[0:00] It's 5:02 and we are at the Canyon
[0:02] Community Center
[0:03] for the May 20th meeting of the
[0:05] Springdale Planning Commission.
[0:08] Um, good evening and welcome to
[0:11] tonight's meeting. I'm Terry Kusky. I am
[0:13] the vice chair of the Springdale
[0:15] Planning Commission. The chairman is out
[0:17] this week.
[0:18] Um, so I'll be running the meetings.
[0:20] Um, from the town we have Tom Dansey
[0:23] and Al Connelly and April Red
[0:28] Sorry about that. April Redez, right?
[0:31] And um
[0:33] and Kendall Lusebrink.
[0:34] And on the diocese here, we have um Rich
[0:38] Swanson, Paul Zimmerman, um Matt Fink
[0:41] from the National Park Service,
[0:43] and myself, Terry Kusky.
[0:46] Um
[0:48] So,
[0:49] uh so I think we have a quorum and we're
[0:51] ready to go, right?
[0:53] Uh absent Oh, yeah. So, absent is uh Tom
[0:56] Kenniston,
[0:57] um Kosh Bhatti, um Melissa uh Laborn,
[1:01] and um
[1:03] Jennifer McCollum,
[1:04] who is the chairman.
[1:07] Um
[1:08] So, do we have a motion for approval of
[1:11] tonight's agenda?
[1:12] I move that we tonight's agenda. Second.
[1:15] Okay, motion by Rich, second by Paul.
[1:18] All in favor? Rich, I. Terry, I. Al, I.
[1:23] We are ready.
[1:25] Um, does the town have any general
[1:26] announcements?
[1:30] I have one and um yeah, one item in
[1:33] relation to action item A2.
[1:36] Uh we had proposed at the last meeting
[1:39] that
[1:40] we were going to cancel the June 3rd
[1:42] Planning Commission work meeting.
[1:44] Uh we're proposing not to cancel that
[1:47] Thursday. There's a design development
[1:49] review
[1:50] um
[1:51] that needs to be reviewed at that, so
[1:54] um
[1:56] Yeah, so that
[1:58] no longer needs to be an action item.
[2:02] Okay. So, the town will have a resources
[2:04] available for that meeting then?
[2:06] Yes.
[2:08] I know the on the play I already made
[2:09] plans.
[2:13] Sorry.
[2:15] Okay.
[2:17] Any other announcements?
[2:20] Okay.
[2:21] Um does anybody wish to
[2:23] declare any conflicts with today's uh
[2:25] agenda items?
[2:27] No?
[2:28] I don't see that. Okay. So, for
[2:31] tonight's agenda we have
[2:33] well, now one action item.
[2:35] Um which is the public hearing for a
[2:38] transient lodging overlay zone
[2:41] application.
[2:42] Um and then additionally there is a
[2:45] consent item to approve the meeting
[2:48] minutes from the March 4th meeting.
[2:51] Um
[2:52] so for the public meeting
[2:54] I'd like to just uh
[2:56] go over a little bit here. Um
[2:59] the some of the rules. The rules are on
[3:01] the back of the agenda if anybody wants
[3:04] to review them in detail.
[3:05] Um
[3:07] we there will be opportunities for the
[3:09] public to speak and ask questions during
[3:11] the public hearing. We will announce
[3:14] time.
[3:16] Um and
[3:18] anyone wishing to make a statement
[3:20] please come to the podium and speak into
[3:22] the microphone.
[3:24] Um we ask that all attendees register at
[3:27] the back table there so we can have an
[3:28] accurate representation of of who is
[3:31] here and who is speaking.
[3:33] Um
[3:35] the public comments are generally
[3:37] limited to 3 minutes per person. Um
[3:40] And so I think we're about ready.
[3:43] Um so the first item is a um
[3:46] public hearing for the transient overlay
[3:49] zone application at 975 Zion Park
[3:52] Boulevard.
[3:54] Um
[3:55] So, this is I believe Nile, this is your
[3:57] item. Do you have a presentation for us?
[3:59] Thank you.
[4:01] So, this item is for zone change and a
[4:04] public hearing hearing as you indicated.
[4:07] Um
[4:08] So, the applicant is Miss Mrs. Trista
[4:11] Rayner and she's applied for the
[4:12] transient lodging overlay zone to be
[4:15] applied to her property at 975
[4:18] Zion Park Boulevard.
[4:21] Uh the property is in the central
[4:22] commercial zone and so it's eligible
[4:25] um for the transient lodging overlay
[4:28] zone.
[4:29] Um
[4:31] The application window for the transient
[4:34] lodging over overlay zone
[4:36] uh comes every 2 years in even years
[4:40] during the month of March.
[4:42] So, we had the application window open
[4:45] recently during March 2026.
[4:48] The town received one application and
[4:50] this is um the application that you're
[4:53] reviewing this evening.
[4:56] Um
[4:57] The property
[4:59] just pull up an aerial view.
[5:02] Uh the property's currently developed
[5:04] with Mimi's Cafe at the front of the
[5:06] property. Uh there's a second restaurant
[5:09] building behind that which is vacant. Um
[5:12] there are also six town homes that are
[5:15] used as vacation rentals.
[5:17] Uh the proposal involves demolishing
[5:20] this restaurant building at the rear
[5:23] that's vacant at the moment
[5:25] and replacing it with a new building
[5:27] that would house four transient lodging
[5:30] units and two long-term rental units.
[5:33] Um the application includes draft plans
[5:37] of the proposed new building.
[5:40] So, the commission should review the
[5:43] application to determine whether or not
[5:45] it promotes the aims
[5:47] of the general plan and the purposes of
[5:50] the transient lodging overlay zone.
[5:53] The commission should then make
[5:55] recommendations to the town council to
[5:58] either approve or deny the application.
[6:01] I have a few just points to for your
[6:04] consideration
[6:06] before handing it over.
[6:07] Um
[6:09] the transient lodging overlay zone
[6:11] chapter of the code includes application
[6:14] standards and also review criteria.
[6:17] So, the application standards are more
[6:20] kind of quantifiable what makes a
[6:22] complete application.
[6:24] And then the the review criteria are
[6:27] more
[6:28] qualitative questions about, you know,
[6:31] does this
[6:32] proposal meet the vision of the general
[6:34] plan and supports the general plan's
[6:37] vision for transient lodging.
[6:41] Uh the applicants provided responses to
[6:43] those questions and they're in the staff
[6:46] report.
[6:48] Um secondly, uh the the overlay zone
[6:52] requires one long-term rental unit for
[6:54] every four lodging units.
[6:57] Um and so, you'll see that the applicant
[6:59] is provide is proposing
[7:02] four
[7:03] nightly rental units and two long-term
[7:06] rental units.
[7:07] So,
[7:08] because they're exceeding that by one
[7:12] unit, there's an extra
[7:14] long-term rental.
[7:16] Um
[7:18] their their application
[7:20] um
[7:21] requests that only one of those units be
[7:25] um
[7:26] tied to the restrictive covenant that
[7:29] both of the units would be long-term
[7:31] rental units.
[7:32] But, um
[7:34] the the chapter the code requires that
[7:37] the long-term rental unit that you use
[7:40] um
[7:42] or that that is implied in the trans
[7:44] geological overlay zone
[7:46] can't be tied to to the to the trans
[7:50] geological unit, so can't be used as a
[7:54] um
[7:55] property manager or that kind of thing.
[7:58] Um so they're requesting that the second
[8:00] unit because it's not actually required
[8:02] by the code would um
[8:05] would not have that restriction on it
[8:06] just in the event that they did want to
[8:08] have a property manager there.
[8:11] Um
[8:14] two public comments have been received.
[8:16] Uh one of them was included in the
[8:18] application pack and then the other one
[8:20] was forwarded
[8:22] uh this afternoon.
[8:24] Um
[8:25] and then
[8:27] finally the application pack includes
[8:29] drawings uh showing the proposed
[8:32] building.
[8:33] Uh however
[8:34] the eagle-eyed commissioners may have
[8:36] noticed that one of the elevations is
[8:38] missing and I apologize for that. Uh but
[8:41] just for your reference, this is the
[8:43] missing elevation.
[8:45] Um so it's it's in the same style as as
[8:48] the others, but um
[8:50] just wanted to bring that up because I I
[8:52] had admitted to include that in the
[8:53] pack.
[8:55] Um so I'd be happy to answer any
[8:57] questions. Obviously the applicant is
[8:59] here and she's ready to
[9:01] uh explain her proposal, too.
[9:06] Um would the applicant like to make a
[9:07] presentation?
[9:10] Hi, Trista Rayner.
[9:13] I'm the owner at 975 Zane Park
[9:15] Boulevard.
[9:17] Thank you for
[9:19] accepting my application and giving me a
[9:20] chance to talk to you tonight. Um
[9:23] we
[9:24] had a submission in 2024, the first year
[9:27] that you guys had the TLO overlay
[9:31] meetings. Um
[9:33] Anyway, we took all the input and
[9:36] feedback we got from the town meetings
[9:38] into this new design. So, we really
[9:40] listened on scale of building, style of
[9:43] building, making it more harmonious with
[9:46] the surroundings, and having more park
[9:48] architecture,
[9:50] and landscaping. Um
[9:52] so, I I hope we accomplished that, too.
[9:55] The suggestions that were made last
[9:56] time.
[9:57] Um forgive me for reading a a couple of
[10:01] these, but it'll be very hard for me to
[10:02] get through my thoughts without a couple
[10:04] of notes.
[10:05] >> [laughter]
[10:06] >> Um this building is currently vacant on
[10:08] the property, and for those of you who
[10:10] may not be familiar with our original
[10:12] application,
[10:13] um
[10:15] this building, although wonderful, was
[10:18] built with aerated recycled concrete,
[10:21] and um
[10:23] it does not lend itself to remodeling,
[10:26] or adding on, or changing. Like, if we
[10:28] even took a window out, we would have a
[10:30] problem with the building. So, although
[10:32] that was excellent for the building initially, it is not um
[10:37] able to be like remodeled into something
[10:39] differently, which is why it's been
[10:41] vacant for so long. Um so, we hope to
[10:44] rebuild the vacant building on the
[10:45] property, um like I said, more park-like
[10:47] architecture with rock, metal, and
[10:49] stucco.
[10:51] The design elements include
[10:53] replacing the large It's a modern
[10:55] building now with very large windows,
[10:58] massive windows. Um so, our new design
[11:00] elements include smaller residential
[11:02] windows,
[11:04] as well as um
[11:06] the added expense of building an
[11:07] internal
[11:09] breezeway, and internal walkways, which
[11:11] we hope will benefit benefit the night
[11:13] sky ordinance by not having these on the
[11:16] outside.
[11:18] The new building also has stepped-back
[11:20] walls. Um that internal breezeway in the
[11:24] center breaks up the front facade,
[11:27] and there's numerous patios and
[11:29] balconies um to create more open space,
[11:32] rather than a a very large box type
[11:34] building.
[11:35] Um
[11:37] for those of you aren't familiar with
[11:38] our property, it slopes significantly
[11:41] from SR-9 down to this property site.
[11:46] So, the new building pad is actually 8
[11:49] ft lower than Zion Park Park Boulevard
[11:52] and 5 ft lower than Mimi's Cafe um
[11:55] and 3 ft lower than the adjacent Canyon
[11:58] Offering's property.
[12:00] So, with this rebuild um we feel that
[12:02] the natural skyline and vistas will be
[12:04] unaffected um
[12:06] and the new building will blend in
[12:08] um more harmoniously with the
[12:10] surrounding properties and buildings.
[12:13] Um
[12:16] the redesign gave us a larger TLO
[12:18] residential unit, but it also gave us an
[12:20] opportunity to build a second much
[12:23] needed residential
[12:26] and on that being a long-term rental
[12:29] um
[12:30] potentially employee housing. We don't
[12:32] have an on-site manager now. I oversee
[12:35] everything personally,
[12:37] but in the future should the need arise,
[12:39] that gives us an opportunity maybe to
[12:41] have an on-site manager, which would be great.
[12:45] Um
[12:46] the two residential units
[12:48] make up 43%
[12:51] of the living space.
[12:53] Each residential unit is 916
[12:56] ft
[12:57] and will feel more like an owned space
[13:00] versus a rental.
[13:02] We intend to have upgraded amenities,
[13:04] private laundry facilities for each
[13:07] unit, patio and balcony spaces making it
[13:10] as residential as we can in the
[13:12] commercial zone for those for those
[13:14] residents.
[13:15] Um we've also taken extra efforts to
[13:18] build
[13:20] to do the rebuild design facing away
[13:23] from our most um adjacent neighbor,
[13:25] which is Laura Dody.
[13:27] Um so, the building faces Juniper Lane.
[13:31] You would enter through the center,
[13:33] through the breezeway, and then go into
[13:35] the internal um corridors.
[13:38] The backside will be first story and
[13:41] second story will be residential units.
[13:44] So, those will back against Laura Dody's
[13:46] property.
[13:48] And additionally, we put our utility and
[13:51] storage closets
[13:53] adjacent to her residential so that
[13:56] there would be
[13:57] minimal um impact for her. In fact,
[14:00] it'll be
[14:01] much better than the current zoned use
[14:04] for her, and she's very happy with that.
[14:07] If you haven't had a chance to look at
[14:08] her letter, her letter is excellent. If maybe I could even read it. Um she
[14:13] couldn't be here tonight, so.
[14:16] Um with our current lodging, just to
[14:18] give you some information about us, we
[14:20] don't we choose not to maximize our
[14:22] occupancy on the property um to lower
[14:25] the impact on our property and on town
[14:28] resources.
[14:29] Our guests love staying in the center of
[14:31] town. The biggest compliment we receive
[14:33] is that they feel like locals staying in
[14:35] the community and supporting our local
[14:37] businesses. That's a really unique
[14:40] opportunity to provide
[14:43] residential style rentals to both
[14:46] long-term residents and people visiting.
[14:49] Um
[14:50] It's pretty unique for the downtown
[14:52] area.
[14:53] Um most of our car uh guests do not
[14:56] utilize their cars during their stay,
[14:58] which is an added bonus. They even walk
[15:00] to the park, which I think it's too far
[15:02] to walk, but they do walk to the park. Um Our
[15:06] goal is to provide a variety of mixed
[15:08] uses on the property, so we built 18 um
[15:13] townhomes in the back, which were sold
[15:15] as residential townhomes. We have a
[15:17] residential overlay on the property.
[15:19] And half of those, I'm happy to say, are
[15:22] in turn re-rented out to local workers,
[15:25] which is awesome.
[15:27] Um
[15:28] we're trying to do village scale
[15:31] protecting um
[15:32] Springdale and avoiding the consumptive
[15:34] tourism by not building to ordinance
[15:37] maximums.
[15:39] This proposed building size is 38%
[15:42] smaller than X,
[15:44] which are two bedrooms. Those count for
[15:47] 12, I suppose, plus four.
[15:50] All of that um is 20% lower. The
[15:52] transient number of units is 20% lower
[15:54] than than the town ordinance as well.
[15:57] Um we have a unique opportunity to bring
[16:01] this mix into Springdale's commercial
[16:03] core.
[16:04] It's very important for workers to be
[16:06] able to live in town.
[16:08] We employ many people who commute from
[16:10] out of town, so we're excited to provide
[16:12] this opportunity of two residential
[16:15] units.
[16:16] Um
[16:17] bringing the residential and small-scale
[16:19] lodging also supports our local
[16:21] businesses, which is needed year-round.
[16:24] Um
[16:25] this also supports Springdale locals and
[16:27] workers by having businesses there.
[16:30] Our property is 1.18 acres and modest in
[16:34] scale when compared to other properties
[16:36] in central and village commercial.
[16:38] Um
[16:39] can we go back to the
[16:41] Mimi's overhead
[16:45] or aerial view?
[16:51] Great, thank you.
[16:53] So um
[16:55] the town homes that are in the back have
[16:58] a 1,000 square foot footprint each.
[17:01] Mimi's Cafe has a 2,000 the building
[17:04] Mimi's Cafe building has a 2,000 square
[17:06] foot
[17:07] footprint. And the rest the second
[17:10] restaurant building
[17:12] with the patios, I believe it's close to four 4,000, maybe 3,700.
[17:19] We're proposing that to be $2,600. So,
[17:21] it'll be or 2,600 2,600 square feet.
[17:24] It'll be a smaller footprint than what's
[17:26] currently currently there.
[17:28] We've done our best to try to maximize
[17:31] um
[17:32] the ability to remodel that building and
[17:35] it just isn't going to work. So,
[17:38] unfortunately um
[17:40] starting over is really the only the
[17:42] only way we can see that we can develop
[17:45] on the property
[17:46] um and not have a vacant building.
[17:49] um
[17:51] All of the plans will not affect any
[17:53] sewer water.
[17:55] Um most of the connections are just to
[18:00] the right of the building in the
[18:01] driveway, so further down
[18:04] to the right. Like next to Mimi or next
[18:07] to
[18:08] the vacant. Yeah, no. Well, anyway,
[18:12] >> [laughter]
[18:12] >> just to the right of the vacant
[18:14] building. Um along
[18:17] like where our trash dumpster is is
[18:20] where the Yeah, that's where all the
[18:21] sewer connections are. So, we don't
[18:23] foresee any closing of the road or
[18:26] impact to um infrastructure with this
[18:29] rebuild.
[18:30] Um
[18:32] The building
[18:34] already is in the central commercial
[18:36] zone and even comparing it to buildings
[18:39] in village commercial
[18:41] we have less
[18:43] density for transient lodging. Our
[18:46] buildings are also smaller scale when
[18:48] compared to you know, Soul Foods. I
[18:51] think their building is 12,000 square
[18:54] feet.
[18:55] Um the new Zion Guru building is I think
[18:59] 7,000 square feet in a 5,000 square foot
[19:02] footprint. All great buildings. I'm just
[19:04] pointing out like size differences. The
[19:07] building it's most similar in style to
[19:10] is probably Laura Dody's building built
[19:13] next door. Um
[19:15] in fact, if you added a second
[19:18] residential unit to Laura Dodi's
[19:20] property as it's being built under the
[19:22] TLO application, it would be very
[19:25] similar in size to what we're proposing.
[19:29] Uh let's see.
[19:33] Um
[19:33] >> [sighs]
[19:35] >> part of uh remodeling the the building
[19:38] would give us an opportunity we would
[19:40] like to have an opportunity to have a
[19:42] revised landscaping plan. There's a lot
[19:45] of hardscape on the property. Um we've proposed
[19:50] like a more formal bike
[19:52] stand station and maybe rest area
[19:56] with a drinking fountain possibly um and
[19:58] also um the possibility of electric
[20:02] charging stations if that's something
[20:03] desirable by the town. We think both
[20:06] would add to the walkability of that
[20:09] downtown area, give people a place to
[20:11] stop, maybe go have lunch while their
[20:13] car is charging, and support our local
[20:15] businesses.
[20:17] Um
[20:19] I think that's up that's it for me. I I
[20:21] look forward to hearing your feedback
[20:24] and um
[20:27] thank you for your time.
[20:32] Uh is there any questions for the
[20:33] applicant?
[20:35] You mentioned it's a it's a remodel. Uh
[20:38] you're not trying to stay in the same
[20:39] footprint with my impression. You're
[20:41] after remove the building and replace
[20:43] it.
[20:44] We're going to remove the building and
[20:45] replace it, but it has if you can see on
[20:48] the left and right, there's patio,
[20:50] restaurant patio spaces, and those would
[20:52] be reduced. So, it's essentially the
[20:55] same footprint, but it'll be it'll be
[20:57] smaller.
[20:58] Uh like we're we're trying to put the
[20:59] building exactly where it was to
[21:02] minimize impact, but um the footprint
[21:05] will be smaller overall than the
[21:06] restaurant's space with the patios.
[21:09] Does that Is that what you were asking?
[21:11] Yes. Okay.
[21:12] >> [laughter]
[21:12] >> Um
[21:14] So, uh
[21:16] I I see there were stairs in the back,
[21:17] and I believe there's an existing
[21:19] basement in the building. The intent is
[21:20] to retain the existing basement?
[21:22] >> Yes, it would be It wouldn't be
[21:24] cost-effective to try to
[21:27] fix that. So, with that, it'll just be
[21:28] used as additional storage, you know,
[21:30] maybe laundry facilities something down
[21:32] the line.
[21:33] Yeah. So, there's no plans for um for
[21:37] public or client access to that area?
[21:39] >> No. No, not at all. No, none.
[21:43] And um it looks like from the drawings
[21:46] you're planning the similar parking
[21:48] arrangements as the as your 2024
[21:52] request.
[21:53] Um yes. And
[21:55] there's there's two
[21:57] things about par- We We have, I think,
[21:59] 42 41 parking spots. We have
[22:03] more than sufficient parking for two
[22:05] restaurants or this proposal for
[22:07] transient lodging and the restaurant.
[22:10] Um
[22:11] but in 2022, the town took away street
[22:15] parking,
[22:16] and um
[22:18] our parking, I don't know how many of
[22:20] you A couple of you were at the 2024
[22:23] meeting.
[22:25] Taking away that street parking made it
[22:28] very hard for our disabled
[22:32] patrons. It also is not obvious where to
[22:35] park for Mimi's Cafe. So, what we're
[22:37] proposing, and it doesn't have to look
[22:39] like this. We I've been having
[22:41] discussions with the town about this
[22:43] could be smaller, this could be one-way
[22:45] traffic, a lot of
[22:47] we can make We definitely can have more
[22:49] landscaping and less less asphalt in
[22:52] this area, but what we're trying to do
[22:54] is move our handicap parking and a few
[22:57] spots closer to Mimi's Cafe, and then
[23:01] even though we're still the ratio of
[23:04] landscaping to building um
[23:07] is still within the ordinance, what we'd
[23:09] like to do is revisit what we have on
[23:11] the property as a whole and perhaps add
[23:14] more landscaping where parking is is not
[23:17] going to be utilized anymore in the back
[23:19] perhaps or along the side.
[23:22] So.
[23:25] Yes.
[23:26] Some of those will will come out when we
[23:28] do a design review.
[23:30] Yeah.
[23:32] So that'll be the same. Um
[23:35] And and this parking is not subject to
[23:38] us doing the transient lodging. We'd
[23:40] really like to do this for Mimi's
[23:41] regardless. We need to have parking
[23:43] closer to our building.
[23:45] Um
[23:46] we just have not moved forward with it
[23:48] because it seems like it could go in
[23:49] conjunction with this and not have two
[23:51] major remodels on the property.
[23:54] But um
[23:56] we do need to have that parking sooner
[23:58] or later closer to Mimi's.
[24:00] But that's a separate. We we have enough
[24:02] parking in the back to satisfy this this
[24:04] application.
[24:06] If that makes sense. Yes, but I I tend
[24:08] to agree that having parking closer to
[24:10] the restaurant would be useful. Yeah, my own father-in-law can't come to
[24:14] Mimi's unless I drive on the grass.
[24:17] >> [laughter]
[24:18] >> It's a long walk for my mother.
[24:19] >> It's a long walk and it's uphill.
[24:22] Both ways.
[24:24] So um
[24:26] so the hand drawings that that you've
[24:29] shown as your
[24:30] architectural conceptual architecture
[24:32] didn't have any dimensions on them, but
[24:34] you you've mentioned now you're planning
[24:37] about a 2,600 square foot footprint.
[24:40] >> Footprint, right. Um for the new
[24:42] building on top of the basement. Um Mhm.
[24:46] So uh
[24:47] first of all, I I
[24:48] actually back I'd I'd like to thank you
[24:50] for coming back and for your
[24:51] thoughtfulness, time you've spent on
[24:53] this. Um
[24:54] we do want our commercial properties to
[24:56] be successful
[24:58] and and really and match with
[25:00] the the goals of the general plan. So,
[25:03] um overall I think um this is a much
[25:05] better proposal and I'm I'm going to
[25:07] compliment you on on your efforts in
[25:09] coming back.
[25:10] Um
[25:12] one of the things I find very good about
[25:14] this proposal is sort of the the new
[25:17] design
[25:18] approach to the building itself. Um
[25:22] if we included as we make a
[25:25] recommendation to town council if we
[25:26] included a
[25:28] potential
[25:29] condition that the that the building
[25:32] follow the basic design you've presented
[25:35] here in terms of square footage and and
[25:37] that, uh do you feel that you're
[25:39] far enough along in your decision-making
[25:42] that you can stick
[25:44] to this basic design?
[25:46] Uh yes. Yeah, a lot of thought went into
[25:48] it, especially with putting the
[25:50] residential units in the back. Something
[25:52] um that I I forgot to mention is there
[25:54] one not be any common walls with this
[25:56] design with the interior interior
[25:59] corridor,
[26:00] um which is really great for the
[26:03] residential units as well as the uh
[26:05] transient guests. But, yes, a lot of
[26:07] thought has gone into it. The only thing
[26:09] that I talked ideas for rock and stucco,
[26:11] but um that was just as a general
[26:14] example that we would definitely come
[26:16] back with something
[26:19] you know, very similar to what we
[26:21] proposed today.
[26:26] Yeah, I I had a question. Um I know you
[26:28] were a little bit late in sending out
[26:30] the uh request for or the notices to
[26:32] your neighbors and that. Have you gotten
[26:34] any response back from We've gotten two.
[26:36] Um one was from a resident who lives in
[26:39] the town homes that we developed on the
[26:41] property.
[26:42] Um and that was in support of it. Um
[26:46] and then the second one was from Laura
[26:48] Dody. Okay. And um So, those are the two
[26:51] that I think
[26:51] >> comments, if if you don't mind, because
[26:54] you didn't get to see Laura Dody's
[26:56] letter.
[26:57] Um
[27:01] She has several points
[27:03] in support of
[27:05] Do you have her letter on the
[27:07] Yeah.
[27:08] I do. She has several points. Um
[27:11] but of significance is especially item
[27:14] number two, the location of the existing
[27:16] building doesn't lend itself to retail
[27:18] or restaurant commercial since it's not
[27:21] located directly on Highway 9. It lacks
[27:23] visibility
[27:25] and vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
[27:28] Lack of visibility is a death knell for
[27:31] these types of businesses. And
[27:34] um
[27:36] that's my thoughts exactly. We've tried
[27:38] three different restaurants there. Um
[27:41] And it's just very difficult to get,
[27:43] especially with without the parking in
[27:45] downtown Springdale.
[27:47] Um it's really hard to get people
[27:49] walking down something that looks like a
[27:51] residential street.
[27:56] Trista, just to let you know the
[27:57] commissioners have this letter there.
[27:59] >> Oh, okay. Perfect. Yeah.
[28:06] Seems very favorable to your cause. I'm
[28:09] sorry? I said it seems very favorable to
[28:11] your cause.
[28:13] Oh, yes.
[28:14] >> [laughter]
[28:16] >> Um
[28:20] There was one other thing I was going to
[28:21] bring up. Um
[28:24] Now, it's escaping me right now, but did
[28:26] you have any additional questions for
[28:28] me?
[28:30] I have one question, but it might be
[28:31] more for the city. First, I I do want to
[28:33] thank you for the effort you put into
[28:35] this. It really shows. Thank you very
[28:37] much.
[28:38] >> Appreciate it.
[28:39] Um and I fully understand
[28:41] your reasoning for only having the uh
[28:44] restrictive covenants on one long-term
[28:45] rental. Mhm. Which I have no problem
[28:48] with except I just got confused. The
[28:51] rule is
[28:53] for four transient lodging you need one.
[28:58] That Is that my understanding?
[28:59] >> That's correct, yeah.
[29:01] So, what happens to this extra
[29:05] long-term rental rental?
[29:07] Cuz it doesn't have a restrictive
[29:09] covenant, could it become a transient?
[29:11] No, so it would remain a long-term
[29:13] rental unit
[29:15] and it would just be exempt from
[29:18] the requirement that it couldn't be tied
[29:20] to employment
[29:23] on the property.
[29:25] So, the way the transient lodging
[29:28] overlay zone was drafted
[29:30] with this requirement for long-term
[29:32] housing one of the stipulations was that
[29:35] the long-term housing couldn't be tied
[29:39] specifically to
[29:42] the transient lodging units as far as
[29:44] like we're building one unit for an
[29:47] employee for the transient lodging
[29:48] business.
[29:50] So,
[29:51] both of the units would be long-term
[29:53] rentals available.
[29:55] It's just
[29:57] one of them would would be subject to
[29:59] this restriction of the code and then
[30:01] the other one that's over and above
[30:04] the minimum and therefore not required
[30:07] would be long-term rental, but it could
[30:09] be rented to you know, whoever they
[30:11] wanted.
[30:13] There's a I think the specific wording
[30:14] is that
[30:16] long-term housing units have must
[30:19] required by the section must be open to
[30:22] the public.
[30:23] And so, what you're wanting to do is
[30:25] have the second one be confined to not
[30:28] necessarily to the public, but Will not
[30:30] be not be restricted to that or limited
[30:32] to that. Could be open to the public,
[30:34] but that would be at your discretion.
[30:36] >> And you know, every meeting that I've
[30:38] ever listened to or have been a part of
[30:40] that talks about housing says there's a
[30:42] shortage, and we just saw this as an
[30:44] opportunity to provide another
[30:46] residential unit. Um
[30:49] like I said, we don't have a property
[30:51] manager, but if we did in the future,
[30:53] this would be an ideal location,
[30:55] obviously. If a housekeeper, for
[30:57] example, needed housing, we could offer
[31:00] that. If somebody from Mimi's Cafe
[31:02] needed it, there's a couple other
[31:04] restrictions with the TLO residents. Um
[31:08] it has to be
[31:09] no less than 90 days,
[31:12] which is interesting. I don't I don't
[31:14] foresee doing anything but 12-month
[31:16] leases, but if somebody was building a
[31:18] home in town and needed
[31:20] a house for 60 days, this gives me an
[31:22] opportunity to rent to somebody, like if
[31:25] I have a a space in between where I
[31:27] could rent seasonally to a ranger for 90
[31:30] days, I could do that. So, that just
[31:33] gives us a lot more flexibility, but we
[31:34] do intend to use it as a long-term
[31:36] rental.
[31:38] And maybe retail, maybe not employees,
[31:40] but
[31:42] And it does sound like you're sort of
[31:43] locked into a both of them being a
[31:45] long-term rental. Yeah.
[31:48] Which I appreciate, and
[31:49] the thought you gave in your reasoning
[31:52] is very
[31:53] sound, so thank you.
[31:58] Are there any questions from the public?
[32:01] No.
[32:02] Okay.
[32:03] Um
[32:05] I think we're ready. Uh
[32:07] motion to go into public hearing.
[32:11] I move that we go into open the public
[32:12] hearing. I'll second the motion.
[32:15] Uh motion by Paul, second by Rich. All
[32:18] in favor? Rich, I. Terry, I. Paul, I.
[32:22] Any comments from the public?
[32:25] No.
[32:26] I move that we close the public hearing.
[32:28] Okay. I'll second. Okay. Motion by Paul,
[32:32] second by Rich. All in favor? Rich, I.
[32:34] Terry, I. Paul, I.
[32:37] So, we can go into uh now it's
[32:39] commission deliberation.
[32:42] Um
[32:47] I guess I'll go ahead. Or do you want
[32:48] No, go for it. I'll just say um overall
[32:51] um I think this is a
[32:53] um
[32:53] a very good submission um
[32:56] and in general I I think it meets all of
[32:58] the
[32:59] goals that we have for the overlay zone,
[33:02] the transit
[33:03] >> Transit overlay zone.
[33:05] Um and um I
[33:08] I'm uh of a mind to go ahead and
[33:10] recommend approval, but I'd like to hear
[33:12] any other comments.
[33:14] I I would agree with all those comments.
[33:16] I I could see the thought. I think it's
[33:17] beneficial. It looks like the small
[33:20] town feel. Mhm. The building, you know,
[33:22] being smaller, shorter,
[33:25] down the hill.
[33:26] I think it's a it's a good design. It
[33:28] looks reasonable for what we're after,
[33:30] like you said. Mhm. I think it's
[33:32] beneficial not only for the, you know,
[33:34] extra lodging, but I I think it also
[33:37] helps the restaurant, Mimi's, which I
[33:39] think is great. Yep.
[33:41] Okay. Yep. I mean, I I agree. I'm I'm I
[33:43] think it it uh it all looks good. The
[33:45] only
[33:46] um
[33:49] the only negative or or or less than
[33:52] positive thing and but it's not a
[33:54] disqualifying in my mind is that, you
[33:56] know, we're going to lose some open lawn
[33:58] area that's kind of nice to look at in
[34:00] the center of town. So, you're going to
[34:02] have a parking lot there instead.
[34:06] Sure.
[34:08] Yes. You may Come up. Come up and make a
[34:09] comment. We will.
[34:11] Thank you for reminding me.
[34:14] Um
[34:15] it's really hard to visualize what that
[34:17] landscaping is going to look like. Um
[34:20] this is just a draft and in by no means
[34:22] our final proposal. We hope to make that
[34:25] parking lot smaller and maybe one-way
[34:28] traffic if you dot and the town will
[34:30] allow it. But what I wanted to point out
[34:32] is we have 145 ft of frontage
[34:37] in the along SR9 and that space there is
[34:42] 5,000 sq ft of landscaping.
[34:46] You don't see that when you see that big
[34:48] black asphalt parking, but that's 5,000
[34:52] sq ft of grass and landscaping and
[34:54] shielding.
[34:56] Um also that parking lot is 45 ft from
[35:00] SR9 and down slope. So
[35:05] I understand the concern and I'm not
[35:07] excited to tear up any grass. Um
[35:11] but anyway,
[35:13] a lot of thought will go into the design
[35:15] of that and make it
[35:18] accomplish what we need to with the
[35:20] parking, but also be conscious about
[35:22] what the town needs and and not taking
[35:24] away any more green space than we have
[35:26] to.
[35:27] I commend you for that. That's Thank
[35:29] you.
[35:32] Okay.
[35:34] Any other discussion?
[35:38] No.
[35:40] Can I have a motion? You have a motion.
[35:45] Do you want me to do it? Can I Can I do
[35:47] it as the chairman? I can do the motion,
[35:48] can't I? You can.
[35:50] Okay.
[35:51] >> something on there which I liked and
[35:52] that's why I'm letting you do it.
[35:53] >> You got to let me do it. Okay. All
[35:55] right.
[35:57] Um the planning case commission
[35:59] recommends approval of the application
[36:01] by Trista Rei- Reiner to apply for
[36:05] transient lodging overlay zone on her
[36:07] property S-MMIS-1
[36:12] 975 Zion Park Boulevard as discussed in
[36:15] the planning commission meeting
[36:17] dated May 20th, 2026. This is based on
[36:20] the following findings.
[36:23] The transient lodging overlay zone
[36:25] application furthers the land use and
[36:28] town appearance goals in the Springdale
[36:30] general plan, specifically sub goal G
[36:33] that new lodging facilities promote
[36:36] Spring the transient lodging overlay
[36:38] zone application meets the requirements
[36:41] of the Springdale land use ordinance
[36:43] titled 10 article F regarding transient
[36:46] lodging overlay zone requirements.
[36:50] We have a couple of conditions or
[36:51] actually I might have a third one here.
[36:54] Um first that the uh that the building
[36:56] footprint of the final design as
[36:58] submitted for design development review
[37:01] will be approximately 2600 square feet
[37:04] as reported.
[37:05] Um
[37:07] and this will
[37:08] with some small leeway like a 5% leeway
[37:11] or something for necessary changes.
[37:14] Um
[37:15] second condition is that the final
[37:17] design submitted for the design
[37:19] development review must include varying
[37:21] external wall panels and exterior design
[37:25] elements
[37:26] as shown in the drawings.
[37:28] Um
[37:30] and the third condition I would put in
[37:32] is that one of the two
[37:35] uh long-term
[37:37] uh rental units
[37:38] um must uh have the d- the required deed
[37:42] restriction and the other one does not
[37:44] require the deed restriction.
[37:46] Is there a second? I would second that.
[37:50] Motion by Terry, second by Paul.
[37:53] You cut in just before you.
[37:56] Um discussion on any
[37:58] discussion or thoughts or changes or
[38:01] No, you got all the points. Thank you.
[38:03] Well, okay. I think we're ready.
[38:06] Um so, all approved?
[38:09] Rich, I. Terry, I. Paul, I.
[38:12] Your application we have we will
[38:13] recommend approval to the town council.
[38:18] Thank you.
[38:20] All right, so the uh second action item,
[38:23] um
[38:23] I guess we are going to pass by that
[38:25] one. Do we Do we need to like officially
[38:27] vote to say we're not going to do this
[38:29] or
[38:32] No, I I don't think so.
[38:36] You don't need an official vote, but you
[38:38] may just want to for the record say
[38:40] we're we're not going to we had
[38:43] potentially considered canceling the
[38:44] June 3rd meeting.
[38:46] We're not going to consider that, so no
[38:47] action is necessary.
[38:48] >> Okay.
[38:49] Um so, for the second action item,
[38:53] we were going to consider canceling the
[38:55] June 3rd Planning Commission work
[38:57] meeting.
[38:58] We have decided not to cancel that
[39:00] meeting and the town staff has indicated
[39:03] they can be prepared for that meeting.
[39:06] Okay.
[39:08] With that, I move that we
[39:11] approve the consent agenda.
[39:13] Motion by Paul.
[39:15] Second. Second by Rich. All in favor?
[39:17] Rich, I. Terry, I. All, I.
[39:20] All right. We have approved the meeting
[39:22] minutes.
[39:23] Can we get a motion to adjourn?
[39:25] I'll move that we adjourn. I'll second.
[39:27] Motion by Paul, second by Rich. All in
[39:29] favor? Rich, I. Terry, I. All, I.
[39:33] Thank you, everyone.
[39:37] Good luck with your project. Yeah. Look
[39:40] forward to seeing more of it. Yeah.