Commissioner Anderson referred to the language, "if the distance from the end of a proposed cul-de-sac to a connecting road is less than one-third (1/3) the length of the proposed cul-de-sac street connection to the connecting road shall be required." If this is changed to 750', it may be too much. It means that there would have to be a 250' lot at the end of the subdivision. Based on 600' the lot has to be 200'. He suggested leaving it at 200' or using a percentage of 750' so there would not be a weird lot size at the end of a cul-de-sac.
After Kevin Rudd illustrated the cul-de-sac based on Commissioner Anderson's concerns, Commissioner Pack suggested using 200' instead of using a percentage of the 750'.
MOTION: Commissioner Mike Scott moved to recommend approval Ordinance No. 2013-08, an Ordinance of Ivins City, Utah, amending Ivins City Subdivision Ordinance regarding maximum length of cul-de-sacs, Ivins City, applicant, with the change from: "a connecting road is less than 1/3 of the length of the proposed cul-de-sac street" to "connecting road is less than 200 feet."
SECOND: Commissioner Lance Anderson
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chair Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner Lance Anderson |
AYE |
| Commissioner Bryan Pack |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
| Commissioner Jeffrey Loris |
ABSENT |
16.11.126 Maximum Height of all Primary Buildings
Kevin Rudd referred to (ii) "The top of the concrete foundation wall shall not exceed eighteen (18) inches above the "Upper Grade" level." This is the old school way of doing the foundation where the foundation is poured, and then the floor joist is place on top of the foundation. Now, they pour a higher foundation, build the wall and inset the floor joist in the foundation which ends up with a higher foundation. The builders stucco all the way down so that the foundation cannot be seen. If it is not stucco, it makes the foundation stick up and makes the homes look like they are setting up. When it's stucco all the way down, it looks like one wall. He referred to the illustration and stated he was concerned about the eighteen inch (18") rule because it ends up with more foundation sticking out of the wall. We might be better off saying that any exposed foundation be stucco with the same color to keep the appearance of the foundation from not sticking up.
Commissioner Anderson stated that Salt Lake has a problem with that because they put in a lot of basements because of the freezing.
They discussed the example that was illustrated on the two types of foundations.
Commissioner Pack asked if this is an aesthetic issue.
Kevin Rudd stated, "Yes."
Commissioner Anderson stated that it is strictly aesthetic so we could say the foundation shall be covered with stucco or rock within six inches (6") of the ground.
Commissioner Scott suggested modifying (ii) to read: "The top of any exposed concrete foundation treatment should match the house."
Commissioner Anderson stated that at least six inches (6") of foundation would be reasonable.
Kevin Rudd stated that on foundation it's difficult to get that at six inches. It might stick up a bit higher because of the grade. They might have 2-4 feet but if it is stucco to match the house it becomes one wall.
Commissioner Pack stated that the way it is written now it is good within eighteen inches (18") of exposure so if we take Commissioner Scott's suggestion, "top of the exposed concrete foundation wall shall not exceed eighteen (18) inches above the "Upper Grade" level."
Kevin Rudd referred to the illustration and explained they could end up with more foundation than eighteen inches (18"). He recommended removing the eighteen inch (18") wall rule. As long as they treat the foundation to match the house we don't worry about the foundation height because it's being regulated down below. Some of the walk-out basements will have higher foundation exposed.
Commissioner Anderson stated that a couple of the houses in Quail Cove with walk-out basements are a couple of feet higher. The dirt level was raised to create the a walk-out basement.
Kevin Rudd stated it is a tough situation. In Quail Cove, the developer created the walk-out basement lots but the lots were marginal for walk-out basements. People do not want eight foot (8') ceilings in basements. With a nine (9') ceiling it takes a taller foundation wall. As long as they treat it the same it will look like one wall. He would like to eliminate (ii) and say, "any foundation above grade shall have the same treatment as the wall above." It would be stucco all the way down to the grade.
Commissioner Anderson inquired about (iv), "The rear yard setback shall be increased 100% when the rear yard is located on the perimeter of the subdivision or is adjacent to a minor or major arterial or collector street." Would that be a twenty foot (20') setback?
Kevin Rudd explained that most rear yard setbacks are ten feet (10') on residential lots. That would translate into twenty feet (20'). He noted that he had previously talked to Commissioner Anderson about this. You weren't concerned about the interior of the subdivision but the perimeter.
Commissioner Anderson wasn't sure that this was accomplishing what he intended. He wasn't sure if adding the ten feet (10') was creating an angle. It's like moving a bill board back. He was concerned more with major arterial s than minor collectors. If it works, he was okay with Section (iv).
Kevin Rudd explained that the problem is there are smaller lots with only a ten foot (10') setback. If it was moved thirty feet (30'), it would reduce the lot size.
Commissioner Anderson was okay with the language if no one else had a problem with it.
No change was made.
16.12.124 Chickens in Residential Zones:
Kevin Rudd reported that chickens are becoming more popular in residential zones. Saint George and Washington amended their ordinances to allow chickens. He compared other ordinances and came up with the attached formula (a copy is available at Ivins City office). A lot of the cities stated 10,000 square feet but this formula includes less number of chickens on smaller lots. The smallest lot proposed is 7,500 square foot lots because it's the bottom line of density in Medium Density. It starts with three (3) chickens in smaller zones and goes up to ten (10) in larger zones of 12,500 square feet. The number ten (10) is consistent with the existing ordinance. On lots in the old township they can have ten (10) chickens. On an acre or larger the number goes up. Some requirements are:
1. enclosed pen that is predator-resistant proof
2. maximum coop size - 120 square feet (two square feet (2') and six square feet (6') rule are national standards and are the minimum area for chickens) with maximum height of eight feet (8')
3. maintaining a minimum of five (5) feet from property lines
4. twenty feet (20') from any neighboring dwelling
5. keep them clean
6. cannot roam outside the yard or street
7. store feed to keep them from rodents
Claudette Larsen if someone already has eighteen (18) chickens on a smaller lot are they grandfathered in to have eighteen (18) chickens. If some die, can they replace them to have a total of 18 or as you eat them do you have to cut the amount down to what is specified for the property.
Chair Murphy commented that if someone has eighteen (18) chickens on their lot they are not in compliance with the existing ordinance.
Dale Coulam explained that there is no such thing as being grandfathered in. It would be considered as a legal non conforming use. It was legal at the time it was allowed and then the ordinance changed and made it illegal for that many chickens. The current ordinance states, "no fowl" so it is illegal. This ordinance would apply because they never had a legal non conforming use. The word "grandfathered" is not a term used in reference to zoning. In this case it's illegal to have chickens unless it is in agricultural zone.
Steve Roberts commented if you and your wife have three (3) chickens that produce 100% of eggs, only one gets a double omelet and the other gets a half. He suggested increasing the number on each of the zones to make it realistic. Three (3) chickens are not enough to do anything with. Five (5) chickens would not have that big of an impact.
Chair Murphy stated if we want to increase the amount of chickens, we should increase the lot size.
Kevin Rudd stated that there is not a right or wrong way to do it. If people keep them clean, it want be a problem.
Commissioner Anderson did not have a problem with increasing the number of chickens from three (3) to five (5) on 7,500 square foot lots.
Chair Murphy noted that (3) (b) should read, "ten thousand instead of twelve thousand."
16.18.103: Site Layout and Development Pattern:
Kevin Rudd stated that this amendment deals with multi-family dwelling units. The City has not had a multi-family project come through since we had this ordinance. We had a potential project coming through but we did not have setbacks in the design book for the main dwelling units. This establishes minimum setbacks for multi-family dwellings.
The other change was when the units are adjacent to other single family zones. If the building is greater than sixty feet (60') in length, the setbacks need to be increased. The ordinance does allow a building up to a hundred twenty feet (120') within this zone but that's a large building in single family to be only ten feet (10') from the property line and next to a single-family zone. It's not a problem if it is up against another multi-family zone or commercial zone.
Commissioner Anderson asked if the Discovery property had gotten approval for multi-family would the setbacks have been twenty-five feet (25')?
Kevin Rudd under the current ordinances the maximum building length would have been one hundred twenty feet (120'). They would have had to do them in sections. The way the current ordinances is written it would have required a twenty foot (20') setback from the property line. This ordinance would still protect them with the same distance. The rear setback would increase 100% whatever the neighboring property is.
Commissioner Anderson asked if they could go 120' of building without any deviation in the face of the building.
Kevin Rudd stated that the ordinance does require deviation in the building every so many distances along the horizontal faces.
Chair Murphy opened the public hearing.
After no further response Chair Murphy closed the Public Hearing after no further response.