Kevin Rudd reported that this Final Plat is for Phase I of Desert Rose Subdivision and consists of fifteen (15) lots. The subdivision is zoned R-1-10 (Min. lot size = 10,000 sq ft) with a Subdivision Enhancement Overlay (SEO). The City Council approved a density bonus during the Preliminary Plan review. The lots are smaller than 10,000 sq. ft., and they are not based on lot sizes but on density. This subdivision extends from 400 East to 200 East. The park is approximately 2.5 acres located on 200 East and will be built jointly by the owner and the City. The first phase complies with the Preliminary Plan which was approved by the City Council. The Technical Review Committee (TRC) reviewed the Final Plat, it complies with the City ordinances and the TRC recommends approval.
Commissioner Benson inquired about what criteria they had to meet for the density bonus.
Kevin Rudd stated there are three areas that can receive a density bonus. A full 10% for Open Space was allowed for the park but it came down to the third density bonus which covers convenience of layout and unique features. The City Council struggled with allowing the density bonus as they did during the Mojave Estates review but the Council members felt that the plan justified allowing the density bonus.
Dale Coulam explained that some concessions were given to the neighboring subdivision. One lot was removed along the boundary line with Heritage Estates making those lots larger. Also, there was some height restrictions. The subdivision was originally approved a couple of years ago but the Development Agreement was amended earlier this year. The Development Agreement has been approved, signed and is ready to be recorded. The Final Plat does not have to be conditioned upon approval of the Development Agreement.
Kevin Rudd mentioned that the Preliminary Plan was approved eighteen (18) months ago. The applicants let the approval time of the Preliminary Plan go to the maximum time allowed, and then requested a onetime extension. The Preliminary Plan expires the first week in June. Therefore, the Final Plat needs to be approved in order for them not to lose the Preliminary Plan approval.
Chair Murphy noted that there was a Public Hearing on the Preliminary Plan and Heritage Estates residents commented about the height restrictions, etc.
Commissioner Anderson thought the applicants also agreed to hip roofs and offsetting the homes.
Kevin Rudd commented that those specifics would be in the Development Agreement.
MOTION: Commissioner Todd Benson moved to approve of a Final Plat on Desert Rose Phase 1 located at 950 South between 200 East and 400 East. SCAT, LLC, owner and Ken Miller, agent
SECOND: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chair Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner Lance Anderson |
AYE |
| Commissioner Todd Benson |
AYE |
| Commissioner Jeffrey Loris |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
ABSENT |
The Commissioners begin their discussion by reviewing comments submitted by Commissioner Scott (copy of his comments available at Ivins City office). Revisions were made to the following sections:
16.19.102 Site Planning Requirements:
(2) (a) Sensitivity to Adjacent Buildings: delete "shall/should" and the comment
(4) (a) Arrangement: change "practical to practicable"
(5) (b) Views into and through the site: add - "See the Development Standards Non-Residential in Section 16.33.105, Table 33-5.
(6) Landscape Design Standards: change "provide" to "provides", "blend" to "blends" and "highlight" to "highlights"
(6) (a) Landscape Buffers and (b) Transitional Landscape Areas: The Commissioners discussed Commissioner Scott’s question on how wide the landscape buffer should be when commercial is next to single-family residential and options on how commercial can transition to residential.
Commissioner Loris noted that the ordinance states that it needs to match the landscape if next to residential. He asked if the buffer should match the off street parking buffer requirement of three foot (3’) high wall and a minimum twelve foot (12’) wide buffer but Commissioner Benson wasn’t sure if twelve (12’) would be enough buffer for residential. The ordinance just says landscape buffers shall be provided. Commissioner Anderson asked if it should be the setbacks for the house as per zoning requirements. Kevin Rudd advised that the current zoning states when commercial is next to residential it would have the same side setbacks as residential. Landscape buffers in residential areas are dictated by the Transportation Master Plan and are based upon the size of the street the development abuts. If the subdivision fronts a street, the front yards become the landscape buffers. Landscape buffers are not required by the developers on the property lines. The Red Mountain Market is a good example because it backs up to residential and has a ten foot (10’) setback, and the back of the building is not architecturally pleasing. Looking at a block wall is a problem for residential.
Commissioner Anderson felt that Item 6 (a) refers to a transitional landscape area from residential to commercial and does not refer to street buffers. He asked if we were trying to create a gradual transition between commercial and residential or saying the zone dictates where the building can go and commercial can put whatever they want next to the property line. In most Neighborhood Commercial zones there is not enough space to do a transition from residential to commercial. The Red Mountain Market is a good example where it is pushed to the limits. Kevin Rudd explained that a commercial area has to be completely finished unless there is a future phase but the ordinance doesn’t specify if there is a building abutting, like Red Mountain Market, that the space needs to be landscaped. In residential the street landscape buffer is the only landscape buffer the City requires. In the rear yards of subdivisions there are no landscape requirements. Residents can plant whatever they want.
The Commissioners discussed the options of using trees to buffer a building, requiring a rear building to have a facade, and requirements for all sides of commercial buildings to be architecturally designed. Commissioner Benson noted that the architectural design of commercial buildings is covered in the ordinance under the Building Design Requirements under Coherent Building Design which states, "All sides of a building may have a visual or other impact, and shall be coherently designed and treated."
Commissioner Anderson interprets the landscape buffers in this section as saying when there is a dissimilar land use there needs to be a buffer to break up the dissimilar land use. An example would be if the VA Nursing Facility backed up to a subdivision, would it need landscape to give those people already living there that level of peacefulness that the front is required along the street? He felt that it is saying that commercial should gradually step out of commercial and soften the area before it gets to open space. There is some concern because there are commercial areas already existing and would not allow this but if it’s a blank page it could be done. It is saying that every building is a park like setting all the way around the building. Some of it is not reasonable and we need to be careful. Kevin Rudd explained that there is nothing in the ordinance that requires landscape buffer between the buildings.
Commissioner Benson suggested deleting, "Landscape buffers shall be provided for off street parking and service areas" because it is covered under Parking Lot Landscaping. Service areas refer to loading docks, garbage dumpsters, etc.
Commissioner Loris gave an example of the Red Mountain Market and the Barber Shop location. If the front was landscaped and had two block walls on each side, would that be considered a landscape since it blocks the commercial? Commissioner Anderson felt that additional landscape may not be needed if there is a fence but trees still help to buffer a building. Chair Murphy felt it would be difficult to have a gradual transition if there is a chain link fence or block wall. Kevin Rudd advised that fencing is required in all commercial, industrial and multifamily zones having a common lot line with single family residential zones with a six foot (6’) high solid masonry or similar fence. There is a wall required when abutting the residential. Commissioner Loris commented the ordinance allows a fence as a buffer between residential and commercial.
The Commissioners asked Dale Coulam’s interpretation of "Landscape buffers between dissimilar or conflicting land uses shall be provided." Dale Coulam agreed that’s what the ordinance says but said it could be defined as Kevin Rudd mentioned that there’s a requirement for a block wall, so what are we transitioning into? If there is a block wall, does that separate it without any transition? It is vague and difficult to apply. Perhaps trees would help but the design of the building requirements will also help. The neighboring resident isn’t going to see low lying desert plants because of the block wall. Are we trying to require that trees be planted around the perimeter of the dissimilar use? If a block wall is required, then the only landscape that could be seen is a tree. A specific area for trees does not have to be defined. It could be left up to the developer to design behind or to the side of the building. If there’s a driveway access to the back of the building, it would have to be wide enough to accommodate a tree planter as well as a vehicle. Some flexibility could be allowed for the developer rather than a specific width requirement. But if the goal is to have trees, it should be stated in the ordinance.
Kevin Rudd explained that where properties abut a public road and the parking lot areas, the ordinance is very definitive giving actual areas and the number of feet. The ordinance does not say how many feet for other property lines. There’s no direction. That’s why Staff, during the reviewing process, has not made any recommendation to require minimum landscaping on interior property lines.
Dale Coulam asked if there was a requirement to provide some landscaping of trees and some setback requirements, wouldn’t that give the developer some flexibility to decide where to place those trees and what the width is and how it works? So, if the developer wants a driveway, there has to be room enough for a tree plus a vehicle. That defines how wide it should be. The side of the property could be a minimum setback and if it sufficient to plant trees then that would be okay.
Commissioner Anderson commented they need to look at it as landscape buffer above the fence instead of below the fence. The architectural, landscaping and the block wall are things that soften the building wall.
After further discussion on whether to require trees to soften the building and the spacing of trees, the Commissioners had some concerns about requiring trees because residents may not want trees, it blocks the Red Mountain view and trees hanging over the wall cause trespass and debris issues. Dale Coulam suggested language that there needs to be some type of landscaping to soften the effects of the building to the adjoining dissimilar use.
The Commissioners were trying to soften the building but had concerns that trees should not be planted next to the wall, trees could cause structural problems to walls and foundation when planted too close to the buildings, and concerns about storage and shipping areas having to be landscaped.
Commissioner Anderson suggested leaving it to interpretation and leaving it to the developer to show how the building will be softened. The purpose of buffering is to give some protection to existing residents or future residents.
The Commissioners agreed on the following language for Item 6 (a) as follows: "Landscape buffers between dissimilar or conflicting land uses shall be provided to soften the effects of any adjacent commercial building and/or service area."
Item 6 (b) Transitional Landscaped Areas: After some discussions the Commissioners agreed not to change the text for this item.
16.19.103 Building Design Requirements:
(1) Delete: "The following building design requirements shall apply: and notations (first paragraph) and (second paragraph)"
(1) (v) Reduced Roof Mass: change to read - "Roof pitches below 4:12 are strongly encouraged" Roof pitches of 8:12 and steeper that resolve in a ridge line are prohibited."
(1) (f) Mechanical Equipment: change to read - "Sound Transmission Class (STC)"
(2) Building Scale: change to read - "and not dominate the surrounding uses and natural features."
(4) Building Materials and Texture: change to read - Exterior building materials shall be compatible with and similar to the surrounding landscape in type, texture, color and character.
(4) (a) (i) Native Stone: delete - "red rock"
(4) (b) (iii) Delete: Metal Buildings are not allowed except in Commercial Industrial zone. Change to read: "Metal"
(4) (iv) Change "Painted" to "Patinaed"
Commissioner Benson felt the original diagrams in the Zoning Ordinance are nice diagrams. He asked if he should redo the diagrams.
Chair Murphy did not think they should be redone if he felt they captured what they are trying to say.
Commissioner Benson mentioned that some diagrams will need to be inserted but they want match the diagrams already done. The Commissioners felt they did not have to match.
Other grammatical changes will be corrected in the document as per discussions, and the diagrams from the original Zoning Ordinance will be emailed to Commissioner Benson.
Chair Murphy encouraged the Commissioners to review the previous minutes where they discussed Commercial Neighborhood about retaining the current uses, having a component of residential above the commercial, the percentage requirement, and an offset of the second floor to the lower level. Also, review the discussion about commercial resort zone and making it one mixed use zone. Currently, there is RMU Village, RMU Town Center. Review their discussion to change the Industrial zone to Commercial Light Manufacturing, review the uses for the Business Park Professional zone and the Table of Uses. Commissioner Benson will review the diagrams and send them to the Commissioners prior to the next meeting. Also, review the definitions of the zones. Commissioner Scott has submitted some information on the definitions. Commissioner Reed spent some time talking about the difference between an art studio and an art workshop. She asked that they think about creating two separate uses. The conceptual difference is that one has retail and one does not.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the zones have been defined. He felt there are too many zones when trying to apply them.
Chair Murphy advised that the Commissioners have defined the zones but they are not set in stone and some of the definitions were defined by Gould/Evans.
Commissioner Anderson commented that Ivins does not have that commercial element and felt it should be done through the site guidelines instead of zones. As long as a building meets the building and parking requirements, what does it matter what is on the inside of the building.
Chair Murphy explained that the zone definitions are more of what the use is intended for. She read the current definitions.