Planning Commission

Copy of the City of Ivins record for Planning Commission, preserved by OwnUtah.com Ivins Meetings. Official source: City of Ivins Granicus archive.

IVINS CITY
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
February 4, 2014
435-628-0606

CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS: The meeting was called to order at 05:30 p.m. All present included Chair Adel Murphy, Commissioner Jeffrey Loris, Commissioner Bryan Pack, and Commissioner Mike Scott.

STAFF: City Attorney Dale Coulam, Building and Zoning Administrator Kevin Rudd, and Deputy City Recorder Martha Wilson
AUDIENCE: Claudette Larsen, JoAnn Cooper, Lisa Rutherford, Ken Miller, Kirk and Charity Nelson

A.	Acknowledgement of Quorum

Chair Murphy acknowledged there was a quorum. Commissioner Lance Anderson was excused.

B.	Flag Salute

Commissioner Scott led the Flag Salute.

C.	Invocation

Commissioner Loris led the Invocation.

D.	Disclosures

There were no disclosures or conflicts of interest with this meeting's agenda.

Kevin Rudd reported on the recommended revisions of Part 2 of the Sensitive Lands. It is the most complicated document within the Zoning Ordinance and it is written for professional engineers to use when designing a development. The main amendments relate to hillsides. The Sensitive Lands Ordinance deals with lava flows, wash areas, geological hazards, and wetlands but those have not been changed. When the Sensitive Lands Committee tried to apply the ordinance to commercial property, it did not work, and the Committee reported to the Commission and Council that some changes needed to be made. Also, the Committee worked with the students from Form Tomorrow and students prepared a document with some recommendations that was reported to the Council. Some of their report has been incorporated in the amendments.
The following are some recommendations: (a complete document of the amendments are available at the Ivins City offices):
Low Density Residential: The slope for sensitive lands will remain at 8% but it is now measured in the predominant slope direction of a hillside meeting all of the conditions listed (see list of conditions). He explained the minimum distance of the forty foot (40') rule.
Commercial and Medium to High Density Residential: Where the slope of the natural grade is equal to or greater than fifteen percent (15%) (1 foot of grade change for every 6 2/3 feet of horizontal run) for a minimum distance of forty feet (40') measured in the predominant slope direction of a hillside meeting all the following conditions (see list of conditions). 15% is a trigger point within the ordinance as defining a very steep slope but this could be any number that the Commission and Council feel is appropriate. If we use a lower number, the cutoff area of a very steep slope may have to be redefined. The Committee recommends the percentage between 12% to 15% for the commercial area because 8% is too shallow.
Ridgeline Protection: This deals with the Landhill Ridge which is BLM property up above Fitness Ridge. When the original ordinance was made, it was identified as the ridgeline that said building had to be kept 100' below that ridge. The 100' line barely cuts into Ivins City limits. It may never come into play.
The Kayenta Hell Hole Wash is a long ridgeline extending all the way from Highway 91 up to the City boundary. The TRC looked at how to protect it from people building right on the edge of the wash. There should be some limitation on how close the buildings could be to the ridgeline. The map shows some other ridges that the Committee felt should be identified on the Sensitive Lands Map (the Ridgeline Map is available at Ivins City offices). Other maps are included but he did not think that those maps are to be included in the Sensitive Lands Ordinance. The additional maps provide information such as potential rock falls, land site hazards and expansive soils. Expansive soils are not identified as sensitive lands but Chuck Gillette felt the maps are useful. The geo techs have already identified expansive soils areas within the City. The maps for information will not become an enforcement tool.
On the second ridgeline the interior city bluff is identified as the point where the slope become steeper than eighteen percent (18%) and coinciding with a very steep slope boundary of the area defined in the city's ridgelines map.
Inventory Map: If an application includes sensitive lands an inventory map of the site area will be required according to the ordinance (see ordinance for requirements).
Some of the diagrams from Form Tomorrow have been included in the document and Chuck Gillette is contacting Form Tomorrow about including more of their diagrams.
Limits of Disturbance Area (see Table 8-3): If a lot is surrounded on three (3) sides with lots that are greater than 8% it would be limited to a 50% disturbance area.
The average slope section determines how to measure individual lots that have parts of it that is very steep. This section deals mostly with the Kayenta area because they do not have common areas but include sensitive lands within their lots. This is a way to measure the lot and not over penalize the developer. The basic rule of building near the ridgeline is if a twenty-five foot (25') home is built the ordinance states that the setback is 150' from the ridgeline. However, if the height of the home is lowered the home can be built closer. If the setback is 75' or less, there has to be a slope stability analysis (see ordinance for additional information on measuring).
Commissioner Loris commented that this section is a very good idea. An example given was the moving of the Black Hill in St. George. If it is taken care of initially, there will not be issues in the future.
Kevin Rudd mentioned that this section will affect the development along the ridges in Kayenta and Kayenta Development has some concept plans in-house that it may affect.
Commissioner Loris inquired about allowing block walls being close to the ridgeline.
Kevin Rudd stated that Chuck Gillette indicates that a developer is allowed to berm it but Lance Anderson was not in favor of modifying the ridge and felt it should be left natural. Chuck Gillette felt that a berm would hide any structures. The Commissioners may want to consider whether there should be setbacks for fencing.
Transition Areas (see text and diagrams)
Slopes, Nonresidential and Medium to High Density Residential: Once the developer goes above 15% in the commercial area it triggers the same regulations as Low Density Residential except for the disturbance areas. Chuck Gillette has established a cross the board of no more than 30% disturbance once it goes above 15%. It's tough to develop commercial on a steep slope because of accessibility. This establishes a maximum height once they go above the 15% slope, buildings would be restricted to a maximum height of twenty-six feet (26'). In non-regulated areas the height is thirty-five feet (35'). The maximum height for residential is eighteen feet (18') for hillsides.

Lisa Rutherford commented that the 12%-15% is being presented but Committee's preference is 12% for hillsides for commercial and medium to high density residential. In regards to the maps, they did discuss including those in the ordinance. Kevin Rudd commented on the one map that the Committee decided on. It may be wise to have the Rock Fall Map more visible.
Chair Murphy stated that the Commissioners will discuss it first at the next meeting before setting a public hearing.

Kevin Rudd reported that the Cliff Rose Subdivision consists of 65 lots with 20.56 acres and zoned RE-12.5 (Residential Estates minimum 12,500 sq ft lots). TRC reviewed this Concept Plan on January 26, 2014, and the subdivision is being proposed as a Subdivision Enhancement Overlay (SEO). They are seeking a density bonus. Based upon the acreage of 20.56 acres establishes a base density of 57 lots. It would require a 15% bonus to achieve the 65 lots. The TRC is not not commenting on how the developer might achieve the bonus. The developer will justify the 15% during the review of the Preliminary Plan. However, they are not seeking a density bonus based upon open space. The SEO requires a minimum of 10% of the property as improved open space. They are proposing that the landscape buffers around the perimeter which totals 2.05 acres to be used as open space. The SEO states that required streetscapes and street open spaces cannot be used as open space when calculating open space areas. Staff feels this may be justified because the property is surrounded on three (3) sides by collector streets, and they are also building a collector street. Also, the developer is being required to put in a ten foot (10') walking path. The Trails Master Plan shows all three (3) streets with a trail. Rather than a five foot (5') sidewalk a ten foot (10') walking path is required. They are also providing an area for a future roundabout. The TRC did discuss providing a connecting road to the property to the north for future development for connectivity and storm drains.

3)	BUSINESS LICENSES (None)

4)	PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ITEMS (None)

Kevin Rudd reported on the location of the subdivision indicating where the park and landscape buffer was located. The subdivision consists of nineteen (19) lots with a total acreage of 4.18 acres. Also the developer is providing an area for a future roundabout. The Western Corridor is on the Transportation Plan, and there may be a roundabout. The TRC reviewed the plan and it complies with the Preliminary Plan that has been approved by the Commission and Council. The TRC recommends approval.

MOTION: Commissioner Bryan Pack moved to approve a Final Plat for Desert Rose Subdivision Phase 2 located approximately 200 East and Desert Rose Way. Faction, LLC, owner, and Development Solution/Ken Miller, applicant
SECOND: Commissioner Mike Scott

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.

Kevin Rudd introduced the applicants who recently opened the bicycle shop that is located within the old Hafen home which has been converted into a commercial building. There are two (2) porch entrances. One faces Center Street and one faces 200 East. The ordinance allows a wall, canopy or standing sign on each face of the building. Because it is a home with windows, etc. there is not a good area to place a sign on the wall of the house. The applicants are proposing to put the signs above the porches. The ordinance states that wall signs and other signs cannot extend above the eaves of the roof. The TRC felt the intent of the ordinance was not to hang a sign in front of the fascia line (see two photos submitted). Since the ordinance refers to not extending the signs above the roof eaves, the signs would need to be kept under the overhang. TRC recommended that the signs be modified to go underneath the soffit area. It would be more pleasing and more in compliance with the sign ordinance.
Kirk Nelson is the owner of I BB Cyclery & Multisport and created the sign. Troy Dennett advised that there are 2- 2x4 that make up the A-frame and that it would be fairly straight forward to attach the sign. It should be easy to find a solution to hang it just under the A-frame or under the fascia.
Commissioner Loris asked the owner if he had a problem moving it back twelve inches (12"). The structure has a 2 x 6 that the sign could be screwed to but the TRC is not in favor of that. Back twelve inches (12") is a beam and a structural truss. If it is pushed back twelve inches (12"), it would not be so predominant and would help keep the view and the look that we have on the corner. He doesn't have a problem with the sign itself. The other thing to consider is wind. If it was set back it would have more stability.
Charity Nelson explained that they originally wanted to suspend it with hooks and set it back. However, there is an eight foot (8') height rule so we had to keep it above eight feet (8'). When we measured, it wasn't high enough and had to move it up higher.
Commissioner Loris explained that the sign would be additional load and could overload the fascia line. If it were sitting back where the columns are it would greatly enhance the design but also save the deflection and possible damage of the building itself.
Commissioner Pack asked if they have to keep the eight foot (8') height rule.
Kevin Rudd stated that he would meet with them and measure. Troy Dennett framed these porches and he would know what the next framing member is to drill into. He asked if the Commissioners were agreeable with the sign being behind the fascia and not necessarily set back a specific distance but just under and back in.
Chair Murphy was agreeable to having it under the fascia and back in and attached the best way as long as Kevin Rudd determines the best way to attach it. She was okay.
The Commissioners agreed and also agreed to the sign being white to match the columns and windows.

MOTION: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris moved to approve a Sign Permit Application located at the corner of Center Street and 200 East. Kirk & Charity Nelson, applicants, with the stipulation that the sign be below and behind the fascia line.
SECOND: Commissioner Mike Scott

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.

Kevin Rudd reported that the Taviawk Subdivision 9 Phase F consists of two (2) lots with a total of 2.06 acres. The TRC reviewed this plat on January 3, 2014 and it is consistent with the Preliminary Plan that was reviewed and approved by the City Council. The TRC recommends approval.

MOTION: Commissioner Bryan Pack moved to approve a Final Plat for Taviawk Subdivision Phase 9-F located on Wicasa Way. Kayenta Development, owner, and Lance Anderson, applicant
SECOND: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.

Kevin Rudd reported this is the first phase of The Palisades at Snow Canyon and they are currently building the club house and pool. It has a pueblo facade feature for the entrance. The location map and a photo of the proposed entrance was displayed (copy is available through Ivins City's office). It's a gated community with walls and a gate. The TRC was concerned about the original location of the feature and felt the feature would impact the existing structures. Now with a distance of 90' from one structure and 130' from the other structure it doesn't visually impact or block views. The height of the entrance is fifteen feet (15'), six foot (6') columns on each side of the gate and it's a rock facade with some with some post and an area for the subdivision name. The height of the rock facade is fifteen feet (15'). The maximum roof height of the homes as per their CC&R's is seventeen feet (17'). The development agreement limits them to twenty-five feet (25') and single story. The entrance is below the height of the houses. Also, the club house has a similar half dome facade feature.
Chair Murphy asked if there is only one entrance feature.
Kevin Rudd stated that there is only one.
Chair Murphy mentioned that there will be a house behind the feature located in the subdivision close to the feature.
Kevin Rudd noted that whoever buys the lot will know that the feature is there. He mentioned that there are similar entrances to subdivisions such as The Reserve and Vermillion Cliffs and doesn't affect the houses near the entrance.
Commissioner Loris stated he liked the design and it matches the Entrada area etc. and it doesn't look bad with the red hills.
Chair Murphy stated it is very tasteful.

MOTION: Commissioner Bryan Pack moved to approve the entrance feature to Palisades at Snow Canyon Subdivision
SECOND: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.

Commissioner Loris' drawings were displayed and explained. The slope is approximately 8%-8 1/2%. If the changes are made in the Sensitive Lands in areas proposed, then a lot of the stipulations we have to worry about have already been taken care. Then the only concern would be as we get closer to the bluff.
Chuck Gillette indicated on the hillside elevations that he was using a 12% slope with a six foot (6') rise. On Center Street, Commissioner Loris did a five foot (5') elevation change, then a fifteen degree angle which is a 28% slope.
Commissioner Pack commented it's the view shed that's the concern so it seems the numbers would be appropriate at fifteen degrees and 28% slope.
Commissioner Loris referred to Vista Elementary as being one of the best stipulations because it sits back 100' to 160', and we can still see the majority of the Red Mountain above it. 100' to the east the church is only 105' off the curb and the ridgeline of the roof blocks almost the entire ridgeline of the Red Mountain. To get the majority of the view of the Red Mountain it needs to set back another 50' to 60'.
Commissioner Pack commented that there could be a smaller building. It's just the larger buildings and it's really the angle.
Commissioner Loris referred to Chuck Gillette's picture. As we come closer to the street and keep that projected line of view protection if it's a smaller building that's single level with an office in the front and warehouse in the back, it would still have the massing and have the view behind it.
Chair Murphy stated the maximum height for commercial buildings is thirty-five feet (35') so how tall is the school at the front of the building.
Commissioner Loris commented that the ridgeline is thirty (30') to thirty-two (32') but the towers are thirty-five feet (35').
Kevin Rudd explained that the ridgeline of the church is twenty-eight (28') to thirty feet (30') but the steeple is shallow compared to the other churches. They received a special exception for the steeple.
Commissioner Loris indicated that on Tuacahn Drive if we stay at the 28% slope with a five foot (5') elevation like Center Street we get more of the ridgeline because it's higher and we would have the same view. As we go west it will block everything.
Commissioner Pack stated maybe that could be solved with setbacks by pushing the buildings back.
Commissioner Loris agreed if they keep the same envelope as the south side as the north side of Center Street and keep the massing of the building off the sidewalk. The Commission previously talked about keeping the buildings and any commercial off the sidewalk by putting bushes and parking in the front, etc. This needs to be continued as we go into commercial.
Commissioner Pack inquired about the current commercial setbacks.
Kevin Rudd explained that the ordinance refers to maintaining view corridors. It gives flexibility to the Commission and Council on setbacks. There is not a set number except when it abuts a residential zone. Then it has to maintain the same setback as the residential property. Commercial is flexible but it requires maintaining the view corridors.
Commissioner Loris commented that's why the clinic is so close.
Kevin Rudd stated the clinic was built in 1995 and is approximately twenty (20') to twenty-five feet (25') off the back property. There's a big difference how it feels compared to the school.
Commissioner Loris liked the design of the clinic but it's too close to the street.
Kevin Rudd explained the ordinance states it has to maintain the setbacks that achieve all the requirements of the site planning regulations such as minimum landscape areas around the perimeter but it doesn't specify an actual measurement. It has to comply with the requirements in Chapter 19. The City Council has the flexibility to adjust those setback lines.
Commissioner Loris suggested that they read Chapter 18 and 19 to see if anything needs to be changed.
Chair Murphy read several sections of Chapter 19 that referred to view protections. She also suggested that they review this chapter.
Commissioner Pack asked if there are other solutions besides the massing and setbacks that could accomplish this that they should consider.
Kevin Rudd stated that Chuck Gillette's diagram of the hillside establishes a six foot (6') point and a view line where buildings can be built up to the view line. If buildings are closer, they have to be smaller in scale but after a certain point the buildings could be thirty-five feet (35').
Commissioner Pack indicated that the two solutions identified are the angle of the view and setbacks.
Chair Murphy and Commissioner Loris agreed that the massing and the view projection is what they should consider.
The Commissioners will review the chapters to see where the ordinance may be weak and Commissioner Loris will draw some illustrations for the next meeting.

MOTION: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris moved to approve the Ivins City Planning Commission minutes for January 14, 2014
SECOND: Commissioner Mike Scott

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.

1. Discuss Sensitive Lands amendments
2. Discuss Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 18 and 19

MOTION: Commissioner Bryan Pack moved to adjourn
SECOND: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris

VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 7:01 PM

Respectfully submitted,

Martha Wilson, CMC
Deputy City Recorder

Chair Adel Murphy	AYE
Commissioner Jeffrey Loris	AYE
Commissioner Bryan Pack	AYE
Commissioner Mike Scott	AYE
Commissioner Lance Anderson	ABSENT