Proclamation
Mayor Hart reported this is something that Ivins City has done in years past and the Ivins City Council is very much in favor of supporting all efforts to bring that about in our schools. It is a tragic thing to see the effects of alcohol on anyone but especially the youth who are becoming involved with that and sometimes the tragic consequences that follow. He invited the members of the WCYC (Washington County Youth Coalition) to the podium. Liz Dunn stated she chose to be involved because she has seen the effects that alcohol has. Imina Jimmy is the Secretary of WCYC and indicated that she joined because she saw the effects it had on her classmates and didn’t want it to happen to anyone else. Gabriella Dutson is the President of the WCYC and stated she joined the coalition because she saw the effects that it had on her peers, and she very strongly wanted to make a change in her environment. Star Chady indicated that she decided to join the coalition because she saw the effects on her friends and peers in school as well and didn’t want that to continue. Mayor Hart inquired what kinds of things the coalition can do to influence the outcome? Gabriella Dutson stated that one of the most significant things is providing presentations to the youth and explaining the risk factors of substance abuse. The collected data shows that the more youth are approached, over time, substance abuse in the youth has gone down. Mayor Hart inquired how they are able to see the results? Gabriella Dutson indicated that every other year the coalition does a survey in the schools. where students anonymously respond to how often they use or how recently they have used alcohol. The coalition has seen the numbers decline over the years. Mayor Hart inquired how the Coalition uses the proclamations? Gabriella Dutson stated that they will be taking those to the schools and announcing that it is an alcohol-free school year., along with flyers and announcements. They also have a social media platform and will use it to spread this message and the support from Ivins City allows the coalition to increase the importance of this message. Mayor Hart read the Proclamation, a copy of which is available as an attachment to this agenda. Imina Jimmy read the following statement: "The Washington County Youth Coalition would like to thank Ivins City for their support commitment to this proclamation. Your support for this proclamation comes at a time in which protecting Utah youth is meaningful and we would like to acknowledge that your involvement is refreshing and reassuring. On July 26th the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Services Commission changed the rule that threatens the safety and well-being of our state youth. We are concerned that by allowing alcohol mini bottles for distribution in the State of Utah, our peers risk for easy access and availability will increase and this availability will increase the ability for our peers to conceal for underage alcohol use. This is concerning as 2021 data shows 4.3% of Utah youth, which is approximately 3,000, in grades 6 to 12, reported using alcohol within the last 30 days and of that 4.3%, 2.8% reported binge drinking, which is defined as five (5) or more drinks in a row. With the availability of mini bottles, this could greatly increase. Lastly, this change increases harm to the environment we call home. Most alcohol mini bottles are not recyclable and historically, their littering issues have been a problem to the public health and environment for communities all over the nation. Tourists come and go but Utah is our home and home to many Utah youth and the potential harmful consequences of this rule change will not affect these tourists, it will affect us, the youth. Therefore, we highly commend and have deep gratitude to Ivins City for their support and commitment to protect the health and safety of the Washington County Youth."
Application
Updated Project Plan
Zoning Map
Mike Haycock reported this is south of Padre Canyon, next to the Black Desert Resort. The original application was for an RC (Resort Commercial) zone. The recommendation from the Planning Commission was for an RMU (Resort Mixed Use) zone. Dale Coulam referred to the original application. He stated that the Council could ignore the R-1-7.5 that is on the application because the applicant has withdrawn that request. That was for the buffers but the applicant has agreed to leave the areas that were zoned at R-1-10. The RE-37 buffers remain as originally passed by the City Council. Referring to the zoning map, the biggest area in brown is what is at issue. Starting with the application, what the applicant asked for was RC but what was recommended by the Planning Commission was RMU. The project plan should have been called a project description. It confuses a more commercialized mixed-use that requires a mixture of a zone from a residential column and a zone from a commercial column. Blending those together, the applicant must define what those uses are. That is not what this is. This is resort mixed-use and it's defined by ordinance. He referred to the Land Use Plan and Zoning maps. To the right of the Land Use Plan in the legend, it identifies what zones are to be given for that land use. The first thing is RMU (Resort Mixed Use) in pink. Was the Planning Commission within the rights to recommend a zone of Resort Mixed Use rather than the Resort Commercial that was requested? Yes.. It says available zones: All R (Residential) zones and all C (Commercial) zones, except RV. It makes it sound like only one zone can be picked rather than the traditional commercial mixed-use. Picking a residential zone from a list of the residential and a commercial zone from the list of commercial zones. It is confusing but it says all residential zones available. All commercial zones available except RV. It can be presumed to be tied somehow to Resort since it says Resort Mixed Use. That is an ambiguity on the Land Use Plan. The rule of law is that if there's an ambiguity in the drafting of something or how the courts interpret things, ambiguities are construed in favor of the applicant and against the party that drafted it and in this case, it was drafted by a consultant that was hired by Ivins City so the City would have to take responsibility for that. Referring to RMU along the Parkway and Snow Canyon Drive, that land use is designated as Resort Mixed Use. The area of Black Desert Resort at the roundabout and Snow Canyon Parkway is also designated Resort Mixed Use. Moving to the zoning map, it shows that Red Mountain Resort, Encanto and some property across the way at the roundabout that is not built on, and Black Desert Resort, that are all zoned Resort Commercial. He believed that SITLA was trying to mimic what Black Desert Resort, Red Mountain Resort and Encanto already had, which was a land use of Resort Mixed Use and a zone of Resort Commercial. The legend said here are the available zones, starting off with Resort Mixed Use and it says all residential and all commercial. What does that mean? Does it mean choose one thing from all residential and another thing from all commercial? It doesn’t say that. He referred to the online Ivins City Ordinance, Title 16, Chapter 17 "Resort Requirements". That is where it would be thought that all of the resort information is contained, creating the land use designation of Resort with a choice of resort zoning districts to choose from. He read the following: 16.17.101 Resort Mixed Uses Requirements (1) a buffer is required when any property in the Resort Mixed Use district abuts residential property. The Council has already imposed a buffer; 1 (a) this buffer shall consist of a reasonably compatible residential use, i.e., single-family residential buffer is required where like the abutting property has a single-family use; 2(b) the residential buffer shall extend to properties immediately adjacent and be one unit in depth. The brown area was the Resort Mixed Use as a buffer and is abutting a residential zone. A one unit in depth is required as another buffer. The requirement goes on and says (2) an area of open spaces required and shall be thirty-five percent (35%) of the remaining total square footage of the property after the square footage of the buffer required in subsection (1) of this section has been deducted. Here is where it gets confusing - (3) as an integral part of the Resort Mixed Use district, an additional residential component notwithstanding the buffer is required for the remaining total square footage of the property. At least half of it must be residential. Any structure containing two stories or more must be commercial on the ground floor. That sounds like it's incentivizing a traditional hotel that goes vertical. Ivins has been trying to keep things low and doing what was called a horizontal hotel but what is now defined in the Ivins Table of Uses as a "Resort Hotel". The definition of a Resort Hotel in the Table of Uses under 16.33.102 is "a building or buildings offering temporary lodging accommodations, or overnight accommodations for guests, with a common room reservation system, 4 or more guestrooms, and which may include additional services, such as restaurants, meeting rooms, entertainment, and recreational facilities. There was a question about the rooms and if that means that each house must have four (4) lock off units. He stated no. For example the condos at Black Desert Resort, there is a hallway and a room and not four bedrooms in each unit, or as Sentierre calls it, each "key" is a hotel unit. Patrick Manning described it for Black Desert Resort as the residential buildings look residential where people live there but they can rent them out and all must be in the rental pool. It doesn't say anything about the frequency of the rental, but all have to be in the pool. If it changes hands and someone else owns it and wants to rent it out, it's already in the pool and is controlled by the resort itself and not the individual homeowner. 100% would need to be in the pool in order to meet that definition. Title 16, Chapter 33 Table of Uses, Table 33-2 for Non-Residential Zoning Districts indicates the zones listed across the top. In those zones are various uses that might want to be used in a commercial zone. Looking at dwellings it says half has to be residential. Council Member Anderson inquired if that was for RMU? Dale Coulam stated yes, in RMU. The commercial version of a Mixed Use overlay is a separate overlay on top of Resort Mixed Use. He thought that was in place originally because of the desire to preserve the Resort Commercial nature of where Black Desert Resort is and the Entrada subdivision wanting to expand single family housing on that site. The City Council back then said they wanted to preserve the commercial area and that area is primarily Resort Commercial right off at the Snow Canyon Parkway. That is why that is there, but that also extends to multiple families, twin homes, and condos. Any kind of residential dwelling is not allowed as a conditional use without obtaining a mixed use overlay. If RC is chosen as the zone under RMU, dwellings are not allowed. The plan would need to be modified to say it is unknown how many would be rentals or they would all be in the pool, 100% of the units need to be in the pool. That gives control to the resort to manage that on site office with a central booking system. If it's confusing, that means there is some kind of ambiguity and that would be construed in favor of the applicant. The Planning Commission recommended Resort Mixed Use to place dwellings and would require a Mixed Use overlay if it were just Resort Commercial. When it says all residential zones and all commercial zones are available, then that means one can be used instead of a mix. It is implied that it is mixed and the ordinance on Resort Mixed Use talks about a mix of residential and commercial. It must be a mix, one residential and one commercial because that is what the text of the ordinance talks about, even though the legend is a little confusing, with the text, it clarifies that there is a mix of residential and commercial. By asking for a Resort Commercial, the applicant would not be able to just put homes in there. They all must be part of the rental pool so that it is all a Resort Hotel. It would then qualify as Resort Commercial but it is still up to the individual owner of the home as to how often it really is up for rent. If the owner sells it, that is still binding on the next owner. This is why the applicant applied for Resort Commercial. They were given Resort Mixed Use because the legend said the available zones were all residential and all commercial. He stated that Council Member Scott had brought up the specific text of the ordinance for Resort Mixed Use and the ordinance does talk about both, which may overcome the ambiguity but that's the quandary the applicant finds themselves in. This will be on for Public Hearing at the next City Council meeting because the applicant requested that and it fits Council Member Scott’s schedule better as well. It will be on the application and their project description that is for zoning purposes. The applicant is describing how it goes from lower density to the West and north to higher density as it gets to the east away from the existing residential. The applicant is designating areas and labeling them, showing what the density is going to be. It is useful for a zoning perspective because it's defining the densities. Otherwise, each one would need to be zoned residential. The applicant could ask for a zone change but would also have to ask for a land use change in order to do something different. The applicant can use a project description and say here's how we're going to do this. Higher density to the east, asking for Resort Commercial and asking to follow what has been precedent historically there, which has been an RMU land use with a Resort Commercial Zone and the applicant is trying to mimic that.
Council Member Murphy questioned if it's zoned Resort Commercial, can there be residential, meaning without short-term rentals in the resort commercial? For example, in the area that is closer to the homes that are existing. Can that be done or does everything have to be in the pool? Dale Coulam stated there is a conflict there. One requirement is they they put in an additional row of buffer, at least one unit in depth so they would have to put residential there and then half of the rest of the project has to be residential but if Resort Commercial is chosen, there can be a Resort Hotel. The applicant does not want C1 (Commercial) because they don’t need those uses, such as a gas station. The applicant would like to go with Resort Commercial and keep the use limited to what is allowed in a Resort. It says the applicant must then go on and do a Mixed Use overlay, which is adding yet another step to it. The applicant is asking to avoid the RMU zone and go to Resort Commercial just like Red Mountain Spa, Encanto and Black Desert Resort. The applicant is asking to do that because there is a precedent that has been set by those properties, how they were zoned and because the RMU legend on the Land Use map.
Council Member Anderson inquired if the applicant wants residential units, why don't they do that? They can have the overlay on the same application. What would be the downfall? Dale Coulam indicated it is a risk that the overlay may not be granted but if the applicant asks for Resort Commercial and they think there is a strong legal argument that there's a precedent and there's ambiguity in the ordinance, there may be a challenge and it may invite SITLA to invoke a provision that they don't have to follow the Ivins zoning ordinance. This is why it's complicated. If a court finds something ambiguous, it is construed against the drafter of the document, which would be the City, even though it was a consultant that drafted it. The consultant represented the City. Council Member Murphy referred to the brown area on the map and inquired if that area is zoned Resort Commercial, can the applicant not have a mixed use overlay to mitigate some of the issues of not wanting the short-term rentals close to the homes? She inquired why there could not be an RC zone with a mixed use overlay of dwellings. Dale Coulam stated that could happen but an application would need to be submitted for a mixed use overlay. Council Member Murphy indicated that there have been a lot of comments about not wanting all those short-term rentals. There could be some on the east side but with the RC there , that could be a mixed use overlay of dwellings that are not short-term. Dale Coulam stated that the statute gives the Council the right to either approve and follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission or change it to a different zone. The Council could also add an overlay, without the applicant applying for it. That would mix the zones as well as allow for dwellings. That encourages the single-family plan that the applicant originally presented and only those that want to rent, go in the pool. Mayor Hart commented that was a realistic option if it is the desire of the applicant to have areas that are not in the rental pool.
Jerry Miyahara indicated there are some discussions that needs to be made with SITLA regarding the mixed use overlay process. There are concerns about the ability for that to happen at the Council level, instead of having to restart at the Planning Commission level. Council Member Anderson referred to a site plan and indicated that like an RMU, there must be elevations and roads identified beforehand. Dale Coulam stated that on a zoning level, it's what the applicant has called the project plan but it gets confusing with the other required project plan. The project plan is sufficient for zoning but all of the other details come out with the site plan application. Council Member Anderson inquired if before the next City Council meeting, if the applicant can give the Council an updated plan. Moving the densities more to the east and south would help ease a lot of tension for residents instead of just doing RC where no one knows what that means. Dale Coulam indicated that the residents likely want a guarantee in the project plan that says those are not going to go in the pool, but the applicant may not want to give that up. The tradeoff is getting the rest of it in the pool and may be a good compromise. Mayor Hart inquired if the applicants desire is to have the option of either selling off a single-family home or one that is part of the resort and part of the pool, is that a realistic way for them to accomplish that? That is the simplest of all of the options that he has heard so far. Dale Coulam stated yes. Mayor Hart inquired if the residential overlay would be specifically located. Council Member Anderson indicated yes, with the applicant’s project plan, the location would be chosen ahead of time. It made more sense if the applicant did the overlay in their description and define where the overlay would be on the property. Mayor Hart inquired of to Mike Haycock if that would work when the applicant came in with an application. Mike Haycock stated yes. The ordinance tells them what they need to do and between now and the next City Council meeting, the applicant can look over the ordinance and fill out the application as the ordinance states. Dale Coulam indicated that there was a question of does the Council have the authority to change zones that fit within the land use. and allow for an overlay without going back to an application and starting over. Council Member Murphy commented that there is already an application that is viable. Council Member Anderson stated that the only thing missing is the description defining where the property is. Mayor Hart clarified that would not require detailed grading plans and architecture, only a modification of the existing plan description. Jerry Miyahara indicated that this was very helpful and he will have discussions with SITLA.