[0:01] It's 5:00 pm and we're at the Canyon
[0:04] Community Center for the May 15th
[0:06] meeting of the Springdale Planning
[0:07] Commission. From the town we have Tom
[0:10] Dancy, Kendall Sagers, Nile Connelly,
[0:13] and April Ratitz. On the dis we have
[0:16] Susan Portland, Zion National Park
[0:19] representative, Terry Kruski, myself,
[0:22] Jennifer McCulla, and Paul Zimmerman,
[0:25] Melissa Labour, Rich Swanson, Tom
[0:28] Kennston, and Kosh Bati are out tonight.
[0:33] Can I get a motion to approve tonight's
[0:36] agenda?
[0:37] >> I move that we approve tonight's agenda.
[0:39] >> Second.
[0:41] >> Motion by Paul, second by Terry. All in
[0:43] favor?
[0:44] >> Terry, I
[0:45] >> Jennifer I.
[0:46] >> All I.
[0:48] >> Motion passes. Does the town have any
[0:50] general announcements?
[0:55] » So, we will, excuse me, we will have the
[0:58] Zion Hawen Earthfest is this Saturday
[1:00] and Sunday of this weekend. And then we
[1:02] have a free concert in the park here at
[1:04] the gazebo next Friday at 6 PM with Eric
[1:08] Dodge.
[1:09] Any
[1:11] other announcements?
[1:19] » Yes, they're having Navy Day at the
[1:20] plaza. And uh forgive me, I can't
[1:23] remember which day that is.
[1:24] >> Tuesday at 6 PM. Yes.
[1:33] » Yeah, we're hoping so. And so so Navy
[1:36] Day is actually and there's a number of
[1:38] events at in Zion National Park with the
[1:41] Navy. One of them will be a um well this
[1:45] won't be in Zion National Park, but it
[1:46] will be up at the OC Tanner
[1:47] Amphitheater. There'll be a free uh Navy
[1:50] band performance at the OC Tanner
[1:52] Amphitheater on Monday night. And then
[1:54] the following evening, Tuesday evening,
[1:56] that same band will be giving a free
[1:58] performance at the town's downtown
[2:00] plaza.
[2:06] Are there any other announcements?
[2:09] Are there any declarations of conflict
[2:11] of interest?
[2:15] Okay. For tonight's agenda, we have four
[2:17] action items, all of which include
[2:20] public hearing. We'll follow the public
[2:22] meeting rules of order and procedure.
[2:25] Please be sure to have signed in to the
[2:28] meeting if you intend to speak. And
[2:31] please keep in mind that each public
[2:33] comment is limited to three minutes.
[2:39] The first action item is a public
[2:42] hearing regarding ordinance 2026-08
[2:47] review of land use ordinance application
[2:50] from null Benson proposing an amendment
[2:53] to section 10-18-4
[2:55] of the town code. The proposed amendment
[2:58] would introduce tiered minimum landscape
[3:00] and open space requirements based on the
[3:03] property size and the village commercial
[3:05] zone.
[3:07] The staff contact is Nile Connelly and
[3:11] Nile will be presenting.
[3:14] >> Thank you. So yes, this is a land use
[3:18] ordinance amendment application uh
[3:20] that's been made by Mr. Null Benson. Uh
[3:24] in his application, he's proposed an
[3:26] amendment to chapter 18 within title 10
[3:30] of the Springdale Town Code. And this
[3:32] chapter deals with the town's
[3:34] landscaping standards.
[3:37] Um in table four, let me bring up the staff report here. So there's this
[3:46] table um that lists the minimum
[3:49] percentage of a property that must be
[3:51] landscaped or natural open space and you
[3:54] can see that there's different standards
[3:56] depending on the zones.
[3:59] Uh Mr. Benson proposes that the minimum
[4:02] landscaped landscape standards in the
[4:04] village commercial zone be tiered. So
[4:07] depending on the size of the property.
[4:09] So as you can see um in this table VC
[4:13] stands for village commercial. Um and so
[4:16] 60%
[4:18] of village commercial property should be
[4:21] either landscaped or natural open space.
[4:25] Um the proposal is that
[4:30] a tiered um
[4:33] landscape requirement be introduced
[4:35] based on the size of the property. So
[4:39] and it would be so properties of half an
[4:42] acre or greater would would remain the
[4:44] existing standard and then there would
[4:46] be uh reduced standards for smaller
[4:49] properties. So between a a fourth of an
[4:51] acre and a half an acre it would be 50%
[4:54] and then smaller than a fourth of an
[4:55] acre would be 40%.
[4:58] Um
[5:00] as you can see there's tiered landscape
[5:03] requirements already in the code uh for
[5:06] the central commercial zone which are
[5:08] down here and also the valley
[5:10] residential zone has has the same kind
[5:13] of arrangement here.
[5:16] Um so the planning commission should
[5:19] review the ordinance amendment proposed
[5:21] by Mr. Benson. Um amendments to the code
[5:24] can be made if they uh promote more
[5:27] fully the objectives and purposes of the
[5:29] general plan uh or they correct manifest
[5:33] errors or they accomp accommodate
[5:36] substantial changes in conditions that
[5:38] were not contemplated in the general
[5:40] plan. So under any of those
[5:42] circumstances, the the code can be
[5:44] amended from time to time.
[5:47] Um so the commission's role tonight is
[5:49] to review this and make a recommendation
[5:52] to the town council on either to adopt
[5:55] this or not to adopt this. Um and just
[5:59] to um draw the commission's attention
[6:03] also to there's a number of public
[6:06] comments that were made actually on all
[6:07] of the different hearings for tonight.
[6:10] So, just to draw your attention to those
[6:13] that that were sent to you previously,
[6:15] um I'd be happy to answer any questions
[6:18] that you have.
[6:25] » Does the applicant want to present at
[6:28] this time?
[6:36] » No. Benson, I just want to explain, I
[6:38] guess, give a little context to why I'm
[6:39] here. Uh, you know, our our family has a
[6:42] property in Springdale. It's about a
[6:43] quarter acre size and it's zone village
[6:46] commercial and we've been trying to
[6:47] figure something out on that property
[6:49] for coming up on two years and it's been
[6:51] very difficult. You know, u I am not a
[6:54] developer. I have never developed
[6:57] property personally. This be my first
[6:59] time doing it. if I'm able to do it. You
[7:01] know, we're just residents here in
[7:02] Springdale trying to create a business.
[7:05] [clears throat] And uh the reason that
[7:07] I'm here, I guess more so is that
[7:10] the the way the current code functions,
[7:14] it really not only regulates, you know,
[7:17] what you can do on a property, it regul
[7:20] it really points and steers these
[7:21] smaller properties to certain things.
[7:24] And some of those things can be very
[7:26] specific. And so under the current
[7:28] conditions, the there's kind of three
[7:30] paths that I put in the outline there.
[7:31] Um the first path would be
[7:33] underdevelopment and that's what I would
[7:35] consider it to do kind of the minimum.
[7:37] And
[7:40] when you're when you're working under
[7:41] the current constraints of the
[7:42] landscaping in a tiny tiny property like
[7:45] this,
[7:46] you know, really that that plan points
[7:50] to something like yet another bike
[7:52] rental because they're very easy to
[7:55] produce because you can kind of get away
[7:57] sometimes without too much parking and
[7:59] you need very little indoor space. And
[8:01] that's kind of where that propertyy's
[8:02] at. I can get a couple, you know,
[8:04] parking spaces and a very tiny building
[8:05] on there right now. And that's that's
[8:08] not something that I want to do frankly.
[8:11] Uh the other option would be
[8:12] overdevelopment. So because of the
[8:14] constraints of the landscaping taking up
[8:16] such a huge portion of the property, I
[8:18] would have to vertically stack
[8:19] everything and put the parking
[8:21] underneath and sort of overdevelop the
[8:23] property. And if I do that, it doesn't
[8:27] pencil. It really doesn't. it it might
[8:29] be something that we might consider, but
[8:31] honestly it'd be a passion project at
[8:33] this point to try to get the type of
[8:34] business which we're currently trying
[8:36] for a restaurant. U and then the third
[8:38] thing would be to just kind of leave it
[8:39] as it is underutilized. I don't know if
[8:41] you know the property that that we have,
[8:43] but it's it's not the prettiest property
[8:45] in town. So, I'm hoping to uh to make it
[8:47] a little bit nicer. It's just to the
[8:48] right of a design gallery. Um,
[8:53] you know, I understand that that the
[8:55] town has goals and priorities and I'm
[8:57] really hoping that uh you guys believe
[9:00] as I do that I'm working within those
[9:02] constraints. So, I'm taking the general
[9:04] plan very seriously. I put some very
[9:06] specific language in there from the
[9:08] general plan that I think is very
[9:10] applicable and uh I hope you guys too do
[9:14] too. Now one more thing I want to
[9:15] mention is also is in the staff summary
[9:18] it seems very locked in you know
[9:22] recommend approval or not you have a
[9:25] little bit more latitude than that and
[9:27] for instance uh you know our property
[9:30] that we have appears to be just over a
[9:32] quarter acre. So even if this gets
[9:34] approved we're not going to be able to
[9:36] take advantage of the 40% tile. We would
[9:39] be in that 50 percentile. We are
[9:41] literally just a hair over. In fact, we
[9:44] were reassessed as far as size this
[9:46] year. It was.24 acres until this year it
[9:49] magically became. 26 acres. And so I
[9:52] would ask you if you are agreeable to
[9:56] this idea and you are looking to
[9:57] recommend approval to consider a 5%
[10:00] administrative tolerance at the
[10:02] thresholds. Uh it's not something that I
[10:05] put in the official application. It's
[10:07] something that would definitely affect
[10:08] us personally because our our property
[10:10] is so close to that. Uh but you do have
[10:13] that latitude and if you like something
[10:16] about the the um the application but you
[10:20] want to change a little bit recommend
[10:22] something a little bit different you
[10:23] have that latitude to do that as well.
[10:25] So in the staff summary it comes off
[10:27] like you know very much yes or no but
[10:29] you have you you have those ideas you
[10:31] know if you have some other ideas you
[10:32] know you can share those with me and uh
[10:35] certainly you can move in any direction
[10:36] you want. So um that's about it. Uh you
[10:40] know on properties this small
[10:43] uh that 5% uh tolerance would be talking
[10:47] about a few hundred square feet
[10:48] difference and it would make all the
[10:49] difference for our property as far as to
[10:52] be able to develop. So
[10:54] that's about all I got. So I don't if
[10:56] you have any questions or whatever. So
[10:59] >> actually I have a question for staff. I
[11:01] didn't quite speak.
[11:02] >> Yeah. No. So at this time we can ask
[11:04] questions of the staff or the applicant.
[11:06] >> Um and and it actually goes to something
[11:09] you said I thought about. So based upon
[11:12] what what was said here, are we able to
[11:15] recommend minor changes? So we could
[11:18] approve, assuming say we approved or
[11:20] recommended approval, could we also as
[11:24] conditions of that approval recommend
[11:26] changes to the town council? Would that
[11:27] be the way to do that?
[11:29] >> Yes, I think um some some minor tweaks
[11:33] or some minor um qualifiers or
[11:36] conditions would be would be appropriate
[11:39] um if you felt it was necessary.
[11:47] I think um I think you made a a very
[11:50] good explanation. I've read the original
[11:52] and and what you handed out here. Um it
[11:55] really matches many of the things I
[11:57] imagined you would you would want to u
[12:00] to make as comments and and input. So I
[12:05] don't have any specific.
[12:06] >> It's very thorough.
[12:09] Um it gave a lot of information to
[12:11] consider.
[12:14] So, I feel like you did a really good
[12:15] job providing with us with all of that.
[12:17] So, thank you.
[12:21] » Think of anything. I'm I'm here.
[12:23] >> Okay. Are there any other questions from
[12:25] the planning commission for the staff or
[12:27] the applicants?
[12:31] Are there any questions from the public
[12:35] for the staff or the applicants?
[12:40] Okay. Okay. Can we get a motion to open
[12:42] public hearing?
[12:44] >> Make a motion to open public hearing.
[12:45] >> Second.
[12:46] >> Motion by Terry, second by Paul. All in
[12:49] favor?
[12:49] >> Terry I.
[12:50] >> Jennifer I.
[12:51] >> All I.
[12:52] >> Motion passes.
[12:54] We're going to move into the public
[12:57] comment period.
[12:59] Again acknowledging the letters of
[13:01] comment that we got from a number of
[13:05] residents. And thank you for that. it
[13:07] helps gives give us more perspective to
[13:10] consider and research as we're going
[13:13] through all of the the various issues
[13:15] we're discussing tonight. So, we did
[13:17] consider those public comment letters on
[13:20] this topic.
[13:24] And are there any other public comments
[13:26] at this time besides the letters we
[13:28] received?
[13:32] Okay, we will move to close public
[13:35] hearing.
[13:35] >> I move that we close public hearing.
[13:37] >> Second.
[13:38] >> Motion from Paul, second from Terry. All
[13:40] in favor?
[13:41] >> Terry I.
[13:42] >> Jennifer I.
[13:45] >> Paul I.
[13:46] >> Motion passes
[13:49] at this time. Is there a response from
[13:51] the applicant?
[13:56] » If there were comments, you could
[13:58] >> Yeah, you could respond. You could have
[13:59] replied to the comments that didn't
[14:01] happen.
[14:01] >> Yeah,
[14:02] >> I think you did a fabulous job.
[14:04] >> Thank you. Okay. [laughter]
[14:07] Um, now we will move into public
[14:09] commission deliberation.
[14:13] » Um, I would say off hand I I think I I
[14:17] understand the purpose and the idea and
[14:19] I think actually it does make some
[14:21] sense. Um, so generally I'm I'm for
[14:25] approval. I do have some thoughts and
[14:27] comments. Um,
[14:30] so I did some calculations. Um, being
[14:33] me, you know, that's kind of the way I
[14:35] do things. Um, so I I I I thought about
[14:38] a I took a quarter acre lot. Um, which
[14:41] is, let me pull this up here. Quarter
[14:44] acre lot is um 10,000
[14:49] plus square feet. 10,780
[14:51] square feet, I think, is what a quarter
[14:53] acre lot is. So, I took 60% and 40% and
[14:58] did some did some math on that. Um, and
[15:01] so it if you only have 40% left over,
[15:04] you end up with 50 4356 square feet, you
[15:09] know, whereas if you had 60% left over
[15:11] for the building, you could end up with
[15:12] 6,534 square feet. So, significant
[15:15] difference. But then I thought about
[15:18] parking requirements and our present
[15:20] parking requirements and I realize we're
[15:21] talking about potentially changing them,
[15:23] but the present parking requirements um
[15:26] for and I chose a restaurant just out of
[15:29] happen stance. I chose a restaurant um
[15:31] requirements um because it requires one
[15:34] parking space per 200 square feet. So
[15:36] that's one of the more um parking
[15:39] intensive requirements
[15:41] and did some back calculations and came
[15:43] up with under the present ordinance of
[15:46] 60% you could build a 1700 square foot
[15:50] restaurant with a,275 square foot dining
[15:53] area 75% I just picked that off which
[15:56] requires six bases base spaces plus two
[15:59] more in employee spaces which based on
[16:02] documents we've read from other issues
[16:05] is about 330 square ft per um per
[16:09] parking space based upon documents we've
[16:10] read when we looked at the parking space
[16:12] issue. Um so all of that adds up to um
[16:17] 2640 ft of parking space for your 1700
[16:21] foot restaurant total of 4340. So that's
[16:24] about as big as you can build with 60%.
[16:28] If you go to 40% the building size could
[16:30] go to 2400
[16:32] and then the parking spaces would
[16:34] increase. And so I ended up about a 700
[16:38] square foot increase between
[16:41] 60% of landscape requirement and 40%
[16:44] landscape requirement. Um but I thought
[16:47] a little more about this and and um I
[16:51] thought about we do also have setback
[16:53] requirements
[16:55] and in village commercial it's 30 feet
[16:57] in the front, 10 feet on each side and
[16:59] 20 feet in the back. So, I took an
[17:01] imaginary square quarter acre lot and
[17:05] subtracted out all the setbacks and you
[17:08] end up with um 4399
[17:11] square ft of buildable space inside the
[17:15] setbacks. So, on a quarter acre lot, if
[17:18] we increase or decrease the required um
[17:21] landscaping and open space, you're still
[17:24] going to run into the setbacks. Um, of
[17:29] course, parking can impose on the
[17:31] setbacks to some extent,
[17:33] >> right? So, there is a there is an
[17:35] ordinance that allows the planning
[17:36] commission to authorize up to 50%
[17:40] encroachment into the side and rear set
[17:42] back setbacks.
[17:44] And so if you if if we were to in a
[17:47] particular in this particular example of
[17:50] a square lot and everything, if we were
[17:51] to um allow the 50% in all three, the
[17:55] two sides and the rear, then you end up
[17:58] with um about what did I call with 5859
[18:03] buildable square feet. um which is still
[18:06] less than the 6,534
[18:08] buildable square feet that you would get
[18:10] just based upon go dropping the
[18:13] landscaping to 40 40%.
[18:17] Long story. I think potentially it
[18:21] doesn't make sense to have the 40%
[18:25] landscaping at the quarter acre tier
[18:28] because it doesn't gain you anything if
[18:30] you have to fit inside the set tops or
[18:32] setbacks, sorry. Um, and maybe that if
[18:36] it's just 60% above a half an acre and
[18:40] 50% below half an acre, that's going to
[18:42] work just about as well given that the
[18:45] set tops the setbacks already restrict
[18:47] the building area. Um, so I open that up
[18:51] as a potential consideration
[18:54] um to more in line with the way the
[18:57] setbacks work and the amount of space
[18:59] you're going to end up being able to
[19:00] build. Um, in a sense I could go either
[19:04] way because the setbacks are the
[19:06] setbacks and if if the the only problem
[19:10] is that you could end up with
[19:11] unlandscaped, unopen space area in the
[19:15] setbacks that theoretically can't have
[19:19] other things in them. Um, so I make that
[19:23] as a suggestion, something to consider.
[19:26] Um
[19:27] and then the other thing that I came up
[19:30] with um
[19:33] is that if you look at the valley
[19:36] residential
[19:38] VR is a quarter acre minimum and it has
[19:40] a 60%
[19:42] um is quarter acre minimum. Yeah. So has
[19:45] a and it has a 60% um requirement for so
[19:49] for um landscaping and [clears throat]
[19:52] the whole idea of village commercial is
[19:54] that it's a transition between
[19:56] residential such as valley residential
[19:59] and central commercial. Um and so going
[20:03] from
[20:04] VR
[20:06] at 60% to village commercial quarter
[20:10] acre at 40% is a pretty big jump. So
[20:13] again to me that implies that the
[20:14] quarter acre going to 50% is a smaller
[20:18] jump on the way towards even more dense
[20:23] uh central commercial. So I sort of came
[20:25] away with the idea that we might
[20:27] recommend to the town council that they
[20:30] don't go all the way down to 40%.
[20:37] » That was impressive. Thank you.
[20:39] [laughter]
[20:42] Uh, I'm willing to have him comment on
[20:44] that.
[20:45] >> Yes.
[20:47] >> Just a few things on that. One, I think
[20:49] his considerations are only talking
[20:50] about a one-story structure, which I'm
[20:52] really trying hard to do. And second,
[20:54] it's far beyond parking. You have drive
[20:56] aisles, driveways, turn, you know,
[20:57] circulation of the property. And yes, I
[21:00] probably will have to ask you guys for
[21:01] that extra halfway into the setbacks
[21:04] because we are so tight. But uh there is
[21:06] a lot more latitude with with the
[21:09] reduced you know uh landscaping
[21:11] requirements far beyond what you were
[21:14] outlining there because you you know two
[21:15] stories and all that and stacked and all
[21:18] those things can dramatically change the
[21:21] quality and the size of the structure if
[21:24] I had more latitude for instance if it
[21:26] was even you know le if it was down to
[21:28] the 40% I know I could keep it at one story for instance so that would be
[21:32] I think a big win for everybody. So
[21:36] >> I guess I I'll ask a question on that.
[21:38] So if the setbacks restrict you to a
[21:42] square footage that is smaller than the
[21:47] 40% restricts you you're you're either
[21:50] going to have to go twotory or not. I
[21:52] don't really understand why
[21:53] >> I can go twotory. I could can lever over
[21:55] parking. I I do have a there is other
[21:57] options besides the outline of that.
[21:59] >> Right. But but taking those options um
[22:02] these setbacks would drive you into
[22:04] taking those options rather than the
[22:07] landscaping because the landscaping at
[22:09] 40% would leave you far more square
[22:12] footage than the setbacks would leave
[22:14] you.
[22:15] >> Yeah. I mean, look, I'm trying to work
[22:17] within what what we want as a town. You
[22:19] know, I'm not trying to ask for for
[22:21] setbacks to be reduced or anything. Uh
[22:24] this, you know, I've talked with my
[22:26] architects and draftsmen. This is if
[22:29] this gets approved, this is going to
[22:30] make a huge difference for us. So, it's a little more complicated than
[22:35] we're what we're talking about.
[22:36] >> If you know at this time, uh, what kind
[22:38] of buildable square footage do you think
[22:41] would give you the ability to do what
[22:43] you need to do?
[22:44] >> Well, right now, under the current
[22:46] constraints, we're looking at about a
[22:47] 900 foot building with about five spots.
[22:51] And we don't have any
[22:54] public transportation in the evenings.
[22:56] When the when the shuttles stop, they
[22:58] stop. And
[23:01] you I think it's a wonderful goal uh to
[23:04] get to be a very walkable town.
[23:08] I I fully support all of that. I I think
[23:10] the businesses should decide what
[23:13] parking they need to have a successful
[23:15] business. It seems weird to me that the
[23:17] town would tell a business how much
[23:19] parking they need, but at the end of the
[23:21] day, I you know, if people are going to
[23:24] come to my business, they many times are
[23:26] going to need a place to park. So, I I I
[23:29] can't forgo the parking at this point
[23:31] there. The culture isn't there in the
[23:32] town yet. So, yeah.
[23:34] >> Yeah. I I wasn't expecting to forego the
[23:37] parking. Um Okay.
[23:41] >> And that was really good perspective,
[23:43] Terry. I just go back to though
[23:46] I mean, given property size, it just
[23:48] seems to make sense to tar
[23:52] to tier it in that way.
[23:54] >> Yeah. I I'm not saying we shouldn't we
[23:56] shouldn't I'm not saying we should not
[23:58] tear it at all.
[23:58] >> You're just saying it makes it that very
[24:00] bottom tier, that quarter acre tier um
[24:04] at 40%.
[24:06] [clears throat]
[24:06] >> Means that you're going to run into the
[24:07] setbacks.
[24:08] >> Yeah.
[24:09] >> Well, before you run into the uh
[24:12] landscaping requirement.
[24:14] Can I offer just a just a point on that?
[24:18] Um, so within the setbacks, there are
[24:21] some things that can go other than
[24:23] landscaping such as, you know, patios,
[24:26] driveways, courtyards, and those things.
[24:28] So that that setback area
[24:33] doesn't necessarily have to be 100%
[24:36] landscaping if if that makes sense. So
[24:39] some of that area may be may be usable
[24:42] for other things in landscaping if that
[24:45] just helps.
[24:46] >> Um
[24:48] yeah and and the definition of landscape
[24:50] includes some things like pools and
[24:53] patios under certain conditions. Um so
[24:57] it gets a little complicated in terms of
[24:59] what constitutes landscaping. Um,
[25:03] [snorts]
[25:05] like I said, I I think leaving it at 40%
[25:08] doesn't change the whole setback issue.
[25:10] So, in the end, it's not going to give
[25:15] more space than the setbacks allow. Um,
[25:18] it might just lead to some
[25:20] misunderstanding about what you can
[25:22] build or what. That's more my concern
[25:25] than anything. So what you would suggest
[25:27] then is less than a half an acre at
[25:31] >> 50%
[25:32] >> right and just you know sort of remove
[25:34] the the third um the third one the
[25:38] lowest one and say it's 50% and that's
[25:40] going to give you something very similar
[25:42] to what the setbacks allow
[25:45] um and it's also a transition from
[25:49] valley residential where a VR at a
[25:52] quarter acre is 60% then VC C at a
[25:56] quarter acre would be 50%. And
[26:00] central commercial at a quarter or you
[26:03] know at a quarter acre is going to be
[26:04] 30%. So it gives it's it's less of a dramatic
[26:10] transition between the residential and
[26:13] the valley commercial, which is part of
[26:14] the purpose of valley commercial is to
[26:16] create that transition
[26:19] um where um where the commercial
[26:23] businesses are are less dense than they
[26:26] are in the central commercial area.
[26:32] » Ask a question.
[26:34] Yeah. Can you come up?
[26:37] >> I'm just curious, when you did your
[26:38] calculations for your name.
[26:40] >> Oh, Greg Federman. Hi.
[26:42] >> Uh, when you did your calculations for
[26:44] the 40%, did you include what would
[26:47] happen if you took advantage of the
[26:50] setback leniency?
[26:52] >> Um, because I'm just thinking about what
[26:54] Nile said where if they utilize some of
[26:56] that open space for in a in a restaurant
[27:00] scenario, a patio, they get to actually
[27:01] utilize the space, right? So if you're
[27:03] able to adjust those setbacks on a case-
[27:05] by case basis, would that 40% then allow
[27:08] him to do what he needs to do
[27:11] >> if you so so in the in the way I did the
[27:14] calculations um I just took a quarter
[27:17] acres 10,780 ft multiply it by by 60%
[27:22] and that's if you had a 40% um
[27:25] requirement for uh landscaping and open
[27:28] space and you get 60%. That's how I came
[27:31] up with the number for that. And then I
[27:33] said, okay, on on a separate
[27:35] calculation, you calculate um
[27:39] given and I used a square just to make
[27:41] it simple, a square quarter acre lot and
[27:44] subtracted out all of the um all of the
[27:47] setbacks,
[27:48] >> right?
[27:48] >> That's where I end up at 43.99. And then
[27:50] if we turned around and approved 50%
[27:54] encroachment into the two sides and rear
[27:58] setback, that's where I ended up at um
[28:01] what was it? 5800 I think it was 5859.
[28:06] >> Okay. So you did the calculations with
[28:07] the reduced setback requirements. That
[28:10] was my question.
[28:10] >> Right. Right. Yeah. So so I calculated
[28:12] if we gave the maximum setback
[28:15] encroachment that we c that we're
[28:16] allowed to give.
[28:17] >> Got it. Okay. And that ends up at the
[28:18] 5859,
[28:20] which is still less than the 60
[28:24] a fixed 6534
[28:26] that a
[28:28] 40% landscaping would leave available.
[28:31] >> So you should change it to 30% then.
[28:33] Right.
[28:34] >> No, then that would leave even more
[28:36] square foot, you know. [laughter]
[28:37] Yeah. Get
[28:38] >> I just was seeing
[28:39] >> just Yeah. Yeah.
[28:41] >> Doesn't mean I need to use all of it
[28:42] either.
[28:44] 48%
[28:50] might be a huge
[28:53] max.
[28:57] » So in that scenario,
[29:00] I I understand what you're saying. Um,
[29:05] so if if it was just the two tiers, then
[29:09] possibly adding in the whatever
[29:11] percentage 5% if that's what makes
[29:14] sense, administrative tolerance.
[29:19] » You
[29:20] >> So then technically you could go 45,
[29:24] but it's not in the tiered. It would be
[29:27] discretion how you apply that be.
[29:30] >> That's not okay. Um I I was asking that
[29:34] if there was a property that the size
[29:36] was within 5% of the threshold.
[29:38] >> I see what you're saying.
[29:39] >> Yeah. So I'm not giving another 5%
[29:41] landscape but like in my case I'm at 26.
[29:44] >> Okay.
[29:45] >> I'm like point you know 1% over the
[29:48] threshold if there was that tolerance
[29:50] that I could then uh realize that 40% as
[29:53] opposed to staying in the 50%.
[29:56] >> Gotcha.
[29:56] >> And I'm not necessarily going to use all
[29:58] of it. If I was to granted that 40%, I
[30:01] would still maybe only use, you know, 45
[30:03] or something. So, yeah.
[30:09] Well, another approach, I mean, we could
[30:11] leave the numbers the same if we felt we
[30:13] want to do that and just add a statement
[30:15] that um that these don't override the
[30:20] setback requirements so that people will
[30:23] realize that whatever number they get
[30:25] out of this calculation doesn't um mean
[30:29] that you can use more of the setback.
[30:33] >> I mean, I don't think based on what null
[30:35] is saying the size of his property is. I
[30:37] mean, the bottom line is no longer
[30:39] applicable to your property because
[30:41] you're over a quarter of an acre right
[30:42] now, right?
[30:44] >> Well, there's no 5% tolerance threshold.
[30:48] >> Yeah.
[30:49] >> Right.
[30:51] >> Because you
[30:53] >> Yeah. If there's no 5% tolerance at the
[30:55] threshold, it probably would be a moot
[30:57] point for me. But certainly uh if this
[30:59] does get all the way to approval, I
[31:01] might go ahead and pay for a new survey
[31:03] just to see because uh I was shocked
[31:06] when I pulled up public records a few
[31:08] months ago and saw that they had changed
[31:09] it from 0.24 to 26. I don't know why,
[31:13] maybe Tom or Nile knows, but uh they can
[31:15] do it with digital imaging. There's lots
[31:17] of stuff. But on this particular
[31:19] property, there was some eminent domain
[31:21] the town took uh some years back and
[31:23] there was an adjustment to the rear
[31:24] sight line. And so I have really no clue
[31:27] uh if the recalculation people, you
[31:31] know, uh what however they did that, if
[31:32] they took that into consideration or
[31:34] they knew that. So it's very possible
[31:35] that if there's no 5% tolerance and it
[31:39] does get approved, I'll probably go
[31:40] ahead and get a new a new survey to see,
[31:43] you know, if I
[31:44] >> if you actually are under 25.
[31:45] >> Yeah. Because if if you know,
[31:46] ironically, if I was at 0.24 24 and got
[31:49] the 40% as opposed to 50% there would be
[31:52] a net gain for us on that scenario. So
[32:05] » I like the consistency
[32:09] of the tears.
[32:14] » I think the tears um Yeah. I mean the
[32:17] consistency between the the three things
[32:20] makes sense but the I guess the
[32:22] in in in
[32:25] I don't know in small this small
[32:27] property where now it's commercial and a
[32:29] residential zone uh and it's you know
[32:31] the central commercial zone is not
[32:33] necessarily I'm not saying it isn't but
[32:35] it's not necessarily as adjacent to
[32:37] residential as the village commercial
[32:39] zone. One of the reasons village
[32:41] commercial is what it is is so that it
[32:43] provides sort of a buffer under there
[32:44] >> buffer a transition. Yeah. So, um, you
[32:48] know, to put a fully built out and fully
[32:52] utilized space without the landscaping
[32:54] on a very small property in a
[32:56] residential sort of environment seems to
[32:58] me, you know, I guess I like I like your
[33:02] proposal to say, okay, if it's half acre
[33:05] or less, we we keep it at two zones
[33:07] rather than three uh for for this
[33:10] purpose. That seems to make sense,
[33:12] especially with the numbers that you pointed out. It's not really
[33:14] going to make a material difference one
[33:16] way or the other.
[33:25] » Uh I I understand the math with the
[33:27] setbacks, but it absolutely would give
[33:28] us way more latitude if we had that
[33:30] extra that extra 10% for sure. And and you always have the setbacks. So you
[33:35] always have another another restrictive
[33:37] uh you know situation when you're going
[33:39] to design a property. And that's not
[33:42] going to change. So whether you put
[33:44] language in there, you know, reaffirming
[33:46] that or not, that's just another hurdle
[33:48] that you would have to have to deal with
[33:49] when you're developing a small property,
[33:52] but but not giving the opportunity and
[33:55] that flexibility, I think, would would
[33:56] be a big deal, at least for us, you
[33:58] know, the way we've done our our designs
[34:00] and calculations and things. So
[34:03] >> So you're saying that um 50% doesn't
[34:07] work for your designs you're considering
[34:10] where 40 something under 50% would work.
[34:12] I think,
[34:13] >> excuse me. Yeah, I applied for for a
[34:15] variance and I applied for uh to get
[34:17] that property down to 48% landscaping
[34:20] requirement because just that extra 2%
[34:23] was making a really big difference on
[34:25] our designs that we were we were drawing
[34:26] up. So having that little bit of
[34:28] latitude was a huge deal. And like Nile
[34:30] said, you can't put patios. You can even
[34:32] put dining in setbacks. I don't know if
[34:34] you've seen Cowboys and Angels where
[34:36] they got that whole thing in the front,
[34:37] you know, grass and lights and all that
[34:39] stuff. people hang out there and they got tables and chairs and things
[34:43] and there's a lot of that in town. And
[34:44] so, uh, trust me, that extra 10% would
[34:48] be very useful. Even an extra, in my
[34:51] case, 2% would be very, very useful to
[34:53] have because we're so tight. You know,
[34:55] we're talking about such small property
[34:56] here.
[35:15] There's a couple ways we go. We leave it
[35:17] as 40%. We could recommend
[35:20] two years. We could recommend 45%.
[35:24] Um
[35:27] or um
[35:29] we could
[35:33] um allow
[35:35] a ver you know a
[35:38] I don't know
[35:41] we give ourselves the ability to prove
[35:43] something less than 50% under given
[35:45] conditions but that would make it a
[35:47] somewhat more complicated
[35:48] >> Yeah.
[35:51] That's was my comment about the the
[35:53] tolerance when I didn't realize it was
[35:55] actually
[35:56] >> the tolerance was
[35:58] >> which I like that also I I think a 5%
[36:02] administrative tolerance
[36:04] >> here's here's some gohead
[36:06] >> for that portion but um
[36:10] and then the overriding setback part but
[36:12] >> I
[36:14] agree that a quarter acre is a very
[36:16] small piece of property for a business
[36:18] and I think the 40% is reasonable.
[36:22] How about here's another possibility
[36:26] and no can comment on if he likes is
[36:29] that um is that in the case where the
[36:36] um where the required open space and and
[36:40] landscaping
[36:42] um is less than the size of the the
[36:46] total of the setbacks
[36:49] that any of setback fact that's not um
[36:54] not built with something like a patio or other things has to be landscaped. In
[37:00] other words, the thing I'm concerned
[37:02] about is okay now now you've got parts
[37:04] of the property that don't have to be
[37:08] landscaped. They're outside of the this
[37:10] 50% and other things.
[37:11] >> Yeah. um in an area where we really want
[37:14] to have that kind of buffer that the
[37:17] ordinances call for between commercial
[37:19] businesses and residential businesses.
[37:23] So, I'm wondering if maybe we have an
[37:24] idea. Okay, it can be 40%. Um but
[37:29] whatever is left over, if it's under
[37:32] 50%, whatever's left over in in the um
[37:35] setbacks has to be landscaped
[37:38] up to potentially 50%.
[37:41] I don't know. That's kind of an odd
[37:42] word.
[37:43] >> Yeah, I know. I know what you're saying.
[37:46] >> Uh that doesn't really resonate with me.
[37:49] Yeah,
[37:49] >> it's too complicated. Forget it.
[37:51] [laughter]
[37:52] >> Our particular project, we're planning
[37:53] to raise the whole all the structures
[37:56] and to start fresh. So, from our
[37:58] standpoint, we're pretty much going to
[37:59] be 100% landscape. We're not going to
[38:01] have any open space because we're going
[38:03] to start from scratch. So, everything
[38:05] that we do is going to be landscaped.
[38:08] And if you wanted to
[38:10] uh you know take away the opportunity
[38:13] for open space that doesn't affect us. I mean that's that's totally up you know
[38:18] that doesn't affect our situation
[38:19] because we're going to be landscaping
[38:20] 100% of whatever is required basically.
[38:22] So so if you there was less open space
[38:25] or more a higher percentage of that uh
[38:29] landscape needed to actually be
[38:30] landscape and not open space that
[38:32] wouldn't affect us. That would be fine.
[38:47] thing between the three of us. You want
[38:48] to leave it at 40%.
[38:49] >> I do.
[38:52] >> I can go either way.
[38:56] » Are you saying you want to leave three
[38:58] tiers and then leave?
[38:59] >> You leave the three tiers and we leave
[39:01] the bottom tier at 40%.
[39:03] then you run into this situation where
[39:06] the setbacks are more restrictive than
[39:10] the landscaping and open space
[39:11] requirements. Um but you still have a
[39:15] diff you know a different mechanism to
[39:17] minimize the impact of the village
[39:21] commercial area in when it's adjacent to
[39:25] a residential area. Um so in that sense
[39:28] I'm not that strongly that we have to
[39:30] take it out. It just seems like it you
[39:32] know to me
[39:33] um it doesn't gain much against the
[39:38] restrictions of the set tops. So that's
[39:40] why I say I'm comfortable with leaving
[39:43] it in if in fact
[39:46] >> you guys are also um
[39:48] >> leaving the 40%
[39:50] >> leaving it leaving that tier in and
[39:52] leaving it at 40%.
[39:54] >> Yep.
[39:57] And then the town council can listen to
[39:59] us and decide if they want to.
[40:01] >> I I would suggest that if we leave it
[40:02] in, we make it we leave it in at 45%,
[40:05] not 40%.
[40:06] >> 45.
[40:08] >> I'm good with that. That makes a lot of
[40:10] sense to me because then that gets you
[40:12] much closer to um where the setbacks are
[40:15] going to restrict you.
[40:16] >> Yeah. Then they're then they're kind of
[40:17] in the same range.
[40:20] And not that we should be trying to
[40:22] figure out how to make
[40:24] uh policy for a single individual but I
[40:28] think that still gets no
[40:32] » okay I agree with 40 you know leave it
[40:35] in with 45% is comfortable with me
[40:39] >> and and again this is just a
[40:40] recommendation to the town council
[40:46] » I mean if you're both oh go ahead
[40:49] >> sorry just just a um a few points on
[40:53] whatever um recommendation you make. Um
[40:58] I think your recommendation should be
[41:01] based on the submission. So whether
[41:03] approve it or not approve it, but you
[41:06] can make um if you want to if you
[41:09] recommend a change
[41:12] um then you can kind of add that as a as
[41:15] a recommendation. But you should kind of
[41:18] make a decision on the proposal itself
[41:21] whether it should be approved or not. Um
[41:25] but you can add a recommendation to that
[41:28] if you want if you think it'd be wise
[41:31] for the town council to to make it
[41:34] something different.
[41:35] >> Right.
[41:36] >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was say so that was sort of the the purpose of my
[41:40] initial question was if we approve which
[41:43] I'm generally intending to approve um
[41:46] but there are a couple minor things that
[41:48] feel that feel like they that they would
[41:52] be better slightly changed. So I was
[41:55] expecting
[41:56] >> we don't we don't actually approve it.
[41:58] We recommend approval.
[41:59] >> We recommend approval
[42:00] >> with the following recommendations.
[42:01] >> With the following I was going to put
[42:03] him in his conditions
[42:04] >> or Yeah, we could make it again
[42:05] whatever. So
[42:07] >> a condition of our approval that works.
[42:08] >> One of the conditions is we recommend
[42:10] >> Yeah.
[42:12] >> So I
[42:14] am on board with um recommending
[42:16] adoption of this, but I'm still I would
[42:20] rather approve 40 and you and you know
[42:24] I'm okay to disagree at this point and
[42:27] you know moving it on to the the town
[42:29] council. But how does that work then?
[42:32] Well, they're going to do what they
[42:33] want.
[42:33] >> We can agree on approval, but I don't
[42:35] necessarily agree on the the tears.
[42:40] >> Well,
[42:41] we can we can make a motion
[42:44] >> with conditions and you can vote against
[42:47] it is one way.
[42:48] >> I don't want to vote against it.
[42:50] [laughter]
[42:51] >> Or
[42:53] um
[42:54] I don't know.
[42:55] >> Yeah. I mean, I think that's the
[42:57] options. You can vote for it or you can
[43:00] vote for it or against it. Um
[43:05] a couple before we get to that point. I
[43:07] have another question and um maybe I can
[43:11] now maybe you have a better
[43:13] understanding of this. I'm I'm having
[43:14] trouble in my mind trying to figure out
[43:17] uh why we have a
[43:19] 40 or 50 or 60% uh condition for
[43:22] landscaping or natural open space and a
[43:27] smaller number for landscape and on a
[43:30] larger property I see that that makes
[43:32] some sense but on a small property um
[43:36] I I I failed to see
[43:40] how the what the difference between a 20
[43:43] a 25% landscaping requirement and a 50%
[43:46] landscaping or open space requirement is
[43:49] I mean
[43:51] if you got to have a 50% requirement in
[43:53] there you're probably not going to make
[43:54] much of it or any of it open space and if you do what what's the
[44:00] >> so
[44:02] if I don't know that I totally
[44:03] understand your question but I think the
[44:05] purpose is that the you have a total
[44:08] amount that needs to be either
[44:10] landscaped or open natural open And
[44:12] that's to allow
[44:14] >> flexibility in different parts of the
[44:16] town. Uh depending on what you know if
[44:18] you have a hillside that's natural that counts towards your overall figure.
[44:23] So I my understanding is that that that
[44:26] open space figure is to allow some
[44:29] flexibility if there are natural parts
[44:33] of your um property that you still get
[44:37] credit for them that they don't have to
[44:39] be landscaped but they still count
[44:43] um
[44:45] >> okay
[44:46] >> my my thought on that is is for example
[44:49] 30% grade
[44:51] >> yeah that's kind of where when you when
[44:52] you start made his comment. That's kind
[44:54] of why I figured, okay, if you've got a
[44:55] 30% grade, you're not
[44:56] >> you're not supposed to be working on it
[44:57] anyway.
[44:58] >> So, you get credit for it, though.
[44:59] >> Credit for that as open space. Yeah.
[45:03] [snorts]
[45:03] >> Um
[45:03] >> Okay. Can we say in the conditions
[45:06] >> 40 or 45
[45:09] and move it up that way?
[45:15] » Just consider both.
[45:16] >> Okay. So, so you're saying that we Go
[45:18] ahead.
[45:20] >> So, what you could do is recommend
[45:22] approval. So you have to recommend
[45:24] approval or not and then say we also
[45:26] recommend considering a 45%
[45:29] uh as the lowest tier as opposed to 40
[45:32] and hopefully you also recommend that 5%
[45:35] tolerance at the thresholds but you
[45:37] could approve it you know as it is you
[45:39] know based on what Nile said then say we
[45:41] also recommend those two things or as
[45:44] many things as you want. So
[45:46] >> yeah, and again it's just a
[45:48] recommendation.
[45:49] >> Okay.
[45:50] >> Prove it up to 40 and then make a
[45:51] recommendation to consider a 45% and
[45:54] consider hopefully a 5% uh
[45:57] >> tolerance at the
[45:58] >> Yeah, maybe if I if we term it as a
[46:00] consider then okay
[46:01] >> can I add just a quick um add on to to
[46:04] what null just mentioned? So null's made
[46:06] an application and said this is what I
[46:07] want you to approve or or review. So um
[46:11] as an applicant he he deserves the right
[46:13] to have a up and down yes or no on what
[46:16] he has presented to you.
[46:18] >> Right.
[46:19] >> Um if in the course of this discussion
[46:22] you've come up with some ideas and null
[46:24] is amanable to those as the applicant
[46:26] and says oh yeah that's fine. I'm
[46:28] willing to amend my application in the
[46:30] way that you have have discussed like
[46:33] the 45%
[46:35] tier and and the um 5% administrative
[46:39] allowance for property size and and says
[46:42] that yes, that's my application. Then
[46:43] you could just make a a motion on that
[46:45] application, right? Yes, we approve this
[46:47] and send it to the town council. If
[46:49] null's like, no, I don't want you to I I
[46:51] don't agree with those. I want my
[46:53] original um application to stand. he
[46:55] deserves an up or down vote
[46:57] recommendation on his original proposal.
[47:00] Does that
[47:00] >> Okay. Yeah.
[47:01] >> Um and and then just one procedural
[47:04] clarification. Um because there's only
[47:05] three of you today. You um Jennifer, you
[47:09] were you were saying, "Well, what if I
[47:10] want to vote no?" Um you can, but you
[47:13] for any motion to pass, you need at
[47:16] least three members of the planning
[47:18] commission to vote affirmatively. So
[47:20] essentially, you need to be unanimous in
[47:22] whatever decision you make tonight.
[47:25] Then the motion.
[47:29] » Yeah. Yeah. Any so when the the the town
[47:34] code says that
[47:37] uh the minimum number of yes votes
[47:38] required to pass any issue application
[47:40] or any other matter on which the
[47:41] planning commission vote is required as
[47:43] a majority of the members of the quorum
[47:45] but must be at least three.
[47:48] >> So
[47:49] >> okay. So passing it as is.
[47:52] So that passes, but then we can add
[47:56] additional considerations, not
[47:58] conditions.
[48:01] Is that what you're saying?
[48:03] >> Like,
[48:04] >> yeah, you you can see if if null says, I
[48:06] want this to be reviewed exactly as it
[48:08] is in my submission, he deserves an up
[48:09] or down vote on that.
[48:11] >> Okay.
[48:11] >> Say, no, we don't like that, but we
[48:14] would like it if it were this way, and make that town council. Or you could
[48:18] say, "Yeah, we're okay with that, but
[48:20] we'd like it even better if you did it
[48:22] this way." Or you could say, "Yeah, we
[48:24] like it as is, and we're just going to
[48:25] vote uh to recommend approval." But but
[48:28] he deserves the your recommendation on
[48:31] the proposal that he submitted, unless
[48:32] he chooses to to modify that here in the
[48:35] meeting tonight.
[48:36] >> Okay. So, I guess we need to ask null if
[48:38] are you willing to amend it in any way
[48:42] based on what we've been talking about?
[48:53] Honestly, if I knew I had to get 100%
[48:56] votes tonight, I probably would have
[48:57] waited till next month, [laughter]
[48:58] >> right?
[49:02] » But we we we still have the option, and
[49:05] I agree with Tom, we have to either
[49:06] approve it or disapprove it as is. And I
[49:09] was thinking that all along, but I think
[49:12] we still have the option to say we
[49:14] approve it as is.
[49:16] We would think it would be even better
[49:19] with these changes.
[49:20] >> So, let me ask a different question,
[49:22] Tom. Um, no recommending that we that he
[49:27] mod or that we modify
[49:29] the conditions of uh his submittal. Um,
[49:33] here what what I heard you say is we
[49:34] can't do that. Can he do that in this
[49:37] meeting or does he have to withdraw it
[49:38] and then resubmit it? No,
[49:40] >> what I'm what I'm saying is my my whole
[49:42] point is null as an applicant has some
[49:44] due process rights, right? Yeah. Oh,
[49:45] absolutely. Great.
[49:46] >> This is different than you as a planning
[49:48] commission saying, "Hey, we're going to
[49:49] look at at landscape in the village
[49:51] commercial zone and we're going to come
[49:52] up with all these different ideas and
[49:53] we're we as a commission are going to
[49:54] come up with what we think is best."
[49:56] >> The process that null has has taken
[49:58] advantage of is filing an application,
[50:00] paying an application fee to have you
[50:02] review this proposal,
[50:04] >> right?
[50:05] >> He deserves to have that proposal have
[50:06] an up or down vote. If he says, "You
[50:08] know what? Yes, this is my proposal, but
[50:10] I want to modify it a little bit and I
[50:11] want you to consider this administrative
[50:13] allowance." He as the applicant has that
[50:15] right to do that, right? It's still his
[50:17] proposal, but but he he has
[50:20] >> and he can still do that in the meeting
[50:22] even.
[50:22] >> Sure. Yeah.
[50:23] >> Okay. All right. That was my only
[50:25] question. Right.
[50:26] >> I didn't put it in the original proposal
[50:27] because I didn't want it to kill the
[50:28] deal. Otherwise, I would have put it in
[50:30] the original language. So,
[50:32] >> yeah.
[50:34] >> So, I would vote as is and add the 5%
[50:39] administrative tolerance.
[50:44] Let me think about this for a second.
[50:46] So, so
[50:49] 10,780*
[50:50] 5%.
[50:52] So, you're talking 5
[50:56] 10 or 15 square feet of tolerance in a
[51:00] quarter acre lot.
[51:04] I'm thinking 5% sounds a little big to
[51:06] me.
[51:09] >> Yeah.
[51:16] gives you I mean that means it's
[51:17] somewhere between
[51:19] you know 11,2
[51:22] something and you know
[51:24] >> so
[51:33] I mean we can improve it as is
[51:37] >> I'm tending towards approving it as is
[51:42] with a recommendation of the town
[51:44] council for minor changes
[51:47] um and that they consider and I'm
[51:49] willing to say yeah they consider a
[51:50] tolerance
[51:52] uh and that 5% was suggested or some
[51:55] other percentage might make more sense.
[51:58] Well,
[52:00] back up if I understood what Tom said.
[52:03] Um,
[52:06] we approve what null submitted.
[52:09] >> You recommend approval of what?
[52:10] >> Recommend approving what null submitted
[52:12] or or that's it. And null has the
[52:16] opportunity to change his submitt if he
[52:19] wants to do that. So, it's not our
[52:21] choice to say we recommend approval of
[52:23] this with this following change. He's
[52:25] got to re he's got to make that request.
[52:27] Well, agreed. We don't
[52:30] >> but at least what I heard from Tom is
[52:32] that we can communicate to the town
[52:34] council that these are things we
[52:36] >> but after he tells us what he wants us
[52:39] to approve, then we can make a decision
[52:41] as to what to do,
[52:41] >> right? But I think you just said you
[52:43] don't want to change anything.
[52:45] >> I don't want to go down 45% on the last
[52:48] tier and we're talking about such a
[52:49] small property. Of course, I want the 5%
[52:52] tolerance of the thresholds put in, but
[52:54] I didn't put it in the original language
[52:55] because I didn't want to kill the deal.
[52:56] So, I'm absolutely amunable to adding
[52:59] that to your
[53:00] >> positive recommendation. And then if you
[53:02] want to deny it, then I want to say no,
[53:03] I don't want to do that. [laughter]
[53:06] >> So, he wants to know how we're going to
[53:07] vote before you decide how what the
[53:10] application.
[53:10] >> So, I just I just left it out because I
[53:13] didn't want to kill the deal because of
[53:14] it. But certainly, if you wanted to put
[53:16] that in, I am, you know, jumping for joy
[53:18] about that. So, yes, I would love it,
[53:20] you know,
[53:20] >> which we can do. Well, we we can make
[53:24] >> or recommend
[53:24] >> we can make recommendations to the town
[53:26] council.
[53:27] Um,
[53:31] I think I'm of the mindset that
[53:35] personally I I think I I like the idea,
[53:39] willing to improve it as is
[53:41] and make some suggestions to the town
[53:44] council about minor changes
[53:47] and
[53:50] you know and I'm h happy to include this
[53:52] 5% tolerance. I'm not
[53:55] that and consider a we could even not
[53:59] give a number just say consider a
[54:00] somewhat higher percentage for the
[54:02] quarter rate a lot but we figure 40%
[54:05] seems small or we could even leave that
[54:07] >> yeah I I guess uh well whatever yeah
[54:11] >> where you I I think uh
[54:15] you know we talked about the 45% for the
[54:17] quarter acre lot and if if null's you
[54:20] know
[54:22] what you said you your variance that you
[54:24] requested was 48.4%.
[54:26] Um
[54:28] >> that's higher than 40%.
[54:30] >> So that's higher than 45.
[54:31] >> It is.
[54:32] >> So that gets you what you want. What you
[54:34] wanted, right?
[54:35] >> Hopefully.
[54:36] >> Okay.
[54:37] >> It's still going to have to go more
[54:38] vertical at 48%. That was my original
[54:40] plan. I really like to get it to one
[54:41] story is is my ultimate goal. But
[54:45] >> yeah, I mean above 45% even above 50% if
[54:48] I have to work with that, I'm I'm gonna do that. Uh but from a design
[54:53] point and the quality standpoint and you
[54:56] know following you know my vision of
[54:58] what I think the town wants and what
[55:00] people want the more latitude be better
[55:03] you know in that situation. So again I'm
[55:05] not a developer here so I'm not trying
[55:07] to just
[55:09] do the biggest you know thing on the
[55:11] planet that doesn't make any sense
[55:12] monetarily anyway. Yeah. Great.
[55:16] >> And given that he wants to leave the
[55:18] application as ising
[55:22] that's what we need approve or not
[55:28] » not to change. Gotcha.
[55:32] >> Back up. No one question. So your last
[55:35] statement was I I would that you want to
[55:40] amend your application to include the
[55:42] tolerance.
[55:43] >> Yes.
[55:44] >> Okay.
[55:46] >> Thanks.
[55:46] >> So we will consider that as part of the
[55:49] application.
[55:50] >> If you want to deny it, then maybe we
[55:51] talk about removing it. [laughter]
[55:56] » Let's take that.
[56:01] » Well, [laughter]
[56:04] Just keep standing like I'm staring at.
[56:07] [clears throat]
[56:07] >> No, we're helping you get your stand
[56:09] goal here.
[56:12] >> Um,
[56:16] so I I think I'm comfortable approving
[56:19] it as amended
[56:22] and making a suggestion.
[56:25] >> I'm comfortable with that.
[56:27] >> Okay.
[56:29] Is there a motion?
[56:33] Let me give this one a try. Okay. The planning commission recommends the
[56:38] town council approve the ordinance amend
[56:41] amendment proposed by Mr. Noel Benson
[56:44] which would re revise section 1018 of
[56:47] the town code by introducing a tiered
[56:49] landscaping requirement in the village
[56:52] commercial zone. This is based on the
[56:54] following findings.
[56:56] Um the land use um it match it matches
[57:01] the land use or it supports the land use
[57:05] um and town appearance goals. Um
[57:07] especially sub goal three where the
[57:10] planning commission will update land use
[57:12] ordinance to make sure it stay it stays
[57:14] true to the intention of promoting mixed
[57:17] use Zion n or mixed use along Zion Park
[57:21] Boulevard while allowing development
[57:24] that meets the need the community needs
[57:26] and desires. Uh it also meets the
[57:29] economic goal uh sub goal A to enhance
[57:33] and support small and independent
[57:35] businesses that are unique to Springdale
[57:38] and help promote the small town and
[57:40] village character.
[57:42] Um in in making this approval, we re we
[57:46] make a couple recommendations to the
[57:49] town council. Well, actually just one
[57:52] that they review the the quarter acre um
[57:58] minimum of 40% and determine if that
[58:01] should be somewhat different or not.
[58:07] » Is there a second?
[58:10] >> Second.
[58:12] >> All in favor?
[58:15] >> Terry I.
[58:16] >> Jennifer I.
[58:17] >> All I
[58:18] >> motion passes.
[58:24] Appreciate the latitude on the on the
[58:25] communication, guys. Thank you.
[58:30] » The second action item is a public
[58:33] hearing regarding zone change from the
[58:35] foothill residential zone to the
[58:38] foothill residential zone with the
[58:39] workforce housing
[58:42] overlay zone at 120 Kosava Drive, lot S,
[58:46] K A1.
[58:49] applicant is Kathy Lefave. The staff
[58:52] contact is Nyall Connelly and Nile will
[58:54] be presenting.
[58:56] >> Thank you.
[58:58] So, uh this is another public hearing as
[59:00] you said. So, uh Miss Kathy Lefave has
[59:03] applied for the workforce housing
[59:05] overlay zone to be applied to her
[59:07] property at 120 Kosava Drive. Uh there's
[59:11] currently one single family home on her
[59:14] property. uh her proposal would be to
[59:17] add one additional single family home to
[59:19] the property and to to subdivide it. Uh
[59:23] this would be the new unit would be an
[59:26] ownership unit rather than a rental. Um
[59:31] if uh the zone changes approved, both
[59:33] the new home and the existing home would
[59:35] be deed restricted. Uh so that they must
[59:38] be occupied by qualified households and
[59:40] that's defined in um in the code in the
[59:44] workforce housing overlay chapter.
[59:47] That essentially means that they um they
[59:50] must be employed in either Springdale or
[59:52] Zion National Park and work a minimum of
[59:55] 30 hours per week over um over a year.
[1:00:00] Um so there's several standards which
[1:00:03] the workforce overlay uh zone
[1:00:06] application must meet. And so the staff
[1:00:08] report includes a table um for which
[1:00:13] lists these requirements and how the
[1:00:15] applicant intends to apply with each of
[1:00:17] those. Um and similar to uh to the
[1:00:22] public hearing we just had, um zone
[1:00:25] changes may be approved if they um if
[1:00:29] they promote the objectives and purposes
[1:00:34] of the general plan or if they are
[1:00:37] correcting manifest errors or to
[1:00:39] accommodate substantial changes in
[1:00:41] conditions that were not contemplated in
[1:00:44] the general plan. Um, so I'd be happy to
[1:00:46] answer any questions that you have.
[1:00:51] >> And before we move on to planning
[1:00:53] commission questions, can we hear the
[1:00:56] applicant presentation?
[1:01:02] » Kathy Lefave. Um, my husband is also one
[1:01:05] of the applicants as well, Dave Keruski.
[1:01:07] But I'm the one I think that you guys
[1:01:09] put forward. Um, I don't I'm not sure
[1:01:12] what to present to you guys and that I
[1:01:14] put everything in the application. Um,
[1:01:18] but that to say you I served 10 years on
[1:01:20] town council. Part of that was making
[1:01:22] sure Red Hawk happened and I think that
[1:01:25] that's a good step in the right
[1:01:26] direction for the town of Springdale.
[1:01:28] Our general plan states
[1:01:31] that it is a desire of this community
[1:01:33] and that's based on community feedback
[1:01:36] that we have a v variety of population.
[1:01:39] Right now we are fast approaching kind
[1:01:42] of more of a aged retired population and
[1:01:44] that it's not affordable to live in the
[1:01:47] town of Springdale.
[1:01:49] There's no low-income housing happening
[1:01:52] in Springdale. Red Hawk's not low-income
[1:01:54] housing. It's attainable housing. It's
[1:01:56] based on your wage. You know, even a
[1:01:58] waitress with a partner who might work
[1:02:01] at Zion National Park
[1:02:04] can't afford to live in the town of
[1:02:05] Springdale unless there is attainable
[1:02:07] housing.
[1:02:09] I wrote a letter in support of the
[1:02:10] workforce housing overlay zone when it
[1:02:12] was being presented. Part of my letter
[1:02:15] stated that I thought it was a little
[1:02:16] too dense. I thought that the number of
[1:02:20] units that could be on a oneacre parcel
[1:02:23] might be too much. Um, but I thought it
[1:02:26] was a great product to push forward. In
[1:02:30] our case,
[1:02:32] it's like I'm putting my money where my
[1:02:34] mouth is. I am an advocate for workforce
[1:02:36] housing in this community and so far
[1:02:38] only businesses have tried to provide
[1:02:41] housing for employees who live in
[1:02:43] Springdale. So, we're saying that we
[1:02:47] would subdiv subdivide our property and
[1:02:51] allow somebody who lives and work or
[1:02:54] doesn't live works in the community to
[1:02:59] obtain that parcel and build a home.
[1:03:02] We're willing to deed restrict our home.
[1:03:05] That means that our home can only ever
[1:03:07] be sold to somebody who works as defined
[1:03:10] in the town full-time or a park
[1:03:12] employee. We're okay with that. We sat
[1:03:15] down as a family and we talked about it.
[1:03:17] You know, my children of Dave and I's
[1:03:20] children will eventually inherit our
[1:03:21] property. It makes it not as valuable.
[1:03:24] We're like, we're all okay with that.
[1:03:26] our direct neighbor, Teresa Silcox, who
[1:03:29] has her son, his girlfriend, and their
[1:03:31] son living in the property,
[1:03:34] are in favor of it and have written a
[1:03:36] letter of recommendation.
[1:03:38] Um, there have been a few other people
[1:03:39] who have written letters of
[1:03:41] recommendation. Jonathan Zambella had
[1:03:44] wrote to you and had some concerns. You
[1:03:46] know, how does this potentially create a
[1:03:49] precedent? I think it's a good precedent
[1:03:52] to set. It's allowed in Foothill
[1:03:55] residential zone,
[1:03:57] which could be far more dense than what
[1:03:59] we're proposing. I'd like to set a
[1:04:01] precedent that in Foothill residential,
[1:04:03] maybe it shouldn't be eight per acre.
[1:04:06] Maybe it just should be one per acre,
[1:04:09] one per however we've divided it. We
[1:04:12] wouldn't want to impact our neighbors
[1:04:14] any more than just divided in two
[1:04:16] parcels.
[1:04:17] Um,
[1:04:20] I think that it's going to be like I'm
[1:04:22] going to just take the microphone down
[1:04:24] because I know you guys I know there are
[1:04:26] going to be a lot of questions and I got
[1:04:28] a lot of comments and I just kind of
[1:04:30] came and spoke from my heart. Um, you
[1:04:33] know, part of that is I've been a
[1:04:34] supporter of workforce housing. Another
[1:04:36] thing is that I think that a
[1:04:39] consideration because this is a
[1:04:40] legislative matter. I could meet all the
[1:04:43] requirements that you request and
[1:04:44] because I didn't wear the right outfit
[1:04:46] tonight, you could just throw it out. I
[1:04:48] mean, it's not I it's for you guys to
[1:04:51] decide, is it appropriate in this
[1:04:53] situation? And in every situation, I
[1:04:55] think you have to look at it
[1:04:56] differently. For our situation where I
[1:04:59] stand, when we stand in our backyard, we
[1:05:01] can look across the river and we can see
[1:05:03] two homes. And those homes both are, you
[1:05:06] know, larger homes than ours. They both
[1:05:08] have guest houses. They both have
[1:05:09] outbuildings. We have a small footprint
[1:05:12] on our two acres. We have a small single
[1:05:14] family resident. We don't have a guest
[1:05:16] house. We don't have outuildings.
[1:05:19] So, I don't think it's any more of an
[1:05:21] impact
[1:05:23] visually to neighbors
[1:05:25] traffic-wise than putting a guest house,
[1:05:28] but it allows somebody who
[1:05:32] works in our community to have an
[1:05:34] opportunity to live here. Jonathan
[1:05:36] Zambella's
[1:05:37] um comments, I think two might have
[1:05:39] said, you know, it's a a way to profit.
[1:05:42] We're not going to profit from this.
[1:05:44] We're willing to reduce the value of our
[1:05:45] home. Um and
[1:05:49] you know, I think that it's a positive
[1:05:51] thing. Um
[1:05:54] I'm nervous. I'm not usually nervous. I
[1:05:56] think I'm nervous because there's only
[1:05:58] three and you all have [laughter] to
[1:05:59] vote in favor of it. So, it makes it a
[1:06:01] little more nerve-wracking. Um, so I
[1:06:04] don't I guess I don't know. Is there
[1:06:05] anything else?
[1:06:09] » So I'll sit down and you guys can ask
[1:06:10] questions.
[1:06:12] >> Take the mic. No, I'm just seasoning.
[1:06:13] [laughter]
[1:06:18] » Um, are there questions from the
[1:06:20] planning commission to either the staff
[1:06:22] or the applicants?
[1:06:24] >> I have a question for the staff. Um, so,
[1:06:29] uh, the the staff notes indicate that,
[1:06:32] uh, that a second home would come
[1:06:34] through in a normal DDR
[1:06:37] at some point when that is applied for.
[1:06:40] Um, I also ask about the subdivision.
[1:06:43] Um, because there are some requirements
[1:06:47] relative to the subdivision uh, in this
[1:06:50] ordinance. Um, is that also would that
[1:06:53] also come through as a separate item?
[1:06:58] Yeah. So the subdivision would come
[1:07:00] forward um subsequent to an approval and
[1:07:04] that would go through the subdivision
[1:07:06] process which does come to the town c or
[1:07:08] to the planning commission not the town
[1:07:10] council
[1:07:11] >> right we would go through the planning
[1:07:13] we would again recommend to the town
[1:07:14] council. So no or actually no the the
[1:07:16] town council is not involved
[1:07:18] subdivisions. It's just the planning
[1:07:20] >> because so at this point I can defer any
[1:07:24] concerns I have about the requirements
[1:07:28] that the ordinance states about what
[1:07:30] needs to be in the subdivision
[1:07:32] documentation until that presentation
[1:07:34] comes.
[1:07:36] >> Yes. I think tonight your decision is
[1:07:39] based on uh is this an appropriate
[1:07:42] location? um is you know the number of
[1:07:45] units appropriate and that's that's kind
[1:07:48] of what you're looking at.
[1:07:52] » Yes.
[1:07:56] » I'm sorry I didn't think to say that in
[1:07:58] the proposal we gave you kind of a
[1:08:00] concept. We haven't hired anybody to
[1:08:02] design a home. It it wouldn't look like
[1:08:05] a rectangle box. It would fit within all
[1:08:08] the 30% grades and requirements and
[1:08:10] everything. and we'd bring that proposal
[1:08:12] back for approval in front of the
[1:08:14] planning commission.
[1:08:16] Okay.
[1:08:16] >> So, actually, I want you to stay for a
[1:08:18] second. So, I have a question on that.
[1:08:20] >> Um, so yeah, the the the box that's
[1:08:23] drawn
[1:08:24] >> that's No, that's just a concept of
[1:08:26] >> it's a concept. It's a concept of where
[1:08:28] it's going to be,
[1:08:28] >> just where it would sit.
[1:08:30] >> It's also quite small. It's about under
[1:08:34] a thousand square feet, which is not
[1:08:36] part of your plan, I take it that.
[1:08:38] >> No. So you you would might expect it to
[1:08:40] be some size different than
[1:08:43] >> 1400 or 1500 square feet small. It needs
[1:08:45] to be a small footprint. You know, our
[1:08:48] home is a small footprint. You know,
[1:08:49] maybe it's 2,000 square feet, but it's
[1:08:51] not going to be a large home. It's not
[1:08:52] going to be a 5,000 foot guest house
[1:08:54] type thing, but that has to come back
[1:08:56] before you guys as well. And we didn't
[1:08:59] pay to design the home and bring that
[1:09:01] forward because we weren't sure if
[1:09:04] >> Right.
[1:09:07] Well, it impacts sort of our thinking
[1:09:09] here in that one of the requirements is
[1:09:10] that the home blend in with the other
[1:09:13] homes in the neighborhood.
[1:09:14] >> It will be for it will be consistent
[1:09:16] with the size of the homes in the
[1:09:18] neighborhood. It will be consists 3200
[1:09:22] square feet including the garage and the
[1:09:24] pool as Mark measured it. He measured
[1:09:26] the swimming pool that which is just
[1:09:28] again part of landscaping. Our home is a
[1:09:30] small footprint. Teresa Silox's home is
[1:09:33] a small footprint. We have no intention
[1:09:37] of having that home mimic what got put
[1:09:40] up on top of the hill.
[1:09:42] I wouldn't think the town would want
[1:09:43] that.
[1:09:45] >> 5,000 square foot and it has a separate
[1:09:48] garage that's huge. I mean, it's
[1:09:50] enormous and it's a second home. That I
[1:09:53] would not want to be held to that
[1:09:55] standard. I think that that would be
[1:09:57] >> I guess my question was more along the
[1:09:59] sense of is its smallness going to stand
[1:10:03] out in amongst these homes that are
[1:10:05] 3,000 square feet.
[1:10:06] >> Well, we have a we haven't designed the
[1:10:08] size of it. The exterior will match the
[1:10:11] exteriors of the existing homes, the use
[1:10:13] of rusted metal and stone and glass. Um
[1:10:17] and um Ellen McKenna would be the choice
[1:10:20] to design it. She's got a beautiful
[1:10:22] sense of designing. Mark Fenamp,
[1:10:26] you know, we've had him look at the
[1:10:27] property. Yeah, it'll be consistent with
[1:10:30] what's going on in the neighborhood. Not
[1:10:32] to devalue anybody else's property.
[1:10:35] >> Any other questions before I sit?
[1:10:37] >> I
[1:10:38] >> for the planning I mean for the staff
[1:10:40] just confirming that the listed
[1:10:44] development requirements can be added to
[1:10:47] during the development process. Is that
[1:10:49] correct to include like the town color
[1:10:52] palette and all of those kinds of
[1:10:54] things?
[1:10:55] >> Yeah. And so that that probably doesn't
[1:10:58] need to be added as a condition because
[1:11:00] any any design development review
[1:11:03] application will automatically be
[1:11:06] subject to all of those standards.
[1:11:07] >> Okay. I just wanted to confirm that.
[1:11:09] Thank you.
[1:11:11] Can I
[1:11:13] >> So, so your the specific concern about
[1:11:15] the color palette, that was something
[1:11:16] that was brought up in an email from
[1:11:18] another commissioner.
[1:11:19] >> Yes.
[1:11:19] >> Um, so Nile is correct that during the
[1:11:23] design development review process,
[1:11:24] typical things like lighting and height
[1:11:26] and size and setbacks will come up. Um,
[1:11:28] the color palette and design standards
[1:11:31] are not applicable to homes or or
[1:11:33] structures which are less than 3,000
[1:11:35] square feet, which it sounds like would
[1:11:39] include this. So if that is something
[1:11:41] that you want to make sure is included,
[1:11:44] you can because this is a legislative
[1:11:46] process through the zone change, you can
[1:11:48] say we want to make sure that
[1:12:09] Does the planning commission have any
[1:12:11] other questions for the applicant or the
[1:12:13] staff?
[1:12:18] Are there any questions from the public?
[1:12:21] for the applicant or the staff.
[1:12:27] Okay. Was there any questions? No. Okay.
[1:12:30] Is there a motion to open public
[1:12:32] hearing?
[1:12:34] >> Make a motion to open public hearing.
[1:12:38] >> Do we have a second?
[1:12:40] >> Second.
[1:12:41] >> Motion by Terry, second by Paul. All in
[1:12:43] favor?
[1:12:44] >> Terry. I.
[1:12:45] >> Jennifer I.
[1:12:46] >> Paul. I.
[1:12:47] >> Motion passes.
[1:12:50] Moving into public comment period. We
[1:12:52] got quite a few letters and we really
[1:12:55] appreciate the input and the
[1:12:56] perspectives
[1:12:58] and we are open to public comment at
[1:13:02] this time. Is anybody planning on
[1:13:05] speaking?
[1:13:08] » Okay.
[1:13:09] >> Benson. Um I just want to say the
[1:13:10] workforce housing overlay zone uh
[1:13:12] ordinance I think is a real scary
[1:13:14] ordinance with density and setbacks and
[1:13:16] all those things. this application
[1:13:19] doesn't trigger any of those issues that
[1:13:20] I see and for me I fully support uh the
[1:13:24] application. Thanks.
[1:13:26] >> Thank you.
[1:13:32] » Any other comments from the public?
[1:13:38] Is there a motion to close public
[1:13:40] hearing?
[1:13:43] >> Make a motion to close public hearing.
[1:13:44] >> Second.
[1:13:45] >> Motion by Terry, second by Paul. All in
[1:13:48] favor?
[1:13:48] >> Terry I.
[1:13:49] >> Jennifer I.
[1:13:50] >> All I.
[1:13:51] >> Motion passes.
[1:13:54] Is there a response from the applicant?
[1:14:03] » Kathy Lefave. Thank you. Um, you know,
[1:14:06] there were several people and actually
[1:14:08] there's a few letters that I know got
[1:14:10] mailed that didn't hit your desk and I
[1:14:12] appreciate people in the community
[1:14:15] speaking out and saying this is
[1:14:17] something we can support. Just think
[1:14:19] it's really important as a community
[1:14:21] when we can when we have the opportunity
[1:14:24] to allow somebody who works in our
[1:14:26] community to be part of the fabric of
[1:14:28] our community. I'm a firm believer that
[1:14:31] those people who serve us our meals when
[1:14:34] we go to the restaurant are a viable
[1:14:36] part of our community. They make a
[1:14:38] difference. They're the future. They're
[1:14:40] the people who might have children
[1:14:42] running up and down the street. So, I
[1:14:44] hope that you guys will can support this
[1:14:46] application. I think it's a positive
[1:14:48] thing. Thank you.
[1:14:52] >> Okay. Moving into planning commission
[1:14:54] deliberation.
[1:14:59] Yes.
[1:15:00] >> Okay. Lost track here. Sorry.
[1:15:04] >> You did. Okay. That's right.
[1:15:09] » I guess I'll start. Um
[1:15:12] I understand some of the concerns that
[1:15:14] were brought to the attention um
[1:15:16] regarding
[1:15:18] this overlay zone. Um, however, this
[1:15:22] seems like an ideal situation that fits
[1:15:25] right into what is intended and meets
[1:15:28] the requirements.
[1:15:30] And I too am
[1:15:33] a huge proponent of attainable housing
[1:15:36] and definitely support it when it makes
[1:15:39] sense.
[1:15:41] And I believe that with all of the
[1:15:44] requirements that are in place,
[1:15:47] um, and what we've heard today, the
[1:15:51] intentions
[1:15:53] and like I said, meeting all the
[1:15:55] requirements,
[1:15:57] I I support it.
[1:16:02] » Overall, I I agree. I I I think um this
[1:16:05] is the kind of um the kind of proposal
[1:16:09] we would want for a workforce housing
[1:16:11] overlay zone. Um [snorts]
[1:16:13] and it's I'm would be very concerned
[1:16:17] about the high density that's allowed in
[1:16:20] a foothill residential zone, but this is
[1:16:22] a density that I think makes sense. Um,
[1:16:25] I viewed the property and it looks like
[1:16:28] a a house could be placed there um
[1:16:32] without interference with really any of
[1:16:34] the neighboring houses. Um,
[1:16:38] >> yeah, go ahead.
[1:16:40] >> No, I I was just going to say I agree
[1:16:41] and I think you know the the public
[1:16:43] feedback that we've received has been
[1:16:46] predominantly in favor of this as well.
[1:16:48] So if if we got nothing else, I can make
[1:16:51] a motion if you want.
[1:16:53] I'm happy to make a motion if
[1:16:55] [clears throat] you guys are ready.
[1:16:55] Let's take turns.
[1:16:56] >> Yeah.
[1:16:57] And then include
[1:16:58] >> Do you have something else?
[1:17:00] >> Yeah. That's
[1:17:01] >> perfect.
[1:17:04] >> So, if we're ready for a motion,
[1:17:06] >> so I move that the planning commission
[1:17:08] recommends the town council approve the
[1:17:10] zone map amendment application which
[1:17:12] would apply to workforce which would
[1:17:14] apply the workforce housing overlay zone
[1:17:16] to the property at 120 Kosava Drive.
[1:17:19] This recommendation is based on the
[1:17:21] following findings. The change supports
[1:17:24] chapter 3 housing of the town's general
[1:17:26] plan under subgoal A, maintain
[1:17:28] Springdale's character as a rural
[1:17:30] residential community and sub goal B,
[1:17:33] promote community character by providing
[1:17:35] opportunities for more key contributors
[1:17:37] to to the community to live full-time in
[1:17:39] the community. It supports Springdale
[1:17:41] Town Code Chapter 13, article G,
[1:17:43] workforce housing overlay zone, an
[1:17:46] ordinance adopted to help facilitate the
[1:17:48] available availability of attainable
[1:17:50] housing options for employees working in
[1:17:52] Springdale and Zion National Park. In
[1:17:55] adopting the WHZ, the town found that
[1:17:58] having employees of local businesses
[1:18:00] live in the community strengthens the
[1:18:01] community and adds to the town's village
[1:18:03] character. This zone change will
[1:18:06] resemble two lots and and no more. Each
[1:18:09] with a two-bedroom home and each housing
[1:18:12] two adults and each requiring qualified
[1:18:14] occupancy of actively employed adults in
[1:18:16] the town supporting sections 3, four,
[1:18:19] and five and are compliant with the town
[1:18:22] color palette. Both lots will be deed
[1:18:26] restricted in accordance with the
[1:18:27] workforce housing overlay zone. A
[1:18:29] restrictive covenant will also be filed
[1:18:31] with the Washington County Recorders
[1:18:33] Office that stipulates the units must be
[1:18:35] sold or rented to qualified households.
[1:18:38] And furthermore, in accordance with
[1:18:40] 1013G12A,
[1:18:42] a development agreement or 10 to 1312, a
[1:18:45] development agreement will be entered
[1:18:46] into with the town and recorded the
[1:18:48] county of Washington recorder office
[1:18:50] stipulating the same.
[1:18:52] >> Is there a revision to the motion?
[1:19:02] Yes. Is that not your intent?
[1:19:09] » Okay.
[1:19:15] » I'm I'm willing to modify my
[1:19:17] >> Okay.
[1:19:17] >> motion to make them two or threebedroom.
[1:19:21] >> That good?
[1:19:22] >> I Okay. I
[1:19:26] I'm just wondering if it's even
[1:19:27] necessary to put that
[1:19:31] >> strike
[1:19:31] >> to strike it.
[1:19:34] >> Yeah. And then that cannot be
[1:19:35] >> because we will review that in the PD.
[1:19:38] >> Okay, that's fine.
[1:19:39] >> Okay.
[1:19:41] So, so I'll strike the with a
[1:19:44] two-bedroom home
[1:19:46] and each housing two adults
[1:19:50] >> but requiring qualified documents to
[1:19:51] active employed adults will remain.
[1:19:55] >> Okay. Is everybody clear on the motion?
[1:19:58] Is there a second?
[1:19:59] >> I will second the motion.
[1:20:01] >> All in favor?
[1:20:03] >> Have discussion but I don't have any
[1:20:04] discussion but
[1:20:06] >> Okay. Actually, I was going to but you included the development agreement
[1:20:10] and that would have been my comment. So,
[1:20:16] » okay.
[1:20:16] >> Uh, so Terry I
[1:20:18] >> Jennifer I
[1:20:19] >> all I
[1:20:20] >> um motion passes.
[1:20:30] » Okay. Action item number three is a
[1:20:33] public hearing ordinance 202609
[1:20:39] amending chapter 10-21-8
[1:20:42] of the town code relating to maintenance
[1:20:44] and repair of non-complying buildings
[1:20:46] and inserting a new section of code
[1:20:48] dealing with involuntary removal of a
[1:20:51] non-complying building.
[1:20:53] Staff contact is Nile Connelly and Nile
[1:20:56] will be presenting.
[1:20:59] >> Thank you. Yes. So on to the third
[1:21:01] public hearing of the evening. Uh this
[1:21:03] relates to non-complying buildings.
[1:21:06] Um so look if we look back to last fall
[1:21:12] when this started just to recap on this
[1:21:16] um
[1:21:18] this topic arose uh after a question for
[1:21:22] an or this question arose following a
[1:21:26] request to the town council to interpret
[1:21:29] uh a section of the code in the
[1:21:32] non-complying in the non-complying
[1:21:34] chapter of of the code. Um, and when the
[1:21:38] town council made that interpretation,
[1:21:40] at the same time, they instructed the
[1:21:41] planning commission to look at this
[1:21:44] issue um, and
[1:21:46] look at the definition of ordinary
[1:21:48] maintenance and repair and and and try
[1:21:50] and kind of make this a little bit more
[1:21:52] clear.
[1:21:54] So, the commission has worked on
[1:21:56] crafting ordinance language to uh to
[1:21:58] address this over the last number of
[1:22:00] months. Um the proposed language uh
[1:22:05] clarifies or adds clarification to the
[1:22:09] definition of ordinary maintenance and
[1:22:11] repair. Uh the language also adds a new
[1:22:14] section which addresses circumstances
[1:22:17] that we've termed um involuntary
[1:22:22] removal. So that's addressing situations
[1:22:25] that maybe don't fall into the
[1:22:26] catastrophe realm, but maybe exceed
[1:22:30] ordinary maintenance and repairs. Um,
[1:22:35] so this language, you're familiar with
[1:22:37] it because it was brought to you last
[1:22:38] month, but there's a few additions and
[1:22:41] revisions have been made to it based on
[1:22:43] the feedback at the last meeting. Um and
[1:22:47] so for this evening, it's um over to you
[1:22:50] to make a recommendation to the town
[1:22:53] council on whether this should be
[1:22:55] adopted or um or not.
[1:23:01] >> Okay.
[1:23:04] » Um so that is the applicant
[1:23:07] presentation as well. Does the planning
[1:23:10] commission have any questions?
[1:23:16] I don't Are there any questions?
[1:23:18] No. Okay. Any um questions from the
[1:23:21] public?
[1:23:25] » Is there a motion to open public
[1:23:28] hearing?
[1:23:28] >> I move that we open public hearing.
[1:23:31] Second.
[1:23:32] >> Motion by Paul, second by Terry. All in
[1:23:34] favor?
[1:23:35] >> Terry? I.
[1:23:36] >> Jennifer I.
[1:23:37] >> All I.
[1:23:38] >> Motion passes.
[1:23:41] Public comment period. We did receive a
[1:23:44] letter and thank you for the input from
[1:23:46] the public
[1:23:50] and my comments. Um Oh, any are there
[1:23:54] any other public comments?
[1:23:58] >> I move we close the public hearing.
[1:24:00] Second
[1:24:01] >> motion by Paul, second by Terry. All in
[1:24:04] favor?
[1:24:05] >> Terry I.
[1:24:06] >> Jennifer I.
[1:24:07] >> Paul I.
[1:24:08] >> Motion passes.
[1:24:12] Is there any response
[1:24:14] from the applicants?
[1:24:16] Okay, now moving into planning
[1:24:18] commission deliberation.
[1:24:22] » So, we spent some time working on this
[1:24:24] one. I think we're we've got what we're
[1:24:26] looking for and I'm pretty happy with
[1:24:28] where we're at.
[1:24:29] >> I agree too. We discussed this
[1:24:33] very thoroughly and I feel like the
[1:24:36] added language has helped clarified
[1:24:38] ordinary maintenance repair and also
[1:24:42] addresses catastrophic events within
[1:24:45] that.
[1:24:47] So I'm I feel really good with after all
[1:24:50] of our long discussions where we are at.
[1:24:58] » Is there a motion?
[1:25:01] >> Me take this one. Go for it. The last
[1:25:03] one. Okay. I'll make motion that the uh
[1:25:07] planning commission recommends the
[1:25:09] approval of the proposed changes to
[1:25:12] chapter 10218
[1:25:15] and the insertion of a new paragraph
[1:25:17] 10-21-9
[1:25:19] into the town code as discussed at the
[1:25:22] planning commission meeting on April 15,
[1:25:25] 2026.
[1:25:26] This motion is based on the following
[1:25:28] findings. This ordinance revision
[1:25:30] clarifies ambiguities in the
[1:25:32] requirements related to maintenance,
[1:25:34] repair, alteration, and improvements of
[1:25:37] non-complying buildings and structures.
[1:25:41] This mainten this ordinance revision
[1:25:43] also makes allowances for circumstances
[1:25:45] where a non-compliant building or
[1:25:48] structure has declined over time rather
[1:25:51] than by a catastrophic event and
[1:25:53] requires extensive improvement beyond
[1:25:56] the definition of ordinary maintenance
[1:25:58] and repair. It defines the requirements
[1:26:00] and conditions that must be met to allow
[1:26:03] rebuilding any non-compliant aspects of
[1:26:06] the previous structure.
[1:26:12] Is there a second?
[1:26:13] >> Second.
[1:26:15] >> Is there any discussion?
[1:26:19] » Motion by Terry. Second by Paul. All in
[1:26:22] favor?
[1:26:23] >> Terry? I
[1:26:23] >> Jennifer I.
[1:26:24] >> All I.
[1:26:26] >> Motion passes.
[1:26:29] » You can.
[1:26:31] >> I'm sorry. I meant you too.
[1:26:34] I'll ask you next time.
[1:26:36] Moving on to item four, public hearing
[1:26:39] regarding ordinance 2026-10
[1:26:43] amending chapter 10-21 of the town code
[1:26:47] relating to renovation and redevelopment
[1:26:49] of non-complying buildings in the
[1:26:51] commercial zones. Staff contact is Nyall
[1:26:53] Connelly and Nyall will be presenting.
[1:26:57] >> Thank you. So another public hearing and
[1:27:00] uh this also relates to non-complying
[1:27:02] buildings but specifically this is
[1:27:05] looking at non-complying buildings in
[1:27:07] the central commercial and village
[1:27:09] commercial zones.
[1:27:12] Um the intention of these amendments is
[1:27:15] to enable the downtown to retain its
[1:27:18] vitality and its special character um
[1:27:23] while recognizing that part of its
[1:27:25] special character includes a lot of
[1:27:28] non-conforming buildings. um
[1:27:32] at the same time um not wanting to
[1:27:36] discard development standards that have
[1:27:38] been thoughtfully crafted over many
[1:27:40] years. And so that that was kind of the
[1:27:43] intention of these revisions.
[1:27:46] Uh the proposed language would allow
[1:27:49] reconstruction of buildings within those
[1:27:52] zones which are non-compliant with
[1:27:54] minimum setbacks and maximum building
[1:27:56] sizes so long as the properties are
[1:27:59] brought into compliance with all other
[1:28:03] uh town ordinances that apply.
[1:28:07] Uh the language also addresses uh
[1:28:10] nonconforming uses um which may be
[1:28:14] paused during construction.
[1:28:17] Um
[1:28:19] so the as before the commission has has
[1:28:22] seen this language before um but some
[1:28:25] additions and revisions have been made
[1:28:28] um following your direction at the last
[1:28:30] meeting. Um so I'd be happy to answer
[1:28:33] any questions that you have.
[1:28:37] Does the planning commission have any
[1:28:39] questions for Nile?
[1:28:44] » I I I guess I have a question that's
[1:28:45] kind of for all of us.
[1:28:47] >> At one point we had discussed that they
[1:28:50] would be allowed to do this once. Is
[1:28:53] that still in
[1:28:54] >> it says that in there? Okay. I just
[1:28:56] missed that. Okay.
[1:28:57] >> Point G.
[1:28:58] >> Yeah.
[1:28:59] >> They get one pass at this. Yeah. Okay.
[1:29:04] » So given there are no
[1:29:07] Public commentary ends here.
[1:29:09] >> There are no
[1:29:11] >> I think we still have a public hearing.
[1:29:13] >> We still need to do a public hearing.
[1:29:15] >> Yeah. Motion to open public hearing.
[1:29:17] >> Make a motion to open public hearing.
[1:29:18] >> I already did that.
[1:29:19] >> Oh, you did. I will I will second the
[1:29:21] motion. Sorry.
[1:29:22] >> Motion by Paul, second by Terry. All in
[1:29:24] favor?
[1:29:25] >> Terry? I.
[1:29:26] >> Jennifer I.
[1:29:27] >> Paul. I
[1:29:29] >> um all in motion passes.
[1:29:32] >> Make a motion to close the public
[1:29:34] hearing.
[1:29:35] Second given that there's nobody here.
[1:29:38] >> Motion by Terry, second by Paul. All in
[1:29:40] favor?
[1:29:41] >> Terry I.
[1:29:42] >> Jennifer I.
[1:29:43] >> Paul I.
[1:29:44] >> Motion passes
[1:29:47] and we can move into planning commission
[1:29:49] deliberation.
[1:29:51] >> I think this has been well deliberated
[1:29:53] and well thought out and carefully
[1:29:55] crafted and it looks pretty good.
[1:29:57] >> We did a pretty good job. Yeah,
[1:29:59] >> I agree. We did spend a lot of time
[1:30:02] again thoroughly going over every point
[1:30:07] and I think we
[1:30:10] the changes effectively detail the
[1:30:12] conditions of non-compliant buildings
[1:30:15] and the requirements for compliance with
[1:30:18] all other applicable land use
[1:30:20] regulations. And we I think we did a
[1:30:23] really good job in trying to balance
[1:30:26] um
[1:30:28] the the non-compliance part with um
[1:30:31] keeping in mind the other current um
[1:30:36] regulations that would need to be
[1:30:39] required
[1:30:41] which is reflected in all of the
[1:30:43] language. So I feel really good and
[1:30:45] comfortable with where it's at.
[1:30:50] It's my turn.
[1:30:51] >> Your turn.
[1:30:52] >> I move that the planning commission
[1:30:54] recommend approval of the proposed
[1:30:57] changes to 10 chapter 1021 by insertion
[1:31:00] of new paragraph chapter 102110
[1:31:02] into the town code as discussed at the
[1:31:05] commission meeting on April 15, 2026.
[1:31:08] This motion is based on the following
[1:31:10] findings. Uh it supports the general
[1:31:14] plan chapter 1 land use and town
[1:31:16] appearance. [snorts] Sub goal A,
[1:31:18] maintain Springdale's identity as a
[1:31:20] unique village with a spectacular scenic
[1:31:23] setting and preserve the town's
[1:31:25] distinctive and small community feel and
[1:31:27] apparent atmosphere. And sub goal B to
[1:31:30] ensure new development is compatible
[1:31:32] with the town setting at the entrance
[1:31:34] design national park consistent with the
[1:31:36] town's architectural heritage and
[1:31:38] complements the existing development in
[1:31:40] the area.
[1:31:44] That's it. I'll second.
[1:31:48] » Okay. Motion by Paul, second by Terry.
[1:31:51] All in favor?
[1:31:52] >> Terry? I.
[1:31:53] >> Jennifer I.
[1:31:54] >> All I.
[1:31:55] >> Motion passes.
[1:32:02] » Move we adjourn.
[1:32:04] >> There.
[1:32:05] >> Second
[1:32:06] >> motion by Paul, second by Terry. All in
[1:32:09] favor?
[1:32:10] >> Terry. I.
[1:32:11] >> Jennifer I.
[1:32:12] >> All I. Meeting is adjourned.