[0:00] 5:00 p.m. and we're at the Canyon
[0:01] Community Center for the March 18th
[0:04] meeting of the Springdale Planning
[0:05] Commission.
[0:07] From the town, we have Neil Connelly,
[0:09] Tom Dancy, Robin Romero, and April
[0:12] Raddatz.
[0:13] On the dais, we have Matt Fink, Zion
[0:15] National Park representative,
[0:18] Tom Kenniston, Terry Kuschki, myself
[0:21] Jennifer McCullough, Paul Zimmerman,
[0:25] and Melissa Labord. Rich Swanson and
[0:28] Kash Battie are out tonight. Melissa,
[0:31] can you vote in tonight's proceedings?
[0:33] Thank you.
[0:34] Is there a motion to approve tonight's
[0:36] agenda?
[0:38] I move we approve tonight's agenda. I
[0:40] second.
[0:41] Motion by Paul, second by Melissa. All
[0:44] in favor? Tom, I.
[0:46] Terry, I. Jennifer, I. Paul, I. Melissa,
[0:50] I.
[0:51] Motion passes.
[0:53] Are there any general announcements from
[0:55] the town?
[0:58] Um we just have two Well, well, one
[1:01] announcement with two parts, actually.
[1:03] Um
[1:04] we have two surveys that are currently
[1:07] out um
[1:08] in the community that we would love some
[1:11] um additional participation.
[1:13] The first is the Utah State University
[1:16] Utah Wellbeing Project Survey. This is
[1:19] the survey that asks Springdale
[1:21] residents about their perceptions of
[1:23] wellbeing in the community. We did this
[1:25] survey in partnership with Utah State
[1:27] University back in 2024.
[1:30] And now we're doing it again in 2026. Um
[1:34] even if you participated or maybe
[1:36] especially if you participated in 2024,
[1:38] it is super important that you
[1:39] participate again in 2026 so we can see
[1:42] how um the community's
[1:45] um perceptions of wellbeing in the
[1:47] community have changed in the past 2
[1:49] years and also so that we can compare
[1:51] our results to our peer communities
[1:53] across the state.
[1:54] Um there've been a a several emails that
[1:57] have gone out about this.
[1:59] Um and so
[2:02] please, if you have not as a commission,
[2:04] if you haven't taken the survey yet,
[2:06] please take the survey. Also, as you're
[2:09] um
[2:10] talking to your friends and neighbors,
[2:11] encourage them to take the survey as
[2:13] well.
[2:14] Last year we had about 140 responses. So
[2:17] far this year we have about 32.
[2:21] So, we we need a lot more.
[2:23] Um the second survey is our messaging initiative survey. This is the
[2:29] um survey that asks for your feedback
[2:32] about the proposal to do a a um
[2:35] coordinated
[2:37] message messaging um effort to our
[2:40] residents about the importance of
[2:43] Springdale and what Springdale is and Springdale identity to help
[2:46] encourage more thoughtful um
[2:49] behavior from visitors when they visit
[2:52] Springdale.
[2:53] Um there is we we did a really cool
[2:55] presentation on this last month. And if
[2:58] you missed that presentation, there's a
[2:59] link to it available on on the town's
[3:01] website.
[3:02] Um so please watch that presentation if
[3:04] you haven't already and after you've
[3:05] watched the presentation, take that
[3:07] survey as well. Um and that's those two
[3:09] surveys will be super important as we
[3:11] move forward. So,
[3:13] there you go.
[3:16] Okay, if there's no other general
[3:18] announcements, Uh I got something.
[3:20] >> Oh, please.
[3:22] Good evening.
[3:23] So, um
[3:24] staff at the park has reported an
[3:27] increase of visitors coming to the
[3:30] visitor center by the south entrance um
[3:32] expecting to obtain an America the
[3:35] Beautiful Pass, Veteran Pass, all the
[3:37] various physical passes that we give
[3:39] out. Um
[3:41] so if the community can help us spread
[3:43] the word that um those passes are not
[3:46] available at the visitor center um that
[3:49] if folks want to get a pass, they would
[3:51] have to do it at our south entrance
[3:53] through the vehicle lane or on uh
[3:56] online. So, um we think that that some
[4:00] well-meaning folks are are telling
[4:01] people to get it at the visitor center.
[4:03] So, would appreciate the community's
[4:05] help with that.
[4:08] Is there anything else?
[4:12] Does anyone have any potential conflicts
[4:14] they'd like to disclose at this time?
[4:20] Uh for tonight's agenda, we have two
[4:22] action items. The first is a discussion
[4:25] about potentially introducing a
[4:27] requirement for a new permit to deal
[4:30] with construction phase storm water
[4:31] management. The staff contact is Neil
[4:35] Connelly who will who will be
[4:36] presenting.
[4:41] Okay, thank you.
[4:44] Um
[4:45] so this item comes from a proposal from
[4:47] the town street department about how we
[4:50] can better manage pollution impacts
[4:52] during the construction phase
[4:55] uh of projects.
[4:56] So, in particular, we're talking about
[4:59] polluted storm water runoff and mud
[5:02] tracked onto streets, those sorts of
[5:04] impacts that can occur during the
[5:07] construction phase of of development.
[5:11] Um
[5:12] the state of Utah requires storm water
[5:14] management permits for all construction
[5:17] projects over a certain size.
[5:20] And so those projects are required to
[5:22] have a storm water pollution prevention
[5:25] plan or a SWIP uh while they're under
[5:28] construction.
[5:29] Um
[5:30] because of the small size of Springdale,
[5:33] uh all of that is is taken care of by
[5:36] the state. So, uh we don't see those
[5:39] permits and the state is the enforcement
[5:42] body for those.
[5:44] Um
[5:45] and obviously with the location of
[5:47] Springdale relative to uh
[5:50] you know, the the state more broadly um
[5:54] and with the their resources being
[5:56] spread across the state, um
[5:59] they they do respond to complaints, but
[6:02] they're generally not able to be very
[6:04] proactive um
[6:06] on projects in Springdale.
[6:08] And so as town staff, we try to fill in
[6:11] those gaps where there are those sorts
[6:12] of impacts arising uh coordinating with
[6:15] the
[6:16] uh streets department and community
[6:18] development together.
[6:21] Um
[6:22] so
[6:23] the staff thinks it would be worthwhile
[6:25] for the commission to consider a new
[6:27] process to help this run more smoothly.
[6:31] Uh so the streets supervisor, Robert
[6:33] George, who's here this evening, uh put
[6:36] together a memo explaining how this
[6:38] could work and that was put into your uh
[6:40] packet.
[6:42] Um so just briefly, it would require
[6:44] construction projects to apply for an
[6:46] additional permit from the town of
[6:49] Springdale.
[6:50] Um the permits themselves would be
[6:54] essentially a pro forma that an
[6:56] applicant would would fill in um
[7:00] and it would require them to show that
[7:02] they're following best practice
[7:05] uh procedures for managing storm water,
[7:08] those sorts of things.
[7:10] Um and then they're they would be
[7:11] required to submit
[7:14] time-stamped photos and kind of during
[7:16] the construction process to the streets
[7:19] department to make sure that
[7:21] um
[7:22] you know, the the
[7:24] project is is adhering to those
[7:26] standards.
[7:28] Um so the intention really is is to
[7:31] increase compliance across our
[7:33] construction sites and to enable us to
[7:36] take enforcement enforcement action if
[7:38] it becomes necessary.
[7:40] Um so we have Robert George as street
[7:44] supervisor here. Um he can provide a
[7:46] little bit more detail on how the the
[7:49] process might work. Um
[7:52] and if this idea is something that the
[7:55] commission would like to pursue
[7:57] um at a future meeting, we could look at
[8:00] potential ordinance language
[8:02] for how
[8:03] you know, we we would knit that into the
[8:05] code.
[8:06] So, I'm I'm happy to answer any
[8:08] questions. Uh Robert's probably more
[8:10] knowledgeable on this and he's he's here
[8:13] to available to answer questions, too.
[8:26] I guess I'll I'll start. Um
[8:30] I I have some questions that are sort of
[8:32] somewhere between questions and
[8:34] comments, but I'll go ahead and start
[8:35] here. Um
[8:36] >> [clears throat and cough]
[8:37] >> So, as I read through
[8:39] the the uh the write-up and the
[8:41] ordinance,
[8:42] I I got to thinking about
[8:46] land disturbances that are less than 1
[8:49] acre. And
[8:51] is there
[8:52] a bottom minimum?
[8:55] For example,
[8:57] if a property owner wants to create, you
[9:00] know, a garden plot and they take their
[9:02] shovel out and dig around,
[9:04] you're disturbing the land
[9:07] at less than 1 acre.
[9:09] I can't imagine that that requires uh
[9:12] you know, a whole
[9:12] >> [laughter]
[9:13] >> section 3 SPPE and all of that. Um
[9:18] and so I was kind of thinking about So,
[9:19] it's kind of the question, does the
[9:21] state Well, the state has a
[9:23] 1-acre minimum. So, if we go under 1
[9:26] acre,
[9:27] what would we propose the minimum is?
[9:30] So, that somebody who wants to takes out
[9:32] their shovel and digs a little bit in
[9:34] the backyard doesn't have to file a
[9:36] permit or is that what you want?
[9:40] me to take that, Robert? Yeah.
[9:45] Robert George, streets department. Uh to
[9:47] answer your question, you guys can set
[9:50] what you want it to be. So, um other
[9:52] municipalities that I looked at online
[9:55] that are kind of doing the same thing,
[9:57] Some of them have threshold of 5,000
[9:59] square feet. That way, like you said,
[10:01] you're not catching the people that are
[10:03] trying to do a garden or doing little
[10:05] [clears throat] things on their
[10:06] property. So, it would capture 5,000
[10:09] square feet up to that acre.
[10:11] Talking to St. George
[10:14] department about it and also our
[10:16] engineer,
[10:17] they suggested to keep the one acre
[10:21] in there and not go below below that for
[10:24] a threshold. Keep it at one acre.
[10:27] They said that that way it captures
[10:29] anything and everything. But, you can
[10:32] set the floor of what you want it to be.
[10:35] Um
[10:36] So, the other the other question I had
[10:38] is um
[10:39] the calculation of one acre. So, if if you do three little spots of
[10:47] excavation
[10:48] on a one-acre property, is that one
[10:51] acre?
[10:52] Or do you count up just the square
[10:54] footages of the parts of the excavation?
[10:56] So, it de- it depends. So, if it's part
[11:00] of a common development,
[11:03] you like let's say Anasazi, it was a big
[11:05] development when it started and now you
[11:07] have individual lots that need to be
[11:10] built out with houses and whatnot.
[11:12] Those, it doesn't matter the square
[11:14] footage because they're under the
[11:17] common.
[11:18] It could be 800 square feet. They have
[11:21] to have that SWIP agreement with the
[11:23] state.
[11:25] Okay. I I would like to mirror the same
[11:27] thing on our end.
[11:31] Um
[11:32] Is
[11:34] Okay, let me let me make a sort of odd
[11:37] you know, exaggeration of a statement,
[11:39] but when the pioneers came here, they
[11:42] divided the this valley into
[11:44] subdivisions of what was here.
[11:47] How far back of a subdivision
[11:51] do we go to say, well, this is part of
[11:54] what used to be a even bigger property
[11:55] and was subdivided?
[11:58] That I can't answer. The SWIP program
[12:01] from the federal side, which would be
[12:04] the national pollution discharge
[12:07] elimination system, that didn't start
[12:09] until the '90s. So, that is something we
[12:12] would need to look at.
[12:14] But, I would imagine any development
[12:18] would need
[12:19] >> Say since when the when the ordinance or
[12:22] the law was put in place, say for
[12:23] example, like in the '90s or something.
[12:25] >> Yeah, I would have to verify that, but I
[12:27] would think at least from the '90s.
[12:29] Okay.
[12:30] Yeah, cuz I was kind of wondering. I
[12:31] mean, in a sense, every property here
[12:34] was subdivided at one time. Sure.
[12:36] Okay.
[12:45] Would we want to think about excluding
[12:48] agricultural uses or even gardening
[12:50] itself?
[12:52] Um
[12:53] And only look at um
[12:55] you know, um
[12:57] a property where there's a permit for
[12:59] construction or you know, for a home or
[13:02] commercial building.
[13:11] Does the original does that state
[13:13] ordinances
[13:14] discuss
[13:16] agricultural land
[13:19] disturbances? Um I do not believe that
[13:21] agricultural is part of that.
[13:24] It's separate.
[13:27] So,
[13:29] it's separate by what
[13:31] uh measure, I guess. I would have to dig
[13:34] into the state regulations of what that
[13:36] is. Um there's a giant rabbit hole to go
[13:39] down with all of that. Um I skimmed the
[13:43] surface coming up with this. I mean, I
[13:45] spent 20 hours going through
[13:47] documentation.
[13:48] Right. But, I could go much further and
[13:51] it's it'll take you a lot of places.
[13:54] So, I think intent
[13:56] when it was first started through the
[13:58] federal government, it was basically
[14:00] started so that storm water and illicit
[14:04] discharges didn't make it to bodies of
[14:06] water for populations and like
[14:09] industrial sites, that kind of thing.
[14:12] From there, it was part of the Clean
[14:14] Waters Act through the EPA.
[14:17] They then went through and 47
[14:21] of the 50 states have their own layer of
[14:25] that that's more stringent than what the
[14:27] federal level is. There's three states
[14:28] that
[14:29] the federal government still regulates,
[14:32] but of those 47, they made their own
[14:35] rules and regulations that were more
[14:37] stringent strict than the federal one.
[14:40] And so, that's when you've come into
[14:43] like so
[14:45] it's based on population.
[14:48] Half of it, the other half of it is
[14:50] based on what you have. So,
[14:52] normally for small system, which is
[14:54] called an MS4, it's based on 50,000
[14:58] people in the population. However, a
[15:00] place like Kanab doesn't have 50,000
[15:03] people. They have like 5,000, but
[15:04] because of the local waters and the
[15:06] things that they have, the state has
[15:08] mandated them that they have to be a
[15:11] part of the state program. Part of this
[15:14] is that might come later for us and so,
[15:18] it's just kind of getting on board plus
[15:20] gives us some teeth to manage this
[15:24] because right now, I can go down the
[15:26] street, somebody can track out onto the
[15:27] road.
[15:28] I can ask them not to do it, but we have
[15:30] no teeth to make them stop doing what
[15:33] they're doing. And so, with having this
[15:35] program in place, we now have a way to
[15:38] start mitigating some of this.
[15:42] Yeah. Yeah, I mean, overall, I think
[15:45] it's a good idea for us to have
[15:47] >> [clears throat]
[15:48] >> something to mitigate
[15:50] flows that might flow into the Virgin
[15:52] River.
[15:53] Um but, I think we have some things we
[15:56] have to discuss and look at in terms of
[15:58] like we say, like you know, thought, you
[16:00] know, we're not impacting small home
[16:02] projects.
[16:04] Um
[16:05] There's a you know, the the focus is a
[16:07] little on
[16:09] things that water that might end up into
[16:11] the drainage systems of the town.
[16:14] Um a number of properties don't have
[16:18] drainage systems nearby, but the water
[16:21] but it's still
[16:22] runoff still could end up in the river.
[16:24] Right.
[16:25] Um I assume the intent is even if you
[16:27] don't have a drainage system nearby,
[16:29] you're still supposed to take care of
[16:32] this issue um so that the whatever
[16:34] you're
[16:35] doing in the construction site doesn't
[16:37] end up in the river even directly over
[16:39] land. Right.
[16:47] I mean, a lot of everything else I have
[16:49] is more on comments, so I'll kind of
[16:51] hold it for the comments.
[16:51] >> Um one thing I'd like to add, if you
[16:53] don't mind, is um so, on these um
[16:57] subdivisions like Anasazi, that kind of
[17:00] thing. So, that's through the state
[17:02] system.
[17:03] Part of that common development, it
[17:05] doesn't matter the size. If you put a
[17:07] house there, there has to be things.
[17:09] What part of this does, when they go
[17:10] through the
[17:12] permitting process, is
[17:15] we're kind of a check and balance for
[17:17] them saying, "Hey, as part of your
[17:19] review process, you need to check some
[17:22] boxes that
[17:23] you are going to get a hold of the state
[17:26] and do your SWIP stuff. And also, it
[17:30] creates an avenue for us. So, if they
[17:32] don't do that, we can then be like,
[17:35] "Hey, part of this permit process, you
[17:38] agreed to send us pictures, you were
[17:40] going to get a hold of the state. You
[17:42] haven't sent any of those emails and
[17:44] stuff.
[17:45] I can have a folder of the pictures or
[17:48] the non-compliance. We can then send
[17:50] that to the state and say, "Do with it
[17:52] what you will. Here is a violation that
[17:55] you guys didn't know about. Can you
[17:56] please come down and take care of it?"
[17:58] The other half of that is the stuff
[18:00] that's under the acre.
[18:02] We don't have anything in place now.
[18:04] Same kind of thing. Send us your photos,
[18:07] that kind of thing. If you're not doing
[18:09] what we need you to do,
[18:11] this is the steps we'll take to make
[18:13] sure that you remedy the situation.
[18:26] Are there any other questions?
[18:32] Okay, we'll move into planning
[18:34] commission discussion.
[18:39] You have some comments.
[18:40] >> I
[18:41] Terry, I share same lot of the same
[18:43] concerns you had. I mean, you know, I
[18:44] looked at it this and said, "Do you if I
[18:45] want to put a fire
[18:47] pit in the mid front yard and dig a
[18:48] little hole and put some bricks around
[18:50] it, is that a a disturbance that's going
[18:52] to cause a problem here, you know, or
[18:54] any any variety of other things that a
[18:56] homeowner might do on a small scale?
[18:59] They put a garden in or, you know,
[19:03] lots of different things.
[19:05] I'm concerned about what
[19:08] uh in addition to that, um I'm concerned
[19:10] about what uh
[19:12] constitutes a planned development. And
[19:16] you know, how do we define or how is
[19:18] that defined? I guess it's covered by
[19:20] state law. So, we need to we need more
[19:22] information on that. Is it just Anasazi
[19:24] or are there other, as you mentioned,
[19:26] you know, everything pretty much at one
[19:27] time was some some kind of a split off
[19:30] of a development, so I'd like to get
[19:32] that question answered before we
[19:34] kind of go too far down this road.
[19:37] Um
[19:37] The other thing that came up in this
[19:39] meeting was the agricultural issue. Um
[19:43] And we have one
[19:45] uh
[19:46] property [clears throat] in the town
[19:47] that's zoned agricultural.
[19:50] Um the trees ranch, everything else is
[19:52] residential or something else. And so,
[19:55] um,
[19:56] but our our code allows agricultural
[20:01] uh, not business, but uh, activities on
[20:04] residential land. So, does that does
[20:06] that mean
[20:08] they are agriculture or they because
[20:10] it's agricultural activity, it's
[20:13] excerpted, you know, or or or off the
[20:16] state's concern? You know, how do we
[20:18] deal with that? So, I think we need more
[20:20] information on that before we could
[20:23] before I
[20:24] want to make a decision on some of these
[20:25] things.
[20:26] Yeah, I think, um,
[20:28] >> [clears throat]
[20:28] >> I'd ask, well, maybe I'll step up one
[20:31] higher and that is
[20:33] do we think it's a good idea? Well,
[20:36] let's
[20:36] >> Let's do this at all.
[20:38] Um, and maybe we should discuss that,
[20:40] but but I do agree that I think we need
[20:43] to understand where it's going to apply
[20:46] and where it's not going to apply. And
[20:48] I think we've already discussed some
[20:50] areas where it doesn't seem right that
[20:52] we should be applying it at small scales
[20:54] anyway.
[20:56] I mean, you know, one of our main goals
[20:58] from last year was the protection of the
[21:01] Virgin River riparian zone. And so, this
[21:05] kind of moves us in that direction.
[21:07] And so, I think overall, to me it seems
[21:09] like it's a good idea to for us to
[21:13] implement this, you know, carefully to
[21:15] control
[21:17] uh, the runoff into the Virgin River
[21:22] in the dry washes that we have.
[21:24] I mean, I guess to to me
[21:27] part of my concern in that regard, Tom,
[21:30] is what type of runoff is going into the
[21:33] Virgin River because, um, it used to be
[21:35] when you rode the shuttle buses,
[21:36] [clears throat] I don't think they're
[21:38] doing it so much anymore, but you got to listen to the little presentation
[21:41] that talks about how much
[21:46] is being how much dirt is being washed
[21:48] down the Virgin River and it was in the
[21:50] 2 million tons range or something of
[21:52] that nature.
[21:53] Um, I suspect that the water or the the, uh,
[21:59] if you want to call sediment effluent
[22:01] going in the river from the park,
[22:04] uh,
[22:05] you know, we pale in comparison to that.
[22:07] I mean, your little 1-acre parcel is not
[22:09] going to have anywhere near close to
[22:11] you know,
[22:12] even a million tons or even a ton of,
[22:16] uh, sediment that'll go into the river.
[22:18] So, not to say that we should just allow
[22:20] willy-nilly anything, but I'd like to,
[22:23] you know, let's be reasonable about it,
[22:24] too. So,
[22:25] I mean, to me that's that's natural
[22:27] sediment that comes down.
[22:29] It's water that
[22:31] at the upper bounds of Springdale, you
[22:33] have a a typical sediment load that
[22:36] comes through every year, but
[22:38] what we, to me, should be concerned
[22:40] about is what we're putting in this into
[22:43] the river
[22:44] within Springdale bounds because that
[22:47] sediment or, uh, runoff would be
[22:49] different than what comes down.
[22:51] That earth could have oil, you know,
[22:54] carbon, you know, petroleum products and
[22:56] other, um, plastics and things in it
[22:59] that that's is not the normal natural
[23:02] composition of the river. Well, I I I
[23:04] guess to some extent I disagree with
[23:06] that because if I'm disturbing the soil
[23:07] on my property, if I'm washing my
[23:09] driveway off into the river, then I
[23:10] agree with you. If I'm washing, you
[23:12] know, other
[23:14] things or the streets off into the
[23:15] river, I agree with you. But if I'm
[23:17] going to go out and dig a hole in my in
[23:19] my backyard to plant a garden, um,
[23:21] the dirt there is probably the same dirt
[23:23] that's
[23:24] uh, in other places being washed into
[23:26] the river that you're calling sediment.
[23:28] And I would suggest, not that I want
[23:30] that dirt to go into the river because
[23:32] I'd rather keep it on my property, but
[23:34] if a little bit of it washes down
[23:36] the roadway into the river, it's it's
[23:39] I guess not the end of the world in my
[23:40] mind. So,
[23:42] um, To me, I think, uh, garden exclusion
[23:45] would be
[23:46] something that we should consider.
[23:48] Um, but what what I'm concerned with is
[23:51] construction uses,
[23:54] uh, that, you know, they bulldoze the
[23:55] land and then it sits fallow for
[23:58] whatever period of time.
[24:01] And then a a storm comes through and
[24:03] that that, uh, sediment washes down into
[24:05] the washes or into the river.
[24:09] Is that Is that
[24:11] because you expect the quantity to be
[24:13] much larger or because it's a different
[24:15] kind of dirt sediment? I expect the the
[24:17] runoff from within Springdale to have a
[24:19] different composition of what comes down
[24:22] to Springdale from within the canyon.
[24:27] I mean, what I'm hearing are all reasons
[24:29] why it's a good idea to put this
[24:31] permitting requirement in place.
[24:35] And then it's figuring out all the
[24:36] details that you're talking about.
[24:39] Um,
[24:41] as as it as it moves forward.
[24:46] Cuz it sounds like there's a lot of
[24:47] things to consider. I would think that
[24:49] there would be some correlation between
[24:51] amount of land disturbance and
[24:55] storm water runoff.
[24:57] And so,
[24:59] Yeah, this this is about uh, soil
[25:01] disturbance and and resulting pollution
[25:04] from the soil disturbance, not not storm
[25:06] water runoff necessarily, I think.
[25:08] >> Right.
[25:11] So, the amount of land that I could
[25:12] disturb on a 1-acre parcel
[25:15] um,
[25:17] relatively minor. Maybe we set the you
[25:19] maybe we set a different threshold.
[25:20] Maybe it's a quarter acre. Maybe it's a
[25:21] tenth of an acre. Maybe it's 800 ft,
[25:23] whatever it is, but, um, you know,
[25:25] again,
[25:26] um,
[25:28] when we try you
[25:33] water can move a lot of dirt very
[25:35] quickly. And so,
[25:37] I you know, I would
[25:39] um,
[25:42] suggest that, you know, yes, it's
[25:44] possible to have a lot of dirt move off
[25:46] of my 1-acre parcel if I had a 1-acre
[25:49] parcel. Um,
[25:51] but the property owner is going to be pretty
[25:54] interested in making sure
[25:56] that not much of that escapes because
[25:58] otherwise he's not going to have much
[26:00] land left.
[26:01] So, um,
[26:02] there's other there's other reasons why
[26:04] that that's being prevented or or
[26:07] mitigated. Um,
[26:09] I don't know. I just
[26:10] I'm I'm I'm trying to figure out if
[26:12] we're trying to manage something,
[26:14] you know, what's the the, um,
[26:17] the gain? You know, what's the
[26:20] So, I I feel like
[26:22] it goes back to sort of my my thoughts
[26:24] about scale,
[26:26] um, in that
[26:28] if a development
[26:30] across, let's just say multiple acres,
[26:33] creates huge mounds of dirt. Yeah. And
[26:36] then a big storm comes and now a hundred
[26:39] times or more
[26:41] amount of dirt comes off that property
[26:43] than normally would,
[26:46] seems like something we should be
[26:48] considering regulating.
[26:50] On the other hand,
[26:52] if you dig a garden and
[26:55] you know, a cu- a couple cubic feet of
[26:57] dirt goes off your property,
[26:59] >> Right.
[27:00] that's a kind of scale that we
[27:02] do.
[27:04] But, you know, and and when I start to
[27:05] look at some of the requirements of
[27:07] this, you know, where we've got to have
[27:08] uh,
[27:10] silt fences and
[27:11] um, wash out wash out areas maybe
[27:14] something we need to but, you know,
[27:15] gravel pits and that sort of thing, you
[27:17] know, to what you know, to to to what
[27:19] expense does the homeowner have to go to
[27:21] put a a little
[27:22] garden in? I mean, you know, how big is
[27:24] a gravel pit? What's is it what's it
[27:26] expected to do? And why is it always
[27:28] required, you know, kind of thing? Yeah,
[27:30] I I agree. I think there's a lot of
[27:31] modifications
[27:33] that we would want to consider. Yeah.
[27:36] To to to cover those things.
[27:38] Um,
[27:41] but thinking about the large scale
[27:44] potential large scale operations, I
[27:46] think it's valuable to do this.
[27:50] To go to continue to discuss this and
[27:52] maybe come up with something
[27:54] for larger scale operations because
[27:56] there is a potential
[27:58] for significant runoff,
[28:01] um, if it's not managed and if the state
[28:04] doesn't happen to notice or doesn't
[28:07] follow up, I can see some value in our
[28:09] ability to follow up.
[28:11] Um,
[28:12] so, my personal idea is that yes, we we
[28:15] should continue looking at this.
[28:18] And that we should definitely consider
[28:20] what kinds of projects and what sizes of
[28:23] projects
[28:24] uh, you don't need to get a permit for.
[28:27] Um, I agree.
[28:29] Do do you feel
[28:30] we should continue or do you feel maybe
[28:31] we should not do it at all? No, I'm I
[28:34] think No, I'm I'm willing to continue. I
[28:36] think, um, there's more information that
[28:38] I think we need to know before we get
[28:39] too far, you know, and
[28:42] Can I talked about already, I think are
[28:43] in there, too. Yeah, I think we should
[28:45] several requests of the staff as we go
[28:47] >> Yeah.
[28:48] And then the other question is,
[28:50] you know, I mean, how big is
[28:52] big, you know, because I you know, I I
[28:54] may have different views than Tom does or somebody else does, um,
[28:58] in terms of, you know, is because I
[29:00] mean, obviously the state's looked at it
[29:01] and said 1 acre, maybe that's the right
[29:03] number. Um,
[29:05] but, uh,
[29:07] if in fact, you know, all planned
[29:09] developments, you know, have to comply
[29:11] with this
[29:12] and, you know, on Anasazi, I think, you
[29:14] know, there's a lot of lots in there
[29:16] that are well, they have to comply
[29:17] anyway, so it doesn't really matter. So,
[29:19] what are the constraints that they have
[29:21] to comply with? I'm I'm
[29:23] guessing that maybe not everybody who's
[29:25] putting a garden or a, uh,
[29:29] you know, fire pit or something like
[29:30] that in in Anasazi's doing this now. So,
[29:34] you know,
[29:36] um,
[29:37] yeah, I think
[29:39] some things we might ask the staff, um,
[29:42] one would be
[29:44] can can they figure out or at least get
[29:46] a good guess as to
[29:48] how many properties
[29:51] fit this category of a planned
[29:53] development. Kind of what percentage of
[29:55] Springdale properties
[29:57] fit that category.
[29:58] >> Yeah. That therefore
[30:01] the state's one-acre limit doesn't
[30:03] matter because the original development
[30:05] was bigger.
[30:07] Um
[30:08] I don't know. I mean, we've mentioned
[30:09] Anasazi, but you know, I'm in a
[30:10] development that
[30:12] was subdivided in the early '90s, I
[30:14] think. And you're in a development that
[30:16] was subdivided, right? I mean, I think
[30:18] all of us at one level
[30:19] you know, your area was subdivided some
[30:22] years ago, too.
[30:23] Um and so
[30:25] potentially a large number of properties
[30:28] already fit that category.
[30:30] Um
[30:32] so that would be a question like can we
[30:34] get a an idea of how many properties fit
[30:37] in that category?
[30:39] Um
[30:40] on size, um our our guest here mentioned
[30:43] 5,000 square feet. Um
[30:47] I don't know. I think I don't think we
[30:49] should decide that tonight, but maybe
[30:51] get some feel.
[30:52] I had another thought is rather than by
[30:55] square footage, would we
[30:57] determine it by yards of dirt that is
[31:01] going to be moved?
[31:03] Um
[31:04] it seems like a potentially more
[31:06] reasonable measure to me.
[31:08] Um That's what I was saying, the
[31:09] correlation between the amount of dirt
[31:11] being moved and
[31:14] risk factors.
[31:16] Right. I think what we're looking at is
[31:17] like how much dirt
[31:19] >> Yeah. you know, is is
[31:21] And and and
[31:22] to point out I I've come across multiple
[31:24] times where I've seen
[31:26] you know, runoff mitigation not working
[31:29] very well.
[31:30] But there was there's a property in my
[31:32] neighborhood that was almost finished
[31:33] now, but several times large amounts of
[31:36] dirt flowed across the road.
[31:39] Um
[31:40] you know, so I think there is value in being able to manage something like
[31:45] that for something say as big as
[31:47] you know, a home construction. Now,
[31:49] 5,000 square feet, a lot of people can
[31:51] get their home and excavate
[31:53] less than 5,000 square feet, so Well,
[31:56] the the town's I mean, State Route 9 has
[31:58] got a lot of, you know, non-paved
[32:00] you know, street-side parking uh
[32:03] that, you know, in the rainy season, you
[32:06] know, or whatever, you know, people park
[32:08] there and then there's mud dragged into
[32:10] the street. And so, how are we going to
[32:12] how do we regulate that? You can't do it
[32:13] with by this process, but you know,
[32:16] if we're concerned about
[32:18] you know, dirt going into the street and
[32:19] washing down somewhere else, then
[32:22] why aren't we thinking about that, too?
[32:23] So.
[32:25] Anyway. Yeah. So
[32:27] again, I I I feel like
[32:30] some sort of size limit. And and
[32:32] potentially we end up at one acre
[32:34] and just do the first half of the
[32:36] ordinance, which is anything bigger than
[32:38] an acre.
[32:39] Um
[32:41] but I think it's worth discussing. I
[32:42] think sub-one acre
[32:45] you can do a lot of
[32:47] damage
[32:49] excavating less than one acre if if
[32:51] we're not watching at all.
[32:53] And that's what I'm wondering is why the
[32:55] state There must be a reason they
[32:56] recommend an acre. So, it'd be
[32:59] interesting to know
[33:01] why and perhaps that is the reason
[33:03] because an acre does is the amount of
[33:06] space
[33:07] that gives you you know, a lot of room
[33:09] to do a lot of digging up.
[33:12] And maybe if it's much smaller than that
[33:16] Yeah, that could be a
[33:17] >> Yeah. staff if if they can find out if
[33:20] there was
[33:22] a reasoning behind choosing one acre.
[33:25] Or was it just sort of a convenience?
[33:29] Yeah, I mean, you
[33:31] just a
[33:32] side thought comes to mind. If I'm if I
[33:34] built a house and I want to plant a lawn
[33:37] um you know, I can easily cover 5,000
[33:39] square feet with grass
[33:41] uh on an acre lot. Um
[33:44] do I have to have a permit to to plant a
[33:46] lawn now?
[33:49] Right. If if you're going to excavate
[33:51] >> I'm going to till the soil, but is that
[33:52] excavating it or
[33:53] >> excavating? Yeah.
[33:54] >> Yeah. That's kind of why I went back to
[33:56] well, how much more how much dirt are
[33:57] you moving? Right. 5 yards, 10 yards
[34:00] >> far are you moving it, you know?
[34:02] >> [laughter]
[34:02] >> Yeah.
[34:03] Good point, too. It's like how long will
[34:05] it be exposed? If you're going to till
[34:06] it up and then put sod down the next
[34:09] day, then that's not a big exposure
[34:12] in terms of runoff. But if you till it
[34:14] up and leave it
[34:15] the 5,000 square feet over 6 months,
[34:18] that's a much better much bigger
[34:20] exposure.
[34:21] Yeah.
[34:23] Right. Rainstorm and and running off.
[34:26] Um
[34:32] Okay. So
[34:35] it seems we've come to the conclusion
[34:36] we'll continue working on this.
[34:38] I think so. Um
[34:41] The the other uh So, you mentioned that
[34:43] we need more information
[34:45] on size, type, and age of the property
[34:48] in the planned developments in terms of
[34:49] what where it needs to be in compliance.
[34:52] Um
[34:52] agricultural uses, what you know, what's
[34:55] the definition of for that? And what's included in that category?
[34:58] Which other things are we looking for?
[35:01] Um
[35:06] So, yeah, what size of CM?
[35:11] Also
[35:12] there's specific mention of concrete. I
[35:15] think there's reasons for that. Yeah. We
[35:17] might also want to consider
[35:20] how much concrete work you're doing. If
[35:22] you're going to if you're going to dig a
[35:23] hole, put some concrete in and put a
[35:25] post in it
[35:27] I'm not sure you need one of these,
[35:28] right? On the other hand, if you're
[35:30] going to do several yards of concrete,
[35:33] then maybe
[35:34] you need to have a plan for what you're
[35:36] going to do with the leftovers.
[35:38] So, we might consider what's a good
[35:40] what's a reasonable amount of concrete
[35:41] that goes beyond I went to the store and
[35:44] picked up a couple of 60-lb
[35:47] Well, the same at the same
[35:49] time, you also need to worry about if
[35:51] I'm tiling the house
[35:53] um you know, the grout you know,
[35:57] the waste from the tile saw, the grout,
[35:59] you know, grouting and that sort of
[36:00] thing. Where's the washout for that? And
[36:01] how much you know, how much of that
[36:03] do you need to worry about? And how do
[36:05] you mitigate it? That sort of thing. So.
[36:08] I'd like more information about that.
[36:11] Well, on specifically what's in the
[36:13] state requirements.
[36:15] Cuz if the idea is to mirror
[36:19] the state
[36:20] permitting process and requirements
[36:24] it'd be good to know that
[36:27] information to base
[36:29] >> Yeah, and maybe the some of those some
[36:31] like, for example, the grouting and that sort of thing,
[36:34] that may be is covered by current uh
[36:37] town standards in the in the permitting
[36:39] process building process. I'm not sure.
[36:44] You asked me what other things, you
[36:46] know, came to my mind. There's just
[36:47] another interesting thing that that
[36:49] calls for covered trash receptacles. If
[36:51] you look in there.
[36:53] And I've looked around and
[36:55] many of our construction sites, the
[36:56] trash receptacles are not covered today.
[37:00] Um I just drove by one on the way in.
[37:04] Had one of you know, the rolls up on the
[37:05] back of a truck and they got the cable,
[37:07] you know, and you roll it back down.
[37:08] Those don't have a cover on them until
[37:10] they put it on the truck and they
[37:12] flip that little net over it.
[37:14] So
[37:16] is it that they're just is that do we
[37:18] already recover require covered trash
[37:20] receptacle or is that a change? And does
[37:23] that impact what kinds or sizes of trash
[37:26] receptacles
[37:28] developers can use?
[37:30] Um
[37:32] And and I I kind of get in the back of
[37:34] my mind the idea, yeah, you want want to
[37:36] be covered for wind and whatever.
[37:38] Um but I think I'd like to understand
[37:41] what's our requirement now.
[37:43] And what does that mean?
[37:45] If we say it's got to be covered
[37:47] then does [clears throat] that
[37:48] negate a whole
[37:51] range of trash receptacles
[37:53] of sizes that some construction
[37:55] companies would need?
[38:01] Um Yeah, the I mean, I guess the other
[38:03] thing is um
[38:05] the need for Maybe it's dependent upon
[38:08] you know, who's doing the work? Is it a
[38:10] homeowner doing the work or is he hiring
[38:12] a contractor to do the work? Um
[38:15] because if for example, if they if we're
[38:18] requiring them to have um
[38:21] you know,
[38:21] restroom facilities, you know,
[38:23] porta-potties out on the property or
[38:25] whatever um and they have to be staked
[38:27] and they have to be, you know,
[38:29] that sort of thing. Um if I'm hiring a
[38:31] contractor, maybe I don't want to let
[38:32] them use my bathroom, but if I'm doing
[38:34] the work, I'm going to use my bathroom.
[38:36] I'm not going to I'm you know, it'd be
[38:38] silly for me to buy a or rent a
[38:39] porta-potty
[38:40] >> to have to put in a porta-potty so that
[38:41] I can go use the bathroom in the house,
[38:43] you know, that's kind of stupid, so.
[38:45] Yeah, I think there's some adjustments
[38:46] we would make on specific requirements
[38:48] like that.
[38:49] Um
[38:50] not sure we should say, well, all home
[38:52] projects because there are people who
[38:55] have front loaders and Oh, yeah.
[38:57] >> personnel, so we should
[38:59] >> Yeah.
[38:59] not just eliminate the idea, I'm doing
[39:01] it myself if I happen to have my own
[39:03] construction equipment. But but you may
[39:05] be able to eliminate some of the
[39:07] requirements, not all of them, I'm sure.
[39:08] >> Right. Right. For example, if if you
[39:10] don't need a porta-potty, then we don't
[39:12] have to do it.
[39:13] >> Right.
[39:14] If all the equipment you're going to use
[39:17] on site and never goes off site, maybe
[39:19] we don't need a gravel pad
[39:21] for equipment that's not going to be
[39:23] leaving or coming or going.
[39:26] But those are kind of I think
[39:29] adjustments we might want to think
[39:30] about.
[39:31] Um
[39:41] Anything else?
[39:44] Melissa, saying you got to be kind of
[39:45] quiet.
[39:46] >> [cough]
[39:47] [clears throat]
[39:49] >> Do you have any questions or any
[39:52] clarification from us?
[39:54] So maybe I can just run through what
[39:57] I've been taking notes of your
[39:59] discussion.
[40:01] So I think overall there's a desire to
[40:06] move forward with with this in some kind
[40:08] of format.
[40:12] We need to determine what a reasonable
[40:15] threshold would be for this to make sure
[40:18] that we're not
[40:19] creating unreasonable, you know, burdens
[40:22] on on small projects.
[40:27] We need to look at the plan development
[40:32] side of things, whether that's
[40:34] something a threshold that we want to
[40:37] use in this instance and what that
[40:38] means.
[40:41] And we want to exclude agricultural
[40:45] type projects.
[40:50] And yeah, we need to think about again
[40:53] going back to the thresholds whether
[40:54] it's the size of the excavation or the
[40:57] size of the property or that kind of
[40:59] thing. We need to look at that.
[41:02] We need to explore whether there was
[41:04] some rationale
[41:05] by the state in choosing one acre.
[41:11] Or whether it was just
[41:13] we have to choose something so one acre
[41:15] sounds good. I suspect that might have
[41:17] been it, but we we can investigate that.
[41:21] And then whether there are
[41:25] Yeah, differences for home
[41:28] homeowner projects
[41:31] and
[41:32] you know, where there's an external
[41:34] contractor working on it.
[41:37] So yeah, I think those those are the the
[41:39] points that I took down.
[41:41] I don't know whether Robert, you have
[41:44] any questions or any clarifications
[41:48] that you need before we move forward.
[41:55] So some of the questions was
[41:59] the
[42:00] soil disturbance, how much is enough to
[42:02] warrant having it done.
[42:05] On the state side, any disturbance of an
[42:08] acre is considered but that means if
[42:10] they're
[42:12] going to be pulling weeds out and stuff,
[42:14] that counts as a disturbance for an
[42:17] acre.
[42:18] If if the disturbance spans an acre.
[42:21] But if I own an acre and I do it in 10
[42:23] feet over here, it's not. It it's part
[42:25] of the acre.
[42:28] Yeah, so I think what they're
[42:29] >> that makes any sense. Well,
[42:30] [clears throat] what they're trying to
[42:31] capture is if you let's say you have a
[42:33] bunch of weeds on your acre lot and
[42:36] you're going to grab the weeds, you now
[42:37] created a space for runoff of water when
[42:41] it rains because you don't have the
[42:43] vegetation or the weeds or whatever
[42:45] they're now holding that in that spot.
[42:48] And so when you mass grab something,
[42:50] you're creating other issues and I think
[42:53] that's why they put it in there the way
[42:54] they did. So if I have a 3/4 acre
[42:56] property and I disturb
[42:59] 2/3 of it, I don't have to do it. Well,
[43:02] under the state thing under an acre, it
[43:04] that would be the other half of this if
[43:06] we did that. A couple other things. They
[43:09] talk about toilet staking, that kind of
[43:12] thing. That's so if a porta pot blows
[43:14] over, the chemicals aren't going to the
[43:16] ground and then to the river.
[43:19] The
[43:21] concrete for the washout, they don't
[43:23] care about hard concrete. It's when the
[43:25] truck is washing out after they pour the
[43:27] concrete. A lot of the times now they
[43:29] just find a dirt spot and they dump it
[43:31] on the ground and they drive away. That
[43:33] that's where they have the washouts and
[43:35] that kind of stuff. I did check with a
[43:38] couple sites.
[43:39] The one acre threshold for stormwater
[43:41] pollution prevention plan
[43:44] is because the federal regulations
[43:46] designed it to balance environmental
[43:49] protection with administrative
[43:51] feasibility.
[43:52] That's why they chose an acre.
[43:55] Basically the idea was
[43:57] under an acre becomes an administrative
[43:59] problem because it's probably
[44:01] >> [clears throat]
[44:02] >> Well, and then that's where it becomes a
[44:03] problem for us because like I said, we
[44:05] don't have any teeth and so you see
[44:07] these little things happen and there's
[44:09] nothing you can do about it but politely
[44:11] ask, "Hey, can you not do this?"
[44:14] And part of the
[44:16] best management practices that was in
[44:19] our plan
[44:21] we're not saying you have to have a
[44:22] porta pot if you do this. It's saying
[44:25] make the best management practices fit
[44:27] the scenario. It's not saying you have
[44:29] to do all these things. Just like if it
[44:32] doesn't warrant a track out pad because
[44:34] you're not leaving your property, then
[44:35] you don't need the gravel for the track
[44:37] out pad. It would be on a case by case
[44:39] basis That that was your intent in
[44:41] writing it. Yes. Yep. Yep. So I think
[44:43] yeah, we should
[44:45] add a little clarity to as it go wording
[44:47] so that people who read it will
[44:49] understand. And then on the agricultural
[44:51] part, I looked up a thing from USU.
[44:55] Um
[44:55] they were saying that with the
[44:57] agricultural part
[44:59] if you're just doing normal agricultural
[45:01] stuff
[45:02] that is included, but if you decide that
[45:05] you're putting a building up or
[45:06] something like that, then that does fall
[45:08] under the SWIP program. And then they
[45:10] also have other guidelines that we don't
[45:12] need to go into, but because of the
[45:13] chemicals and that stuff, they actually
[45:15] have other criteria that they have to
[45:17] meet besides the SWIP and that kind of
[45:19] thing.
[45:20] Okay, so if they're doing normal
[45:22] agricultural work, it's not a it doesn't
[45:25] it's not covered under this particular
[45:27] issue.
[45:29] Their use of fertilizers or whatever is
[45:30] covered. But if they say you have you're
[45:34] developing your agricultural field and
[45:36] you decide to put up a hay barn
[45:38] it would count because it's within that
[45:40] acre whatever it is, then you would If
[45:43] you're going to do a building or you're
[45:44] going to do some sort of construction.
[45:46] Yep. And and part of the SWIP too,
[45:49] the the trash receptacles, you get on
[45:52] construction sites, there's construction
[45:54] debris everywhere.
[45:57] There's construction trash from people,
[45:59] you know, having a drink of water and
[46:01] throwing their trash on the ground. That
[46:02] was part of that with the receptacles. I
[46:05] don't know that there's a size limit. I
[46:06] just know that there's in the best
[46:08] management practices you have to have it
[46:11] cleaned and tidy at all times. So.
[46:15] I think it's good. It's just whether
[46:16] they're covered.
[46:17] Um
[46:19] So it's a brought brought up an
[46:21] interesting thought
[46:23] when you talked about weeds. Cuz the
[46:25] Springdale just went through a um
[46:29] a with a tamarisk and the Russian olive
[46:33] and we removed so much stuff.
[46:35] So in theory
[46:37] we should have Did we Did we submit an
[46:39] SWPPP for
[46:42] our removal of tamarisk and Russian
[46:46] olive?
[46:49] Plead the fifth on that.
[46:51] >> [laughter]
[46:52] >> Yeah, we we did not because I we were
[46:54] not disturbing the soil. We're we're
[46:56] removing the vegetation, but not
[46:58] disturbing the soil. We're cutting the the vegetation off at the
[47:02] stump at the root
[47:04] and then treating it, but not digging it
[47:06] up. Had Had we chosen to do like take a track hoe in and dig up all the tamarisk and and remove them
[47:13] that way, then
[47:14] perhaps we would have been subject to
[47:15] this, but
[47:17] because we're not disturbing the soil,
[47:18] we're just removing the vegetation, it's
[47:20] So so
[47:21] a homeowner could cut down the weeds,
[47:23] they just can't pull them out. So I
[47:26] think the the example that Robert was
[47:27] referring to was like somebody disking
[47:29] the lot where where you're actually
[47:30] going through and and grubbing or
[47:32] disking and you're tearing up the soil.
[47:35] And not necessarily mowing it down. If
[47:37] you want to mow your your weeds, that's
[47:38] fine. That that doesn't trigger this at
[47:40] all.
[47:44] Right, right.
[47:48] Even the soil disturbance that they talk
[47:50] about is if you have soil that can blow
[47:54] away, that is considered part of that
[47:56] nuisance that
[47:58] your soil needs to stay on your
[48:00] property. You You have to
[48:02] have it to where it's sprayed down to
[48:04] where the dust can't leave. I it it goes
[48:06] into the details of that that it has to
[48:08] stay on that property.
[48:11] So
[48:12] if I understood what you said a minute
[48:14] ago,
[48:15] um
[48:16] if it's agricultural land, you can go
[48:18] disk the property up and not have a
[48:20] problem. Don't have
[48:22] From what I read, yep.
[48:28] Yeah.
[48:30] Um
[48:32] Okay, well I think we have some things
[48:33] we'd like the staff to do to give us
[48:35] some information.
[48:37] I don't know that I have anything new
[48:38] without getting some of this information
[48:41] back at this point. I think that's true.
[48:43] I agree.
[48:46] Before we before we move beyond this,
[48:49] it's sort of a separate thing. In my
[48:51] research for this, I came across
[48:53] a question and it maybe maybe I'm just
[48:56] reading this the wrong way, but uh
[48:59] Title 7-1-2
[49:02] talks about obstruction in the streets
[49:04] and it says it's unlawful for any person
[49:06] owning, occupying or having control of
[49:07] any premises to place or permit to be
[49:09] placed upon or in the sidewalk, parking
[49:12] area, gutter or on the half of the
[49:13] street next to such premises any
[49:15] material, vehicle or equipment that
[49:17] would obstruct the public way without a
[49:19] permit.
[49:21] So if I read that literally
[49:23] do I need Does that mean I need
[49:26] uh
[49:27] if I'm on a street where parking is
[49:28] allowed
[49:29] do I mean Does that mean I can't park in
[49:31] front of my own property?
[49:34] Cuz I'd need a permit.
[49:35] But I can park in front of my neighbors,
[49:37] and I wouldn't need a permit.
[49:42] No, I I don't think that's the intent of
[49:44] this. I It's not the intent, but
[49:46] is that what it means? It means that
[49:48] what it says.
[49:52] Cuz I think that's what it says.
[50:00] I I I think a a very literal reading of
[50:03] that would say yes. Yeah. I I I think
[50:05] what this is is is getting at is
[50:08] um you can't use the the street as a
[50:11] stockpile area for a construction site.
[50:13] So, you can't put your pallets of tile
[50:15] or your roof trusses or or or park your cherry picker out in the street.
[50:21] Right.
[50:22] Yes, a very a very strict reading of
[50:25] this would would say, well, you you
[50:26] can't park a vehicle there. And so,
[50:29] maybe that's on our list of things to to
[50:32] clean up at some point.
[50:33] >> Yeah.
[50:35] Like I said, not super important, but
[50:36] you know, it's interesting.
[50:40] Okay, are we ready to move on?
[50:44] Yep.
[50:44] The second action item is discussion on
[50:47] the Planning Commission's priorities for
[50:50] 2026. Staff contact is Tom Dansie.
[50:56] » [clears throat]
[50:57] >> Thank you. [snorts] Um we typically at
[50:59] the beginning of each beginning of each
[51:01] year talk about the Planning
[51:04] Commission's
[51:05] um work meeting priorities,
[51:07] what you have accomplished in the
[51:08] previous year, and and what what you um
[51:11] could be accomplishing in the next year.
[51:13] Um we actually did this a a several
[51:14] times last year.
[51:16] And and so, we we didn't quite do it
[51:19] right right on schedule on in January
[51:21] this year, but now now seems to be a
[51:23] good time to do it.
[51:24] Um so, what you have in your in your
[51:26] packets is is um the previous list that
[51:30] the commission worked on, which has been
[51:32] updated. You've you've done a fantastic
[51:34] job of accomplishing many of the
[51:36] priorities that you listed or that you
[51:39] identified in your in your the last time
[51:41] we did this.
[51:43] Um and and now we're we're pretty much
[51:47] um
[51:48] well, we we have one or two left in our top priority category, but other
[51:52] than that, we've worked through all of
[51:53] your top priorities. So,
[51:55] >> [clears throat]
[51:56] >> big kudos and congratulations.
[51:58] Um and now we'd like
[52:01] talk about what your priorities are for
[52:02] the rest of 2026 work meetings.
[52:05] Um I will note that um
[52:09] in the packet, there there may have been
[52:12] a an in inadvertent
[52:14] uh
[52:16] mistake in the uh
[52:19] priority three items. One of those
[52:21] priority three items
[52:23] is um
[52:27] uh street performer regulations.
[52:30] And um
[52:32] talking with with Paul earlier,
[52:35] I
[52:36] you may have already um
[52:39] re-prioritized that from the priority
[52:41] two priority three to priority two.
[52:45] So, that I apologize for for that uh
[52:48] that oversight. But other than that,
[52:49] this this should be an an an accurate um
[52:54] d- um summary of where you are now with
[52:56] your different priorities. So, we just
[52:58] appreciate your discussion on
[53:01] where you want to spend what you items
[53:05] are the most important for you to be
[53:06] spending your time on in the coming
[53:08] months. We can go through them one by
[53:10] one and and talk about them individually
[53:11] if you'd like. Um if you have some ideas
[53:14] and questions as commissioners that
[53:16] you'd like to propose, we can do that.
[53:17] So, we we can manage that discussion
[53:18] however you'd like.
[53:39] One of the things I that um
[53:42] first came to mind, there's at least I
[53:43] think there was one priority two item
[53:46] that um
[53:48] that we're already working on.
[53:51] Nearly complete.
[53:53] Seems anything that we're already
[53:54] working on could probably go to priority
[53:56] one. Yeah.
[53:59] Um
[54:02] And
[54:03] the other things that were in priority
[54:05] one
[54:06] to me seem like they should stay there.
[54:13] Um so, that's the WUI interface, the
[54:17] parking ordinance,
[54:19] um the Virgin River Management Plan.
[54:24] We kind of had delayed that since I was
[54:26] out with my injury, so
[54:28] I'm willing to restart that
[54:31] as priority one.
[54:33] Um
[54:36] I think in conjunction with that, we
[54:38] could add [clears throat] in
[54:40] the stormwater management
[54:43] during construction project permit
[54:45] discussion. That was my thought, if we
[54:47] just wanted to do it, we should
[54:49] Yeah, do it. Do it.
[54:51] >> Yeah.
[54:52] >> [laughter]
[54:55] » So, that would make
[54:57] five priority ones right there. The WUI,
[55:01] the non-conforming commercial
[55:02] properties, the stormwater management,
[55:05] the river Virgin River Management, and
[55:08] the parking revisions. That'd make five
[55:11] priority ones that
[55:13] for half a year for what the rest of the
[55:16] good place to start, I think.
[55:19] Can I make a a comment about the the
[55:21] WUI?
[55:23] So, I I I left that on there. I I don't
[55:26] actually envision that this will
[55:28] come back to the Planning Commission
[55:30] um per se. You've already you've already
[55:32] done a lot of work on that at the end of
[55:34] last year and and made a recommendation
[55:36] to the Town Council, and the Town
[55:38] Council is ready to adopt. What I do
[55:40] envision coming back to the Planning
[55:43] Commission would be um
[55:46] some of the associated
[55:48] land use ord- ordinances that may be
[55:50] impacted because of our adoption of the
[55:52] WUI. So, things like our two-to-one
[55:55] um native vegetation replacement ratio,
[55:59] things like that. So, when we when we
[56:01] talk about WUI, I think the town the the WUI itself is in the hands of the
[56:05] Town Council right now.
[56:07] You've done your work [clears throat] on
[56:08] that. But there Okay.
[56:12] could be
[56:13] um an action item for the commission is
[56:15] now that we've got the WUI in place,
[56:17] we've been mandated by the state to do
[56:19] that. The Town Council is going to going
[56:20] to do that. What else do we need to
[56:22] change at this point?
[56:24] So, is that a I I guess my my question
[56:26] is that a priority Does that remain
[56:27] without understanding, does that remain
[56:28] a priority one item? I think so in
[56:31] identifying what they are.
[56:34] Um
[56:35] Well, let me ask a question. So,
[56:39] if it's it's with the Town Council,
[56:41] um
[56:42] my first thought is maybe we should see
[56:44] what the Town Council does
[56:47] take on more action
[56:49] so that we don't take on action that
[56:53] turns out to not be needed because the
[56:55] town because of whatever decisions the
[56:56] Town Council makes. Do we know at this
[56:59] point what their action is?
[57:03] Yeah, I mean the
[57:04] it's a it's a pretty foregone
[57:06] conclusion. The state has mandated that
[57:07] >> Right. adopt the the WUI code, and the state has
[57:12] further mandated
[57:14] where our WUI zone is going to be
[57:16] located. So, we don't have a lot of
[57:18] discretion
[57:19] in in in that. So, I mean, technically, the Town Council
[57:23] could say
[57:25] "We're not going to do that, State of
[57:27] Utah. We're going to do our own thing."
[57:28] I don't foresee that happening. So, I I think it's a pretty foregone
[57:31] conclusion that yeah, the the council is
[57:33] going to be adopting the WUI code
[57:35] probably in their April meeting.
[57:39] I think it's worthwhile to identify what
[57:42] the
[57:43] ordinances are that
[57:45] could
[57:46] benefit changing, and then going through
[57:49] each of those and deciding what the
[57:50] changes are.
[57:53] Yeah, if it's going to be that that
[57:55] quick with with the Town Council,
[57:58] and to me, this is something that
[58:00] potentially has an impact for pretty
[58:03] much every resident in town
[58:05] in one way or another, so it's
[58:08] maybe it's priority one as soon as the
[58:10] Town Council votes hands up, which it
[58:13] sounds like we kind of suspect they
[58:15] will.
[58:16] My only hesitation is that in the last
[58:19] meeting that I went to, it seemed like
[58:20] the the WUI
[58:23] code was not etched in stone, that
[58:25] things were changing a little bit from
[58:27] what it had been before, so
[58:30] I agree this should be a priority one,
[58:32] but we should make sure that we're sure that the WUI code is
[58:38] We know what it is. We know exactly what
[58:40] it is, you know, and then we could get
[58:42] right on, you know, the the ordinances
[58:45] that need to be changed. It sounded like
[58:47] it was going to There really was no
[58:49] timeline to finalize what all of those
[58:53] details are going to be. We had the same firefighter that presented at
[59:00] the presentation to the town come to our
[59:01] house,
[59:02] and
[59:04] he gave us really useful information on
[59:07] just the different guidelines for the
[59:09] defensible space,
[59:11] which
[59:12] I think whether it's a requirement or
[59:15] information we're giving to
[59:18] um people that are building new homes is
[59:20] really important.
[59:22] And
[59:24] um
[59:26] and I I guess it it would be lifting
[59:28] some of the requirements we currently
[59:31] have or, you know, revising them at
[59:33] least.
[59:34] Um
[59:36] and then
[59:39] and you know, besides that, it's just
[59:41] it's it's bringing the topic to, you
[59:44] know, new homeowners, builders,
[59:46] whatever. Um
[59:49] you know, they they definitely need to
[59:51] know about it and what's coming down the
[59:53] line or potentially coming down the line
[59:55] and what we can do at this point that
[59:58] does make sense.
[1:00:05] So, I mean, it sounds like we're kind of
[1:00:08] in agreement that it's priority one.
[1:00:11] Um
[1:00:12] and maybe
[1:00:14] whether we start whether we work on it
[1:00:17] in the April work meeting or the May
[1:00:19] work meeting probably isn't
[1:00:22] as a big of an issue, although
[1:00:24] if to me, it would be nice to know that
[1:00:26] the town council has said, "Okay, we're
[1:00:28] going to adopt this ordinance." Based
[1:00:31] upon what we saw last year, there's not
[1:00:33] a lot of flexibility. The state says,
[1:00:35] "You will adopt this ordinance." Put
[1:00:37] your name here. Kind of thing.
[1:00:39] So, you know, probably not going to be
[1:00:42] any surprises there.
[1:00:43] Um
[1:00:46] just out of the five
[1:00:49] I I might want to look at um
[1:00:52] other ones maybe in the April work
[1:00:54] meeting and
[1:00:55] look at this in the May work meeting. I
[1:00:57] don't know.
[1:00:58] But, I agree. I don't think we should
[1:01:00] put it off till like September or
[1:01:01] something.
[1:01:02] >> No, I think I think we should just call
[1:01:03] it priority one wooey. Wait until
[1:01:06] informed. Wait until informed.
[1:01:10] Um
[1:01:11] All right. Well, I think we're in
[1:01:12] agreement that stays as priority one.
[1:01:15] Um
[1:01:19] and the other five I
[1:01:22] nobody seem Everybody seems to feel
[1:01:24] okay.
[1:01:25] >> Yeah, there's Yeah, there's four, I
[1:01:26] mean. Four.
[1:01:28] Yeah. And so of those remaining four, um
[1:01:32] Terry, you mentioned that you are are um
[1:01:35] ready to to continue work on the Virgin
[1:01:38] River Management Plan implementation. We
[1:01:40] had kind of established a committee with you and and Kosh and staff. Are you
[1:01:47] I'm ready to to uh go back to those
[1:01:49] meetings again.
[1:01:50] >> Perfect. So, that's one that won't
[1:01:51] necessarily take a ton of time in work
[1:01:54] meetings Right. because that committee
[1:01:55] will be working on things and eventually
[1:01:57] that committee will be bringing things
[1:01:59] to the to the planning commission and
[1:02:01] work meetings, but immediately there
[1:02:02] won't be a lot of um work meeting agenda
[1:02:05] or work meeting time associated with
[1:02:07] that one.
[1:02:09] Um the non-conforming properties in the
[1:02:11] central commercial zone, you're going to
[1:02:12] be having a a public hearing on that in
[1:02:16] and it that that one's kind of at a
[1:02:18] point where it's it's moving to public
[1:02:19] hearing. So, that won't require a lot of
[1:02:21] work meeting time either.
[1:02:23] Um so, that leaves the parking ordinance
[1:02:27] and
[1:02:28] uh storm water management as the next
[1:02:32] two
[1:02:33] if we're if we're waiting until informed
[1:02:35] on fire mitigation, that leaves the
[1:02:38] parking ordinance and storm water
[1:02:39] management as the two kind of immediate
[1:02:41] things to jump on in coming work
[1:02:43] meetings. Does that sound appropriate to
[1:02:45] the commission?
[1:02:49] Sounds good to me.
[1:02:50] Okay. Okay. Awesome.
[1:02:53] Um and then do you want to look at your
[1:02:55] priority two items
[1:02:57] and just to kind of make sure that
[1:03:00] you're you're all good with
[1:03:01] [clears throat] with the
[1:03:02] change again that um
[1:03:05] street performers is is bumped up to a
[1:03:07] priority two item.
[1:03:11] All right. So, that would leave us with just
[1:03:15] the size and height bonus and the street
[1:03:17] performer would be the only priority
[1:03:19] twos
[1:03:20] under that scenario. Correct.
[1:03:25] I'll propose a couple others we might
[1:03:27] want to
[1:03:29] um consider.
[1:03:31] Um before we get
[1:03:34] too for much further in there, there's a new one that's come to my mind
[1:03:37] just re- re- recently where maybe we
[1:03:39] want to consider it being a priority
[1:03:41] two. So, if you don't mind
[1:03:43] >> I'll give you some insight. Um
[1:03:46] the town adopted an open space plan in
[1:03:49] late November of 2023. Um and you know,
[1:03:54] I I don't know. I don't want to read
[1:03:56] this whole thing to you, but basically
[1:03:57] they they agreed that, you know, we need
[1:04:00] to have we need to promote open spaces.
[1:04:02] Um it's important to preserve uh the
[1:04:05] character of the the village atmosphere,
[1:04:09] the character of the town, that sort of
[1:04:10] thing and promote putting and they they
[1:04:13] set forth a a number of ways to do that.
[1:04:16] Um buy them outright, purchase
[1:04:18] development rights, or partner with
[1:04:21] property owners. Um
[1:04:23] In that section, um
[1:04:27] you know, it states in there in many
[1:04:28] cases private property owners have
[1:04:30] conservation goals for their property
[1:04:31] that are in line with the town's open
[1:04:33] space goals.
[1:04:34] In these cases, the town should seek
[1:04:36] ways to partner with the private
[1:04:37] property owners to make open space
[1:04:39] preservation of property more feasible
[1:04:40] for the property owner. For example, an
[1:04:43] owner of a large pasture may be
[1:04:44] interested in preserving the pasture for
[1:04:46] open space. The town could partner with
[1:04:48] the property owner on practices that
[1:04:50] make maintaining the property as an open
[1:04:52] pasture or space less of a financial
[1:04:54] burden on the property owner.
[1:04:56] Um
[1:04:58] that being said, there's some
[1:05:00] discrepancies I found in the current
[1:05:01] code that could be biased to conflict
[1:05:03] with or discourage property owners from
[1:05:06] supporting these goals um to preserve
[1:05:08] these.
[1:05:09] >> [clears throat]
[1:05:10] >> And I'll give you some some more
[1:05:12] specific examples. In in the valley
[1:05:15] residential zone, there's a town
[1:05:17] ordinance uh
[1:05:19] chapter nine, article B, valley
[1:05:21] residential zone 10-9-B-1, purpose and
[1:05:24] objective states the valley residential
[1:05:26] zone is established to provide area
[1:05:28] provide areas in the town where
[1:05:30] residential uses may be harmoniously
[1:05:32] integrated with incidental agricultural
[1:05:34] pursu- pursuits. The zone is intended to
[1:05:37] allow the keeping of farm animals and
[1:05:38] fowl in conjunction in conjunction with
[1:05:41] single-family dwelling units to an
[1:05:42] extent consistent with the development.
[1:05:44] The VR zone is also intended to retain
[1:05:46] land in parcels or lots large enough to
[1:05:49] provide efficient and attractive
[1:05:51] residential development which preserves
[1:05:53] the open agricultural and farm type
[1:05:55] impression the area.
[1:05:57] Chapter 15D goes on to say that um the
[1:06:01] purpose is to allow agriculture and the
[1:06:03] keeping of farm animals on a small scale
[1:06:06] for personal non-commercial use or
[1:06:08] limited on-site commercial use. The
[1:06:11] regulations in this chapter are intended
[1:06:13] to allow small scale scale agriculture
[1:06:15] and animal use for personal enjoyment,
[1:06:18] local food food production, and
[1:06:19] sustainability.
[1:06:21] These regulations are separate from
[1:06:22] agricultural businesses use.
[1:06:25] Agricultural business use is allowed in
[1:06:27] the agricultural zone.
[1:06:29] This chapter does not authorize
[1:06:31] large-scale or commercial agricultural
[1:06:33] enterprises.
[1:06:35] 10-15-D-4 goes on to say agriculture and
[1:06:38] the keeping of farm animals are allowed
[1:06:40] for the personal use and enjoyment of
[1:06:42] the owner or occupant of the property.
[1:06:44] The agriculture or farm animal use may
[1:06:46] not constitute an enter- commercial
[1:06:48] enterprise in and of itself.
[1:06:50] Nothing in this chapter is intended to
[1:06:52] prohibit the sale of excess agricultural
[1:06:54] pro- products at local farmers markets.
[1:07:00] I think we've all driven by as we drive
[1:07:02] through town, we drive by properties
[1:07:04] that uh contribute to the open space
[1:07:06] spirit of the town's uh open space plan,
[1:07:08] but at the same time may not recognize
[1:07:10] that many of these properties we may not
[1:07:13] recognize many of these properties uh
[1:07:15] constitute a commercial commercial
[1:07:17] enterprise. Um
[1:07:21] May May I mean, hold on.
[1:07:23] May
[1:07:24] lack of turn their passive agricultural
[1:07:26] use of the land. And depending upon
[1:07:28] one's interpretation of limited on-site
[1:07:31] commercial use, they could be held in
[1:07:32] violation. Consider a situation where a
[1:07:35] property owner desiring to enhance the
[1:07:37] visual beauty of the land and make
[1:07:40] maintaining the open space less of a
[1:07:42] financial burden engages with someone to
[1:07:44] graze cattle on his pasture or plant and
[1:07:47] cut off alfalfa or start a vineyard or a
[1:07:50] garden with rows of lavender to maintain
[1:07:52] in a visually appealing state.
[1:07:54] And the owner of the cattle later cattle
[1:07:56] later sells the cattle, the hay, the
[1:07:58] grapes, the lavender and receives some
[1:08:01] minor compensation for those efforts.
[1:08:04] They could be prohibited from doing this
[1:08:05] if one
[1:08:07] uh were to interpret our current code
[1:08:09] such these were commercial farming
[1:08:11] practices that could only happen in
[1:08:13] agricultural zone property.
[1:08:15] This seems quite contrary to the spirit
[1:08:18] of the open space plan. I suggest we add
[1:08:20] our work priorities to our priorities
[1:08:22] the need to review the current code to
[1:08:24] clarify and correct these discrepancies
[1:08:26] um and support the open space plan. I
[1:08:28] think
[1:08:29] relatively modest workload to do that.
[1:08:33] Um and while it's not doesn't seem like
[1:08:36] a major thing, it is a it is a kind of a line that we need to clarify for
[1:08:44] people in the future.
[1:08:46] So, to summarize what I think you said,
[1:08:50] um
[1:08:52] there are we have a a number of
[1:08:55] properties that are zoned residential,
[1:08:58] but are used primarily as pastures or
[1:09:01] orchards, other agricultural ranching or
[1:09:04] yeah, right. And that's okay, except
[1:09:07] that we have ordinances that say you
[1:09:09] basically you can't make money doing
[1:09:11] that.
[1:09:11] >> Correct. Right.
[1:09:13] And your concern is that these
[1:09:16] ordinances would discourage people from
[1:09:18] retaining open space
[1:09:20] um because they can't ca- they can't
[1:09:23] compensate get some compensation from
[1:09:26] the property and could get more money by
[1:09:28] dividing it up and putting houses or
[1:09:29] something like that.
[1:09:32] Um and so your suggestion is that we
[1:09:34] look at
[1:09:37] You mentioned several different
[1:09:39] chapters. Right. I'm not even sure if
[1:09:41] they're all were land use chapters.
[1:09:43] They're all what? Are they all land use
[1:09:44] chapters that you look at that you
[1:09:45] talked
[1:09:45] >> Yes. Okay. So we look at some of these
[1:09:47] chapters and decide do we want to go
[1:09:50] through and clean up or add or adjust so
[1:09:54] that some
[1:09:57] amount of compensation is acceptable.
[1:10:00] Yeah, I think I think it can be we can
[1:10:02] do some things that worded in a way that
[1:10:03] you know the the growing of
[1:10:07] or raising of products on the land is
[1:10:09] acceptable but you know you can't have a
[1:10:11] commercial
[1:10:12] uh you know you can't have a vineyard with a wine tasting thing on
[1:10:16] the front end where you're selling the
[1:10:17] products out of the front door. You
[1:10:18] can't be selling the stuff on site. You
[1:10:20] take it off to a farmer's market and
[1:10:22] sell it. Somebody can raise uh grapes
[1:10:24] there and then uh you know it looks like
[1:10:26] a nice vineyard but you know with the
[1:10:28] harvest they take [clears throat] the
[1:10:29] grapes away somewhere else and and they
[1:10:31] get sold somewhere else and we don't see
[1:10:32] that. We don't care about that. Um and
[1:10:34] they make money out of it. And so if we
[1:10:36] can clar- if we can clarify that and
[1:10:37] clean it up and make it uh more
[1:10:42] one amenable to being able to do that
[1:10:43] but also more
[1:10:45] add more incentive to people to say hey
[1:10:46] that sounds like a pretty good deal.
[1:10:48] Maybe I should take this big piece of
[1:10:49] land I have and do something with it and
[1:10:51] not even just have it make it look ugly
[1:10:53] and have weeds on it.
[1:10:57] I look you know I could see that
[1:11:00] adding that to our priority two list but
[1:11:02] what do other people think?
[1:11:04] I think so. Okay. Yeah. I I definitely
[1:11:06] see the incentive of being able to do
[1:11:08] something like that and benefiting
[1:11:10] everybody.
[1:11:28] We have three priority two items.
[1:11:29] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Are are there others
[1:11:31] from the current priority three list
[1:11:34] that you would like to move up to
[1:11:35] priority two or other or other additions
[1:11:38] to the list? One of the priority three
[1:11:40] items that I was looking at um
[1:11:42] I wanted to get an idea
[1:11:44] from others. The um sort of midway down
[1:11:47] on the list where it says make active
[1:11:49] use of buildings.
[1:11:51] Uh basically prevent vacant buildings in
[1:11:55] the commercial zone.
[1:11:56] I know this is something that's been
[1:11:58] mentioned to me by people and there you
[1:12:00] know there's certain properties in town.
[1:12:02] Is that something that
[1:12:04] we would want to move up priority wise?
[1:12:07] I propose maybe a uh priority two or
[1:12:10] even a priority one.
[1:12:13] I thought we we've this has kind of been
[1:12:15] on our list for a while something to
[1:12:17] talk about and
[1:12:19] what times I've thought about it or
[1:12:20] we've discussed it briefly
[1:12:24] it seems that there would be it seems it
[1:12:26] would be a pretty good challenge of
[1:12:28] trying to write ordinances that are
[1:12:30] reasonable and legal
[1:12:34] but still drive can commer- this is
[1:12:37] commercial I think is what we're talking
[1:12:39] about. Drive commercial property owners
[1:12:43] to
[1:12:44] do whatever it takes you know to get
[1:12:47] some business into their property. Um
[1:12:51] I think talking about it might be a good
[1:12:52] thing. I'm I'm I'm I'm a little
[1:12:53] concerned that we could use spend a lot
[1:12:55] of time
[1:12:56] and not come up with a land use
[1:12:59] ordinance that
[1:13:01] makes a big difference.
[1:13:03] That we can enforce.
[1:13:05] right? You can't I
[1:13:08] mean I don't know that it makes sense
[1:13:09] like fine somebody because you have a
[1:13:10] va- vacant building because you can't
[1:13:13] get a business to come lease your
[1:13:15] building.
[1:13:17] But maybe there's other things we could
[1:13:19] do. So I don't know and my thought on this was
[1:13:23] that there might be other communities in
[1:13:26] Utah or or maybe other examples maybe we
[1:13:29] can Colorado or something where they
[1:13:32] have done something. I don't know what
[1:13:33] they might have done that they have
[1:13:35] awaited tax or to
[1:13:37] uh somewhere somehow incentivize um you
[1:13:41] know the
[1:13:42] conversion of va- vacant buildings into
[1:13:44] a productive business.
[1:13:46] I think it's worth the discussion. I
[1:13:48] would lean towards putting it under two.
[1:13:53] I I would think priority two
[1:13:56] myself.
[1:13:58] Yeah I I mean I think it needs
[1:14:00] some more research. Um as you mentioned
[1:14:03] Tom maybe we can look you know statewide
[1:14:05] and see where there's other people or
[1:14:06] other towns or communities doing this
[1:14:08] and see if they're successful or not and
[1:14:10] then
[1:14:11] you know once once we figure out some
[1:14:13] ways maybe we can
[1:14:15] um
[1:14:16] and I don't know. Do we move to two now
[1:14:18] or leave it at three and till we get
[1:14:20] some more research and more background
[1:14:21] on it? That's maybe my only thought so.
[1:14:25] Well
[1:14:26] in in some cases it may be that the
[1:14:28] structure
[1:14:30] would be best to for them to tear it
[1:14:31] down right? It may be but and and that
[1:14:34] would clean the building up or they
[1:14:36] could
[1:14:37] do a facelift and rent it out to
[1:14:39] someone.
[1:14:40] The the question I guess is going to
[1:14:42] come down to I think is probably what
[1:14:44] you know what Terry was alluding to is
[1:14:45] that you know what effective means
[1:14:47] mechanism can we use to force them to
[1:14:50] tear their building down because just
[1:14:51] because it's unsightly and we don't
[1:14:52] currently have a regulation and we can pass a
[1:14:55] regulation and
[1:14:56] maybe that'll have a implication way
[1:15:01] down the road. Um is it going to have
[1:15:03] any impa- impact on the existing
[1:15:05] uh
[1:15:06] structures that are that are
[1:15:08] you know in that condition and have been
[1:15:10] for 20 years or so or 10 years or
[1:15:12] whatever. I don't know.
[1:15:16] But it's worth thinking about certainly.
[1:15:18] Is there a timeline for a vacant
[1:15:20] building to be vacant?
[1:15:24] I don't think we have anything in the
[1:15:25] ordinance that says that. Maybe you
[1:15:27] should have a time We we we we could you
[1:15:29] know what what what constitutes vacant?
[1:15:32] How long do you have to be
[1:15:32] >> Right.
[1:15:33] Well I yeah and I I think
[1:15:35] >> of seven years and there's a building in
[1:15:37] Yeah. I mean there there more than that
[1:15:38] so
[1:15:39] >> There should be a timeline.
[1:15:41] Now one of the things
[1:15:43] is that some of the buildings that have
[1:15:46] been vacant for some time are covered
[1:15:48] under various kinds of development
[1:15:50] agreements and other agreements
[1:15:52] um that we don't control we're the
[1:15:55] planning commission so So they can be
[1:15:57] vacant forever? Well right now we don't
[1:15:59] have an ordinance that says they can't
[1:16:01] but even if we did an ordinance there's
[1:16:03] still development agreements and other
[1:16:05] agreements that may supersede some of
[1:16:08] the things we do so we may not necessarily be able to solve
[1:16:11] every vacant building.
[1:16:13] Um but on the other hand maybe there is
[1:16:15] something we can do that encourages it.
[1:16:17] Um
[1:16:19] I mean I guess I'd like to answer that
[1:16:21] question
[1:16:23] first and then
[1:16:24] figure out where it goes.
[1:16:26] Because if we if we find that you know
[1:16:28] they there's nothing we can do about
[1:16:31] buildings that are uh
[1:16:34] sit under operating under development
[1:16:35] agreements then
[1:16:38] So that that might warrant a discussion
[1:16:40] and some research and to see what like
[1:16:43] you said maybe there's some something
[1:16:44] that other communities have done that
[1:16:46] makes sense and and actually helps.
[1:16:49] Um
[1:16:51] Is priority two I I think priority two I
[1:16:52] kind of agree with you. Is that okay
[1:16:54] with you? Yeah. Yeah that'd be good.
[1:16:56] Yeah.
[1:16:57] Um what we can do on that if if the
[1:17:00] commission would like this is leave that
[1:17:02] as a priority two item or priority three
[1:17:04] wherever you want to prioritize it for
[1:17:06] your work as a commission and in the
[1:17:08] meantime you could direct staff to start
[1:17:10] doing some preliminary research to
[1:17:11] answer some of these questions and then
[1:17:14] we can bring that back to you and then
[1:17:15] you can decide
[1:17:16] how you want you know if the answer is
[1:17:18] there's nothing we can do
[1:17:20] then that it's pretty easy right?
[1:17:22] >> Yeah. Yeah. But if the answer is oh yeah
[1:17:24] there's this is what other communities
[1:17:25] have done and here's what we can do then
[1:17:27] you may want to re-evaluate what that
[1:17:29] priority is. So if you'd like um to
[1:17:31] direct staff to do that research that's
[1:17:32] an option for you.
[1:17:33] >> I think that would be great.
[1:17:35] >> And to know what law what laws what
[1:17:38] kind of agreement agreements what other
[1:17:41] communities are doing all of that kind
[1:17:43] of information
[1:17:45] to help us understand what we can
[1:17:47] >> [clears throat]
[1:17:49] >> I'm I'm happy to have the planning
[1:17:50] commission direct Nile to do that
[1:17:51] research. This is it's fantastic.
[1:17:53] >> [laughter]
[1:17:53] >> Okay. You are so directed.
[1:17:57] Or maybe I maybe the chairman should say
[1:17:59] that.
[1:18:00] >> [laughter]
[1:18:01] >> Um do you want us to wait a couple weeks
[1:18:03] before you do that or
[1:18:05] Um
[1:18:07] I'll I'll I'll put out a couple of
[1:18:09] others that we may or may not want to
[1:18:11] put to priority two. I was kind of back
[1:18:12] and forth on. Um one was the retain well
[1:18:15] there it is the retaining wall
[1:18:16] standards.
[1:18:18] Um
[1:18:20] How did this get on the list? Do you do
[1:18:22] the staff remember?
[1:18:24] This was a staff suggestion. So this is
[1:18:27] this was um an item that was at a uh
[1:18:30] planning conference
[1:18:32] several years ago
[1:18:34] and the the issue is that on many
[1:18:37] communities particularly in along the
[1:18:39] Wasatch Front that are seeing a lot of
[1:18:41] development um encroaching up into the
[1:18:43] hillsides
[1:18:45] they've seen these just kind of really
[1:18:49] creative and and that's that's a a
[1:18:52] charitable term
[1:18:53] um re- re- retaining walls.
[1:18:55] Um and and they've caused all sorts of issues and and problems and so Lehi
[1:19:01] City went into their retaining wall
[1:19:03] standards and
[1:19:06] kind of said no this is the kind of
[1:19:07] retaining wall that you can do. This is
[1:19:10] these are our
[1:19:12] and and and that's what this is all
[1:19:13] about. So we already have an ordinance
[1:19:15] that says you can't have a retaining
[1:19:16] wall greater than 10 ft. So we're in a
[1:19:18] much better position than some of these
[1:19:20] Wasatch Front communities that we're
[1:19:21] seeing like
[1:19:23] 60 ft tall retaining walls.
[1:19:26] Just kind of ridiculous stuff. Um, but
[1:19:28] there are other things
[1:19:30] that the that this um Lehi City found
[1:19:33] that I think were were pretty pretty
[1:19:36] helpful like um if you're going to have
[1:19:38] a a retaining wall that's in in steps
[1:19:41] like a a
[1:19:43] uh
[1:19:44] tiered tiered, thank you.
[1:19:46] A tiered retaining wall, what's the
[1:19:48] minimum distance between those tiers?
[1:19:50] And um what kind of material can you
[1:19:52] make a retaining wall out of? We um
[1:19:55] there's in Springdale we have a lot of
[1:19:57] stacked rock retaining walls which are
[1:19:59] fantastic and they look really nice and they they add to the kind of to the
[1:20:03] character of the community.
[1:20:05] Um one of the engineers who presented at
[1:20:07] this said, "I like to call those stacked
[1:20:09] marble retaining walls
[1:20:11] because that's essentially what they
[1:20:12] become in an earthquake or just big
[1:20:14] marbles that then collapse." So,
[1:20:18] the the those are the kind of things
[1:20:20] that that this item would be looking at.
[1:20:25] Last year when we looked at this, the
[1:20:26] comment in the south to the side was the commission suggested this could be
[1:20:29] informed by deep the deep excavation
[1:20:32] ordinance changes which is an ongoing
[1:20:33] priority two item which is now complete.
[1:20:36] So, are we informed by that?
[1:20:39] >> [laughter]
[1:20:40] >> So so that um that that ordinance could
[1:20:45] have
[1:20:46] been coupled with this. Yeah. In in the
[1:20:48] end what what the the direction that ordinance went is it it really is
[1:20:52] looking at what happens during the the
[1:20:55] construction phase of a project with
[1:20:57] deep excavations.
[1:20:59] And not necessarily what happens to the
[1:21:01] finished product, the finished grade.
[1:21:04] So, um
[1:21:06] the answer is probably
[1:21:08] >> No, yeah.
[1:21:09] not we we didn't take advantage of that
[1:21:11] opportunity to Yep.
[1:21:16] Okay.
[1:21:18] So, what do you think? Do we want to move that one to priority
[1:21:21] two?
[1:21:25] Kind of halfway there myself.
[1:21:32] Okay. Yeah. I I would say it sounds like
[1:21:35] a I think it sounds like a good idea.
[1:21:39] Agreed.
[1:21:40] All right.
[1:21:41] Okay. So, yes.
[1:21:43] I'll bring up one other one.
[1:21:45] Um it was to limit the chain design
[1:21:48] buildings. Actually, I have a question
[1:21:50] about this one.
[1:21:52] Um I think it's
[1:21:53] I think it says village yeah, promote
[1:21:55] village character, limit chain design
[1:21:57] buildings. So, this was the concept that
[1:22:00] we're not going to allow
[1:22:03] large structures of of that that are a
[1:22:07] particular brand.
[1:22:10] Um
[1:22:11] which I think for the most part we don't
[1:22:13] allow now. So, I kind of wonder want to
[1:22:15] understand what the thought behind this
[1:22:16] one is.
[1:22:18] And also, I seem to remember a years ago
[1:22:20] we had some ordinances that
[1:22:22] was attempted to limit the ability to
[1:22:25] bring in a chain
[1:22:27] um a chain store or chain restaurant and
[1:22:31] that we ended up losing a legal battle
[1:22:34] over that.
[1:22:35] So, I'm curious what this is and how it
[1:22:37] relates to that past experience.
[1:22:40] Yeah, so the this is great great
[1:22:42] questions and really good feedback or or
[1:22:45] not feedback but but foundational
[1:22:46] questions um because this is something
[1:22:49] that's in our general plan
[1:22:50] and was put in the in the general plan
[1:22:53] kind of as a result of the legal
[1:22:55] challenges that you described. You are
[1:22:57] correct that um for some time the town
[1:23:00] had an ordinance that prohibited what we
[1:23:01] called franchise restaurants, excuse me,
[1:23:03] formula restaurants which was
[1:23:05] essentially like a a franchise or a
[1:23:06] chain restaurant.
[1:23:08] Um and um af- after a a legal challenge,
[1:23:12] the the town was was um
[1:23:15] forced to repeal that ordinance.
[1:23:18] And
[1:23:20] the
[1:23:21] uh essentially the the legal um
[1:23:24] landscape says you you can't tell
[1:23:25] somebody what kind of business they can
[1:23:27] operate. Right? You you can't say you
[1:23:29] can have a
[1:23:30] local sandwich shop here but not a chain
[1:23:33] sandwich shop here.
[1:23:34] We we that that we cannot regulate. But
[1:23:36] we are welcome to regulate what the
[1:23:38] building looks like
[1:23:40] and and that's also
[1:23:43] a big part of what the concern over um
[1:23:46] these franchise businesses was in the
[1:23:48] first place.
[1:23:49] So,
[1:23:50] there this was in the general plan
[1:23:51] saying, "Okay, we have our
[1:23:54] um general design standards that
[1:23:56] everybody has to comply by and and they
[1:23:58] do a really good job of promoting a
[1:24:00] certain look and feel in the community
[1:24:02] and that's great and and and and those
[1:24:04] have been very successful. We're not
[1:24:06] trying to replicate those or or change
[1:24:08] those.
[1:24:10] What what this is looking at is are
[1:24:13] there certain things that we can put
[1:24:14] into the design standards or or building
[1:24:16] standards
[1:24:17] that would
[1:24:19] um make it
[1:24:21] so that development is is more unique to
[1:24:23] Springdale. Um so, I'm I'm purposely not saying
[1:24:29] prevent chains because that's not what
[1:24:32] we're trying to do although that it's
[1:24:34] what's the staff report says, right? But
[1:24:35] we can't legally say that, right? We
[1:24:37] can't say our express intent is that we
[1:24:39] are trying to keep
[1:24:41] chain restaurants out. That is
[1:24:44] But what we can do is say we're trying
[1:24:45] to promote buildings that are are um
[1:24:49] more uh uh
[1:24:51] reflective of what Springdale wants to
[1:24:52] be.
[1:24:53] So, and and if the the the secondary uh
[1:24:57] um
[1:24:57] impact is that it makes it more
[1:24:59] difficult for a chain
[1:25:01] business to locate in Springdale, so be
[1:25:03] it, right?
[1:25:04] That's what this is about. So, it's it's
[1:25:07] things like we already prev- um prohibit
[1:25:10] drive-through windows.
[1:25:12] Right? But that would be something to
[1:25:13] say you can't cannot have a
[1:25:14] drive-through window.
[1:25:15] Um maybe there's there's um something
[1:25:18] that says
[1:25:20] uh
[1:25:20] of- often times these these formula
[1:25:23] or chain businesses have certain
[1:25:25] parameters for a building that they need
[1:25:27] to satisfy, right? It has to have a
[1:25:29] certain amount of frontage on the
[1:25:31] building or a certain amount of glazing
[1:25:33] on the building or a certain orientation
[1:25:35] to a corner. I don't know what they are
[1:25:37] cuz we haven't done the research on
[1:25:38] this.
[1:25:39] But we could look at at at standards
[1:25:42] that we say, "This is what we want to
[1:25:44] see in Springdale." And whether or not
[1:25:46] that makes it more or less feasible for
[1:25:48] one of these chain um businesses to move
[1:25:50] in.
[1:25:51] Am I Is this making sense?
[1:25:53] >> I'm I'm I'm I'm trying to to to parse
[1:25:56] this in a way that is
[1:25:59] legally supportable. So, So so, I guess I get it but what I'm wondering
[1:26:04] is is is our our standards not currently
[1:26:08] stringent enough to make it you know,
[1:26:10] not look like a you know, if if a for lack of a better term chain
[1:26:17] type restaurant wants to come into town
[1:26:20] you know, a a branded restaurant, let's
[1:26:21] call it whatever.
[1:26:23] Um
[1:26:23] you know, are our building uh
[1:26:29] requirements now you know, standards and
[1:26:32] pal- color palettes and all that sort of
[1:26:34] thing and signing and that sort of thing
[1:26:36] isn't going to make allow them to look
[1:26:38] like their normal brand in town. And so,
[1:26:41] what they and we since we can't regulate
[1:26:43] nor choose to regulate what's operating
[1:26:45] inside the building as long as it
[1:26:46] doesn't look like you know, the normal
[1:26:48] sort of thing you would expect if you
[1:26:50] saw that branded uh restaurant come into
[1:26:53] town. We've kind of
[1:26:55] done this already maybe.
[1:26:57] To a large extent, yes, absolutely.
[1:26:59] Yeah. So again, this was something that got put in the general plan years
[1:27:02] ago. [clears throat] Sure. And whether
[1:27:05] or not there's more to be done on this,
[1:27:06] that's that's a decision for the
[1:27:08] planning commission to make. If your
[1:27:09] determination is, "Hey, we we already do
[1:27:11] a good job of this and kind of satisfied
[1:27:13] that general plan objective." Great. If
[1:27:15] you'd like to research it more and look
[1:27:17] at it more, you're welcome to do that as
[1:27:18] well.
[1:27:21] I'm thinking as now I've learned a
[1:27:23] little more about this, maybe it still
[1:27:24] stays a three. I think so. Um because we
[1:27:27] don't have a
[1:27:29] problem [clears throat] in my perception
[1:27:30] with
[1:27:31] too many chain looking restaurants or
[1:27:34] too many Right. Well, I I
[1:27:36] really question whether or not, you
[1:27:38] know, they would
[1:27:40] be able to make it look like a chain
[1:27:41] restaurant given our current Right. I
[1:27:43] mean, what what it seems to me it would
[1:27:45] be is you'd you'd you would go look at
[1:27:46] chain restaurants and figure out, "Well,
[1:27:48] is there one or two other things we need
[1:27:51] to add Right. versus because I think
[1:27:53] like you say, we've already got pretty
[1:27:56] good standards for keeping I think what
[1:27:58] I heard when Tom was talking was that
[1:28:01] we need to be careful what we In other
[1:28:04] words, let's not
[1:28:06] ease up our signage standards or the
[1:28:08] color palette or things like that that would lend to Right.
[1:28:13] promote, you know, a a restaurant, a
[1:28:15] chain restaurant from coming in. You
[1:28:17] know, just be cognizant of those things
[1:28:20] that could happen when we make changes.
[1:28:23] Yeah.
[1:28:24] All right. Well, then
[1:28:25] So, it seems like leaving that as a
[1:28:27] Yeah. Yeah.
[1:28:29] Okay.
[1:28:31] So, we ended up with four priority twos,
[1:28:33] I think.
[1:28:35] Uh yes, street performers, the size and
[1:28:37] height bonus, encourage more open space
[1:28:39] preservation through incentivizing
[1:28:42] agricultural uses on valley residential
[1:28:44] properties by allowing limited offsite
[1:28:46] sale of agricultural products. We'll
[1:28:49] find a more concise
[1:28:51] It's a more concise way to say that,
[1:28:52] yeah.
[1:28:53] And retaining wall standards. Those are
[1:28:54] the four that you've got.
[1:28:57] That sounds good. Yeah.
[1:28:59] Okay. All right. And then you guys will
[1:29:02] get those back to us, right?
[1:29:04] Yes.
[1:29:05] Okay.
[1:29:06] have the same issue that we did last
[1:29:08] time. And we will also bring back
[1:29:10] research on um
[1:29:12] what strategies are are
[1:29:14] possible or feasible for making active
[1:29:15] use of vacant buildings. Yeah.
[1:29:21] Is everybody all in agreement ready to
[1:29:24] move on?
[1:29:26] Okay, consent agenda.
[1:29:29] Approval of minutes, feel free to offer
[1:29:31] any suggested revisions.
[1:29:34] Is there a motion for the approval of
[1:29:36] minutes from January 7th, January 21st,
[1:29:39] February 4th, and February 18th, 2026?
[1:29:45] I make a motion that we approve the
[1:29:47] agenda from the four
[1:29:50] um
[1:29:51] dates that um
[1:29:53] Want to approve the minutes rather than
[1:29:55] the agenda?
[1:29:55] >> Just suggested.
[1:29:58] Did you want to approve the minutes
[1:29:59] rather than the agenda? Oh, the minutes,
[1:30:01] excuse me. Yeah.
[1:30:03] You're right. Approve Approve the
[1:30:04] minutes.
[1:30:06] Let me start over.
[1:30:07] Approve the minutes from January 7th,
[1:30:09] 21st, February 4th, and February 18th,
[1:30:12] 2026.
[1:30:16] Do I have a second? I will second.
[1:30:19] Motion by Tom, second by Terry, all in
[1:30:21] favor. Tom, I.
[1:30:23] Um So, I was not in attendance on
[1:30:26] January 7th or January 21st, so I can
[1:30:29] approve the February minutes.
[1:30:33] Jennifer, I. All, I. Melissa, I.
[1:30:37] Um motion passes.
[1:30:40] Move we adjourn.
[1:30:42] Second.
[1:30:44] Uh motion by Paul, second by Tom, all in
[1:30:47] favor.
[1:30:48] Tom, I. Terry, I. Jennifer, I. All, I.
[1:30:51] Melissa, I. Meeting is adjourned.
[1:31:02] Second.