[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.