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 Mike Scott.
STAFF: City Attorney Dale Coulam, Building & Zoning Administrator Kevin Rudd, and Deputy City Recorder Martha Wilson
AUDIENCE:Steve Weida, Fred Eccleston, and Claudette Larsen
A. Acknowledgement of Quorum Chair Murphy acknowledged there was a quorum. Commissioner Jeffrey Loris was excused.
B. Flag Salute Commissioner Scott led the Flag Salute.
C. Invocation Commissioner Benson led the Invocation.
D. Disclosures There were no disclosures or conflicts of interest with this meeting's agenda.
Kevin Rudd clarified that this amendment is only related to Padre Canyon Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4, and it does not apply to any other zones or areas in Ivins City. The amendment allows two (2) adjoining lot owners each have horses, the common boundary between the adjoining lots may be opened to allow the commingling of horses on the two (2) adjoining lots, so long as the average number of horses per lot does not exceed the maximum of two (2). This would be a limit of two (2) lots only. They must adjoin each other. Currently, each property is allowed two (2) horses but the horses cannot cross between the two properties. This ordinance would allow them to open up the property line and have a common corral allowing four (4) horses to be on either lot at any given time. There is a written text in the appendix related to Padre Canyon Phases 1, 2, and 3, and it refers back to Chapter 12, Section 16.12.113(5). Staff is neutral on this amendment and is not making a recommendation for or against.
Commissioner Anderson inquired as to how many lots in Padre Canyon would be allowed to do this.
Kevin Rudd explained that potentially every lot in Padre Canyon if the neighbor next to them agreed to open up the property lines between each other. There may be some constraints on lots that would make it difficult. However, he did not foresee it happening often. Currently, there are approximately five (5) lots that have horses within the phases, including Phase 4. The other requirements in Padre Canyon are a shelter has to have a 100 foot setback to any residential structure and all other requirements for horses remain the same. This amendment has been brought forth by the City Council which came about during a public hearing regarding a request to allow three (3) horses on each property. During that process the City Council discussed the possibility of allowing commingling.
Chair Murphy opened the public hearing and reported that the Commission received a letter from homeowners Carl and Marge Solms stating that they are against the change.
Steve Weida resides at 63 Padre Canyon Drive and he advised that he was the individual that previously requested to amend the zoning to allow up to three (3) horses on lots in Padre Canyon that were one acre or larger. The proposal was declined by the City Council. However, Council Member Mendenhall researched the situation on my lot and the adjoining lot and proposed a counter position. He and his neighbors are trying to allow their horses to be unrestricted on two (2) adjoining lots. Current regulations require a fence between them with two (2) horses on each lot. They are seeking to remove the fence and let the horses run back and forth. It would still result in the same density as the current regulations. Each property will still comply with the other requirements such as the 100 foot setback, to provide shelter, etc. The items that support the amendment are: 1. the most important thing is the appearance of the property, and open spaces without fences or with the least amount of spaces look better than smaller subdivided areas. 2. larger areas for horses to run are better for the animals. They can exercise, run and play and be more like horses. 3. Padre Canyon Estates allows horses to be in a residential setting and in his opinion it does have a positive impact on property values. Not everyone wants horse property but those that do, it is an added bonus. In general it should have a positive effect. Some people in Padre Canyon are very adamantly opposed to horses. The complaint has been that if it is opened up, there could be four (4) horses at one end of the property or on the other. That will happen. But the load density been the two (2) lots still remain at four (4). He only has three (3) on their two (2) lots. They will be together at times but other times separated. It averages out and it would be minimal impact.Fred Eccleston is the property owner at 101 Padre Canyon Drive. He is not in Ivins all the time but he did not understand why this is such a big deal. An example is, if I didn’t like children and I could get a group of people together to influence the Commission to say we don’t want children in Padre Canyon, would you amend the regulations to change it. Otherwise, he supports Steve’s position.
After no other response, Chair Murphy closed the Public Hearing.Commissioner Scott read Item 5 (a) of the ordinance, "may be open to allow the commingling of horses on the two (2) adjoining lots, so long as the average number of horses per lot does not exceed the maximum of two (2)." If lots #1 and #2 remove the fence and each have two (2) horses, could lot #3 which adjoins lot #2 remove the fence?
Dale Coulam stated that's not how he would interpret it. There can only be two (2) adjoining lots.
Chair Murphy suggested changing the language to say, "only two contiguous lots" and that would clear it up.
Commissioner Scott commented but lot #2 would be contiguous with lot #1 and #3.
Dale Coulam suggested the following language, "the common boundary between a maximum of two (2) contiguous lots."
Commissioner Scott stated that all the other regulations in Section 16.12.113 (5) still apply. However, Section 16.12.113 (10) requires shade protection and shelter; he asked if that would be required on each of two (2) contiguous lots or only on one lot.
Dale Coulam stated that it will be required on both. Those sections have not changed.
Commissioner Scott referred to Section 16.12.113 (11) that requires a perimeter fence on any lot with horses. This would be eliminating a side fence. Therefore, there would not be a perimeter fence.
Dale Coulam explained that the specific language overrides the general.
Commissioner Anderson noted that Steve Weida stated that the benefit is to have open space by removing the fence but we are not saying the fence has to be removed just opened up. It could be opened in two (2) different places. He likes horses and agrees that horses need open space but the downfall is the people living around the properties because where horses gather is where they make a mess. Horses like to go to one corner. Other than that it's a good idea.
Dale Coulam mentioned that the requirements for removing manure and the upkeep of the lot have not changed. The owners have the same requirements.
Chair Murphy asked for clarification on the language, "so long as the average number of horses per lot does not exceed the maximum of two (2)." Shouldn't it say, "So long as it does not exceed the maximum of two (2) per lot?"
Dale Coulam agreed that it could be changed to, "the maximum of two (2) per lot."
Commission Scott felt the intent was for horses to roam between the two (2) lots. However, at any given time there may be four (4) horses on one lot but it's an average of two (2) horses per lot.
Chair Murphy mentioned that it had been brought up in the past that there was a question as to who owns the horses. Is there a concern as to who owns the horses?
Dale Coulam noted that the ordinance is intentionally vague about who owns the horses.
Commissioner Anderson felt the bottom line is that we don't care who owns the horses. People have their family's dogs, chickens, etc.
Commissioner Scott stated that he was not in favor of making the change. He's not unfamiliar with horses and stated his experience with horses but they should look to the General Plan. Mr. Weida referenced issues of the General Plan such as having more open space. The open space would just be between two (2) properties and visually in the community there would not be a sense of more open space. The shelter being on one property may be a visual of more open space. The other comment was it is better for the animal and that's true but the current requirement is not bad for the animal. If animal lovers thought it was bad, they would not do it. Of course, more space is always better. The comment about property values may be true. We are not trying to prevent horse properties but are we changing the dynamics of it? We don't want to outlaw children and we are not outlawing horses but dealing with how the horses are going to flow between properties. If the changes are supported by the General Plan, we would have to go with it but he doesn't see that they are. He expressed a concern about singling out a particular property for this kind of change that seems to be more beneficial to an individual or a few individual property owners rather than having any impact into the community. It strikes him as spot zoning and that is discouraged when it comes to planning.
Dale Coulam explained that this is the only place in the ordinance that says it is limited to a maximum of two (2) horses. Elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance, it refers to one (1) large animal per half acre. The Commission's recommendation could be to consider opening this up city-wide. It would probably need to be re-noticed for public hearing so that other people in other parts of the City would have notice that their areas are also being affected by this proposal. However, he understood that the Council wanted to see a proposal to allow it between two (2) adjoining lots and specifically referring to a maximum of two (2) horses per lot. This is the only section of the ordinance that states it that way, and that's the reason it was amended in this section.
Commissioner Scott commented that aside from the General Plan we should always be willing to look at changes as times change. Conditions have changed over the years but the area of Padre Canyon, in a sense, has moved from a rural area to a more urban area. Also, all the efforts of the Commission have been moving to higher density and more urban development.
Commissioner Benson stated given the history of Padre Canyon and the comments from the citizens that we previously sat through, it wasn't a popular decision. Everyone wanted to keep the status quo. This seems a way to appease and make a loop hole that someone could jump through if they wanted four (4) horses. Granted they have to convince their neighbor to open a few openings. But he hoped that we would not get into a situation where there are gates and yet they say the horses are just maintained on one property. If there is a gate, they can actually move the horses through but maybe the gates are closed all the time. The concern is two (2) adjoining neighbors with four (4) horses, and then another two (2) adjoining neighbors with four horses (4) and having a total of eight (8) horses congregating together in one corner. There's a potential of it spiraling out of control. He understood the advantages but concerned about the control down the road. Should we require that the gates remain opened?
Dale Coulam advised that it's hard enough to enforce two (2) horses on the property yet alone whether the gate is open, etc. He didn't feel that the City should go there as far as enforcement.
Commissioner Benson commented that we can't force the commingling so how can we assure that the commingling will happen other than there is a gate for horses to go through. The target for this ordinance is to allow four (4) horses on one property. The running and commingling the horses is great but it's not the real driving force behind the ordinance.
Chair Murphy asked if the feeding is done by the lot owner because the horses would all congregate where the food is.
They discussed how many lots would be affected, how many phases in Padre Canyon and the size of the lots in Padre Canyon. Phases 1, 2, 3, and 4 have similar lot sizes with a total of 119 lots and currently five (5) that have horses.
Commissioner Anderson stated in theory, give or take a few lots, the lots could potentially have commingling of horses. It does open up where they feed, who takes care of them and when there is a compliant it's the property owner they complain about.
Commissioner Scott noted that within approximately 15-18 years there have been only five (5) properties with horses.
Commissioner Anderson commented that the couple in the letter stated that this came from the Council not the property owners. They requested not to change the ordinance.
Dale Coulam clarified that the request from the lot owner was for three (3) horses on one lot which was denied. His current operation would be consistent with what is being proposed. In other words, there was an open boundary with two adjoining lots and there were three (3) horses at that time. As a compromise to consider the Council requested that it go through the process and see what happens. We cannot read into it that the lot owner wasn't in favor of it because it matched his current operation at the time.
Chair Murphy noted that the lots are 37,000 square feet. Therefore, essentially there can be four (4) horses on 74,000 square feet.
Commissioner Anderson commented that the concern is eight (8) horses can congregate together in one area. Other than that concern he is okay with the amendment and it's a good idea.
Commissioner Benson explained that with two (2) horses per lot they could still mingle in the corner for a total of four (4).
They discussed ownership of the horses but felt that was not an issue.MOTION: Commissioner Todd Benson moved to recommend denial of a proposed amendment to the Ivins City Code, Zoning Regulations Title 16, Chapter 12, Section 16.12.113 (5) and Appendix A Written Text Documents to allow the commingling of horses on two adjoining lots in Padre Canyon Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4. Ivins City, applicant
SECOND: Commissioner Mike Scott
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
Chair Adel Murphy AYE Commissioner Lance Anderson AYE Commissioner Todd Benson AYE Commissioner Mike Scott AYE Commissioner Jeffrey Loris ABSENT
A. Continue discussion of the Ivins City Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 33, Table 33-2 Table of Uses, Non Residential Zoning Districts and Chapter 6 Establishment of Zoning Districts Chairman Murphy reported that Commissioner Scott revised the Resort Mixed Used (RMU) zone definition and distributed it to the Commissioners (copy available at Ivins City office).
Commissioner Scott explained in a mixed use building there will not be any residential on the ground floor if it is two or more stories. Also, the residential component will be between 40%-60% of the total building square footage. He interprets Item 3 (c) as being 60% of the total building square footage of the building with a residential component rather than the total building square footage of the entire development which may include a standalone commercial building.
After some discussion and clarification on the definitions of Section 3 (a), (b) and (c), the Commissioners did not make any additional changes.
Chair Murphy asked Kevin Rudd if he could administer this definition.
Kevin Rudd explained that the three paragraphs will not be enough to regulate the RMU zone but it is enough for the City Council to review and decide if they want to pursue it. At some point, Chapter 17 will need to go into more detail.
Dale Coulam commented that it is a start. If an application comes in, we are not totally without some regulation. That's what we were trying to avoid. If the City Council wants to flush it out more, at least there is something in place on mixed use with a residential component.
Chair Murphy reported that there is a definition on Commercial - Professional & Research to review and advised that Commissioner Benson has some comments. A couple of weeks ago she read St. George City's definition called Administrative and Professional. Commissioner Benson asked if we could tweak that definition.
Commissioner Benson stated that he liked St. George's description of what a professional office is, "Uses permitted such as administrative executives, professional and medical research offices, businesses of an office type nature, banking and financial institutions, general research that is not involved in any industrial process, medical and biological laboratories, and real estate offices." Research that does not involve industrial is a good thing. The rest of the definition sums up the definition for professional and research. Commissioner Scott's definition refers to medical, engineering, legal accounting, research, preschool and other similar uses of which is not a bad definition. However, he liked the language "general research that is not involved in any industrial process" and suggested adding it to the definition. He was okay with the secondary uses.
Chair Murphy suggested changing "preschool" to "educational." The Commissioners had previously talked about ancillary uses and spelled them out in the Table of Uses and noted to see Chapter 17. Maybe secondary uses such as deli and day care can be spelled out in the Table of Uses, etc.
Commissioner Benson read the ancillary uses: bank, credit unions, financial institutions, commercial day care, preschool center, commercial recreation (indoor and outdoor), convenient store, neighborhood commercial and retail services, personal services (barber, beauty shop, dry cleaners, optometrist, etc.), private club, tennis courts, and sports court. These uses are Class III, IV and V and it states to see Chapter 17.
These uses are to be put in after the primary use has been established.
Chair Murphy suggested that the definition include what is going to be included in the zone and then Chapter 17 will be referred to for the ancillary uses.
The consensus was that the Commissioners agreed, and Commissioner Scott will revise the definition to reflect the discussion and distribute it to the Commissioners prior to the next meeting. The Commissioners will review the Table of Uses at the next meeting to make sure that all the ancillary uses have been included.
Chair Murphy asked what the next step is after reviewing the above.
Dale Coulam stated if the Commissioners are comfortable with the definitions, etc. it will be put into an ordinance form. The Commissioners will review the ordinance prior to setting a public hearing, then after the public hearing a recommendation will be made to the Council.
Commissioner Anderson stated that it's obvious that they will not be able to list every secondary use. Is it possible to add, "If it meets other similar secondary uses?"
Kevin Rudd explained that when the Zoning Ordinance was revised by the Consultant Bruce Parker, he recommended not to do that but if a good use is presented it's best to amend the ordinance to include the use. A catch all statement opens the door wide open.
Commissioner Scott asked if he should remove "and other similar uses" from the definition.
Dale Coulam explained they have to be careful about saying "other similar uses." If there is discretion involved in the permitting process, you are making that permitting process no longer administrative but legislative. He suggested that they make sure the definition matches the Table of Uses. If it's not listed, it is not permitted unless there is an amendment. Either list them all or reference Table 33-2.
B. Consider approval of the Ivins City Planning Commission minutes for October 16, 2012 MOTION: Commissioner Lance Anderson moved to approve the Ivins City Planning Commission minutes for October 16, 2012
SECOND: Commissioner Todd Benson
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
Chair Adel Murphy AYE Commissioner Lance Anderson AYE Commissioner Todd Benson AYE Commissioner Mike Scott AYE Commissioner Jeffrey Loris ABSENT
A. Planning Commission(None)
B. Chairman(None)
C. Building & Zoning Administrator, Kevin Rudd(None)
D. City Attorney, Dale Coulam(None)
E. Items to be placed on future agendas 1. Continue discussing the definitions of the Zoning Ordinance.
SECOND: Commissioner Todd Benson
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
Chair Adel Murphy AYE Commissioner Lance Anderson AYE Commissioner Todd Benson AYE Commissioner Mike Scott AYE Commissioner Jeffrey Loris ABSENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:37 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Martha S. Wilson, CMC
Deputy City Recorder