Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It's 5:01 p.m. and we are at the Canyon Community Center for the March 4th meeting of the Springdale Planning Commission. From the town we have Kendall Sagers, Nile Connelly, Tom Dancy, Robin Romero, and April Ratis Radits. On the dis we have Matt Frink Zion National Park representative Tom Keniston, Terry Kruski, myself, Jennifer McCulla, Paul Zimmerman, and Kosh Bati. Rich Swanson and Melissa Labort are out tonight. Kosh will be voting in tonight's proceedings. Is there a motion to approve the agenda?

I move we approve the agenda. Second. I'll second motion by Paul, second by Terry. All in favor? Terry I. Jennifer I. Paul I. Hashai. Motion passes. Are there any general announcements from the town?

Yes, we have the locals week which is this week. It runs until Friday. Um, so on Friday we have our town birthday party here at the community center from 2 pm to 4 pm. All are invited to come and all are invited to participate in locals week as well. If you have any questions, let me know and I'd be happy to answer them for you. We have more announcements. Great.

We've got so many tonight. This is this is like announcement central. Um, so we have you know also you know how we love to do surveys. We have two surveys going on right now. One is the community well-being survey uh put on by Utah State University. This is the same survey that we as a town participated in two years ago. Um and the survey asks residents about their perceptions of personal and community well-being. And um this is part of a project a statewide project that about 40 other communities are participating in that allows us to compare our results to what we found out two years ago with the same survey and also to um our other you know peer communities across the state. So this is a really important survey. The findings from the survey two years ago were very beneficial and so um you should have received an email about the Utah State University well-being survey with a link to participate. If you've not already done so, please do so. Um, it takes about 10 minutes to complete and the results are very valuable. The second survey that we have out right now is the um the messaging initiative survey and we're looking for a better name for what we're calling this effort, but um this is this is an effort that um is seeking to develop a community identity for the town. There was a a community presentation about this a couple of weeks ago and um we didn't get quite as much participation in that presentation as we wanted to, but the a link to the participate a link to that presentation is available on the town's website as are the slides of that presentation. And after you've had a chance to view the presentation or go through the slides or both, there is a survey that asks for some of your input on this idea of a community identity for the town. So, if you have not had a chance to participate

in that survey, please participate in that survey as well. And you should have also received an email about that. And I think we have one more announcement. We're just passing the mic down. All right. Um, so this is just a really friendly friend friendly reminder that um now that Jennifer is the chair, uh, if any of you have any, um, you know, information that needs to be shared with her, um, just reach out to her. Tom, we appreciate that we send you all of our emails, but just remember to let Jennifer know as well. Thank you. That's it.

That's it. Okay. Okay. Does anyone have any uh potential conflicts they would like to disclose? Okay. For tonight's agenda, we have two non-action items. The first non-action item is a discussion following the direction from the town council to revise chapter 10-21 of the town code relating to the repair and refurbishment of non-complying buildings. The staff contact is Nyall Nyle Connelly and Nyall will be presenting.

Thank you. Um so a number of months ago the planning commission was instructed by the town council to clarify the rules regarding the repair and refurbishment of non-complying buildings. And this is uh been something that you've been working on for a number of months now. Um the commission has explored various options to achieve this. Um and at this point broadly speaking the commission's desire I think has been to retain the requirement for redeveloped non-complying properties to come into compliance with today's code. Um but at the same time the commission wished to cater for certain other situations uh where non-complying buildings may um due to involuntary circumstances need substantial reconstruction. Um at the moment the code caters for a couple of scenarios. So uh there's catastrophic events uh which are usually you know floods, fires, earthquakes uh where non-compliant buildings can be rebuilt. Uh and then on the other end of the spectrum we have uh refurb or ordinary maintenance and repair. Um during the course of the discussions it's emerged that there's probably some scenarios that kind of fall between those two extremes. um and that it could be useful to have some language that addresses um what we might term to be involuntary removal of a non-compliant building. So, um I've drafted some ordinance language here uh with that intention and uh we would appreciate any feedback you have. Firstly just on the overall kind of

concept of of what this is doing and then secondly on the language itself.

Anybody have any questions? No questions for NYP. 1021 and 1029 10219 would apply to both commercial and residential structures.

Yeah, good good point. So, as drafted it would um but that is something that you could discuss if you wanted to go a different direction. And and just sir just to add that the next item in the agenda is all about commercial village commercial and central commercial properties be appropriate to talk about the language now. Okay. um in the uh proposed language. Uh let's see third fourth bullet point. Um several lines down it says um the setbacks of the structure and the reconstructed building elements matches the setbacks of the original structure. And I know at some point in the last meeting we talked about possibly giving them the option of moving the structure back to where they're more in compliance with the setbacks. So I was just wondering if we might want to say that the um reconstructed building elements do not exceed the setbacks of the original structure. something like that that would allow them to move the building so it's more in compliance with the setbacks.

So instead of saying matches do not exceed. Yeah. Okay. Give them the option instead of giving it like in stone. It's like it must be in this spot and cannot be moved. I have a thought about that. Um because don't we in here? Yeah. The last bullet says that removal of the floor slab or footings constitutes redevelopment. So I'm not sure you can move the building without moving the footings in the slab.

Yeah. Right. So that would be sort of contradictory, right? Because to do that they would have to build new footings. which I think they can do if they don't do it in a non-conforming setback. Is that not the case? I mean, we've just recently had that done. So, were they built, you know, if the the front's encroaching on the setback, they could add onto the back potentially.

Um, don't we allow that? Well, I I [clears throat] the the next action item about the commercial districts talks a little bit about that. Um I don't know does I don't think this I think the the way that this section is worded it sounds like you basically have to rebuild the same envelope. I agree that's that's true. But we have allowed in fact we've that's kind of what kicked this off was the building that we were that caused uh pushed us down this road. They put an addition on the back of the building uh which was allowed I think under the current regulations. Is that not true Tom or

Yeah. So that particular one um and obviously the the sequence of events was a little bit unusual. Um but the addition on the back was allowed because um at the time of approval it was an addition to a non-compliant structure and the addition didn't expand anything. Right. Right. Was that a commercial or was that residential? Residential. It was residential.

So our ordinance as written now allow that.

So the in the where that went was sorry um the ordinance allows you to add to a non-complying structure so long as you don't expand the nonconformity. Yeah. And back to that uh bullet point that that Terry just brought up. Do we really want to say that they we don't want them to use additional footings or or what I'm thinking is that in an old structure there may be footings peers uh that building peers that are that need stabilization or underpinning. And do we want to say we don't want them to make any uh improvements to those peers that they must use the old peers?

Um now are you thinking of something where something has happened to make them unstable or that they just weren't sufficient enough when they were created?

Um I'm thinking in terms of peers that weren't sufficient enough. I know some build Florida structures and through time you can put steel structure around other different ways. But are we saying that we don't want to them to remove? But how about um reinforcing and strengthening the peers in the slab? And I know we've talked a lot about the slab and and the footings. Um maybe remind me of where in lies the problem if as long as they built on the same footprint kind of like we did for the commercial zone. like what is the benefit of not allowing

that? So I guess first of all I look at this whole section at the beginning of the section it's it's talking about this is applies specifically to cases where um the building has deteriorated over time. Right? There are other parts of the ordinances that allow you, for example, to add to the back, right?

Or that allow you um to do maintenance as we've been talking about ordinary maintenance. Um and most of those sections do talk about if you need to bring it up to code, which would kind of imply the foundation, right? right if the foundations are insufficient for safety and um and that

yeah the definition is is right there actually for uh ordinary maintenance and repair. Um so it talks about ordinary maintenance and repair means improvement made to a building for the purpose of keeping the structure in a state of repair and protecting the structure from failure or decline. shall apply to the rehabilitation of a building which is in disrepair for the purpose of making the structure safe and sanitary in accordance with local building codes. So if the building is becomes unsafe then it's covered as part of this maintenance right think um so I guess I'm thinking of not moving the foundation as an as a criteria only around the case where you are rebuilding something because the structure deteriorated from mold or whatever Um, and and so because it's specific to this section, in that case, I mean, I think you want you want to be careful not to open up a hole that's so big,

right, that somebody can, oh, you know, I'm I I fit into this case because I got mold or something went wrong with, you know, the deteriorated house. Now I can do all kinds of things, right? that's not really the objective is my in my mind. Um, and if you're going to take out the footings and the slab, then you've kind of gotten everything out of the way to come into setback compliance, right? Yeah.

Yeah. I think if if I understood um Tom's suggestion is that, you know, if if they want to move it back a little bit and reduce the non-compliance, maybe we ought to let them do that. Um and so, you know, I mean, two ways to go about doing that is they because they can build onto the back of the building, you know, as long as it's not in a non-conforming area, they can they can sort of do that now just by building on the back of the building. and then sub subsequently they could come in and chop the front off and uh turn it into a screen porch or something and and achieve that goal if they wanted to do that. Um I'm not sure necessarily [clears throat] why they would want to do that, but I think we ought to be maybe encouraging them to to reduce the non-compliance. And so, you know, we probably shouldn't craft this in a way that says no, you can't really you can't really move it back from where it is. Um, presumably they wouldn't remove the entire slab or footing and maybe we word it that way that they can, you know, build an extension on the back of it and cut the front of it off or something to achieve that goal. But uh [clears throat] maybe we we could so bullet one says we approve it because we find uh that that that that we've gotten the information we need. So maybe what we say is if you're going to move the force the floor slab then you have to show that you're going to be reducing your out of compliance.

Yeah, right. You can't just move it. Yeah, right. Show that. Okay, I'm moving it to well and it's reducing my out of compliance.

And I would suggest that if you're going to move it if you're going to move the slab in its entirety then then it's a new construction and you know this doesn't apply. So the only thing you might be they might want to do is they could you know move the structure that ends up on top of that slab uh by pouring additional slab in the back and reinforcing maybe the front of it in the area around the perimeter uh for the loadbearing part of it. But um they wouldn't be removing the entire thing. So it's so it's not necessarily it's not a complete removal. It's a partial removal of the slab. Um, does that make any sense?

I see where you're going and and and I might use actually there was some terminology I was talking about was reconfiguration. I was actually going to consider adding reconfiguration and expansion as well as removal to not be allowed. But maybe we don't allow removal. [clears throat] might allow reconfiguration of the footings to reduce only for the purpose of reducing the out of compliance as long as it reduces. Yeah. Does that does that make sense? Right.

Yeah. I think we could add something around um yeah that the floor slab could be reconfigured or reduced if it if it reduces the nonconformity and that would mean um not removing all of it is what you're saying or you would still you could remove it all and reconfigure. So I guess it allows incremental said I kind of agree is if you remove it all then you've removed everything. Yes. Yeah. Now you're building a new building and you need to cutiance. Yeah. But if you're going to reconfigure the footings and that reduces your out of compliance, I could see we could allow that.

I And I would I would make it if you're going to reconfigure the footings for the purpose of reducing the non-compliance. Sure. you know, that would be a way to um and I suppose we could add that you could reconfigure them if they if again we get an engineering report that says they need to be um improved. Yeah. for safety and and I'm thinking of a case where a structure is the the footings in the foundation is is 100% fine except for a pier or two that right and so you reconfigure some sub part of it some part that's that's fallen that's

instead of saying you can't fix you know you can't um do anything with the floor slab or the footings. Yeah. Okay. So is are these perspectives coming from a place of um just being in alignment with moving towards compliance? The the reason why I'm asking is um so correct me if I'm wrong, but if there's a floor slab, you you are you do have to have like your interior for floor floor plan somewhat similar to what it was before just because of the infrastructure. Right. But if you had to keep the Yeah.

same place, you have to build the same outside walls. You could build different inside walls, right? But for instance, like you would have to have a the toilet basically and the the the load bearing walls would have to have reinforced reinforcements under the slab. But you couldn't like the just the infrastructure that would be Oh, yeah. If you moved your bathroom or whatever, you're going to have to relocate the plumbing or move the kitchen, right? So, um so you can still like break into the slab floor without Yes. Okay. I just wanted to make sure there was some flexibility there without really knowing exactly how things are.

And in Florida, and I'm not that familiar with construction here, but you can have off slab construction and a lot of the homes are built that way. Typically, they have, you know, um a structure around the home underneath with some uh ventilation there. And we may have homes like that here, too. So, the we do Elizabeth's home was raised was there was extended underneath had a a crawl space underneath. So I think a lot of the homes are built that way and maybe some of the other structures,

right? Yeah. They don't have to have a slab, right? They all need foundations, but if you're on clay, not necessarily on, but the ones that do have slave, it wouldn't be considered a complete removal if they had to move some of the Right. If you can move move I think and you're correct because if you move the plumbing, you can you can poke a new hole into the slab. Okay. And put a new fixture for your toilet. Okay. And that wouldn't be considered right like that would be okay. Okay. Probably you need a building permit for that, but you know. Okay. I a lot of homes the homes here that are built on peers have a crawl space underneath. So it would be easy to move the plumbing around in that case. Okay.

And you could still do it with a just be harder, but you could still do it with a slab. Okay. Okay. Okay. So I think all of that would fit under the concept of reconfiguring the slab for a for a purpose that we agreed to or that we've agreed to here that it could be to reduce the out of compliance or because there's a safety or need or some other need to reconfigure. Yeah. Okay. Any other thoughts?

The only other thought I had um was on the first line we say approval must be received prior to the demolition of the building or structure. Um I mean it presume that if they don't do that then they just can't do it. I presumably become a normal thing. I don't know. Do we need to reiterate that and say failure to receive prior approval uh means you can't build the non-complying elements of the building. So just to kind of add on a sentence to that first bullet just to re-emphasize that. Um yeah. Yeah. If you don't get approval, you can't do it. Just just to make it crystal clear. So don't don't try and you know

Yeah. Don't try to force us. Don't try and ask for forgi for forgiveness later because it's explicitly stated that you can't do that. So yeah, we can certainly add text to do that. Any other comments? Nile, do you have enough from us to go on?

Yeah, I think so. So just to summarize, we're gonna So where we talk in the one, two, three, in the fourth paragraph about the setbacks matching the setbacks of the original, we're going to uh change that around to do not exceed um to allow people to come, you know, pull them back to come closer into compliance. We're going to also um state that florist slabs may be reduced or reconfigured if it's going to reduce the nonconformity. So those two points kind of go together. Um, we're going to add a point saying uh the floor slab or the foundations can be removed or reconfigured if there's an engineering report that states that um they need to be repaired for safety business for safety reasons for kind of structure of the house. And then the last piece um just that we just spoke about just there is adding to the first bullet point um just to emphasize the permission won't be granted if you demolish the house first or the building first. Okay. Yeah, I can work on those. Thank you.

Thank you. The second non-action item is a discussion of renovation of non-complying buildings in the commercial zones. Staff contact Nyall Connelly who will be presenting.

Thank you. So, continuing on this in this general theme um so the commission has been looking at this for the last number of months also about um renovating non-compliant buildings in the commercial zones. um where many of the buildings don't comply with today's code. Um and there is some great discussion about whether a lot of these older non-conforming properties actually contribute to the uh character of the town and um so so lots of discussion about that. Um so following the last meeting uh we've drafted some language um for your consideration. And so the intent and I'll just bring it up here. The intent is that um a non-complying commercial structure um and we're focusing in on non-complying setbacks and non-compliant building size. So just those two aspects could be rebuilt within its existing footprint. Um but all other kind of elements of the code need to be complied with. Um and also additions would not be allowed um outside of the footprint of of the existing building. Even if those additions were compliant um under these provisions, you're just allowed to build in your footprint. Um, the language allows a oneoff twoft increase in building height so long as you don't exceed the maximum building

height overall. And that's to allow um for potential changes in um building code requirements. Um, however, the the you can only the language uh states that you can only do one of these rebuilds once one time. So, you're not going to get this incremental uh 2 feet a year increase that we talked about the last time. Um and yeah and the other point is that um uh property in the village commercial zone or in the central commercial zone, they still have the ability to develop to redevelop their property under the standard um zoning ordinance of of today. So that that option is still available to them uh if they choose not to to go down this road. So again, um any feedback that you have on on this language would be great.

So I have a question. Um in the the last item we talked about, you can add a an extension to the back of your non-compliant residential building and that's okay. According to the current current code, um item A under this proposal says effectively you can't do that. You gota it's got to be solely within the existing footprint. Is it possible or is it okay now to to put an extension on back of my non-compliant commercial building and do nothing else right now?

Yeah, that that's a really good point. So, as as we are today without this ordinance adopted, yes, you you could in a commercial zone. It's the same rules for residential or commercial there. So that's something that um yeah that perhaps this language doesn't completely clarify. So so one one way to get around this is to uh first add an addition on the back of my non-compliant building and then come in and try and re remodel it in accordance with this uh new language. That seems kind of like maybe we got to pull those together.

Yeah. Ju just a comment on that. So to to clarify, you can put an extension on on a existing non-compliant building as long as that addition does not create any new non complying nature, right? So if the building is already say it's non-compliant for setbacks and building size, you couldn't put the addition on because yeah, you might comply with setbacks, but now you're not compliant with building size or you don't have enough landscape. So your your point is well taken that maybe there's some incremental you know kind of yeah

stuff going on. However, all of that incremental acrual of building must comply with current zoning. So I'm not sure that it's as big a a loophole as as we might think. Yeah. Because they've got they've also got parking and landscaping and all kinds of other crazy stuff. Yeah. Correct. So if somebody

added an extension to the back of their building and it met all the requirements and didn't increase and then they did this and now they've can rebuild the front of the building to meet this requirement. I think we're still making progress in the right direction. I think because what is being built is more compliant than what was there before in both cases likely, right? Because all the everything else would have to be met, right? Like if if you build an addition, it has to meet everything of all the new ordinances, right? And then if you modify your building

under this ordinance, you may not you have to you have to reduce you're out of compliance. So in the end we've reduced the out of compliance in that case also we're not there's not a loophole to increase the out of compliance. I think

I have thought something I came up with. So on on paragraph H, if you scroll down a little bit, talks about um non-conforming use and that if it takes longer than a year to rebuild your building, you get to maintain your non-conforming use. Um I think we we should add a little bit to that. One of the concerns I have is that this could be a loophole that says, "Oh, now I can hold on to my non-conforming use as long as I want to." So, we should put a um time frame. So, I wrote a couple sentences and we can modify if we want, but addition to what's already written there, I would say the non-conforming use must be reestablished within 90 days of the completion of the rein reconstruction. I just picked 90 days. We can talk about that, but the idea being that there has to be you have to reintroduce that non-conforming use. You can't wait 10 years or some unextended period of time. And then the other thing I put in which may or may not be necessary is that once that non-conforming reu that non-conforming use is reestablished um pursuant to the above conditions the nonconforming status will continue to be regulated as a non-conforming use so that they don't get the idea that it's it's now regulated differently that you know if you reestablish this non-conforming use and then two years later you give it up.

Right. So, I just kind of want to make sure there's not that hole. Yeah, I think I could certainly add that in. Um so perhaps um yeah the non-conforming use must be reestablished within 90 days or whatever [clears throat] excuse me period you think is appropriate um before or from probably issue of certificate of final inspection or something you know that right yeah help us pick what what constitutes the end of construction. Yeah so normally it's the certificate of final inspection. Yeah. Yeah, that would probably be the right

then. Um, yeah. And then that point about the the non-conforming non-conforming continues. Yeah. To be regulated in that way. Yeah. Yeah, I mean it could be concurrent with the certificate inspection, right? Or not. Is it separate? Is it a separate thing they have to do to do that or are we just granting them a non

Well, I was thinking, you know, if you have a business, a non-conforming business, and then you're closed for a year and a half, you got to hire new people, you got to get new inventory, maybe you have to get a new business permit. There's probably a set of things you need to do. So that's why I thought 30 days might be tight, but 90 days would give you plenty of time to get re get your license and rehire people and the things you need to do to establish that non-conforming business.

One other thing I was looking at was item C. We're going to allow um reconstruction of building height plus an additional two feet. And I know there was some mention in the last meeting that we might want to allow a higher building if current construction codes uh require a um you know higher roof uh to to accomplish the engineering um feasibility. So thinking of adding more than two feet allowance for that or

they have to have a justification for increasing the height. Um you know possibly they have a you know an old rafter system that and the new construction standards might require a more robust roof and that and that there might that I guess It's a question if we want to require them to justify the twot allowance with a um you know construction reasoning or uh engineering reasoning. Oh okay. So so to add to paragraph C there you can have the extra two feet but that's subject to justification

justification and in other in all other cases you need to just match the existing. Yeah that was my thought that they can't just increase it by two feet. Um that they would have to provide a justification for that. You know, it could be they say, "Well, I can't rebuild at the old height because the current rules don't allow me to do that." Concert on that? Oh, maybe, you know, if you were in the absence of, you know, uh justifiable engineering documentation, it cannot exceed two feet. They can't exceed I think what two feet they can't exceed the height they're the existing height.

Yeah. But they can have up to two more feet with engineering justification. Okay. Yes. Okay. Gotcha. I thought you were going for three feet maybe. I think it's just adding a justification. Great. Any other comments? Otherwise, I thought it was pretty good. Are you good with everything from us? N.

Yeah, thank you. That's really helpful. So, just those two points. So adding on to paragraph H about the non-conforming use needing to be reestablished and that it stays regulated as a non-conforming use. And then in paragraph C um requiring a justification, an engineering justification if they do want the extra two feet in height and then otherwise we're kind of on track with the rest. And then allowing an expansion beyond the existing footprint. Did we pardon? Did you lose the first one under a or maybe I lost track of that?

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, with with that conversation at the beginning about additions that are allowed that don't increase the nonconformity. Um. Yes. Or where did we get with that? Was that But we were going to allow that. Were we not going to allow that? So, what was that? I didn't quite follow that first point where we where they can they can add an addition on the in the non-con in the conforming area. They can add an addition as long as they meet all the other requirements of the town code. Oh, so this is the this is an addition that's totally compliant right to So I think the ordinance has already allow that. Yeah, that's already

right. But but the way this is worded, it would uh not allow that. Well, this is the reconstructed building. Right. But it says no extensions outside the existing per footprint are permitted. Well, here's what we could do maybe to clarify it. The reconstructed build a a reconstructed building under this paragraph has to meet these. If you've done something that's under a different ordinance, it doesn't.

Right. But what what I what I was saying is that they could put an addition on the back of the building and then they come in as soon as they finish that. They come in the next week and say, "Now we want to reconstruct the entirety of the rest of the thing, including the the addition space." Because if they had tried to do that before, this would not allow it. I see what you're saying. But if they say, "Oh, we're going to do it all at once under this, they won't allow it." They won't allow it. But if we do it, but if we do the back then, then we come in and reconstruct it, then it's allowed. Then then there it's a way to to add to the building. But again, it My thought was it still accomplishes the goal of reducing the non-compliance.

Yeah, that's what all I'm saying is we should I think you know since we allow you to add on to the to the building the non-compliant building now we ought to craft this in a way that it still allows that to happen but fixes the other. You mean you mean not force them to reconstruct twice? Exactly. Yeah. [laughter] Um

that's the second if you scroll up just a little bit. The second sentence in paragraph A says no extensions outside are allowed. Um and that you know we could say no extensions uh I don't know you could say extensions in and conforming extensions conforming to all other applicable code uh could be allowed

if you wanted to or something. I don't know. Yeah. I wonder if we want to like say something along the lines of no extensions that or I don't know if we want to use no extensions, but we want to refer to refer to the rest of the code. Say that something that an an addition that is allowed in the rest of the code is still allowed here. That might be a simp, you know, a way to not create something here that then we modify somewhere else and then here we forget to modify it here. So referencing that. So you reference that. Yeah.

If it's allowed elsewhere in the code then it would be allowed here. Yeah, I think we can we can play around with some language to try and clarify that. Yeah. If if you guys are surprised addition is is allowed, you know, a compliant condition is allowed under other parts of the code. Something like that. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. We can we can do a bit of work on

and you we could even use the word combine maybe then it could be combined with this to be done all at once if the other addition meets all of the requirements something like that. Yeah. [clears throat]

Yeah. Yeah. Anything else? Move we adjourn. Is there a second? I'll second. Motion by Paul, second by Terry. All in favor? I. Terry I. Jennifer I. All I. I. Meeting is adjourned. Hey Tom. She's better at this than you are. I know. [laughter]