Kevin Rudd displayed the Site Plan and reported on the location. The properties surrounding this parcel are all zoned R-M (Multi Family District). This is the first application to be processed using Chapter 18 - Multi Family Design Guidelines. The plan is proposing a total of 11 units. These are two-story townhome units. There are eight (8) units each on the east and south sides and on the west side it has six (6) units.
The base density in the ordinance allows fifteen (15) units per acre but it is contingent on meeting all the required parking, minimal usable open space, and setbacks. It is difficult to calculate the actual density until a designer tries to put a project together with access and configuration of the lot. Prior to Chapter 18, multi family was based on the lot size, approximately 8,000 square feet for the first unit and for each additional unit they had to provide additional square footage of lots. That's the reason the lots next to this project have only eight (8) units. Chapter 18 allows more units placed on an acre. The required open space is 2,600 square feet which is represented on the landscape drawing. Conservatively, there is 2,900 square feet of open space, and they have provided more than enough qualified open space. A total of thirty-one (31) parking spaces are provided with eleven (11) being covered. Parking spaces are based upon 2.5 spaces per unit then 1.25 covered parking spaces per unit. The plan provides the minimal amount of parking. Metal covered parking is required within the interior and shielded by the buildings. Staff felt the location of the metal parking met the intent of the ordinance. The two-story buildings have a height of twenty-five feet (25') with concrete roof tiles, the exterior is stucco with stone accents, and the fronts have architectural features. The plan has several areas that are in conflict with Chapter 18 such as Section 16.18.105 (3) Building Design - Required Massing. The ordinance states the buildings are required to have a four foot (4') offset on the walls and on the roof every forty feet (40'). The applicant felt that was difficult to achieve and the plan does not include the offsets. Offsetting a pitched roof becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible, especially on a two-story building and stay within the height limit. The Commission will need to decide if they want to leave the ordinance the way it is with a forty foot (40') offset or should they consider changes to Chapter 18. The commercial ordinance states every forty-two feet (42') requires an offset. After reviewing some of the commercial buildings, he questioned if the commercial requirement is also unreasonable and does it discourage development by having such restrictive design guidelines.
Also, Section 16.18.105 (4) Architectural Detail states all sides of the building to have a similar level of quality and architectural interest and that the majority of the features and treatments are not restricted to a single façade. Chapter 19 which is for commercial guidelines had a similar statement: "A consistent level of detail and finish on all sides of a building shall be provided: however, a lesser degree of detail is allowed on non-street facing sides." Some of the buildings face Center Street but the rear and the sides of the buildings do not face the street. However, the side of Unit #1 does face a street. If the rear and sides have to have similar level of quality and architectural interest, are we placing to much of a burden on the property owner and developer?
Commissioner Anderson inquired about the type of buildings that exist on the east and south.
Kevin Rudd explained that on the east there are duplexes or twin homes, on the south there are eight (8) units of townhomes and to the west are tri-plexes. The parcel is surrounded by multi-family. The townhomes south of this plan are two-story and to the east are single story. There will be a road across Kay Ence's property. That is good planning because eventually there will be other multi family units on this parcel. This allows for storm drainage for this plan and there is another exit onto Center Street.
Commissioner Anderson inquired about the elevation of Center Street, etc. The first pad seems to be the same as the street.
Kevin Rudd advised that some of the units will have approximately four feet (4') of fill to provide drainage in the rear. It's the maximum allowed next to the neighboring property without them agreeing to it. One side of the building that faces the street may require additional features or detail. The pads in the rear would be raised for drainage. Staff discussed whether the landscaping was enough to offset the requirement of a four foot (4') offset for every two units. The height of the buildings to the east are approximately 15-16', and the townhomes to the south are approximately twenty-five feet (25'). The pads can be raised four feet (4') for drainage and the maximum height allowed is twenty-five feet (25'). Under the old ordinance the maximum building height was thirty-five (35').
The front and rear plan of the elevations were displayed, the side of the building, floor plans, landscaping, examples of the architectural features and an example of the metal carport cover. (All the drawing submitted are available at the Ivins City offices).
Chair Murphy opened the Public Hearing.
Barbara Anderson lives in the condos to the east of the project, and she did not realize the ordinance requirements changed from eight (8) units to allowing eleven (11) units. The project she lives in is high density (.88 acre) and there are 14 children with tiny backyards. The children will not play in the backyards so they play in the streets with their big wheels and bicycles, and when they add their friends we have twenty (20) children. It's extremely painful for herself and others that live there because people don't use their garages, and the City and the CC&R's don't require it. Therefore, it cannot be enforced. It's extremely dangerous to drive down the street. When turning in from Center Street, there is approximately two feet (2') from parked cars in the driveways and children dart out. There have been some near misses. Safety is her main concern regarding high density. Also, the trees on that parcel next to them have been a problem in regards to their wall. Robert Ence will be great to work with regards to the damage to the wall but high density is a serious problem.
Chair Murphy closed the Public Hearing after no further response.
Commissioner Loris and Eric McFadden discussed the construction pad and height of the pads. Eric McFadden noted that the existing wall along Center Street will stay.
Commissioner Loris liked the road connection to 100 West not just for grading but for safety because in the adjacent existing units there is only one entrance. Center Street entrance is nice but it's a high traffic zone.
Eric McFadden stated that they will keep the large tree on the northeast corner of Center Street, and it will block the whole back view of the units. The existing trees along the existing units will be removed. The trees will be left on the west side where the park is.
Commissioner Anderson inquired about the fill on the units to the south which looked approximately 2-2 1/2 feet.
Commissioner Loris advised that the pad height will be approximately two feet (2') in the front of the building and four feet (4') in the back of the units.
Eric McFadden stated there will be a little less fill on the west side and a little more on the east side. The road going to 100 West is done at .75. He doesn't like to go any less because of drainage.
Chair Murphy asked the Commissioners how they felt about the problem with the ordinance which requires a break in the building after forty feet (40').
Commissioner Anderson wasn't sure if he wanted to change the ordinance. However, this parcel does have its own criteria.
Dale Coulam indicated it could not be approved as submitted because it does not comply, and there is no discretion to waive the requirements of the ordinance. One option that would give the Commission some discretion is to make Chapter 18 consistent with the adopted language that the Council approved in Chapter 19 which says, "It is suppose to have consistent design features but the rear and side not to same extent."
Commissioner Pack asked if the language stated in Chapter 19 would be sufficient to handle the four foot (4') offset as well or is that just for the architectural features.
Kevin Rudd clarified Chapter 18 states, "At least every forty (40) linear feet, wall and roof planes shall contain offsets or setbacks in differential in horizontal plane of at least four feet (4')."
Commissioner Anderson asked if it would take away the requirement to have the four foot (4') offset so that we don't see a straight plane.
Dale Coulam stated not necessarily and gave examples of consistency for the front and back.
Kevin Rudd commented that changes also need to be made to the commercial ordinance, in particular, for an architect when designing a building. They would like to know exactly what this means upfront because the cost can be expensive for them to design a building.
Commissioner Anderson explained that homes surrounds this building and it won't be seen but if this type of building was on Snow Canyon he would have some concern.
Kevin Rudd asked if a builder arbitrarily puts some four foot (4') pop outs on a building is that what we really want them to do to achieve the look. His concern was about pushing development away because of the strict standards.
Chair Murphy noted that we had no control over the building of Vista Charter School but they probably did the best job of anyone out there and accomplished what the City wanted. It looks good with the different facades.
Commissioner Pack commented that it looks good but it doesn't meet the current ordinance.
Kevin Rudd agreed. There should be a way to write the ordinance without using a specific number of feet.
Commissioner Loris commented it's nice to have offsets in a design. On the proposed units it's easy to run the units with the same line and the roof. It makes sense in this area as it is protected on all sides by other units that are already there. If it was a standalone, it would look better for the units to shift a little. However, it is a tight lot and hard to accomplish with this unit. He agreed with Dale Coulam about making all the chapters consistent about design requirements.
Commissioner Anderson doesn't want to set precedence but this developer is stuck in their environment.
Chair Murphy stated by changing Chapter 18 to mirror Chapter 19 we can allow this to go forward.
Commissioner Loris commented that the proposed units have plenty of pop outs and character facing the street. On Unit #1 that faces Center Street it has a large massing two-story wall.
Chair Murphy would like to see more design on the wall either rock or another window.
The Commissioners agreed there should be something on that wall.
Dale Coulam noted that coming up on this agenda is a discussion about Chapters 18 and 19. These proposed units could be tabled. Then, they could discuss amending the language to be consistent with Chapter 19 and maybe adopt some other language to satisfy their other concerns. The ordinance is still in the draft stage and can be modified before it goes to a Public Hearing. If the City Council approves the amendments, then the proposed units can go back on an agenda to be considered. In the meantime the developer could consider what to put on the side that faces Center Street and submit those changes the next time it is considered.
The consensus was that the Commissioners would table the agenda item and discuss amendments to Chapter 18.
MOTION: Commissioner Jeffrey Loris moved to table a Proposed Class IV Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family project for the Park Place Townhomes located at 65 W Center Street. Robert Ence, owner, and Premier Design, applicants
SECOND: Commissioner Lance Anderson
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Chair Adel Murphy |
AYE |
| Commissioner Lance Anderson |
AYE |
| Commissioner Jeffrey Loris |
AYE |
| Commissioner Bryan Pack |
AYE |
| Commissioner Mike Scott |
ABSENT |