Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

5:00 pm and we're at the Canyon Community Center for the March 18th meeting of the Springdale Planning Commission. From the town we have Nile Connelly, Tom Dancy, Robin Romero, and April Radits. On the dis we have Matt Frink Zion National Park representative, Tom Kennston, Terry Kruski, myself, Jennifer McCulla, Paul Zimmerman, and Melissa Labour, Rich Swanson, and Koshbati are out tonight. Melissa, can you vote in tonight's proceedings? Yes. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve tonight's agenda? I move we approve tonight's agenda.

I second. Motion by Paul, second by Melissa. All in favor? Tom I. Terry I. Jennifer I. Paul I. Melissa I. Motion passes. Are there any general announcements from the town?

Um we just have two well well one announcement with two parts actually. Um we have two surveys that are currently out um in the community that we would love some um additional participation. The first is the Utah State University Utah Well-being Project survey. This is the survey that asks Springdale residents about their perceptions of well-being in the community. We did this survey in partnership with Utah State University back in 2024 and now we're doing it again in 2026. Um even if you participated or maybe especially if you participated in 2024, it is super important that you participate again in 2026 so we can see how um the community's um perceptions of well-being in the community have changed in the past two years and also so that we can compare our results to our peer communities across the state. Um there have been several emails that have gone out about this. Um and so please if you have not as a commission if you haven't taken the survey yet please take the survey. Also as you're um talking to your friends and neighbors encourage them to take the survey as well. Last year we had about 140 responses. So far this year we have about 32. So we we need a lot more. Um the second survey is our me messaging initiative survey. This is the um survey that asks for your feedback about the proposal to do a a um coordinated message messaging um effort to our residents about the importance of Springdale and what Springdale is and and Springdale identity to help encourage more thoughtful um behavior from visitors when they visit Springdale. Um there's we we did a

really cool presentation on this last month and if you missed that presentation there's a link to it available on on the town's website. Um so please watch that presentation if you haven't already and after you've watched the presentation take that survey as well. Um and that's those two surveys will be super important as we move forward. So there you go. Okay. If there's no other general announcements

I got something please. Good evening. So, um staff at the park has reported an increase of visitors coming to the visitors center by the south entrance. Um expecting to obtain an America the Beautiful pass, veteran pass, all the various physical passes that we give out. Um so if the community can help us spread the word that um those passes are not available at the visitors center um that if folks want to get a pass, they would have to do it at our south entrance through the vehicle lane or on uh online. So um we think that that some well-meaning folks are are telling people to get it at the visitors center. So would appreciate the community's help with that. There anything else? Does anyone have any potential conflicts they'd like to disclose at this time?

Uh for tonight's agenda, we have two action items. The first is a discussion about potentially introducing a requirement for a new permit to deal with construction phase storm water management. The staff contact is Nile Connelly who who will be presenting. Okay. Thank you. Um so this item comes from a proposal from the town street department about how we can better manage pollution impacts during the construction phase uh of projects. So, in particular, we're talking about polluted storm water runoff, uh, mud tracked onto streets, those sorts of impacts that can occur during the construction phase of of development. Um, the state of Utah requires storm water management permits for all construction projects over a certain size. And so those projects are required to have a storm water pollution prevention plan or a SWIP uh while they're under construction. Um because of the small size of Springdale, uh all of that is is taken care of by the state. So uh we don't see those permits and the state is the enforcement body for those. Um, and obviously with the location of Springdale relative to, uh, you know, the the state more broadly, um, and with the their resources being spread across the state, um, they they do respond to complaints, but they're generally not able to be very proactive um, on projects in Springdale. And so as town staff, we tried to fill in those gaps where there are those sorts of impacts arising uh coordinating with the

uh streets department and community development together. Um so the staff thinks it would be worthwhile for the commission to consider a new process to help this run more smoothly. Um, so the street supervisor, Robert George, who's here this evening, uh, put together a memo explaining how this could work and that was put into your, uh, pack. Um, so just briefly, it would require construction projects to apply for an additional permit from the town of Springdale. Um, the permits themselves would be essentially a pro-form that an applicant would would fill in. Um, and it would require them to show that they're following best practice uh, procedures for managing storm water sorts of things. Um, and then there they would be required to submit timestamp photos and kind of during the construction process to the streets department to make sure that um, you know, the the the project is is adhering to those standards. Um, so the intention really is is to increase compliance across our construction sites and to enable us to take enforcement action if it becomes necessary. Um, so we have Robert George street supervisor here. Um, he can provide a little bit more detail on how the the process might work. Um, and if this idea is something that the commission would like to pursue, um, at a future meeting, we could look at potential ordinance language or how, you know, we we would knit that into the code. So, I'm I'm happy to answer any questions. Uh, Robert's probably more

knowledgeable on this and he's he's here to available to answer questions, too. Guess I'll start. Um, I have some questions that are sort of somewhere between questions and comments, but I'll go ahead and start here. Um, so as I read through the the uh the write up and the ordinance, I got to thinking about land disturbances that are less than one acre and is there a bottom minimum? For example, if a property owner wants to create a garden plot and they take their shovel out and dig around, you're disturbing the land at less than one acre. I can't imagine that that requires uh you know section 3 SP and all of that. Um and so I was kind of thinking about so it's kind of the question does the state well the state has a oneacre minimum. So, if we go under one acre, what would we propose the minimum is so that somebody who wants who takes out their shovel and digs a little bit in the backyard doesn't have to file a permit? Or is that what you want?

You want to take that, Robert? Yeah.

Robert George Streets department. Uh, to answer your question, you guys can set what you want it to be. So, um, other municipalities that I looked at online that are kind of doing the same thing, some of them have a threshold of 5,000 ft². That way, like you said, you're not catching the people that are trying to do a garden or doing little things on their property. So, it would capture 5,000 square feet up to that acre. Um, talking to St. George um department about it and also our engineer they suggested to keep the one acre in there and not go below that for a threshold keep it at one acre. Um they said that that way it captures anything and everything but you can set the floor of what you want it to be.

Um so the other the other question I had is um the calculation of one acre. So if if if you do three little spots of excavation on a oneacre property, is that one acre or do you count up just the square footages of the parts of the excavation?

So it it depends. So, if it's part of a common development, you like let's say Anastasia, it was a big development when it started and now you have individual lots that need to um be built out with houses and whatnot. Those it doesn't matter the square footage because they're under the common. It could be 800 square feet. They have to have that SWIP agreement with the state. I I would like to mirror the same thing on our end.

Um is how okay let me let me make a sort of odd you know exaggeration of a statement but when the pioneers came here they divided the this valley into subdivisions of what was here. How far back of a subdivision do we go to say, well, this is part of what used to be a bigger property and was subdivided. That I can't answer. The SWIP program um from the federal side, which would be the um national pollution discharge uh elimination system, that didn't start until the '9s. So that is something we would need to look at. But I would imagine any development would need

say since when the when the ordinance or the law was put in place, say for example like in the '9s or something. Yeah, I would have to verify that, but I would think at least from the '9s. Yeah, because I was kind of wondering. I mean, in a sense, every property here was subdivided at one time.

Sure. I want to uh think about excluding agricultural uses or even gardening itself. You know, we look at um you know um a property where there's a permit for construction or you know for a home or or commercial building. Does the original does the state ordinances discuss agricultural land disturbances?

Um, I do not believe that agricultural is part of that. It's separate. So, it's separate by what uh measure? I guess I would have to dig into the state regulations of what that is. Um there's a giant rabbit hole to go down with all of that. Um I skimmed the surface coming up with this. I mean I spent 20 hours going through documentation, right?

But I could go much further and it's it'll take you a lot of places. So I think intent um when it was first started through the federal government, it was basically started so that um storm water and illicit discharges didn't make it to bodies of water for populations and um like industrial sites, that kind of thing. From there it was part of the Clean Waters Act through the EPA. They then went through and 47 of the 50 states have their own layer of that that's more stringent than what the federal level is. There's three states that um the federal government still regulates, but of those 47, they made their own rules and regulations that were more stringent strict than the um federal one. And so that's when you've come into like so it's based on population half of it the other half of it is based on what you have. So um normally for a small system which is called an MS4 it's based on 50,000 people in the population. However, a place like Canab doesn't have 50,000 people. They have like 5,000. But because of the local waters and the things that they have, the state has mandated them that they have to be a part of the state program. Part of this is that might come later for us. And so it's just kind of getting on board plus gives us some teeth to um manage this because right now I can go down the street, somebody can track out onto the road, I can ask them not to do it, but we have no teeth to make them stop doing what they're doing. And so with having this program in place, we now have a way to start mitigating some of this.

Yeah. I mean, overall, I think it's a good idea for us to have something to mitigate flows that might flow into the Virgin River. Um, but I think we have some things we have to discuss and look at in terms of like we say, like, you know, I thought, you know, we're not impacting small home projects. Um there's a qu, you know, it focuses a little on things that water that might end up into the drainage systems of the town. Um a number of properties don't have drainage systems nearby, but the water but it still runoff still could end up in the river.

Correct. I assume the intent is even if you don't have a drainage system nearby, you're still supposed to take care of this issue um so that the whatever you're doing in the construction site doesn't end up in the river even directly over land. Correct.

Thought everything else I have is more on comments, so I'll kind of hold it for the comments. Um, one thing I'd like to add, if you don't mind, is um, so on these um, subdivisions like Anastasia, that kind of thing. So that's through the state system, part of that common development, it doesn't matter the size. If you put a house there, there has to be things. What part of this does when they go through the um permitting process is we're kind of a check and balance for them saying, "Hey, as part of your review process, you need to check some boxes that you are going to get a hold of the state and do your SWIP stuff. And also, it creates an avenue for us. So if they don't do that, we can then be like, "Hey, part of this permit process, you agreed to send us pictures, you were going to get a hold of the state, you haven't sent any of those emails and stuff." I can have a folder of the pictures or the non-compliance. We can then send that to the state and say, "Do with it what you will. Here's a violation that you guys didn't know about. Can you please come down and take care of it?" The other half of that is the stuff that's under the acre. We don't have anything in place now. Same kind of thing. Send us your photos, that kind of thing. If you're not doing what we need you to do, this is the steps we'll take to make sure that you remedy this situation. Are there any other questions? Okay, we'll move into planning commission discussion. You have some comments?

Yeah, I mean Terry, I share same a lot of the same concerns you had. I mean, you know, I looked at this and said, gee, if I want to put a fire pit in the front yard and dig a little hole and put some bricks around it, is that a a disturbance that's going to cause a problem here? You know, or any any variety of other things that homeowner might do on a small scale, they put a garden in or, you know, lots of different things. I'm concerned about what uh in addition to that um I'm concerned about what uh constitutes a plan development and you know how do we define or how is that defined I guess that's covered by state law so we need to we need more information on that is it just or are there other as you mentioned you know everything pretty much at one time was some some kind of a split off of a development so I'd like to get that question answered before we kind go too far down this road. Um the other thing that came up in this meeting was the agricultural issue. Um and we have one uh property that's only agricultural um the trees ranch everything else is residential or something else. And so um but our our code allows agricultural b not business but uh activities on residential land. So does that does that mean they are agriculture or are they because it's agricultural activity it's excerpted you know or or off the state's concern you know how do we deal with that so I think we need more information on that before we could before I want to make a decision on some of these things

yeah I think um might ask well maybe I'll step up one higher and that is do we think it's a good idea Well, let's do this at all. Um, and maybe we should discuss that. But, but I do agree that I think we need to understand where it's going to apply and where it's not going to apply. And I think we've already discussed some areas where it doesn't seem right that we should be applying it at small scales. Anyway,

I mean, you know, one of our main goals from last year was the protection of the Virgin River riparian zone. And so this kind of moves us in that direction. And so I think overall to me it seems like it's a good idea for us to implement this you know carefully to control uh the runoff into the river in the drywashes that we have. I mean, I guess to to me part of my concern in that regard, Tom, is what type of runoff is going into the Virgin River? Because um it used to be when you wrote the shuttle buses, I don't think they're doing it so much anymore, but you got a got to listen to the little presentation that talks about how much uh is being how much dirt is being washed down the Virgin River, and it was in the 2 million tons range or something of that nature. Um, I suspect that the water or the the the uh if you want to call sediment effluent going into the R river from the park uh you know we pale in comparison to that. I mean your little 1acre parcel is not going to have anywhere near close to you know even a million tons or even a ton of uh sediment that'll go into the river. So, not to say that we should just allow willy-nilly anything, but I'd like to, you know, let's be reasonable about it, too. So,

I mean, to me, that's that's natural sediment that comes down. It's water that at the upper bounds of Springdale, you have a a typical sediment load that comes through every year. But what we to me should be concerned about is what we're putting in this into the river within Springdale bounds because that sediment or runoff would be different than what comes down. That earth could have oil, you know, car, you know, petroleum products and other um plastics and things in it that that's is not the normal natural composition of the river. Well, I guess to some extent I disagree with that because if I'm disturbing the soil on my property, if I'm washing my driveway off into the river that I agree with you, if I'm washing, you know, other things or the streets off into the river, I agree with you. But if I'm going to go out and dig a hole in my in my backyard to plant a garden, um the dirt there is probably the same dirt that's in other places being washed into the river that you're calling sediment. And I would suggest, not that I want that dirt to go into the river because I'd rather keep it on my property, but if a little bit of it washes down the roadway into the river, it's it's I guess not the end of the world in my mind. So, um, to me, I think a garden exclusion would be something that we should consider. Um but what what I'm concerned with is construction uses uh that you know they bulldoze the land and then it sits for whatever period of time and then a a storm comes through and that that sediment washes down into the washes or into the river.

Is that because you expect the quantity to be much larger or because it's a different kind of sediment? I expect the the runoff from within Springdale to have a different composition of what comes down to Springdale from within the canyon. I mean, what I'm hearing are all reasons why it's a good idea to put this permitting requirement in place and then it's figuring out all the details that you're talking about um as as it as it moves forward because it sounds like there's a lot of things to consider. I would think that there would be some correlation between amount of land disturbance and storm water runoff and so

yeah needing to learn about those things soil disturbance and and resulting pollution from the soil disturbance not not not storm water runoff necessarily I think right

so the amount of land that I could disturb on a oneacre parcels um relatively minor Maybe we set maybe we set a different threshold. Maybe it's a quarter acre, maybe it's a tenth of an acre, maybe it's 800 feet, whatever it is. But um you know again um when we try water can move a lot of dirt very quickly. And so I, you know, I would um suggest that, you know, yes, it's possible to have a lot of dirt move off of my oneacre parcel if I had a 1acre parcel. Um, but the the property owner is going to be pretty interested in making sure that not much of that escapes because otherwise he's not going to have much land left. So, um, there's other there's other reasons why that that's being prevented or mitigated. Um, I don't know. I just I'm I'm I'm trying to figure out if we're trying to manage something, you know, what's the the um the gain, you know, what's the

I feel like goes back to sort of my my thoughts about scale um in that if a development across let's just say multiple acres creates huge mounds of dirt. Yeah. Then a big storm comes and now 100 times or more amount of dirt comes off that property than normally would seems like something we should be considering regulating. On the other hand, if you dig a garden and you know a c a couple cubic feet of dirt goes off your property, right? I think that's a kind of scale that

but you know and and when I start to look at some of the requirements of this you know where we've got to have uh silt fences and um wash out wash out areas maybe something we need to but you know gravel pits and that sort of thing you know to what you know to to to what extent does a homeowner have to go to put a little garden in I mean you know how big is a gravel pit what's what's it expected to do and why is it always required you kind of thing. Yeah, I I agree. I think there's a lot of modifications that we would want to consider. Yeah.

To to cover those things. Um but thinking about the largecale op potential large-scale operations I think it's valuable to do this to go to continue to discuss this and maybe come up with something for larger scale operations because there is the potential for significant runoff um if it's not managed and if the state doesn't happen to notice or doesn't follow up. I can see some value in our ability to follow up. Um, so my personal idea is that yes, we just we should continue looking at this and that we should definitely consider what kinds of projects and what sizes of projects uh you don't need to get a permit for. Um, agree.

Do do you feel it we should continue or do you feel maybe we should not do it at all? No, I'm I I think No, I'm willing to continue. I think um there's more information that I think we need to know before we get too far, you know. Definitely. Talked about already I think are in there. Yeah. I think we should make several requests of the staff as we

Yeah. And then the other question is I mean how big is big you know because I you know I may have different views than than Tom does or somebody else does um in terms of you know is because I mean obviously the states looked at it and said one acre maybe that's the right number. Um but uh if in fact you know all planned developments you know have to comply with this and you know I think you know there's a lot of lots in there that are well they have to comply anyway so it doesn't really matter. So what are the what are the constraints that they have to comply with? I'm guessing that maybe not everybody who's putting a garden or or a u you know fire pit or something like that in andazi's doing this now. So Um, yeah, I think some things we might ask the staff. Um, one would be can can they figure out or at least get a good guess as to how many properties fit this category of a planned development? Kind of what percentage of Springdale properties fit that category.

Yeah. that therefore the the state's one acre limit doesn't matter because the original development was bigger. Um I don't know. I mean we've mentioned but you know I'm in a development that was subdivided in the early 90s I think and you're in a development that was subdivided right I mean I think all of us at one level you know your area was subdivided some years ago too. Um and so potentially a large number of properties already fit that category. Um so that would be a question like can we get an idea of how many properties fit in that category? Um on size. Um our our guest here mentioned 5,000 square feet. Um I don't know. I think I don't think we should decide that tonight but maybe get some feel. I had another thought is rather than by square footage, would we determine it by yards of dirt that is going to be moved? Um, it seems like a potentially more reasonable measure to me. Um,

that's what I was saying, the correlation between the amount of dirt being moved and risk factors, right? I think what we're looking at is like how much dirt,

you know, is is and and and to point out I've come across multiple times where I've seen, you know, runoff mitigation not working very well, but there was there's a property in my neighborhood that was almost finished now, but several times large amounts of dirt flowed across the road. Um, you know, so I think there is value in in being able to manage something like that for something say as big as, you know, a home construction. Now, 5,000 square feet. A lot of people can get their home and excavate less than 5,000 square feet. So,

well, the the town I mean, State Route 9's got a lot of, you know, non-paved, you know, street side parking uh that, you know, in the rainy season, you know, or whatever, you know, people park there and then there's mud dragged into the street. And so, how are we going to how do we regulate that? we can't do it with by this process, but you know, if we're concerned about, you know, dirt going into the street and washing down somewhere else, then why aren't we thinking about that, too? So, any rate,

so again, I I feel like some sort of size limit and and potentially we end up at one acre and just do the first half of the ordinance, which is anything bigger than an acre. Um, but I think it's worth discing. I think sub one acre you can do a lot of damage excavating less than one acre if if we're not watching at all

and that's what I'm wondering is why the state there must be a reason they recommend an acre. So it would be interesting to know why and perhaps that is the reason because an acre does is the amount of space that gives you you know a lot of room to do a lot of digging up. And maybe if it's much smaller than that. Yeah, that could be staff if if they can find out if there was a reasoning behind choosing one acre

or was it just sort of a convenience? Um yeah, I mean you just a side thought comes to mind. If I'm if I built a house and I want to plant a lawn, um, you know, I can easily cover 5,000 square feet with grass uh on an acre lot. Um, do I have to have a permit to to plant a lawn now? Right. If if you're going to excavate, I'm going to till the soil, but is that excavating it or is that excavating? Yeah. Yeah. That's kind of why I went back to, well, how much more how much dirt are you moving? Right. Five yards, 10 yards, and how far are you moving it, you know?

Yeah. And good point, too. It's like how long will it be exposed? If you're going to till it up and then put sod down the next day, then that's not a big exposure in terms of runoff. But if you till it up and leave it the 5,000 square feet over 6 months, that's a much better much bigger exposure. Yeah. Better chance of raintorming and running off. Um okay so it seems we've come to the conclusion we'll continue working on this

I think so um the the other uh so you mentioned that we need more information on size type and age of the property and the plan developments in terms of what where need to be in compliance um agricultural uses what you know what's the definition for What's what's included in that category? Which other things are we looking for? Um, so yeah, what size? Let's see. Um, also there's specific mention of concrete. I think there's reasons for that. Yeah, you might also want to consider

how much concrete work you're doing. If you're going to if you're going to dig a hole, put some concrete and put a post in it. I'm not sure you need one of these, right? On the other hand, if you're going to do several yards of concrete, then maybe you need to have a plan for what you're going to do with the lever.

So, we might consider what's a good what's a reasonable amount of concrete that goes beyond I went to the store and picked up a couple of 60 concrete. Well, the same at the same uh time, you also need to worry about if I'm tiling the house, um you know, the the grout, you know, the waste from the tile saw, the grout, you know, grouting and that sort of thing, where's the wash out for that and how, you know, how much of that do you need to worry about and how do you mitigate it? That sort of thing. So, I'd like more information about that. Well, and specifically within the state requirements because if the idea is to mirror the state permitting process and requirements, it' be good to know that information to base our

Yeah, it may be that some of those Yeah. some like for example the the grouting and that sort of thing that may be covered by current town standards in the in the peritting proc building process. I'm not sure.

You ask me what other things you know came in mind that just another interesting thing that it calls for covered trash receptacles if you look in there and I've looked around and many of our construction sites the trash receptacles are not covered today. Um, I just drove by one on the way in. Had one, you know, that rolls up on the back of a truck and they got the cable, you know, and you roll it back down. Those don't have a cover on them until they put it on the truck and they flip that little net over it. So, is it that they're just is that do we already recover require covered trash receptacle or is that a change and does that impact what kinds or sizes of trash recepticles developers can use? Um and and I I kind of get in the back of my mind the idea, yeah, you want want it recovered for wind and whatever. Um but I think I'd like to understand what's our requirement now and what does that mean? If we say it's got to be covered, then does that negate a whole range of trash receptacles of sizes that some construction companies would need? Um yeah, the I mean I guess the other thing is um the need for maybe it's dependent upon you know who's doing the work. Is it a homeowner doing the work or is he hiring a contractor to do the work? Um because if for example if they if we're requiring them to have um you know restroom facilities you know porta bodies out on the property or whatever um and they have to be staked and they have to be you know all that sort of thing. Um if I'm hiring a contractor maybe I don't want to let them use my bathroom but if I'm doing the work I'm going to use my bathroom. I'm not gonna you know it'd be silly for me to buy a or rent a

to have to put in a port so that I can go use the bathroom in the house. you know, that's kind of stupid. So, yeah, I think there's some adjustments we would make on specific requirements like that. Um, I'm not sure we should say, well, all home projects because there are people who have front loaders and Oh, yeah. personals. So, we should not just eliminate the idea, oh, I'm doing it myself if I happen to have my own construction equipment. But, but you may be able to eliminate some of the requirements, not all of them or something. Right. Right. For example, if you don't need a porta potty, then we don't have to do If all the equipment you're going to use is onsite and never goes off site, maybe we don't need a gravel pad

for equipment that's not going to be leaving or coming or going. But those are kind of I think adjustments we might want to think about. Um, anything else? Melissa, you got been kind of quiet. Nile, do you have any questions or need clarification from us?

So, maybe I can just run through what I've been I've been taking notes of your discussion. Um so I think overall there's a desire to move forward with with this in some kind of format. Um we need to determine what a reasonable threshold would be for this to make sure that we're not uh creating unreasonable you know burdens on on small projects. um we need to look at uh the plan development side of things whether that's something a threshold that we want to use in this instance and what that means um um we want to exclude agricultural type projects um and yeah we need to think about again going back to the thresholds whether it's the size of the excavation or the size of the property or or that kind of thing. We need to look at that. Um we need to explore whether there was some rationale uh by the state in choosing one acre um or whether it was just we have to choose something. So one acre sounds good. I suspect that might have been it but we we can investigate that. Um and then whether there are um yeah differences for home homeowner projects um and you know where there's an ex external contractor working on it. Um so yeah I think those those are the the points that I took down. Um I don't know whether Robert you have any questions or any clarifications kind of that you'd need before we move forward.

Uh so some of the questions was um the soil disturbance how much is enough to warrant having it done? Um on the state side any disturbance of an acre is considered. That means if they're um going to be pulling weeds out and stuff, that counts as a disturbance for an acre. If if the disturbance spans an acre, but if I own an acre and I do it in 10 feet over here, it's not it it's part of the acre. Yeah. So, I think

I'm not sure that makes any sense. Well, what they're trying to capture is if you, let's say you have a bunch of weeds on your acre lot and you're going to grub the weeds, you now created a space for runoff of water when it rains because you don't have the vegetation or the weeds or whatever. They're now holding that in that spot. And so when you mass grub something, you're creating other issues. And I think that's why they put it in there the way they did. So if I have a 3/4 acre property and I disturb twothirds of it, I don't have to do it.

Well, under the state thing under an acre, that would be the other half of this if we did that. Um, a couple other things. Um, they talk about toilet staking, that kind of thing. That's so if a portaot blows over, the chemicals aren't going to the ground and then to the river. um the uh concrete for the wash out. They don't care about hard concrete. It's when the truck is washing out after they pour the concrete, right? A lot of the times now they just find a dirt spot and they dump it on the ground and they drive away. That that's where they have the wash outs and that kind of stuff.

Um I did check with a couple sites. Um the one acre threshold for storm water pollution prevention plan um is because the federal regulations designed it to balance environmental protection with administrative feasibility. That's why they chose an acre. So basically idea was under an acre becomes an administrative problem because it's probably

well and then that's where it becomes a problem for us because like I said we don't have any teeth and so you see these little things happen and there's nothing you can do about it but politely ask hey can you not do this um and part of the um best management practices that was in our plan we're not saying you have to have a portaot if you do this it's saying make the best management practices fit the scenario. It's not saying you have to do all these things. Just like if it doesn't warrant a trackout pad because you're not leaving your property, then you don't need the gravel for the trackout pad. It would be on a case-by case basis of what that was your intent in writing it. Yes. Yeah. Yeah.

So, I think yeah, we should add a little clarity to as co-wording so that people who read it will understand. And then on the agricultural part, I looked up a thing from USU. Um they were saying that with the agricultural part, if you're just doing normal agricultural stuff, that isn't included. But if you decide that you're putting a building up or something like that, then that does fall under the SWIP program. And then they also have other guidelines that we don't need to go into, but because of the chemicals and that stuff, they actually have other criteria that they have to meet besides the SWIP and that kind of thing. Okay. So, if they're doing normal agricultural work, it's not a it doesn't it's not covered under this particular issue.

Yep. But if their use of fertilizers or whatever is covered, but if they say you have uh you're developing your agricultural field and you decide to put up a hay barn, it would count because it's within that acre, whatever it is, then you would Yeah. If you're going to do a building or you're going to do some sort of construction.

Yep. And and um part of the SWIP too um the the trash receptacles you get on construction sites, there's uh construction debris everywhere. Um, there's construction trash from people, you know, having a drink of water and throwing their trash on the ground. That was part of that with the receptacles. I don't know that there's a size limit. I just know that there's in the best management practices, you have to have it cleaned and tidy at all times. So,

which I think is good. It's just whether they're covered. Um, so brought brought up an interesting thought um when you talked about weeds because the Springdale just went through a um a uh with a tamarisk and the Russian olive invasive species of stuff. So in theory we should have did we did we submit an S SWPPPPP for our removal of Tamarisk and Russian olive. Lead the fifth on that.

Yeah we we did not because I we were not disturbing the soil. We're we're removing the vegetation but not disturbing the soil. We're cutting cutting the the vegetation off at the stump at the root and then treating it, but not digging it up. Had had we chosen to do like take a take a track hoe in and dig up all the all the tamarisque and and remove them that way. Yeah, perhaps we would have been subject to this. But because we're not disturbing the soil, we're just removing the vegetation. It's so so a homeowner could cut down the weeds, they just can't pull them out. Yeah. So, I think the the example that Robert was referring to was like somebody discing the lot where where you're actually going through and and grubbing or discing and you're tearing up the soil, right? You grub everything out with a with a

and not necessarily mowing it down. If you want to mow your your weeds, that's fine. That that doesn't trigger this at all. Right. Right. And

even the soil disturbance that they talk about is if you have soil that can blow away, that is considered part of that nuisance that your soil needs to stay on your property. You you have to um have it to where it's sprayed down to where the dust can't leave. It it goes into the details of that that it has to stay on that property. So, if I understood what you said a minute ago, um, if it's agricultural land, you can go disc the property up and not have a problem. We don't have from what I read. Yep.

Yeah. Um, okay. Well, I think we have some things we'd like the staff to do to give us some information. I don't know that I have anything new without getting some of this information back at this point. I think that's true. I agree.

Before we before we move beyond this, it's sort of a separate thing. Um, in my research for this, I came across a question and it maybe maybe I'm just reading this the wrong way, but uh, title 7-1-2 talks about obstruction in the streets and it says it's unlawful for any person owning, occupying, or having control of any premises to place or permit to be placed upon or in the sidewalk, parking area, gutter, or on the half of the street next to such premises any material, vehicle, or equipment that would obstruct the public way without a permit. So, if I read that literally, do I need does that mean I need uh if I'm on a street where parking is allowed, do I mean does that mean I can't park in front of my own property because I'd need a permit, but I can park in front of my neighbors and I wouldn't need a permit.

No, I I don't think that's the intent of this. It's not the intent, but is that what it means? I mean, that what it says. because I think that's what it says. I I I think a a very literal reading of that would say yes. Yeah. I I I think what this is is is getting at is um you can't use the the street as a stockpile area for a construction site. So you can't put your pallets of tile or your roof trusses or or or park your your cherry picker out in the street, right?

Yes. A very a very strict reading of this would would say, well, you can't park a vehicle there. So maybe that's on our list of things to to clean up at some point. Yeah, like I said, not super important, but you know, it's interesting. Okay, are we ready to move on? Yep. The second action item is a discussion on the planning commission's priorities for 2026. Staff contact is Tom Dancy.

Thank you. Um, we typically at the beginning of each beginning of each year talk about the planning commission's uh work meeting priorities, what you have accomplished in the previous year and what what you um could be accomplishing in the next year. We actually did this several times last year and and so we we didn't quite do it right right on schedule in January this year, but now now seems to be a good time to do it. Um, so what you have in your in your packets is is um the previous list that the commission worked on, which has been updated. You've you've done a fantastic job of accomplishing many of the priorities that you listed or that you identified in your in your the last time we did this. Um and and now we're we're pretty much um well we have one or two left in our in our top priority category, but other than that, we've worked through all of your top priorities. So big kudos and congratulations. Um and now we'd like talk about what your priorities are for the rest of 2026 work meetings. Um I will note that um in the packet there there may have been a an an inadvertent uh mistake in the uh priority three items. One of those priority three items is um uh street performer regulations. And um talking with with Paul earlier, I you may have already um repprioritized that from the priority two, priority three to priority two. So that I apologize for for that uh that oversight. Other than that, this this should be an an accurate um

u summary of where you are now with your different priorities. So, we just appreciate your discussion on where you want to spend items are the most important for you to be spending your time on in the coming months. We can go one and and talk about them individually if you'd like. Um if you have some ideas and questions as commissioners that you'd like to propose, we can do that. So we we can manage that discussion however you'd like. One of the things that that um first came to mind, there's at least I think there was one priority two item that um that we're already working on nearly complete. Seems anything that we're already working on probably go to priority one.

Yeah. Um, and the other things that were in priority one to me seemed like they should stay there. Um, buoy interface, the parking ordinance, um, the Virgin River management plan. We kind of had delayed that since I was out with my injury. So, I'm willing to restart as priority one. Um,

I think in conjunction with that, we could add in the storm water management during construction project permit discussion. Yeah, that was my thought. If we just want to do it, we should Yeah. Do it. Do it. Yeah.

So, that would make five priority runs, right? The the WOOI, the non-conforming commercial properties, the storm water management, the river Virgin River management, and the parking revisions. That would make five priority ones that for a half a year for what the rest of year that's probably good place to start, I think. Can I make a a comment about the the WOOI? So, I I I left that on there. I I don't actually envision that this will come back to the planning commission um per se. You've already you've already done a lot of work on that at the end of last year and and made a recommendation to the town council and the town council is ready to adopt. What I do envision coming back to the planning commission would be um some of the associated land use or ordinances that may be impacted because of our adoption of the WOOI. So things like our 2:1 um native vegetation replacement ratio, things like that. So when we when we talk about WOOI, I think the town the the the WOOI itself is in the hands of the town council right now. Done your work on that. But there what could be action item for the commission is now that we've got the WOOI in place, we've been mandated by the state to do that, the town council is going to going to do that. What else do we need to change at this point? So is that a I guess my my question is that a pri does that remain without understanding does that remain a priority one item?

I think so in identifying what they are. Let me ask a question. So, if it's it's with the town council, um my first thought is maybe we should see what the town council does before we take on more action so that we don't take on action that turns out to not be needed because of town because of whatever decisions the town council makes. Do we know at this point what their action is?

Yeah, I mean the it's a it's a pretty foregone conclusion. The state has mandated that we adopt the the WOOI code and the state has further mandated where our WOOI zone is going to be located. So we don't have a lot of discretion in in in that. So I I mean technically the town council could say we're not going to do that state of Utah. We're going to do our own thing. I don't foresee that happening. So I I think it's a pretty foregone conclusion that yeah the the council is going to be adopting the WOOI code probably in their April meeting.

I think it's worthwhile to identify what the ordinances are that could benefit changing and then going through each of those and deciding what the changes are.

Yeah. if it's going to be that that quick with with the town council. And to me, this is something that potentially has an impact for pretty much every resident in town in one way or another. So, it's maybe it's priority one as soon as the town council votes hands up, which it sounds like we kind of suspect they will. My only hesitation is that in the last meeting that I went to, it seemed like the the WOOI code was not etched in stone, that things were changing a little bit from what it had been before. So, I agree. It should be a priority one, but we should make sure that that we're sure that the WOOI code is

what it is. we know exactly what it is, you know, and then we could get right on, you know, the um the ordinances that need to be changed.

It sounded like it was going to there really was no timeline to finalize what all of those details are going to be. We had the the same firefighter that presented at the presentation to the town come to our house and he gave us really useful information on just the different guidelines for the defensible space which I think whether it's a requirement or information we're giving to um people that are building new homes is really important and Um, and I I guess it it would be lifting some of the requirements we currently have or, you know, revising them at least. Um, and then, you know, besides that, it's just it's it's bringing the topic to, you know, new homeowners, builders, whatever. um you know there they definitely need to know about it and what's coming down the line or potentially coming down the line and what we can do at this point that does make sense.

So I mean it sounds like we're kind of in agreement that it's priority one. Um, and maybe whether we start whether we work on it in the April work meeting or the May work meeting probably isn't as a big of an issue. Although if to me it would be nice to know that the town council has said, "Okay, we're going to adopt this ordinance." Based upon what we saw last year, there's not a lot of flexibility. The state says, "You will adopt this ordinance or here kind of thing." So, you know, probably not going to be any surprises there. Um, just out of out of the five, I might want to look at um other ones maybe in the April work meeting and look at this in the May work meeting. I don't know. But I agree. I don't think we should put it off till like September or something.

No, I think I think we should just call it priority one. Wooi. Wait until informed. Wait until informed. Um, all right. Well, I think we're in agreement that stays as priority one. Um, and the other five I nobody see everybody seems to feel okay. The other four I mean four.

Yeah. And so of those remaining four, um Terry, you mentioned that you are are um ready to to continue work on the Virgin River Management Plan implementation. We had kind of established a committee with with you and and Kosh and staff. Are you I'm ready to to uh go back to those meetings again. Perfect. So that's one that won't necessarily take a ton of time in work meetings, right?

Because that committee will be working on things and eventually that committee will be bringing things to the to the planning commission in work meetings, but immediately there won't be a lot of um work meeting agenda or or work meeting time associated with that one. Um the non-conforming properties in the central commercial zone, you're going to be having a a public hearing on that in that that one's kind of at a point where it's it's moving to public hearing. So that won't require a lot of work meeting time either. Um so that leaves the parking ordinance and uh storm water management as the next two if we're if we're waiting until informed on fire mitigation. That leaves the parking ordinance and storm water management as the two kind of immediate things to jump on in coming work meetings. Does that sound appropriate to the commission? Okay, awesome. Um, and then do you want to look at your priority two items and just to kind of make sure that you're you're all good with with the change again that um street performers is is bumped up to a priority two item. So that would leave us with just the size and height bonus and the street performer would be the only priority twos under that scenario.

Correct.

I'll propose a couple others we might want to um consider. Um before we get too much further in there, there's a there's a new one that's come to my mind just very recently, but maybe we want consider as being a priority, too. So, if you don't mind, I'll give you some insight. Um the town adopted an open space plan in late November of 2023. Um, and you know, I I don't want to read this whole thing to you, but basically they they agree that, you know, we need to have we need to promote open spaces. Um, it's important to preserve uh the character of the the village atmosphere, the character of the town, that sort of thing, and promote promoting that. And they they set forth a number of ways to do that. um buy them outright, purchase development rights or partner with uh property owners. Um in that section, um you know, it states in there, in many cases, private property owners have conservation goals for their property that are in line with the town's open space goals. In these cases, the town should seek ways to partner with the private property owners to make open space preservation of the property more feasible for the property owner. For example, an owner of a large pasture may be interested in preserving the pasture for open space. The town could partner with the property owner on practices that make maintaining the property as an open pasture or space less of a financial burden on the property owner. Um, that being said, there's some discrepancies I found in the current code that could be biased to conflict with or discourage property owners from supporting these goals um to preserve them. And I I'll give you some some more specific examples in in the valley residential zone. There's a town ordinance uh

chapter 9 article B Valley residential zone 109B1 purpose and objective states the valley residential zone is established to provide area provide areas in the town where residential uses may be harmoniously integrated with incidental agricultural pursuit pursuits. The zone is intended to allow the keeping of farm animals and foul In conjun in conjunction with single family dwelling units to an extent consistent with the development. The VR zone is also intended to retain land and parcels or lots large enough to provide efficient and attractive residential development which preserves the open agricultural and farm type impression area. Chapter 15D goes on to say that u the purpose is to allow agriculture and the keeping of farm animals on a small scale for personal non-commercial use or limited on-site commercial use. The regulations in this chapter are intended to allow small scale agriculture and animal use for personal enjoyment, local food production and sustainability. These regulations are separate from agricultural businesses use agricultural business uses allowed in the agricultural zone. This chapter does not authorize large-scale or commercial agricultural enterprises. 1015D4 goes on to say agriculture and the keeping of farm animals are allowed for the personal use and enjoyment of the owner or occupanted property. The agriculture or farm animal use may not constitute an enterprise in and of itself. Nothing in this chapter is intended to prohibit the sale of excess agricultural pro products at local farmers markets. I think we've all driven by as we drive through town, we drive by properties that uh contribute to the open space spirit of the town's uh open space plan, but at the same time may not recognize that many of these properties we may not recognize. Many of these properties uh

constitute a commercial commercial enterprise. Um my me on may black term they're passive agricultural use of Google and depending upon one's interpretation of limited on-site commercial use they could be held in violation. Consider a situation where a property owner desiring to enhance the visual be beauty of the land and make maintaining the open space less of a financial burden engages with someone to graze cattle on his pasture or plant and cut alalfa or start a vineyard or a garden with rows of lavender to maintain in a visually appealing state. And the owner of the cattle later cattle later sells the cattle, the hay, the grapes, the lavender and receives some minor composition for those efforts. They could be prohibited from doing this if one uh were to interpret our current code such that these were commercial farming processes that could only happen in agricultural zone property. This seems quite contrary to the spirit of the open space plan. I suggest we add our work priorities to our priorities. The need to review the current code to clarify and correct these discrepancies um and support the open space plan. I think relatively modest workload to do that. Um and while it's not doesn't seem like a a major thing, it is a it is a kind of a a line that we need to clarify for people in the future. So to summarize what I think you said, um there are we have a number of properties that are zoned residential but are used primarily as pastures or orchards, other agricultural

ranching or Yeah. Right. And that's okay except that we have ordinances that say you basically you can't make money doing that. Correct. Right. Right. And your concern is that these ordinances would discourage people from retaining open space um because they can't they can't compensate get some compensation from the property and could get more money by dividing it up and putting houses or something like that. Um and so your suggestion is that we look at you mentioned several different chapters, right? Not even sure if they're all were land use chapters. They're all what

are they all land use chapters that you look that you told us? Yes. Okay. So, we look at some of these chapters and decide do we want to go through and clean up or add or adjust so that some amount of compensation is acceptable. Yeah, I think I think it can be we can do some things in a way that you know the the the growing of or raising of products on the land is acceptable, but you know, you can't have a commercial, you know, you can't have a a vineyard with a wine tasting thing on the front end where you're selling the products out of the front door. You can't be selling the stuff on site. You take it off to a farmers market and sell it. somebody can raise grapes there and then uh you know it looks like a nice vineyard but you know harvest they take the grapes away somewhere else and and they get sold somewhere else and we don't see that. We don't care about that on the and they make money out of it. And so if we can clarify that and clean it up and make it uh more one am meanable to being able to do that but also more add more incentive to people to say hey that sounds like a pretty good deal. Maybe I should take this big piece of land I have and do something with it and just have it make it look ugly and have weeds on it.

You know, I I could see that adding that to our priority two list, but what do other people think? I think so. Yeah, I I definitely see the incentive of being able to do something like that and benefiting everybody. Now you have three priority two items. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Are are there others from the current priority three list that you would like to move up to priority two or other or other additions to the list?

One of the priority three items that I was looking at um I wanted to get an idea from others. the um sort of midway down on the list where it says make active use of buildings uh basically prevent vacant buildings in the commercial zone. I know this is something that's been mentioned to me by people and there you know there's certain properties in town. Is that something that we would want to move up priority wise? I propose maybe a a priority two or even a priority one. I've thought we've this kind of been on our list for a while something to talk about and what times I've thought about it or we've discussed it briefly. It seems there would be it seems there would be a pretty good challenge of trying to write ordinances that are reasonable and legal but still drive can this is commercial I think is what we're talking about drive commercial property owners to do whatever it takes you know to get some business into their property. Um I think talking about it might be a good thing. I'm I'm a little concerned that we could use spend a lot of time and not come up with a land use ordinance that makes a big difference

that we can enforce that we can enforce. Right. Yeah. Can't I mean I don't know that it makes sense to like find somebody because you have a vacant building because you can't get a business to come lease your building. But maybe there's other things we could do. So I don't I don't know. And my thought on this was that there might be other communities in Utah or maybe other examples maybe we could

Colorado or something where they have done something I don't know what they might have done that have a way to tax or to u somewhere somehow incentivize you know the conversion of b vacant buildings into a productive business. I think it's worth a discussion. I would lean towards putting under under two. I would think priority two myself.

I I mean I think it needs some more research. Um as you mentioned, Tom, maybe we can look, you know, statewide and see where there's other people or other towns or communities doing this and see if they're successful or not. And then, you know, once once we figure out some ways, maybe we could um I don't know, do we move to two now or leave it at three and till we get some more research, more background on it? That's my only thought. So, well, in some cases, it may be that the structure would be best to for them to tear it down, right? It may be, but

that would clean the building up or they could do a facelift and rent it out to someone. The the question I guess is going to come down to I think is probably what you know Terry was alluding to is that you know what effective means mechanism can we use to force them to tear their building down because just because it's unsightly and we don't currently have a a regulation we can pass a regulation and maybe that'll maybe that'll have a implication way down the road. um is it going to have any imp impact on the existing uh structures that are that are you know in that condition and have been for 20 years or so or 10 years or whatever. I don't know but it's worth thinking about certainly.

Is there a timeline for a vacant building to be vacant? I don't think we have anything in the ordinance that says that. Maybe we we we could you know what what what constitutes vacant? How long do you have to be? Well, I yeah I I've been here seven years and there's a building than that. So there should be a timeline. Now, one of the things is that some of the buildings that have been vacant for some time are covered under various kinds of development agreements and other agreements um that we don't control. We as a planning commission. So, so they can be vacant forever.

Well, right now we don't have an ordinance that says they can't, but even if we did an ordinance, there's still development agreements and other agreements that may supersede some of the things we do. So we we may not necessarily be able to solve every vacant building. But on the other hand, maybe there is something we can do that encourages it. Um, I mean, I guess I'd like to answer that question first and then figure out where it goes because if we if we find that, you know, they there's nothing we can do about buildings that are uh under operating under development agreements, then

so that that might warrant a discussion and some research and to see what, like you said, maybe there's some something that other communities have done that makes sense and and actually helps. Um is priority two I think priority two I kind of agree with you. Is that okay with you? Yeah. Yeah, that'd be good. Yeah. Um what we can do on that if if the commission would like this is leave that as a priority two item or priority three, however you want to prioritize it for your work as a commission. And in the meantime, you could direct staff to start doing some preliminary research to answer some of these questions and then we can bring that back to you and then you can decide how you want. You know, if the answer is there's nothing we can do, then that it's pretty easy, right? Yeah.

Yeah. But if the answer is, oh yeah, there this is what other communities have done and here's what we can do, then you may want to re-evaluate what that priority is. So if you'd like um to direct staff to do that research, that's an option for you. I think that would be great. Great idea. and to know what law what laws what kind of agreement agreements what other communities are doing all of that kind of information to help us understand what we can do I'm I'm happy to have the planning commission direct Nile to do that research that's that's fantastic okay you are so directed or maybe maybe the chairman should say that um

you want us to wait a couple weeks before you do that or Um, I I'll I'll put out a couple of others that we may or may not want to put to P2. I was kind of back and forth on. Um, one was the retain Well, there it is. The retaining wall standards. Um, h how did this get on the list? Do did the staff remember?

This was a staff suggestion. So, this is this was um an item that was at a a planning conference several years ago. And the the issue is that on many communities particularly along the Wasatch front that are seeing a lot of development um encroaching up into the hillsides they've seen these just kind of really creative in and that's that's a charitable term um re retaining walls um and and they've caused all sorts of of issues and and problems and so Lehigh City went into their retaining wall standards and really kind of said, "No, this is the kind of retaining wall that you can do. This is these are are and and and that's what this is all about." So, we already have an ordinance that says you can't have a retaining wall greater than 10 feet. So, we're in a much better position than some of these Wasatch front communities that we're seeing like 60 feet tall retaining walls, just kind of ridiculous stuff. Um, but there are other things that the that this um, Lehigh City found that I think were were pretty pretty helpful. Like um, if you're going to have a a retaining wall that's in in steps like a a

tier

tier. Thank you. A tiered retaining wall. What's the minimum distance between those tiers? And um, what kind of material can you make a retaining wall out of? We um there's in Springdale we have a lot of stacked rock retaining walls which are fantastic and they look really nice and and they they add to the to the character of the community. Um one of the engineers who presented at this said I like to call those stacked marble retaining walls because that's essentially what they become in an earthquake are just big marbles that that then collapse. So there those are the kind of things that that this item would be looking at. Last year when we looked at this, the comment in the off to the side was the the commission suggested this could be informed by deep the deep excavation ordinance changes which is an ongoing priority 2 item which is now complete. So are we informed by that? So, so that um that that ordinance could have been coupled with this.

Yeah. In in the end, what the the direction that that ordinance went is it it really is looking at what happens during the construction phase of a project with deep excavations and not necessarily what happens to the finished product, the finished grade. So, um the answer is probably no. Yeah. Not. We We didn't take advantage of that opportunity to Y. Okay. What do you think? Do we want to do we want to move that one to priority two?

Kind of halfway there myself. Okay. I I would say it sounds like I think it sounds like a good idea. All right. Okay. So, yes,

I'll bring up one other one. Um, it was to limit the chain design buildings. Actually, I have a question about this one. Um, I think it's a I think it says village. Yeah, promote village character, limit chain design buildings. So this was the concept that we're not going to allow large structures of of that that are a particular brand. Um which I think for the most part we don't allow now. So I kind of want to understand what the thought behind this one is. And also I seem to remember years ago we had some ordinances that was attempted to limit the ability to bring in a chain um a chain store or a chain restaurant and that we ended up losing a legal battle over that. So I'm curious what this is and how it relates to that past experience.

Yeah. So this is great great questions and really good feedback or or not feedback but but foundational questions. um because this is something that's in our general plan and was put in the in the general plan kind of as a result of the legal challenges that you described. You are correct that um for some time the town had an ordinance that prohibited what we called franchise restaurant or excuse me formula restaurants which was essentially like a franchise or a chain restaurant. Um and um after a legal challenge, the the town was was um forced to repeal that ordinance. And the essentially the the legal um landscape says you you can't tell somebody what kind of business they can operate, right? You can't say you can have a local sandwich shop here, but not a chain sandwich shop here. We we that that we cannot regulate. But we are welcome to regulate what the building looks like and and that's also a big part of what the concern over um these franchise businesses was in the first place. So there, this was in the general plan saying, "Okay, we have our um general design standards that everybody has to comply by and and they do a really good job of promoting a certain look and feel in the community and that's great and and and and those have been very successful. We're not trying to replicate those or change those. What what this is looking at is are there certain things that we can put into the design standards or building standards that would um make it so that development is is more unique to Springdale. Um so I'm I'm I'm purposely not saying prevent chains because that's not what we're trying to do, although that it's what the staff report says, right? But we can't legally say that,

right? We can't say our express intent is that we are trying to keep chain restaurants out. That is but what we can do is say we're trying to promote buildings that are are um more em uh uh reflective of what Springdale wants to be. So and and if the the secondary um impact is that it makes it more difficult for a chain business to locate in Springdale, so be it. Right? That's what this is about. So, it's it's things like we already pre um prohibit drive-th through windows, right? But that would be something say you can't cannot have a drive-through window. Um maybe there's there's um something that says oftentimes these these formula or chain businesses have certain parameters for a building that they need to satisfy, right? It has to have a certain amount of frontage on the building or a certain amount of glazing on the building or a certain orientation to a corner. I don't know what they are because we haven't done the research on this, but we could look at at at standards that we say this is what we want to see in Springdale and whether or not that makes it more or less feasible for one of these chain businesses to move in.

Am I is this making sense? I'm I'm I'm I'm trying to to to parse this in a way that is legally supportable. So,

so, so I guess I guess I get it, but what I'm wondering is is is are our standards not currently stringent enough to make it, you know, not look like a, you know, if a if a, for lack of a better term, chain type restaurant wants to come into town, you know, a branded restaurant, let's call it, whatever. Um, you know, our our our building uh requirements now, you know, standards and pal color palettes and all that sort of thing and signing that sort isn't going to make allow them to look like their normal brand in town. And so what they and since we can't regulate nor choose to regulate what's operating inside the building as long as it doesn't look like you know the normal sort of thing you would expect if you saw that branded restaurant coming to town. We've kind of done this already maybe

to a large extent. Yes. Absolutely. Yeah. So again this was something that that got put in the general plan years ago. Sure. And whether or not there's more to be done on this that's that's a decision for the planning commission to make. If your determination is, hey, we we already do a good job of this and kind of satisfied that general plan objective, great. If you'd like to research it more and look at it more, you're welcome to do that as well. Thinking as now I've learned a little more about this, maybe it still stays a three. I think so. Because we don't have a problem in my perception with too many chain looking restaurants or too many,

right? Well, I I really question whether or not, you know, they would be able to make it look like a chain restaurant given our current, you know, right? I mean, what what it seems to me it would be is you you would go look at chain restaurants and figure out, well, is there one or two other things we need to add, right? Versus because I think like you say, we've already got pretty good standards for keeping. I think what I heard when Tom was talking was that we need to be careful what we, in other words, let's not ease up our signage standards or the color palette or things like that that that would lend to

promote, you know, a a restaurant, a chain restaurant from coming in, you know, just be cognizant of those things that could happen when we make changes. Yeah. All right. Well, then so seems like leaving that as Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, we ended up with four priority twos. I think you have street performers, the size and height bonus, encourage more open space preservation through incentivizing agricultural uses on valley residential properties by allowing limited off-site sale of agricultural products. We'll find a more concise more concise way to say that. Yeah.

And retaining all standards. Those are the four that you've got. That sounds good. Yeah. Okay. And then you guys will get those back to us, right? We don't have the same issue that we did last time. And we will also bring back research on um what strategies are are possible or feasible for making active use of vacant buildings.

Is everybody all in agreement and ready to move on? Okay. Consent agenda approval of minutes. Feel free to offer any suggested revisions. Is there a motion for the approval of minutes from January 7th, January 21, February 4th, and February 18th, 2026? I make a motion that we approve the agenda from the um the four um dates that um rather than the agenda just suggested. Did you want to approve the minutes rather than the agenda?

Oh, the minutes. Excuse me. Yeah, you're right. Approve approve the minutes. Let me start over. Approve the minutes from January 7th, 21st, February 4th, and February 18th, 2026. Do I have a second? I will second. Motion by Tom, second by Terry. All in favor? Tom? I. So I was not in attendance on January 7th or January 21st. So I can approve the February minutes. Okay. Jennifer I. All I was the I um motion passes. I move we adjourn.

Second. That motion by Paul, second by Tom. All in favor? Tom I. Terry I. Jennifer I. Paul I. Melissa I. Meeting is adjourned.