CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS:
The meeting was called to order at
05:30 p.m. All present included
Chair Adel Murphy,
Commissioner Lance Anderson,
Commissioner Todd Benson,
and Commissioner Jeffrey Loris.
STAFF: City Manager Judy Gubler, City Attorney Dale Coulam, Building and Zoning Administrator Kevin Rudd, and Deputy City Recorder Martha Wilson
AUDIENCE: Claudette Larsen and Mayor Hart
|
A. |
Acknowledgement of Quorum |
Chair Murphy acknowledged there was a quorum.
Commissioner Benson led the Flag Salute.
Commissioner Loris led the Invocation.
There were no disclosures or conflicts of interest with this meeting’s agenda.
|
2) |
REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS (None) |
|
3) |
BUSINESS LICENSES (None) |
Kevin Rudd reported the proposed casita is located on 86 Docena Drive in Padre Canyon Phase 1. Currently, it is an existing detached garage to be converted into a casita. The building complies with the ordinance and it is less than 30% of the primary footprint structure minus the attached garage. It meets the setbacks, has the same building materials and siding as the house, and has off street parking. Staff recommends approval.
Chair Murphy opened the Public Hearing and after hearing no response closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION: Commissioner Todd Benson moved to approve a Class IV Conditional Use Application for a Casita/Guesthouse located at 86 S. Docena Drive. Joseph McCaul, applicant
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 |
Kevin Rudd reported this amendment changes the Subdivision Ordinance’s warranty period from one (1) year to two (2) years on subdivision improvements. City Engineer Chuck Gillette recommended this change.
Dale Coulam explained that the Standard Specifications were amended by the City Council requiring a two (2) year warranty. This amendment brings the Subdivision Ordinance in compliance with the specifications which were amended more than a year ago.
Commissioner Anderson inquired about requirements in other cities and the rationale behind changing the Standard Specifications.
Dale Coulam explained that Chuck Gillette would have to answer the question about the change in the specifications.
Commissioner Loris asked if the City Council’s amendment on the specifications supersedes the one (1) year warranty.
Dale Coulam stated the Subdivision Ordinance still applied because it is law.
Commissioner Anderson stated that since he has been in construction it has always been one (1) year. It is better for the City but it could stop growth, it’s inconvenient, a letter of credit is already hard to get and it’s another year holding the funds.
Chair Murphy opened the Public Hearing and with no response closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Loris stated that he hasn’t developed land and since Commissioner Anderson has the most experience in that field, he asked if there have been any problems with any subdivisions within the one (1) year warranty or two (2) years where you have had to come back after a twelve month period and make arrangements with the homeowner.
Commissioner Anderson stated that as a contractor he has never done that kind of a warranty. If there is an issue, they try to solve it.
Commissioner Loris commented that up to two (2) years the developer would be liable and be responsible to improve any problems or errors of any part of the subdivision.
Kevin Rudd explained the ordinance refers to public improvements (streets and utilities) that have been installed. It is 25% of the engineer’s estimated cost of improvements and it is in the form of a bond. It’s in favor of the City but does incur a cost to the developer to have the bond out. An example is that the compaction may not have been done properly. It takes a period of time for those things to show up. If it happens after the one (1) year warranty, the City is stuck with the repairs.
Commissioner Anderson explained when that happens the developer passes it on to the subcontractor. Two (2) years changes the whole dynamics of the process. One (1) year is the normal time period.
Commissioner Loris noted with foundations earth movement can occur immediately afterwards or up to five (5) to six (6) years. Two (2) years doesn’t seem that much different than one (1) year.
Judy Gubler explained that Staff has discussed this for several years. She texted Chuck Gillette about why the warranty limit was changed in the specifications, and he texted that the reason was bad soils. The discussion tonight has been one (1) year versus two (2) years may not be that much of a difference but based on experience and discussions with Staff two (2) years would make a difference. This amendment is referring to public utilities and the primary concern is roads and the settling of water and sewer.
Commissioner Anderson advised it does not just apply to public improvements but also to private roads because this is the Subdivision Ordinance. The City holds the bond on a private subdivision for the term of the ordinance.
Kevin Rudd indicated that the warranty bond is held for private streets for one (1) year.
They discussed that 125% of the engineer’s estimate is retained for improvements. Then the 100% is released after improvements are completed and 25% is retained for the one (1) warranty period.
Commissioner Anderson understood the actual cost of the warranty bond to be 25% of the 125%. He commented that all cities have bad soils, the question is do we require something beyond the environment that’s around Ivins. He advised that he would vote "nay" to a motion until he understood why a change was made in the specifications.
Commissioner Loris did not see any difference in one (1) year and two (2) years when it comes to soils. There are some sands and blue clay as the land gets closer to Santa Clara. There is only one region in Ivins developed that would be a concern. A good geotechnical engineer and good contractor would not have a problem if they follow the recommendations. If recommendations are followed and there is an issue, it would fall back on the design professional. However, it does hold the money out for an additional twelve months which has to be planned for. It’s a lot of money to hold onto.
Kevin Rudd commented that when the roads fail because of soils whether it is ground water surfacing or clay that hasn’t been properly removed, the cost goes back on the taxpayer, and Ivins City has to do costly repairs after one (1) year.
Commissioner Anderson agreed if it is not built right. But ground water could be an argument and become a legal battle.
Chair Murphy commented that she had a problem with it falling back on taxpayers. She didn’t see that another year or the 25% being held another year as a big problem.
MOTION: Commissioner Todd Benson moved to recommend amending Title 15 Chapter 5, Section 15.05.906 of the Ivins City Code amending the Warranty Period for Subdivision Improvements. Ivins City, applicant
SECOND: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris
VOTE: The motion carried.
| Chair Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner Todd Benson |
AYE |
| Commissioner Jeffrey Loris |
AYE |
| Commissioner Lance Anderson |
NAY |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
ABSENT |
Chair Adel reported that at the previous meeting the Commissioners talked about the definition of Resort Mixed Use (RMU) and putting the parameters in Chapter 17. Commissioners Scott submitted some information for the new chapter on RMU (a copy is available at Ivins City offices).
Commissioner Benson commented that the verbiage in the definition states what they have been trying to do but he needed more explanation about the chart.
Commissioner Loris clarified that the square footage in the chart is the depth of the area. He explained the chart columns.
Chair Murphy read the definition and verbiage that would become part of Chapter 17 (a copy is available at Ivins City offices).
Commissioner Anderson suggested using the verbiage "residential" instead of "single family residential."
Chair Murphy agreed that they need to address the matching concept. If abutting single family, one story needs to abut to the same or if it is duplexes or condos, it should match. Apartments or two story condos cannot be put next to a residential neighborhood.
Commissioner Benson commented on the statement, "the required residential component above commercial may be reduced by two (2) square feet or residential floor area for every one (1) square foot of the footprint of the single-family buildings." He suggested restating it to say, "reduced by 50%." When talking large developments, two (2) square foot seems a little small.
Chair Murphy stated maybe it’s better to say if the developer has to use a buffer then the component is reduced by 50%.
Commissioner Benson explained that it means if the area is surrounded by residential and the buffer is there, and now we are saying they have to have some residential above in commercial, the developer can reduce the amount of square footage above commercial based on the amount of residential around the area. It’s giving a credit for the buffer if the developer has to put the buffer in.
Chair Murphy asked if the tables submitted should reflect larger parcels.
Commissioner Benson commented that 120,000 square feet would not accomplish much mixed use. The tables should be larger.
Commissioner Loris commented that Commissioner Scott indicated in his notes that a single family buffer would not work on smaller parcels smaller than an acre, etc. However, it’s not feasible in less than five (5) acres. How many third or quarter acre parcels can be put around the outside of a buffering area before running out of land for the commercial? There would need to be 10 to 40 acres before using up enough space for residential as a buffer.
Kevin Rudd suggested not putting the charts in the ordinance but they are good for discussion. The Land Use Plan parcels identified as Resort Mixed Use are larger parcels. The Land Use Plan has not identified any small parcels for this use.
Commissioner Anderson asked if a street would be considered as a buffer adjoining the commercial. This could affect the Coyote Gulch area if they had to put in 30% more housing. They wouldn’t have any more Coyote Gulch.
Kevin Rudd reminded them that the Zoning Ordinance still contains the mixed use component. On a smaller parcel a developer could still do a zone change to do a Mixed Use Overlay where they choose a commercial zone and a residential zone and mix those together. If someone wanted to do the Resort Mixed Use on a smaller parcel, he would suggest this component of the Zoning Ordinance.
He informed the Commission that he attended the League of Cities Conference. Three classes attended were on form based zone. It is based on the concept of taking an area of the City, designating it and writing a vision. That’s how they created City Creek Development. Salt Lake City is doing that by zoning and creating a vision for a developer. One of the Resort Mixed Use zones is the area around the Veterans facility. If the City creates a zone and encourages a developer, we could create a City Center but if we don’t do this type of zoning it may not happen. The parcel in that area that’s not developed is approximately 60 acres.
They reviewed the Land Use Map to identify the other areas designated as RMU.
Chair Murphy advised that at the next meeting she would get Commissioner Scott to revise the chart using larger square footage, she will work on language for matching residential, and Commissioner Benson will submit a drawing as an example. There also needs to be some verbiage for the Commercial - Professional and Research zone such as including the ancillary uses being put in after the major uses have been established. The Commissioners will discuss the primary uses at the next meeting and then Staff will write the language after the uses have been established. Commissioner Loris will work on defining the binnies definition to be included in the Table of Uses.
MOTION: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris moved to approve the Ivins City Planning Commission minutes for September 4, 2012
SECOND: Commissioner Lance Anderson
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 |
|
A. |
Planning Commission(None) |
|
C. |
Building & Zoning Administrator, Kevin Rudd(None) |
|
D. |
City Attorney, Dale Coulam(None) |
|
E. |
Items to be placed on future agendas |
MOTION: Commissioner Lance Anderson moved to adjourn
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 meeting adjourned at 6:13 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Martha S. Wilson, CMC
Deputy City Recorder