All present included
Council Member Scott,
Council Member Johnson,
Council Member Murphy,
and
Council Member Anderson.
STAFF:
City Manager/Attorney Dale Coulam,
Public Works Director/City Engineer Chuck Gillette,
Director of Finance Cade Visser,
Building and Zoning Administrator Mike Haycock,
and
City Recorder Kari D. Jimenez.
EXCUSED: None.
Audience: James Barden, M. Dedeuschi, Barbara Lewis, Sharon Gillespie, Perry Brown. Laela Gaylord, Bonnie Kline, Paul & Gerry Bryson, David Hatch, Chuck Warren, Sharon Barton, Shelley Moeller, Sharon Huber, Linda Allred, Kim Menzel, Sherry Breitenbuch, Brie Thompson, Frankie Fleming and others who did not sign in.
Mayor Hart acknowledged that there was a quorum present. Council Member Mehr was absent.
Council Member Scott led the Flag Salute
Council Member Scott gave the Invocation
There were no conflicts of interest with items on this meeting's agenda.
Presentation
Aaron Anderson with Bowen Collins and Associates provided a presentation to the Mayor and City Council. A copy of the presentation is available as an attachment to this agenda. He reported that the Regional Water Supply Agreement (RWSA) municipalities have approximately 72,000 planned new units that have been approved for development. Based on current growth projections, it will take approximately 20 years to realize that development and the 20-year plan outlines the measure to supply water to new growth. Through coordination with RWSA partners, the estimated reliable yield of existing water will be fully used by the end of 2023. Additional water supplies are needed to meet the approved new growth through water conservation, reuse water, new water supply development, municipal groundwater optimization and agricultural conversion. Goals have been set to reduce water use by 23% by the year 2070 and decrease the estimated user base of 0.78 AFY (acre-feet per year) to 0.63 AFY. Council Member Anderson commented that Ivins City has almost already reached that goal. Aaron Anderson agreed and commented that the District is trying to get others in the County to conserve water like Ivins does.
Building Department Report
Public Works Summary of Operations
Engineering Report
Finance Report
Mike Haycock submitted an electronic report, a copy of which is available as an attachment to this agenda. He stated that the modern income housing report had been completed and submitted to the state. He provided some data related to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), mentioning that a total of 14 ADUs had been constructed since they started tracking them. Out of these, 33 were detached units, and 11 were attached units. This information was provided for the state's reporting purposes.
Chuck Gillette submitted an electronic report, a copy of which is available as an attachment to this agenda. He reported that the Public Works crew addressed groundwater at Red Rock Park by connecting a trail with asphalt and concrete and creating a spillway to manage potential flooding. They also worked on repairing six (6) water leaks last month. He reported that the Highway 91 project is on track to be completed in September or October. Regarding the property that the City is acquiring from the BLM (Bureau of Land Management), the BLM now only requires only one-to-one mitigation for the tortoise habitat, saving the city approximately $225,000 due to the City no longer having to pay a remuneration fee. Council Member Anderson inquired about land replacement requirements. Chuck Gillette explained that the City needs to find 80 more acres to fulfill the one-to-one replacement and mentioned the possibility of finding suitable land in area 6 with an estimated cost of $500 per acre.
Cade Visser submitted an electronic report, a copy of which is available as an attachment to this agenda. He reported on the first disbursement received from the state with sales and use tax, showing a decline from the previous year. The State is currently conducting an audit to ensure accuracy in sales tax collection. Despite the decline, the overall financial situation remains positive, as the City is still ahead of the previous year's performance.
Report
Cade Visser submitted an electronic report, a copy of which is available as an attachment to this agenda. The Economic Overview indicated a low unemployment rate of 2.5%, with the State averaging a monthly wage of $5,000, with Washington County averaging just below $4,000. The mining sector had the highest average monthly wage of $6,800. There is a year-over-year increase in gross taxable sales, despite a recent decline. The annual change in quarterly disbursements from the State and sales and use tax demonstrated significant growth. Regarding the General Fund balance, that is estimated to reach almost $3.6 million, more than doubling from Fiscal Year 2018. The City had been fiscally responsible, doubling its General Fund balance over the past three (3) years. In terms of capital projects, there was a substantial increase in 2019 due to the sale of a parcel of land for the new City Hall project. Interest earnings were a pleasant surprise, exceeding the budgeted amount by 1,000%, significantly aiding in maintaining the budget. The departments managed their expenditures well, keeping them within the budget.
Michelle Adams provided an update on the progress of the Our Town grant fundraising. They are actively working towards the August 3rd deadline for submitting the grant application. They have received positive responses with people willing to pledge donations. Currently, they have gathered just over $50,000 and their target is to reach $150,000.
Mike Haycock reported that the Planning Commission held two (2) Public Hearings regarding zone amendments for property located at approximately Kayenta Parkway and Highway 91 and for properties with ridgelines. Those agenda items both moved forward to the City Council for Public Hearings. The Planning Commission also continued their discussion and review of the General Plan.
Staff Report
Application
Plan
Mike Haycock reported that the preliminary plan has been on hold for approximately one year. While the final plat for phase one A has received approval, it has not been filed yet. The developers have requested a six-month extension for the preliminary plat. The project differs from typical subdivisions as it involves locating utilities and determining building locations. The development is being treated as one integral lot, making the extension a necessary part of the subdivision process.
MOTION: Council Member Scott moved to approve a one-time six-month extension of the Preliminary Plan for Black Desert Resort Golf Village, located at approximately Black Desert Drive and Weiskopf Way. Enlaw, LLC-Owner/Applicant
SECOND: Council Member Johnson
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Council Member Scott |
AYE |
| Council Member Johnson |
AYE |
| Council Member Murphy |
AYE |
| Council Member Anderson |
AYE |
| Council Member Mehr |
ABSENT |
Staff Report
Application
Plan
Mike Haycock presented a report on the Amended Preliminary Plan for Canyon Crossing, which was previously discussed two weeks ago but postponed due to the owner's absence. The main concern raised during the prior discussion was related to parcel maintenance and its impact on parking and other aspects. The development is located along Snow Canyon Parkway and Snow Canyon Drive, consisting of a gas station and three attached TI (Tenant Improvement) units. Mayor Hart indicated that the key point of the discussion was determining the best approach for handling parking allocation. Sam Patel, representing the development, addressed concerns about the lot line between parcels one and two. In response to instructions, they prepared declarations, restrictive covenants, and a potential cross-parking agreement, to be recorded on both parcels. The Planning Commission recommended involving the City as a party to the agreement to ensure its binding effect on future landowners. Regarding liability concerns related to gas tanks, he explained that Utah has laws in place where gas stations contribute to a State fund based on gas sales, covering any remediation needed for tank issues. The agreement also includes a maintenance clause to address any issues like tanks, pumps, or parking. As for the Conditional Use Permit, they are not seeking amendments at this time. The goal is to remove the gas station portion from maintenance calculations and re-estimate triple net fees accordingly. Mayor Hart suggested amending the Development Agreement to address concerns raised during the discussion. Dale Coulam clarified that there is no Development Agreement in place currently but that one could be prepared to address issues related to the Conditional Use Permit. Council Member Anderson inquired about the owner's rights to adjust triple net fees and suggested reducing rents instead. Sam Patel explained that they were already subsidizing tenant rents to some extent and that likely will not be profitable if they continued to do that. Council Member Scott proposed forming an Owners Association to handle maintenance costs if the property were split and sold to different owners in the future. He preferred adjusting the lot line definition to ensure each parcel adheres to all codes but acknowledged that the Development Agreement could achieve the same result. Sam Patel expressed willingness to find a resolution through the Development Agreement approach and agreed to incorporate the approved conditions from the Conditional Use Permit into the agreement and assured that the agreement would allow the two owners to work together in the future to address any changes or issues without involving the City again. Council Member Anderson inquired about designated trash disposal areas and landscape maintenance. Sam Patel agreed to include those in the agreement. Dale Coulam requested that Sam Patel send him a proposed draft of the agreement.
Agreement
Chuck Gillette presented a proposal for a Wireless Co-Location Agreement with Kayenta Technologies. The company wants to install antennas on a hill known as Elephant Rock in the northern part of the Kayenta area. This hill creates a shadow, causing difficulty in providing high-speed internet access to their customers. The agreement states that Ivins City will grant them access to the hill in exchange for high-speed internet access at five (5) requested locations without any cost to the City. To address potential visual impacts, he showed pictures demonstrating the minimal visual impact of the antennas from various distances. The agreement specifies that the antennas must not exceed three feet (3') above the vegetation canopy, and the bottom of the antenna should not be taller than one foot (1') above the vegetation canopy. That ensures that the antennas will blend into the surroundings. Council Member Anderson commented that if fiber optic were ever installed in that area, the antennas might become unnecessary. Chuck Gillette clarified that the agreement is for a 5-year period, and if the antennas are installed, Kayenta Technologies will have to provide internet to Ivins City for those 5 years regardless of any future developments. Terry Marten, a Kayenta developer, stated that there might be a deed restriction on any development on the hill. Council Member Anderson suggested verifying the deed restriction and obtaining approval if need be. Council Member Scott expressed appreciation for the agreement's design requirements to ensure low visual impact but raised a concern regarding item 3-A and 3-D which could potentially give the City or other vendors the right to install equipment without adhering to the same design requirements. He suggested clarifying the intent in the agreement, to ensure consistency in design requirements for any future installations. Chuck Gillette clarified that this is an agreement with Kayenta Technologies and if another vendor came on the site, there would be another agreement. Dale Coulam agreed with Chuck but suggested that he look at the deed restriction before proceeding any further. Mayor Hart proposed postponing agenda item 5)C and 5)D until further clarification is obtained.
MOTION: Council Member Murphy moved to continue agenda items 5)C and 5)D
SECOND: Council Member Johnson
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Council Member Scott |
AYE |
| Council Member Johnson |
AYE |
| Council Member Murphy |
AYE |
| Council Member Anderson |
AYE |
| Council Member Mehr |
ABSENT |
| D. |
Discuss and consider approval of a Lease Agreement with American Tower Corporation |
Agreement
MOTION: Council Member Murphy moved to continue agenda items 5)C and 5)D
SECOND: Council Member Johnson
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Council Member Scott |
AYE |
| Council Member Johnson |
AYE |
| Council Member Murphy |
AYE |
| Council Member Anderson |
AYE |
| Council Member Mehr |
ABSENT |
Project Prioritization
Chuck Gillette provided a prioritization report on four categories of projects: critical safety, maintenance, improvement/betterment, and growth capacity. A copy of the report is available as an attachment to this agenda. The top five projects that emerged after scoring and evaluation were identified as: the Old Highway 91 shoulder widening, Snow Canyon Parkway improvements, Puerto Drive sidewalk upgrades, Canyon Cliffs subdivision road repair, and potential trail development. Council Member Anderson highlighted that development along Highway 91 is progressing faster than initially projected. To update traffic counts, options discussed included setting up additional traffic counters or using cell phone data technology. Mayor Hart suggested updating the traffic count data without conducting a full corridor study. The City Council discussed the need for accurate traffic data to justify potential projects and mentioned ongoing projects like the Western Corridor that could help alleviate traffic. The discussion led to a consensus on gathering more information before making a final decision on projects that were not top priority projects. The City Council agreed to proceed with the top four (4) projects for the current fiscal year while exploring additional funding possibilities and evaluating other needs. Council Member Anderson commented that he was working with Rocky Mountain Power to get a quote on dropping the power lines. Mayor Hart expressed his support for removing the power lines.
MOTION: Council Member Scott moved that at this point, we proceed with the Old Highway 91 widening the shoulders from Kwavasa to Shivwits; the Snow Canyon Parkway from St. George to Red Mountain Spa; the Puerto Drive sidewalk improvements; and the Canyon Cliff subdivision
SECOND: Council Member Murphy
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Council Member Scott |
AYE |
| Council Member Johnson |
AYE |
| Council Member Murphy |
AYE |
| Council Member Anderson |
AYE |
| Council Member Mehr |
ABSENT |
Council Member Anderson inquired if the Council was going to have a meeting with the residents on Puerto. Mayor Hart stated Yes. Chuck Gillette inquired if there was any reason to wait for that meeting or if it should proceed. Audience member Sharon Barton indicated that people are out of town for the summer so the meeting with Puerto residents should wait until early September. The City Council agreed.
Draft verbiage
Council Member Anderson raised concerns about the excessive use of engine brakes by semis within city limits, comparing the noise to a Harley Davidson. He explained that engine brakes are essential on highways but unnecessary within the city, as regular brakes are sufficient for safe stopping. Chuck Gillette commented that he has received complaints from residents, particularly regarding a hill near Ivins Reservoir, where engine brakes are excessively used. He suggested implementing an ordinance to address the issue, similar to what other cities, including St. George, have in place and would restrict the use of engine brakes throughout Ivins City. Dale Coulam confirmed that there was currently no existing ordinance on this matter and would need to come back to the City Council as an official ordinance.
MOTION: Council Member Murphy moved to approve the language and allow staff to draft an ordinance prohibiting the use of engine brakes in the City and review it at a future meeting in Ordinance form
SECOND: Council Member Anderson
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Council Member Scott |
AYE |
| Council Member Johnson |
AYE |
| Council Member Murphy |
AYE |
| Council Member Anderson |
AYE |
| Council Member Mehr |
ABSENT |
Chuck Gillette presented a report on the water conservation plan, noting that the city has already surpassed its 2027 goal and proposed new goals aligned with the Washington County Water Conservancy Districts 20-year plan. Mayor Hart suggested setting a goal to reduce water use annually. Council Member Anderson emphasized the importance of water conservation efforts across all municipalities. Mayor Hart encouraged the City to lead by example and be pioneers in water conservation. Chuck Gillette suggested aiming for 5% reduction goals every five years, while Mayor Hart proposed considering a 10% reduction in five years due to the impact of the turf buyback program. The Mayor and City Council agreed to discuss this on a future agenda, allowing time for their review and feedback.
Regulation of Building Design Elements superseded
Subdivision Review and Approval
Regulation of Building Design Elements - current
Mike Haycock discussed State law related to building design elements and commented that there are exceptions if using a Development Agreement. Council Members expressed confusion over the scope of the ordinance and its applicability to walls, fences, and subdivisions. Mike Haycock suggested seeking clarification from the Ombudsman's office on how the State law applies to one or two-family dwellings. The Council also discussed changes in the subdivision approval process, with the responsibility transferring to the Planning Commission. The City Council emphasized the importance of clear and well-defined ordinances and the collaborative process with developers. They agreed to address zoning determinations and ambiguities in the City's ordinances and to revisit those in the future.
Ordinance - Draft
Dale Coulam provided clarification about the background and approval process of the indoor shooting range. He stated that he had contacted the professional who installed the shooting range to get accurate information on how it came to be approved. The original plan showed the space as intended for storage. Subsequently the architect for the owner proposed alternative uses, including the idea of an indoor shooting range. The builder then consulted with the city, and the building official at that time advised them to hire the professional to assess the feasibility of an indoor shooting range. The professional concluded that substantial modifications would be required to change the use to a shooting range. Those modifications included structural changes, such as thicker concrete walls, a sophisticated ventilation system, and acoustical improvements to minimize noise. A prior Ivins City Building Official was actively involved in this process and gave their consent to the proposed changes. This ordinance is not part of the building code; rather, it pertains to the prohibition of discharging firearms within the City, making it unlawful. The purpose of the proposed exception is to decriminalize the specific use of the indoor shooting range. He clarified that the plans were initially submitted correctly for their intended use as storage. However, the City had no objections when the proposal for an indoor shooting range came forward. The City even suggested and approved the involvement of the professional consultant. The necessary changes were made to the plans, and the shooting range was eventually built with the City's full knowledge and approval. Council Member Scott offered a sincere apology and clarification for his previous mischaracterization of the situation. He stated that he had lunch with the homeowner and spoke to the former City Building Inspector to get the accurate facts about the indoor shooting range's approval process. His earlier objection was based on the assumption that the homeowner built the shooting range without proper authorization, and that was incorrect. He is still personally opposed to adding the exception to the ordinance, as he believed such a use was unsuitable for a residential neighborhood. However, he acknowledged that the majority of the Council favored it. He suggested a couple of changes if the Council decided to proceed with the exception. First, he proposed using the Utah code's definition of a firearm instead of explicitly mentioning BB guns in the ordinance. He felt that the current Utah Code implicitly covered BB guns, and there was no need to specify them separately. Second, he recommended adding to the list of design requirements that design specifications for the shooting range should be approved by a qualified shooting range consultant approved by the City. He argued that it would be more effective to have experts in shooting range design sign off on the specifications rather than relying solely on acoustical, mechanical, and structural engineers who may not have expertise in this area. Additionally, he raised concerns about the potential for shooting ranges to be built on various types of properties, not just single-family homes. To address that, he suggested including a requirement that shooting ranges be allowed only on single-family residential lots over 35,000 square feet. Council Member Anderson agreed with Council Member Scott's points but disagreed with the last part about not allowing shooting ranges on single-family residential lots over 35,000 square feet, especially if they are underground. Council Member Scott maintained his opposition to the entire ordinance change, stating that he did not support it at all. Council Member Johnson expressed that despite having some misinformation, her opinion remained unchanged. She believed that changing an ordinance to accommodate the needs of one individual, regardless of how it happened, was not the right approach. She reiterated her belief that the proposed change would not benefit the community and was unnecessary. Dale Coulam clarified that the homeowner did not initiate the process of bringing forward the ordinance change. It was brought forward to address a discrepancy between the public safety and building departments. The intent was to resolve the conflict within the city departments. However, if the council does not agree with this process, they can choose to deny the change, and the homeowner would not be affected. Council Member Johnson questioned if there was a way for the homeowner to continue using the shooting range without changing the ordinance. Dale Coulam clarified that based on the existing factual background, it is possible for the homeowner to do that. Council Member Murphy clarified that her support for the ordinance is not solely based on the fact that a resident has already built a shooting range. She believes that shooting ranges are a valid use and should be regulated similarly to other recreational facilities such as bowling alleys and rock-climbing walls. She agrees with Council Member Scott's proposal to define what constitutes a firearm and to require approval from a qualified shooting range expert. However, she does not see the need to include BB guns in the ordinance as they are not considered firearms. Despite not personally supporting the specific shooting range already in existence, she believes that shooting ranges can be a legitimate use and should be considered for inclusion in the city's ordinance. Mayor Hart indicated that allowing this exception in the ordinance would actually benefit the city by providing a framework to ensure future shooting ranges are built safely and properly. He believes that the city is currently at risk because there is no clear guideline or exception for shooting ranges, and this could lead to potential legal issues in the future. Council Member Johnson asked about the City Attorney's opinion on that. Dale Coulam expressed his belief that the shooting range in question was built properly and safely. He mentioned that if another person were to approach the city with a similar request, they would be informed that it is currently unlawful and would not be allowed. Council Member Anderson indicated that the existing rule prohibiting shooting ranges within the city has been in place for years. He acknowledged that when this rule was initially implemented, it was not foreseen that people would be able to afford to build shooting ranges within their homes in Ivins. As times change and technology advances, the environment evolves, and certain uses that were once uncommon become more feasible and safer.
MOTION: Council Member Murphy moved adopt Ordinance No. 2023-05, an Ordinance of Ivins City, Utah, amending Section 7.12.102 of the Ivins City Code regarding the Discharge of Firearms, as amended, by adding the definition of a firearm from the Utah Code and requiring that a qualified shooting range consultant be required and also amend this to remove "H", that BB guns are not considered firearms, design specifications shall be approved by a qualified shooting range consultant approved by the City and the Whereas read "Whereas a firearm is defined in Utah Code 76-10-501."
SECOND: Council Member Anderson
VOTE: The motion carried.
| Council Member Murphy |
AYE |
| Council Member Anderson |
AYE |
| Council Member Scott |
NAY |
| Council Member Johnson |
NAY |
| Council Member Mehr |
ABSENT |
A motion was made with two (2) Council Members voting in the affirmative, two (2) Council Members voting in opposition and one Council Member was absent. In that scenario, Mayor Hart voted in the affirmative, breaking the tie. The motion carried and the Ordinance was approved.
The meeting was in recess for five (5) minutes, from 7:30 p.m. to 7:35 p.m.
Dale Coulam indicated that the discussion regarding the owner-occupied requirement for multi-family residential zones was part of the development agreement ordinance, and the council wanted to discuss moving it to a different section of the code. Council Member Anderson expressed his opinion that in today's world, with current interest rates, requiring owner-occupied units might reduce attainable housing because people may not qualify for loans, leading to fewer rentals and less availability for potential homeowners. Mayor Hart indicated he did not fully understand the issue, especially concerning investors buying up projects and renting them out at inflated rates. Council Member Scott raised concerns about enforcing the requirement and the challenges of getting involved in real estate contracts. Mayor Hart questioned the long-term enforceability of the requirement, particularly if properties change ownership over time. Council Member Murphy expressed uncertainty about the legality and practicality of enforcing the owner-occupied requirement. Council Member Anderson suggested dissolving the requirement altogether due to the difficulty in enforcement. Mayor Hart inquired if the Council was clear about removing the requirement and if a motion was needed. Dale Coulam clarified the need for a motion and stated that they would bring forward the amended ordinance.
MOTION: Council Member Anderson moved ask staff to amend the Development Agreement, removing section 1H from the Development Agreement
SECOND: Council Member Johnson
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Council Member Scott |
AYE |
| Council Member Johnson |
AYE |
| Council Member Murphy |
AYE |
| Council Member Anderson |
AYE |
| Council Member Mehr |
ABSENT |