem if the neighbors approve of the storage units and they are screened in some way. Mayor Hart stated if storage containers are allowed and there are problems with them, those that are in existence will be grandfathered in if the ordinance needs to be changed.
4) Chapter 21, Section 16.21.118 and Table 21-2 regarding changing the real estate sign regulations:
Council Member Elwell indicated he supports the Planning Commissions recommendation with a possible compromise on the first preference of a 5 foot diameter balloon raised during high traffic community events such as the Parade of Homes, Senior Games, Ironman/Fitness Festival although he would want clarification on the "etc.". Regarding the request to place 2, 3x7 flags raised to the height of 20 feet at each entrance, he stated that flags can create a horrible noise in the wind and he does not see the need for those. Regarding the request for a temporary identification sign, he likes what the Planning Commission recommended. Council Member Mendenhall indicated she attended the Planning Commission meeting in its entirety. The Planning Commission agreed to allow the balloon only for the Parade of Homes but she agreed with Council Member Elwell to include Parade of Homes, Senior Games, Ironman/Fitness Festival. She is not in favor of flags and agreed with the Planning Commission’s recommendation for a temporary identification sign and has no problem with the temporary identification sign being a total of ten feet (10") in height. She is not in favor of any additional off premise directional signs.
Council Member Roberts stated the Council needs to understand that the developers are trying to market their homes, which benefits Ivins City with impact fees, less dust and weed nuisance problems and less time the neighbors have to deal with construction and noise. Flying a balloon one time a year isn’t effective marketing. He is in favor of allowing the balloon on weekends, holidays and during the Parade of Homes and indicated a ten foot (10’) sign should be allowed. He is also in favor of the flags. Council Member McDonald indicated he is in favor of option b (weekends during the developers top selling seasons, Feb-May & Sep-Nov) or option c (during high traffic community events like the Parade of Homes, Senior Games and Ironman/Fitness Festival) and more likely option c. He is in favor of the flags and feels they are a benefit and he is in favor of the temporary identification sign being a total height of ten feet (10’). Council Member Densley has no problem with a balloon on weekends and holidays and has no problem with the flags. He thinks that anything the City can do to market the developers’ product he is in favor of. He has no problem with the other requests. Mayor Hart reminded the Council that temporary identification signs are for the length of the development, which could be ten (10) years or more.
5) Chapter 12, Section 16.12.113(5) and Appendix A Written Text regarding three domestic horses in Padre Canyon:
Council Member Elwell likes Mr. Weida’s operation however his decision is not and cannot be based on the applicant's operation. He opposes the amendment for the following reasons: 1) Once in place the ordinance would allow similar operations in Padre Canyon by others who may not employ best practices relative to sanitation and exercise and care of the animals; 2) simple lot line adjustments could potentially create a plethora of full acre lots which would then be eligible for similar activity; 3) Padre Canyon is one of six (6) subdivisions with a written text adopted by Ivins City as partial zoning or land use limitations/allowances for the respective subdivisions. That was done years ago and was expedient for the time. The City now has a comprehensive zoning ordinance and he firmly believes that changes to any of the previously adopted written text should be changes that would embrace consistency with the ordinance and not increase the divide between the two. The proposed amendment would move the Padre Canyon written text even further outside the umbrella of Ivins zoning ordinance and; 4) several years ago it was proposed to eliminate all large animals from all residential property throughout the City, including Padre Canyon and the .88 acre old township lots. He opposed that and argued that people purchased property that allowed them to have large animals and that right should not be taken from them unneccesarily. His present position is consistent with his previous argument. Everyone, including Mr. Weida, purchased property in Padre Canyon knowing there was a large animal limitation set at two (2). In his opinion the maximum number of large animals should remain at two (2). Council Member McDonald is in favor of not amending the ordinance and keeping the number of horses allowed to two (2). Council Member Mendenhall is in favor of not amending the ordinance and keeping the number of horses allowed to two (2). She visited Mr. Weida’s property and it is spectacularly well kept but not all people take care of their animals the way Mr. Weida does and she feels if more than two (2) horses are allowed, it would change the character of the neighborhood. Horses are pack animals and she would like the Council to consider allowing adjoining property owners to open up their fences and allow the horses to co-mingle. She would prefer to see less fencing and see the horses walk free so long as the ordinance is not defied and people don’t place more horses than are allowed. Council Member Roberts visited Mr. Weida’s property, which was immaculate. Council Member Roberts has had some experience with horses and indicated having one (1) or eight (8) horses, the smell is the same. He doesn’t see a problem with amending the ordinance to allow three (3) horses. Regarding Council Member Mendenhall’s proposal, he agreed with that. Council Member Densley abstained. Dale Coulam referred to Council Member Mendehall’s suggestion to allow the horses to co-mingle and clarified that suggestion would be a different amendment and it would be appropriate to give the public notice to be heard on that.
*A copy of the Planning Commission’s recommendations is available by request through Ivins City Hall or may be viewed in the Planning Commission Minutes dated February 28, 2012.