Chair Murphy reported that at the last meeting the Commissioners reviewed a chart submitted by Commissioner Scott, the definition and language for Chapter 17 on Resort Mixed Use District (RMU) zone. Commissioner Scott submitted a revised chart reflecting larger square foot parcels, and Chair Murphy submitted a revised definition and language for Chapter 17 on RMU zone. (copies are available upon request from Ivins City offices.)
Chair Murphy asked if the following should be included in the RMU definition: "This district also contains a mandatory residential component."
The consensus was the statement should be part of the definition.
Chair Murphy read the sections to be included in Chapter 17 for the RMU zone.
The Commissioners discussed the following language: Section 2 - As an integral part of the Resort Mixed Use district, a residential component of not less than 25% of the total footprint of the commercial building shall be required above such commercial building. (a) If a residential buffer is required under Section 1, the residential component in Section 1 (b) shall be reduced by 50%.
1. 25% of the total footprint shouldn’t be reduced by 50% but credit could be given for some of the residential that has already been put into the buffer.
2. Is it required that residential be above or below the commercial instead of just being part of the commercial, such as adjoining the commercial?
3. One reason for allowing residential above commercial buildings was to allow different setbacks, stacking, etc. instead of residential being at the end of a building.
4. Warehouse space with residential around it is not being promoted and doesn’t fit in a mixed use area.
5. There are many different ways to accomplish commercial with residential and Commissioner Anderson did not want to limit the options by boxing them in.
6. They discussed what percentage should be given as a credit for building a buffer around the existing homes and applying that credit toward building residential above commercial.
7. After reviewing some examples of mixed use projects in Boulder, Colorado, the question was brought up whether they should encourage more residential. The Commissioners discussed how they could obtain more residential by changing the percentage of residential required. Several examples and percentages were given.
8. Three story mixed use buildings were discussed as well as the height allowed in Ivins which is thirty-five feet (35’) with a commercial component.
9. Commissioner Benson suggested keeping the required amounts of residential as a buffer and the required total amount of residential but do not allow a credit/bonus for the buffers. That would increase the amount of residential and encourage mixed use development. However, he liked the verbiage "above commercial" because it gives a village feel.
10. Commissioner Anderson wanted to remove the verbiage "above commercial." He noted that Kayenta would not have the three-story buildings in their mixed use areas. Commissioner Benson suggested verbiage, "above on a two story commercial project or adjacent to a single story commercial project."
Chair Murphy asked if the verbiage should still be the 25% of the total footprint of the commercial building.
Commissioner Scott explained that the table submitted was only to see if the buffer made any sense. On the smaller properties it would be impossible to have the buffer unless they spent a lot more than 30%. On large properties the residential is wider and would allow two rows of single family which is substantial.
Commissioner Anderson stated that if they want to create mixed use, fewer buffers should be encouraged but in the verbiage we are encouraging more buffer and less mixed use.
Commissioner Scott stated if there is a 900’ x 900’ parcel, they would not have to do 270’ width of residential. It could be one lot deep and they would only be using 10%-15%. But they could do the whole 30% and have a lot of residential.
The Commissioners discussed examples based on a ten (10) acre parcel using the verbiage as stated to determine how many residential units would be allowed on that size of a parcel taking into account roads, residential buffer and percentage of housing above commercial. It equates to approximately 1,500 to 2,000 square foot units with approximately 10-15 units.
Commissioner Benson commented that it’s not very many units for a ten (10) acre parcel. The examples he submitted allowed for 223 units based on 9.6 acres and 390 units based on 9.8 acres.
Commissioner Loris indicated that 6% of the site is residential based on the ten (10) acres. The minimum requirement for mixed use would be 6% residential. That allows 93% for commercial.
Commissioner Anderson asked for Kevin Rudd’s input and asked if the component should be more residential or commercial.
Kevin Rudd stated that the RMU zone is very specific to certain parcels and they are larger parcels. One is next to the VA facility and the other is on the south side of Snow Canyon Parkway across from The Reserve. This zone will not fit on smaller parcels. These are prime commercial sites. In Ivins a developer is more prone to develop residential than commercial because there is not enough population to support commercial. If we open the door to these prime parcels to do a lot of residential and a very small commercial, we would lose prime commercial. We need to be careful.
Commissioner Anderson felt they were covering it by having commercial below. They would have to build the commercial component no matter what, and they could utilize the residential above it.
Commissioner Scott stated now you are arguing for having the residential above the commercial to ensure that we have the commercial on the ground floor and we don’t take up ground area.
Commissioner Anderson stated if it is multi level.
Chair Murphy asked how to encourage a developer to build multi level instead of building one level.
Commissioner Anderson stated that if they build one level, that gives us the commercial component and residential could be adjacent to the commercial. There are some areas on the map that would design it that way and others that would build above the commercial.
Commissioner Scott asked if everyone is leaning toward a larger percentage of residential than 25%.
Commissioner Benson thought maybe it should go up to 35% residential and don’t allow credit for buffer zones.
Commissioner Scott agreed with the idea of not giving credit for the buffer but keep the requirement for a buffer next to residential neighborhood. He also agreed with the discussion to obtain more residential mix within commercial. Anything above 25% to 50% makes sense.
Commissioner Benson mentioned that some of the other infill examples show the ratio was almost 50% commercial and 50% residential.
The Commissioners reviewed the examples.
Commissioner Loris commented that with the setbacks above commercial, they could not obtain a 50%-50% ratio but including the residential buffer around it could push it close to the 50%-50% ratio.
Kevin Rudd brought up the point about allowing a single commercial building in the RMU zone such as a grocery store that did not want to build residential.
Commissioner Scott stated as long as they did some more with residential. For example, there are two buildings with one building being commercial, and the other commercial building has the residential above that totals 25% of the footprint of the two structures. If they go to 50%, it limits the developer to do a pure commercial building.
Some of the comments about a commercial only building were that they could see a Whole Foods store integrated with a residential component, the issue of financing, how it would depend on the business plan (some grocery stores want residential components), how a developer may want to put in a grocery store but may not have the funds to build a three story building, and that when the values of property goes up is when developments become three stories.
Commissioner Anderson commented if we want the concept to start, maybe it is 30% of the land with no credit. How does it work if they buy a single parcel for the development?
Chair Murphy suggested taking a look at residential as whole on a parcel such as a ten (10) acre parcel and not limit it just above buildings or connected to buildings.
They discussed that there may be several single parcels within the RMU zones on the Land Use Map.
Kevin Rudd felt that the Commissioners were going in the right direction. In the RMU zone require a buffer that is a similar land use to the property it abuts. Next require some of the commercial as a true mixed use within the same building and decide how high the density should be on residential and the density/square footage of the commercial to allow. The density in the examples is quite high. If it is a true mixed use, it has to be a higher density. Allowing ten (10) units per acre may not work.
Commissioner Anderson stated that mixed use might need to be done through a development agreement because there are so many different ways to approach it. The high densities on the examples are based on going up but there is still a lot of open space.
Commissioner Benson stated that both examples have 45%-53% open space with 223 to 390 residential units based on approximately 9.5 to 9.8 acres with 1,500 square feet per unit.
Commissioner Anderson felt that is what they are trying to accomplish but the difference is whether to allow single buildings without stories above or connected. Sometimes the height is more of a restriction than the density. A three (3) story building may work in the lava areas if it is dug in.
Commissioner Loris stated that some residential townhomes can be down in the ground three (3’) to four (4’) feet with a basement feel that doesn’t have that maximum height but have three (3) stores.
Commissioner Anderson stated that a natural slope of 3%-4% with three foot (3’) dug in usually allows draining out the front. Maybe we are dealing with three (3) components: commercial building that doesn’t have any residential around it; buffer residential; and the component of residential combined with commercial. He agrees with Kevin Rudd that Ivins doesn’t have a large enough commercial area to say build this and not allow a single building if someone wanted to build it.
Kevin Rudd noted that if Harmon’s came in to build a grocery store and asked the City Council to change the zoning, the Council would probably change the zoning. If someone wanted to build a big box store, the Council may say we have a vision for that area.
Commissioner Scott asked if that was an unreasonable way to control what the City wants to go in that area. We define a real mixed use plan and someone comes in with a plan that’s not mixed use that we like as a community, the Council can allow it.
Kevin Rudd stated that the Council could allow a big box store but there would have to be a plan of residential around it to buffer it and some other commercial with some mixed use.
Commissioner Anderson commented that if it’s a single store building and there is a buffer around it, the commercial building might not require residential space but if it is a two story building it requires a residential component.
Kevin Rudd stated the simple solution is to require a compatible use on the buffer and then require a certain amount of commercial to be a true mixed use. So 30% of the commercial needs to be a true mixed use and the rest of the commercial could be stand alone commercial uses. It would force them to integrate true mixed use. If we don’t do that, we will end up with a development with commercial and a residential subdivision around it. It’s a tough sell in southern Utah.
Chair Murphy stated that the danger of not defining RMU is someone wants to come in, putting in a subdivision and we have lost the commercial. Maybe there has to be a buffer and a 30% residential component within the mixed use and leave it at that. Then it allows them to put in the stand alone commercial. But the developer needs to understand that the 30% has to be commercial/residential within the building, not just 30%. There would be no bonus for the buffer and the remainder of the property has to be a true mixed use which would be 30% of a residential/commercial building together on one site.
Commissioner Anderson stated maybe instead of saying 30% we just say that it has to be the same layer. If the houses are on 10,000 square foot lots, it doesn’t need to be too deep. We just need one layer to obtain the buffers.
Commissioner Benson prefers the verbiage for the buffer as not to exceed the 30%. If they had more leeway and more buffer, a developer could come in to build commercial property and throw in some residential on it we would lose it.
Kevin Rudd wasn’t sure that it’s reasonable to say if its 10,000 square foot zone that the developer needs to develop three deep 10,000 square foot lots. It’s reasonable to say right where they meet 10,000 square foot lots. If they want to increase the density, go to 5,000 square foot lots to duplexes, etc. It creates a buffer with the neighbors.
Commissioner Anderson commented if the buffer is like the property it abuts, it only has to match so that the people purchasing the property know they are abutting commercial property instead of being a random number of 30%.
Commissioner Scott suggested it should not be more than one level deep and shall not exceed 30% of the total land. A 10,000 square foot lot would be a significant buffer.
Kevin Rudd wasn’t sure that is reasonable when there are single family homes on one acre lots.
Chair Murphy noted all we are trying to do is to stop from having the houses abut a commercial building.
Kevin Rudd commented that the City Council would decide what size single-family lots would be appropriate. When a plan comes in, it would be negotiated as to whether the buffer zone would be an RE-10 or RE-12.5 or anR-1-5 zone. We need to decide what kind of residential densities are going to be allowed.
Commissioner Anderson commented they need to define the open space instead of the density. If it’s single level development, it would require less open space but if it is multi level it would require more open space.
Dale Coulam suggested if it abuts a residential zone, then unreasonably compatible homes immediately adjacent to it. If its five (5) acres, build a similar home but it doesn’t require five acres of property, yet the house is compatible. A similar size house along the existing use is reasonable and that could be negotiated. If it is next to a larger home, the developer could say it’s unreasonable for them to put in that size of a home. Also, if it is on a huge lot, it’s unreasonable to require that low of a density. It is just being sensitive to putting in residential that’s fairly similar to the homes it abuts in order to have a buffer.
Commissioner Anderson commented that after the first layer we could require30%-40% open space. The density can be as much as they want as long as they keep the open space. If they want to build three stories and still meet the height requirements, so be it. If we are going to allow the height, it doesn’t affect density and the look if we have open space.
Chair Murphy suggested verbiage, "the buffer shall consist of a reasonably compatible residential use to property immediately adjacent to single-family."
Commissioner Benson still felt they should limit the amount of buffer space.
Commissioner Anderson stated that the buffer is used to transition. Based on our discussion we are saying one layer. The goal is to get the transition happening to create the development.
Chair Murphy suggested other verbiage, "the residential buffer and/or component shall only apply to the property immediately adjacent to the prior compatible residential use" and leave out the percentage number. There won’t be too many layers if it is done around the edges.
Commissioner Scott was in favor of one lot deep. On small parcels it’s going to be hard to get a buffer.
Commissioner Benson asked if they were creating a bunch of one street subdivisions.
Kevin Rudd commented that he didn’t think they want a one lot single family dwelling and then directly behind those is the commercial mixed use. Again, if you look at the parcel over by the VA facility and the Vista School, if it was entirely developed as mixed use, there could be single-family dwellings along 200 North and around Palisades Drive. As it comes into mixed use there could be some four-plexes or apartment type buildings. Get the density in there before the commercial gets there. On a larger parcel whatever percentage of commercial is allowed, there would be plenty of room. If 30% was allowed for residential on 80 acres, there would be 24 acres of residential.
Commissioner Anderson stated that goes back to the argument that there needs to be more residential than commercial.
Commissioner Loris commented on the access to houses, driveways and how that should be designed.
They discussed the design of the streets, wall and landscape. If 30%-40%buffer is required the landscape can become the buffer and then the commercial begins. Therefore, there would be the street, the buffer and then the commercial. If 30%-40% of the open space is required, the developer can put the density in any way they want to. It was mentioned not to include the buffer area in the open space.
The Commissioners discussed some examples based on ten (10) acres with 30% open space and a 30% buffer.
Dale Coulam was concerned about leaving a lot of things for the Council to negotiate. We are trying to define a residential mixed use without the overlay. With an overlay, a plan is created that the Council approves, and the plan creates its own zoning. With the defined zones, we are trying to say this is what we want them to build. He asked if the Commissioners were getting away from the above commercial or attached residential. Are you saying to provide the one lot buffer, the street, open space and a percentage of residential?
Chair Murphy asked what is there to stop a developer from putting a residential subdivision in the middle of the commercial zone. If there is a buffer and then open space, the remaining area of the property has to be commercial and residential together in the same building. That will keep from having a little subdivision and just a big box store. We cannot just say so much commercial and so much residential. Mixed use to her means mixed within the building and that needs to be protected.
The Commissioners agreed that’s what mixed use means.
Commissioner Loris commented that a statement should go in the first sentence of the definition, “The mixed use district is intended to have mixed buildings.”If we state that the buildings have to be mixed use, then developers know upfront that the buildings have to be mixed use to get the commercial.
Commissioner Scott suggested one or more mixed use building or a percentage of mixed use buildings, example 45% of the floor area for commercial, but then with one or more mixed use buildings. That would allow the residential to be above or adjacent but its part of the building. In reference to Kevin’s point if the building is not compatible to have residential in it, a purely commercial building could be built but one or more buildings need to be mixed use. The second building will have commercial maybe on the ground floor, above or combination of it.
Commissioner Loris asked do we want one or more buildings to be mixed use or do we want one building in the zone to be non-mixed use. If a grocery store, etc. comes in, do we want to limit the amount of non-residential mixed use buildings?
Chair Murphy commented we need to think about the percentage that could be solely commercial and the percentage to be mixed use commercial. We need to allow for solely commercial buildings. Otherwise, we are not paying attention to the definition such as a hotel, governmental, or indoor recreational building of which will not have residential attached. Should 75% be commercial and 25% residential or 50% commercial and 50% commercial and the 50% of the commercial buildings have to have a mixed use?
Commissioner Anderson stated if it is zoned mixed use, most developers will do an overlay and bring the plan in and tell the City what they want to do. It is simpler.
Dale Coulam stated the developers get to choose their zones if they do the overlay. The Council is trying to define what the areas will be by actually defining it as a mixed use rather than an overlay. If it is a small lot, maybe it only has one building but it has a residential component on it. Maybe discuss 50% of the buildings having a residential component, if that’s the percentage the Commissioners want to use. If there is one building, it will have a residential component but if there are two commercial buildings, one may have a residential component and one may not.
Chair Murphy suggested that at least 50% of the buildings have to have a residential component.
Commissioner Anderson restated that at least one layer needs to be a buffer zone, after taking out the buffer zone the mixed use area needs 35% to be open space, and within the mixed use area50% of the mixed use buildings have to have a residential component of 30% of the building.
Commissioner Scott thought the 30% applied to all the commercial space. He gave an example.
Commissioner Benson suggested that the total footprint of all commercial buildings on the property have 30% residential. Then they can choose to do one building without and then one has to have a higher residential component.
Commissioner Anderson was concerned about a small commercial space being put in that would become nothing. The percentage should be based on the building by saying 50% of the building has to be residential and 50% has to be commercial.
After further discussions and examples about percentages of buildings being commercial with residential components, the following is a rough draft of requirements for RMU zone to be determined at the next meeting:
One (1) unit deep for a buffer zone (reasonable and compatible), after removing the buffer the remaining square footage to be 35% dedicated open space, of the remaining land area 50% of the buildings have to have a residential component not to exceed 70% of the building square footage.
Commissioner Scott explained that if a developer builds 100,000 square foot of commercial space and builds one 80,000 square foot pure commercial building, the only requirement is that the 20,000 square foot building has 70% as residential. He didn’t think that was the intent.
Commissioner Benson felt we could then say of the total mixed use square footage, once it was figured out, 30% of it still has to be residential. So we are still requiring them to put in some residential, we are giving them the flexibility that some building don’t require residential and it cannot be used up in one building. It has to be spread out over the building that are required to be mixed use.
Chair Murphy clarified their intent that 50% of the buildings have to have a residential component not to exceed 20% of the total building square footage but of the total square footage of the mixed use area 30% has to be residential. She will write something up for the Commissioners to review.
Chair Murphy submitted a definition for professional occupations, the main criteria for professionals and the trades (a copy is available at Ivins City offices). She mentioned that St George City has a zone called "Administrative or Professional Office" that have uses permitted such as administrative executives, professional and medical research offices, and business of an office type nature, banking and financial institutions, general research that is not involved in any industrial processes, medical and biological laboratories, and real estate offices. In the Tonaquint complex there is a communication call center, computer service storage building that does backup for servers for the entire world, doctor offices, lawyers’ offices, Dixie Applied Technical, Workers Comp Fund, pizza and sandwich restaurants, etc. These are some of the uses that we were considering for the campus type zone. She asked that they review this for the next meeting.