[0:00] It's 5 o'clock

[0:03] and we are at the Canyon Community

[0:06] Center for the May 6 meeting of the

[0:08] Springdale Planning Commission. From the

[0:11] town we have Nile Connelly,

[0:13] Tom Dancy, Kendall Sagers, and April

[0:17] Radits. On the dis we have Matt Frink,

[0:21] Zion National Park representative, Rich

[0:23] Swanson, Terry Krushki, myself, Jennifer

[0:27] McCulla, Paul Zimmerman, Kosh Bati, and

[0:31] Melissa Labour,

[0:33] and Melissa will be voting in tonight's

[0:36] proceedings.

[0:38] Is there a motion to approve tonight's

[0:40] agenda?

[0:45] » Second.

[0:47] Motion by Melissa, second by Terry. All

[0:50] in favor?

[0:53] » Rich I.

[0:54] >> Terry I.

[0:55] >> Jennifer I.

[0:57] >> Paul I.

[0:58] >> Hash I.

[0:59] >> Melissa I.

[1:00] >> Motion passes.

[1:02] Does the town have any general

[1:03] announcements?

[1:06] >> We do. Uh we have a we have several

[1:08] announcements. I will start and then I

[1:10] think there are some other folks that

[1:11] want to make some announcements. Uh my

[1:13] announcement is an exciting one. Um and

[1:17] that is that after a long recruitment

[1:19] process and um with many qualified

[1:23] applicants to select from, we have

[1:25] filled the vacant town clerk position.

[1:29] And I'm happy to report that Kendall

[1:31] Sagers has u has has been selected um to

[1:36] be the new town clerk. So

[1:38] congratulations to Kendall.

[1:40] >> Congratulations.

[1:43] Um, so, uh, Kendall and April are going

[1:46] to make a fantastic team in the clerk's

[1:48] department. Um, what that does mean,

[1:51] however, is that the community

[1:53] development department has pretty much

[1:55] been depleted.

[1:57] Um, and, uh, so, so Nile is kind of a

[2:01] um,

[2:02] >> lone ranger,

[2:02] >> a lone ranger. Um, so, so that's that's

[2:06] my exciting news. And I think Nile has

[2:09] some follow-up news.

[2:12] based on that.

[2:14] >> Sure. So, just just following on from

[2:17] that, just to give you an update on some

[2:19] of the projects that have been um the

[2:21] planning commission have been working

[2:23] on. Um so, in particular, the uh Virgin

[2:28] River Management Plan implementation

[2:30] project and the storm water management

[2:33] permit project. Um I think those are the

[2:37] two we wanted to talk about. Um

[2:41] there's still high priorities because of

[2:45] staffing levels. We may need to pause

[2:48] those for a little bit um and and get

[2:51] back to those when we're uh a little bit

[2:54] better staffed. So I just wanted to let

[2:57] you know that um we haven't forgot about

[3:00] those projects, but we will need to

[3:04] pause them and pick them up a little bit

[3:05] later.

[3:07] Um and in addition to that um we were

[3:14] uh yeah we wanted to suggest to the

[3:17] planning commission to consider whether

[3:20] um whether it would be possible or if

[3:24] whether you'd be open to uh cancelling

[3:27] the June work meeting uh just with the

[3:31] same view of um

[3:35] kind of helping

[3:36] our limited staff to um kind of keep up

[3:41] with the workload. Um cancelling that

[3:43] meeting may be helpful step. Um so

[3:47] that's maybe something for you to

[3:48] discuss and consider whether that would

[3:50] be something you'd like to do.

[3:54] June work. So the yeah the June work

[3:58] meeting

[4:00] would be on June the 3. So, we propose

[4:04] that we'd still have the regular meeting

[4:06] on June 17.

[4:09] Um,

[4:11] so that's just something for you to

[4:13] ponder on.

[4:15] Thank you.

[4:18] Are there any other announcements?

[4:25] Does anyone have any conflicts of

[4:28] interest that they would like to

[4:29] disclose?

[4:34] For tonight's agenda, we have one action

[4:36] item which includes a public hearing and

[4:39] two non-action items.

[4:42] The first item in action item is a

[4:45] public hearing design development

[4:47] review. Mr. Hans Denzinger requests

[4:50] approval to create an additional parking

[4:53] lot on his property, the Driftwood

[4:55] Lodge, 1515 Zion Park Boulevard. The

[4:59] staff contact is Nyall Connelly. We will

[5:02] be following public meeting rules of

[5:04] order and procedure. Please be sure to

[5:07] have signed in if you have an intent to

[5:09] speak. And please keep in mind that each

[5:12] public comment is limited to three

[5:14] minutes. Um Nile will introduce.

[5:20] >> Thank you.

[5:21] >> So this is a design development review

[5:23] application. The applicant is Mr. Hans

[5:26] Dunzinger. Um on the property is the

[5:30] Driftwood Lodge which is 1515 Zion Park

[5:33] Boulevard. The application is for 10

[5:35] parking spaces. Um those spaces are

[5:39] proposed to be next to Mr. Dunzinger's

[5:42] new building which is nearing

[5:44] completion. Um and the parking spaces

[5:48] will serve his uh hotel customers. Um,

[5:53] so the submitted plans give some details

[5:55] on the design of the new parking spaces

[5:58] and the staff report sets out how they

[6:02] comply with the relevant code

[6:04] requirements. Um, we also have uh Mr.

[6:08] Tony Brooksby who's the contractor on

[6:12] behalf of uh on behalf of the property

[6:14] owner here who um is here and able to

[6:18] answer any questions and and I'd be

[6:20] happy to answer questions too.

[6:23] >> Does the applicant have a presentation?

[6:26] Okay.

[6:28] Um questions to the staff andor

[6:32] applicant from the planning commission.

[6:36] >> I have one. I just I think I just want

[6:37] to confirm um in March of 2025, we

[6:42] approved a uh a hazard permit request

[6:44] for this project. Um with the addition

[6:48] of the parking lot, I'm assuming there's

[6:50] no needed need to update the um erosion

[6:53] hazard assessment. Is that true?

[6:56] >> Yeah, that's a that's a good question.

[6:58] And you're correct. the the erosion

[7:01] hazard mitigation that's been put in is

[7:04] on the river side of of this parking

[7:07] lot. So, uh it it doesn't affect that.

[7:11] >> So, it the parking lot doesn't contact

[7:13] the

[7:14] >> Yeah.

[7:14] >> Okay.

[7:14] >> Correct.

[7:15] >> Sounds good.

[7:19] » Any other questions from the planning

[7:21] commission

[7:24] and questions from the public at this

[7:27] time?

[7:30] Is there a motion to open public

[7:32] hearing?

[7:34] >> Move to open a public hearing. Second.

[7:37] >> Motion by Terry. Second by Paul. All in

[7:39] favor?

[7:41] >> I.

[7:42] >> Terry I.

[7:42] >> Jennifer I.

[7:43] >> Paul I.

[7:44] >> Hash I.

[7:45] >> I.

[7:46] >> Motion passes.

[7:49] Um, this would be public comment period

[7:52] which it looks like there's no public to

[7:55] comment. Is there a motion to close

[7:57] public hearing?

[7:58] >> Move we close public hearing.

[8:00] >> I second.

[8:01] >> Motion by Paul, second by Melissa. All

[8:04] in favor?

[8:05] >> Rich I.

[8:06] >> Terry I.

[8:06] >> Jennifer I.

[8:07] >> Paul I.

[8:08] >> Hash I.

[8:09] >> Melissa I.

[8:10] >> Motion passes.

[8:13] Uh at this time

[8:15] um is there any response from the

[8:18] applicant

[8:22] and we can move into planning commission

[8:24] deliberation.

[8:29] Overall, this seems pretty simple,

[8:32] straightforward. Um, and I did, like I

[8:35] said, I checked on the erosion hazard

[8:37] and it didn't look like we're good with

[8:39] that. Um, and, uh, it looks to be

[8:42] outside the 100red-year flood plane, so

[8:44] I think we're good with that. Other than

[8:46] that, I I don't think any problems

[8:48] myself.

[8:49] >> Yeah, I looked like everything complied.

[8:52] Um, I thought maybe add in um the

[8:57] concrete color must be the town's

[8:59] approved color or a pre-approved equal

[9:03] alternative. And then also mentioning

[9:06] the recommendation to select other

[9:07] plants in place of the pompus grass and

[9:09] the great leaf

[9:12] cotton Easter I guess it's called.

[9:15] Um,

[9:17] I thought those might be worth putting

[9:19] in. Yeah.

[9:20] >> Yeah. Um, I might also um consider

[9:25] adding um a condition. The uh the

[9:29] lighting fixtures appear to be

[9:31] compliant, but there was not any

[9:33] technical specification that came with

[9:35] them. So, maybe just uh

[9:38] a condition that the compliance must be

[9:41] verified

[9:42] um prior to completion.

[9:49] » Yeah. My only question was Terry, did

[9:51] you do the math? Did you check the math

[9:53] on page 45?

[9:58] » No, I didn't get to that part.

[9:59] >> Oh, darn.

[10:01] >> Sorry about that one. Yeah.

[10:07] » Yeah, it looks good to me.

[10:10] >> Any other comments?

[10:13] Is there a motion for the planning

[10:15] commission to approve the design

[10:16] development review application for the

[10:19] 10 new parking spaces at the Driftwood

[10:21] Lodge?

[10:25] » Yeah, I'll go ahead. I'll let you do it

[10:26] because you threw in an extra condition.

[10:29] Yeah, that's right. I did. Okay. Um,

[10:34] so the planning commission approves the

[10:37] design development review application

[10:39] for 10 new parking spaces at the

[10:41] Driftwood Lodge, 1515 Zion Park

[10:44] Boulevard. This motion is based on the

[10:46] following findings. The parking lot

[10:49] expansion complies with section 1023 of

[10:52] the town code regarding ARF off streetet

[10:54] parking requirements and standards.

[10:57] And the uh parking lot expansion also

[11:00] complies with sections 10184 and 10186

[11:04] of the town code um regarding

[11:07] landscaping requirements.

[11:09] Um with the conditions of this approval

[11:13] uh include that the concrete color must

[11:16] be the town approved color Davis color

[11:19] number 5084

[11:21] 2% to pounds per 100 pounds of concrete

[11:25] or a pre-approved equal alternative.

[11:28] Um in addition the uh proposed parking

[11:31] light fixtures as stated by the

[11:33] applicant appear to be compliant with

[11:35] section 1015 C of the town code.

[11:38] Although detailed specifications were

[11:40] not provided, compliance must be

[11:42] verified prior to completion of the

[11:45] project.

[11:47] And uh then the last one

[11:50] is um the uh the landscape plan called

[11:54] for pampas grass and gray leaf um

[11:58] continer I think it is. Um and they are

[12:02] both considered non-native. um they're

[12:04] not specifically um prohibited, but we

[12:06] would encourage the applicant to find

[12:09] other native plants to replace these.

[12:14] » I'll second.

[12:17] » All in favor?

[12:19] >> Rich I.

[12:20] >> Terry I.

[12:21] >> Jennifer I.

[12:22] >> All I.

[12:24] >> Motion passes.

[12:29] The next item is a non-action item. a

[12:32] discussion the um about potential

[12:36] revision to the town's parking

[12:38] standards. Staff contact is Tam Tom Tom

[12:40] Dansancy and Tom will present.

[12:46] » Thank you. In the uh previous work

[12:50] meeting, the commission started started

[12:52] a discussion about um revisions to the

[12:56] town's parking standards. Um there's not not to kind of rehash what

[13:03] we talked about in the last meeting

[13:05] other than uh the fact that um this is a trend across the country of looking at

[13:11] parking standards to see if if um towns

[13:15] and and local governments can use

[13:16] parking standards more efficiently um to

[13:20] better accomplish their land use and

[13:22] transportation goals. In the previous

[13:25] meeting, you expressed some interest in

[13:27] investigating

[13:28] potential revisions to the town's

[13:30] parking standards.

[13:33] However, you wanted additional

[13:35] information and data upon which to begin

[13:37] that that discussion. You directed staff

[13:40] to develop a an action plan for how we

[13:44] would provide you with the parking data

[13:47] and and uh other information that you

[13:49] would need to begin that discussion. And

[13:51] so the staff report outlines a proposed

[13:54] action plan. Um, and as as indicated in

[13:57] the staff report, we've actually done

[13:58] this a couple of times previously. And

[14:01] the the basic idea is that we first of

[14:04] all inventory all of the parking

[14:07] available in the town. That includes

[14:09] both off streetet parking areas as well

[14:13] as on street parking areas. So we have a

[14:15] know we have an idea of what our

[14:16] approximate parking capacity is. Um then

[14:21] we go and actually perform counts of how

[14:24] that parking is being used and we

[14:26] perform those counts at various times

[14:28] during the day, various days of the week

[14:30] and various um seasons. So um we in in

[14:35] the past what we've done is we've

[14:36] counted four different times 10 a.m. 1

[14:38] p.m. 4 pm and 7 p.m. That gives us an

[14:41] idea of how parking is utilized at

[14:44] various different land uses throughout

[14:46] the day. We've also counted um on

[14:49] different days. So, weekdays, weekends,

[14:52] holidays, non-h holidays. That gives us

[14:55] a better idea of um to identify trends

[14:57] of how parking is used on different

[15:00] days, weekends, holidays. Um based on

[15:05] all of that then in the past what we've

[15:07] done is we've come up with an analysis

[15:08] of how of kind of the util utilization

[15:12] rate of the different parking areas. So

[15:15] we we can say this parking area, parking

[15:18] area A at property A is used at 50%

[15:22] utilization on average at this time, 60%

[15:26] at this time. Just to kind of give you a

[15:27] better idea of what those utilization

[15:29] rates are. Um like I said, we've done

[15:32] that in the past. We we did an extensive

[15:34] analysis in 2007 and then we followed

[15:36] that up with a couple of more limited

[15:38] analyses in 2015 and 2016. Um, and so we

[15:42] propose to do the same kind of thing

[15:45] this year that allows us to go back and

[15:48] um

[15:50] to compare results year-over-year to see

[15:52] how we've changed. Um, this will be also

[15:55] be interesting because this will be the

[15:56] first time we've done this analysis

[15:57] since the town started our parking

[16:00] manage our on street parking management

[16:02] program. Um, and so it would be

[16:03] interesting to see how that has impacted

[16:05] parking. So that's that's kind of the

[16:08] basic outline of what we propose to do.

[16:10] We also proposed some dates. Um and um

[16:16] we're I I'm going to at this point

[16:19] retract those proposed dates. Um the

[16:23] reason being for for reasons similar to

[16:25] what Nile um alluded to earlier. Um, at this point with with kind of the

[16:31] limited staffing resources in the

[16:33] planning department, it would be pretty

[16:35] much impossible to get th those parking

[16:38] counts done according to the dates that

[16:39] I had originally proposed, which is

[16:40] throughout this month, taking advantage

[16:42] of taking advantage of the Memorial Day

[16:44] holiday. Um, and then doing an analysis.

[16:47] um

[16:49] where whereas I think this this issue is

[16:51] important and I think that the

[16:53] commission um should be interested in

[16:55] analyzing this um given current staffing

[16:58] in the community development department,

[17:00] it's probably not something that we can

[17:01] put devote a lot of resources to now.

[17:04] However, I do think it's important that

[17:05] these parking counts capture a holiday

[17:08] period. So, what I'd recommend at this

[17:10] point is that we postpone these parking

[17:12] counts um till later in the summer and

[17:16] anticipate using um late summer counts,

[17:20] capturing the Labor Day holiday, and

[17:23] then doing some some counts maybe early

[17:25] fall. So, what I'd appreciate your

[17:28] feedback on at this point is just a

[17:30] general overview of the system of of the

[17:32] plan as we've outlined it. Is this

[17:34] something is does this respond to what

[17:36] you wanted? Will this give you the data

[17:38] that you that you were were seeking? Um

[17:41] get any feedback that you have on the

[17:42] plan. Um and then also your feedback on

[17:46] those dates from this May to later this

[17:48] summer. So that's the feedback that um I

[17:51] would appreciate. Now

[17:55] » and also are there any questions for

[17:57] Tom?

[18:01] I'm assuming that the like the holiday

[18:03] period

[18:05] includes like peak months because it

[18:08] sounds like Labor Day and that early

[18:10] fallish period would capture some of the

[18:13] peak times

[18:15] as opposed to doing some of the more

[18:17] like quieter months.

[18:20] >> Correct. Yeah, that that's the intent is

[18:22] that we capture a variety of of periods

[18:25] with different demands. So holidays,

[18:27] Labor Day certainly that would be one.

[18:30] Um, uh, October is, you know, September,

[18:34] October are kind of super busy periods.

[18:36] That would be a good point.

[18:38] >> And maybe late August, mid to late

[18:41] August traditionally has not been as

[18:43] >> as busy. And so comparing those times

[18:45] would be would be important to know as

[18:48] well.

[18:53] » Yeah.

[18:55] So, second bullet point number one, um,

[18:58] how many parking spaces are available to

[19:00] visitors of Zion? Do you mean within the

[19:02] park?

[19:03] >> Um, sorry, good, great, great point. No,

[19:06] that that means um like street parking.

[19:10] >> Yeah.

[19:10] >> Or we we we since the last time we did

[19:14] this, we now have a number of paid

[19:15] public parking lots. So the idea is

[19:19] there's like we talked about in the last

[19:21] meeting there's there's two different

[19:22] kinds of parking demand that we have in

[19:23] the town. One are patrons of local

[19:26] businesses and it's important to to know

[19:28] what the demand is there. The other are

[19:31] visitors to Zion National Park which may

[19:34] or may not be patrons to local

[19:35] businesses but their primary um parking

[19:37] need is to visit the park. So kind of

[19:40] trying to get a handle on the parking

[19:42] needs of those two groups is what what

[19:44] that number one is all about.

[19:47] Okay, thanks. And um I guess another

[19:50] thing you may want to consider is um

[19:55] inventorying during the shuttle

[19:57] offseason because that is a different we

[20:00] have more parking available in the park.

[20:02] It it is quite different than when the

[20:03] shuttles are running, but um I don't

[20:05] know if that's exactly what you're

[20:07] looking for or not. So

[20:08] >> absolutely.

[20:09] >> Yeah. So be after December 1st, the

[20:12] shuttles would not be running obviously

[20:15] besides Christmas and New Year's and all

[20:18] that.

[20:22] » So in reading through this, the one

[20:24] question I couldn't figure out is how do

[20:26] you distinguish between parking used by

[20:29] businesses and parking used by Zion or

[20:32] getting on the shuttles to go to the

[20:34] park?

[20:36] >> Yeah, great question. and and you can't

[20:38] really other than where the vehicle is located. So the the assumption is

[20:43] that if a vehicle is parked in a

[20:45] business parking lot that is a patron of

[20:48] the business

[20:50] versus if a vehicle is parked on the

[20:52] street that is most likely someone who's

[20:54] going into the park. Obviously those are

[20:56] assumptions and they don't hold true

[20:57] 100% of the time but but that's the

[20:59] underlying assumption.

[21:02] And then I don't know how easy this will

[21:03] be when you get there, but as far as

[21:06] when you're inventory the vehicles, is

[21:09] there a way to track if that vehicle's

[21:10] been there all day or if maybe there's

[21:13] different times a different vehicle?

[21:16] There is a way to do that. We do not

[21:19] have the the technical capacity or

[21:22] resources to be able to do that. So what

[21:25] we've done in the past is just done a

[21:26] total car count. it does not capture the

[21:29] dwell time or the turnover, which would

[21:31] be another really important aspect to

[21:33] capture. Um, we we

[21:38] I haven't figured out a a way that we

[21:40] can do that within our resources, but

[21:41] that's certainly something we can

[21:43] discuss if there's a possibility to do

[21:44] that.

[21:46] >> I don't have a solution for either, but

[21:48] I I throw it on.

[21:50] >> We just throw out the problems.

[21:52] >> Yeah. Um I I I I would consider adding

[21:55] one other piece of information to the

[21:58] collection. Um and that would be um on

[22:01] the business related parking, the

[22:03] commercial property parking that we

[22:06] identify if we can what the minimum

[22:09] number of parking spaces required is.

[22:13] Therefore, we can identify if um owners

[22:16] have done the minimum or if they have

[22:19] done more than the minimum number of

[22:21] parking spaces.

[22:22] >> Great suggestion. Yeah, and in fact, we I I should have clarified that that

[22:27] is something that we captured in the

[22:28] past and absolutely that's an important

[22:31] metric to to include. So, yes, that's a

[22:34] fantastic suggestion.

[22:41] Otherwise, looks pretty good to me.

[22:45] >> Yeah, I this is a question, maybe a

[22:48] little bit of a conversation. Um, so the

[22:51] goal here is to

[22:55] try to figure out what makes sense if

[22:58] changing the parking requirements for

[23:00] new development. And I'm just wondering

[23:05] trying to separate like the off streetet

[23:08] parking spaces and how that

[23:12] impacts the number of spaces at

[23:14] businesses and how we would factor that

[23:17] into

[23:19] the requirements for parking for the

[23:21] businesses. Does that make sense? Like

[23:24] >> Yeah. I I

[23:25] >> you follow what I'm saying? Yes.

[23:27] >> I would actually even extend on that. My

[23:29] question is there's a priority between

[23:32] parking going to the Zion and people

[23:35] going to the businesses. Are we diving

[23:38] those up? Correct.

[23:40] >> I mean, should we be taking some of

[23:41] these off- streetet parking and make

[23:43] them more hourly so they, you know,

[23:48] cater more to businesses and not just to

[23:51] the park. But then that hurts scion. So,

[23:54] it's that trade-off. I don't understand

[23:55] how to,

[23:56] >> but I think if you capture the type of

[23:58] information that Terry was talking

[23:59] about, then so that you know how many

[24:02] the business is supposed to have, how

[24:03] many they actually have, and how fully

[24:05] utilized they are, you'll capture that

[24:07] information because you'll know that

[24:09] people are I mean, if I have a chance to

[24:11] park in a business parking space, I'm

[24:13] going to do that rather than park on the

[24:14] street. In fact, most people probably

[24:16] will park in the business parking space

[24:18] and then try and wander off, so to

[24:21] speak, get on a shuttle bus and

[24:22] disappear and come back hours later and

[24:24] take advantage of the fact that they

[24:26] don't have to pay for parking that way.

[24:28] So the question the only question I

[24:29] would have then is the information that

[24:31] we might want be interested in is um how

[24:35] actively the businesses pursue

[24:38] sort of towing those people away or

[24:40] citing them if they're parked illegally

[24:43] in private private spaces. Very

[24:45] difficult to do or that we try and

[24:48] capture businesses to at least capture

[24:51] that information for us during these

[24:53] times so we can make an evaluation on

[24:55] that.

[25:00] What's that?

[25:01] >> Yeah, that would be valuable to know.

[25:02] You know, how much effort goes into

[25:04] enforcing

[25:06] >> the parking is for my business only.

[25:08] >> I mean, my observation that some of them

[25:10] some of the businesses that are more

[25:13] frequently or more uh actively

[25:17] frequented, they don't do a lot in that

[25:19] regard. they just kind of accept the

[25:20] fact that people are going to do that

[25:22] and they, you know,

[25:24] >> on the other hand, um, the transient

[25:27] lodging facilities, we really would

[25:29] prefer that the that those customers

[25:32] park near their hotel room and leave the

[25:34] car there.

[25:35] >> Sure. Absolutely.

[25:35] >> We'd want really in a sense, you'd want

[25:37] a difference like a restaurant, you'd

[25:39] want a different kind of behavior than

[25:41] >> parking lot.

[25:42] >> Agreed.

[25:43] >> Transient lodging. Yeah.

[25:46] >> Um,

[25:48] I I I would agree to delay. I I think I

[25:51] would rather get good data than try to

[25:53] hurry.

[25:54] >> Yeah.

[25:57] >> The dates that are proposed are good.

[26:00] >> I would recommend that we um

[26:03] recommend that the staff

[26:06] u perform the actions that they

[26:08] recommended that we direct them to rec

[26:10] to to do but at this time at a new time

[26:13] SC frame.

[26:19] and come back and propose a new time

[26:21] schedule to us.

[26:22] >> Yeah.

[26:22] >> If Yeah. If we want that or do we just

[26:24] trust them figure something out? I don't

[26:27] know.

[26:31] » Thank you. This is

[26:32] >> that clear for you?

[26:33] >> Yeah, absolutely. Great feedback, really

[26:35] great suggestions and yeah, we will

[26:37] propose a new time schedule focusing on

[26:40] late summer, early fall, uh potentially

[26:42] extending into the shuttle off season

[26:45] and keep you updated.

[26:49] » The third item, second non-action item

[26:52] is a discussion about potential changes

[26:55] to the land use code that will be

[26:57] necessary following adoption of the

[26:59] wildland urban interface zone. Staff

[27:02] contact is Nile Connelly and Nile will

[27:04] be presenting.

[27:06] >> Thank you. Um so you as a commissioner

[27:09] previously discussed the Wildland urban

[27:12] interface code. Um and that's also been

[27:16] discussed by the town council and

[27:18] there's been some public meetings on

[27:21] that topic. Um so the town will be

[27:25] adopting uh the WOOI code as it's known

[27:29] for short in the near future. Um in

[27:33] anticipation of that uh the commission

[27:36] has already recognized that there are

[27:38] some some standards in our code in our

[27:41] land use ordinance that are potentially

[27:44] at odds with the WOOI code and that may

[27:47] make it difficult as we're implementing

[27:49] this. So there may be some some

[27:51] adjustments that need to be made to our

[27:53] existing land use uh standards.

[27:56] Um

[27:59] the conflicts primarily occur in the

[28:03] areas of uh building materials uh which

[28:06] are part of the standards of the WOOI

[28:09] code and also this idea of defensible

[28:12] space and fuel management. Um so as far

[28:17] as building materials uh WOOI requires

[28:20] fire rated materials and uh most of the

[28:24] materials in our code are are are good

[28:27] with that. Uh but there are some

[28:29] materials particularly wood products

[28:31] such as wood siding, wood roof shingles

[28:34] and then wood for fascia sopeta

[28:37] detailing that um that are generally not

[28:41] fire rated and may uh may not really

[28:45] pass the the WOOI standards. So it might

[28:49] be worth removing those from the

[28:51] approved list. It may also be worth

[28:53] adding some fire rated substitutes into

[28:56] the approved list such as a fiberboard

[28:59] sighting or also known as Hardy board

[29:02] that is uh used across town. Um it's not it's

[29:08] not listed as prohibited. So it is used

[29:10] across town but it might be might be

[29:12] worth adding that as an approved

[29:14] material.

[29:16] Um the next issue is around this uh

[29:20] defensible space concept where um for

[29:25] compliance with the WOI code buildings

[29:27] need to have an area around them which

[29:29] is um free from flammable materials

[29:34] essentially. So it doesn't mean that it

[29:36] needs to be totally bare earth. there

[29:39] can be some vegetation um but uh there

[29:44] needs to be minimum distance between

[29:46] trees. Uh we're also aware that certain

[29:49] species of trees such as junipers are

[29:52] highly flammable. Um and um

[29:58] and so

[29:59] this kind of potentially is an issue

[30:03] with some of our landscaping standards

[30:05] where we do require two replacement

[30:08] trees for every one native tree that's

[30:09] removed. Um and then just our general uh

[30:13] landscaping requirements for tree

[30:16] planting. Um,

[30:18] as some of you know who've uh built

[30:21] homes in the town, um, you know, many of

[30:25] the vacant lots have a lot of these

[30:27] trees on them. And so, um, so extensive

[30:33] planting of trees is is often required

[30:35] when when you're building a new home.

[30:38] And a lot of those trees tend to have to

[30:41] be close to the house just for space

[30:42] reasons. Um so th those are some things

[30:46] for you to consider uh because they may

[30:50] be at odds with the defensible space

[30:52] requirements. Um

[30:56] and uh and then while considering it um

[31:01] it's worth bearing in mind the reasons

[31:03] why we have these landscape ordinances

[31:06] in in the beginning. So, you know, there

[31:09] is a real benefit to having native

[31:12] vegetation, to having these trees around

[31:14] town. There's landscape and ecological

[31:18] value to these. So, um so yeah, it is

[31:22] kind of a balance, but it it's just

[31:24] something um that would be worth

[31:27] discussing. Um, so the staff report

[31:31] includes a few options that you might

[31:33] want to consider um on how we could

[31:36] address these and and you might also

[31:38] have other ideas too that that I haven't

[31:40] considered.

[31:42] >> A question on the the planning.

[31:45] I get it. If you're packed and you got

[31:47] to have them by the house, that could be

[31:48] a problem. But on bigger lots,

[31:50] especially in the foothill residential,

[31:55] do are you allowed to plant those two

[31:57] trees outside of the defensible space of

[32:00] 30 ft?

[32:02] Yeah. So, where where it comes up if you

[32:05] have a foothill residential lot um that

[32:10] is on a 2 acre or larger parcel, uh you

[32:14] may have the space to to plant those

[32:17] replacement trees. A lot of our foothill

[32:19] residential zones are in a planned

[32:22] development overlay. So for instance,

[32:25] Anastasia Plateau or the Clar Cup

[32:27] subdivision or Canyon Point. So the the

[32:31] way those subdivisions have been

[32:32] designed is that you have a smaller

[32:34] building pad where you put your home and

[32:36] then it's surrounded by a conservation

[32:38] easement. So like a natural area. And so

[32:41] on those parcels or on those lots, um

[32:46] there's really not very much space that

[32:48] you can build on when once you built

[32:51] your house. Uh if you have a bunch of

[32:53] replacement trees to plant, they're

[32:56] inevitably going to be pretty close to

[32:58] your house. So, um that's yeah, that

[33:02] that's kind of how it occurs.

[33:13] Are there any other questions for Nile?

[33:18] >> On the other

[33:20] building permit, was there any thought

[33:22] or looking at flat roofs as far as being

[33:26] fire resistant material?

[33:28] A lot of the flat roofs are probably not

[33:30] that fire resistant right now.

[33:40] Yeah, flat roofs can be an an an issue.

[33:43] Um, for those of you that came to some

[33:46] of our um meetings that we've had

[33:48] recently with representatives from the

[33:50] fire district, they've talked about those flat roofs and and how they

[33:54] can be an issue um if an ember comes and

[33:56] the problem with a flat roof is an ember

[33:58] comes and just sits on on the roof and can burn through it. So there are um

[34:04] roof membrane materials that are fire

[34:06] rated and would be an approved material

[34:08] under the the WOOI code. There are there

[34:11] are others that are are not. Um and so

[34:14] it just really kind of depends on the

[34:16] type of roof material that that's

[34:19] proposed. So that could be again

[34:20] something for the commission to

[34:22] consider. um

[34:25] uh if someone does want to do a flat

[34:28] roof requiring that the roof membrane be

[34:32] and I I apologize I don't remember off

[34:34] the top of my head the technical terms

[34:36] that the the fire professionals have

[34:38] used um but but whatever that um fire

[34:41] ignition resistant material is for flat

[34:44] roofs you could you could make that a

[34:45] requirement in your code.

[34:47] >> Yeah. The the WOOI code refers to some

[34:49] international code that calls class A, B

[34:53] and C. And so class A is the most

[34:56] resistant and C is the least resistance.

[34:57] It might be if we go down that path it

[34:59] might be simpler to pick okay it has to

[35:03] be class A or B or something like that.

[35:05] Then we don't have to keep put specific

[35:09] materials in our ordinances that then

[35:12] might become outdated

[35:14] if we stick to the class ratings.

[35:17] And I think along with that, my

[35:19] understanding is is that the highest

[35:21] rated membrane, there are no colors that

[35:24] currently fit within the acceptable

[35:26] colors.

[35:28] Like I think that the it's they're very

[35:31] bright.

[35:33] >> Yeah. TPO tends to come in kind of white

[35:35] colors and and and

[35:37] um it uh it comes in different gradings.

[35:42] The trade-off is that the more the more

[35:44] ref fire retardant material they add,

[35:46] the more brittle the material becomes

[35:49] and so there's a trade-off and um so

[35:52] yeah, if we go down that path, I think

[35:54] there's a lot of pieces of information

[35:55] for us to get to know before we we try

[35:57] to

[35:58] >> make a rule on that. Um I think that's a

[36:01] little bit side to particular issue. Um

[36:05] but I think we it's something we should

[36:07] be thinking about. Yeah.

[36:09] >> To me, it would fall under the building

[36:13] materials

[36:15] like when we're talking.

[36:15] >> Well, yeah. If we wanted to remove or or

[36:19] change the building materials for the

[36:20] roof. Now, that wasn't recommended by

[36:22] the staff at this point, but it's

[36:24] something,

[36:24] >> right? Yeah. Um,

[36:28] and and there are I I know some at least

[36:31] a couple of homes that have a, you know,

[36:33] aluminum roof, but that's um anodized or

[36:37] something, so it's not bright. So that

[36:39] would be a fireproof roof in a sense.

[36:42] >> Is it something that makes sense to put

[36:43] in the at this point? And the building

[36:46] construction materials.

[36:48] >> Yeah. So I I think so what you're saying

[36:50] is that some of the most the the higher

[36:54] rated materials don't match the color

[36:57] code. They're they're not

[36:59] uh it's currently available in that. So

[37:01] yeah, if you wanted to accommodate

[37:05] people being able to use those materials

[37:08] uh more freely, then that probably would

[37:11] be something to put into the code as far

[37:14] as because because the the color palette

[37:18] and the color material all part of that

[37:20] process.

[37:21] >> So yeah, that could be something to

[37:22] consider.

[37:25] >> We go far and I'm not sure if it's class

[37:27] ABC. I always remember is um IR ignition

[37:31] resistive class one two three. Do we add

[37:34] that into our codes that we want homes

[37:37] to have certain ignition resistant

[37:39] classification?

[37:41] >> The

[37:43] if I remember the way the WOOI code was

[37:45] written that we would be required to

[37:47] incorporate into ordinances.

[37:50] It didn't say. It said if your house has

[37:54] a certain rating, then you have to have

[37:56] a greater or lesser distance of cleared

[38:00] space.

[38:00] >> That is correct. Yes.

[38:01] >> Um but I don't think it said that you I

[38:05] don't think it disallowed building a

[38:06] house of a lower rating.

[38:09] >> And so I don't think if we adopt the

[38:10] ordinance as it is, which I think we're

[38:12] supposed to do, we would not be

[38:14] disallowing a particular.

[38:17] >> So the question there is, isn't wood

[38:20] siding

[38:21] considered to be below IR standard. So

[38:25] why are we saying you can't have wood

[38:26] siding?

[38:29] Essentially saying you can't have wood

[38:30] siding is saying you need certain type

[38:32] of

[38:32] >> Well, I think what was proposed was

[38:35] removing wood siding from the per

[38:38] recommended.

[38:40] We don't necessarily have to add it to

[38:42] the um excluded or the not not

[38:46] >> out. Okay.

[38:48] >> Right. Um because there is a list of not

[38:50] allowed and a list of recommended and

[38:53] some things that are not on either list.

[38:57] >> Yeah, that's correct. Yeah, there

[39:00] there's specifically approved and

[39:01] specifically prohibited and then there's

[39:03] some that are on neither list.

[39:07] >> So what being recommended is that the

[39:09] wood would not be approved. Correct.

[39:12] >> Would not be recommended. It would not

[39:13] It could be approved but it's not

[39:16] desirable. Okay. So, so and we we could

[39:19] make this choice, but it's right now on

[39:21] the list of preferred or we thinks we'd

[39:23] approve,

[39:25] >> we could move it to the list of not

[39:26] approved or we could remove it alto

[39:28] together,

[39:29] >> right?

[39:29] >> So, taking it off of the approved list,

[39:31] >> right?

[39:32] >> Yeah. But it doesn't mean that it's

[39:34] prohibited

[39:35] >> doesn't unless we choose to put it on

[39:37] the prohibited list.

[39:37] >> Yeah, I follow you now. Yeah.

[39:40] >> I think it makes sense to put on the

[39:43] prohibited list. Well, having had a

[39:46] house that survived a fire like this in

[39:49] the midst of all my neighbors whose

[39:51] houses burned down and mine was fully

[39:53] woodsided

[39:54] um and survived. I'm not necessarily

[39:58] sure that's a appropriate thing to do.

[40:01] >> Yeah, I I would want to get a little

[40:02] more expert input because because if

[40:06] your house is, you know, gets a lower

[40:07] rating, you're supposed to clear

[40:09] further, which is supposed to mitigate

[40:12] the risk,

[40:13] >> right? somebody chooses that they really

[40:16] want wood siding and they're willing to

[40:18] go 100 feet instead of 30 feet or

[40:20] whatever.

[40:23] I think I'd want to have some more

[40:24] knowledge before we say they can't take

[40:27] that path because the WOOI code as as I

[40:30] read it last year last summer

[40:34] allowed for that path but you're

[40:36] supposed to then trim much further back.

[40:38] >> And what about what shingles?

[40:41] >> Same.

[40:44] wood shingles I think are probably

[40:47] >> um a little different thing and that

[40:49] they're probably I mean there are fire

[40:51] retardant or fire resistant wood

[40:54] shingles but that doesn't necessarily

[40:55] mean that they're

[40:57] >> super good. I I would take those off the

[40:59] list and

[41:00] >> yeah,

[41:00] >> be more apt to prohibit them, but

[41:04] >> and and and maybe maybe with some

[41:07] expertise input, we might come to the

[41:09] conclusion that we'd want to put some of

[41:10] these things on the not allowed list.

[41:14] >> Yeah.

[41:14] >> But I wouldn't want to do it without

[41:16] getting some expert input because you're

[41:18] restricting people

[41:20] >> on something that may or may not

[41:22] >> that they may or may not be able to

[41:24] mitigate a different way,

[41:25] >> right?

[41:28] So, is it possible for us to get expert

[41:31] input on the wood sighting and

[41:34] >> Yeah, we can certainly do more research

[41:36] and work with our building inspector to

[41:39] get more guidance on that.

[41:42] I don't really have much experience with

[41:44] wood siding, but um I have had many

[41:48] experiences that involved wood roof

[41:50] shingles and lived in areas where they

[41:53] were prohibited um being in the midst of

[41:56] neighborhoods um where homes were

[41:59] burning down because those fireballs

[42:01] land on the roof and those wood shingles

[42:04] just Yeah.

[42:06] But like you said, maybe there's some

[42:08] kind of wood shingle that's different

[42:11] that doesn't catch on fire like that. I

[42:13] don't know.

[42:17] » So, in a couple of the points in in the

[42:20] um in the in the staff notes um talked

[42:23] about the the tree requirement, the 2:1

[42:26] tree requirement. Um start with that

[42:29] one. Something I was thinking about is

[42:32] we could we could go to a one one tree

[42:35] requirement instead of a two to one.

[42:38] Actually was thinking about it. We're

[42:39] actually kind of going against our our

[42:43] general plan idea in not impacting or

[42:47] reducing the impact on the land. And if

[42:49] we double the number of trees on the

[42:51] land, aren't we impacting the land? You

[42:53] know, so I thought about it two to one

[42:54] is actually kind of an impact upon the

[42:56] land. whereas one would say, "Oh, the

[42:59] land still has the same." So,

[43:03] I kind of thought, well, you know, we

[43:05] could go to one one

[43:07] with the ability to um reduce that as

[43:12] necessary to comply with the WOOI code,

[43:14] which isn't yet in our code, but will

[43:17] be.

[43:17] >> I agree with that. Yeah, the

[43:20] >> the thought I have on that is that the

[43:22] 2:1 probably came out of I I don't know

[43:25] for sure, but I would assume it came out

[43:27] of the thought process that, you know,

[43:29] you've got big tree, you're cutting it

[43:31] down, and now you're going to put little

[43:32] trees

[43:33] >> and two little trees still don't make up

[43:36] one big tree and likelihood is one of

[43:38] those is going to die. And I don't know

[43:40] that we do any compliance to make sure

[43:42] that the trees that were planted survive

[43:45] beyond some short period of time. So,

[43:49] um, yeah, I don't know. You know, I

[43:51] understand what you're saying and I kind

[43:53] of agree with it, but on the other hand,

[43:55] from, you know, the bigger picture,

[43:56] maybe it maybe

[43:57] >> Yeah, I kind of thought through that,

[43:59] too. I thought, well,

[44:01] we live in a human time frame. So, yes,

[44:05] two little trees are smaller than one

[44:06] big tree, but they grow up to be twice

[44:09] as big to one big tree

[44:10] >> if they survive

[44:11] >> 50 years later.

[44:12] >> If they survive,

[44:13] >> they survive. My experience has been

[44:15] I've planted double trees and I've only

[44:17] had one of my double trees actually

[44:19] fail. And so I've got lots of double

[44:21] trees. So, you know, assuming they're

[44:25] going to die is is just as much of a

[44:27] subject, right? Um and so, you know, so

[44:31] I was kind of thinking about that in the

[44:33] long term, we're actually creating more

[44:34] trees than naturally would be there. Um

[44:37] and more tree volume than would

[44:39] naturally be there over 50 years or

[44:41] whatever. Um,

[44:42] >> well, the other thing is we're changing the location of the

[44:46] trees, too. And the the natural trees

[44:48] that you find around here are the ones

[44:50] that are close to water, not out in the

[44:53] hillside somewhere. And so, if you've

[44:55] got somebody planting a couple of a

[44:57] couple of new trees out on the hillside,

[44:59] they're they're probably not planting

[45:01] >> Well, and then and then we pump water

[45:03] over there.

[45:04] >> Exactly. So now we've got different

[45:06] vegetation, which is kind of what you're

[45:08] saying is we're impacting the

[45:10] environment because we're bringing in

[45:11] different kinds of trees than would

[45:13] naturally occur. But whatever. I don't

[45:16] know.

[45:16] >> Anyway, I I don't think we're making

[45:18] decisions today. So I was just on the

[45:20] consideration might be do we go to one? Um might be a useful

[45:25] consideration.

[45:26] >> So you're saying go to one to one within

[45:28] the uh defensible space or

[45:33] >> right. So you you you you produce a

[45:36] development plan. Let's say it requires

[45:38] taking out four trees. Um you would be

[45:40] required to re to plant four trees

[45:43] somewhere else on your property versus

[45:45] having to plant eight trees somewhere

[45:47] else on your property.

[45:48] >> So you're just saying blanket, you know,

[45:50] within your property.

[45:52] >> Yeah. I I think the way it's now, as

[45:54] long as it's somewhere else on your

[45:55] property, it it counts, right? Doesn't

[45:57] have to be any

[45:58] >> Yeah, that's correct. Yeah, it should be

[46:00] a similar species.

[46:01] >> Similar species. on the plant list and

[46:04] other things. Yeah.

[46:05] >> Um

[46:07] >> in my understanding it still gives the

[46:09] property owner a choice because you

[46:12] there are trees on the list that aren't

[46:14] as flammable

[46:17] and then there are the one like the

[46:19] junipers I think are on the list and

[46:21] they are flammable. So a property owner

[46:23] could choose.

[46:24] >> Yeah, you could choose. In fact, if I

[46:27] remember correctly, the the thing I read

[46:29] said like desert willows were actually

[46:31] at the other end of the scale.

[46:33] >> Yeah.

[46:34] >> Almost not flammable sort of.

[46:35] >> Yeah.

[46:36] >> So certainly we could even include in

[46:40] the code encouragement for certain kinds

[46:43] of trees.

[46:45] Um

[46:50] and then

[46:53] the other statement in in in the staff

[46:56] notes was about um the requirements we

[46:58] have in landscaped areas for I think it

[47:01] was one tree per thousand square feet.

[47:05] Um,

[47:08] I'm think I sort of thought, well, we

[47:11] might potentially just remove that

[47:14] >> for the commercial and public use zones.

[47:16] >> Well, and then it actually also covers

[47:18] the res. There's two Oh, I see. Yes.

[47:20] >> residential.

[47:21] >> Um, potentially we do it for one and not

[47:24] the other. That's a possibility. Um,

[47:27] then we're not again requiring tree more

[47:31] trees than would normally grow there.

[47:34] Um,

[47:37] and

[47:39] I'm I'm I'm almost of a mindset of like,

[47:41] well, maybe when you're all done

[47:43] developing, there should be the same

[47:44] number of trees there were before you

[47:46] started.

[47:48] And rather than say there has to be, you

[47:50] know,

[47:52] >> what is the size of a tree? You say you

[47:55] have to have two to one. What is the

[47:58] size of the tree? Can I put a twig or is

[48:00] there like there is a requirement? Five

[48:02] gallon I think minimum, right? There's a

[48:04] call out.

[48:05] >> Yeah,

[48:06] >> five gallon certain height

[48:08] >> and a certain trunk.

[48:10] >> Yeah, one one to one and a half inch

[48:12] trunk.

[48:13] >> Yeah. What what I'm questioning is,

[48:14] okay, if we go to one one,

[48:16] >> do we change that?

[48:19] >> Um, I guess it depends a lot on what's

[48:21] readily available, you know. I mean, it

[48:24] gets quite expensive if you want to

[48:26] plant a much bigger tree. Um,

[48:29] >> and and they're hard they're really hard

[48:31] to find. So, I would be in the camp of

[48:34] leaving that requirement the same.

[48:37] >> I would think so because five gallallon

[48:40] trees are easy to find. As you start

[48:43] getting bigger, they get harder and

[48:44] harder to find,

[48:46] >> harder to plant and transport and

[48:48] >> transport and everything else. Yeah.

[48:59] Um just on the point of the thousand

[49:01] square feet, um it does include shrubs

[49:07] and ground cover. So if we were to take

[49:09] that out completely, we would be taking

[49:11] out that requirement.

[49:14] >> True.

[49:15] >> We could just take out the tree

[49:16] requirement, but in the

[49:18] >> because I think it refers to shrubs six

[49:21] feet or taller I think is what the code

[49:24] talks about. If you take out anything

[49:25] six feet or taller you have to replace

[49:27] it. Um

[49:31] and so we should look at those details

[49:33] before we

[49:34] >> Yes. Yeah. And maybe there's a way to

[49:38] uh put that language in so that it's you

[49:42] can understand that there still is a

[49:44] landscape requirement

[49:47] >> with a specific tree

[49:50] requirement. Yeah.

[49:58] » Any other comments?

[50:02] Nile, do we need to clarify any of the

[50:04] discussion?

[50:07] >> Um, so I've been taking notes and maybe

[50:10] if I just run through what I what I

[50:12] think I'm hearing and you correct me.

[50:15] >> Um, so there is a question around flat

[50:18] roofs and uh some of those membranes

[50:21] that are more or less desirable

[50:24] um

[50:25] and then the various classes. So we need

[50:28] to have a think about um whether whether

[50:32] the yeah those specific membranes be

[50:34] mentioned in the code or whether we

[50:37] refer to the different classes uh that

[50:40] are mentioned in the WOOI code. Um there

[50:45] was also a discussion about

[50:48] color. Does that become an issue? Um,

[50:51] are we by applying the color palette to

[50:55] roofs, are we limiting some really good

[50:58] products that would be fire compliant?

[51:01] Uh, so we need to look at that a little

[51:04] bit more.

[51:05] um

[51:07] you wanted some more expert input on

[51:09] wood siding um to learn really um you

[51:15] know how how big of a disadvantage is it

[51:18] and obviously taking into account that

[51:20] there's um you know property owners in

[51:24] complying with the movie code you have

[51:26] various options you can select and so

[51:29] you wanted more information before we

[51:32] just outright prohibited wood siding

[51:35] Um the wood shingle roofs, it seems like

[51:39] you were leaning more towards scrapping

[51:41] those because they tend to be a little

[51:43] bit more dangerous.

[51:44] Um probably needs a little bit more

[51:47] research. Then on the tree replacement

[51:49] requirement, um you're looking at

[51:53] potentially doing a one:one replacement

[51:56] instead of the 2:1. Um but also with the

[52:01] ability that that could potentially be

[52:04] reduced on a sightto-sight basis if woo

[52:07] compliance is a problem. Um and then to

[52:12] find a way to encourage nonflammable or

[52:15] less flammable trees where possible.

[52:19] Uh then on the minimum tree standards uh

[52:22] in the landscape chapter

[52:25] um potentially looking at removing that

[52:28] minimum tree requirement

[52:31] uh but not the minimum for shrubs and

[52:34] other plants.

[52:36] So I I can take that away and uh work on

[52:39] that a little bit more and come back

[52:41] with kind of proposals that are a little

[52:44] bit more meaty the next time.

[52:47] That sounds good.

[52:49] >> Thanks.

[52:52] » I really struggle with the keeping the

[52:53] 2:1 tree replacement requirement but

[52:56] allowing a relaxation when you're in the

[52:58] uh WI conflict area. When you're I It's

[53:03] still very confusing to me when you're

[53:05] planting trees.

[53:07] It's not the center of the tree that has

[53:08] to be 10 feet apart. It's the branches

[53:10] of the trees.

[53:13] If I plant little trees, they're good

[53:16] and someday they're going to grow. And

[53:19] >> I don't I don't have a thought right

[53:22] now, but it seems that whole

[53:25] that could get confusing very fast

[53:27] because when they're small, they're

[53:28] great.

[53:28] >> Yeah. Yeah. When they're small, 10 ft

[53:30] apart, but grow up,

[53:32] >> they grow together. Um, we we might

[53:34] consider adding something to the code

[53:36] that the landscape plan has to um

[53:41] plant trees perspective to their full

[53:45] growth size,

[53:47] right? Not the size they are when you

[53:49] plant them. Yeah, it's a good point.

[53:54] Have a question for the staff as well.

[53:57] What's the status of the local map with

[53:59] respect to the WOOI?

[54:05] » Great question and that's um one of the

[54:08] main reasons why we have not updated the

[54:10] WOOI yet and I'm um shagrined to admit

[54:14] that it was a gross misunderstanding on

[54:16] my part of what the uh state law

[54:19] actually requires for the map. Um, I was

[54:23] reading the updated state law to mean

[54:27] that um to mean something opposite of

[54:30] what it actually meant. So the the the

[54:33] takeaway is that we we we can use our

[54:36] own local map for the WOOI zone. Um,

[54:41] which I I was a misunderstanding on my

[54:44] part. So that that's what we're

[54:45] preparing to do now is to adopt the WOOI

[54:47] code and adopt our own local map for the

[54:51] WOOI zone. Again, for those of you that

[54:54] have been following this this issue

[54:57] along, keep in mind that there is a

[54:59] distinct difference between our local

[55:01] WOOI zone where the WOOI code will be

[55:05] administered and what the state refers

[55:07] to as high risk WOOI properties

[55:12] where they will where the state will be

[55:14] assessing a fee on those properties and they'll be subject to to to to

[55:18] different um state requirements. We have

[55:21] no control over those where the state

[55:23] maps the high the high-risk WOOI

[55:25] properties, but we do have control over

[55:27] where our local map shows where the WOOI

[55:30] zone is. Does that answer your question?

[55:33] >> Sort of. I guess the um I was under the impression that pretty

[55:39] much everything around here is in the

[55:40] high-risisk zone according to the state

[55:42] maps, but if we define a local map that

[55:46] to be different than that, then the

[55:47] state will kind of back out of the local

[55:49] area. Is that correct?

[55:51] >> So again, this is it's

[55:53] >> hard to say, right?

[55:54] >> Well, no. I I it's it's there's been a

[55:56] lot of confusion and and I think

[55:58] everyone has been somewhat confused,

[56:00] including me. Um and and as I'm learning

[56:02] more, I'm getting more clarity. So

[56:04] there's there's a lot of mapping going

[56:07] on. Um and and all this mapping has

[56:10] different impact or or or the end result

[56:12] of this all this mapping is different.

[56:14] the the state has something called the

[56:17] um Utah uh wildfire risk assessment

[56:22] portal, the URAP, where you can go on

[56:26] and you can see all the different

[56:27] mapping that the state has done by

[56:29] different metrics. They'll they'll you

[56:32] can map your property by something

[56:33] called structure exposure score or fire

[56:35] severity or all these different metrics.

[56:38] And according to all that mapping, yeah,

[56:41] Springdale is is in in quite

[56:43] inconsiderable everywhere in Springdale

[56:46] is at considerable risk of wildfire.

[56:49] That mapping isformational only. That

[56:53] mapping has no regulatory impact either

[56:57] at the state level or at the local

[56:59] level.

[57:01] Additionally to that, the state has used

[57:03] that mapping and other sources to

[57:06] produce a map where they have identified

[57:08] high risk WOOI properties.

[57:12] Those are the properties that will be

[57:13] subject to the to the assessment and and

[57:17] they'll be those will be the ones that

[57:19] will be subject to having an inspector

[57:20] come out and do do an inspection.

[57:25] Only generally speaking, only properties

[57:30] in the Anastasia plateau area of

[57:32] Springdale have been mapped in the high

[57:35] risk WOOI property area by the state.

[57:40] That means that as a town we can

[57:42] establish our own WOOI boundary and the

[57:46] impact of that town determined WOOI

[57:48] boundary is where the wildland urban

[57:50] interface code will be administered. We

[57:53] have complete discretion on where that

[57:54] boundary is located

[57:56] >> except for Anastasia.

[57:59] >> Well, there's completely separate

[58:01] issues.

[58:01] >> Oh, so so they will do their thing and

[58:03] we could also manage that area as well.

[58:07] >> Correct. They're managing it for one

[58:09] purpose.

[58:10] >> We're managing Okay. They're and the

[58:12] purpose for which they are managing it

[58:13] is are these are properties that the

[58:15] state has identified are at such high

[58:17] risk that they are going to be assessed

[58:19] a fee

[58:21] um and there'll be inspections of those

[58:23] properties and the intent of that fee

[58:25] and that inspection is to um encourage

[58:28] those property owners to do wildfire

[58:31] mitigation around their properties to

[58:33] reduce the wildfire risk. That's the

[58:35] whole impact of the state identified

[58:38] high-risisk WOOI zone or high-risisk

[58:41] WOOI properties.

[58:43] Completely separate and distinct from

[58:45] that is the local administration of the

[58:47] WOOI code. The things that we've been

[58:49] talking about tonight. Where is

[58:51] defensible space going to be required?

[58:53] What kind of building materials are

[58:54] going to be required? It is up to us as

[58:56] a as a local government to determine in

[58:59] what areas we want that WOOI

[59:02] code to be applied. The state has made

[59:04] some recommendations to us on where they

[59:06] think we should apply the WOOI code, but

[59:10] it ultimately is a local decision on

[59:12] where we where we um determine that

[59:15] boundary to be. That was my

[59:17] misunderstanding. I I thought I I

[59:19] thought that the state was going to

[59:20] override our ability to determine that

[59:22] boundary, but no, that is not the case.

[59:24] We get to choose where it is.

[59:25] >> So, have we made progress on the town

[59:27] map?

[59:30] >> Yes. So, we have a we have a draft map.

[59:32] We we've presented that map to the to

[59:35] the community at a couple of meetings

[59:37] and we're in the process of of getting

[59:39] that to approval of the council.

[59:43] >> So that means that the council is

[59:45] actually enforcing more of a wooui area

[59:51] which then changes the building

[59:54] requirements.

[59:56] >> Rephrase that question. So, it seems to

[59:59] me that it's up to the city to decide.

[1:00:02] As long as the state hasn't come in and

[1:00:03] said you have to be an extreme area. If

[1:00:06] you're not an extreme area, it's up to

[1:00:08] the city to decide if it's an extreme

[1:00:10] area. Th this whole this whole

[1:00:13] discussion the terminology that the

[1:00:14] state has used is very unfortunate

[1:00:17] because they use terms like high-risk

[1:00:19] wooi property

[1:00:21] which similar terminology is also found

[1:00:23] in the wildland urban interface code and that's led people to conflate those

[1:00:28] two issues but they're completely

[1:00:31] separate and distinct. What the state

[1:00:33] has said is town of Springdale as with

[1:00:35] all other municipalities in Springdale,

[1:00:37] you must adopt the wildland urban

[1:00:40] interface code. You have to. We don't

[1:00:42] have a choice in that.

[1:00:45] We do have discretion on ad establishing

[1:00:49] the WOOI zone. The WOOI zone is where

[1:00:52] the wildland urban interface code

[1:00:54] standards will be applied. That's

[1:00:57] completely our decision. has nothing to

[1:01:00] do with the properties that the state

[1:01:02] has identified as high-risk wooi

[1:01:04] properties. We get to make that

[1:01:06] decision.

[1:01:08] >> The decision we get to make is is the is

[1:01:10] the area.

[1:01:11] >> Correct.

[1:01:12] >> Not the wording of the ordinance. Right.

[1:01:14] That is correct.

[1:01:14] >> The ordinance is is predetermined for

[1:01:17] us, but we get to determine where that

[1:01:20] ordinance applies within the town the

[1:01:23] boundaries of Springdale.

[1:01:24] >> Precisely.

[1:01:28] that mean like the defendable area

[1:01:31] where that applies and where that

[1:01:33] doesn't apply.

[1:01:34] >> So the defensible space is one of the

[1:01:36] requirements of the WOOI zone and to

[1:01:39] answer your question yes that defensible

[1:01:41] space requirement will only be required

[1:01:45] for development of properties that are

[1:01:47] within the WOOI zone as we determine

[1:01:51] where that is located.

[1:01:54] properties that are not included in the

[1:01:57] WOOI zone, however we determine that to

[1:01:59] be, will not be subject to the

[1:02:03] defensible space requirement or the the

[1:02:05] building materials requirements or

[1:02:07] anything in the WO zone.

[1:02:10] So, as as as the we've worked pretty

[1:02:14] extensively with the Hurricane Valley

[1:02:16] Fire Protection District to come up with

[1:02:18] a draft map. Um, and that map generally

[1:02:22] includes

[1:02:24] most of everything in the foothills, not

[1:02:26] the when I say foothills, I don't mean

[1:02:28] the foothill residential zone. I mean

[1:02:30] actually in the foothills which can

[1:02:34] include some valley residential zone and

[1:02:36] does not include certain um parts of the

[1:02:39] foothill residential zone but it

[1:02:40] essentially is is property in the

[1:02:42] foothills

[1:02:44] um will as recommended by the hurricane

[1:02:47] valley fire protection protection district will be included in

[1:02:52] the wooi zone which means those wooi

[1:02:56] requirements defensible space and others

[1:02:58] would be required on those properties.

[1:03:02] So on that map,

[1:03:05] not every property on Anastasia is in

[1:03:07] the high risk, which is really

[1:03:09] interesting because if you look at the

[1:03:10] map, there could be one house across the

[1:03:13] street with the same kind of black brush

[1:03:16] and cedars and one is high risk and one

[1:03:18] is not. And when we met with the um the

[1:03:23] fire chief from Hurricane,

[1:03:26] he didn't even have an answer for us as

[1:03:28] to why. Um

[1:03:31] but it's concerning and frustrating

[1:03:33] because

[1:03:34] um some are in it or some are not. But I

[1:03:37] guess the question I have is will the

[1:03:39] WOOI zone

[1:03:42] is that go that would go up onto Anna's

[1:03:44] Sazi? I would think in the on the map

[1:03:47] that the town is doing

[1:03:49] >> it does correct. Yeah. Again, pretty

[1:03:52] much the only let let me take a

[1:03:55] at the risk of adding further confusion,

[1:03:58] but hopefully with the intent of adding

[1:04:00] further clarity, let me give you a

[1:04:03] little bit more background.

[1:04:06] This I I referenced the state mapping

[1:04:09] called the URAP earlier and and that's

[1:04:12] justformational mapping that the state

[1:04:13] has done to help municipalities analyze

[1:04:16] fire risk. the the the state has said,

[1:04:20] "Hey, local governments, we recommend

[1:04:24] that you include in your WOOI zone all

[1:04:28] properties with what they have a metric

[1:04:30] that they have come up with called

[1:04:32] smooth structure exposure score

[1:04:35] of five or greater. This this smooth

[1:04:37] structure exposure score has a scale of

[1:04:39] 1 to 10. and they say, "We we recommend

[1:04:42] that all properties within with a smooth

[1:04:44] structure exposure score

[1:04:47] greater of five or greater be included

[1:04:50] in your WOOI zone." That was their

[1:04:52] recommendation.

[1:04:56] Everywhere in Springdale is five or

[1:04:59] greater on this map of the smooth

[1:05:01] structure exposure score. So that's part

[1:05:04] of the reason why initially we we

[1:05:05] thought, "Oh my goodness, we don't have

[1:05:07] any choice in the matter. everything in

[1:05:08] the Springdale has to be in the in the

[1:05:10] WOOI zone. Turns out that's not true,

[1:05:12] right? So, what we've done is use that

[1:05:15] data and other data and and boots on the

[1:05:18] ground data with with the fire marshall

[1:05:20] and and representatives of the fire uh

[1:05:22] Hurricane Valley Fire District to refine

[1:05:24] where the WOOI boundary is for

[1:05:27] Springdale. So yes, it includes

[1:05:32] everything in the foothills, all of

[1:05:33] Anosazi Plateau, most of Canyon Springs,

[1:05:37] most of Kinosava. The things that are

[1:05:39] not included would be things right along

[1:05:43] SR9 between SR9 and the river. Um, a

[1:05:48] little bit on the on whatever side of

[1:05:51] SR9 we're on currently. East, west, thank you. A little bit on the

[1:05:56] west side of SR9. Those are those are

[1:05:58] areas that the fire marshall said,

[1:06:00] "Yeah, the state is encouraging us to

[1:06:02] put these in the WOOI zone, but looking

[1:06:04] at this boots on the ground really

[1:06:07] there's not really a significant

[1:06:09] as I mean everything is at risk of fire

[1:06:11] of wildfire, right? But but not not a

[1:06:13] significant enough risk to warrant

[1:06:15] putting this in the WOOI zone, but

[1:06:17] everything else in the Foothills. Yes.

[1:06:19] >> Is that draft map available for viewing?

[1:06:22] >> Yeah. Yeah, we've we've put it I think

[1:06:24] it's on the website maybe.

[1:06:27] I um

[1:06:30] uh let me double check the website

[1:06:33] really quick.

[1:06:35] Will you go on the website now to the

[1:06:37] town's website

[1:06:39] and go to the community development

[1:06:40] department and there's a tab for wildfire or wooi or

[1:06:47] something like that.

[1:07:12] Uh I thought that for sure we had put

[1:07:15] that on the map. I I apologize we have

[1:07:18] not. Um we will get that up on this

[1:07:21] website so that that will be available

[1:07:23] to the community. But but yes it is it

[1:07:25] is we have presented it a couple of

[1:07:27] times at these different meetings. It is

[1:07:29] available. We'll get it up on the

[1:07:30] website.

[1:07:31] Thanks.

[1:07:32] >> So, um the presentation is the one that

[1:07:34] was done at the public meeting a month

[1:07:36] or two ago.

[1:07:38] >> Yeah. So, we've had two presentations.

[1:07:39] The first one um was done um actually it

[1:07:42] might be in that one. Kindle if you'll

[1:07:44] bring now bring up the wild that first

[1:07:46] one. Yeah, I think it's No,

[1:07:51] this was this was a presentation that we

[1:07:53] partnered with the Hurricane Valley Fire

[1:07:55] Protection District on um just kind of

[1:07:58] introducing the concept of the WOOI zone

[1:08:00] and um I think that's I think one of

[1:08:04] these slides has our map in there.

[1:08:05] >> There's the high-risisk

[1:08:06] >> that's the high-risisk WOI zone from the

[1:08:09] state.

[1:08:12] Keep going. Keep going. That there you

[1:08:14] go. that this is a really bad version. I

[1:08:17] apologize, but that's the map. We'll get

[1:08:19] a better version on the on the website.

[1:08:22] >> So, it hasn't changed substantially from

[1:08:23] that.

[1:08:24] >> No. No. So, any anything um on either

[1:08:29] the east or west of those two red lines

[1:08:31] would be in the WOOI zone.

[1:08:34] Um and yeah, so so between the two lines

[1:08:38] would not be in the WOOI zone. So

[1:08:41] probably most of our commercial

[1:08:42] properties are not in the WOOI zone. Is

[1:08:45] that a true statement?

[1:08:46] >> Correct.

[1:08:47] >> Yep.

[1:08:50] » So maybe we don't need to concern

[1:08:54] ourselves too much about changing the

[1:08:56] code for commercial zones if they're not

[1:08:59] in not going to be in the WOI zone

[1:09:01] anyway.

[1:09:02] Okay.

[1:09:04] Interesting idea.

[1:09:08] Um

[1:09:11] just gets really ugly if you're on the

[1:09:13] border all that.

[1:09:14] >> Yeah. What if you're on the red line?

[1:09:16] >> Red line or your neighbor is okay, but I

[1:09:19] you're not because that's where the red

[1:09:20] line goes.

[1:09:21] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[1:09:22] >> The same thing happens with Foothill and

[1:09:24] Valley. I mean, Canyon Springs has

[1:09:26] several

[1:09:28] foothill properties that are on the

[1:09:30] river and valley properties that are up

[1:09:33] from the river. So yeah, we run into

[1:09:36] that kind of thing and

[1:09:38] um

[1:09:39] >> trying to figure out how that influences

[1:09:40] our codes.

[1:09:41] >> How does it influence our codes? Yeah.

[1:09:43] >> Yeah.

[1:09:44] >> And and there will be neighbors who are

[1:09:46] going to be different because they'll be

[1:09:48] on two sides of the line.

[1:09:50] >> Yeah.

[1:09:50] >> And it's the same with the high risk

[1:09:52] like and Anastasia. Some people will be

[1:09:55] paying a fee and your neighbor next door

[1:09:58] across the street don't

[1:10:00] >> because they're not yet.

[1:10:01] >> Yeah.

[1:10:08] Are there any other comments or

[1:10:11] questions?

[1:10:12] Um,

[1:10:14] so, so what what would be the plan for

[1:10:17] this?

[1:10:18] I'm assuming that we would not want to

[1:10:21] make changes to that we're talking about

[1:10:24] here until we know when the WOOI code is

[1:10:27] adopted because we're going to refer to

[1:10:29] that WOOI code which is not yet in our

[1:10:33] town code.

[1:10:36] >> Yes. So the plan is that the WOOI code

[1:10:38] will be adopted in June by the town

[1:10:40] council. So I think by the time this is

[1:10:43] run through a few work meetings

[1:10:46] >> then it'll already Okay.

[1:10:48] >> Okay.

[1:10:48] >> Is is this

[1:10:51] map uh fixed in stone when that adoption

[1:10:55] occurs or is this going to be a um you

[1:10:59] know I don't know something that can

[1:11:02] change over time conditions change or do

[1:11:05] you have to go through and change the

[1:11:07] code to do it? Um yes and yes it can

[1:11:11] change just just like any other zone

[1:11:12] boundary. It it can change um and and

[1:11:15] yes we would need to change the code to

[1:11:17] do so because the the WOOI zone is going

[1:11:20] to be um housed in title nine of the

[1:11:24] code. That's our building standards and

[1:11:26] not title 10 which is our land use

[1:11:28] ordinance. the process to change the

[1:11:31] code is much easier than it is for than

[1:11:34] it would be to like change a property

[1:11:36] from value residential to village

[1:11:39] commercial or something like that. Um so yes

[1:11:44] it can be changed. Yes, it will require

[1:11:46] changing the code and that code change

[1:11:48] process is much easier than a typical

[1:11:50] zone change that the commission would be

[1:11:52] familiar with. Can the can the code be

[1:11:54] drafted in a way that this this becomes

[1:11:57] a you know something that is referred to

[1:12:00] in the code but it's but it can but it's

[1:12:02] changeable without having to go through

[1:12:04] that process.

[1:12:06] >> I think we have to adopt it by ordinance

[1:12:08] for it to be for it to become effective

[1:12:10] um to to binding. Um ordinances carry

[1:12:14] the force of law behind them and because

[1:12:16] this WOOI code is something that we'll

[1:12:17] want to have the force of law behind

[1:12:18] we'll have to adopt it by ordinance. Um,

[1:12:21] but again, changing changing an

[1:12:23] ordinance associated with title nine is much easier than changing an

[1:12:28] ordinance associated with title 10, for

[1:12:29] example. There's no public hearing

[1:12:31] requirement. It is something that the

[1:12:33] town council can do on their own

[1:12:34] initiative without uh going through the

[1:12:36] planning commission process. So, it's a pretty streamlined

[1:12:40] um process to get that changed.

[1:12:42] >> Okay.

[1:12:46] » One other question. So, if the state

[1:12:49] came in and said you're in the

[1:12:51] Will you zone?

[1:12:53] But if the city said you are, do we are

[1:12:56] they as restrictive on the defendable

[1:13:00] area?

[1:13:05] The only time the state is going to get

[1:13:07] involved is with the properties that

[1:13:09] they have mapped as the highrisk WOOI

[1:13:11] zone properties. Go back to that red

[1:13:14] blob over onazi plot. There you go.

[1:13:17] those properties um have been mapped as

[1:13:21] the high-risk wooi zone properties.

[1:13:24] Those are the only properties that the

[1:13:26] state is going to become involved in.

[1:13:28] And they're not going to

[1:13:31] um

[1:13:32] from a regulation standpoint tell you

[1:13:36] what you can and can't do with your

[1:13:37] property. What they are going to say is

[1:13:40] we're going to assess you a fee and the

[1:13:43] amount of the fee that you're going to

[1:13:45] pay is

[1:13:47] uh directly related to how well you have

[1:13:51] mitigated the fire risk around your

[1:13:53] property. So you're welcome to keep your

[1:13:56] property in a state of high fire risk.

[1:13:59] You will just be paying more money in

[1:14:02] your assessment.

[1:14:04] If you want to reduce that assessment

[1:14:06] and you live in this high-risisk wooi

[1:14:08] area, then you would say, "Oh, I'm going

[1:14:10] to do the things that the state has

[1:14:12] asked me to do to reduce the amount of

[1:14:14] money that I have to pay every year in

[1:14:16] my assessment."

[1:14:18] >> The city of Springdale is going to

[1:14:22] assign what they think is a high risk

[1:14:24] independent of the state.

[1:14:31] And then do they get fines? the city of

[1:14:33] Springdale start saying

[1:14:35] >> that so we are the the again the whole

[1:14:38] terminology is unfortunate.

[1:14:40] We're not going there is a

[1:14:46] we're not going to be saying a property

[1:14:48] is high risk the same way the state is

[1:14:50] saying a property is high risk. We're

[1:14:52] going to say saying a property is either

[1:14:55] in the WOOI zone or it's not in the WOOI

[1:14:58] zone. If it's in the WOOI zone, the WOOI

[1:15:01] zone requirements are applicable to that

[1:15:03] property. That means when you develop

[1:15:06] the property, you will need to comply

[1:15:09] with the building requirements and

[1:15:11] building materials and those kinds of

[1:15:12] things. The only part of the WOOI zone

[1:15:15] that is retroactive is the defensible

[1:15:18] space requirement.

[1:15:20] Um, and so the town could say at some

[1:15:25] future date, you are in the WOOI zone.

[1:15:28] You are out of compliance with the

[1:15:30] defensible space requirement on your

[1:15:31] property. Therefore, we're going to

[1:15:33] bring we are going to be bringing a code

[1:15:35] enforcement action against you and we

[1:15:38] would enforce it through a a code

[1:15:39] enforcement process.

[1:15:42] >> Should be up to the city council and the

[1:15:44] planning commission to review. No,

[1:15:47] that's a that's an administrative

[1:15:48] process that that is is done through our

[1:15:52] community development department.

[1:15:54] Whether or not we're actually going to

[1:15:56] get to that point, it I I I think is is

[1:16:02] questionable. I I think the the whole um

[1:16:06] idea behind this WOOI zone adoption and

[1:16:09] the defensible space requirement is to

[1:16:11] educate property owners about the

[1:16:12] wildfire risk on their properties and to

[1:16:15] say here are things that you can do to

[1:16:18] better protect your property. We've

[1:16:20] already started this process. The other

[1:16:21] link that was on that website, the

[1:16:24] town's website that that we saw, um, was

[1:16:27] a a presentation that the Damarind

[1:16:31] Valley Fire Chief came and presented to

[1:16:35] the community about here's what you can

[1:16:38] do as a property owner to make your

[1:16:40] property more fire safe. That's what

[1:16:43] we're trying to do. We're we're not

[1:16:45] trying to be punitive as a as a town.

[1:16:47] We're not trying to come down with a

[1:16:49] heavy hand. So I don't envision a time

[1:16:52] where we would ever get to the point

[1:16:53] where we are finding people for being

[1:16:55] out of compliance with the defensible

[1:16:56] space requirement. I think it's

[1:16:58] primarily about education and helping

[1:17:00] them become more firewise.

[1:17:02] And the reason one of the things I bring

[1:17:04] this up is like for burns and screening

[1:17:06] between properties.

[1:17:09] Well, if you have trees up to be

[1:17:10] screening and all of a sudden you're in

[1:17:12] a defensible area, you got to start

[1:17:14] cutting your screening out.

[1:17:18] So that becomes, hey, we got an

[1:17:20] ordinance that says you got to put up a

[1:17:22] screen.

[1:17:23] And then you have another ordinance that

[1:17:25] says, oh, that's too much trees. You got

[1:17:27] to start taking them out. That's why I'm

[1:17:29] trying to figure out

[1:17:31] >> it brings up a good point. Maybe

[1:17:33] relative to what we're this issue, we

[1:17:35] should look at what are the screening

[1:17:38] um requirements, our ordinances, whether

[1:17:41] we need to modify those. I think that's

[1:17:43] a

[1:17:44] >> a good point.

[1:17:45] >> Mainly applies in the commercial. That's

[1:17:47] the only tends to

[1:17:48] >> which is not is um not it's outside of

[1:17:52] the WOI boundary, right?

[1:17:56] >> Look like most of them were. Maybe all

[1:17:57] of them are. We don't know for sure at

[1:17:59] this point, but

[1:18:00] >> um yeah, you're right. The screening

[1:18:03] requirement is generally to screen

[1:18:05] between commercial zone and a

[1:18:07] residential zone. And so if you're

[1:18:09] required to put trees and or plants in

[1:18:12] that screening area and it happens to be

[1:18:15] on the other side of that red line, then

[1:18:16] I think it's something to look at. Yeah.

[1:18:19] >> Yeah. I' I've seen, you know, residents

[1:18:22] with screening up just even just a block

[1:18:25] to nine

[1:18:27] technically in the um the workhouse, you

[1:18:31] know, zone.

[1:18:35] They uh you could put screening. Part of

[1:18:37] that code says they expect some

[1:18:39] screening up in different houses

[1:18:43] >> that they're building a certain number

[1:18:46] of houses for the workhouse overlay

[1:18:47] zone.

[1:18:48] >> Oh, workforce overlay zone. Yeah. Okay.

[1:18:50] >> Technically, according to our code, you

[1:18:51] have to put in some kind of screening,

[1:18:54] >> but if you're in a red area

[1:18:57] >> now, again, we got a conflict that

[1:18:58] that's where I keep

[1:19:00] >> Yeah. Yeah. And and I think it's

[1:19:01] important to to recognize and and Terry,

[1:19:03] you made this point earlier that there

[1:19:06] um one is not all trees are created

[1:19:08] equal when it comes to fire risk. Um

[1:19:10] there are actually many trees that the

[1:19:13] town would allow and encourage that

[1:19:15] don't present a significant fire risk.

[1:19:18] Um there are those that obviously do

[1:19:20] like junipers or opinions are a

[1:19:22] significant fire risk. So so I think

[1:19:24] it's important to to recognize that. And

[1:19:26] the other is that the WOOI defensible

[1:19:28] space requirement does not mean you

[1:19:29] cannot have a tree. It means that you

[1:19:33] need to be careful about where that tree

[1:19:34] is located and how it's maintained. If

[1:19:37] the tree is within a certain distance of

[1:19:38] the home, 10 feet, it has you you have

[1:19:41] to make sure that the branches are 10

[1:19:42] feet away. If it's into the defensible

[1:19:44] space, you need to make sure that it's

[1:19:45] limbmed up off the ground, at least six

[1:19:46] feet off the ground. But it does not

[1:19:49] mean that you cannot have trees. So I I think I think presenting this as a

[1:19:54] choice between

[1:19:56] trees

[1:19:57] and screening or WOOI zone compliance is not completely accurate because the

[1:20:04] WOI zone actually does allow trees. It

[1:20:06] just says here's how they have to be

[1:20:07] maintained and and here's how they have

[1:20:09] to be located

[1:20:11] >> in the state high-risk areas on

[1:20:14] Anastasia. Where are things at with um

[1:20:17] the defensible space to your house

[1:20:20] that's actually outside of your

[1:20:23] property?

[1:20:25] The code said 100 ft or to the property

[1:20:29] line. So

[1:20:31] >> property line's closer then the the code

[1:20:35] says you only have to go to your

[1:20:37] property line. Now does that make you

[1:20:38] safe? I don't know.

[1:20:40] So when we did the walk through with the

[1:20:43] fire chief,

[1:20:45] he was showing us stuff out in the open

[1:20:47] space of how to um

[1:20:50] make the like the brush like at least

[1:20:53] three or four feet away from each other

[1:20:55] when not on our property.

[1:20:58] >> Yeah. So so a couple things. Um Terry is

[1:21:00] right that the strict wooi zone

[1:21:02] requirements talk about to the property

[1:21:04] line or a certain distance. That's a

[1:21:07] wooi zone again. There's two different

[1:21:10] things going on here. There's the WOOI

[1:21:12] zone, which is what we'll be enforcing.

[1:21:15] Then there's what the state requires for

[1:21:17] high-risisk WOOI properties and and more

[1:21:19] broadly what maybe an insurance provider

[1:21:22] is going to require for um protection of

[1:21:24] a of a structure. They don't care what

[1:21:26] the WOOI zone requires.

[1:21:27] >> They're worried about actual protection

[1:21:29] of the structure. And they may in fact

[1:21:31] have told property owners, I don't care

[1:21:35] if that tree is not on your property.

[1:21:36] it's presenting a wildfire risk and it

[1:21:38] needs to be mitigated. Um so in in a

[1:21:41] recent town council meeting, the town

[1:21:43] council has given blanket approval

[1:21:49] to maintain vegetation in the Anastasia

[1:21:53] Plateau conservation easement for the

[1:21:56] purpose of fire mitigation as required

[1:21:59] by uh either WOOI or a um

[1:22:06] insurance or or some some other

[1:22:09] >> requirement. requirement. There is there

[1:22:10] is a requirement that you that a

[1:22:12] property would need to kind of vet that

[1:22:14] with the community development

[1:22:15] department. So, it's not just a cart

[1:22:16] blanch go down and cut every tree you want, but the council has recognized

[1:22:21] that issue and has taken steps to

[1:22:22] address it.

[1:22:28] » Anything else?

[1:22:32] » We turn.

[1:22:32] >> I just have one question um about Sorry,

[1:22:35] not about this topic though. um about

[1:22:37] the

[1:22:38] >> the the June work meeting. Um is

[1:22:43] >> it appropriate now to take action or

[1:22:45] would that be something for the on the

[1:22:46] agenda next meeting? Like do we need to

[1:22:49] vote on that?

[1:22:51] >> Um so it is on your um on the meeting

[1:22:54] schedule that you publish.

[1:22:56] >> Yeah.

[1:22:56] >> And and so it it probably would be a

[1:22:59] good idea to take action. I mean we

[1:23:01] we've canceled meetings in the past

[1:23:02] without a formal action. So, I don't

[1:23:04] think it requires one, but it's probably

[1:23:05] a good idea just for transparency

[1:23:07] >> so so that the community is aware that

[1:23:09] we're going to be doing that.

[1:23:11] >> So, the answer is I would I don't think

[1:23:13] it's required, but I would encourage you

[1:23:14] to do that.

[1:23:15] >> Okay. Does somebody want to make a

[1:23:16] motion?

[1:23:16] >> I move that we um take the June 3rd

[1:23:19] meeting, I guess it is, off the

[1:23:20] schedule.

[1:23:21] >> Well, actually, you can't do it tonight

[1:23:22] because on the agenda,

[1:23:23] >> you have to do it in a public

[1:23:25] >> Yeah,

[1:23:25] >> it needs to be on the agenda. Okay.

[1:23:27] >> You have to do it. I I apologize if my

[1:23:30] way

[1:23:30] >> you'd have to have it on the agenda in

[1:23:32] your next meeting and then action on it

[1:23:34] when it's on the agenda.

[1:23:35] >> Perfect. Thank you.

[1:23:40] » Okay.

[1:23:40] >> If we forget to do it next time, we'll

[1:23:42] just cancel it afterwards.

[1:23:44] We'll just have nobody show up.

[1:23:48] >> Now, is there a motion to adjurnn?

[1:23:52] >> I gave up.

[1:23:52] >> You gave up.

[1:23:54] >> I will second Paul's motion now.

[1:23:56] >> Okay. Motion by Paul, second by Terry.

[1:23:59] All in favor?

[1:24:00] >> Rich? I.

[1:24:01] >> Terry? I.

[1:24:02] >> Jennifer I.

[1:24:02] >> Paul. I

[1:24:03] >> Kashai.

[1:24:05] >> Motion passes. Meeting is adjourned.

05/06/2026 Planning Commission Work Meeting

Transcript