Draft Vision Statement
Draft - Work in Progress General Plan
Council Member Scott indicated that in the previous work meeting, he presented a strategy for reviewing the plan but he is now proposing a different format for the plan, focusing on individual topics as chapters and those include Transportation, Parks and Recreation, Open Space, and others. He has also incorporated additional information gathered from various sources, including from Staff, Impact Studies and similar. He has included sections such as a Forward, Introduction, Vision statement, and chapters on Land Use, Housing, Water, Public Safety, and Fiscal responsibility. Each chapter incorporates community preferences and outlines goals, actions, steps, and policies based on the Planning Commission's work. He is currently seeking input from Department Heads to refine certain aspects like landscape buffer requirements. Moving forward, he intends to complete the remaining chapters with updated data and the content of the document draws heavily from the Planning Commission's work.
Mayor Hart stated that the draft plan from the Planning Commission is well-organized and effectively presents information, although it follows a more narrative style. The storytelling approach is intended to cater to a wide audience, including professionals, residents, and potential newcomers to the area. As the City Council considers this approach, it's important to ensure continuity in the document's style and language, regardless of individual contributions. The document is a collaborative effort among the Council Members, following all of the work that the Planning Commission did. Regardless of the chosen approach, the objective is to produce a comprehensive and goal-focused document. Before delving into the next sections, he suggested taking a brief moment to familiarize themselves with the draft's tone and style.
Council Member Smith wanted to ensure that as they proceed, that the Council respect the work and expertise of the Planning Commission, who are intelligent and thoughtful individuals. If the Council adopts this new approach, he requested that any revisions clearly indicate where content from the Planning Commission's work has been incorporated. While the Council may discuss stylistic elements, he didn't find any objections to the Planning Commission’s draft. He urged caution against deviating too far from the Planning Commission’s original work, so as not to diminish the value of their contributions.
Council Member Scott indicated that it would be difficult for him to do what Council Member Smith was asking, because what he’s taken is from all over the place. It would not be difficult to take all of the goals and policies that are in the draft plan and copy and paste those, which is what he did originally. As an example, there is information regarding transportation, so put that in Transportation or information on open space, so put that under Open Space. He could also take all of the goals and policies and identify what are transportation goals and policies or Open Space goals and policies and then provide the Council with a separate document organized by chapter so when they are reading the transportation chapter, you can look at the draft plan, say, well, here's what the draft said about transportation. It would be difficult for him to provide a colored version with all of the changes because the information has been moved from all over the place but extracting and organizing the goals and policies from the draft plan was feasible. He could create a separate document that categorizes the elements by chapter, reflecting the structure of the original plan. This approach facilitates easy reference and comparison with the content from the Planning Commission's draft, streamlining the process of reviewing specific chapters' content without the need to navigate through the entire original draft plan.
Council Member Barton supported Council Member Smith’s concern and clarified that what Council Member Scott had done was he put the information into this format but that the leading document that he obtained the information from was the draft General Plan provided by the Planning Commission. Council Member Scott stated that was correct. He started with a complete cut and paste and then added current information that he obtained from staff. Council Member Anderson indicated that the document can be read from different perspectives depending on who is reading it. As an example, if one is looking at it from and Engineers perspective, there is data and information so in some respects that is better but for the general public reading it, he thought that Council Member Scotts format was better. Mayor Hart commented that it wasn’t just data, goals and similar that Council Member Scott brought forward, he recognized a lot of the descriptive elements of the Planning Commission's draft but in a slightly different context. As he read the first few pages of each, he came away with it being easier to read for the majority of people who will ultimately look at it. The Council can either take the time now and go through this or send everyone home with the assignment to digest what is before them. It was useful for him to have the Planning Commission’s draft General Plan and what Council Member Scott has provided, to have those side-by-side, go through a section and then go back and look at how it was expressed in the other document. Council Member Barton referred to Council Member Anderson’s comment regarding perspective and requested that he bring some suggestions that would make it easier for the plan to be read from a technical engineering standpoint because what he is saying is valid but her viewpoint is more looking at it as a resident or someone that is wanting to know the history and the direction the City is heading. Council Member Anderson stated that from an engineering standpoint, there is information and data for one to look at to determine what the intent is but if he were a citizen reading this, and he thinks that is who the plan is mostly for but he was okay with either format. Mayor Hart indicated that it is an important point that the data and information has not been sacrificed. It is simply incorporated in a different way to look at it in a more story-like form. Council Member Scott pointed out that in the Planning Commission’s draft plan, most of the data ends up in the appendix and that is still going to be the case but he is just bringing some of it forward. It was smart on the Planning Commission's part to not bog the Council down with the minutiae behind the answer. Council Member Gillespie suggested that the Council not get into the weeds of the words that are written, but the formatting and overall structure. Council Member Smith referred to the Acknowledgments and stated that they were not necessary only because there is so much turnover and government. There could be a lot of people in the Acknowledgements that may not be participating in this next year, or the year after. He would like the plan to be seen as it was a lot of input from a lot of people and if you include Acknowledgments, someone is going to get missed. Council Member Gillespie stated that she loved the foreword and had no problem with the Acknowledgments but when starting with the introduction it is laying the foundation and for her, it makes more sense to establish what a General Plan is, why the City has one and the General Plans direction. She would also like to see a list of the goals at the beginning of here are our goals in this General Plan, they can be restated in each category, but she liked them at the beginning. Say here’s why we're doing a General Plan, here's the Vision Statement from the Mayor and then here are the goals. They can then get into the Land Use, Housing and similar. Council Member Smith referred to the residence survey and indicated that he did not think that it needed to be a separate item. Within the introduction, it did not need to have its own chapter in his view because if the idea is that the General Plan was solely taken from that one survey, that all of the information is just from that one survey, I think that's not reflective of how the General Plan was put together. It's one of the tools and as an example, where it says that residents have made it clear they are unhappy with some of the City's recent growth. One can glean that from the survey but you would still have to say that many of Ivin's residents have made it clear, but not all of Ivins’ residents have made it clear. He wanted to be careful that the City is not taking something that other people who move in, did not get to take the survey and may not have the same opinion. There are people who did not take the survey when it was given but a large percent did and they could assume that many of them may have those same views, but they cannot assume all. He wanted to be careful that the City was not bringing in controversy unnecessarily and not saying that the particular way the City received the information was this one way, when so much of it is based on all of our experiences and the experiences of the Planning Commission. A lot of that is addressed on page six where they’re establishing the General Plans direction. That is the part that he would like to see up front, where it talks about the steps taken to create it which includes the Town Halls, the Community Get-togethers, the City Council, the Planning Commission, the Survey and similar but it is not singling that the information for the General Plan was only based on the survey. Mayor Hart stated that as the Council goes through whichever approach that they choose, these are the very kinds of things that need to be sifted through, and the language refined to reflect what the consensus opinion is about. As the Council reads through this, they will each come up with their own opinions about different sections of it. The fundamental question before them is, are they going to go a direction like this that is more of a story form, or remain with the draft that they were presented by the Planning Commission? If that's the decision, they simply carry on as they began. If the Council likes the new format better, they need to reconcile it with what has already been done by the Planning Commission and all of the hard work that they put into it, acknowledging that the information and goals that the Council was presented in the Planning Commission’s draft, has not been lost, it's just a different way of expressing it. Council Member Anderson indicated that he agreed with Council Member Smith regarding the survey. When they write community preference on each one of them, that's what a survey said, that's one tool to guide the City Council. He did not want to put that in everything, that that was what people wanted. That's what a group of people wanted, because believe it or not, he receives a lot of comments about the survey, good and bad. He agreed that the Council should not create controversy where it is not needed. The General Plan is giving guidance that include information from staff, their experiences by listening to their, all of those things are helping us the Council the updated General Plan. Mayor Hart stated that there could be a disclaimer statement but the data is data and the survey is by far the most representative statement the City has. Council Member Anderson indicated that data is understood differently by different groups of people. Constituents are telling him that they have an issue with the data from the survey. He liked what has been done where at the front of the document it talks about the General Plan survey because that’s a data point that is up front. It is one of the tools they have to understand what groups of people think. Mayor Hart referred to the Introduction where it referenced all that was done to accumulate information from Ivins residents, residents feelings about the direction that the City is going and their vision for the future of the City. That included a number of public meetings, the survey and the “Let's Plan Ivin's Future Together” campaign. The fact that the City went to that extent, in his opinion the Council needs to be careful to not be dismissive of the survey. It's likely not 100% reflective of everyone's opinion but for those who participated, their point of view is reflected in that survey. There is going to be opinions and interpretations but he thought it was important for Ivins residents and for anyone else who chooses to read the General Plan, to recognize the extent to which Ivins sought the opinions of the residents to establish the vision and goals. Council Member Anderson expressed his concern about not disregarding the opinions of those who have spoken to him personally after the survey. He mentioned a common criticism where only one person per household was allowed to respond to the survey, despite potential disagreement within the household. Council Member Gillespie acknowledged Council Member Anderson’s position. Mayor Hart stated that there could be a disclaimer referencing the survey, that it was a household survey and not everyone in every household had the opportunity to respond to it because of the way that the survey was distributed and does not reflect every opinion in the City. Council Member Scott commented that the reason he put the reference to the survey in every chapter is if they are looking at the chapter on Transportation, what did respondents say about transportation? That would be another data point but there are sections where the City is going in a different direction than what the survey results were like with Land Use and Housing because respondents in the survey do not want density and do not want multi-family but the State of Utah is telling cities that is something the cities are going to have to do. He thought it was a good idea to be transparent and provide an explanation if needed. Mayor Hart asked that the Council keep in mind the word continuity. All of the Council Members are going to contribute to the language of the General Plan but at the end of the day, it needs to look like the City hired a professional General Plan writer. It was his hope that they work together collaboratively like the Planning Commission did and when the General Plan is complete and they read it, and consider how this is going to be read by everybody else is going to read it, they should feel like they have done the best job that we could. The Mayor and City Council agreed to take some time before the next City Council meeting so they know what direction they are going to go. Planning Commissioner Pam Gardiol commented that the Planning Commission was very aware that ultimately the City Council has the ultimate responsibility for finalizing the updated General Plan.