Mayor Hart stated that the purpose of this meeting is for the City Council to discuss the aspects of this ordinance. Council Member Elwell indicated it is straight forward but has a question regarding Table 33-2 Table of Uses. Council Member Mendenhall stated she is very familiar with this ordinance and thinks the Planning Commission did a great job. Council Member Roberts indicated he has questions on pages 4, 5, 10 and 11.
The Mayor and City Council had no comments or changes to Section 1 or Section 2. Council Member Roberts referred to page 4 of Section 3, Chapter 19 (4)(a) "Arrangement" regarding view being protected and inquired who defines the user being protected. Kevin Rudd agreed that's vague. Mayor Hart stated there is no way to preserve all views. Council Member McDonald indicated that was established when the Council previously addressed a subdivision on Center Street. Views are not something the City can protect and restrictions are already addressed through height requirements and similar. Council Member Roberts suggested the wording "should be encouraged" replace the words "shall" in paragraph (4)(a). Council Member Mendenhall stated paragraph 4 is a large and all encompassing statement. Subparagraphs (a),(b),(c) and (d) in paragraph 4 and 5 bring it all into focus. There are going to be some parameters that you cannot put a definitive statement. This document defines it as much as it can be defined. Council Member Elwell indicated he looked at it as a whole and each portion of the paragraph supports itself. He referred to the words "as much as practicable" in the last sentence and stated that is the fail safe. Council Member McDonald suggested adding the words "as much as practicable" at the end of the first sentence and Mayor Hart stated they could lead into that and begin with a statement "recognizing that all views cannot be protected. Site plans shall recognize and preserve as much as practicable." Council Member Roberts agreed.
Council Member Roberts referred to page 5 paragraphs (g)(ii) regarding the sidewalks meandering and indicated the word "meandering" needs to be defined. Council Member Elwell suggested a non-reoccurring geometric pattern and Council Member Roberts indicated he would like to see something that is non-uniform. Mayor Hart suggested City Engineer Chuck Gillette review this and provide a definition.
Kevin Rudd referred to page 5 of Section 3, Chapter 19, paragraphs (4)(g) and subparagraphs (iii), (iv) and (v). These are new and relate to the public sidewalk connecting to the building entrance and parking lot landscaping requirements. The way this ordinance has been drafted, every commercial project would be required to connect the public sidewalk to the building entrance. Mayor Hart stated these requirements provide for a safe pedestrian access to the store and is intended to give form to the idea that Ivins wants to have pedestrian friendly access to businesses in the City. It's a mistake for people to be sharing vehicular access. Council Member Roberts indicated this requirement should be dependent upon the size of the commercial development because it isn't practicle everywhere. Council Member Elwell stated he is more concerned with the nature of the planters on either side of the access walkway for safety reasons. He suggested language be included in the ordinance that limits the height of those to no more than eighteen inches (18"). The Mayor and other City Council Members agreed.
Mayor Hart referred to page 5 of Section 3, Chapter 19, paragraphs (4)(g) "Pedestrian Egress" and recommended that be based on being in excess of a certain square footage. Council Member McDonald suggested either that or have it based on the number of parking spaces. Mayor Hart indicated Ivins City is either going to be pedestrian friendly or not but if it is, the City needs a way to get pedestrians from the sidewalk into the store without taking them into the drive lanes. Council Member Mendenhall inquired if it's possible for the City to be liable if an individual is hit and killed in a parking lot and the City does not require a clear pedestrian walking area from the parking lot into a building. Dale Coulam stated there is always the possibility but indicated he doesn't know if it would be a viable argument. He doesn't think the City has a duty to contemplate and create a solution for every possible danger that might exist. The developer would have more responsibility because they chose not to provide that access. Council Member Mendenhall indicated the City should require pedestrian friendly access. Council Member Roberts stated he isn't against having a pedestrian access and clarified that each situation is different. The City should include the minimum standards on what is required and not impose something on someone that may not make sense. Kevin Rudd referred to the street parking requirement and suggested the City use the same 15% requirement. If the City is going to make pedestrian access a priority, he suggested that the walkway be included as part of the landscaping requirement. He suggested that parking lots that are only one (1) row deep of parking don't need to provide designated pedestrian access. Mayor Hart disagreed because the pedestrians would still be in the path of the vehicles. The Mayor and City Council discussed several changes in language for paragraph (g) "Pedestrian Egress" and agreed that paragraph (g) read as follows: "Pedestrian Egress: Safe and convenient pedestrian egress from each street where main entrances to buildings are located shall be provided. It shall consist of:"
Kevin Rudd referred to paragraph (g), subparagraph (i) and suggested that at a minimum a three foot (3') walkway should be provided. Mayor Hart - five feet (5') should be the minimum because a mother and child cannot walk side-by-side on a three foot (3') walkway.
The Mayor and City Council discussed language changes and additions and determined the paragraph would read as follows: "A continuously defined five foot (5') minimum width walkway from the public sidewalk to the building front walkway." The walkway could be striped, concrete walk bumped up and landscaping beside if the developer chose to do that. There would also be language included that would allow the walkway to be included in the 15% landscape requirement if the walkway enhances the project. The Mayor and City Council agreed that Section 3, Chapter 19, paragraphs (4)(g) and subparagraph (ii) be removed from the ordinance. Kevin Rudd suggested subparagraphs (iii), (iv) and figure 19-2 be removed and leave that to the creativity of the developer. The Mayor and City Council agreed. The subparagraphs will be re-numbered and will include exception language as discussed.
Council Member Roberts referred to Building and Design Requirements paragraph (c) subparagraph (i) on page 10 and inquired why a false front or storefront is prohibited. Kevin Rudd indicated the purpose is to avoid a metal building with a front only stucco facade. The classic example is the Family Dollar stores. They take an 80'x100' square metal building and put a facade on the front of it. Family Dollar is interested in putting a store in Ivins but if the ordinance is too restrictive, Family Dollar may go elsewhere. Council Member Mendenhall stated the whole purpose of what the Planning Commission has talked about for several years is to distinguish Ivins from what's going on around Ivins. The City has spent innumerable hours at Planning Commission and City Council meetings talking about the type of businesses that Ivins wants to attract. One item of discussion was avoiding the strip mall look at all costs. Council Member Roberts indicated false facades make a building look nicer than having a flat front. He referred to the Family Dollar store and stated when residents heard that Family Dollar may be coming to Ivins, they were excited to shop there and they want that kind of convenience. Dale Coulam indicated Family Dollar have some standard buildings that consist of an all metal building with a stucco front but they are willing to make modifications to the building if they were to come to Ivins. The Mayor and City Council discussed the intent of this section and a couple of wording options were suggested for subparagraph (i) as follows: Kevin Rudd's suggestion: "A consistent level of detail and finish on all sides but a lesser degree of detail is allowed on the other side." Other suggestions: "A lesser degree of detail is allowed on non-street facing sides and rear."; "A consistent level of detail and finish on street facing sides of a building shall be provided with a lesser degree of detail required on non-street facing sides of a building."; "A consistent level of detail and finish shall be required on street facing sides of a building with a lesser degree of detail required on non-street facing sides of the building."
Council Member Roberts referred to page 11 and stated he spoke with a developer regarding this section and the developers concern was under subparagraph (iii) "Reduced Upper Levels" because the requirement for variations are expensive to build. Kevin Rudd clarified that the intent is to eliminate a two story square box. Council Member Roberts would like the variations requirement removed and allow for some exceptions if there is enough room to break up the building with landscape, trees and similar and leave it up to the developers creativity. Mayor Hart suggested there could be a provision where the variation would not be required if the setbacks are doubled. Council Member Elwell referred to subparagraph (iii) regarding covered porches and permanently affixed trellises may be considered part of the footprint. He can envision that the architect still has the integrity of all four sides and then on the ground floor with an increase in the footprint gives the illusion of the top floor being smaller but in fact it isn't. Mayor Hart clarified that a two-story rectangular building can built with some small wings or patios that extend out on the lower level. Kevin Rudd indicated there could be an exception that if the building is set back a certain distance from the property line, a full two story building would be allowed. Council Member Mendenhall and Council Member McDonald suggested leaving the language as the Planning Commission recommended. Council Member Elwell stated the current wording is very viable wording already. Mayor Hart suggested language for pitched roof requirements and variations be looked at. It isn't necessarily the change in wall height but an interruption in the facia line by two feet (2'). Kevin Rudd referred to setbacks and clarified that there is only one required setback in commercial zoning and that's when the development abuts a residential zone. Currently the decision is made by the Planning Commission or City Council and inquired if the City Council would like to define that. Mayor Hart indicated that should be defined. Council Member Roberts inquired if it could be written with recommendations but include exceptions. Kevin Rudd stated "yes." The Mayor and City Council requested Kevin Rudd bring back language to the City Council that addresses that.
Council Member Elwell referred to Table 33-2 on the second page referring to the Art Studio. He indicated that the Class IV was eliminated in four (4) zones with nothing else put in there and he didn't understand that reasoning. Kevin Rudd stated that may be a type-o. The Mayor and City Council agreed that the intent was to replace the Class IV status in the zones to a Class III.