Dale Coulam indicated this ordinance is a Land Use amendment and should be consistent with the General Plan. He reminded the City Council that when they make motions, they should make findings in the motion that the ordinance is consistent with the General Plan. The legal standard is that the connection has to have some reasonable basis. Mayor Hart inquired of the Council which issues needed additional discussion. Council Member Elwell requested additional discussion on the real estate flags and the overseas containers. Council Member Mendenhall requested that holidays be outlined as to when the real estate balloon can be raised. She also agreed with Council Member Elwell’s requests for additional discussion. Council Member Elwell stated he wants to be sure that not just this Council but that the people understand the origin of Ivins General Plan and how important it is from his perspective relative to Ivins direction. He read the following statement: "I was privileged to spend two years on the City Council with Marie Hansen, Sandy Ransom and unfortunately only a few months with Pete Pearson. Since then I have served with Michael Foot, Carol Tenczar, Barbara Rusick, Steve Jolley and Mayor Barney. All good people. While each of us had differing views and thought processes, there was a common denominator, we each embraced the General Plan as the way to the future for our City. Over the years I have heard comment "not mean spirited" but reflective of attitudes towards those of us serving on prior councils. A few of the comments: "interlopers", "Johnny come lately", and my favorite "Not one of us". Another remark relative to those comments "it’s not my General Plan". To me, the implication is clear and it concerns me. I now have the privilege to serve with Cheyne, Leslie, Steve, Ron and Mayor Hart. All good people. I offer the following with the greatest admiration and respect for Councilors past and present and do so for purpose of clarifying whose General Plan it is and to clearly state my perception of the plan and my position on the matters before us. I and those I have served with on the Ivins City Council and City Staff have not only embraced the General Plan but have been diligent in following the goals, policies and dictates contained therein. The General Plan we "inherited" was adopted January 20th, 2000 by Council Members Sandy Ransom, Doug Little, Marie Hansen, Dale Butler, Walter Pete Pearson and Mayor Chris Blake. The General Plan we hold today is essentially the same as was adopted twelve (12) years ago by those highly respected and dedicated civic leaders. Even the casual reader will find that the 2000 General Plan and the current General Plan embrace the same goals, policies and action plan. In fact in many cases, if not in most instances, the wording is verbatim. I don’t believe any of us could create a better blue print for the future than that which is in hand. I believe those who accepted the responsibility for creating and adopting a plan for this City’s future, demonstrated great wisdom in what they produced and adopted. They recognized that the way to be prosperous and to ensure a sustainable future for the City, was to be forward thinking, plan for the future and create an environment that would not only be conducive to economic development but would attract or draw business ventures to this most special place. They were concerned with sustaining and increasing individual and collective property values and drafted a document, that if followed, would accomplish that. To this end they established standard, goals and policies designed to create a viable, virbrant and "competitive" City. To ensure that their blueprint for success would be followed, they directed that a "consistency" resolution be adopted requiring "all" land use decisions to be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Additionally, they required that the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance be revised to ensure compatibility with the General Plan. This was accomplished. "Things existing" that were contrary to the established goals and policies, were grandfathered. Implicit therein was the intent that further proliferation of non-conforming uses would not be allowed. Our charge as I see it, our stewardship, is to promote the health, safety and welfare of the whole and not to promote the few over the many. We are to provide leadership and direction, not acquiescence to each individual’s request for amendment or exception...when such requests are in contravention to the goals and policies of our blueprint for the future...our General Plan. Corporations, businesses, investors are not attracted to "backward trending" communities. They research and seek out forward thinking cities. They seek investment opportunities in communities with direction, goals and policies that promote stability and sustainability. It would seem that if it is our goal to "attract and sustain businesses", to create a strong economic base and reduce our dependency on property taxes to fund our required and necessary services, we would then make our decisions in consonance with our General Plan and not in contravention to it. In doing so we give ourselves, our citizens and our City the best opportunity for economic development and future sustainability. Some of what is before us in contravention to the General Plan and is the antithesis of forward thinking and sound municipal planning. I offer as corroborative data, the General Plan dated January 20, 2000 referencing pages 4, 5, 24, 25 and 28 and Ordinance No. 2000-5 and I offer our current General Plan adopted July 10, 2008 referencing pages 7, 8, 29, 38 and 39. This is offered in opposition to the proposal to allow overseas container boxes as auxiliary "buildings" and signage relative to the Ence Development request, specifically flags."
Council Member Roberts appreciated Council Member Elwell’s thoughts but indicated he has a different interpretation of the General Plan, specifically on the issues Council Member Elwell brought up and feels that they are consistent with the General Plan. Goals, policies and aspirations change and as the laws and ordinances are implemented, people become aware of how much liberty is taken away from them. As he reads the General Plan, in order to be consistent, the City is supposed to allow for a variety of housing types and attractive functional neighborhoods to meet all needs of all income levels. Also to encourage the preservation of areas for a rural lifestyle. He referred to the storage containers and stated he has seen some photos of containers that when they’re modified, painted and the like, look better than some auxiliary buildings and will last longer. A lot that is .88 of an acre is a large, rural lot. Regarding screening, he suggested the storage containers be screened as RV’s are required to be screened. A compromise to storage containers being allowed throughout would be that they are only allowed in the Historic Township area. Council Member Roberts referred to the real estate flags and to goals in the General Plan and stated that one of the goals encourages growth in areas and at levels that can reasonably be sustained by City services. The City is also encouraged to infill development to efficiently utilize existing urbanized areas and facilities. He indicated that the location of the Ence Homes is basically an infill area in the City that has become developed. The City should encourage growth in those areas, especially to get the subdivisions completed. He agreed with Council Member Mendenhall regarding stating State and Federal holidays the flags and balloons would be allowed to fly on.
Council Member Densley indicated nothing is cast in concrete and things change with time and events. He understood that the real estate balloon would be allowed to be up on weekends and holidays and would like to see that allowed. Regarding the storage containers he would like to see them allowed if they are screened and agreed with Council Member Roberts regarding the ability for the containers to look good.
Council Member Mendenhall agreed 100% with Council Member Elwell. The Planning Commission and City Council worked incredibly hard to come up with a vision for the City to move it forward and attract the type of commercial that will bring the population to Ivins because of who and what Ivins is and what Ivins has in place. She is ademently opposed to Ivins looking like Bluff Street or St. George Boulevard. In order to attract hi-tech oriented businesses, medical facilities, the high end hospitality industry and the like, those companies are watching communities in Southern Utah to see where they’re going, what they’re doing and what they’re putting in place. Regarding the real estate signage, she is still of the same opinion as the last City Council meeting. She doesn’t mind the balloon being up on State and Federal holidays and during specific events. She indicated the General Plan regarding appearance policies states very clearly "to assure the community appearance efforts are working in harmony with the following guidelines will be used to bring an overall consistency in the City’s character and appearance." Signage - "Encourage fewer, more modest signs which are easily read but do not compete with each other in size or design." Flags and balloons are not modest. As far as storage containers are concerned, she is still of the opinion that they are in direct conflict with the General Plan. The Historic Township Overlay gives an option if the Council wants to apply it but she is against storage containers being allowed throughout the City. There are other options to store items. Although she appreciates Council Member Roberts’ stand, she doesn’t believe that not allowing storage containers is taking away life, liberty and happiness of any individual. The Council has to be cognizant of our neighbors and community; where the City is going as a whole and who the City is. In certain instances the whole has to be considered rather than the individual. She does not want to see the flags allowed, would like to identify the holidays that the balloon will be allowed and not allow storage containers.
Council Member McDonald agreed that storage containers should not be allowed throughout the City. He lives in the Historic Township and would rather look at a storage container than some of the stuff individuals store on their lots. Regarding the signs, he tried to look at it from a selling standpoint because the developers are selling Ivins community. The signs are temporary but could last a long time. He is in favor of the flags on specific days and doesn’t see them as anything that is going to hurt anything or be unsightly.
Mayor Hart stated that the day after the last City Council meeting he had lunch with the Executive Director for commercial development and the Regional Director for commercial development for a large company whose name the Council would likely recognize. The City has three (3) significant development opportunities that Ivins has been courting and promoting and there are some very hopeful signs that some really good things could be coming Ivins’ way. The first ten (10) minutes of the lunch meeting was dominated by storage containers in Ivins. Mayor Hart explained away that Ivins likely wasn’t looking at those being a general thing throughout the City and that there may be some screening options or ideas. He referred to what Council Member Mendenhall mentioned, companies that specialize in commercial development hire very savvy people whose job it is to study the environments that they are considering, come to understand the ordinances and digest the General Plan. The companies the Mayor referred to would be coming to Ivins because of the General Plan and the work the Planning Commission is doing with the commercial zoning ordinance. The City needs to be very careful that as the City makes decisions about what we think is appropriate for one or a few individuals to be able to do, that the City is not shooting the community in the foot in terms of other important opportunities the City has declared it wants to see occur in Ivins. Ivins’ current population or its population at build-out will never bring the kind of businesses that are outlined in the General Plan nor will the amount of traffic that will ever flow through Ivins bring those businesses to Ivins. There’s only one thing that’s going to bring the kinds of businesses the City wants to see come to Ivins and that is Ivins’ image. If the Council looks to casually change the General Plan, the Council would be risking some very important aspects of Ivins’ future. Council Member McDonald inquired if in the Mayor’s discussion at the lunch meeting if the individuals indicated that having storage units in Ivins would hinder them from coming to Ivins. Mayor Hart indicated that was not the object of their luncheon meeting and the Mayor deflected a couple of questions about it but it was obvious that in their mind that the idea of allowing storage containers flew in the face of their understanding of what Ivins’ General Plan was outlining. Council Member McDonald stated his struggle was whether he would rather look at a container or would he rather look at junk in someone’s yard. He’s not necessarily trying to accommodate the few although it likely is just a few. Some property owners that have junk in their yard may not go to the expense of buying a container to hide their stuff. With that and with the possibility of a few things in the balance, he withdrew his recommendation to allow storage containers and doesn’t feel it would be good for the whole.
Mayor Hart indicated there are three (3) Council Members who favor real estate flags being allowed. The Mayor and City Council agreed there needs to be clarification as to which State and Federal holidays the balloon will be allowed. With the majority consensus, a balloon would be allowed during the Senior Games, the Marathon, the Parade of Homes and the Ironman/Fitness Festival as well as State and Federal holidays. Weekends are excluded. Two Council Members wanted it to be allowed on the weekends. Council Member McDonald suggested that the balloon could be allowed once a quarter for a weekend with the developer choosing the time during that quarter. Council Member Roberts suggested being able to make a motion and vote on the particular items separately rather than a whole.
Dale Coulam stated it is a single ordinance and would present a problem with no majority vote in favor of the ordinance itself.
Council Member McDonald indicated that due to the changes made, he would prefer to table the ordinance and see it re-written. The Mayor and City Council agreed.
MOTION: Council Member Densley moved to table Ordinance No. 2012-02 until the next City Council meeting for Staff to re-write the proposed ordinance change and study it better
SECOND: Council Member McDonald
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Council Member Elwell |
AYE |
| Council Member McDonald |
AYE |
| Council Member Mendenhall |
AYE |
| Council Member Roberts |
AYE |
| Council Member Densley |
AYE |