[0:00] 5:02 p.m. and we're at the Canyon

[0:02] Community Center for the August 19th

[0:04] meeting of the Springdale Planning

[0:05] Commission. From the to town, we have

[0:08] Tom Dancy, Eugenia Akam, Nyall Connelly,

[0:12] April Ratitz, and Kendall Sagers. On the

[0:15] dis we have Jorge Hernandez, Zion

[0:18] National Park representative,

[0:20] Terry Kruski, myself, Jennifer McCulla,

[0:23] Paul Zimmerman, Katie Mson, and Kosh

[0:27] Bati, Rich Swanson, and Melissa Labour

[0:30] are out tonight. Kosh, I'd like to ask

[0:32] you to vote tonight. Thank you. Is there

[0:35] a motion to approve tonight's agenda?

[0:41] » Second.

[0:42] >> Motion by Paul, second by Terry. All in

[0:44] favor?

[0:45] >> Terry I.

[0:46] >> Jennifer I.

[0:47] >> All I.

[0:48] >> Hash I.

[0:49] >> Motion passes. Are there any general

[0:52] announcements?

[0:56] No announcements tonight.

[0:59] Does anyone have any potential conflicts

[1:01] they would like to disclose?

[1:06] Okay. The first item on the agenda is

[1:10] oath of office for Katie Mson,

[1:12] commissioner.

[1:26] Okay, raise your right hand. I state

[1:29] your name.

[1:30] >> I, Katie Mson,

[1:32] >> have been appointed to the office of the

[1:33] planning commission.

[1:34] >> have been appointed to the office of the

[1:37] planning commission. Do solemnly swear

[1:39] that I will support

[1:40] >> Do solemnly swear that I will support

[1:44] >> Obey and defend the Constitution of the

[1:46] United States and the Constitution of

[1:48] the State of Utah.

[1:52] >> Obey.

[1:52] and defend the Constitution of the

[1:55] United States and the Constitution of

[1:57] the State of Utah.

[1:58] >> And that I will discharge the duties of

[2:00] my office with fidelity.

[2:02] >> and that I will discharge the duties of

[2:04] my office with fidelity.

[2:14] Thank you and welcome Katie.

[2:20] Uh for tonight's agenda, we have one

[2:23] action item.

[2:25] Um we've received several public comment

[2:28] letters, including some documents. We've

[2:31] had a chance to review and consider all

[2:34] the information sent to us. Please keep

[2:37] in mind that we previously held a public

[2:39] hearing for this agenda item. So tonight

[2:43] there will be no public comments or

[2:44] questions from the public during this

[2:46] meeting.

[2:48] The action item is 50 Zion Park

[2:52] Boulevard design development review

[2:54] parking lot extension. Mr. Luke Wilson

[2:58] requested design development re review

[3:00] for the approval of an expansion of the

[3:02] parking lot at 50 Zion Park Boulevard

[3:05] and a staff contact is Nile Connelly and

[3:08] he will be presenting.

[3:11] >> Thank you.

[3:13] So, as you said, this is an agenda. This

[3:16] agenda item is for a design development

[3:19] review application uh from Mr. Luke

[3:21] Wilson to expand his parking lot at 50 Z

[3:25] Park Boulevard.

[3:27] The application has been reviewed by the

[3:29] commission uh during meetings on the

[3:33] June 3rd and July 1st. At the July 1st

[3:37] meeting, the commission requested Mr.

[3:40] Wilson provide a geotechnical report.

[3:43] In his latest submission, uh Mr. Wilson

[3:46] has provided a letter explaining the

[3:48] reasons why he believes the report is

[3:50] unwarranted in this case. H in addition

[3:53] to that, he's also provided

[3:55] supplementary information on surface

[3:57] water drainage which was also requested.

[4:01] Uh there have been a number of uh

[4:03] written public comments uh which you've

[4:06] received and so I just want to draw

[4:08] attention to that.

[4:11] Um, just before before you dive into it,

[4:14] I think it'd be useful to run over the

[4:17] uh just a timeline of kind of how we've

[4:21] gotten up to this point. Um, so in

[4:24] November 2025,

[4:27] uh, Mr. Wilson carried out grading on

[4:29] the property without a permit. Uh, the

[4:31] town issued a stop work order and the

[4:33] work ceased. Uh, Mr. Wilson then applied

[4:36] for a grading permit to bring the

[4:39] property into compliance.

[4:42] Um during this process, the town and

[4:45] both the town and Mr. Wilson reviewed uh

[4:49] some topographic information that we had

[4:52] from the original application back in

[4:55] 2016

[4:57] uh which showed

[4:59] kind of most of the area outside of the

[5:01] parking lot was 30% slope or greater.

[5:05] um

[5:08] that that topographic survey was

[5:11] generated by a computer model and so it

[5:13] wasn't site verified. And so when we

[5:17] inspected the site, it was clear that

[5:20] there were areas um that had been shown

[5:24] as 30% slope on on that

[5:28] survey that weren't actually as steep as were shown. Um,

[5:35] it was also the the areas that had been

[5:39] excavated.

[5:41] Um, it was possible to kind of

[5:43] extrapolate from the the ground level to

[5:46] where the cut was to see that they

[5:50] weren't as steep as as that original

[5:52] survey had shown. Um,

[5:57] with that in mind, the the town still

[5:58] required Mr. Wilson to provide

[6:01] verification from an engineer. Um so

[6:04] that was provided by Rosenberg

[6:07] engineering. So there was that grading

[6:08] plan which was included in the pack. Um

[6:12] and that showed that the grading had

[6:15] largely avoided the 30% slopes. Um and

[6:19] that the 30% slopes were there weren't

[6:22] as many as in the previous one. It was

[6:27] um Rosenberg also provided a letter

[6:31] confirming the safety of the excavation

[6:34] and the rock wall. Um so on that basis

[6:36] the grading permit was approved at the

[6:38] time.

[6:40] Um following that uh Mr. Wilson poured

[6:44] the asphalt to create the new spaces. H

[6:47] that wasn't included in the grading

[6:48] permit. So the town required Mr. Wilson

[6:52] to stop and fence those off until a

[6:54] design development review was approved.

[6:58] Um, and so that application has been

[7:00] made and that's that's what you've been

[7:02] considering this evening.

[7:05] Um

[7:07] so just as a recommendation for your

[7:10] discussion tonight,

[7:12] I'd recommend that first off the

[7:15] commission um makes a determination on

[7:18] whether the standards for parking lots

[7:20] have been met. Um you've discussed that

[7:23] previously. Um, but it would be good to maybe come to a determination on

[7:29] that. And then once that's done, um, I'd

[7:32] recommend the commission can move on to

[7:35] discussion on Mr. Wilson's letter and

[7:38] this question over the geotechnical

[7:40] report.

[7:42] Um, some some additional points on the

[7:46] geotechnical report. So the code doesn't

[7:50] automatically require a geotechnical

[7:52] report in this case for either the

[7:54] grading permit or the DDR. Um so parking

[7:59] lots are not listed in kind of the the

[8:02] automatically required

[8:04] um

[8:06] for a geotechnical report. However, the

[8:10] code does allow for the director of

[8:12] community development to require one if

[8:16] uh if it's determined that the site or

[8:18] soil conditions warrant it and it can be

[8:22] required with any land use entitlement.

[8:25] So, it's it's not only applicable to

[8:28] grading permits, it can be applied to

[8:32] any permit.

[8:35] The grading permit has already been

[8:37] approved. Um so if the um planning

[8:42] commission determines that the

[8:44] geotechnical report is a requirement, it

[8:47] should be connected to the the design

[8:50] development review rather than kind of

[8:53] retrospectively applied to the grading

[8:55] permit because that's already been

[8:57] approved. Um,

[9:01] so

[9:02] that's probably a lot of information,

[9:04] but uh I'd be happy to answer any

[9:06] questions that you have on any of that.

[9:08] And I know Mr. Wilson will be also happy

[9:11] to answer any questions you have.

[9:18] Are there any questions for Nile?

[9:23] » Mr. Wilson, would you like to present?

[9:31] Luke Wilson. I'm the applicant. And

[9:34] maybe for Katie's sake, I'll just say a

[9:36] couple of things. Um, and I'm just going

[9:40] to make a few statements and h ask a few

[9:42] questions and I'm going to sit down

[9:43] because I think we've talked about this

[9:44] to death. So, Katie, I I own the parking

[9:47] lot just around the corner. After I

[9:49] bought it, I I identified that the back

[9:52] area was certainly not 30%. I'm I'm a

[9:54] contractor and an excavator, right? And

[9:56] so I thought, here's some usable space.

[9:57] I can do some things with some

[9:58] landscaping, some additional parking,

[10:00] whatever. So I I started grading that

[10:05] and I didn't have a permit and and I

[10:07] realized that was the wrong thing to do.

[10:09] I've done similar work like that on

[10:11] other properties. I've explained this to

[10:12] the commission before. I did it recently

[10:15] on a couple little homes I have across

[10:16] the street from my other parking lot.

[10:18] And I was very much thanked for that,

[10:20] for the rock balls, the

[10:21] beautifification, and now Kyla can

[10:23] landscape her yard and it doesn't get

[10:24] flooded. It didn't get flooded in the

[10:26] last event. So anyway, I did that. They

[10:27] said, "Hey, hey, hey, you can't." And

[10:29] I'm I'm assuming that that was probably

[10:31] because of the proximity to the

[10:32] landslide that you have you have to get

[10:35] all the stuff that that to do this. So

[10:37] we stopped and it took a month or may I

[10:40] don't know, maybe it was two months, but

[10:42] um I had the engineers come in. Um Tom

[10:45] and I had a couple conversations on site

[10:47] about what was required. He made it very clear to me because I I actually

[10:52] divulged to him that I eventually would love to build a couple of living

[10:56] units there. And he goes, "Okay, for

[10:58] what we're doing this this this

[11:01] engineering is what we need. If you do

[11:04] living units, you will for sure need to

[11:06] pass the rigorous geologic hazards

[11:08] ordinance." And that may he goes, "It

[11:09] could be very very difficult here." And

[11:11] I said, "I acknowledge that whatever."

[11:12] Anyway, I gave them whatever that they

[11:14] needed and they gave me the grading

[11:16] permit, I did the work. Um,

[11:20] and after after I did the work and added

[11:23] the spaces in the back

[11:25] and to Nile's credit, actually, just to

[11:28] be really honest, I anticipated adding

[11:30] spaces in the back left corner and a

[11:32] little bit in the middle, but there was

[11:33] more room in that in that ramp area that

[11:37] was not in the 30% grading that I was

[11:39] able to make some parking spaces out of.

[11:41] So, I think they were surprised to see

[11:43] more parking spaces than we had

[11:44] initially talked about. And the upper

[11:46] level would have this landscaped area

[11:48] where there's a public lounge and where

[11:50] people can kind of just sit down and

[11:52] enjoy the view. Anyway, the the

[11:56] uh oh, I just lost my train of thought.

[12:00] Anyway, we did all of that. Oh, and I

[12:01] received an email from Nile and and it

[12:03] was at that point that Niles put me on

[12:05] notice and I have the email here and he

[12:07] said, "Hey, you know what? like um an

[12:10] expansion of an existing use triggers a

[12:13] lot of things and and I just thought I

[12:16] have this parking lot. It's a parking

[12:17] lot. I can here here's here's uh a legal

[12:20] grading. I can add some spaces. This is

[12:23] he he goes no no no because you've added

[12:25] spaces. We now have new rules about

[12:27] parking lots and you have to have this

[12:28] and this and this and this and this and those things are what's on your

[12:32] plan, right? It's like a It's like a a

[12:35] bathroom or a toilet and a business and

[12:38] trash and recycling facilities. Some of

[12:41] the difficulties we ran into there are

[12:42] that there is no sewer on or near that

[12:45] property. So, we ended up putting in a

[12:47] proposal for a self-contained unit which

[12:50] has maintenance costs to it, but it

[12:51] would be self-contained and completely

[12:52] screened so they don't look ugly

[12:54] [snorts] and a couple of the other

[12:55] things that they've any Any anyway, it's

[12:56] all on your plan. And following those

[12:59] directives, we've landed here. It seems

[13:01] that and I'm very aware um that there

[13:04] are people in town who are sensitive to

[13:05] the slide and the work that I've done.

[13:07] There's been all kinds of um comments

[13:10] that I've read and and and

[13:13] Gil and Tom are respected members of the

[13:15] community. I don't have anything against

[13:17] them taking interest in anything we're

[13:18] doing. I think the recent letters that

[13:21] they've sent keep moving us back to this

[13:24] excavating landslide thing. And that's

[13:25] not even this meeting. This meeting is

[13:28] we have these additional stalls. I

[13:30] didn't know it triggered the need for

[13:32] these new requirements, but it did. And

[13:34] now I'm trying to comply with those

[13:35] requirements per his email. Um the the

[13:39] 30% thing, I'm just going to say this

[13:41] because I know that the format of these

[13:43] meetings often don't invite me back to

[13:45] clarify anything.

[13:48] I am happy and I would love and I would

[13:51] ask if any of you including Gil or Tom

[13:55] or anybody wants to go to the property

[13:57] and I can show them where I have

[13:59] excavated. The dirt is gone but the

[14:02] limits of excavation are very clear. You

[14:04] can see where we stopped to where we

[14:06] started and slope calculation is a

[14:08] product of dividing rise by run.

[14:12] The closest steepest section that we

[14:15] have in the upper area is 26 feet wide.

[14:18] The rock wall is supposed to be four

[14:20] feet. It varies from three and a half to

[14:22] about four 4 foot 10. It's their rocks.

[14:24] They're not totally uniform. But if I go

[14:26] 26 to 4 foot 10, it's like an 18% slope.

[14:30] And I'm happy to take anyone up there

[14:32] and show them where the old parking lot

[14:34] was, where the new cut is. I mean, it's even though even though the dirt's

[14:39] been moved, it's very very easy to see

[14:42] where the limits of excavation are and

[14:44] it's really easy to pull a string or or

[14:46] to to do the math and calculate the

[14:47] slope. Anyway, it's been confirmed that

[14:49] there were 10 to 20% slopes and and I'm

[14:53] very aware and good catch by Gil because

[14:56] that original topography map, it had

[14:59] lots of areas of that property showing

[15:00] us 30 or more that that just aren't. And

[15:03] they weren't even close. It's not like

[15:04] they were 28. They were like 18 19 and and Tom and I and the engineers and Nile. Um

[15:14] we've we've pulled measurements and and all over that property. My engineers

[15:19] shot that by the foot like by the foot

[15:22] and and and

[15:24] um verified all of that. So I just want

[15:26] to make sure that I'm trying to be

[15:28] respectful of Gil's concern because when

[15:30] you read that original topography, you

[15:31] go, "Holy this is 30% or more.

[15:34] It's right there. You can see it, right?

[15:36] But it just wasn't accurate. And that's

[15:38] not common. I get it. But it it just

[15:40] wasn't accurate. The actual dirt was not

[15:42] 30%. So, um, as I read the town's code,

[15:48] um, I I I I

[15:52] find little to no reason or or and very little ability to

[16:01] request a geologic hazards investigation

[16:04] for what's been done. I look at the

[16:06] prescribed uses that trigger that. I

[16:10] find none of them.

[16:12] And I hope that's what the town

[16:14] understands at this point from me. I I

[16:17] just do want to reiterate we have a

[16:19] legal grading permit. I know this seems

[16:20] to be the crux of the letters that have

[16:22] been sent in. I stayed within the bounds

[16:24] of that grading permit. Um none of that

[16:27] is in the 30% slope. I know that's been

[16:30] the sensitivity.

[16:32] And um I haven't been asked for more

[16:35] than the things that I've supplied. I

[16:37] actually haven't been asked for more

[16:38] things like you need to this and that

[16:40] other than this little plan that's

[16:41] before you to try to comply with those

[16:43] requirements that were triggered by the

[16:45] additional stalls that were put in that

[16:47] Nile said you need this this and this.

[16:49] So that's what I'm trying to do.

[16:52] I don't have anything else to say unless

[16:53] you have questions for me.

[16:54] >> Does anyone have any questions?

[16:59] » Okay, we can move into planning

[17:01] commission discussion now. Thank you.

[17:07] I can start. Um

[17:14] after pouring over all the information

[17:16] that we've received,

[17:18] um having a lot of time to consider this

[17:21] over the past couple of months, it's

[17:23] very clear to me that we are talking

[17:26] about uh two different things here. the

[17:30] parking lot which does have a permit and

[17:35] really understanding that that is

[17:38] permitted and that that is a done deal.

[17:42] So, um, a lot of the concern has been

[17:45] around the, um, parking lot and the

[17:48] grading for the extra parking spaces.

[17:51] And I'm at a place now where I

[17:54] understand that our focus needs to be

[17:56] just on the requirements for the parking

[17:58] lot.

[18:02] » Are you saying that when you say the

[18:04] parking lot is permitted, are you saying

[18:05] the original parking lot is

[18:06] >> the the grading the grading permit for

[18:09] the expansion?

[18:11] Um,

[18:14] I would say I was had all the concerns

[18:17] about the grading permit. Um, but have a

[18:20] better understanding now that the

[18:23] grading permit is done.

[18:27] If there were to be a a report required,

[18:31] it would be in relationship to the DDR

[18:35] request.

[18:39] Go ahead.

[18:40] Okay. Um, I'll start with as the staff

[18:44] suggested the other items.

[18:46] >> Yes.

[18:47] >> Um,

[18:48] personally, as I've looked at this, um,

[18:51] I see I feel like the self-contained

[18:54] restroom, trash receptacles, the rusted

[18:57] corrugated screen all seem to comply and

[19:00] I think he's done a good job of bringing

[19:02] those in. Um, the acute angle parking

[19:04] spaces have been eliminated. So, we've

[19:06] gotten rid of that problem of the

[19:08] directional flow of the traffic. Um, and

[19:12] the landscapecaping,

[19:14] I believe, meets the requirements. Um,

[19:16] with I think in the past we've discussed

[19:18] that the green items on the on the wall

[19:22] will suffice given the structure of the

[19:25] parking lot versus a 4 foot space. So,

[19:27] again, I feel good about that. Um,

[19:31] and then, um,

[19:34] and let's see what else. So, and then

[19:35] the surface water drainage analysis has

[19:37] been done. The update looks good. The

[19:41] engineers reviewed it, happy with it.

[19:43] So, I think all of those things seem to

[19:45] have met the need. To me, that leaves

[19:48] two things to discuss. One is the

[19:50] commercial use

[19:52] and the other is the geotechnical

[19:54] report. Um, so the commercial use, and

[19:57] I've been looking at this in in more

[19:59] detail and thinking it through. Um, if

[20:02] you look at the ordinance, it says that

[20:05] a commercial use must be developed on

[20:08] the same property.

[20:10] And if you look up the definition of

[20:13] development in the ordinances in 1022,

[20:16] um, it's to carry out any building

[20:19] activity or clearing of land as an

[20:21] adjunct to of construction.

[20:24] Um and so

[20:28] reading it very concisely to what it

[20:30] says, a mobile business doesn't meet

[20:34] that requirement. A mobile business is

[20:36] not developed on the property.

[20:39] Um and it's nor is it clearing of land

[20:42] adjunct to the construction of such a

[20:44] thing. Um I think in the mobile business

[20:48] area based on what the um ordinances say

[20:52] we should require that it is a structure

[20:55] that is developed on the property

[20:58] because that is what the ordinance says.

[21:01] Um it doesn't say anything about size.

[21:04] So we're all familiar with you know the

[21:06] small little coffee shops you see in

[21:08] parking lots that might be 50 or 75

[21:11] square feet or something like that. So,

[21:12] I don't think it has to be big, but the

[21:14] ordinance clearly says it has to be

[21:15] developed on the property. Um, so in my

[21:19] mind, I think that doesn't meet the

[21:22] requirements that a mobile business

[21:24] doesn't meet the requirements because

[21:25] it's not developed on the property. I

[21:28] suspect and I believe that the intent

[21:30] was that let's say certainly Mr. Wilson

[21:33] recently bought the property potentially

[21:35] could sell it in the future that a

[21:37] future property owner would receive the

[21:39] property with the commercial the

[21:42] commercial business attached to the

[21:44] property. So I think that's sort of the

[21:46] intent that it goes with the property.

[21:48] Um so I would say that that is one area

[21:51] that we would should discuss.

[21:54] Um, in terms of the geotechnical report,

[21:59] I went through the whole 15, you know,

[22:02] 15F section and um

[22:08] I'm on the fence because I see things

[22:11] that indicate that it's applied to

[22:14] structures, buildings, buildable area.

[22:16] These are things that you see in there.

[22:19] Um I see that you know the DCD can ask

[22:24] for the you know the report under and we

[22:28] have requested the DCD ask the report

[22:30] the applicant has refused with dus

[22:32] justifications so I think we've gone

[22:34] through what our responsibility is to

[22:36] that um and the last thing I'll say

[22:42] about this is section 1015F59

[22:49] um which um we may remember was talking

[22:53] about um excavation

[22:56] near 30% slopes and property lines. This

[22:59] was something I think that was actually

[23:01] discussed in the planning commission a

[23:02] year ago or a little over a year ago.

[23:05] Um and it it requires that the

[23:08] geotechnical report include a um a slope

[23:13] stability section if if a excavation

[23:19] occurs less let's see less than twice

[23:23] the de if the if the distance between

[23:25] the 30% slope and the excavation is less

[23:27] than twice the depth of the excavation.

[23:31] And looking at the drawings, that

[23:33] appears to be the case here. Um, but

[23:37] this section is a subsection of 15F that

[23:41] starts with this list we've looked at

[23:43] several times.

[23:45] So it so

[23:48] it clearly triggers that that paragraph

[23:51] C9, but the paragraph A doesn't

[23:55] necessarily trigger a report. So,

[24:00] I'm a little bit on the fence on that.

[24:02] So, having said all that, I'm curious

[24:06] what people think about the commercial

[24:07] use and I'd be very curious what other

[24:09] people think about the geotechnical

[24:10] report. I'd like to hear other thoughts

[24:12] on that. I I think, you know, in

[24:15] general, I'm in agreement with you on

[24:17] the commercial use aspect of it. um you

[24:20] know that it needs it needs to be a

[24:22] structure but um separately from that um

[24:27] one of the things that I've been looking

[24:29] about thinking about and looking at is

[24:31] that if you look at the 15F it says you

[24:34] know a geotech reports required for any

[24:36] structure intended for human occupancy.

[24:39] So if we're going to put a commercial

[24:42] use there's going to be a person in

[24:44] there to operate it. Therefore it's uh

[24:47] human occupancy. So that triggers it.

[24:50] The other thing though, even if it

[24:51] wasn't a structure, if it was just a a

[24:54] food truck for example, if it's a food

[24:56] truck that's there for a extended period

[24:59] of time, is that's also in my mind a

[25:01] triggering event given the human

[25:03] occupancy of that space. So

[25:05] >> So my understanding is human occupancy

[25:09] um

[25:11] requires

[25:13] like staying there overnight. It's not

[25:16] just gather businesses. Is that correct?

[25:20] >> I'm just uh scanning the um definitions

[25:24] to see do we get any

[25:27] guidance there.

[25:31] [snorts]

[26:07] Yeah, just from a quick scan of the

[26:10] definitions in this chapter and then the

[26:11] general definitions, I'm I'm not seeing

[26:14] anything specifically that talks that

[26:16] defines human occupancy.

[26:18] Um

[26:21] however

[26:25] um

[26:27] in 1015F3

[26:30] C

[26:32] it says the regulations in this chapter

[26:35] that being the geologic hazard chapter

[26:37] do not apply to the following. Uh so one

[26:41] a detached accessory building that's not

[26:43] designed for human occupancy

[26:46] or two the remodeling of an existing

[26:49] structure designed for human occupancy.

[26:55] Okay, Tom's come to the rescue. Okay, so

[27:00] structure designed for human occupancy.

[27:03] There is a definition. any residential

[27:06] dwelling or other structure used or

[27:08] intended for supporting or sheltering

[27:11] any use or occupancy by humans or

[27:15] businesses.

[27:16] Includes all risk category 2 structures

[27:19] as defined in the currently adopted

[27:21] international building code but does not

[27:24] include an accessory building that

[27:26] houses no additional no accessory

[27:28] dwelling unit or business.

[27:33] So any residential dwelling or any other

[27:37] structure used and intended for

[27:39] supporting or sheltering any use or

[27:42] occupancy by humans or businesses.

[27:46] >> Occupancy by businesses is included.

[27:50] >> It is included in that definition. Yeah.

[28:20] So it seems

[28:23] it is intended for human occupancy,

[28:28] >> right? A a commercial use,

[28:30] >> right?

[28:31] >> Um would be intended for human

[28:33] occupancy. Um,

[28:37] yeah.

[28:39] Um, were you gonna

[28:41] >> I just have questions. Um,

[28:46] forgive me for being a little slow on

[28:48] this, but

[28:49] >> Oh, you indicated we're not talking

[28:51] about occupancy at this point. We're

[28:53] talking about

[28:54] um just the parking lot that you're

[28:56] trying to get.

[28:58] >> Is that correct or am I

[28:59] >> Well, we we moved to we discussed the

[29:02] commercial use requirement. Yeah.

[29:05] >> And we're going down the path of well,

[29:06] if the commercial use requirement

[29:08] requires a structure that is developed

[29:12] on the property

[29:13] >> Uhhuh.

[29:14] >> and that structure is a coffee kiosk.

[29:18] >> Uhhuh.

[29:18] >> Then there would likely be a person

[29:20] inside the coffee kiosk to serve coffee.

[29:23] >> Is that what the intention is?

[29:25] >> Well, he hasn't. No. The expansion of

[29:28] the parking lot requires that there be

[29:30] an integrated

[29:32] >> right

[29:32] >> with the new permits

[29:34] >> for the new

[29:35] >> well. Right. Right. So in between the

[29:38] time the initial parking lot was created

[29:40] back in 2016 and this expansion of the

[29:43] parking lot occurred the ordinances

[29:46] changed to require this additional

[29:48] commercial use related to parking lots.

[29:51] So, the original parking lot did not

[29:53] require a commercial use, but the

[29:55] expansion triggered

[29:57] the new requirement for a commercial

[29:59] use.

[30:01] The applicant proposed a mobile coffee

[30:04] truck

[30:06] >> for that.

[30:08] >> Got it.

[30:08] >> And in that's where we said looking at

[30:10] it, a mobile coffee truck is not

[30:12] developed on the property. So, in

[30:14] layman's terms, we're just trying to

[30:16] make sure it's safe enough if people are

[30:18] going to be there

[30:19] >> with a coffee shop

[30:20] >> when there is a structure

[30:22] that a human is right. Um, the

[30:25] ordinances do not call for it when

[30:28] there's not a human occupancy structure.

[30:30] >> Got it. Okay. Thank you.

[30:33] >> Thank you. Perfect.

[30:34] >> Except for this paragraph we've been

[30:36] talking about where we where the DCD

[30:38] could require it for special conditions.

[30:42] So

[30:43] >> okay

[30:44] >> just for the purposes of uh what will get done today

[30:54] um I guess my question is

[30:58] he needs to be compliant with the new

[31:00] ordinances

[31:01] because that the time has passed.

[31:05] Uh, and the new ordinances

[31:09] um are just making sure that now that

[31:11] they're because whether there are cars

[31:13] or people there, maybe that's a zoom out

[31:15] question for not this this meeting

[31:18] today, but um

[31:20] but it's just more complex, but but the

[31:23] intent overall is mostly parking lot

[31:27] with a mobile coffee shop. Is this

[31:29] correct?

[31:30] >> That was that is the proposal by the

[31:31] applicant.

[31:32] >> Okay. Just just clarifying the facts.

[31:34] Thank you.

[31:45] » So when it comes to the geotechnical

[31:48] report,

[31:52] it seems like it's a requirement

[31:57] based on

[31:59] the definition we just got about occup

[32:02] based upon

[32:04] commercial use requirement,

[32:06] >> right?

[32:06] >> That that would be what triggers

[32:10] the geotechnical report, right? Because

[32:12] it requires a structure for human

[32:14] occupancy. Um

[32:22] and so yeah, so so that if we go with

[32:25] that, if we decide that a mobile

[32:26] business is not meet the requirements,

[32:28] which seems to me pretty clearly spilled

[32:31] out that a mobile business doesn't um it

[32:35] doesn't the applicant might propose

[32:37] something

[32:39] that doesn't have human in it.

[32:42] I don't know. they might be able to go

[32:45] with something that doesn't have a human

[32:46] in it. Maybe the human stays outside and

[32:49] maybe that I you know so I don't want to

[32:51] necessarily say that they have to have

[32:54] the permit for that depending upon what

[32:57] the proposal is for the commercial

[33:01] product on site.

[33:13] Do you have any thoughts?

[33:14] >> Kosh

[33:15] at this point.

[33:18] >> Can can I make just one clarification

[33:20] just to make sure that the the count

[33:23] is aware this isn't you know um this is

[33:25] just a clarification.

[33:27] >> The the requirement that you're

[33:28] discussing right now is the requirement

[33:30] for a geotechnical investigation.

[33:33] >> Right.

[33:34] >> Much of the concern that's been brought

[33:36] up has been over a geologic hazard

[33:38] investigation.

[33:40] So the requirement to be clear is for a

[33:42] geotechnical investigation

[33:45] based on the results one one of the

[33:46] things that's required in that

[33:47] geotechnical investigation is an

[33:50] analysis of the hazards on the site and

[33:53] based on the result of that initial

[33:55] sight specific um analysis of of

[33:59] geohhazards a full-blown geohhazard

[34:02] investigation may or may not be required

[34:05] so I just want to make sure that you

[34:07] that that you understand that the

[34:09] audience understands that everyone

[34:10] understands that the requirement that

[34:11] you're discussing is the requirement for

[34:12] a geotechnical investigation,

[34:15] not necessarily a geologic hazard

[34:18] investigation, although the geological

[34:20] hazard investigation could follow

[34:24] depending on the results of the

[34:25] geotechnical investigation. Does that is

[34:27] everybody clear understand the the

[34:29] nuance there?

[34:30] >> I want to thank you for that. I had read

[34:32] through that and I was actually going to

[34:33] ask about the difference because the

[34:36] ordinances implied there was some

[34:39] difference.

[34:39] >> The geotechnical investigation has is

[34:41] [clears throat] is required of every

[34:43] development everywhere in Springdale and

[34:46] it primarily looks at what is the the

[34:49] subgrade

[34:51] preparation for a foundation. What what kind of soils are you building on,

[34:54] right? And and how are you going to have

[34:55] to prepare a subgrade for a structure?

[34:57] That's the primary purpose of the

[34:59] geotechnical investigation. for

[35:01] properties that are within a uh a

[35:05] geohhazard area that's been identified

[35:07] on our on the geohhazard maps. One

[35:10] component of that geotechnical

[35:12] investigation is for the geotechnical

[35:15] engineer to say, "Hey, this property is

[35:18] in the geohhazard zone. Does this

[35:21] property warrant because it's in a

[35:24] geohhazard zone does does based on on

[35:27] looking at the site specifics looking at

[35:29] the area

[35:31] does this site warrant additional

[35:34] geohhazard investigation giving the the

[35:38] sight specific

[35:40] uh character of the of the property that

[35:42] the geotechnical engineer

[35:45] um observes. Right? If if that if the

[35:49] answer to that question is yes, then you

[35:51] go through with the full-blown

[35:52] geohhazard investigation. And the

[35:54] purpose of the geohhazard investigation

[35:56] is to look at geologic hazards. So no

[35:58] longer we looking at the subgrade

[36:00] preparation to support a structure. Then

[36:02] we're looking at landslides and

[36:04] rockfalls and all those things that have

[36:05] been the primary source of concern with the project. So, I just want to

[36:10] make sure that that everyone is clear

[36:11] about what the process is, what the

[36:14] requirement in the code is, and how that

[36:15] works because it's a little bit more

[36:16] nuanced than than just saying, "Oh, you

[36:19] have to do a geohhazard investigation."

[36:21] >> And so, what we requested last time was

[36:24] geotechnical report. So, that's

[36:26] appropriate.

[36:27] >> That's the first step. Absolutely.

[36:29] That's the first step. And again,

[36:31] depending on what comes out of that

[36:32] geotechnical report, a geohhazard

[36:35] investigation might or might not follow.

[36:38] geotechnical report focuses on the

[36:41] foundation of the structure itself.

[36:44] >> That's correct. Yeah. That's why

[36:48] for say something like a grading permit,

[36:51] a geotechnical investigation typically

[36:54] isn't required because just with grading

[36:56] there is no structure. There's no development and the

[36:59] geotechnical investigation primarily is

[37:01] looking at the subgrade investigation.

[37:04] Um, so that's why then when you come to

[37:06] the DDR and and if you're looking at

[37:09] well, we're not just talking about

[37:10] grading, we're talking about structures

[37:12] or or things like that, then a

[37:14] geotechnical investigation

[37:17] is required and potentially a geohhazard

[37:19] investigation. So for the DDR

[37:22] um for the commercial use, I'm looking

[37:26] at it now like that is a checkbox since

[37:29] by definition it's a place of occupancy.

[37:36] » So I would I would refer you back to the

[37:38] applicability section in the geohhazard

[37:40] ordinance.

[37:41] Um

[37:42] >> right. Which which number four

[37:46] um

[37:49] the occupancy

[37:51] requirement

[37:53] any structure intended for human

[37:55] occupancy.

[37:57] >> Correct. That's one of the triggering

[37:58] factors for a geo geotechnical investig.

[38:01] >> Right.

[38:01] >> Correct. For the for the primary the

[38:04] first report. Correct.

[38:06] >> So considering this discussion we're

[38:08] having

[38:11] It just doesn't seem like there's even

[38:13] any gray area there like that. That is

[38:16] something that just is in the ordinances

[38:19] of having to be done.

[38:22] >> That would be a supported finding.

[38:24] >> Yeah.

[38:28] And so I mean given that information

[38:34] to me that's an item as a planning

[38:37] commission that we just have to

[38:41] you review that it's being met.

[38:49] » Yeah. I I I tend to think that that the

[38:52] commercial use the structure leads to

[38:55] the investigation. I'm actually very

[38:56] thankful for Tom for the explanation

[38:58] because that was

[38:59] >> I kind of came to the conclusion that must be the situation by reading

[39:03] the ordinances, but I really didn't know

[39:05] for sure.

[39:06] >> Um, and in fact, for me, it creates a

[39:10] situation where the where we've had an

[39:12] engineer look at

[39:14] the condition and the engineer decides

[39:17] whether there's more that's needed or

[39:19] not because we're not experts to decide

[39:22] whether there's more needed or not.

[39:25] Um, and to me that sort of meets it

[39:29] meets what I felt I was concerned about.

[39:33] Um, because if you look at the letter

[39:35] that that was sent in uh, December or

[39:38] January, um, talks about that the

[39:42] construction or the excavation and the

[39:44] wall construction were safe for the

[39:47] people doing the construction and other

[39:49] properties at the time of the

[39:51] construction. But it clearly says in

[39:53] that last sentence that it is not slope

[39:55] stability or any or any future related.

[39:58] So we didn't have anything that said

[40:00] other than during construction it was

[40:02] okay

[40:04] and sort of left me open in that sense.

[40:06] So personally I feel that we need a

[40:11] commercial use that's developed on the

[40:13] property and that commercial use then

[40:16] indicates this preliminary or this first

[40:19] level investigation and we would see

[40:22] what the engineer says at that point.

[40:31] I I I what I'm hearing is that and I

[40:33] didn't know this until today. The mobile

[40:35] business is not qualifying for business.

[40:38] We didn't we didn't know that until

[40:39] today and uh business must be developed,

[40:44] built and and that's what the

[40:47] geotechnical investigation would be for.

[40:50] So, as it is today with the mobile

[40:52] business, this will be declined because

[40:53] the mobile business doesn't meet the

[40:55] requirement, right, of a business and so

[40:57] we're just going to decline it. Totally

[40:58] fine. My question is I I mean, you can

[41:01] see I'm trying to comply with with

[41:03] whatever these requirements are and

[41:05] there's a landslide and mo you guys

[41:06] don't like people human occupancy,

[41:08] whatever. If I had a business like some

[41:10] kind of a kiosk business, this is just

[41:11] hypothetical business. If I had a like a

[41:13] kiosk of sorts that dispensed something

[41:16] that people used to hike or you know

[41:18] gosh sunglasses or bandanas or I'm not

[41:21] trying to get that corny but I'm just

[41:23] making an example that wasn't human

[41:25] occupied.

[41:28] Um,

[41:31] I'm thinking of the building that's in

[41:32] the center of my business already

[41:35] that's about 10 by 10 and I'm sure I

[41:38] could come up with some really helpful,

[41:40] useful things that people could use to

[41:41] go there that wouldn't be human

[41:42] occupied.

[41:44] I is the only reason the geotechnical

[41:46] thing potentially being required is

[41:48] because I would have to quote unquote

[41:49] develop a business and build a building.

[41:51] Is that

[41:53] >> because that building

[41:54] >> the commercial use would have to be

[41:56] developed on the property. Yeah, because

[41:58] that building's already there. And I get

[41:59] it that that that I'm not coming to you

[42:01] today with the application for it. But

[42:03] now that I know that the mobile business

[42:05] doesn't work and I didn't know that

[42:06] until today,

[42:07] >> I might think in that direction for a

[42:09] nonoccupied

[42:11] business just so that the risk isn't

[42:13] even there, right? There's not even

[42:14] anybody there.

[42:16] >> But we haven't fully discussed that part

[42:18] of it yet, though.

[42:19] >> Okay. I just Well, I just was trying

[42:20] [clears throat] to think. But but the

[42:21] trigger is that there would be a

[42:23] building built, not a mobile business.

[42:25] And the building built would need a

[42:26] geotechnical report like any building

[42:28] built,

[42:29] >> right?

[42:29] >> And then and but if I could avoid that

[42:32] uh [clears throat] a building to be

[42:33] built and human occupancy, it might

[42:35] simplify this whole thing.

[42:37] >> But but for today, I get it. You're

[42:39] going to decline it because of the whole

[42:40] >> It comes down to

[42:41] >> Thank you.

[42:41] >> business developed on the property and

[42:44] what constitutes a business developed on

[42:47] the property.

[42:48] >> Um

[42:55] I don't I would say from our perspective

[42:57] that

[43:00] well let's assume so we've tabled this a

[43:03] bunch of times it feels to me maybe we

[43:05] approve or deny

[43:07] it sounds like maybe we go towards deny

[43:10] potentially we make two findings the

[43:12] commercial use finding and a finding

[43:14] that the commercial use is likely to

[43:17] lead to the requirement for a

[43:19] geotechnical

[43:21] report a whatever the name of that one.

[43:24] That's the first one. Um

[43:29] I don't know until we see what is

[43:32] proposed by the applicant. Um

[43:36] whether that can meet the requirement

[43:39] for a for a commercial use developed on

[43:42] the property but not have human

[43:45] occupancy.

[43:47] Um, but I don't want to say that I know

[43:50] ahead of time,

[43:51] >> right,

[43:53] >> that that is possible or impossible.

[43:57] Any

[43:58] thoughts about that?

[43:59] >> I don't feel like I h I had that same

[44:01] thought though. Actually, my mind went

[44:04] to like does some kind of vending thing

[44:09] constitute commercial activity? Um, so I

[44:12] would definitely have to research

[44:15] >> research

[44:16] >> and get more information on that.

[44:18] >> I didn't find anything

[44:21] right off hand when I looked into that,

[44:23] but definitely would need much more

[44:26] exploring.

[44:31] » Any other?

[44:34] >> Yeah, you'd have to submit

[44:36] >> even know what it is. Yeah.

[44:38] >> Yeah. Any other thoughts?

[44:44] Does the staff know if that type of an

[44:47] arrangement constitutes commercial?

[44:54] » Yeah, I I think we may need to do a

[44:56] little bit of research on that as far as

[44:59] something to do with vending. Um one

[45:02] [clears throat] thought though um if um

[45:07] if you are finding that the commercial

[45:09] use is not meeting the required

[45:12] standards if that's the direction you're

[45:13] going in and if if uh you're going in

[45:18] the direction of refusing on that basis

[45:21] I would probably recommend not including

[45:23] the geotechnical

[45:25] piece as part of that refusal because

[45:28] that that would be kind of going two

[45:31] steps ahead if if you know what I mean

[45:32] because you

[45:34] >> you don't know

[45:36] what

[45:37] >> what's going to be proposed. Yeah,

[45:38] >> that that would be my recommendation

[45:41] that if if you are going in the

[45:42] direction of refusal for the commercial

[45:45] use that that's that's what you base

[45:47] your refusal on.

[45:48] >> Okay.

[45:51] >> Yeah. My my concern is that and it and I

[45:55] think it's a separate thing um you know

[45:58] should there be a geotechnical report

[46:00] and I think there's enough lack of

[46:02] information and discrepancies and in

[46:05] provided information in my mind for us

[46:08] to make a decision on anything in that

[46:11] regard without seeing a geotechnical

[46:12] report. If we look at the surveys from

[46:15] 2016, I think it was, and the surveys

[46:18] more current or recently, there's

[46:20] significant discrepancies in the

[46:22] elevations on those properties and the areas of 30% slope. And only looking

[46:29] at the current, you know, state of the

[46:32] land, it's really going to be difficult

[46:33] to determine how much soil was removed,

[46:36] what was 30% slope, what got changed,

[46:39] that sort of thing. And so for us to

[46:41] make a determine based on, you know,

[46:43] look at it now versus

[46:46] these two reports that are very very

[46:48] different in terms of where some of the contour lines are and the and the

[46:53] elevations. I think I don't think we

[46:55] have the the technical capacity to do

[46:57] that here. We probably need somebody to

[47:00] take a look at it. And to me, that's a

[47:02] triggering event for item five, if you

[47:05] will, that says any other condition

[47:07] where, you know, um, we think a DO check

[47:10] technical investigation is is warranted.

[47:12] And you know, I go out and look at the

[47:15] property and it's um

[47:18] yeah, I I think it's warranted, but you

[47:20] know, that's just um

[47:22] >> Well, I think at this point though, if

[47:24] we just

[47:26] deny the application, then that's

[47:30] discussion if a new application is

[47:34] submitted. Well, we can think we can we

[47:37] can say, yeah, the um application can be

[47:41] refused on item number four, you know,

[47:45] the uh the commercial use thing, but it

[47:48] can also be uh I think we can also take

[47:50] a position on the other one if we choose

[47:52] to. I don't want to I don't want to take

[47:53] a position on on one of them and then

[47:55] have you know the applicant come back

[47:57] later thinking that oh he's going to be

[47:59] successful because we didn't look at it

[48:00] now and then have us you know turn back

[48:03] around and say oh no you need to do this

[48:04] one too.

[48:05] >> I don't think we have enough information

[48:07] though to

[48:08] >> well and which is why I think that

[48:10] >> because it potentially could not be

[48:11] required

[48:13] >> in

[48:16] how I don't think it's the requirement

[48:18] is not because of the commercial use the

[48:19] requirement is because of the state of

[48:21] the land. Yeah, I think what you're

[48:22] >> the lack of sufficient insufficiency of

[48:24] information about the state of the land,

[48:26] you know,

[48:26] >> is that we still have this idea that the

[48:30] high-risk

[48:32] landslide area that this excavation took

[48:35] place in,

[48:36] >> correct,

[48:37] >> potentially changed the risk profile of

[48:41] the landslide. We the it's not the

[48:43] applicant's job to fix the landslide

[48:45] issue,

[48:46] >> right?

[48:46] >> It's their job not to make it worse, not

[48:48] to make it more risky,

[48:50] >> right? If you read the beginning of um

[48:55] F151,

[48:58] you know, the purpose of this whole

[48:59] geotechnical thing is to promote and

[49:02] protect this health, safety, welfare of

[49:05] citizens of Springdale and protect the

[49:07] infrastructure and financial health of

[49:09] Springdale, among other things. So, it's

[49:12] not just to protect a structure on the

[49:15] property, but also potentially things

[49:18] nearby.

[49:19] Um, and we have SR9 downhill from this

[49:23] lot and I potentially utilities in

[49:27] easements. It's we don't know that for

[49:29] sure, but so there are things that are at risk of a landslide.

[49:35] And the question might be just take

[49:37] Paul's point of view here, did that risk

[49:41] increase by the excavation,

[49:43] >> right?

[49:45] >> Um

[49:47] the concern I have about that is that

[49:50] the way the whole geo

[49:52] technical or the whole geo hazard

[49:55] section is structured

[49:58] tends to point away from applying this

[50:02] when there's not structures.

[50:05] Um,

[50:07] to be honest, we might want to talk to

[50:08] the staff about whether we review this

[50:10] at some point in a future work meeting,

[50:12] >> right?

[50:12] >> Um, but I think in this meeting we need

[50:15] to follow the ordinance as it's written.

[50:18] >> And that's why I I continue to be on the

[50:20] fence because I see the ordinance goes

[50:23] both ways.

[50:25] And

[50:27] so I have a so I understand your point,

[50:30] Paul, and I I in some ways agree with

[50:33] it.

[50:35] You think you agree or disagree?

[50:37] >> Both. Yeah, [laughter] I think I think I

[50:39] both agree and disagree. Um, which does

[50:42] which is what leads me to maybe we take

[50:44] a work meeting and think through like

[50:47] how this is all structured and whether

[50:50] we can make our lives a little easier in

[50:52] the future. Um, but we need to deal with

[50:54] what we're dealing with right now.

[50:57] >> Um, so I'd be happy to hear other people

[51:02] um because I still haven't completely

[51:04] made up my mind.

[51:06] >> So, what haven't you made? So,

[51:12] aside from just denying the application,

[51:15] is there another option that you're is

[51:17] that that you haven't made your mind up

[51:18] about?

[51:19] >> I think at this point we've tabled it

[51:21] enough times that we either approve or

[51:22] deny,

[51:23] >> right?

[51:24] >> I think we're going towards a deny. I

[51:25] think we're all agreeing that the

[51:27] commercial use is a reason to deny.

[51:29] >> Right. And the remaining discussion is

[51:32] do we include okay so we make a reason

[51:35] to deny the finding is the commercial

[51:37] use do we add a second finding about the

[51:40] geotechnical report I think is really

[51:42] the discussion we're having right and all

[51:46] >> in the denial

[51:48] >> in the in today's denial if we do the

[51:50] denial today

[51:51] >> right um because there the I assume the

[51:55] applicant will come back at some point

[51:58] and address our finding, right? And so

[52:01] if we don't have a finding for the

[52:02] geotechnical report and

[52:05] creates some mechanism, some structure

[52:08] that doesn't have you, you know, right,

[52:10] that doesn't meet those.

[52:12] >> So the finding would be denying it based

[52:14] on

[52:16] the commercial business

[52:19] is a place of occupancy. therefore would

[52:24] require

[52:25] >> well I think we we would deny based on

[52:26] the commercial that the mobile business

[52:28] doesn't meet the requirements of a

[52:29] commercial business of the commercialite

[52:32] and then if the second finding would be

[52:34] separate wouldn't apply at all right and

[52:37] Paul's idea wouldn't apply at all it

[52:39] would say

[52:40] >> that the geologic hazards of this the

[52:45] geological hazard of this property the

[52:47] landslide hazard of this property um is

[52:49] sufficient that we believe that a

[52:52] geotechnical report is needed and I

[52:54] think it would be this first level

[52:56] report even still because

[52:58] >> for what though like we're not even

[52:59] saying on what basis we would

[53:01] >> on the basis of the risk to um public

[53:06] infrastructure to the citizens of

[53:08] Springdale and our visitors right

[53:10] because the question we don't know the

[53:13] answer to is did this excavation

[53:16] increase the risk to SR9

[53:20] >> I don't think We're at a place right now

[53:22] where we um it makes sense to make a

[53:25] decision like that. Like we're at a

[53:27] place now where we're approving or

[53:29] denying this DDR.

[53:33] And I I

[53:35] uh it sounds like that's something in to

[53:37] put in place in relationship to the

[53:40] parking lot.

[53:43] >> Right. And this DDR this DDR

[53:45] >> this would be separate.

[53:47] >> So this DDR is about the parking lot.

[53:50] Well, the parking lot grading permit has

[53:53] been approved,

[53:54] >> right?

[53:54] >> The grading permit was approved.

[53:57] >> Now, if you

[53:58] >> So, the parking lot doesn't exist

[54:00] without a business.

[54:03] » Well, the parking

[54:04] >> without commercial use,

[54:06] >> right? The the the

[54:07] >> the expansion

[54:08] >> the commercial use is a requirement,

[54:10] >> right,

[54:11] >> for the for the expansion park,

[54:13] >> right? Um

[54:15] and and and so I also understand what

[54:17] you're saying is that you know the other

[54:19] side of the argument is that yes we the

[54:23] grading permit has been approved and the

[54:25] DCD did not require a um geologic hazard

[54:31] report or the geologic geotechnical

[54:34] report or whichever one it is. Um and

[54:37] therefore that part is done, right? And

[54:41] that your idea is that the DDR is not

[54:45] another is not an opportunity to um for

[54:49] us to look at that aspect, right,

[54:53] >> the health, safety, and welfare of of

[54:55] the Springdale citizens.

[54:56] >> Correct.

[54:58] >> And I think that's kind of where we're

[55:00] at. Is is this DDR?

[55:03] Okay, let me let me add one more thing.

[55:06] Normally, typically

[55:09] the beha the the f the the the the um

[55:13] process we see is that a DDR comes to us

[55:17] before any permits are granted, right?

[55:20] And so these discussions had had this

[55:23] been the state for this case, we would

[55:25] be having these discussions before the

[55:29] grading permit was issued

[55:31] >> and before the grading occurred.

[55:35] >> Yes. Right. That that that the grading

[55:38] that we would have the discussions once

[55:41] things were approved the grading permit

[55:42] would be issued and then the grading

[55:44] would happen under those conditions.

[55:48] um or if you take the argument, well,

[55:51] the grading permit has already happened.

[55:52] Therefore, we now no longer have the

[55:56] authority we would have had under the

[55:57] other order.

[55:59] Basically says that the applicant's

[56:03] actions

[56:05] kicked off a process that came out of

[56:07] order and therefore now we we don't have

[56:10] a power or a cap authority that we used

[56:15] to have that we would normally have. Do

[56:18] you follow where I'm going with that?

[56:20] Yeah, I see what you're saying, but I I

[56:22] it doesn't make sense to me to to put

[56:24] that in. Like I I it's putting a

[56:29] requirement in place.

[56:32] Well, first of all, I I know what you're

[56:35] saying. It's it's tricky because we're

[56:37] doing things in a little out of order,

[56:40] >> out of the typical order,

[56:41] >> right?

[56:42] But

[56:44] um

[56:46] we don't even know what the future

[56:48] options are.

[56:50] >> Like we've kind of thrown around these

[56:52] few ideas of like is it possible to have

[56:55] a business without occupancy

[56:58] >> but and again

[56:59] >> but I know what you're saying. You're

[57:00] looking

[57:01] >> they're separate things too. I mean

[57:02] that's one aspect of it. The other

[57:04] aspect of it is, you know, if we were

[57:06] going to if if as as pointed out, if

[57:09] we're going to look at the grading of it

[57:10] and we look go out and look at the

[57:11] grade, you know, what are they going to

[57:12] do in regards to grading, we would make

[57:14] a determination based on how that's

[57:16] going to occur, what's going to happen.

[57:18] So in theory, you're saying so if there

[57:21] was an option that you could put in

[57:23] commercial use that wasn't

[57:26] >> didn't meet the occupancy. Oh, no. That

[57:29] it didn't require or that there was no

[57:32] occupant,

[57:33] >> right? Then we then we may still have a

[57:35] problem with regard to the

[57:37] >> So you're saying

[57:40] still have this requirement in there

[57:42] based on number five, the other

[57:44] instance. I'm saying we still have the

[57:47] requirement of number five and we need

[57:50] to exercise it probably.

[57:52] >> Right. And I I think what you're saying

[57:53] is

[57:54] >> I mean if you look at if you look at

[57:56] these two drawings this point here is at

[58:00] 3945

[58:02] elevation. I believe it's pretty close

[58:04] to this point here which is at 39.

[58:06] >> When is this one from?

[58:08] >> This is the more

[58:10] >> this is the recent one.

[58:11] >> I think this is more recent.

[58:14] there's 25 ft difference between those

[58:17] two.

[58:18] >> I was looking at that.

[58:20] >> You know, I we need to resolve this

[58:22] discrepancy to to make a determination

[58:24] of, you know, how much soil was removed,

[58:25] how much whatever. And, you know, I

[58:27] don't given that we can't go out and

[58:29] look at the land and do that. I don't

[58:30] know how we do that. Um

[58:33] I I noticed that too that if you look at

[58:36] those two drawings and and you assume

[58:38] they're both true, then the entire

[58:40] property has risen 12 ft.

[58:42] >> Yeah. Which can

[58:43] >> in 10 years, right? Because the old one

[58:46] has it 12 feet lower than the new one.

[58:48] >> Right. But I remembered something after

[58:51] a while that I read an article not that

[58:55] long ago that the calculation for sea

[58:57] level was changed and that a that that

[59:00] various peaks around the world are now a

[59:04] different elevation than they used to be

[59:06] because whoever decides this decided

[59:09] that sea level calculations have changed

[59:12] >> potentially

[59:15] that kind of difference. Um

[59:16] >> but but you know whatever there's been

[59:20] the change and the change is s

[59:22] significant whether you look at the

[59:24] existing one or the or the previous one

[59:26] there's still a a wide discrepancy

[59:29] between

[59:30] >> so couldn't we put that requirement in

[59:33] after looking at the next application

[59:37] like why would we put it in now

[59:40] >> here's the reason we would put it in now

[59:44] is if if we make only the commercial

[59:47] use. There's several options that are

[59:49] available to the applicant. One is to

[59:52] request a variance. That'll never come

[59:54] back to us. Another is to request

[59:56] mediation. I believe that won't come

[59:58] back to us. A third is to propose

[1:00:00] something that doesn't require occupancy

[1:00:02] and doesn't trigger the need. Right? And

[1:00:05] so by not putting it in, right, we may

[1:00:08] not it may not be something that gets

[1:00:10] added later.

[1:00:12] Now I go back to sort of the whole

[1:00:14] structure of the way the ordinances are

[1:00:16] put together and I still see this that

[1:00:21] the way the ordinances the ordinance is

[1:00:23] put together

[1:00:26] we're we're pu we're pushing the limits

[1:00:30] to require a geotechnical report

[1:00:34] for the parking lot alone

[1:00:37] and I get all the concerns and I read

[1:00:40] about the safety and the welfare of the

[1:00:42] citizens and infrastructure.

[1:00:44] Um,

[1:00:46] and like I said, I go back and forth. I think we've got one for, one against,

[1:00:51] and one still unsure, and two who

[1:00:53] haven't spoken.

[1:00:55] >> I have some things to say, but I don't

[1:00:57] know if now's the time. Um,

[1:01:01] as someone who has had my car caked in,

[1:01:03] blocked in from a landslide not far from

[1:01:05] there, I appreciate the precautions the

[1:01:08] city is taking and uh, Luke has taken to

[1:01:12] try to make sure everything is good. I

[1:01:15] have so much to learn concerning that

[1:01:16] and honestly, a lot of that too is over

[1:01:19] my head and I'm looking forward to

[1:01:20] learning more. So, I appreciate that.

[1:01:22] I'd like that being said that from a

[1:01:24] very personal level, I understand and

[1:01:26] appreciate the safety precautions being

[1:01:28] made. I also post that flood in 2021

[1:01:31] when my car had to get excavated out.

[1:01:34] Um, I saw how things were fixed uh in

[1:01:38] the surrounding area by the companies.

[1:01:41] It was the companies that were able to

[1:01:43] produce money to produce ways that the the water goes to get to the river a

[1:01:50] little more safely. I don't know if that

[1:01:52] was because of town code or because of

[1:01:54] the company's strategy and what they

[1:01:55] could do. I don't know. But I've seen

[1:01:58] firsthand the need for all this. I also

[1:02:03] uh should have been a little more

[1:02:05] prepared, but I was like, "Oh my

[1:02:06] goodness, I'm starting to protect the

[1:02:08] Constitution and the Utah Constitution,

[1:02:11] and I need to know the Count Town Code a

[1:02:13] lot better." I was curious with the

[1:02:15] history of how long this has been on the

[1:02:17] books. So I did a quick search about if and what is

[1:02:24] the due process expectancy for property.

[1:02:27] Um my question was is there a

[1:02:29] speeditness requirement for property

[1:02:32] situations?

[1:02:34] Um Thomas Greenell says yes.

[1:02:38] The DD the DCD will review the request

[1:02:41] within five business days. And I'm sure

[1:02:43] that's about one specific thing. I'm

[1:02:44] sure there's more that I need to study.

[1:02:47] Utah constitution says um in article 1

[1:02:50] statute 11 remedy by due course of law

[1:02:52] which shall be administered without

[1:02:54] denial or unnecessary delay and then the

[1:02:57] US constitution says no that that due

[1:03:00] process is mostly for criminal law and

[1:03:01] things like that. So those are my

[1:03:03] thoughts. I have so much to learn. Uh I

[1:03:07] don't know anything. I'm grateful that

[1:03:09] uh but but also from another

[1:03:11] perspective. Um it seems I I I I need to

[1:03:15] learn why you were able to get a permit

[1:03:18] under conditions that was able to

[1:03:20] provide our town with parking that was

[1:03:23] necessary for for our needs. um and that

[1:03:26] you were able to try to get a permit uh

[1:03:29] that actually is a good thing for the

[1:03:31] town from my perspective. Um I imagine

[1:03:35] that this new permit has reasons that

[1:03:38] it's requiring all this new stuff for

[1:03:40] reasons I don't know. Maybe bathrooms

[1:03:42] are one of those things. I can I can see

[1:03:43] if you have tons more people in this

[1:03:45] area parking you need a bathroom. I get

[1:03:46] that. Uh but perhaps if we're trying to

[1:03:49] come up with some crazy reason to be

[1:03:52] able to fit the permit, right, maybe the

[1:03:54] law needs to be relooked at again.

[1:03:57] >> Yeah. And this definitely has brought up

[1:03:59] some things that can we can put on the

[1:04:01] books in the future because that um the

[1:04:04] there's some really good examples here

[1:04:06] of just things that wouldn't naturally

[1:04:08] come to mind when you're putting certain

[1:04:10] ordinances in place. Like when the

[1:04:12] parking lot ordinance was put in and the

[1:04:15] commercial requirement came, it probably

[1:04:17] didn't come to anybody's mind that

[1:04:20] would a mobile business be considered.

[1:04:24] And so now like here we are with you

[1:04:26] know grappling with that and what

[1:04:29] developing. So you're exactly right

[1:04:31] >> and in the in the in the in the heart of

[1:04:34] trying to be speedy for the applicant

[1:04:36] for his property um in upholding at

[1:04:39] least the Utah constitution and the town

[1:04:41] of Springdale code. Maybe I'm wrong.

[1:04:43] Please feel free to correct me if I'm

[1:04:44] wrong on that. Is there a an expectation

[1:04:48] of of not undue delay?

[1:04:51] >> Yeah sure. So the the the time review is

[1:04:55] kind of that you've referred to is the

[1:04:58] initial application review to kind of

[1:05:01] review the application, make sure it's

[1:05:03] complete. Okay.

[1:05:04] >> Request any information um and then um

[1:05:10] but scheduling a planning commission

[1:05:11] kind of meeting takes longer than that.

[1:05:15] >> Okay. Um yeah, I think generally there is an expectation that we review

[1:05:21] things and come to a determination in a

[1:05:23] timely fashion.

[1:05:24] >> Okay.

[1:05:25] >> I don't know that there's any specific

[1:05:28] >> deadlines we pass

[1:05:29] >> from a planning commission behavior. If

[1:05:31] we table something like we've done with

[1:05:33] this, we expect to review it again as

[1:05:36] soon as the applicant is ready.

[1:05:38] >> Okay, cool.

[1:05:39] >> Right. Um but it is still our

[1:05:41] requirement to to ensure that the

[1:05:44] ordinances have been the ordinances and

[1:05:46] the requirements have been met.

[1:05:48] >> That's our primary.

[1:05:50] >> Well, thank you. I

[1:05:51] >> No, those are great questions.

[1:05:52] >> Welcome to your first day.

[1:05:54] >> Oh, well, thank you very much. Thank you

[1:05:55] for asking and contributing so much.

[1:05:57] Yeah.

[1:05:59] >> So, with that, yeah, I I I know I'm not

[1:06:01] a non- voting chair and I but

[1:06:03] >> yeah,

[1:06:04] >> but I'm anxious to see in the sake of my

[1:06:06] personality. Okay. What's the bottom

[1:06:08] line here? What are we coming up with?

[1:06:12] >> So, I am on board with the denial. I am

[1:06:15] not on board with um adding that second

[1:06:18] finding in. I It just doesn't make sense

[1:06:20] to me.

[1:06:21] I I I know what you're saying

[1:06:24] and the responsibility of making

[1:06:26] decisions for the well-being of the

[1:06:30] community and um but I feel like it's

[1:06:33] putting in

[1:06:34] and like using number five as an

[1:06:37] instance like what is the instance?

[1:06:41] Well, I guess you know it kind of a

[1:06:44] little bit goes back to what Terry was

[1:06:46] saying earlier is that had this been

[1:06:48] done in the proper sequence um the

[1:06:51] likelihood is that that that the the

[1:06:54] technical geotechnical report would have

[1:06:56] been required uh before we got you know

[1:06:59] the grading permitted or anything else

[1:07:00] that would have been a requirement to to

[1:07:02] proceed. And because we found ourselves

[1:07:04] now where the work's you know partially

[1:07:07] been done [clears throat] and we're you

[1:07:10] know we're asking for you know okay how

[1:07:12] do we get this thing approved anyway and

[1:07:14] which you know shouldn't be that's not

[1:07:16] really our job our job is to figure out

[1:07:18] is this the right thing. So if we

[1:07:21] >> if we deny it based on findings, that's

[1:07:24] not requiring any action though, right?

[1:07:28] >> Um well, yeah, the applicant doesn't

[1:07:30] have to take an action, but yeah,

[1:07:32] >> I would assume generally the applicant

[1:07:34] would want to come back,

[1:07:36] >> right,

[1:07:36] >> meet the findings and propose probably

[1:07:39] propose a new DDR that addresses the

[1:07:42] findings.

[1:07:43] >> And I just don't know why we wouldn't

[1:07:45] address that with a new application.

[1:07:50] I I I I just I I I can't like deny it.

[1:07:54] There's no application in front of us.

[1:07:57] So,

[1:07:59] um basically we're kind of back to

[1:08:01] square one again.

[1:08:03] >> Well, there is an application in front

[1:08:04] of us.

[1:08:04] >> Well, that we deny then there's then

[1:08:06] there's nothing.

[1:08:07] >> So, if we deny it, then yeah.

[1:08:08] >> Yeah. Then we then we have a chance to

[1:08:10] re

[1:08:11] >> then he has a chance to come back and

[1:08:13] >> yeah, right again or whatever and

[1:08:16] >> we go through that process, right?

[1:08:21] Kosh.

[1:08:22] >> So I'm just wondering is that a

[1:08:25] possibility for us to

[1:08:27] put it on hold and let them come back

[1:08:30] with what the necessary requirements are

[1:08:33] and then we review it or do you prefer

[1:08:36] denying it and then let them resubmit

[1:08:40] a new application or

[1:08:43] >> Well, we did that um you know at at the

[1:08:46] prior meeting. we put it on hold and set

[1:08:49] some stipulations that said, you know,

[1:08:50] we need we we you know are looking for

[1:08:52] the geotech report and and a few other

[1:08:54] things. And so the the result of that

[1:08:59] was that the applicants come back and

[1:09:00] said um yeah, he doesn't want to do the

[1:09:03] geotech report, but the other things

[1:09:06] here's here's my answer to that. Um

[1:09:09] >> and so we have the choice now to say,

[1:09:11] well, that's not what we wanted. We can

[1:09:13] just flat out deny it

[1:09:14] >> or we can say, "Well, give you one more

[1:09:16] chance. We'll table it again and and

[1:09:18] continue on."

[1:09:19] >> Yeah. Because we have I we have more

[1:09:22] information at this point that we didn't

[1:09:23] have previously, right?

[1:09:26] >> Some, but not completely.

[1:09:28] >> I would I would vote against

[1:09:30] tableabling. We've tabled twice.

[1:09:33] >> Yeah,

[1:09:33] >> I agree. and and in the and in the

[1:09:36] effort to be to produce to go through

[1:09:40] our actions quickly tableabling again

[1:09:43] further delays. Um and the issue we're

[1:09:46] talking about is in the previous meeting

[1:09:49] we already requested that the DCD

[1:09:52] request the geotechnical report. The

[1:09:55] applicant replied no they don't want to

[1:09:57] do that with their justifications.

[1:10:00] So I think we yet we are at a state now

[1:10:02] where we either where we well I think

[1:10:05] we're going to deny and the real

[1:10:07] question is do we deny both option both

[1:10:13] findings or just the one.

[1:10:15] Um I I think tableabling

[1:10:18] is something we've already done a couple

[1:10:20] times and kind of doesn't I don't think

[1:10:21] makes sense at this point because

[1:10:24] the the applicant has already said that

[1:10:27] he doesn't believe that a geotechnical

[1:10:30] report is required.

[1:10:32] So tableabling and requesting it again

[1:10:36] doesn't change anything.

[1:10:39] >> Well in terms of denying I mean we can

[1:10:40] deny it. We can deny it based on the

[1:10:43] refusal of the applicant to uh you know

[1:10:47] address our concerns.

[1:10:49] >> Yeah.

[1:10:49] >> So it doesn't have to be one or the

[1:10:50] other. We can say flat out it's denied.

[1:10:52] Then then you can come back through

[1:10:53] start a new go through the process go

[1:10:55] you know work with the the DCD and try

[1:10:58] and figure out how to you know come up

[1:11:00] with a new new solution. I would like to

[1:11:02] >> it's without prejudice

[1:11:04] >> see it denied based on not meeting

[1:11:08] the requirements of the commercial use

[1:11:12] and then have the opportunity to look at

[1:11:15] what is presented in the future and

[1:11:19] consider everything at that time.

[1:11:21] >> Well, if we deny it, my belief is that

[1:11:24] it's a it's a start over. I mean it, you

[1:11:27] know, he can come back with whatever he

[1:11:29] wants and apply as if it was a new uh a

[1:11:33] new well, it will be a new application.

[1:11:35] And so we don't have to, you know, we're

[1:11:37] not saying uh you know, by for whatever

[1:11:41] reason we give for denying it.

[1:11:43] >> If we just flat out deny it, he comes

[1:11:45] back and starts a new.

[1:11:47] >> Yeah.

[1:11:47] >> And so we don't have to say it's because

[1:11:48] of this or because of that or or

[1:11:50] anything else in that regard.

[1:11:52] >> It's not going to change what he comes

[1:11:53] back new with.

[1:11:54] >> Right. And we knew we need a finding,

[1:11:56] but you know,

[1:11:58] >> yes, you definitely need findings. We

[1:12:00] need findings. Yes,

[1:12:01] >> I could see you getting [laughter] all

[1:12:03] what

[1:12:04] >> I mean, can we just say it doesn't meet

[1:12:06] the requirements of commercial use? Is

[1:12:08] that finding sufficient enough? Do we

[1:12:11] have to say why it doesn't meet the

[1:12:13] requirement of commercial use? Yes. So,

[1:12:16] >> I don't think we need to say why. I

[1:12:18] think we just refer to the ordinance and

[1:12:19] say it doesn't meet that ordinance. I I

[1:12:22] think you want to refer to maybe the

[1:12:24] specifics. You maybe don't need to

[1:12:25] recite the whole section, but it would

[1:12:28] be useful to refer to those

[1:12:30] >> refer to the specific ordinance require

[1:12:32] about the commercial use that that

[1:12:34] particular paragraph and state

[1:12:36] >> that paragraph and and again I don't

[1:12:40] think we should try to predict what the

[1:12:42] applicant will do based on that.

[1:12:46] Um,

[1:12:48] and I don't know. Do you want to do a

[1:12:50] thumbs up, thumbs down here or how you

[1:12:52] want to go with this?

[1:12:54] >> I'm just really trying to understand why

[1:13:04] because do we really know because we

[1:13:06] don't really know what all of the

[1:13:08] options are for commercial use. Well,

[1:13:11] again, I think

[1:13:12] >> so that's what that's what keeps coming

[1:13:14] back to me like we we can't list that as

[1:13:17] part of doesn't meet the requirement of

[1:13:19] commercial use because of um getting

[1:13:22] that report because we don't even know

[1:13:24] what the other options are.

[1:13:27] >> Well, again, it would not be related

[1:13:29] >> it would not anything

[1:13:30] >> to the commercial report.

[1:13:32] >> Yeah. Yeah,

[1:13:32] >> it would be related to our perception

[1:13:36] our our our requirement our goal

[1:13:40] whatever our of of protecting the safety

[1:13:43] health and welfare of the citizens and

[1:13:44] infrastructure and for that purpose

[1:13:47] independent use

[1:13:49] >> I would connect

[1:13:50] >> we would we would see or we would say

[1:13:52] that we don't know whether the risk has

[1:13:55] been made worse or not

[1:13:57] >> I would be more

[1:14:01] Um, it would make more sense to me if it

[1:14:03] was connected to the commercial use.

[1:14:06] >> That wouldn't make sense to me at all.

[1:14:08] >> Well, because it doesn't um because it's

[1:14:11] a place of occupancy.

[1:14:13] >> No.

[1:14:13] >> And when there's a place of occupancy,

[1:14:15] it requires a report.

[1:14:19] » So, that would be all taken care of in a

[1:14:23] future.

[1:14:24] >> Yes.

[1:14:24] >> Proposal.

[1:14:25] >> Yes. That's

[1:14:25] >> where we're occupancy, right?

[1:14:26] >> Yes. What wouldn't be taken care of is

[1:14:30] whether we still feel that we don't know

[1:14:33] whether the risk has been made worse or

[1:14:36] not by the excavation.

[1:14:39] >> Can can I make a a comment?

[1:14:41] >> Yeah.

[1:14:42] >> If if you were saying we don't know,

[1:14:45] >> that's probably not a sufficient finding

[1:14:47] to deny something.

[1:14:48] >> Probably not. So, I would recommend you

[1:14:50] stick to the things that you can clearly

[1:14:54] point to like Nyall said in the

[1:14:56] ordinance that either comply or do not

[1:14:58] comply. And the the thing that based on

[1:15:02] your discussion so far, the thing that I think you are all feeling most clearly

[1:15:07] does not comply is that a mobile

[1:15:11] uh food business is not a commercial use

[1:15:14] developed on the property because of the

[1:15:16] definition that you vegetary.

[1:15:20] That seems to be something that you you have concrete findings for that's linked to the ordinance that you

[1:15:26] can make some some solid findings with.

[1:15:28] >> Yeah. If you have if you have to make a

[1:15:30] finding saying, "Well, we're not sure.

[1:15:32] We don't know. We may need more

[1:15:33] information,"

[1:15:35] that's that's not a sufficient reason to

[1:15:37] deny something.

[1:15:38] >> And that's why I don't think we should

[1:15:40] put that in there. To me, it seems like

[1:15:42] it's doesn't it's not

[1:15:45] what we're our decision.

[1:15:55] » Well, I'm I can make a a motion. And

[1:15:58] like I said, I I

[1:16:01] am, you know, willing to go either way.

[1:16:03] So, I'm willing to go the way you said

[1:16:05] and the way that the staff recommends.

[1:16:07] And I think this Tom has made a good

[1:16:09] point that it's hard to make a finding

[1:16:12] on well, we don't really know what what

[1:16:16] whether the risk changed or not.

[1:16:19] I think that we should discuss this in a

[1:16:21] work meeting because maybe we need

[1:16:25] something cleaner in the ordinances to

[1:16:28] handle this situation where where as a

[1:16:31] planning commission we have information

[1:16:33] that implies that the risk could been

[1:16:36] made worse, but we don't have the

[1:16:38] expertise to know that. Um, but the

[1:16:42] ordinances we have today don't really

[1:16:44] give us an opportunity

[1:16:47] or give us the structure to deal with

[1:16:49] that. I think

[1:16:54] » I'm willing to make a motion if we're

[1:16:56] ready. Go for it.

[1:16:57] >> I'm ready.

[1:17:00] The planning commission commission

[1:17:02] denies the design development review

[1:17:04] application for expansion of the parking

[1:17:06] lot at 50 Zion Park Boulevard as

[1:17:09] discussed at the August 19th, 2026

[1:17:12] meeting. The motion is based on the

[1:17:14] following finding.

[1:17:16] The mobile business proposed to fulfill

[1:17:19] the integrated commercial use

[1:17:20] requirement does not re meet the

[1:17:23] requirements of title 10 chapter 23-10

[1:17:27] paragraph D of the Springdale town code

[1:17:30] which states that the commercial use

[1:17:32] must be developed on the same property

[1:17:36] as the public parking area.

[1:17:44] Second

[1:17:46] >> motion by Terry, second by Paul. All in

[1:17:49] favor?

[1:17:51] >> Terry I.

[1:17:52] >> Jennifer I.

[1:17:53] >> Paul I.

[1:17:54] >> Hash I.

[1:17:56] >> Motion passes.

[1:18:04] » Okay.

[1:18:06] >> Thank you for the clarity. Really I feel

[1:18:08] like I have a direction now. I know what

[1:18:09] to do. I realize the concern with the

[1:18:11] occupancy and the business. I I I I feel

[1:18:14] like I understand what Tom said today

[1:18:16] really well about why you would have a

[1:18:18] geotechnical investigation, foundations,

[1:18:20] things like that. And I and so I'll be

[1:18:21] coming back and I think it's smart at

[1:18:23] the time that I come back to say, "Yeah,

[1:18:25] this is what we will require of you for

[1:18:26] this new application." I would also say

[1:18:28] if any of you are willing, I am again

[1:18:30] begging and asking if any of you would

[1:18:32] like to go up and walk that with me so I

[1:18:34] can show you what I did, the height, the

[1:18:36] cuts, and everything. I in listening to

[1:18:38] Paul's last comment, it's really clear

[1:18:40] that between the two plans, he's still

[1:18:42] like, "Wait, wait, why is this?" I mean,

[1:18:45] I'd love to show you. That's all I'm

[1:18:46] going to say. But thank you for your

[1:18:47] time.

[1:18:48] >> Thank you.

[1:18:50] Okay, moving on to the consent agenda.

[1:18:53] Um, approval of minutes from the July

[1:18:55] 1st, 2026 special meeting.

[1:18:59] Is there a motion to approve?

[1:19:02] >> I'll make a motion to approve.

[1:19:06] Is there a second?

[1:19:08] >> I'll second.

[1:19:10] >> Motion by Terry, second by Paul. All in

[1:19:13] favor?

[1:19:14] >> Terry I.

[1:19:15] >> Jennifer I.

[1:19:16] >> Paul I.

[1:19:17] >> Hashi.

[1:19:18] >> Motion passes. Is there a motion to

[1:19:21] adjurnn?

[1:19:22] >> I'll move we adjourn.

[1:19:24] >> Is there a second?

[1:19:28] » I second.

[1:19:30] >> Motion by Paul, second by Kosh. All in

[1:19:32] favor?

[1:19:33] >> Terry I. Jennifer I

[1:19:35] >> all I

[1:19:37] >> meeting is adjourned.

[1:19:47] » How are you here?

08/19/2026 Planning Commission Regular Meeting

Transcript