The meeting was called to order at
05:33 p.m. All present included
Commissioner Lance Anderson,
Commissioner Jeffrey Loris,
Commissioner Bryan Pack,
and Commissioner Mike Scott.
Kevin Rudd stated that this comes as a result of our City's ordinances that allow what we call "Free Zoning." The City Council allows citizens to request changes once a year and have them presented in January at no cost. Staff received only one application this year from Bryan Forman who lives in Philadelphia but owns a home in Kayenta. He wants to put in a lap pool without fencing. St. George allows pool covers in lieu of a fence so we get hit with those questions. Ivins' ordinance does not allow pool covers in lieu of a fence except for Jacuzzi tubs and similar small pools. Two (2) options are being proposed:
Option 1: It is more conservative and allows safety covers on Jacuzzi tubs, lap exercise pools, or other similar pools. Lap pools are usually narrow and long around 8' wide, 20-40' long; specialized in nature and for exercising.
Option 2: To consider allowing safety covers in lieu of fence on all residential pools and spas. Some jurisdictions require more than just a perimeter fence. Some ordinances require not only a perimeter fence but if your house is part of the barrier, it requires the cover or alarms on the doors.
There are two (2) sections in the Zoning Ordinance that refer to pool barriers. One is in the fencing section and the other is specifically about pool fencing. Currently in Section 16.12.119 (6) it states a solid locking cover can be used in place of a fence. If the Commission doesn't want to change this section, they may want to change it from a solid locking cover to a safety cover that complies with the national standard. The standard requires that someone can physically stand on it and not collapse. The fencing ordinance section has been changed to reference the pool exceptions. Also, if the Commission wants to expand the covers to swimming pools, they may want to consider allowing it only on larger lots. He's uncomfortable with just the safety cover being used on small lots such as his which is 9,000 sq ft. Most of the requests to use the safety covers instead of fencing has been in The Reserve and Kayenta.
Commissioner Loris's concern was that he could see his neighbors not putting the cover back on, and a child that doesn't know how to swim walks in the neighbors' yard and falls in. He inquired about the ordinance only requiring a 4'6' fence because most fences are six foot (6') around pools.
Kevin Rudd stated the national standard is four feet (4'). Some cities will up it to five feet (5') for residential. Commercial usually goes six feet (6') or more.
Acting Chair Scott opened the Public Hearing.
Matt Martin is one of the designers in Kayenta and has some clients looking at eliminating the fencing as well.
Greg Ragland talked to Kevin Rudd and furnished information about his pool cover. It does comply with the ASTMF 1346. He claimed covers are safer because a gate can be left open as well as the pool cover. His pool is 8' x 75' and 4' deep. The way his house is designed the pool is contained by walls and the building itself and the pool is in the courtyard. With there being walls, the house and fence around the house seems like anyone trying to get in would do more damage to the house than the pool. He distributed some pool cover information.
Matt Martin stated that for someone to get into the pools they will have to traverse across the desert, jump over walls and obstacles to be able to get to the pool. It would take a lot for a toddler to get over before getting to the pool. California requires the safety locks on the home that set off alarms for children that breach the barrier. In most cases that is where the biggest danger is. In Kayenta there are several areas where it is 150'-200' before getting to the pool and obstacles where you would have to be physically able to climb over or up, etc. If you can physically do those things, they should be able to get out of a pool. From a design standard, they build a shelf on the side for those that are uncomfortable in deep pools.
Terry Marten drew an example of the grade of the land, the house and the pool. There is rock fall which is too steep for a toddler. The requirement is a fence that would block the landscape and gets into the view. It would be hard for most people to negotiate the slope and fall into the pool. They would probably hurt themselves before falling into the pool. If a fence is required, it could be as simple as a couple of pieces of wire that wouldn't be seen that would stop people.
Matt Martin explained that in some instances there is more like a drop off where some would have to hike up the hill to get into the backyard.
After no further comments, Acting Chair Scott closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Loris stated that he understands Kayenta point of view but any changes to the ordinance is citywide. Kayenta's comments make sense but maybe not in a neighborhood like Heritage Estates or in town, etc. There's no ravine or any other geographical monument that would cause toddlers to have a problem. The majority of the problem is from the house itself. People from outside of Ivins would not be coming into a yard in Ivins.
Commissioner Anderson stated that's why Kevin Rudd is suggesting the size of the lots matters. With 10,000 square feet they can get in but with bigger lots they would have to traverse. He was considering 12,500 square foot lots but that may also be too small.
Dale Coulam suggested language such as, "a fence is required unless it can be shown that there are other physical obstacles and a safety pool cover is in place." A physical obstacle could be a long distance, a hill or drop offs as illustrated. But it would require the homeowner to come in with their special circumstances to show what other physical barriers would take the place of a fence and also requires the pool cover. That may be a way to deal with it instead of lot size.
Commissioner Anderson inquired if St. George's ordinance states a fence or some other barrier.
Kevin Rudd explained that their City Attorney advises that a pool cover provides the same safety as a fence. Their ordinance has not been amended specifically to do it but through interpretation.
Dale Coulam stated that where there are small children and there is no physical barrier, he was concerned about changing the standard that requires a fence. However, there are circumstances with physical obstacles would be as effective as a fence, and if there is a pool cover as well, it makes it as safe as we can.
Kevin Rudd advised that several homes have been approved where there are physical barriers such as in The Reserves within the lava. If he can walk down the hill without using his hands, his seven year old grandson could get down it. The fact that is rough to get to or the distance is not enough.
Commissioner Anderson stated if the Commissioners are comfortable with the pool cover, we could relate it to the size of the lots. Of course, we don't want it in high density. As far as a gate is concerned, it can be left open. He felt people with pool covers would keep them closed to keep the pool clean.
Commissioner Pack wasn't comfortable with the pool cover. It's easier to leave the pool cover off than leaving the gate open, especially a gate that closes automatically which a lot of people have. It seems to be a higher risk with just a pool cover.
Commissioner Anderson commented that it takes adults to close the pool cover but kids can leave the gate open. When there are parties and no one is paying attention is when someone drowns.
Commissioner Loris commented that the ASTM F 1346 standard is very restrictive as long as a pool cover is in place.
Commissioner Pack stated that he is comfortable when the cover is in place. He has seen the covers but the risk is leaving it off. The geographical area is understandable but we are putting discretion on somebody else to make a determination. How do we define that standard? Are we saying if there is enough discretion with the person, it's enough safety?
Commissioner Anderson feels comfortable with pool covers on larger lots.
Kevin Rudd stated in reference to lot size he suggested a half acre.
Acting Chair Scott mentioned as per Matt Marten a child would have to travel across a lot of desert because the lots are so larger, 1 to 1.5 acres or larger. A fence is going to be a barrier for people from outside the household.
Kevin Rudd stated research shows that there are more drownings when there are parties. More restrictive codes require alarms on the doors, a secondary fence, or pool cover. They have to have one of the three (3) options as secondary protection. There is an appendix in the International Residential Code that is more restrictive. We don't require a secondary fence unless that appendix was adopted.
Commissioner Loris is in favor of the pool cover if there is a geographical barrier. If not, he preferred there be a fence as well as a pool cover. He was okay with a pool cover on smaller residential pools. But for larger pools he preferred a fence. If it's a smaller pool such as four feet, you can stand up but a larger pool it can be 10-12 feet deep.
Commissioner Pack stated that he would be okay with just a pool cover if there was some other barrier. But we have to figure out what that criterion is and who is going to apply it.
Dale Coulam explained that it's the homeowner's burden to come forward to say he has special circumstances with the geographic barrier. That is already happening to some extent. Unless it can be demonstrated that there is some other physical barrier in lieu of a fence and there is a safety pool cover in place, the requirement would be fencing.
Acting Chair Scott gave an example of having two homes next to each other with higher desert in between them is much different barrier than in Citadel Estates.
Commissioner Pack referred to Option 2 to formulate a motion: Swimming Pools, Outdoor Jacuzzi Hot tubs may be protected with a safety cover which complies with ASTMF 1346 in lieu of a fence, if the homeowner has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Building Official that there are other barriers reduce the effectiveness of a fence.
Dale Coulam wasn't sure about the language: "reduce the effectiveness of a fence." He suggested, "Provided there is some other physical barrier."
Commissioner Pack amended the motion to read: Swimming Pools, Outdoor Jacuzzi Hot tubs may be protected with a safety cover which complies with ASTMF 1346 in lieu of a fence, if the homeowner has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Building Official that other physical barriers exist which serve as the equivalent to the fence.
Commissioner Loris seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Kevin Rudd explained that people will want to use distance as a barrier and the terrain is rough. He needs to understand what this body and the City Council means. If it's remote and distance away is that sufficient. Some homes in Kayenta have 4-4 1/2 foot retaining walls where a kid would have to jump down in. Is that some type of barrier?
Commissioner Anderson mentioned washes behind the homes are barriers.
Kevin Rudd stated that even though the houses back up to a wash the concern would be the house next door. We have to think about every direction.
Acting Chair Scott commented that if a homeowner can demonstrate that there are significant physical barriers that make a fence unnecessary.
Commissioner Anderson stated there will be some areas that will need partial fencing.
Commissioner Pack read his verbiage for Option 2: Swimming Pools and Outdoor Jacuzzi Hot tubs may be protected with a safety cover which complies with ASTM F 1346 in lieu of a fence if the homeowner has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Building Official that other physical barriers exist which serve as the equivalent to the fence.ordinance already has an exception for Jacuzzi Hot tubs. Currently, there doesn't have to be a physical barrier for hot tubs.
Kevin Rudd suggested in Option 1 they could add lap exercise pools and small pools and then Option 2 would be for swimming pools.
Commissioner Pack asked if there is a clear definition for a lap pool.
Kevin Rudd advised that lap pools are not wider than 8' and deeper than 4'.
Commissioner Pack stated that the risk with a lap pool seems to be the same as a swimming pool.
Acting Chair Scott suggested deleting lap exercise pools from Option 1 and define Option 2 for Swimming Pools and lap exercise pools. With swimming pools we would have to demonstrate that there is some other physical barrier plus a pool cover.
MOTION: Commissioner Bryan Pack moved to amend the previous motion to approve the proposed amendments to Ivins City Code, Zoning Regulations Title 16, Chapter 12, Sections 16.11.119 Swimming Pool Enclosures with the exception that we remove the language "lap exercise pools" in Option 1 and add language to Option 2 at the end of the first sentence after the word fence to read, "if the homeowner has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Building Official that other physical barriers exist which serve to the equiavlent of a fence. Brian Forman, applicant
SECOND: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Commissioner Lance Anderson |
AYE |
| Commissioner Jeffrey Loris |
AYE |
| Commissioner Bryan Pack |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
| Chairperson Adel Murphy |
ABSENT |
Kevin Rudd reported that Sterling Codifiers brought to our attention that there were a number of sections in the Ivins Zoning Ordinance which need to be modified to be consistent with recent amendments. There are no new changes. Those amendments which triggered additional changes were Ordinance 2012-08 (Subdivision Lot Averaging), Ordinance 2013-04 (Commercial Zones and Uses) and Ordinance 2007-35 (Appeal Authority). Also the Utah State Code changed its reference on agricultural uses which required modifications to our Zoning Ordinance (copies of the changes are available at Ivins City office). He noted that the Controlled Business (CB) zone no longer exists.
Acting Chair Scott noted that Professional & Research Commercial (PRC) should read Commercial Professional & Research (CPR).
Kevin Rudd explained several years ago the Appeal Authority was changed and all appeals appear before and Administrative Law Judge. Also, the current Utah codes have been reference.
Acting Chair Scott opened the Public Hearing and with no comments closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Pack referred to 16.06.101 (9) and suggested that the capitalization be consistent and not every word needs capitalization.
MOTION: Commissioner Bryan Pack moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to various Zoning Regulations related to Commercial Zones and Uses; and Zoning Regulations related to Land Use Appeal Authorities with the changes as stated by Acting Chair Scott and Commissioner Pack. Ivins City, applicants
SECOND: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Commissioner Lance Anderson |
AYE |
| Commissioner Jeffrey Loris |
AYE |
| Commissioner Bryan Pack |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
| Chairperson Adel Murphy |
ABSENT |
Acting Chair Scott commented that the Commissioners had previously discussed and continued this agenda item until the Commissioners received additional comments from the Technical Review Committee (TRC).
Kevin Rudd reported that Lance Anderson represents the applicant and was included in the TRC meeting. The TRC and the applicant came to a consensus on all the items except the connection on 750 West. The applicant is still requesting that it be abandoned but the TRC recommends it remains on the Transportation Master Plan.
Acting Chair Scott understood the objection to having the connection at 750 West was that it reduces control into Kayenta.
Lance Anderson explained that Kayenta submitted the Concept Plan so that the Commission could visualize what they are trying to accomplish. The goal is to limit access in Kayenta and not have cross traffic going through the subdivision so that the people can have solitude and peace of mind. It would change the whole concept by allowing the street to go through.
Acting Chair Scott understood that the Public Safety's issue is to have multiple egress options.
Dale Coulam explained it is broader than Public Safety. The Concept Plan provides three (3) areas for egress and ingress which may be sufficient for Public Safety and for the fire code. Fire code should not be viewed as the ideal but as the minimum. The TRC felt the City's vision was connectivity between subdivisions instead of hitting a block wall and having to go all the way around to get into another neighborhood. If there is not a through street, finding addresses by Public Safety is still a concern, and may delay the response. Sometimes it is a drainage issue. The applicant has expressed its opinion on a policy that discourages through traffic through a neighborhood or subdivision. The City has expressed a public policy opinion that it's good to have connectivity between subdivisions, both from a public safety standpoint and for general access instead of being obstructed by walls.
Kevin Rudd explained that Louis Carnselle was willing to work with the City and placed his new house anticipating that 750 West would be a future road.
Acting Chair Scott commented if he was trying to get into this subdivision from Center Street a connection off Center Street at 750 West would let me in to just this subdivision. But he could get into it easily off 200 North or 450 North. It's not connectivity through this subdivision to somewhere else it's just connecting into it and dead ending at the north end of the street.
Commissioner Loris doesn't see the connectivity of Ivins as part of the Master system. Center Street goes east to west and has this terminus at 750 West. You have to take a left or right to come back to 600 West. It doesn't look like it flows well. As a Planning Commission, we have been looking at Center Street for all the main activities, commercial, and beautification but as we get down to the end of Center there is a ravine. It's a master plan barrier that we cannot cross.. If Center Street came down and over the wash it would run into Sageway Drive and Sageway could come back to the highway. That's connectivity for the entire City.
Lance Anderson stated that the hill is too steep. It terminates itself.
Acting Chair Scott commented if there was connectivity all the way to 600 West, 750 West would only give connectivity into that one subdivision.
Kevin Rudd referred to the ten (10) acre parcel owned by Louis Carnselle. His only access is Center Street. There is another ten (10) acre parcel which Bill Papanikolas owns and his parcel fronts onto 600 West and Center Street. We have to consider the Carnselle's property and that Center Street is his only access to his property.
Lance Anderson stated he could not speak for Mr. Carnselle but they would be okay if it came off the north side. If Carnselle builds his home, it could connect down in but it does go through our property to begin with.
Kevin Rudd stated whenever the City looks at a piece of property being developed, we look at who's going to build the road. We can only require the property owner to build half the road. If we don't make a developer build half the road, we can't make Louis build the other half of the road or it comes out of the taxpayer's money. As TRC looks at development plans, we have to look at the big picture and the roads that abut the subdivision and the developer's responsibility to construct those roads.
Lance Anderson clarified that even if the road is taken out doesn't mean we lose that responsibility.
Commissioner Loris commented that the developer came in with the Concept Plan knowing that the Transportation Master Plan shows the road going through yet neglected to put it into this design.
Lance Anderson stated that they put it on the plan back in 2005 but he did not understand what it all meant. We thought we were doing something positive but it has turned out negative. That's one reason they are asking that it be removed.
Commissioner Loris asked if the houses in the subdivision that back up to 750 West back up to the end of the bluff.
Lance Anderson stated, No but close to the bluff edge. We cannot build on the edge. Kayenta is working on an agreement with SITLA.
Acting Chair Scott asked if the Commissioners wanted to approve the amendments and either leave 750 West on the plan or remove it from the plan.
Commissioner Pack's opinion is the policy of connectivity seems to be met with 600 West because the Center Street essentially terminates beyond the subdivision. He doesn't see a need for people to go on 750 West on the north/south corridor. He was in favor of removing Item "J" from the Master Plan.
Commissioner Loris stated if we remove Item "J" we have a terminus on Center Street. How does that affect Center Street? Would there be a turn around, etc.
Lance Anderson stated if there is no through street, it makes the houses more private. He suggested a cul-de-sac or roundabout. When Papanikolas and those build their houses, there will be another connector road.
Lance Anderson stated that it will probably be negotiated.
Commissioner Pack still felt that if the policy is connectivity 600 West is serving that purpose.
Acting Chair Scott also agreed that 600 West serves that purpose.
Commissioner Loris stated as per the Master Plan 600 West seems to be the connection between Highway 91 and Kayenta as well as onto Center Street. It seems redundant to have 750 West. The 500-600 feet would not increase the connectivity through a subdivision. He could not see it for emergency access.
MOTION: Commissioner Bryan Pack moved approve the proposed amendments to elements of the Ivins City General Plan including transportation and roadways to reconfigure streets west of 400 West and the cross sections of major collectors in rural zones as proposed with the exception that we are recommending to remove 750 West from the Transportation Master Plan Map.
SECOND: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris
Discussion:
Dale Coulam asked if the motion include recommendation for approval of Parks and Trails Reconfiguration.
MOTION: Commissioner Bryan Pack moved to amend his previous motion to include the Parks and Trails reconfigurations.
SECOND: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris
VOTE: The motion carried.
| Commissioner Jeffrey Loris |
AYE |
| Commissioner Bryan Pack |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
| Commissioner Lance Anderson |
ABSTAIN |
| Chairperson Adel Murphy |
ABSENT |
Kevin Rudd reported that Taviawk XI Phase G consists of three (3) lots. The TRC reviewed the plan, it complies with the Preliminary Plan and the TRC recommends approval.
MOTION: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris moved to approve a Final Plat for Taviawk Phase XI-G located on Sihu Way and Tearasinab Way. R. T Marten and Ivins Irrigation, owner, and Lance Anderson, applicant
SECOND: Commissioner Bryan Pack
VOTE: The motion carried.
| Commissioner Jeffrey Loris |
AYE |
| Commissioner Bryan Pack |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
| Commissioner Lance Anderson |
ABSTAIN |
| Chairperson Adel Murphy |
ABSENT |
Commissioner Loris provided a map regarding the questions about Center Street and Tuacahn Drive. He explained that the profiles were every 200 feet from the side of the road based on land that could be developed. The Commission's goal has been to keep the view of the Red Mountain intact. The south area above the cattle guard starting at the left hand side of the road at zero the elevations are every 100 feet. As it goes up every 200 feet the steepness generally falls away. Most of the land is approximately 8%. Our Sensitive Lands issue indicated a problem with 8% or more. In most of the area up to 600 feet off the road, maybe even 700 feet off the road, it jumps 12% and even 13%. That general area is sensitive lands but it could have a potential to be used appropriately.
Lance Anderson stated when the buildings get couched back in the heights go away.
Commissioner Loris explained that the map shows 6-8% all the way through with a steady slope up to certain points but as we come south the bluff comes forward and it is steep for the first 300-400 feet. Google Earth shows the manholes every 200 to 400 feet and this map lines up with the manholes.
Commissioner Loris will send it to the Commissioners in a PDF format for their review.
Acting Chair Scott stated they need to take this information and define the requirements.
Commissioner Loris stated that the area on the corridor from the roundabout to Tuacahn Drive to the east is being developed by The Reserve. But on the west side of the corridor it's dead flat and you have to go half mile before it goes up ten feet (10') and there's also lava flow. Height restrictions will cause that side to change.
Commissioner Anderson stated that is where it is critical because developers have a concept plan and the buildings are located right on the road.
Commissioner Loris mentioned that the rock barrier put in by The Reserves creates a nice slope. The wall blocks everything behind it even though it's right on the road.
Acting Chair Scott referred to the three-story concept plan and noted that there is a significant drop off in that area. There might be a ten foot (10') drop. If the developer has thirty-five foot (35') buildings, it's like twenty-five feet (25') from the street but right up against the street it will appear larger.
Commissioner Anderson indicated that they could put their frontage road out front. However, they do have one problem area.
Kevin Rudd mentioned that Bush and Gudgell is preparing to submit a Conditional Use Permit with a 3-D. That will probably be submitted before anything gets passed. It will help the Commissioners to visualize the concept.
Acting Chair Scott advised that they should take the information supplied by Commissioner Loris and hammer out some recommendations at the next meeting.
MOTION: Commissioner Bryan Pack moved to approve of the Ivins City Planning Commission minutes for December 17, 2013
SECOND: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Commissioner Lance Anderson |
AYE |
| Commissioner Jeffrey Loris |
AYE |
| Commissioner Bryan Pack |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
| Chairperson Adel Murphy |
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 |
1. Continue discussion of Chapter 18 Multi-Family Residential Requirements and Chapter 19 Commercial Site Plan and Building Design Requirements.
MOTION: Commissioner Lance Anderson moved to adjourn
SECOND: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Commissioner Lance Anderson |
AYE |
| Commissioner Jeffrey Loris |
AYE |
| Commissioner Bryan Pack |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
AYE |
| Chairperson Adel Murphy |
ABSENT |
The meeting adjourned 7:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Martha Wilson, CMC
Deputy City Recorder