Dale Coulam indicated that this parcel is just above the Cliffrose subdivision and the Cliffrose subdivision is at the higher end of the Medium Density zoning. The highest density allowed there is R-1-7.5. Cliffrose has a mixture of lot sizes due to an overlay. The land across from this parcel is High Density Residential and below that is Commercial Resort. There was a split vote by the Planning Commission because Commissioner Lance Anderson's son owns a parcel that is next to the subject property so he stated a conflict of interest. He would have liked to have abstained but the vote was a 2 to 2 tie. To break the tie and allow this to move to the City Council, he voted to deny the proposed amendment. The Planning Commissioner's that voted in favor of the change commented that the subject property is surrounded on three (3) sides by higher density. There could be 9 lots on the subject parcel in Low Density Residential and 12-13 lots in Medium Density Residential zoned at RE-12.5. Mayor Hart reminded the public that the City Council has read through the Planning Commission minutes and are aware of the public comments that took place at that meeting and stated that Public Hearings are designed for residents to provide information to the City Council so that they can make an educated decision. Mayor Hart opened the Public Hearing. Luke Godfrey spoke on behalf of the property owner, Cousin Eddie, LC. He indicated that they are limited by the width of the site and are trying to develop lots that are between 11,000 and 12,500 square feet. The smallest lot would be 10,400 square feet, with the average lot size being 11,500 square feet. Kerry Haut provided copies of a Petition to the Mayor and City Council that was signed by the residents in the neighborhood and read it to the City Council. A copy of the Petition is available by request through Ivins City Hall. "We, the undersigned residents of the City of Ivins, submit the attached petition to the City of Ivins to not approve the rezoning of the 4.63 acres at approximately 600 West 200 South from low density residential to medium density residential. The sole purpose of this rezoning is simply to allow a developer to come into the City, build as many houses as possible and make large sums of money. This proposed rezoning is in direct conflict with the "compatibility of the proposed uses with nearby and adjoining properties" pursuant to Ivins City Code 16.05.106(4). The City of Ivins General Plan addresses growth within its jurisdiction. One of the City's main arguments for growth and development, as stated publicly in previous commission and council meetings, is the financial gain to the City from short term (impact fees) and long term (property tax) income. Absent from those discussions is the face that the cost of City infrastructure expansion, to keep pace with the development, will negate most, if not all or even more, of the increased tax base. The petitioners realize no financial gain from these developments. Conversely, the value, and even the continued status and/or existence of RA-1 properties are jeopardized by the continued development of medium and high density subdivisions. This proposed rezoning is in direct conflict of "protecting landowners from potential adverse impacts of adjoining land uses and activities" pursuant to Ivins City Code 16.01.104(9). The City of Ivins General Plan also addresses agriculture within its jurisdiction. The retention and maintenance of the City's agricultural heritage is clearly stated in the General Plan. Petitioners' homes/properties, with one exception, have existed for decades. Without exception, the petitioners have invested, financially and otherwise, in properties that afford them spacious, open acreage that could accommodate large yards, orchards, gardens and animals. The former Building and Zoning Administrator has previously stated on multiple occasions that, not once has a resident ever voiced approval of a proposed subdivision. Conversely, strong opposition to such developments has been the standard response. Yet, the City has amended the Land Use Plan, specifically west of 400 West, from the long standing low density RA to medium or high density residential to accommodate anticipated development. It is the long term residents of Ivins, from the early days of the historic district to the few remaining RA properties, that have sustained the City throughout the years. People have chosen to live in Ivins for what it was, a small town with rural flavor. Very few people have moved to Ivins for what it will become with continued medium and high density development. The petitioners expect the City of Ivins appointed and elected officials to perform their sworn duties and ensure that the integrity of Ivins heritage remains intact, without succumbing to the pressures of perceived financial prosperity." He stated that the Land Use Map did not represent their neighborhood and he saw no difference from their neighborhood and Kayenta. He indicated that the issue before the City Council was not how many homes could be built, but how does the City Council protect the rural lifestyle. He requested that the City Council deny the proposed amendment.
Jay Beacham provided a letter to the Mayor and City Council, a copy of which is available by request through Ivins City Hall. He owns property that shares a property line with this property. (An earlier version of his letter was presented to the Planning Commission.) He referred to Staff and the City Council and inquired who makes the decisions for the City. He suggested that the City Council members should go out and look at each proposed development before they approve it. Dale Coulam clarified that the legislative body, which is the City Council and the Mayor if there is a tie vote, is the body that makes the decisions. Staff does not make recommendations or decisions on Land Use or Zoning changes. The Planning Commission holds a Public Hearing and then makes a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council then makes the decision. Holding the meeting on site is difficult but if the Mayor or City Council would like to see something for themselves, an item can always be tabled to do that but if the Mayor and City Council know the area and are familiar with it, the applicant would be entitled to a decision. Mayor Hart indicated that going on site would normally be the Mayor and City Council's home work. Clyde Allen owns a piece of property in the area and was concerned with developers not developing what they say they're going to develop. He referred to the Cliffrose development and the six foot (6') wall that was supposed to be put in across from his property. There is a wall there but it is only about four feet (4') on his side and his animals can look over the wall into those properties. Dwayne Lee resides north of Clyde Allen and indicated that there needs to be a development plan from the developer. He would be opposed to this amendment unless there's some type of a development agreement in writing. The goal isn't to stop progress but to lessen the impact on their rural lifestyle. Dale Coulam clarified that a City cannot prepare an agreement that makes land use or zoning changes conditional but stated that at the time of a preliminary plan, there could be a Development Agreement prepared that is recorded with the County Recorder's Office. He referred to the Planning Commission Minutes where Brandy Walker represented a 10,000 sq. ft. zone but the applicant Douglas Brady stated that the average lot size would be 13,000 sq. ft. He inquired who was speaking on behalf of the applicant. Luke Godfrey is the Realtor and indicated that he was present on their behalf. He thought that Douglas Brady did not understand the widths of the lots, which was the hold-up on the 12.5. They are still trying to stay as close as they can to the 12.5 and even if they stayed at a 12.5 zone, they would still need a medium density to accomplish that. DeAnne Haut expressed her opposition to the amendment and requested that the City Council deny this. There being no further comments, Mayor Hart closed the Public Hearing.
Staff Report
Application
Map
Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Commission Minutes
Council Member Mehr inquired how long the applicant has owned the property. Luke Godfrey stated that Cousin Eddie, LC has owned it for one (1) year and the applicant does not own it yet. Council Member Mehr indicated that he supported the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny this because that's their recommendation and he trusts them. His view in general when it comes to density, he views a larger lot results in a larger home, which results in a larger family and he wants families to be part of Ivins community. If Ivins were to approve this, he inquired what would stop the adjacent applicant and the next adjacent applicant to go throughout that whole area. There would be no logic in Ivins preventing that higher density growth. Additionally, 92% of the neighbors oppose this based on the Petition and the applicant does not own the property. Council Member Densley stated that he followed what Council Member Mehr indicated. The property owners bought their property for the rural atmosphere and he supported the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny. Council Member Roberts indicated that he had to separate himself from the issue of friends who signed the petition. The Planning Commission recommended denial but it was a split vote of two (2) to two (2) until Commissioner Anderson voted to deny based on his disclosed conflict. He inquired how thirteen (13) lots rather than nine (9) lots would protect the rural feel. He inquired if there would be any traffic going east into or going through the property owners property. Mayor Hart clarified that there was no access. Council Member Roberts inquired what the adverse impacts of this amendment would be to the adjourning neighbors. Runoff would be contained by engineering and it doesn't matter who owns the property. He referred to the Ivy Place project across the street from him and Council Member Johnson. That development was a matter of 2 or 3 lots and it didn't make a difference. Larger lots in that development meant more weeds so development helped. He wasn't satisfied with there being any adverse impacts and stated that it was important to protect property owners rights. Mayor Hart indicated that under the current zoning, the property owner would have the right to develop 15,000 lots and inquired if that retains the rural agricultural flavor that was discussed. Dale Coulam clarified that it isn't currently zoned RE-15. That would require a zone change from RA-1, which is the current zoning. If the property remained at RA-1, the property owner would be limited to only 3 or 4 lots. Council Member Roberts inquired if that was standard zoning for lots in that area. Dale Coulam clarified that is generally considered to be a "holding zone", meaning there hasn't been a request to develop it yet. Council Member McDonald stated he has known many of the neighbors who signed the petition for a long time and the hardest thing the City Council does is to face friends and make a decision that may not be popular to them. He looked at the properties surrounding this property and noticed that one is a street and the other sides touch Medium Density Residential already. For the properties to be affected by this amendment, there would need to be a road that goes through their property but it doesn't because the project would be accessed from 600 West and not through their properties. He was in favor of the amendment change to Medium Density Residential. Mayor Hart referred to the point that was raised about the preservation of the agriculture area and indicated that this City Council and future City Councils will be facing the same argument. The RA-1 zone in reality has been a holding zone because all of the development through much of the City started out as that. Council Member McDonald referred to trying to maintain the rural feel but noted that across the street from the property is High Density Residential. Council Member Johnson referred to Council Member Mehr's comments regarding larger lots equating to larger homes and larger families. She indicated that she didn't think that was the way it's going to go. She would like to see her children in Ivins and see subdivisions for that. She grew up in Ivins and has lived on the same block and the changes around her haven't changed the flavor of her home with the development around her. She was in favor of the land use amendment. Council Member Roberts inquired of Council Member Mehr and Council Member Densley as to their reasoning for being against changing from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and how that would adversely affect the adjoining land owners. Council Member Mehr stated this his best reasoning was what will come next and 92% of the residents that already live there are opposed to it. The City should have credence for them over those who will move to Ivins in the future. Council Member Densley indicated that he lives on a large lot and prefers the larger lots rather than cramped in and tight and would like to see this amendment denied. Council Member Roberts inquired about the rights of the owner of the property who wants to develop it. Council Member Densley stated that the owner can still develop the lots but charge more money for them because they're larger lots. Council Member McDonald indicated that if the City Council denies this amendment, the Council needs to go back and change the map for that whole area because the City is trying to preserve the rural feel. Mayor Hart reminded the City Council that that would be the majority of the remaining ground. Council Member Densley suggested that the City leave the southwest area of Ivins rural.
MOTION: Council Member Mehr moved to deny the proposed Land Use Amendment from LDR (Low Density Residential) to MDR (Medium Density Residential) on 4.63 acres. Located at approximately 600 West and 280 South. Cousin Eddie, LC-Owner; Douglas Brady-Applicant
SECOND: Council Member Densley
VOTE: The motion failed.
| Council Member Mehr |
AYE |
| Council Member Densley |
AYE |
| Council Member McDonald |
NAY |
| Council Member Johnson |
NAY |
| Council Member Roberts |
NAY |
The Motion failed for lack of a majority vote.
MOTION: Council Member Roberts moved to approve the proposed Land Use Plan Amendment from LDR (Low Density Residential) to MDR (Medium Density Residential) on 4.63 acres as discussed here
SECOND: Council Member McDonald
Dale Coulam requested that there be a roll call vote and indicated that if the motion passes, he will draft the ordinance to formally amend the Land Use Plan.
Roll call vote: Council Member Mehr and Council Member Densley voted in opposition. Council Member McDonald, Council Member Johnson and Council Member Roberts voted in favor. The motion carried three (3) to two (2).
VOTE: The motion carried.
| Council Member McDonald |
AYE |
| Council Member Johnson |
AYE |
| Council Member Roberts |
AYE |
| Council Member Mehr |
NAY |
| Council Member Densley |
NAY |
Dale Coulam indicated that this piece of property is on the north side of Highway 91 near Movara and Rider's Automotive. Property to the east and west is shown on the Land Use Map as having a short term overlay. In addition to short-term rentals, there is automotive, resort commercial, high density, the potential for a school and an RV Resort in that area. Zoning for this property is RA-1. The RA-1 designation is a holding area, which means the property has not been developed and has remained Low Density Residential. The applicant is proposing town homes for this project. The property owner that adjoins this property is in support of this project. Mayor Hart opened the Public Hearing. Kade Ence stated that he is one of the applicants and indicated that the project would be similar to the Tuscany at Cliffrose townhome project in Santa Clara. The townhomes would be 1700 sq. ft. with 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms and 2 car garages that would be offered for sale. The applicants are flexible if there's input from the City Council as to how they would like the project to look. There being no comments, Mayor Hart closed the Public Hearing.
Dale Coulam stated that this applies to both swimming pool and spa covers. Mayor Hart indicated that this would allow a cover without a wall around surrounding the property or pool. A Representative from Hafen's Pools (unable to hear name) stated that the covers are automatic and require a key to access the switch. Mayor Hart indicated that the overwhelming majority of deaths in a pool are from those who are within the residence and not someone who came onto the property from the outside. Mayor Hart opened the Public Hearing. Matt Marten is a resident of Ivins and a representative of the HOA (Home Owners Association) in Kayenta. He stated that the HOA is in favor of being able to eliminate pool fencing and walls if they could use the retractable covers. Mayor Hart indicated that there are pool shapes and features that the retractable cover would not work on. The representative from Hafen's Pools stated that it would need to be a square pool. Ren with Split Rock Construction, indicated that he was in favor of the Planning Commission's decision. They build in The Reserve and Palisades, which are gated communities. He felt that the covers are secure and safe and he would like to see this change. Derek Esplin is a home owner in Ivins and indicated that he lived in Southern California where this was adopted because of the safety aspects of the covers. Lance Anderson stated that the covers aren't just for use in the Kayenta are. They're for the rest of the City as well and subdivisions with smaller lots also have walls. This is a good thing for anyone that would like to use the pool cover in place of barriers. Gordon Bown is a fence builder and stated that he has a couple of customers who are in the middle of building a fence to surround the pool but that the fence obstructs their view. There are some situations where fences are not needed. Gary Paquin is a member of the Taviawk Home Owners Association and indicated that he is in favor of these safety pool covers. There being no further comments, Mayor Hart closed the Public Hearing. Council Member Densley referred to the resorts that are under construction in Ivins and inquired if fencing would still be mandatory for those developments. Mike Rodriguez stated that is still required for commercial pools. This change is for residential pools. Council Member Densley indicated that he builds a lot in Phoenix and they have a couple of deaths a week there related to pool accidents. He wanted to leave the ordinance as it is. Council Member McDonald understood that but was ok if there was a distance of approximately 100' between properties. If properties are close together where kids pass through, he felt that a barrier was appropriate. Mayor Hart clarified that the question was are the pool covers safe or are they not. Council Member Mehr supported this ordinance and stated that if the homeowner wanted to add more securities, they could do that. Council Member McDonald inquired as to the requirements for above ground pools. Mike Rodriguez indicated there are some requirements for those as well. Council Member Densley inquired if someone had a kidney shaped pool if a fence was required. The Hafen Pools representative stated yes or they could build a square option. Council Member Johnson indicated that the majority of all drownings of children occurred when the children already inside the property. She supported this ordinance. Council Member Roberts agreed that this wasn't just for use in Kayenta and stated that building a barrier can be a financial burden. He supported the ordinance.