Proposed South Entrance Station Relocation
Kristen Comella, Park Manager of the Snow Canyon State Park, provided a handout to the Mayor and Council of the proposed south entrance station relocation. A copy of that information is available as an attachment to this agenda. For several years the Park and Ivins City have been discussing the possibility of moving the south entrance station. That would involve transferring Ivins City owned roadway of approximately 1000 feet, to the State of Utah Division of State Parks. In October of 2020 she was before the City Council regarding this and at the time there was tentative support but there were some unknowns as well. The State Park wanted to have an Engineer work up a design to see if they could do some expansion work at the Johnson Canyon parking lot and move the south entrance station to the south of the Johnson Canyon parking lot. On page one (1) of the handout, it shows the existing location of the south entrance station to the Park and to the south of that is the Johnson Canyon trail and the Padre Canyon parking lot. On page two (2), further south is the Vermillion Cliffs subdivision which is the closest development to that entrance and is approximately 2,150 feet from the Park on that roadway. All of that roadway, except for 186 feet, which is State Park roadway, is owned by Ivins City. The State Park is proposing to move their south entrance station immediately south of the Johnson Canyon parking lot. There are a few reasons for moving the entrance station, one being for the visitor experience. A lot of people do not realize that they are in Snow Canyon State Park when they are in that southern lot. Another reason would be for management and patrolling and making that easier. If they are able to move the south gate, that would allow for a second incoming lane into the Park and that lane would be a few hundred feet in length. There's not a lot of land to work with in that area but there is enough space to put in a new entrance station and add that second incoming lane, which would be geared towards the annual pass holders. Council Member Anderson inquired who takes care of the path in that area. Kristen Comella stated that Ivins City maintains all but approximately 186 feet and the Park is not proposing taking over maintenance or control of the existing paved path, just the roadway. That wasn't part of the proposal but if Ivins City felt there was a benefit to that, that would be something the Park could explore. Council Member Anderson commented that would keep an even line for maintenance. Council Member Mehr inquired if the City would be giving up any land other than the roadway. Kristen Comella indicated that there was no land and commented that the reason the Park positioned the new entrance station where they did is because it is the widest spot that they have down there and they need to be careful with any project they do about encroaching into habitat so that they are not triggering replacement or payment back to some of the grants that were used to purchase desert tortoise habitat. They also wanted to leave a large enough buffer that on busy days, they don't want traffic to back up into the residential areas. Council Member Scott inquired if by moving closer to Vermillion Cliffs, if she anticipated more a negative impact on ingress and egress for that development or is the second lane going to moderate some or most of that? Kristen Comella stated that they have a tremendous number of users that are annual pass holders so that second lane will definitely help to mitigate some of that. She did not foresee a scenario where traffic would be backing up down to the the Vermillion Cliffs development. There are a handful of times in the spring during peak visitation that there could be 15 to 20 cars waiting in line to get into the Park but there should still be enough of a buffer with that second incoming lane to mitigate that. Another piece of the puzzle that they have been trying to work on are cameras. They have installed cameras at the south gate so they can track the number of vehicles going into the Park to look at the peak visitation times although they have been having issues with vandalism of the cameras so that has not helped with the data they are trying to collect. Mayor Hart referred to the possibility of there being a little more room to extend the second lane a little further to the south. Kristen Comella indicated that there is a little bit of room to work with. When the Engineer put this proposal together, they were focused a little more on the parking lot to the north and making certain they were not creating a hazard in relation to the gate, cars going into the Park with cars pulling in and out of that lot. When they went out on the ground, they do think there is a little bit of additional room that they could add to that second lane. Mayor Hart requested that the Park have their Engineers look at how far south they can bring that second entrance lane down because on those ultra busy days, the problem compounds because they can't get their season pass holders into that auxiliary lane very quickly, if it's stacked up past that entrance point. Kristen Comella stated that as they get closer to the lane, there is a slope there and there may need to be a retention wall and a safety feature so that somebody is not falling off of the paved trail. Mayor Hart referred to the roadway that the Park is asking the City to give up and inquired if that just goes to the booth or does it go down to the bottom of where the road is going to be? Kristen Comella clarified that it would be down to the bottom. Mayor Hart inquired if the State would then take over maintenance of that as well. Kristen Comella indicated that they would. Council Member Anderson requested that they include the path so that Ivins City does not have to deal with the line. Mayor Hart commented that once the line is set, the path would be the Parks as well because that would be the most logical. Council Member Anderson referred to the Vermillion Cliffs subdivision and commented that if there are no negatives to them with this project, this is a good solution. Mayor Hart stated that the City may need to look at a no parking ordinance along some of that area. Kristen Comella indicated that currently on the east side of the road by the toe trail, the City allows parking to the south for a distance. That could be something that she could foresee Vermillion Cliffs residents feeling like there is a lot congestion in that area but north of there, there are already no parking signs and boulders. Mayor Hart inquired as to a formal action on this. Dale Coulam clarified that in order to give up the road, that requires a Public Hearing so once the engineering is straightened out and Chuck Gillette with the City has confirmed exactly what the City is going to give or deed over to the State, and he's assuming the consideration is that the State takes on the maintenance of the trail and the road. Kristen Comella inquired how long the Public Hearing process would take. Dale Coulam clarified that the Public Hearing would only take place before the City Council. Once the Engineers from each side are satisfied with the legal description of what is being donated and the deeds are drawn up then they can notice the Public Hearing.
Ordinance 2022-16 re Building Heights
Mayor Hart indicated that whether the City Council moves this forward or not, his recommendation for heights is that a home can be built with a flat roof with a 14-foot ceiling and a maximum parapet of 17 feet. A pitched roof is far less invasive from a color standpoint than a sheer stucco wall. His recommendation is adding an additional 4 feet or even more and it should be a 21-foot ridgeline on a pitched roof. That would mean that the wall line is going to be more visible more on the order of 14 feet. That allows for a luxurious type of interior environment. In the Springdale's version, the heights are lenient. As the Council talks about a parapet height, that should also reflect a maximum visible wall height on any type of structure, regardless of roof type. Council Member Mehr stated that the ordinance reads that it is the Ivins City Council's desire to amend the zoning ordinance text regarding maximum building regulations. That is disingenuous because that is not what the Council is doing. The Council is trying to create design guidelines for colors of homes in the Ivins community so that verbiage in the first "whereas" is not factual. The second is, it is not in the interest of the general welfare of the City and its residents to approve this because the first "whereas" is not true. The Council wants to support the Ivins design guidelines and figure out the appropriate to do that but not punish developers or families. He has heard the argument that people are buying homes that are one story. That is because that is what is supplied. If Ivins started supplying homes that are two stories that are designed appropriately within the design guidelines, they would sell just as well. The Council needs to be honest with what is being approached and not do a back door, which is exactly what this is. Council Member Anderson disagreed with Council Member Mehr. Anybody can come to Ivins and build a two-story home without any extra cost, it just needs to meet the design guidelines that have been in place since 2008. He doesn’t think the Council is going through the back door, the Council is being very upfront about it. All ordinances are the same. They are there to accomplish a task. That's why design guidelines are in place. He doesn’t think design guidelines are running families out. Mayor Hart stated the only one that would feel excluded is the family that it was determined that the color of their home was too light and they want to live in Ivins in a two-story home. Anyone else who is willing to adjust their color desires could build any home that that Council Member Mehr was talking about. If this moves forward, the Council would also need to add a minimum of two (2) feet for a chimney. Mike Haycock stated that the zoning ordinance also requires that mechanical equipment be screened. Mayor Hart inquired how this ordinance connects to the option that someone if someone wants to build to an increased height, they have to sign a Development Agreement because he did not see a reference to that. Dale Coulam clarified that if a Development Agreement is entered into that an individual specifically agrees to abide by the Ivins City design guidelines, then the house can be taller if there is a Development Agreement. A white house can be built, but it would be within the lower heights. Council Member Murphy indicated that she has been back and forth on this. She appreciated Council Member Mehr's passion for families and felt the same way. She did not want to see families ran out of Ivins. Light-colored houses can still be built and there are a lot of light houses in Ivins but one white house out in the middle of everything, it stands out. If the Council does decide to pass this, she felt that the Historic Township should not be included. This ordinance should not apply to The Historic Township area. The Council needs to explain why this ordinance needs to be done and the face that the General Plan talks about preserving the natural views by making sure that the built environment doesn't detract from the views is important. The City has made all the Ivins ordinances and design guidelines in order to put forth the General Plan and Ivins is like no other place. Ivins is not a resort area like Springdale is but Ivins does have vistas that need to be protected. She did not want to make Ivins one big HOA because that is not the path that the Council wants to go but the disingenuous thing is what the State did. That's where the disingenuousness started because the State said this was all about affordability and it has nothing to do with it. She inquired what the unintended consequence could be. She did not know but felt that something needs to be done because the Council has worked hard to make design standards and those have been in effect for many years and to just take them and let them get thrown out the door would be a mistake. There needs to be some "whereas" paragraphs that really explain that the building design regulations are intended to help achieve the Ivins General Plan vision. Council Member Mehr inquired if the Council was looking at Utah State Code 17-27-530 "Regulation of Building Design Elements Prohibited Exceptions". Council Member Murphy stated that was the County code but it is mirrored. The section is in ten (10). Council Member Mehr referred to exceptions in the code relating to imposing building design elements and indicated that as used in that section, it gives A through L and then number two(2), "Except as provided in subsection three (3)". Ivins may not impose a requirement for building design element on a one or two-family dwelling. Therefore, the Council is having this discussion. However, missing section three (3), subsection (2), does not apply to and it doesn't apply to the following scenarios of A through H and letter D, "building design elements agreed to under a development agreement". Ivins has Development Agreements and those say what developers can do for their design guidelines. Council Member Anderson clarified that those Development Agreements are driven by the Ivins City Ordinances so if any developer or builder comes in and says they want to build pink houses in their subdivision, that gets puts into a Development Agreement. Dale Coulam commented that every subdivision is now required to have a Development Agreement. Council Member Mehr inquired if Ivins City enforces Development Agreements. Dale Coulam stated yes and commented that every subdivision is required to have a Development Agreement. A developer or builder could negotiate the color issue and still save the heights that were granted in the zoning ordinance previously, that being 25 feet for residential. What this draft ordinance is proposing, is to lower the residential building heights but if a developer or builder agrees to abide by the Ivins City design guidelines in the Development Agreement, then they would be allowed to build up to 25 feet. If a developer or builder chose not to abide by the Ivins City design guidelines, that could still be done but the house would be built at a lower height. Council Member Murphy referred to the Development Agreement and commented that if a developer can still build pink houses under a Development Agreement, she inquired what the point of the Development Agreement was as it relates to color. Council Member Scott indicated that because the State of Utah has stricken cities ability to enforce design guidelines, a developer or builder does not have to abide by Ivins City design guidelines. The design guidelines become negotiated through a Development Agreement where Ivins City asks the developer or builder to abide by Ivins design guidelines. Mayor Hart clarified that all developments require a Development Agreement, but it is an agreement and the City cannot impose the color requirements on a developer or builder unless they agrees to that and then they could obtain the additional height on the home if this ordinance is passed. He pointed out that there are several parcels in Ivins that have not been built on yet that fall under earlier approvals that have no Development Agreement or other requirements of any kind and if this ordinance is approved, it would become the law of the land for anything that would be in the future, whether it's built on an existing parcel or one that's just being approved. Dale Coulam stated that was not correct. If a developer or builder is already vested and this ordinance passes, the ordinance would run from the date that it is passed going forward and not affect those that are already vested. Regarding a Development Agreement, the primary purpose of a Development Agreement is not to set forth the color of a house. It is to set forth requirements for infrastructure, roads, sewer, water lines and all kinds of improvements for the subdivision. That is the primary purpose. Council Member Anderson indicated that this whole thing is being driven because can’t impose any of these requirements anymore and the whole intent is to give Ivins City something to negotiate with.
Council Member Mehr indicated that he understood the intent but inquired why use the height of a home, versus something else? On a per square foot basis, a one-story house is more costly to build than a two-story home. Council Member Murphy stated that the reason that height is so important is because height is the thing that makes it so obtrusive. Council Member Mehr indicated that he liked local control from a governmental standpoint and the more local that they can keep things, the better. He was not judging whether the State did something right or wrong here but he did not like the theme of the City moving towards a large homeowners association. Council Member Johnson agreed with Council Member Mehr and commented that she liked Council Member Murphy's idea of excluding the Historic Township from these requirements and inquired how that would be defined. Council Member Anderson recalled there being a Historic Township designated on Ivins map. Council Member Mehr inquired why the Historic Township would be excluded and asked if it was because there are existing light-colored homes in the Historic Township? He inquired why would they allow pink houses in the Historic Township area but not elsewhere? Council Member Murphy stated because it's a whole different animal. The Historic Township has a different feeling to it when you drive through it. There are yellow houses, blue houses, pink houses and similar. Those fit in that area and it has its own charm and look. Mayor Hart indicated that this would establish a new standard for anything that doesn't have a Development Agreement. Dale Coulam clarified that it is only if it has a Development Agreement that specifically agrees to abide by all applicable Ivins City zoning ordinance design guidelines. Council Member Anderson stated that a Development Agreement does not relate to this ordinance. If a developer wants to meet the design guidelines, a house can be built to the 25 feet whether you have a Development Agreement or not, because there are parcels that can be built on without a Development Agreement. Mayor Hart indicated that the Development Agreement is the means by which this step. The Development Agreement is what qualifies this, according to the State. Council Member Johnson inquired if Council Member Anderson means to change the ordinance to make it to where homes are no longer 25 feet ever, unless there is a Development Agreement? Council Member Anderson stated that he did not realize that Ivins City needs a Development Agreement to make the ordinance work. His goal was not to have a Development Agreement, just an ordinance. Mayor Hart indicated that the State specifically says that cities cannot regulate building color except under certain conditions and a Development Agreement is one of those. Council Member Scott stated that the ordinance is written so that a house can't go higher than 25 feet but commented that the maximum height should be whatever is decided and reducing that number from 25 feet to 17 to 21 feet but if they are subdividing, then a Development Agreement is needed, and the Development Agreement would let the developer or builder build up to 25 feet if they follow Ivins design guidelines. Council Member Anderson suggested reversing that and have the ordinance say that a house can be built between 15 and 17 feet using whatever color they want and be front about that. If a developer or builder meets the design guidelines of Ivins City, then they can build up to 25 feet in height. Dale Coulam clarified the statue prohibits the regulation of a lot of design guidelines other than just exterior color. It is architectural features, and all of that is prohibited from being regulated and yet that is all included in the Ivins City design guidelines. If a house is built under the design guidelines, then it must come under some exception under the statute. Because the City would be regulating architectural features, Ivins City would have to change the whole zoning ordinance because under architectural features, those all fall under design guidelines. Council Member Anderson stated that they would be leaving them all in. Dale Coulam indicated that they can't all be left in and then regulate them by stating they are required for a house because the State has said cities cannot regulate design guidelines unless there is a Development Agreement where the developer or builder is voluntarily agreeing to abide by the design guidelines. It can't just be imposed by law. That's what the state took away. Council Member Anderson stated that is what the Town of Springdale did. He inquired if Springdale does Development Agreements. Council Member Murphy stated that Springdale has a chapter that refers to residential height and there being a size bonus. Springdale has taken all of their heights and knocked those down and has basically said that single and two-family residents are exempted from the code chapters and are exempted from the building design requirements, exempted from architectural standards, exempted from the color palette and exempted from landscaping. However, Springdale does say that an owner of a property may request that the town apply all of those - the building and design requirements, architectural standards, color palette and landscaping and then because of a valid request to apply to all those things, the developer can then go higher. What Springdale is saying is that the single family and two-family residents are exempt from all these design guidelines, but an owner of a property can request that those all apply and if that is requested, then the development can be permitted with higher building heights. Council Member Scott commented that the legal question was for the term "regulate" and inquired if Ivins City was regulating the design guidelines if they are giving the applicant the choice to request them for additional height. Dale Coulam stated that in his legal opinion, a "request" can take many forms. To avoid liability and confusion in the future, he would prefer that there be a recorded document, like a Development Agreement. That is where the request is made, that is where the permission is given, that is where the exception is and it is recorded. Everybody knows about it and it wasn't just some obscure request. It is a recorded document against that piece of property. Council Member Murphy clarified that Springdale's code goes further on to say that the town shall record a written request under this paragraph with the Washington County Recorder’s Office.
Dale Coulam indicated that making a request is a voluntary action on the part of the homeowner so the City would not be imposing something and would not violate the statute. Now it is a matter of proof. Can you prove that it was voluntary and not imposed by the City in some way? That is why he favored a recorded Development Agreement. Mayor Hart referred to the Historic Township and stated that there needs to be a clear definition of that if the Council is leaning towards an exemption for that area. Dale Coulam stated the answer to the question of how this Historic Township was defined is in the legend of the zoning map. It is shown as a cross hatch, but it's not applied to the map. The only clear definition of that area was when they identified that area for the SAA (Special Assessment Area) street improvements project. Council Member Anderson suggested that there may be something on an older map defining the Historic Township area. Council Member Johnson indicated that it would depend on what the Council really wants to consider "Historic". There are a lot of the older homes that go down to 800 South but not all of them are older. They should absolutely include homes from 400 South, north to the mountain. Council Member Murphy agreed with Council Member Johnson with regard to 400 South and up north to the mountain or to the dike below the mountain. There are quite a few developments below 400 South. Mayor Hart commented that east of Main Street, the Historic Township goes down to approximately 800 South. They may have to draw a boundary on the existing development. Council Member Anderson recalled there being a Historic Township overlay. Council Member Scott recalled seeing that on the maps. Mayor Hart inquired if the Council would like to table this to get further information about the Historic Township are. The City Council agreed.
MOTION: Council Member Scott moved to continue Ordinance No. 2022-16, an Ordinance of Ivins City, Utah, amending Maximum Building Height Regulations for One or Two Family Dwellings
SECOND: Council Member Anderson
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Council Member Scott |
AYE |
| Council Member Mehr |
AYE |
| Council Member Johnson |
AYE |
| Council Member Murphy |
AYE |
| Council Member Anderson |
AYE |