[0:09] Oh,
[0:09] there we go. Okay. Now we got it. Okay.
[0:13] It's 5:02 and we are here at the Canyon
[0:16] Community Center for the April 1st
[0:18] meeting of the Springdale Planning
[0:20] Commission. From the town, we have Tom
[0:22] Dansey, Nile Nile Connolly, and April
[0:25] Raddatz
[0:27] On the dais, we have Matt Fincks, Zion
[0:29] National Park representative
[0:32] Terry Krushke, myself Jennifer
[0:34] McCullough, and Kosh Bhati.
[0:37] Rich Swantson, Tom Kenniston, Melissa
[0:40] Laborde and Paul Zimmerman are out
[0:43] tonight. Kosh will be voting.
[0:46] Can I get a motion to approve tonight's
[0:49] agenda?
[0:50] I'll make a motion to approve tonight's
[0:51] agenda.
[0:52] I second. Motion by Terry, second by
[0:55] Kosh. All in favor? Terry, I. Jennifer,
[0:59] I. Kosh, I. Motion passes. Are there any
[1:02] general announcements from the town?
[1:06] Um, I have a general announcement. Um
[1:10] the town has um been recruiting for the
[1:14] director of community development
[1:16] department and we are pleased to
[1:18] announce that we have um filled that
[1:20] vacancy
[1:21] and um I'm extra thrilled to announce
[1:24] that Nile Connolly will be filling the
[1:27] position as director of community
[1:29] development. Um and so we're grateful to
[1:33] have him be willing to step up into this
[1:35] role and take that responsibility on.
[1:37] And as commissioners, you're familiar
[1:39] with Nile and know what a great job he
[1:41] does and and the value he brings to the
[1:42] town.
[1:43] Um and so we are excited to have him in
[1:46] this new role. His His Al- Although he's
[1:49] you know, been doing this this job
[1:51] pretty pretty much for the past couple
[1:52] weeks, his official first day will be
[1:54] April 8th.
[1:57] So, welcome Nile. Congratulations.
[1:59] >> Welcome. Yeah. Thank you.
[2:04] Are there any other announcements?
[2:07] Yes.
[2:08] The park has one announcement. Um so,
[2:11] uh
[2:11] there's going to be a Navy Day in the
[2:13] park on Monday, April 20th.
[2:15] Um the office of community outreach with
[2:17] the Navy is bringing some sailors from
[2:20] different programs, but most
[2:22] importantly, most excitingly, uh there
[2:24] will be a free community concert on
[2:26] Monday, April 20th at 6:00 p.m. at the
[2:27] OC Tanner. For those that have not
[2:30] attended a Navy band concert before,
[2:31] they are world-class performers, so
[2:33] highly encourage the community to come
[2:35] out and enjoy a free concert.
[2:38] Thank you. Any other announcements?
[2:43] Does anyone have any declarations of
[2:45] conflict of interest at this time?
[2:50] Okay, moving on to tonight's agenda. We
[2:52] have two non-action items.
[2:55] The first is a discussion about
[2:58] potentially introducing a requirement
[3:00] for a new permit to deal with
[3:02] construction-phase stormwater
[3:04] management. Staff contact is Nile, and
[3:07] Nile will be presenting.
[3:12] Thank you.
[3:14] So, just to introduce this again,
[3:17] uh this item continues the discussion
[3:19] that began at the last commission
[3:21] meeting.
[3:22] Uh it was proposed that the town
[3:24] investigate gateways to more effectively
[3:27] manage construction stage pollution
[3:29] impacts.
[3:31] Um so,
[3:32] uh
[3:33] pollution impacts that can arise from
[3:35] stormwater runoff from construction
[3:38] sites, uh tracking dirt on the st- out
[3:41] onto the streets, those sorts of
[3:42] impacts.
[3:44] Uh at the last meeting, there was some
[3:46] discussion about the state stormwater
[3:48] permit process, which already exists.
[3:51] And um
[3:53] on a discussion about whether the town
[3:55] should do something similar.
[3:57] Um,
[3:58] so, to carry this on,
[4:01] the staff report includes a few options
[4:04] that the commissioners may
[4:06] want to discuss this evening.
[4:09] Um,
[4:10] the discussion last time was really
[4:13] about, well, if we were to introduce a
[4:16] permit,
[4:17] uh, what sort of developments would need
[4:20] this permit, and what's the threshold?
[4:22] So, um, the various options that are
[4:25] included in the staff report for
[4:28] discussion are
[4:30] So, firstly, we could create a town
[4:31] permit that mimics the state process.
[4:34] Um,
[4:36] the second option, uh, identified is
[4:38] that the town,
[4:40] uh,
[4:40] creates a permit process
[4:44] that applies to projects which include
[4:46] land disturbance, and that's a definition that exists in the
[4:51] erosion hazard chapter, so it could be
[4:53] something that we could could use there
[4:56] as the threshold.
[4:59] The third option, uh, would be to create
[5:02] a permit process that would apply to
[5:04] projects,
[5:05] um,
[5:06] that fall under a different definition, so a a new
[5:10] definition that the commission could
[5:12] craft. Um, and that there's some
[5:15] suggested language for that in the staff
[5:17] report that you might want to look at.
[5:20] Um,
[5:21] and then, uh, the staff report also
[5:23] includes a fourth option would be which
[5:25] would be uh, not to create a permit
[5:27] process,
[5:28] a new permit process, but instead to
[5:31] strengthen the town's enforcement, um,
[5:36] abilities. So, as far as, you know,
[5:39] putting some language into the code that
[5:41] would allow
[5:42] uh, the town's code enforcement people
[5:44] to,
[5:45] um,
[5:46] take more action if if we're identifying
[5:50] uh, pollution impacts from construction
[5:53] sites.
[5:54] Um,
[5:55] so, there's a few different options. Uh,
[5:57] these are obviously not
[5:59] exhaustive, but they might be a start
[6:01] for a discussion.
[6:03] Um,
[6:04] and then there was just one other point
[6:06] that I wanted to touch on. So,
[6:08] at the last meeting, there was some
[6:11] discussion about the best management
[6:13] practices that were included in within
[6:16] the packet of different measures that
[6:18] can be used, uh,
[6:19] to manage
[6:21] uh, storm water runoff in construction sites.
[6:25] Um, there was some discussion about,
[6:27] well, you know, there there's things
[6:29] that are going to apply to some property
[6:31] some developments and others would be
[6:34] unnecessary and onerous if they were
[6:37] kind of applied to everything.
[6:39] Um,
[6:40] so, just to clarify that,
[6:42] um, staff would recommend that those
[6:45] best management practices be
[6:48] more of a a menu of good practice that
[6:51] would be ap-
[6:53] applied appropriately to individual
[6:56] sites. So, you know,
[6:57] contractors would be able to identify
[6:59] which measures would
[7:02] are necessary on their property without
[7:04] having to kind of,
[7:06] um, deploy things that are unnecessary.
[7:09] Um,
[7:11] and uh, we have
[7:13] Jor- Robert George from our streets
[7:16] department, our street superintendent
[7:17] here again this evening and he's
[7:20] available for any more technical
[7:22] questions. I'd also be happy to answer
[7:24] any questions you have.
[7:28] Does anyone have questions?
[7:32] Um,
[7:36] excuse me.
[7:39] I want to go back and
[7:41] make sure I understand sort what problem
[7:43] we're trying to solve here.
[7:45] Um the way I understand and I want to
[7:47] make sure that's sort of correct is that
[7:49] the town staff and would like to have
[7:52] more involvement in the stormwater
[7:56] management process
[7:57] which the state oversees at this point.
[8:01] Um and potentially also include projects
[8:04] that might be less than the state
[8:07] requires.
[8:08] Um
[8:10] And so in that, is it is it the intent
[8:12] that we want to leverage as much as
[8:16] possible the state infrastructure
[8:19] and not create
[8:21] separate infrastructure or separate
[8:23] reports and things that have to be done.
[8:25] Is that
[8:26] a true statement?
[8:28] Yeah, do you do you want to jump in,
[8:29] Robert, with some thoughts? Robert
[8:32] George. So, it could be handled either
[8:34] way.
[8:35] Um a lot of municipalities that are not
[8:37] an MS4, which we discussed last time,
[8:40] they kind of create their own language
[8:42] so that they're not doing exactly what
[8:45] the state does because the state has
[8:47] such a high threshold of what they
[8:49] require.
[8:50] These mini SWIPs,
[8:53] we or you can decide what can be added
[8:55] or taken away from that. And so, it
[8:57] could be as
[8:59] big as a process as you want or as
[9:01] little of a process as you want. And so,
[9:03] yes, you could go by the state
[9:05] standards,
[9:06] but there's a lot more standards to
[9:08] follow and go through going that route.
[9:10] Whereas, if we just identified it and
[9:12] did it ourselves, we don't have to be as
[9:14] strict with what the state standards
[9:16] would be.
[9:19] Um but for those projects and
[9:21] contractors that would have to meet the
[9:23] state requirements,
[9:25] um
[9:27] would we prefer to require separate
[9:30] requirements from the town?
[9:32] Um
[9:34] or or separate reports that that report
[9:37] similar data. So, the only thing that we
[9:40] would require if it was uh part of the
[9:43] state stuff like the uh residential
[9:45] neighborhoods and that that fall under
[9:47] that.
[9:48] All we're asking for is there uh an
[9:51] email with their photos of what their
[9:53] best management practices are and
[9:55] showing that they're keeping them
[9:56] updated. That's the only thing that
[9:58] we're asking for on the state side. On
[10:01] our side, if we did things less than an
[10:03] acre, we could curtail it to what we
[10:05] wanted and you would still send in pic-
[10:07] pictures, but it gives us a little more
[10:10] room to go in and uh look at a job site
[10:13] to see that they're doing those things.
[10:15] Um on the state stuff, say uh house on
[10:18] Anasazi, the town technically can't go
[10:21] in and say, "Hey, you're not doing these
[10:23] things." That's the state's prerogative
[10:25] to come in and tell them that, not us.
[10:27] Mhm. And so,
[10:29] by having this in place, there's a few
[10:32] things um if we require them to send us
[10:35] their photos and they're not doing that,
[10:38] then we can keep those photos, send them
[10:40] in to the state, and say, "Hey, they're
[10:42] not doing what they need to with the
[10:44] SWIP stuff. Here's the file showing the
[10:48] non-compliance. Do with it what you
[10:49] will."
[10:50] Now, on the stuff that's less than an
[10:53] acre, then we could step in. We as the
[10:57] town could write a non-compliance
[10:58] letter, "Hey, you're not following the
[11:00] rules of what we set.
[11:02] You need to do these things or we may do
[11:05] A, B, or C to get you in compliance with
[11:07] what we asked for you to do."
[11:09] Okay.
[11:10] So, it would be your intent that for
[11:13] those that are covered by the state, you
[11:15] might forward enforcement to the state.
[11:17] Correct.
[11:28] So, Gil asked me to mention something.
[11:31] We were talking before planning
[11:32] commission started.
[11:34] We were talking about SWIP programs and
[11:36] some of the things that he's dealt with
[11:39] in his life. And one of the things that
[11:41] I brought up was that the state
[11:43] since I've worked here since 2015 has
[11:46] only come in one time to look at these
[11:49] kinds of projects in almost 11 years.
[11:53] And that was kind of the catalyst of
[11:54] hey, maybe we need to start stepping in
[11:56] and see if we can help with this. The
[11:58] other
[11:59] reason for starting asking to start this
[12:01] is at some point the state may come to
[12:04] us and say you are going to be an MS4.
[12:07] So we've already done some of the
[12:08] legwork to get us there if that does
[12:10] happen.
[12:12] So this term MS4 you said? Yep. Means
[12:16] that the state that a community would
[12:19] take over the enforcement from the
[12:20] state. Okay. Yep.
[12:30] Other questions?
[12:33] I'm a
[12:34] comments but You have a question? Yes, I
[12:36] do. Oh, okay.
[12:40] Gil Kiefer.
[12:42] Um, it looks like this is just for or
[12:45] during the development process or
[12:48] development time.
[12:50] Why it doesn't extend to uh
[12:55] once the property is turned over or
[12:58] after it's been permitted? Why are you
[13:00] differentiating
[13:02] that time frame?
[13:04] W- Well, I'll answer that question. Or
[13:07] Yeah, go ahead. Yeah.
[13:09] I think I
[13:10] Yeah, go ahead. So within the town's
[13:13] construction standards and existing
[13:16] procedures,
[13:18] um, surface water management is dealt
[13:20] with kind of as part of the approval
[13:23] process. So the end state of
[13:26] developments um, will have drainage kind
[13:30] of designed into it.
[13:32] Um, so this is really just during the
[13:34] construction phase because the
[13:36] we already designed that in or that's
[13:40] already designed into the, um,
[13:43] projects
[13:45] already, so.
[13:48] I have a follow-up question on that.
[13:51] I was noticing in
[13:52] at least one of the examples,
[13:55] there was a monthly fee in addition to
[13:57] the permit fee.
[13:59] So was that still just during
[14:01] construction or was it more of a a
[14:04] follow-up maintenance that was ongoing?
[14:08] Cuz I thought it could be either way.
[14:11] Um, the way that I read it and
[14:13] understood it in that example is it was
[14:15] only ongoing during the construction
[14:17] process.
[14:18] >> Okay.
[14:19] Yeah, it seemed to imply it was to cover
[14:22] inspection costs and things like that.
[14:23] >> Okay.
[14:25] That's the way I read it.
[14:28] Which to me it doesn't make a whole lot
[14:30] of sense. Like why wouldn't it just be
[14:31] the fee?
[14:33] I guess it depends on how long the
[14:34] project goes on, but anyway, yeah.
[14:37] >> I mean if the town chose that particular
[14:38] direction.
[14:39] >> Yeah, sure.
[14:41] So I could kind of answer that. Um, so
[14:43] like with our encroachment process, we,
[14:46] uh, tabulate into the fee of an
[14:48] encroachment pro- process and the
[14:50] permit, um, our hours for us to do the
[14:52] paperwork in that. So I think that's
[14:55] what it was doing is on those certain
[14:57] projects there would be ongoing
[14:58] documentation and paperwork. So it was
[15:00] just a fee to keep that process going is
[15:03] what they were doing.
[15:05] Thank you.
[15:13] If there are no other questions, we can
[15:16] move into discussion.
[15:20] And I thank you for laying out these
[15:21] options so nicely.
[15:24] Um and going through them
[15:28] um
[15:29] option three
[15:33] uh was the one that resonated most with
[15:36] me because it's so clear.
[15:39] Um even though there would be some
[15:42] addition to the code
[15:45] um
[15:47] it was um easy to understand.
[15:51] And it was still proactive instead of
[15:53] being reactive and having no permit.
[15:56] You're There's There's still the permitting requirement.
[16:01] Um
[16:03] And then
[16:08] also um
[16:11] I wouldn't be a huge fan of a like the
[16:14] fees in that example. That was seemed
[16:16] like
[16:17] um
[16:20] a pretty exorbitant, I thought.
[16:24] Yeah, I believe most of our fees
[16:27] I think perhaps by law are designed to
[16:29] cover costs.
[16:31] Um and that's how a fee for this permit
[16:34] would also be calculated. Is that true?
[16:38] Yeah, I believe that's the case that
[16:40] yeah, our fees have to reflect the cost
[16:43] of this rather than be making money.
[16:47] All right. Um
[16:49] Personally, I I I kind of agree. I feel
[16:51] similar that as I read through these
[16:53] options um
[16:55] a part of me would like to be able to
[16:57] use option two for simplicity of the
[16:59] code
[17:00] um but it really
[17:02] doesn't match
[17:04] um the needs for the storm water um
[17:08] issue.
[17:09] Yeah, I kind of looked at it and said,
[17:11] "Well, in in a sense, the whole
[17:13] grading permit issue that where we've
[17:16] listed what land disturbances are is
[17:19] designed to protect people from the
[17:21] water.
[17:22] Whereas what we're talking about is
[17:25] designed to protect the water from the
[17:26] people.
[17:27] And so it's
[17:29] somewhat different. Um and so I ended up
[17:31] on three also.
[17:33] Um
[17:35] even though it does add a different
[17:36] definition to the um to the code.
[17:41] Um
[17:42] one thought I had about that might be to
[17:44] produce
[17:46] a table
[17:48] that shows the two in comparison when we
[17:51] get to that point. Um that uh you know,
[17:55] developers can use to understand well,
[17:59] what conditions apply to this permit
[18:01] versus what conditions apply to another
[18:03] permit.
[18:04] Um it might make it easier uh for
[18:07] someone sort of understand the
[18:08] difference between the two without
[18:10] having to go to two different chapters
[18:12] of the code.
[18:16] Um
[18:19] but again, yeah, I think I agree that three to me seemed like the most
[18:23] viable option. Um
[18:26] in terms of option four,
[18:28] it might not even be a land use option.
[18:30] Would that be true or would it still go
[18:33] in the
[18:35] chapter 10, you know, in our in our
[18:37] bailiwick or would it be a different
[18:39] part of the
[18:40] ordinances?
[18:42] Yeah, so at the moment there is
[18:44] something in Is it chapter three that
[18:47] deals with nuisances or title three that
[18:50] So outside of the land use ordinance
[18:52] that deals with nuisances and kind of
[18:55] pollution on a more broad level. Um so
[18:59] that's that's kind of where it sits now,
[19:02] but it's it's a little bit vague and it
[19:05] you know, maybe doesn't give us much
[19:07] teeth.
[19:08] And I think it's
[19:10] I think the benefit of potentially
[19:12] connecting it to title 10 is
[19:15] um that it kind of connects it with the
[19:18] land use planning section of the town.
[19:21] Um
[19:22] so as far as
[19:24] the department that's approving
[19:26] developments and building permits and
[19:28] doing the site inspections
[19:30] it it kind of connects those two worlds,
[19:32] so that's
[19:34] But it But it But it could live
[19:35] somewhere else, too.
[19:38] Okay.
[19:41] Do you have any thoughts, Kosh?
[19:44] I think we're on the same page.
[19:46] Option three was what I was
[19:48] But I I have some specific comments for
[19:50] option three if we want to go to that
[19:52] next step.
[19:54] Um
[19:55] so a a few comments I had um
[19:59] for preparing a small garden, which was
[20:01] one of the options, I think
[20:03] there would be clarity in giving a
[20:05] number.
[20:07] I chose 500 square feet because it's
[20:10] part of it's the number we're also
[20:12] using.
[20:13] Um but I think that way we're not
[20:15] getting into discussions about what
[20:17] constitutes a small garden versus a big
[20:19] garden.
[20:21] Um and it's clarified in the um ordinance.
[20:29] » Some additional things I might include
[20:32] in option three
[20:34] um
[20:36] we might include um any project that
[20:39] involves the delivery of pre-mixed
[20:42] concrete.
[20:44] Um one of the
[20:45] best practices was managing washout from
[20:48] concrete trucks, and so if
[20:50] you know, you're doing a small
[20:51] construction, a small patio, under 500
[20:54] square feet, but you still have a
[20:56] concrete truck come in
[20:59] it seems that that concrete washout
[21:01] issue still exists.
[21:04] So we might want to include that as a
[21:06] kind of
[21:08] project that would require this.
[21:10] Um
[21:12] another one is whether or not the uh
[21:15] project includes uh
[21:17] portable sanitary facility, like a, you
[21:19] know, a porta-potty. Because again, one
[21:21] of the requirements is staking it down.
[21:24] Um and so even if a small project
[21:26] happens to, for whatever reason, want to
[21:28] use that, then I think
[21:30] it would be important
[21:32] to verify that they've staked staked
[21:34] down.
[21:37] The last one I'm a little unsure of. Um
[21:40] and I thought about this, the
[21:41] application of pesticides, herbicides,
[21:44] fertilizer, and other kinds of
[21:46] chemicals.
[21:47] Um this would be something we'd want to
[21:49] protect our waterways from.
[21:51] Um
[21:53] but I'm not sure how to
[21:55] it seems like we'd want some kind of
[21:57] size limit, and I'm not sure how that
[21:58] would work.
[22:00] I thought, well, maybe
[22:02] if you're going to spray, you know,
[22:03] herbicides on more than 5,000 square
[22:07] feet or something.
[22:08] Um
[22:10] I don't quite know where that lies, or
[22:12] maybe something smaller. I'm not an
[22:14] expert in sort of
[22:16] how to decide.
[22:18] But it it is one of the things we're
[22:20] worried about, are these pesticides and
[22:22] fertilizers and herbicides. So maybe we
[22:24] should include that
[22:26] even in a project that is small, but
[22:28] it's going to do a significant amount of
[22:30] chemical treatment for some reason.
[22:37] Um
[22:39] so those were kind of the things that
[22:40] came to my mind that we might want to
[22:41] include.
[22:43] And I would just add to that, maybe
[22:46] defining even
[22:50] more clearly whether
[22:54] it's um like, for instance,
[22:57] it does say routine clearing of
[22:59] vegetation, debris, and other
[23:01] improvements.
[23:03] Which
[23:05] I would think that weeding
[23:08] and activity of activity of activity of
[23:11] that nature would be covered under that.
[23:14] But
[23:15] for instance trees being removed or
[23:19] um
[23:20] you know,
[23:21] more than just weeding and somehow
[23:23] define defining that a little bit more
[23:24] cuz we touched on it last time
[23:26] and we're talking about how really when
[23:28] you pull anything out of the ground as
[23:30] opposed to like spraying it for weeds or
[23:33] whatever then it is a disturbance. So
[23:37] maybe some more definition there.
[23:40] I I don't know exactly
[23:44] um
[23:45] what that would be yet, but
[23:47] >> um
[23:49] So yeah, as you're saying you pull out
[23:51] weeds, you pull out trees or you're
[23:52] doing various kinds of things.
[23:54] Um
[23:55] we might again want to have a size
[23:57] limit.
[23:58] >> Right. I mean because we're basically
[24:00] allowing people to create a garden let's
[24:03] say up to 500 square feet.
[24:05] Um that would involve pulling out weeds
[24:08] and doing fertilizer and things like
[24:10] that. So
[24:12] maybe that's the right number for these
[24:13] kinds of things. Let's say well, if
[24:15] we're going to say you can do a garden
[24:18] without having to get a permit, then
[24:20] these are the things you might do to a
[24:22] garden. So maybe again some sort of a
[24:24] size limit.
[24:26] And
[24:27] possibly I don't know how you figure out
[24:29] square footage if you're going to be
[24:30] pulling out individual trees for
[24:32] example.
[24:33] >> Right. Um but we might have to work on
[24:35] something like that.
[24:38] Um
[24:40] Again, I want to avoid you know, I want
[24:43] to you know, people who just want to go
[24:44] out and do something very small having
[24:46] to go through the process of getting a
[24:48] permit.
[24:51] Um
[24:54] Another example as I was just thinking
[24:56] about this now that's in one of the
[24:57] examples, was um
[25:00] distance from
[25:02] a waterway.
[25:04] Um
[25:06] and we might want to consider including
[25:08] how close
[25:10] to the Virgin River. Like if something
[25:12] is close enough within I think 300 ft or
[25:15] something was one of the numbers that I
[25:16] read. Um
[25:18] that maybe a smaller project that's
[25:20] close to the river may be as important
[25:24] as a larger project further away.
[25:27] That would be curious what experts might think of that. Is
[25:31] anybody here
[25:32] have a comment from from the audience on
[25:34] what that might look like?
[25:39] From the rabbit hole that I told you I
[25:42] went down last time, um
[25:44] places that did have water, they were
[25:47] more strict the closer you got to the
[25:49] body of water versus being far away from
[25:52] the water. Okay. Um I could provide more
[25:54] language
[25:56] um
[25:56] in the next for the next meeting if
[25:58] you'd like to see some of the verbage on
[26:00] some of that if you'd like.
[26:02] Well, I think that would be helpful. And
[26:05] does the same concern apply to like the
[26:08] ravines that drain
[26:11] to
[26:12] like then are dry most of the time but
[26:15] >> So,
[26:16] a lot of the verbage
[26:19] yes, ravines and stuff count but what
[26:22] most places were looking for is if
[26:25] you're changing the topography of the
[26:28] area, it's changing how the water is
[26:31] then flowing off of that property. And
[26:34] so, if you're pulling weeds or something
[26:37] and it's not necessarily changing how
[26:39] that water's running off, it's not that
[26:42] critical of an issue. Now,
[26:45] talking to Gil earlier, say you put a a
[26:48] barn or something up and it's 2 ft
[26:50] higher than what the actual ground level
[26:52] was, now the sheeting is different than
[26:55] it was before you put the barn on
[26:57] because now it's 2-ft taller, you've got
[26:59] the roof, and now it's having to sheet
[27:01] different than if it was just natural
[27:03] ground ground or land. So,
[27:07] I think every case is unique in its own
[27:09] way.
[27:10] And that's why it's so broad of language
[27:12] and so many rabbit holes.
[27:20] I guess one other comment I would make
[27:21] is is I is I agree that the best
[27:23] practices
[27:25] should be allowed to be tailored to
[27:27] various projects, um like you say.
[27:30] Um
[27:31] And for the applicant to choose.
[27:34] Um
[27:35] I assume that they would maybe maybe in
[27:38] the act of making a permit they might
[27:40] say what they plan to do, and we would
[27:43] review it as a town and agree or not
[27:45] agree?
[27:46] I I think that would be the case, yeah.
[27:48] I think
[27:49] Well,
[27:50] Sorry, Tom, what were you going to say?
[27:54] Yes, but the town needs some kind of of
[27:56] criteria to to judge whether or not the
[27:58] BMPs as proposed are are good for the
[28:00] site. If you just say, "Oh, applicant,
[28:04] propose some BMPs." And then it's like
[28:06] this black box that goes to the staff
[28:08] when when you submit your application
[28:10] and we come back and say, "Ah, we don't
[28:12] like those ones. Try again."
[28:13] And there there should be some kind of
[28:16] direction to an applicant to help design
[28:18] those BMPs at the outset. So, um my
[28:21] first thought is that
[28:24] various of the best management practices
[28:27] are aimed at various um
[28:29] kinds of um of of a a runoff. Uh you
[28:34] know, whether it's silt or whether it's,
[28:36] you know, concrete cleanout or whether
[28:39] it's chemicals or that. So,
[28:42] would a um
[28:44] direction that says BMP BMPs that that
[28:48] address the specifics of the project
[28:51] based upon what it is the project does.
[28:52] Do you know, are we grading? Are we
[28:54] concrete? Do we have concrete? Are there
[28:57] you know, construction vehicles moving
[28:59] in and out? And that the BMPs be
[29:03] um associated with the nature of the
[29:05] project. Is that Would that be
[29:06] sufficient?
[29:09] Yes. Okay.
[29:10] >> Yeah. And because as you described like
[29:15] They're they're called best management
[29:16] practices and BMPs for a reason. And
[29:18] that's because what it's what you do,
[29:20] right? If If you If you have a a slope
[29:23] that's got a lot of silt in it, you put
[29:24] up a silt a silt fence. If you have a
[29:26] place where you anticipate a lot of um
[29:28] nuisance water coming off, you put a
[29:30] straw bottle because that's what it's
[29:31] there for. So, I mean the the the
[29:33] function of the BMPs is kind of built
[29:35] into
[29:36] the the practice, right? So Right.
[29:41] Okay. So, I think I I would think we
[29:43] would want to go that way. We'd allow
[29:45] flexibility. The point is you're
[29:47] addressing the problems and choosing the
[29:50] best method to address the given
[29:51] problems of a given project, right?
[29:55] Yeah.
[30:10] So, at this point, are we in agreement
[30:12] on working with option three
[30:17] and
[30:20] the items that we discussed as far as um
[30:22] further defining different areas such as
[30:25] gardening and perhaps um removal of
[30:28] other vegetation
[30:31] and including
[30:34] um the best management practices and
[30:37] then getting the feedback from you as
[30:39] well
[30:40] to move forward on that.
[30:43] Was there anything
[30:44] >> I feel that, you know, Is that enough
[30:46] for you to go on?
[30:48] Yeah, I think so. I think we can spend
[30:50] some time refining that option and
[30:53] coming
[30:54] putting together some of that detail um
[30:57] that you've given us feedback on. So,
[30:59] yeah. Okay.
[31:02] >> Take this to a future meeting, then.
[31:03] >> Yeah, to a future meeting.
[31:06] Okay.
[31:07] Thank you very much.
[31:08] >> Yeah, thank you.
[31:09] >> Thank you.
[31:10] And moving on to the second non-action
[31:13] item, is a discussion about a potential
[31:15] revision to the town's
[31:17] parking standards. Staff contact is Tom
[31:20] Dansey. Tom is presenting.
[31:24] Um this is an item that's been on the
[31:27] Planning Commission's priority list for
[31:29] a while. It's an also an item that um we
[31:32] kind of point to in our general plan in
[31:34] several locations.
[31:36] Um and it's also an item that has been
[31:38] gaining speed and and gaining traction
[31:40] with um municipalities and and local
[31:42] governments across the country. And the item is the super exciting topic of
[31:47] parking reform.
[31:48] Um
[31:49] so, I'm glad that we've got a a a packed
[31:51] house here tonight to talk about parking
[31:53] reform because
[31:56] this is awesome.
[31:57] Um so, in the staff report, I I I kind
[32:01] of outlined the kind of the history of
[32:03] why we have parking standards, some some
[32:07] perks of
[32:08] that practice of parking standards and
[32:10] parking minimums.
[32:12] Um and then there's some potential
[32:14] specific considerations which we'll
[32:15] explain now.
[32:17] I I wanted to just kind of
[32:21] hit on those again really quickly, not
[32:23] to not to repeat what's in the staff
[32:25] report, but just just so that we're on
[32:27] the same page.
[32:28] And I did something on the display
[32:29] computer. I don't know what.
[32:32] I'm sorry.
[32:34] Now, can you fix it? I did.
[32:36] Thanks.
[32:39] Um
[32:41] Okay. So, just just by by way of of
[32:45] again of of introduction to the the
[32:47] history of parking standards really came
[32:50] from
[32:51] um
[32:52] the kind of automobile boom of the of
[32:55] the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and the idea
[32:58] was, "Oh my goodness, we have all these
[33:00] people driving around in cars now, and
[33:01] they used to drive they used to get
[33:03] where they needed to go on foot or on on
[33:06] the bus or streetcar, and and now
[33:08] everybody's driving, and the urban form
[33:12] that existed
[33:14] did did not um
[33:16] support that tran- that that uh that
[33:18] transition in travel patterns. There was
[33:21] no place for for people to park all
[33:22] these automobiles. And so, planners
[33:24] said, "Oh my goodness, what do we do?
[33:25] Let's make sure that everybody when they
[33:27] build a new when when they build
[33:28] something new, they provide parking
[33:30] places for all these new automobiles."
[33:32] Um [snorts] and so, that's that's what
[33:34] municipalities all across the country
[33:36] started to do.
[33:37] Um and it it it proved to be a little
[33:39] bit of a difficult thing to predict how
[33:41] much parking was required at different
[33:43] uses.
[33:44] Um and so, the Institute of
[33:46] Transportation Engineers,
[33:48] um some really smart people that that
[33:49] study
[33:50] these these transportation issues said,
[33:52] "Hey, we've got a manual for that. Let's
[33:54] uh let let's let's let's let's tell you
[33:56] what it is." And so, they did some
[33:58] studies and some analyses and and put
[34:00] together a big manual that says, "Here's
[34:02] here's everything you ever wanted to
[34:04] know about parking, but were afraid to
[34:06] ask. Planners use this."
[34:08] And um so so, planners have been using
[34:11] that manual ever since to say, "Hey, if
[34:14] you have a retail establishment of X
[34:16] square feet, it requires X number of
[34:19] parking spaces."
[34:21] Um and
[34:23] um
[34:24] planners are are inherently um
[34:27] I don't I don't want to say lazy. I'm
[34:28] going to say
[34:30] >> [laughter]
[34:32] >> So, So, than than coming up with with
[34:34] these standards on on our own, we just
[34:35] say, "Hey, what what's what's our
[34:37] neighboring jurisdiction doing for how
[34:38] much parking is required at a theater?
[34:40] Let's just use that." And that's what
[34:42] planners have done for the past 30 years
[34:44] is is copied and pasted these these
[34:45] parking standards.
[34:47] Um and and so now they're they're fairly
[34:49] uniform and fairly standardized across
[34:51] the country.
[34:52] Um so, that's that's how we kind of got
[34:54] to where we are now.
[34:56] Recently, there's been there's been some
[34:58] research put into the impacts that these
[35:01] parking standards have had on
[35:04] um
[35:04] planning and and uh the development of
[35:07] cities and towns.
[35:09] Um and some of those crit- crit-
[35:11] critiques or some of that research
[35:12] points to some problems or some
[35:14] critiques. And and one is that
[35:17] by providing all these parking spaces
[35:19] for cars,
[35:21] um we've not only accommodated the
[35:24] automobile automobile automobile boom of
[35:27] the '40s and '50s, we've actually
[35:29] perpetuated that and encouraged
[35:32] um automobile travel to the detriment of
[35:34] these other forms of walking and biking
[35:37] and transit. So, now the default mode of
[35:39] transportation is
[35:41] driving, whereas
[35:44] 60 years ago, the default mode was not
[35:47] driving, was something else. But parking
[35:49] the the the um
[35:51] the assertion is that parking standards
[35:55] have been a key factor in that
[35:57] transition.
[35:58] And if we want to get back to
[36:00] encouraging walking, biking, transit, um
[36:03] one of the ways to do that is to curtail
[36:06] parking by making it
[36:08] less convenient or or less less
[36:10] appealing for people to drive their
[36:11] cars.
[36:12] Um so, that's that's one that's one
[36:14] critique. Um the other critique or or
[36:16] another critique is that because
[36:18] planners have just kind of copied and
[36:20] pasted these parking standards over and over again, they
[36:23] probably don't bear any real justifiable
[36:28] relationship to the actual parking
[36:30] demand at an individual property.
[36:33] Um maybe at one point the the um
[36:36] ITE's manual on parking generation was
[36:39] it was a good standard, but because it's
[36:41] been copied and pasted from cities large
[36:43] cities to small cities to urban cities
[36:44] with all sorts of different needs, those parking standards are fairly
[36:48] uniform and they may not actually
[36:51] reflect what the parking demand at any
[36:53] given property is. And so, it's kind of
[36:56] an arbitrary number that we're throwing
[36:57] out there.
[36:58] Um
[37:00] and the the third critique that I raise
[37:02] in the in the in the staff report is um
[37:05] these parking minimums are inherently um
[37:09] designed to provide peak parking. So,
[37:12] that we're saying, "What is the What
[37:13] What's the most number of people that
[37:14] could need a parking space here at the
[37:17] busiest time? Let's make sure everybody
[37:19] has a parking space." Which is great on
[37:21] Black Friday when you're going shopping
[37:23] and you want someplace to to park your
[37:24] car,
[37:26] but the other 364 days of the year when
[37:30] you go to the mall, you'll look around
[37:33] and you'll see see that
[37:35] 60 70% of the parking is is vacant um
[37:38] because they're designed for peak
[37:40] parking periods. That leads to
[37:42] inefficient use of land. What What are
[37:44] we sacrificing with that property that's
[37:47] devoted to parking
[37:49] um that could be used for some other
[37:52] beneficial purpose. It also has
[37:54] associated environmental impacts of
[37:56] increased storm water runoff um and uh
[37:59] increased heat island impacts and also
[38:02] um impacts on urban character or or town
[38:05] in our case town character and and town
[38:07] appearance. So, those those are some of
[38:08] the critiques.
[38:10] Um
[38:12] so, the the what what communities across
[38:14] the country have been doing is
[38:16] rethinking parking and saying, "Do we Do
[38:19] we want to be in the business of telling
[38:21] uh property developer how much parking
[38:23] they need to supply, or should we let
[38:25] that be a market-based decision?
[38:27] Somebody comes and and develops their
[38:28] property, and um
[38:32] should the government tell them how much
[38:33] parking they need, or should that be a
[38:35] calculated business decision
[38:37] um
[38:38] that the property owner makes? I can
[38:40] devote this much to parking, or this
[38:42] much to building space, or this much to
[38:44] landscape, and and and should that be
[38:46] left to the property owner rather than
[38:48] being mandated by the the
[38:50] government? And a lot of a lot of um
[38:54] municipalities have said, "Yeah, that's
[38:55] not something that we as a government
[38:56] need to get in the middle of." And so,
[38:57] they've been repealing those parking
[39:00] minimums, or drastically reducing them.
[39:03] In fact, some have gone so far as
[39:04] saying, "We're going to put in a park
[39:06] parking maximum."
[39:07] Um you can't have more than X number of
[39:09] parking spaces for this type of
[39:11] development. Um
[39:13] So, the question then is is this
[39:15] something that is applicable in
[39:17] Springdale? Is this something that we
[39:19] think is is worth exploring? Is this
[39:21] something that that is a problem? Um
[39:24] By by looking at parking, do we see that
[39:27] we could accomplish the goals of our
[39:28] general plan more effectively? That's a
[39:30] that's that's essentially what the
[39:32] discussion is tonight.
[39:34] Um before we get to that, just a a
[39:36] couple of of comments. Um
[39:39] One is that Springdale is obviously
[39:41] super unique um and and in the fact that
[39:44] we um have businesses that provide
[39:47] parking for their patrons.
[39:49] And as a town and as a community, we
[39:52] also provide parking for the majority of
[39:55] visitors that go to that the drive to
[39:58] Zion National Park.
[39:59] Um
[40:02] Obviously, those are two very different
[40:04] things. The the parking demanded by
[40:07] patrons of individual businesses, and
[40:09] the parking necessary or demanded by
[40:12] visitors to the park.
[40:15] But what this report is focusing on is
[40:17] the parking at individual
[40:20] properties for the patrons of that
[40:22] property.
[40:24] The the the the issue of I mean anybody
[40:27] who is in town in the past couple of
[40:28] days knows that parking for visitors to
[40:32] Zion National Park continues to be an
[40:34] issue, continues to be a problem,
[40:35] continues to be something that we need
[40:36] to to deal with and to manage. That's
[40:38] not what we're talking about here. What
[40:40] we're talking about is at restaurant A
[40:43] or gift shop B, how much parking should
[40:45] that property be required to provide for
[40:48] the patrons of that property. So, making
[40:50] that distinction.
[40:52] Um
[40:53] then the the other uh thing to to note
[40:56] is um we have received one public
[40:58] comment letter on on this um
[41:01] issue and that's been distributed to the
[41:03] commission.
[41:04] Um also uh Commissioner Kesten, who is
[41:06] not here tonight, he also has some
[41:07] policies and comments that he
[41:09] distributed as well.
[41:11] And hopefully you all had a chance to to
[41:13] see that. If not, we can bring those up
[41:15] on the screen. We have a a copy of his
[41:17] comments up on the screen that we can
[41:18] reference as well.
[41:21] So, with that introduction, uh what what
[41:23] is the action of the Planning Commission
[41:25] tonight? Well, tonight we're not trying
[41:26] to solve anything. We it's we have far
[41:28] too little time for us to solve
[41:30] Springdale's parking problems in the in
[41:32] the time we have tonight. Um but what I would suggest the commission
[41:36] should do is just discuss this idea of
[41:38] parking reform. Is this something that
[41:40] resonates with the commission? Um is
[41:42] that something you pointed to in our
[41:43] general plan?
[41:45] Um that doesn't mean that we're mandated
[41:47] to do it if it doesn't make sense. So,
[41:49] have a discussion amongst the
[41:50] commission, does this make sense? Is
[41:51] this something you want to pursue? If
[41:53] not, no further action is necessary and
[41:56] we move on to the next item on item on
[41:57] your priority list.
[41:59] If as a commission you say, "No, this is something that we'd like to
[42:01] research." then the action for you
[42:04] tonight is not to solve it, but to but
[42:05] to lay out a course of action. And the
[42:07] staff report recommends a couple of
[42:08] things that you could do. You could
[42:10] appoint a small working group to work on
[42:13] this and that could be um
[42:15] commissioners, staff, residents,
[42:17] business owners, all working together to
[42:20] analyze these issues.
[42:21] You could give staff direction to do
[42:23] additional research and bring me back
[42:25] more information and we'd be happy to do
[42:27] that in a program in the future work
[42:29] meeting.
[42:29] Or you could take any other action
[42:32] course of action that you wanted to to
[42:34] pursue this this item. So, that's what I
[42:36] would recommend you do tonight is have a
[42:37] general discussion and then plan a plot
[42:40] out a course of action.
[42:43] Are there any questions that I can
[42:44] answer before you start your discussion?
[42:47] So, the the existing Springdale
[42:49] ordinance on
[42:51] parking minimums
[42:53] is is that are the numbers in the
[42:55] ordinance
[42:56] from this book that you've talked about
[42:58] from the engineers? Is that where we
[43:02] have the num where the numbers that we
[43:03] have today came from? No, Brett, that's
[43:05] a great question. So,
[43:07] many years ago we had numbers in our in
[43:09] our our ordinance and I don't know where
[43:12] they came from.
[43:14] About I don't know 10 12 years ago we
[43:17] actually looked at at this issue again
[43:20] or or or
[43:21] initially and decided that yeah, these
[43:24] numbers that we have in our ordinance
[43:25] don't match what Springdale's parking actually looks
[43:29] like. And so, we actually went out and did our own counts of parking and
[43:34] analyses of different land uses and and
[43:37] tweaked some and revised some, left some
[43:39] the same.
[43:40] And so, I don't know initially where
[43:43] they where they came from. I'm assuming
[43:44] that it was from the ITE trip trip
[43:46] generation manual as it had been
[43:48] filtered through maybe several other
[43:50] communities before it time got got to
[43:52] Springdale. But then we additionally
[43:54] went and did some Springdale specific
[43:56] analysis that adjusted those parking
[43:58] standards a little bit.
[44:01] So, this analysis was you said about 10
[44:03] years ago? I can't remember. It It yeah,
[44:05] 10 10 12 years ago ish. Okay.
[44:09] So,
[44:10] Go ahead. Just jump off that for a
[44:12] second.
[44:13] So, today
[44:15] is there identification of over
[44:18] abundance of parking or not enough at
[44:21] any particular business or cumulative of
[44:24] all the businesses?
[44:29] So, we we like I like I mentioned to you
[44:31] we did that analysis a number of years
[44:33] ago. We have not we've not updated that
[44:35] analysis. Okay. And so, that could be a key piece of of action if you wanted
[44:40] to pursue this to say, "Let's let's
[44:41] update that and see where we are
[44:42] currently. See see what our parking
[44:45] looks like." Certainly, if you you know,
[44:46] just anecdotally if you drive around
[44:48] town, there are um properties that have
[44:51] full parking lots
[44:53] all the time.
[44:54] And there are properties that have
[44:56] largely vacant properties lots of the
[44:58] time. But, we could we could that's just
[45:00] anecdotal. We could we could go through
[45:02] and do a more detailed parking count and
[45:03] parking analysis and bring that back to
[45:05] you.
[45:07] I think
[45:08] you know, you my gut feel is that
[45:11] I need we need to understand if there's
[45:13] a problem to solve or not.
[45:15] And my general feeling myself the
[45:20] driving around town or having to park or
[45:22] bringing my 95-year-old mother-in-law
[45:24] and trying to find a place to park and
[45:26] all of the various issues is that
[45:28] overall given the stress we have on our
[45:31] parking systems, I think we do a pretty
[45:33] good job. There's things that could be
[45:35] done and like you said, there's a whole
[45:37] where do all the park visitors park? Um
[45:41] and so, I I think that if we're going to
[45:43] do something
[45:45] we would want to do something that
[45:47] solves a Springdale problem, not
[45:49] something that solves some other problem
[45:52] or some you know, generalized problem.
[45:56] Um
[45:58] and so, I would
[46:00] be curious
[46:01] what the what type of analysis was done
[46:05] and whether that makes sense to do the
[46:08] same analysis again or possibly adjust
[46:12] an analysis we would do
[46:14] to understand
[46:16] what kind of problems, if we have, what
[46:18] they are and
[46:19] that would help us understand what we
[46:20] would do to solve them.
[46:22] Um
[46:24] Can Can I tell you what the analysis was
[46:25] that was done previously? Yeah.
[46:28] So So what we did is we um
[46:30] we
[46:32] inventoried all of the parking lots in
[46:34] town and said, "Okay, you this this
[46:37] parking lot has X number of spaces."
[46:39] And then we did counts
[46:42] um
[46:42] at various times set times throughout
[46:44] the day. I forget what they were like
[46:47] 9:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., 4:00 p.m., 7:00
[46:49] p.m., something like that. Like four
[46:51] times a day.
[46:52] And we repeated that on a number of
[46:54] different days throughout the year. So,
[46:56] a standard weekend day,
[46:59] a holiday weekend day, a standard
[47:02] weekday day. Uh
[47:04] you know, so so we we got kind of
[47:06] various different data points and then
[47:08] we're able to combine those to get a
[47:09] snapshot of what parking looked like. We
[47:11] could do that same kind of analysis
[47:13] again.
[47:14] Sounds like a fairly thorough analysis.
[47:16] Um
[47:19] Some of the questions I have
[47:22] how often or do you remember ever
[47:25] getting a variance request on minimum
[47:28] parking spaces?
[47:30] I don't think we ever have.
[47:31] So nobody's tried to say we need fewer
[47:34] parking spaces than the minimum. No,
[47:37] that that was referenced in in some of
[47:39] the material that was included in the
[47:40] staff report. Um you know, one one of
[47:43] the assertions was, "Well, planners like
[47:44] to have these parking minimums so they
[47:46] can use them as a bargaining chip in in
[47:48] variances and
[47:50] Utah in in in Utah variances are very
[47:52] specific and I don't think anybody would
[47:54] ever qualify for a variance from a
[47:57] parking minimum in Utah. It would be
[47:58] difficult to
[48:01] I think Right.
[48:03] to to justify a variance from a from a
[48:06] parking standard or parking minimum.
[48:07] >> That's kind of what I was wondering when
[48:09] I read that. It seemed
[48:10] like it would be difficult. Um
[48:13] but on the other hand
[48:15] so there's this analysis you discussed.
[48:18] One of the things I think might be
[48:19] valuable might also be asking
[48:22] um
[48:23] business owners in town
[48:25] if they feel that they're required to
[48:28] have more parking spaces than they need.
[48:30] Um or maybe to find out
[48:33] some of a number of the commercial um
[48:36] developments that have come through in
[48:38] the time I've been in the planning
[48:39] commission have actually built slightly
[48:42] more parking spaces than the minimum
[48:44] required.
[48:45] Which sort of implies to me that
[48:48] reducing the minimum
[48:50] may not reduce the number of parking
[48:52] spaces actually built.
[48:54] If we're already tend to be below what
[48:59] they want to build anyway.
[49:01] Um so to me that information would also
[49:04] be valuable.
[49:07] Um
[49:10] Let me see.
[49:14] And so we haven't applied this concept
[49:18] to
[49:19] um residential zones from what I hear so
[49:22] far. Is that true?
[49:24] So we haven't said well let's reduce the
[49:25] number
[49:27] right now we require like say two
[49:28] parking spaces for single home.
[49:31] Has anybody We ever discussed whether
[49:33] that we should reduce that to one for
[49:34] example?
[49:35] Um
[49:37] we have not had that conversation in the
[49:39] past, but you're welcome to have that
[49:41] conversation as part of this discussion.
[49:46] But it but my gather from what's been
[49:48] presented is the
[49:51] what what it is we're being asked to
[49:53] look at is more aimed at commercial than
[49:56] at residential. Is that true?
[49:58] Not necessarily. Not necessarily.
[50:00] >> I I I think that the the issue is is
[50:05] applies to all kinds of uses.
[50:07] And again, you know, Terry, you make you
[50:09] make a good point that and and I
[50:10] referenced this in the staff report. We
[50:12] don't want to do something just because
[50:13] another another municipality said, "Hey,
[50:15] we've had this great success with
[50:17] parking reform."
[50:19] Just replicating what another community
[50:21] does in Springdale is is
[50:23] not guaranteed to bring us success,
[50:25] right? How With that caveat, um a lot of
[50:29] communities are specifically looking at reducing or eliminating parking
[50:33] minimums for residential as a means to
[50:35] encourage more affordable housing.
[50:37] Um parking spaces are super expensive to
[50:39] develop and if a developer has to
[50:41] provide
[50:42] two spaces or or one and a half spaces
[50:45] per unit in their in in their um
[50:49] housing development, just reducing that
[50:51] down
[50:53] um
[50:54] can be the
[50:55] from two spaces to one space or from one
[50:57] and a half spaces to one space can be
[50:59] the difference even even though the the
[51:01] end development costs are only reduced,
[51:04] say, you know, 20 30,000 dollars, that
[51:07] can be the the make or break between an
[51:11] affordable housing project working and
[51:13] not working.
[51:15] Yes, that was one of the one of the
[51:16] thoughts I had cuz we do have
[51:18] an affordable housing section in the um
[51:22] in the ordinances and it doesn't say
[51:24] anything about offering, you know, if
[51:26] you build affordable housing, you can
[51:29] you you know, have fewer parking spaces.
[51:31] Correct. That might be an interesting
[51:35] incentive
[51:37] for some of the things we're trying to
[51:38] accomplish.
[51:39] Um
[51:41] my general feeling is is
[51:43] I'd like to get more information and
[51:45] like some studies of where we are today
[51:49] to understand
[51:50] what problems we do have if any.
[51:52] That's sort of my feel on this.
[51:54] I agree. I I
[51:57] actually
[51:59] agree with um some of Tom Kenniston's
[52:01] comments. Um
[52:04] where his comment was we may pre- be
[52:08] prematurely
[52:10] um
[52:11] reducing availability of parking. I
[52:13] don't know if that's it we can structure
[52:16] this a lot of different ways, I know.
[52:18] But maybe we're just not quite there
[52:20] yet. I um understanding the direction of
[52:23] the general plan. I I think there's some
[52:27] forward motion on that as far as um
[52:31] the bus transit system and the bike
[52:33] trails, but I just don't think we're quite there
[52:37] yet. I think it's something that should
[52:40] stay somewhere in the priorities to keep
[52:43] talking about and adjusting
[52:46] um when it may make more sense.
[52:49] But perhaps in the meantime getting a
[52:52] little more information that might
[52:55] um
[52:56] put a different perspective on it would
[52:58] be helpful.
[53:02] Because there's a lot of different ways
[53:03] if I'm understanding right, this could
[53:04] be structured. Like you could remove the
[53:06] minimum and the maximum.
[53:09] Right?
[53:10] >> Yeah, I don't think we have any
[53:11] maximums, but Right. Oh yeah, move the
[53:13] minimum or put a maximum on. There's
[53:16] just a a lot of different ways and
[53:19] um needing that information to determine
[53:22] what the structure would be.
[53:24] Um
[53:25] but then mostly just if if now's the
[53:27] time.
[53:29] Right, and it comes back to, you know,
[53:31] do we have a problem and what do we have?
[53:35] And because you you're right, you we
[53:37] could reduce minimums, we could remove
[53:39] minimums, we could have reduced minimums
[53:42] as incentives for affordable housing or
[53:45] something like that. There's a variety
[53:47] of options we could take, but without
[53:48] knowing what the problem is, we're
[53:50] difficult to choose
[53:51] what the approach would be.
[53:53] Um
[53:54] So, I agree we should Yeah. Maybe the
[53:57] direction of the staff would be to
[54:00] maybe conduct a survey or or
[54:02] get some information or maybe come back
[54:05] to it with with a recommendation of of
[54:07] how to gather information.
[54:10] And then we can determine, okay, Yeah.
[54:12] maybe that's going to take It sounds
[54:14] like it might take a number of months to
[54:15] determine to gather the information.
[54:18] Um and then we might set it aside during
[54:20] that time and then look at it
[54:22] if we understand after looking at the
[54:24] analysis that there is some
[54:26] significant problems to take care of.
[54:30] Yeah.
[54:32] Thoughts, Kosh?
[54:33] I don't
[54:38] Yeah,
[54:39] it's more more info.
[54:53] I would say that
[54:55] a maximum
[54:56] >> [clears throat]
[54:58] » at this point wouldn't make any sense to
[55:01] me.
[55:03] I yeah, I don't know of a reason to put
[55:04] a maximum.
[55:05] >> Yeah.
[55:06] Unless there's something in the analysis
[55:09] that tells us
[55:10] I'm a little more
[55:12] It makes a little more sense to me to
[55:13] possibly reduce minimums in some places.
[55:16] Right.
[55:18] That is A, it's a small change. B, it
[55:22] doesn't force um it actually reduces it
[55:25] actually gives developers a little more
[55:27] freedom
[55:29] um
[55:30] to adjust parking to their the needs of
[55:33] their site. So, And I And I like the
[55:36] idea of moving toward or going in the
[55:39] direction of the general plan.
[55:41] And making steps for
[55:43] more public transport, different public
[55:46] transportation.
[55:49] You know, just um
[55:51] other options.
[55:52] >> That would be another thing to, you
[55:53] know, to coordinate with other things
[55:55] that are sort of outside of the planning
[55:57] commission purview um about well, if we
[56:00] do reduce minimums and actually the
[56:02] number of parking spaces does
[56:05] go down or doesn't go up as much,
[56:07] whatever that leads to, that there the
[56:09] other options are coming along in
[56:11] combination
[56:12] um with that. Um overall, I think we've
[56:15] done a pretty good job with the bus
[56:18] system we have, with the parking that we have. I mean, it's
[56:22] not a
[56:23] planning commission issue, but it seems
[56:25] to work pretty well other than in the
[56:28] really peak times, the parking that we
[56:30] have for the other issue, the Zion Park
[56:33] visitor issue.
[56:35] Um it also, in my experience, seems to
[56:39] encourage
[56:40] visitors to come and park and get out of
[56:44] their car
[56:45] and go to the park or walk around town
[56:48] or rent bicycles and other things.
[56:51] Generally, it dis- it discourages them
[56:53] from going getting back in their car and
[56:55] driving to another place in town.
[56:57] Um and I
[56:59] think that our system seems to work
[57:02] pretty well that way.
[57:03] Um
[57:05] And so, I wouldn't want to create a
[57:06] situation where now there's no place for
[57:09] them to park and they're driving around
[57:10] town trying to find a place to park.
[57:13] Um so, I want you would want to be
[57:15] careful of something like that.
[57:20] Okay.
[57:21] Is that enough for you to
[57:23] >> have information to move forward?
[57:26] Do you have enough, Tom, to come back to
[57:28] us with
[57:29] from us? I've I've got plenty for Niles
[57:32] to come back with you with the odds.
[57:34] It's fantastic.
[57:36] >> [laughter]
[57:38] >> I I think the primary request is to come
[57:41] back to us with a proposal of how to do
[57:43] a study
[57:45] to gather us information to determine if
[57:47] we have a problem. Perfect. So you So
[57:49] you're not actually you're not looking
[57:51] for us to do that data at gathering and
[57:53] that analysis at this point. You want us
[57:55] to say, "Here's what we how we propose
[57:57] to go about getting that analysis." You
[57:59] can take a look at it and say, "Yeah,
[58:00] that looks good." or make tweaks to it
[58:02] and then we can go ahead and do the
[58:03] data. Right. That way we can understand
[58:04] well what kind of data are we going to
[58:06] get and does it match what we think we
[58:08] need?
[58:09] Yeah.
[58:10] Yep, we can do that for sure.
[58:13] I think I just wanted to add one thing.
[58:15] Um
[58:16] so from a park perspective
[58:19] as you can imagine uh we get asked or
[58:24] pressured a lot to add more parking in
[58:26] the park. Um and I've only been here
[58:29] about a year and a half, but speaking
[58:31] with people that have been in the park
[58:33] since the the visitation spike since
[58:35] 2010
[58:36] um I just wanted to share for the the
[58:39] commission's consideration that there will never be enough parking.
[58:45] Um
[58:45] and so the commission may want to
[58:49] consider
[58:51] like
[58:52] you know, what what do you want the
[58:53] character of the town to be and then
[58:55] parking kind of fills in around that. It
[58:58] It's kind of how we operate like
[59:01] you know
[59:02] the park
[59:03] has to
[59:06] maintain its character. We can't just
[59:08] put parking lots everywhere.
[59:10] Stuff like that. And so
[59:12] not a um
[59:13] not advice, just something to consider
[59:16] um that I've heard quite a bit when we
[59:19] talk about various projects. It's often
[59:21] suggested, "Well, add some more
[59:22] parking." because you know, that'll help, but
[59:26] um visitation isn't going anywhere and
[59:29] yeah, the overall
[59:32] feedback is there will never be enough
[59:35] parking, so. Good point.
[59:38] Thank you, Matt. Can I just add
[59:40] a little bit on that? I mean, it's the
[59:42] same concept as you can't build your way
[59:43] out of congestion on a freeway, right?
[59:45] Like, you in in Southern California, you
[59:48] say, "Oh, just add more more lanes on
[59:49] the freeway." And they they just clog
[59:51] up, you know, so this the same is true
[59:53] of of of parking. And and that's why it
[59:58] is great you you know, you mentioned we
[59:59] have the the bus system, which is a
[1:00:01] fantastic addition. We're working on
[1:00:03] getting the multi-use trail through
[1:00:04] here.
[1:00:05] Um,
[1:00:08] in order to really capitalize on those
[1:00:10] and make those effective,
[1:00:12] we
[1:00:14] one of one way to do that is to adopt
[1:00:16] land use policy that supports that. And
[1:00:18] that could be
[1:00:20] not providing as much parking in
[1:00:22] Springdale.
[1:00:24] So, again, anecdotally, I'm a frequent
[1:00:27] bus rider, um, and it's and it's great.
[1:00:29] And all throughout the winter I was I
[1:00:31] was a solo bus rider. I had the whole
[1:00:33] bus to myself. It was, you know, it was fine. It was great. Um, the last
[1:00:36] 2 days when parking was a hassle in
[1:00:38] Springdale and people knew that parking
[1:00:40] was a hassle in Springdale and and
[1:00:41] UDOT's doing a great job of getting that
[1:00:43] information out and saying parking's a
[1:00:44] hassle in Springdale. Bus has been
[1:00:46] packed.
[1:00:47] And people have said, "Well, I'm going
[1:00:49] to I don't want to deal with that in
[1:00:50] Springdale. I'm going to take the bus."
[1:00:52] So, the success of these other
[1:00:54] modes, like the trail, like the bus, is, um, intrinsically linked to our land
[1:01:01] use policy regarding parking.
[1:01:04] I'm glad to hear that about the bus.
[1:01:06] That's great.
[1:01:07] Um,
[1:01:08] we're sort of going back to one of the
[1:01:09] things you talked about early on,
[1:01:11] the changes we're considering,
[1:01:14] um, would be changes to parking spaces
[1:01:17] associated with commercial businesses,
[1:01:20] which generally
[1:01:22] don't want someone to come and park
[1:01:24] their car and go in the park all day.
[1:01:26] Um
[1:01:28] and so
[1:01:30] we have to be aware of it's a different
[1:01:32] type of parking
[1:01:34] than parking for these visitors who
[1:01:36] might be regional visitors who aren't
[1:01:39] going to spend the night
[1:01:41] but are but are going to drive up here
[1:01:42] because they're coming from St. George
[1:01:43] or wherever. Um
[1:01:46] and so we have to be conscious of that
[1:01:48] difference. Ex- exactly. And I I just
[1:01:50] brought that up as an example.
[1:01:52] And and your point about the difference
[1:01:54] between
[1:01:56] uh patron parking at businesses and
[1:01:57] visitor parking to Zion is absolutely
[1:01:59] right.
[1:02:02] And along those lines, um Tom mentioned
[1:02:04] that Keniston in his comments about
[1:02:08] potentially adding more paid parking to
[1:02:13] um just add on to that strategy
[1:02:16] of encouraging people to not have to pay
[1:02:19] to park doing other transportation. And
[1:02:22] then on the flip side of that, the
[1:02:24] public comment letter from Jonathan
[1:02:26] Zambella
[1:02:27] um is coming from the business
[1:02:29] perspective and asking
[1:02:32] um
[1:02:33] if having paid parking
[1:02:35] um you know, just kind of weighing the the how much
[1:02:40] but the revenue is compared to
[1:02:43] um costs and and running that. Um so you
[1:02:46] can kind of see two different
[1:02:47] perspectives there and the balance is
[1:02:50] probably somewhere in there with the
[1:02:52] parking spaces as part of the factor of
[1:02:55] all of that.
[1:02:56] I mean, just this is a side question on
[1:02:58] that.
[1:03:00] Is it is it that the paid parking that
[1:03:03] the city runs
[1:03:04] is a sort of a net zero operation
[1:03:09] meaning it's not profitable but not loss
[1:03:11] so any but covers the costs?
[1:03:13] Uh
[1:03:15] no, that's not true. Oh. Um certainly it
[1:03:17] costs a lot of money to run the the the
[1:03:21] um, program, right? There there's some
[1:03:23] significant costs there. Um, however, we
[1:03:26] do
[1:03:27] net money from the parking program.
[1:03:30] That money is all poured back into
[1:03:34] transportation improvement projects in
[1:03:36] the town of Springdale. So, a lot of the
[1:03:38] sidewalk projects that have been going
[1:03:39] on,
[1:03:40] um, that Robert has has done a great job
[1:03:42] leading leading, those have been paid
[1:03:44] for by parking fees. Um, a lot of the
[1:03:47] um,
[1:03:48] enhancements with crosswalks and benches
[1:03:51] and and and those kinds of things, those
[1:03:53] are paid for out of those parking
[1:03:55] revenues. So, the the the
[1:03:58] paid parking
[1:04:00] does two things. Yes, it it covers the
[1:04:02] costs of the program and it also helps
[1:04:06] the town provide amenities that benefit
[1:04:09] residents and visitors alike.
[1:04:12] And as I understand it, some of the
[1:04:13] parking lots are on private property and
[1:04:17] the private property owner gets some
[1:04:19] portion of the revenue that comes from
[1:04:20] that. Is that correct?
[1:04:22] So, the the town has an agreement with
[1:04:25] only one private parking lot in the town
[1:04:28] where where we operate that parking lot
[1:04:31] and manage it and and then we split the
[1:04:33] revenue with the property owner.
[1:04:35] All of the other
[1:04:37] off-street private parking lots in
[1:04:39] Springdale are privately owned and and
[1:04:41] the town does not
[1:04:42] um, enforce or or manage or administer
[1:04:45] any of those and all the revenue goes to
[1:04:47] the property owners. Okay, so in the in
[1:04:49] those cases they use whatever
[1:04:52] payment system they're going to use.
[1:04:55] They're not part of the same. Okay,
[1:04:56] that's correct.
[1:05:00] I don't know if this is relevant at all,
[1:05:01] but do you know how many businesses in
[1:05:03] town do what Hoodoo's does where they
[1:05:05] require a minimum purchase? It's like
[1:05:06] kind of both. They're patrons, but then
[1:05:08] it's also long-term parking. So, I I
[1:05:11] think that model is as far as I
[1:05:13] understand is unique to Hoodoo's. Um and
[1:05:16] it's a it's a it's a creative model. Um
[1:05:18] there are a number of properties
[1:05:21] who um you know, Terry men- you
[1:05:23] mentioned that a number of properties
[1:05:25] have more parking than the code requires
[1:05:28] them to have.
[1:05:29] There are a number of those properties
[1:05:31] that um
[1:05:33] charge
[1:05:35] visitors to to park in those surplus
[1:05:37] parking. So, it's it's not exactly what
[1:05:39] Hoodoo's doing. It's doing they're just
[1:05:40] saying, "Yeah, we've got extra parking.
[1:05:41] You can come park here. Here's the fee."
[1:05:43] Um I I think Hoodoo's is the only one
[1:05:45] who has the model that they're using.
[1:05:51] » [snorts]
[1:05:55] » Yes.
[1:05:55] >> Sure. We can
[1:05:59] I Gil Kiefer. Uh Terry, you're right for
[1:06:02] most of the uh
[1:06:04] um businesses that if it's a
[1:06:07] place like Oscar's or something, they
[1:06:10] come in, park for
[1:06:13] a meal. So, they're there for an hour.
[1:06:15] I believe they try to chase them out of
[1:06:17] the parking lot for after that. However,
[1:06:20] the bike businesses, which there is
[1:06:21] about 13 or 14 of them now.
[1:06:25] They come in, they rent a bike.
[1:06:27] Um
[1:06:29] there's usually
[1:06:30] let's say two people to a car.
[1:06:33] Uh they rent two bikes, but they're
[1:06:34] going to be there for 4 to 8 hours.
[1:06:37] Sometimes 12 hours.
[1:06:40] So,
[1:06:41] they they don't turn over those parking
[1:06:43] spaces more than twice a day.
[1:06:46] So, a lot of you're saying
[1:06:49] many of the bike rental facility or
[1:06:52] businesses
[1:06:54] allow the
[1:06:55] park patrons to re- park their car and
[1:06:57] leave their car while they're gone on
[1:06:59] their bike. Some of them do if uh the
[1:07:02] what
[1:07:03] that's part of the problem that you're
[1:07:04] trying to solve is the fact that um
[1:07:09] some of the bike
[1:07:11] uh businesses
[1:07:13] only have maybe five
[1:07:15] uh to 10 parking spaces, yet they're
[1:07:18] renting out 50 to 150 bikes a day.
[1:07:23] So,
[1:07:24] that just right there says that 50 to
[1:07:27] 100 cars now have to go find a place to
[1:07:30] park
[1:07:31] on a busy day. So, for each business,
[1:07:35] so my other suggestion was that um until
[1:07:41] um
[1:07:43] the
[1:07:44] uh lot down the street here gets
[1:07:47] developed, there's a lot of things that
[1:07:49] have to go into that development of that
[1:07:51] lot,
[1:07:53] you could probably change that into a a
[1:07:55] parking lot fairly inexpensively.
[1:07:58] Hence, an acre worth of parking that
[1:08:00] would park anywhere from 150 to 200 cars
[1:08:04] on a busy day.
[1:08:06] So, it's just just a thought.
[1:08:09] Um what I would like like to not see
[1:08:13] is um
[1:08:16] the parking
[1:08:18] part of what the material that was
[1:08:20] presented
[1:08:21] uh also had some blue lines on it. I
[1:08:24] don't know if it's it's later in the
[1:08:26] document
[1:08:27] of where the
[1:08:30] um
[1:08:31] uh the residential parking
[1:08:34] areas are in town.
[1:08:37] I would like to not see those impacted
[1:08:41] uh and changed in any way
[1:08:44] to allow additional parking
[1:08:47] um
[1:08:49] You You're getting closer. I'm not
[1:08:52] unless you passed it already.
[1:08:54] Anyway, I would like to not see those
[1:08:57] changed to allow for overflow parking
[1:09:00] for a busy weekend or something like
[1:09:02] that. Those residential areas are basically residential areas and we
[1:09:08] need to park our cars there.
[1:09:10] Um
[1:09:11] they're also
[1:09:13] uh I don't believe the streets are wide
[1:09:14] enough to allow parking on one
[1:09:17] definitely not on both sides, not even
[1:09:19] on one side to allow uh two-way traffic
[1:09:22] there, especially with an emergency
[1:09:24] vehicle. So, I want I would like to make
[1:09:27] sure that
[1:09:28] I'd love to see it not go that
[1:09:30] direction.
[1:09:31] So so on that on that topic, um you're
[1:09:34] talking about on-street parking, I I
[1:09:36] believe, right?
[1:09:37] Um and my perception is around town
[1:09:43] some number of neighborhoods have
[1:09:46] you know, either no parking signs or
[1:09:48] they have permit parking.
[1:09:50] Um and I think that is is the right way
[1:09:53] to go for probably most of the
[1:09:55] residential neighborhoods
[1:09:58] that we I agree that we save them that
[1:10:00] and I my understanding is we're kind of
[1:10:01] moving that direction anyway cuz it
[1:10:03] looks like I'm over year over the years
[1:10:05] I've seen more areas that either become
[1:10:08] permit or no parking areas
[1:10:10] and off of SR 9 in residential areas.
[1:10:14] Um and I would definitely want to
[1:10:16] continue that, I think.
[1:10:18] But
[1:10:19] everywhere that is not a paid parking
[1:10:21] zone
[1:10:23] so you know, you see the paid parking
[1:10:24] zones with the signs and the kiosks,
[1:10:27] everywhere in town that is not one of
[1:10:29] those is either a prohibited parking
[1:10:32] zone or a permit parking zone.
[1:10:35] So. Okay, so so basically
[1:10:38] everywhere in town is controlled one way
[1:10:40] or another.
[1:10:41] Let me let me clarify that. That's on
[1:10:42] town-owned streets.
[1:10:44] >> On town-owned streets.
[1:10:45] >> Correct. Yeah.
[1:10:46] And I know many of the private-owned
[1:10:48] streets also prefer and have put up no
[1:10:51] parking signs and worked with the police
[1:10:53] department on managing that is my understanding.
[1:10:57] Um so, yes. I think we should focus The
[1:11:01] only focus I think we would have on
[1:11:04] residential areas is whether we might
[1:11:06] reduce the minimum
[1:11:08] for a new residential construction.
[1:11:11] The minimum on off-street parking.
[1:11:14] Um
[1:11:16] but again, we'd want to understand if
[1:11:17] there's an issue that needs to be solved
[1:11:19] or not.
[1:11:22] That's at least my perspective. Yeah.
[1:11:27] Is there any other discussion?
[1:11:31] Tom, will you actually be bringing this
[1:11:33] back to us, or you going to be at future
[1:11:35] meetings, or are you transitioning your
[1:11:37] way?
[1:11:38] >> [laughter]
[1:11:38] >> I'll be I'll be here for the for the
[1:11:40] next little bit, so Okay. unless I get
[1:11:42] kicked out. You guys can kick me out
[1:11:43] whenever you want.
[1:11:45] But
[1:11:46] ab- absent that, you know, until April
[1:11:48] and I'll say hit the road, I'll be here for the next uh month, 2
[1:11:53] months, 3 months, or so. Okay, perfect.
[1:11:56] Motion to keep Tom forever.
[1:11:58] >> [laughter]
[1:12:00] >> Wait, I don't want Tom to have two jobs.
[1:12:03] In that case, is there a motion motion
[1:12:06] to adjourn? I'll make a motion to
[1:12:08] adjourn. Second. Motion by Terry, second
[1:12:11] by Kasha. All in favor? Terry, I.
[1:12:13] Jennifer, I. Kasha, I. Meeting is
[1:12:16] adjourned.
[1:12:18] Thank you all the town staff for for
[1:12:19] your information. It was very helpful.
[1:12:27] Yeah.