[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.

04/01/2026 Planning Commission Work Meeting

Transcript